So what do you think of the Obama and Huckabee winning? I know it's very early yet. A bit surprising on the Dem side, but the young-uns love Obama. Glad that Edwards came in 2nd, albeit a close 4rd for Hillary. I'm still hoping for Edwards to stay for the long haul, but I wonder if he'd accept a VP nod again. I think an Obama/Edwards, or vice versa even, would be a solid ticket. Edwards should just make his RFK transformation complete and go down in a blaze of glory. If he's gonna be out, so be it! Speak up for the Left!
It will obviously come down to the moderates vs. fundamentalists for the Repub. Huckabee will be in it for the long run, but I don't think Romney or Giuliani will be gone soon, not to mention McCain.
To BRM, disappointed about Thompson's showing? How do you see the GOP race shaping up?
As an aside, I took part in the 1992 Democratic Caucus here in Seattle when itturned out to be a Bush/Clinton/Perot race. At the time, I did not support Clinton initially because of my bias against yet another Southern Democrat. I think it came down to Tsongas and Clinton at my caucus. I don't recall who I ended up supporting (probably Clinton), but I do remember not being happy with the choices. Mike, did I tell you about the caucus back then?
Appreciate your thoughts,
Young
First reply from Mike:
ReplyDeleteFrom: Michael Busick "misterb_46@hotmail.com"
Subject: RE: Iowa Caucus Results
Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2008 11:30:48 -0800
I'm surprised about Obama. Dawn and I were in Iowa in mid-December and we heard the Romney radio ads and saw the Hillary yard signs in a few places. One local paper expected a Dem turnout of 150K so given that and the weather out there, over 200K is a big deal.
I'm not surprised about Huckabee. He gives off the appearance of being more of an average Joe than Romney and I don't believe McCain or Thompson have a shot anymore. I don't know about Giuliani because he didn't even try for votes in Iowa. I am worried, though, about Huckabee's tying his success to divine intervention. I don't believe there are enough evangelicals in this country to swing the results from one party to another, but there might be enough to swing the result from one GOP guy to another GOP guy.
Sometimes Iowa means something and sometimes it doesn't. In non-presidential years, no one cares about Iowa -- except Iowans (and I was born there).
And, no Young, I didn't know about your 1992 caucus. I've only done one caucus and that was in 2004. I was living in the 45th district then and at our precinct caucus (combined with other precincts in the district) we were all surprised that we weren't the only Dems in the building. I was a Kerry delegate in the legislative caucus a short time later and I would really like to see a national convention in person someday.
> Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2008 11:47:43 -0800 (PST)
ReplyDelete> From: "Young H. Kim" yhkpenguin@yahoo.com
> Subject: Re: Iowa Caucus Results
Ya like my new ordinal, 4rd? I guess it was a Freudian slip. Or was I thinking
Ford? :-) I just don't see Hillary as winnable. The country won't go for the
presidential line of Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton. Do we suffer from such a lack of
leaders in this country? I think not. Or else, it is yet another confirmation that
the big-money machines run politics in the USA.
> From: "Brian Menard" brian_menard@hotmail.com
ReplyDelete> Subject: Re: Iowa Caucus Results
> Date: Sun, 6 Jan 2008 09:36:47 -0500
Young: Thanks for the civic dialogue opportunity. BTW, I liked Tsongas in '92 (and not just because of the Capital Steps' great song "The Tsound of Tsongas") and wish more people had joined you in your support for him. Regardless of policy preferences, we need more folks of integrity like him in public service.
I was disappointed but not surprised with the FDT showing. He needed to come in a respectable 3rd several points above 4th to have any push into NH, where I think he's currently polling about 2%, and of course that didn't happen. His line coming out of IA was that he's really waiting for SC, but the "I'm waiting for..." strategy is easier (or, perhaps better said, not quite as difficult) for Guliani than for Thompson. Fred will either make a historic comeback in NH or be in danger of having to drop out after that primary. Rudy is also in trouble, with money drying up so that his "sit and wait until Florida" strategy may mean he withers on the vine. Ron Paul will stay in for the long haul because he has the cash to do so. That will leave Mike, Mitt, and McCain, and how that plays out will depend heavily on the NH results this week. Huck's momentum out of Iowa could make it a three-way race. If Romney supporters abandon him for Huck, McCain could lose his must-win state and Romney's assured win in Michigan won't be enough to stifle Huck's two-state momentum, especially if Thompson drops out and his supporters go to Huckabee. But if NH ends in a McCain, Romney, Huckabee finish, we could have a three-way race through Super Tuesday in February. All this Huckabee glitz makes my wife happy; she has liked him since the first debate she watched. Pundits should pay attention to her interest, because she is NOT an evangelicalkneejerkChristianrightRepublican; Huckabee's appeal extends much more broadly than to that wing of the party, and his bringing on Ed Rollins last month (as well as his record as AR Gov) demonstrates a pragmatic side not present in past Robertson-type evangelicals. (And don't overlook that Robertson endorsed Guliani, not Huckabee.) In the end, things will be decided, if not settled, long before Ohio's primary in March, so my vote then will be irrelevant. On the Dem side, no matter how she tries to polish it, I think Hillary was hurt badly - though not irreparably - in IA. Edwards did well, but he needed to do better than in '04 (i.e., WIN) and he doesn't have the cash or organization to carry much further unless something unexpected happens in NH. Sorry, Young. And politically, while the CW is that nobody votes for vice president, it would be both unprecedented and unwise to bring the last ticket's losing VP candidate onto your ticket. Richardson has screwed up his chances for VP with ill-advised comments on the Middle East, leaving a certain Indiana senator not yet running for president as the frontrunner (though not shoe-in) for that spot. And then there's Obama. Not only was he the big winner in IA, but so was America as the nearly all-white rural midwestern state chose an African-American (literally!) candidate whose race wasn't an issue for him, the campaign, or the voters. The godmother of one of my daughters is a professor at Providence College in RI and has gone to NH to campaign for Obama. He's bringing people in, evidenced by the strong "first timer" showing in the IA caucuses, but he's resonating among long-time active Dems as well. The Biden and Dodd supporters will go to Hillary, but if Edwards drops out sooner than later, his supporters will flood more to Obama than to Hillary. It's all a big messy toss-up right now, full of unpredictable and undefined variables, but it's a political scientist's fantasy election year so far.
Have fun, folks!