A farce? Rubbish.
If those numbers hold true and Obama gets that kind of support from independents and disgruntled Reps then it says he's a far more viable general election candidate than HRC.
Posted by Callimaco at January 1, 2008 10:23 AMsorry- any dem nominee is "viable." if we want to pander to the non-partisan center, then we're no party at all.
Posted by Turkana at January 1, 2008 11:13 AMThose backwater Iowa voters are going to blow it for us again if they pick Obama Lieberman. It's got to be Edwards or you can say hello to President Romney next year.
Posted by xjt at January 1, 2008 11:17 AMFeeling pretty stupid, I finally read the "reality" of how the Iowa Dem caucus system works in this morning's paper..and had the same reaction as Turkana. It is a joke, an arcane exercise in goofball politics. BUT, the GOP Media will take the result and run with it, unless the winner is Edwards. Then, Iowa will be described as the quite meaningless exercise that it is. The Repugs that vote in the Dem caucus will be under orders to support only those Dem candidates they feel will be easy to defeat in the national. It won't be Edwards. A promise: if Edwards does not win, he'll be written off by the Media. But Rudy=Bush will finish way, way down yet his result will be dismissed as meaningless.
Posted by T2 at January 1, 2008 11:40 AMDavid Yepsen is just trying out the pre-spin cycle on why Hillary is losing, that's all. This tells me that the insiders know more than they're letting on how Hillary is doing.
Posted by Julie at January 1, 2008 11:42 AMbarack obama is unelectable..it is why the msm is behind him...
Posted by dennis at January 1, 2008 11:43 AMTurkana,
My position on independents and Republicans voting in Democratic caucuses or primaries is the following. If they are genuinely switching over to the Democratic party ("long-term"), I welcome their participation in the primaries/caucuses. If, however, their participation is a temporary re-registration of party affiliation just to influence a primary/caucus, this would be disturbing because that completely negates the whole objective of the primaries/caucuses - which is for people of a particular party to pick the person who they believe best represents the goals and wishes of the party in the White House. In the latter case, we might as well have the general election straight up with a large number of candidates and have a runoff election after that.
Posted by eriposte at January 1, 2008 11:54 AMActually, I'm guessing that any cross-over will benefit Edwards more than any of the other Dem candidates in Iowa. I'm hearing from a number of generally-but-not-always Republicans around here that they are liking Edwards more than ANY of the other candidates, of either party. However, I don't know that that will translate into motivation for them to actually get out and caucus for him.
Posted by Julie at January 1, 2008 11:59 AMeriposte-
agreed, although i don't know how to prove genuine affliation. overall, this creates a very dangerous dynamic, for the party, with campaigns perhaps being crippled due to non-democrats. if the dmr is right about turnout, iowa's results should be completely discounted.
Posted by Turkana at January 1, 2008 12:00 PMjulie-
the dmr model clearly presumes indies for obama. i guess it depends on the type of indie, but the more conservative or traditional ones won't break for a populist, like edwards.
Posted by Turkana at January 1, 2008 12:04 PMTurkana,
I agree that it seems unlikely that such a large percentage of independents would be switching over to the Democratic party for the long-term. So, I do share your concerns about the implications of this. See my other comment to your follow-up post as well.
Posted by eriposte at January 1, 2008 12:09 PMhttp://zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1408
in todays tracking poll zogby has hillary up 4 points
Posted by dennis at January 1, 2008 12:12 PMdennis-
which just adds to the point- polls are all over the place. dmr has a solid history, although insideradvantage also got it right, in 2004. it's very much anyone's race. i just hope it's dems who determine the outcome.
Posted by Turkana at January 1, 2008 12:32 PMFarce, indeed.
Posted by andgarden at January 1, 2008 03:07 PMhey- andgarden, haven't seen you here, lately. hoped you've been lurking!
Posted by Turkana at January 1, 2008 03:19 PMI think the real question here is how many of those "cross over" independent/republican voters are actually planning to vote for the democratic candidate in the general and how many are looky-loos or spoilers? The motivations of these different kinds of cross over voters matter a lot to how we think about what they are doing and what it means for us as a party. I personally know a republican (only one!) who is planning on voting democratic this year in the general. He has been watchign the democratic debates with way more interest than I have because he sees his vote as contra his history and his inclinations and he's looking for reasons to like (or dislike) the eventual democratic candidate. That's not an issue for me. I prefer Edwards to Obama and Hillary, and Hillary to Obama but I prefer any democrat to any republican. If the Iowa crossover/first time caucus voters are indendents or republicans who are excited enough to turn out because they actively support any democratic candidate that is a very important piece of information (which we dno't have). If they are spoilers who are coming over to game the system that is also very important information.
the iowa situation is rendered more complex by the question of just how effective first time caucus go-ers can be in this highly charged, highly personal, system. I've attended only one caucus in my life and it was an absolute shambles (not in Iowa). You really, really, really had to be on a team with an effective team leader to make your vote count. People who just wandered in often wandered out again when they found out how much time it would take.
I'm suspicious of, and opposed to, allowing "indpendent and non party" members to vote in party primaries. But its not clear to me that this year's iowa caucus is a place where people are going to spoil. I think this year people sincerely (if sometimes mistakenly) think they are going to end up voting democratic in the general and they want to participate early enough to get their choice at that point.
aimai
aimai
Posted by aimai at January 1, 2008 05:05 PMaimai- if the register's right, and a full 40% of the d caucus-goers are indies, i guarantee you a good chunk of them are not committed to the cause.
i hope you're right about people walking out, because i want people there who are there for the right reasons!
Posted by Turkana at January 1, 2008 05:26 PMTurkana,
I couldnt' agree more except that I don't think Iowa voters recognize the caucus as a place where "the cause" is the sucess of the democratic party. I'd like it to be, but I don't think that is the way its set up. I think (though I don't have any evidence and I think its an interesting and open question) that the greater majority of that 40 percent independent/republican party turn out (if it materializes) are people who actually want to vote democratic because they are disgusted with what their own party is offering them. That doesn't mean they *are* going to vote democratic in the end. Its very different for people to entertain the notion of voting for edwards/obama/hillary on a night when the republicans aren't on offer and voting for a particular democrat vs a particular republican after months of party pressure to vote the party line. But I'm guessing that people are actually going to the primary to try to figure out how they will feel, to try to learn more, or to try to get a handle on the supporters for the various candidates and see whose supporters they feel comfortable with and whose they don't. After all the caucus vote gets a do over at the general. Independents and republicans shouldn't be allowed to vote in the dem primary. I think its bad for the democratic party and bad for this year's election, but I think that this year of all years the independents and republicans may be going with sincere interest in the democratic candidate in the general election. whether that translates into a willingness to cross party lines at the general is anyone's guess.
aimai
Posted by aimai at January 1, 2008 05:33 PMTo Eriposte and also Turkana
Everyone is reading you....because you elevate every conversation and analysis. I quote Eriposte everywhere and share his concern about the caucus being gamed. I would add something else. Iowa has voted Republican as a state. So why are Democrats giving anything that comes from this Republican state credibility? I want a blue state that has a majority of Democrats to lead the way. The last thing I want are players in a rural state setting the agenda for the rest of us. Let Ohio be the first primary. But this fetish for Iowa points out something far more ominous. That Democrats are incapable of gaming the system in their favor. That they are incapable of creating their own nominating system that enhances their over all general election strategy. How about Wisconsin for our first primary if not Ohio? If they can elect a Russ Feingold, maybe they know what a progressive but common sense Democratic agenda is. But Iowa? What does Iowa even contribute? A stupid ethanol preoccupation? They have never ever elected a woman to national office or as Governor. This is not a state I want in such a powerful position.
So what's wrong with the leadership of the Democratic party that allows this travesty to continue and actually hurt Democrats? And, further, does this have something to do with Democrats losing the general election? Democrats just don't play a strategic game against the Republicans. And it's up to the new lights of the party like Turkana and Eriposte to lead the way. Although, lead is hardly the word I have in mind. Turkana and Eriposte must fight their way, gladiator style, through the the minefield of this primary and general election. The chips are stacked against us...so only the particularly bold and brave among us can carry the day. There will be blood...so persistence and offense are critical. Keep up the great work. Intellectual clarity is noticed.
And never surrender. Push the offensive and then...hammer it some more. Leadership matters. I'm for Hillary all the way. Why a Democrat would not want two Clintons back in the White House is sheer lunacy from my perspective. The collective amnesia I see among Democrats never ceases to amaze me. So I'm little comforted by the position Democrats are in currently. Instead of having a united party behind one leader and focused on Republicans (who are finally in disarray), we are muddying the waters for Democrats and assisting the REpublican narrative.
My personal feeling is that this was set up. Obama promised not to run. Then suspiciously, the money materializes and soon thereafter, he is the Republican golden boy. He takes up the mantle of HIllary Hate...and the pied piper of the Democratic Party has the brainwashed Democrats following him off a cliff. Just a frightening image for me. The fact that Edwards' began this initial attack on Hillary is not only unfair and damaging but stupid as well. So although I prefer Edwards to Obama, he never struck me as a particularly good Senator. And if he couldn't win re election in North Carolina, what does that really say about him?
Anyway, just a few rambling thoughts...
Posted by at January 1, 2008 08:00 PM