January 4, 200818 yr Obviously, I believe many still feel she may project as the nominee, but this may be a shot across the bow. No longer invincible? No longer a shoo-in? She has had some recent gaffes, particularly with her statements about Pakistan... Many of you have been following this more closely, overall what does it mean. Obviously, it allows Edwards to keep a pulse, and a definite boost for Obama.
January 4, 200818 yr Obviously, I believe many still feel she may project as the nominee, but this may be a shot across the bow. No longer invincible? No longer a shoo-in? She has had some recent gaffes, particularly with her statements about Pakistan... Many of you have been following this more closely, overall what does it mean. Obviously, it allows Edwards to keep a pulse, and a definite boost for Obama. Losing to Obama with the Oprah bump can be explained. I don't see how losing to Edwards is explainable. Although if it turns out to be 35, 33, 32 percent, they will say statistically tie for 2nd. AND they will and have already been pointing out that Bill did not win Iowa first time and did not win a primary till several into the campaign the first time. It has already been pointed out a lot that 2/5 is the 2008 Dday.
January 4, 200818 yr Sure, just like anyone else the Hillary camp wanted to win Iowa, but coming in second was the real goal, and if she came in third, a VERY close third was acceptable.
January 4, 200818 yr Sure, just like anyone else the Hillary camp wanted to win Iowa, but coming in second was the real goal, and if she came in third, a VERY close third was acceptable. Spoken like a true liberal. :sssh:
January 4, 200818 yr Spoken like a true liberial. :sssh: What is a liberial? Is that somebody from Liberia?
January 4, 200818 yr Spoken like a true liberal. :sssh: It was the plan all along. Don't worry about the outcome in Iowa too much, other states within the next month are more important, Gilliani thinks the same thing, which is why he had such a low showing in Iowa. Wake me up in about 5 weeks, then we will get a better idea who is on top in both parties. :sssh: Reagan didn't win Iowa either.
January 4, 200818 yr It shows she's not the shoo-in. It shows that Barack is going to get a lot of young voters out that might not have ventured out. NH is now huge for her.
January 4, 200818 yr That the democratic voters in Iowa have pretty good sense. Unfortunately I doubt the same holds true nationwide.
January 4, 200818 yr Probably not much significance in the long run. Her focus has been the weeks ahead.
January 4, 200818 yr Probably not much significance in the long run. Her focus has been the weeks ahead. I agree. The race was close enough to not matter. Guliani on the other hand is setting himself up for failure by focusing on the Florida primary. He got toasted in Iowa (3%) and may have similar experiences in the other primaries leading up to Florida. Florida is important, but if you get trounced in Iowa, New Hampshire, Michigan, Nevada, and South Carolina, I think you've lost all your momentum.
January 4, 200818 yr The one read into this third place finish and her sales pitch so far is as the others drop off, her pick up of those votes will not really improve. At this point, if Edwards dropped how much would go to Hillary, not as much to Obama. Same for Obama to Edwards. The fact is the "experience" claim of Hillary is and has been rejected by nearly 72% of the Democratic voter base who has known the Clinton name and all for 20 years. If that is not a significant read????
January 4, 200818 yr I thought it interesting that we got to see 3 victory speeches tonight from Democratic candidates. Anyone else see the Clinton/Hussein Obama/Edwards speeches tonight?
January 4, 200818 yr Author I agree. The race was close enough to not matter. Guliani on the other hand is setting himself up for failure by focusing on the Florida primary. He got toasted in Iowa (3%) and may have similar experiences in the other primaries leading up to Florida. Florida is important, but if you get trounced in Iowa, New Hampshire, Michigan, Nevada, and South Carolina, I think you've lost all your momentum. It is Rudy' best chance to win... Huckabee winning Iowa helps. What Rudy needs is for Romney to be knocked out and that may happen. Getting dusted in Iowa, after he spent so much money and time there had to deflate his campaign. He desperately needs NH, but McCain has come off the mat and is leading. A McCain win there sends Romney to the mat again and possibly for a 10 count... Rudy's best chance is against Huckabee, because Huck doesn't have the money. He needs a Rudy vesus Anti-Rudy campaign. The worst case scenario for RUdy would be for McCain to continue a surge after NH. He and McCain share similar stances. Romney losing big tonight was huge for Rudy and his strategy of going "dark" may just work.
January 4, 200818 yr The Iowa defeat was a crushing blow to Hillary's campaign. She was the odds on favorite to win the nomination only a few weeks ago. Losing by a wide margin in Iowa will force her to go on the attack and running an extremely negative campaign against the party's first serious black candidate will be extremely risky. Hillary is an unlikeable candidate running against an attractive, personable, and articulate opponent and tonight's results reinforced that image.
January 4, 200818 yr Bush the Elder finished third in 1988; he won the Republican caucuses in 1980. Among Democrats, Tom Harkin won Iowa in 1992 and Dick Gephardt won in 1988. Edmund Muskie won it in 1972. I'm not impressed. I don't think the Iowa caucuses reflect anything, given problems with the format.
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.