Michigan Primary predictions

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Infinitum98 said:


Why are they going for Rudy? Isn't he even not considered conservative enough?

When I say "the GOP establishment" I mean the money people, the real "power brokers".

The reason they went for Giuliani as early as spring of 07 is because 1. they believed he could win 2. he would support their tax, regulation, and trade programs. 3. and he would pledge to appoint judicial appointments that have the same philosophy.
 
deep said:


When I say "the GOP establishment" I mean the money people, the real "power brokers".


the Wall Streeters -- the "fuck off, i got mine" or just FOIGM crowd -- who trick the evangelicals into thinking that voting for the Republicans will somehow please Jesus.
 
Irvine511 said:



the Wall Streeters -- the "fuck off, i got mine" or just FOIGM crowd -- who trick the evangelicals into thinking that voting for the Republicans will somehow please Jesus.

Rove knew if they could get 50%

they could take 100%. :shrug:
 
I'm surprised they're projecting that already, with only 10% reporting. It's just a 6-point lead.
 
Irvine511 said:


doesn't look good for Mac.

How so? You mean just tonight?

Down the road, McCain is still very, very strong. He's currently ahead in Nevada, is basically tied in SC with Huckabee, and he's moved past Giuliani in Florida. Romney, on the other hand, won't get "gold" or "silver" in either SC or Florida, and will not get another 1st place until Super Tuesday (if he even gets any there). I think McCain is still in fine shape.
 
2861U2 said:


How so? You mean just tonight?

Down the road, McCain is still very, very strong. He's currently ahead in Nevada, is basically tied in SC with Huckabee, and he's moved past Giuliani in Florida. Romney, on the other hand, won't get "gold" or "silver" in either SC or Florida, and will not get another 1st place until Super Tuesday (if he even gets any there). I think McCain is still in fine shape.


he's still got momentum, that's true. however, he won this state in 2000 against Bush. and it's a critical state for both parties, and he doesn't have Obama to compete against for the independents. they should, in theory, be flocking to him. so it's not good news.

what does make me feel good is that the next president will be either Obama, Hillary, or McCain. i can live with all three.
 
Last edited:
I've just heard 2 times on CNN, once from Wolf Blitzer and once from this guest on Larry King that: "Ron Paul is ahead of both Fred Thompson and Rudy Giuliani, quite an embarassment for Thompson and Giuliani."

Why is that an embarassment??? Counting up by # of votes, Ron Paul comes ahead of both Giuliani and Thompson by adding up all the votes from Iowa, NH and Michigan. Maybe it is Giuliani who is the long shot.
 
Its an unfortunate loss for McCain, but its hard to say how this is going to impact the race. Romney will get a bounce, for South Carolina, but ironically that bounce may hurt Huckabee in South Carolina and help John McCain. Romney has never led in the national polls at any point, and I doubt that after this race he is going to be in the lead and if he is it will probably be by a razor thin margin. Still the pressure is really on McCain now to win in South Carolina where independents and Democrats cannot vote in the Republican primary. McCain has the fact that a very large number of military families and retired military live in South Carolina and he has spent the past 8 years trying to court the vote in South Carolina after his loss there in 2000. The race has opened up again, but I think a McCain victory in South Carolina would definitely put him on top. But if McCain loses in South Carolina, his momentum that he had gained prior to New Hampshire and after New Hampshire could evaporate by the time Florida comes around. Romney still does not have strong appeal nationally among Republicans, but he definitely has the money to continue as long as he would like.
 
mittromney.jpg


he
is
a
handsome
devil,
isn't he?


:D
 
Strongbow said:
Its an unfortunate loss for McCain, .

Sting-

You should stick to military issues only, as sometimes you sound reasonably well versed; politics on the other hand is not your bag.

dbs
 
Last edited:
diamond said:
Sting-

You should stick to military issues only, as sometimes you sound reasonably well versed; politics on the other hand is not your bag.

dbs

But it is your bag?

That's debatable.

Just because he prefers another candidate doesn't mean his thoughts are invalidated.

Just because you like Romney doesn't make yours validated, either.
 
diamond said:
mittromney.jpg


he
is
a
handsome
devil,
isn't he?


:D

So Romney is really your man? In light of the fact that in the latest poll of a head to head match up with Hillary Clinton, Romney only gets 40% of the vote compared to Clintons 58%, what keeps you in his camp?
 
Strongbow said:


So Romney is really your man? In light of the fact that in the latest poll of a head to head match up with Hillary Clinton, Romney only gets 40% of the vote compared to Clintons 58%, what keeps you in his camp?

They're both Mormon.
 
capt.3285b1fa7cd14c47845ec20bd304948d.romney_2008_michigan_primary_mimo113.jpg



For a minute there

I thought they put Reagan's picture on Drudge


anyways,

Mitt lives to die another day

he will not do well in SC at all

has a shot in FL,
a silver could do

he has a very good shot for a gold in NV


it will be next to impossible for him to capture the nomination without any real wins out of the "Southern strategy" states.
 
Strongbow said:
Romney will get a bounce, for South Carolina, but ironically that bounce may hurt Huckabee in South Carolina and help John McCain.

That's quite possible. I hadn't thought of that.

They were reporting tonight that the Huckabee camp was secretly hoping Romney would win, so that McCain wouldn't become unstoppable. But that doesn't make sense to me. With a Romney victory, he might take away votes from Huckabee and help McCain win, like you said. If McCain had won Michigan, some of Romney's votes (realizing that their candidate is finished) may have switched over to Huckabee, or at the very least, Huckabee wouldn't have lost any votes. But now I think he may have. If McCain had won, it basically would have been a 2-person race in SC. But now, McCain will still be a threat, with Romney and Thompson breathing down Huck's neck.

So if I was Huck, I'd have been praying for a Romney defeat. :shrug:
 
Strongbow said:


So Romney is really your man? In light of the fact that in the latest poll of a head to head match up with Hillary Clinton, Romney only gets 40% of the vote compared to Clintons 58%, what keeps you in his camp?

it's early yet.

mitt has the best managerial skills, is ethical and has the best exectutive experience.

john mc cain panders to the left a little too much. i liked huck until i watched him become disingenious in interviews and found out how soft he is on law and order.

fred altho one of the purest conservatives cannot connect w the masses.

rudy is a decent choice but has too much personal baggage.

be prepared for a brokered GOP convention.

dbs
 
Some selected exit poll data from CNN. (Note that in Michigan you don't have to be registered with a party to vote in its primary.) <5% votes not included.


Repubs (39% Romney, 30% McCain, 16% Huckabee, 6% Paul with 95% of precincts reporting): --based on 1362 respondents

--44% female (39% Romney, 29% McCain, 18% Huckabee, 5% Paul)
--56% male (36% Romney, 31% McCain, 15% Huckabee, 9% Paul)

--13% aged 18-29 (30% Romney, 27% McCain, 19% Huckabee)
--24% aged 30-44 (38% Romney, 26% McC, 17% Huck, 8% Paul, 6% Rudy)
--37% aged 45-59 (39% Romney, 28% McC, 16% Huck, 5% Paul, 6% Thompson)
--26% aged 60+ (38% Romney, 39% McC, 14% Huck)

--born-again? Yes 39% (35% Rom, 23% McC, 29% Huck, 5% Paul, 6% Thompson)
--born-again? No 61% (39% Rom, 34% McC, 8% Huck, 9% Paul, 5% Rudy)

--at least some college 81% (39% Rom, 30% McC, 15% Huck, 8% Paul)
--no college 19% (33% Rom, 29% McC, 21% Huck, 5% Thompson)

-- <$50,00 income 34% (31% Rom, 30% McC, 18% Huck, 8% Paul)
-- $50,000+ income 66% (40% Rom, 31% McC, 15% Huck, 7% Paul)

--registered Repubs 68% (41% Rom, 27% McC, 17% Huck, 5% Paul, 5% Thompson)
--independents 25% (29% Rom, 35% McC, 15% Huck, 13% Paul)
--registered Dems 7% (33% Rom, 41% McCain, 14% Huck, 7% Paul)

--white 96% (38% Rom, 29% McC, 16% Huck, 7% Paul)



Dems (55% Clinton, 40% "uncommitted" with 95% of precincts reporting): --based on 997 respondents

--57% female (60% Clinton, 36% "uncommitted")
--43% male (51% Clinton, 43% "uncommitted," 5% Kucinich)

--17% aged 18-29 (43% Clinton, 48% uncommitted, 8% Kucinich)
--26% aged 30-44 (49% Clinton, 47% uncommitted)
--32% aged 45-59 (59% Clinton, 34% uncommitted, 5% Kucinich)
--26% aged 60+ (68% Clinton, 31% uncommitted)

--at least some college 75% (49% Clinton, 45% uncommitted, 5% Kucinich)
--no college 25% (73% Clinton, 25% uncommitted)

-- <$50,00 income 46% (Clinton 62%, uncommitted 33%)
-- $50,000+ income 54% (Clinton 50%, uncommitted 46%)

--registered Dems 79% (60% Clinton, 36% uncommitted)
--independents 18% (37% Clinton, 51% uncommitted)

--white 72% (63% Clinton, 31% uncommitted, 5% Kucinich)
--black 23% (30% Clinton, 68% uncommitted)

--46% would have voted Clinton if all names were on the ballot.
--35% would have voted Obama if all names were on the ballot.
--12% would have voted Edwards if all names were on the ballot.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom