who in the heck are these 3% of people who voted for Gulliani? I was expecting him to get maybe a couple thousand votes.
[QUOTE=Airman Doors, USAF]
I don’t think he has to. The Republicans don’t have it this year. None of the candidates are very attractive. If Obama manages to get the nomination he can simply continue to be what he is and he’ll win.
The bottom line is that the country (in my estimation) is fatigued of the Republicans and are going to give whatever Democratic candidate is presented to them a shot. For my part, I don’t agree with everything that Obama stands for, hell, I don’t really agree with much of anything he says, but I am anxious to give him an opportunity. I wonder if it’s too late to register Democrat? 
[/QUOTE]
In Ohio you’ve got another month. Welcome to the River Cities.
YESSSSSS!!! CNN calls it for Obama
It seems to me that the main thing Hillary had going for her above the other folks was inevitability. Even Bill’s support fell under that rubric: she was inevitable because Bill’s such a good political strategist. Iowa’s taken that away from her, and without that, I don’t see how she can compete with Obama’s charisma.
Daniel
[QUOTE=Malodorous]
Wow, 3% for Gulliani. I realize he wasn’t contesting Iowa, but still, has anyone ever gotten that lowa in an early primary and still gone on to win the nomination?
[/QUOTE]
Hope that wasn’t a whoosh, but this is from 1992:
February 10, 1992 - Tom Harkin (76%), “Uncommitted” (12%), Paul Tsongas (4%), Bill Clinton (3%), Bob Kerrey (2%) and Jerry Brown (2%)
Read the polls from just last week on CNN, and see how far from reality they are.
With margins of error of 4.5 or 5%, how can they be taken seriously? Even account for the margins of error, why do you think the results are so far from what really happened? Did voter sentiments really change that much?
[QUOTE=Airman Doors, USAF]
I wonder if it’s too late to register Democrat?
[/QUOTE]
You have until March 24. 
Whoa! Guiliani now back at 4%! The man’s bouncing like a superball!
As an outsider I’m finding the whole caucus thing fasinating. Great stuff. CNN coverage isn’t bad either I have to say.
I find Obama exciting. I’d be very very happy to see him win the big one. Seems a lot of people want something new. I was going to say change but then heard it about 7 times in a minute in a interview on CNN 
[QUOTE=Onomatopoeia]
YESSSSSS!!! CNN calls it for Obama
[/QUOTE]
Based on my precinct and what I’ve heard from others, I expect it to go Obama, then Edwards, then Hillary.
Woo hoo!
[QUOTE=ivylass]
Wasn’t Hillary’s campaign saying that if she came in third, it was fine, that she’d done what she wanted to do in Iowa and was looking forward to New Hampshire?
[/QUOTE]
They all say things like that, trying to make disappointments less disappointing. Romney said recently that second place was still a good result, but the truth is that losing a big lead is bad news. Especially when most of the press coverage obsessively focuses on “momentum,” which Huckabee and Obama will be said to have - McCain and Edwards, also - and Romney and Clinton will be said to be struggling despite big budgets.
No offense, but this is silly. For practical purposes she tied with Obama and Edwards. Her result is disappointing compared to her/media expectations, but they basically all did the same. She doesn’t have to “realize she is not uniting” anymore than the other two do, and Iowa is not every other state. It sounds like you are right that the perception that she is an old guard Democrat hurt her, though.
Owned.
[QUOTE=Grits and Hard Toast]
Hope that wasn’t a whoosh, but this is from 1992:
February 10, 1992 - Tom Harkin (76%), “Uncommitted” (12%), Paul Tsongas (4%), Bill Clinton (3%), Bob Kerrey (2%) and Jerry Brown (2%)
[/QUOTE]
Heh, no woosh. I was 11 in '92. I knew Clinton lost, but didn’t realize it was that solidly. Thanks for the info (not that I think Gulliani will pull a Clinton, but you never know)
Well, for both Rudy and Bill they didn’t spend a lot of time and money in the state. Rudy this time because of his NH and FLA strategy. Bill and the others because Harkin, a favorite son candidate, was in the race and no one thought they could move him.
[QUOTE=Malodorous]
Heh, no woosh. I was 11 in '92. I knew Clinton lost, but didn’t realize it was that solidly. Thanks for the info (not that I think Gulliani will pull a Clinton, but you never know)
[/QUOTE]
Of course, from what I understand, Clinton was a complete nobody back then, and he sort of surged out of nothing. Basically all the candidates that received any kind of support this time around are well known and have been in the public spotlight for awhile, so I don’t really think there will be any mysterious winners. Then again, I was less than 11 back then, so..
I doubt Team Hillary will get much sleep tonight. They’ll all be busy spinning a great yarn for tomorrow.
[QUOTE=Jonathan Chance]
Bill and the others because Harkin, a favorite son candidate, was in the race and no one thought they could move him.
[/QUOTE]
Seriously. Second place after Harkin in '92 was uncommited! The highest actual candidate was 4%.
Last I checked, the Dem results weren’t final, but the race seems very very close.
Huckabee for GoP? :eek:
Well, I seem to recall in '76 that Uncommitted WON and Carter came in second!
[QUOTE=Onomatopoeia]
I doubt Team Hillary will get much sleep tonight. They’ll all be busy spinning a great yarn for tomorrow.
[/QUOTE]
Well, maybe she can point out that she was 28 percentage points higher than her husband…