Posted on 01/31/2008 2:09:25 PM PST by Jim Robinson
Some of that perhaps. But I think the main factor was the order of states holding primaries. The early ones were in more liberal states, except for South Carolina, which wasn't all that early. This meant that "moderates" were more likely to receive support. It means something else too. The Republicans who do live in those states are a smaller fraction of the overall voter population than the nationwide average. But the delegates are apportioned by House Districts (mostly and not all of them). This means that each delegate elected from those states represents fewer, more liberal, Republicans than one one from deep Red states.
Even on the Dem side, the fact that the early states are more liberal drives the Dem candidates in that direction and gives an advantage to the more liberal candidates, like B. Hussein Obama.
I still haven't had a chance to vote, next Wednesday will be the earliest possible opportunity for early voting in Texas. But in the Presidential race, there is no one I want to vote for, and I'd want to vote against all of those "still standing". I'll probably vote for my first choice, since he's probably still on the ballot, but will consider voting for Huckabee in hopes of causing a brokered convention. I'm afraid that hope is essentially gone now that Romney has released his delegates and urged them to vote for McInsane.
Jim, It is nice to find myself in agreement with you.
Texas primary bump.
bttt
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.