We've had plenty of discussions around here about vote-swapping in Iowa. The original thinking was that the Gephardt, Kerry, and possibly Edwards campaigns each might consider throwing some of their support to whomever looked most likely to beat Dean. Edwards, for instance, might be hurt more by Dean gathering huge momentum from wins in Iowa and New Hampshire than he would by Gephardt winning and sticking around through February 3. So if Edwards cannot break 15%, the minimum for delegates, his best move might be to have his supporters get behind Gephardt. If Kerry couldn't win Iowa, he might throw some of his support to Gephardt, to keep Dean from rolling into New Hampshire with a win.
Anyway, that was the conventional wisdom on vote-swapping. Now, however, it seems that the campaign likeliest to throw votes is Dean's.
According to a Boston Globe
article, Clark's surge in New Hampshire has changed the calculus around vote-swapping:
Dean voters, for instance, could be directed to shift to Senator John F. Kerry as part of a strategy to knock Richard A. Gephardt out of contention and create a more competitive race in New Hampshire.
Retired Army General Wesley K. Clark has surged in the New Hampshire primary, according to recent polls, and Dean advisers believe he would present a formidable challenge to Dean in the Southern contests that follow.
So, the logic goes, if the first round of voting shows Dean with a strong lead, some of his supporters in key precincts could be directed to throw their support to Kerry. Dean would still win Iowa, but if Kerry comes in a strong--and surprising--second place, he gains momentum heading into New Hampshire, where Clark's gains have come mostly at his expense. In other words, and considering the ever-changing political landscape, Dean would prefer a modest victory in Iowa with Kerry finishing second to a big victory with Kerry a disappointing third.
And how does the Dean campaign accomplish this feat in a state with 1990 precincts?
At headquarters for Howard Dean, advisers are working on an automated system that would let precinct captains dial in early tallies. Knowing how Dean is faring statewide would allow the campaign to advise its supporters to throw Dean votes in some precincts to another candidate.
--snip--
If the Dean campaign does put into effect an automated phone system, his strategists will be able to assess their standing much earlier than usual. They could then call supporters around the state and tell them how to influence who comes in second and third, potentially determining who has enough momentum to move on to the next contest.
At the same time, Dean and the other campaigns would try to gain supporters of candidates who have no chance of finishing in the money. In a close fight, Kucinich voters may find that they suddenly have a lot of power.
But will the other campaigns swap votes, too? I can't see Kerry giving up any votes, given his dire straits in New Hampshire. Gephardt maybe, but only if his defeat is certain. Edwards, quite possibly, to help Gephardt or Kerry weaken Dean. But Edwards is polling better in Iowa than in New Hampshire: Survey USA has him at 17% in Iowa, while he's mired at 3% in ARG's NH tracking poll. The guy needs at least an okay finish in one of them, doesn't he, if he's going to go anywhere on the 3rd?
I find it a fascinating exercise to try to think like a professional political operative. When I map out Dean's roll to victory, my tendency is to the simplistic: Dean kicks butt in Iowa and Gephardt is gone. Dean kicks butt in New Hampshire and Kerry is gone. Etc. And if this were already a three-man race, or if there were no strong candidate for the anti-Dean, then such bulldozing might be best. But Clark has since his entry been the most likely anti-Dean candidate, with in my opinion the only plausible path to the nomination. For the Dean camp, the reality on the ground is that Clark is now coalescing as the key opponent, and it's no longer in Dean's best interests to clear the battlefield of the other contestants too early.
I still believe that Dean would like to knock out Gephardt in Iowa, which a third-place finish would almost certainly do. Dean is a likely recipient of much of Gephardt's union support, and he's been running a strong second to Gephardt in Missouri, which would be a nice additional victory on February 3.
But while Kerry clearly takes votes from Dean, he also takes them from Clark, who can less afford to lose them. Kerry forces a split of the "military vote" (those who think our candidate must be really strong on the military), and Kerry has enough money to stick around at least for a while. Following the reasoning of the Boston Globe article and this diary, Dean's best-case scenario would be for Kerry to use the momentum of a surprise second-place finish in Iowa to rejuvenate himself in New Hampshire. Instead of the story being a Dean-Clark showdown in New Hampshire, the story would become a Kerry-Clark showdown for second place (not a three-way battle for first: Clark needs more Kerry supporters to overtake Dean in New Hampshire, and he can't get them if Kerry is hanging tough). And coming out of New Hampshire, what looks better for Dean: Dean beating Clark 35% to 31%? Or Dean at 32%, Clark at 20%, and Kerry at 18%? The bigger victory for Dean may well come with a lower percentage of the vote.
This logic carries forward at least to the February 3 states, even though Kerry's support in most is in the single digits. Dean wants to avoid battles for first place. He wants Clark battling the others for second, and the longer it takes Clark to clear the field of competitors, the harder it will be for him to beat Dean.