Kerry, Edwards, Dean - Gephardt drops out

[jayb2000]

The Iowa caucuses are in and it looks like
1 - Kerry 38%
2 - Edwards 32%
3 - Dean 18%
4 - Gephardt 11%

Gephard has dropped out.

So, Braun is out, Gephardt is Out.
Of the 7 left, Lieberman, Kuncinich and Sharpton are EXTREMELY unlikely to get more than 1 or 2%, so we look to be choosing among
Kerry, Edwards, Dean or Clark.

Of those 4, assuming you are not voting for Bush, who do you like and why?

I like Dean, but I am from New England, and like his fiscal conservatism and social liberalism.

[jamdr]

Originally posted by jayb2000
...like his fiscal conservatism and social liberalism.

Congratulations, you just defined the U.S. Democratic party.

[LaMerVipere]

I know that Iowa is historically inaccurate at predicting the eventual nominee, but I have to say that this is very exciting!

I have always liked Kerry. :)

[Sayhey]

For the next week all we will hear is about how Kerry is looking invincible and Dean is on his last legs. The nature of US political reporting is absurd.

I like Kerry and am glad to see his campaign strengthened by Iowa, however only Gephardt was in a make or break situation. We will see if Kerry's win helps in New Hampshire and if Clark and Dean's poll number hold up. It looks to me like this will go at least to the March California primaries before we have a winner.

[DavisBAnimal]

Originally posted by Sayhey
I like Kerry and am glad to see his campaign strengthened by Iowa, however only Gephardt was in a make or break situation.

While it may have only been "make or break" for Gephardt, I think this is a HUGE victory of Edwards. He basically came all the way from barely registering as a blip in the poles to coming in at a close second. I think this is great for him - it's going to get a whole lot more eyes on his campaign, and hopefully give him momentum into New Hampshire, then on into his "make or break" state of South Carolina.

I'm an Edwards fan - I was big into Dean for a while (less so nowadays) and I always appreciated that while Kerry, Gephardt and Lieberman were busy being worthless, crybaby weenies anytime Dean said anything at all - jumping on every "gaff" made by Dean and annoyingly ramming it into the ground - Edwards kept quite, and was generally much much more pleasant. He didn't seem to feel the need to jump onto every possible criticism and drag it out to an obscene degree.

I think Kerry's a bit of tool, I think Lieberman's a bit of a squid, and I'm starting to think Dean's a pretty big dick-head (I recently caught some video footage of Dean angrily yelling at some old guy at a Q&A cause the guy was over his time limit). Frankly, I don't think there's much wrong with having a president whose a real big dick-head, but it seems to me that most people don't vote for who they think will run the country the best, but more so who'd they rather see on TV every night for the next four years. Say what you will about GW's short-sighted econmic and foreign policy, but it seems like the general public think he's an alright dude, when it comes down to it, and despite that cocky grin (or perhaps because of it), they generally welcome his presence, even if they disagree with his policies. Frankly, Dean comes off as too much of an ass-munch to have a good enough chance of winning over that crucial group of voters who like the president, but dislike his handling of the country.

Clark and Edwards, on the other hand, seem like much more agreeable characters, and have a much better chance of taking out President G. W. Cocky-Smirk. For me, it's a toss-up between those two.

Jan. 27th here we come!!

Davis

[zimv20]

i'll be very interested to see how everything shapes up in NH once Clark is factored in.

i don't have a warm and fuzzy that Dean can beat Bush. my early impression is that Clark has the best chance; not sure about Kerry or Edwards 'til i get to know them better.

things are getting interesting...

[SPG]

I'm a little surprised Dean didn't do better. I heard there were a lot of negative anti-Dean ads running in Iowa, so maybe that had an effect. I still like the guy, as I liked him when he was my governor a little while back.
I don't think that Iowa will decide the nominee alone, but it will thin the heard as Gephardt is proving. Where are the Gephardt supporters going to wind up next week? Behind Clark? Kerry? Edwards? Dean? I don't think there's a bad guy in the bunch (except maybe Lieberman) so I'll proudly support whoever comes out of this race.

One thing to remember about this whole deal...even though bush's approve number is 50%, his dissapprove number is 45%. That's a historical high for someone with a 50%. Remember "uniter not a divider."

[IJ Reilly]

Fascinating results. Unless Dean pulls a "come back kid" performance in NH, it's going to be said that he peaked too soon, as in, before the first primary. He is obviously going to get a run for his money in New England from Kerry, and I'd expect Clark to do well there too. The real dark horse here has to be Edwards. Either he really connected with the party members in Iowa, or Democrats are beginning to get the reality that it's really difficult for them to win the White House with a candidate from outside of the South.

[SPG]

pretty good coverage and analysis over at the 'kos.
http://www.dailykos.com/

[jefhatfield]

the iowa race is just the first small contest and it's hard to tell who best fares against dean, the overall frontrunner in national polls

after all the tough campaigning is done, i hope the nominee, whoever he is, chooses the second or third place finisher as a running mate to make the strongest possible run for the white house against the strong bush-cheney camp

bush has the rising economy for now and will be very hard to beat if the economy continues to grow since it will be the single most looked at issue come november...i am glad for the bright spots ahead in the us economy but i won't forget that we had a bad three years when i cast my ballot

[SPG]

hey jef, just a couple points to consider. National polls in a nomination are nearly meaningless because there is no national contest, but a series of state contests in the primaries with very different dynamics as Iowa proved tonight.

As I've noted before bush's disapproval rate is 45% which is startling for someone who in the same poll clocks in at 50% approve.

The economy may look better in numbers that wall street likes, such as productivity and corporate earnings, but the numbers that matter to real people who vote are jobs and personal income. We're between 2 and 3 million jobs short of where we were when bush walked into the White House. If the economy improves without providing jobs any candidate will point out that the bush economic plan is doing what it set out to do...make the rich richer while exporting your job. Any evidence and numbers that bush can use to counter that will only reinforce it.
What about Iraq? Not going so well over there is it? How's that going to play?
I don't think it will be the landslide the conservatives are crowing about.

[wwworry]

the latest poll results from the NYTimes still show a democrat beating bush in 2004 (sorry can't find the link). However, the interesting thing is that even though most people won't be voting for Bush, most people see him winning the election. I guess we are trained that way.

also most see him looking out for the interests of big business, etc.

http://nytimes.com/packages/html/politics/20040118_poll/20040118poll_results.pdf

[Desertrat]

I find it interesting that the voting percentages were at such variance with the late polls. The pollsters had the front four as a statistical dead heat. :)

jef, your comment, "bush has the rising economy for now and will be very hard to beat if the economy continues to grow since it will be the single most looked at issue come november...i am glad for the bright spots ahead in the us economy but i won't forget that we had a bad three years when i cast my ballot" leads me to the one area where I actually will "rise up" to defend Bush.

The seeds of the three bad economic years were sown and cultivated during the 1990s. The harvest began during 2000, before Bush was elected. And in an economic system as gigantic as that of the U.S., the sheer size creates an inertia which precludes any sort of immediate turnaround.

End of support. :)

I've noted elsewhere that I'm not very optimistic about the way things are going in the economy...

'Rat

[jayb2000]

Originally posted by jefhatfield
the iowa race is just the first small contest and it's hard to tell who best fares against dean, the overall frontrunner in national polls

after all the tough campaigning is done, i hope the nominee, whoever he is, chooses the second or third place finisher as a running mate to make the strongest possible run for the white house against the strong bush-cheney camp

bush has the rising economy for now and will be very hard to beat if the economy continues to grow since it will be the single most looked at issue come november...i am glad for the bright spots ahead in the us economy but i won't forget that we had a bad three years when i cast my ballot

Definetly. I think a Dean/Edwards ticket with Clark as Secretary of Defense would get almost all moderate and liberal voters, which would be an easy majority.

[G4scott]

Well, now that Dean came in third, apparently he lost his cool. Take this audio file (http://www.drudgereport.com/dean.mp3) for example...

I don't know if we really want someone as 'jumpy' as Dean in the oval office. He just seems to be in an 'anti-Bush' state of mind, and it's kinda scary listening to him now...

He almost sounds like Steve Ballmer... ughhh...

[Dont Hurt Me]

2 weeks ago the media had said Dean won this race, what a difference 2 weeks can make. i am undecided. but any of the 4 have to have better spending habits then George.

[IJ Reilly]

Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
2 weeks ago the media had said Dean won this race, what a difference 2 weeks can make. i am undecided. but any of the 4 have to have better spending habits then George.
Ain't that the truth -- he'd almost been anointed. I can understand why, though. Dean is a good story, and no matter how his candidacy works out in the end, he'll get credit for breathing new life into his party.

[zimv20]

Originally posted by Desertrat
I find it interesting that the voting percentages were at such variance with the late polls. The pollsters had the front four as a statistical dead heat. :)


as the media, pundits and iowans kept reminding us the past few days, it's not an election, it's a caucus.

perhaps that accounts for the inaccuracies moreso than the implied fallacy of polls.

[jefhatfield]

Originally posted by Desertrat
I find it interesting that the voting percentages were at such variance with the late polls. The pollsters had the front four as a statistical dead heat. :)

jef, your comment, "bush has the rising economy for now and will be very hard to beat if the economy continues to grow since it will be the single most looked at issue come november...i am glad for the bright spots ahead in the us economy but i won't forget that we had a bad three years when i cast my ballot" leads me to the one area where I actually will "rise up" to defend Bush.

The seeds of the three bad economic years were sown and cultivated during the 1990s. The harvest began during 2000, before Bush was elected. And in an economic system as gigantic as that of the U.S., the sheer size creates an inertia which precludes any sort of immediate turnaround.

End of support. :)

I've noted elsewhere that I'm not very optimistic about the way things are going in the economy...

'Rat

you are right about the bad seeds of the recession being sown in the 90s

that is really not under dispute here or the fact that a prez can't do too much in a short time...but again, why the war with iraq while bin laden is still possibly out on the loose? and such an expensive war?...when george bush sr. got blamed for the recession that was here in 1992, i knew full well clinton would take advantage of it and blame the president and make it work in his favor during the election that year...it was actually reagan's voodoo economics of overspending in the military which put america into the early 90s recession...i voted for clinton but did not blame the bad economy on bush sr...i believe bush sr. was actually a decent president who, as history shows, knows how to manage a large scale war...bush jr, on the other hand, is woeful and only a shadow of his father...i would give my right arm to have bush sr in the white house during this uncertain time in iraq and have cheney as defense secretary and powell as our 4 star general in charge of the military...like them or not now, those three were an incredible military team and the best in us history in the most one sided war ever recorded...today, cheney is ineffective as vp, powell is not listened to, and rumsfeld is the worst example of a defense secretary i have ever seen and his fighting with general franks and general shinseki is just shameful...rumsfeld hates the fbi and cia and will not work well with them the way cheney did...if anything, i blame the bad turnout of the war on rumsfeld more than bush jr, but mr W is the president and he will take the heat for it...his approval ratings went from high 70s to 50 and this war and the recession are major reasons

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by G4scott
Well, now that Dean came in third, apparently he lost his cool. Take this audio file (http://www.drudgereport.com/dean.mp3) for example...

I don't know if we really want someone as 'jumpy' as Dean in the oval office. He just seems to be in an 'anti-Bush' state of mind, and it's kinda scary listening to him now...

He almost sounds like Steve Ballmer... ughhh...

What's scary is seeing Bush's "deer in the headlights" look during his canned speeches every day. At least Dean's exuberance is spontaneous and genuine.

[jayb2000]

"The seeds of the three bad economic years were sown and cultivated during the 1990s. The harvest began during 2000, before Bush was elected. And in an economic system as gigantic as that of the U.S., the sheer size creates an inertia which precludes any sort of immediate turnaround."

If that is correct, then Bush was wrong that the tax cuts had any effect on the economy.

[mactastic]

Originally posted by jayb2000
"The seeds of the three bad economic years were sown and cultivated during the 1990s. The harvest began during 2000, before Bush was elected. And in an economic system as gigantic as that of the U.S., the sheer size creates an inertia which precludes any sort of immediate turnaround."

If that is correct, then Bush was wrong that the tax cuts had any effect on the economy.

Lol, you hit the nail on the head. Every time the incumbent president sees good economic news he claims credit and when the news is bad he blames it on his predecessor.

You can't simultaneously claim that the economic cycle is so slow that the previous administration's policies are causing all your woes, and that the economic cycle is so quick that your tax cuts are causing the rebound. It's ludicrous!

[Sayhey]

Letterman's List. :D

Top Ten Howard Dean Excuses


10 - "The Iowans turned it into a popularity contest"

9 - "People don't seem to find shouting 'Presidential'"

8 - "Weekend before the caucus, wasted 55 crucial hours marrying Britney Spears"

7 - "By mistake, campaigned in Ohio"

6 - "Due to fatigue on campaign trail, kissed hands and shook babies"

5 - "Dennis Kucinich stole one percent of my vote"

4 - "Saddam Hussein endorsement didn't help"

3 - "In retrospect, shouldn't have opened speeches with 'Yo Mama' jokes"

2 - "Bad idea to keep asking self, 'What would Dukakis do?'"

1 - "Majority of voter base stayed home to watch 'My Big Fat Obnoxious Fiance'"

[g5man]

Edwards is the one to watch. He was written off long ago, but his charm and good looks will go a long way in a campaign.

Clark will go down like Dean did so we can say goodby to him as well. Dean is finished.

[DavisBAnimal]

Originally posted by g5man
Edwards is the one to watch. He was written off long ago, but his charm and good looks will go a long way in a campaign.

Clark will go down like Dean did so we can say goodby to him as well. Dean is finished.

I think you got it right, here.

It seems to me that when people vote for president, they vote less for who they find to be best equiped to run the country, and more for who they wouldn't mind seeing on their TVs every night. This is made evident by the large - very large - number of voters who don't agree with Bush's policies, but tend to think highly of him as a person.

The Dems don't just need someone who can go after Bush on the issues - they need a nice, pleasant guy with an agreeable demeanor in order to compete with George's calm and polite public persona.

I think Edwards fits the bill perfectly - Dean's too harsh, yells too much, and is overall kind of mean and at times out of control (my ears are still ringing from seeing him frantically jump all over the stage, straining his voice at that post-Iowa rally). Edwards on the other hand has a great and comprehensive domestic agenda, and is overall the most likeable guy running right now.

I think he'd be a fine choice - as nice as Bush comes off, but with a much better grasp on the reality of foreign and domestic policy.

Davis

[mactastic]

Republicans will have a field day with Edwards, because he is the dreaded 'trial lawyer' in the same way Democrats make hay with comments about Dubya being in the pocked of 'big oil'. Of course, as a trial lawyer, Edwards is extremely well-spoken and persuasive which could prove difficult for Bush to counter.

While Edwards and Kerry are the big winners, and Dean is the big loser, Clark may now be in trouble. His campaign was counting on Dean winning Iowa so he could be the anti-Dean. Now he's running against a resurgent Kerry and a charging Edwards, something Clark's campaign wasn't preparing for.

[Dont Hurt Me]

this was big for Edwards and i like what im seeing, he was waiting around the otherday for a reporters interview and she was yelling and yelling for her camera man to get there to do the shot, anyways Edwards demeaner was just laid back cool and calm talking to people while the crew was getting its act together. Seemed not bothered by her screeming nor to the fact she was holding him up. now if he will just stop pointing with that closed fist and thumb. why do democrats do that? is there a written law for democrats to point with a closed fist? it seems so sissy like. while they are all beating up on Dean he has had the positive image and message and the others are emulating this now.

[Sayhey]

Originally posted by mactastic
Republicans will have a field day with Edwards, because he is the dreaded 'trial lawyer' in the same way Democrats make hay with comments about Dubya being in the pocked of 'big oil'. Of course, as a trial lawyer, Edwards is extremely well-spoken and persuasive which could prove difficult for Bush to counter.

While Edwards and Kerry are the big winners, and Dean is the big loser, Clark may now be in trouble. His campaign was counting on Dean winning Iowa so he could be the anti-Dean. Now he's running against a resurgent Kerry and a charging Edwards, something Clark's campaign wasn't preparing for.

I think you have it about right. I don't think Edwards has got as big a "bounce" in New Hampshire as Kerry did. For both Clark and Edwards the make or break states are coming up after New Hampshire. The will have to do very well in South Carolina, Missouri, or Arizona. Dean is in trouble if he doesn't win in New Hampshire, after all "front-runners" are actually supposed to win. For Kerry the interesting thing is how does he continue momentum after a first or second in NH? He has all but abandoned the South in his organizational efforts and it will likely cost him. It may well be a case of "we will cross that bridge when we come to it." Kerry is in such new territory that I think his campaign is trying to adjust his message on the fly. It's a good set of problems for his folks to deal with.

Zogby (http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=787) Eyes Shift to New Hampshire: Kerry Catches Up To Dean in New Hampshire; Clark Slides to 16 Points New Reuters/MSNBC/Zogby Poll Reveals

Massachusetts Senator John Kerry trails Former Vermont Governor Howard Dean by two-points, 25%-23%, in polling for New Hampshire’s January 27th Democratic primary, according to the new Reuters/MSNBC/Zogby Poll.

Retired General Wesley K. Clark holds third place with 16%, followed by North Carolina Senator John Edwards and Connecticut Senator Joseph Lieberman with 7% each._ Missouri Congressman Richard Gephardt canceled his bid for president after the Iowa caucus.