Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz............
Posted on 09/03/2007 9:08:54 AM PDT by Reaganesque
From Rossputin:
Historically, the Iowa Caucuses and the New Hampshire Primary have received the perception of being, if not president-makers, at least highly reliable launching points for presidential aspirants.
Indeed, these early contests correctly predicted the final choice of nominee five out of seven times for each party. Iowans’ views were not shared by the rest of the country on the Democratic side in 1992 (Tom Harkin won) and 1988 (Dick Gephardt), and on the Republican side in 1988 (Bob Dole) and 1980 (George H.W. Bush). New Hampshire didn’t create a victor on the Democratic side in 1992 (Paul Tsongas) and 1984 (Gary Hart), and on the Republican side in 2000 (John McCain) and 1996 (Pat Buchanan).
And while batting over .700 is impressive, there are strong reasons to question whether these initial matchups are now as important or reliable indicators as they used to be.
Notice is being taken of Mitt Romney’s lead over Rudy Giuliani in these two states....
(Excerpt) Read more at realclearpolitics.com ...
Moderate Republicans Abandon Rhino McCain in Favor of Romney!
Last three standing - Guiliani, Romney, Thompson...
Name, Organization, Likeability
Which will it be?
Moderate Republicans Abandon Rhino McCain in Favor of Romney!
Last three standing - Guiliani, Romney, Thompson...
Name, Organization, Likability
Which will it be?
As I expect Romney to have very limited ability to turn victories in Iowa and New Hampshire into momentum in these other states in the very short time between primaries,"
Iowa and New Hampshire are not as important as they used to be precisely because of the above. However, even so, it still doesn't mean Romney or Thompson won't get the nomination over Giuliani.
“McCain is totally out of this race and has been almost from the start”
Yes he still polls in double digits nationally. Someone didnt get the memo.
And we still have Rudy getting #1 in the polls ... something is serously wrong there. Rudy’s record is pro-abortion (including opposing the partial birth abortion ban), pro-gun-control, pro-gay-civil-unions, against school choice, self-described Rockefellar Republican, endorsed Coumo in 1994, allowed NYC to be a ‘sanctuary city’ for illegal immigrants, opposed Republican policies such as welfare reform bill of 1996 and spending and tax cuts, etc.
Can someone from South Carolina please explain to me how in the heck Rudy is polling in first place there?
A Guiliani candidacy will split the Republican Party and Hillary will win the general. We cannot allow that to happen.
A Guiliani candidacy will split the Republican Party and Hillary will win the general. We cannot allow that to happen.
I'm not so sure about that statement
The McCain crowd as small as it is is looking for the one thing McCain has the most of: "Experience"
All of the current crop of front runners, Mitt is the most experienced in running things: large corporations, State governments, Olympics.
I think Mitt would be a natural second choice for a McCain supporter.
Also, I certainly am the last guy to support McCain, but he actually has used to have a pretty good record when it comes to voting conservative issues before he caught a mild case of BDS.
It's the knife that he sticks in your back that makes him a tough guy to vote for.
Good point.
I compliment your man Mitt and you give me zzzzzzzzzzzzs??
Mitt bump!
Good. That's where he belongs, the first teer.
The more I see Romney, the more I like him, and feel is the best package to defeat the Demwits.
Of course I like Hunter's politics, and would be glad to see him US President.
But Romney has the whole package, charisma, poise, personality, and yes, he is fairly conservative and always has been, despite what Romney haters here on FR say.
Unfortunately, the most conservative consistent candidate does not always make the BEST candidate to win the general election.<>Which of course requires the35-percent solid Republicans, plus at least half the independents, and a decent percentage of Democrats.
Hunter, as much as I like him, would only (I believe) attract the solid Republicans, and mainly the conservative ones at that.
His personality is such that a large "middle" vote does not seem in the cards.
And it pains me to say that, but that is what I firmly believe.
Puhleeze.
McCain supporters are pragmatic conservatives mostly.
But the've come to distrust and in many cases despise McCain, as have I.
The fact the former McCainites are moving toward Romney can only be construed as good, for Romney, that is.
AGREE 1000%.
I can accept and vote for (most likely anyway) any Republican candidate in the current field (except Ron Paul and Guliani).
Guliani is just too beholden to gay rights, abortion, illegal immigration, and appointing Democratic/liberal judges.
And he’s running on a LIBERAL platform.
Oh yes, because we’d rather all the McCain supporters end up voting for Hillary instead.
Good point. But, at least, it's not the other way around: Romney supporters leaving for the McCain team.
So you are saying more people are willing to bet on Jeb Bush than on Duncan Hunter?
Bad sign for Romney.
You would prefer they go to Giuliani?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.