Posted on 01/24/2015 6:14:45 AM PST by libstripper
If Hillary does in fact raise the sums of money recently reported, I think Hillary will conduct a form of the “Rose Garden” campaign. Hillary is not likable and is gaffe prone. Hillary will restrict her public appearances as much as possible and rely on minutely controlled TV commercials where cameras and makeup can provide her a more youthful appearance. TV commercials can also avoid hecklers.
You started the condescension dude...so physician, heal thyself.
And I never said skipping Iowa was a good idea. But Rudy skipped the real bellweather state, SC. SC is a far better predictor of ultimate success. When the nominee is the guy who wins SC, the GOP wins. When it’s not, they lose. You cannot say the same thing about Iowa or NH. I think it’s true of Georgia too, but it’s later in the process and not as important as SC.
you really manage to be too obtuse to comprehend...so I’m gonna type REEEAAALLLLL SLOOOOOOOOW so you might, maybe, can follow.
I NEVER said winning SC guaranteed anything as far as the nomination...NOW WAIT...before you get confused, listen, learn: when the nominee IS the winner of SC, we almost always win the General- McCain was a rare exception - but a bit of an outlier since he won SC largely on the military vote not really examining the man, just voting the veteran thing.
BUT BUT BUT wait, this is KEYT. When the winner of SC is NOT the nominee, like 2012, we NEVER EVER WIN.
Now Newt’s problem was not that SC didn’t “do squat” for him - it’s that he abandoned his SC message in Florida, and got beat and went downhill from there. But here’s the key: and why you might not want to try this at home — after Newt won SC, the entire GOP establishment, including the Mitt Campaign, the Mitt Super PAC, the Wall St Journal and Fox News, threw a collective effen hissy fit attacking Newt.
SC did so much for him that 99% of Mitt’s Florida campaign ads were ANTI NEWT specifically. Not pro Mitt, not anti Obama, but anti Newt. Without the extraordinary deep pockets of team Mitt and the amateurish team Newt had, it might have been a very very different outcome.
BOTTOM LINE: if you do not win SC, you cannot be President. The same CANNOT be said of Iowa and NH, and quite often, SC rejects winners from Iowa and NH.
The sample size is WAY to small to generalize from. Since 1980 (the SC primary was a caucus before then), only ‘80, ‘96, ‘00, ‘08 and ‘12 had a contested primary (no incumbent or overwhelming favorite), a sample of five. Of course, George H.W. Bush won in ‘92 and Dole won big in ‘96, and it wasn’t a harbinger for the election either time.
Even with your revamped rule, it is just plain wrong.
Since you continue to increase your condescension, rebut things that were never stated, consider my stating “Not true” as being condescending in the same manner as your “Keep up people” and “I’ll go real SLOW for you” (odd for a fellow who hadn’t carefully read the earlier posts); perhaps you should learn to take correction and admit when you are wrong.
Iowa is important, New Hampshire is important, South Carolina is important. No one of them makes or breaks a candidate in the primaries or the general election. Making generalizations from the small samples provided by past primaries is not the most accurate way to analyze the future results.
I’m not here to make friends - nor change the mind of who I am debating - I am here to impact other readers and to make a point. I happen despise conventional wisdom, and realize that it is quite often wrong, especially when it starts inside the beltway. You live in it.
Like the importance of Iowa. I submit it’s only important when it’s going on because people think it is. It’s sort of a liberal state, dependent cronyism with ethanol and the like. Therefore, it’s a great test for Democrats.
The GOP caucus population is TEENY TINY and a bunch of oddballs. How tiny? Newt’s margin of victory in SC, not a big state, was more than all votes cast in Iowa combined. And Newt’s total in SC only was way more than all votes in Iowa and NH combined. I would think someone hung up on sample sizes would realize that, and how this speaks to the ability to win a national campaign. Spending 99 straight weeks in Iowa and then barely winning the caucus because everyone was attacking Mitt and Newt - the way Santorum did - shows how farcical Iowa is as a Republican predictor of anything significant. It is not.
Ill vote Cruz whether he is nominated or not. He is our only hope.
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.