Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Fix Picks: What if Iowa Changes Nothing?

DES MOINES, Iowa -- Seated in the airport today at 5:45 a.m. local time -- waiting to head back to Washington after a whirlwind tour of the state the last few days -- the Fix got caught up on some neglected reading.

The most intriguing piece we came across amid that mass of reading was penned on New Years Day by the New York Times' lead political reporter -- Adam Nagourney -- and ruminates on the idea of an Iowa caucus tomorrow whose results raise more questions than they answer. (The Fix is a sucker for "what if" scenario stories.)

"What if at the end of Thursday, the three leading Democrats -- former Senator John Edwards and Senators Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama -- are separated by a percentage point or two, leaving no one with the clear right of delivering a victory speech (or the burden of conceding)?" writes Nagourney.

It's not an implausible scenario by any means. According to pollster.com, the average of the last five Iowa polls on the Democratic side put Clinton at 29.8 percent, Obama at 27 percent and Edwards at 24. 8 percent. Given that only five points separate first from third in a five poll average, it's seem entirely possible that the results tomorrow night are so close as to produce a muddle.

That would lead, Nagourney writes, to a free-for-all spinfest as campaigns sought to play their own actual performance against the expectations set for them. Edwards Iowa campaign manager -- Jennifer O'Malley Dillon -- got an early start on the spin wars, telling Nagourney: "Frankly, if there's a three-way tie, that changes the dynamics of what has been reported the entire year: that it's a two-person race. It changes the way people look at the race, and they'll see it as a three-way race."

Maybe. But with just five days separating Iowa and New Hampshire this time around, it's hard to predict how voters of the Granite State would react to a something-less-than-decisive result out of Iowa. New Hampshire voters have long maintained their flinty independence from the decisions made by Iowa, but human nature often takes over in political campaigns; if a candidate scores a clear win in Iowa, he or she starts to look like a winner and New Hampshire can solidify him or her in that role. (See Kerry, John in 2004.)

New polling out of New Hampshire this morning shows a tight race there too. The survey, conducted for CNN and WMUR, showed Clinton in the lead with 34 percent followed by Obama at 30 percent and Edwards at 17 percent.

Nagourney only hints at the possibilities raised by a mixed result in Iowa and New Hampshire, which, we believe, would nearly ensure the fight for the nomination would continue through the Feb. 5 mega-primary where massive states likes California, Texas, Illinois and Georgia are set to choose a candidate. Such a scenario would almost certainly favor Obama and Clinton -- both of whom have raised more than $100 million for their respective bids and would be able to play in a number of costly states simultaneously. It would also be a dream scenario for political junkies who typically spend years theorizing how the nomination fights will play out only to watch the decision made in a matter of weeks.

And, just because we are feeling generous this morning, we'd recommend one other terrific "what if" piece -- this one penned by Politico political columnist Roger Simon. In it, Simon contemplates whether Clinton should have followed the advice of a memo from her campaign in the spring that advised she skip Iowa's caucuses. Fascinating stuff.

By Chris Cillizza  |  January 2, 2008; 12:48 PM ET
Categories:  Fix Picks  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Mitt vs. Mike -- The Final Countdown
Next: McCain To Begin Advertising in Michigan

Comments

Here are some facts. And by facts, I mean something that has been demonstrated to exist in reality.

Obama leads Clinton 32-26 (Iowa Register Poll), 2.5 points outside the margin of error.

40% of independents surveyed in Iowa back Obama.

With second choices included, the margin of Obama's lead changes little.

Posted by: cam8 | January 2, 2008 9:58 PM | Report abuse

BTW, I am a registered Democrat, and have been since I turned 18.

"Miata7: Dream on. Hillary is going to win, and most intelligent people already know it. The problem I have with you folks that CLAIM to be Dems are in "FACT" not. I see this all the time, and pretty well can figure out where you stand by your comments."

Apparently, we cannot be "intelligent" by your standards and still support someone other than Hillary Clinton?

Posted by: cam8 | January 2, 2008 9:51 PM | Report abuse

Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law
Main Entry: fact
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin factum deed, real happening, something done, from neuter of factus, past participle of facere to do, make
1 : something that has actual existence : a matter of objective reality
2 : any of the circumstances of a case that exist or are alleged to exist in reality : a thing whose actual occurrence or existence is to be determined by the evidence presented at trial

Posted by: cam8 | January 2, 2008 9:33 PM | Report abuse

Calling me an idiot seems a tad ironic coming from someone who continues to refer to her opinions as facts. It is impossible for future events to indeed be factual. You cannot identify something that has not yet happened as a fact.

Posted by: cam8 | January 2, 2008 9:27 PM | Report abuse

Mark: I have my TV on and my puter monitor hooked on to my 50 inch screen. So in effect I can watch two TVs and I have a 22 inch puter monitor as well. I'm covered on all bases. The "Wackos and nuts" on here don't bother me in the least, mostly I laugh at how dumb they really are.

Posted by: lylepink | January 2, 2008 9:08 PM | Report abuse

lyle, you are having a tough time this evening. Don't let it get to you.

Watch WV and OK.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | January 2, 2008 8:52 PM | Report abuse

cam8: Again, folks like you try and distort what I say. I have ALWAYS advocated everyone should support the candidate of their choice. The "dear lady ...", comment just goes to show how much of an idiot you are, very few folks are stupid enough to make such a comment. Anyone can check back on my comments and find I have repeatedly said GW Bush is the worst Prez this country has ever had. I am also a registred Dem in case you are not familiar with that term.

Posted by: lylepink | January 2, 2008 8:32 PM | Report abuse

Obama-Dodd 08

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | January 2, 2008 7:13 PM | Report abuse

"Miata7: Dream on. Hillary is going to win, and most intelligent people already know it. The problem I have with you folks that CLAIM to be Dems are in "FACT" not. I see this all the time, and pretty well can figure out where you stand by your comments.

Posted by: lylepink | January 2, 2008 06:28 PM
"

I'm not a "democrat". I'm independant. If you would sabotage the country for a party or for money, you are a traitor. to rally against bush, then back hillary makes you a hypocrite, imo.

I wish everybody was an indy. MAybe they could look at the facts and truths, rather than propoganda.

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | January 2, 2008 7:11 PM | Report abuse

lyle,

So, you are now attempting to establish the premise that any of us who do not support Hillary Clinton are, in "FACT", not Democrats? It's not possible to be a member of the Democratic Party unless you show proper deference to the Clinton family?

You, dear lady, are the Democratic equivalent of that 25% of Americans who swear blind loyalty to Bush.

I am a Democrat, and I support Senator Barack Obama of Illinois for president. If you choose to ignore the reality on the ground Iowa, that this is a tight race and Clinton is in serious danger of losing, that's your choice. But don't question my loyalty to the party, ever.

Posted by: cam8 | January 2, 2008 6:50 PM | Report abuse

Miata7: Dream on. Hillary is going to win, and most intelligent people already know it. The problem I have with you folks that CLAIM to be Dems are in "FACT" not. I see this all the time, and pretty well can figure out where you stand by your comments.

Posted by: lylepink | January 2, 2008 6:28 PM | Report abuse

It is not a question of "what if" - the truth of the matter is Hillary has failed to close the deal.


It really doesn't matter how close it is, or even who wins.


Hillary was supposed to run away with this thing and she has not - she should start to think about how she will pull out so that the party has enough time to pull itself together for the general election.


Remember she said she was inevitable.


One has to remember, what percentage of people are voting AGAINST Hillary? Well over 60% - One has to look at it and say, its not the time to take the chance on Hillary.

Posted by: Miata7 | January 2, 2008 6:08 PM | Report abuse

for me to rally agaisnt eh criminal bush administration all these years, then back clinton would make me a hypocrite. I got involved in politics to shut down the fascists IN the gop. Including their propogandsits. I did not get into politics to trade republcain criminals for democratic ones. that is why clinton and bush (and his party) must be stopped. to close the book on the past and work toward the future.

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | January 2, 2008 5:46 PM | Report abuse

USMC-Mike: I know I will be ROFLMAO as I have already looked into my "Crystal Ball' and saw Hillary being sworn in as POTUS on 20 Jan 09. I will keep trying to get you young folks to realize this is going to happen, I done seen it. Get on board the train has already left the station, and if you hurry you may be able to catch it at the next stop that will occur on 5 Feb 08.

Posted by: lylepink | January 2, 2008 5:46 PM | Report abuse

I feel the clintons are not worth fighting over. Same with Kennady. All the politicans that the gop points to for justification of their lawlessness and criminality. Their not worth it to me. Vote the bums out and get people in their that will do the will of the people. Whatever their political stripes may be.

I am not indebted to politicans/propogandists. I am indebted to my country above all else.I do not feel I should submit to any man/women. i feel that is the current differance between the parties.


I can continue what I do and what I think without politicans, without olberman or the "main stream media". Can the gop continue without their propogandists, doing what they do? Who could they consolidate their lies and propoganda without fox rush hannity coulter savage ingram malkin? That is the differance. To me the clintons and kennady's aren't woth the trouble. Without them to point to, what would the gop do?

Only works with dittoheads. Still. Compromise. I'll give you the clintons the kennaddy's and olberman, if you give me the bush's fox rush savage and the rest of them. Fair deal? I can accomplish my end if you can yours. But you can't. to remove the fascists is to remove the party. That is my point.

I am not as naive as appear. you just got to dig deeper. :)


r

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | January 2, 2008 5:44 PM | Report abuse

Or, of course, she really is a moderate, she never gets Rufus' vote, and she just so happens to be the most hated, baggage-filled, scandal-ridden, moderate in history, and she still loses.

Posted by: USMC_Mike | January 2, 2008 5:31 PM | Report abuse

You know,

I used to think HRC was a socialist dressed up like a moderate.

If that's true, her disguise is so elaborate that socialists like Rufus don't trust her.

Either her makeover is too good and she'll lose her left-wing base,

Or her true self will emerge and draw R's out en masse to defeat her.

Rufus, you have taught me something today.

Posted by: USMC_Mike | January 2, 2008 5:27 PM | Report abuse

Where the moveon people are. Pretty much the same as all dem's. Obama and edwards rising and clinton sinking. No differance between moveon and conventional dem wisdom. So they are now mainstream.

http://pol.moveon.org/prezsurvey/?id=11853-8018415-ZLyrTg&t=1

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | January 2, 2008 5:17 PM | Report abuse

If clinton wins the nom, it will be a false choice. It will be a farce. It will show all americans our political system has been hijacked by the gop. We will no longer be a free country if she wins as the gop would have successfully have selected their opposition candidate. this after they stole the last two elections.

When ARE we going to have a legit election again? Will the gop ever allow it? and why must they sabotage and cheat the system to have a chance? The answer is, they are done. They must cheat. They must supress votes. If they do not they are swept every time.

We're on to them now. Will not happen again. Next time the opposition will not back down, like gore did.

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | January 2, 2008 5:01 PM | Report abuse

USMC and reality agree once. Keep it coming usmc. :)

I don't see how see possibly CAN win. I don't think it's possible. The moderates are betting on the progressives and liberals will have no one to go to and have to vote clinton. Will not happen. We see both the same, imo.

She can't win.

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | January 2, 2008 4:58 PM | Report abuse

What, are you some kind of time traveller? Events in the future are not facts, they are predictions.

Posted by: bsimon | January 2, 2008 04:54 PM


:)

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | January 2, 2008 4:56 PM | Report abuse

"We want Hillary as our opponent because she is so Polarizing."

That's not spin.

The fact is, HRC can't win (unless we nominate Rudy - because then personal scandal becomes a wash).

Posted by: USMC_Mike | January 2, 2008 4:56 PM | Report abuse

"Most of you folks know the "FACT" that Hillary is going to be our next POTUS and no amount of spinning will alter these "FACTS"."

What, are you some kind of time traveller? Events in the future are not facts, they are predictions.

Posted by: bsimon | January 2, 2008 4:54 PM | Report abuse

Here's a FACT:

A USA Today poll released in mid-November says that 43% of Americans will not vote for Clinton. She does substantially worse in polls among Republicans and Independents than Edwards and Obama.

So, tell me again how she's a better candidate in the general election?

Posted by: cam8 | January 2, 2008 4:51 PM | Report abuse

i FEEL YOUR PASSION PINK. aDMIRABLE. From what I've seen most people do not share you passion. i had hoped she would step down and suppor tobama for teh good of the nation.

I can just speak for myself. i would never vote for clinton, I am a registered indy in nevada. Not because she is to far left. But becasue she is to far right. she and her husband may have been moderate democrats a decade ago. Things change. the lines have been re-drawn, due to the gop. She is now a dino. She is a republcain. Her husband tours the world with bush 41. She marhces with them to the war drum beat for the defense contracotrs. SHE IS bush in a dress. Don't attack the messanger. I can just speak for myself. You know I am as passionite anit-gop as anyone in this country. With that said I would vote independnat if she wins the nom. As will many many other. The whole movement that fought agaisnt bush and the fascists the last half decade, you know the people who saved this coutnry from destroying ourselves, would not vote or vote indy. As a result the gopwins again. Why? don't be stuborn. Clinton will not win the nom. if she does she will not win the presidentcy. I don;t care what cnn tells you.

Don't turn your back on the country by nominating her. Help to re-unite the country and expose the sell-outs and traitors. If clinton wins we must wait four years and fight the same battles, just to end the gop once and for all in 2012. Why wait. Let's handle business now. The gop is not to be feared as clinton and the moderates think. Old rules. They are to be confronted. for the good of the nation. Any pary loyalist that choosing a party over the good of the country is a traiotr. the gop has been traitors for decades now. clinton would have us submit. We've seen where that get's us. Fight back. for your country.

What happens if clinton steps down? Whoever the nom is, whether it's obama edwards richardson biden dodd. they are confronting the bush doctrine and the triators. Clinton? She's the only one selling out to them. She needs to step down for the good of the nation.She won't as the gop can only think aobu thtemselves. So we must take it from her.

In a nutshell. I will not vote for her. the moveon's, the kos will not vote for her (they like edwards). independants will not vote for her. only gop women will vote for her. And old women democrats. Another women will get a chance. It's not about gender. It's about policies and choices made. To give hillary the nom, is to surrender to the gop. Do not surrender. fight back.

Obama-Dodd 08

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | January 2, 2008 4:50 PM | Report abuse

bsimon: "FACTS" are FACTS, no matter if they are in quotation marks or not. Most of you folks know the "FACT" that Hillary is going to be our next POTUS and no amount of spinning will alter these "FACTS".

Posted by: lylepink | January 2, 2008 4:49 PM | Report abuse

Believe what you like Lylepink, because your girle friend may be toast by Friday and not even get a chance to play in the big league with the R's in November.

Posted by: vbhoomes | January 2, 2008 4:41 PM | Report abuse

"FACTS"

Lyle, it is very appropriate for you to put quotes around your use of the word facts. What you call facts are opinion: your opinion.

Posted by: bsimon | January 2, 2008 4:40 PM | Report abuse

vbhoomes: I am only stating "FACTS" and you know it. The spinners are you folks saying "We want Hillary as our opponent because she is so Polarizing.". What a bunch of Hooeee that one is. The thing is you "KNOW" you can't beat her, and that is a "FACT".

Posted by: lylepink | January 2, 2008 4:22 PM | Report abuse

LylePink and vbhoomes. Enjoy your little tiff. I'd be able to support either Obama or Clinton with enthusiasm and I think either will be strongly favored over any of the Rs (though McCain would come closest).

If Obama/McCain, the 3rd party independent bid vanishes because there's no need (independents will be split between them). Any other combination, at least possible. Guilani/Edwards or Clinton, 3rd party likelihood increases.

Posted by: malis | January 2, 2008 4:18 PM | Report abuse

JimD52, Shali/Shineski, thanks, you're right of course and I knew that...names from my last active duty days in the 90s got stuck in the brain.

Mark, not BAE this time, but visits were fruitful and looks like I'll be starting a couple-months long project there soon.

Posted by: malis | January 2, 2008 4:11 PM | Report abuse

Lylepink spoken as a true Clinton spinner, HRC would proud of you. Independents clearly perfer Obama over Clinton, so I want to thank you for throwing the election to us by nominating HRC. If Clinton is you nominee then Bloomberg will get in as the Unity Party candidate because she is so polarizing.

Posted by: vbhoomes | January 2, 2008 4:08 PM | Report abuse

ABC's The Note has an interesting headline:

"Clinton Camp Pre-Spinning Possible Bad News in Iowa
Campaign Insists Even a Third-Place Finish Would Not Be Disappointing"

Posted by: bsimon | January 2, 2008 3:57 PM | Report abuse

'He has said "You do not defeat an insurgency by killing all the insurgents, you defeat an insurgency by persuading the population to withdraw support from the insurgency." However, what is lacking is a political strategy to achieve the political solution that will put Iraq on the road to stability. The surge is unsustainable and there seems to be no coherent strategy to achieve a solution that will allow us to reduce troop levels without causing chaos.'

thank you, jimd, for explaining this in such a coherent and concise way...

Posted by: drindl | January 2, 2008 3:47 PM | Report abuse

Thompson entered the race too early. Remember how popular he was before he formally announced his candidacy? It's all been downhill since then. If he'd waited until last week, he'd probably win the caucus.

Posted by: Blarg | January 2, 2008 3:46 PM | Report abuse

I just can't imagine Thompson going aywhere. He says the weirdest stuff -- his audiences don't know what to think. One person asked him if he had fire in the belly, and he said 'do you want someone with fire in the belly with his hand on the red button? And frankly I don't. I want a steady hand and a clear mind. But i don't think that was what his audience wanted to hear.

Posted by: drindl | January 2, 2008 3:42 PM | Report abuse

"My Dad, the astute political analyst that he is, thinks Fred Thompson will make a big come back, starting in S. Carolina. Any takers?"

I had him out by Christmas. If he drops out on Friday after a dismal performance tomorrow, I'll only have been off by 11 days or so.

Posted by: bsimon | January 2, 2008 3:38 PM | Report abuse

mlalliso

General Shalikashvili was Chairman of the Joint Chiefs in the 90's. He had retired by the time Bush took office. It was General Eric Shineski, Chief of Staff of the Army and a member of the Joint Chiefs, who was shunted aside by Rumsfeld for publicly advocating a large occupation force.

proud

Petraeus is a genius at counter-insurgency. Had he been in command from the get-go things would have been much different. He has said "You do not defeat an insurgency by killing all the insurgents, you defeat an insurgency by persuading the population to withdraw support from the insurgency." However, what is lacking is a political strategy to achieve the political solution that will put Iraq on the road to stability. The surge is unsustainable and there seems to be no coherent strategy to achieve a solution that will allow us to reduce troop levels without causing chaos.

Posted by: jimd52 | January 2, 2008 3:37 PM | Report abuse

"A little voice of reason should be applied to Iowa. This means Edwards must win to remain viable, and Obama must finish at least a strong second to appear to be viable, which he is not. For Hillary, Iowa means little in the overall picture."

If Hillary finishes 3rd in Iowa, it will mean far more to her, overall, than finishing first would have. If she finishes first, she really hasn't eliminated any competition, but if she finishes 3rd, the media will tear her apart, which will negatively impact her nationwide standing. Of the top 3, Edwards has the most to gain, Sen Clinton has the most to lose. There's potential for a Richardson/Biden to finish well, but that's a long shot.

Posted by: bsimon | January 2, 2008 3:36 PM | Report abuse

lylepink - I think you're right -- HRC will get the nomination, regardless of Iowa. WH? Hope not, don't think so.

Mark - I agree, Huck has gone this far, he'll keep going now that he's getting money. A Resurgence of McCain is also going to happen - he could be the wild card.

My Dad, the astute political analyst that he is, thinks Fred Thompson will make a big come back, starting in S. Carolina. Any takers?

Posted by: USMC_Mike | January 2, 2008 3:34 PM | Report abuse

vbhoomes: A little voice of reason should be applied to Iowa. This means Edwards must win to remain viable, and Obama must finish at least a strong second to appear to be viable, which he is not. For Hillary, Iowa means little in the overall picture. The early February vote will decide that Hillary is the Dem nominee and, IMHO, will go on to be elected POTUS in 08. Several comments have been made as to why I think a lot of Repubs will oppose Hillary in the caucus there because of your "FEAR" of her in the GE.

Posted by: lylepink | January 2, 2008 3:25 PM | Report abuse

"United States
To avoid the abuses of the English law (including executions by Henry VIII of those who criticized his repeated marriages), treason was specifically defined in the United States Constitution, the only crime so defined. Article III Section 3 delineates treason as follows:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

However, Congress has, at times, passed statutes creating related offenses which undermine the government or the national security, (such as sedition in the 1798 Alien and Sedition Acts, or espionage and sabotage in the 1917 Espionage Act) which do not require the testimony of two witnesses and have a much broader definition than Article Three treason. For example, some well-known spies have been convicted of espionage rather than treason.

The Constitution does not itself create the offense; it only restricts the definition. The crime is prohibited by legislation passed by Congress. Therefore the United States Code at 18 U.S.C. § 2381 states "whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States." The requirement of testimony of two witnesses was inherited from the British Treason Act 1695.

In the history of the United States there have been fewer than 40 federal prosecutions for treason and even fewer convictions. Several men were convicted of treason in connection with the 1794 Whiskey Rebellion but were pardoned by President George Washington. The most famous treason trial, that of Aaron Burr in 1807 (See Burr conspiracy), resulted in acquittal. Politically motivated attempts to convict opponents of the Jeffersonian Embargo Acts and the Fugitive Slave Law of 1850 all failed. Most states have provisions in their constitutions or statutes similar to those in the U.S. Constitution. There have been only two successful prosecutions for treason on the state level, that of Thomas Dorr in Rhode Island and that of John Brown in Virginia.

After the American Civil War, no person involved with the Confederate States of America was tried for treason, though a number of leading Confederates (including Jefferson Davis and Robert E. Lee) were indicted. Those who had been indicted received a blanket amnesty issued by President Andrew Johnson as he left office in 1869.

Several people generally thought of as traitors in the United States, including Jonathan Pollard, the Walker Family, Robert Soblen, and Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, were not prosecuted for treason, but rather for espionage. John Walker Lindh, an American citizen who fought for the Taliban against the U.S.-supported Northern Alliance, was convicted of conspiracy to murder U.S. nationals rather than treason.

The Cold War saw frequent associations between treason and support for (or insufficient hostility toward) Communist-backed causes. The most memorable of these came from Senator Joseph McCarthy, who characterized the Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Harry Truman administrations as "twenty years of treason." McCarthy also investigated various government agencies for Soviet spy rings; however, he acted as a political fact-finder rather than criminal prosecutor. Despite such rhetoric, the Cold War period saw few prosecutions for treason.
"

does giving oil money to our terrorist enemies count? How about alligning with bin laden,letting his family leave america, then allowing him free roam in pakistan. Iran contra? Treason?

The gop are traitors. Not becasue I say so. But by the defination of the word TREASON.they are not fascists becasue I or anyone says it. They are so by their actions. Let's not hide from the truth and facts. They want to put it all on the table. Let's do that. What are you people afraid of? Black bags? Is this still america? free speech for teh truth? What country you people are living in I don't know. I'm still in america. Where is the coutnry of america now? In our heads only?

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | January 2, 2008 3:25 PM | Report abuse

Mark, see the previous thread.

Desert Shield was only a success because we fought an American-style war. The Powell doctrine only works that way. A different doctrine is necessary to fight a counter-insurgency/occupation style war.

Posted by: USMC_Mike | January 2, 2008 3:24 PM | Report abuse

mlalliso, thanks for your reply. Do you visit BAE in Austin? I know: if you tell me you'll have to kill me. My daughter-the-chemist interned at BAE some years ago.

I hear you saying that organizing rapid deployment at the brigade level is good. That could become a working subset of the Powell Doctrine, easily: but making that one functional decision a replacement for PD strikes me as a disaster for military readiness.

This is way more interesting to me than who leads in IA, sorry.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | January 2, 2008 3:21 PM | Report abuse

For gop again. I'm sure she mised the pertinant parts. Get out of dream land gop. The results of what is going to happen if you do not join reality is disasterous to this great nation.

"Outside legal spheres, the word "traitor" may also be used a person who betrays (or is accused of betraying) their own political party, nation, family, friends, ethnic group, religion, social class, or other group to which they may belong. Often, such accusations are controversial and disputed, as the person may not identify with the group of which they are a member, or may otherwise disagree with the group leaders making the charge. See, for example, race traitor.

"Murder is now generally considered the worst of crimes, but in the past, treason was thought of as worse. In English law high treason was punishable by being hanged, drawn and quartered (men) or burnt at the stake (women), the only crime which attracted those penalties (until the Treason Act 1814). The penalty was used by later monarchs against people who could reasonably be called traitors, although most modern jurists would call it excessive. Many of them would now just be considered dissidents."

so the answer to zouk's earlier quetion. Yes, treaon is illegal. It was at one time the worst of all crimes. You people may have better lawyers know, inserting doubt. But that does not change reality. Only perseption in your minds. Does that make the gop crazy? I think so.

"


"

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | January 2, 2008 3:20 PM | Report abuse

"Thank God for General Petraeus, and let's not forget those cowards on the Hill who called him a traitor. Shame on Clinton for her horrible mischaracterization of that man. Time has proven all of them wrong.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | January 2, 2008 03:10 PM
"

WE WON? WHOA. WE won. Bring the troops home. The war is over. I wou;dn't call petreus a traitor. I wouldn't go that far. Wait. I have went that far. Let me explian this to our resident drug dealer. choosing party over country is treason. I've said that here I think. He is a party loyalist. He lied to keep the troops there. Many men and women are dead and continue to die because of him. What does the word "traitor" mean?

"In law, treason is the crime that covers some of the more serious acts of disloyalty to one's sovereign or nation. Historically, treason also covered the murder of specific social superiors, such as the murder of a husband by his wife (treason against the king was known as high treason and treason against a lesser superior was petit treason). A person who commits treason is known as a traitor.

Oran's Dictionary of the Law (1983) defines treason as: "...[a]...citizen's actions to help a foreign government overthrow, make war against, or seriously injure the [parent nation]." In many nations, it is also often considered treason to attempt or conspire to overthrow the government, even if no foreign country is aided or involved by such an endeavour.[citation needed]

Outside legal spheres, the word "traitor" may also be used a person who betrays (or is accused of betraying) their own political party, nation, family, friends, ethnic group, religion, social class, or other group to which they may belong. Often, such accusations are controversial and disputed, as the person may not identify with the group of which they are a member, or may otherwise disagree with the group leaders making the charge. See, for example, race traitor.

At times, the term "traitor" has been levelled as a political epithet, regardless of any verifiable treasonable action. In a civil war or insurrection, the winners may deem the losers to be traitors. Likewise the term "traitor" is used in heated political discussion - typically as a slur against political dissidents, or against officials in power who are perceived as failing to act in the best interest of their constituents. In certain cases, as with the German Dolchstoßlegende, the accusation of treason towards a large group of people can be a unifying political message.

Murder is now generally considered the worst of crimes, but in the past, treason was thought of as worse. In English law high treason was punishable by being hanged, drawn and quartered (men) or burnt at the stake (women), the only crime which attracted those penalties (until the Treason Act 1814). The penalty was used by later monarchs against people who could reasonably be called traitors, although most modern jurists would call it excessive. Many of them would now just be considered dissidents.

In Shakespeare's play King Lear (c. 1600), when the King learns that his daughter Regan has publicly dishonoured him, he says They could not, would not do 't; 'tis worse than murder: a conventional attitude at that time. In Dante's Inferno, the lowest circles of Hell are reserved for traitors; Judas, who betrayed Jesus in Christian theology, suffers the worst torments of all. His treachery is in fact so notorious that his name has long been synonymous with traitor, a fate he shares with Benedict Arnold, Brutus, Pétain, Quisling, Alcibiades of Athens, and Ephialtes.

"

Whther he is a traitor or not is up to interpretation, like with the entire gop as a whole. But to say he has been validated is compleatly false. Lay off your product:).

He is right when the troops are home. Until then he is a propognaidst. Like you masters at fox.

r


"You know it's gonna be. Alright"

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | January 2, 2008 3:16 PM | Report abuse

"Paul Rivals Clinton, Raising Almost $20 Million for Campaign

By Kristin Jensen

Jan. 1 (Bloomberg) -- Presidential candidate Ron Paul raised almost $20 million for his campaign in the last three months, potentially outpacing every one of his Republican rivals and putting his fundraising in league with Hillary Clinton's.

Paul, a U.S. representative from Texas, raised at least $19.5 million, according to a statement posted on his Web site. His campaign said today that he originally aimed to raise $12 million in the fourth quarter of 2007.

The take puts Paul on par with the top fundraisers in the Democratic Party, who outpaced Republicans last year. The campaign of New York Senator Clinton yesterday said she raised more than $100 million for the year, meaning she brought in at least $20 million in the fourth quarter.

"

the people have spolen gop. the market dictates, right? Now stop selling otu your country to line your pockets. The americna peopel decide this coutnries fate, right? Then stop your treason and listen to the american people. you are now the minority gop cult. It's time you started acting like it. Get back in the basement wher eyou belong. you had your shot. You wasted it.

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | January 2, 2008 3:10 PM | Report abuse

mlalliso, I disagree that Rumsfeld was proven right in any sense, although I'm currently too busy at work to state my argument against. Quickly, though, if we had gone in with overwhelming force initially, then we would not have been facing those same insurgents and old factions of the Republican guard for months and years later on. It just delayed the inevitable, and by that time they had regrouped and were better equipped.

Thank God for General Petraeus, and let's not forget those cowards on the Hill who called him a traitor. Shame on Clinton for her horrible mischaracterization of that man. Time has proven all of them wrong.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | January 2, 2008 3:10 PM | Report abuse

That is the "conservative" esitmate mlalliso. so your staying with the incompetance approach. your party is making to much money for this to be incompetance. Follow the money and you will find the criminals.

Either the gop is incopetance or theiy are in with the terroists and criminals. Either way, why do robots STILL support the current gop. If they are criminals or incompetant, move away from them. Do not embrace their plans and ideals. goes without saying.

where else do you get rewarded the worse you do. No. the gop is done and they should be. If you elect another r you are rewarding either incompetance or criminal terrorism.

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | January 2, 2008 3:05 PM | Report abuse

Things will change after Iowa, count on it, some candidates will be forced out of the race, but Iowa will not be decisive, nor should it. The field will be narrowed and on to Round 2. If Hillary comes in 3rd or even 4th. I will be one happy camper as I watch the Clintons blame each other, their staff and the stupid people of Iowa.

Posted by: vbhoomes | January 2, 2008 3:04 PM | Report abuse

Who do you believe the Iowa caucuses will more than likely settle it for?

http://www.youpolls.com/details.asp?pid=1414

.

Posted by: PollM | January 2, 2008 3:04 PM | Report abuse

"Living is easy, with eye's closed."

Is that true gop? I wouldn't know. Is that life? Is that freedom?

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | January 2, 2008 3:02 PM | Report abuse

Mark, as retired USAF (at times, heavily involved in weapons procurement), I kind of liked Rumsfeld, back before Iraq. He did some needed pot-stirring in trying to get the Generals to rethink their traditional approaches ("preparing to fight the last war") and evolve to a more flexible (faster, lighter, more agile) force.

The actual three-week invasion and military victory in Iraq proved him right in some areas. At the same time, he was unable to demonstrate that flexibility in his own thinking, as the situation changed. He found himself in a situation that called for some of the old thinking--when Iraq changed from an invasion to an occupation, he was unable to let go of his pet ideas. In some cases there's no replacement for massive numbers of boots on the ground.

He did receive that advice from some but was too tied to his own (to such an extent he arranged the early replacement of his Joint Chief--Shalikashvili--who held that position).

So in answer to your question, it's half-and-half. He didn't go in initially with as much massive superiority as his Generals wanted, but was proven right.

He violated the rest of the Powell Doctrine precepts though. He didn't ensure massive superiority for the continuing mission (the occupation). He continued a mission which could not keep majority support of Americans. He didn't get out when it was over. Those last two were more Cheney though--Rumsfeld probably did support them but he would have been replaced had he objected.

Posted by: malis | January 2, 2008 2:54 PM | Report abuse

Well the person who wins is the person with the most delegates to the national convention. Given Clinton's rock solid 21.6% lead in the national polls, no matter what happens in Iowa, she will most certainly still be just fine.

Posted by: slbk | January 2, 2008 2:52 PM | Report abuse

"You say you got a resolution,well ya know. We'd all like to hear the plan"

"It's gonna be. alright. You know it's gonna be. alright"

do not fear or hate the fascist slave robots. It's going to be alright. Unless you fear them. them they win. DO NOT FEAR THE FASCISTS. Like the terrorists all they can understand is strength. They have none. the only power the gop cult has is the power we give them.

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | January 2, 2008 2:46 PM | Report abuse

"you say you want to change the consitution"

"you tell me it's the institution"

"you better free you mind instead"

"If you want money for people with minds that hate."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=87yq372R4Ts


" You may say I'm a dreamer. But I'm not the only one. I hope some day you'll join us. and the world cna live as one"

"Nothing to kill or die, for"

"Imagine all the people living for today"

" a brotherhood of man"

"Imagine all the people living life in peace."

"No need for greed or hunger"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jEOkxRLzBf0

r

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | January 2, 2008 2:35 PM | Report abuse

Thanks, proud.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | January 2, 2008 2:34 PM | Report abuse

JimD - saw your reply to my Rummy ? on the previous thread. Thanks.
proud, bhoomes, AggieMike - any thoughts?

Posted by: mark_in_austin | January 2, 2008 2:33 PM | Report abuse

"Rummy backed way off from the Powell Doctrine"

He kicked it right to the curb alright. I'm still not sure why, though. It worked so well in Gulf War I; ahhhh the days of watching Powell and Schwarzkoff, pointers in hand, standing in front of their magnificent charts of devastation to Saddam's Army!

Rumsfeld had this quest to prove himself right, with his 'lighter footprint' nonsense. Medical, especially, was a favorite thing for him to cut almost beyond recognition.

During the run-up to Iraq, my husband was at the Joint Staff and brought home many stories of the Sec Def's philosophy and determination to implement it no matter what anyone else said, despite the untested-ness of his theories on the battlefield, unlike Powell's.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | January 2, 2008 2:30 PM | Report abuse

Edwards will not win Iowa, and he will be eliminated. I think Clinton pulls out Iowa, win NH a bit more convincingly & marches to the nomination. Good thing for McCain too, when Clinton wins Iowa independents in NH will help him win that primary.

Posted by: bryant_flier2006 | January 2, 2008 2:26 PM | Report abuse

You in for a rude awakening. the 08 elections will wake you, where the 06 did not, for some reason.

Like always you people take the "facts" you like, reject those that are inconvienant, LIKE THE 06 ELECTIONS. The youth see you now zouk. Whether it's now or in 4 years, your party is done. Crime, favorable judges, terrorism, propodanda. It can only sustain a party for so long. you people have been treading water for deceades with lies smears and misdidrection. Time is up. Now get back in the closet and let the big boys take over. Either your party is criminal or incompetant. Either way they can not and should not get elected.

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | January 2, 2008 2:26 PM | Report abuse

Well. this site is going to the dumps fast.

good luck all. What a waste of time.

and zouk. Watch the movie again. Giggling like a school girl and attacking your countrymen accomplishes nothing. You sabotuers have shown your face the last half decade. Do not tim mcveigh americans when your party is irrelevant for a generation. Where else do you get rewarded the worse you do? you party is done,. If you want someone to blame, blame yourselves.

What a waste of time.

"I know you are but what am I".

you show your face zouk. I do not pity you people when we fix the damage you have done. Who will you whine and cry to then? Rush? Fox? Your party is done. your propogandists are done. you had yor time. now stand down and let americans take over.

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | January 2, 2008 2:18 PM | Report abuse

I think KOZ is right about RG on Stupendous effing Tuesday.

Because MH has run this far on a shoestring I think he continues to run.

Because the ol' fighter pilot has his finances in better order, I will still be sending him donations after Feb. 4.

And if JB has not survived, I will be able to increase my McC donations, thus assuring him of...not too much.

About Biden: he has been drawing well at IA rallies - a bit late, of course. But it may mean that he will be able to coalesce the Dodd and Richardson votes - the actual votes for experience - in some caucuses and run a respetable 4th, which would be a big upset, and let him survive another week.

Do any of you with service connections - bhoomes, AggieMike, proud, JimD, etc., agree with me that Rummy backed way off from the Powell Doctrine?

Posted by: mark_in_austin | January 2, 2008 2:17 PM | Report abuse

I would love to see the age-old almost star wars like confrontation of higher tax vs lower, bigger government vs smaller, weak army vs strong. this election is going to be that obviuous, if the Dems ever admit to their actual policies.

PS - hillary is Darth vader. the head of the evil empire that wants ro rule every aspect of your life.

Most of the congress members I know and/or hang with are not of the family values stripe, although they must speak the lines for the home districts. I think most of them would be very happy to have Rudy go against hillary. what a chance to showcase our policies. I think the hillary nomination will be so offensive, we will get the Seante back and possibly the house too.

Posted by: kingofzouk | January 2, 2008 2:11 PM | Report abuse

Given the topic of this thread ("What if Iowa Changes Nothing?"), I'll repeat something I posted a couple days ago:

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, in 2012 the process is changed to a series of four regional superprimaries (rotating among the regions each four years).

As side-benefits, a rational Farm Bill is passed and ethanol subsidies are eliminated...

Point is, Iowa DOES change nothing. Entertaining though.

Posted by: malis | January 2, 2008 2:11 PM | Report abuse

Goo point jd. what is the gop now. they need to turn the page. Or not.

Young people ,who are not slaves to the past, have a take on the gop. Wrong or not. Prove me wrong. I wish your party did support the american people and were not traitors. But they are. I want them to show their face. Go rudy/thompson

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | January 2, 2008 2:08 PM | Report abuse

What is the rush? Why should these elections be going on at Christmas and New Years? Put the first contest in April. There would still be six months until the General.

Posted by: robinfickerofrobinrealty | January 2, 2008 2:06 PM | Report abuse

Zouk, I think Rudy needs to be the GOP nominee, if only to force the GOP to come to terms with what it stands for.

If they want to continue to play the 'family values' line, fine, but my read is that Americans care less about that than they used to (they re-elected Clinton, didn't they), and definitely care about it less than strong national defense, tough on crime, leadership in GWOT, and lower taxes, which are Rudy's trump cards.

Posted by: JD | January 2, 2008 2:05 PM | Report abuse

It should trouble Clinton and her staff and her fans that Iowa and NH are this close. The more people pay attention, the worse she does. And the worse she does, the more she and they flail about trying to right the ship. In the last couple of weeks, she's lurched from strategy to strategy and pose to pose, and none of it has seemed a bit sincere. If she finishes third in Iowa, things could get really ugly really quick. I trust that NH voters are paying attention.

Posted by: novamatt | January 2, 2008 2:01 PM | Report abuse

Re rudy

In part, that's because February 5th will bring him several "home games" that he can easily win: New York, New Jersey and Connecticut. Best of all, these big Northeastern states (with heavy concentrations of Giuliani's fellow Italian-Americans, by the way) award their delegates on a "winner take all" basis, while most of the other major delegations will be split among supporters of various candidates. Most of his rivals have already conceded New York and New Jersey to Rudy, and abandoned the field: this means that even if he doesn't do particularly well in the same day battle royal in California (which splits its delegates based on outcomes in each Congressional district), Rudy will still emerge as one of the big winners of "Tsunami Tuesday." There's also reason to believe that his superior organization and strong polling numbers will deliver a rich harvest of California delegates--insuring that after the first stage of the primary process, he'll either lead the overall delegate count or else stand in second place. In any event, he'll almost surely accumulate enough support to remain a factor in the nomination struggle all the way to the convention in Minneapolis.

http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/MichaelMedved/2008/01/02/iowa_eve_misconceptions,_secret_weapons_and_the_gop_big_five

Go rudy

Posted by: kingofzouk | January 2, 2008 1:59 PM | Report abuse

"CNN) -- Democrat Joe Biden suggested Tuesday that presidential rival Hillary Clinton doesn't adequately understand recent events in Pakistan.

The Delaware senator was responding to news that Clinton suggested in two recent interviews that Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf is up for reelection this month.

Musharraf was actually reelected in October, and the upcoming Pakistani elections are parliamentary, not presidential.

"We have a number of candidates who are well-intentioned but don't understand Pakistan," Biden said at a campaign event Tuesday. "One of the leading candidates -- God love her."

"There are good people running," continued the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, who has made his foreign policy credentials a centerpiece of his long shot presidential bid. "But to say Musharraf is up for election! Musharraf was elected -- fairly or unfairly -- president six months ago. It's about a parliamentary election!"

Clinton's comments came in an interview with ABC Sunday, in which she said, "[Musharraf] could be the only person on the ballot. I don't think that's a real election."

The New York senator also made similar comments during an interview with CNN's Wolf Blitzer last week, saying then, ""If President Musharraf wishes to stand for election, then he should abide by the same rules that every other candidate will have to follow."

Both gaffes were first noted by conservative Thomas Houlahan, writing for the Middle East Times.

The Clinton campaign has not yet returned a request for comment on Biden's comments, but said yesterday the New York Democrat was referring to Musharraf's party, not himself in particular.
"

For the copy right infrigment police

CNN Ticker Producer Alexander Mooney

r

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | January 2, 2008 1:51 PM | Report abuse

From the politico article CC cited:

The final Iowa Poll before the Thursday caucus was released Monday and it showed Obama leading with 32 percent, followed by Clinton at 25 percent and Edwards at 24 percent.

Four years ago, when just about everybody thought Howard Dean would win the Iowa caucus, the Iowa Poll had the correct order of finish: John Kerry, John Edwards, Howard Dean.


Maybe this time Edwards will get the message...America is just not that into you.

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

Seems to me, both Edwards and Huckabee are dead, post Iowa. Neither has funds or much of an organization to continue.

And can Iowa 'mo' translate into that much money, that quickly, to make a difference in NH or early Feb?

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

um. The houston, the gop has a problem. If you support and allign yourself with terrorists, gop, does that make you terrrorists? Yes it does. If your "newspeople" have no crediblity, are they propogandists? Yes they are. If they are propogandists professing fascist principles, does that make them fascist propogandists?

All of these are facts. The gop presonified. Who know's this stuf, other than the pakistan government?

"

Bhutto Was To Give Kennedy, Specter Proof Of Election Rigging Before Assassination
By: Logan Murphy @ 10:29 AM - PST

Download (37) | Play (32) Download (35) | Play (12) (h/t Heather)

Tuesday on The Situation Room, Wolf Blitzer spoke with CNN's Brian Todd about a secret file that Benazir Bhutto was to hand over to Rep. Patrick Kennedy and Senator Arlen Specter before her assassination, which allegedly contained information showing Pakistani intelligence agencies were conspiring to rig the upcoming election. More from McClatchy: (h/t Nate)

Safraz Khan Lashari, a member of the Pakistan People's Party election monitoring unit, said the report was "very sensitive" and that the party wanted to initially share it with trusted American politicians rather than the Bush administration, which is seen here as strongly backing Musharraf.

"It was compiled from sources within the (intelligence) services who were working directly with Benazir Bhutto," Lashari said, speaking Monday at Bhutto's house in her ancestral village of Naudero, where her husband and children continued to mourn her death. Read on
"

r

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

HA! If HRC had skipped Iowa, she'd be where Guiliani is now; going down fast.

The spirit of this article seems to be, what is the dynamic if it is a three person race out of IA and NH. CC is on the right track, it will depend on the spin out of each campaign, and then how the media receives said spin.

It would seem that CW at this point is that for HRC to receive anything but brutal coverage, she'll have to win, and win by more than a few percentage points. Obama must be one or two. Edwards the same. Even if HRC wins, but only by a point or three, she'll get skewered for not running away with it. Regardless she has the money to keep going. Obama has the money, but needs the win, to show that he can do it. If he doesn't place well (one or strong two) he's going to have not-ready-for-prime-time hanging around his neck. Quite simply, Edwards needs a big night to get money and momentum.

The republican side is similar. Romney will take Iowa, but depending on how much determines Huckabee's ability to stay in. If Huckabee gets a strong second, he could parlay that into some cash and votes but probably not in NH. So, he'll have to stay relevant until SC, which may be difficult. NH will be down to Romney vs. McCain.

So, when do Guiliani and the rest drop out? After SC? Does Rudy hang out or call it on health reasons to go away? If McCain wins, Thompson throws his support behind him. Then McCain picks Lindsey Grahm as his running mate early on, and they make a run at it.

Posted by: adriennemichael | January 2, 2008 1:46 PM | Report abuse

If it is close, Edwards is the only one of the 'big 3' Democratic candidates that cannot survive a third place finish in Iowa, regardless of how close it is. Both Clinton and Obama are strong enough financially and in the polls to withstand finishing a close third, because they can effectively make the argument that nobody gained a significant advantage in terms of delegates. Edwards has staked his entire campaign on riding success in Iowa all the way to the nomination, whether he's saying it or not.

That said, if any of the three finish a distant third, they're in serious trouble. Edwards would be finished, and the campaign of Obama or Clinton would be crippled. With New Hampshire just five days after Iowa, there is not enough time to recover.

Posted by: cam8 | January 2, 2008 1:39 PM | Report abuse

If you look at the actual mechanism on the R side in IA, the vote totals may not be reflected, months later, in delgates to the National Convention. I think the R precinct convention is more like a "poll" and as such will change perceptions divorced from reality - although the changed perceptions will make their own reality [how zen...].

The D side is unpredictable from the polls.
bsimon and Andy and KOZ could all be correct. Or not.

If HRC were to finish a poor third - that's a big if - that would change perceptions, greatly, I suppose.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | January 2, 2008 1:35 PM | Report abuse

Already half the posts in this new thread are by zouk. Nothing to see here, move along folks.

Posted by: Spectator2 | January 2, 2008 1:32 PM | Report abuse

AndyR3 writes
"One problem with the analysis you bring up CC is that he doesn't bring into account the Cellphone-only voters which might be up to 15% in Iowa."

I am skeptical of the degree to which cellphone-only people are caucus participants.


"I think Obama and Edwards will seperate themselves from Hillary and leave Iowa as the clear one and two."

That's an interesting take. Most predictions tend to be that Clinton and someone will come out of Iowa. Given the amount of money she's raised, she's still in the race, even if she suffers a serious loss in Iowa.

Posted by: bsimon | January 2, 2008 1:31 PM | Report abuse

Democrat Joe Biden suggested Tuesday that presidential rival Hillary Clinton doesn't adequately understand recent events in Pakistan. The Delaware senator was responding to news that Clinton suggested in two recent interviews that Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf is up for reelection this month. Musharraf was actually reelected in October, and the upcoming Pakistani elections are parliamentary, not presidential.

so there is one Dem who understands foreign policy. Look where he polls in the moonbat party.

Posted by: kingofzouk | January 2, 2008 1:30 PM | Report abuse

OK, why do you use a polling average to describe the race in IA and an individual poll result to describe the race in NH? This makes no sense and looks like cherry picking.

Posted by: judgeccrater | January 2, 2008 1:29 PM | Report abuse

According to pollster Rasmussen, the number of Americans who identify themselves as Republican has risen to a two year high: The number of Americans who consider themselves to be Republicans jumped nearly two percentage points in December to 34.2%. That's the largest market share for the Republican brand in nearly two years, since January 2006 (see history from January 2004 to present). At the same time, the number of Democrats fell to 36.3%.

call it the Reid/Pelosi trend

Posted by: kingofzouk | January 2, 2008 1:27 PM | Report abuse

I will be very interested in how clinton spins the loss. bigots refuse to vote for a woman? watch for the snarling drindl-like response. so predictable. Only tool in the arsenal.

Hillary as Core Bore: Watch her lay the ground work for losing because she's a girl. Shameless.

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NWMxYzBlZDQ1YTJhZjdiZTcxMjI3Y2U3ODk1MjUyMjY=

Posted by: kingofzouk | January 2, 2008 1:15 PM | Report abuse

One problem with the analysis you bring up CC is that he doesn't bring into account the Cellphone-only voters which might be up to 15% in Iowa. If they make up 15% of caucus goers then the results of the polls you mention are meaningless. I think Obama and Edwards will seperate themselves from Hillary and leave Iowa as the clear one and two.

Posted by: AndyR3 | January 2, 2008 1:08 PM | Report abuse

It will only be a three person race until NH, when Edwards will be eliminated for good.

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

Chris writes
"It's not an implausible scenario by any means. According to pollster.com, the average of the last five Iowa polls on the Democratic side put Clinton at 29.8 percent, Obama at 27 percent and Edwards at 24. 8 percent. Given that only five points separate first from third in a five poll average, it's seem entirely possible that the results tomorrow night are so close as to produce a muddle."

Chris, what the above numbers fail to consider is to whom the 2nd choices fall. In the above scenario, 18 percent of the vote is still uncounted. Prior polls show that Sen Clinton is not the second choice of many caucusers. If the 18 percent is split evenly among Obama & Edwards, you have Obama at 36%, Edwards at 34 & Clinton bringing up the rear at 30. While that's not a huge disparity between candidates, it certainly would be a significant blow to the Clinton campaign. If it does nothing more than extend the contest, the 'anyone but clinton' vote will likely coalesce around Obama, as he has the money to compete in all the primaries, unlike Edwards.

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

Texas is not one of the states with a primary on Feb. 5, unfortunately. Ours is March 4.

Posted by: kurtrk | January 2, 2008 12:57 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company