I'm predicting an Edwards or Obama win in Iowa, and here's why.

1) My feeling is that almost all of the Edwards, Obama, Kucinich, Biden, Dodd, and Richardson supporters want to defeat Hillary. Because of this, and based on what we saw in 2004, the last minute surge for the candidate with the best chance of beating Hillary will get most of the 'anyone but Hillary' votes.

2) On the ground reports and straw polls show Obama and Edwards with greater support than Hillary. Many accounts are from people that are having trouble finding any Hillary supporters at all.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/amanda-michel/story-emerges-from-nation_b_68408.html

3) Edward's endorsements and Obama's organization/money.

4) The over-confidence of Hillary supporters. I'm not sure about this, but many voters(especially in a primary) may stay home thinking Hillary will win easily.

5) The Iowa polls are still very close.

Now, my biggest fear, because I don't want Hillary, is that Obama and Edwards will cancel each other out. Hopefully one of them will emerge to win easily.

Thoughts?

I can't take 4 more years of republican rule.

Biden runs 3rd...

is that disaffected Edwards, Kucinich and what have you caucusers throw their weight behind Obamawhen it seems obvious their candidate is going down, giving him a win in Iowa, which vaults him into a high second place in New Hampshire heading into South Carolina, with a heavily black Democratic vote that might swing his way.

I understand the nature of the Iowa caucuses, how those how caucus for second-tier candidates come over to a more-likely candidate before the caucusing is over. And I also understand how the Obama and Edwards supporters may throw their weight behind the other candidate instead of Hillary. But even if that happens, and even if someone other than Hillary emerges the winner in Iowa, how does that change things down the road in, for example, New Hampshire, where Clinton is pulling in the freaking 50s?

I understand the comparisons between Hillary and, say, Dean in 2004 or Ed Muskie in 1972, or Tsongas in 1992 and what have you, but the primaries are a lot closer than in those previous years.

My guess is that a win by Edwards or Obama would instantly give them an additional 10 point boost in every other state.

Again, it would probably knock all of the other candidates out, and instantly become a two person race. This would help Obama or Edwards gain an additional 10-20 points which would make the race much closer.

I don't deny that Hillary is doing really well in the polls, but I also believe much of her support is weak. Many of the votes she's getting now may be from undecideds who could switch to the "hot" candidate.

It's just a guess.

The thing about 2008 is that there's an unprecedented amount of media attention being paid to the race this early in the process. That being said, there's a question as to whether most voters actually care at this point or are going to wait until after Iowa to decide.

Neither Obama or Edwards are unknowns like McGovern, Carter, or Clinton were at this point.

What I do know is that if Clinton wins Iowa, I might as well not show up and vote on Ultra Tuesday because it will be over. But if Obama or Edwards win Iowa it's not exactly clear what will happen next. IMO, if Edwards wins, he will get some momentum but he won't have the money to compete with Hillary's machine and get knocked out on Ultra Tuesday.

If Obama wins Iowa, it will be interesting. As you say, Hillary is polling way ahead in Nevada and New Hampshire, but Obama will get a boost if he wins Iowa. IMO, at that point Obama needs to downplay his expectations and then exceed them coming in a very very close second. His goal is to not have CNN, FOX (less important because Democrats don't watch FOX), and MSNBC call them for Hillary until most people have gone to sleep. This will be easier in Nevada because of the time zone. If Obama somehow wins Nevada or New Hampshire he's the frontrunner and Hillary will have a very hard time catching up. If he wins both, Hillary is done.

Assuming a close second in New Hampshire and Nevada, Obama absolutely has to win South Carolina. If he does this he will have proven that he can be a serious competitor against Hillary and voters in the Ultra Tuesday states will be taking a much more serious look at him.

"How Hillary can Tank." It pretty much covers what we've been discussing on this thread.

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2007/10/16/hillary_10/index_np.html

Edwards or Obama could win Iowa, sure. But third place for Hillary is almost inconceivable. She's at least second.

If it did, it would be a huge blow to the Hillary campaign. Winning as the underground is much more impressive than winning as the favorite.

...I think his campaign is fading and that Iowans will not vote for someone that they don't see as viable. It could all change, but if the financial contributions and recent statements about opting into the public financing system are any indication, his campaign may not even make it solidly into Iowa.

I had this discussion with someone who lives here in Madison who writes for The Nation and has been a long time Edwards supporter and he pretty much agreed with the assessment.

Granted, it's a little less than 90 days from the first votes cast...so anything can happen.

He just got the Iowa SEIU's endorsement. He is also in great shape considering he is down by only four in Iowa, having run only 26 thousand dollars in ads so for compared to the millions Hillary, Obama and Richardson have spent in the state.

I'm not sure how important union endorsements are in Iowa, since Gephardt got the lion's share in 2004 and finished way, way back and dropped out on Caucus night.

That said, I wish the Edwards campaign the best.

very important in Iowa - rural voters has been disenfranchised over the past two election cycles, Edwards offers much in the way of his Rural Recovery Act:

http://www.johnedwards.com/news/press-releases/20071016-restore-hope-to-rural-america/

http://www.johnedwards.com/news/press-releases/20071017-strengthen-rural-america_copy/

Rural voters also identify with the unions - so I wouldn't count him out, I'm seeing a win.

But your feeling that every other candidate's supporters are voting against Hillary when they vote for somebody else is maybe out of line with the real world voting public. I just don't believe voters vote that way unless the candidate is an incumbent who has lost all juice. I also think voters only fully make up their minds about it walking into the booth (or crossing the caucus floor). If you're just talking about DU and the netroots, where people are politically engrossed and highly ideological, then yeah, but not out there. I will vote for Obama, because I want him to be president, not because he and Edwards equate in my mind. In fact, I don't see they have much in common with each other or, at the same time, sufficient contrast to Hillary if what you're looking for is an anyone but Hillary organism.

As you suggest most folks will vote for the candidate of their choice in a caucus or primary because they like him or her and not because they are diametrically opposed to his or her opponents as opposed to a general election vote where you might be voting against somebody rather than for somebody...In the primaries, it's like choosing from a buffet... In the general it' like choosing between eating pizza and eating liver...For instance my votes in 80, 84, and 88 were more votes against Reagan and Bush than votes for Carter, Mondale, and Dukakis...It's not that I didn't like those gentlemen I just disliked Bush and Reagan more...

...and you are spot on.

Are you from Iowa? Your insight is very intuitive and reflects the
exact phenomena that happened during the 2000 Iowa caucuses.

I was a devoted Dean fan. I showed up, prepared for a big Dean win
because of the momentum he had gathered and the growing support for him.

Much to my surprise, when my husband (also a Dean supporter) arrived, we were
the only two in the Dean camp. Talk about being completely traumatized!

Here's how the caucus worked. We were in the high-school library. There were
about 100 other Democrats in the room. Supporters divided up into camps and
we began openly debating. Edwards supporters stated their case. Kerry supporters
stated their case, and so on. My husband and I made the best case we could
for Dean. People then begin moving into different camps.

My husband (who slept on the couch that night), defected to the Kerry camp. The
Kerry camp had momentum and very vocal supporters. Pretty soon, it was Kerry
against Edwards, with Kerry having about 75 percent of caucus goers and Edwards
with 25. I refused to defect and I stood alone for Dean, which meant my vote
would not count.

Pretty soon, most of the Edwards supporters had been talked into the Kerry camp during
vigorous debate. The votes were counted based on the numbers of supporters in each camp.
It was condensed down to representative numbers, so our caucus gave Kerry 10 votes and
Edwards 2--or something like that. I hope you get the idea.

Keep in mind, in the high school in which our caucus was held--there were probably 20 other
caucus groups doing the same thing in other rooms. Furthermore, there were caucus groups all over town--some meeting in community centers, some in living rooms! This happens in every city
and town--all over Iowa.

What you say is accurate, because I think the support for Hillary is mainly based
on two things: 1.) Name recognition; 2) Media leverage of Hillary which has lulled
many into supporting her just because they think others are.

I think Hillary's support may be widespread--but not very deep. People are not passionate
about her. However, Obama and Edwards supporters would swim through shark-invested waters
to pull the lever for their candidate.

I tell you what...that will become apparent more so when you get in a room with people
who are absolutely passionate about Edwards, Obama, Richardson---and also soft on
Hillary. Passionate caucus goers will be able to easily talk Hillary voters out of the
Hillary camp--if their support for her is based on nothing but, "Well...she's doing
so well in the polls and I liked Bill...and her name is out there..."

You get what I'm saying? Debate is rigorous. There is a lot of pressure.

I think Hillary losing Iowa will depend on a front runner or two emerging with VERY
strong support (Edwards, Obama). Obama and Edward supporters seem to be very committed
and passionate, whereas many (but not all) Hillary supporters seem to be cowed into
voting for her.

I hope that makes sense and sheds some light. It's just my opinion, but I wanted to let
you know that--as a person who has seen the Iowa caucuses firsthand--your analysis makes
a great deal of sense.

You make more sense than a board full of Hill-bots.
I feel much more optimistic about Iowa being the
"beginning of the end of her inevitability".

Thank you for posting some inside scoop to describe for us non-Iowans what happens inside these caucus events.

:hi:

One addition - at my caucus the Gephardt and Clark folks who weren't viable knew one thing...they would NOT be going to Dean. If Gravel/Kucinich/Dodd/Richardson/Biden/Edwards/Obama folks aren't viable they may very well chose someone other than Clinton as their second choice. For that reason alone she could lose Iowa.

:hi:

Nice to see you, fellow Iowan!

The caucuses will be interesting this year, that's for sure.

I was surprised by Dean's lackluster showing, so I'm prepared
for anything to happen this time around. It's always fun though.

:)

"1) My feeling is that almost all of the Edwards, Obama, Kucinich, Biden, Dodd, and Richardson supporters want to defeat Hillary."

Aside from your feeling, there is no evidence of that whatsoever. I know what you mean, in that it seems like that would be the case, but in actuality, Clinton is the leading second choice among supporters of almost all of thoese candidates in polls that ask for a second choice.

:shrug:

I suspect the relative standings of the Dems versus their prospective GOP opponents will have a significant impact...I'm not suggesting this is a universal phenomenon in primary or caucus voting but that did seem the case in IA in 04...

When the top two run nonstop negative ads regarding the other, the #3 guy benefits.

He'll start cutting and pasting articles again.

:eyes:

I 'm not a big cut and paste guy, Private...

in the first primary there.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=152x18984
and you'll see Iowa DU'ers almost unanimously agree with you.

but sure have a lot of family still in the area and that is the way I see it going down too.

#1 To assume that Hillary will not garner some of the redistributed supporters of candidates not reaching the 15% threshold is silly. Barring a deal similar to Edwards Kucinich that is unlikely to happen.

#3 Hillary has a ton of IA endorsements and has a field operation as good as Obama or Edwards. She also has the dough.

#4 Because the polls are close and because of the nature of caucusing, I don't see Hillary supporters who did plan to caucus staying home because they think she will win easily. You would see that type of attitude more prevalent in something like primary voting where the time investment is small to begin with. But with caucuses? I doubt it.

#1 - See Iowa 2004, http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/01/19/elec04.prez.main/index.html

#3 - I disagree. Obama's field operation is known to be better than any other candidate, and Hillary can't come close to Edward's endorsements. Hillary has as much dough as Obama, but at this point she's running against all of the other candidates.

#4 - I don't THINK Hillary has as many passionate supporters as the other candidates. That is just my opinion. Of course, I pay attention to what I see happening on the street, not just in the polls.

What is your point in referencing Iowa? Iowa had fairly unique circumstances in 2004 in terms of the nastiness between Dean and Gephardt and the inexperience of Dean caucusers.

Passion didn't carry Iowa for Dean come the caucus time. Instead it was the disciplined "old" hands of the Kerry org that carried the day. And Obama relying on youngsters and indies as his main base of voters is risky at best.

I think Kerry won Iowa in 2004 because he was perceived to be strong on defense; which was important at the time. I don't think it had anything to do with Dean and Gephardt, but I could be wrong. Democrats were concerned about finding a candidate that could compete against Bush, so they chose Veteran from the Iraq war. Hillary may lose Iowa because many will want to make sure they pick the "best" candidate - like they thought in 04'.

I'm not sure what happened to Dean. I think part of it was that he peaked too early.

I think the passion to defeat Hillary is strong now. This may or may not change. We'll have to wait and see.

They both flooded the IA airwaves with negative ads attacking each other.

You can see some reflection of this in the polling leading up to IA as Kerry climbed while Gep & Dean sunk.

It will be the beginning of the end for her campaign.

Hillary knows this too. That's why James Carville was on Meet the Press saying it wouldn't give Edwards a big boost to win Iowa. They're worried and already spinning damage control for their impending loss.

I did not vote in primaries. They are calling off primary voter lists. alot of Obama's supporters and Edwards are people who have felt alienated from the process. Hillary has establishment people. But, hundreds of thousands do not participate that much feeling disenfranchised.
This time it's different. many are super energized by Obama, like me, and want to see big changes in government.
Change is not going backwards. it's going forwards.

Your biggest fear.

Thanks for the clarification.