Iowa Predictions: Open Thread: Updated
By John Amato Wednesday Jan 02, 2008 5:22pmUPDATE: It looks like Huckabee is going to win. CNN is calling it for him. Obama, Hillary and Edwards are in a virtual tie at 6:10 PST.
OK, here you go:
Obama, Edwards and Hillary.
Romney, Huckabee and McCain.
I'm not endorsing anyone---just venturing a guess. It really is very close all around on the Democratic side so your guess is as good as mine. And we know the Villagers will be wheeling and dealing all-night-long.
Lady MacCheney said on FOX that if Thompson finishes fourth he won't concede.
I just watched Matthews sneer at Hillary's appearance on Letterman---Digby saw the same thing and wonders if the caucuses are over already:
Oh, I hear McCain won New Hampshire too.
Duncan has more on Tweety: "So if Hillary gets 33 percent "she's been rejected here in Iowa by two-thirds of the Democratic Party." If McCain is rejected by 82% of caucusgoers he's a "big hero."
What say you?
Login or Register to post comments.
Calk us!
BTW, what say me? I says McCain is doddering has-been and that Hillary will be in this long after he's dropped out of the race and to soak his bunions.
Obama, Edwards and Hillary.
Romney, Huckabee and McCain.
Edwards, Obama, Clinton
McCain, the Huckster, Willard
Are you guys listening to the Villagers? One minute whoever wins Iowa is the nominee, the next minute it doesn't matter.
There must be some way to stop Tweety! Will his head explode if HRC becomes the next prez? It might be worth it . .
I had to put up that pic of Lady MacCheney...That's a classic.
tweety is a turd!!!
Moe, Larry, Curly
Manny, Moe, Jack
Now if you'll excuse me I have to inspect some belly-button lint.
Some new posts are up at my blog:
http://swanpoliticsblog.blogspot.com/
Yeah....we're screwed.
And still 99% of the country has no idea how or why the caucus works, but will know who "won". Good pic, John.
John Amato @ 6:
It is a very nice photo indeed - kudos!
QuakerDave @ 3:
Edwards, Obama, Clinton
PleasePleaseOhPlease.
Obama, Edwards, Dodd
Romney, Huckabee, Paul
I am just guessing:
Edwards,Obama,Clinton
and Repug:
Huckabee,McCain, Willard....
John Amato @ 6:
Yes, entertaining, but I can't handle listening to her. It's much worse than fingernails on a blackboard.
Everyone say it's about momentum; but what they mean is that people like to conform.
Conformity:
http://mwangangi.blogspot.com/2007/08/300000000-people-cant-be-wrong-can...
How to NOT throw your vote away:
http://mwangangi.blogspot.com/2008/01/for-whom-voting-tallies.html
Jonathan Martin of the Politico is saying if Thompson finishes 4th or worse tonight he's out before New Hampshire. Makes sense but republicans don't always make sense either.
I would love to see our Country nominate and elect Barack Obama to the White House. We need a change of course.
Hillary will be lucky to get third. Nobody likes her, her experience consists of the failed health plan, being married to a philandering jackass, and a vote for the war, and she's been rigging the polls since last summer. It'll be the biggest collapse since Ed Muskie.
Although I never thought I would admit this, Obama and Edwards are the only two that don't appear to have something nutty going on. The Repugs....scare me to death. Every last one of them. I can't imagine any of them winning unless the America has gone plumb crazy on the Jesus Juice. And if that is the case, we can kiss our democracy good-bye.
Chris Matthews, IMO, is a worthless piece of shit.
oops, I did not mean to say "the America". That's only for ditzy beauty queen chicks.
OT, What is the deal with the black spot on the US flag pins?
John Amato @ 6:
Lucky for me I'm at work and haven't eaten yet! hehe
Just watched Matthews too. He actually mentioned Edwards tonight (he has been ignoring Edwards during most of the campaign... (I did get a shot at Chris Matthews seeming effort to ignore Edwards yesterday on the Diane Rehm show). So many predictions Buchanan stating that "Edwards has to win". Tucker Carlson said that "McCain not so different than Bush a "neo-con". Yes Carlson said this.
Andrea Mitchell failed to mention Edwards. One of the guest on Matthews said that the Obama Camp was "cocky", the Clinton camp was "nervous", and the Edwards camp "did not know what to think"
Another guest on the program said that "entitlement was over" especially in regard to the Clintons.
What I really do not understand is how the Iowa voters could possibly forget that Hillary voted for the 2002 war resolution and has never seriously apologized and then went on and voted for the Kyl Lieberman amendment. Senator Webb called this amendment and vote "tantamount to declaring war on Iran".
I also do not understand why Obama is getting so much support. This guy is a fence sitter with his finger in the air. Obama just happened to be out of town the day the Kyl Lieberman amendment was voted on, and Obama played softball during the John Bolton and Condi Rice nomination hearings. Obama is certainly not "bold" as Oprah kept saying. What a bunch of Obama hogwash.
Edwards is not taking PAC MONEY.....HELLO FORMER SENATOR JOHN EDWARDS IS NOT TAKING PAC MONEY. He has held his spot without lobbyist money, he apologized for his serious mistake by voting for the 2002 war resolution, he supports diplomacy with Iran, is endlessly talking about those in poverty and also about standing up to corporate greed.
COME ON IOWA VOTE FOR PEACE, DIPLOMACY AND BUSTING CORPORATE GREED.
VOTE FOR EDWARDS!
We held a mock caucus in my classes today. 20 total delegates were at stake. Names were removed from the candidates and the NYT graph of platforms was used. Other questions students may have for any or all of the candidates were directed to me and I answered for the candidate. Eight candidates were picked (by me in advance), four from each party, to be on the slate (in alphabetical order): Clinton, Edwards, Huckabee, Kucinich (for variety and due to the fact that there are known Dennis supporters at school), McCain, Obama, Paul, and Romney. No party affiliation was indicated on the platform sheet given to students. The 15% rule was used after the first round of voting.
Results:
Paul (8) Huckabee (3)
Obama (4) Edwards (3) and Clinton (2)
Naw, Huckaboob is gonna win tonight. The entertainment will continue...
Hmmm that flower on her lapel looks vaguely familiar, ahh wait it's a triffid of course ;)
VietVet8666 @ 22:
Yes, but Chrissy did one good thing a couple of months ago. He stated that Cheney's office calls MSNBC daily to tell them what to put on the air and he is frrrreaking sick of it. This was at the 10th anniversary of hardball. Der Fuehrers at NBC refused to allow the tape to be shown. Hmmm....he's so sick of it he's going to do what...tweet? News anchors have about as much power as the fly remnants left on my flyswatter. Wuss.
Huckabee, Romney, Paul
Obama, Clinton, Edwards
Obama, Edwards, Clinton..
With Obama and Edwards neck and neck, and Clinton
back aways, in the low 20s...
And, Hillary will send out Bill to spin it as "a win" for the press?
Huck-a-Buck, Willard, Paul for the Republic Evangelical Party
And, watch the Republic machine go ape-shit crazy trying to
figure out HOW to stop Paul before New Hampshire....
Where, he could come in #2?
Bill Kristol and Kruthammer, along with the entire staff at
Faux would sh*t a brick....
I say:
1) It ain't over til it's over;
2) Lady McCheney needs to lose the flower.
WATCH THIS VIDEO TO REMIND YOU OF WHO HILLARY IS...A WARMONGER. HIllary lost me when she voted for Kyl Lieberman amendment and then laughed at Gravels legitimate challenge. Edwards apologizes and addresses lessons learned about the lies that took our nation into Iraq
Obama is a fence sitter.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=npzN3dZR6JM
Shocker in Iowa: Pat Buchanan Poised to Win Both Caucuses!
After her votes on cluster bombs, Iraq, and Kyl/Lieberman the only way I could vote for Hillary if she were nominee is if she were running against that Podhoretz-advised Giuliani.
The corporation mouthpieces are certainly afraid of Edwards. They are going to do everything to diss him. As much as Tweety hates Hill he likes her better than Edwards. He still has a hard on for Rudy too. Funny guy that Tweety.
Obama, Edwards, Clinton
Huckabee, Romney, Paul
I like your choices, John. I'm betting with you
I managed an entire post just on that damned pin Mary wore that day. WTF?
Bryan @ 30:
Lots I do not like about Matthews, but he has been hammering the neo-cons for four years now....yes four years To the point where Kristol, Frum and many others will not even come on his program. He was also the first main streamer to focus on returning Iraqi soldiers at Walter Reed. Lots wrong with Matthews but lets give some credit where some credit is due.
I really do not understand what he has against John Edwards he has been ignoring him during the whole campaign. Maybe the owners of MSNBC do not like Edwards because he has not taken Pac Money.
Who the hell cares what Matthews says or thinks--he is a petulant, selfish, egotistical ass.
There are 11 months to the election--if each one of us on this site were given $5 every time that ass mentioned Senator Clinton, we'd be loaded. I think he has some twisted obsession concerning them. I have never heard or seen anyone so obsessed with people as Matthews...it's very sad, however.
I'm not voting for her but she deserves to be called Senator Clinton by Matthews, he tries to use the familiar and as we all know they can't stand him.
Kathleen @ 26:
Edwards is a scum sucking legal weasel. The last thing we need is more lawyers in government.
Kathleen @ 26:
Hillary and Obama have both been puffed up by the media alot more than Edwards. I think the DMR poll will help Edwards because he has a strong ground game and his 3rd place spot in that poll will energize the Edwards camp to GOTV.
So I say Hil and Edwards will finish very close to each other in 1st and 2nd, and Obama 3rd. It's possible that Edwards will shock the Village with a 1st place finish - the best possible outcome.
JOHN EDWARDS!
The Canadian media says political experts predict no more than 250,000 will cast their support in Iowa. Um....how many people live there? 3 million or so? Yikes. The system has some probs my friends.
The corporate suits are terrifed of Edwards. The republicans don't want to run against Edwards because they are afraid of him--my parents are in their mid-80's and Edwards reminds them of the way Roosevelt ran..he has a populist message and it is gaining.
I'd vote for him in a heartbeat.
Is Obama actually there or did he just vote 'present'?
Lauren @ 36:
Yeah I would vote for her if she were running against Podhoretz too! Aipac owns a big part of her
Blue Lensman @ 16:
Funny, that's how Hillary sounds to me. May she deepfry in Iowa.
Obama's a liar, a boring liar at that. Oprah has turned this into a gameshow.
Edwards, want to see Edwards cream those two. If we aren't PERMITTED to have Kucinich, Dodd or Biden!
Fuck this country.
ConcernedCanuck @ 44:
Its sad when people who don't understand the system in the US comment on it.
So if the system has problems, how many Canadians as a percentage select their party leaders?
Dumb ass...
The whole voting process in America makes a mockery of the democratic process as long as hackable machines with no paper trail and private corporations tally the vote.
As well, when a resounding message is sent from the people to their representatives by cleaning house and ousting Republicans, but Democratic leadership says "impeachment is off the table", one cannot help but acknowledge that America has a one-party political system; the Corporate Party.
Remember, when government controls business it's a democracy, but when business controls government it's fascism.
I think if you leaned in too close to Lady MacCheney, that "flower"
would spray you with the powdered version of NeoCon Kool-aid,
and, all of a sudden, Rudy G. would look like a cross between
Elliot Ness and George Patton....
Look Out! Stay away from the FLOWER!
Just heard Bill Kristol say he's pro obama, how do you neo-libs feel about that ? , what with Charles Krauthammer recently coming out saying he wouldn't mind if Hillary wins, Murdoch supporting Hillary.
http://siteresources.worldbank.org/NEWS/Images/092205_Tsunami_Global_Con...
Ron Paul is the only candidate not brought and and paid for by special interests like AIPAC/ militart industrial complex / big pharma etc etc
http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2007/03/obamas_aipac_speech_text_as_pr.html
Andy @ 49:
A helluva lot more than 250000 out of 3 million. Dumb ass. Understand your system? Hell, Americans don't even understand your system.
I'm just hoping Edwards at least finishes second. That would be a good outcome to me.
I'd love to see either Paul or Huckabee take the Rs. Cause of the exploding heads tomorrow morning. *eg*
BLOCK FOX!
on your cable/sat box; parental control.
GO VIRAL, SPREAD THE WORD!
Here is Seymour Hersh on Amy Goodman (two of the best reporters we have) telling the truth about Hillary's Kyl Lieberman amendment vote.
Here is part of the transcript
AMY GOODMAN: In Iran.
SEYMOUR HERSH: In Iran, rather. They don’t—it’s just not a problem. He didn’t mean—I don’t know whether the translation was flat, you know, when translations are always pretty bad, as any of you know. I’ve given speeches in foreign countries, and getting the translation back is always pretty comical. It’s never very good.
AMY GOODMAN: Sy Hersh, I wanted to switch gears for the last question, and this has to do with it not just being Republicans who are sounding a drumbeat for war. The three leading Democratic presidential candidates—Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, John Edwards—have all declared no options off the table. This is a clip from last week’s Democratic debate. It was the day the Senate approved a controversial resolution calling on the State Department to designate the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps a terrorist organization. At the debate, Democratic presidential hopeful Mike Gravel bitterly criticized Hillary Clinton for voting in favor.
MIKE GRAVEL: This is fantasy land. We’re talking about ending the war. My god, we’re just starting a war right today. There was a vote in the Senate today. Joe Lieberman, who authored the Iraq resolution, has authored another resolution, and it is essentially a fig leaf to let George Bush go to war with Iran. And I want to congratulate Biden for voting against it, Dodd for voting against it, and I’m ashamed of you, Hillary, for voting for it. You’re not going to get another shot at this, because what’s happened, if this war ensues, we invade, and they’re looking for an excuse to do it. And Obama was not even there to vote.
TIM RUSSERT: Senator Clinton, I want to give you a chance to respond.
SEN. HILLARY CLINTON: [laughter]
AMY GOODMAN: That was Hillary Clinton laughing. Fifteen seconds, Seymour Hersh. Your response?
SEYMOUR HERSH: Money. A lot of the Jewish money from New York. Come on, let’s not kid about it. A significant percentage of Jewish money, and many leading American Jews support the Israeli position that Iran is an existential threat. And I think it’s as simple as that. When you’re from New York and from New York City, you take the view of—right now, when you’re running a campaign, you follow that line. And there’s no other explanation for it, because she’s smart enough to know the downside.
AMY GOODMAN: And Obama and Edwards?
SEYMOUR HERSH: I—you know, it’s shocking. It’s really surprising and shocking, but there we are. That’s American politics circa 2007.
Amy's interview with Seymour Hersh
http://www.democracynow.org/2007/10/2/seymour_hersh_white_house_intensif...
Hillary laughing at Gravels legitimate challenge on her warmongering
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=npzN3dZR6JM
Until America has publicly funded elections and makes contributions from corporate lobbyists illegal, America will continue to be a "demockracy", of, by and for the wealthy elite.
I think Comedy Central's predictions make as much sense as anything.
My prediction: the candidates who will be eliminated by the 15% rule have pledged to deliver their followers to Obama - it ain't gonna happen. I've heard a fair bit of noise from people who like Kucinich, but hate the idea of his supporters going to Obama instead of Edwards. Hopefully the delegates themselves feel the same way. Obama has a lot of corporate and lobbyist support, which to me looks like baggage.
As Einstein said, you don't solve problems with the same kind of thinking that created them. And guess what, 'the best government that money can buy' is by definition a government that has already been bought before they are even sworn in.
It's time for a real meaningful change.
tanglewood @ 45:
let's hope that your parents attitudes and insights about Edwards reflect the supposed"look under the hood kick the tires" attitude of Iowa voters. If they look under the hood they will see Obama sitting on the fence with his finger in the wind, Hillary's vote for more aggression towards Iran, and Edwards making a solid stand and walking his talk by not taking PAC monies.
Tweety:
Bong Hits for Ratings.
ConcernedCanuck at 53
Keep commenting here, as far as I'm concerned.
I say "f*ck all these dishonest paid shills of the corporate media and the horse they rode in on."
...
ConcernedCanuck @ 53:
Hmm, so its true. In both Canada and the US there are plenty of people who don't understand their own system - nor do they choose to vote.
To enlighten you dumb shits who thinks your own shit doesn't stink, the caucus and delegate system in the US only permits registered party members to participate in the selection of their candidate.
In Canada its local party member show are selected by local "chapters".
So in Canada its heavily influenced by so called local party representatives. In other words, weighed to party heavyweights.
At least here the selection process operates by inviting all registered party members to select - thereby increasing the opportunity of the regular voter to weigh in on the selection of their party leaders.
So its not the 250,000 out of 3 million that is remotely relevant.
Now if you quote how many people vote in the FEDERAL ELECTION, you would find that its heavily influenced by which state you're in.
Heavily contested states have larger turnouts than those states that are largely already biased one way or the other.
This - by the way - is no different in Canada. Ridings in Canada that have "sure thing" party winners (ie in Quebec and Alberta) also have lower turnouts.
So, do your research before you buy the BS from the CBC.
The only thing worse than a dumbass is a smug Canadian dumbass.
I'd love to see Hillary and Paul take it.
Because it'd be ironic at that point for me, as a liberal, to vote for a Republican who is more anti war than the damn Democrat who won.
Proof again that party means nothing-especially if you're a Democrat. The only difference between the Clintons and the NeoCons is healthcare.
VietVet8666 @ 62:
Thank you. I forgot just how angry some posters are when you question:
Paulenomics...cuz he's the saviour
Dems....any Dems and they'll find an excuse to tow the party line
The US.....come on. If you don't question your country and hide behind patriotism, you deserve whoever you get in my opinion. The entire world is watching this song and dance. Do posters really want to call people names that question them? Nice.
VietVet8666 @ 22:
Yes, very worthless indeed. Just because he has been so invested in Hillary Clinton loosing this primary, I would love to see her win. Can you imagine the color of his face? It will stay a dark red for the rest of the election process.
I am not a spin collector, and as far as I am concerned, I have not bought half the shit the MSNBC's and CNN's commentators have been trying to shove down our throats. To keep the race close, the MSM have really done Clinton a job. Because none of the other Democratic hopefuls have said nothing that would nullify the power the right-wing media assumes they have, I have given them a second look and it is not a good one.
Am I being naive? I think not, but I am saying people like Chris Matthews and Wolf Blitzer have no right to influence the Democratic or Republican primaries by spending up to 90% of their shows trashing front runners. If there were any other choice in the MSM that played it down the middle, I would never look at the current players in the MSM again.
Joseph
Andy @ 64:
The only thing worse than a smug Canadian is an American Idiot that has no clue how our system works, and yet bitches that we don't know how his works. Do your own research there Andy Paul.
WashStateBlue @ 51:
LOL - thanks.
ConcernedCanuck @ 68:
Really, then tell me one thing that I wrote that is incorrect??
Look, the Ratpublicans have been salivating over the prospect of running against Senator Clinton because they know that Hillary hatred will bring out the hardcore crazies in their party. If her chances fizzle, they'll direct all their attention to Senator Obama, because they can always count on the racist vote, But they will never, ever treat Edwards like a legitimate candidate, because he's the one that scares them.Truth is, they've been hoping that if they just pretend he's not there,he'll just go away. Expect to see an under reporting of Edwards wins throughout the campaign, even if he wins the nomination. He just doesn't fit into the collection of cartoon characters that the MSM prefers to cover.
Joseph said:
Ditto that. They are all part of the PR machine, inside looking out at us rather than vice versa. The news "analysis" is just crap.
Yeah, there's only so much mileage you can get from a nice haircut.
Sick of watching The Tweetster and the Hag of Hamlet violate Mark Twain's rule?
Want a chance to vote on this thing instead of just watching?
Well clik right here and you can! Yes, you can!
John F A @ 71:
yes, being white and being male is all any of the GOP candidates have to offer. Period. They have to keep that bit to themselves.
edwards will get support from the real dems, hillary will get the corporate robots and the chamber of commerce shills, and obama will get students and the young vote. if you compare what the unions were saying about nafta in the 90's and compare it to what the chamber of commerce was saying, the unions were right about almost everything while the chamber was all b.s.
Too close to call but if there is any justice Edwards finishes first. So this is wishful thinking really.
1. Edwards
2. Obama
3. Hillary
More certain predictions?
--- We will discover a Chicago-style dirty tricks campaign at the organizer level in Obama's campaign. It will appear that perhaps Obama really didn't know anything about it.
--- There will be MANY Lee Atwater/Karl Rove dirty trick by Mark Penn at every level in Hillary's campaign. It will be painfully obvious that Hillary signed off on them, despite her "who me? I'm just a girl" denials.
John Edwards.
tweety can always be counted on to shit outside of his cage.
RobertD @ 33:
it's not flowers, just a bunch of painted flies.
RobertD @ 33:
Please don't eat the daisies...
I expect to see Ron Paul in the top 3 on the Repblican side.
WashStateBlue @ 32:
Yes, I'm with your predictions.
Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm about to caucus.....goddamn ranch beans, chicken wings, and tecate. I have my predictions on this, but I'll refrain.
WashStateBlue @ 51:
Too funny...
I love this site because although it leans a certain way politically, it does not adhere to a doctrine of absolute orthodox left-wing truth, as do some left-leaning blogs (quite openly).
Here's my prediction. If Obama wins the Democrats can forget about 2008.
Edwards and Obama, or Obama and Edwards. Either way would bring positive CHANGE for our country. Hillary??? She's old news and she'd bring more of the same ole' shit! GO JOHN and BARRACK!!!!!!
I always found this site http://www.electoral-vote.com/ to be interesting in the past. The guy does a real good scientific job of putting results together. He updated it for today as well. Peace. And good luck for our Country.
Ron Paul, Dodd, and Thomspon drop out by the weekend.
What? Ghoul-liani a no-show?
1st Edwards, 2nd Clinton, 3rd Obama
Republican side - why bother?
For Andy and Concerned Canuck : from wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_Party_of_Canada_leadership_conventi...
Take a shower, guys .