I doubt they would vote Democrat so that means they will vote Libertarian. Maybe losing an election will make the GOP pull it’s head out of its ***.

Troy – As for Ron Paul-sure, he will probably be there; but as a major, viable, nationwide option, he’ll most likely be on the outside looking in. But kudos to the effort of making it more than just a 1 election flash in the pan.

We could do this for each candidate:
Clickability – Ron Paul’s e-army
Slickability – Clintons
Hickability – Mike Huckabee

Since she IS a Clinton, should the correct terminology be “SLICKABILITY”

You didn’t say Paul was dropping out so that means your last sentence should read:

“By mid-Feb, we’re down to McCain, Huck or Romney, Paul and possibly Guliani”

Even if Paul is single digits through the entire process Paul is going to stick it out. He may not effect the party this year (although I think he already has) but will in the long haul. I think Paul is the Goldwater of this generation. I feel you’ll have a real Constitutionalist winning the nomination by 2020.

(Shout out to RobA for correctly spelling likability!)

I think the people who stand to gain the most out of this Super Tuesday idea is the media. They become more powerful by their ability to deliver the messages to the masses in lieu of personal politicking by the candidates in each state. They can shape, define, or package a presentation in any way they see fit. And it’s been shown that the media is skewed well into the liberal end of the political arena when compared to the general population. So the candidates are relying on people with a transparent agenda who can influence heavily the campaign based on their own biases and prejudices. I frankly think that now the McCain is out in front, the media is not going to hound him like they did Huck or ROmney.

I’d much rather have an electoral process where the candidates, like it or not, have to run a marathon of meet/greet throughout the maximum # of states possible to ensure a process decided by people, not pollsters.

My calls:
MI – Romney, McCain, Huck
NV – Guliani, McCain, Romney
SC-Huck, McCain, Romney
FL-Guliani, McCain, Huck

Dropouts:
After SC – Fred Thompson
After FL – Guliani (if he does not win any state by then)
After Super Tuesday – Romney or Huckabee

By mid-Feb, we’re down to McCain, Huck or Romney, and possibly Guliani.

That said, I haven’t been right yet:)

Does anyone else want to see Mitt pack it up? Yes he’s got a great resume. Yes he says some of the right things. But there’s a major likability issue there. Fair or not, I have a bad feeling about Mitt in the general. McCain was probably my 4th choice out of the field, but I’m really starting to think he’s the only guy who can win. Is that because the media told me so? Perhaps. But when so many signs point to it being a Dem year, I really hate taking any chances.

You are forgiven Eddio.

As far as a spell checker, what kind of web browser do you use? Download Firefox, it has a built-in spell check!

Oooppss….. :-O

Lickability?

Eddio, what kind of disturbing Freudian slip was that?!?

In fact, we’ve seen how She Who Must be Voted For’s lickability has sunk AFTER some people have spent more time with her. With slick PR as the only touchstone, she could come across as sweet and kind as Princess Di. But then she opens her mouth, and people like my wife just curl her lips and twist her head in a “that’s worse than fingernails on a chalkboard” kind of way.

I think the election process should be initially weighted to some of the smaller states simply because they’re irrelevant after the big 5 (NY, CA, FL, IL, TX) weigh in. But they should also not hold the rest of the country hostage with unusual, bizarre issues. For example, I can’t stand all the ethanol pandering simply because that’s what will get the Iowa vote. So maybe rotate the small states regionally to keep it level. Then bring in the larger states as the stakes get raised. And please, let’s not have an all-in-one day where 25+ states all weigh in. I think it just allows for greater potential error on many parts.

My suggestion is a rotating schedule, giving NH and Iowa one last go in 2012, but from then on the first two states, one week apart and before the others, are determined by random draw.

If Mitt finishes second in EVERY primary – and different challangers come in first in different states – he wins the nomination!

Romney is the only candidate whose candidacy isn’t contingent on fundraising and first place bumps – and if he says he’s in it for the long haul until Feb. 5 – he is. Nobody on his campaign is working without pay, or deferring bills until cash comes in – can other ‘successful’ campaigns say that?

Don’t buy into the MSM do-or-die crap.

That said, if Romney wins tomorrow, he’s right back in the race, so I’m certainly not counting him out yet.

This year; anything can happen.

I think the guys who are in worse shape right now are Thompson and Guliani. Thompson because his campaign is generating the equivalent wattage of a 9v battery that’s about to become trash (or recycling material). He NEEDS to win in SC just to stay in the game. If he loses by some margin, I think he’s done.
Guliani also, because his FLA only strategy is basically making him irrelevant. I can understand avoiding a certain state to concentrate on others (like avoid IA and focus on NH and MI and SC), but to avoid IA AND NH AND MI AND SC just to focus on FLA is plain silly and amatuerish (at the electoral level).

Gee, maybe there was a reason why all the other candidates went to those states, even if they were not going to win the final tally. It’s called staying relevant…