I guess we’ll find out for sure next week, but isn’t he pretty close to this?

I think it would surprise almost no one NOT in the beltway chattering classes if he were to win Iowa… at which point, I would be surprised if they begrudgingly found something to say about him that was non-haircut-related.
.

JP –

I agree on general principle, but he kind of brought that on himself, so it’s difficult to muster up a lot of sympathy on that count.

The lack of appeal for Richardson really surprised me also. He certainly had all of the qualifications or things necessary to be considered electable. I have always said that the best way for the Democrats to win the White House is to nominate a moderate sounding Southern or Western governor (1976, 1992). 2004 was their election to win if they had only done this. Instead they nominated a Massachusetts liberal US Senator.

Presently they have a Senator from New York with high unfavorable ratings, whose has only been in the Senate for seven years, as their front runner, followed by another Senator who has only been in the US Senate for a year or so, followed by another one term Senator who didn’t run for reelection in his state because he knew he would lose.

You have to wonder, are they stupid or something?

i don’t think it’s stupidity as much as blind faith on their part that almost anyone could beat whoever’s going to run as the Republican. It’s the inevitable downside of an unpopular war.

Kind of like 1972? Oh wait, that war was much more unpopular than this one and the result of that election was…?

I have always said that the best way for the Democrats to win the White House is to nominate a moderate sounding Southern or Western governor (1976, 1992). 2004 was their election to win if they had only done this. Instead they nominated a Massachusetts liberal US Senator.

How can this not be obvious to everyone?

i don’t think it’s stupidity as much as blind faith on their part that almost anyone could beat whoever’s going to run as the Republican. It’s the inevitable downside of an unpopular war.

I’d say that arguably qualifies as stupidity.

According to Patraeus, the military has Iraqi groups known as “Concerned local citizens” that they have “contracted” with to help with security. I wonder if these contracts are similar to the ones made with Afghan warlords.

In any case, now that Rumsfeld’s idiot ass is gone apparently we are seeing progress. I guess we can upgrade from cesspool to quagmire.

Of course, that doesn’t specify a win condition or properly explain what the hell were doing there in the first place, but less violence is a good thing, unless you happen to be a Democrat running for president.

I agree on general principle, but he kind of brought that on himself, so it’s difficult to muster up a lot of sympathy on that count.

Well, it does show the media’s true bias, at any rate. Not every report about other candidates talk about how one profiteered from the nation’s largest terrorist attack, cheated on a spouse or actively lobbied to have a convicted rapist released from prison so he could rape and murder, again.

You can’t say that about Edwards and The Haircut™.
.

Kind of like 1972? Oh wait, that war was much more unpopular than this one and the result of that election was…?

Much more unpopular? In 1971 61% of Americans indicated that they believed Vietnam was a mistake, as compared to 68% that now believe the same about Iraq. Also, Nixon promised to end the war in his campaign as well.

JP –

I don’t know, they mention his wife’s cancer a lot, helped in no small part by him. They mention his trial lawyer background, too, and his “Two Americas” schtick (or whatever variation on that theme he has now).

Maybe part of the problem is him–if he wants to change the subject, give them something to chew on,

[…] Roger Abramson defends a prediction he made at this time last year that David Briley would be elected the next Mayor of Nashville: I would submit that, while wrong, this is not as far wrong as it may look based only on the final election results. When I made this prediction, Karl Dean had zero name recognition and was more or less a non-entity. he eventually won, of course, and, on the political spectrum, the closest person to him was David Briley. So, just moderate shame. Share and Enjoy: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages. […]

Rog,

My point isn’t the small list of EdwardsBytes that are actually disseminated in the press; rather, it’s that The Haircut™ is always mentioned. I don’t have Lex/Nex, but I’d put money on not being able to find 20% of anything in print, online or broadcast in re: Edwards in the last 10 months that failed to mention The Haircut™.

Believe it or not, he’s talking about a lot of things, but one needs the Intertubes to know it.
.

JP –

Yeah, I’ll agree that it has taken on for him what “war hero” or “former POW” has for McCain. It’s lazy journalism.

Yeah, I’ll agree that it has taken on for him what “war hero” or “former POW” has for McCain.

“Maverick.”
.

Of that 68%, how many of them would like to see us lose? Statistics are funny things. Whatever they say, the opposition to the Vietnam War was much more passionate than the supposed opposition to the occupation of Iraq. People may have opposed the way the war was carried out up until now, but most still want us to finish with success. As a matter of fact, the current policy of more troops was called for by many Democrats like Reid and Kerry long before the President finally sent them.

Btw, those two numbers you gave are not that far apart from each other and you pointing out that Nixon was also promising to end the war, reminds me that the Democratic front runner is also promising to continue the war, as did the front runner in 2004.

People may have opposed the way the war was carried out up until now, but most still want us to finish with success.

How can that be, when no one has clearly articulated what “finish with success” even means?

The latest poll I can find indicates that the 68% do indeed favor beginning a withdrawal in some form or another immediately. Do you have data to the contrary?

JP –

That too, but I’d suggest not so much anymore. More in 2000.

Ror –

You numbers do square with the latest numbers, but Glen has a point on some level: there’s sometimes a wide gap between what people say they think and how much they’re really behind what they say they think. The old “money where your mouth is” bit.

One indicator: have you noticed that not one of the major candidates for president is making a full withdrawal a central part of his or her platform? There may be some allusions here and there, but no major candidate is really beating the drum on that count. I suspect it’s because they know that some of those numbers are soft.

ROR, come on. We don’t need a survey to prove that there isn’t a lot of passionate opposition to this war. The very fact that the Democratic front runner is shrewd enough not to promise a quick withdrawal should tell you something, not to mention the way the Democratically controlled legislative branch has moved with timidity.

Kind of like 1972? Oh wait, that war was much more unpopular than this one and the result of that election was…?

Nam was the realization that the US wasn’t going to win all the wars. I think that realization has more to do with the feeling on the Dems part that Iraq will stop the Republican presence in the White House. People don’t seem to have patience for victory any more if they have to wait for it.

People don’t seem to have patience for victory any more if they have to wait for it.

Or, using Occam’s razor, one might surmise that the boy who cried wolf has told us many times what that victory would look like in terms of goals, and when the appointed time arrives, and those goals have not been met, the boy who cried wolf moves the entire field, goalposts and all. Meanwhile, the press and the cheerleaders keep cheerleading, and pretending there were never any goals but the ones you just heard five minutes earlier.
.

Frustrating isn’t it JP? Just further proof though that the war isn’t really that unpopular.

Just further proof though that the war isn’t really that unpopular.

Not at all, Glen; despite the MSM not reporting it, the tree actually did fall, even though you did not hear it.
.

How do I put this? I wouldn’t call it a groundswell, certainly not a juggernaut, there is not the same urgency for opposition to the war in the general public as there is in those who have been against the war all along.

It’s more of a “mood”, if you will. There is a feeling of opposition, but the level of feeling is not red-hot. It’s weariness, more than anything.

JP, your side has something to work with, but only if you recognize it for what it is. Otherwise, it’ll be the same kind of misperception the right had after 1994.

The smart candidate will drive home the fact, relentlessly, that if we stopped the war ASAP, every American citizen right this minute has taken out more than $5000 in loans to pay for it. The longer it drags out, the higher that principal becomes, not even counting the interest.
.

The timid congress also has the lowest approval ratings in history.

Perhaps the major Democratic candidates are simply not that politically astute. Is there a precedent for that?

Or, perhaps at this stage they do not perceive the Iraq issue to provide a sufficiently compelling platform from which to distinguish themselves from their fellow Democrats, especially in Iowa.

Any candidate that runs on a platform of “we must maintain troop levels in Iraq until ‘victory’ is achieved” will lose.

That’s my prediction.

The timid congress also has the lowest approval ratings in history.

As well they should. People are unhappy with Dems because they were re-elected to the majority to stop the madness of King George, and they have done precious little of that, and have, in large measure, become craven, cowardly enablers of the anti-American agenda.

People are also displeased with the Pubs, as they have become the most obstructionist minority in the history of the country… not that you’d know that. How many MSM articles/broadcast even use the word “filibuster” in reference to their tactics?

Perhaps the major Democratic candidates are simply not that politically astute. Is there a precedent for that?

Well, as I have been implying, the ones that are astute aren’t given a voice by the media. What can you tell me about Chris Dodd that caused me to send him money this month, for example?
.

As an aside to the hall monitors (whom I dearly love): Please note the level of engagement.

.

JP, your side has something to work with, but only if you recognize it for what it is. Otherwise, it’ll be the same kind of misperception the right had after 1994.

Well, you have to realize that I can’t just take at face value that you have “[my] side[’s]” best interests at heart, there, Slarti. After all, I’m pretty sure some well-meaning-yet-obsequious toadies once convinced a guy that picking Joe Lieberman as a running mate was a good idea (which might not disqualify one from a Nobel Prize, but all things considered…).
.

JP –

Joe Lieberman circa 2006 would have been a bad idea, sure, from the liberal/Democratic point of view, but Lieberman circa 2000 was a masterstroke, in my opinion (and it wa my opinion back then, too). It’s was Lieberman’s presence on that ticket which made Florida the 50/50 state that it was in that year, and almost gave Gore the presidency (or did give him the presidency and he got it stolen from
him, depending on one’s point of view).

Wnat to blame someone? Blame Gore for not even winning his home state, which would have made Florida irrelevant. That had nothing to do with Lieberman.

Rog,

What I said to Slarti applies to you, as well. I’m convinced that the biggest problem the Dems (running for office, legislating on a national level) have had the past twenty years is that they listen far too intently to Republicans, who have somehow convinced far too many Dem candidates that the way to win elections is to be more like a Republican. The only way that could be true is if Dems would make a concerted effort to “buy” the unauditable voting machine CEOs.

Remember, if the choice is between a Pub and a Pub, the Pub wins, every time.
.

I (personally) am out of the hunt. I no longer give to the RNC (and if their telemarketers keep calling, I’ll give money to the Democrats).

I thought for a while I’d like Huckabee, but upon further examination, he’s not someone I could vote for.

I support no one who is running. So, I do not have a “side” this election. I really am just an indifferent observer.

This is a fact: activists from both sides don’t want to hear it, but the vast majority of this country is either apathetic or in the middle. They have leanings, but they are not going to vote in a general election for a person they do not perceive as moderate.

Because of Bush Derangement Syndrome, most forget that he ran in 2000 from the middle. Prescription drugs, comprehensive immigration reform, NCLB: not exactly things out of the Buchanan wing of the party.

The vast majority of people will not vote for ALan Keyes, and they will not vote for Dennis Kucinich.

Activists need to realise they are on the margins, if they ever want anything to get done.

Slarti, Bush not only ran as a moderate, he governed as a moderate. Anybody who thinks that George Bush is a conservative, has no idea what the word means.

Glen –

That’s most certainly true. I’ve also always been in the camp that says we also would be knee-deep in Iraq if Al Gore had won. The only question would be how much.

I am certainly not anti-Iraq, but I know that going to Iraq had nothing to do with conservatism. Democrats and Republicans have both traditionally been in favor of intervention and strong on defense.
You are right. Gore, who was much different in 2000 than he is now, would have certainly taken us to Iraq.

Dang, Roger, you need a new crystal ball. This one is definitely malfunctioning for you.

I also think John Edwards is a much stronger candidate than you give him credit for … he’s in a statistical dead heat in Iowa, I wouldn’t be surprised if he was a strong 2nd.

The big question for him will be if he can get his matching funds now that the FEC will be basically kaput after Jan. 1.

I (personally) am out of the hunt. I no longer give to the RNC (and if their telemarketers keep calling, I’ll give money to the Democrats).

Please, pretty please, someone give the RNC Slarti’s phone #!!

SB –

Being in a statistical dead heat in Iowa is certainly better than not, but, again, we’ll see. Talk to me after New Hampshire.

Talk to me after New Hampshire.

Deal.

Want to put money on that?

It’s a good deal for me since you’ve already shown how poor your powers of prediction are!

SB –

You’re right about that.

Butm anyway, thinking about it, it really is a loser bet for me, because it assumes that the majority of Democratic Primary voters–especially the heavily partisan ones–have any clue what they’re doing. So, I’ll have to pass.

it assumes that the majority of Democratic Primary voters–especially the heavily partisan ones–have any clue what they’re doing.

Oh, snap! So partisan Democrats can’t be entrusted to pick the best nominee but Republicans can? Guess that’s how we got stuck with George Bush the first time around, eh? Good job, guys! Thanks a million!

Hey, at least he won the presidency. With the exception of Al Gore in 2000 (who still didn’t ultimately win the White House), the Democratic Presidential Primary process hasn’t produced a candidate who has rec’d over 50% of the popular vote in November since 1976. Not the greatest track record, I’d say. I mean, come on, Mike Dukakis (just as a for instance)?

Actually, hold on a sec: Al Gore didn’t get over 50% either, come to think.

Yooo hoo, Rogerrrr:

Check out the new Lee Enterprises poll:

“A new Iowa caucus poll for the Quad-City Times and Lee Enterprises newspapers shows the Democratic race is a virtual three-way tie, with John Edwards rising to tie Barack Obama for the lead and Hillary Clinton rising to just one point behind.”