They’re dropping like flies

So long, Edwards: http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8UG8CQO0&show_article=1

So long, Guiliani: http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080130/D8UG77E81.html

Edwards: future VP?

With the disappointing results in Nevada, what can Edwards do now? Edwards went to Nevada more times than any other democratic candidate (17 times, vs Barack’s 12 and Clinton’s 8 ) and still captured only 4% of the vote in Nevada.

The real test will come in Edwards’ native South Carolina on January 26th. If he doesn’t take a historic lead there, he’ll be in trouble and need to decide what to do next. So the question is – what will Edwards do next?

Although Johnny has a decent resume for the White House, is a strong speaker and has a great head of hair, he can’t seem to capture the hearts of American democrats. I think the problem is change. American democrats are craving change from Bush, and the more dramatic, the better. Edwards can same, safe. Too safe for democrats.

Edwards may have an excellent opportunity head to head against the GOP, but in the mix with Clinton and Obama, he doesn’t seem the most optimal to liberals.

The question is – what will Edwards do next?

I still think he will be in the best position to serve as VP. As VP he can truly prove himself on a national scale (something Obama and Clinton have had more of an opportunity). But what are his possibilities to be VP for?

- Clinton: Perhaps. Clinton will need to partner with a strong male politician who has a good record, who won’t overshadow her. A fresh face might be preferred, but Edwards does have that charm factor that Hillary so desperately lacks.

- Obama: This one could be interesting. As was noted earlier articles, since 1948 every successful Democratic bid included a Southern on the ticket. And, Obama particularly would most likely do best with a Southern as his running mate. Edwards and Obama seem like they could be a good pair and complete each other nicely.

- Bloomberg: Okay, the guy still claims that he’s not running but he still seems to be leaving the great state of NY quite often. While his company is dealing with layoffs, he’ll probably wait a little longer, if he was going to throw his hat in the ring. Bloomberg has the business savvy and has helped bring that business savvy to a successful run as Mayor of New York City. Edwards’ lawyer background could couple nicely with the millionaire businessman.

- McCain: In honor of the change that both parties are looking for, might it be time to have cross parties joining together for this year’s election? Unfortunately bringing the parties together is no longer feasible in this election. Although the Unity 08 movement was making a lot of traction at the beginning of the election, they recently announced that is not able to move forward further to make the necessary changes for this year’s election. But if it was possible – McCain/Edwards just might be the ticket. Although they might seem like the odd couple, they could be rather electable.

Mitt Romney = POSER

Does anybody else see the connection (link)   ?

 

How Clinton Could Have Won Iowa (Or the Age Divide in the Democratic Party)

Lucky for us, our inside man gdancik was able to participate in the first step of this closely watched election. His experience in the Iowa caucus provides us invaluable insight into how the caucus operates and how it may have shaped the outcome of the election in Iowa, as well as how it may have shaped the outlook for the overall election. As he pointed out, the Democratic caucus took over 2 hours in a small, hot room with no option to sit for those participating.

If we keep this in mind with the statistics of Clinton supporters, the outcome of the Iowa caucuses needs to be questioned. In New Hampshire, Clinton received 57% of the votes for the 65+ age group and generally her supporters tend to be on average above 40 and female. The situation for the Iowa caucus (standing for two hours straight in a crowded, hot small room) could have caused some Hillary supporters to stay home. Obama, however, dominates in the college crowd.

One has to wonder if this played into account for the outcome. Perhaps Clinton could have taken Iowa, if only it was a standard primary and not a caucus?

UPDATE: Ok, I think I may have ran with the ball a little too fast with this one.  But it does raise an interesting question.  Some are saying that Barack lost in NH because the college kids were on break and therefore didn’t vote.  But with such a big divide between the top two for the democratic candidacy, will this party stay divided?  As Clinton’s supporters are generally older and Barack backers are generally younger, will either demographic be willing to support the other candidate?

The Iowa Caucuses

I don’t have time to make this blog sound as pretty as I’d like to, but for those who are interested, here’s an e-mail I sent to some friends about the Iowa Caucuses. This only applies to the Democratic caucus; from what I understand, the Republican caucus is a secret ballot much more similar to a typical primary.

=================================================

The process is essentially like this:

 

1) Go to the section of the room corresponding to the candidate that
you support (there was also an undecided section).

2) After 30 minutes, tally the number of supporters for each
candidate. Candidates must have the support of 15% of the caucus
goers to be viable.

3) Supporters of non-viable candidates then need to support one of
the viable candidates, or join supporters of another non-viable
candidate to make a candidate viable, or they can always leave.

4) After about 20 minutes, a new and final count for each candidate is done.

5) Each precinct has a certain number of delegates (we had 11), and
the number of delegates a candidate recieves is proportional to the
number of supporters they have. 

The process took about 2 hours overall, which included some orders of business in the beginning not related to the caucus.

Overall, it wasn’t the best of experiences (at least compared to the last time I did it) because the room was much too small to handle the 270+ caucusers plus media plus volunteers that were there. (I think the legal capacity of the room was actually 140). It was pretty hot and uncomfortable, and nowhere to sit, which I’m sure turned a lot of people off. Also, in order to count the number of supporters (and the total # of people there), you literally raise your hand and count off, which is pretty difficult when people are scattered around, it’s hard to hear, and other groups are shouting.

Last time I was in a huge room and the process was much smoother. But I guess that’s what happens when you get record turnouts, and I’m not really complaining.

Out of Obama, Edwards, and Clinton, it looked as though supporters of Obama and Edwards were by far much younger than those caucusing for Clinton. It was hard to tell where supporters of the non-viable candidates redistributed themselves. I know Kucinich told his supporters to support Obama if he wasn’t viable, and I believe that Richardson may have as well.

Candidates on the issues – links

It’s hard to still wrap my head around where all the candidates stand on the different issues, so I did some research and thought I would share what I found. Below is a list of links of sites that help summarize how the candidates stand on the issues. The first link is for a quiz to help determine who to vote for based on the issues, that seems to be pretty good.

http://www.selectsmart.com/president/2008.html

http://www.2decide.com/table.htm

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/issues/issues.abortion.html

http://usinfo.state.gov/politics/elections/issues.html

http://politics.nytimes.com/election-guide/2008/issues/index.html#/context=index/issue=health

Hope this helps!