Don't look now, Hillary...

$$$ are good, but lets not forget that Howard Dean also had some pretty astounding $$$ numbers around this time in 2003. Here are the numbers Obama needs to be worrying about:

Average polling data in Iowa:
Edwards 25.5
Clinton 24.3
Obama 19.5

Average polling data in New Hampshire:
Clinton 34.3
Obama 19.5
Edwards 13.0

Average polling data in South Carolina:
Clinton 28.8
Obama 26.0
Edwards 17.3

(All numbers courtesy of realclearpolitics.com)

If Obama doesn't win at least one of those states, he can kiss the nomination goodbye. Since 1976, when Iowa and South Carolina took on their added importance, there has never been a nominee who did not win at least one of those states. If Obama finishes third in IA and Hillary beats him by >10% in NH, Hillary and Edwards will have all the momentum going into SC. So Obama will need to save his campaign in SC and will be facing the equivalent of a QB trying to do a game-saving drive into a heavy wind.

2004 -- Kerry took IA, NH
2000 -- Bush took IA, SC; Gore took IA, NH, SC
1996 -- Dole took IA, SC
1992 -- Clinton took SC (the only outlier...SC wasn't nearly as important in 1992 and Clinton established himself as a contender with the 2nd place finish in NH. But if Clinton had a Hillary-like heavyweight in the race -- i.e. Cuomo -- he would have been toast)
1988 -- Bush took NH, SC; Dukakis took NH
1984 -- Mondale took IA
1980 -- Reagan took NH, SC; Carter took IA, NH, SC
1976 -- Carter took IA, NH; Ford took IA, NH

 

Pope,
Dean was also ahead in ALL of the polling at this point in his run. That's what I'm having a hard time figuring out the discrepancy between Obama's poll numbers and his money. Is this a significant discrepancy or a peculiar oddity? If it were Hillary I could understand it better. She's the definition of establishment.

But I think Obama will have enough money to stay competitive in the race even after the early primaries if he shows decent in them. Of course he can't get blown out in any of them, but he could win the nomination if he showed well and others split the first three (Edwards wins one, Hill wins two, Obama 2nd both times.)

 

Like most of your posts and repugnant wing-nut opinions, Boom, that was utterly worthless.

 

Of course, Iowa's a caucus, so raw polling numbers don't mean as much as they do in NH or SC.
Not quite that cut and dried, Your Holiness. Of course, if he goes 0-3 in the primaries you named, then he's got problems (You're assuming HRC goes 3-3, I'm guessing.) The great question is what happens with a two-way, or even a three-way split. (Edwards's numbers in NH, while a thin lead, have been a consistent one.) Obama could, for example, lose SC on 1/29 but win Florida on the same day, setting up a free-for-all on Super Tuesday. For the D's, at least, SC's buried in the process a bit this time around.

 

I am very worried about Obama. He'll be a terrible general election candidate, unless he can dramatically change his style over the next year.

If people thought Gore was professorial and long-winded and nuanced, what will they think of Obama? When people talk about his "charisma," I honestly believe it's code for "He's a black candidate who doesn't come off like a race-baiting windbag like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton." Have people actually heard Obama speak? Dull, dull, dull. Cliche, cliche, cliche. Then 10-point plans and long-winded explanations followed by more dull.

 

I think the discrepancy has to do with the types of voters supporting Hillary and the types supporting Obama. Obama supporters are much more likely to be upper-class, college-educated whites who can afford to donate the maximum amount. And I think Obama voters are much more passionate about their candidate than Hillary supporters. I posted this link on another thread, but this political analysis is so good, it deserves to be repeated:
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-op-brownstein25mar25,0,6496358.column?coll=la-opinion-center

You are right that Dean had similiar polling numbers at this stage. But Dean's political team had no clue how to manage that kind of success, didn't know how to handle the transition from "insurgent" to front-runner and spent almost the entire budget in Iowa. Contrary to established legend, Dean's campaign was flailing before he ever let out the famed scream. I don't see Hillary facing those same pratfalls.

Obama might have the $$$ to stay in the race until the end, but if Hillary wins NH and SC, she is going to cruise. Look at the political landscape after that point. Hillary will be on the magazine covers, her campaign is going to be fellated on the Sunday morning shows and all of her poll numbers will be boosted. Obama will have been beat in a state with a large percentage of African-American voters (SC) by a white woman from New York. Then the campaigns will move on to Tsunami Tuesday. Obama will have lost the chance to be able to grab the spotlight by winning a single state and Hillary, who is already leading in the polls in the key TT states, will be riding a huge momentum surge. Absent a major political shakeup, he isn't going to make a comeback.

 

And depending on how many of the current candidates are still running when the Iowa caucuses come around, an awful lot of votes are going to be up for grabs on caucus day. If your candidate doesn't draw a certain percentage at your polling place that candidate is declared not viable and those voters have a chance to switch. Crazy fucking system.

If Edwards wins Iowa with Obama second and Hillary wins New Hampshire with Obama second, he's fine going into South Carolina -- where polls have showed him with the lead. Especially if Richardson, Biden and Dodd all stay in it at least that long.

 

You, apparently, have been asleep since the last Democratic convention.

 

I'm assuming that Hillary wins NH and SC and is at least a close second in IA. And I'll note that all of the Iowa polls used by RCP measure likely voters (as opposed to registered voters). The polls have generally done a good job of picking up momentum by candidates in Iowa, even if they don't have the exact percentages.

If Obama can't win/be very close in NH, a state known for the kind of quirky independent voters who love Obama-like candidates (see McCain, John circa 2000) and can't win in SC, a state with a significant minority voting population, I don't see how he gets the nod. I don't see a scenario where Obama wins FL, but loses SC. Right now, SC is his best hope of winning an early state and establishing himself as a bona-fide contender.

I'll freely admit that it is early in the race and anything can happen. At this time in 2003, Dean and Gephardt were the Iowa front-runners, Kerry looked DOA and Edwards was still a second-tier candidate. There were plenty of events that changed the paradigm of the race (Kerry mortgaging the house and betting all on Iowa, Dean's inability to handle his front-runner status and Kerry/Edwards playing nice while Dean/Gephardt hurled mud at each other). As of right now, Obama has given Hillary his best shot. He is never, never, ever going to get better press, he has the fundraising numbers and hasn't made any major missteps. And despite all of that, he hasn't closed the gap at all. Hillary is too cautious and too experienced to make major mistakes and implode Dean-style. So Obama needs to do something to shake up the race. What does he do? If I knew that, I'd be raking in the big dough.

 

And, lest we forget, the Republican field is an, ah, interesting bunch.

http://www.iowaindependent.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=465

Brownback's continued viability as a political figure makes ME get down on my knees and pray for the country.
Also, Lonesome Fred Thompson announced today that Cubans are emigrating here to blow us all up. I'm sure the exiles in Miami are happy to hear that. Not ready for prime time, even though you made your living there.

 

They didn't invite Ron Paul and he's got as much mileage out of that as anything else. All the angry white men at this deal will share one story, and Paul will get one to himself. Which I love.

Give 'em hell, Ron! You batshit crazy little man, you!

 

I think I'm the only one who has been awake.

The mainstream media has been so locked in on the "drama" of a black man vs. white woman running against each other for president that they've practically ignored the only candidates who are truly on message in this election: Edwards, Biden, Dodd and Richardson.