Yesterday, I wrote about John Edwards' slippage in Iowa. Normally, I do not take great stock in polls this far out (yes, it is still too far out to take polls too seriously), especially the famously difficult to poll Iowa Caucus. My reasons for thinking the latest Iowa poll was not so much the numbers, as the fact that Edwards has dropped while Obama has risen since the end of July. Edwards now lacks a POSITIVE narrative for his candidacy for the critical last phases of the campaign. He has become the “attack Hillary” candidate (as opposed to being the Not Hillary candidate, the position he has now ceded without a shot to Barack Obama.)
At MYDD, Jerome Armstrong sees it differently:
Chiming in, it's great that the pollsters are now adding whether the voters attended the 2004 caucuses or not . . . I would tend to bank more on those that caucused in '04 . . .
With due respect to Jerome, I think he misses a very important point here, on the night of the caucus, the differences between previous caucus goers and first timers is simply not that great – both in choices and participation. For example, in 2004, the entrance polling showed:
Kerry won the initial preference of first-time caucus-goers, while Edwards and Dean roughly tied for second in this group. (First-timers made up 55 percent of participants, up from 46 percent in 2000.) . . .
Here's my point, the John Edwards campaign is looking more and more like the Gephardt campaign of 2004. He is supposed to have union support, experienced caucus goers, etc. He has gone strongly negative against the perceived frontrunner. He is not a new face for Iowa, thus the change argument is difficult for him in terms of actually being a new candidate.
Most importantly, in my opinion, his dominant narrative now is one of a candidate whose campaign is dominated by personal attacks against the perceived frontrunner. Like Gephardt.
Unlike Kerry in 2004, or Edwards 2004 for that matter, there is no positive narrative for the Edwards campaign now. There is no doubt he can hurt Hillary (or Obama if he chooses to shoot in that direction), but he now has reached the point where he can not help his own campaign.
And this campaign choice by Edwards is utterly perplexing. He was very viable in Iowa. He had a positive agenda. He was NOT in a two person race, the only ones where negative attacks can work (driving up your own negatives is a necessary part of a campaign of attacks, the hope is you drive up your opponents' negatives even further.)
I think it is clear now that the Presidential race is a two person race in that only two people can win now. I think Edwards can not. And he did it to himself. The most baffling campaign decision I can remember.
29 comments
Skip to comment form
was his charm. going negative, the way he has, undercuts that, and reeks of desperation. and you should see what it’s doing to his supporters, at the big orange.
I happen to think that someone can still move up (intials DK) to change the dynamic.
not really watching the back-and-forth.
he has great positions on just about everything. He needs to assemble them into an overarching philosophy and plan for change and then make some kind of huge statement on the direction he wants to take America.
Iow, he needs some coherent showmanship regarding his message.
kos links to your talkleft post…
I really wanted to think it was just me who saw him in Vegas lose his own vision of himself and what he had to offer while focusing solely on what was wrong with Hillary ;( You really think he won’t be able to snap out of it and get back on track in time? I know what he keeps pointing out about Hillary is correct but he’s just stuck on it and who he is and what he was bringing to the table…..what was that again? Very sad watching him fall on his face like this. Boy Hillary smirked when he took the bait in Vegas and ran with it and forgot who HE was.
think he has done this? Is it because his issue two Americas, does not sink up with his Senate votes, and I often feel thier is two Edwards, and he hasn’t had the guts to really go with his populous stance which at the last debate seemed to be convoluted especially with trade and foreign policy? Perhaps the fact that the media has from day one ignored him. His issue is not in their interests, and focused solely on Hillary. Obama is cast as the only contender, in this faux primary.
The whole campaign including issues, has become mired in knocking her out. Her supporters are the stupidest and issues that they care about are her wrestlin’ performance, her sex, money, celebrity and her powerfulness (?). Obama too has been suckered into this but does not seem as crazed as his issues are fuzzier.
…these days. He’s marginalizing Edwards.
http://ap.google.com/article/A…
January 19, 1976 – “Uncommitted” (37%) defeated Jimmy Carter* (28%)
February 10, 1992 – Tom Harkin (S-Iowa!)(76%) defeated Paul Tsongas (4%), Bill Clinton* (3%)
January 24, 1972 – Edmund Muskie (36%) defeated George McGovern (23%)
Ah yes, the Man from Maine looked real good at that point, as any faithful reader of Fear and Loathing on the campaign trail will tell you.
I think people to much stock into Iowa and New Hampshire, but this year people are really, really emotionally invested because the Bush Years are coming to close.
you get a headache.
Edwards talks about Two Americas, the press talks about $400 haircuts, Hillary appeals to the “middle class’ – especially those in the upper strata.
The DLC formulation has taken hold. Imagine FDR or Harry Truman talking about doing for the middle class instead of the beaten up and left out.
I don’t think it’s desperation that has John Edwards talking about what’s wrong with the empty rhetoric of Lady Hawk. The Invisible Man is at least getting some attention even if it is only boos for telling it like it is.
Best, Terry