Yepsen not one to bank on given his '04 prediction

Steve Benen is incorrect about David Yepsen predicting Kerry's surge in the Iowa 2004 caucus. This is what Yepsen predicted the day of the Iowa caucus: He predicted that Dean would win!

Organization will be key to victory (DAVID YEPSEN, 01/19/2004, Des Moines Register)

If organization is as important as caucus lore tells us it is, Howard Dean should win the Iowa caucuses tonight. Driven by youthful energy and anti-war activism not seen since the Vietnam War, Dean has assembled what his organizers claim is the best get-out-the-vote operation ever built in the state.

They are probably correct. As the campaign draws to a close today, the important story isn't the candidates and their hoopla. It's their organizations and their boring grunt work on the streets and telephones of Iowa.

Given that recent polls of the race show the contest has tightened, Dean hopes his operation provides him with the political firewall he needs to protect himself against the late surges by John Kerry and John Edwards. A Dean win in Iowa tonight would be devastating to the early front-runner here, Dick Gephardt.

It was the day of the caucus, and Yepsen still thought Dean was gonna win? LOL, I wish he were right! I was about as hardcore a Deaniac as they came, and thought that Dean would win even as late as the Sunday before the caucuses. But when I saw that we were doomed in the Monday polls for second choice, even I realized our chances were not looking good.


So regarding the status of Edwards, I wouldn't listen to either the "dean" of the Iowa press, or the Obama's camp spin, for that matter:

The objectives of Obama's team are straightforward: to make Iowa (and the rest of the contest) a two-person race between their guy and Hillary. In Plouffe's telling, Edwards is fading fast in Iowa. And a key Obama supporter there, the former state party chairman Gordon Fischer, gave an interview last week disparaging the turnout of Edwards supporters at the big-deal Jefferson-Jackson Dinner on November 10, arguing that Obama was well poised to pick up Edwards's voters, whom he described as "up for grabs."

Methinks they doth protest too much. Indeed, the fact that Plouffe and Fischer are posturing this way suggests that the Obama forces continue to fear the prospect of being trumped by Edwards in Iowa. And with good reason. So far Obama has spent some $5 million on advertising in the state, and Clinton's total is more than $3 million, whereas as of two weeks ago, Edwards had spent just $20,000. And yet the race remains a statistical three-way dead heat.

More to the point, because of the bizarro nature of the caucuses--the participants must go out, on a frigid night, for a multi-hour ordeal of public declarations of support and multiple rounds of voting--the contest in Iowa is a slog-it-out ground war, in which organization and get-out-the-vote efforts are paramount. And here all sides concede privately that Edwards's team, which has been in place essentially for five years, is the class of the field. When I ask Edwards if he's concerned about signs of slippage in Iowa, he literally laughs in my face. "We have 99 county chairs and about 75 percent of the precincts covered with precinct chairs," he says. "I know how to run a caucus campaign in Iowa--and so do the people who work for me."

Not that I am going to believe straight-up what Edwards says about his status in Iowa either; but when you look at the internals of the two latest polls, and they both show Edwards either leading or within a percentage point of the lead among those whom actually have caucused, the claim seems rather weak.



Display:


Edwards' support is firm (none / 0)

Edwards lost a little ground between May and October, when everyone else (even Richardson and Biden) ran tv ads and he did not. But for Gordon Fischer to claim that Edwards' remaining support is "up for grabs" is quite absurd.

I like Gordon, but surely he knows enough Iowa Democrats to realize that Edwards has a strong base of support.

By the way, many undecided voters have ruled out both Hillary and Obama. It's between Edwards, Biden, Richardson and Dodd for these voters.

I attended a Richardson house party tonight, and he criticized Edwards several times while only referring to Obama and Hillary one time each in passing. I think his campaign knows that a lot of undecideds are still considering Edwards.


Join the Iowa progressive community at Bleeding Heartland.
by desmoinesdem on Sat Nov 24, 2007 at 10:43:25 PM EST

Re: Edwards' support is firm (none / 0)

With Obama having already spent $5 million on TV ads, it's easier to believe he's already peaked than that Edwards, who has spent very little on ads yet, is fading.


by Jerome Armstrong on Sat Nov 24, 2007 at 10:47:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards' support is firm (none / 0)

Jerome is wrong for all of the poll's are showing a up-ward trajectory in Obama's support at this time.

When I see poll's showing his support as being flat then I will believe Jerome. The poll's that I see is that Hillary's support is flat and any up-ward trajection has stalled and their as been a little erosion of her support.

Bottom line is that the race is fluid with many un-decided's and anybody can win of the top3 candidates.


by BDM on Sat Nov 24, 2007 at 11:40:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards' support is firm (2.00 / 1)

Except Edwards has been running in Iowa since 2003.  Who's out there who can still be persuaded by him?


by Adam B on Sat Nov 24, 2007 at 11:48:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards' support is firm (none / 0)


Right on pal.  He is not inspiring.  I don't care how much he talks about "Two Americas", it's rings hollow from a multi-millionaire.
by KensUSA on Sun Nov 25, 2007 at 12:04:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards' support is firm (2.00 / 2)

I disagree on the "rich guys can't care about the poor" thing, though Edwards' various shifts over the years can be seen as pandering.


by Adam B on Sun Nov 25, 2007 at 12:06:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards' support is firm (1.50 / 2)

Hollow?   Are you on drugs?  What about FDR.  It was really hollow coming from him, wasn't it?  Better trolls please!!


John McCain: Bush right to veto kids health insurance expansion
by Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle on Sun Nov 25, 2007 at 12:11:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards' support is firm (2.00 / 3)


Ya know Jim...  I would like you to define a troll for me.  You don't know me it's true, but I consider myself a moderate Democrat.  I agree and disagree with comments on this and other sites.  Yet when I disagree with a candidate or a comment, I'm immediately called a "Troll".  Even kicked off sometimes.  It seems that dissent is not accepted at Firedog, crooks or here???

That doesn't seem like a collaborative blog to me.  Sounds like freedom of speech your way, that is, agree with you or I'm a troll.

BTW... I support Hillary because I think she is the most reasoned candidate and understands the real threats against this country.  Do I have your permission to stay????


by KensUSA on Sun Nov 25, 2007 at 12:43:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards' support is firm (none / 0)

I mean Calvin


by KensUSA on Sun Nov 25, 2007 at 12:44:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards' support is firm (1.33 / 3)

He called you a troll because you use right wing talking points. Saying something like "a multi-millionaire talking about the poor rings hollow," doesn't win you many friends around here. Maybe if you talked about his policy rather than attack the fact that he is rich. FDR fought for the poor though he was rich himself...


by Obama08 on Sun Nov 25, 2007 at 01:13:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Nice comment (none / 0)

This is my first comment on MyDD and it's really nice to see someone who supports Obama defend Edwards.

The two aren't mutually exclusive! (Supporting Obama and defending Edwards, that is. Obviously, only 1 guy will get the nomination.)


My blog: jedreport.com
by jedreport on Sun Nov 25, 2007 at 03:36:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards' support is firm (none / 0)


Nice try Obama08.. it's not a Republican talking point to state that Edwards is Rich but that his behavior is sometimes hypocritical, especially how some of his business dealings have negatively impacted the poor.  I'm sorry, but I don't fall in line with the rest of the left on the issue of trial lawyers.  If he wins a verdict for a patient who was treated poorly by the system, then I think that's fine.  But when they expand this to questionable lawsuits against an entire Health Care facility and/or start bankrupting doctors, then I think the poor ultimately lose out.

So you haven't changed my mind that the definition of a Troll seems to be anyone that disagrees with you.


by KensUSA on Sun Nov 25, 2007 at 01:55:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards' support is firm (none / 0)

I'm not saying that you couldn't speak to particular cases that he took that showed him to be a hypocrite. I'm not against you making an actual case against him.

It is just a little ridiculous to say that a rich man trying to say that we need to solve poverty is hypocritical. When you find a quote where he says, "people shouldn't be rich," then you can call him a hypocrite.


by Obama08 on Sun Nov 25, 2007 at 02:24:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards' support is firm (none / 0)

the problem is your are arguing against cynacism masquerading as fact. when in doubt progressives are just as faith based as the right- and therefore this poster you argued with couldn't even see there on bias in what they were saying- that to be against poverty one must be poor, to have a problem with the way that our system is structured in favor of the wealthy- one must not be wealthy. that the contradiction or claims of hypocricy come out of the posters own psychology on the issue rather than Edwards actions is a hard thing to overcome. but then thats the point


by bruh21 on Sun Nov 25, 2007 at 04:52:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards' support is firm (none / 0)


Bruh21... You have it all wrong and your attempt at psychology fails miserably.  I don't believe that to be against poverty, one must be poor and I also see nothing wrong with being rich.  My point about Edwards is that he is constantly talking about "Two Americas" and railing against the so-called rich while taking advantage of many of the financial vehicles used by the rich.

He has participated in substantial investment opportunities in limited partnerships, sub-prime mortgage lending, and offshore hedge funds.  He's done this while criticizing some of these practices as "unpatriotic and predatory".

Caring about the poor and making sure that there is a social safety net is something that should be championed.  But I think we can do this at the same time as helping to create more "rich" people.  Win-Win


by KensUSA on Sun Nov 25, 2007 at 06:17:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards' support is firm (none / 0)

Ken,

'win-win' nice touch. You aren't on CNN. I know the information of which you speak. I'm also a lawyer. I bring that up to point out I know what a partnership is, I know the structure of hedge funds and i  know what consultancy work is. Try the low information voter approach on someone else. Still, nice touch with the 'win-win."


by bruh21 on Sun Nov 25, 2007 at 07:31:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards' support is firm (none / 0)

how about the fact that the only canidate willing to tax hedge funds worked for them


by marketingman on Sun Nov 25, 2007 at 02:30:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]

they're all willing. NT (none / 0)

.


by Adam B on Sun Nov 25, 2007 at 09:47:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards' support is firm (none / 0)

I agree with Ken. I actually even had that thought before I saw his post.

Just because you disagree with someone does not mean that they are a troll. I actually agree with what youre saying but this troll baiting stuff is ridiculous


by world dictator on Sun Nov 25, 2007 at 12:51:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards' support is firm (none / 0)

He's a troll working off low information, inuendo, half truths and cynacism about "they all do it" about politics. He's also working off of a bizzare definition of hypocricy that's been crafted this cycle to combat Edwards economic populist appeal.


by bruh21 on Sun Nov 25, 2007 at 07:40:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards' support is firm (none / 0)

get ready to eat alot of crow


by marketingman on Sun Nov 25, 2007 at 01:59:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards' support is firm (none / 0)

thye people that are soon going to see OBAMAS anti war voting record


by marketingman on Sun Nov 25, 2007 at 02:18:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards' support is firm (none / 0)

What anti-war voting record?


Restore America's Strength.
by RJEvans on Sun Nov 25, 2007 at 02:29:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards' support is firm (none / 0)

the record showing that Oboma hated the war but voted to  fund it dozens of times


by marketingman on Sun Nov 25, 2007 at 02:33:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards' support is firm (none / 0)

LOL!!!


by Kingstongirl on Sun Nov 25, 2007 at 09:57:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards' support is firm (none / 0)

I think that pretty much all three of the top candidates have peaked out, and now it's all about who has the most second choices.


by Jerome Armstrong on Sun Nov 25, 2007 at 11:34:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Questionable (none / 0)

One of the consistent things from all the field work diaries and comments and consistent with my own experience, is that the percentage of true undecideds is much higher than reflected in polls where people are pushed to make a choice with the phrasing: "if the election were to be held today."


Our Moment Is Now
by mboehm on Sun Nov 25, 2007 at 11:54:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards' support is firm (none / 0)

Well, I think that Obama still has something to prove in terms of his being ready for the position, and getting people to believe that others believe he's ready; I also think that as Richardson rises in the polls and becomes more credible, he may pull support from a lot of people.


by Adam B on Sun Nov 25, 2007 at 05:28:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards' support is firm (2.00 / 1)

You're probably right. I'm not going to make any predictions about who wins the Iowa caucuses, because chances are I'll be wrong. Obama, Edwards, and Clinton probably each have a good chance of winning at this point.


by Korha on Sat Nov 24, 2007 at 11:14:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards' support is firm (2.00 / 1)

Richardson's strategy all along seems to have been to beat up on Edwards. Almost every conversation I've had with a Richardson staffer or supporter here in NV has involved assertions, often unfounded, about Edwards, his positions and his campaign. Whats most vexing is that often these involves negative statements about Edwards supporters, which makes me skeptical about whether Richardson's campaign is really going to win anyone over from Edwards.

I really liked Richardson at the start and I'm still impressed by his personal intelligence and openness, but I'm really disappointed that people in his campaign have decided, apparently quite a while ago, that they should take on Edwards, his family, his staff, and his supporters personally.


by desmoulins on Sun Nov 25, 2007 at 11:33:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: (2.00 / 1)

I think that Iowa is up in the air, although I give Clinton a slight edge at this point.  The thing I am taking away from the Yepsen piece from 2004 is that Dean was said to have a superior organization in the state, the most dedicated and committed, and also most numerous.  It did not win him the state, so whenever I hear from Edwards supporters how superior his ground organization is and how dedicated his supporters are, look at the Dean example to see that a supposedly superior organization does not mean that much.  


by georgep on Sat Nov 24, 2007 at 11:44:44 PM EST

Re: (none / 0)

He was wrong about Dean in 2004, and this year he's talking about Clinton's ground game.  She has doubled her staff, has spent over $5 Million in the state, hired Theresa villmain, and has Tom Vilsack behind her.  This shouldn't even be a competition.  She should blow the competition out of the water.


The sharpest criticism often goes hand in hand with the deepest idealism and love of country. ~RFK
by Vox Populi on Sat Nov 24, 2007 at 11:55:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Vilsack (none / 0)

Even when he announced ... he was polling 4th or 5th ... do you really think all of Iowa is gonna vote for any one candidate just because Vilsack said so?


John McCain: Bush right to veto kids health insurance expansion
by Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle on Sun Nov 25, 2007 at 12:13:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: (2.00 / 1)

I think you are a bit confused.  Yepsen talks about OBAMA'S ground game in Iowa.  Clinton's was behind Edwards' and Obama's until very recently (I doubt the recently hired staff is all in place yet as it is.)   It was also Obama who has spent that $5 Million, Clinton's expenditures were about half that (or a little more.)  

Edwards has made Iowa his second home, has campaigned in Iowa continuously for almost 5 years.  Iowa should be in Edwards' pocket, he is basically the incumbent and has quite the organization.   Obama has spent over $5 Million and is from neighboring Illinois.   I expect Clinton ahead in the end by a small margin, but that it is even competetive and not in Edwards' pocket is a testament to Edwards' weakness as a candidate, IMO.  If not Iowa and North Carolina, then where?


by georgep on Sun Nov 25, 2007 at 12:31:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: (2.00 / 1)

What are you talking about?  It isn't Clinton who has spent $5 million in Iowa, it's Obama.  And it's also Obama (and Edwards) who has the much touted organization and dedicated supporters, while Clinton's support seems to be coming from an awful lot of first time caucus goers.  Considering that your facts are all wrong, it's no surprise that you came to the bizarre conclusion that she should blow them out of the water.


"It pays to be obvious, especially if you have a reputation for subtlety". Salvor Hardin
by Denny Crane on Sun Nov 25, 2007 at 12:57:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]

First time supporters (none / 0)

If an "awful lot" of Clinton's support is coming from first time caucus goers, it certainly sounds very similar to Dean in 2004.  That can't be a good scenario for her.


A great democracy must be progressive or it will soon cease to be a great democracy. - Teddy Roosevelt
by minvis on Sun Nov 25, 2007 at 10:22:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: First time supporters (none / 0)

Uh, we have seen that in 2004 a majority of Iowa caucus goers were "first time caucus goers."  They just happened to a few weeks before the caucuses look at Dean through the lense of the CiC threshold he was unfortunately never able to cross, and in the end went with the supposedly safer choice of Kerry (who also was said to be more electable in a GE because of his decorated war hero status, could not be seriously assailed as a commie anti-troops guy.)   Look for this caucus to be strongly "first time caucus goers" again.  

I am, however, very glad that Iowa expectations have now been going the opposite way, that winning the Iowa caucus would be an uphill battle for Clinton because of the "first time caucus goers" issue, and Edwards being "the favorite son" of Iowans, and Obama from the neighboring state, and Iowa being a difficult state to vote in due to the archaic caucus system, etc.   The expectations have shifted.

 I expect Clinton to win a close race in Iowa, but when she does it will be seen as a feat in a difficult environment after these last 2 weeks of coverage.  


by georgep on Sun Nov 25, 2007 at 11:20:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: First time supporters (2.00 / 2)

Uh, we have seen that in 2004 a majority of Iowa caucus goers were "first time caucus goers."

Surely you know that the reason for that was there hadn't been a competitive multi-candidate caucus in Iowa since 1988?  There will not be that sort of turnover after the '04 contest-- it's not like Dean/Kerry/Edwards/Gephardt and the rest didn't beat the same bushes just as hard.


by Jerome Armstrong on Sun Nov 25, 2007 at 11:29:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: First time supporters (none / 0)

I think we will see a lot of first-time caucus goers again.  Maybe not quite as many as last time (percentage-wise,) but there are good reasons to assume that this time around as well a lot of first-timers will be brought to the polls based on the types of candidates we are offering this time.  Clinton and Obama have a lot of money to spend in Iowa, and part of that will be used to get these first-timers to the polls on caucus day, rain or shine.  


by georgep on Sun Nov 25, 2007 at 01:18:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: (none / 0)

you too


by marketingman on Sun Nov 25, 2007 at 02:00:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: (none / 0)

keep reading the polls   and dreaming


by marketingman on Sun Nov 25, 2007 at 02:19:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: (none / 0)

Well, you took the wrong lesson then George. The lesson you should have gotten was that Yepsen is full of shit, and doesn't know his ass from a hole in his ground in trying to read organizational strength in Iowa.


by Jerome Armstrong on Sun Nov 25, 2007 at 11:27:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: (none / 0)

That Yepsen is full of shit and does not know more than anyone is something I have said all year long.   It is just that Yepsen rightly pointed out back then that Dean had built a strong grassroots operation and a superior ground game when compared to the other candidates, and believed therefore (wrongly) that that should make the difference for him winning the state.   Unfortunately, Dean's ground game edge was not enough to win the state for him.  National concerns had trumped Iowa special rules, and Dean was increasingly being viewed as not ready to take over in the midst of a war.  

I am not quite sure why Yepsen's failure back then (or at any time in any of his diatribes) should be viewed as a good thing for Edwards.  He may indeed be showing some weakness in the state, one that he may have trouble breaking out from.  We don't need Yepsen to make (or not make) that case, we just review the available data:

http://www.pollster.com/08-IA-Dem-Pres-P rimary.php

If you review the last 17 polls taken in the state of Iowa, Edwards reached 25% only once, generally hovers around 20%, 21% in all the polls, including the very recent ones.  I don't agree with Yepsen that we may see a faltering of Edwards, but why would we have to?  If Edwards does not elevate his showing and starts improving his position into the upper 20s region, then he can't really be considered a top choice to win the state (IMHO.)   These are first choicers who give Edwards a bit of a cold shoulder in Iowa.  Banking on winning over fickle second choicers from other candidates who may not reach 15% in some precincts (i.e. Richardson, Biden) is a bit of a stretch, especially with the last 5 polls we have seen out of the state giving a very conflicting picture on which of the candidates earns a strong amount of second choices from either each other or second-tier candidates.  


by georgep on Sun Nov 25, 2007 at 12:28:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: (none / 0)

I get a kick out of looking at that graph of Iowa polling. One of Obama's pollsters, put that Fall '06 poll out there showing Edwards at 37% and Obama at 12% just before they becoming part of his campaign.

He started in the 20's and is still in the 20's. I don't much buy the notion that he's dropped because I don't buy the notion that we are going to see half of the new caucus attendees new this time. I think it's much more likely to be 15-25% new caucus attendees.


by Jerome Armstrong on Sun Nov 25, 2007 at 01:20:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: (none / 0)

You could be right about first-timers not being as big a factor this time.  It is just that Edwards' first-choice responses are very low for someone who has been working the state for 5 years.  I don't know whether ARG's methodology captures Iowa better than other polls, as they ask follow-up questions to filter out those somewhat unsure about caucusing, but even if you remove their admittedly low Edwards numbers (15% in the last poll) you get 20%, 21% typically for Edwards, which just seems too low for someone like Edwards, given that he had a major headstart over anyone else when the race started up.  I thougt right until the end of August Edwards was the prohibitive favorite, polling in the upper 20s, even low 30s often enough.  Now I would say that he is still in the mix, but probably a little behind both Clinton and Obama.  Just MHO.  


by georgep on Sun Nov 25, 2007 at 03:57:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: (none / 0)

Actually, in the last ARG poll, Edwards got 20% and Clinton & Obama both dropped. Edwards numbers on the second choice look very strong, there's just not been the hyped degradation of his support-- maybe a month ago that made sense, but not from most recent polling.


by Jerome Armstrong on Sun Nov 25, 2007 at 07:33:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: (none / 0)

Jerome, you are right about the latest ARG poll showing Edwards at 20%.

However, the ARG poll and also the latest SV poll showed a somewhat different picture as for strength of support when compared to this latest ABC/WaPo poll.   The ARG poll shows that once they parsed it down to absolute "definitely intending to vote" responses, Clinton gained further support and Edwards support dropped (to 18%.)  It also showed a somewhat interesting measure of current candidate support for both Obama and Edwards when compared to Clinton's support, with Clinton's support showing as extremely solid (not quite buying that 92% committed support Clinton showed, but it is very high, regaredless,) and Obama's and Edwards barely having half their current supporters committed to them.  

The latest Rasmussen from last week also showed Clinton's "committed" current support higher than either Edwards or Obama's.

Also, SV's poll showed Clinton a full 9% ahead of Edwards, which is substantial.  They also had an internal that read:


7. When making your selection for a presidential candidate, what are you looking for most in the candidate, charisma, experience, or ideology? (Democrats Only)

Experience 37%
Ideology 26%
Charisma 23%
Undecided 14%

----------------------------------------

All I am saying is that we have very recent polls that show Clinton pretty strong, both with her committed support (compared with the other candidates) as well as when it comes to showing strong when the "most likely to caucus" repsonses were filtered down to, as well as a poll showing "experience" trumping every other issue.  This latest ABC/WaPo poll seems to go against the grain on most of the items we have seen elsewhere (as you rightly point out) and I just don't buy a lot of their changed dynamics as for "second choices" and as for what is most important in a candidate and as for where the women vote went, etc.  They were dead-wrong in July, an outlier, after all.   Future polls will give us a somewhat better idea whether this latest ABC/WaPo poll is a harbinger or not.  

We can agree to one thing here, though:  It will be a close race, no doubt.  


by georgep on Sun Nov 25, 2007 at 08:45:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: (2.00 / 1)

Thats why Clinton is again increasing her staff, her advertising budget, moving more national operatives to Iowa, and lowering expectations. Because she's winning.  


by desmoulins on Sun Nov 25, 2007 at 11:38:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: (none / 0)

Are you saying that she was not at some point going to match Obama's advertising expenditures (he outspent Clinton almost 2 to 1 until recently) in the state?  That would make very little sense.  

Or match the number of offices opened, operatives hired?  Why should she not?  She has plenty of money to do so.  It seems you are saying that she should have been happy to compete with half the expenditures and half the hired staff Obama has reported until caucus day, which is a rather curious point of view, IMO.  


by georgep on Sun Nov 25, 2007 at 12:34:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: (none / 0)

I'm just saying that she's not winning. And given the commitment of resources she's made, and expectations they've created, she's going to need to win.


by desmoulins on Sun Nov 25, 2007 at 12:55:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: (none / 0)

There are exactly two candidates who "need" to win, Obama and Edwards.  I see it most immediately critical for Edwards, as he may just fold immediately after losing Iowa, as he probably is seen as finished if he does not win big in Iowa, since he looks terrible in any of the following states.  Even Obama, though, if he does not win Iowa how can he close the double-digit gaps he is showing everywhere?


by georgep on Sun Nov 25, 2007 at 01:13:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Yepsen not one to bank on (2.00 / 3)


I've come to the radical conclusion that Iowa simply isn't going to decide things.  The big 3 will cluster- not very close but enough so to make a case for continuing.  The rest get eliminated by Iowa.

New Hampshire will one of them on the ropes.  I'll guess Edwards.  He might get some consolation out of Michigan.

So Nevada and South Carolina would be the Clinton/Obama showdown, with Florida the consolation prize.  And the Feb 5 primaries create the winner.

The 2004 caucuses and primaries also eliminated candidates rather incrementally, but perceptions were definitely set by Iowa and New Hampshire.


by killjoy on Sun Nov 25, 2007 at 12:43:56 AM EST

Re: Yepsen not one to bank on (none / 0)

I agree, but with a few caveats:

1. If Edwards comes in third in Iowa, he's done.  There's no coming back from that.  He either needs to win or come in a very strong second.

2. If Clinton wins, it becomes very difficult for Obama, but certainly not impossible.  He has plenty of money to compete through Feb. 5

But you're right, I don;t think Iowa will be the killer for either Obama or Clinton, no matter where they finish.


"It pays to be obvious, especially if you have a reputation for subtlety". Salvor Hardin
by Denny Crane on Sun Nov 25, 2007 at 01:01:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Yepsen not one to bank on (none / 0)

I have to say, if Edwards comes in second in Iowa, he is absolutely finished.  New Hampshire is looking dismal for him, and he may only spend $500,000 in that state, which has been rather indifferent to him.  Iowa is really his only shot, as there is not another one of the early states that gives him any kind of serious look at this point.


by georgep on Sun Nov 25, 2007 at 11:08:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Yepsen not one to bank on (none / 0)

I think this is a likely scenario, except that neither Edwards nor Obama is on the ballot in Michigan so thats a non-factor.

If O punches through and wins Iowa, I think he becomes the favorite. If Edwards wins, it'll be a 2 or 3 way dogfight until the 5th, because I don't think a loss in Iowa finishes Obama. What I can't figure out is what happens if both E and O beat Clinton in Iowa. I think paradoxically that could help her more than losing to one or the other.

Finally, I'm skeptical about a late surge by any other candidate but if it happens, I think Biden could actually take a big chunk out of  Clinton's support, because the "experience" argument for foreign affairs is really a better case for Biden than Clinton.


by desmoulins on Sun Nov 25, 2007 at 11:43:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Yepsen not one to bank on given his '04 predic (none / 0)

I agree with Killjoy. I get the feeling that whoever wins Iowa will not win it decisively enough for it to mean much. Yeah winning is important but if everyone is within a point of each other then its a lot less impressive.


by world dictator on Sun Nov 25, 2007 at 12:54:45 AM EST

Re: Yepsen not one to bank on given his '04 predic (2.00 / 3)

Also, does anyone else notice how David Yepsen is now questionable now that hes calling the Edwards campaign into question. But when he wrote negatively of Hillary it was "OMG Yepsen is like the Yoda of Iowa. He knows all and sees all,etc,etc."

I actually agree with the Edwards supporters. I don't think anyone is sinking or blazing out ahead of the pack yet. But seriously, this is a prime example of self rationalizing.


by world dictator on Sun Nov 25, 2007 at 12:57:17 AM EST

Re: Yepsen not one to bank on given his '04 predic (none / 0)

Yep, I noticed.


"It pays to be obvious, especially if you have a reputation for subtlety". Salvor Hardin
by Denny Crane on Sun Nov 25, 2007 at 01:02:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Yepsen not one to bank on given his '04 predic (none / 0)

This is true.


by Korha on Sun Nov 25, 2007 at 01:36:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Yepsen not one to bank on given his '04 predic (none / 0)

not quite, I've called him into question since i noticed he became an "independent" cheerleader for Obama. Not that I don't like Obama, but if you read his interviews and columns, it seems that he's always held the water for Obama while downsizing Edwards (even when he was leading Iowa).


by KainIIIC on Sun Nov 25, 2007 at 01:55:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Yepsen not one to bank on given his '04 predic (none / 0)

Yes, but don't forget that many Clinton supporters were trashing Yepsen here when he wrote about Clinton as well.  I'd even argue they were even more irrational in their diatribes against him.


A great democracy must be progressive or it will soon cease to be a great democracy. - Teddy Roosevelt
by minvis on Sun Nov 25, 2007 at 10:28:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Yepsen not one to bank on given his '04 predic (none / 0)

Oh really, and when was it that I said such about Yepsen?

There's no real reason just to make stuff up.


by Jerome Armstrong on Sun Nov 25, 2007 at 11:32:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Yepsen not one to bank on given his '04 predic (none / 0)

I wasn't referring to you specifically. I'm talking about Edwards supporters on here trashing Yepsen.

Read more carefully Jerome.


by world dictator on Sun Nov 25, 2007 at 02:17:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Well, look, Iowa is probably Obama's to (none / 0)

lose at this point.  However, given the expectation that Obama will win Iowa, a Edwards win may give him some extra momentum.


by bookgrl on Sun Nov 25, 2007 at 01:01:54 AM EST

Re: Well, look, Iowa is probably Obama's to (none / 0)

Way to go to lower expectations for the Hillary team. I'm sorry, but an Iowa loss would be a major disapointment.


by Progressive America on Sun Nov 25, 2007 at 01:17:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]

No kidding. I hope she wins. (none / 0)

But, it looks like Obama's wrapped it up.


by bookgrl on Sun Nov 25, 2007 at 01:19:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]

That's some nice spin (1.00 / 1)

Tell me you're getting paid by the Clinton campaign at least.


by Korha on Sun Nov 25, 2007 at 01:37:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]

No, and that is extremely rude and insulting. (none / 0)

If I was getting paid by the Clinton team, I wouldn't hide it.  Hell, I'd be ecstatic about being paid by the Clinton team.  I could use the work.


by bookgrl on Sun Nov 25, 2007 at 01:46:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No, and that is extremely rude and insulting. (none / 0)

What is it with this "getting paid" stuff anyway?  Given the way the race has been shaping up, it would be more likely that one of the other candidates has sent paid helpers out over the Internet in an attempt to close the gap.  


by georgep on Sun Nov 25, 2007 at 11:04:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No, and that is extremely rude and insulting. (none / 0)

Ahem, George, in every straw poll Edwards and Obama are polling in the low 30s here on MyDD, Hillary, so they outnumber Hillary supporters on this site by a 6 to 1 ration. Still, if you look at the diaries and comments lately - and I mean LATELY - you could get the impression that Hillary is supported by a majority of the netroots. That makes some people very suspicious, especially if some people like Holfen Caulfield and I believe MollieCrawford have not been around that long.

I do respect Hillary supporters, but some of them, sometimes really cross the line or are spinning so much that I become dizzy.


by MarcTGFG on Sun Nov 25, 2007 at 11:28:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No, and that is extremely rude and insulting. (none / 0)

Correction:  They outnumber Hillary supporters by less than 3 to 1 (recent vote showed 1000 for Edwards, 350 for Hillary.)

 Now, how many Clinton supporters post here?  Probably less than 25, which is about 7% of those who voted for her in the last straw poll.  Edwards supporters posting here probably number in the 50s, perhaps 60s, which is between %5 and 6% of his overall support (via votes.)   I don't see a big disconnect at all, it makes sense to me.  The only difference seems to be the WAY the posters blog, which tells me that there is a lot of enthusiasm for Clinton's candidacy, perhaps an enthusiasm gap for Edwards, the very opposite of what usually is claimed around these parts.  


by georgep on Sun Nov 25, 2007 at 11:47:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No, and that is extremely rude and insulting. (none / 0)

George, I really try to be patient, but I didnt say that Edwards supporters outnumber Hillarys by 6:1 but that Edwards AND Obama supporters together outnumber hers by 6:1 ! And that is correct. And that is not easily recognized by looking at the recent diaries list.

And it wasnt that way until only a few months ago. Thats what makes people suspicious.

I dont believe in a enthusiasm gap in favor of Clinton. I believe the opposite to be true.

We'll find out on January 3rd...


by MarcTGFG on Sun Nov 25, 2007 at 12:43:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No, and that is extremely rude and insulting. (none / 0)

You "try to be patient"?  What the hell is that supposed to mean?

I laid out what I see as "reality," namely that Edwards' support is 3 to 1 on this board over Clinton.  That is also reflected in the number of known pro-Edwards vs. pro-Hillary posters on this board.  But, many of them often disappear for months.  It is the WAY the supporters blog that shows an enthusiasm gap for Edwards, IMHO.

 We will actually found out who is right on Feb. 5, btw.  


by georgep on Sun Nov 25, 2007 at 01:03:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No, and that is extremely rude and insulting. (none / 0)

I got your point. Namely that the Clintonites tend recommend diaries despite their content  in greater proportion if you look at support than the Edwards or Obama supporters (again if you compare support level here to recommended diaries one might get a different picture than the recommended diaries suggests). The result: that despite the lower level of actual support for Clinton on the site , it appears they are obtaining the same level of support from the netizens. When I go over to D Kos you can sometimes see similar outcomes.


by bruh21 on Sun Nov 25, 2007 at 02:00:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No, and that is extremely rude and insulting. (none / 0)

by the way- the dedicated few do give the perception of a higher enthusiasm gap,a nd your agument regarding her level of support is indeed correct. hence why many polls recently when testing soft versus hard support haven't favored her.


by bruh21 on Sun Nov 25, 2007 at 02:03:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No, and that is extremely rude and insulting. (none / 0)

That is incorrect.  Can you point to any polls that show that Clinton's support is "softer" than either Edwards' or Obama's?

I'll save you the trouble on a few of them (obviously Iowa is really the only competetive race at this point):

ARG poll:

92% of those saying they support Clinton say their support is definite.
50% of those saying they support Edwards say their support is definite.
41% of those saying they support Obama say their support is definite.
67% of those saying they support Richardson say their support is definite.

http://americanresearchgroup.com/pres08/ iadem8-712.html

Latest Rasmussen Iowa poll:

Fifty-seven percent (57%) of Clinton's supporters say they are "certain" they will vote for her. Fifty-two percent (52%) of Edwards voters say the same while 45% of Obama's supporters are that certain.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_c ontent/politics/election_2008__1/2008_pr esidential_election/iowa/democratic_iowa _caucus


by georgep on Sun Nov 25, 2007 at 08:55:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No, and that is extremely rude and insulting. (none / 0)

amongst voters likely to show up


by bruh21 on Sun Nov 25, 2007 at 11:48:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

holden was here in the spring (none / 0)

as Dem Dem until he got banned.

Mollie sounds a lot like Teresa in Pennsylvania to me, although you may be right--it may be a new person to MyDD.


Join the Iowa progressive community at Bleeding Heartland.
by desmoinesdem on Sun Nov 25, 2007 at 11:52:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: holden was here in the spring (none / 0)

weird-  I thought the same about mollie that it was just elizabeth. didn't want to voice it until I read your comment


by bruh21 on Sun Nov 25, 2007 at 12:56:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: holden was here in the spring (none / 0)

Dem Dem never got banned.  He was using that name just the other day.  


by georgep on Sun Nov 25, 2007 at 01:08:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

sorry, my mistake (none / 0)


Join the Iowa progressive community at Bleeding Heartland.
by desmoinesdem on Sun Nov 25, 2007 at 07:26:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No kidding. I hope she wins. (none / 0)

Nobody's won it yet.

I will say though that Clinton and Edwards have the most to lose there.

Obviously, Edwards needs an early win to have a shot and Iowa is by far his best chance.  If he comes in a distant second or third, it's over for him.

Clinton has more to lose than Obama in Iowa because no matter how you spin it, Clinton is the front runner.  So, if she finishes second, third or (god forbid for their campaign) fourth, it shows the voters that she can be beaten.

Granted it is just my opinion, but it seems that her support is a mile wide and an inch deep.  If that is true and the main reason they are supporting her is because they believe she can win, an Iowa loss immediately calls that into question.  A quick turnaround into New Hampshire and it makes it that much harder to recover those potentially "lost" voters.


A great democracy must be progressive or it will soon cease to be a great democracy. - Teddy Roosevelt
by minvis on Sun Nov 25, 2007 at 10:42:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Nope. Obama and Edwards have (none / 0)

the most to lose there. Hillary was never expected to win Iowa.


by bookgrl on Sun Nov 25, 2007 at 11:00:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Well, look, Iowa is probably Obama's to (none / 0)


Way to go to lower expectations for the Hillary team. I'm sorry, but an Iowa loss would be a major disappointment.

Actually I've been saying that I don't expect Clinton to win Iowa for months. I think George has said it for awhile too. I'm more surprised that Obama looks like he'll take it.

PS. If you think "spin" on message boards, especially message boards as partisan as mydd, means anything then you're an idiot. No offense, but you literally are an idiot of you believe that.


by world dictator on Sun Nov 25, 2007 at 02:28:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Well, look, Iowa is probably Obama's to (none / 0)

I had Edwards pegged as in the end winning Iowa for many months.  However, after he decided to go for public financing and effectively restricted himself to spending less than $1.2 Million in direct advertising (while Obama and Clinton are free to spend $10 Million, if they wish) I have now come around to believe that Clinton will win the Iowa race in a fairly close contest.  She leads in all the internals that are the most important (leadership, experience, best on Iraq, terrorism, best on health care, education, economy, etc.,( which I personally don't expect to change to flip to one of the other candidates in the remaining 40 days.  She also has the backing of the most "boots on the ground" and most engaged (usually) union in Iowa, the AFSCME, which has no less then 30,000 members in Iowa alone, and will be out for Clinton in force.   So, I believe she will win Iowa in a close race, but it would not be surprising if she were to lose a close one, either.

I also believe that the current media spin and media discussion helps Clinton, as it discusses Iowa as a tossup now, with perhaps a slight Obama lean.  The expectations game is very important in any event and in a very close matchup it usually helps to not be considered in the driver's seat, not be considered the runaway favorite.  


by georgep on Sun Nov 25, 2007 at 04:11:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Well, look, Iowa is probably Obama's to (2.00 / 2)

I think this is right, whether or not its intended to be spin. That is, Edwards' winning Iowa is most helpful to him if its a surprise. I've felt for a few weeks that the campaign was a bit like a bicycle race, with the leaders each trying to push the other in front to be in a better position to sprint past in the final stretch. There's always the risk that the front-runner might pull away, though.

But for the slingshot strategy to work, its got to be a come-from-behind surprise that makes headlines.


by desmoulins on Sun Nov 25, 2007 at 11:46:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Excellent Research Jerome (none / 0)

Facts are inconvenient things sometimes. They have a way of cutting through the froth of truthiness.  

Yepson should preface his 2008 opinions with the following:  although my predictions were wrong in 2004, this is what I predict will happen in 2008. Sound fair?

As for predicted collapses in Iowa, I could equally make the case for predicting a Clinton collapse, or an Obama collapse in the state. Heck, I could probably make the case for a Biden surge, or a ho-hum Richardson disappointment.  


by Demo37 on Sun Nov 25, 2007 at 02:19:28 AM EST

Re: Excellent Research Jerome (none / 0)

Yepsen says that and he is out of a job. You never remind people and definitely not your employers of a mistake. Give Yepsen a break!! A lot of CEOs dont even perform and they walk away with millions of dollars. Best job in America..become a CEO for three years, screw the shareholders, workers and consumers, make enough money and retire. I am sure it works in sports as well. Bill Callahan, Nebraska's football coach does not have to work another day in life..they are paying him off three million just to leave. Then talking about Iowa, there are the Hawkeyes women's basketball coach, Lisa Bluder, who for her age is extremely attractive...with very poor performance and recruiting..but they still keep her, making over half a million a year. So please do give Yepsen a break...he probably does not make more than $150,000 tops.


by Boilermaker on Sun Nov 25, 2007 at 07:25:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Excellent Research Jerome (none / 0)

And by the way, dont forget a series of articles by journalists that appeared in various newspapers about how the illegal immigration issue is going to help the GOP, two days after it did not help the GOP in state and local elections in Virginia..that is all the journalists do, hype the issue. If the Dems have any sense they would use social security as the wedge issue every time GOP appeals to bigotry.


by Boilermaker on Sun Nov 25, 2007 at 07:29:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]

More Yepsen Fun: 2nd place for Kerry would be big (none / 0)

David Yepsen on 12/18/2003:

If Kerry were to upset Gephardt for second place, that would amount to one of those "unexpectedly strong finishes" that dominates news coverage on caucus night. Many in the political community "expect" Dean or Gephardt to win and the other to come in second. If Gephardt finishes second, goes this conventional wisdom, he's a gonner because he won Iowa in 1988 and will have failed to repeat the feat.

A second-place finish for Kerry would be a legitimate Big Deal and would position him as the anti-Dean candidate in the race. Kerry would become the "comeback kid" of 2004, something Bill Clinton was able to spin out of his second-place finish in the New Hampshire primary in 1992. There is much positive buzz surrounding a candidate who comes from behind to win that designation.


My blog: jedreport.com
by jedreport on Sun Nov 25, 2007 at 03:38:37 AM EST

Sorry (none / 0)

I think Jerome is not being objective here.

He denies Edwards has been in decline in Iowa for some time.

Hard to take this post seriously.


by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Nov 25, 2007 at 07:21:21 AM EST

Re: Sorry (none / 0)

http://desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.d ll/article?AID=20071125/OPINION03/71125 0312-1/LIFE04

No need to go anywhere..just read these lines..

"As the decade dawned, Iowa turned its back on the idea of welcoming more legal immigrants. In December 2000, then-Gov. Tom Vilsack announced $50,000 each in state money for Fort Dodge, Mason City and Marshalltown to recruit skilled immigrant workers from within the United States, promoted as an effort that could spread to cities statewide. He issued this plea: "This will not be easy. It has never been easy. But it has never been more necessary."

After a fierce backlash, the initiative was largely dropped.

Perhaps some of the unease arose because Iowans in the 1980s and '90s saw communities with packing plants rapidly absorb new arrivals. It was an abrupt introduction to the global labor market and shift from being predominately, if not exclusively, white and English-speaking to multi-ethnic and multilingual. Iowans have probably asked, "What did we do to deserve this?" said Mark Grey, a University of Northern Iowa professor specializing in immigration issues."

Comment: Mind you, Vilsack wanted legal skilled immigrants from other states..and legal skilled immigrants mostly happen to be of different color from India and China..and the whites did not like it..and Jepsen and others such as ABC really expects me to believe that Obama will win in Iowa...let us look at more polls over this weekend to see if this trend is confirmed or i it is just like another ABC/Paul Stephanapolus garbage right before the 2006 congressional elections where they claimed that in the generic ballot the GOP has closed to within four...

http://edschultz.invisionzone.com/index. php?showtopic=21555

"Both the Washington Post/ABC News poll and the new Pew survey show a dramatic tightening of the generic ballot vote, with Democrats leading by 4 to 6 percent. If these polls are accurate, this is bad news for Democrats, and they suggest that Democratic gains might be more limited than have been widely expected. Perhaps the Republican vote is finally coming home--much later than usual. President Bush's campaigning in red territory and the GOP's smart get-out-the-vote operation may be working at last. We will know tomorrow night."

http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystal ball/article.php?id=LJS2006110601


by Boilermaker on Sun Nov 25, 2007 at 08:10:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Well (none / 0)

What that has to do with Edwards' steady decline I do not know.

But if this is an argument to play the bigot card on immigration, well, even if it made sense, which it does not when you consider the Nation as a whole, it is morally bankrupt and unacceptable.


by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Nov 25, 2007 at 08:44:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Well (none / 0)

I am trying to make a point that dont believe the ABC polls that Obama is ahead until other polls confirm this. ABC has a checkered history especially since Stephanapolus joined them. Secondly, Iowa voters are not very progressive. I would be very surprised if Obama makes it in Iowa.

I am not trying to get the Dems to play the bigot card. Just using an example of how Iowa voters reacted to bringing in legal immigrants or naturalized citizens to their state if they were of a different color to show that I would be surprised if Obama really wins Iowa even in the Democratic Caucuses.


by Boilermaker on Sun Nov 25, 2007 at 08:48:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Well (none / 0)

And I strongly suggest that all of you read this article on the ABC Poll by Steve Rothenberg...

http://rothenbergpoliticalreport.blogspo t.com/

Top Networks Flop in Reporting on New Poll


by Boilermaker on Sun Nov 25, 2007 at 09:35:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Sorry (none / 0)

And what not might be objective? It's hard to believe you take anything serious other than your own spin.


by Jerome Armstrong on Sun Nov 25, 2007 at 11:38:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Sorry (none / 0)

No clue what Big Ten Democrat is talking about. I have provided all the evidence about the ABC polls..and Rothenberg is with me on this.


by Boilermaker on Sun Nov 25, 2007 at 02:28:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

spend a lot of time in IA, do you? (none / 0)

If you lived here, you would have received numerous positive Edwards direct-mail pieces and would have seen some positive tv ads for Edwards too. And if you'd caucused before, chances are you would have received the Edwards policy book, which contains zero attacks and more than 75 pages of affirmative policies.

But stick to your Clintonite talking points.


Join the Iowa progressive community at Bleeding Heartland.
by desmoinesdem on Sun Nov 25, 2007 at 09:34:47 AM EST

Re: Yepsen not one to bank on given his '04 predic (2.00 / 1)

Except that last Tuesday, he was one of only three candidates to speak to a forum on environmental issues, on Wednesday, he put out a plan to address hunger in America, sent out an email to supporters encouraging donations to America's Second Harvest, yesterday proposed a plan to address the crisis of sharply increasing home heating prices in the northeast, and has had far and away the most thorough plans, long before other candidates, on addressing inequality and poverty, on universal health care, on improving education and making higher ed affordable, and on cutting carbon emissions.

Try here.


by desmoulins on Sun Nov 25, 2007 at 11:37:04 AM EST

Re: Yepsen not one to bank on given his '04 predic (none / 0)


Speaking as a moderate Democrat who is sometimes referred to as "Troll", I'd just like to say that the back and forth comments I've been reading on this issue reflect a great understanding of the political landscape and are very informative to me as I try to learn more about the process.

Keep up the good work!!


by KensUSA on Sun Nov 25, 2007 at 02:04:49 PM EST


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.