Lincoln vs Cadillac Forums

(This is the forums archive - If you want to get back to the main site simply click the banner above and you will be taken to our homepage.)

Lincoln vs Cadillac Forums is the Ultimate Online Resource for Owners and Enthusiasts of American Luxury Cars. Feel free to browse through our archive - but make sure you make it back to our main site - Lincoln vs Cadillac Forums

Cadillac XLR : Cadillac CTS : Cadillac : 2005 Cadillac STS : Cadillac Forums : 2000 Lincoln LS : Lincoln Mark VIII : Lincoln Mark VII : Car Wax
Lincoln Town Car : Lincoln Air Suspension : Lincoln Continental : Lemon Law : Do It Yourself Car Repair : Lincoln vs Cadillac Forums : Mesothelioma

Back to the Archive Main Page

Pages: 1

Iowa Caucuses Prediction

(Click here to view the original thread with full colors/images)

Posted by: Calabrio

Novak's analysis in '04 was pretty accurate, here's the assessment of tonight's caucuses.

Iowa Caucuses
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=24241

Iowa voters tomorrow night will go to their local precinct caucuses to cast their lot with a presidential candidate. The winner is hardly guaranteed his party's nomination -- in fact, it's possible that neither Iowa winner will come out as the favorite for the nomination -- but the caucuses will certainly be the end of the road for some candidates.

Here are our analyses of the races as they stand now and the most likely outcomes:

Republicans: This is a two-way contest between former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee. The battle for third place is among former Sen. Fred Thompson (Tenn.), Sen. John McCain (Ariz.), and Rep. Ron Paul (Tex.). Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani is not even spending this week in Iowa. Instead, he is campaigning in New Hampshire.

1. Ever since finishing second in the Iowa straw poll last August, Huckabee steadily climbed here in Iowa, aided by his evangelical pedigree, his sincerity and the fresh-face factor, and less critical press coverage than any other candidate. Polls of likely Republican caucus-goers consistently showed Huckabee ahead throughout December, but more recent surveys are a mixed bag, showing slippage by Huckabee.

2. Polling the caucuses is notoriously difficult, because caucusing, unlike voting in a primary, can take all night. Turnout is a bigger commitment, and it's harder to predict. While pollsters try to correct for this, the room for error is huge.

3. Romney is close or leading in the post-Christmas polls. This is probably good enough for him. He has a much bigger team in Iowa and much more money to spend than do Huckabee and the other Republican candidates. Romney's campaign should be better than Huckabee's at getting its supporters to their caucuses.

4. Huckabee, however, has two potential caucus-night advantages. First, he enjoys more enthusiastic support than does Romney, who, for many Iowa Republicans, is just the most electable or the most acceptable of the top-tier candidates. Huckabee, by contrast, has a strong core of dedicated voters who share his religious views. Huckabee has recently come under a steady barrage of criticism by economic conservatives and a constant drubbing by Romney's well-financed campaign.

5. Two weeks ago, we wrote that Thompson was the "X-Factor." Most Iowa Republicans hadn't given him much thought as of mid-December, but he has spent the last two-and-a-half weeks in the Hawkeye State. Post-Christmas polls do not show a big spike, but he does seem to poll even with McCain for third place. A decent third-place finish for either of these men would be a boost going into New Hampshire.

6. Ron Paul could make a splash, as well. He's in fifth place in most polls, but his supporters are unmatched in enthusiasm and dedication. A third-place finish for Paul is not out of the question.

7. The most likely outcome appears to be:

1st Place: Mitt Romney
2nd Place: Mike Huckabee
3rd Place: Fred Thompson
4th Place: John McCain

Democrats: This is a three-way contest among Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.), Sen. Hillary Clinton (N.Y.), and former Sen. John Edwards (N.C.). It's possible that there are only three survivors out of Iowa for the Democrats and that the second-tier candidates will be gone by New Hampshire.

1. The similarities between Obama 2008 and Howard Dean in 2004 are real and could show themselves Thursday night. Obama is the new, fresh face in the race with youthful, enthusiastic, and idealistic supporters. For Dean, that same formula translated into caucus-day bust. Will the same happen to Obama?

2. Obama leads in most polls, and significantly in some. His negatives are much lower than Clinton's, and his positives are higher than Edwards'. He has as much money as Clinton and the edge in enthusiasm. However, his campaign team in Iowa is the least experienced of the top three. He could flame out like Dean, but all considered, he has to be viewed as the favorite.

3. Hillary's organization may be the strongest, but her negatives are the highest. Her hardball tactics against Obama will hurt her. For the Democrats, who have a viability threshold of at least 15% in each precinct, second choice matters, and that is where Hillary's negatives will hurt her. She doesn't appear to be the second choice for very many voters at all.

4. Edwards has run in Iowa before and done well. His second-place finish in 2004, however, was in a weaker Democratic field. His negatives are low, however, and many polls have shown him as the most popular second choice among supporters of the second-tier candidates. In polls, he is right on Hillary's heels, and it is likely he will pass her in the caucuses.

5. The second-tier candidates -- Sen. Joe Biden (Del.), Sen. Chris Dodd (Conn.), and New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson -- will struggle to reach the 15% viability threshold in many districts, with the top three garnering 85% among them in most areas. Of the three second-tier Democrats, Richardson has the best chance of even registering in the final results.

6. The Democratic field looks to shake out this way:

1st Place: Barack Obama
2nd Place: John Edwards
3rd Place: Hillary Clinton
4th Place: Bill Richardson

Mr. Novak is a syndicated columnist and editor of the Evans-Novak Political Report, a political newsletter he founded in 1967 with Rowland Evans. Click here to get a free subscription.

Mr. Carney, a contributing editor to HUMAN EVENTS and the senior reporter for the Evans-Novak Political Report. He is also the author of "The Big Ripoff: How Big Business and Big Government Steal Your Money," published by John Wiley & Sons. Read more of his work at TimothyPCarney.com.

Posted by: fossten

Nobody gives a rat's behind what you have to say.

Yawn...

Posted by: Calabrio

Huckabee Takes Iowa; Romney in 2nd
Former Arkansas Governor Rides Momentum Surge to Early Victory
By DAVID SCHOETZ
Jan. 3, 2008

ABC News projects that former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee will win the Iowa Caucuses, beating out former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney in a two-man race for the Republican party's top spot in Iowa.

The victory follows a surging December for Huckabee, a former Baptist pastor who has described his campaign as "shoestring" and said that Romney, a business executive before becoming governor, has outspent his campaign "20-1."

Obama Emerges Victorious in Iowa

Third place remains too close to call with former U.S. Sen. Fred Thompson, R-Tenn., holding a slight lead, based on ABC News projections, over U.S. Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., and U.S. Rep. Ron Paul, R-Calif.

ABC News also projects that Illinois Sen. Barack Obama will win the Iowa Democratic Caucuses. At this point ABC News does not have enough information yet to project who will come in second or third, but early results indicate it will be Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., and former Sen. John Edwards, D-N.C., in some order.

Republicans had expected an estimated 90,000 Iowans — about the population of Billings, Mont. — to turn out to begin the process of steering the party toward a candidate. Many of those Iowa Republicans are more conservative by party standards.

The GOP front-runners had been fairly clear going into tonight with — especially in recent days — an ugly slug fest with critical implications for each candidate's campaign.

Huckabee has leaned on his reputation as an affable every guy during his recent surge. Just last night, he played the bass and traded jokes in Los Angeles last night as a guest on "The Tonight Show With Jay Leno" — a high-profile appearance on the comic's first night back on the air without his striking writers.

But Huckabee was back in Iowa first thing Thursday morning, telling a crowd of supportive Iowans that the Republican race is "about believing in a cause." As the returns began to trickle in, a spontaneous prayer circle broke out at the Des Moines Embassy Suites where Huckabee supporters were congregating. The group prayed for Huckabee's victory as well as some of his more conservative views — including an end to abortion and homosexuality.

Huckabee reportedly was in the air between caucusing locations when his projected win was announced at his campaign's Iowa gathering spot.

On the other side of the matchup in Iowa is former Massachusetts governor and business executive Mitt Romney, a Mormon who has outspended any opponent in the Republican field in his quest for votes. Because of the time and money he's dumped into this first measurement of the American electorate, the expectations for a victory are high, and anything less, even a close second finish, could be seen as a defeat.

As the first reports of Huckabee inching off to an early lead campaign in, Romney aides said they always knew the race would be close, with the direction of the evangelical base a major question for the Mormon candidate. The candidate, meanwhile, said at a caucusing precint in West Des Moines, that tonight was only "the first inning in a 50-inning ball game."

"So, you know, you want to get on base the first inning," Romney said, "but we're planning on doing well."

Huckabee and Romney and their staffs have traded some sharp jabs in the days leading up to tonight, jabbing and counter-jabbing one another daily. Earlier this week, in one of the more unusual bits of political theater, Huckabee pulled a TV ad from the airwaves that he said was too negative regarding his chief Iowa opponent, but he first held a press conference to show the ad to the media. And this morning, in another example of the political fisticuffs, Romney hit back at a comment in The Washington Post by Huckabee campaign head Ed Rollins, who'd said he wanted to knock out Romney's teeth.

Romney made light of his own carefully coifed look, telling Rollins "just don't touch the hair."

Rollins told ABC News shortly after the caucus process began that "his gut" told him that Huckabee would end the night with a 5-point victory.

Posted by: fossten

Actually, I'd love to see Hillary lose in the primaries. As much as I think she's a guaranteed loser in the general, I really just want the Clintons to go away. Call it shadenfreude if you want, I don't care. Besides, B. Hussein Obama is VERY beatable.

Posted by: evillally

But is Mike Huckabee winnable? Especially in independent and divided territory? Once again, we're stuck between the choice of sh!t sandwich and a giant douche...

Posted by: MonsterMark

Huckabee needs to go away if the Repubs hope to be in the White House in '08.

Posted by: Calabrio

Keep in mind, it's the Iowa caucus. This is the same event that also also gave

* 1988- Bob Dole (37%), Pat Robertson (25%)
* 1980- George H. W. Bush (32%)

And for the Democrats

* 1992 - Tom Harkin (76%)Bill Clinton (3%)
* 1988 - Richard Gephardt (31%), Paul Simon (27%)

The media scrutiny of Huckabee should get a bit more intense now that he's earned that decisive victory in Iowa. Everything from his old statements, his immigration stand, his leniency on criminals, and his crazy ass son, are going need to become public now. Will the media serve the DNC and sit on this, or will the Romney, McCain, Gulliani teams get the information out there through back channels? Hopefully it doesn't make his supporters defensively rally around him. But he's not going to be under estimated any more. And Romney won't be the only guy gunning for him.

Posted by: buddylee

Quote:

Originally Posted by MonsterMark

Huckabee needs to go away if the Repubs hope to be in the White House in '08.

I don't know , he seems like the guy with the least baggage and seems to be a strait shooter .

I wonder if those were Votes for Obama, Or Just Votes NOT for Hillary .

Obama Seems Like he would Be "Phone in it" the Presidency

Romney seems like "big slick" I would not trust him

I would be hard to decide between Rudy or Huckabee , I look at both their Faces and I can see them in that chair

Any One Else know a Bass Guitar Player ..... They are Not like most Humans
That Could be a good thing.

Posted by: fossten

Let's not forget that Rudy and Romney are both admittedly NOT friends of the 2nd Amendment. Rudy is a statist pro-choice Republican who believes government should be even stronger than it is. Romney was for abortion before he was against it. Neither one can be trusted to be conservative. McCain is one of the meanest politicians I have ever seen. I watched him hold one of the Abramoff hearings on C-Span and he was such a total a-hole, it was shocking. Huckabee, despite his liberal tendencies, is actually percentage points better than those three IMHO. Hell, I'd take 4 more years of Bush before I'd take Rudy McRomney.

This picture was taken in Hillary HQ after the caucuses:

Posted by: MonsterMark

Again...

Who can win?

Huckabee can't.

Watch the media push this guy because they (the media) thinks he is the easiest to beat. (And they, the media, are right.)

Posted by: Joeychgo

WHy do you way Huckabee cant win?

Posted by: fossten

Vote for liberal Republican because he has best chance to win = FAIL.

Posted by: Joeychgo

Quote:

Originally Posted by fossten

Vote for liberal Republican because he has best chance to win = FAIL.

Vote for Republican who has worst chance of winning the general election = Democrat in the White House.

That said, I ask again, Why do you say Huckabee cant win?

I have a friend who is an Iowa democratic caucus captain or whatever they are called.

What he told me is that most of the older people voted for Hillary, and MANY new voters showed up, more then usual, and voted for obama.

Posted by: fossten

I think most of those new voters were voting AGAINST Hillary as much as FOR Obama or Edwards.

Posted by: buddylee

down to the wire .... it looks like if want vote dem you'll have a choice of a woman or a black man ... or Rep a old white man to choose from.

sorry you guys in red states (oh wait I live in the biggest red state Ca)

Posted by: shagdrum

You realize, if Huckabee is elected the war on terror as well as the imigration problem will be over in a matter of days.
"How" you ask?

CHUCK NORRIS!!!

Posted by: shagdrum

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joeychgo

I will say many of my friends in my age group (in their 20's) were very pleased with the fact that Obama won in Iowa. They say they would vote for him, but would have to vote against Hillary. I really hope she wins the primaries. Otherwise, as far asI can tell, the young, irrational and uninformed (so typically liberal) vote will go for the democrats (assuming they actually show up to vote). If Hillary gets the DNC nod, most of those votes go conservative.

Posted by: TheDude

Quote:

Originally Posted by shagdrum

Let me guess, they're irrational and uninformed because they listen to media outlets?

Posted by: shagdrum

Quote:

Originally Posted by 95DevilleNS

Let me guess, they're irrational and uninformed because they listen to media outlets?

Irrational because of age (at least some of them), uninformed because they flat out don't pay much attention. They are not that interested in politics (compared to my "political junkie" ass).

Not all of my friends are like this, but quite a few who live in Lawrence, Kansas ( basically a quazi socialist stronghold in the middle of the mid-west), and a few who live in Topeka and Kansas City.

A few are more interested in getting high (before you ask, no I don't do that) then watching or reading the news. Basically, I am the "token conservative" with most of the people I run around with.

Posted by: 04SCTLS

I'd say young people tend to lean more to the democrats because the democratic message comes across as more idealistic and in line with permissive youth values.
When you're young and idealistic and haven't paid much in taxes you think you can change the world.
When you're older you become hardened, sober,more jaded and cynical about politicians, human nature and government in general.
You realize that government does not create wealth well and you and only you are primarily responsible to make something of yourself in life.(A republican)
Older voters have worked long and hard for their money and paid a lot in taxes along the way.
They're a lot more inclined to vote with their pocketbooks(especially if they have children)
than inexperienced youths who haven't financially established themselves.
This is where the conservatives have the appeal.
Older voters want the tougher banker type guy who'll be tight with the money and say no to more handouts.
And of course there are very few tokin' conservatives (pun intended)
( shagdrum I couldn't resist the play on your words)
as most people give up heavy partying upon the arrival of children.
(Yikes! I have become my parents)

Posted by: shagdrum

Quote:

Originally Posted by 04SCTLS

I'd say young people tend to lean more to the democrats because the democratic message comes across as more idealistic and in line with permissive youth values.
When you're young and idealistic and haven't paid much in taxes you think you can change the world.
When you're older you become hardened, sober,more jaded and cynical about politicians, human nature and government in general.
You realize that government does not create wealth well and you and only you are primarily responsible to make something of yourself in life.(A republican)
Older voters have worked long and hard for their money and paid a lot in taxes along the way.
They're a lot more inclined to vote with their pocketbooks(especially if they have children)
than inexperienced youths who haven't financially established themselves.
This is where the conservatives have the appeal.
Older voters want the tougher banker type guy who'll be tight with the money and say no to more handouts.
And of course there are very few tokin' conservatives (pun intended)
( shagdrum I couldn't resist the play on your words)
as most people give up heavy partying upon the arrival of children.
(Yikes! I have become my parents)

I would say it's a little simpler then that. Younger voters are self-absorbed and idealistic, think they know everything (including what is best for the nation) while being extremely uninformed. Older voters are less self-absorbed and much more practical and informed, hence republican.