Handicap the Dem nomination race

[BrainGlutton]

Followup/counterpart to this (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=440993) thread. As Iowa approaches, Clinton seems to have lost some of her aura of "inevitability," opening the door to serious discussion of alternatives. Who will the nominee be? (Not, who do you want it to be.)

[BrainGlutton]

FTR, I still think it will be Clinton, and the next relevant question is who will be her running mate.

[ElvisL1ves]

I thought so too until the last week or so. Now, I think the Oprah Effect will give it to Obama.

[MilTan]

I think Hillary is still the most likely candidate because if she wins Iowa, I think she takes the whole enchilada, while other two major candidates may still lose despite winning Iowa. And the IA race is far from over. For example, the Des Moines Register just endorsed Clinton (http://desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071215/NEWS/71215018). This may stem Obama's momentum just enough to give Hillary Iowa.

[AHunter3]

a) Clinton has been the so-called "prohibitive favorite". Some of what you're seeing now is the "Oh no not Clinton" contingent lining up behind Omama, and it was inevitable that that was going to coalesce somehow. The people who don't like the favorite but whose first choice stayed buried back in Tier 2 or Tier 3 are making their 2nd-best selection now.

b) On the other hand, a lot of people who might have liked Obama and said so earlier but who did not think he had staying power are probably hopping on board because apparently he does. Not that there's not a lot of overlap between this and factor "a" above, but yes it does have to do with Obama as Obama. He's a great orator; I wish he had another term behind him before doing this but if he wins the nom he's totally got my support.

c) If he wins the nomination, he will have damn well earned it. Clinton has a long-distance strategy mapped out and has the resources to pursue it. More than any other candidate in the field, she can afford to lose some early contests and even become the nationally-polled 2nd or 3rd choice and still beat her way back to the front. She's got the war chest for it, and if the lead is owned by Obama she suddenly becomes the "Oh no not Obama" candidate. Her strength is that she's a true policy geek; she's not flashy and will probably never inspire devotion but she seems to be quite good at this being-a-politician thing. She's my first choice. She, too, is going to have to earn it though: it's already obvious that she's not going to walk off with it sans effort.

d) As long as most Dem-inclined voters feel as I do, that they could live with either candidate, a fairly long season of relative uncertainty probably won't hurt the ultimate nominee. And either of them should be able to knock off any of the Republican candidates, so I'm predicting that this time next year either President-elect Clinton or President-elect Obama will be planning their first term.

e) Neither Edwards nor any other of the remaining candidates is going to collect enough delegates to look like the likely nominee at any point in the process.

[foolsguinea]

I'm not so sure about Edwards. At first blush, he seems like Johnny Underqualified. But against the Political Wife & the First-Term Senator, that's not such a huge strike now. And he's been the strong populist voice since his run in 2004. He may pull off a win in one state's caucuses & give Obama a real run.

That, or someone outside the mainstream-media-anointed Glamourous Three (say, Resume Richardson, Experience Biden, or Real Grade A Democrat Dodd) surprises us in a caucus at the last minute, & one of the glamourous three has to be the challenger to him. Perhaps in a year we all look silly nattering on about Bubba's wife, a Ken doll, & "the token black senator."

:sigh:

[gonzomax]

Clinton was declared the winner a few months ago. They did it by stressing how she was the big leader in raising money. That does not translate to votes like they thought. it would. The voters are afraid of getting served another dish of what Bush was cooking up. She has been too close to the war and the corps making money off it. Nafta was a program in her husbands administration .
I like Edwards. I would respect Biden more if he just didn;t make stupid little gaffs. Kusinich is my choice but I could live with Edwards .

[Ocean Annie]

I'm not so sure about Edwards. At first blush, he seems like Johnny Underqualified. But against the Political Wife & the First-Term Senator, that's not such a huge strike now. And he's been the strong populist voice since his run in 2004. He may pull off a win in one state's caucuses & give Obama a real run.

That, or someone outside the mainstream-media-anointed Glamourous Three (say, Resume Richardson, Experience Biden, or Real Grade A Democrat Dodd) surprises us in a caucus at the last minute, & one of the glamourous three has to be the challenger to him. Perhaps in a year we all look silly nattering on about Bubba's wife, a Ken doll, & "the token black senator."

:sigh:

I like Edwards. He seems to be the only one who wants real political and economic reform, the type of reform that is not regressive. I do think Clinton will get the nomination, and I will happily vote for her. I will happily vote for Obama if he gets the nomination, but I don't think he will.

[jayjay]

Dodd failed to register for the Delaware primary. This after failing to register for the New York primary (under the assumption that it's Clinton's state). While I admire what he's doing to fight telecom immunity in the Senate, I don't think he has a chance for the presidential nomination.

[elucidator]

One reason to lean towards Hillary is that she has the support of the triangulated, centrist, Republican Lite leadership, the kind of guys who rush to say "Hey! We're pro-business too!" She will draw money from the hedge-betters, Republicans who donate to the Dems, people who have wet dreams about Joe Lieberman winning the Dem nomination.

So she can take some hits and remain viable, she could probably lose one, two, or more of the earlist primarys, but so long as she doesn't get totally creamed, she remains in contention, which gives her the option of wearing down the opposition, and getting the "Oh, to hell with it! Hillary!" vote.

[BrainGlutton]

One reason to lean towards Hillary is that she has the support of the triangulated, centrist, Republican Lite leadership, the kind of guys who rush to say "Hey! We're pro-business too!" She will draw money from the hedge-betters, Republicans who donate to the Dems, people who have wet dreams about Joe Lieberman winning the Dem nomination.

So she can take some hits and remain viable, she could probably lose one, two, or more of the earlist primarys, but so long as she doesn't get totally creamed, she remains in contention, which gives her the option of wearing down the opposition, and getting the "Oh, to hell with it! Hillary!" vote.

And all the while, there will still be some asstards calling her a "socialist"! :rolleyes:

[DoctorJ]

Four years ago at this point, John Kerry was in third place behind a seemingly unstoppable Howard Dean and a typically uninteresting Dick Gephardt. It's foolish to think anything is decided at this point.

Of course, Hillary is not Dean. She's been around a lot longer, so it's not going to be easy to change her story at the last minute, and she's not making many mistakes. But the media's biggest bias comes into play here--they want a compelling story, and it just isn't that interesting when the frontrunner runs away with it. A lot can happen between now and the convention.

Still, I'm putting Hillary at even money. I'll put 3:2 on Obama and 9:1 on Edwards. I don't think anyone else has a reasonable chance at this point, though Huckabee's remarkable late surge means I might be wrong.

[BrainGlutton]

Still, I'm putting Hillary at even money. I'll put 3:2 on Obama and 9:1 on Edwards. I don't think anyone else has a reasonable chance at this point, though Huckabee's remarkable late surge means I might be wrong.

We're talking about the Dem nomination here.

[DoctorJ]

We're talking about the Dem nomination here.
I know; I'm just using the Huck's late surge on the other side as an example of why, say, a Richardson surge is unlikely but not impossible.

[BobLibDem]

I don't think there is the same potential for a Richardson surge as there was for Huckabee. The Republicans have an uneasy alliance of tax cutters, libertarians, evangelicals, and hawks. The evangelicals felt left out and rallied behind one of their own. I don't see a similar Democratic faction that would rally behind Richardson.

I think Hillary would be better off with a Edwards-Obama-Clinton finish in Iowa than an Obama-Clinton-Edwards finish. She needs Edwards to stay viable and dilute the anti-Hillary vote. Certainly Hillary has to be encouraged by the Des Moines Register endorsement. On the other hand, they have a knack for betting on the wrong horse. With this being the last practical week for campaigning, unless something happens I would say by sheer inertia that Hillary gets her butt handed to her in Iowa. Same thing in New Hampshire. The true test is what will happen when Biden, Dodd, and Richardson bow out. Will they turn the tables for Obama, or for Edwards? I can't see them jumping to Hillary's side. Right now I estimate the odds this way:

Obama 60%
Clinton 35%
Edwards 5%

[RTFirefly]

Atrios' quick summary of the Dem candidates (http://atrios.blogspot.com/2007_12_16_archive.html#2065480794031988135):
Obama: The system sucks, but I'm so awesome that it'll melt away before me.

Edwards: The system sucks, and we're gonna have to fight like hell to destroy it.

Clinton: The system sucks, and I know how to work within it more than anyone.

That was yesterday. Today, Krugman gave the long version of Atrios' Obama and Edwards descriptions (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/17/opinion/17krugman.html?ref=opinion).

[Little Nemo]

Obama's doing much better than I would have expected at this point but I still think he's peaking and is going to fall behind. A lot of Obama's strength comes from his personal charisma which makes him a powerful candidate in Iowa and New Hampshire where a candidate can literally meet and talk to every voter. But Clinton's strength is in her organization and that's going to count more in big states like Florida. And Clinton's worst enemies will concede she's not incompetent or prone to panic - her "war room" will already be making plans for how to come back from behind if Obama takes the lead.

[dastex]

Clinton will win because of her superior political machine. I think if this contest were in a year or two then Obama might have a national mechanism in place but its too early for him. I like his charisma and his youth but Clinton despite her missteps recently is still going to win. the other candidates are basically all there to fight to be her running mate. Edwards is too much of a populist and no-one seems to know or care about Richardson.

[Fear Itself]

Some of what you're seeing now is the "Oh no not Clinton" contingent lining up behind Omama, and it was inevitable that that was going to coalesce somehow. I don't think the Anybody-But-Hillary contingent is very strong in the Democratic Party, they are mostly Republicans. The Dems are blessed with a very deep field, and anyone of the four top candidates could be nominated and then be supported of the vast majority of Democrats. I am leaning toward Edwards in the primary, but I would have no problem voting for Clinton or Obama in the general election.

[Little Nemo]

I'm curious who you consider the top four. Clinton and Obama seem to be competing for the lead with Edwards a distant third. The other candidates are so far behind it's only a statistical matter who's in fourth place. To paraphrase this week's issue of Time magazine, if you're reading this post you're only one percent behind Christopher Dodd in the 2008 presidential race.

[Fear Itself]

I'm curious who you consider the top four. Despite low polling, Bill Richardson has a strong resume that makes him eminently qualified for the presidency. If by some miracle he was nominated, I think most Democrats would have no problem supporting him in the general election.

[gonzomax]

It is usually skipped over, but America has never had a black or female president. To simply state it is not a problem now might be naive. It still must be proven that it is possible for us to escape the rich white presidents we have been electing. Especially since money is such a huge part of the equation. The rich want one of their own in.

[stolichnaya]

To be fair, America will always have never had a black or female president until we have one.

This race certainly goes a long way toward making it not unusual anymore- which is a big step.

[gonzomax]

Only if one of them actually win. Other countries have had women leaders for many years. We are way behind and may still not be ready. We will probably elect a rich white guy again.

[I Love Me, Vol. I]

To be fair, America will always have never had a black or female president until we have one.

This race certainly goes a long way toward making it not unusual anymore- which is a big step.While is certainly is nifty keen to "go a long way toward" electing a minority (females included in that since it's politics) president, I'm not interested in warm and fuzzy "kumbiya" moments. I'm interested in the Dems winning the White House. Right now, we are doomed to another 4 years of Pubbiness because the Dems insist on shooting themselves in the foot with Hillary and Barrack as the only possible nominees.

There will come a minority candidate that is not hobbled by inexperience or an insurmountable amount of baseless fanatical hatred. THAT will be the time to nominate that candidate for president. It could happen anytime, but it is not happening in this Dem primary race. (Most likely, it will occur first with a Republican nominee.)

Pragmatism. Even if it means being accused of racism, sexism, bla-bla-bla-ism, it gets the job done.

Let's all sing "We Shall Overcome" as one more rich, white, male Republican is inaugurated in 2009.

[stolichnaya]

Who's your white guy then? Kerry? whoops. Kucinich? Gore won't run and is hated besides. Dodd?

I like Dodd, I guess. But he's polling at 1%. Must be Edwards. I like him too. Will be voting for him or Obama.

It seems to me that most of the people who back Hillary do it out of pragmatism (!), not some misguided sense that they are sticking something in the White Man's ass.

[Happy Lendervedder]

Gore won't run and is hated besides.

Wait, who's Gore hated by? Aside from the obvious conservatives?

[BrainGlutton]

It is usually skipped over, but America has never had a black or female president. To simply state it is not a problem now might be naive. It still must be proven that it is possible for us to escape the rich white presidents we have been electing. Especially since money is such a huge part of the equation. The rich want one of their own in.

Bill Clinton was only moderately rich and new-money at that, but it didn't stop him. Hillary should have no more trouble on that score, at least.

[MovieMogul]

While is certainly is nifty keen to "go a long way toward" electing a minority (females included in that since it's politics) president, I'm not interested in warm and fuzzy "kumbiya" moments. I'm interested in the Dems winning the White House. Right now, we are doomed to another 4 years of Pubbiness because the Dems insist on shooting themselves in the foot with Hillary and Barrack as the only possible nominees. How in the world is choosing Obama "shooting themselves in the foot"? Aside from the "experience" angle, there's really nothing they can really sink their teeth into. The fact remains that, as more people get to know him, the more traction he gets. He's not the end-all be-all, but there is absolutely no Democrat who has a better chance of bridging the Red State/Blue State divide, particularly against a group that is as polarizing as the top GOP wannabes.

Hilary, though, is an accident waiting to happen. The continous gaffes among her staff (Obama & muslims, Obama & drugs) demonstrate the tenor of her campaign. As much as she might want to separate herself from their actions, it's not wrong to associate that type of old school politicking with her. Obama, thus far, has represented the best antidote to that type of political theater--on both sides of the aisle (McCain's a distant second). It's embarrassing how much sniping is going back & forth between Giuliani, Romney & Huckabee, and Obama is the perfect person to draw in conservatives who are increasingly dissatisfied with the pro-torture, pro-cronyism, pro-sanctimony insularity that is jeopardizing the Republicans.

Here's an interesting poll: Which of the leading presidential candidates would you most want to prevent from becoming president? (http://washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071218/NATION/42189178/1001&template=nextpage) Hilary is a whopping 40%. Note this isn't simply, "For whom would you not vote?" It's worse than that. For the Democrats to nominate someone who has no chance of reaching 4 out of 10 Americans, under any circumstance, is cutting their margins way too thin. (Note that Obama is only 1 out of 10).

Yes, in head-to-head comparisons, Hilary is slightly ahead of her various GOP counterparts, but Obama, on average, has twice the lead (http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2007-12-17-prezpoll_N.htm) she does over G/R/H. And there's certainly enough baggage (some earned, some not) that she brings into the race to virtually guarantee that any victory on her part would lead to a level of paralysis from the Oval Office that would nullify any "win" the Democrats get.

It's not enough that she can get there. She needs to be able to actually get things done once she does. There's enough vitriol against her and her husband among the right to make me doubt she could accomplish what needs to happen (and that's even if she doesn't have a single misstep--truly wishful thinking when it comes to that dynasty).

I called it here on the board a few months ago, but I honestly think Obama will win the whole thing. I think Edwards would make a strong running mate, and I can only hope that the Dems aren't so infatuated with Bill to see how unviable his wife is as a national candidate.

[stolichnaya]

Wait, who's Gore hated by? Aside from the obvious conservatives?

Yep- the poster I was responding to listed "fanatical hatred" (presumably from the right) as a knock on Hillary, I think there is at least as much fanatical hatred for Gore.

Regardless, I wish Gore would run, more than ever.

[prleone]

People, what makes me nervous is really this:

Let's say Hill and Obama team up, they run as P & VP.
(Doesn't matter who takes what role.)

I think that the Republicans could get Dan Quayle
and John Mark Karr (Benet Ramsey's supposed killer),
put those two shmucks on their ticket...

and win by over 80%.

I think there's still that fear that if we're attacked
at all by anyone, A.) It better be a guy in charge,
B.) It better be a republican.

Surprisingly, there still seems to be a lot of support
for this current war, like many Americans think it's necessary.

Let's all do the shudder! (Brrrrr...)

[BrainGlutton]

People, what makes me nervous is really this:

Let's say Hill and Obama team up, they run as P & VP.
(Doesn't matter who takes what role.)

I think that the Republicans could get Dan Quayle
and John Mark Karr (Benet Ramsey's supposed killer),
put those two shmucks on their ticket...

and win by over 80%.

Kind of off-topic . . . but I doubt that very much; both HRC and BO are electable in the general. Not shoo-ins -- race/gender prejudice still matters -- but it's not an insuperable obstacle like it once was.

Surprisingly, there still seems to be a lot of support
for this current war, like many Americans think it's necessary.

Cite?

[prleone]

Kind of off-topic . . . but I doubt that very much; both HRC and BO are electable in the general. Not shoo-ins -- race/gender prejudice still matters -- but it's not an insuperable obstacle like it once was


Cite?

Sorry, it was off topic, but to get back on,
Hill will take the nom. The dems DO seem to like to try new things,
once every 50 years, maybe, but who has a better chance against
her GOP Grim Reaper? I think it's more like,
"Okay, we're Dems, we're not running, who should run forus?"

For CITE?

Damn, I wish I had one. This comes mainly from co-workers.
I thought I was surrounded by liberals last week,
now it appears that the office I work in is split down the middle
on Iraq.

[Little Nemo]

Republicans can't afford to make an issue out of Clinton's gender. They need female voters and if they try to imply a woman is unqualified to be president, they risk a huge backlash.

[RTFirefly]

For CITE?

Damn, I wish I had one. This comes mainly from co-workers.
I thought I was surrounded by liberals last week,
now it appears that the office I work in is split down the middle
on Iraq.Your office is what they call a 'convenience sample,' and those tend not to be particularly random. It's also a pretty small sample too, I'd bet.

Try here (http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm) for a whole bunch of recent Iraq polls. (And some not-so-recent ones too.)

[RTFirefly]

There are three new polls from Iowa, and one from NH (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_primaries.html). And while Edwards is still a longshot, I'm starting to be guardedly optimistic about his chances.

It's essentially a 3-way tie in Iowa. I know, it's been that for awhile, but for a few months, Edwards had been on the low side of the tie. Not so much now - his numbers are on the rise again.

Ditto NH, where he's still behind, but he's hit 20% in the L.A. Times poll. Three of the last four non-ARG polls in NH have had him at 18% or higher. If he wins Iowa - still a big 'if,' of course - the boost from winning there should boost him into a virtual tie in NH with Hillary and Obama. And if he can win NH too, he's the frontrunner.

That's two big 'ifs.' Which is the reality of the situation - IA and NH are double-elimination (if that) for Hillary and Obama, with their money, their organizations, and the media's willingness to cover their campaigns. They're single-elimination for Edwards: if he loses Iowa, he's gone. If he wins Iowa but loses NH, then the NH winner, be it Hillary or Obama, will be in far better shape than Edwards in SC and on Super Tuesday.

For quite some time, it's been hard to see a route to the nomination for Edwards that doesn't involve winning both Iowa and NH. The difference now is, it's starting to look like an Iowa win should give him a decent chance, at least, to win NH.

[BrainGlutton]

Republicans can't afford to make an issue out of Clinton's gender. They need female voters and if they try to imply a woman is unqualified to be president, they risk a huge backlash.

But, many women think that, or so I've heard.

OTOH, I know some women who ordinarily take no interest in politics, who plan to vote for HRC just because she's a woman.

[Spoke]

Edwards has a shot, I think. I'm hearing that he has a big organizational advantage in Iowa's rural precincts.

Iowa is sort of do-or-die for Edwards, I imagine. But if he manages a win there, I can see a bandwagon effect carrying forward.

I am sort of hoping for a third-place finish by Hillary in Iowa, as I think either Obama or Edwards would do better in the general election.

I'll stick with my prediction of Obama as the nominee, but I would not be particularly surprised (or at all disappointed) to see Edwards emerge.

[Little Nemo]

But, many women think that, or so I've heard.

OTOH, I know some women who ordinarily take no interest in politics, who plan to vote for HRC just because she's a woman.It's surprising how few people actually count in an election. First off, you have the people who can't vote along with the people who don't vote - so as far as politics are concerned, they literally don't count. People who vote for third parties don't matter either - if you're not voting for a Democrat or Republican, the guy you're voting for isn't going to get elected. And the Democrats and the Republicans both have a core - a group of voters who will vote for their party's nominee regardless of who it is.

So elections in the United States are all decided by the small group of people who are left - the people who will actually make a choice between the Democratic and Republican nominee and vote for one of them. The entire presidential campaign process is mostly devoted to reaching these voters.

Getting back to your post, my guess is that the overwhelming majority of the female voters who believe a woman is unqualified to be president are going to be conservatives. So they won't vote for Clinton because she's a woman but they weren't going to vote for her anyway. And they aren't going to vote for any other Democratic candidate either. The Democratic party isn't going to win over these voters so it would be senseless for them to base their nomination on these voters.

[DoctorJ]

So elections in the United States are all decided by the small group of people who are left - the people who will actually make a choice between the Democratic and Republican nominee and vote for one of them.
You're leaving out a big group, and probably the biggest--the voters who have a clear preference for one candidate or another, but who aren't 100% likely to vote. I personally can't think of anyone I knew in the last Presidential election who was truly undecided between Bush and Kerry, but I can think of a dozen people who clearly preferred one over the other but didn't vote.

You win the election not just by winning over the undecideds, but by giving the decideds a reason to come out. That was the point of all the anti-gay amendments on the ballots last time. They won't have that well to go to this time, and dissatisfaction with the war and with the GOP in general should be a big reason for the Dems to get out, so this advantage will probably shift.

I worry that Hillary won't light any fires in the base, but I don't see anybody on the GOP side setting theirs aflame, either.

[Little Nemo]

You're leaving out a big group, and probably the biggest--the voters who have a clear preference for one candidate or another, but who aren't 100% likely to vote. I personally can't think of anyone I knew in the last Presidential election who was truly undecided between Bush and Kerry, but I can think of a dozen people who clearly preferred one over the other but didn't vote.I did consider this very point and somewhat rewrote my post to reflect it. Like I said, people who don't vote don't count. But as you pointed out, there's no fixed amount of people who vote. A campaign that appeals to its base strongly enough can conceivably overcome the loss of swing voters.

But realistically, most voters are motivated to vote for a presidential race. The base will usually show up on election day and the contest will end up being decided by the swing voters.

And appeals to the base have an inherent limit - people can only vote once. So it doesn't matter if they dislike Edwards and hate Obama and really really despise Clinton - it all comes out to a single vote. Once you've convinced a person to vote the way you want, there's no point in convincing them more because they can't vote more no matter how much you fire them up.

Which goes back to my original point. The fact that some people might not vote for Clinton because she's a woman is only important to the Democrats if those voters would be willing to vote for a male Democrat instead. And my guess is that people who won't vote for a woman just because she's a woman are a lost cause for the Democrats. The Democrats are likely to pick up more swing votes from people who will vote for Clinton because she's a woman than the ones they'll lose.

[RedFury]

Cite?

Surely this is not what the one the poster you asked had in mind -- but it is the most recent:

Angus Reid Global Monitor : Polls & Research As 2007 Ends, Most Americans Oppose Iraq War (http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/view/29447)

Few adults in the United States are satisfied with their federal government’s decision to launch the coalition effort, according to a poll by Opinion Research Corporation released by CNN. 68 per cent of respondents oppose the U.S. war in Iraq, and 69 per cent call for a withdrawal of all or some U.S. troops from the country.

In addition, 59 per cent of respondents believe neither side is winning the war, 28 per cent think the U.S. and its allies are emerging victorious, and 11 per cent say the insurgents in Iraq are ahead.

Question remains, what are you (Americans) going to about it? Surely electing Billary is no solution. Liked Edwards (after million to one underdog, Kucinich) and as of late, Obama has been growing on me.

Of course, my opinion is worth a hill of beans when it comes to my non-citizen non-vote.

[DrDeth]

It's Hillary's to lose.

[RTFirefly]

It's Hillary's to lose.It used to be, but I don't see that anymore.

She's in a 3-way dead heat in Iowa, and she and Obama are tied in NH, with Edwards not too far behind. If she loses Iowa, it's not going to help her in NH; the only question is whether it will hurt her a little bit or a lot.

Obama's situation in NH (and SC, and beyond) is going to be improved if Hillary loses in Iowa, regardless of whether he or Edwards wins. At this point, I'd say it's debatable as to whether he or Hillary has a better chance of winning this thing.

[Spoke]

I'm wondering if the BCS championship game being on the same night will affect Iowa caucus attendance. And if so, which candidate might be most harmed by that. I'm guessing Obama has a lot of young supporters, who might be the most likely to have football parties to attend that night.

[Little Nemo]

It used to be, but I don't see that anymore.

She's in a 3-way dead heat in Iowa, and she and Obama are tied in NH, with Edwards not too far behind. If she loses Iowa, it's not going to help her in NH; the only question is whether it will hurt her a little bit or a lot.

Obama's situation in NH (and SC, and beyond) is going to be improved if Hillary loses in Iowa, regardless of whether he or Edwards wins. At this point, I'd say it's debatable as to whether he or Hillary has a better chance of winning this thing.Winning the nomination is a two-part process. A candidate has to show that they can get to the top of the pile and show that they can survive the heat of being on top of the pile. Obama and Edwards might become the front-runner but we'll have to wait and see what happens to them in that position. Either of them might crash and burn like Dean or Hart did.

[RTFirefly]

Winning the nomination is a two-part process. A candidate has to show that they can get to the top of the pile and show that they can survive the heat of being on top of the pile. Obama and Edwards might become the front-runner but we'll have to wait and see what happens to them in that position. Either of them might crash and burn like Dean or Hart did.Be that as it may, I don't see that Hillary's a clear frontrunner now.

[elfkin477]

There are three new polls from Iowa, and one from NH (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_primaries.html). And while Edwards is still a longshot, I'm starting to be guardedly optimistic about his chances.
How much weight are you guys willing to give polls, though? I saw a straw poll this week that shows that Ron Paul is going to get the republican nom because he's ahead in nearly every state, including NH. To me that says a lot of people who take polls are simply batshit crazy or screwing with the pollers, not that it's something that should be taken at all seriously. I wouldn't be at all surprised if Edwards chances are far better than polls indicate, though that's mostly because I have trouble believing even enlightened dems are ready to back someone black or female.

[DrDeth]

It used to be, but I don't see that anymore.

She's in a 3-way dead heat in Iowa, and she and Obama are tied in NH, with Edwards not too far behind. If she loses Iowa, it's not going to help her in NH; the only question is whether it will hurt her a little bit or a lot.

Obama's situation in NH (and SC, and beyond) is going to be improved if Hillary loses in Iowa, regardless of whether he or Edwards wins. At this point, I'd say it's debatable as to whether he or Hillary has a better chance of winning this thing.

Odd, when she was the complete front-runner in all the polls, all the Hillary-haters said "Polls mean nothing.".

But still, currently RealClear shows Clinton ahead in Iowa (45) , pretty much across the board, and by an overall 3.3%
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/ia/iowa_democratic_caucus-208.html

In NH (22), she's still ahead overall by 2.6%.

In Michigan (128) she's ahead by 23%, in NV (25) by 20%, in Fla (185) by 25%, and in CA (370!) by 19%.

Note the number of delegates.

Hillary constinues to be the frontrunner. Eeven telling yourself over and over, with your eyes closed and your hands over your ears "Hillary is a loser, everyone hates her" doesn't change the fact she's ahead and by a lot.

[RTFirefly]

Odd, when she was the complete front-runner in all the polls, all the Hillary-haters said "Polls mean nothing.". I'm sure some idiots somewhere, sometime, must have said this. So?

I have been taking polls pretty seriously throughout the 'handicap the races' thread, although I'm not keen on a couple of particular pollsters (ARG, Zogby), nor am I a fan of placing too much reliance on one single poll.

And I've been saying for a long time that good support in the national polls is of limited value if s/he can't win an early primary.

But still, currently RealClear shows Clinton ahead in Iowa (45) , pretty much across the board, and by an overall 3.3%
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/ia/iowa_democratic_caucus-208.htmlHmmm. Right now, RCP's average shows Hillary ahead of Obama and Edwards by a whopping 1.5% in Iowa. And her advantage in that stat is entirely due to the ARG poll that shows her leading both rivals by 7%. I have been very explicit about ARG's tendency to see things no one else sees, and my thoughts about their credibility.

In NH (22), she's still ahead overall by 2.6%. True. And again, she has that lead only because a two-week-old ARG poll had her ahead by 14. The other four polls in their average show her and Obama either tied, or separated by 2-3%.

And, more important, NH won't take place in a vacuum. It will take place five days after Iowa, and Iowa's results will change the game in NH considerably.

In Michigan (128) she's ahead by 23%, in NV (25) by 20%, in Fla (185) by 25%, and in CA (370!) by 19%. The Dems aren't having a primary in either Michigan or Florida, despite what the governments of those respective states think. And again, polls of later states are subject to the effects of the results from earlier states. Her 19% lead in California won't exist on Jan. 31 if, say, Edwards wins Iowa, and Obama wins NH and SC.

Note the number of delegates. The effect of the early primaries has nothing to do with their delegate counts. And since the end of the era when someone could win the nomination without even competing in the primaries, nobody has succeeded in making up for a string of early-primary losses with a succession of wins in the larger (but later) delegate-rich states.

There's always a first time, and I suppose Rudy or Hillary or Obama could be the first to pull off that trick. But this thread's about handicapping the race, and that's not the way to bet.

Hillary constinues to be the frontrunner. Eeven telling yourself over and over, with your eyes closed and your hands over your ears "Hillary is a loser, everyone hates her" doesn't change the fact she's ahead and by a lot. Look, I'm no Hillary-hater, although I certainly have reservations about her. In the "who's your second choice" thread, I put her down as my second choice.

I'm trying to present factual arguments about the relative chances of the candidates to win their party's nominations based on the polls, the pollsters' track records, how things are changing over time, and the long track record of how the results of earlier states change the game in the later states.

I'm certainly amenable to an argument that Hillary is still a narrow favorite to win the nomination, especially because I tend to think that's still the case.

But is she the 'clear frontrunner' anymore? No. She won't be the frontrunner at all if she goes 0-for-2 in Iowa and NH, and she's in a 3-way dead heat in one, and a 2-way dead heat in the other. End of story.

[RTFirefly]

How much weight are you guys willing to give polls, though? I saw a straw poll this week that shows that Ron Paul is going to get the republican nom because he's ahead in nearly every state, including NH. I think the key words are "a straw poll." Anyone can conduct a poll; it's considerably harder to poll a representative sample of the voting population.

A poll on a website that's skewed one way is going to reflect the skewness of that website: on the monthly DailyKos straw polls, Hillary's not just outpolled by Edwards and Obama, but by Chris Dodd as well. (To be fair, nobody there tries to pass this poll off as representing the preferences of anything besides the DKos community.) And even the results of polls on news sites like CNN.com will often be tipped heavily one way or another by outside groups trying to 'freep' the poll - that is, to mobilize like-minded people who otherwise might not have even known about the poll to participate en masse.

So straw polls, Internet polls, and other polls that get a convenience sample or a self-selecting sample, are basically worthless. The gulf in between such polls and polls conducted by professional pollsters is enormous. Even ARG and Zogby, who I routinely malign, are far more accurate and professional than the sort of poll that shows Ron Paul winning the GOP nomination.

[RTFirefly]

Here's some great graphs (http://mydd.com/story/2007/12/28/223528/15) on the resources each campaign has committed to Iowa, in terms of advertising money, staff, field offices, and days spent by the candidates in state.

Quick takes: contrary to the storyline that Edwards has lived in Iowa since 2004, he's spent only 2 more days there than Obama, and 14 more than Clinton.

Obama and Clinton have far outspent Edwards in Iowa on both advertising and staff: on advertising, Obama's spent $8.3M, Clinton $6.5M, and Edwards $2.7M. Clinton has 400 staffers in state, Obama 300, Edwards 175. Obama's got 37 field offices, Clinton 34, Edwards 25.

They also include Kerry's 2004 expenditures in the graph, for comparison purposes. Edwards has basically matched Kerry's '04 numbers, going beyond them only in staffers (Kerry only had 120 in state).

Hillary and Obama have apparently committed far more resources to winning Iowa than anyone else, ever.

[Little Nemo]

Be that as it may, I don't see that Hillary's a clear frontrunner now.I agree. The Democratic race is opening up again. But my point was that Clinton has been in the lead position and the other candidates haven't. So a direct comparison can't be made between Clinton and the other candidates because front runners receive a lot more negative attention than the other candidates. If Obama or Edwards or somebody else wins in Iowa and New Hampshire they will become the Democratic front runner. And only then will we see if they can withstand the same kind of negative attention Clinton has and know if they are as viable a candidate as Clinton is.

[DrDeth]

Hmmm. Right now, RCP's average shows Hillary ahead of Obama and Edwards by a whopping 1.5% in Iowa. And her advantage in that stat is entirely due to the ARG poll that shows her leading both rivals by 7%. I have been very explicit about ARG's tendency to see things no one else sees, and my thoughts about their credibility.

True. And again, she has that lead only because a two-week-old ARG poll had her ahead by 14. The other four polls in their average show her and Obama either tied, or separated by 2-3%..

The Dems aren't having a primary in either Michigan or Florida, despite what the governments of those respective states think

But is she the 'clear frontrunner' anymore? No. She won't be the frontrunner at all if she goes 0-for-2 in Iowa and NH, and she's in a 3-way dead heat in one, and a 2-way dead heat in the other. End of story.


Read the cite again. Zogby (newest)has her ahead in Iowa by 4%.

The ARG poll shows a date of 12/26- 12/28 which is as new as the other 3 polls. The other three do show a dead heat, true. She's still ahead overall.

In NH, ARG has a date of 12/27- 12/29, which makes it the most recent poll. She's still ahead overall.

They are still arguing those primaries in the courts.

And yes, an early lead is important, but winning in Iowa and NH is not decisive.
http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/12/30/america/elect.php
Yet, the two early states are not always reliable predictors.

Since 1980, the Democratic winner in Iowa has gone on to win his party's nomination five times out of seven. But an Iowa endorsement is not a must: In 1992, Bill Clinton came in a distant fourth - at a mere 3 percent - but used a strong showing in New Hampshire to gain the title of "Comeback Kid" that he carried through to the White House.In elections in which no sitting president or vice president is running - like the coming election - the Iowa winner has won his party's national nomination roughly half the time.

In other words, in elections like this upcoming one, they are only indicators half the time. Not so good.

And even so, here's what they can do for you: "The early contests help candidates with the vital task of fund-raising and can magnify their media profile enormously" Hillary needs no help with either.

And "A cagey management of expectations is part of the game. The Republican candidate Mike Huckabee, a surging front-runner in many Iowa polls, declared Friday that a top-three finish there would be fine. Clinton's aides, too, have sought to temper expectations that she will win on the Democratic side." and "The South Carolina contest on Jan. 19 will be closely watched - as the first Southern state, and the first (other than Michigan) with a sizable black population. Blacks are expected to account for nearly half the votes cast there (in contrast, Iowa and New Hampshire are no more than 2 percent black). South Carolina is probably a must-win state for Edwards, a former Democratic senator from North Carolina. It will help show whether Northerners like Rudolph Giuliani, the former New York mayor and a Republican, have genuinely national appeal.

The whole time, all eyes will be on Feb. 5, or "Super Tuesday," when 22 states, including three giants - California, New York and Illinois - hold primaries. With that, 30 of the 50 states will have voted."

Sure, if Hillary bombs in both NH and Iowa it won't be good. But a close second is enough- for her or any one of the candidates.

What's strange to me os that the GoP nom seems to be completely open, but yet everyone here is concentrating on the Dem nomination, which appears to me to be a done deal. The GoP nom is critical, as Hillary will clobber certain Repubs (Huck, Romney); but will have a tough time against others (Rudy and McCain for example).

[AHunter3]

II'm certainly amenable to an argument that Hillary is still a narrow favorite to win the nomination, especially because I tend to think that's still the case.

But is she the 'clear frontrunner' anymore? No. She won't be the frontrunner at all if she goes 0-for-2 in Iowa and NH, and she's in a 3-way dead heat in one, and a 2-way dead heat in the other. End of story.

I think Obama and Edwards both have a shot at it at this point. If they can beat Clinton solidly enough (and one of them comes out decisively ahead of the other as well, that's also important), that's the most likely scenario by which one of them nails the nom.

But there are still more decently-likely scenarios that make it more likely that she'll be the Democratic Party nominee:

• She does decently well in either Iowa or New Hampshire, thus going on into states where she's polling very strongly now without having first been eclipsed by lousy performance in those early contests.

• She doesn't do particularly well in either state but Edwards takes Iowa and Obama takes New Hampshire; the Clinton supporters defect in significant numbers to Obama and Edwards but divide up between them with no clear frontrunner. Her deeper pockets and solid orgs in each state lead to her winning a few of the next handful, she regains enough momentum that former supporters realign behind her.


Clinton would be my first choice, Obama a clear & happy second choice, Edwards totally fails to inspire me in the slightest.

[RTFirefly]

Read the cite again. Zogby (newest)has her ahead in Iowa by 4%.

The ARG poll shows a date of 12/26- 12/28 which is as new as the other 3 polls. The other three do show a dead heat, true. She's still ahead overall.

In NH, ARG has a date of 12/27- 12/29, which makes it the most recent poll. She's still ahead overall. Oh, wow: Zogby has her ahead, too!

So let's see: the two major pollsters most likely to see things that aren't there, pull Hillary out of a three way tie into a 2-point lead in the multi-poll average.

Consider me underwhelmed.

BTW, I'm amused by your emphasis on the most recent poll. That can be important when either the previous most recent polls were getting a bit stale, or when things are clearly changing pretty fast. But it's always less important than the reliability of the poster, and in this case a 12/26-29 polling period isn't exactly a huge improvement over a 12/26-28 period, so it's hardly a big deal any which way.

They are still arguing those primaries in the courts. You'll have to show that that matters. On what possible grounds can any outside parties tell the Democrats how they should choose their delegates?

And yes, an early lead is important, but winning in Iowa and NH is not decisive.
http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/12/30/america/elect.php
Yet, the two early states are not always reliable predictors.

Since 1980, the Democratic winner in Iowa has gone on to win his party's nomination five times out of seven. But an Iowa endorsement is not a must: In 1992, Bill Clinton came in a distant fourth - at a mere 3 percent - but used a strong showing in New Hampshire to gain the title of "Comeback Kid" that he carried through to the White House.In elections in which no sitting president or vice president is running - like the coming election - the Iowa winner has won his party's national nomination roughly half the time.

In other words, in elections like this upcoming one, they are only indicators half the time. Not so good. Been there, done that, wrote the OP. (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=448570) Taken together, their predictive powers are quite good. Go there, read, come back. It's a short thread, only 9 posts.

And even so, here's what they can do for you: "The early contests help candidates with the vital task of fund-raising and can magnify their media profile enormously" Hillary needs no help with either. Look, you're citing opinion. Commentary. You're not citing a factual source.

And "A cagey management of expectations is part of the game. The Republican candidate Mike Huckabee, a surging front-runner in many Iowa polls, declared Friday that a top-three finish there would be fine. Clinton's aides, too, have sought to temper expectations that she will win on the Democratic side." and "The South Carolina contest on Jan. 19 will be closely watched - as the first Southern state, and the first (other than Michigan) with a sizable black population. Blacks are expected to account for nearly half the votes cast there (in contrast, Iowa and New Hampshire are no more than 2 percent black). South Carolina is probably a must-win state for Edwards, a former Democratic senator from North Carolina. It will help show whether Northerners like Rudolph Giuliani, the former New York mayor and a Republican, have genuinely national appeal.

The whole time, all eyes will be on Feb. 5, or "Super Tuesday," when 22 states, including three giants - California, New York and Illinois - hold primaries. With that, 30 of the 50 states will have voted."

Sure, if Hillary bombs in both NH and Iowa it won't be good. But a close second is enough- for her or any one of the candidates. Ditto. I'm sure I can dig up some counter-blather, but what's the point?

What's strange to me os that the GoP nom seems to be completely open, but yet everyone here is concentrating on the Dem nomination, which appears to me to be a done deal. The GoP nom is critical, as Hillary will clobber certain Repubs (Huck, Romney); but will have a tough time against others (Rudy and McCain for example).Note the thread title. That's why "everyone here is concentrating on the Dem nomination." The parallel thread for the GOP is in its fourth page, so even if "here" is the SDMB, it's hardly the case.

[Spoke]

The GoP nom is critical, as Hillary will clobber certain Repubs (Huck, Romney); but will have a tough time against others (Rudy and McCain for example).
I agree with you in principle, but in the particulars we differ. I think Hillary could defeat Romney or Giuliani (though "clobber" is not the word for it), but would have a tough time with Huckabee or McCain.

I think either Edwards or Obama could defeat any candidate the Republicans have to offer.

[DrDeth]

So let's see: the two major pollsters most likely to see things that aren't there, pull Hillary out of a three way tie into a 2-point lead in the multi-poll average.


BTW, I'm amused by your emphasis on the most recent poll. That can be important when either the previous most recent polls were getting a bit stale, or when things are clearly changing pretty fast. But it's always less important than the reliability of the poster, and in this case a 12/26-29 polling period isn't exactly a huge improvement over a 12/26-28 period, so it's hardly a big deal any which way.


Look, you're citing opinion. Commentary. You're not citing a factual source.

First, you dismiss ARG as their numbers aren't what you want. Now you dismiss Zogby. When another pollster shows Hillary ahead, you'll dismiss them? :dubious: Dismissing one polster is one thing, but then another? That's a stretch.

And you were the one who made the big deal about the age of the poll, with comments like "And again, she has that lead only because a two-week-old ARG poll had her ahead by 14." (italics mine) You made the point that the poll was out of date, thus invalid. I countered with the most recent polls, and you dismiss them, too. So, if the timeliness isn't important, why did you bring it up? :confused:

This is GD, so opinion is acceptable. But whats "opinion" about this "Since 1980, the Democratic winner in Iowa has gone on to win his party's nomination five times out of seven. But an Iowa endorsement is not a must: In 1992, Bill Clinton came in a distant fourth - at a mere 3 percent - but used a strong showing in New Hampshire to gain the title of "Comeback Kid" that he carried through to the White House.In elections in which no sitting president or vice president is running - like the coming election - the Iowa winner has won his party's national nomination roughly half the time."


Those are stats. Stats show how important things have been in the past, and historically, in these kinds of elections, Iowa and NH have not been all that decisive.

spoke- the numbers show different. Hil polls very very well against the more conservative GoP dudes.

[RTFirefly]

First, you dismiss ARG as their numbers aren't what you want. Now you dismiss Zogby. When another pollster shows Hillary ahead, you'll dismiss them? :dubious: Dismissing one polster is one thing, but then another? That's a stretch. Look, I have been dissing those two pollsters for months (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=9095514&postcount=33) on this board, and pretty much all year over at MyDD, where I post as RT.

So don't give me any of this "you're just deciding who you don't like as they give you numbers you don't like" crap.

And you were the one who made the big deal about the age of the poll, with comments like "And again, she has that lead only because a two-week-old ARG poll had her ahead by 14." (italics mine) You made the point that the poll was out of date, thus invalid. I countered with the most recent polls, and you dismiss them, too. So, if the timeliness isn't important, why did you bring it up? :confused: I already explained that:
That can be important when either the previous most recent polls were getting a bit stale, or when things are clearly changing pretty fast. But it's always less important than the reliability of the poster, and in this case a 12/26-29 polling period isn't exactly a huge improvement over a 12/26-28 period, so it's hardly a big deal any which way. I'd meant to say "pollster" rather than 'poster', but you get the idea. On December 30, a poll taken during the 12/26-28 period is hardly out of date. And yeah, yesterday's poll taken by a crappy pollster is NOT better than a poll from three days ago, taken by a competent one.

This is GD, so opinion is acceptable. Hell, yeah. Just don't cite somebody's opinion as authority, that's all. But whats "opinion" about this "Since 1980, the Democratic winner in Iowa has gone on to win his party's nomination five times out of seven. But an Iowa endorsement is not a must: In 1992, Bill Clinton came in a distant fourth - at a mere 3 percent - but used a strong showing in New Hampshire to gain the title of "Comeback Kid" that he carried through to the White House.In elections in which no sitting president or vice president is running - like the coming election - the Iowa winner has won his party's national nomination roughly half the time."


Those are stats. Stats show how important things have been in the past, and historically, in these kinds of elections, Iowa and NH have not been all that decisive.

[RTFirefly]

Check out a thread titled, On the predictive properties of the Iowa & NH primaries (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=448570). You want to debate the predictive properties of IA and NH, that's the place. It's not so old it can't be bumped; I wrote the OP on December 20.

The quick summary is: if past patterns hold, you're a lock for the nomination if you win both IA and NH. And you're a serious longshot if you win neither. But I'm going to argue this issue in one thread, not several.

[RTFirefly]

It is in fact unclear who the frontrunner is, because good arguments can be made for both Hillary and Obama right now. I'd argue for Hillary, but there's definitely a respectable argument to be made that she's not - that Obama's actually in the better position to win right now. Hence she's not the "clear frontrunner," one who by pretty much any reasonable evaluation of the facts is ahead in the game.

[BobLibDem]

You can take the pre-caucus national polls, add a dollar, and get yourself a cup of coffee. Look at the polling from 2004. (http://www.pollingreport.com/wh04dem.htm)

1/12/04-1/15/04: Dean 24, Clark 12, Gephardt 11, Kerry 7

2/12/04-2/15/04: Dean 8, Clark out, Gephardt out, Kerry 53

Within the next 10 days, we'll probably be down to three candidates and one of them will have a huge lead in the polls, and I am not at all sure it will be Hillary.

[Spoke]

spoke- the numbers show different. Hil polls very very well against the more conservative GoP dudes.

There's still a lot of name recognition at work in national polls. Giuliani and McCain simply have better name recognition than Huckabee and Romney at this point.

Moreover, national polls are less significant than polls in the swing states (since the election is not decided by popular vote). Hillary could have overwhelming support in populous states like New York and California, but those voters can't help her in, say, Missouri.

[DrDeth]

Look, I have been dissing those two pollsters for months (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=9095514&postcount=33) on this board, and pretty much all year over at MyDD, where I post as RT.

So don't give me any of this "you're just deciding who you don't like as they give you numbers you don't like" crap.

I already explained that:
I'd meant to say "pollster" rather than 'poster', but you get the idea. On December 30, a poll taken during the 12/26-28 period is hardly out of date. And yeah, yesterday's poll taken by a crappy pollster is NOT better than a poll from three days ago, taken by a competent one..

Saying "I have personally decided those polls are no good so I am ignoring them" doesn't cut it. That's nice and all, but I doubt if the various Candidates and Media give a rats-ass which polls some dude on a MB thinks are good or not. :dubious: I know enough to not just take one single poll's numbers but RC shows the overall winner in the polls, and it's Hillary overall, every time. Like it or not.

[RTFirefly]

Saying "I have personally decided those polls are no good so I am ignoring them" doesn't cut it. Look, you are saying that I'm picking and choosing my polls by whether or not I like the numbers they pump out. I've demonstrated that that's a pile of steaming bullshit.

If you think they're good pollsters, fine. I happen to disagree - and made my disagreement known before we got into this discussion, and before they produced the numbers in question.

Now that you're clearly wrong about claiming otherwise, you're just saying you don't like it. I don't care if you don't like it.

That's nice and all, but I doubt if the various Candidates and Media give a rats-ass which polls some dude on a MB thinks are good or not. :dubious: I doubt they know this MB exists. So? Who gives a flying fuck? I'm making a point on this MB, and it's neither more nor less true if anyone outside it knows this debate is happening. What is this, some bizarre argument to authority? I know enough to not just take one single poll's numbers but RC shows the overall winner in the polls, and it's Hillary overall, every time. Like it or not.I've noticed this. "Their average says this" isn't much of a response to a critique of their average, or the fact that Hillary's epsilon leads in two states in that average don't mean she's the 'clear favorite' in your words. I notice the absence of a rebuttal on that point.

[Spoke]

Easy fellows. We'll clear it all up in a couple of days. :)

[RTFirefly]

As Brad DeLong says, objects on the calendar are closer than they appear. :)

Anyway, just to get back to basics on this kerfluffle: if Hillary was the 'clear favorite,' then there'd be little debate about whether she was the favorite. There's actually a fair degree of debate about that, these days, out in the larger world. So it's not clear to a fair number of observers that she's the favorite, so she's not the 'clear' favorite. Q.E.D.

I'm not going to venture a prediction about who the Iowa winner will be; I think it's too close to call. I'd put Obama's chances somewhat lower than Clinton's and Edwards' because his success relies at least somewhat on getting all those students who aren't yet back in their dorms to show up and caucus. But I wouldn't give any of them a 50% chance of winning.

[BobLibDem]

Obama widens lead. (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22457164/) I think the undecideds are going to break big for Obama. I think he wins Iowa by 15 points.

[Spoke]

I can't figure out Iowa voters. They've been listening to these candidates for over a year and they still seem to be making up their minds.

I'm sort of thinking now that things might break for Edwards. As RTFirefly suggests, Obama has a lot of young supporters, and it may be hard to get them to caucus (as Dean learned in '04). It won't help that the Orange Bowl will be on TV. (Iowa has moved the caucuses back to 6:30, though.)

Having said that, I'll stick with my Obama prediction. Just hedging my bet a bit.

Here's a hypothetical: If Edwards wins Iowa and Hillary finishes third, who wins New Hampshire? Not Edwards, I think. I don't think the bandwagon effect would help him much in NH, which is traditionally a tough place for Southern Democrats to win. But would Hillary be perceived as a sinking ship? And would Obama pick up some of her wavering supporters?

[elucidator]

I can't figure out Iowa voters. They've been listening to these candidates for over a year and they still seem to be making up their minds....
Candidates were talking, yes. The listening part, not so much.

[Spoke]

The polls are all over the place. A just-released CNN poll (http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/12/31/iowa.poll/index.html) has Hillary up on Obama 33%-31%, with Edwards falling back to 22%.

:confused:

Wake me up when Iowans make up their minds.

[RTFirefly]

Good Lord, they're going to poll all of Iowa before Thursday's caucus!

As best as I can tell, the assorted pollsters have completed interviews with ~6000 Democratic 'likely voters' from 12/26 to 12/31. And probably an equal number of GOP LV's in that time, though RCP doesn't provide those counts.

[SpartanDC]

It's worth noting that the Des Moines Register poll BobLibDem linked to is considered to be the best in the business. Unlike most other polls, it's done by an Iowa-based firm run by a woman who's been polling Iowa voters exclusively for a very long time. However, it's also worth noting that poll uses a turnout model that assumes a lot of independents are going to attend the Democratic caucus. Obviously, the pollsters have reason to think that or they wouldn't put put the poll. But the Register poll is considered the poll in Iowa, and I'm pretty sure it was spot-on in 2004.

Of course, there's always the chance Iowa will decide nothing at all (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/01/us/politics/01decide.html?ref=politics).

[BrainGlutton]

Kucinich is supporting Obama for the second round of voting in Iowa. (http://www.thenation.com/blogs/campaignmatters?pid=264482) (In the same situation in 2004, he supported Edwards.)

[RTFirefly]

Kucinich is supporting Obama for the second round of voting in Iowa. (http://www.thenation.com/blogs/campaignmatters?pid=264482) (In the same situation in 2004, he supported Edwards.)Yeah, but he's been polling a huge 1%, so who knows what difference it'll make - especially after Dodd's 'I know Kucinich's supporters won't put up with being sold off' bit.

I have absolutely no clue who's going to win Iowa. None.

[elucidator]

OMG! There will be a recount scandal, and the Supreme Court will decide that Bush won!

[Captain Lance Murdoch]

Regardless of who wins IA, Obama figures to be close. This is pretty noteworthy when you consider that IA has one of the whitest and most elderly populations in the US and it's hugely rural to boot. It's not his dream demographic by a long shot, but he's hanging in there. That bodes well for him down the road.

[BrainGlutton]

Obama wins Iowa! (http://www.thenation.com/blogs/campaignmatters?pid=265608) Edwards second, Clinton third.

[human_extinction]

Followup/counterpart to this (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=440993) thread. As Iowa approaches, Clinton seems to have lost some of her aura of "inevitability," opening the door to serious discussion of alternatives. Who will the nominee be? (Not, who do you want it to be.)

Why are you trying to say who the nominee will be before the nominee becomes the nominee? Furthermore, why is it important to know - that is if we aren't Diebold?

This is akin to FOX and all those other news corps trying to tell me who to vote for because "that guys not goin' to win." These are the PRIMARIES! If you can't vote who really should be president during the primaries, then when can you do it? (And Canada is looking better, especially with their encrypted, anonymous, and verifiable polling mechanism.)

I'm not saying predictive statistics aren't useful. Once the nominee is nominated I like to know if it was statistically possible without cheating (using exit polls and that junk).

Let's make some threads analyzing the strictly deductive rationalizations for voting for any specific candidate.

[Captain Lance Murdoch]

Why are you trying to say who the nominee will be before the nominee becomes the nominee? Furthermore, why is it important to know - that is if we aren't Diebold?

This is akin to FOX and all those other news corps trying to tell me who to vote for because "that guys not goin' to win." These are the PRIMARIES! If you can't vote who really should be president during the primaries, then when can you do it? (And Canada is looking better, especially with their encrypted, anonymous, and verifiable polling mechanism.)

I'm not saying predictive statistics aren't useful. Once the nominee is nominated I like to know if it was statistically possible without cheating (using exit polls and that junk).

Let's make some threads analyzing the strictly deductive rationalizations for voting for any specific candidate.


Why do people try to predict who will win the Super Bowl? It's fun to speculate and what's more, this is truly important stuff. I don't think anyone here is telling anyone else who to vote for (there are other threads for that). And I think you can vote for who should be president during the primaries, in fact that's the whole point.

[RTFirefly]

Exactly - speculating is fun. And a few threads like this keep the horse-race stuff from overwhelming any debate threads about actual issues and substantive stuff.

It'll be interesting to see how much his Iowa win boosts Obama's share of the vote in NH.

Having lost Iowa, Edwards' chance of winning drops to practically nil.

[ElvisL1ves]

It isn't just losing Iowa for Edwards, it's not getting coverage from the (lazy, horse-race-oriented) national press. Richardson's problem, too. But no matter, that's how the game is played - Edwards had a chance if Obama hadn't gotten the Oprah Bump, but now he's old news. Maybe he can take Libby Dole's Senate seat now?

The new Reuters poll has Obama leading Clinton in NH now - the short season means he can ride the wave all the way to the convention now.

[elucidator]

Maybe. The Dem leadership is still solidly Hillary. They credit their "centrism" with the recent abundance of corporate cash inflowing, Contending with dragons has made them dragons, they place too much importance on cash. Having been beaten about the head like a baby seal for years by money, they overvalue it. They also place too much importance on centrism itself, they think that policies are what roil the public, despite all evidence to the contrary.

Any of the top three is quite acceptable, though I favor Pretty Johnny. Which means that policy-wise, there isn't that much to choose about. But Hillary has baggage, a lot of folks just don't like her. Who doesn't like Obama? If the party leadership is truly more dedicated to progress than to thier own sinecures, they would recognize that it makes no sense at all to choose a candidate to represent progressive positions who is likely to attract less votes than another candidate who can represent those positions equally well, and does not have such a burden!

That the Dem leadership favors Hillary is a factor to be reckoned with. How much? Haven't the foggiest.

[jayjay]

If the party leadership is truly more dedicated to progress than to thier own sinecures

Ah, my frostbitten friend, I see that you're still burdened by the baggage of "trust" in party leadership. I've gotten past that. I'm one of those people who think the progressives in the Dem party are going to have to fight to get that leadership back because the current leadership (read "DLC") with the possible exception of Dean is too corporate-beholden to be progressive if it would offend their CEO masters.

[RTFirefly]

There are six new polls (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/nh/new_hampshire_democratic_primary-194.html) released last night or this morning that survey NH voters up through yesterday, including the assorted rolling trackers.

Good Lord, it's like crack for political junkies.

Upshot: four of the six show Obama's lead in double digits or all but (+9, +10, +10, +13). The other two only give him one- and three-point leads, but even in those polls, the momentum's clearly swinging his way.

One of the small-lead polls is the Suffolk/WHDH daily tracker, and in that poll, Hillary's lead has gone from 17 to 16 to 12 to 7 to 2 to -1 over the past several days. The other (Franklin Pierce) shows a swing from a 4-point Hillary lead between Xmas and New Year's to a 3-point Obama lead now.

Can't see a reason in the world why this trend should abruptly reverse itself between now and when the polls close in NH tomorrow.

Among the bloggers I check in on, there's a decent number of rational, non-fanboy Edwards supporters. They still seem to think Edwards can win it. Lord knows I'd like him to win, but he's missed that bus by not winning Iowa: that's the only thing that could have propelled him into contention. He's at 20% (at best) in NH, and he's not going to magically overtake Hillary and Obama between now and tomorrow night. And even if Hillary's support tanks to the extent that he can present himself as the main alternative to Obama, that'll happen too late to do his candidacy much good.

Besides, what's really happening is that a good chunk of the electorate simply has developed a serious crush on Obama, and there isn't a damned thing that can be done about it. Unless he commits some massive misstep, the nomination is his.

[Spoke]

I think the only thing that could save Edwards would be a second-place finish in New Hampshire. That's not out of the question, but I think it's unlikely. If he finishes second, Hillary's support in South Carolina and beyond might melt away, leaving Edwards as the sole alternative to Obama. But if Edwards finishes third in New Hampshire, Hillary's support will linger, and she will take enough votes in South Carolina to keep Edwards from having any shot at winning there.

Really I think it's a longshot for anybody to beat Obama for the nomination at this point. Only a major gaffe or a really wormy skeleton falling out of his closet could undercut him. And I don't see either happening.

[BobLibDem]

I would truly love to proclaim the Hillary candidacy dead, but it is still too soon. She has too much money and too many powerbrokers in her corner at the moment. Those super delegates, at least for now, are in her pocket.

For Edwards to continue, he must finish in 2nd in NH and get an outright win in SC. If he does not, I think he'll step aside and throw his support to Obama.

It's hard to see how Richardson survives past NH, really the traction is not there and will not come. By Wednesday morning I think he'll bow out.

If Obama wins by 20 points, he's going to get a lot of new friends in high places. None of those pols wants to be the last one on the bandwagon. A win of less than 10 points buys Hillary life support until Tsunami Tuesday. Short of a personality transplant, she's just not going to win over hearts as well as she wins over minds. All of her talk about experience and ability is beginning to make her look like Dukakis with breasts. As one of the talking heads on TV noted, she's gone from being the windshield to being the bug in a very short time.

[RTFirefly]

I would truly love to proclaim the Hillary candidacy dead, but it is still too soon. She has too much money and too many powerbrokers in her corner at the moment. Those super delegates, at least for now, are in her pocket. Joe Trippi thinks (http://tpmelectioncentral.com/2008/01/edwards_adviser_trippi_hillary_is_broke.php) Hillary's campaign is broke, or close to it.

Not that I put much credence in that, but it wouldn't surprise me if the quarterly financial statements that the campaigns will have to release this month will show her cash-on-hand way down from where it was earlier. Of course, the same's probably true of Obama: the point of raising all this money was to win primaries, and here they are.

The question is what they've bought for their money. Obama's used a good deal of his money to build up easily the most extensive field network (particularly in Feb 5 states) a Presidential contender has ever put together in the primaries. I'm not sure what Hillary's gotten with hers.

And we're now up to eleven polls of NH through yesterday (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/nh/new_hampshire_democratic_primary-194.html) on the Dem side. Can you say "beyond totally fucking nuts"? I knew you could. Sheesh.

[RTFirefly]

Map of Obama's Feb. 5 field offices here (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/1/1/132036/5696/405/428771).

[Spoke]

I'm not sure what Hillary's gotten with hers.
Endorsements? :D:dubious:

[Little Nemo]

I don't think Edwards has any realistic hopes anymore of winning the nomination. His best strategy at this point is to hang in and survive enough so that he's a credible alternative if Clinton and Obama lose the nomination.

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

I don't think Edwards has any realistic hopes anymore of winning the nomination. His best strategy at this point is to hang in and survive enough so that he's a credible alternative if Clinton and Obama lose the nomination.
Yep. I actually expect he's hanging some hopes on SC, since he's from the neighboring (and far superior) state. It's going to be very interesting to see how Obama does in a state with a higher population of African Americans and racist whites (their huge hoopla over the Confederate flag is my cite, in case anyone needs one from this rather self-evident and relative claim). I expect that he's gonna issue a trouncing in SC that will cement his nomination: the anti-black racists are a diminishing breed everywhere in the South, and I suspect that he will win a disproportionate number of votes from the state's African American population.

If Edwards gets as trounced in SC as I expect, I wouldn't be surprised to see him drop out. Clinton might come in third in the state, but I expect she's around for the long haul: as far as I know, she, unlike Edwards, has never lost a political race before, and it's gonna be real tough on her the first time.

Daniel

[ElvisL1ves]

Endorsements? :D:dubious:
Chuck Norris doesn't make endorsements. He tells you how it's going to be.

[RTFirefly]

It's going to be very interesting to see how Obama does in a state with a higher population of African Americans and racist whites (their huge hoopla over the Confederate flag is my cite, in case anyone needs one from this rather self-evident and relative claim). I expect that he's gonna issue a trouncing in SC that will cement his nomination: the anti-black racists are a diminishing breed everywhere in the South, and I suspect that he will win a disproportionate number of votes from the state's African American population. New polls out today: Rasmussen says Obama's leading Clinton by 12; Survey USA has him up by 20. Edwards is well behind Clinton in both.

If Edwards gets as trounced in SC as I expect, I wouldn't be surprised to see him drop out. At that point, Super Tuesday's only 10 days away, and according to both Gallup and Rasmussen, Edwards is up to 20% in the national polls, with neither Clinton nor Obama above 33%. That's good reason to stick around for Super Tuesday and see if anything good comes of it, since the national polls are the best proxy we've got for Super Tuesday expectations. (As if the fact that he's been campaigning for years, so why not hang in there for ten more days, wasn't enough by itself.)

[BobLibDem]

Joe Trippi thinks (http://tpmelectioncentral.com/2008/01/edwards_adviser_trippi_hillary_is_broke.php) Hillary's campaign is broke, or close to it.

Color me amazed. She had a freaking huge war chest. Where in blue blazes did it all go?

[RTFirefly]

Color me amazed. She had a freaking huge war chest. Where in blue blazes did it all go?Like I said, I'm skeptical. But it wouldn't surprise me if she had less than $20M left out of that $100M or more that she's raised.

I'm no expert here, but from what I've read about other campaigns, there seems to be a psychology that hits campaigns that expect from Day 1 that they're going to lead from wire to wire. They spend whatever they think they need to spend on everything - staff, consultants, travel, advertising, etc. Everyone sees them as a money spigot, and the campaign does too little to convince them otherwise. It wouldn't surprise me, for instance, to find out that Mark Penn had a contract worth ~$10M.

Everything's fine as long as they keep winning and the money keeps coming in. But when they've spent $80M when they really should have spent only $50-60M for the same stuff, and they lose a couple of early primaries and nobody's giving, then reality hits like a brick wall.

This happened to the McCain campaign last year, only with smaller amounts. Once George Allen, who had been billed for years as their only serious rival, committed macacacide, they figured they had no competition, the money would roll in, and they could spend money like water. Then it turned out they weren't even the frontrunners, the money didn't roll in, and they essentially ran out of cash.

[RTFirefly]

There are at least five polls that are operating as rolling daily trackers in NH: ARG, Zogby, Suffolk/WHDH, Rasmussen, and CNN/UNH. Everyone but CNN is up on the board at RCP (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/nh/new_hampshire_democratic_primary-194.html#polls) with their results including yesterday's polling. Obama's ahead by 5, 7, 9, or 13, depending on which one you like, with Suffolk at the low end and Zogby at the high end.

One note about Zogby: they're a schizophrenic outfit, because they do both Internet polls and your standard telephone polls. When someone's picking up the tab for the latter (in this case, Reuters and C-SPAN), they're actually a pretty good polling shop. But their Internet polls are crap.

[jayjay]

But their Internet polls are crap.

All internet polls are crap, though, so Zogby can't really be blamed any more than any outfit that does them.

[RTFirefly]

All internet polls are crap, though, so Zogby can't really be blamed any more than any outfit that does them.To be fair, it wasn't like when CNN puts up a "which candidate do you think won the debate?" question on their website that anyone can come along and answer. They were genuinely trying to construct a representative sample and Web-poll them. It's just that they still haven't been able to make it work to nearly the same level of reliability as a telephone poll has.

[RTFirefly]

Time's Karen Tumulty does some reporting here (http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1701153,00.html). And Ezra Klein reminds us (http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/ezraklein_archive?month=01&year=2008&base_name=is_the_clinton_campaign_runnin#103623) that a lot of her cash on hand, maybe $20M, is money raised for the general election that can't be used in the primaries.

From Tumulty's piece:
Clinton's campaign is putting new pressure on its fundraisers to come up with the cash she will need to carry her through. "Clearly, by every measure, I hear they are in a real financial crunch," says one prominent fundraiser. "Here's the dilemma: You have a situation where there clearly is a full court press to raise more money, but considering the state of decline of the campaign, there's a real question of whether people are going to want to give. It's more than just raising money; you've got to give people a sense of potential."

One reason for the new drive to raise cash quickly is the fact that Clinton spent lavishly on what turned out to be a debacle in Iowa. Numbers circulating among fundraisers — but not confirmed by the campaign — suggest that the campaign may have as little as $15 million to $25 million left on hand. While that is enormous by historic standards, it is less than half the nearly $50.5 million she had at the end of September.

[RTFirefly]

(Same as post #100)

[Captain Lance Murdoch]

In this age of massive polling, a surprise such as this is quite a rarity. Now the race looks like a toss-up.

[Spoke]

I still see Obama winning it. As Edwards's support fades away, I just don't see his voters winding up in the Clinton camp.

[Menocchio]

I still see Obama winning it. As Edwards's support fades away, I just don't see his voters winding up in the Clinton camp.
Edwards drew a lot of his support from union and low-income Democrats, the old guard that prefer Clinton's familiarity.

[Spoke]

Edwards drew a lot of his support from union and low-income Democrats, the old guard that prefer Clinton's familiarity.

I suspect most of his support was of the ABC (Anybody But Clinton) variety. But time will tell, I suppose, as we watch and see where his supporters gravitate.

I feel bad for Edwards. He's run a good campaign this year, and if Obama hadn't surprised everybody by jumping into the race, Edwards would have stood a good chance of winning.

[jayjay]

I feel bad for Edwards. He's run a good campaign this year, and if Obama hadn't surprised everybody by jumping into the race, Edwards would have stood a good chance of winning.

I don't know...he has no chance of actually getting the nom at this point. But if he manages to garner 15-20% of the delegates (which is possible, if improbable) and Obama and Clinton lob the primaries back and forth across the net on the way to Denver, he could end up being the kingmaker.

[BobLibDem]

I think Hillary already is getting the votes of everyone who can stomach her. Earth to John Edwards: Get out. Please. Memo to Barack Obama: Find out Edwards' price and pay it. HEW Secretary? No problem.

[jayjay]

I think Hillary already is getting the votes of everyone who can stomach her. Earth to John Edwards: Get out. Please. Memo to Barack Obama: Find out Edwards' price and pay it. HEW Secretary? No problem.

Attorney General would probably be better. The man has a long career as a trial lawyer and the AG position would be one that would put him in a better position to bring the lawless bastards of the current administration and the 109th Congress to justice.

[elucidator]

Tasty! I like it! Would also keep him in the news, give him a platform as a crusader, maybe set him in a good position to follow Obama. Eight years ain't forever, Pretty Johnny.

[BobLibDem]

Attorney General would probably be better. The man has a long career as a trial lawyer and the AG position would be one that would put him in a better position to bring the lawless bastards of the current administration and the 109th Congress to justice.

I'm sure that would be great, too. But if an Obama administration gets serious about national health care, I think Edwards would like to be in HEw to be in the midst of it.

[jayjay]

It's actually the vice-presidential choices I worry about. I've heard Mark Warner and Jim Webb mentioned. This would be bad. As would any other Dem senator...it's not like we have a surplus of those at the moment. We need Webb in the Senate and we need Mark Warner in John Warner's seat next January. We need either Clinton or Obama (whichever one doesn't get the nom) in their Senate seat then, too. We need all the Dem Senators and likely-Senators we can get to actually BE in the Senate as a Senator, and not as the Vice-President.

[dalej42]

It's actually the vice-presidential choices I worry about. I've heard Mark Warner and Jim Webb mentioned. This would be bad. As would any other Dem senator...it's not like we have a surplus of those at the moment. We need Webb in the Senate and we need Mark Warner in John Warner's seat next January. We need either Clinton or Obama (whichever one doesn't get the nom) in their Senate seat then, too. We need all the Dem Senators and likely-Senators we can get to actually BE in the Senate as a Senator, and not as the Vice-President.

Bill Richardson has been running for Vice President during this campaign.

Otherwise, I'd pick a Governor.

I highly doubt the Dems would be stupid enough to do another Senator-Senator ticket like they did in 2004.

Of course, this is the Democratic party we're talking about...

[BobLibDem]

Of course, this is the Democratic party we're talking about...

That's why we support gun control- to protect our feet!

Richardson would NOT be CLinton's running mate. The Clintons are furious at him for urging his non-viable Iowa supporters to back Obama. That after Bill made him Energy Secretary. He could be Obama's.

[jayjay]

I think Richardson should drop the presidential hopes and file to run for Pajama Pete's blank-slate Senate seat, myself. I can't imagine that he couldn't run roughshod over Heather Wilson.

[Captain Lance Murdoch]

It's actually the vice-presidential choices I worry about. I've heard Mark Warner and Jim Webb mentioned. This would be bad. As would any other Dem senator...it's not like we have a surplus of those at the moment. We need Webb in the Senate and we need Mark Warner in John Warner's seat next January. We need either Clinton or Obama (whichever one doesn't get the nom) in their Senate seat then, too. We need all the Dem Senators and likely-Senators we can get to actually BE in the Senate as a Senator, and not as the Vice-President.


Mark Warner isn't even in the Senate yet. They would never pluck him out of his campaign to run for VP. I don't think he would want it anyway.

---

Richardson would be a good pick for Obama in terms of geography and experience, but would a Mexican on the ticket help or hurt? I don't know.

[BobLibDem]

It's all over now! Kerry endorses Obama! Hillary is toast!

[Little Nemo]

Kerry isn't endorsing Edwards? That's got to hurt.

[Shayna]

Kerry isn't endorsing Edwards? That's got to hurt. According to this source (http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/01/10/john_kerry_endorses_obama.html), relations between the two [former] running mates have long been frosty, and Edwards and his wife Elizabeth Edwards have taken to publicly criticizing the 2004 campaign, in particular for ignoring Southern states. So I guess it really didn't come as too much of a surprise to Edwards that he wouldn't get Kerry's support. Though he was quite gracious about it.

"Our country and our Party are stronger because of John’s service, and I respect his decision. When we were running against each other and on the same ticket, John and I agreed on many issues. I continue to believe that this election is about the future, not the past, and that the country needs a President who will fight aggressively to end the status quo and change the Washington system and to give voice to all of those whose voices are ignored in the corridors of power.”

Source. (http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/dailypolitics/2008/01/kerry-endorses-obama-officiall.html) Obama is also picking up some other nice endorsements. From the first link: Other high-profile endorsements are expected in the coming days, including a key Western female governor, Janet Napolitano of Arizona, sources close to the Obama campaign said.

Also this morning, the campaign announced that it had picked up support from Rep. George Miller, a prominent California liberal Democrat and House chairman, who is one of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's closest allies. The first has to sting John McCain, and the second, Hillary.

[BrainGlutton]

I'm sure that would be great, too. But if an Obama administration gets serious about national health care, I think Edwards would like to be in HEw to be in the midst of it.

Nitpick: You mean HHS. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Secretary_of_Health_and_Human_Services)

[BrainGlutton]

Richardson would be a good pick for Obama in terms of geography and experience, but would a Mexican on the ticket help or hurt? I don't know.

I'm sure it would help. The Latino vote leans Dems but often wavers, many Latinos being socially conservative Catholics. Richardson on the ticket would make sure of them. (Well, except for the Florida Cubans.)

[RTFirefly]

The first has to sting John McCain, and the second, Hillary. Napolitano's a Democrat. I don't expect that her endorsement of a Dem for President would bother McCain much.

[BobLibDem]

Nitpick: You mean HHS. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Secretary_of_Health_and_Human_Services)

You are correct. Hard to keep the alphabet soup from being mixed up in my mind. Thank you for the correction.

[Spoke]

Here's an interesting tidbit: Black Georgia voters joining rolls at three times the pace of white voters (http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/shared-blogs/ajc/politicalinsider/entries/2008/01/14/black_georgia_voters_joining_r.html?cxntlid=homepage_tab_newstab).

Make of that what you will.

[DSeid]

Okay, let's just handicap the next several rounds leading up to Tsunami Tuesday.

Obama is narrowly leading (http://www.reuters.com/article/bondsNews/idUSN1442682220080114) in Nevada but who cares? The issue there is which organization will get people to the caucauses: HRCs well organized machine, or the Union which has endorsed Obama. I'm going to give the nod to Clinton in a close one.

Next S Carolina. Obama in a walk.

Florida? Stripped of delegates but the popular vote will count to perception nevertheless. A toss-up but I think that S Carolina's big win for Obama will pull Florida along. Setting him up for the perception of momentum again.

And then that Tuesday ... HRC has the national lead and the machine to bring them out. Yet I think it will end up still a toss-up at the end of the day.

How do those super delegates work? What happens to delegates pledged to Edwards if he stays in but can't win? Could we go into a convention still not knowing who the nominee will be?

[DSeid]

Okay, trying to research this ... 4049 total delegates. 313 of those are stripped out (MI and FLA) so we have 3736 left. You need 2025 to win. Edwards will have some if he stays in through 2/5. 314 are unpledged superdelegates. Each state can give some to each.

No, I don't think we'll have a brokered convention but it is not an outrageous possibility.

[RTFirefly]

Okay, trying to research this ... 4049 total delegates. 313 of those are stripped out (MI and FLA) so we have 3736 left. You need 2025 to win. Edwards will have some if he stays in through 2/5. 314 are unpledged superdelegates. Each state can give some to each.

No, I don't think we'll have a brokered convention but it is not an outrageous possibility.If they don't seat any FL/MI delegates, I doubt they'd require 2025 out of 3736 to win - not that I'm expecting that to make a difference.

The superdelegates are Congresscritters and the like; they've got a vested interest in keeping bad shit from happening to the party. They'll vote in a way that minimizes the possibility of a deadlock.

If there's a clear winner by the end of the primaries, Edwards will release his delegates to the winner, in a show of party unity. If there isn't, then Edwards will be a popular guy with Hillary and Obama, and he would in all likelihood be able to require some specific policy concessions in return for his delegates.

But the thing is, unless neither candidate gains much of an edge on Super Tuesday, both candidates will have spent almost all their funds in the run-up to that day. And only the winner will have funds flowing back in to keep his/her campaign going.

[BrainGlutton]

If there's a clear winner by the end of the primaries, Edwards will release his delegates to the winner, in a show of party unity. If there isn't, then Edwards will be a popular guy with Hillary and Obama, and he would in all likelihood be able to require some specific policy concessions in return for his delegates.

Other than the VP slot, what promises could they make to him that would be binding and enforceable after the election?

[Quartz]

Attorney General would probably be better. The man has a long career as a trial lawyer and the AG position would be one that would put him in a better position to bring the lawless bastards of the current administration and the 109th Congress to justice.

Don't you mean 'lead up to his appointment to the Supreme Court'?

[BrainGlutton]

Don't you mean 'lead up to his appointment to the Supreme Court'?

I think if you offered Edwards a choice between a SCOTUS seat, and bringing the lawless bastards of the current administration and the 109th Congress to justice as AG, he'd jump at the latter. Which, in the long run, would make him a more credible pick and easier sell for the former.

[RTFirefly]

Other than the VP slot, what promises could they make to him that would be binding and enforceable after the election? If it's binding and enforceable, it's not a promise - it's a contract.

[BrainGlutton]

If it's binding and enforceable, it's not a promise - it's a contract.

Exactly. HRC can promise Edwards, as she can promise the voters, to do X, Y and Z after she is elected -- but if she fails to accomplish those goals, or doesn't even try, nothing but the next election can hold her to account. I don't think there's any meaningful way one candidate can wring "concessions" from another that will still matter after the election.

[Richard Parker]

Exactly. HRC can promise Edwards, as she can promise the voters, to do X, Y and Z after she is elected -- but if she fails to accomplish those goals, or doesn't even try, nothing but the next election can hold her to account. I don't think there's any meaningful way one candidate can wring "concessions" from another that will still matter after the election.

Why can't a President contract that she will submit certain legislation, or contract to make certain discretionary changes in policy?

I mean, I suppose the damages would be tricky, but aside from that?

[Quartz]

I think if you offered Edwards a choice between a SCOTUS seat, and bringing the lawless bastards of the current administration and the 109th Congress to justice as AG, he'd jump at the latter. Which, in the long run, would make him a more credible pick and easier sell for the former.

You mistake me: he'd get both. There's unlikely to be a SCOTUS place available soon, but Edwards could start as AG and then - assuming he doesn't blot his copybook - slip into a SCOTUS seat as soon as one becomes available.

[Richard Parker]

Just thinking about the contract question a bit, I see two possible reasons why such a contract wouldn't work. First, it could be contrary to public policy. This doesn't strike me as totally clear-cut. None of the contemplated actions are illegal or even particularly undesirable--politicians routinely make these kinds of deals (I'll introduce bill X if you vote against bill Y). This seems different in degree rather than in kind.

The second reason is that the issue could just be non-justiciable because it isn't the role of the court to get involved in this kind of thing. I could see that. Obviously the court wouldn't/couldn't order performance. But what if the damages were liquidated? Would a court enforce that?

Am I missing some more obvious reason this couldn't happen?

[dalej42]

You mistake me: he'd get both. There's unlikely to be a SCOTUS place available soon, but Edwards could start as AG and then - assuming he doesn't blot his copybook - slip into a SCOTUS seat as soon as one becomes available.

John Paul Stevens (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Paul_Stevens) will be 88 when the next president is sworn in. His resignation is to be expected. I'm sure he is trying to wait out the current administration.

[RTFirefly]

Exactly. HRC can promise Edwards, as she can promise the voters, to do X, Y and Z after she is elected -- but if she fails to accomplish those goals, or doesn't even try, nothing but the next election can hold her to account. I don't think there's any meaningful way one candidate can wring "concessions" from another that will still matter after the election.There's the problem that if one politician makes promises to another politician and then breaks them, willy-nilly, that pol will have trouble making deals with other pols once word gets out.

[RTFirefly]

The effect of his decision (http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/2008/01/kucinich_abandons_white_house.php) on the race will be so immeasurable that nobody will bother to measure it.

My WAG is that he withdrew from the race because he wasn't getting free TV exposure anymore via the debates. Too bad, so sad.

ETA: Apparently Mike Gravel (http://www.gravel2008.us/) is still technically in the race. If a tree falls in the forest...

[BrainGlutton]

The effect of his decision (http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/2008/01/kucinich_abandons_white_house.php) on the race will be so immeasurable that nobody will bother to measure it.

Hm. He says he won't endorse anyone else. I figured he'd back Obama -- he urged his supporters to vote for Obama in the second-round balloting in Iowa.

[BrainGlutton]

So now it's down to Clinton and Obama. I'm gonna go out on a limb and say Obama. Gut feeling, no stats or cites.

If they're still running close after Texas, it's entirely possible that the nom race could come down to late caucuses in Michigan and Florida. (http://www.mlive.com/newsflash/michigan/index.ssf?/base/politics-1/1202329441260400.xml&storylist=newsmichigan&thispage=1) That would be interesting!

[BrainGlutton]

John Paul Stevens (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Paul_Stevens) will be 88 when the next president is sworn in. His resignation is to be expected. I'm sure he is trying to wait out the current administration.

Pray for his health! Atheists too! Pray!