In spite of the apparently genial relationship between the two campaigns, it's pretty clear that Obama and Edwards are fighting over the same voters: Obama's got the pre-Iraq war opposition cred; Edwards has worked hard to be the old-style RFK populist progressive — and indeed deserves credit for setting the tone for the actual policy positions of the other two top candidates: As it stands, the three candidates' positions on global warming and health care seem pretty similar, or at least similarly ambitious.
So, we know there may well be a weeding effect from the Iowa caucuses, particularly if Edwards comes in third. In NH, it's Hillary/Obama/Edwards at 36%, 22% and 13% respectively. (Richardson's right behind at 12%.) If Edwards and some other candidates are essentially deflated in Iowa, their “favorers” may well go to Obama — very possibly bringing him even to Hillary or better. IOW, insofar as Obama and Edwards are splitting the non-Hillary or anti-Hillary vote, those votes could well consolidate behind one or the other very quickly.
I'd still rather be in Hillary's position than not, but it will end up closer than it currently seems. And that shouldn't be a surprise. Duh.
I hope we've all learned something.
Your comment relies on the anyone-but-Hillary idea, that the three candidates not named Hillary Clinton but polling in double digits (Obama, Edwards, Richardson) are fighting for the not-Hillary vote.
<
p>
I’m not sure that’s actually true. A lot of the support that candidates have, they have because people like them as individuals.
<
p>
There have been a number of polls showing that Hillary is the 2nd choice of the many likely primary voters who don’t have her as their first choice. That, combined with a victory in Iowa, might pull her over the 50% mark in New Hampshire, since a gain of only a few points will do it.
<
p>
On the other hand, I can’t imagine anyone dropping out or deflating in the 5 days between Iowa (Jan 3rd) and NH (likely Jan 8th), it’s just too little time…
<
p>
The only way we’d see a deflation is if one of the big three (Clinton/Obama/Edwards) doesn’t get the required 15% statewide, or if there’s vote trading by people who probably won’t get 15% (Dodd, Richardson, Biden, Kucinich, Gravel) to get one of them with 15% out of Iowa, or send their support to one of the big three.
That’s an important point, and I think one that is often overlooked. Sooner or later, two of the top four (I’m generously including Richardson) will fade away, and at that point their voters’ second choices will be critical.
If you do not vote for (first choice-candidate name) in the New Hampshire Democratic presidential primary, who would be your second choice?
<
p>
[2nd Choice of] Supporters of John Edwards
Hillary Clinton: 38%
Barack Obama: 26%
Other: 23%
Undecided: 13%
<
p>
[2nd Choice of] Supporters of Barack Obama
Hillary Clinton: 36%
John Edwards: 37%
Other: 20%
Undecided: 7%
<
p>
http://www.maristpol…
moreover, what would be more informative would be where the voters of the 2nd tier candidates go after their first choice.
The poll’s a month old … in terms of it being a snapshot of where the candidates stand in relation to one another, it’s certainly outdated, but I’m not sure there’s a coherent argument to be made that supporters of any given candidate have changed who their 2nd choice is. That opinion is unlikely to change.
Does anybody actually have a final primary schedule. I’m afraid, with all the jockeying for ‘first in the nation’ I don’t know where (when?) it all falls out…
And we won’t have one until the NH Secretary of State sets a date, which he refuses to do until the Michigan case is settled in court (state party leaders are trying to force the national party to count the delegates from their event which was moved to the front of the line).
<
p>We probably won’t have a final schedule until it is set not due to decision making, but due to logistics — the clerks of Michigan are already saying it’s too late to move the date as they won’t be prepared.
… I don’t feel so foolish for feeling so confused…
is announcing the NH primary date today (actually, right now). Stay tuned.
In an interview on examiner.com, we get to hear from Tom DeLay on the Republican leadership:
As GraniteProf points out here, Obama is running as low as fourth among voters with a high school education of less, and third, behind Hillary and Edwards, with voters making less than $60,000. Polls in Iowa have shown some similar gaps, with age gaps also prominent.
<
p>Obama has polled extraordinarily consistently in the mid-twenties, it is Hillary’s number that has been more volatile, ranging between 50 and 36. When the gap goes down, it is generally because Edwards and/or Richardson are gaining. So the question is whether whether Obama and Edwards are stronger or weaker in a multi-polar field, my guess is stronger. In any case the best result for either is to have Clinton come out third in Iowa.