Does Hillary Need to win NH?

[jcrew2001]

Hillary can afford to lose Iowa, particularly because Edwards is strong there and Obama has regional influence. But if Hillary loses NH, comes in 2nd, it will be an embarassment of epic proportions. She needs to come in first and decisively, particularly if she loses Iowa.

IMO she needs to spend all of her money in NH. I'm glad to hear Obama is focusing on NH and giving her a run for her money, he will have a lot of influence among the young and independent. If Obama defeats Hillary there, she is done.

If I were Hillary's campaign I would be a lot more scared of losing NH.

Forget Iowa, put on a fake show, but the real story for Hill will be NH.

If she loses Iowa - SC will go to Obama/Edwards , etc. etc.

[rinsd]

1. All Hillary has to do is finish 1st or 2nd until Sooper Dooper Tues.

And then its all over.

[jcrew2001]

13. If she gets all 2nds and no 1st - it will scare a lot of people away

But to even mention her getting 2nd place is conceding defeat which she has never uttered before. Its always just win with her. Is there a seed a doubt in her mind.

[bunnies]

2. NH is fickle... and its way too early to be counting chickens up here

But honestly... I'd really surprised if she took this state when the time comes.

[SaveElmer]

3. Not as badly as Edwards needs to win in Iowa...

I think she will be damaged if she loses NH however...though I don't see that happening...

[jcrew2001]

14. She will be damaged - she needs to worry about NH and forget

Iowa.

Edwards needs Iowa and SC - he's in good position to pull it off.

[SaveElmer]

15. Don't think so...

Edwards has practically lived in Iowa and can't break the high twenties in most polls, and some have him behind. If he loses Iowa, he is done...On the other hand, if Hillary loses but places second, or we have a sort of 3 way tie as some polls indicate, wouldn't harm her going into New Hampshire, Nevada, and Florida(if they move things up)

[jcrew2001]

17. But why can't she win Iowa, if she is says she can easily

win the primary and general election? i agree that NH is more important to her and that she can afford to come in 3rd in iowa. There are no excuses for a NH loss, that is where her base is.

On the other hand, SC will be the more accurate proving ground - if she has legs. If she wins SC, she will have the nomination, otherwise things will get really interesting.

But its pathetic how her campaign wants to BUY the election by focusing on the Big states like Florida, Cal,and New York, instead of the meaningless small states. As if small town america doesn't matter to the hillary's message.

[SaveElmer]

19. Given the fact that she has only been campaigning in Iowa...

For a few months...and Edwards has been encamped there for the better part of two years...she is doing quite well IMO...

And I can see why you would denigrate Hillary's support in places like Florida, and California, since Edwards is clearly not yet competitive there...pretty astounding for the party's last VP nominee...

As to her message to small town America...I've been to New Hampshire...mostly small towns...seems to be resonating there so far...

[jcrew2001]

20. So are you saying that Edwards should be beating Hillary

even though the Rodham-Clinton name has been around since 1992, but Edwards has only been known since 2004. You admit that Edwards should have some strength, which I agree.

But Hillary should in theory be dominating given her stature among the Dem party. But other names are popular as well, like Ted Kennedy and he'll never win a national election.

I think Dem voters will remember Edwards as the VP, and will give him an honest chance in Iowa, SC, Nevada, and Florida.

[SaveElmer]

21. Absolutely...

She hasn't been campaigning for President for the last 15 years...she has only been thought of as a politician in her own right for 8...

If Edwards has a convincing win in Iowa, then he has a shot in NH, if he wins there he can afford to lose SC and NV going forward...but has to show some strength in the larger states...

[jcrew2001]

22. WOW - Edwards is the Frontrunner in 2008!!!

Thats quite an admission - that Edwards is the front-runner in 2008 and not Hillary.

No wonder her campaign is ready to cede Iowa to Edwards.

This doesn't really surprise me, since I've always considered Edwards more electable than Hillary, and more in tune with the primary electorate. He also has some good will generated from the 2004 VP.

But you say Edwards should be More popular. But I'm saying that Hillary should be more popular and dominant, since she was "co-president" for 8 years. Gore won the primary easily, shouldn't the same go for Hillary, or has her time passed.

I think she is trying to buy the nomination, that is why she moved to NYC, to get the Wall street money. If she wanted to truly represent middle-America, she would have moved back to Chicago. I think that's her greatest weakness, being the NYS senator - she'll never be able to run on a populist platform.

[SaveElmer]

23. Clearly not what I said...

But he should be the front runner in Iowa...after all, he practically moved his residence there...

And it is always nice to see when DU apes Freeper talking points...

And name me a single successful Presidential candidate to run on a populist platform!

[jcrew2001]

32. Huh, didn't Bill Clinton run on populist platform?

about the middle class tax cut, etc. etc.

I agree that Edwards should be the national front-runner, given his VP in 2004. I hope he still has enough buzz to get the nomination.

I don't know why you are saying Hillary is not an NYC liberal - she is the NYS senator from NYC and enjoys the power and wealth that being from the most powerful and wealthiest city in the world. These are facts, I'm not making this up.

If she wanted to live in Chicago, she could have. If she wanted people to see her as a mid-westerner, whe would have.

[SaveElmer]

33. Wow...just making it up eh?

As I said, and will say again, Edwards should be the front runner in Iowa...given that it has become his second home...

And if as you say Edwards should be the national frontrunner...well then he ought to drop out now...because he is running a truly shitty campaign...

And though I know you probably don't need it spelled out for you but calling Hillary a "co-President" is a Freeper talking point...claiming, without evidence(the "progressive" bent toward truthiness again), she ran in New York solely to raise money for a Presidential run, is a freeper talking point...

[jcrew2001]

35. How is Hillary attempting to leave Iowa a better decision

than any that Edwards has made? Talk about a floundering campaign - which it will be if she leaves Iowa.

Fine, I won't call Hillary "co-president" or "two-for-one" but then don't bring up that she has 8 years of WH experience. She has 7 years of Senate experience only.

I'm from NYS, why the heck would Hillary move to NYC and run for Senate? Were no other residents qualified that we had to elect an outsider. NYC is the most powerful and wealthiest city in the world - thats a fact, it make Bloomberg and Rudy possible presidential candidates.

Hillary could have picked Chicago or any other state, but why NY - I have no idea. What was wrong with Arkansas - she actually lived there.

[SaveElmer]

37. But she is not leaving Iowa...

She has said so explicitly, and is campaigning there the next two weeks...you buy the MSM hype about a single leaked internal memo, the types of memos that I guarantee are floating around every campaign...

As to this...

"I'm from NYS, why the heck would Hillary move to NYC and run for Senate? "

She was in fact approached about running for the seat by Charles Rangel and Rovert Torricelli (DSCC). Moynihan was retiring and there did not appear to be a viable candidate stepping up to run...

Rangel said this...

Clinton Is Welcome in Harlem

At the time they were offered, the two suggestions I’ve made to the Clinton family were little more than wishful thinking. Back in the fall of 1998, I asked Hillary Clinton if she would consider running for the Senate from New York state. I knew it would be a boon for New York, but I was as shocked as anyone when she actually decided to do it.

Now comes former President Clinton’s announcement of his desire to open his office on 125th Street in Harlem. When I mentioned the idea to Mr. Clinton even before he left office, I considered it a great—indeed historic—opportunity for him and for Harlem. But never in my wildest dreams did I expect it to happen.

I wonder what kind of objection you would have had in 1968 when RFK decided to move to New York to run for Senate...at least Hillary actually makes her home there...has served a term before running for President...and by all accounts, including her landslide victory last November, has been a very good Senator for the state...

[jcrew2001]

38. The memo is a serious memo and by the fall, the Iowa money won't be there

The next 2 weeks are a PR gimmick, to repair the damage of the memo. I fully expect her campaign to save their money and spend it in NH and elsewhere. Its realistic that she won't win Iowa and the fortune she spends there will bankrupt her from the must win NH, and the big states.

Edwards I guarantee is not leaving Iowa. Obama is not leaving Iowa.

The only reason Clark left was because McCain won NH in 2000, and Clark though he could beat Dean there, he never saw Kerry coming.

I know and everyone else knew in 2000, that NYS Senate was just a stepping stone for Hillary. That is nothing to be ashamed about, because we voted for her anyways. Frankly, its flattering to NYC liberals that the First Lady would run for Senate - and use it as a launching pad for the WH. We're sick of Mass getting all the presidential candidates, its time for a New Yorker to represent. NY is a powerful state and that's why she chose it.

Of course, the 2000 Senate seat was wide open. The fall back candidate was JFK Jr, he declined for Hillary - if he had won, he'd probably still be alive.

[SaveElmer]

39. Do you have a single shred of evidence for that...

Sounds more like wishful thinking to me...the guy who wrote it, Mike Henry, was the ad guy for the DSCC in 2006, and ran Tim Kaine's campaign in 2005...it is his job to game out different scenarios. There is no reason whatsoever for Hillary to leave Iowa...polls show right now she would put in a strong showing there...

She will stay in Iowa, and she will make a credible showing...

If Edwards shows any weakness there whatsoever however...he is toast

[jcrew2001]

40. Are you saying she will spend 15 million in Iowa?

Because I doubt that. She'll put in some appearances. But the money won't be there. She won't buy TV time. She's not dumb - she needs the money for NH and the big states. Do you honestly believe she will drain her account for Iowa???

[SaveElmer]

41. Well first....

15 million wouldn't drain her account...

Second, she has far more resources monetarily than Edwards, so she won't need to spend 15 million...

She is more of a national candidate than Edwards I will grant you that, and may not have that singular focus that Edwards puts into it...but she will invest in Iowa, run ads, and campaign there...and make a credible showing...

She most certainly will not bypass Iowa

[Bullet1987]

42. I don't think she'll bypass Iowa now either...

But the memo was serious and shows that the Clinton campaign has its doubts about winning there. An Obama surge to overtake Edwards is much more likely than a Clinton surge.

[jcrew2001]

46. She'll do the Iowa PR, but she keep her money in NH

because the memo is accurate that they need 15 million to make a 'credible' showing in NH to match Edwards and Obama. Anything less than that will be monetarily conceding Iowa.

A better return on investment would be spending the money on NH, where she doesn't have to compete with Edwards. She'll save her money for the big states.

[polichick]

4. It's ridiculous for Iowa and NH to have such clout...

Jeeze ~ who the heck do those folks think they are?! :rant:

[bunnies]

8. ummm

some of us here DO live in NH ya know. sheesh.

[polichick]

10. What makes YOU so special?!?

Of course I'm teasing, but do think it's absurd for two states with small populations to make such a big difference during primary season.

[bunnies]

24. oh come on. Everybody knows NH is a perfect representative of the US

:sarcasm:
Honestly though... with so many states moving their primaries up Im surprised that anyone still cares what NH thinks. What gives us so much clout? Its always been a mystery to me.

[polichick]

27. This should be a facsinating primary season...

Amazing that it took other states so long to stand up and be counted, so to speak.

[bunnies]

34. I agree.

I say... let everybody vote on the same day. Just like in the general election. Then everybody gets an equal say in it and nobody gets the shit end of the stick. I always thought it was fucked up that people put so much emphasis on NH. Its like.. come on people... its NH for crying out loud!!! :)

[jcrew2001]

43. I sort of agree but if we have a national primary day, won't regional

favorites win their states, creating a stalemate.

What if Edwards takes the south, Hillary takes the northeast, Obama takes the midwest and Richardson takes the southwest.

What if Biden takes Delaware and dodd takes Conn.

Heck - it will just be about California - so everyone needs to put their ad buys in Calli.

[zanne]

30. We're good at it.

It's a small state, so politicians can cover it all pretty easily. We're experienced, so we know what events to attend and what to ignore, and we're independent as hell (More than half the state is Independent) so we don't just fall for anybody with a pretty face.

[ultraist]

5. Yes, she needs to win NH

If Hillary loses Iowa and NH, the first two states, her lack of electability will be glaringly evident, thus her fate sealed.

What candidate has lost both Iowa and NH and gone on to win the nomination? I don't think a single one.

[paulk]

29. Bill Clinton

in 1992 lost both the Iowa caucus and the NH primary.

[jcrew2001]

31. thats a good strategy - Hillary should try to lose both IA and NH

especially now that Vilsack and Kerry aren't running. At least Bill could blame his losts on Harkin and Tsongas. Who's Hillary going to blame her losses on? What if Obama finishes 2nd in both IA and NH - won't he then be the new "Bill Clinton"

[nevergiveup]

6. Yes,

she needs to win NH. It won't mean it is over but there will be negative fall out mainly because it will be saying that she is not invincible/unbeatable. Edwards also needs to win Iowa and Obama must stay within fighting distance in both states. Obama has a shot in South Carolina and if he wins there, Edwards wins Iowa and Hillary wins New Hampshire it will be a bruiser for the rest of the way but the odds go to Hillary.

[jefferson_dem]

7. Regardless of what she does in Iowa, she has to win NH. A third place finish in Iowa

means the needed win in NH is much less likely (See Dean in 2004).

...

On that note, here's hoping for Hill to tank in Iowa... :bounce:

[David Dunham]

9. ARG's Polls today have Hillary leading big in IA, NH, and SC

[jefferson_dem]

11. Sure. Results for ARG polls have been way out of whack with other reputable polls this season.

That is for both Dem and Repuke trial heats. Therefore...grain of salt...

[SoxFan]

44. Grain of salt?

With ARG, you need this...

[Tesha]

12. I don't know if she "needs" NH, but she won't be getting the votes of the Tesha family.

I don't know if she "needs" NH, but she won't be getting
the votes of the Tesha family in order to do it. I can't
say who we'll be voting for, but we will certainly be voting
*AGAINST* Clinton.

We actively supported her in 2000 but from the moment she
actually won her seat, she's been a huge disappointment
to us, taking the undemocratic (yes, little "d") side
on several key votes.

That, plus the idea that a Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton
duopoly disgusts us, means we'll work quite hard to
oppose her candidacy here in NH.

Tesha

[Mutineer]

16. I think she'll have to win or place 2nd in the first couple of states

or you can stick a fork in her.

[jcrew2001]

18. It will be really surprising if Obama can place 2nd in both

NH and Iowa. He could be a player in SC.

[Perky]

26. If Obama finishes 2nd in either. it will be his to lose

He beats expectations by finishing near the top in two very white states. He should win SC and possibly FLorida


That means serious MO going into 2/5

[Ethelk2044]

36. He was leading in SC

[Perky]

25. YES because she can't win in either SC or FL

And is she int presumptive by then. 2/5 is a push. and then no one goes into the convention with a majority of delegates.

[Bullet1987]

28. Edwards won't win both Iowa and NH

And neither will Hillary. Edwards at this point will take Iowa and NH will be close between Clinton and Obama. Obama is really the only one who has a chance at winning both...but I don't see that happenining either.

[illinoisprogressive]

45. with her high negatives and losing Iowa and NH she is done