Does anyone get the idea Obama or Edwards will win Iowa, and Hillary will win New Hampshire?

[PresidentObama]

And if so, how interesting would that be?

Just wondering...

It's going to be an unpredictable nomination process. But I don't think Hillary is going to win Iowa. She isn't connecting as well as she could, and the other two top tier candidates seem to be doing just that. But on the other hand, she's got a considerable lead in New Hampshire (last time I checked) and in Nevada. What's her polling in South Carolina?

[Captain Hilts]

1. Could be. nt

[PresidentObama]

3. Person of few words gets it right every time.

:rofl:

[blm]

2. NH voters will pay even closer attention now so it won't be a lock for Clinton

based on today's polls.

[PresidentObama]

6. You think so? Could be. What's her current polling in New Hampshire?

I've been watching the Iowa polls very closely, and it's been a while since I've looked at New Hampshire polling numbers.

[Yukari Yakumo]

25. Latest Polls

CBS/New York Times (11/11) - Clinton 37%, Obama 22%, Edwards 9%
Boston Globe (UNH) (11/7) - Clinton 35%, Obama 21%, Edwards 15%
Marist College (11/6) - Clinton 36%, Obama 25%, Edwards 14%

[PresidentObama]

40. Interesting polling numbers.

[razorman]

18. It is typical that the early front-runner will slip once the caucuses and primaries start.

If she loses Iowa, it could snowball when she is seen as beatable. The latest ABC story (if true) about the Clintons selling donor lists will not help. It could be "death by a thousand cuts".

[ccpup]

4. yep

I've said that all along. And the press will run with a Second Comeback Kid storyline (a la Bill in 1991) when she wins New Hampshire.

Her polling in South Carolina is surprisingly strong, I believe, but I don't have the numbers in front of me.

[neutron]

7. Anybody but

little Johnny Smear

[incapsulated]

9. I'm thinking that as well

Honestly, if you want Hillary to win it all, and I mean the GE, this is the best scenario. Iowa is a bit of a curse for picking nominees.

[illinoisprogressive]

5. I agree with the Iowa but, not NH assessment. You forget the indies in NH

they most likely will go to Edwards or Obama over Hillary

[MannyGoldstein]

8. NH Hates Phonies

They tend to vote based on integrity.

[yourout]

11. That rules out Hillary.

[Andromeda]

43. That's probably....

why her poll numbers are the highest in N.H.

Can't fool those New Hampshire voters, no siree! :silly:

[goodgd_yall]

31. Who would win then---Kucinich?

[bunnies]

10. I dont see Hillary winning NH. Especially if she loses Iowa.

Having lived here all my life... Id be *shocked* if she took this state.

[incapsulated]

12. You know, she doesn't really have to

Obviously, it would be a huge deal if she lost Iowa *and* NH but that wouldn't mean she is over, even if everyone here and in the media goes berserk. Iowa and NH are... strange states.

[bunnies]

22. You are absolutely correct.

And I suspect she could still win even if she were to lose both. Id really like to see the contest NOT be over so quick. Feb 5 could change everything.

Yep. We are strange states indeed. lol.

[calteacherguy]

34. Obama has an incredible amount of support in the S.F. Bay area.

If Clinton loses Iowa and NH, I personally just can't see her winning here and I think California would swing to Obama.

[PresidentObama]

13. Really now? Hmm, that's interesting. So if Edwards or Obama wins Iowa, you think she could lose NH?

Interesting.

Well as a resident, I don't know how I could argue with your first hand experience of the state. Thanks for posting it though, it's an interesting point. So you think maybe the poll numbers showing her leading are exaggerated or just plain wrong?

Thanks for posting again :hi:

[bunnies]

23. I do. Because I expect to see the polls tighten as people start paying attention...

and as name recognition becomes less of a factor. Not that NH necessarily follows Iowas lead, but what Iowa does definitely has an effect on us. Only 27% of us in NH are registered Dems and I think if the indies (our largest voting block) dont see Hillary as inevitable, they'll be more inclined to vote in Dem primary. A strong showing in Iowa for Edwards or Obama might be all the incentive they need. Plus.. NH loves an underdog. :hi:

[Captain Hilts]

17. NH has not traditionally followed Iowa's lead. Very rare. nt

[bunnies]

24. see my post #23 above for my rationale. n/t

edit: post number

[TeamJordan23]

14. Remember, Independents can vote in NH. They will likely turn away from Clinton IMO. nm

[PresidentObama]

15. Another interesting post, the Indies.

[Life Long Dem]

16. Hillary has been in a slide in NH as well.

Wondered myself about South Carolina?

[David Dunham]

19. Bill Clinton did good for NH. Hillary will win NH, big time.

[PresidentObama]

20. Do you live in NH? Just wondering.

Some NH voters have posted in this thread, and posted quite the opposite...that she won't win.

Just curious if you were a NH resident, and could comment.

If not, thanks for posting anyway :)

[Windy]

21. doubtful.... New Hampshire rarely goes for the "old guard"

I think its either edwards or obama in the primary. (Biden could be a sleeper).

Frankly, I think that Ron Paul has a good shot at the republican nod in NH.

[bunnies]

28. Big Difference.

Both Tsongas and Clinton were serious underdogs in 1992. Hillary is no underdog, to say the least.

[Imagevision]

37. Oprah Winfrey will be stumping for Obama in New Hampshire...

[GreenArrow]

26. Kind of depends on what the non viable

candidate's supporters decide to do, namely Biden, Dodd, Richardson. Where do their votes go if their candidates don't get enough support? If Iowa had a straight vote rather than a caucus format, Clinton likely wins. It wouldn't surprise me if Edwards or, hopefully, Obama won Iowa, but I don't believe it will matter much for the race as a whole. Clinton wins NH, South Carolina and Nevada, and basically rolls on from there.

[zulchzulu]

27. Clinton will lose Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina

She will be flailing by February 5th and by then, the mainstream media will be fighting over the last oddments of her enfeebled campaign.

[question everything]

29. Agree and we really need this.

I don't have anything against Clinton but if she wins Iowa the nomination is hers.

(Which, on one hand, will be good for all the states that rushed their primaries to the front - for naught. This may finally convince the party to move to a different format, like a rotating primaries system).

A split win may just keep the race a bit longer.

And just a reminder: the Iowa winners of 1988 and 1992 - Gephardt and Harkin - did not win the nomination. And Clinton in 1992 did not win Iowa nor New Hampshire.

So even if she loses both, she can still go ahead.

What will be important is who comes second and third in both states.

[Nutmegger]

30. Kerry2008,

Edwards will succeed in Iowa! That will give him the momentum in Hew Hampshire and set a completely different tone for the rest of the primary season.

Edwards will pull it off!

[PresidentObama]

32. I hope you're right. I really do.

I was very skeptical at this point in 2003 about John Kerry's chances. And my support paid off then. I hope lightning strikes twice, and Kerry's Iowa momentum strategy works for Edwards in 2008!!

:)

[surfermaw]

39. Go Kerry 2008, you got something going

[1corona4u]

33. No. ...n/t

[Phunktified]

35. If Obama wins Iowa...

Hillary will attempt to enact a "comback" like her "comeback kis" husband who, in '92 with Harkin running didn't bother competing in Iowa, but finished a surprisingly strong second to Mass. dem Paul Tsongas who was well known to New Hampshire voters. I have real doubts though about this ABC poll. it was the only one to show and Obama with a lead last July at a time when Clinton and Edwards were trading the lead. Now it shows him ahead by 3 points more, but Hillary's support is unchanged, which is also odd except that Edwards is slipping and that could be helping Obama. Still, I think chances are its an outlier. Several other polls were taken last week that generally have better track records than ABC in Iowa state polling and they all showed a small Clinton lead.

[PresidentObama]

36. Hmmm I just saw a poll that showed Clinton's NH lead shrinking. But she's still leading.

The race is getting interesting, but I still think maybe I'm right about my OP.

[elle1sf]

38. Yes

That is exactly what I think will happen - just hoping it's Edwards in Iowa!

[MethuenProgressive]

41. No. Can't imagine Edwards winning anything.

Tied for third in NH with Richardson. In fourth, 7 points behind Undecided, in SC.
I think the voters have wised up.

[PresidentObama]

42. ...That's only because you dislike Senator Edwards...his polling in Iowa is good.

And has been good all along. He's got great organization there, and has been outspent by large margins and yet is in a dead heat with the other top tier candidates.

[MethuenProgressive]

44. Right. The polls say what they say becausae I "dislike Edwards"...

So the Iowa polls (he's still third, right?) say what they say because you "like Edwards"?
Think on this: perhaps polls say what say.

[PresidentObama]

45. Edwards is in a good position. Saying he won't win anything is dumb, and quite ignorant.

I don't care how much you dislike Edwards, he's doing just fine in Iowa.

[MethuenProgressive]

46. OK, you asked a question - and then insult DUers who don't give you answers you like.

There's nothing sadder than a poor loser.

[cali]

47. I don't think he's in the position in Iowa

that he should be in for all the time he's spent there. He could win Iowa but it's unlikely that he'll win anything after that. He's not doing well anyplace else- in fact he's doing poorly in NH, SC and NV. And next year the primaries happen pell mell. There's only 5 days between Iowa and NH, and only a few more days from NH to MI. For Edwards to have a chance he has to pull off a decisive win in IA. The odds are against it, but it could happen

[surfermaw]

48. Edwards is going to win in Iowa

[PresidentObama]

49. I hope so.