Login Here
It is too far out from the actual primaries for trustworthy polling. Worse, any tiny little blip or change in the numbers leads to the sort of horse race reportage that newsrooms seem to love...and on which spinmeisters like to pounce.
That said, there does seem to be a bunching up across the board in poll numbers in Iowa for a lot of the candidates. As Chuck Todd details, Iowa has become a focal point for the Democratic primary season:
...The reason this has become the central battleground in the Dem contest: It’s the only place where Clinton isn’t leading by a substantial margin. And her campaign...seems to be worried: It has doubled its staff, is increasing its advertising in the state, and promises that rarely a day will go by without either Clinton or that OTHER Clinton stumping in the state....
No shortage of Democratic horse race stories at this point. Here's the thing, though: after the first vote, people can switch to another candidate in the caucus before the final tally -- and I've seen a decided lack of coverage of potential second-candidate leanings. If anyone has seen reporting on this, please let me know, because it is in that horsetrading that upsets are made.
The pollster who conducts the Des Moines Register's statewide polling says it is the most wide-open race in generations -- on both sides of the aisle.
...Republicans Romney and Huckabee are locked in a two-man race, with Rudy Giuliani, John McCain, and Fred Thompson fading but alive, and Ron Paul a wild card. Failing to win would be a huge blow to Romney, the former Massachusetts governor who has bet a fortune and his candidacy on winning Iowa and New Hampshire.
The Democratic contest remains a dead heat among Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and John Edwards. Clinton, the national front-runner, has been weakened in recent weeks by her opponents' stepped-up attacks. Those attacks were honed recently at the Iowa Democrats' annual Jefferson and Jackson Dinner, where Obama--who needs a first- or second-place finish here--accused Clinton of taking poll-driven positions, particularly on issues of national security, because she is "worried about what Mitt or Rudy might say." He offers himself as an antidote to partisanship stoked during the Clinton administration. Edwards, whose future hinges on winning Iowa, criticized the former first lady for failing to deliver on her 1990s healthcare initiative. Electing Clinton, he told supporters at an event in Dubuque last week, would be "trading a crowd of corporate Republicans for a crowd of corporate Democrats."
Except, who knows if it really will be down to the wire or a total blow-out. Or which piece of campaign rhetoric will come back to bite someone in the general election. Which leads me to a piece of advice for all the Dems: listen to Markos.
...In his first Inaugural Address, Ronald Reagan remarked that "government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem." While the quip has provided Republicans with a cheap slogan for two decades, the philosophy behind it is beginning to box them in. If they govern effectively, they invalidate their own antigovernment ideology. And when you elect people who believe that government won't work, you shouldn't be surprised when government stops working.... (emphasis mine)
As Scout Prime points out, Gulf Coast recovery -- or lack thereof -- is exhibit A of the use of inaction as a policy initiative. (H/T to Douglas Brinkley) But this is not simply Bush failure. His administration's problems are symptomatic of the larger application of conservative philosophy: government as an irritant to be brushed aside, except in cases of crony payola. The key is to make certain the entire electorate understands that...in spades.
Winner take all works in an individual race. But that is no way to govern for the long haul. Isn't it time we picked a president who believed that government ought to DO something for the public...the WHOLE public and not just a select few cronies? (For more on government as crony ATM, see the fantastic chat with Naomi Klein from Sunday.)
(Photo via Heraklit.)
Share This 
Spotlight
Good morning, Christy!
Doesn’t seem like Edwards is getting much visibility. The pundits all are talking about Hillary and Barack. Too bad, that.
Good Morning Christy!
Elizabeth Edwards coming up with Morning Mika and Schuster.
Hardballs hosting Huckabee tonight.
G’mornin’ Chirsty, msmolly, and Elliott.
msmolly @ 2
When your paycheck depends on…..
I let the “early pups” downstairs know that the action has moved upstairs. Last day of work before a long holiday weekend, and I am READY. How about you all?
Good Morning all :)
Perhaps a little blunt, but it really is up to us and we need to make a stand and chose..
Stupid Git Says: - posted at Crook and liars - Dennis Kucinich at the global warming debate thread.
‘Anyone who says he cannot win is the epitome of a “Cut and Run” Democrat. Maybe you could try supporting a candidate that you believe in for the primaries instead of just assuming good always loses? If enough people stopped accepting they’re always going to be on the losing side maybe they wouldn’t be anymore. If Kucinich doesn’t get elected and we’re stuck with a “lite” Republican as our Democratic candidate it will be because of the pessimistic whiny brats who’d rather vote for a “winner” instead of a real leader.
http://www.crooksandliars.com/...../#comments
Morning Christy, morning all. Is it OT to ask how is everyone preparing for the biggest eating/traveling/family political discussing days of the year?
I am in NYC, so Rudy is no problem. All I have to say is “more days at Yankee Stadium than at Ground Xero,” and “you can look it up”* in the Village Voice, and the band stops playing.
I also need some good anti-anti-Hillary on the basis of character answers to get me through my eating/family discussing. Basis of positions I can handle.
* Yogi Berra, ergo Yankee, ergo true in my NYC family.
Suggestions?
Meanwhile, Bush has another year to do as much damage to this country has he can.
msmolly @ 2
This is just criminal: the MSM’s failure to cover ALL candidates.
Let’s see coverage of IDEAS, plans, proposals, philosophy. Not this “horserace”/who’s up, who’s down.
Maybe the MSM like the latter form of “coverage” because it allows them to appear “insightful,” clever, in the know — to generally project an image of “we know more, so you should read/listen to us.”
In other words, it’s all about THEM [Chris Matthews, I’m looking at YOU].
A good reporter provides the facts and context. That ain’t happening here.
Yes, the pundits are all talking about Barack and Hillary thanks to the Prince of Darkness’ column and his “information” he just pulls right out of his ass.
jackie @ 8
thanks! I didn’t even know about it
I see Huckabee coming on a bit (10%) which I would expect, but Freddy T @ 19% is a joke - not to mention Rudy still on top at 28% is crazy. I was a little surprised to see Romney all the way down to 12%. That means I HEART HUCK could well overtake Romney this week if the bad news for Rudy leaks some votes to Huck and not the others. Also seems likely that Fred will lose some support when he falls asleep at a rally or something.
On the other side I guess DK is just 2% behind Edwards which is interesting to say the least. It seems lots of people that are in the know really do not like the top tier candidates.
I like Edwards so its a bit to bad that Obama is now in 1st place for both 1st place & 2nd place votes in likely Iowa caucus goers. I had thought some of this foolishness between Hillary and Obama would give Edwards a bump this week or next. I think Obama is a bit better than Hillary but really prefer Edwards or an outside strech to DK. I have also had a bit more interest in Dodd & Biden - to me they speak well at the debates and to me won the last two debates though with limited questions (but I do not trust them for some reason, maybe the insider thing, or hailing from such a rich state). The other guy with experience Richardson is not bad, but I don’t like him for some reason to me he seems to ramble.
Was interested the other day when a show/article mentioned that all the candidates with experience we getting hosed by the media for some reason. For instsance Edwards has a bit more experience (6 years) and been through the race already and as former VP nom would get a front runner spot (though now we have alledged insta-polls) - then even more stark with Biden & Dodd each with 30 years, and Richardson with 14 in Congress, Amb to UN and other Fed experience, and Gov of NM.
Here’s the thing, though: after the first vote, people can switch to another candidate in the caucus before the final tally – and I’ve seen a decided lack of coverage of potential second-candidate leanings.
P_lukusiak at Swampland notes
IOW, if it’s bunched up like this among the top three, second choice doesn’t matter.
not sure we have that on offer… except maybe kucinich, and i see him more as running to get ideas discussed rather than someone who has a plan to govern.
maybe that’s the trick - to figure out who each candidate would, if president, act for the benefit of…. how wide is their circle of concern and responsibility - who’s included and who’s excluded? and how capable/competent are they?
ultimately i don’t think president bush really cares about anyone but himself.
I don’t know. The Republicans seem to paint all the Democratic candidates as extreme liberals. The think Hillary is just as crazy as Kucinich and Michael Moore and, you know the drill.
Do any of you really think that Hillary is going to be a right wing President? That would be irony; Hillary, the right wing Democrat most hated by the right wing.
btw - I think the 1st place & 2nd place for Obama in Iowa lead was reported yesterday on Hardball. I had an extra 10 minutes and caught that segment.
Took a tour of Nashua, NH town and saw all of the candidate HQ’s. The Edwards people are starting to gear up lawn signs. Also the mail is really starting to hit in NH.
Got my first one or second one from Edwards, first from Richardson. Have about 20 from Romney, 2 from McCain.
Either one or none from Hillary - but she is on the TV a bit. Obama is on the TV all the time. I do not think I have seen an Edwards commmerial. This is within the last 1 - 3 months, there were a few ads before that.
Mauimom @ 11
Well, I don’t think not covering Kucinich, Biden or Gravel is criminal. Biden’s to the right of Clinton, and can be written off. Gravel is just running to be on the teevee. Kucinich isn’t in the running, at all, way to the left of the party as a whole.
Richardson is the only governor in the race, and governors win generals. Dodd is right down the party’s center with his positioning and has taken very strong leadership positions and had a money spike.
But what is shocking is the non-coverage of Edwards, who still has a very good chance to win Iowa, who is the equivalent of Dole–former VP candidate running in the following cycle.
It really reinforces the idea that there is a predefined narrative. Clinton Obama horse race. Clinton takes a lead. Obama comes up on the rail. Clinton fights him off as we hit the backstretch…..
George Simian @ 17
yes. but competent.
however, you may want to discount my opinion as i consider bill clinton the best republican president of my lifetime.
Good morning Christy, thanks for the post.
OfT, but the New York Times has a headline above the fold on the front page: “Baghdad Starts to Exhale as Security Improves.” The article that follows is not quite that bad, but I wouldn’t even link to something as obscenely inaccurate.
snark
Sounds to me as like a Bush trial balloon at declaring
VictoryMission Accomplished for the second time, and start redeploying North to help the Kurds protect our oil./snark
hmm jayackroyd,
Is anyone here familiar with elections that regularly use Run-offs as it were?
It seems a better way to get to the candidate most agreeable to most voters
(and I don’t mean personally agreeable — and just for the record I never ever wanted to have a beer with George Bush)
redx @ 18
What does a tour of Nashua consist of?
I was born there, have spent a lot of time there, but cannot imagine a tour.
I suppose you just mean you were checking out the signage. Or shopping at the megamall. (Sales tax free Nashua is on the MA border.)
The MSM is horribly delinquent in getting the candidates and their positions in front of the people. They’ve turned it into a stupid horse race as usual, declared a front runner and focused all the attention of he(r)… in a self fulfilling phenomena. This is irresponsible and is yet another thing destroying the political / eloection process in this country.
We need to have public finance of all elections… and to limit the time any media outlet can devote to these cycles and mandate that the time devoted to all candidates is equal.
This entire thing is so distorted and there seems to be no way back. Running a big campaign is corrupt as any large corporation and money is raised and spread around like it’s water.
The entire process sux.
The love of money has ruined this nation.
To me the fascinating thing about Iowa is that it’s not a secret ballot situation. So you have interpersonal pressure as a factor. People in one group, literally able to recruit other people into their group, right there on that evening. So think about the power of a neighbor or a good friend, versus your own conscience. That kind of situation can be very fluid, regardless of what you were thinking prior to the meeting.
So, Iowa is not just a demonstration of the pull of any candidate. It’s also a demonstration of social influence. Especially since a group needs to have 15%, I believe, of the total who came to that particular caucus in order for their candidate to have viability that evening.
That’s why polling for Iowa can’t really be totally accurate, cuz who can predict the weather that night (and it’s hours you may be spending there!), whether gramma or your kid got sick (so, who shows up), what arguments your neighbors may bring to bear, whether you may be forced to pick another group to join…. and so on.
Actually I find that fascinating as a social experiment. But I’m sure the campaigns and reporters are driven nuts by it, especially the latter who love to make a prediction correctly!
Boo Radley @ 21
The article was probably written by a “journalist” that never even left the Green Zone…
NPR has been pretty crap at covering the issues as well (along with some crazy talking points on the Econ & War).
Actually yesterday the old classic horserace topic of when did so and so get in the race and why. Where did they poll when they got in the race — yada yada yada. The only way issues get into any of these things from NPR to MSNBC to FOX is the back door - when they are talking about the bull horserace & associated crap.
Elizabeth Edwards with Morning Mika [to be repeated in later dayparts]:
We have enormous faith in the process.
And saying it’s going to come out who’s behind the whispering campaign/push polling that John should just go home and take care of his wife in her hour of need….
You go, John and Elizabeth. We’ve enormous faith in you. Your demonstrated personal courage. Your forthrightness and ideas. Your passion for what matters.
Sorry Edwards people, I will find it hard to forgive him if in his attempt to stay relevent, his rhetoric results in saddling us with a nominee who is unable to effectively fight back against the GOP. He has adopted GOP language manipulation tactics with a vengeance. It’s very Liebermanesque. Desperation will make you do nasty things but in this case, he can not win. if he truly cares about the party, he ought to think about a positive message and stop helping the Republicans.
Elliott @ 22
That’s how mydd’s been doing its polling for years now.
But because you’re not looking for one winner, that kind of reasoning doesn’t really apply. It looks to me like the caucuses are going to be split three ways across the big three, and that, as p_l points out, the real question is who the Dodd, Richardson and Kucinich second choices are. But even that only represents a fifth of the caucusers.
So this purely expectations, which are still not set. And paradoxically and ironically, the non coverage of Edwards may help him. A close second may shift the narrative.
And, of course, Arrow long ago showed that there is no good voting system–none, for example that is transitive–when there are more than two alternatives.
Speaking of polls
Polling Project
jayackroyd @ 23
It means stopping in at the campaing HQ’s of the Dem’s and peeling out on main street in front of Sunnunu & Gregg’s senate offices.
portia.vz @ 29
Examples?
portia.vz @ 29
could you give me something specific with links to evaluate? thanks!
BlueStateRedHead @ 9
actually, it was casey stengel, not yogi berra. you could look it up.
am also an nycer. earlier this year found myself listening to my brother prattle on about 9/11 being clinton’s fault, not bush’s; his son — just graduating college no less — chimes in that and there hasn’t been a terrorist attack here since.
stunned silence — it’s ugly when loved once declare themselves to be absolute frickin’ idiots.
i told them, a) you’re wrong; b) anthrax; c) i lost friends on 9/11 — don’t you dare try to score cheap politically expolitative points on the bodies of my friends. and when you get back to planet earth, please understand this family gathering is not the time or place to pick losing fights. then i wouldn’t speak any more with them on the subject. how about them mets?
that may not work in your case, i understand. i’m no hillary fan, but you could, if pressed, note that if your family doesn’t want to vote for her, then don’t vote for her. but they don’t know her any better than they know any other stranger, and to believe they do means only that they are a bit too credulous and believing of the media. or do they believe everything they see on fox news too?
portia.vz @ 29
Yeah, because open debate really is a terrible thing.
thank you jayackroyd!
George Simian @ 17
she’s as corporatist as the repubs, just not a lunatic.
selise @ 20
selise,
Obviously, this is no longer the case but at one time there was quite a bit of overlap between the two parties. When I was growing up, it seemed the “Liberal” Dem was out on the left while the “Conservative” Rep was out on the right with a “moderate” Rep pretty much equal to a “Conservative” Dem and a “Liberal” Rep equivalent to a “moderate” Dem.
Given all this, I do still see Clinton as in many ways having been a traditional moderate Dem but since there is no longer any such animal as a Liberal Rep, the aspects of support for big bidness and such are that much more glaring than they would have been twenty-thrity years ago.
YMMV
it’s kinda frustrating to watch primary campaigning on iowa, nh, .. and think that the choice will already be made by the time i get to vote.
Long piece this morning on NPR about how much better it is in Baghdad these days. Feh.
My divorced son and I are invited to his neighbors’ for dinner Thursday. I’ve met the neighbors, but not anyone else who may also be invited. It will be interesting to see whether politics comes up and what is said. My son is also very progressive, no idea where his neighbors fall. I am gearing up to bite my tongue a lot since I will be a guest at their table.
selise @ 40
selise,
For those of us here in Indiana, we already KNOW the choice will be made by the time we get to vote. That still won’t change my vote, though.
It’s really hard to know what Hill thinks because she likes to please all the people all the time and that feels wrong.
She knows how to play this game and claims she can kick back if swift boated. That’s she’ll be and it remains to be seen how she would actually govern. My sense is that she understand the powers behind the curtain and has signaled that she won’t rock their boat.
This is the disturbing aspect to Hill that she is not really for the people, but has a big ear for corporations and the MIC. And the MIC own a huge part of this nation and is not going to give it up without a big fight.
Who is going to take on the MIC?
selise @ 34
portia.vz @ 29 = Chris Mathews?
selise and I are still waiting for those examples…
selise @ 40
bugs the hell outta me, too
Thunderbird @ 42
I’m in Indiana too, and it won’t change my vote either!!
Prairie Sunshine @ 6
That said, media exposure (or over exposure) is likely unproductive at a certain point in a place like Iowa. It’s gonna be the organization and personal contacts that make the difference.
I really don’t know who is leading in Iowa simply because most of the folks we have coming on here seem to be immersed into their candidate. So they will perceive the other candidates backers as loud and juvenile, while the cheers and whistles for their candidate are musical.
It does sound like the race in Iowa, in particular, will likely be decided after the second polling as folks shift away from their preferred, but struggling candidate.
How many times does the caucus allow counts. Until there are only two candidates left? Three? How does Iowa distribute the Electoral delegates? Is it winner take all, or proportionate in some odd manner?
‘morning, all… coffee is ready - hold out your cups.
I think the Iowa primarily is further away that it first appears.
jayackroyd @ 30
What p_l misses, though, is that statewide polling numbers are dangerously unreliable when predicting precinct-level support.
If, for example, Richardson is polling at 11% statewide, but has his support bunched in several places, he would easily be “viable” there.
Three words sum up the Iowa Caucuses: turnout, turnout, and turnout — at both the precinct level and statewide.
History is made by those who show up, and every campaign will be working hard to get their folks out. I will be especially intrigued to see if Ron Paul can throw a monkey wrench into the GOP’s machinery.
portia.vz @ 29
yes, by all means let’s forget that he is merely the only dem out there saying the right things, doing the right things and with a good chance of winning and returning the country to some semblance of the nation we thought we were living in.
shame on him for pointing out flaws in an opponent’s campaign.
dakine01 @ 39
but weren’t the old style “conservative” dems socially conservative instead of orientated in support of corporations and $$ instead of labor and the poor?
selise @ 40
I really enjoy being in NH as we get to meet every candidate face to face (if we want to that is. I have no desire to meet any of the goopers) and make “personal” evaluations of them.
I do feel badly for people in other states that do not get the chance. It is a shitty system.
jay at 15 — The thing is, though, that often it is the person who comes in a surprise and very strong second — or who comes close to toppling off the perceived front-runner who comes out of Iowa with the momentum. It can suck all the air out of coverage for the actual winner if the media decides on an “underdog makes good” narrative.
So the second votes can make a difference. But there are so many factors in play that you never know until about two hours after the caucuses to see how the media storyline is going to emerge and grow. The candidates have more than one race to run — and the spinners will be laying that groundwork for the next 40-odd days.
imagine all the talk that will happen over turkey and Christmas presents.
portia.vz @ 29
Well maybe the “front runner” should quit taking Republican positions on the war and on Iran. Edwards has not used any Republican talking points like Rose Law Firm billing records, or illegal campaign donations, Etc…… He has pointed out the vast amount of PAC money HRC has received as well as her Neo-Con positions on Iraq and Iran and he should continue this rhetoric with more zeal. It is a campaign, not a coronation.
I’m tellin’ ya, with the expectations so high for Hillary (based on national polling) the media may declare her the “big loser” and talkin’ about how she “lost her momentum” and things could really be up for grabs the rest of the way.
Or not.
But hey, O/T, but quickly, another NJ Republican Congressman announced he will not seek re-election. Mike Ferguson. He voted to override the SCHIP veto and that’s what I expected from more NJ Republicans but it didn’t happen. Anyway, I just hope we get good candidates and win this seat and Saxton’s - although Saxton’s might be a reach.
I posted this at Politico.com this morning (see below). It sums up for me how this election has been covered by the media. When we have a three way tie in Iowa and only two of those candidates are covered as front runners there is a problem for all of us. For those people who support another candidate other than Edwards I would submit that what is happening to Edwards should concern them as well. Because in the next election it could be their candidate that the media pushes out. Now I realize that if a candidate is not showing strong support that they will get less coverage. I’ve supported a few candidates in my life who weren’t considered a top tier candidate and while I didn’t like that my guy was not covered as much I could understand it a little better because they were much lower in the polls. This year my candidate of choice is right up there with Clinton & Obama according to the polls the media touts and yet he is treated like he is not. I can’t remember this kind of thing ever happening in another primary. Does anyone know of another candidate in a primary who was basically tied with the perceived front runner who was written out of the narrative? I can’t.
Here is what I wrote at Politico.com.
What a shame that Politico and the majority of the media didn’t say this right after the debate (see below), when it REALLY counted. I guess I should say better late than never but this unfairness seems to be a pattern by the media when it concerns Edwards.
I think a lot of people in the media are going to look really bad when this campaign is over and the press coverage is analyzed and shows how you covered a three way tie in Iowa as a two way tie. Shame on all of you for so blatantly interferring in our elections.
Peterr–
Yes, you’re definitely right about that. But this was meant to respond to Christy’s question about second choices. You’re simply adding another reason to not treat them as very important.
With groups of people this small, many of whom know each other, in this kind of complex social networking situation, I don’t think polls are helpful, at all.
I always forget how big Iowa is, though. Five Congressional districts. I was thinking the campaigns must have a pretty good idea of what they’ve got at this point, given how low the turnout is. But, not so. The state’s too big. The meetings too small. It’s really a crap shoot.
Christy Hardin Smith @ 53
I hadn’t read this post and basically just said the same thing. Sorry Christy. But it wasn’t plagiarism. I support Edwards, not Biden.
(Alright, alright. Cheap shot at Joe. Just the kind of thing we complain about, right?)
nomolos @ 52
In addition…. We, certainly the people I know, take our position as early determiners very seriously. Many of my friends volunteer in various campaigns, we attend scads of meetings, have candidates in our houses, we ask them pointed questions and demand answers. Hey, we do our best for you though it is still not a good system.
ps digg it
George Simian @ 17
I’m with you on this, and I think it’s critical. Support who you wish in the primary, but stay away from the name calling and bright red lines. Dividing Democrats is the only way the Republicans can win in 2008.
I will strongly support the Democratic nominee, whoevever they are, and I won’t have to shuffle my feet or hold my nose to do it. Each of the candidtates offers the only possibility of undoing the damage of the last seven years.
selise @ 51
For the most part, you are correct, but IIRC, they were still the ones most likely to work with the R’s on the business legislation. Consequently, they were able to temper out a lot of the nastiness that the R’s would throw into the legislation.
Patty Morlan @ 57
he is being shut out precisely because he is mounting an effective challenge to the status quo.
that’s why it’s absolutely critical he does well in iowa — and i will be sorely disappointed if he doesn’t at least take second.
Christy Hardin Smith @ 53
I don’t really follow your reasoning here, Christy.
I agree that the standard thing to happen here is the “surprising” result. In this case, that would be an Edwards win, which wouldn’t be all that surprising if you’ve been following this outside the MSM frame of Clinton vs Obama. I don’t think the other candidates have enough boots on the ground.
But the second choices don’t matter in a tight three way race, because none few (thanks Peterr) of the caucuses are going to need to turn to second choices from the big three, if the polls are accurate and the organizations equally good at identifying and turning out supporters. So if you’ve got 20-30% for each of the three, then the only second choices that matter are the third tier candidates.
(that’s another weird thing. There is no second tier at the moment.)
Mechanics of the caucus, from wikipedia:
Because I have restricted myself from discussing the presidential campaign specifically here at FDL, let me just say…
Chuck Todd is a hack! I find it very difficult to listen to His Smugness.
nomolos @ 60
thank you. i’d rather have you asking lots of questions instead of a nationwide primary that depends on massive media buys.
please hammer edwards on his sometimes hawkish foreign policy language. if he would get a clue about that i’d feel better about supporting him. that last thing i want is another lbj who has visions of a great society while killing millions of people in a country we have no right messing with.
jayackroyd @ 65
Didn’t Clinton come in 2nd in NH? And from that become “The Comeback Kid”. If somebody finishes second and it could result in alot of media attention an infusion of money.
Jay — Last time around, just as an example, Kucinich and Edwards had a deal that if they weren’t pulling in a certain percentage in a particular caucus, they would throw their delegates votes to the other person. I heard that Kucinich decided to do this because Edwards treated him with respect, because they had a few good talks about the needs of poor and struggling Americans, and because too many other folks in politics were treating Dennis like a sideshow — Edwards treated him like a respected competitor. I suspect Edwards made the deal because bumping his support to Kucinich would have sent a big message to the establishment Dems that needed a big shake-up.
In the end, Kucinich didn’t pull in a lot of support, but he stuck to his word and his delegates moved into the Edwards column, giving him solid results coming out of Iowa and a bit more momentum going into NH and SC. It wasn’t enough in the last election, but it did shake things up enough to put Edwards in the Veep slot in the end.
It’s not just winner take all chess involved — it’s also ideas and issue placement, and ability to rattle the others. Peterr is correct that it may not make a difference in every precinct — but it can make an enormous difference in close precincts and as bunched up as things are at the moment, if say the Kucinich and Dodd voters both have a deal to switch to Edwards second (and I honestly have no idea if that is the case or not — this is merely a hypothetical on my part) that 5 percent here and 8 percent there (or whatever) begins to really add up where there is decent turn-out for the person to whom they are switching in the first place.
In other words, there is a very good reason that everyone is amping up in Iowa, including the Clinton camp. Then again, it could all be a downplaying of chances and Hillary could win it in a walk and the momentum coming out of Iowa could be enormous for her. It just isn’t looking like that from everything I’m hearing…but it’s way too early to know anything for certain. It’s going to be an enjoyable few weeks of political watching, I can tell you that.
Chuck Todd on MSNBC actually said this morning that Edwards should be worried about the new Washington Post poll (that by the way still shows this as a 3-way tie) because people might start looking at this as a two personn race instead of a three person race. Yeah, he really said that.
HELLO — the media HAS ALWAYS covered this as a two person race. What BS spin. I guess this is their new “narrative” for Edwards and the excuse they will NOW use so they can sleep at night while they continue to marginalize Edwards. Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr!
selise @ 68
Frankly no one I know believes any of the idiotic polls.
And yes. Next time I see him I will ask him.
dmg @ 64
Unfortunately the media will continue to marginalize him even if he takes 1st. If he comes in a close 2nd they will not credit him for it like they would another candidate.
nomolos @ 72
thank you! it might help to remind him of all the the things lbj could not do because of the cost and social strife that came from escalating the war against vietnam.
kdh — Chuck Todd isn’t my favorite either, but he’s right that the Clinton camp has been amping up their staffing in Iowa (although, really, isn’t that expected 45 days out from the caucus?). And the paragraph that I quoted above was so indicative of how the media is reporting all of this — it was almost like a cookie cutter storyline straight from Todd’s paragraph across the board.
kdh22 @ 67
Good gravy, yes, agree whole-heartedly.
Forced to watch Press the Meat this weekend while visiting the in-laws — and there’s UpChuck Todd. Bleccchhh…
Made worse with the useless presence of Byron “Needs Notes” York and almost as useless Gwen Ifill and Ron Brownstein.
All of it horse-race coverage, blah-de-blah-blah. Extremely little on issues.
Nevermind the recently published Shorenstein Center report indicating the public was sick of the horse race and personal crap, and wanting information on the issues. If Chuck Todd had to talk about the issues, well, he wouldn’t.