Primary Predictions

[Izulde]

I'd like to see Richardson place a solid 4th and hopefully pick up some more steam along the way, since it's looking like the Obama/Hillary/Edwards trio is dogfighting over Iowa.

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

Welcome to 2008.

Thanks. I just get tired of the media buildup and the many weeks of coverage of it.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

Huckabee = Buchanan. An initial spurt but the wad has been shot. You know better than most it's all about organization. I look beyond the first two states and see a very different race, as what happened in 1996.

I dunno, depends upon how the turnout goes in the remaining states. Entrance polling tonight showed more than half the GOP voters self-identifying as "evangelicals", and Huckabee won that group easily. Presumably (I think) they won't have the same sway next Tuesday but it seems possible that the pattern could repeat on Super Tuesday. If it does, then Huckabee could be on a heck of a roll by mid-February.

Problem is, best I can guess, that he has to keep things going after a likely bad loss in New Hampshire and I don't know if he's got the organization (as you mentioned) to get it done.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Izulde

I'd like to see Richardson place a solid 4th and hopefully pick up some more steam along the way, since it's looking like the Obama/Hillary/Edwards trio is dogfighting over Iowa.

Although Obama is denying it reports are that Richardson instructed his folks to pick Obama second. Richardson didn't have enough support to hit the viability threshold in more than a few places, so I expect sometime next week he'll officially call it quits.

[stevew]

Originally Posted by Izulde

I'd like to see Richardson place a solid 4th and hopefully pick up some more steam along the way, since it's looking like the Obama/Hillary/Edwards trio is dogfighting over Iowa.

2%

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

Huckabee = Buchanan. An initial spurt but the wad has been shot. You know better than most it's all about organization. I look beyond the first two states and see a very different race, as what happened in 1996.

But Huckabee has a built in organization in most of the Southern states due to his focus on the Religious right. I think if he gets in a two man race after New Hampshire he'll be in trouble, but there's no way you can count out the only perceived religious conservative in the race.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Heh. Watching a few precincts create such dramatic shifts in total percentages (in the GOP at least), it feels like a small state legislative race or something.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

I dunno, depends upon how the turnout goes in the remaining states. Entrance polling tonight showed more than half the GOP voters self-identifying as "evangelicals", and Huckabee won that group easily. Presumably (I think) they won't have the same sway next Tuesday but it seems possible that the pattern could repeat on Super Tuesday. If it does, then Huckabee could be on a heck of a roll by mid-February.

Problem is, best I can guess, that he has to keep things going after a likely bad loss in New Hampshire and I don't know if he's got the organization (as you mentioned) to get it done.

Iowa has always been like that (a majority of voters/caucusers being evangelical), esp. among the church women crowd. That's a phenomenon unlike most other states. Colorado Republicans, which dominate where I live (the Evangelical Capital of the World), Huckabee is still polling in single-digits.

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Heh. Watching a few precincts create such dramatic shifts in total percentages (in the GOP at least), it feels like a small state legislative race or something.

Dependent on the strength of the local campaigns, do you think?

Win big in this district where you had an effective visit, ignore another and your performance is reflective of that?

[Glengoyne]

I'm not sure if Huckabee has the staying power. Especially since Limbaugh and others are in opposition.

On a side note, the fact that Limbaugh is against him, has me thinking I should reconsider my opinion.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

I'm not sure if Huckabee has the staying power. Especially since Limbaugh and others are in opposition.

On a side note, the fact that Limbaugh is against him, has me thinking I should reconsider my opinion.

Not hearing anything he has said since the early 1990s, I do recall that he was for Buchanan in 1996 and probably wouldn't want a repeat of that. I suspect he falls into the neo-con group, which is different than the social con group.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

Dependent on the strength of the local campaigns, do you think?

Win big in this district where you had an effective visit, ignore another and your performance is reflective of that?

That's what Rove became a master at, and something the Dems have not learned. To win a state's all-or-nothing electoral votes, you play to the strength in getting the numbers where you know you can get them and not spending too much resources on where you can't get them, if that makes sense.

[JPhillips]

He'll get killed in NH, but it's South Carolina and Florida that will be big for Huckabee heading into Super Tuesday. Right now he's got a double digit lead in SC and is close to even with Giuliani in Florida. Given that Giuliani will take a beating before we get to FL, I think Huckabee could win there as well.

None of the other states I've looked at have polled in the last half-month, so it's hard to tell exactly where Huckabee sits outside of the South.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

He'll get killed in NH, but it's South Carolina and Florida that will be big for Huckabee heading into Super Tuesday. Right now he's got a double digit lead in SC and is close to even with Giuliani in Florida. Given that Giuliani will take a beating before we get to FL, I think Huckabee could win there as well.

None of the other states I've looked at have polled in the last half-month, so it's hard to tell exactly where Huckabee sits outside of the South.

Except for Virginia, which I assume is a fairly important state, where Huckabee is non-existent. Buchanan basically won Iowa and NH but had nothing else. It would be interesting to see if a Iowa and SC victory would mean anything. I still say no.

[Jas_lov]

I'm back from the caucus! My precinct was one big clusterfuck. They had the whole county at the same precinct for some reason so there were long lines to get in and lines to sign in. I think my precinct voted for Huckabee, but there's still only 30% reporting there because it was so crowded. Big win for Obama. Edwards is finished. Big win for Huckabee. He won't do well in NH. I think McCain will win NH. It's between him and Romney there. Not sure how this loss will effect Romney. I also think the Republicans will lose in November no matter who they elect. Huckabee knows this and that's why he criticized Bush.

[JPhillips]

And I think it all comes down to how quickly it becomes a two man race. McCain vs. Huckabee is a disaster for Huckabee, but if Romney, Giuliani and McCain are all still in the race a month from now I think Huckabee can do fairly well. If it's a four man battle in early Feb. Huckabee will have the most wins coming into Super Tuesday and will also have a very strong base in the South.

As for Virginia, I haven't seen any recent polls, so I don't know. Given Huckabee's quick rise and Romney's flak I'd argue that anything more than a couple of weeks old probably doesn't tell us much.

[JPhillips]

dola?

I'd say biggest surprise is Thompson finishing ahead of McCain.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

dola?

I'd say biggest surprise is Thompson finishing ahead of McCain.

Now we can agree on something.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

That's what Rove became a master at, and something the Dems have not learned. To win a state's all-or-nothing electoral votes, you play to the strength in getting the numbers where you know you can get them and not spending too much resources on where you can't get them, if that makes sense.

Regardless of what has happened in the last year, spreading out resources did win Congress for the Dems in 2006 because the GOP took some of those races for granted early on. From the bad sports metaphor book, the Dems ran a draw to disrupt the GOP blitz and it worked.

SI

[Buccaneer]

I don't know if Wyoming will offer any kind of news but McCain will win there. That's this Saturday.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Y'know what's interesting to me?

That we've had quite a string of posts about the various Rep. contenders without (until JPhillips broke the spell) mentioning Thompson who finished third.

That's either very telling or very shortsighted of us.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

Regardless of what has happened in the last year, spreading out resources did win Congress for the Dems in 2006 because the GOP took some of those races for granted early on. From the bad sports metaphor book, the Dems ran a draw to disrupt the GOP blitz and it worked.

SI

I count the disenchanment vote in 2006 more than I do any specific tactics. I wa thinking more along the lines of the strategy for the electoral college, which is very different than the congressional district races.

[stevew]

Edwards is a douche

[tucker342]

got back from my caucus about 30 minutes ago. Obama dominated at ours and Im glad to see that he didnt do too shabby in the rest of the state either.

[Galaxy]

Edwards is a terrible speaker.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by stevew

Edwards is a douche

He has always reminded me of those caricature political cartoons showing a very slick huckster with a pasted on smile. Reading that he has gone populist is probably good strategy but very contrived.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Also notable (maybe?) is how much Iowa caucuser's polled seemed to have discounted electability in November.

Both sides are giving that some consideration at the highest levels of the parties I'm sure, but will the voters start thinking about it by the time we hit Super Tuesday?

[stevew]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

Edwards is a terrible speaker.

I know the subject wasn't funny, but he made me lol during the health insurance story when he throws in the totally random "and then she died!" with like no emotion whatsoever.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Also notable (maybe?) is how much Iowa caucuser's polled seemed to have discounted electability in November.

Both sides are giving that some consideration at the highest levels of the parties I'm sure, but will the voters start thinking about it by the time we hit Super Tuesday?

Your party will get the people and organization in line by then and it won't be for Huckabee, whom they don't like. They let 1996 run its course because none of the candidates would have done well, electorally, against Clinton and gave it to Dole as a lifetime acheivement award. The GOP will be totally focused on electability since they know that Obama or Clinton can be beaten, in the same (close) way as against Kerry.

It does sound like Ron Paul will stay in through Super Tuesday, so I hope some of the libertarian message will be heard and perhaps influence any of the leading candidates.

[Galaxy]

I guess Dodd has dropped out?

[Young Drachma]

Leno gave Huckabee a pretty big gift last night, not that I think that clinched it, but it sure didn't hurt.

Wow......looking forward to New Hampshire.

[Barkeep49]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Also notable (maybe?) is how much Iowa caucuser's polled seemed to have discounted electability in November.

Both sides are giving that some consideration at the highest levels of the parties I'm sure, but will the voters start thinking about it by the time we hit Super Tuesday?

I think all 3 of the Democrats are electable. Were you talking about the Republican side (which I know of to be more interest to you). On the Republican side I think McCain and Thompson are the most electable, though Thompson doesn't really care to campaign so perhaps that makes him slightly less electable.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

dola?

I'd say biggest surprise is Thompson finishing ahead of McCain.

And as of now McCain has pulled ahead of Thompson.

[clintl]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

And I think it all comes down to how quickly it becomes a two man race. McCain vs. Huckabee is a disaster for Huckabee, but if Romney, Giuliani and McCain are all still in the race a month from now I think Huckabee can do fairly well. If it's a four man battle in early Feb. Huckabee will have the most wins coming into Super Tuesday and will also have a very strong base in the South.

Right now, I think it's fair to say that the Republicans don't have a candidate who has shown he can compete nationally within the party for the nomination - they have a bunch of regional candidates. And if that doesn't change by Super Tuesday, I think it's not out of the question that the Republicans might go to their convention without someone having the nomination locked up. If the Republicans come out of Super Tuesday without a clear frontrunner (or at least a two-man race), it's going to be a real mess for them.

[vex]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

And as of now McCain has pulled ahead of Thompson.

And now back to Thompson.

[Galaxy]

Do you see Bloomberg throwing his hat in the ring?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

The GOP will be totally focused on electability since they know that Obama or Clinton can be beaten, in the same (close) way as against Kerry.

That's about as good a jumping off point as I'm going to get I think, so I'll answer Barkeep's question using that snippet as a starting point.

Hillary, of course, is the GOP's dream opponent. She's the one thing that will turn clintl's regional candidates into a national candidate. And I believe pretty much any of the top 5 contenders can beat her.

Now, that said, I don't believe any GOP'er can beat Edwards or Obama without winning the South, especially since either of those two make it harder to win, so I start looking at which candidates can accomplish that.

Huckabee, obviously, I'd say can carry the South. So can Thompson, but it'll be softer support. I'm pretty sure Romney can't. That leaves McCain & Rudy.
And right now I believe both of them could get some of the South but not enough.

[Young Drachma]

Wow....what a start.

[clintl]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Hillary, of course, is the GOP's dream opponent. She's the one thing that will turn clintl's regional candidates into a national candidate. And I believe pretty much any of the top 5 contenders can beat her.

When I said regional candidates, I meant specifically in relationship to the race for the Republican nomination, not necessarily the general election. And what I meant by that is that I don't remember a campaign before where one party didn't have anyone who seemed to be competitive everywhere, even if they weren't leading in some places. Almost everyone is running in single digits in the polls somewhere. This is a very strange thing going on in the Republican race, and Super Tuesday has the potential of making it even stranger.

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

Now we can agree on something.

And you're wrong - McCain spent his time bashing Iowa-issues, while Fred pandered. Read the NR's and co - McCain is the happiest man in Iowa right now, because as much as the GOP hates him - the establishment will hate Huckabee more. Hell, I think Huckabee is the one candidate who can make JIMGA vote democrat, since the right-wing blogosphere keeps calling him a pro-life liberal.

This sets up McCain to take NH (which he will), and Romney to go home - and sets up McCain vs Huckabee, with Rudy hoping everyone remembers his strategy of waiting for Florida. We'll see.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by clintl

When I said regional candidates, I meant specifically in relationship to the race for the Republican nomination, not necessarily the general election.

Actually, I thought it was a pretty fair description of the whole GOP field.

In the absence of Hillary, I'm not convinced any of them can appeal to enough of their own party to win, each of them has a weakness with some portion of the voters you would normally expect them to get. And since I don't believe any of the better known contenders (Romney, McCain, Rudy) are going to suddenly become more popular with the groups they've failed to attract, that leaves Huckabee & Thompson as the only two with a chance to pull the party together on their own (and I'm not exactly holding my breath for that to happen either).

More than ever, I'm feeling as though the best hope might be for whichever Dem win the nomination to stick their entire leg in their mouth repeatedly, just the foot might not be enough to do it.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Crapshoot

Hell, I think Huckabee is the one candidate who can make JIMGA vote democrat, since the right-wing blogosphere keeps calling him a pro-life liberal.

At this point, I'm not sure if there'll be any of them I can vote for in either party ... unless it's to prevent the coronation of Hellary.

And I say that believing that Edwards is darned close to being as SFN as OwlGore and that Obama is simply so far in over his head as to be incredibly dangerous to the future survival of the nation.

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

At this point, I'm not sure if there'll be any of them I can vote for in either party ... unless it's to prevent the coronation of Hellary.

And I say that believing that Edwards is darned close to being as SFN as OwlGore and that Obama is simply so far in over his head as to be incredibly dangerous to the future survival of the nation.

Point taken - disagreement, but that is always the case.

Here's why I think Thompson will go home after NH - as NR put it, the difference between Thompson's full-on courting of Iowa and McCain basic brush-off (he bashed ethanol in Iowa!) is right now worth zilch - McCain and Thompson are both 13% as per CNN. McCain is going to win NH, at which point Romney goes home. That leaves a newly resurgent McCain against Huckabee in SC, where Rudy may hope to play (but won't) - and Fred basically needs to win if he's still around.

Here's the other thing to consider as to why Mitt Romney is dead - if Fred drops out, who do you think he endorses? If Rudy drops out, who does he endorse? Hell, if Huck drops out - who does he endorse? Its McCain all the way at this point.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Crapshoot

Its McCain all the way at this point.

Then you may as well go ahead & crown the Dem's ass.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

At this point, I'm not sure if there'll be any of them I can vote for in either party ... unless it's to prevent the coronation of Hellary.

And I say that believing that Edwards is darned close to being as SFN as OwlGore and that Obama is simply so far in over his head as to be incredibly dangerous to the future survival of the nation.

So what you're saying is that you won't vote for any of them...


Except if one of the Democratic candidates win...



Then you'll vote for the Republican...




Thanks for clearing that up, Jon
(But I'm sure you won't be happy about that vote )

SI

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Then you may as well go ahead & crown the Dem's ass.

See, I disagree - McCain is the only GOP'er who can win - poll after poll has shown this. You may have a visceral dislike of McCain and most of the grass-roots probably agrees - but the fact is, there a lot of moderate GOP'ers out there who don't share your outrage over McCain Feingold, the Gang of 14, and so forth. There are a lot of people who give him credit for sticking to his guns on the surge when no one else would, and backing the war when it was even more unpopular. You don't have to like McCain to admire a man who sticks to his principles, and the GOP never struck me as the party that would stay home to make a point of principle (the ol' Democratic firing squad circle line comes to mind here ).

If you believe a Mormon Romney is going to carry all of the South (or a pro-choice Rudy is going to keep Reagan Democrats in his corner on economic issues alone), I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

At this point, I'm not sure if there'll be any of them I can vote for in either party ... unless it's to prevent the coronation of Hellary.

And I say that believing that Edwards is darned close to being as SFN as OwlGore and that Obama is simply so far in over his head as to be incredibly dangerous to the future survival of the nation.

Not that's it's surprising, but to claim that any of the candidates are dangerous to the future survival of the nation is silly. I won't like what a President Huckabee or Giuliani will do, but the country will go on just as it will with a President Obama or Clinton.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Crapshoot

See, I disagree - McCain is the only GOP'er who can win - poll after poll has shown this. You may have a visceral dislike of McCain and most of the grass-roots probably agrees - but the fact is, there a lot of moderate GOP'ers out there who don't share your outrage over McCain Feingold, the Gang of 14, and so forth. There are a lot of people who give him credit for sticking to his guns on the surge when no one else would, and backing the war when it was even more unpopular. You don't have to like McCain to admire a man who sticks to his principles, and the GOP never struck me as the party that would stay home to make a point of principle (the ol' Democratic firing squad circle line comes to mind here ).

If you believe a Mormon Romney is going to carry all of the South (or a pro-choice Rudy is going to keep Reagan Democrats in his corner on economic issues alone), I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.

But McCain's liability within the conservative chattering class is an issue. What would Rush say about a McCain nomination and how would that end up affecting things? My guess is that he'd just pretend he's never disliked McCain, but if he and others like Hannity, Hewitt, etc. really can't support him, won't that hurt him to some degree?

It's awfully early, but I'd see Virginia as a potential problem for McCain. It's trending more urban due to DC suburbs and will have a very popular Dem. running for Senate. Will McCain's liability among hardcore conservatives cost him Virginia? And if so can he make it up in the midwest?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

So what you're saying is that you won't vote for any of them... Except if one of the Democratic candidates win... Then you'll vote for the Republican...

Nope, read it again.

I really don't figure it makes much difference to me if McCain (hypothetically) speaking is the President vs Clinton/Edwards/Obama. Miserable is miserable, I'm not sure the degrees of difference are enough to make me give a crap.

Meanwhile, more importantly, I've been sitting here with this window open for several minutes while I surfed around a bit for some position specifics for a couple of people. And I run across another one of those "select your candidate" things.
http://www.selectsmart.com/president/2008.html

Guess who it gave me as my favored choice? Hmm? Who springs to mind immediately when you think Jon-and-political-clones? Give up?

Spoiler

1. Theoretical Ideal Candidate (100%)
2. Stephen Colbert (85%)

I'm still chuckling at the absurdity of the situation, but I guess it really illustrates how screwed I am come November.

[Jas_lov]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Not that's it's surprising, but to claim that any of the candidates are dangerous to the future survival of the nation is silly. I won't like what a President Huckabee or Giuliani will do, but the country will go on just as it will with a President Obama or Clinton.

I agree. None of these candidates would change anything. I think the Republicans are dead no matter who they nominate. McCain would lose. Giuliani would lose. The country doesn't want another George Bush. Romney would lose. Huckabee would get slaughtered. Thompson will drop out of the race after he doesn't win SC. The Republican Party is in shambles.