Iowa – Outspent Edwards a close 2nd in Iowa to Obama and beats Clinton

http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_steven_l_080103_iowa__96_outspent_edwa.htm
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
January 3, 2008

By Steven Leser


He was written off as an also-ran by much of the mainstream media. The USA Today even stopped talking about him in many articles discussing the Iowa caucuses. I don’t think they will fail to mention John Edwards tomorrow.


Edwards won his votes on his message and detailed policy proposals. He didn’t have Oprah Winfrey or flowery and nebulous speeches about hope. He didn’t have the massive name and organization of the Clinton campaign. He beat Clinton and came in a close second to Obama on substance.


The Clinton and Obama campaigns have been claiming that the reason you shouldn’t support Edwards was that he didn’t have as much money as they did and couldn’t win as a result. The thing they didn’t factor in is that it takes him less money to get votes. As of December 28, the International Herald Tribune http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/12/28/news/campaign.php reported Iowa campaign television ad spending as:


“Senator Barack Obama has spent the most, at $8.3 million, Clinton has spent $6.5 million and Edwards has spent $2.7 million, according to an analysis by CMAG, a firm that tracks political advertising spending.”


In all, Edwards had to spend less than one fourth as much as Obama and less than one third as much as Hillary Clinton did to gain the same numbers of votes. Moreover, let’s look at why Obama and Clinton are making that spending criticism of Edwards. Edwards is the only of the three major candidates that has agreed to accept public financing. That limits the amount of money he can raise and spend, but it is a part of his message.


Edwards wants to take the big money, the PACs and the 527s out of political campaigns. Others have talked about it, he is the only one who is willing to put his money where his mouth is and take a risk to do it.


Edwards second place finish in Iowa is proof that his message resonates, generates votes and makes him competitive even if you give him an extra burden to overcome. I hope this prompts voters to take a second look at Edwards and that they examine the detailed policy proposals of all three Democratic candidates to separate the real hope from the hype.

but a second-place victory is still good. A razor-thin margin would have helped Edwards a lot more.

Neve underestimate what the press will do. I heard David Gergen talking about how Edwards was fnished and it would now be a two-person race.

famous tool.

He was outspend more than 4 to 1. He was written off and derided by the press. Some didnt even mention him anymore. He had Oprah and a Clinton against him. I think 38-30 in a three or eight way race, depending how you see it, is close.

Edwards BEAT Hillary, the ingoing front-runner. If he's "finished" what about her? If anything the opposite is true; Hillary's aura of inevitability has been smashed, she just got beat by someone who spent 1/3 what she did. (And also by someone else who spent more than she did, but that doesn't flout the CW.)

Edwards still has nowhere to go but up. Nobody ever expected him to manage second, much less a second that puts him over HRC. Meanwhile Obama spent a lot of money, no mystery there. Can he keep that up?

lets face it, the Clinton campaign is now going to go after Obama with both barrels. They are going to be demanding a close inspection of Obama and his policy details. Edwards can keep going slightly under the radar with that madness going on around him.

As an Edwards supporter, I did *not* want Edwards to come in first in Iowa, for the reasons you mentioned.

Coming in as second, just above Hillary, is perfect. From the excerpts I've read of "The Audacity of Hope", Obama sounds too willing to cut deals with the DLC side of the Democratic Party. He's got a tough decision to make now - either take off some of the qualifications and half-measures in his populist rhetoric, or continue to play it safe and get nailed by attacks from the GOP and the Hillary camp.

Edwards can just sit back and watch it all happen. And if any tough questions come his way, he's already got the tough answers. Edwards is better off under the radar but not totally off the map, for the time being.

I just wish that Lieberman would return the favor and join him on the campaign trail.

thank you so much for this perspective.

i am wondering what kind of firefight we're headed for in NH.

it could truly be a clinton-obama battle royale, in which case...

hurray ?

-s

Especially for a candidate with an actual populist, anti-corporatist agenda. The moment he spoke about his intention to regulate big media in that CNBC interview in early Dec. 2003, he was targeted. The circular firing squad against Dean inOb the first primary debate in Jan 2004 was an incredible embarrassment to the entire Dem party and a big boost for Bush. I still remember Sharpton during the debate laughing and pointing out that voters didn't know anything about anyone on stage except for Dean. Which was the entire point of the exercise.

The easy part is over for Obama. A politician who has been hesitant about giving specifics on policy could get savaged during the debates, especially from someone motivated, well-funded, and well-connected in media circles like Hillary. One thing you know about her is that she's not going down without a fight, and her back is to the wall right now. She's would be stupid to waste firepower on Edwards for the moment.

As I said, that's just the way I like it. When the primaries get to the southern states, I suspect we'll see some hidden resources in the Edwards campaign that the media aren't talking too much about right now.

You want a really far out idea? Edwards/Gore. Before you react too much, consider this - his recent statements about entering the presidential race ("it would part of a presidential campaign"), the fact that he wouldn't have to pre-announce anything before the convention if he was running for V.P., how he could continue his campaign against global warming even better as an activist V.P. than as President, and he could run again for President in the future.

Oh, and welcome to DU! :hi:

thanks so much for the welcome...

...and you have a freaking AWESOME username :) have you ever read "The Dispossessed"? One of my all-time favorites !!!

-s

how much spent per vote?

i think hrc spent something like 6 mill to come in third, bho 3 (?) for first, & je 2 for second.

but I won't be. They will bend over backwards to not even mention John Edwards, just as torture, impeachment, Constitution, treason, and all those other topics are treated as unmentionables.

Good argument.

:dem:

-Laelth

I see and like your thinking on this, Om'Expat. It will be interesting to see what comes out of the Clinton camp in the next few days. Hillary's showing in Iowa will not phase the "Comeback Kid."

Meanwhile, I am just blown away by these figures on the number of votes Edwards was able to gain, given the amount of money he had to work with.



Cher