By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Desroko on 04 January 2008
Edit Thread
misterd said:
Desroko said:
stof said:
Desroko said:
Thompson did surprisingly well. Look for McCain's NH lead to evaporate. Paul broke double-digits.

The youth vote was absolutely huge for Obama. Fuck all those old pundits who insist on sticking us with the apathetic label.

His vote in Iowa was because he's been focusing his time on NH instead. He's expected to significantly better there.

 


I sincerely doubt that he places higher than third. Momentum is too important - Howard Dean was leading in NH four years ago until he lost big in Iowa.

 

 

Except for one poll (which had Kerry winning by 1% or so), Dean was expected to win Iowa, and he came in third by almost 20 points. He then followed it up with the infamous "I Have a Scream" speech which (unfairly I think) made a mockery of him. In the case of McCain, just a month ago he was near the cellar in Iowa, hovering around 6-7%. He hadn't been as high as 13% since July. Given that he rose back to that level in so little time while spending next to none of his resources there, it is hard not to credit him with a positive result.

 


Not really accurate - the late polling did a fairly good job of predicting a Kerry win in Iowa. http://www.pollster.com/blogs/how_accurate_were_the_iowa_pol.php

And voters don't usually tend to care how much resources a candidate spent - dollars-to-votes ratios don't mean a whole lot to most people. The overriding reality is that McCain came in fourth, 20 pts behind the winner. That's negative momentum, and I believe the next round of NH polling will reflect that.

(Historically, ignoring Iowa is usually not a good sign. In the last 30 or so years, the Democratic winner of a contested caucus has won the nomination five of seven times, and the Republicans three of five times.)