Wouldn't a 2nd place finish by Hillary be disastrous? (unbiased)

[LittleBlue]

First, I am an Obama fan. I want to look at this possibility without bias.

All these political people talk about a complete disaster if she takes 3rd. Destroys inevitability and all. What if she takes 2nd?

If Obama were to take first, and Edwards 3rd, then wouldn't Edwards be tempted to throw his supporters behind Obama in exchange for VP? Most Edwards folks admit it's Iowa or nothing, considering the effort he put out there. NH doesn't look good for him, and he won't win NH if he comes in 2nd in Iowa. If I were Edwards, this is what I would do.

Someone poke holes in this.

[KennedyGuy]

1. I don't think even 3rd would be disasterous..

This is just the first step..
now if she were to die oun in NH..I think that would be more signifigant..

[Tom Rinaldo]

37. 4th place would be disasterous for Hillary, 3rd would make it a real fight

A strong finish in the earliest contest(s) is essential for a candidate without deep pockets and strong organizations in subsequent primary states. Obama has to shine in one or more of the first few contests because he has consistently lagged in national polls. If Hillary bests him at the front end I doubt he can recover because of that. But Hillary can survive close losses to Obama in early contests - though her ability to win the nomination would then be cast in doubt. Voters really do differ in different regions of the country, that's why the types of Democrats who tend to get elected (if they get elected at all) vary so much from state to state. Even John Kerry came in third in Oklahoma long after his 2004 steam roller picked up steam.

Edwards has the most riding on Iowa because he is not strong anywhere else currently. I doubt Edwards could survive a third place finish in Iowa and less than a very close second would be dangerous for him. Obama has a little more cushion than Edwards and Clinton has a little more than Obama. Even if Clinton came in third in Iowa and second in New Hampshire, she has enough funding and campaign depth that she would have a chance to retool her campaign and possibly come back. Obama could possibly survive two second place finishs if Edwards subsequently collapsed and Obama picked up most of the support Edwards had.

[karynnj]

57. The Kerry OK finish was not the same as either NH or IA

It is one of the reddest states in the union. Kerry had already won IA, NH, and on the same day as OK, won DE, AZ, NM, ND and MO. He lost SC and OK. So at that point he had won 7 out of 9 states. In addition he was 2nd in SC and OK where he was third, the Clark and Edwards were at 30% and he at 27%.

Given that who other than Kerry could have been called the front runner? Clark who beat him by 3% there and lost to him in 8 states or Edwards who beat him by 3% there and lost to him in 7 states?

Here the conjecture in HRC coming in third in IA. She could very well survive it. The next state is NH where she and Obama are said to have the strongest teams. Assuming Obama was one of the 2 who beat her, he should have a boast and he is already polling better than her in some polls. The other factor is that he has Governor Patrick's endorsement. A strong finish in IA could increase the enthusiasm and send many MA people across the border - as they did for Kerry. This might lead to an Obama - first, HRC second finish here. (even if Edwards wins IA with Obama second this might be the most likely outcome) The problem for HRC is she then would have lost the inevitability factor for good. Winning NH and having beat HRC in Iowa would likely make Obama the favorite in SC.

There is one other factor. Though people once said the Clinton's fought best when they had their backs to the wall, it really looks like they have a very high error rate under pressure.

All this said, I doubt she will come in third.

[Tom Rinaldo]

59. My point about OK in 2004 was only about how various states differ

Even though Kerry was at that point already the strong national favorite for the nomination results could and did still vary from state to state. In this case I am making an assumption that even were Obama to win Iowa and NH with Clinton coming in second in NH that he would not automatically be an overwhelming favorite unless he totally blew out Hillary in the early contests.

[karynnj]

63. My point being that polls before Iowa are often very soft

It also will dictate the story - Obama = victory celebrations. glowing, happy filled with excitement

Hillary = concessions, and questions of what went wrong.

I agree that HRC could still win. Who knows (under the conjectured situation) what Obama could be hit with in January or what HRC could do to get the compensating good press needed.

(My point on Kerry was that OK was NEVER an issue as the story was that he won 5 out of 7 contests that night - though all were southern, southwestern or rural, not easy or neighboring states.)

[William769]

43. You are correct.

1st, 2nd, or 3rd. Hillary still wins, but depending on where she places will tell what she has to do in NH.

[rinsd]

2. 2nd place would be fine for Hillary.

Edwards would have to finish 4th to consider dropping out before NH.

And even if he came in 3rd in both NH & IA, I think he would hold on for SC.

Also Edwards may not be the complimentary VP choice that Obama may need in the general.

[JDPriestly]

3. Edwards has shown the ability to gain momentum just

days before an election. It won't make much difference.

I saw Edwards and Clinton last night. Edwards was full of fire, a ball of energy.

Clinton looked exhausted. She was pale. Her face was drained. She seemed disappointed. It's as if she knows that she is not going to perform as well as she hyped early in the campaign. We shall see.

This is a volatile contest. It is fascinating because the volatility is due to the high quality of all of the candidates.

[salin]

6. in 2004, I thought folks around here were nuts - when i the last days

before the Iowa caucus started to claim that Edwards was going to do well and in doing so get ready to knock Dean out of the race. But they weren't crazy - and he walked out strong.

[Sulawesi]

4. She is alive and well unless she loses NH too, then SC would fall.

But I see your logic...If she comes in 3rd it damages her, but since damage to Edwards helps Obama with the non-Clinton vote, her 2nd place finish would have its own effect. All this supposes Obama comes in 1st of course. He seems to have the most to lose, and gain, today.

[LittleBlue]

7. Thanks for reading it

Under this scenario

If I were Obama, I'd accept the deal. If I were Edwards, I'd offer the deal. I don't see political life for Edwards after not winning Iowa, or Obama for that matter. It would seem to be the sensible thing to do. I really don't see either Edwards or Obama joining Hillary after the vitriol we've seen.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

5. She Has A Twenty Point Lead Nationwide

I know there are no national primaries but Obama has to move those national numbers because the race won't be decided until most of the nation gets to vote...

IMHO, this election will be decided on 2/5 when more than half the delegates will be chosen...

[LittleBlue]

9. That 20 point lead will evaporate once the media is through

I guarantee 24/7 loser status on all networks if she doesn't win Iowa or NH. That will seriously drag on her. It's hard to overcome the barrage of "failure failure loser" etc the media will hit watchers/readers with.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

19. George Bush Lost New Hampshire By Twenty One Points In 00 And Got The Nomination

Gephardt finished third in IA and got the nomination....

Reagan lost IA in 80 and got the nomination...

I can come up with a lot more examples of candidates losing Iowa and winning their party's nomination if you like...

If you think Hillary Clinton is going to fold up her tent and cry because she lost a caucus you haven't been paying attention over the last thirty years...

[Sulawesi]

24. Bush had SC as his firewall and he had to napalm McCain to keep that.

Hillary's firewall is NH...it is nearly tied in SC. If she loses NH, and people start to believe he can win, especially African Americans, he will win it...

If Hill wins NH, then she is still the favorite, even if she loses SC.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

33. What Was Reagan's , Bush Pere's, Bush's , Dukakis' Dole's ,Reagan's Firwewall

They all lost IA or NH on their way to the nomination...

[Sulawesi]

36. My point is that the underdog must win both, and the favorite can't lose both.

As I've said repeatedly, Hill must lose both to be in trouble, Obama must win both to overcome her lead. To see IA or NH is irrelevant misses the point.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

41. I'd Be A Fool To Say She Wouldn't Be In Trouble

I'm just saying this race won't be decided until February...

[michaelwb]

48. Do you mean

"Gephardt finished third in IA and got the nomination...."

I think you mean in 1988 where Dukakis came in third in Iowa and became the nominee, while Gephardt came in first and didn't get the nomination.

[Kokonoe]

54. But, Brian Williams has not spoken yet.

[karynnj]

58. How fast did Dean's large nationwide lead fade after Iowa?

I agree that HRC has the money to stay in and fight even if she is no better than second in IA, NH, and SC. 2004, where the frontrunner never changed from the IA caucus on is atypical. The shift in who had momentum was the plot line in every one of the Teddy White Making of the President books.

The only thing that make it dicey was the decision to front load all those states on February 5. Under the assumptions - which have not yet happened - Obama could have had 3 big victory speeches and all the excitement they engender. HRC, as the widely viewed front runner for the last 3 years (Carville et al hoped a brokered convention would turn to HRC as a savior in 2004), would have to answer questions on "what went wrong?" and "what can you do to regain the lead?" Bill cica 1992 could handle that in an upbeat way. I can't see either able to do it now.

[MADem]

8. No. Look at the history of the Iowa caucuses. The last time a Clinton

appeared before them for the first time, he only got THREE percent.

Because IA is so close to NH, there's not a big long period of "mulling over" that will take place. I really think the deals will be done on Super Tuesday this time around....we know that's Bill Richardson's hope, anyway!

[Dawgs]

20. Bill was a fresh face then; not the same as Hillary now.

I do agree with your second point.

[Tejanocrat]

10. A second place finish by Hillary would only be disasterous to the third place finisher.

[Renew Deal]

13. Concise

Well said.

[suston96]

11. You want no bias? OK.

Since we don't or can't follow the trail of the caucus "voting" in Iowa, the results are meaningless to any democratic electoral scheme.

Shame on the two political parties for allowing such a flimsy media driven beginning to an important nominating process.

[LittleBlue]

16. Agreed. But the "Dean Scream" will be nothing compared to

the lambasting Hillary will receive if she doesn't win Iowa or NH.

BTW, I support Obama and hope the youth vote turns out, but am not relying on them. I don't think he will win, at least by the margins the polls show.

[Sulawesi]

26. I too worry about the unreliable youth vote...

[suston96]

28. I have been a poll watcher for years....

With every Iowa poll I have watched I have glanced over at New Hampshire and South Carolina.....and the rest of the national polls.

The fluctuations in Iowa this time and the Obama and Edwards "surge" there, have affected South Carolina, but not, repeat NOT the national polls.

In fact, New Hampshirites seem to have been miffed at the suggestion that they shadow Iowa and will do what Iowa does.

I think I'll watch Chris Matthews and see what he has to say about Hillary. I always follow his lead.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

31. How Can Losing A Caucus Be Compared To Being Portrayed As A Lunatic

I'm not suggesting the honarable governor was a lunatic but that's how the media portrayed him and Dean didn't have the institutional support Hillary has...

[suston96]

45. Have some fun with numbers - primary polls in 2004

http://www.usaelectionpolls.com/2004/

[Renew Deal]

12. 2nd place would be a mixed bag for Hillary.

It would be a catagory 3 storm. 3rd place would be a cat 5. Edwards needs to win, or he's realistically finished. He's not favored or even doing well anywhere else.

[chascarrillo]

14. Not at all.

Hillary is still very strong nationally and in other early primary states (esp. Nevada, Michigan, and Florida - even if the last two don't count delegatewise
I think that Edwards has the most to lose by not winning. I'm guessing that he needs a clear first in order to boost his numbers over the next few weeks. I don't think second will cut it. Third for him would, imo, be disastrous.

[Dawgs]

23. I think your 'disastrous for Edwards' point is why second for Hillary is not good at all.

Edwards and Obama are somewhat splitting the anti-Hillary vote right now. If one of the becomes non-viable, it will give a big boost to the other one. Obama first, Hillary second, and Edwards third will give Obama a huge boost everywhere else.

[ronnykmarshall]

27. I just heard something interesting on Thom Hartman

I lady called in and said that third place for Hillary would be the BEST for her. My first thought was :wtf: ... but what she said has a lot of merit. For months we've heard that (and I've never bought it) that Hillary was inevitable, finishing third would take and that away and set her up to be the "comeback kid" of 2008.

Not my words, save your flames for tonight.

[Sulawesi]

30. Yes, NH is everything for her...no comeback kid if she loses it.

and she can even lose NH if somehow she wins in IA.

[ronnykmarshall]

38. Maybe ..

But I am keeping my eyes open for the next few weeks.

I'll be voting absentee in California because we are in the middle of moving and can't re-reg in time for the primary. Normally I would just fill out my ballot as soon as I get it. But (and I hate to think this) if Hillary looks to be out, I'll vote for Edwards.

It really all depends what happens in the next few weeks.

[IntravenousDemilo]

15. It's early.

And I say this as an impartial Canadian. A week is an eternity in politics.

[question everything]

17. In the past 32 years, only two non incumbent Iowa winners

won in the general elections: Jimmy Carter in 1976 and Junior in 2000.

So I would say that finishing 2nd or 3rd or 4th is not a death knell for anyone.

This is why all of them need to stay through "Super Duper Tuesday" Feb. 5th.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

25. Jimmy Carter Ran Second To Uncommitted In 76

~

[question everything]

47. Thanks. Was not aware of this

Why, then, do so many bring Jimmy Carter as an example of the importance of Iowa?

[Sulawesi]

32. The importance of IA this year is not IA, it is the effect it has on NH and SC...

[onenote]

44. why focus on the winner of the General Election?

Wouldn't it make more sense to focus on the winner of the Democratic nomination?

In the past 32 years the Iowa caucus has been held eight times. Six of those times there was no incumbent president running for reelection. Three of those six times, the winner of the caucus was the eventual party nominee, on one occasion, uncommitted led the field, but the leading vote getter among actual candidates was the eventual nominee. Once the winner was a "favorite son" candidate (Tom Harkin), with the eventual nominee finishing a distant third. And once the eventual nominee finished a relatively distant third (Dukakis).

All that being said, I agree that finishing 2nd or 34d isn't a death knell for any of the candidates (but fourth place could be, depending on how far back they are and what their prospects are for NH and South Carolina)

[OHdem10]

18. Keep in Mind--Not many people who won the Iowa Caucus

have gone on to be Nominee nor President.

All a loss does for HRC in Iowa does is slow her down a little
bit.

Actually all it does to erode the cloak of inevitablity .
The Odds still favor and most people believe she will
be the nominee.

All Iowa does is give someone some momentum. It is not that
impactful on who becomes the nominee.

Sure I want Edwards to win Iowa. This gives him momemtum to the
next race, the next state.

There is a good chance HRC will still pull it out. She has the staying
power.

[LittleBlue]

21. I think most are missing the point in the OP

This has less to do with Hillary's lost momentum, and more with what Edwards will do. If he should throw his support behind Obama, wouldn't that be disastrous for Hillary?

[Dawgs]

29. I got it because I've been thinking the same thing.

Edwards third will give those anti-Hillary votes to Obama in the later states - even if Hillary is first and Obama second.

[Sulawesi]

35. Here is a scenario where Obama wins...

a win in IA causes a surge in NH, he wins. He wins in SC where the increasingly enthusiastic Af. Amer. vote gives him a boost...good state for him anyway. At this point, Edwards has been shrinking and the thing snowballs out of Hillary's control.

Almost any other scenario has Hillary winning.

[ronnykmarshall]

39. If that's the case ...

You'll see a big chunk of Hillary voters switching to Edwards prior to Feb 5th.

[LittleBlue]

52. Thanks to you all who kept this on topic

:hi:

I didn't make this thread to bash or promote anyone. I just felt there was an inordinate amount of time given to the "Hillary is 3rd" scenario while overlooking a (IMHO) realistic 2nd place scenario.

I don't know who will win, but best luck to you all.

[ronnykmarshall]

53. You're very welcome

one of the few threads that isn't a sandbox fight.

[Dawgs]

56. Uh, Edwards will be out of it by then.

[Sulawesi]

60. Interesting, I guess I was assuming Edwards dimished before HRC

[DemocratSinceBirth]

55. Why Should He Support Obama?

Obama has criticized his career choice (trial lawyer) and said he's illegally used 527s to fund his Iowa advertising...

[Double T]

22. Iowa is meaningless. When all voters can be directly involved in the primary.......

voting process, then there is legitimacy. The Iowa Caucus is like the US Congress and neither represent the ideas or will or candidates of ALL the people.

[ronnykmarshall]

34. Not really meaningless

it gets the candidates out on the ground and puts their teams to the test.

As far as the delegate count goes, yeah it's a drop in the bucket.

But the field work for the campaigns this is a big show of their abilities.

[Double T]

40. IMO the REAL TEST of the candidates begins next Tuesday in NH and..........

ends a month later on February 5th. Then the lightning round begins!!

[ronnykmarshall]

42. Feb 5th will be the end of the race.

I'm sorry to say to that for the states following ... HEY I'm from California I'm used to it!

[Double T]

46. February 6th 2008 will be an interesting day un DU! Lots of Super Duper Tuesday 'Hangovers'.

Currently 24 states are scheduled to hold caucuses or primary elections on Super Duper Tuesday. Blue denotes Democratic-only caucuses (3), Red denotes Republican-only state conventions (2), and Purple represents states holding elections for both parties (19).

[ronnykmarshall]

49. That's my birthday!

Hopefully I'll have something to cheer about.

[Beacool]

51. I hope so too!!!!

[Sulawesi]

62. Agreed, people gripe about IA and NH...

...but if NY or CA began the thing then the big money front runner would always win. I think the process prepares them for office as well...

[Beacool]

50. Regular folks are not concerned with IA & NH.

Plenty of presidents have lost both and still won the nomination. Case in point, Bill Clinton, he didn't even caucus in IA and came in second place in NH.

February 5th will be the deciding day that will give us our nominee. IA & NH? A distraction for the political junkies and the MSM, but the average voter couldn't care less about the results in either state.

[Capn Sunshine]

61. Hillary's finish today is not important

Really. She won't quit until the last.* Too much money and invested interest groups. Same with Obama. We have too much money to just give in if we don't do well in IA.

What WILL change is Hillary is going to kick some major ass in her organization if she finishes anywhere but first. Hillary, unlike her campaign, still listens to outside sources she respects.

She will begin retooling this weekend, guaran-damn -tee you.

* I estimate Feb. 8th.

[Milo_Bloom]

64. Define "disatrous"

If Clinton doesn't take first place, I think it is unlikely she will win the nomination in the primary season.

The fact that she ultimately had the most money, the highest name recognition, etc.. and didn't come in first would cause enough people to question her "electibility" and it would certainly cut her national lead WAAAAY down, but I don't think it would spell the end of her campaign. Even if Edwards dropped out and managed to get every single person who bought his snake oil to switch to Obama, that STILL wouldn't make up the difference between Obama and Clinton on a polling basis, as Edwards only registers 13% nationwide and that is WITH his high name recongnition.

Presuming Obama wins, he would likely pick up New Hampshire as well and South Carolina. Clinton would change focus to nationwide appeal on 2/5, where I am betting she would pick up a fair amount of delegates.

Obama's appeal would skyrocket, but not enough to put this thing away, as the anti-Obama people would re-double their attacks and Clinton would likely pick up support from Biden people, while Richardson seems more likely to throw his support to Obama.

In the end, if Clinton takes a close second in Iowa, I think that leads to no candidate having enough votes for the convention.

If Clinton takes third or worse in Iowa, she is probably done.