[NYCFarmboy]

Looks like Kerry (who voted for the war?..and Edwards..who also voted for the war?) are beating anti-war candidate Dean in Iowa tonight.

Fox News early results:
Kerry 36%
Edwards 34%
Dean 18%

[BlackGriffen]

You can get the most up-to date info from the Des Moines Register.

BG

Edit: thought I should add, we'll see if it's the message or the messenger after New Hampshire. Clark is another anti-war candidate, don't forget.

[NYCFarmboy]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
You can get the most up-to date info from the Des Moines Register.

BG

Edit: thought I should add, we'll see if it's the message or the messenger after New Hampshire. Clark is another anti-war candidate, don't forget.

Oh I think they (the candidates) were all anti-war when it was popular...but then Saddam was captured and Deans numbers tanked.

As to Clark, he keeps changing his postition....but after all..he did vote for Nixon.

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by NYCFarmboy:
Oh I think they (the candidates) were all anti-war when it was popular...but then Saddam was captured and Deans numbers tanked.

As to Clark, he keeps changing his postition....but after all..he did vote for Nixon.

You're an idiot. Dean's numbers tanked in Iowa over the last week or so - not after Saddam's capture. At best, you're an ignorant troll who hasn't really been paying attention.

Gep and Dean got in a dogfight, knocked each-other out, and Kerry and Edwards benefit.

Hopefully Gephardt will drop now, and then it's on to NH for round two.

BlackGriffen

[NYCFarmboy]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
You're an idiot. Dean's numbers tanked in Iowa over the last week or so - not after Saddam's capture. At best, you're an ignorant troll who hasn't really been paying attention.

Gep and Dean got in a dogfight, knocked each-other out, and Kerry and Edwards benefit.

Hopefully Gephardt will drop now, and then it's on to NH for round two.

BlackGriffen

Dean's numbers tanked immedately after Saddam was captured and he (Dean) made a statement that perhaps the US should not be so hard on Osama Bin Laden.

Post: Howard Dean defends Osama

Posted by unbelieveable! on 12/27/03


Saturday Dec. 27, 2003; 1:13 p.m. EST

Dean in Dukakis Deja Vu

With his comments defending confessed 9/11 terror
mastermind Osama bin Laden on Friday, Democratic
presidential front-runner Howard Dean may have doomed any
chance he had of defeating President Bush next November.

Reacting to Dean's statement that bin Laden's guilt should
not be prejudged, columnist Charles Krauthammer described
the comment as "the ultimate in soft on crime."

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by NYCFarmboy:
Dean's numbers tanked immedately after Saddam was captured and he (Dean) made a statement that perhaps the US should not be so hard on Osama Bin Laden.

You need to stop just watching Fox. Dean said Saddam and Bin Laden deserved fair trials - exactly the same thing Bush said.

Dean said that Saddam's capture didn't make anyone any safer. Judging from the terror alerts and casualty rates in Iraq, he was right.

Dean's numbers did take a small hit (~5% nationally), but they did not tank.

Pull your head out and quit following the punditry blindly. I've been watching the polling data and all of the news on the Democratic primaries closely since the summer - I know damn well what happened when and how.

BlackGriffen

[NYCFarmboy]

OK.. going from first place to a VERY DISTANT 3rd is not "tanking".

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by NYCFarmboy:
OK.. going from first place to a VERY DISTANT 3rd is not "tanking".

Read my second post, again. Dean tanked in Iowa about a week to a week and a half before the caucus, alongside Gephardt, because they got in a dogfight (read: lots of negative campaigning back and forth).

Geppy freaking stood alongside Bush in the Rose Garden when he signed the resolution. If pro war were the thing, they couldn't have found a better candidate than Geppy.

BlackGriffen

[ghost_flash]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
Read my second post, again. Dean tanked in Iowa about a week to a week and a half before the caucus, alongside Gephardt, because they got in a dogfight (read: lots of negative campaigning back and forth).

Geppy freaking stood alongside Bush in the Rose Garden when he signed the resolution. If pro war were the thing, they couldn't have found a better candidate than Geppy.

BlackGriffen

From Dick Gephardt's daughter's pen:

"In addition, he strongly encouraged George Bush to go to the United Nations to get their support in this effort. Despite my father's efforts, Mr. Bush did not engage the United Nations. Instead, he insisted that we go into Iraq alone to take on Saddam Hussein. My father will always make decisions on what he believes is right and to keep the American people safe. My father has no other motivation that to do what he thought he could to keep the American people safe. My father harshly criticizes President Bush for not being upfront with the American people and for not utilizing the power of the United Nations, which we should have done a long time ago."

What UN power? They sat on their hands for
12 years! They are irrelevant when it comes
to backing up what they vote on.

We have a strong president that stood up
for what was right, and took action.

DG, is not a man of action, but a man of
words. The USA doesn't have any need for
anyone like that as president.

[NYCFarmboy]

Originally posted by ghost_flash:
From Dick Gephardt's daughter's pen:

"In addition, he strongly encouraged George Bush to go to the United Nations to get their support in this effort. Despite my father's efforts, Mr. Bush did not engage the United Nations. Instead, he insisted that we go into Iraq alone to take on Saddam Hussein. My father will always make decisions on what he believes is right and to keep the American people safe. My father has no other motivation that to do what he thought he could to keep the American people safe. My father harshly criticizes President Bush for not being upfront with the American people and for not utilizing the power of the United Nations, which we should have done a long time ago."

What UN power? They sat on their hands for
12 years! They are irrelevant when it comes
to backing up what they vote on.

We have a strong president that stood up
for what was right, and took action.

DG, is not a man of action, but a man of
words. The USA doesn't have any need for
anyone like that as president.

Dick Gephardt is a true American Patriot...sad to see him drop out.

[thunderous_funker]

This is all about what people perceived as "electability", not Dean's commments on the war, OBL or Saddam's capture. If you think otherwise, you haven't been listening.

Iowans overwhelmingly oppose the war. Overwhelmingly. But the very next issue on their priorities was "electability".

They forgave Kerry for voting for the war because they believe him when he says that he voted based on what "he knew at the time". But they are still anti-war.

So, in essence, what we have the tried and true fundamental truism of American politics: style always beats substance.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
You're an idiot. Dean's numbers tanked in Iowa over the last week or so - not after Saddam's capture. At best, you're an ignorant troll who hasn't really been paying attention.

Hmm, I just saw CNN do the numbers over the past month or two and it has been changing since around the time Saddam was captured. It wouldn't surprise me if that had some weird chaos theory effect on voting.

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by BRussell:
Hmm, I just saw CNN do the numbers over the past month or two and it has been changing since around the time Saddam was captured. It wouldn't surprise me if that had some weird chaos theory effect on voting.

What numbers? National? Iowa? New Hampsire?
Which poll? Zogby? Gallup? SUSA? Are the numbers from the full field? Head to heads amongst the candidates? Head to heads against Bush?

I'm running off memory here, so a gradual decline may have slipped under my notice, but in terms of Iowa, Kerry and Edwards rose precipitously about a week and a half ago. They both literally jumped 5 and 10 points a day a couple times.

The "anti-war stance killed Dean" theory doesn't hold water when you consider the Gephardt fell just as hard, if not harder than Dean.

Oh, well, Gephardt, perhaps the worst smear campaigner in the business - the guy whose campaigns inspired the label "mediscare" - is out. I expect to see another dogfight in New Hampshire, though I don't know how the battle lines will be drawn. Edwards will probably be able to sit this round of negative campaigning out, too, until the clump of states after NH. All indicators point to a three way race between Clark, Kerry, and Dean, with a dash of Lieberman on the side.

BlackGriffen

[BRussell]

The numbers were from Iowa, I assume the Zogby poll but that's the only Iowa tracking poll I've seen. I don't know, I was just listening to the talking heads and that's what they said.

In any case, I think if it had been anyone but Kerry - if Edwards had won, for example - I'd have to give the nomination to Clark at this point. But with Kerry winning, and in such a dramatic "we thought his campaign was over" fashion, and with Kerry doing pretty well in NH, who knows? Maybe Dean will crash in NH too, and maybe Kerry will win and become the big story. Ugh. But it sure is fun.

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by BRussell:
The numbers were from Iowa, I assume the Zogby poll but that's the only Iowa tracking poll I've seen. I don't know, I was just listening to the talking heads and that's what they said.

That's the problem.

BG

[BRussell]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
That's the problem.

I'm just passing along the numbers I saw on TV. I looked at the Zogby site and it didn't go back more than a week. Dean was at 25% a week ago, and 23% as of yesterday, so that's hardly consistent with what you've said about him tanking in the past week.

[Nonsuch]

The latest numbers I just saw (I think MSNBC) said that 75% of Iowa caucus goers are against the Iraq War. As t_f said, this is all about "electability" (i.e., the bland affability we seem to demand in our leaders) first and foremost.

[vmpaul]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:

So, in essence, what we have the tried and true fundamental truism of American politics: style always beats substance.

Well, that explains Edwards showing in Iowa but is this guy electable against Bush?

I mean he's a one-term (hasn't even finished yet) Senator from N.Carolina. His resume is even lighter then Bush's when he ran. I find it hard to believe he's more electable than Dean. Just my .02¢.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by vmpaul:
Well, that explains Edwards showing in Iowa but is this guy electable against Bush?

I mean he's a one-term (hasn't even finished yet) Senator from N.Carolina. His resume is even lighter then Bush's when he ran. I find it hard to believe he's more electable than Dean. Just my .02¢.

Good point. However, in politics, style counts for a lot, and Edwards is a real pro. He projects intelligence, confidence, warmth, optimism, sincerity - all very useful traits, and a rare thing to find in a single package. As it is, it might be hard for him to prevail over the weightier Kerry and Clark personas - they've got the advantage of their war experiences going for them. And he might come off as a little too slick against Dubya.

I'm still skeptical that any of these guys can beat Bush but a lot can happen in 10 months.

[roger_ramjet]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
You're an idiot. Dean's numbers tanked in Iowa over the last week or so - not after Saddam's capture. At best, you're an ignorant troll who hasn't really been paying attention.

Gep and Dean got in a dogfight, knocked each-other out, and Kerry and Edwards benefit...

David Yepsen, political columnist for the Des Moines Register, said that Dean's campaign in Iowa began to go south when Saddam Hussein was captured. (He said this a few days ago.) However, I'm sure the dogfight between Gephardt and Dean didn't help.

[roger_ramjet]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
... The "anti-war stance killed Dean" theory doesn't hold water when you consider the Gephardt fell just as hard, if not harder than Dean...

You're right. It didn't. At least according to FoxNews' polling it didn't. However, it also didn't help him either. Among those who were opposed to the war Kerry polled better than Dean. Kerry also did better among first time caucus goers. If these numbers are accurate, Dean's got real problems.

[NYCFarmboy]

Dean's problem now is his "pro wrestler" anger display of last night.

bizarre

[ghost_flash]

Dean / Ted Kennedy / Hillary C.

They all sound like WWF wrestlers.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by ghost_flash:
Dean / Ted Kennedy / Hillary C.

They all sound like WWF wrestlers.

[NYCFarmboy]

Originally posted by ghost_flash:
Dean / Ted Kennedy / Hillary C.

They all sound like WWF wrestlers.

LOL

[zigzag]

Originally posted by NYCFarmboy:
Dean's problem now is his "pro wrestler" anger display of last night.

bizarre

It was a bit awkward, to say the least, like he was trying much too hard to offset the bad showing.

Whenever a pol does something awkward like that, I'm reminded of the time Bush I introduced Dan Quayle as his running mate, and Quayle bounced up on the podium and waved like a giddy 6-year old. It was all a hopelessly transparent attempt to make the ticket appear more youthful, and it went over like a lead balloon. Unfortunately, since we now have cameras on everything, those moments define people in the public's mind. Last night's rave is going to follow Dean around forever.

[ghost_flash]

Originally posted by zigzag:
It was a bit awkward, to say the least, like he was trying much too hard to offset the bad showing.

Whenever a pol does something awkward like that, I'm reminded of the time Bush I introduced Dan Quayle as his running mate, and Quayle bounced up on the podium and waved like a giddy 6-year old. It was all a hopelessly transparent attempt to make the ticket appear more youthful, and it went over like a lead balloon. Unfortunately, since we now have cameras on everything, those moments define people in the public's mind. Last night's rave is going to follow Dean around forever.

Uhm,

Have you forgotten all of Ted Kennedy's
rants?

Especially that one speech where he at the
end says something only an alcohol drenched
incoherent boob would say?

An era of inconvevablealkjablekadfdrfawerws.

There are just too many funny times whree
a democrat has made a total arse of themselves. It is just so funny, but then
again I think, these people have power.

Yikes.

[kindbud]

heh. Everyone looking to see who gets the most votes - as if that means anything.

The DNC nominee will be the one that raises the most money.


PS, it appears that being opposed to the liberation Iraq is a bad thing - even in a state where 75% of the people are opposed to it.

[ghost_flash]

Originally posted by kindbud:
heh. Everyone looking to see who gets the most votes - as if that means anything.

The DNC nominee will be the one that raises the most money.


PS, it appears that being opposed to the liberation Iraq is a bad thing - even in a state where 75% of the people are opposed to it.

75% of Iowans are against the war?
and this means?

They just don't like Democrats.
That has got to hurt.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by ghost_flash:
Uhm,

Have you forgotten all of Ted Kennedy's
rants?

Especially that one speech where he at the
end says something only an alcohol drenched
incoherent boob would say?

An era of inconvevablealkjablekadfdrfawerws.

There are just too many funny times whree
a democrat has made a total arse of themselves. It is just so funny, but then
again I think, these people have power.

Yikes.

My post wasn't intended to be partisan - the Quayle incident just happened to be the one that came to mind when I watched Dean. I have no doubt that politicians of all stripes make asses of themselves on a regular basis, Republicans and Democrats alike. It's part of the job description.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by ghost_flash:
75% of Iowans are against the war?
and this means?

They just don't like Democrats.
That has got to hurt.

odd. you're referring to a democratic caucus as not liking democrats.

I think you're really wanting that to be true, but all that really happened is a caucus that chose someone that the Bush administration hadn't already spent millions discrediting...

that has go to hurt.

I can see the backrooms of the bush reelection campaign headquarters going "durn! NOW what do we do with all these slick anti-Dean promo spots?"

[Nonsuch]

Originally posted by ghost_flash:
75% of Iowans are against the war?
and this means?

No, 75% of either Democratic voters or Democratic caucus goers (I forget which). It simply means that opposition to the war in Iraq is no longer a salient distinction among Democratic candidates.

[spacefreak]

This could have had something to do with Dean's demise as well

Dean later suggested, “When the former President of the United States asks you to go to church with him on a Sunday before the caucuses, I think you probably take that up.”

Carter doesn’t remember it quite that way. “I didn’t invite him, but I’m glad he came,” the former President told reporters shortly before he conducted one of his frequent Sunday School classes at Maranatha Baptist Church. “He called me on the phone and said he’d like to come worship with me. … He called and asked me if it would be all right.”

Also, don't forget the Gore "Kiss of Death".

[kindbud]

I think Dean had a lot to do with his own demise.

He's soft like Twinkie filling.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by kindbud:
I think Dean had a lot to do with his own demise.

He's soft like Twinkie filling.

See? the republicans have spent all this money on anti-Dean slogans, and they just have to use them!

[kindbud]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
See? the republicans have spent all this money on anti-Dean slogans, and they just have to use them!

I'd like to thank Biggie Smalls for the inspiration.

[thunderous_funker]

So the final analysis disproves the premise of the thread.

The "anti-war" campaign isn't tanking. Its just been co-opted by those who previously supported the war because that is the position of democratic voters.

[NYCFarmboy]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
So the final analysis disproves the premise of the thread.

The "anti-war" campaign isn't tanking. Its just been co-opted by those who previously supported the war because that is the position of democratic voters.

exactly... folks in Iowa cared less about the war in Iraq than they did about the more important issue which was going with a candidate that was electable. They are still mostly anti-war...but chose instead candidates that are stronger on other issues than the war.

Saddam's capture screwed Dean.

[boots]

Originally posted by NYCFarmboy:
exactly... folks in Iowa cared less about the war in Iraq than they did about the more important issue which was going with a candidate that was electable. They are still mostly anti-war...but chose instead candidates that are stronger on other issues than the war.

Saddam's capture screwed Dean.

The people I've heard interviewed have pretty much said that Dean just comes across as too angry.

The war issue wasn't a make-or-break issue.

Granted, this is only a few examples, but it gives an interesting perspective.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by NYCFarmboy:
Saddam's capture screwed Dean.

if so, then it certainly was fortunate for Bush, eh?

almost timed to perfection.

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by kindbud:
heh. Everyone looking to see who gets the most votes - as if that means anything.

The DNC nominee will be the one that raises the most money.


PS, it appears that being opposed to the liberation Iraq is a bad thing - even in a state where 75% of the people are opposed to it.

Wait, I thought it was the one who had the Union backing? Aw, crap, Geppy's already out.

One theory down.

BlackGriffen

[BlackGriffen]

No matter how many times you say it, NYC, you're still wrong. The story, with polling numbers:

Faulty Logic on Dean's decline

As the polling numbers rolled in last night, the cable news networks had their hands full explaining to the viewers why Gov. Howard Dean's campaign in Iowa had fizzled. Looking at entrance polling numbers showing Dean trailing Sen. John Kerry even among voters identifying themselves as anti-war, some analysts quickly concluded that the capture of Saddam Hussein had marked a turning point - for the worse - in Dean's campaign. In his closing remarks on Fox News, for example Michael Barone of U.S. News & World Report opined that the capture "undermined the central premise of Howard Dean's campaign."

Barone, a former pollster, should know better. A closer look at the numbers indicates that, although this analysis sounds good, there is little hard evidence to back it up. News of Hussein's capture broke on December 14, 2003. The results of a Zogby International Poll in Iowa taken two weeks earlier looked like this: Howard Dean 26 percent, Richard Gephardt 22 percent, John Kerry 9 percent, and John Edwards 5 percent. When Zogby released its next poll on January 10, Dean's support had declined by one percentage point, but by January 12 it had risen to 28 percent. No one who looks at the numbers can say with confidence, as Barone did, that Saddam Hussein's capture is what sunk Dean's ship.

The Iowa results seem to have more to do with Kerry and Edwards gaining than with Dean losing. The Des Moines Register poll released late Saturday night showed Dean with 20 percent -- not a far cry away from the 18 percent of the vote he eventually received. In the same Des Moines Register poll Kerry and Edwards scored 26 percent and 23 percent of the vote, respectively. But in the actual contest Kerry won 38 percent of the vote, while Edwards took home 32 percent.

As the Washington Post points out, "Dean led the field among Democrats who had settled on a candidate longer than a month ago. But this group consisted of only three in 10 caucus attendees." Kerry beat "Dean by better than 2 to 1 among the 41 percent of voters who made their decision in the past week."

The real story here is the rise of Kerry and Edwards, rather than the decline of Dean. Barone not only missed the facts, but he missed the story, too.

--Thomas Lang

I admit, I was wrong too. Dean plateaued, he didn't tank. Now, the cause of that plateau is questionable (Dog fight, Saddam's capture, his opponents hitting their stride at co-opting his message), but it wasn't a tank.

Except to the hyper-inflated expectations of the pundits.

BlackGriffen

[Nonsuch]

Dean is already toning it down ...

Dean Tones Down 'Red Meat' Rhetoric After Iowa Loss

It'll be very interesting to see how he bounces back from this. It's way too early to count him out.

[NYCFarmboy]

Originally posted by Nonsuch:
Dean is already toning it down ...

Dean Tones Down 'Red Meat' Rhetoric After Iowa Loss

It'll be very interesting to see how he bounces back from this. It's way too early to count him out.

Glad to see Dean toning down his anger... it was very unbecoming a presidential candidate.

He had a boatload of cash though so he is DEFINATELY not out. Just going to have to spend it against other Dems.

[roger_ramjet]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
if so, then it certainly was fortunate for Bush, eh?

almost timed to perfection.

Not if they were hoping to go against Dean in the general election.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by roger_ramjet:
Not if they were hoping to go against Dean in the general election.

why would they want that? If they viewed Dean as the strongest opposition (and they came out and said so), what advantage would there be in NOT sabotaging him before he got there?

Not that I'm saying they did, but your objection is not logical.

[roger_ramjet]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
why would they want that? If they viewed Dean as the strongest opposition (and they came out and said so), what advantage would there be in NOT sabotaging him before he got there?

Not that I'm saying they did, but your objection is not logical.

Except they DIDN'T think Dean was the strongest candidate. The National Review even ran a cover story with a picture of Dean titled, "Please Nominate This Man". Also, there was this from last July:

Rove Spends the Fourth Rousing Support for Dean
By Juliet Eilperin
Saturday, July 5, 2003; Page A05

Talk about lining up the competition. President Bush's chief political adviser has seen the possible presidential candidates among the Democrats and has found one he apparently thinks his man can beat: former Vermont governor Howard Dean.

Karl Rove tried to stir up enthusiasm for Dean marchers yesterday at the 37th annual Palisades Citizens' Association Fourth of July parade along the District's MacArthur Boulevard, which always attracts plenty of politicians.

As a dozen people marched toward Dana Place wearing Dean for President T-shirts and carrying Dean for America signs, Rove told a companion, " 'Heh, heh, heh. Yeah, that's the one we want,' " according to Daniel J. Weiss, an environmental consultant, who was standing nearby. " 'How come no one is cheering for Dean?' "

Then, Weiss said, Rove exhorted the marchers and the parade audience: " 'Come on, everybody! Go, Howard Dean!' "

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by roger_ramjet:
Except they DIDN'T think Dean was the strongest candidate. The National Review even ran a cover story with a picture of Dean titled, "Please Nominate This Man". Also, there was this from last July:

Rove Spends the Fourth Rousing Support for Dean
By Juliet Eilperin
Saturday, July 5, 2003; Page A05

again, you're not being logical. If that is so, they would WANT him to survive until the election...right?

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by roger_ramjet:
Except they DIDN'T think Dean was the strongest candidate. The National Review even ran a cover story with a picture of Dean titled, "Please Nominate This Man". Also, there was this from last July:

Rove Spends the Fourth Rousing Support for Dean
By Juliet Eilperin
Saturday, July 5, 2003; Page A05

Look at the date on that article. Reflect at what all happened since then.

No admission of being wrong necessary.

BG