My Bet

As a John Edwards supporter, and knowing your track record on predicting elections, I'm extremely dismayed.

Even if you turn out to be right, I don't think your thumbnail analysis is very cogent. First, it's very, very early. Look at old 2004 polls. There's plenty of time for a lead change, or even several, among the top candidates, as happened in 2004.

http://miva.dmregister.com/miva/cgi-bin/miva?extras/iowapoll/poll.mv+file=prez0401

Second, not all polls even show Edwards leading in Iowa, and the Iowa Caucus is notoriously difficult to poll. http://electioncentral.tpmcafe.com/election_tags/ia_pres

Third, the Clinton and Obama teams are not stupid. If Edwards maintains his lead in Iowa, where they will be campaigning and debating constantly, they are going to do everything they can to change that dynamic. It is very, very hard to predict how that will shake out. Maybe someone will go negative on him in the last week and knock him out and allow some else to emerge, along the lines of what happened with Gephardt and Dean in 2004.

Also, Democratic primary goers often seem ready to swing to the "safe" candidate - Kerry sold himself that way at the time, and I think a lot of people bought it. I could see a significant chunk of the Democratic Primary electorate thinking - A white man is safer in the general - and voting for Edwards. I hope that's NOT the reason he wins, if he wins, but I would not be shocked if it happened. Certainly, racial bloc voting is still a real phenomenum in this country, and one could see the whites of Iowa going for a white guy.

If you lead in fundraising, you'll more likely than not raise the most money by january. I don't think leading in Iowa makes you likelier than not to actually win Iowa.

Remember who was leading in Iowa at this point in the 2004 race: Gephardt. That ended up hurting Gephardt a whole heckuvalot more than it helped him, in that it drastically raised expectations about his performance. He simply couldn't afford to lose Iowa, let alone perform as abysmally (11%, fourth place, no delegates) as he did. I think the same thing may happen with Edwards: if he wins Iowa, he can keep going, but if he loses he's kaput. That's not a great situation to be in.
Also, a point on your diminishing returns theory of fundraising: this may have been true with a less compressed primary schedule, but with the national primary on the 5th, any candidate who wants to win is going to need to put up a lot of TV and radio ads, and that will cost a lot of money, particularly given that large, expensive urban markets (NYC, LA, Chicago) will be in the mix. I can see how Obama or Clinton can compete in a situation like that; unless his fundraising picks up dramatically, I don't see how Edwards can.

Matt:

You are so write. Grate commentary.

Gore, bitches!

"I just thought I'd like to go on record early as saying I think John Edwards is probably going to win the nomination."

FWIW, as a strong Edwards supporter, I wouldn't bet it that way.

If I had to rank the candidates in order of likelihood of winning the nomination, I'd put them:

1) Hillary
2) Edwards
3) Obama

Now, just because I think Hillary has the most likelihood of winning doesn't mean I think she's got a lock on it. Edwards has a clear path to the hoop, and he's definitely got a very serious and real shot at getting it done.

But Hillary's advantage in support among the Democratic establishment means she's the only candidate who can take a genuine body blow and still recover. Again, that doesn't mean she's going to actually get the nomination, but if we're talking odds, it means she's gotta be considered the favorite.

I went on the record several months ago, somehwere but I can't remember where, as predicting the Dem ticket would be Edwards/Clark (Weseley that is).

"I'd take leading in Iowa."

It's also worth noting that as the only major Northeastern candidate in the field, Hillary has a theoretical firewall in NH to recover from a possible loss in IA...

I agree with that conclusion. Edwards is at 25% in the latest Time national poll. Their likely-voter screen is bad, but that probably distorts against him and in favor of Clinton. The media will eventually realize it's a 3 way race... they'll have to once Obama drops to third, as it seems he will. Edwards isn't going to win cheaply by being everyone's second choice. He's going to share the spotlight with the other 2 for several months, and I think he's going to do well in that spotlight.
Edwards wins Iowa, next contest only 5 days later, then NH 3 days later. Iowa is the ballgame. He may not lose a single primary, save NY.

I was going to say the same thing Clark said above. I like Edwards and hope he wins the nomination. But now that Matt has offered this prediction, he'd doomed.

Some good points from Yglesias, but I think it's also possible that the "dynamic" that will solidify is that Obama and Edwards will fight to dominate the anti-Hillary vote.

Assuming Gore doesn't run, (which I continue to think is a reasonably safe assumption), we get the following:

Petey's Fair Value:

45% Hillary
35% Edwards
20% Obama
0% Field

Really? I think you underestimate how many people perceive him as a slick-talking slickster. He's like Clinton without as much charisma but with a Senator's record instead of governor's record. That footage of him playing with his hair touches a nerve with a lot of people; moderate Southerners who he is supposed to attract, I suspect, will be turned off by that seeming "used car-salesman" quality. And the trial lawyer thing doesn't help.

DP,
I'm pretty sure that Clark hates Edwards.

"I think you underestimate how many people perceive him as a slick-talking slickster ... And the trial lawyer thing doesn't help."

Republicans don't get to vote in Democratic primaries, Freddie...

As in Wesley, right? He blames Edwards for generals speaking out against him during the '04 campaign.

Slick talking slickster???

Straight up Jasper! I don't think it'll come down to Clinton v. Obama...I think we're starting to see a fight between Obama and Edwards over who will fly the banner of the anti-Hillary.

Petey:

0% Field? Really? I'd give Richardson like 1%, maybe even 2%.

Question: If Edwards wins, would Obama make a good VP candidate? If Obama wins, would Edwards make a good VP candidate?

Petey, I think you're confusing Freddie with Fred.

I think it'll come down to Kucinich and Dodd fighting it out to see who can take on Gravel for last place.

I have to agree with Matt. I also have to agree with Ed Kilgore's comment (a link in the previous post) that Richardson is a darkhorse: He's got a helluva lot of great all-around experience, and while not as charismatic as Obama and Edwards, his speeches are usually pretty sound. That all said, I find the media obsessing over Obama's lack of policies a little premature; he's still got a lot of time, and he's probably playing the media well by using all the positive momentum from his charisma, and slowly bringing out the policies to keep the popular winds blowing.

Slick talking slickster???

Haha guess I should proofread before I post.

I'm for Edwards, but if I had to bet, I'd bet on Obama. Especially if I can get odds of 4-1 against from Petey. :-)

Republicans don't get to vote in Democratic primaries, Freddie...

Yeah but I'm talking about the moderate Southern democrats that are supposed to be voting for him over Northeastern elites like Hillary.

I think you're right. Edwards has good policies, has survived a
general election campaign before, is a good performer on the
stump and on TV, and won't have to make any awkward votes in the
Senate. He has a very good chance. Sen Clinton still sounds way
too hawkish; Obama is talented but hasn't been through the fire yet.

If you're looking to make money and don't care about ethics, the Iowa
Electronic Market has the Edwards nomination contract selling at only
about 8c. 8-1 looks like very generous odds.

And I know Hillary is from Arkansas, but she is a Senator from New York, and is certainly perceived in that way.

Clark, he didn't say Edwards was inevitable.

Nobody really cares about the nitty gritty policy details; it's the big picture that counts. That's all anyone really pays attention to, and we all know that those detailed policy proposals are as likely as not to get thrown in the trash once a candidate is elected.

I hate Iowa.

I don't think Edwards would be a bad choice, but my intuition is that he'll have a hard time getting past the "inexperienced" tag, and he'll suffer for lacking the history-making appeal of a female or black nominee.

If Obama doesn't win the nomination, I think he's everyone else's first choice for veep. And he's at a point in the arc of his career where it would still be a pretty big step upwards, so he'd probably grab it.

The interesting question is, if Obama wins, who does he pick as a running mate? I don't think either Hillary or Edwards would want the job: Hillary surely thinks she's too big for the job, and Edwards has already been the veep candidate - running again would have to feel kinda weird.

I think something missed by Minipundit is that although early polls are not particularly reliable, Edwards also leads in the ground game, which is even more important in a caucus. (Desmoinesdem has a couple of diaries explaining the Iowa caucuses on MyDD.)

The bottom line is that Edwards is popular in Iowa, has a solid staff in Iowa already in place (with previous Iowa experience to boot), and he has good connections with the governor and local politicians around the state. He's going to be tough to beat.

"0% Field? Really? I'd give Richardson like 1%, maybe even 2%"

I was rounding to the nearest 5 for readability. I'd agree that something like 100 to 1 is a fair bet on Richardson.

"the Iowa Electronic Market has the Edwards nomination contract selling at only
about 8c. 8-1 looks like very generous odds."

Well, that's actually 12 to 1, not 8 to 1...

And yes, if you want to make some money Edwards is the no-brainer bet on the Dem side at current odds, just as McCain is the no-brainer bet on the GOP side at current odds.

FYI, $26 million > $25 million. Further, $36 million >>> $25 million.

Yeah but I'm talking about the moderate Southern democrats that are supposed to be voting for him over Northeastern elites like Hillary.

Freddie, Southern moderate Democrats like trial lawyers.

Clark - you think Gephardt didn't have a good ground team in Iowa?

Wait, I just got here. is it too late to make a William Bennett joke?

All my Intrade money is on the Edwards contracts (He's at 8 to win the nomination and at 5 to win the general). I'd bet more, but I should probably donate it to his campaign instead.

If I had any leftover money to play with on the GOP side, I'd probably be gambling on Gingrich, who's around 3.

Freddie, Southern moderate Democrats like trial lawyers.

Oh.

Republicans don't get to vote in Democratic primaries, Freddie...

They do in some states.

"Clark - you think Gephardt didn't have a good ground team in Iowa?"

Geppy had strong old-line union support and nothing else. In other words, he had a middling ground game.

Edwards has his own organization, likely support from both old-line and new-line unions, support from issues-oriented liberals, and (hopefully) the kind of tacit support from the Iowa Governor's machine that pulled Kerry over the top the last time around.

Honestly, I'd really like to see a whole long post about it. But I guess that's what a Prospect subscription is for, right?

Minipundit, not as good as Edwards does in 2008.

I have been saying the same thing for months now. Edwards is the only threat to Hillary.

Edwards is leading with likely caucus voters in Iowa. Hillary still has a lead with registered Dems in Iowa.

Latest polls show Hillary leading in NH with Edwards in second place.

If Edwards manages to win Iowa and then go on to win NH he will have the Big Mo.

OTOH, if Hillary wins both Iowa and NH it will be over.

From a purely positive analysis, I would say:

Hillary is overvalued
Edwards does indeed have positive dynamics going for him
But union-support is way overvalued in this day and age
Richardson is undervalued
And the real wild-card is “what happens when the press falls out of love with Obama”, which is a high-variance event that precludes good predictions about the race.

Edwards was a fine trial lawyer, but those skills do not necessarily translate well into winning a nomination/office. I see him as a shallow populist, and not even very original. He's an empty suit compared to Hillary or Obama or Gore, any of whom would be a more formidable candidate against any of the republicans currently running. No way he accepts second chair again as VP (has that ever happened?)
Prediction: Hillary/Obama vs. Guiliani/Thompson

I thought Vilsack's wife ad last time around was one of the most effective I have ever watched.

Other than that, I think Iowa is overrated, bandwagoning is overrated and I don't like Edwards, whose populist schtick is what alienated me last time around. Furthermore I will always remember his first appearance on MTP in 2002 when he was the the next young bright new thing, only to be shown as an inexperienced empty suit. I then compare it with Obama's poise, projection and political acumen he's exhibited when he similarly enjoyed the media spotlight a couple of months ago.

Obama is no Dean or 2002 Edwards. He's much more serious than 2002 Edwards (or 00 Bush) and far less likely to make the gaffes Dean did or buy into his own political adviser BS like Dean did with Trippi.

If he can overcome the conventional wisdom forming around elites that he's too inexperienced (which I think is happening now as the euphoria period is fading), he can win thing.

Anyone but Hilary.

Unless Gore jumps in, progressives should unite behind Edwards. Obama is too inexperienced and has too many "X" factors at this point.

"But union-support is way overvalued in this day and age"

If you only have union support, you're going nowhere. But it does get you up to a 10% to 20% level by itself in most states.

And as Edwards demonstrated in '04 when he didn't have union support, he's got strong support elsewhere. Add union support to that base, along with progressive support, and you start to have something interesting.

Or to put it another way, add up Edwards, Gephardt, and Dean from '04 to see Edwards' potential support base in '08.

For the record, I'd rather have Obama or maybe Richardson be the nominee, but I don't think it's incredibly likely. But Edwards is totally acceptable and he definitely has the highest possibility of delivering an emotionally satisfying crushing defeat to the GOP.

Wasn't it about 6 months from now (relatively) that Yglesias declared Dean inevitable?

Is this the kiss of death?

Obama strikes me, and I could be very, very wrong on this, as the type of candidate that NH ends up going for -- the new politics schtick plays well here. My sense of Hilary support is that it is not very deep, but I am insulated in my interaction with types of Democrats.

Can the eventual winner not win Iowa or NH?

"Can the eventual winner not win Iowa or NH?"

Only Hillary retains that possibility, which is why she remains the favorite, despite Edwards' strength.

But it would hard even for her.

My nightmare scenario is that Edwards wins Iowa, Nevada, and South Carolina, but can't win New Hampshire - traditionally an uphill climb for Southern candidates. And since the national press tends to highlight NH over all others, if Hillary can use her regional advantage to win NH, she might be able to neutralize Edwards' advantage in winning the other early states, and then go on to use her other advantages to swamp the field on Feb 5.

Edwards needs to enter Feb 5 as the clear champion to win the whole thing. Hillary doesn't.

Your quasi-support is appreciated!

Let me also suggest that once in office Edwards has the highest probability of selling the country on awesome domestic policy that you like. The value of political advantages doesn't entirely dissipate when an election is won.

Matt, the projection is premised on the idea that nothing will change between now and January 2008, which is sort of like project that a final score will be 100 to 80 based on a 25 to 20 first quarter score. There's a good chance that, by Thanksgiving, a different candidate will be in the lead in Iowa and the national polls. Furthermore, while the Iowa caucus-winner generates momentum, a win hardly seals the deal. What matters more is whether the candidates met expectations. Kerry rolled to victory on the strength of a better-than-expected finish in Iowa -- remember, by December 2003, Kerry was written off and had to finance his campaign from a second mortgage. Polling fourth up until the final two weeks, somehow Kerry gained momentum to overtake Edwards, Gephardt and Dean. Had Kerry won in Iowa as a front-runner who "lost momentum" to a surging Edwards or Dean, the dynamic going into New Hampshire would be very different. It's the *story*, not the finish, that matters.

To be sure, Edwards, swamped by Kerry organizer Michael Whouley in 2004, knows the importance of an expert ground game in Iowa. So I expect that he will be competitive. Ultimately, though, my prediction is that the person who emerges from Iowa will be the candidate the caucus-goers deem to have the best chance to beat the Republican front-runner by that time. That assessment will probably be based on the numerous general election match-up polls that will be released in the month leading to the primary. That candidate is probably going to be Obama.

Unfortunately, I think Matt may be right. I hope both of us are wrong...

I also don't think there's any doubt that, if Obama had not entered the race, Hillary Clinton would have already crushed Edwards by now.

"To be sure, Edwards, swamped by Kerry organizer Michael Whouley in 2004, knows the importance of an expert ground game in Iowa."

For the record, the Whouley '04 legend was always mostly myth. Kerry's ground game was mostly a product of the Vilsack machine, not Whouley.

The biggest thing Edwards has going for him in Iowa in '08 is the likely support of the Culver machine. A Democratic governor can swamp the caucuses due to the low turnout.

I hate Jackmorman

My bet

My bet's on whoever deals best with opposing this administration on both the war in Iraq/Iran, and the domestic consititutional crisis they seem bent of provoking. That very likely won't be anyone who's even being mentioned as a possible candidate.

Look, this would be early in even an ordinary cycle to start handicapping the horse race. And this is no ordinary cycle. I doubt seriously that we would have seen so many candidates announce so early were this not precisely a cycle that promises unusually high volatility. Who knows how a war with Iran, or an impeachment, or a Bush resignation, would shake things up? So more folks think, quite rightly in my opinion, that they have just as good a shot as the less-able-to-shift-ground-quickly, dinosaur, front-runners.

I have no dog in this hunt, but the simple fact remains that the last sitting U.S. senator to be elected president was John F. Kennedy. So, from that perspective alone, Edwards may have the best shot to be elected were he to become the nominee.

JoeCHI, more of Hillary's money is for the general election and Obama has double the donor pool she does.

Ryan is right. It is the story not the finishing place that matters as far as Iowa goes. Dean was dead after Iowa because all of his perceived momentum (hyped endlessly in the press) went away when he finished a distant third (compounded by "the scream"). Iowa was huge for Kerry and Edwards because up until almost the last minute they weren't getting a lot of hype so their strong performances made for a great and easily hyped story.

If Edwards retains his lead in the polls in Iowa, he is going to need to win big in Iowa for it to help him in the battle for the media story. My guess is that whoever exceeds expectations best between Hillary and Obama in Iowa will take the nomination.

In a sense Edwards' position in Iowa hurts him. As the media played "third candidate" if the story after Iowa is about Hillary or Obama, Edwards' support will dry up fast as voters start to feel that it really is a two horse race.

I may as well guess too. I'm guessing Obama will win, and that he'll probably win Iowa. I don't think he really is less full of shit than Clinton or Edwards, but he's definitely much more persuasive.

"JoeCHI, more of Hillary's money is for the general election and Obama has double the donor pool she does."

Hillary will be reporting $36 million. Maybe 4-5 million out of that is for the general election which still leaves her with more money for the primaries than Obama.

Regardless, money is not enough to win. Remember Howard Dean? He raised more money than anyone and did not win a single primary.

"If Edwards retains his lead in the polls in Iowa, he is going to need to win big in Iowa for it to help him in the battle for the media story."

I don't think that's the way it works.

In cases where the national front runner loses Iowa, (and I don't think Edwards is likely to be the national front runner prior to the caucuses), there are always two media narratives that come out of Iowa:

- The winner of the caucuses.
- That the national front runner didn't win the caucuses.

You can see that in '04, where the two narratives were that Kerry won, and that Dean didn't win. Edwards got lost in the shuffle, since you can never get more than two media narratives at the same time.

The only time you ever get stories about someone "not winning Iowa by enough" is when that person is the national front runner, and even then, it's rare.

"Hillary will be reporting $36 million. Maybe 4-5 million out of that is for the general election which still leaves her with more money for the primaries than Obama."

Entirely correct, but the Obama folks have the perfectly valid line that he raised more primary money than Hillary in Q1.

You are also quite correct about the limitations of early money, though. Whoever does well in the pre-2/5 states will find an enormous amount of money being transfused into their campaigns in literally a matter of 48 hours.

"Obama is no Dean or 2002 Edwards. He's much more serious than 2002 Edwards"

How?

He always talks in homilies about "hope", "bipartisanship". He hasn't displayed much substance or detailed knowledge of policy. Edwards OTOH comes across well informed about policy matters. He can go into great detail about health care and other issues.

Another thing I'd add to Petey's point above is that we're working from nearly a decade's worth of Hillary fascination in the media (coming less from the left than from the right). Barring something catastrophic going on between now and January, she's going to have some place in the media narrative. If Edwards' lead in Iowa holds, it's "Edwards beats Hillary". Even if Hillary comes in third behind Obama, it's going to play out like "Kerry beats Dean" did in 2004, with the 1 and the former front-runner at 3 getting all the oxygen.

If Edwards had to finish second in Iowa, I'd rather it be to Hillary than Obama. Then Edwards can win Nevada off the unions and make the Hillary-Edwards narrative the key one for NH.

I'm sorry...I just haven't seen anything from Edwards to get me energized. I know the hard core health care policy wonks are on his bandwagon big time (and they're generally quite vocal in attacking Obama) but I just don't get the excitement. Maybe it's because I'm black and there's an actual viable black candidate in the race for once (not that I would vote for B.O. on the basis of shared race alone), but I was also born in North Carolina (same as Edwards) and my background is definitely more in line with his than with Obama's, but there's something that's just not clicking for me in re: Edwards.

To each his own, I guess.

Petey,

John Kerry borrowed money to compete in Iowa.

I also remember Bill Clinton's campaign borrowing money in 1992 to compete.

If Edwards can keep up the current rate of raising money he will do OK. He doesn't have to break records. He just needs to raise enough.

"Maybe it's because I'm black and there's an actual viable black candidate in the race for once"

Hell, I'm white, and the implications of Obama's race made me take some time thinking about if I should stop supporting Edwards and start supporting Obama around New Year's.

If it's any consolation, I think Edwards as nominee would likely put Obama on the national ballot as Veep.

Petey,

The problem with Edwards in Iowa is that the media is, if the numbers are near what they are now (obviously a big assumption), going to be treating Iowa as his shot at the candidacy. If he doesn't win he is out. If he does win, but not by a large margin he'll get some of the story. But if either Obama or Hillary outperform expectations the story will be shared.

In other words, Iowa only matters if it breaks the common wisdom. If the common wisdom is that Edwards is in the lead in Iowa but third nationally and winning Iowa is his only chance to win the nomination, the media is not going to hype his campaign if he comes through with a close win. Without the media hype Iowa means nothing.

It is just silly to think that the media is going to start fawning over Iowa if he wins by a small margin if that is what the media and the polls were predicting would happen all along.

Petey,
Perhaps...but I am not quite ready to say that Edwards is getting the nomination yet. :-)

That should be "Edwards" not "Iowa" in that last sentence there. Obviously.

Mike P,

"I'm sorry...I just haven't seen anything from Edwards to get me energized."

I feel the same way about Obama. What's his selling point? That he gives OK speeches and wants civility and bipartisanship in politics? If he had been white nobody would be taking him seriously as a presidential candidate.

Petey,

As far as 2004 goes -- the issue was that Dean was actually first or close to it in the polls in Iowa. That he finished a distant third after those expectations is what screwed him. And, I'm not sure what media you were watching, but Edwards got a lot of play after his performance in Iowa (not as much as Kerry, but a lot).

It is always about expectations with the media. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that.

"It is just silly to think that the media is going to start fawning over Iowa if he wins by a small margin if that is what the media and the polls were predicting would happen all along."

You're entitled to your own predictions, but I don't think the historical record supports you.

Iowa is next to impossible to poll because of the incredibly low turnout of the caucus process, and so there's always suspense in years where the national front runner isn't running away with things.

As stated, you'll get two stories if Edwards is not the national front runner pre-caucuses and wins the caucuses.

- Edwards wins.
- National front runner doesn't win.

As noted above, I don't know if that bump will be enough to overcome the regional disadvantage he faces in NH, but he'll still get a favorable media narrative coming out of Iowa, even if he wins the caucuses by a single vote, and even if it's seemed semi-likely for a year.

I'm open to change my mind. I'd just like to know what historical examples you feel don't support my prediction. I don't think 2004 is one.

"And, I'm not sure what media you were watching, but Edwards got a lot of play after his performance in Iowa"

Kerry's win and Dean's loss got the overwhelming bulk of TV coverage in the days following Iowa. Perhaps aliens were broadcasting different signals into my TV than anyone else's, but somehow I doubt that.

To be frank, part of Obama's appeal to me IS his race. Like I said, it's not the only reason I'd vote for him, but it is kind of gratifying to see "one of us" going for the big prize.

As for other reasons: I'm as tired of the Bush administration as anyone here, but...I'm tired of the constant fighting in politics. I don't think it HAS to be that way. Don't get me wrong...there are things that are worth fighting for and I would want whichever candidate I backed to not be afraid to hold the line. I'm not saying we have to be buddy buddy with Republicans, but, because of the state of mind that I'm in, Obama's rhetoric does appeal to me (in a way that Edwards' doesn't).

Bottom line is I think people just assume Obama won't fight for them because he's talking about healing; I think that's shortsighted. I think he WILL fight...but I guess we have to wait and see.

Yes! By all means, let's project the winner in Iowa 9 months out. I mean, it worked for Dick Gephart, who was obviously going to win.

As an Obama supporter, nothing would make me happier than to see the expectations you've set be CW.

I think there is another factor to consider.

Right now voters are looking at these candidates like flavor of the month, who they like or don't like. As the primaries near and they are about to vote they look at the race differently. All of a sudden they are trying to picture the candidate in the oval office. I think this is what hurt Dean in 2004. Voters felt more comfortable with the idea of Kerry as president.

This too might work to Edwards advantage. Close to election day it will really dawn on voters in Iowa that two of the candidates on the ballot are high risk for being; 1)woman 2) black. Edwards might seem like a safe alternative. Voters can picture him in the oval office.

Call me cynical but I don't believe the polls about the electibility of a woman/black/jew. It might be easier for a mormon male because on the surface he is still a white male.

To support Petey's point about how Iowa was covered, look at this CNN article on the Iowa outcome. Edwards is mentioned 5 times, while Dean is mentioned 9 times.

"I'm tired of the constant fighting in politics. I don't think it HAS to be that way."

That's the only kind of politics I have known. I understand there was a brief period during the Eisenhower/Kennedy era when the two parties were civil.

I don't think a single person can transform the current political climate and make it more civil. It is not about one person. Current day GOP is controlled by cut throat forces. It doesn't matter who the Dems nominate GOP will go after him full force.

Personally I would like to see a woman/black/jew president in my lifetime. I am not sure the country is ready.

"I'd just like to know what historical examples you feel don't support my prediction. I don't think 2004 is one."

Excepting the favorite son Dem '92 race, here are the only recent examples of the pre-caucus national front runner losing Iowa:

GOP '88
GOP '80
Dem '04
Dem '88
Dem '76

Each of those times, the winner got a huge media boost out of the win, even though it was semi-expected several of those times.

(And FWIW, only two of those five times did the IA winner go on to win the NH primary. Those two times are the only times out of the five that that the candidate went on the win the nomination. In other words, if you're trying to defeat the front runner, you'd better follow up an IA win with a NH win too.)

Mike P, haven't you heard? Obama's not black. He's second-generation Kenyan-American.

Matthew, I tried to dig up the "Dean's inevitable" post from 2003 and failed. Are your pre-2004 archives lost to history?

Interesting thing to me about all the examples you list Petey (with exception of 2004 which I just disagree that it is analagous) is that in none of the cases did the Iowa caucus winner actually get the nomination. If anything it would suggest that the importance of the Iowa caucuses is overblown.

Just that one and the "Arenas: From Zero to...Zero— Send this bum back to Oaktown" column, for some reason.

"Rather than right a whole long post about it, I just thought I'd like to go on record early as saying I think John Edwards is probably going to win the nomination."

I'm keeping a little file of all the absurd things that pundit and blogger types predict in the run up to next year's election. This one is coming right after Mr. Marshall's assertion that no one who supports public financing for abortion will ever get the GOP nomination.

Ah, found it! (Courtesy of archive.org) But again I wonder: are the pre-historic matthewyglesias.com archives not backed up on your server somewhere?

"Interesting thing to me about all the examples you list Petey (with exception of 2004 which I just disagree that it is analagous) is that in none of the cases did the Iowa caucus winner actually get the nomination. If anything it would suggest that the importance of the Iowa caucuses is overblown."

Ugh. I hate dealing with folks with lousy reading comprehension.

- As stated, in two of the five cases did the pre-caucus national front runner go on to lose the nomination to the IA winner.

- Each of those two times, the IA winner went on to win NH. So, as stated, historically, winning IA while losing NH has never been enough to unseat the pre-caucus national front runner.

Also, it's worth noting that the record on the Democratic side for unseating the pre-caucus national front runner is much better than it is on the GOP side. Every year since the caucuses came to prominence, the GOP pre-caucus national front runner has gone on to win the nomination no matter what happened in IA. The Dem side is somewhat more friendly to candidates coming off the pace. On the Dem side, it's two out of three, not two out of five.

Even if he has been leading in Iowa for a year, the press will still report his win as an upset if it takes out the national front-runner, because they're not paying attention to his Iowa lead.

I'm not 100% sure that Edwards will win Iowa, but I'm pretty confident Obama will come in third. He doesn't have the organization Edwards and Clinton have--Edwards from '04 and Clinton from Vilsack--and I don't think his support will be widespread enough. He'll do fine in Des Moines, Ames and Iowa City, but I think he'll drop below the viability threshold in the west, and in rural and exurban precincts. I also suspect that most of his voters will prefer Edwards to Clinton as a second choice, so I think my final prediction is for Edwards and Clinton to be #1 and #2, but close, with Obama a distant third.

I also think Edwards has the best shot at an emotionally-satisfying victory, particularly if he picks Richardson as his running mate. I think we'd probably pick up New Mexico, Nevada, Colorado, and Arizona (if McCain doesn't get the nomination) with that ticket, as well as Florida, Ohio, Missouri, and Iowa. Possibly even Arkansas, Virginia, West Virginia, and North Carolina. And if the Republicans go with Romney, Edwards/Richardson might even be able to make Texas competitive.

Hillary Clinton will be the frontrunner until February 5th, even if she fails to win a single state. Edwards could conceivably sweep Iowa, Nevada, and South Carolina, and fight to a draw in New Hampshire, but Hillary will still have the money, manpower, and name recognition in the big states to crush Edwards if she plays her cards right.

The key for both Edwards and Obama is that Clinton must finish third in as many early states as possible. THAT would actually shift the media narrative to the perceived collapse of Clinton's campaign, prevent her from just pounding someone with straightforward negative ads, and cause people to think hard about her electability.

"Hillary Clinton will be the frontrunner until February 5th, even if she fails to win a single state."

Disagree.

She needs to win at least one of the Early Four.

Her advantage is that she needs to win fewer of the Early Four than anyone else to be competitive on 2/5.

And, of course, all of this is dependent on her still being the national front runner on New Year's day. I think that's likely, but not assured.

Petey, when you're using "national front-runner" throughout these comments, do you mean it in terms of a) polling, b) fund-raising, c) media-narrative/Democratic-insider consensus, or d) something else? You can't mean it in terms of "objectively most likely to win," but that's in some ways the most obvious reading.

"Petey, when you're using "national front-runner" throughout these comments, do you mean it in terms of a) polling, b) fund-raising, c) media-narrative/Democratic-insider consensus"

I guess some combination of all three, but weighted toward national polling and fundraising.

Hence Dean was the pre-caucus national front runner in '04, even though he was never particularly likely to win the nomination.

"Ah, found it! (Courtesy of archive.org)"

Note Petey's prescient dissent in the comments...

Ah, found it! (Courtesy of archive.org) But again I wonder: are the pre-historic matthewyglesias.com archives not backed up on your server somewhere?

Sheesh, blast from the past. Reg? "Zizka"? "Praktike"? The Talking Dog?

I see Petey's had some staying power.

I was poking around in the archives, and in light of the Dean Scream following Iowa, I've got to say this in the comments from Matthew ranks very high on the prescience scale:

Well if there's one thing Howard Dean can do, it's shout. He's really loud. Not sure that adds up to a winning candidate, but he's sure as hell the best shouter in the race.

Posted by Matthew Yglesias at August 6, 2003 09:55 PM

I think Obama wins Iowa.

He looks pretty organized in the state & I think he'll pull a lot of caucus support.

JP - "Zizka" is still around, but doesn't use the nom de plume anymore.

DonB: Not that it's the end of the world or anything, but Dean did win Vermont.

I think the prez should just be picked by Matthew Yglesias - it would save us all a lot of time and energy, we could avoid this ridiculous carnival and it can't get any worse than it's now.

"we could avoid this ridiculous carnival and it can't get any worse than it's now."

People who don't enjoy the carnival of the Presidential primaries worry me.

well, for all its faults, as far as campaigning is concerned, I recommend the UK system:

get the whole thing over with in 3 weeks

anything longer is just showbiz for ugly people and really quite annoying

"well, for all its faults, as far as campaigning is concerned, I recommend the UK system"

I'd be happy to sign your petition to reduce general elections to a month, but I think a long party screening process is a good thing for democracy.

Plus, if you like politics, it's really good theater.

RE Write/Right:

Has anyone else noticed that the more they converse through written medium, be it IM, Email, or Blog, they end up typoing homophones more often?

Is this showing some brain mechanism previously used for speaking is taking short cuts?

JP - "Zizka" is still around, but doesn't use the nom de plume anymore.

Yeah, I know, that's why I used the quotes. The name is dead, though the person might not be.

mirc
mirç
mırc
mırç
mircturk
turkmirc
mirc indir
mirc yukle
mirch
mırch
mirc turk
turk mirc
mırcturk
turkmırc
mırc turk
turk mırc
turkiyemirc
türkiyemirc
turkiye mirc
türkiye mirc
mircturkiye
mirctürkiye
mirc turkiye
mircturk
turkmırc
muhabbet
forum
forum
turkforum
turkiyeforum
mirc
turkmirc
toplist
site ekle
pagerank
turkmirc
turkforum
sohbet
chat
sohbet odaları
bedava sohbet
bedava chat
türk
karar

Sevgi Ve Aşk Platformu SanaSevdam.Net

thaks friend

almanca tercüman rusça tercüman fransızca tercüman arapça tercüman farsça tercüman tercüme büroları ispanyolca tercüman almanca tercüme japonca tercüman çince tercüman bulgarca tercüman yunanca tercüman danca tercüman hollandaca tercüman ibranice tercüman italyanca tercüman korece tercüman norveççe tercüman portekizce tercüman romence tercüman sırpça tercüman ukraynaca tercüman istanbul tercüme tercüme bürosu web sitesi çevirisi ingilizce tercüman fransızca çeviri fransızca tercüme tercüme italyanca çeviri çekçe tercüme fince tercüman prestij tercüme

porno
sex
hikaye
sex
hikaye
porno
sex
sex shop
seks shop
güzel sözler
mirc
porno
güzel sözler
hikaye
mirc
hikayeler
mirc
kelebek
elektronik sigara
elektronik sigara
elektronik sigara
sex
porno
hikaye
sex
porno
mirc
seks shop
hikayeler
hikaye
sex
hikayetube
sex |
porno |
hikaye |
sex hikayeleri |
sex hikaye |
sex porno |
seks shop |
geciktirici |
penis büyütücü |
hikaye |
hikaye |
sex |
videohikaye.com |
sex |
porno |
hikayetube.com |
porno |
mirc |
yüzük |
güzel sözler |
elektronik sigara |
pilli sigara |
elektronik sigara |
elektronik sigara |
elektronik sigara

mirc

www.sexshopum.com
www.harbiarkadas.com
www.harbiarkadas.net
www.harbiarkadas.org
www.itirafet.org
www.ebedava.net
www.elektronikmarket.net
www.ameribress.com
www.clitoriacream.net
www.superspenisbuyutucu.com
www.megabress.com
www.rednightperformans.com
www.performansartirici.com
www.penisplus.tv
www.penispluspenisbuyutucu.com
www.penispluspenisbuyutucu.net
www.cinselmerkez.com
www.aseks.net
www.erotikcamasirlar.com
www.vajinatr.com
www.bakirevajina.com
www.cinselkozmetik.com
www.kozmetikmedikel.com
www.eturknet.com
www.tecavuz.net
www.yutuvideo.com
www.ponotubesex.com
www.laraperuk.com
www.sackanagimerkezi.com
www.peruksa.com
www.perukmarket.com
www.aseks.com
www.aloveshop.com
www.erotikgiyim.com
www.www.geciktiricispreyler.com
www.geciktiricihap.com
www.geciktiriciler.com
www.azdirici.com
www.bayanuyarici.com
www.fntazialemi.com
www.fantaziservisi.om
www.cinselmazemeler.com
www.cinselfantaziurunleri.com
www.erotikdakikalar.com
www.erotikmarketiniz.com
www.seksmarketiniz.com
www.sekshatlari.com
www.erotikdergiler.com
www.erotikderginiz.com
www.penisbuyutucuviprx.com
www.penisbuyutucuvigrx.com
www.penisbuyutuculer.com
www.vigrxpenisbuyutucu.com
www.sismebebekler.com
www.sismebebekshop.com
www.yemekeviniz.com
www.sanalmarketiniz.com
www.elektronikmarket.net
www.ebedava.net
www.kontortr.com
www.elaydin23.com
www.turkcellkontorcu.com
www.aveakontoral.com
www.vodafonekontoral.com
www.toptankontorcu.com
www.cinselkozmetik.com
www.bayanpartnerler.com
www.erkekpartnerler.com
www.kizarkadaslar.com
www.yonjaarkadas.com
www.siberalem-siberalem.com
www.sexpartnerler.com
www.sekspartnerler.com
www.erotikpartnerler.com
www.gencyuz.com
www.erkekarkadaslar.com
www.bayanarkadaslar.com
www.yemekeviniz.com
www.sanalmarketiniz.com
www.baskahaber.com
www.medikalkozmetik.net
www.kozmetikmedikal.com
www.zayiflamavediyet.net
www.zayiflamahapii.com
www.zayiflamabandii.com
www.kilovertr.com
www.zayiflamatr.net
www.diyettr.com
www.toksinbandi.net
www.botoxtr.com
www.botokstr.com
www.selulittedavii.com
www.selulitgiderici.net
www.selulitkremii.com
www.catlaktedavisii.com
www.catlakgiderici.net
www.catlakkremii.com
www.aseks.com
www.erotikgiyim.com
www.aloveshop.com
www.sismebebekshop.com

penis büyütücü

Thanks Best Regards
mirc
mırc
mırç
mircturk
mirctürk
turkmirc
mirc indir
mırc indir
mirç indir
mirc yükle
mırc yükle
mirc yukle
mırc yukle
mirch
mırch
turk mirc
mircada
muhabbet
mirc sohbet
mırc sohbet
mirc chat
mırc chat
mırc ındır
mirc ındır
türkçe mirc
turkce mirc
turkçe mırc
turkce mırc
oper mirc
irc forum
Mirc forum
irc forum