Reply
Wed 28 Jan, 2004 07:00 pm
He came in at about 1,000 votes (when I fell asleep -- did not see final figures) behind Clark.
Clark dedicated himself to NH and spent no time in Iowa.
It seems to me when you put Edwards in Iowa, he actually got better results than Clark.
your reasoning reminds me of a joke.
The reason Reagan won in his first term was because he ran against carter. if he would have run unopposed he would have lost.
Clark wasnt even in iowa.
Because he didn't rocket to the top as Kerry did.
The only things that surprised me in NH was just how badly Kerry whipped Dean and how poorly Clark did. Oh and how Lieberman is still optimistic.
Farmerman,
That is the point: Clark was pushing 100% in NH and barely surpassed Edwards. Edwards did almost as well and gave most of his time to Iowa.
BTW, I lived in NH in 1976. I, like many NewHampshirites, registered as an independent and then declared a party as I entered the polling place. Since I had long considered Reagan evil, I registered as a Republican in order to cast a vote "for" another Republican, that is, AGAINST Reagan.
The result was as I hoped. Losing by about 1,000 votes (I knew another woman who did the same thing), Reagan withdrew. Spit! Have I been sorry! Had I not voted against Reagan maybe, and I admit that it is a maybe, he would have captured the Republican nomination and lost the election, to disappear from the political scene. Then there would have been no bushes!
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace