McCain was going to win in NH in 2008 no matter what anyway.
I also oppose giving Iowa and New Hampshire the job of narrowing down the field of candidates the rest of the country gets to vote on each and every Presidential election. I say set 10 primary dates and let every state pick groups of 5 states (or more considering Washington, DC, the territories and Americans overseas.) State groups can change each election at the states' discretion. Then by random drawing schedule each team to one of those 10 primary dates. It just dawned in me it might be a little unfair to allow California, New York, Florida, Texas, Illinois and Pennsylvania to be in the same group so maybe say only one of the huge states can be in any one group.
Having opinions all over the map is a good sign of a person capable of autonomous thinking. Felix -2011
I don't have a problem with an open primary where the top 2 candidates advance to the general election regardless of party affiliation. I do, however, think open primaries where you have to vote in one designated party a bad idea. It serves no purpose other than allowing people to cross party affiliation in order to ultimately disrupt the candidates that will compete in the GE. Rarely is it successful, but whats the advantage of allowing the possibility?
Women (Nasty or otherwise) are going to be the reason that Donald Trump is NEVER President!
"It is only when men contemplate the greatness of God that they can come to realize their own inadequacy." Jean Calvin