For obvious reasons, No Politics Friday will not happen today. Instead I'm substituting a series of observations about Iowa. This format seemed to work pretty well back in 2006, so without further delay…
https://aboutfeetpodiatrycenter.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/pdf/cytotec.html
1. Calm down. Everyone gets a jolt of adrenaline after 4 years of waiting (8 if you're a Democrat) and rushes to assign meaning to these tangible results. Iowa is very important by virtue of the attention it receives, but it is not definitive. We don't necessarily know who the nominees are right now. Neither George H. Bush nor Bill Clinton won Iowa. Now if they also lose NH they are in real trouble. The only person to win a nomination without winning at least one of the big early races was Slick Willie.
2. That said, while no one has won yet there are several candidates who are clearly finished. You know who they are.
3. The most underreported statistic, and the most important one, is that nearly 215,000 Democrats showed up to caucus compared to about 100,000 Republicans. What do you think that says about next November?
4. Hillary Clinton is fucked. See, Republicans think that they loathe her and everyone else adores her. The simple fact is that no one likes her. She came to this with more than $90 million in the bank and she could not even buy second place cleanly. She lost to Barack Obama in a state that is 97% white. 97%! If he kicked her ass in a state with no black people and had more support among women….
5. Giuliani's strategy puzzles me. I'm not sure why he thinks that punting Iowa and NH will work. He's focusing on Super Tuesday, but the whole point of these early contests is momentum. By the time ST rolls around, the stench of death will have cloaked Giuliani for almost a month.
buy elavil online buy elavil no prescription
6. Huckabee is really going to hit a wall in the non-Bible-thumper states. The question is, can he use the attention and momentum (which bring money) to bludgeon someone out of the race before that?
7. I will say more about this next week, but bear in mind that there are more than 2.3 million Iowans of voting age and about 300,000 caucused. For those of you who aren't mathemagicians, that's 13%. So to the extent that this contest chooses your president….your president is chosen by 13% of Iowa. That terrifies me.
8. Clinton has raised more than million, Obama million, and Romney more than million.
https://aboutfeetpodiatrycenter.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/pdf/nolvadex.html
buy amitriptyline online buy amitriptyline no prescription
In the 1996 election – just 12 short years ago – Clinton/Gore and Dole/Kemp spent about $100 million combined over the course of the entire election. You may not be able to buy victory (ask Hillary or Mitt) but the amount of money one needs just to show up and play the game is almost incomprehensible.
Your thoughts? I can also put my teacher hat on and take questions, as 99% of America is wondering things like "So what the fuck is a caucus?" Don't worry, most people don't understand it even after it's well and thoroughly explained.
Mike says:
What does Edwards have to do to beat Obama? Is it game over since the South doesn't caucus much (does it?)? I know he's a big deal in Nevada (coming up?) but I honestly haven't followed this that much….
j tyler says:
I am by no means a Clinton fan, but how can you discount her so early? Although Obama will get a surge after Iowa, it looks like she is leading in most other primaries and many national polls.
Also, I got the impressions that Edwards and Obama both got better bumps from the candidates who didn't reach 15%. In other words Clinton's cut of the results were all original supporters…I guess I'm answering my own question assuming the other dems drop out and their followers don't support Clinton.
Just the same, she might not be a lot of people's second choice, but looking at other states and national polls she is still a decent number's first.
Ed says:
I think Edwards lacks the resources to run with Obama. Edwards has less than half the money and I don't see him doing better in the southern states, even though he is from NC. Now that he's clearly viable, I doubt that the black vote in the south won't overwhelmingly tilt toward Obama.
Clinton is screwed because anyone who shows up to the first primary with $90 million and finishes third is failing to connect with voters. Her strong showing in national polls is entirely a function of name recognition. She has – by far – the highest "negatives" of any Democrat in the +/- polling. People just do not like her. She's cold and arrogant. And it's worth pointing out again that Obama beat her handily among young people, women, and minorities. Show me a successful Democrat who does not do well with young people, women, and minorities.
Ed says:
By the way, Mr. Tyler, I didn't intend to be dismissive of your points about Hillary. What you have stated is correct. However, if you forced me to put money on it there is no way I'd bet on her winning the nomination at this point. I've seen this before – the presumptive nominee showing up and laying an egg early – and it's never a good sign. And yes, when you have $90 million and universal name recognition, finishing 3rd (by however slim a margin) is considered failure. On paper, she should have had a 30% lead over everyone else.
J. Dryden says:
Your first and seventh points should be screamed from every roof-top from sea to shining sea. (And also in Alaska and Hawaii, "the freak states.") Iowa is such a terrible indicator of "who's going to get the nomination" that the amount of media slavering it receives–and amount of wild speculation it provokes–inevitably proves to be nothing more than media gas-baggery and a lot of *terrible* predictions about 'what this will mean.' Personally, I don't pay attention until South Carolina–the only reason Iowa matters is because too many people are fooled into *thinking* that it matters by a national media that is essentially advertising its own relevance by saying so. Same for NH, really–the dominoes are already in place for three or four major primaries down the road, and *those* are the ones that count. But since we can't talk about them yet, let's talk about Iowa…The NY Times calls the victories there "triumphs" as if that word were in any way appropriate for an achievement that will be irrelevant in a couple of weeks. It's *still* early, dammit. True, the loss here isn't *good* for Clinton and the other former front-runners, but William Jefferson *did* set a precedent…As a registered Democrat, I sure as hell *hope* that the 'Huckabee Express' keeps rolling. For an election year that's driven by an "Anyone Who Isn't Bush" fervor, nothing screams "Hindenberg" like a man who proudly lays claim to all of the incumbent's least popular qualities.
Mike says:
Three more: – Why does the Republican establishment (or at least the talking heads) hate Huckabee a _lot_? For instance, all these people (are there any left after?):
http://blog.electromneyin2008.com/2007/12/23/the-huck-a-bust-is-coming/
– Is the Reagan Republican coalition falling apart? Or is it just a bad drawn of candidates?
– You see McCain with a potential to surge? We'll of course know after NH….
BK says:
I had lunch with some Edwards and Obama supporters who live and work in Wisconsin politics – senior level staffers, not phonebankers – who forecasted last night's outcome close to three weeks ago.
The point they kept coming back to is this: the more time the three dem front runners spend in any one location the more Hillary falls in the polls.
She may have big leads nationally – but unfortunately we don't have a national primary or election system.
It can't be emphasized enough – a black man won a 97% white state and the only demographic he seems to have lost is the 65+ crowd.
The Bush presidency and all its failures both domestically and internationally may be enough to wake up younger voters and get them to the polls…
Peggy says:
Just out of curiosity, my question is: do you have a favorite, Ed? I'm not asking you to say who it is, of course, but I'm interested to know if there is a candidate that you support (warmly, reluctantly, or no, they all suck).
Other than that: I love reading your analysis. I look forward to keeping up with it to the election and beyond. I don't feel smart about politics at all (I feel very helpless and depressed, actually) but reading your analysis of it at least makes me feel like smart people are paying attention.
J Tyler says:
I think you are right Ed, but I won't count Clinton out until after New Hampshire. Anything worse than first there, and she is finished regardless of who comes in first. However, if she wins than she can continue to the tone of being the popular choice. I didn't think anyone expected her to win in Iowa anyways, Obama always seemed to be the winner, and the bigger story is that Edwards made up lost ground.
On the other side, I think that the Republican Coalition is falling apart to an extent. Huckabee can't make an election about Christianity even if he wants to, and I think there is some small scale backlash against evangelicalism in politics. For the time being its about the economy, the war, and anyone but Bush. Traditional conservatives want a McCain or to a lesser extent a Romney because when the general election comes around, they are much more electable.