February 3, 2008

Romney wins Maine; NYTimes.com doesn't mention it

With 68% of the Maine caucuses reporting after voting on Saturday, Mitt Romney holds an insurmountable 52% - 21% lead over GOP frontrunner Sen. John McMentum (with Ron Paul right behind him at 19%). Romney is on track to take all 18 Maine delegates.

This is the last voting before Super Tuesday, yet the New York Times, which largely sets the agenda for the rest of the news media, doesn't see fit to mention it on its website homepage as of 4:00 am Sunday. Campaign stories the NYT does feature prominently include these stop-the-presses barnburners:

Democrats Flood States With Ads as Tuesday Nears

A concentrated burst of advertising is putting the candidates’ strategies out in the open and is highlighting the diverging financial fortunes of the two parties.

Nuclear Leaks and Response Tested Obama in Senate

An Illinois controversy pitting two important constituencies against each other put Barack Obama’s legislative skills to the test.

More Politics

Obviously, it's just Maine, but I don't recall the NYT not mentioning on its home page the result next door in New Hampshire. And it's just a caucus instead of a primary, but I don't believe the NYT skipped Iowa for that reason.

I guess some candidates' momentum is more equal than other candidates' momentum.

My published articles are archived at iSteve.com -- Steve Sailer


Anonymous said...

The New York Times has already explicitly stated that it is standing behind McCain, in part because he will "uphold fundamental American values in the immigration debate."

So it is not surprising that they would do all they can to hurt the "UnAmerican" rival Romnney with their reporting.

Kevin Surbaugh said...

They didn't mention, because Romney hasn't won yet. The Caucuses are still going on. They will be finished up today (2/3/08).

Once all the cities of Maine have completed their Caucuses, a winner will be announced, delegate counts (estimated) will be awarded and I will post them on my blog. In addition, I am sure the NY Times, will then report on the winner of the Caucuses.

It's like the Hawaii caucuses. No one has said anything about their caucuses yet (they began on 1/25/08, but won't finish until 2/7/08). Unlike Maine which is doing Caucuses city by city, Hawaii is doing them congressional district by congressional district.

Anonymous said...

I like Romney better than McAmnesty too, but NH is one of the first primaries in the season; winning Maine won't help that much now that so much has already been established.

Anonymous said...

Don't forget the video stories, including one called "New York's Immigrant Vote: Excitement ABout the Election."

They interview Latin Americans, Haitian-Americans, and all sorts of other hyphenated Americans, and every last damn one of them says they're voting for Hillary.

And I'm excited, too! Why these people have created such luscious, perfect political havens in their homelands, why wouldn't they do the same thing here?

Welcome to your future, America: it's almost here.

Anonymous said...

This may be the best news I've heard in a week. I'v been in a glum mood since Florida.

Was Romney predicted to win? Did he overcome bad polling? Did he campaign really hard in a state McCain avoided?

The last 4 Republicans left are Romney, Paul, McCain & Huckabee. Polls in California show Huckabee getting 13% and Paul getting 10%.

Are people really going to waste their votes on Paul and Huckabee now, or are they actually going to decide to cast a potentially decisive vote for one of the two frontrunners? Because it seems that the supporters of the 2 remaining nonviables would probably break for Romney, (which is probably why Huckabee has decided to stay in the race, because everyone knows where he really stands (except for the idiots who keep voting for him)).

Antioco Dascalon said...

Well, it's not like there's an appearance of conflict of interest, since they didn't endorse McCain... oh, wait, they did, less than a week ago.
Well, I'm sure they would never attack any other corporation for the appearance of conflict of interest... oh, wait, they do that all the time.
The Mainstream Media knows that McCain loves their praise and desperately wants to be liked by them, so they know that if he is president, they will have him twisted around their little fingers. I suppose that's the definition of "Maverick": following the editorial page of the Times rather than your own party's platform.

Anonymous said...

Geez Steve, it is almost like you are implying that there is a New York Times conspiracy against Romney. Everyone knows that the New York Times doesn't have the money to send a reporter up to a cold, snowy state in the first week of February. For the record, the New York Times did report on Romney's victory in the sixth paragraph of its caucus blog. The embarrassment is that the New York Times has to report on what other reporters are reporting, rather than doing its own reporting.

"Mr. Romney won big in the Maine caucus this weekend, reports the Los Angeles Times, taking 52 percent of the vote. Mr. McCain, despite winning the endorsement of both of the state’s Republican senators, finished a distant second with 21 percent, just edging out Ron Paul’s 19 percent. Mr. Romney earns all of Maine’s 18 delegates."

Here: http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/02/03/the-early-word-what-football-game/

Anonymous said...

If anything Romney ever said can be construed as anti-semitic, he'll get plenty of NYT coverage.

But for now, he's kosher, just not enough. What is his position on Israel? Check. On affirmative action? Check. On the fed? Check. But...his view on immigration? Gevalt!

The NYT doesn't regard his immigration views as anti-semitic, not quite...just "un-American," so far...but that's enough to tip the gray lady toward McCain, an out-and-out maniac.

Anonymous said...

It's not just the NY Times. The whole MSM has downplayed Romney's victories in Nevada, Wyoming, etc.

Anonymous said...

...but that's enough to tip the gray lady toward McCain, an out-and-out maniac.

I know someone who knows McCain well. His words: "I'd love to be on a first-name basis with the President, but there's no way I'd vote for that lunatic."

Anonymous said...

David -- surely you jest (and this goes to the conspiracy theories thread). The NYT is very anti-Israel, and pro-Palestinian. They have the editorial opinion that if Israel vanished somehow tomorrow all US troubles with Muslims would vanish. Not very likely.

Paul is the least sympathetic and most hostile to Israel of the Republican Candidates. Followed by McCain. Huckabee made it a point (because Evangelical voters strongly support Israel) in the NH Debate to strongly support Israel and smack Paul on that particular issue. Romney, (and Fred, Rudy, others) stressed that also.

Between Obama and Hillary, Hillary is the stronger supporter of Israel (which speaks more to Obama's dislike of Israel and his anti-Israel advisers and Nation of Islam staffers than anything else). The NYT leans towards Obama.

If anything an anti-Israel view by a candidate would ATTRACT NYT support (and probably most of the press for ideological reasons). A very unscientific survey of well-known Jewish bloggers reveals some like McCain (Roger L. Simon) and some revile him (Luke Ford, Robert J. Avrech of Seraphic Secrets). Hollywood Republicans (I don't know their religious affiliation) has endorsed Romney.

McCain is out of the Baker-Hamilton "realist" mode which means fantasy: the idea that there is some grand "deal" that can be made with a distributed, tribal, kin-based people with no central hierarchy. Guaranteed to win NYT support but be fairly anti-Israel.

PhysicistDave said...


It looks to me as if the MSM has anointed McCain and Obama as the nominees, even though the national race in the GOP seems to be too close to call and Hillary appears to be leading handily in the national polls.

I had thought that the MSM rather liked Hillary, and Romney is a nice, establishment “mainstream” (i.e., liberal) Republican, as opposed to Sen. McCain, who is, let us be polite, a wee bit unpredictable. (I can’t confirm BT’s friends’ claim that McCain is a “lunatic,” but I do wonder.)

So why has the MSM chosen to go with Obama and McCain? Have they just decided that a young black guy and an old fellow still suffering from Vietnam Veteran’s Syndrome will make a wonderful show for them to cover?

I really can’t believe that the immigration issue is as important to the MSM as it is to some people here.

Steve, what’s your own theory for the current MSM behavior?

Incidentally, I’ve already sent in my California absentee ballot for Ron Paul, who does seem to be the only candidate who is trying to address the systemic problems, both in foreign and domestic policy, that are facing the country. I may not be able to control how this election turns out, but at least, twenty years from now, I won’t be ashamed to explain to my kids why I voted as I did.

All the best,

Dave M. in Sacramento

Anonymous said...

delegate counts (estimated) will be awarded and I will post them on my blog

We won't actually know the delegate counts until after the state convention in May. If Romney actually got a majority of the delegates to the state convention, he can sweep with his slate and get all the delegates to the national convention. However, early reports suggest that Paul's people were well organized and got far more than their fair share of delegates; for example, in Portland, the straw poll vote was 80:52:x:x Romney:Paul:McCain:Huckabee, but Paul got 30 of the 59 delegates. Similar results occurred elsewhere. Now, since Paul still most likely did not get a majority of the delegates, this doesn't mean Paul will actually take Maine; however, it does look like he prevented Romney from getting more than a plurality, which means there is some room for deals and horsetrading at the state convention.
If it follows the pattern seen in Wyoming, we would expect all the non-Paul delegates to unite and freeze him out. But we'll see.

Anonymous said...


The NYT may be against excesses in Israel, such as the settler movement, but the paper's position is hardly to be interpreted as "everything Middle-Eastern would be peaches if Israel disappeared." That interpretation is the sort of howler we came to expect from Evil Neocon, a former poster who disappeared quite nicely. (I wonder where he went?)

As for conspiracy theories, isn't it clear by now that "conspiracy theory" is no more than a buzz word standing for "any theory I don't like" - since all political actions are taken by groups of people who are not always forthcoming?

It is incontrovertable that certain powerful interests react to any notion of treating homo Americanus as more than a child as a nose reacts to the smelling salts. They gag at the idea of a nation, merely - any area with a sovereign population of like people, protected by borders (unless that area is Israel) - much less of a free nation, the libertarian Constitutional republic envisioned by the Founders. Thanks to the interests' influence, those dead White men of old are nearly forgotten, along with all our rights and the notion of a "right" being freedom of action (vs. a "right" to an object, like cash or government cheese).

Gore Vidal described these interests as "the owners of the country"; I delineate them as would-be owners of us. To them, open borders and anti-racism and international plunder and endless war is imperative; thus the otherwise inexplicable NYT endorsement of McCain, who will, per gray lady, "uphold fundamental American values in the immigration debate" (values foreign to the Founders, but fundamental to the post World War I redefiners of Americanism).

We, the founding stock of America, are to be used as cannon-fodder - shot away to make room for cheap and malleable labor and to make war upon the Arabian Bogeyman menacing Cosmo, Manhattan, and a Middle Eastern sliver of goodness in a welter of "cockroaches," as one Goodness-bearing Israeli official characterized everyone-but-Jews in Palestine.

A vote for any but Paul is a vote for this status quo. Don't LISTEN to the whores seeking your vote; LOOK at their records. One good way to compare is to start HERE (knowbeforeyouvote.com).

Mencius Moldbug said...

Steve, your reputation for factual accuracy is on the line!

Romney's victory in Maine is actually mentioned in this story from Feb 3.

Why, it's right there in paragraph 12! In fact, it's all of paragraph 12. I can't imagine what you might have to complain about. I think someone owes "Punch" Sulzberger a big old apology.

Kevin Surbaugh said...

bbartlog said...We won't actually know the delegate counts until after the state convention in May.

That's why the delegate count is estimated. we won't now any hard numbers (in most cases) until each state has there conventions.

So again, I stand behind the fact that I will be posting the estimated delegate counts on my political/opinion blog.

- Kevin