Countdown to Iowa

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/12/31/prominent-clinton-supporter-criticizes-iowa-2/

Well poor old Hillary has another supporter who should of zipped his lip.

If she does not shut these people up she will be lucky to finish third.

(In the meantime, Edwards is peaking at just the right time).

Both Obama and Clinton are dropping, while Richardson slowly works his way up in the polls.

There is a lot of lingering doubt about Hillary, even with all the institutional support she has.

She really ought to be in Iowa on Caucus night, if you ask me.

Course nobody asked me...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071231/ap_on_el_pr/edwards_long_haul_10;_ylt=ApPxt8Jfv1ExK5d7xVZe_yTBF4l4

Well it won't be long.

Guess no one wants to talk politics today but I am more fired up about Iowa than the wvu game.

Owell, guess I will do some honey do's...

shermangeneral wrote:(In the meantime, Edwards is peaking at just the right time).

Both Obama and Clinton are dropping, while Richardson slowly works his way up in the polls.

With politics, just as with sex, timing, especially "peaking at just the right time", is very important.

shermangeneral wrote:Guess no one wants to talk politics today but I am more fired up about Iowa than the wvu game.

Yeah, but I'll talk about sex almost any time- even if I have to talk about politics to lead into it ....................................

LOL

Happy New Year ever body!

Well Sherm I'll talk politics with you for a while. I've been mulling over this Clinton/Obama/Edwards thing and I've come to think Edwards very well may win his party's nomination.

I say this not because of any great achievement on his part, nor because of some error on the part of his opponents. I say this instead because he is a white man.

Sammy really got me to thinking about this in the old forum a few weeks back. You see, there really are a lot of people who won't vote for a woman to be President. It's true. As a matter of fact, I think many of the people who won't vote for a woman to be our leader are women. Like that little old lady in Dunbar told me she didn't think a woman should ever be prez.

Now we sure have made some pretty big strides towards racial equality in my lifetime. There is no doubt about it. Still I know many people who will not vote for a black man to be president. They simply will not do it. I have encountered a few others who will not vote for Obama because of his "ties" to Islam. They don't trust him. BTW.........most of these people I'm talking about traditionally vote for Democrats.

So this provides Edwards with an opportunity. The people who are likely to elect a woman are probably just about as likely to vote for a black man and vice versa. So I see Clinton and Obama fighting for the same pool of Democrats, plain and simple.

The preceding message is not politically correct, I know. However, it is what I think may likely happen.

Plus we have a pretty good segment of the Democrat Party that is still pro-Labor and anti-corporate greed, pro-environment, and understand we need to regrow and revitalize the middle class working Americans to keep our country strong and free.

shermangeneral wrote:Plus we have a pretty good segment of the Democrat Party that is still pro-Labor and anti-corporate greed, pro-environment, and understand we need to regrow and revitalize the middle class working Americans to keep our country strong and free.

It's just too bad John Edwards isn't what you think he is. Over the past 4 years he went from a Consertative Democrat to the extreme right in hopes of getting elected. Not the kind of person I want for a leader, but that's just me.

As much as I hate MSNBC this is a pretty good analysis of what Iowa means to each of the candidates and how they'll spin the results:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22476967/

Well, the "count" is now down, ........ so who all got a surprise?

I was truly surprised that Edwards didn't win. I'm not surprised that Huckabee won but I am surprised that he won by as wide a margin as he did. I don't think that Hillary will have too much of a problem bouncing back, but I think Edwards is now toast.

I was truly surprised that Edwards didn't win.

Really? I was surprised he didn't lose by more. I suspect his mining the smaller counties was key to what success he did have. To my thinking, when Edwards hired Joe Trippi and went populist he was finished. He consigned himself to play Howard Dean's role in this campaign. And had he won the nomination, how could he have faced the voters in the general election? You know?

Not only did Edward lose Iowa, he placed in the same second place he did 4 years ago with 4% LESS votes. For a man that's been running for office for about 6 or 7 years now and has been in Iowa for 3+ years, losing 4% is catastrophic.

I watched his speech last night and I just kept waiting for the Howard Dean woooohoooo at the end, that’s how pathetic it was. He'll ride it out through South Carolina but other then that, he's pretty much done as he doesn't have the money to continue much further then that and losing won’t gain him any money.

The thing about Edwards supporters is that they tend to be passionate so I thought they would be more likely to turn out to a caucus than would Obama or Clinton supporters. I was wrong. I'm with Ohio though that hiring Joe trippi is never, EVER a good idea.

I was surprised Obama won by such a large margin in such a lily white state. My countrymen must be further evolved than I've been giving them credit for.

I am not surprised women didn't flock to Hillary, the way so many expected. I've long thought the majority of women are smarter than many give them credit for.

I am surprised McCain & Thompson beat Paul. I really thought Paul would have pulled about 15-18% and Thompson's numbers would be similar to those of Giuliani's. I thought the race for third would be between McCain and Dr. Paul but Dr. Paul would take third by a slim margin.

I'm looking forward to New Hampshire. Now that's an area of the country I am much more familiar with and I think I understand the people a little better. I count some of them as my friends. I'm not sure I've ever even met an Iowan. lol

I really believe Paul will do better in NH. I always have. Still, I now wonder if many of those independents I thought would turn out and vote for Paul will instead turn out and vote for Obama. Also, I will eat my hat if Huckabee wins NH. He won't have the evangelicals to rely on there.

In any event, I am heartened. My dark horse candidate just beat the "national front runner". Plus, Hillary placed 3rd. So much for inevitability.

Dr Paul was polling better in NH already,and given their tendency towrads libertarianism "live free or die," I think he'll do well. I give the NH edge ultimately to Mitt Romney, because he was governor up that way. It will be fascinating indeed. Almost makes me want to fly up that way.

We've see 2 of the Democrats drop out. When does it start for the Republicans?

Aaron wrote:We've see 2 of the Democrats drop out. When does it start for the Republicans?

Duncan Hunter is the next to drop out, if he hasn't already. I like Dr Paul, but I also have to say that I think all of the Republicans are decently strong candidates. I wouldn't vote for Giuliani, but I think a lot of people would.

I'd be very hesitant to vote for McCain, but I think he would win also.

The other ones I would endorse with my vote, perhaps while holding my nose and perhaps not. I think all of them are electable over Obama, Clinton, or Edwards.

SheikBen wrote:Dr Paul was polling better in NH already,and given their tendency towrads libertarianism "live free or die," I think he'll do well. I give the NH edge ultimately to Mitt Romney, because he was governor up that way. It will be fascinating indeed. Almost makes me want to fly up that way.

Romney having served as gov of MA is a liability for him in NH. I'm not kidding.

New England is small. Really it is. NH shares a border with MA and so many people commute to work in MA from NH. I've got no clue as to the numbers, but they are big. In any event, just as in RI, the mainstream media in NH reports a lot of the goings on in MA. In the southern part of the state many people view Boston news stations. Believe me when I tell you the Republicans in New England weren't pleased with much of what Romney did., particularly when it comes to the health care issue. That is going to hurt him in NH.

Plus, nobody considers him to be a New Englander. He simply isn't one. So he isn't going to get any of that hometown loyalty type of thing. It doesn't exist for him.

He has a lot of money invested in NH and tons of name recognition. I think the loss I think he will suffer in NH is going to be a fatal blow for him.

Fascinating, Steph. I'll be anxious to see how this plays out! I wonder if the general attitude toward Massachusettes (I am familiar with the term "Masshole" for example, will not have such a negative impact as you suspect. You do have the "inside scoop" though. I haven't been to New Hampshire since I spent some summers up there when I was growing up. I really recall thinking the place a bit of heaven.

It's great cinema!

Stephanie wrote:
He has a lot of money invested in NH and tons of name recognition. I think the loss I think he will suffer in NH is going to be a fatal blow for him.

I agree Stephanie that a loss in NH will kill him nationally. But the bottom line is, he's polling at near 30% which is twice that of his nearest competitor. The only hope I believe of him not winning is if McCain can pull enough independents to win the state. Obama has a say there though.

I do have a question for you about Paul. How long does he stay in with 4th and 5th place finishes?

Stephanie wrote: Also, I will eat my hat if Huckabee wins NH. He won't have the evangelicals to rely on there.

But Steph, they have the Puritans up that way, ...... don't da?

Just kidding.

Anyway, I really don't think that the evangelicals matter that much.

Like I said some time back, Huckabee has the charisma and he talks "to the people", ........ not "at them".

Steph, I wasa thinking about all those "political ads" ....... and that dumbarsed statement all the Candidates make, to wit:

"I'm So n' So, and I approve this message."

Now seriously, who really gives a crap if they approve it? Really now, I don't think they would have said anything unless they had approved it.

Steph, iffen I was an advisor to say Ron Paul, I would tell him "Don't be saying that", instead you be saying,

"I'm Ron Paul, and I hope YOU approve of this message."

cheers

Two things Sam.

First, 6 out of 10 Republicans that came out in Iowa were evangelical Christians. Granted, there won't be numbers like that in NH but there will be in other states so I don't know if I would dismiss that group so casually.

Second, the candidates say "I approve this ad" because they have to. It became law some years back because candidates were running negative ads but not taking responsibility for them.

Oh, Sammy.......I like that.

Aaron wrote:

Stephanie wrote:
He has a lot of money invested in NH and tons of name recognition. I think the loss I think he will suffer in NH is going to be a fatal blow for him.

I agree Stephanie that a loss in NH will kill him nationally. But the bottom line is, he's polling at near 30% which is twice that of his nearest competitor. The only hope I believe of him not winning is if McCain can pull enough independents to win the state. Obama has a say there though.

I do have a question for you about Paul. How long does he stay in with 4th and 5th place finishes?

Obviously I'm not that great at making predicitions. I really believed Paul would place no lower than 4th in Iowa. I also genuinely believed he may beat McCain there. I'm still stunned Fred "I'm really not all that interested in running for President" Thompson did as well as he did. I don't think he'll do that well in NH.

I believe McCain will take NH with Paul & Romeny competing for 2nd. I think the real question is, can Giuliani survive to Super Tuesday. A 6th place finish in the first in the nation doesn't bode well for him, now does it? To compound matters, I doubt he'll fare any better in NH.

NH has lots of independent voters. The key for Dr. Paul is who they turn out to vote for.......Ron Paul or Barack Obama. It is crystal clear they turned out for Obama in Iowa.

I still believe the biggest obstacle Ron Paul has right now is the mainstream media's treatment of him. Aside from the Fox thing, look at what CNN did last night. They used these pies charts. On the Democrat pie chart they kept posting Obama at 37% with Edwards and Clinton at around 30% and Bill Richardson at 2%. On the GOP side they left a huge chunk of the pie unfilled rather than including Ron Paul's 10%. So they will post 2% for Richardson but not 10% for Paul.

I'm really curious to see what will happen in NH. There is little doubt Paul will place no lower than 4th. How much of that pie will CNN be willing to leave blank? On the Fox thing......Paul came in 5th receiving nearly 3x as many votes as Giuliani, and he raised $20 million in the last quarter. How do they justify omitting him? How can they have any credibility?

Aaron wrote:Two things Sam.

Second, the candidates say "I approve this ad" because they have to. It became law some years back because candidates were running negative ads but not taking responsibility for them.

OK, OK, ...... I'll change it to make it legal, to wit:

"I'm Ron Paul, I approve this ad and I hope YOU approve of it also."

With loud emphasis when they say "YOU", .......... because people like to be asked, ....... not told.

And I know that to be a FACT, ..... because I'm always telling people sumpin on this forum .......... and many of them don't like that.

.