Iowa caucuses are just around the corner. Who do you guys think will win?

Here are my thoughts:

Democrats

1) Clinton
2) Obama
3) Edwards

Clinton's campaign had some stumbles and Obama briefly took the lead in polls. However, she seems to have recovered from those gaffes and is now headed to victory. The margin is still narrow over Obama (except in ARG poll which has her with a 15 pt. lead), but I think Clinton's superior organization will help and she'll grab a good amount of the less than 15% voters. I wouldn't be surprised if Edwards surprises Obama for 2nd place, but I'll leave Obama here for now.

Republicans

1) Romney
2) McCain
3) Huckabee
4) Giuliani

Huckabee is fading fast. his lead in the polls has all but disappeared and I expect him to continue to sink due to lack of money, while Romney can keep spending and spending. McCain is on the rise and has been able to stay away from most of the mudslinging. Romney seems to be the only one that goes after him. I think some Republicans realize McCain is their best shot to win and this will catapult him to 2nd place. Huckabee will fizzle due to money issues and a weaker organization (very key in the caucus format). Giuliani could possiblt overtake him, but I don't think Huckabee will fall quite that far. The real gaffe is Giuliani deciding to ignore Iowa. There's no reason he couldn't have won this state the way things have gone down. Paul's poll numbers are rising but I doubt he gets many delegates (if any), because he's attracting mostly newer voters and they can't be trusted to show up in strong numbers (see Dean). Thompson's campaign is over.

Someone posed this bet to me the other day:

McCain + Romney in the New Hampshire Primar vs. Total points scored by AFC team in the Super Bowl

I definitely like the McCain/Romney side of that action.

LA Times/Bloomberg poll of NH has Romney at 34 and McCain at 20. Those numbers will probably increase with all the undecideds still out there. Barring a major scandal by either candidate, I think the number you're looking at will be at least 60. The Pats ain't getting that even if Aaron Rodgers slips them the playbook as revenge for Favre's refusal to retire.

dola

I assumed you meant percentages and not delegates. New Hampshire only has 27 delegates so that would make the bet similarly easy going the other way.

I'll play, and take it one state further.

IOWA DEMS

Clinton 42%
Obama 17%
Edwards 15%
Biden 8%
Richardson 5%
Dodd 3%
Kucinich 2%

IOWA REPUB

Huckabee 24%
Romney 23%
Guilliani 17%
McCain 14%
Paul 12%
Thompson 5%

NEW HAMPSHIRE DEMS

Clinton 38%
Obama 23%
Edwards 13%
Richardson 10%
Biden 5%
Kucinich 4%
Dodd 1%

NEW HAMPSHIRE REPUB

Romney 30%
McCain 21%
Giuiliani 17%
Huckabee 12%
Paul 6%
Thompson 6%

-I think Clinton's going to run away with it early
-Romney has positioned himself well in the first two states, but I think Huckabee will make things interesting with a "surprise" win in Iowa, with McCain and Guiliani doing well enough to stick around - a much more interesting race then the dems side of things.

On a side note...has there been a bigger dud than Thompson? When he joined the race, it was like a second coming. Now, he's a non-factor.

I'm thinking I'm from Michigan and my vote doesn't count.

The problem with %'s in Iowa is the caucus format makes it unlikely that someone like Dodd or Kucinich will end up with any %, because if they're less than 15% at any precint, their voters have to find another candidate. Richardson and Biden might pick up a delegate here or there, but alot of their voters will be going elsewhere.

As for New Hampshire, I'll go:

Democrat

Clinton 45
Obama 19
Edwards 15

Republican

Romney 32
McCain 25
Giuliani 17
Paul 12
Huckabee 9

I'm thinking I'm from Michigan and my vote doesn't count.


Not really true. Michigan will still be influential as far as momentum/money, etc. Giuliani will certainly be looking to it making a difference maker for him. The delegate race usually becomes meaningless anyways, as most of the competitiors drop out before the majority of delegates are even won.

I definitely like the McCain/Romney side of that action.

LA Times/Bloomberg poll of NH has Romney at 34 and McCain at 20. Those numbers will probably increase with all the undecideds still out there. Barring a major scandal by either candidate, I think the number you're looking at will be at least 60. The Pats ain't getting that even if Aaron Rodgers slips them the playbook as revenge for Favre's refusal to retire.

Yes, McCain has surged and it looks like a no brainer now. When we were discussing it, McCain was in the low teens, so it was looking like a low 40ish number for the two of them. Odds still favor the politicians even at that number, but it made for interesting discussion.

Yes, McCain has surged and it looks like a no brainer now. When we were discussing it, McCain was in the low teens, so it was looking like a low 40ish number for the two of them. Odds still favor the politicians even at that number, but it made for interesting discussion.

How about Giuliani's Iowa/NH total vs. AFC Superbowl score?

Obama will either surge early or completely flop. I just can't see Hillary running away with this thing and if she does, I feel like whoever the GOP picks will continue to gain momentum and that the race will be like '04 when everyone figured it'd be a slam dunk for the Dems and they found a way to flub it up in every way possible.

Zogby Iowa polls

Clinton 30, Obama 26, Edwards 26, Biden 5, Richardson 5
Huckabee 29, Romney 27, McCain 13, Thompson 8, Giuliani 7, Paul 7

ARG's NH polls:

Clinton 31, Obama 27, Edwards 21, Richardson 5, Biden 3
Romney 30, McCain 30, Huckabee 11, Giuliani 9, Paul 7, Thompson 3

Ron Paul takes Texas I say. ;)

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071231/NEWS09/71231044

Latest Des Moines Register Iowa Poll.

Democrats: Hillary will win Iowa and the nomination. It's inevitable and unfortunate. Obama 2nd, Edwards 3rd, and who cares about the rest.

Republicans: This race seems a lot more interesting and wide open. The DM poll shows:

Huckabee 32%
Romney 26%
McCain 12%
Paul 9%
Thompson 9%
Giuliani 5%

I expect Romney and Huckabee to finish 1-2. Some of the above predictions are good, but seem to have Giuliani too high. He's free falling faster than Tom Petty right now. I expect a 5th-6th place for him in Iowa. The race for 3rd is between Thompson, Paul, and McCain. Thompson is going nowhere so he's out. Paul vs. McCain for 3rd place will be big heading into NH where both of them see a big chance to appeal to the independents there. I'm gonna go with the biased pick and go with Paul 3rd. McCain will get 4th, Giuliani 5th, Thompson 6th. I'll probably be completely wrong, but I think it's kinda hard to guess whether or not Paul's support will show up and how big or small it really is. Will McCain do well in Iowa despite supporting the amnesty bill? How far have Giluiani and Thompson fallen? Should be interesting.

There were polls suggesting Giuliani was making a move in Iowa. He was actually up to 14% at one point, but he has obviously dipped quite a bit. Similarly, McCain had hit a high of 20% and was only 6 points behind Huckabee at one point. Now his momentum seems to be confined to New Hampshire and he's giving Romney all he can take there. If Romney has to fight for New Hampshire, then it's going to be a tough road for him.

Most recent Iowa polling info. Some pretty wide disparities on the Dem side...

Dems

ARG: Clinton 34, Obama 25, Edwards 21, Biden 8, Richardson 6
Zogby: Obama 31, Edwards 27, Clinton 24, Richardson 7, Biden 5

GOP

ARG: Huckabee 29, Romney 24, Thompson 13, McCain 11, Giuliani 8, Paul 6
Zogby: Huckabee 31, Romney 25, Thompson 11, McCain 10, Paul 10, Giuliani 6

The primary voting system is, well, interesting to say the least.

I'm thinking I'm from Michigan and my vote doesn't count.

Vote Paul. Ron Paul.

Vote Paul. Ron Paul.

Please don't.

Vote Paul. Ron Paul.

Please do! I am tonight!

Vote Paul. Ron Paul.

I'm not sure i even have enough time left since i would have to vote by absentee ballot.

Vote Paul. Early and often, the Chicago way.

http://www.billingsgazette.net/articles/2008/01/03/news/wyoming/16-wyo-caucus.txt

Do we have any Wyomingians here? There's supposedly a caucus/convention out there on Saturday and it's not getting any press. They have 12 delegates. I'm guessing Romney wins with strong showings by Paul and Thompson.

In Iowa, I'm sick of all of the commercials and I'll be glad when it's all over. I'm voting for Paul tonight and hoping he can beat McCain for 3rd. I don't expect the voter turnout to be good for the Republicans. I'm gonna change my Hillary pick in Iowa and go with John Edwards. It's tougher to predict the Democrat one because their process is so complicated and fucked up. Who knows which candidate the Biden and Richardson folks will go for when their candidate doesn't reach the 15% threshold.

In Iowa, I'm sick of all of the commercials and I'll be glad when it's all over. I'm voting for Paul tonight and hoping he can beat McCain for 3rd. I don't expect the voter turnout to be good for the Republicans.

Out of curiousity, who are you going for if Paul doesn't get 15% in your caucus?

http://www.billingsgazette.net/articles/2008/01/03/news/wyoming/16-wyo-caucus.txt

Do we have any Wyomingites here? There's supposedly a caucus/convention out there on Saturday and it's not getting any press. They have 12 delegates. I'm guessing Romney wins with strong showings by Paul and Thompson.


I switched my party affiliation from Republican to Libertarian last year. But only because I'm here, I'll change it back before May, since the Libs are so unorganized here and there isn't really a point in doing that.

The caucus is getting attention here, because they moved the date up. This thing is supposed to get Wyoming some "clout" in the system, but the GOP chastised them for moving it up and so, rather than offering up all of their delegates at this event this weekend, they will save the rest of their delegates (17 I think I heard on NPR yesterday) for May when the regularly scheduled caucus is.

So I don't know that it'll have a ton of influence. I do think Romney will do well here, because he actually bothered to show up in the state, as will Ron Paul. But if Huckabee does well in Iowa, he might gain a few more supporters here too.

Out of curiousity, who are you going for if Paul doesn't get 15% in your caucus?

Nobody. The Republicans do a straight secret ballot straw vote. None of this breaking into groups or 15% threshold crap. If the Republicans did the caucus like the Democrats, I probably wouldn't even go. I bet it takes them hours upon hours to vote, debate, convince others to join them, debate, vote, blah blah blah. The Democratic Iowa Caucus is a sham!

Here's the Republican process:

How They Work – Caucuses start in Iowa at 7:00 p.m. Because it is already 8:00 p.m. on the East Coast, party leaders have opted to conduct the presidential preference polling early in the caucuses to accommodate the national radio and television networks who are trying to get results on the air during primetime. On caucus night, Iowans gather by party preference in designated schools, public buildings, or often even in private homes to elect delegates to the 99 county conventions. Presidential preference selection on the Republican side is done with a straw vote of those attending the caucuses. Democratic caucus-goers express their presidential preference through a show of hands, a sign-in sheet or by dividing themselves into groups according to candidates. A “third-party” may hold a convention to nominate one candidate for president and one for vice-president as well. The results of this caucus activity on both the Republican and Democratic sides are not binding on the elected delegates, but the delegates usually feel obligated to follow the wishes expressed by the caucus-goers. Thus the initial caucus results provide a good barometer of the composition of Iowa’s national delegation, keeping in mind the effect that candidates’ withdrawals can have right up to convention voting time.

http://www.iowagop.net/inner.asp?z=4

The Democratic caucus is explained here:

http://www.iowafirstcaucus.org/pdfs/2008_Caucus_Guide.pdf

It's much more complicated than it needs to be. Anyway, Obama is leading the polls, but will his young supporters come out to vote in this complicating and intimidating process? I'm skeptical and that's why I'm going with Edwards to win.

Obama will either surge early or completely flop. I just can't see Hillary running away with this thing and if she does, I feel like whoever the GOP picks will continue to gain momentum and that the race will be like '04 when everyone figured it'd be a slam dunk for the Dems and they found a way to flub it up in every way possible.

I agree with this 100%. I'm not even thinking flubbing will play a part. I don't think any candidate is superiors to any other candidate. I think Hillary will win and I think that's the best thing for the Republicans. Even Republicans sick of Bush are going to be anti Hillary. The Republican base will be as unified as ever.

I think Hillary wins the dem nomination. I think Romney wins the Rep nomination. I think Romney has a very, very good chance of winnning it all.

Me? I'm a registered independant. I'll be sitting the primary season out.

I think Hillary wins the dem nomination. I think Romney wins the Rep nomination. I think Romney has a very, very good chance of winnning it all.

I'm not positive that Hillary will win the nomination yet, but I absolutely think that Republican nominee = NFC in Super Bowl.

The Republican base will be as unified as ever.

Explain to me how any one of the Republican candidates unifies the Republican party. As far as I can tell, each one has attributes or policy positions that alienate significant sections of the party. If you're arguing that all that will be forgotten if Hillary gets the Dem nomination then, well, you're welcome to that line of argument.

It's amazing to me that I have never voted in primaries (that's going back to 1980). I believe in all of the states I have lived in only allowed non-independents to vote.

Explain to me how any one of the Republican candidates unifies the Republican party. As far as I can tell, each one has attributes or policy positions that alienate significant sections of the party. If you're arguing that all that will be forgotten if Hillary gets the Dem nomination then, well, you're welcome to that line of argument.

Know your recent history. There have been a sizable number of anti votes (either way) going back to 1992, and perhaps back to 1980. There is no such thing as major voting bloc alienation when the alternative is worse. You can argue that it affects turnouts but those "holding their noses to vote" still is greater than not voting (that otherwise would vote, not counting those that never voted much). One cannot underestimate the anti-Clinton feelings, from both parties, even if you don't understand where that is coming from.

Prediction:

Dems

Obama - 38
Hillary - 32
Edwards -30

Reps

Huckabee - 29
Romney - 28
McCain - 16
Thompson - 15
Guliani - 8
Hunter - 4

Watching MSNBC, Obama is winning on entrance polls with Edwards and Clinton roughly tied in second. Hopefully it continues.

CNN projects a win for Huckabee.

3-Way dead heat on the other side.

Nobody. The Republicans do a straight secret ballot straw vote. None of this breaking into groups or 15% threshold crap. If the Republicans did the caucus like the Democrats, I probably wouldn't even go. I bet it takes them hours upon hours to vote, debate, convince others to join them, debate, vote, blah blah blah. The Democratic Iowa Caucus is a sham!

It's a very strange way to vote, the whole process.

CNN projects a win for Huckabee.

3-Way dead heat on the other side.

Huckabee 35%, Roomney 24%. McCain with only 12%. I wonder how much of a boost Huckabee got from last night's Leno apperance.

How many "delegates" does each state provide?

I hope you guys that are thinking/hoping for Huckabee will remember 1996 where the only other true recent social conservative, Pat Buchanan, won NH and I believe, almost won Iowa.

How many "delegates" does each state provide?

http://www.electoral-vote.com

Huckabee 35%, Roomney 24%. McCain with only 12%.

Through 25% counted, Thompson sitting 3rd ahead of McCain 14% - 12%.
Paul fifth with 11%, Guiliani sixth with 4%, Hunter & Tancredo combined have less than 1%.

As (I guess) expected for the GOP at least, looks like there's more than three tickets out of Iowa but they're only good for travel to New Hampshire.

After next Tuesday, either Guiliani or McCain would seem to be finished unless they get a top three finish. And if Huckabee & Romney happened to finish 1 & 2 again (although I don't think they will) then wouldn't it seem that it's down to a two horse race?

edit to add: And while I was typing, things tightened up a little as it gets to 40% counted.
Same running order except that Rudy passed Ron, but it's just 31-23-13-12-11-10-<1 x2

Interesting to read about the very high turnout.

NBC reports Obama wins Iowa.

Through 25% counted, Thompson sitting 3rd ahead of McCain 14% - 12%.
Paul fifth with 11%, Guiliani sixth with 4%, Hunter & Tancredo combined have less than 1%.

As (I guess) expected for the GOP at least, looks like there's more than three tickets out of Iowa but they're only good for travel to New Hampshire.

After next Tuesday, either Guiliani or McCain would seem to be finished unless they get a top three finish. And if Huckabee & Romney happened to finish 1 & 2 again (although I don't think they will) then wouldn't it seem that it's down to a two horse race?

edit to add: And while I was typing, things tightened up a little as it gets to 40% counted.
Same running order except that Rudy passed Ron, but it's just 31-23-13-12-11-10-<1 x2

Huckabee = Buchanan. An initial spurt but the wad has been shot. You know better than most it's all about organization. I look beyond the first two states and see a very different race, as what happened in 1996.

NBC reports Obama wins Iowa.

Wrong. Hillary is supposed to win big.

Wrong. Hillary is supposed to win big.

Huh?

Huh?

Look at some of the predictions here and what they had been saying up until a month or two ago.

Look at some of the predictions here and what they had been saying up until a month or two ago.

Ah, thanks. I really haven't been following the news until the last few days of the race.

Ah, thanks. I really haven't been following the news until the last few days of the race.

Welcome to 2008. :)

I'd like to see Richardson place a solid 4th and hopefully pick up some more steam along the way, since it's looking like the Obama/Hillary/Edwards trio is dogfighting over Iowa.

Welcome to 2008. :)

Thanks. I just get tired of the media buildup and the many weeks of coverage of it.

Huckabee = Buchanan. An initial spurt but the wad has been shot. You know better than most it's all about organization. I look beyond the first two states and see a very different race, as what happened in 1996.

I dunno, depends upon how the turnout goes in the remaining states. Entrance polling tonight showed more than half the GOP voters self-identifying as "evangelicals", and Huckabee won that group easily. Presumably (I think) they won't have the same sway next Tuesday but it seems possible that the pattern could repeat on Super Tuesday. If it does, then Huckabee could be on a heck of a roll by mid-February.

Problem is, best I can guess, that he has to keep things going after a likely bad loss in New Hampshire and I don't know if he's got the organization (as you mentioned) to get it done.

I'd like to see Richardson place a solid 4th and hopefully pick up some more steam along the way, since it's looking like the Obama/Hillary/Edwards trio is dogfighting over Iowa.

Although Obama is denying it reports are that Richardson instructed his folks to pick Obama second. Richardson didn't have enough support to hit the viability threshold in more than a few places, so I expect sometime next week he'll officially call it quits.

I'd like to see Richardson place a solid 4th and hopefully pick up some more steam along the way, since it's looking like the Obama/Hillary/Edwards trio is dogfighting over Iowa.

2%

Huckabee = Buchanan. An initial spurt but the wad has been shot. You know better than most it's all about organization. I look beyond the first two states and see a very different race, as what happened in 1996.

But Huckabee has a built in organization in most of the Southern states due to his focus on the Religious right. I think if he gets in a two man race after New Hampshire he'll be in trouble, but there's no way you can count out the only perceived religious conservative in the race.

Heh. Watching a few precincts create such dramatic shifts in total percentages (in the GOP at least), it feels like a small state legislative race or something.

I dunno, depends upon how the turnout goes in the remaining states. Entrance polling tonight showed more than half the GOP voters self-identifying as "evangelicals", and Huckabee won that group easily. Presumably (I think) they won't have the same sway next Tuesday but it seems possible that the pattern could repeat on Super Tuesday. If it does, then Huckabee could be on a heck of a roll by mid-February.

Problem is, best I can guess, that he has to keep things going after a likely bad loss in New Hampshire and I don't know if he's got the organization (as you mentioned) to get it done.

Iowa has always been like that (a majority of voters/caucusers being evangelical), esp. among the church women crowd. That's a phenomenon unlike most other states. Colorado Republicans, which dominate where I live (the Evangelical Capital of the World), Huckabee is still polling in single-digits.

Heh. Watching a few precincts create such dramatic shifts in total percentages (in the GOP at least), it feels like a small state legislative race or something.

Dependent on the strength of the local campaigns, do you think?

Win big in this district where you had an effective visit, ignore another and your performance is reflective of that?

I'm not sure if Huckabee has the staying power. Especially since Limbaugh and others are in opposition.

On a side note, the fact that Limbaugh is against him, has me thinking I should reconsider my opinion.

I'm not sure if Huckabee has the staying power. Especially since Limbaugh and others are in opposition.

On a side note, the fact that Limbaugh is against him, has me thinking I should reconsider my opinion.

Not hearing anything he has said since the early 1990s, I do recall that he was for Buchanan in 1996 and probably wouldn't want a repeat of that. I suspect he falls into the neo-con group, which is different than the social con group.

Dependent on the strength of the local campaigns, do you think?

Win big in this district where you had an effective visit, ignore another and your performance is reflective of that?

That's what Rove became a master at, and something the Dems have not learned. To win a state's all-or-nothing electoral votes, you play to the strength in getting the numbers where you know you can get them and not spending too much resources on where you can't get them, if that makes sense.

He'll get killed in NH, but it's South Carolina and Florida that will be big for Huckabee heading into Super Tuesday. Right now he's got a double digit lead in SC and is close to even with Giuliani in Florida. Given that Giuliani will take a beating before we get to FL, I think Huckabee could win there as well.

None of the other states I've looked at have polled in the last half-month, so it's hard to tell exactly where Huckabee sits outside of the South.

He'll get killed in NH, but it's South Carolina and Florida that will be big for Huckabee heading into Super Tuesday. Right now he's got a double digit lead in SC and is close to even with Giuliani in Florida. Given that Giuliani will take a beating before we get to FL, I think Huckabee could win there as well.

None of the other states I've looked at have polled in the last half-month, so it's hard to tell exactly where Huckabee sits outside of the South.

Except for Virginia, which I assume is a fairly important state, where Huckabee is non-existent. Buchanan basically won Iowa and NH but had nothing else. It would be interesting to see if a Iowa and SC victory would mean anything. I still say no.

I'm back from the caucus! My precinct was one big clusterfuck. They had the whole county at the same precinct for some reason so there were long lines to get in and lines to sign in. I think my precinct voted for Huckabee, but there's still only 30% reporting there because it was so crowded. Big win for Obama. Edwards is finished. Big win for Huckabee. He won't do well in NH. I think McCain will win NH. It's between him and Romney there. Not sure how this loss will effect Romney. I also think the Republicans will lose in November no matter who they elect. Huckabee knows this and that's why he criticized Bush.

And I think it all comes down to how quickly it becomes a two man race. McCain vs. Huckabee is a disaster for Huckabee, but if Romney, Giuliani and McCain are all still in the race a month from now I think Huckabee can do fairly well. If it's a four man battle in early Feb. Huckabee will have the most wins coming into Super Tuesday and will also have a very strong base in the South.

As for Virginia, I haven't seen any recent polls, so I don't know. Given Huckabee's quick rise and Romney's flak I'd argue that anything more than a couple of weeks old probably doesn't tell us much.

dola?

I'd say biggest surprise is Thompson finishing ahead of McCain.

dola?

I'd say biggest surprise is Thompson finishing ahead of McCain.

Now we can agree on something.

That's what Rove became a master at, and something the Dems have not learned. To win a state's all-or-nothing electoral votes, you play to the strength in getting the numbers where you know you can get them and not spending too much resources on where you can't get them, if that makes sense.

Regardless of what has happened in the last year, spreading out resources did win Congress for the Dems in 2006 because the GOP took some of those races for granted early on. From the bad sports metaphor book, the Dems ran a draw to disrupt the GOP blitz and it worked.

SI

I don't know if Wyoming will offer any kind of news but McCain will win there. That's this Saturday.

Y'know what's interesting to me?

That we've had quite a string of posts about the various Rep. contenders without (until JPhillips broke the spell) mentioning Thompson who finished third.

That's either very telling or very shortsighted of us.

Regardless of what has happened in the last year, spreading out resources did win Congress for the Dems in 2006 because the GOP took some of those races for granted early on. From the bad sports metaphor book, the Dems ran a draw to disrupt the GOP blitz and it worked.

SI

I count the disenchanment vote in 2006 more than I do any specific tactics. I wa thinking more along the lines of the strategy for the electoral college, which is very different than the congressional district races.

Edwards is a douche

got back from my caucus about 30 minutes ago. Obama dominated at ours and Im glad to see that he didnt do too shabby in the rest of the state either. :)

Edwards is a terrible speaker.

Edwards is a douche

He has always reminded me of those caricature political cartoons showing a very slick huckster with a pasted on smile. Reading that he has gone populist is probably good strategy but very contrived.

Also notable (maybe?) is how much Iowa caucuser's polled seemed to have discounted electability in November.

Both sides are giving that some consideration at the highest levels of the parties I'm sure, but will the voters start thinking about it by the time we hit Super Tuesday?

Edwards is a terrible speaker.

I know the subject wasn't funny, but he made me lol during the health insurance story when he throws in the totally random "and then she died!" with like no emotion whatsoever.

Also notable (maybe?) is how much Iowa caucuser's polled seemed to have discounted electability in November.

Both sides are giving that some consideration at the highest levels of the parties I'm sure, but will the voters start thinking about it by the time we hit Super Tuesday?

Your party will get the people and organization in line by then and it won't be for Huckabee, whom they don't like. They let 1996 run its course because none of the candidates would have done well, electorally, against Clinton and gave it to Dole as a lifetime acheivement award. The GOP will be totally focused on electability since they know that Obama or Clinton can be beaten, in the same (close) way as against Kerry.

It does sound like Ron Paul will stay in through Super Tuesday, so I hope some of the libertarian message will be heard and perhaps influence any of the leading candidates.

I guess Dodd has dropped out?

Leno gave Huckabee a pretty big gift last night, not that I think that clinched it, but it sure didn't hurt.

Wow......looking forward to New Hampshire.

Also notable (maybe?) is how much Iowa caucuser's polled seemed to have discounted electability in November.

Both sides are giving that some consideration at the highest levels of the parties I'm sure, but will the voters start thinking about it by the time we hit Super Tuesday?
I think all 3 of the Democrats are electable. Were you talking about the Republican side (which I know of to be more interest to you). On the Republican side I think McCain and Thompson are the most electable, though Thompson doesn't really care to campaign so perhaps that makes him slightly less electable.

dola?

I'd say biggest surprise is Thompson finishing ahead of McCain.

And as of now McCain has pulled ahead of Thompson.

And I think it all comes down to how quickly it becomes a two man race. McCain vs. Huckabee is a disaster for Huckabee, but if Romney, Giuliani and McCain are all still in the race a month from now I think Huckabee can do fairly well. If it's a four man battle in early Feb. Huckabee will have the most wins coming into Super Tuesday and will also have a very strong base in the South.



Right now, I think it's fair to say that the Republicans don't have a candidate who has shown he can compete nationally within the party for the nomination - they have a bunch of regional candidates. And if that doesn't change by Super Tuesday, I think it's not out of the question that the Republicans might go to their convention without someone having the nomination locked up. If the Republicans come out of Super Tuesday without a clear frontrunner (or at least a two-man race), it's going to be a real mess for them.

And as of now McCain has pulled ahead of Thompson.

And now back to Thompson.

Do you see Bloomberg throwing his hat in the ring?

The GOP will be totally focused on electability since they know that Obama or Clinton can be beaten, in the same (close) way as against Kerry.

That's about as good a jumping off point as I'm going to get I think, so I'll answer Barkeep's question using that snippet as a starting point.

Hillary, of course, is the GOP's dream opponent. She's the one thing that will turn clintl's regional candidates into a national candidate. And I believe pretty much any of the top 5 contenders can beat her.

Now, that said, I don't believe any GOP'er can beat Edwards or Obama without winning the South, especially since either of those two make it harder to win, so I start looking at which candidates can accomplish that.

Huckabee, obviously, I'd say can carry the South. So can Thompson, but it'll be softer support. I'm pretty sure Romney can't. That leaves McCain & Rudy.
And right now I believe both of them could get some of the South but not enough.

Wow....what a start.

Hillary, of course, is the GOP's dream opponent. She's the one thing that will turn clintl's regional candidates into a national candidate. And I believe pretty much any of the top 5 contenders can beat her.



When I said regional candidates, I meant specifically in relationship to the race for the Republican nomination, not necessarily the general election. And what I meant by that is that I don't remember a campaign before where one party didn't have anyone who seemed to be competitive everywhere, even if they weren't leading in some places. Almost everyone is running in single digits in the polls somewhere. This is a very strange thing going on in the Republican race, and Super Tuesday has the potential of making it even stranger.

Now we can agree on something.

And you're wrong - McCain spent his time bashing Iowa-issues, while Fred pandered. Read the NR's and co - McCain is the happiest man in Iowa right now, because as much as the GOP hates him - the establishment will hate Huckabee more. Hell, I think Huckabee is the one candidate who can make JIMGA vote democrat, since the right-wing blogosphere keeps calling him a pro-life liberal. :D

This sets up McCain to take NH (which he will), and Romney to go home - and sets up McCain vs Huckabee, with Rudy hoping everyone remembers his strategy of waiting for Florida. We'll see.

When I said regional candidates, I meant specifically in relationship to the race for the Republican nomination, not necessarily the general election.

Actually, I thought it was a pretty fair description of the whole GOP field.

In the absence of Hillary, I'm not convinced any of them can appeal to enough of their own party to win, each of them has a weakness with some portion of the voters you would normally expect them to get. And since I don't believe any of the better known contenders (Romney, McCain, Rudy) are going to suddenly become more popular with the groups they've failed to attract, that leaves Huckabee & Thompson as the only two with a chance to pull the party together on their own (and I'm not exactly holding my breath for that to happen either).

More than ever, I'm feeling as though the best hope might be for whichever Dem win the nomination to stick their entire leg in their mouth repeatedly, just the foot might not be enough to do it.

Hell, I think Huckabee is the one candidate who can make JIMGA vote democrat, since the right-wing blogosphere keeps calling him a pro-life liberal. :D

;)

At this point, I'm not sure if there'll be any of them I can vote for in either party ... unless it's to prevent the coronation of Hellary.

And I say that believing that Edwards is darned close to being as SFN as OwlGore and that Obama is simply so far in over his head as to be incredibly dangerous to the future survival of the nation.

;)

At this point, I'm not sure if there'll be any of them I can vote for in either party ... unless it's to prevent the coronation of Hellary.

And I say that believing that Edwards is darned close to being as SFN as OwlGore and that Obama is simply so far in over his head as to be incredibly dangerous to the future survival of the nation.

Point taken - disagreement, but that is always the case. :D

Here's why I think Thompson will go home after NH - as NR put it, the difference between Thompson's full-on courting of Iowa and McCain basic brush-off (he bashed ethanol in Iowa!) is right now worth zilch - McCain and Thompson are both 13% as per CNN. McCain is going to win NH, at which point Romney goes home. That leaves a newly resurgent McCain against Huckabee in SC, where Rudy may hope to play (but won't) - and Fred basically needs to win if he's still around.

Here's the other thing to consider as to why Mitt Romney is dead - if Fred drops out, who do you think he endorses? If Rudy drops out, who does he endorse? Hell, if Huck drops out - who does he endorse? Its McCain all the way at this point.

Its McCain all the way at this point.

Then you may as well go ahead & crown the Dem's ass.

;)

At this point, I'm not sure if there'll be any of them I can vote for in either party ... unless it's to prevent the coronation of Hellary.

And I say that believing that Edwards is darned close to being as SFN as OwlGore and that Obama is simply so far in over his head as to be incredibly dangerous to the future survival of the nation.

So what you're saying is that you won't vote for any of them...


Except if one of the Democratic candidates win...



Then you'll vote for the Republican...




Thanks for clearing that up, Jon
(But I'm sure you won't be happy about that vote ;) )

SI

Then you may as well go ahead & crown the Dem's ass.

See, I disagree - McCain is the only GOP'er who can win - poll after poll has shown this. You may have a visceral dislike of McCain and most of the grass-roots probably agrees - but the fact is, there a lot of moderate GOP'ers out there who don't share your outrage over McCain Feingold, the Gang of 14, and so forth. There are a lot of people who give him credit for sticking to his guns on the surge when no one else would, and backing the war when it was even more unpopular. You don't have to like McCain to admire a man who sticks to his principles, and the GOP never struck me as the party that would stay home to make a point of principle (the ol' Democratic firing squad circle line comes to mind here :D ).

If you believe a Mormon Romney is going to carry all of the South (or a pro-choice Rudy is going to keep Reagan Democrats in his corner on economic issues alone), I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you. :D

;)

At this point, I'm not sure if there'll be any of them I can vote for in either party ... unless it's to prevent the coronation of Hellary.

And I say that believing that Edwards is darned close to being as SFN as OwlGore and that Obama is simply so far in over his head as to be incredibly dangerous to the future survival of the nation.

Not that's it's surprising, but to claim that any of the candidates are dangerous to the future survival of the nation is silly. I won't like what a President Huckabee or Giuliani will do, but the country will go on just as it will with a President Obama or Clinton.

See, I disagree - McCain is the only GOP'er who can win - poll after poll has shown this. You may have a visceral dislike of McCain and most of the grass-roots probably agrees - but the fact is, there a lot of moderate GOP'ers out there who don't share your outrage over McCain Feingold, the Gang of 14, and so forth. There are a lot of people who give him credit for sticking to his guns on the surge when no one else would, and backing the war when it was even more unpopular. You don't have to like McCain to admire a man who sticks to his principles, and the GOP never struck me as the party that would stay home to make a point of principle (the ol' Democratic firing squad circle line comes to mind here :D ).

If you believe a Mormon Romney is going to carry all of the South (or a pro-choice Rudy is going to keep Reagan Democrats in his corner on economic issues alone), I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you. :D

But McCain's liability within the conservative chattering class is an issue. What would Rush say about a McCain nomination and how would that end up affecting things? My guess is that he'd just pretend he's never disliked McCain, but if he and others like Hannity, Hewitt, etc. really can't support him, won't that hurt him to some degree?

It's awfully early, but I'd see Virginia as a potential problem for McCain. It's trending more urban due to DC suburbs and will have a very popular Dem. running for Senate. Will McCain's liability among hardcore conservatives cost him Virginia? And if so can he make it up in the midwest?

So what you're saying is that you won't vote for any of them... Except if one of the Democratic candidates win... Then you'll vote for the Republican...

Nope, read it again.

I really don't figure it makes much difference to me if McCain (hypothetically) speaking is the President vs Clinton/Edwards/Obama. Miserable is miserable, I'm not sure the degrees of difference are enough to make me give a crap.

Meanwhile, more importantly, I've been sitting here with this window open for several minutes while I surfed around a bit for some position specifics for a couple of people. And I run across another one of those "select your candidate" things.
http://www.selectsmart.com/president/2008.html

Guess who it gave me as my favored choice? Hmm? Who springs to mind immediately when you think Jon-and-political-clones? Give up?


1. Theoretical Ideal Candidate (100%)
2. Stephen Colbert (85%)


I'm still chuckling at the absurdity of the situation, but I guess it really illustrates how screwed I am come November.

Not that's it's surprising, but to claim that any of the candidates are dangerous to the future survival of the nation is silly. I won't like what a President Huckabee or Giuliani will do, but the country will go on just as it will with a President Obama or Clinton.

I agree. None of these candidates would change anything. I think the Republicans are dead no matter who they nominate. McCain would lose. Giuliani would lose. The country doesn't want another George Bush. Romney would lose. Huckabee would get slaughtered. Thompson will drop out of the race after he doesn't win SC. The Republican Party is in shambles.

If you believe a Mormon Romney is going to carry all of the South (or a pro-choice Rudy is going to keep Reagan Democrats in his corner on economic issues alone), I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you. :D

Does nobody actually read what I say, not even when it's barely bumped off the page?

re: carrying the South
I'm pretty sure Romney can't

re: Rudy & the South
... could get some of the South but not enough

Reading ... it's fundamental
;)

Sorry - I missed a bunch of the earlier posts - mea culpa.

Obama 38%
Edwards 30%
Clinton 29%

Interesting - anyone want to speculate on how this shapes the Dem side of things? I'm not a political race junkie, so I have little idea how the upcoming primaries/caucuses are shaping up, but I find it interesting that Edwards edged Clinton out. Given the money raised by Clinton and Obama it seems like Edwards has a big hole to climb out of - does this result do anything more than keep him in the race, or does it give him some momentum?

And is the margin big enough for Obama to shift some of Clinton's donors over to him?

Obama 38%
Edwards 30%
Clinton 29%

Interesting - anyone want to speculate on how this shapes the Dem side of things? I'm not a political race junkie, so I have little idea how the upcoming primaries/caucuses are shaping up, but I find it interesting that Edwards edged Clinton out. Given the money raised by Clinton and Obama it seems like Edwards has a big hole to climb out of - does this result do anything more than keep him in the race, or does it give him some momentum?

And is the margin big enough for Obama to shift some of Clinton's donors over to him?

Edwards has been living in Iowa for 4 years - to still lose is basically a disaster for him. Honestly, in an Edwards vs Obama battle, where do you think the Dem establishment and the Dem hype is going to flow? His best bet was eliminating Obama, and shaping a him vs Hilary contest - that's not going to happen right now. His entire strategy was all about Iowa - and that's gone. If was betting man, I'd sell Edwards short to hilt to whatever extent anyone is backing him right now.

There is obviously a huge win for Obama, but I think he has to take NH to con firm it - if he somehow loses that (ie, the independents flock to vote in the GOP poll, and the Dems come out for Clinton) - then its game on between Clinton and him.

Edwards has been living in Iowa for 4 years - to still lose is basically a disaster for him. Honestly, in an Edwards vs Obama battle, where do you think the Dem establishment and the Dem hype is going to flow? His best bet was eliminating Obama, and shaping a him vs Hilary contest - that's not going to happen right now. His entire strategy was all about Iowa - and that's gone. If was betting man, I'd sell Edwards short to hilt to whatever extent anyone is backing him right now.
Good info - that's the kind of stuff I haven't been following closely.

There is obviously a huge win for Obama, but I think he has to take NH to con firm it - if he somehow loses that (ie, the independents flock to vote in the GOP poll, and the Dems come out for Clinton) - then its game on between Clinton and him.
I wish Obama excited me more - I find him a dull speaker for the most part, not all that inspiring. I don't like the impression I get from the positions he takes - they just seem too calculated for current political benefit. I was very disappointed to find out he voted for that horrible bankruptcy reform bill from a few years ago.

I really want to be excited by Obama, but at this point all he's doing for me is providing an option besides Clinton - I'd be fine with Clinton as our President, but I have serious doubts she'd win. She's been so demonized for so long by the right that I think she'd galvanize a messy Republican base enough to actually win.

I guess in summary I think Obama is more electable than Clinton, and better Obama than any of the Republicans.

Here is why I love republicans:

BLITZER: You can't obviously have any favorites right now as chairman of the RNC. You love all of these Republicans. But give us a little sense of what Mike Huckabee means to the Republican Party.

DUNCAN: Well, Wolf, let me talk about what the Democrats are doing and why we're going to win this fall. We're going to win because we're putting forward our ideas. The Democrats are putting forward old ideas of more government, larger government, more taxes, less responsibility.

Declining to even address Huckabee. Going directly to spouting boogie man nonsense that isn't even true. They are making Democrats look smart and organized by comparison. Not a hot start for them.

The Democrats are putting forward ideas of more government, larger government, more taxes, less responsibility. But so are the Republicans except for the Bush tax cuts! It's all one big mess! I don't think the establishment likes Huckabee and they'll soon expose him as the fraud that he is. It's like I've been saying, the Republicans are in shambles.

dola?

I'd say biggest surprise is Thompson finishing ahead of McCain.

He was 3rd in both of the polls I posted the day of the caucus.

My thoughts:

Richardson played the la raza card will (and have) turn off voters. It would be like Obama playing the Jess Jackson card, which he has not done in his appealing to the mainstream voters. Jackson called out by being white and as long as he resist doing so, he'll do ok. As far as Clinton, I brought up repeatedly about her very high negatives and it's going to be a factor one way or another.

Going back to 1980, you become president by being strong in the South and the West - the Midwest plays the wild card. In other words, national voters has not cared for those coming out of the Northeast - for either party. Obama can do well nationally if he doesn't go old-school Dem (playing to the Kennedy wing). That's also a strike against Romney where Massachusetts is not viewed favorably in the South and West. Guiliani is playing a specific strategy hoping that no exciting bandwagon candidate (in the mode of Obama) comes out of the early primaries. None will. Thompson could actually win but he's lazy and expecting a pass. He'll be a good VP candidate.

In the absence of Hillary, I'm not convinced any of them can appeal to enough of their own party to win, each of them has a weakness with some portion of the voters you would normally expect them to get. And since I don't believe any of the better known contenders (Romney, McCain, Rudy) are going to suddenly become more popular with the groups they've failed to attract, that leaves Huckabee & Thompson as the only two with a chance to pull the party together on their own (and I'm not exactly holding my breath for that to happen either).

I agree with most of this (gasp) but I disagree somewhat with your take on Huckabee and have a different spin on your take on Thompson.

I agree that Thompson has/had the potential to be a national candidate for the GOP (i.e. "pull the party together") but I'd say his lackluster performance so far (slow fundraising, boring campaign, terrible public performances) indicates that he just doesn't have the energy to do it.

I doubt Huckabee pulls the GOP together behind him. If he were to win the nomination I have to think whole swathes of the GOP would stay home (fiscal conservatives, moderates, possibly even neo-cons) and just let the Dem nominee have it. If the Dem nominee is not Hillary, these folks have even less reason to go out and vote for Huckabee.

Obama is simply so far in over his head as to be incredibly dangerous to the future survival of the nation.

One could level the same accusation (with more evidence) at both Thompson (still refers to Russia as the "Soviet Union") and Huckabee (hadn't heard of the "Iran is not a threat" NIE; routinely unaware, when asked, about foreign affairs; unclear, when asked, about the details of the Writers' Strike).

Here's why I think Thompson will go home after NH - as NR put it, the difference between Thompson's full-on courting of Iowa and McCain basic brush-off (he bashed ethanol in Iowa!) is right now worth zilch - McCain and Thompson are both 13% as per CNN. McCain is going to win NH, at which point Romney goes home. That leaves a newly resurgent McCain against Huckabee in SC, where Rudy may hope to play (but won't) - and Fred basically needs to win if he's still around.

I kind of think Thompson hangs around until Super Tuesday. I think he'll get just enough in most states until ST to justify staying in. To me, he kind of seems like the GOP's "None of the above" vote in these primaries.

I think you're wrong about Romney bailing out after NH. He still has waaay too much money tied up in this campaign to give up after two states. Plus, he still polls well in a lot of ST states. I think he ends up pretty hurt if he loses to McCain in NH, but not quite out of it, yet.

See, I disagree - McCain is the only GOP'er who can win - poll after poll has shown this.

That's been my thought throughout - McCain is the strongest GOP candidate this cycle in the general election. I just think a lot of us have thought that the same attributes which make him a strong GE candidate meant it was unlikely for him to win the nomination.

There is obviously a huge win for Obama, but I think he has to take NH to con firm it - if he somehow loses that (ie, the independents flock to vote in the GOP poll, and the Dems come out for Clinton) - then its game on between Clinton and him.

Based on Iowa, what Obama has going for him here is that he's inspired a lot of people (especially young people) to get out and vote for him. If he can duplicate this success in NH, he'll have a very good shot, even if all the independents vote in the GOP primary instead of the Dem one.

Thompson could actually win but he's lazy and expecting a pass. He'll be a good VP candidate.

You know, I never thought of this, but do you think Thompson might actually be playing for VP instead of the general nomination? After all, he's not really attacked anyone except Huckabee, and his general goal seems to be to just do "good enough". VP would be a pretty sweet deal for him. Back in politics for a while (heck, even just 4 years if he wants), gets to pontificate for a bit, and then heads back out on the lobbying/lecturing circuit for $$.

If Iowa is any indicator, the religious lunatics are coming out of the woodwork for the GOP primaries.

Which means basically a few things.

1) Huckabee or Romney takes the nomination.
2) Non bible thumping Republicans stay home come November.
3) Barring the Democrats remembering they are Democrats and inventing a way to royally fuck up again, they've got the election in the bag.

Good lord this race sucks.

You know, I never thought of this, but do you think Thompson might actually be playing for VP instead of the general nomination?

I don't think it started out that way but that might just be how it has (already) turned out.

Good lord this race sucks.

Whaddya know? It's our turn to agree on something I guess ;)

Whaddya know? It's our turn to agree on something I guess ;)

Hell doth frozeth over. :)

Romney has taken the early lead in Wyoming, taking 2 delegates.

Latest Rasmussen's post Iowa NH poll shows Obama with a huge lead for the Democrats:

Obama 37
Clinton 27
Edwards 19
Richardson 8

And McCain with a decent lead for the Republicans:

McCain 31
Romney 26
Paul 14
Huckabee 11
Giuliani 8
Thompson 5

Might wait to see more polls, but I think these are a pretty good order for how things will go on Tuesday. The Republican race is the same as Iowa. 2 way battle for 1st, 3 way battle for 3rd. We'll see if Huckabee gets more of a boost because this poll didn't really show one for him, but that might just be because his message doesn't appeal to NH. Obama with the huge lead is no surprise. I expect him to take NH.