26 Comments

• 1. keef--Not Cruisin--Yet!!!  |  December 11th, 2007 at 5:53 am

  GOP–Romney, Huckabee, Thompson. Romney is the real deal; Huckabee falters to second because his past will come up, and Fred finishes third because he never got going.

  Donkaroach–Hitlery, Earbama, Silky Pony. I really don’t know why I think they’ll finish in this order, but it matters not to me. All three are neo-Stalinist, commie liars who will bring this country down. Tax and spend, tax and spend, tax and spend…

• 2. neocon  |  December 11th, 2007 at 7:57 am

  Iowa?

  GOP - Huckabee, Giulani, Romney. I agree with keef, I like Romney but he has some ground to gain. Huckabee will win Iowa but the not the overall nomination. Giulani will most likely win the nomination will not win Iowa nor New Hampshire.

  MoveOn.org - Obama will win because of the Oprah factor. Hillary will divorce Bill and will announce her lesbianism and her secret relationship with Pelosi. Edwards will sue.

• 3. plainjane  |  December 11th, 2007 at 8:07 am

  Group of Pervs - The Huckster Hustle, Tell me what to believe Romney, when President I’ll have the best mistresses Giuliani

  Dems - Clinton, Obama, Edwards

• 4. Ricorun  |  December 11th, 2007 at 11:21 am

  The mechanics of the Dem caucuses are very complicated. And even if I understood them I doubt I could predict the outcome with any accuracy. So I’ll just go with general impressions. The way the caucuses are set up they tend to favor smaller, more rural districts than larger, more urban ones. Also, their votes are done in public, so there’s a lot of influencing going on among the supporters of different candidates. And they vote twice. After the first time any candidate that doesn’t get at least 15% of the vote is dropped. Then the remaining groups try to convince those supporters, along with those declaring themselves uncommitted on the first vote, to join their group. Also, because of the complicated math involved, the groups supporting the remaining viable candidates tend to lend each other supporters in an attempt to reduce the influence of one or more candidates they don’t like. Also, since caucusgoers represent a relatively small percentage of registered voters (or even likely voters), the field ability of each campaign to get their supporters to attend the caucuses becomes important. Taking all that into consideration, my guess is that Edwards will win, but probably not by a lot. Clinton will probably come in second, because Obama doesn’t have to do well in Iowa. But if he manages to come in first or a close second, I suspect he will start to really surge.

  The GOP caucuses are more straight-forward. They get together and talk a while, then they have a vote. The candidate that gets the plurality in each district gets all the delegates in that district. But again, the set-up favors smaller, more rural districts, and the ability of each campaign to get their supporters to attend is also important. Romney spent a lot of money in Iowa, and he has a very strong staff there. On the other hand, Huckabee is not only surging in the polls (which are probably more reflective of how the urban districts will vote), he has high rural appeal. So my guess is he’s going to kick some Romney butt. I suspect Thompson will be a distant third.

  But I could be completely wrong.

• 5. Amanda  |  December 11th, 2007 at 12:29 pm

  Ricorun,

  Thank you for your thoughtful response, which is more than anyone else bothered.

  As an Iowan (and a Democrat who will be caucusing), the most important thing is your second choice, unless you’re supporting one of the “top 3.” If you’re supporting a second-tier candidate (which I am), who you choose as your #2 is probably more important, and you should know who that person is before you walk into your caucus location.

  Also, during a Dem caucus, two groups of supporters for non-viable candidates can join together to make one of them viable, so it may also be OK to stick to your first choice if you can be persuasive. Basically, there’s no sure way to know right now who will win the Dem side. The “top 3″ are pretty much tied up, and some of the second-tiers could surge at the caucus.

  Being on the ground in Iowa, I’d say Huckabee has it all tied up here. He’s ahead of Romney by crazy points. But I’d say after Iowa, he’s done.

• 6. Dave  |  December 11th, 2007 at 12:47 pm

  GOP - Romney, Giuliani
  Why? Romney fits the Iowa profile better than Giuliani. The more I learn about Huckabee, the worse he sounds.

  Dem. Obama, Clinton
  Why? One word…Oprah

• 7. Retired Spook  |  December 11th, 2007 at 1:38 pm

  A couple weeks ago I would have said Romney, Huckabee and either McCain or Thompson on the GOP side. Then it looked like Huckabee was really surging, but now we have the Club for Growth anti-Huckabee ad that casts him in a really negative light. If you haven’t seen it yet, it uses actual video clips of Huckabee outlining all the different legislature tax increase proposals that we would support when he was governor of Arkansas. It’s a pretty powerful ad, and if it gains traction in Iowa, I doubt Huckabee will finish in the top three.

  On the Dem side, I just don’t have a good feel for a potential outcome. Until I read Rico’s and Amanda’s posts, I had no idea how complicated the Dem caucuses were.

• 8. Casper  |  December 11th, 2007 at 7:55 pm

  I guessing Huckabee, Romney, Giuliani on the GOP side and Obama, Clinton, Edwards on the Democrat side.

• 9. FmrMarine  |  December 11th, 2007 at 8:17 pm

  I have always been baffled why so much emphasis is placed on two, or three relatively small states.

  As for obama, I believe Iowa’s black population is 3-4 % why in the world would he even worry about winning or losing there?

  Thompson may run third in Iowa, However in Fla 13+ Million
  he is a very strong runner. This may be why he is holding out. Reserving resources, and air time until it really counts, the driveby seems to tire of one quickly.

• 10. Xango Annie  |  December 11th, 2007 at 11:02 pm

  just my impressions
  GOP: Romney, Rudy,Huck
  Dems: Obama, Clinton……and Edwards..
  and plainjane…you are such a small little person!

• 11. hermie  |  December 12th, 2007 at 8:02 pm

  GOP:

  Romney, Huckabee, Giuliani, McCain

  - Huckabee’s momentum has been stopped by the recent stories about his actions as Governor.
  - Romney’s speech about faith resonates with voters who outwardly say they don’t emphasize religion.
  - Giuliani’s efforts don’t pan out as he is still too ‘New York’ for Iowans, but they’ll support him for a cabinet post.
  - McCain’s efforts aren’t enough for those who remember how his ‘Campaign Finance Reform’ and the deal he made regarding Judges made the party weaker in Congress.

  Dems:

  Obama, Clinton, Edwards

  - Obama’s surge (with thanks from Oprah) and Hillary’s ham-handed attempts to slam him gain support amongst those who finally realize what a disaster she would be as POTUS.

  - Clinton’s showing is only because there are still too many people who remain fooled by Bubba, and think that 4 years of her will be the same as another term for Bill.

  - Edwards is last instead of Hillary because his ‘Two Americas’ has worn thin, and Iowans don’t really take him seriously.

• 12. Gozer the Carpathian  |  December 12th, 2007 at 8:23 pm

  Hmm… Agree with Marine, I’ve never understood why such little states matter. Heck I live in California and it never seems to matter what our Primary says. Heck it never seems to matter what the general says here either. *Sighs*

  Anyway my guesses (which I’ve got a 100% failure rate at to date. :p ) are:

  Dems - Obama, Clinton, Edwards.

  Basically I think Obama can win this one state, but it’ll be down hill from there. He’s just not fired up enough in my opinion to beat Clinton in the long run.

  GOP - Romney, Huck, Rudi.

  I’m not really sure why here I just don’t think that in this first state Rudi will do well. (Though I hear he hasn’t spent much money in Iowa at all) Romney has dumped a lot into Iowa and Huckabee has been surging a bit which is why I put them at one and two.

• 13. Orion  |  December 12th, 2007 at 9:35 pm

  The caucuses (caucusi?) are a little funny because (as I understand it) unlike pirmaries where you go in, vote, and leave they’re actually kind of house parties where everyone gathers around a representative of the candidates, listen to them for awhile, and then split up into groups to be counted. Winning those is a matter of organizing supporters to appear at all the caucuses and persuade people to show up to listen to them, then stand up and be counted for their candidate. Howard (”Da Scream”) Dean found out the hard way that you don’t win those on TV but by organizing teams to get voters to show up and vote for you. Kerry, who had been running a distant third, trounced him and Dean rapidly went downhill from there.

  The candidates this year learned the lesson of the Class of ‘04 and all the top-teired candidates are fielding “A” team professional organizers. I doubt Thompson will do well here because he entered late and doesn’t seem to have the fire in his belly to make a good showing here. He hopes to do better in the Super Tuesday primaries. ANyone who DOESN’T have a lot of money is probably wasting his time in Iowa because caucus organizers cost big bucks and if they blow their wads here they won’t have money later on. I don’t think anyone is going to be knocked out by a loss here unless they lose by an uexpected margin - Hillary can lose to Obama but not by more than 3-5 points if she intends to win New Hampshire. Obama can lose by 10 points and still have a shot. Here are my picks:

  GOP: Romney, Guillliani, Huckabee, with thomspon trailing far behind. Huckabee is surging but I don’t think he has the money to waste on the kind of organization he’d need to win. Thompson has been pretty hapless thusfar and he doesn’t seen focused or even interested in Iowa.

  Dems: Obama, Hillary, nobody else is worth mentioning. Obama’s gotten some good endorsements on the Dem side recently and the Dems are slowly sobering up and realizing that she can’t win the general election against any of the top three GOP candidates. I really think Edwards is running just to split the “I can’t stand Hillary!” vote and expects a cabinet post in reward later on. Iowa’s not important to him; he wants to suck votes away from Obama in New hampshire and the South so Her Majesty can knock out the competition early.

  I give it 50-50 for any of the other candidates to bail after Iowa. Didd really should as he has no chanance and he’s PO’ing Reid by missing so many committee sessions. Edwards, for reasons I outlined above, will call it off 1-2 minutes after Obama concedes.

• 14. Joe  |  December 12th, 2007 at 11:24 pm

  GOP - Huck just because he is peaking at the right time. The Flip-flopper will be #2 and Guiliani plummets to 3rd. McCain? McCain who? Is he still in the race???

  DEM - Richardson (only because that is who I want to see win), but realistically… Obama, Edwards and Hillary drops to 3rd and starts a downspin.

• 15. NeoClown  |  December 12th, 2007 at 11:27 pm

  GOP - McCain, Thompson, Huckelberry
  Ain’t nobody gonna elect a mormon or no dress wearing nyc mayor.

  DEMS - Edwards, Biden, Dodd
  Ain’t no body gonna elect a woman, or a black neither.

• 16. Joe  |  December 12th, 2007 at 11:30 pm

  Excellent analysis NeoClown.
  At least your predictions are made on the candidates qualifications.

• 17. Gozer the Carpathian  |  December 12th, 2007 at 11:59 pm

  *Chuckles*

  Well I give you this much Joe, I like Richardson too as far as Dems go. :)

• 18. keef--Not Cruisin--Yet!!!  |  December 13th, 2007 at 5:35 am

  MoveOn.org - Obama will win because of the Oprah factor. Hillary will divorce Bill and will announce her lesbianism and her secret relationship with Pelosi. Edwards will sue.

  Excellent humour, neocon–fitting, given the bunch of clowns, yet again, offered by the Donkaroach party.

  And Amanda, you could lighten up a little. I know you’re a bitter, BDS-afflicted Donkaroach, but sometimes laughter is the best medicine. It is my experience that Iowa Donkaroaches are whacko leftists. You fit the bill, toots.

  FmrMarine, I’m with ya–two small states, so who really cares? However, early contests tend to influence the later votes, so I’m guessing that’s why Iowa and NH, two states loaded with whacko leftists, are so important to the Donks.

  I still think Mitt will win Iowa, NH, and Michigan, but either Rudy or Fred will get the nomination. As for the Donkaroaches, I don’t really care–the top three are neo-Stalinist peas in a pod. It would be a bit gratifying, however, to see Hitlery go down to Earbama or Silky…

• 19. keef--Not Cruisin--Yet!!!  |  December 13th, 2007 at 5:39 am

  and plainjane…you are such a small little person!

  Xango, don’t waste your time with this cow–she stops chewing her cud long enough to post inflammatory tripe, then scoots on back to the Branch Bovinian compound…

• 20. keef--Not Cruisin--Yet!!!  |  December 13th, 2007 at 5:40 am

  My oh my, I must improve my conscious contact with God–I harbor too much hatred for the insignificant…

• 21. Eric T  |  December 13th, 2007 at 6:18 am

  neacon

  #2 is a masterpiece!

• 22. Aaron  |  December 13th, 2007 at 10:47 am

  GOOPs - Huckabee (walking away), followed by anemic showings for Romney and Thompson.

  Dems - Obama, Edwards, with her highness shockingly taking 3rd

• 23. John Ryan  |  December 13th, 2007 at 7:09 pm

  People on the right really seem to enjoy funny name calling, it is like they never left the playground.
  The base of the modern Republican party are the evangelicals. They will be heard !!
  Huckabee will win in Iowa.
  Romney will be able to win NH second will be a 3 way tie
  But of course unless all of the polls are REALLY far off the mark it will not matter who the Republicans nominate.

• 24. Xango Annie  |  December 13th, 2007 at 9:36 pm

  keef…I know, I know…but she is such a little p*ss ant, that sometimes I just have to try and slap her around a little bit. makes me feel better!!! Rofl…

• 25. Almiranta  |  December 13th, 2007 at 11:24 pm

  Sometimes I think plainjane is really a GOP Dirty Trick–you know, someone posing as a Dem to make them look really really bad.

  Hey—it’s working.

  I was really warming up to Huckabee and what started my shift away from him was reading his website plan for immigration. He wants all illegals to register and then go home and come back, and I find it to be a seriously flawed—well, I can’t really call it a “plan”. But I think it is so poorly thought out that it makes me wonder about his other plans for the country.

  I know that hard-core bigotry will hurt Mitt, but overall he has the record of management. The sniping at Rudy is simply silly. If he were running against a party which actually CARED about things like adultery, it might not seem so wildly hypocritical. And even a dedicated religious fundamentalist can see the difference between a serial adulterer who sees promiscuous casual sex during two decades of marriage as recreation, and a man in a clearly failed marriage who becomes involved with his future wife before officially ending the marriage.

  I think Huckabee could take Iowa, with Mitt and Rudy in 2nd and 3rd, but in the day since the thread was posted I have seen Huckabee slip a little so it’s hard to tell.

  I think Barack is really gaining ground, and giving Hillary a run for her money, so I put them in 1st and 2nd but which is which is really a coin toss. Edwards could easily take it all based on the “2nd choice” option.

  Edwards got some credit for his “passion” in the debate but many of us see more peevishness than passion.

• 26. Blogs For Victory »&hellip  |  December 18th, 2007 at 9:36 pm

  [...] anyway, not too long ago I asked our readers for predictions about Iowa. Any revisions to past predictions? Any new [...]