Latest

Lobby

Search

Options

Help

Login

Clinton camp spins possible Iowa loss

Printer-friendly format

Email this thread to a friend

Bookmark this thread

This topic is archived.

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009)

Kurt_and_Hunter

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Nov-23-07 11:57 AM
Original message

Clinton camp spins possible Iowa loss

Hillary's Iowa Spokesman: She Can Succeed Here Without Winning

CINCINNATI (TDB) -- Polls show Sen. Hillary Clinton is slightly behind -- though statistically tied -- with Barack Obama in Iowa and the caucuses just six weeks away. Now her campaign is scrambling to beef up staff in that state, and her spokesman says "coming in first" isn't the Clinton camp's definition of success. While Hillary clearly is outwardly pressing for victory, the comment looks to be an early signal that a finish somewhere near the top would be spun as a win for the New York senator.

Mark Daley, Clinton's Iowa communications director, is not a novice mouthpiece. He was the spokesman for the state Democratic Party, so he knows that words have meaning and every political utterance is closely scrutinized after it emerges from the hothouse atmosphere of a presidential campaign. So it was a bit of a surprise to read that Daley told Chicago Sun-Times columnist Jennifer Hunter that the campaign recognizes Clinton may not triumph in Iowa. Hunter buried the comment in the 13th paragraph of a 17-paragraph piece published today. It was pretty much unnoticed. But here's what the Clinton Iowa communications director is quoted as saying:

"Our definition of success doesn't necessarily mean coming in first. As long as we have a strong showing on caucus night."

Others might be pardoned for thinking otherwise. Clinton has been the front-runner across the U.S., and is largely viewed as the presumptive nominee. Now her own campaign spokesman contends she can be successful without winning? Daley also is pointing out that Obama has built-in advantages -- he comes from Illinois which is next door and shares TV markets with Iowa.

"We're running against a guy from a neighboring state who shares media markets with the state."

http://thebellwetherdaily.blogspot.com/2007/11/hillarys-iowa-spokesman-she-can-succeed.html

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

brentspeak

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Nov-23-07 12:00 PM
Response to Original message

1. How will she explain it if Edwards wins?

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Kurt_and_Hunter

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Nov-23-07 12:01 PM
Response to Reply #1

2. If Edwards wins Iowa the Clinton campaign will be popping champagne corks

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Benhurst

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Nov-23-07 12:21 PM
Response to Reply #1

12. That's easy. Edwards is from a state which is just down one and over two from Iowa.

:rofl:

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Bucky

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Nov-23-07 01:38 PM
Response to Reply #12

26. Um, so is Clinton

hmmm

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Clintonista2

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Nov-23-07 01:24 PM
Response to Reply #1

22. Edwards winning IA would be the second-best case scenario

Edited on Fri Nov-23-07 01:24 PM by Lirwin2

The guy is loved in Iowa, he has huge name recognition. Had Edwards done more campaigning there since the start of the primary season, Iowa would pretty much have been in the bag for him. Therefore, Edwards winning Iowa wouldn't take any momentum away from the Clinton campaign. A huge win for Obama in Iowa, however, would be a shattering loss for Clinton.

Edit to clarify my subject line: The best case scenario would obviously be a win for Clinton in Iowa.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

MethuenProgressive

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Nov-23-07 11:27 PM
Response to Reply #1

35. After the constant bashing from Edwards, the GOP, Obama et al, second would be a victory.

The candidates who oppose her are well funded, the MSM hates her, and the netnuts are insane with rage. I'm suprised she's doing as well as she is, all hatred considered.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Cameron27

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Nov-23-07 12:02 PM
Response to Original message

3. I don't know why they have to spin Iowa

she wasn't favored to win there right from the start.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Kurt_and_Hunter

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Nov-23-07 12:03 PM
Response to Reply #3

4. Yeah, but that's long forgotten now. Front-runner status is both good and bad

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Cameron27

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Nov-23-07 12:05 PM
Response to Reply #4

5. That's true.

but I would've stayed with something like: we didn't expect to win, but are pleased with her performace so far.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Tom Rinaldo

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Nov-23-07 12:06 PM
Response to Reply #3

6. Nowadays you have to spin everything

because your opponents are out there spinning also. They of course would spin that Hillary losing Iowa was the begining of the end for her. Spin and counter spin. It's enough to nmake you dizzy.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Cameron27

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Nov-23-07 12:12 PM
Response to Reply #6

8. Honestly,

you have to get your crap detectors on to survive this thing.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

BeyondGeography

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Nov-23-07 01:25 PM
Response to Reply #8

23. Good one

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

wndycty

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Nov-23-07 12:17 PM
Response to Reply #3

9. Since her campaign put forth the whole inevitable thing it makes any loss, especially. . .

. . .the first contest, look very bad, worse than it actually is.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Lucinda

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Nov-23-07 12:45 PM
Response to Reply #9

14. The MSM is responsible for the "inevitable" tag - not HRC

and a loss in Iowa will only tank Edwards or Obama. If one of them doesn't win, it gets much much harder for them to stay alive.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

JackORoses

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Nov-23-07 12:55 PM
Response to Reply #14

16. bs, Hillary and her supporters are totally responsible for her claim of 'Inevitability'

The MSM just trumpeted the meme.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Lucinda

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Nov-23-07 12:59 PM
Response to Reply #16

17. Got a link where Hillary says it?

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

JackORoses

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Nov-23-07 04:48 PM
Response to Reply #17

30. Hillary said in the last debate,

"They aren't attacking me because I'm a woman. They're attacking me because I'm ahead."

If that doesn't smack of assumed popularity and a given nomination, I don't know what does.

No one is ahead until the votes are counted, sHillary.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Lucinda

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Nov-23-07 11:08 PM
Response to Reply #30

31. No. She is ahead, at the moment. That is not the same as saying "inevitable"

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

emilyg

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Nov-23-07 01:48 PM
Response to Reply #16

27. Link please.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

elizm

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Nov-23-07 01:02 PM
Response to Reply #14

19. It wasn't just the MSM responsible for the "inevitable" tag...

But also anyone who supported her. I can't tell you how many times her supporters here and elsewhere said at the beginning of the campaign, "Get used to it, Hillary WILL be the nominee". It was that attitude and arrogance that turned me off to her completely, to the point that I will not ever vote for her.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

MonkeyFunk

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Nov-23-07 02:28 PM
Response to Reply #19

29. For every HIllary supporter who said that

there 50 Hillary detractors talking about her "inevitability".

no, that notion didn't come from Clinton, her campaign, or 99% of her supporters. Her opponents kept parroting it.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Lucinda

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sat Nov-24-07 02:16 PM
Response to Reply #19

47. Seriously? You let some people on a message board determine your vote?

Edited on Sat Nov-24-07 02:17 PM by wlucinda

Not much I can say to that.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Tom Rinaldo

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Nov-23-07 12:52 PM
Response to Reply #9

15. That depends on New Hampshire

In 2004 Kerry won both Iowa and New Hampshire, so of course Iowa was credited with having established the trend that carried Kerry to victory. Kerry likely would still have won in New Hampshire even if he had finished a close second in Iowa. That would have made Iowa 2004 more of a footnote than the way it is now remembered.

Iowa is a little bit quirky almost by definition, because it is a caucus state. Caucus goers are even less representative of the general public than are primary voters, and when you factor in the deal making of strategically throwing support behind other candidates that openly takes place inside caucuses, the results from Iowa historically have not always held up outside of Iowa.

If Clinton did not win Iowa but had a clear win in New Hampshire one week later, it would be hard for anyone to claim that the Iowa results were more significant than the New Hampshire results. And Clinton is genrally looking good in the states that follow New Hampshire, so momentum coming out of a New Hampshire win would bode very well for Hillary. It is highly plausible that Clinton could "lose" Iowa and still win New Hampshire. It is not the same as in 2004 when Gepharedt and Dean were always the favorites in Iowa, which is the reason why Kerry and Edwards got such a boost by beating both of them there. Everyone has known for almost a year now that the Iowa race is both close and atypical of national feelings. What Hillary needs to avoid is seriously underpermorming there against realistic expectations, hence the current "spin".

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

AlertLurker

(877 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Nov-23-07 12:10 PM
Response to Original message

7. "As long as we have a strong showing on caucus night."

Every time I say this out loud I laugh and think of her husband!

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Evergreen Emerald

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Nov-23-07 12:19 PM
Response to Original message

10. another negative connotation when it comes to Clinton.

I am surprised she has survived this long. When she speaks it is "spin."

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

AlertLurker

(877 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Nov-23-07 12:21 PM
Response to Reply #10

11. Apologies if offended...It just struck me as ironic...

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Carrieyazel

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Nov-23-07 12:40 PM
Response to Original message

13. She WILL lose Iowa. I think the real question is how low does she finish?

Third? Maybe Fourth?

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

femmocrat

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Nov-23-07 02:15 PM
Response to Reply #13

28. Sounds good to me.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

suston96

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Nov-23-07 01:01 PM
Response to Original message

18. 15% rule....

Can someone explain this 15% rule for delegates in Iowa?

Seems like if a candidate doesn't get 15% of the total delegates in a district he/she gets nothing.....and his/her totals are split between the 15% achievers?

I got that right?

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Hawkowl

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Nov-23-07 01:20 PM
Response to Reply #18

20. Sort of

I believe that the delegates "reallocate" themselves by choosing another candidate. That is why the question "who is your second choice" is critical in Iowa. I don't think many people have HRC as their second choice. I believe most people, i.e; more than 50% will choose anyone but Hillary. It will be very difficult for her to win Iowa (or NH because historically they tend to go against front-runners).

I think we will be in for a very interesting primary season.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

suston96

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Nov-23-07 01:29 PM
Response to Reply #20

24. Thanks.

I like that "reallocate" business. Sounds very democratic.

But it reminds me of Diebold machines "reallocating" Gore and Kerry votes to other candidates. LOL.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Critters2

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sat Nov-24-07 02:14 AM
Response to Reply #20

43. Only candidates who get 15% of the vote in a precinct on the 1st ballot

can receive any votes on the second ballot (ballot is a relative term--it's done by show of hands). If a candidate doesn't muster the requisite 15%, those who supported him/her on the first ballot can choose another candidate in subsequent votes. Or they can stay "uncommitted". Those whose candidate received 15% will try to persuade the first-vote losers to switch their votes.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

vireo

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Nov-23-07 01:21 PM
Response to Original message

21. "Shared media markets" is a pretty lame excuse

I can see it being a factor in NH when your opponent is from MA, but the only IL based market in IA is the Quad Cities, which is not by itself that significant.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

itsrobert

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Nov-23-07 01:35 PM
Response to Reply #21

25. And ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox, etc run their media from NYC

So the talk that Obama has the advantage because Illinois is next to Iowa is a bunch of bunk.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Tellurian

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Nov-23-07 11:20 PM
Response to Reply #25

33. Obama has the advantage because he spent 4 yrs in Indonesia..

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

ClarkUSA

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sat Nov-24-07 02:04 AM
Response to Reply #33

42. Why are you spamming every thread with the Obama/Indonesia line?

Are you being paid by the sentence or something by HillaryHub?

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Perky

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sat Nov-24-07 12:38 PM
Response to Reply #33

46. Are you a paid hack?

All you do is say how had Obama is and how Hillary is going in to trounce the field. I for one would appreciate substance over bravado.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

saltpoint

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Nov-23-07 11:12 PM
Response to Original message

32. I'm for John Edwards, but hell -- isn't she in the lead right now?

A first-place lead ain't a bad thing, is it?

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Stop Cornyn

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sat Nov-24-07 12:57 AM
Response to Reply #32

39. I wouldn't say "in the lead." It's basically a three-way tie, which means she's probably got a 66%

chance (more or less) of not winning.

Before the Hillary addicts say she's been ahead in many polls and Obama is leading only in the most recent one, let me point out that Hillary not only dropped to second place in the recent ABC/WaPo poll, but she dropped to third if you add first choice preferences plus second choice preferences because Hillary lags even further behind in second choice support which is very meaningful in the Iowa caucus.

Hillary has enough name identification and enough money that she could do well in those states where none of the campaigns have been active and most of the voters couldn't tell you where the candidates stand on most issues (as an example of this phenomenon, this month's Harper's Index lists a poll result that 76% of Democrats think Hillary has pledged to pull all troops out of Iraq in the next year). But her campaign theme of inevitably has raised expectations that she'd win, and now that this seems unlikely (defining "unlikely" as having only approximately a 1 in 3 chance of winning), her campaign will spend the next six weeks lowering expectations so a loss will sting less and she can fall back on her campaign cash and higher name identification.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

saltpoint

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sat Nov-24-07 01:35 AM
Response to Reply #39

40. That's a strong read on things, IMO. And I had seen the recent polls

showing Obama registering ahead with the differentials still very competitive.

I sense Biden coming up along the far side. The MSM hasn't picked up the story, and may not, but I think he's a contender here. He's got roughly a month to close the gap.

Agree with you on the other states. The field is fluid in Iowa and a lot can happen.

I'm pretty psyched up for this cycle. In 40 days we begin the process of hauling Dubya's sorry butt out of the damn White House.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Czolgosz

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sat Nov-24-07 12:25 PM
Response to Reply #40

45. Where do you see Biden rising? Polls I see have him in a distant 5th (or worse)

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

saltpoint

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sat Nov-24-07 02:49 PM
Response to Reply #45

48. I'll hunt the polling later tonight, Czolgosz. There's a discernible bump for

Biden, with Richardson still ahead for 4th, Edwards/Obama/Clinton going forward toward 1st, but more closely bunched together this week than two weeks ago.

Biden's campaign has accelerated both his no. of appearances plus timed the state legislators' endorsements both in Iowa and in SC to suggest an accumulative effect.

The campaign is in a high-energy commitment phase. This is the phase and the month when Kerry made his move out of the obituatary page into the headlines.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

saltpoint

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sat Nov-24-07 09:28 PM
Response to Reply #45

52. Czolgosz, I can't put my finger on the poll but I could have sworn I kept it.

I found only the early Nov. Zogby comprehensive which indicated upward movement for both Richardson and Biden, although showing neither of them breaking double figures.

At this stage of the game in 2003, Dean had just barely passed Gephardt, with 26% in polling the first week of December (likely polled over the last 3-4 days of November‚, with Gephardt holding on with a respectable (proably)-within-margin-of-error 22%.

Kerry was third, well back in the pack and Edwards a distance fourth with 5%.

Candidates can roar back from far away into strong contention in these caucuses.

I believe it will happen like that this time also.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

saltpoint

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sat Nov-24-07 10:57 PM
Response to Reply #45

53. Here is early-to-mid November polling from the Washington

POST/ABC News:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/polls/postpoll_111907.html

What caught my eye was that the more detailed and particular the questions became, the better Biden did from his spring/summer number of 1%.

Richardson also does well in that sort of analysis.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Stop Cornyn

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sun Nov-25-07 05:06 PM
Response to Reply #53

54. That poll shows Biden in a distant 5th place; 4%, barely more than 1/3 of Richarson's meager support

I can't get on board with Biden because of the bankruptcy vote, but if I somehow had to choose between Hillary, Biden, Richardson, and Gravel as my only choices, I'd probably pick Biden.

I'm not "anti-Biden" but I just don't see it happening.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

illinoisprogressive

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Nov-23-07 11:22 PM
Response to Original message

34. there has to be more bad for Hillary going on than is being reported.

4 points down in a poll is not reason to go panic or spin a loss this early. There must be something they know and it is not good news for Hillary.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Tom Rinaldo

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Nov-23-07 11:33 PM
Response to Reply #34

36. Not necesarilly. It's standard politics

Unless Clinton were running away with the race in Iowa, which has never been the case, it makes sense for several reasons for her people to downplay her chances there. Beating expectations in politics is like beating expectations on Wall Street, it is almost always richly rewarded while the opposite is true for falling short of expectations. And complacency and over confidence is usually a threat to any candidate prior to an election.

Clinton's team never acted like victory in Iowa was all but certain. They always expressed more confidence that she would ultimately win the nomiation than that she would win Iowa specifically. If they manage to pull off defining a close third place finish as a reasonably good showing for her in Iowa than there is only upside for them politically unless Clinton falls flat on her face in Iowa.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Stop Cornyn

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Nov-23-07 11:46 PM
Response to Original message

37. They see the same writing on the walls that everyone else sees. You can't sell "inevitability" and

then lose right out of the gate.

Obama could survive a 2nd place finish in Iowa (provided that Hillary comes in no higher than 3rd), but Hillary is running an incumbent's campaign of inevitability which has helped her fund-raising ("better get on the train now, boys, we're leaving the station now and won't stop to pick you up on K-Street unless you get on board now"), but has set expectations higher that her lukewarm support justifies.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

PurityOfEssence

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sat Nov-24-07 12:40 AM
Response to Original message

38. Not being worried about not winning is consistent with not being worried about 52% unfavorables...

This is a faith-based campaign.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

ClarkUSA

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sat Nov-24-07 02:00 AM
Response to Original message

41. Watch for every Hillaryworlder to parrot Daley's talking point about Obama's "next-door" advantage.

En masse, like starting tomorrow. Then again, didn't President Dick Gephardt win in 2000?

:rofl:

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

William769

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sat Nov-24-07 02:26 AM
Response to Original message

44. It's this simple.

Hillary wins Iowa, She is the Democratic nominee. Hillary loses Iowa by a couple of points, she is still going to be the Democratic nominee. Hillary loses Iowa by a large margin, she still has a great chance of being the democratic nominee. Spin it however you want, thats whats going to happen.

If Edwards or Obama don't take second their campaigns are over.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Hieronymus

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sat Nov-24-07 03:04 PM
Response to Original message

49. Oh, this is good. Suddenly, winning isn't everything to Hillary? How

convenient.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

ClarkUSA

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sat Nov-24-07 03:16 PM
Response to Reply #49

50. It gets even better. Suddenly, winning isn't everything to her supporters here as well.

Edited on Sat Nov-24-07 03:16 PM by ClarkUSA

Now they're saying Super Duper Tuesday will give her the nomination. After all, just look at the national polls!

lol

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Stop Cornyn

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sat Nov-24-07 08:27 PM
Response to Reply #49

51. "When we said inevitable nominee we meant once we come in 3rd in Iowa we'll be the eventual nominee

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

DU AdBot (1000+ posts)

Sat May 11th 2024, 05:59 PM
Response to Original message

Advertisements [?]

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009)

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home | Discussion Forums | Journals | Store | Donate

About DU | Contact Us | Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC