If Kerry win Iowa he wins the nomination

I think it would be such a huge upset that it would likely propell him into first in NH. While I understand he has ground to make up in terms of money and Feb.3 state support, the media buzz would be so overwhelmingly positive after months of unflaterring coverage that focused largely on his fallen-star status would make him, overnight, a strong competitor on mini-super Tuesday. Being a Vet wouldn't hurt either.

Don't get me wrong, this is still veyr much Deanb's to lose and even a narrow loss in IA can still be spun as an enormous accomplishment for a guy who 9 months ago was nowhere. However, a week ago it looked like Dean would run away with this thing, now I think it's safe to say that has changed.

Nice try hyping up the polls so if Kerry doesn't win you can come back and call him a loser.

There is a LONG way to go in this primary and that's the way it should be. Iowa is ONE state. We've got 49 to go. Everybody gets a voice, both the candidates and the people.

wins both, there's still a long way to go.

then went on to win the nomination and the answer I got was 2. Carter and Kennedy. History says just because you win Iowa doesn't mean you win the nomination.

Note as well that Clinton placed 3rd in Iowa, and lost NH to Tsongas.

That's what the post is about. A victory in Iowa could propel Kerry to a victory in NH, which in essence could propel him to a victory for the nomination. I mean, when was the last time a candidate won Iowa AND New Hampshire, but then LOST the nomination? It's been a while.

If he wins both, he will roll and we'll all be saying we knew he had it in him all along.

President Kerry would be great for America, but I'd have to see it to believe it.

Kerry will win the nomination if he wins a majority of the delegates at our convention in Boston this summer. And even if he wins Iowa (which I doubt will happen), he doesn't have the money needed to compete with Dean in large states like California, New York and Florida.

Just ask Presidents Dick Gephardt, Tom Harkin and Pat Robertson about Iowa; they all won there but went on to lose the nomination. It's an important caucus to win, but it's by no means crucial.

Are you a one eyed fat man? GO Kerry

A win in Iowa would be a huge boost to him in NH, but his support would largely come from Clark voters, IMO. The Dean camp are a tough nut to crack, and I don't see them going anywhere else very soon.

if Kerry is seen as a viable candidate, the Skull and Bones stuff will come back.

Far-left conspiratorialist nuts?
How exactly does "Skull & Bones" factor into any serious discussion about Kerry as a presidential candidate?

the ones perpetrating the Skull and Bones thing all over the Web are RW propagandists. Remember, Kerry was on Nixon's enemies list.

All of their hijinks will be exposed too. Curses!

Nobody in the real world cares about his college fraternity.

of course, at DU, we will continue to ruminate over skull & bones, because that's just the kind of wierd shit that riles some of us.

Even if he should win Iowa..what then? Let's say that, by some fluke, he does win the nomination. What then? How does he keep the left wing of the party from voting Green? There are a lot of us who will bolt the party if Kerry (or Gephardt, Lieberman, Edwards) should get the nomination. Do you think Kerry can win by abandoning the liberal base and chasing bush votes in the south? I think not.

Have you ever seen Kerry's voting record?

Which overrides any other "good" votes.

You just want to be self-righteous.

Exactly how is Kerry doing that? By criticizing Bush*?

Which certainly isn't enough to win those votes. But, would explain his vote for the war.

Kerry winning IA would say nothing about him vs Clark. He'd still have to prove that point. winning IA would give him nothing more than a right to go head to head with Clark on a level playing field.

Kerry will exhaust what meager funds he has and make a pathetic finish in the mini-tuesday contests, and soon afterwards drop out.

-- you ought to send a generous donation in, then. We Democrats have to stick together, right?

But it would likely improve Wes Clark's chances.

More than 50 percent of the Democratic base was opposed to the war in Iraq. If someone like Kerry, a pro-Iraq war resolution proponent, takes the nomination, it will split the party and lead to a Bush* win. There are some Dems who will not heed the call to get behind the Democratic nominee regardless of who that might be, and you are reading the post of one.

There are some issues more important than political success. These are issues of conscience. While I agree in theory that Bush* must be defeated at all costs, the exception to that would be the cost of compromising one's conscience to the extent one turns the other political cheek to overlook a vote condoning an illegal, immoral war for the purpose of advancing one's own political ambitions. This is exactly what Kerry did -- supported a resolution to enable Bush* to attack Iraq in order to stand in a favorable light with moderate and independent voters.

Further, this is not the first time we have seen Kerry compromise principle to advance his own self-interests. His classic line following the vote of the Electoral College in Election 2000 (no, I wasn't asked to sign the petition of the Congressional Black Caucus -- protesting the slate of electors from Florida -- but I would not have signed had I been asked) illustrated Kerry's tendency to open mouth, insert political foot. His alienation of African American voters, not to mention ardent Gore supporters, permanently estranged him from a segment of the Democratic base he would require to win a national election. There's just some political insensitivity in Kerry that has been on display more than once in his later political life that makes some Dems totally unwilling to support him -- and I unashamedly one.

While many Dems -- make that simply many decent human beings -- can make a case that Bush* must be defeated at all costs, a price I am not willing to pay in order to defeat Bush* is to vote for a Democrat who not only was silent when the theft of the presidency occurred, but who continued the assualt on this Country's moral fiber by voting in support of George Bush*s incredibly right-wing agenda. So if it comes down to Kerry versus Bush, I will be writing in Al Gore. Bush* is certainly horrendous, but those who allowed him to progress as far as he has, as opposed to passionately opposing him at every opportunity, are merely Bush*-enablers and are almost as bad.

It depends on a lot of things.

If Kerry wins IA, he'll certainly have momentum going into NH. This presumably forces Gephardt out, and I suspect, much of Gephardt's cash and support goes to Dean -- but will have no effect immediately in NH.

Kerry HAS to be at least 2nd in NH, or he's effectively Done.

Now assuming he comes out of a 1st in IA and NH, he'll be poised for Super tuesday, however, he then gets into areas of Strength for Clark and Edwards.

Assuming Dean hit 1 or 2 in NH, then he is still a formidable force as well -- If he had gepahardt's money -- even more so. If Dean hits lower than 3 in NH, his momentum will be gone. a third place will be enough to propell him , albeit weakly, into super tuesday.

Super Tuesday will make or Break Clark and Edwards -- especially witht eh assumption that they are 3rd or below in NH and IA.

I don't know where the money goes at this point, as there are too many factors.


Thats how I see the political breakdown. I am neither advocating it, nor warning about it. I am neither predicting the lilkelhood of the overall scenario.

Given the events you suggest, that is how I see it playing out.

He drops out right after NH.

n/t

IA is only a must-win* for Gephardt.

NH is a must-win* for Lieberman, Dean AND Kerry.

Must win = 2nd or better.

would be more important to him. Not placing in the top two in his neighboring state would negate any benefit he would receive by getting in the top three in Iowa resulting in a wash. I do think he will remain into March regardless due to his $$$. I see it as a three way race in a little over two weeks, but think ultimately he will have to drop out.

Wes Clark!

I was very impressed by Jim Rubin's appearance on C-SPAN yesterday in which he discussed Wes Clark's views on foreign policy and on leadership.

Rubin was the State Department spokesman during the Clinton Administration.

Check the video on C=SPAN:

http://www.c-span.org/