Which party's primaries are you following more?

[Napoleon]

There is an actual race this year in both major parties. This isn't the year of the coronation, but rather of the well funded campaigns. So that being said-Which party's primaries & caucuses are you following more closely?

Why?

 

[pantone159]

I am actually following the Republican primary more closely, which is odd because I have a 0% chance of voting for their nominee, and a 100% chance of voting against him.

Why?
1 - It is more entertaining as a spectator sport.
2 - I've made up my mind regarding my vote, I will vote against HRC, I see her as the establishment candidate, way too much like Bush.
3 - My biggest interest overall, actually, is that I want to see my least favorite in the whole field go down, that would be Rudy, who would be a catastrophe as President.

 

[Praise of Folly]

No comment. Other than to say that I live in Texas so it don't mean ___ to me. It's not like my vote matters.

 

[triplehorn]

For this Michigan primary, I was curious to see how the plot hatched by dKos for a Romney win would unfold. I'd respond to washparkhorn's link to it in that thread, but alas I can't find it (deleted by poster?).
Funny thing is, wouldn't you know it, Mitt wins Michigan.

So was it Republicans who chose Mitt, or Dem kossacks ?

Mittmentum !

.

 

[triplehorn]

Regarding your OP, I'm following all of this closer than I ever have. I've never talked about this stuff with co-workers and peers before like I am today. I'm following both parties with an ear to how the MSM and DC establishment reacts to what happens. I'm actually enjoying it.

Huckabee made me laugh just now on FoXNews commenting on Fred Thompson nudging past Giuliani leaving him in last place in the Michigan primary: "I was glad to see some life in him."

grampa fred's still kickin', I guess.

.

 

[SomeMildLanguage]

Mitt winning Michigan had nothing to do with weirdo lefty internet denizens.

 

[triplehorn]

SML- don't bother convincing the folks otherwise. But they do give credit to the people who did keep Mitt going:

In reply to:

---

---

 

[zork]

I thought you Dems were big on intelligence? Mitt clearly has the best track record of any of the candidates. Whether that can overcome the perceived Morman/Catholic issue remains to be seen. McCain is a non-starter Dole like retread.

At least Mitt will be able to win the debates. If Guiliani doesn't wake up then Mitt is the best ticket but probably the bridesmaid to the first woman president in the history of the US.

Maybe Hillary won't be so bad?

BTW, 1st or 2nd in the first four primaries for Mitt. hmmm.

 

[Wulaw Horn]

I don't know why you dems would want Mitt going through- I think he could actually have a chance to beat HIllary. I don't think he'll come off as nearly as unlikable as her, and he's been a governor of a really liberal state.

He won't scare pro choice soccer mom type women I don't think- who will probably vote 60+ percent for Hillary anyway, but he could keep them from defecting like 75+ if say Huckabee won the nomination.

I think Mitt would end up being a fine candidate, as far as that goes. Telegenic, moderate, successful financially etc.

I don't want him to be the candidate, I'd rather see a real conservative, but if I was a daily kos kook I'd want Ron Paul or Huckabee or someone like that nominated, that probably has little to no chance of winning in the general.

 

[triplehorn]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[Wulaw Horn]

yeah but why not work to nominate a nut job like Ron Paul that has no chance?

Romney might be the most electable candidate in the entire field for the Republicans, I fail to see how voting for him is doing the R's some sort of blow in a guerilla campaign.

 

[triplehorn]

kos explains it better than I can with historical examples. Nothing earthshattering, and I can see how it could be easily dismissed. That said, by whatever means the desired outcome actually occurred in Michigan:


Let's have some fun in Michigan

and hat tip to washpark who found this link at the dKos site first.

.