** A sign? Barack Obama's rally in Des Moines tonight attracted 2000 people. Hillary Clinton's rally -- same time -- attracted 1000.
« Democratic Fundraising Update | Main | Caucus: Clinton Revises Turnout Model Up » Caucus Day: A Sign?02 Jan 2008 11:59 pm Comments (25)
And according to KCCI, Edwards drew 3000. 
Official Prediction: D
And Richardson's supporters were as numerous as the sunflowers that now cover the Iowa landscape...
EORSE: How about we wait to see what the results are before you accuse the media of "murder"? You have less than 24 hours to start making absurd allegations. But who knows? Maybe you won't have to after all.
"And according to KCCI, Edwards drew 3000." Hey Katerina, the 1000/2000 for Clinton/Obama came to hear the candidates. Wasn't John Mellencamp performing at a concert for Edwards tonight?
Another point to add is that the Edwards Mellencamp rally in Des Moines today drew 3000 people. This is as much as the Clinton and Obama crowds combined see this link: If crowd size is any indication of how the Caucuses will turn out than the placing will be 1. Edwards Hillary will thus implode and NH will be between Edwards and Obama.
Intrade is actually entertaining $99 bids for the Obama contract (they pay off at $100 if he wins Iowa) hmmm...anyone want to earn a buck?
And how many of Obama's Illinois kids at his meeting are eligible for caucusing in Iowa? Not that many I'd guess.
A concert is not the same as a political rally where only the candidate is present. That being said, that's a good crowd for Edwards (I think it's one of his largest of the year). And Grant, unless the Illinois kids are registered to vote in Iowa, what would be the point of trooping them from Illinois? He'd only be deluding himself and what's the point of that? Nevermind the coordination and resources it would take to get them to Iowa (when those same resources could be used for folks that are actually eligible to participate in the caucus). Face it, each of the top three candidates have their supporters and their detractors. You don't have to make up shit just to bolster your candidate of choice.
And ABC News says Edwards had 3000 - why no Edwards in your count? http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/01/edwards-wraps-u.html
On the Republican side I belive Huckabee got 2000 yesterday in Des Moines, not a good side for Hillary if the likely leading Republican outnumbers you 2 to 1 in a Dem Stronghold.
Obama's internal polls apparently have Obama up as well. Not sure that's worth anything, but one more thing to add to the conversation.
Speaking of Obama rising, there's the rumblings of Biden and Richardson directing their supporters to Obama tonight. Iowa Independent is reporting Richardson will encourage his supporters to switch to Obama where he doesn't reach viability. http://www.iowaindependent.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=1782 "[Exclusive] Gov. Bill Richardson's campaign is expected to direct their supporters to caucus for Sen. Barack Obama in the second round of voting at Thursday's caucuses in precincts where he is not viable. Two sources familiar with the plan told Iowa Independent that the New Mexico Governor's organizers have been instructed to direct supporters to Obama in the places where they fail to reach the 15% threshold for viability.
A big Clinton loss plus a strong fourth (or even third) by Richardson or Biden would seem to create an opportunity for that candidate to move up in NH and then compete for the nomination. So, a recommendation by Richardson and/or Biden to make Obama the second choice makes sense to me. As for crowd sizes: I have no idea if that is a sign, but it will be one of the interesting things to come out of the caucus this time (the extent to which crowd size comparisons did or did not have any predictive power).
If I were Obama I think I would settle for second to Edwards in Iowa. Winning the caucus has led to the nomination once in the past 20 years and has generally been discounted if your house is within 300 miles of Des Moines. I am sure the Clinton team is reminding reporters that caucus wins by "local" candidates Harkin and Gephardt went no where and passing out maps that highlight the border between Iowa and Illinois.
I think that the biggest sign here isn't the turnout of the crowds, it's the composition and the passion of the various supporters. Reporters have harped on the caucus process, but they are missing one of the most important elements. When you are in a public setting, the enthusiasm and the vibe of the competing crowds of supporters matter; their energy and the sense of something different attracts more people; their passion for their candidate decreases leaks for strategic reasons. I can just imagine the old ladies going to caucus for Hillary standing across from the Obama and the Edwards' crowds. Hillary's already has a handicap among second choicers. Which crowd is going to be more attractive to join?
"Winning the caucus has led to the nomination once in the past 20 years." With a name like "Iowa usually doesn't count for much",you certainly are trying to get a point across(although wildly unsucessfully). By all accounts of reality, Iowa is a really big deal and has usually lead to the democratic nomination. Here are the facts to backup my case. here is a rundown:
Clinton supporters have J.O.B.S. and families. Clinton supporters are also older reliable voters who don't need to get "fired up" and "ready to go." I have never been a to a political rally in my life but I vote.
In terms of electability in November, Obama has a huge advantage over Hillary. In theory, she would probably be a decent president, but she is far too polarizing to ever win a general election. If Hillary is having this much trouble against her Democratic opponents, it does not bode well for her fortunes in an election where she will facing a huge smear campaign that Republicans are itching to unload on her if she's on the ballot. It's fascinating how the Republican candidates love to mention Hillary as a way of turning out voters but they will seldom speak Obama's name. You could argue that she's more of a lightning rod than abortion or gay marriage. For a party that is having difficulty mobilizing their base, the GOP's job would become much easier if Hillary were the Democratic nominee. Even if the pro-life "family values" Christian voters have reservations about the Republican nominee (whoever it may be), they would show up in droves just to vote against her. However, if Obama is on the ballot in November, many of the anti-Hillary conservatives will simply stay home and complain about what the world is coming to. Many Democratic voters are either unaware of this or they are so loyal to Clinton that they turn a blind eye to her general election weaknesses. Anyone whose had any exposure to conservative political circles knows that a huge chunk of the country has hated Hillary for decades and they always will regardless of what she has done or said since her husband left office. Obama has far less baggage and GOP smear campaign fodder. Some Christian conservatives are genuinely intrigued by him because he seems more authentic and coherent when talking about his faith as opposed to Hillary who sounds mechanical and pre-programmed whenever she tries to discuss anything related to religion. The GOP candidates won't admit it, but they strongly prefer to run against Hillary. She's an easy target and their best hope to keep the White House in Republican hands until 2012. You'll have a hard time finding any religious conservative over 35 who could be persuaded vote for Hillary. However, many of them have still not made up their minds about Obama which opens up the possibility for him to win their support in a long election season. Bottom line: Clinton could still get the nomination, but she can't win in November. Obama's biggest challenge is beating Hillary in the primaries, but if he does, Obama has the chance to unite the country in favor of true change and win the general election comfortably.
When you have the facts; you pound the facts. When you have the evidence; you pound the evidence. When you have nothing; you pound the table. No matter what happens in Iowa, Bill & Hillary Clinton will continue to pound the table. Here are the facts; here's the evidence: http://theseedsof9-11.com
Obama is the candidate of change? What a farce. Without a willing congress the only thing he can change is his underwear.
Again, credibility is key. The only thing emptier than Hillary Clinton is her hyperbole; nobody's buying the rhetoric. Bill Clinton may have crowned himself the “comeback kid,” in another decade, in another millennium. That was also before he elected to school us on the vagaries of the meaning of the word, is. When FBI Director Louis J. Freeh wrote, “The problem was with Bill Clinton, the scandals and rumored scandals, the incubating ones and the dying ones never ended. Whatever moral compass the president was consulting [Hillary] was leading him in the wrong direction. His closets were full of skeletons just waiting to burst out,” Mr. Freeh wasn’t kidding. I don’t know the exact date the Clintons flushed their respective compasses, but any reasonable person should feel demeaned at the prospect of voting for Hillary. A vote is more than mere tacit approval; in this case it’s tantamount to complicity. So, I’m more than delighted the good people of the State of Iowa told Hillary to ride out on the horse (helicopter) on which she rode in, although it seems the good people of the State of New Hampshire gave Hillary 39 percent of the vote, over Obama's 36 percent. However, I believe the good people of the State of South Carolina are already licking their chops. Paradoxically, the good people of the State of New York would also elect Hillary Clinton, to the US Senate after 9-11. Perhaps irony truly is the guiding principle of history: http://theseedsof9-11.com
pthwklq dcypzlki fuvwxp kmua uapkg dvqk jkexr
|
Subscribe to this blog by Email Twitter || On Facebook || QIK Live Channel  Recent Posts
Monthly Archives
|
| 
Copyright © 2008 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
Marc:
Dont fret. Your candidate, HRC, the Queen, will win.
A decade from now, all historians will blame the US press, including blog authors, for putting a blind-eye on thuggery of CLintons.
Because of drip-drip CLinton campaign, senior white women in IA believe (strongly) that Obama is a Muslim and is not experienced.
What is Hillary's experience? What?
The press has committed a murder. The press in US is more free than those in Pakistan, but use less of open inquiry.
The press wants HIllary to win for benefits (more tv shows, access to white house, etc.)
Posted by eorse | January 3, 2008 12:02 AM