So it looks like the independent voters in Iowa picked Obama on the Democrat side and Ron Paul on the Republican side.
This is pretty big news for Ron Paul. Seeing as how New Hampshire is loaded with Independents, this can only be seen as a good sign for his prospects in the primary state. Its pretty telling what the Republican party has become in the eyes of most Americans when alot of conservative leaning independents are either switching over to the Democratic party to vote for Obama or going with the insurgent campaign of Ron Paul. Either way it looks like the GOP needs a long hard look in the mirror. Andrew Sullivan sums this up well in this blurb in The Atlantic:
They went for Obama and ... Ron Paul respectively. Among independents, Clinton came a poor third: 17 percent to Obama's 41. And McCain lost out to Paul: 23 percent to 29. The men with the most support among independents - the people you need to win a general election - are the most despised by the Republican base. In they end, the Republicans poisoned themselves. Maybe they'll begin to recognize how far they've fallen.
Showing posts with label Iowa Caucuses. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Iowa Caucuses. Show all posts
Friday, January 4, 2008
Iowa Caucus Results Explained by Jon Swift
Just in case you were wondering what the fuck happened last night, Jon Swift will explain it to you as only he can.
Post Iowa Anal (ysis)
DEMOCRATS:
Despite the numerous traditional media reports of a "come from behind win" for Obama, I was not surprised. I was surprised by the margin of his victory, but the conventional wisdom had long been that the higher the turnout and the more new caucus goers there were, the better Obama would do. At 212,000 caucus goers (roughly twice the Dem turnout in 2004), 56% of whom were new to the process, it's clear that Obama's ground game to mobilize young voters and to woo independants worked.
What's more, Obama is poised to to tremendously well going into New Hampshire, where independent voters are a much larger presence. After that, it's not hard to imagine that black voters in South Carolina who had been supporting Clinton will change their tune. With the compressed primary schedule, Iowa momentum for a candidate like Obama puts him at a huge advantage. Without a doubt, Hillary Clinton was the big loser in Iowa.
What of Edwards? His 2nd place finish was a fraction of a percentage point ahead of Clinton (ABC refused to call it for Edwards even with 100% precincts reporting..."it's just too close"...I attribute that less to the debacle of calling Florida for Gore in 2000 than to Network incredulity that the establishment candidate had finished third). His speech last night, and his talking points in the post caucus media are correctly (in my view) framing the 1,2,3 Obama, Edwards, Clinton, finish in Iowa as a repudiation of the status quo, and suggesting that from this point on it's a 2 man race (not so sure about that).
I do think, however, that as we move into more Democratic primaries (not Indie strongholds like NH) I think voters are more likely to have second thoughts about Clinton because of Obama's win, but they will also be asking questions about Obama's progressive bona fides and (yes, that dreaded word) electability. Edwards will be the beneficiary of Dem doubts, and I think he should not only continue pushing his populist message (which has clearly resonated, despite traditional media reporting), but also remind voters of how well he does in head to head match-ups with the republican field. On the electability question, Edwards has a valid claim to the top spot. If Nevada ends up meaning anything in this cycle, it may be the place where Edwards makes his stand, with labor at his back.
Doomsday scenario: We have a '68 flashback, and a wingnut freak terrified of a black President named assassinates Obama, then everything changes in odd ways. Clinton would pick up here "experience in troubled times" message, but as a woman, would herself have to be seen as a target. Edwards, as the heir of RFK's populist candidacy, and the other "Change" candidate in the race, would be in a position to lead the Dems from tragedy to victory. Don't get me wrong, I'm in no way predicting this scenario, and certainly I'm not hoping for it, but ever since Obama entered the race, I've had the dark thought of his being assassinated by a racist wingnut at the back of my mind, and when he got Secret Service protection early in the race, my fears were only confirmed....clearly he's getting threats. It's a tremendous thing that whitebread Iowa gave Obama the win, but we're still a country with a troubling number of extremist fuck-ups.
Hillary: Did she really stand at the lectern with a sign that said "Ready For Change, Ready to Lead" and talk about making this an election of "change" while flanking herself with the 42nd President of the United States and one of his Secretaries of State? Yes. She did. Bill Clinton on one side, Madelaine Albright on the other, and calling for change. That picture tells you all you need to know about Hillary's vision for change.
REPUBLICANS:
This one's easy: The Huckster, Fuckabee, Huckabee got his evangelical Christian victory. Big Whoop. He's toast in New Hampshire.
The real winners in Iowa were McCain and Ron Paul. Huckabee might have won, but it's anomolous. Romney proved vulnerable, and will continue to fade. Thompson came in 3rd, but the dude is so obviously unserious and lazy as a candidate, it's only a matter of time before he drops out, so McCain's 4th place finish might as well be 3rd. McCain's finish in Iowa despite his opposition to corn subsidies and his views on immigration (so-called by wingnuts 'amnesty') shows that increasingly the republicans (who are not blinded by their religion) are looking for a candidate who is not Huckabee and not Romney. McCain, while he may not be perfect to the republicans, is at least a known quantity.
In NH Huckabee will do poorly, and Romney and McCain will duke it out for the top spot. McCain won NH in 2000, and his message resonates with indie leaning folks. Even if he doesn't get the top spot, he'll be poised to begin a comeback, and the media loves a comeback kid, especially when it's their buddy, McMaverick. I still predict McCain will be the candidate in the general.
Ron Paul got 10%, ahead of 9iu11ani's 4%. He's headed into NH where he'll likely have solid indie support from the 'live free or die' crowd. AND, we get to watch Fox News squirm and see if they invite him to the NH debate that they'd excluded him from...a debate to which 4% 9iu11ani has already been invited. I don't think Paul will win NH (as one Crinch Pinner privately predicted), but he'll continue to do well, and will increasingly become a factor, especially if this whole mess leads to a brokered convention, where Paul would have the chance to pick the candidate by awarding his delegates to another candidate, and negotiating for a place in the administration. Ron Paul will be more than a "insurgent phenomenon" in this race. He will be very important. And I'll repeat my prediction that 9iu11ani will drop out for "health reasons."
Tuesday in NH is only a few days away!
Despite the numerous traditional media reports of a "come from behind win" for Obama, I was not surprised. I was surprised by the margin of his victory, but the conventional wisdom had long been that the higher the turnout and the more new caucus goers there were, the better Obama would do. At 212,000 caucus goers (roughly twice the Dem turnout in 2004), 56% of whom were new to the process, it's clear that Obama's ground game to mobilize young voters and to woo independants worked.
What's more, Obama is poised to to tremendously well going into New Hampshire, where independent voters are a much larger presence. After that, it's not hard to imagine that black voters in South Carolina who had been supporting Clinton will change their tune. With the compressed primary schedule, Iowa momentum for a candidate like Obama puts him at a huge advantage. Without a doubt, Hillary Clinton was the big loser in Iowa.
What of Edwards? His 2nd place finish was a fraction of a percentage point ahead of Clinton (ABC refused to call it for Edwards even with 100% precincts reporting..."it's just too close"...I attribute that less to the debacle of calling Florida for Gore in 2000 than to Network incredulity that the establishment candidate had finished third). His speech last night, and his talking points in the post caucus media are correctly (in my view) framing the 1,2,3 Obama, Edwards, Clinton, finish in Iowa as a repudiation of the status quo, and suggesting that from this point on it's a 2 man race (not so sure about that).
I do think, however, that as we move into more Democratic primaries (not Indie strongholds like NH) I think voters are more likely to have second thoughts about Clinton because of Obama's win, but they will also be asking questions about Obama's progressive bona fides and (yes, that dreaded word) electability. Edwards will be the beneficiary of Dem doubts, and I think he should not only continue pushing his populist message (which has clearly resonated, despite traditional media reporting), but also remind voters of how well he does in head to head match-ups with the republican field. On the electability question, Edwards has a valid claim to the top spot. If Nevada ends up meaning anything in this cycle, it may be the place where Edwards makes his stand, with labor at his back.
Doomsday scenario: We have a '68 flashback, and a wingnut freak terrified of a black President named assassinates Obama, then everything changes in odd ways. Clinton would pick up here "experience in troubled times" message, but as a woman, would herself have to be seen as a target. Edwards, as the heir of RFK's populist candidacy, and the other "Change" candidate in the race, would be in a position to lead the Dems from tragedy to victory. Don't get me wrong, I'm in no way predicting this scenario, and certainly I'm not hoping for it, but ever since Obama entered the race, I've had the dark thought of his being assassinated by a racist wingnut at the back of my mind, and when he got Secret Service protection early in the race, my fears were only confirmed....clearly he's getting threats. It's a tremendous thing that whitebread Iowa gave Obama the win, but we're still a country with a troubling number of extremist fuck-ups.
Hillary: Did she really stand at the lectern with a sign that said "Ready For Change, Ready to Lead" and talk about making this an election of "change" while flanking herself with the 42nd President of the United States and one of his Secretaries of State? Yes. She did. Bill Clinton on one side, Madelaine Albright on the other, and calling for change. That picture tells you all you need to know about Hillary's vision for change.
REPUBLICANS:
This one's easy: The Huckster, Fuckabee, Huckabee got his evangelical Christian victory. Big Whoop. He's toast in New Hampshire.
The real winners in Iowa were McCain and Ron Paul. Huckabee might have won, but it's anomolous. Romney proved vulnerable, and will continue to fade. Thompson came in 3rd, but the dude is so obviously unserious and lazy as a candidate, it's only a matter of time before he drops out, so McCain's 4th place finish might as well be 3rd. McCain's finish in Iowa despite his opposition to corn subsidies and his views on immigration (so-called by wingnuts 'amnesty') shows that increasingly the republicans (who are not blinded by their religion) are looking for a candidate who is not Huckabee and not Romney. McCain, while he may not be perfect to the republicans, is at least a known quantity.
In NH Huckabee will do poorly, and Romney and McCain will duke it out for the top spot. McCain won NH in 2000, and his message resonates with indie leaning folks. Even if he doesn't get the top spot, he'll be poised to begin a comeback, and the media loves a comeback kid, especially when it's their buddy, McMaverick. I still predict McCain will be the candidate in the general.
Ron Paul got 10%, ahead of 9iu11ani's 4%. He's headed into NH where he'll likely have solid indie support from the 'live free or die' crowd. AND, we get to watch Fox News squirm and see if they invite him to the NH debate that they'd excluded him from...a debate to which 4% 9iu11ani has already been invited. I don't think Paul will win NH (as one Crinch Pinner privately predicted), but he'll continue to do well, and will increasingly become a factor, especially if this whole mess leads to a brokered convention, where Paul would have the chance to pick the candidate by awarding his delegates to another candidate, and negotiating for a place in the administration. Ron Paul will be more than a "insurgent phenomenon" in this race. He will be very important. And I'll repeat my prediction that 9iu11ani will drop out for "health reasons."
Tuesday in NH is only a few days away!
Wednesday, January 2, 2008
Russert Predicts Paul Could Beat Giuliani in Iowa
Republican presidential contender Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) could be poised to beat Rudy Giuliani -- once perceived as a frontrunner for the GOP nomination -- in Thursday's Iowa caucus voting, according to NBC's Tim Russert.
Appearing on MSNBC's Morning Joe program for a discussion about the latest Iowa polling numbers, Russert said Paul could realistically score a fourth place showing in the state.
"Having gone around and watching this thing," said Russert, "to say for example Huckabee wins, Romney is two. McCain comes in third. Thompson is out -- he has already said if he's not two, he's out. I think Ron Paul has a chance of coming in fourth here. I really do."
Assuming former Sen. Fred Thompson (R-TN) took fifth, Russert added that it appeared likely Giuliani could slip to a lowly sixth place finish.
Conservative pundit and two-time Republican presidential aspirant Pat Buchanan said he believed the former New York mayor was now facing an uphill fight for his party's nomination.
"I think Rudy is toast...I mean, you can't go 0-4, 0-5, and come back and win Florida," said Buchanan of the possibility that Giuliani could fair poorly in the opening contests of the primary season.
Giuliani has not campaigned heavily in Iowa, choosing instead to adopt a national strategy focused on other states, such as Florida, that vote later in the primary process. More than twenty states, including New York and California go to the polls on February 5.
"When you get to Florida and the February 5th states," Giuliani told Fox News, "we're ahead in some cases by large percentages and in some case by closer percentages. We believe it's a good strategy and it's going to work."
The latest poll from Iowa's Des Moines Register tallies Giuliani's support in the state at five percent. Paul and Thompson each notch nine percent.
This video is from MSNBC's Morning Joe, broadcast on January 2, 2008.
Tuesday, November 6, 2007
Edwards in Iowa
Jonathan Stein reporting in Mother Jones on John Edwards campaigning in Iowa. Think what you will of Edwards, to my ear, he's the only Democrat in the field telling it like it is: "The Government is Corrupt." The traditional media dismiss such anti-establishment statements from candidates like Paul as mere 'fringe' politics, but when it's coming from a candidate who was the Democratic nominee for VP in 2004, and who is now considered a 'top-tier' candidate, the traditional media can't dismiss it, so they ignore it and focus on the less substantive, but more easily palatable criticisms of whether or not Hillary tries to have it both ways, and whether she played the gender card. Choice quote from the Stein piece:
Amen.
In his second appearance of the day at the town civic center in Waverly (pop. 8,968; flag count: one giant and two large American flags), Edwards offered this, "The presidential candidate who has raised the most money from Washington lobbyists is not a Republican. It's a Democrat. The candidate who has raised the most money from the health industry—insurance companies and drug companies—is not a Republican. It is a Democrat…. And the candidate who has raised the most money from the defense industry, is not a Republican. It is a Democrat. And all those descriptions fit the same candidate. They're all Senator Clinton."
Amen.
Thursday, November 1, 2007
Edwards Goes On the Air in Iowa
Having spent $23,000 on ad buys to the millions spent by Clinton and Obama, Edwards is still in a three-way race in Iowa. Now he's going on the air with this ad.
The music reminds me of the W.G. Snuffy Walden theme for "My So-Called Life" (which is not a bad thing). It's a good ad, but I don't think it's great. But I'm also not an Iowa Caucus goer, so clearly I'm not the target audience.
Maybe we'll see more ads, or different ads as we get closer to Caucus time.
The music reminds me of the W.G. Snuffy Walden theme for "My So-Called Life" (which is not a bad thing). It's a good ad, but I don't think it's great. But I'm also not an Iowa Caucus goer, so clearly I'm not the target audience.
Maybe we'll see more ads, or different ads as we get closer to Caucus time.
Wednesday, October 31, 2007
Edwards gets New Hampshire SEIU Endorsement
This is big news. Per the SEIU's rules, this means that 90,000 SEIU members from neighboring Massachusetts, who already endorsed Edwards, can join the 10,000 SEIU members in New Hampshire to campaign for him. And perhaps more importantly, it means that SEIU members from other neighboring states are barred from campaigning in NH for a different candidate.
Edwards has now wrapped up the coveted SEIU endorsements in Iowa and New Hampshire, but also California, Washington, Idaho, Massachusetts, Montana, Minnesota, Michigan, West Virginia, Ohio and Oregon.
Of course the reason why we're counting state endorsements instead of one National endorsement is because the SEIU members in Illinois and New York were afraid of alienating their would-be patrons Obama and Clinton. Illinois SEIU and neighboring Indiana endorsed Obama, as expected, but the big state to watch now is New York. NY's 300,000 members of SEIU 1199 were enough to stop a national endorsement, but will they actually end up endorsing Clinton, or will they endorse no one? Anything but a Clinton endorsement (including no endorsement) has to be seen a huge strike against Clinton.
It's no wonder Edwards is the natural choice for Labor. Edwards is the only candidate who has consistently fought for America's working families. He's been outspoken on NAFTA and more recently he's publicly come out against the CAFTA test balloon of the Peru trade deal.
For those inclined and able to do so, you should contribute to Edwards today to make the latest matching fund deadline.
While Clinton triangulates, and Obama talks abstractly about hope, Edwards continues to be the moral voice of this Primary, making clear that this election is about more than rhetoric.
Edwards has now wrapped up the coveted SEIU endorsements in Iowa and New Hampshire, but also California, Washington, Idaho, Massachusetts, Montana, Minnesota, Michigan, West Virginia, Ohio and Oregon.
Of course the reason why we're counting state endorsements instead of one National endorsement is because the SEIU members in Illinois and New York were afraid of alienating their would-be patrons Obama and Clinton. Illinois SEIU and neighboring Indiana endorsed Obama, as expected, but the big state to watch now is New York. NY's 300,000 members of SEIU 1199 were enough to stop a national endorsement, but will they actually end up endorsing Clinton, or will they endorse no one? Anything but a Clinton endorsement (including no endorsement) has to be seen a huge strike against Clinton.
It's no wonder Edwards is the natural choice for Labor. Edwards is the only candidate who has consistently fought for America's working families. He's been outspoken on NAFTA and more recently he's publicly come out against the CAFTA test balloon of the Peru trade deal.
For those inclined and able to do so, you should contribute to Edwards today to make the latest matching fund deadline.
While Clinton triangulates, and Obama talks abstractly about hope, Edwards continues to be the moral voice of this Primary, making clear that this election is about more than rhetoric.
Monday, October 22, 2007
Could Ron Paul Surprise the World in Iowa?
As the only Republican candidate who opposes the war and advocates for withdrawal, Ron Paul the only candidate in synch with 54% or Republican Iowa Caucus-goers. There was an interesting moment in the Republican debate last night when Ron Paul quoted a poll that had "70 Some Percent" of the American People favoring withdrawal, to which the Republican Debate audience Booed. BOOED! That's the kind of Patriotic Americans we're dealing with here, the kind that will boo the facts in the hope of making it not so.
2 + 2 = 4 (BOOOOOOOOO)
These are the same good people who cheered relentlessly as Mitt Romney bravely pledged that as President, he would detain and torture TWICE as many people without any oversight, proof, or habeus corpus.
Not to dis my fellow Americans, but are these people for real?
As we inch ever closer to that fateful midwestern caucus, things seem to get more and more interesting.
On the Democratic side, polling in Iowa has Hillary, Edwards and Obama in pretty much a 3-way tie, though it's important to note that Hillary and Obama are spending millions on TV ads and Edwards has yet to run a single TV spot. Plus, all those Illinois SEIU members who endorsed Obama are barred by Union Rules from campaigning in a state that has endorsed another candidate. Iowa SEIU endorsed Edwards, so would-be Obama campaigners in neighboring Illinois are S.O.L. in Iowa.
Oh, and one more note on the Republican debate last night, every candidate was campaigning against Hillary. Is this because they fear her as the Dem nominee, or because they're taking a cue from Rove's playbook, which is to publicly fret over the difficulty of beating the candidate they know privately will be easiest to defeat? I'm wagering it's not because they fear Hillary.
2 + 2 = 4 (BOOOOOOOOO)
These are the same good people who cheered relentlessly as Mitt Romney bravely pledged that as President, he would detain and torture TWICE as many people without any oversight, proof, or habeus corpus.
Not to dis my fellow Americans, but are these people for real?
As we inch ever closer to that fateful midwestern caucus, things seem to get more and more interesting.
On the Democratic side, polling in Iowa has Hillary, Edwards and Obama in pretty much a 3-way tie, though it's important to note that Hillary and Obama are spending millions on TV ads and Edwards has yet to run a single TV spot. Plus, all those Illinois SEIU members who endorsed Obama are barred by Union Rules from campaigning in a state that has endorsed another candidate. Iowa SEIU endorsed Edwards, so would-be Obama campaigners in neighboring Illinois are S.O.L. in Iowa.
Oh, and one more note on the Republican debate last night, every candidate was campaigning against Hillary. Is this because they fear her as the Dem nominee, or because they're taking a cue from Rove's playbook, which is to publicly fret over the difficulty of beating the candidate they know privately will be easiest to defeat? I'm wagering it's not because they fear Hillary.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
