The Iowa Thread

[CharlieG]

Gurujane vs KissStephanie on American politics. It's the Hannity and Colmes female edition.

 

[GuruJane]

Her experience will be the reason that she would receive more votes than Kerry did in 2004. Her husband will be a big part of her campaign, and that will be a huge asset in battleground states such as FL, OH, and PA.

Can't agree that she'll pull out more votes than Kerry in 04, any more than the Republican candidate will match Bush vote. 'O4 was a unique election in that it was very much a referendum on Bush and Iraq war at a peak of BDS.

He is highly respected by Americans, and I think Clark would be her best choice.

Not sure the Clintons would go for Clark in the end because of Kosovo experience.

I'm not underestimating it, because I have not ignored her high negative factor amongst Republicans. I just don't think that any of the Republican candidates, Guiliani and McCain included, will be able to attract the record number of votes that Karl Rove was able to generate for Bush in 2004. I do feel though that Clinton will receive more votes than Kerry did in 2004.

Am curious you are attributing most of Bush's 04 success to the nefarious Rove getting out the anti gay, anti abortion vote? That was more 2000, surely?

04 was in most part a referendum on Iraq War, Bush Lied and Bush's "illegal" win in 2000. The culmination of the two Michael Moore films, if you recall? This was the election that was going to right the wrong. It was extremely polarised and the Dem base was particularly motivated. If you remember the extreme left mounted a lot of physical attacks on Republican supporters? This sense of defending the rampants is what helped inspire the Repubs to run a successful get the voters-to-the-polls operation, that trumped the Dem's efforts, much to their surprise. The other factor, not often remarked upon, was Bush's success in securing the Hispanic vote, which will probably go to Clinton this time.

But it is highly unlikely that 08 will break the records for voter turnout as 04 did simply because this time passions will not be running nearly so high. There will be no "hate" figure to mobilise the Dems to their 04 turnout, but Billary will be a hate figure for the Repubs for sure.

Perhaps this will change if the Iraq war cranks up again, but that seems to be increasingly unlikely.

 

[evo]

Gurujane vs KissStephanie on American politics. It's the Hannity and Colmes female edition.

*Pulls up a chair and makes a bowl of popcorn*

 

[KissStephanie]

Can't agree that she'll pull out more votes than Kerry in 04, any more than the Republican candidate will match Bush vote. 'O4 was a unique election in that it was very much a referendum on Bush and Iraq war at a peak of BDS.

I'd like to respond in full, but it's New Years Eve here and I have to leave the house, but you must be joking Jane that Clinton is not likely to attract more votes than Kerry. The Kerry campaign was very badly run, and much of the Democrats base are the 18-30 year olds that did not vote as was hoped which disappointed the Democrats at the time. In an October poll, this age group favours Hillary Clinton ahead of Rudy Guiliani. Barack Obama was well behind Clinton as preferred Democrat.

Not sure the Clintons would go for Clark in the end because of Kosovo experience.

I'm not sure either, and I won't be sure until she wins the nomination and names a running-mate, but I am sure that Wesley Clark is most known for being a respected four-star general.

Am curious you are attributing most of Bush's 04 success to the nefarious Rove getting out the anti gay, anti abortion vote? That was more 2000, surely?

No, I am referring to the 2004 election. That is the campaign that Rove was able to get the Christian-coalition in particular to the polls in record numbers based on social issues such as gay marriage and abortion while successfully hiding the Iraq war behind those issues. That was the difference between winning and losing a close election. The Kerry campaign failed to take advantage of the state of Iraq in a poorly run campaign. More Republicans than ever before voted in that election, and if you think that can happen again, then it is a big expectation considering the Republican candidates on offer. It won't happen.

The Democrats, due to the low number of 18-30 year olds that voted in 2004 have much more potential for improvement on 2004. The Democrats also have more potential for improvement by simply running a better campaign than John Kerry, and that won't be difficult. If the strong red states do vote in force, then it won't hurt because it's very reasonable to expect Clinton to keep the blue states, and she would be favourite to take at least Ohio from the Republicans in my opinion. That is all that is needed to win in that case.

 

[GuruJane]

I'd like to respond in full, but it's New Years Eve here and I have to leave the house, but you must be joking Jane that Clinton is not likely to attract more votes than Kerry.

Kiss, the 2004 turnout was a record because the campaign was very polarised, passionate : a choice between good and evil.

There is absolutely nothing to suggest that 08 could possibly reach the same level of voter interest as 04. The reviled Bush will not be a candidate and it may well be that the electorate will be much more relaxed and comfortable about Iraq war.

Furthermore, Clinton will not achieve anywhere near the same level of interest as Obama would. She doesn't even have the "fresh face" factor going for her Billary1 had in 1992 (and Rudd had here)

No, I am referring to the 2004 election. That is the campaign that Rove was able to get the Christian-coalition in particular to the polls in record numbers based on social issues such as gay marriage and abortion while successfully hiding the Iraq war behind those issues. That was the difference between winning and losing a close election. The Kerry campaign failed to take advantage of the state of Iraq in a poorly run campaign.

I suppose you are basing this on the exit polls that suggested 22% of voters had nominated "moral values" as their main issue in the campaign?

This was always a ridiculous furphy. In 2000 35% had nominated "moral and ethical values" as their main issue. So the story should have been that the voters had significantly dropped their traditional adherence to citing "moral values" owing to their concerns on Iraq and the war on terror.

More Republicans than ever before voted in that election, and if you think that can happen again, then it is a big expectation considering the Republican candidates on offer. It won't happen.

Nope, I don't think for one moment the Repubs will exceed their 04 vote, any more than I think the Dems will exceed theirs. 04 was atypical.

The Democrats, due to the low number of 18-30 year olds that voted in 2004 have much more potential for improvement on 2004.

And I can't see any reason the 18-30 years olds will be more motivated to vote if Billary is the candidate. If it was Obama it would be different. He is the post post modern candidate. Just look at the stars in Charlie's eyes!

The Democrats also have more potential for improvement by simply running a better campaign than John Kerry, and that won't be difficult. If the strong red states do vote in force, then it won't hurt because it's very reasonable to expect Clinton to keep the blue states, and she would be favourite to take at least Ohio from the Republicans in my opinion. That is all that is needed to win in that case.

Well I always thought Kerry could have won if he'd presented himself as the candidate who would win Iraq by uniting the country. Instead he presented himself as the candidate prepared to accept losing the war. Fatal decision at that point in time. (If the election had been in 2006, it might have been different.)

Apart from that I thought Kerry mostly ran a good campaign. As I remember he won all the debates.

 

[Qsaint]

Des Moines Register has Obama 7% ahead of Hillary with Edwards only 1 % behind Hillary

Looks like Obama in 24 hours, Huckabee for the GOP

 

[KissStephanie]

There is absolutely nothing to suggest that 08 could possibly reach the same level of voter interest as 04.

I agree that I don't think that as many Republicans will votes as they did in 2004, even if Clinton wins the nomination, but there is plenty to suggest that it's quite reasonable to expect more Democrats will vote. In current polls, Clinton is a higher preferred choice than Kerry was at the same stage in early 2004, and I believe that more will vote for her this year than Kerry in 2004.

I also definitely think that the number of 18-30s that voted will increase which will help the Democrats. I definitely think that the polls can be run better to enable people to vote instead of walk away from long queues as they did in 2004. I expect Clinton to run a better campaign than Kerry did in 2004. I think that she will keep all of the states from the 2004 election and pick up at least one other to win the election.

The reviled Bush will not be a candidate and it may well be that the electorate will be much more relaxed and comfortable about Iraq war.

Bush is a dead duck as far as the Republican candidates are concerned and will distance themselves as much as possible from the Bush administration and their disastrous seven years to date. The majority of Americans still disapprove with the state of Iraq, even if the numbers have slightly improved in the last month, while some polls have not changed in the past year.

The instability of the region, such as Iran, Pakistan, and the inability to completely stabilise Afghanistan, that has been caused by the war in Iraq will not help the Republicans in the slightest, even if they do try to distance themselves from Bush.

Polling Report: State of Iraq

Furthermore, Clinton will not achieve anywhere near the same level of interest as Obama would.

Not according to current polls where Clinton still has a sizeable lead over Obama in all of them, and since when is a 'fresh face' such an important factor anyway? I think with the state of the country and the world, Americans want experience of someone that has been around for a while to straighten out Bush's mess.

She doesn't even have the "fresh face" factor going for her Billary1 had in 1992 (and Rudd had here)

The state of America in 2008 cannot be compared to the state of America in 1992, or Australia in 2007 either. Howard had to go, just as Bush has to go like no other president in recent memory. Experience, and not freshness is required in this years election, and what could be fresher than having the first ever female president anyway? It would be a first. It's never happened before.

I suppose you are basing this on the exit polls that suggested 22% of voters had nominated "moral values" as their main issue in the campaign?

I'm actually basing it on post 2004 election summaries. Not exit polls. The major findings after the election was that Rove was able to generate a record number of the Christian coalition to vote on issues such as gay marriage and abortion, while successfully hiding the state of Iraq behind those issues, and that the number of 18-30s that voted were very disappointing. It's common knowledge that the Kerry campaign was poorly run as he failed to take advantage of the state of Iraq in the way that he should have, and he failed to respond to the attacks that were placed on his character which was critical in the end.

The media was mostly concerned about his hair, his recreational activities such as the disaster of posing with a shotgun while pretending to be a hunter, and whether his wife was too bitchy to be a first lady. The completely made-up smear campaign of him being flip-flopper, which generally speaking he was not was also handled badly, as was the attack on his war record in Vietnam. All of this haunted him to the very end and it cost him any chance of winning the election. At the time, Bush was much more of a flip-flopper than Kerry had been, but the Kerry campaign didn't make that an issue and fight fire with fire. Big mistake.

Why didn't Kerry personally go after Bush's incredible service record? Why couldn't Kerry personally call Bush a terrible liar and unethical monster? I hold campaign manager, Mary Beth Cahill, responsible for all of these critical failings.

Camaign 101: Learning From Major Campaigns

"Republican presidential candidates and campaign operatives seem to thrive in the button down culture of corporate America. The two presidential campaigns of George W. Bush, from Karl Rove to campaign volunteers in Ohio at the bottom represented a clear chain of command that transmitted strategic decisions at the top into actions at the precinct level at the bottom.

The Kerry campaign, in contrast was in a constant state of turmoil. The Senator fired his first campaign manager, Jim Jordan and undercut his second manager Mary Beth Cahill. By the fall, there were two separate power centers within the Kerry campaign fighting for control and openly airing their differences with each other with leaks to the press.

The problem here is clear. How can you convince voters that you can resolve disputes between the Israelis and Arabs if you can’t get your own staff to play nice with each other and get along? If the Bush campaign was the classic organizational pyramid, then the Kerry campaign was the Tower of Babel.

All of these rules may seem too obvious to write about in this magazine for political activists. But they weren’t obvious enough to Senator Kerry or the people running his campaign. Forewarned is forearmed, so don’t make the same mistakes when you’re running your own campaigns. Hopefully Democrats will do better and they pick a strong and decisive presidential candidate in 2008 that can show that he or she is tough enough to make a decision and stick to it."

Nope, I don't think for one moment the Repubs will exceed their 04 vote, any more than I think the Dems will exceed theirs. 04 was atypical.

I disagree. The Bush campaign was exceptionally run and because of that, the Republicans received the maximum amount of votes that they could have. The Kerry campaign was not exceptionally run so there is room for improvement. The number of 18-30s was also shown to be extremely disappointing and that must and can be improved.

And I can't see any reason the 18-30 years olds will be more motivated to vote if Billary is the candidate.

I can. She is a mix of experience and freshness as the potential first ever female president.

If it was Obama it would be different. He is the post post modern candidate. Just look at the stars in Charlie's eyes!

But she is comfortably leading Obama in the 18-30s age group in America where it counts.

Apart from that I thought Kerry mostly ran a good campaign.

It was a poorly run campaign that proved costly in the end. It was a conflicted power struggle and a mess. John Edwards was considered the star of the Kerry campaign due these weaknesses, but that was not enough because he was only running for Vice-President. If given the chance, I expect Hillary Clinton to run a far better campaign than John Kerry did which should result in more votes.

As I remember he won all the debates.

Kerry was considered the winner of the first debate, while the second two were considered split. He didn't win all three.

Kerry Campaign Chief Admits Errors

CAMBRIDGE, Mass., Dec. 16, 2004

(AP) The campaign manager for Sen. John Kerry's failed presidential bid said Wednesday she regrets underestimating the impact of an attack advertisement that questioned Kerry's Vietnam War record.

Mary Beth Cahill, who spoke at Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government with Ken Mehlman, President Bush's campaign manager, said the Massachusetts senator's campaign initially thought there would be "no reach" to the ad from Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.

Instead, the ad, which initially aired in just three states, became a central issue of the campaign, eventually forcing Kerry to personally deny the group's allegations that he did not deserve his combat medals.

"This is the best $40,000 investment made by any political group, but it was only because of the news coverage that it got where it did," she said.

"In hindsight, maybe we should have put Senator Kerry out earlier, perhaps we could have cut it off earlier." Cont...

 

[GuruJane]

I agree that I don't think that as many Republicans will votes as they did in 2004, even if Clinton wins the nomination, but there is plenty to suggest that it's quite reasonable to expect more Democrats will vote. In current polls, Clinton is a higher preferred choice than Kerry was at the same stage in early 2004, and I believe that more will vote for her this year than Kerry in 2004.

What relevance does a "preferred choice" have to likelihood of a record turnout?

I expect Clinton to run a better campaign than Kerry did in 2004. I think that she will keep all of the states from the 2004 election and pick up at least one other to win the election.

I think she can achieve this too, but she doesn't need a record turnout to get it and it is unlikely she will going by past elections.

Bush is a dead duck as far as the Republican candidates are concerned and will distance themselves as much as possible from the Bush administration and their disastrous seven years to date. The majority of Americans still disapprove with the state of Iraq, even if the numbers have slightly improved in the last month, while some polls have not changed in the past year.

More Americans prefer Bush to the Democratic Congress. Isn't this cause for worry?

The instability of the region, such as Iran, Pakistan, and the inability to completely stabilise Afghanistan, that has been caused by the war in Iraq will not help the Republicans in the slightest, even if they do try to distance themselves from Bush.

Much depends on General Petraeus, I agree. Perhaps Billary could entice him out of the army and onto the ticket?

Not according to current polls where Clinton still has a sizeable lead over Obama in all of them,

According to the current polls McCain would easily beat Clinton, and Edwards would trounce any of the Repub candidates. Does this mean they will be the nominees?

I'm actually basing it on post 2004 election summaries. Not exit polls. The major findings after the election was that Rove was able to generate a record number of the Christian coalition to vote on issues such as gay marriage and abortion, while successfully hiding the state of Iraq behind those issues,

The summaries were based on the exit polls, as am sure you know. Spurious summaries calculated to divert the whingeing faithful who were whining to know how the Dems lost the unloseable. However I'm sure Billary HQ knows that the major issue in the 04 choice was leadership.

and that the number of 18-30s that voted were very disappointing. It's common knowledge that the Kerry campaign was poorly run as he failed to take advantage of the state of Iraq in the way that he should have, and he failed to respond to the attacks that were placed on his character which was critical in the end.

The Swiftboat Vets campaign would never have gained traction if Kerry had positioned himself as the candidate who coud win the war by uniting the country as opposed to Bush who had divided it. Kerry could have captured the high moral ground leadership but he handed it to Dubya instead. Billary1 would never have made that mistake and would have won that election easily.

Why didn't Kerry personally go after Bush's incredible service record? Why couldn't Kerry personally call Bush a terrible liar and unethical monster?

Ah, the tragedy of the visceral Scream not making it past Iowa.

I hold campaign manager, Mary Beth Cahill, responsible for all of these critical failings.

And she was being so well briefed by Mary Mapes too.

Perhaps Cahill was a tad concerned the fakery of the records was so blatant it would rebound among Independent voters?

I disagree. The Bush campaign was exceptionally run and because of that, the Republicans received the maximum amount of votes that they could have. The Kerry campaign was not exceptionally run so there is room for improvement. The number of 18-30s was also shown to be extremely disappointing and that must and can be improved.I can. She is a mix of experience and freshness as the potential first ever female president.But she is comfortably leading Obama in the 18-30s age group in America where it counts.It was a poorly run campaign that proved costly in the end. It was a conflicted power struggle and a mess. John Edwards was considered the star of the Kerry campaign due these weaknesses, but that was not enough because he was only running for Vice-President. If given the chance, I expect Hillary Clinton to run a far better campaign than John Kerry did which should result in more votes.

You seem to think that every single person one who voted Dem 4 years ago will turn up and vote the same way this time. Why would they?

(AP) The campaign manager for Sen. John Kerry's failed presidential bid said Wednesday she regrets underestimating the impact of an attack advertisement that questioned Kerry's Vietnam War record.

Mary Beth Cahill, who spoke at Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government with Ken Mehlman, President Bush's campaign manager, said the Massachusetts senator's campaign initially thought there would be "no reach" to the ad from Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.

Exactly. That was the Dems myopic mindset from the beginning, at the convention. They actually believed that Kerry walking out in front of the crowd and saluting "ready for duty" but then going on to invoke the immorality of Iraq would be a big plus for them in the red states they had to win. Instead it set him right up for the swiftboat retaliation, but Cahill et al were so imbued with the vision of moral self righteousness - a la Michael Moore - they didn't pick what damage it could do.

Bottom line, Kerry failed the leadership battle in the crucial must-win states when he raised doubts about his fitness to be a trustworthy C in C in time of war to patriotically-inclined electorates. That's why he lost.

 

[camsmith]

The main story in the last week on the GOP side has been Huckabees "negative" ad. It was bizarre, he has been saying all campaign that he wont go negative, so he spends a day away from the campaign to shoot this negative ad and then decides not to air it on TV, but still shows it to the press who were the launch.. only to have them laugh at him. Not a good image.

It seems he is losing momentum in the polls:

The RCP average of all recent polls as of the 30th of Dec was: Romney 28.3, Huckabee 28.1, McCain 11.9, Thompson 11.0, Paul 6.7, Giuliani 6.3.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/ia/iowa_republican_caucus-207.html

It's pretty much neck and neck going by that and with Huckabee going on the tonight show with Jay Leno tonight it could either push him over the line or be just another speed bump for him (as polls show that many voters still haven't locked in a candidate and could still change at the last minute).

No one can really say who will win in Iowa for the GOP.

On the Democrat side..

The RCP average goes as follows: Clinton 28.4, Obama 27.3, Edwards, 25.8, Richardson 6.0, Biden 5.0.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/ia/iowa_democratic_caucus-208.html

Not to sure on the latest news... Obama saying Clinton is just like Bush etc.. But there isn't much late news that im aware on. Its clear now that it is way too close to call with any of the top three able to win. Edwards seemingly has the momentum and could come home strong to win it. Definitely Hilary would rather him win Iowa than Obama.

I dont know what is going on over at the Des Moines Register, both of their latest polls show massive leads to both Huckabee (+6 points) and Obama (+ 7 points) which seem to go against the trend of most other polls conducted in the past week who that not only show that its closer at the top but if you take the average of all the polls neither Huckabee or Obama is leading. Strange.

 

[camsmith]

Des Moines Register has Obama 7% ahead of Hillary with Edwards only 1 % behind Hillary

Looks like Obama in 24 hours, Huckabee for the GOP

Not sure how seriously I would take that poll, as I have said in my above post.

Look at the spread in the last 12 polls (starting from most recent):

Poll - Date - Spread

Strategic Vision (R) - 12/28 - 12/30 - Obama +3.0
ReutersC-Span/Zogby - 12/27 - 12/30 - Clinton +4.0
Des Moines Register - 12/27 - 12/30 - Obama +7.0
CNN - 12/26 - 12/30 - Clinton +2.0
Insider Advantage - 12/28 - 12/29 - Clinton +1.0
ReutersC-Span/Zogby - 12/26 - 12/29 - Clinton +4.0
American Res. Group - 12/26 - 12/28 - Clinton +7.0
Mason-Dixon - 12/26 - 12/28 - Edwards +1.0
Strategic Vision (R) - 12/26 - 12/27 - Obama +1.0
Quad City Times - 12/26 - 12/27 - Tie
LA Times/Bloomberg - 12/20 - 12/26 - Clinton +6.0
American Res. Group - 12/20 - 12/23 - Clinton +14.0

So since the 20th of December outside the DMR the most Obama has polled is a +3 (similar story on the GOP side with Huckabee and the Des Moines Register going way above the average). So if we're looking at trends it is simply too close to call, especially with three candidates with almost identical numbers. Who knows.

 

[medusala]

Of course it should be the easiest, but it's still going to be difficult regardless of which Democrat leads them into the election. That said, I feel that Clinton, Edwards or Obama are capable of beating any of the current Republican options.

Edwards?

He would be lucky to beat Dan Quayle.

 

[KissStephanie]

What relevance does a "preferred choice" have to likelihood of a record turnout?

I don't follow your question. Clinton is a more preferred leader now, than Kerry was at the beginning of 2004. If more people are satisfied with the presidential candidate, then it's reasonable to think that more people will vote for that person, particularly if Clinton runs a better campaign than Kerry did because despite what you say, the Kerry campaign was a disaster as I had shown yesterday and it cost any chance of winning the election. I also feel that the polling booth changes should enable more to vote instead of voters turning away from long queues. I'm sure I've mentioned these points already over the past two days. Did you miss it?

I think she can achieve this too, but she doesn't need a record turnout to get it and it is unlikely she will going by past elections.

I didn't say that she needed a record turnout, but I believe that she realistically could receive more votes than Kerry received in 2004, which very well could be the most number of votes that a presidential candidate has ever received. Regardless of whether she does receive the most votes ever, I'm sure she will keep all of the states that Kerry won anyway, and pick up the one more state needed to win the election. I certainly don't expect as many Republican votes in the states of Florida and Ohio as there was in 2004, regardless of which candidate will be leading the Republican party.

More Americans prefer Bush to the Democratic Congress. Isn't this cause for worry?

Not at all. Congress always fairs badly in opinion polls regardless of who is in control, and has done so for years. It won't rob Clinton of any votes in a presidential election if she is the Democrat nomination though.

It has been disappointing that Congress has talked tough before caving in to Bush, but people realise that a Republican Congress wouldn't even go that far, and it's probably the reason that a Democratic Congress is still quite comfortably preferred. To be fair, the current Democratic Congress only has a one member majority which isn't enough to implement changes, but that should increase this year.

Polling Report: Democratic Congress Preferred Over Republican Congress in 2008

Much depends on General Petraeus, I agree. Perhaps Billary could entice him out of the army and onto the ticket?

Petraeus as Clinton's running-mate? This is surely a joke. Firstly, it has and will not ever be suggested by anybody, and secondly, Clinton would have to find someone that made the Democrat voter base happy.

Petraeus hasn't done anything special in Iraq. He has created Sunni and Shi'ite militia in Iraq which has further divided the country, and the violence has been reduced because of the extra money that has been spent on an already outrageously expensive war.

According to the current polls McCain would easily beat Clinton, and Edwards would trounce any of the Repub candidates. Does this mean they will be the nominees?

"Easily beat?" Where did you get that from? For the past twelve months, they have constantly been within a few of points of each other, and McCain's lead is currently 2% when all polls are combined, which is less than the margin of error. In the previous six months, Clinton's combined poll lead over McCain was between 2%-5%, and it will probably change again next month, and McCain's biggest hurdle is winning the Republican nomination where he is still trailing Huckabee, Romney and Guiliani.

The summaries were based on the exit polls, as am sure you know. Spurious summaries calculated to divert the whingeing faithful who were whining to know how the Dems lost the unloseable. However I'm sure Billary HQ knows that the major issue in the 04 choice was leadership.

The 2004 election was not "un-losable." On the morning of election day, Bush was slight favourite to win the election in a tight finish, although Kerry was a chance. The Kerry campaign had been falling apart for sometime, and I remember not feeling confident about the result at all. The record number of the Christian coalition that voted was not determined by exit polls, but after the election was over, and that made the difference in a close election.

The Swiftboat Vets campaign would never have gained traction if Kerry had positioned himself as the candidate who coud win the war by uniting the country as opposed to Bush who had divided it.

The war cannot be won in Iraq, and the best that can be hoped is to leave the country as peacefully as possible, and Americans understand that now as shown in current polls, but at the time many more still believed that it could be won.

Kerry could have captured the high moral ground leadership but he handed it to Dubya instead. Billary1 would never have made that mistake and would have won that election easily.

Although Kerry has been shown to be right about Iraq, the campaign was a disaster compared to the Bush campaign, even if that campaign was based on rubbish.

You seem to think that every single person one who voted Dem 4 years ago will turn up and vote the same way this time.

I didn't say every single Democrat will vote the same way, but I certainly expect less to jump ship than the Republicans by a long way. If Clinton is the Democrat leader, again I expect her to keep the same states and pick up at least one other.

Why would they?

Are you serious after the damage that the Bush administration has done to the Republican party? Have you read what I have written in the last couple of days, or have you just been looking at the pictures? If Clinton wins the Democratic nomination, she will be a more favoured leader amongst Democrat voters than Kerry was. The leader of the Republicans won't have the advantage of already being the incumbent during a time of war and extreme instability.

Bottom line, Kerry failed the leadership battle in the crucial must-win states when he raised doubts about his fitness to be a trustworthy C in C in time of war to patriotically-inclined electorates.

As it's turned out, Bush has failed to be the trustworthy Commander-in-Chief, and it's reasonable to say that Kerry would have done a much better job over the past four years. He certainly couldn't have done worse.

That's why he lost.

He lost because the campaign was a disaster compared to how the Bush campaign was run. Rove was able to get the Republicans to the polls in record numbers while hiding the state of Iraq behind other issues and a successful smear campaign, and it was the difference between winning and losing.

My point anyway, is not what led to Kerry losing, so what you've said is irrelevant. My point is that the Kerry campaign was poorly run, and that is undeniable, and that Clinton would run a much better campaign and therefore potentially more support on election day from Democrat voters than Kerry received.

 

[camsmith]

Petraeus hasn't done anything special in Iraq.

Getting talking points from Harry Reid now?

"Easily beat?" Where did you get that from? For the past twelve months, they have constantly been within a few of points of each other, and McCain's lead is currently 2% when all polls are combined,

On RCP the lead of McCain is 5 points. And McCain isn't even the leading Republican nationally, Rudy is.

 

[KissStephanie]

Getting talking points from Harry Reid now?

Actually, I was saying it way before he was, and I'll stick to it as well. The violence in Iraq has been lowered because of the extra cost and strain on the military to send more troops, on an already outrageously expensive war. The Sunni and Shi'ite militia that Petreaus has created has also had an effect despite further dividing the country. The current polls clearly indicate that the majority of Americans are still dissatisfied with the handling of Iraq.

On RCP the lead of McCain is 5 points. And McCain isn't even the leading Republican nationally, Rudy is.

All polls combined, he is 2% ahead, which is less than the margin of error, and could easily change again as it has been doing. He is trailing for the Republican nomination still though anyway, despite his resurgence since last summer.

 

[camsmith]

Actually, I was saying it way before he was, and I'll stick to it as well. The violence in Iraq has been lowered because of the extra cost and strain on the military to send more troops, on an already outrageously expensive war. The Sunni and Shi'ite militia that Petreaus has created has also had an effect despite further dividing the country. The current polls clearly indicate that the majority of Americans are still dissatisfied with the handling of Iraq.

All polls combined, he is 2% ahead, which is less than the margin of error, and could easily change again as it has been doing. He is trailing for the Republican nomination still though anyway, despite his resurgence since last summer.

Well, thats what the surge was.. extra troops, extra force, extra resources etc... And its paying off. With AQ becoming increasingly unpopular among sectarian groups I'd call that a good thing. Uniting Iraq against the terrorists.

You're obsessed with basing the success and failure of Iraq on polls? Why not listen to the generals and look at the numbers and results on the ground? I guess Americans back home have a much better idea of whats happening in Iraq..

The real clear politics average of all the polls put McCain with a 5 point lead. I was actually surprised when I saw the margin that big. Obviously the next 2-3 months might change the numbers dramatically but as it is now you'd think Clinton would be the most popular of the two.

 

[KissStephanie]

Well, thats what the surge was.. extra troops, extra force, extra resources etc... And its paying off.

Paying off? Costing billions you mean! I have always been opposed to the money spent and what it could be used for instead, and that was before the significant financial increase of the surge.

With AQ becoming increasingly unpopular among sectarian groups I'd call that a good thing. Uniting Iraq against the terrorists.

Actually, the war in Iraq has created instability in Iran and Pakistan, while Afghanistan has not stabilised. Al-Qaeda is thriving and growing in Pakistan due to the war in Iraq, and the Sunni and Shi'ite militias that Petreaus has created has divided Iraqi's. Americans are aware of this, and that is why the state of Iraq is still not popular here.

You're obsessed with basing the success and failure of Iraq on polls?

Since that is a question, the answer is no.

Why not listen to the generals and look at the numbers and results on the ground?

Firstly, I don't trust all of what is reported in Iraq from the military of course. It is not exactly an impartial source. As for the numbers, it is currently... US$482,465,000,000.00.

I guess Americans back home have a much better idea of whats happening in Iraq.

I'm sure many can see the current turmoil in the region and blame the Iraq war for it. Many can also see the money it has cost and the amount of Americans that have been killed. Many can also see that the Iraqi government is corrupt and dysfunctional.

The real clear politics average of all the polls put McCain with a 5 point lead. I was actually surprised when I saw the margin that big.

Back on topic. Good. This thread isn't the ideal place for Iraq. The combined 2% percent lead that I got was from...

Presidential Election Polls

Obviously the next 2-3 months might change the numbers dramatically but as it is now you'd think Clinton would be the most popular of the two.

If McCain drops off as is expected, I have no doubt that it will change. If he does happen to win the Republican nomination, I don't know how his campaign can afford to keep up with Clinton if she wins.

 

[camsmith]

Paying off? Costing billions you mean! I have always been opposed to the money spent and what it could be used for instead, and that was before the significant financial increase of the surge.

WWII cost billions.. Im glad we came away with that victorious. Iraq may be costing a lot, but it would cost the US a lot more if they run away like Edwards is suggesting they do.

Actually, out of Obama, Hilliary and Edwards.. surely you are more much aligned with what Edwards stands for?

Actually, the war in Iraq has created instability in Iran and Pakistan, while Afghanistan has not stabilised. Al-Qaeda is thriving and growing in Pakistan due to the war in Iraq, and the Sunni and Shi'ite militias that Petreaus has created has divided Iraqi's. Americans are aware of this, and that is why the state of Iraq is still not popular here.

Ok so teaming up with the US in fighting al-Qaeda is a bad thing in your mind..?

Petraeus has done a magnificent job, he has done everything asked of him.

Since that is a question, the answer is no.

Then lets do away with the polls and focus on the facts.

Firstly, I don't trust all of what is reported in Iraq from the military of course. It is not exactly an impartial source. As for the numbers, it is currently... US$482,465,000,000.00.

And in the next sentence you'll say Bush isn't supplying the troops with good enough armour.

Wars that go on for this long tend to cost alot, but as I have said.. if the coalition withdraw it may well cost them a whole lot more in 10 or so years once AQ and Iran have their way.

I'm sure many can see the current turmoil in the region and blame the Iraq war for it. Many can also see the money it has cost and the amount of Americans that have been killed. Many can also see that the Iraqi government is corrupt and dysfunctional.

That is if many people get their news from the MSM. Others will see signs of progress all across Iraq. The current so-called "turmoil" in the region should be blamed on both AQ and Iran. Not the US.

Back on topic. Good. This thread isn't the ideal place for Iraq. The combined 2% percent lead that I got was from...

Presidential Election PollsIf McCain drops off as is expected, I have no doubt that it will change. If he does happen to win the Republican nomination, I don't know how his campaign can afford to keep up with Clinton if she wins.

That website doesn't work for me? But I trust that your numbers accurate.

It's probably best if we put away the general election predictions and polls until we know who's running.

 

[evo]

As for the numbers, it is currently... US$482,465,000,000.00..

It's a frightful number.

I reckon even Ron Paul would dole out a bit of free healthcare if he had that in his back kick.

 

[GuruJane]

I don't follow your question. Clinton is a more preferred leader now, than Kerry was at the beginning of 2004.

I'm saying that just because a poll is showing Clinton is a more preferred leader now than Kerry was then doesn't necessarily mean there is going to be another record voter turnout for the Dems.

Have you got a poll where more people say they will actually go and vote on the day for Clinton that shows a correlation with the election turnout in 04?

If more people are satisfied with the presidential candidate, then it's reasonable to think that more people will vote for that person, particularly if Clinton runs a better campaign than Kerry did because despite what you say, the Kerry campaign was a disaster as I had shown yesterday and it cost any chance of winning the election. I also feel that the polling booth changes should enable more to vote instead of voters turning away from long queues. I'm sure I've mentioned these points already over the past two days. Did you miss it?

Sure, but none of this says that more people will actually turn out to vote.

I didn't say that she needed a record turnout, but I believe that she realistically could receive more votes than Kerry received in 2004, which very well could be the most number of votes that a presidential candidate has ever received.

That record belongs to Dubya doesn't it? I feel you are underestimating the different dynamics that apply in non compulsory voting systems. 04 was a record turnout for both sides but was an atypical election. That is my point.

Regardless of whether she does receive the most votes ever, I'm sure she will keep all of the states that Kerry won anyway, and pick up the one more state needed to win the election. I certainly don't expect as many Republican votes in the states of Florida and Ohio as there was in 2004, regardless of which candidate will be leading the Republican party.Not at all. Congress always fairs badly in opinion polls regardless of who is in control, and has done so for years. It won't rob Clinton of any votes in a presidential election if she is the Democrat nomination though.

I agree that Clinton probably has the best chance of any of the Dems to win enough electoral college votes to take the presidency.

It has been disappointing that Congress has talked tough before caving in to Bush, but people realise that a Republican Congress wouldn't even go that far, and it's probably the reason that a Democratic Congress is still quite comfortably preferred. To be fair, the current Democratic Congress only has a one member majority which isn't enough to implement changes, but that should increase this year.

The Dems were elected with such fanfare and self trumpeting am in fact quite astonished that they achieved record low approval rating so early in the piece. Can only put it down to them having demonstrated appalling lack of principle as regards to withdrawing from Iraq and having revealed their cynical opportunism by backing off after beating it up. Also with earmarks of course. It's quite extraordinary that a Republican, Paul, is the only serious candidate who has stuck to the withdraw principle that got the Dems elected in 06. No wonder they are on the nose.

Petraeus as Clinton's running-mate? This is surely a joke.

Certainly not. The Dems could calculate that removing the general from the theatre would achieve their desired outcome of having Iraq fall apart again and US casualties sky rocketing....

Firstly, it has and will not ever be suggested by anybody, and secondly, Clinton would have to find someone that made the Democrat voter base happy.

...but yes, now you remind me that the Dem voter base wants to lose this war and is not capable of making strategic decisions to obtain political power.

Petraeus hasn't done anything special in Iraq. He has created Sunni and Shi'ite militia in Iraq which has further divided the country, and the violence has been reduced because of the extra money that has been spent on an already outrageously expensive war.

Hmmmn. Since I'd quite like Billary to win this presidency, I hope s/he is not thinking like you. It would be prudent to be factoring in the possibility, however dim, that by the end of 08 Iraq will no longer be much of an issue and attention will be on the threat posed by Al Qaeda in Pakistan. In which case Bush's record will be looking better and the electorate will be remembering that he held firm in 2006 and looking for a similar C in C who will stick to his guns? Billary will need to be ahead of this possibility, because the Repub candidate will be, unless Paul gets up.

"Easily beat?" Where did you get that from? For the past twelve months, they have constantly been within a few of points of each other, and McCain's lead is currently 2% when all polls are combined, which is less than the margin of error. In the previous six months, Clinton's combined poll lead over McCain was between 2%-5%, and it will probably change again next month, and McCain's biggest hurdle is winning the Republican nomination where he is still trailing Huckabee, Romney and Guiliani.

The latest RCP average shows McCain "I'd rather lose a campaign than lose a war" ahead of Clinton "suspension of disbelief" by 5 per cent. In itself not all that significant. However the fact that McCain has momentum is significant.

Iowa and NH going to be very interesting.

The 2004 election was not "un-losable." On the morning of election day, Bush was slight favourite to win the election in a tight finish, although Kerry was a chance.

04 should have been a lay down for Kerry. But he wasn't a Billary, more's the pity. Also his candidate for First Lady was gross.

The record number of the Christian coalition that voted was not determined by exit polls, but after the election was over, and that made the difference in a close election.

Yes, by the exit polls which is the only way you can analyse people's motivations when they vote in the privacy of the ballot room. Or do you have other means of knowing?

The war cannot be won in Iraq, and the best that can be hoped is to leave the country as peacefully as possible, and Americans understand that now as shown in current polls, but at the time many more still believed that it could be won.

Which is precisely why Kerry should have positioned himself as the candidate who would at least try and win the war by uniting the country! His personal, first hand experiences of the emotional effects of disunity on Vietnam would have then resonated across the divide, and sidelined the right wing attacks on his war record. Instead he provoked them.

Remember vividly what remained of the old left heart sinking as I watched his speech at the covention, complete with cuts to Michael Moore grinning away alongside Jimmy Carter.

Interestingly, Kiss, it was McCain who demolished Kerry in his speech at the Repub Convention. Make note: McCain should not be under-estimated either.

Although Kerry has been shown to be right about Iraq,

So what? The object was to throw out Cheney, Rumsfeld and Dubya - not to help them win a second term.

the campaign was a disaster compared to the Bush campaign, even if that campaign was based on rubbish.

Get reaL, this is post facto analysis. Kerry did really well considering he blew the leadership issue, which is what decided it in the end. He got a record Dem vote! A few more votes in Ohio and he would have been president and you'd be saying the campaign was brilliant.

I didn't say every single Democrat will vote the same way, but I certainly expect less to jump ship than the Republicans by a long way.

Agree, but not about the "by a long way". Much depends on Gen Petraeus appearing to be doing something "special", but if he does in 12 months time the electorate may have an altered perspective which the Repubs can/will exploit.

Rove was able to get the Republicans to the polls in record numbers while hiding the state of Iraq behind other issues and a successful smear campaign, and it was the difference between winning and losing.

That moustache twirling Rove does it again.

Is this really why you are so confident this time - because Rove is no longer there, pulling his strings, manipulating the crazed religious evangelicals like marionettes .... froth, froth ...?

My point anyway, is not what led to Kerry losing, so what you've said is irrelevant. My point is that the Kerry campaign was poorly run, and that is undeniable, and that Clinton would run a much better campaign and therefore potentially more support on election day from Democrat voters than Kerry received.

Ah ... at least can agree that Billary2 will run like a candidate seeking to be C i C should.

 

[medusala]

As it's turned out, Bush has failed to be the trustworthy Commander-in-Chief, and it's reasonable to say that Kerry would have done a much better job over the past four years. He certainly couldn't have done worse.

Worse as in Kennedy and Vietnam? That sort of worse?

As for Afghanistan the situation there wont get any better unless the farmers are paid for the opium they produce.

Now which Democrat has a policy of doing that?

 

[GuruJane]

Charlie, in return for having presumably provided some New Year entertainment for you and Evo, would you be able to post an understandable outline of how this bizarre Iowa caucus voting system works? Am sure I knew it once, but like Schleswig/Holstein have forgotten. If you've done so before, apologise in advance.

 

[Mr Q]

From my understanding the caucuses involve a bunch of people in a room standing around in groups according to which candidate they support, and trying to convince people in other groups to join their group. After a period of time, they're told to stop, the numbers in each group are tallied, and representatives of each level of support are then sent as delegates to the next level of the caucus (though they're somewhat bound at the later caucuses to that of the first level).

However it works, it's bloody confusing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iowa_caucus

 

[FOOOOTY]

Charlie, in return for having presumably provided some New Year entertainment for you and Evo, would you be able to post an understandable outline of how this bizarre Iowa caucus voting system works? Am sure I knew it once, but like Schleswig/Holstein have forgotten. If you've done so before, apologise in advance.

Please do Charlie.. it confuses me as well.. as i understand the primaries are binding votes for party nomination.. but what the hells a caucus? if its not binding do they head back there and do it all again

 

[apollo_creed]

From my understanding the caucuses involve a bunch of people in a room standing around in groups according to which candidate they support, and trying to convince people in other groups to join their group. After a period of time, they're told to stop, the numbers in each group are tallied, and representatives of each level of support are then sent as delegates to the next level of the caucus (though they're somewhat bound at the later caucuses to that of the first level).

However it works, it's bloody confusing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iowa_caucus

translation - it's stupid.

 

[CharlieG]

From my understanding the caucuses involve a bunch of people in a room standing around in groups according to which candidate they support, and trying to convince people in other groups to join their group. After a period of time, they're told to stop, the numbers in each group are tallied, and representatives of each level of support are then sent as delegates to the next level of the caucus (though they're somewhat bound at the later caucuses to that of the first level).

However it works, it's bloody confusing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iowa_caucus

That's the Democratic caucus. In some ways a better process than the primaries, in that they are always first-past-the-post. Iowa's system allows supporters of less-popular Democrats to express their preference before then choosing between one of the big three candidates.