« My Tim Russert Problem: And Ours | Main | The Karen Hughes Era » "Heroes"01 Nov 2007 11:59 am John Edwards' campaign is releasing this new ad today: In a conference call with reporters, Edwards campaign senior staff were clearly trying to convince people that he's still in the game. Their basic point is that it remains a fairly close three-way race in Iowa, and this'll be the first Edwards ad after millions of dollars in spending from the rival campaigns. The ad, plus Edwards' strong performance in the most recent debate, are supposed to put him back on top in the caucuses. Comments (24)
Why didn't he start running ads earlier to stop the bleeding? His trend lines in Iowa polling are horrible. http://www.pollster.com/08-IA-Dem-Pres-Primary.php 
If those quote-marks in the post title are an attempt to reference the David Bowie song, I say "bravo." If they aren't, then I don't.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: Winning Iowa is hard for Edwards. Parlaying an Iowa win into the nomination is the easy part. ----- Thematically, in terms of how it's designed to re-introduce Edwards and set the stage for the Iowa campaign, I think it's a very, very clever ad. They didn't go in the direction I was expecting, and I think their decision was smart. (I thought they'd go more biographical in the ad, but they hit that note with the big mailing that went out yesterday. The TV spot is well designed to complement the mailing.)
"Why didn't he start running ads earlier to stop the bleeding?" Because the caucuses take place in January, not November.
The Edwards campaign seems to have hit a thematic stride in terms of tying his economic populism together with his anti-lobbyist stances. In terms of public mood it could be a great combination, especially if you look at the new Pew poll. The public is unhappy with Washington in a big way, the Democrats do better than the Republicans but a Romney or Giuliani nominee is going to try to muddy up the waters with an outsider message.
"The public is unhappy with Washington in a big way" Yup. I think there are a few unexplored major factors in this campaign, and the historically high level of dissatisfaction that Democrats have for the Democratic Congress is a biggie. It's a dynamic that gives Edwards a bit of a tailwind and Clinton a bit of a headwind.
This guy is pretty darn funny, but it's also sad that anyone still buys his shtick. (For extra fun, try to imagine what the ad would be like with a heavy metal soundtrack.) Here's Edwards selling globalism: http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=YRObrQggC9U And, here he is being vetted by those whose interests he really serves.
This is a great ad, and does exactly what it needs to do. It says, without saying it explicitly, "I know you don't think I'm a frontrunner anymore, but the frontrunners you've got represent a bad status quo, and we can do better. Those frontrunners want me to give it up and go home, but I'm not going to abandon the people, because I'm the only guy who's actually fighting for you." It's a postive, inspirational ad which gets serious digs in at Clinton and Obama under the radar. And remember that Edwards doesn't have to win in Iowa, he just has to exceed expectations. Second place would be good enough to give him a boost going into NH. If Edwards takes second in Iowa, whomever comes in third is going to loose support and a majority of that support will go to Edwards. Plus, by the time Iowa and NH are shaking out, people are going to be sick of the "Hillary is inevetible" story. I'm not making any firm predictions, but Edwards isn't done yet.
John Edwards campaign has consistently had a racist undertone and this new add confirms the rhetoric he has been shouting for some time. From the "Jesse Helms" machine quotes or the "If you won't vote for Obama because he's Black-I don't want your vote." Jake Tapper over at ABC has actually been practicing some journalism and written two powerful articles about this phenomenon in Edwards campaign. I don't care if there is only 2 Black or Latino or Asian families in Iowa. Your ads need to be inclusive if you want claim to the mantle of two Americas.
1) The commercial is great. I love it. 2) I must respectfully disagree with both Galen and Petey. This isn't a typical year on either side. The GOP looks as chaotic as the Dems looked in 2004, and the Dems have the sort of structured race typical of the GOP. And just the way GOP frontrunners/establishment picks have traditionally had a firewall in South Carolina, Hillary has most of the country as her firewall. Consequently, I don't see a scenario where Edwards finishes second in Iowa, but wins the nomination. If Hillary wins on the Dem side, the media will pretty much declare Hillary the winner, and give all their TV time and newspaper column inches to the GOP contest. Between that and the firewall effect, she's in. And even if Edwards wins Iowa, I consider the odds still strongly against his being able to parlay that win into a Presidential nomination. He still needs a considerable Iowa bounce to win NH (and suppose NH goes first? we'll find out in the next few days), and after a NH win, he's still an underdog, in need of a good bounce there to win SC. And he's on public financing, while Hillary has an awesome campaign chest: I assume she's already got organizations set in the Feb. 5 states, just waiting to go into action as the time gets closer. Edwards will need a big infusion of money from winning all the early states just to compete on a semi-even footing with Hillary on Feb. 5. In the unlikely event that Edwards wins Iowa, NH, NV, and SC, I would STILL bet on Hillary to win more delegates than Edwards on Feb. 5. Dunno how the race would turn out in the long run, but there *would* be a long run.
"Consequently, I don't see a scenario where Edwards finishes second in Iowa, but wins the nomination. " I agree with you there. I think whoever wins Iowa is highly likely to be the nominee. "In the unlikely event that Edwards wins Iowa, NH, NV, and SC, I would STILL bet on Hillary to win more delegates than Edwards on Feb. 5." I think you're nuts there. If Edwards swept the early states, he'd be close to assured of the nomination. Edwards is acceptable to large swaths of the Party. He's perfectly positioned to be able to capitalize on early wins and broaden out his support. And the only rationale behind the Clinton campaign (other than gender) is the fact of her 'inevitable' status. Take the 'inevitable' away from her in Iowa, and what does she fall back upon? Not to mention that the 5 day gap between IA and NH is perfectly designed for maximal momentum. Not to mention that choosing 65% of the delegates on 2/5 is perfectly designed to reward the early states winner.
John Edwards campaign has consistently had a racist undertone and this new add confirms the rhetoric he has been shouting for some time. Hey, LaRouche isn't running this time - hadn't you heard? BTW, 'Shouting ('Add') Undertones' is almost as good a band name as 'Death Cab For Cutie'. Obscure 'n' postmodern.
John Edwards campaign has consistently had a racist undertone and this new add confirms the rhetoric he has been shouting for some time. From the "Jesse Helms" machine quotes or the "If you won't vote for Obama because he's Black-I don't want your vote." Um, maybe I'm missing something, but aren't those two examples you cite examples of Edwards running a consistently non-racist campaign?
who wants to vote for "Elizabeth and I" Edwards? It started as a right-wing meme, but I have come to really believe that he needs to get out from behind EE's back.
I doubt Edwards regains traction. People watched Edwards take water over the bow from all those asinine hair stories and assumed he's an amateur, which he is. Being the inspiring guy with the drawl who wants to help you is fine when you're running for the U.S. Senate or for Vice President. It ain't enough for the top chair. I just don't think he really has the guts to stand up to the GOP. I know what he says, and I know how he says it. He's an impressive public speaker. But his actual record is pretty thin, and contains things like writing the PATRIOT Act. And I suspect that those hair stories codified something that most people think about Edwards: that he is, quite simply, a wimp. Even though he polls well, one suspects he'll be easier to tear down once the campaign is in progress if these perceptions are already in play.
[Edwards'] actual record is pretty thin, and contains things like writing the PATRIOT Act Edwards WROTE THE PATRIOT ACT!? Gee, how did I miss that, Lev? I suspect that those hair stories codified something that most people think about Edwards: that he is, quite simply, a wimp. 'Most people' who make comments like this need to look in the mirror. The hair stories 'codified'...what? The joke about the $400 haircut is twofold: 1.) *everybody* who goes on tv regularly - all tv personalities and pols - gets haircuts like that, except that Russert's, Brian Williams' (and Romney's) cost $600. 2.) The Haircut is pretty much all they have on Edwards - pretty pathetic. In a way, I enjoy the hysterical frothing; it shows fear. And, yes, putting your ass on the line taking on platoons of $400-an-hour corporate lawyers out of a small law office - for years - is SO very wimpy. So is beating Jesse Helms' protoge in N. Carolina. I'm sure 'most people' have done the same thing...or could do if they felt like it. No doubt about it, what 'most people' really want right now is more along the lines of a chickenshit with rotten character and an ethical universe the size of a golf bag who can really swagger convincingly, at least verbally... we're pining away for more teevee courage, like George had.
Petey: damn, I hate to keep disagreeing with you, but still. Not to mention that the 5 day gap between IA and NH is perfectly designed for maximal momentum. Not to mention that choosing 65% of the delegates on 2/5 is perfectly designed to reward the early states winner. I think that would be true in a race where voters' support for candidates is weak and easily swayed. Like 2004. But we've been at this race for a year now, really, ever since the Sunday after the midterms when the Washington fucking Post's fucking Outlook section, rather than considering what the new Congress might do, jumped right into Hillary v. Obama. Not saying that there aren't a lot of minds that can be changed. Just saying that there's fewer of them than usual at this point, and it's going to take more work than usual to change their minds. One or two caucus/primary wins won't be enough. This will be especially true, I'm afraid, in NH. This is NOT 2004, where nobody wanted Gephardt or Lieberman, a lot of people didn't want Dean, and everyone was clutching at straws. Hillary's built up some pretty solid support for her unsolid positions, and it's not going to evaporate in NH the minute Edwards wins Iowa. For one thing, a LOT of women really want to see Hillary win. I thnk we're going to see one of the smallest post-Iowa 'bumps' that a non-favorite-son has ever gotten. I think there's still a chance Edwards can do it, but it's going to take more than puncturing Hillary's bubble of inevitability. He's got to get out there and win votes to his cause. Anyhow, if Edwards wins Iowa (assuming Iowa's first), we'll find out. If NH goes with December 11 rather than Jan. 8, it'll be game over. But we'll know about that no later than Monday, I expect.
Gosh, look, snapshots of Americana that completely overlook me, and pretty much everyone I know! Look at lots and lots of sixty-something farm types, standing in front of corn fields.
But they look like Iowans, Anthony, and that's all that matters for this particular ad to reach Iowa caucus goers. Most Iowans (esp the non-sixty-something farm types) aren't reading the Washington Post, they're not watching the debates, they're just sick of their phones ringing during Deal or No Deal. Iowans are starting to dislike Iowa.
"If NH goes with December 11 rather than Jan. 8, it'll be game over." I'm hoping NH goes 1/8 because, as stated, the 5 day interval is literally perfect for amplifying momentum. But if NH does end up going 12/11, it's going to be mainly discounted. HRC would win it big, then we'd have Xmas and New Years, and Iowa would then have the power to upend the race. ----- "Not saying that there aren't a lot of minds that can be changed. Just saying that there's fewer of them than usual at this point, and it's going to take more work than usual to change their minds." I don't think you quite see the dynamics at play. Very few folks nationally have been dialed into the campaign. There was a Pew poll last week that asked Dems to name the Democratic candidates for President unprompted, and only 31% could name Edwards. He has very low mindshare at the moment, which is why the wall-to-wall coverage of the Iowa results has the ability to be a game changer for him. Also, if you look at the polling in NH, where folks are more dialed in than they are nationally, you find that about 80% of Dem voters view all three main candidates positively. That means that whichever of them wins Iowa will have a friendly and receptive audience in New Hampshire. Finally, look at the history of IA before 2008: - There have been 7 contested Iowa Democratic caucuses. 5 out of the 7 times, the IA winner has gone on to the nomination. - And 3 out of those 5 times, the IA winner wasn't leading the national polls prior to the IA win. - When the pre-IA frontrunner has lost a contested IA caucus, they've never ended up getting the nomination. The momentum you get out of IA matters a lot. And if that momentum accrues to a candidate that most of the Party views as nominatable, as is the case for each of the three main candidates, it's generally decisive.
"5 out of the 7 times, the IA winner has gone on to the nomination." And 1 of those 2 IA winners that didn't get the nomination was in '92, when Iowa Senator Harkin won the Iowa caucus.
"And 1 of those 2 IA winners that didn't get the nomination was in '92, when Iowa Senator Harkin won the Iowa caucus." Nope. I'm talking about contested Iowa caucuses, which excludes '92 and '96.
Thanks for the clarification.
Comments closed November 15, 2007. |
Search
Subscribe to this blog by Email Books by Matthew Yglesias
Recent Comments
Recent Posts
Weekly Archives
Categories
|
Copyright © 2008 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
| 
Heads in the Sand
More Edwards, please.
Posted by eriks | November 1, 2007 12:39 PM