Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Edwards's Closing Ad

DES MOINES, Iowa -- Former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards will close his Iowa campaign with an ad featuring an emotional appeal from an unemployed Maytag employee named Doug Bishop.

The 60-second commercial will run statewide during the 5:30 news tomorrow and Thursday and dovetails with a full page ad in the Des Moines Register that also features Bishop. It's not far fetched to see the spot as a direct response to the two-minute "ad" Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's (N.Y.) campaign plans to run the night before the caucuses on every 6 pm newscast in the state.

Laid off in September 2004, Bishop and his family were invited to meet Edwards who at the time was the Democrats' vice presidential nominee. As Bishop tells the story of that gathering, Edwards bent down, looked his seven-year old son in the eye and said: "I'm going to keep fighting for your daddy's job, I promise you that."

"That's the kind of things we need in a leader in this country," Bishop adds. "Not somebody who is going to go to a big fundraiser and say write me a check for $2,300 and I'll let you know you have my support."

The television ad echoes the "people versus the powerful" message that Edwards has pushed over the final week of the campaign. (Seeing Edwards in person over the last few days, we've been struck by the similarities between the rhetoric espoused by then Vice President Al Gore in 2000 and Edwards in this campaign.)

All signs point to an Edwards mini-surge in Iowa although the latest Des Moines Register poll -- released late last night -- put him in third place, behind Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) and Clinton.

The Edwards campaign -- wary of losing all-important momentum in the final days before the caucus -- released a memo from their own pollster taking issue with the Register survey.

"Is the poll accurate? There are good reasons to think it is NOT," wrote Harrison Hickman in the memo -- citing the fact the poll was in the field over the holidays, the poll's high number of estimated first-time caucus goers (60 percent) and the number of Republicans and Independents (45 percent) that comprise the sample. Hickman also cites the column written by Register political guru David Yepsen on the survey, pointing out that Yepsen writes that "the nightly results show Obama's support flat over the last two nights, Clinton's declining each night, and Edwards' support increasing each night."

In these last few days, molehills become mountains overnight. So, be careful not to read too much into any one poll even one with as good a track record as the Des Moines Register. From everything we hear on the ground, this race is tight and getting tighter between the Big 3.

By Chris Cillizza  |  January 1, 2008; 7:36 AM ET
Categories:  Eye on 2008  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: FixCam: New Year's Edition
Next: Clinton Pitches Her Experience; Disputes Register Poll



You've attributed the following quote to Yepsen:
"the nightly results show Obama's support flat over the last two nights, Clinton's declining each night, and Edwards' support increasing each night."

But, there is nothing on the DMR to this effect. Can you give the link to this quote, or correct it on your blog? The following link, which includes a polling trend for the DMR sampling days, contradicts the statement.

Posted by: associate20 | January 2, 2008 12:44 AM | Report abuse

"JimD: just do not Hillary picking any indenpdent votes. Mitt has flip flop the same as Hillary on issues. the difference is: He's more likable and less offensive than HRC. And unlike HRC, he seems fairly normal.
Posted by: vbhoomes | January 1, 2008 04:34 PM"

Bhoomes: I agree with you completely. Although Mitt seems like a bigger flip flopper than HRC. She hasn't reinvented herself like he has.

Posted by: judgeccrater | January 1, 2008 6:07 PM | Report abuse


I don't think Hillary would do all that well with independents however, according to the polls which Brooks cited, independents are favoring the Democrats right now overwhelmingly. If you noticed my other posts, you will know I am not a fan of Hillary by any stretch of the imagination. If the general comes down to Hillary vs. Mitt, I hope Bloomberg runs.

Posted by: jimd52 | January 1, 2008 5:28 PM | Report abuse

JimD: just do not Hillary picking any indenpdent votes. Mitt has flip flop the same as Hillary on issues. the difference is: He's more likable and less offensive than HRC. And unlike HRC, he seems fairly normal.

Posted by: vbhoomes | January 1, 2008 4:34 PM | Report abuse

It is interesting to think about where we all were a year ago. I favored Bill Richardson at the time but was intrigued by Guiliani. Unfortunately, they both disqualified themselves (Richardson by claiming to be able to foretell the future; Guiliani by demonstrating he's probably nuts).

Now it seems likely the President will probably come from the group of Obama, Clinton, Romney, and McCain. There are circumstances in which I could vote for any of those four, depending on who's on the other side.

Well, it's as warm as it's going to get today so I'm going to go run. I look forward to continuing the conversation with all of you in 2008!

Posted by: malis | January 1, 2008 3:34 PM | Report abuse

i think 'barely sane' is being far too kind. You should really at least thumb through Wayne Barrett's 'Grand Illusion' and 'Rudy' and Jack Newfield's 'The Full Rudy' to get a glimpse of how deeply, terrifyingly insane Guiliani is. These are both reporters who have covered NY closely for decades and really know him.

'Ever loyal to his Republican base, Connecticut for Lieberman Senator Joe Lieberman will begin campaigning with Senator McCain. '

I can't really beleive that the smarmy, loathsome, devious cheney clone lieberman can really help McCain's standing. It certianly won't among independents.

Posted by: drindl | January 1, 2008 3:26 PM | Report abuse

Jim -

I did not understand that about Giuliani until he made Podhoretz his guru. I did not drop RG from my possibles until I watched Podhoretz's barely sane performance on Lehrer.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | January 1, 2008 3:14 PM | Report abuse

'and he sees a grim future for the Rs who could seize the middle but refuse to do so.'

well, they are in a bind, mark. due to the extreme right turn the R party base has taken --no doubt because of the hateful influence of the likes of limbaugh/coulter/malkin --they can't appear to be moderate in any way.

and brooks is certainly right that all the anger, fear, hatred, xenophobia, etc that has been vented against immigrants, both legal and not, by the R candidates and party, will certainly not endear them. anyone who is brown-skinned, [or muslim--and there are quite a few of them here] must surely feel demonized.

and broadly speaking, Latinos and muslims are conservative and usually lean republican--or used to. my sister-in-law, for instance, who is a 3rd generaton citizen of mexican descent, changed her party affiliation last year for the first time and voted D.

Posted by: drindl | January 1, 2008 3:14 PM | Report abuse

mlalliso, you said

"I'd probably still vote for Obama but would be open to let McCain try to convince me."

I mirror your sentiment.

What you wrote reminded me - that if it looks like no voices of temperate moderation are available to the Rs and Ds, I might have to forego the Primary in order to sign the petition for Bloomberg-Hagel, or Boren-Bloomberg, or whatever.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | January 1, 2008 3:10 PM | Report abuse


I think Romney would have been a formidable general election candidate if he had run as the moderate, problem solving governor.

I think Giuliani would be a disaster as president from the foreign policy perspective. He seems to have no deep understanding of the world and looks on other countries as either obedient followers or the criminals he pursued in NYC.

Posted by: jimd52 | January 1, 2008 3:06 PM | Report abuse

Jim, my choices are still open, but are driven by the same considerations as yours. We make our registration choice in the primaries and cannot switch for runoffs, which of course do not apply for Prez races.

I have come to prefer Biden to McCain, as well, but would have felt comfortable about an America that chose those two as candidates.

My preference for JB seems academic right now, but my sense that McCain can be a good Prez, especially with a D Congress, is such that I think if he is still "in it" after Stupendous Tuesday I will have to support him.

I hope cspan covers the Boren conference so that I can hear it on my XM.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | January 1, 2008 3:04 PM | Report abuse

Mark, in Colorado we had to be registered with a party last month in order to be eligible to participate in the Feb 5 state caucuses. So, for the first time in my life I registered, as a Dem, to support Obama. I already have my form ready to drop the party affiliation and go back to Independent (the largest affiliation in Colo btw). Hope this doesn't mess up your ability to cast a meaningful primary vote in March!

What I'd really like to see is Obama and McCain in the General election. What a change--no slime (at least from the candidates), and rational discussion over fundamental policy differences (we can hope, but not sure if we can have the same hope on both sides with any other combination). I'd probably still vote for Obama but would be open to let McCain try to convince me.

I agree this would satisfy the Boren group, meaning no meaningful 3rd party effort. Biden or Dodd won't happen, as much as I'd like to see Biden (as I've mentioned before, my true preference would be the ticket of Biden/Obama).

Posted by: malis | January 1, 2008 3:00 PM | Report abuse

drindl, in another column recently Brooks talked about how both WMR and RG could have lead the Rs in a centrist direction while maintaining a strong military and an assertive foreign policy [but a foreign policy that includes diplomacy - Brooks has softened his neocon positions of 2002]. I think Brooks believes the numbers JimD cites - and he sees a grim future for the Rs who could seize the middle but refuse to do so.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | January 1, 2008 2:53 PM | Report abuse


I have said that I am only registered as a Republican because for local offices here the GOP primary is tantamount to election. I was thinking of switching my registration to Democrat to vote for Biden in the Democratic primary (actually I prefer Biden to McCain). However, given the likelihood that Biden will be out of it by then, I decided to stay Republican and vote for McCain rather than switch and vote for anybody but Hillary. The deadline for changing my registration was yesterday.

Posted by: jimd52 | January 1, 2008 2:48 PM | Report abuse

bhoomes, you refer to Romney as a "candidate who sells his message without turning off the indepedents". That is Brooks' point, Democrats have a 50-36 identification edge in latest polling. Independents are turning away from the GOP in droves. Younger voters, even Republican younger voters, despise Romney - he polls fifth in single digits behind even Paul. His flip-flopping has offended even conservative editorialists at papers like the Manchester Union-Leader and Boston Herald. That inauthenticity will doom him among independents.

Romney makes Hillary Clinton seem straightforward.

Posted by: jimd52 | January 1, 2008 2:41 PM | Report abuse

vhboomes, your reply to Mark (that GWB has been a fairly good Pres) shows you represent the hard right of your party. That's why I'm interested in your reaction to David Brooks NYT today. He's perceived as probably the softest of the serious conservative pundits. The column was really less about Romney specifically, than about changes in the GOP needed to win. Money quote is "The leaders of the Republican coalition know Romney will lose. But some would rather remain in control of a party that loses than lose control of a party that wins."

My question is, have you even heard this position, or is the position that of what you probably refer to as a RINO?

You really should read the column. Here's the URL (registration required but no cost):

Posted by: malis | January 1, 2008 2:32 PM | Report abuse

I see the problem, Mark - guess it was just wishful thinking on my part that IA's 2004 track record might mean something.

I'd like to see HRC fall to third b/c I'm hoping that would open up the process a bit. What bother's me the most is that so many D's just saw her as inevitable - that, plus the MSM's focus n the top 3 - have drowned out the opportunity for any really thoughtful evaluation of the candidates' policies, positions, and beliefs. Which, IMHO, is what our country needs now - a serious discussion of issues and options, not a contest based on star power. Or, as drindl said - an electoral system that would let the most capable person win.

Posted by: -pamela | January 1, 2008 2:06 PM | Report abuse

Suppose I am faced with March primaries that really still have meaning after Stupendous Tuesday. Suppose conventional wisdom prevails and I could go vote for HRC or BHO on the D side, or 6 Rs who have not dropped out on the R side.

Like JimD, I probably vote in the R Primary for McC. But there would be circumstances where I would vote for BHO in the DPrimary instead.

Well, I would rather have the choice than not, so you folks out there should scatter your votes and not annoint anyone in either party.

Thank you, in advance, for your attention and consideration.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | January 1, 2008 2:02 PM | Report abuse

I notice the Biden supporters are hopeful that Edwards will gain enough support to drag Hillary down a little and minimize her chance of a victory there in Iowa. We all must not forget the effort Edwards has put in since the 04 election and most everyone thought he would win there at the beginning of the 08 campaign. All reports I have seen lately indicate this could go to anyone. I'll be waiting all night to hear thoughts from the caucus goers.

Posted by: lylepink | January 1, 2008 2:00 PM | Report abuse

aah, thanks Mark. I had stopped reading Brooks some time ago because he was getting too partisanly irrational. Apparently he has somehow got his head straightened out.

I wonder about McCain and this Nunn/Dabforth group--McCain at this point at least has swung pretty far right, and most of his positions, particularly foreign policy, are a mirror of Bush's. Especially his naivete about the relative dangers of Pakistan and Iran.

I wonder why CC hasn't written about Huckabee's weird bait and switch press conference. I heard a reporter who was there talking about it on NPR yesterday -- he said everbody who attended was laughting/baffled --huck says he was going to run this ad, but he changed his mind -- and then he shows it to them. smart tactic or amateur hour?

Posted by: drindl | January 1, 2008 1:58 PM | Report abuse

drindl, Brooks thinks RG has no chance at all and he is most kind to McCain and Obama.

Yes, I encourage Ds to support Biden.

My guess is the Boren-Nunn-Danforth group has no problem with Biden, McCain, Dodd, and probably Obama. We will see.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | January 1, 2008 1:50 PM | Report abuse

This is where he disagree Mark, I believe he has been a fairly good President overall. But History will determine if your assessment or my assessment is correct.

Posted by: vbhoomes | January 1, 2008 1:47 PM | Report abuse

pamela, The way each precinct caucuses makes any IA poll suspect at the outset. I believe that DMR polls first choices, and Insider tries to account for "second choices". The reason this will not work well without representative polling in every precinct or cluster of similar precincts is arithmetical.
No cluster of precincts is likely to be the mean, the median, or the norm.

So DMR's polling totals less than 80% for the front runners. Insider takes the fact that HRC is not a popular second choice and Edwards is and its polling totals 100% for the three front runners. That assumes the others will not get to the 15% threshhold in every single caucus! Then it divides their second choice votes among the top three.

See the problem? It might serendipitously be more accurate, or NOT, Sort of like the lottery, really.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | January 1, 2008 1:47 PM | Report abuse

"He conveyed his detailed grasp of issues. He was passionate and inspiring, telling his audience he wanted to restore Americans' belief 'in the goodness of their government.' You left feeling this guy could make a good president."

judge and mark, doesn't this just make you wish things could be different? That somehow our electoral system would let the most capable person win?

read the brooks thing too -- interesting how his views have evolved so over the last year or so -- he was once the biggest cheerleader for the 'old model' of the GOP -- whatever he thinksthought that was. he's right -- mitt is an empty suit, but i think the motivation behind his column is that he's a rudy supporter.

as far as rummy and cheney -- they were part of the birth of the monstrous neocon movement -- meant to hypermilitarize the US and privatize all functions of government. they were planning it as far back as the ford administration--they were just quiet about it.

Posted by: drindl | January 1, 2008 1:46 PM | Report abuse

Judge, what is so hard to swallow here in Austin is that GWB the candidate in 2000 was closer to Gwb the Governor than he was to GWB, the Prez.

I voted for him in '98 as Gov., voted for Gore in 2000 because I thought GWB simply was not up to the job as Prez, not b/c of his "ideology". I told people who asked me, family and friends from around the country, that he had been a pretty good and quite moderate governor, whose wife had been a key lobbyist for early dhildhood education, who tried to broaden the tax base to take the burden off the homeowner.

I told them that he had followed the lead of Bullock and Laney, the centrist Ds who ran the Lege, and that he had no experience that made me think he would shine as a Prez.

But I never ever thought he would be the worst Prez in my lifetime, and I remember how happy I was that he had Powell, and Rummy, and Cheney, to guide him in the areas about which he knew nothing.

I was so wrong about Rummy and Cheney that I can barely write this without shuddering.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | January 1, 2008 1:36 PM | Report abuse

The Insider Advantage poll cited by campaigndiaries is very interesting. It gives Edwards a significant lead - 41% to 34% for Clinton and 25% for Obama -(although they do predict this will tighten). Even more interesting is that Insider Advantage claims that their methodology "correctly indicated a fairly comfortable win for John Kerry" in 2004 - and I didn't think anyone saw that coming.

Does anyone think if Insider Advantage is correct and Edwards has a significant win, it might slow Clinton's momentum? If she's no longer seen as inevitable, is there a new opportunity for another candidate?

Happy new Year to all Fix junkies - only an occasional poster, but I do enjoy reading what CC and the "regulars" have to say.

Posted by: -pamela | January 1, 2008 1:34 PM | Report abuse

"It is easy to forget how strongly GWB ran to the middle, 7 years later."

Too true, Mark. Talk about smoke and mirrors. No R who voted for GWB should criticize HRC for being triangulating or poll-driven. And Romney is poised to do the exactly the same thing.

Posted by: judgeccrater | January 1, 2008 1:08 PM | Report abuse

Clearly, the Des Moines Register's last poll doesn't square with what CC has been saying on the TOO NUMEROUS political talk shows he's pimped himself out to, so he has to Pooh Pooh the DMR poll. Maybe if CC were doing his homework and not appearing with Pat Buchanon every other day, he might have gotten it right! The FIX is an apt name for your column, A new ad by a layed off Maytag worker or a Poll that shows some daylight between Obama and the field. Gee I wonder which is more newsworthy? Chris, your whole career is about interpreting polls, not last minute ads!

Posted by: kip144 | January 1, 2008 1:08 PM | Report abuse

miallso: I am at some disavantage because I haven't read his piece, so i do not know the rational why it would be obsolete. But I do know the big picture: If you have a united party which includes the social, ecomonic and National Security wings and a candidate who sells his message without turning off the indepedents, that person should do well. The worse they can say about Romney is he is plastic, but the guy apparently has lead a very clean life, which also is important, remember we almost lost the election in 2000 because of Bush's DUI becoming known the Friday before the election. So when I do a tally of Romeny's strengths & weaknesses, I believe he wins against somebody flawed like HRC. Now Obama is a different story, I believe he wins unless Bloomberg jumps in, and gives the election to the GOP.

Posted by: vbhoomes | January 1, 2008 12:31 PM | Report abuse

In case we need confirmation of the fact that polls are all over the place and that the DMR is not polling in line with others, three new polls have been released this morning (check the full roundup here: ), and one of them even has a large Edwards lead.

Posted by: campaigndiaries | January 1, 2008 12:21 PM | Report abuse

vbhoomes, your statement on Romney was "He has done the best to solidify the 3 pillars of the republican party" ...Brooks' piece agrees: "[Romney]...studied the contours of the Republican coalition and molded himself to its forms." and "...he has turned himself into the party's fusion candidate. Some of his rivals are stronger among social conservatives. Others are stronger among security conservatives, but no candidate has a foot in all camps the way Romney does. No candidate offends so few, or is the acceptable choice of so many."

The main point is that Romney studied the 'old' GOP coalition and used that as his model, while Brooks thinks the old model is obsolete and unacceptable to the general electorate. I'd guess you probably disagree and don't mind being identified with the old model...I'm interested in your view.

Posted by: malis | January 1, 2008 12:18 PM | Report abuse

Assuming record Democratic turnout in Iowa, I think the core issue is not experience vs. change. It is LEADERSHIP, which encompasses both. I think Obama will emerge with a clear victory with Edwards second. They exemplify leadership by creating enthusiasm and creating a movement of committed followers. Clinton's approach to leadership is reactionary and calculating. I think of the 19th Century French revolutionary Alexandre-Auguste Ledru-Rollin. Seeing the crowd pass by his window, he said, "I must follow them, for I am their leader."

Posted by: optimyst | January 1, 2008 11:58 AM | Report abuse

The Edwards-Gore comparison is VERY valid, as it relates to the POST-CONVENTION Gore, who suddenly took a hard populist turn. Like Edwards, Gore was freed from the necessity of playing toady to the wealthy special interests once he tapped into a an infusion of federal funds.
Post-election, the plutocratic parasites of the DC culture tried to blame Gore's populist shift for his defeat, though the evidence was contrary. He had been 17 points down beforehand and zoomed ahead in the fall campaign, only to drop back with the negative reaction to his arrogant debate performance.
Perhaps Huckabee's implosion down the last furlong will boost the Edwards surge, as populists switch their caucus destinations.

Posted by: threedy | January 1, 2008 11:35 AM | Report abuse

this whole Huckabee ad thing is the height of hypocrisy. anyone who thinks this guy isn't anything but another hack has his head up his/her butt.

this is no different from a preacher showing a porn video and expounding on how disgusting and evil it is, while his flock sits in the pews simultaneously saying amen brother while most of them are rubbing one out.

and what a surprise seeing the same trick from preacher huckabee!

Posted by: Spectator2 | January 1, 2008 11:17 AM | Report abuse

Mark_in_Austin: I haven't read Brooks column in the NY Times but sounds like his thesis is that Romney would have a hard time winning the general election. All I can say, is that I am not whetted to Romney, I decided to go with him because I believe he offers the GOP the best chance of winning. He has done the best to solidify the 3 pillars of the republican party and if Hillary is nominated, he will get a much bigger share of the independent vote. United Party plus independents spells victory. If the dems nominates Obama, all bets are off because he will do well with the independents.

Posted by: vbhoomes | January 1, 2008 11:07 AM | Report abuse

Mark, well, lions do already lie down with the lamb just have to be ready to replace the lamb occasionally. As for weeds and corn, please, I'm trying to get Iowa out of my mind.

I'm very interested in and will be following the Boren conference. This is the first time I think a 3rd party could have a realistic chance at the Presidency. A lot of circumstances would still have to line up, though.

Posted by: malis | January 1, 2008 11:06 AM | Report abuse

proud, you are so cynical. Meet Secretary of Labor Bishop.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | January 1, 2008 11:05 AM | Report abuse

"Edwards will close his Iowa campaign with an ad featuring an emotional appeal from an unemployed Maytag employee named Doug Bishop"

My question is, if this guy has been out of work since 2004, why doesn't John Edwards get him a job! He could work for that hedge fund that Edwards was working for to learn about poverty issues. It just seems like he could've helped him get employment in the last 3 & 1/2 years' time, if he really meant what he said.

Or maybe the guy is more useful that way.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | January 1, 2008 11:02 AM | Report abuse

Judge, the Edsall article from July 7, 2000 here in the WaPo also said:

"Such positions underscore the [Al Gore] campaign's determination to regain the political middle after a primary season in which he moved to the left to beat back a challenge from former senator Bill Bradley. In some ways, the maneuvering by the Gore campaign resembles efforts by Republican George W. Bush to wrest control of his party's platform-writing process from the most ideological elements of the GOP."
It is easy to forget how strongly GWB ran to the middle, 7 years later.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | January 1, 2008 10:59 AM | Report abuse

Mark, No, I didn't see the Boren comment. I also would like to read about it.... will it be televised? All for now, going to Biden reception and pre-caucus event.

Posted by: Truth_Hunter | January 1, 2008 10:55 AM | Report abuse

OH guys, I cited Brooks' column for bhoomes and picked the quote that would most likely generate his response. So Judge, because bhoomes did not bite, I am glad you cited it again. Bhoomes, read Brooks latest column. Brooks has had good inside R sources for a long time, so I wonder how much is his own opinion and how much is colored by R insiders - do they really think Romney cannot win the general?

And bhoomes, you cite a great truth when you say "to the spoils goes the victor", thanx for the reminder.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | January 1, 2008 10:49 AM | Report abuse

mlalliso, you left out lions will lie down with sheep and weeds will no longer grow in the corn.

Truth, did you see Biden's response to Blitzer Sunday about the Boren conference in OK next Monday? That conference was originally scheduled before any of the caucuses but now follows IA. It is open to the public, and considering the political firepower represented, I hope we get to read about it in detail next week.

Perhaps CC will cover it - wink, nudge.

Biden said that Boren, Nunn, and Danforth were his good friends and political peers and they would not have to worry about polarization if he were the nominee. My guess is that McCain could have said the same.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | January 1, 2008 10:39 AM | Report abuse

edwards is a joke, are not labor unions and trial lawyers a Special Interes?, of course they are, so the only thing he's is talking about is that if I win, my Special Interests will rule Washington not the republican special interests. We already knew that: to the spoils goes the victor.

Posted by: vbhoomes | January 1, 2008 10:35 AM | Report abuse

Caveat: "The poll reflects continued fluidity in the race even as the end of the yearlong campaign nears. Roughly a third of likely caucusgoers say they could be persuaded to choose someone else before Thursday evening."

As I said, the barrage of campaign commercials in IA must be incredible.

Posted by: judgeccrater | January 1, 2008 10:29 AM | Report abuse

Prediction: Huckabee and Edwards win the Iowa Caucuses. Edwards' angry anti-thought populism and Huckabee's Christian Theocracy prove unappealing, however, to the more representative electorate across the country. Both drop like a rock and are effectively eliminated from the race well before February 5th.

This result demonstrates the utter irrelevancy of Iowa to the Presidential nominating process. The parties realize the huge amounts of time and money spent in Iowa were completely wasted, and this prompts reform. Result is, by 2012 the process is changed to a series of four regional superprimaries, rotating among the regions every four years.

As side-benefits, a rational Farm Bill is passed and ethanol subsidies are eliminated. Peace comes to the Middle East, Global Warming is solved, and all Celebrity News is restricted to a single cable entertainment channel and never appears anywhere else (well, I can dream, can't I?)

Posted by: malis | January 1, 2008 10:24 AM | Report abuse

"The DMR poll is striking for its results "outside the margin of error" so it is worth a separate analytical thread of its own, do you not think?"

Absolutely, Mark. Maybe it conflicts too much with CC's CW theme song "Money Changes Everything?" Wonder how long that will last.

Posted by: judgeccrater | January 1, 2008 10:20 AM | Report abuse

Today it is cold in Iowa.... will be 7 degress below zero tonight. But, the forecast is for a sunny 30 degree day, 20 degree evening on caucus Thursday the 3rd. For Iowans that is balmy, so expect weather not to factor.

Mark, I agree the poll in the DMR would be a timely subject for CC. I would also like to direct him to the editorial page where the editor described Biden in this manner after attending his campaign rally:

"He conveyed his detailed grasp of issues. He was passionate and inspiring, telling his audience he wanted to restore Americans' belief 'in the goodness of their government.' You left feeling this guy could make a good president."

Now, THAT'S an endorsement.

Posted by: Truth_Hunter | January 1, 2008 10:19 AM | Report abuse

Mark: sorry that I repeated your info. The previous thread appeared to be hijacked by the usual suspects.

Glad you remember Gore the same way I do. Populism wasn't his strong suit in my mind. Probably would have helped him if he had picked it up but his wonkish personality makes that difficult to imagine.

Brooks makes some reasonable points. I suspect that Romney knows that he'll have to flip flop once again and already has a new set of ads in mind that reinvent him as a squarely middle-of-the-road kind of guy. And he fully expects the electorate to swallow it when the time comes. A Madison Avenue-driven kind of campaign.

Interesting that the Des Moines Register poll ( ) again puts Obama and Huckabee on top. FWIW, this poll is supposedly The One Poll to Rule Them All ( ) and therefore all of Romney's money STILL might not win IA for him.

If so, will this finally be the death of CC's CW? Nah, probably not.

The barrage of campaign commercials in IA must be deafening. I'll bet the electorate is largely in IGNORE mode at this point.

Posted by: judgeccrater | January 1, 2008 10:15 AM | Report abuse

The DMR poll is striking for its results "outside the margin of error" so it is worth a separate analytical thread of its own, do you not think?

Posted by: mark_in_austin | January 1, 2008 10:06 AM | Report abuse

Continuing to join Judge's criticism of the Gore-Edwards comparison:

December 13, 1999

Gore defends trade position to steel workers
Vice President Al Gore defended his support of opening trade into new markets as he reached out Monday to the city's blue-collar establishment. "Some of you all disagree with me on the extent to which I'd like to see opening up of new markets," Gore said as he addressed about 80 steel workers at L-S Electro-Galvanizing Co. in the heart the industrial district along the Cuyahoga River.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | January 1, 2008 10:04 AM | Report abuse

Struth CC...

The amount you have told us about the revered Des Moines Register Poll, and now your first post is about an Edwards ad instead of Obamas results?

I'm actually starting to think you have a thing AGAINST Obama... as few other explanations come to mind.

The big news is NOT some Edwards Ad... it is CLEARLY the Iowa poll!

Come on man...

Posted by: Boutan | January 1, 2008 9:59 AM | Report abuse

Judge, you and I are reading the same stuff. I cited Brooks on the previous thread - picked a different quote, though.

I think you are correct to distinguish Edwards from Gore: Al sounded a call for a more pragmatic populism, with a family values filter [remember Tipper and her campaign against smutty rock n' roll?]

On point, here is an old WaPo quote:

"Al Gore's presidential campaign is brushing aside concerns from the Democratic Party's liberal wing and will write a platform affirming centrist stands on trade, education reform, debt reduction and foreign intervention. Under the proposed platform to be unveiled here today, party officials said, Democrats would affirm Gore's support of free trade..."
THOMAS B. EDSALL Washington Post July 7, 2000

Posted by: mark_in_austin | January 1, 2008 9:53 AM | Report abuse

Will Romney's run down the Low Road beat Huckabee? Hard to tell. If he does win, David Brooks thinks.

"And so the burden of change will be thrust on primary voters over the next few weeks. Romney is a decent man with some good fiscal and economic policies. But in this race, he has run like a manager, not an entrepreneur. His triumph this month would mean a Democratic victory in November."

Interesting that those who criticize HRC for triangulation are supporting someone who is infinitely more triangulating.

Posted by: judgeccrater | January 1, 2008 9:43 AM | Report abuse

"In these last few days, molehills become mountains overnight."

Transforming molehills into mountains is a part of your job description, CC.

"...similarities between the rhetoric espoused by then Vice President Al Gore in 2000 and Edwards in this campaign."

Really? I don't remember Gore ever being that populist in his messages. Anybody got some quotes?

Two more days and this tempest in a teapot will be over.

Posted by: judgeccrater | January 1, 2008 8:59 AM | Report abuse

Having previously touted the reliability of the Des Moines Register poll it seems odd that you do not even mention the results. You are beginning to read more like a "guru" struggling to validate his predictions than a scientist seeking to understand the data--data which demonstrably undercuts claims of an Edwards surge.

Posted by: drlbrty | January 1, 2008 8:43 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company