[QUOTE=spoke-]
I didn’t dare hope, but great result!
Luckily, I predicted it elsewhere, if not in this thread. The key is to make bunches of predictions. one of 'em is bound to be right! 
[/QUOTE]
Ah. Here we go.
I knew I had called this thing right somewhere. 
O-bama! clap clap
O-eight! clap clap
I-O-wa! clap clap
Looks great! clap clap
If I was going to miss big on one of my predictions, I’m glad it was the Republican side.
[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]
Yeah, but that one should be treated as an uncontested primary, for the simple reason that the other Dems didn’t campaign there, letting hometown boy Harkin have Iowa for free.
Latest Dem tallies:
[QUOTE=Lamar Mundane]
All of the major networks have now called this a victory for Lamar Mundane.
[/QUOTE]
Wow! Color me impressed, Lamar Mundane. So…when can I borrow your time machine?
[QUOTE=Menocchio]
Okay, it’s way too easy to read more than what’s there into this, but what the heck. Let’s talk about this means.
Obama’s win is important not only in that he gets called the victor in the press and the bump in popularity and donations that will surely get him (and the associated tarnishing of Clinton’s “inevitable” image), is that we’ve seen just how good a politician Obama (the Obama camp, I should say) really is. If Obama can outmaneuver the mighty Clinton machine in the Byzantine world of the Iowa Democratic, what can he do in the more straightforward primary elections?
[/QUOTE]
I have to agree. Hillary’s campaign seems to have been trying the hardest – most ads on TV, most signs, most presence at the caucus – but the average Iowan just doesn’t like her all that much. It was pretty startling to see a nearly 2-1 Obama advantage to Hillary at the caucus! We walked into the caucus, and Hillary signs were everywhere, but the Obama section was just packed. This in West Des Moines, which is a suburban area, and a lot like many other areas of the country.
And the latest on the GOP side:
[QUOTE=Menocchio]
I heard Howard Dean say that the Democratic turnout was much bigger than the Republican’s. If so, that argues well for the Democratic candidate’s chances in Iowa in November.
[/QUOTE]
Unless Hillary is the candidate. I think the big increase in Democrats were the ones that wanted to make sure Hillary didn’t get the nom.
The same way the Republicans will turn out if Hillary gets the nom.
Wow, Giuliani tanked. He wasn’t expected to do that well in Iowa in any case, but jeez… 4%, that’s gotta hurt.
[QUOTE=Grits and Hard Toast]
Unless Hillary is the candidate. I think the big increase in Democrats were the ones that wanted to make sure Hillary didn’t get the nom.
The same way the Republicans will turn out if Hillary gets the nom.
[/QUOTE]
Nearly twice as many people caucused with the Dems than the Pubs. Obama only beat Clinton by 8%.
It looks good for the Dems in Iowa for all three of the frontrunners.
None of these results strikes me as conclusive. It’s a big plus for Obama, Edwards and Huckabee, and a big negative for Hillary and Romney. But the information about past Iowa caucuses leads me to believe they are hardly solid prognosticators of who’ll succeed. I believe any of the top three candidates in either party has reason to go on to Super Tuesday with a feeling they can still win (though Romney and Clinton would do well to think hard about where their campaigns went wrong).
I wonder how Huckabee will do in states without such a strong fundie presence as Iowa, as well.
And Giuliani didn’t really campaign in Iowa, so he has not really been tested yet.
I think it’s still very much an open race for both parties.
However, I’m very pleased Obama and Edwards did so well on the Dem side.
[QUOTE=Grits and Hard Toast]
I think the big increase in Democrats were the ones that wanted to make sure Hillary didn’t get the nom.
[/QUOTE]
Come now, it didn’t have anything to do with an unpopular President, an unpopular war, gasoline at $3.00+, home prices tanking?
It’s not all about Hillary.
[QUOTE=Evil Captor]
And Giuliani didn’t really campaign in Iowa, so he has not really been tested yet.
[/quote]
True, he wasn’t spending dollars like water in Iowa. But Rudy for the last couple or three months had been wall-to-wall nationally in interviews and other venues, as the “front runner”. I’d think Iowa got the same glimpse of the man that the rest of us did.
Agreed, but there’s something to be said for the effect of the Big Mo(mentum).
[QUOTE=squeegee]
Agreed, but there’s something to be said for the effect of the Big Mo(mentum).
[/QUOTE]
I would have thrown something in my chant about O-mentum, but that’s just gross.
Anyway, I don’t think the massive Dem turnout was to prevent Clinton from winning Iowa. I just don’t think she inspires that much passion amongst Democratic voters, for good or ill.
I know Giuliani didn’t campaign much, but he’s not a nobody with no name recognition, and you’d think he would get more support if he expect people to vote for him in the general. Or do Iowans not support people who don’t campaign in the state on principle?
[QUOTE=jayjay]
What surprises me the most is that Grampa Fred actually pulled out a 3rd place showing. Has someone woken him up from his nap to let him know yet?
[/QUOTE]
This is actually a good result for Thompson. Not the best result (That would have been a high 3rd, just behind Romney), but a good one. The worst result would have been Romney winning, and Thompson coming in behind McCain.
But this result deals a severe blow to Romney, and probably takes away some of the conservatives who didn’t really like him, but thought he was the most electable of the bunch. They clearly broke for Huckabee late in the game.
My opinion is that Huckabee can’t survive the long run. He’s just too weak of a candidate. That means a lot of conservatives will be looking for an alternative in the next few weeks, and that would be Fred or McCain. Finishing ahead of McCain gives Fred a little more advantage in that regard.
Fred also has South Carolina coming up, and that’s home territory for him. If he can pull out a win or a very strong second there, he’ll be positioned to pick up the Huckabee pieces if Huckabee figuratively Yearrghs himself out of the race.
He’s still a longshot, but he’s not out of it. He was also apparently the victim of some dirty tricks - a false news story that he was out of money (he raised 1.9 million recently), and another that he would quit if he didn’t finish second or better . Both appear to be stories planted by dirty tricksters of opposing campaigns.
Guliani will stay in until Florida. But he’s not even leading there any more. Guliani now has to be considered a serious underdog. Romney’s not dead yet, but he’s reeling from this one. Still, he’s got to be considered the second favorite behind Huckabee.
And McCain’s not out yet either. So if you don’t believe Huckabee can ultimately be nominated, that essentially means the Republican race is still wide open.
On the Democrat side, it’s also still wide open, although I think a reasonable anslysis has to give the odds to either Obama or Hillary. I can’t see Edwards surviving long enough to be a serious contender, even though he had a pretty good night tonight.
[QUOTE=Menocchio]
Nearly twice as many people caucused with the Dems than the Pubs. Obama only beat Clinton by 8%.
It looks good for the Dems in Iowa for all three of the frontrunners.
[/QUOTE]
True. It is disappointing for the Hillary supporters, but it’s hardly a major defeat. NH is another matter. If Hil doesn’t do better there, it’s not good. A close 2nd would be OK, but anything else is going to be bad. Still, for all intents and purposes, she tied for 2nd.
However, if the GoP does go for Huckabee, it doesn’t matter who the Dem’s run, the Democrats will win the election.
Republicans- Huckabee won this on the basis of evangelical support and his religion. That will not win him a nationwide election. Romney was hurt by the high turnout of evangelicals, and questions about his religion and social credentials. I still think that Romney is the guy to beat. Iowa didn’t clear up the picture. If anything, it muddied up the race. Thompson did just as well as McCain, but he isn’t polling as high as McCain around the country. I think Thompson and Paul will drop out after SC, which will clear up the picture a little more. Guiliani is the wild card here, but I don’t see him as a viable candidate either.
Democrats- Obama has the charisma and the outsider appeal, but there are still a ton of questions about his experience and stances. He seems to be the classic politician. Promise everything to everyone, and pay for it by taxing the rich. Not too extreme on any issue, and seems to want to pander to everyone. It’s a good win for him, but I just still don’t like him as a candidate.
Clinton was hurt by people’s visceral dislike of her. I still think she is the strongest candidate experience and issue wise, but it’s too bad she’s Hillary Clinton. If we could combine her and Obama, we’d have a super candidate.
Edwards, a surprising showing for him. I really don’t like his two America’s deal (especially considering his extravagance). I don’t see him having enough national support, but stranger things have happened.
Everyone else is done on the Democrat side.
I’d project it as:
Republicans:
Romney- 30% chance
McCain- 25% chance
Guiliani- 25% chance
Huckabee- 10%
Thompson- 7%
Paul- 2%
other- 1%
Democrat:
Clinton: 50%
Obama: 45%
Edwards: 5%
[QUOTE=DrDeth]
However, if the GoP does go for Huckabee, it doesn’t matter who the Dem’s run, the Democrats will win the election.
[/QUOTE]
Why do you say that? I think that at the moment, the Democrats will win in November whoever’s standing due to Iraq and the economy, but I don’t grok your reasoning.
[QUOTE=Sam Stone]
Fred also has South Carolina coming up, and that’s home territory for him. If he can pull out a win or a very strong second there, he’ll be positioned to pick up the Huckabee pieces if Huckabee figuratively Yearrghs himself out of the race.
[/QUOTE]
Do you think McCain might drop out sooner and Fred pick up his voters?
[QUOTE=Quartz]
Do you think McCain might drop out sooner and Fred pick up his voters?
[/QUOTE]
I don’t know… I don’t know what McCain’s financial situation is. Also, it depends on where Thompson is sitting at a time when McCain drops out. If Thompson has climbed into a general #2 position, then McCain’s votes would probably go mostly to him. But if he’s 3rd or 4th, those voters might go with the most conservative of whoever the two front-runners are.
But I don’t see McCain dropping out, and it’s probably more likely that Thompson would drop out first. If they’re both languishing at the back of the pack, I suspect Thompson would be the first to drop out.