Obama's spent $3.9 million on TV ads in Iowa, Clinton and Richardson have spent $2.2 million each,

"Sen. Barack Obama leads the pack spending $3.9 million on television spots and Sen. Hillary Clinton and Gov. Bill Richardson tied for second by spending $2.2 million."

Before this month, Edwards had spent only $23,000 for one ad in Iowa.

Starting this month, Edwards begins a $400,000 per week ad campaign in Iowa.

I'm curious to see how Edwards' strategy to delay his Iowa ad campaign to avoid peaking too early plays out.

for TV ad campaigns. Besides, they are a total waste of resources. They are supposed to educate us. What fools we are.

All his eggs in one Iowan basket, perhaps?

and that does not include federal matching funds.

Edwards is NOT having money problems. Edwards' decision to accept federal matching funds was ideological and strategic and not out of financial necessity.

He is in no trouble at all.

And those are total ad buys not just for Iowa.

Richardson and Obama have been running quite a few spots in NH.

Richardson is buying TV at the same rate as Hillary and not too far behind the rate at which Obama is buying TV and so clearly Edwards could be buying TV at the same rate as Richardson if Edwards wanted to because Edwards has raised much more money than Richardson and has more than twice as much cash-on-hand.

Financially, Edwards could have gone down Richardson's path and bought months of saturation-level TV ads and eschewed federal matching funds. The decision not to do this was clearly not out of financial necessity because Richardson has run tons of TV ads despite having considerably less money than Edwards.

Moreover, the all time over-the-top TV ad buyer has been Romney. Edwards has more cash than Romney so there is no reason to conclude that Edwards' decision to accept federal matching funds and his decision to keep his advertising powder dry until November was based on financial necessity.

He was falling way behind Hillary and Obama. He needed the fed matching funds to keep his campaign afloat. His campaign likes to spin it as an ideological decision but since he said not 6 months earlier that he would forgo pub financing we know that is bullshit. Joe Trippi himself ardently defended Dean's decision to forgo pub financing just 4 years ago.

Romney's has his own deep pockets, he will have plenty of money regardless.

What I was saying is that by accepting pub financing, Edwards has to adhere to certain rules and one of those is limitations on expenditure per primary. In Iowa that limitation is around $1.5M (when I last checked the FEC website that was what was listed) I believe for the entire primary operation, staff, tv buys, fliers, everything.

Clearly, it was not a "necessity" or all the other candidates from both parties other than Obama and Hillary would also be laboring under an even greater "necessity."

how is it a "necessity" and not a choice for better funded Edwards? It seems like you're just pushing an anti-Edwards talking point that simply doesn't make sense.

It's just not credible to harp that the third-best funded candidate in the whole 17 candidate field is underfunded.

Richardson is running assuming he will either win and gain support and more donations (and possibly accept pub financing) or go home (metaphoric as he would likely work for one of his rivals eventually). The same can be said for Dodd, Biden or anyone else.

Edwards plans on being around at least until Feb 5th so he is accepting pub funding now to take advantage of any momentum gained in an early win.

"It's just not credible to harp that the third-best funded candidate in the whole 17 candidate field is underfunded."

Except he isn't the 3rd best funded. He had the 4th most cash on hand as of the 3rd Q reports which does matter all that much when it comes to Mitt (see aforementioned personal cash infusion) or Thompson who just entered the race in the 3rd Q and outraised Edwards (nearly $13M to a little over $7M for Edwards)

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/index.asp?cycle=2008

Combine that with the FEC limits on campaign expenditures for particular primaries and yes Edwards is "underfunded" compared to his main rivals.

These limits will be up slightly from these figures but not by much.

http://www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/pubfund_limits_2007.shtml

and they are the top four in the polls.

Coincidence? :shrug:

Biden hasn't been on for some time now, and Dodd's expenditure is spotty - not the $400,000 that Edwards is spending.

further back was done during a time when Dodd was spending a fortune and Biden was spending a pretty decent amount and Edwards was virtually off the air.

Now, there can be no question that Edwards is buying air time at the rate where Obama, Hillary, and Richardson already have been for months, but we don't yet have much polling where all of it was conducted after Edwards went full scale with his TV campaign, and what little recent polling we have is showing a marked rise in Edwards' numbers.

You guys there on the (frozen) ground would know better than I would, but I think

- Edwards is about 40% likely to win the caucus (because of strong "second choice" support plus a high percentage of supporters who are not first time caucus participants and who are widely distributed across the whole state),

- Hillary is about 30% likely (because of downward momentum, weaker "second choice" support than Edwards or Obama, but still a fairly high percentage of supporters who are not first time caucus participants), and

- Obama is about 30% likely to win Iowa (because of strong "second choice" support but a high percentage of supporters who are first time caucus participants plus a high percentage of participants who are young and may be disproportionately affected by having the caucus scheduled during college winter break plus an over-concentration of supporters in urban centers and colleges).

Your argument is missing half of the key ingredients...

Edwards has been campaigning here in Iowa for 4 years, Iowans that are interested in Edwards are mostly familiar with him and the majority of his platform (aside from the parts that have changed 180 degrees from 2004 - like war). Sure, a media campaign will raise people's awareness of him some... but don't expect a huge bounce.

His latest TV ad is Edwards stating that he'll get rid of healthcare for Congress using his power as the President.. which I don't believe is even possible without a vote from the very congress he is attempting to strip. I am by no means in contact with every Dem in Iowa, but I've already had 2 Dems who look favorably to Edwards comment that it seems like a "stunt".

I guess we'll find out in 49(?) days, right?

ON EDIT: I still think Edwards will place high in Iowa, top 2 even. I just don't think his poll numbers will probably rise a whole lot with his media buy.

big boost because I look at the intensity of his support, the strong second choice support the polls indicate he'll likely get, the prior caucus experience of many of his supporters, and the general rural-suburban-urban distribution of his support, and I already think that his support will caucus better then it polls (whereas I think Obama's support polls better than it will caucus and Hillary's support probably polls and caucuses about the same).

I think if the caucus were held today, Edwards would be neck-neck-with Hillary and might even beat her narrowly (I think Obama would come in third). If Edwards gets even a small boost from his advertising, I think it will probably raise him to a win by a few percentage points, with Hillary a decisive second, Obama a decisive third, and Biden versus Richardson in a tight race for distant fourth.

You guys in Iowa probably have a better feel for the caucus than I do; I've only traveled to work New Hampshire (someday I'd like to work Iowa).

I hope you aren't referring to the poll that limited the 2nd choice options to Edwards, Clinton, and Obama, because the entire premise of the poll is flawed, and the results are shit.

The rest of what you say is probably pretty accurate though I think, I agree that Obama's support will probably not caucus as well as it polls, ala Dean 2004. The one thing about candidates that seek out and gain new supporters, I think they have a hard time getting them to show up at caucus. We'll see.

My bet is on Biden making a much stronger showing than current polls indicate. I think Hillary and Edwards will be close.

Remember that Iowans live in Iowa too....and Edwards was on the ballot there in 2004.....and was the selected VP nominee.

And so, advertising or not, Edwards has had as much exposure as Obama and Hillary in that state. Hillary Clinton is well known there, for sure as well......but Obama was really not that well known and needed to spend the $$.