Looking in the crystal ball, who is going to get spanked in the Iowa caucus?

Which candidate will come in far below where the polls indicate they should?

:shrug:

Now, of the others, I expect Biden to do well and Richardson to do very poorly. From the top 3, it's a three way battle for now so who knows.

question further qualifies "which candidate will come in far below where the polls indicate they should?" I voted for Clinton. If she doesn't do as well as predicted, her "spanking" will be bigger news than any of the others, IMO.

I don't think any of The Three will REALLY take a dive though. It'll be interesting.

but I suspect one of the "second tier" may make a break for the top. Call it a hunch. :P

Anything suggesting that isn't the case will destroy her candidacy.

If she even barely wins Iowa it will be spun as a loss for her. She has to win and win big.

as does any frontrunner going in.

Oh, and George Bush beat Ronald Reagan in the IA primary in 1980...

I must have slept through all their presidencies...Oh , Bush Pere won but not in 1980...

And Bill Clinton lost IA and NH...In fact he didn't win his first primary for awhile...

Lucky you.

"And Bill Clinton lost IA and NH...In fact he didn't win his first primary for awhile..."

Bill Clinton didn't even compete in Iowa - and the fact that he did better than expected against Tsongas in New Hampshire provided him with momentum.

"Oh , Bush Pere won but not in 1980..."

The Iran-Contra debacle wasn't proof enough for you that Reagan was Bush's puppet? I forget, who was it who delayed the release of the hostages in Iran? Reagan sure didn't have the brains or connections for that one...

Hillary's competing in Iowa and polls show her ahead both in Iowa and the nation. Losing Iowa - or even barely winning there - would destroy her aura of "inevitability".

Iowa and New Hampshire need not be determinative, your obscurantist points nothwitstanding....


Oh, Gary Hart beat Mondale in NH in 84...I slept through the Mondale presidency also...


Oh, and you didn't even try to address the Buchanan presidency...Remember he won NH in 1996...

And unless they can swiftly recover, they are usually doomed.

"Iowa and New Hampshire need not be determinative, your obscurantist points nothwitstanding...."

Despite your laughable attempts at spelling your own fancy rhetoric, for an "inevitable" nominee such as Hillary Clinton, any hint that she's not accepted by the base will be a huge blow to her campaign. You don't get 45% in the polls without some increased expectations.

"Oh, Gary Hart beat Mondale in NH in 84...I slept through the Mondale presidency also..."

Yes, Reagan was a popular incumbent, two situations that don't exist right now. What was your point? You sure don't seem to have one.

"Oh, and you didn't even try to address the Buchanan presidency...Remember he won NH in 1996..."

Again, facing a popular incumbent. Now who is being an obscurantist?

Go sit in the corner with your dunce cap on. Don't come back until you actually learn something.

Because you resided there previously and fouled the seat.



On Edit- Thanks for finding the typos...It's always the mark of an internet loser...

Democrats
2004 - John Kerry (38%) defeated John Edwards (32%), Howard Dean (18%), Richard Gephardt (11%) and Dennis Kucinich (1%)
2000 - Al Gore (63%) defeated Bill Bradley (37%)
1996 - Bill Clinton* (unopposed)
1992 - Tom Harkin (76%) defeated Paul Tsongas (4%), Bill Clinton* (3%), Bob Kerrey (2%) and Jerry Brown (2%)
1988 - Richard Gephardt (31%) defeated Paul Simon (27%), Michael Dukakis (22%) and Bruce Babbitt (6%)
1984 - Walter Mondale (49%) defeated Gary Hart (17%), George McGovern (10%), Alan Cranston (7%), John Glenn (4%), Rueben Askew (3%) and Jesse Jackson (2%)
1980 - Jimmy Carter (59%) defeated Ted Kennedy (31%)
1976 - "Uncommitted" (37%) defeated Jimmy Carter* (28%) Birch Bayh (13%), Fred R. Harris (10%), Morris Udall (6%), Sargent Shriver (3%) and Henry M. Jackson (1%)
1972 - Edmund Muskie (36%) defeated George McGovern (23%), Hubert Humphrey (2%), Eugene McCarthy (1%), Shirley Chisholm (1%) and Henry M. Jackson (1%)

Republicans
2004- George W. Bush* (unopposed)
2000- George W. Bush* (41%) defeated Steve Forbes (30%), Alan Keyes (14%), Gary Bauer (9%), John McCain (5%) and Orrin Hatch (1%)
1996- Bob Dole (26%) defeated Pat Buchanan (23%), Lamar Alexander (18%), Steve Forbes (10%), Phil Gramm (9%), Alan Keyes (7%), Richard Lugar (4%) and Morry Taylor (1%)
1992- George H. W. Bush (unopposed)
1988- Bob Dole (37%) defeated Pat Robertson (25%), George H. W. Bush* (19%), Jack Kemp (11%) and Pete DuPont (7%)
1984- Ronald Reagan* (unopposed)
1980- George H. W. Bush (32%) defeated Ronald Reagan* (30%), Howard Baker (15%), John Connally (9%), Phil Crane (7%), John B. Anderson (4%) and Bob Dole (2%)
1976- Gerald Ford defeated Ronald Reagan

Those caucuses are all about ORGANIZATIONAL skills, not 'netroots' popularity, anyway.

If Farmer Bob and all his friends like you, you're in. If you're playing to the tee vee cameras, you just might be fucked.

But hey, that's Iowa. It's not considered conclusive. Even when people lose, they use the "Well, we kinda blew it off" excuse.

And it will be less conclusive, certainly, as they bundle all these damned primaries together in future.

I think that would spell doom for his candidacy.

Edwards, has never been behind in IOwa, in fact one station today was calling Iowa a toss up...remember he was supposed to get 5% in Iowa in the last election, and came in 2% points behind Kerry, would have won without Clark in the race.

ARG:
Clinton: 32
Obama: 22
Edwards 15

Rasmussen:
Clinton: 33
Edwards: 22
Obama: 21

Univ. of Iowa:
Clinton: 29
Obama: 27
Edwards; 20

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/ia/iowa_democratic_caucus-208.html

I don't know what fantasy polls you have been reading, but in the last ten polls Edwards has gotten between 15% and 23% of the poll. He has been mired in third place in seven of those ten most recent polls, after being solidly in the lead until early June.

http://www.pollster.com/08-IA-Dem-Pres-Primary.php

Not realistic either, but they aren't surprising.

as the polls suggest, after leading until June/July, it might be deadly for his prospects.

and, hopefully, he will see the writing on the wall and drop out.

Not because I think it's so wild, but because I think it's nuts
to make such a prediction this far out, but as this will be forgotten
be January (probably by this afternoon!), here goes:

HRC will be either a weak first, or a close tie for second with whichever
of Edwards/Obama that doesn't take first.

Better than expected, but not not enough to churn up excitement: Biden, Richardson

Getting nowhere despite talking sense: Kucinich, Dodd

Maintaining his ratings: Colbert

:shrug:

I think NH will be decided by the ground work done by the candidates and their teams
between now and then, and I have no clue who has decided to invest how much time and
effort there. Ask me again on December 15, if I live that long!

As the caucuses start lining up and Hillary takes the lead, whoever's in second place could convince the third-place caucusers to jump sides to avoid the Hillary win.

with Obama taking more than expected, 30% maybe Obama, with Clinton taking more than expected, and 10% maybe Clinton, with a late Edwards surge.