But What About.... (0.00 / 0)

the analysis of last week that Edwards would likely benefit by about 5% over other candidates because 1) his supporters are more likely to actually show up (it will be about seventeen degrees around Iowa tomorrow evening) and 2) from the second choice movements when other candidates prove not to be viable?

---

by: ArthurKC @ Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 10:34:51 AM CST

Richardson and Biden (0.00 / 0)

are the candidates that count when it comes to second choice votes. They are the ones with a combined 11% that are not going to hit the 15% threshold. And no - if one is honest they are not going to ask their people to go to Obama. They will go to Clinton and that gives her the win if they do.

I have no doubt Biden's will go to Clinton. Richardson's may split between the two but even a split combined with Biden's gives Clinton the probable win.

---

by: progressivesouls @ Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 11:02:40 AM CST

[ Parent ]

you keep repeating this without evidence (0.00 / 0)

Join us at the Missouri community blog Show Me Progress!

---

by: clarkent @ Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 11:07:53 AM CST

[ Parent ]

You keep rejecting it (0.00 / 0)

without evidence.

Besides I am not the only one talking about it on the blogs as of today - just the first. Checkout Devilstower's front page post a dkos. You can also see my post below.

http://www.dailykos....

---

by: progressivesouls @ Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 11:16:55 AM CST

[ Parent ]

I don't see it (0.00 / 0)

My guess is that the slight majority of Biden and Richardson supporters go to Obama, with Edwards close behind.  These folks are very familiar with Clinton and Edwards, if they liked what they saw they would already be supporting them. 

Of course Zogby is saying that second choices are likely to split evenly 3 ways, so it could all be a wash...

---

by: moreaxe @ Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 12:27:56 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Not to mention Richardson's recent sarcastic comment (0.00 / 0)

regarding Hillary's so-called "experience" from her time as first-lady...

---

by: moreaxe @ Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 12:29:27 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Zogby doesn't say the second choices are likely to split 3 ways (0.00 / 0)

He says when the second choices are re-allocated, the race is a virtual three-way tie. Since Edwards is slightly behind the other two, that's consistent with JE gaining the most from second choices.

---

by: Shawn @ Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 12:40:53 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Sorry I wasn't clear (0.00 / 0)

You are right, but considering it was already a 3-way tie before 2nd choices were factored in (28-28-26) I didn't see the need to point that out...

---

by: moreaxe @ Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 13:08:40 PM CST

[ Parent ]

From Zogby Poll (0.00 / 0)

"Importantly, if you eliminate the potentially 'unviable' candidates and redistribute their supporters' second choices, the result is: Clinton 35.8%, Obama 33.4%, Edwards 30.8%."

So according to Zogby (if you can believe one poll)Clinton wins the popular vote (not necessarily the caucus delegate vote)by 2.4%.

That is hardly "consistent with JE gaining the most from second choices".

http://www.zogby.com...

---

by: progressivesouls @ Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 14:06:58 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Sorry But You Mke No Sense (0.00 / 0)

These folks are very familiar with Clinton and Edwards, if they liked what they saw they would already be supporting them.

Then if you are right the same can be said for Obama!!! If they liked what they saw in him they would already be supporting him!

The rational of Obama supporters, as Matt Stoller has been pointing out, is unbelievable. You guys don't even blink at having double standards or applying one methodology to other candidates and being completely blind to applying the same to Obama when it is certainly applicable.

---

by: progressivesouls @ Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 12:51:45 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Ahh Primary Season (0.00 / 0)

The rational of Obama supporters, as Matt Stoller has been pointing out, is unbelievable. You guys don't even blink at having double standards or applying one methodology to other candidates and being completely blind to applying the same to Obama when it is certainly applicable.

I'm sure Edwards and Clinton supporters never do anything like that, right? It's the nature of the beast.

---

by: Max Fletcher @ Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 13:00:10 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Sure Many Do (0.00 / 0)

But excluding them was not what I was saying at all.

I think it is pretty well established that Obama supporters have more blind faith and as a result corresponding behavior than supporters of the other two - especially the younger Obama supporters.

---

by: progressivesouls @ Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 13:44:20 PM CST

[ Parent ]

It's no secret (0.00 / 0)

that Edwards (former VP nominee now on his second Iowa Caucus) and Hillary Clinton (wife of 2-term former President Bill Clinton) are very well-known quantities...

---

by: moreaxe @ Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 13:06:53 PM CST

[ Parent ]

That Doesn't Take Away (0.00 / 0)

the fact that your standard still applies to Obama the same as it does to the other two.

If being a longer known quantity had any meaning then Edwards would be leading both Clinton and Obama, him having spent an entire previous cycle in Iowa that the other two haven't. And he isn't leading - which shoots all kind of hole in your entire theory. of know quantities.

---

by: progressivesouls @ Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 13:37:33 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Well Hillary is still more known than Edwards (0.00 / 0)

and it looks like the caucus results confirmed nicely what I was saying...

---

by: moreaxe @ Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 13:18:04 PM CST

[ Parent ]

BTW - At Dkos (0.00 / 0)

Devilstower has a front page post on what I have been talking about. He only includes Richardson as the possible "Kingmaker" and for some reason left out Biden who also has enough support to tilt the election.

He also mentions, like I already did in previous posts, of how Richardson could use his support to put himself in a position for a seat in a new administration. Even thought Devilstower does not say so I feel that scenario is much more likely with Clinton.

http://www.dailykos....

---

by: progressivesouls @ Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 11:14:27 AM CST

[ Parent ]

5% was the high end estimate (0.00 / 0)

It was a 2-5% estimate, and took place before the Obama--Kucinich deal. Right now, I'd give Edwards about a 3% boost from the entrance poll to the final results. I'd give Obama about half that.

---

by: Chris Bowers @ Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 11:30:02 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Iowa and NH so need to go. (0.00 / 0)

I can't believe that I don't have a vote; but kids, right leaning centrists, and Republicans in Iowa get to pick the Demoncratic nominee.  A poster at Docudharms suggested (tongue in cheek?) that we create a reality show where we lock up 1,000 representive Democrats until they settle on our nominee.  Survivor DC

They're asking for another four years -- in a just world, they'd get 10 to 20. ~~ Dennis Kucinich  

---

by: dkmich @ Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 10:49:24 AM CST

Still hopeful for Edwards victory (0.00 / 0)

I would have enjoyed seeing a larger swell of support for Edwards, especially in the polls, but the excitement in his recent crowds are encouraging.
Clinton and Obama went at it as I predicted they would, but clearly Obama saw Edwards as a Phoenix rising and aggressively took him to task on several occasions. 

I totally agree with Chris's earlier posts about the spin coming from many of the camps about who will and won't vote, etc but one decisive advantage could be the fact that Edwards by far tried to secure as many delegates throughout the state, in the rural areas, than any other.  With delegates proportioned by county and not population this math slightly favors Edwards.  Obama has a definitive edge with college voters and they seem quite enthusiastic and eager to participate, but are they concentrated in a limited amount of college precints?  This could inflate his % yet limit his delegate % take.  It's all about the delegates and turnout.  If Edwards consistently takes say 3 delegates to Obama and Clinton's 2 or 1 in the rural counties, this would prove decisive.  But then again, I'm fanatic Edwards.  but I'm not willing to put any money on Intrade or Iowa predictions so that's how inconclusive I find the polls.  But then again, if Edwards was a shoe-in, I wouldn't make any money anyway, and it's about risk.  But this isn't supposed to be about money.
Well Nader came out for Edwards, Hartmann and Moore sorta endorsed Edwards.  Bill Mahr has frequently mentioned that Edwards is the real deal so I feel like I'm in good company.  I'm hopeful for Edwards, damn I wish he would have brought up the troop thing weeks ago.  Damn Iraq blurring strategy crap.

---

by: gaspare @ Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 11:38:19 AM CST