What if Iowa Settles Nothing for Democrats?

[dajoki]

What if Iowa Settles Nothing for Democrats?
By ADAM NAGOURNEY
Published: December 31, 2007
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/31/us/politics/31cnd-nagourney.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

DES MOINES — Iowa is packed with presidential candidates and hundreds of campaign aides, advisers and contributors. Twenty-five hundred representatives of news organizations have been granted credentials to cover the caucuses on Thursday night, twice as many as in 2004. Rarely has a political event been so intensely anticipated as a decisive moment, at least on the Democratic side. (It is different for Republicans since many of their major candidates are not competing fully here).

But what if it is not decisive?

What if at the end of Thursday, the three leading Democrats — John Edwards, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton and Senator Barack Obama — are separated by a percentage point, or even less, leaving no one with the clear right of delivering a victory speech, or the burden of conceding? A number of polls going into the finals days that of have suggested that after all of this, the Democratic caucus on Thursday night will end up more or less as a tie.

In truth, amid all the endless permutations of possible outcomes that are being discussed — can Mrs. Clinton survive a third -place finish, or Mr. Edwards a second-place one? — aides are beginning to grapple with the frustrating possibility that all the time, money, and political skill invested here might prove to be for naught when it comes to identifying the candidate to beat in the primaries and winnowing down the top tier.

Rather than clarify the state of play and consolidate this crowded field a bit, an outcome like that would almost certainly muddle it further and potentially extend the time before Democrats know their nominee.

Since none of them would be judged a decisive loser, Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Edwards and Mr. Obama would all be able to go on to New Hampshire, no questions asked. It would be hard for any candidate to play the “I beat expectations game” and claim some sort of chimerical victory, much the way Bill Clinton proclaimed himself the winner after coming in second in New Hampshire in 1992. And you can bet this: the other Democrats in the race — Christopher J. Dodd, Joseph R. Biden Jr., Bill Richardson and Dennis Kucinich – would feel less of the morning-after-Iowa pressure to pull out.

[no name no slogan]

1. Then it's time for the cage match battle royal

Iowa RARELY settles anything. It usually takes a few more primaries to sort out the nominee. By Super Tuesday, it's a done deal.

[hayu_lol]

2. Golly, Gee Whilikers...

that would leave the decision to the other 49 states for a change.

Imagine that.

[AndyTiedye]

4. Or Not. Suppose Super Tuesday Doesn't Settle Anything Either

Then we keep doing this until the convention, and AT the convention.

[no name no slogan]

7. Highly doubtful. There hasn't been a brokered convention in...

...at least half a century. The closest we came was in 1960, and even then it was not that close, relatively speaking.

Conventions are nothing more than pep rallies these days. This year isn't much different from any other.

[bluerum]

3. It won't. But it will help them shape their strategies for rest of the states.

It is the first in a series.

IMO, super Tuesday is much more important.

[JohnnyLib2]

5. Maybe it will eliminate some pollsters--

which would help this Democrat. :evilgrin:

[ccpup]

6. I think Iowa is overblown as far as the reach

they have and how much they affect the vote in other Primary States. The day that will settle it will be delegate rich Super Tuesday and the one who does well there will be the one who effectively takes advantage not only of whatever early wins they get before then -- as well as the good press that can come from climbing Poll numbers --, but also the get-out-the-vote ground support and local endorsements the candidate already has in place in those February 5th States.

Winning Iowa and/or New Hampshire and then scrambling to catch up to your opponents' already established and strong ground support and get-out-the-vote machinery in the other States is probably not the way to go.

[MethuenProgressive]

8. 95% of New Hampshire voters don't care what Iowa does.

It was in a poll a few weeks back posted here.