If Obama wins Iowa, and Hillary wins NH....then what?

[PresidentObama]

Predictions?

[ilovesunshine]

1. We have a DU death match! nt

[PresidentObama]

4. Oh my god, it'd be hell on earth.

Surely Edwards would drop out by this point, if it happens.

I think Edwards will win Iowa, but it's currently leaning in Obama's favor--so I thought I'd throw out the 'what if' question

[NewHampster]

49. What about Dennis?

Huh? What happened to Dennis in these discussions?

[MethuenProgressive]

27. Depends on how low Edwards finishes. If he's 4th in either state - he's toast.

He'll pout for a while, then endorse Obama and quickly hit the Sunday Talk Show Circuit.

[PresidentObama]

40. If Edwards is fourth in Iowa, he should probably quit breathing.

Joking of course.

[eleny]

41. That sounds entirely plausible

Are they closest in plans for foreign policy and health care plans?

I should go compare them from their literature but I'm being lazy and want to keep this thread going!

[butterfly77]

51. That about says it!

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[Silent3]

2. Then DU will be ablaze with rampant speculation?

:)

[Clintonista2]

3. I think it depends on the margin of the win/lose

[yellowdogintexas]

13. AND who is second and by how much. If Edwards is a close 2nd

in both races, it actually improves his chances, I should think. If it is a tight 3way in both states he is still in the fight; I can't imagine him dropping out until at least one or 2 big primaries have been completed.

[Perky]

5. Bloody war is SC with no presumptive until after Super Tuesday

If then....And that may mean a floor flight in Denver.

[MonkeyFunk]

8. Nah

there won't be a floor fight. We'll have a candidate long before the convention.

In the scenario above, it appears Clinton would win. She's ahead handily in just about every state.

[PresidentObama]

11. What's her polling in South Carolina?

The last I saw, it was getting closer there.

[MonkeyFunk]

19. Clinton's averaging 38% to Obama's 25%

over Edwards' 11%


http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/sc/south_carolina_democratic_primary-234.html

[PresidentObama]

24. Not as close as I thought. Edwards at eleven percent? Ouch.

[MonkeyFunk]

29. Yeah

that surprises even me.

[Perky]

32. If Obama wins Iowa it will tighten alot.

[Perky]

38. That fully discounts the impact of how tranformative a win in Iowa would

be for Obama. It alos discounts where 2nd tier votes go.
Lot of undecided out there and they historically break for the non-instutional candidate when it is competitive.

[MNDemNY]

6. Same as if Hillary loses or wins both.

She goes on to get the nomination.

[PresidentObama]

7. Doubtful.

[Alexander]

10. In your dreams, maybe.

A loss in Iowa alone will spell trouble for the Hillary campaign.

[MNDemNY]

18. She will win.

[PresidentObama]

26. We'll see.

[cali]

25. nah. Iowa alone isn't enough to cause her trouble unless she

she does really poorly- like coming in a distant 3rd or 4th. What people are forgetting is how important organization on the ground is. Clinton's got that, along with big leads in the Super Tuesday states. But if she does poorly in Iowa, she's going to face some real trouble.

[PresidentObama]

30. I wouldn't be surprised if Biden or Richardson pull out a surprise third place finish in Iowa.

So if Hillary is fourth in Iowa, yet wins New Hampshire...then what?

My head is spinning.

[cali]

37. Well, if she's fourth in IA, I can't see her winning NH

She's put a lot of resources into IA and I think a fourth there will show how little depth there is to her support.

[butterfly77]

52. This is what I am hoping...

I am also hoping it may be Dodd.

[cali]

55. I think if anyone's going to leap into the top three it'll Richardson.

or maybe Biden. I just don't see Dodd making headway.

[butterfly77]

58. I don't see it with Richardson..

[Hippo_Tron]

48. Momentum will be more important than organization on Super Tuesday

Organization is very key in early contests like Iowa and New Hampshire. But Super Tuesday has just too many states going for organization to really overcome momentum. Clinton has a lead in these states, but she is a known commodity. Obama sweeping the early primary states will reverse those trends very quickly.

Even a frontrunner can't survive a poor showing in the early states. IMO, I don't think Giuliani can get the GOP nomination because he is likely to take a month of severe beatings in the early primary states. He's not even in a position to take second place in Iowa, NH, or SC. If Romney holds Huckabee to second place in Iowa (and I think he will), Huckabee's rise will end up hurting Giuliani and not Romney because he will end up in a lower place than he would if Huckabee weren't a factor.

Hillary's advantage that Giuliani doesn't have is that she has great potential to perform well in the early primary states. But if she doesn't do so well, it will be the same result.

[dmallind]

35. I think this truism is overstated

Regardless by the way of who wins IA.

Both HRC and BO have plenty of cash, good organizations and no huge impediment to continuing a strong campaign. Not only that but we have far more frontloading than before and many huge states lined up right after. What candidate with $50MM war chest would feel the need to quit before even finding out which way the big ECV states are trending. Both Obama and Clinton have far more money and name recognition than previous early dropouts.

Everyone who has even the vaguest clue knows IA is a tossup, so losing it will do IMO (and O is all any of us have at this point) little damage. Finishing a distant 5th in a single digits might, but that's unlikely for either of the big 2.

The edge has to go to HRC still. Even accounting for post-IA shifts in the event of a loss there, she has a very large - way outside MOE - lead in national polls which obviously translates (and can be verified in most cases) into leads in several high ECV states. Could it get closer if she loses one or two early contests? Absolutely - especially if Obama wins both and gets an Edwards endorsement, or others. It MAY even get close enough that she will lose if she continues to do poorly - but I can't imagine a scenario where either of those two would drop out, or deserve being written off, until after Feb's super duper slate.

[ronnykmarshall]

47. In YOUR dreams

[NV Whino]

9. Then you vote for Kucinich.

[Alexander]

12. Stalemate, unless Obama wins South Carolina over Edwards.

Since he's in a good position to win all three of the first primaries, I'm guessing Obama will be in the race for the long haul, no matter what happens.

[PresidentObama]

16. I think if Edwards loses Iowa, he's out. Period.

I believe despite the current poll numbers, Edwards will win Iowa.

But if Obama wins it, he's done. Finished.

[cali]

28. Not if he's a close second and does well in NH. n/t

[PresidentObama]

31. If he's a close second, you're right. Otherwise, he's done.

[MADem]

14. What if Edwards wins SC?

On to Super Tuesday!

And who comes in second, and what's the percentage splits?

Say Obama wins IA with 32, and Edwards pulls in 30 and Clinton pulls in 30, with the rest going to Kucinich...that's different than if he blows away the competition with fifty percent of the vote.

[PresidentObama]

22. My god, that'd be insanely weird.

[MADem]

61. It would make the first three 'freak shows' and throw it all on SUPER TUES. NT

[MethuenProgressive]

33. If Iowa and NH split HRC/BO - the SCers could decide to become 'important'

And that'd be quite interesting to watch!

[frazzled]

15. It would be a healthy situation

Whoever emerges the eventual nominee from a truly competitive and hotly contested primary race will be all the stronger a candidate for it. I am hoping we DO have some true competition in this primary season, and that the contest goes on longer than it did in 2004. Whoever has to fight their way to the eventual nomination will emerge more powerful and stronger for having put up the fight.

Plus, keeping the race alive longer prevents Republicans from building their slime campaign early. Keep 'em guessing and running around like chickens with their heads cut off wondering which wonderful, strong Democratic candidate their measly wimps will be up against.

[aquart]

17. Then we wait till ALL the Democrats get to vote.

What a wonderful idea!

[Strelnikov_]

20. Don't know, but it will be good for democracy

No coronation, following primaries will be very important, further scrutiny of candidates, all that rot.

[theoldman]

21. A win in Iowa is far more important than a win In NH.

If Obama wins in Iowa I see him surging ahead of Clinton. Many people change their minds after these first two elections. They want to appear to be supporting a winner.

[MethuenProgressive]

36. Not to NH voters. It's as if Iowa doesn't exist.

I doubt you'll find a single NH voter swayed by the Iowa result.

[Hippo_Tron]

50. So then how did Kerry win New Hampshire?

Seems to me that if the Iowa results didn't matter, Dean should have won New Hampshire. If you want to argue that he was killed by "the scream" then that's understandable. Based on your logic, Lieberman or Clark should've been the natural alternatives to Dean considering they skipped Iowa and put it all on New Hampshire.

Kerry had absolutely nothing going for him other than the fact that he won Iowa. Edwards came in a strong second in Iowa and that's likely how he got his third place victory in New Hampshire over Clark and Lieberman.

[MethuenProgressive]

53. "Kerry had absolutely nothing going for him other than the fact that he won Iowa."

You know, of course, Massachusetts borders NH, shares major TV and newspaper markets, and has a melded population with New Hampshire? The people of New Hampshire knew John Kerry. He had *that* going for him. NH folks think very highly of their primary election importance. The other states are just that - others.

[Hippo_Tron]

57. Polling didn't seem to reflect that

http://americanresearchgroup.com/nhpoll/demtrack/

Kerry was about 9 points behind Dean and in a statistical dead heat with Clark until Iowa. After Iowa Kerry went into a double digit lead. Edwards was polling in single digits in New Hampshire before Iowa, and went into a statistical dead heat with Clark after Iowa.

I don't know how drastic changes like that can be explained any other way besides that Kerry and Edwards got a great week of momentum from Iowa and Clark had a week of absolutely nothing.

Iowa may have less influence on New Hampshire than it has on other states, but it has influence.

[MADem]

64. People in NH like the attention at primary season. They play the

undecided card long after they're decided. I'd wager alot of those UNDECIDEDS were actually decided long before they stepped into the polling booth--and certainly if there were a fellow New Englander on the card. Of course they were gonna vote for Kerry. But if they said that, it wouldn't be a race, and the excitement would be gone. That excitement brings cash to the state--people instinctively know that it benefits the economy.

I would have been shocked if Kerry didn't win. While Dean's state borders NH as well, there isn't as much cross pollination, and the bulk of the NH population nestles along the MA, not the VT border.

IA may influence NH, but NOT when there is a New Englander in the race. A Muskie, a Tsongas, a Dukakis, a Kerry, a JFK, will all do well in NH because they go for what they know. Seriously--check the history. About the only border boy who didn't win was Teddy Kennedy, who was challenging incumbent Jimmy Carter at reelection AND had that Chappaquiddick stink all over himself. He was the exception that proved the rule--every other Democratic candidate who was a New Englander in recent memory, with Massachusetts taking priority, has won NH if they ran.

[Hippo_Tron]

66. Chris Dodd should win New Hampshire by your logic

Don't see that happening.

[MADem]

67. No. You're forgetting ROMNEY. Former MA governor, with a multimillion dollar vacation home

in NH. MA always trumps other NE states, if more than one NE candidate is involved. That's why Kerry beat Dean. MA beats VT because more of the NH population borders MA. The NH - VT border is very rural.

Romney is such a fuck, though, he just might break the paradigm. If not Romney, I say (drum roll) McCain, actually. They like him up there.

[Hippo_Tron]

71. The Democratic Primary and the Republican Primary are two seperate primaries

What you are basically telling me is that the New Hampshire primary is ABOVE ALL ELSE decided by a large group of independent voters free to vote in either primary that always break for the candidate from Massachusetts no matter what party he or she is from. I don't believe that for a second.

It may be a factor and may have indeed helped Kerry out but I don't believe it disproves that 8 days of great press for Kerry and Edwards from Iowa really helped them out in New Hampshire and that Clark and Dean lost significant ground because of no press in Clark's case and bad press in Dean's case.

Kerry took virtually all of his money out of New Hampshire and put it into Iowa several weeks before the caucus. His hope was that Iowa would launch him to a victory in New Hampshire. I'm not saying that the strategy didn't take into account that Kerry would be favorable to New Hampshire because he was a New Englander. I'm saying that a third or fourth place showing in the Iowa Caucus and there's not a chance in hell he would've won New Hampshire.

[MADem]

72. Kerry won NH because he was from MA. That's why Tsongas, JFK,

and Dukakis won. Dodd has insufficient profile, and even though CT is a NE state, it isn't contiguous with NH and they're considered a bit snobby. Plus, Dodd is living in IA and has been for months in a rented house. His kid is in school in IA.

Muskie won because NH and ME are contiguous. Bottom line though, MA beats VT in NH. MA would likely beat ME too. ME beats VT, though--it has to do with population densities along the border, as well as highway corridors.

We'll see. I think Romney will win NH on the GOP side. He's spent enough. If not him, McCain. I think Clinton will probably win on the Dem side, if nothing changes between now and primary day. If not her, Obama, who has some quietly aggressive volunteers up there. I would be surprised if Edwards won. His ads are good, but they aren't tailored to the region.

Kerry took all his dough out of NH because they KNOW him there, and it was quite easy for those of us volunteering for him to DRIVE UP THERE every day--hell, those of us in the northern part of MA were 35 minutes from Manchester, tops, in bad weather, and only a bit more to Concord. You can get all over hell in NH fairly easily thanks to the beautifully plowed 93 and 95.

Kerry didn't HAVE to work it in NH, because he'd already worked it, too. NH voters saw him on TV every day, over the course of years. He had Ted endorsing him. He was a known quantity, not a new guy. We in MA and NH share the same TV stations, to no small extent. I get both NH and MA stations in northern MA. The people in heavily populated southern NH get the same coverage. NECN, the regional cable news that runs round the clock, covers NH and MA heavily--VT and CT less so.

[Hippo_Tron]

73. We'll have to agree to disagree

Dean and Clark were the two leading candidates in New Hampshire until Iowa. Kerry's rise was just too much too fast for me to believe that Iowa had nothing to do with it.

[MADem]

77. Yeah, guess we will.

All I can say is, if Jean Shaheen were running, I'd vote for her in the primary. It's a quid pro quo thing we have up this way.

[MADem]

62. Look at the damned MAP!!!!!! THAT's how he won NH.

He would have won NH if he came in LAST in IA.

We're very local hereabouts. The accent is the same, the attitude similar, the NH folk more conservative in some regards, but there is a LOT of 'cross pollination.' We're the entertainment district for NH--they're our bedroom community.

If Romney doesn't win NH on the GOP side, since he has a million dollar vacation home there on a lake, I'll putz!

[Hippo_Tron]

63. Look at the polls I posted below

Dean was leading by a wide margin before Iowa and Kerry was in a statistical tie with Clark, a non New-Englander.

If what you're saying is true, Kerry should have been much better off before Iowa. Regional politics may have something to do with it, but it doesn't mean that New Hampshire isn't influenced by Iowa. Kerry and Edwards gained significantly in New Hampshire following their strong showings in Iowa.

[MADem]

65. See my post sixty four above--if a New Englander runs, a New Englander wins, always.

And if TWO New Englanders run, Massachusetts beats any other NE state in NH.

It's just history. Tsongas, Dukakis, Muskie, John Kennedy, Kerry, everyone but Teddy, who was trying to bust an incumbent with Chappaquiddick hanging over his head.

Like I said--if Romney doesn't win NH, I will be VERY surprised. Hell, he spent more time in NH during his governorship than he did in MA--and that is NOT a joke. He owns a HUGE house in NH...on a lovely lake.

Regional/local politics applies in IA too. Harkin, Gephardt...

[Nimrod2005]

23. America wins!

[ripple]

74. If Obama wins Iowa, he'll probably be at least 2nd in NH

He'll be the first to grab the priceless media momentum. Even if Hillary wins NH, her inevitability will be seriously questioned and the voters that would have otherwise stayed at home will make their way to the polls.

Hillary will likely win Nevada and possibly SC, but even so, it won't be enough to make her the presumptive nominee. February 5th will be when the arrow decidedly tilts toward the nominee.


On edit: Sorry, this was intended to be a response to the OP. Not that I mind speculating with a fellow Obama supporter. We can do this, I'm sure of it. Obama has people on the ground in all 20 of the 'Super Duper Tuesday' states. In fact, I believe he's the only candidate doing that at this point. :toast:

[Nimrod2005]

81. I am thinking he is going to win both!

[SaveElmer]

34. Hillary is the nominee...

She has a solid lead in South Carolina and Nevada the next two states...

[PresidentObama]

39. She would win Nevada easily, but I'm not sure about South Carolina.

You could be right though.

[Tom Rinaldo]

42. The momentum though would all be Hillary's

I am not saying that Iowa is unimportant, obviously it is. But what makes it important is that it gives a boost to whoever wins the first contest out of the gate. If that boost is not big enough to put Obama over the top in New Hampshire, then the momentum shifts to Clinton. Far more people vote in New Hampshire than in Iowa, and New Hampshire is a straight out election without that second choice viability wheeling and dealing Iowa is noted for.

Even if Obama won South Carolina, that might be explained partially as being due to the large percentage of Blacks who vote there, disproportionate to most states. Hillary would almost certainly win Nevada if she won New Hampshire. In an early back and forth victory scenario Hillary wins, barring some major slip up, because she is far ahead in National polls and in most big states.

[eleny]

43. My prediction

Edwards & Dodd endorse Obama.
Biden & Richardson endorse Clinton.
Kucinich waits for the convention and backs the candidate chosen at the convention.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

44. In the case you lay out, Hillary would go on to win 35-40 states

[ilovesunshine]

45. Swimsuit competition!

*giggles*

[ronnykmarshall]

46. Get a new fan

because the shit's gonna hit it.

[Hippo_Tron]

54. Depends on margin of victory, expectations, spin, etc...

If Obama spends the days between Iowa and New Hampshire constantly repeating the phrase "Hillary has a large lead in New Hampshire for most of the campaign season and my victory is by no means a sure thing" a strong second place in New Hampshire for him will be a lot stronger than if he spends the days in between telling people that he has New Hampshire in the bag.

Obama doesn't have to win New Hampshire, but he needs to give the impression that he has surpassed expectations there in order to keep momentum in his corner. The headlines the next day need to say "Frontrunner Clinton, barely eeks out a New Hampshire win over newcomer Obama" and not "Senator Clinton wins strong victory in New Hampshire primary despite Obama's success in Iowa".

[Tejanocrat]

56. President Romney?

[Carrieyazel]

59. That scenario isn't going to happen.

But if that were the case, then Hillary would take the nomination, I'm afraid.

[ilovesunshine]

60. And, Bill Richardson could become the VP hopeful. nt

[Life Long Dem]

68. I'll tell you

Then we go up to Super Tuesday, and see who is the front two candidates. If it is Obama and Clinton, then everyone (other than Obama's supporters)switches to Obama. If it is Edwards then everyone switches to Edwards. This is so Clinton does not take advantage of splitting the votes between Obama and Edwards and comes out as the winner. We switch to one candidate and take Clinton in the home stretch! :woohoo:
Anytime between 1/26 and Super Tuesday Feb. 5th.

Hillary said today. This is a tight race. This will go right to the finish line! She wants it that way. Go figure.

[Robbins]

69. Primarys

If Obama wins Iowa don't count him out In New Hampshere and South Carolina.Hillary will win Nevada.
Thing to remember If Edwards and Biden drop after Iowa,and Dodd drops out after New hamphserie,and
Richardson Is out after Nevada most of there supports could go to Obama.Remember 2004 Dean was leading good In New Hampshere untill Kerry won Iowa.Iowa changed the race.It also made Edwards the
alternate to Kerry.

[Life Long Dem]

70. Yeah Dean was way up there in NH.

I remember in the upper 50 percent range. But then after he dropped out we all got behind Kerry. The main thing is for all to drop out except for the clear winning opponent to Clintonn. She is already playing the division game. She said today that this is going to be a tight race all the way up to the finish line. Go figure.

[BenDavid]

75. Then what? HRC goes ahead as all the national polls

have indicated and runs the board on Obama and Edwards. Also said that by the 15th of Feb. HRC will have a majority of delegates to be the dem nominee. There is no change in that even if obama happens to win in Iowa...

Ben David

[Imagevision]

76. Why would anyone think Hillary's chances of winning Iowa & New Hampshire have

grown in the past month. Hillary should wish she comes in second at least?!? Iowans' polled last week had Hillary @ the # 3 spot...

[fightindonkey]

80. Nope. Not True

[MaineDem]

78. Then we'll see what happens in Nevada

I hope Feb 5 ties them all up in knots. But I fear it'll be all over then. :(

[sampsonblk]

79. Unless she melts down somehow, she will will big in SC

And then it will be all over.