Keep an Eye on Edwards

by: Mike Lux

Fri Dec 14, 2007 at 11:32


First off, let me get this out of my system: didn't that Des Moines Register debate suck? Whoa. While I still think Wolf Blitzer is the worst moderator in America, the woman from the Register made a pretty strong case that she's a contender for that award.

Thanks for letting me do that. Now I can move on.

Obama and his campaign team are feeling very confident these days, and they should be feeling good about themselves, they've had a good last few weeks. Hillary's team seems a little panicky, like a usually disciplined team that has lost control of a situation and has lost their sense of discipline.

However, I think things will even themselves out as we go into these last couple of weeks. I'd be surprised if Hillary's team doesn't settle themselves down and perform well at the end. But the real news in Iowa is that Edwards is hanging around, staying close to the other campaigns. I had thought, as I wrote here, that if Edwards stayed in third place that he would start to shed voters, especially given his spending limitations because of his matching fund decision. I think I was wrong, though. He continues to be right in there, very close to the leaders. His populist outsider message has a lot of appeal, and he remains popular as a 2nd choice for folks whose candidacies aren't viable at their caucus. If the frontrunners end up banging on each other in these last couple of weeks, he could benefit from being outside of the line of fire.

Don't be shocked if Edwards ends up being first on caucus night.

I don't think he goes anywhere after that, though. I still think the matching fund decision was one of the stupidest decisions I've ever seen in modern Presidential politics, and I think it means he won't make it through a long-distance race.

Iowa, though, is still very much in range for him.
Mike Lux :: Keep an Eye on Edwards

Tags: , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Keep an Eye on Edwards | 47 comments
So you don't think (0.00 / 0)
that Edwards, outspent 4 to 1 in Iowa, can't do it again in future primaries? He has a lot more on-the-ground support than he did last time around, and if he can start winning, he'll pick up some union endorsements who were previously wavering.

Join us at the Missouri community blog Show Me Progress!
Outspent (0.00 / 0)
No. Caucuses are different than primaries, with a much narrower universe of voters to focus on. Edwards is well known and well liked in IA because of his 2004 race and all the time he's spent there since. IA's a small state with modestly priced media markets, and he'll have to run in a lot more places at once if he gets to the next round.
In terms of union endorsements, I'm guessing that the ones that have made endorsements aren't going to change before Feb 5, and that the ones who can't get consensus to endorse still won't be able to.
[ Parent ]
At this point (0.00 / 0)
I'll be surprised if Edwards doesn't win in Iowa.  If he does, I don't think you can count him out at all.
Matching funds. (0.00 / 0)
Has the FEC delivered their final decision on the ActBlue money?
I think he will do well... (0.00 / 0)
But those paragraphs are not enough to stop me from being surprised if Edwards wins Iowa.
Channelling The Great Orange Satan, eh? (0.00 / 0)
It's gonna be Edwards all the way. Americans are sick of corporatist b.s. and yeah, I'm talkin' to you Obamillary!

Anybody that gets to see Edwards speak seems to forget about the other candidates.

Coincidence?

Not so much.

Edwards/Richardson 08!

Peace, Health and Prosperity for Everyone.

Speeches. (0.00 / 0)
I wrote a while back that if all that mattered was the speeches, Edwards would be an easy winner in IA, because people there like what he is saying. But given that he's at 21%, I don't think everybody who has heard him is exactly forgetting about everyone else.
[ Parent ]
Why assume that... (0.00 / 0)

....everyone's heard him?

Second point, as you know the polling screens on this are more voodoo than anything else. That is, who's to say he's at 21%.

Third point, IA folks often wait til the last moment to get on board. I think, one person's opinion, that they will break for Edwards. Especially as I understand he's got some big TV, the speeches, planned for the stretch.

Finally, heh...long winded today, the Obama and Hillary campaigns have really not been run well from this distance. Oprah! Shaheen! Sheesh...I just can't see celebrity and smear  politics playing well in IA.

Fun part?

We get to see on 5th.

Peace, Health and Prosperity for Everyone.

[ Parent ]
speeches. (0.00 / 0)
If you live in IA, and you haven't heard Edwards give a speech yet, you are seriously disconnected from politics.
[ Parent ]
I doubt it (0.00 / 0)
I think the results in Iowa are going to come out of the left field and not even be close to the polling.

And I don't think edwards will benefit from that.

another who agrees on matching funds (0.00 / 0)
I'm another who believes the matching fund decision was ethically correct but terrible in every other way.  I think it would cost him greatly in the general. 

The only way he could pull this all off with sufficient press/general elec voter narrative redefinition would be if people started moving to Edwards in large numbers now, and if he beat the others by sizeable margins.  The surprise would have to then be attributed to his message. 

If he were to squeeze out a small tactical victory in Iowa, I agree that it won't work.  He needs to steamroll.

The matching funds is a HUGE red herring (4.00 / 1)
With all due (and intended) respect, I don't think you've thought this through hard enough. Iowa and New Hampshire are the only states where it will hurt him. If he can get by them, he's good.

As you know, the matching funds are limited state by state. But here's the thing. After New Hampshire, campaigns for for the remaining states are 2-3 or at most 7 day affairs. That's it. Edwards' budget limits are completely sufficient for that kind of short campaign, and they only apply to TV anyway. Not mail, not field. With the game-changing free media from winning Iowa on top of that, he'll in effect have more exposure than Obama and Clinton (whose funds are not infinite ... California costs $10-15 million a week for even a decent sized buy).

Iowa is the biggest problem, and he's doing great there. Saving his remaining budget for the final week. If he can get to Christmas within range, he's in good shape. And New Hampshire is one of those states where the limits are not particularly stringent, because the biggest (and for practical purposes only) media market is actually outside the state, in Boston, and Massachusetts does not have a primary that matters.

I don't think it's going to be an issue at all.

Maybe... (0.00 / 0)
You could be right, but it's awfully tough. Remember that Feb 5th is practically a national primary, and there's actually quite a few days between SC (on Jan 26) and the mega-primary. He'll be running on fumes compared to the others at that stage.
[ Parent ]
Not sure that matters (4.00 / 1)
Since the limits are state by state. With the matching funds and the infusion of donations after a hypothetical Iowa win, he should be able to spend up to his limits in every Feb 5 state quite easily. Obama and Clinton will of course spend more, but how much more can they spend in the 10 days between SC and Feb 5? If there was a couple months in which everyone had to spend in California, Florida, etc... of course he'd be toast. But the only places in which the campaign is drawn out like that are two relatively cheap states, New Hampshire and Iowa, and maybe two other cheap ones, SC and NV.

Besides, the free media from winning Iowa and then (again hypothetically) coming back 10 points to finish a strong second in New Hampshire. Maybe winning South Carolina. All that will be worth many times the paid media that Obama and Clinton will get. O and C do not have infinite wallets either, especially since they have had much more expensive operations in 2007.

[ Parent ]
but what about the general? (0.00 / 0)
so you have no concerns about him getting starved by dry coffers in the general before the convention?

I think anyone who makes the argument that message coordination is not important is flat wrong.  Having one small talented team (John, Trippi, Eliz, and his top mail and TV consultants - whoever) control the message is essential to establishing a narrative that will stick, and superior to letting non-campaign orgs watch the campaign and attempt to follow their lead reactively.

There is not a surplus of this talent in the political sector to run all the 527s, btw, and the need for consensus always waters down the end result. 


[ Parent ]
Remember 2004? (4.00 / 1)
Kerry was broke after winning the primaries too. He wasn't on matching funds so it only took a month or so to build up his warchest, but in fact the most effective defense against the Repub slime machine happened IN THAT TIME when it was the party and 527's (especially The Media Fund) who had his back. When he took over, it was a disaster.

I trust Howard Dean and his team at DNC over just about any campaign. I think we'll be just fine.

[ Parent ]
That's my point exactly (0.00 / 0)
You trust Dean and the DNC with message discipline?  I won't even go there. 

And Kerry was defined over the summer.  That's the entire point.  A moneyless Dem will be ruthlessly and indelibly defined before the convention. 

[ Parent ]
Defined over the summer? (0.00 / 0)
He was hit by a 527 (not the Bush campaign) with a miniscule ad buy. Money had nothing to do with it.

Join us at the Missouri community blog Show Me Progress!
[ Parent ]
no, it's not swift boats, and money mattered (0.00 / 0)
money had everything to do with it.  I'm not talking swift boats, by the way.  I'm talking half a dozen other lines of attack over months. He couldn't counter one for one.
[ Parent ]
What do you consider over the summer? .. (0.00 / 0)
weren't the Swift boat ads run in September? .. besides .. is anyone gonna pay attention over the summer?  They'll all be on summer vacation .. and besides .. the economy could still tank .. even with "B-52 Ben" Bernanke's best efforts
[ Parent ]
Total limit. (0.00 / 0)
The problem isn't just the state by state limits, but the total limit of $ he can raise because of that decision.
[ Parent ]
nope (0.00 / 0)
There's also an overall cap for those accepting matching funds which is at about $53M for the entire primary cycle, 1/1/2007 through the end of the Convention.  That cap applies to *everything*, not just tv.
[ Parent ]
Well sure (0.00 / 0)
But that's irrelevant as far as the primaries go. The state by state limits for the early states are the only thing that really matters. I find it very hard to believe he can even spend $53 million before this race is decided, given the state by state limits.

 

[ Parent ]
You've got it upside-down (0.00 / 0)
The $53M is what matters, and by 10-01-07 he spent $19M of it. 

Ignore the state caps.  Different criteria, and they can be worked around.

John Kerry was able to spend $180M *after* he clinched the nomination and beore the convention.

[ Parent ]
Yes (4.00 / 1)
and so can the party and 527's. We'll be totally fine. If you think Kerry's "defense" was so superior to The Media Fund and others who had his back during that time, you're crazy!

As of end of Q3, Clinton and Obama had 30 some odd million in the bank, Edwards 23. Not a big difference. Plus Clinton and Obama have much higher burn rates. I doubt they'll end Q4 with much more than they have now. Neither of them have the cash to overwhelm Edwards after New Hampshire. They just don't. You're assuming they have unlimited warchests.

[ Parent ]
I know (0.00 / 0)
and they act like when Obama or Hillary walk out of the Feb 5th primaries with $38 in the bank, money is going to simply fall from the sky, and $180million will appear out of thin air.  2008 won't be 2004, looks at Huckabee and his bat shit messaging, with <$1 million he snared nearly 30% of the right wing bat shit crazy vote.  You'd think we could do the same on our side, with the right messaging.
[ Parent ]
No. and No. (0.00 / 0)
Coming into this quarter, Clinton had $34M on hand, Obama $32M, Edwards $9M.  In addition, Edwards has the highest burn rate of the three.
[ Parent ]
yeah, about that $180million (0.00 / 0)
not spent all that well, and so Edwards wins the nomination, and the GOP goes all ape shit on Edwards.  So Edwards comes out and says fuck all, here's your lousy $20million in monkey point matching money back and goes out raises $160million to fight back against the corporate GOP assholes.  Sounds like a plan to me.  We know why he took the matching funds, because Obama and Hillary became money vacums, then spent it like drunken assholes, now they are in a three way tie in Iowa, Obama has caught Hillary, and Edwards is not that far behind even though he's been getting fucked over blacked out by the media.


[ Parent ]
If Edwards wins in Iowa... (4.00 / 1)
why wouldn't he go anywhere after that? This is where poll-watching is inane. The polls on other states are meaningless until we see what happens in Iowa. Too many undecided and soft support for the top three.

The election is dynamic. And if Edwards pulls a surprise win, especially if it is by 10% or more which it would likely be if he won, he will rocket up in NH, and on Feb. 5th. Why? Because it is the surprise in Iowa that makes everyone take a second look. If Clinton and Obama are dead heat second because of the negative politicking, Edwards will get a huge boost. Money will flow in and he will be competitive in California and other states on Feb. 5.

Maybe... (0.00 / 0)
but, again, I don't think so. Not clear how much bump he gets in NH because of a moderately surprising win in IA (remember, this has been a tight 3 way race for a long time, and he was the early favorite). And the money flowing in will be highly limited by the matching fund decision.
[ Parent ]
Thanks for responding...my point is (0.00 / 0)
that polls after Iowa have such a high degree of volatility BECAUSE of what happens in Iowa, that they are completely meaningless. We all know that Iowa will change everything (if there is a surprise), so why keep relying on polls that we know will shift radically to make any kind of prediction?

Far better to discuss the underlying dynamics and discuss the what-ifs than to use any poll as a basis for what will happen.

The money will not be significantly limited during the primaries. That with momentum from a surprisingly big win in Iowa will make the nomination up for grabs.

[ Parent ]
Polls. (0.00 / 0)
First of all, polls are not completely useless in the caucuses, although they should certainly be read with a big grain of salt. But a lot of polls showed Dean and Gephardt losing ground, and Kerry and Edwards gaining, in the days before the caucuses in 2004.
Secondly, I am relying on more info than just the polling, including frequent conversations with each of the campaigns, with my network of old friends back there, etc. And a lot of what I write is based on my experiences in caucus politcs over the years.
[ Parent ]
I've been thinking this as well (0.00 / 0)
I see Edwards finishing at least a strong second, if not eking out a victory.  It all depends on turnout.  I know western Iowa, although less populated, has more influence in the caucus, and Edwards is strong there.

I'm not sure the matching funds will be has big of a handicap as you and Kos seem to think.  NH is just 5 days after Iowa.  Assuming all the press and momentum, I could definitely see Edwards competing with Obama there, and taking it to South Carolina.

I think Obama still has the clear edge of the three, he's leading in Iowa, NH and SC now with no signs of a slowdown in his momentum.  He has as much money as Clinton and could sustain a long campaign.  However, I wouldn't count Edwards out if he wins Iowa.  If he does, I'd say the contest between Edwards and Obama is a tossup.  Money seems to be overrated this year.  Look at Huckabee.

I think Hillary is finished.  There's no excitement out of their campaign.  Edwards and Obama have people on the ground making it happen.  Clinton's camp has turned into a circular firing squad.  An Edwards win gives her a little more hope in NH and SC, but not much.

An Obama and Edwards 1-2 would be fantastic.  I support Obama, but greatly admire Edwards as well.  It's becoming clearer that we're going to have a nominee who I'll be enthusiastic to get behind.  That's all I can ask for.

Hillary is (0.00 / 0)
...throwing her last big haymaker at Obama.  Should be interesting to see how it plays out.

Ben Smith:

Clinton didn't mention specifics in the taping of an interview on "Iowa Press" this morning, but drew a contrast with unnamed rivals that echoes Bill Shaheen's now-notorious claim that unexplored elements of Obama's candidacy will make him an easy Republican target.

"I've been tested, I've been vetted," she said. "There are no surprises. There's not going to be anybody saying, 'I didn't think of that, my goodness, what's that going to mean?'"

This appears to be the emerging core of the electability case against Obama: that elements of his public record and -- unspoken -- his private past, could scuttle what should be a Democratic sure thing, and that he is untested by real partisan combat.

"Whoever we nominate will be subjected to the full force of the Republican attack machine, and I know that they know I know that and I have no illusions about what this race will entail," she said.

Couple that with Shaheen's comments and then Mark Penn's shameless peddling of the charge on Hardball last night, and we see this is all that's left in their tank.

All of a sudden that Novack column looks prescient.  So, basically, I wouldn't count her out.  I personally am disgusted by this.  As I said elsewhere, Penn can say innocently that he won't engage in such smears but is wondering if anyone else will, "innocently" wondering about someone make it an issue is making it an issue.  "Innocently" wondering if someone would suggest he was a drug dealer is suggesting he was a drug dealer.  Its repulsive, but who knows, it could work...and if it does, she may win yet.

[ Parent ]
I hope she does make the electability argument (0.00 / 0)
Since Edwards does better than either Clinton or Obama (or anyone else) in head to head matchups with any of the Republican candidates!

Howard Dean in 2016
[ Parent ]
I'd point out that (0.00 / 0)
Edwards has spent 4 years campaigning in Iowa, basically.  We all know this; not even his most ardent backers deny it.  I've often seen people here and elsewhere note that every political watcher in America knows Hillary, and if they haven't chosen her yet, its because they're looking for a reason not to vote for her. 

I don't understand why nobody thinks a similar dynamic isn't going on in Iowa as well, for Edwards.  He's been at 20-22 for ~3 months straight now, having lost steadily lost support for the 4-5 months prior to that.  Assuming that Iowans know him well (and all the predictions that he will do well there are based on that as well, so I think that's a non-controversial statement), one has to wonder (1)what it says that he hasn't consistently garnered more than ~30% support and (2) that his support hasn't changed at all since Iowa voters started paying attention.

6 weeks before the caucuses, we see a big move in trends.  Hillary and Richardson have been hemorrhaging support (Richardson moreso than Hillary), and that has benefited one campaign, and one campaign only: Obama.  Iowans who know Edwards well aren't leaving these other 2 campaigns to go to him; he's not getting that 10% back that he lost over the summer.

He's going up on the air with ads now, and maybe that will remind voters that he's still around, too.  But really, Iowans have been "paying attention" for 4 weeks now, as clearly evidenced by the sharp change in poll fates for Obama, Hillary, and Richardson.  Edwards has stayed steady throughout it all.  Iowans know him well, and they're not going to him.  Why should I expect that to change?

His ads, which will be very powerful positive (0.00 / 0)
appeals for bold change, together with the unfortunate negative attacks on Obama by Clinton which will affect both of them, will be an effective chance for Iowans to reconsider their choice. I believe that when they have doubts about the others, they will return to someone they know and they possibly voted for last time.

If Edwards wins Iowa, it will be a big win, not eking one out. He'll either fall to third or win big.

[ Parent ]
There will be a big ad problem (0.00 / 0)
But in the general, there will be a mishmash of ads and messages.  See my new comment above. 
[ Parent ]
well (0.00 / 0)
Eh, no offense, but it seems like you're doing a lot of projecting.

However, I will note this: pollster just updated their Iowa trendlines, and now we see a pretty clear picture of the race that's different than what I described.

There seemed to be 2 dynamics going on.  Starting in ~May, Hillary siphoned ~10% from Edwards to her campaign.  Now, it looks like, since ~Oct, Edwards has started to slowly peel some of that support back.  He's gained ~2.5 points and she's lost ~2.5 points, both seeing their turn at the same point.

Since the start of 2007, Obama and Richardson both steady gains until ~June, and then, Richardson gave up 5% while Obama picked up ~8%.

Which is interesting.  From the beginning, Clinton and Edwards were probably the 2 most well-known candidates in Iowa, and fighting for the same middle-color voters.  Obama has been making a big push for 1st timers and undecideds, and it seems like he was in competition with Richardson for those voters, and has taken some of his voters and some of the previously-undecideds.  What that suggests to me is that the voters Obama is picking up are voters who've seen Clinton and Edwards and were still looking for someone else, which is a bad sign for both and a good sign for Obama.  How big that population is though, and whether or not Obama can hold them, is something else entirely.

Look at the graph, though...its kinda crazy actually how the Obama and Richardson turns coincide, and how the Edwards and Clinton turns coincide.

[ Parent ]
I'm sure you know that.... (0.00 / 0)

........campaigns that rely on 'first-timers' in IA do not generally do well.

If it snows....buh-buh Senator 'Hope'.

Peace, Health and Prosperity for Everyone.

[ Parent ]
New Research 2000 Poll Dec. 9-13th (0.00 / 0)
Research 200- Poll:

Obama 33
Edwards 24
Clinton 24

Their previous poll had it cLINTON 27 oBAMA 25 eDWARDS 23

Obama is surging in this poll.

[ Parent ]
Anyone care to quantify? (0.00 / 0)
Edwards is currently 8:1 to finish worse than first in Iowa according to Intrade (his probability of finishing first in Iowa is around 12%).

Put your money where your mouth is? It's tough, but I do think 12% is too low.

I will buy today at 12%. But I'll sell when if it gets over 30% (and make a 150% return on my investment).

What is the "right" price for Edwards Iowa futures?



Visit DebateScoop for political candidate debate news and analysis.

Huckster has spent <$1million (4.00 / 1)
and is skyrocketing in the polls. 
Messaging matters, presenation matters, and most importantly the God Damn media is going out of it's way to ignore Edwards
the DM Register moderator was not the worst (0.00 / 0)
At least the allocation of time among the candidates was fair.

The only moderator all year who did a really good job was Judy Woodruff at the AARP forum in September.

Join the Iowa progressive community at Bleeding Heartland.

and that's scary (4.00 / 1)


Join us at the Missouri community blog Show Me Progress!
[ Parent ]
If JRE Wins Iowa He Will Win New Hampshire (0.00 / 0)
I think that JRE has the money to make it thru February.  In fact he won't even need money to win.  I think that the Iowa winner will be the nominee no matter how much money the other candidates have.  Momentum and winning the first caucus will be hard to defeat.  JRE will look the most electable.  When Kerry won Iowa, he won the rest, and he didn't have a lot of money at that time.  I think that it was very smart of JRE to go with matching funds.  He didn't say he would go with matching funds for the GE, just the primary. 
I will be shocked (0.00 / 0)
if he finishes first. I know its possible but unlikely.
Keep an Eye on Edwards | 47 comments
Donate to Open Left







QUICK HITS

Friends of the Earth thanks the OpenLeft community for the ideas you generate and your contributions to the progressive movement.
As an anti-spam measure, there is a 24-hour waiting period after registering before new users can comment.
blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
LIBERAL INSTITUTIONS
STATE BLOGS
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2009, Powered by SoapBlox