Senator Barack Obama 7
John Edwards - 2
Gov. Bill Richardson - 1
Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton - 0

My prediction is:

Obama: 41%
Clinton: 32%
Edwards: 20%
Others: 7%

I checked my math this time ;-)

NH republicans
McCain - 32%
Romney - 28%
Huckabee - 14%
Paul - 10%
Guiliani - 8%
Thompson - 7%
Hunter - 1%

When is Georgia's primary?

I got to canvas over in Iowa for Obama a few times in Nov/Dec. Had a great time!

I'm running for national delegate this year.

Those of us who participated in the Kaine and Webb campaigns know how a campaign typically works: you get lists of LIKELY Democratic voters and you call, call, call.

Voters that don't have phones, aren't likely to vote, or may even be likely to oppose you, were ignored.

But what if Obama has found a way to reach those people and get them out?  What if, in addition to the polled 42%, he's able to pull another 3-5% out of his hat, just utterly swamp Hillary Clinton?  

I suspect that with his community organizing model and by leveraging big events like those with Oprah Winfrey, Obama has gone way outside of the "Likely Democratic Voter" model and is pulling all kinds of new people into the process, people who normally wouldn't show up on a pollster's radar screen.  This is why Mark Penn has been so completely blind-sided.  All of his models are completely off.  Democratic turnout in Iowa was about DOUBLE what is was in 2004.  How do you model that?

If Barack Obama beats Clinton by 15 points and Edwards by 20, is there a realistic reason for Clinton or Edwards to go on?  With Obama poised to win South Carolina by 20 points, would there really be a reason to continue?

Watch tonight for this X factor: does Obama merely win, or does he blow his rivals out?  That's the question tonight.

It seems to me we're making the same mistake we made in 2004. (No offense to Kerry) rushing headlong, falling in line behind the guy a (relatively speaking) handful of voters elected.

What's the hurry? Can we try to take a little time this go around?

Obama is my choice right now and I'd like the chance to vote for him. I'd like the chance to see him be tested a bit. Find out EVERYTHING we need to know BEFORE we burn our bridges. Date him, marry him, AND still be happy with him long after the honeymoon is over.

You know after all this build-up, the press is going to start tearing him down. Let's see if he can take it.  

I have been for Barack since March 2007.  Since we've been through too many bad times with weak Presidential candidates, I would be more relaxed if Barack does get challenged and tested.

Frankly, guys I'm really disappointed in all the pokes, scorns, and downright viciousness that people have given Hillary Clinton here and elsewhere in the media.  She has done nothing to deserve what she's been dished by US DEMOCRATS.  If NY likes her (and they have for two elections now) then she must have something good going for her, including her consistent voting record on the DEMOCRATIC side. Further, I'm not sure it will ever be time for a woman to hold the Presidency in the United States.

Demdiva said it pretty tongue in cheek  in Lowell's diary endorsing Obama (but I've heard so much of this before):

Don't vote for a woman! (0.00 / 0)
There is no way on earth that the US is ready for a woman president.  All women politcas are too shrill, too emotional, too cold, too unfeeling, too robotic, too simpering, too domineering, too calculating, too old, and too wrinkled to be qualified.  The only women who even get anywhere in American politics do so because of their husband's accomplishments and they don't deserve to win any public office on their own.  Women politicians have no sex appeal.  They're all menopausal and they wear stupid clothes.  If they don't wear stupid clothes then they're obsessed with fashion.  If they wear high collars, if proof they're frigid.  If they show cleavage they're either trying too hard or they're hussies.  If they show emotion they have PMS.  If they don't show emotion,     they're cold, unfeeling bitches.  Yes. Bitches.  Especially the ones who get a little too big for their pantyhose and get all uppity to think that they're qualified and have the experience to lead a nation.  Nope.  Not yet. Probably not ever.  All you 40-something cougars and perimenopausal 50-somethings should just go home and let the menfolks keep their genitalic destiny intact.  Stop messin' where you don't belong, bitches.              

by: demdiva @ Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 9:09:17 AM EST
[ Parent | Reply |   none0: Troll1: Unproductive2: Marginal3: Good4: Excellent ]

If we were talking about California, Texas, New York and Florida, and majorities there lined up behind Obama in their primaries, then it would be a different story.  But New Hampshire is not any of those states.  

I want all candidates to see this through to the end.  I want my choice on February 12th to have meaning.

Clinton is--believe it or not--about to come up on a cash crunch, even though she has $15 million in the bank.  This is because her donations have suddenly stopped after Iowa and she has a huge paid organization.  She didn't budget on getting almost no money after Iowa, and after tonight her problems are going to get a lot worse.  Many of Clinton's donors are maxed out and she isn't getting any new ones.  She'll have to initiate mass lay offs before Super Tuesday, which will further disrupt her campaign.

Edwards is somewhat better off in this respect.  With a more modest budget and more realistic outlook, he has kept his organization more manageable in terms of its size and payroll.

But my point is this: if Obama blows them out tonight, they will cease to get any new campaign contributions, while Obama will see a wave of new donations (and with a existing donor base of 500,000+ Obama has barely begun to scratch the surface).

Edwards and Clinton are ambitious, true, but they aren't stupid and they'll know when they are beat.  

Throw in the weirdness with Michigan and Florida and their delegate-seating, and the rest of the country basically doesn't get a vote until February 5. I want to see the full nationwide primary, and that's as someone leaning Obama at this point.

The sheep will follow.  But that's no way to pick a president.

Obama's campaign has done something very different, though I'm not sure what.  It's like Blitzkrieg, Clinton has been caught completely off guard and she doesn't have time to react or adjust.  I don't think she realized she had a problem until Iowa, and then she only had five days to retool her campaign: it couldn't be done.

Now Obama will have won the first two big campaign events and in 18 days he'll probably take South Carolina by a wide margin.

But don't hate Obama for his skillful performance: just hope he's able to do the same thing to the Republicans.  I don't think the GOP will know what hit them come November.

I don't hate Obama.  He is my second choice after Edwards.  He has run a great campaign.

That said, we shouldn't be calling the election before the second primary/caucus.  That is disrespectful to the other candidates and their supporters.

The last thing we should be doing is acting like sheep - the "Obama has momentum so let's support him" is a lousy reason to support him.  A primary amongst Democrats is nothing remotely similar to a national race involving everyone.

Frankly, I don't think Obama can beat the Republicans.  Isn't that a valid reason to support someone else?

I don't mean to be disrespectful of anyone else's feelings.  I was only speaking to the perceived realities of the political siutation.

For Edwards or Clinton to catch Obama after tonight would require that they overcome the settled patterns of primary elections of the past 30-40 years.  That's certainly not impossible, just very unlikely.

I just don't think Obama going to make a mistake at this point.  He's masterfully outmaneuvered Clinton at her own game and I don't think 18 days will be enough for her to retool her campaign.

Contrast this with McCain.  McCain imploded in July 2007, but he had six months to put everything back together.  He's adjusted his message, reshuffled his campaign leadership, reworked his budget and payroll to reflect realistic donor levels, and put together a brand new campaign that bears little resemblance to his "presumed front runner" campaign of last March.  Now he's competitive again.

Clinton has to do what McCain did, but she only has 18 days to do it.  Is it possible?  Maybe.  Is it likely?  You tell me.

Obama in the lead by at least 10 points. Maybe more. The Democratic nomination will be effectively decided by midnight tonight.

Onward to the veepstakes.  

But he won't be the nominee. I guess that will be Mitt, since that's the one the establishment wants.

But I still think Huckabee's the one to watch--and a very dangerous man. Although I would never wish this in a million years, I have to admit it would be delicious irony if Huckabee won the nomination. For years the greedy Republicans have used the Evangelicals and Fundamentalists and given them precious little in return. Imagine if they turned it around and got Huckabee--payback's a bitch.  

I agree with LAS about the potential for the evangelicals to come back and bite the Republicans.  I do not quite agree with most of my friends about the evil, diabolical nature of Mike Huckabee.  In any case, I am absolutely certain that we can beat him.  The only way there is potential for this to be a real race is if the Republican nominate McCain for President.

I don't see it happening. McCain would win a few states that Huckabee or Romney wouldn't win versus Obama.  But not enough to win the general election. Look at all the SUSA polls we've seen in the last few months. Even here in VA, McCain is well under 50% against Obama with Obama only 2 points behind. And McCain is a very known quantity with high name recognition.

McCain would clearly be playing defense against Obama even in red states. We'd be thumping him at fundraising, too.  I guess McCain would win Mississippi, Texas, Alabama, Arizona. Most other places in America we'll be kicking his butt.

His time is past. John McCain's wholehearted embrace of Iraq, Bush and the worst excesses of the early 2000's GOP has made him into tainted goods. We're making history and he's trying to re-do 2000.

McCain is the only truly national candidate the Republicans have among the current contenders.  While he has supported the war, he is the only candidate who clearly expressed criticism of the Bush Administration early on.  From the Republican perspective , that is pretty good.  At the same time he criticized Bush policy in Iraq, he has been a Bush supporter.

My point is that he has the best chance of uniting the Republican Party and competing in the general election.  That, however, is not necessarily saying a lot since the Republican Party is such a mess.

Among the contenders, McCain has the most consistent record.  Even though he is a maverick, he can honestly call himself a conservative.

His problem is that the interest groups within the party do not like him.  It will be very interesting to see how he fares.

If McCain does not get the nomination, the door is open for the Democrats to seek a more ambitious mandate than they might have with a formidable, established leader such as McCain as the Republican nominee.

The Democratic nomination fight may not be over, but the landscape has completely changed. Assuming an Obama victory tonight, it is unrealistic to expect Clinton and Edwards to both fold their tents. But whichever one continues on would have to run a slash-and-burn "Stop Obama" campaign. Such a maneuver would very likely create a backlash and encounter an enormous amount of pressure to cease and desist.

Whether Democrats should nominate Barack Obama or not is for someone else to decide. It remains to be seen whether he can successfully address concerns about his inexperience. But this nomination may well be settled before the answer to that question is known. Democrats now seem to want to nominate Obama and look very likely to do so unless he quickly appears to be a risk. It will be very difficult for either Clinton or Edwards to successfully raise those doubts at this point without rendering themselves unelectable as well.

On the Republican side, things will likely get very muddled, and perhaps stay that way for a while. Huckabee was unable to replicate his Iowa win in Wyoming, where Romney won, and is unlikely to win in New Hampshire, where McCain and Romney are battling it out. He also seems unlikely to win in Michigan on Jan. 15 or in Nevada on Jan. 19. Huckabee does, however, stand a decent chance in South Carolina and at least a half dozen of the Feb. 5 states. Indeed, of the19 states holding GOP primaries or caucuses on Feb. 5, former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, Huckabee, McCain and Romney all have states they could win.

In short, we may be looking at a very early Democratic nomination and a much longer, more sustained fight for the GOP nod.

More than 500,000 New Hampshire voters, nearly half of the total population, will go into the privacy of voting booths one-by-one - accompanied only by their consciences and their gut feelings - and make their collective suggestion to the nation on who should represent the Democratic and Republican parties in the November 2008 general election. The previous voter turnout high was in the 1992 primary, when 396,000 Granite Staters went to the polls.

Save resources?  Didn't this campaign raise $100 million?  What happened to all of it?

The Clinton campaign has raised over $100 million, but has "only" $15 to $20 million left. It faces donor reluctance to give more in the face of the Iowa defeat and the prospect of a second loss in New Hampshire today. Even worse, the campaign fears defections among those fundraisers who want to be with a winner and who might be easily persuaded to support Barack Obama.

While the amount of money Clinton has would seem to be more than enough by past standards, the cost of competing in the February 5 states -- including New York, California, Georgia, New Jersey, Minnesota, Colorado, Tennessee, Massachusetts and Arizona - is unprecedented in the history of American primaries. She will face, in turn, an extremely well-funded Obama campaign, whose cash register right now doesn't stop ringing as donations are coming in over the Internet, by mail and in checks handed over in person.

Amazing.

Losing Iowa and New Hampshire, running out of money and then not even attempting to compete in Nevada and South Carolina. Right. Formula for victory right there. Obama must be kicking himself for not thinking of it first.

Nitwits.

You know, sooner or later you do have to start winning some actual states. And if you've decided that this isn't going to happen then what that is called is 'losing.'

I thought she had something 100 million set aside.  She couldn't have blown that already, could she?

Just remember, it first began tentatively right here in Virginia when the heretofore silent underlings rebelled against the Democratic Establishment, threw out the Establishment candidate, nominated Jim Webb for US Senate, and then got him elected, in some cases almost over the dead bodies of the Establishment functionaries.

Could it be  We, the people have had enough, and are taking back their country? Now be wary. The Establishment (which runs across political party lines) will not go down easily. Backlash coming. Obama, be prepared.

The balance goes to the THE OTHER 17 CANDIDATES ON THE BALLOT .

I checked out the official ballot and there are 21 candidates listed on the Democratic ballot!

I note that the one poll that had it close, Suffolk, had the margin expand from 1 point for Obama to 5 points for Obama - that is a pretty large overnight increase.

McCain has to win for the Republicans to be truly competitive in the general.  That is all.

I think the new voters are going to swamp the establishment.

  If he loses, some people will think back to Spring 2008, and will wonder why they did not vote for the best & strongest progressive candidate in the race, John Edwards.  They will wonder what would have happened if they had followed their brains instead of their hearts and made Edwards the candidate instead of Obama.  They will remember wistfully that it was Edwards and not Obama who, more than any other democratic candidate, polled best against the GOP.  They will wonder at their mistake, but by that point it will be too late.  Four more years of GOP in the White House wil have already set in.

  (Perhaps I am wrong at my predictions, but that is my fear.)