Hillary's Iowa Scenarios
MORE
Wise Guys
Hillary Clinton still might lose, but if it’s going to happen, she’ll have to take it on the chin in the first contest on the nominating calendar, the January 3 Iowa caucuses.
A Clinton defeat there—she is now bunched together with Barack Obama and John Edwards in polls—would instantly alter the prevailing narrative of the Democratic race, casting doubt on the inevitably she has worked so hard to cultivate and creating an opening for her opponents to roll the “Big Mo” of Iowa into other states.
Otherwise, Mrs. Clinton probably has too much working in her favor to be stopped.
Realistically, there are four possible outcomes in Iowa. For Mrs. Clinton, the best scenario, obviously, is the simplest: win Iowa.
If she does that, then securing the nomination should be a relatively seamless and bloodless transaction. Why? Because the next state to vote will almost certainly be New Hampshire, where—unlike in Iowa—Mrs. Clinton is the clear and undisputed front-runner, ahead of Mr. Obama by 20 points in polls and Mr. Edwards by nearly 30 points. No matter what, those numbers will tighten some as the primary approaches, but they will only move dramatically if the Iowa results fundamentally shake up the Democratic race.
If Mrs. Clinton triumphs in Iowa, she will almost definitely win New Hampshire – and if she can pull off that one-two punch, she’ll be an unstoppable force going forward.
Another possible Iowa outcome is a win by Mr. Edwards, who won 32 percent in the state’s 2004 caucuses and who has spent so much time camped out there that some have taken to calling him “Governor.”
Mr. Edwards is staking everything on Iowa, but even if he succeeds, it’s not really bad news for Mrs. Clinton, as long as she finishes in second place. The reason: the main threat to Mrs. Clinton’s nomination is Mr. Obama, not Mr. Edwards—and a third place finish in Iowa would severely complicate Mr. Obama’s nomination roadmap, since he’ll need an Iowa bounce to catch Mrs. Clinton in New Hampshire.
Under this scenario, then, Mrs. Clinton would still likely win New Hampshire, where Mr. Edwards and his message have never gone over well. Instead, Mr. Edwards, who faces financial restriction that Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama do not, would try to roll his Iowa victory into South Carolina. But with a New Hampshire under her belt, Mrs. Clinton would still be in position to defeat him there. And even if she didn’t, she’d still have enough money, organization and inevitability to swamp him in the February 5 mega-primary, much the way her husband overwhelmed Paul Tsongas on Super Tuesday in 1992.
The third potential Iowa scenario is an Obama win—again, with Mrs. Clinton finishing in second place. Unlike the first two scenarios, this outcome would immediately throw Mrs. Clinton’s claim to the nomination into jeopardy.
An Obama win in Iowa would kill off Mr. Edwards’ campaign, immediately giving Mr. Obama what he has craved all along: a one-on-one shot against Mrs. Clinton. Moreover, an Iowa victory would propel him to New Hampshire with kind of poll-altering momentum enjoyed by John Kerry in 2004 and Gary Hart in 1984.
New Hampshire, where independents vote in large numbers in the Democratic primary and where voters tend to like thoughtful outsiders, has always been a ripe target for Mr. Obama. If he could ever pull off a win there, then he will have defeated Mrs. Clinton in the first two contests. And Mr. Obama already has the money to pursue an aggressive post-Iowa/New Hampshire strategy.
The fourth Iowa scenario is the least likely, but could potentially be the most damning to Mrs. Clinton: a third-place finish for the former First Lady—particularly a distant one, like when then-Vice-President George H.W. Bush finished behind Pat Robertson in the 1988 G.O.P. caucuses. This scenario would give both Mr. Obama and Mr. Edwards new life, while Mrs. Clinton’s showing would be deemed catastrophic by the media, turning New Hampshire into a make-or-break state for her.
The catch in this scenario is that a virtual three-way tie with Mrs. Clinton in third could work for her, with the razor-thin numbers preventing the media from declaring her the unqualified loser. And if Mr. Edwards and Mr. Obama both press ahead after Iowa, Mrs. Clinton could benefit from a split anti-Hillary vote.
As the election has gotten closer, Mrs. Clinton’s lead nationally has only seemed to grow.
But as all the candidates are clearly aware, Iowa could change everything.
Her lead has grown in Iowa too. She's probably going to win Iowa but it's by no means fatal if she loses to Obama or Edwards. Why it's fatal with Obama I can't see, he's not going to get magically transformed from NH to Florida. Conversely if she wins in Iowa it's really all over. Which will be a relief because I'm really tired of the press trying to turn this into a horserace which it really shows little signs of being. Clinton would have to stumble seriously nationally over the next eight weeks but I don't see it happening. Although at the next debate all guns will be trained on her as usual. I find it hard to believe her aides aren't developing a counter strategy for the expected assault.
Iowa polls should be taken with grain of salt. The dynamics of caucusing is complex in relation to normal voting process. Any thing could happen and there is no point assuming that a particular person is going to win.
Hilary Clinton could turn out to be the nominee but it is by no means a foregone by conclusion. Hilary is facing a very serious challenge because the issue is not about policy that could be explained away but character deficits that present no quick fixes. If the accusation of dishonesty against Hilary were to gain momentum, her nomination or winning the general election is in huge jeopardy. The outcrop of last debate is that Hilary was caught in the act of double-speak. This is not a mere accusation by her political opponents. There are going to be lots of ads by 527’s showing the videos of Hilary making contradictory comments or double-speak. A character trait of proven dishonesty cannot win a presidential election. This is what Hilary Clinton is facing and her saving grace would only be if her competition could not making logical argument to convince voters of her character trait of dishonesty. If the narrative of the election is only going to be on policy issues, then, Hilary will easily win the nomination.
Get over it already, Hillary is the Dems candidate. I know having the race be over this early kinda takes the excitement out of things but it's reality. Once the field was settled and it was Hillary against a trial lawyer the Republicans would make mincemeat out of in a general, a rookie running at least a decade before he was ready and a couple of perennials and comic relief candidates it was over. No heavyweight Democrat bothered to even get in the ring with Hillary.
I'll be blown if I can figure out why Edwards is still trying, once he took the matching funds he admitted he wasn't going to win the nomination. Hillary can outspend him by huge multiples and even if he somehow caught fire in Iowa people now CAN'T give him enough cash to be competitive.
Obama still thinks he has a chance and in a fair fight he actually might, despite his manifest unreadiness for the office, but if we have learned nothing else about the Clintons it is that the last thing they do is fight fair. Hell, if it comes down to it they will toss him onto the pile of bodies of people who stood in the way of the Clintons... and have better than even odds of getting away with casting blame on the 'vast rightwing conspiracy.'
Edwards could win Iowa, and Obama finish second.
This would breathe life into Edward's campaign, and make him the "Great Male White Hope."
Never underestimate the influence of racial and gender prejudice.
Both Obama and Edwards get much more of the independent vote. Blacks were given the vote before women, and that should tell us something about who may suffer more from discrimination.
Without prejudice, the Clinton problem is THEIR history of morally questionable and tactically ruthless politics.
For heaven's sake, this is not about gender bias.
The national electability questions regarding Hillary Rodham-Clinton are starting to really worry me. She does not "hear" genuine concerns that her vacillation style is beginning to wear on voters.
Continuation of the "triangulation waffle" will mean defeat in November 2008 for the Democrats. She is already a drag on lower-level races in many parts of the country.
The issue of driver's licenses for "bona fide illegals" should have been a no-brainer. 77% of Americans oppose giving licenses.
Do not let the immigration issue provide the Republicans with an opportunity to win the election and thereby extend their "cave-man" policies. /
Without prejudice, the Clinton problem is THEIR history of morally questionable and tactically ruthless politics.
For heaven's sake, this is not about gender bias.
The national electability questions regarding Hillary Rodham-Clinton are starting to really worry me. She does not "hear" genuine concerns that her vacillation style is beginning to wear on voters.
Continuation of the "triangulation waffle" will mean defeat in November 2008 for the Democrats. She is already a drag on lower-level races in many parts of the country.
The issue of driver's licenses for "bona fide illegals" should have been a no-brainer. 77% of Americans oppose giving licenses.
Do not let the immigration issue provide the Republicans with an opportunity to win the election and thereby extend their "cave-man" policies. /
The strongest candidate the Republicans can nominate is Hillary. So let’s get it over with and nominate Hillary and give the republicans the biggest single chance at winning the GELERAL ELECTION.
I work with several right of center working class guys. They are willing to vote for any dem other than Hillary. They draw the line at Hillary.
Winning the Presidency is about winning the middle.
Why do we work so hard to help the other guy win?
Personally, I like Obama. I do not trust Hillary Clinton. Plus I think America has had enough Bush/Clinton/Bush with another Clinton keeps things right on track without much hope for change.
While Obama has been accused of being inexperienced, he has no less experience than Hillary. Being a First Lady does not qualify as being "experienced". Nor does it translate into wise decision making.
Obama's life experience outside Washington taught him well. Considering he lived overseas gives him a different perspective, something I believe all of us can appreciate. Obama majored in International Relations at Columbia University. He was a community director before becoming the Illinois state senator for 7 years and then elected to be a US Senator in Washington.
H. Clinton was a first lady and then became a NY senator for 1.5 terms. How does that make her any more qualified than Obama?
The quality I admire in Obama is his sense of justice tempered with intelligence, a sense of balance and reasoned logic. His responses are generally measured and thoughtful, not the cookie-cutter type of answers most politicians give. He is seen as forthcoming.
It is important he is willing to speak to other world leaders rather than stipulating rules that negate diplomacy when nothing is left to negotiate; It shows respect -- something non-existent in the Bush administration. The willingness to bridge the divide, Obama shows cautioned reason and change. Comparatively Hillary's approach is too reactive and clearly indicates more of the same.
She is too hawkish. To shield herself she triangulates instead of taking a definitive stand. By appearance sake she seems too eager to follow Bush's foreign policy. For instance, her support for attacking Iran without talking or even taking into consideration the dire consequences are worrisome.
Certainly no one will agree with any one candidate on all the issues, but there is nothing to suggest Hillary will be much different than what we have now and that is unacceptable. Moreover no one really knows where she stands because she never really says. Notwithstanding she is intelligent, charming and engaging, but because she is not forthcoming it is difficult to trust her.
Obama wants to bring the country together. A lot of republicans are attracted to him for this reason have pledged their votes.
We need someone who will change the direction of the country. Hillary represents little change compared with Obama who offers us a new direction. Obama has a lot to offer the country. He shows a willingness to work across the board with both parties, Edwards too for that matter. Obama has a phenomenal mind. He is wise beyond his years. I suggest taking another look at him.
Do we really want another: Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton ??? ....
Being involved and in Iowa, some of this analysis looks really silly. Poeple pontificating about how unready Barack Obama is sound ridiculous to any political wonk who has actually attended his speeches and seen him field questions.
There is a reason the race is neck and neck here in Iowa. It's because he is running here. It's because we know him here. He's already moving consistently ahead of John Edwards who has been running here for five years and concentrates almost his entire effort here. And Hillary has not been widening any lead over Obama for a long time here. Many polls are showing it to be a statistical dead heat.
Every week that goes by plays against the old hand. She's running on name recognition and familiarity. The 'safe' bet. She's been in the race for years. If people aren't in her corner already, they're probably looking for someone else.
There is a reason we do Iowa this way. It's to create an arena where the candidates, not just their national brand but the actual candidates, campaign in front of the same voters. The national Democrats would be wise to watch what Barack Obama is doing in a place where the people are getting to know him. They may also benefit from noticing the large number of people supporting him who have never registered Democrat before. Nominating someone who doesn't expand the electoral base after running two consecutive 50-50 type losses isn't really very smart. Obama is growing the base here. It's what is putting him in the race. The idea is to imagine what he could do with the nomination in hand. Iowa is the model.
It's Obama's fault. He never should have jumped in and diluted the anti-Hillary vote. I swear he was put up to running by the pro-NAFTA, pro-AIPAC corporate Dems, just in case Hillary stumbled. God knows we couldn't really nominate Edwards, the most authentic progressive of the bunch - what would the insurance industry and Wall Street do? It's pathetic.
I generally agree with the analysis except for here: the 3rd scenario is potentially more dangerous than the 4th for the Clinton campaign insofar as it increases the probability that Edwards drops out of the race and the non-Clinton vote unites behind Obama.
A larger loss by Edwards in Iowa (3rd scenario) increases the possibility of Edwards dropping out and providing Obama with a 2-person race, and a better chance of scoring an upset, in New Hampshire. A smaller loss by Edwards in Iowa (4th scenario), however, increases the likelihood of him remaining until after the South Carolina primaries, keeping the non-Clinton vote divided until she has secured the nomination. Obviously, the Clinton campaign wants to finish 1st in Iowa; barring that, finishing 3rd might be preferable to finishing 2nd if it keeps the non-Clinton vote divided going into New Hampshire.
From Texas: the nanoscopic state of Iowa (which means that you need an electron microscope to find it on a map of the USA)has never during its history elected a woman to state-wide or national office. NEVER. Place this in context of the fun that many "northerners" poke at Texas and the fact that we have had two female Governors as well as female Senators and representatives in Washington. Then you begin to realize how ridiculous this Iowa caucus is. It is not even a secret ballot. It is a sham sold as democracy. In fact, by collusion candidates can prevent a front runner to win which is what happened to Dean in 2003 when Lieberman threw his support to Kerry. In legal language, the Iowa caucus is a conspiracy. It is disgusting that the presidential wannabes participate in this charade. My comment has nothing to do with the candidacy of Senator Clinton because I think that we deserve a much better Democratic candidate. If she becomes our next President however, she should be addressed as President Rodham. After all, male presidents do not have to change their names when they marry!
To reinforce my comment above, today both Hillary and Obama came out in support of (so-called) "free trade" with Peru, while Edwards did not. Why should any progressive vote for Hillary or Obama? Are we Democrats not inviting a 3rd party spoiler (again) with this lack of real conviction from our nominees?
DON'T TRUST THE POLLS! No one can look into the mind of every single potential voter in the primaries. Every assumption that Hilary will win is being promoted by the polls, many of which (MSNBC, CNN, ABC) whose creators lean towards or support Hillary. Obama is the only one expanding his base of voters, Hillary voters or non-voters have already made up their mind. I think many will be surprised by the actual results of the primaries, and will find Barack the nominee in 08. Check out the link and decide for yourself: http: //www.thebarackobamareport.com/the_barack_obama_report/2007/09/hillary-clint-4.html
DON'T TRUST THE POLLS! No one can look into the mind of every single potential voter in the primaries. Every assumption that Hilary will win is being promoted by the polls, many of which (MSNBC, CNN, ABC) whose creators lean towards or support Hillary. Obama is the only one expanding his base of voters, Hillary voters or non-voters have already made up their mind. I think many will be surprised by the actual results of the primaries, and will find Barack the nominee in 08. Check out the link and decide for yourself: http: //www.thebarackobamareport.com/the_barack_obama_report/2007/09/hillary-clint-4.html
Mrs. Clinton will be taken DOWN, and I will be participating. I am a yellow dog DEMOCRAT, but I wouldn't vote for this whore, if my life depended on it.
She offers NOTHING but her husband's LAST name to this contest. Why anyone would vote for her is beyond my wildest imagination. She is divisive, vindictive, and has the class of george w. bu$h! D-E-S-P-I-C-A-B-L-E-!-!-!