Obama’s campaign has been on the upturn since his announcement last February, but can he win Iowa?

Rival John Edwards never stopped campaigning in the state after his loss in 2004. Edwards had established himself in Iowa, and immediately began campaigning in every rural town in the state.

Upon Clinton’s announcement, early polls indicated she was the national front-runner. Over the summer the media painted her as the “inevitable” nominee but months later she lost significant support in early states. Voters soon tuned in and ultimately the value of her name recognition was put up against the arguments of “change vs. experience” and “electability” (and she’s lost a lot of support.)

For Obama, it’s been an uphill fight against an established campaign at the grassroots level and a nationally recognized former first lady. Ask an Obama staffer and they’ll tell you that they’re “building a plane in mid flight”- a reference to building a campaign while running at the same time.

I am not in a position to predict who will win Thursday night’s caucuses. It’s just too close. But I can give you the numbers that I’m looking at that show both discouraging and encouraging news for Obama.

Pollster.com reveals that Obama’s support within the state is declining; he peaked a week ago against his Democratic rivals and has lost a few percentage points. RCP and Pollster reveal the field’s average at Clinton 29.3%, Obama 25.9% and Edwards 25.2%.

CNN reported an American Research Group (ARG) poll released Dec. 25, 2007 that revealed Obama slipping significantly among male voters.

According to the poll, Obama has lost some ground among male voters in Iowa: Last week, he led the field with 27 percent support, followed by 21 for Clinton and 19 for Edwards. This week, the leaders are Clinton and Edwards, with 28 and 27 percent support among Democratic men. Obama has 16 percent support, and Joe Biden has 11 percent.

However, the same ARG poll has been widely criticized for straying away from the vast majority of polls in Iowa. ARG reported that 34% of Iowa caucus-goers support Clinton, compared with only 20% for Edwards and 19% for Obama; most polls show a statistical tie, and ARG was way off.

Still, if their finding for the male demographic is correct, perhaps that, coupled with the assassination of Benazir Bhutto could explain a small boost in Hillaryland. Clinton has revived her “experience” rhetoric in the wake of the Pakistan crisis, and since has painted the junior senator as inexperienced, a “roll of the dice” as Bill said.

But there are encouraging signs coming out of the Obama camp.

Strategically, the campaign is spending more in Iowa advertising than any other candidate, outspending Senator Clinton by $2 million. Edwards, who has been criticized for allowing an independent PAC to spend $750,000 in advertising for him, is no where near the spending level of his rivals. Reports the International Herald Tribune:

The Democrats are spending by far the most on television advertising here, and smashing records in the process. Senator Barack Obama has spent the most, at $8.3 million, Clinton has spent $6.5 million and Edwards has spent $2.7 million, according to an analysis by CMAG, a firm that tracks political advertising spending.

Obama is spending more than Clinton in the last throws of the Iowa campaign. Interesting note: Edwards is spending only $2 million–perhaps reflective of his reliance on grassroots infrastructure instead of a sudden media blitz.

Money doesn’t buy votes, but visibility certainly gives you the edge.

In one of her biggest expenditures of the campaign here, advisers said Thursday, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton is spending more than $20,000 to broadcast a two-minute taped message during every 6 p.m. newscast in Iowa on Wednesday, the eve of the caucuses, which will be seen by an estimated 515,510 adults in the state.

Not to be outdone, the Obama campaign purchased the next two minutes of advertising space. Initially, they wanted to lay the trump card on Clinton, attempting to buy a 5 minute segment directly following Clinton’s ad that would be synced live. Complications in coordination and federal election laws however made that impossible.

One measure of a candidate’s potential success is their turn out to events. The Obama Campaign posted the following graph to demonstrate overwhelming support:

It would be difficult to suggest that Obama does not have rock star status. His popularity among young people has scared the Clinton Campaign into discouraging young voters from turning out on caucus day. Young people, 14% of whom turned out in 2004, are a major demographic for Obama for America (often underrepresented in the polls). They’re just gravy to his support across the state.

And many polls reflect this graph put out by Obama for America, a demonstration of Sen. Obama’s electability:

On January 16, I depart for a 12 day stay in Columbia, SC. It’s going to be really exciting, check this out!

SurveyUSA, Dec. 18, 2007
Clinton 41%
Obama 39%
Edwards 17%

CBS News, Dec. 17, 2007
Obama 35%
Clinton 34%

Rasmussen, Dec. 17, 2007
Obama 33%
Clinton 33%

South Carolina Primary: Jan. 26, 2008

Yesterday the Edwards Campaign had great resaon to rejoice. Three new polls show John Edwards with the big mo, but can he sustain it until Thursday? Check out these numbers:

MSNBC, Dec. 30, 2007
Among Iowa caucas-goers
John Edwards 24%
Hillary Clinton 23%
Barack Obama 22%
MoE +/- 5

Reuters/C-Span/Zogby, Dec. 30, 2007
Second choice among Iowa caucus-goers*
John Edwards 30.4%
Barack Obama 24.9%
Hillary Clinton 12.9%

MSNBC, Dec. 30, 2007
Second choice among Iowa caucus-goers
John Edwards 36%
Barack Obama 26%
Hillary Clinton 26%

American Research Group, Dec. 30, 2007
Among New Hampshire Voters
Hillary Clinton 31%
Barack Obama 27%
John Edwards 21%

Same poll, among independent voters:
Edwards 36%
Obama 23%

In the last two weeks:
Clinton - 7%
Obama + 3%
Edwards + 6%

*In Iowa all candidates must obtain a 15% threshold after the first round of caucusing to be considered “viable.” Candidates without 15% support in their precinct are eliminated, and their supporters must either choose another candidate or go home.

In short, every Iowa poll shows a statistical dead heat, BUT these three out today show Edwards in first place in IA, first among second choice candidates, and gaining among Democrats and Independents in New Hampshire.

What the Edwards campaign is looking to do is translate a victory in Iowa into momentum going into New Hampshire. Edwards has spent the better part of two years campaigning in Iowa, and so his grassroots ground infrastructure is superior. He is well known around the state, and has solidified his image in the rural Western counties of Iowa.

Both the Obama and the Clinton campaigns would prefer an Edwards victory should their respective candidate not place. Edwards lacks the financial support to run a national campaign, and an Iowa victory would make him completely dependent on momentum. Clinton is fairly secure in Edwards winning because after Iowa, he has little established ground infrastructure. Despite recent gains in New Hampshire most polls still show him dragging. A victory in Iowa would mean that he’d have to make up a 10% gap between him and Obama/Clinton in NH, and 20-25% nationally. Another reality is that his message wouldn’t likely appeal to average NH voters; his entire pitch to rural farmers has been to battle evil lobbyists and corporate greed that are consuming our interests in Washington, something that honestly wouldn’t resonate with the many urban and suburban Democrats in New Hampshire who may have jobs in large corporations. Despite one poll that shows a significant “surge” for Edwards in New Hampshire, there are 4 other polls that all show him lagging 12% (RCP). In South Carolina, he has up to a 22% deficit based off of 5 different polls.

My prediction is that if Edwards wins Iowa, it’s a victory for the Clinton campaign. His support among rural townships gives him a huge edge in Iowa’s caucus, because western counties are disproportionately represented in the delegate selection process. Given the choice between Edwards winning in Iowa and Clinton, the Obama campaign would prefer Edwards, because at least that would fend off Hillary’s aura of inevitability.

According to OpenSecrets, Edwards has raised $30m and spent $17m, compared with Clinton ($91m raised, $51m spent) and Obama ($80m raised, $44m spent).

These poll numbers out today demonstrate to me that Edwards has momentum, but once again I’d like to take these numbers with a grain of salt. They’re polling an extremely close race, and none of this matters other than to show that Edwards is up, Clinton is down, and Obama is fairing well. And it’s still 3 days until Iowa, could it be possible that Edwards is peaking too early?

What an amazing race. Honestly, this can’t be closer. Almost every poll in Iowa has the top three candidates in a statistical dead heat. So lets look at some numbers.

Strategic Vision, Dec. 27, 2007
Obama 30%
Clinton 29%
Edwards 28%

Quad City Times, Dec. 27, 2007
Obama 29%
Edwards 29%
Clinton 28%

LA Times/Bloomberg, Dec. 26, 2007
Clinton 31%
Edwards 25%
Obama 22%

God knows why the LA Times poll is off-trend. Recently an American Research Group poll came under fire from political analysts who questioned its credibility and methodology. The poll, released on Dec. 23, showed Clinton at 31%, Edwards at 20%, and Obama at 19%. Statistically, these numbers did not match similar polls conducted in the same period. Moreover, its results reflected a dramatic shift from its previously published poll a week earlier that showed a statistical tie.

At this point, any poll that tells you one candidate is ahead of another by a statistically significant margin is probably flawed. I say this of course provided that there is no major political catastrophe to any one campaign over the next 5 days. Polls are wonderful indicators of general trends, but I wouldn’t trust them individually; taken at face value, one single poll doesn’t reflect the big picture–it gives you the small window of a hopefully “random” selection of people, sometimes considered to be “likely caucus-goers.” What is accurate is all polls together, and with that in mind, Real Clear Politics has averaged Clinton’s lead to about 2% in Iowa… ie, nothing.

What will matter this Thursday night will be how each campaign can Get Out the Vote (GOTV). It’s crunch time for each candidate, and everyone is making their final appeal to the some 45% of Iowa voters who have yet to pick a presidential hopeful.

Conditions are favorable in Iowa for caucas night. Reports the Weather Channel, Des Moines will have a high of 28 degrees and a low of 22, mostly sunny on caucus day with a 10% chance of rain. Great news for the Obama and Clinton folks, terrible news for the Edwards folks.

Obama relies on a large block of youth voters, where Clinton relies on middle-aged women, both demographics likely to suffer if there were a snow storm on caucus night. Edwards supporters are traditional caucus goers–the people who would have went no matter what the conditions were outside, so if conditions are favorable on caucus night, there is nothing to depress Edwards’ rivals support-base.

But the weather is just as reliable as poll numbers, and anything can happen.

In an interview with Wolf Blitzer in the Situation Room Friday night, Hillary Clinton dodged a question over her judgment in response to rival Barack Obama. Here’s the script:

Blitzer: I interviewed your rival Barack Obama for the Democratic presidential nomination last night and he had some implied criticism of you saying some of your past decisions do not warrent your stepping up and becoming the next president of the United States.
[clip] Obama: I think it’s important for the American people to look at the judgments they’ve made in the past, and the experienced hands in Washington have not made particularly good judgments; that’s part of the reason were in this circumstance. [end clip]
Blitzer: … you want to respond to Senator Obama?
Clinton: I really regret that anybody would try to politicize this tragedy, I personally knew Benizier Bhutto… I don’t think politics should be playing a role in how our country responds, both on a personal level to the tragedy of this assassination. But furthermore, Pakistan has been unstable for a long time. You know, Benazir Bhutto’s father was deposed, and killed. Obviously we know that President Musharraf came to power in a military coup. So the instability in Pakistan has long predated any of the recent events, and therefore I think you need to have a historic understanding, you need to look at Pakistan as a country that still today the best information we have, wants to have a better standard of living, wants to have a democracy. And the United States should be doing more to promote that. I regret that President Bush’s policies have failed to create that kind of environment, and I hope it’s not too late, I really do. That’s why I’m calling on the president now to begin to make some of the changes, if he has a good relation with President Musharraf, lets have an envoy, lets have this international investigation. Lets do what we know will work to stabilize Pakistan at this time.

What a long winded answer.

The question was do you want to respond to Obama’s criticism that your judgment to vote for Iraq distracted us from efforts in Pakistan?

She did not respond. She alleged that Obama was politicizing a tragic situation, and then went on a long winded stump speech on Pakistan to emphasize her foreign policy credentials. Her notion that questioning her judgment in the wake of a tragedy is politicization is ridiculous. We’re 6 days from Iowa and we need to illuminate these differences. We need to bring them to light, and if Obama makes a credible argument that Clinton’s vote was negligent to realize the shifting of foreign policy emphasis, then we need to address that. If anyone is politicizing a situation it’s Clinton, who is hiding behind Bhutto’s death to shield her from criticism of her judgment.

The assassination could not have been a better life preserver to the campaign of Sen. Joesph Biden, whose campaign message has consistently been a resume of Senate accomplishments domestically and abroad. Biden’s campaign is about experience, and unlike the campaign of colleague Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, Biden has been regarded by all the candidates as a tested veteran of foreign affairs. His high profile status as Senate Foreign Relations Cmte. Chair certainly gives him the credibility to discuss the situation in Pakistan with authority. Time and time again he outlined the urgency of addressing Pakistan in Democratic debates, and has long been met with def ears.

But no one likes the class nerd who says ‘I told ya so’, especially in presidential politics. Real Clear Politics has averaged Sen. Biden’s support at 5.4%–certainly not in real contention for victory in the Iowa caucuses.

All along Biden supporters have asserted the meaninglessness of poll numbers. Biden himself believes that ultimately when voters make their decisions they turn to experience instead of campaign slogans. I would argue that it’s irresponsible for a campaign to be completely dismissive of political realities–for Biden that reality being low poll numbers.

But the assassination of Bhutto could not have been better for the Senator from Delaware. Experience, experience, experience: that’s what defines the old, gray-haired, white guy in the race.

Less than a week until the Iowa caucuses, and the Biden campaign has started going negative, something that terribly disappoints me. If Biden’s campaign relied on experience so much and disregarded poll numbers to the extent of questioning their credibility, why are they going on the offense in the wake of a terrible tragedy? I would assert it’s because Biden now sees an opening, and it doesn’t matter that he’s using that political window of opportunity in the wake of great tragedy, all that matters is victory.

On Clinton and Obama, reports the Huffington Post:

In a post-event interview with The Huffington Post, Biden at first refused to specify which candidate he was referring to when he said they weren’t making sense on Pakistan. He noted that front-runners Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, both of whom issued brief statements earlier in the day lamenting Bhutto’s murder, were “both good people” but didn’t have his breadth of foreign policy experience.

On Richardson specifically:

“Richardson said that [Pakistani President] Musharraf should step down and make way for a coalition government,” Biden said. “But what coalition? There isn’t any. What’s he talking about?”

Interesting he would attack Richardson so directly. Despite presenting different policy positions in regards to Pakistan, it may be part of a broader political struggle. Both Biden and Richardson are in the second tier–Richardson polling ahead of 5th place Biden in most Iowa polls. Could Biden be specifically attacking Richardson to pick off a few of his supporters?

Just a few hours after Bhutto’s assassination, Biden had a press release not only up on his website but in big bold letters on the homepage reading, “BIDEN CALLS FOR NEW PAKISTAN POLICY.” He remains the only Democratic candidate to address the issue so visibly on his web page.

Here’s the sobering reality: Biden is not going to win Iowa. He’s not even going to place in the top three because he just doesn’t have the ground infrastructure to compete with the rival campaigns of Obama, Edwards and Clinton. This message of experience in the end won’t matter, even if voters have a renewed appreciation for “experience” in light of events in Pakistan when they caucus. The media saturation of Obama = change, Clinton = experience, sets up those two at opposing dichotomies, and excludes Biden from the discussion. His lack of association with the political slogans his campaign has so disdained will ultimately come back to bite him in the ass, and though he now fights to pin himself as the true experienced candidate with big bold letters, press conferences and “I told ya so” rhetoric, his campaign collapses upon itself because of poor infrastructure. For him to be viable, he needs those slogans because slogans resonate with caucus-goers. I can’t help but think that if this happened a month ago, could Biden be in contention? Eh, probably not.

On October 10, 2002 Sen. Hillary Clinton delivered this speech outlining her authorization for the president to use force in Iraq:

It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security.

The poor judgment expressed by Mrs. Clinton on such a significant foreign policy decision undermines her claim that she has foreign policy experience. Questions now arise over what decisions she actually made in the White House; Mrs. Clinton claims she was in the room when tough decisions were made, but she didn’t have the White House Security credentials. What experience does her first lady status really give her? Certainly Linda or Barbra Bush are not preparing presidential runs.

And now today Pakistan is in a state of crisis and mourning. Their beloved former prime minister is dead, and an internal terrorist insurgency threatens regional stability. Had the United States not been tied up in Iraq we could have shifted our attention, dramatically, to battling terrorism in the region. Instead, the whole of the intelligence community has been focused on the future of Iraq.

Shouldn’t we blame those who made the judgment to go into Iraq when they had access to national security intelligence?

Boston Globe Poll, Dec. 23, 2007
Obama 30%
Clinton 28%

Obama said yesterday that he has more foreign policy experts from the Clinton administration backing his candidacy.

Clinton’s campaign fired back, citing 80 names of foreign policy advisors who have endorsed Hillary. Obama came out with a list of 47.

Reports the Huffington Post:

Clinton’s campaign provided more than 80 names of her husband’s former foreign policy advisers who are publicly backing her, while Obama’s campaign provided 47.

Asked how Obama backs up the claim of greater support, campaign spokesman Bill Burton said the senator was referring to an article that ran in The New York Times Magazine last month, which quoted an anonymous foreign policy expert saying most of the community was backing Obama.

I find it funny the Clinton’s are actually raising this issue. 80 to 47 is not a signifigant differnce; doesn’t it reflect ill upon the Clinton campaign that 47 of President Clinton’s advisers have endorsed Sen. Obama?

California: a state where dreams are made and broken, where crazy things are not only possible but happen (Governator Arnold comes to mind). Its unpredictability may not bode well for Senator Clinton. Her once strong lead in California has diminished, and should Obama or Edwards be victorious in Iowa or New Hampshire, California will be crucial to Hillary’s clinching of the nomination. Unlike most states, it has tremendous influence; California possesses a gigantic amount of delegates to the convention (it’s the world’s 5th largest economy, and the most populous state). It’s sway on Feb. 5 could either unite the Democratic party behind one candidate, or divide it into two to be determined at convention.

A Field Research Poll shows California may not be as safe for Hillary as once thought.

Field Research Corporation, Dec. 17, 2007
Clinton 36%
Obama 22%
Edwards 13%

Without Edwards, same poll:
Clinton 39%
Obama 27%

36-22 seems to be a good lead, but not when you consider the same poll, same choices in October:

Field Research Corporation, Oct. 21, 2007
Clinton 45%
Obama 20%

From October to December, Clinton has fallen from a 25 point lead to a 14 point lead over Senator Obama. The question now is if momentum can drive him to take California’s super delegates.