The Iowa Caucus

W

Warbler

At the Start
Joined
Jun 6, 2005
Messages
8,493
Admittedly the good old US of A has one of the more crazy electoral systems in the world, but its just possible that having been denied the spectacle in 2000 of a Guiliani and Clinton dust up we might be going to get it afterall. It's just a shame that the stakes will be so high this time round.

The battle for New York State Senator back then, threatend to eclipse the Presidential battle, as neither Gore nor Bush inspired in what seemed like an altogether safer time where economic prosperity had seduced voters into a degree of complacency. In my experience you could go into a New York bar, and declare for the Yankees or Mets, the Giants of Jets and would usually get a bit of good natured banter. No name seemed to provoke a level of hostility or adoration however more than Rudy Guiliani's. There really was no neutral opinion, and expressing one was the quickest way to either getting a free beer, or getting a punch in the throat (usually the former in Manhattan). When I was last there Hilary was just in the process of 'gloving up' and Rudy was similarly cranking up his well oiled, totally dirty and ruthless campaign machine that had seen him decapitate any Democrat put in front of him to date. He really had developed the cult of his personality and imposed on the city, and it was both awesome and frightening, but as a visitor, compulsive to observe, safe in the knowledge that it only effected you temporarily. Alas prostate cancer prevented him from taking the field.

Since then of course Rudy has carved out an international profile, and skillfully re-branded himself as 'America's mayor' obviously aware that New York Mayors (not unlike their Senators) don't have a good track record of running for the big office, such is the level of national dis-trust of the City. Unless I'm very much mistaken, he seems to have softend considerably, which might take some of the colour out of any clash, but I still think it will be theatre and dirty politics at its lowest.

Now I've just seen the first polls for the Iowa Caucus which has Guiliani neck and neck with McCain for the Republican nomination, and Edwards leading Obama, and Clinton in third for the Democrats. Now Edwards has spent quite a bit of time in the State, concious of the importance of the momentum Iowa can give. Clinton by contrast hasn't been able to do much, but the fact she trails him by 14 points, and that Obama's support is more likely to go her way than Edwards's in later voting argurs well for her I'd have thought?

Like many, I suspect that America is no way going to elect a black candidate, yet alone a President, and at some point Obama will drop out and declare for one over the other. Similarly, McCain has been around long enough now for him not to really set the Republican imagination going, and I can't see him succeeding where he's failed previously?

So could we be looking at a Guiliani versus Clinton Presidental campaign? Far to early to say I know, but its a mouth watering prospect for a country whose homogenous political prcoess usually turns up bland and dull candidates. Like I said in the first paragraph, it's just a shame the stakes are so high, otherwise this could be hilarious.

Watch this space :brows:

And if John Edwards should become President, and makes Hilary VP, just an early bit of advice for him.......Avoid flying unless she's on the aircraft too :ph34r: :lol: ;)
 
Sorry, I thought this read 'the Iowa Cactus' and you were dishing out advice on how to grow one. As I want to come up with interesting new plants for our communal garden next year, the content has left me deeply disappointed, Warbler.
 
It's a prickly subject Jon, :lol: but beware Guiliani. He's not the archetypal career politcian and I've got a grudging admiration for him, even though I barely agree with much of his philosophy (though I said I detect he's mellowed). Personally, I think he's got too many skeletons to land the Republican nomination though, and am far from certain how the country might react to two New Yorkers (well strictly speaking she isn't of course). Hillary can cover more bases than he though, but somehow both need to carry the South and Mid West which is where it will be won, and neither have a natural base there, which would make the chocie of running mate critical.

Make no mistake though, if these two get the nod, this could be the most colorful election for decades. I reckon they're both genuine heavyweights in a world of manufactured homogenous politicans
 
I just cant see Hilary Clinton becoming president. If anything was to galvanise the right wing in the US into action it would be the thought of another/both? Clintons in the White House. Your right about Obama at the moment he is too young, to inexperenced, too black for US voters. It leaves only Kerry (again?) or John Edwards, both dont get you excited about a Democratic presidency do they?
 
Hilary Clinton is in with a shout....

The macho texan presidency is now looking very jaded. I wouldnt be suprised at all if there is actually a creeping dislike and contempt for this lazy thinking knee jerk administration.

HC couild hardly be more opposite. Female, sharp and hard working....

When strongly disatisfied, voters often turn to polar opposites (Thatcher/Callaghan good example)
 
That's a good point and example, clivex. I think most of the brighter brains of the USA long ago divorced Hilary from Bill in political terms, since she's made sure that the stall she set out years ago was different from his. (The only snag there is that George Bush and Dubya are not the best duo for showing the American public's ability to differentiate between a decent brain and a complete fool!)

The days when old reactionaries could bellow 'not in my lifetime' about the possibility of a female Prez must surely be gone? There have been enough examples of women leading their countries, for better or worse, from Golda Meir to Mrs Bandaranike. With very highly-placed and educated women in the government, such as Rice, not to mention a number of female Senators, there is no logical reason to dismiss her campaign. Why, the rednecks mightn't be so enamoured of huntin', shootin'-friends Dubya now that many of their bull-necked sons have come home in body bags, while the raison d'etre for the war has been exposed as a cynical sham. If they are, and Hilary can show them a bit of compassion for their foolish ways, she could even manage to win over Duelling Banjoes country.
 
The Red Necks wouldn't vote Democrat anyway, so they'd hardly count as lost votes. Hilary's popular with the Black American, the Urban American, and has an advantage amongst female voters, but not as large as popular myth would have you believe. The Republicans have been able to make inroads into the burgeoning Hispanic vote of late, which Hillary would be better placed to arrest than most too.

She can fall back on her Arkansas days a bit to make some inroads into the South, and her Ivy League background will appease the Eastern Seasboard (where she'd be strong anyway). I was surprised how well she was able to carry off the Trade Union card in New York, when she was addressing dockyard workers etc and if you add that to her alleged Healthcare and Education programmes she's got a core following in the C2's and D's. Basically she'll appeal to liberal leaning California, which does occasioanlly vote Republican but is essentially Democrat, but you need to remember what an incredibly devisive figure she is.

It's often said that if you win California, Texas and Florida then you win the White House (it's just that its very difficult to do it). The shifting demographic patterns mean that the South is gaining influence in the college and as a vast generalisation, they tend to be more prejudiced voters. Or to put another way, she needs a Southerner to run with her if successful, as two yankees will always struggle, and if you get branded a Liberal like John Kerry was, then it's near on impossible to win.

New York politicans have a lousy record though. Essentially the country doesn't like or trust the City, and there is a sense that America is different to New York etc Crikey I've heard enough Americans slagging off New Yorkers, and New York, and when questioned it transpires that none of them had ever been there, and only a handful could ever admit to having spoken to any.

We'll see, but I reckon this could be a very spicey affair.

Incidentally, about divorcing herself from Bill politically. It was no coincidence that when she was setting out her stall for a run at the Senate, she re-branded herself Rodhan- Clinton. Just think though, if she wins, we have the prospect of 20 years of Presidents coming from just two families
 
Yeah, but just think - it's virtually the same in every country - the metropolis is always 'different' to the rest of the country and mistrusted inherently! London is still viewed as a den of iniquity by the still considerable amount of Britons who've never ventured past Potter's Bar, so non-natives eyeing New York and New Yorkers as alien life forms is nothing unusual. I'm not sure that Californians would see NY that way, though, having their very own den of iniquity in San Francisco (big gay following, etc.). They could just pull for her as a counterbalance to too much Texas beef. Campaigners from Texas are disadvantaged by being allied mentally with Duh-duh-dubya, aren't they?

Tiny correction: RodhaM Clinton! ;)
 
Which is why she needs to 'face off' (looking I'm even talking in American) against Guiliani, who really is an out and out New Yorker, 'she can cover more bases than he can'.

I'm not sure that we would not vote for someone because they were a Londoner though, (not to the degree that the Americans will) as I still think we tend to vote for a party rather than a personality. The blurring in the States between the two parties (something which has inevitably been adopted here too) has ensured that the importance placed on the inidividual candidate is greater, and this opens up the prospect of ever more erroneous considerations entering into voter behaviour. In the UK we tend to vote Labour or Conservative, America is much more inclined to promote the candidates name, Smith V's Jones etc

She'll win Califonia; LA and Frisco will see to that, and the military vote in San Diego can't prevent it, and that was worth 55 votes last time I think?. The only Southern States that immediately spring to mind that she might stand a chance in would include New Mexico, Arkansas and Florida and possibly Missouri. She might pick up on a hurricane abandonment vote in Louisana but realistically those who've suffered wouldn't have voted Republican anyway. I would think she could carry Ohio, and possibly Indiana, but I suspect it will come down to Florida as the third largest elector, and to be more precise 'the pan handle'. Edwards by contrast would stand a chance in Kentucky and the Carolina's, as well as the states already mentioned.

My guess is that the Democrats will come to their senses and look for a ticket mostly likely to win, which would be Edwards - Clinton. I suspect Guiliani's just got too many skeletons, and although I expect him to generate early momentum I really can't see him appealing to the religious neo con of the Mid West and South. However, he's a very clever chamealeon and I wouldn't put anything beyond him, adn under estimate him at your peril :brows:
 
It may be a cliche now, but New York is often said to be mistrusted by America's "heartlands" - too many Jews/blacks/gays/Catholics/intellectuals (delete where applicable).
 
Fascinating stuff Warbler, and I love your throw-away line:

<< And if John Edwards should become President, and makes Hilary VP, just an early bit of advice for him.......Avoid flying unless she's on the aircraft too >>

- which relates back to stuff we were talking about a few months ago. One thing is for sure: if it does come down to Giuliani v Clinton, it will be the dirtiest fight in many years. My hunch is that Hillary has just as many skeletons in the cupboard as Rudi, and he'd bust ass to find them
 
Taken from 'Smart Politics' & 'Bluegrass.org'

December 29, 2006

John Edwards Officially Enters 2008 Presidential Race

"Former Democratic North Carolina Senator and 2004 Vice-Presidential nominee John Edwards officially launched his 2008 presidential campaign Thursday. Edwards’ announcement speech picked up on his 2004 stump speech in which he restated his fight for the less fortunate and his quest for America to achieve economic justice. The backdrop for the speech was, appropriately, New Orleans."

"Edwards ran a fairly successful campaign in the Upper Midwest in his quest for the 2004 Democratic presidential nomination – coming in second place in the Wisconsin primary (winning 34 percent and 24 delegates), the Minnesota primary (winning 27 percent and 22 delegates) and the Iowa caucus (winning 32 percent and 18 delegates). He was tied for the lead with Barack Obama in an early poll of democratic Iowa Caucus voters released last week."

My apologies to Edwards for thinking he was a Kentucky Senator earlier on this thread (felt sure he had a comnnection with the state?) :lol:

Edwards/Obama Tied With 22% In New Iowa Caucus Poll; Clinton In 4th


"MyDD has the skinny on a just-released poll of likely Iowa Caucus-goers showing former Sen. John Edwards (D) and Sen. Barack Obama (D) tied with 22%, followed by former Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack (D) at 12%, and Sen. Hillary Clinton (D) at 10%."

December 27, 2006

No Surprises in Early Iowa GOP Poll

"Last week’s Iowa poll that unofficially launched the 2008 Election season found little surprises on the Republican side of the ballot. John McCain (27%) and Rudy Giuliani (26%) led the field of several potential Republican candidates (virtually none of whom have officially declared their candidacy for president).

While four Democrats registered in double digits in a poll of likely Democratic caucus voters, only McCain and Giuliani reached double digits for the Republicans in the poll, sponsored by KCCI-TV on December 18-20. Mitt Romney (9%), Newt Gingrich (7%), and Condi Rice (4%) were the only other candidates to garner at least 1% support from likely Republican Iowa caucus voters.

Both Barack Obama and John Edwards led McCain 42-39 in a head-to-head matchup; Obama (43-38) and Edwards (42-38) also had the upper hand on the former federal prosecutor and Mayor of New York City.

Democrat (and out-going Iowa governor) Tom Vilsack also led McCain 41-35 and Giuliani 42-35, while both McCain (43-37) and Giuliani (39-35) had the edge on Hillary Clinton in head-to-head matchups."


My best guess is still Edwards versus Rudy, whilst Hillary waits in ambush with a SAM7. I'll see if I can dig some odds out off oddschecker
 
Republicans

McCain 5/4
Rudy 5/1 :ph34r:
Romney 13/2
Allen 10/1
Rice 12/1 :lol: (a black woman!!! Not a chance)

Democrats

Clinton evens :blink:
Obahma 5/1
Edwards 7/1
Gore 8/1

I reckon the televisual Edwards at 7's is massive with Ladbrokes, alright you've got to wait an age to get paid out. If you tried a double would they call it related contingency, given that the emergence of one candidate, might effect how the other side line up?

My guess is that Rudy's got too many skeletons, and despite re-branding himself America's Mayor, his New Yorkness will count against him.

Similarly, State Senators have a lousy record, I think Kennedy was the last to win (and that was a disputable result), and I can't see Hillary winning from this position, who as Headstrong points out, has as many skeletons as any one. I'm not sure the British layers realise just how much this woman polarisies opinion in the US. She's deeply unpopular and totally mistrusted in the areas that the Democrats need to make gains in, and the party know that. I reckon the layers have priced her up on the Clinton name. There's no way this Earth she's 7 times more likely to win than Edwards, or even 8 times more than Gore
 
Meant to say as well, that if Oddscheckers right, and if anyones interested there appears to be a major rick in the Chandlers book
 
Back
Top