1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

New Hampshire Primary Running Thread

Discussion in 'Sports and News' started by Fenian_Bastard, Jan 4, 2008.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Chi City 81

    Chi City 81 Guest

    Generic, national polls have them both in the lead.
     
  2. zeke12

    zeke12 Guest

    Go back and look at the national polls before Iowa.

    A national primary day would very much benefit those with 1. Good name recognition and 2. Money to buy national TV time.

    Iowa and New Hampshire force the candidates to build organizations and mount an honest to goodness campaign. They have to go to the Iowa State Fair and to the New Hampshire diners and whatnot.

    And I don't think it's a coincidence that the more time that Rudy Giuliani, for example, spends in a state, the lower his numbers go.

    Like I said, this system isn't perfect. I'm just very leery of the other one, too.
     
  3. markvid

    markvid Guest

    Ok, you raise very, very good points there.
    I am just trying to think of a way to make it better since, realistically, 10 or 12 states are determining the nominees as opposed to 50.
     
  4. zeke12

    zeke12 Guest

    There's always American Gladiators.
     
  5. Chi City 81

    Chi City 81 Guest

    That's the way it always is. If a candidate were to win New York, California, Texas, Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Massachusetts, Illinois, New Jersey, Washington and Nevada, they'd win in a huge electoral landslide, thus someone would only have to campaign there, instead of (almost) everywhere.
     
  6. markvid

    markvid Guest

    And Doc, yet another reason to get ride of the Electoral College.
    Unfortunately, boy, would the attempts at fraud go up.
     
  7. Chi City 81

    Chi City 81 Guest

    Yep. But that strategy would never work in a general election. One candidate wouldn't take all those states, unless it was a Reagan-Mondale, Bush-Dukakis-level mismatch. That's why the college, despite all its inherent flaws, is here to stay.
     
  8. markvid

    markvid Guest

    Is it a recent thing (say last 2 elections) that more people started calling for the College to be eliminated? I was born in 1968, I can't ever remember that happening till, say, 2000.
     
  9. zeke12

    zeke12 Guest

    I can tell you one thing. With the sway the Clintons still have, you can bet Iowa is going to have a hard time keeping its status next time around.

    Not for any of the right reasons, mind you, but that's another thread.

    BTW, Hart's Location is also in:

    Democrats:
    Obama 9
    Clinton 3
    Edwards 1

    Republicans:
    McCain 6
    Huckabee 5
    Paul 4
    Romney 1

    My math now shows.

    Democrats:
    Obama 16
    Clinton 3
    Edwards 3
    Richardson 1

    Republicans:
    McCain 10
    Huckabee 5
    Paul 4
    Romney 3
    Giuliani 1
     
  10. wickedwritah

    wickedwritah Guest

    Hillary goes down face-first, her husband's influence will be greatly reduced.
     
  11. markvid

    markvid Guest

    Zeke, you saying Radar O'Reilly is gonna get punished for Hillary not winning?
     
  12. zeke12

    zeke12 Guest

    Poor Radar.

    He'll never know what hit him.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page