Which if these Iowa scenarios is ultimately the worst for Hillary Clinton's campaign?

[skipos]

I think there are many people on DU who, like me, really don't want to see Hillary as our nominee. Because I would be happy with either Obama or Edwards, and don't think either one will doooooooom us in 2008, I think I can be objective about their chances of defeating Hillary if the Iowa caucuses finish in the following scenarios. For the sake of this poll, I am only talking about the frontrunners, and I am assuming the race will be close. You can skip to the poll if you like, or read my highly unprofessional analysis below.

FYI, this is all MY OPINION. Also, if you care, I am rooting for BIDEN.

1. Obama
2. Clinton
3. Edwards
This would probably be the most likely to keep Hillary from the nomination. Obama would get a boost in NH and SC, where he is currently tied with Hillary,and win them decisively. Edwards isn't currently as competitive in these states, doesn't have a lot of money to play with, and would lose a lot of his support. Most of Edwards support would go to Clinton because the everything indicates she usually last in terms of 2nd choice among the top tier. A loss by Clinton would be a pretty big deal given her massive organization in Iowa. I don't think anyone believes that it is a "miracle" that she is competitive there.

1. Obama
2. Edwards
3. Clinton
This is probably the 2nd worst thing for Clinton. Obama would win NH and SC, Edwards would get a bump in NH and SC but not enough to overcome his current large deficit to Obama. I don't see Edwards having any later states where he could mount a comeback, and eventually he would have to drop out do to lower funds than Obama and Hillary. If Obama has narrow victories, Hillary might be able to come back in the later states.

1. Edwards
2. Clinton
3. Obama
This has a much lower chance of keeping the nomination from Hillary. Edwards would get a boost in NH and SC, but I don't know if it would be enough to win either. He is currently polling in the teens there, with Obama and Hillary tied in the 30s. Obama would lose momentum in NH and SC, and Hillary would probably win them. Thus would start the Hillary comeback. I don't know if Edwards has the money to beat back Hillary, who has the $$$ and machine to stay in this race to the bitter end. Obama has enough money to stay in for awhile, thus splitting the non-Hillary vote with Edwards.

1. Edwards
2. Obama
3. Clinton
This would be a serious disappointment for Hillary, but keeps the three person race going on longer. The longer this race continues, the better it is for Hillary. The less a state is paying attention to the primaries, the more Hillary leads. Hillary's name recognition is going to keep her up in these states unless a clear alternative emerges. If this is what happens in IA, I still don't think Edwards can win NH or SC, meanwhile Obama and Hillary have the funds to keep going longer than Edwards.

[saracat]

1. I chose door four.Clinton needs to be completely repudiated and the electorate needs to see her

Murdoch ? Lobbyist money machine rejected.Only then can we elect a candidate that will truly represent the people.We have to send a message that this election can't be bought and only an Edwards victory with Clinton dead last does that! And you are wrong about edwards support in the other states and he is beginning to surge in NH and SC. There is a plan in place for Super Tues as well.!Edwards is bad news for Hillary. The Clinton Dynasty must be ended and it has to be stopped in Iowa!

[sandnsea]

2. Two can't be rationalized away

If Edwards wins, all they have to say is that he has practically lived there and it's no surprise. If Hillary comes in 3rd, that's a huge slap in the face that can't be easily explained away.

[maximusveritas]

7. Yes, definitely number 2

Of course, the margin of victory will be a big consideration, but that would really be a vote for anyone but Hillary. I don't think it'll happen, but it's clearly the worse case for her.

[tigereye]

8. to be fair, her husband didn't win the first time around in Iowa

the winner in Iowa isn't always the nominee....

[skipos]

9. That was different.

Iowa senator Harkin was running, so everyone else gave up on the state. If Illinois was the 1st state, I wouldn't expect a big win by Obama to mean much. I big win in Iowa will mean a lot.

I think MSM has helped make Iowa much more important than it used to me too.

[tigereye]

10. I think it's only more recently that Iowa has played this big a part -

just from looking at some of the previous elections. I think some of it is hype. 23 states will have their primary/caucuses on Feb 5th....

But your point is well taken.


I think it's cool how excited people are about this caucus, but I swear, how will the candidates manage to keep this up til November. It makes me tired just thinking about it!

[skipos]

11. The effect of Iowa in 2004 was pretty extreme

I don't expect it to be like that again. The MSM will probably claim that anything other than #1 for Clinton is a disappointment, and in reality, it probably is. How MUCH of a disappointment will remain to be seen.

[tigereye]

13. I personally don't think the MSM has that much power

but I seem to be in the minority....


I wish every state had these types of caucuses...

[ronnykmarshall]

3. Anyone.

The anti-Hillary gang will choke on the mouth foam.

[earthlover]

4. I agree with your analysis, assuming it is a relatively close race

However, the WORST scenario for Hillary would be Obama clearly winning, followed by Edwards considerably behind. Then Hillary fighting it out for 3/4 with someone else way behind Edwards.
This hurts Edwards, since Obama would beat him handily. yet hillary is humiliated too being alongside a 2nd tier candidate. If I were Obama, this would be the dream outcome.

[MrsT]

5. I agree that her greatest threat is Obama

I don't see how Edwards would be able to a win in Iowa and win other states. He is too far behind everywhere else. I don't want Edwards dropping out too early, so he can continue to split the votes with Obama. I would like to see 1. Clinton 2. Edwards 3. Obama but admit that an Obama 1st place showing would be pretty bad news.

[skipos]

6. I am surprised to see so many votes for #4.

Someone has to explain to me
1. how a continued three way race doesn't benefit Clinton
2. how Edwards can pull off victories in NH and SC, where he is currently @15% to Clinton and Obama's 30-35%

[comradebillyboy]

12. hey no fair using facts!

only wishful thinking allowed here.