posted
Modern communications are surreal at times. Right after Dodd quit, his campaign sent me an email. They've sent me many emails ever since I sent Dodd a supportive email for his filibuster of the updated FISA bill. I hope that fight is not in vain.
quote: Dear Alan,
I count the past year of campaigning for the presidency as one of the most rewarding in a career of public service.
Unfortunately, I am withdrawing from that campaign tonight.
But there is no reason to hang our heads this evening -- only the opportunity to look towards a continuation of the work we started last January: ending the Iraq War, restoring the Constitution, and putting a Democrat in the White House.
I know a lot of you came to this email list through a shared desire to return our nation to one that respects the rule of law, and I want to make one thing clear to all of you:
The fight to restore the Constitution and stop retroactive immunity does not end with my Presidential campaign. FISA will come back in a few weeks and my pledge to filibuster ANY bill that includes retroactive immunity remains operative.
You've been an invaluable ally in the battle, and I'll need you to stick by my side despite tonight's caucus results.
So, one more time, thank you for all of your efforts throughout the course of this entire Presidential campaign.
We made a real difference in shaping the debate, and we'll continue to do so in the coming days, weeks and years.
I'll never forget you, and what we've fought for, together, over the past year.
posted
I am leaning more and more to the idea that Obama will be our next president.
quote: If Ron Paul is to have a chance in hell, it'll be to take third place or better in New Hampshire. They like spoilers there, and it's his best chance to capitalize on a quirky electorate. If not, he's done.
You are right. I have said I think Paul needs at least 5th in Iowa and 3rd in NH. Maybe I said 4th in NH.
At any rate I am really sad and disappointed. I was certain he would get 4th--and I hoped for 3rd. I am confused how Thompson beat him, genuinely confused. However I am glad he is in because it will dilute McCain's votes in NH.
This is not looking good for Mitt (who I like better then Giulianni). Obama vs Giulianni is my bet with Obama winning.
I still stand by my belief that the republicans are sunk if they don't elect Paul because his supporters won't easily rally around another candidate and that will tip the scale in favor of the democratic candidate. Plus the republicans have been a steaming pile of disappointment.
Paul is the only electable republican in the general election.
I better start handing out more CDs and DVDs to help Paul out in Utah. At least Paul got double digits.
Posts: 2445 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
"Hope is the bedrock of this nation, the belief that our destiny will not be written for us but by us, by all those men and women who are not content to settle for the world as it is but who have the courage to remake the world as it should be," he said. "That is what we started here in Iowa and that is the message we can now carry to New Hampshire and beyond."-- http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080104/ap_po/caucus_obama
posted
Mitt is doing just fine lem. He can take second place in every contest from now until HyperTuesday and still be fine. His major contest is February 5th and how well he does there. It's the de facto national primary, and he just has to survive until then. He has a good chance of taking New Hampshire still, he's still ahead in Nevada, and I think he'll come in at least second in South Carolina. It's not bad news for Romney, it's not good news, it just means he's still there. The biggest surprise other than Clinton's narrow third place finish I think is Thompson pulling out third place (assuming McCain can't pull it out). Everyone who was going to drop out anyway is dropping out still, but Iowa just kept Thompson alive for another week (until he gets smokedin New Hampshire).
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Icarus, your link sent me to a summary, not to Obama's speech, and I can't find a link to the speech from that page.
Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
To be fair, it was basically a tie for second and third, and third and fourth on the other side. Clinton and Edwards were like seven delegates apart on the small scale, barely a percentage point. Thompson and McCain were also basically a tie, with less than 500 votes separating them.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I wonder if there will be backlash against the candidates who take these early states. The primary timing has become such a hot issue in it's own right, I could see people basically saying "take that, Iowa and New Hampshire!" Though I hope it only costs Huckabee.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I wonder what Huckabee plus Chuck Norris would do if they ran. Maybe Chuck should be VP- just imagine how cool our country would be.
Posts: 980 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
This is a link Bob posted on Sakeriver. It doesn't work for some people, but I really like it. Giuliani wasn't expecting to do well, but... dang, man.
quote: I'll be a president ...who understands that 9/11 is not a way to scare up votes but a challenge that should unite America and the world against the common threats of the 21st century.
Well said. Take that you scare-monger, Guliani!
It's at about 6:00 in Obama's speech on you tube. I wish I had a full transcription. AP just had highlights, I did this last quote myself.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Shawshank: I wonder what Huckabee plus Chuck Norris would do if they ran. Maybe Chuck should be VP- just imagine how cool our country would be.
You know, except for having Huckabee as president.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I finally made it to the closing. I have to say, it was a magnificent speech, well-written and well-delivered. The best speech of the 2008 campaign, IMO. The 1/2 half was good, but the second half was fantastic. The big finish:
quote: Together, ordinary people can do extra-ordinary things. Because we are not a collection of red states and blue states, we are the United States of America, and in this moment, in this election, we are ready to believe again! Thank you, Iowa!
posted
I think I saw most of the speeches, except Romney's. Obama and Huckabee did really well, I think. I noticed that Edwards never conceded defeat.
I'm looking forward to seeing a photo Chuck Norris staring over Gov Huckabee's shoulder in tomorrow's Post
Two things:
1- McCain is fairly strong in NH. Would a victory there be significant? 2- Is this "no dirty politics" for real, or is it just a fad? Obama was probably the first, but it's slipped into everyone's speeches tonight.
posted
A McCain victory in New Hampshire would be huge for him. Right now the biggest thing I think hampering his campaign is a lack of viability. No one really thinks he can win so they are glomming onto more viable LOOKING candidates. If he wins New Hampshire, I think he gets a big boost, maybe enough to make him a real contender again.
No dirty politics? What do you consider dirty? A campaign run where you only champion yourself and never address your opponent is stupid. It's your job as a candidate to point out the differences between yourself and your opponents, especially their faults and what you think are their faults.
I think no dirty politics means they stay away from the personal character assasinations and blatently making crap up, but that doesn't mean you lay off entirely.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ba hahahahaha! I just noticed how badly Giuliani did, 3% to Paul's 10%. I knew Paul had been going up and Rudy trending down, but this surprises me. They were closer than that in most recent polls.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
Giuliani's showing in Iowa is only a small surprise. I don't think anyone was expecting him to do better than single digits. His organization was near non-existant, he spent little money there and very little time (relatively) there. His plan focuses more on HyperTuesday and far less on early voting states, where he is mostly outgunned. It's smart in a way. Romney and the others are blowing millions on these states, and Giuliani, realizing he has massive appeal outside of the early voting states, is spending money to solidify his stance there, expecting to pick those up for relatively cheap while skipping the massacre in the early states. He still leads nationally, or very nearly to Huckabee.
In other words, 3% in Iowa? He doesn't care. Third or fourth place in New Hampshire? He won't care. He'll take third in Michigan, maybe third in Nevada and South Carolina, first in Florida and then it's off to the races on HyperTuesday, where he'll take first or second in most major contests. He's saving money and effort, besides, Iowa's values are different from his to be honest, spending the time and money that Romney spent there would have been like burning it outright.
Paul has a lot of grassroots support, and dumped large amounts of his recent cash gains into Iowa, like he's doing now in New Hampshire. If he can't come in third (he won't go higher than third, regardless), he's done. He won't drop out, not until after HyperTuesday. He has the money to stay in it until at least then, but he'll BE done, whether he admits it or not. Like I said before, New Hampshire's quirky little voters are the best, BEST chance he has to get into the top tier. We'll know by Tuesday whether or not Paul has a chance.
I'm curious as to who Biden and Dodd will endorse.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes. Lots of optimism, absolutely no recognition of the fact that she came in third. It almost sounded like a victory speech. Can't blame her, she's so confident she probably didn't even have some sort of concession speech written.
Bill Richardson has said he will wait until New Hampshire...after which I have to imagine he'll drop out. Kucinich hasn't said anything, but he's a stubborn little guy, so I imagine even with 0% of the vote, he'll stay in the race (but maybe not!). After NH it will be a three way (two way possibly) race on the Democratic side. On the other hand, the Republican race has only widened, to a realistic five way race (though in my opinion a four way race is more real). Giuliani will do well on February 5th, the real contest is how high can the others get between now and then to knock him off his perch?
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
So much for my worries about the netroots. I couldn't have hoped for a more ideal result on the Democrat side. It's Obama's game from here on out- if he can pull that momentum through New Hampshire, he's all but won the nomination.
Posts: 1321 | Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged |
And even if that were so, it makes me sad. Candidates only have to win two states to win the nomination? Are they running for dual governor of Iowa and New Hampshire or President of the US? I'd be careful to call it his race to lose. When you do that, and he comes in second or third in a contested state, that's what shatters candidates. You play the expectations game, people get burned where they shouldn't.
Iowa is Iowa, let's not get ahead of ourselves with 49 states to go.
I should note that while New Hampshire is of great importance...the next contest is actually Saturday night in Wyoming for the Republicans, it just don't really matter except to be a tiny news bump for whoever wins.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I wasn't making any sort of value judgment about the primary process there. If you remember our past discussions, I'm in full agreement with you that the system in place is essentially broken- or at the very least, requires substantial revision. The idea that the same two states can act as a proxy for the rest of the primary is one I find highly distasteful (although I do think there are notable advantages to the general idea of spreading the primaries out).
I based my post above based on simple trends based on past elections. IIRC, every single candidate that has won both Iowa and New Hampshire in the past few decades has gone on to win the nomination. There's a pretty even breakdown between candidates that win one or the other state going on to win their respective nominations, but for quite some time now, winning both has inevitably lead straight to the nomination. I suspect this is due to a combination of media-fueled momentum and the fact that winning both Iowa and NH, states with profoundly different demographics and political interests, is a strong sign of broad appeal that translates into further successes down the road. If anything, the former factor has only become more important thanks to the advent of instant-access media and commentary, and I see no reason why the latter would be diminished. Hence my prediction that an Obama win in New Hampshire would almost certainly presage an Obama nomination come August.
That being said, the one thing that I could see fouling up my prediction, aside from Obama doing something spectacularly stupid and flaming out, is the altered primary schedule this year. Obama does have that 20% deficit in national polling to make up, which may be difficult given the moving up of Super (Duper) Tuesday. Instead of a month and a half to consolidate his support, he'll have slightly less than a month. Of course, I could also see this working in his favor- there won't be enough time for an Obama backlash to get seriously underway before February 5th.
Posts: 1321 | Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Apologies, I should have been more specific in the post but that second part wasn't meant to be against you, I sort of went off on a tengent there. "And even if that were so, it makes me sad. Candidates only have to win two states to win the nomination? Are they running for dual governor of Iowa and New Hampshire or President of the US?" That part was just me gibberishing, not directed at you Tarrsk, sorry about that. Gimme a break, it's late
I don't think bumping Super Tuesday up a month will be that bad. It certainly changes things around a bit, and adds a lot of haste to the process, but I think this is the last year we'll see elections like this. The Democratic Party and New Hampshire will come to blows next year. All those states moved to the beginning of February because they don't want to be back in the pack, all unimportant and indistinguishable. I think the bigger problem is the sheer number of states that moved to that day. It's Hyper Tuesday now. You can't lose that day and still be able to survive, not when literally half the delegates are up for grabs on a single day. But you're right in that it has pros and cons for everyone involved. On the bright side, if Obama keeps his momentum going, it'll sail right into Hyper Tuesday, there won't be any time for Clinton to recover. Edwards will get left in the dust. He doesn't have the time or money to get organizations going in half the nation.
Obama can make up the national difference by February 5th. If you want to take NH as a snapshot, he was down 20 points there in the end of September-Early October. By mid November that was to 14 points, and in early December to mid December he was polling even and even ahead of her in some polls, down to a dead heat now. Things can change FAST, especially with the bumps he's getting now, and with all the cash that will flow his way. Consider that he hasn't really spent a lot of time or money in the states that are coming up, and they will get blitzed by ads and face time in the coming weeks (that's why Giuliani is doing that NOW rather than later, he wants it locked up).
In recent decades, candidates who have won both contests have gone on to win the nomination (for example, Gore and Kerry), before that you have to go back to 1980, when Carter won both as an incumbent president. So, in the last 27 years, it's happened three times, and in all three elections, the candidate that won both became the Democratic candidate...and went on to lose the General (same thing happened in 1972 as well). Only Carter won both and took the presidency, though technically he came in second to none of the above in Iowa. Just saying, if he wins Iowa, good news for him winning the nomination, but those are some scary numbers for the General (though this IS a trendbreaking year).
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wow. Just wow. Great speech! Obama! Obama! He can do it. He can really do it.
But man does he look exhausted... And the poor guy only has five days till New Hampshire, he's not gonna get much sleep for a while Posts: 3295 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
On the contrary, Clinton has automatic wins in Michigan and Florida; despite Michigan being a natural win for Obama, and Florida being a natural third (and maybe fourth) for Clinton. Obama, Edwards, and Richardson will not be on those ballots. Given that it is unlikely that Gravel or Kucinich or uncommitted can win the plurality of votes*, Clinton will claim the "BIG MO"mentum into SuperTuesday.
* Not sure whether Dodd's name can be taken off the ballots despite his official withdrawal from the Presidential race.
posted
Great speech by Obama. I'm actually feeling excited about politics for the first time in 8 years.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by pooka: Giuliani wasn't expecting to do well, but... dang, man.
Guiliani wasn't part of the Iowa Caucus, you know. Anything that went his way at all would be the equivalent of a "write-in" vote, because they didn't include Guiliani in the caucus.
posted
Giuliani has never been a credible candidate, as shown by his loss to RonPaul by a 3to1 margin even after Giuliani's campaign spent more money in Iowa than any other Republican candidate except Romney. It is because he knew that in advance that he chose not to personally show up in Iowa.
quote:Obama, Edwards, and Richardson will not be on those ballots.
Holy crap, why's that? Can they be written in?
Re: Giuliani "I meant to do that".
Thompson said he had to place in the top 3 and he did, so who knows. I know Giuliani always planned to throw Iowa, but I've never heard he didn't want New Hampshire. I hope he vanishes, personally, but we'll just have to wait and see.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Interesting how accurate the Des Moines Register polls were. The final poll for the GOP was within a couple percentage points of the final results for almost all the candidates.
It under-estimated Paul's support by 2% - the same amount it underestimated Huckabee's.
This makes it less likely that the polls are consistently underestimating Paul supporters as has been alleged, although Iowa is a small sample to compare to.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
Curse you Win 98!
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Hat]](graemlins/hat.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Party]](graemlins/party.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
