Does anyone remember this major? The 1986 U S Open was played at Shinnecock Hills in tough conditions. At one point in the final round, 9 golfers were tied for the lead. (The nine included eventual winner Ray Floyd, Greg Norman, Chip Beck, Mark McCumber, Lee Trevino, Lanny Wadkins, Payne Stewart,Hal Sutton, and Ben Crenshaw).
Well, I logged on Monday morning and saw this on drudge:
"Rasmussen: National Numbers for the GOP Primary:
McCain 17%
Huckabee 16%
Romney 16%
Giuliani 15%
Thompson 12%"
I have no idea who is going to emerge. I think you could put together a plausible scenario for anyone here - with maybe the exception of Thompson - to burst out of the pack with three birdies/states and win the nomination.
it's amazing....about this time, right before Iowa and NH, you have a pretty good idea of who the two or three "serious" candidates are that are actually fighting for the nomination. I think at least 4 -and maybe 5 (Fred) - can win and more importantly seriously believe themselves that they can win.
On the Democratic side, it's more of a traditional Masters fight. Tiger (Hillary) leads by 1 over Mickelson (Obama) as we head for the turn, with Els (Edwards) 3 back and no one else within 6. Edwards can win, but he better get some birdies quick. A convincing win in Iowa will help.
Everyone in the media is talking about Hillary v Obama, Obama v Hillary - but this Republican race is fascinating from a horse race standpoint. I don't ever recall seeing - or reading ! - anything this wide open. Is the ultimate politican junkie's wet dream of a smoke-filled backroom nomination in the future?
5 comments:
I think it would be really fun if the Republicans caucused like the Dems this year. You could have 2-3 of the top candidates not getting over 15% of the votes and would have to swing towards a second choice! How confusing would that be?? On the democrat side, I still think Hillary comes out on top because of this second choice format. I believe she'll take the majority of the Biden and Richardson votes in the second round. Obama will get Kuchinich, but he's in the 1% range and I don't think that will tip the scales. Should be exciting!
However...I still can't figure why the Iowa caucuses get so much weight. It's only about 100K people from the middle of nowhere (sorry Eric) in a public (aka not secret) vote-why should this venue have so much importance? Even NH and SC fail to be representative. Why does anyone even pay attention to this stuff until we get to states like Florida, Ohio and Michigan?
And Eric-I'm still waiting for your in-depth analysis of the candidates... You've only got 2 days...
Go Biden! :)
Well, you are not getting the indepth analysis of all the candidates by tomorrow....:)
A couple of things:
1)I'm not convinced Hillary comes out on top in the second-choice thing. Kucinch has already stated that he wants his supporters to back Obama.
I guess the key question is what do Richardson/Biden/Dodd supporters do, if we assume the big 3 (Hillary, Obama and Edwards) make it? Hmmm....those 3 are certainly not candidates for change...and may back Hillary. Maybe you are right.
2) And more importantly....
I'm a big time supporter of this process. This is the only way people can meet the candidates up close and actually listen to them.
You don't like the caucus? Fine, we can do away with that.
You don't like IA or NH or SC? Ok then, we can rotate..(but the people in the first two states take their decision VERy seriously).
We need to start this process at a small scale. The only way we have this face-toface campaigning is to have the first few states:
- be small (no megamarkets)
- be separated timewise from the pack (about 2-3 weeks, which is good)
- and have the state population be willing to do this.
If you agree to these criteria - which I think are a must! - then what other state qualifies and would BETTER represent the US?
It's hard. Off the top of my head, I can think of Indiana and maybe Nevada. Oregon? Possibly.
YOU DO NOT WANT CANDIDATES chosen by a pure-TV driven campaign, where personal appearances are not values. States like Md, CA, and even OH can be run by the media.
You need these candidates meeting actaul folks in high school gyms, with BOTH SIDES realizing that every vote counts.
This is good and healthy.
And people inthese states know more about the issues and caindidates than 95% of the people in Florida, Ohio and Michigan.
I tend to trust your judgement on the caucus process since you lived there, but I have trouble understanding how a ~6% slice of the Iowan pie can be considered representative of the country. From what I've read, the nature of the caucuses restricts most of the sick/disabled, night shift workers, parents, and overseas military.
No absentee votes! 7pm sharp!
Also, not many minorities in Iowa. Lots of focus on corn, though. And should I really trust the outcome of a vote that can resort to a coin flip to break a tie?!?
The process is really starting to look outdated in this digital age and is getting horrible press. How about a virtual caucus where residents can log in (anonymously) online with a unique ID?
I like the idea of a rotating primary. Why shouldn't Maryland have a chance to actually have their primary vote count for a change? Media influence or not, I'm sure that I'd be pretty informed if I had a chance to listen to all the candidates personally.
The best plan I've heard is to split the country into 4 groups made up of equally urban/rural, red/blue, coastal/plains states and then rotate which group gets the first vote each election. Make the first primary much later (mid-late Feb) and space out the votes by at least 2 weeks--maybe 2 states to open up, then 2-4 states 2 weeks later, then maybe 4 states 2 weeks later and then move on to the next group.
And also, ANY candidate on the Democratic side is a candidate for change. Major major change.
"And also, ANY candidate on the Democratic side is a candidate for change. Major major change."
I don't think I was clear in my statement about candidates for change. I was referring to the second tier - Richardson/Biden/Dodd. Those candidates can not be seen as agents of mass change.
(Richardson: Clinton crony
Biden/Dodd: 60 years combined in the US Senate)
Supporters of those three would most certainly fall behind the most status quo of the "Big 3", Hillary.
Hillary has been in Washington for 16 years now. How anyone can say that she will bring major, major cahnge is fooling themselves.
Obama? Edwards? Sure.
More points:
"Also, not many minorities in Iowa. Lots of focus on corn, though.".
Seriously - are you saying minorities based on skin-color are more important than farmers? Farmers are a minority in this nation. Pandering to farmers = pandering to other minorities, no?
" And should I really trust the outcome of a vote that can resort to a coin flip to break a tie?!?"
It worked for Romeo Crennel..... :) ... oh wait, Frye won the flip....
And I'm ok withthe idea of a caucus. This is not an election where any voter should join in. This is a party function. The Democratic party (and Republican party) is deciding - between themselves - who they should nominate. Party leaders, members, and activists should debate who best should represent their party. Why should residents (who are independents) have a say? What vested interested do they have in the Democratic (or Republican) party?
Post a Comment