Tuesday, January 10, 2012

The LuLac Edition #1894, January 10th, 2012

New Hampshire primary promotional card.


Today voters in New Hampshire will go to the polls and pick a candidate. Since 1920, New Hampshire has always been the first primary state. The interesting thing about New Hampshire is that voters are pretty much unpredictable. They don’t want to be put in a box or known as predictable. Plus an important component of New Hampshire is the fact that perception sometimes is more important than reality. If you are perceived as a winner, even though you don’t win in real numbers, then you win. Here are a few examples:
1968: Minnesota Senator and anti war candidate Gene McCarthy got 42% of the vote. Lyndon Johnson got 48% but all anybody talked about was how close McCarthy came. Within weeks, Johnson dropped out of the race.
1972: Maine Senator Edmund Muskie got under 49% of the vote. But prior to the election, his campaign manager said “she’d eat her hat if Muskie didn’t get over 50% of the vote.” George McGovern came in at 39% but because his was an unanticipated number, and Muskie’s people over promised, McGovern got the buzz.
1992: On the Republican side President George Bush won the primary but his opponent Pat Buchanan polled so well (he nearly hot 40%) that people assumed Bush lost. But the media buzz was how the GOP right was angry at Bush.
1992: On the Democratic side, Paul Tsongas won the primary. A one term former Senator from Massachusetts he was the assumed winner. So when Bill Clinton finished second at 24% and kept on calling himself “The Comeback Kid" even after allegations about an affair with a hairdresser, people thought Clinton was the big winner.
This year the GOP primary field is Mitt Romney vs the rest of the world. Romney is way ahead in the polling and has not done enough to lower any expectations of a good finish. But if he polls under 40% and someone like Jon Huntsman or Rick Santorum hits the mid 20s, look for more Stop Romney talk to ensue.
I'm thinking you'll see Romney first, Huntsman second hitting the mid 20s and Gingrich and Santorum in the mid teens fighting for third. However, Paul may trump both of them for third.
New Hampshire is an entity unto themselves. It is a better predictor than Iowa and is rich in history. The overlying theme for the state is this: expect the unexpected. And if the expected does happen, someone will color it as being unexpected. I know it sounds crazy and confusing but that is New Hampshire and its role in Presidential politics.


At 10:24 AM, Anonymous Professor Milburn Cleaver, OPA said...

Another fine paper by Mr. Yonki!

You would do well to follow his example.
THere is one discrepancy in his column, however. One of the main reasons that Sen. Muskie fared so unexpectedly low in New Hampshire during the 1972 primary was his knee jerk reaction to a critical article in the Union Leader.
Publisher Wm. Loeb wrote some scathing words pertaining to Mr. Muskie's wife. Whether this was right or wrong is debateable. What is NOT debateable is Muskie's reaction to it.
Muskie's campaign propped a stage in front of the Union LEader building and he spoke to a crowd in a falling snow where he proceeded to lambast Mr. Loeb and then in closing began to cry like a little baby.
IN other words, Mr. Muskie proved his lack of leadership in the face of a crisis.
Any political scientist worth his salt will tell you that a candidate who cries will never be elected President of the US.
So much for John Boehner (you may laugh, youngsters--even an old fogie like me can poke fun at some conservatives).
New Hampshire is not as important in Republican politics as it used to be.
The states to watch, class, will be South Carolina and Florida. I am confident that Mr. Romney will prevail in both.
Let us conclude that despite the noise heard from the liberal press claiming otherwise, that the race for both nominations is over and the candidates are Obama/ROmney.
Let us equally conclude that come November the American people will by the magic of our ballot box vote for Mitt Romney and common sense economics to return to DC.
Four years ago I warned the class that the youth of today are a fickle group at best. Today's pop star is tomorrow's has been and let me state that it is NOW tomorrow and Mr. Obama is a has been pop star. I am willing to bet a curve on your exams that most of you will not be found in a voting booth next election day, but sleeping off the last evening's hangover.
You are fortunate to be alive at a time when a real leader shall take the helm in Washington and cut the fat from government. The welfare state shall become a thing of the past. Students who attend college will do so on ability, both academic and financial---the way it was when this nation was great. Health care will be dependent on an individual's ability to live a healthy lifestyle and the ability to save money in order to finance a health crisis.
Face it, the age of the slacker is coming to an end.
The age of good old American ingenuity, spirit and morality are returning.
We shall all be the better for it.
Something to think about this morning.
Class DIsmissed!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

At 3:06 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ah, the self proclaimed professor seems to have highjacked the Lulac Letter! lets call it the Prolac Letter from now on. Enough is enough and as previously stated its not the content, its the attitude. Class dismissed, my ass!

the Dean

At 5:28 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Enough is enough and as previously stated its not the content, its the attitude. Class dismissed, my ass!"


His content, your attitude. That's all ya got: attitude complaining about attitude. Up your game and present a reasonable alternative. because if this is all ya got Dean, you're a poser.

Make your case Jase.


Post a Comment

<< Home