Iowa winnows; New Hampshire tests
Iowa winnows the field; New Hampshire tests front-runners.
That is the conclusion of Northeastern’s William Mayer after studying the history of the two contests, and this year is no different.
The Obama victory is big news, but everyone needs to take a deep breath. Not every year is 2004, where John Kerry’s victory in Iowa led to him quickly running the table.
With the calendar sped up as it is, there is little incentive for a well-funded, viable candidate – or even a marginal one – to get out too soon. After all, money has already been allocated; events are already planned. Iowa is just Round One. And there is barely enough time to throw in the towel before Tuesday.
So, Iowa is doing what it historically has done – cull the weak from the herd. Richardson, Biden, and Dodd are done. The field has been halved to three candidates that – as of this writing – performed similarly in Iowa.
Now, the real test for Obama – the new frontrunner – waits in New Hampshire. With victory comes scrutiny unlike anything he has endured before.
Voters who may have always liked Obama, but never thought he was ready or could actually win will now start to judge him as Commander-in-Chief. Opposing campaigns that have held back releasing what they know about his record will no longer. And the media will have to start asking tough questions of him – everything from what he did in his past to what his plans are, who is advising him, and what his thoughts are on a myriad of issues.
Of course, thousands of words have been written about Obama already and the media bubble has followed him for months, but the intensity of the questioning will heighten. The bar is higher – much, much higher. Don’t believe me; just ask phenoms from campaigns past from Gary Hart, who lost, to George McGovern, who won.
What the outcome will be for Obama is still weeks away. On to Manchester!
Maybe Americans are trying to say that they want a President who represents them not a Commander in Chief to dictate to them.
January 3, 2008 7:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Opposing campaigns that have held back releasing what they know about his record will no longer. And the media will have to start asking tough questions of him – everything from what he did in his past to what his plans are, who is advising him, and what his thoughts are on a myriad of issues.
It's going to be extremely difficult for his remaining opponents to go negative on Obama given the strength and appeal of his unity message. Doing so will only further reinforce his appeal to the triumph of hope over cynicism, and will most likely backfire.
January 3, 2008 8:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, that's the idea, but let's see if it works. We know what's coming in the fall, when the GOP turns the big guns on the nominee. So let Clinton turn Mark Penn loose on him and let Edwards fire off his populist critique. They're from a different ideological direction but relatively akin in form to what Obama would see from Romney and Huckabee, respectively.
If he can take the heat, I say he's ready for the general. If not, well, better we know that now.
January 4, 2008 7:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Why would they have saved it, rather than having surrogates float it in Iowa?
Clinton made a big mistake if she held anything back.
January 4, 2008 10:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'll double down on the "who's advising him" question. Long term it is hugely important for the Democratic Party that young people are showing up and breaking our way and Obama deserves a great amount of credit for that.
Having admitted that, his economics team is simply dreadful and probably explains his missteps on Social Security and Mandates. Krugman is just the tip of the iceberg, a little voyage across the left leaning Econoblogs shows some serious unease with not only Obama's head guy Goolsbee but a great deal of uncertainty about Edward's head guy Hindery. Who the hell are Goolsbee and Hindery? Well for anyone concerned with issues like income inequality and universal coverage this may be the biggest names you maybe never heard of. You got to love both Obama and Edwards' messages, but it matters a great deal who is drafting the policy papers.
January 4, 2008 8:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
I put more value on the guy at the top. Kennedy had some smart guys, and some wackos like LeMay. He decided for himself, for better or worse. Bush had experienced pros, and no comment needed there.
An executive that can actually decide is the goal, not a group of inside players who will whipsaw policy absent a decisive exec. Experience is good if one wants to continue down the current path.
January 4, 2008 9:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, except that the way I know about his advisors' positions is that Obama has spouted them. I've remained undecided all this time primarily because they guy I've so wanted to support -- Obama -- has said some things that have given me serious pause. It's not the beyond-partisanship message; as a proud lifelong liberal, I've always worked hard, and frequently successfully, to help the indies and Republicans I know see the light. It's the very sort of things that Krugman has been addressing, things that Obama's team has not only not acknowledged are legitimate concerns but has responded to very badly. I desperately want to see evidence that this brilliant, gifted guy, who I do believe is genuinely progressive, understands how harmful are these (yes) right-wing talking points that have little basis in fact as we try to undo all the damage that's been done to our politics and our government.
January 4, 2008 11:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
When are the pundits going to start confronting the issue of how the primaries being front-loaded favors the previously well-known contender -- the one who was considered the presumptive nominee when the process started -- over ANY possible challenger or upstart, even one that might be at least somewhat well-known before the campaign began?
The way I see it, Obama could very well demonstrate his superior strength AS A CANDIDATE, with voters who are familiar with the candidates and have heard a lot (both + and -) about them -- winning not only Iowa but New Hampshire and South Carolina as well. This is not a far-fetched prediction, and indeed, Obama may be at least an even bet to do just that. (Of course, the results in MI, FL, and NV are another matter).
But then comes Tsunami Tuesday ("TT" I like to call it for short). Here, the inertia of the campaign is given full swing, and even the momentum built up by Obama with three major victories in the heavily campaigned-in states would leave him at a disadvantage in what amounts to essentially a national primary.
Curiously, the circumstances in MI and FL, the two LARGEST states to vote before TT, is such as specifically to PRECLUDE major campaigning on the part of any candidate that doesn't want to outrage the Democratic Party establishment; hence they are more like the TT states than the 'big three' of January. ALL OF THESE FACTORS SEEM TO FAVOR THE CANDIDACY OF HRC, ALMOST INSURMOUNTABLY, AND ALL ARE PREDICTABLE RESULTS OF THE WAY THAT THE NATIONAL DEMOCRATIC PARTY SET UP THE ELECTIONS.
It's time for the grass-roots and net-roots Democrats to start SERIOUSLY grappling with this issue. If this setup insures an HRC nomination, as it seems clearly to have been intended to do, AND THEN SHE LOSES, I think that progressives will REALLY have to think seriously about completely overhauling the Democratic Party. And no more dancing to the tune of the DLC and their 'why doesn't the Democratic Party dump its pro-choice platform?'(Al From) after the 2004 elections.
January 4, 2008 9:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Iowa winnows the field; New Hampshire tests front-runners. That is the conclusion of Northeastern’s William Mayer after studying the history of the two contests, and this year is no different.
sorry, but this year was different -- completely different.
In the not too distant past, the media paid little attention to Iowa, and the front runners concentrated on New Hampshire. Iowa voters weren't being assaulted with months and months of wall-to-wall political ads, political analysis, and speculation about the outcome of the Iowa race. As a result, "second tier" and "dark horse" candidates had an opportunity to truly connect with Iowa voters -- and the big losers in Iowa would bow out of the race, knowing that it wasn't the lack of money that defeated them, but that their campaign message wasn't resonating.
Indeed, Edward's substantial lead in Iowa at the beginning of 2007 at a point where Hillary was the overwhelming favorite in national polls shows how little attention she was paying to Iowa. Unfortunately, the moment the media decided to fixate on Barack Obama, and literally (in terms of media coverage) turn the nomination into a two person race between Clinton and Obama, the campaign calculus changed. Clinton realized that if she could beat Obama in both Iowa and New Hampshire, she'd be declared "inevitable".... so she decided to contest Iowa far more vigorously.
The Iowa results didn't "winnow" the Democratic field --- the media's saturation coverage of Clinton/Obama did that. Edwards, despite coming in second in Iowa (and outpolling Obama in terms of support from actual members of the Democratic party who had caucussed before) has been declared toast -- and despite that fact that Hillary is up by 20 points nationally, and up by an average of 9 points in the latest New Hampshire polls, and has big leads in the rest of the "early" states (except for SC, where she has a small lead") the media is now declaring Obama the "new frontrunner".
Iowa used to winnow the field --- now, its just another political landscape that has been so perverted by the media that it can no longer perform its traditional function.
January 4, 2008 4:10 PM | Reply | Permalink