(Cross-posted at The Field.)
The conventional wisdom for 2007 was that Obama and Edwards, each competing to become the anti-Clinton candidate, took votes from each other. Supporters of each called upon the other to get out of the way and clear the path for their guy.
That's changed...
First, now that Iowa's 97-percent Caucasian electorate has shown African-American voters that white folks will vote for a black man (this could take a week or so for the shock to wear off and evolve into unprecedented unity behind the senator from Illinois), look for the national polling numbers, where Clinton enjoys a wide lead, to narrow. Prior to Iowa, more African-Americans nationwide told pollsters that they will vote for Clinton than Obama (not so in South Carolina, which votes on January 26, and where Obama has campaigned heavily and now leads among black voters). For those national pollsters that are not undercounting them, that could bring a narrowing of as much as 10 points (five up for Obama and five down for Clinton) and much higher in states where African-Americans are a larger electoral demographic (on February 5th - Tsunami Tuesday - African-Americans will be an important factor in the contests in Alabama, Georgia, Missouri, Delaware, Tennessee, New Jersey, California, Illinois, and, yes, New York, which elects delegates by Congressional District, and where the home state primary could prove very costly for the junior US senator there to defend).
Mark Penn and other Clinton campaign operatives have tried to spin Obama as no more than another Gary Hart, Bill Bradley or Howard Dean - flash-in-the-pan candidates that appealed to college educated white liberals, gained early attention and support, but were crushed under the weight of rank-and-file working class Democrat votes. This is the first time in US history that a national electoral coalition is likely between college-educated white liberals together with a likely record turnout of African-Americans (something Jesse Jackson achieved briefly in 1988 in his Michigan caucus victory, but who split the southern states with Al Gore of Tennessee). Outside the sphere of electoral politics, that alliance was the basis for the Civil Rights coalitions of the '50s and '60s. It's back by popular demand and now in the electoral arena.
Edwards' continued candidacy could keep Clinton from dominating among lunch-bucket white voters, giving Obama a clearer path. And Edwards' populist message still has a shot at besting Clinton among that important Democratic demographic.
Conversely, if this had become a Clinton-Edwards showdown in the upcoming primaries, without Obama in the mix, Clinton would likely pile up large margins over Edwards among African American voters, which, with Obama now as the tentative frontrunner, will much more likely unite in support of him.
In sum, where Edwards and Obama once competed to emerge as the anti-Clinton, they may now help each other by squeezing Clinton's vote from different ends: Edwards among lunch-bucket and union white Democrats, and Obama among college educated women and African-Americans.
After Iowa, where she lost the women's vote to Obama, 35 to 30 percent, Clinton's base is reduced to women over 65. Don't underestimate the ability of these two charming young men to grow on those voters, too.
Although it's hard to imagine that Bill Richardson remains in the contest for long without winning a state, if he lasts five more weeks he could create a third side of the pincer on Clinton, competing for Latin-American voters - a group where she leads comfortably in polls - in Nevada on January 19 and in California, Arizona, Colorado, and of course his own state of New Mexico on February 5.
This dynamic now turns the contest upside-down. Where these guys were dividing Democrats weary of Clinton, they now each encroach upon Clinton's hopes of reestablishing a base wider than that of senior women. Where they were once in each other's way, they now compliment each other. Funny what a difference a day makes.