Iowa is a must-win state for Obama...

[Tellurian]

His Team has forgotten to send out the memo. If he doesn't win here, statistically he's OUT of the race..

"As for Clinton, if she wins the Iowa caucus, there is nothing to stop her from getting the nomination. If she loses in Iowa, the caucus winner will have a brief moment to capitalize on the event and make his case. But, the Clinton campaign does possess something that none of her challengers can claim—a chance to win the nomination even if Iowa doesn’t work out as planned. She remains the most popular candidate among Democrats and is perceived to be the most electable. Clinton has a huge head start in New Hampshire and a solid demographic firewall due to her overwhelming support from women.

It is interesting that Obama has now adopted essentially the same tactical strategy as Mitt Romney is following in the GOP nominating contest-- win in the first real competition and hope that momentum will do the rest. And, that strategy confirms a reality that the Obama campaign memo forgot to mention… Iowa is a must-win state for the Senator from Illinois."

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/2008_democratic_presidential_primary

[youthere]

1. Bull. Clinton placed third in Iowa.

Bill Clinton that is.

[Tellurian]

5. You didn't get the memo either? Bill Clinton isn't running....

[Freddie Stubbs]

13. The primary season was much more stretched out and there was no clear front runner then

[DemocratSinceBirth]

22. IA Was Discounted In 92 Because Harkin Was Running

Next

[youthere]

25. Michael Dukakis also finished third and went on to win New Hampshire.

next.

[MannyGoldstein]

2. Actually, It's A Must-Win State For Mrs. Clinton

If she doesn't win in Iowa, the whole "resistance is futile" strategy is blown up.

[Tellurian]

4. The usual disinformation campaign...Rasmussen strongly differs with you!

I suggest you provide a link to support your lame assumptions...I know, you really don't care. Propaganda is your stock and trade..

[karynnj]

14. Very good point

The media drum beat of get in line, it is inevitable would be challenged. She will still have a huge amount of party and media support. Her lead in NH could well evaporate over night, if it is based on she's going to win anyway. If it is solid firm Clinton support, it won't. In 2004, NH moved to Kerry very quickly after he won Iowa and looked viable.

If Obama (or Edwards) won, and they were then endorsed by Gore and/or Kerry (Dean has promised to say neutral), the inevitability could be further shattered. Even then, if Obama or Edwards won both NH or Iowa, Hillary has intense support of a large wing of the party and the media, which no 2004 candidate had.

[Tellurian]

3. Iowa, the make or break test for the other contenders..nm

[Perky]

6. Counterspinning the conventional wisdom Tellurian?

No way in Hell Obama has to win in in Iowa.

[Tellurian]

10. Contact Rasmussen. It's their call... they're the experts..

[Tellurian]

16. After reading this thread...Rasmussen's analogy is dead on..

as opposed to poster speculation comparing other campaigns.

[Perky]

17. How about the costext of your little snippet.

How about posting a littmore of the Rasmussen piece?

[bigdarryl]

7. So now the pundits will put out if Obama doesn't win Iowa hes DONE

they forget that he has 58 million to keep going.they know damn well Edwards just might win in Iowa. the pundits are trying to count Obama out on PURPOSE

[Ethelk2044]

11. Obama is not worried about them. He is doing fine in Iowa. Hillary is the one who will have to

worry. If she comes in 3rd as much as the MSM has been pushing her, it will prove the is not the one in the lead. And then if she goes down in NH. It will move her to the probably 3rd in the top tier position.

[Nederland]

8. Nonsense

He certainly has plenty of money to last long past Iowa, so what do you mean by "statistically" he's out of the race? Iowa doesn't have many delegates, so what numbers are you referring to?

[Ethelk2044]

9. Manny - I agree. The pundits (MSM) will start to move away from her if she places

`Second or Third.

[BeyondGeography]

12. Piss off, Rasputin

Obama needs a strong showing in Iowa; that's all. Within 5-7 points of whomever wins would be fine.

Edwards is the guy who needs to win Iowa.

[youthere]

26. Exactly.

[Debi]

15. I disagree

with the front-loaded primaries and the concentrated support for each of the 'Big Three' candidates in states that will go before or on February fifth any 1-2-3 finish in any of the early states will keep them alive until Sooper Dooper Tuesday. Only a complete crash and burn (ala Gephardt in 2004) will topple a campaign before then.

JMO. :shrug:

[Stop Cornyn]

18. We have over three months, which is a long time for peaked-too-early to fall, but if January in Iowa

looks like Iowa today, and if there is a clear 1st, 2nd, and 3rd place finish with enough space between those finishers that 1st and 2nd or 2nd and 3rd don't look like virtual ties, I don't think anyone but Hillary could survive a 3rd place finish, and if she comes in 3rd, she may need to win New Hampshire, which would be very tough after a 3rd place finish in Iowa.

If Iowa finishes Edwards, Hillary, Obama -- we have a 2 candidate race between Edwards and Hillary.

If Iowa finishes Edwards, Obama, Hillary or Obama, Edwards, Hillary -- we have a 3 candidate race.

If Iowa finishes Hillary, Edwards, Obama or Hillary, Obama, Edwards -- Hillary runs the table.

If Iowa finishes Obama, Hillary, Edwards -- we have a 2 candidate race between Obama and Hillary.

Assuming that we do have a three way race going into New Hampshire, Hillary cannot withstand 2 consecutive 3rd place finishes, and neither Edwards nor Obama can withstand finishing in the top 2 in Iowa but then getting so little bump that he still drops to 3rd in New Hampshire.

In short: I don't see a 3 candidate race after New Hampshire unless the candidates clump together so tightly that there is no clear 1st, 2nd, or 3rd in one of both of those contests.

[abq e streeter]

19. That's right

after a handful of active Democrats meeting in caucuses in a small, mostly white and rural state decide who they like, we need to cancel the other 49 primaries, and anoint the nominee right there and then.........huh???

[Tom Rinaldo]

20. Iowa is obviously important, more so for those trying to make up ground

on the current front runner Hillary Clinton. But I think Edwards has even more riding on Iowa than Obama. I talk about it more on another DU thread...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3544405&mesg_id=3544560

...but in short, if Obama comes in second in Iowa and Edwards came in third - given that Edwards now trails in the race overall and given that Edwards at one point had high hopes for Iowa and clearly allocated the resourses needed to achieve his hopes for Iowa, Edwards coming in third in Iowa might clearly establish Obama as the designated only viable non-Hillary in the race, which could actually give him a boost, if he came in a very close second to her in Iowa.

[AtomicKitten]

21. It's more of a deal-breaker for Edwards.

However, if the top three stay in the neighborhood of competitive, this primary will be fought tooth and nail state by state. It is a thousand years in political time til the primary so pretty much anything can happen.

[TwilightGardener]

23. I don't think so--I think it's a must-win for Edwards.

[zulchzulu]

24. That's precisely what the Obama campaign is thinking regarding winning Iowa

The Obama campaign has a solid ground game already in Iowa. Lots of support, lots of grassroots efforts, huge crowds, lots of volunteers...

If Obama comes in a strong second and Clinton takes a distant third or even fourth behind Dodd (which is my prediction), her campaign will be on the ropes. Obama doesn't need to win Iowa...Edwards does.

Three and a half months remain until the Iowa caucus. We'll see how this all plays out.