Iowa's impact on New Hampshire

by fladem, Wed Jun 13, 2007 at 01:08:12 AM EST

In late 2003 the Kerry campaign made a radical decision: it decided to close most of its New Hampshire campaign and bet everything on Iowa.  It's not an often discussed decision, but it remains the best tactical decision I have ever seen a campaign make during the primaries.  It was based on the fact that national polling is irrelevent before Iowa, and to some extent so is New Hampsire Polling

What made the decision fascinating at the time is that Kerry's campaign manager was Jeanne Shaheen.  While best known as a governor of NH, she is also without a doubt the master of the New Hampshire primary.  She has run 3 winning NH campaigns: Carter in '76, Hart in '84 (where I met her) and Gore in '00.  Obviously two of those races (Carter and Hart) represent some of the biggest upsets in recent political history.

What Shaheen knew was that Iowa would completely re-make the NH race.  And so it did.  The tables below show the polling taken before the Iowa results were known, and the impact Iowa had on the final New Hampshire results:

As the data shows, Iowa completely changed the race in New Hampshire. In fact, you can argue that this understated the impact of Iowa.  To some extent Kerry's polling improved before the Caucus results were known.

Based on my research, here is the impact of the Iowa finish on the NH results.

Here are some scenerios based on NH polling in May and June:


Update: If Obama wins, and Edwards finishes second, and Clinton finishes third, the results are as follows: Obama 35, Clinton 30.7, Edwards 20.2. 1984 was a strange year were there was an overwhelming front runner - which is not the race in '08.  What '88 and '04 teach for '08 is the following:

A first place win essentially is worth about 14 points.  Most of the undecided will move to the winner of Iowa.  For Edwards - whose numbers are sagging in NH - winning Iowa will be critical.  Second Place doesn't seem to hurt a candidate, and in fact has tended to help marginally.  The key is if the second place winner is a surprise.  Should Richardson place second, he might be looking at a significant NH surge. Alternatively, if Hillary were to take second, the question is whether her lead in NH would be big enough to withstand the surge from the winner in Iowa.

Third place has traditionally spelled trouble.  Dukakus had a huge lead and was able to survive it.  However, a third place finish for either Edwards or Obama would be a disaster.  

There were two other multi-candidate races that have taken place under the modern schedule, '84 and '88 (in '92 Iowa was not contested, in '80 there was more than 2 weeks between Iowa and NH.  The modern Iowa Caucuses did not really begin until '76)

In many ways the '88 race most resembles the '08 race.  Gephardt was favored to win in Iowa, and still got a significant surge from his win in Iowa.  This must give hope to the Edwards people.  Even though Edwards is the current favorite in Iowa, there is still good reason to think that he would get a significant boost in NH should he win.

In 1984 I worked for Gary Hart.  My most vivid memory is of February 25th.  On that day the NYT ran an article stating that Walter Mondale had the largest lead in the history of polling for the Democratic Nomination .  He was leading by 50 points (57 to Hart's 7).  On the SAME DAY, though, came news that Hart had picked up 14 points in 4 days, and was now down only 38-25 to Mondale in NH.  I will never forget the irony - the national media was reporting meaningless National Polling - while the local press was focused on the surge hart had received out of Iowa.




Tags: Iowa, NH (all tags)

Display:
Permalink :: 88 Comments :: Post a Comment


On Thursday (none / 0)

I will show how Iowa and NH change the National Numbers.  This was cross posted at DKos.


by fladem on Wed Jun 13, 2007 at 01:16:03 AM EST

Iowa (3.00 / 2)

Hillary's primary lead is made up of less educated women voters who while a very important part of our party don't spend every waking second grappling with Hillary's electability problem, however a third place Iowa finish would shock the
ones considering voting for Hillary in later states into wondering why she did so bad and then the electability achilles heal will hopefully end her.
Obama! because 51% isn't enough!
by nevadadem on Wed Jun 13, 2007 at 01:17:46 AM EST

The UNH poll (none / 0)

Had Hillary seen as the most electable by by about 37% of the electorate.  My guess it is a significant source of her strength - a third place finish in Iowa might send her in a real free fall in NH.


by fladem on Wed Jun 13, 2007 at 01:25:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The UNH poll (none / 0)

they haven't seen the latimes poll a few more like that one and only Goerge P and Robliberal will think she's the most electable.


Obama! because 51% isn't enough!
by nevadadem on Wed Jun 13, 2007 at 01:43:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The UNH poll (none / 0)

Problem for you, nevadadem, is that the other candidates are showing a ton of cracks and fissures when it comes to their own electability.  

Take Obama for instance.  According to Rasmussen he fares BY FAR the worst against Giuliani (loses by 12%) than any other Democratic contender.   His negatives are, according to that poll, already at 44%, even though his name ID is not at 100% yet.   Those are terrible numbers for Obama that undercut any electability argument other polls may show.   Continue on that track, and it is not just "a lack of experience" "a lack of leadership" and "he is not really courting Democrats" that provide problems for him.  


by georgep on Wed Jun 13, 2007 at 09:46:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The UNH poll (3.00 / 1)

And the problem for you- is that no matter how many times you repeat this- the reality is that these are present narratives, and not narratives based on 14 years of consistent polling showing a candidate with consistently bad favorable ratings. In other words, they have room to improve, but HRC does not. Her numbers are what they are. You know it. I suspect the campaign knows it. So what's left is pretending like they don't matter or mudding the waters as if Obama or Edwards face anywhere near the level of hardcore unfavorables that Clinton has. I repeat what I said to you another diary. they have the ability to change their narrative. Clinton does not. It's not simply a matter of regurgitating the numbers of the moment. It's a matter of what this diarist did- putting those numbers into meaningful context. What I guess you and her campaign are hoping is that no real understanding of context ever develops amongst the electorate. It's not a bad strategy, but that's what you have to hope for or else she's got so serious problems.


by bruh21 on Wed Jun 13, 2007 at 10:57:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The UNH poll (none / 0)

I think all the main candidates have issues.  

Hillary, problem with independents, moderates, republican.  But, she is counting on low informed women to put her over the top, with the latino and AA vote.

Barack, problem with low informed women, main stream democrats.  But he is courting college educated, college bound, youth and independents.

John, problem with the AA and latino vote.

While we have only been looking at one poll, well I have, for these negatives, per Rassmussen, it is a problem.  Obama's negatives are primarily from the "unknown factor".  Now, once people are informed about him, the negs will either go up or down.  Hillary's negatives are primarily from the "known factor".  People know her, period.  People have made their minds up about her, period.  Her push is from people who only know her by the last name of "Clinton".  Will that last?  We don't know.  That is up to Obama and Edwards to fix.  Edwards is the best candidate across the board with the "least negative factor", but he lacks the charisma of Obama and the strong name recognition of Clinton.

Now, the negatives.  Hillary is pushing it with 50% and it is not good for a candidate to be there at this juncture.  It would be one thing if she was an "anamoly", but she it not.  So, brace for the numbers to go up as the campaign, goes on.  Obama is in the grey area.  People still do not know much about him, except his name.  Now, as people get to know him and his positions.  It will either be up or down in the negative department.  Again, Edwards is the best in this department over the board.

Strategy.  Clinton is going for the low uninformed woman vote, coupled with the latino and AA vote to push her over.  She is not going to court moderates, independents, republicans.  She knows the polling and they are more than likely not going to shift.  Is this smart?  Yes, but as in Obama, this group of uninformed women, need to turn out to vote, more importantly they need to be registered.  This is a large untapped market, if successful Clinton can win over the GE Republican.  But again, they need to vote.  Obama is going for the independents, Republicans, AA, youth, and some dems.  Is this smart?  Yes, but as with Clinton, the youth vote need to come out strong and also need to register to vote.  This is a large segment, that has been growing over the past two election cycles, primarily over the war in Iraq.  Obama, need to solidify the AA base and bring more women to his side, if he can he too, can win over the GE Republican.  Edwards, has the mainstream democrat, some indies, and some youth vote.  For him, he need to concentrate more on women and AA, for him to stay in the game.

Once last tidbit.  I read that Clinton is not worried about the fundraising of Barack Obama, that it means "nothing".  I did find that somewhat humerous, because if anything he has been giving her a run for her money.  If she want to totally take him out, she needs to dry up his purse strings.  Again, money is 50% of any campaign, don't fool yourself.  These campaigns can not function WITHOUT money.  If he raises more than 30M, that does speak volumes.  Somebody is donating to him, and I am sure Clinton and Edwards would like to know WHO?


"I want my voice to be read"
by icebergslim on Wed Jun 13, 2007 at 01:17:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The UNH poll (none / 0)

well it wont be spielberg anymore - he just endorsed Clinton


Rise, Hillary, Rise
by sepulvedaj3 on Wed Jun 13, 2007 at 06:59:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The UNH poll (none / 0)

and?  What is he supposed to do, get Hollywood in tow?  Doesn't work like that.  That town is divided between Clinton and Obama and most are maxed already.


"I want my voice to be read"
by icebergslim on Wed Jun 13, 2007 at 07:03:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The UNH poll (none / 0)

How many polls do you have that support this?  One?  Two?  We have a good 5-10 head to head polls and unfavorability polls showing what we are saying.  So... You're part of the minority when it comes this idea that "Obama is less electable"


by JeremiahTheMessiah on Thu Jun 14, 2007 at 06:06:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The UNH poll (none / 0)

The frontrunner always needs to finish in front -- first -- to avoid falling behind.  The margin matters too but anything less than a win for HRC in IA & NH will be like a pin-prick on a tight baloon, it bursts very quickly.


by howardpark on Wed Jun 13, 2007 at 11:49:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Iowa (1.00 / 1)

'less educated women?' typical liberal elitists hubris.

This attitude alone will likely get Hillary the nomination. Liberals always ranted many Bush voters were also 'less educated'.


by carolinezhang on Wed Jun 13, 2007 at 08:04:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Iowa (none / 0)

Well to be honest most Bush voters in 2004 were less politically educated. Polling data confirmed that when asked on issues of which they thought their candidate supported which issues- it was interesting to see the amount of cogitive dissonance on the right- for example a majority of voters thinking Bush supported import of drugs from Canada. It maybe "elitist" point out there are low information voters, but it's also true they do exist.


by bruh21 on Wed Jun 13, 2007 at 08:32:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Iowa (3.00 / 1)

It is really incredible how many times a day there are posts about "low educated, low info" voters especially women. My personal opinion is the vote of every person counts exactly the same and should be valued and respected as such but unfortunately there are many in the netroots who look at "those" voters in a very condescending manner.  


BlueSunbelt.Com Netroots for the Sunbelt states robwire.com My personal blog
by robliberal on Wed Jun 13, 2007 at 04:53:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Iowa (none / 0)

I want to understand how people think there aren't low information voters. It may not be PC to say so, but that's hardly the point. whether they are women or not, is also irrelevant. However the idea that Clinton is drawing a lot from those types of voters isn't absurd. We still have a high percentage of the population that believes that Saddam H was behind 9/11. In 2004, you had, as I mention aboved, a large number of voters who thought bush was for importing drugs from Canada. And on and on. What does it get anyone to pretend all voters are equally interested in politics or care beyond simply voting on quick rather than indepth impressions of candidates and what they stand for.


by bruh21 on Wed Jun 13, 2007 at 05:06:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Iowa (none / 0)

If you study the molecules of a glass so intently that you no longer realize its purpose are you really looking in depth?  If you ask these lo-info voters what's important to them they'll tell you they want out of Iraq.  If you ask them should Hillary and Barack have made gradiose speeches detailing their reasons for opposing the supplemental bill they'll tell you they want out of Iraq.  In many ways I think that's a pretty in depth way of looking at it.  


by dougdilg on Wed Jun 13, 2007 at 05:19:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Iowa (3.00 / 1)

Uhm- so you agree that there are low information voters, but you want us to ignore that in our discussions of how people are making their choices regarding candidate selections. yes, everyone has a right in America to be ignorant. But it shouldn't a) be a virtue or b) something we come to accept even when we know it will happen anyway. THats how again we got into Iraq. That's how we get bad bills that don't allow importing drugs into the US. You can act as much as you want like this is rocket science. It's not. It's called reading even a small amount on the subjects and having a natural curiosity. I have a plenty of apolitical friends who don't- and I don't make excuses for the fact they don't whenever they say something based on a lack of knowldge. It's not being better (Which is what this is really about for some of you). It's about honestly understanding who is voting for whom. Who can be reached. Who can not be. It's not the job of a democracy to teach its voters to want to be involved. The assumption of democratic- small d- processes require that the opposite is true, or else we keep getting what we have gotten thus far. But hey, so long as we make people feel good in their ignorance because somehow that means we win, that's great. Until it bites us in the ass.


by bruh21 on Wed Jun 13, 2007 at 05:33:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Iowa (none / 0)

The thing is there is a huge portion of our populus that only get info from TV, and it is 45 sec, if that.  So, whatever they heard is what they know.  Many do not read newspapers, do not surf the net, do not watch Hardball, Keith O, and if you asked them about these two shows, they will respond, "Keith, who"?  So, this is good for Clinton.  They recognize her name, know she is a woman, and was married to Bill.  Now ask them about her positions, they would not be able to tell you squat.  


"I want my voice to be read"
by icebergslim on Wed Jun 13, 2007 at 06:31:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Iowa (none / 0)

i can assure you i know many low info voters who like Obama i.e. my sister - to assume Hillary is the only person with low info voters is, well, low info in itself.


Rise, Hillary, Rise
by sepulvedaj3 on Wed Jun 13, 2007 at 07:02:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Iowa (none / 0)

Look, talk to the Clinton Camp.  They are the ones who broke out the numbers and coined the expression of "women in need".  They were the ones who pointed to uneducated, high school grad/did not graduate from high school, class of women.  Don't hate on me for this expression.


"I want my voice to be read"
by icebergslim on Wed Jun 13, 2007 at 09:35:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Iowa (3.00 / 1)

Yeah I saw the thing in USA today where they profiled a "typical" supporter of each candidate. Hillary's supporter said one reason she liked her (besides being a strong woman and standing by Bill) is that "she's for the poor". I mean, I suppose in the abstract she is, but what is she proposing to help low-income Americans? John Edwards blows her away but all this woman probably knows about him is that he's a white guy and he got an expensive haircut.

This is why I'm actually glad IA and NH are first. At least the candidates can introduce themselves in a manner other than a 30 second soundbite.


by adamterando on Wed Jun 13, 2007 at 09:30:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Iowa (3.00 / 1)

Some of those "low info" voters have things such as children, 2 or more jobs, and other things to keep them occupied all of the 24 hours a day.


BlueSunbelt.Com Netroots for the Sunbelt states robwire.com My personal blog
by robliberal on Wed Jun 13, 2007 at 08:03:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Iowa (none / 0)

That is what the Clinton Campaign implies.  These are women that need tax breaks, affordable day care, Head Start, etc.


"I want my voice to be read"
by icebergslim on Wed Jun 13, 2007 at 08:09:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Iowa (none / 0)

Please don't presume to think I don't understand the reasons why people have a hard time. This still doesn't change the fact that they are low information or that they need to understand what's going on (especially because they are the most in need in terms of the impact of any policy) when choosing candidates. You seem to be a) making excuses for their low information based on the fact it's hard (to which I respond yes it is) b) telling us that they aren't low information because you don't like how hearing that terms (to which I respond it doesn't change what they are in the process) and c) that even if a and b are true, HRC isn't using this (to which I respond that's naive. Politicians regardless of who they are use whatever is to their advantage. Obama, Clinton and Edwards will all be doing this. This doesn't mean they will not make good Presidents. It means they want to win.)


by bruh21 on Wed Jun 13, 2007 at 09:05:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Iowa (none / 0)

Well, tell the Clinton Campaign to stop, they were the ones initially who identified this group, as low income uninformed women.  Women who only graduated from HS, or did not.  Make less than 30-35K a year.  No college.  They identified this group, but now call them "women with needs".  Which I don't like, either.


"I want my voice to be read"
by icebergslim on Wed Jun 13, 2007 at 06:27:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Iowa (none / 0)

Women with needs sounds much better than low info which comes across as offensive and insulting. Hillary Clinton was working pro bono for women like that back when some other candidates were still in elementary school.


BlueSunbelt.Com Netroots for the Sunbelt states robwire.com My personal blog
by robliberal on Wed Jun 13, 2007 at 08:06:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Iowa (3.00 / 2)

They aren't picking these women because of their needs. That's your spin. They are picking them because they know they are low information. My comparator to low information voters in 2004 (which you keep avoiding to make this about being PC) is dead on accurate.  I am sorry you have a problem accepting the nature of politics, the fact there are low information voters who are women or that your candidate would idenitify voters she knows will be more likely to not know where she stands with regard to their needs.

It's nice to know what she did for them in her past, but completely irrelevant to whether she's going to actually rep them, whether her campaign has identify them for that purpose and whether they indeed understand the differences between the candidate other than the fact her last name is Clinton. This more than anything else seems to bother HRC's supporter.

Name recongition is one of those cornerstones of politics. HRC knows this. She also know that many voters will not check to find out if she really reps them or not. She counting on the fact that they do not.  Hence why low information is important. The more they found out, they less likely they are too support her. She knows this.

It really has nothing to do with the reality of what's going on to pretend this is about 'needs.' That's one of those test group terms that you can find Frank Luntz using on the right being flipped to use it on the left. It's cute, but it's not the underbelly of what's really being said and done. Nor does ths spin above "but these voters need not know whats going on to know whats going on really make sense." If they don't know that a candidate doesn't support universal healthcare, and they are low income women making less than 35k with a limited education, you can be damn sure it will hurt them. This very group is one of the groups which most needs universal healthcare.

Again, "needs' is the spin by campaigns. If it makes you feel better to pretend this language, 'low information', is somehow made up by those here on the blogs who are against your candidate rather than a segment id'ed by your candidate and other politicians as a group that one can either reach or not reach depending on one's strategy, then that's your choice. I just think it's not a very honest conversation because it covers up the crass truth of whats being said and done.


by bruh21 on Wed Jun 13, 2007 at 08:51:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Iowa (none / 0)

Low information voters = suckers


It's an election, not an auction.
by cosbo on Thu Jun 14, 2007 at 01:03:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Iowa (3.00 / 1)

No it does not. It equals people who as others explain are busy or have other things etc- I don't think of them as suckers, but I do think of them as vunerable to being manipulated by what they dont know.


by bruh21 on Thu Jun 14, 2007 at 11:04:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Iowa (none / 0)

No it does not. It equals people who as others explain are busy or have other things etc- I don't think of them as suckers, but I do think of them as vunerable to being manipulated by what they dont know.


by bruh21 on Thu Jun 14, 2007 at 11:04:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Iowa (3.00 / 2)

By the way- this is what frontrunner status is about. Making sure people don't inquire too much into things that will change their perception. Bush in 2004 didn't want people to think too much about his phrases- also market tested- he simply wanted them to vote their 'gut.' Not realizing gut may or may not be against interest depending on what candidates actually said or didn't say. These voters could decide HRC is the best choice for them based on actual information. The point is the strategy is to not give them that info. Hence why as has been pointed out blurring the lines of her record and others. She benefits by making it sound like there are no difference- as Bush 2000 benefited from the same tactic. This is by the way a non partisan point I am making. I am not judging Bush for his strategy. Nor am I blaming HRC. I do have question the idea that we are suppose to pretend a duck isn't a duck if we see it.


by bruh21 on Wed Jun 13, 2007 at 08:55:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Iowa (3.00 / 1)

She has zeroed into this group for a reason.  They are not like you or I.  We ask QUESTIONS.  These women do not have time for that.  When all you know is that a woman is running and the last name is Clinton and you don't have time for positions.  You are just going to vote for her.  That is what she is counting on.


"I want my voice to be read"
by icebergslim on Wed Jun 13, 2007 at 09:01:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Iowa (none / 0)

Some voters just aren't paying attention yet, a lot aren't and it has nothing to do with intelligence.  Obviously Hillary does well with people who are not paying attention because everyone knows her name and something significant about her.  Also, nothing has yet happened in this campaign, nothing.  No ads to speak of.  No personal attacks.  No campaign shakeups. What is the biggest controversy so far? Edwards' haircut?  Clinton's travel arrangements?  Edwards' bloggers?  C mon!

One thing will be noted.  Who supported the war.  Who opposed it.  And when did they take thier stand?


by howardpark on Wed Jun 13, 2007 at 11:56:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Yes (none / 0)

And if you consider the grammar and spelling of many of these netroots Hillary bashers, it's pretty clear they aren't terribly educated themselves.  Nice folks, just the same, I am sure.


by samueldem on Thu Jun 14, 2007 at 07:53:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Iowa (none / 0)

"Less Educated" or as Hillary call them "Women with Needs" also havn't begun to pay attention to the race.  As were aware, Obama has a slight lead in people paying close attention to the race.  The question is, as people's attention goes up do they go with Obama as the other high interest people do?

An anecdotal example is Obama's trip to San Antonio next week - where my mother and several friends are going, some of them are "women with needs" and don't really know anything about Obama.  Also, M. Obama is giving a stump speech completely geared toward working women, which is playing really well - Can she get enough coverage in Iowa and N.H. on it?


"I'm LeBron, baby. I can play on this level. I got some game." Barack Obama
by gb1437a on Thu Jun 14, 2007 at 12:37:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Iowa (none / 0)

"Also, M. Obama is giving a stump speech completely geared toward working women,"

It'd be nice if he had some policies or major parts of his campaign geared toward working women as well (e.g. unionization, free college tuition, a public option in a universal health care plan, etc. etc.)


by adamterando on Thu Jun 14, 2007 at 09:47:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Iowa (none / 0)

Such as his recent speech on dead beat dads.


"I'm LeBron, baby. I can play on this level. I got some game." Barack Obama
by gb1437a on Sun Jun 17, 2007 at 04:59:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Iowa (none / 0)

There was a poll (the only one so far) that reported the education of women who were in the poll.  

The people who were through college were split between Obama and Hillary evenly.  The people who have yet to go through college or skipped it were much more for Hillary.  


by JeremiahTheMessiah on Thu Jun 14, 2007 at 06:04:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Iowa's impact on New Hampshire (none / 0)

my theory is Hillary is really working Florida as the "firewall" but it won't work as long as Obama is seen as "acceptable" if he wins early states, the average dem in Florida foremost wants to win the general election and doesn't probably care that much who of the big 3 is the nominee, Obama has plenty of money so it's hard to believe if he
atleast beats Hillary in Iowa and wins NH on the backs of indies and Iowa momentum that he would just crash a few weeks later because Hillary has some endorsements, but I could be wrong.
Obama! because 51% isn't enough!
by nevadadem on Wed Jun 13, 2007 at 01:41:56 AM EST

Re: Iowa's impact on New Hampshire (none / 0)

Clinton's current lead in New Hampshire is actually larger than in Florida.   If any state is the "firewall" for her, it is New Hampshire at this stage.  She is doing so well in New Hampshire because she connects with voters there, much more so than Edwards or Obama.  Her style of campaigning is tailored for the retail politics people in New Hampshire are accustomed to.   She can bring in crowds of 8,000, 10,000 as well as Obama, but that is not what works in New Hampshire.   Clinton excels in smaller settings and townhall-style Q&A's with regular people.   Obama does not.  Edwards really does not, either.

The same is true for Iowa voters, who are more rural and don't really like "showhorses."  Big crowds don't impress them much.  I believe in the end Obama is going to be particularly weak in rural states like Iowa.


by georgep on Wed Jun 13, 2007 at 09:56:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Iowa's impact on New Hampshire (none / 0)

if Hillary can win an indies dominated NH primary more power to her, if shw wins NH she will win the nomination, the NH polling right now though is
a sham, indies are probably going to vote in the democratic primary and I don't see them going for Hillary.
Obama! because 51% isn't enough!
by nevadadem on Wed Jun 13, 2007 at 01:17:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Iowa's impact on New Hampshire (none / 0)

I would not predict anything this early in the juncture.  The only poll I am paying attention to is the Des Moines Register poll.  Why do you think Clinton has shaken up her staff in Iowa?  Because that poll, with her internal poll, is more than likely "dead on".  Obama is 2nd in that poll, if he continues to erode Edwards lead and get close or take it, look out.  He has a heavy groud staff in that state and is opening up more offices.  So, Iowa will be won on the ground by registering dems to caucus the candidate's cause.


"I want my voice to be read"
by icebergslim on Wed Jun 13, 2007 at 01:24:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Iowa's impact on New Hampshire (3.00 / 1)

How did you come to the conclusion that Edwards does not do well in town halls? Back in 2004, he had less money than Kerry, Gephardt or Dean. He was able to communicate so well on the stump and in town halls that he closed in on Kerry during the final weeks before the caucus.


by Sarah Lane on Wed Jun 13, 2007 at 04:41:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Iowa's impact on New Hampshire (none / 0)

New ARG poll today - a national - has Hillary at 39 and Obama at 19.

Also just wanted to say that President Bill Clinton has begin campaigning around N.H., alone, on behalf of Hillary and the folks there are loving it.


by samueldem on Thu Jun 14, 2007 at 07:55:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Iowa's impact on New Hampshire (none / 0)

"high hopes"


Rise, Hillary, Rise
by sepulvedaj3 on Wed Jun 13, 2007 at 07:03:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Iowa's impact on New Hampshire (none / 0)

Interesting to consider who the power brokers in FL would be likely to endorse and work for. I don't know if Nelson would endorse Hillary or Barack. I could see him endorsing Edwards or Richardson though. If Clark was in it I could perhaps see that too. I think the thing is that it's so early yet and a lot states have numbers that mostly mirror the national numbers because no candidate has really paid any (or much) attention to them yet so they've not really thought about it or heard from the candidates yet. As more people in those states get more attention from the candidates there will be movement from the default numbers towards where things really stand.

Even though Edwards raised less than Hillary and Obama in Q1 he still raised twice the previous record amount and only about $6 million less than Hillary did - once you take out money she can't use until the general and the transfer from her senate account. Hillary, Obama and Edwards are likely to have enough money to compete through at least the early states and then move into the Feb 5 crazyness.


by Quinton on Wed Jun 13, 2007 at 08:44:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Iowa's impact on New Hampshire (none / 0)

I doubt Nelson would endorse anyone besides Hillary. I think he's much too establishment-oriented to ever do otherwise. It'd be nice though if he did.


by adamterando on Wed Jun 13, 2007 at 09:34:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Iowa's impact on New Hampshire (none / 0)

Why do endorsements matter?  Time & time again endorsements are shown to mean nothing.  Dean went south as Gore endorsed him.  Endorsements matter in the media "primary" and that matters but when the voting starts endorsements are resented as much as they help.


by howardpark on Wed Jun 13, 2007 at 11:59:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Iowa's impact on New Hampshire (none / 0)

Endorsements bring with them the network of those doing the endorsing. Their network of people, their dollars, their support. It's not like Gore's endorsement damaged Dean, it's that Gore's endorsement made Dean that much more serious and then the media and other candidates all took aim at him to bring him down.


by Quinton on Thu Jun 14, 2007 at 01:27:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Florida won't matter (none / 0)

Its too close to South Carolina, for one thing.

I think the decisive primary will be Nevada.


by fladem on Sun Dec 09, 2007 at 12:31:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

If Edwards wins in Iowa (none / 0)

the difference from 2004 will be that it was expected. It's therefore doubtful if it will generate the same kind of bump as it did for Kerry.


The history of the left is a history of purists betraying the progressive movement so that they can feel good about their righteous selves.
by Populism2008 on Wed Jun 13, 2007 at 03:52:13 AM EST

Re: If Edwards wins in Iowa (3.00 / 1)

huh?


by bruh21 on Wed Jun 13, 2007 at 08:30:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]

There is an anology to 1988 (3.00 / 2)

Gephardt was expected to win Iowa.  He still got a huge boost out of winning it.


by fladem on Wed Jun 13, 2007 at 09:48:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: If Edwards wins in Iowa (none / 0)

Expected by who?  National polls have him a distant 3rd right now.  If Edwards wins Iowa he's right in the thick of the race and really brings a lot of momentum to his campaign.  If he loses Iowa he's done.


by Double B on Wed Jun 13, 2007 at 12:45:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I think he is refering to the fact (none / 0)

that right now Edwards leads Iowa polling, and so might be expected to win.


by fladem on Wed Jun 13, 2007 at 12:47:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

In 1988 (none / 0)

Gephardt was expect to win Iowa in 1988, and did.

He got a 14 point bounce.

If there is a difference this year, it is the polling in other states appears to moving in reaction to Iowa BEFORE Iowa has voted. The closer the race, though, the higher the drama. With the GOP race becoming a blowout, I think the bounce will be about the same as in the past on the dem side.

I noted the change in NH before Iowa though 2004. From a post on DKos I did before Iowa:

One of the interesting things you can already see is the impact Iowa has on NH. This morning's NH tracking, compared with the NH results at the start of the week:

CandidateJan 9-11Jan 11-13Jan 14-16Total change
Dean363228-8
Clark192222+3
Kerry101318+8
Edwards338+5
Lieberman1096-4

http://www.dailykos.com/comments/2004/1/ 17/7115/78065/111#c111

by fladem on Sun Dec 09, 2007 at 12:42:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Iowa's impact on New Hampshire (3.00 / 2)

If I am reading your scenario table correctly, under the existing polling numbers, Senator Clinton wins outright or ties for first in New Hampshire no matter whether she is first, second, or third in Iowa.

The reason why the Iowa results had such a big impact in New Hampshire in 2004 was because it was such a surprise result.  Dean was expected to win and when Kerry came in first, it upset the conventional wisdom.

I am not sure that we have that same scenario this year.  Right now, Edwards is expected to win in Iowa; if he wins, the impact for him in New Hampshire will not be as great.


by gradysdad on Wed Jun 13, 2007 at 07:45:19 AM EST

Re: Iowa's impact on New Hampshire (none / 0)

Yes it will because it would make both Hillary & Obama, the media favorites, into losers.


It's an election, not an auction.
by cosbo on Wed Jun 13, 2007 at 01:28:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

It wasn't a surprise result (3.00 / 1)

The media was portraying something other then what was really happening on the ground. The state polls two weeks before the caucus showed Kerry gaining and Edwards right behind him. A week before the caucus I knew Edwards was going to get 2nd, if not beat Kerry out. Personally, I think if the caucus was held a week or two later, Edwards may have won it all.


by Sarah Lane on Wed Jun 13, 2007 at 04:44:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Iowa's impact on New Hampshire (3.00 / 1)

Thank you for the polling data. It gives an interesting historical rather than simply wished-for view of what is going on behind the numbers.  Although, based on reading some of the comments above, there continues to be denial of other possibilities than what seems obvious. I equate it to the discussion of HRC's favorable/unfavorable ratings. See, apparently now those kinds of numbers do not matter.


by bruh21 on Wed Jun 13, 2007 at 08:29:09 AM EST

Re: Iowa's impact on New Hampshire (3.00 / 1)

One scenario you did not show is if Obama 1st, Edwards 2nd AND Clinton 3rd (What would be the impact)

I believe you showed a scenario of Obama 1st, Clinton 2nd AND Edwards 3rd.


by BDM on Wed Jun 13, 2007 at 09:37:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Here are the results (none / 0)

from my model,

Obama 35, Clinton 30.7, Edwards 20.2.


by fladem on Wed Jun 13, 2007 at 09:50:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Here are the results (none / 0)

Again this is based upon current NH polling from MAY/JUNE.

Polling in Oct/Nov. averages would  or could yield different results, especially if the race tighten's up.


by BDM on Wed Jun 13, 2007 at 11:04:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Iowa's impact on New Hampshire (3.00 / 0)

Several things strike me as different this year.  For one, we could enter the primary season with basically a two-person race.  This is based upon two big ifs: Gore makes it clear that he is not running under any circumstances. And Edwards stays at under ten points.  In addition, the year-long pre-primary season, the weekly national polls, and the Q1-4 fundraising race all help to create unique national and local political environments, different than ever before.  

National and local polls are important.  There is a pretty significant discussion or awareness among the voters on electability.  Can/should the Clintons return? Can she win? Can a black man win?  National polls help to flush out these discussions for local voters.

If either Obama or Clinton were to win Iowa, I think all bets are off. NH results won't matter very much. Obama will be seen as legitimate and electable by winning a rural white state.  Clinton will be seen as inevitable-like she has been saying all along.  Super tuesday will become the final test.

If Edwards wins Iowa then NH regains its importance.

This is a very interesting diary.  Thanks. btw, I worked for Hart in '84. Joined in SF and attached myself to the national and Iowa crew.


by aiko on Wed Jun 13, 2007 at 11:11:22 AM EST

Looking at those numbers (none / 0)

I really don't see how this becomes a two-person race any time soon. There is just no way Edwards will drop out before Iowa and the stats above show why.


by okamichan13 on Wed Jun 13, 2007 at 12:21:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Looking at those numbers (none / 0)

I meant the perception of a two-person race by the media/voters.


by aiko on Wed Jun 13, 2007 at 12:37:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Iowa's impact on New Hampshire (3.00 / 1)

Excellent diary Fladem.  I couldn't agree more.  The only polls that matter right now are Iowa and to a certain extent New Hampshire.  Everything else is meaningless.

Only 1 candidate on either the Republican or Democratic side has won the nomination without winning either Iowa or NH since 1976.  That would be Bill Clinton in 1992, in a year that Iowa didn't matter because Iowa senator Tom Harkin was running.  

The firewall for Clinton has to be New Hampshire.


by Double B on Wed Jun 13, 2007 at 12:42:20 PM EST

Re: Iowa's impact on New Hampshire (none / 0)

Not enough attention is being paid to the revised schedule of Primaries completely changing the impact of these two non-representative states.  California will begin collecting absentee mail-in ballots before either of these states come into play.  The idea that what happens in Iowa is going to seriously affect voting in the Feb. 5 Primaries of voters who have had a serious gripe about their non-involvement and are eager to finally have their vote mean something, is a scenario which I, as one of those voters, totally reject.


by dougdilg on Wed Jun 13, 2007 at 01:20:52 PM EST

Re: Iowa's impact on New Hampshire (none / 0)

Florida, California, Illinois and some others are "early voting states".  It will be interesting.


"I want my voice to be read"
by icebergslim on Wed Jun 13, 2007 at 01:27:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Iowa's impact on New Hampshire (none / 0)

Well, I looked it up.  Florida is allowed to vote early 2 weeks before the actual primary.  That would be January 15th, the day after.  Illinois, where I live, allows early voting 22 days before.  That would put the first day of early voting on January 14th, the day of the Iowa caucus.  Early voting in Illinois only started in the 2006 primary and if I remember correctly the early voting turnout was less than 10%.  I don't see that a huge increase in early voting will happen and especially not on the first day.

That brings us to California.  They do mail out their absentee ballots on January 7th, a full week before the Iowa caucus.  They also have a large number of registered voters that have applied as "permanent absentee voters" (just under 4 million).  That being said, no one knows how many of those 4 million will actually vote and also when they will vote.  Many may wait to see what happens in Iowa and perhaps New Hampshire before then send in their ballots.  I just don't see that many voters committing that early except for the die-hard supporters of each candidate.

It will be interesting to see what happens in California.


A great democracy must be progressive or it will soon cease to be a great democracy. - Teddy Roosevelt
by minvis on Thu Jun 14, 2007 at 01:16:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]

A big Dem mail firm (none / 0)

produced a report on early voting:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con tent/article/2007/05/26/AR2007052601015. html


by domma on Thu Jun 14, 2007 at 02:09:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Iowa's impact on New Hampshire (3.00 / 1)

"California will begin collecting absentee mail-in ballots before either of these states come into play. "

Except IA and NH may move up the primary date even earlier.


by adamterando on Wed Jun 13, 2007 at 09:37:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Iowa's impact on New Hampshire (3.00 / 1)

Its almost certain that IA & NH will move up.  Take that one to the bank.


by howardpark on Thu Jun 14, 2007 at 12:01:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Iowa's impact on New Hampshire (3.00 / 1)

The argument is well-stated, but I still don't buy it. Kerry's nomination in 2004 is not a model for the 2008 race.  None of the Democratic candidates was that particularly well-known or doing all that well before the Iowa caucuses in 2004.  Hillary, Obama, and Edwards are already better known commodities than any of the 2004 candidates.  There also was Gephardt taking both Howard Dean and himself down with a wave of attack ads.  Perhaps Edwards will go more on the attack as the the caucuses get nearer and the numbers haven't budged.  

But I doubt it.  

In my view, there isn't that much of an electability issue.  Any Democrat is going to have to deal with high negatives because of the way the media frames the issue of personality in favor of the Republicans.  At the same time, Hillary is the best positioned to address the issue and "surprise" people into realizing that she isn't what the media thinks she is.

Along the same vein, Hillary has a solid base of nationwide support that could survive an Iowa meltdown. The issue for Hillary isn't whether she could survive an Iowa defeat but how she handles having to prove herself when the going gets tough as a candidate.  She's done well so far in the debates, but things hopefully will get tougher as the primaries get closer.  Overall, I support Hillary but would like to see the other candidates put more pressure on her.


by Ric Caric on Wed Jun 13, 2007 at 03:58:59 PM EST

Obama and/or Edwards will need to (3.00 / 1)

point out the big differences between what they are offering and what Hillary is offering.

I think Hillary's numbers will go down if voters become aware that she expects the US to retain significant troops in Iraq for at least 10 years. Also, if they become aware that she is not committed to dealing with the health care crisis during her first term, that will reflect poorly on her.


John McCain: 100 years in Iraq "would be fine with me."
by desmoinesdem on Wed Jun 13, 2007 at 08:06:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Iowa's impact on New Hampshire (none / 0)

And what happens if/when Gore jumps in?


by arlaur on Wed Jun 13, 2007 at 04:00:57 PM EST

Re: Iowa's impact on New Hampshire (none / 0)

Then edwards drops even further


Rise, Hillary, Rise
by sepulvedaj3 on Wed Jun 13, 2007 at 07:07:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Iowa's impact on New Hampshire (none / 0)

As does Obama.


by adamterando on Wed Jun 13, 2007 at 09:37:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Iowa's impact on New Hampshire (none / 0)

I thought that was an interesting and informative diary.

I hope you'll also consider going back and measuring the relationship between the degree of 'front-loadedness' in recent election cycles and the average polling discrepancy between pre-Iowa polls in New Hampshire and the actual New Hampshire primary results for each recent cycle.

I say this because I'm wondering if someone has - or if you're willing to, measure with hard data, the impact of varying degrees of frontloading of the 'window'(when everyone else goes) on the influence of the Iowa caucuses on the New Hampshire primary result.

In other words, I'm wondering if the more front-loaded the calendar is, the greater the impact that the Iowa caucuses have on the New Hampshire primary result - if that is accurate or if it is innaccurate.

Anyways, thanks!

Tom


by MisterPib on Wed Jun 13, 2007 at 07:14:53 PM EST

The closer a primary is to NH (none / 0)

the greater the impact NH has on it.

Nobody seems to get this - but it is absolutely true.


by fladem on Wed Jun 13, 2007 at 08:22:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I re-read your comment (3.00 / 1)

The closer a primary is to Iowa and NH, the more likely the electorate will follow the Iowa and NH results.  Hence the bigger the impact will be on it.

It will take a while for me to shift through the data to prove what I believe to be true.


by fladem on Wed Jun 13, 2007 at 08:25:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I re-read your comment (none / 0)

I agree, and once we hit November, those are the polls to really pay attention to.


"I want my voice to be read"
by icebergslim on Wed Jun 13, 2007 at 08:27:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I re-read your comment (none / 0)

The electorate follows the results of Iowa and NH no matter how close the following states are to it.  Take a look at Gore/Bradley in 2000.  Six weeks between New Hampshire and the primary in Washington.   Gore cleaned up in Washington.  Now maybe you think Bradley wasn't very viable anyway, although he came within 4 points in New Hampshire.  What matters is GOING FIRST and these two states have the monopoly on that.  Changing that fact is the only thing that will change this process.

I'll repeat again, since 1976 only one eventual candidate has failed to take either Iowa or NH--Clinton in 1992.


by Double B on Wed Jun 13, 2007 at 08:50:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I re-read your comment (none / 0)

fladem,

Thanks - and kudos to anyone brave enough to wade through and present all the data to support the premise (which I accept) that front-loading increases the influence of Iowa and New Hampshire. It does sound like a lot of work, but again, kudos to anyone who takes on the project.

To me it's clear that Iowa and New Hampshire grow in importance as the `window' gets more front-loaded.

But if I may, let me restate my original question: what I'm trying to figure out is whether or not Iowa's influence on New Hampshire grows when the calendar gets more frontloaded.

Would you happen to know if there is any data to support or refute this?

Because if it is true - my next question becomes `would Iowa's influence on New Hampshire be significantly greater in 2008 than in 2004 - given that the opening date of the `window' will increase in size from a handful of states in 2004 - to a massive national primary at the beginning of the 2008 `window'?

My second follow-up question would then be - would you be able to project a winning candidates' increase between Iowa and New Hampshire based in part, on the size of the 'opening of the window'?

I promise that I'm not trying to be a pain in the rear; I really do want to understand.

Again, thanks!

Tom


by MisterPib on Wed Jun 13, 2007 at 09:53:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

p.s. (none / 0)

'Sorry - but one more question.

If you do happen to find a measureable relationship between the two, how does that alter your projected 2008 New Hampshire primary result percentages?

Thanks again!


by MisterPib on Wed Jun 13, 2007 at 07:48:42 PM EST

Third place fantasy (none / 0)

This is all wild speculation and a lot of hoping and "what ifs".

From what I see in the '04 numbers above it looks like Dean performed pretty close to the polling in NH and that Kerry got a bump from the undecided and from the other vet in the race not receiving the support polling predicted he would.

As for '08, talking about Hillary finishing third in Iowa is just making stuff up to talk about.  Polling has her a close and a solid second there now.  She has recently retooled her staff and added a couple of seasoned Iowa All-Stars to her staff.

Even if she did finish third in Iowa, I am not sure the effect would be as bad as you and others make it out be.  Iowa is losing a bit (just a bit) of luster this year thanks to the compressed schedule and top tier Republicans turning their nose up at it a bit.


by dpANDREWS on Thu Jun 14, 2007 at 02:39:57 PM EST

thank you for raising her expectations (none / 0)

I can assure you that Hillary will not have the volunteer army in Iowa that Edwards and Obama will have going into the caucuses.

The fact that she has an all-star staff and the support of the Vilsacks will make anything other than a win a poor showing for her. Third would be absolutely pathetic.


John McCain: 100 years in Iraq "would be fine with me."
by desmoinesdem on Thu Jun 14, 2007 at 07:14:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Iowa's impact on New Hampshire (none / 0)

I'm sure she will have enough money to pay mercenaries to do the ground work for her team...Obama will not only have a boatload of free ground troops in Iowa, but he's also planning to bring extra troops in Iowa from Illinois to make sure all 4 corners of Iowa is covered.

I really feel that the Obama campign should keep the "walk for change" momentum going, specially in Iowa...Direct contact wih voters are priceless..Even more effective then million dollar ads...We need to get in touch with low info voters and folks that may not caucus unless they are ask/begg to..The OBama campaigns should have babysitters, busses, food for anyone that might have som problem attending the caucus.

I think the 2008 Iowa caucus will break all records as far as turn outs because the contenders have so much money and i expect Obama to get creatives...He already has the most excited and enthusiastics fans and those folks will definately show up, but we have to work some more.


by JaeHood on Thu Jun 14, 2007 at 10:02:13 PM EST


You are not logged in.

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.

Login
Username:

Password: