What happens if Hillary FInishes third in Iowa?

It could happen

With One Month to Go, the Battle Lines Are Drawn

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/03/us/politics/03web-nagourney.html?_r=2&8dpc&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

By ADAM NAGOURNEY (NYT)
Published: December 3, 2007
DES MOINES, Dec. 3



'Obama and Mr. Edwards have an obvious shared interest in stopping Mrs. Clinton from coming in first in Iowa. But there is another outcome that aides to Mr. Obama and Mr. Edwards (and Mrs. Clinton) have begun to think about these days — that Mrs. Clinton may come in third.

That is a very real possibility, given the apparent strength of Mr. Obama and Mr. Edwards and the way the caucuses work. Under the rules, a candidate who receives fewer than 15 percent of the votes in a particular precinct on caucus night is deemed unviable there, and the candidate’s supporters are free to support someone else.

In 2004, Mr. Edwards picked up significant support when supporters of Representative Dennis Kucinich of Ohio cast their lot with Mr. Edwards in precincts where they could not reach the 15 percent threshold themselves. Mr. Kucinich is running again this time. Mrs. Clinton could probably survive a second-place showing here, given her strength in New Hampshire and her considerable financial assets. But a third-place showing by Mrs. Clinton would be a game-changer. It would leave the rest of the field heading into New Hampshire facing an opponent whose single biggest argument — that she was the most electable Democrat — had been weakened, if not shattered. "

Still, a huge setback.

Misogyny

:rofl:

They both have a shitload of MONEY!!!!!!!!!!

They're gonna ride that train to the end of the line, because they have MONEY.

People drop out when they are broke.

And Huckabee has Walker, Texas Ranger!

(That commercial is probably the goofiest of the whole campaign season, thus far)

to see how she handles and overcomes setbacks.

Edwards has his hopes pinned on doing well in Iowa.

He won't be able to afford an attempt at comeback after Iowa (I don't believe - I may be wrong).

Nagourney talks about the caucus goers who support candidates who
end up getting less than 15 percent support. It is most likely
that Biden, Richardson and Kucinich will have less than 15 percent
and these caucus goers will join other camps.

It is most likely that these caucus goers who move to other camps, will
move to Obama or Edwards--not Clinton.

I would bet $100 that Hillary comes in 3rd, possibly 4th, partially
due to this.

In 04, I supported Dean, but there was a lot of support for Edward at
my caucus. I'm sure those people will be back and it will be interesting
to see what happens.

really high on whoever wins Iowa to get wins in NH and SC.

So, I suspect she'd continue to focus on those two States (where she's polling ahead and has really good on-the-ground organization), NM (where she's ahead and has a strong on-the-ground team) and then, with many of the large Super Tuesday States (CA and NY, to name only two) fairly solid in her corner, I think she'd be okay.

It would definitely shift the media focus onto the perceived Front Runner, though, and would magnify his every stumble, slip of the tongue and (lack of) voting record.

The spotlight ain't always the easiest place to be.

The only governor who doesn't have a detrimental voting record is Richardson.

to vote "yes" or "no" on the tough votes as State Legislator in addition to missing nearly 80% of the votes during his first term as Senator is not a decided plus. It's much too easy for other candidates to raise questions about his political courage and his dedication to his Constituents.

to him missing 80% of the votes in the Senate? That just seems outside the realm of possibility.

(more at article from Nov 1,2007)

During September and October, Senator Obama missed 71--or nearly 80 percent--of the 89 votes that have taken place in the Senate.

http://www.wbbm780.com/pages/1161304.php?

.... I'm not an Obama supporter, but missing 80% of the votes while running a campaign isn't remotely "missing 80% of the votes" which implies a full tenure record.

than any of the other Senators running (except for John McCain, but just barely) and is indicative of the dedication he apparently shows to his duties as Senator and when he was a State Legislator. In addition, it's less the percentage of votes he missed and more the actual votes themselves.

From the article:

Among votes Obama did miss were the Sense of the Senate resolution on Iran, a resolution condemning those who would publicly criticize General David Petraeus, who is in charge of the Iraq War, and yesterday, a vote to end debate on a measure to provide 26 weeks of leave for family members who need to care for an injured serviceman or woman.

Obama was the only one of the four to miss the Iran resolution vote, a vote on an amendment to redeploy American troops out of Iraq and a vote on a resolution to improve security at United States’ borders.

He also missed a vote on the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (S-CHIP) bill while Senators Clinton and Dodd did vote on it. Biden also missed the vote.

...

This is just easy ammunition for anyone wanting to question his dedication, his honesty and integrity, his political courage and strength, and ... ah, hell, how else will the repugs spin this in the General Election? It just serves to place a lot of unnecessary questions in the minds of voters.

... but different people will give different weight to the relevance of it all.

If he missed a crucial close vote, well that would be news. For most folks who have a clue how the senate works, it will be obvious that most or all of the votes he missed would have been "symbolic" at best.

there will be those who believe that EVERY vote his or her Senator casts is an important one, regardless of the reality of the Senate or the actual "importance" of the vote. To have the defense that, well, those votes were more ceremonial and therefore okay to miss is a bit like saying, perhaps for some people, at least, that Wednesday is a ceremonial day at work, so it's okay to miss and why bother to show up?

:evilgrin:

.... a matter of priorities. The outcome of most senate votes is hardly in question. If there is zero chance that your vote will make a difference, then I have a hard time faulting someone for pursuing other priorities.

A LOT less problem with that than with legislators who vote to please their corporate donors instead their constituents.

a Senate term is longer than 2 months.

which is the idea.

If Edwards wins Iowa Clinton wins nomination.

If Clinton wins Iowa she wins the nomination.

If Obama wins Iowa and Edwards tanks it compliciates things a lot.

Taking on Obama is understood to hurt Hillary, but hurts Obama too. She is maneuvering someone with no money into first... or at least I assume that's the plan.

Edwards may have little money, but he has a big message. And it is THE MESSAGE that Americans want to hear. Americans are sick of "leaders" who refuse to fight for America. That is what the immigration issue on the Republican side and the jobs and economy issue on the Democratic side area about. The Republican Party is spending all that money on Iraq, and Americans can't afford health care for their children. What kind of "values" is that?

I think any of the candidates can win the GE and win well, (excepting DK - one issue - gun control and banning handguns is enough to kick him to the curb). But Edwards getting the nomination? One word - Trippi : The man who squandered and derailed one of the greatest grass roots campaigns in living memory.

This has been another easy answer to hard questions.

Next question!!!

hehe.

Trying to get Obama into the mud pit with her is risky, if she miscalculates she is done and she should be.

Kurt&Hunter you see it as a plan to take Obama down to let JE win, and I agree that is the only logical answer. Given that how do you feel about a candidate, in a primary, throwing mud to get a response that will weaken both of them short term but hopefully allow HER to win in the long run. I find it disgusting, calculating, and reprehensible!

calculation and ruthlessness are what one should want in a candidate. Consider the alternative... spontaneous and timid doesn't get it done versus republicans.

claimed Hillary won big in the Vegas debates and that lasted 4 days until Bill Clinton made his blooper by being caught "mis-stating" his position on being against attacking Iraq when he was for attacking it all along...!

difference in caucus then casting a vote. You can have candidates collude so that one of them wins. This was brought up in here a couple of weeks ago that obama and edwards might do this so one of them could claim a victory over HRC... That is okay...

I would not be too worried if Obama happens to win Iowa because the polls in all the other states have either stayed the same and HRC is still outside the margin of error in those states obama has picked up a few points...but HRC is still looking good. Still say that by the 15th of Feb HRC will have a majority of the delegates to be the nominee..

Ben David

to crush whoever is leading or second

but she can re-cover, she has the money. She's NOT my candidate and 3rd wouldn't bother me, but in the long run it could be very helpful and a boost for the "other" Democrats running. After all she and Obama aren't the ONLY ones who want to be POTUS!

she has very strong support in my part of the country (NY, NJ, CT & PA). She will also win CA, NV and, if they hadn't thrown them out of the primary, MI & FL. I would also include SC, but I'm waiting to see the results of the much publicized "Oprah effect". Either way, I don't see how Obama can overcome her unless some external force of major magnitude occurs between now and then.

She'll be back to junior senator in no time.

I would imagine she's toast.

She'd be happy to win Iowa, I am sure. But all she needs is for Obama to not win Iowa. She doesn't even need to come in second in Iowa. An Edwards win in Iowa works for her with Obama second. Her best place is third in Iowa, setting a big fight between Edwards and Obama in New Hampshire, knocking out one or the other. After that, she is running against the one left standing and she's betting (or hoping) that's Edwards. The possible fly in the ointment is Biden or Richardson coming up a surprise second or third in Iowa with Hillary fourth. That would hurt her, I would think.

NH is only 5 days later. There is a debate in the middle. I think the Obama and Edwards are smart enough to finish her off in NH, before moving on. Then they can fight it out over SC.

Not a death sentence. If she does well in New Hampshire, where I think she has a better chance than not, she just carries on. If Edwards is first in Iowa and Obama second, or the other way around, they will be fighting each other in New Hampshire and one of them will be limping into SC.

anything at this point. It's a crossfire of if's and maybe's.

As things stand now, it appears that Obama and Clinton are very well-positioned and Edwards in close contention, but Biden and Richardson remain potent considerations.

That's 5 folks just right there. Dodd is a good man but may simply be outnumbered. Kucinich is the true-hearted firebrand, but also outnumbered. Gravel is getting less coverage in the campaign than Tom Tancredo.

Of the 5 -- Biden, Clinton, Edwards, Obama, Richardson -- with some hard work and grassroots pushin' and shovin' in all 50 states, one of those folks is going to be the next President of the United States.

She is still the nominee. Get over it!

How does the subject work with the message?

I might be wrong; one of those might be sarcasm.

I would expect her to make a calm and coherent concession speech and move on graciously to NH.

If I was her I would also be very tempted to start opposing the ethanol subsidy.

If it is essentially a three way tie, with a point or two between them...they all move on to New Hampshire...lather, rinse, repeat...

If she is far back she will be on her heels...and needs a big win in New Hampshire to keep going...

Personally I expect she will win it by about 2 points, followed by Obama, with Edwards 7 or 8 back, and with Biden coming in with a respectable 12-15%...

in a near tie with Obama and Edwards a little further back. I agree with you. It's down to the wire.

...maybe it would give her a clue that she is NOT the golden child of the majority of the Dems....but rather the choice that the "liberal" media is shoving down our throats.

JMHO

The perception of her as inevitable front-runner will be shattered, and hence the money will quickly dry up.

The Clinton campaign seems to be expecting an Iowa loss - they have designed New Hampshire to be their firewall, her chance to reclaim front-runner status.

Historically, the Iowa winner receives a 10 point boost in New Hampshire. Should Obama or Edwards win Iowa and receive that boost in New Hampshire, it will all but end Clinton´s chances. She will have to win big on Super Tuesday to get the money to start flowing again.

One wildcard to consider is the MSM treatment of the Iowa results. If Clinton does not win, they may choose to ignore the results, eliminating the 10 point bounce and essentially giving the nomination to Clinton.

Another wildcard is the possibility of a split convention, where none of the candidates secures enough delegates to win the nomination. This is clearly what Gore is banking on. It will enable him to be presented to the convention as a compromise candidate.

My biggest concern is the actual voting in the primary states. If the voting machines are hackable, there is nothing to say that the candidate who wins the primary actually did so fairly. I hate to be cynical, but there is too much at stake for the unscrupulous to leave the results of this election to chance.

For my own part, I see Edwards winning Iowa, by virtue of his lock on the second choicers. His surprise win will catapult his candidacy back onto the MSM and give him a real boost going into New Hampshire.

In the final analysis, the only state that matters is Iowa, because the dynamics of every caucus and primary will change after Iowa.

as the compromise candidate is the only way that he could get into this race.
He would cruise to victory in the General Election and carry many seats in congress too.

There could be a three way tie where Clinton, Obama, and Edwards come in very close to one another.

:-)

With their "I caucused in Iowa!" lapel buttons.

:thumbsup:

But the same holds true of Obama and Edwards. Probably the most so of Edwards, since he finished second in Iowa four years ago. Obama can perhaps survive a few more weeks, but Clinton would be mortally wounded by a third place finish in the Hawkeye State, and Edwards would be forced to withdraw.

An Obama or Edwards win in Iowa resets the board, Clinton in 2nd renews focus on NH, NV, SC and Super Tuesday (which she can reclaim momentum as frontrunner in) but a third for any one of them is curtains.

The national polls are shit IMHO. They mean even less than the popular vote in November of 2008.