Who do you think will win Iowa?

The front-runner just doesn't win Iowa very often.

nt

I'll take Obama, tho. He's clean.

Iowans don't commit this early. A lot can happen in the next month.

As I've been saying or quite awhile now.

For whatever reason the media has shut him out. All CNN, MSnbc, and Fox talk about is Hillobama. The only time they bring up Edwards is to mention his $400 haircut or how nasty lawyers are.
I'm rooting for him to come out on top in Iowa. Then the media will be forced to cover him.

Because if they don't ridicule him and go on about meaningless things like his haircut they'd actually have to cover his issues, his winning issues. The corporate media doesn't want anyone to win who will rock the fascist boat.

if He wins Iowa...He IS the the STORY rolling into NH. It really hinges on how solid Hillary's support is in NH.The inevitability aura will clearly be off and it is difficult where her tepid supporters willl wind up. Fo they they with her? DO they move to Obams? DO they take another looks at Edwards.

Four excrutiating days in Manvhester that is for sure. I don't think Obam has to win in NH, but he does have to win in South Carolina if he doesn't

The winner from Iowa...

<a href="http://photobucket.com" target="_blank"><img src="" border="0" alt="Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket"></a>

But I would be just as happy with a strong second place.

He simply doesn't have the resources to compete in the later, more media-saturated states without a big influx of cash - and maybe not even then, because of his campaign funding commitment. If Edwards pulls away in Iowa, maybe - and that's a big maybe - he can turn that into enough momentum to carry New Hampshire. If he doesn't get that far, he's in trouble.

In all seriousness, though, I think he is dead in the water without a strong first place showing in Iowa, where he has more or less staked his entire candidacy.

He is probably toast if he finishes third becauseit is difficult to see where he is going to break through..

The only way he fisihses third and stays viable is if Obama wins Iowa and his win and Hillary's failure are the story bewween now and the New Hampshire.


But then he probably has to finish second in both NH and SC to stay viable.

And I'm surprised when anyone makes a serious prediction.

Ask me the day before the caucuses, and perhaps I'll be able to make a prediction then.

he is the second choice of many of the other candidates -- an advantage under the provisions of the caucus rules.

However Biden is #2 for many Iowans as well. I see both of them in the top three :hi:

Possibly even Edwards people, but in any case, an awful lot of people.

His polling has come up, his campaign is focused and determined, and increasingly persuasive.

I think Biden finishes ahead of Sen. Clinton in Iowa, in one of the top 3 slots.

and it is sad that only a few Iowans and New Hampshire residents (and some in NV and SC) have the opportunity to see that.

Their events are not rah-rah rallies or rope-line events. Everyone in attendance has a chance to sit and talk with the candidates (and ask them whatever we wish). They all are incredible.

If we had public financing of elections I don't know that The Big Three would be the big three. Biden, Dodd and Richardson would probably be the top tier.

I'm hoping that along with Chairman Dean's 50-state strategy we can get a 50-state primary rotation system that rewards all participating voters without punishing any.

:hi:

that the Democratic Party can be proud of right up and down the line. And it's great having a ground level view of the contest in Iowa. Many thanks.

No matter who our nominee is I'll be satisfied :hi:

Oh... wait a minute... ;)

In the Caucuses and in the General Election.

Kerry on the other hand.......:yoiks:

Dean was the second choice of less than 10% of dems. Hillary, Obama, and Edwards are tied at around 25% as the "second choice."

many pollsters have mistakenly assumed that if a candidate is not viable in the first round of the caucuses that supporters must move to a viable candidate as their second choice. Not true, supporters of non-viable candidates can move to other non-viable candidates (or have others move to their candidate to make them viable) AND a supporter of a viable candidate can move to a non-viable candidate to make them viable (possibly to keep a different candidate from becoming viable or to keep a viable candidate from getting an additional delegate).

Also pollsters have mistakenly assumed that Clinton/Edwards/Obama will all be viable in every one of the 1,700 precincts in Iowa. (If they are not viable their supporters may very well choose to go to the second tier b/c of the bickering going on between The Big Three reminiscent of Dean/Gephardt in 2004)

Many pollsters are only giving the people they poll the choice of Edwards/Clinton/Obama as their second choice OR are using the presumption that Richardson/Biden/Dodd will be non-viable, neither is correct.

I think there will be some surprises come January 4th - and some egg on national pollsters faces (at least those who didn't take the time to learn the caucus process).

Edwards was came in third as first choice and #2 as second choice.

Clinton came in second as first choice and #3 as second choice.

Tallying net first and second choices, Obama came in at 55% versus Edwards' 46% and Clinton's 45%,
according to the ABC/Washington Post poll:

http://www.abcnews.go.com/images/PollingUnit/1051a1IowaDems.pdf

I don't discount an inside view.

I'm not a gambling man, and I wouldn't wager a cent on it at this point.

And that is ALL the BULL$HIT you will hear from the Corporate Controlled Conservative Press...

...now CCCP, doesn't that strike a familiar memory from somewhere?????????

imho

I don't see Hillary winning in Iowa. Not a chance. I used to think she had a good chance.

The race is fluid. It might be possible for Hillary to have a distant second place finish if one of the others really fades. For example, if Edwards fades away lots of his supporters would go to Obama and Hillary's would remain constant. Or vice versa.

There are lots of dynamics that could occur. But regardless I sincerely doubt that Hillary will win Iowa, and if she loses NH too, she is toast. THAT would be inevitable, in this scenario.

Then it would go to SC, and many of the blacks who had supported her would switch to Obama if they thought he could actually win.

If Obama wins all three....can anyone here explain how Hillary could recover from THAT?

First off, She was literally a visionary.
she was the first to make health care a national issue, and she dove into
it practically the second she became first lady.
Totally gutsy, and totally unprecedented.
The woman was a damned Howard Dean of first ladies.

She had no choice but to drop the issue because the repugs were
raising so much hell about it, it was taking away from her husband's
presidency.

And they're calling the prudence she learned from this cowardly.

Look at Edwards - he's claiming to be the big brave take back america guy.
Look at his senate voting record! The guy is total corporate, and
almost neocon1

Nobody has a CLUE who Obama is, except he has a sweet smile.
While he's Mr. Niceguy, his camp is strong arming people off the
blogs who criticize him.

I don't know who the guy is anymore.

I know that Hillary is OK, and think it is unfortunate that the two
opponents have once again proved that slime is stronger than truth.

...calling Obama "naive and frankly irresponsible". That was in response to Obama saying he would be in favor of talking with our enemies.

You say she was visionary with the failed health care proposal she helped work on during her husband's presidency. But since then has developed what you call "prudence" in response to it being shot down.

You may call it prudence, but many have noticed that Hillary has, ever since, been quite the triangulator. She has not taken any bold stands since, and has pretty much tried NOT too look too liberal, even though she still is painted a wild-eyed liberal by the Reps.

She supported the Iraq War Resolution. I would not call this prudence! She now supports the Kyl-Lieberman. I would not call this prudence either.

I think many voters see her "prudence" as doing what is prudent for Hillary's personal political future, not necessarily what is best for our party or the country. Today we yearn for a break with our past, not more of the same. Hillary now leads all candidates, Rep and Dem, in contributions from the medical, insurance and pharma industries. Prudence for Hillary. But hardly visionary.

Either way, one falls into fourth place after Iowa.

that is just garbage made up by the media to hype up the musings of their empty minds.

Edwards or Biden will take second place. If Edwards continues attacking Hillary, he may place fourth.

So we can all laugh at this nonsense which is base on nothing other than your myopic adoration of Hillary and your denial of the facts on the ground.

A dead heat between Clinton and Obama with Obams closing the Gap onthe strength of his uspport amont Hillary core consituency....namely white females. I am not saying he is going to win...buit the prediction that he is going to finish third with lees than 20% is addled whimsey.


YOu have no evidence at all to support that assertion or conclusion.

ALl the evidence points to edwards finishing in an unspectualar third place.

All the pundits' heads will explode!

Hopefully Democrats will come to their senses and scrap this stupid system of welfare for Iowa and New Hampshire, and replace it with rotating regional primaries.

That doesn't mean that Hillary is destined to lose, but I believe that the race will stay interesting for a while longer IMO.