Hillary will lose Iowa to Obama

I am a Hillary supporter and have no intention of changing sides. However, I am growing wary to see Hillary not visit Iowa as often as others; if she won't campaign there as much as Edwards or Obama, how are people going to vote for her?

I also think that Obama is doing a very good job in terms of organization and enthusiasm and I am surprised to see his campaign not perturbed after all the poll numbers not increase nationally in his favor. These national numbers will not matter at all once the caucuses are over on that cold January night.

The latest Newsweek poll shows that RV in Iowa favor Hillary, but LV favor Obama; likely voters are those that are going to matter.

Then, it will be Obama out of the floodgates, Hillary's front-runner status will be diminished and all those independents in NH will come out and vote for him.

Obama has 31 field offices in Iowa, way more than Hillary and their plan to get college students and possibly high school seniors seems that it might work; it didn't work for Dean, but Obama is NO Dean. That is for sure.

Obviously, as a Hillary supporter, I am not pleased to write this, but the truth is always bitter.

Tags: Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Politics, WAR IN IRAQ (all tags)



Re: Hillary will lose Iowa to Obama

Wow this is strange , I feel like I am in the twilight zone.

by lori 2007-10-05 03:39PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary will lose Iowa to Obama

Lowering expectations?

by Vox Populi 2007-10-05 03:41PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary will lose Iowa to Obama

Ha! I am not lowering the expectations. The polls are showing Obama leading in IA to being in a tie and that is a good sign for him; since he is promising to get all the youth vote out and vote for him. That might work!

by American1989 2007-10-05 03:42PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary will lose Iowa to Obama

counting on the youth vote is a waste of faith.  It  just will not pan out.

by MollieBradford 2007-10-05 03:47PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary will lose Iowa to Obama

but what if it does?  then what will you be saying?

by iamready 2007-10-05 04:06PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary will lose Iowa to Obama

it won't.  See me back here right after the caucus and we can talk about it. I'll count on the middle aged women's vote any day.

by MollieBradford 2007-10-05 04:13PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary will lose Iowa to Obama

Says the person who seems to think Gore MIGHT actually run in 2008.  ;-)

by yitbos96bb 2007-10-06 05:12PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary will lose Iowa to Obama

Well, I am a Hillary supporter and I want her to win, but the recent commentary by the experts in Iowa like Yepsen or DMR and there is supposedly an article about Obama's appeal in IA this Sunday in the NYT.

It doesn't matter if Obama is losing to Repugs in FL, I am talking about IA and I did not mention about Obama being more electable than any other Dem. I am just focused on the primary.

by American1989 2007-10-05 03:41PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary will lose Iowa to Obama

Is this a really heartfelt concern or some kind of expectations management .If it is the former I might be willing to prove to you your conclusion isn't the case.

But since I have seen another Clinton supporter in a prior diary dumping on her actually condenming her and switching his/her vote outright I am skeptical of what to make of your diary.

by lori 2007-10-05 04:21PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary will lose Iowa to Obama

Are you trying to come off as an objective poster who is above the fray?

by RJEvans 2007-10-05 03:42PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary will lose Iowa to Obama

No he is simply critiquing something he disagrees on with his candidate.  He is VERY much a Clinton supporter.  Just look at his posting history.

by yitbos96bb 2007-10-06 05:13PM | 0 recs
It seems to me that Clinton

has all her bases covered so far. I'd be surprised if she were allowing her campaign to be taken by surprise in Iowa.  

Besides I am counting on Gore getting in and screwing everybody up. On the off chance he still might do that, Clinton is the only candidate I worry about.

by MollieBradford 2007-10-05 03:45PM | 0 recs
Re: It seems to me that Clinton

I like Gore, but your crazy if you think he is getting in.  Not a chance.  Its WAY too late and as popular as Gore is, he doesn't have an active campaign nor the cash.  he can't jump into the race in November and raise 40 mill in a month.  Its just not going to happen.

by yitbos96bb 2007-10-06 05:26PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary will lose Iowa to Obama

I should say you are basing this on one poll. In all, there has been two polls to show Obama in the lead in Iowa.

None of us know what is going to happen in Iowa. We will likely have to wait until the last week or two to see where the undecideds break. Right now it is a three way race with each of them having an equal chance at winning. Edwards maybe more so than the rest.

by RJEvans 2007-10-05 03:47PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary will lose Iowa to Obama

it is anyone's race at the moment and one of the second tier candidates could surge too, you never know.


by MollieBradford 2007-10-05 04:16PM | 0 recs
I regret to inform you

that Gore is not running.

And I don't know what the other Gore holdouts in Iowa will do, but the two biggest Gore supporters in my precinct are Edwards leaners if Gore doesn't run.

by desmoinesdem 2007-10-05 09:07PM | 0 recs
Re: I regret to inform you

bite me.

You don't speak for Gore anymore than I do. It is so creepy when people pretend they know what someone else is thinking.

FYI....polls show that the plurality of Gore voters are likely to vote for Clinton.  

by MollieBradford 2007-10-07 07:18AM | 0 recs
Re: I regret to inform you

uprated - that doesnt deserve a 0

by sepulvedaj3 2007-10-11 08:15AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary will lose Iowa to Obama

maybe it's a Hillary supporter ... pretending to be an Obama troll

by misscee 2007-10-05 03:56PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary will lose Iowa to Obama

He/She is a Hillary supporter.  He/She has been an adament one.  Some of us can actually critique our candidates and I applaud that he/she is willing to do so.

by yitbos96bb 2007-10-06 05:08PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary will lose Iowa to Obama

Seeing as NO ONE has actually campaigned in Florida, I would love for you to explain the value of these polls...

by Dem in Dallas 2007-10-05 03:59PM | 0 recs
give her a break...

it's tough on people when they realize that their candidate is headed to the dustbin...

by bored now 2007-10-05 05:50PM | 0 recs
Re: give her a break...

She's as bad as AreYouReady... someone that spews ignorance over and over and has the understand of politics of a 3 year old.

by yitbos96bb 2007-10-06 05:09PM | 0 recs
all the candidates have them...

by bored now 2007-10-07 04:49AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary will lose Iowa to Obama

The candidates campaigned in Florida a lot before the DNC strong-armed them into abandoning the most critical swing state in the country.

by hwc 2007-10-05 10:20PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary will lose Iowa to Obama

Actually, Ohio is the most critical Swing State as Florida has trended Red over the last decade.  Florida though is important is number two.  Ohio may not have the same number of EVs but the ability for Dems to win it is greater than Florida.

by yitbos96bb 2007-10-06 05:11PM | 0 recs
Finally, reality about national "polls"

Again, national polls don't mean anything.  The frame will be after Iowa and who won.  From what information I have gotten, Clinton has a ceiling in Iowa.  She has not been able to break free.  And again, in Iowa, the number one issue is the War in Iraq.  How do you think people feel, with Clinton and the Kyl/Lieberman vote?  Finally, if the caucus goers increase dramatically, the establishment candidate will not win.

by iamready 2007-10-05 04:03PM | 0 recs
I agree that she has hit the ceiling

and the undecideds have largely ruled her out.

I am not sure that Iraq is the biggest issue, though. I think a lot of Dems are more concerned about domestic issues.

by desmoinesdem 2007-10-05 09:08PM | 0 recs
Too early to tell

There's a reason Obama is relatively strong in Iowa. 30%-40% of two Iowa university students are coming from IL, whether these guys are going to show up or not is another question.

Clinton will soon campaign intensively in Iowa, and I have each confidence in her ability to close the sale in the final months.

I really don't believe it's going to be a big deal if she loses Iowa by the way.

Again, we should always prepare for the worst and hope for the best, that's the way to win.

by areyouready 2007-10-05 04:04PM | 0 recs
Re: Too early to tell

If she loses Iowa to Obama, who lets say comes in 1st, wouldn't the media pundits blab about how Hillary is no longer inevitable?

That is what worries me the most. And that "momentum" going into NV and NH.

by American1989 2007-10-05 04:12PM | 0 recs
So what? Iowa is so disinct from the

wider electorate, and Hillary was never favored to win there.  In any case, polls show a tight three way race in Iowa NOT Obama running away with it. I'm thinking you are not really a Hillary supporter.  This diary is rather pointless.

by bookgrl 2007-10-05 05:22PM | 0 recs
Re: So what? Iowa is so disinct from the

no one is running away with it.  it is a three way tie.  that is why national polls are POINTLESS at this juncture.  this campaign will be framed by what happens at the iowa caucus.

by iamready 2007-10-05 05:58PM | 0 recs
You wish national polls were

pointless.  This campaign will certainly not be framed by what happens in Iowa.  No one seriously believes that.  Iowa is increasingly the only chance for Obama or Edwards to catch on, but no one would be as presumptious enough to say the campaign will be framed by what happens there.

by bookgrl 2007-10-05 06:11PM | 0 recs
Re: You wish national polls were

at this point?  national polls?  soft at best, we know this.  what happens in iowa will affect the players and it WILL frame it from this point on.  i know that HRC don't think iowa is hers to win.  she could give a ratass on iowa.  that memo leaked was correct.  she was going to give iowa "lip service" from D.C.  but was caught with her hand in the cookie jar.  she come in third in iowa and if obama wins, the momentum is thrown Obama's way and the change meme will stick on him, not her.  she will take a edwards win.  she feels he don't have enough to "battle her" on feb 5th.  and he doesn't.  and yes, i believe the campaign will be framed differently after iowa.  and if clinton wins iowa, it is OVER.  glad to see her out of her D.C. mansion and going to iowa.  she has been called out by the local media, so she had to respond.

by iamready 2007-10-05 07:38PM | 0 recs
If Edwards wins Iowa Clinton is toast.

First off, she'll have to explain the lost with all her gobs of money & insider connections. They'll still be talking about her loss by the time the next election rolls around and more people vote. Probably against her, because there are alot of them who are looking to vote against her. She is not the candidate of change afterall. She can blather on about money all she wants, but the money game hasn't served the people well at all the last few  years. Edwards needs to point that out.

This election will be about correcting the disastrous course America is on and money is part of the problem. Any candidate who counts out the southern male in the south is an idiot. I know what Hillary is trying to do with trying NH as her launch. But it won't work and better than her have tried it.

by cosbo 2007-10-06 02:27AM | 0 recs
just the opposite...

everyone expects edwards to win iowa.  if he doesn't, after all the work he put into the state, he'll be toast.  his campaign team is not exactly known for being able to rework their campaign strategy on the fly.  if edwards doesn't win iowa, it's hard to think of a state he can win...

by bored now 2007-10-06 06:41AM | 0 recs
not EVERYONE....just politicaal junkies.

a very small group of people expect Edwards to win Iowa. It'll be a shock to most of america.

by cosbo 2007-10-07 03:45AM | 0 recs
and the media...

iowa is edwards' breakout state.  if he can't win in iowa, his path to victory is reduced to virtually impossible (although i think he's reduced it to impossible by accepting public funds, but i'd bet the press won't hammer that one home)...

by bored now 2007-10-07 04:51AM | 0 recs
Re: So what? Iowa is so disinct from the

National polls are so large that they are certainly not pointless.  Quite the opposite.  It will take a miracle, which in this case would be a blowout win in Iowa.   Also, you have to look at other state polls (NH, SC, FL, MI, NV) for guidance.  Clinton is well positioned in all of them.  To claim all of those polls don't matter is ridiculous, especially considering the size of the leads across the board.

Step back and think for a moment how you would think (unbiased) if it were the GOPer.  Say, Giuliani had massive leads in national polls, massive leads in EVERY state but only a small lead in IA, then incredible internals across the board (i.e. big lead in favorables amongst the party voters, "best on Iraq," "best on health care," "best on the economy," etc.  There is NO WAY you would consider Romney a serious threat for the nomination based on being close (and perhaps winning Iowa by a small margin.)  I guarantee you that you would look at that race as quite obviously Giuliani's to lose, even with a loss in Iowa.      

by georgep 2007-10-05 06:37PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary will lose Iowa to Obama

How is it so bitter?  Hillary will win the nomination with or without Iowa.  It doesn't bother me at all.  It's just if she does, it will wrap it up much sooner.

One poll and everyone is handing Iowa to Obama- I'm going to have to see more than that to be convinced.  Hillary has plenty of time to catch up if it's true.  Don't worry about it- I'm not.

by reasonwarrior 2007-10-05 04:09PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary will lose Iowa to Obama

The reason I worry is that John Kerry was down in NH and after winning IA, he was up and won NH. Isn't that same occurance possible with Obama next year? I hope not, but it would be unwise to discount that.

by American1989 2007-10-05 04:11PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary will lose Iowa to Obama

No because of the extreme saturation of the race this year and the level of core support. Numbers will move, but a frontrunner will not be knock out over night and a new one made.

by RJEvans 2007-10-05 04:18PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary will lose Iowa to Obama

First of all, history rarely repeats itself. I find it's amusing Obama's campaign is virtually diminishing to Kerry's one-state strategy with that kind of warchest. Surprise is everything in the game, the more polls show it's a deadheat in Iowa, the better for Clinton.

NH is not going to Obama this time around. When you look at internals, independents are now swaying heavily towards Clinton in NH. Obama's message is not resonating.

Again, Obama's relative strength in Iowa is because of those IL college kids.

I really don't worry about it. Again, you're right, be prepared for the worst, and you'll usually get pleasant surprise.

by areyouready 2007-10-05 04:26PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary will lose Iowa to Obama

good luck with your strategy.

by iamready 2007-10-05 04:38PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary will lose Iowa to Obama

You're obviously right that Obama's support in Iowa is "because of those IL college kids."  They're such a huge proportion of "likely caucus-goers" that they're bound to skew the results of any poll.  What are they, 30-40 % of the sample in Iowa?

by chicago jeff 2007-10-06 03:19AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary will lose Iowa to Obama

Trust our leader!  She knows what it takes to win and she is going to do just that. LOL.

by reasonwarrior 2007-10-05 05:28PM | 0 recs

Trust our leader? Trust our leader??!!!!!

Since when does any Democrat enjoin another Democrat to "trust our leader"?

by horizonr 2007-10-06 08:11AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary will lose Iowa to Obama

I really respect your willingness to post this diary and have noted that you are an avid and active Hillary supporter.  There does seem to be a lot of evidence regarding Obama's footprint and activities in Iowa lately.  And I feel he is dealing with the national polling in the only way that makes sense, by redoubling the organisational effort in key early states.  He does have a background in community organisation and activism, which seems relevant.

I am still puzzled by the infamous Iowa memo incident earlier in Hillary's campaign.  Given the exemplary message discipline of her campaign that seems like a significant incident but I am not sure how to interpret it.  There have also been some changes there in her staff recently.  And I'm also thinking that the significance of the primary schedules of Michigan and Florida are not getting the attention they probably deserve.  Given what we saw recently in HWC's excellent diary about the stillborn referendum in California I am inclined to believe their are some major campaign strategies aligned with events which have nothing to do with the traditional early four-state scenario of previous campaigns but I am darned if I know what they are.  Any thoughts?

by Shaun Appleby 2007-10-05 04:17PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary will lose Iowa to Obama

There's a reason that Clinton is not sending all her operatives out to tell every reporter and pundit they can find about Clinton's great strategy in Iowa. She's not trying to pump up a flagging campaign.

Vilsack has very quietly said that he likes where they are in Iowa.

And, Clinton has a secret weapon to suppress Obama's Iowa vote: free kegs and pizza at all the college campuses across the state on caucus night.

by hwc 2007-10-05 04:20PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary will lose Iowa to Obama

BTW, Bill and Hillary were in Iowa on Labor Day.

Hillary returned to Iowa for her major health care unveiling.

She returned for the AARP debate, which one candidate ducked.

And, she's in Iowa for ten or eleven events over the next four days.

She's workin' her plan.

by hwc 2007-10-05 04:42PM | 0 recs
LOL! I hope Iowa doesn't have a hoops game!

by dpANDREWS 2007-10-05 04:58PM | 0 recs
Re: LOL! I hope Iowa doesn't have a hoops game!

Beer pong? Or caucus?

Beer pong? Or caucus?

Beer pong? Or caucus?

"Screw the caucus! Let's drink Hillary's beer!"

by hwc 2007-10-05 05:04PM | 0 recs
Re: LOL! I hope Iowa doesn't have a hoops game!

I wish I could communicate to them somehow the contempt in which you, a front-page Hillary supporter, hold a potential Democratic voting bloc of apparently committed supporters.  It would no doubt motivate them even further to do something to change the political landscape in this country.

by Shaun Appleby 2007-10-05 05:37PM | 0 recs
by hwc 2007-10-05 07:18PM | 0 recs
Re: LOL! I hope Iowa doesn't have a hoops game!

In spite of a strenuous effort by my browser this link timed out, sorry.

by Shaun Appleby 2007-10-05 10:01PM | 0 recs
Re: LOL! I hope Iowa doesn't have a hoops game!

Its especially sad he'd make that comment given his daughter is in college.  Says a lot about what kind of a human being he is right there.

by yitbos96bb 2007-10-06 05:29PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary will lose Iowa to Obama

If she loses, it will be in no small part the fault of this guy

Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket

by Vox Populi 2007-10-05 04:25PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary will lose Iowa to Obama

Actually, her winning Iowa would be in no small part because of the microtargeted get-out-the-vote strategy he's been building.

Get back to me with the women's turnout numbers on caucus day.

by hwc 2007-10-05 04:43PM | 0 recs
EMILY's list is planning GOTV for her in IA

A friend of mine (precinct captain for Obama in Des Moines) knows someone working for EMILY's list out of Washington, DC. He called her wanting to talk about GOTV strategies for the caucus. She is very busy and referred him to me. She also wasn't aware that EMILY's list had endorsed Hillary.

He called me and started asking questions. I told him that I would be happy to help with a GOTV plan targeted at all women, but if he was just working on a plan to identify and turn out Hillary supporters, I wasn't interested. He thanked me for being straight with him and ended the call.

We'll see how much EMILY's list can do for Hillary here.

by desmoinesdem 2007-10-05 09:13PM | 0 recs
Re: EMILY's list is planning GOTV for her in IA

Emily's List is not Clinton's main GOTV operation, although their voter list is certainly in Clinton's database and they are working with Clinton.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con tent/article/2006/03/07/AR2006030701860_ pf.html

In the 2003-2004 election cycle, the DNC began building a national voter file, and it proved highly effective in raising money. Because of many technical problems, however, it was not useful to state and local organizations trying to get out the vote.

The pressure on Democrats to begin more aggressive "data mining" in the hunt for votes began after the 2002 midterm elections and intensified after the 2004 presidential contest, when the GOP harnessed data technology to powerful effect.

In 2002, for the first time in recent memory, Republicans ran better get-out-the-vote programs than Democrats. When well done, such drives typically raise a candidate's Election Day performance by two to four percentage points. Democrats have become increasingly fearful that the GOP is capitalizing on high-speed computers and the growing volume of data available from government files and consumer marketing firms -- as well as the party's own surveys -- to better target potential supporters.

The Republican database has allowed the party and its candidates to tailor messages to individual voters and households, using information about the kind of magazines they receive, whether they own guns, the churches they attend, their incomes, their charitable contributions and their voting histories.

This makes it possible to specifically address the issues of voters who, in the case of many GOP supporters, may oppose abortion, support gun rights or be angry about government use of eminent domain to take private property. A personalized pitch can be made during door-knocking, through direct mail and e-mail, and via phone banks.

This approach is designed to complement the broad-brush approach of television and radio advertising, which by its nature must be addressed to large, and often diverse, audiences.

Traditional get-out-the-vote efforts operated crudely, such as by canvassing neighborhoods in which at least 65 percent of residents voted for a particular party. It was often deemed too inefficient to focus on neighborhoods where the partisan tilt was less decisive, and it ran the risk of doing more to turn out the opposition's vote.

The advantage of data-based targeting is that political field operatives can home in on precisely the voters they wish to reach -- the antiabortion parishioners of a traditionally Democratic African American church congregation, for instance.

Consultants working for the Republican National Committee developed strategies to design messages targeting individual voters' "anger points" in the belief that grievance is one of the strongest motivations to get people to turn out on Election Day.

Under the direction of Bush adviser Karl Rove, the RNC and state parties repeatedly tested the voter file and different ways to contact voters to determine which were most effective at boosting turnout.

"They were smart. They came into our neighborhoods. They came into Democratic areas with very specific targeted messages to take Democratic voters away from us," then-DNC Chairman Terence R. McAuliffe said after the 2004 contest. "They were much more sophisticated in their message delivery."

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/040 7/3595.html

Perhaps Ickes' largest-scale project is Catalist, a private company born out of his open distrust in the ability of Democratic Party chairman Howard Dean to build a voter database to rival that of the Republicans. Ickes is president of the company.

"It's unclear to me," Ickes said, whether the Democratic Party's database is uniform and rich enough for a national election.

The Democratic Party's voter database, a party spokeswoman said, is fully functional and accessible through a central interface.

Catalist had 19 clients last electoral cycle, many of them union-backed political operations and advocacy groups, such as the Sierra Club and the AFL-CIO, Ickes said.

Here's a link to Ickes data-mining company:


"Catalist was able to match SEIU membership, append census and commercial data and allow us to query on it all through the Q tool. What's more, they turned it around quickly and provided a higher match rate than other vendors. The data we received from Catalist enabled SEIU to get the best 'bang-for-our-buck' in our voter contact campaigns, and allowed us to target members and non-members as never before." --Bryan Whitaker, Political Analyst, SEIU

"Catalist data allowed the AFL-CIO and our affiliates to substantially extend the reach of targeting and voter contact programs in 2006 particularly in Ohio, Pennsylvania and Minnesota, and to help win Minimum Wage ballot initiative victories in Colorado, Ohio and Missouri. Catalist voter files, commercial data and list-matching services were top quality, and contributed to AFL-CIO success in driving record union turnout responsible for the winning margin for many Democratic candidates in 2006." --Mike Podhorzer, Deputy Political Director, AFL-CIO

"With just two weeks before Election Day, MoveOn realized that Iowa's 2nd district had become competitive and decided to add it to our target list. Within hours, Catalist was able to provide us with a voter file appended with enhanced phone numbers, allowing us to direct volunteer calls into the district immediately. Using Catalist data, MoveOn made 32,000 calls in the final week of the election helping the progressive candidate, Democrat Dave Loebsack, win by less than 6,000 votes. MoveOn had never been able to move so quickly in the past using other file vendors." --Adam Ruben, Political Director, MoveOn.org Political Action

I don't think you'll see Clinton's canvassing and GOTV efforts in the traditional form of walking around neighborhoods knocking on doors. Clinton has definitely geared up RNC style microtargeted database marketing.

I think you will see Women's Vote, Women's Voices heavily involved. They test marketed live phone GOTV calling to unmarried women in Iowa 1st and Iowa 2nd in the 2006 election, using Ickes database.

http://www.wvwv.org/docs/reg_and_mob_200 6.pdf

by hwc 2007-10-05 11:03PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary will lose Iowa to Obama

I'm uprating this comment because it didn't qualify for a zero rating based on a strict interpretation of the trusted user guidelines, not because I particularly agreed with the intent or content.

by Shaun Appleby 2007-10-05 05:07PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary will lose Iowa to Obama

Yeah I'm trying to figure out the zero rating too.  It wasn't an inflaming picture.  Just putting a face with the name of Mark Penn.  But whatever.

by Vox Populi 2007-10-05 05:09PM | 0 recs
If you can show me ....

Something from opensecrets showing Blackwater money or show a quote where Hillary gives props to Blackwater than I'll buy the "Blackwaters fav" bit.  Until then it is garbage.  It is baseless, factually without merit, making it a hollow and shameful slander.

by dpANDREWS 2007-10-05 05:11PM | 0 recs
Re: If you can show me ....

Well, if you zero rating the tagline, which I never even considered, then logically you would zero rate every one of Vox's comments until he changes it, which seems unfair.  I don't like the tone or intent of it either but I've ignored worse.  Tell him to change it.

by Shaun Appleby 2007-10-05 05:18PM | 0 recs
To be more clear

It was the caption not the picture and also the fact that the cheap slander was also really of topic given the thread.

by dpANDREWS 2007-10-05 05:13PM | 0 recs
Re: To be more clear

The caption?  Are you talking about my signature?  Are you going to zero rate every one of my posts because it contains a signature you disapprove of?  Wow.

by Vox Populi 2007-10-05 05:15PM | 0 recs
Read it again

Show me something from opensecrets showing Blackwater money or show a quote where Hillary gives props to Blackwater than I'll buy the "Blackwaters fav" bit.  Until then it is garbage.  It is baseless, factually without merit, making it a hollow and shameful slander.

There is no place here for shameless slander.

by dpANDREWS 2007-10-05 05:21PM | 0 recs
Re: Read it again

I'm entitled to my opinion.  But while I'm not attacking you, or attacking someone's medical condition, you should probably stop troll-rating me.

by Vox Populi 2007-10-05 05:27PM | 0 recs
Movie 'Platoon' comes to mind

by dpANDREWS 2007-10-05 05:34PM | 0 recs
Re: Movie 'Platoon' comes to mind

Which scene?

by Vox Populi 2007-10-05 05:39PM | 0 recs
Re: Read it again

Report him.  He violated the rating rules and should be warned or banned because of it, if it his 3rd offense.

by yitbos96bb 2007-10-06 05:32PM | 0 recs
Re: To be more clear

According to the trusted user guidelines Zero is for comments that are offensive, script-generated, or otherwise content-free and intended solely to abuse other readers.  As I said, not within the strict interpretation of the guidelines, he is entitled to his opinion.  The tagline, well... I'm not so happy about it either.  Troll rate him until he changes it if you don't like it.  My problem with the inappropriate zero ratings is it makes any down-thread comments disappear too, which seems discourteous to other posters when it occurs.

by Shaun Appleby 2007-10-05 05:23PM | 0 recs
The way I see it ...

The post is offensive.  I think most Democrats here find the actions of Blackwater disgusting.   So calling someone Blackwater's favorite candidate is a serious charge and it is highly offensive if it is baseless.

Furthermore the post was off topic, which tells me that it was merely intended as a cheap shot at the Democratic frontrunner.  There is already a diary dealing with Penn and Blackwater and serious comments on the subject can be posted there.

Lastly, I do not feel that bashing a Democratic candidate with attacks that are not backed up in anyway are in keeping with the spirit of this site.  If Vox wants to level such an attack against Clinton let him come with some facts.  Some quotes, some votes, some fundraising stats.

by dpANDREWS 2007-10-05 05:33PM | 0 recs
Re: The way I see it ...

As I said I hadn't even considered that you were zero rating the tagline.  But in any case a zero rating is not within the guidelines as far as I can see.  Take it up with Vox and/or use the troll rating if you want to get his attention.  Challenge him on it and see if you can get him to change it.  Write a diary about it.

by Shaun Appleby 2007-10-05 05:43PM | 0 recs
Re: The way I see it ...

I'm a reasonable person.  Changed.

by Vox Populi 2007-10-05 08:36PM | 0 recs
Re: The way I see it ...

I like that one.

by Shaun Appleby 2007-10-05 08:57PM | 0 recs
Re: The way I see it ...

I love my country, more than I like any of our presidential candidates.

by Vox Populi 2007-10-05 09:04PM | 0 recs
Re: The way I see it ...

Yeah because YOU NEVER make offensive comments about Obama or Edwards.  What a fucking hypocrite you have turned into.

by yitbos96bb 2007-10-06 05:34PM | 0 recs
Edwards has been there since 2003

Hard to top that.  Obama has refocused his campaign along the lines of other desperate campaigns of past focusing on a couple of states as "must wins".  Clinton is campaigning every where to be the Democratic nominee.  Including Iowa.

I heard on Hardball the other night from Fineman that she has a big swing though Iowa - rural Iowa I believe - coming up very soon.  I am sure it won't be the last swing, but one of many.  It is clear with the team she has put together in Iowa that she is serious about competing there.

You don't get Teresa Vilmain to run your Iowa ground game if you are not serious about Iowa.

by dpANDREWS 2007-10-05 04:54PM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards has been there since 2003

She also has very effective surrogates in Mr. and Mrs. Vilsack.

The caucuses are good old-fashioned Democratic machine politics. It's all about a top-down structure to turn out the vote. Getting the right people at the state level, who use their connections to get the right people at the county level, who use their contacts to get the right people at the precinct level.

The Clinton folk aren't out bragging. I think they would prefer to have their efforts (and expectations) fly along under the radar.

Edwards and Obama have no choice but to puff up their Iowa prospects to the media 24/7 because it's all they've got. Without the promise of an "Iowa strategy", they are finished.

by hwc 2007-10-05 05:01PM | 0 recs

by dpANDREWS 2007-10-05 05:14PM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards has been there since 2003

I have a question regarding the IL students of two major Iowa universities. A NYT article said about 30-40% of these university students are from IL.  Will they be able to vote in Iowa? Do they need to show any certificates in order to vote? I'm afraid Obama will bus lots of out-of-state organge hats to stuff the ballot boxes.

by areyouready 2007-10-05 05:20PM | 0 recs
I am no caucus expert ...

But I am sure you have to a resident, plus a registered Democrat, plus there must be some residency requirements.  Most college students keep their residency at their parents address because that is where the bills go ( not saying all ... but at least when I went to school most).

by dpANDREWS 2007-10-05 05:25PM | 0 recs
Re: I am no caucus expert ...

As long as Hillary is at the least second in Iowa, she is in good shape.  A Dean like finish of third would put her in a fight.

by Todd Bennett 2007-10-05 05:30PM | 0 recs
I am not so sure

Pollster like Zogby will tell that Dean was done before Iowa.  That he actually collasped in Dec. as the race had changed.  Democrats decided Bush could be beaten and decided to focus on a general election candidate.  

As late as Nov. Democrats when polled said Bush's could be beaten and Dean, with his pricipled stands was a favorite.

Furtermore there was time before Iowa and New Hampshire.   How many times did we see the scream?   There is no time between this time.  Just a few days.

Lastly remember, Bill didn't win Iowa or New Hampshire.   Me tough, I think Hillary wins both.  

by dpANDREWS 2007-10-05 05:38PM | 0 recs
well, no...

any citizen over 18 can register and attend a caucus.  courts have already ruled (quite awhile ago) that college residencies count as legal residency, if the student so chooses.  this is particularly important in states with same day registration...

by bored now 2007-10-05 05:57PM | 0 recs
But I assume you can't be registered elsewhere

That would be illegial, no?

by dpANDREWS 2007-10-05 09:06PM | 0 recs
you can't vote elsewhere (on the same day)...

that would be illegal.  most college kids -- and that's what we're talking about -- aren't registered, and the percentages are extremely high that their first place of voter registration is where they went to college.  in areas that i work, i always try to encourage campaigns/local parties to have voter registration available at high school graduation -- one good rite of passage deserves another -- but this is very uncommon.  voter registration efforts at colleges are quite common, otoh, and not just during presidential elections.

however, to follow up on what i think you're really asking -- it is not the registered voter but the local election unit (soe, clerk, in washington state they call it something else that i don't recall atm) that is responsible for getting the newly registered voter purged from any voter's rolls he or she may have been on.  this doens't always occur, and as an odd twist of fate, i happen to still be registered to vote in florida  even though i now live (and vote) in illinois.  i've made three efforts (returned the card they send out) to get removed from the florida rolls, but i am still registered to vote there.  obviously, i don't -- that would be illegal.  but i think it's very interesting that florida is quick to purge black voters, but a white voter who's made several efforts to get removed from the rolls can't seem to get off it...

by bored now 2007-10-06 06:51AM | 0 recs
students in IA can vote in IA

they can choose to register here or in their home states.

The problem for Obama is that the caucuses are likely to be when students are home on winter break.

by desmoinesdem 2007-10-05 09:15PM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards has been there since 2003

My daughter votes at college. She just registered there, like anyone else.

The problem is turning out the college vote, especially when they are on winter break and scattered all over creation.

by hwc 2007-10-05 07:23PM | 0 recs
I think a few supporters feel this way

One, I think many see the other desperate campaigns throwing all the chips into Iowa and the tendency is to think that your candidate isn't throwing enough in.  I think Clinton is.  She isn't running the same type of desperate campaign as others.  Edwards for instance is simply done if he doesn't win Iowa.  He is home carpooling the kids the next morning.

by dpANDREWS 2007-10-05 04:57PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary will lose Iowa to Obama

    * 10/7: New Hampton Event with Hillary
    * 10/7: Anamosa Event with Hillary
    * 10/7: Maquoketa Event with Hillary

Middle Class Express Bus Tour

   * 10/8: Speech in Cedar Rapids
    * 10/8: Marshalltown Event with Hillary
    * 10/8: Boone Event with Hillary
    * 10/8: Ames Rally with Hillary
    * 10/9: Webster City Event with Hillary
    * 10/9: Dakota City Event with Hillary

by dblhelix 2007-10-05 05:01PM | 0 recs
Ok, what's up with this?

Come on, 1989.  No Hillary supporter would publish such tripe.  First, it's Obama who has to win in Iowa to make a realistic go at it.  Hillary does not need Iowa.  I don't get this diary.

Now, on a completely different note, the Yankees just lost their second game to the Cardinals.  Whoohoo!  This is great for the Sox.  Ok, sorry to get off topic, but it just happened.

by bookgrl 2007-10-05 05:37PM | 0 recs
Re: Ok, what's up with this?

The Yankees lost the second game to the Indians, not the Cardinals.

I am a Hillary supporter; my past posts do support that. I am just worried that Hillary might be vulnerable to IA. That is it. I am an informed, but curious supporter.

by American1989 2007-10-05 06:20PM | 0 recs
Ha! Yes, the Indians. Not sure how

I made that mistake.

Look, I'm teasing you a bit.  Curiousity is fine, but you don't post diaries with declaritive statements like Hillary will lose Iowa to Obama.  That's not very helpful support, and it's frankly hyperbolic.  

by bookgrl 2007-10-05 06:30PM | 0 recs
Re: Ok, what's up with this?

Ok I checked a lot of your posts , you are truly a hillary supporter although I can understand why you are worried but not enough to put up a diary saying with certainty Obama will win Iowa.

Howvever you have to understand that every campaign has its own strategy.

For example  Hillary Rodham Clinton hasn't done much campaigning In Iowa up till now because She has been focusing on her job in the senate that is why she hasn't missed too many votes for someone campaigning for President unlike Obama who has chosen to do a lot of campaigning in Iowa partly because he is unknown and partly because he has to win there or is almost out , unlike Hillary She is well known so she didn't feel she had to do much campaigning until now .

Now we are at the crucial point and I expect thing to change because people are going to start to make up their minds , so expect to see her more in Iowa and expect her to miss more votes than earlier on , she has said that much herself (i.e. She can't guarantee she will keep an almost perfect attendance )

For someone he hasn't done as much campaigning as the others and the polls show her leading and sometimes tied , she has had a good return on investment.

Her support is spread out evenly across the state , rural , city and metro areas , even though in most cases she hasn't even gone into the rural areas , for her to be tied or ahead is a great return on investment .

Number of trips to Iowa between Aug 1 - Sept 30

Edwards = 51
Obama   = 39  
Clinton = 15

So it was a trade off between missing a whole lot of votes and campigning like you didn't have a job.

She chose to do her job and campaigning strategically and it paid off because she is either tied or ahead in the polls.

However others were jobless or skipped their jobs to campaign , and with all the trips they have under their belt they still aren't pulling away .

I think she is well positioned and look for her in Iowa more often and don't worry about her organization , she has 21 offices to obama's 31 and there is more to come . You have to understand that Obama has to do well In Iowa so he has to pour all his efforts in there , the other thing to watch is the calendar , it is either Jan 5 or Jan 3 , that calendar doesn't look favorable to Obama and if it falls on the 5th which Clinton would love the impact of Iowa will be further diminished.

by lori 2007-10-05 06:54PM | 0 recs
a Hillary supporter

In response to several comments up-thread, the diarist is definitely a Hillary supporter.  Just read his previous diaries.

by markjay 2007-10-05 06:27PM | 0 recs
Re: a Hillary supporter

They eat their own.

by Vox Populi 2007-10-05 06:29PM | 0 recs
Oh, I tease.

But "Hillary will lose Iowa"?  Supporters of any candidate should avoid hyperbole.

by bookgrl 2007-10-05 06:32PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary will lose Iowa to Obama

Iowa is a challenge.  That was always clear.  First, in any caucus state, you only have the hard core supporters voting, which makes it tighter then among the larger population that votes in a primary.  Secondly, Iowa borders Illinois, and there is a good deal of media penetration across the border and a lot of Illinois students in Iowa.

Hillary is in great financial shape, has a superb leadership team, and has the world's best surrogate campaigner and strategist in Bill.  It will be a tough fight, but I think she'll persist and win by a few points.  In any case, with her huge leads in key states such as New York and California, and her solid lead in New Hampshire, she's in tremendous shape for the big enchilada.

by markjay 2007-10-05 06:31PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary will lose Iowa to Obama

If there were more black folks in Iowa Hillary would certainly win, since many in our race--like the CBC--are doing their best to do Obama in because he shames them.

by NewNoir 2007-10-05 08:43PM | 0 recs
what is the motivation here?

I am curious about what you mean by Obama "shaming" the black politicians who are not supporting him.

My Jewish grandmother used to say that she'd never vote for a Jew for president, because as soon as anything went wrong, "They would blame the Jews."

Do you think that some black politicians just don't like Obama? Or would they be campaigning against any AA presidential candidate? Or is it more about supporting the Clintons than opposing Obama?

by desmoinesdem 2007-10-05 09:20PM | 0 recs
Re: what is the motivation here?

Or is it more about supporting the Clintons than opposing Obama?

Yes. I saw some coverage of a recent poll somewhere in the last few days. Apparently the "women's connection" is about equally strong with the "black connection" among African American women. That is supported by the polling which shows Obama winning the male African American vote while Clinton wins the African American female vote. Of course, the women's side of that equation is signficantly larger.

These issues are part of what makes this an historically fascinating election. A lot of old assumptions have to be revisited with this slate of candidates. Ask John Edwards -- being a white male is a real handicap for him in the Democratic primary race given the paucity of white males in the Democratic Party electorate.

by hwc 2007-10-05 11:09PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary will lose Iowa to Obama

Hillary may well lose Iowa. She  will probably come in a close second and then move on to win New Hampshire decisively. Ironically, Iowa may well be the ultimate loser if Hillary does not come first but goes on to win the nomination in the end. Iowa's disproportionate clout and its skill at picking presidential nominees will be under tighter scrutiny than ever. Future candidates will choose to skip their confusing and manipulative caucus system altogether. Its probably unfair, but Iowa is also under scrutiny too and probably needs to get it right this time. I do think though the Clinton campaign should try to counteract the MSM's inevitability meme as well as Bill's talk of what he would be called. The First Gentleman title talk is jumping the gun a bit and goes against his own rule of not getting ahead of one's self. I like the fact that Hillary counteracts all this inevitablility talk by always asking for people directly for their vote and support at the end of her campaign speeches. She should do it more often and emphasize the fact that she knows nothing is guaranteed. Otherwise, Iowa or not she is in a good place to win the nomination.

by superetendar 2007-10-06 09:02AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary will lose Iowa to Obama

The Republicans have already decided Iowa's ass isn't worth kissing. Guliani has just made a perfunctory effort. McCain has moved to New Hamphshire.

This on the heels of the last Democratic President never setting foot in the state for the Iowa caucus in 1992 or 1996.

by hwc 2007-10-06 11:22AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary will lose Iowa to Obama

Yeah, exactly. I just think Iowa is becoming less and less relevant as the presidential campaigns come and go. I think the caucus system is just crazy. Its positively medieval.

by superetendar 2007-10-06 05:28PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary will lose Iowa to Obama

You have no idea what you are talking about.  Please go away and quit your ignorant rantings saying Obama is unelectable.  Its total bullshit, makes you look completely stupid, destroys what little credibility you have left on here and really just makes you seem like a bitter little troll.  

And he's a very big Hillary supporter.  Anyone who actually takes the time to READ the blog instead of making the ignorant comments you have made for 10 months knows that.  

by yitbos96bb 2007-10-06 05:06PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary will lose Iowa to Obama

I predict Obama will win in Iowa, if Only for Iowa votes to get put BACK on the MAP of importance.  

They know that Hillary, thanks to the media, has got it all sewed up.  If they want to change the dynamics - this is the way to do it.  Give Hillary a run for her money.

Don't let her float into the nomination.  Make her work for it.  Make her answer those questions that Republicans are sure to ask (once she's nominated).  Make her face the music NOW - not when it's too late to change your minds.

by coonbug 2007-10-07 08:56AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary will lose Iowa to Obama

Can't you see the debates now?  Hillary, exactly what kind of experience DO you have?  What did you do during Bill's terms in office pertaining to foreign and domestic policy besides hold State Parties and shake hands for foreign dignitaries?

Coonsey's View

by coonbug 2007-10-07 08:58AM | 0 recs


Advertise Blogads