Analyze...Tuesday

My brother thinks that my involvement in government (albeit local) qualifies me to comment on elections. Or maybe it was the prestigious institution I attended. Regardless, I'd hate to let him down.

I had a great theory going on the Democrat side, but then realized neither he nor many of the readers of this blog would be voting Democrat, so that may be a pointless effort. Another time.

As for Republicans, I think it's clear to see that Huckabee will show strong where he has a strong base. He had very little presence in New Hampshire - placed a lot of grass-roots effort in Iowa - a place where you can get the midwest folks to show up and support you. As for NH, Huckabee's message really doesn't jive with a Northeast populace. If they want more government, they're probably voting Democrat. If they want a Republican, they don't mind if he's moderate, but they want him to be genuine, experienced, and balanced. McCain offers that, I think. It'd be hard for a Southern Baptist preacher to carry any New England state.

I'm a little curious myself about how proximity to Massachusetts affected the vote for/against Romney. The southeastern portion of NH went for Romney - which is the outer suburbs of Boston. But that proximity didn't translate through the rest of the state (perhaps they saw Romney in action and didn't want any part of it?).

Of note - the good isolationist Ron Paul pulled a whopping 8% - a respectable 5th for the Texan. Fred Thompson shouldn't have wasted his time - oh wait, did he even visit NH ?

What does this mean for Michigan, Nevada, South Carolina? Since the pollsters are wrong anyway, I'll take my shot:

Michigan - McCain, Romney, Huckabee (but will go D in the general election)
Nevada - McCain (proximity to AZ) big - at least 40% - the rest split between Romney, Huck, Thompson, Giuliani and Paul
South Carolina - Huckabee, Thompson, McCain, Romney [As for me, if I lived in SC, I'd vote Colbert!!]

Super Tuesday will definitely live up to its name!