• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Who Do You Think Will Win New Hampshire?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Who Do You Think Will Win New Hampshire?

  • Romney

  • not Romney

Results are only viewable after voting.
loki8481 said:
Christie would be a terrible pick all-around.

he's got personality, but that would only serve to highlight Romney's lack thereof.

I couldn't see him carrying NJ or bringing many independents over to the GOP.

Romney/Perry makes a lot of sense in my head, though.
Click to expand...

I would hope that Romney would be smart enough to not make the same mistake that McCain did.
 
I think the problem Romney has is that the nutty base of the Republicans is large, and while it's split among a number of competitors, as soon as it isn't he loses.

Polls have long shown that 'undecided and want a different candidate' are #1 ahead of any of these candidates, and the 'not Romeny' candidate has always beat Romney.

If Romney doesn't win over these voters, what does he do if suddenly there's one alternative - whether a Santorum or a Gingrich?
 
Craig234 said:
I think the problem Romney has is that the nutty base of the Republicans is large, and while it's split among a number of competitors, as soon as it isn't he loses.

Polls have long shown that 'undecided and want a different candidate' are #1 ahead of any of these candidates, and the 'not Romeny' candidate has always beat Romney.

If Romney doesn't win over these voters, what does he do if suddenly there's one alternative - whether a Santorum or a Gingrich?
Click to expand...

See 1984 presidential election, and replace Regan with Obama.
 
The current results:

Mitt Romney: 36%
Ron Paul: 25%
Jon Huntsman: 15%

with 6% reporting

lol 21 people voted for Michelle Bachmann.
 
And this is why I kept saying "iOwa doesn't matter"...
iOwa should NEVER be allowed to keep their 1st place slot.
#1. Their right wing fundies voters are totally out of touch with even their own party.
(In the past they voted both Hunkabee and Pat Roberson first place)
#2. iOwa republican voters are frickin nutz.
#3. The caucus system is totally frickin nuts.

If republicans want to be more competitive , drop iOwa.
iOwa should be down there in 25th place when it comes to having a say in the matter.
 
sportage said:
And this is why I kept saying "iOwa doesn't matter"...
iOwa should NEVER be allowed to keep their 1st place slot.
#1. Their right wing fundies voters are totally out of touch with even their own party.
(In the past they voted both Hunkabee and Pat Roberson first place)
#2. iOwa republican voters are frickin nutz.
#3. The caucus system is totally frickin nuts.

If republicans want to be more competitive , drop iOwa.
iOwa should be down there in 25th place when it comes to having a say in the matter.
Click to expand...

wtf does that mean? 😕

I agree with you, though... I couldn't tell you the last time the Iowa caucus nominated the best possible candidate from either party.

maybe when "uncommitted" won in 72/76 😉
 
loki8481 said:
wtf does that mean? 😕
Click to expand...
It means Sportage has a chip on his shoulder about Iowa, so he tosses out infantile insults every chance he gets. No idea what his problem is. Maybe got a speeding ticket on his way through here, or maybe he lost a girlfriend to a guy from Iowa. Whatever the case, he's consistently and completely unhinged whenever the state is mentioned.


I agree with you, though... I couldn't tell you the last time the Iowa caucus nominated the best possible candidate from either party.

maybe when "uncommitted" won in 72/76 😉
Click to expand...
Who was the "best possible candidate" the Republicans ran in Iowa? As Don Vito so elegantly put it, the Republican slate this year was the Island of Misfit Toys. You do realize Iowans aren't going to vote for Mr. Perfect if Mr. Perfect isn't running, right?
 
sportage said:
And this is why I kept saying "iOwa doesn't matter"...
iOwa should NEVER be allowed to keep their 1st place slot.
#1. Their right wing fundies voters are totally out of touch with even their own party.
(In the past they voted both Hunkabee and Pat Roberson first place)
#2. iOwa republican voters are frickin nutz.
#3. The caucus system is totally frickin nuts.

If republicans want to be more competitive , drop iOwa.
iOwa should be down there in 25th place when it comes to having a say in the matter.
Click to expand...

I have to laugh at this post considering this year Iowa single-handedly defeated Bachmann and I am proud as hell of it. The first caucuses and primaries serve as a filter to see who keeps getting the money. They may not decide the end result and I don't think that is their function.
 
xBiffx said:
I have to laugh at this post considering this year Iowa single-handedly defeated Bachmann and I am proud as hell of it. The first caucuses and primaries serve as a filter to see who keeps getting the money. They may not decide the end result and I don't think that is their function.
Click to expand...

I agree with Mr. Tannen on this one.





So long, Shelly...

michele-bachmann-corndog.jpg
 
xBiffx said:
I have to laugh at this post considering this year Iowa single-handedly defeated Bachmann and I am proud as hell of it. The first caucuses and primaries serve as a filter to see who keeps getting the money. They may not decide the end result and I don't think that is their function.
Click to expand...
Bachmann never had a chance, and the results probably wouldn't have been different unless the first primary was held in, like, Montana.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top