This often helps slate politicians who can collectively use the strength of a popular leader to apply that popularity to the down-ticket candidatures. Let’s say Mark Miller (Green) gets 55%, then two Republicans get 20%, and the next Green candidate gets 3%, another 2%, another 1%. The Pugs second choices were each other. But Miller’s was to the top Green. Thus he would apply up to 35% of his votes to his next Greenie (now at 37%). And then the second and thirds of that candidate would accrue as much as 15%…but that wouldn’t successfully beat the Republican. But one seat would successfully shift to another Green.

That’s very true katymine; Clinton if I recall got 2-3% of the vote in Iowa in his first campaign’s term, but I’m thinking and hoping that won’t be the case.

I’m interested. Who then, do you think will win for the Dems in the general?

Because Tom Harkin was a native son candidate no one actually ran in Iowa that year. They viewed New Hampshire as being the more important. All the candidates (other than Harkin) had low numbers, within one percentage point.

January 19, 2004 - John Kerry (38%), John Edwards (32%), Howard Dean (18%), Richard Gephardt (11%) and Dennis Kucinich (1%)
January 24, 2000 – Al Gore (63%), Bill Bradley (37%)
February 12, 1996 – Bill Clinton (unopposed)

February 10, 1992 – Tom Harkin (76%), “Uncommitted” (12%), Paul Tsongas (4%), Bill Clinton (3%), Bob Kerrey (2%) and Jerry Brown (2%) ~ Harkin was “native son” and no one else campaigned

February 8, 1988 – Richard Gephardt (31%), Paul Simon (27%), Michael Dukakis (22%) and Bruce Babbitt (6%) ~ Gephardt was a near “native son”

February 20, 1984 - Walter Mondale (49%), Gary Hart (17%), George McGovern (10%), Alan Cranston (7%), John Glenn (4%), Reubin Askew (3%) and Jesse Jackson (2%)
January 21, 1980 -, Ted Kennedy (31%)
January 19, 1976 – “Uncommitted” (37%), Jimmy Carter (28%) Birch Bayh (13%), Fred R. Harris (10%), Morris Udall (6%), Sargent Shriver (3%) and Henry M. Jackson (1%)
January 24, 1972 – “Uncommitted” (36%) and Edmund Muskie (36%), George McGovern (23%) , Hubert Humphrey (2%), Eugene McCarthy (1%), Shirley Chisholm (1%) and Henry M. Jackson (1%)[8]

Face it, Obama is a shill for Wall Street, Big Pharma, Big Insurance, etc., just like Hillary. Only John Edwards is on the side of the Poor and the Working People.

Obama talks a good game, but that’s all it is – a political game.

John Edwards believes, truly believes. He may go down, but he’s going to go down with a message that he truly believes in — Power to the People!

Power to the People!

Great. So they went for the guy who wants to reacharound… sorry, reach out to the Repugs.

And the Repugs choose a fundy. So that’s who he’s reaching out to.

Looks like the war is beginning to be over and we lost.

It’s early to be dour. New Hampshire isn’t Iowa.

And the Repugs choose a fundy. So that’s who he’s reaching out to.

Looks like the war is beginning to be over and we lost.

That would be, ahem (clears throat), PROGRESSIVES!!!

‘Kin progressives who have support your fight for rights, equality and justice like we fought to defeat jim Crow, advance women’s rights, and gay rights in general.

Progressives have covered your backs, marched in your Castro, stepped up on college campus’s since the 70’s, fought the AIDS issues, and continue to so so, for all the right reasons. I did, anyways. And I know many others, who did too.

Why in hell would you sell us out, for a corporatist shill of a pig devoted to big business?

When you could support Edwards, or Kuch, who REALLY have yer back, AND MINE?

Together we stand, divided, you lose more than I do. But we all lose, HORRIBLY!!!

We’ve phreakin lost enuff, my friend. All of us.

Please reconsider. Progressive. For Progressive Agenda’s. Yours. And Mine. Win/Win!!!

Misbegotten intent, and a lowering of the threshold of real understanding of what life and the world are all about.
Especially if they are voting for Obama.

They got roused up, but didn’t do their homework, about what he REALLY means for their present, and furture.

Cuz he ain’t empowering underpaid Starbucks barrista’s, or anyone else.

He’s cutting the middle class out, and apart, of any future.

Sigh. The young, the foolish, the fast food workers of our lives.

Obama will NOT invigorate a middle class revival.

Harumph.