Reply #15: Without getting too much into the thick of things . . .

[Tim_in_HK]

Regarding Dean and Gep in Iowa, I have two things to say: (1) it can take a while for the accumulated 'negativity' to be felt by people (ergo, the polls) and (2) Kerry ran very effective and well-received ads in Iowa . . .

So, the Dean/Gep attacks may have had a two-pronged affect . . . they eroded the support of each of their supporters, and the people influenced by those ads (both those who decided to stop supporting Dean and decided to stop supporting Gep) may have been just as influenced by Kerry's ads. So the net drop in both Dean and Gep could have largely gone to to Kerry (and obviously Edwards as well). This is off the top of my head, but could help explain what happened, and I think also fits into Tom's analysis as well.

Regarding why Gep garnered such early support, the unions may have had something to do with that. The unions could have been politicking for Gephardt early and for a long while, and so Gep had a strong base of 'supporters,' although it was evidently pretty soft.
This was proven true when others started to campaign more aggressively there.

And I'm sure that at the end of the day as the caucus approached, what you said influenced people as well . . . 'we supported this guy in '88 and he went nowhere. Why support him again?'

Also, not to knock Gephardt, but he really is not that great of a campaigner, in my opinion. I could see how people who went to hear him speak may have walked away unimpressed. And Kerry was a very good campaigner in Iowa, with the vets, firefighters, etc.

And also shows the waning influence of the leadership of unions in getting their members to support desired candidates.

Anyway, quick analysis. I'm probably painting with too wide a brush and forgetting lots o'important details.

In the end, all us Clark supports can wish is that Clark had campaigned in Iowa. Things may indeed have turned out differently.

-edit- spelling and clarifications