Screeching to a Halt in the Motor City State...

Republican Michigan Primary Results:

Mitt Romney: 39%
John McCain: 30%
Mike Huckabee: 16%
Ron Paul: 6%
Fred Thompson: 4%
Rudy Giulani: 3%
Duncan Hunter: <1%


~Needless to say, the results in Michigan were not what Hucka-supporters were hoping for. However, his performance is nothing to scoff at, when you consider that he received more votes than Paul, Thompson, Giuliani, and Hunter combined. Facing two candidates with deep roots in Michigan and one with deep pockets, Huckabee managed to pull off a solid third-place finish.

~Out of nowhere, South Carolina has become the primary for Joe Namath moments. Reacting to both of their significant defeats, Mike Huckabee and John McCain are promising/vowing/predicting/guaranteeing their own victories on Saturday. Both of them desperately need a triumph in the Palmetto State to propel them into Florida and Super Tuesday.

~Ron Paul continues to embarrass, for lack of a better word, Fred Thompson and Rudy Giulani. Paul beat Giulani in Iowa and trailed Thompson by only three points. He beat Thompson in New Hampshire, and trailed Giulani by only one point. He won't defeat Thompson in South Carolina, but he has a chance at taking down Giulani there.
I'm not going to accept the idea that Paul's only competing with Giulani because Giulani isn't spending time in the early primary states. Voters aren't mindless. They don't just vote because of the quantity of time that they've seen a candidate; in fact, people tire of candidates sometimes. They care more about quality--message--than quantity. And the simple fact is that Giulani's message on a littany of issues doesn't sit well with most conservatives.
Admittedly, Paul's foreign policy may be misguided, but his positions on social issues and limited government are much closer to conservative norms than Rudy's.

~Why is Duncan Hunter still in the race? Consider this: if the Republican party ends up with a brokered convention, they can pick anybody. Hunter is perhaps the most complete, consistent conservative in the race. Could they select him? Certainly, electability/name recognition could be a problem, but you never know.

~A surprising number of people voted "Uncommitted" on the Republican side. Understandably, many Democrats voted "Uncommitted" since Hillary Clinton was the only big-name candidate on the ballot, due to Obama and Edwards pulling their names off the ballot after a delegate conflict. In this case, a vote "Uncommitted" was like a vote for Obama or Edwards.
But it makes no sense for Republicans to vote "Uncommitted," unless all those voters were Alan Keyes supporters. Keyes was apparently not on the ballot.