Ok, this is bound to
ruffle a few feathers,
but I'm going out on
a limb here and make some
predictions about
the New Hampshire Primary.

Mitt Romney's campaign
is on life support.

Why?

Because Romney comes off
as a stiff, like Frankenstein.

He represents Big Money
and people don't like him.

Rudy Guiliani won't
make a strong showing.

Running on his 9/11
record won't help him
much.

Voters need more than that.

Also, voters don't
like him for various
reasons such as keeping
a mistress on taxpayers
money.

John McCain's campaign
is ascendant in New Hampshire,
voters and the press like
him and here he will probably
deliver for the Republicans.

Mike Huckabee, though he
won Iowa, won't win
New Hampshire.

Why?

Because there were more
religious fundamentalist
in Iowa than in New Hampshire,
so the cult of personality he
had there won't help
him a lot here.

However, he could still make
a strong showing because
I think people basically
like him.

Fred Thompson barely registers
a pulse. I predict New Hampshire
will be his last caucus state
and that he will shortly drop
out of the race.

Ron Paul's only chance of staying
in the Presidential race is to
drop out of the Republican
race and run on an Independent
ticket.

As an Independent he could
be a spoiler.

On the Democrat side
Hillary Clinton will
not win in New Hampshire.

It's mainly because
of the baggage she
carries and that
baggage is named
Bill.

That steely exterior
is starting to crack.

Not a good sign.

Voters in New Hampshire
(and other places)
want change and not
more of the same
despite how she
tries to spin it.

Barack Obama will
win New Hampshire
for the Democrats.

He is intelligent,
communicates well
with voters and
has that 'cult
of personality'.

John Edwards.

Hard to predict.

He'll do better
than Hillary but
not as good as
Obama.

My vote's on Huckabee.

McCain by a ton.
As for Democrats, I think there are a lot of Edwards supporters who were afraid to come out and support him until he had more widespread support. But after Iowa, they see that he's actually in the race. I still predict Obama takes it, but by a razor thin margin over Edwards

Fair comment

Freedom of choice.

That's what it's all about.

Funny thing about
predictions, you can
always be wrong.

But I think at least
some of them will come
to pass.

Ok, I was wrong
about Obama,
Hillary and
John Edwards.

Who knew?

But I was
right about
McCain.

All bets are
off in this race,
though I think
it's more likely
than ever that
a Presidential
candidate could
win by default.

This is known
as the Perot
effect.

In 1992 Ross Perot,
a businessman from
Texas, made an
attempt at the
presidency as a
third party candidate.

He received 19% of the
popular vote and is blamed,
or thanked, for allowing
Bill Clinton to become
President. (Source: Newsvine.com)

Let's say,
just for the
sake of argument,
that Ron Paul
decided to run
as an Independent.

If enough
people voted for
him, (maybe
Independents
and disaffected
Republicans or
Democrats),
it could draw
away votes from
Republican and/or
Democratic candidates,
leading to a win for
the other party.

A shrewd party
strategist
might find a
way to tap
into this
disaffection
in order to
draw away
votes from
the other side.

Sounds evil,
but politics
is that way.

Before that
happens, some
of the candidates
will drop out
of the race
because either
their money has
run out, or
the party nominee
has been decided.

Any thoughts?

That's entirely true, and that's why America needs to switch to a run-off election style, rather than first past the post. The Iowa Caucuses already use a similar type approach, weeding out candidates with little or no support in an effort to get people to cast their vote for a candidate who actually has a shot at winning. If you take the cumulation of the small percentage votes for Kucinich, Richardson, etc. and assumed (unrealistically, but hypothetically) that these people would have voted for Obama if it were a 2 person race, then The overall result may have been different.