After Tuesday's primaries in Michigan and Arizona, Yahoo! News asked voters in 10 Super Tuesday states to look ahead to March 6's primaries. Below is a perspective from a voter.
FIRST PERSON | As a Georgia Super Tuesday voter, the Michigan and Arizona primary results will (and will not) influence my vote to some degree. Let me explain.
While I want to cast my vote for the candidate who shares my views politically and otherwise, the options currently available leave a lot to be desired, and that includes the current president.
But like my fellow voters, I have to decide on one candidate or the other, whether one of them fits the bill perfectly or not.
Of the Republicans, Newt Gingrich is the only one with ties to Georgia. He's also the only presidential primary candidate willing to venture into the northern portion of the state this week in advance of the Super Tuesday primary.
Yet Gingrich's Michigan and Arizona results were dismal compared to Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum. So he may not win the Republican nomination in the end. However, I really like one thing that Newt said in North Georgia on Tuesday of this week:
"Newt equals $2.50 per gallon."
Who in America couldn't jump for joy if we could see $2.50 per gallon for our vehicle gasoline cost again?
With Barack Obama refusing to sign the Keystone Pipeline paperwork, ever seeing $2.50 per gallon for gasoline seemed like a fantasy until Newt said that.
It is highly likely Gingrich could truly deliver on that promise - because he has a history of delivering on prior promises when he represented Georgia in Congress. He definitely has a successful political history here, and in Congress, that can't be denied.
Romney, on the other hand, fresh off the Michigan and Arizona victories, appears to be leading. But he barely won his own home state, and that speaks volumes to Southerners like me.
It makes me wonder if he is the leading candidate, not because he is liked (or believed to be a good option for turning things around), but, instead, because he has deep political fundraising pockets.
And I can't help but go back to what Gingrich said on Tuesday, despite Santorum and Romney's "almost tie" in Michigan,
"16 million new jobs were created," Gingrich said, when he and Ronald Reagan worked together. If Gingrich was instrumental in seeing 16 million new jobs created all those years ago, what would stop him from doing so again, as the actual president of the country, instead of merely as a member of Congress?
Neither Romney nor Santorum can boast a Gingrich political history, as I was reminded Tuesday, so my vote is going to stay the same.