It's become obvious to me Edwards is going to win Iowa.

[calteacherguy]

It's all about organization, and the very significant fact he dominates in "2nd choice" support. Also, the caucus is not a democratic process. Rural areas get a greater weighting.

For all these reasons, I would be willing to bet money that Edwards will win Iowa. I'd say his chances are 95%. I only say they are not 100% because it's possible for any campaign to make some kind of dumb, major error in the next 48 hours. Barring that, Edwards is obviously going to win Iowa, in my opinion.

Who do you think will win Iowa?

Edit: Having said all that, let me reiterate that our best hope of winning the General election is clearly Obama. Sorry, but Edwards changes on numberous positions (not the least of which is his cosponsorship of the IWR, to name just one) and his "pretty boy" image will backfire bigtime in the general election regardless of his "likeablity" ratings now. However, it does look like he will win Iowa.

Congratulatons, Edwards supporters, looks like you've probably won one.

[Debi]

1. Although I agree that Edwards will come in first in Iowa I have to say AGAIN

that the polling with regard to realignment and 'second choice' has been consistently WRONG!

Here's a re-post of what I've posted and re-posted again and again here on DU:

a supporter of a non-viable candidate has many choices:

1) convince uncommitteds or supporters of other non-viable candidates to join their candidate and made them viable
2) join with a viable candidate
3) convince a supporter of a viable candidate (who has enough for one or two delegates but has 'left overs' and cannot reach that additional delegate) to join their candidate in order to make their candidate viable therefore keeping another viable candidate from receiving that delegate or keeping another candidate from becoming viable
4) stay with your candidate and just not be counted (or go home).
5) join with other non-viable caucus-goers and create an uncommitted group (that must reach the viability threshold in order to receive a delegate the same as any of the candidates do).


The media keeps trying to make it all nice and tidy with their 'If your candidate isn't viable who will you support OUT OF THE VIABLE CANDIDATES?' And then lists only Clinton/Edwards/Obama.

Obviously this makes any of the 'second choice' and realignment polling even more BS than the actual poll (b/c I think any poll right now is also BS).

++++++

Wow, what a weird way to say I agree, huh? :P

[Yael]

2. Debi, you should just copy that into your signature

:p

[Debi]

7. I'm about to....except it isn't DUers who need the education...it's the media and pollsters

my husband called CNN and USA Today on it and both said they knew that they were wrong but.....:crazy:....but I guess it's easier to put the "15% or OUT" in a sound bite and mini-article than to actually explain it to the public.

[Andy823]

3. Yes, I agree

Edward will win Iowa, but I disgree that Obama is the best hope for winning the general. Our best hope is John Edwards! Sorry, but Obama just doesn't have what it takes. He has a rock star following, but like all rock stars he is fading. His recent attacks, instead of giving us the reasons we should vote for him, and his lack of real plans to make the "change" this country needs will only allow the republicans to destroy him long before the election. Remember he voted to fund the war over and over, and they will use that against his "anti-war" claims.

[calteacherguy]

6. Edwards has changed his postion on so many issues

and said so many crazy things "I'll use my power as President to take health care away from Congress" (just one example I saw posted here today) I can't take anything he says seriously.

I think he would be ripped apart as a weak, flip-flopping, $400 haircut pretty boy in the General.

[Inspired]

4. Gee thanks.

But lets wait until Friday morning before we start handing out the congratulations.

The best thing for both Edwards and Obama is a 1st or 2nd place by either of them.

[Stop Cornyn]

5. Of the last 10 Iowa polls, Obama led 1, Edwards led 1, 2 were tied, and Hillary led 6. Perhaps we

ought to let the folks in Iowa have a say before we pick a winner.

[calteacherguy]

8. I didn't say anthing was absolute here...

but it's pretty clear to me that most of the polls aren't taking into account 2nd choice, for one thing.

I'd be very surprised if Edwards is not victorious on Thursday.