and you left out John Kerry and Al Gore.  

I meant '92. :)

... yet is still being accused of "collapsing" there. The same article calls Obama's single-digit victory "emphatic".

And how did I leave out Kerry and Gore? They're two of the three who won Iowa and got the nomination.

He had lots of staff and did plenty of mailings.  The seems to have been to "do better than expected," but then they didn't.

Rudy got to spend the money without reaping any of the benefit.

Hillary was much smarter.  Recall that Mike Henry suggested Hillary skip Iowa.  Instead, she campaigned hard and came in a close third.  She sucked the wind out of everyone beneath her: Dodd, Biden, Richardson.  If she had skipped, some or all of these guys could have argued they were still viable.  Hillary, Obama, and Edwards wiped out the second tier in one fell swoop.

It's a question of it's effect in four days.  Obama is about two points behind Clinton in New Hampshire.  If he gets a bounce from last night he could upset Clinton badly.

Who cares about 1988?  What does that have to do with the price of tea in China?

Overconfidence is one thing. But now you're saying Obama is such a singular force, the results of all other Iowa caucuses are irrelevant? I donated to Obama, but the self-righteousness of his supporters really annoys me. Is this why other Dems hated Dean supporters back in '04?

No!  Bad environmentalist!  No!

What I'm trying to say is that every caucus/primary year is it's own unique strategic/tactical puzzle.

If, hypothetically you win Iowa big but you happen to be way behind in New Hampshire, we the 2-4 point bounce you are likely to get isn't going to do you any good.  In that scenario, one might suppose that "Iowa isn't a kingmaker."

But, on the other hand, if you are in first place in NH or behind by just a couple of points, then the bounce of 2-4 points can be a very big deal indeed (as I suspect it will be for Obama this year).

Iowa is relevant only to the extent that the winner is positioned to take advantage of that win, and historically sometimes the winner is and sometimes they aren't.  Whether they are or aren't is Iowa's fault.

In a roundabout way I may be agreeing with you in that I'm suggesting that Iowa, by itself, is not enough to make anyone "king."  On the other hand, if you are positioned correctly, it can make a big difference.

Now, apply these principles to this year.  Obama wins Iowa and gets a small bounce.  He's two points behind Clinton in NH, but the bounce helps him win an upset.  Now Obama gets another bounce and carries it to South Carolina, where he's less than one point behind.  He takes this second bounce and wins again.  Now, hypotheitcally, Obama has a lot of "bounce" as he goes into Super Duper Tuesday.

But his win in Iowa would have been nothing but a footnote if he hadn't already been positioned to take advantage of it.

Should be "isn't Iowa's fault."

... it's typos  :)

Continuing my thread from above . . .

One could argue that Huckabee isn't in position in New Hampshire to take full advantage of his Iowa win.  Yesterday he was stil in fourth place, several points behind Romney and McCain and just behind Giuliani.

Now Huckabee's bounce is going to help, he'll advance a few points and get into third place, but he's unlikely to overtake either Romney or McCain in New Hampshire.

South Carolina is another story: Huckabee's win in Iowa should pay off big for him in South Carolina, where he already leads.

to turn out young and first-time voters in Iowa 4 years ago the way Obama did last night, and didn't.

There are a LOT of people who think Obama will win the nomination now. Not all of them are his supporters.

Call me self-righteous I guess, but I think that an African-American getting more votes in Iowa than Kerry and Gore combined is a very, very big deal.

will be a function of how fast the polls in New Hampshire swing for Obama (assuming they swing at all--though I think they will).  Counting today and primary day, Obama has five days to capitalize on the bounce that most folks assume he got last night.

How fast do bounces kick in?  How big of a bounce?

Those are the questions to ponder.  Clinton still leads in NH and Obama must overtake her in a little less than five days.

After the primary on Tuesday it won't matter if Obama subsequently surges in NH polls: he needs that surge before the primary.

If it weren't for 24-hour news coverage and the need to fill every minute of those hours with blather by Rather, a Hillary diss by Chris, anti-evolution as Huck's solution, Anderson Cooper placing me in a stupor, etc.,  Iowa would be but a footnote in the election processs story.  How 6/100th decides anything, particularly with the processes they use in Democratic Iowa caucuses, is beyond reason, except for that incessant need to fill those 24 hours.

I could vote for Obama come Nov. with no heartburn, but despite her waffling on Iraq I'd rather vote for Hillary.  That waffling, that refusal to give a straight answer without the politician's SOP B.S. is what cost Kerry and Gore dearly, and it might well cost Hillary, too, if Obama keeps his momentum.  The pundits, who have attributed Hillary's sense of inevitablity to her rather than to statements they themselves made, will, after setting up that straw woman, now cackle at her loss in Iowa.  That'll show her!  Serves her right for believing she had this sewn up!  Never mind that she, like Gore, never uttered the notions attributed to her.  That's what may kill her.  That and the repeated "cackle" comments to describe her ordinary laughter.  Those things, silly as it sounds, resonate with boobus Americanus, much of our voting public as described by Mencken.

Margaret Carlson has said on TV how she and her pundit buddies thought it great fun to tar Gore (on TV) with the statements he supposedly made, and which branded him in American minds (enough of them to cost him an election) as a liar of epic proportions.  That "great fun" eventually cost us 4000 deaths of our troops, along with the rest of the casualties we are familiar with.  These pundits, who know nothing more than we know if we are fairly well read, may well decide New Hampshire and beyond.  And that's a shame, to have people with their own axes to grind and yet are supposedly neutral sway voters by using their (the pundits') very personal likes or dislikes.

"Huckabee's a great guy" and "Hillary cackles."  More comments like those will assure that the next generation of textbooks read by our kiddies will contain illustrations of blond cavemen saddling up dinosaurs, with their blond, Iowa-cornfed-looking cave-wives riding sidesaddle.  As for the use of stem cells from about-to-be-discarded embryos, forget them--you'd not only destroy a soul but you'd inflict a painful death on a silently screaming person.  This is our potential legacy.    

 

... on the talking heads who get tons of free air time because they'll stake out a position on anything and fill up the time between commercials. Margaret Carlson, Tucker Carlson, Pat Buchanan, Bay Buchanan, the Begala/Carville/Matalin circus. Grrr. OK, this is me not getting started.

Hillary was always weakest in Iowa and that was proven last night

However three points to keep Hillary up at night...

For me it was seeing the speeches.  Obama might have even topped his 2004 convention speech.  Edwards was pretty good (anyone notice the mini-dean moment on to New Hampshire and then Nevads etc or course without the scream)and Hillary was flat.

When Edwards drops out are those people going to go to Hillary or Obama

After last night is the theme change or experience... P.S who is trying to retool their campaign message

________________________________________________________

Offtopic

Huckabee was already ahead in South Carolina and tied in Florida.  If Thompson drops out after NH its over and even if Thompson stays its going to be very hard to catch Huckabee in SC even if McCain wins NH AND MI.  At that point Huckabee will easily win Florida and look extremely good heading into Super Tuesday.  

Especially about Hillary never being expected to do well.  Mike Henry wanted her to skip Iowa.  I think outperformed her managers expectations from back in the summer (though I have no doubt that once they became invested in the process they were disappointed to come in third).

By finishing a strong third Hillary sucked all the oxygen out of the second tier.  The top three sucked up what 95-97% of the votes/state delegates?

Your point about the campaign message is also well taken.  Prior to last night the messages were

1. Obama - Change
2. Edwards - Strongest Most Principled Fighter
3. Clinton - Most Experienced

Clinton has already started changing into someting like "experienced enough to change."

As much as Democrats would love to see him as the Republican nominee, "he has no second act," to quote one political strategist.  Outside of Iowa, he has no money, no organization to speak of, and no following outside of the God-fearing, Bible-thumping, flat-earthers, who, despite some opinions to the contrary (esp. their own), do not represent the main stream of the Republican Party.

TheGreenMiles' point here is spot-on.  Iowa is and has always been an anomoly in the presidential nominating process because of its arcane caucus rules that skew the results beyond any meaningful interpretation.

Same thing with Clinton's third place finish:  she nearly passed on Iowa while John Edwards reportedly spent 100 days campaigning there over the past year.  Given the nature of the Iowa vote depending so heavily on local organizing, I would think that the Iowa results are worse news for Edwards than Clinton.

"Outside of Iowa, he has no money, no organization to speak of, and no following outside of the God-fearing, Bible-thumping, flat-earthers, who, despite some opinions to the contrary (esp. their own), do not represent the main stream of the Republican Party."

Personally I agree with that statement but Huckabee had no money or organization in Iowa either and he crushed the guy with the most money and organization

South Carolina and Florida both have strong evangelical bases much like Iowa and like I said above Huckabee was leading in South Carolina and tied in Florida BEFORE winning Iowa in such a convincing manner.

Lets look even further Thompson is still polling a good chunk in those states while the CW has his voters going to McCain those voters are also mainly values voters I think will slide to Huckabee

Romney, McCain, and Giuliani will continue to fight over the "Real Republican Fiscal/Security types" until at least Florida paving the way for a Huckabee landslide on the backs of the social conservatives.  

Who are you supporting on the Republican side?  Or who do you lean toward if undecided?

Top 5 in rough order

Fiscal Discipline Taxes AND Spending
Strong on National Security/Defense
Gets the Environment
Realistic on Immigration
Pro-Education

Grew up in Maryland
2000 McCain then Bush
2002 Ehrlich (R governor)
2003 Moved to Virginia
2004 Kerry/Davis
2005 Kilgore/Straight R
2006 Primary Webb/Lingamfelter General Webb/Davis
2007 Anti-incumbant county-wide Baise etc/Split Schoolboard
2008 McCain or Giuliani/Leaning Warner/Likely R Congress  
(Hucakbee/Romney vs Obama I would take a hard look at)
Not really feeling Bloomberg currently too far left

I can't speak for Florida, but I can tell you a thing or two about both Iowa and South Carolina.  My mother was raised in Iowa and I have cousins there that I'm very close to.  Although I was born in Virginia, I was raised in South Carolina.

Iowa is very different from South Carolina.  First of all, the caucuses are nothing like a primary.  They are more like a state party convention distributed over hundreds of precincts.  The hard core activists dominate the proceedings.  In the Democratic cacuses, the teacher and public sector unions pretty much call the shots.  In the Republican cacuses, it in the fundamentalist Christian groups and the agri-business groups--who are often the same people--who dominate.  That is why Pat Robertson won a close second in Iowa in 1988 even thought he was a fringe candidate, at best, nationally.

South Carolina, on the other hand, has a secret ballot primary.  Although party activists tend to over-represent the voters, it is not nearly as skewed as in Iowa.  While fundamentalist Christians are a block in South Carolina, the professional political class tends to give them a wink and a nod.  In fact, there is a joke that illustrates this:  Jews don't recognize Jesus as the Son of God, Protestants don't recognize the Pope as the leader of the Christian Church, and two Southern Baptists don't recognize each other in a liquor store.  Get my point?

I heard him on NPR this morning.  He said he is in it for the long haul.  Also he said while he doesn't have the superstar status or money of his competitors, he has enough to get his message out in the remaining 49.  I am paraphrasing, but that was the gist.

C'mon, what else have we got here?  Iowa results are just fun no matter what.  Whatever the statistics are over the last 50 years, winning Iowa is a good thing and losing in Iowa is a bad thing.  

This is the first actual voting that has happened and we now have real numbers to weigh candidates' prospects with rather than just polls and speculation. The Iowa caucuses are fun, fun, fun!

I can't argue with the fact that arguing over it is fun.

Over on Drudge right now there's a picture of Obama with the headline "MR. PRESIDENT?" I think that would put Drudge in today's hyperbole lead.

I'm with Jack -- let's not be too serious; there's a long election year ahead of us and most of us are united to see the best possible choice.

I was looking at recent polls and there are two sets of results.  One is Suffolk U.'s (be careful how you say that  :)) and the rest.  Suffolk shows Clinton with a large lead, the rest show it tight.  

Suffolk has only been around since 2002.

 http://www.suffolk.edu/college...

I'll be curious in the coming days to see what other pollsters say.

Here are the latest NH results:
http://www.pollster.com/08-NH-...

Dick Gephardt won the official Iowa Caucus in 1988.

If you're going to try to talk about how Iowa doesn't matter, at least get your facts straight.

... is the very abbreviated calendar, which gives much less time and space for the losers in Iowa to recover and stem the momentum tide.  

I was told I was insane because after watching CNN and MSNBC and listening to their early polling of caucus voters they pointed out that many were Independants and for the first time voting in the Democratic caucus. Too me that meant, they were Republican leaning Independants who were switching.

Now the big question is why did they switch. Did they switch because they were tired of Republicans or did they switch because they did not like Hillary and just did it to vote against her.

Since all previous polls had each of the top 3 within 2 percentage points going into the caucus and then Obama suddenly has an 8 percent win. And With what Democratic Central has pointed out, about one fifth were Independent voters, I will stick by my statement, that alot of his percentage points came from Republicans who caucused with the D's just to vote against Hillary.

Now as we head into NH and those voters realize what happened in Iowa, what effect will that have on those independent minded voters.  

Why would they do that?  The Republican field is filled with people and presumably Republican leaning folks would have an opinion on which Republican they want to get the nomination.  If they were say a McCain supporter, why would they abandon the Republican caucus in an early state just to spite Hillary?

That seems irrational, but then I guess we have been living in bizarro world for 7 years now.

As the figures come in, it calculates that about 52,600 Independant voters were in this Caucus. And if my assumptions of cross over is close to the 5 percent I am talking about, that would be about 14,000 cross over to be spoilers. In a state the size of Iowa would that be allot of voters? Well if some in the party encouraged that practice would the rank and file do so, especially how Republicans hate the Clinton, I believe that is possible.

I am trying to make sense to all the polling. Never once did any polling have Obama that far ahead of the other 2 candidates. So what happened?

From what I heard most of the vote from the Biden/Dodd supporters went to Edwards. Obama got some and Hillary got very little, if any. Most of the surge came after 75 percent reported. I would suspect if that voting is studied the answer lies in the last 25 percent who reported???

Of course it all has very little meaning in the big picture, but to me it is a puzzle.

We're fired up & Ready to go!

I am recalling that Tina Turner song: "We don't need another hero."