The Obama team has been pretty open for months about their strategy in Iowa, here's one of the most recent signals, from November 26:
I don't know if you came across this post by worldtrippers on dkos, but it makes a compelling case for Obama's organizational skills in Iowa, based on previous events. But having been there for some of those events, there's no doubt a lot of non-Iowans pumping up those numbers. Whenever I talked with Edwards or Clinton people at those events about Obama's numbers, they would sooner or later point out how similar it seemed to Dean's campaign.
But Obama's organization in Iowa is not Dean's campaign; it's much better. It's had the resources and the staff to put in place a very strong organization. Every interaction that I've had with an Obama staffer on the ground has shown me that it's top-notch. I may not think much of Obama's creds for a GE, but the early-states team he's got are good enough to win. Tom Schaller's got a terrific read about some of the field ops he's gleaned from Iowa that you should read.
The thing is though, Clinton's got one hell of a team in Iowa too, and so does Edwards--as shows the failure of Obama's strategy of counting on the fade. Since this spring or so, I've thought that Clinton would win the nomination, but I don't think it's going to come through a sweep. She's going to lose some early-state contests. The doubt I have in Iowa though, for Obama's chances, is the same one that no doubt is going through their campaign's head this past week as Obama focused his attack on Edwards instead of Clinton-- a strong 3-way race helps Clinton the most in Iowa.
From the analysis post that I requested, here's a few comments, one about New Hampshire from Howard Park:
Hillary's strengths & weaknesses are well known. She is seen as both a great champion and a nasty fighter. I think she needs to go sharply positive at the end -- her team has planted doubts about Obama, especially with older voters. She is not the candidate of change but she is seen by many as a candidate of change. Most voters do not see huge issue differences in the Dem. field, to them any Democrat is OK and
Hillary seems to be the default choice. But if there is any momentum out of Iowa, Obama will be like a prairie wind and blow the field away. A strong second just might do. Amond second-choicers I think Obama does better with Edwards voters and Hillary does better with Richardson voters. I want to believe it will be an Obama win, but I'm from Missouri originally and I haven't been shown yet.
As I've been saying for weeks, the results in Iowa depend more on campaign strategy and precinct captain training than polls ... Obama and Edwards have the strength and organization to push Hillary into third place if they don't care which one comes out on top (by trading spare votes across the board.) My guess is that team Edwards is confident enough in their rural organization to offer an arrangement to Obama, but Obama has to fear an Edwards win, so he's likely to roll the dice. It's a risk, though, because any Hillary win raps up the nomination.
Richardson slamming Hillary on Iraq yesterday is potentially huge news ... I doubt that there's a reciprocity agreement between their campaigns now. Hillary could very well be on her own in Iowa, which is not good ... Biden and Dodd should be looking to Edwards for vote trading relationships. Kucinich had one in 2004, but his lack of precinct captains made it impossible for Edwards to full capitalize on it.
I'm predicting a surprisingly comfortable win for Edwards, with around 35 percent of delegates, with Obama and Hillary in a fierce fight for number two. The Edwards people in 2004 were disappointed that they didn't do more to deprive Kerry of oxygen and let Dean fall too hard ... don't be too surprised if there's a last minute Edwards-Clinton deal that seals a first place win for Edwards while pushing Obama to #3 (which helps both campaigns short and long run.)
...It can go beyond that, conspiracy. Once you pass viability, there are thresholds before you get to extra delegates. So often you end up with spare voters who make no difference in your delegate count, but if passed to another candidate, can deprive a rival of a delegate.
Hillary is likely to be viable everywhere ... but if she and Edwards cut a deal to share spare delegates, they can probably deprive Obama of one delegate per precinct, which is basically the difference between getting 30 percent of the vote and 18 percent.
Now, you can't deploy this strategy unless you have a skilled precinct captain AND a precinct chair who understands the rules. I, an Iowa novice in 2004, had to instruct the chair about re-division of the house rules in our precinct last time out ... and most of the caucus participants were unaware of what I was talking about. I was fortunate to get the ruling in my favor, but the chair has a lot of power to shut things down, even in violation of the rules.
People think that the Iowa caucus is a participatory democracy, but it is much more similar to a huge, chaotic congress.
I have to say that I'd love to see it happen but I often think that even very knowledgeable commentators, such as yourself Mr Conley, tend to presume others are as obsessed with political tactics as folks who read and post here.
|
|
|
Permalink :: 38 Comments :: Post a Comment
|
In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.
If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.
