Is it better to lose early primaries and win later ones or win early ones and lose later ones?

[Proud2BAmurkin]

There are perception things like momentum that work for and against candidates, like we are seeing in NH with Obama. If the winner of early primaries starts losing later ones, how does that effect such things?


Food for thought. heh heh.

[Uncle Sinister]

1. Bill Clinton barely registered in the first few primaries...

Momentum is important, but delegate count is MORE important, and bigger states vote later

[Proud2BAmurkin]

8. so you're saying NH and IA Independents haven't picked our nominee yet?

Is that what you're implying?

[Uncle Sinister]

10. Shocking, isn't it?

It ain't over till Nevada weigh's in.

(does anyone live in Nevada who's eligible to vote?)

[Joe the Revelator]

11. SUCH a different situation though.....

1. Clinton didn't lose to the same opponent in both Iowa and NH
2. Clinton wasn't the national front runner going into the start of voting, he was a virtual unknown
3. The primarys were much futher spread apart, allowing a candidate who stumbled, to gain traction with time.

[dailykoff]

2. Much better to lose 'em all

and make a complete clown of yourself in the process. And that's free advice to any lurkers.

[mikelgb]

3. one in hand

two in bush?

[liberal N proud]

4. What matters is the number of delegates you win

When you win them is not important just that you have enough.
Of course the media will run off anyone who is not winning the early primaries as they are the "decider's" LOL

If Democracy was to truly work and we could as the people select our candidates, all the candidates would be publicly funded equal amounts (no private donations) and they would all stay in the race through to the convention unless one candidate won the nomination prior to that by getting the minimum delegates through the primaries.

But we live in a pseudo democracy where the corporations determine who we get to campaign for and vote for in November.

[ccpup]

5. yes, there is a momentum thing with the winning of earlier primaries

but there's also a lot of time left over for the candidate to "stumble" and lose their "momentum" (a favorite storyline -- a Campaign Imploding or in Disarray -- of the media).

And it's a very hard road to lose the first contests and then work like hell to win the later contests, but it can be done (giving the media their other favorite storyline, the "comeback").

At the end of the day, what counts is the number of delegates one has in the bag at Convention Time. Whether they come from early States or later States, I don't think the candidate cares. You just gotta hit that majority number and you're good to go.

The end is nowhere in sight and we have until at least late-Spring before we know who's gonna be what.

[The_Casual_Observer]

6. According to MSNBC there are only two primaries. Iowa & NH

after that it's all over. So the rest are basically unnecessary.

[stillcool]

7. Just accessories...

window dressing.

[PassingFair]

9. According to the people who make the decisions in Michigan...

if you don't go first, your votes don't count AT ALL.

:freak: :puke: