Ignore the polls they are a waste of time.

[Meldread]

They are an interesting distraction but ultimately are a waste of time. The only thing they are good for is drumming up support for one candidate or another, but anyone who takes them seriously is going to be disappointed. Just ask Howard Dean when he was the front runner all the way up until Iowa. Just ask John Kerry when he pulled a shocking victory, and John Edwards upset second place.

Simply put, whoever wins Iowa is going to go forward with a ton of momentum heading into New Hampshire. If the polls are close in NH then whoever won Iowa has a very good chance of winning there, and if that is the case their victory is locked up. South Carolina is the last stop for any campaign who is hoping to pull an upset victory. The rest of the primary results after SC are meaningless. This is exactly the way the primaries were designed to work.

Some things to keep an eye out for:

Richards is dumping a lot of cash in Iowa, so don't be shocked if he comes in at second place. First place is unlikely because no matter how much cash Richards dumps in Iowa, Hillary has more.

Hillary has a giant war chest that is her biggest strength. She can simply bury her opponents messages under a mountain of positive and negative ads. This could blow up in her face (ask Gephardt) but if done strategically and well could bring in Iowa.

Edwards has been living in Iowa for a while and already has ground operations. Do not be shocked to see a first place finish simply from GOTV efforts or a strong second for Edwards here.

Obama isn't as strong here as he should be but it is still early. I believe if Obama focuses his resources on Iowa and wins he can move on to sweep the rest much like John Kerry.

New Hampshire and South Carolina are too difficult to predict because a lot depends on what happens in Iowa. However, if Hillary wins Iowa and moves on to sweep New Hampshire it is definitely over. Richards will have the most difficulty capitalizing on his momentum coming out of Iowa if he wins which in some respects puts New Hampshire up for grabs. If any of the candidates manage to block a Hillary win in New Hampshire, something that would be difficult to do if she has already won Iowa, then it turns South Carolina into a wild card. If John Edwards wins either Iowa or New Hampshire there is a good chance he'll be able to carry his home state of South Carolina but it is unlikely otherwise. (He didn't carry it last time.)

Out of all the candidates Hillary has the most chance of bucking this trend simply due to the massive amount of money she can spend. If she loses the first big three states she MIGHT be able to unload enough cash to claim another state and give herself momentum, but by this time the clear front runner will also have a growing war chest. Hillary will be forced to go negative and employ dirty tricks, which could backfire and turn people off to her completely.

Edwards and Richards would be the least hurt by a Hillary attack if either are the front runner after Iowa. This is simply because Hillary would have to "lower" herself down to them by acknowledging either of them as a threat. They are seen as under dogs and in turn this could propel them even further toward victory.

Obama is at the most risk because he is viewed already as the most serious contender toward Hillary. Hillary attacking Obama would in essence be declaring it a "two way race". This would be bad for the other candidates because it effectively cuts them out of the equation. If this happens going into New Hampshire, and Hillary does not win she has a chance of a come back if it is Obama (if she has already won Iowa).

...anyway... I think everyone sees my point. The polls do not matter. They are a poor indicator of what will happen in the actual primary. If anything they are showing Hillary peaking early in the race, and what goes up must eventually go down. As Iowa draws closer, you will see those numbers fall and the higher Hillary's poll numbers now the more news it will make when they actually start to drop. (The last thing Hillary wants to see in the news going into Iowa is: "Obama closes the gap by 6%!")

In summary, the above is just my opinion and is not an endorsement of any of the candidates. Hillary has the strongest position, followed by Edwards, followed by Richards (who is out if he loses Iowa), who is then followed by Obama.

Hillary's biggest threat is someone pulling a Gephardt on her in Iowa, going totally negative against her, but in turn throwing themselves out of the race. The person in the best position to do that is Richards.

[Captain Hilts]

1. The Iowa Caucuses are an inaccurate test of who will win the nomination. nt

[Meldread]

2. It's the same setup as the last primary.

It's designed so whoever wins in Iowa DOES stand the BEST chance of winning the nomination. That doesn't mean this time will be an exact replay of last time, but anyone who does not take the Iowa Caucuses seriously isn't doing their candidate any favors. It's all about momentum. The more primaries you win the more momentum you have, and since they are so close together in time whoever wins in Iowa is going to have the spotlight going into New Hampshire. If they win there, they've pretty much locked up the race. By that time the only person who could pull a comeback would be Hillary simply because she has the most cash to spend.

[Captain Hilts]

5. What winners have the IC's picked? Carter? Who else? nt

[Meldread]

7. Again I'll say it: It's all about momentum.

Because the setup is the same as last time, whoever wins in Iowa has better chances in New Hampshire and South Carolina. Iowa is going to cull the candidate field.

You don't have to believe me, but I know I am correct in my assessment. If you think I'm wrong bookmark this post and after the primaries I'll eat crow if I'm wrong about anything in the original post.

[Mnpaul]

3. A lot of the polls

poll Dem,Ind and Rep - how can they be an accurate indication of who is leading the primary race?

[sandnsea]

4. You can't buy Iowa

You can buy Super Tuesday. Feb 5 is when it will likely be all over. Which is why I can't figure out why anybody is waiting until next year to decide who to support in the primaries.

[Meldread]

6. It's not about buying Iowa, really...

...it's about killing the opposition. Look to what Gephardt did to Dean last time. Gephardt basically killed his chances in Iowa by going after Dean like a mad man, which is in a large part the reason Dean lost Iowa. The same can be done to Hillary.

Of course, it can't all be laid at Gephardt's feet, as the DLC and other such anti-liberal democrat groups went after him as well. It was just so negative that it was like a suicide attack. They even went back to some TV interview he gave like 10 years prior to the primary over in Canada. He made an off hand comment that he disliked how the caucus system worked and it was like poison.

[sandnsea]

8. Yes it can

I would do it in NH, however, because she was never expected to do well in Iowa anyway. But either one of those little states, if you have an excellent ground game, you can push someone else out of the way in the final weeks, even Hillary. But you have to have the ground support or nothing else matters in either place. Dean didn't have it and he didn't develop it any state afterwards either. It wasn't just Gephardt & the DLC that took him out, Trippi took him too far to the left. Hopefully Edwards will stay just this side of where Trippi wants to be, he might surprise everybody if he does. But that's the difference between those small states and Super Tuesday. You can't win with money alone in IA or NH, but you can when you're competing in 20 states in one day. I think that's how many states are in Super Tuesday now, it's a lot. You can't sweep it without a boatload of money.

[Meldread]

9. Yes, that is absolutely 100% true.

However, look to Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina. If one candidate sweeps those states they are going to get tons of donations (which they can then spend on Super Tuesday), huge momentum, and lots of air time when compared to the other candidates. If Hillary loses those states she has the cash but lacks the momentum.

And really, that is my point. Edwards has a great ground game in Iowa (or so I hear) and so I expect AT LEAST a strong second, if not a first place from him there. I am not sure what the Obama camp is doing, but I hope they are not waiting for Super Tuesday. Hillary is probably the only candidate who could pull a serious upset on Super Tuesday with the mountain of cash she is packing.

I think Richardson might be screwing himself over with all the TV ads he's running in Iowa, simply because people are going to be sick of hearing about him and his name by the time it comes to go to caucus. I expect Obama and Hillary to make the same mistake Gephardt and Dean made in Iowa last time - basically go totally negative against each other in the state, giving a clear victory to John Edwards. Depending on how bad it is Richards could come in with a moderate second or a strong third, while either Hillary or Obama comes in with a weak second or a strong third respectively.

I hope that isn't the case, because at the moment I am leaning more toward Obama than Edwards (only by a bit though because I am hoping for either an Edwards/Obama ticket or a Obama/Edwards ticket in the general). I would really like the race to become a two way dog race between Edwards and Obama allowing them both a chance to shine brightly without negativity, with it being fairly close at the end. (That is my fairytale dream scenario.)

The only way I can see that happening is if Edwards perhaps wins Iowa, Hillary goes totally negative against him in New Hampshire, Obama takes New Hampshire as a result, Edwards and Obama go strong together into South Carolina with a very close race at the end, Hillary losing second place by 9% to 12%. That would put them in the strongest position to head into Super Tuesday together, where they can work to fend off Hillary's money machine. She'll pick up some states in Super Tuesday, without a doubt, but as long as they can lock up a majority between them, they should be able to keep her out of the running. At that point Hillary will be declaring it a "three way race" and if Obama and Edwards are smart they'll be constantly saying "two way race" and clearly indicate that its between them. Going into the rest of the primaries with luck Hillary's campaign will lose steam and while she'll manage to scalp a state here and there, she'll begin to lag further and further behind until its clear that she isn't going to win.

That is the best case scenario I can picture and really it is the only way to keep Hillary from possibly winning the nomination. If it becomes a three way race heading into Super Tuesday and she has lost the previous states, she'll still be getting lots of air time because of WHO she is, but her message would be diluted because she has to aim it at two people instead of one. On top of it all since she's being declared as unbeatable already, she wouldn't have lived up to the hype which would cause large chunks of her (IMO) weak base to crumble and default to either Obama or Edwards. A lot of people have flocked to her due to her being perceived as "electable" and if we remember the lessons of the past, once Dean was considered unelectable his base crumbled as well.

[sandnsea]

11. It depends on the negativity

If a person is perceived as defending against an unjust attack, then that is usually acceptable. That's how Obama has managed to come out of all these incidents, people are considering them unfair attacks by Hillary which justifies him standing up for himself. That he reflects what most people think may have been calculated or sheer luck, I really don't know. How much affect this will have on Hillary in the long run, I don't know. The Dem electorate covers a wide array of people who have a broad range of views. I think the ultimate winner will be the one who can move within the left, while being acceptable to the center at the same time. Hillary keeps trying, but I don't think she has it. Obama seems to be going at it a bit backwards, scooping out the center and then gradually moving left. I also think Edwards could get the electable vote in the end, if he doesn't stay too stuck in the left and moves back to the center around Nov or so. Time will tell I suppose. As long as it isn't Hillary in the end, I'll be a happy camper.

[calteacherguy]

10. It's Richardson, not Richards. nt