What we’ve learned from Iowa and New Hampshire

This post supports my earlier post of how caucuses and focus groups are similar.

Here’s a look at the final results from Iowa and New Hampshire.

With the two major kickoff primaries now behind, here are the assumptions I guess we can make based on the amazing data we were able to reap:

  1. Giuliani’s not a strong candidate (which no one believes)
  2. The more of a hick you are, the more appealing Huckabee is (we already knew that).
  3. Hilary – you either love her or hate her (we definitely knew that). And, crying must be a profitable tactic.
  4. Obama – He’s a steady favorite with the Dems  (already  knew that).
  5. Mitt has some issues, but he’s stronger in New England since he’s from there (anyone could figure that out).
  6. Edwards is always gonna be the “5th wheel” democrat.
  7. Ron Paul attracts about 10% of the vote, cuz about 10% of all of us are crazy enough to think what the White House needs is wacky logic.
  8. McCain’s got a chance – this is really the only surprise to me.
  9. Thompson better not let his contract run out on Law & Order, or whatever TV show he’s on these days.

So, out of it all, I was surprised Giuliani didn’t show a little bit better, and I think it would be wrong for the Republicans to deny their gut on him being a strong nomination based on the primary feedback. And I’m surprised McCain did so well in New Hampshire.

Otherwise, the primaries pretty much just proved what we all already knew.

7 responses to “What we’ve learned from Iowa and New Hampshire

  1. Pingback: What we’ve learned from Iowa and New Hampshire

  2. Pingback: Repulicans Presidential Election 2008 » What we’ve learned from Iowa and New Hampshire

  3. Romney lost in new hampster because half that state are massholes who moved from across the border to escape Romney’s taxe… errr, fees. People from away just don’t understand the special relationship between the massholes and the hampsters.

  4. Pingback: Barack Obama » Blog Archive » What we’ve learned from Iowa and New Hampshire

  5. Sauer – Yeah, I guess I don’t understand. I didn’t know what a “masshole” was until now.

    I like Romney only in the fact that he looks and sounds presidential (which is extremely important – see Warren Harding). Howeve3r, he seems almost too slick – like a Republican Bill Clinton. Which means I have trouble trusting him.

  6. Do you like that Romney thinks that Jesus and Satan are brothers and “Spirit Children” of God?

    What’s worse.. The Muslim, The Mormon or The Woman? Sounds like the beginning of a joke, not United States of America Presidential candidates.

  7. CWD – No, can’t say that I like that (and for the record, I am not leaning toward Romney at this point).

    I will say this, though: As a Christian, I can’t just pick the “best Christian” and give them my vote. I learned that with Bush. He was kind of a disappointment to me. Granted, I wouldn’t have voted for the democratic nominees, but I still think I have to be a little more responsible than to just base my decision on the spiritual preference of the candidate. Being a Christian doesn’t make you a good presidential candidate, but it’s nice to have.

    What else is worse: The Hick, The Actor or the Odd-Jawed Navyman?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s