Iowa

[GePap]

Originally posted by PLATO
GePap, To what do you attribute a large turnout combined with the failure of the unions to produce? Could this be interpreted as a positive statement on the economy?

Not if you look at Ben's post about whom those who thought the economy was the bigegst concern voted for, Kerry and Edwards, the big winners.

The large turnout was probably due to the fludity of the race, and the late rally for Kerry and Edwards What one does see is the utter failure of gephardt's portectionist arguements, which is just as well, becuase they were not going to go far in a general election.

[GePap]

This is a very intersting chart:

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/primaries/pages/epolls/IA/index.html

Kerry almost won every single category, age group, demographic there was, even in the first time voter area, or internet savy.

The most striking is that he got 71% support out of those who thought the right kind of experience was needed- which must mean his military service, while Dean did horribly.

I think Dean has to stop focusing on his anti-war stand and move towards talking about his record as vermont governor- he, unike Kerry or Edwards, has a record of running something bigger than an office, and it is a very good record at that. This shows that his vaunted organization was not there working very well in Iowa. Of course, the freaky form of this primary was bad for him (and after all, only 120,000 people showed up), but he has to refocus for NH.

[Guynemer]

Well ain't this a kick in the head?


Dean and Clark are in deep trouble. I never, ever, ever would have thought Edwards would be anything more than a footnote in this race.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Guynemer
Well ain't this a kick in the head?


Dean and Clark are in deep trouble. I never, ever, ever would have thought Edwards would be anything more than a footnote in this race.

Edwards is the democratic key to the South. IMO he is the "unnamed democrat" coming out of hiding.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Guynemer
Well ain't this a kick in the head?
Dean and Clark are in deep trouble. I never, ever, ever would have thought Edwards would be anything more than a footnote in this race.

Dean still has a loyal following, and more cash than anyone else. But Clark's support is probably tepid in NH.
The thing is, Dean must win NH to stay competative in the game- Clark need only come in second or close third and wait for the south.

[GePap]

Originally posted by PLATO


Edwards is the democratic key to the South. IMO he is the "unnamed democrat" coming out of hiding.

What state in the south could he possibly bring to the dems. save his own? The south is Bush country, and the dems. are better of not wasting too many resources there. Only massive black and latino turnout, which is not likely, would give them any chance.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by GePap


What state in the south could he possibly bring to the dems. save his own? The south is Bush country, and the dems. are better of not wasting too many resources there. Only massive black and latino turnout, which is not likely, would give them any chance.

The same was said with Clinton in '92. The South would consider a democrat if he was portrayed correctly. The South really does want to be democratic...the democrats just keep getting in the way.

[GePap]

Originally posted by PLATO


The same was said with Clinton in '92. The South would consider a democrat if he was portrayed correctly. The South really does want to be democratic...the democrats just keep getting in the way.

So if the democrats turn into republicans, heck, we will vote for them? This is not 1992 anymore.

None of the dems save Lieberman, who will not be the one, can compete on the culture issues- on the war, Kerry and Clark can show some ability, but if Max Cleland could be knocked off, Bush will certainly be able to do a number on them.

Bush will basically play the "God, Flag, and Patriotism" dance which seems to work best in the south.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by GePap


So if the democrats turn into republicans, heck, we will vote for them? This is not 1992 anymore.

None of the dems save Lieberman, who will not be the one, can compete on the culture issues- on the war, Kerry and Clark can show some ability, but if Max Cleland could be knocked off, Bush will certainly be able to do a number on them.

Bush will basically play the "God, Flag, and Patriotism" dance which seems to work best in the south.

It does seem that the South supports God, The Flag, and Patriotism (and in that order I might add). Personally, I would fall into that category. Despite some recent highly publicised polls, I believe that a lot of democrats support the same thing. Perhaps their are differences in our definitions of supporting God or what the Flag stands for, or even what it means to be patriotic.

For example, I feel sure that you believe that it is the patriotic thing to do to stand up against the war in Iraq, while I believe that it is the patriotic thing to do to support it.

Southerners are not entrenched in the Republican bandwagon, but they do need a democrat that will come closer to expressing the same value structure.

[Winston]

Originally posted by GePap

The thing is, no senator has won the white house in over 90 years.

JFK was a senator. He even got re-elected, in '58 IIRC.

[mrmitchell]

What state in the south could he possibly bring to the dems. save his own? The south is Bush country, and the dems. are better of not wasting too many resources there. Only massive black and latino turnout, which is not likely, would give them any chance.

You're not helping.

I'm disappointed when I see otherwise intelligent Northerners throwing away the South and acting like it's useless or past some kind of point of no return. It's not.

[Sava]

wow, I was surprised... I'm not a fan of Kerry, but I like Edwards. The good news is, D1ck Gephardt got owned and is probably done. Dean had a piss poor showing. I'm disappointed, but if Dean has this kind of lackluster support, I will have no problem dumping Dean.

I still want to see how Clark does in NH and SC... but I'm leaning towards Edwards now. He was always a bit of a sleeper with me. This will be interesting.

[GePap]

Well, thanks for pointing that out- I never remembered about Kennedy.

One trend Kennedy begun- the taller canddate has won every election of the TV era, though Bush and Gore seemed pretty even.

Southerners are not entrenched in the Republican bandwagon, but they do need a democrat that will come closer to expressing the same value structure.

Which is? If it is true that southerners have some "value structure" of thier own, why should any party gear it national election startegy to just one group that decides to remain separate from the rest of the country?

I'm disappointed when I see otherwise intelligent Northerners throwing away the South and acting like it's useless or past some kind of point of no return. It's not.

As long asit is supposedly a very particular part of the country with its own "only in the south" issues, then it might very well be a place of no return for a party that does not want to get too deeply into the culture war.

Look, some parts of the south, like Alabama and Mississippi are as likely to go for any dem as NY is about to go to any repuplican. The question is, which states in the south can dems compete? Only border states and Florida. As big as Atanta is, Georgia as one would still be solid red.

[Drake Tungsten]

So what does this mean? Does Iowa actually count this year, or will it be irrelevant like other elections?

[Sava]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
So what does this mean? Does Iowa actually count this year, or will it be irrelevant like other elections?

relevant in the sense it knocked Gephardt out... also, Dean coming in third was huge... but, the last 3 presidents didn't win in Iowa (so I've heard).