Why Obama and Edwards both need each other to do well in Iowa:

[Stop Cornyn]

Obama and Edwards each have an excellent chance of winning Iowa:



In the New Hampshire race, Obama and Hillary are closer, and Edwards has more ground to make up:



But Nevada and South Carolina aren't nearly as close; Hillary is well ahead in both early states. And the national picture (which largely mirrors the Huge-Tuesday semi-national contest) gives Hillary an even bigger lead in so many different states that it will be very difficult to take her on in every one of those states:



If Obama or edwards are going to catch Hillary, they need to do so early - their chances are best in Iowa, next best in New Hampshire, and then it drops off sharply if they miss those two opportunities.

If Obama or Edwards win Iowa and Hillary finishes second, BOTH the winner AND HILLARY go into New Hampshire with a bump (traditionally, first in Iowa gets a large bump in New Hampshire, second gets a decent bump, third suffers a dip in New Hampshire).

If Obama or Edwards squeaks a narrow win over Hillary in Iowa and Hillary holds on for a narrow win in New Hampshire, they go forward into three weeks of contests where Hillary has a huge lead in almost every state.

To beat Hillary, it is Obama's and Edwards' best hope to win Iowa and to see Hillary finish third. If Obama wins Iowa and Hillary comes in third, Obama goes into New Hampshire with a big bump and she comes into New Hampshire with a dip; and under those circumstances, Obama likely wins New Hampshire. If Obama and Hillary both go into New Hampshire with post-Iowa bumps, Obama's prospects of winning New Hampshire are not as strong. The reasoning for Edwards is the same, but he has a larger margin to make up in New Hampshire (the two latest New Hampshire polls both show Edwards 10% behind Hillary).

The goal for EVERY candidate is to win Iowa. That's Hillary's goal, too, and it must be Obama's goal and Edwards' goal and Richardson's goal, etc.

Some analysts note that Hillary wants Edwards to do better in Iowa than Obama. Well, if Hillary can't win Iowa, would Hillary rather lose Iowa to Edwards than Obama? Yes (because Obama is closer to her in New Hampshire). Would Hillary rather lose to Richardson than Edwards? Yes (for the same reason). Would Hillary rather lose Iowa to Biden than Richardson? Yes (because Richardson is closer to her than Biden in New Hampshire).

Just as Hillary would rather lose to Edwards than Obama, so too should Obama hope to win, but if he can't, he better pray that he loses to Edwards instead of losing to Hillary (because then she'll likely win New Hampshire, too, and probably run the table).

Likewise, Edwards hopes to win Iowa, but if he can't win there, he would rather finish a close second behind Obama than a close second behind Hillary.

Obama and Edwards share a common hope: to win Iowa while beating Hillary as soundly as possible to stop her momentum in Nevada and South Carolina and the Huge-Tuesday states, and that means pushing her to third in Iowa by any means necessary.

Aside from the fact that each wants to win, Obama's goals in Iowa are not inconsistent with Edwards' goals there.

[Tejanocrat]

1. Interesting. Hillary MUST come in third!

[Stop Cornyn]

2. It would be nice to see Edwards and Obama work together to help each other out in beating Hillary,

but I wouldn't expect such a plan to garner much support in the GD-P mutual suicide pack forum.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

3. How Do You Figure?

Given how tighly bunched they are in IA any cooperation between Edwards and Obama is going to result in one of them coming in third...Why would Obama or Edwards do that?

[Stop Cornyn]

6. I tried to explain it in the OP. Despite the MSM's desire to play up the horse race aspect of the

campaign, the race is really only close in Iowa, New Hampshire, and the candidates' home states.

If Obama or Edwards or both don't take Hillary down a notch in Iowa and New Hampshire, she's so far ahead in Nevada, South Carolina, and the Huge-Tuesday states that neither Obama nor Edwards will likely be able to catch her.

While all three candidates are bunched, there are ways under the caucus rules to support "second choice candidates" against "main rival candidates." These opportunities are not limited to the non-viable candidates who fail to meet the 15% to 25% precinct level thresholds.

If, for example, candidate X has 50 supporters at the precinct meeting and needs 20 supporters to get one delegate, 40 supporters to get two delegates, and 60 supporters to get three delegates, then the candidates supporters should do everything they can to get another 10 supporters from the non-viable candidates.

But what if the candidates supporters conclude that there is no hope of getting 60 supporters in order to get up to the three delegate level?

In this same precinct meeting, assume that candidate Y is non-viable with only 15 supporters and he's need another 5 supporters and he's the "second choice candidate" of many people who support candidate X as their first choice. Assume that candidate Z is candidate X's "main rival candidate," and candidate Z has 35 supporters (i.e., almost enough for a second delegate).

What often happens in this circumstance is that the supporters of candidate X realize (1) that their main rival candidate Z will likely get the 5 supporters she needs from the supporters of non-viable candidate Y, (2) that they have 10 extra supporters more than they need to get two delegates but they have no chance of getting three delegates, but (3) if 5 of the "extra" supporters of candidate X go caucus with "second choice candidate" Y they will make candidate Y viable and so "main rival candidate" Z wont's get her 5 extra supporters and will therefore get only one delegate.

In short, the supporters of candidate X have the power to cause the precincts delegates to be allocated in either of two scenarios:

scenario 1 - candidate X = 2 delegates, "second choice candidate" Y = 1 delegate, "main rival candidate" Z = 1 delegate

OR

scenario 2 - candidate X = 2 delegates, "second choice candidate" Y = O delegates, "main rival candidate" Z = 2 delegates

In this circumstance, supporters of candidate X have an incentive to boost candidate Y at the expense of their main rival Z but in a way that doesn't hurt candidate X.

Because of Hillary's large advantage in Nevada, South Carolina, and the Huge-Tuesday states, both Obama and Edwards would be well served to help each other at the expense of Hillary.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

7. That's Complex

Out of the three HRC can most afford to lose Iowa and Edwards can least afford to lose Iowa...For John Edwards it's win or go home...A third place finish for Hillary with Edwards finishing first is less damaging than a second place finish for Hillary with Obama finishing first... I think Hillary and Edward finishes one or two...

I also don't think there is any love lost between Obama and Edwards...Edwards always envisioned being Clinton's main competitor...Obama's entry into the race put a fork in that...

[Stop Cornyn]

8. Edwards can better afford to lose Iowa than Biden, Richardson, or Dodd -- really, Edwards just needs

to beat Hillary. I think Edwards can finish second to Obama and still have a path to victory. I think everyone who finishes below Hillary in Iowa is done.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

9. You Are Correct

I don't think they were bad fellas though...

[LordJFT]

11. you're wrong about sc

polls show a close race btw hillary and obama

[K Gardner]

4. Obama and Edwards could be each others best allys. Send HRC to 3rd or 4th

[Sulawesi]

5. Respectfully, I think this is completely wrong...

I concede that they both want to damage Hill, but they are directly competing for the anti-Hill vote. Edwards pushing on Obama is Hillary's best chance to win the nomination...JE is doing her dirty work.

[Hippo_Tron]

10. RCP averages show a dead heat in South Carolina

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

But Hillary is comfortably in the lead in Nevada last I checked.

[Stop Cornyn]

13. Pollster has Hillary at 38% and Obama at 31%.

[JustAnotherGen]

12. Ahh I see

And what happens to DK's, Dodd's, Biden's, Richard's supporters by the time they get to South Carolina?

I don't see Dodd or Richards or Kucinich staying in the race after NH unless they come from out of nowhere and find themselves in the one, two, or three spot this week. Biden will stay in 'til the end. I'm judging that based on his never ever let go of that bone called "Genocide in the World".

I don't see Kucinich throwing his weight and support behind Hillary - and those of us who support the 'Top Three' are stooopid if we don't pay attention to that man's message . . .and how he has spoken to his supporters. He's more influential to the Democratic Party than us 'Big Threers' will ever admit.

So then we have Richards and Dodd - who I see throwing their weight behind Hill.

And Biden - unless he's our surprise (which something says he just might be) will stay in duking it out for the Vice Presidency - if not the Presidency itself.


Eh? I don't care who it is - I'm voting for the Democrats in 2008.