Hillary Falls In Iowa
January 3rd, 2008 at 12:23pm Matt Margolis
A new Reuters/C-SPAN/Zogby poll released today shows Obama on top, with Edwards trailing by four, and Hillary Clinton back in third in Iowa.
What does this mean? It’s hard to say, Iowa polls have been all over the place, so the only thing we should take from this latest poll is that anything can happen. I’m still thinking that Obama is not going to come out on top, but if he does, it could be fatal to Hillary’s candidacy. If Hillary doesn’t win, she better hope that John Edwards comes in first, because an Edwards victory in Iowa, in my opinion, would hurt her less in New Hampshire. Both Obama and Clinton need to win Iowa to get some momentum over the other. If the perception of electability in the general election is as important to caucus-goers this year as it was in 2004, than I think that helps Edwards more than Hillary or Obama.
As for the GOP, I think Mitt Romney will come out on top. Huckabee may have been surging in the polls recently, but that may not make up for the fact that winning Iowa is a key part of Romney’s strategy and therefore he’s been building up a good operation on the ground that will be hard to overcome. If Romney doesn’t win the Iowa caucuses, he’s in trouble.
As for Huckabee’s surge, I don’t dismiss it, but one can’t ignore that since his surge, he was open to attacks and criticism that he largely avoided previously. He also comes across as less able to handle foreign policy, and he clearly appears to be the easiest GOP candidate for the Democrats to beat in November. If the perception of electability is as important to Republican caucus-goers as it is to Democrat caucus-goers, than John McCain and Mitt Romney should benefit the most… however, if Republican caucus-goers think Romney’s Mormonism will be a problem, than McCain experience the bigger boost.
What will be really interesting to see is McCain’s performance. If he can come in second place, it will be good shot in the arm for his campaign and an indication that the message in his recent ad campaigns have worked.
As of this moment, I’m thinking John Edwards and Mitt Romney will be the winners. The second and third place positions for both parties could go either way…
Entry Filed under: Campaign 2008, Democrats, Republicans
23 Comments
1. extramedium | January 3rd, 2008 at 2:07 pm
“and he (Huckabee) clearly appears to be the easiest GOP candidate for the Democrats to beat in November.”
Funny you should say that, because I’m a moderate and he’s the only GOP candidate I would vote for. Without question, between he and Hillary, I’d go for Huckabee.
2. Presidential election 200&hellip | January 3rd, 2008 at 2:28 pm
[...] Falls In Iowa January 3rd, 2008 Scott Whitlock wrote an interesting post today onHere’s a quick excerptIf Hillary doesn’t win, she better [...]
3. LiberalMind | January 3rd, 2008 at 2:44 pm
Maybe we will get a true progressive that places interests of America well before corporations and special interests.
4. F J | January 3rd, 2008 at 2:45 pm
Too bad Iowa will be irrelevant once Rudy sweeps round two. Please check out this one minute video a friend of mine made on Mayor Giuliani — it really nails what all this intra-party fighting will produce: Hillary.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IEdbwToUV8I
If you like it, please send it around
F
5. Bull | January 3rd, 2008 at 3:32 pm
what is interesting to me is how close both races are and the media claims that the dem race is so close because of the strength of each candidate while the rep race is so close because of the weakness of each candidate.
dems are all excited and rep are disinterested. i have a really hard time believing this.
the only knock on the republicans is that there is not one true conservative in the bunch. and that’s fine. they all have conservative traits but are rather liberal in others.
huckabee has been my man since the beginning when we wasn’t getting any pub. now the media built him up and is now trying to knock him down.
i can go run down the list of the rep candidate and say what i don’t like about them, but i couldn’t run down the list of the dems and say anything that i did like.
in my view the weakest rep is better than the strongest lib. it’s that simple. the media is making it out to be whomever wins the dem ticket is the next pres. with the those three at the top i can’t see how that is possible. to win you have to get party crossover. how many reps would vote for hillary? obama? edwards? but on the flip side i could see many dems voting for mcain, guilliani, huckabee, or mitt.
and FJ, the video you linked…yeah, if any of those were to win the white house i would be scared. especially john edwards!!!!!
6. SteaM | January 3rd, 2008 at 3:52 pm
Bull,
Now it’s the media’s fault? Why not place the blame on crappy candidates and an overall unpopular party.
The truth hurts. I know, it’ll be ok though.
7. Huck Fillary | January 3rd, 2008 at 4:28 pm
Good video, F J–a victory by any of those socialists would be scary indeed.
Go Rudy!!!
Disclaimer: By saying “Go Rudy,” I was in no way, shape, or form endorsing Rudy. However, he’d be head and shoulders above any of the three stooges, aka Donkaroach front-runners…
8. sleepygene | January 3rd, 2008 at 4:36 pm
Matt-
When Senator Clinton loses the nomination will you and Mark still press your FEC complaint? Haven’t had an update in a while, what’s the story? FJ, Rudy plays the fear card well but I don’t think that is going to play in this election. The electorate has been chicken littled for far too long, it is not going to work anymore.
9. Brian Gregory | January 3rd, 2008 at 4:42 pm
What time can we expect results, or at least major networks declaring a winner? I’m talking Eastern Standard Time.
10. Ricorun | January 3rd, 2008 at 4:46 pm
Bull: what is interesting to me is how close both races are and the media claims that the dem race is so close because of the strength of each candidate while the rep race is so close because of the weakness of each candidate.
It is an interesting phenomenon. By any objective measure, most of the Rep candidates have considerably more qualifications than most of the Dem candidates. In fact, the only Dem candidates with any real bonafides are all second-tier: Richardson, Biden, and Dodd. Even Kucinich has more “chops” than Clinton, Obama, or Edwards. I find that interesting.
I think it’s possible to argue that the Dems react more to appearance than substance. And in that regard they are strong — within a hair’s width of difference they all pander to the same broad constituency. On the other hand, the problem with the Reps is that none of them has captured the imagination of entire GOP constituency. Some appeal to the religious set, some to the financial set, and some to the national security set. But none of them appeal to them all — with the possible exception of Fred Thompson. His big problem is bedsores, lol! Okay, that’s kind of cruel. But still, IMO, he lacks sufficient enthusiasm. And I don’t want a president that might be inclined to sleep through a rapidly developing crisis.
dems are all excited and rep are disinterested. i have a really hard time believing this.
I don’t. Whether you look at the campaign contributions, or the crowds, or the seats that have opened up, or the recent voter registrations in most states, there’s every reason to believe that the Dems really are more excited than the Reps. But I suspect that will play out on the state and local levels more than the national level. In other words, I do agree that if the Reps nominate the right guy, many Dems and Indies would feel comfortable voting for them. But that’s not likely to translate to their down-ballot votes. Thus, while I believe it is very possible that there very well may be a GOP president in 2009, I also believe that the Dems will pick up seats in the House, the Senate, and in some state legislatures as well. I’m not sure about governors. I think that will be a wash.
11. Ricorun | January 3rd, 2008 at 4:48 pm
Huck: Disclaimer: By saying “Go Rudy,” I was in no way, shape, or form endorsing Rudy.
By any chance… are you taking tap-dance lessons? LOL!
12. Libsbane | January 3rd, 2008 at 4:49 pm
OT, I know, but I wanted to remind Aarontime that he owes $100 to the American Diabetes Association;
Thanks, and now back to the Hawkeye Scorekeeping.
13. Huck Fillary | January 3rd, 2008 at 4:55 pm
No tap dance lessons for me, Rico. I really don’t care who wins the nomination; I’ll vote for any of my guys, except RuPaul, and perhaps, Huck. But my GOP vote hardly matters, here in the People’s Republic of Maryland…
14. Casper | January 3rd, 2008 at 5:06 pm
Ricorun,
I’m kind of surprised that Richardson, Biden, and Dodd haven’t done better. As you say, they all have better bonafides than the top three. I do think Clinton, Obama, and Edwards have all run stronger campaigns though.
15. Ricorun | January 3rd, 2008 at 5:20 pm
Huck: But my GOP vote hardly matters, here in the People’s Republic of Maryland…
Here in (deep southern) California we’re working on a ballot measure to secede from that other part. We also wish to retain the name “California”. It’s only fair: Mexico has Baja (lower) California.
What sense would it make if there was a gap between Baja California and something else?
Unfortunately, the Spanish word for “upper” is “superior”. Needless to say, that presents certain problems in translation, lol!
16. FmrMarine | January 3rd, 2008 at 5:29 pm
ALL this commotion about a “STRAW VOTE”
from a P!$$ ant state.
It ISN’T a primary vote…it is total BS = MEANINGLESS.
All the candidates should have stayed home …saved millions, put forth an effort to lock up delegates in a REAL PRIMARY! in REAL states!
(real states meaning over 2.5 million voters)
Im Sooooooooo sick of this media “horserace”
she’s ahead, no he’s ahead, no they are in a tie, no, it’s………….. etc
Im ready to scream, and the primary voting has not even begun.
17. Ricorun | January 3rd, 2008 at 5:45 pm
Casper: I do think Clinton, Obama, and Edwards have all run stronger campaigns though.
Perhaps so. But on what basis? Clinton is running on the notion that she represents experience. How laughable is that? Everyone under her in the polls has more experience than her (Dems, I mean). Maybe the Dems haven’t fully realized it yet, but unless the first tier and second tier candidates magically reverse themselves, their only hope is to campaign on the concept of “change”. It might actually work. After all, it worked for Hillary’s husband. If so, it seems to me that either Obama or Edwards is their guy. But to the extent that the concept of “status quo” or “experience” wins out, the Rep candidates are generally much stronger.
OTOH, the chosen running mates can sometimes make a big (or at least critical) difference. In a closely contested election, that could be the difference.
18. neocon | January 3rd, 2008 at 6:27 pm
Rico,
I think your analysis is spot on. The Rep candidates all enjoy support from some faction of the GOP depending on their strengths, While the Dem candidates could all morph into one candidate and I don’t think anyone would notice.
The X factor is terrorism. I think McCain enjoyed a recent spike because of Pakistan and his experience and stance on the GWOT. I don’t think any of the Dems have credibility nor have they articulated any real stance on that issue.
It could come back to bite them.
19. Jones | January 3rd, 2008 at 7:07 pm
If Hillary loses in Iowa, I wonder if she comes back and wins big on Super Tuesday. It would be a nice story for the Clinton camp….coming from behind, overcoming adversity, etc.
20. js | January 3rd, 2008 at 9:14 pm
Hillary and Billary Putz
fooled us once
shame on us
if it happens twice we are nutz
21. Neologizer | January 3rd, 2008 at 9:58 pm
Although its always fun to count them history tells us don’t count your eggs …..
Remember The Great Ronald Regan, GHW Bush, Bill Clinton Mike Dukaka all lost in Iowa
Iowa caucus
DEMOCRATS :
January 19, 2004 - John Kerry (38%), John Edwards (32%)
January 24, 2000 - Al Gore (63%), Bill Bradley (37%)
February 12, 1996 - Bill Clinton* (unopposed)
February 10, 1992 - Tom Harkin (76%), “Uncommitted” (12%)
February 8, 1988 - Richard Gephardt (31%), Paul Simon (27%)
February 20, 1984 - Walter Mondale (49%), Gary Hart (17%)
January 21, 1980 - Jimmy Carter (59%), Ted Kennedy (31%)
January 19, 1976 - “Uncommitted” (37%), Jimmy Carter* (28%) Birch Bayh (13%)
January 24, 1972 - “Uncommitted” (36%) and Edmund Muskie (36%)
Iowa caucus
Republicans
2004- George W. Bush* (unopposed)
2000- George W. Bush* (41%), Steve Forbes (30%), Alan Keyes (14%)
1996- Bob Dole (26%), Pat Buchanan (23%),
1992- George H. W. Bush (unopposed)
1988- Bob Dole (37%), Pat Robertson (25%),
1984- Ronald Reagan* (unopposed)
1980- George H. W. Bush (32%), Ronald Reagan* (30%),
22. Magnum Serpentine | January 4th, 2008 at 6:52 am
I am so glad that Hillary Clinton came in Third. Too bad John McClane (Sorry for the spelling) or Gulliani (Spelling) did not win. If the former Mayor of New York had won, I might had voted Republican this fall. I am glad Fred lost however.
23. ysniljsu&hellip | January 23rd, 2008 at 8:11 am
ysniljsu
ysniljsu