Saturday, January 05, 2008
The Iowa results
I would like to apologize for the mistakes I made leading to the actions by the French owners of the blog. I have agreed not to promote Big Red® soda any more, and they have returned editorial control of the blog to me.
While I was gone, there was a big election. The Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire primaries are perhaps my favorite part of the election cycle, because they remain old-fashioned. Cold, largely rural places where the candidates must actually show up and interact with voters, Iowa and New Hampshire place interesting and important demands on the candidates. My prediction is that the nominees will be Obama and McCain.
But I am usually wrong about such things.
Comments:
<< Home
Pourquoi avez-vous choisi d'arrêter votre appui de la plus grande boisson non alcoolique rouge jamais inventée ? Je suis venu pour soutenir le rasoir au cours des années, et je suis dégoûté à cette décision. En outre, le gravier est le cantidate soutenu autour de livre. Ayant un président qui fait des videos étranges que compose une corde de du déformer pour la soutenir est meilleur que Bush, qui a réellement un auteur, Cheney.
# posted by 
: 10:42 AM
: 10:42 AM
I've supported Obama so far in the only way I can - quite a bit of money and preaching his merits to anyone that will listen.
So Thursday night was very exciting.
So Thursday night was very exciting.
If Obama wins NH, I agree with you that he'll probably be the nominee. If he doesn't, then we might be in for a long process, especially if Edwards pulls off a win in the Granite State.
As for McCain...he's been surging lately, but I think that he 100% must win NH to gain the momentum necessary to win the nomination. He's been doing very well in the polls up there which suggests that he might win. But...there is a problem for him. McCain's small lead in the GOP primary is largely due to the fact that he's crushing the rest of the GOP field among independent voters. The problem, however, is that the latest zogby polling says that independents are more likely to participate in the Democratic primary this year by a margin of about 2-1. So if independents don't play ball in the GOP primary, McCain will be in serious trouble and Romney wins NH and McCain loses just about all the momentum he's gained....
As for McCain...he's been surging lately, but I think that he 100% must win NH to gain the momentum necessary to win the nomination. He's been doing very well in the polls up there which suggests that he might win. But...there is a problem for him. McCain's small lead in the GOP primary is largely due to the fact that he's crushing the rest of the GOP field among independent voters. The problem, however, is that the latest zogby polling says that independents are more likely to participate in the Democratic primary this year by a margin of about 2-1. So if independents don't play ball in the GOP primary, McCain will be in serious trouble and Romney wins NH and McCain loses just about all the momentum he's gained....
Its a LONG campaign and lots of things will happen to change the ebb and flow.
Look for me on the TV Tuesday night at the McCain victory party in NH. I fly up tomorrow to help push my former employer to victory in the Granite State.
Look for me on the TV Tuesday night at the McCain victory party in NH. I fly up tomorrow to help push my former employer to victory in the Granite State.
# posted by : 12:02 AM
: 12:02 AM
I'm willing to bet there are ome big-money GOP strtegists who are in an absolute panic over Huckabee's big Iowa win right now, scrambling to find a bona fide "establishment candidate". Really, the GOP hasn't had a primary season which has really meant anything since 1980. Usually, it's fairly predetermined. The Dems have normally given us the far more entertaining primaries which has also resulted in candidates like Michael Dukakis.
Though there is nothing more entertaining than watching the pundits pretend they weren't pimping Guiliani and calling Huckabee a dead candidate. Whoops. Wrong on both counts.
Though there is nothing more entertaining than watching the pundits pretend they weren't pimping Guiliani and calling Huckabee a dead candidate. Whoops. Wrong on both counts.
Neither Obama nor Huckabee have been really tested by sustained attack ads. BTW, we are still early in the nomination process by traditional standards and we still face an unusual primary schedule. The margins in both caucuses were slight. This thing is still a race and NH won't change that. Wait till the bloodsport starts in earnest.
I called it for Clinton/Guiliani like 4 mos ago on a bet w/ great odds. Still would, but the odds aren't so good anymore. Would love to see Edwards/Thompson.
I called it for Clinton/Guiliani like 4 mos ago on a bet w/ great odds. Still would, but the odds aren't so good anymore. Would love to see Edwards/Thompson.
# posted by : 3:42 PM
: 3:42 PM
Joe,
I agree that neither Huckabee or Obama have been seriously tested by negative ads yet. But I think thats a bigger problem for Huckabee than Obama.
The reason is momentum. Obama seems to have gotten a lot more momentum out of his Iowa win than Huckabee has. Clinton has tried to go negative against Obama with little effect, and the amount of momentum he has gained from Iowa and will get from New Hampshire (assuming he wins) will be extremely hard to blunt, especially since a win in NH would all but guarantee that he wins in South Carolina. I'm not sure that Clinton or Edwards going hard negative all of a sudden is going to be able to blunt that, especially given how much money Obama has to counter such an attempt.
Huckabee, on the other hand, doesn't have that advantage. Huckabee has gotten considerably less momentum out of his Iowa win (in large part due to the size of the field on the GOP side). It doesn't help him at all that New Hampshire is not a state where his message and background are going to resonate with voters. I agree with your assessment about negative ads when it comes to him. In fact that was sort of born out in Iowa where he did lose points in the polling after Romney went negative on him (just too little, too late).
I would certainly not rule out Hillary. She's got tons of money and institutional support, but she's going to face some incredible hurdles.
Rudy, on the other hand, is toast. Stick a fork in him, he's done....and I couldn't be happier.
Post a Comment
I agree that neither Huckabee or Obama have been seriously tested by negative ads yet. But I think thats a bigger problem for Huckabee than Obama.
The reason is momentum. Obama seems to have gotten a lot more momentum out of his Iowa win than Huckabee has. Clinton has tried to go negative against Obama with little effect, and the amount of momentum he has gained from Iowa and will get from New Hampshire (assuming he wins) will be extremely hard to blunt, especially since a win in NH would all but guarantee that he wins in South Carolina. I'm not sure that Clinton or Edwards going hard negative all of a sudden is going to be able to blunt that, especially given how much money Obama has to counter such an attempt.
Huckabee, on the other hand, doesn't have that advantage. Huckabee has gotten considerably less momentum out of his Iowa win (in large part due to the size of the field on the GOP side). It doesn't help him at all that New Hampshire is not a state where his message and background are going to resonate with voters. I agree with your assessment about negative ads when it comes to him. In fact that was sort of born out in Iowa where he did lose points in the polling after Romney went negative on him (just too little, too late).
I would certainly not rule out Hillary. She's got tons of money and institutional support, but she's going to face some incredible hurdles.
Rudy, on the other hand, is toast. Stick a fork in him, he's done....and I couldn't be happier.
<< Home
