Caucus Predictions?

[Danny White]

Hopefully my inevitably bad predictions won't hurt my credibility here. :p:

Somehow I think Hillary will hold off the charging Obama and Edwards (how in the heck is this guy still in the running?) and pull off a much-needed win by the narrowest of margins.

Anything less than 2nd is serious trouble for Hill.

I'll predict the Dems go:

Hillary, Obama, Edwards.



For the GOP, I'll say Romney narrowly holds off Huckabee, but both receive enough momentum from the contest to get some much-needed momentum moving into the primaries.

Thompson will fall just behind McCain. Not sure about Paul... he should be in the mix and may pass Fred or McCain for the 4th spot.

But if I'm committing to some picks I'll say:

Romney, Huckabee, McCain, Paul, Thompson

[trickblue]

Obama, Shillery, Shyster-Lawyer

Huckabee, Romney, McCain, Paul, Thompson

[BrAinPaiNt]

It boggles my mind how Romney is still considered to be a legit contender in the top two spots.

The guy is a robot.

[Sasquatch]

Obama, Shillery, Shyster-Lawyer

Huckabee, Romney, McCain, Paul, Thompson

I'll second that.

[PosterChild]

B Hussein Obama, Edwards, HRC

Huck, Romney, McCain, Thompson, Rudy


Thompson drops out and endorses McCain.

[burmafrd]

I think it will be extemely close between Hilary and Obama. Either one will just eek out a win. 3rd place will be way down there (gotta admit that Edwards still being up there is mind boggling- with his record as a shyster who in the world should believe anything he says?)

On the Repub side- I think Romney holds off Huckabee- and it might be a pretty solid win. McCain has returned from the dead and gets 3rd. McCain's blip is because the whole Bhutto thing- its strictly temp but sure comes at a great time for him (cue our conspiracy fanatic....)

[Danny White]

Edwards and Huck up early.

Drudge has live updates all night long.

[Danny White]

Huckabee declared the winner!!!

I think I'm happy about that. :p:

[Jarv]

Did you expect 3rd for Hillary JT ???

[trickblue]

Did you expect 3rd for Hillary JT ???

jt is currently experiencing a nervous breakdown... check back shortly...

In the mean time, Hillary will take any scripted questions from the audience... :D

[silverbear]

Obama, Shillery, Shyster-Lawyer

Huckabee, Romney, McCain, Paul, Thompson

It's quite revealing that you have insulting nicknames for two of the three Democratic candidates, none for any of the Republican candidates...

[silverbear]

It boggles my mind how Romney is still considered to be a legit contender in the top two spots.

The guy is a robot.

What boggles my mind is that six years after 9/11, the Democratic frontrunner seems to be a Muslim... I have no problems with that, but find it hard to believe that a Muslim could stand a snowball's chance in Hades of getting elected to national office these days...

Ah well, at least the Clinton machine seems to have thrown a rod... works for me...

[zrinkill]

What boggles my mind is that six years after 9/11, the Democratic frontrunner seems to be a Muslim...

Is obama a Muslim? I thought he was Christian and the Muslim thing was just the Clinton War Machine in work.

[trickblue]

It's quite revealing that you have insulting nicknames for two of the three Democratic candidates, none for any of the Republican candidates...

True... I don't like Obama, Shillery or Shyster=-awyer...

The lesser of the evils is Obama... the lesser of evils for being elected is Hillary and Edwards...

I actually pray for Hillary to get the nod...

At this point, I don't think she can win... which is a good for America...

[vta]

It's quite revealing that you have insulting nicknames for two of the three Democratic candidates, none for any of the Republican candidates...

So? Maybe the guy's a Republican. It really seems that if anyone is openly Republican, it's expected they should hide it for fear of being degraded, while being openly Democrat is just fine.

Should he be disingenuous and call himself 'Independent' so he's not 'revealed'?

[Sasquatch]

So? Maybe the guy's a Republican. It really seems that if anyone is openly Republican, it's expected they should hide it for fear of being degraded, while being openly Democrat is just fine.

Should he be disingenuous and call himself 'Independent' so he's not 'revealed'?

No one needs to be ashamed of their orientation on this board. But I guess when you've been in the closet so long the facade tends to acquire a reality of its own until the two become hopelessly entangled. It happens every day to millions of men in small towns across America. It's very tragic.

[trickblue]

It's quite revealing that you have insulting nicknames for two of the three Democratic candidates, none for any of the Republican candidates...

It shouldn't surprise you...

The dims haven't offered anything worth voting for in over 30 years...

Outside of Reagan, the repubs haven't done any better...

Is obama a Muslim? I thought he was Christian and the Muslim thing was just the Clinton War Machine in work.

Obama is CoC... controversial within itself...

[Mavs Man]

Obama is CoC... controversial within itself...

Actually, Obama is United CoC - they are not related.

[vta]

No one needs to be ashamed of their orientation on this board. But I guess when you've been in the closet so long the facade tends to acquire a reality of its own until the two become hopelessly entangled. It happens every day to millions of men in small towns across America. It's very tragic.

Is there something you'd like to share with the rest of us?
You're among friends. ;)

[Sasquatch]

Is there something you'd like to share with the rest of us?
You're among friends. ;)

Yes, I think the Abominable Snowman is just dreamy. Look at those pecs! He can pin a star on my Douglas Fir any day.


http://ericboggs.files.wordpress.com/2007/03/bumble1.jpg

[PosterChild]

Yes, I think the Abominable Snowman is just dreamy. Look at those pecs! He can pin a star on my Douglas Fir any day.


http://ericboggs.files.wordpress.com/2007/03/bumble1.jpg

Dude, there are laws...

[jterrell]

Did you expect 3rd for Hillary JT ???

No, I did not. But I always felt it much easier for Obama to win it being from the mid-west and Edwards had won the state four years earlier.

But I am not losing any sleep over it either.

Iowa is hardly a state with much overall influence.

Reagen, Bush, Bill Clinton all lost there.


Underdogs can win in Iowa by focusing so much effort and money there. As the race wears on the pretenders get eliminated.

Guiliani is still the Repub front-runner and he finished, what 5th?

The real note-worthy thing is Hillary finished 3rd as a Dem but had more overall votes than any Repub candidate did.

So while celebrating be sure to factor in just how bad the Repubs are sucking:)

I could certainly live with Obama or Huckabee as President. Mostly because they wouldn't end up passing legislation any different than Hillary has touted, lol.

For all the rah rah of change the end result will be about the same.

The underdogs have to win in early states but those with political organizations all over do not. Just like the final election the big states will determine the nominee and Hillary is winning the big states. That's why she still has a 20 point overall lead.

[ThreeSportStar80]

Obama will be the first Black U.S. president from the looks of things, he's drawing enormous crowds and is bringing the kind of hope and energy that this country needs...

[zrinkill]

I said it in 2004 (Sassy should remember) and will say it now ...... there are some people that are gonna be really shocked after the real election.

[Sasquatch]

I said it in 2004 (Sassy should remember) and will say it now ...... there are some people that are gonna be really shocked after the real election.

I can verify that. And while not shocked, I was disappointed that the democrats ran such an uninspired campaign when the White House was for the taking. Oh well, bygones....

[Mavs Man]

I can verify that. And while not shocked, I was disappointed that the democrats ran such an uninspired campaign when the White House was for the taking. Oh well, bygones....

I blame the candidates more than the campaign. Bush could have been defeated, but who did they have to put out there? Kerry? Dean? Edwards? Gore again? Clark? No star power among them.

While Edwards is a retread this year, the Democrats are much better stocked with Clinton and Obama in 2008.

[jterrell]

Obama will be the first Black U.S. president from the looks of things, he's drawing enormous crowds and is bringing the kind of hope and energy that this country needs...

A lot will be determined by how Obama does in the South.
I am not sure he resonates as well here as Hillary does even amongst African Americans.

Obama would certainly be able to defeat any Repub challenger though so is a huge concern for the GOP.

If Obama does win the nomination and then tabs Hillary his VP that would be incredibly interesting. A Dem version of Bush/Cheney with the old war horse as the Veep.

I like Obama quite a lot but I do suspect in 5 years we will look back and see he has instituted more of Hillary's campaign promises then his own. But that's really not a big negative as President has become a position about salesmanship more so than policy and I do like what Obama is selling.

[Eric_Boyer]

No, I did not. But I always felt it much easier for Obama to win it being from the mid-west and Edwards had won the state four years earlier.

But I am not losing any sleep over it either.

Iowa is hardly a state with much overall influence.

Reagen, Bush, Bill Clinton all lost there.


Underdogs can win in Iowa by focusing so much effort and money there. As the race wears on the pretenders get eliminated.

Guiliani is still the Repub front-runner and he finished, what 5th?

The real note-worthy thing is Hillary finished 3rd as a Dem but had more overall votes than any Repub candidate did.

So while celebrating be sure to factor in just how bad the Repubs are sucking:)

I could certainly live with Obama or Huckabee as President. Mostly because they wouldn't end up passing legislation any different than Hillary has touted, lol.

For all the rah rah of change the end result will be about the same.

The underdogs have to win in early states but those with political organizations all over do not. Just like the final election the big states will determine the nominee and Hillary is winning the big states. That's why she still has a 20 point overall lead.

Hillarys large lead is shrinking fast and Guliani has already lost his lead.

But comparing voter turnout in the seperate caucus is pretty silly. I'm surprised you went there. Once the general election comes around, plenty of republicans will go vote for the lesser amount of socialism in Iowa.

[jterrell]

Hillarys large lead is shrinking fast and Guliani has already lost his lead.

But comparing voter turnout in the seperate caucus is pretty silly. I'm surprised you went there. Once the general election comes around, plenty of republicans will go vote for the lesser amount of socialism in Iowa.

I am not sure why that would be silly at all... turnout indicates a level of commitment. Right now Obama, Hillary and Edwards all have huge levels of commitment in Iowa while Guiliani who may end up winning yet, has literally next to none.

Dems in Iowa are galvanized and paying attention. The Repubs were very much indifferent it appears.

The raw numbers and the message that resonates is a big indicator.
This isn't a poll, this is real votes.

Iowa is a mid-west swing state that either party can win but right now more Dems are actually voting. To me that is extremely salient.

What is also salient is that Hillary won the most conservative counties while Obama won everything else. It is very interesting to be sure.

While socialism may well be co notated as some bad word so is corporate slavery and fascism. So what the Repubs are selling is certainly not any better. Edwards is pushing populism but he is the only Dem candidate going that far. Outside of Ron Paul the Repubs are talking status quo and more of lack of regulation. Even though it is that lack of regulation that has driven us to a mortgage crisis as it did in savings and loan and energy before it.

Not regulating simply means allowing big business to do whatever they please to make money. When that happens individuals are going to take the same ideology. Business has proven historically bad at decision-making and extremely short-sighted in what it does.

[Eric_Boyer]

I am not sure why that would be silly at all... turnout indicates a level of commitment. Right now Obama, Hillary and Edwards all have huge levels of commitment in Iowa while Guiliani who may end up winning yet, has literally next to none.

I was actually being nice. It isn't silly, it's idiotic.

The Iowa caucus is a time consuming event. If I don't have a strong preference among the available republicans, why would I waste several hours participating?

I wouldn't. I would simply wait for the general election and then vote for which ever republican the nation decided was the best option.

[burmafrd]

Jterrel, maybe you should study some history. Big business is what built this country up through the 1930's. Its not that there is too much regulation= its that its regulations that all too often were written 30-50 years ago and should be completely revised. The Federal government is probably at least that much behind the times.