After New Hampshire - Now what? part 2
I’ve taken a little while to ponder what happens with the Democrats following New Hampshire. Let’s start with the badness that is our prolonged campaign season. We were told that we would hear more nuanced discussion. We would have more debates and have a better opportunity to vet and evaluate our candidates. Horse hockey. It has not worked out that way. Instead, candidates have been encouraged to raise huge sums of money in order to flood the airwaves of the early states with their campaign ads. Therefore, the more money you have, the better chance you have of staying in the race.
Tom Vilsack, the governor of Iowa, was the first casualty of not being able to raise enough money. After the Iowa caucuses, we lost Joseph Biden and Christopher Dodd. Just yesterday, Governor Bill Richardson of New Mexico, has dropped out of the race secondary to a lack of funds and a lack of support. A recent article, has stated that experience has been a liability in this campaign. I’m not sure that’s true. Instead, Tom Vilsack has no national name and no name recognition. Joseph Biden and Christopher Dodd come from relatively small states and are about as dynamic as Melba toast. Bill Richardson is clearly the most experience of all the candidates but he failed to gain traction for a number of reasons. He is a policy wonk and has a hard time communicating his thoughts and ideas in a way that is exciting and interesting. Because of this, he did not get a lot of television interviews — television equals exposure. No exposure, no money.
Let’s start with John Edwards. I think he was clearly hurt by not getting the endorsement of Senator John Kerry. John Edwards can use any positive publicity he can get. John Edwards was born in South Carolina. He has been advertising in that state for several months now. He really needs a close second place finish or a win in order to replenish his dwindling warchest. I think he has an excellent message but sometimes he has problems articulating his message in a way that excites people. Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, is fresh off of her victory in New Hampshire. She supposedly has been invigorated. I’m not sure that that’s true but it is clear she has enough money to go the distance. Nevada and South Carolina are the next two states. The latest Rasmussen poll (January 10) reveals that Senator Clinton did not receive any bounce in South Carolina from her victory in New Hampshire. The results show Obama 42%, Clinton 30%, John Edwards 15% and 10% are undecided. Most of the Nevada polls have shown Barack Obama to be trailing Hillary Clinton by 20 or more points. Nevada has a caucus and not a primary. Obama won the Iowa caucus but I’m not sure this translates to Nevada. Obama has gotten some major endorsements of some very large and very influential unions in Nevada. Again, I’m not sure how this will translate. One thing is clear, Hillary Clinton cannot lose both South Carolina and Nevada by large margins. The same is true for Barack Obama.
We live in very interesting times. To quote Jackie Gleason, “How sweet it is!”
Why do people keep saying it is all over if they don’t come in first? Especially in only 2 or 3 states. I can see if the same person each time loses huge but still. I don’t understand why it has to be over before we vote in the primaries. Isn’t that what the conventions are about? I think the news media just wants to think they can control how people will vote. But this year there are more people interested in politics. Look how many showed up in NH.
M -
It is all about money. I said it in the first sentence of the second paragraph. “Tom Vilsack, the governor of Iowa, was the first casualty of not being able to raise enough money.” You need money for commercials. You need money for the campaign bus. You need money to fly around the country and speak. You need money for bumper stickers and yard signs. You must have money. Without moolah you are dead in the water.
I know about the lesser known candidates. But not between the top 3. And especially not between Obama and Clinton. How can they call it so early. I would think people would send more money in if they think their candidates needs help after a primary. But as I see it they should at least quit calling “Its All Over” until at least the tuesday in February