Predict the Outcome of the '08 Iowa Caucus

[saltpoint]

In 2004, John Kerry finished first, ahead of John Edwards. Howard Dean finished a respectable third. Dick Gephardt was fourth, although he had been considered an early favorite.

The poll below asks for your prediction of the order of finish for the first 5 contenders in the 2008 Iowa caucuses.

One choice is marked 'OTHER' for candidates not included, as well as other orders of finish not listed in the other 9 choices.

Your comments below are encourged.

Thanks.

[Chipper Chat]

1. Other.

Diebold, diebold, diebold, diebold, and Diebold.

[emulatorloo]

4. people don't "Diebold" in the Iowa Caucus

they sit in a room, talk, and physically stand up for the candidate they want to support. Then a verified headcount is taken by a real person.

[iconoclastNYC]

57. But becasue of the small media market

You can really pump a lot of money into the state and use fear mongering (unelectable! unelectable!) to sway the vote. Just watch it. I don't think any non-DLC candidate has a chance in a front-end loaded primary system.

[saltpoint]

8. I'm late to respond to your post, Chipper Chat --

-- but the emulatorloo's response to your post is right -- the caucuses in Iowa are not Dieboldable.

This is a people-first operation and is very community-oriented. It's set in living rooms or kitchens or small gathering places, and the procedure is sustainable and effective statewide, and tough to manipulate.

Only real problem is providing coffee for all the neighbors.

[Debi]

14. They usually want cookies as well

a caucus is a friendly gathering of like-partied neighbors (not the marathoned intimidation sessions imagined here and on other boards) who initially decide who they prefer to be the nominee for President. After that process (which is done w/in the first 15-30 minutes of the caucus) then committee members and delegate selection occurs and platform suggestions are gathered (if you don't want to serve on a committee or as a delegate and don't have a platform recommendation you can leave after the final count for presidential preference - so it takes about as long as standing in line to vote in a primary).

Anyway, unless Diebold has found a way to implant chips into the over 1,000 precinct captains heads throughout Iowa, the caucuses are safe.

[saltpoint]

16. Hi, Debi.

Yes, and thanks for a better inside view than mine on the Iowa caucuses. I'm more than a little jealous of the way Iowans do their early selection process. It is much more democratic and participatory. I love the idea that young people can be introduced to their rights and privileges under the Constitution over a cup of coffee and -- as you say -- cookies.

Thanks for your post.

[FreedomAngel82]

27. Thanks for the education on the process in Iowa

I'm new to politics and missed the primaries and wasn't sure if it was regular voting or what happened with that. I did see the archive of the Iowa cacus dinner on the C-Span site and when they were introducing the canidates Kerry was ahead of Dean with 60% of the votes. Was all the Dean scream stuff before or after the Iowa cacus dinner?

[Debi]

52. The scream was after Iowa as the results were reported.

The collapse of the Dean Campaign stems from a number of things...too many people in charge NOT in Iowa, too many people in Iowa with no organization, NO ONE in charge of who was spending what kind of money on what kind of things, being perceived as #1 and getting bitten in the butt by opponents (Dean always performed better as the underdog). Many, many more problems existed, but the campaign just got too big too fast without on the ground organization (yeah, I'm still pissed at trippi for refusing to come to Iowa after the JJ - he knew then that there was a problem after seeing the organization of the Fire Fighters for Kerry).

(The Kerry campaign, on the other hand stepped back early December - got much needed $$ from the mortgage Kerry put on his home, brought in Michael Whooley, re-organized and just kicked ass - Edwards just stayed out of the dogfight of Dean/Gephardt/Kerry and cut a deal w/Kucinich that any non-viable Kucinich supporters would caucus for Edwards getting Edwards the needed delegates and Kucinich's message across).

[senaca]

56. How much influence does Harken have in helping deliver for the primaries?

Does whoever he backs have any advantage initially? What issues in Iowa resonate at this time that are different than last time? I guess it would be hard for me to know who would actually be first without knowing more. My gut feeling is that people this time will want a candidate who actually understands what its like to worry about making ends meet. For that reason I don't see Kerry doing well this time much as like him. If McCain looks like he's getting the nod for the Republican's then I see Clark being first in Iowa. He has military experience, international coalition building experience, and speaks well on issues. Feingold and Edwards would be close. Feingold is forward thinking, independent and would translate better in smaller groups yet he comes across stiffer than Clark and Edwards. Edwards, with his poverty work may just have more of an advantage articulating what people are feeling, however he would have to have some bold ideas to tie it to. Hillary is not positioning herself well at this point. Actually Lindsay Graham is actually outpositioning her for the ground she is trying to take. I know this would never happen, but I would love to see Gary Hart and RFK Jr. run. Their fingers on the pulse would help focus in on issues that would strengthen the democratic party's chances.

[Debi]

58. Well....Harkin endorsed Dean in 2004, so.....

I wish I had a better feel but like I said in my other posts we have a primary for the Governor's race and a primary in our congressional district right now and that's where my head is at.

I do believe that Clark would have done okay had he run in Iowa, just when he finally decided it was too late to set up a campaign and corral supporters.

Edwards problem was his supporters (in my mind) in the 2004 race. He received support from some wealthy, powerful people who didn't really want to mingle with average Iowans. It gave the campaign an elitist feel and turned some away. He and his family were warm and wonderful, the more he interacted with people the better his campaign performed.

I just don't know how much movement is going to occur until after the Nov. 2006 elections.

Remember, in the 2002 elections Dean campaigned for candidates and Edwards purchased 120 computers for the IDP and paid for lit pieces for all the Dem. legislative candidates. I just don't know how much it helped either one of them two years later.

[Chipper Chat]

47. I was painting the entire US political process with a cynical quip.

Having said that - a word to the Hawkeye-wise:
Be sure not to serve DIEcaffinated coffee.
Tee hee.

[karynnj]

2. Voted other because there are far too many

real combinations and several that I think have a chance of occruing aren't here. The Kerry/Feingold ... one would be my favorite because it would show a big swing to the liberal side. I don't think Hillary would come 5th though.

[saltpoint]

9. Good points.

You are dead-on right to say there are other real combinations and some that have a good chance but which I didn't list. Very fair. I would like to have had more choice lines, but pretty soon it would be so long that no one would participate.

I'd love to see the liberal vein bulge in Iowa next time to help set the tone for other primary races to follow.

I love the way Iowans do this process.

[FreedomAngel82]

29. That would be good!

Kerry/Feingold or Kerry/Warner I could go for.

[Mabus]

46. I concur

I also think that if either Kerry or Gore were persuaded to run in 2008 that it would limit the number of other candidates that would run otherwise we risk setting up a fight within that the right will capitalize on. I don't know though. This was just a thought that occurred to me. Unfortunately one of the factors will also be who is throwing their hat in on the right.

[MaineDem]

3. WAY too early to tell (nt)

[saltpoint]

10. Agreed. But the candidates' staffs and advance people --

-- wouldn't agree with us. They're fattening their rollodexes right now in Des Moines and Cedar Rapids.

I'm a junky on politics. If you ever want a discussion about 2012 or 2016, I'm in.

[emulatorloo]

5. we don't even know who is running. . .EOM

[saltpoint]

11. We have some good preview possibilities, though.

When Clark, Clinton, Frist, Bayh, Brownback, Kerry, Edwards, McCain, Feingold, Allen, etc. all continue to pop in to their respective parties' fundraisers and cattle shows in Iowa, there's more than a hint that they might be laying the groundwork for a run.

We may not know everybody (as in an exact ballot list) but we have seen some of these folks accumulating serious frequent flier miles to Des Moines.

[FreedomAngel82]

31. Oh for sure

Warner has been making rounds a lot lately and back in March it was reported he went to a Bilderberg meeting secretly. And it was also reported that Clinton (Bill) around Thanksgiving met secretly with Warner.

Link: http://www.radaronline.com/fresh-intelligence/2005/11/28/index.php#report_004538

Snip: <Though the pundits have all but ordained her as the Democrats’ next presidential nominee, it hasn’t been all smooth sailing for Sen. Hillary Clinton. Publicly at least, the junior Senator from New York still insists she hasn’t made up her mind about a presidential run. But while her coy denials and growing war chest have kept many Democratic opponents on the sidelines, at least one party poobah has not been shy about checking out her competition. Sources close to the Democratic National Committee claim that Bill Clinton has recently held a series of secret meetings with Virginia Gov. Mark Warner, a much-hyped party moderate who is rapidly emerging as his wife’s most significant challenger for the Democratic nomination.>

[saltpoint]

38. MMMmmmm. The plot thickens. I appreciate --

-- the clip on Bill Clinton and Warner. Didn't know about it at all.

I think I'll order some serious popcorn and watch.

[welshTerrier2]

6. my prediction

partly to mostly cloudy

high temp: 34
low temp: 18

[saltpoint]

12. Sounds about right. Iowa is one of those --

-- wind-blasted, snow-covered farm states that bore some folks to death but leave others in a kind of enchantment. I'm in the second camp. Farms are familiar to me as strong storms moving across the Great Plains into small Iowa towns, Indiana towns, Illinois towns, and so on.

Sometimes if somebody wants to be president, he or she has to brave the Iowa winters first.

[Debi]

15. Ha!

Way to nice of weather for a caucus.

Let it snow, let it snow, let it snow. :hi:

[pstans]

21. That is not a bad prediction for the middle of January

But by 2008 with global warming, it will be closer to 40-45 degrees.

[CornField]

7. Iowa will not go for Kerry again...

I doubt it would go for Edwards or Clinton either.

I think Iowa is hoping to see what the rest of the nation is hoping to see: A real democratic candidate standing up and fighting for the American people as a whole.

[saltpoint]

13. Hi to you, Cornfield.

You may be right on this one. A friend of mine believes that Sen. Feingold will win the caucuses not only because he is bright and inspiring but also because he suggests a principled Democrat.

That's not to discount any other candidate, but only to say that it's one friend's call.

The only strong thought I have is that Senator Clinton will not be able to waltz through the state to win, that she faces sturdy challenges from many quarters, and that her increasingly right-leaning positions may not inspire the kind of voters you describe.

Appreciated your points very much.

[IA_Seth]

17. I would hope...

That Clark will be first. That, of course, depends heavily on his activity in Iowa (he chose to bypass Iowa the last go round). I am a fairly strong Clark supporter, and it seems that there were quite a few locals (Cedar Rapids area) that liked his ideas but didn't support him because he wasn't around. He is bright and is excellent at informative-lecture-type speeches.

I can also see someone like Feingold taking it, but who knows. In all reality it seems to me that it depends a lot on who organized labor gets behind, and who says the least amount of stupid things. lol.

I can't really see Clinton making it here..but that may be personal bias. I think she could get a lot of votes in an election, but I don't know if she appeals to caucus-goers at that same level.

[saltpoint]

23. IA_Seth, you make good sense. Sounds like you know --

-- your Iowa, too.

Agree completely about Senator Clinton on a caucus basis. It's not impossible of course, but it won't be easy for her either.

Thanks for your post.

[Kindigger]

18. Clinton hasn't a chance in H*ll

and I'm over here in the blue corner of the state. I've heard it from others; I'm not alone.

Contrary to the above assertion, there is (or is supposed to be) an "arm twisting" portion of a caucus. After people seat themselves in their candidates section of the room, there is time given to persuade others to join you.

If anyone is stupid enough to sit in the Clinton section, I will personally hold the thing up for as long as I have to until they change seats.

[Debi]

19. Hi, dragndust, haven't seen you in the Iowa Forum

please stop in and post :hi:

Most people enter a caucus with an idea of who is their first choice and second choice.

Also, as you probably know, only undecideds (which are VERY rare) and those whose candidates are not viable (say a Clark or Kucinich in the last caucus) can be 'persuaded' to go to another candidate's preference group (and like I said, most people already know who their second choice is going to be). For instance, at my caucus there were three Clark supporters who had to make a second choice - they talked together and all went to Edwards as to keep Dean from getting another delegate and making Edwards viable - our count ended up Kerry 1, Edwards 1, Dean 1.

People whose first choice is a viable candidate cannot move on to another candidate after the first preferences are recorded otherwise the process could go on indefinitely.

There is also a time limit to the preference selection process, so there will be no 'holding up' the process either. That being said, I don't think Hillary Clinton will do well in the bluer parts of Iowa, just mho.

What county are you in?

[LincolnMcGrath]

37. Clinton will not go for Clinton

;) Is anyone in your circle looking seriously at Vilsack?

[Debi]

54. Yeah Clinton County!!!

I haven't been attending Central Committee meetings lately, so I haven't heard any rumblings yet. (Anyway, we're hot and heavy in the Governor's race and 1st District race and Sec. of State race and WILLARD JENKINS is retiring so we have a seat to run for YEAH!!).

I just think that, here in Black Hawk, our progressives won't go for Clinton (probably Feingold)and our DLCers have many other choices (Vilsack for one or Warner or Richardson). But what do I know :shrug: I was Dean in 2004 and look how that turned out! x(

Off Topic:

What's the First District race looking like in Clinton? Kind of slow here, the only name we keep hearing is Braley - of course he's from here so that may be why.

[LincolnMcGrath]

62. Braley is hot here.

Dickinson is warm

Gluba is lukewarm

Overby and Heath ice cold

[Debi]

65. Thanks for the update ! n/t

[karynnj]

43. Did Edwards really get the Kuchinich people?

I had thought the agreement was strange in that Edwards was in many ways the furthest from Kuchinich, while Dean might have been a more natural choice. The question is really whether their candidate's prefence is given much weight.

Your comments on Hillary are interesting. Do you think Vilsack will be a given if he runs?

[Debi]

53. Kucinich people (at least in my town) hated Dean

They felt he was a false progressive (which is sort of true, except it wasn't Dean that was painting himself as a progressive it was his supporters). Dean was honest about his pro-Gulf War stance and his conservative fiscal positions, people only heard what they wanted to on his Civil Union/anti-Iraq War positions. Kucinich is far left and his supporters felt that Dean stole his thunder.

Because of that they wanted to do anything to get rid of Dean and help the Anybody But Dean movement - Edwards was the one smart enough to court them.

Vilsack is in hot water in the state for selling out Iowa with the DNC commission on the calendar (read the comments by people other than Vilsack, Jerry Crawford and Roxanne Conlin - no one else is happy - there was no 'Great Victory for Iowa'). That will resonate with Iowans as will his pro-business legislative packages he's been passing through the legislature lately (giving millions of $$ as incentives for companies to stay in the state or move to the state and cutting funding that goes to counties and cities - we pay higher taxes and Wells Fargo and Principal Financial get free land or tax free buildings). My belief is the only reason Vilsack got re-elected in 2002 was that our alternative was a Far Right Regressive candidate, Vilsack had trouble getting the endorsements of several unions and only received them late in the campaign. He also signed legislation for English Only in the state which may have helped him in Western Iowa but what a slap in the face to our growing Hispanic and Bosnian/Croatian population. Progressives have been aware of his conservative leanings since he came on board, but his move to head the DLC is a real slap in the face to us (and to all his Labor supporters). He may very well still win Iowa in the caucuses, but he may not win by much and he may not get much support after the caucuses from his home state.

[karynnj]

61. Thanks Debi - It really seems like the people who get involved

in the caucuses there in Iowa are much better informed and serious about the selection then in other states. The more I've heard the more impressed I am. It's great that there is one state to do this up front vetting of the candidates.

As far as the Kuchinich people - if stopping Dean was what they wanted this was a clever strategy, as Edwards was unlikely to come in number 1 - it really was likely to push Dean down a place.

Thanks for the information on Vilsack - all I knew of him was that he's head of the DLC, that some wanted him as head of the DNC, he has a very pretty wife, and that he was one of the people not picked as VP last year. (though from your comments, Edwards might have been a better choice.)

[Debi]

64. Vilsack was Kerry's choice for DNC Chair after he chose Edwards as VP

The problem was that Vilsack couldn't get even the needed local support to persuade the other state's DNC members to vote for him (that and if he was DNC Chair he would not get to run for President in 2008). Kerry wisely stopped pushing and Vilsack wisely stepped back from the process.

To be fair I am not a fan of Vilsacks, this is not new information in Iowa. He ran for Governor in 1998 as the 'working man's' candidate. The head of the UAW endorsed him early on (and pissed off many of the members) and the rest is history. He won the election and created his empire. No one can run for office in Iowa w/out the Governor's blessing or he'll find someone to run against you (okay, I'm over exaggerating there, but he doesn't play as clean as he pretends to be). His favoritism behavior wasn't a problem in 2000 because Gore was supported by 2/3 of Iowa even before the primaries started, but in 2002 when Vilsack had to run for re-election he stabbed people in the back for money and made his own choices who would be running down the ticket, it was ugly. In 2004 he was 'neutral' but early Kerry and everyone knew it, just like he's 'neutral' in the upcoming Governor's race (which means he's supporting his former Economic Development Director over the Secretary of State and Secretary of Ag and a state legislator - it's messy - he's installed his Lt. Governor as Party Chair and several other of his staff in supportive Party roles). You will have to make your own choices about him as my opinion is tainted, but when you hear the speech about how his biological mother abandoned him to an orphanage and then his adoptive mother was an alcoholic who abused him know that he's been telling that same speech for eight years now and ask yourself....would I ever exploit my family history like that to move ahead in politics?

[karynnj]

67. Thanks for the information - I hope he's not the candidate

I actually have a problem with picking a governor at theis point, unless he/she could really impress me on foreign policy. As brilliant as Clinton was - he had a hard time, in an easier time frame dealing with Washington and with foreign policy.

I am sceptical of the we need a Southern Governor - because 2 of them were elected. There are so few people who even get the nomination that trying to find patterns is not sensible as they can be bogus.

For example, let's say that some energetic really brilliant person had taken over the position as head of the Ohio Democrats and had inssred that there were adequate machines and proper training for a huge number of volunteer election day workers and everything went smoothly -leading to a Kerry victory. Would anyone in say 2018, say there were 2 Senators elected President, so we need Senators from Massachusetts, with thick hair and initials of JFK? Not unless you wanted to sound like a lunatic - but it would be based on as much pattern in the past.

[FreedomAngel82]

32. I think Clinton's problem

Is nobody really trust's her. Democrats don't cause she personally is republican-lite and big corporations too and her stance on Iraq. She hasn't come out strong enough against it. Republicans just don't trust her either and have never liked her which is kinda sad. I like her as a person just not as a politician.

[kevsand]

20. Edwards and Clark in a virtual tie.

Warner a distant third. Nobody else with more than 5%.

[saltpoint]

24. Bold and specific. kevsand, appreciate what --

-- you've done here. You've got a zoom lens and that's great.

Edwards/Clark/Warner ? Why not? It has a plausible ring to it and it includes the possibility that Clark will campaign full-time and full-throttle there next time. Warner is winning some converts and may appeal to many Democrats in Iowa. And John and Elizabeth Edwards have a bedrock decency that we could use a LOT more of in and around Pennsylvania Avenue.

Many thanks.

[pstans]

22. Vilsack is running and was only included in 2 of the choices

One has him in first place and the other has him in 5th. He isn't getting 5th. I don't totally believe that he would win the caucuses, but he will near the top. I voted for Vilsack, Feingold, Clinton, and so on. I think Feingold can compete with Vilsack in Iowa. Vilsack is a centrist candidate and the caucuses are for the core of the Democratic party. Feingold, being from nearby Wisconsin, holds many of the same qualities as Iowans. Clinton will come in 3rd based on name recognition, but many of the people who would vote for her, would be supporting Vilsack. Kerry and Edwards could do well since they are well known here in Iowa. Richardson could do well because there is a growing Hispanic population in Iowa. Clark might have a tough run since he decided to skip Iowa in 2004.

[saltpoint]

25. All strong points, and I allow a 10th choice for any --

-- other order or list of candidates participants want to mention. So no bellyaching about Vilsack. He may be fairly popular in Iowa (it's his state after all, so I hear you on that). But he does not have a national profile just yet. That could change. But for now I'm not picking up an electrical charge when Vilsack is mentioned.

I like the guy. I like his wife, too. He may surprise everyone with a toward-the-top-of-the-pack finish.

[FreedomAngel82]

34. I'm not familiar with Vilsack

Does he have a website??

[MrBenchley]

35. Good point--one always has to factor in "favorite son" appeal

Interesting analysis--thanks.

[radio4progressives]

26. and what is the point of this poll again? n/t

[FreedomAngel82]

28. Right now I would love

if it was Warner or Feingold. I think that would be a great ticket! I haven't heard much buzz yet about Kerry and if he's running again. I wonder how he'd do again outside of DU.

[saltpoint]

30. Kerry makes noises as if he's considering another run.

Don't know if it's "official" or not, though.

A lot of people believed Bill Weld would whomp Kerry in their Senate race, but Kerry did the whomping. Maybe he is out of favor in some circles, but then again, I thought Dean would win in Iowa last winter, so I may not be a very good source.

I think Warner and Feingold have good chances. I'm not sure they can outpoll Edwards in Iowa. Edwards nearly upended Kerry last time.

It's going to be a wild one.

[FreedomAngel82]

33. I think so too

In 2008 there will be lots of great choices. I wasn't involved in the primaries last year and only in November became a political junkie so I didn't get to go through all of that primary stuff (I probably would've supported Kerry or Dean). This time though there will be a pretty broad range. I definitley think that Feingold and Warner are running. Both have done multiple apperances in New Hampshire and Warner this last Sunday was in South Carolina and gave a great speech. I'm really liking him and if Kerry doesn't run again seriously thinking of supporting him. He has a lot to offer people and can appeal to all types of people and did a great job in Virginia as a one-term governor and than the Tim Kaine win. Kerry has been doing a lot of stuff and being more vocal. But I don't think he has done any appearances like Feingold and Warner. I know he has been basically helping other canidates and raising money for people who need help in much needed areas for really major seats and I think that's a great thing to do and use his name recogintion to help them and he's been a strong fighter in the Senate. Back earlier in the year Kerry was introducing his health care plan for kids and a French network asked him if he was running again (I heard this when he was leaving the speech and took a few question's and signed autographs) and he said it was too soon to tell. I think if Kerry and Clinton are going to run they will announce it later in the game. Biden has made some noise too with testing his chances but I haven't seen him appear on Road to the White House lately or anything else to make noise like Kerry, Feingold and Warner have been lately. Edwards is still working on his committee's and I think he does grat work with that.

[saltpoint]

39. Very good point on Tim Kaine. Sorry to say I was not --

-- optimistic in the early going, but then things began to move his way, and the polls began to reflect a tighter race.

Then I guess Bush dropped in at the 11th hour to campaign for his guy, and his guy got whomped in the election.

Real nice news for a change. My hat's off to virginia Democrats on this one, and I hope there can be more stories like that in -06 and -08.

[ultraist]

36. Other: Edwards /Warner /Kerry /Clinton /Bayh

Edwards almost beat Kerry last time and has been spending a lot of time in Iowa. Many Iowans aren't willing to give Kerry a second chance, thus Warner will be pushed into second place. Those few still loyal to Kerry will push Clinton into fourth place. Clinton will come in, in front of Bayh, on name recognition.

[saltpoint]

40. A believable order of finish. I had a chance to talk --

-- with some Iowa Democrats who were deciding which candidate to support. This was pre-caucus, but it gave me an insight into their thoughts.

At the time I thought maybe Howard Dean would win, but these folks were toggling between Kerry and Edwards, and those were the first and second place finishers in the final count.

What struck me was the absence of much feeling for Dick Gephardt.

[karynnj]

44. What about Feingold?

Seeing that Edwards, Warner, Clinton and Bayh, at least at this time are not part of the group that are considered more against staying the course, it seems that you are assuming that Iraq/ WoT will not be the big issue (fair I guess if we're out of there)

I would imagine that Feingold will likely get a lot of that vote. Kerry's current position could put him there slightly to the right of Feingold. If you're assuming Feingold is out, the beneficiary is likely to be Kerry.

[Tom Rinaldo]

41. Vilsak, Clark, Clinton, Warner, Edwards

Visak is favorite son. Clark combines liberal and national security appeal and comes in first in each of those areas which will serve him well. Hillary loses some voters who would have supported her to Vilsak and thus falls to third behind Clark who out Liberals her and out national securities her. Warner is the interesting new guy with a claim to winning in Republican States, but he splits with Vilsak and Clinton, and with Edwards as another Southern route choice. Edwards will still charm some but the bloom is off as he did not come out of the 2004 race having impressed a lot of people. Kerry would fall behind Edwards because people will say Bush should have been easy to beat, fair or unfair. I just don't see Kerry getting another shot at it. Bayh will also pull from Warner which is one reaon I think Warner won't finish above 4th. Bayh might come in 5th ahead of Edwards.

I think Feingold will not run when all is said and done. If he does run though he pulls some from Clark and Edwards, so Clinton comes in second, Clark third, Warner fourth, Feingold fifth, Bayh sixth and Kerry may outpoll Edwards under this scenario and maybe even ahead of Byyh.

But this is just for fun. It is way too early to make any sound predictions.

[saltpoint]

42. Hi, Tom Rinaldo. I agree with you that it's mighty early yet --

-- but even so, your comments have a convincing ring.

I'd be interested to learn if Vilsack's favorite son status will translate to a national profile. He doesn't get much mention sometimes. But if he bagged the Iowa vote in the caucuses, he would be a headline going into New Hampshire.

It could get interesting. For one thing, it would take the inevitability of a Sen. Clniton nomination away immediately.

[Jai4WKC08]

45. Wow, a case of almost total GMTA

I purposely came up with my list before I read any of the replies. We are very close:

Vilsack, Clark, Clinton, Warner, Bayh

The only place we disagree is that I don't think Edwards will make the cut, but that Bayh will. But Bayh will be hurt by Vilsack taking his "homeboy" votes. I agree that Bayh will hurt Warner, as will Edwards. Clinton will mostly appeal to those who want to see a woman get it. Like you, I don't think Feingold will run, but that if he does, it'll hurt Clark the most.

I will caveat my prediction in that it presupposes the DLC won't settle on one candidate and undercut all the others. Because everyone on my list but Clark is DLC. Edwards too, for that matter.

[guidod]

48. Warner first then

who the hell knows, certainly not Hillary!

[saltpoint]

49. Hi, guidod. Warner? He could do it. I've only heard him ---

-- on C-Span, so that's not a fair reading. But his name is beginning to resonate.

On Senator Clinton: in the past on DU I've complained strongly about her shimmy to the right on issues, and I fear the shimmying will continue in that direction. I think she will have to fight savagely to finish in the top 3 in Iowa and even if she wins Iowa and New Hampshire, and goes on to be the nominee, I just don't see how she wins independent voters in "battleground states." If McCain is her opponent, I think he trounces her in the general election.

[guidod]

50. I think McCain is going to be

TOUGH to beat. However we do have footage of him being lips to lips with Bushdick.

[nickshepDEM]

51. Warner, Feingold, Hillary, Bayh.

[saltpoint]

55. It could happen. A close friend in Virginia admits a pro-Warner

bias but believes Warner wins, with Feingold second, Bayh third, and Sen. Clinton fourth.

This guy has been active in party politics for a long time and so your line-up had some real resonance with me.

While I'm not hogwild about Evan Bayh, I wouldn't argue that he should be counted out. Your prediction is convincing.

[Bucky]

59. I voted Warner- Clinton-Feingold- Edwards-Bayh, but I think Bayh will fold

Edwards will probably do better than Feingold. Bayh and Kerry will scatter to the wind. Democrats historically don't go for someone old coming back for a second crack, so Kerry will be the big flop of '08. 80% of his support was of the "ABB" variety. I think the probable show down will be Warner, Edwards, and Clark. But no hints about which one of them I'd prefer...

[loyalsister]

60. Does other mean "wait and see"

Remember how Dean came out of nowhere?
I'd like to see a fresh face, truth telling candidate with a strong spine.
There's something about a new person with the mike that makes people stand up and take notice.
As of now, the closest thing we've got are Vilsak and Warner.
I'd like to see someone burst onto the scene like a revolutionary.

[Jai4WKC08]

63. A related prediction about Iowa

I don't think it's gonna matter. Nothing like it did in 2004, and probably less than in previous cycles.

In 04, Kerry won a big upset, and then returned "home" to neighboring NH with a boatload of free media that followed him all the way until he had cinched the nomination.

If Vilsack runs (and it looks like he will), he'll win his home state, but he'll have nowhere to go afterwards. If he doesn't run, someone from the general area (Clark, Bayh or Feingold) will probably win and we'll just have to see how well poised they are to compete elsewhere.

But in that respect, you have to remember that, according to the currently proposed DNC plan, there will be a number of other states in the week or two after Iowa, and from all over the map. No one will have the money or time to go all out in every one, so the ability to generate and mobilize grassroots will become a much bigger factor, and likely one that hurts any candidate who relies too much on playing the "traditional politics" game.

Furthermore, the other states will allegedly be chosen for demographic representation--something we've never had with Iowa and NH--so a lot will depend on the candidates' ability to appeal to a much broader range of race, ethnicity, urbanites, labor and so forth. Not the sort of people you find much in Iowa.

[Debi]

66. This is exactly why Vilsack 'sold out' Iowa in the DNC calendar commission

It's probably a given that he will win Iowa - so he needs to 'win' or come in a close second in another caucus-like state before the New Hampshire Primary. Since it's obvious that you followed the commission vote you know that Vilsack's chosen committee members stabbed New Hampshire in the back when it came time to vote on a new calendar. Iowa remains first but has one maybe two caucuses come before New Hampshire's primary. Now Vilsack can leave his staff to court Iowans (who should be in his camp anyway) and he can campaign in the second (and maybe third) caucus states before heading to New Hampshire with hopefully two 'wins' under his belt. It's genius really - he kills his own state's history solely to gain momentum in his politically ambitious climb (like any of us are going to remember Tom Vilsack in 2012 - can you tell me when Tom Harkin ran for President and how many states he won?....my point exactly).

I still believe the calendar should be spread out (along with the delegate count) so more people can campaign (without being a multi-millionaire) and more states can have a say. Tom Vilsack probably doesn't like my idea.

[election_2004]

68. As long as they don't group them by region....

Letting mostly Midwestern states vote first, or mostly Southern states, or mostly Eastern states, or mostly Western states, is a baaaaaaaad idea.

It would give disproportionate control to one region of the country, while disenfranchising all others.

[Debi]

69. My only argument for regional is to allow small states to vote together

but only 3 or four with like amount of delegates - this saves candidates money on cross-over media - travel and time. I don't agree with twelve states going at once but I do like the idea of a few small states that are close to each other going on the same day.

[Jai4WKC08]

70. As I understand the argument of using small states

It's to allow candidates who don't have a lot of money the opportunity to come out to play.

But I would submit it doesn't really work anymore. In NH, for example, the candidates have to buy media in the Boston tv/radio market, and it's as expensive as anywhere. I would think the same would be true of almost any set of smaller states you could come up with.

I've sort of soured on the idea of lesser candidates getting into the mix anyway. I know that sounds terribly un-democratic, and honestly, I do think it's worth hearing the voice of people like Kucinich and Sharpton and Mosely-Braun. But is a presidential contest really the place for it? Considering how they detract time and attention from the viable contenders? If a candidate hasn't got a lot of money at his/her kick-off, he or she NEVER has a serious shot at the nomination, no matter how many small states we lead off with, and damn sure no chance of competing against the Repubs.

The first debate or two are just about the only time the vast majority of primary voters pay any attention at all until right before they go to the polls. In 2004, the debates were a travesty with nine on the platform. In 2008, we're likely to have over a dozen. I wonder if anyone in the DNC has given any thought to how that will be managed? Personally, I'm leaning toward the conclusion that the sooner we eliminate the "vanity candidates" (I mean that only in the sense that they know up front they won't win, but think their messages are worth the distraction), the better off we'll be.

[Debi]

71. So, Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton should not have bothered? n/t