Since everybody knows Romney's going to win today's New Hampshire primary--with 11 percent of precincts reporting, he's currently at 35.6 percent--the media-politico complex is in a swivet trying to figure out how large his win must be to beat expectations. If he doesn't break 40 percent, some say, he "lost." The problem in this instance is that if Romney "loses" by winning the primary by an insufficient lead the pundits will have a hard time figuring out whom to declare the "winner." If Ron Paul comes in second (he's currently placing second at 24.6 percent" does he "win"? Give me a break. He's a novelty candidate with a pile of racist newsletters in his closet. What about Jon Huntsman, who's now placing third at 17.4 percent? That would be a Santorum-like win, gaining him a lot of short-term suspension-of-disbelief coverage before he crashes and burns. Huntsman is a credible guy, but he has no appeal to Republican voters and if he was gong to acquire any he would have gotten it by now. Gingrich had his moment. And Santorum? Currently placed fifth at 9.7 percent. If he displaces Gingrich in fourth place it won't matter at all. He's done. He was never a real candidate. We were just pretending. It was something to kill the time.

So if Romney "loses" just ask yourself: Who the hell actually won?