Spending in Iowa

The NYT's has a chart showing their recent polling juxtaposed with the amount of television that the candidates have spent in Iowa. It goes to show that TV is no longer all it's pumped up to be, especially when/if they are mostly (or only) buying broadcast. Anyway, check out the chart:

On the Democratic side, for every 1 ad that Edwards has run, Obama has ran 9, and Clinton has ran 5, and yet, when you look at who regularly attends the caucuses, John Edwards has the lead; and even among those polled is right there in the mix. I think given Obama's huge spend at this date, he's probably reached his ceiling of support in the state. The other candidate thats already blown his wad in Iowa is Richardson, who got a bump off of it, but hasn't been able to keep growing his numbers. And it looks like, if Biden can get the money, that he's going to see some upward movement. And if I were to guess at whose expense a Biden bump would be, it'd be Clinton & Richardson I'd choose.

I know there are polls out there showing Clinton with a stronger lead in Iowa, but it's becoming obvious that the universe of those polled includes voters that don't usually caucus, even they say so:

...the Clinton campaign has bolstered its activity here in recent weeks, hiring 100 new workers to concentrate on a person-to-person drive to explain the quirky process of the caucuses, with a goal of having 50,000 in-home visits by Christmas.

More than 60 percent of those who have identified themselves as Clinton supporters, senior strategists say, have never participated in the Iowa caucuses. It is a far higher share than the campaign had been anticipating, which suggests that many of the reliable rank-and-file Democrats have chosen another candidate. So the Clinton campaign is working to expand its universe of supporters to women who have never participated.

The Clinton campaign must have polled and segmented and projected that, with the given caucus universe, they just can't win in Iowa-- recall their internal memo earlier this spring that considered ditching the state. So instead, the focus moves to the technique of expanding the caucus universe.

Obama, given how much he's spent already on TV, is probably coming to the same conclusion-- he can't win with the current universe of caucus attendees. So like Clinton, he's got to identify supporters that haven't caucused, educate them about the process, and get them there the night of the vote on January 3rd.

There's probably some unique internet-activities that the campaigns are not considering that would probably help them in their task. They have their emails probably, why not set up a survey process that identifies how knowledgeable their supporters are, and it'd also serve to show who can be considered 'hard' support (as opposed to 'soft') by identifying who is willing in Iowa among their supporters to take the time to fill out an online survey.

I don't have a candidate in this race now, but when I was working for Warner, we did a mailing of about 70K of the caucus attendees for issue ID, and supplemented it with handing out palm cards at the steak fry in '06 with a unique url, paid online advertising for the poll, and emailing everyone we could in Iowa. It wound up doubling our response rate to getting an issue id on about 8% of those whom we could identify as caucus attendees. Then a few weeks later Warner dropped out... and now we have our backs to the wall in Virginia for his very tough Senate run.

Its just a point I'm making, that while all this money is being blown on television in Iowa by Clinton and Obama, I doubt very much they are investing in doing anything unique over the internet (beyond integration of the VAN), or I'm just not aware of it. I'm not all that surprised that Obama's campaign is doing this; afterall, his chief strategist and campaign manager partner Obama's media firm; nor Clinton's because they have a very traditional mindset for their internet strategy; nor Edwards, cause they think they have a proven ground strategy in which they believe. Plus, the TV media consultants just don't believe the internet is still worth anything more than serving as a cash cow, especially for Iowa. If you ask them why, and I know this as I've done battle with them, there's also this asinine assumption that Iowans are too rural to be online. And nevermind the facts that show they are online or that businesses obviously think different, I saw this directly refuted by the minimal internet things I did with Warner. I found, with about 10,000 sign-ups during in Iowa during '06, that a mash-up showed were spread out throughout the entire state. I'm just astounded with the spill of cash in Iowa that the campaigns don't think to use the internet beyond emails and decentralized organizing nearly enough, if at all.

On a brighter note, it sounds as if all three are running what I would call the long-tail caucus strategy in Iowa, by going after supporters in every precinct (note to self to post more on this fascinating strategy that's unique to Iowa's caucus count of the votes).

Anyway, it looks like we could see Obama (& Romney) spend past $10M in TV ads in Iowa before the caucuses, which would blow away whatever Dean spent there last cycle. That's a huge waste of resources, so his supporters better hope he's also spending that amount on bringing in new caucus voters. Instead, to date, Obama's strategy has counted on Edwards fading, and it becoming a one-on-one race between Obama and Clinton in Iowa, which is not happening.

We all know that if Clinton wins in Iowa, the nomination is over. What's more interesting for us pure political junkies to think about is if Clinton doesn't win, then what? Well, assuming Clinton doesn't win in Iowa for a moment, then the media is going to want a two-way narrative, so it turns on who finishes in 3rd place.

If Obama comes in 3rd in Iowa, he's not recovering. The media will totally write him off, and Edwards will face the task of following up. If Edwards finishes 3rd, he's done, and Obama will have a one-on-one against Clinton in New Hampshire. If Clinton finishes 3rd, it's probably better for her than if she finishes 2nd, as then the story will still be a 3-way race (and that probably favors a comeback for her in NH).

Since this has turned into one big long Iowa thought (Chase got me thinking and rambling) spill, let me also talk about who might surge late. Joe Biden. Lets say that he gets some compelling ads up, breaks into double-digits, and gets the Des Moines Register endorsement... huh? You never know, he could wind up with some Joementum.

As for the Republicans, it's obvious that barring some incredible meltdown or attack ads against him, Huckabee is going to win Iowa.

Tags: 2008 election (all tags)



Re: Spending in Iowa

I find it astonishing Romney is the only republican who has spent money on tv ads in iowa

by who threw da cat 2007-11-17 06:01PM | 0 recs

Huckabee hasn't spent a dime! And he's closing in on Romney. Amazing feat. He can definitely do it. He can win in Iowa if he plays his cards right in late December

by rapcetera 2007-11-17 06:04PM | 0 recs
Re: Spending in Iowa

Just for reference. 50% to 60% of the Democratic Iowa caucus goers in 2004 had never caucused before.

by hwc 2007-11-17 06:21PM | 0 recs
Re: Spending in Iowa

and you think those numbers are going to repeat themselves???

by bluedavid 2007-11-17 06:24PM | 0 recs
Re: Spending in Iowa

Depends what turnout is. Obviously, Iowa has traditionally been completely apathetic about their caucus, but I guess there's always hope that Iowans would take their first in the nation caucus seriously.

by hwc 2007-11-17 06:31PM | 0 recs
Re: Spending in Iowa

Yes, but 2000 and 1996 barely had caucuses, so that's not a surprise.

by Adam B 2007-11-17 06:26PM | 0 recs
and 1992 was skipped by most

So in 2004 it had been 16 years since the last hotly contested caucus on the Democratic side in Iowa. Naturally, a lot of Democrats came of voting age or moved to Iowa during those 16 years.

by desmoinesdem 2007-11-17 07:14PM | 0 recs
Re: Spending in Iowa

this is the most insightful piece about the pres. election i've read on this site in some time...

by bluedavid 2007-11-17 06:24PM | 0 recs
Re: Spending in Iowa

Just what I thought! Jerome, we need more substantive posts like this on MyDD. This site has too much degenerated into a candidate cheerleading forum, with bad manners on all sides. I may have engaged in this too at some point. Sorry.


Whatever happened to the MyDD polling project? Didnt we try to regularly poll Nevada?

by MarcTGFG 2007-11-18 02:06AM | 0 recs
Re: Spending in Iowa

I think we are going to do a 'blogger goes to iowa' thing the week before the caucus, video in hand and all.

by Jerome Armstrong 2007-11-18 06:22AM | 0 recs
Re: Spending in Iowa

agree 100 percent. It actually took the time to go behind the numbers. Horse race is fine, but do it in a way that goes beyond what the MSM would tell us or what's the point?

by bruh21 2007-11-18 05:31AM | 0 recs
Re: Spending in Iowa

Jerome, I really appreciate this analysis.  I think you're wrong because Obama had to spend more money on tv than the other leaders b/c of their built-in name recognition advantage.

We don't know what the ceilings are because of the 15% thing, and because if it looks like of (Obama/Edwards) won't win the state, his supporters may defect en masse to the other.  Think about Gephardt in 2004.

by Adam B 2007-11-17 06:28PM | 0 recs
Re: Spending in Iowa

youre right and Obama's got a shitload of money that will be worthless if he doesn't win Iowa or New Hampshire. It may seem like a wasted but what else should he spend it on. Obama's entire stategy is a momentum one that includes "proving" to black voters he can win white votes. He should spend it all in the first few states becuase if he beats Hillary there the money will flow in like water from Niagra falls.

by nevadadem 2007-11-17 07:16PM | 0 recs
I don't think he's hit a ceiling

but I do think Obama's biggest problem in Iowa is the same as it ever was: many precincts are dominated by voters over age 50. Obama is strongest among voters under age 45. For that reason alone, I think Obama will fall short of 15 percent percent in more precincts than Clinton or Edwards.

by desmoinesdem 2007-11-17 07:28PM | 0 recs
Re: I don't think he's hit a ceiling

he'd better get alot of those people at the JJ dinner to bring a few friends I agree with that!

by nevadadem 2007-11-17 07:36PM | 0 recs
Re: Spending in Iowa

I'm just astounded with the spill of cash in Iowa that the campaigns don't think to use the internet beyond emails and decentralized organizing nearly enough, if at all.

Women's Voices, Women Vote test marketed e-mail along with direct mail and phone outreach in 2004 and found it to be the least efficient method of get-out-the-vote. Their findings showed that it was worth pursuing, but not a substitute for more effective programs.

BTW, I don't think the New York Times has any clue what kind of outreach programs the campaigns are really working on.

by hwc 2007-11-17 06:29PM | 0 recs
I imagine spam filters

greatly limit the effectiveness of e-mail as a political mobilizing tool.

by desmoinesdem 2007-11-17 07:26PM | 0 recs
Re: Spending in Iowa

I was relying more on my own sense rather than the NYT's for what is happening in Iowa over the internet. That Clinton is now having staff go to their living rooms is a hallmark of Karen Hicks being involved. A good move, or perhaps just making a move. We [Dean's campaign] tried to bring the House Meetings style of campaigning, which was so successful in New Hampshire, to Iowa with not much success at all. Going for individuals instead of groups in their House Meetings probably has a better chance at getting Iowans to talk more openly than they usually do.

by Jerome Armstrong 2007-11-18 01:58AM | 0 recs
Re: Spending in Iowa

Speaking of TV, John Edwards is running his "my wife has cancer, vote for me" ad all the time on CNN and MSNBC around here. Is everybody else seeing this or is it just because Boston cable serves New Hampshire?

by hwc 2007-11-17 06:58PM | 0 recs
Re: Spending in Iowa

That's a pretty repugnant thing to say, now isn't it?

by Denny Crane 2007-11-17 07:11PM | 0 recs
you are so ignorant

If you spent any time watching John or Elizabeth Edwards campaign in Iowa and NH, you would understand that they do get asked the question about Elizabeth's health and whether he could continue the campaign frequently. Elizabeth has even blogged about how people ask her whether John would have to drop out because of her health.

His tv ad is not saying vote for me because my wife has cancer. It's saying, my wife and I made this decision together--we are putting it all on the line, this is what we want to spend our lives doing. He needs to affirm his level of commitment to the race.

by desmoinesdem 2007-11-17 07:17PM | 0 recs
Re: Spending in Iowa

That's really over the line there.

by Jerome Armstrong 2007-11-18 01:59AM | 0 recs
Re: Spending in Iowa

He's been saying this comment for months.

by bruh21 2007-11-18 05:32AM | 0 recs
Re: Spending in Iowa

I agree. I think the Edwards ad is way over the line. It's unseemly that he would use his wife's illness as the centerpiece of a campaign ad.

by hwc 2007-11-18 07:55AM | 0 recs
Re: Spending in Iowa

if he's talking about the ad then your comment makes sense. if he's talking about your behavior, then your comment shows an inability for self examination.

by bruh21 2007-11-18 07:58AM | 0 recs
Re: Cable ignorant

Where are you that you are getting "Boston cable" that serves New Hampshire?

Usually cable systems sell 'targeted' local ads -- 'Nashua Toyota' on one system, while over the county (or state) line, it's 'Johnny's Toyota' in nearby Lowell. Of course, there's some overhead and hassle for the seller in slicing and dicing too finely. And so Time Warner Cable will sell an ad slot that's greater San Antonio metro, but my small hometown county is joined with the on next door for truly 'local' ads.

I suppose there could be, mostly depending on whch companies own the local systems, a cable buy of Manchester, Nashua, Lowell, and Lawrence that would be an efficient buy for a campaign. It could also be that a campaign is buying only Manchester and Nashua, but if the cable system has not sold all of its 'local availabilities' then it just runs the ad system-wide, easier to do than to slice and dice and insert a public service announcement for the other part of the system.

by Woody 2007-11-18 06:42AM | 0 recs
Re: Cable ignorant

That's why I'm asking if you guys are seeing John's ad nationally on cable news?

by hwc 2007-11-18 07:56AM | 0 recs
Re: Spending in Iowa

Jerome the attack ads WILL bombard Huckabee in Iowa but if he survives them he will win the state going away.

by nevadadem 2007-11-17 07:05PM | 0 recs
Club for Growth ran ads

against Huckabee before the GOP straw poll in August. I don't know how much they spent, but it didn't prevent him from doing reasonably well.

I am hoping that the NH electorate will stop Huckabee in his tracks. We do not want to face this guy in the general.

by desmoinesdem 2007-11-17 07:18PM | 0 recs
Re: Club for Growth ran ads

do you think Huck wins Iowa?

by nevadadem 2007-11-17 07:21PM | 0 recs
I think Romney has hit a ceiling

for sure. I don't talk to Republicans that often, though, so I don't know whether a big ad campaign against him has the potential to stop his surge.

Fred Thompson doesn't seem to have any momentum, and I don't see Rudy even making an effort here (to the dismay of some moderate Republicans who would like to see him do well).

by desmoinesdem 2007-11-17 07:42PM | 0 recs

Why do you view Huckabee as such a formidable opponent in the GE?

by jeffbinnc 2007-11-17 07:28PM | 0 recs
several reasons

He is a great communicator, both in person and on tv.

He has two inspiring personal stories (rising from a modest background to be governor, and losing more than 100 pounds).

He really downplays the scary part of his agenda when he's on tv.

Americans like to vote for governors.

He hasn't been in Congress, so it will be harder to hang the Iraq War and the rest of the failed Bush agenda on him--he has no record rubber-stamping it.

He speaks out on populist themes, and I think he has the potential to do really well with the rural and small-town voters who had been starting to move in the Democrats' direction.

by desmoinesdem 2007-11-17 07:41PM | 0 recs
Re: several reasons

Thanks. It seems that the crux of the matter in both nomination elections is how much "populist themes" play out. If it's Clinton vs. Guiliani/Romney, obviously populism lost out. But Edwards vs. Guiliani/Romney or Clinton vs. Huckabee, then populism becomes a potential leverage.

by jeffbinnc 2007-11-17 08:02PM | 0 recs
Re: several reasons

We are at war in two countries. We have serious national security challenges.

Mike Huckabee has zero national security experience.

A country at war is not going to elect a President with no national security credentials.

by hwc 2007-11-17 09:06PM | 0 recs
that and the crackpot "fair tax"

are his weakest points. I agree with you.

by desmoinesdem 2007-11-17 09:54PM | 0 recs
Re: that and the crackpot "fair tax"

Of course, two of the Democratic top tier candidates in a wartime election have zero national security experience, as well.

by hwc 2007-11-17 10:00PM | 0 recs
Re: that and the crackpot "fair tax"

This is true, but that's not a proper argument, that's an attack, so that can be weathered. Only McCain is going to be able to make that kind of attack and videotapes of his comments on Somalia could be used to smear him if you want to go down the perpetual war track.

by Englishlefty 2007-11-18 12:18AM | 0 recs
Re: that and the crackpot "fair tax"

I'm sorry, but Clinton hasn't spent much more time in the Senate than Edwards.  Why is her "experience" some how better?

by Vox Populi 2007-11-18 09:14AM | 0 recs
Re: several reasons

I agree with you on all those things. He's also not got much of a southern accent, so his pull could reach well beyond border of the south states.

by Jerome Armstrong 2007-11-18 02:02AM | 0 recs
Re: several reasons

Let me add- because he can appear to run to the left of some of our candidates on economic issues while retaining the cultural conservatism. He would be able to effectively blur the lines on several of the national issues such as Iraq. The media likes him. etc.

by bruh21 2007-11-18 05:34AM | 0 recs
Iowa will go on electability like '04

The problem is that in '07 we don't know the enemy yet.

However we won't know on caucus night and need to assume the toughest.   Giuliani won't win Iowa but could win it all.

Only Clinton can beat Tootsie.  Edwards and Obama lose NJ, probably PA, and make NY competetive if it is Giuliani.  Clinton's people need to educate voters / caucus goers to that fact.  

They will turn from Edwards they way they did Deam if the electability arguement is made clear.

by dpANDREWS 2007-11-17 07:06PM | 0 recs
Re: Iowa will go on electability like '04

the Iowa poll making the rounds in the state show Obama crushing the gop in Iowa with Hillary struggling.

by nevadadem 2007-11-17 07:11PM | 0 recs
LOL -- hang your hat on ONE poll

Is that smart?

One Iowa poll to boot --- not NY and PA and CT?

Do you really think Obama is up 20 even in Iowa?   Iowa with its tiny African American pop?


One poll that got some kooky results.

by dpANDREWS 2007-11-17 07:15PM | 0 recs
Re: LOL -- hang your hat on ONE poll

no campaign in those states yet. In Iowa it's intense and that's a predicter of general electability.

by nevadadem 2007-11-17 07:17PM | 0 recs
no it isn't

history doesn't support you at all

by dpANDREWS 2007-11-17 07:20PM | 0 recs
Re: Iowa will go on electability like '04

OK, that's seven electoral college votes.

by hwc 2007-11-17 09:07PM | 0 recs
Rudy won't be the nominee

and wouldn't be the toughest nominee for us to beat anyway. He is not likeable, and the media haven't even begun to inform people about all of his baggage. I'm not talking about the personal stuff, I'm talking about Kerik, profiting off 9/11, not getting the right equipment in the hands of first responders, blowing off the Iraq Study Group, etc. The guy is not serious.

by desmoinesdem 2007-11-17 07:25PM | 0 recs
Re: Rudy won't be the nominee

I don't count Rudy out as strongly. He does have a path. It's being in the top three in Iowa & South Carolina, and the #1 or #2 in New Hampshire. I doubt he wins NH, because McCain is staking it all there. Rudy has to get McCain off the stage, and hope that Romney stumbles, which pushes their cycle out further to the bigger states. It might all come down to Texas for the GOP.

by Jerome Armstrong 2007-11-18 02:05AM | 0 recs
So because Rudy is leading ...

We shouldn't nominate another NYer?

We should instead risk losing NY to the GOP NYer?  We should cede NJ to the GOP which is what would happen if Obama or Edwards took him on.  We should risk CT and PA?  

Spend money defending critical deep blue states that Clinton would win easily at half the cost?

THat doesn't excite me on little bit.

by dpANDREWS 2007-11-18 04:41AM | 0 recs
Re: So because Rudy is leading ...

THe disconnect is that you are talking about what you want emotionally, and he's talking about what voters in general in the states in question will do. That's the question at hand, not what you personally want. I personally want Edwards to win NH, and yet, I am not sure he's going to be able to do it even after IA, but at least with that - there is some prior historical analysis that says its possible. However, more than likely if CLinton comes in third in IA is an Obama win maybe in NH, but again we shall see. The difference is that its not merely what I wish to happen or feel.

by bruh21 2007-11-18 05:38AM | 0 recs
Re: Iowa will go on electability like '04

Guy, you're out of control. Are you seriously arguing that Clinton is more electable because she's the stronger candidate in New York?

What country have you been living in for the past, oh, 30 years? Our problem is in carrying the midwest, the south, and the inner mountain west.

No Democrat has won the presidency who was not a southerner since 1960. Among northeastern nominees, only Humphrey and Kerry even came close.

If you are for Clinton, you are hoping like hell Iowa isn't going to be decided based on electability.

by desmoulins 2007-11-18 07:02PM | 0 recs
Re: Spending in Iowa

Oh my god I agree somewhat with HWC, i'd put my money on a big turnout here, Edwards can win but it's not going to be because new people don't show up. The Obama/Hillary battle will come down to whehter Hillary is able to get more casual women voters to caucus or Obama gets younger/indy leaning newcomers. Both are difficult tasks but I think so much energy is being put into this they will both be sucessfull, after the JJ dinner I really like Obama's chances.

by nevadadem 2007-11-17 07:10PM | 0 recs
Your take has a lot to be said for it

... I don't think the Jefferson Jackson dinner maters though ... the people there have their minds made up and are largely already aligned.

But Clinton and Obama have the cash and Edwards seems to be fading.  

by dpANDREWS 2007-11-17 07:17PM | 0 recs
Re: Your take has a lot to be said for it

I think Edwards problem will be that Clinton and Obama do suceed in getting these new voters out. However Edwards does still have an edge in all those rural areas while Clinton and Obama might split the more urban precincts.

by nevadadem 2007-11-17 07:19PM | 0 recs
Oh and ....

On on the second Wed. in Nov. of '08, 51% would be plenty.

by dpANDREWS 2007-11-17 07:23PM | 0 recs
Ask Harold Ford

51% was plenty for Bob Corker.

by dpANDREWS 2007-11-17 07:23PM | 0 recs
Re: Your take has a lot to be said for it

Don't underestimate the power of the white dude in Iowa politics.

by hwc 2007-11-17 07:22PM | 0 recs
hwc, what are you going to say

if the "lily-white" Iowans you love to look down on pick the black guy over your girl?

by desmoinesdem 2007-11-17 07:23PM | 0 recs
Re: hwc, what are you going to say

At least he's a guy. We know Iowa won't elect a woman no matter what.

by hwc 2007-11-17 09:08PM | 0 recs
except that Iowa Democrats

have voted for women many, many times.

But stick to your tired Clinton spin.

by desmoinesdem 2007-11-17 09:55PM | 0 recs
Re: except that Iowa Democrats

It is what it is. Iowa and Mississippi.

Of course, you could always prove me wrong. That would shut me up.

by hwc 2007-11-17 10:01PM | 0 recs
Re: except that Iowa Democrats

Almost enough to make me want Clinton to win.

by Englishlefty 2007-11-18 12:22AM | 0 recs
Re: Your take has a lot to be said for it

I never said it that way HWC, Edwards is stronger in rural areas by my take had nothing to do with race, if Edwards had not been running in Iowa for 4 years he wouldn't be where he is now. It makes alot of sense that he'd do best among the universe of people that caucused for him before, what does that have to do with being the lilly white dude. According to the polls Obama is not having problems in Iowa because of his race, in fact democratic leaning Iowans seem to be giving him a fair shot.

by nevadadem 2007-11-17 07:31PM | 0 recs
Re: Spending in Iowa

NVDem, are you there in Iowa or out here in NV? Just curious -- your posts are focused on Iowa, and I'm hoping those of us here in NV can start to post some comparably intelligent analysis as Jerome has done here about NV. Drive out the areyoureadyesque drivel.

by desmoulins 2007-11-18 07:03PM | 0 recs
Hillary is doing lots of robocalls

and they appear to be aimed at all Iowa Democrats, not a targeted universe of undecided caucus-goers. I've gotten several of these. Hillary is talking about whatever issue, and then at the end she says, press 1 if you are ready to support me, press 2 if you want more information about my campaign.

It would take very little effort for a non-regular voter to listen to this call and press 1. I imagine that is how they are compiling a large list of supporters who have never caucused before.

If she can turn those people out, more power to her. The Iowa Democratic Party will benefit from having more people engaged in the process.

by desmoinesdem 2007-11-17 07:22PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary is doing lots of robocalls

I think if I lived in Iowa i'd get caller ID it's got to be brutal.

by nevadadem 2007-11-17 07:32PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary is doing lots of robocalls

You are a Democratic woman. Of course Clinton is calling you. It's her only shot.

Little does she know that even women in Iowa won't vote for a woman. Just not ready yet. Maybe the 22nd century for Iowa and Mississippi.

by hwc 2007-11-17 09:10PM | 0 recs
right, as if Iowa Democrats

did not vote for Roxanne Conlin for governor in 1982, Bonnie Campbell for attorney general in 1990 and for governor in 1994, and many other women whom we have nominated for seats in Congress.

Every CD in Iowa except for the 4th has nominated women for Congress, and I can think of at least two women who've been nominated for Congress in some of those districts.

These women did not lose for lack of Iowa Democrats willing to vote for them.

by desmoinesdem 2007-11-17 09:57PM | 0 recs
Re: right, as if Iowa Democrats

Sounds like the only hope Iowans have for avoiding the shame of being lumped with Mississippi is to hope the Republicans elect a woman.

by hwc 2007-11-17 10:03PM | 0 recs
Re: right, as if Iowa Democrats

when one loses an arugment, the gracious thing to say is "i am wrong." you might want to try that one day.

by bruh21 2007-11-18 05:39AM | 0 recs
Re: right, as if Iowa Democrats

I will say "I was wrong".... when Iowa elects a woman in a major race, maybe sometime in the 22nd century.

by hwc 2007-11-18 08:00AM | 0 recs
Re: right, as if Iowa Democrats

hands for who believes that this is about anything more than trying to play the gender card here. you played that hand recently overtly and your candidate got burned. but please, continue to complain that Iowans hate women and see how that argument fairs over the long haul in the primaries.

by bruh21 2007-11-18 08:25AM | 0 recs
Re: right, as if Iowa Democrats

by the way, since you are playing the identity politics/gender card, I find it especially ironic for a white woman to be complaining that she is disliked because she is a woman, but a black man in lily white Iowa may actually come out ahead of her. I would love to know what reality you live in where a black men are liked more than white women in this society? as I said, sometimes you should politely admit you are wrong, and move on. Sure y'all can put this out there and count on the terminally ignorant and lazy vote or terrified A list blogger worried about his or her income. But common political sense wise- you lose once Obama is factored into this.  

by bruh21 2007-11-18 08:31AM | 0 recs
Re: right, as if Iowa Democrats

Iowa women have gone to their husbands and gotten permission to support the black guy. But, they know that their husbands won't consider allowing them to vote for a woman.

by hwc 2007-11-18 08:50AM | 0 recs
Re: right, as if Iowa Democrats

As I said, the polite thing to do when one is wrong is to admit it. I see you subscribe to just coming across the way that this last post makes you come across. I will leave it to others to make the determination about what "that" is. You should appreciate at that being a Clinton supporter. Afterall, she loves the lawyerly use of ambiguity as much as I do.

by bruh21 2007-11-18 08:57AM | 0 recs
on Biden and Richardson

My sense is that in December, one of them is going to make a big move. It will come largely at the expense of the other one. I stand by my prediction that Biden will pick up a bunch of newspaper endorsements in Iowa. He's already got one (from a small newspaper).

Biden also has a lot of endorsements from state legislators (Clinton 16, Obama 15, Biden 13, Edwards 10, Dodd 3).

On the other hand, Richardson goes into the final month with about double the support of Biden in Iowa.

I think a newspaper endorsement helps a longshot candidate more than it helps one of the front-runners. I have heard many undecided voters say they really like Biden, or they would love to see Richardson get it, but they don't think those candidates have a chance. A newspaper endorsement will telegraph to those people that these are serious candidates.

Obviously I would love to see Edwards pick up newspaper endorsements, but I don't think Clinton, Edwards or Obama have as much to gain from them as Biden and Richardson do.

by desmoinesdem 2007-11-17 07:37PM | 0 recs
Re: on Biden and Richardson

I tend to value these st. leg endorsements as a sign of viability. That's surprising that Richardson is so lacking there, especially compared to Biden.

by Jerome Armstrong 2007-11-18 01:53AM | 0 recs
I also find that strange

Richardson isn't my first, second or third choice, but he's a successful governor with a lot of legislative and diplomatic experience as well. I am surprised no one in the legislature has endorsed him. Maybe he's just not a good schmoozer. Biden, on the other hand, tends to charm people in small-group settings.

by desmoinesdem 2007-11-18 05:41AM | 0 recs
Re: Spending in Iowa

a Biden endorsement and surge is very helpful to Obama, I'm sure most of his support would be older a demographic in which the more it's split the better Barack does.

by nevadadem 2007-11-17 07:40PM | 0 recs
I agree with that

A Biden surge has the potential to hurt Edwards, because wherever Biden is viable his supporters won't need to go to a second choice.

I think Hillary will do poorly on second choices, and I don't see a lot of Biden supporters going to Obama on second choice either.

by desmoinesdem 2007-11-17 07:44PM | 0 recs
Re: I agree with that

funny I was thinking about the prospect of a Biden endorsement by the Register the other day, facinating process in Iowa where things that seem to help one hurts the other indirectly. Best of luck to you and your candidate........I hope they have a secret agreement to endorse one another as soon at it's obvious which one can take down Hillary!

by nevadadem 2007-11-17 07:57PM | 0 recs
I don't know who the Register will go with

Many in the Des Moines business elite (at least those who are big donors to the Iowa Democratic Party) are backing Hillary, so possibly the safe play for the newspaper is to endorse her. Also, the publisher and managing editors are women.

Then again, maybe the safe play is not to endorse any of the front-runners and go with Biden or Richardson. This would be comparable to what the Register did in 2004 when they endorsed Edwards, who seemed like quite the longshot at the time.

by desmoinesdem 2007-11-17 08:13PM | 0 recs
Re: I don't know who the Register will go with

No way on earth that the DesMoines paper endorses a woman for President. They'd throw their weight behind Dodd before that.

by hwc 2007-11-17 09:12PM | 0 recs
the Des Moines Register

has several women on its editorial board, has had two women publishers and at least two women managing editors.

But go ahead and stick to your Clinton campaign spin.

by desmoinesdem 2007-11-17 09:59PM | 0 recs
Re: the Des Moines Register

What difference does that make? Apparently Iowa women don't think we are ready to elect a woman yet.

There's always the 22nd Century.

by hwc 2007-11-17 10:04PM | 0 recs
Re: the Des Moines Register

I think they are ready to elect a woman - just not Hillary.

by clarkent 2007-11-18 03:38AM | 0 recs
Re: the Des Moines Register

It's always something isn't it? These Iowans have every excuse in the book.

by hwc 2007-11-18 07:49AM | 0 recs
Re: the Des Moines Register

You will use anything to manipulate a conversation. I can see why Mark Penn is your idol.

by bruh21 2007-11-18 07:55AM | 0 recs
Re: It's always something isn't it?

"These Iowans have every excuse in the book."

So now you need an excuse if you don't wanna vote for Hillary? May I dare to ask what happens if you don't come up with a good one?

by aufklaerer 2007-11-18 10:41AM | 0 recs
Question about older voters

Why does Edwards appeal to older voters?

In your opinion, what are the most effective techniques to reach and persuade older voters?

by mboehm 2007-11-17 08:11PM | 0 recs
obama and edwards that is


by nevadadem 2007-11-17 07:57PM | 0 recs
Re: Spending in Iowa

Your analysis is great. It will depend some on people's 'mood' in Iowa at the time. I'm not sure what is going to happen, but we'll all find out soon enough.  

by reasonwarrior 2007-11-17 08:08PM | 0 recs
Re: Spending in Iowa

I was in Iowa canvassing earlier today.  There is a lot of Edwards support where I was among people who HAD caucused in 2004.

by TomP 2007-11-17 08:31PM | 0 recs
which county were you in?

Thanks for making the drive across the border!

by desmoinesdem 2007-11-17 09:59PM | 0 recs
Re: which county were you in?

Des Moines County - Burlington, IA. I was with Tom (or he was with me, heh). I'll have diary up about it today or tomorrow.

by clarkent 2007-11-18 03:37AM | 0 recs
I want to canvass

Hey Desmoinesdem,

I would like to canvass sometime for Edwards. I live a few hours from the Quad cities so I could do Davenport or Bettendorf. I was thinking about coming up sometime in early Decemeber for a weekend. My email is harmony58 at hotmail dot com. Thanks.

by harmony94 2007-11-18 11:06AM | 0 recs
Re: Spending in Iowa

have you commented upon iowa's allowance for crossover voting?

by jello 2007-11-18 04:18AM | 0 recs
Re: Spending in Iowa

It must be considered a positive for Edwards that he has spent far less per percentage of support than his rivals.  For every 1%, Edwards has spent $26,086, Biden $75,000, Clinton $76,000, Obama $140,909, and Richardson $166,667.  

When factoring in the Iowa positive ratings for the Democratic field (Edwards 73%, Obama 72%, Clinton 59%), it is clear JRE has a much higher ceiling there than anyone else.  If polls within the MOE on the eve of the caucus, look for an Edwards win.

by CLLGADEM 2007-11-18 10:20AM | 0 recs
Back From New Hampshire...

...I'm not sure if I will have time to blog about knocking on doors in New Hampshire but I just wanted to say that I agree with virtually everything Jerome wrote --  it is staggering to see the amount of money being wasted by every candidate with the possible exception of Huckabee.  We are still in the age of TV -- at least in terms of campaign spending.  

by howardpark 2007-11-18 07:15PM | 0 recs
Re: Spending in Iowa

does anyhone have any data on which media conglamorates the stations the candidates are advertising are affiliated with?

by boatsie 2007-11-18 10:25PM | 0 recs


Advertise Blogads