11.
On November 24th, 2007 at 4:28 pm, zeitgeist said:

As someone on the ground in Iowa, I do not think it is the haircut or the house. I think it more likely is several factors. As others have noted, Edwards really never stopped running here, which got him off to a good start. But it also made it harder for Iowans (more than those in other states) to accept, or perhaps believe, Edwards 2.0 - angrier, more liberal, more confrontational, more negative. It just isn't who he has been in Iowa for the past 6 years, so I suspect it left many wondering who he really is. (In this regard Obama really did a nice job of occupying Edwards' "place" in the campaign and taking it away, forcing Edwards to be something else).

I also think he is at this point fairly transparently pandering - his health care TV spot, for example, where he claims if there isn't universal health care in 6 months, he'll use his "powers as the President" to take away Congress' health care. Separate your powers much, John? Read up on who has the powers of the purse much?

All of these things are risky, and look a little desparate. People notice.

Add to that a slightly damaged goods issue - he wasn't good enough to win last time - and the mathematics that he not only needs to hold all of his support from 2004, he needs to find some among people who had every opportunity to choose him then but weren't sold.

Add to that Obama and Clinton excite crowds by offering something other than another rich white male (i.e. Edwards), that Obama is a "neighbor" to Iowa, that Clinton's husband was wildly popular here (and most of the party establishment here is behind her), that both Clinton and Obama have spent more money here recently. . .

Finally, the little noticed part of teh story (and I'm surprised Yepsen hasn't run this) is that the architects of his surprisingly strong 2004 showing are not involved this time around. Patrick Dillon, one of his Iowa managers, is now Governor Culver's chief of staff. Rob Bernsen, another of his Iowa managers, was on military duty in Iraq last I knew and in any event has moved to a different state.

It is all a lot to overcome. I really dont think hair or housing have much to do with it.

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/arc hives/13703.html

Considering that Edwards seems to be right up there in terms of those who have caucused before, I have to doubt that an imminent collapse is likely.

That said, since 2004 was the last competitive caucus since 1988, we can't base too much off previous caucus attendees.

But Richardson? He hasn't seen much movement for months. I'd suggest that Biden seems the one best poised to surge into third place unexpectedly.

I do not recall that happening. If he did, it was probably only a week or so before the caucuses, which was at least a month after Kerry started gaining rapidly.

I can't call myself a Yepsen fan - I think he allows his personal opinions to color his analysis sometimes.  That said, he's clearly very knowledgeable about how Iowa works, and his opinions do carry some weight.

I agree that the ABC poll certainly got a lot more attention than most polls do, but that's because it fit the narrative that the media was pushing, namely that Clinton is slipping and Obama is surging, despite the fact that poll doesn't show that at all.

I don't see much evidence that Edwards is slipping anymore than he has been for the past couple of months.  In fact, I think there's a good chance that the changed tone of his campaign may help him.  If Richardson does move in to third place though, Edwards is in deep trouble.

on the decline and becoming less and less of a factor - Biden seems to be one that might indeed have a chance to have some success. Yepsen seems to be a bit behind the curve this time.

He also doesnt take into account the other polls that have recently come out that show the race tightening and show that Edwards, as well as Obama, have clear advantages in 2nd choice voters. Right now at least Yepsen seems to be declaring a trend without much evidence to back it up, in polls or on the ground.

This poll also seems to have a very loose screen which would tend to favor Obama. When we look deeper into who has actually attended caucuses the results are much closer.

And as anyone, especially Yepsen, should know, predictions on the caucus over 40 days out based on one poll, are little more than guesses at this point.

As much as I agree with Edwards, he simply just isn't viable.  Put a fork in him, he's done.

But is is in Hillary's best interest for him to stay in the race, lest people coalece around Obama.

I have been reading Yepsen's columns in the Register for some time now, and I have found them to be strangely negative toward Edwards. I have observed that Yepsen seems to ignore happenings in Iowa that look good for Edwards, while always pointing out anything that could be seen as negative for this candidate.

The Register has other reporters, however, who write positively about Edwards, and also picks up positive stories on Edwards from the Associated Press wires. Also, the online columns of the Register will post comments from readers who wish to present an opposing view. I frequently respond to Yepsen's column.

I don't think Yepsen's predictions mesh with the large number of endorsements Edwards has picked up in Iowa, and they do not match the impressions I hear from friends who live in Iowa.

Edwards has an excellent ground operation in Iowa. He has solid union support there, and is the only candidate who has visited every county in Iowa. I just don't see anything to indicate any kind of collapse.

Thank goodness people in Iowa do not seem to let the news media make up their minds. They seem to like to do their own thinking!

I like Obama, but I don't believe anything Fox News reports.

When Yepsen writes it himself, or is quoted by a reputable news organization, I'll listen.

Is it Yepsen falling in line with the other reporters, or are the other reporters falling in line with Yepsen?

Is it fair to call Yepsen the R.W. Apple of Iowa?

Food for thought...

If Edwards doesn't win Iowa, he needs to immediately endorse Obama and campaign for him hard in New Hampshire, Nevada and especially South Carolina.  If Edwards can help Obama overcome Clinton, Edwards might have a spot on the ticket again.

This is an interesting discussion. I think that as long as Hillary finishes at least second in Iowa, she will be the nominee. For whatever reason, she hasn't lit Iowa on fire like she has other states. She is in the enviable position of not having Iowa be a must-win, unlike Obama.

John Edwards supporters: don't worry about it. David Yepsen is a bloviating gasbag. While I enjoyed the "That's Why the Lady is a Champ" column after the Vegas debate, Yepsen has changed horses at least six times in this election and was way off in his calls of the '04 caucus. While I don't support your candidate, I feel your indignation. We've been told over and over and over again that David Yepsen is the go-to guy for prognostication in the Iowa caucuses. What we're not told is that he is almost always wrong.

Bill Clinton came in third in Iowa because he was running against Tom Harkin and didn't have to spend resources on this silly caucus system.