MyDD :: Chuck Todd: Watch Iowa and New Hampshire

Chuck Todd: Watch Iowa and New Hampshire

by MeanBoneII, Thu May 10, 2007 at 04:14:33 PM EST

Chuck Todd, National Journal's former Hotline editor and now NBC political director, says "Tsunami Tuesday" is nice and all, but the states to watch remain Iowa and New Hampshire.

From my perspective, all this frontloading has done only one thing: make Iowa even more important.

As the very first test, the "winner(s)" of the Iowa Caucuses is (are) going to take on greater significance than ever before - particularly since there is no break between Iowa and everything else. Momentum will be the driving force for these candidates post-Iowa, not money or message. ...

The fact is, watch where these candidates travel to once Labor Day rolls around. The frontrunners will be in one of two states - Iowa or New Hampshire... period.

And frankly, the really smart candidates will be living in Iowa.

Todd goes on to point out that every candidate who has tried a "skip Iowa" strategy has failed, with the exception of Bill Clinton, but that was because Harkin was running and EVERYONE skipped Iowa. Vilsack's inability to take Iowa off the table this time means that situation will not apply.

Todd also makes a great point about the role independents will play. They'll be showing up at the Democratic contests.

Right now, due to the unpopularity of President Bush, it is likely that a greater portion of independent voters (in states where independents can vote in primaries) will choose to vote for the Democratic candidates, if the current polling of independents is to be believed.

This is yet another way of proving that the GOP primary electorates (even in the big states) will be potentially just as conservative as they are in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina.

As it stands now, expect Iowa to have the greatest impact, winnowing each field to three candidates (at the most).

New Hampshire will be a momentum improver for the frontrunners.

This means the Republican nominee is more likely to be a mouth-breathing conservative (or the best facsimile available) and the Democratic nominee is more likely to be the candidate who can appeal to independents.

And finishing third (or even a distant second) in Iowa is going to be very hard to recover from.

Tags: Elections 2008 (all tags)

Permalink :: 25 Comments :: Post a Comment

Re: Chuck Todd: Watch Iowa and New Hampshire (3.00 / 1)

IA and NH will be tough for Obama who is third in both.

BlueSunbelt.Com Netroots for the Sunbelt states robwire.com My personal blog

by robliberal on Thu May 10, 2007 at 04:28:23 PM EST

It's pretty much up in the air (none / 0)

I bet Obama prefers to duke it out in IA and NH than in some of the states where Clinton has a big lead.

by eskimo on Thu May 10, 2007 at 05:00:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's pretty much up in the air (none / 0)

I don't know about that actually. Obama is running in third in NH currently. Considering that Obama is likely to have quite a lot of money, probably a sizeable amount more than Hillary I think he may prefer to duke it out in larger states that have more favorable demographics to him where he can sink in the money and hope to pull into the lead or a close second to blunt her elsewhere.

by Quinton on Thu May 10, 2007 at 07:14:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Rob (none / 0)

good job either something is always though for Obama or tough for Edwards in every post you make, 8 months before the caucus even 8 weeks before the cauces John Kerry had less support than Obama has at one of his Iowa rallies, how bout this bit of news HILLARY the national frontrunner is winning every state right now (exept for candidates homes states) and the one state that actually matters Iowa, if she doesn't perform well in Iowa and New Hampshire her national polls and all the other state polls aren't worth the paper they are printed on.

Obama! because 51% isn't enough!

by nevadadem on Thu May 10, 2007 at 04:43:29 PM EST

I think that's Todd's point. (3.00 / 1)

The national polls are cute, but the compacted schedule adds even more importance to Iowa and New Hampshire.

And of course, the indy voters are disgusted with Bush and the GOP, so they will be out in force in the Democratic contests.

John Edwards 2008

by MeanBoneII on Thu May 10, 2007 at 04:46:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Rob (none / 0)

She has a big lead in NH and is statistically tied in IA. What do you think will happen to Obama's campaign if he comes in third in both states?

BlueSunbelt.Com Netroots for the Sunbelt states robwire.com My personal blog

by robliberal on Thu May 10, 2007 at 05:03:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Rob (none / 0)

he loses Rob an is either VEEP or senator from Illinois. What I'm disputing is how much the primary polls in Iowa and New Hampshire actaully matter 8 moths before the election and before Obama or Hillary has even run a tv ad, Iowa and New Hampshire have particularly bad fundamentals for Hillary, if she wins em god bless her and lets make her president but I don't think she will, I just did a diary about Iowa and New Hampshire thinking about what would have happened had Hillary just not even played this little game with those 2 states I would be interested to hear what hillary backers like youself think about it.

Obama! because 51% isn't enough!

by nevadadem on Thu May 10, 2007 at 05:33:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Rob (none / 0)

They matter enough for you to be talking about them apparently.

by Lucas O'Connor on Thu May 10, 2007 at 06:54:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Rob (none / 0)

Obama! because 51% isn't enough!

by nevadadem on Thu May 10, 2007 at 05:39:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Rob (none / 0)

Isn't ARG the only polling outfit to ever give Hillary a lead or close to tie in Iowa? I can only remember them giving Hillary such strong numbers there whereas all other polls (including polls that came out covering the same time periods as the ARG polls) I've seen have given Edwards a substansially larger lead over here than their polls.

by Quinton on Thu May 10, 2007 at 07:10:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

"Statistically tied"? (none / 0)

Maybe if you pick one poll she is, but looking at them all and the averages thats just a plain inaccurate statement regardless of who anyone supports.

We can be a little more honest than that I think.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/ 2008/president/iowa-primary.html

by okamichan13 on Thu May 10, 2007 at 07:49:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: "Statistically tied"? (none / 0)

The spread is Edwards +4.8. Most polls have a MOE of 4, 5, and sometimes 6.

BlueSunbelt.Com Netroots for the Sunbelt states robwire.com My personal blog

by robliberal on Thu May 10, 2007 at 08:20:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Thats an average (3.00 / 1)

of a whole heck of a lot of polls, not one poll witn an moe.

statistically tied is just plain false.

by okamichan13 on Thu May 10, 2007 at 08:28:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Chuck Todd: Watch Iowa and New Hampshire (none / 0)

that's Obama's strategy, do ok in Iowa, hopefully beat out Hillary but atleast do ok as Edwards will probably win the state, and basically win the "independant vote" in New Hampshire, that state in my opinion is the lynchpin of Obama's hopes as his main weapon against Hillary is going to be that she is too polarizing both as a candidate and as an agent of change in Washington if he pulls off New hampshire on the backs of those type voters that the talk about the "experienced" Hillary will turn into the the "unelectable" Hillary, Gallups poll proved my theory of this nomination that it really is all about Hillary, and how dem voters percieve what a Hillary nomination and presidency would mean.

Obama! because 51% isn't enough!

by nevadadem on Thu May 10, 2007 at 05:02:47 PM EST

Re: Chuck Todd: Watch Iowa and New Hampshire (none / 0)

2008 is a different election in a lot of ways from any past ones. There are so many huge states a few days afterwards California, Florida, etc. The candidates themselves are also different. On the Democratic side we have not had a family member of a former president to be a frontrunner since Bobby Kennedy and we have never had a black or woman candidate who was viable either. We also have never had two candidates raise as much money as Clinton and Obama and still be able to raise much more.

BlueSunbelt.Com Netroots for the Sunbelt states robwire.com My personal blog

by robliberal on Thu May 10, 2007 at 06:09:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

USe of GOP talking points .... sickening (none / 0)

" too polarizing "

bahumbug

by dpANDREWS on Thu May 10, 2007 at 07:09:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I don't think many indies will vote in IA (3.00 / 1)

NH is different--there's a tradition of independents voting in the primary there.

The caucus is a big time commitment, and I doubt that independents will make up more than 5 percent of the electorate in Iowa.

John McCain: 100 years in Iraq "would be fine with me."

by desmoinesdem on Thu May 10, 2007 at 05:47:12 PM EST

Re: I don't think many indies will vote in IA (3.00 / 1)

A strange point about the recent ARG poll - the candidates' percentages for both Dems and independents are almost exactly the same.

Join us at Show Me Progress!

by clarkent on Thu May 10, 2007 at 05:57:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I don't think many indies will vote in IA (none / 0)

also isnt NH an open primary that doesnt require party affiliation to vote?

I thought that was one of the big differences between it and Iowa.

by okamichan13 on Thu May 10, 2007 at 07:51:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I don't think many indies will vote in IA (none / 0)

Yes, that's right.

by Quinton on Fri May 11, 2007 at 05:35:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Chuck Todd: Watch Iowa and New Hampshire (3.00 / 1)

George W. Bush spent just 29 days in Iowa during caucus season, by far the least among caucus winners (around 1/3 the normal amount). Bush camaigned (and won) the straw poll. The other main stream candidates quit and the coronation was on (even though Steve Forbes gave him a run for his donors' money).

One of Hillary's strong points is the elderly who will provide a lot of the vote in Iowa. Edwards is favorably known from 2004 and does well with rural voters. Iowa's lilly white, older, limited hours system (not one voter one vote either) would seem designed to hurt Obama far more than the other two. However, 2004 showed that late momentum is everything in Iowa.

Will Nevada stop the Iowa is everything mode or vote (as NH Democrats have recently) to confirm the Hawkeye state as the political center of the universe? Only time will tell.

by David Kowalski on Thu May 10, 2007 at 05:55:34 PM EST

Re: Chuck Todd: Watch Iowa and New Hampshire (none / 0)

I would note that Edwards does especially well with older voters in national polls. I don't know if the cross-tabs are the same in Iowa and NH though.

by Quinton on Thu May 10, 2007 at 07:07:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Chuck Todd: Watch Iowa and New Hampshire (none / 0)

Perhaps because he is an old-fashioned Democrat.

"And so in the place of the palace of privilege, we seek to build a temple out of faith and hope and charity."-FDR

by jallen on Thu May 10, 2007 at 10:51:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Chuck Todd: Watch Iowa and New Hampshire (none / 0)

Don't forget that Nevada is currently in between Iowa and New Hampshire.

Michigan For Edwards and Labor-Netroots for Edwards

by philgoblue on Thu May 10, 2007 at 07:56:54 PM EST

I would not count Obama out.. (none / 0)

he has a lot of support in Iowa and building a huge ground operation. He has many people from Illinois going over to the state to set up shop, so I would not count him out. It is wayyyy to early here, the real numbers count after Labor Day, specifically starting in November.

"I want my voice to be read"

by icebergslim on Fri May 11, 2007 at 04:56:47 AM EST

You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.