Presidential nominations

**iceclone** · 12-03-2007, 09:37 AM

Will this be the year when Iowa derails the national frontrunner for the presidential nomination of both parties? With both Obama and Huckabee trending upwards in Iowa, it strikes me that they could have a very similar path to the nomination. If they pull off an Iowa victory, they both have a great appeal to their respective party’s base in South Carolina, so a decent showing in New Hampshire, framed by victories in Iowa and South Carolina puts both candidates in a pretty good position.

Obama has demonstrated that he is a top tier fundraiser. With a victory in two important early states, a close second place (or even a win) in New Hampshire, and potentially more money than Hillary, he might be hard to stop.

Huckabee still has to show he can raise big money, and New Hampshire is more of an up-hill climb for him, but Iowa and South Carolina could certainly put him in a strong position as well.

**alaskaguy** · 12-03-2007, 10:37 AM

Or it could be Obama's and Huckabee's only and last hurrah.

Didn't Pat Robertson either win or make a very strong showing in the Iowa Republican caucus yester year (1988)? And that was the beginning of the end for Pat Robertson's presidential aspirations.

**iceclone** · 12-03-2007, 10:50 AM

Originally Posted by alaskaguy

Or it could be Obama's and Huckabee's only and last hurrah.

Didn't Pat Robertson either win or make a very strong showing in the Iowa Republican caucus yester year (1988)? And that was the beginning of the end for Pat Robertson's presidential aspirations.

That is a definite possibility.

Regarding Pat Robertson, he came in second in '88, and then did poorly in New Hampshire. After that he was done. There are certain similarities between him and Huckabee, and I don’t expect Huckabee to do well in New Hampshire either (perhaps a respectable third?). However, a critical difference from ’88 is that the South Carolina primary now comes ahead of all of the multiple-state primaries, which I don’t think was the case back then. This would give Huckabee an opportunity for a follow-up on a hypothetical Iowa victory before trying to start a national campaign. If he was to win both Iowa and South Carolina, I think it would make him a player nationally.

**alaskaguy** · 12-03-2007, 11:17 AM

Another Huckabee/Robertson similarity is that Huckabee commands more of the Evangical Christian vote than do the other Republican candidates combined.

Assuming Huckabee wins Iowa, it could be very damaging to Mitt Romney's aspirations. A Romney loss in Iowa may undermine Romney's New Hampshire candidacy. Romney isn't polling all that well nationally, and needs impressive wins in both Iowa and New Hampshire to have any chance of capturing the Republican nomination.

**CYKOFAN** · 12-03-2007, 02:00 PM

I think your analysis is right on for the time being, but if you live in Iowa I'm sure you're aware how fast things can change, even on caucus night. If you don't live in Iowa (and I assume you must live in Alaska) you may or may not be aware that the supporters of candidates who don't garner 15% on the first vote on caucus night are fair game for the candidates who do get 15% plus, so the second choice of probably 25-30% of the caucus voters can determine the winner. It may be that way in other states too, but I think you can see how the polls can be a little deceiving at this point. It's fun to follow, but I don't think anybody will be have a real handle on who will win in either party until caucus night is over.

**brianhos** · 12-03-2007, 08:10 PM

Can this please please please end soon? I HATE Iowa being first in the nation. We got a call at 9:30 last night by someone who wanted to take a poll... Come on, no calls after 8.

**alaskaguy** · 12-03-2007, 08:42 PM

And for those of you that don't live in Iowa there are internet web sites;

There is the Hillary Attacks Website:

BarackObama.com | Hillary Attacks

Which is sponsored by the Barrack OBama campaign and does nothing but attack Hillary.

And there is the site sponsored by the Hillary Clinton campaign which contains a memo from Carl Rove to Obama on "How To Beat Hillary"

HillaryHub

Its one nasty slugfest.

**brianhos** · 12-03-2007, 09:00 PM

Wow, the two worst choices in the last 20 years attacking each other, this should be fun to watch. I'm worse, no I'm worse, no I'm worse...

**herbiedoobie** · 12-05-2007, 03:51 PM

I must admit that NONE of the offered choices gives me a good "gut feel". In fact, the stable makes me downright nauseous, at times.

**brianhos** · 12-05-2007, 05:50 PM

This is absolutely a lesser of many evils election. There are things in all of them I do not like, so I am not caucusing, I will wait till this is all settled and then vote for who I hate the least.

**Flag Guy** · 12-05-2007, 06:10 PM

Originally Posted by brianhos

This is absolutely a lesser of many evils election. There are things in all of them I do not like, so I am not caucusing, I will wait till this is all settled and then vote for who I hate the least.

Isn't that pretty much every election?

Personally I thought last election was even worse, though it was only the first presidential election I've been old enough to vote in, so I have little to compare against on a whole.

**bawbie** · 12-06-2007, 09:02 AM

Originally Posted by alaskaguy

And for those of you that don't live in Iowa there are internet web sites;

There is the Hillary Attacks Website:

BarackObama.com | Hillary Attacks

Which is sponsored by the Barrack OBama campaign and does nothing but attack Hillary.

And there is the site sponsored by the Hillary Clinton campaign which contains a memo from Carl Rove to Obama on "How To Beat Hillary"

HillaryHub

Its one nasty slugfest.

Did you even look at the "Hillary Attacks" website you linked to? Because it's not attacking Hillary, it's documenting all the attacks from Hillary.

**alaskaguy** · 12-06-2007, 09:13 AM

Originally Posted by bawbie

Did you even look at the "Hillary Attacks" website you linked to? Because it's not attacking Hillary, it's documenting all the attacks from Hillary.

Yes, I did review the website. By documenting the attacks from Hillary, it is in effect attacking Hillary, or at least her character, is it not?

The intent of the website is to show that Hillary is smearing Obama and to question Hillary Clinton's campaign methods (character). The website also links a factcheck website that furthers this agenda.

**cmoneyr** · 12-06-2007, 09:21 AM

Originally Posted by alaskaguy

Yes, I did review the website. By documenting the attacks from Hillary, it is in effect attacking Hillary, or at least her character, is it not?

The intent of the website is to show that Hillary is smearing Obama and to question Hillary Clinton's campaign methods (character). The website also links a factcheck website that furthers this agenda.

That's how it played to me. Kind of a round-a-bout way to attack her where he doesn't have to say anything negative outright.

**alaskaguy** · 12-06-2007, 09:40 AM

Originally Posted by bawbie

Did you even look at the "Hillary Attacks" website you linked to? Because it's not attacking Hillary, it's documenting all the attacks from Hillary.

One additional observation is that the website only documents attacks from Hillary. Other candidates that have attacked (Democratic or Republican) are not part of the forum. The linked fact check web site also takes the tactic of only contrasting Obama with Hillary Clinton and ignoring the rest of the candidates.

Given that the website is sponsored by the Barrack Obama campaign, it is clear that the purpose of the website is to both defend Obama and to attack Hillary Clinton.