Iowa - Page 3

GePap · January 19, 2004, 23:38

Quote:

Originally posted by PLATO
GePap, To what do you attribute a large turnout combined with the failure of the unions to produce? Could this be interpreted as a positive statement on the economy?

Not if you look at Ben's post about whom those who thought the economy was the bigegst concern voted for, Kerry and Edwards, the big winners.

The large turnout was probably due to the fludity of the race, and the late rally for Kerry and Edwards What one does see is the utter failure of gephardt's portectionist arguements, which is just as well, becuase they were not going to go far in a general election.

GePap · January 19, 2004, 23:56

This is a very intersting chart:

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pri.../IA/index.html

Kerry almost won every single category, age group, demographic there was, even in the first time voter area, or internet savy.

The most striking is that he got 71% support out of those who thought the right kind of experience was needed- which must mean his military service, while Dean did horribly.

I think Dean has to stop focusing on his anti-war stand and move towards talking about his record as vermont governor- he, unike Kerry or Edwards, has a record of running something bigger than an office, and it is a very good record at that. This shows that his vaunted organization was not there working very well in Iowa. Of course, the freaky form of this primary was bad for him (and after all, only 120,000 people showed up), but he has to refocus for NH.

Guynemer · January 19, 2004, 23:59

Well ain't this a kick in the head?

Dean and Clark are in deep trouble. I never, ever, ever would have thought Edwards would be anything more than a footnote in this race.

PLATO · January 20, 2004, 00:04

Quote:

Originally posted by Guynemer
Well ain't this a kick in the head?

Dean and Clark are in deep trouble. I never, ever, ever would have thought Edwards would be anything more than a footnote in this race.

Edwards is the democratic key to the South. IMO he is the "unnamed democrat" coming out of hiding.

GePap · January 20, 2004, 00:04

Quote:

Originally posted by Guynemer
Well ain't this a kick in the head?
Dean and Clark are in deep trouble. I never, ever, ever would have thought Edwards would be anything more than a footnote in this race.

Dean still has a loyal following, and more cash than anyone else. But Clark's support is probably tepid in NH.
The thing is, Dean must win NH to stay competative in the game- Clark need only come in second or close third and wait for the south.

GePap · January 20, 2004, 00:06

Quote:

Originally posted by PLATO

Edwards is the democratic key to the South. IMO he is the "unnamed democrat" coming out of hiding.

What state in the south could he possibly bring to the dems. save his own? The south is Bush country, and the dems. are better of not wasting too many resources there. Only massive black and latino turnout, which is not likely, would give them any chance.

PLATO · January 20, 2004, 00:10

Quote:

Originally posted by GePap

What state in the south could he possibly bring to the dems. save his own? The south is Bush country, and the dems. are better of not wasting too many resources there. Only massive black and latino turnout, which is not likely, would give them any chance.

The same was said with Clinton in '92. The South would consider a democrat if he was portrayed correctly. The South really does want to be democratic...the democrats just keep getting in the way.

GePap · January 20, 2004, 00:23

Quote:

Originally posted by PLATO

The same was said with Clinton in '92. The South would consider a democrat if he was portrayed correctly. The South really does want to be democratic...the democrats just keep getting in the way.

So if the democrats turn into republicans, heck, we will vote for them? This is not 1992 anymore.

None of the dems save Lieberman, who will not be the one, can compete on the culture issues- on the war, Kerry and Clark can show some ability, but if Max Cleland could be knocked off, Bush will certainly be able to do a number on them.

Bush will basically play the "God, Flag, and Patriotism" dance which seems to work best in the south.

PLATO · January 20, 2004, 00:47

Quote:

Originally posted by GePap

So if the democrats turn into republicans, heck, we will vote for them? This is not 1992 anymore.

None of the dems save Lieberman, who will not be the one, can compete on the culture issues- on the war, Kerry and Clark can show some ability, but if Max Cleland could be knocked off, Bush will certainly be able to do a number on them.

Bush will basically play the "God, Flag, and Patriotism" dance which seems to work best in the south.

It does seem that the South supports God, The Flag, and Patriotism (and in that order I might add). Personally, I would fall into that category. Despite some recent highly publicised polls, I believe that a lot of democrats support the same thing. Perhaps their are differences in our definitions of supporting God or what the Flag stands for, or even what it means to be patriotic.

For example, I feel sure that you believe that it is the patriotic thing to do to stand up against the war in Iraq, while I believe that it is the patriotic thing to do to support it.

Southerners are not entrenched in the Republican bandwagon, but they do need a democrat that will come closer to expressing the same value structure.

Winston · January 20, 2004, 00:55

Quote:

Originally posted by GePap

The thing is, no senator has won the white house in over 90 years.

JFK was a senator. He even got re-elected, in '58 IIRC.

mrmitchell · January 20, 2004, 01:01

Quote:

What state in the south could he possibly bring to the dems. save his own? The south is Bush country, and the dems. are better of not wasting too many resources there. Only massive black and latino turnout, which is not likely, would give them any chance.

You're not helping.

I'm disappointed when I see otherwise intelligent Northerners throwing away the South and acting like it's useless or past some kind of point of no return. It's not.

Sava · January 20, 2004, 01:09

wow, I was surprised... I'm not a fan of Kerry, but I like Edwards. The good news is, D1ck Gephardt got owned and is probably done. Dean had a piss poor showing. I'm disappointed, but if Dean has this kind of lackluster support, I will have no problem dumping Dean.

I still want to see how Clark does in NH and SC... but I'm leaning towards Edwards now. He was always a bit of a sleeper with me. This will be interesting.

GePap · January 20, 2004, 01:10

Well, thanks for pointing that out- I never remembered about Kennedy.

One trend Kennedy begun- the taller canddate has won every election of the TV era, though Bush and Gore seemed pretty even.

Quote:

Southerners are not entrenched in the Republican bandwagon, but they do need a democrat that will come closer to expressing the same value structure.

Which is? If it is true that southerners have some "value structure" of thier own, why should any party gear it national election startegy to just one group that decides to remain separate from the rest of the country?

Quote:

I'm disappointed when I see otherwise intelligent Northerners throwing away the South and acting like it's useless or past some kind of point of no return. It's not.

As long asit is supposedly a very particular part of the country with its own "only in the south" issues, then it might very well be a place of no return for a party that does not want to get too deeply into the culture war.

Look, some parts of the south, like Alabama and Mississippi are as likely to go for any dem as NY is about to go to any repuplican. The question is, which states in the south can dems compete? Only border states and Florida. As big as Atanta is, Georgia as one would still be solid red.

Drake Tungsten · January 20, 2004, 01:27

So what does this mean? Does Iowa actually count this year, or will it be irrelevant like other elections?

Sava · January 20, 2004, 01:31

Quote:

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
So what does this mean? Does Iowa actually count this year, or will it be irrelevant like other elections?

relevant in the sense it knocked Gephardt out... also, Dean coming in third was huge... but, the last 3 presidents didn't win in Iowa (so I've heard).

Drake Tungsten · January 20, 2004, 01:32

Quote:

I never, ever, ever would have thought Edwards would be anything more than a footnote in this race.

And here I thought my prediction of Edwards as the dark horse was going to make me look dumb.

Agathon · January 20, 2004, 01:33

How can anyone support Edwards? He's the prototypical "nice-looking" candidate that old ladies vote for. Apparently people feel that "he cares about them".

I think I'm going to puke...

Once again the electorate displays its predilection for electing well-groomed candidates with no real convictions.

Drake Tungsten · January 20, 2004, 01:33

Quote:

relevant in the sense it knocked Gephardt out... also, Dean coming in third was huge... but, the last 3 presidents didn't win in Iowa (so I've heard).

I agree. It's probably significant in terms of sucking momentum out of Dean and giving a boost to Kerry and Edwards, but it's definitely not going to make or break the nomination. New Hampshire and South Carolina are going to be interesting.

Sava · January 20, 2004, 01:34

wow... Edwards hatred... I haven't seen that yet. Not even on teh Democratic Underground forums.

Drake Tungsten · January 20, 2004, 01:35

Quote:

Once again the electorate displays its predilection for electing well-groomed candidates with no real convictions.

True enough; that's why astute political analysts have no faith in the intelligence of the electorate.

Imran Siddiqui · January 20, 2004, 01:44

Quote:

wow... Edwards hatred... I haven't seen that yet.

Me neither... that was totally out of left field for me too, Sava

.

--

Anyway:

Go John Go! This is the first step to the White House, boys!

Agathon · January 20, 2004, 01:44

Quote:

Originally posted by Sava
wow... Edwards hatred... I haven't seen that yet. Not even on teh Democratic Underground forums.

I don't hate the guy, he just seems like a painted doll to me.

Anyway, the good news is the massive turnout. If enough Dems care this much about the nominee, Shrub is Toast.

Agathon · January 20, 2004, 01:47

Then again I thought and continue to think that Clinton is a hollow man.

Although he's Dostoyevsky compared to Raygun or either of the Bush cretins, none of whom manages to convey the impression that they possess an intellect, or frankly know what an "intellect
" is.

Imran Siddiqui · January 20, 2004, 01:51

Quote:

Although he's Dostoyevsky compared to Raygun or either of the Bush cretins, none of whom manages to convey the impression that they possess an intellect, or frankly know what an "intellect
" is.

I have no idea how you can with a straight face say that Bush I did not show that he possessed an intellect. I mean, that's just absurd to say!

Agathon · January 20, 2004, 01:55

Quote:

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Quote:

Although he's Dostoyevsky compared to Raygun or either of the Bush cretins, none of whom manages to convey the impression that they possess an intellect, or frankly know what an "intellect
" is.

I have no idea how you can with a straight face say that Bush I did not show that he possessed an intellect. I mean, that's just absurd to say!

I never heard him say anything smart or profound - I did see him puke on an Asian dignitary though. Then again profundity is actively discouraged among Presidents these days - it might put the rabble off.

Still Bush I is infinitely preferable to that sag faced harpy of a wife of his.

Imran Siddiqui · January 20, 2004, 02:05

Quote:

I never heard him say anything smart or profound

He was a very smart President. Had long diplomatic experience and was basically a policy wonk who became President after serving his time. Idiots don't normally become US Ambassador to the UN or Director of the CIA.

Agathon · January 20, 2004, 02:08

Quote:

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Idiots don't normally become US Ambassador to the UN or Director of the CIA.

sig material.

Imran Siddiqui · January 20, 2004, 02:17

Yes, sometimes true statements are included in sigs

.

joncha · January 20, 2004, 02:33

I think, oddly enough, Clark is really the big winner after Iowa. He knew he was going to take a hit there, so he skipped it, and now he has NH all to himself.

With the two successes in Iowa being Kerry and Edwards (and not Dean) he ends up being well situated in deed.

Edwards, as mentioned, is just too darn purdy to be taken seriously, and Kerry looks too much like the Frankenstein's monster. So, with a "flash-in-the-pan" Dean, Clark becomes the second option to both Kerry and Edwards.

Yes, image isn't everything... but in US Presidential politics, it counts for a lot.

Of course, like my NFL playoff picks (I got this round right, though!), the actual events may well prove me 100% wrong.

jon.

OzzyKP · January 20, 2004, 02:39

I'm gonna join (or start) an "anybody but Kerry" campaign. yuck, I can't believe he won. His campaign was looking washed up not more than a week ago.

Edwards strong showing is totally surprizing.
So is Deans weak showing.

But in all honesty, how many elections were really predicted by the Iowa caucus? Everyone makes a big deal out of the fact Gephardt got Iowa in '88. But he lost so who cares?

And didn't Forbes win Iowa in 2000? He lost too.

So screw Iowa, lets see what happens next.