1992 IOWA
76%--Harkin
4%--Tsongas
3%--Clinton
1992 NEW HAMPSHIRE
33%--Tsongas
25%--Clinton
2012 IOWA
25%--Romney
25%--Santorum
21%--Paul
2012 New Hampshire
39%--Romney
23%--Paul
just sayin...
(01-11-2012 01:46 PM)CAJUNNATION Wrote: [ -> ]1992 IOWA
76%--Harkin
4%--Tsongas
3%--Clinton
1992 NEW HAMPSHIRE
33%--Tsongas
25%--Clinton
2012 IOWA
25%--Romney
25%--Santorum
21%--Paul
2012 New Hampshire
39%--Romney
23%--Paul
just sayin...
Don't want to get into a huge debate, but Harkin was from Iowa. That would explain Clinton making up so much ground in New Hampshire. The problem for Ron Paul is even if he enjoys consistent support, someone would need to upset Romney, because Romney would be getting more consistent support.
(01-11-2012 02:16 PM)slappycajun Wrote: [ -> ] (01-11-2012 01:46 PM)CAJUNNATION Wrote: [ -> ]1992 IOWA
76%--Harkin
4%--Tsongas
3%--Clinton
1992 NEW HAMPSHIRE
33%--Tsongas
25%--Clinton
2012 IOWA
25%--Romney
25%--Santorum
21%--Paul
2012 New Hampshire
39%--Romney
23%--Paul
just sayin...
Don't want to get into a huge debate, but Harkin was from Iowa. That would explain Clinton making up so much ground in New Hampshire. The problem for Ron Paul is even if he enjoys consistent support, someone would need to upset Romney, because Romney would be getting more consistent support.
Politics do not belong on this board!!!!!
(01-11-2012 02:25 PM)Lafitte the Pirate Wrote: [ -> ] (01-11-2012 02:16 PM)slappycajun Wrote: [ -> ] (01-11-2012 01:46 PM)CAJUNNATION Wrote: [ -> ]1992 IOWA
76%--Harkin
4%--Tsongas
3%--Clinton
1992 NEW HAMPSHIRE
33%--Tsongas
25%--Clinton
2012 IOWA
25%--Romney
25%--Santorum
21%--Paul
2012 New Hampshire
39%--Romney
23%--Paul
just sayin...
Don't want to get into a huge debate, but Harkin was from Iowa. That would explain Clinton making up so much ground in New Hampshire. The problem for Ron Paul is even if he enjoys consistent support, someone would need to upset Romney, because Romney would be getting more consistent support.
Politics do not belong on this board!!!!!
I agree, we've had this discussion ad nauseum before. I'm supporting Paul as well, but this is the SBC board for us to talk sports issues, and politics has the potential to get really messy discussion wise.
(01-11-2012 02:53 PM)Tuffguy21 Wrote: [ -> ] (01-11-2012 02:25 PM)Lafitte the Pirate Wrote: [ -> ] (01-11-2012 02:16 PM)slappycajun Wrote: [ -> ] (01-11-2012 01:46 PM)CAJUNNATION Wrote: [ -> ]1992 IOWA
76%--Harkin
4%--Tsongas
3%--Clinton
1992 NEW HAMPSHIRE
33%--Tsongas
25%--Clinton
2012 IOWA
25%--Romney
25%--Santorum
21%--Paul
2012 New Hampshire
39%--Romney
23%--Paul
just sayin...
Don't want to get into a huge debate, but Harkin was from Iowa. That would explain Clinton making up so much ground in New Hampshire. The problem for Ron Paul is even if he enjoys consistent support, someone would need to upset Romney, because Romney would be getting more consistent support.
Politics do not belong on this board!!!!!
I agree, we've had this discussion ad nauseum before. I'm supporting Paul as well, but this is the SBC board for us to talk sports issues, and politics has the potential to get really messy discussion wise.
Buncha lightweights if you ask me.
(01-11-2012 02:16 PM)slappycajun Wrote: [ -> ] (01-11-2012 01:46 PM)CAJUNNATION Wrote: [ -> ]1992 IOWA
76%--Harkin
4%--Tsongas
3%--Clinton
1992 NEW HAMPSHIRE
33%--Tsongas
25%--Clinton
2012 IOWA
25%--Romney
25%--Santorum
21%--Paul
2012 New Hampshire
39%--Romney
23%--Paul
just sayin...
Don't want to get into a huge debate, but Harkin was from Iowa. That would explain Clinton making up so much ground in New Hampshire. The problem for Ron Paul is even if he enjoys consistent support, someone would need to upset Romney, because Romney would be getting more consistent support.
The point is that Clinton was beaten by the "Establishment" pick, Tsongas, in both states....same as Paul.
Clinton caught fire on Super Tuesday.
Either people will reject the eatablishment pick and embrace Paul, or not. It is going to be decided in the next couple of weeks.
While they were on different ends of the political spectrum, Paul is at exactly the same spot that Clinton was in 1992.
I won't get into my feelings about Paul and what I think of his thoughts of foreign policy. It wouldn't be pretty. I will go ahead and address your points as to comparing him to Clinton.
The big thing that Paul had going for him in the first two primaries was that they were "open" meaning that non-republicans could vote. What he (and his supporters) are basing his "strength" on is crossover votes of democrats and independents. He is about to start hitting states that are closed so only registered republicans can vote. You are about to see the end of the Ron Paul Revolution. He is not well liked among republican voters and you will soon see Perry gone, Huntsman gone, either Santorum or Gingrich gone. It will come down to Romney and Santorum/Gingrich. Paul will be there drawing out his 15-20%.
The '92 Iowa caucuses were conceded to Harkin early on.
None of the out-of-state Democrats did any serious campaigning there.
Dems are willing to put up someone who is unknown, Reps tend to annoint someone who was in line. Are there any examples like this on the GOP side?
(01-12-2012 09:49 AM)dcCid Wrote: [ -> ]Dems are willing to put up someone who is unknown, Reps tend to annoint someone who was in line. Are there any examples like this on the GOP side?
Last truly "unknown" GOP nominee was Wendell Willkie in 1940.
Barry Goldwater in 1964 wasn't unknown, but he definitely was NOT "next in line", either. Since then, the GOP has had 11 nominations. In 5 of those, there was an incumbent president running, and the incumbent won all 5 of them. For the other 6 nominations, they all went to obvious "next-in-line" type candidates (Nixon, Reagan, Bush-41, Dole, Bush-43, McCain)