If the Iowa vote tally is: 1) Edwards 2) Clinton 3) Obama, is Obama's campaign effectively over?

Can he bounce back from a 3rd place showing in Iowa? That's the question. I fully believe his top staff are focusing most, if not all, of their current efforts on Iowa, to ensure he doesn't place worse than 2nd in the caucus.

Is Edwards campaign over?

Or how about Kucinich, Gravel, Clinton?

:shrug:

Big media buy - expensive and no help with his poll numbers.

In that speech he was condemning the national legislative body (including members of the Democratic Party of which he used to be a member) and instructing them as to what they need to do - very authoritarian. If he wanted to give them an order he could have just written the 535 members of congress a letter - would have been a lot cheaper ($219.35). I don't think he increased his poll numbers in either the House or Senate and perhaps may have cost himself a vote or two from his former collegues as he joined the right wing in reminding voters that Congress/Dems can't get anything done.

Congress is our only hope, and Edwards is calling them on it.

His little speech was a tin-eared goof.

We definitely know where he stands. And there's something to be said for that.

No one is paying attention to him outside of Iowa. He didn't have that money to burn.

It got his name on TV for a day or so.

Polls as recently as yesterday.

in the Senate, he can't talk about what needs to be done? Plus, he's running for PRESIDENT, do you expect him to stay quite? How about Richardson and Gravel - are they not allowed to speak out against the most pressing issue facing this country?

We get it, you don't like the guy and your talking points stink of RW smear.

She is in the 30's now. She peaked too soon.

we've got too much money.

Iowa isn't a vote anyway, it's a caucus.

If it is essentially a three way tie, all three are alive, though I would think Edwards would be disappointed with a showing like that...

If Edwards smokes both Hillary and Obama, Obama is on life support, Hillary reeling, Edwards with big mo

If Edwards loses Iowa, even by a bit he is near dead...

If Edwards and Hillary are close with Obama back a ways, Obama in trouble, Edwards still alive, Hillary in ok shape...

Good answer.

:)

because they have the money to compete elsewhere. Obama in particular can point to the lack of any minorities in Iowa as a reason for not winning.
For Edwards and all the other candidates, they must come in 1st or it's over for them.

Simply because he is not really running as the minority candidate...

but it could certainly be suggested to the press early on as a way to dampen expectations

He can't let that happen because he will lose his legitimacy a mainstream candidate...

As soon as he goes down that road, people will, rightly or wrongly, throw him in with Jesse Jackson...

If the Iowa vote tally is: 1) Clinton, are all the other campaigns effectively over?

Yes, and so it shall be...most likely.

otherwise, if Edwards is in any other position, then it is Edwards' campaign that is over.

Obama's got dough......and that will make a difference, especially if Trippi doesn't get his hands on it.

give me a break. Another bullshit post.

eom

Third place might work for him there; depends on the totals.

Say -- I'm using your scenario -- that Edwards is first with 28 %, HClinton at 26%, and Obama at 25.5%.

That's a hell of a close finish and you're still looking at 3 very strong horses.

And then, who's 4th? What if Bill Richardson, say, comes in at 23% in that line-up, tied with Joe Biden?

Now, 5 strong horses are in top condition for the next round.

That would be pretty awesome, actually.

A third place finish in Iowa effectively killed Dean. A closer third place finish may not harm Obama to the same degree. Plus he will be a force in South Carolina.

I think Howard Dean did some long-term favors for the party that the media was way, way too stingy in acknowledging. They gloated at his "defeat" but I stand by him to this hour, seeing him as a great contributor.

Those numbers ain't comin' to 100%.

I think what you meant to say was what if the totals were something like:

23%
21,
20,
18,
17
--or some other similar spread.

I'm calling your 7th grade arithmetic teacher and she's going to rise from the grave and call your folks.

The American public will not feel comfortable making someone the leader of the free world who has as little experience as Sen. Obama has. His candidacy will be much more interesting the next time around.

Is in a 3 way race in Iowa and almost tied with Clinton in SC and hasn't even started to use his dough and it's all over for him?

If the Democrats were careless enough to make him the nominee, he wouldn't become president because he simply doesn't have enough experience. There's no getting around that. Americans would be reminded of that each and every day on television, and this time they wouldn't be lying. He really doesn't have enough experience. This is not a time in our history when America can afford to put a novice in the White House.

Thompson has no more elected experience than Obama. Rudy would argue he has more experience, but he's only been elected to a mayoral position (he was also a federal prosecutor).

I'm afraid that's not how the typical American voter approaches elections, or else Bush would never have been elected once, much less twice.

The effective candidate has to find that right combination of appealing to the intellect while winning the emotional tug of war, the latter being where Democrats are weakest in our current political landscape. Look to see the Republicans play the fear card, and Iraq is important enough on the minds of Americans to keep much of the attention of the presidential campaign focused on national security issues. Democrats can win that argument, but it has to be with the right candidate. I dare say that if the choice is between a Republican with little experience and a Democrat with little experience, the Republican wins. If it's between a Republican with little experience and a Democrat with a lot of experience, like Sen. Biden has to offer, the Democrat wins. That's at the heart of why I support Sen. Biden.

GW Bush and the Senators who voted for IWR conclusively proved that experience does
not means jack shit when it comes to "the free world"

And wtf is THAT? The "Free " world? compared to what?

Count on that.

Not only is it interesting, it's quite possible. Even though Edwards clobbered everyone in his birth state of SC last time (took it with 45%), Obama is doing quite well there now.

Remember, too: it's all a lot sooner than people realize.

I think Hillary wins the nomination under your scenario, assuming she places 2nd in Iowa and SC.

Hillary comes 2nd in Iowa, then wins NH, the story is "Hillary's Rising" and she probably wins.

If Obama comes 3rd in Iowa, but then somehow wins NH, he stops either of the two scenarios above, and it's a 3-way race.

Under THAT premise, then, such a placing would effectively end Obama's campaign (if, like you say, he would need to win NH).

Obama could place anywhere in the top three in either of those states and still go on to win.

followed by a 1st place finish in NH, I think she is nearly unstoppable.

If Edwards wins both Iowa and NH, he becomes almost unstoppable.

Edmund G. "Jerry" Brown Jr., former governor of California and candidate for the 1976 and 1980 nominations
William J. Clinton, governor of Arkansas (nominee)
Thomas R. Harkin, U.S. senator from Iowa
J. Robert Kerrey, U.S. senator from Nebraska
Eugene McCarthy, former U.S. senator from Minnesota and candidate for the 1968 and 1972 nominations, as well as an independent run for the presidency in 1976
Paul E. Tsongas, former U.S. senator from Massachusetts
L. Douglas Wilder, governor of Virginia

Tom Harkin was running that year, and most other candidates, clinton included, chose not even to compete in the state. Which was why those placings were so surprising.

I think Iowa is only make or break for Edwards. If he doesn't win a convincing victory there, it's all over for him.

hasn't even spent yet

your numerous threads bashing dems and linking to drudge report are just grrrrrreat.

That marginalized Iowa's effect significantly.

there are so many primaries up front now, I don't see Iowa being the end of anyone's campaign this year.

TC

He get 20% in a state that is only 2% African Ammrican he can continue.,. no problem.


He comes in second and He is the big news coming out of Iowa and hading for New Hampshire.

He should win SOuth Carolina and do well in Florida just ahead of Tsanami Tuesday.


If Edwards falls to third in Iowa I think It is Obama's to lose because there will be a modest worry about Hillary's electability going in to NH and that might be enough to make NH a push.

I saw three Obama stickers today in the Walmart parking lot. No 'W' stickers and no stickers for any other Dem. Lots of 'support the troops' yellow ribbon magnet thingies.

I wouldn't count anybody out until after what must now be Ginormous Tuesday (it used to be Super Tuesday, right??)

Though an Edwards win would be great news.

to knock out opponents. Obama can do the same. If Edwards comes in a distant 3rd he's in trouble.