Clinton is inevitable if she wins Iowa.

Clinton is not inevitable if she doesn't win Iowa.

It's really as simple as that.

She's a strong contender, but she's beatable too.

What allowed Kerry to come out of nowhere was concerns about Dean compounded by the inept, undisciplined endgame to his Iowa campaign.

It never ceases to amaze me how people are able to retroactively explain why all the polls were wrong before yet they're conclusive now.

John Kerry wasn't the natural alternative to Dean. He wasn't even considered in the running. He bounced around in the single digits in the polls while people were talking about Lieberman, Clark, Dean, Gephardt, Edwards and occasionally non-candidate Clinton.

This was true right up until the first votes were cast.

"both Obama and Edwards will stay in long enough to prevent a single anti-Clinton candidate from emerging until it's too late."

This is why she has to win Iowa to get inevitable. That dynamic splits Edwards and Obama into both being half-sized anti-Hillary's going into the next contests. And that's a dynamic that greases her wheels to the nomination.

But if Hillary doesn't win Iowa, imagine the storylines coming out in that intense week leading to the next elections. Edwards and Thompson Win Iowa!

And crucially in that scenario, imagine the media stigma that will get attached to the third place finisher in the Dem race, be that Clinton or Obama. That creates a very dynamic than the Hillary vs two half-sized anti-Hillary's if she wins.

The dynamics that would come of a Hillary loss in Iowa would not be friendly to her ultimate chances.

To expand even further, Hillary is a strong candidate because she could perhaps survive a second place finish in Iowa and successfully regroup. But if she finishes third in Iowa, she'd almost definitely have fatal problems.

I agree with Petey's comments in this thread.

P.S. Anyone want to take bets that John McCain wins the Republican nomination? As they say, being unexpectedly right once is worth a thousand expected wrongs...

I hope to hell you are wrong, Scott. Can you imagine how we'll feel waking up the day after the election to President Fred, or who the hell ever? For the thousandth time I say: no woman will be President of this country at this time. SAVE US IOWA!

Yes, indeed it is for the thousandth time, suggesting you could probably consider learning to play a second note at some point.

"But if she finishes third in Iowa, she'd almost definitely have fatal problems."

All three candidates are within striking distance right now, and the Iowa caucuses are notoriously difficult to predict. Any outcome, at this point, is plausible.

Honestly, what does the primary electorate see in her?

P.S. Anyone want to take bets that John McCain wins the Republican nomination?

I'm already on the record that neither Giuliani nor McCain will win the Republican nomination. Then again, I expected the Republicans to actually pick a credible candidate so what do I know. The recent additions of Thompson and Keyes doesn't bode well for the party.

Anyone want to take bets that John McCain wins the Republican nomination?

Yes.

Gee, Steve, sorry to annoy you. Maybe the soothing tones of President Thompson will help someday. I'm only one voice and I'm using it any way I know how.

I still have hopes that, sometime in the next month or so, Edwards will pass Obama in the national polls, forcing the media to stop painting the Dem race as Hillary v. Obama, and forcing them to give Edwards some actual coverage on issues and stuff.

The increased coverage propels his numbers into the upper 20s, strong enough so that he becomes a real counterweight to Hillary. Then when he wins Iowa, he follows up by winning a few other early primaries, and while Hillary still beats him on Super Tuesday, it's not by enough to end it. He wins some states after that because people just aren't ready to settle on Hillary, and it goes down to the wire.

"Honestly, what does the primary electorate see in her?"
We see the candidate best qualified both politically and substantively both to win the election and be an extremely effective president. That’s the bottom line, ladies and gents, not just getting someone in the White House but having someone who can actually do the job. Edwards, who has the least political experience of any of the candidates, hasn’t a clue on how to operate as a political executive. Threatening to take away Congress’s health benefits (and how does he expect to get the votes that pray tell?) isn’t leadership; it’s demagoguery. Obama would probably do better, but he’ll have a steep learning curve. I’m not sure if we can afford that now. Every newly elected Democratic president in my life time (Kennedy, Carter, Clinton) has a very rough first couple of years due largely to inexperience. With HRC we have a very smart, exceedingly disciplined, progressive leader who has intimate knowledge of how Washington works from both end of the Avenue.

Just for general information here are the results of the Iowa Caucus going back to 1972. The circumstances of each election of course are very different, but it does suggest that losing Iowa may not necessarily be fatal. After, Bill Clinton got 3 percent in 1992 and finished third in New Hampshire(yeah, I know that didn't count because Tsongas was running) But still . . . Link is at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iowa_caucus
Democrats

* 2004 - John Kerry (38%) defeated John Edwards (32%), Howard Dean (18%), Richard Gephardt (11%) and Dennis Kucinich (1%)
* 2000 - Al Gore (63%) defeated Bill Bradley (37%)
* 1996 - Bill Clinton* (unopposed)
* 1992 - Tom Harkin (76%) defeated Paul Tsongas (4%), Bill Clinton* (3%), Bob Kerrey (2%) and Jerry Brown (2%)
* 1988 - Dick Gephardt (31%) defeated Paul Simon (27%), Michael Dukakis (22%) and Bruce Babbitt (6%)
* 1984 - Walter Mondale (49%) defeated Gary Hart (17%), George McGovern (10%), Alan Cranston (7%), John Glenn (4%), Rueben Askew (3%) and Jesse Jackson (2%)
* 1980 - Jimmy Carter (59%) defeated Ted Kennedy (31%)
* 1976 - "Uncommitted" (37%) defeated Jimmy Carter* (28%) Birch Bayh (13%), Fred R. Harris (10%), Morris Udall (6%), Sargent Shriver (3%) and Henry M. Jackson (1%)
* 1972 - Edmund Muskie (36%) defeated George McGovern (23%), Hubert Humphrey (2%), Eugene McCarthy (1%), Shirley Chisholm (1%) and Henry M. Jackson (1%)

[edit] Republicans

* 2004- George W. Bush* (unopposed)
* 2000- George W. Bush* (41%) defeated Steve Forbes (30%), Alan Keyes (14%), Gary Bauer (9%), John McCain (5%) and Orrin Hatch (1%)
* 1996- Bob Dole (26%) defeated Pat Buchanan (23%), Lamar Alexander (18%), Steve Forbes (10%), Phil Gramm (9%), Alan Keyes (7%), Richard Lugar (4%) and Morry Taylor (1%)
* 1992- George H. W. Bush (unopposed)
* 1988- Bob Dole (37%) defeated Pat Robertson (25%), George H. W. Bush* (19%), Jack Kemp (11%) and Pete DuPont (7%)
* 1984- Ronald Reagan* (unopposed)
* 1980- George H. W. Bush (32%) defeated Ronald Reagan* (30%), Howard Baker (15%), John Connally (9%), Phil Crane (7%), John B. Anderson (4%) and Bob Dole (2%)
* 1976- Gerald Ford defeated Ronald Reagan

I don't really care anymore. If Democrats nominate Hillary I won't vote for them. They can make that choice if they want to, but in doing so it proves they are every bit as willing to nominate a pro-corporate warmonger as the Republican party. I'm not going to support that based on some moronic 'lesser of evils' philosophy that guarantees that things continue to get worse, just at a slower pace. In fact, because I know Democrats are counting on people like me to stay home if they won't vote for them, I'm voting for the Republicans out of spite, because thats what people do when they feel betrayed.

At this point, killing the Democratic party is more important than killing the Republican one. While Republicans are more evil, it is the Democrats who actually prevent progress by covering for them and not opposing them. This prevents Americans from having any real choice unless the only issues you care about are abortion and gay rights. We need a real opposition party and the Democrats just won't be that.

"They can make that choice if they want to, but in doing so it proves they are every bit as willing to nominate a pro-corporate warmonger as the Republican party."

For President, as such, and considered by themselves, I really think one could just as easily vote for Rudy Guiliani as HRC. The questions then would be do you want a Rep or a Dem in DC? Do you want the public to be watching and evaluating a Rep or a Dem? Do you want him talking super aggressive Republican-speak or do you want her smoothing and covering? Do you want to see the DemocraticBase so relieved to get rid of BushCo that they lap up her smoothing and covering? etc

It's not a pretty picture, actually. Yeah, they could make McCain look good, as in maybe a critical thought might enter his head at some point.

Soullite's 3-step political plan:

1. Kill Democratic Party.
2. ???
3. Progressive utopia!

"With HRC we have a very smart, exceedingly disciplined, progressive leader..."

Smart? Yes. Disciplined? Yes. Progressive? Not even close.

You either want the status quo to change or you don't. Obama and Edwards, while coming at it from opposite directions strategically, both represent significant change from the imperialist, corporatist status quo.

Hillary represents a moderated continuation of trends that are destroying our country. But go ahead and admire her brains and discipline.

Change the status quo in what way and how? Frankly I can't see a dime's worth of difference, to use a political phrase from my youth, in stated policies of Clinton, Edwards or Obama. Do the latter two want to dismantle the military industrial complex and bring all our troops home from Europe and Asia? Do they want to bring income tax rates back to the Eisenhower level (91%)? And if they do want make major changes, what's their strategy for accomplishing within the American constitutional system. Or are we talking here about storming the Winter Palace not a normal democratic presidential election.

Y'all lefties have not a clue.

HRC will bring out the "broken-glass" Republicans en masse. Tens of millions of us.

We HATE her. You think we had a problem with Bubba? YOU HAVE NO IDEA.

PLEASE nominate Hillary. PLEASE.

To paraphrase FDR we welcome that hate, Chester. The GOP hard core is no more than 41% of the electorate and I don't think your pathetic candiates will get much over that, even running against HRC. Just two little reminders: neither Clinton has lost an election since Bill's first term as governor of Arkansas and we Democrats were saying the same thing about Ronald Reagan in 1980. As a matter of fact Jimmy Carter was leading the Gipper by twenty points as late as March 1980. Shalom.

Ben F:

Great. Keep up the good work.

I saw a recent poll in which 52% of likely voters said there is NO CHANCE WHATSOEVER they would vote for Hillary. And surely, it's higher than that in reality. People sometimes sugarcoat things with pollsters.

This doesn't count the people who will consider her and then vote for the other guy.

Not a matter of a "GOP hard core."

To this, add the Moveon-type moonbats who hate her and will boycott the election or vote for Nader or something.

PLEASE nominate her. PLEASE.