Call the race: IOWA (Democrats)

[875000]

Who do you think will come in first in Iowa on the Democrat side? Vote in the poll, and then -- if you are truly daring -- make a post with the spread below.

[Jorddyn]

Since I'm actually a Democrat, I'm using the "people talking" method rather than the lawn sign method to pick Obama in a surprising 5-8 point spread over Hillary.

[Hulkein]

Edwards with the upset.

[Bobmuhthol]

God, I would fucking LOVE for Edwards to win it.

[875000]

This caucus may actually be more complicated than the GOP one this year. The reason is that there are a number of candidates who will probably fall below the 15% precinct threshhold, while the difference between the likely top three candidates is small.

The net effect? One of the top three could be behind among first choices, but supporters of a candidate who failed to hit 15% could then decide to throw their support behind him or her and put them on top.

Supposedly, this is what allowed Edwards to eke out a victory the last time. While he was not the first pick, a large number of people selected him for their second pick and he was pushed over the top.

Further adding to the intrigue, there are rumors going around today that candidates in the top 3 are brokering deals with the "second tier" candidates for their supporters in the event they second tier candidate fails to reach the threshhold.

Without naming names, one candidate allegedly has a deal with another that goes like this: if candidate B fails to achieve 15%, he will encourage his supporters to support candidate A in Iowa. In return, Candidate A, who is an overhwhelming favorite in another race, promised to siphon some "overflow" support and give it to Candidate B in the non-Iowa one.

[Gan]

The real issue in my mind, with this caucus is how many candidates will use this as the motivator to bow out?

Everything that I'm hearing now is that most candidates will use this caucus as a means of readjusting their campaign, but not to use it as an indicator to move forward or drop out. Which is a negative side effect of having such an early caucus.

[Ilvane]

Might be Edwards, could be Obama..we'll have to see.

[Latrinsorm]

Go Obama!

[Bobmuhthol]

<<Everything that I'm hearing now is that most candidates will use this caucus as a means of readjusting their campaign, but not to use it as an indicator to move forward or drop out.>>

I think the democratic candidates are pretty much done and they know it if they don't meet the 15% in the caucus. I doubt the ones that are outright eliminated will campaign much longer.

[Celephais]

Go Obama!
Go Banana!
http://i169.photobucket.com/albums/u222/GuinnessKMF/RalphBanana.gif

[Snapp]

Biden in '08

Delaware ftw!

[Jorddyn]

For anyone who cares, here was my experience at the caucus tonight.

I walked up to the elementary school where I was to caucus. There was a door for Democrats (gym), and a door for Republicans (media center). The turnout was unreal. There were lines down the hall/around the corner to get in. We wound up with 356 people in the gym for the democrats. 168 of those were in Obama's corner, 121 were in Hillary's, 29 each for Richardson and Edwards, and a handful scattered among the rest.

Every candidate's campaign had a chance to go speak for a minute (or was it two?). Everyone was given the chance to move. Dodd's people all left, Kucinich and Biden joined Edwards (for the most part).

They counted again, and Edwards was still one short of viability. Most of his people left, a couple joined Hillary, a chunk joined Obama.

End of the night, Obama got 6 delegates from my district, Hillary got 3.

All in all, it was a very interesting experience.

Things I learned:
Adults can be as petty as children - there was some serious mocking going on.
You should not go straight from work and wear heels.
400 people in winter coats in a gym get a little warm and smelly.
There's lots of free food at the caucus. I'm sorry, Hillary, your water was closest and I was thirsty.
No one wants to be elected caucus chair.

Oh, and I called both the nominations. My highly analytical sign-in-yard method and talk-to-my-friends methods paid off.

[Parkbandit]

I am just thankful I don't live in Iowa. This caucus is a fucking joke imo.

The winner is really meaningless here.. as who really gives a shit who an Iowan wants as President? Name the last person that was elected President who won Iowa.

[JohnDoe]

The winner is really meaningless here.. as who really gives a shit who an Iowan wants as President? Name the last person that was elected President who won Iowa.

Didn't GW win in Iowa during 2000 and 2004? I agree that this doesn't dictate who's going to be elected, but I don't necessarily think it's meaningless.

[Jorddyn]

Didn't GW win in Iowa during 2000 and 2004? I agree that this doesn't dictate who's going to be elected, but I don't necessarily think it's meaningless.

Yes, he did win the caucus.

And Clinton won in 96. Tom Harkin won in 92, but he was a much loved home town boy (still is).

We were off in 88 (Gephardt, Dole), Reagan in 84, 80, and Carter in 76.*

So, since 1976, we haven't picked the candidate who won the presidency twice, and one of those was because we had a home-towner running.

Not horrible.


*Ok, so Carter was the first candidate. "Uncommitted" actually won. That's hilarious.

[TheEschaton]

If Hillary doesn't outright win NH, and by win, I mean annhilate, she's done. SC is not her thing, MI where she would have done good with the unions doesn't count, FL doesn't count....yeah, that's pretty much it.

-TheE-

[Jorddyn]

The winner is really meaningless here.. as who really gives a shit who an Iowan wants as President?

And, to answer that question, find out how many people there were watching/clicking on the results tonight and you'll have your answer. I bet it is more than a few.

[crazymage]

Originally Posted by Parkbandit View Post
The winner is really meaningless here.. as who really gives a shit who an Iowan wants as President?

http://i6.tinypic.com/8e06mnm.jpg


Yes, he did win the caucus.

And Clinton won in 96. Tom Harkin won in 92, but he was a much loved home town boy (still is).

We were off in 88 (Gephardt, Dole), Reagan in 84, 80, and Carter in 76.*

So, since 1976, we haven't picked the candidate who won the presidency twice, and one of those was because we had a home-towner running.

Not horrible.


*Ok, so Carter was the first candidate. "Uncommitted" actually won. That's hilarious.

[Tsa`ah]

Interestingly enough, the PC poll sort of runs parallel to the caucus for the Dems.

While Obama didn't win 70% of the turn out, Clinton did lose by just over 70%.

Also interesting is the split in delegates (not wanting to turn this into a dem/rep debate but ... ), we're looking at a 57/40 split in party delegates if that is going to have any impact on Iowa's voting in the general elections.

Clinton cleaned up in the Sr vote, which was expected, but Obama pulled in the undecided, independent, and younger vote. His biggest demographic being the 25 and younger. If you looked at each of the candidates during their speeches you would have noticed that Obama had a very diverse (in age, race, and gender) crowd. The Edwards crowd was younger, mostly white. The Clinton crowd looked like there would be a need for a fleet of ambulances.

Watching the Romney and Huckabee speeches ... I know it's just me, but there were way too many Shirley Phelps-Roper look alikes. Had it not been for the presence of Chuck ... I half expected some hell fire and brimstone sermon to break out.

In any event, I find it funny that Clinton's previous rhetoric (use of "when I'm president") coming back to bite her in the ass. Bill look completely mortified during Hillary's speech and I think I know why. Obama pulling southern states was unthinkable last month, showing strong in SC or anywhere else at this point seems to be a nearly done deal. Hillary may be able to pull off NH, but I think Bill has already seen the cards and is probably going to try and shore up his wife's career as a senator.

[Ilvane]

What has Obama really said about what he wanted to do, except for the nice flowery words he spouts? He says "I want to change America" which is great..but WHAT are you going to do?? Specifics here. Give us some things plans that are going to make sense...how are you going to pay for it? How are you going to get things passed. Have you worked with other people to communicate and make concessions to get things passed? Etc, etc..

He doesn't have the experience to run the country, and while he may have great idealistic thoughts, with the way this country is right now, at war, and with all the issues going on..I would NOT want him as president.

I also don't quite understand why a "presidential look" is so damned important. I'd rather have a not so good looking intelligent person as my president any day over someone who is all style over substance.

Anyway, just my two cents.

Angela

[Sean of the Thread]

It's time for my morning ROFL.

[ClydeR]

The Democrats went for Barack Hussein Obama. I know he was leading in the polls, but I thought the Clintons controlled everything. Barrack Hussein Obama is so far to the left that he will be the easiest to defeat in November.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

There is no way you can be a real person, in the real world.

I'm betting you get Internet privileges for an hour each day at the mental facility you are at?

[ClydeR]

I also don't quite understand why a "presidential look" is so damned important. I'd rather have a not so good looking intelligent person as my president any day over someone who is all style over substance.

The Old Gray Lady said today (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/04/us/politics/04dems.html), "Whether it was because they were eager to leave behind the bitter divides of the last two decades or because they wanted to send a message that a small white state could transcend the issue of race, Iowa voters handed Senator Barack Obama a victory here Thursday and supported his improbable candidacy in defiance of those who warned he was too inexperienced in world affairs."

Contrast that with Rush Limbaugh, who says (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xm6hlj-BV0s) that he isn't black enough to win. I'm still laughing that Limbaugh played that song on the radio and got away with it.

Both liberals and conservatives seem to think that the candidacy of Barrack Hussein Obama is all about race.

[chillmonster]

Obama can win. GWB should teach all of us that issues don't win elections, candidates do. GWB couldn't speak more intelligently than any opposing candidate on any issue, but people liked him. Whatever you say about Obama, you have to admit he is inspirational. People hear him and feel good about America and about the future. People eat that shit up. It doesn't guarantee a good president, but it's definitely enough to get him elected.

Check out this speech (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yqoFwZUp5vc&feature=user)and tell me the guy doesn't look like the next president.

[Mighty Nikkisaurus]

Right now there is only one thing to say.

Barack Obama lied to the American people when he told us he was black.

He is not black. I should know.. because I am black.

[Ilvane]

Yeah, he "looks" like a president, maybe. He may even sound good in sound bytes...

That was kind of how Bush got elected, right? He was likeable...

:shrug: Scary that we vote on that kind of stuff.

I don't care if the President is a nice guy, I want someone with more substance.

The Repubs may even do the same with Romney..he managed to get elected here in MA without saying much of what he stood for, but he sure looked like a governor!

Angela

[Some Rogue]

I don't care if the President is a nice guy, I want someone with more substance.

Angela

Like Hillary?

"Let me take a poll and then I'll tell you what I think."

[Parkbandit]

Yes, he did win the caucus.

And Clinton won in 96. Tom Harkin won in 92, but he was a much loved home town boy (still is).

We were off in 88 (Gephardt, Dole), Reagan in 84, 80, and Carter in 76.*

So, since 1976, we haven't picked the candidate who won the presidency twice, and one of those was because we had a home-towner running.

Not horrible.


*Ok, so Carter was the first candidate. "Uncommitted" actually won. That's hilarious.


Actually, the key word was "running for President".. which Bush '00 and Clinton '96 were not. They were already President. I was misinformed of Bush winning in '00 actually, I thought fucking McCain won it.. but he lost miserably that year as well.

So fantastic history of this caucus. It's named 1 President in the past.. 30 years +?

Like I said.. who cares. The only reason it's getting as much press coverage as it is.. is because it's the first. So every 4 years, Iowa is 'important'.

[Hulkein]

The Democrats went for Barack Hussein Obama. I know he was leading in the polls, but I thought the Clintons controlled everything. Barrack Hussein Obama is so far to the left that he will be the easiest to defeat in November.

What is the point of saying his middle name over and over again? I mean I know what you are intending to do but come on.

[Sean]

Probably because Hillary comes off as a conniving bitch. It's not just about the issues but how much you can trust in your leaders. Hillary just comes across as dead in the eyes .. kinda like she has no soul. Would you trust someone with no soul?!

[Parkbandit]

The Old Gray Lady said today (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/04/us/politics/04dems.html), "Whether it was because they were eager to leave behind the bitter divides of the last two decades or because they wanted to send a message that a small white state could transcend the issue of race, Iowa voters handed Senator Barack Obama a victory here Thursday and supported his improbable candidacy in defiance of those who warned he was too inexperienced in world affairs."

Contrast that with Rush Limbaugh, who says (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xm6hlj-BV0s) that he isn't black enough to win. I'm still laughing that Limbaugh played that song on the radio and got away with it.

Both liberals and conservatives seem to think that the candidacy of Barrack Hussein Obama is all about race.

Actually, you ill informed dipshit.. Limbaugh didn't say he wasn't black enough... some black 'leaders' did. If Limbaugh said that on the air, he would have been carted out with the other dipshit who said "Nappy headed hos"

[Parkbandit]

Obama can win. GWB should teach all of us that issues don't win elections, candidates do. GWB couldn't speak more intelligently than any opposing candidate on any issue, but people liked him. Whatever you say about Obama, you have to admit he is inspirational. People hear him and feel good about America and about the future. People eat that shit up. It doesn't guarantee a good president, but it's definitely enough to get him elected.

Check out this speech (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yqoFwZUp5vc&feature=user)and tell me the guy doesn't look like the next president.

I actually agree. I was stirred when he said the part about red states, blue states.. we're the UNITED STATES. All too often, party candidates are bitching back and forth and forget we're one fucking country.

While I am not going to vote for this guy because he is far too liberal for my tastes, he does seem to be a geniune guy... which is more than I can say for the other 2 frontrunner 'guys' running right now... Hillary and Edwards. I used the term 'guys'.. because I'm not sure Edwards really is.

[Parkbandit]

What is the point of saying his middle name over and over again? I mean I know what you are intending to do but come on.


You honestly take ClydeR or Ilvane seriously here?

Shame on you.

[Gan]

What is the point of saying his middle name over and over again? I mean I know what you are intending to do but come on.

Its an old trick that Dan Rather used to do when Dan Quayle was running on the ticket with Bush Sr. Its intention is to focus on the Hussein part of the name in hopes of scaring off potential or on the fence supporters of Obama. (innuendo scare tactic)

;)

[Hulkein]

Yup. Pretty pathetic.

[oldanforgotten]

Obama hasn?t been hiding any of his stances on issues, and this kind of low brow talk is exact proof that Ilvane indeed, is a Clinton brainwashee. None of the candidates have been hiding their stances. Most websites have pretty clear boxes as to where all of the candidates stand on most issues. If you want to accuse Obama of being flaky on immigration control, go for it. He?s been far from clear on that one. In terms of providing specific numbers for everything, not many things have specific numbers attached, other than Huckabee?s 23% sales tax.

Clinton does not NEED New Hampshire. She has an absolute assload of money, and even though Obama has a lot of financial resources himself, it?s nowhere near the same order if you consider the fact that the amount of larger contributers Clinton has (who can and will write blank checks, such as Warren Buffett), can provide her with almost limitless solvency, as compared to Edwards and Obama in particular, who has probably twice as many donors, but a smaller average donation. Her campaign has plenty of firepower to march forward even with a loss in N.H.

There are so many reasons you can look at as to why what happened did.

1) Obama had an absolutely riveting speech to kick off the 2004 DNC, and is the best public speaker of the bunch. Edwards is likely the best debator, but in terms of firing up a crowd, no one does it as well as Obama or Ron Paul. This probably helps him a ton with the younger crowd.
2) Edwards actually has a very good record in Senate in terms of standing behind his guns, however, a couple of things, image-wise have hurt him tremendously. 400 dollar haircuts, and the snipe that Cheney took at him that his Senate attendance was poor. Those things take a long time to forget. Couple that with the loss in the 2004 primaries, and some may see him as either blue-blood or unviable.
3) Clinton is very divisive. A lot of people don?t trust her. Wearing a Yankees cap to Shea stadium, and proclaiming to be a fan of both teams during her Senate bid certainly didn?t help a lick with the honesty side. Not recalling a thing under oath about the 300+ hours she billed to her own law firm (which was never paid for by the Clintons) for her husband?s case (a conflict of interest, BTW, but we?ll leave that aside for now) regarding the Whitewater loan handlings either paints her as an Alzheimer?s patient in later stages (absolutely no memory), or a liar. In fact, one of the more image staining issues was out of her control. No matter HOW she handled the whole Monica Lewinsky issue with Bill, some people would inevitably think less of her because of how she handled it. (either wanting her to do more, or less).
4) Obama probably has the best grip on the far left, but also has the best grip on Independants. Considering the sheer number of young people and the breakdown of how many people voted for him by going to their first caucus certainly paints the image that he can get people out to vote, which helps in determining his viability.
5) He has not been subject to nearly as much scrutiny or criticism yet as Clinton has, which will change as time moves forward and his candidacy becomes more and more viable. Frontrunners get the most criticism and attacks.

Eventually, this may and should become a two horse race, probably between Obama and Hillary. If it does, bear in mind:

1) Hilary will have the biggest coffers moving forward money wise. A number of her donors can write obscenely large checks, and her experience has resulted in having the support of a TON of special interest supporters and their bank accounts.
2) Hilary is a woman, and Obama is African American. Like it or not, that DOES mean that each will lose some votes from either people who won?t vote for a woman, or people who won?t vote for an African American. In this day and age, those numbers should be small, but whichever one loses more will favor the other.
3) Hilary has surrounded herself with more experience campaigning than Obama has. In terms of the Karl Rove factor, she?s holding all the aces.
4) Neither has appeared to be strong debators, which should favor Obama, because Obama is otherwise a much better public speaker.
5) Like it or not, Obama DOES look more presidential. That may be a factor to some people.
6) Obama?s themes of change actually directly confront Hilary?s experience moniker without being as negative about it. Frankly, I think it?s brilliant from a strategic point of view.
7) Edwards may be the ultimate deciding factor in the nomination if he chooses to be. If he drops out to support another candidate (personally, given his record, more likely to be Obama than Hilary, but who the fuck knows), that could provide an otherwise insurmountable swing of votes.
8) Eventually people will look at national prediction polls and take that into account. Considering that currently, Obama has much wider leads over his Republican counterparts in head to head election predictions than Clinton does, this may also help people who want a more electable candidate.
9) Many of Obama?s skeletons are public, and admitted in his book. First time that?s been done. Could bite him in the ass, could work to help him in the long run.
10) Obama?s middle name will hurt him, albeit to what extent, nobody knows. I have a feeling that most people who would use that against him would not have voted for him in the first place based on their initial beliefs, making the net loss minimal.
________
MERCEDES-BENZ R171 HISTORY (http://www.mercedes-wiki.com/wiki/Mercedes-Benz_R171)

[Ilvane]

Okay, here are a couple of my thoughts..He wants to end the Iraq war, yet does not have a plan or an idea of what he will do to end it. I think he's idealistic about what he wants to do, but not realistic. I think you can say.."I will take troops out tomorrow" to get elected, but when you come right down to it, we need realism, not pipe dreams.

I have some more thoughts too, but work is getting busy, be back in a second.

Angela

[Sean of the Thread]

Okay, here are a couple of my thoughts..He wants to end the Iraq war, yet does not have a plan or an idea of what he will do to end it. I think he's idealistic about what he wants to do, but not realistic. I think you can say.."I will take troops out tomorrow" to get elected, but when you come right down to it, we need realism, not pipe dreams.

I have some more thoughts too, but work is getting busy, be back in a second.

Angela

Why do you even bother.

[Jorddyn]

So fantastic history of this caucus. It's named 1 President in the past.. 30 years +?


1968 - Nixon R
1972 - Nixon R
1976 - Carter D
1980 - Reagan R
1984 - Reagan R
1988 - Dukakis D
1992 - Clinton D
1996 - Clinton D
2000 - Gore D
2004 - Bush R

So, we've only called 8 of the last 10 elections.

The importance of our state, though, is by that little letter after the next name. It changes. We're not a hopelessly lost blue or red state - we're a lovely purple.

I'm not saying that Iowa is the most important place in the country. I'm not saying that we're super-special. I'm saying there's a reason people are interested - we're pretty damn average, and a decent indicator of how the nation goes.

[Parkbandit]

1968 - Nixon R
1972 - Nixon R
1976 - Carter D
1980 - Reagan R
1984 - Reagan R
1988 - Dukakis D
1992 - Clinton D
1996 - Clinton D
2000 - Gore D
2004 - Bush R

So, we've only called 8 of the last 10 elections.

The importance of our state, though, is by that little letter after the next name. It changes. We're not a hopelessly lost blue or red state - we're a lovely purple.

I'm not saying that Iowa is the most important place in the country. I'm not saying that we're super-special. I'm saying there's a reason people are interested - we're pretty damn average, and a decent indicator of how the nation goes.

Did you make this list up.. or did you get it from ILOVEIOWA.com? First and foremost.. don't include sitting Presidents.. as they are not running against anyone else in their party (I thought I made that clear in my first and 2nd posts.. obviously, you had an Ilvane moment) Also don't include losers like Dukakis.. since I don't remember him being elected President.

Now, let's set the record straight..

1976 - More were 'uncommitted' than Carter received. Clearly not a win.
1980 - George HW Bush actually beat Reagan (32% to 30%)
1988 - Dukakis? Where the hell do you get this from? He came in 3rd that year..
1992 - Your facts are becoming comical now.. Clinton actually was in 4th place at 3%. Remember Harken? Yea, he received 76% of the vote.


So let's tally the real votes now. Oh, that's right.. Your glorious state nominated ONE individual who eventually became President in the past 35 years. CONGRATS!

Like I said... it's the first contest, but is truly meaningless in the grand scheme of things as history has proven.

[Latrinsorm]

I think you can say.."I will take troops out tomorrow" to get elected, but when you come right down to it, we need realism, not pipe dreams.It worked pretty well for the Democratic Congressfolk in '06, didn't it?

[ClydeR]

1980 - George HW Bush actually beat Reagan (32% to 30%)

That is the origin of one of my favorite political phrases. "The Bog Mo." After his victory in Iowa, Bush 41 said that he had "the big mo," referring to momentum. Pundits still use that phrase occasionally.

[875000]

Props to Obama on this one:

In a reference to Clinton's earlier attack on him for saying in a kindergarden essay that he would like to be President ...


Obama did work a new joke into his speech. Referring to his new status as the Democratic front-runner, he said: "This feels good. It's just like I imagined it when I was talking to my Kindergarten teacher."

http://www.observer.com/2008/obama-makes-clinton-campaign-joke

[BigWorm]

Parkbandit, she was listing who won the state of Iowa in the actual presidential election in each year, not the primaries.

[CrystalTears]

Parkbandit, she was listing who won the state of Iowa in the actual presidential election in each year, not the primaries.
And I believe he asked if any of the ones who won in Iowa actually won the presidency.

[Parkbandit]

Parkbandit, she was listing who won the state of Iowa in the actual presidential election in each year, not the primaries.


I'm sorry.. that had zero to do with the point I previously made. I was pointing to the historical fact that the caucus in Iowa has had a track record of not picking the correct winner in the upcoming election.

Doesn't each state have a 50/50 chance of picking the right winner in the general election? Is Jorddyn now claiming that Iowa has some sort of esp when it comes to picking a 50/50 winner 8 of 10 times?

CLEARVOYANT IOWA FTW!

[Hulkein]

Her point is that Iowa is pretty average which translates into good forecasting for eventual presidential winners.

[Latrinsorm]

Doesn't each state have a 50/50 chance of picking the right winner in the general election? Is Jorddyn now claiming that Iowa has some sort of esp when it comes to picking a 50/50 winner 8 of 10 times?

CLEARVOYANT IOWA FTW!"The importance of our state, though, is by that little letter after the next name." seems pretty clear.

[Latrinsorm]

p.s.: Statistics tell us only 2 states would have Iowa's prediction rate assuming all 50 had 50/50 shots every year.

[oldanforgotten]

p.s.: Statistics tell us only 2 states would have Iowa's prediction rate assuming all 50 had 50/50 shots every year.

The only things established in Iowa this time around is that a) The evangelicals still vote and b) Obama?s candidacy is legitimate.

I don?t think for a second that anything is set in stone. I really don?t see Huckabee winning the nomination, and rather than thinking Hilary has a strong grip, now it?s a bit more up in the air. A betting man would probably still get the odds favoring a Hilary-Romney/Giuliani matchup.
________
Rolling a joint (http://howtorollajoint.net/)

[Parkbandit]

The average daily temperature in Iowa is colder than it is in Florida.

[Tsa`ah]

I'm sorry.. that had zero to do with the point I previously made. I was pointing to the historical fact that the caucus in Iowa has had a track record of not picking the correct winner in the upcoming election.

Well, the point was kind of sad considering there are two winners in at least every other caucus. Sitting presidents still run, it's just accepted as a foregone conclusion that the incumbent will always attain their party's nomination.

1976 the winners were Ford (defeating Reagan), and Carter (you can't count the delegates who sat on the fence).

1980 the winners were GH Bush (32% to 30% over the next CIC Reagan) and Carter over T Kennedy (59-31)

1984 Reagan ran unopposed in Iowa, Mondale won in a landslide.

1988 Dole wins with 37% to Bush's 19%, Gephart wins the on the other side with 31%.

1992 Bush runs unopposed, Harkin cleans up with 76%.

1996 Dole wins with 26%, Clinton runs unopposed.

2000 Dubya 41%, Gore 63%.

2004 Dubya unopposed, Kerry 38%.

So, Iowa has picked 9 general election candidates since 1976 ... that's 56% up to this point.

Not counting incumbencies ... Iowa has picked 2 presidents out of 9 general election candidates.

The Iowa caucus is very telling when it comes to who we'll see on the ballot when it really counts.


Doesn't each state have a 50/50 chance of picking the right winner in the general election? Is Jorddyn now claiming that Iowa has some sort of esp when it comes to picking a 50/50 winner 8 of 10 times?


No. It's not 50/50 simply due to the electoral process. Were 50/50 the case we'd have far more close elections throughout history than we already have.

[Celephais]

p.s.: Statistics tell us only 2 states would have Iowa's prediction rate assuming all 50 had 50/50 shots every year.
Sort of... but you're throwing out a LOT of variables, if each state had an even vote, you still couldn't just use simple statistics to say it's a 50/50 shot, because you are more likely to be correct than you are to be incorrect (if a pres wins with 30 out of 50 states, the stats would be 60/40 chance ... so at best in those circumstances; no ties; you have a 54/46 chance). Start throwing in electoral votes and swing states into the statistics and it throws it through a loop.

(although you said "assuming ..." so yeah, not your bad math... it's PBs)

[chillmonster]

Okay, here are a couple of my thoughts..He wants to end the Iraq war, yet does not have a plan or an idea of what he will do to end it. I think he's idealistic about what he wants to do, but not realistic. I think you can say.."I will take troops out tomorrow" to get elected, but when you come right down to it, we need realism, not pipe dreams.

I have some more thoughts too, but work is getting busy, be back in a second.

Angela

Are you sure you've done your homework on this guy? The Obama plan is a periodic withdrawal where he immediately begins withdrawing a brigade monthly untill we are completely out in 16-24 months. I may not agree with this strategy, but he has been pretty clear and pretty consistent.

[Gan]

Props to Obama on this one:
In a reference to Clinton's earlier attack on him for saying in a kindergarden essay that he would like to be President ...


Obama did work a new joke into his speech. Referring to his new status as the Democratic front-runner, he said: "This feels good. It's just like I imagined it when I was talking to my Kindergarten teacher."
http://www.observer.com/2008/obama-makes-clinton-campaign-joke

ROFL

[Jorddyn]

PB, you obviously believe Iowa is some podunk, know-nothing, unimportant blip somewhere out in the middle of nowhere, and that's your right. However, you're picking and choosing which statistics you like, declaring that picking the candidates isn't important (only picking the eventual winner from the vast pool of candidates), declaring it doesn't count if the incumbent wins, and then declaring that who we went for in the actual election doesn't matter.

Democrat candidates:
Since 1976 (8 elections), the Iowa caucus has picked correctly 6 out of 8 times. In 1992, Harkin basically ran unopposed. In 1988, we went for Gephardt. Eliminating incumbents just for you (Carter, Clinton), this means 4 out of 6 were correctly picked.

Republican candidates:
Since 1976, the Iowa Caucus has picked correctly 6 out of 8 times. In 1988, we went for Bob Dole, and in 1980, we went for GHW Bush. Eliminating incumbents (Reagan, Bush, Bush), this means we're 3 for 5.

Overall election:
Since 1976, the voters of Iowa have chosen the winner 6 out of 8 times (off on Gore, who actually won the popular vote, and Dukakis).

My point:
Yep, we might be a blip in the middle of the country. But we have a pretty damn good record, and are proud of our status as a swing state. And, our caucuses are a decent enough indicator of who is going to win that we have had all of the candidates camping here for the last three months, spending millions of dollars, along with the news crews that follow them around. I find it hard to believe that they're all wrong, and we're unimportant, simply because you say so.

And, GO OBAMA :)

[Snapp]

Probably because Hillary comes off as a conniving bitch. It's not just about the issues but how much you can trust in your leaders. Hillary just comes across as dead in the eyes .. kinda like she has no soul.

Agreed. She's a scary lady.

[Kranar]

Okay, here are a couple of my thoughts..He wants to end the Iraq war, yet does not have a plan or an idea of what he will do to end it. I think he's idealistic about what he wants to do, but not realistic. I think you can say.."I will take troops out tomorrow" to get elected, but when you come right down to it, we need realism, not pipe dreams.


You can find a pretty detailed plan of what Obama wants to do on several issues on his website, for the Iraq war it's listed here:

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/iraq/

You'll find similar plans on Clinton's site, Huckabee's site, Romney's site and any candidate who is serious about the White House.

As has been mentioned by Sean, however... the plan is completely irrelevent if once they get into office they can't be trusted. There's the plan, and there's which one of these candidates can be trusted to adhere to their plan instead of ditching it in favour of corporate interests and lobbying groups. That's why Clinton doesn't deserve to be in the White House, her plan is nothing more than a sham and in just the same way that she sold out to the insurance companies in the past and sold out when it came to the Iraq war, she'll do far worse if she gets into office.

[Sean of the Thread]

She is one scary transvestite.

[Tsa`ah]

That's why Clinton doesn't deserve to be in the White House, her plan is nothing more than a sham and in just the same way that she sold out to the insurance companies in the past and sold out when it came to the Iraq war, she'll do far worse if she gets into office.

Which is largely why I'm baffled when anyone who wants healthcare reform backs Clinton. She has displayed a price tag at almost every step of her entire political career ... and that was glaringly so when she accepted the payoffs from the insurance sector and the early Clinton era attempts at reform went to wayside.

All that aside, now comes the leg of the race where we see who was really in it for the office bid, and who was in it for the warchests (retirement donations).

If Clinton drops another spot in the next month ... I expect her to drop out while she still has millions in campaign funds. I think Bill will probably advice her to drop if she can't break out of the three spot.

I thin the rest will probably drop when it's apparent it'll cost more in campaign funds than they're able to recoup in the week after.

Alan Keys will drop when he runs out of large population black states ... and not a moment sooner.

Campaign reform or not ... most of these crooks have already figured out how to keep their warchests.

[Parkbandit]

Hillary will be in it until the end. To be honest, she's far from done. She still leads in the national polls and I never count out a Clinton in politics. She's far more organized than all the other candidates combined and she still has some Obama skeletons she will let out and somehow blame those mother fucking dirty Republicans on. I hope that Obama eventually gets the nod, because it should be pretty easy for a good Republican candidate to defeat him on his record.

Now all we need to do is find a good Republican candidate......

[TheEschaton]

I agree with PB, Hillary Clinton, even if she loses every primary from NH to the end, will never concede. She'll be picketing the DNC if she has to.

[Jorddyn]

Bumpity bumpity.

Who knew PB and TheEschaton could predict the future?

[CrystalTears]

Yeah because Hillary is so hard to read.

[Parkbandit]

Bumpity bumpity.

Who knew PB and TheEschaton could predict the future?

Actually, TheE simply agreed with me.. which is always a safe bet.

[TheEschaton]

It was a rare moment of bipartisanship on the PC, united around one subject: is Hillary Clinton crazy?

[Parkbandit]

It was a rare moment of bipartisanship on the PC, united around one subject: is Hillary Clinton crazy?


"Crazy" has never really been THE adjective I've ever used when referring to Hillary. Maybe I let slip "Crazy Bitch" or "Crazy Liberal".. but I've never considered her really "crazy".

[TheEschaton]

I was shooting for a nice moment, and you had to fuck it up, didn't you? ;)

[Parkbandit]

I was shooting for a nice moment, and you had to fuck it up, didn't you? ;)


Just agree with me.. you are far better off.

PS- When are you coming to AoC?

[TheEschaton]

When I get a computer that can actually run it.

That involves: 1) clearing out my room to make way for a gaming rig, 2) ordering said gaming rig, 3) waiting, setting it up, and 4) locking myself in my room for the summer.

[Parkbandit]

So.. by tomorrow?

[TheEschaton]

I'm ordering the computer in the next few days.

[Celephais]

WTF year are you living in where you can't clear enough room for a gaming rig by just waving your arm infront of you?
http://blog.lib.umn.edu/lecy0013/architecture/old-computer-thumb.jpg
(yes I know this pic was faked)

[TheEschaton]

I need to clean my room, basically. And store my old desktop from like 2002.