What The New Hampshire Primary really means: - cougarguard.com — unofficial BYU Cougars / LDS sports, football, basketball forum and message board

All-American · 01-09-2008, 05:37 AM

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/candidates/

Tex · 01-09-2008, 02:49 PM

What it really means is that some pollsters, pundits, and Cougarguard posters are unable to adjust to the "new" rules.

Reports are that the Obama campaign's internal polling showed him up by 14. Hillary's campaign's internals showed him up by 11. SU is in a corner somewhere muttering "Romney is dead after NH" to himself (cue the "Michigan last stand" posts), and McCain won, but not convincingly. Huckabee leads the national polls. (Yeah. Right.) Almost as many R's turned out as D's to vote, sticking a fork in the eye of those talking about GOP malaise.

The rules are different for the '08 race. Rewrite your models.

As for Romney's failed win-first strategy: the strategy appears to have failed. But as cheerleader Hewitt has pointed out, it was devised to defeat a front-running Guiliani, no longer front-running. In any other year, consecutive 2nds might have finished a candidate. But this race is still wide open.

Anybody who counts anybody else out, R or D, is fooling themselves. Well, ok. Count Ron Paul out.

MikeWaters · 01-09-2008, 02:53 PM

Michigan is supposedly a "must-win" for Romney. It says so on the front page of the Dallas Morning News.

I'm curious, does Thompson have a state that is a must-win? Does Giuliani?

Archaea · 01-09-2008, 02:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Michigan is supposedly a "must-win" for Romney. It says so on the front page of the Dallas Morning News.

I'm curious, does Thompson have a state that is a must-win? Does Giuliani?

This sounds like newspapers wishing to control the news. Or wishing it is so.

I'm not predicting a Romney win, I still say it's a three candidate race and may not be decided until September 4. However, pundits want excitement and make predictions. The logic of the pundits here doesn't make sense.

Cali Coug · 01-09-2008, 03:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Michigan is supposedly a "must-win" for Romney. It says so on the front page of the Dallas Morning News.

I'm curious, does Thompson have a state that is a must-win? Does Giuliani?

I think Michigan is big for Romney. If he wins that, he IS the frontrunner. If he doesn't, he lost a state that traditionally is a big family supporter, begging the question "where else can Romney win?" Maybe he doesn't have to win anywhere. Maybe he can be the first candidate ever to finish second in every primary and win the nomination.

I do find it interesting that no candidate has been elected president (in modern times) without winning two of Iowa, NH and SC. Republicans appear to be heading towards a Huck win in SC, so he would be the guy with 2 of those 3, but I can't see him winning nationally. Obama will win SC (at least the brilliant polls seem to think so), but Hillary reminded everyone yesterday of the power of the Clinton machine. This could be a facinating election. I think Obama wins for the Democrats, I still lean towards Romney for Republicans. But Republicans really might be heading towards a brokered convention.

BYU71 · 01-09-2008, 03:02 PM

The spin from the Obama backers, Chrissy Mathews in particular, is that the polls were wrong because of racism. I didn't think they had such a thing in the intellectual northeast where most of the people in NH are independents.

The reason is that while they would say they were for Obama, when they got in the booth they voted for the white person.

There might have been some of that. How about also though people like to tell pollsters they are hip. Uh, ya, I am for that young, attractive, well spoken guy you media folks are in love with. I want change just like all the other folks you media people are hyping. They get in the booth and say, I think I will stick with the bitch (meaning bitchy, nasty, etc), who actually has a track record and some experience.

MikeWaters · 01-09-2008, 03:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BYU71

The spin from the Obama backers, Chrissy Mathews in particular, is that the polls were wrong because of racism. I didn't think they had such a thing in the intellectual northeast where most of the people in NH are independents.

The reason is that while they would say they were for Obama, when they got in the booth they voted for the white person.

There might have been some of that. How about also though people like to tell pollsters they are hip. Uh, ya, I am for that young, attractive, well spoken guy you media folks are in love with. I want change just like all the other folks you media people are hyping. They get in the booth and say, I think I will stick with the bitch (meaning bitchy, nasty, etc), who actually has a track record and some experience.

The point was also made that in a caucus, your neighbors know who you are voting for, and those that are motivated by racism, might be less inclined to vote against Obama, with social pressure in play.

This has happened before, where the polls say a black candidate is doing well, but in the end, gets drilled. Meaning that people lied to pollsters about voting for the black candidate, but under the cover of anonymity, voted for the white candidate. Wilder in Virginia is an example of this.

Tex · 01-09-2008, 03:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BYU71

The spin from the Obama backers, Chrissy Mathews in particular, is that the polls were wrong because of racism.

Ah, we're back to this again. Iowa, we hardly knew ye.

And here Cali had me convinced that racism was eliminated among liberals.

SeattleUte · 01-09-2008, 03:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by All-American

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/candidates/

I didn't realize how naive you are until now. Is that all you think it means?

Tex · 01-09-2008, 03:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

I didn't realize how naive you are until now. Is that all you think it means?

Shouldn't you be getting started with your "Romney is dead after Michigan" posts?

01-09-2008, 05:37 AM	#1
All-American Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 3,420	What The New Hampshire Primary really means: http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/candidates/ __________________ εν αρχη ην ο λογος

01-09-2008, 02:49 PM	#2
Tex Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 8,596	What it really means is that some pollsters, pundits, and Cougarguard posters are unable to adjust to the "new" rules. Reports are that the Obama campaign's internal polling showed him up by 14. Hillary's campaign's internals showed him up by 11. SU is in a corner somewhere muttering "Romney is dead after NH" to himself (cue the "Michigan last stand" posts), and McCain won, but not convincingly. Huckabee leads the national polls. (Yeah. Right.) Almost as many R's turned out as D's to vote, sticking a fork in the eye of those talking about GOP malaise. The rules are different for the '08 race. Rewrite your models. As for Romney's failed win-first strategy: the strategy appears to have failed. But as cheerleader Hewitt has pointed out, it was devised to defeat a front-running Guiliani, no longer front-running. In any other year, consecutive 2nds might have finished a candidate. But this race is still wide open. Anybody who counts anybody else out, R or D, is fooling themselves. Well, ok. Count Ron Paul out. __________________ "Have we been commanded not to call a prophet an insular racist? Link?" "And yes, [2010] is a very good year to be a Democrat. Perhaps the best year in decades ..." - Cali Coug "Oh dear, granny, what a long tail our puss has got." - Brigham Young

01-09-2008, 02:53 PM	#3
MikeWaters Demiurge Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 36,365	Michigan is supposedly a "must-win" for Romney. It says so on the front page of the Dallas Morning News. I'm curious, does Thompson have a state that is a must-win? Does Giuliani?

01-09-2008, 03:02 PM	#6
BYU71 Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 5,084	The spin from the Obama backers, Chrissy Mathews in particular, is that the polls were wrong because of racism. I didn't think they had such a thing in the intellectual northeast where most of the people in NH are independents. The reason is that while they would say they were for Obama, when they got in the booth they voted for the white person. There might have been some of that. How about also though people like to tell pollsters they are hip. Uh, ya, I am for that young, attractive, well spoken guy you media folks are in love with. I want change just like all the other folks you media people are hyping. They get in the booth and say, I think I will stick with the bitch (meaning bitchy, nasty, etc), who actually has a track record and some experience.