PDA

View Full Version : New Hampshire Primary back on for January?




Taco John
10-26-2007, 01:26 PM
Looks like it might be:

http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=NH+primary%3a+Room+to+breath e%3f&articleId=c1d65709-3f1c-4854-83e3-948530d77a6d


What does this mean for our grass roots efforts?

jgmaynard
10-26-2007, 01:28 PM
I'd say we and the campaign should keep going full steam ahead - no reason to wait! Keep donating, keep talking, keep working!

JM

Politicallore
10-26-2007, 01:29 PM
Well the sooner NH is the better for Ron Paul...
but more time would garner more some more support in NH...

Not sure really

ItsTime
10-26-2007, 01:30 PM
the later the better IMO (which is pretty worthless) lol

kylejack
10-26-2007, 01:30 PM
I expected it to be between the 4th and the 8th of January. Good to hear.

paulitics
10-26-2007, 01:32 PM
The laster the better, but I still think they can change on a whim.

malibu
10-26-2007, 01:34 PM
Well the sooner NH is the better for Ron Paul...
. . . Not sure really

I respectfully disagree - Tancredo and Hunter will drop out soon enough, after that we just need to stick it out until the second ballot in Minneapolis - then it is a freefall/free-for-all.

Grandson of Liberty
10-26-2007, 01:35 PM
The laster the better

I'm fairly certain that is the first time in history anyone has uttered that phrase. :D

theseus51
10-26-2007, 01:53 PM
I wanted an earlier primary. If Ron Paul does well, he gets lots more media attention for weeks and weeks. If he doesn't do well, it won't matter cause NH is our best state. With a later primary, if he does well, he only gets a few days of good press before the next primaries, and if he doesn't do well, again, it won't matter.

Lord Xar
10-26-2007, 01:57 PM
I wanted an earlier primary. If Ron Paul does well, he gets lots more media attention for weeks and weeks. If he doesn't do well, it won't matter cause NH is our best state. With a later primary, if he does well, he only gets a few days of good press before the next primaries, and if he doesn't do well, again, it won't matter.

hmmm.. good observation..... If he does win NH in early decemenber then that is weeks of publicity.. If they move it to January.... and he wins, only a few days and knowing the MSM they will dampen it.... thus the win will be surpressed as anything worthwhile..

hmmm, what this does is makes us focus NOT only on NH, but also Iowa.. or whatever is necxt after NH.. what is next after NH?

If we can pick up a first or second in both of the first two states, that would be huge...so to me, its not a total loss, but it divides our forces a little..

Brinck Slattery
10-26-2007, 02:00 PM
Yeah, the later the better for any of these primaries, mainly because Paul's biggest problem is name recognition and he's just now entering that advertising market. The more people hear his message the more of them are willing to lend their support, thusly "the laster the better":D

JMann
10-26-2007, 02:03 PM
The later the better. It will give voters more time to realize that Rudolph, Freddie and Willard Mitt are unacceptable. They can only go down in the polls prior to February 5th. I don't see any of those candidates suddenly lighting a fire in the belly of Republican voters. Each one of them more or less hope just to fall into the nomination.

Ron Paul Fan
10-26-2007, 02:05 PM
The laster the better is absolutely correct! This would give us about another month to spread the message! If they have it on December 11th like they were talking about earlier, we'd only have 6 weeks! Congressman Paul is just getting the ads out so we'll need all the time we can get! Iowa is important either way. It's like the campaign said. If Ron Paul wins Iowa, he'll win the nomination!

Ozwest
10-26-2007, 02:09 PM
More time to work on other states, so when he takes New Hampshire, the domino effect starts.

bbachtung
10-26-2007, 03:12 PM
Less time to do a job on him like they did Buchanan after the NH primary.