Prediction: Kerry wins big in New Hampshire

It's over for Clark. Edwards at the cross-roads. Can Dean regroup?

Published on January 27, 2004 By Draginol In Politics

Based on electoral politics and some analysis here is how the campaign is shaping up. First, Kerry is going to win New Hampshire by a large margin.

New Hampshire primary prediction based on local demographics, polling, and momentum:

Kerry: 39%
Dean: 25%
Edwards: 13%
Clark: 6%

Which brings us to our second point: it's all over for Lieberman. It's also over for Clark. Lieberman will end his campaign after New Hampshire. It's also over for Clark. Edwards will be in a very difficult position. New Hampshire isn't winner take all but like Iowa, the candidate must get 15% of the state-wide vote to be viable.

We don't think Edwards is going to get 15% of the state-wide vote. This is what makes things hard to predict. You see, New Hampshire voters are much more aware of how their primary system works than the average person (naturally). So many who are watching this may switch from Edwards or Clark to someone else since they're not likely to win any delegates. This is what we predicted in Iowa which is why we predicted (correctly) that Kerry and Edwards would split the non-viable candidate votes. Dean has the highest opposition rating of the major candidates on the Democratic side (i.e. people who don't support him tend to really not support him).

There are 27 delegates up for grabs in New Hampshire. 22 of them are based on the vote but you must get at least 15% of the vote. So only Kerry and Dean will pick up delegates. 5 of the 27 are not up for grabs but are "un-pledged".

Where things get really difficult is in predicting the actual number of delegates (of the 22) each will get. 14 of them come from 14 districts in New Hampshire. We won't even try that since it would be just a guess.

But bottom line is that Kerry will pick up another big win. That will lead to answering one of the great questions in in politics: Money vs. Momentum. Kerry's campaign has hardly any money. Dean, by contrast, has tens of millions of dollars. Many people (incorrectly in our opinion) believe that money is the primary factor for winning. Now we'll be able to see it put to the test. After New Hampshire, things start to move quickly. Kerry can't just go from state to state now and campaign like he did in Iowa and New Hampshire. On the other hand, Dean has used his millions in contributions to set up a sophisticated campaign network in the states.

Bush lost in New Hampshire in 2000 but because of his overwhelming financial advantage he was able to win in the other states due to brute force organization. This isn't quite the same case because Bush was also the favored front runner nation-wide too. By contrast, Kerry was practically counted out and now has serious momentum behind him. Can Dean still win thanks to his financial advantage? That will be very exciting to find out.

Comments (Page 1)

Draginol

on Jan 27, 2004

Looks like Clark did better than we had projected.

But with 92% of the votes in:

Kerry 39%
Dean 26%
Edwards 12%

Dean did 1% better than we had projected and Edwards 1% worse.

Clark did 7% better. Though we stand by our prediction that it's over for Clark at this point.

GemCityJoe

on Jan 28, 2004

Kerry will might do just fine if he can make it to Super Tuesday without his face sliding off his head. GCJ

AR-15

on Jan 28, 2004

AR-15

on Jan 29, 2004

GemCityJoe

on Jan 29, 2004

Lots a laughs AR-15. Have a look at my artical named "KERRY CAMAPIGN STRATEGY" GCJ

AR-15

on Feb 02, 2004

Capt775

on Feb 02, 2004

AR-15, you go man, great posts!

jeblackstar

on Feb 02, 2004

::sighs:: Last I checked it was still constitutionally protected free speech to burn a flag. And well it should be, the flag which I honor and respect as a symbol of our nation, is a symbol. Thus the burning of the flag is a symbol. A symbol that someone disagrees with the way that the nation is heading. So, whether he's hiding it... ::shrugs:: Since a majority of americans do not support flag burning probably, does burning a flag make him unamerican? No

AR-15

on Feb 08, 2004

John Kerry gives aid and comfort to America's Viet Cong enemy, while standing with his commie pinko friend Lennon, reverberating salvos of "imagine," a communist maifesto, wails in the background.
(The wealthy Lennon is wearing a Marxist "proletariat" hat, this photo is proudly displayed on John Kerry's official web site)

jeblackstar

on Feb 08, 2004

::sighs:: AR-15. Sometimes your right-wing extremism surprises even me, who recognizes such extremists as Dr. Laura, Rush, and Rev. Falwell. However, I ask if you've ever even listened to "Imagine"? Now while there are some that could argue, as you apparently did, that it was about forming a communist society, the song doesn't mention such communist ideals as income redistribution, heavy subsidies, massive welfare. It does say that it would be great if the world was able to be perfect, people wouldn't starve, want for healthcare, etc. Now, if you believe that the ideal sung about in the song requires a massive police state, then that doesn't speak well for you as a person. There are other ways to accomplish it, admittedly perhaps as impossible given human nature, but there are ways. For instance, reduce the rate of population growth to some negative number so that there would be sufficient resources for th number of the people on the earth. Screen for mental illness at a young age so that they can be treated in the early stages, instead of later, etc. And, since the "wealthy" Lennon probably gave away more of his money to charities and I'm willing to even say as a percentage of his income then you do, well, perhaps you need to think about that.

Also, just because Kerry protested the Vietnam war does not mean he gave "aid and comfort" to the Viet Cong. A lot of armchair historians in the current time go on and on about how we could have "won" Vietnam. And it's even true, we could have. If in the 1950s we had supported Ho Chi Minh against the French, or even against the Catholic, which I mention since most of Vietnam is Buddhist, government, we would have had an ally in that part of the world and probably saved thousands of American lives. The U.S. made drastic mistakes in Vientam, they believed that a Guerilla war could be won, they believed that by killing more of the enemy than we suffered casualties we could some how convince the Viet Cong to give up. Oh, and by the way, after the Tet offensive the Viet Cong were no longer a major player in the war, after that point the North Vietnamese Army began taking a more active role in the war.

So, who started the killing? Immaterial. A majority of the South Vietnamese wanted Ho Chi Minh, or perhaps to be more accurate, they did not want the Diem government. Such popular movements have always won against a government, which in their view, was imposed from the outside. And, as Nixon pointed out, perhaps the wisest thing he said, was the United States did not lose South Vietnam, the South Vietnamese did.

If you want to play armchair historian, which I highly recommend everyon do, because a lot can be learned from history, go and read accounts, not just from allied generals, but also from the citizens of Vietnam. The U.S., unfortunately, picked the wrong side in a losing battle. We picked it because we were afraid of communism, even though we could have had a communist ally. Ho Chi Minh hated the Chinese and had a lukewarm relationship with Moscow. In fact, Ho Chi Minh appealed to the American government at least two times, once after the First World War and once after the Second to help the Vietnamese people determine their own destiny as an independent nation from France. Something the United States once asked the French for in their conflict with Britain.

So before you make any more inane comments about how questioning the Vietnam war is unpatriotic or EVIL. Please read the above. And go read some books.

Cheers

jeblackstar

on Feb 08, 2004

Oh, and three Cheers to Brad, someone I hardly ever agree with, but do respect a good deal, even if he is wrong most of the time..., for starting this article.

Cheers
Cheers
Cheers

jeblackstar

on Feb 09, 2004

Here's a good one to start with:

Stanley Karnow's Vietnam a history

Anthony R

on Feb 09, 2004

Kerry gives aid and comfort to Americas Viet Cong enemy at a rally organized by his good friend Hanoi Jane Fonda.

Hanoi Jane Fonda in her Glory sitting in the gunner's seat of a Soviet-made North Vietnamese Anti Aircraft gun while
her countrymen were dying in and over Vietnam

jeblackstar

on Feb 09, 2004

So, in other words, it's how much propaganda you can dig out of your hick rightwing newsletter, and not actually reading historical documents? Or even the things written on this site? I had three uncles fight in Vietnam, six of my colleagues fought in Vietnam, all of them say it was a bad idea, and unwinable. So, tell me Anthony, when did you serve in Vietnam?

By the way, you are again confusing the "Viet Cong" with the North Vietnamese, for most of the war, and during the time period your pretty little pictures show, the Viet Cong had been effectively eliminated as a fighting force.

jeblackstar

on Feb 09, 2004

Link

And while it's true Jane Fonda did plenty of bad during the 1970s, the above is a link which at least clears her of some of those things. In the interest of fairness, here's a Link with the original copy of the open letter referred to in the first link. And here's a Link with the speech she gave from Hanoi radio, and her later apology.

Cheers

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!