Tuesday, January 10, 2012
What will New Hampshire mean?
The "First in the Nation" nine primary voters of New Hampshire's tiny village of Dixville Notch casts the first ballots of the contest just after midnight, a tradition since 1960. Since 1960, the village winner has won the GOP nomination. This time, however, there was no Republican winner. Mitt Romney and Jon Huntsman tied with 2 votes each in the Republican race. President Obama took 3 of the nine total votes.
New Hampshire does not have a closed primary primary, in which votes can be cast in a party primary only by people registered with that party. Undeclared voters — those not registered with any party — can vote in either party primary. However, it does not meet a common definition of an open primary, because people registered as Republican or Democrat on voting day cannot cast ballots in the primary of the other party.
What New Hampshire may show is the strength of independent voters. The percentage of Americans identifying as political independents increased in 2011, as is common in a non-election year, although the 40% who did so is the highest Gallup has measured, by one percentage point. More Americans continue to identify as Democrats than as Republicans, 31% to 27%.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/151943/Record-High-Americans-Identify-Independents.aspx
If you are checking in tonight, blog your thoughts on the second of two important momentum-builidng nominating contests. At stake here, just 12 total delegates to the GOP convention, but does it mean life or death of the campaigns of Huntsman, Gingrich??
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
The concept of momentum seems to me a bit unfair, because the first few states are extremely decisive in the entire election - it undermines the equality of the vote across the nation. Another issue I have with the strong influence of the first few states is whether or not they reflect the nation as a whole, ethnically, politically, socially, etc. This system of voting seems undemocratic.
I have to agree with Justine, when you consider that the difference between Romney delegates won in NH was just two (5-3 over second-place Paul) when I went to bed. Also the difference on perception, when Romney was pulling 35% to 25% he was not looking strong, then when he ended up with 40% it was played as "historic" -- the first GOP candidate not an incumbent to ever win both Iowa and New Hampshire.
I could see the advantages of the system. Educated voters (like us!) are actually paying attention to what the candidates are saying and doing. We see the rise and fall of Cain, Bachman, and Perry, and from this we can learn who is really prepared to be a candidate. As a result of this system, sometimes candidates will drop out. That has nothing to do with the preliminaries though, it is mostly because the candidates decide they are done. They can keep running all the way up until the official announcement, so nobody is telling them to stop. Momentum is mostly mental. (Yes, early winners do get some more money. But money doesnt win presidencies, right???)
In all fairness, it was predicted Romney would win New Hampshire. I was watching CNN around 7:30 Tuesday and they called Romney the winner with 11% of the votes reporting. Huntsman was able to break the mold and come in 3rd which brought new life in his campaign which much like Gingrich and Perry will shift gears to South Carolina. The S.C. primary from 1980 the candidate to win the primary has gone on to win the Republican nomination.
I second with Justine on that there too much emphasis of front loading to predict a clear front runner. Both races can make or break campaigns (Bachmann & Santorum). Since many states do not have primaries and causes after
February, the winner of Iowa and New Hampshire will have the attention and money flow their way while the rest of the nation doesn't have their voice heard yet.
or if your Ron Paul your ignored either way
I thought some of the voting trends discussed in this post were very curious. For instance, the post mentions that the percentage of Americans who identify themselves as political independents increases in non-election years. Why is it that during election years, people start to identify more with Republicans or Democrats? I would think that this trend would be the exact opposite. During election years, each party seeks to undermine the other-- thereby presenting loads of negative information about the opposing party. I would think that this would make individuals lean toward identifying themselves as independents.
I thought some of the voting trends discussed in this post were very curious. For instance, the post mentions that the percentage of Americans who identify themselves as political independents increases in non-election years. Why is it that during election years, people start to identify more with Republicans or Democrats? I would think that this trend would be the exact opposite. During election years, each party seeks to undermine the other-- thereby presenting loads of negative information about the opposing party. I would think that this would make individuals lean toward identifying themselves as independents.
This is what was surprising to me: And I almost, in making the comparison, probably soft peddled how well Mitt Romney is doing because John McCain last time figured how to pawn on Iowa, not trying very hard, coming fourth place, a bit of a tie with Fred Thompson, and then when New Hampshire, Romney actually tied with Rick Santorum-- we might even have seen a Santorum victory, and then did very well in New Hampshire. I mean, he performed exactly what the polls were saying, staved off this Huntsman surge that everyone in the fourth estate decided to believe in at the last minute. I'll be really interested to see what happens in South Carolina. The record of South Carolina is that they affirm the establishment`s candidate. You can bungle it. I mean, somebody could try to bungle it and he might, but George H.W. Bush, who is not the most right wing candidate, won that.
Although I am a fan, Jon Huntsman run for the President is effectively over. While watching CNN's coverage on the New Hampshire primary, Jon Huntsman gained a majority of his support through moderate Republican's and Independents. He does not have the staying power to tackle the more socially conservative Iowa. However, I am not so sure about Mr. Gingrich. I think out of Santorum, Perry, and Gingrich, at least one will have to stay after South Carolina opposing Romney and Ron Paul.
Post a Comment