John Edwards' Alamo: An Inside Look at His Make-Or Break Iowa Campaign
The following piece was produced by the Huffington Post's OffTheBus.
Writen by Daniel Nichanian. Reported by Bryan Bissell, Alycia Dolan, Christine Escobar, Steven Greenberg, Ethan Hova, Adam Moorad, and Joshua Williams.
For Democratic candidates, all roads lead to Iowa. But no one has more riding on the January 3 caucus than John Edwards. Iowa has become Edwards' veritable Alamo. Anything less than a clear win and the former Senator and Vice-Presidential candidate will likely have no choice but to immediately surrender his candidacy.
Coming off his stunning last-minute surge in the 2004 Iowa caucus, Edwards has made the Hawkeye State the seemingly exclusive focus of his campaign and started off this cycle as the clear favorite to take the state.
But a steady decline throughout the past few months has put his strategy in doubt. Engaged to Edwards since 2004, Iowa Democrats have started dating around. While his campaign is confident that when all is said and done, the most committed caucus-goers will remain faithful to John Edwards, there's little question that he might be watching his political fortunes get blown across the prairie.
Edwards benefited early from the flurry of polls showing him leading or tied in Iowa but is now struggling to remain relevant in the face of the media's pointed interest in a showdown between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. A poll taken in March by American Research Group had Clinton and Edwards dueling it out 34 to 33 percent, with Obama far behind at 16%.
Yet Edwards has weakened in the state since then. By July, ARG showed Edwards dropping down to 21 percent, before hitting an all-time low of 15 percent in its most recent polling installment released at the end of October. This latest ARG poll has Edwards running third, behind Clinton's 32 percent and Obama's 22 percent.
Interviews conducted this weekend with county chairs, student leaders and campaign organizers - from the capital in Des Moines to the rural South to the union town of Dubuque - paint a picture of an Edwards campaign hoping that its superior organization will carry it through the finish line. But the buzz on the ground suggests that voters are troubled by recent stories about Edwards, and how much of an opening he has left remains in doubt.
Tom Henderson, chair of the Des Moines-based Polk County Democratic Party, readily acknowledged that Edwards' support has declined in recent months. "The momentum is flipping away from him and is primarily going towards Clinton and Obama," he said. "He can regain traction by the caucuses, but that is not the direction it is going in right now."
Jennifer Lunsford, the chair of the predominantly rural Jefferson County Party and a member of the State Central Committee switched from Edwards is now backing Chris Dodd. She confirms that Edwards' supporters are straying as they are getting to know other candidates. "My sense is that Edwards' supporters are not as sure a thing as they were a year ago," she said.
Yet Edwards still has a lot going for him in Iowa. The caucuses reward the candidates with the most robust organization, and the Edwards campaign inherited its infrastructure from the previous presidential campaign cycle and was able to quickly build on it. Today, Edwards' organization in the state appears as strong - if not stronger - than his rivals'. The Des Moines Register recently reported that Edwards had 130 paid staffers in the state, lagging behind Obama's 145 but ahead of Clinton's 117. The campaign has focused on finding county chairs and scores of volunteers throughout the state - ensuring that Edwards' support is deep-seated enough that it will translate to caucus votes. Rod Bakke, a part-time volunteer at the Edwards Dubuque office, believes the campaign's motto that organization will end up trumping everything else. "The polls reflect personalities, media coverage," he explained. "They really don't reflect yet the grassroots feelings of the people."
The Edwards camp is confident that its core backers are much more committed than those of the other campaigns. In a low-turnout system like the Iowa caucuses, that is sure to boost Edwards significantly as only the more dedicated voters end up agreeing to spend an evening publicly defending a candidate.
A memo released by the Edwards campaign on October 27th emphasizes that, "Among those Iowans that will most certainly attend the caucuses, Edwards is the clear frontrunner. In the Iowa caucuses, having the most dedicated, experienced base of supporters will be critical to success." The memo goes on to note that Edwards does best in polls that have a tight screen, one "that more closely reflects likely turnout."
Essential to this strategy is support from unions, which are key caucus players that can drive up turnout and rally supporters like no others. Edwards recently got the endorsement of the Iowa chapter of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU). Under the national union's rules, this means that only the state SEIUs that have also endorsed Edwards can come in and organize in Iowa. Listing all labor groups backing Edwards, the memo concludes that "these unions represent about 17,000 workers and their families in Iowa - a powerful bloc given that the highest caucus turnout in history was 126,000 (in 1988)."
Kim Molt, chair of the Democratic Party of rural Webster County and a Clinton supporter, confirms the memo's assessment from the ground. She senses that the Iowans who supported Edwards in 2004 are preparing to back him again, and praised the former Senator's strategy. "It's all a numbers game in Iowa, which is what makes it so different from primary states," she explained. In an obvious hit to Senator Obama's hope of expanding the voter universe, she added that, "Senator Edwards and Senator Clinton are hitting the right group of people who actually caucus."
The Edwards campaign is seeking to complement his organizational strength by focusing on Iowa's rural areas. Given the peculiar voting rules of the caucuses, a candidate will emerge with higher numbers if their support is spread out rather than concentrated in a few areas. Edwards recently became the first candidate to visit the state's 99 counties, and his team likes to argue that he is paying attention to parts of Iowa that are typically neglected by Democrats. The October memo insists on the campaign's commitment to rural areas -"He is the only candidate to have announced an organization of 99 rural county chairs (in April) and 1000 rural supporters." - and uses it as a broader argument for electability in the general election.
Edwards finally started running ads last week - much after other candidates were blasting the airwaves. The Clinton and Obama campaigns have spent between $3 and $4 million already, and even Bill Richardson had ads up over the summer. With his new $800,000 media buy, the Edwards camp believes it will increase the candidate's visibility and get back some of the lost momentum. Mark Bowers, a student organizer at the University of Iowa, emphasized that he was aiming towards a similar goal on his campus. "We have to get his name out there," he repeated.
But that Edwards is now running a distant third after five years of near continuous presence in the state indicates that there might be deeper problems for the North Carolina Democrat. Everyone in the state knows who Edwards is, and most of those likely to vote come January 3rd have probably met him at least once in person since he started campaigning in 2002.
Jefferson County's Lunsford explains that she changed her mind after noticing that the Edwards of 2008 was not the same candidate as the Edwards of 2004. "He is not connecting this time as he was last time," she noted. Indeed, Edwards has thoroughly changed his message in the past four years when he campaigned as a sunny optimist. Today, he uses more radical rhetoric to denounce the dire state America finds itself in. Judging by Lunsford's reaction, this has left many Edwards supporters in the cold.
More troubling for Edwards, many voters are questioning his sincerity. Lunsford revealed that many Iowans she has talked are bothered by reports that Edwards recently received money from hedge funds. "They felt that they would support him until that came out," she said. "But with this new money issue people have been bothered." And Henderson is hearing an even larger charge on the ground in Des Moines. "They were several things that undermined his anti-poverty message," he listed. "His haircut, the hedge funds and his house."
Whether or not it keeps up a strong organization, the Edwards campaign will have to address these concerns buzzing on the ground to make sure that all those who have moved away from his candidacy keep an open mind towards supporting him in the coming months, as Edwards intensifies his rhetoric and fills the airwaves with advertisements. Lunsford noted that Iowa voters "pay attention to all the different candidates and then make up their mind at the last minute."
Caucus voters who back a candidate who does not reach a threshold of 15 percent at a particular caucus place will have to switch their support or stay out of the process. And thus Edwards can still hope to benefit from the residue of good will many of his previous backers likely have for him.
Even if Iowans enter Caucus Day dating a smaller candidate like Chris Dodd or Bill Richardson, they might come out having married John Edwards. As Lunsford put it, "You sure need to go in the caucuses with at least a second choice ready; and sometimes you should even have a third."
Comments for this post are now closed
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
"It is hard to imagine a greater nightmare for America than the world's second-largest Muslim nation becoming a failed state in fundamentalist hands, with an arsenal of nuclear weapons and a population larger than those of Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan and North Korea combined".
- Senator Joe Biden
In these troubled and dire time we live in, Joe Biden, to me, encompasses all that we desperately need for our nation:
1) Intelligence
2) Experience in ALL phases of government
3) Strength
4) Respect from world leaders
5) Diplomacy
6) Command of issues
7) Solutions to problems that face our nation
8) Honesty
9) Integrity
10) Respect and trust from his peers
11) Respect and trust from the people who follow him
12) an EXPERT in foreign policy
Joe Biden certainly meets ALL of the criteria above.
I pray and hope every day that Mr. & Mrs. America, the people of Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina know in their hearts, that if we lose Joe Biden, we'll have lost one of the best Presidents our nation will ever have.
Please watch a video I produced to show my support for Senator Biden. If you support him, please send the link below to family and friends, and ask them to do the same.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=OtGCaqOdIJ4
Let's look at the largest interactive poll so far, The DFA poll just concluded.
Dennis Kucinich was the top vote getter with almost 32%; garnering double what Edwards and Obama collected ( Gore was second at 24% ).
Breaking it down to Iowa and its surrounding states:
Iowa-Kucinich 24%, MN-Kucinich 32%, WI- Kucinich 33%, MO-Kucinich 28%, SD-Kucinich 35%, and Nebraska-Kucinich 46%! ( Interesting with the Omaha media center for western Iowa ).
Illinois came in for native son Obama at 31%.
So, expect some changes by the time Iowans trudge to their caucus in January.
Wow, so many Edwards supporters here! Thank you! Go, John. He will change America.
While I prefer Edwards hands-down over Clinton & Obama, there are far stronger, bolder choices to really fight the system. Edwards is great, but he only hints at what others are saying, popular opinion be damned. Stop and think. Who was the really courageous one to point to Hillary point blank and condemn her vote on the Kyl-Lieberman Amendment? Gravel. But Edwards and the others benefit, because he's too honest. How could this NOT be what America needs? More than a fighter, a true leader born of the FDR/Eisenhower eras. Too bad time has forgotten real leadership.
Of course there's Kucinich, but people are really, really underestimating Mike Gravel. How many people even know about or understand his National Initiative? He doesn't even have to be elected for it to take hold. If 60 million people vote for it, it empowers the American people to become lawmakers, to make federal-ballot initiatives. The war in Iraq? People would've voted it done in the 2004 general election or soon thereafter? Healthcare? Done. All the issues that drag on for years, for generations, in Congress would be accomplished by the people.
www.nationalinitiative.us
And if you're talking about a REAL leader, please take the time to read what Gravel did with just two terms in the US Senate. Leaders lead.
www.gravel2008.us/legislature
I could take apart Edwards platforms in contrast to Gravel or Kucinich's, but I do like Edwards. But even he is not nearly enough to fix the ills in our country. Gravel has the true courage and moral integrity to set things right, not tilt the wheel a little bit back on course.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=PY1NrY6ismM
The thing I like about John Edwards is that he is not "a sunny optimist" but instead is talking about Two Americas. One for the rich (and their flunkies). The other one for the vast majority of us.
John Edwards (of the three 'leading' Dems) is the only one to say he's on the side of the majority of America. Those of us who work hard and raise our families and know there is a better way than this greedy mess.
Clinton is DLC, ie Republican Lite.
Obama, already pandering to the religious-right bigots with his anti-gay gospel tour, claims to be a 'uniter not a divider'. The only 'uniting' he offers is further surrender of the majority to the rich. We're seeing the effects of that already. Obama is Republican Lite.
More crony capitalism, more kleptocracy, more war, is not what the majority of Americans want or need.
Kucinich is my first choice. But of the three the media claim are at the top... it's an easy choice:
Republican Lite packaged in w/symbolic change (Clinton or Obama)
or John Edwards.
I'll volunteer for the Edwards campaign if he's the nominee.
Up front I will say that I am a loyal Obama supporter. In regards to how Hillary will vote on the NAFTA & Peru trade agreements, she'll wait first to see how Obama will vote. Just as she always does.
Second, where is all of John Edwards experience to be president? Trial lawyer, I don't think so, 1 term senator who spent the last 2 years of the term running for POTUS, running for VP in 2004 is good experience to be president. How many years of elected office does he have, maybe 6. How many years does Obama have, over 10 total. Senator Obama could have been a trial lawyer or corporate and make millions of dollars, but he chose to go back to Chicago and work as a civil rights lawyer and teach constitutional law and made $12,000 a year as a community organizer. So, why does Edwards experience qualify him to be POTUS and not Senator Obama's?
As an Australian I would like to see Edwards / Obama ticket in 2008. And I would like to see one or the other become President in 08. I like both these men and where they stand on an number of important issues, especially Iraq.
I hope Hillary doesnt get in. I stopped liking her when Rupert Murdoch came out in support of her.
Edwards is the only Democrat who has a good chance of winning the general election. He's the only candidate who could reasonably be expected to win a red state. What would the match up between HRC and Edwards be if Obama was not running? Why did Obama’s presidential campaign receive its earliest substantial donations from the same people who funded the Swift Boat attack ads against Kerry? (see See NYT’s story 3/7/07: Jared Abbruzzese – supporter of Swift Boats and Obama. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/07/us/politics/07obama.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all)
Why did Obama get his first major media mention from conservative pundits? Could it be that Obama has no chance in the general elections and would be an easy candidate for the GOP to beat, at least by a hair, despite their current problems in the polls? Could it be that the only Democratic candidates Wall Street prefers are either Republicrat DLCers or unelectable, or both?
It is heartening to read all the comments from my fellow Edwards supporters. Last evening I had a case of insomnia so I stayed up very late to watch Lou Dobbs, and prior to that Chris Matthews. "They were all saying the same thing, Hillary is beginning to falter, Edwards has gone on the attack and that will not play well in Iowa, that Hillary's new found victim routine is not attractive, and finally that if there is a beneficiary to the stumbling of the Clinton campaign it is Obama." What bothered me the most is how certain they were of their judgements, withoug much science behind it. I am not willing to throw in the towel yet. I believe that JRE's rhetoric matches the degree to which the Republic is in danger. Of course he was more optimistic last time. We only had 4 years of Bush screw ups to fix. It is more than double the trouble now as we drift more and more away from our core principles. JRE still has a chance. No matter what these bastards say. Giordy
John Edwards is being criticized for a gloomy message? For being truthful? Lordy mercy....millions of Americans can't sleep at night because of the Iraq bloodletting, financial meltdown, torture, spying, lying, Blackwater, Iran saber rattling, Congressional scandals, MSM propaganda, rigged elections, GWB doublespeak, etc. A John Edwards/Dennis Kucinich ticket would go a long way to right this sinking ship. Support these good men.
Of the media-ordained Dem front-runners Edwards is the one I find least objectionalbe, but American flags and hay bails? Come on, John!
Huff Post has to admit, there are many who comment at this blog site that WANT Edwards to win in Iowa and go on to win the Democratic nomination.
My opinion is that John Edwards IS what is best for America right now and is the best chance for Democrats to win The White House without jeopardizing the majority rule in Congress.
John Edwards has my vote.
Go John Edwards!
I'd vote for an Edwards - Kucinich ticket. The Neo Con owned News Media and Communications Conglomerates are in "Collusion" with each other, and the Neo Con Parasites infesting the Executive Branch,in order to hype up a certain candidate with embellishments, lies, half truths and manipulation of intelligence(Polls) in order to make it appear the Democrats are supporting one candidate, when actually the Democrats support a different candidate, because the Neo Cons fear a different candidate.
They did it in "04" when they feared John Edwards so they hyped up John Kerry.
All Conglomerates, Neo Con or not, NEED to be broken down into small companies so they have NO influence in the politics of this country. The laws governing "Conflict of Interest" and "Collusion" needs to be enforced and any and all of the Executive Branch Officials and Employees be forced to adhere to them.. From the United States Supreme Court down. strting with the Neo con Parasites masquerading as Supreme Court Justices.
Just one thought. In addition to my agreeing that Edwards is by far the best chance for the Dems and most electible as well, as well as the best top tier candidate with many bold ideas for getting this country back on the right track, I find this point equally as important. Huff Post has an article on the political page with a caption that says John Edwards says we need a fighter, not a unifier like O'Bama. I couldn't agree with that sentiment more. I am sick of everyone of the appeasers and that whole phillosophy. That is what helped lead us to where we are now, to the point that we have a Democratic majority (albeit small) and still can't stand up strong and lead. It's shameful and a complete betrayal the people of this party. I do want somebody out there fighting for our values and to get this country back on track. The Republicans have been fighting for their values for years now, not appeasing, and look who is winning that fight.
Again, I've made this point before, a Democratic woman candidate like Hillary Clinton with her high negatives and controversial history and Barak O'Bama, an inexperienced African American candidate with no real accomplishments are not going to win a general and I know I'm right. I always said that either one of those glass ceilings will be broken by conservatives, not liberals. And anyway, why in God's name would anyone with so much at stake be willing to take a chance like this on "firsts" in such a dire election. I could understand if there were not so much at stake. If either Clinton or O'Bama get the nomination, I believe we will be looking at another 8 years of probably President Guiliani, and what a tragedy that will be. Who knows how much worse it can get and I'm afraid we may find out if Democrats don't get their heads out of the sand. Go John Edwards.
I think John Edwards is still an optimist and if there is a change in his tone, it is because of the added misery of Republican failure and corruption. I believe our nation is in very big trouble and it does indeed take some very earnest and very big proposals to turn recover. Edwards provides both, and I only hope the folks in Iowa realize how vital their selection is. I am an opponent of Hillary Clinton and am so because she is a return to the dynastic politics of the status quo ante. You can argue that that is better than status quo, but I will argue that isn't good enough. Clinton is a dealer, not a fighter. We need a fighter.
Loading comments…
Posted November 7, 2007 | 12:29 AM (EST)