Just a little tidbit to chew over ...Hillary and Bill are a Team

[Toots]

You elect one you get them both. When and if Hillary runs for President she will have Bill out there campaigning hard and he is very very persuasive. The Clintons are a formidable Team and the GOP is very very aware of it. All those who claim Hillary doesn't have a chance in hell are seriously underestimating both her and her husband. Remember when you vote for Hillary you also vote for Bill......They are a Team and a damn good team at that,,,,

[CrazyOrangeCat]

1. You're absolutely right . . .

. . . now we have to pray that something bad doesn't happen to Bill.

[Spankydem]

2. No argument here.......

BIG DOG would win again if he could run.....hands down.

[Warpy]

3. They're also wrong for the country and she'll be a losing candidate

because face it, people are sick of spineless DLC Dems in congress who have caved to this administration far too many times. Their platform has been rejected, their ideas are old and tired, and although they may respresent individual constituencies well (Clinton and Lieberman being examples of representing large yuppie constitutencies), they don't translate well to national politics.

Most people didn't see a thing from the Clinton "boom" until they got an incredibly modest pay increase during his last two years, buoyed by a shamefully low increase in the minimum wage. The party as a whole and the Clintons and DLC specifically have never come to terms with that fact, nor have they ever bothered to address it, at all.

Forget Clinton. She's probably the worst candidate the party could pick at this time, no matter who her husband is.

[formernaderite]

14. I tired of Clinton by 96...personality is not everything

I want policy, and I don't agree with the Clintons on policy. It's time for a populist.

[AJH032]

18. you're wrong

many people were better off during the economic revival of the 90's, including my own family.

[Pepperbelly]

19. I would trust BC's sense of politics over your own ...

an day of the week and twice on Sunday. How many national political campiagns have you won?

[ronnykmarshall]

99. Word!

Jesus Christ !! Mention the Clintons and start looking like fucking freeperville around here.

[Donna Zen]

4. Do we get another version of NAFTA too?

n/t

[BigYawn]

34. Nafta has resulted in net+ jobs in the US....go checkout labor dept stats.

[mitchum]

42. And what are the comparable wages for that bounty of jobs?

[radio4progressives]

5. Been There, Done That...

that's exactly why we should quit this dynasty paradigm. Clinton/Clinton/Bush/Bush/Clinton/Clinton/Bush/Bush/Clinton/Clinton/Bush/Bush \

NO! End it NOW!

[Glorfindel]

6. *hehehe* Not ENOUGH Clintons to fit your paradigm...

only three, by my count, and Chelsea is kinda young. TOO DAMN MANY Bushes, on the other hand. What I'd like to see is Liberal/Green/Liberal/Green/Liberal/Green (you get the idea...)

[jackbourassa]

8. By the way...

Hillary's numbers are collapsing! Both among Democrats and overall. This after a week of mild criticism. Can you imagine what it will be like when the Republicans really start going after her?

According to the latest Rassmussen Poll, her support among Democrats dropped 11%. And now, twice as many people say that they will ABSOLUTELY NOT vote for her, compared with those who say they ABSOLUTELY WILL. That's why she has been much more vocal lately.

Anybody who believes Hillary has even a remote shot at winning this election is plain old delusional.

Hillary Clinton will NEVER BE President of the United States! If we nominate her, which I'm beginning to doubt that we will, she will never beat the Republican.

[Nederland]

82. You are correct

I think what people fail to realize is that Hillary Clinton does not possess 1/10th the political skills of her husband. She doesn't have his oratory skills, and she completely lacks his ability to connect to the average person. Whether or not you like his positions on issues, you have to admit he possesses political skills that come along only once or twice in a generation. The more you see Hillary appear on TV and on the campaign trail the more apparent this will become and her star will fall rapidly.

[demnan]

7. I can't help it

I miss the Clintons and I'd support her if she was our candidate, but then I'll support anyone who is our candidate - yes, even Lieberman! What choice do we have!

[jackbourassa]

10. The problem demnan...

is that you get too star struck!

Your comment above is a contradiction. You imply that you want to win the election, but you support the candidate who is most likely to lose us the election.

Bill Clinton may have appeal to you, but that doesn't mean that his appeal spreads across the country. Don't forget, that Clinton never won more votes than either Gore or Kerry. Clinton just benefitted from Ross Perot being in the race.

Even if Clinton were this wildly popular guy - which he is not (outside the Democratic Party) - that doesn't mean that his support will transfer to his wife. If anything, the argument made in the original post hurts Hillary more than helps her. It makes her seem like a puppet of Bill. It makes Bill seem like this power hungry politician who is using his wife to get himself back into power. I am willing to bet you that this would hurt her in the end, not help her.

No way Hillary wins this election. We might as well nominate Howard Dean, he has a better shot.

[Pepperbelly]

20. an expert, eh?

Tell you what ...you vs. Clinton in a political contest, I'd give you about a 10 million vote handicap and expect BC would still win by 30 million.

:D

[jackbourassa]

51. What a BS argument...

Me vs. Bill Clinton? How about John McCain vs. Hillary?

Who wins that race with a 10 million vote handicap?

[radio4progressives]

15. you'll support a Republican Financed Candidate Lieberman? you gotta be

kidding? :banghead:

[BlueManDude]

9. Hillary is electoral poison on a national ticket

I'm not convinced she will run.

[jackbourassa]

11. When Hillary's numbers begin to collapse further

My prediction is that she pulls out at the last minute, not wanting to embarrass herself.

[BlueManDude]

16. The GOP will do their best to prop her up n/t

[BigYawn]

35. Why are you against Clintons, the ONLY man to win WH TWO TIMES

running as a democrat since FDR some 50 odd years ago? Or did
pres. Truman win twice also? I know Truman defeated Dewey
in 1948, but do not know who won in 1944, Truman or FDR.

[jackbourassa]

49. First of all...

1) Hillary is not Bill.

2) Perot isn't running this time.

[BigYawn]

36. Hillary has NEVER pulled out of any race..

and she is MSM darling. There is not a reason in the
world for her to pull out. Her numbers will not drop
as you predict. I am willing to lay odds on that.

[jackbourassa]

50. Funny: "Hillary has never pulled out of any race"

She's only been in one so far.

BigYawn, it's funny that when giving a reason to support Hillary, her supporters always cite Bill Clinton. Who her husband is will not help her in the general election. People actually might be put off, thinking that she is his puppet or something.

Hillary has no record to speak of. All she has is a famous last name.

You know that saying "behind every good man is a great woman?" Well, I think Hillary is going to change that to - "Behind every woman female Presidential contender, is a former President."

P.S. You can bank on Hillary's numbers collapsing. It's actually happening much sooner than I had expected. Remember Elizabeth Dole? She led the Republican field for a while after the 1996 election.

[TheWraith]

95. You seem to be under the misapprehension that she's running for something.

Besides the Senate, to which she's going to win reelection in a walk. There's never been any evidence besides wanton speculation that HRC actually intents to run for president.

[xkenx]

12. Hillary is no Bill

People are voting for President, not VP, not spouses. Hillary is as smart as they come, but she just doesn't have the "people connection" that Bill has. She comes across as cold and calculating. Particularly recently she looks like a slender reed blowing in the wind. She will rally RWers to come out and vote against her. I ask a simple question--can you name a single red state Hillary will flip? I don't know of too many DEM. WOMEN who want to vote for her, to say nothing of all those middle-America Republican women who think she should be home tending her children and cooking for her gun-totin' husband. And men voting for her? Puleese! This may be a sorry state of affairs in this country, but it happens to affect the Electoral Votes. A very telling story was when Chelsea was interviewed early in Bill's presidency. Chelsea was asked whom she would call if she was at school and had some kind of sudden emergency. She said she would call her DAD! As busy as he was likely to be. Because Bill is the one with the heart.

[BigYawn]

37. Hillary will flip every red state Kerry lost narrowly...

[xkenx]

44. Your logic for saying that??

[BigYawn]

47. Hillary could get a lot of soccer moms who did not break for Kerry

[karynnj]

76. As a former soccer mom, (though for a thankfully brief time)

I don't think so. Senator Kerry has an outstanding record on woman's issues - going all the way back to when he was a young prosecutor who set up one of the first rape counselling centers within the DAs office. He obviously has respect for strong, brilliant woman such as his wife, Teresa.

Just because Hillary's a woman doesn't make me more likely to vote for her. (I far prefer Teresa to Bill.)

[wisteria]

86. The only reason they didn't go for Kerry was over the security issue

which was manipulated and used as a smear against him. I would trust my security to Kerry any day before I would Bill or Hilliary.

[jackbourassa]

52. WHAT A JOKE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Hillary will lose a McGovern style landslide.

What states did Kerry lose that Hillary will win?

Florida? Bill Clinton lost it once and narrowly won it once WITH ROSS PEROT IN THE RACE.

Which states?

States Kerry/Gore won that Hillary will lose:

1) Pennsylvania.
2) Michigan.
3) Possibly Maryland.
4) New Mexico.

Among others.

You Clinton supporters are so blind. Hillary has trailed in every poll so far. Some by nearly 20%. The idea that she can win this election is laughable.

[BigYawn]

94. You UNDERESTIMATE the power of a woman running for president...

you will be shocked how many women will vote for her
just because Hillary will be the FIRST woman running for
president. There are millions of soccer moms who are quite
a-political. I know my wife will vote for Hillary over any
man in the primaries AND GE.

[karynnj]

54. I think that Kerry would likely win most states that he lost

by a narrow margin. Reason: There are many people who have seen that even after losing, he has in a dignified way continued to try to do things that are good for the country. Many things he said the mainstream media convinced people were wrong or exaggerations have been shown to be dead on.

Hillary's Iraq position has tracked closer to Bush's than Kerry's. If, in the past, Kerry is now seen to have been right and Bush wrong, who is more likely to be right in the future. Kerry has also done a very nice job in explaining why he is recommending what he is recommending. Hillary, other than being labelled as strong on defense by Bill Clinton, has not been as forthright with what she plans.

That said, in reality, it really is too early. We don't know for sure what the key issues will be in 2008. What is interesting is that Hillary after playing it cool for a very long time, is now following Dean and Kerry in speaking out (even to taking some of Kerry's lines - Kerry, NOT Hillary spoke up in 2002 WHEN Bush outsourced Tora Bora to the warlords). Now, it's neither couragous or leading, it's repeating common wisdom. Where was Bill, who has called Kerry weak, then?

[wisteria]

87. I agree!! n/t

[Nederland]

83. Nonsense

When Hillary ran in 2000 she got almost 10% fewer votes than Al Gore, and Al Gore got a larger percentage of the vote than Kerry. If you project the same proportion of that race onto the national electoral map it translates into a landslide victory for the Republicans.

Just say no to Hillary.

[tavery]

13. does no one on here remember the 1994 election?

[mdmc]

17. welcome to DU!

what about 94?

[karynnj]

77. Hillary's brute force approach to legislation on health care

was not well received and we lost the House.

[mdmc]

78. yeah, I remeber,,,

at least now we will have nothing for hillary "to lose" for us.

[Totally Committed]

21. I will fight Hillary as a candidate... I don't care if she is a Two-fer...

she's wrong for the Party (cannot win) and wrong for the country (DLC leader and sweetheart).

We need to nominate someone who can win this time, and it ain't her... I don't care WHO'S holding her hand.

TC

[mitchum]

24. As will I

[Andromeda]

22. That's right.

They've always been a team and they've always been very effective when they work together.

It remains to be seen whether Hillary will actually run. She has to win her Senate seat back first or it will be a mute point.

[mitchum]

23. NO MORE DLCLINTONS!

[DaveinMD]

29. yeah

those 8 years of peace and prosperity were awful

[mitchum]

41. What's your favorite part of DLClinton's "liberal" legacy...

NAFTA?
Welfare reform?
Media consolidation?
DOMA?

[DaveinMD]

57. how about these

Hope Scholarships so people can afford college. The CHIPs program that expanded access to health care for millions of low income children. The education tax credit that helped my family pay for graduate school. The initial budget that raised taxes on the wealthy to pay for crucial investmens in education, health care and our environment. Americorps. Expansion of the earned income tax credit to help people work their way out of poverty. In the same token, raising the minimum wage. Record job expansion, especially in minority communities.

[Totally Committed]

59. These are the people who are now

having their jobs "off-shored" and they are mostly looking at minimum wage jobs, if they can find them. Last hired, first fired.

TC

[Totally Committed]

58. He lost me with Welfare Reform...

The "Liberal" president I thought I'd voted for evaporated right then and there.

TC

[jonnyblitz]

30. exactly! ENOUGH already with the Clintons. nt

[tinfoilinfor2005]

25. Yes, I agree.

And if they campaign as though Bill is actually the one running for a third term with Hillary as the 'front man', they probably will win. Last I heard, his approval ratings were still in the high seventies. It will be interesting to see the campaign strategy.

[mitchum]

43. Yes, the "Lurleen Wallace factor" will appeal to a part of...

the electorate. This is patently unfair, though. Hillary is quite capable of being her own right of center DLC woman without any help from her spouse, but with plenty of assistance from corporate interests.

edit: to add the word "is"
No fooling!

[AtomicKitten]

26. Well I would love the chance to have Bill Clinton back in the WH.

Some here DU underestimate his support. Perhaps they missed his standing ovation at CSK's funeral or the same at the Vatican.

[BigYawn]

38. Hillary will lose big time on DU, but overall democrats favor her by a

wide margin over every other opponent in the primaries.

All of her competition in the primaries is basically
running for VP. As a result you will never hear anyone
seriously putting her down during the campaign.

The best thing going for Hillary is that the MSM simply
loves her bordering on adoration. That is a huge plus.

[AZBlue]

45. I'm not sure she'd even lose big time here on DU.

Sure, there will be/has been/is a LOT of anti-Hillary posters here but it seems to me that they are a minority. A very loud and, at times, obnoxious minority, but a minority nonetheless.

[xkenx]

81. Wrong! MSM repeat what their RW masters tell them,

plus, they know a good story to promote. MSM "loved" and annointed Howard Dean until it was time to turn on him.

[spiderbiter]

27. That might be the problem...

"...when you vote for Hillary you also vote for Bill"



I think that's EXACTLY what people think they'd get--and they are very wary of that. America has never had that type of power arrangement running the highest office in the land (and the few hubby/wife teams that HAVE been in power elsewhere do not inspire confidence--quite the opposite.)

Even in a dictatorship, these boyfriend/girlfriend, husband/wife teams don't wear well. This is a democracy and I think the average voter is very nervous about ANYBODY having that kind of power over their lives--especially any twosome that has been perceived as being even a little bit 'slick'.

[saltpoint]

28. Bill Clinton can connect with a crowd, no question. His wife is much less

skilled an orator, much less emotionally connected to audiences.

She is polarizing, even among Democrats. Conservatives of course hate her guts, whether for good reasons or not, they aren't going to change their minds and they most surely won't vote for her.

The media want Sen. Clinton to be the nominee but I'm not seeing her finishing very high in Iowa or New Hampshire.

Formidable yes. Electable? That's less certain.

[radio4progressives]

31. I think if New York likes her as a Senator, she should remain a Senator

She'll be much more effective (if she will divorce herself from the DLC) as a Senator on most issues, and Bill Clinton can be made an Ambassodor to the United Nations or something (i don't know about that either) or something useful, but we need to get away from the Dynasty mind set, because it will legitimize another Bush White House to follow - we just can't AFFORD that anymore. That's just from a pragmatist standpoint - the some very key policies that Clinton put into place in the '90's were devasting to our democracy, Trade and the Telecommunications Act - now look what we have a result.

[saltpoint]

32. Hi to you, radio4progressives. I'd like to see her remain a U.S. Senator

since she seems to be doing an above-average job representing her constituents. I'd like to see her vote more like Boxer and Feingold, but that's my own take on someone else's senators.

Agree with you on the dynasty question. I don't see Sen. Clinton as a victim of voters who want fresh blood. I do see a no-dynasty approach shoving ol' Jeb out down in Florida. That would be eight more years of fascism and I would not be able to accept it. I'd move to a country that still has a constitution!

[BigYawn]

39. Hillary is ambitious and wants to be the FIRST woman president.

and nothing is going to stop that, not even DU.

[saltpoint]

40. Disagree. I think she's going to finish well behind the pack in the

Iowa caucuses. General Clark will have more momentum, more money, and more organization in Iowa than last time when he skipped it altogether.

Senator Bayh, no favorite of mine particularly, may surprise Sen. Clinton also. His father, Birch, did very well in Iowa years ago and still is fondly recalled there.

John Edwards almost won Iowa last time and I believe with more money and time he will finish first next time. He connects emotionally a lot better than Sen. Clinton.

And I wouldn't count out Sen. Feingold. He will have many loyal volunteers in Iowa, a state almost tailor-made for his kind of appeal.

I agree with you that Sen. Clinton is ambitious. But I believe other Democrats will be enjoy better luck early on in 2008.

[BigYawn]

46. Actually I am equally in favor of Bayh & Hillary.....either 1 will work

for me. As for Clark, I wish him good luck.

[saltpoint]

48. Senators Bayh and Clinton are contenders for the top job, I grant.

I've spent some time in Indiana. Let me ask you a question: Don't you think Evan Bayh is too mechanical as a public speaker? Handsome family, matinee idol face, plenty intelligent, yes. But he speaks like a recording. I'm just saying I don't think he is connecting with audiences at the emotional level necessary to win the nomination.

If he's chosen as the veep nominee by Sen. Clinton or someone else, do you think he'd deliver Indiana for the Democrats, or would Hoosier voters stand in line in Kokomo and Lafayette and Evansville and cast their ballots for the Rethugs as usual?

[BigYawn]

63. Your assessment of Bayh is right on....Hillary is much more dynamic

in comparison. My feeling is Hillary will do better during
the primaries but Bayh will be more attractive in general
election. If Bayh can win in Indiana, he will MOST SURELY
ATTRACT A LARGE CROSSOVER VOTES in GE. I have not seen him
speak on the stump since he has run only ocal races in Indiana.

[saltpoint]

72. Just one more word from me on Evan Bayh here. I heard him speak

in behalf of his father during the very sad Senate race in 1980.

That was the race where Indiana voters rejected Birch Bayh, Evan's father, in favor of a hopelessly clueless Congressman named Dan Quayle.

Hoosier voters vote red. In the primaries, Evan Bayh would do well if he is in serious contention by the time the May Indiana primary rolls around, but a huge chunk of delegates to the convention will have been chosen by then. If he is among the contenders, he carries the primary in Indiana.

If he is the nominee of the party, I belive Hoosier voters will treat him about the same as they treated his father. The race might be a bit closer -- a small percentage of cross-overs, yes -- but I don't think Evan Bayh flips Indiana for the Dems. Politically speaking, Warner would fare better in Virginia than Bayh would in Indiana. Just my thoughts.

[radio4progressives]

62. DLC backer? not for me...

no thanks.. :thumbsdown:

[BigYawn]

64. I am looking for ANYONE with a D label who can win...period.

Because in the end he/she will be better than any republican.

[radio4progressives]

61. personally rooting for Feingold...

Or someone like him... :thumbsup:

[saltpoint]

73. To Feingold's credit, there's hardly anybody like him. I'm jealous of

Wisconsin voters that they have such an independent and clear-minded soul representing them in the Senate.

I think Feingold is a force to be reckoned with in Iowa and New Hampshire. I believe he will surprise a lot of folks and I don't think Sen. Clinton can steamroll him with money. Feingold supporters in the Iowa caucuses are likely to be motivated by something quite apart from money, and they're going to show up for their guy no matter what.

[jackbourassa]

53. I know something that will stop her...

The American voting public! When they elect the Republican candidate.

[Toots]

56. You have been very active on this post and every bit of it negative

You must have an agenda and it seems to come from hatred...

[jackbourassa]

68. Toots,

Clearly I don't support Hillary.

Surprising as this might be, one doesn't need to have an agenda or be hateful if they don't support the Clintons. Supporters of the Clintons need some perspective. The party doesn't belong to them. It belongs to everyone. And not everyone is going to agree that she should be the nominee. Perhaps you don't mind the party leaders telling you that Hillary WILL be the nominee, but I do.

I think she will lose the election. That's my opinion. Not hate. Not an agenda. Just an opinion.

[BigYawn]

65. I think the rumors of Hillary-hate are grossly exaggerated...

Bill won 2nd term inspite of Monica scandal. People know
how to separate personal issues from policy issues.

[jackbourassa]

70. BigYawn, learn some history

The Lewinsky scandal didn't even break until one year after Clinton was reelected - with 49% of the vote.

[BigYawn]

93. Paula's suit was already filed if I recall in 1996

Monica ofcourse was exposed later.

[wisteria]

88. She hasn't earned the right to be the first woman President nor does

deserve it simply because her last name is Clinton. You may well be wrong about nothing stooping her- maybe the people of this country will stop her and she will have nothing to say about it.

[radio4progressives]

60. I have serious problems with some of her Senate votes...

and her pandering to the "faith based" crowd, and the flag draping, and the terra -ist propaganda - (which they all do) - Wish she was a Boxer/Feingold kind of Senator.. but i'm more concerned about her running for prez... for all these reasons..

[BigYawn]

66. I respect your disapproving those votes, but don't you think her stands

on those issues is more likely to attract crossover votes?
Any one running on the left side of progressive agenda is
unlikely to do that. And democrats can't win in GE without
significant crossover votes from the center.

Just look at the ACTUAL RESULTS from the past. Candidates
on the far left took a drubbing from Nixon in 1972 and
from Reagan in 1984.

[saltpoint]

74. Yes -- that flag burning thing was the mother of all panderings.

We could do without that sort of initiative, no matter who instigates it.

John Edwards, hardly a fire-belching socialist, is nevertheless a sincere and thoughtful man and I've not seen him pander to people as Sen. Clinton sometimes does. I think he is going to present a formidable challenge to Sen. Clinton in Iowa, after nearly upending John Kerry there in 2004. It will not escape the notice of Democratic primary voters that John Edwards is married to one of the most dazzlingly kind and intelligent human beings currently alive, Elizabeth Edwards. She is the good queen of American national life right now IMO, and I would cut her grass for a YEAR to have her in the White House and Laura Bush and her idiot husband OUT of the White House.

I see Edwards defeating Sen. Clinton in Iowa on half her budget because voters sense in Edwards and Elizabeth an emotional authenticity grievously lacking in many other candidates.

General Clark is better funded this time and better known. He's refined his presntational skills (which were already pretty good) and he slices into Sen. Clinton's demographic in Iowa and New Hampshire. He finishes ahead of her also, I think.

Senator Feingold will ride a wave of strong reform-minded voters and voters who remember McCain-Feingold as generally a good thing in an era of generally corrupt things, and he also finishes ahead of Sen. Clinton in Iowa.

Vilsack? I guess he could jump in there with a lot of state support and garner enough of a base from state government connections to finish ahead of Sen. Clinton, but behind Edwards, Clark and Feingold.

I think Evan Bayh is this year's Dick Gephardt, unless he works a LOT on that speaking style.

In Iowa in 2008, it'll be Clark/Feingold/Edwards/Vilsack (but I'm not guessing the order) and coming in fifth, Senator Clinton.

[karynnj]

79. Edwards nearly upended Kerry in 2004?

Not even close, even though he gained delegates with his strange Kuchinich deal. Kerry had a pretty clean win in Iowa and Edwards was tied for third in NH (with Clark). In 1992, Clinton lost both of these, then surged to victory in the South heavy Super Tuesday. Edwards could have repeated this, but
in 2004, Kerry was the biggest winner on super Tuesday.

Also, Kerry won the informal poll of Iowa hotel and restaurant workers over Edwards and the other. They chose him as the one they thought listened to them the most and the most likable.

[saltpoint]

84. Not quite so on the 2004 Iowa primary. Kerry was by no means a

shoe-in prior to the final week of that state campaign. Edwards' numbers were soaring. Much speculation on DU and elsewhere centered on how Dr. Dean would finish, as he had been endorsed by Al Gore, and on whether Kerry could carry some of the rural counties, especially in the NW of the state.

Edwards' numbers kept rising and he almost overtook John Kerry in Iowa. Many state folks there believed that had Edwards begun just a little bit earlier and had a little more money, that he may well have taken the state.

Here is a link: http://www.style.org/iowacaucus/ -- to the individual results by county and percentages for the Democratic candidates in Iowa.

Kerry won with 38%, Edwards a strong second at 32%. Dean was third at 18%, and Gephardt was buried alive with 11%.

[wisteria]

90. Kerry came from far behind in Iowa, so actually he gained more than the

numbers show. He gained so much momentum in Iowa that most party officials gave Kerry the nod in Iowa.

[saltpoint]

92. Kerry's successful Iowa campaign garnered him exactly 38% of the vote,

no more and no less. He did not gain "more than the numbers show" any more than Edwards and Edwards' surge was well-documented. One DUer on the night of the primary wrote in to say he believed Edwards had won. The link below:

http://www.style.org/iowacaucus/

lays out the results if you want to have a look.

[karynnj]

98. In a 9 way race, 38% is more than respectable

Edwards DID do very well at 32%, but Kerry at 38% easily beat him. A small part of the 32% came from Kuchinich voters who listened to his request that they go to Edwards. I don't know if the round 1 results are reported or kept. At any rate, Kuchinich numbers were so small they couldn't contribute much.

Poll numbers for a caucus are netoriously bad. Both Kerry and Edwards were showing major increases as the caucuses approached. You can't take the trajectory of % Edwards, assume linearity and project into the future - saying his percent would have grown. You can see how illogical that is if you consider projecting Kerry's in a similar manner. Then summing the two series. At some point you would exceed 100%. (Also part of Edwards surge was the endorsement of the Des Moines Register , a non recurring event.)

I will agree with you that Edwards and Kerry both far exceeded what people expected, while Dean and Gephardt, who major newspapers predicted would win only a week or two in advance, were big losers. As candidates dropped out, the debates allowed more chances for comparison - Kerry very clearly was the more knowlegable, more Presidential candidate.

[wisteria]

89. I don't recall Edward's ever one-uping Kerry. Oh, and I would add

Kerry to your Iowa list. I wouldn't count him out. He is if nothing else a man of determination and surprise.

[saltpoint]

91. My vote for Kerry notwithstanding, I have given a link to a website

in an earlier post in this thread that shows the breakdown of the Iowa vote in 2004.

http://www.style.org/iowacaucus/


The verb "one-upping" is yours, not mine. "Nearly upending" is a different construction which describes the demographic results of the Iowa caucus' first and second place candidates in 2004. It went 38% for Kerry, 32% for Edwards. Dean third at 18%, Gephardt at 11, Kucinich at 1%.

John Edwards also won the South Carolina primary with Kerry placing second.

[BigYawn]

33. Kick!

[jackbourassa]

55. My Prediction...

Hillary finishes third or below in the primaries.

[BigYawn]

67. So you say Hillary finishes 3rd....who will be 1st and 2nd?

[jackbourassa]

71. Not sure yet.

It just won't be Hillary.

[FreedomAngel82]

69. Even though I'm not a huge Hillary for President fan

I do agree. They do make a nice team.

[Nimrod2005]

75. The comeback kid may come back AGAIN?

That would be just fine with me........

[GetTheRightVote]

80. You are right, with Hillary comes Bill, he will have her back as well as

the nation's. But I still would like to see Al Gore make it in as Pres. and ad Hillary as VP with the window open to run after a 2 term Al. Sounds very good to me.

:kick:

[wisteria]

85. I would like to see both of them fade away. Bill had his time in the

sun. I some ways he is responsible for the problems our party faces now. I couldn't think of anything more regressive than a Bill/Hillary Presidency. Our former President needs to come to terms with the fact that his time has come and gone and he needs to move aside for others for the sake of the party. That goes for Hillary too, who doesn't offer much except the possiblility of more Bill Clinton in the White House.

[Maine-ah]

96. don't get me wrong here, I like Hillary, but I like Bill way more

it's just there is too much baggage out there.

[obxhead]

97. That association may be their downfall.... nt