IOWA POLL

[Flying Dog]

NOTE:Carol Mosley braun was not included in this poll because she has a 0%-3% chance of winning

[© tweed]

I think Gephardt will narrowly pull away in Iowa, but he won't win the nomination, he will fall short to Dean.

[DarthKosh]

I think Gephardt will narrowly pull away in Iowa, but he won't win the nomination, he will fall short to Dean.

I think he will fall just short of Dean and then fade away.

[Flying Dog]

I think Gephardt will narrowly pull away in Iowa, but he won't win the nomination, he will fall short to Dean.

I think he will fall just short of Dean and then fade away.



I think gephardt will win IOWA by 5-15%. Come in 3rd or 4th in new hampshire. I agree that if gephardt does not win IOWA he going to be another candidate like al sharpton.  

[Flying Dog]

Whoever predicted lieberman would win the iowa caucases is badly mistaken.  Even when Lieberman was in iowa he still didnt muster that much support.  Plus Liebeman has pulled out of iowa. Personally I think liberman is finished altogether

[Platypus]

My actual vote-Dean

Who will win (and who i voted for in the poll)-Gephardt

[Demrepdan]

Gephardt has indeed been spending A LOT of time in Iowa lately. He knows that if he can't win Iowa then there is no way he can win the nomination. In my opinon I think the nomination will ultimately go to John Edwards or Howard Dean, however there may be a strong possiblity that Gephardt may pull it off and become nominated.

[Beet]

I only watched one debate, the first Arizona debate in early September. At that time, Gephardt seemed to show that he was a very much improved speaker, and he also has strength in some key manufacturing states. Unfortunately, I don't think he can overcome the image of a loser from all the Congressional elections 1996-2002. Plus, the union base is getting smaller with every election... in 2000 they mobilized themselves very well, so they are also saturated as a voter bloc. But the nail in the coffin is that, although Gephardt spoke with more passion than I had seen him in the past, he didn't really articulate any sound ideas... he just sprouted hollow platitudes. Both ideas and eloquence are necessary to win any election.

I know a lot of Democrats support Dean, and it would be great if he could become president, really, but I have a feeling that some of the same suicidal Green party supporters in 2000 are supporting Dean this time around. This is the McGovernian, Goldwateresque attitude that sends political parties into the oblivion.

The best candidate I think is John Edwards. Firstly, he is from the South, and even if he does not win a single Southern state except North Carolina and maybe Missouri, that is 15-26 electoral votes right there. Certainly more than Dean, Lieberman, or Kerry can bring to the table. Secondly, he actually has an articulate platform on health care and other issues that is just dying to be articulated and heard better. He supported the Congressional authorization for war but isn't tied to all the lies about WMD, quagmire, and American men and women dying every day, the way Bush is. Third, he is young, and I think it is actually important how a candidate looks. But fourth, he seems like he truly cares about the people he represents, from his career as a trial lawyer to where he is today. Certainly it is an image he wants to cultivate, but there is a degree of genuineness, that some of the image is actually true. I can imagine him connecting with the voters more easily than Lieberman, and Lieberman is right that the Democrats need to build on what Bill Clinton did in moderating the party.

Edwards could run with Clark or Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

"but I have a feeling that some of the same suicidal Green party supporters in 2000 are supporting Dean this time around"

Even after the flag remark?

[© tweed]

Gephardt even skipped the last Dem debate to campaign in Iowa.  He is putting alot of stock into Iowa, and I think it will pay off...

[Demrepdan]

It may pay off, and he may win Iowa. But I'm willing to bet almost anything that he won't win the nomination.

[NorthernDog]

The best candidate I think is John Edwards. Firstly, he is from the South, and even if he does not win a single Southern state except North Carolina and maybe Missouri, that is 15-26 electoral votes right there. Certainly more than Dean, Lieberman, or Kerry can bring to the table.

He's hurt by running for President mid-way through his first term in the Senate.  I recently saw a poll from NC that showed Edwards losing to Bush in NC 49-42%.    Nobody knows who he really is.  It'll be Dean vs. Gephart down the stretch.  Will the anti-war types flock to the Green Party if Dean loses the nomimation?

[DarthKosh]

The best candidate I think is John Edwards. Firstly, he is from the South, and even if he does not win a single Southern state except North Carolina and maybe Missouri, that is 15-26 electoral votes right there. Certainly more than Dean, Lieberman, or Kerry can bring to the table.

He's hurt by running for President mid-way through his first term in the Senate.  I recently saw a poll from NC that showed Edwards losing to Bush in NC 49-42%.    Nobody knows who he really is.  It'll be Dean vs. Gephart down the stretch.  Will the anti-war types flock to the Green Party if Dean loses the nomimation?

I think the Greens are not going to flock to Dean and will run their own canidate.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

The best candidate I think is John Edwards. Firstly, he is from the South, and even if he does not win a single Southern state except North Carolina and maybe Missouri, that is 15-26 electoral votes right there. Certainly more than Dean, Lieberman, or Kerry can bring to the table.

He's hurt by running for President mid-way through his first term in the Senate.  I recently saw a poll from NC that showed Edwards losing to Bush in NC 49-42%.    Nobody knows who he really is.  It'll be Dean vs. Gephart down the stretch.  Will the anti-war types flock to the Green Party if Dean loses the nomimation?

Actually if Edwards is trailing Bush 49-42 it usually means he would win the state about 49-50, because Bush is the incumbent and about 75% of undecideds vote against the incumbent.
So I doubt it's worrying him a lot.

Anti-war types will flock to the Greens no matter what happens, Dean's Battle Flag remark and refusal to call for an immediate pull out from Iraq has really pissed them off.
But he doesn't need 'em now anyways.

[DarthKosh]

The best candidate I think is John Edwards. Firstly, he is from the South, and even if he does not win a single Southern state except North Carolina and maybe Missouri, that is 15-26 electoral votes right there. Certainly more than Dean, Lieberman, or Kerry can bring to the table.

He's hurt by running for President mid-way through his first term in the Senate.  I recently saw a poll from NC that showed Edwards losing to Bush in NC 49-42%.    Nobody knows who he really is.  It'll be Dean vs. Gephart down the stretch.  Will the anti-war types flock to the Green Party if Dean loses the nomimation?

Actually if Edwards is trailing Bush 49-42 it usually means he would win the state about 49-50, because Bush is the incumbent and about 75% of undecideds vote against the incumbent.
So I doubt it's worrying him a lot.

Anti-war types will flock to the Greens no matter what happens, Dean's Battle Flag remark and refusal to call for an immediate pull out from Iraq has really pissed them off.
But he doesn't need 'em now anyways.

Hell need them in the general.

[NorthernDog]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Actually if Edwards is trailing Bush 49-42 it usually means he would win the state about 49-50, because Bush is the incumbent and about 75% of undecideds vote against the incumbent.
So I doubt it's worrying him a lot.

Anti-war types will flock to the Greens no matter what happens, Dean's Battle Flag remark and refusal to call for an immediate pull out from Iraq has really pissed them off.
But he doesn't need 'em now anyways.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Hell need them in the general.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I agree.  To win a campaign you need energized people raising $, registering voters, putting up signs, and making lots of phone calls.   The anti war folks tend to be highly motivated in this manner.

[zorkpolitics]

I think Gephardt will win Iowa, but I don't think it matters at all.  The press will call him the "expected winner" because he is from near-by MO.  In fact they may declare him the "loser" if he doesn't win by their predetermined amount.  Similarly, Dean will win NH and be discounted.  The real race then begins.

[Ryan]

The best candidate I think is John Edwards. Firstly, he is from the South, and even if he does not win a single Southern state except North Carolina and maybe Missouri, that is 15-26 electoral votes right there. Certainly more than Dean, Lieberman, or Kerry can bring to the table.

He's hurt by running for President mid-way through his first term in the Senate.  I recently saw a poll from NC that showed Edwards losing to Bush in NC 49-42%.    Nobody knows who he really is.  It'll be Dean vs. Gephart down the stretch.  Will the anti-war types flock to the Green Party if Dean loses the nomimation?

Actually if Edwards is trailing Bush 49-42 it usually means he would win the state about 49-50, because Bush is the incumbent and about 75% of undecideds vote against the incumbent.
So I doubt it's worrying him a lot.

Anti-war types will flock to the Greens no matter what happens, Dean's Battle Flag remark and refusal to call for an immediate pull out from Iraq has really pissed them off.
But he doesn't need 'em now anyways.

Hell need them in the general.

The above posts concerned what chances certain democrat candidates have in the South. I just typed a post re the same issue in Louisiana. I think it applies to much of the South so I am posting it here as well.

Firstly the most important question- Will Bush win La. in 2004. The answer is YES (in any event) but the degree of certainty for that depends on the Dem candidate.
Let me expand;

La. had long been a democratic stronghold very much in tune with the Solid South. It has shifted to the GOP in recent years in keeping with trends in the whole south. Many voters have however until quite recently considered themselves more or less independent, generally voting GOP nationally and Democrat locally. Since loyalty/ fondness for the GOP was not established it was possible for democrats with the right policy and persona to capture even reasonably conservative votes. This is why such a large number found it easy to vote for Clinton in the 90s. Numerous others (who in La. at least were mostly people would have voted GOP as second choice) voted for Perot (12 % in 92 and 7% in 96).
This has changed slowly but steadily over the last five years or so. More and more Voters in La. now consider themselves actually republican and look at democrats as the opposition. It doesnt make it impossible for democrats to win but they would have to stake themselves out as clearly conservative or at least moderate in a way that Clinton did not have to do. In short, for democrats in La., The bar has got higher.

Now I turn to a more detailed look at possibilities for 2004.
La. is not as rock Solid a Bush /Republican state as say neighboring Mississippi. It is certainly politically competitive but as specified above, depending upon the candidates.

Ø   If the republican candidate is in tune with southern voters (esp. but not only, if he himself is Southern) and the democrat is not, its a certain GOP victory. Eg. Bush and Dean.

Ø   If its the other way around (depending on other specifics) I can see democrats having a slight edge.
Eg. I consider the 96 Clinton-Dole contest as a part example for this. Dole never really inspired anyone in the South. Never gave anyone the feeling that he s one of us as Bush definitely does.
This scenario (Good Dem and Bad GOP candidates) doesnt apply to 2004 as Bush DEFINITELY appeals to La. voters on every level.  

Ø   If both GOP and DEM candidates can appeal to southern voters then its certainly a contest but Id give a definite edge to the GOP. Eg. Bush and Clark. – Presuming he doesnt collapse soon, Clark may have a shot but personally, unless hes winning the national election by a large margin, I still consider La. safe for Bush. Even in this scenario its still better than 50-50 for Bush.

[NorthernDog]

I think Gephardt will win Iowa, but I don't think it matters at all.  The press will call him the "expected winner" because he is from near-by MO.  In fact they may declare him the "loser" if he doesn't win by their predetermined amount.  Similarly, Dean will win NH and be discounted.  The real race then begins.

Hey New Jersey - that's my home state.  Anyway, this whole mindset drives me crazy.
I think the press crosses the line from reporting to interferring with the process when they annoint candidates as "winners"  for the wrong reason.    

[Kevinstat]

In some ways, Dean might be better off by losing Iowa then by winning, because if he wins Iowa then Gephart's support in New Hampshire will likely collapse and mostly go to Kerry, helping Kerry in that state.  If Gephart wins Iowa, however, he will likely do whatever he can to finish as strongly as possible in New Hampshire, further dividing the anti-Dean vote.  I'm sure overall Dean is better off winning Iowa then losing it, and even as far as New Hampshire is concerned the momentum gained by winning Iowa might more than compensate having one fewer candidate splitting the rest of the votes, but it's interesting to think of the possible side effects.

My vote above was that Gephart would win Iowa, but I'm already changing my mind.  If Dean is still seen as the national frontrunner, I think there may be a shift towards him in the weeks before the primary, just like there was a shift to Gore (at Bill Bradley's expense) in New Hampshire in 2000 shortly before that primary.  Still, Bradley had been living a Cinderella story before his collase and may have been more likely to have his support crack than Gephart, who has built up support over more than a decade.  In fact, if any candidate has been living a Cinderella story in this race, it's Howard Dean, and he may turn out to be just as much of a flash in the pan as Bradley.  I believe whatever candidates appear less desparate for gains in Iowa (from whereever the polls are at the time) will get a shift in their favor shortly before the primary.  If Gephart can open a strong lead over Dean in the Iowa polls and Dean's lead in New Hampshire is small (even if it's over someone other then Gephart), than I think there's a chance Dean's candidacy will collapse.  Those are some very big ifs, however.

Sincerely,

Kevin Lamoreau

[Paul]

Gephardt's lead in the Iowa polls seems to have waned a bit.  A recent poll there (by WHO- TV, I think) shows Dean beating Gephardt by a 32% to 22% margin.

[NorthernDog]

If Dean is ahead in Iowa that's very bad news for the Anti-Dean forces.  I had assumed that Gephart would be pulling away in Iowa by now.

[emergingDmajority1]

I don't believe that poll has hit the print media yet. Might be more wishful thinking by the Deanites. I doubt Gep has fallen THAT far : )

Gephardt is winning Iowa, and I believe the plan is that by the time he gets to NH, Lieberman drops out and endorses him (let's face it, Joe's on life support already)
Then you'll see the Clinton/Gore endorsements come in to help Gephardt win New Hampshire.

It'll be a subtle endorsemend, but the media will pick up on it and we'll all know who they're backing. Anything to boost Gephardt

Kerry is a wild card, will his support collapse as well? will he drop out by NH? Where will the Kerry people flock to, Dean or Gep?

[Flying Dog]

I think if kerry droped out his people whould go to geppy because they hate dean so much.

[StevenNick]

The polls will show a close race between Dean and Gephardt up until the caucuses, but in the end Dean is going to win by a surprisingly solid margin (5 percentage points or so) as his network of voters turns out and Gephardt's doesn't.  

A victory in Iowa is going to push Dean to a huge victory over Kerry in New Hampshire (which he'll probably win even without a victory in Iowa).  A victory in New Hampshire may well translate into a victory in South Carolina, too.  In any event, after New Hampshire Dean will be unstoppable.  He's going to waltz his way to the nomination.

But watch Dean go down in flames in November 2004 (the ghosts of 1984 come back to haunt the Dems once more).