The true value of this poll... (0.00 / 0)

...is that it confirms that nobody's "inevitable". Not that I'm holding my breath, but maybe, just maybe, the media can drop that dumb narrative now.

 

"We judge ourselves by our ideals; others by their actions. It is a great convenience." -- Howard Zinn

---

by: Master Jack @ Mon Nov 19, 2007 at 19:21:07 PM CST

Caucus system (0.00 / 0)

Have been reading about how the caucus system works - still do not understand why anyone would set anything like it up.  If it is for direct democracy - certainly seems like fewer people show up for the process than even a primary or am I wrong?  You have to get people to the polls as it is - here you are convincing people you are THE CANDIDATE and then pleading with them to come out on a winter night and having to educate them in a convoluted process.  Then the entire nomination often is decided on this - I know the Democratic Party is trying to spread it around this year - we will see if the media allow it.

---

by: NYMARJ @ Mon Nov 19, 2007 at 19:28:34 PM CST

A few more thoughts (0.00 / 0)

  If Barack Obama NOW takes positive, proactive steps as a Senator to put an end to the Iraq occupation, and stop the Iran bullcrap, the nomination will become his to lose.

  This is Obama's best window to seize control of the narrative. But that requires a leader. We're about to find out if he is one.

  And it's interesting how Edwards hangs in there, despite getting buried in the media (unless it's something negative).

 

"We judge ourselves by our ideals; others by their actions. It is a great convenience." -- Howard Zinn

---

by: Master Jack @ Mon Nov 19, 2007 at 19:31:10 PM CST

The numbers to watch are (4.00 / 3)

the ones on electability and who is likely to win.

The 2004 Exit Iowa exit poll showed that the ability to beat Bush was the second most important quality a candidate could have (26%). 
http://www.cnn.com/E...
In New Hampshire it was also the second most important quality, and 33% said it more important to their vote than a candidates stand on the issues.  It was in this subgroup where Kerry built his vitory in NH (he won the group citing electability as the most important concern by 56-14 over Howard Dean)
http://www.cnn.com/E...

This poll shows Clinton cited as the most electable, but by a MUCH smaller margin than in previous polling.  Her lead in the ABC poll is 39 - 25, only a 14 point advantage.  Contrast this number versus the CBS Iowa poll, which showed likely caucus attendees thought Hillary was most likely to win by 47-17 over Obama (Edwards finished second in that question at 20).  However, CBS found Clinton had a MUCH larger advantage on this the same question in New Hampshire than in Iowa.  In New Hampshire likely voters found Clinton the most likely to win in November by 68-14 (Edwards trailed in third with 8).
http://www.cbsnews.c...
The Marist NH poll found a similar gap (Hillary led 53-17) but alo found Clinton's performance on the question had slipped 5 points since the debate

One of the biggest changes you find when you look at the impact of Iowa on New Hampshire is perceptions of electability.  This happened in 1984 (by the NH primary, most voters viewed Hart as more electablte) and in 2004.

It is one of the biggest reasons why New Hampshire is so strongly affected by Iowa (after all, nothing proves electability like winning).

 

---

by: fladem @ Mon Nov 19, 2007 at 20:37:53 PM CST

I agree with you (4.00 / 1)

Ironically, though, I am no longer convinced that Obama is more electable than Clinton.

Join the Iowa progressive community at Bleeding Heartland.

---

by: desmoinesdem @ Mon Nov 19, 2007 at 21:54:17 PM CST

[ Parent ]

note that Hillary is in third (0.00 / 0)

among those who caucused in 2004.

I believe Edwards' support is more evenly spread across the state than Obama's. That's why Obama has opened at least 35 field offices--to bring up his support in the smaller counties.

I think Edwards will pick up more on second choices than Obama, because many of the Biden and Richardson supporters are over 60.

Join the Iowa progressive community at Bleeding Heartland.

---

by: desmoinesdem @ Mon Nov 19, 2007 at 21:57:16 PM CST

If Clinton sinks, (0.00 / 0)

it will be because of the efforts of liberal democrats not the right wing republicans.

I do not look forward to an Obama candidacy. His support for Lieberman cancelled him for me, and his ongoing Iran stance and Pakistan stupidity makes me confident that I was correct in seeing a red flag.

Edwards is also uninspiring. He was a nothing candidate in 2004. Sometimes he acts like the son of a mill worker, all full of empathy for the poor, and the next minute he acts like an arrogant elitist.

Frankly, the only one of the lot that holds any interest for me is Kucinich.
He is the one ignored by blogs such as this one.

---

by: lentinel @ Mon Nov 19, 2007 at 22:18:56 PM CST

Obama's stance on Iran and Iraq (0.00 / 0)

I trust Obama a lot more than Clinton on Iraq and Iran:

Her policies are really neo-con:

1. Her vote for the AUF and not reading the NIE. IMHO SHE VOTED BECAUSE SHE VIEWED IT POLITICALLY EXPEDIANT.

2. Her vote for the Kyle/Lieberman resoulution which gives Bush cover to take military action against Iran. aGAIN FOR POLITICAL COVER IN THE GE.

---

by: BDM @ Mon Nov 19, 2007 at 23:38:01 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Obama on Iran and Iraq (0.00 / 0)

You are free to trust whomever you wish.

To me, this statement by Obama is appalling:

"I am absolutely certain Connecticut is going to have the good sense to send Joe Lieberman back to the U.S. Senate so he can continue to serve on our behalf."

Do you consider that "Joe" Lieberman is working in "our" behalf? Obama thinks so. I wouldn't trust Obama with anything after that little bit. If you don't want to trust Clinton either, who can blame you. But to let Obama off the hook...requires some sort of numbness that I can't understand.

As far as Kyl/Lieberman goes, Clinton's vote was a horror. But good old Obama couldn't even be bothered to show up on the Senate floor to lobby and vote against it. Talk about taking political cover...Obama hides when there is a fight.

I hope we don't get stuck with him.

---

by: lentinel @ Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 16:41:45 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Ironically, or Not (4.00 / 2)

The true media distortion of the Las Vegas debate was that they did not give Kucinich his rightful place as the winner.  Yet, everyone was (is) caught up trying to parse out the relatively minor distortions applied to Obama, Clinton, and Edwards.

And, as you indicate - it ain't just in the MSM.

"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

---

by: SpitBall @ Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 08:23:35 AM CST

[ Parent ]