Is anything worse than the expectations game? No. Here's Jake Tapper on one bogus effort by Team Clinton to lower expectations for Iowa. And here's Marc Ambinder on another bogus effort by Team Clinton to lower expectations for Iowa. If she loses in Iowa, she's obviously got the money, infrastructure, and name recognition to keep campaigning -- as she should. But by the same token, if she loses in Iowa it's a real loss. She started out in Iowa with all the same advantages she has everywhere else, and if prolonged exposure to actual campaigning against actual alternatives causes Iowans to pick someone else, that's a real defeat.
« Snow Falling on Pundits | Main | Teeves »
Expectations
03 Jan 2008 03:14 pm
Comments (16)
Wait a minute...
I thought only The Village Pundits put a lot of stock into Iowa??
Now I learn that mainstream blogosphere folks are also into promoting Iowa's caucus out of all proportion???
Say it ain't so Matt??!!
See I really don't see this as anything more than Clinton hatred by the media. She's the one best able to survive a 3rd place finish. She has the money and the organization and could easily still win New Hampshire with a 3rd place finish. An Edwards 3rd would lead to him having money problems and an Obama 3rd would seriously question his campaign strength if he can't get a decent organization together in a neighboring state.
Iowa schmyowa. Come superTuesday, Iowa will be the girl we romanced in 9th grade. Or, for some of you, the boy....
If Hillary finishes third in Iowa, it sets up the "Comeback Kidette" narrative for New Hampshire. Ugh.
Hehe. You really know nothing about politics do you Matt?
The same advantages in iowa that she had everywhere else?
Heh. Ok. I'll just read Ambinder today.
You are in over your head.
Are you ever not obnoxious Armando?
It's hard to see HRC bouncing back from an Iowa loss to Obama, especially if it's by 3 points or more. Obama is nearly tied with her in NH. A bump of just 5 points would put him over the hump there. Then, in SC, he'd likely win by an even larger margin.
Btw, Big Tent Armando is right. In Iowa, she started out behind Edwards. Everywhere else, she had comfortable leads.
Iowa has not mattered one bit since 1976. Everyone has put way too much emphasis on it since then, but it will not affect the overall outcome of the nominating process.
It will be Edwards or Obama first/second, HRC third. I would love to be a fly on the wall in some of the caucuses tonight, during the second round part....my my.
It's pretty funny to watch all the second tier candidates rally to Obama.
Biden Staffer: "Our People Likely to Go Obama".
http://tpmelectioncentral.com/2008/01/biden_staffer_our_people_likely_to_go_for_obama.php
Does Biden strike you as a "Change Candidate" type...he's been running for president since 1988 and didn't he introduce the bankruptcy bill that his Delaware Bank Corporations wanted? Aren't he and Hillary pretty close? I can see why his donors wouldn't want him supporting Edwards, but why doesn't he support Clinton? Maybe, just maybe, he is. Remember Bill Clinton was the one that started talking Obama up in 2004, considering what Bill's been saying lately, you'd think maybe Obama has become the Clinton's Frankenstein, still the man could keep Hill in the race.
Richardson Will Help Obama
http://politicalwire.com/archives/2008/01/03/report_richardson_will_ask_supporters_to_back_obama.html
Richardson has been playing nice with Clinton throughout the run-up, perhaps with the thought of a position in the Clinton administration? Why the sudden turn to Obama? Is Richardson really a "Change Candidate" type? Hmmm...well, truth be told Obama's positions are consistent with Reid's and Pelosi's strategy of the last two years, he may talk big [change], but the walk is small [conventional policy], so Richardson is not straying too far...but why stray at all from Clinton?
Dennis Kucinich was asking his supporters to back Obama.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/thenation/20080101/cm_thenation/45264482
Which brings up Dennis Kucinich, why is he supporting the most conservative candidate? I mean Hill's health plan is closer to Dennis's ideas than Obama...what gives? All talk and no walk...really, this endorsement smacks of x-files and aliens.
These last minute endorsements smack of desperation...and I don't believe Obama is desperate. Who is? Well if Hillary finishes a distant third to a photo finish tie she is still in the game, but if Edwards or Obama splits are big enough, the Clintons will have a hard sell ahead of them. She should do well in New Hampshire...New York state is as close as 40 miles...if only she can get past the Iowa news cycle. Are these "endorsements" in Obama interest? Are the Clinton's going to use these last minute "endorsements" to attack a Obama Iowa win as something less than significant? Or are the Clintons being too clever by half and boosting Obama to their demise?
It's going to fun to watch how the Clintons spin this Iowa news cycle out.
Hillary has enough money to make to the convention and can outlast Edwards in the money race if she remains competitive...And I have absolute faith she can out maneuver Obama on the convention floor...tonight could not be more interesting.
Iowa has not mattered one bit since 1976.
No bajsa. Whether IA matters or not depends on who wins.
- If Edwards wins, IA doesn't matter.
- If Obama wins, it sends shock waves throughout the world.
- If HRC wins, she's Inevitable.
See? EZ!
Not quite Jonny:
If its ECO: IA is meaningless
If its EOC: IA means Clinton should give up
If its COE: Obama is the real winner, Edwards is through
If its CEO: Edwards is through, Clinton just met expectations
If its OEC: Obama is inevitable
If its OCE: Obama is inevitable
I think you're misreading hte power of The Village. The Village has power, but it's mainly reflected - they get their power by constantly sucking up to those in power.
Winning Iowa produces power. Hillary already has massive piles of money and the endorsements of major elites. Add an Iowa win to that, and The Village knows exactly which side its bread will be buttered - they'll start touting Hillary.
Edwards needs to win and keep fighting. He will be screwed by anything other than a 1st place finish, but he has enough support that with a couple of wins he can muster the power to win the (grudging) respect of the toadying corporate media.
Rob's list is better than mine. And DivGuy's comment brings to mind those old 'The Press Looks At...the Press!' 'roundtable' discussions they used to have, and still have, I guess. 'How did we miss this story?' 'How are we doin'?' etc. Marvin Kalb et. al. crossing their legs at the knees on teevee and really getting tough on themselves. Now that the press is really scrutinized, daily, in the blogosphere, it can fairly be said that, among the political press anyway, it would be easier to make a list of basic stories they *didn't* miss or screw up than to pick out a few klinkers.
But it's all spin now, in both venues. I too will be SO glad when primary season is over just so I can get my FUD-intake levels down closer to normal.
"Iowa has not mattered one bit since 1976. Everyone has put way too much emphasis on it since then, but it will not affect the overall outcome of the nominating process.
Posted by bajsa | January 3, 2008 4:33 PM"
I think John Kerry, John Edwards and Howard Dean would disagree with you. Notice how the top 2 guys ended up being in order the top two guys on the ticket and Dean yelled his way out of the race and behind the curtains of the DNC where he can have power without showing his face. Of course, a lot of this is the press deciding for itself that someone like Kerry has momentum (especially in the weak field of 2004) and then primary voters in later states who aren't supporting someone with a chance of winning just shrug their shoulders and stay home.
Comments closed January 17, 2008.
| 
Heads in the Sand
Clinton's going to finish third by a surprisingly large margin tonight.
She'd damn better start lowering expectations.
Posted by Petey | January 3, 2008 3:23 PM