2 "candidates" call it quits....

[CADsortaGUY]

...in Iowa anyway.

Interesting.

Does this give Dean the edge he needs? He is leading here in Iowa. I should think that there might be just a few people here that are going to be upset that Clark left our state, but Lieberman never really sat well with the Iowa Liberals. I'm not understanding why they'd publically admit defeat...I can see them not coming here, but to publicly announce it seems like slow campaign suicide.

CkG

 

[gistech1978]

lieberman never set really well with me, either.
its about time for him to bow out and move on.
and its time for clark and dean to team up.

 

[Ferocious]

I'll repeat what I said awhile ago.

Gephardt is going to be the Democratic nominee.

And he will lose to Bush.

Californians might be courageous.....but most Americans will vote safely.

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: gistech1978
lieberman never set really well with me, either.
its about time for him to bow out and move on.
and its time for clark and dean to team up.

Clark and Dean won't make for a good marriage. One is a micro-managing freak who prefers to give, rather than follow, orders. The other is a one-issue candidate who has a short temper.

 

[CaptnKirk]

Clark/Dean is the wrong chemistry.
Clark/Kerry might be able to make a real go at it.
Gebhardt is too hard for the Mediocre American to comprehend.

Iowa may not have much impact this early.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: CaptnKirk
Clark/Dean is the wrong chemistry.
Clark/Kerry might be able to make a real go at it.
Gebhardt is too hard for the Mediocre American to comprehend.

Iowa may not have much impact this early.

I agree, but why make a big statement about it? Politically it doesn't say much more than - "I can't win, so I won't try" - Is that what people want to see in a potential Leader?

CkG

 

[tnitsuj]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: CaptnKirk
Clark/Dean is the wrong chemistry.
Clark/Kerry might be able to make a real go at it.
Gebhardt is too hard for the Mediocre American to comprehend.

Iowa may not have much impact this early.

I agree, but why make a big statement about it? Politically it doesn't say much more than - "I can't win, so I won't try" - Is that what people want to see in a potential Leader?

CkG

Skipping primary states and even General election states is something that has been done by candidates from both major parties in every election. It is just an indication of weakness of the candidates in question both in public support and funding.

You should also remember that the presidents campaign in 2000 made a pretty good strategic decision not to contest states such as California, New York, and Maryland as it would have been pointless given the demographics and the limited resources at hand. Was that also indicative of a lack of leadership?

 

[Witling]

Ferocious, I hope you're wrong about Gephardt being the Democratic candidate. Sigh! I live in the San Francisco East Bay area. Think Berkeley here. Gephardt will not fly here. In fact, I think that no one who voted to give Bush-lite a blank check on Iraq will make it here. That's Gephardt, Kerry, and -- what's the Republican's name -- Oh yes, Lieberman. I'm not sure who will make it but I find it instructive that a candidate who came from nowhere is the leading Democratic fund raiser. It's an indication of how truly pssed off a portion of the Democratic party is. If the Democrats try business as usual, they've had it. All this assumes, of course, that nothing dramatic happens to either side -- and something probably will.

 

[ITJunkie]

Originally posted by: gistech1978
lieberman never set really well with me, either.
its about time for him to bow out and move on.
and its time for clark and dean to team up.

That could be a fun ticket to watch.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: tnitsuj

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: CaptnKirk
Clark/Dean is the wrong chemistry.
Clark/Kerry might be able to make a real go at it.
Gebhardt is too hard for the Mediocre American to comprehend.

Iowa may not have much impact this early.

I agree, but why make a big statement about it? Politically it doesn't say much more than - "I can't win, so I won't try" - Is that what people want to see in a potential Leader?

CkG

Skipping primary states and even General election states is something that has been done by candidates from both major parties in every election. It is just an indication of weakness of the candidates in question both in public support and funding.

You should also remember that the presidents campaign in 2000 made a pretty good strategic decision not to contest states such as California, New York, and Maryland as it would have been pointless given the demographics and the limited resources at hand. Was that also indicative of a lack of leadership?

You missed my point. They are public ally announcing it. I don't remember that happening anywhere in the 2000 election- even in the primaries. The only time I can understand it is if one person is from that state and the others who have similar beliefs don't want to fight them on their home turf as a courtesy. This isn't the case in this primary run.

CkG

 

[CaptnKirk]

In re-reading the article posted in the link, it may be the candidates recognizing that they themselves
are not popular with the area, and are making a concious decision to place their funding expenditures elswhere.
The proximity of Iowa to Gebhardt (Missouri) plays in his favor, while the local and ethenicity of Leiberman
does not help Joes cause in that area. Clark, Arkansas-Southerner also is not a real popular draw there.

Why anounce it in advance ? Unknown reasons. Maybe they want to see what trends develop and concentrate
on what they see, or are just conceding to thier lack of popularity there.
Other successfull candidates did poorly there but excelled elsewhere.
At least they did have the courage to make the anouncement.

 

[chowderhead]

Originally posted by: CaptnKirk

Why anounce it in advance ? Unknown reasons. Maybe they want to see what trends develop and concentrate
on what they see, or are just conceding to thier lack of popularity there.
Other successfull candidates did poorly there but excelled elsewhere.
At least they did have the courage to make the anouncement.

This is done to decrease expectations. If they lose badly, they can spin it to say that they did not contest Iowa. If they do surprisingly well i.e. third they can spin it as momentum. In 1999, McCain announced that he was not going contest Iowa because he knew he could not win there i.e. he strongly opposed ethanol subsidies. I think he placed 5th with 5% of the vote and went on to win New Hampshire. Liberman is pulling out of Iowa because he is trying to conserve money and focus on more moderate electorate i.e. Arizona and South Carolina. . Clark is probably realizing that it takes a lot of hard work and "retail" politics to win Iowa's votes. He may simply not have enough time to sway Dean, Gephardt, Kerry supporters. I still think it is a mistake for Clark to not contest Iowa.

 

[Piano Man]

This is good news for Dean. Clark was taking a bigger bite out of Dean than Gephadrt. If Dean wins Iowa, he will probably go all the way. He will definately win New Hampshire, and after that people always vote for the guy who's winning.

 

[LilBlinbBlahIce]

Leiberman doesn't stand a chance anyway.

 

[Bleep]

I thouight that I knew politics better than I do I guess, I never thought that Iowa had primary elections.

Bleep

 

[Zebo]

A dean/clark ticket is dems only hope.

gephart is an in your face, inside the beltway, and offensive to most people. No chance.

Liberman- Might as well write in Sharon.

A Kerry ticket is interesting..Could have the fellow skull and bones at Yale going agaisnt Bush but he needs a southerners help.. He's a little to militant for the far left though.

The big trump card would be Gore/Clark!

 

[chowderhead]

Originally posted by: Zebo
A dean/clark ticket is dems only hope.

gephart is an in your face, inside the beltway, and offensive to most people. No chance.

Liberman- Might as well write in Sharon.

A Kerry ticket is interesting..Could have the fellow skull and bones at Yale going agaisnt Bush but he needs a southerners help.. He's a little to militant for the far left though.

The big trump card would be Gore/Clark!

I think that Gore got a bad rap and a raw deal. A Gore/Clark ticket would be ideal. Right now, I would vote for any of the above over GWB.

 

[Witling]

Bleep, I assume that you had your tongue in your cheek when you said that you didn't know as much about politics as you thought because you thought Iowa doesn't have primaries. It doesn't, of course. But the only previous reference I see in this tread simply talks about missing primary states. And I think for the purpose of getting the nomination, Iowa, with its caucus, can be considered a primary state.

 

[Bleep]

can be considered a primary state.

I dont know how this could possibly be. The process in a Caucues state is so far removed from the primary process they cannot be compared in any way. The thread was about Iowa and the replys were relating to Primary elections I think a reasonable person could make a connection between the two. I will agree though the results are pretty much the same. I dont know what independent registered voters do in a caucus state like Iowa, someone in Iowa care to answer this?

Bleep

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Bleep

can be considered a primary state.

I dont know how this could possibly be. The process in a Caucues state is so far removed from the primary process they cannot be compared in any way. The thread was about Iowa and the replys were relating to Primary elections I think a reasonable person could make a connection between the two. I will agree though the results are pretty much the same. I dont know what independent registered voters do in a caucus state like Iowa, someone in Iowa care to answer this?

Bleep

Sit on their hands
voter registration form. No "independant" - just a "No party" box.

Also it looks like youmust be registered as a member of the party to vote in the caucus. linky
<snip>
Q. Who can participate?

A. Anyone who will be 18 years old by Nov. 2, 2004, the date of the presidential election. If you are eligible to vote for president, you're eligible to participate in a caucus.

You must also be a registered Democrat to vote on the Democratic presidential race. You can register or change your registration at the caucus site. So, for example, an independent voter could show up, register and participate.

Q. What about caucuses for other parties, like the Reform Party or the Greens?

A. This year, the Green Party will hold caucuses. There are none for other parties.
</snip>

CkG