BS: so who will win Iowa

Subject: BS: so who will win Iowa
From: mg
Date: 03 Jan 08 - 05:08 PM

Any speculation? I say for the nomination Obama and Romney..I am guessing Richardson as v.p. for Obama...maybe McCain for Romney.

Tonight..anyone's guess but I feel it will be Obama and not sure repub..mg

Subject: RE: BS: so who will win Iowa
From: beardedbruce
Date: 03 Jan 08 - 05:11 PM

Those in Iowa who are getting all that money for ads, supplies, hotel rooms, restaurants, gas, etc.

I wonder what portion of the total state GNP is tied to being the first primary ( sort-of- http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/02/AR2008010202489.html )

Subject: RE: BS: so who will win Iowa
From: KB in Iowa
Date: 03 Jan 08 - 05:20 PM

I will win tomorrow when I stop getting all those damn phone calls. It's insane. Never been like this before.

Subject: RE: BS: so who will win Iowa
From: Kim C
Date: 03 Jan 08 - 05:21 PM

I do not care, as it will not matter a fig in who I choose to vote for.

Subject: RE: BS: so who will win Iowa
From: KB in Iowa
Date: 03 Jan 08 - 05:26 PM

It may matter because some of the folks who never had a realistic chance to begin with drop out after Iowa and New Hampshire. I guess it depends on who you plan to vote for.

Subject: RE: BS: so who will win Iowa
From: Kim C
Date: 03 Jan 08 - 05:30 PM

If they never had a realistic chance, then it's a moot point, innit? ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: so who will win Iowa
From: Rapparee
Date: 03 Jan 08 - 05:39 PM

KB: Please note that I haven't campaigned in Iowa and haven't bothered anyone there. True, my campaign fund is a tad low but I expect that to change any day now and dip into the negative numbers.

Subject: RE: BS: so who will win Iowa
From: Little Hawk
Date: 03 Jan 08 - 06:37 PM

Like your credit rating?

Sorry! Shane told me to say that. It wasn't me. Honest.

Subject: RE: BS: so who will win Iowa
From: Rapparee
Date: 03 Jan 08 - 06:51 PM

There is no "Shane." None. There used to be a "Shane" but there isn't anymore.

I herewith announce the Death of "Shane."

Subject: RE: BS: so who will win Iowa
From: Riginslinger
Date: 03 Jan 08 - 06:55 PM

The way I remember it, Shane rode out of the to fight another day. It was Wilson who bit the green weeny. Of course, he wasn't on the ballot in Iowa.

Subject: RE: BS: so who will win Iowa
From: Rapparee
Date: 03 Jan 08 - 07:01 PM

Well? Neither am I.

Subject: RE: BS: so who will win Iowa
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 03 Jan 08 - 07:33 PM

A rather small population. Its vote is being hyped because it is early.
Watch a movie or hoist a few in your neighborhood saloon instead. CNN and that ilk will analyse, reconstruct, interpret and speculate on its meaning for the next few weeks.

Subject: RE: BS: so who will win Iowa
From: Rapparee
Date: 03 Jan 08 - 07:47 PM

So, can you use a nice lead glaze on some of it? And I'd like accordions and banjos painted in the middle or thereabouts (Lucite is fine).

Subject: RE: BS: so who will win Iowa
From: Bobert
Date: 03 Jan 08 - 08:03 PM

I'll tell ya' who won't win... On the Republican side, Juliani and Kucinich on the Dems side...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: so who will win Iowa
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 03 Jan 08 - 08:17 PM

Neither will gravel or tancredo

Subject: RE: BS: so who will win Iowa
From: Little Hawk
Date: 03 Jan 08 - 08:37 PM

It's just one small incident in the gigantic dog and pony show which the $ySStem puts on to mesmerize people when there's an election coming. Don't let it take up too much of your time.

That notwithstanding, it would still be nice to see Obama win it for the Democrats. ;-) I think so anyway. I know that the aforesaid $ySStem is already set up so that someone like Dennis Kucinich couldn't win by any stretch of the imagination...no matter what. They will make quite sure of that.

Subject: RE: BS: so who will win Iowa
From: kendall
Date: 03 Jan 08 - 08:46 PM

Too close to call. I'll tell you tomorrow.

Subject: RE: BS: so who will win Iowa
From: Sorcha
Date: 03 Jan 08 - 08:52 PM

Well, gee, Wyoming's was last week and nobody gave a damn! LOL
Wyoming got penalized and fined for being 'too early' too. How stupid can you get?

Politics bore me. Most of it is all 'bought and paid for' ahead of time anyway. I just go vote for the lesser of 2 evils.

Subject: RE: BS: so who will win Iowa
From: Little Hawk
Date: 03 Jan 08 - 08:53 PM

Yup. That's what most people do in Canada too most of the time too, only then it's the lesser of 3 or 4 evils.

Subject: RE: BS: so who will win Iowa
From: Jeri
Date: 03 Jan 08 - 09:04 PM

Huckabee and Obama... or Edwards. I think the Democratic winner may owe a lot to 2nd choice votes.

New Hampshire, Florida, Michigan and South Carolina will be penalized, too.

Subject: RE: BS: so who will win Iowa
From: Amos
Date: 03 Jan 08 - 09:47 PM

It's Huckabee for the Repubs, which is a sad state of affairs but they had very little to choose from. So far it is Obama with a very small edge over Clinton who has in turn a small edge over Edwards.

A

Subject: RE: BS: so who will win Iowa
From: Jeri
Date: 03 Jan 08 - 10:01 PM

Edwards is slightly (9 votes!) ahead of Clinton at the moment.

Subject: RE: BS: so who will win Iowa
From: Ron Davies
Date: 03 Jan 08 - 10:35 PM

Do they really have final answers yet?--they're projecting winners in various media, but it sure seems premature.

If however it's Obama, then Edwards and Clinton tied, I hope Edwards will consider being Obama's VP--despite his current statement that he will fight on. Otherwise they may wind up splitting the anti-Hillary vote-- and with many of the professional pols, unions, and lots of older women, she may still come out on top. At least it would be a bloody--and expensive-- struggle--even if it's over in a little over a month.

One of the ironies of course is that she could have so easily been the choice of the majority of Democrats--if she hadn't taken the triangulation approach--assuming she'd get the nomination and therefore just gearing towards the general election. Her answers on so many questions were tailored to what she imagined as the middle of the electorate---hence her unwillingness to take stands on several issues. It came across as a proposed coronation--and for some reason Americans don't really like the idea. Probably the one thing that hurt her above all was refusing to admit she was wrong to support Bush's Iraq war--after all, Edwards admitted it.

So why didn't she realize this?--it seemed she was incapable of admitting she made mistakes. We've had enough of that in the past 7 years.

Whereas Obama was refreshingly--amazingly-- direct.

Remember his answer on the cocaine he experimented with, realized this was a ticket to oblivion, and rejected.

"Did you inhale?"
"Of course, that was the point."

A politician who thinks on his feet, can give a direct answer, and learn from a mistake---what a concept.

Subject: RE: BS: so who will win Iowa
From: Amos
Date: 03 Jan 08 - 10:46 PM

The Times has called it for Obama in Iowa by a definitive margin.


A

Subject: RE: BS: so who will win Iowa
From: Amos
Date: 03 Jan 08 - 10:49 PM

"Senator Barack Obama won the Iowa caucuses in a stunning show of strength. On the Republican side, Mike Huckabee defeated the vastly better funded Mitt Romney."

Hilary has conceded Iowa.


A

Subject: RE: BS: so who will win Iowa
From: Riginslinger
Date: 03 Jan 08 - 11:03 PM

Are we headed for another Republican president?

Subject: RE: BS: so who will win Iowa
From: Ron Davies
Date: 03 Jan 08 - 11:24 PM

If so, who? McCain is the only one with any chance in the general election. And his candidacy won't survive the primaries--he's just too reasonable on hot issues other than the war.

After all, Rig, it's your chosen hobbyhorse, illegal immigration, which will knock McCain out---he's willing to see illegal immigrants as actual people--heresy in this Republican party.

Subject: RE: BS: so who will win Iowa
From: Ron Davies
Date: 03 Jan 08 - 11:26 PM

Against Obama, Giuliani would have no chance--after all he's a card-carrying member of the slimy politician club--starting with his draft-dodging.

Subject: RE: BS: so who will win Iowa
From: Ron Davies
Date: 03 Jan 08 - 11:37 PM

Romney--is being savaged by his fellow Republicans already--ever heard the term "flip-flop?" Do you think that might be useful in a general election? Admittedly it's never been useful before, right?

And Huckabee--in addition to not likely getting the votes of people who are sick of organized religion being so deeply involved in politics, just wait til the details of his wonderful new tax proposal come out--a consumption tax rather than income tax. That will be it for him--so much for his "populist" appeal. And on top of that, Wall St. does not like or respect him--they think most of his ideas show virtually no thought.

Subject: RE: BS: so who will win Iowa
From: Jim Lad
Date: 04 Jan 08 - 04:22 AM

O'Bama takes Iowa for the Democrats.
Wow! An Irish President!
Good onya PaddY

Subject: RE: BS: so who will win Iowa
From: Azizi
Date: 04 Jan 08 - 08:13 AM

Here's a YouTube of Senator Obama's victory speech, Iowa caucus:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cNZaq-YKCnE

**

I haven't found the text of this historic speech on the Internet yet.

Anybody?

Subject: RE: BS: so who will win Iowa
From: Ron Davies
Date: 04 Jan 08 - 08:22 AM

Yes, a stirring and impressive speech. "... no red or blue states". Again, what a concept. And it could happen--he's the man for the job. And it's the opposite of Hillary's approach.

Subject: RE: BS: so who will win Iowa
From: Donuel
Date: 04 Jan 08 - 09:46 AM

The boldest and smartest Vice President for Obama would be Republican Ron Paul.

Its been a long time since a President reached across the aisle.















It would also be the most dangerous for Barak since white supreamists are known to own a lot of guns.

Subject: RE: BS: so who will win Iowa
From: Amos
Date: 04 Jan 08 - 10:38 AM

I am delighted with Barack's success.

No goddamn guns, DOnuel!



A

Subject: RE: BS: so who will win Iowa
From: Alice
Date: 04 Jan 08 - 11:28 AM

Women did not come out that strongly for Hillary. There has been a false assumption by the media that women will automatically vote for Hillary. As a Democratic woman I can say, I've never liked Hillary, even when she was first lady. I don't have any female friends who would vote for her.

Alice

Subject: RE: BS: so who will win Iowa
From: KB in Iowa
Date: 04 Jan 08 - 11:54 AM

"There has been a false assumption by the media that women will automatically vote for Hillary."

The same mainstream media would have you believe that we in Iowa eat fried twinkies on a regular basis (this from a CNN.com article this morning). To the best of my knowledge I have never even been in the same room with a fried twinkie and wouldn't eat one in any event.

Subject: RE: BS: so who will win Iowa
From: Amos
Date: 04 Jan 08 - 12:07 PM

THere is no remaining question that the Iowans have good sense, taken overall.

Some of them may eat fried twinkies though.


Or this may be one of those slurs like "eating babies for breakfast" that gets started in adversarial situations. I am sure Iowans do not do that.

A

Subject: RE: BS: so who will win Iowa
From: KB in Iowa
Date: 04 Jan 08 - 12:11 PM

There may be pockets of fried twinkie eaters but they they do not pre-dominate.

Regarding the eating of babies for breakfast, perish the thought. Babies are not to be served before noon.

Subject: RE: BS: so who will win Iowa
From: Little Hawk
Date: 04 Jan 08 - 01:09 PM

Pretty good result, I'd say.

Subject: RE: BS: so who will win Iowa
From: Bill D
Date: 04 Jan 08 - 05:36 PM

I'll wait till Feb. 5th.

23 states then. I despise the concept that 2 or 3 small states should cause such consternation or influence the final outcome so much.

What about a set of 3 primary dates (like Feb.15, March 5 and March 20)where 16-17 states are chosen at random...or some approved formula...and then rotated each 4 years. Maybe N. Dakota & Alabama would like to be in the 'early'list occasionally.

Subject: RE: BS: so who will win Iowa
From: PoppaGator
Date: 04 Jan 08 - 05:52 PM

I still think that Feb 5 is too early for that rash of large-state primaries. Too early for the process to be finalized, or nearly so.

It's also way the hell too early for Mardi Gras ~ too likely to be freezing-ass cold, putting a serious damper on public nudity ~ but once in a great while (including 2008), shit happens.

Subject: RE: BS: so who will win Iowa
From: michaelr
Date: 04 Jan 08 - 06:59 PM

Edwards beat Clinton! There may still be hope.

Subject: RE: BS: so who will win Iowa
From: Bill D
Date: 04 Jan 08 - 07:27 PM

well...I'd prefer to wait until April and May for primaries, but I can't imagine the 'powers' waiting that long.

Remember..JFK announced in JAN. 1960 and was elected in November.

Subject: RE: BS: so who will win Iowa
From: Big Mick
Date: 04 Jan 08 - 08:09 PM

The beauty of Iowa, and New Hampshire, is that it makes the Carters and the Huckabees possible. It is the one place in this country that it is possible for a person with a message and not as much money as the others to get out and press the flesh and try to be heard. It is my opinion that this is why it should retain its place as the first in the nation. Make that New York or California, or any of the industrial States and it would place elections even more firmly in the hands of media and those who can afford to buy it. All the BS about Iowa having way too much say in the process forget that this is the one place where townhalls, school gyms, churchs, and living rooms are where a candidate can launch a viable campaign in spite of the monied interests. I think the caucus goers of Iowa, and New Hampshire, perform an invaluable role in our democratic experiment.

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: so who will win Iowa
From: Ron Davies
Date: 05 Jan 08 - 08:03 AM

Re: role of Iowa and New Hampshire: Mick has put it perfectly. Can't add a thing.



On a topic alluded to earlier:

It seems fashionable on Mudcat now to bash "the media" over Iowa coverage.

1) I understand the Register's prediction on turnout and Obama's win was just about on the money.

2) It's pointed out that Clinton did not do as well with women as predicted. But the predictions I read had to do with older women, not women in general. And here the predictions were also borne out: the over-65 group of women did in fact go for her.