Iowa Critique (Democrat Side)

Well I have heard comments on Sirius Left that you guys may or may not be aware of from listening to Fox and the rightwing bloggers so I will share with you some stuff.

Edwards was the clear winner amongst traditional Democrat activists. i.e. Labor, etc.

Hillary had the DLC "new Democrats" (which includes the wannabes and what we would consider the Caperton Democrats here in WV for want of a better description). This is a substantial number, but clearly less than the traditional Dem vote for Edwards.

How Obama won was by organizing the independents and the so-called youth vote, which is easier done in Iowa since you can show up and register on the spot or switch from republican to Democrat for a day and then switch back.

And Clinton augmented her vote and shored it up with a massive get-out-the-vote effort directed at specific demographics such as elderly women.

So how long will the current stand-off continue?

That is anyone's guess.

But if you just listen to Fox you are missing a lot of what is going on.

They ignore and/or try to diminish the Edwards support just like they do Ron Paul.

Sherm,

On what do you base the above assertion?

"Well I have heard comments on Sirius Left that you guys may or may not be aware of from listening to Fox and the rightwing bloggers so I will share with you some stuff."

Mike I posted right there in the first sentence so I am not sure what you are saying/asking...

I just thought it would be good to share some other perspectives with you guys via this forum.

Because I suspect some would not otherwise be exposed to such different points of view.

But when you start grinding numbers and digesting data you can learn a lot.

Lots of people (including me) heard about this big Obama push with the so-called youth vote but did not put much stock in it because it has been predicted before.

Personally, I figure the difference was there is no registration requirement in the Iowa caucuses and you can just round up people and get them there.

Maybe that is sour grapes but call it what you want that is the way it looks to me.

Obama seems so far to be a media creation and what the media gives the media can take away...

No matter how you slice it Sherm, Edwards LOST 4% of the vote from 2004. That can not be understated. Without the win, he'll not have enough money to make it through the primary season. He knows that. He was ask about money BEFORE Iowa and his response was "...and when we win Iowa the money will come pouring in...." He didn't win Iowa so the money won't come pouring in.

Yes, he won the labor vote but that's about all. 40 years ago that would have carried him to the nomination. Today it's barely good enough for a second place finish in a state that means nothing.

And yes, Obama won with independent support and that's a 2 fold problem for Edwards. First, it shows that Obama is the most electable in the general election as he's already shown that can get others to cross party lines. That is huge. Second, they are now going to a state where independents are once again allowed to cross party lines. Unless Obama falters somewhere, he's not likely to be caught by Edwards. Hillary mabye as she has the money to run with him, but not Edwards.

Sherm,

On what do you base your assertion that FOX news is marginalizing Edwards? From listening to Sirius left?

Yes I agree it would have been better to "win". Iowa.

But since the numbers did not add up then the next step is to rationalize so that is what I am doing ok.

But fact is there were other things in play besides just Dems deciding who they wanted.

And although those methods cant be used in most other states, the results in Iowa might affect how others in other states will vote.

We will see.

But my guy still beat your girl Hillary even after all the extracurricular shenanigans they pulled.

We're she my girl I'd spout stuff about how she wasn't supposed to win Iowa and didn't seriously campaign there until the last month or so or I'd speak of how irrelevant Iowa is and wait and see what NH brings, where by the way, your boy is polling at 10 to 15% below Obama and Hillary, and is another state where independents can cross party lines, is extremely light on the little ‘d’ democrats you champion so much and love the Clinton name. Sorry dude, New Hampshire’s a 2 horse race and your boy ain’t one of em.

Since she's not 'my girl' I won't point any of that out. What I'll point out is that Obama soundly defeated Edwards in Iowa. That is huge considering Edwards was in Iowa in 2003, returned in 2005 and has basically been campaigning there for 3 years and what that got him was a NET LOSS of 4% of the vote. Your boy put the vast majority of his eggs in this basket and it's gotten him nowhere. He'll run out of money because as personal as this fight is for him, he wasn't willing to spend any of his own money on it and as a result, he can't run with Obama or Hillary.

The next primary is Michigan which would seem to benefit Edwards and his populist stance but since all of they're 156 delegates have been banned from the national convention for scheduling their primary too early, he's not even on the ballot.

Next up is Nevada which currently has Hillary polling at 41+%, Obama at 21+% while your boy's hanging around 10%. The significance of Nevada is that it likely ends Richardson's campaign, bringing the Dems to a 3 person race.

Up next is South Carolina where you figure Edwards will do good considering he was born there and won in 2004. Wrong. Hillary and Obama are neck and neck at around 34% while Johnboy is trolling along in 3rd place somewhere with around 18% of the poll. Even more significant, he’s polling around 3% in the black vote which is big time little d Democrats. So how do you explain the fact that his own people don't even want him?

Florida is next but they've been stripped of their delegates as well so they don't matter.

Next is Super Tuesday where your boy is running a distant 3rd in the vast majority of polls so I figure by February 5th, out of money, suffering humiliating defeat after humiliating defeat, you're boy will announce that he's taking his fight elsewhere. He won't concede because he's too arrogant but he'll be out of the race and Democrats will decide between the first black nominee and the first woman nominee.

If nothing else, it will be a historic election, don’t you agree.

John will not run out of money cause he is the only one who agreed to limit spending and accept federal matching funds.

Hillary is dropping even in spite of the vicious counter-attack and she will go down clawing and scratching.

But the majority of dems is solid for Edwards.

Like I said, the times they are a changin'

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/06/us/politics/06dems.html?_r=2&hp=&oref=slogin&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin

There will be a big circlin' of the wagons after this week, but it will not avail them.

The DLC is goin down hard...

Sorry to be the one to bust your bubble Sherm but the majority of Democrats are not behind John, they're behind Hillary. In fact, you can't find one poll where your boy is polling higher then 3rd. That is a fact.

And the DNC will not get involved until the general election and donor's won't send they're money to losers. All you have to do is see how much money Howard Dean took in AFTER he lost Iowa. Edwards will be strapped for cash in a very short time no matter how much you deny it. That too is a fact.

Democratic Presidential Nomination
Polling Data
Poll Date Sample Clinton Obama Edwards Richardson Spread
RCP Average 12/14 - 12/30 - 44.6 24.2 14.4 2.0 Clinton +20.4
Pew Research 12/19 - 12/30 556 RV 46 26 14 -- Clinton +20.0
FOX News 12/18 - 12/19 RV 49 20 10 2 Clinton +29.0
NBC/WSJ 12/14 - 12/17 Adults 45 23 13 2 Clinton +22.0
USA Today/Gallup 12/14 - 12/16 513 A 45 27 15 2 Clinton +18.0
Rasmussen (Sat) 4 Day Tracking 750 LV 38 25 20 2 Clinton +13.0

source

Your polls dont match any I have seen for NH.

They must be national, ergo irrelevant.

Check late tracking polls in NH for relevant data...

You have to click the NH page Sherm. For the record, Edwards is 3rd there as well with less then 19% of the voters supporting him.

New Hampshire Democratic Primary
Tuesday, January 8 | Delegates at Stake: 22

Polling Data
Poll Date Sample Obama Clinton Edwards Richardson Spread
RCP Average 01/02 - 01/05 - 34.3 30.9 18.9 5.4 Obama +3.4
American Res. Group 01/04 - 01/05 600 LV 38 26 20 3 Obama +12.0
Concord Monitor 01/04 - 01/05 400 LV 34 33 23 4 Obama +1.0
CNN/WMUR/UNH 01/04 - 01/05 359 LV 33 33 20 4 Tie
Suffolk/WHDH 01/04 - 01/05 500 LV 33 35 14 5 Clinton +2.0
Rasmussen 01/04 - 01/05 1210 LV 39 27 18 8 Obama +12.0
Zogby Tracking 01/03 - 01/05 844 LV 30 31 20 7 Clinton +1.0
Mason-Dixon 01/02 - 01/04 600 LV 33 31 17 7 Obama +2.0

Well it is the tracking polls that show which way the trend is moving so check that Aaron.

I just posted one somewhere.

You keep bouncing around so I never know where you are.

But the key word is tracking ok.

It shows Edwards has gained 6 and hillary has lost 6, with Obama unchanged.

Just since Iowa.

And that is nationwide.

Never in my wildest dreams did I think nationwide would jump that much that fast for Edwards on the national level.

This is almost unbelievable it could jump that fast.

The one you posted Sherm showed Edwards up 3 and Hillary down 2. Considering Dodd and Biden both conceded what Edwards will do after super Tuesday, it's understandable that numbers will change. None of that changes the fact that your man, after committing 3 years to Iowa LOST 4% of the vote he had in 2004.

He doesn't have 3 years to spend in SC, OH, or any other state.

You are absolutely right Aaron so everybody needs to get on board now...

If he can't get more then 15% of the people on board after basically 5 years of running for office, he's not a viable candidate Sherm.

shermangeneral wrote:John will not run out of money cause he is the only one who agreed to limit spending and accept federal matching funds.

Hillary is dropping even in spite of the vicious counter-attack and she will go down clawing and scratching.

But the majority of dems is solid for Edwards.

Like I said, the times they are a changin'

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/06/us/politics/06dems.html?_r=2&hp=&oref=slogin&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin

There will be a big circlin' of the wagons after this week, but it will not avail them.

The DLC is goin down hard...

Once again Sherm, how much are the times a changing???

I noticed last weekend when you came in, you started several threads about Edwards. I don't think you've even posted on the political threads this weekend. Am I to assume that you're only a political junkie when your got a dog in the hunt???

Seems to me about all your boy can do by staying in the race is draw votes away from Obama and give the nomination to Hillary.