Edwards annouces his candidacy for President of Iowa...

[calteacherguy]

Poll question: Edwards annouces his candidacy for President of Iowa...

"Kerry effectively won the nomination in Iowa," said Edwards, a former North Carolina senator. "I would know because I was unfortunately on the receiving end. I was second in Iowa and wasn't able to stop that avalanche. And I think that's very likely to happen again."

<snip>

"His only choice is to win Iowa. If he doesn't win there it's over," said Mark Mellman, a Democratic pollster who advised Kerry during his presidential run. "Iowa is the only state in which Edwards is able to compete with the real behemoths of the race — Clinton and Obama.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/politics/4949241.html

[Cameron27]

1. I don't think it's going to work .

Too many states are moving up their primaries, so any bounce off Iowa is questionable even if he wins it.

[whirlygigspin]

2. Iowa has a President?

good luck to him in that, I guess.

[Yukari Yakumo]

3. There are 5 lead-off primaries

Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, Florida, and South Carolina.

The only state Edwards has been a serious contender in is Iowa. Even then, polls do not show him with a consistent lead (if he leads at all).
HRC has huge leads in Nevada and Florida, and a large lead in New Hampshire.
In one recent poll, HRC leads South Carolina. Another recent poll, Obama leads South Carolina with HRC in second. In both polls, Edwards is behind by double digits.

Investing everything in Iowa ended up being a huge tactical mistake for Edwards. While he may eek out a win in Iowa, he is going to get destroyed in the other four states. At that point, the fat lady has sung for the Edwards campaign.

[maximusveritas]

4. I don't want our nomination to be decided by less than 100,000 Iowans

Probably no one other than the Edwards campaign wants that. That's why so many people were excited about the proposed re-arrangement of the calendar. In the end, we didn't get the major changes we needed, but I think it will be enough to prevent what happened in 2004 from happening again.

[Diane R]

5. Agreed. I'm sick to death of people in Iowa being the only ones to see our candidates.

[MalloyLiberal]

8. Then bitch at the party, they're the ones who choose this bullshit

[Connie_Corleone]

6. What's the point of having a primary season if our candidate is chosen by Iowans?

No offense to Iowans, but I don't want Iowa to be the end of the primary season with the winning candidate riding the wave all the way to the nomination. That's what happened in 2004. Hopefully, that will change with some big states moving up their primaries.

[Cameron27]

7. Isn't that the truth.

I'm hoping the changes in the primary schedules will diminish the impact of any one state.

[demgirlamerica]

9. campaign season is way too long

i have a feeling edwards will just melt away. edwards is part of the rich america and we are part of the other america. my guess is edwards takes advantage of every tax bbreak and deduction possible and spends thousands of dollars on tax attorneys to make sure we pay taxes and he doesnt. i have never seen or heard a bigger hypocrite in the democratic party. would he be better than a republican? of course. however, i have no use for him at all.

[venable]

10. 'your guess is'......wrong

you don't like him, fine.

but don't start junk like you bet he takes advantage of this or that when you don't have clue. cuz you don't.

you have no use for Edwards. I have no use for your kind of argument. nor does any adult conversation.

'snicker snicker I bet he's really mean to people snicker' - that kind of argument. no use for it.

[demgirlamerica]

12. i must disagree

he lives the king's life and as far as i am aware he doesnt allow homelss people to live on his property. edwards belongs to the super rich america. its time real democrats stop supporting the rich. im sad to say we have become the party of multi-millionaires who preach taxes for everyone but themselves. they have tax shelters and old money that isnt subject to income tax. we dont have a candidate that represents the poor, only candidates who exploit them. i support hillary because at least her money is new money and she has been a genuine politician for decades.

personally, i am ready to support the least rich democratic candidate. look at the senate. we have more and more multi-millionaire democrats who have no identity with working america. our party is being taken over by corporate america. why didnt more democrats stand up for the poorest, least educated among us and oppose the immigration bill? my guess is far too many of them are loading up on corporate donations.

[venable]

11. the OP title is absurd

he hardly is doing such.

and the poll is not a poll...it is an invitation to be snarky about a perfectly legitimate primary strategy - ie if I don't have the press or money to battle the big 2, then I'll have to count on actual voters to re-frame this campaign.

sounds sage to me.


I hope he wins.

[Catchawave]

13. I smell fear....

not snark, not humor....desperation. Sad :cry:

I hope he wins too :loveya:

[demgirlamerica]

14. we have abandoned the working man

the immigration bill makes me madder and madder. i heard very few democratic voices concerned about the poorest among us. why do we need to import millions of illegals? have we forgotten the poor black male in an inner city who already have the highest unemployment rate? what do we say to them? sorry, but you dont contribute money to us like big business does so we can continue to provide them with cheap labor?

we had the chance to hang immigration around bush's big business neck, but we decided to feed at the corporate trough along with the swine republicans.

[Catchawave]

15. Welcome to DU !

We're all mad, WE can change that :hi:

[calteacherguy]

18. I was trying for humor. Fear of what? nt

[karynnj]

16. Edwards is really missreading what happened in 2004

Kerry was well regarded in NH and the Iowa win gave him momentum in that state. He still could very easily have been stopped if Edwards did well in SC, OK, MO, NM, AZ, ND and DE in the first multi-stat day. Leading up to that day, Edwards was covered as the "sunny" alternative candidate in several news magazines. Those states were the type most likely to favor Edwards - they are not great state for a MA candidate. The fact is that the Iowa and NH wins, made many people give Kerry a second look - and saw character and experience.

If Edwards wins Iowa, he will not necessarily win NH and there are then a huge group of primaris all on top of each other - this could well be a disaster. It likely will benefit the candidate the media wants as it is humanly impossible to actually campaign a significant amount in all the primary states.

[jsamuel]

17. his campaign has a "four state strategy" not a one state strategy

He is going to try to win Iowa, NH, NV, and SC.

[karynnj]

19. That makes more sense - if he won all those

He would clearly get a lift going into the massive number of early states in 2008.

[venable]

20. look at kerry's NH numbers a few months before the primary

despite the fact that he was from nearby MA he had faded to fourth or fifth place. he was rising back in the polls, but Iowa gave him a huge boost.

[karynnj]

21. True - From articles at the time, many people there liked Kerry,

but had considered he was not in the running. If you remember some pundits were discussing when he would pull out in the November time frame. His numbers were rising in January - even before Iowa - once he put money in the campaign.