Do You Believe that Iowa is Do or Die?

I'm an Obama supporter. The way I see it, the only other person he can afford to win Iowa is John Edwards since he's polling so low elsewhere. But everyone is making it seem like whoever wins Iowa is taking the nomination...and it's hard for me to believe that. I can very well come down to...

Obama - 1 (Iowa)
Clinton - 1 (New Hampshire)

Then they'll be even after the NH caucus is over. I don't see how Obama can just run away with the nomination because of one state. I think people overstate Iowa's importance.

Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama will fight it out through Super Tuesday on February 5th regardless of the outcome...

Say he pulled a strong second in NH and Iowa...that would plus him up quite nicely.

It doesn't matter what DSB thinks... It matters what the media thinks and the media will think and say he lost a state he "bet the ranch on"...

TV IS a factor now, where it wasn't before.

And Iowa is what it is. It's a boost, but it ain't 'the decider.'

No offense to Iowa but that is what it is...

I'm just saying Edwards has invested a lot of political capital there...

Why does Iowa come first?

Is it the biggest state?

Is it the most heterogeneous state?

Does it always deliver its Electoral College Votes to the Democrats?


It's ironic... The Democrats are always trying to make voting easier while the Rethuglicans are always trying to make voting harder... What can be harder than voting in a caucus?

Maybe we should have a series of caucuses to elect a president instead of an election?

They're wasteful and produce incompetent leaders!

Sometimes, ya gotta go with the times--and caucusing was made for the times when "entertainment" consisted of getting together in a barn with the neighbors, not gathering around the electronic fireplace and watching the Sopranos...

DSB

primaries? The whole ritual is bizarre and antiquated. What the hell century do we live in?

Let's not forget this moment.

And, now, back to the action...

.... the pundits I've heard say second place would be fine, third might be.

I don't know where you get your "facts" but they're not universally accepted.

and went on to pull a strong 4th in New Hampshire the week after. I don't see Edwards pulling a strong second in New Hampshire if he loses Iowa unless he just barely loses to Obama and trounces Clinton and everyone else other than Obama. But even that would put him in trouble. Either Obama or Clinton will win New Hampshire assuming Edwards doesn't win Iowa. In 2004 Edwards was able to come back immediately after finishing 4th in New Hamshire and win in South Carolina, that is what kept him in the game. But if Edwards gets shut out to Clinton and/or Obama in both Iowa and New Hampshire, there is no way Edwards can win South Carolina where he now badly trails both of them. He already significantly trails them both in fund raising. I think Edwards has to win Iowa to stay viable.

(unless, of course, it's one of the current bottom tier)

...except for some who actually said he came in third. That error got repeated again fairly recently in an online Time magazine story before they had to retract it.

The truth is Edwards almost came in third in New Hampshire in 2004, except that he didn't.

:D

Jesus, look to history, and then tell us if Iowa is "Do or die."

Gephardt...hmmmm? HARKIN....???

Iowa is a 'nice start.' It's not a 'decider.'

For Edwards, it's a do or die. Both Clinton and Obama can survive not winning Iowa. Edwards can't

and he could flip the dynamic. Two or three 'seconds' is as good if not better than one FIRST.

It's an uphill climb for him, but ya never know.

It's not unreasonable. But not winning in any state may dry up his contributions and lead to a slow death of attrition. And as the primary goes on, his chances get worse and worse as he has done less campaigning in the other states, and has the #'s to show for that.

Iowa is one of his better states, and he's done a lot of campaigning there. If he doesn't win, people will ask "If he can't win there, why should anyone think he can win anywhere else?" Many a campaign has put all it's eggs into Iowa in the hopes that a win there would boost their chances and many campaigns have folded after not winning Iowa.

There is no reason to think Edwards is immune to this when so many others have fallen in the same exact way. It's not as if he has a lot of money to weather a lot of storms.

Every major candidate back then conceded Iowa to Harkin early and put all their money in New Hampshire. It was pretty much known Harkin would walk to a victory there, so it wasn't a surprise when he did. That isn't the case this cycle.

No candidate has Iowa locked up to the point where others have conceded defeat there. Clinton, Obama and Edwards are all polling at too close to call and the winner will most definitely get a boost if he/she wins. Now I do believe there are varying degrees of that boost, however. If Clinton were to finish 2nd or worse, it could be difficult for her to get enough momentum heading into New Hampshire. Since she is the front runner, anything less than first place would be seen as a disappointment. Now for Edwards and Obama, I will grant you it's a bit different. Since neither are considered the front runner at this stage, if Obama or Edwards were to finish a strong second, they probably could carry that over into New Hampshire and force a semi-battle with Clinton in New Hampshire. Yet if either Edwards or Obama were to finish a distant 3rd, I think their campaigns would essentially be done. Right now, I believe Clinton has the most to win and the most to lose here. A first place victory for her and she will probably walk to the nomination. Anything less, though, and it's going to be very difficult.

can fuck it up totally, and make the results even more meaningless than they are anyway.

"Nobody/Can't Decide" beat Jimmy Carter the first time he competed in Iowa.

Iowa does NOT have a great track record of deciding who the nominee will be, unless we're talking about an incumbent.

The media will crown the next candidate and he/she will need good press coming out of Iowa. If Clinton finishes 2nd or 3rd, the media will say she blew it and that'll be their constant message over the next days between Iowa and New Hampshire. It'll be very difficult for her, or any candidate for that matter, to overcome that.

The drama of people trying to get to their caucus locations eats up the news cycle. If someone dies, so much the better.

If it bleeds, it leads.

If Osama does a video that's released around the time the caucus results are in, and it shows him pulling up his thobe and mooning a picture of Bush, that will own the cycle.

If Natalee floats to the surface, a chunk of "Urine Vandersloot's" hair grasped in her bony, rotted hand, THAT owns the cycle!!!

The news cycle would go like this--Natalee, Natalee, Nataleee, Osama, Osama, Osama's ass, Natalee, Natalee and Osama's ass, Oh yea, real quick now, Iowa caucus, Natalee, Osama, Natalee's ass, Osama's ass, what caucus goers think of Natalee and Osama, and their asses....

DSB

Even if Edwards places second, he'll still be in the race. From how I see it, Hillary is going to place third to Obama's win in Iowa. Look for blood to be in the water at that point for Team Clinton.

based on the most recent polling coming out of Iowa?

First, Clinton's Iowa ground game is minimal at best. I've seen it firsthand. It's a hoot seeing a recent article saying that octogenerians are going to caucus for her. They won't. She is slipping in the polls in Iowa and won't be able to recover even if she tries to bring her husband in to prove her "validity".

Second, Obama and Edwards are much better rated as second choice for those who support candidates that will not be viable (15% or higher) in caucus first rounds. All those extra votes will go to either Obama or Edwards and I'd venture to guess that Obama will get most of those votes.

Obama's Iowa presence is very strong and organized. Clinton's...not so much.

-- with it's 56 delegates -- Obama will need to get NV, CA, NY and SC out of Clinton's hands (808 delegates total) and then make up the deficit 157 delegates he won't get from MI -- and she may -- because he's not on their ballot.

With Obama as a winner (possibly by a large lead), the dynamics can change dramatically. There are lots of undecided voters out there that only need to see that another possible candidate can be a viable choice.

As for Michigan and Florida, the delegates will not count at the convention. Those races are beauty contests as the political jargon goes. If Hillary Clinton wants to brag about a win in either state with all the other candidates not on the ballot, I say go for it. It would look absolutely foolish.

We'll see how the debates go and what leads up to the Iowa caucus. A lot can happen.

a lot can happen. And politics is historically a veritable roller-coaster. I trust both candidates are taking nothing for granted and are working their a**es off to get the votes. That much I can be absolutely sure of. The rest of it? Not so much.

I never saw the Clinton Campaign painting themselves as "inevitable". Too many other people were happy to do that for them. She was too busy going County by County, shaking hands, knocking on doors and answering questions. Someone as experienced as Hillary understands that a Lead is never, ever a Lead and the work is never, ever, ever done, no matter what the Polls that day say.

If she does place Third -- quite possible -- and then goes on to place better or even win in NH, she'll then be known as the Comeback Kid, a theme the media is hoping and praying for.

As for dropping out, don't forget she has a generous bank account, the machinery she needs in each State, the support of many in local government and isn't likely to quit over a loss. A campaign that's struggling more -- say Edwards or Richardson or Biden --, it's more a financial question and a loss defeats their ability to turn to donors and ask for more money. That's not an issue with Hillary.

I don't anticipate her winning Iowa. I do anticipate her doing well in NH and winning NV. It'll be interesting to see what happens on Tsunami Tuesday, though.

(and gets the 56 delegates) and Hillary wins NH (with their 30 delegates), with Obama not on the ticket in Michigan, Hillary has a stronger chance of getting their 156 delegates -- not sure how those are being recognized with the current questions about their Primary -- and then go on to collect NV's 33 and possibly even SC's 54.

Add to this Hillary getting even half of the Tsunami Tuesday's delegates (1,943 total) and it becomes more difficult mathematically to challenge her. From what I know -- which isn't much on this subject, admittedly -- she's polling well in CA and NY (441 and 280 respectively) and that right there is a sizable chunk of what's needed to lock up the nomination.

By the time February 5th rolls around, the alleged Hillary Coronation spin will be a footnote. The Frontrunner won't able to play The Underdog. It will be too late for that.

She will in battling for her political life at that point with all the mainstream press sinking her with the apparent story of her inevitability aground and breaking up. I don't think a clear winner in the race w1ill be apparent until late February...and it won't be Hillary Clinton.

Clinton's team never painted her as inevitable in Iowa. In fact, they've been very modest about their hopes for Iowa, knowing that Edwards has been campaigning there for 4 years. I have no idea who will place first in Iowa. Neither do you. I do know that if Edwards doesn't finish first or a strong second, he doesn't have the resources to do well later.

Everytime I hear Iowans on TV say that "electability" is a factor, I think of 2004's Mister Electable who threw in the towel before all the votes were counted in Ohio.

He's rolling the dice on the early states. Bold strategy I must say. However, I think both the other front-runners can withstand losses along the way and still remain viable.

but he'd have to go on and pick up States he's not really focusing on, overcoming a deficit against both Hillary and Obama, build the necessary machinery lickety-split and then do really, REALLY well on Tsunami Tuesday (with 1,493 delegates up for grabs) in States that Hillary is polling very strongly in and already has a strong presence in, CA (441 delegates) and NY (280 delegates).

I don't know if Edwards' gamble will work in the end, even with a strong showing in Iowa. What are his numbers in NH or NV or SC?

This condensed primary process is going to be some wild E ticket ride!

will win Iowa and then she has the lead in all the following states. NH. SC.Michigan. Nevada. I look for HRC to wrap up the majority of delegates by the middle of February.....

and to most of you that says oh Hillaery is so wrong she splits the party. Well hell folks, all I can say about that is, "so if the front-runner splits the party, we should nominate someone with less support?" Oh yeah thats a sure way to win in November 08.

Ben David

Especially if Obama does better than Edwards in Iowa.

I think the national race on the Dem side will come down to a two-candidate match-up.

It will end up being Hillary versus whichever guy does best in Iowa.

Whether it is Obama or Edwards or Biden or Richardson ...

Hillary is the only candidate who can come back from a third-place finish in Iowa.

Obama has tons of money, but finishing 3rd in Iowa would kill his momentum.

The media coverage of that event alone will be like the Superbowl. Whoever wins it will be the de-facto winner in the minds of the media and the "person to beat" going forward.

Iowa is NOT the Super Bowl of Primaries. That title's reserved for Super Tuesday with it's 1,000+ delegates. Several States Hillary's polling well in (CA, NY for example) are decided that day -- with SC and NV (two other States she's doing great in) decided before that -- and I doubt an early loss or second place finish in Iowa and NH isn't necessarily going to be the be all - end all for her. One State isn't the whole game.

only us political junkies are paying attention.

The rest of the country...not so much

to make her look less than invincible.

:headbang:
rocknation

Clinton winning Iowa is a non-story.. Front runner gets expected result.

If Clinton loses Iowa she loses the only thing she has going for her... inevitability.

If Edwards loses Iowa he loses his only possible shot.

is overrated. Clinton didn't win anything until Illinois.

Oops - left out a word

he placed Second or Third in NH?

All I know is Hillary is polling strong in SC, CA, NV, NY and FL, a huge amount of delegates to make up for if all you have is an Iowa win under your belt. I sincerely believe Obama will do well in Iowa, possibly NH (although Hillary is polling well there), but he's going to have to dip into those States Hillary's strong in on Tsunami Tuesday -- I prefer Super Tuesday, actually -- in order to make the case mathematically.

yum..yum..eat it up

will upset Hillary in Iowa and I also believe it is a must win for him if he is to have any chance of stopping Hillary. Even with an Iowa win for Obama it is going to be a long shot for him to win the nomination. Hillary has tons of money, she has the best political arm twister in the business (Bill), and she has a large chunk of rank-and-file Democrats convinced that she is entitled to this nomination. I like John Edwards a lot but he is putting all his eggs in one basket and from growing up on a farm I can tell you this is a bad idea.

I believe Obama will win Iowa, but, mathematically after that, it becomes more difficult to make up for the organization Hillary has in States like CA, NY, NV, FL, MI, SC, etc. Super Tuesday -- with it's 1,000+ delegates -- will decide the race, I think, and the lion's share of those delegates are in States Hillary's currently polling well in and has a lot of support in.

As for the eggs in one basket thing? Yeah, I realized that was a bad idea as a 6-year old while walking -- carefully! -- from the hen house to my Grandma's porch after forgetting to tie my shoes. Let's just say we ended up with only bacon on our plates that morning.

Kerry dominated Iowa and using that momentum(media)did the same in NH where the only interesting story was Novak acting like a thug and beating someone up.

But Kerry could not keep the momentum up after the primary and decided to go sailboarding...among other diversions.

As difficult as it is to do so, we just have to wait until the cocktail party that is Iowa does whatever it does.

It's will weed the garden.

and candidates make bizarre and unsubstantiated claims about how they did. There is this belief that whoever wins Iowa will see a huge influx of cash before the Feb rush, but at this point the media will already have declared a winner of the nomination and possibly the Presidency by the end of January. Whatever Democrat wins Iowa will have to win NH, although all you'll hear about is Bloomberg getting into the race if Guiliani does well. That's why Huckabee and Romney will take Iowa and NH, respectively.

That is what it's gonna be.

it depends.

cause I'm realizing more and more they decide. Sure sometimes they don't make obvious who they want....but I don't think that the voters decide how Iowa will affect the rest of the U.S.

The media will determine what's important for us. If we like who is promoted, we'll buy into it......those who don't, however, will be super pissed but totally powerless!