Convince me that an Edwards victory in Iowa means anything besides a Hillary nomination

[Fried Bread]

I'm torn on this, as I like both Edwards and Obama (I believe both are agents for needed change). Edwards' recent 'surge' in Iowa (see e.g. the Newsweek cover entitled 'The Sleeper') has me somewhat worried in the sense that his victory there may permanently knock Obama out of the race, while positioning Hillary for easier wins in NH, SC and beyond. Edwards is limited by his election to use the campaign matching funds scheme, and his lack of money, troops, and infrastructure in NH, SC and the Super Tuesday states. I can't help but look at an Edwards victory in Iowa as means for Hillary to knock out her closest threat: Barack Obama. I'm open to being proved wrong.

[liberal N proud]

1. Edwards wins means Hillary is nominated?

I don't get your twist on that one at all
Hillary wins means Hillary get the nomination.
:shrug:

[Happyhippychick]

2. A victory in Iowa doesn't mean that anything is guaranteed.

It doesn't mean the person who wins Iowa will be nominated as the Democratic candidate. It's one primary. It may be the first but it isn't the only one. I think we are all panicking over Iowa and it isn't the be all end all of what will happen.

Vote for the candidate that you want and don't try to second guess what it will mean in terms of the candidate you don't want - just go with your heart.

Did I convince you? :)

[annie1]

3. If Edwards wins Iowa he'll get a TON of national attention. and if Obama...

is "knocked out", that means people can look at the other option, which is Edwards. :). Obama's plans are so close to hil's, he may call her Bush-lite, but he's just Hil-lite. Go for the gusto, go for edwards.

[Dawgs]

5. "Obama's plans are so close to hils"

Obama's plans are much closer to Edwards(lobbyists, healthcare, climate change) - ask Edwards and he'll agree.

[annie1]

8. yet another reason to vote edwards. :D.

[Fried Bread]

60. ;-)

[Dawgs]

4. Edwards would have to win big over Obama, which will probably not happen.

Obama just got his fifth(sixth?) Iowa endorsement from the Sioux City Journal(a big one).

http://www.siouxcityjournal.com/endorsement/

[Fried Bread]

11. Hillary coming in a distant 3rd may shake it up, too.

Hillary coming in a distant 3rd in Iowa (with Edwards winning) may still result in a close NH race. We'll see obviously.

[surfermaw]

6. An Edwards win is going to make Edwards President

As soon as the news comes in that he has won IOwa, the money will flow in and NH will be voting for Edwards as Iowa is going to do. How is she helping him, he has been a head for ever and Hill and Obama have spend millions to try to defeat him, I just wonder if some republican money has been spent in Iowa to try to defeat Edwards.

[comradebillyboy]

7. Who ever wins in Iowa will gain momentum

and more financial backing and Chris Matthews will declare that person the winner of the dem nominating process. A win is always good for your candidate. If Edwards finishes third, he is toast. First makes him look lie he has a chance, which will be a big boost.

[ShaneGR]

9. Let me see here, Edwards wins, gets face plastered all over media for a week straight....

And that's supposed to help Hillary? Color me confused on that logic.

[Fried Bread]

18. Is that enough to help his poor poll numbers there?

My theory is that Edwards' increase in popularity for that week will harm Obama (which helps Hillary--who already has the infrastructure in place to win those states).

[ShaneGR]

25. Did it help Kerry who was polling at single digits in NH?

And all of a sudden he got 40% after he won Iowa?

[Fried Bread]

27. Kerry benefitted from being a neighboring senator as well.

He had a NH ground game that Edwards likely lacks.

[saltpoint]

10. Sen. Clinton has the Iowa lead in some polls, although not all polls, and

in most polls the differentials are squeeze-tight and close.

She could win in Iowa and would likely be hard to dislodge after that.

She could place second in Iowa and still make a convincing bid in New Hampshire. If she places a perilously close second in Iowa, she can still win in New Hampshire and be right back on top as frontrunner. She loses 5 days, tops.

If John Edwards and Barack Obama both defeat her in Iowa, the rationale for her as the nominee thins a bit, although is not disqualifying. She has South Carolina, where Obama is favored slightly at the moment, but I believe within the margin of error.

She has 3 good chances in that spread of scenarios to maintain front-runner status, or re-gain it if it's threatened in Iowa and New Hampshire.

If Edwards wins Iowa, voters in subsequent states will very likely be giving him a better look and fair reconsideration, and properly so. If Edwards wins by a lot, the politics of the party between Jan 4th and Feb. 5th are going to involve firebombings and ICBMs. The party will do whatever it can to stop him from winning the nomination. Clinton and Obama are the likely beneficiaries of that bias in this scenario, IMO.

Joe Biden's appeal in Iowa is undeniable but has yet to translate to double-figure voting support. That could change in only a few days' time. Primary elections have a way of being too fluid for predictions. Just ask Presidents Gephardt and Dean. Biden's qualifications are across the board, but Iraq remains a sour issue in voters' minds, even if the lackeys in the mainstream media aren't covering it any more. A lot of Iowa families have a stake in the Iraq War and Biden is extremely sure-footed in foreign policy. I would definitely not count him out as a top-three contender. And more, if Biden rises sharply, it will come at Sen. Clinton's expense, IMO.

An Edwards win in Iowa does not elect Senator Clinton. It puts greater pressure on her campaign to demonstrate a compelling rationale to be our nominee. And in any case Senator Clinton has to make her pitch to voters on her own terms.

Just my take.

[Fried Bread]

15. Excellent post.

I pretty much agree.

[calteacherguy]

19. Even if Edwards wins Iowa, it's still possible Obama will win NH given the strong independent vote.

nt

[Fried Bread]

21. Agreed (assuming he places ahead of Hillary in Iowa).

It will be interesting as hell to see.

[saltpoint]

24. Iowans will turn out in some percentage or other, and hold in their hands

the power to thin the herd.

Both on our side and for the Republicans.

Just as an aside, I think January 3rd is going to be a bummer of an evening for Rudy Giuliani. His campaign all but abandoned Iowa and not surprisingly, for that and other reasons, he's dropping like stone in the GOP polling. Romney has either lost his lead to Huckabee or is close to losing it, and McCain, who really hasn't shown up to campaign in Iowa much, is also running ahead of Rudy right now.

I'm not sure how Giuliani can sustain a national campaign after placing 4th in Iowa, 3rd or 4th in New Hampshire, and 3rd in Carolina. If other Republicans' names are in the headlines the day following those contests, Giuliani's name isn't nearly as likely to be in any on Feb. 5th, except as an exiting entity.

If Huckabee defeats Romney in Iowa, McCain's polling in NH and elsewhere is likely to rise swiftly.

[surfermaw]

28. I'm going to have to see the win by Obama in S.C to believe

What is going to happen in S.C., is Oaprah and Obama is going to bring out every bigot in the state to vote to make sure Obama doesn't win... I was born and raised in the south, and I know how the old Bigots act and vote. Many of them left the democrat party and went With Strom T. and now are in the republican party... I wouldn't put it pass them to change party to defeat Obama, and then re register to vote in the General Election... It is probably going to be Hillary in S.C., however Edwards may just cause and upset, it could happen.

[saltpoint]

31. You may have a close read there on some voters in SC, but the nomination

race feels really uncertain at this point, so I can't make any firm predictions. I'm definitely still in the hunching phase of the primary season!

In 2004 in the early summer, people who followed politics mostly thought Dick Gephardt would win (for the second time) in Iowa. By the time in the fall that Howard Dean took the lead, it seemed apparent that Dean was on a kind of invincable roll and couldn't be stopped. He'd raised all sorts of internet cash and even won Al Gore's endorsement.

He placed third with I think 17% to Gephardt's 11%. Edwards came in a strong second at 32% to John Kerry's 37%. Iowans can't be predicted very reliably.

[JackORoses]

61. that's some very convoluted reasoning regarding SC

Obama leads yet somehow doesn't? Try that explanation again.

[jenmito]

12. As long as Obama beats Hillary, Edwards' position is irrelevant.

If Edwards DOESN'T win, it should be the end of him and his support should largely go to Obama. Hillary would rather lose to Edwards (who's been campaigning there for years) than to Obama (who has not, and who has as much money as she does to compete all over, and it will show everyone he can beat the Clinton "machine.")

[Fried Bread]

16. Probably right.

In the end, Obama just has to stay ahead of Hillary.

[robinlynne]

13. I think the opposite is true. Edwards has a better chance than Obama of winning

the general election. Edwards is the ideal Dem nominee. He is the only Dem who will win the general by a landslide. More and more people are going towards Edwards from Kucinich supporters, to Obama and Hillary supporters. None of us want Hillary as the nominee. (a small percentage of people here do, but I'll ignore that for the sake of ease.) All of the other candidates are good candidadates, but the ONE who is in a position to carry votes from every side is Edwards.

[cali]

20. polls a year out don't mean anything much even if they favor your

candidate. I actually see Edwards as no more competitive than Clinton, due to his spending limits and vulnerabilities, and perhaps less electable than Obama. Money counts. Obama has it. Edwards doesn't- and won't.

[Andy823]

47. No it's not the money

That counts, it's the person! The "people" will decide on who gets the nomination, not the "money". That's the big problem we have now, big money elects the nominees, and that's why we are in such sad shape in this country. Do we want a candidate that will be "owing" their backers when they get into office, or do we want a candidate that will be owing nothing to the big money boys, but will be working for the "PEOPLE"?

Don't know about you, but I am on the side of the "PEOPLE", not the big money! :evilgrin:

[jenmito]

49. Then why did your candidate choose NOT to take public funding until he

realized he was unable to raise as much as Obama and Hillary? He obviously only "chose" to take matching funds for "moral reasons" when he couldn't compete with the others. And the kicker is he "challenged" Obama and Hillary to ALSO take matching funds. What a PHONY. I can't believe people buy what he's selling. :eyes:

[elizm]

14. Edwards is only competitive in Iowa...

He is so far behind in the other early primary states that even a win in Iowa will not be enough to make him competitive with Hillary. Anyone wishing otherwise is pure wishful thinking. Edwards won SC in 2004 and this is his birth/home state....and it's not even close. Wish I could prove you wrong but alas, I believe you are right.

[ccpup]

23. my thoughts exactly

a win for Edwards in Iowa will be devastating for Obama's "momentum". Still struggling within the margin of error in the other early States -- and lagging behind in double digits in many of the larger Super Tuesday States --, an Iowa loss would be harder to recover from than it would for Hillary.

A win for Edwards would mean more Press, but wouldn't -- in light of Hillary's financial advantage, on-the-ground operations in the early States and double digit leads in the larger Super Tuesday States -- necessarily translate into enough donor money coming in to really make a huge difference or get him the needed troops on the ground to adequately make up the deficit -- financially and troops-wise -- he has with Hillary.

With Obama and Edwards now going at it, Hillary's got her nose to the grindstone, is out there answering (and asking) questions, pounding the pavement and changing minds one-by-one. Although I don't believe she'll win Iowa -- I'd be shocked if she did! --, I still think she'll get NH and SC and maybe NM and NV as well as enough of the Big February 5th States to lock in the necessary number of delegates for the Nomination.

And Obama will still be a force in American Politics for years to come, but I suspect many believe it's too early in his National Career to be President.

Just my opinion, of course.

[Fried Bread]

29. Spot on IMO

You summarized my concerns more eloquently than I could.

[jenmito]

50. Your theory leaves out a very important factor...

Edwards has been campaigning in Iowa for years. Obama coming in 2nd to HIM but beating HILLARY will be devastating to HILLARY as it will show she's not inevitable and Obama will have the momentum (by beating the Clinton machine) and money to sweep NH, SC, and on and on.

Obama's time is NOW. He can't come back years from now and still be the fresh change we need. Hillary's the past (and she's running on that). Obama's the future NOW. If he beats her in Iowa, regardless of Edwards' position, Obama becomes the force to be reckoned with.

[Fried Bread]

51. Agreed, although it becomes a game of margins.

I.e., how badly he defeats her etc.

[creeksneakers2]

54. I agree too

Great analysis.

[saracat]

17. An Edwards win does Not mean a Hillary nomination. For one thing the Party

will be forced to acknowledge the power of the people that they have too Long shunned. It will propel Edwards into a much better position in the other states and position him for the nomination. What an Edwards win will do is force Hill into 3rd place at best and will force a race between two fundamentally decent candidates.Funding is NOT the issue that Hill wants to make it. Edwards does have the money to compete as he has been very smart in how he spent it. Much more will flood in after an Iowa win.And , like it or mot the 527s ,and the unions will step up.As we speak. Edwards is setting up infrastructure in other states.His team is confident. Do mot buy into the fear tactics.Team Hillary does NOT want an Iowa win.If they thought it was a good thing they would not have doubled their offices or have bothered to have people slime both her major opponents

[aquart]

22. Trying desperately to get more Obama votes?

[Name removed]

26. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[saltpoint]

30. The arithmetic is not aligned toward it, but one scenario for Iowa might

have New Hampshire polling as the frame of reference.

In this scenario, the other 7 candidates, and 3 or 4 in particular, press hard in NH and Sen. Clinton's current strong polling there slips away beginning now, this weekend, and going forward all next week, and her own private polling for the campaign shows her a decided third behind say, Obama and Edwards, with Richardson, possibly, closing in to compete for that third slot, and within margin of error to do so.

With the possibility of placing 3rd of 4th in New Hampshire, and Iowa a toss-up going into New Year's weekend, you'd have a scenario with Sen. Clinton finishing no better than 3rd in Iowa and no better than 3rd in New Hampshire.

That is not going to help her campaign. Not arguing that this is a probability, much less a certainty, but saying only that it could happen if the fluctuation in polling we've seen this fall continues and accelerates in the next 12 days.

Obama and Edwards, and likely Richardson and Biden are the beneficiaries in this scenario.

And Michael Bloomberg.

[mtnsnake]

That is about the most absurd reasoning anyone could ever come up

that an Edwards victory in Iowa all but guarantees a Hillary victory. And to think you were busting on me just a short while ago for my McClurkin commments, re: Obama.

What planet do you live on?

[Name removed]

34. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Fried Bread]

35. Excuse me?

I have every right as you to post here. I am a fan of both politicians, and my cocerns are real. Get over yourself.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

37. .

[mtnsnake]

36. You nailed it

What is not his or her right is to be a concern troll, pretending to be torn between Edwarda and Obama as a half-assed psy-op against DUers.

Excellent :thumbsup:

[mtnsnake]

32. self delete, dupe

[PATRICK]

33. By this logic

We can't vote for DK because he can't win. Can't vote for Edwards because he will only hurt Obama. And soon we will be asked not to vote for Obama because the fragile Hillary campaign will be damaged so badly(quite quite possible) they will less able to win 2008. The last abominable pill will be to pressure Obama to "stay positive" and be polite, and lose quickly.

Anyone interested in hope will stick with DK, keep backing Edwards, stay on course with Obama and try to bury all the opposition fast with Hillary.

I submit that the it is the Hillary people who have put us into this cycle dominated fear and despair. We won't have any other candidate so long as THAT attitude predominates. As long as we can't focus united on ONE god candidate with will have to take the scary plunge and let candidates show themselves worthy or succumb to the media stacked deck which will plague us for years to come.

Don't underestimate the power of the voters once it begins exerting itself according to the candidate and not the hype and media contest strategy. At this stage Bill Clinton himself was in far worse shape right up to the inevitability of the VOTER in the new York primary. It was discounted by the media and tough then, it is tough now. If the inevitability of the voter choice takes hold, as it swiftly did with Kerry it will be immensely more strong for the qualities of an Edwards- as it would be for Obama should he prevail.

The the party pros could be left with a choice they never had. Whether to let the machine pack leader trod on with ugly establishment advantage or start turning those tables around too for the coattails man. RFK who was hated in his own way by many in the machine backing HHH(for all the political hatchet work and stepped on toes and anti-war position) could only hope to win by that turnaround. Nothing in the primaries then could possibly give him enough votes even for a brokered convention(which is less a hope now). When the people turn this time, it should be stronger than then and the consequences with all the exposed election fraud, much more obvious to career pols everywhere in the party. Hillary as HHH(with tons less charisma and liberal credentials), trodding heavily in establishment compromises is more ripe for such a fall.

That is how and it never got to happen in the example I quoted. But RFK definitely thought it would, with more than just idealistic hope, I can tell you that. In California he had just swept aside Eugene McCarthy in one debate. The clash of liberal titans was set which no money or political IOU's was going to predetermine. That clash would have been decided by the passion of the voters.

The passion which is is verified by the simple calculation of looking all around at one's neighbors and noting WE have the power. We are the change.

[iamjoy]

38. Convince Me An Obama Victory in Iowa means anything besides a Hillary nomination...

same could be said.
Obama could downplay not winning Iowa, provided he does better than Hillary. I mean, he's the "kid who came out of nowhere" anyway.

But Hillary is the presumptive front runner nationally, she's the one with the highest expectations.
Next on the expectations is Edwards who has practically lived in Iowa for the last three years. Already too many pundits are saying if he doesn't win Iowa, he's out of the race. And with him out, people uptight about Obama's supposed "lack of experience" are going to turn to Hillary.

What sucks is the media focuses on Iowa like no other state should even bother with its nomination. That's terribly unfair to the rest of us, in my opinion.

[TeamJordan23]

53. Well Obama is at least competitive in NH and SC. nm

[Sarah Ibarruri]

39. Okay I'm confused....

If Edwards wins in Iowa, how does that make Sen. Clinton more powerful?

[Lucinda]

42. The assumption is that Obama is in better shape to take her on nationally

If Edwards takes Iowa, Obama presumably becomes less viable, depending on what happens in NH and SC

[Sarah Ibarruri]

48. Wow I had no idea Obama was in better shape to take her on nationally....

I think that once Edwards gets out there and the common man realizes what he stands for, both Sen. Clinton and Obama will take the back seat.

[Lucinda]

52. Obama polls much better than JE and has lots of money. I have no doubt

that Edwards can overcome that if he wins Iowa and does well in NH and SC, but as it stands now, Obama is said to be in better shape nationally.

[creeksneakers2]

55. The latest national poll has it

Hillary 49% / Obama 20% / Edwards 10%

That's more of a spread than other polls but it illustrates the incredible amount of ground Edwards would need to make up. He'd have to do it against candidates who have high percentages of supporters committed and certain who they'll vote for. Edwards would have to do it all in a month too.

The common man isn't necessarily uninformed. Many just judge the candidates by different criteria than Edwards fans do.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

56. How much time is left?

Does Edwards have time to get the message out to the ordinary people out there who are never offered anything by candidates? I mean, he's the candidate for the lower and middle class. All they have to do is find out about it.

[balantz]

40. It may be more the other way around.

I see Edwards ripping through Clinton like cheesecloth, then tearing a new asshole in the Repubs. I don't see Obama being able to do this as well as Edwards. I'm sure that Obama is a good guy, has good intentions and policy plans, but I find it hard picturing him surviving very well up against first Clinton, then the bastards on the other side in the General.

[Fried Bread]

41. just a week away

The race is wide open, on both sides.

[OzarkDem]

43. Edwards has already been on the national ticket

He can carry his own race. His challenge is that the news media is trying to choose the Dem candidate, as they've done for the last couple of races. Bill Clinton overcame it, Edwards can too.

[Armstead]

44. If Edwards wins in Iowa he gains momentum

If he successfully builds on that momentum, he can win the nomination.

Likewise for Obama.

If either or both of them continue to mount credible challenges to Hillary, the winner becomes the nominee.

[Inspired]

45. An Edwards win in Iowa is an Edwards win. Good grief.

[Fried Bread]

46. Let's not analyze it or anything.

:eyes:

[Stop Cornyn]

57. The best Iowa scenario for those who dislike Hillary is for Hillary to finish third or worse. The

best way to achieve this is for Obama supporters and Edwards to support their candidate and -- where feasible -- to cooperate with one another.

[Fried Bread]

59. I think I've come to this agreement.

Obama can still survive if he doesn't win Iowa, as long as he places ahead of Hillary.

[mmonk]

58. Edwards has a lot of volunteers. Thought I would point that out.

[TeamJordan23]

62. What place was Kerry running in New Hampshire pre-Iowa caucus?

I thought he was running strong in NH and thus he did not need as big of a boost to win NH post-Iowa victory.

[Fried Bread]

63. That's right.