I underestimated JRE. He has no more or less resources in IA then Kerry. JRE is sitting pretty at this point. I think JRE might pull out a IA victory, which could help his chances in NH and SC. Although, I still have faith in HRC. Excellent analysis Jerome.

I've been saying that after a certain point, money spent on tv in Iowa would have diminishing returns.

The idea that Clinton would need a "miracle" to win Iowa is just laughable. She's only got a former two-term president and a former two-term governor campaigning for her, the top campaign manager in Teresa Vilmain, a huge budget, the largest paid staff, and a slight edge among older and women voters (who are more likely to participate in caucuses). Oh yeah, and national media pushing her as the inevitable candidate for a lot of the year.

It should almost be considered a miracle that Clinton isn't running away with Iowa.

Any of the top three could win, but I think Edwards is right where he needs to be and will close strong.

I don't really buy the notion, as some bloggers do, that Edwards is damaged goods because he's under a limited budget for television ads through the primary. If that were really anyone's litmus test, then Obama would also be ruled out-- his having pledged to accept matching funds in the GE if the Republican candidate accepts too.

I was actually curious about the paid staffer numbers?  I thought both the Clinton and Obama campaigns were being tight-lipped about the number of staffers they had on the ground?  Are these estimates?

There are NO excuses to come in second (or, God forbid, third) in Iowa, least of all for the two candidates with the most money and staff. If they still can't convince Middle America despite their huge advantages, then Edwards is simply a better candidate and a better choice as the Democratic presidential nominee.

Thanks Jerome.  I'm glad to see you posting these kinds of diaries again.  

On another note, maybe ARG polls shouldn't be dismissed so quickly. Politicalwire is reporting that ARG's turnout model predicts 134k for dems and 111k for GOP. Those are very reasonable turnout estimates.  

Slightly more mo than Clinton, it seems, and Obama is at best stagnating.

And JRE's calling Obama's bluff on banning lobbyists (see below) from the White House won't hurt. Amazingly, though, there's still a ways to go. I'm serious--time for another shift of MO. The race will be decided by what happens between now and Thursday evening.

And if JRE wins Iowa, then people around the country will not only tune in to see a damn good speaker give a damn good speech, they'll look at poll number showing Edwards trouncing Romney (or Huckabee-that'll help in NH and beyond.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/1 207/A_new_Edwards_pledge_for_contrast.ht ml

Ugh, another Obama memo is out deriding union and 527 spending in Iowa for Edwards and HRC. Doesn't Plouffe and the Obama campaign understand that the eventual Dem nominee will need and value union support in the general.   Obama's holier than thou whining continues to disappoint.

I just made this point. Two great minds eh, Jerome.  I think Obama has not suffieciently become the anti-Hillary, and Edwards has shown that where he competes he can either win or finish strong.  I think he will be competitve through super Tuesday, depsite not having as much money as Obama.

Edwards has been running a superb campaign in Iowa, so far. His previous run in Iowa must really give him an advantage in knowing exactly how much money needs to be spent, how to spend it and when to spend it. I understand that he is just really beginning to focus on tv ads, which strikes me as another smart move: save the money to build the momentum at the end. Obama's campaign looks to be overspending. Probably a result of consultants taking advantage of a neophyte. It will also be interesting to see whether all of the money spent by the Clinton campaign will make up for her fewer appearances in Iowa and her unwillingness to take questions during her appearances.

Jerome, I just noticed that this diary came straight from an Edwards campaign notice.  Not that I dispute the information or the value of having the information, but in the spirit of full disclosure would help that you would disclose when you cut and paste.

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail /2007/12/29/from_edwards_campaign_some_e xp_1.html

JRE had a FOUR YEARS head start on Obama, who built it from the ground up in 10 months. The Clinton name has been known for 15 years. Put it all in that perspective.

Jerome Armstrong says: "if Edwards can win Iowa while getting outspent 4:1, money is not an issue".

No way, it's if he wins the primary.  Winning Iowa, that's great for Edwards, but he's got no pathway to the nomination.  If, against all odds, he manages to parlay an Iowa win into a winning campaign for the nomination, then, yeah, you're right, matching funds or not, he'll likely whip the Republican.

Otherwise, an Iowa win does nothing but divide the anti-Clinton action.

And there it is.

Hmm.. Zogby and Politicalwire are saying the Zogby poll, which is released tomorrow morning, has "interesting results".  I have no clue what that means, but if I were to guess, I say Edwards rising (perhaps in the lead) and Obama fading fast. Anyone with inside info?

Regarding the apparent difference in Iowa staff between Clinton and Obama: Keep in mind that the Obama campaign is surely bringing in lots of people, both paid and unpaid, from neighboring Illinois. So the practical difference may be negligible.

I bet Oaf, er, I mean, Oprah coming out for Obama is what will sink him.  

If he loses, it was because they made a BIG mistake (in more ways than one) in having Oprah "weigh" in.