The Iowa Thread

[CharlieG]

It's less than a week away before we'll have the first primary results for the 2008 Presidential election.

Opinion polling trends for the Democratic race are showing almost-local-boy Barack Obama narrowly ahead of Hillary Clinton. See Wikipedia for a nifty graph. Obama's been looking strong since early November, although Clinton has rebounded in the past fortnight or so. Nevertheless, the regressions on Wiki tell a pretty compelling story: Obama is improving, Edwards is improving but not by enough to be in the contest and Clinton is stagnating. If that holds up next Friday afternoon (AEDST) then Obama is a real chance of knocking Hillary off.

On the Republican side, the Wiki graph is even more compelling. Mike Huckabee has come from the clouds to have his nose in front. Mitt Romney is close behind but hasn't moved in months. Nobody else is in the game. For the Republicans, New Hampshire is probably the bigger contest right now, with Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani both from neighbouring states. A Romney victory would be a big dent in Huckabee's momentum, whereas Romney can probably survive a narrow defeat if his big lead in New Hampshire doesn't implode.

Thoughts?

 

[usalion]

Expect McCain to get a bounce from the Pakistan situation- only Republican with foreign policy experience.....

New Hampshire the place to look at...but Romney is far from a lock- in fact, one of the major papers in NH (can't remember which one now) wrote an anti-Romney endorsement for the GOP- essentially, anybody would be better for the GOP than MR.

The folks in NH are a strange breed- the big excitement will probably be early February with several primaries on board.

Too damn early- and my opinion will have zero impact on the outcome- we need a change in election process in thsi country,

 

[DaveW]

I haven't followed US politics as intently in 2007 as I surely will in 2008, but this is my understanding of the state of play right now:

Iowa is must win for Obama and Edwards. Which means at least one of the two will be eliminated at the first hurdle.

If Clinton wins Iowa then she regains that aura of inevitability.

On the Republican side, Iowa seems to be a two horse race between Romney and Huckabee. It's must win for Huckabee, who's put a lot into the state.

Romney would gain an enormous head start from winning both Iowa and New Hampshire. That would eliminate everyone except Giuliani. But even Giuliani wouldn't want to give him that sort of start. Which is why the rest of the Republican field apparently wants Huckabee to win Iowa.

 

[CharlieG]

Romney's out on a limb. He's the only candidate to have delved into his personal fortune to finance a significant portion of his campaign (he's invested to the tune of $17m) and he's also spent a far higher proportion of his receipts than any other candidate.

He's out-spent Giuliani (the second highest spending Republican) by $23m. Giuliani has $16m on hand against Romney's $9m. You've got to wonder how much of Romney's lead is due to his profligacy, and if so how he can maintain it in the lead-up to Super Tuesday, when $9m won't go very far at all. If Romney loses one of Iowa or New Hampshire it's a blow. If he loses both, he's in real trouble.

It will also be very interesting to see the fourth quarter 2008 receipts and spending for Mike Huckabee. He was very much a minnow in terms of fundraising for the first nine months of the year.

 

[KissStephanie]

Opinion polling trends for the Democratic race are showing almost-local-boy Barack Obama narrowly ahead of Hillary Clinton.

Clinton has made ground in the past week, and now has a narrow lead over Obama in Iowa in an almost three-way dead heat with John Edwards.

Latest Polls Show Democrats in Dead Heat in Iowa

[I]Christmas has come and gone, but the polls in Iowa and New Hampshire appear to be 
telling the same story. Similar to polls released last week, the latest Los Angeles 
Times/Bloomberg Poll shows the Democratic contest between Senator Hillary Rodham 
Clinton of New York and Senator Barack Obama of Illinois to be neck-and-neck in New 
Hampshire, but in Iowa they are in a locked into a three-way tie with former Senator 
John Edwards of North Carolina.
 
Mr. Obama is supported by 32 percent of Democratic primary voters in New Hampshire, 
while Mrs. Clinton is the choice of 30 percent. In Iowa, Mrs. Clinton is preferred 
by 29 percent, Mr. Obama by 26 percent and 25 percent for Mr. Edwards. In both polls, 
the differences were within the margin of sampling error. Cont...[/I]

 

[CharlieG]

KS, you do not look at one poll. You look at trends. They are showing that Obama and Edwards are moving up whilst Clinton isn't really going anywhere. As I noted in my opening post, Clinton appears to have rebounded somewhat in the past fortnight - that's why I'm not willing to declare a favourite. The most you can say is that both Clinton and Obama have had good results at different times in the last two months.

To be honest, I find your support for Clinton befuddling. Obama is much closer to your position on practically anything that I've seen you post on. Is it because Clinton is a woman?

 

[KissStephanie]

KS, you do not look at one poll. You look at trends. They are showing that Obama and Edwards are moving up whilst Clinton isn't really going anywhere. As I noted in my opening post, Clinton appears to have rebounded somewhat in the past fortnight - that's why I'm not willing to declare a favourite.

She was trailing in Iowa, but is also slightly ahead now in the current Iowa CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll as well, although there is not a definitive favourite at the moment.

The most you can say is that both Clinton and Obama have had good results at different times in the last two months.

Yes of course they both have.

To be honest, I find your support for Clinton befuddling. Obama is much closer to your position on practically anything that I've seen you post on. Is it because Clinton is a woman?

I wanted Clinton to be the next president when Gore lost the election in 2000, even if I don't always agree with her. I often give Democrats that voted for the war the benefit of the doubt due to the rubbish that was put before them, although I would like her to say that she was wrong in initially supporting the war in Iraq.

I've met her and I like her though, and I personally feel that her White House experience is one of her most important attributes, although I do also support many of Obama's policies. She has also held herself well when under attack from Obama and Edwards in particular during the debates.

 

[MightyFighting]

KS, please respond to my Big Oil thread. It needs your opinion on Hillary's energy and environment policies.

 

[camsmith]

Do you think there would be enough interest in the US election for there to be another sub-forum?

Personally I think Clinton has it in the bag, if she can just win the first two she is home.. but even without those she can still easily win if she finishes a close second (if she finished 2nd she would love Edwards to be the one who finishes 1st) But I think she'll win both NH and Iowa and cruise through to get the nomination. Especially with foreign affairs being the major talking point into the lead up. But we all know things can change in an instant.

On the GOP side its interesting. McCain is surging and will be favoured by the shaky international scene but I still think will finish 3rd in Iowa. Romney is there or there abouts and as has been said above is putting everything into Iowa and NH because obviously if he can get off to a good start with a strong 2nd or get up to win then it will give him a major boost. I think Huckabee will win Iowa, Romney will finish just ahead of McCain followed by Thompson.

I think most GOP supporters are now dreading Huckabee winning the nomination as it will give them virtually no chance at winning the general election. If McCain, Romney or Giuliani come against Hillary though, they are a huge chance of winning.

 

[CharlieG]

Ah. So you want to be able to say that you've met the President.

Who's your tip for the GOP Iowa nomination, Cammy boy?

 

[camsmith]

You dont want my tips after my predictions in the Aussie election, surely?

But like I said in the post above, I think Huckabee will just hang on to win it, closely followed by Romney then McCain.

 

[Dont be a lemon]

I endorse Mike Gravel for the Democratic nomination

I think the Republican field of candidates ranges from very meh to ****ing dog shit I hope their nominee doesn't win in 2008

 

[YOTC]

I think the Republican field of candidates ranges from very meh to ****ing dog shit I hope their nominee doesn't win in 2008

Ron Paul?

The Guy is a legend!

Doubt he will win the republican candidate though. Lets just hope more people join the revolution.

 

[CharlieG]

Ron Paul?

The Guy is a legend!

Doubt he will win the republican candidate though. Lets just hope more people join the revolution.

Yep. Let's just completely abrogate all social responsibilities. As long as people are free to make money and own guns, who cares?

Paul might have made sense in the 18th century. Even from a conservative viewpoint, he's completely unfit for the responsibilities of the current-day President of the United States and is completely out of touch with the needs of a modern society, let alone a modern superpower.

I think the thought of Ron Paul in the White House is even scarier than a late nomination from Dick Cheney.

 

[Bomber32]

Barack Obama will defeat Hillary Clinton in Iowa. On the Republican side I think Huckabee will beat Romney and McCain.

 

[lenny&carl]

Ron Paul will shock people with how many votes he gets in the primaries.

 

[Elle]

Personally I think Clinton has it in the bag, if she can just win the first two she is home.. but even without those she can still easily win if she finishes a close second (if she finished 2nd she would love Edwards to be the one who finishes 1st) But I think she'll win both NH and Iowa and cruise through to get the nomination. Especially with foreign affairs being the major talking point into the lead up. But we all know things can change in an instant.

Do you mind me asking why you think Clinton is the foreign affairs candidate? Begs the question if people followed the Kyl-Lieberman mess plus the Iran NIE and how utterly wrong Clinton was, yet again. The woman will not quit eating Bush-Cheney's bullshit infested lies, it's utterly disgusting and shameful. I can tell you now, if she ends up the Dem nominee, the party will be fractured like never before.

Out of them all, Joe Biden, the Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, with 35 years experience, is the foreign affairs candidate on the Dem side, along with Richardson. Sorry, but Clinton quite honestly doesn't even come close. Not even in the same ball park. Let's talk about Pakistan for a minute, straight after Musharraf declared SOE in November, who did Musharraf and Bhutto immediately call, even before calling Condi and Bush? They both called Biden first. World leaders aren't calling Hillary Clinton for advice in desperate situations. Clinton even said that Biden would be a great Sec State, and do know what Biden's response was?

"I know a lot of my opponents out there say I'd be a great secretary of state. Seriously, every one of them. Do you watch any of the debates? 'Joe's right, Joe's right, Joe's right.' I ask you a rhetorical question: Are you prepared to vote for anyone - at this moment in our history - as president who is not capable of being secretary of state? Who among my opponents would you consider appointing secretary of state? Seriously. Think about it."

He has an excellent point there. Also I can say from watching every single debate, it's truly amazing how many times the candidates say "Joe is right".

I know Biden is low in the polls, but I think he's going to surprise in Iowa.

 

[Elle]

On the GOP side its interesting. McCain is surging and will be favoured by the shaky international scene but I still think will finish 3rd in Iowa. Romney is there or there abouts and as has been said above is putting everything into Iowa and NH because obviously if he can get off to a good start with a strong 2nd or get up to win then it will give him a major boost. I think Huckabee will win Iowa, Romney will finish just ahead of McCain followed by Thompson.

I think most GOP supporters are now dreading Huckabee winning the nomination as it will give them virtually no chance at winning the general election. If McCain, Romney or Giuliani come against Hillary though, they are a huge chance of winning.

I think 3rd will be a good enough result for McCain considering he was previously completely written off for Iowa. Out of the GOP cesspool he does stand out as the alternative for voters frustrated with the other candidates, as he isn't bound to the religious right ala the Huckster, isn't sickly corrupt like Giuliani, and isn't an empty suit like Romney. If McCain does end up with the nomination, even though he certainly has flaws and vulnerabilities, I agree that it won't be easy for the Dems to win with Hillary.

Bloomberg will run if she is the nominee. He could really affect the outcome.

 

[KissStephanie]

Ah. So you want to be able to say that you've met the President.

Not at all. If that was important to me Charlie, then I would be happy with meeting the current president, but I don't want to meet him. If I did meet him, I'd feel instantly dumber. A bit like how people feel after watching the Jerry Springer show.

Ron Paul? The Guy is a legend! Doubt he will win the republican candidate though. Lets just hope more people join the revolution.

I'm not quite sure how you came up with him being a "legend." His stance on the Iraqi war and American foreign policy is great, but his tax plan is from fantasyland. Again, the rich would get richer, and the burden would again fall on the middle and lower class as it has for the past seven years. He is also pro-life, pro-guns and anti-FDA! However, he is by far the best that he Republicans have on offer, but his support base is only 1% of the American voting public, so many, many people would have to join this so-called "revolution" that you speak of.

I can tell you now, if she ends up the Dem nominee, the party will be fractured like never before.

I'd like to respond more to your post and your unabashed hatred of Hillary Clinton, but for now I'll just say that of course she won't fracture the party like never before. She will pick a VP running mate that will make everybody happy, and everybody will come together for the good of the party. It has happened before and it will happen again.

If McCain does end up with the nomination, even though he certainly has flaws and vulnerabilities, I agree that it won't be easy for the Dems to win with Hillary.

Winning elections isn't supposed to be easy, and your opinion regarding Hillary Clinton is loud and clear. In my opinion though, the Democrats best chances of winning the election lay with either Edwards or Clinton for a number of reasons that go beyond issues alone. I can't see John Edwards winning the nomination though.

Clinton is the Democrats Best Chance to Win

Statistical Analysis of Polls from the Battleground States

Cook Political: Presidential Race

December 19, 2007

Presidential Race:

Today, Charlie Cook givevs Mitt Romney a 50 percent chance of winning the GOP nomination, Rudy Giuliani and John McCain each a 20 percent chance and Mike Huckabee a ten percent chance. On the Democratic side, Charlie gives Hillary Clinton a 60 percent chance at winning the nomination, Barack Obama a 30 percent chance, and John Edwards a ten percent chance. Democrats continue to have a 60 percent chance of winning the White House.

 

[camsmith]

Do you mind me asking why you think Clinton is the foreign affairs candidate? Begs the question if people followed the Kyl-Lieberman mess plus the Iran NIE and how utterly wrong Clinton was, yet again. The woman will not quit eating Bush-Cheney's bullshit infested lies, it's utterly disgusting and shameful. I can tell you now, if she ends up the Dem nominee, the party will be fractured like never before.

I was talking politically, not personally. Out of all the front runners on the democrats side she is viewed to have the most experienced on foreign affairs. There's numerous reasons why, but obviously the main reason being her time as first lady when she travelled the world talking to leaders and hosting them back at home. She also had a fair bit to do with homeland security in the senate. Life experience is on her side when it comes to foreign affairs and the perception is that she is the strongest of the 3 leading democrats when it comes to foreign affairs.

You might not like her yes vote on the Kyl-Liberman amendment or the Iraq war but in a general election it will help her tremendously, especially if she comes up against a GOP candidate with little foreign affairs experience (like Huckabee). Regarding the Kyl-Liberman vote, I believe Obama didn't vote on it.. big mistake in my book in his bid to win the D nomination.

Out of them all, Joe Biden, the Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, with 35 years experience, is the foreign affairs candidate on the Dem side, along with Richardson. Sorry, but Clinton quite honestly doesn't even come close. Not even in the same ball park. Let's talk about Pakistan for a minute, straight after Musharraf declared SOE in November, who did Musharraf and Bhutto immediately call, even before calling Condi and Bush? They both called Biden first. World leaders aren't calling Hillary Clinton for advice in desperate situations. Clinton even said that Biden would be a great Sec State, and do know what Biden's response was?

Maybe so, but lets get realistic.. neither of them has a chance to win the democratic nomination which is why I wasn't focusing on them. Richardson is in the box seat for VP should Clinton win.

I know Biden is low in the polls, but I think he's going to surprise in Iowa.

Maybe just ahead of Richardson for fourth place.

 

[evo]

Yep. Let's just completely abrogate all social responsibilities. As long as people are free to make money and own guns, who cares?

Paul might have made sense in the 18th century. Even from a conservative viewpoint, he's completely unfit for the responsibilities of the current-day President of the United States and is completely out of touch with the needs of a modern society, let alone a modern superpower.

I think the thought of Ron Paul in the White House is even scarier than a late nomination from Dick Cheney.

Laugh out loud.

 

[camsmith]

I think 3rd will be a good enough result for McCain considering he was previously completely written off for Iowa. Out of the GOP cesspool he does stand out as the alternative for voters frustrated with the other candidates, as he isn't bound to the religious right ala the Huckster, isn't sickly corrupt like Giuliani, and isn't an empty suit like Romney. If McCain does end up with the nomination, even though he certainly has flaws and vulnerabilities, I agree that it won't be easy for the Dems to win with Hillary.

Bloomberg will run if she is the nominee. He could really affect the outcome.

McCain is surging but he has never been too popular with the base. With a strong start though he could knock of Giuliani as the strongest moderate republican in the field. Btw, not all the religious right are backing Huckabee, he might be saying the right things but history shows that he has been a moderate governor. I guess thats the problem GOP supporters have with every candidate, there's no clear cut conservative candidate (who has a chance). The one who could be that is Romney but he has changed from being moderate to conservative so many are suspect (although forget how Reagan did so too). He isn't an empty suit though and imo would be a great president.

 

[CharlieG]

Laugh out loud.

Have you got an actual argument to make, or are you just going to chip in from the sidelines?

Paul is an anachronism. Like it or not, you can't have the federal government of the United States of America operating as a holding company.

It's also, dare I say it, very easy to favour low taxes and no welfare when you're quite comfortably off yourself. Which Ron Paul of course is. Ask the majority of Americans whether they'd like HECS, Medicare, the PBS and the other trappings of a progressive social democracy that even Australia (a relatively neo-liberal country) enjoys.

Also, the disaster of Iraq should not see the United States withdraw from the world. Ron Paul is an isolationist. He would not only end the war in Iraq, but he'd remove US troops from countries like South Korea where they are essential for world peace. He wants to withdraw from the UN and NATO.

He's not even likable on so-called 'values' issues. He's pro-death penalty (but not at federal level - it's okay for states to kill you but not the feds, for some reason). He's opposed to abortion and has introduced bills that would allow states to prohibit abortion despite the decision of the Supreme Court. Most scarily, he defended laws against sodomy in Texas.

The guy is a nut.

 

[CharlieG]

I do think that it's a shame that Joe Biden's candidacy has never really gotten any traction. He'd be my choice of the eight candidates, behind Obama, to win the nomination. I'd certainly prefer him to Clinton or even Edwards. I agree with Edwards' stated positions on a lot of issues, but I really don't like the guy. He's too smooth. Whatever he pretends, he's not a man of the people and a man who gets $400 haircuts doesn't really have much credibility when it comes to speaking about poverty.

 

[evo]

Paul is an anachronism.

Only to students who can't see beyond the term 'progressive'

Like it or not, you can't have the federal government of the United States of America operating as a holding company.

Because the state is bigger than the individual,right?

It's also, dare I say it, very easy to favour low taxes and no welfare when you're quite comfortably off yourself.Which Ron Paul of course is.

You aren't seriously playing the "Paul is only looking after number one" card I hope.

http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=83665295-1de6-4571-af9c-0a90f6d1fde0

20 years of following politics,and I can honestly say he is the first viable politican I've ever come across whose self interest pales in comparrison(to any other politician)

Surely you don't honestly believe Bilary or Obama is interested in the working classes.They wan't to get elected.Period.

Ask the majority of Americans whether they'd like HECS, Medicare, the PBS and the other trappings of a progressive social democracy that even Australia (a relatively neo-liberal country) enjoys.

Are you appealing to the intelligence of the average American' According to you those "dumb rednecks" barely should be allowed to vote.

Also, the disaster of Iraq should not see the United States withdraw from the world. Ron Paul is an isolationist. He would not only end the war in Iraq, but he'd remove US troops from countries like South Korea where they are essential for world peace. He wants to withdraw from the UN and NATO.

Yeah so? What's the deal,you actually like America when they are fighting causes you approve of?Rather convenient position.

He's not even likable on so-called 'values' issues.

I don't give a **** if he's likable.Since when was that a criteria for approving or disapprovaving of a potential candidate.

Lets make Eddie Maguire the next PM,eh.