Well I'm going to post about the Iowa Caucus. In my opinion, it doesn't prove a whole lot. It does prove that Hillary is beatable, yet she still has more than twice as many delegates as Obama. It does show that Huckabee is strong among Evangelicals, but how will he do among a more balanced electorate? Also, Romney still did well among Evangelicals. My predictions are this:
There will be a tough fight between Hillary and Obama for the democratic nomination, but I think in the end she will win. I think Romney will control the next few primaries, but I think Giuliani will do well once the bigger states are involved. I think Giuliani (but very possibly Romney) will pull out the Republican nomination. I think Clinton will win the Democrat nomination (with Obama pretty close). Huck will do well, but once he gets into the bigger states, and once more people realize his record on immigration and justice don't match what he is saying, he will fall back.
In a Giuliani/Clinton race, I see Giuliani winning in a landslide. He will pull NY, NJ, CT, PA, OH and FL and maybe a few other blue states. The red states will reluctantly vote for him knowing that even though they disagree with his social policies, he is FAR better than Hillary. I think Giuliani/Obama would be a little closer since Obama has a more limited record, and people generally know less about him. He is almost a feel-good candidate. Romney/Clinton would probably be close, but for many of the reasons Giuliani would win the south, I think Romney would as well. I do think a Romney/Obama race would be a dogfight. If Huckabee were to continue his success or Thompson got going, I think we would see a similar situation to '00 and '04 with the election hinging on one, purple state. If Edwards somehow got the nomination, well, that would be good news for whatever Republican won. It would probably be a landslide for the Republicans, whoever it was.
26 comments:
BTW, I'm going to be in SA for the next 5-6 days, so I may be out of the loop since I'm not sure if I'll have internet access there.
Reck, I'll be in SA from tomorrow until wednesday I think. If we can get together during this time let me know. Also next sat, the 12th would also work. I don't know if somewhere else in SA works for you also. I know there's a SB on 10 and Jackson-Keller, Med Center, Nordstrom (well their knockoff anyway) etc. I'm leaving sometime in the morning tomorrow, but I'll check back here tonight after I get home from work let me know what's up.
What can I say after reading your predictions. I'll just laugh instead. ROFLMAO!!!!
And I'll quote someone else: "DREAMER, Silly little dreamer, Soon you'll hold your head in your hands, OH NO!" (Supertramp)
I saw some numbers from Iowa. Senator Clinton got something like 67k votes, and Governor Huckabee was somewhere in the 20k to 30k range ...
Stan,
It appears that more Democrats always show up at the caucus. But Iowa (at least recently) is a swing state. You can't translate turnout in Iowa to success in November. Gore barely won Iowa in 2000 and Bush barely won in 2004. So the fact that more democrats turned out doesn't mean anything, except that the republicans weren't offering to shovel walkways and babysit. That's not the government's job, even if Hillary thinks so.
I just don't see a republican winning this year. I think it's President H. Clinton.
Ugh, I think I just threw up a little in my mouth.
The Dems had a huge increase in turnout this time. Went from a little over 100k 4 years ago to over 200k this time.
So RECENT history shows that Iowa is no longer a swing state, it's clearly turned blue. And Nestor, Iowa is like, mid-America?
Certainly Hillary can't be counted out. Also as I understand it, the caucus isn't a winner take all thing. It seems that Iowa gave something like 19 delegates to Obama, like 17 to Edwards and like 16 to Hillary. That's not much of a "wide stance" between them, as Senator Larry Craig would say.
(I think Huckabee got something like 12 delegates)
Stan,
I think it was (from Iowa)Obama 18, Edwards 17 and Hillary 16. Hillary however has WAY more delegates already committed from various other states. As far as comparing Huckabee; it's apples and oranges my friend. It takes about twice as many delegates to get the Dem nomination as opposed to the Republican nomination.
You say that way more Democrats showed up. Well there was also a record turnout for the Republican caucus. In '04 WAY more democrats showed up for the caucus than republicans, but Bush still won the state. I'm not saying a Republican will definitely win, but it is not guaranteed just because of a large caucus turnout that the Dem nominee will win Iowa.
I don't understand how anyone could have delegates already committed (except in Wyoming) since they haven't held their primaries yet.
Gonna have to be the 12th. Look forward to it. New Braunfels?
I can't make it, I parentsit on Saturdays.
The 12th it is. New Braunfels. I don't know if there are multiple SB's, but I'm thinking of the one on 35. Maybe sometime btw 10-12?
Stan,
Hopefully your parents are feeling better soon. Sunday would have been out for me since I have church in the morning and I have to watch the Giants beat the Cowboys in the afternoon.
About the delegates, I don't know how they could commit ahead of time, but that's what many of them have done. Maybe only 5-10%, but still, I don't get it. On the republican side the number of committed delegates is FAR lower than the democrat side. Perhaps they're less open to coercion by guys like Norman Hsu? ;)
I just read an article about it. there are like 821 super-delegates, and they can do what the hell they want. That's about 40% of the total delegates. About 167 of those have said they're for Hillary (but they can change their mind.) It's rigged. The Dems started this system back around 1985, and the Dems really can't show much success with that system. They need to change it.
Well, I thought the idea of the delegate system is that the delegates select who the people want. So much for democracy. Apparently the dems get whatever bum their oligarchy likes. I think there is something similar with the electoral college. They can vote for whoever they want, but they don't usually go against the people, except in rare occasions.
The problem with the Electoral College is that it allows minority states to dictate to the majority (the popular vote) who the winner of the election is, IMHO. That needs to be changed too, but that would require an amendment and those small states with all that extra power aren't likely to want to remove that power.
Nest,
Not gonna be able to do this sat. However, follown one is open for me. Let me know your thoughts.
Stan,
This highlights the difference between liberals and conservatives (you not likn electorial college, better represintation for smaller states). Are you opposed to each state havn two senators as well? We are a UNION of 50 STATES, each as valuable as the others.
Reck, no because there are other things to balance it out. There's the House, which is designed to be representative of the people, which is probably the best example for the genius of the design of the Constitution. Other possibilities (but I agree that these things are controlled by the executive branch (see my post on my blog Al v Al), the Supreme Court and the executive branch.
Stan,
The House membership is based on population. Therefore bigger states have higher representation (as they should in this portion of their branch). Havn two senators better gives smaller states an equal voice.
I think we're in partial agreement here.
The reason we even have a nation is because each state has two senators. The small states were afraid that large states like Virginia (at the time) would have too much power. It would be the same thing. If there were no electoral college and if senate seats were based on population rather than two per state, states like California, Texas, and New York would have all the power. Do you think candidates would care about Iowa and Nebraska if it weren't for the electoral college? They would do all of their campaigning in NY, LA, Chicago, etc. They wouldn't care a lick about Fredricksburg Texas or Lincoln Nebraska.
Reck,
About next sat. I won't be able to make it. I have my PCAT that day, and I have to work in the evening. I'll have to check to see what would be the next good day.
Welcome home. No problem on meetn up, just let me know next available day. Tryn to comment on Th and havn trouble yet again.
> ... Do you think candidates would care about Iowa and Nebraska if it weren't for the electoral college? They would do all of their campaigning in NY, LA, Chicago, etc.
These days of modern communication, that might be for the better. The folk in the smaller towns do have cable tv and internet, don't they (in most cases)?
And welcome home.
Post a Comment