Display:
Quit that line of thinking.  This is not an auction.  Vote for the guy you want.  If he wins elections, he is "viable" whether or not he has $50 million laying around.
by paving on Thu Jan 3rd, 2008 at 02:51:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Well, the guy I want isn't running, and at any rate I don't get to vote. It is merely my most humble opinion that if it comes down to Edwards vs. Clinton, Edwards doesn't have the resources or the organisation to come out on top. Wasn't my intent to discourage anyone from voting for their preferred candidate.

"The basis of optimism is sheer terror" - Oscar Wilde
by NordicStorm on Thu Jan 3rd, 2008 at 05:12:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]
In primary season, you don't need either an organization or resources.

If you win a few early, people will come flocking.

Kerry lat time was reduced to 2 or 3 staffers, no energy at all, and then he caught fire.

by Upstate NY on Thu Jan 3rd, 2008 at 05:55:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Yes, Americans will coalesce around a "winner" after Iowa.  That's the way this b/s works here.  Sad, but that's the predicament with our media and campaign rules.  Any statement about someone's "lack of viability" is designed to make people think they are backing a losing horse.  
by paving on Thu Jan 3rd, 2008 at 06:24:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]
That hasn't been the case in the past. Look at the results from past elections. The Iowa winner hasn't won the nomination plenty of times.
by Upstate NY on Thu Jan 3rd, 2008 at 10:07:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Here's the wikipedia history on the Iowa Caucuses. It's a predictor only 50% of the time:

History

The Iowa caucus is commonly recognized as the first step in the U.S. presidential nomination process for both the Democratic and the Republican Parties. It came to national attention in 1972, with a series of articles in the New York Times on how non-primary states would choose their delegates for the national conventions. Democratic operative Norma S. Matthews, state co-chair of the George McGovern campaign, helped engineer the early January start for Iowa. McGovern finished second to Edmund Muskie in the first early Hawkeye state caucus, but the momentum was palpable for an ultimate Democratic nomination in 1972 for McGovern in Miami. Four years later, the Iowa Republican Party scheduled its party caucuses on the same date as the Democrats.

In 1976 an uncommitted slate received the most support, followed by former Georgia governor Jimmy Carter, who came in a distant second, but won the most votes of any actual candidate. With no dominant front runner at the time, Carter was able to use the publicity of his "win" to achieve victory in the New Hampshire primary, and then to win his party's nomination and eventually the Presidency. Since then, Presidential candidates have increased their focus on winning the Iowa caucus.

In 1980 Republicans began the tradition of holding a straw poll at their caucuses, giving the appearance of a primary election. George H. W. Bush campaigned extensively in Iowa, defeating Ronald Reagan, but ultimately failed to win the nomination.

While they have been a financial boon to the state, the political value of the Iowa caucuses has gone up and down over the years. In 1988, for example, the candidates who eventually won the nominations of both parties came in third in Iowa. In elections without a sitting President or Vice President, the Iowa winner has gone on to the nomination only about half the time (see below).

When Iowa Senator Tom Harkin ran for the Democratic nomination in 1992, none of the other Democratic candidates chose to compete in Iowa, which minimized its importance in the nomination process. President Bush was unopposed on the Republican side.

While the Democrats have tried to preserve the position of Iowa and New Hampshire in their nominating schedules, the Republicans have not. Alaska and Hawaii generally have their caucuses before Iowa, and in 1988 the Hawaii victory of Pat Robertson and the 1996 Louisiana victory of Pat Buchanan over Senator Phil Gramm had a significant impact on the results in Iowa.

The caucuses are closely followed by the media and can be an important factor in determining who remains in the race and who drops out. However, the only non-incumbent candidate to win his party's caucus and go on to win the general election was George W. Bush in 2000. Neither Reagan nor Clinton won prior to their first terms. No incumbent President has run opposed in his own party's caucus since Jimmy Carter in 1980.

In the months leading up to the 2004 caucus, predictions showed candidates Dick Gephardt and Howard Dean neck-and-neck for first place, with John Kerry and John Edwards far behind them. Negative campaign ads attacking each other by the two front runners soured the voters on them, and a last minute decision by Kerry to put all his remaining money in Iowa swung voters towards him. Gephardt's presidential hopes were dashed and Dean's badly battered, as Kerry went on to become the second non-incumbent to win both Iowa and New Hampshire since Edmund Muskie in 1972.

by Upstate NY on Thu Jan 3rd, 2008 at 10:09:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Edwards may have an advantage over Obama and Clinton in that he has opted for spending limits and public matching funds. All of the candidates have been burning through cash in Iowa, but Obama and Clinton have been outspending Edwards by a factor of 3:1 and 4:1 respectively.  Edwards is going to get $8.825 million in matching funds in either February or March of 2008.  If it's a close race that could place Edwards with a cash advantage as we move into the last set of states to vote.

We matter more than pounds and pence/ Your economic theory makes no sense "We work the Black Seam"-Sting
by ManfromMiddletown (manfrommiddletown at lycos dot com) on Thu Jan 3rd, 2008 at 07:19:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:
Login
. Make a new account
. Reset password
Recommended Diaries
Debates
Campaigns
Occasional Series
Agriculture
by afew - Aug 7

Anglo Disease
by Migeru - Aug 3