What If Iowa Settles Nothing For Democrats? - NYT

<snip>

DES MOINES — Iowa is packed with presidential candidates and hundreds of campaign aides, advisers and contributors. Twenty-five hundred representatives of news organizations have been granted credentials to cover the caucuses on Thursday night, twice as many as in 2004. Rarely has a political event been so intensely anticipated as a decisive moment, at least on the Democratic side.

But what if it is not decisive?

What if at the end of Thursday, the three leading Democrats — former Senator John Edwards and Senators Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama — are separated by a percentage point or two, leaving no one with the clear right of delivering a victory speech (or the burden of conceding)? A number of polls going into the final days have suggested that after all of this, the Democratic caucus on Thursday night could end up more or less a tie.

In truth, amid all the endless permutations of outcomes that are being discussed — can Mrs. Clinton, the putative front-runner, survive a third-place finish, or Mr. Edwards a second-place one? — aides are beginning to grapple with the frustrating possibility that all the time, money and political skill invested here might prove to be for naught when it comes to identifying the candidate to beat in the primaries and winnowing the top tier.

“It would be like a six-month trial and a hung jury,” said David Axelrod, a senior adviser to Mr. Obama. “I think it is really possible.”

Rather than clarify the state of play and consolidate this crowded field a bit, an outcome like that would almost certainly muddle things further and potentially extend the time before Democrats know their nominee.

<snip>

More: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/31/us/politics/31cnd-nagourney.html?hp=&pagewanted=print

"Oh death, where is thy sting?"

:banghead:

All they are meant to do is deplete the funds of the poorly funded candidates and force them to drop out. They don't reflect a thing about what the country as a whole wants.

If you want to know what the country wants, wait for Super Tuesday.

Anyone who is still in the race by then has a good chance.

of the whole primary process.

He seems to be saying that "America doesn't want them."

(Maybe I'm misinterpreting.)

This is similar to the statement (uncontroversial here)
that NPR and NBC commentators made about Mike Gravel,

saying that he was only on stage for entertainment
value and his honest opinions were "an excellent
argument for excluding people from the debates"
according to state-sponsored NPR commentator.

then get into the state primaries with big delegate numbers and she's home free. The point for Hillary is to deny any momentum to Edwards or Obama.

:evilgrin:

supposedly think. It's your problem that you engage in loser think. So very idiotic and weak.

BooHoo to you:cry:

We'll know by Friday.

:shrug:

and the Hillbots begin to fold up their tents.

Hillary's already won it. These are all formalities.

;)

With three candidates bunched toward the top, about all Iowa is going to "settle" is that Joe Biden, Mike Gravel and Dennis Kucinich are going to end their campaigns, which will be a total shocker, I know.

By MLK Day, we're all going to be wondering why we thought Iowa or New Hampshire were so significant.

Richardson will end his campaign, too.

Just like you can't win a poker tournament when the blinds are at their lowest (but you can surely lose a tournament at that time), Iowa isn't going to "settle" who the Democratic nominee will be by any stretch of the imagination.

GOP Iowans will also be hamstringing some of the more obnoxious in their party. In fact, already the very obvious lack of support for them in Iowa has already winnowed the field for them.
Back to the Dem side, in 2004 we effectively ended Gephardt's political career and high time too. I have rarely looked forward to a caucus as I have this one since it does give me a chance to skewer the DLC and I don't even need the old Uhlan weapon to do it!!

The last 40 years of history, most notably the fact that our party has only managed to put a President into the oval office in 1976, 1992, and 1996, should be evidence enough that the Presidential primary system has NOT served the Democratic party well at all, and the earlier (and more corporate financed) the primary is "settled", the worse the results will be.

If there is NO "presumed" nominee at all this year, we all will be better off for it.

candidates will be in NH and the beat goes on.....

maybe the REST OF US could have a say in this stupid g.d. process