.
January 3rd, 2008
04:06 PM ET

Surviving Iowa & New Hampshire?

ALT TEXT

FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:

The Iowa caucuses tonight could be a make-or-break event for some of the presidential hopefuls.

Even before Iowans make their choices, there are reports that Republican Fred Thompson may drop out of the race within days if he places a distant third, or worse. Sources suggest if he drops out, he will then endorse John McCain, which could shake up the race in New Hampshire. And Thompson probably won't be the only one to hang it up.

A piece in "The Politico" today asks if there really are three tickets out of Iowa. Although candidates like to talk about how winning "gold, silver, or bronze" is enough, a third-place finish in Iowa has almost always meant the end of the road for presidential wanna-bees. Sometimes, even a second place finish in Iowa isn't good enough.

Top tier candidates are likely to stay in the race if they don't do well in Iowa, but some of the others will likely vanish. The trick for candidates in the Iowa caucuses has always been to exceed media expectations, meaning if you can do better than expected, you're likely to still be a news story.

Here’s my question to you: Which candidates won't still be around after the Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire primary?

Interested to know which ones made it on air?


Jimmy writes:

The "big three" Democrats will be fine and will live to fight another day (Obama, Clinton and Edwards); the rest will be gone. For the Republicans, I think you're going to see Fred Thompson gone soon, McCain won't make it much further and I honestly think Giuliani is going to take a big hit here. I think only Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee and my man Ron Paul will survive.

Steve from New York writes:
Duncan Hunter, Chris Dodd, Dennis Kucinich, Mike Gravel, and surprisingly, Fred Thompson. I think he's out of fuel already.

Mike from San Francisco writes:
Sad to say, the two Democratic candidates who are most qualified to be president are Joe Biden and Bill Richardson, and they won't be around much longer.

Tim writes:
I'm hopeful this year, at least more hopeful than in times past. After caucus-time though I think we'll be saying goodbye to Hunter, Thompson, and (as much as I personally like him) Ron Paul on the Republican side. For the Democrats, (again, as much as I like him) Kucinich, Richardson, and Dodd are probably done. But anything can happen in '08!

Jacob from Iowa writes:
On the Democratic side, I firmly believe it will come down to Edwards, Clinton, and Obama. On the Republican side, there will be Huckabee, Romney, Paul and McCain. But McCain is going to miss 3rd place to Paul's swelling support here in Iowa. For some reason, I'm seeing very little reporting on the massive amounts of campaigning I am seeing being done by Paul's grassroots here.

William from Port Washington, New York writes:
Jack, The only candidates who will still be around after the Iowa and N.H. primaries are the ones that you choose to report on. While I believe that you, Jack, are one of the more honest reporters, the corporate media is unfortunately the final decider. If you choose to not report Edwards in second place, then the fault lies with you, not with the voters.

Maybe Jack will read yours tomorrow.


Filed under: Elections • Iowa • New Hampshire • Primaries
soundoff (108 Responses)
  1. David of Natchez

    It is easier for me to guess who will still be in the running. Democrats, Clinton and Edwards and Republicians Romney and Huckabee

    January 3, 2008 at 2:24 pm |
  2. CD

    I would be surprised to see Dodd, Biden, Richardson, Kucinich in the race after those two states. On the republican side, Paul and Hunter will be the obvious victims of those states. It will be most interesting to see what kind of shape Giuliani and Thompson are in after New Hampshire.

    January 3, 2008 at 2:25 pm |
  3. Terry OFlaherty

    Jack
    Hopefully after these two primaries are over some of these second tier canidates will drop down to the Vice Presidential list. Clinton, Obama, and Edwards should be the only ones left standing for the Democrats and as far as the Republicans Rudy, Romney, McCain and Huckabee. Hopefully Mike Bloomberg will enter the race as an independent.

    January 3, 2008 at 2:29 pm |
  4. ginger

    who won't be around?
    Kucinich, Biden, Dodd, maybe Clinton
    Thompson, Paul, (uh you know, McCain is not looking too bad right now LMAO!!!! I just absolutely CRINGE at the prospect of living in a theocracy!!! We are almost there)

    January 3, 2008 at 2:36 pm |
  5. Rich, McKinney Texas

    Fred Thompson will be on the chopping block list along with Tom Tancredo probable about the time this airs today. Ron Paul is out of there and Duncan Hunter is history. On the Democratic side Dennis Kucinich is out of there followed by Bill Richardson Mike Gravel Joe Bye Bye Biden and Chris Dodd. Turn out the lights fellows the party is over!!!

    January 3, 2008 at 3:06 pm |
  6. Daniel

    We can only hope that they all fall by the wayside, and we can get someone who really cares about the Country to run, i have few names in mind, Lou Dobbs, Jack Cafferty, Wolf Blitzer, or any combination there of on a single ticket.

    Nah, lets just stick with the career crooks, oops, politicians.

    January 3, 2008 at 3:17 pm |
  7. Scott

    there will be surprizes, paul is a dark horse that no one takes serious, we independents are eyeing this unique individual. very seriously.
    bowling green , mo.

    January 3, 2008 at 3:19 pm |
  8. Nelson

    The candidates I think are most qualified and the ones that won't be around after the Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire primary and there is nothing I can do about it. I live in New Jersey and we are way down on the list when it comes to candidate selection. This process reminds me of choosing teams as a kid. By the time you get to pick your players all of the good ones are gone. It could be worse, I could live in a state with no delegates to the national convention. Hey Jack – maybe you could ask the question – Are you selecting the person you think is most qualified or picking someone so you can say you voted for the winner?

    January 3, 2008 at 3:19 pm |
  9. Nelson

    sorry for the typo

    The candidates I think are most qualified are the ones that won’t be around after the Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire primary and there is nothing I can do about it. I live in New Jersey and we are way down on the list when it comes to candidate selection. This process reminds me of choosing teams as a kid. By the time you get to pick your players all of the good ones are gone. It could be worse, I could live in a state with no delegates to the national convention. Hey Jack – maybe you could ask the question – Are you selecting the person you think is most qualified or picking someone so you can say you voted for the winner?

    January 3, 2008 at 3:22 pm |
  10. Ed Reed

    I was kind of hoping none of them would still be around, but that's probably too much to ask.

    January 3, 2008 at 3:34 pm |
  11. suzie from atlanta, GA

    Well, not Gravel or Dennis the "k", but other wise, I think they will all hang in there until after Feb.5th.
    On the GOP: Thompson, of course, and the other lesser knowns. But Paul will hang in, because he has the money, Romney, Rudy and Huckabee will probably be around, but I think Tancredo will be out. McCain will still be ok, and may even win.

    Unless the DEMS have a complete meltdown it will be a DEM president in '08 anyway. Especially if the GOP continues to carry water for Bush. They are either lemmings or rats deserting a sinking ship, and only time will tell.

    January 3, 2008 at 3:42 pm |
  12. Ed

    The ones the Television leaves behind will have to drop out. Six candidates fit well on the TV screen. Thompson, McCain, Hunter, Richardson, Dodd, Gravel and Biden will drop out.

    January 3, 2008 at 3:55 pm |
  13. Azprint

    Well lets see. Hunter, Dodd, Kucinich, Gravel, Biden will be gone for sure. Giuliani will be in a very weak state, he puts too much hope on February 5th, but I think he won't be gone till then. Huckabee will survive NH and Iowa, but not for too long, no money and not that much support outside of Iowa. Ron Paul will suck it up till the end, his point is to get his message across and question the pack if they are conservative, plus he got funds to do it. Thompson will leave us soon, right after NH and he will support Johny McCain. Edwards will perform poorly, I think all of his support gone to Obama.

    So I think McCain, Romney on Republican side will fight till the end versus Clinton and Obama on Democratic side. Personally I think the end result will be McCain versus Clinton, with Clinton getting like 60-70% and we can all greet good old 90s. Wheeee!

    January 3, 2008 at 3:56 pm |
  14. Phil from Wenatchee, WA

    Let's hope and pray Hillary, John McCain, Mike Huckabee, Rudy Guiliani and Mitt Romney will have become afterthoughts. I'm beginning to feel the same about Obama, all of whom just can't seem to answer a simple question. Joe Biden and Chris Dodd seem to be the only candidates with any COMMON SENSE.

    January 3, 2008 at 3:58 pm |
  15. Thomas, SC

    McCain will be out because he won't win either state; and we all know New Hampshire is his big lifeline. The pundits will act shocked when Ron Paul takes a huge slice of McCain's independent supporters in New Hampshire, but I won't.

    January 3, 2008 at 4:13 pm |
  16. Brandin

    Even though I'm a registered Democrat and a staunch Edwards supporter, I'm more focused on who's going to be dropping out on the Republican side. I'd like to see if Paul has any legs to stand on. I figure Thompson and Giuliani are on the chopping block. On the Dem side, I can't figure why Biden never gained any traction and I hate to see him go. He has great ideas and seems the most likely to get past the partisan divide of the bunch. I guess the field is just too crowded.

    Brandin in State College, PA

    January 3, 2008 at 4:46 pm |
  17. Brian Nancoo - Trinidad

    Just a hunch,but I think something different is going to happen this year.In the past,if you lost Iowa,you were 75% dead,and by New Hampshire and South Carolina,you were dead.I think the losing campaigns will come out of Iowa with more energy than the winning ones,and the Iowa winners will have to work harder than they worked in Iowa to secure their respective party's nomination.I think few will drop out after Iowa.

    January 3, 2008 at 4:50 pm |
  18. Jason L

    Jack

    Bring back the old Cafferty file with your straight forward questions!! This blog crap is ridiculous!

    January 3, 2008 at 4:54 pm |
  19. Troy

    as long as Ron Paul stays in, we have some hope for this country. I think we will be saying goodbye to Hunter, Huckabee, Thompson possibly, dodd, kucinich and possibly Biden./

    January 3, 2008 at 4:59 pm |
  20. Tim M, MD

    Forget New Hampshire – Fred Thompson simply has no chance tonight in Iowa. His platform simply doesn't stand a chance in today's America.

    January 3, 2008 at 5:14 pm |
  21. Marshall Crane

    I'll tell you in about six hours.

    January 3, 2008 at 5:15 pm |
  22. Anonoymous

    Certainly NOT Ron Paul!

    January 3, 2008 at 5:15 pm |
  23. Anonoymous

    Certainly NOT Ron Paul!!!!

    January 3, 2008 at 5:16 pm |
  24. Steve, New York

    Duncan Hunter, Chris Dodd, Dennis Kucinich, Mike Gravel, and surprisingly, Fred Thompson. I think he's out of fuel already.

    January 3, 2008 at 5:16 pm |
  25. Ben H,

    For the Republicans, Thompson will drop out, as he obviously doesn't have the interest to run for president anymore since he's not a close second anymore. Paul will stay on and see how he performs in New Hampshire.

    For the Democrats, Kucinich and Gravel (if the latter is even on the ballot).

    Anyhow, like Thompson, I feel that the primaries are a waste of time and energy. We should just appoint a philosopher king and ditch this funny illusion of democracy.

    Greensboro NC

    January 3, 2008 at 5:16 pm |
  26. Karen

    Oh good grief... Could you please cover some issues? I am tired of bloggers regurgitating media pundits and pretending they have had an original idea. Stop drinking the kool-aid people and grow up.

    January 3, 2008 at 5:16 pm |
  27. Jimmy

    The "big three" Democrats will be fine and will live to fight another day (Obama, Clinton and Edwards), the rest will be gone.

    For the republicans, I think you're going to see Fred Thompson gone soon, McCain won't make it much further and I honestly think Guiliani is going to take a big hit here.

    I think only Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee and my man Ron Paul will survive.

    January 3, 2008 at 5:17 pm |
  28. Martin Bland

    Jack, I strongly believe Iowans will see Barack Obama as the true candidate of change for America. It is my biggest hope that after tonight Hillary will be yesterday's news because people will realize that her only ambition is to obtain power and that she still represents the divisive politics haunting our government. The latest polls suggest Obama is ahead and I think that he will pull through.

    January 3, 2008 at 5:17 pm |
  29. Jeremy

    The Democratic race has been between two people for months now; Hillary and Barack. If Edwards survives, it will be because he's too stubborn to drop out.

    January 3, 2008 at 5:17 pm |
  30. LOWELL MILLER

    Hopefully Hillary won't be around after Iowa and New Hampshire.

    Reason. I don't trust her. I can throw the White House farther than I trust her.

    January 3, 2008 at 5:18 pm |
  31. Ed Taylor

    It seems pretty clear that barring an upset the Democratic field will narrow to four. The top three, regardless of placing, and maybe just maybe Senator Biden. For the Republicans, we will be saying a grateful goodbye to probably everyone but Huckabee, Romney, and Guiliani. Of course I vote in Oregon, so the candidates will be decided by the time I get to add my two cents...

    January 3, 2008 at 5:18 pm |
  32. Tim_H

    I'm hopeful this year... At least more hopeful than in times past... After caucus-time though I think we'll be saying goodbye to Hunter, Thompson, and (as much as I personally like him) Ron Paul on the Republican side. For the Dems, (again, as much as I like him) Kucinich, Richardson, and Dodd are probably done. But anything can happen in '08!

    January 3, 2008 at 5:18 pm |
  33. Kyle

    Anyone who finishes below Ron Paul would be facing a up hill road. With not much media except for just recently about fundraising, If He takes Iowa then watch out the REVOLUTION is bigger than anyone expected!

    January 3, 2008 at 5:18 pm |
  34. Jordan

    From what I've seen in Cedar Rapids, I think we can expect to see Kucinich and Dodd taking a hike after Iowa. They simply don't have the momentum. What should prove interesting, as you pointed out Jack, is if we see a repeat of 2004 where we got to see replays of the Dean Scream instead of reporting on how Edwards came from nowhere to take 2nd a mere 1 point behind Kerry. It won't be an issue though because my money is on Edwards, Obama, and then Hillary. Don't discount Biden though, I anticipate he'll make a better showing than the country is expecting.

    January 3, 2008 at 5:18 pm |
  35. Frank

    Dear Jack, The candidates thats wont last are the ones that use Religion as a ride to the White House. The candidate who will win will not be trying to scare us with this so called "imminent threat" overseas. I would much rather vote for a candidate who supports capitalism and the constitution instead of one who protects big business and the lobbyists who are only in for their own benefits.

    Sincerely
    Frank,

    January 3, 2008 at 5:18 pm |
  36. ambivalentmonk

    My guess for the Democrats is Clinton, Obama, and Edwards are the most likely top three. Obama and Clinton won't drop out regardless of their place in the Iowa Caucus because of their status as first-tier candidates already.

    For the Republicans, it's a little more up in the air. Ron Paul will stick around regardless of how he places. He's not focusing much on Iowa, and the media isn't giving him much attention in Iowa, either. Chances are, he's not buying into the one-state political importance of the Iowa Caucus, and waiting to see what the rest of the nation has to say. Romney, Giuliani, and Huckabee are most likely going to get the top three, with McCain running close.

    January 3, 2008 at 5:18 pm |
  37. Jacob Wilson in IW

    On the democratic side I firmly believe it will come down to Edwards, Clinton, and Obama.

    On the Republican side there will be Huckabee Romney Paul and McCain, but McCain is going to miss 3rd to Paul's swelling support here in Iowa. for some reason, I'm seeing very little reporting on the massive amounts of campaigning I am seeing being done by Paul's grassroots here, and I am resolute in my mind that he will be the true spoiler in this state, not McCain.

    -Jacob Wilson in Iowa

    January 3, 2008 at 5:19 pm |
  38. Guy , Michiga

    I would have to say Thompson on the Republican side and Kucinich for the Democrats. Both candidates get almost zero media attention which is an absolute necessity in America's modern politics. Good thing my candidate has grassroot support from average citizens otherwise he would be right along Tancredo at home watching Iowa on his television. Go Ron Paul!!

    January 3, 2008 at 5:19 pm |
  39. Rick

    I just read the other comments, and realize I have nothing to offer. My sentiments echo Jason L, above.

    January 3, 2008 at 5:19 pm |
  40. Jerry Jensen

    Democrats – Kucinich, Dodd, Gravel, and Richardson will all drop out. None of their campaigns have caught fire – Richardson will be the big news, but despite his experience, his schlumpy demeanor doesn't inspire confidence. Also, the Republicans will eat him up with the stealing the papers incident a few years back. Biden will do well enough to hold on for awhile.

    Republicans – Thompson is a goner – there is just no excitement there. Of course, Alan Keyes is a non-starter. Ron Paul will hold on.

    January 3, 2008 at 5:19 pm |
  41. PHiL, CA

    The candidates with a lack of fund and votes will not remain in the race following the Iowa caucuses and The New Hampshire primary. Because Ron Paul has the funds and, after tonight, the votes, he will be the new top GOP Candidate.

    January 3, 2008 at 5:19 pm |
  42. Jon from Washington, D.C.

    Which candidates won't still be around after the caucus? Well, we'll see the answer to that very shortly, won't we?

    January 3, 2008 at 5:20 pm |
  43. Michael Pierone

    Those who believe Ron Paul will be eliminated don't understand the man. He has enough money to continue on, and so he will. For Ron Paul it's not about saving a war chest for himself, it's all about the message. If they were talking about any other man they might be right. But they are in for a big surprise. Ron Paul supporters are enthusiastic and will show up in droves. They are foregetting that the polls are composed almost exclusively of "likely voters", well keep your eyes open for the UNLIKELY voter. Jesse Ventura proved that you can win with new voters, and Ron Paul will prove it again.

    I don't know if he can come in first, but he will definately surprise the heck out of those people who thought the "likely" voters are the whole story.

    The people who want to decide the election for us (Faux News etcetera) are expecting a 10 to 15 percent turnout. That leaves 85 to 90 percent of possible voters to show up and confound them. If 10 percent of those "unlikely" voters show up, its a completely different ballgame.

    January 3, 2008 at 5:21 pm |
  44. Melvin

    We can hope and pray that the tooth fairy shows up tonight and AA of them had withdrawn and we get a new bunch of losers.
    The reason why, this whole bunch is nothing but a bunch of self serving special interest group front persons.

    January 3, 2008 at 5:21 pm |
  45. Justin

    The big suprise will be when Ron Paul gets 3rd place in Iowa and 2nd Place in NH. Another suprise will be when Rudy Guiliani drops out after NH and thank god for that. After NH the three biggies on the Democrat side will be the only ones standing.

    January 3, 2008 at 5:21 pm |
  46. Josh (MI)

    On Biden, on Dodd, on Kucinich and Richardson! On Huckabee, on Keyes, on Hunter and Thompson! Ho, ho, ho, Jack. Merry Christmas from Iowa.

    January 3, 2008 at 5:21 pm |
  47. Ashley

    Although i am a Clinton supporter, she doesn't appear to be doing too well in Iowa currently and I wouldn't be surprised if she came in third. On the other hand, I believe Edwards has a good chance of coming in at least second if not surprising everyone and winning simply because he's been campaigning for longer than any other candidate. His strategy of campaigning in smaller Iowan cities may actually work in his favor.

    January 3, 2008 at 5:22 pm |
  48. Adam Pittman

    On the Republican Side, Giulliani and Thompson are the sure victims. National polling methods fall short in demonstrating the popular, cross-spectrum support of a candidate that is revealed by the caucus method. Rudy and Fred will experience less support than anticipated by traditional polling, while Ron Paul will be the surprise finish. A straw-poll and internet favorite, Paul's finish in Iowa tonight will finally win him the national media attention his movement deserves.

    January 3, 2008 at 5:22 pm |
  49. Josh Anderson

    The republican side is entirely contingent upon whether Romney wins Iowa. If he doesn't, he is out. If Huckabee loses, he is out while Romney will most likely press on. If Fred Thompson can finish in the top 3 in IA, he may be able to ride that wave until South Carolina and look for his support there to help him out. Paul and Giuliani will of course be around a little longer.

    On the democratic side, if Obama wins, there will be a bitter division in the party and it will be a two-horse race into Super Duper Tuesday. If Clinton wins, I can't see anyone else winning any other state. If Edwards wins, it could be anyone's game still. If Richardson/Biden scores 4th or 3rd, they will stick it out for awhile. If not, they're done. Dodd, Kucinich, Gravel, all done.

    Josh Anderson, Iowa City IA

    January 3, 2008 at 5:23 pm |
  50. Alex

    I think that in the Democratic race, obviously Edwards won't be around after Iowa or and NH if he doesn't at least get 1 or 2 in either one. He's fighting a man with a lot of momentum in Obama, and the Clinton political machine, which are 2 tough storms to weather. As the national frontrunner, Clinton can afford to take a couple blows, whereas Obama and Edwards both need to win right off the bat. The lower tier candidates will also drop out, candidates like Biden, Dodd, Kucinich, and Richardson. You will only hear their name again if they are discussed for the Vice Presidency. My money is with Obama, because people ultimately want change, and they figure that you don't always need experience to get it done, though I would say that you do.In the republican race, I think that it is safe to say Fred Thompson has the lowest shot of remaining in the race. Rudy is third to last in the polls, even behind Ron Paul. Yikes! And he needs a miracle to happen if he wants to still be competitive going into Florida. Huckabee, Romney, and McCain have the best shot of making it through both Iowa and NH, and it may well turn into a 3 way race from there. My money would be on McCain, because for Romney to spend the money in both Iowa and NH like he has the last year, and to be in the lead by double digits in the polls in both states, and then see it fall apart at the end would be devastating. Huckabee could strike a blow by winning tonight in Iowa, and if McCain is 3rd, he could vault past Romney in NH, and then maybe it may even be a head-to-head showdown between Huckabee and McCain, and that's a very favorable situation for McCain to take the nomination.

    January 3, 2008 at 5:23 pm |
  51. Cher Gardner

    Here an obvious departure: Fred Thompson. If he could just simple answer a question directly, without the meandering of generalities, maybe he we would have a chance. It's sad that even in the very hour of Cafferty's question, Wolf must ask one follow up question after another in order to pry just one specific out of Thompson. Please... if you can't talk straight now, how can I trust that you will later when it really counts?

    January 3, 2008 at 5:23 pm |
  52. Nick Webb, Boone Iowa

    Tonight will show that there are only seven real contenders in this race. On the Democratic side, Edwards, Clinton and Obama. On the Republican side, Giuliani, Huckabee, Romney, and McCain.

    I predict that we'll say goodbye to everyone else. However, the person who benefits the most after the Iowa caucuses tonight is Edwards. He is going to make this a three-way race on the Democratic side.

    January 3, 2008 at 5:24 pm |
  53. Christine

    I'm sorry to say Kucinich will probably be out, as will Thompson, Gravel, and Dodd.
    I hope Hillary goes home after New Hampshire. I'm looking forward to Dr. Ron Paul's innauguration 1/20/09.

    January 3, 2008 at 5:24 pm |
  54. Marshall from Iowa

    I'll tell you in about five hours.

    January 3, 2008 at 5:24 pm |
  55. Sarah Dobson

    Ron Paul and Bill Richardson will be out after Iowa because in Iowa you have to finish in the top 3 and I highly doubt that those canidates will finish in top 3.
    In my opinion, you have to win Iowa to be on the national ballot.

    January 3, 2008 at 5:24 pm |
  56. Pat Davis

    We'll lose Duncan Hunter, Mike Gravel, Joe Biden, Fred Thompson, Chris Dodd, Kucinich. One would hope to say bye-bye to Giuliani, Huckabee and Romney as well. The Republican race should be between Paul and McCain. I could care less which of the socialists they have to contend with.

    January 3, 2008 at 5:25 pm |
  57. Dale Hill

    It would do all of the campaigners well, to watch a Fred Thompson film "CAPE FEAR." As Max Cady (Robert Denairo) said, "Every man... every man has to go through hell to reach paradise." I suppose New Hampshire and Iowa will be some candidates hell. I'm betting Thompson will see hell and go back to Hollywood with his tail between his legs.

    Anadarko, OK – North American Indian Capitol in the world. Jack, you never been here, or I would have heard about it.

    January 3, 2008 at 5:25 pm |
  58. Tom from Hamilton, NJ

    It's make or break for Clinton and Obama. Although both have the infrastructural and financial capabilities to continue on to New Hampshire and beyond, the fate of their campaigns will most likely depend on which corner of the room the majority of Iowans stand in the caucuses tonight.

    January 3, 2008 at 5:26 pm |
  59. Allen

    Hillary won't make it we the people don't want to get the rest of the furniture from the white house.

    January 3, 2008 at 5:26 pm |
  60. Mary

    I am confident that Clinton will survive Iowa, after all that is said and done, Iowa is not the only state that represents our vast majority of people. With Ethenol brought to the front and center of discussion, the corn growers are having a party. But, OH wait a minute. I have heard this same discussion since the early 60's and of course, nothing has changed. Well some things have been revised since the early 60's, let's see if I can remember, Oh yeah, it is now gay rights and abortion. Hummm, I think I have heard this since the early 70's,

    Can we move on? Not if you vote republican. I do not like Obama, he is much to phony.

    January 3, 2008 at 5:27 pm |
  61. turkishfollower

    very hard question. first of all statistically, the Iowa winner has gone on to the nomination only about half the time..for instance bill clinton had gotten 3% of votes here at iowa when he was elected later. so iowa+hampshire indeed is not end of the world...so we can say that the answer here is mostly a function of money raised so far...therefore six candidates are more likely to stay in the race for sure: clinton, obama, edwards, romney, giluani and mccain. they have quite different strategies, money and solid crowds behind them...

    January 3, 2008 at 5:27 pm |
  62. Matthew, Albany, NY

    I think your right about Fred Thompson. However, you mention media expectation. I like you Jack, your honest about how vapid the media is, and how it panders to its own agenda. Its a sad state of affairs if "Media expectation" is more important to determine a canidate's electability rather than his/her stance on the issues that are affecting our nation. All I can say is: if Ron Paul continues with his momentum, he will move on and we will certainly see him survive the NH primaries. A reminder to all of us, that our votes DO matter and that the Constitution isn't a "quaint" document to be used only when its not too inconvenient by those we have given our power to.

    January 3, 2008 at 5:27 pm |
  63. Adam Harris

    Jack,
    I think the question isn't who's going to survive the race, but rather who's going to enter. If Clinton or Romney emerges from the slugfest with their political machines intact, it's all but certain Mayor Bloomberg would (and should) enter the contest. Theres something about "standing for change" while still doing "business as usual" that would enrage all Americans enough to rally behind a third party candidate. Iowa and New Hampshire might not bring out the "political best" in candidates. Then again with with Romney's recent attack ads, maybe it has...

    January 3, 2008 at 5:28 pm |
  64. Mark H Page

    Sad to say, the two Democratic candidates who are most qualified to be president are Joe Biden and Bill Richardson, and they won't be around much longer.

    January 3, 2008 at 5:30 pm |
  65. Adam - Oxford, Ohio

    Jack,
    I think the question isn’t who’s going to survive the race, but rather who’s going to enter. If Clinton or Romney emerges from the slugfest with their political machines intact, it’s all but certain Mayor Bloomberg would (and should) enter the contest. Theres something about “standing for change” while still doing “business as usual” that would enrage all Americans enough to rally behind a third party candidate. Iowa and New Hampshire might not bring out the “political best” in candidates. Then again with with Romney’s recent attack ads, maybe it has…

    January 3, 2008 at 5:30 pm |
  66. Rudy C

    After the Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire primaries I see the following candidates left: On the Republican side, Huckabee, McCain, and Romney. The reason, is because Huckabee seems to be the most "likable" candidate. The others will be there because of the money they have raised and the lack of interest or knowledge on the part of the American Voter. I surely wish Ron Paul the best, and hope he stays, but I doubt most Americans are ready to listen to him.
    On the Democratic side: The same people stay; Obama, Edwards and Clinton.
    Edwards stays because he is "real" people person of the three. The others stay because of the money they have raised. Of these three, I wish Edwards the best....

    Hey, there is great idea! Ron Paul for President with John Edwards as VP? Nah, that will be too hard to accomplish on our "great" democracy!

    January 3, 2008 at 5:30 pm |
  67. Allen

    Jack, is there anyway we can make them all go away NOW!

    January 3, 2008 at 5:31 pm |
  68. Ken KS

    With all of these candidates, never so many in so long a time AND YET-– what choice do we have? Pathetic is too kind a word to use to describe what we have to choose from. I suggest that unless the Republicans pull off a miracle in Nopvember, we'll have a Democrat as president and surprisingly, it could very well be Edwards. Obama and Clinton seem to think they are the neck to neck contestants and sort of ignoring Edwards. Only fools underestimate their opponents.

    I also suggest that since all of the Democrats are for open borders for our Southern neighbors, we're going to get a Republican House and Senate, thus 2009-2112 will be more the same as what 'W' and Slick Dick have given us. More tax breaks for the rich, Corporate America and the status quo and a stagnant economy as far as the middle class is concerned. Doesn't this country deserve a government for the people? (Thanks for the line, Mr. Dobbs.)

    January 3, 2008 at 5:31 pm |
  69. Don Coscina

    Frankly, I don't care who wins in Iowa or New Hampshire. These states do not come close to representing the demographics of our country. But, with the amount of free political coverage stations like yours provide for weirdo Republicans like Huckabee, Romney and even Thompson, one of the bozos will get a platform to launch a more serious run in other states. Similarly, on the Democratic side, all the "excitement" generated by covering Obama fuels an unrealistic belief he can run our country. He has neither the experience nor the political connections for any serious voter to consider him as a viable candidate. I could live with Clinton or Edwards as president, but wish Biden had a better shot at the job. He has many more years of real experience than either of them and is a straight-shooter when talking about "issues".

    If we really want change, how about having Bloomberg run as an independent? He is more grounded in reality than Nader or Paul (who has no chance being a switch-hitter from Libertarian to Republican). Of course, if Lou Dobbs ran, I might be swayed to vote for him. Having a Harvard economist as president would be refreshing.

    January 3, 2008 at 5:32 pm |
  70. Tom Coscetta

    Who will be left , Well I think Hilary wont be there because she is runnung on the coatails of Bill Osama Obama won't be there because he does not have any experience , Huckabee will not be there because he is a preacher, Richardson because very few peopl e know who he is, The Tennesseee guy should go back to acting on Law and Order, Paul has alot of money to put in his hope chest for a future run, That leaves the rest a toss up and who really cares about what Iowans think anyway. It's at the voting booth where the winners are picked, not Iowa. But lest be fare and give the Iowans there 15 minutes of fame.

    January 3, 2008 at 5:32 pm |
  71. Emmanuel T

    Jack I can count on you to tell it is. Hillary and Rudy should just go and concentrate on their marriages..... Get Jebb Bush in there for heaven's sake!

    January 3, 2008 at 5:32 pm |
  72. Larry

    Mr. Desmond Tutu and some other church leaders are in Kenya to try to help their "Brothers and Sisters". I find it strange that Rep. Al Sharpton and Rev. Jessie Jackson do see fit to take themselves to Kenya to try to do some good there for their brothers and sisters. I guess that Jena, is just taking up to much of their time. Ya think??? I wonder what kind of e-mail you might get on this subject.

    Washington, Missouri

    January 3, 2008 at 5:33 pm |
  73. ron

    Jack; Who in their right mind gives all this credence to a bunch of corn farmers in the first place? How many times have you seen the rabbit leave the stadium in a marathon race all smiles, leading the pack, breathing lightly to a bouncing gate only to be scooped up by the medics about a quarter into the race?? That is what will happen after Iowa–some of these rookie runners have way too much time left to lose their breath.... Ron in South Carolina

    January 3, 2008 at 5:34 pm |
  74. Matt

    The Dodds and the Hunters face inevitable obliteration; but what I personally am especially excited to witness is which of the previous media darlings will be left in the dust on both the Republican and Democratic side. Guiliani and Clinton will respectively be phased out by the young people voting for Paul and Obama. The mobilization of the disaffected, the independent, and the first time voters goes largely untraced by standard polling; the strength of their turnout will invariably rock the status quo, proving that the level of frustration in this country with politics as usual is reaching an unbearable crecendo. Hopefully, once Paul and Obama knock off Guiliani and Clinton, Huckabee and Edwards are next.

    January 3, 2008 at 5:34 pm |
  75. Dan

    I hope this politcally biased process drops out! Pathetic, the majority of americans have no say in the choice for presidency.

    January 3, 2008 at 5:36 pm |
  76. Stu

    After 6 months of this plitical noise, who really cares. Another media mountain made out of a mole hill. I beleive there are other more important things going on in this world then what is going on in the State of Iowa

    January 3, 2008 at 5:37 pm |
  77. Colleen

    Would someone PLEASE EXPLAIN to me Obama's "CHANGE"? That seems to be the only word he knows. As an Illinoisan this man did not make a lasting impression on me when he was in State government and definitely not as a US Senator.

    I just cannot figure out what exactly his platform is? Help me out here.

    Thank you

    January 3, 2008 at 5:37 pm |
  78. Mark

    Fred Thompson and his odd campaign strategy will be history. Launching his campaign with an old turtle as his mascot, and leading off with a sleepwalking session, moving into a series of power naps and finishing by channeling my 100-year old junior high school english teacher ...well, now that I think about it, maybe I'd be better off with all of the DC pols asleep at the wheel. Can't get into trouble and blow my tax money that way.

    January 3, 2008 at 5:37 pm |
  79. Sean Jin, Oregon

    With the huge number of undecided voters, I think there will be an upset. The candidates that will stay no matter what are Romney and Giuliani on the GOP side, and Obama and Clinton on the Democratic side. However, GOP Candidate Ron Paul hasn't been given much attention by the media, but his Constitutionist and Libertarian ideals will appeal to the voters of Iowa. Similar with Democrat Bill Richardson, his focus on the Constitution will be the breath of air that Iowans want.
    Kucinich, Dodd, Biden, Gravel, Tancredo, Thompson, Thompson, Brownback, and Gilmore are all out for sure.

    January 3, 2008 at 5:37 pm |
  80. Rich

    What are you talking about Jack we all know the election is fixed. Even the candidates know. Its just a big charade Take Huckabee the polls he has 30% nation wide but yet out of the 30% none donate any money. Show us proof of the polls thats where the real story is Jack. I say there fake, fabricated, I'm watching on cnn right now about vote rigging in Pakistan but yet no news reports about the vote rigging in America. Go figure it seems cnn is more interested in Pakistan then what is going on here.

    January 3, 2008 at 5:43 pm |
  81. Don

    On the Democratic side, all the non-viable candidates (Richardson, Biden, Dodd) are on the way out, as well as Edwards, who won't be able to fend off both Obama and Clinton tonight, despite the fact that he's enjoyed the most 'face time' with Iowans.

    On the Republican end, Thompson is preparing to sing his swan song even as I write, while McCain will be blindsided by Paul supporters, relegating the Arizona senator to fourth place, at best.

    January 3, 2008 at 5:43 pm |
  82. Mark

    Iowa? Wow, I thought it all started in Idaho today. I'm not a McCain supporter, but his staff was nice enough to give me directions to Boise last week. Oh well, when does the Idaho caucus roll around?

    January 3, 2008 at 5:45 pm |
  83. Chris S

    Iowa and New Hampshire will be more important for the Democratic hopefuls than the Republicans. Richardson, Kucinich, Biden, and Dodd will be out. On the Republican side? It's not so certain.

    January 3, 2008 at 5:45 pm |
  84. Dot

    you won't see Juliani or Thompson amongst others, for the simple reason they have no heart in the race. This is a popularity contest at its best. If you don't care about being popular, then you're out. I don't think Juliani is going to be around long enough to see what Florida thinks of him, and Law and Order should be writing in Thompson for the next season. We all know from the advertisements who are the popular people in Iowa and that is the whole jist of this caucus, not what they have to say since they are all full of it and themselves.

    January 3, 2008 at 5:46 pm |
  85. Matthew

    Thompson's own apathy about his running suggests a quick erasure from the field for him – and Kucinich's suggestion that his supporters stand behind Obama should he lose is self-defeating. Dodd, Biden, McCain and Guiliani are all seriously lagging behind – a poor showing in Iowa and New Hampshire hopefully provides wiggle room for the ascendancy of Ron Paul, and the continued success of Barack Obama – the ideal Republican and Democrat for a nation being gradually suffocated by the status quo.

    January 3, 2008 at 5:47 pm |
  86. Randle Turner

    With any luck that "Phony Mitt", the "9/11Rudy" and "I'm the God candidate Mike" will be gone & possibly John & Ron will have a chance on the republican side since they have done something other than be Governor or Mayor, and that comes WITHOUT ANY FOREIGN POLICY EXPERIENCE. And on the Democratic side the only guys that have the qualifications are Joe Biden and Bill Richardson. That just shows how screwed up the whole thing is laid out. We only need ask the guys that are supplying the voting machines how it will all play out.

    January 3, 2008 at 5:54 pm |
  87. Curtis, NH

    Gone will be Thompson, Hunter, Guiliani (hopefully), Biden, Kucinich, Dodd, Richardson. Gravel has been out and in at the same time and will "continue" until November. Ron Paul will shock the media, but not the public, with a top finish in Iowa and a possible win in New Hampshire, Nevada, maybe even South Carolina.

    January 3, 2008 at 5:54 pm |
  88. Jacob Wilson in IW

    Jack, I meant reporting by other agencies. CNN is being the most thorough out of all of the News Networks. Much love; keep it up.

    -Jacob Wilson

    January 3, 2008 at 5:58 pm |
  89. Rick B

    I would prefer Clinton to come in dead last. Then maybe she will get out of the race. No one has pointed out how involved she was in White Water and all the other shady dealings she has been part of over the years. The woman is a self-centered, back stabbing power mongerette who would sell out Amercia for her personal profit.

    January 3, 2008 at 6:20 pm |
  90. Mike F.

    I think Ron Paul will surprise a lot of people tonight.

    January 3, 2008 at 7:02 pm |
  91. Norma

    I expect John Edwards to come in number one. This is despite the fact that CNN has literally paid no attention to him, and never speaks his name. He has been a solid number two all along – of course I did not get this information from CNN. I hope Wolf Blitzers has on his depends when John comes in first, because he is going to ...uh, uh, uh.....well you know – poo-poo. Have some crying towels ready too, for yourself Jack.

    January 3, 2008 at 7:03 pm |
  92. gregory farino

    It would be interesting to see how the eventual vice presidential candidates fair in Iowa and NH during past elections. Can we predict who might become the vice president based upon their expectations and eventual finish in these early primaries/caucuses?

    January 3, 2008 at 7:20 pm |
  93. JW

    Clinton and Obama will definitely survive for future primaries, although Edwards is definitely the best Democratic cantidate. Only Romney and Gulliani have what it takes to beat whoever wins the Dem endorsement after all the bad that Bush has done these past years.

    January 3, 2008 at 8:04 pm |
  94. Sukie, Medford, OR

    Is this where I write to Cafferty outside the hourly questions?

    I will vote Democrat, but I worry about Obama because his wife seems to be a loose cannon, making strange comments on occasion which don't fit for me as a first lady or even a supportive wife.

    Like saying her husband won't ever campaign again if he loses this one. ????

    I love John Edwards! At times he doesn't seem to have a spark (right now he does as he speaks after the Iowa caucus). He needs to step up the spark!

    January 3, 2008 at 10:16 pm |
  95. Susan

    I must say that American politics is much more interesting than Canadian politics...but some things never change. In order to survive in the male political arena, one would need to be intelligent and assertive. Although I have a lot of respect for the knowledge of the CNN journalist team in general, I was stunned to hear Hillary described as " frigid" and "calculating" for possessing the same qualities as several men in the race. And then to ridicule her by feeling sorry for Bill was over the edge. Go figure – racism in America is not okay (and that's the way it should be) but sexism is alive and well. From my perspective the Clintons did a great deal of good in the White House last time around. Obama thinks that Pakistan and other countries should just run their own affairs. This is incredibly naive – especially in light of the recent assassination of Bhutto. And I'm not sure that Huckabee's down home warmth could counsel a suicide bomber to change their plans, although I think he's a wonderful person. The Clinton's back in the Whitehouse would restore order. Obama in the Whitehouse would be like putting a preschooler behind the wheel of a tank.

    January 4, 2008 at 1:08 am |
  96. Lauren

    Jack,

    The more I watch the main-stream media, the more I realize that they choose who will be seen and heard, not the people. It is a shame that those with the experience and knowledge to do the job were never given a fair shot. It has always been Clinton, Obama, and Edwards, right from the start of the race. They were even labeled "top tier", and the others "2nd tier". Come on Jack, is it any surprise that Biden and Dodd vanished? The media never even gave them a fair shot.

    January 4, 2008 at 9:21 am |
  97. R J Graham

    Jack
    Did you notice how cleverly the cnn omitted reporting all the results on the their election pie chart ? Namely the 10% vote received by Paul in the missing piece of pie.
    A vote just behind Bush's clone John McCain. Jack you and I are old enough to know a real con. Thanks

    January 4, 2008 at 10:13 am |
  98. Ernie

    I have nothing againest Hillary personally, but i believe she has always been with
    an elite crowd and the welfare of the common people are secondary with
    her. This is only my opinion of her. i don't understand the american voter; we
    don't seem to learn a lesson from our past voting mistakes. If the people want
    someone with a broad experienc, take a look at john mccain; He was right when
    he agreed to sending more troops to Iraq as things have gotton considerably
    better since. He has the background experience during his military and
    senate tours. MY VOTE WILL BE FOR JOHN MCCAIN.

    January 4, 2008 at 10:56 am |
  99. Tom Spano

    Jack,

    Last night proved that the media seems to be masking the power of Ron Paul. He beat out Giuliani by a good margin, and received 9000 + more votes than the highest democrat, and still gets no love!!!

    How can this be? Why is the media so afraid to talk about him or to him? CNN is finally giving him some air time, but why so late in the game?

    Dr. Paul is riding a pretty serious wave and should be taken seriously, don't you think? Or maybe you don't think he should be...but then again, does it really matter what the media thinks? I was under the impression that the media was to report the news not skew it toward personal opinion. I'm not pointing fingers...I have great respect for you and the CNN team, but I am really tired of seeing this unfair lean toward the first place candidates and leaving everyone else out. especially after only one primary, and Iowa to boot! I have very little faith in the power of Iowa to predict our next President.

    FOX didn't even invite him to the debate on Sunday! That's absolutely unacceptable wouldn't you say?

    They are all running for President and they should all be given equal time and equal respect. Fair is fair.

    Thanks for listening,

    Tom

    January 4, 2008 at 11:32 am |
  100. Dave

    During Barack Obama's speech about the results from the Iowa caucus, he said " we are one nation, one people".
    I am concerned about what specific "one people" he was talking about.
    The United States is said to be the "Melting Pot of the World" with many peoples making up the composite of America. Given that, I am very concerned about his statement and perhaps the underlying meaning that prompted him to say that.

    January 4, 2008 at 11:42 am |
  101. Vicki Heminger

    Jack,

    I'm in Calif., and I'm sick to death of hearing about Iowa and New Hampshire. Im very offended at all the talk of good viable candidates like John Edwards being written off so easily, not to mention others like Dodd and Kucinich and Biden. It never seems to occur to any of you pundits sitting around 'analyzing' all this ad nauseum, that some of the rest of us in the other 48 STATES might lilke to have a voice in this. Why don't you do a little more REPORTING and a little less PREDICTING, and let the PEOPLE of the country choose their candidates. And try covering ALL the candidates instead of just the 2 that you've selected -Obama and Clinton. I'm sick of you freezing the others out. Try showing your viewers you're more than corporate America's mouthpiece, and maybe still have some shred of memory of what a free press was like.

    January 4, 2008 at 7:09 pm |
  102. Rev. Donald Logan

    Iowa GOP refuses to report Keyes votes

    January 4, 2008

    DES MOINES, Iowa — The Iowa Republican Party has neither counted nor reported the number of votes for Alan Keyes in the GOP caucuses held Jan. 3.

    "We didn't have the electronic means to record the tallies for Keyes, so we can’t yet report to the public how many votes Keyes got," said John Lund at the Iowa GOP headquarters in Des Moines. "We can't report the Keyes votes until we've double-checked each individual paper ballot."

    Meanwhile, the Iowa GOP widely reported the vote tallies of all other candidates, including Tom Tancredo, who got 5 votes despite having quit the race.

    "I personally traveled with Alan Keyes across Iowa, and we met scores of Keyes voters. It's totally unfair these citizens' votes are now being withheld from the public," said Chaplain Gordon James Klingenschmitt. * "This is tantamount to election fraud."

    "I voted for Alan Keyes," said Siena Hoefling of Calhoun County. "It's ridiculous they didn't report my vote. Each precinct could have easily called or emailed the vote tallies to headquarters, so they should have been counted by now."

    "County election officials showed me a ballot list of 'suggested' candidates, but Alan Keyes' name wasn't on the list," said Hoefling. "When I asked them if they would include Alan's name, they said they'd have to write it in."

    One election official apologized to Hoefling that Keyes' name was omitted, saying "these are just the names we were given by [Iowa GOP] headquarters."

    Duaine Bollwitt of Monticello said, "Alan Keyes was not on the list of Republican Presidential candidates. My vote for Alan Keyes was treated as a write-in. I thought that was odd, but what do I know."

    "A presidential preference poll reporting procedure was given to me, explaining how to report the votes to headquarters," said Michael Walsh, a precinct permanent secretary for Windsor Heights. "When we called in the vote tallies; by telephone, an electronic voice asked for the number of votes, candidate-by-candidate."

    Whether the electronic voice prompt collecting the votes offered Alan Keyes as a choice is unclear.

    Tom Youngwirth, recorder for his Windsor Heights precinct, said, "Now that I think of it, I didn't hear Alan Keyes' name on the voice prompt. But John McCain's name was on the voice prompt."

    "I know for sure we reported votes for Alan Keyes to headquarters," said Ron Granzow, precinct chair for Windsor Heights. "I don't know why they wouldn't report his votes to the public."

    "This resembles a 'communist-style' approach to electoral politics," said Stephen Stone, chairman of Alan Keyes for President. "In the former Soviet Union, political officials limited voters' choices in a way that created merely the illusion of democracy, without the reality. Any undue interference with free and open elections, of the sort we think we just witnessed, is un-American."

    Added Stone: “Alan Keyes has been an announced candidate for president since Sept. 14. Yet the state GOP chose to exclude him from the caucus process, claiming he 'announced too late' to be included, so that his name was not even mentioned on official lists of candidates or in reporting instructions. This disenfranchises Iowa voters."

    January 5, 2008 at 8:25 pm |
  103. Carry Anymore

    Jack!!!

    Fox News Sean Hannity and Frank Lutz are using ACTORS in the post debate Focus Groups where they pick the winner and that's who wins. It happened to the "IdOntWANtoloSe" my vote. I almost cried, this is not funny, Fox is using actors and claiming they are VOTERS but they are the same exact people that fly from state to state and practice who is going to win the election!!!!

    Diogenes of Sinope

    January 7, 2008 at 8:30 am |
  104. Chester Bickerstaff

    No. I don't think what Hillary said will hurt her chances in New Hampshire. In fact, I think it will help her.

    January 7, 2008 at 4:20 pm |
  105. Diane

    I hope Fred Thompson, Rudy Guilliani, Mitt Romney and the entire rest of the Republican candidates drops out. Thompson is scraping the bottom of the barrel, Guilliani is scary and Romney is sneaky. Huckabee is a nothing also. Makes a great speech but that's about it. I don't trust any of them.

    Obama, HIllary Clinton and Edwards will probably go on to South Carolina.

    January 7, 2008 at 4:51 pm |
  106. Faye Rastegar

    I could care less what happens in two very tiny unrepresentative states. Except for the hype given to them by the media these states should have no particular reason to decide who our candidates are. In fact I read somewhere recently that no candidate who had ever won in Iowa had gone on to become president. Not one ever!!!

    January 8, 2008 at 1:24 pm |
  107. Mike Page

    John Kerry, a gentleman of character, intellegence and stature, has endorsed for President, Barak Obama, a gentleman of character, intellegence and stature. There is hope that after these past 7 years, we will have in residence at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. a President of character, intellegence and stature.

    January 10, 2008 at 5:14 pm |
  108. Mike Page

    Bush is a Don Quixote with no intelligent purpose. He believes he can undo 7 years of evil deeds by playing at statesman. How can anyone, here or there, trust this man? We can only hope he does no more harm before he term is over, and the world can breath a collective sigh of relief.

    January 11, 2008 at 5:16 pm |