Predictions for Iowa and NH

[jcrew2001]

I've been following the Dems closer than the Repubs, but I'm really surprised at Rudy's rise in GOP polling. I had presumed old man McCain would be the nominee, but that's if he has the stamina to reach Iowa and NH.

I don't necessarily think Iowa and NH can make or break a candidate. I don't think Clinton won either of them, but he was a strong second in NH; and won the rest of the primaries due to being the best of the bunch.

Even though Hillary is ahead in the polls, I'm still skeptical that she can win the primary or Iowa and NH. I think there is still a strong anti-Hillary faction among Dems, and among Independents/moderates, which will greatly affect her perceived "electability."

Of course the whole "electability" issue depends on who the opposing nominee is. I think that Edwards can win against Romney or Rudy, but not McCain. I think Hillary will have trouble with McCain, Rudy, and Romney. I haven't thought very much about how electable Obama would be in the general. I think Clark could win the general, but would have a difficult time in the primaries, just due to not having the ground troops.

That being said, Iowa and NH are important. In Iowa, Obama has a geographic advantage from neighboring Illinois, he might score a win. Edwards has a strong and committed following, enough for at least second place. Edwards and Obama need a good showing to fight off Clinton, they need a win to keep momentum, but a devastating loss would expose Hillary as well. I think Iowa could be very close.

In NH, Edwards also has a strong following and could garner a strong 2nd place. Obama might score well among the more independent voters. Hillary has the geographic advantage from neighboring NY. A Clinton win would be more likely, however if Edwards or Obama or Clark could pull off an upset, then this could finish Clinton and spark the Edwards, etc. as the Dem Nominee. I think Hillary will win, barring any misteps; or a disappointing Iowa performance.

As diverse as the Dem side, I'm even more perplexed by the GOP candidates. Most conservatives despise McCain, and I do think if he were the Nominee he would be in serious danger of losing the General Election due to his tepid support. Even though McCain was polling high, he is very weak, and I doubt he will win the primary.

I'm astounded by Rudy's rise and to a lesser extent Romney's rise, both labeled northeast RINO's, nonetheless they are the frontrunner's in the GOP. I still think a sleeper candidate can win the GOP nom like Huckabee, but as of now Rudy and Mitt are forces to be reckoned with.

I'm impressed with Romney's image and how he carefully manipulates it. I don't want him as president or governor, but he's a smart, solid, capable business person, who wouldn't have made the mistakes that GWB has made in Iraq. I think that Romney will likely be the nominee because he will manipulate his image to convince the GOP faithful he is one of them.

I think the Rudy's rise is just do to name recognition and capitalizing on anti-McCain sentiment. Rudy could beat Hillary in the general and he would be dangerous in the general election. However, if Rudy is the GOP nominee, there would be nothing more shocking period, ever.

In Iowa, I think Romney will throw a lot of money and have a strong showing, maybe 2nd place. McCain might win, or he might be toast by then. Rudy could have a first place showing, or it will be a GOP sleeper like Huckabee.

In NH, McCain will still have followers left over from 2000, but Romney and Rudy will have geographic support. Rudy could also win NH, and Romney will have a strong 2nd place. If McCain falters, then I think Romney will eventually be the GOP nominee.

[illinoisprogressive]

1. Very thoughtful assesment. I believe electability is only limited by the

voters. anyone who can stir a voter to the polls to vote for them is electable. I think Hillary is someone who arouses strong anti or pro feelings. And there is a strong anti in the democratic party. I see her numbers fading each poll. I believe by summer she won't have the lead.
Edwards is a strong candidate but, lacks the staying power. I see his campaign somewhat fading but, that may just be a lull.
Obama is coming on fast and hard. He appeals to all parties. I have lurked on freeper and don't find the same intense hate as I do for Hillary there. he doesn't get much reaction from them.
And more and more people are excited about him. His electability is only limited by the limited thinking of people. Instead of voting for someone they love they vote who they think is 'electable' and see how far that's gotten us. when we vote for the one we love we win. i.e. Bill Clinton.

[jcrew2001]

2. Thanks

Thanks, its a bit long-winded, but I wanted to express my opinions from the last few weeks. I do want a passionate candidate like Edwards or Obama. That would be great for the country.

I'm not yet convinced Obama can win the general election, but his momentum might be impossible to stop.

I think Hillary's a smart, intelligent women - far better than GWB if she were president. But there is strong anti-Hillary in both the Democrat, moderates, and Republicans. Probably 51% of the country is anti-Hillary. Her winning the presidency would be slightly less surprising than Rudy being the GOP Nominee.

But it is about the matchup - Bill Clinton beat a weak GHWB (with Perot's help), and a weak Dole.

I truly believe that Rudy can beat Hillary by turning some Blue states. Hillary will have great difficulty with all the Swing states.

I think Edwards can win the General election against "northerners Rudy or Romney." I think the south will vote for one of their own before voting for a yankee, even if he is Red.

[jcrew2001]

3. Obama is exciting but

so was Dean. I think there will be a lot of similarities between Dean and Obama among voters seeking an anti-establishment and an anti-Hillary candidate.

If Clark enters the race, he will garner more votes from the anti-Hillary crowd and further weaken Hillary. He would be a spoiler candidate.

I think Clark hasn't entered the race now because he is not a politician and he knows that if he announces now, he will do badly in fundraising and polling compared to Hillary, and that will sink his campaign, with little chance to regain momentum later. But if he announces in the fall, he can get fresh buzz and get more anti-Hillary voters who are sick of the Hillary coverage or if Hillary stumbles. Clark's only option is announcing in the fall, and praying for a Hillary collapse so he can pick up the pieces.

If Hillary falls, Clark can claim more experience than Edwards/Obama. But then Richardson could come on strong as well.

But right now, Hillary and Obama are fighting it out, and Edwards will pick up the slack if they split the votes.

Right now, McCain is in serious danger, if he loses momentum he won't have the institutional support, that Kerry had in 2004 among Dems, to regain party loyalists for a comeback.

Romney will target himself as the official LEGACY candidate - it worked for Bush and Dole. His dad was a well known GOP candidate, so he might win some loyalists.

[Blackhatjack]

4. You need to remember this is a marathon, not a sprint .....

The public perception of candidates a year from now could be totally different than it is today.

You also need to remember that lots of opposition research has already been done on opposing candidates, and the parties that intend to use it are 'keeping their powder dry.'

Obama has never been examined in public like he will be in the run up to the 2008 election. This is not to say that he will not do well, but there is always a lot to address with first time candidates.

Edwards has the advantage of having been through the 'public examination' process in the last presidential campaign. ANd it is unlikely there are any 'bombshells' out there that were not disclosed in that election campaign.

The same goes for Hillary Clinton, but in a different way. She was examined pretty thoroughly when Bill Clinton campaigned and was elected, and again when she ran for the Senate. She has a different problem, and that is there are plenty of issues that alienate voters which have already been exposed --thus the high negativity polling results.

I support Edwards, and believe that allowing Hillary and Obama to battle it out in the headlines is exactly the right position for him at this time. Edwards has spent an inordinate amount of time and money building grass-roots support in Iowa, and I would be surprised if he does not win Iowa. By the time time New Hampshire arrives the field will already have been winnowed down, and the public focus on the candidates will allow Edwards to emerge as a viable candidate who can win (with the lowest negativity ratings of any of the candidates)?

I find many candidates running for the Democratic nomination to be well qualified. But like any race between individuals with different strengths and weaknesses, it is way too soon to say with any confidence which of those individual strengths and weaknesses will play the largest role in motivating the voters to choose one candidate over the others.

[jcrew2001]

5. Edwards is more electable than Hillary

I agree that Edwards is more electable than Hillary, he can win the general depending on the matchup.

I'm still not convinced about Hillary and there is such a strong anti-Hillary sentiment among independents. However, if Edwards climbs, then Clark or even Gore will jump into the race as the 'experienced' candidate - quite sneaky, crafty, and opportunistic. Of course, clark was opportunistic in 2004 as well and he didn't win.

I think personality trumps experience. There are lots of guys with experience like Richardson, Biden, Dodd that might do better later.

On the GOP side, besides McCain, there really is no long-serving establishment candidate. Its really surprising for the GOP, maybe someone will come out of hiding to run - like Newt.

[Clark2008]

12. No - but Clark beat Edwards in five of the nine races in which

they both competed, didn't he? Oh - but the news media kept telling you it was down to Kerry or Edwards so you probably don't remember that.

:eyes:

[jcrew2001]

14. All i remember is that Kerry won and clark

didn't. He'd be a formidable candidate if he entered the race, but he's not interested in being a politician, so why are you supporting him. He says he doesn't want to be a politician so stop saying he'll be one.

I also want a civilian president.

[jcrew2001]

31. Edwards is more electable than Hillary and

I would take your stats more seriously if Clark was a candidate, but he's not, so we have to play the cards we're dealt; and right now and in the foreseable future, I believe that Edwards is the most electable candidate.

[KingofNewOrleans]

32. And Edwards won more delgates in those races

which is what gets you nominated, the Clarkies don't seem to remember that.

[jcrew2001]

6. Independents in Iowa and NH

I've heard that independent voters in Iowa and NH usually pick the anti-establishment candidate. If this were the case, then Hillary would be very vulnerable and suffer an embarrassing loss.

I think Rudy will have an edge if he can keep up his independent status for Iowa and NH.

[jcrew2001]

7. Money Factor

I'm surprised that Vilsack dropped out because of money concerns, where was he spending his money - guys like Sharpton and Kucinich run with little money.

Hillary's vulnerable and that's why she's going after the money, to try and scare off donors from others. Hillary can get 100 M, but she's in danger of losing momentum.

I think Edwards has a strong and committed following. He's capable of growth potential when Obama loses steam.

Just like Dean and Gephart attacking each other, allowing for the Kerry win; I can forsee an Obama/Hillary scenario creating an Edwards win.

For the GOP, McCain and Rudy will take each other out, giving Romney the win.

[Perky]

9. It is a marathon until Iowas and then it is a very fast sprint.

You have to beat expectations in Iowa to be perceived as viable in New Hampshire (see Howard Dean, circa 2004) Whoever beats expectaion In expectation in thosw two states then has to scale the brick wall called South Carolina.

If Hillary has not out right won in Iowa, Nevada or New Hampshire (she will not win until Super Tuesday) and by then the money is going elsewhere.

Obama places first or second in eithe of the first two heats. He wins in South Carolina and he probably wins the nomination because all the fundraising will head in his direction.

Obama's problem is going to be ground troops in the first two heats

[jcrew2001]

35. Thats why money and ground support is so important

and that is why Hillary might have the advantage. She's vulnerable and the only slight advantage she may have is in NH where she is geographically closest.

NH is more independent leaning and anti-establishment, so she may very well lose. I think Edwards will do very well in both Iowa and NH. Obama will have a strong advantage in Iowa and he is the only candidate that I see riding the wave of momentum and excitement.

It might be enough to win Obama the election. I've seen it here in Mass, where Deval Patrick rode anti-republican sentiment to win. It will be very impressive if Obama can win the WH, but the national GOP will not let that happen, even if it means playing the race card.

The GOP will use all the dirty tricks to stop Obama.

[WI_DEM]

8. My prediction (that is if Gore doesn't run)

Iowa (top three): Edwards, Obama and Hillary
NH (top three): Obama, Edwards, Hillary.

[jcrew2001]

10. no love for hillary

I actually think Obama would do better in Iowa cuz of Illinois factor. NH doesn't have as many blacks as in south carolina - which would bode better for him. But JE also will do well in SC.

If Clark had guts, he would challenge hillary right now, but I suspect Bill, et all, are telling him to wait. Clark's entry would hurt Hillary greatly.

[Clark2008]

11. Edwards can't beat Rudy because Edwards won't flip any red

states (he didn't help Kerry and probably wouldn't have won his senate seat back, based on polling information at the time.)

Oh - and Clark has plenty of ground troops - it's just that the media isn't allowed to mention his name.

[jcrew2001]

13. Edwards/Bayh will flip Ohio and Indiana

and I doubt Rudy can win the blue states against Edwards IMO.

I'm glad Clark's phantom candidacy has ground troops, good for him. They'll come out of hibernation in the fall.

[Blackhatjack]

16. If Clark is going to run, he is going to have to jump in soon ... it is a money issue

There is not going to be a major scandal which wipes out all the leading candidates. So Clark is going to have to jump in soon if he is going to have a chance to line up large campaign donors to back his campaign.

I for one wish he would announce immediately and add his ideas to the discussion going on in the Demcratic Party. I do not fear that Clark will overshadow my choice Edwards. I just think we need the best ideas possible right now, and if he announced he would get the platform to put those ideas on the table.

BTW Edwards would beat Rudy in so many ways in a general election. The opposition research on Rudy is still relatively 'dry.' Rudy cannot win without the backing of the social conservatives and the fundamentalists, and they are never going to ignore his past public behavior and vote for him.

[jcrew2001]

30. I think the Fundy repubs influence is over-stated,

there are still a lot of Reagan Democrats that have joined the republican party and are seeking a alternative to GWB's reign of terror. 75% of the country is sick of Bush and they want a new person, and it appears that person is Rudy, because most Americans are sick of Hillary as well.

Rudy will take back the moderate/fiscal wing of the party, and I think there is money and enthusiasm for this. He's a winner with a strong authoritarian persona. He will flip the blue states red.

That is why its imperative we don't nominate Hillary, and choose Edwards so we can flip the red states blue for a change.

Oddly enough, Rudy's rise will weaken Hillary and promote Edwards.

[jcrew2001]

38. I'm puzzled as to why Clark supporters hate Edwards

perhaps its because John has the guts to announce and campaign, while Wes is on the sidelines.

Kerry hurt himself in the South because of the Swift Boats and there was nothing that Edwards could do to stop it. Without the swift boat issue, Edwards could have helped. Its inaccurate to blame losing the South on Edwards. Perhaps, Clark still wishes he was the VP in 2004 - but unfortunately we can't replay the past.

Edwards will win the southern states like VA and NC and OH from Rudy.

[Blackhatjack]

15. So Clark2008 Do You Live in NC? And where did you get your information?

Maybe you are relying on 'internal polling data' that the Clark campaign did.

I live in NC, and I disagree with your assessments regarding '(Edwards) didn't help Kerry and probably wouldn't have won his senate seat back...'

Edwards did help Kerry... and if he had run for reelection to his senate seat he had plenty of backing to be successful.

Edwards scares the Repubs more than any other Dem because he presents the right mix of positions to appeal to independents and disillusioned Repubs. Plus after years of opposition research nothing has come out that would torpedo Edwards this time around.

Just watch the 'red states' flip in 2008, but I guess you would have another explanation for that as well rather than give Edwards any credit.

[jcrew2001]

18. Edwards is using the Bill Clinton primary

strategy. Edwards needs to place at least a strong second in both Iowa and NH. Bill did well in both, but didn't win either of them, then he swept the rest.

I'm still unsure about Hillary and I think the anti-Hillary faction will win. She's got a tough climb ahead of her.

Right now the media is on Hillary and Obama, and Edwards is in comfortably on the 2nd tier. I think Hillary and Obama will weaken each other, allowing for Edwards to win.

If Clark enters, I'm not sure how much it changes the race. I doubt the media spotlight will have room for Hillary/Obama/Clark, but he would bring a strong anti-Hillary force out amongst Dem activists, which could hurt Hillary.

I doubt Clark's viability because his poltical skills are weak compared to the other 3, so he'll have to really survive from a anti-frontrunner backlash. He's stated that he doesn't want to be VP, which I think is egotistical and turns me off on his party loyalty.

I don't think Kerry had much of a chance in any southern states because he was a Yankee, it wouldn't have mattered who was his VP choice. Edwards benefited more from the ticket in terms of experience. Edwards just didn't help Kerry enough to over-come the Yankee-image, I don't think anyone could have.

If the election is down to Edwards vs. Rudy or Romney - the election will definately be flipped. Red states will turn Blue, and some Blue states might turn Red. The thought of Penn going to Rudy is sickening, but it might happen.

If Rudy's popularity holds, it changes the entire 2008 election. I thought it would be a lock for a Dem winning the WH, but I should know better than counting out the Republicans. They will win at all costs, even if it means giving Rudy the Nom.

[Blackhatjack]

21. The keys to winning the nomination and the general election are different...

IN the race for the Democratic nomination, I believe it will come down to electability and who has the money to make it happen.

In the general election, I believe that most important characteristic will be who has the lowest negativity numbers --since whoever is going to win must reach out to the undecideds, the independents, and the disillusioned in both parties.

I believe Hillary can be elected. I think Edwards would win easier because he can reach those who might tend to be turned off by Hillary's high negativity numbers.

By the time the S. Carolina primary is held it will be down to 2-3 candidates running for the Democratic nomination, and at that point democratic voters will be focused on electability.

[jcrew2001]

22. I used to think that it will be easy for the Dem to win

in 2008 - almost a guarantee because of the Iraq War. But Rudy's rise has suddenly made me doubt it. I never in a million years thought that Rudy would be the GOP nominee, and even though there is a lot of time left for him to screw up, he is a goliath.

On the Dem side, our liberal base is generally happy with our candidates of Hillary, Obama, Edwards, and Clark. However, none of these can claim the mainstream/centrist recognition that Rudy already has.

The Dem candidates IMO have a lot of weakness - Edwards served only 1 term, Obama's a newbie, Hillary, Clark's a late-candidate. No one can strongly claim the general election, and if Edwards wins the Nom, he'll have a lot of work.

Conservatives hate all 3 - Rudy, McCain, and Romney, but mainstream America doesn't. Rudy and McCain are well-known and have mass-appeal. They can't be easily labeled the old GWB republicans, that we got rid of in 2006. But McCain is trying and that is why he's falling, which is ironic for a maverick - making the unpopular moves at the wrong time. Either the North Vietnamese messed him up, or McCain has a masochistic desire to impede his political aspirations.

Romney is going after the conservative base in a better way than McCain, and I believe the base will eventually support Romney. Rudy will get the social moderate/wall streeters, and McCain will be left out, again. Although Romney has only 1 term as governor, he has a strong fiscal resume, which will help him win the fiscal conservatives away from Rudy, but I'm not sure if that will be enough.

In conclusion, Rudy will win over the pro-Iraq/Fiscal conservatives. He's got the name recognition and the 2 term experience. I think Edwards/Bayh can beat Rudy/JEB; but Edwards will need to win the Dem Nomination first. I don't think Clark, Hillary, or Obama can beat Rudy/JEB.

[KingofNewOrleans]

25. I think 4 Dems will still be viable for Mega-Tuesday

Hillary, Obama, Edwards, and Richardson. And given that you're looking at 20 states on one day and a whopping 22 days between Iowa and Mega-Tuesday, the candidates may focus on different states and they may all have blocs of delegates with no clear frontrunner, and only a third of the delegates to be selected.

[jcrew2001]

29. This could be a possibility just like when

Bill Clinton and Dukakis ran, there were lots of delegates spread out. However, Even if Hillary has higher name recognition and can win NY and California, I think she is weak elsewhere. Edwards can fill the vacuum in the South.

I'm worried about Obama because even though he's a popular speaker, I don't know how many votes he can take from Hillary. He's truly a wildcard.

I think Richardson would have a very good chance in the west and in Nevada, but Edwards has support there also. I think the Hispanic factor is over-played and it won't make much of a difference in the primary or general election.

If polling for all 4 drop significantly, Gore will be tempted to enter the race, but I think he will still have a difficult time winning the general election - he'll have to turn Ohio or Florida.

[jcrew2001]

33. The Quinnipiac Poll came out this week and

said that Edwards would beat Rudy in Ohio. However it also said Rudy would beat Hillar/Edwards/Obama in PA.

So both PA and OHIO flip for Rudy and Edwards.

Is your plan to smear all of the Dem Candidates so that the Repubs will have an easier time winning in 2008? I just don't see the logic of condemning the Dems for somebody who is not declared. Why not just wait until Clark enters to smear the Dems.

Kerry couldn't flip red states because of Kerry and the Swift Boats, there was nothing Edwards could do about that. If Clark had been VP (if he wanted it) he could have blunted the swift boats attack, i believe that. A good VP is someone who has experience and props up the candidate, and i agree that Edwards was not an ideal VP candidate.

[Blackhatjack]

17. One important fact to remember, Edwards was born in S. Carolina and...

... his populous message plays very well in S. Carolina.

Most people do not realize that Edwards has a well defined strategy which he has been implementing since the last election. He has worked with Democratic Party leaders on the ground in Iowa and S. Carolina, and plenty of other states. He has spent time there, talking to people.

If you think I am kidding, all of the interviews of voters in Iowa indicate that they recognize Edwards and know his positions and they like him. Edwards has helped all the local politicians there by supplying computers and financial support for their campaigns.

Money is big in politics, and Hillary knows that. But money cannot offset the substantial time and assistance Edwards has put into Iowa. I will be very surprised if Edwards does not win in Iowa.

His messsage has been well-received in N. Hampshire, and he comes across well to those who have not made up their mind yet.

I think his strategy is to win Iowa, do well in N. Hampshire, and win S. Carolina. The moving up of primary dates by other states could have an effect. But then again all the candidates for the Dem nomination have to deal with that.

[Czolgosz]

19. On the Democratic side, I think Edwards wins Iowa, Obama wins NH. I doubt Rudy even runs in Iowa.

Everyone here on DU is crazy about the Rudy buzz, but here is what the NY Daily News pointedly asks: "Some had wondered if the pro-choice, pro-gay rights, pro-gun control Giuliani would skip the state’s first-in-the-nation caucus, which is typically dominated by conservative Republicans."

Newsday was more blunt:

Is Rudolph Giuliani thinking about skipping the first-in-the-nation Iowa caucuses next year?

He just might be. On Monday, after a campaign seminar at Harvard University, Giuliani campaign chief Mike DuHaime refused to commit his candidate to competing in the Iowa contest, which officially kicks off the race for the GOP nomination on Jan. 14, 2008.... DuHaime’s comments and the early evidence suggest the campaign is at least toying with the idea of bypassing Iowa. Giuliani hasn’t stopped in Iowa since joining the race last November, even though he’s been to first-primary state New Hampshire once, first-Southern-primary state South Carolina twice and California twice.

***

Giuliani might decide he doesn’t want to take his chances with Iowa Republicans who tend to be strong religious conservatives. If so, he’d be betting that the emergence of a mega-primary day on Feb. 5, 2008 – where Giuliani could do well in states like New Jersey, California and Florida – would diminish the importance of Iowa anyway.

It’s a risky bet, especially if Giuliani were to falter in New Hampshire and South Carolina, right now expected to be No. 2 and 3 in line ahead of the Feb. 5 states. But it’s been tried — John McCain skipped Iowa in 2000 but followed up with a crushing win over then-Gov. George W. Bush in New Hampshire. Of course, McCain’s defeat shortly thereafter in South Carolina spelled the beginning of the end for his campaign.

The same team that groomed Bush for 2000 is reunited behind Romney. I'm betting on Romney in Iowa, McCain in NH.

[jcrew2001]

20. A Rudy/Jeb ticket would be a very dangerous

ticket. Even though Jeb is backing Romney - he'll still accept the VP spot in a heartbeat. I guantee that Jeb will be the GOP VP nominee.

[Czolgosz]

24. If Rudy won the nomination (he won't) he's looking at Texas Gov. Rick Perry; Jeb is Romney's VP pick

[jcrew2001]

27. Are you sure about this because even

thought GWB is polling low, most repubs still support every Bush, and this will balance the Rudy ticket and help him win the swing state of Florida. Texas IMO is not a swing state.

[bullwinkle428]

23. Edwards ran a very strong second to Kerry in Iowa in 2004

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/primaries/pages/states/IA/

[jcrew2001]

26. I would like to hear the Clarkies excuse as to why

Clark skipped Iowa? Because IMO, he was scared of Dean and was planning on the VP nomination from Dean. Dean had an edge in NH, so Clark's only chance would be in Iowa but he didn't take it, and he gave Iowa to Kerry.

Because if Clark stays in Iowa, then he shaves the military vote from Kerry. I guess that would give Edwards the win, but Dean would come in second according to the stats.

[saltpoint]

28. This afternoon, it feels like Sam Brownback will take Iowa.

McCain's drifting away, Rudy's poll numbers are penis-pumped, and Romney is batshit nuts right out of the gate. I'm not even sure Giuliani will compete in the Hawkeye State. He may focus on New Hampshire.

Brownback finishes first in Iowa.

For our side, Edwards wins in Iowa. Obama second. Edwards wins in Nevada shortly after Iowa.

New Hampshire's going to be a dogfight.

[jcrew2001]

34. Where did you hear that Brownback will win Iowa

because that seems far-fetched to me. It would be very shocking if he did, but Kansas is close to Iowa.

[saltpoint]

36. Hi, jcrew. Yes -- the neighboring state thing is a factor, but it

didn't work for Dick Gephardt the second time. It did work for him the first time.

I think Brownback will run a similar strategy to Pat Robertson, who placed second in Iowa in a Republican caucus despite being crazier than a shithouse rat.

Brownback is in similar territory, except he's smarter and more cool-browed than Robertson ever was. Brownback has some serious financial backing, and in a crowded field might slip into a first-place win by statistical default. Iowans will have to decide if they want to block Brownback, say, and all pile on one of the other Republican candidates, or if they're too attached to their own guy and the vote divides everywhich way.

In the latter case, someone like Brownback is well-positioned to win.

Could I be dead wrong on this? Hell yes.

[jcrew2001]

37. I'm worried that Edwards would suffer the same fate

but I think he has a better persona than Gephart, and will attract more voters rather than losing them.

I've read on FR that they don't like any of the repubs including Brownback who supports expanding work visas and immigration. So he's not quite the conservative that the MSM makes him to be, but he might be enough to win Iowa. Besides I think FR is a fringe group, which would also describe many DUers who are unhappy with the moderate Dems and are supporting Obama and Clark.

I doubt brownback will get the GOP nom, but it would be great for him to win Iowa. I've got hopes that Romney can pull out the win, but Rudy or McCain will still give Edwards a tough time.

[saltpoint]

39. I'm envious of Iowans who are in such a high-profile position with that

first caucus.

I'd love to move out there just to be in one of those caucuses. What fun, and for a great purpose, too.

I honestly forgot about Brownback's "immigration issue" problem. You're right -- that may rile conservatives against him. So what they're really left with is a pack of Rethugs, none of whom is to their liking.

I hope they tear each other to bits!