Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Dean and Gephardt fight for 1st place with Kerry fading in 3rd place and Edwards surging for 4th

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
Czolgosz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-08-07 03:36 PM
Original message
Dean and Gephardt fight for 1st place with Kerry fading in 3rd place and Edwards surging for 4th
This was the Iowa polling from 4 years ago. Many believed it was already a done deal - Gephardt and Dean were locked in a close fight and the winner would cruise to the nomination as Kerry faded and Edwards remained too unknown.

See http://www.thenation.com/blogs/thebeat?pid=1173 ("Dean leading Gephardt 25-23 percent, with Kerry in third place at 14 percent. But the real news was that Edwards had moved up to 13 percent, just one point behind Kerry.")

Just a reminder of the limited value of polling this early. Don't expect any second tier candidates to jump into contention, but don't doubt that Obama, Hillary, and Edwards will be trading off for the lead in the early caucus and primary states between now and February (when the nomination will be over before I - and most of us - get to vote).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Mass Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-08-07 03:38 PM
Response to Original message
1. Actually, it was 3 years ago, just before the caucus.
This shows how little these polls are worth.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Czolgosz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-08-07 05:26 PM
Response to Reply #1
7. I should have said 3 years and two months ago.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PresidentObama Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-08-07 03:38 PM
Response to Original message
2. Kerry was in distant third.
And he came out of the race the nominee. To all the Edwards supporters who have to fight charges that John isn't going to be the nominee, and Obama or Hillary is...hang in there!! Frontrunners this early have a history of downfalling eventually. Not saying they will, but we'll see. I think Edwards and Richardson will get a lot more competitive sooner then later!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Why Syzygy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-08-07 03:45 PM
Response to Original message
3. But Gephardt pulled out
and gave all his delegates to Kerry. It wasn't so much a "surge" as a smokey back room sweatheart deal.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mass Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-08-07 03:49 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. No. Gephardt only pulled out AFTER Iowa.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Why Syzygy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-08-07 03:58 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. Immediately after.. In Iowa.
I watched on tv as the delegates changed rooms. He didn't announce it, but his votes went to John Kerry. Look it up.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
saltpoint Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-08-07 04:22 PM
Response to Original message
6. I was among the extremely wrong guesses in the 2004 caucus in Iowa.
Toward the early going it seemed as if Dick Gephardt would just take it. He'd won Iowa once before, he was a neighbor from Missouri, he knew a pig from a cow, he did the ethanol thing as well or better than anybody, he was tall, blond, and reminded people of their junior high school principal.

He got 11% of the vote on caucus night the following January, was buried alive, and dropped out of the race. I wasn't just off the mark, I wasn't even on the canvas.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-08-07 05:26 PM
Response to Original message
8. Because Democrats wait to hear their candidates DEBATE the issues over time
and make their decisions well into the series of debates.

It is the Republican powerstructure strategy to make their candidate "inevitable'" so debates don't even come into play much on the GOP side.

Democratic voters are wired completely differently - we want to hear the candidates debate as much as possible first.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Czolgosz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-08-07 06:12 PM
Response to Reply #8
9. I agree. My point was that polls make better news fodder than prognostication tools at this stage
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-08-07 06:14 PM
Response to Reply #9
10. heh - and that was my way of agreeing with your premise. ;)
.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri May 03rd 2024, 07:48 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC