|
I'm aware of New Hampshire and the significance the state has to picking a candidate for President, but that is not what I was challenging in my post.
The "uncanny history" IMHO has to do with momentum more than any kind of foresight. If a different state had a primary on that early date, I'm sure it would have a similar record as NH. I think it is the enormous publicity garnered by a New Hampshire win, that tends to cause many people elsewhere to take note and decide to back the "winner", which in turn keeps the snowball rolling to the end of the primaries. Who wants to vote for a "loser"? Now if it happens to be that one candidate in Iowa is chosen and a different one is picked in New Hampshire, there may be a different outcome.
In the last election, I recall that the better man was chosen in NH, Senator McCain and unfortunatelty he was not the Rebublican nominee. It makes me wonder if the RNC favored Bush over him and squashed McCain's chances. How could a War Hero loose to pampered rich boy? I do not know, I tend to not follow Republican politics too closely.
To reaffirm, what I posted, I do not agree with khazadman's assessment that because Bush would win against Dean in New Hampshire that it predicts the outcome of the election in '04 (though he has a right to say so and I respect that right). The ability to pick a Presidential Primary Candidate does not IMO translate into choosing the Commander in Chief. If it were so, we would be discussing a McCain vs, Dean, Clark, Gephardt, Edwards, Kerry, Moseley Braun, Sharpton, or Kucinich race.
Mark
|