Evidence for Things I Already Believe

Ambinder gives me some of my favorite kind of factoids -- things that constitute evidence for things I already believed. In today's edition, my pre-existing belief is that the race for the Democratic nomination is more open than people realize. The evidence is new polling out of New Hampshire which indicates that "a very large 71% of Democrats believe that Hillary Clinton will be their nominee regardless of their own preference . . . most New Hampshire Democrats say they haven't made up their minds . . . a large majority is leaving open the possibility that they could support someone than Clinton, most believe, in the back of their minds, that Clinton will win anyway."

To me, at any rate, this indicates that the results in Iowa will have a big impact on people's thinking. If Clinton loses there, which everyone agrees is very possible, then I think it hurts her aura of inevitability and you're left with the fact that most voters in the second state haven't yet made up their minds. As long as Iowa is in play, so is the nomination.

Comments

Petey in 3...2...1...

Posted by jhupp | November 6, 2007 2:34 PM

Oh no its your "As Iowa Goes, So Goes the Nation" moment

Posted by Tiparillo | November 6, 2007 2:40 PM

Given that the aura of inevitability is her campaign's primary asset, I'd say that a loss in Iowa could very well be a mortal blow. If I were Obama, I'd be throwing nearly everything into that state.

Posted by JH | November 6, 2007 2:52 PM

Sorry, two of the whitest states in the nation are just not a good guide to the Dem primaries. Resources, institutional support and popularity with the Dem base will allow HRC to win in the big states with large minority populations regardless of what happens in Iowa and New hampshire.

Posted by lemuel pitkin | November 6, 2007 3:05 PM

Then why didn't Howard Dean win, Lemuel?

The momentum from winning Iowa will more than make up for all of those other things. Obama will certainly hold his own with minority voters in other states if he wins Iowa.

Posted by bob | November 6, 2007 3:07 PM

If I were Obama, I'd be throwing nearly everything into [IA].

He is, isn't he?

Posted by jonnybutter | November 6, 2007 3:11 PM

I can't think of any big states with large minority populations. I assume you mean relative proportion. In any event, I wasn't aware that HRC has a higher proportion of minority support than that of the other candidates.

Posted by DC | November 6, 2007 3:12 PM

I'm convinced the entire significance of Iowa is created and maintained by the media, for reasons I don't understand. What if the morning after Iowa headlines read,

CLINTON WINS IOWA; 6% VOTED IN SMALL STATE
NOMINATION STILL WIDE OPEN

Then would you all say it matters so much??? Why do journalists heap this importance on little Iowa?

Posted by Rachel | November 6, 2007 3:18 PM

So Matt, who are you rooting for?

Posted by 2cynicalbyhalf | November 6, 2007 3:26 PM

"Petey in 3...2...1..."

Your sensitivity to the material is unimpeachable, jhupp.

"To me, at any rate, this indicates that the results in Iowa will have a big impact on people's thinking. If Clinton loses there, which everyone agrees is very possible, then I think it hurts her aura of inevitability and you're left with the fact that most voters in the second state haven't yet made up their minds. As long as Iowa is in play, so is the nomination."

Clinton, Obama, and Edwards are all in perfect position to win the nomination if they win Iowa.

- 5 days is literally the optimal momentum timespan.

- All three candidate are viewed extremely favorably by NH Dems.

- Senator Clinton's big lead is almost entirely a function of her perception as the Likely Democratic Nominee, not due to anything intrinsic about her campaign.

Win IA, you're going to win NH. Win IA and NH, you're the Likely Nominee.

Senator Clinton's institutional support, (she owns the Beltway), allows some possibility of finding a firewall and regrouping. But the calendar is not helpful to her cause. The national primary on 2/5 gives her much less opportunity to regroup than in previous years. (If the '84 race that allowed Mondale to regroup against Hart were run under the '08 calendar, Hart would've been the nominee.)

Chuck Todd today suggested that after Clinton lost IA and NH that SC could be a firewall for her, as it was for Bush in '00. But McCain had only won NH - he didn't even compete in IA - and he'd only won NH because of Independent votes. An Edwards or Obama who wins IA and NH is not likely to be stopped.

Posted by Petey | November 6, 2007 3:41 PM

I can't think of any big states with large minority populations. I assume you mean relative proportion. In any event, I wasn't aware that HRC has a higher proportion of minority support than that of the other candidates.

Posted by DC | November 6, 2007 3:12 PM
===============================================

Couldn't think of California who's minority population is 55%?

http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/population/002897.html

Posted by Campesino | November 6, 2007 3:49 PM

I see I'm scooped in preview, but . . .

I can't think of any big states with large minority populations.

California, Texas, and New York.

http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/population/005514.html

Clinton is up by 28 in California, 18 in Texas, an 26 in New York.

Posted by Zippy | November 6, 2007 3:58 PM

Campesino -- I appreciate the research. So California is the only "large" state in the US with a "majority minority" population, with Texas almost there as well, with 49.5%. So are we to assume that HRC would carry California (Dem primary) because that state has a majority of disparate groups collectively labeled as having "minority" status? Would she carry Texas? (certainly not in the national election!) What is the value of the "minority" voter conversation with respect to the HRC "juggernaut?" Lemuel?

Posted by DC | November 6, 2007 3:59 PM

"Resources, institutional support and popularity with the Dem base will allow HRC to win in the big states with large minority populations regardless of what happens in Iowa and New hampshire."

You just keep thinking that, lemuel.

In terms of identity politics, Senator Clinton isn't just the female candidate, she's the black candidate too!

How does it feel to be supporting Shagpoke Whipple, anyway?

Posted by Petey | November 6, 2007 4:14 PM

Petey is right on this, with a caveat.

Edwards CAN win.

Obama likely would win.

Clinton would certainly win.

If they win Iowa.

Posted by Armando | November 6, 2007 4:19 PM

"things that constitute evidence for things I already believed"

MY's entire blog in a nutshell. Just add "ignore all other evidence".

Posted by Dave | November 6, 2007 4:27 PM

California and New York are the two states I was thnking of, but a number of Soutehrn states fall in the same category. Keep in mind that the Democratic primary electorate is much elss white than the popualtion as a whole. And of course Clinton isn't "the balck candidate" but she does have strong support among African-Americans. The laregr point is that the compressed schedule makes the early primaries less important, not more so, since it's hard to translate early wins into money, endorsements, etc.

Clinton isn't my ideal candidate -- far from it. If I were a Democrat (I'm registered Working Families) I'd probably vote for Edwards. But the differences between the three leaders are much smaller than they are made out to be -- Obama in particular is not to the left of Clinton in any meaningful sense. And it's silly to call Clinton Bush-lite -- on domestic policy the intra-party differences are trivial compared with the inter-party ones.

Bsides that, I know from being politically active in New York that she is widely, deeply supported among the Democratic base. The disconnect between blog liberals and the people who actually vote (and volunteer, etc.) for Democrats is really striking (and kind of disturbing) when it comes to Clinton.

Posted by lemuel pitkin | November 6, 2007 4:40 PM

"Edwards CAN win. Obama likely would win."

While you are certainly in line with conventional wisdom here, Armando, I think it's the opposite.

Senator Clinton would have an opportunity to regroup against Obama by trying to divide the electorate into beer track vs wine track. She wouldn't be able to pull that, or any equivalent stratagem, against John Edwards.

That said, either would be the very strong favorite if they won IA and NH.

Posted by Petey | November 6, 2007 5:07 PM

"Besides that, I know from being politically active in New York that she is widely, deeply supported among the Democratic base."

Has it ever occurred to you that the Democratic base you're familiar with offline is Senator Clinton's home state base?

Even long after his candidacy disintegrated, Howard Dean won the Vermont primary, y'know...

Posted by Petey | November 6, 2007 5:10 PM

I really think that the presence of so many Feb 5 states really negates the importance of Iowa and New Hampshire. Not only is there the inability to build a momentum bandwagon for the hypothetical underdog who does well in those states, but the presence of so many other states so soon also negates the slow drip drip dripping away of support by a frontrunner who doesn't meet expectations and who then had to struggle through several more weeks of 1 or 2 primary states trying to stop the flow. Theortetically anybody who does poorly in Iowa and New Hampshire can easily bounce back in many states within a month rendering Iowa and New Hampshire back to backwater status. The massive country-wide crush on Feb 5 really does change the whole dynamics in terms of momentum in ways that I really don't think have been appreciated yet. This may very well be the year that ends the importance of Iowa and New Hampshire in everything but symbolism.

Posted by Ethel-to-Tilly | November 6, 2007 5:18 PM

"Theortetically anybody who does poorly in Iowa and New Hampshire can easily bounce back in many states within a month"

We read the history of the open primary era very differently.

There are only two more contests in January, NV and SC. Where would the firewall state be?

Three to four weeks marks the height of an insurgency campaign, historically. By the time Senator Clinton would be able to regroup, 2/3rds of the delegates will already have been selected.

This year's calendar is more about momentum than any previous calendar.

Posted by Petey | November 6, 2007 5:30 PM

Is this post by the same Matt Yglesias who just told us how much he hates the horse race?

Nah, couldn't be.

---
Also, according to CNN just now, the November polls have accurately predicted the Democratic nominee exactly twice since 1980.

---
Petey's right about the momentum thing.

---
This Jim Pinkerton piece arguing that Hillary has a Willie Horton type problem on illegal immigration seems worth reading.

Posted by southpaw | November 6, 2007 5:45 PM

I live in New Hampshire, and the Edwards campaign calls me at least once a week to find out how I'm leaning, and to invite me to some event or other. A couple of guys with the campaign - one an old friend of mine - seem to have made me their own personal recruiting project, for reasons I can't fathom.

I shoot the breeze with them about my thinking, and stick to my anybody but Clinton line, but otherwise I've pretty much decided that I am going to remain undecided right up until the end. This is a first for me. In the past, I have always decided early and done some volunteer work for my chosen candidate.

It's generally agreed here in New Hampshire that Iowa has emerged as much more vital to the candidates than in other years, and we're not getting our usual level of attention. I suspect Matt is right that the Iowa result will have a very large impact in New Hampshire.

Posted by Dan Kervick | November 6, 2007 8:46 PM