Statistics Anyone?

OK, as everyone knows the BIG Iowa results came through. And yes, many people became new fans in Obama and Huckabee. But it is only Iowa some may feel. Iowa currently is responsible for 7 electoral votes. Yep a huge SEVEN votes out of the 538 votes. For the mathy people out there, yes Iowas is equal to 1.3% out of the entire process, and would aid a candidate with 2.59% of the electoral votes they would need to become president. So yes, the question definitely needs to be, how can such a small percentage of Americans, have such a huge influence? Especially as Mr. Silton pointed out, one primarily composed of whites. They should not in my opinion. I do not care who wins the Iowa caucus, but the people who fund campaigns do! And unlike the 60 or so of us who study government, many Americans vote based on not wanting to choose the losing presidential candidate. So that is how Iowa gains its power.

Do you think it is fair, I sure don't. PS, New Hampshire will bring 4 electoral votes to which ever president the state decides to vote for. Yep a staggering .7% of the electoral college and they are almost as influential as Iowa.

California Primaries Rise in Significance

Now that Obama and Huckabee have won the Iowa caucuses, California's role in the primaries has become more important. Over the last few elections, the California primaries have been pushed from March 7 in 2000 to March 2 in 2004 to a huge jump to February 5 in 2008.

As we learned in class, earlier primaries mean a bigger impact on the overall primary election. However, analysts say that California's impact can be more decisively seen after New Hampshire's primary--if a candidate from either side wins both the Iowa and New Hampshire primaries, California will be less relevant as the race would already be lopsided. If both primaries are split between two winners, there will be more incentive to win California and thus for candidates to cater to California voter's interests.

Any speculations on who will win California?

Which G.O.P Candidate?!

There is no clear leading G.O.P. candidate so far in the 2008 presidential election. A new poll has shown that Republican voters are unsure of who to vote for. Not one of the Republican candidates has secured half of the Republican electorate.

Now, Republicans seem to be divided equally between former Gov. Mike Huckabee, Rudolph W. Guiliani, and Mitt Romney.

On the other hand, the polls show that Democrat voters are much more settled with Hillary Clinton than contesters Obama and Edwards.
Reasons for this include:
-many voters see Clinton as more likely to be able to unite the country
-more experienced and prepared for the presidency
-she has former President Clinton behind her

New polls also show that public satisfaction with Washington in general is at an all time low. The Democrat-led congress mustered a pathetic 21 % approval rate, while President Bush's is at 28%.

When I looked at this information, although the American people seem unhappy with the political status quo, I believe that they will not be as apathetic. Although they may not be happy with the choices they have, because their perception is so negative at the moment, it is likely that they will try to vote to change things because indeed, many things are wrong with the country at the time. Pressing issues: immigration, the war in Iraq, foreign policy, security, and the economy all need to be changed. Thus even though the public may seem to have an aversion to the political environment currently, I do not believe this will deflect the public's involvement in the 2008 election.

What do you think?
Why is the Republican electorate so undecided?
Will the election bring back a better perception of Washington?

Full Article: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/11/us/politics/11poll.html?ref=washington