Lv 7
R J asked in Politics & GovernmentElections · 1 decade ago

Isn't it way too early to be figuring on a winner for the nominations?

I had heard that former President Clinton was 5th and came from behind and won. I do rememeber that John Kerry was not in the top and got the nod and just wondering where was George Bush when he first ran. Didn't know if he got it because of name or not. Know it was him and Sen. McCain.

Anyway just thinking it is too early and doesn't matter who wins the first deals or does history peg it different. Take care.


Strange about Ron Paul, nobody knows him according to the media and he barely registers. But i smell a rat as if no one knows him and no support how is he getting so much moola and suppport? Conversely on the domo side those poor guys have not much cash coming in. So is the right and left wing media biased. i know about polls and you can oick any area to get the rsults you want, but in this situation there is enough there to show SOMETHING is goning on.

Update 2:

I also find it ironic athat so many are agianst the man and say he has no chance. You don't see that type stuff on the demo side. Why even mention that. I just let people say what they want and if their candidate doesn't get the nod then why alienate them? Strange to me. Why do that.

Update 3:

As see as much holler about a lower tier republican candidate as i do about Hillery and Obama. Just does not make sense, why not knock the other top guys?

People will support who they want and they if the candidate they supoorted does not make it, hopefully they will support the ticket, but as I said there is no reason the make them mad. Hell who knows could be democratic ops. Seriously does not make sense.

10 Answers

  • 1 decade ago
    Best Answer

    I don't think it is too early to be watching the candidates. Historically, the winners of the earliest caucuses have also won the nominations. The Iowa caucus is known to be the most telling.

    Per Wikipedia, the Iowa follows with the national nomination highlighted by asterisk-


    January 19, 2004 - John Kerry* (38%) defeated John Edwards (32%), Howard Dean (18%), Richard Gephardt (11%) and Dennis Kucinich (1%)

    January 24, 2000 - Al Gore* (63%) defeated Bill Bradley (37%)

    February 12, 1996 - Bill Clinton* (unopposed)

    February 10, 1992 - Tom Harkin (76%) defeated "Uncommitted" (12%), Paul Tsongas (4%), Bill Clinton* (3%), Bob Kerrey (2%) and Jerry Brown (2%)

    February 8, 1988 - Richard Gephardt (31%) defeated Paul Simon (27%), Michael Dukakis* (22%) and Bruce Babbitt (6%)

    February 20, 1984 - Walter Mondale* (49%) defeated Gary Hart (17%), George McGovern (10%), Alan Cranston (7%), John Glenn (4%), Reubin Askew (3%) and Jesse Jackson (2%)

    January 21, 1980 - Jimmy Carter* (59%) defeated Ted Kennedy (31%)

    January 19, 1976 - "Uncommitted" (37%) defeated Jimmy Carter* (28%) Birch Bayh (13%), Fred R. Harris (10%), Morris Udall (6%), Sargent Shriver (3%) and Henry M. Jackson (1%)

    January 24, 1972 - "Uncommitted" (36%) and Edmund Muskie (36%) defeated George McGovern* (23%), Hubert Humphrey (2%), Eugene McCarthy (1%), Shirley Chisholm (1%) and Henry M. Jackson (1%) [3]


    2004- George W. Bush* (unopposed)

    2000- George W. Bush* (41%) defeated Steve Forbes (30%), Alan Keyes (14%), Gary Bauer (9%), John McCain (5%) and Orrin Hatch (1%)

    1996- Bob Dole* (26%) defeated Pat Buchanan (23%), Lamar Alexander (18%), Steve Forbes (10%), Phil Gramm (9%), Alan Keyes (7%), Richard Lugar (4%) and Morry Taylor (1%)

    1992- George H. W. Bush* (unopposed)

    1988- Bob Dole (37%) defeated Pat Robertson (25%), George H. W. Bush* (19%), Jack Kemp (11%) and Pete DuPont (7%)

    1984- Ronald Reagan* (unopposed)

    1980- George H. W. Bush (32%) defeated Ronald Reagan* (30%), Howard Baker (15%), John Connally (9%), Phil Crane (7%), John B. Anderson (4%) and Bob Dole (2%)

    1976- Gerald Ford* defeated Ronald Reagan

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    In some ways it seems like it is so far away but we have been dealing with GARBAGE for so long already. We won't actually know the nominees for several months. However we can know who will NOT be a nominee. I'll be glad with the primaries are over.

    Soon we can FINALLY stop hearing about how wonderful Ron Paul is, how he is our only hope to beat Hillary and other such nonsense!

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    It's still early.

    For the GOP, way too early but hopefully "Huckleberry" will fade since there is no way he can win in November.

    It is unlikely that the Democrats will have anyone other than "Hitlery" or "Barak Winfrey."

    I still think it will be Rudy v. Hillary with Rudy winning in November. It will be good WHEN the two nominees both loose in Iowa. It will put less importance on Iowa - like it should be!

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    While I agree with this point, I also think that anyone who believes Ron Paul has a chance is kidding himself. True, it is possible for someone at the back of the line to show up the front runners. Huckabee did it. But there is a difference between being in the back of the line, the back of the room, and standing in the parking lot behind the building wondering what time it is. Ron Paul is in the latter category. Sorry folks, you are backing a turkey. Next.

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    It is far to early, but the larger issue is the bias in the media. They have been claiming that there are only 5 real republican candidates who have a chance of winning. Huckabee, Romney, Giuliani, McCain and Thompson. What the media isn't going to tell you is that Ron Paul has won more straw polls than any of the other Republicans. In the third quarter he raised more money than McCain and so far he has raised over 18 million dollars in the fourth quarter. Ron Paul is for real change and the media is ignoring him in the hope that they can influence our elections.

  • 1 decade ago

    oh no its never too early, I have been watching hillery since before bill was elected!!!!!! I knew she was trouble back then and the more people know about her the better, we have to make decisions early on in life so they can be passed along especially for the good of the USA !!!!!!!! unless we want to live in a socialistic world, and I know I do not !!!!!!!

    Source(s): clinton chronicles
  • 1 decade ago

    Yes it is early, hope I am not fed up with it all and forget to vote.LOL. I feel America is just worn itself out the way things are going, the war, the ACLU the judges, The Shooting everywhere. the religious bashing home 's being repoed, all the racist slander, the border, and the list goes on and on, people that love America having to watch all our value's go down the drain, and they have finally grown tired of it and are ready to stand up and fight. maybe this is good. sometimes we let thing go too long, before we speak up. but we have found out in this world of dog eat dog ,we can no longer do this. I think that is why Huckabee has done so well to start off with. He come across as kind, and that what we haven't had in a long time. people are tired of getting the bottom of the stick all the time..So, I just Hope the excitement keeps us up to par until election day, Thanks for asking.

  • T E
    Lv 7
    1 decade ago

    For sure, there are still weeks before the iowa caucuses and the super tuesday in february. Many things can change the outcome: candidate's fumbles, terrorist attacks, etc.

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    Don't forget everybody fights to win. Not for the sake of sport. As for voters, they would not like to waste their vote on a loser.

  • 1 decade ago

    considering this is still December 2007, yes waaaaaay too early.

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.