Wednesday, January 16, 2008

Still No Clear Winner

"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it." ~ George Bernard Shaw

Three primaries. Three different winners. What does this all prove?

Absolutely nothing.

On the Democrat side, Hillary looks to be gathering some momentum, however, she ran pretty much unopposed in Michigan, and still only garnered 54% of the vote. She will declare herself the big winner in Michigan, but the results are misleading.

The way I see it, she did poorly compared to her competition, which was Kucinich, Gravel, and undecided.

I try to put myself in the shoes of a Democrat voter and think, "Who do I vote for if Obama and Edwards are not on the ballot?" I can't think as Democrats do, so I can only surmise, but if I am trying to make a statement against Hillary, I would choose "undecided". If I am simply showing my support for the Democrats, I would vote for Hillary. So, nothing is proved by Hillary winning this primary.

For Republicans, was anyone really surprised that Romney won in a state where he was born and where his father was once the governor?

It is a hollow victory at best.

I'm sure it is heartening that Fred Thompson fared as well as he did, considering he wasn't even running in the Michigan primary. The same goes for Guiliani.

I wonder though, how their decision to skip this particular primary will effect them in the general election should Fred or Rudy win the eventual nomination. Are people generally thin skinned enough to take umbrage at the fact that their state was considered not important enough for Fred and Rudy's campaign?

So, after the smoke has cleared, what have we learned? Is there yet a clear front runner?

Maybe I'm just cynical, but I just don't see any point in holding state primaries.


Jenn of the Jungle said...

There is a lot of hullaballo that somehow the Dems all voted for Romney to stir things up.

Parklife said...

haha.. the Republicans cant hate Mitt that much. Where is the love for the big guy?

Cameron said...

It seems like this is turning into a "be careful what you ask for" situation. Everyone has complained that the early primaries like Iowa and New Hampshire get too much say in who the nominees will be, but when the current wide open field takes away the importance of those early states, everyobody freaks out. I don't see the problem in not having a clear cut "winner" yet. And I don't get why the Republicans are taking heat for not being locked in to a candidate yet, when the Democrats are pretty much in the same boat.

It'd be interesting if Romney and Clinton are the nominees, since they are apparently the two most disliked candidates in their respective parties.

Trader Rick said...

The difference is, we can learn to like Romney, but once you hate Hillary, it's for life...

Marie's Two Cents said...

What happened to Duncan Hunter?

I havent heard anything about him dropping out of the race.

Did he?

Anonymous said...

Yeah, what did happen to Duncan Hunter. Didn't Jenn pick him as her winner?