Slog: News & Arts

RSS icon Comments on Your Iowa Predictions?

1

R's:
Fuckabee 31
Mitton 21
John McPOW 20

D's
Edwards 29
Obama 28
Clinton 28

Posted by postergirl | December 30, 2007 4:32 PM
2

Sandeep's like some kind of genius. I'm going with what he said.

Posted by elenchos | December 30, 2007 4:33 PM
3

D's
Gore 32
Edwards 24
Obama 23
Clinton 21

Keep in mind, it's an unscientific guess.

Posted by John | December 30, 2007 4:44 PM
4

Edwards 38, Obama 30, Clinton 27

Posted by lorax | December 30, 2007 5:01 PM
5

Democrats: Edwards wins on second choices, but not by enough to compete with Clinton in NH.
Edwards 30
Clinton 28
Obama 25
Biden 7
Richardson 6
Others 4

Republicans: Folksy douchebag edges sleazy douchebag, better candidates lag behind.
Huckabee 29
Romney 27
McCain 14
Paul 10
Giuliani 9
Thompson 8
Others 3

Posted by TMW | December 30, 2007 5:11 PM
6

Obama's crowds are two to three times larger than Edwards'. The rallies this past Friday are a good example. Obama had between 800-1000 packed into the River Center. Edwards had 300 over at the Putnam Museum.

Whether Obama can convert those crowds into delegates on caucus night is anyone's guess. Edwards, Obama, and Clinton are close to GOTV parity.

I think at the end of the day it will be a dead heat with a two person race in NH 5 days later.

Obama - 32
Edwards - 30
Clinton - 29

Romney has been whacking Huckabee for a few weeks now. McCain is actually campaigning in the state again. That said here are my GOP predictions.

Romney - 30
Huckabee - 29
McCain - 15

Posted by Iowan | December 30, 2007 5:37 PM
7

Knowing my native state, the most reactionary republican will win (Iowa Republicans are idiots) and the folksiest Dem will win.

So I predict Huckabee's on the Moron side, and Edwards for the normal people.

God, I miss the Caucus. My Dad used to take me when I was a little kid. My folks even hosted a few.

Posted by catalina vel-duray | December 30, 2007 6:18 PM
8

When it comes to folksy, you just can't beat John Kerry.

Posted by Ryno | December 30, 2007 7:54 PM
9

OK, so he wasn't folksy. But he was good at speechifying. Iowans love big words.

Besides, everybody thought Dean was going to win. I blame the Skull & Bones.

Posted by catalina vel-duray | December 30, 2007 8:10 PM
10

This just in: Richardson surging in Iowa!
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/12/30/18198/370

Posted by RonK, Seattle | December 30, 2007 8:29 PM
11

Iowan @6, Dean drew huge crowds right up until the caucus day disaster in '04. It means exactly zero. That said, Edwards is very well positioned, and TMW's got it wrong - Obama has the second choicers fairly well in hand. I say:

Edwards: 31
Obama: 25 (if his folks turn out, he could rout, but they'll only turn out enough to be close)
Clinton: 24
The rest: Whatevs

For the R's:

Romney: 27
Huckabee: 24
McCain: 19
Thompson: 12
Giuliani: 8
Paul: 6
The rest: Whatevs

Bonus Ron Paul prediction: Iowa will be the beginning of a 2 month long paroxysm from the Paultards (a la Kucinichizens in '04) that they wuz robbed and the media (or some other cabal of "insiders") is hiding the truth of his widespread support. This will continue well into the 2012 campaign.

I hate disagreeing with Sandeep even a little. Do better predictions, Sandeep!

Posted by switzerblog | December 30, 2007 8:32 PM
12

switzerblog @11:

Iowan @6, Dean drew huge crowds right up until the caucus day disaster in '04. It means exactly zero.

For point of comparison, isn't it true that Obama has a far superior Iowa organization to Dean's in 2004? If that is indeed the case, Obama has a far better chance of translating the huge crowds into actual caucus-goers.

Signed,
The audacity of prognostication

Posted by cressona | December 30, 2007 8:47 PM
13

Even with organization, no one ever wins relying on the youth vote.
Just sayin'....as I say every four years.....

Signed,

Posted by Cassandra | December 30, 2007 8:57 PM
14

Obama - 29
Edwards - 27
Clinton - 26

Huckabee - 31
Romney - 24
McCain - 18
Paul - 8 - he'll get 14 in N.H. but then it's all downhill.

Posted by midwaypete | December 30, 2007 9:38 PM
15

What can I say that has not already been said: "Sandeep is a genius."


Posted by Jenny Durkan | December 30, 2007 10:06 PM
16

Obama: 40%

Posted by Aexia | December 30, 2007 10:42 PM
17

Dems:

Edwards 38%
Obama 25%
Clinton 22%

This will tighten the race in New Hampshire. Dodd drops out and endorses Clinton.

Reps:

Huckabee 23%
Romney 23%
McCain 19%
Paul 17%

The result will be inconclusive. Republicans will look at McCain as the "cure" for Pual.

Posted by Zander | December 30, 2007 10:48 PM
18

Huckabee has surged because the R's cannot get excited about Romney, both for his history (he's a johnny-come-lately on most conservative issues) and because of his mormonism. They've started moving back toward Romney because, well, Huckabee is a nut. But, in the end, Huckabee is their nut, and I just can't see Iowan's getting excited about voting for a Mormon. They may stay home if they don't like their choices.

Huckabee 29
Romney 24
McCain 18

On the D side? Who knows. Suddenly it's a race. I think GOTV wins this one, and I give the organizational experience to the Clinton team.

Posted by Timothy | December 30, 2007 11:00 PM
19

"and TMW's got it wrong - Obama has the second choicers fairly well in hand." - switzerblog

Nah, I've seen several polls that all show Edwards leading second choice voters -- more importantly, he's leading big amongst second choicers from the lower candidates (i.e. the ones more likely to have to go to their second choice). I recall a recent Insider Advantage poll that had Edwards winning 42% of second-choicers, ahead of both Obama and Clinton by a good 14-15 points. He's carried a lot of goodwill there from his 2004 second place finish, and I think that's what is at the root of his support amongst these voters.

Of course, if Edwards loses Iowa he's done for. Obama might be able to still play in New Hampshire after losing Iowa, but if so he had better lose to Edwards and not Hillary. Hillary's good as gold if she takes Iowa.

Posted by TMW | December 30, 2007 11:01 PM
20

Dems:

Obama: 28
Clinton: 27
Edwards: 23
Biden: 8
Richardson: 4

Repubs:

Huckabee: 31
Romney: 28
McCain: 18
Giuliani: 9
Paul: 4

I just don't think Edwards will pull more than 3rd. He might be polling high, I think that Obama has more support, and even Clinton will do better than him.

I hate to say it but fuckabee seems to be gaining the most ground and that scares the fuck outta me.

Posted by Original Monique | December 30, 2007 11:27 PM
21

Repubs: actually, no one cares what they get. But Mitt Romney won't get 1st and McCain may get 3rd.

Dems: Dodd or Biden considered on an up trend. :

Obama 28
Clinton 27
Edwards 24

Posted by Will in Seattle | December 31, 2007 1:52 AM
22

Cognitive dissonance experiment:

how many folks are picking someone to win, whom they are not for?

(apol. to W. C. for that dangler up with which am happy to put).

Posted by unPC | December 31, 2007 6:26 AM
23

I recently moved back to Iowa from Seattle and saw Obama last night. It isn't just the size of his crowds that matter, it's him. He's clearly found his voice over the last 10 months in Iowa and its compelling. He's engaging his crowds better than even Bill Clinton right now (I saw Clinton on Thursday). I've never seen anyone both be so at ease and personable and also be able to get a crowd so riled. Obama is going to pull this off folks. And in a state that is less than 5% African American.

Obama will win by at least 5. It won't matter whether Edwards or Hillary finishes second, as this will effectively kill Edwards campaign and Hillary will either survive 2nd or 3rd to fight on. But Iowa will serve up a race between Obama and Hillary for the rest of you to decide. Don't blow it.

Posted by Mike Keller | December 31, 2007 7:05 AM
24

Clinton v. McCain

Posted by RHETT ORACLE | December 31, 2007 10:16 AM
25

My "Edwards wins cleanly" prediction will probably turn out to be embarrassingly off base (certainly wouldn't be the first time I've made an ass of myself), but here is the logic behind it:

On the Democratic side in Iowa, many of the polls right now are showing a three-way dead heat between Edwards, Clinton and Obama, although Obama appears to be slipping a bit and Edwards gaining ground (Clinton's numbers also appear to have risen a bit recently at Obama's expense, and she still leads slightly in some polls). That late momentum, both positive and negative, tends to get magnified in the last few days before the caucus as large numbers of caucusgoers make their final decisions. So if the recent trend holds that helps both Edwards and Clinton and hurts Obama.

More significant, though, is that the polling may be masking some Edwards advantages. The results that get reported on caucus night are based on the number of delegates each candidate wins rather than a raw tally of the number of people that caucus for each. And, as I understand it, the delegate allocation process has some distortions built into it that favor the less populous rural counties where Edwards is supposedly strong. Thus, for example, Edwards could win a precinct in rural western Iowa where 30 people turn up to caucus, and Obama could win a precinct in Des Moines where 60 people turn out, yet both could garner the same number of delegates (this bias helped Edwards and hurt Dean in 2004). What matters is not just how many people you turn out, but where you turn them out. If Edwards is as strong as has been reported in the rural counties, and all three candidates turn out the same number of supporters overall, he'll likely win.

The other big factor is the second choice issue. Caucus participants whose first choice candidate does not reach the viability threshhold in the initial round of the caucus move on to their second choice. As TMW pointed out above, the recent polling indicates that Edwards is the most common second choice of likely caucusgoers (and very few non-Clinton voters pick her as their second choice). That means Edwards could end up with a significant chunk of the support that the polls show going to second tier candidates like Biden, Richardson and Dodd.

Taken together, these factors -- last minute momentum, rural strength, and strong second choice support -- seem to point to a possible Edwards win on caucus night. Then again, the situation is so volatile that it could change completely over the next three days. Momentum could shift again, the polls that show Clinton farther ahead could turn out to be more accurate than the ones showing a tight race, turnout could be higher than expected (which helps Obama and, to a lesser extent, Clinton), Edwards' purported rural strength could turn out to be more hype than reality, etc. etc.

But right now, anyway, there is a plausible argument to be made that Edwards has a better-than-expected chance of winning Iowa. Remember, he did significantly better than expected in 2004. The day-of Jan. 19 caucus entrance poll in 2004 had him at 26 percent support; he finished at 32 percent. To be fair, probably about half of that six point discrepancy was due to Kucinich supporters caucusing for Edwards after the two men cut a last minute deal, but that still means that Edwards did three or four points better than the final pre-caucus polling indicated.

Anyway, if Edwards does win by, say, five points or more I think his campaign is right that he will get a major slingshot effect going into New Hampshire, and would immediately surge into the lead there (the national press, which clearly despises his harder-edged anti-corporate, anti-DC populism, would then go after him hard, but they only get five days to try to pull him back down to earth). Conversely, for Edwards even a close second is probably not good enough, given his relative paucity of resources and the media's intense (and journalistically dubious) fixation on Clinton v. Obama. Bottom line: he needs to win Iowa to have any realistic chance of getting the nomination. I am half-convinced that he will. We'll find out soon enough if he does, I guess.

Posted by Sandeep Kaushik | December 31, 2007 11:29 AM
26

No, I understand your logic, but I think you're misreading the fire in the belly aspect, Sandeep.

Posted by Will in Seattle | December 31, 2007 11:53 AM
27

No love for Hillary? She has by 100 people (Hill 400, Obama 300, Edwards 2-something) the largest paid staff organization in Iowa, which doesn't mean much as a standalone fact, but it does put her campaign in a great position organizationally to mop up many of the 2nd choice voters.

Plus, for the few who were paying attention, Hillary had the best and, dare I say, most Presidential response to Bhutto's assassination. I'm betting that when it comes time to vote, Iowans will go for experience.

35 Hillary
27 Obama
22 Edwards


Posted by vault | December 31, 2007 11:57 AM
28

@12

Dean's crowds were not as big as Obama's in Iowa. I supported Dean, and his crowds were small compared to Obama's. Dean did draw big crowds in other parts of the country though. How can we forget the 10,000 or so folks that packed Westlake Center?

Obama's field operation is much better than Dean's ever was. But then again, each of the three major candidates has a good operation. Dean basically had no organized campaign until the very end when his orange hatted army of college kids came to town for his "Perfect Storm." Dean's campaign also started imploding with dredged up clips of him criticizing the caucus process and his bone headed comments about the capture of S. Hussein. For what it's worth Joe Trippi was Dean's mastermind, and Joe Trippi is Edwards' primary consultant this time around.

Posted by Iowan | December 31, 2007 11:57 AM
29

TMW and Sandeep have corrected me on the second choice results - I wasn't accounting for the recent change in Edwards' fortunes, which have also had an effect on the second choice polling.

Iowan, you are right that Obama's organization is much better than Dean's (a local boy and good friend is running things in Council Bluffs, in fact). However, he's still depending on new caucus goers and young folks, and that's dangerous at best. BTW, I was one of the orange hatted army, but I assure you we weren't all college students! I came into Des Moines for the last week leading up to the caucus, and we were, um...a grey-haired bunch. :-)

I actually see Trippi as a liability for Edwards if he's actually involved in field stuff (which I don't think he is) - he was responsible for the mess Dean ran in Iowa. A genius in many ways, but woefully uninterested in others.

I'll reiterate what I said before - if Obama's crowds show up and know how to caucus (a big if on both counts), he wins in a rout. If they don't show or they're unsure of themselves, they'll be eaten alive by Clinton and Edwards.

Posted by switzerblog | December 31, 2007 12:55 PM
30

Edwards wins the "most recognizable white guy" award, aka the Iowa caucuses.

Posted by duh | December 31, 2007 12:55 PM
31

Man, this is interesting! I envy Eli being able to go there tomorrow and I love the fact he'll be there after the game to get all post-mortem in the cornfields!

Thanks to Sandeep -- and especially the Iowans! -- for weighing in with their opinions and insights.

Normally, I'd say that an effective on-the-ground operation would carry the day (Clinton), but the better-aspect-of-our-natures vibe around Obama seems like it could really translate into votes.

That said, @30's point is one I, too, cannot get out of my head. I'm simply not sure I've seen enough of a culture shift in the USA for me to honestly believe an African-American or a woman can win the office of president, even when people say they are starved for change.

The good news is, over the next couple weeks, we'll find out.

Totally whiffing it here, more'n likely, but here's my best guess:

Edwards: 32
Clinton: 28
Obama: 24

Posted by Jubilation T. Cornball | December 31, 2007 1:21 PM
32

Iowa gave us "electable" Kerry. I expect them to give us "electable" Edwards.

Posted by keshmeshi | December 31, 2007 1:27 PM
33

Well, keshmeshi, there's still time to draft Gore then ...

Posted by Will in Seattle | December 31, 2007 1:58 PM
34

Some thoughts from an Iowan (god, I love the caucuses!)...

First, the Des Moines Register releases its final poll at midnight tonight. A lot of people consider that to be THE definitive poll.

Second, to Sandeep's argument @25 about the urban/rural split and Edwards, it's true that such distortion exists. However, Edwards benefitted A LOT from getting the Register's Democratic endorsement in 2004--that probably helped him far more than the delegate allocation distortions.

Third, weather is supposed to be pretty good on Thursday. That should help turnout. The big unknown is, how many first-time caucusgoers will actually show up on Thursday night? Remember, the Orange Bowl is on, caucusing takes up an evening, and perhaps most importantly, almost every single college in the state will still be out of session on the 3rd. That could hurt the Obama campaign in particular.

Fourth, the second-choice issue is so intriguing, and I'm surprised that candidates don't do more to overtly attract second-choices. I tend to think that the Kucinich people will likely go Obama or Edwards (part of the whole "change" message) and that Dodd and Biden people will likely go Hillary (part of the whole "experience" message). The Richadson people could be the deciding factor. Rumor is that Richardson really wants to be Hillary's VP, so he might try to direct his people in that direction.

Incidentally, I teach political science at a college here in Iowa, and explained how caucuses work to my students earlier this month. Their collective reaction? That this system is bat-shit crazy.

Posted by jaywhy | December 31, 2007 2:04 PM
35

Just back from Iowa and saw Obama and Hillary doing their campaing thing. There's no question who's a better speaker--Obama by a long shot--or who has bigger more enthusiastic crowds--again, Obama. Friends who saw Edwards said it was incredibly dull, and he is undeniably Breck Girl still. But it does all come down to organization (and who gets the kiss of death Register endorsement. That shit always means 2nd place, Hillary!). That said, Obama's organization seemed incredibly, uh, organized--precinct captains identified, phone numbers handed out diligently, and repetition repetion repetition of where to go and how to do it. And also a big emphasis on second choice being okay. Unfortunately, there was also quite a bit of confusion about whether or not Obama was a Muslim. As I've been told, if the unpolled folks who only use cell phones caucus, Obama wins by a landslide. If they don't, Edwards and Hillary split the pot.

Posted by Travis | December 31, 2007 2:07 PM
36

I think talking about politics and polls is next to worthless.

Iowa on the other hand throws a kick-ass state fair! I saw the world's largest sow, saw a guy anally wipe the asshole of a prize horse after it crapped, signed a mini-van sized postcard to the troops in Wimp Factor Bush Sr.s ongong CIA stormwar, attended and participated in a hatchet throwing demo, and....hmmmm, that's about. best of all, I LEFT!

Iowa is also home to the once great Frat Boy sports bar band DR. NO. They do an excellent version of Neil Young's "why do I keep Fucking Up?" Has inspired a cover version for the next and "last" Gr.Klueless practice, of the post '94 suicide "PIECE OF CRAP!"

Posted by BEE Sleeps with Angels | December 31, 2007 2:21 PM
37

Democrats:

Clinton -- 36%
Edwards -- 32%
Obama -- 22%

Republicans

Huckabee -- 32%
Romney -- 29%
McCain -- 18%
Giuliani -- 10%
Paul -- 5%

Any way you look at it, though, this is an incredibly undemocratic system, and the people that get nominated are going, at best, to make for a "least of two evils" kind of decision.

Posted by bma | December 31, 2007 2:35 PM
38

Democrats
Gravel 0
Kucinich 1
Dodd 1

Republicans
Keyes 0
Koenig 0
Smith 0

Posted by cochise. | December 31, 2007 2:39 PM
39

Maybe, b,ma, but given the choice between two evils, I always choose the one I haven't tried before. Ba-dum-bum (with apologies to Mae West).

Posted by Jubilation T. Cornball | December 31, 2007 2:39 PM
40

Democrats:

Clinton -- 45%
Edwards -- 55%
Osama -- (Negative) 87%

Republicans

Fuckabee -- (Negative) 5%
Romney -- (Negative)29%
McCain -- 38%
Giuliani -- 62%
Paul -- 0%

Osama Obama is a giant QUEEFING DOUCHE BAG!

Posted by kjsdk;jsdhg | December 31, 2007 2:42 PM
41

Congrats, Eli -- you got us all the way to 40 posts before a Slogger came in and lost bowel control.

Ahh, well, just have the Public Intern mop it up, and we now return to our regularly scheduled SANE programming.

Posted by Jubilation T. Cornball | December 31, 2007 2:46 PM
42

Well, I hope to god we don't have another republican president, at least for a few years.

But honestly, I still don't see the US as "ready" or "willing" to have either a woman or an ethnic minority as president. I know either one of them could do the job admirably...I just don't see Joe-Six-Pack-Nascar-Man voting for either one. And that's too bad--because the republicants will be able to sneak up on a divided democratic party and take over the lead.

Welcome to another 4 years of Bush protegee.

Posted by Wolf | December 31, 2007 3:06 PM
43

Sandeep's prediction seems right from my distant vantage point here in Seattle. I think Obama could fizzle in Iowa but come back later. Edwards could win here and fizzle in later primaries. I do predict it will all be over before the Washington State caucuses.

Posted by Jim Demetre | December 31, 2007 3:10 PM
44

Clinton 31%
Edwards 27%
Obama 23%

I'm giving up on percentages after this, but here's your order:

Dodd
Kucinich
Richardson
Undecided
Biden
Gravel

Posted by Carl Ballard | December 31, 2007 3:50 PM
45

Sandeep and Switzer,

Doesn't this bring back memories? I also was one of those orange-hatters and hardly was a college student-although not quite grey. Both of you give the right synopsis of the game in Iowa so no need to repeat here except for one omission-Clinton has the Vilsack team.

Kerry came from behind because of organization, the Vilsack team, and the old-party establishment element, all of which favor Clinton in this. It is hard to say if Edwards or Clinton have more momentum at this point, but it is clear that Obama does not. I give it to Hillary especially with her recently frequent trips into the rural areas.

Hillary 31
Edwards 29
Obama 27

Posted by Greg Rodriguez | December 31, 2007 3:53 PM
46

Look, front page of the Wall Street Journal today has a few articles that point out the cold hard anti-GOP truth.

First: Democratic Voters' Fervor Stirs Republican Worries (above the fold, in a box) - basically points out the very obvious energy gap in all the GOP campaigns and the willingness of all the Dems to rip the guts out of all the GOPers.

Second: an article on how even the most pro-GOP companies are giving to the Dems and the Dem governors, which basically translates into a 6-8 foot Blue Wave that will make 2006's 2 foot Blue Wave look like a "surge".

Doesn't matter which of the evolution-denying combat-avoiding anti-Middle Class GOPers "wins" - they've had the oxygen sucked out of the room and are going on their meth-induced fumes.

We're talking slaughtered.

Even the pro-GOP WaPo points out that in N.H. more than 85 percent of the independents refuse to even consider voting for a Repub.

You can take that to the polls and spin it however you want, but those are the real facts on the ground.

Posted by Will in Seattle | December 31, 2007 4:06 PM
47

@29
I think the press has fanned two misconceptions - which may or may not be misconceptions come Thursday. First, that like 2004, Edwards will close strong and this time win it. The second, Obama is depending heavily on college age caucus goers and new caucus goers. In both cases, I think they are manufactured story lines with some foundation in truth. For Edwards, I am sure his camp thinks they closed strong last time they can close strong this time, but win. However, the dynamics are considerably different. Last time, you had Dean imploding and Gephardt whacking Dean all over the place. It created a perfect opportunity for Edwards, the sunny optimist, and Kerry, the electable one, to move into the first and second place on caucus night. I don't see those dynamics this time. If anything, Edwards populist fire breathing is a turn off. I heard Edwards a few times over the summer and he isn't the same candidate. His anti-lobbyist/corporate screed seems artificial given his hedge fund history and help from 527's. Iowan's don't like being told by outside groups and volunteers from other states what to do. Edwards late campaign reliance on union volunteers from other states and 527 funded advertising resembles the late influx of Dean volunteers from around the country.

As for Obama, The rallies I have attended are not overflowing with naive college kids, but they are overflowing with a broad cross section of Iowans. I think the college kid story line is born out of the Dean debacle and the Obama campaign's push to have college kids caucus for him in their hometown and not at their college town. This doesn't smack of a starry eyed belief that the youth vote will put Obama over the top. It is, however, an argument and an approach from a campaign that understands caucus math and understands that a few people can turn a precinct caucus.

Posted by Iowan | December 31, 2007 4:10 PM
48

Edwards - 32
Clinton - 28
Obama - 24

turn out is key, not crowds, plus Edwards being 2d choice....

Romney
Huckabee
McCain

The McCain, Rudy everyone wins a few, GOP goes on to brokered convention.
Democrats: HRC and Obama duke it out, each wants Edwards' block to get over top asap, Edwards likely for VP. He has to make a deal for that, if behind. Biden for state. Del. too small for Biden to be VP. Preemptively give Bloomberg treasury. Webb for defense if he'll take it.

Hopefully promote Lieberman 1/21/09 to classy position like Ambassador to UN, to get him the hell out of the Senate.

Posted by Cleve | December 31, 2007 6:47 PM
49

The final DSM Register poll is up:

Obama - 32
Clinton - 25
Edwards - 24

Posted by Iowan | December 31, 2007 7:26 PM
50

Romney
Huckabee
McCain

Clinton
Edwards
Obama

Kevin

Posted by Kevin C | December 31, 2007 7:28 PM
51

Better spot for Joe would be the Court of St. James - he could spend four or eight years pissing off the Brits and sad truth is they'd think he was one of their own. Connecticut residents must be having serious second thoughts.

Posted by chas Redmond | December 31, 2007 7:32 PM
52

Make that the Court of St. James's.

Posted by chas Redmond | December 31, 2007 7:33 PM
53

And for the DMR Poll for the repubs:

Huckabee: 32
Romney: 26
McCain: 13

Posted by Timothy | December 31, 2007 8:07 PM
54

Greg Rodriguez @ 45, care to revise and extend your remarks? "It is hard to say if Edwards or Clinton have more momentum at this point, but it is clear that Obama does not."

Posted by Trey | January 1, 2008 11:27 AM
55

@52:

Nice catch on the apostrophe.

Are you a fan of "e e Cummings"?

Posted by unPC | January 1, 2008 12:39 PM
56

Trey @ 54, No need to revise. If you are relying on the Des Moines Register poll to suggest that Obama is up, even the pro-Obama MSNBC discounts the poll's methodology:

"That said, the Clinton and Edwards campaigns are taking issue with the survey, and we’d do the same thing if we were in their shoes. In the poll, a “whopping” 40% identified themselves as independents and another 5% said they were Republicans. Polling the Iowa caucuses has always been difficult, because it’s hard gauge who, exactly, will turn out. The Register, however, has always been considered the “gold standard” of Iowa polls, and it got it right in 2004. But this time, the Register’s pollster is definitely betting on the Obama turnout model. Do note that Yepsen (Des Moines Register) seems a bit skeptical about the numbers."

Posted by Greg Rodriguez | January 1, 2008 1:32 PM
57

Why does Iowa get to determine who stays and who goes? Everyone just rolls over and let's this silly process happen. Who the crap is Iowa?

Posted by Sargon Bighorn | January 1, 2008 1:40 PM
58

That was the gist of a national poll done by the Washington Post today, SB @57. People are tired of the Iowa/NH influence, as well as the 18th Century Electoral College (aka The Method To Elect Elites).

Posted by Will in Seattle | January 1, 2008 3:04 PM
59

I predict Obama ahead of Clinton by 1-2%, with Edwards in 3rd, then Biden, Richardson in that order. On the Repub side, I'd say Romney gets ahead by less than 5% above Huckabee.

I think Obama will be able to ride the momentum from his slim lead all the way to the big day, decking it out with Clinton, who will then "freakishly" take the nomination in a total sweep on Super Tuesday. It'll be a nail-biting good time, with McCain and Giuliani duking it out for the Republican nomination at the very. last. minute. And, I don't know, I kind of have this funny feeling we're going to see a Clinton v. McCain contest, come November.

I won't put money on it, though.

Posted by kim | January 2, 2008 7:36 AM
60

Bareback Obama is a giant QUEEFING DOUCHE BAG! That said...

Democrats:

Clinton -- 42%
Edwards -- 45%
Osama -- Who cares!

Republicans

Fuckabee -- 21
Romney -- 31
McCain -- 18%
Giuliani -- 30%
Paul -- 0%

Posted by IMAdrgQ | January 2, 2008 10:26 AM
61

Clinton: 32%
Obama: 28%
Edwards: 25%

All this talk of a great push of "change" voters showing up at the IA caucuses won't happen. I did caucuses in MN from 1988-2000, and young people don't go to caucuses, period. I was *always* the youngest guy in the room (except for a non-voting high school student or two writing a civics paper) up to and including when I was 32 years old.

Who shows up? Mostly older professionals with a burning issue or two (civil rights, abortion, etc.) The anti-war folks won't vote for Hills, but the economically-centrist oldsters will carry her to victory.

Fuckabee: 29%
Romney: 25%
McCain: 16%

McCain will do better than expected for the same reason. He's a grownup.

The stories will be the freefall of the Edwards and Romney campaigns, and the resurgence of McCain.

Posted by Big Sven | January 2, 2008 12:20 PM
62

My prediction - Edwards takes the other two out tomorrow. It's our best hope for this country so I'm really hoping it happens. Will you all be out at the caucas parties tomorrow?

Posted by Call me a snot | January 2, 2008 12:38 PM
63

As someone who spent the better part of last year in the state, I agree with the Des Moines Register, that Obama will come out on top, Followed by Hillary, then Edwards. To follow up on Big Sven's comments about young people not showing up, I really think things are different this year. Obama's campaign is highly organized, and everybody knows where to go, and what to do, and when to do it. The national media attention has only helped to energize his base. Not to mention that many people in camp aren't necessarily young people either.

I could might eat my words tomorrow, but I doubt it. I have many friends personally involved in his campaign there. We are all in our 30's, for what it's worth.

Posted by Obama FTW | January 2, 2008 12:49 PM
64

I'm with Kaushik. I'm prepared to have my mind blown tomorrow afternoon. I have a sneaking suspicion that Obama's young supporters overpoll a bit. I'll be conservative and trust the numbers. With a few adjustments, I'll go with:

Clinton 32%
Edwards 28%
Obama 27%

GOP is murky as hell too. My chips are at:

Romney 29%
Huckabee 26%
McCain 23%
Giuliani 8%
Paul 8%

At least my GOP numbers ended up close to Sandeep's. We'll see tomorrow.

Posted by Benjamin Johnsone-Anderson | January 2, 2008 3:45 PM
65

true, this whole process and the electoral college are so antiquated. however, what is our option--a wholly computerized process? sounds logical, until you remember the dark implications of computerized voting...i don't think i need to remind anyone of what's happened in the last two elections vis a vis THAT technology. yes, this is all sort of ridiculous, but i trust it to deliver something resembling democracy.

Posted by ellarosa | January 3, 2008 2:59 PM
66

D's
Obama 30
Edwards 29
Clinton 25

R's:
Fuckabee 25
Mitton 24
John McCain 22

Posted by Mike of Renton | January 3, 2008 3:13 PM
67

2008 Democratic Iowa Presidential Caucus:

Hillary Clinton: 31%
John Edwards: 29%
Barack Obama: 26%
Joe Biden: 7%
Bill Richardson: 4%
Dennis Kucinich: 2%
Chris Dodd: 1%

2008 Republican Iowa Presidential Caucus:

Mike Huckabee: 27%
Mitt Romney: 23%
Ron Paul: 13%
John McCain: 12%
Fred Thompson: 12%
Rudy Giuliani: 8%
Duncan Hunter: 5

Posted by Max | January 3, 2008 3:15 PM
68

Bareback Obama is a giant QUEEFING DOUCHE BAG! That said...

Democrats:

Clinton -- 42%
Edwards -- 45%
Osama -- One Large Butt Plug!

Republicans

Fuckabee -- 21
Romney -- 31
McCain -- 18%
Giuliani -- 30%
Paul -- 0%

Posted by ardyaery | January 3, 2008 4:10 PM
69

In Iowa: Obama edges out Edwards with the second choice ballots, Hillary trails. Huckabee eeks out a victory over Romney. McCain comes in third followed by Paul. Thompson drops out, endorses McCain.

New Hampshire: Obama defeats Hillary and Edwards, McCain defeats Romney and Huckabee. Second tier candidates (Biden, Dodd, Richardson, etc.) evaporate quickly.

Nothing is settled until Super Tuesday. Romney, Giuliani, Edwards drop out. Hillary "suspends" campaign. Kucinich, Paul fight on. The final contest: Obama vs McCain.

Posted by Jim Demetre | January 3, 2008 4:45 PM
70

It's a stretch, but I'll go:

Obama -- 36%
Edwards -- 30%
Clinton -- 30%

And Hucakabee with at least 11% over Romney.

I know...crazy...

Posted by Jubilation T. Cornball | January 3, 2008 7:03 PM
71

Regardless of whether Obama is "depending on it" (and after reading @49, I'm not so sure he is) my prediction is:

The youth vote will put Obama over the top.

The oft-mentioned conventional wisdom in the media that young'uns don't come through couldn't be more off the money. By now it is well documented that the youth vote rose tremendously in 2004, by 9% among 18-29 year-olds and 11% among 18-24 year-olds. Says the report: "More than any other age group, youth voters led the way with the largest gains in turnout over 2000. The surge was especially large among the youngest voters, 18-24 year-olds." (Emphasis mine.) The '06 election showed comparable gains.

If upcoming- and recently-turned-voters are similarly enthusiastic, I think we can expect those numbers to grow. Young people love voting. Just ask the producers of American Idol.

Posted by TCBATL | January 3, 2008 8:10 PM
72

I will now admit my earlier predictions were too pessimistic. I had Obama 28,
Clinton 27, Edwards 24. And final results were Obama 38, Edwards 30, Clinton 29.

Wow.

It's going to be the year of the 6-8 foot Blue Wave. Or maybe a 10-12 foot. Regardless, it will make the 2 foot Blue Wave of 2006 look like a puddle.

Posted by Will in Seattle | January 3, 2008 10:01 PM
73

@72 -- I wanna believe it, too, Will, but there are Billions of bucks at stake for war profiteers and corporations, so unless Obama has some agreement with them, they are going to stop at nothing, via Rove and his teams, to "ratfuck" (to use the old Watergate-era term) Obama to the American people, who are about as gullible as... a weak former-playboy Governor from Texas.

Posted by Andy Niable | January 3, 2008 10:10 PM
74

Sorry, AN @73, but the Wall Street Journal says all the corporate money is flowing - in almost all industries - to Dems nationwide, especially Governors and State parties.

There is no oxygen in the Republicant room. It's been sucked out. And nothing will put it back in.

Posted by Will in Seattle | January 3, 2008 10:47 PM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 45 days old).