Is winning the Iowa Caucus really a good thing?

Flaja,

Please check out the polls at each of these links and come back and summarize what you found:

Butrflynet wrote:

Flaja,

Please check out the polls at each of these links and come back and summarize what you found:

Why?

flaja wrote:

Butrflynet wrote:

Flaja,

Please check out the polls at each of these links and come back and summarize what you found:

Why?

So you won't continue making a fool of yourself.

Roxxxanne wrote:

flaja wrote:

Butrflynet wrote:

Flaja,

Please check out the polls at each of these links and come back and summarize what you found:

Why?

So you won't continue making a fool of yourself.

This question was directed at Butrflynet, so why don't you let her answer it?

BTW: Zogby put out a tracking poll yesterday (half the results were gathered since Obama won Iowa), but it still gives Hillary a 1 point lead in New Hampshire.

Roxxxanne wrote:

flaja wrote:

Butrflynet wrote:

Flaja,

Please check out the polls at each of these links and come back and summarize what you found:

Why?

So you won't continue making a fool of yourself.

This question was directed at Butrflynet, so why don't you let her answer it?

BTW: Zogby put out a tracking poll yesterday (half the results were gathered since Obama won Iowa), but it still gives Hillary a 1 point lead in New Hampshire.

flaja wrote:

Roxxxanne wrote:

flaja wrote:

Butrflynet wrote:

Flaja,

Please check out the polls at each of these links and come back and summarize what you found:

Why?

So you won't continue making a fool of yourself.

This question was directed at Butrflynet, so why don't you let her answer it?

BTW: Zogby put out a tracking poll yesterday (half the results were gathered since Obama won Iowa), but it still gives Hillary a 1 point lead in New Hampshire.

Sorry, I thought you might be interested in broadening your information sources. My mistake.

Democrat Barack Obama's dramatic post-Iowa momentum has come to full bloom in the Reuters/C-SPAN/Zogby New Hampshire daily tracking poll, rocketing to a 10-point lead over rival Hillary Clinton and a 20-point over Edwards. In New Hampshire's Republican primary race, the survey shows Arizona's John McCain had a very good day at the same time that Massachusetts's Mitt Romney lost ground, resulting in a five-point lead for McCain.

Butrflynet wrote:

flaja wrote:

Roxxxanne wrote:

flaja wrote:

Butrflynet wrote:

Flaja,

Please check out the polls at each of these links and come back and summarize what you found:

Why?

So you won't continue making a fool of yourself.

This question was directed at Butrflynet, so why don't you let her answer it?

BTW: Zogby put out a tracking poll yesterday (half the results were gathered since Obama won Iowa), but it still gives Hillary a 1 point lead in New Hampshire.

Sorry, I thought you might be interested in broadening your information sources. My mistake.

flaja, please post a link to the Zogby poll you cite.

BTW Romney NOT winning Iowa was definitely a BAD THING. He is losing in NH now too except to McCain. It should be clear to anyone with a scintilla of political acumen that winning or not winning in Iowa this year made a BIG difference.

No. Romney wasn't going anywhere to begin with. No governor of Massachusetts is ever going to win the South and without the South you cannot win either a nomination or general election.

Roxxxanne wrote:

BTW Romney NOT winning Iowa was definitely a BAD THING. He is losing in NH now too except to McCain. It should be clear to anyone with a scintilla of political acumen that winning or not winning in Iowa this year made a BIG difference.

No. Romney wasn't going anywhere to begin with. No governor of Massachusetts is ever going to win the South and without the South you cannot win either a nomination or general election.

New Hampshire is in The South now?

Pat Buchanan says that Huckabee "is alive and well in S. Carolina" because of the Iowa result.

Here is a dose of reality concerning Iowa
2008 Barack Obama gathered tremendous momentum and won New Hampshire and went on to win the party's nomination. (Unless he self-destructs)
2004 - John Kerry* (38%) won the party' s nomination.
2000 - Al Gore* (63%) won the party's nomination

1996 - Bill Clinton* (unopposed)

1992 - Tom Harkin (76%) Clinton took a pass and did not campaign in Iowa

1988 - Dick Gephardt (31%) won due to regional appeal

1984 - Walter Mondale* (49%) won the party's nomination
1980 - Jimmy Carter (59%) won the party's nomination
1976 - "Uncommitted" (37%) Jimmy Carter* (28%) won the party's nomination despite his disastrous presidency.

1972 - Edmund Muskie (36%) self-destructed when he made the goofy I was drugged claim

Republicans:

2004- George W. Bush* (unopposed)

2000- George W. Bush* (41%) "won" the presidency
1996- Bob Dole* (26%) won the party's nomination
1992- George H. W. Bush* (unopposed)

1988- Bob Dole (37%) lost the party's nomination to GHW Bush
1984- Ronald Reagan* (unopposed)

1980- George H. W. Bush (32%) Ronald Reagan* (30%) virtually a dead heat, Regan went on to win the presidency.

1976-
Republicans paid comparatively little heed to the caucuses in 1976, although a straw poll was conducted at 62 sites, involving less than 600 participants. Gerald Ford was a narrow choice over Ronald Reagan, 51.6 percent to 48.4 percent.

Roxxxanne wrote:

New Hampshire is in The South now?

How have I said that NH is in the South? I merely said that the South isn't going to support a governor of Massachusetts. Romney won't get enough support in the South to win the nomination.

Pleas pay attention to what I actually say so you won't look like such a fool.

Quote:

Pat Buchanan says that Huckabee "is alive and well in S. Carolina" because of the Iowa result.

You accept bigots like Buchanan as an authority on politics?


BTW: Fox News this morning said that Hillary still has an 8 point lead in national polls.

Just admit your are wrong, old man.

And you can play around with numbers all you want but the fact of the matter is that my contention that winning Iowa meant a lot in the case of Barack Obama which was my sole initial point is unequivocally correct.