deep said:
Infinitum98 said:Ron Paul
Barack Obama
Infinitum98 said:
Barack Obama
Infinitum98 said:Ron Paul
phillyfan26 said:
The only Dem on the ticket is Hilary in Michigan.
2861U2 said:
You really think Ron Paul comes in first? Didn't you think he would also win Iowa and NH?
Infinitum98 said:
Oh, I didn't know that. I guess my prediction is Hillary.
phillyfan26 said:The only Dem on the ticket is Hilary in Michigan.
yolland said:Essentially, this was a rebellion on the states' part against the entrenched lockhold of Iowa and New Hampshire on setting the tenor for the primary race every time.
yolland said:Essentially, this was a rebellion on the states' part against the entrenched lockhold of Iowa and New Hampshire on setting the tenor for the primary race every time.
2861U2 said:I'll wait until I see some current polls before I make a prediction, but I assume it's basically a McCain/Romney fight.
No write-ins allowed, but there will be an "Uncommitted" option, which many are encouraging Obama and Edwards supporters to use. Nonetheless Hillary will obviously "win," though what exactly that'll amount to without delegates (assuming the national party follows through on that threat) is anyone's guess.Lila64 said:So if Obama and other candidates aren't officially on the ballot, can they be written in? How will that work? Or will Hillary automatically win for the Dems because she is on the ballot?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United...#The_Early_Primaries:_January_1_to_February_4Lila64 said:Does anyone have a list of dates of when the rest of the country votes?
Saving time and money, is what the usual justifications for maintaining the current system boil down to. States like Iowa and New Hampshire are relatively cheap to campaign in, and candidates don't have to scramble quite as wildly (and expensively) from one state to another as they would if all states were up for grabs at once. The current system does suck, but it really is difficult to come up with an alternative that wouldn't require candidates to possess more time and money than most of them do.Infinitum98 said:Can someone explain to me why Iowa and New Hampshire have so much power in every Presidential election. Shouldn't all 50 states have equal power? Why can't we strip down this whole complicated delegates and electoral system and make it a simple popular vote system? One popular vote for all the Republicans for the whole country to choose the Republican candidate. One for the Democrats and then one for the general election. I think that would be much more fair.
Strongbow said:
This is the latest poll for Michigan taken 01/06 - 01/07 BEFORE the New Hampshire primary on 01/08. The Poll was done by Rossman Group.
Huckabee 23%
Romney 22%
McCain 18%
Giuliani 8%
Thompson 4%
Paul 3%
McCain's victory in New Hampshire should bump him up into the lead, although it will probably be a smaller margin than it was in New Hampshire. 2nd plus for McCain is the fact that the Democrats are not having their primary so independents will be free to flock to McCain given that Obama won't be around. Huckabee will fade a bit but I'm sure Romney will fight hard here and some are already calling this Romney's last stand.
Bonochick said:This primary is said to be costing Michigan between $10 and $15 million...but that's okay, because our state is so financially secure!
Oh, wait...
yolland said:Michigan is one of several states being punished by both national parties, but (in their case) more harshly so by the Dems, for having unilaterally bumped up their primary dates against the national parties' wishes.