If Hillary comes in second in New Hampshire..she can assume the mantle of change...

[SaveElmer]

ala John Edwards in Iowa...

As 60-70% of New Hampshire voters would have rejected Edwards message...according to Edwards Iowa logic at least...

[jakem]

1. sorry, not following your thinking there...

[SaveElmer]

4. Well Edwards averred that Iowa voted for Change...

Since 70% voted for either he or Obama...with Hillary in third...

So if Edwards comes in third in New Hampshire...she can then make the same claim...correct?

[Lerkfish]

9. er...I'm still thinking you're making fantastical leaps of illogic

what change is she proposing? She supports the administration's role in Iraq, and possibly in Iran, she just thinks it should be run more efficiently. That's not change.

[saltpoint]

11. No, it's not correct. In vote tallies, it means Senator Clinton's reach for

the nomination in Denver is made significantly higher and harder.

E. J. Dionne's recent column on the Clinton effort in New Hampshire is instructive.

(Tip of the hat to babylonsister):

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3990072

[SaveElmer]

19. Again Crusoe...you are not answering the question...

It isn't about the relative chances of each candidate to win the nomination...it is whether...according to John Edwards own logic...Hillary can then claim voters who wanted change chose her and Obama...

[Lerkfish]

26. you're completely misunderestimating what "change" means in this instance

Change means completely opposing the current administration, not continuing to enable it.

[SaveElmer]

30. Obama himself in the debate...

Made the point that a Hillary candidacy would be a radical departure from the Bush Presidency...contrary to your excellent regurgitation of the approved "progressive" talking point...

[saltpoint]

27. We disagree. A caucus or primary result is an accumulative sum comprised

of voters' intentions and perceptions.

In Iowa, the national frontrunner placed third. I believe in New Hampshire, Senator Obama will be the winner by a significant percentage.

Those outcomes reflect voters perceptions. A majority of those voters have rejected Clinton for Obama.

I'm not slamming you for your support of any candidate. I'm saying that Obama has become the prohibitive favorite.

[SaveElmer]

32. And even more would have rejected Edwards...

If current polls hold up...correct?

[saltpoint]

34. And even more would have rejected Gravel? Where are you going with this?

Remove yourself from the equation. Senator Clinton has been the national frontrunner for months on end.

Obama is visibly threatening that standing as we speak. He won Iowa; he's about to win New Hampshire. E. J. Dionne writes that Sen. Clinton knows the bottom is falling out of her campaign. I did not ask E. J. Dionne to write that sentence. It's apparent to anybody who follows politics that the Clinton campaign has taken a serious hit.

If it is not a fatal hit, it nevertheless has knocked her out of an inevitable nomination in Denver. If she claws back, there'll be a trail of blood. And I think Carville is not the go-to guy for her. The people supporting Obama are not interested in Carville.

[SaveElmer]

35. Go back to Iowa...

Edwards made the assertion that Iowans voted for change...rejecting Hillary because she came in third...correct?

Now move to New Hampshire...if Polls are correct and Hillary beats Edwards to come in second...doesn't she lay equal claim to the assertion made by Edwards in Iowa...and wouldn't it completely undercut Edwards argument that the race is now between him and Obama...

[saltpoint]

36. I get your arithmetic lesson but don't need one. The frontrunner nationally

was defeated in Iowa.

I believe she's about to lose in New Hampshire to Sen. Obama. In today's headlines are polling trends indicating that Obama has tied (or surpassed) Sen. Clinton for the frontrunner spot.

Her campaign is taking on water, SaveElmer. She may return to contention but I believe by 9:00 Eastern tonight, the champagne corks will be popping furiously at the Obama victory rally.

She's been outflanked in the first two crucial states and the rationale for her candidacy is diminished.

That outcome has been decided by Democratic and Independent voters.

[SaveElmer]

37. Different discussion....

I know you want to divert it from what I originally posted...as it is your candidate that is making the outlandish claim that beating Hillary by 600 votes makes him the alternate candidate of change...a claim that apparently is about to go down in flames in New Hampshire...

The rationale for her candidacy...in my view...is that she would far and away be the best President of anyone in either field...there is little I can do if voters in Iowa and New Hampshire see it differently...and incorrectly in my view...but that does not remove the rationale for her candidacy...

[saltpoint]

39. But it didn't say 'remove.' I said 'diminish.'

We have a solid vote count in Iowa. We're going to have the first primary vote count tonight in New Hampshire.

As I'm reading it, Obama has beat your gal and my guy plus 5 other Democrats, and is likely the national frontrunner by all counts after tonight.

[SaveElmer]

40. Doesn't diminish it either...

The rationale is the same...it just isn't moving voters...who I think you would agree often vote at odds with who would be the best President (see 2000 and 2004)...

I agree that Obama is the likely winner...but that wasn't the point of my post...

[saltpoint]

43. SaveElmer, the news analysis today is all about the woes of the Clinton camp.

Yes, it is the point.

I think she should have turned to wiser managers initially. Absent that, she should definitely have rejected Carville as a replacement.

[SaveElmer]

45. No it isn't...

The newspaper analysis is irrelevant to what the voters decide...if the voters decide to place Edwards third in New Hampshire as it appears is likely...then Edwards claim of being one of two "change" candidates goes out the window...though in my view it had not legitimacy to begin with...

[saltpoint]

46. Dionne, in particular, offers praise for her strengths and notes her weaknesses,

as responsible analysis should do.

I stand with Dionne.

[SaveElmer]

48. An excellent topic for another thread IMO...

But irrelevant to the topic of this one...

[indimuse]

18. correct.

:smoke:

[RichGirl]

42. He's spinning like a top.

Obama got 37%. Edwards 30% and Clinton 29%. That's a very weak second place. Edwards is way closer to Clinton than Obama.

If Edwards comes in third by one percentage point in NH, I wonder how he'll spin that.

[KennedyGuy]

2. I agree

this sort of thing works both ways.. I bet Edwards is sure regretting his "toss Hillary under the bus and shore up Obama" strategy.

[PassingFair]

3. Whatever.

Haven't you got Nader's shoes to shine, or what ever
you "independents" are doing this week?

[KennedyGuy]

5. gee..you sound pretty dismissive toward a group that all the candidates

are activly courting and can't get elected without.

[PassingFair]

14. Sorry, my lips are puckered...

from all the sour grape whine from Hillary supporters
around here today. Especially THAT one.

[saltpoint]

6. She had more money than God and she got whupped in Iowa despite the

cash and her famous husband.

For reasons Iowa Democrats might best explain, the Vilsack endorsement wasn't enough to spark the fire.

If the current polls hold, Senator Obama is about to smash into the side of the car again in New Hampshire.

Neither of those two states have a large Afro-American population. Neither is notably sexist. Clinton's difficulties have to do with her. The logic is simply that Democrats prefer other candidates and are not enthusiastic about her in the White House.

Yes, she could mount some sort of come-back in the Feb. 5th states, and possibly Carville has a trick or two left that could make her competitive for the nomination in a way she clearly is not now.

But it would take some serious negative ad buy-outs and I'm not seeing a persuasive reason why voters would return to her as a first choice. The rationale for her candidacy is diminished. If she climbs back into the race now, it will have to be with claws and grenades.

[Colobo]

7. I totally agree.

[SaveElmer]

8. Doesn't really answer the question though...

If coming in second by all of 600 votes allowed Edwards to claim that Iowans voted for change because he beat Hillary...then wouldn't the same be true if Hillary beats Edwards...probably by a much larger margin...in New Hampshire?

[KennedyGuy]

21. Its not about answering the question..

its about saying ANYTHING to deflect away from the question because they can't answer the question. a common occurrance here..

[PVnRT]

41. The question was answered

It's a win for Edwards because he spent vastly less money yet still finished ahead of Hillary. Clear enough?

[Horse with no Name]

10. Excellent synopsis OC. n/t

[Lerkfish]

13. good analysis, substantive, and likely true.

but sad at the same time. If she turns even MORE negative, I don't think the voters will stomach it.

[saltpoint]

22. Hi, Lerkfish. Yes. Agree on that. Carville is exactly why many Democrats

do NOT feel drawn to her candidacy. Jim and Mary are bad theater. They are embodiments of the triangulation many progressive resent about the 8 years of the Clinton White House. I think she ought to have chosen new blood and fresh insight yesterday.

Carville's appointment is a signal that things are about to move into the back alley. Knives are being sharpened.

[Tom Rinaldo]

17. "neither is notably sexist"

By the standards of many on DU hardly anyone other than neanderthals are notably sexists. It is certainly hard to characterize this or that state as being more sexist than another, by what criteria does one measure? Which states do you think are more sexist than others and how do you make an appraisal? I don't have the research in front of me, but I have seen it referenced; at least when it comes to politics, Iowa has a track record of virtually if not never electing Women to federal offices, not Senators, not Congressional Reps, nor Governors either. That is about as objective a criteria for determining which states have "sexist" leanings when it comes to chosing leaders as any I can think of.

[saltpoint]

23. Hi, Tom. Yes. I'm just saying that to accuse an entire state of being

"sexist" as a backdrop for their selection of a male over a female is not an argument that could explain Sen. Clinton's performance in Iowa.

Ditto the other 49 states.

[Tom Rinaldo]

50. Accusing an entire state of being sexist would be way over the top

Unless one makes the claim that sexism is still rooted in our culture in every state. It is similar to an argument that can be made about New York State, which is where I live, being racist. Not particularly might be an honest answer, but that obscures a deeper reality. But there are cultural differences from State to State also. While it is possible that Iowa's history of not electing women to high political offices could be relevent, that certainly can not in itself be used to explain away a 9% loss in the caucuses.

[Evergreen Emerald]

28. got whupped? by .3% ? Lol

[SaveElmer]

38. He is using the Edwards rationale that a vote for Obama was actually also a vote for Edwards...nt

[GalleryGod]

12. Hillary Loses: Mark Penn walks the plank

From My Personal Collection-just for DUers

[Lerkfish]

15. penn should have been dropped ALREADY, he's a millstone around her neck

she's not my candidate, obviously, but her campaign almost seems sabotaged from within.

[GalleryGod]

51. Love Dali !

[Essene]

16. this is a silly argument

get real...

[SaveElmer]

20. Then don't participate...nt

[Lerkfish]

24. well, see, that's the funny thing about a discussion board

you post something and people reply to it.

Just because you can't get everyone to agree with you, is not the point. If that's what you're looking for, just keep your thoughts to yourself.

[SaveElmer]

25. And if someone indicates its a silly argunment,...

One would assume they wouldn't want to be involved...and being a free discussion board I can make that point...

[Lerkfish]

29. well, no, see, you told them NOT to participate

I'm just saying if you post something, you're going to have to expect responses you can't control.

[SaveElmer]

33. And I'm saying...

I am free to make suggestions based on those responses...

[Lerkfish]

52. and I'm saying...

if your suggestion that your free to make is to tell someone else to stop contributing to the discussion, then I'm suggesting to you that you're better off talking in the mirror, at least then your partner will always agree with you, since that seems to be the only type of discourse you wish to engage in.

capiche?

[Cameron27]

31. Yes,

it was an absurd assumption to make in the first place, but using Edwards' criteria, Obama/Clinton, not Edwards would be seen by NH voters as agents of change.

[Skidmore]

44. Hillary has earned the mantle of panderer thus far.

[SaveElmer]

47. Actually that title goes to Edwards...

The Mitt Romney of the Democratic field...

How many issues has he flipped on? I'm beginning to lose count!

[MethuenProgressive]

49. If Hillary comes in second, Richardson comes in third.

And Edwards will be burnt toast.