Why Iowa matters
28 October 2007 |permalink | email article
Every time I read or hear about a presidential poll showing Hillary Clinton’s healthy lead, and Rudy Giuliani with a less commanding advantage, I realize how the electorate is being misled about 2008.
Political reporters, cable news commentators and partisan talking heads all recycle the same data, leading to a perception of inevitability and a suggestion that both races are basically over.
Attention journalists and the chattering class: enough already!
The believable cliché for years has been that the road to the White House passes through Iowa first, where a caucus win often creates momentum in winning a party’s nomination.
Finishing second or third in Iowa puts enormous pressure on all candidates to either rebound in New Hampshire’s first in the nation primary.
Iowa proved to be a winning ground for Jimmy Carter (1976 and 1980, Walter Mondale (1984), Bill Clinton (1996), Al Gore (2000) and John Kerry (2004). George McGovern (1972), Michael Dukakis (1988) and Clinton (1992) lost Iowa but won the nomination.
Caucuses in both parties, originally set for Jan. 14, are now on Jan. 3, which could be the earliest date in history. There are questions about the new date, so soon after New Years and on the same night as college football’s Orange Bowl.
This time around, the contest for the Democratic nomination is drawing far more interest and substantially more investment than on the Republican side.
Barack Obama, John Edwards and Clinton have each led at various times. The most recent Des Moines Register poll has her at 29%, Edwards with 23 and Obama with 22. But the race remains fluid.
All three candidates, as politico.com reported, are throwing more substantial staff into Iowa than all the Republican campaigns combined.
Clinton follows closely behind Obama: 145; Edwards: 130; Clinton:117.
Obama or Edwards needs to finish first in order to become the viable anti-establishment, non-Clinton candidate heading for New Hampshire.
The view of the Obama campaign, better positioned than Edwards, is that Clinton cannot afford to lose. Her strategy is to knock him out at whatever cost. It’s donnybrook time.
738
Twitter Bytes
Monthly archives
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- July 2006
- June 2006
- May 2006
- April 2006
- March 2006
- February 2006
- January 2006
- December 2005
- November 2005
- October 2005
- September 2005
- August 2005
- July 2005
- June 2005
- May 2005
- April 2005
- March 2005
- February 2005
- January 2005
- December 2004
- November 2004
Links
- Calbuzz
- Ron Kaye L.A.
- Cincinnati Beacon
- Talking Points Memo
- Salon
- Andrew Sullivan
- Marc Cooper
- L.A. Observed
- The Angry Anthropologist
- Slate




