Comments on: Iowa predictions

By: American Vet

American Vet — Thu, 03 Jan 2008 19:45:45 +0000

Reports are coming out that if Kucinich, Biden, and Richardson end up not being viable candidates in the Iowa causcus, they will all ask their supporters to caucus for Obama.
If Ewards does well coming in second, Hilary could be in a little trouble coming out of Iowa.

By: steveegg

steveegg — Thu, 03 Jan 2008 18:52:57 +0000

Short version (longer back at NRE) -

Republicans
Huckabee – 26%
Romney – 24%
Thompson – 19%
Paul – 10%
McCain – 9%
Hunter – 5% (beats Giuliani by fractions of a percent)
Giuliani – 5%
Keyes – 2%

Democrats
Edwards – 30%
Obama – 29%
Clinton – 28%

By: Lorica

Lorica — Thu, 03 Jan 2008 18:51:49 +0000

It is my humble opinion that Fred will do better than we suspect. There is growing support for him, and I am thinking when it comes right down to it he will do better than we imagine.

As far as the Dems go, who really cares??? They are all the same. Pander, pander, pander, if you vote for me, I will give you this. It it so sickening, I just feel the need to wretch. Everyone of them is so beatable, and I don’t care what the polls show. Polls don’t mean a thing once someone gets right down to brass tacks. – Lorica

By: Reader

Reader — Thu, 03 Jan 2008 17:34:58 +0000

What I like about our process in Iowa is that we don’t just get to vote, we get to discuss together (at least, as Republicans we do… the Dems have some kind of religious ritual they go through), and present our points of view regarding the candidates we support to each other before we vote.

As a Fred supporter, the only option I see left if he drops is McCain. Or give up and move to Montana. However, I suspect Huckabee will be the top winner tonight.

By: Great White Rat

Great White Rat — Thu, 03 Jan 2008 16:48:56 +0000

ST, glad you added the update. Right on schedule, we have the elitists whining about how it's unfair that Iowa, and not the urban centers, gets the early focus. From today's Philadelphia Daily News: Iowa: It isn't democracy & it makes no sense For example, we get this:

That fewer Iowans than the population of South Philadelphia get to play presidential kingmakers tonight is downright disheartening.

Right. The idea that the people get to show up and choose a candidate is unbearably depressing. We should let places like Philadelphia go first. After all, we know that the election process in Philadelphia is soooooo uncorrupted by vote fraud or other shenanigans. I'd find it more disheartening if the process was controlled by a couple of party bosses and the only question was which faction could come up with more creative vote tallying methods. He also wants to get rid of the Electoral College, all the better to rid the elites of the influence those tiresome peasants in flyover country.

By: Leslie

Leslie — Thu, 03 Jan 2008 16:11:24 +0000

I never make predictions, but I suspect that the top three Democrats will finish in or close to the dreaded “statistical dead heat,” rendering the contest essentially meaningless. The mediots will make much of this for a day or two, but by then all eyes will be on New Hampshire. And fortunately we’ll only have to endure a few days of New Hampshire blaborama this time around.

But as I say, this is only a suspicion. I will say this: if I’ve suspected wrong, and Hillary comes in a clear third, then I suppose she’ll be criticized (and quite properly so) for campaigning so hard there at all. The mediots will point out that her first instinct was to have avoided the Iowa circus altogether.

Anyway, insofar as I can recall, Iowa’s done just two things for the Democrats (other than eliminating the second-tier candidates who were really running for vice president or in Kuchinich’s case for no special reason): they gave us Jimmy Carter (bad) and eliminated Howard Dean (good).

As for the Republicans, I don’t know how important their contest will be, considering that McCain and Rudy aren’t featured here. I would assume that Uncle Fredster will stay in the race through South Carolina, whatever happens. Again, come to think of it, I don’t think Iowa’s ever done anything for a GOP candidate, except put ‘em in the Hall of Shame. Remember the year Pat Robertson came in first, and the year George Bush Sr. had “The Big Mo” going into NH? Uhuh, uhuh . . .

And now, going out to all you ST fans, from 1983 off their album “More Fun in the New World” here’s X with “The New World!”

“Honest to goodness the bars weren’t open this morning. They must’ve been voting for a new president or something.”

http://tinyurl.com/2focfp

By: Reader

Reader — Thu, 03 Jan 2008 15:56:42 +0000

The problem is, we all want to pick a winner. Here in Iowa, there is so much positioning it’s crazy. I talk to a lot of people who would support Fred, but are concerned he won’t end up being the candidate in the end or won’t be able to beat whoever we face on the democrat side. Even though Fred stated recently that he doesn’t like the whole process of running, I think if he does well in Iowa and/or New Hampshire, he could turn into a dynamo. Regardless, I agree with Gary that we need to vote for the person we want to see in the Oval office, and let the process work itself out. The polls do nothing but manipulate the public… if we just do what’s right, we might surprise ourselves.

By: Gary Gross

Gary Gross — Thu, 03 Jan 2008 15:27:02 +0000

Fred will finish in third so he'll stay in the race. As I said here, it's time that Republicans woke up & realized that we're picking the next leader of the free world. We aren't voting for the fluff-dried guy who "looks presidential."

By: Who Would You Vote for In The New Hampshire Primary? | Stuck On Stupid

Who Would You Vote for In The New Hampshire Primary? | Stuck On Stupid — Thu, 03 Jan 2008 15:17:21 +0000

[...] Malkin, Sister Toldjah, Captain’s Quarters /* “, ” »”); /* ]]> */Popularity: 2% [?] Sphere: Related Content Bookmark to: Hide Sites Tags: 2008 Elections, Democrat Party, NewHampshire Primary, Republican Party [...]