I think Hillary will lose Iowa and come in 3rd

[jcrew2001]

The internal memo is correct. Edwards or Obama will come in 1st/2nd in Iowa; and Hillary will face a disappointing 3rd.

However, it won't matter if she can come back and win NH, which will be difficult but she is guaranteed at least 2nd in NH, IMO.

Even though Hillary is touted as the front-runner, the likelihood that she would win Iowa was always in doubt.

I think she is purposely leaking this memo, so that the Media will downplay her eventual loss in Iowa. Granted there is still 6 months to go and anything can happen, her strategy to get out in front of bad news is similar to bush's.

I am personally surprised at those who believe that Hillary will be the frontrunner, I think this is a wide-open race and the only thing that Hillary has going for her is name recognition.

[Inspired]

1. I agree with you.

I live in Iowa and I don't see a lot of support here for her. I think Vilsack was supposed to help that problem, even though he was never going to win the nomination, by winning Iowa just by being the favored son. His short lived campaign, and his quick endorsement of her, hasn't lived up to its promise.

I thought it was interesting how the memo came out right after the latest Des Moines Register polls showed her in 3rd place, too.

[venable]

8. agree with this

but think she also has to catch on in a way she hasn't in order to hold onto her national numbers. I see them fading if she doesn't step up to the plate in a real, authentic way. Her shelf life, the shelf life of the 'inevitability' will expire sooner than she presumed.

[illinoisprogressive]

2. I posted from Political wire that the polls are still mostly name recognition

name recognition has not change since the running began and so, Hillary's lead is due to name.

[benddem]

3. it's at least 7 months

till Iowa. Howard Dean was the front runner in Iowa in Dec. 03.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

4. ...and then enter Geppie.

[jcrew2001]

17. who's geppy?

gephardt?

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

18. Yep.

[JNelson6563]

19. Excellent illustration choice.

:toast:

[venable]

9. I think there will be a lot of changes twixt now and then

it will be interesting to see Obama and Edwards going head to head. I would hope such a battle would be done respectfully, as they could end up being the ticket.

I hope.

[jcrew2001]

10. probably unlikely because they would have 8 years of senate experience

between them - while it will increase turnout in blue states, it will lose the moderates in red states.

[venable]

12. agreed, this is an issue

which they would have to overcome, if they could, through their intelligence, ability to show command of issues, and leadership qualities.

technically, though, it would be ten years total at the inauguration (6 years of Edwards, 4 years of Obama)

[Arugula Latte]

5. *crosses fingers*

Please make it so.

[rurallib]

6. I think right now she may be more concerned about not finishing 4th

Richardson is gaining. Dropping Iowa may save her a real unwanted embarassment. But if she drops it would look real chicken.

[jcrew2001]

7. If she pulls a "clark" and drops Iowa, I think she will be done

because Edwards and Obama will both have momentum and media coverage. She has the name recognition to come back, but voters in Nevada and SC will wonder if she is the real deal, or just a wannabe. I think Nevada will go to Edwards and SC will be close.

[rocktivity]

11. I, too, think that Hillary's fate was sealed today.

Her "no" vote, preceeded by her playing coy about it, came off as more knee-jerk triangulating. Keith Olbermann was right when he said that this vote may determine the 2008 Dem candidate--it's going to be whoever best represents a clean break with politics as usual.

:headbang:
rocknation

[Bullet1987]

13. She's not dropping out of Iowa now that it's public knowledge...

Granted there is still 6 months to go and anything can happen, her strategy to get out in front of bad news is similar to bush's.

This is the real point. 6 months is a lot of time...I'd wait until we have 3 months left before I start guranteeing anything. And 1 month before it's a strong probability. I'm not a poll-killer (people who overhype polls everyday). I mean, I loosely follow them...but I don't put nearly as much faith in them as many people on this board do. On BOTH sides of the isle.

[jcrew2001]

14. There are many factors - depends on the other candidates

in 2004 - it was Dean, Gephardt, and Kerry - Dean and Gephardt killed each other and Kerry rose up, followed by Edwards. If Clark had stayed - maybe he splts the vote with Kerry and Edwards rises up.

So in 2008, Obama has easter Iowa covered - probably have a strong 2nd place finish, at the very least. So it will be up to Hillary vs. Edwards to see who comes out on top. Edwards has strong footing, so it will take some serious campaigning for Billary to take number one.

If Gore gets in, I think Hillary is done.

If Clark gets in, he takes away from the anti-war candidates like Obama, etc. and could give Hillary a chance.

[paulk]

15. I think Kerry will lose Iowa

and come in last. I mean, that's pretty much what the polls were showing there a month out...

[jcrew2001]

16. Kerry benefited from Dean, Gephardt, Lieberman, & Clark taking

each other out of Iowa. There was no one left but Kerry and Edwards. Kerry won by Default.

Of course, Hillary is hoping to win by de-fault also, "the 2 best words in the english dictionary" - Homer

Kerry won by a miracle, and her deputy campaign manager is correct it will take a miracle for her to win Iowa. She will need to be the comeback kid.

I understand why donors are not interested in her. She's old news. The breakthrough candidate is Obama, the multi-racial candidate.

[paulk]

22. kerry won iowa because more people voted for him

a lot more people. No "default" involved.

your post, and this thread, are nonsense.

but, hey, whatever. It will get you some points in the anti HRC DU circle jerk.

[jcrew2001]

23. then why would a deputy campaign manager write such a memo

because he obviously thinks that Hillary losing Iowa is a strong possibility; in fact, she was never likely to win Iowa in the first place. So, this is a very serious issue that she and her campaign needs to prepare for.

You always prepare for the worst case scenario - and there won't be a worse case than this.

If Hillary wants to win the nomination, she needs to be ready for this and create a plan to minimize the damage.

If she wins Iowa, then she can roll to the nomination. But maybe her fans are expecting her to win Iowa, and not prepare for the worse, so in that case, I tell them don't plan for the worse.

I just can't wait to see the look on their faces.

[paulk]

24. he wrote the memo because Iowa isn't going to be as

important next year as it has been in the past?

Everyone else is moving their primaries up - there are a lot more delegates to be had in those primaries compared to Iowa. It's not as important for the frontrunners to do well there as it is for the 2nd tier candidates. Iowa isn't going to be the bellweather this time around that is has been in the past, and the "memo" is simply a stategic reflection of that.

A loss in Iowa isn't going to knock any of the first tier candidates out - Feb. 5th is turning into a de facto national primary. That's the day when the race is going to be decided, not Iowa.

[jcrew2001]

25. However, if Hillary is 3rd or 4th

Edwards, Obama, Richardson will get positive coverage. All are serious national contenders and not just regional. Other than New York, Hillary is not guaranteed to win anything.

[Colobo]

27. Don't tell that to the Hillarites. They think she already won the GE.

[karynnj]

31. Not to mention that Iowa usually doesn't knock out

any top tier candidates. The winner and anyone who does unexpectedly better than expected will gain, but many Iowa losers go on to the nomination.

Gephardt was an exception, because he was expected to win Iowa, he had won Iowa in 1988, and it was a neighboring state. Places like Iowa were expected to be Gephardt states - if he didn't win them where would he win. (Just as, it was very possible for Edwards to win after Iowa and NH, but extremely unlikely after the next election day where Kerry won 5 out of 7 states that were southern (or almost so in DE's case), southwestern or rural. If Edwards didn't get most of these, where was he going to win - MA?, CA?, NY? Not realistic.)

I realize that Obama (and Hillary during her whole childhood and adolesence) are from Illinois, a neighboring state. But their appeal has never been based on where they are from.

[paulk]

37. I think the only one of the first tier candidates who could be hurt

by a big loss in Iowa is Edwards, mostly because he's at the bottom of the first tier and did so well there last time around. He's got to be seen as the favorite in Iowa. If Obama or HRC fall to 4th in Iowa - yes, that would be damaging - but, I don't think this election cycle has much in common with any other recent ones. It's really a wide open race.

[jcrew2001]

45. Hillary HAS to Win NH

If I were her campaign - I would put all my money into NH.

She needs to win decisively. Iowa is a farce for her.

[karynnj]

30. Give Kerry credit for what he did.in 2004

1) Clark was NOT in Iowa. He chose not to be.
2) Leiberman did not need anyone to "take him out" in 2oo4. Interesting very few voters did that.
3) Dean and Gephardt did damage each other. Gephardt's commercials called Dean out for distorting Gephardt's position on things like medicare and questioned some of Dean's own positions. Gephardt likely HAD to dispute Dean's complaints, things like medicare were the heart of who he is - but may have lost because he hit back too fard. Dean may have lost as much because of his reaction ("I am not a pin cushion" ) as from the ads themself.
4) Kerry beat Edwards in spite of Edwards getting the Des Moines Register endoyursement and positive press. Kerry was being counted out by most of the press until the polls started confirming that he was surging.

In any campaign, the winner wins partially because others knock themselves out of the game. You have millions of posts praising Edwards - he was not involved in the fights and Kerry decidely beat him.

[jcrew2001]

32. I've always said Kerry had the best resume to win the Nom

He's been a loyal long-serving Dem for 20 years - 3 term senator, foreign policy experience, military experience. He's been running for president since Yale. He had a ton of support from Dem loyalists. But having a resume doesn't mean you can win in the swing states.

[Hippo_Tron]

41. Hey give Lieberman credit where it is due

He came in a three way tie for third place in New Hampshire

:rofl:

[JNelson6563]

20. Here's hoping none of it matters

;-)

[MODemocrat]

21. I don't intend to root for Hillary's downfall

I cannot get enthuised about Edwards or Obama, but, if one of them wins the nomination, I'll be voting a straight Democratic ticket, so they will get my vote and support.:9 :9 :9 :dem:

[jcrew2001]

26. Others have come back from defeats in Iowa

She has a better chance winning NH, but she can't concede in Iowa; despite not having a chance at winning. Bill lost Iowa and NH. But he came in 2nd in NH, and then he won the rest.

While Hillary is NO Bill Clinton, her name can win SC - if Edwards splits with Obama in SC

then it will be Nevada and Florida; and then Super Tuesday.

[snowbear]

28. And therein lies the problem...

"Hillary is NO Bill Clinton"

[Lord Helmet]

29. If she tanks in Iowa Gore might jump in.

[jcrew2001]

33. Hmm...one week between iowa and NH?

I don't think that would give Gore enough time. But who knows.

[ISUGRADIA]

38. He'd be a write-in in NH and the states that make up the mega

primary right after NH

[orleans]

34. i was going to say that--i heard him say this was a possibility

on a show he did recently--charlie rose maybe.

anyway, he said something to that effect

or someone said it.

(memory sucks today apparently) but...anyway...

[venable]

35. My man will win Iowa

and then Michigan, Wisconsin, etc....yeyah.

(just being cute)

Really, he will win Iowa.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=ukxUnP3A0eE

[question everything]

36. You have to remember that winning Iowa is not neceassarily

the road for the nomination, especially when there is no incumbent like Clinton in 1996 and Gore in 2000.

In 1988 it was Gephards vs. Dukakis
In 1992 it was Harkin vs. Clinton

Yes, favorite sons in both cases, still..

She should not skip Iowa altogether. This is what Clark did in 2004 and it cost him.

[jcrew2001]

39. Both are unique cases because

Dukakis won back NH using his regional influence from neighboring Massachusetts.

Clinton/Everyone else gave Harkin Iowa because he was from there, so it was a dubious win. In NH, Clinton came 2nd to Tsongas who again had regional influence.

I agree that Edwards has to come in 1st or 2nd in Iowa, which he can do. If Hillary is 3rd, she will need to definately win NH, using her new york regional influence - so NH will be a more accurate test of her chances. If she doesn't win NH, I think she will not win the nomination. It will just be an embarrassment of epic proportions, so it will not surprise me if she puts more money into NH.

GWB won Iowa, but lost NH, and came back.

GHWB won Iowa, but lost NH to Regan in 1980. It possible Hillary will follow in Reagan's path, but I think the Dem establishment isn't as overwhelming for Hillary as it was for Reagan. I think there is a fair amount of favortism towards Edwards.

[question everything]

40. And, again GHWB lost Iowa in 1988

to another favorite son - Bob Dole

There was one year, I don't remember which one, when Pat Robertson won Iowa for the GOP.. or perhaps came in second.

[jcrew2001]

43. However, she MUST Win NH regardless of Iowa's outcome

She'll likely lose iowa - but a 2nd place defeat in NH will be awful for her and illustrate that the Democratic voters prefer someone else, whoever finishes ahead of her in NH and Iowa - it its the same person.

A loss in NH will all but ruin her chances and momentum.

If she wins in NH, she will obviously have to take SC and Florida. We'll have to see how strong Edwards is - he can take Iowa and Nevada, but he won SC last time, if he wins SC again - he will be the nominee.

Polling in SC and FLA favor Hillary, but I don't think the other candidates have spent much advertising there.

Its unfortunate that Hillary is in position to win the Dem nomination, because IMO Edwards can win the General Election the easiest. With Hillary, it will get very ugly from the GOP attack ads.

On the Flip side, the GOP may be too demoralized this past year to fight Hillary - they are too busy fighting GWBush on Iraq, Immigration, etc. Maybe they will just roll-over.

[moosen]

42. I think both Edwards and Obama are paper tigers

Not strong candidates imho. Don't get me wrong I love Edwards, and it's hard to bash the guy with what he's been through recently, he's very likeable. But the inexperience factor from 2004 remains unchanged. He also may not appear tough enough on issues of national security. Obama is being set up for a monumental Dean-like fall. I think as we get closer to the election, most Dems will realize Barack is unelectable.

[jcrew2001]

44. Obama's donor list is very impressive

Even though his donor success is similar to Dean, its suprising how much he is beating Hillary. She has just so much expectation that she brought upon herself, that her mediocre-ness is depressing. While she has the 'experience' to be the nominee being a 2-term senator and first lady, she is very vulnerable.

She HAS to win NH - otherwise, it will be over.

Edwards may not have a lot of experience, but I think Dem voters remember his time serving on the ticket in 2004, and will give him a fair shake.

He can win Iowa, Nevada, and pull out SC. Hopefully the Florida voters will recognize his general election electability and give him the win.

Strangely, Obama is hurting Hillary, but also preventing Edwards from rising. He's a spoiler, but can he win One-on-One with Hillary? or will Edwards be the fall-back candidate.