Why Clinton needs Edwards to do well in Iowa:

[cali]

Surging Edwards may be blessing for Clinton
BY GLENN THRUSH | [email protected]
December 31, 2007

VINTON, Iowa - Meet John Edwards, Hillary Clinton's baby-faced tormenter - and the guy who just might be her last, best hope to stop Barack Obama in the early primary states.

Edwards, who is enjoying a late surge in the New Hampshire and Iowa polls, has staked his candidacy on a strong showing in the Hawkeye State, where his grassroots support is the envy of the Democratic field. But he's also gaining ground in the Granite State - New Hampshire - where he's moved from the low teens in early December polling into the low 20s this week.

Edwards has hammered Clinton on campaign finance and for her refusal to recant her Iraq war vote, but his rise, perversely, helps Clinton by dividing the anti-Clinton vote among two candidates.


"Clinton needs a viable John Edwards - her worst-case scenario is that Obama takes first place and Edwards comes in third here," said University of Iowa pollster David Redlawski. "If Edwards falls into irrelevance, that really hurts her because he's splitting the vote against her."

Clinton's advisers worry what will happen if Edwards were to falter in Iowa, according to sources in the campaign. His collapse could deliver his supporters, overwhelmingly anti-Clinton, to Obama in numbers great enough to push deadlocked New Hampshire and South Carolina into the Illinois senator's column.

<snip>

this article also has some interesting info about how Clinton's support is limited.

http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/ny-ushill315521016dec31,0,202428.story

[JCMach1]

1. Edwards is about to become her worst nightmare

He will take Iowa. That should propel him to at least a 2nd place finish in NH which will be spun as a victory. Then, if Edwards takes SC, that's virtually all she wrote...

[DemocratSinceBirth]

2. The Nomination Will Be Secured On February 5th

~

[cali]

3. I wish people weren't living in such a fantasy world when it comes

to Edwards' viablility in the dem primaries. He's certainly electable, but he's not viable. Even if he wins in Iowa, unless it's a big win, he doesn't have much of a chance in NH. I live next door in Vermont, and I can tell you that Obama is far more viable in NH than JE. Furthermore, he's coming close to running up against the spending limits wall. And he's not competitive in the Super Tuesday states. His run is limited.

[Dawgs]

4. Don't forget South Carolina.

The winner of NH, Hillary or Obama, will get almost all of the black vote in SC.

[cali]

5. thanks. you're right. it's hard to see him taking that demographic

from either Obama or Clinton in SC. And without a good piece of the African-American vote, he can't win there.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

6. That's The CW

But I wouldn't mind an Edwards nomination...

[cali]

7. I wouldn't mind it if he hadn't taken public funding for the primaries

As of Sept 30th, he'd already spent $18 million. I figure he's spent at least $7 million more in the last 3 months. That brings him to $25 million. He can only spend another $25 million until August 30th. I'm not sure what his burn rate is now, but if he does well in Iowa and NH, he's going to have to spend like crazy in big Super Tuesday states. He just doesn't have the resources. I don't even see how he pays staff for all those months if he's the nominee, let alone runs tv ads.

[Dawgs]

8. This is my concern.

I'm an Obama supporter that would be okay with Edwards and sees Hillary as unelectable. I'm afraid that if Edwards wins Iowa, he knocks down Obama enough for Hillary to win the nomination - and then we lose to a Republican in November.

[cali]

10. I worry about that too

but I think it's entirely possible that Obama comes in 2nd in Iowa. In any case, I disagree that nominating Clinton automatically means the repukes win. It all depends on which repuke gets the nod.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

11. Good Luck Making That Argument Here...

"I disagree that nominating Clinton automatically means the repukes win."

She leads all Rs in head to head match ups except McCain and McCain provides problems for all of our nominees...

[Dawgs]

12. GE polls don't mean shit right now.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

15. I Knew You Would Say That...

And now you will regale us with stories of how everybody you meet hates Hillary...

You like apples...

My mom's eighty nine years old...She has a registered nurse come to see her every Thursday evening...She was over last Thursday while the Bhutto assasination was all over the news...We never talk politics because I know she's a Republican...Responding to the turmoil she was seeing on tv she said " we don't need someone with the last name of Obama running this country"...I am sure you are as fond of that anecdote as you are of your own...

How do you like them apples?

[Sulawesi]

18. I agree...

Obama supporter here. Edwards is fine if he wins it all, but I see him sinking Obama and handing it to HRC. The the repubs nominate a moderate, which normally would not mobilize their base, but now HRC mobilizes their base. Some people here are confidant about HRC in the GE, but I don't see it that way. She has run a poor primary campaign...

[DemocratSinceBirth]

9. That's What Happened To Gary Hart In 84

He really had no post New Hampshire strategy...He also didn't have much money or organizational support...

We shall see...

[Perky]

13. Not if Edwards finishes ahead of her.

Hillary finishing in Third, unless it is incredibly tight would be devestating.

[earthlover]

14. Obama can pull this off....

If Iowa winds up a tie, it goes to NH. Edwards would not get a bump. And if Obama is in better shape in NH he will beat Edwards there and perhaps Hillary as well. If he does that, he will become the alternative to Hillary and would be in good shape going into the future. If Obama looks viable, he will get a large number of the black vote in SC.

If Edwards wins big or if Obama trails further behind, it is definately bad news for Obama. In these scenarios it will be harder for him to rebound in NH.

So if Obama wins Iowa, or at least beats Edwards in Iowa....or if it is basically a tie...Obama will stay in decent shape going to NH, unless Hillary wins big in Iowa, which now looks unlikely. If he can eventually coalesce the anti-hillary vote he will have an excellent chance long-term. Trick is to survive long enough for that to happen, and it has to happen before Super Tuesday. Iowa could put a serious crimp in that scenario.

[mckeown1128]

16. This is a serious concern of mine.

I am an Obama supporter, but don't get me wrong Edwards is my VERY close second choice. I would LOVE for either to be president. What I don't want is corporate Hillary as president. I am really hoping that after New Hampshire wither Obama or Edwards drops out so the other one can win SC and fly through super mega tuesday. Unfortunately I don't see anyone quiting till after February 5th. By then it will be too late since Hillary will have enough delegates.:scared:

[Stop Cornyn]

17. Why OBAMA needs Edwards to do well in Iowa:

Obama has an excellent chance of winning Iowa:



New Hampshire is closer:



But Nevada and South Carolina aren't nearly as close; Hillary is well ahead in both early states.

The national picture (which largely mirrors the Huge-Tuesday semi-national contest) gives Hillary an even bigger lead in so many different states that it will be very difficult to take her on in every one of those states:



If Obama is going to catch Hillary, he needs to do so early - his chance is best in Iowa, next best in New Hampshire, and then it drops off sharply if he misses those two opportunities.

If Obama and Hillary finish first and second, the BOTH go into New Hampshire with a bump (traditionally, first in Iowa gets a large bump in New Hampshire, second gets a decent bump, third suffers a dip in New Hampshire).

If Obama squeaks a narrow win over Hillary in Iowa and Hillary holds on for a narrow win in New Hampshire, they go forward into three weeks of contests where Hillary has a huge lead in almost every state.

To beat Hillary, it is Obama's best hope to win Iowa and to see Hillary finish third. If Obama wins Iowa and Hillary comes in third, Obama goes into New Hampshire with a big bump and she comes into New Hampshire with a dip; and under those circumstances, Obama likely wins New Hampshire. If Obama and Hillary both go into New Hampshire with post-Iowa bumps, Obama's prospects of winning New Hampshire are not as strong.

The goal for EVERY candidate is to win Iowa. That's Hillary's goal, too, and it must be Obama's goal and Edwards' goal and Richardson's goal, etc.

If Hillary can't win, would Hillary rather lose Iowa to Edwards than Obama? Yes (because Obama is closer to her in New Hampshire). Would Hillary rather lose to Richardson than Edwards? Yes (for the same reason). Would Hillary rather lose Iowa to Biden than Richardson? Yes (because Richardson is closer to her than Biden in New Hampshire).

Just as Hillary would rather lose to Edwards than Obama, so too should Obama hope to win, but if he can't, he better pray that he loses to Edwards instead of losing to Hillary (because then she'll likely win New Hampshire, too, and probably run the table).

Obama's best hope is to win Iowa while crushing Hillary as soundly as possible, and that means pushing her to third by any means necessary. Obama's goals here are no inconsistent with Edwards' goals.

[Sparkly]

19. That kind of presupposes that there are simple "pro-Hillary" and "anti-Hillary" votes

rather than votes that are actually FOR Obama or FOR Edwards. In other words, it might not be as simple as taking from a block of "anti-Hillary" votes.

I wonder whether -- like Dean and Gephardt in '04 -- Obama and Clinton will duke it out and in the process of the caucuses, enable Edwards to slide through the middle.

I think it's anybody's guess what will happen there.