« McCain's Response Ad In New Hampshire: Romney's A "Phony" | Main | First Look: Romney's Second Immigration Ad » Obama Outdraws Edwards In Davenport...28 Dec 2007 10:02 pm At least 850 Iowans showed up to hear Barack Obama speak.... and not more than 350 are hearing John Edwards speak at the same time in the same town... There may be external reasons why the crowd sizes differ (proximity to Illinois?), but I'll bet the Edwards campaign would have enjoyed a larger crowd. Comments (48)
Does size matter? I think so! 
Obama is the newer, fresher face. Lots of people are no doubt curious to see what all the hype is about. Edwards has practically been living in Iowa for the past three years. It's almost certainly the case that more Iowans have already had the opportunity to hear him speak than Obama. So, there's no "spin" needed: all the polls can't be wrong. The race looks deadlocked, despite the larger Obama crowd in Davenport.
Maybe they thought Oprah was appearing. Then again, that might not have been such a good move for the Obamster: http://www.calendarlive.com/tv/cl-et-cause28dec28,0,7852369.story?coll=cl-tv-features
Looks like OBama's got it sewn up. How will he respond if contrary to widely reported expectations based on his crowds, he doesn't defeat Edwards by 3 to 1?
What the hell is the media's absolutely obsession with "people from Illinois" and potentially "suspect" Obama events? As if there are so many people in Illinois who are such die-hard Obama supporters that they waste all their time going from rally-to-rally in IOWA to make his events look better. I'm in Illinois. I went to Iowa once a couple of weeks ago to CANVASS neighborhoods and am going once more before Jan 3 to canvass. I wouldn't bother going to a rally and have not a single time been approached by anyone from inside or outside the campaign to join together in a group (or individually) to go to a rally in Iowa for Obama. It's patently absurd. If the campaign is able to round up bodies, it's to work. Are there random people from Illinois showing up at rallies in Iowa cities near the border, perhaps? But there certainly are not 500 people on a Friday night. I'm guessing more like 5.
Hardly the Illinois people. We are digging out right now from a snowstorm.
TWO QUESTIONS: 1. What times were their events? John Edwards' was at "7:30pm". When was Obama's? 2. How many events did Edwards have today in Iowa, versus Obama? How many of those FIVE scheduled events that John Edwards had were AROUND Davenport? In other words, if John Edwards was in NC, and he had an event in Durham County, Chatham County, Wake County, Harnett County, and Johnston County, today, odds are the numbers of people attending each of those events would be LOWER than they would be if he had ONE EVENT in Wake County, today, if you get what I mean.
No spin neccesary. Obama is the only candidate in this race who's drawn crowds upwards of 15,000. He's pulled over number 4-5 times, discounting the Oprah events. Can't beat that kind of draw.
No spin neccesary. Obama is the only candidate in this race who's drawn crowds upwards of 15,000. He's pulled over number 4-5 times, discounting the Oprah events. Can't beat that kind of draw. Posted by Abe | December 29, 2007 12:12 AM I REPEAT: TWO QUESTIONS: 2. How many events did Edwards have today in Iowa, versus Obama? How many of those FIVE scheduled events that John Edwards had were AROUND Davenport?
Obama's schedule is on his website. Last i checked he had aprox. 5 events per day. I think the time of the speech being referred to in the blogpiece is evidently around the same time that Edwards was giving his speech. Thats why it was a plain step to compare the two numbers. But, you really dont care. You just want to muddy the waters, and make it seem like he isnt attracting significant interest in his campaign.
Jesse Jackson routinely outdrew Al Gore and Mike Dukakis in 1988. Guess what?
I was watching Edwards on Charlie Rose from last month and I noticed something strange. First, read this Edwards quote criticizing Obama for saying that the insurance companies and big corporations should have a seat at the bargaining table http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/...bama/#more-3495: quote: Mr. Edwards directed more criticisms at Mr. Obama during a news conference after his second town hall event today. “We have a very different ways of bringing about change,” Mr. Edwards said. “His philosophy seems to be that you negotiate with people, you give oil companies, drug companies and insurance companies a seat at the table and they’ll voluntarily give their power away. I just don’t think that’s ever going to happen.”
quote: The voices in government have been tilted in favor of those who're making the most money, the big multinational corporations. Their voices should be heard, by the way. I'm not suggesting for a moment that we should exclude them. But their voices should be heard in exactly the same way that working Americans, middle-class Americans, and unions are heard. Everyone's voice should be heard. Isn't this stance exactly the same as Obama saying that he'll give the pharma companies a voice but he won't let them set the agenda? How is Edwards's criticism legitimate?
From Iowa or Illinois - when you are talking a meeting in Davenport, Iowa it does not matter. Davenport is part of five cities that make up the Quad Cities. Two in Iowa (Davenport, Bettendorf)and three in Illinois (Rock Island, Moline, East Moline). Plus there are several smaller communities that have grown into the other cities. The roads were plenty clear despite the snow and the populace to draw from would be around 250,000 individuals within a fifteen-twenty minute drive of Davenport. You can drive anywhere within the major sections of the Quad Cities and add another ten minutes to the drive and you can also add several farming communities in both Iowa and Illinois. Of course on a friday night politicians are going to have stiff competition for evening hour attendance as there are more bars than you can count and five strip clubs in davenport, two across the river in Rock Island, one casino in Davenport, One casino in bettendorf and one casino in Rock Island. All will be vying for the same people. Guess which ones will get the biggest crowds.
Obama's schedule is on his website. Last i checked he had aprox. 5 events per day. I think the time of the speech being referred to in the blogpiece is evidently around the same time that Edwards was giving his speech. Thats why it was a plain step to compare the two numbers. But, you really dont care. You just want to muddy the waters, and make it seem like he isnt attracting significant interest in his campaign. Posted by Unseen Majority | December 29, 2007 12:28 AM Actually, IGNORAMUS, when I posted that, Obama's website was DOWN FOR MAINTENANCE, just like it is right now at 7:43a.m. EST. As for "what time" their events were, you don't sound TOO SURE about that. I repeat: TWO QUESTIONS: 1. What times were their events? John Edwards' was at "7:30pm". When was Obama's? So, how many events did each have IN THE VICINITY OF Davenport?
As much as I'd love to think that in this case there is a direct correlation between number of campaign stop attendees and caucus votes, I imagine a lot of people might be going out to see Obama simply for entertainment value. I know of a lot of independents and Republicans who readily admit to being enthralled by Obama as a speaker and admire him greatly for being a new voice and a politician with integrity, but they respectfully refuse to vote for him out of policy differences. (Imagine that, there's a candidate who you can respect even if you disagree with him.) Edwards, in my very possibly skewed view, comes across as pretty uninspiring and a bit slick besides to the true believers. Of course on a friday night politicians are going to have stiff competition for evening hour attendance as there are more bars than you can count and five strip clubs in davenport, two across the river in Rock Island, one casino in Davenport, One casino in bettendorf and one casino in Rock Island. All will be vying for the same people. Guess which ones will get the biggest crowds. What I love about my former home of the Quad Cities (grew up in Bettendorf), especially in comparison to the prudish foghorn leghorns here in Virginia: there's no shame in enjoying a drink or two or nine, the Pair-A-Dice was one of the first essential projects rebuilt after the flood of 1993, and one strip club for every 30,000 people seems like a good ratio. The cold and the flatness will take away any false pretense of modesty and make for a much more enjoyable town.
Framecop, Sen. Obama had 5 events in Iowa on Friday, and one was about the same time that Mr. Edwards was having his around Davenport. Your questions and subsequent useless explanations are froth with assumtions that do not make sense to me. You are yet to let us know how many events that Mr Edwards had within the vicinity of Davenport on Friday and how many crowds that attended each of those events in order for us to make any sense of your baseless argument. The fact is that there has never been any time that Mr. Edwards drew more crowds than Sen. Obama in any event irrespective of the location, time and and the people concerned. Although, you can argue for as much as you want, however if crowd size is any indication of how Iowans are going to vote in this election then you may have to close yourself up and forget about any arguement as to whom the winner would be. It's pretty simple.
Edwards' whole uber-populist schtick is a joke. He's acting like you can make insurance/medical co's your bitch just by getting in their face. He says Obama is being naive by saying you've got to include them in negotiations. Of course you've got to include them in negotiations! How else are you going to get anything done? Also, talking to them doesn't mean you let them set the agenda, and Edwards, as a trial lawyer, knows that. He's just trying some last-minute bamboozlement. Edwards wants to use the same "my way or the highway" approach Bush uses with Iran with the drug co's. We've all seen how well THAT works. This is just last-minute, desperate pandering by Edwards, a candidate who decided to bill himself as the populist when the agent-of-change mantra was stolen by Obama. I can't wait til Feb. 5 when Obama will have it sewn up and we can stop this silly infighting and start fighting the real enemy. Fired up! Ready to go!
Framecop, Sen. Obama had 5 events in Iowa on Friday, and one was about the same time that Mr. Edwards was having his around Davenport. I repeat. WHAT TIME WAS OBAMA'S EVENT IN DAVENPORT?
These are lies, all lies. Obama is nothing. It is HRC that is our Majesty. She and her husband they rule our country. We want to be like the British. We want a permanent king and a permanent queen. Just think what the three Register female editors were up against. A king calling repeatedly and chasing them to support his queen. They just did that. Long live the Queen. Support HRC. Poor Obama. He has no chance. All my campaign contributions gone to waste. I am loser.
Now, how many times have they both been to Davenport?
It's indeed likely at least some portion of Obama's crowd are Independents along with possibly a few Republicans. That appeal is what should make him more attractive as the potential nominee. We won't know how it all sorts out until Jan 3.
Since Edwards has practically lived in Iowa, I don't know, you tell me. 5, 10, 50 times? There is such a thing as overexposure and peaking too early. That may not have been a good move on Edward's part.
Who peaked early? http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/ia/iowa_democratic_caucus-208.html
You dont need to insult me with namecalling. When i posted my response, his website was DOWN for maintenance. Of course, you have NO IDEA how many rallies Edwards held either. Your subsequent replies make it plainly clear your intention has nothing to do with the actual facts. You just want to distract from Obama's strong campaign. Thats fine, but dont think youre fooling anyone but yourself.
Framecop, I'm not sure why you posted that question so many times rather than looking it up yourself, but here is the answer, found on CNN's political ticker for Friday the 28th: "John Edwards holds a roundtable discussion with undecided caucus goers in Independence, Iowa this morning. In the afternoon, he holds a "Countdown to Caucus" event in Dubuque, and another roundtable discussion with undecided caucus goers in Clinton, Iowa. In the evening, he holds a "Main Street Meet & Greet" in Tipton, and an "America Rising" rally in Davenport, Iowa." Davenport and Tipton - about 0:48 apart. For Obama, the locations were as follows: "Barack Obama speaks at “Stand for Change” events in Williamsburg, Coralville, and Clinton, Iowa. In the evening, he speaks at “Stand for Change” rallies in Davenport and Muscatine, Iowa." Davenport and Muscatine - about 0:44 apart. By your argument, Barack Obama stood to have smaller crowds because his events were closer to Davenport than Edwards' were.
I repeat. WHAT TIME WAS OBAMA'S EVENT IN DAVENPORT? What time were the orderlies supposed to give you your Thorazine?
I can tell you this: I am a 30-year-old Iowan who probably follows politics more than most people who vote -- but I have never caucused or voted in any election since becoming of age. I don't say that with pride but with caution. I never could find my "perfect candidate". Of course, none are perfect and I have decided that I will be a caucus goer on the 3rd. So far, I have enjoyed listening to Barack Obama and Ron Paul. One for his optimism and belief and the other for his honesty. Both appear to want to shake things up. (Hillary Clinton on the other hand appears to be old Washington, measured and unapologetic.) Contrary to what many say about Iowa -- I am most astonished by how many Iowans tell me that they like two or three candidates and usually they are from differing parties. This tells me one major thing: Iowans (like many in the nation) don't always vote political views but rather for the candidate themselves. What I mean is we vote according to who we think will be most honest, really cares for the poor, really wants to treat voters with respect, won't tax us in order to fill their own pockets ... So, today I have made the decision to caucus for the first time, and eventually vote for president for the first time ... and my choice will be Obama. I won't lie to you and say that he perfectly matches my political views -- but I do believe he is a person of character and integrity and that means more to me (and many Iowans) than a candidate who matches each of my political views. Good luck all.
As long as one of these two men win, I'll be happy!
Iowigans need Illinoisians to tell how to vote. thats why depending how close to one of the two bridges that cross from IA to IL in Davenport Obama outdrew Edwards. Obama was closer to the I-74 brdige with much more IL traffic than Edwards near the much harder to cross Arsenal bridge near the Edwards rally for the IL supporters to cross
This has nothing to do with bridges across the Mississippi or Illinois people filling the place. To say that means you know nothing about Iowans and how seriously they take their role as first in the nation deciders. Obama is drawing huge crowds everywhere he goes in the state and he's winning people over. He drew nearly 1000 people to a junior high gym on the morning of a big snow storm. Believe me, neither Clinton (Hillary sans Bill) nor Edwards could have done that.
1. Obama polls as the ONLY Candidate that beats ALL Republicans in a General Election match up. 2. Edwards has NO money to compete in the primary even if he won Iowa. 3. Hillary is hated by half the Country at the start of a General Election contest. She will motivate and bring out EVERY Republican, Independent and Democrat that already despise her. To vote against her and she WILL lose the General Election to a Republican. If this were football we would pick the BEST Quarterback to WIN the SEASON & SUPERBOWL and match up data supports that he can BEAT ALL the opponents. We would not pick a quarterback based on he has a family member who once played for the team or that he could win us just ONE game.
Joe Biden is drawing some pretty great crowds, too...Mark Shields and David Brooks say that the Dems will regret it if they nominate someone else. See the video at my site by clicking on my name.
I totally understand people not voting for Clinton, but voting for Obama after his inflammatory rhetoric on Pakistan this August in light of recent events seems bizarre (He boldly stated he would violate its national sovereignty if Musharraf failed to act against terrorists and he vowed to deploy US troops to Pakistan; not exactly stabilizing policy for a Muslim country spinning out of control and loaded with nuclear weapons). Edwards is my choice but I don't see him pulling it out--at all. I think Obama will take this one and the nomination. Edwards will soon endorse Obama and it'll be over. I don't care for Clinton, but Obama has no leadership, experience, or sound judgment (Please stop going on about 2002: his state district was quite anti-war, being one of the most liberal in Illinois so it was no testament to his courage; and his voting record and policies on Iraq are the same as Clinton's so where's the judgment?).
Jackqui: You LIE when you say Edwards has been "living" in Iowa for the past three years. Next thing you'll be bringing up is haircuts no doubt. The truth is (if that even matters to Messianic-craving Obama supporters anymore) is that Edwards has spent a total of 80 days in Iowa for this cycle. 80 f*cking days! That's less than Biden, less than Dodd, and less than, yes "THE ONE" himself Barack "Let me steal Edwards' speeches in the waning days of the campaign because they're working" Obama! When Obama supporter continually LIE about Edwards, I and others will continually be there to debunk it with TRUTH!
Davidson says: "(Please stop going on about 2002: his state district was quite anti-war, being one of the most liberal in Illinois so it was no testament to his courage) Except for one thing, grasshopper: Obama was not running for the state house/senate when he took the anti-war position; he was running for the US Senate which meant he had to carry the ENTIRE STATE OF ILLINOIS. He was the only person in the primary to take the anti-war position. So there is your courage!
If Obama wins the nomination then say hello to President McCain. It's that simple. I'm a black Dem who wants to WIN this election. Habeus Corpus, Roe v Wade... SCOTUS issues that need progressive justices to uphold them. This election can't be left to chance that the 51% of people who put that je(R)k back in office in 2004 will turn around and vote for a black man. Sorry, life experience in the South begs me to ask Obama supporters: Where is all this racial tolerance suddenly going to come from in critical states in the South that Obama will need to win? Sadly, it will be white liberals with some ridiculous guilt or passion to prove that "it's time for a black man to win," that will keep the nation in the hands of the Rethugs. Thanks, but please, relieve your guilt in an election off-cycle.
framecop, Now you want to know HOW many?? Changing tunes I see...
journalschism, So your basically saying that 51% of the country wont vote for a black man? "guilt" has nothing to do w/ Obama's campaign and he has NEVER asked that it be part of it.
"journalschism" Your argument is weak and border line ridiculous. As an African American these cowardly thoughts demean every act of courage blacks and whites in the South carried out in efforts that you would be able to take part in the election process. I would never ask anyone to vote for Barack Obama because he is black and it is a sad day in African American history when you ask someone not to vote for him because he is black. F.E.A.R. - false edvidence appearing real... If you don't stand for something then you will fall for everything... If you are scared say you are scared, but those of us who understands the urgency of now "aint" never scared!
Davidson, I guess you are unaware that our troops already have a green light to chase terrorists into Pakistan as far as 6.2 miles before having to get different orders? Our troops can pretty much invade sovereign Pakistan any time they feel it's necessary. All Obama was saying that if Musharref failed to act on actionable intelligence he would. Most of the other candidates and plenty of foreign policy experts have backed him up on this. I think this shows plenty of leadership on his part. In terms of experience, Obama has almost as much elected legislative experience as Edwards and Hillary combined. In half as much time in the senate Obama has passed more substantive legislation than Hillary has. Please tell me one thing John Edwards can hang his hat on for his six years as a U.S. senator? It certainly wouldn't be his co-sponsoring the Iraq War resolution. How can Edwards be your first choice when he hasn't shown any leadership as a U.S. senator, made many mistakes for which he has apologized for while a senator (bad judgment) and is the least-experienced candidate of the bunch?
Actually, I don't believe that Obama's turnout vs. Edwards turnout has anything to do with distance or the number of events. I believe it's because major media has the whole country believing it's a Clinton or Obama ticket and they've pretty much left Edwards out of the equation. Many people don't want Clinton and see Obama as a better choice. If they'd actually seen Edwards covered on the platform he stands on - who hasn't taken a dime of corporate contributions and vows to change corporate influence, which is exactly what needs to be done to effectuate change in this country, the polls and turnout would be much different. Our media outlets, until recently, have virtually left Edwards coverage out - they're run by corporations, and that should tell you something.
While pundits snipe over who's got the bigger dick, Obama or Edwards, Hillary is currently being fitted for a Dragon Skin inagural suit.
I think its the right time to take a bold decision and vote for the right person, its quite obvious that people are still much looking at the race of Obama, "He's a black man", but we all know is the right man, Bill Clinton himself is scared not to talk of hillary, This man naturally is a leader...I'm not sure any other man can do better than a man that is ready to sacrifice himself for his people no matter the race, this is United States of America, not Africa, Europe or Asia, its all in all...lets be bold and vote for the right person
Yep. Keep dreamin. This country was founded on racism, thrives on racism and will be racist forever. I'm not denying progress has been made. I'm just saying not enough of it has been made to warrant all this optimism that this guy is going to be able to overcome entrenched, nearly genetic racism. Anytime a blantant racist like Ron "95% of black men in DC are criminals" Paul can find a dedicated following in this nation, you know folks aren't ready. The fact that the media isn't howling about it only confirms it. So you keep those candles raised high and your bodies swaying from side to side as the smooth talk dances across your ears. Meanwhile, I'm going to be here in the real world, helping to elect THE MOST ELECTABLE Democrat with SPECIFIC, FAR-REACHING PLANS to better the lives of average Americans. BTW, I never, EVER vote for someone just because of their skin color, whether that color happens to look like mine or not. It's a lousy way to vote.
She may be a bitch, but she'd be America's bitch. Filling a post recently vacated by Tony Blair.
Text Obama to 10958 and acess the Obama mobile channel. The Obama Mobile Channel will keep you updated throughout Super Tuesday with the latest campaign news and primary results. Mobile channel is accessible on any web enabled cell phone.
Text Obama to 10958 and acess the Obama mobile channel. The Obama Mobile Channel will keep you updated throughout Super Tuesday with the latest campaign news and primary results. Mobile channel is accessible on any web enabled cell phone.
|
Subscribe to this blog by Email Twitter || On Facebook || QIK Live Channel  Recent Posts
Monthly Archives
|
Copyright © 2009 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
| 
Please don't spin it...by stating that his state is closer to Iowa...in NY he also get more crowd than Clinton...so how do you explain that?
Posted by Stan | December 28, 2007 10:38 PM