You leave out Michigan and Florida. Like it or not there will be winners in those two primaries. You can call them meaningless, call them beauty contests, or whatever you like, but someone is going to get some headlines as the "winner".

Hey Kari n' Gang,

Thanks for doing this. It was a great deal of fun to fill out and very interesting to see what the "Conventional Wisdom" of Oregon Political Junkies looks like.

Cheers hoping you make these kind of fun polls a regular part of Blue Oregon.

The difficulty with that challenge was that you really have to get Iowa right to get the rest right.

You're basically right, Jeff. Which just tells us how ridiculous the current system is. 300 million people are pretty much entrusting around 200,000 citizens of a state that isn't terribly representative of the nation (and who aren't even casting secret ballots) to essentially narrow down the field to one or two candidates on the Dem side. Fewer than 100,000 R's may determine whether or not several perfectly legitimate candidates can continue to seek that party's nomination.

Then, within the next few weeks, a couple of other unrepresentative states that will be relatively invisible until this time in 2012 (New Hampshire; South Carolina) will have a disproportionate impact on the process. Even with the "Super Tuesday" block being moved up to February 5, voters in the larger states will see their choices heavily constrained. Candidates who would better represent a more diverse group of citizens either won't still be running or may well be perceived as "politically damaged" for no particularly good reason.

I'm not arguing against the value of retail politics. However, this process starts too early, takes too long, costs too much, and puts too much power in the hands of the media. I seldom hear any discussion of what should be a fundamental question: Why should someone who doesn't do well in Iowa or New Hampshire be virtually eliminated before the process reaches the states where the majority of voters live?

Right now, too much of this is driven less by the needs of people for information about our potential leaders than by the media, which makes billions of dollars from candidates having to overspend on campaign ads. $400+ million in advertising in Iowa alone for today's caucuses? Insane. That doesn't count the other sums spent as candidates spent months in Iowa and New Hampshire.

If this all goes badly enough, maybe we will have reached the zenith of political idiocy and the resulting discontent will tell the party leaders to make big changes in 2012.

I have sat down with a list of polls and the primary states, and I just can't see how he does it.

First of all, if we learned anything from 2004, it's that one should throw out all the polls (most especially the post-Iowa ones) and consider the roll that Keith-Jackson-like "ol' Mo" will play.

Get the ball rolling in Iowa, and it follows from there.

(ie: "In 2004, there was a 30% swing from Dean to Kerry after Iowa. So, win Iowa, win New Hampshire.")

While that is true Pat, there were two other factors that led to Kerry's rise and Dean's fall in NH:

1. Kerry was a Senator from a neighboring state. Although Dean was also from another neighboring state, lots of folks in NH are former Boston/MA residents.
2. The "Dean Scream" whether rightly or wrongly, caused Dean to be viewed poorly. It gave a bad first impression on Dean to many undecided NH voters.

Ah yes, who could forget "the scream"? That certainly didn't help Dean. But I think its effect has been over-estimated because it did come after Dean's surprising(?) loss to Kerry in middle-America Iowa, where the good doctor's substantial lead in the polls proved ephemeral.

Rural Resident: Which just tells us how ridiculous the current system is. 300 million people are pretty much entrusting around 200,000 citizens of a state that isn't terribly representative of the nation (and who aren't even casting secret ballots) to essentially narrow down the field to one or two candidates on the Dem side.

You are so right. I think I just heard last night that in 2004, only 6% of eligible Iowa voters participated in the caucuses. So these decisions are in the hands of an absurdly small number of people, with their own provincial interests and policy positions. (Why do we subsidize corn production again? Oh, yeah.)

What I don't understand is why the Democratic party caved to Iowa and New Hampshire this election by disallowing Florida and Michigan delegates when they moved up their primaries in order to compete. I'm not in favor of an expanded election season, but why are we letting two small states hold us hostage? I'd much rather have MI and FL voters narrowing my options than Iowa and NH.

I am inclined to agree with Paul about Edwards', but for slightly different reasons. I think Edwards plan for using early wins to boost him forward could work, thanks to free media and name recognition from his VP nomination. However, I think his real problem is that he has only one way to win. If Edwards' Iowa strategy fails (does not place first, not enough free media, etc.), that is basically the end of the campaign for him (like Gephardt in 2004). Clinton, and to a lesser extent Obama, can survive an Iowa loss and still conceivably get the nomination.

Well, we'll all find out soon enough, won't we?

I believe that when the third-place candidate starts proving he/she is "viable" by winning an early contest or two, support increases dramatically -- throw out the polls.

In the meantime, don't forget this.

SAVE DEMOCRACY, VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT!!

I hate the 'horse race' aspect of the Iowa & New Hamshire during the Presidential cycles. I'm more suited for the 'baseball spring training' feel of Congressional cycles. The whole contest atmosphere makes me queezey.

Our Democracy hangs in the balance in a way that only seems to compare to the Johnson/Lincoln election. Sure, secession is not at stake, but more like if we will exist as a representative democratic republic, or a mirage as a democracy with an election to be played at halftime of a playoff game in the NFL. We'll get corporate sponsorship, and tell everybody that we are stil 'The Land Of The Free, Home Of The Brave' while surrendering our freedom, and civil liberties for the lie of security.

It's as though we are living in a new reality T.V. show and the election process is the contest and the ultimate prize; Airforce One, the White House, and all those electronic toys at the NSA.

Happy Thoughts;

Dan Grady

it'll be romney in the gop; he's presidential; huckabee is vice-presidential;

It's not too early for Hillary to talk to Bill Richardson about a potential VP position. As another first (Hispanic candidate), this certainly would give voters a sense of that sought-after factor, change. Richardson has proven his skills with foreign policy, is anti-war, and can balance the ticket in other ways. He and can help Hillary with the Hispanic vote in Florida, and will certainly help in New Mexico, Denver and California and win her support among governors.

SAVE DEMOCRACY, VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT!!

Posted by: Ana Curtis | Jan 4, 2008 9:04:44 AM

I don't believe that's going to happen, Bill Richardson endorsed Obama the day of the caucus like Kucinich.

Happy Thoughts;

Dan Grady

People, im sure someone in ur families r sick and cant afford heaalth insurance and its obvious the rebublicans dont care and wont provide free health insurence which may i provide that the united states is the one of the only countries of the devolped countries TO NOT HAVE FREE HEALTH INSURANCE!! ALso barack obamma people talk about jump on a bandwagon hes not experienced enough maybe in 2012 but not now and just because hes black doesnt mean he should have the black vote. I no u probably dnt want the typicall southern white man in office but u have to think about the country not bout urself. So i have my support behind edwards becuase hes behind so many views that will b required to run a great country and is a great speaker, so is Hilary but i don't trust her. barack cant speak at all and runs on and on by the way I've been doing campaigns since i was born and im 13 but u no what oprah is just behind barack cuz hes black she never supports anyone and hear comes a black guy and now she supports someone come on so stop jumping on the bandwagon cuz hes not ready to run the country but like i said mayb in 2012. o and i no i mentioned im 13 but did i mention im also a biracial and haved faced racism.And yes im sick of having a southern white man in office but im thinkin about the country and the future the next generation.thank you for reading