Obama, Huckabee win Iowa caucuses

[djtestudo]

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/nat...l_tab01_layout

DES MOINES, Iowa - Sen. Barack Obama, bidding to become the nation's first black president, swept to victory in the Iowa caucuses tonight over Hillary Clinton and a high-powered Democratic field. Mike Huckabee rode a wave of support from evangelical Christians to win the opening round among Republicans in the 2008 campaign for the White House.

Obama, 46 and a first-term senator from Illinois, scored his victory on a message of change in Washington. Nearly complete returns showed him gaining 37 percent support from Iowans. Former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina and Clinton, the former first lady, were in a close race for runner-up.

Huckabee, a preacher turned politician, handily defeated Mitt Romney despite being outspent by tens of millions of dollars, and deciding in the campaign's final days to scrap television commercials that would have assailed the former Massachusetts governor.

Huckabee's triumph was more robust than Obama's. He was winning 34 percent support, compared to 25 percent for Romney. Former Sen. Fred Thompson and Sen. John McCain battled for third place.

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/nat...l_tab01_layout

Evangelical Christians and those who want a candidate to share their religious beliefs vaulted Mike Huckabee to victory and rejected Mitt Romney in Iowa's Republican caucuses tonight, a survey of early arrivals found.

In the Democratic contest, young voters turned out in big numbers and heavily favored Barack Obama, who also won many votes for his message of change. Older voters and people who gave high priority to a candidate's experience backed Hillary Rodham Clinton. John Edwards scored on empathy and electability.

Since more often then not, the winner of the Iowa caucus for a party wins the nomination, how much should we be reading into this?

I think the interesting question is to the Democratic side, because of how many young people not just support Obama, but how many actually came out to do so.

Is this a trend that could continue into the actual primaries?

[Plan9]

My initial thought: "Hells yeah. Screw crusty old white people trying to rule the country."

[Elphaba]

I love that the "inevitables" from both parties have been humbled by real people. The pundits' little pointy heads are exploding.

[jorgelito]

Originally Posted by Elphaba

I love that the "inevitables" from both parties have been humbled by real people. The pundits' little pointy heads are exploding.

Agreed!! Congrats Obama Barak.

If Huckabee can win from 3%, then maybe Ron Paul can do some damage too.

Oh and Elph, my pointy little head exploded too!!

[Elphaba]

Eh...let someone else clean up the mess.

I just love that it is still a peoples' vote. My heart has nearly exploded with hope.

[guy44]

Originally Posted by Elphaba

I love that the "inevitables" from both parties have been humbled by real people. The pundits' little pointy heads are exploding.

I think that's half right. The pundits love to talk and talk and talk about bipartisanship, and nobody does that better than Obama. The DC pundits HATE HATE HATE Hillary Clinton (and Bill, for that matter), and certainly dislike Edwards' populist message (read: endless stories about his hair). But Obama they like very much. (Note: this isn't meant to bash any of the Democratic candidates. I lean Obama, but I'm happy with them all.)

For the same reason that they hate Edwards, though, they hate Huckabee. He delivers a populist economic message that very directly contrasts the American people with the corporate interests that more or less run DC (and the media companies) today. Huckabee is also decidedly not an establishment insider, as he evinces sincere religious beliefs and comes not from boarding schools and mutual funds but Arkansas (hicksville to the DC insiders, one of the reasons they also hated the Clintons). Now, I happen to think Huckabee would make for a disastrous president, and that none of his policy prescriptions would actually change this country's economic situation for the better. He wouldn't actually do anything to the big corporations. But he campaigns as if he would.

If Huckabee wins the Republican nomination, I fully expect DC insiders to do everything in their power to stop him. They really hate this guy.


P.S. I predict Obama/Somebody vs. McCain/Somebody. I just can't see Romney winning with his combination of under performance, obvious lying, and (unfortunately this matters in the Republican primary) Mormon faith. I think Republicans will eventually settle on McCain as the candidate they least utterly despise, as at the very least he has the respect of a lot of people and gets the full-on blowjob treatment from the press.

[Elphaba]

I hope you are right. I have my favored "somebody" too.

[Charlatan]

I just found these stats on another site:

Four statistics blew me away tonight:

1. Obama beat Hillary among women voters 35 to 30 percent.
2. Amid record Democratic turnout, as many people under 30 showed up to caucus as those over 65.
3. Sixty percent of the GOP electorate in Iowa were born-again Christians.
4. Rudy Giuliani finished with a mere 4,013 votes, in sixth place, with less than half of the support of Ron Paul.

I thought the interesting thing was not just that Obama beat Clinton but that Obama totally whooped Clinton.

I am also glad to see that Giuliani is done. I just hope he throws in the towel soon.

[pan6467]

Well, I left Edwards for Biden because I liked Biden's message, his experience and what I have read about him as a decent man who has mucho respect from both parties.

I guess it's back to Edwards and working my butt off to help him in any way I can.

I don't see Obama taking New Hampshire and S. Carolina is going to be an Edwards/Obama horse race..... Michigan I see now going to Edwards by blowout, I see Edwards taking quite a bit and surprising everyone, he truly has a great platform and message of hope, strength and growth.

Obama's only hope is getting the youth to vote, and Clinton is dead in the water.

I look for an Edwards/Clinton ticket and that is the winning ticket.... I would never vote for Hilary for President but I can handle her as VP.

The 2 big exit poll questions that show me Edwards can win it all:

Cares about people like me 44% (20 over Obama and 22 over Hilary)

Has the best chance to win in November 36% (6 over Hilary and a HUGE 13 over Obama)

Those 2 are what the nation as a whole I think will vote on in the future primaries and I believe Edwards to be control those 2 aspects.

The Clinton war machine is in trouble, they focus too much on Obama and quite possibly will destroy him..... I don't see them having anything to destroy Edwards with, nor would they want to as I think he's her only hope on the ticket at all.... (yet, nothing that shrill bitch does surprises me.) Plus, in '04 the GOP/Bush mudslingers could never find a damned thing on Edwards. That says something right there about the man.....maybe he doesn't have any skeletons that bad.

Great showing by the man some people expected would finish 4th.
==============================================

On the GOP side, the Dem in me likes to see Huckabee win because that means the Dems can run on "separation of church and state" against him and crush him. But, part of me is saddened because that is not the way to win it should be because platform is better.

Ron Paul, Mitt Romney are the GOP "true electables" and only hope to win come Nov.

I think with this win it's all but over on the GOP side and it will be a Huckabee/Romney ticket.....

I think if Paul is left off (and I believe he will be), you'll see maybe a Ron Paul/ John McCain combo ticket and you'll see a Perot effect destroying the GOP's White House hopes or a Ron Paul/Bill Richardson ticket where both they show a Bipartisanship flavor and take enough votes away from both parties to have a true mess and President elected with an under 45% popular vote (and that ticket may actually win).

This could be a very, very interesting election and one that no matter who wins the whole course of the nation could change very swiftly.

[Elphaba]

Pan, Biden is my favorite for a VP position. Any pres would be lucky to have him.

[pan6467]

Originally Posted by Elphaba

Pan, Biden is my favorite for a VP position. Any pres would be lucky to have him.

I agree, the man is a truly great leader in this day and age of very few even decent leaders.

[Byrnison]

Originally Posted by Charlatan

...I am also glad to see that Giuliani is done. I just hope he throws in the towel soon.

Unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on one's POV) Giuliani skipped Iowa, which explains his low numbers. He's on record as saying that due to the density of caucuses in such a small time-frame that something different will win the nomination (http://www.boston.com/news/nation/ar...to_skip_iowa/), and he's currently spending time in FLA and other later states (http://www.latimes.com/news/politics...la-home-center) with I'm presuming higher nominating vote percentages.

One thing is for sure, it is going to be interesting to see how the also-rans of both sides adjust and move forward!

[Willravel]

BWAHAHAHAHA!!! Suck it, Hil! Lost to Barak and Johnny boy.

[DahliMama]

I, for one, can't WAIT for Barrack Obama to be the President. I am so very pleased that he has won in Iowa. I think he's a really strong candidate, I believe what he says... he speaks with great passion. I know that may sound naive, but there's something about this guy that moves me to stand behind him.
The only thing that really concerns me is, that no matter who our next President is, he/she will have their work more than cut out for them. I mean, I can't imagine trying to clean up this clusterfuck that we have going on now. I can't wait until November so I can vote for Obama myself!

[n0nsensical]

Oh, yeah. Giuliani is spending time in Florida all right. I'm in Florida now and I've seen about 14 of his "9/11 freedom America fight terrorist" television ads. The guy is such a nutbag. What would he be doing without 9/11?

Glad to see Obama win but I'm still undecided between him and Edwards. The rest have all spent way too much time inside the Beltway or in church and lost contact with the real world. Earth to Hillary!

[host]

Originally Posted by Elphaba

Pan, Biden is my favorite for a VP position. Any pres would be lucky to have him.

Originally Posted by pan6467

I agree, the man is a truly great leader in this day and age of very few even decent leaders.

I could not disagree, more...about Biden. IMO, the people of Delaware would be hard pressed to find a republican to replace Biden as their senator, who could do a more thorough job of selling out the common interests of the large majority of them:

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/07/bu...C8%20YZEkIvgKQ
Expired: How a Credit King Was Cut Off
By LOWELL BERGMAN and PATRICK McGEEHAN

Published: March 7, 2004

ON a chilly Monday in early November, Laura Bush appeared at a lunchtime reception at a baronial mansion in Wilmington, Del., to express her husband's gratitude for $350,000 in contributions to his re-election campaign. Her host was Charles M. Cawley, and most of the money had come from employees of the MBNA Corporation, the highflying credit card company that he had run for two decades.

The Bush family was well acquainted with Mr. Cawley and his generosity. Only Enron, before its fall, was a bigger source of political donations to George W. Bush than MBNA. Mr. Cawley was also a benefactor to the president's father. Besides donating $1 million to the foundation that built George H. W. Bush's presidential library, Mr. Cawley and MBNA have paid more than $300,000 to the former president and his wife for appearing at company events.

Friends in the highest places were not all that Mr. Cawley collected. As he built the company into the world's largest independent credit card issuer, he gained a reputation as a free spender. Over the years, MBNA accumulated a fleet of airplanes, helicopters, yachts and expensive cars, as well as a $65 million art collection.

Although hardly a household name, even on Wall Street, Mr. Cawley, 63, became a powerful figure in business by catering to the national addiction to credit. Operating in a heavily regulated industry, he curried favor in Washington through political contributions and by hiring former senior government officials. MBNA's management team is studded with retired F.B.I. officials, including Louis J. Freeh, its former director....

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/07/bu...rtner=USERLAND

....MBNA has been the No. 1 donor to Senator Biden's campaigns since 1993 and has made substantial contributions to Senator Snowe and Representative Michael N. Castle, Republican of Delaware. Combined, those three politicians have received more than $700,000 from MBNA and its employees since 1993, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, a research group in Washington that tracks money in politics.

Mr. Freeh took issue with those figures, saying that putting all the individual contributions together was unfair and that only $57,000 of that total came from the company's official political action committee. He also said in an interview that, excluding the personal contributions of Mr. Lerner and Mr. Cawley, about 65 percent of MBNA's money goes to Republicans and about 35 percent to Democrats.

What did MBNA get for all that money? While Mr. Biden's main work has been on the Foreign Relations Committee, he has been a consistent advocate for MBNA. He has actively supported the company's favorite federal legislation, the Bankruptcy Reform Act, which would make it more difficult for consumers to escape their credit card debt.

Senator Biden shepherded the bankruptcy legislation along by taking the unusual tack of inserting it into a foreign relations bill in 2000, said his spokesman, Norm Kurz. But Mr. Kurz added that Mr. Biden said he would have backed the bill whether or not he was from Delaware or had received MBNA donations.

The bill passed Congress that year but President Bill Clinton vetoed it. President Bush has pledged to sign it if it passes again, despite opposition from consumer advocates.

"This bill is clearly a giveaway to the credit card industry, and free-spending MBNA has been at the head of the pack," said Travis Plunkett, legislative director of the Consumer Federation of America.

The company also has ties to Senator Biden's son, R. Hunter Biden, a lawyer in Washington. Hunter Biden joined MBNA as a management trainee after graduating from Yale Law School and rose to be an executive vice president. Now a partner in Oldaker, Biden & Belair, a lobbying and law firm, he receives a $100,000 annual retainer from MBNA to advise it on "the Internet and privacy law," Mr. Freeh said. He added that Hunter Biden was not a registered lobbyist and did not lobby on legislation for the company....

http://web.archive.org/web/200610270...st_statei.html

Delaware: America's First State...in Democratic sellouts

I started thinking as I was coming over here, why is it that Joe Biden is the first in his family ever to go to a university?

...And why is his Delaware Senate colleague, Sen. Tom Carper, willing to drink MBNA's Kool-aid at the same time?

Biden and Carper were two of the <a href="http://suburbanguerrilla.blogspot.com/2005/03/democrats-in-name-onlythese-are.html">14 Democrats</a> who thwarted efforts to prevent passage of the federal bankruptcy bill . That measure is long a favorite of Wilmington-based credit-card giant MBNA, because it will make it harder for debt-plagued Americans (many of whom were lured down the path to insolvency by aggressive credit-card marketing tactics) to clear the debt in bankruptcy court. In a 2005 America where the big corporation seems to always beat the little guy, this is a pretty big win for the money boys.

Biden's been carrying MBNA's water on this issue for years. In 2000, when the plan was effectively stalled because a real Democrat named Bill Clinton was in the White House, he even tried to attach the bankruptcy changes to a foreign aid bill.

Why is Biden such a big fan. Those less cynical than us might argue that, well, MBNA does employ a lot of people in Delaware. True -- but could it also be because <a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.asp?CID=N00001669&cycle=2004">MBNA is Biden's biggest contributor</a> -- by a good margin. According to Opensecrets.org, Biden raised some $147,700 in contributions from MBNA employees from 1999-2004, his biggest source of campaign cash.

Who is that in second? A law firm named Pachulski Stang Ziehl Young Jones & Weintraub, which gave $127,625 over the same period. And <a href="http://fundrace.huffingtonpost.com/neighbors.php?type=loc&addr=1+CENTRE+CT&zip=19807">who are they</a>, might one ask?

Pachulski Stang is the nation's largest bankruptcy law firm with one of the most highly regarded bankrupty practices in the country. The firm's client list includes some of the biggest names in the entertainment industry as well as many of the most well-known businesses in the world.

While we're at it, guess who Tom Carper's <a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.asp?CID=N00012508&cycle=2004">biggest donor is</a>. By now, you should be shocked to learn that his No. 1 contributor is also MBNA Corp. at $127,447, dwarfing the next closest donor.

But let's return to Biden, shall we? If you're not troubled by campaign contributions, there's more. Eyebrows were raised in 1996 when Biden sold his house for $1.2 million -- his asking price and more than a couple of a similar neighboring homes went for around the same time -- to an MBNA executive named John Cochran.....

...And you wonder why even loyal Democrats get disgusted with the Democrats nowadays. Many Americans crave a political system in which there's a choice between the party of the fat cats and the party of the regular guys. Instead, what we get is the party of all fat cats versus the party of selected, money-giving fat cats.

And the loser is you. Remember that the next time MBNA offers you a credit card in the mail, or the next time that Joe Biden dares to run for president.

[sprocket]

If those two candidates won the nomination, its going to be very hard to decide who I hate the most.

[Elphaba]

Originally Posted by willravel

BWAHAHAHAHA!!! Suck it, Hil! Lost to Barak and Johnny boy.

Not really. They did a rough split of 1/3 each, with a total difference of one and two delegates.


Host: Thanks for the info, it's something to consider. I'm pretty sure that one or two other candidates signed that pig of a bill, too.

[host]

Originally Posted by Elphaba

Not really. They did a rough split of 1/3 each, with a total difference of one and two delegates.


Host: Thanks for the info, it's something to consider. I'm pretty sure that one or two other candidates signed that pig of a bill, too.

Elphaba, the rest of Biden's relationship with MBNA, IMO, is contradictory to what a US senator, who is "a man of the people", would do. The money paid to his son by MBNA is walking a tightrope that could be called a "bribe". If his house sale, did happen, it smells like Randy Cunningham and lobbyist Mitchell Wade's house "deal".

If you want to be taken seriously, as a candidate for an office as high as US Senator, or president, you must be wise enough, patient enough, and have your greedy impulses under control enough, to the point where you avoid even the appearance of impropriety. Biden clearly didn't, and Obama has not, either. He has the problem of making a decision, if that is all that it is, of buying the rest of his house lot from a man who has a criminal reputation, a man who Obama had not already held at arm's length.

Did whitewater turn into an eight year, partisan witch hunt on any things more substantative than what I've just described about Biden and Obama?

I like Edwards, but even he fails in his reaction to our worst symptom of corporate takeover, and lack of priorities and fiscal discipline, not to mention the pandering that is required to go along with it. We are spending ten times as much on annual defense as the next closest rival. It is not okay. It is extreme militarism.

Again, Russ Feingold's record makes the current contenders look almost
almost as bad as they are. THEY ARE UNACCEPTABLE !

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2...ankruptcy-law/
August 8, 2007, 6:27 pm
Clinton and the Bankruptcy Law

By Katharine Q. Seelye


.....In the late 1990’s, as first lady, Mrs. Clinton became deeply involved in the issue, her first real foray into legislation since the collapse of her health-care effort in 1994. She sought a private tutorial on the subject, worked behind the scenes with members of Congress, wrote public newspaper columns and spoke out against it.

Her concern was that the bill would hurt women and children. The law then required that if a divorced man filed for bankruptcy, he had to pay off his alimony and child-support obligations first. The bill gave equal status to credit card companies and other lenders who were seeking to recoup money.

President Clinton pocket-vetoed the bill at the end of his term, after Mrs. Clinton had been elected to the Senate. Congress had left town and did not have the chance to try to override the veto.

The bill popped up again 2001, which was Mrs. Clinton’s first year in the Senate. She worked with Republicans on it and was one of 36 Democrats who helped it pass the Senate, saying it had been improved from when she opposed it. Still, this version was vigorously opposed by consumer groups and unions, and ultimately did not become law.

When the bill came up again in 2005, Mrs. Clinton missed the vote. She did vote against a procedural motion involving the bill and said that had she been present, she would have voted against the bill itself.

Explaining Senator Clinton’s support for the bill in 2001, Phil Singer, a campaign spokesman, said, “She helped forge a compromise in the 2001 bill intended to ensure that custodial parents got child custody payments.” She opposed the bill later, he said, because “unfortunately, that provision was stripped from the 2005 legislation.”

The bill was always tricky for her because it divided her party as well as two opposing constituencies in New York: banking interests and the unions. Between 2000 and 2006, commercial banking interests gave Mrs. Clinton $685,000, according to www.opensecrets.org, the Web site of the Center for Responsive Politics. That is a fraction of the tens of millions of dollars she has raised. Banks ranked 13th in the list of industries that gave her contributions. (Her top contributors, by industry, were lawyers, who gave her $6.5 million over the same period.)

For the first six months of this year, as a presidential candidate, Senator Clinton has received $493,000 from commercial banks. Senator Barack Obama of Illinois, a rival for the Democratic nomination, has received more ($607,000) and is the top recipient of contributions from banks among both Democrats and Republicans.

Mr. Obama and former Senator John Edwards of North Carolina have been hammering Senator Clinton for accepting money from “Washington lobbyists,” who have given far more to her ($413,000) than they have given to anyone else this year. At last night’s debate, she defended taking those contributions, saying she had “worked against a lot of special interests for a very long time,” adding: “I fought the drug companies and the insurance companies in ’93 and ’94. I caught — fought them again on the Medicare prescription drug benefit. I fought the banks on bankruptcy reform. So I think that my record on standing up and fighting for people really speaks for itself.”

http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/me...dex.php?id=220
Wednesday, January 2nd, 2008
Who Do We Vote For This Time Around? A Letter from Michael Moore

Friends,

....Now, on to the two candidates who did agree to do the interview with me...

Barack Obama is a good and inspiring man. What a breath of fresh air! There's no doubting his sincerity or his commitment to trying to straighten things out in this country. But who is he? I mean, other than a guy who gives a great speech? How much do any of us really know about him? I know he was against the war. How do I know that? He gave a speech before the war started. But since he joined the senate, he has voted for the funds for the war, while at the same time saying we should get out. He says he's for the little guy, but then he votes for a corporate-backed bill to make it harder for the little guy to file a class action suit when his kid swallows lead paint from a Chinese-made toy. In fact, Obama doesn't think Wall Street is a bad place. He wants the insurance companies to help us develop a new health care plan -- the same companies who have created the mess in the first place. He's such a feel-good kinda guy, I get the sense that, if elected, the Republicans will eat him for breakfast. He won't even have time to make a good speech about it.

But this may be a bit harsh. Senator Obama has a big heart, and that heart is in the right place. Is he electable? Will more than 50% of America vote for him? We'd like to believe they would. We'd like to believe America has changed, wouldn't we? Obama lets us feel better about ourselves -- and as we look out the window at the guy snowplowing his driveway across the street, we want to believe he's changed, too. But are we dreaming?

And then there's John Edwards.

It's hard to get past the hair, isn't it? But once you do -- and recently I have chosen to try -- you find a man who is out to take on the wealthy and powerful who have made life so miserable for so many. A candidate who says things like this: "I absolutely believe to my soul that this corporate greed and corporate power has an ironclad hold on our democracy." Whoa. We haven't heard anyone talk like that in a while, at least not anyone who is near the top of the polls. I suspect this is why Edwards is doing so well in Iowa, even though he has nowhere near the stash of cash the other two have. He won't take the big checks from the corporate PACs, and he is alone among the top three candidates in agreeing to limit his spending and be publicly funded. He has said, point-blank, that he's going after the drug companies and the oil companies and anyone else who is messing with the American worker. The media clearly find him to be a threat, probably because he will go after their monopolistic power, too. This is Roosevelt/Truman kind of talk. That's why it's resonating with people in Iowa, even though he doesn't get the attention Obama and Hillary get -- and that lack of coverage may cost him the first place spot tomorrow night. After all, he is one of those white guys who's been running things for far too long.

And he voted for the war. But unlike Senator Clinton, he has stated quite forcefully that he was wrong. And he has remorse. Should he be forgiven? Did he learn his lesson? Like Hillary and Obama, he refused to promise in a September debate that there will be no U.S. troops in Iraq by the end of his first term in 2013. But this week in Iowa, he changed his mind. He went further than Clinton and Obama and said he'd have all the troops home in less than a year.

Edwards is the only one of the three front-runners who has a universal health care plan that will lead to the single-payer kind all other civilized countries have. His plan doesn't go as fast as I would like, but he is the only one who has correctly pointed out that the health insurance companies are the enemy and should not have a seat at the table.

I am not endorsing anyone at this point. This is simply how I feel in the first week of the process to replace George W. Bush. For months I've been wanting to ask the question, "Where are you, Al Gore?" You can only polish that Oscar for so long. And the Nobel was decided by Scandinavians! I don't blame you for not wanting to enter the viper pit again after you already won. But getting us to change out our incandescent light bulbs for some irritating fluorescent ones isn't going to save the world. All it's going to do is make us more agitated and jumpy and feeling like once we get home we haven't really left the office.

On second thought, would you even be willing to utter the words, "I absolutely believe to my soul that this corporate greed and corporate power has an ironclad hold on our democracy?" 'Cause the candidate who understands that, and who sees it as the root of all evil -- including the root of global warming -- is the President who may lead us to a place of sanity, justice and peace.

Yours,

Michael Moore (not an Iowa voter, but appreciative of any state that has a town named after a sofa)

[Tophat665]

Well that takes my guy out of the race. Sorry, Chris.

Nice to see Mrs. Clinton finish third, but, unfortunately, that's not weak enough to count her out yet. She's the only Democrat other than Kucinich who could lose this, and only to John McCain.

We won't know til February, but I think Rudy may have miscalculated. On paper gong for the big fish was a good idea, but the way the media is talking he's going to have a hell of a time changing the narrative to give himself the (false) appearance of electability after a month of stories about finishing behind Ron Paul.

[dc_dux]

Going back for 40 years or so, only two Presidents won the Iowa caucus when they were not already incumbents - both Bushes. Clinton came in third in 1992, Reagan lost to George HW Bush in 1980....so I dont put much stock in the Iowa results as a measure of electability.

Huckabee won because 60% of the voters were self-identified born-again christians or evangelicals.....that wont be the case in most larger more diverse states.

And on the Democratic side, never count out the Clintons. They have the best political machine and most experienced national ground network among the big three. Hillary is also still way head in delegate count since, for now, she still has commitments from many of the "super delegates" (members of Congress and party leaders - according to an AP survey, Clinton has 160, Obama has 59 and Edwards has 32).

Feb 5 will be the decider, when the big states are heard from.

Originally Posted by jorgelito

Agreed!! Congrats Obama Barak.

If Huckabee can win from 3%, then maybe Ron Paul can do some damage too.

IMO, I dont see Paul Ron (I couldnt resist ) doing any damage. He was counting on a large turnout among young Independents and they went overwhelmingly for Barak Obama. If that trend continues, RP will never get beyond his fifth place, 10% showing in Iowa.

[samcol]

Originally Posted by dc_dux

IMO, Paul Ron (I couldnt resist ) was the big loser. He was counting on a large turnout among young Independents and they went overwhelmingly for Barak Obama.

YES BIG LOSER

Please get real. The huge failures were Rudy and Romney. Rudy went from 30%-4% in Iowa and campaigned there more than Ron. Romney spent retarded amounts of money there and couldn't pull first. Ron went from 0%-10%. Get your facts straight.

[dc_dux]

Sam....you're right. If you look back at my last post, you will see I changed "big loser" to "wont do any damage" before you posted in order to respond directly to Jorgelito's post. But coming in fifth out of seven can hardly be considered a victory for Ron Paul.

Romney was the biggest loser and if he loses NH to McCain, he is dead. If McCain wins NH....he will have the "big mo" going into a heavy military state like SC and beyond.

Rudy made a huge strategical blunder by not actively campaigning or spending money in Iowa (he announced before the Aug straw polls that he would not campaign or build a ground network in Iowa ..and he certainly didnt campaign there more than RP) and he may never recover.

BTW, those polls you insisted were so unreliable pretty much had it right in Iowa.

Huckabee - 34% (and ave of last 5 polls - 30%)
Romney - 25% (ave of last 5 polls - 26%)
McCain - 13% (ave of last 5 polls - 11%)
Thompson - 13% (ave of last 5 polls - 11%)
Paul - 10% (ave of last 5 polls - 8%)
Guiliani - 3% (ave of last 5 polls - 6%)
http://www.pollster.com/08-IA-Rep-Pres-Primary.php

All within a few points margin of error - pretty damn close for a multi-person list of candidates and far closer than your straw polls and internet "click" polls.

The average of latest 5 polls for NH as of today have Paul at 7.6%...this is the "live free or die" and "no tax" state where Pat Buchanan won the primary in '96 (he beat Bob Dole)....so you would think Paul would be polling higher. Perhaps he will get 10% again and still come in fifth.

Thats why I think he wont "do any damage".

[Elphaba]

Two major corrections on a couple of my previous posts. The delegate count for the top three was from my morning paper and *way* off the mark.

Second, I need a good night's sleep. Host, I was thinking Dodd, when I posted about Biden. You concerns about my sudden tilt caused me to look back at what I wrote and go "huh?"

At the risk of making similar mistakes due to lack of sleep, I am going to stick with and support Edwards for as long as he stays in the race. I love the *idea* of a first ever black or female president, and I also see that Edwards has been shut out by the media. He intends to undo media consolidation among many other anti-trust issues, and his nomination is the most feared by the corporate establishment. I have a sense that he will make good cabinet choices, as well. Issues over coolness, I sez.

[jorgelito]

Originally Posted by dc_dux

Sam....you're right. If you look back at my last post, you will see I changed "big loser" to "wont do any damage" before you posted in order to respond directly to Jorgelito's post. But coming in fifth out of seven can hardly be considered a victory for Ron Paul.

Romney was the biggest loser and if he loses NH to McCain, he is dead. If McCain wins NH....he will have the "big mo" going into a heavy military state like SC and beyond.

Rudy made a huge strategical blunder by not actively campaigning or spending money in Iowa (he announced before the Aug straw polls that he would not campaign or build a ground network in Iowa ..and he certainly didnt campaign there more than RP) and he may never recover.

BTW, those polls you insisted were so unreliable pretty much had it right in Iowa.

Huckabee - 34% (and ave of last 5 polls - 30%)
Romney - 25% (ave of last 5 polls - 26%)
McCain - 13% (ave of last 5 polls - 11%)
Thompson - 13% (ave of last 5 polls - 11%)
Paul - 10% (ave of last 5 polls - 8%)
Guiliani - 3% (ave of last 5 polls - 6%)
http://www.pollster.com/08-IA-Rep-Pres-Primary.php

All within a few points margin of error - pretty damn close for a multi-person list of candidates and far closer than your straw polls and internet "click" polls.

The average of latest 5 polls for NH as of today have Paul at 7.6%...this is the "live free or die" and "no tax" state where Pat Buchanan won the primary in '96 (he beat Bob Dole)....so you would think Paul would be polling higher. Perhaps he will get 10% again and still come in fifth.

Thats why I think he wont "do any damage".

DC, I think it's relative. Going from 3% to 10% is a great achievement for Mr. Ron. Likewise, I consider 5th to be much better than 7th. Especially given the low expectations. Keep in mind, Ron is a dark horse contender type. To contrast, with a strong candidate like Hillary, to place less than 1st is a "big loss" to some, while I'm sure if Ron had her numbers it would be nothing short of incredible. Just like Romney is the 'biggest loser" with "only" 25% and I was surprised too. He seemed to be pretty strong. Huckabee (shudder) made the most extraordinary gains but I don't know if Iowa was just an anomaly or what, but I'm not sure he will do so well in other places. I hope Ron gets 10% in NH, and he may even get more.

DC, the "damage" I am thinking about is more along the lines of garnering enough votes to make the other candidates take notice. To shake things up a bit. For example, if Ron does run as an independent and even manages to grab 3-5% and the Dem candidate wins by 3-5%, I would consider that to be damage (and I would love it too to be quite honest). Actually, I would hope that maybe a couple of more 3rd party candidates come out and grab 1-5% of the vote, just to shake things up, like Nader, Bloomberg, maybe Forbes. etc. maybe even Lieberman.

Anyways, on a side note, it looks like McCain is not quite dead yet and Guiliani seems finished (yes I know it's way early but it's just a feeling, sorry, no links or sources).

Another side note, DC, do you have any more of those charts and graphs showing voter demographics (from a previous thread I think talking about voter preference)? i would love to see a comparison with the Iowa caucus. I am particularly interested in the contrast between Hillary Clinton and Baraka Obama. I thought it was interesting which demographics leaned towards which candidates.

[dc_dux]

Originally Posted by jorgelito

DC, I think it's relative. Going from 3% to 10% is a great achievement for Mr. Ron. Likewise, I consider 5th to be much better than 7th. Especially given the low expectations....

DC, the "damage" I am thinking about is more along the lines of garnering enough votes to make the other candidates take notice. To shake things up a bit...

Another side note, DC, do you have any more of those charts and graphs showing voter demographics (from a previous thread I think talking about voter preference)? i would love to see a comparison with the Iowa caucus. I am particularly interested in the contrast between Hillary Clinton and Baraka Obama. I thought it was interesting which demographics leaned towards which candidates.

jorgelito....the expectations game is whatever one wants it to be to put their candidate in the best light, but I believe the Ron Paul followers expected..no, were convinced, he would do much better than 5th place in Iowa. Impartial observers were convinced otherwise. If any of the other Republicans thought he might do any damage in Iowa or beyond, they would be "taking notice of him" and attacking him in the same manner they attack each other and pointing out his extremist voting record and policy positions...but they arent.

I think its too soon to know if there will be third party candidates....its dependent on the two major party candidates. But the Greens dont want Nader this time around and among possible scenarios, I dont think Bloomberg will run if its a Obama/McCain race, but will run if its Clinton/Huckabee (very unlikely)

CNN has interesting "entrance" polls with demographics of Iowa voters (gender, age, income, urban/rural, etc)

Democratic

Republican

The only demographics Hillary won were married women (barely), seniors over 65 (significantly) and those who prefer "experience" over "change"(significantly).

[Tophat665]

Originally Posted by dc_dux

But the Greens dont want Nader this time around and among possible scenarios, I dont think Bloomberg will run if its a Obama/McCain race, but will run if its Clinton/Huckabee (very unlikely)

Cynthia McKinney (She of assaulting a Capitol Police Officer) is the Green Party Candidate.



Looks like the Greens are going to try and get that all important Muppet Demographic.

McKinney/Elmo 08.

Nice to see the Greens slink back to the irrelevancy they earned with Nader.

[dc_dux]

Tophat.....the Greens wont select their candidate until July from among 7 candidates, but the buzz is that McKinney is the leading contender.

http://www.gp.org/press/pr-national.php?ID=2

She will set them back, but on other hand she is a publicity hound who will at least draw attention to the party.

[djtestudo]

http://www.jaredball.com/

This is one of the Green Party candidates. He came to my newswriting class for a mock press conference, and I might consider voting for him if I didn't disagree with just about his entire platform, as well as consider him completely and utterly insane

Nice guy, though.

[samcol]

Originally Posted by Tophat665

Cynthia McKinney (She of assaulting a Capitol Police Officer) is the Green Party Candidate.



Looks like the Greens are going to try and get that all important Muppet Demographic.

McKinney/Elmo 08.

Nice to see the Greens slink back to the irrelevancy they earned with Nader.

As a conservative I actually have a lot of respect for her even though I disagree on most of her platform. She stood up to Rumsfeld on 3 specific issues: 1. the TRILLIONS missing from the pentagon 2. the Dyncorp sex rings and 3. the drills the military was running on the day of 9/11 depicting the exact same t hing happening at the exact same time.

Rumsfeld really didn't deny any of it, rather he claimed he was uninformed or brushed it off.

Whoever the green party or third party candidates are, hopefully they can take votes away from the Republicans and Democrats and bring the parties back to where they should be.

[rlbond86]

Personally I was rooting for Dodd or Obama, and we all know Dodd didn't stand a chance.

I was SO GLAD to see Ron Paul only get 10%. Maybe now there will be less Ron Paul stories on Digg.

[flstf]

Like many others, I had this one figured all wrong. I did not expect Obama to do so well against Hillary and/or Edwards in lily white Iowa.

What a strange development, the under 30 crowd seems to be going for Obama and Paul. One is an old libertarian and the other a young socialist.

[dc_dux]

Originally Posted by flstf

Like many others, I had this one figured all wrong. I did not expect Obama to do so well against Hillary and/or Edwards in lily white Iowa.

What a strange development, the under 30 crowd seems to be going for Obama and Paul. One is an old libertarian and the other a young socialist.

The surprise is that Ron Paul didnt get the under 30 vote....if the CNN "entrance poll" is any measure.

Huckabee got 40% to Paul's 21%...perhaps the evangelical influence.

[Tophat665]

Originally Posted by dc_dux

Huckabee got 40% to Paul's 21%...perhaps the evangelical influence.

I think that's a pretty safe bet. Young Rural voters of late have tended to be conservative Christians. Got to loves me sum edumacation prezidents.

What I found really interesting was the income and urbanity splits. It pretty much supports what pundits have been saying about Huckabee as a populist inurgency. If you like in the city and/or make a large amount of money, you probably voted for Romney. Otherwise, you went with Huckabee.

I also thought that it was sort of interesting that McCain becomae a more likely choice as the caucus got closer.

And it was downright amusing that McCain, the straight talker, did better with the women than ladies' man Thompson.

[host]

RE: Post #16..... and congratulations to all of you who have supported Barak Obama...I hope you're happy, today !

"[t]here is only one party in the United States, the Property Party...and it has two right wings: Republican and Democrat. Republicans are a bit stupider, more rigid, more doctrinaire in their laissez-faire capitalism than the Democrats, who are cuter, prettier, a bit more corrupt—until recently... and more willing than the Republicans to make small adjustments when the poor, the black, the anti-imperialists get out of hand. But, essentially, there is no difference between the two parties." -Gore Vidal 1972

We get the candidates we deserve, don't we? GINI in France is 28....in the US, it is 45.
Obama and Biden are served up to insure the least change that they elite can get away with permitting.... rioting, at some point, or....a US version of Hugo Chavez, will be the inevitable result, my friends !

[dc_dux]

Welcome back, host!

But i dont think we need riot gear just yet.

[Charlatan]

Originally Posted by host

RE: Post #16..... and congratulations to all of you who have supported Barak Obama...I hope you're happy, today !

We get the candidates we deserve, don't we? GINI in France is 28....in the US, it is 45.
Obama and Biden are served up to insure the least change that they elite can get away with permitting.... rioting, at some point, or....a US version of Hugo Chavez, will be the inevitable result, my friends !

You do realize that many don't even know what you are talking about, yes? We are much further down the track than you think. This is not the modern era of one great monolithic ideology vs. another. The game has changed. There won't be a revolution anytime soon. And when it does happen, it won't look like you expect it to look.

I am glad you are out there in the ether railing away, but you have to know that what you are doing is less than tilting at windmills.