A Rake’s Progress

With Barack Obama braying about his growing strength in Iowa and the pundits at ABC News quickly labeling Hillary Clinton a political “has been,” I thought I would do some research to dispel the notion that the Iowa caucuses had any real relevance — at least to the Democrats.

In other words, even if Obama won in Iowa, would it really have an impact on who became the Democratic nominee?

The short answer is: it could matter a lot — enough to end Hillary’s chances.

What I discovered is that in six out of the last nine Iowa caucuses, the candidate Iowans selected became the eventual Democratic nominee. That’s a 66% success rate. Take out the two incumbent races — Carter in 1980 and Clinton in 1996 — that’s still four out of seven, or a 57% batting average. That’s an impressive percentage — and certainly worrisome if you are Hillary Clinton.

The main statistical outliers were Gephardt in 1988 and Harkin in 1992. In an excellent summary of caucus history, David Yepsen, a political columnist for the Des Moines Register, offers an explanation for the Gephart-Harken choices, as well as some other important patterns in caucus voting:

One pattern that appears to be developing in the Iowa caucuses is a preference for Midwestern, or at least rural-oriented candidates. George McGovern of South Dakota, Walter Mondale of Minnesota, Richard Gephardt of Missouri have all done well in Iowa Democratic caucuses.

Harken, of course, is from Iowa and won big there with 77% percent of the vote. Ultimately, he placed fourth in New Hampshire and his candidacy ended.

So, here’s who won, starting with the 1972 caucus:

1972 - Ed Muskie
1976 - Jimmy Carter
1980 - Jimmy Carter (incumbent)
1984 - Walter Mondale
1988 - Dick Gephardt
1992 - Tom Harkin
1996 - Bill Clinton (incumbent)
2000 - Al Gore
2004 - John Kerry

(For complete statistics on previous Iowa caucuses, click here.)

Fifty days from the actual voting, Hillary has some hard work to do in Iowa if she wants to end up on the winner’s list for 2008. Keeping in mind Yepsen’s observation that Iowans tend to vote for Midwesterners, Obama is from Illinois. There are also two important precedents of the eventual winner in Iowa taking down the front-runner: Underdog Jimmy Carter in 1976 and John Kerry in 2004, when he pricked front-runner Howard Dean into a yelp heard ’round the world.

How do things stand right now? According to ABC News:

The new ABC News/Washington Post poll has Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., up on Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., in Iowa — really in a statistical tie in the state where they could be playing for all the marbles. It’s Obama 30, Clinton 26, and former senator John Edwards, D-N.C., 22 — setting up a three-way scramble for the top spot in a state that’s notoriously difficult to call in advance.

My concern about Hillary’s campaign — certainly here in New Hampshire where I can feel the campaign’s lethargy — and now in Iowa, is that a sense of entitlement among her staff and political “endorsers,” can lose this for her.

The one true thing we can say about running for and winning the Presidency: you really gotta want it. Does Hillary?

Despite the best efforts of Edwards and Obama to hypnotize the media with their repetitive rants about Hillary Clinton “saying what voters want to hear, and not what she believes,” the polls in New Hampshire show that Hillary’s lead is both impressive and solid.

As CBS reports, “Clinton’s support in the Granite State is solid.”

As contentious as Iowa is, the next state on the campaign calendar, New Hampshire, is far less competitive. Among likely Democratic primary voters, Clinton has 37 percent support, putting her 15 points ahead of Obama. Among Republicans, Romney continues to dominate. He was backed by 34 percent in the poll, while John McCain and Giuliani both trailed at 16 percent. All other candidates were in single digits.

Clinton’s support in the Granite State is solid. Though 52 percent of voters say they could change their mind, 62 percent of Clinton supporters “strongly favor” the New York senator and former first lady. As in Iowa, her experience is the top reason people are supporting her.

One reason the Obama-Edwards character bashing of Hillary is not working, is that it simply has no basis in reality. Indeed, Hillary has taken the high road on a number of issues — the Iraq war, for example. To repudiate her support for our mission in Iraq (as opposed to the Bush Keystone Cops implementation of the war) would have been the most unprincipled, yet politically expedient, thing for her to do. Over and over, Democratic activists clamored for her to cave, and she didn’t.

Locally, Lynn Chong, chair of the Belknap County Democrats, lambasted Hillary on that issue on the very day Hillary announced her candidacy. Lynn — no surprise — has since thrown her support to Edwards, an unprincipled trial lawyer that few voters trust.

Let’s also recall an AP Poll that was taken a few months back on the issue of character. As Obama and Edwards rightly point out, character is important to voters. What they don’t mention is that Hillary Clinton leads on the “character” issue.  

Here’s how it played out in our report:

The latest Associated Press poll shows that Hillary Clinton’s unwillingness to “disown” her past support for the Iraq war is creating confidence in her honesty and character among voters.

According to AP poll results announced today (reported in the Huffington Post), 55% of voters say that honesty and character are more important than specific policy positions.

On that key trait, Hillary Clinton has a considerable lead over all other Democrats:

“Among Democrats, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York leads with 38 percent, followed by Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois at 21 percent. Former Vice President Al Gore is at 14 percent and 2004 vice presidential nominee John Edwards is at 10 percent. The rest of the field is in single digits.”

The Edwards-Obama strategy seems to be 1) Take down Clinton any way they can, even if it means lying about her, and 2) Make the lie big enough and say it often enough, and maybe people will start to believe it.

Sorry, boys, but you need a new strategy because this one isn’t working.

Florida is a rather alluring place in the middle of January.

Compared to New Hampshire, where the snow is several feet high, the temperature rarely breaks freezing, and the north wind feels like bee stings on your face, Florida can indeed look like an oasis.

It is still September, but New Hampshire is already getting cold for Barack Obama. In the latest poll, Hillary Clinton has increased her lead, while his numbers keep shrinking. It is now Hillary leading Obama 43% to 20%.

 What’s worse, as Union Leader political reporter, John Distaso, explained it:

Geographically, it’s bad news for Obama as well. In the 1st congressional district, Clinton led 40 to 25 percent in July. Now, she leads, 49 to 20 percent.

In the more liberal 2nd District, where Obama trailed Clinton by only 33 to 29 percent in July, she now leads 38 to 21 percent.

The question for Obama becomes one of long-term strategy. He will not win New Hampshire. He will not come in second in New Hampshire. Our prediction is that Edwards will surge and replace Obama behind Hillary.

So what’s a presidential wannabe supposed to do, especially if he has a financial war chest as impressive as Obama’s?

Strategically, what makes sense is to keep a marginal presence in the Granite State and move south. . .as in Deep South. . .as in Florida.

Can’t campaign there, you say. He signed a pledge?

One rule of warfare is that there are no rules. Not when you are in danger of being blown out of the sky. And Obama is now in danger of being blown away. His best shot, literally, is to tear up his no-campaign pledge and claim Florida for himself. Hillary and Edwards would be loath to follow suit.

In marketing parlance, Obama would be following what’s called a “Blue Ocean Strategy” and claiming territory with practically no direct competition. Perhaps with no one to discuss his foreign policy gaffs, he’d have a real chance.

It could be his only chance.

Seems the last New Hampshire poll by the American Research Group was an aberration. It showed Hillary and Obama in a statistical dead heat.

Perhaps helped by Obama’s careless remarks about anything related to foreign affairs, Hillary is back in the lead again in New Hampshire by a huge margin.

Hillary also has formidable leads in Iowa and South Carolina as well.

As reported on the ARG web site, the details look like this:

Among men in Iowa, Hillary Clinton is at 25%, John Edwards is at 22%, and Barack Obama is at 22%. Among women in Iowa, Clinton is at 30%, Obama is at 23%, and Edwards is at 19%. Among men in New Hampshire, Clinton is at 31%, Edwards is at 17%, and Obama is at 17%. Among women in New Hampshire, Clinton is at 43%, Obama is at 17%, and Edwards is at 11%. Among men in South Carolina, Edwards is at 33%, Obama is at 31%, and Clinton is at 19%. Among women in South Carolina, Clinton is at 43%, Edwards is at 17%, and Obama is at 13%.

Anyone who said that women will not vote for a woman for presidents needs to rethink that assessment. In moderate South Carolina, woman are heading towards Hillary in droves, by more than a 2 to 1 margin over Edwards, her nearest competitor there. Hillary also gets 43% of the women’s vote in New Hampshire.

Live by the polls, die by the polls.

I expect it will be this way for months to come: each campaign breathing a sigh of relief or worrying themselves to death as each new poll is released.

Yesterday, we mentioned the latest New Hampshire poll showing Hillary slipping and Obama gaining. Today, in a national Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll taken after the YouTube/CNN debate, just the opposite is happening: Hillary is increasing her lead over Obama.

According to Reuters:

Forty-three percent of Democratic respondents said they preferred the New York senator and former first lady over other Democratic candidates in the 2008 contest, up from 39 percent in June, the poll showed.

That put Clinton even farther ahead of chief rival Obama, the Illinois senator who slipped from 25 percent in the June poll to 22 percent in July. Clinton and Obama have sparred in recent weeks, trading accusations last week over foreign policy positions.

Hillary got some other good news today in New Hampshire, where she dearly needs to do well: New Hampshire Speaker of the House, Terie Norelli, endorsed Clinton and will serve as co-chair of the New Hampshire campaign.

Although Norelli does not wield the clout of other Democratic leaders, her endorsement is especially important right now. As we have reported here previously, a vocal faction of New Hampshire Democrats are stridently anti-Hillary because of her refusal to repudiate her Iraq war vote. Beth Arsenault and Lynn Chong are two notable examples. Norelli will bring a few party leaders still sitting on the fence over to Hillary’s side.

Right now, it all helps.