On The Ground

Jerome Armstrong writes that Hillary Clinton has a clear lead in New Hampshire organizing, which I think is to be expected, but that even given expectations it's impressively clear. Edwards also has some substantial organization there, but Barack Obama has fallen behind. I was given a similar account at a level that was, frankly, way beyond my ability to comprehend, of the state of play in South Carolina.

I don't have a really strong opinion as to whether or not 2008 is likely to follow the 2004 pattern, but it is worth recalling that the way '04 worked essentially nothing mattered beyond the outcomes in Iowa and New Hampshire and that when it comes to winning those primaries ground organizing is more-or-less king.

Comments

That may be true - but I would note: (1) I don't recall a lot of news that Kerry had a lead in ground organizing in those States - so either it was below the radar or it's not that important (or I remember incorrectly) & (2) Kerry was substantially better than most of the candidates in the field that year - Dean killed himself in his speech in IA, and then who else was even in contention?

Posted by MDtoMN | March 11, 2007 2:26 PM

(1) I don't recall a lot of news that Kerry had a lead in ground organizing in those States - so either it was below the radar or it's not that important (or I remember incorrectly)

Iowa has a wierd, arcane system of vote delegation that's incredibly favorable to the guy with the paid boots on the ground who knows what's he's doing. That was why Kerry won there and the ABB meme and primary weariness cemented his position.

Posted by Ed Marshall | March 11, 2007 2:39 PM

Surely two weekend visits from the dreamy Obama and he'll have all the organisers he needs. We're still almost a year off the vote.

Posted by otto | March 11, 2007 3:01 PM

I'm not sure ground organizing was really king in Iowa. Dean had a lot of boots on the ground there and he got clobbered.

Posted by fostert | March 11, 2007 3:12 PM

Edwards is the real threat to Hillary.

Obama has no chance of winning either Iowa or NH, the two most important early states.

If Edwards wins either Iowa or NH, a definite possibility, he will have the momentum to go on to win the nomination.

Posted by DonB | March 11, 2007 3:34 PM

I'm in NH. Perhaps it is just my circles, but the overwhelming buzz is around Obabma - overwhelming.

Posted by theCoach | March 11, 2007 3:38 PM

DonB - your data-free confidence in predicting elections 8 months in advance cannot fail to impress.

Posted by otto | March 11, 2007 3:39 PM

I don't think NH or Iowa will really matter this time round. The big day is Feb 5, "National Primary" day. I don't see why necessarily "momentum" would make that big a difference when, so early, so much more of the actual delegates are up for grabs on that day.

Also, the circumstances around this year, are different than the circumstances around 2004. All three of the main candidates are more well known, so attitudes will be cemented earlier.

You could very easily have someone win all 4 early states, then lose big on National Primary day - that person is then gone.

Posted by JC | March 11, 2007 4:45 PM

"I don't have a really strong opinion as to whether or not 2008 is likely to follow the 2004 pattern, but it is worth recalling that the way '04 worked essentially nothing mattered beyond the outcomes in Iowa and New Hampshire"

The early contests are, as always, really important.

And, as always, the rule of thumb is that nothing else matters if the front-runner wins the early contests, but the fight goes on if they don't.

In other words, if HRC wins IA and NH, game over.

Posted by Petey | March 11, 2007 4:52 PM

"I don't see why necessarily "momentum" would make that big a difference when, so early, so much more of the actual delegates are up for grabs on that day."

Because that's the way it's worked since the dawn of the open primary system.

The results of the opening contests set the terms for the race, and few things succeed like success.

2/5 will occur in the wake of a wall-to-wall onslaught of media covering the winners and losers of the early contests.

Posted by Petey | March 11, 2007 5:01 PM

Love how people outside of NH know all about us! NH has changed a lot in the last year or so, and just because the top of the Democratic Party is on board with someone does not mean the grassroots is! And the grassroots were responsible for a landslide last Nov. that the party didn't see coming at all!

Posted by bloomingpol | March 11, 2007 5:10 PM

Will Hillary even be the frontrunner by primary time? A lot of observers have suggested Obama will pass her in the polls sometime this summer-- and the trendlines seem to be moving in that direction.

Long way to go.

Posted by Jim Rice | March 11, 2007 6:18 PM

I think that in focusing so much on Iowa and New Hampshire, everybody is forgetting that South Carolina and Nevada are also voting early on. I think that there is a good possibility that Hilary could lose all 4 of those states. Although that would not necessarily sink her, it would open up the process, especially if one of the other candidates won say 3 out of the 4.

Posted by SLC | March 11, 2007 6:51 PM

I'm in NH. Perhaps it is just my circles, but the overwhelming buzz is around Obabma - overwhelming.

I'm in New Hampshire too, and that's my impression. And I believe polls bear this out - Obama is the one who has really moved up.

Organizing is king in IA, and it will likely be king in NV. But in open primaries, and especially in NH, organizing is important but can easily be trumped.

Right again. And endorsements - which is part of what is going on now - are especially insignificant at this absurdly early stage.

New Hamsphire is an incredibly active state politically, and there are abundant, deep wells of well-connected politicos with all sorts of connections. You can't throw a stone without hitting someone who is in the gargantuan state legislature. But it's not really a "machine" state. There aren't a lot of boss-run patronage systems with the ability to deliver large clusters of votes. Voters are very independent-minded and individualistic, and don't defer their judgment to some local poobah who tells them what to do.

My impression, for what its worth, is that HRC is running way too hard, too early out of the starting gate. It's all based on trying to build up a sense of inevitability. But I don't think she is going to be able to pull it off, because voters here have way too many experiences of front-runners losing, and they know that nobody is inevitable. However, she does have the incredible weapon of her husband in reserve.

Posted by Dan Kervick | March 11, 2007 7:32 PM

"But it's not really a "machine" state."

Iowa's not a machine state either.

What makes organizing much less important in New Hampshire than in Iowa doesn't have to do with the character of New Hamphirites. It has to do with the composition and size of the electorate.

Something like 2% of Iowa Democrats will endure the caucus process. If you can actually turn out a thousand people in Iowa, you can have a huge impact on the results. But New Hampshire is not only an easy to participate in primary, but it's open to independent voters as well. Actually turn out a thousand people there, and it's just a drop in the bucket.

Posted by Petey | March 11, 2007 7:54 PM

No voters in either party have experienced that in more than three decades...

In New Hampshire? Were Carter, Tsongas, McCain, Buchanan and Dukakis the early front-runners a year prior to their primaries? They all won here.

Posted by Dan Kervick | March 11, 2007 8:52 PM

"In New Hampshire?"

No. I meant the nomination. NH is indeed an insurgent's paradise.

But that said, I think NH is the one of the four early states that HRC is most likely to win. Region matters.

Posted by Petey | March 11, 2007 9:01 PM

But that said, I think NH is the one of the four early states that HRC is most likely to win. Region matters.

Yes the regional thing helped Dukakis, Tsongas and Dean. I personally don't think it helped Kerry much. Kerry was a national darling early on but languished for months and months here behind several other candidates before Dean collapsed.

On the other hand, Carter beat Kennedy and Gore beat Bradley in New Hampshire. Where region helps someone like Dean or Tsongas is that people here did at least know who they were, so they din't have to get over the name recognition hurdle.

I don't think that is much of a factor with Clinton. I may be wrong, but I don't think HRC benefits (or is hindered) much at all in New Hampshire from any regional identification. Although she is a Senator from New York, I don't gather that many people here think of her as a New Yorker, or even a Northeasterner. To the extent they pin a place on her, it is just as likely to be Chicago or Arkansas or Washington.

Any regional association with HRC in New Hmapshire is totally swamped by the fact that she is mainly just Hillary Clinton, Superstar: lawyer; best-selling author; defender of the children of the national village; power couple partnering wife of Bill, former First Lady of the United States; pan-throwing adversary of Monica, Paula and Jennifer; ultimate Washington insider; chief White House advisor and power-broker; Tammy Wynette-disdaining, no-cookie-baking Wonder Woman; sharp-tongued scourge of the right wing conspiracy; and triumphantly overcoming woman scorned and power-seeking uber-survivor. I don't think her image here is much different than her image in California, Illinois or Florida. She's a transcendant national figure.

To some extent, I think the same is true of Obama, although he hasn't been around as long.

Posted by Dan Kervick | March 11, 2007 9:53 PM

I'm in SC and it seems the situation is similar to NH in that Obama is making great strides with actual voters while Hillary is buying organizers. Obama's support seems to be coming at the expense of Edwards, however. Edwards did win SC in 2004 and I expect him to carry the Up Country manufacturing region of the state. This is the area where he was born and it has the smallest proportion of black voters. The Piedmont or center of the state is Jim Clyburn territory and while Clyburn has refused to support any candidate during the primary, I found it interesting that he introduced Obama at a recent event. The real question in SC is the Low Country.(Charleston, Hilton Head, and Myrtle Beach). This area could go any direction. Charleston is younger and very liberal with numerous colleges, while HH and MB have veterans and retirees. The black vote in the Low Country is smaller than in the Piedmont. My inclination is that Obama will carry Charleston while Hillary will win in HH and MB.

In recent elections about 50% of SC Democratic Primary voters were African-American. It seems to me that local leaders will be happy to take Clintons money but their supporters will more than likely vote Obama if he continues as a feasible candidate. Despite some serious arm twisting by Bill, Obama was recently invited to address the SC Black Caucus at their annual fundraiser.

On another note, I hate this idea of a super primary. It does a disservice to the public and will likely result in weaker and less experienced candidates. It will exacerbate the media campaigns and place even greater emphasis on fundraising. I haven't read much about it here and I was wondering what others think of it.

Posted by Just Karl | March 11, 2007 11:18 PM

You cannot compare 04 to 08. Every primary and election is different and falling into the trap of 'well, in 04 it went like this..." Voteres are volitile and independent people who will vote for who they make thier minds up for.
Obama has only been there once or twice so far and it's along way.
I personally see Hillary already slipping in polls and doing some desparate moves like comparing herself to JFK. Edwards cannot get out of the mid teens in most polls. Obama is riding fast and will probably overtake Hillary.
Edwards has been running for president almost as long as Hillary. Obama did not decide to until xmas. So organizing is behind alot comparing. Yet, he is a clear threat and the one even the freepers are afraid of getting the nomination. They doubt thier winger can beat him.
With one campaign nervous (Hillary) and one running out of steam (Edwards) I cannot see anyone but, Obama taking the lead by summer.

Posted by vwcat | March 12, 2007 12:06 AM

"The Piedmont or center of the state is Jim Clyburn territory and while Clyburn has refused to support any candidate during the primary, I found it interesting that he introduced Obama at a recent event."

Wherever Clyburn's heart lies, he will do exactly what he did in '04 and endorse whoever comes out of IA, NV, and NH as the winner. Dude's in the leadership. He understands his responsibility quite clearly.

Posted by Petey | March 12, 2007 12:31 AM

luckily, New Hampshire's influence is waning in the Dem. primary game. they've had an insanely disproportionate influence for long enough.

Posted by ben j | March 12, 2007 12:23 PM

tdycubjei ycaqvz cthfvd ixzvelqb uphgry hlqsemkx ybghipacd

Posted by lwvuh rnsd | June 11, 2007 11:00 PM

hwupmfni sjprq pvxmyzfj lkovqat pabkfjlew stvkjoiew vucbdrzf http://www.bcneyai.lzbijtmn.com

Posted by nxtsgkbz laxcom | June 11, 2007 11:01 PM