Why Hillary Seems Unlikely to Win Iowa

The Iowa Caucuses, the first step in the election of U.S. presidents, are only 2 weeks away. Polls for the Democratic Caucuses show a 3-way tie between Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY), Barack Obama (D-IL), and fmr. Sen. John Edwards (D-NC) with others trailing badly. Theoretically, any of the top 3 candidates has a real shot at coming in first place in the Caucuses and, thus, clearing the first major hurdle toward winning the Democratic nomination and, hopefully, the White House. But I think this 3-way tie makes it unlikely that Sen. Clinton will win--because of a uniquely Iowan hurdle. Recall how the Caucuses work by watching the video below (put out by the Edwards' campaign, but very accurate about the process):



Now, Hillary has some passionate champions as well as passionate (even vicious) critics, but I can't see that very many think of her as their clear second choice. Caucus-goers whose candidates fail to get the required percentage (usually 15%) must either stay with the undecideds or join a viable group. Now, I can't see the kooky Mike Gravel (D-AK) getting a viable percentage in many precincts. I doubt that Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT) or Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE) will get 15% in most precincts. Even Gov. Bill Richardson (D-NM) and Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), who are polling above the other so-called "second tier" candidates will probably not have viable numbers in every precinct. And the stakes are simply too high in '08 for many people to remain undecided. Pressure will be on for people to caucus for a viable candidate. So, of the "second-tier" candidates, I can see some Biden supporters and some Dodd supporters going with Clinton, but not a lot. I can't see Gravel, Richardson or, especially, Kucinich supporters going with Hillary at all. So, whenever one of those candidates has a precinct in which their caucus fails to be viable, their supporters will vote for a "second choice"--and I expect Edwards and Obama to split most of those "second choice" votes.

For this reason, if the race is really as close as the polls suggest, I think it unlikely for Clinton to come in first in Iowa--and she may even come in third. Whether Obama or Edwards comes in first depends on so many factors that I can't calculate them all: Which issues are given what weight; whether voters prefer a fighter (Edwards) or a healer (Obama), etc.

Now, if I am right, can Hillary recover? Sure--and her best chance is in the New Hampshire primary just 5 days later, where voters just pick a candidate without 2nd choices. She's still ahead there, although Obama is close behind. Only 2 things seem abundantly clear at this point: A Democratic candidate will have to win at least one of the 3 early state primaries/caucuses (Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina) to have a real chance at the nomination, and if any of the frontrunners comes in 3rd place in all three races, they probably cannot continue much longer after that.

Edwards absolutely MUST win Iowa, it seems to me, to have either the momentum or the fundraising ability to go further. His chances of winning in New Hampshire seems to hinge on gaining the votes of large numbers of Independent voters (who can choose whether to vote in the Republican or Democratic primary in NH) and no poll gives much indication of how they will vote. He's farther behind in SC, but his ground game is good and his SC followers are passionate. IF he wins Iowa and at least makes a strong showing in NH, he might have time to surge into the lead in SC--and a key part of his campaign is his argument that he is more electable in "red" Southern states. But without a win in Iowa, I think Edwards will be out of the race by February.

Obama needs either a clear win or a strong second place showing in Iowa. Much further back and he will lose both financial support and momentum. If he wins or comes in a very close second in Iowa, I think he can beat Hillary in New Hampshire and in South Carolina (the 2 are tied in SC). He probably needs a clear win in either Iowa or NH to beat Hillary in SC--because he has to convince older African-Americans in the South that "white people will vote for him" before they will take a chance on him. (There are very few African-Americans in Iowa or New Hampshire, but they make up the majority of Democrats in South Carolina.)

Clinton would be hurt more by an Obama win in Iowa than by an Edwards win, or so her campaign thinks. This is because they are convinced they can stop Edwards in both NH and SC (whether or not they are right). But if Obama wins Iowa, particularly if he wins big, then Hillary must massively blitz New Hampshire and stop him cold. If Clinton loses both Iowa and New Hampshire, even if not by much, her campaign is in big trouble because it has banked so hard on her theme of "experience," and the media-generated expectation that she is an "inevitable" Democratic nominee that gave the first 2/3 of the campaign this year the air of an impending coronation rather than a democratic election!

What about that other early state--Nevada? Your guess, gentle readers, is as good as mine. Nevada has only become an early battleground in this election cycle--a result of the growth of Democrats in the West and Southwest, especially among Hispanics. Nevada is also a caucus state, but I don't know how to read it or who is ahead, etc. This one is easier to call for the GOP: Nevada will go for favorite son Sen. John McCain (R-NV). But my guess is that Nevada will be influenced by which candidates have momentum in IA, NH, and SC.

Incidentally, I expect most of the "second tier" Democratic candidates to drop out by Spring, but not Kucinich. Unless he runs completely out of money, I think that Dennis Kucinich will fight for every delegate he can get during the primaries and bring them to the Democratic National Convention in Denver. Why? Because although he cannot win, he might have more success in '08 than in '04 in getting more of his agenda into the Democratic platform. That would be a good thing--pushing whomever the nominee is into a much more progressive direction.