A A A A Search :
Toledo Talk   (musing about Lake Erie West and beyond)
From justareviewer's workspace   

Who Really Won In Iowa last night?

JUST IMHO from a Local Yokle - no wagering please...
After listening to the post-caucus speeches, the following:
Obama won the caucus, but not the presidency. During his speech, he wavered between being the Black JFK to the New Dr. King. I'm thinking it cost him (white middle-class) votes.
Edwards: Better than anticipated, but too polished and way too southern.
Hillary: Bu-bye, you're done.
Blue Ticket will be Obama/Edwards and they will lose.

Huckabee: Will become the next president. John McCain will be VP.

created by justareviewer on Jan 04, 2008 at 11:35:09 am     Comments: 35

print      source      versions

Comments ... #

I think you can bet on it on some gambling sites, which is about as much active participation you're allowed in the whole process.

I'm voting for Thomas Jefferson, even if he is term-limited. I think he's due.

posted by charlatan on Jan 04, 2008 at 11:45:55 am     #



"Barack Obama's stirring victory in Iowa -- down home, folksy, farm-fed, Midwestern, and 92 percent white Iowa -- says a lot about America, and also about the current mindset of the American voter."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/obama-wins-iowa-why-ever_b_79663.html

posted by jhostetler on Jan 04, 2008 at 11:50:57 am     #



"Barack Obama's stirring victory in Iowa -- down home, folksy, farm-fed, Midwestern, and 92 percent white Iowa -- says a lot about America, and also about the current mindset of the American voter."

Actually, I think Barack's victory says more about the current midset of the Democratic Party voter ... but that could just be me

posted by MaggieThurber on Jan 04, 2008 at 12:29:21 pm     #



Wow.

posted by Chris99 on Jan 04, 2008 at 12:31:35 pm     #



"Hillary: Bu-bye, you're done."

Iowa Caucus results from 1992 :

  • Tom Harkin (76%)
  • "Uncommitted" (12%)
  • Paul Tsongas (4%)
  • Bill Clinton (3%)
  • Bob Kerrey (2%)
  • Jerry Brown (2%)

2008 results :

  • Barack Obama (38%)
  • John Edwards (30%)
  • Hillary Clinton (29%)
  • Bill Richardson (2%)
  • Joe Biden (1%)

posted by jr on Jan 04, 2008 at 01:35:58 pm     #



I think the vote last night showed the feelings concerning the re-clintonization of not only the Democratic party, but of the entire country as well. Remember-you get 'em BOTH with one vote!

posted by CharlieA-Z on Jan 04, 2008 at 01:40:09 pm     #



Ms. Bill Clinton is a: L-O-S-E-R

posted by CharlieA-Z on Jan 04, 2008 at 01:42:19 pm     #



It's obviously silly to think Hillary is done.

From Pollster.com

2008 New Hampshire Democrat Presidential Primary


From RealClearPolitics.com

Democrat Presidential Nomination

PollDateClintonObamaEdwardsBidenRichardsonSpread
RCP Average 12/14 to 12/30 44.6% 24.4% 14.0% 3.0% 2.0% Clinton +20.2%
Pew Research 12/19 - 12/30 46% 26% 14% -- -- Clinton +20.0%
FOX News 12/18 - 12/19 49% 20% 10% 3% 2% Clinton +29.0%
NBC/WSJ 12/14 - 12/17 45% 23% 13% 4% 2% Clinton +22.0%
USA Today/Gallup 12/14 - 12/16 45% 27% 15% 3% 2% Clinton +18.0%
Rasmussen (Fri) 4 Day Tracking 38% 26% 18% 2% 2% Clinton +12.0%


Jan 4, 2008 Reuters story :

Democrat Hillary Clinton and Republican John McCain hold leads in New Hampshire four days before the state's presidential nominating contest, according to a Reuters/C-SPAN/Zogby poll released on Friday.

The poll was taken before Iowa's caucuses on Thursday.

In the New Hampshire poll, Clinton, a New York senator and former first lady, led Illinois Sen. Obama 32 percent to 26 percent among likely voters in the state's Democratic primary. Former Sen. John Edwards, the runner-up in Iowa, was at 20 percent, and no other Democrat was in double digits.


Jan 4, 2008 Boston Herald story :

Former Gov. Mitt Romney, coming off a disappointing loss in the Iowa caucuses last night, should be buoyed by the latest Suffolk University poll that shows him retaking the lead in the run-up to Tuesday’s crucial New Hampshire primary.

On the Democratic side, New York Sen. Hillary Clinton maintains her front-runner status in the Granite State, with a 12 percent lead over Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, who is coming off a big win in Iowa last night, according to the latest Suffolk University/7News poll released early this morning.

The poll shows Clinton far ahead of her rivals with 37 percent of the vote in New Hampshire, although Obama gained some ground after his surprise win in the Iowa caucuses last night. The poll shows Obama with 25 percent of the vote in New Hampshire and John Edwards, who edged out Clinton to finish a close second in Iowa, follows with 15 percent.

posted by jr on Jan 04, 2008 at 02:07:30 pm     #



The schedule :

Jan 3 - Iowa
Jan 8 - New Hampshire
Jan 15 - Michigan
Jan 19 - Nevada
Jan 26 - South Carolina
Jan 29 - Florida
Super Tuesday is Feb 5

I don't think Michigan counts for the Democrats. Based upon moldy, December polling data, Hillary holds comfortable leads in New Hampshire, Nevada, and Florida, and she has a narrow lead in South Carolina.

posted by jr on Jan 04, 2008 at 02:20:43 pm     #



Iowa Caucus results from 1992 :

* Tom Harkin (76%)
* "Uncommitted" (12%)
* Paul Tsongas (4%)
* Bill Clinton (3%)
* Bob Kerrey (2%)
* Jerry Brown (2%)

Important to note that Tom Harkin is an Iowa Senator so that poll was not set on a level playing ground. Though Hillary is definitely still in this fight, the 1992 results are not particularly relevant to this year's contest.

posted by thetoledowire_com on Jan 04, 2008 at 03:55:23 pm     #



McCain may come out being the big winner in the GOP. It's too early to dismiss Hillary, but Romney could be in trouble. For the time and money he spent in IA, his numbers had to be disappointing for his camp.

Regardless, why does Iowa deserve this type of "pull" (perceived or real)?

posted by Postal on Jan 04, 2008 at 05:37:54 pm     #



"... the 1992 results are not particularly relevant to this year's contest."

I disagree. In '92, "Uncommitted" finished higher than Mr. Bill who went on to become a two-term president. If Harkin was not in the '92 race, do you think Mr. Bill would have pulled down 29% like Hillary did?

Elsewhere ...

  • justareviewer said : "Hillary: Bu-bye, you're done."
  • CharlieA-Z said : "Ms. Bill Clinton is a: L-O-S-E-R"

Hillary finished third with 29% of the vote, and I'd go out on a limb and say that in relative dollars, Hillary has more money in her war chest now than Bill did in January 1992.

"Tom Harkin is an Iowa Senator so that poll was not set on a level playing ground."

A year ago at this time, one of the Democrat candidates for president was Tom Vilsack who dropped out of the race in late February of 2007. He just finished two terms as a popular governor of Iowa, yet surprisingly he could not muster any money nor poll numbers for his own state because the attention went to stronger candidates like Edwards and Hillary. Harkin in 2008 would probably be a nobody too.

posted by jr on Jan 04, 2008 at 07:52:23 pm     #



"... but Romney could be in trouble."

The one poll I posted above that came out today shows Romney passing McCain in New Hampshire. I see no trouble with Romney, especially since he has more money than McCain and Huckabee.

"Regardless, why does Iowa deserve this type of "pull" (perceived or real)?"

I don't think Iowa has much pull this year. Look at the schedule. Look at how much action is in January. I think Super Tuesday will be big this year for both parties. This won't be like 2004 where it was basically decided on the Democrat side after New Hampshire, the second state on the campaign trail.

The 2008 Iowa Republican results :

  • Mike Huckabee (34%)
  • Mitt Romney (25%)
  • Fred Thompson (13%)
  • John McCain (13%)
  • Ron Paul (10%)
  • Rudy Giuliani (4%)
  • Duncan Hunter (1%)

If Hillary is supposedly done even though she finished third with 29%, then I guess that means Giuliani should bow out of the race before New Hampshire even though nationally, Giuliani has a slight lead over all the other Republicans. I think it will take a lot more states than usual to decide realistically the nominee for both parties. Who knows, Ohioans on March 4 may actually have a real say on the matter.

posted by jr on Jan 04, 2008 at 08:18:30 pm     #



I disagree. In '92, "Uncommitted" finished higher than Mr. Bill who went on to become a two-term president. If Harkin was not in the '92 race, do you think Mr. Bill would have pulled down 29% like Hillary did?

Actually, due to Harkin's home court advantage, the other candidates did not actively campaign in the state, which accounts for the undecided vote and his blowout victory. Harkin went on to do poorly in New Hampshire, so that situation was an unusual one.

However, I still agree, it's silly to think Hillary is not out after one contest. Both candidates have huge war chests and more than a few tricks up their sleeves. (Edwards, however, is done, though my pick is still Gravel)

posted by thetoledowire_com on Jan 04, 2008 at 09:34:44 pm     #



I'm not a big one for polls, but Real Clear Politics has a tracking chart for Republicans and Democrats that chart the trends in polls.

RCP shows nationally and for the upcoming state primaries.

Interesting to look at the trends vs. the individual polls.

posted by MaggieThurber on Jan 04, 2008 at 09:56:43 pm     #



Actually, it looks as though Clinton has a big lead so far.

posted by Chris99 on Jan 04, 2008 at 11:15:16 pm     #



I'm already hearing people say they'll vote for Hillary just to get the Republicans out of the White House. Good gawd, I'm gonna hurl.

posted by GuestZero on Jan 05, 2008 at 12:21:15 am     #



“Under democracy one party always devotes its chief energies to trying to prove that the other party is unfit to rule - and both commonly succeed, and are right” - Mencken

Why not just check who's winning the fundraising battle since that seems to be the biggest contributing factor to conventional victory, illegitimate elections aside?

posted by charlatan on Jan 05, 2008 at 02:08:18 am     #



Predicted spin from the Hillary Campaign:

If Hillary wins: ---- The people have decided!

If Hillary comes in second: ---- We have met our expectations, now onwards to victory!

If Hillary comes in third: ----- Does Iowa really matter?

posted by WalterAnthony on Jan 05, 2008 at 02:42:39 am     #



Sometimes the politicians of different cities like to talk about "how much real money" a particular event means to a local or state economy.

EXAMPLES: Superbowl, Olympic games, Annual Conventions, Bowling Tournaments, College Bowl Games, Spring Break (in Florida), Golf Tournaments, etc.

I wonder if anyone in the media (or otherwise) has a ball-park idea "how much real money" this 1st in the nation "Iowa Caucus" benefits the economy of Iowa. Sure, it only happens every 4 years, but a lot of money is being spent on TV Commercials, campaign offices and related staff, direct mail, signs, hotels, caterers, conference rooms and banquet halls, radio air-time, phone systems, security, etc.

Not only are the individual campaigns from both parties spending huge sums of money, but also the news media that covers the Iowa primary / caucus.

posted by WalterAnthony on Jan 05, 2008 at 03:04:50 am     #



I don't think you can really compare 1992 Iowa caucus results with 2008. It seems to me that in 1992, the Iowa caucuses were largely ignored (by candidates and media) because they are such an anomaly. Iowa was treated much like the Wyoming caucuses that are being held today (Saturday) -- most people didn't even know they were going on. In 1992, the New Hampshire primary was considered to be the all important first primary.
I don't know why Iowa became so important -- sometimes I think it's because the media wanted/needed something to talk about.

posted by surfer341 on Jan 05, 2008 at 08:04:54 am     #



Please forgive my ignorance, I have never voted in a primary/caucus. My question is...
When the primary's hit Ohio how do we vote? Can one vote for their favorite Dem. and Rep. or can you only cast one vote?
P.S. Go Bucks!

posted by Eastsider on Jan 05, 2008 at 12:38:15 pm     #



Eastsider, keep watch on this site:

http://www.co.lucas.oh.us/default.asp?RequestedAlias=BOE

I'm looking for the Republican Primary myself.

posted by GuestZero on Jan 05, 2008 at 02:07:10 pm     #



The question here is whether or not the American People want to listen to a cackling screech, aka Ms. Bill Clinton, drone on and on for years, possibly, every night of our lives!

posted by CharlieA-Z on Jan 05, 2008 at 03:53:33 pm     #



Hucka-who? ;-)

posted by Newbie on Jan 05, 2008 at 04:10:13 pm     #



No matter who wins, we all lose. Government will continue mounting money cannons on the bow of their ships. "Fire at will, Cap'n, I see no debt on the horizon!!!"

Please please please implement universal healthcare as another weekly extortion payment! I can't wait to pay for all those minimum-wage workers I see outside smoking and sipping on Coca Cola. Lord knows they try so hard, but they're stuck because of the man, or the system, or their planets haven't aligned in so long. How can a person possibly garner some skills, make themselves marketable and get healthcare when their planets have been in retrograde for so long? Oh, the hardships of Americans.

Hey, maybe we could all just not work and the government will pay for our permanent vacations? Is that a plank in someone's platform yet? Should be.

posted by JJFad on Jan 06, 2008 at 01:23:57 am     #



Eastsider: Since the primaries are a way for the political parties to select their representatives for both November and various party positions (like precinct committee chairs), you can select a Republican ballot, a Democrat ballot or just vote on the 'issues only.' Whichever you select will technically become your designated party affiliation (R, D, I) until the next partisan primary.

So - you get to pick one of these three and then vote. Interestingly, I've heard that a lot of Ron Paul supporters will be asking for a Republican ballot in order to vote for him in the primary regardless of their long-time political affiliations.

posted by MaggieThurber on Jan 06, 2008 at 09:18:46 am     #



Thanks, Zero
So Maggie, when I go to the polls in March I just need to select a party (r,d,i) and cast my vote from the choices on that ballot? If so, why can't we choose a Dem. and a Rep. Why do we have to side with 1 party or the other?

posted by Eastsider on Jan 06, 2008 at 11:53:05 am     #



Eastsider - because it's not a general election. The purpose of these partisan primaries is for the separate parties to select their nominees.

Republicans and Democrats are electing their precinct captains and the person who will represent them in the general election in November.

Wikipedia has a good explanation about the various types of primaries. Ohio is a semi-open one, hence the requirement that voters select a ballot.

Why do we have to side with 1 party or the other?

Because that's the way it is...lol

posted by MaggieThurber on Jan 06, 2008 at 03:18:03 pm     #



Sadly, the money and entreched special interests will eventually squeeze Huckabee and Obama out of the race. I'm predicting a Romney v. Clinton election. Obama perhaps as VP nominee. No way McCain or Edwards would accept a VP post. Romney will narrowly defeat Clinton, but if Clinton picks Obama, she may be able to eke it out.

posted by Ace_Face on Jan 07, 2008 at 10:38:35 am     #



So Hillary won New Hampshire, eh? Before Iowa, Hillary led in the New Hampshire polls. But this past weekend, Obama surged ahead in the polls with a double-digit lead over Hillary. Poll numbers tightened up closer to Tuesday, but I'd say the Obama camp is in a bit of shock over the final New Hampshire results. Barack needs more Oprah.

And John McNut won on the Republican side.

I still believe what I said last week : I think it will take a lot more states than usual to decide realistically the nominee for both parties. Who knows, Ohioans on March 4 may actually have a real say on the matter.

posted by jr on Jan 08, 2008 at 11:58:55 pm     #



"Hey, this is going to be a tough one." - ringside announcer in Rocky.

Last week, Huckabee and Obama surprised many in opening round Iowa. A few days ago, Hillary was up against the ropes and counted out by some, and McCain was given up for dead months ago, yet both take the New Hampshire round. The political fights on both sides may go longer than normal or expected, which means more punches, blood, and tears. For political junkies, the 2008 presidential nomination process could be one for the books.

posted by jr on Jan 09, 2008 at 12:46:03 am     #



"up against the ropes," "given up for dead"...

And all this before 'votes' are actually counted ... We've had 2 of 50 states weigh in - already I'm tired of it...

posted by MaggieThurber on Jan 09, 2008 at 11:35:41 am     #



Pledged delegate count as of Jan 9 :

Democrats

  • Barack Obama : 25
  • Hillary Clinton : 24
  • John Edwards : 18
  • Joe Biden : 0
  • Christopher Dodd : 0
  • Mike Gravel : 0
  • Dennis Kucinich : 0
  • Bill Richardson : 0

Republicans

  • Mitt Romney : 30
  • Mike Huckabee : 21
  • John McCain : 10
  • Fred Thompson : 6
  • Ron Paul : 2
  • Rudy Giuliani : 1
  • Duncan Hunter : 1
  • Alan Keyes : 0


Wikipedia articles :

posted by jr on Jan 09, 2008 at 01:40:21 pm     #



Powered by MyDD

posted by jr on Jan 22, 2008 at 06:34:07 am     #