Wasn't Thompson supposed to drop out and endorse McCain? Or did he fall asleep at the podium?

Sorry, old joke.

Otherwise, Richardson would probably want to stay through Nevada, and we wait to see how much of a "bounce" NH gives. I guess the eyes, in that light, are on California and Florida, wondering if Clinton can hold on.

Don't count Romney out so soon. He's leading in Michigan, which is next up on the Republican calendar. And while smearing your rivals with obvious lies, living a life of hypocrisy, and generally being an asshole, would doom any Democratic candidate, that's what Republicans look for in theirs.

Florida doesn't count for anything as the DNC has stripped it of its delegates for moving its primary up in the schedule.

Hillary may still win NV even if she loses big in NH, which is the lead in to SC where her support is collapsing. She certainly isn't out yet at all.

However if Edwards collapses in NH and finishes more than 3 points out, watch a lot of his support move to Obama which will chip into Clintons huge lead (according to all the old polling) in NV and further weaken Clinton in SC.

Clarification, if Edwards finishes more than 3 points behind Clinton, his support may collapse (the further back he finishes the bigger the collapse) and most of his support will likely break in Obama's favor.

Edwards will stay alive by drawing most of the white vote in SC from Clinton, and I expect him to get the culinary union endorsement in NV. Even with a third place in NH, the focus may be on the huge Clinton collapse, and 2nd place finishes in the next two contests ( or even a win in NV) would keep him going. His primary(!) goal now has to be helping obama bury her, ASAP. And that basically means making her irrelevant by 2/5. Tough job, but possible. (a surprise 2nd place in NH would speed that up immensely. It could happen, too, if enough previous Clinton leaders see the writing on the wall.)

"The big three will stay in until after Feb 5, then we shall see."

Now that's a bold and fascinating prediction. You'll look like a genius if it pans out. (My bet: Edwards drops out after South Carolina.)

Edwards stays in until February 5 - unless one thing happens: Hillary starts to surge back and Edwards endorses Obama to end it before South Carolina.

But what about Obama, who's pulling in huge numbers of independents? Will he suffer in the closed primary states?

No. He beat Clinton by a point in Iowa among Dems. And that was before he had won two primaries.

I don't think that's going to happen, Kari. Not only isn't Hillary going to surge, I think that even if he's clearly not winning, J.E. will stay in it to push the populist message.

Probably a good thing overall, even though Obama has always topped my list.

Edwards (previously 3) - New strategy: take out Hillary. Rest of the strategy? Ummm....

But Jeff, driving Clinton out is exactly what Edwards MUST do in order to stay viaable. Polls show about 10% of Edwards's support has migrated to Obama since Iowa. My take is that people are switching to support Obama because he's proven he can stop Clinton--the #1 goal of the 70% of the party that can't stand her and her constant triangulations.

If she drops out people will feel it's safe to vote for Edwards or Richardson, but as long as she stays, Obama will gather increasing amounts of support. (With or without HC though, Obama is looking like a lock unless he stumbles in a big way.)

Edwards stays in until February 5 - unless one thing happens: Hillary starts to surge back and Edwards endorses Obama to end it before South Carolina.

Another possibility: A flying saucer lands from outer space and threatens to destroy all life on earth unless Hillary is elected.

Far-fetched, I'll agree, but only slightly more so than that Hillary will surge between New Hampshire and South Carolina.

Obama isn't Gary Hart trying to sell a message of change. Obama is the change. The fact that he is fairly cautious and tentative in his policy statements is a strength, not a weakness. Bill Clinton's lack of discipline was a part of his charisma; not so for Obama. He is far more like JFK than Clinton ever dreamed of being (at least outside the bedroom).

As a Republican I say this with some chagrin, but Obama is the real deal.

Posted by: Jack Roberts | Jan 8, 2008 10:22:46 AM

Hillary most likely will get her first win in NV where she has had almost 20 point leads for month. She will take a hit form IA and NH no doubt and a portion of that is probably gone now, but she had a HUGE margin there (almost 30 points in many of the polls) and has Reids' support. If Edwards doesn't stay within a few points of Obama in NH (which is highly unlikely) the culinary union will likely endorse Obama (or possibly nobody at all). They were waiting to see if Edwards won Iowa (which we know didn't happen) and delayed their endorsement until tomorrow.

This will further hurt Clinton in NV, but she still will have a lead there I think. That will likely shake up the media narrative, particularly if she loses NH like it looks like she will, and be part of the "Hillary rights her campaign" narrative the media will scramble to print to make it into a see-saw horse-race.

If Edwards finishes more than 3 behind Clinton, he is in serious trouble and that will only increase by the bigger that margin is, but I still don't see him actually dropping out until after Supercalifragalistic Tuesday if things start collapsing for him.

Posted by: torridjoe | Jan 8, 2008 10:23:59 AM

Agreed.

Posted by: backbeat12 | Jan 8, 2008 10:39:39 AM Hillary will not surge again and will not win NV.

Don't count those chickens yet. While she is in serious trouble, she has had up to almost 30 point leads in NV. Not saying she will obsoletely win NV, but she quite likely will.

The 60,000 member Culinary Workers Union is expected to endorse Obama after he wins the N.H. vote today. The union represents hotel, restaurant and laundry workers in Nevada. Clinto will have to work Nevada hard to upset Obama there.

Jeff, Hillary had better not count on Michigan and Florida because they now have zero delegates due to violating DNC rules and thus are likely to be interpreted as menaningless by the media.

David, none of this has to do with delegates. It's about perception, which I'll admit is a seriously messed-up phenomenon. Michigan will have so little value because no one's participating (though at this point, I bet the Clinton camp would grateful to post a win, any win). Florida is less easy to dismiss. Imagine if she has a win in Nevada and Florida and Obama has wins in Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina going into Super Tuesday. It's not an insurmountable lead. But it will depend on how she plays it. This week, she continued to "make no mistakes," but that won't cut it.

If she drops out people will feel it's safe to vote for Edwards or Richardson, but as long as she stays, Obama will gather increasing amounts of support.

Yes, that's the logic. But it seems like an extreme longshot. The mo is against him, and profoundly.

As a Republican I say this with some chagrin, but Obama is the real deal.

Amen, brother!

"This week, she continued to "make no mistakes,"

Are we talking about Clinton? Did you watch Olbermann's top story last night? It was a tripleheader of mistakes.

Well, I'm one Edwards supporter who won't be changing her candidate anytime soon.

If Edwards does drop out, which he said just recently he's not going to, I don't see me throwing my support behind either Clinton nor Obama.

Paulie, In addition to your comments about the CWU, it's clear that AFSCME's early endorsement of Clinton didn't reflect real support for her by their rank and file, or even by regional leaders, especially in the west. I expect a full-scale rebellion at the caucus.

It will be tremendous for everyone if early endorsements given out by the establishment before any actual voting (like Kulongoski's endorsement of Clinton) end up being worthless.

"Power to the people, right on!"

Not sure how to say the mo is against Edwards; he is surging the most over the last two weeks, nationally. Check out Rasmussen--he's as high as he's ever been, while Obama actually stays pretty much the same and Hillary tanks.

Not sure how to say the mo is against Edwards; he is surging the most over the last two weeks, nationally. Check out Rasmussen--he's as high as he's ever been, while Obama actually stays pretty much the same and Hillary tanks.

That's true, but name a state where Edwards wins. Or where he gets the money to compete nationally on February 5th.

Obama already has about as much money as Hillary and more will come flooding in after today. The only thing that can make this a race again is a major blunder by Obama or some huge skeleton that gets ripped out of his closet. I don't expect either of those things to happen.

he doesn't have to win anything, just outlast Hillary and keep coming in 2nd or a tight 3rd. As for money, he's publicly financed--and should have enough for the primaries. I've actually seen Clinton described as cash poor, which I believe because she had so many maxxed out primary donors, where does she go now that it isn't enough?

Posted by: torridjoe | Jan 8, 2008 11:05:03 AM Check out Rasmussen--he's as high as he's ever been, while Obama actually stays pretty much the same and Hillary tanks.

Huh?

Both Obama and Edwards have risen 5% in the national poling acocrding to Rassmusen while Clinton has been tanking... and Edwards peaked 3 days ago and has dropped 3 points and flatened.

Gallup shows a 6% increase for Obama, a 5% increase for Edwards and a 12 point drop for Clinton nationally from Dec 14-16 to Jan 4-6

Posted by: torridjoe | Jan 8, 2008 11:46:32 AM

I agree with this somewhat, that Edwards only real viable strategy that is to knock out Clinton and make it a two person race between him and Obama, been saying that since the results came in Thursday in Iowa.

But it is still an outside bank-shot that he has a path to the nomination (his having to take Federal matching money will hamstring him vs. Obama's resources and wider organization, which will only become a wider and wider gap as Obama scores more 1st place finishes).

Don't get me wrong, I would love for the race to be a choice between Obama and Edwards and the deathnell of the DLC apporach to politcs.

he doesn't have to win anything, just outlast Hillary and keep coming in 2nd or a tight 3rd.

And that gets him where exactly? Does anyone really believe that if Obama--or Obama and Hillary--run the table, then at the convention there will be smoke-filled room that will pick the Southern white guy?

To quote Senator Clinton, that really does require a willful suspension of disbelief?

And to complete my fantasy, that southern white boy would be Al Gore.

If Obama implodes down the road, that is a far likelier scenario than Edwards.

"Both Obama and Edwards have risen 5% in the national poling acocrding to Rassmusen while Clinton has been tanking... and Edwards peaked 3 days ago and has dropped 3 points and flatened."

I was working from Sunday's data, the last iteration I saw. But the form still holds true to what I said, which is that he has surged the most the last couple of weeks of polling. Look at mid December: Hillary between 37-39%, Obama between 27-28%, and Edwards at 13-14% and as low as 10% on December 11. Fast forward to now, and Hillary is tanking, we all agree. But Obama is only at 29%--functionally no better than mid-December--while Edwards is at 20%, still 7 points higher over the same period. Edwards is indeed surging, while Obama appears to be cresting (for now), and Hillary sinking.

" he doesn't have to win anything, just outlast Hillary and keep coming in 2nd or a tight 3rd.

And that gets him where exactly?"

Uh, one half of a two-man race? :dunno:

TJ, I think the question is, having gotten into second, how does he start actually winning? I'm not agin' the prospect, I just can't actually see how it plays out. AIt's better to finish second than third, obviously, but the nomination goes to #1.

"TJ, I think the question is, having gotten into second, how does he start actually winning? I'm not agin' the prospect, I just can't actually see how it plays out. AIt's better to finish second than third, obviously, but the nomination goes to #1."

By articulating a more detailed view of what change will look like, and how the battle must be fought. Obama contrasts well with Hillary; the distinction is a lot fuzzier against Edwards.

There is an alternate scenario, perhaps: if Hillary stays alive long enough to take significant delegates away from Obama on Super Dee Dooper Tuesday, but then is financially and emotionally spent and still on the losing end--if she drops out THEN, and Edwards stays in the game, he would have the possibility of forcing a brokered convention with late wins or just enough delegates to have his and Hillary's combine to block Obama on the first ballot. The question is whether Obama wouldn't have so much of the momentum at that point that Edwards simply couldn't break through. He needs a little more time to have his message heard, something the MSM have denied up for the most part up to this point.

Gary Hart isn't the best analogy. Hart was headed for the big time until his personal life took him down. Without his "Monkey Business," he might have been able to shut down Reaganism half way through.

That's the lesson for the underdogs of both parties in NH--it ain't over til it's over: DON'T QUIT!

A lot of you sound like you think Obama is just the latest Candidate X who came out of nowhere (Jerry Brown, Gary Hart, Howard Dean, etc.) only to fade when the spotlight was turned on them.

This is different. Obama started with a lot of attention and a lot of excitement, then the media lost interest and started to write him off when he didn't run the kind of insider, play-to-the-base, play-to-the-interest-groups politics that has always been necessary to win in the past.

The national polling underestimated his appeal because his appeal is personal, not media driven. He isn't just winning over the persistent voters; he's drawing out new voters by the thousands. For the most part, these people aren't even polled. And they are supporting him, not his position on issues.

Will the momentum slow down and will Obama have to go through heightened scrutiny? Of course, but Hillary and Edwards will be long gone by the time that happens. Half the states, and over half the delegates, will have made their choice after February 5th. My prediction is that Obama will have the nomination sewn up by February 6th whether Clinton and Edwards are still in the race or not.

Jack Roberts has a point.

Hillary Clinton got nearly as many independents in Iowa as Barack Obama.

Rudy Giuliani: a small man looking for a balcony (per a friend).

It is the long run, folks. Hillary supporters: congratulations. Obama supporters: the race is long from over. Edwards supporters: the race is now over.

GOP: What the heck??

Could somebody, anybody, please get Hillary out of the race so this Democrat can care again about politics? Hell, I'd vote for Huckabee over here. (Well, actually, I'll do what I normally do when I can't vote for the Democrat and vote for my Dad. I guess I can't quite cross that line for national office.)

While Bill Clinton did loose Iowa and NH and still got the nomination, he is the only person to pull that off in the modern primary-caucus system

Not that it matters now that Hillary Clinton's been deemed the winner in New Hampshire, but depending on what your definition of "modern" is, this isn't quite right.

George McGovern came in second in the Iowa caucuses in 1972 and lost to Muskie by more than 10% in the New Hampshire primary, but still won the nomination.

I doubt Clinton would ever beat McCain in the general election. Hope today's winners aren't facing off in November.

I just went to the Portland INdymedia website looking for a trenchant analysis

That's one for the books. Is Sherri Shepherd commenting over there now?