These are my predictions for the Tuesday primary. Please bear in mind that I frankly am incredibly bad at this sort of thing, which should provide some amusement later.
Wesley Clark: Either him or Edwards makes the cut; if him, distant third. Advances to next round either way.
Howard Dean: Makes the cut; no lower than second – I think. Advances to next round either way.
John Edwards: Either him or Clark makes the cut; if him, close third. Advances to next round either way.
John Kerry: Makes the cut; presumptive winner, but Dean can still pull this one off. Advances to next round.
Dennis Kucinich: After this primary would be an excellent time for him to drop out, but he won’t.
Joe Lieberman: Nice knowing you, Ninja, and it’s a damned shame. They just didn’t want to hear what you had to say.
Al Sharpton: Somebody will probably vote for him, but I don’t think Al cares all that much. At least here.
Clark – 2nd
Dean – 3rd or 4th (probably fourth)
Edwards – 3rd or 4th
Kerry – 1st
Kucinich, Lieberman, Sharpton – tied for quit wasting everyone’s time.
This press obsession with the yawp and the yawp aftermath and the yawp recovery may be even more unfair to Edwards and Clark than it is to Dean.
I say Howie takes a close second, but we know what happened last time I predicted that.
This press obsession with the yawp and the yawp aftermath and the yawp recovery may be even more unfair to Edwards and Clark than it is to Dean.
I say Howie takes a close second, but we know what happened last time I predicted that.
Dean made a good showing on TV last night (if he didn’t send his wife a few dozen roses this morning after their appearance on the NewsHour, he’s a cad), and Clark is looking creepier by the day. Kerry, with Dean a somewhat distant second, and Clark in third. I figure Edwards makes a good enough showing to keep going in fourth–he should probably bone up on DOMA, though.
It’d be nice of one of them pulled a Sister Souljah on Sharpton in the next week or so, visibly sticking their necks out before the New York primary–I’m not betting on it happening.
“(if he didn’t send his wife a few dozen roses this morning after their appearance on the NewsHour, he’s a cad),”
correction–their appearance with Diane Sawyer. I saw the clip on the NewsHour.
So I’m late on this, but last night I finally saw Dean’s infamous Iowa speech. This is so way overblown. Here’s a guy who was disappointed by the caucus results, and up there rallying his followers. It looked to me like he was enjoying himself on stage and just got caught up in the exuberance he was looking to impart to the Deaniacs. So not a big deal.
Since Dean apparently has the money to stick around for a while, I think that whole issue from this week will fade in importance over the next few weeks. It may have wounded him in NH, but I’m not counting him down and out yet. Even I, no fan of Dean, think he got a raw deal on the media explosion over this, and I suppose that many other people are or will be coming to same conclusion, and not holding that (frankly entertaining) bit of political theater against him.
I’m not going too far out on a limb though. I think the order of finish will be Kerry, Dean, Edwards, and leave Lieberman and Clark battling for fourth. Of course, I think Clark is the biggest political whore of the bunch, so maybe I’m expecting granite staters to show some New England common sense and hold him in disdain.
Here’s my concern with Kerry in the general election, from a Kos poster:
And his operative instinct has been to play safe, play safe, play safe–or play dirty if playing safe doesn’t work.
I hope if the Democrats vote based on electability they actually think long and hard on electability and don’t just opt for the safe-seeming option. I don’t know what proves it, but “I finished four points higher in the Iowa caucuses” isn’t it.
(Edwards-over-Kerry seems like the easiest “electability” calculation for me. Dean and Clark are both wild cards in a way that the Senators aren’t.)
And the word “electability” is still a crime against the English language.)
Here’s my concern with Kerry in the general election, from a Kos poster:
And his operative instinct has been to play safe, play safe, play safe–or play dirty if playing safe doesn’t work.
I hope if the Democrats vote based on electability they actually think long and hard on electability and don’t just opt for the safe-seeming option. I don’t know what proves it, but “I finished four points higher in the Iowa caucuses” isn’t it.
(Edwards-over-Kerry seems like the easiest “electability” calculation for me. Dean and Clark are both wild cards in a way that the Senators aren’t.)
And the word “electability” is still a crime against the English language.)
argh. double posts. sorry, I can’t delete them from this thread.
Suggestion for improved news coverage: when you do these discussion roundtables, it might be okay to ask journalists to reveal who their favorite is and why. As it is now that discussion is confined to campaign staff–which is not actually a recipe for honest analysis. And all the commentators are left to report on the horse race, make not-especially-educated guesses, and focus on the silliest minutiae.
I was watching this random PBS round-table in NH (Gwen Ifill, David Broder, etc.) The closest thing to a character or policy argument I saw was when Ifill or David Broder explained how, in an encounter with a voter, John Edwards was asked whether he was rooting for Carolina or New England, “and he paused for a moment, and then he said ‘sorry, I’m for Carolina. He refused the easy pander. I thought that spoke very well.’ ”
Everyone nodded sagely.