The End of the Beginning

It's a crisp, clear, cold day in Iowa.

A little over a year ago, we turned our gaze from the bitter defeat of the 2002 midterms toward a new hope -- a hope that out of our wounded party would arise a champion, a leader who would defeat Bush and return decency and sanity to the White House. Over time, nine men and one woman came forward to vie for our affection and loyalty -- some of them were new faces, some old hands. It's been a remarkable journey, one during which we've learned a lot about all of those struggling for the party's backing:

We discovered Howard Dean, who reminded a host of disillusioned Americans that there is hope at the core of politics.

We saw John Kerry anointed the nominee by the press, and then topple from his perch -- and just as we were ready to write his obituary, we saw him demonstrate a resilience that we din't know he still had, and catapult back into the heart of the race.

We took another look at Dick Gephardt, the old warhorse, who disapppointed so many of us with the last few months of his role as House leader, and we saw him reinvigorated by the campaign trail, a happy warrior for working Americans.

We watched John Edwards as he developed that awesome potential into something more, and became a bona fide contender.

And we saw the entry of a former General, Wes Clark, whose journey to our party mirrored the experience of so many Americans.

It's been a fun ride -- and tonight is the end of the beginning. A lot of questions will be answered tonight, and the race will look a lot different tomorrow.

Final Zogby tracking numbers:

If the caucus were held today, for whom would you vote?
Kerry: 25%
Dean: 22%
Edwards: 21%
Gephardt: 18%

From the same list, who would be your second choice?

Kerry: 25%
Edwards: 21%
Gephardt: 15%
Dean: 13%

•  We saw

  We saw Joe Lieberman and thought "What was Gore thinking?"

  by Justguy on Mon Jan 19, 2004 at 12:41:04 PM PDT

  •  my picks

    Dean as my first choice (and truth be told -second and third) then Edwards - I really like what he's been saying.

    by Justguy on Mon Jan 19, 2004 at 12:43:11 PM PDT

    •  Second Choice

      I agree. Dean Dean Dean Dean, and then Edwards. Until yesterday, when I saw Edwards on C-Span, I couldn't give a second choice, but I was impressed by him for the first time.

      by EB4Dean on Mon Jan 19, 2004 at 03:12:53 PM PDT

  •  Wait.. there are lieberman supporters?

    Am I dreaming or did someone just say that Al Gore shouldve endorsed Lieberman for a reason other than loyalty?

    by mmmmaaaacccckkkk on Mon Jan 19, 2004 at 12:49:48 PM PDT

    •  Questioning Gore's Thought Process

      I believe our collegue was questioning Al's decision in the summer of 2000 ...

      by wystler on Mon Jan 19, 2004 at 12:59:54 PM PDT

    •  oops

      I meant "what was Gore thinking in 2000"

      Trying to make a little funny. I noticed Joe was conspicuously absent from the list.

      by Justguy on Mon Jan 19, 2004 at 01:01:59 PM PDT

      •  my bad... i read it wrong

        i knew that there couldnt really be a lieberman fan on here. and does anyone else notice the remarkable similarity between lieberman and the father from Alf?

        by mmmmaaaacccckkkk on Mon Jan 19, 2004 at 01:08:08 PM PDT

        •  GoVOTE...

          ...is a Lieberman supporter who's had a lot to contribute to dKos conversations. It's true that Lieberman isn't popular hereabouts. But that's no reason to insult his supporters.

          by gong on Mon Jan 19, 2004 at 01:18:03 PM PDT

          •  me too

            I'm also a Lieberman supporter who's contributed here from time to time.  

            Over the last couple weeks I've pretty much decided to back Edwards, on viability grounds.  And I'm pretty happy with that choice now.

            by Centrist on Mon Jan 19, 2004 at 01:32:26 PM PDT

          •  Speaking of insults

            Lieberman is an honorable and intelligent man, good to have in the Senate.

            Lieberman's number one fan, The Washington Post, yesterday editorialized about the Iowa caucuses... Post neo-cons complimented Bush and insulted Dean (Dean as "a rookie on defense from a state with a budget smaller than a Washington suburb"):

            http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A27684-2004Jan18.html
            "This year it seems even more urgent to ask whether someone whose experience consists of governing a state with many fewer residents than Fairfax County -- not to mention less diversity and fewer social problems -- is the best prepared choice to lead the most powerful nation of the world. Former Vermont governor Howard Dean dismisses much criticism as the carping of the Washington establishment, and his partisans may attribute our concerns to the same kind of anxieties of a challenged elite. But in the post-Sept. 11 world, the risks of electing a rookie in military and foreign affairs are larger than ever."

            They should rename that newspaper The Federal Post or something.

            In a previous editorial on Lieberman last week,
            http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A14528-2004Jan13.html
            The Post whined that "It may say more about the current state of the Democratic Party than it does about Mr. Lieberman that he is having a difficult time making this message sell."

            by DC colonyman on Mon Jan 19, 2004 at 01:48:45 PM PDT

            •  I'm sorry

              but when did Lieberman have a message? He's the definition of sour grapes and, personally, I hope he does the Democrats a favor and changes to the GOP. We have no need for a corporate apologist who is afraid to criticize such an obviously corrupt and cynical administration as Bush's.

              by Taylor on Mon Jan 19, 2004 at 02:04:19 PM PDT

            •  Yeah, rookie as compared to whom?

              The great talent and experience Bush has brought to the office.

              The Washington Post likes Lieberman not just for his views, but for his milquetoast demeanor towards the Republicans. You'll recall how well that served the Democrats in the 2K campaign.

              Don't take my liberal word for it: scroll down to the first two essays in this exchange at The New Republic [link courtesy of Hesiod]. LINK

              by Andrew Lazarus on Mon Jan 19, 2004 at 02:06:13 PM PDT

            •  No longer

              I used to think Lieb was an honorable man. But his self-righteous sense of entitlement, his whining about Gore (after Gore had refused to endorse Lieb, he must have known it was coming), and his constant readings of RNC talking points against other Dems -- no more. Picking Lieb for VP was Gore's biggest mistake in his life.

              by veganpa on Mon Jan 19, 2004 at 02:43:14 PM PDT

•  crucial numbers

  [Second choice #s]

  Kerry: 25%
  Edwards: 21%
  Gephardt: 15%
  Dean: 13%

  Not to beat a dead horse, but that is not good for Dean, especially in a caucus state. It's legit for Deanies to decry an "ABD" movement among the party leadership and elected officials, but this looks like a grassroots ABD movement. He has his core supporters on board, but it seems the rest of the Democratic voters have doubts.

  The usual caveats about polling uncertainty, Deanies-with-mobile-phones, and inability to project turnout/first time caucus goers. (Anyone else catch yesterday on Press the Meat that Gephardt is basically hoping for a low turnout? Not a terribly democratic MO...)

  by KevStar on Mon Jan 19, 2004 at 12:44:29 PM PDT

  •  2nd choices

    I think the low Dean second choice numbers may be a result of the negative campaigning between him and Gephardt. That would also explain Gep's low second choices.

    by Justguy on Mon Jan 19, 2004 at 12:47:55 PM PDT

  •  dean and middle of the roaders

    these numbers trouble me as well ... if dean can't pull middle of the roaders and undecideds in his own party even with all these endorsements, hype and organizational strength in iowa - how the hell is he going to do it in the general election?

    by spk420 on Mon Jan 19, 2004 at 12:51:30 PM PDT

    •  but dean's support

      isnt limited to just the base. he's attracting indies and even conservatives. any poll that doesn't take that into consideration, will give you numbers that underestimate his support. this is a point that jerome a. has pointed out often with regard to NH polls.

      did this poll measure those groups?

      by niner on Mon Jan 19, 2004 at 01:04:18 PM PDT

    •  Easy answer

      Because he is not going to be running against seven other Democrats in the general election.  The hard hits Dean has been taking in the last month, and particularly in the last two weeks, result from all seven other candidates reacting to his number one status.

      It tells us more about the lack of any positive message the others have than about Dean's viability in the general.

      And if Dean survives it, finishes first or second in Iowa and first in NH, then what will you say about Dean's viability in the general?

      by James Earl on Mon Jan 19, 2004 at 01:09:28 PM PDT

      •  I'll say...

        And if Dean survives it, finishes first or second in Iowa and first in NH, then what will you say about Dean's viability in the general?

        I'll say he's shown his strength in a lot of different areas, and is in good shape to capture the nomination. The real test comes after New Hampshire, when we see his organizational strength in places like Arizona and Wisconsin, assuming he makes it that far.

        Somebody will be our nominee by, at the latest, six weeks from now. That somebody could well be Howard Dean, at which point I would become the biggest damn Deaniac on the planet.  

        Even if he isn't the nominee he will be the story of this race. He's shown the Democratic Party the blueprint for electoral dominance and a return to the sensible, progressive politics of years past. It's important that even those who opposed Dean the candidate and questioned his heft (like me) acknowledge that, and force the Democratic Party leadership to ignore the pundits who will say say "see this proves Dean's support was a house of cards." Come Hell or Goldwater, the voters the Dean campaign has aroused in the past year will become the backbone of the Democratic Party for the next decade or two; we can't let the party remove its backbone based on a misdiagnosis.

        by KevStar on Mon Jan 19, 2004 at 01:23:52 PM PDT

        •  What Dean Means

          Good wra-pup paragraph, KevStar.  I posted something similar in the latest Shaller thread and am reposting it here:

          t for the Dems to regain majority status in this country will require rebuiling the party.  I think that can only be done from the bottom up.  Presently, our party is more diverse in its views on issues than the Republicans.  That makes the problem of rebuilding the party more difficult.  The Dean campaign is the first step in this process.  I hope it builds and grows.  Over the next decade, Dean or another leader will galvanize the bottom-up process and provide the sort of symbolic leadership that Reagan has provided to the current generation of Republicans.  The Republicans are more bottom up oreinted than we give them credit for.  At least when they were building toward today's status they were more bottom up.  Now they are emphasizing party discipline and top down more and that will ultimately undermine their empire.    

           

          by Direwolf on Mon Jan 19, 2004 at 01:36:28 PM PDT

        •  I Hope

          Come Hell or Goldwater, the voters the Dean campaign has aroused in the past year will become the backbone of the Democratic Party for the next decade or two...

          I'm a Dean supporter (though I wouldn't call myself a Deaniac, per se), and this calls to mind two points I'm slightly concerned about. I've brought these up before, and people have told me that if I spend some time ofer at the Dean blog, my fears will be assuaged. I've spent a litle, and thus far, I'm still a bit concerned.

          1. I am concerned that some of the younger Deaniacs may not be so eager to come out to the booths if Dean moves to the center for the general, as he will probably have to do at least a little.
          Well, that's not quite what I mean. He's not running as a Kucinich-but-with-more-money candidate, but there is a perception out there that he's much more leftist than he is (latte drinking, body piercing freak show, etc), and I think Dean is riding that wave at least a little, and to his benefit. I'm concerned that political rookies might feel somewhat betrayed if the tone changes in the general.

          2. If Dean isn't the nominee, I'm worried that many of the supporters--again, the young & political rookies--will feel like they've wasted their time, and just go home. I know that everyone says that they'll support the eventual nominee, whoever they are, but I spent some time calling folks in Iowa yesterday, and many of the volunteers simply did not like any of the other candidates at all. At best, they seemed like they they'd be willing to hold their nose for Kerry or Gephardt in the general. They're certainly did not seem as though they would support anyone else with time or money.

          But maybe I'm just crazy.

          by Severian on Mon Jan 19, 2004 at 02:07:41 PM PDT

          •  You're just crazy

            There may be a few hotheads that would behave as you describe, but they would constitute statistical noise in the general election.

            Online, in meetups, in face-to-face conversations, the Deaniacs I know are close to 100% ABB. If Dean isn't the Dem, they'll take the Dem over BushCo.

            by Bill Rehm on Mon Jan 19, 2004 at 03:08:01 PM PDT

          •  there's some nuance there

            Anyone who was a dem before they met Dean will vote ABB regardless of who the candidate is. Many will not give time or money (I know I won't--but then I never did for anyone before so it's like going back to the status quo. Dean's achievement was just getting me off the couch to do something besides vote) Dean does have some independents, greens, and republicans supporting him. While I don't think they make up a large part of his total, who knows what they will do, and trying to shame them into being ABB seems sort of counterproductive.

            by JMS on Mon Jan 19, 2004 at 05:28:10 PM PDT

          •  good questions

            Those are important concerns. Briefly, if Dean isn't the nominee, keeping his galvanized organization intact will rely mainly on two things 1)how sincerely and diligently the nominee reaches out to them, and, more importantly, 2) the level of grace with which Dean withdraws. I could see him very easily making the pitch, "You know, I said all along that this campaign wasn't about me, it's about you. It's still about you, and the stakes are higher than ever." I think that would speak to a lot of his supporters.

            Besides...the Dean supporters have carved out a place at the table whether their guy wins or not. How the party and the nominee decide what is the appropriate venue for hearing what they want, and how they respond, will be pretty important too...

            by KevStar on Mon Jan 19, 2004 at 09:46:48 PM PDT

  •  That Horse is Dead

    Second choice only matters for supporters whose candidates are below the 15% mark - that's the threshold for delegates.  Dean, Kerry and Gephardt supporters' second choice becomes moot.  Edwards looks like he's also likely to beat the threshhold, unless his organization fails to mobilize effectively.  

    The only second-choicers that immediately matter are Kucinich and Sharpton - potentially enough to tip a close caucus, but a small enough group to render general samples nonpredictive.

    Therefore, second-choice general stats are fairly useless unless broken out by first-choice grouping.

    by wystler on Mon Jan 19, 2004 at 01:05:39 PM PDT

    •  Remember...

      ...it's caucus by caucus, and there are something like 2000 meetings. None of those 'first-tier' candidates are guaranteed to make 15% in each of those individual caucuses. Second choices will matter, at least loceally.

      by gong on Mon Jan 19, 2004 at 01:11:24 PM PDT

    •  Not quite...

      In a perfect world, this might be true -- but what goes on between first and second ballot in Iowa is a lot more than just shifting around the under-15-percenters.

      There's going to be a ton of raucous discussion, and many not-so-committed Dean (and Kerry, and Edwards, and Gephardt) supporters will probably find themselves swayed toward the consensus candidate of their particular precinct.

      "Second choice" is actually extremely important in caucus states, and being at the bottom of the list is a very bad sign for the good doctor, IMHO.
      

      by Bushed on Mon Jan 19, 2004 at 01:13:13 PM PDT

    •  no

      No this is wrong. The 15% number doesn't refer to statewide viability, it refers to viability at the precinct level. There will be precincts, particularly the rural ones where Edwards is doing so well, where the Kerry and Gephardt supporters will go to Edwards when their first choice doesn't reach 15% in the initial preference groupings. The fact that Dean has actual boots on the ground in every single precinct may vitiate this but it won't happen in every instance--because at the end of the day individuals will be making choices, not precinct captains.

      And it speaks to a larger unease among rank-and-file Democrats at a Dean candidacy. Up until now it has been shills like Howard Fineman voicing the "Dean is unelectable" meme. I don't believe it to be objectively true, but it does appear that it's caught on. That threatens to eliminate from voters' minds Dean's core rationale for running: he has the ability to beat Dubya.

      by KevStar on Mon Jan 19, 2004 at 01:14:50 PM PDT

  •  Those numbers aren't all that important...

    My thoughts on those second choice numbers are that they really don't mean a whole lot in this particular election because it is so close.  In most precincts, all three of the big dogs are likely going to have a decent showing and are very likely go break the 15% threshold.  Those numbers would be more important if there were one very strong candidate, a couple of stong people that aren't as strong as the leader and then a bunch of weaker candidates.  The weaker candidates wouldn't break 15% and so then it is a question of where they go.  Here it really isn't as important because they are all relatively bunched up.

    I think the more important number in this sort of scenerio is how many Kuscinich supporters there are, will they show up (my guess is yes) and where do they break, if anywhere.  

    I haven't seen anyone really talking on here for awhile about conspiracy theories of Rethuglicans showing up in an effort to get their perceived weakest candidate the nomination.  Anyone got any thoughts or rumors on this?

    by Nathan in MN on Mon Jan 19, 2004 at 01:08:59 PM PDT

•  loved the post, trapper john

  I loved your run-down of the candidates, as you captured the "positives" of each candidate.  You should be a spokesperson for the DNC!

  by matty fred on Mon Jan 19, 2004 at 12:45:18 PM PDT

•  A lot more fun!

  I've just been depressed for months thinking Dean was a sure thing.  The re-birth of real competition -- especially my candidate (Edwards) -- is making this all a lot more fun.  

  This election should be good for the Democratic party, no matter who wins.  (But then, what do I know.  I'm a TNR subscriber, so probably actually a closet Republican.)

  by rv agnos on Mon Jan 19, 2004 at 12:51:08 PM PDT

  •  You don't have to resubscribe

    As best as I can figure it, being a Republican is inherited but is curable.  Likewise, being a subscriber to TNR is also curable.  Stop.  

    It is much easier to go cold turkey on TNR than a lot of other things in this world.

    by MoDem on Mon Jan 19, 2004 at 12:57:17 PM PDT

    •  Trolls dispensing "1"s

      I just love US Citizen with more than one hidden super trolled post in his/her history putting down 1s on MoDem and rv agnos....

      by Marisacat on Mon Jan 19, 2004 at 01:16:12 PM PDT

      •  My favourite...

        ...is US Citizen's (now hidden) post to this thread, attacking Trapper John for being a Deanie, and ending with Support Rep. Gephardt today! Heh.

        by gong on Mon Jan 19, 2004 at 01:20:58 PM PDT

    •  Will Resubscribe

      Ah, but you see, reading TNR is part of what makes me a better Democrat.

      by rv agnos on Mon Jan 19, 2004 at 01:41:44 PM PDT

    •  Thanks

      It sure is interesting to get (1) by trying to have a little fun.

      I really can't say any of my best friends are Republicans.  (My older brother is and he is really hardcore.)  I do know this I sure wouldn't want my sister to marry one, and she didn't.  

      And, as I noted above, Republicanism is curable.  My mother voted for Richard Nixon three times for President.  After she became a high school teacher and married one, she saw the error of that.

      by MoDem on Mon Jan 19, 2004 at 03:57:51 PM PDT

  •  Another TNR subscriber...

    "Fear those who only read one book" - S. Kierkegaard. Go figure. :)

    I am convinced some of Kerry's support in the most recent poll is too soft to materialize. And as several people said up-thread, the no. 2 choice is only relevant in the caucus meetings where this or that candidate is getting below 15%. That will happen to John Edwards in quite a few places, to the other three guys: Not so much.

    I am also stunned by the sudden support for John Edwards. If Edwards comes in at well over 15 percent, that will be the biiiig story, because it will boost his chances in Feb 3-states, where Kerry and Gephardt are toast anyway. (Except for Gephardt's home state.) The real question is who will come out of Feb 3 as the not-Dean candidate. It is still most likely Clark, but it is a lot more muddy now, than we thought three weeks ago. Edwards is improving, that's for sure.

    by PoliticGeek Pro on Mon Jan 19, 2004 at 01:21:04 PM PDT

•  testosterone

  fuels thinking in numbers, statistics, who's on top and who's on the bottom.  It's a fact.  This is the most testosterone-fueled blog I've ever read, even though when we're not talking about polls there are many things of substance.  I think the media negativity is getting to some of you and you're becoming mealy-mouthed and afraid.  The fact is that Kerry and Edwards have no chance outside of Iowa and everybody knows that.  When you hear Bush talk about "the workers" in his speech tomorrow and say such lies as you have never heard before and force the dems to have to clap, then you'll know what we're up against.  If there is no grassroots ferver, ie. first choices (and there are plenty of cross-over voters who want Dean) there will be no victory.

  by bball on Mon Jan 19, 2004 at 01:12:10 PM PDT

  •  Well, even for a woman

    I test remarkably low in testosterone :)
    That said Edwards lack of org in Iowa is an enormous stumbling block.  I wonder how he can manage 15%, but I am very willing to watch.

    As for Kerry, well, good luck good fortune.  Direct some of the many challenge questions at him and his campiagn and his organisation and his viability regionally that have been directed at Howard....
    Give it a whirl... :)

    by Marisacat on Mon Jan 19, 2004 at 01:33:50 PM PDT

•  And we saw....

  Two vigorous thoughtful candidates who energize the party and will continue to serve their country:

  Carol Mosley Braun
  Incredibly eloquent and unifying.

  Dennis Kucinich
  Well, eloquent.

  God bless'em both. What is their future in our Grand Army of the Republic?

  by pheidole on Mon Jan 19, 2004 at 01:15:32 PM PDT

  •  Kucinich and Moseley-Braun

    If Dean wins, Moseley Braun will get an appointment -- I think she likes the role of Ambassador.

    Kucinich has a home in the House... He has used a leverage politics model to get the anti-war message out... (like Sharpton and Moseley-Bruan have done for black, brown, and women's issues);

    I loved his comment on Bush's Mission to the Moon and Mars -- he said Bush is taking weapons into space, laughed, and said something like, "maybe he's planning a war with Mars!"

    by DC colonyman on Mon Jan 19, 2004 at 02:36:25 PM PDT

  •  Kucinich throws support to Edwards in Iowa

    Media is reporting that Kucinich and Edwards have agreed to support one another in Iowa in case either do not have adequate votes to meet the threshold.

    by DC colonyman on Mon Jan 19, 2004 at 03:23:51 PM PDT

•  The Dean and Anti-Dean camps?

  The media customarily talks about Dean and who the anti-Dean will be, but this is the first evidence I've seen that the electorate itself is split into Dean and anti-Dean camps.  Look at the numbers for second choice: everybody polls roughly the same as they did for first preference, except Dean, who lags way behind his first choice numbers.  The pattern is that you usually don't love Dean a little... you either love him all the way, or you just don't care for him.

  This situation bodes badly for Dean if it is recreated in the general electorate.  It might mean that as the field is winnowed down, the remaining candidates will pick up the departing candidates' support more than Dean will.  Of course, by that time it will probably be too late to make a difference... this process goes by in a blink.

  by Wagster on Mon Jan 19, 2004 at 01:17:12 PM PDT

  •  can you imagine?

    the proposition of having an anti-kerry?

    by niner on Mon Jan 19, 2004 at 01:39:15 PM PDT

  •  And the same for Bush

    "The pattern is that you usually don't love Dean a little... you either love him all the way, or you just don't care for him."

    Take this poll from the NY Times
    Bush numbers.

    First note that the headline doesn't capture the most important number: Bush's job approval dropped to 50%.  But to address Wagster's specific point check out the graphic comparing Bush to four predecessors.  There is only a five point gap between approval/disapproval, narrower even than Clinton's seven points, and Clinton has been seen as the most polarizing President ever.

    Confirming this is this from the bottom of the first page.  "When given a choice between an unnamed Democrat and Mr. Bush, 43 percent of the registered voters polled said they would vote for Mr. Bush, while 45 percent said they would vote for the Democrat."

    The ABB meme is being established nation-wide, the best way for Dean to stop an emerging ABD meme is to shove Kerry, Lieberman and Gephardt to the curb as fast as possible.  Elbows will be abundant this week.

     

    by Bruce Webb on Mon Jan 19, 2004 at 01:53:12 PM PDT

  •  The Dean campaign should address this

    Right. Even if Dean's ground troops pull out a win tonight, the second-choice numbers, and even more so the fav/unfav numbers, aren't what I like to see.

    Now, a little bit I can understand why the second choice of one pro-war candidate is another pro-war candidate, but what I think we're really seeing is that (1) Dean's negative ads backfire and (2) others' negative ads against Dean work.

    I certainly don't see this as a disaster, but Dean needs a new approach. Talking up the size of his grassroots army, for example. Which is more likely to help Dems downticket, volunteers or good TV ads for the Pres nominee? Admitting that lots of DC Democrats hate losing to Bush, too (which you'd never know from his stump speech) and they're endorsing him to serve as a champion against Bush.

    I'd probably do better to write this as BFA, but even if Dean pulls out the #1 position in the caucus, he didn't do as well here as he might have.

    Incidentally, on a numbers junkie note: the Edwards surge is good for Dean as long as he doesn't overtake all the way to second place. Why? Fewer precincts where unviable Edwards voters go to (mostly) Kerry!

    by Andrew Lazarus on Mon Jan 19, 2004 at 02:15:27 PM PDT

•  Gaining Respect

  One good thing I see coming from this close and competitive race is that, whoever gets the nomination, he will have gained the respect of the supporters from the other camps. If it's a blowout then I think people will harbor some ill feelings. It's human nature.

  For example, I'm a St. Louis Rams fan and I was dissappointed they were eliminated by the Panthers in the playoffs last week. But what an incredible game that was! And now that the Panthers are going on to the superbowl, well, you just have to tip your hat. They are good. They wanted it more than the Rams and the Eagles. They deserve to be where they are.

  I think the same thing will happen with our eventual nominee. Game on!

  by Rp on Mon Jan 19, 2004 at 01:18:41 PM PDT

•  Dean

  Although, I'm an ardent Clark supporter something tells me that Dean will win the Iowa caucus today. I don't think the polls are able to identify a lot of his support for some reason. Maybe, it's because a good portion of it is young people and 1st time voters? Anyway, may the best man win!!

  by glennk1949 on Mon Jan 19, 2004 at 01:25:02 PM PDT

•  My thoughts.

  Polls, hard numbers, organization.  It's time now for the rubber to meet the road.

  Polls and hard numbers no longer matter -- those things are set in stone.  But organization continues to matter today, as we've got to GOTV.

  It seems to me our goals in Iowa have always been as follows:

  1.  Win the Iowa caucuses.
  2.  Winnow the field by eliminating Gebhardt.

  Back to goal #1 in a moment.  Whether Dean wins Iowa today or not, it would appear that goal #2 will be achieved.  If Gebhardt doesn't win Iowa -- and Gebhardt winning Iowa at this point is problematic at best since I think Howard runs ahead of Dick because of superior organization -- Dick might be able to limp along after Iowa, but it is probable that he will have significant fundraising issues.  He could mount a credible campaign probably only in Missouri and Michigan with a loss in Iowa.  And perhaps it would be difficult there as well.  Starting tomorrow Gebhardt will have to think very hard about how to proceed with his campaign, I should think.

  Goal #1:  Win the caucuses.  The final Zogby Poll says Kerry 25 / Dean 22.  Consider this:  If a new Iowa caucus attendance record of, say, 100K was set today, that would mean Dean would draw 22,000 supporters if you go by the Zogby percentages.  Rumor is that Howard has 40,000 folks out there who are highly likely to caucus for him.  So again, organization is going to be crucial today.  If we can get 35,000 to 40,000 supporters to the caucuses, and even with massive record attendance of, say, 120,000, I'm thinking we ought to win Iowa, regardless of the polls.  Because of our organization and identifying our supporters.  At least that's my story and I'm sticking to it!

  If Dean does happen to lose Iowa, then there is no doubt we're in a near must-win situation in NH.  We could survive to mini-Tuesday even with losses in Iowa AND NH, but as a practical matter, NH is next to Vermont, and preception-wise we've just got to win NH.

  Now if we win Iowa today, and win in NH next week, it's Katy bar the door, Boston here we come!

  Your thoughts?

  by XOVER on Mon Jan 19, 2004 at 01:28:14 PM PDT

  •  Pardon me.

    I wrote this as if everyone is for Dean.  Of course, that's not so.  I don't understand why it's not so, but it's not, I concede -- :)

    Anyway, pardon my pronouns.  Poor writing on my part.

    by XOVER on Mon Jan 19, 2004 at 01:30:07 PM PDT

  •  Fair analysis, although not that clear.

    If Dean wins Iowa and wins big in NH, he has a very good shot at ending this at Feb 3. But it depends a lot upon the alignment of the others, in both states. For example, a huge showing for Edwards (#2 and Iowa, #3 in NH?), combined with a good #2 showing for Clark in NH, and the results might be very different in Southern states.

    The big if is Kerry. As long as both Kerry, Clark and Edwards is in as per Feb 3, they will split the anti-Dean vote, which will be to Dean's advantage. The only one of these three who might withdraw before Feb 3 is Kerry, and that is much less likely now than it was a week ago. But NH is all-important to Kerry, regardless of what happens in Iowa.

    by PoliticGeek Pro on Mon Jan 19, 2004 at 01:43:44 PM PDT

    •  Southern States? Plural?

      I think we are all on the same page, but a look at the political calender shows the Southern theme is much less important this time.  Last time South Carolina pretty much stood on its own after NH.  Now it is joined by five other primaries, of which only Missouri approximates 'Southern'.  After Feb 3 we have a series of eight non-Southern caucuses and the DC primary, where Dean's ground organization and his win in the DC beauty contest stand him well.  And then the big one: Super Tuesday, thirteen states, eleven primaries and only one real southern state - Georgia - among them.

      Front loading has made a southern strategy pretty much irrelevant this time round.  I don't expect the race to last past Calif, NY, Mass & Ohio on March 2 - does anyone here really disagree?

      by Bruce Webb on Mon Jan 19, 2004 at 02:08:16 PM PDT

      •  Missed Virginia Primary Feb 10

        by Bruce Webb on Mon Jan 19, 2004 at 02:23:45 PM PDT

      •  southern vs Southern

        I get your point. I was thinking states south of the Mason-Dixon, but Arizona, NM and Delawere are not "Southern", I get the point. (Please forgive the error, I'm Norwegian.) But there are 7 states that are considerably less liberal than New Hampshire, where Kerry will have huge problems, being perceived as a typical Bay state liberal yankee [/stereotype], and where Clark and/or Edwards should be an easier sell, as the "not Dean".

        by PoliticGeek Pro on Mon Jan 19, 2004 at 02:37:27 PM PDT

•  Election IV: A New Hope

  I'm phyced about today. Polls are nice and all, but they won't be affecting my decision today. My path is clear.

  And when its time to party, I will always, party hard.

  by Izixs on Mon Jan 19, 2004 at 01:35:12 PM PDT

•  First Timers

  I don't know how it cuts, but one thing -- I probably read it here -- that bears keeping in mind is the efforts to identify caucus goers has to be tough, if for no other reason than it's been 16 years since the last real contested Iowa caucus.

  '92 - Harkin was a shoo-in.
  '96 - Clinton was an incumbent.
  '00 - Gore was practically an incumbent.

  So the caucus lists, whatever form they may take, have to be incomplete and/or outdated.

  by mhojo on Mon Jan 19, 2004 at 01:40:10 PM PDT

•  My Take

  I think it's reasonably likely that Kerry will win.  We have several factors on both sides, of course:

  For Kerry:
  More first-choice voters (as measured by the poll, at least)
  *More second-choice voters
  *Higher percentage of undecideds
  *More buzz (combination of media coverage and local appearances/support)

  For Dean:
  *More first-time participants
  *Better organization

  On the whole, I see the Kerry factors somewhat outweighing the Dean factors.

  It's also interesting to look at that Edwards number -- 21% today, 18% yesterday.  He must have had a *very good last polling day.

  I am of course pulling for him.  Second place is probably too much to ask ... but that would be awesome.

  by Centrist on Mon Jan 19, 2004 at 01:50:12 PM PDT

  •  Ooops ... ...

    It didn't like my star symbols as bullet-points.

    by Centrist on Mon Jan 19, 2004 at 01:51:41 PM PDT

  •  Kerry's front-runner status.

    At least Kerry is the front-runner. If Dean comes in first, he will have "beaten expectations" I would think. Not that Big Media will choose to frame it that way, given their track record of covering the outsider.

    by mhojo on Mon Jan 19, 2004 at 01:56:29 PM PDT

•  Background noise from the bleachers...

  A few paragraphs from CBS News Polls:

  CBS NEWS/NEW YORK TIMES POLL: THE BUSH PRESIDENCY AND THE STATE OF THE UNION: AFTER THREE YEARS, January 12-15, 2004, 1022 adults, 323 Dems (weighted).
  http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/01/17/opinion/polls/main593849.shtml

  "After rising in public support following the capture of Saddam Hussein, the President gives his State of the Union message next week with a decidedly less positive audience.  His approval rating of 50% matches his lowest approval ratings ever, and the largest number ever - 45% - disapprove.  

  ... Less than half now approve of how he is handling the situation in Iraq.  51% say the war was not worth the costs.

  ... Most Americans oppose temporary work permits for illegal immigrants and don't think a permanent space station on the moon is worth it.  

  ... Only 30% say he is more interested in protecting the interests of ordinary Americans than in protecting the interests of large corporations.  Just 39% -- fewer than before -- have confidence in his ability to make the right economic decisions.

  When asked to compare things in the U.S. now to five years ago, 57% of Americans say things are worse today. Only 21% say things are better, while nearly as many think things are about the same as they were five years ago.

  Looking ahead, registered voters are evenly split on whether they would now vote for President Bush or the as-yet-unnamed Democrat in November.  But most think the President will win that race.

  Nationally, Howard Dean still leads among Democratic primary voters, with 24% of the vote.  Wesley Clark and Dick Gephardt are also in double digits.

  FROM A SEPARATE CBS NEWS POLL RELEASED SAME DAY:
  http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/01/17/opinion/polls/main593848.shtml

  54% of voters believe President Bush legitimately won the 2000 contest, but 42% believe he did not.

  even with the Democratic primaries and caucuses about to start, voters nationwide are still not tuning in to the race. Only slightly more than one in five is paying a lot of attention.  [a lot, 22%; some, 43%; not much/none, 34%]

  Even Democratic primary voters nationwide are not particularly tuned in yet. Just 26% of them are paying a lot of attention, and 43% are paying some - much the same levels found among all voters.

  Democratic primary voters are less interested in hearing about candidates' religious views: 62% of them say it should not be part of the campaign."

  by DC colonyman on Mon Jan 19, 2004 at 02:46:54 PM PDT

•  well wrought

  trap, that's some beautiful prose there.  good job.

  by zeke L on Mon Jan 19, 2004 at 09:12:00 PM PDT