So here we are now on the eve of the New Hampshire primary, the first primary of the nation, and the second real test of the electability of the candidates.
Before I get to predictions, or briefings for the uninformed, or recapping whats at stake in this competition, I will touch on the state itself.
The majority of regular observers to the political circus presumably don't understand why NH is the first primary in the nation, and for that matter would even argue that it SHOULDN'T be, it's a predominantly white, predominantly well to do state.
Two reasons I will give excluding it's constitutional clause that it be the first in the nation, the state has the smallest population of any state in the country. Even Montana has more people than the Granite state. Why is that a good reason for an election? After all, that's a small number of people, why should so few be allowed to decide something so important?
Because in New Hampshire, you can't buy the election, you can't just shovel load after load of cash into the state with TV ads like in California or Florida and pull off a victory, in New Hampshire not only do you HAVE to get down on the ground and campaign, if you don't it's precedent that you WILL lose, the candidates who most vigorously campaign in the state traditionally win it, for one because the voters respect them for doing so, but also because it really lets the people get to know the issues, a New Hampshire voter will have presumably met SOMEONE at least once, where as when I go to vote in May I'll have never once seen any of these schmuck bastards. Actually when I go to vote it'll most likely already be decided for me, but..still.
Reason number two is the lesser known reason, the Free State Project. A couple years ago the thinkers behind the Libertarian movement in this country decided that the only real logical way to make an impact in this country would be to consolidate our numbers into a single state, the state they chose was an already libertarian-leaning state, which happens to also have the first primary in the nation, New Hampshire.
So..why does that matter? It doesn't for the Democrats, and so I will concede that maybe the Democrats could move a primary ahead of them, like Nevada, but for the Republicans it is crucial for the contests to bounce from Iowa and then to New Hampshire, if anything maybe New Hampshire should be first, but I digress. This is because the two dominant wings of the Republican party are the Evangelicals(socially conservative) and the Libertarians(fiscally conservative), the two tend to disagree on social issues primarily on the basis that I, a libertarian, believe in small government no matter what the issue, from spending, taxation, social security, or abortion or gay marriage. In my book if it's an issue that doesn't involve the military, it's a state's issue and thus shouldn't be touched by the feds. This can be construed as me being 'pro-choice', 'pro-gay marriage', and all sorts of fun liberal things which I am, in fact, not. For the record, I am pro-life, pro-civil union, anti-gun control, and...those are the 3 hot button issues I can think of right now, but if you've got any questions feel free to ask.
Now, moving on to the race itself.
DNC:
There's no doubting this one, no skipping around it or beating this bush, Hillary Clinton must win New Hampshire. If she loses to Obama here it will be the end for her. A defeat in New Hampshire will mean a defeat in South Carolina because(the ironic thing), black voters have mostly been backing Hillary because they're uneasy about supporting Obama just yet, black candidates traditionally had huge support until they were tested in the all-white first caucus and first primary's and then lost huge, and election after election with Al Sharpton disappointing them the black demographic is pretty uneasy about supporting yet another 'great black hope', the black vote has been backing Hillary up until now, if she loses New Hampshire, Obama will have proven he can defeat her, and will have no trouble winning over the predominantly black South Carolina primary. For Hillary to win she has to do what she has so far failed to do(and this is why it's ironic), she has to get the woman vote. Obama cleaned her clock in Iowa outpolling her among women aged 18-59, AKA people who aren't dependent on social security or welfare. It won't be easy, but she can do it. But if she doesn't than this will be the end of Hillary, no doubts about that.
For Edwards on the other hand, if he could somehow pull an upset here and win, god only knows what might happen, but at this point it's looking like a mirror of Iowa, Obama is going to win big, Edwards and Hillary will be in a close tie for second. Richardson? Forget about him, he's not even polling well in Nevada.
RNC:
Rather then just give a synopsis I'll go down person to person-
Romney-This is a must win. No questions, if Romney can't win in New Hampshire, a state that he owns a second house in, then expect him to likely call it quits. New Hampshire was supposed to be a given for him, but defeat in Iowa and how much it cost him has done a lot of damage to his campaign, he was considered a shoe-in for Iowa, and a nobody like Huckabee stole it from him. If he couldn't beat Huckabee, Republicans and Independents will have to wonder how he can Obama or Hillary.
McCain-He has to win. He's the equivalent of the 'returning champion', he's got all his eggs stacked in New Hampshire just like Huckabee did in Iowa, if McCain can't win it here then he can't win it anywhere. He's come back in the polls after Romney's defeat in Iowa, but this race is by no means over, anything could happen.
Thompson-If he comes in third it could very well be a biblical miracle. He was hyped as the next Reagan, don't forget even Reagan couldn't win here. New Hampshire doesn't like social conservatives. Thompson is trying to take the approach of doing absolutely nothing and just presuming that if he stays in the race until the Southern primaries then he'll win. South Carolina is his first test, he's presumably sleeping through the other contests prior to it.
Giuliani-While he'd like to win here, Rudy is pegging his efforts on the 'shoveling loads of money into tv' approach and stacking everything on Super Tuesday in February, when roughly half of all the primaries open their polls. The question is can Rudy maintain enough support until then? Third place, if he's lucky.
Huckabee-If he can pull off third place here, beating one of the many many liberal Republicans that are on this ballot, it would be a huge victory. He won't win here and he knows that, but if he can at least get third then he can maintain momentum into South Carolina where his next real test will come.
Paul-Ron Paul is my favorite, personally, but that's because he IS a Libertarian, and what's that I mentioned earlier? The FSP will make this more interesting then people let on, and it's perfectly possible that Ron Paul could pull off third place, but if he doesn't pull it off with a big enough number it's not going to matter. He's got a lot of grass roots support, and there's really just no telling what his presence could mean, but I can safely say that if not for the fact that the three front runners right now(Giuliani, Romney, and McCain) are all liberal Republicans, closer to the center than Ron Paul, he would actually have a lot more of a following.
Hunter-Who is he, you ask? Who cares, better question is why hasn't he dropped out yet.
Before I get to predictions, or briefings for the uninformed, or recapping whats at stake in this competition, I will touch on the state itself.
The majority of regular observers to the political circus presumably don't understand why NH is the first primary in the nation, and for that matter would even argue that it SHOULDN'T be, it's a predominantly white, predominantly well to do state.
Two reasons I will give excluding it's constitutional clause that it be the first in the nation, the state has the smallest population of any state in the country. Even Montana has more people than the Granite state. Why is that a good reason for an election? After all, that's a small number of people, why should so few be allowed to decide something so important?
Because in New Hampshire, you can't buy the election, you can't just shovel load after load of cash into the state with TV ads like in California or Florida and pull off a victory, in New Hampshire not only do you HAVE to get down on the ground and campaign, if you don't it's precedent that you WILL lose, the candidates who most vigorously campaign in the state traditionally win it, for one because the voters respect them for doing so, but also because it really lets the people get to know the issues, a New Hampshire voter will have presumably met SOMEONE at least once, where as when I go to vote in May I'll have never once seen any of these schmuck bastards. Actually when I go to vote it'll most likely already be decided for me, but..still.
Reason number two is the lesser known reason, the Free State Project. A couple years ago the thinkers behind the Libertarian movement in this country decided that the only real logical way to make an impact in this country would be to consolidate our numbers into a single state, the state they chose was an already libertarian-leaning state, which happens to also have the first primary in the nation, New Hampshire.
So..why does that matter? It doesn't for the Democrats, and so I will concede that maybe the Democrats could move a primary ahead of them, like Nevada, but for the Republicans it is crucial for the contests to bounce from Iowa and then to New Hampshire, if anything maybe New Hampshire should be first, but I digress. This is because the two dominant wings of the Republican party are the Evangelicals(socially conservative) and the Libertarians(fiscally conservative), the two tend to disagree on social issues primarily on the basis that I, a libertarian, believe in small government no matter what the issue, from spending, taxation, social security, or abortion or gay marriage. In my book if it's an issue that doesn't involve the military, it's a state's issue and thus shouldn't be touched by the feds. This can be construed as me being 'pro-choice', 'pro-gay marriage', and all sorts of fun liberal things which I am, in fact, not. For the record, I am pro-life, pro-civil union, anti-gun control, and...those are the 3 hot button issues I can think of right now, but if you've got any questions feel free to ask.
Now, moving on to the race itself.
DNC:
There's no doubting this one, no skipping around it or beating this bush, Hillary Clinton must win New Hampshire. If she loses to Obama here it will be the end for her. A defeat in New Hampshire will mean a defeat in South Carolina because(the ironic thing), black voters have mostly been backing Hillary because they're uneasy about supporting Obama just yet, black candidates traditionally had huge support until they were tested in the all-white first caucus and first primary's and then lost huge, and election after election with Al Sharpton disappointing them the black demographic is pretty uneasy about supporting yet another 'great black hope', the black vote has been backing Hillary up until now, if she loses New Hampshire, Obama will have proven he can defeat her, and will have no trouble winning over the predominantly black South Carolina primary. For Hillary to win she has to do what she has so far failed to do(and this is why it's ironic), she has to get the woman vote. Obama cleaned her clock in Iowa outpolling her among women aged 18-59, AKA people who aren't dependent on social security or welfare. It won't be easy, but she can do it. But if she doesn't than this will be the end of Hillary, no doubts about that.
For Edwards on the other hand, if he could somehow pull an upset here and win, god only knows what might happen, but at this point it's looking like a mirror of Iowa, Obama is going to win big, Edwards and Hillary will be in a close tie for second. Richardson? Forget about him, he's not even polling well in Nevada.
RNC:
Rather then just give a synopsis I'll go down person to person-
Romney-This is a must win. No questions, if Romney can't win in New Hampshire, a state that he owns a second house in, then expect him to likely call it quits. New Hampshire was supposed to be a given for him, but defeat in Iowa and how much it cost him has done a lot of damage to his campaign, he was considered a shoe-in for Iowa, and a nobody like Huckabee stole it from him. If he couldn't beat Huckabee, Republicans and Independents will have to wonder how he can Obama or Hillary.
McCain-He has to win. He's the equivalent of the 'returning champion', he's got all his eggs stacked in New Hampshire just like Huckabee did in Iowa, if McCain can't win it here then he can't win it anywhere. He's come back in the polls after Romney's defeat in Iowa, but this race is by no means over, anything could happen.
Thompson-If he comes in third it could very well be a biblical miracle. He was hyped as the next Reagan, don't forget even Reagan couldn't win here. New Hampshire doesn't like social conservatives. Thompson is trying to take the approach of doing absolutely nothing and just presuming that if he stays in the race until the Southern primaries then he'll win. South Carolina is his first test, he's presumably sleeping through the other contests prior to it.
Giuliani-While he'd like to win here, Rudy is pegging his efforts on the 'shoveling loads of money into tv' approach and stacking everything on Super Tuesday in February, when roughly half of all the primaries open their polls. The question is can Rudy maintain enough support until then? Third place, if he's lucky.
Huckabee-If he can pull off third place here, beating one of the many many liberal Republicans that are on this ballot, it would be a huge victory. He won't win here and he knows that, but if he can at least get third then he can maintain momentum into South Carolina where his next real test will come.
Paul-Ron Paul is my favorite, personally, but that's because he IS a Libertarian, and what's that I mentioned earlier? The FSP will make this more interesting then people let on, and it's perfectly possible that Ron Paul could pull off third place, but if he doesn't pull it off with a big enough number it's not going to matter. He's got a lot of grass roots support, and there's really just no telling what his presence could mean, but I can safely say that if not for the fact that the three front runners right now(Giuliani, Romney, and McCain) are all liberal Republicans, closer to the center than Ron Paul, he would actually have a lot more of a following.
Hunter-Who is he, you ask? Who cares, better question is why hasn't he dropped out yet.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Disagree with me