Clark and his New Hampshire Only Strategy.

In the excitement and glare of our mutual Iowa moment, there are a few observations that I believe are called for regarding the wisdom, or lack of it, of Clark skipping Iowa, and the consequences for his campaign.

!) Clark did not make a tactical mistake in not competing in Iowa. The correct statement is that Clark was at a tactical disadvantage in not being able to adequately compete in both Iowa and NH due to his very late entry. Clark had a total of four months to assemble a staff, organize his campaign, introduce himself to voters, ramp up fund raising, develop solid position papers on many issues that elected officials already had their political aids help them prepare, and do retail campaigning in at least one of those two states. Clark played his hand extremely well. Obviously it would have been far preferable for him to run solid campaigns in both states. He couldn't. The campaign operation Clark now has could well have done so, but he did not have that capacity 3 months back.

2) Clark has gotten incredible attention for his campaign by moving up from 6% or so to 20% or so in NH. That shows in the National polling numbers also. The entire "Clark is a flavor of the month, he is an armature who will wilt under campaign pressure" line of attack has been rebutted and laid to rest. Now Clark is discussed as a very viable candidate whose positions actions, and prospects are taken seriously. Had he been mired in the middle of the pack in two states likely none of that would have happened, except perhaps for the prediction that he was a "flavor of the month".

3) By showing strong movement up in NH, Clark established that Dean was not the only Democrat capable of exciting voters. During that period all of the other campaigns were either stagnant or collapsing. With Gore's endorsement, Dean's bandwagon might have become unstoppable had no other candidate shown promise of being able to compete with Dean during those critical weeks. Clark's strategy enabled him to slow Dean's bandwagon when no one else was doing so. Clark helped both himself and the other candidates by doing so. He would rather have helped himself only, but you can't always get what you want. At least now there is still a race going on for Clark to potentially win.

4) The earlier projections and assessments about what Clark needed to accomplish in NH have changed with changing circumstances. Previously the question was, what must Clark achieve in NH that will position him to continue the fight against a relentlessly effective Howard Dean campaign that was wearing the aura of virtually preordained nominee? Either Kerry, Edwards, and/or Gephardt will "bloody" Dean in Iowa, or they won't. If they don't, they will lose luster for having failed to do so, and Clark will regain momentum because, not having competed in Iowa, Clark can not fail in that regard. If one or more of those men do hobble Dean, then the race we will subsequently be looking at is far different than the one everyone anticipated only a few weeks back. It would be unlikely to end in a quick knockout for anyone. Clark has the resources and national organization needed for a prolonged competition.

5) Assuming for the moment that Dean's momentum is slowed by Iowa's results, where does that leave Clark? What will he need to accomplish in NH, and how likely is it that he can? The most important thing to keep in mind is that Iowa for the most part becomes a foot note to history as soon as NH's results are in. Iowa is important because it helps set the stage for the contests that follow, but Iowa is small and somewhat quirky, and everyone knows it. A very small group of Democrats actually participate in Iowa's caucus. Momentum anyone achieves coming out of Iowa instantly dissipates, if that momentum is lost in New Hampshire. So lets say Edwards or Kerry has a strong showing in Iowa, the question then becomes, can they follow it up?

For Edwards it will be very hard for him to explain away coming in behind Clark in New Hampshire should that in fact happen. Even if Edwards moves up in New Hampshire, building off a good showing in Iowa, the fact is Edwards did not have to face Clark in Iowa, and everyone knows it. Should Clark beat Edwards in New Hampshire people will revisit the Iowa results and conclude that Edwards was pulling votes there that otherwise would have gone to Clark had Clark contested the state. Edwards needs to finish ahead of Clark in NH, if Clark prevents that Clark prevails in their contest. Should Kerry win in Iowa, that likely sets Kerry up to come in first or second in New Hampshire, pumping new energy into his campaign, but not inevitability. Kerry campaigned long and hard in his neighboring state. Unlike Edwards, Clark is not required to beat Kerry in order to remain highly viable. Clark however NEEDS to beat everyone other than Dean and Edwards to retain some, most, or all of his momentum heading into the following week's contests.

That in many ways brings us back to square one for Clark. He has to finish third or higher in New Hampshire. Second or higher would be great, but not necessary. Contests held during the following couple of weeks will include many that Clark is well positioned in, with Clark having ample resources available there to ratchet up his efforts. In closing, the last point that many are missing is:

6) Clark did NOT compete in Iowa, get it? That means some, certainly not all but some, of the surging support other candidates in Iowa are receiving at Dean's expense comes from voters who otherwise would have chosen Clark had Clark competed there also. That means those same men will now have to fight to keep those votes from reverting back to Clark in all the subsequent contests where Clark is in fact competing. The perceived popularity of all the candidates in Iowa to some extent is inflated, because they are not facing one of their leading opponents, Clark, in that contest.

We have not yet begun to fight.


P.S. I came very close to not starting this thread, and here is why. I will not have time today to respond to comments made to it. I wish I could, but I can't. Still, the content is timely so I decided to just put it out there.

I fully concur. When I first supported Wes Clark, I worried about his not competing in Iowa but quickly realized that he needed to work the streets daily in at least one of the retail politics early states -- given that NH is a primary and not a caucus, the decision to focus in NH made a lot of strategic sense.

I agree that Kerry and Edwards particularly benefited from Clark not campaigning in IA and I would think that Edwards will have a more difficult time carrying any IA momentum into NH. I will say though that Clark probably loses some NH votes to Edwards because of the momentum and that might be enough to affect his NH outcome via Kerry.

Heck, who knows? It's all pretty darn interesting.

considering the tactical disadvantage as you described it. I predict he will finish in second in NH, but I am not worried if he finishes third.

Nice post BTW.

Looking forward to Jan 27!

Clark has peaked a week ago and now slipping with the voters looking at Iowa and looking at Clark, pissed at Clark for skipping the debate, remembering *, and comparing Clark with the said incumbent, and looking at the frontrunners of Dean and Kerry, choosing between the two other than Clark.

See, Clark has what's called a "soft support" -- Dean has a LOT of hard support.

Hawkeye-X

A real quickie. Sure Clark has "slipped" a little, but your reasons are wrong, as well as your implications, in my opinion. Clark helped make other candidates viable again, that's part of what I covered in my opening post. Sure some of Clark's support came from people who liked other candidates, say Kerry or Edwards, but were afraid they would be wasting their vote by backing backing them. Some of those voters will now consider returning to their first love.

And almost all that the national media has covered for the last week is Iowa, and Clark isn't part of that coverage. For the preceding two weeks Clark only had to share NH with Lieberman, AND Iowa was NOT soaking up all the coverage, AND Clark looked like the only Democrat who had any chance of beating Dean. Given all that, I'm not surprised that his numbers have slipped a little this week. It is exactly that type of changing stuff that makes polling numbers bounce around in the first place. Bush brings a turkey to Iraq, and suddenly he is much more popular. Job numbers come in weak and people start fretting again. I was surprised that Clark's numbers ever got that high in the first place, to be perfectly honest.

Clark will finish in the top three in New Hampshire, beating some of those getting that Iowan spot light now, and the larger campaign will move on. Clark may well regain some of those "soft supporters" after the dust settles in NH, and some fall short of remaining viable. I don't think many of those votes will now turn to Dean if they hadn't already. Dean does have a lot of "hard support", but, more or less, he still only pulls in between 255 to 30% of Democratic voters. Dean has to grow those numbers, as would any of the candidates in this crowded field, in order to ultimately win the nomination. The big question for your man is, will "soft voters" of every Democratic stripe break toward or away from Dean?

Very interesting read, as always. This is such an exciting day. I keep thinking of our good Sodbusters out there fighting the good fight against all odds.

To the Clark Iowa Sodbusters!

:toast:

(sorry, I wasn't paying attention to which station) that Clark has the highest approval numbers of any candidate in NH even though he doesn't yet lead in the polls. This is a good sign, I think, and it is indicative of what will happen with a wider campaign. Some candidates don't "wear well," but Clark does...exceptionally.

When Clark suddenly took off in NH, a lot of people started rethinking the inevitability argument. What's odd, however, is that Clark has come out of the pre-voting phase of this election as the candidate with the best financial ability to compete with Dean (esp as we get close to Feb). So just as Clark found it difficult to play effectively in Iowa due to his late entry and lack of resources, so too will other candidates who still have no real campaign operation outside the earliest states, find it difficult come feb 3 and beyond. Even if they catch fire, they will have a hard time.

If the result of rethinking the inevitability had been a general consensus that Dean was the best guy, we wouldnt be seeing what we're seeing in Iowa and NH polling right now - but that may not matter in the end.

What I find interesting is that once Iowa became 'up for grabs' - it blew a disproportionate amount of all the other campaign warchests. In some sense, they have even less chance to compete with Dean now. Before, i felt that due to the shortened season, we'd see candidates stay in longer and coast on little cash for a surprise. Now i'm not so sure. Only a big win in Iowa by a non-Dean has the chance of providing the sort of financial resources to give that candidate a real opportunity to make it into march.

"So just as Clark found it difficult to play effectively in Iowa due to his late entry and lack of resources, so too will other candidates who still have no real campaign operation outside the earliest states, find it difficult come Feb 3 and beyond. Even if they catch fire, they will have a hard time."

That is another key observation that has usually been missed. Iowa has bled a number of candidates dry. Most will never be able to fully recoup. They all (not Dean obviously) have to hope that they win the fund raising lottery as a result of some powerful new momentum coming out of Iowa, and by necessity built on in New Hampshire, but time is very short. The overall Primary campaign is hitting the expensive stage, where mass media purchases are essential in many states. There are few tomorrows left to get it done in if the money isn't already in hand.

He needs to win big in NH and I think he will.

... while he's been campaigning in IA. Clark has gotten a "free ride" more or less in NH while the others duke it out in IA, so his good showing in NH may be a temporary phenomenon.

Are we to hold out sympathy because he failed to enter the race in a timely manner as the rest of the candidates? Even the ones who I consider really had no chance to win knew to enter in a timely manner.
I initially was for Clark when he entered the race but since had some serious misgivings about him and now my support and vote is primarily for Dean and am not even entertaining a second choice. I have put my bet down on my horse and will cheer for him until he wins or until he personally say he is out.

has been regularly and heavily campaigning in NH for over a year. I'd have to think that the voters there have been pretty well introduced to Gov Dean by now.

most people are just now tuning in. Clark has been benifitting from that because no one else has been concentrating there. Even Leiberman has been relatively low profile.

How do you think that raised expectations will effect the campaign?

A month ago 13-15% would have been a good showing.

Now, anything less than 18-20% would be disappointing.


As you move up the ladder the stakes get higher and the game gets tougher.

What's your opinion?

weren't high in either state initially. It was a smart decision tactically in that maybe he can finish well in NH before the states that may go for him come into play. If he didn't go this route, two single didget finishes or fourth or below finishes would have given him no momentum when the other states come into play.

Kerry and Edwards are both going to come out of Iowa with significant momentum; Kerry will use his military experience and gravitas to peel off the 'military/foreign-policy' worry warts, and Edwards will use his "Southerness" to peel away the worry warts who think we must to win at least part of the South.

Gen. Clark has spawned 2 immediate threats by ignoring Iowa.

but I don't think Kerry can carry the southern teer of states necessary for the Dem nomination. Edwards, if he does, won't even carry NC in a general election. But we'll see how things play out.

:)

But he didn't have the time to do the organization in Iowa. He has also raised tons of money, which means he can compete well once things go nationwide.

I think New Hampshire will be less definitive than we once thought.
Because several candidates will come out of Iowa with more support, it makes the entire thing more muddled, & will extend this race longer than many pundits predicted.

I agree with you. If not for Clark, Dean would have ridden the Gore endorsement to the nomination during those few critical weeks when Dean was trying to consolidate the establishment and special interests under him, preventing the current Dean slippage in Iowa and NH. The other candidates are viable again because of Clark.