Hillary Made the Right Call on Iowa

21.11.2007

Mike raises a great question: Would Hillary have been better off skipping Iowa and making her stand in New Hampshire? Obama's recent momentum in the state is certainly making the idea look better and better. But I still think she made the right decision. For two reasons: 1.) It would have been difficult for Hillary to claim the inevitability mantle--which has clearly helped her in national polls and in other states, as well as on the fundraising front--if she conceded Iowa. 2.) Given that one way or another she was eventually going to have to take on either Edwards or Obama, better to do it on her terms than theirs. If Hillary had sat out Iowa, the winner would have come into New Hampshire with a lot of momentum (having beaten one very formidable candidate). And the thing about momentum is that it's incredibly unpredictable, particularly when you only have five days to beat it back (as seems likely to be the case in New Hampshire). Much better to start on a level playing field than to immediately dig yourself a hole.

The flip side is that all Hillary really has to do to vindicate the Iowa decision is finish better than third. Obviously, if she finishes first, the nomination starts to look very good for her. And, if she finishes second, she's probably not much worse off than she would have been skipping the state and taking her chances with that Obama or Edwards momentum. It's only if she finishes third that she's in real trouble. But, then, if the Clintonites can't do better than third in Iowa, maybe they deserve to be in trouble...

--Noam Scheiber

Posted: Wednesday, November 21, 2007 3:08 PM with 8 comment(s)

Comments

You must be logged-in to comment.

Not a subscriber? Click here to get a digital or print and digital subscription to The New Republic!

virginiacentrist said:

We now have a national media that amplifies early wins. You can't skip primary states and still win the nomination, unless you're ceding a home state. Giuliani's cause will be hopeless if he doesn't win Iowa or New Hampshire.

November 22, 2007 1:42 PM

twtrader said:

Hillary definitely made the right move. And, lucky for her this IS a caucus. It will allows the second choice votes of Richardson and Biden supporters to go to her. Both Obama and Edwards supporters will stick with their choice, but that's pretty much all the votes they get. Hillary will get more than 40% of the caucus votes overall and win.

November 22, 2007 2:04 PM

yukon said:

If Hillary finishes third in Iowa, she's in trouble. If she finishes second behind Obama, she's in trouble because Edwards will drop out and support Obama. Hillary needs to either win Iowa or have Edwards win.

The greatest problem that Hillary has is that America has been laboring under twenty years of Clinton/Bush administrations. Clinton/Bush gave us NAFTA and GATT. Clinton and Bush authorized the Iraq War, and both want to keep it going. After twenty years of Clinton/Bush, America knows that change won't come from Hillary Rodham Bush or George W. Clinton. Whether she can convince America that maintaining the status quo with a different face is "change" remains to be seen.

November 23, 2007 12:13 AM

Noam Scheiber said:

yes, but if hillary skipped iowa and obama won, edwards would also have dropped out and supported obama, giving him a full head of steam going into new hampshire. i don't see how that scenario's much better for hillary...

November 23, 2007 11:51 AM

twtrader:

According to the Washington Post poll, Hillary is in 3rd place in 2nd place votes:

www.washingtonpost.com/.../AR2007111900940_pf.html

CW says that Richardson and Biden supporters (looking for experience) would go for Hillary. However, I spoke to someone fairly high up in Iowa field, and they say that their IDs say that Richardson supporters lean heavily towards Obama. In addition, despite Richardson's personal friendlyness towards Hillary at debates, Richardson/Obama staff are friendly. There are some personal connections there from past campaigns.

A final word about second choices - the effectiveness of Edwards' attacks on Hillary is debatable. However, they probably stick amongst Edwards supporters. I'd guess that Edwards supporters have exceedingly low esteem for Hillary, and that they go to Obama at caucus sites where Edwards doesn't reach 15%. To me, Edwards looks like a man on a mission to either win Iowa or stop Hillary from winning.

November 23, 2007 1:01 PM

virginiacentrist:

what makes you think Edwards won't reach 15%? He's never polled below 20%. As for the Richardson supporters, they will hear from their candidate just like Gephardt's did. I think Richardson will go with Clinton. He will probably end up in her administration somewhere. Same goes for Biden.

November 23, 2007 7:16 PM

jet said:

I'd argue that it helps on the margins too. By staying in Iowa, Hillary has also kept the news cycle away from noisy also-rans like Mike Gravel.

That means less Sob-Sister coverage for Mike Gravel, and more regular coverage for Hillary (when was the last time you heard how interesting Mike Gravel was?) because there are three interesting candidates in Iowa with a real chance to win, not just two. If Hillary didn't run in Iowa, she'd also have to kill off the momentum of a third place winning also-ran (sucking up news cycles in New Hampshire) which I'd argue would cost more and have to be done in a shorter time, than with the long run up and cheap TV time in Iowa.

November 25, 2007 12:54 AM

TWtraider:

Personally, I think Edwards will tank before Jan 3rd and crash and burn...for a variety of reasons that I won't get into.

With that aside - I think Edwards will fail to reach 15% at a few caucus sites (even if he doesn't tank). The media has been covering the race as if it were a horserace between Obama and Hillary for months now. Voters are strategic. They want to affect the outcome of an election (that's why 3rd parties fail to attract large numbers), and the media is telling them that the race is between two contenders: Obama and Hillary. Caucus goers are even more strategic! If they're going to stand around for 1-2 hours, they want to do it for a reason. I think Obama and Hillary will split the remaining undecideds in a very tight race, with Edwards falling. He's been in Iowa for 4 years - people have had plenty of time to give him a look, and his numbers have been slowly falling in opinion surveys.

You may be right about Richardson and Biden. This may be why Hillary is so far ahead on the Iowa Caucus political markets...people in the know (betting types on campaigns) know that a Richardson/Biden deal is in store.

November 25, 2007 1:18 AM