Bye to Iowa

The entertainment is almost over. Looks like a big night for Kerry and Edwards. Dean and Gephardt may want to thank Bush for trying to change the subject tomorrow.

Comments

[Saul]

Looks like the Democrats wised up and decided that angry people who call Bush a liar will not get them the White House.

[chthus]

By teasing Dean with such strong poll support and then yanking the rug out when it comes time to pick, the Dems are just tempting Dean to run as the angry independent. If he does that, the Dems may as well start looking to '08.

[Jean Bart]

I thought American had gone insane in their support of Dean.

[Mike]

Sandy,

Are you saying that the US should elect Presidents on the basis of opinion poll in other countries? If that is the case, why limit it to just Europe? Perhaps we should ask the Chinese. Perhaps we should as Nigerians. Perhaps?. Well, you get the point.

[Sandy]

JB-

I'm just curious as to why you thought Americans "insane" for being interested in Dean. I would have thought from a Continental perspective he would be far more palatable than Bush.

[AJMB]

You make my point, Saul. Thank you. It is not the accusation that is unpalatable. It is the lack of evidence to back it up.

[shane]

"You'd almost think he's running for Chancellor and not President."

LOL. Was thinking the same thing last night.

We are going to take the WH back! Yeeearrrggghhh!

[Rick Barton]

Great. Bush is bad and the Democrats all terrible:
http://www.ntu.org/main/press_release.php?PressID=549&org_name=NTUF

[Andrew]

All of my "analysis" above could be crap...except for one thing-- Dean is done, although of course he won't withdraw anytime soon.

Dean's implosion could be real bad news for Clark. To a considerable extent, the rationale for Clark's campaign was the perceived need for a fresh face to stop the Dean "juggernaut". Dean is done, and two party regulars BOTH bested him-- with the most familiar of the two doing rather more of it.

Where is the rationale for a retired career soldier who has never been tested in a campaign, and who wasn't even a Democrat last year?

That leaves the field to two Senators...which doesn't quite seem right. Good for Kerry's Kennedy comparisons, though: 1960, JFK Northern liberal moderate, beats LBJ Southern liberal moderate...hm? then takes him on the ticket.

Not much here for the Libertarian-for-X crowd. Suppoase it will be Howlin' Howie for a while yet, then Clark, then Kerry...getting even less plausible with each version.

[Sandy]

Sandy,

Are you saying that the US should elect Presidents on the basis of opinion poll in other countries? If that is the case, why limit it to just Europe? Perhaps we should ask the Chinese. Perhaps we should as Nigerians. Perhaps?. Well, you get the point.

Eh?

I'm just curious why a guy who is pretty strongly anti-Bush and usually somewhat illiberal (in the classic sense) hates Dean so much. And you somehow think this is a plea for endorsement?

Reading Is Fundamental.

[Andrew]

It is silly to predict these things...but fun!

a) Dean is out-- it gets worse in New Hampshire: 80% of Iowa's Democrats voted for candidates who support the war (most weeks, anyway). In NH, Dean has to split his (shrinking) anti-war base with Clark-- that just sucks, and he heads South with no momentum.

b) Kerry disappoints in NH-- too much bleeding from Edwards and Clark (neither of whom does THAT well...but they don't NEED to).
Kerry also heads South without much prospect.

c) Edwards disappoints in Dixie.
He's a Southerner, a Senator and a lawyer-- Clark's a Southerner, an "out-sider" and a General.

(If Clark's position on Iraq is a problem, he can just change it again-- it never hurt him to do this before, and he can keep doing it until after he's nominated...and then it starts to hurt.)

Edwards' only good state is Florida, where Kerry and Lieberman still bite. (Everyone knows Florida has lots of Jews...fewer know Florida has lots of New England transplants.) Everywhere else, it's Clark first, Edwards second, and Kerry and Dean trading third and fourth. Edwards heads NORTH with no real prospect, and it's all over.

d) Whenever Democrats (rightly or wrongly) think they are favored, they play safe on the VP choice (Mondale 76, Bentsen 88, Gore 92). Whenever they think it's uphill, they pull a wild-card (Ferraro 84, Lieberman 00). Don't see any gays besides Frank. Not that many blacks. Not THAT many women.

But there is Hillary. Clark will ask. She will accept. The two months bracketing the convention will be a love fest...and then they start to lose.

(During this time Libertarians for Dean will have morphed into Libertarians for Clark: the reasoning, I suppose, will be that a presumed Republican majority wouldn't give Clark high taxes and higher spending (and he wouldn't ask?), whereas a lame-duck, second-term Bush has a pent-up demand for further spending programs, and enormous clout with his party caucus...and if you believe any of those things, your handle is Thoreau.)

e) Nader will run. The most important thing about Hillary, for Clark, is the fact that her pro-war record, combined with his straddling, leaves him fairly safe on the Right...and vulnerable on the Left.
The Deaniacs will be pissed. And for the kind of kids Julian Sanchez seems to think are hot Libertarian prospects, the very fact that Clark is a General will be a real problem. It won't help that he's a Southerner.

f) Clark gets maybe 45%...with some help from Nader he holds Bush down to 50%-- and winning is winning.
More likely he gets 40 to Bush's 55-- effectively a landslide.

[Douglas Fletcher]

Why is Dean screaming all the time? You'd almost think he's running for Chancellor and not President.

[Jean Bart]

Andrew,

"a) Dean is out-- it gets worse in New Hampshire: 80% of Iowa's Democrats voted for candidates who support the war (most weeks, anyway)."

Iowa voters discerned that Dean is an arrogant buffoon and not consistently anti-war.

Some weeks ago I wondered publicly here why everyone was assuming that Dean would win easily (or at all); I can see that those thoughts are now vindicated despite all the gnashing of teeth and wearing of sackcloth earlier.

[Douglas Fletcher]

Doyle, you're a genius.

[mak_nas]

wearing of sackcloth

lol! isn't that the truth?

but it's still early -- the iowa caucuses are vote engineering, whereas new hampshire will be an election. dean may still win there, where he has paid more attention. in any case, he still has a massive war chest and the unthinking love of the students.

but it warms my heart to see him suffer. perhaps the democrats will yet give me a candidate that makes my "anyone but bush" vote palatable.

[AJMB]

Why is calling Bush a liar such a bad thing? Aren't there plenty of people who post to H&R who say the same thing? What's the big deal? Unless, of course, you can't prove it.

[Saul]

That is the problem, AJMB, no one can prove it. It's just silly name-calling that turns swing voters off. Partisans always think the other side is lying, and it's the beginning of wisdon to put aside such childish things.