Obama in NH FTW (0.00 / 0)

Org-heavy and new-voter-unfriendly Iowa played to Clinton's strengths and Obama's weaknesses, yet she couldn't even score a decisive 2nd there.  NH's open primary flips the equation, hurting her and helping him even more.

With an extra week Clinton could maybe regroup for NH, but this calendar is unforgiving.  If Iowa's massive turnout is any indication, NH independents are gonna put Obama over the top.

Possibilities for her:

- Saturday's debate, Clinton's strongest medium, may remind NH voters why they like her
- Edwards's decision not to bow out, and lumping together of himself and Obama as "change candidates", might signal his willingness to attack Obama going into NH and actually help Clinton
- homeless Biden voters break for her, lend her a point or two
- bad weather in NH would probably hurt Obama relative to Clinton and Edwards

The debate obviously looks like her best shot.  But the storm seems to be aligning for an Obama convention.

---

by: Gaucho @ Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 04:55:26 AM CST

Continuing his climb (0.00 / 0)

Yesterday's victory was huge for Obama, it proves that he can win even in a state like Iowa.  Viability was a major concern for reluctant Obama supporters and that worry is over now.  The same things that were working for Obama will be even more effective in New Hampshire.  He will drive a high turnout and win over Independent voters and young voters.

I predict that Obama will break 40% in NH.

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

---

by: Luam @ Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 07:05:26 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Bad weather unlikely (0.00 / 0)

It's going to be near 50 degrees on Primary Day - and even if it were bad weather, it was in single digits in Iowa last night...that didn't seem to stop anyone, did it?

---

by: PsiFighter37 @ Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 07:14:11 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Big Mo is a big Myth (4.00 / 1)

at this point in the process. Given the previous ability of Iowa voters to pre-select an eventual Democratic President, it may actually be a good sign for Edwards and Clinton that they didn't win there.

How important is New Hampshire?  It's a tiny state, with a tiny number of electoral votes.  New Hampshire residents as a group are reknowned for being stodgy, eccentric, and finicky. Their choice for President might be thought of as the stodgy, eccentric, finicky choice.

Edwards' limited funding becomes more important as time goes on. He still has money, at the moment.  He must spend it judiciously.  If he tries to win New Hampshire by increasing his spending there, he will lose the nomination whether or not he wins New Hampshire, because he will be exhausting his resources.  Obama and Clinton have roughly double the money Edwards has.

Psychology is far less important than organization on the ground.  Organization is the only thing money can buy.  It can't buy viability. Unfortunately, Edwards doesn't have organization. He's got only two things: passion, and ideology.

The field has been winnowed as much as it is going to be winnowed before Feb 3. Obama's odds are greatly improved.
Edwards'odds are improved, since he defied expectations by not being eliminated. Clinton's odds are shorter, but not a great deal shorter.  She has the campaign infrastructure.  She has money, and she knows how to spend it.  She's still polling first nationally, at least for another twenty minutes.  She has the upper hand.  She doesn't have to win New Hampshire.  She doesn't have to win anything until New York. But her feet of clay are showing.

If Obama continues his shift into populism, he will greatly increase his chances of winning, because then if Edwards' campaign starts to sputter in the polls, many of his supporters will surge into Obama's camp. Obama needs to get a little more hard-assed with the Republicans.  He can easily do that while making the transition seem like a friendly and collegial conversation with Edwards. In other words, Obama needs to look like he's open to Liberal influence.  If he genially lets the campaign push him somewhat to the left, he sets up for the day when Edwards starts not to look viable. He also prepares for the general election.  He has to act like a winner.  The winner takes on the Repigs.

Edwards needs more exposure, and he needs it badly.  If there's another debate consisting only of O,C, and E, it benefits Edwards.  This also would be Obama's opportunity to engage in that genial recalibration I mentioned, so it's also in his interests. Clinton has to reinforce her crediblity.  If the other two are there, she has to be.

Edwards needs the active support of a major blog, which will validate his ideology.  Sirota and Krugman have done him yeoman service, although neither is campaigning for him. Instead both have simply validated his ideological orientation in impartial analysis. Impartial analysis.

It's hard to come up with advice for Clinton.  She is ham-handedly throwing away her advantages one by one.  She absolutely must stop the self-congratulatory crap.  People hate it. She needs to act like she gives a shit what anyone in the nation other than her professional, hack, corporate advisers thinks.  Not answering questions for the last week at campaign appearances made her look like an asshole. She's got serious image problems.  She desperately needs to behave more naturally and authentically.

The Democratic party clearly has outstanding prospects in the general election.  Turnout in Iowa is instructive.  Unless I did the math wrong, the Dems' 220,000 turnout is around 90% higher than last time, while the Repigs increased their turnout remarkably, but only by about 32%. If that or any approximation happens in the general election, it's a Democratic tidal wave.  With 70% of new party registrations recently Democratic, I'm predicting a gain in Congressional seats of at least 50, and at least 10 senate seats. 

On the Repig side, Huckabuck is going to experience the influx of an ocean of money, which he sorely needs.  I doubt his staff will know how to spend it effectively, but a large number of Republican campaign professionals is going on the market right now, so if he shops judiciously, Huck can bring some major talent on board. Progressives should be hoping for a marginal win for Romney in New Hampshire.  Huck and Mitt are natural enemies fighting over the same territory.  The more they rip each other up cat-fighting, the better for the rest of us.  At least one of them is a heretic, and they have to establish which.

The evangelical wing of the Repig coalition has shown its mettle. They get their folks out.  They are determined, and unpersuadable. But they are only about 40-45% of the coalition.  They cannot win a general election nationwide without the other three factions. Paul is sidelining all true Libertarians, and I think he is still in the race, if only for the crank factor. He has big bucks.  What's he going to spend it on if not campaigning?  The corporates are falling in behind Romney.  That leaves the NeoCons.  It's hard to see the New Aristocracy cuddling up to Huck.  If Huck gets the nomination, he loses. Romney's a walkover, except he owns Clear Channel. Fortunately, Huck is perfectly positioned to play the Heretic card.

Thompson is a dead man walking.  He's not going to make it.
McCain and JulieAnnie have to fight each other for the NeoCon vote, and Romney for the corporate vote.  JulieAnnie's toast.  He can't possibly get the social conservative vote with his ludicrous moral putridness, but he can take McCain down with him if he gets nasty.  Which he probably will. Duncan Who is gone, whether he knows it or not. I imagine he's already announced that he's dropping out.

Iowa has almost infallibly chosen the Republican nominee. Democratic 527's should start making campaign commercials out of old clips of Romney speaking in favor of abortion rights, tax increases, and gay marriage. November is starting to look like a coronation.  We Democrats just have to decide of whom. 

---

by: Querent @ Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 05:26:10 AM CST

For Edwards' chances (0.00 / 0)

With Clinton's inevitability shattered with a 3rd place finish (her worst-case scenario placement), and Obama/Edwards' 'surprise' 1st-2nd place finishes (yes, it surprises the rest of America who never see or hear about Edwards), the strategy for all 3 depends on a good debate performance, which as it's being advertised on facebook, it'll be watched by a whole lot of people including lots of young New Hampshire voters (and Nevada/SC voters). Edwards has to steal "change" from Obama as "real change" from Obama and he must connect well with pointing out that the special interests are at the core of every problem. It's important not for him to go negative, but it's also important to tag-team Obama with HRC on Healthcare, and trying to point himself out as the true change agent on Iraq.

Edwards' (and Clinton's) bane in the Iowa caucuses turned out to be none other than young voters, as well as poor manipulation of the media. They actually did turn out this time, and they turned out overwhelmingly for Obama. Obama doesn't really have any better of a platform (probably a worse one) than Edwards, and his goal MUST be to get these young voters to support him on Jan. 8. The Edwards team also must clearly convey through the media that 2nd place in Iowa raised, not lowered, his stock and that he's in it for the long haul.

---

by: KainIIIC @ Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 07:36:07 AM CST

Momentum? (0.00 / 0)

Momentum has an impact in NH, but probably less than it does nationally - Kerry was already rising there before he won Iowa. That said, a few things do seem likely:

1) Obama support hardens. If you were pondering whether or not to support him earlier, he's just proved his viability. Expect him to score higher than his current polling average.
2) Clinton support will become softer. Some of that may go to Obama, but Edwards could also make a play for it.
3) Biden, Richardson and the rest are probably done. The viability threshold probably hurt those two more than anyone, but their real totals won't be known and scoring 1 or 2% in Iowa is a death-knell for the campaign. Obama's probably the main beneficiary, although Clinton and Edwards could get more from this.
4) There will be a reaction against media spin in favour of McCain from Romney, Thompson and Obama. The first of them is badly wounded and will be lashing out wildly, the second needs to hold on so he can make a play for SC, thus he must prevent McCain being the anti-Huckabee and Obama will want to monopolise independent voters to try and score a big victory.

Forgotten Countries - a foreign policy-focused blog

---

by: Englishlefty @ Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 08:18:36 AM CST

If you're now less committed to Clinton... (0.00 / 0)

who do you turn to?  You might have turned to Biden.  Still could turn to Richardson (won't he drop out?). 

I think Edwards becomes the alternative to Hillary - attractive to older voters, more experienced than Obama.  He doesn't have enough $$ to really push in NH. 

Edwards was recently rising in NH polls - interesting to see how what occurs.

I agree with other posts - the debate will receive lots of attention and with fewer people on the stage, a deeper debate can occur. 

If Hillary loses in NH, it will be a repeat of Dean in one way- the frontrunner with large leads disappearing quickly.

I'm hopeful Edwards collects enough delegates by Feb 5th to make it difficult for either Obama or Clinton to win the nomination without his help.  That would give him some real negotiating power, and a chance that he could influence the nominee.

Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter. -- Martin Luther King, Jr

---

by: passionateprogressive @ Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 08:51:35 AM CST

more experienced? (0.00 / 0)

I don't see any credible argument for the proposition that Edwards is more experienced than Obama. Certainly, Obama has more experience in elective office, and more experience in public service, more generally.

However, there may be a perception of greater experience, given Edwards' prior vp candidacy and the pervasive narrative about Obama's inexperience (for some reason, Edwards hasn't received much criticism regarding his experience).

---

by: dpw @ Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 11:02:16 AM CST

[ Parent ]

I think it's small, yet significant... (0.00 / 0)

Edwards did serve a full term in the US Senate, so he has exposure to national issues that Obama does not after having served part of his first term.

Edwards also as a VP candidate has been through the rigor of a national election, and the digging for dirt.

I volunteered extensively for Obama during his primary and election in IL.  I was thrilled when the primary leader was crushed due to revelation of some divorce-related issues.  But he was never considered the threat so he didn't receive as much scrutiny.  The millionaire and the Chicago-machine candidate were the leaders, and Obama ran a great ground operation to steal victory.

And everyone knows how he ended up running against Keyes - a joke of an election where he certainly received an easier pass than most Senate campaigns.

I don't dislike Obama - I just like Edwards more.  And I do think he's had more exposure to the rigors of national campaign and the issues of a US electoral office.

Edwards used an interesting line today - he called Obama's proposals' "academic", which isn't necessarily insulting, but does imply they are "ivory tower" in nature.  Wonder if that will have any traction.  I doubt it will in NH given the little time ahead. 

Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter. -- Martin Luther King, Jr

---

by: passionateprogressive @ Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 17:05:11 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Iowa and Illinois (0.00 / 0)

I don't think Obama will be bussing people into New Hampshire from Illinois.  LOL  Independents are going to go for McCain over Romney and that will take away some of those votes from Obama. JRE still came in second in Iowa even though Hillary was dragging old ladies out of their beds to vote.  I wonder if New Hampshire voters will decide by electability instead of on hope.  I don't think that Obama has a prayer of beating a McCain or a Huckabee in a general election.  The independent repugs will go over to McCain or Huckabee and not Obama.

---

by: spanky2007 @ Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 09:20:08 AM CST

Have you all been paying attention? (0.00 / 0)

How could any of you think Edwards still has a chance?  Iowa was the only he state he has ever been viable in.  His strategy was to win Iowa and then build on that victory to win New Hampshire and create a domino effect.  If you miss the first domino, none of the others are going to fall. 

It's Obama's race to lose.  The momentum from Iowa will give him a bump in New Hampshire where he was already trending up.  From there he will be very hard to unseat as his cash and infrastructure only gain strength with his front-runner status.

Edwards ran a great campaign, but came up short.  Hillary is still in it, but her campaign has been anything but great.

---

by: BobbyWallace @ Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 10:24:01 AM CST

A couple things that I don't know. (0.00 / 0)

I'm ecstatic about Obama's win.  His ability to actually get the votes has always been a big question for me, and I hope this is indicative of his ability to perform in the rest of the primaries.  But there are some things that I just don't know and I'm hoping someone can comment on.

What kind of organization does Obama have in NH?  The story on Iowa seems to be that turnout was the deciding factor for Obama.  So, does he have the organization necessary to repeat that turnout in NH?  Dos he need it?  Has he been campaigning there successfully?  With so much focus on Iowa, I haven't seen this information out there.

Second, where does Obama need to place in NH in order to still be in this?  It seems like it's largely been a 2 person race in NH with Edwards placing a distant third.  Is there anyway Clinton can knock Obama out of the race in NH, or is it always going to go on to SC and on down the line?  In other words, what would a decisive victory for Clinton look like in NH?

Third, is Edwards still a viable candidate?  The story seems to be that he staked a lot on Iowa and lost.  What does it take for him to get back into the race?

---

by: Reece @ Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 11:15:16 AM CST

Turnout model of the NH polls? (0.00 / 0)

Chris' post links to the most recent pollster 5-poll average for the NH race and he states that Clinton's lead may be too much to overcome.  I'm not sure I agree with this after last night's turnout.  Obviously all polls have models of voter turnout.  I, like many, laughed at the possibility of 200K+ turning out last night.  As is all too often the case I was wrong, and the massive turnout definitely helped Obama.  Does anybody know the specifics of the polls in the pollster 5-poll average with regard to their turnout models?  It seems very possible that the 10 point Obama deficit might not be real and that with a proper (ie. significantly higher) turnout model the polls may show him much closer too Clinton, if not actually ahead.  And this could all be without any bounce from last night.  I may be way off - I was about last night's turnout.  But this was something I was thinking about driving in this morning. 

---

by: HalLew @ Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 11:20:14 AM CST

Clinton, Edwards, Obama (0.00 / 0)

and all three stay in the race!

Banned for posting five straight diaries.

---

by: donna darko @ Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 03:17:12 AM CST