Spinning results (0.00 / 0)

It seems like a lot of the projected impact on New Hampshire relies on the notion that the media will be creating the same sorts of narratives as they always have.  I'm not sure that'll be the case for a number of reasons including the timetable, the (increasing?!) pomposity and oversaturation of the traditional media types, increased influence of blogs and other non-traditional media, the wide open field (particularly on the Republican side), etc.

There's obviously going to be an explosion after the results come in, but I wonder whether the media folks have more of a compelling interest in drawing out interest in the races by not rushing to annoint somebody too quickly.

John McCain opposes the GI Bill.

---

by: Lucas O'Connor @ Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 17:37:59 PM UTC

Personally ... I think the media will .. (0.00 / 0)

try to draw it out .. after all .. just say that Hillary wins Iowa and NH .. what will the media do until the convention? .. Do you think they want to spend the next few months only covering the Rethuglicans?  By the way ... I knew that McCain would stage some kind of a comeback(is it enough to win the nomination? ... who knows right now) ... the moneycons don't like Huckabee .. the theocons hate Romney .. Rudy has imploded  .... so what else do they have?  is the theocon vote going to be able to overcome Mitt McCain?

---

by: Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle @ Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 18:06:47 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Candidates on Nov 4 may be different (0.00 / 0)

It does seem that the rush to be first may be killing not only the whole primary process but coverage as well.  Hillary and McCain were anointed months ago, but I don't think the press really thought about what that would really mean.  They then got serially agog about various manly GOP candidates, all of whom seem to be fizzling (except the Huckster, the one they liked the least).  Meanwhile, the race to be first among the states has saddled us with a one-month blitzkrieg of a campaign, then probably 6 months of buyer's remorse, during which McCain just seems older and older (if he's the one) and the GOP candidate just seems kookier and kookier (whoever he is).

Why would anyone tune in for that?  Only if the Dem were really seen as someone who could really change things.  All three can lay some claim to that mantle--but that is precisely what the bigwigs and gasbags don't want.  (You should have heard the exploding heads on CNBC this am thinking about Huckabee and Edwards winning Iowa.)

That's why I wonder if things won't look very different on Nov 4.

John McCain--He's not who you think he is.

---

by: Mimikatz @ Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 18:25:44 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

This has something (0.00 / 0)

for me to think about in my strategic voting analysis.  An Obama win will probably hurt McCain in New Hampshire because independents will be galvanized to vote Obama rather than McCain. 

---

by: BooMan @ Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 17:40:48 PM UTC

I pretty much agree (0.00 / 0)

That is about what I have been thinking for some time.  Of course I would prefer an Obama, Edwards, Clinton finish and I am not confident that the primary would be over even if Obama wins Iowa and New Hampshire.  Clinton is already starting to spin for a loss in Iowa and possibly recovery on Feb. 5th.  I think that a toss-up is actually good for Obama, not Clinton.  She would lose her inevitability narrative and Obama would show strength, also I think the trendlines look good for Obama in NH.  As you said if somehow Iowa does not effect NH then Obama would win.

On the Republican side, I think that McCain wants Huckabee to win Iowa, and has to be hoping that Obama is wounded and out from Iowa.  That means that McCain should want Clinton, Edwards, Obama on the Democratic side.  Last I heard 2/3 Independents were planning to vote in the Democratic primary and McCain needs that to change.

My job is not to represent Washington to you, but to represent you to Washington- Obama
Philly for Obama

---

by: Luam @ Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 18:36:38 PM UTC

I think I would vote Obama in Iowa (0.00 / 0)

I prefer Edwards to Obama as nominee, although I feel very positively about Obama and think very well of him too.  I so voted in the OpenLeft instant runoff.

But the closeness of the ultimate Iowa results will limit the bounce Edwards gets from a 1st place showing.  And if he doesn't win NH, can he beat Clinton?  I hope so!  But I doubt it.

An Obama win in IA might cut into McCain's support (crazy though that is...what kind of superficial nitwit is undecided between Obama and McCain) just enough for Romney to hang on.

Facing Romney instead of McCain in the general is very important.  McCain is the original neoCon politician.  We cannot have him as president; he's good on torture and that's it.  This country and this world cannot afford more U.S. militarism.  And Romney cannot win.

If my Edwards vote in IA contributed to a Clinton nomination, a McCain nomination, and a McCain presidency, well I would surely be upset by that.

I vote on Feb 5, so by then the choice should be clearer.  Either Edwards will be in a position to beat Clinton or not.

---

by: benjamins @ Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 18:37:55 PM UTC

Why not screw the 'horse race' analysis and... (0.00 / 0)

...............just vote for the real progressive, Edwards? You seem to be leaning his way anyhow.

Peace, Health and Prosperity for Everyone.

---

by: ACitizen @ Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 18:43:42 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

This is a horserace thread (0.00 / 0)

---

by: benjamins @ Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 18:49:58 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

That's what I did in 2000.... (0.00 / 0)

...woops!
Nothing wrong with strategic voting. You vote in the democracy you have, not the democracy you want. (ok, I'll give up that phrase for the rest of 2008)

"Don't hate the media, become the media" -Jello Biafra

---

by: LandStander @ Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 18:50:56 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

How is McCain good on torture? ... (0.00 / 0)

he voted for MCA for pete's sake .. will people stop with the BS about McCain already ... he is as right wing as they come

---

by: Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle @ Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 18:46:01 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Republicans (0.00 / 0)

IA is really important for Republicans.  If Romney wins there and NH, isn't it over?

---

by: benjamins @ Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 18:49:08 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Edwards should angle for 2nd in NH (0.00 / 0)

I mean fight to try to win, but have an effective communication team get out the memo that a 2nd place finish would be a huge victory and quickly go onto to SC and Nevada and try for decisive victories. 

On the idea that the Iowa results would be indecisive would be due to a poor communication team than anything else, especially for Edwards.  Even if Edwards wins by only 0.1%, it would still be a win since most polls show him trailing in third place.  Some may laugh but an effective communication staff would properly frame the win in the context that Edwards had put together a superior organizing effort to counter the gigantic spending by Clinton and Obama.  A win is a win, outsmart and outlast.

---

by: gaspare @ Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 19:41:28 PM UTC