Iowans:

[gateley]

Chris Dodd was on Imus this morning and relayed that in the past couple of weeks in Iowa, he's observed that the main issues have shifted from Iraq, Economy, Education, Health, etc., to ELECTABILITY.

Has that been your observation as well? Are you looking more toward who can beat the R's, even if it's not your chosen candidate?

(I feel for you. Although on one hand I feel impotent because my primary isn't until MAY, on the other hand, I can just support who I feel in my gut is the best candidate -- I don't have the daunting responsibility of having to incorporate strategy into my decision.)


Thanks for your two cents worth!

[rurallib]

1. I heard that meme on the radio this morning

I think the media needs stories and they make them up. They have 24X7 to fill and need stories.
To people I know the issues are still 1) Iraq 2) health care and then the others in some order. I honestly haven't heard anybody talk about "electability." I think most of us agree that we will work our collective asses off for whoever is the nominee and that the Repugs have some true stinkers. I mean stinky.
I am a precinct committee person in SE Iowa.

[gateley]

2. Thanks for your response. It's nice when I hear something about Iowa I can

run it by the 'real deal' - and that you are! :hi:

[Frustratedlady]

3. I still am concerned about the issues, but electability does enter into it for me.

I am so bound and determined to get this cabal and their cohorts as far away from the WH as I can, that it is an everyday concern. Part of the electability factor for me is knowing how dirty the Repigs can be when it comes to elections and it isn't hard to figure out who their targets will be and how they will try to bring them down. I think the only way to fight it is to fire back asap with our own spin, and I'm including each and everyone of us doing what we can to spread the word that the swiftboating tactics are just that, and come back with the truth of the matter. I worry about a couple of the candidates being able to hold their ground and another concern I won't form into words. I wish them all the best of luck.

BTW, I had a campaigner stop by last night to be sure I would be at the caucus "rehearsal" tomorrow night, so they could be sure all questions were asked before the actual caucus on Jan. 3rd. She said they had a similar "rehearsal" a week ago and that there were 13 for Clinton, 13 for Edwards and 43 for Obama. I believe this was a younger crowd, which may explain the wide span.

[CoffeeCat]

4. I agree with the poster who said...

...that the news media has too much time to fill the 24/7 news cycle. They generate
stories that barely have any basis.

With that said, I think Iowans are concerned about the same issues as the rest of
America. Electability certainly is an issue. However, you can make pro and con
electability statements on virtually all of the candidates.

I certainly don't speak for all Iowans, but I can offer my experience as an Iowan.
It sounds like you are looking for insight into what is going on in Iowa. So, here
goes:

Iowans take their "first in the nation" status very seriously. Being "first" is
such an honor and a privilege, and I feel a sense of responsibility. I think this
time around, many Democrats understand how important our nominee is, because of the
critical crossroads our nation stands.

I'm not sure if you want the 411 on the caucus process (and other Iowans can surely
chime in as I'm not the expert), but the caucuses do not involve pulling a lever.
Every town has many caucuses that take place in each voting district. We meet
in community centers, high-school libraries and sometimes peoples' living rooms!
In my suburb of 30,000--there are probably 200 caucus sites.

At my caucus in 2004--we met in the high-school gymnasium. There were 100 of us.
We started out by dividing into groups--based on which candidate you supported. This
gives everyone a clear picture of where everyone stands and which candidates are/aren't
"viable." In my caucus, if a candidate had less than 7 supporters, they were not
"viable." So, the four people who supported Dean had a decision to make. They could
stick with Dean--and not count. Or they could move into another candidate group.
99 percent of these people move to support another candidate.

The caucuses involve candidate supporters (and anyone can speak) lobbying, pleading and stating their candidate's case--pointing out their candidate's strengths and their opponents' weaknesses. It's a big, raucous lobby fest. People are passionate and very verbal. It's fun, but everyone
understands how serious the process is.

Several candidates will probably only have a few supporters--which means that it is
highly likely (though not certain) that Kucinich, Richardson, Biden and Dodd supporters
will end up standing with another candidate. Since this race appears to be a dead heat
at this point (statistically speaking, according to the latest polls), my hunch is
that the candidates who end up wooing the caucus goers (who support second-tier candidates)
to their camp--will have a considerable edge.

My opinion is that most of this nonviable support will go to Edwards and Obama, because
most supporters of these second-tier candidates are progressive and looking for change.

I also believe that it's likely that Hillary could come in 3rd or even 4th in Iowa. Her
polls in Iowa are trending downward. Much of her support has been based on her
inevitability and her name recognition. As Iowans have met the other candidates, her
inevitability factor has eroded significantly. After the inevitability factor is gone,
there just doesn't seem to be a lot of there, there.

Her campaign style has been to speak to large groups, with very little up-front Q&A.
All of the other candidates get face to face, and speak with small groups and are able
to connect one-on-one. I've noticed that Biden, Obama and Edwards are criss-crossing
the state and speaking at many small events. This openness, honesty and dialog will have a significant impact on caucus goers. That's how you win the Iowa caucuses.

Furthermore, maybe this story didn't get a lot of play nationwide, but in Iowa it was
huge news for several days when Hillary's campaign planted that question in Grinnell Iowa.
After Hillary denied knowing about this, another woman came forward and said that Hillary
campaign asked her to ask a planted question as well--at a different speech. It's clear
to most Iowans that Hillary was not being honest. That didn't play well at all. Hillary's
actions underscore the misgivings that many have about her--that she's overly managed, not
genuine and more robotic than honest. Her polls really began declining after all of this and
I think many began seriously paying attention to other Dem candidates.

The candidates who have the most passionate and outspoken supporters--will have an
edge, as well. If support for a candidate is weak or soft, that supporter can easily
change their mind. However, if support is emotional and passionate---that enthusiasm
may draw attention of other supporters, into that candidate camp.

I mentioned this in another post as well. It's possible that Mari Culver, the popular
wife of our governor, Chet Culver--may endorse Edwards. Last time around our governor Tom
Vilsack didn't endorse, but his wife did endorse Kerry. The Culver camp may do the same
thing and have the endorsement come from the wife. The Culvers are very close with the
Edwards' campaign. John Edwards campaigned for Chet Culver, during his gubenatorial bid.
I don't know that this endorsement will happen for certain, but it's highly likely and
it could help Edwards and could further erode Hillary.

That's my 2 cents. I hope other Iowans chime in too.

[Debi]

9. Great post TS! n/t

[Renew Deal]

5. I don't live there but...

That's what happened in 2004. That's why Kerry won. People felt he was more "electable." It's bad practice. If this is the case, the most "electable" is probably Edwards.

[CoffeeCat]

6. Also....in Iowa in 04....

Dean was doing well, but he really made some mistakes in Iowa. He came off
really abrasive and he made some incredibly rude comments on camera, to the
press. He appeared really defensive.

The decline of Dean gave way to the rise of Kerry. Kerry campaigned well
in Iowa, and he secured many endorsements, including one from our governor's
office.

I was a staunch Dean supporter. I loved his ideas. However, Iowa is
a unique situation. You're able to talk with most of the candidates if
you want. If I got in my car right now and drove around the state for
a few days--I bet I could get 10 minutes with each of them. People
want to know WHO they are voting for, and if you come off defensive and
snotty--it's just not going to play well with people who want to know
what you stand for AND who you are.

Personality and charm aren't everything. However, I think most of us
can agree that being open and honest is crucial this time around. If
you hide behind slogans and large speeches and rattle off soundbytes,
then that signals a lack of substance--and we need substance and honesty
this time around. I think Iowa is a good proving ground.

[K Gardner]

7. Thank you so much for taking the time to post both of these

insightful and informative posts. I know the people of Iowa work very hard and with due diligence during this process and I, for one, would like to thank you ! Best of luck.:toast:

[Frustratedlady]

8. My caucus center is having a "rehearsal" tomorrow evening...

which I plan to attend. I'm not attending for the training, but to see who has the most interest and/or support. I'm sure it will show through.

I have heard of many people who have never attended a caucus who plan on being there this year. Everywhere you go, people are talking about the importance of getting control of the WH and Congress in order to get "our house" put back in order. Their main concern is that there is not any manipulating of the votes. There will be many eyes watching those machines in November.

[Debi]

10. I think there are a couple of campaigns that would prefer we quit talking about foreign policy

and talk about ANYTHING else.

Electibility is such a crazy word. Any of our candidates are electible. Any of our candidates can defeat the republican nominee.

I think it's just a pissing match between some of the 'front-runners' who have less experience working with foreign leaders than some of the second tier candidates and really wish we'd focus on something else.