Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'SHH Community Forum' started by SentinelMind, Jan 1, 2008.
Who will win the nomination??
GOP is still anyone's ball game. Huckabee has been going strong on the final stretch, but none the less, Romney, Rudy, and Thompson's numbers are all still strong enough that they can pull ahead of him. Hell, even Paul can pull the dark horse win off. Its unlikely, but with the money he has raised, its not impossible.
I personally believe Edwards will take the Democratic ticket. Afterall, primary polling is incredibly inaccurate. I believe Obama and Hilary likely lead the polls based on name recognition alone but name recognition does not get out of the vote. The same can be said about Edwards, but I think to a much lesser extent. And because of that, I believe his poll numbers will be much more accurate than Hilary or Obama's, who people will say they will vote for to pollers based on name recognition, but not neccessarily be willing to put in the effort to vote for. Whoever wins Iowa will snow ball. They will still have a fight ahead of them, but they will have the leg up.
Romney and Edwards
Matt, I meant to make the poll close 2-1-2008,..can you change that?
Honestly, I'm not impressed with any of the nominees for the '08 election, on either side.
If I had to guess (and I'd rather not as right now the Republican primary is too close to call, but I will), I'd say Edwards and Huckabee. I think the Republican primary will come down to Super Tuesday (or Super Duper Tuesday as its being called this year, I believe). That will give some of the southern and middle states a real voice in the primary. I don't think Romney will be able to take a lot of those states, same with Rudy G..
I hear that. Alas, perhaps you should research Richardson, though.
I personally believe half (or more) of the Obama support is honestly anti-Hillary support. Obama appeared to be the candidate that had the best chance of taking down Hillary - however with the polls so tight in Iowa it is anyones game.
In Iowa, over any other state , it all comes down to political organization. Edwards organization in Iowa is stronger than Obama and even Clinton. This will, in the end - I believe, give him the state. That victory should convert most the anti-Hillary Obama voters, into Edwards supporters and end with him getting the Democrat nomination.
For the Republicans - if Romney wins Iowa, I believe he wins New Hampshire and that surge will hand him the nomination. If, for some reason, he loses to Huckabee and McCain in the first two contests - he's dead.
Huckabee's attack adds on Romney shows that his people have enough data that they are worried about Iowa. If Huckabee can't win Iowa he can't win the election.
McCain's surge is shocking. If he can win New Hampshire - he could easily walk away with the nomination. Pakistan chaos will no doubt benefit him and Rudy and will also hurt Huckabee.
Guilliani would need Huckabee to win Iowa and McCain to take New Hampshire. I think Guillani could not beat a Romney with momentum - and Huckabee and McCain have, IMO, more weaknesses that can be exploited by Team Rudy than Romney does.
Huckabee is bleeding in the position of lead dog. Huckabee has no shot in New Hampshire and the fact he is not dominating South Carolina polling indicates a weak organization nationally.
Perhaps, but you underestimate the importance of a win in Iowa. You win Iowa and you are suddenly the media's only focus. They may as well announce you as the winner of the primary. That will give him a huge boost that will allow him to take South Carolina.
I plan on voting Ron Paul out of protest at the sad state of the Republican party.
I have, however, started to really like Romney the more I learn about him. He would be my choice out of the real candidates.
Having a president named Huckabee would be hilarious, though.
And I would go for Guiliani, but his personal life is so f***ed up.
Winning Iowa will help a lot - however he is not winning New Hampshire, period.
Winning Iowa will give him a boost in Southern States - and I have no doubt he will start leading in those states after such an event, but that wasn't the point I was making.
He is a candidate tailor made for South Carolina voters. The fact that he is not winning that state right now, with all the media attention he has had, the fact his name is now recognizable - indicates a weakness in his organization.
I'm still not sure that Paul is entirely unfeasible. Its unlikely, but possible. If he can finish in the top 3 and upset 2 of the major four candidates (Guiliani, Thompson, Romney, and Huckabee) in Iowa, then the media will pretty much have to give him attention. If this does happen, alongside his grassroots movement, if he can place highly in New Hampshire and South Carolina he can go into Super Tuesday with a real shot at the nomination.
That being said, I'll probably vote Richardson for the same reason you vote Paul. Dissatisfaction.
My predictions, which I will not edit...
Hmmm....way too early to call, but I'm going with Clinton vs Romney....
2) Clinton vs McCain
3 and 4) Obama vs McCain or Romney
Guiliani's strategy is too risky...after primaries and caucus of him coming fourth and fifth...he can't stay in the game....rolling the die on Florida has never helped anyone...
Huckabee won't go the distance...the New Hampshire primary is few days after Iowa...his "possible" win in Iowa (and it looks like Romney is closing in on him) will be overshadowed by a third, fourth, of fifth place win less than a week later.......New Hampshire has been a better predictor of nomination than Iowa.....
I don't think Edwards is going to do it......he doesn't have money...and his only structure is in Iowa....which he has a chance, but not foregone conclusion.....he isn't going to blow anyone out. Fox News has been trying to destroy his campaign. I think he'd be the hardest Democrat to beat in general, but Clinton and Obama can take him on in future states....
We'll see if I look a fool and should stay out of political predictions....
But but but but.... Rudy saved the world after 9-11! 9-11! 9-11! 9-11! 9-11! Come on man... 9-11! 9-11! 9-11! 9-11! 9-11! 9-11!
Although you may not agree with his cross dressing policies.
Yeah, you're right. He should be winning South Carolina by a landslide...but keep in mind, all of the media attention is really only a month old. Winning Iowa will give him the credibility he needs to take South Carolina, and from there he will take it on Super Tuesday. That would be my prediction.
I love that sketch on SNL where he played the mom.t:
My only problem with that is that you are not giving Edwards the credit he deserves. Even if he loses New Hampshire and South Carolina (which I think he has a shot in)...he will still finish in the top 3. If he does take Iowa, and finishes in the top 3 in the other two, he will then have the time to revitalize his campaign and the credibility and media attention that comes with winning Iowa.
The problem with Dr. Paul getting media attention is that he ormally ends up hurting himself with stupid remarks like "the Civil War wasn't necessary".
While smart people can argue the validity of this statement all they want - to say it while running for President is stupid.
Whats your thoughts on New Hampshire though? Say Romney has a strong second place showing in Iowa and edges out McCain in Iowa. I would think his Mormon background would hurt him in SC - but it has not done so yet.
I like Romney's chances because he is rolling in dough and he is the only candidate that currently has appeal in all the states. McCain is big in New Hampshire - but is behind Thompson in South Carolina. Huckabee is far behind in New Hampshire and (I believe) all northern states.
I really want Obama to win, one because I hate him less than the rest of the people running and two, it would shut up a crapload of people.
If he wins New Hampshire and gives a good fight in Iowa, he will have a chance. But his viability in southern states worries me. I personally would love Romney to win, as he seems like a very one term president who wouldn't do that much damage in his 4 years, and I want Sherrod Brown or Mark Warner to take the White House in 2012.
In all honesty, that is a stupid reason to vote for anyone. If you do not like any of the candidates (and can only pick the one you "hate the least" you should write someone in. It still exercises your right, but is a form of dissent.