How do I feel about Iowa? My Thoughts

Apparently people are wondering how I feel about Iowa. Well anyone who’s read my blog or talked to me personally should know that I never expected Clinton to win Iowa. The liberal party activists of Iowa are not really in tune with the moderate progressivism of Clinton retail politics. This is the reason why the Clinton campaign thought about completely skipping Iowa months ago. Not to say that Iowans are wrong and we’re right. I’m just noting that certain politics play better in some places and worse in others. But the point is, that anyone who thought Clinton was going to win Iowa should stop relying on Faux News for their political coverage.

Though its obvious that Obama beating Edwards was the worse case scenario for the Clinton camp. That just goes to show that you can’t rely on a flip flopping “populist” with $400 haircuts to get the job done during crunch time. Thankfully, people like this get what they deserve, as the media and both Clinton and Obama consider this to bea two person race now.

But even with last night’s results there is good news for Clinton. She did get more votes than any other democratic in Iowa caucus history,minus Edwards and Obama. This means her message is connecting with people, she just needs to start targeting her message to younger voters more. She still won older voters overwhelmingly.

I’ll be writing more about my thoughts about Iowa, and where Clinton goes from here. Stay tuned.


2 thoughts on “How do I feel about Iowa? My Thoughts

  1. In reading your old posts I learn that Obama’s campaign proved you wrong on so many points that absent some type of honest acknowledgment of that fact it is a real challenge to your credibility.

    From the huge turnout of first time caucus goers, that Obama’s victory WAS largly due to first time caucus goers and the young, to the Edwards winning of the “Second vote” totals, your comments about “Clinton’s” message tweaking, . . . all things you told your readers wouldn’t happen.

    Then there is the basic intellectual dishonesty: like super delegates are not added to a candidates total until they are cast. There is no “commitment” by a super delegate to vote a specific way. Many a “super delegate” has changed their mind come convention day. This is unlike delegates elected through a primary or a caucus that are bound to vote a specific way on the first ballot. Party rules keep Super Delegate counts out of the running delegate total — and only losing campaigns desperately trying to hold on to their “inevitable” front runner status add them to their vote total.

    Acknowledge that you were wrong. Acknowledge that your candidate was defeated in the first test of electoral strength — just like she lost the “money primary”. Then perhaps your pearls of wisdom will have credibility to a casual reader like myself.

  2. Joseph

    Like I said above, you need to stop watching faux news and reading alternet for your political coverage.

    First, I only said I didn;t think turnout would be as high as it was in Iowa. I didn;t say it wouldn;t increase. Learn to read. Furthermore David Axelrod believed the voting universe would expand to 160k. They were suprised by the increase as well.

    Second, everyone minus the DMR poll was surprised by the number of first time voters. Sorry I just have a blog and not a polling firm.

    Third I was right, and the DMR poll wrong, about the number of independents who participated. Furthermore no one new how the youth vote would actually turn out. Even the Obama campaign. David Axelrod believed they would win not because of the youth vote but because of first time voters. He claimed they would just be the “icing on the cake”

    Fourth, the superdelgate count is just like any other poll. Voters can change their minds and voters can stay the course. Your accusations of dishonest are lacking in substance, much like Obama’s plan for change.

    Fifth, the title of my post is Clinton leads among SUPERDELEGATES. I even provide a link that explains what a SUPERDELEGATE is. Once again, learn to read.

    Sixth, no one claimed that Clinton was inevitable except the media who loves to bash her and rival campaigns which like to whine about it. I mean it’s not as if my candidate basically said voters in other states are irrelevant if he wins NH. How much more inevitable can you claim to be then “if I win the second PRIMARY state then we might as well stop the primary and cancel the general election because I’m such hot shit.”

    Seventh, losing Iowa doesn’t mean the race is over. Obama won the first state and he has momentum. Good for him, but Martin Luther King didn’t fight for me to get the right to vote just so Barack Obama’s ego can disenfranchise me because I don’t live in Iowa or NH. Considering that the fact that no democratic candidate has won Iowa and then won the White House, I think there is a long way to go before we “crown” King Obama.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s