I'm with Minotaur. Edwards put all his eggs in the basket of Iowa, having been working the state hard since 2004, and came in 8 points in back of Obama. Per CNN, his own campaign insiders even said that if he couldn't crack the top two, he was unofficially done. So a distant second-place finish, by something like .2% over the third-place finisher, is somehow a boost?

Edwards didn't spend money like Obama and Clinton in Iowa because he hasn't raised money like Obama and Clinton. He won't be spending money in other states like Obama and Clinton will either. The difference is that what he's spent a shit-ton of time in Iowa, he's barely spent any time in those other states, and he's an afterthought in the polling there. He's running a very distant third in his home state -- if that's not troubling, I don't know what is.


Here's what John McIntyre of RealClearPolitics.com wrote coming into tonight:

January 03, 2008
What the Major Campaigns Need Tonight
By John McIntyre

Democrats

John Edwards

Edwards has to win Iowa. And he probably has to win by a decent amount, or else have Clinton come in third by a sizable amount. A second place finish and he will stick around, but with little money he will not have the opportunities to gain traction as the primary calendar speeds into more and more states.

Barack Obama

Obama has to beat Clinton. And given the current New Hampshire polls and Senator Clinton's 20+ national poll advantage, he in all likelihood has to win Iowa. The only way second place might work is if Clinton finishes a distant third. A third place finish tonight and the Obama campaign is almost certainly done.

Hillary Clinton

Clinton only has to avoid getting embarrassed. Because of her money, organization and huge lead nationally she can survive a loss, even a third place finish. Though a distant, humiliating third could very well be the beginning of the end.

****

If Obama wins Iowa, the Democratic race will probably come down to Clinton vs. Obama in New Hampshire. Both the Clinton and Obama campaigns are obviously well positioned to compete far past New Hampshire, but an Obama win in Iowa tonight, coupled with a win Tuesday would make him the clear front-runner. On the other hand, if Clinton -- who currently holds a 7-point lead in the latest RCP Average in New Hampshire -- is able to hold off Obama, the nomination contest will move on to Nevada, South Carolina and February 5 and Obama will in all likelihood have lost his window to halt the Clinton machine.

Watch as Hillary's New Hampshire "advantage" melts away, Gareth.

New Hampshire is Hillary's last stand. Obama has come into his own on the campaign trail. Obama has a consistent message...Hillary has nowhere left to run. Her message has been bullshit pandering from the beginning. Suddenly choosing to become the candidate of "change" after being the candidate of "experience" from the get-go will expose her as being more transparent and awful than ever.


New Hampshire may choose to "punish" Iowa...but in considering the intellectual leanings of that state's electorate, I sincerely doubt they will hand Hillary a victory. Regardless of the "intellectual" comment, however, NH is still a bit of a po-dunk state, even if it is East Coast.

I hope that's the case, as I support Obama, but I'm not certain about that. What plays in the midwest isn't necessarily what plays in the Northeast, and it's easy to underestimate the impact that Barack Obama the man had on the people with whom he communicated in Iowa.

I was out in Iowa in late September, and for shits and giggles, asked a ton of different people about who they planned to vote for and why. You'd be shocked how many people had formed their opinions of the candidates based on personal interaction with them. Iowa gets worked that way for a long time leading up to these primaries, and Iowans are very responsive to someone who they deem is kind, honest, and dignified in those interactions.

I don't think that plays quite the same way in New Hampshire, and it certainly doesn't play out the same way, with much less time spent on the ground. I don't think it plays into Obama's strengths, and he might have to be carried purely by the momentum of this victory in order to erase that deficit in New Hampshire.

Again, I hope you're right, but I'm skeptical and maybe a little pessimistic about it. I do think Obama will take South Carolina in any event, and that could still mean something even if Hillary takes New Hampshire.

I would just like to say:
FUCK YEAH!
OBAMA!

Minotaur029 wrote:Hmmm...major malling marsupial.

The candidate that represents actual change gets shot...common tale.

not anymore. in america, we hire character assassins now.

I hope his security detail is tight as fuck.

I'm no "prophet of doom"...I think and type really fast (sometimes to my disadvantage).

i get what you're saying. i overstated perhaps (responding to just 2 words as i did).

Gareth Keenan wrote:
Hillary Clinton

Clinton only has to avoid getting embarrassed. Because of her money, organization and huge lead nationally she can survive a loss, even a third place finish. Though a distant, humiliating third could very well be the beginning of the end.

****

If Obama wins Iowa, the Democratic race will probably come down to Clinton vs. Obama in New Hampshire. Both the Clinton and Obama campaigns are obviously well positioned to compete far past New Hampshire, but an Obama win in Iowa tonight, coupled with a win Tuesday would make him the clear front-runner. On the other hand, if Clinton -- who currently holds a 7-point lead in the latest RCP Average in New Hampshire -- is able to hold off Obama, the nomination contest will move on to Nevada, South Carolina and February 5 and Obama will in all likelihood have lost his window to halt the Clinton machine.

It will be interesting to see how much the NH numbers move after tonight, and how Clinton and Obama play out the next few days in the media. The key to all of this is that Clinton is positioned well beyond NH even after a loss there. I always underestimate momentum in campaigns, and I'm going to do it again, because right now my gut says Clinton holds on.

major malling marsupial wrote:

Minotaur029 wrote:Hmmm...major malling marsupial.

The candidate that represents actual change gets shot...common tale.

not anymore. in america, we hire character assassins now.

I hope his security detail is tight as fuck.

I'm no "prophet of doom"...I think and type really fast (sometimes to my disadvantage).

i get what you're saying. i overstated perhaps (responding to just 2 words as i did).

When I was watching his (great) speech last night, I told my wife "I hope he wears a bulletproof vest everywhere he goes." I'd be wearing, like, a tank.

Not the first time I have thought that.

Have been a big fan since he was a state legislator talking about IL health care. Wondered then what his ceiling was. I think we may find out.

Edwards: toast. No money, no infrastructure, seems phony next to the Notorious B.OB, prototypical tweener candidate in this field.

Clinton: It seems very premature logically, but I am going to say she is done. Obama is masterful when he's in front, and he just became the first black person to win anything in IA bigger than a free scratch-off ticket. He will have to make at least one big mistake, or they will have to stick him with something--no one's made anything bad stick to him yet. I mean, really, they have to beat the shit out of him, and he's a hard guy to attack. It just inevitably looks bad on many different levels.

McCain: not bad at all for him in IA. He's an outspoken critic of ethanol subsidies and was therefore doomed there. He's set up real well if he wins NH.

Thompson: pretty good showing, but give me a break already.

Romney: the big loser on the night, even more than Clinton. I think the Democrats could beat him in a national election more readily than McCain, but I dislike him a great deal and hope he does not get the nomination.

Huckabee: DANGEROUS. Very personable, the most affable guy in the entire field by quite a ways. Funny. Naive and scary to me, but totally capable of winning. Like, winning the whole thing. Totally. If he can continue to charm the press, he could win the nomination and the presidency.

Huckabee: DANGEROUS. Very personable, the most affable guy in the entire field by quite a ways. Funny. Naive and scary to me, but totally capable of winning. Like, winning the whole thing. Totally. If he can continue to charm the press, he could win the nomination and the presidency.

He can get us one step closer to that theocracy we have been craving for so long.

tmidgett wrote:Huckabee: DANGEROUS. Very personable, the most affable guy in the entire field by quite a ways. Funny. Naive and scary to me, but totally capable of winning. Like, winning the whole thing. Totally. If he can continue to charm the press, he could win the nomination and the presidency.

I definitely agree with you about Huckabee's chops as a candidate, but it is very, very difficult to swim upstream against the Republican establishment. What helps him is that there's currently no obvious "establishment candidate," but once the field starts to narrow, one will emerge and it won't be Huckabee.

He would probably thrash Hillary Clinton one-on-one in a general election race though. He's the perfect antidote to everything people find personally unappealing about her -- colorless, soulless, entirely non-spontaneous, and the sort of person you wouldn't want to get to know any better personally.

You could attack him on his religion in a campaign, but that's no way to capture the center of the nation, and no way to capture the key swing voters in states like Ohio, Florida, and Pennsylvania. It's more likely to just blow up in your face.

tmidgett wrote:Clinton: It seems very premature logically, but I am going to say she is done. Obama is masterful when he's in front, and he just became the first black person to win anything in IA bigger than a free scratch-off ticket. He will have to make at least one big mistake, or they will have to stick him with something--no one's made anything bad stick to him yet. I mean, really, they have to beat the shit out of him, and he's a hard guy to attack. It just inevitably looks bad on many different levels.

I think Iowa is more progressive than for which you're giving it credit. Take the major population centers out of Illinois, Wisconsin, Minnesota, etc., and what are you left with? A state that features a population density and distribution not dissimilar to Iowa, but a clear red state politically.

Iowa is a swing state, very much in play the last two races, despite the lack of a significant urban center. That's very unusual nationally, and makes it more fertile ground for someone like Obama than it would appear on first blush. It shouldn't be all that shocking that he plays well there, especially given how the nature of campaigning there plays to his strengths.

Unfortunately, Edwards and Clinton were basically tied. There was something like less than a half percent difference between them. I still don't like Obama. I'm going to watch his speeches today, though.