The Iowa Caucuses: Taking Stock of What Happened

Well the Iowa Caucuses are finally over after thousands of hours of coverage by T.V. journalists before and after the voting.  Now, those same journalists and political advisers are going to tell the people how important the Iowa vote was and what it means to all the candidates.

 

Lets try to put the Iowa vote in a proper frame work that people should understand.  The great majority of Iowa's registered voters who will vote in this year's November Presidential election did not cast a vote in the caucuses on January 3.  But, because journalists sell spin and promote certain candidates, they build the caucuses up as being decisive for a candidate to win his party's nomination.  Iowa's caucuses rules and methods are not on the same level when compared to the other presidential primaries where all registered voters get a chance to cast their votes.

 

Television's devotion of so much time to a flawed caucus is to fill up time and influence the people's vote.  Like politicians, they are the world's greatest salesmen.  They are able to influence people even though they offer nothing to promote or improve the quality of politics in America nor do they objectively evaluate candidates.

 

I thought it was strange that journalists interviewed Rudy Giuliani during the returns of the Iowa caucus.  Here is a presidential candidate who skipped Iowa, will not campaign in New Hampshire, and is entering only the larger primaries.  But journalists spent time interviewing him because he is one of their boys.  Yet they dismiss the candidates who did campaign and come in below third place.

 

The total vote at the Iowa caucuses equaled approximately 20% of the voters who are qualified to vote in the Presidential general election in November 2008.  In other words, 80% of the eligible voters did not show up to caucus.  That should be an eye opener for any one who thinks that this caucus was decisive.

 

Hopefully the people of New Hampshire, who will vote in their party's primary on January 8, will tune out the T.V. journalists and all of their hype and spin and vote for the candidate that they think can best serve as the next president.  Their independent thought means much more to this country and good politics then all the spin created by the news media. 

2008: Celebration or Return To The Status Quo?

Every year America celebrates the new year with hope, joy, and a desire that the new year will truly bring advancements for the common good and that the quality of life will be improved for all people everywhere.

 

This new year we are starting out with the continuation of War in Iraq and Afghanistan with our men and women in uniform still paying the ultimate price with their sacrifice.  There is unfortunately no end in sight.  Our President can't tell us how either war will turn out and there is a very strong possibility more U.S. troops will be sent to Afghanistan. 

 

Since this new year is also an election year for a new President, we are being told Congress will not get any thing meaningful accomplished.  After record deficit spending for the past 7 years, the budget will still be in deficit at the end of this year and no end is in sight.  The administration told the American people that Iraqi oil would pay for the war, but it never happened, and so far it has cost the American taxpayers a half trillion dollars and growing.

 

The increase in the price of oil has been at record levels for over a year and no down turn is in the offering, in fact hitting a record a few days ago of $100 barrel.  We have a president who has not lifted one finger to bring those prices down.  There is a mortgage crisis and people have no confidence in this president whatsoever.  The people have openly been lied to over and over concerning a wide range of issues by this president.

 

So what does the American people have to look forward to in this new year? There is always hope, and our people have plenty of that, but how is that converted to something positive for the people with so many negative issues that have failed to be acted on.  What can we the people do to really change the direction of our country in 2008?

 

All of us have to dig deep inside and resolve to break the status quo in some kind of way.  I think a good start would be to challenge our elected officials more to influence their decisions and to let them know that we are not going to continue to reelect them, just because they have been there a long time.  I urge you to resolve to make your own decisions and judgements and break the cycle of influence that news journalists try to bestow on the American public. 

 

If we are independent in our thoughts and decisions, we have the power to change things for the better.  Don't be afraid to think before you act or take the time to analyze the situation.  You will be pleasantly surprised at the power of independent thought.  Good luck in 2008, Happy New Year and hopefully all of us will become better at demanding positive accomplishments from our elected officials in order to move our country forward and improve the quality of life for all Americans. 

Caucus For Hillary

This country is facing unprecedented challenges.  It needs a leader who offers real solutions and has a proven record of bringing about the right kind of change.  Sen. Hillary Clinton is that candidate.  

She has the experience.  She has the strength.  She has the perseverance.  She will be ready, from day one, to take on the daunting role of President and Commander-In-Chief. 

This election is not about the past, it's about the future.  When dealing with the debacle that is the Iraq War, we must be as careful getting out as we were careless getting in.  Hillary has the military knowledge, having served over 6 years on the Armed Services Committee, to bring this war to a safe, responsible end.  Hillary fought for universal healthcare before it was even popular and never backed down from that position.  Hillary is also a proven strong candidate against the Republicans.  No one thought she would be able to win over the many rural conservatives and, for that matter, moderate Republicans in upstate New York when she ran for the Senate.  Not only did she win them over by a large margin in 2000, but in 2006, she received even more support from GOP voters and Independents. She carried 58 out of New York's 62 counties, many of which went to George Bush in the '04 election.  Clinton has fought for the progressive cause for 35 years and will fight for it everyday in this campaign and every day that she is in the White House.  

Please, if you have the option, caucus for Hillary.

Obama Or Clinton: Who's More Favorable?

Well, if you listened to the media, or even many bloggers, you would hear, "Obama, of course".  Not so according to a new Rasmussen survey, taken from 12/26-29.  

                            Favorable     Unfavorable

Clinton:                    48                  50

Obama:                  43                  51

As is seen, the country not only has a less favorable view of Obama, although statistically insignificant, but also has a more favorable view of Clinton than it does of Obama.  So doesn't this automatically debunk Obama's claim to fame, that is, that he is the most electable. Remember, he said that he doesn't want Democrats to start off the next election with half the public not favorable to them.  I suppose, by his own argument, that Obama should not be nominated then.  And just think, if half the country doesn't like him now, just think how it would be if he is the nominee.  The GOP will slaughter him.  Hillary has been vetted and tested and her problems are all out in the open.  The same can not be said of Obama.  His negatives would be sure to rise.  

Hillary Surging In New Hampshire

Although the outcome of the New Hampshire Primary, taking place this Tuesday, will certainly be influenced by the Iowa caucus results, Sen. Hillary Clinton is once again taking a strong lead in the key state of New Hampshire.

Suffolk polling has been tracking the trend of New Hampshire primary voters, and the trend is towards a Clinton win.  When tracking the trend of voters from 12/27-12/31, Sen. Clinton was leading by 14%.  That lead is way up from previous polls which showed either Obama ahead by a few points or Clinton winning by a much smaller margin (by about 2-3 points).  

Well the surge of Hillary seems to be continuing.  In a new poll from Suffolk released this morning, tracking voters from 12/31-1/1, Sen. Clinton opened up a 17 point lead over Obama.  

Why is this significant, especially if the Iowa results have such a great influence?  Simple.  The winner of Iowa is expected to get a 15-20% boost in New Hampshire.  If Hillary can break that 20% barrier, she could potentially survive a loss to Obama in Iowa, however, I stress the word potentially.  Obama's strong support among Independents still makes him very viable in New Hampshire.  But nonetheless, this is great news for the Clinton campaign.  Many expected her to weaken as the caucuses and primaries neared, but she is indeed strengthening or, at the very least, maintaing a slight lead.  

Hillary: Strongest Dem In Key Swing States

Here are the results of two polls that don't seem to be getting much play by the Obama-loving media. They clearly show, as many other polls do, that Hillary is the Democrat best positioned to win in 2008.  The polls that are shown by the media show Obama and Edwards doing better across the board, in a popular vote scenario.  But Obama and Edwards do little to nothing to win states that weren't won by Kerry and Gore in the previous two elections.  As we all know, it is not the popular vote that will matter in November, it is the electoral vote.  And when you look at the two most important swing states---Ohio and Florida---it is clear that Hillary has the advantage.

Florida Quinnipiac Poll (full polling here):

-Hillary 48%      Rudy: 41%

-Obama 37%       Rudy 45%

-Edwards 39%    Rudy 43%

Although it is highly unlikely that Giuliani will be the GOP nominee, poll results are similar when the top Democrats are polled against McCain, Romney, and Huckabee.  Hillary beats McCain by 7%, Romney by 14%, and Huckabee by 15%.  Edwards and Obama either lose or win by a much smaller margin.

Ohio Survey USA Poll  (full polling here):

-Hillary 49%     Rudy 40%

-Obama 40%     Rudy 46%

-Hillary 51%      Romney 40%

-Obama 43%     Romney 42%

-Hillary 51%      Huckabee 39%

-Obama 43%     Huckabee 42%

-Hillary 45%      McCain 45%

-Obama 38%     McCain 47%

Sorry Edwards supporters, he was not polled here, but as is demonstrated yet again, Clinton can win those swing states; it would be much harder for Obama to do so.  And if these Ohio polls weren't convincing enough, Ted Strickland, Governor of Ohio, has said that Clinton has the best chance to win Ohio and also said he would campaign heavily for her.  

Another potential victory for the Democrats, if Clinton is the nominee, is Virginia, a state that has not been considered a swing state in years.  But, as a new Survey USA poll shows (available here), Clinton beats Giuliani 47-46, Romney 51-41, and Mike Huckabee 52-28.  In Kentucky, another GOP stronghold, Clinton also does surprisingly well.  She beats Giuliani 47-45, Romney 50-41, and Huckabee 49-39.  

So remember when voting on who's most electable, that it's the electoral vote that matters, not the popular vote.  So while Obama and Edwards may do better across the board with Republicans, they do not win over any states that Clinton doesn't, but Clinton does win over states that they do not.  

Obama Sounding More And More Republican---Attacks Fellow Democrats

Barack Obama, under the masquerade of "change", is eerily sounding more and more like a Republican---that is---attacking some of the most well respected Democrats.  

If all his talk of a social security "crisis" wasn't sounding Republican enough for you, it was just yesterday afternoon in Iowa when Obama went after, get this, former Vice President Al Gore and Sen. John Kerry, saying:

"I don't want to go into the next election starting off with half the country already not wanting to vote for Democrats -- we've done that in 2004, 2000."

Obama proceeded to make the case that it was Gore and Kerry's fault that they were not elected; that somehow he is a much better Democrat than they.  

And although he tackled Sen. Hillary Clinton on the issues and on policies in the past (which is fair game in an election), he is now going after her character, just yesterday calling her "just like George W. Bush."  Now I understand that he and many others may not agree with Sen. Clinton's positions, but it is factually inaccurate, not to mention just plain insulting, to make the case that Hillary Clinton is a Bush clone.  Obama also recently attacked Hillary's experience saying that is was limited to "having tea" with foreign officials.  You just have to look at her record as First Lady and Senator to know that she did much more than that.  This from the same guy whose claim to foreign policy experience comes from spending 4 years overseas when he was a child.    

Obama then went on to attack former President Bill Clinton, telling the audience that Bill resented him because he was new to Washington and stood for change.  He went on to imply that he (Obama) has more experience now than Bill did when running in '92.  (hmm...let's see, Bill was Attorney General for 2 years and Governor for 12 years.  Thats a total of 14 years being elected by the entire state.  Obama, on the other hand, was elected by just one district to a State Senate seat, which hardly prepares you for the Presidency, for 7 years.  Obama has just been in the U.S. Senate for 3 years, one year of which he has been absent more than any other Senator because of his campaign.---- You decide who had more experience----it should be pretty clear.)

Democrats need to look long and hard at this guy.  Maybe he thinks that if he acts more like a Republican and insults his fellow, well respected Democrats, he will win over more GOP votes.  And he maybe right on that account.  But Democratic caucus goers and primary voters need to decide if thats what they really want---someone who is not only willing, but eager to go after people from his own party, just to gain the votes of people from the opposing isle.  I suppose I could attribute his going after Bill and Hillary to desperation in this election, but Gore and Kerry?  What does he hope to accomplish by going after them and insinuating that he is a better Democrat than they are?  Well, I have news for him, he is not, nor will ever be, as good of a Democrat as Al Gore or John Kerry.  Or for that matter, Bill and Hillary.  

Des Moines Register's Latest Poll Analysis

Mark Penn, chief strategist for the Clinton campaign, has a new post up at hillaryclinton.com where he tackles the latest Des Moines Register poll.  The latest DMR poll shows Sen. Barack Obama leading Sen. Clinton 32-25%, and this has sent the Obama campaign and many liberal Obama bloggers into a frenzy.  However, what Obama, his surrogates, and his supporters fail to mention are other polls that show a slightly different trend.  

-An Insider Advantage poll conducted 12/28-29 shows Clinton leading Obama 30%-22%.

-A Zogby poll from 12/27-30 has Clinton with a 4 point lead over Obama

-An American Research Group poll from 12/26-28 has Clinton at 31%, followed by Obama at 24%.

And to top it all off, two of the latest polls, conducted within the same time frame as the DMR's poll, shows Clinton, not Obama, coming out on top:

-A CNN poll shows Clinton in the lead with 33%, compared to 31% for Obama.

-A Reuters/C-Span poll has Clinton winning 30%-26 over Obama.

So why the clear difference in the DMR poll from other recent polls?  Here is Mark Penn's analysis:

"The Des Moines Register poll adopts an unprecedented new turnout model for the caucuses, and its new poll is out of sync with the other polling done in the race.

When you look at Democrats who last time were 80% of the turnout, Hillary wins with that group by 6%, 33 to 27 for Obama and 25 for Edwards. And as David Yepsen points out, had their pollsters used the 2004 turnout model, Hillary would lead by 29 to 27, figures in line with the other polls.

The Des Moines Register Poll this time has 40% independent voters and 5% GOP voters in the poll when past independent participation has been 15% in 2000 and 19% in 2004, and the GOP has generally made up 1% of the vote. So they are depicting an unprecedented departure from historically established turnout patterns in the caucus. Under their model, only 55% of the caucus goers would be Democrats.

So we do not see this poll as accurately reflecting the trends we are seeing in other polls, on our nightly canvasses or in our own polls, and voters should understand this is a very close race, and that their participation on caucus night could make all of the difference."

So, while the DMR poll certainly has to be taken into account, it should not be taken to mean that this race is all but over, with Obama being the victor, as many have exclaimed.    The DMR poll, although historically accurate, has factored in some rather unknown and unprecedented variables.  That's why the poll must be analyzed in context with other historically accurate and recent polling.  

Bottom Line: This race is still extremely close and anyone of the top three Democrats could win the Iowa caucus and hence the nomination. 

Happy New Year

As we approach a new year, we must also prepare to deal with the challenges that will drag on from 2007, as well as new ones that are sure to arise.  In 2008, America will choose it's 44th President; and although there are many great candidates out there, there is one that is most definitely prepared to deal with those challenges.  

May everyone have a great New Year!

Ron Paul Parody

Here is a great, hilarious video I came across that pokes fun at Ron Paul's comments on last week's Meet the Press concerning Abraham Lincoln, the Civil War, and the civil rights movement.  Enjoy!