Slog - Comments on Iowa Caucus Reality Check

Comment by Mike of Renton

Mike of Renton — Thu, 03 Jan 2008 18:43:33 -0800

I have to point out that in this election, what happened in those elections doesn't mean shit.

Comment by unPC

unPC — Thu, 03 Jan 2008 19:05:29 -0800

Yes. Stop using facts to try to "learn" from history. Better to ignore it......

Comment by Fonky

Fonky — Thu, 03 Jan 2008 19:26:39 -0800

This win for Obama is likely going to mean more to his campaign than any primary or caucus win in history. After all: we're going to see 24-hour campaign coverage with constant reminders that Obama slaughtered in Iowa. The winner-complex of most American voters is likely to drive shitloads of voters into Obama's waiting arms.

Comment by left coast

left coast — Thu, 03 Jan 2008 19:28:12 -0800

Could we get a correction on those 2004 items? I believe Kerry 'lost' that year, and Bush/Cheney/Turdfuckhead completely corrupted the electoral process in, and stole, Ohio. Where is Turdfuckhead and what is he plotting?

Comment by postergirl

postergirl — Thu, 03 Jan 2008 19:31:59 -0800

Why do you think they all tried so hard to win then? A win is a win. If Hill would've won it she would have seemed unbeatable. Now she's got a fight on her hands. If Edwards would've won it he would've been a contender. But he didn't and now he's finished. This was an important win for the Big O.

Comment by tiptoe tommy

tiptoe tommy — Thu, 03 Jan 2008 20:03:40 -0800

The real point is viability. You don't need to win Iowa or NH. But you need to finish strong in either because the field will winnow down to about three almost immediately after NH.

The good news for us here is that our caucuses might mean something. Round One is Iowa--winners are Obama and Clinton. Edwards is wounded a bit, but is clearly in the top three. Round Two is New Hampshire. Expect the same three on top there. Everyone else is done and should fold shortly thereafter. South Carolina is Round Three and Edwards and Clinton should do well there. Guess which state is part of Round Four?

Comment by catalina vel-duray

catalina vel-duray — Thu, 03 Jan 2008 20:13:05 -0800

Dan, are you sure you have the GOP numbers correct? I'm pretty sure Pat Buchanan won one year.

Also, you can't really blame Iowans for picking Tom Harkin. He's been a senator forever, and people love him - even in the idiotic western part of the state.

Personally, I couldn't be more pleased that the huckster one. America may call itself a Christian nation, and may like to go to church, but they also want to be left alone to look at their porn and scratch their ass. They don't want no preachers nosing around.

Comment by Gitai

Gitai — Thu, 03 Jan 2008 20:42:34 -0800

Yeah, but in almost all of those elections, there wasn't the ability to make a donation instantly online, and there were a couple of weeks between Iowa and New Hampshire, instead of five days. I feel sorry for all the reporters on the campaign. After the last week of hell, they have five more painful, sleepless, restless days of campaigning before they get to run to SC.

Comment by gnossos

gnossos — Thu, 03 Jan 2008 21:38:33 -0800

Hell, most of the major candidates have morning events in NH tomorrow. This means they, their staff, and those poor reporters are airborne right now.

Comment by w7ngman

w7ngman — Thu, 03 Jan 2008 22:08:11 -0800

Ok, first, saying someone hacked a wiki is giving them way too much credit.

Anyway..

I liked the joke about Clinton running unopposed in 1996, then I realized they were talking about the primray and not the general.

Comment by glen keenan

glen keenan — Thu, 03 Jan 2008 23:00:44 -0800

i'm from iowa--& harkin is/was iowa's favorite son, & he would've made an excellent pres. i voted very much liked & voted for bill clinton for pres--but let's admit it, if harkin had become pres, he wouldn't have gotten a blowjob in the oval office. it was this blowjob & subsequent witchhunt & impeachment which helped cause bush jr to get elected, thus causing the huge mess that we're in!!

Comment by keshmeshi

keshmeshi — Thu, 03 Jan 2008 23:05:03 -0800

Also, you can't really blame Iowans for picking Tom Harkin. He's been a senator forever, and people love him - even in the idiotic western part of the state.

Yeah, and of course he won. He's from Iowa. My understanding, even though I was a wee preteen at the time, was that Clinton didn't even bother with Iowa. Harkin had it in the bag.

Comment by H..no in08

H..no in08 — Tue, 08 Jan 2008 20:24:26 -0800

Look out people. Obama is the antichrist!!