The fact of the matter is that we are now three weeks away from the primary season, the media narrative has been written, the money donated, the ads filmed, speeches written and it's getting to the point where we can make map out the various scenarios. I sat down and tried to do that today and, truth be told, I couldn't envision a plausible scenario where John Edwards took the nomination.
[Update] The inevitable flame war did result (and included fun xenophobic comments too, woohooo!). Those replies interested in talking about it have suggested that Edwards trends up after an Iowa victory (obviously) and is competitive in New Hampshire. That's fine, I have a scenario for that below that nobody has addressed whatsoever. Even if he's a close second in New Hampshire, that's big trouble. If it's Hilary he loses to, she takes non-seated Michigan, Nevada and Obama is done, Edwards makes his last stand in SC. If it's Obama, Edwards has no chance in SC and is trying to make a stand in Nevada against the other two with no money. Neither of those is a plausible victory scenario
I could present some intensely analytical argument pointing to 2004, dozens of polls, campaign finances, astrological signs, tidal patterns and the bearing of the Washington Redskins' record on the electoral process - but I won't. There is a far simpler way to show that his campaign is hopeless. Let's just go through some scenarios, remembering the order of the primaries / caucus: (1) Iowa, (2) New Hampshire, (3) Nevada, (4) South Carolina, (5) Super Tuesday.
Iowa Scenarios
I think everyone will agree that if Edwards loses Iowa it's over. Whoever won Iowa would also carry New Hampshire, and Edwards can't lose the first two states when he is this far behind in money and still have a chance. So despite the fact that he's running in third and is down eight points let's assume that he wins Iowa.
New Hampshire Scenarios
In my mind, there are only two possibilities, he wins, or he loses. If he loses, it's over. That may not be the standard perception, but let me explain why it's the case. Here, there are a few more scenarios.
Hilary Wins
If Hilary wins New Hampshire, the story becomes how Bill didn't win Iowa either, she regains her "mojo" and goes into Nevada with momentum where she is currently up twenty points on Obama and thirty on Edwards. She would win Nevada huge and have two straight wins heading into South Caroina, where Edwards is currently down more than fifteen points. That's way too big a margin for him to overcome, especially when someone else has the momentum. At this point, he's lost three of the first four and is way behind in money going into Super Tuesday - campaign over.
Obama Wins
If Obama wins New Hampshire, he gets a big bump in Nevada and Hilary's campaign will have taken a savage beating after losing the first two states. African Americans all over the country flock to his banner, he'd be up something like 20 points in polling in South Carolina (where he is currently splitting the African American vote with Clinton and still has some polls showing him up six). Clinton's firewall would be Nevada, and trying to get the media to treat a Michigan victory as indicating she still had life. Either way, Edwards would not be in good shape in Nevada, and he'd be an afterthought in South Carolina. Again, goes into Super Tuesday 1/4 with no money - campaign over.
A Close Second
The last possibility that some Edwards supporters might point to is being surprisingly competitive in New Hampshire or coming in a close second. I just don't see how that helps. It means his momentum has stalled, and someone else has picked up momentum. If it's Clinton who wins, she's gets to once again make noise about being inevitable, she wins Michigan huge (and without competition or meaning, but will the masses know that?), it would be very difficult for her to blow Nevada, and then next thing you know Edwards is making his last stand in South Carolina with Obama suddenly being meaningless and the African American vote shifting to Clinton - game over.
If it was Obama who narrowly beat him in New Hampshire, the situation is pretty much the same as what I've explained for an Obama victory in New Hampshire above. A little less dire, more uncertain, but still destined to end in failure. Clinton wins the meaningless Michigan primary but uses it and big fundraising numbers to breath some life into her campaign. Suddenly we go into Nevada a little bit more unclear, but Edwards is trying to overcome a massive deficit. Even if he wins, it can't be convincingly, and Obama will still have given African Americans hope, so no matter what happens he won't be down for the count in South Carolina. Hilary also takes Florida (in another fake race) once again giving her campaign a shot of life. The net result in this scenario is that Edwards is alive going into Super Tuesday, but he doesn't have enough momentum to attract the money and overcome the huge leads of the other big candidates nationally. Game over.
So there it is, there are the scenarios and what they result in. Edwards has to win New Hampshire. So what's he stacked up against?
1.) The latest RCP average has him down 16 points.
Sure that's about the same bounce Kerry got after winning Iowa, but the front runner came in a very distant third in Iowa in 2004, Kerry was already a strong second in New Hampshire before Iowa and had all the institutional support, and he was from a neighbouring state. Edwards has none of that. In fact, he hasn't polled over 20% since may, and it isn't a state where he did well in 2004.
2.) Edwards has been paying more attention to Iowa and boasts and amazing organization there. The same can't be said for New Hampshire,
3.) Edwards is way behind in money, and new fundraising totals will come out between Iowa and New Hampshire. Sure, the numbers won't officially come out until the 15th, but do you think that if the big fundraiser lose Iowa to someone on matching funds they won't leak their numbers? So they will saturate the airwaves, and release figures which they will try to spin as proof Edwards doesn't have the ability to raise money. Add that to the fact that they are both from nearby and he isn't, and it's a real complicating factor for him.
Sure, people can say that Dean was the fundraising leader in 2004 and still lost. The difference here is that Dean and the rest of the field were at least reasonbly close. Obama and Clinton are way ahead, both in terms of cash raised and cash on hand. Moreover, even if Edwards manages to pull of New Hampshire, he still needs to do well on Super Tuesday which is going to cost a fortune.
4.) The expectations in Iowa are way to high for Edwards. Any victory can be spun as him having campaigned there for the last four years straight. A big part of what drove Kerry's momentum (and Edwards') after Iowa was the somewhat surprising nature of their showings in the caucus. If Edwards wins it won't be a surprise.
I really don't know how plausible a scenario that is. He's up against huge odds, with two very well funded candidates ahead of him, an unfavourable campaign schedule, a party that doesn't want him to win and he's almost twenty points back in a state he must win less than a month from now. And, even if he does take the first two States I still think he's in trouble if he doesn't take one of South Carolina or Nevada.
So is this Edwards' winning scenario? Does his campaign realize or think that he has to pretty much run the table early because he's so far back in polls and finances? Or does he think I'm wrong about the coming in a close second in New Hampshire scenario and he can win with some "surprising" showings early? Either way, it doesn't seem at all plausible to me.
Just how does JRE win the nomination, because I don't see it.