Iowa expert: An early Edwards exit would have aided Obama, not Clinton

A new -- and persuasive -- "what if" scenario has been offered for how the Democratic presidential race would have played out if John Edwards' extramarital affair had been revealed before the voting began, rather than long after it was over.

And this latest view differs dramatically from the lament offered Monday by ex-Hillary Clinton aide Howard Wolfson (below).

Wolfson, in yet another sign that some Clinton acolytes are having difficulty letting go of the past, caused a stir by telling ABC News that his boss would have captured the Democratic nod had Edwards been forced to the sidelines before the Iowa caucuses in early January.   

"I believe we would have won Iowa, and Clinton today would therefore have been the nominee," the often pugnacious Wolfson said.

Au contraire, argues David Redlawsk -- head of the University of Iowa's Hawkeye Poll and, in the walk-up to the caucuses, himself an Edwards backer.

An e-mail sent today by the school's news service says that polling on caucus night supervised by Redlawsk indicated "that the absence of Edwards would have helped (Barack) Obama."

The survey, which quizzed a randomly selected caucus participant in every Iowa precinct, asked the voters about their second-choice preferences. Among the 82% of Edwards supporters willing to back someone else, 51% named Obama as their next choice, 32% picked Clinton.

Wolfson's claim "that two-thirds of Edwards supporters would have supported Clinton is just not supported in data collected directly from those who actually participated in the caucuses," Redlawsk says in the e-mail. "Had Edwards not been running, and if nothing else had changed, my data suggest that Obama would have ended up even further ahead of Clinton than he was."

(Obama won the caucuses with 38% of the vote; Edwards edged Clinton for second place, 30% to 29%.)

Redlawsk, from his perspective as an Edwards volunteer, went on to say: "As the campaign progressed, few Edwards supporters I knew gave any indication that Clinton ...

... was their second choice. In my own caucus, which I chaired, when our Edwards group was initially declared non-viable, there was discussion of moving -- but to Obama, not Clinton. In the end, we gained viability by bringing over (Bill) Richardson and (Joe) Biden forces and by negotiating with the Obama group."

The e-mail continued: "Redlawsk noted that by the time Iowa's county conventions rolled around March 15, Edwards had dropped out. Many Edwards delegations remained a separate viable group, but where they did not, the move to Obama was massive. In the end, Obama picked up nearly half of Edwards supporters, while Clinton picked up almost none.

Of the four Iowans elected as Edwards national convention delegates, including Redlawsk, all publicly moved to Obama on June 3. None went to Clinton."

It adds up to a pretty powerful rebuttal of Wolfson, making his comment sound more like sour grapes than informed speculation. Indeed, Wolfson seems to have put out of his mind the organizational problems that, as various post-mortems have detailed, plagued the Clinton campaign in Iowa.

Coincidentally, what may be the last word in what went wrong overall with Clinton's candidacy was published today: Joshua Green's much-awaited piece at TheAtlantic.com., which draws on numerous internal memos. Here's Green's nut graph:

"Above all, this irony emerges: Clinton ran on the basis of managerial competence -- on her capacity, as she liked to put it, to “do the job from Day One.” In fact, she never behaved like a chief executive, and her own staff proved to be her Achilles’ heel.

"What is clear from the internal documents is that Clinton’s loss derived not from any specific decision she made but rather from the preponderance of the many she did not make. Her hesitancy and habit of avoiding hard choices exacted a price that eventually sank her chances at the presidency."

-- Don Frederick

Photo credit: MSNBC

Comments

[frieda]

I am surprised you have not blogged about Obama's new foreign policy advisor!!!!
talking about blind leading the blind..check it out here:

www.obamasgaffes.blogspot.com

[scootmandubious]

Thanks for actually listing supporting data on this. It makes it more than just a matter of opinion.

Can we actually now start to move forward, because if Clinton supporters think that if Obama loses, that the door opens for her in 2012, that would only be valid if one thing happens....she does her best to help Obama get elected.

If she doesn't and if Bill is lackluster as well, she can forget about any future aspirations in the party.

Personally, I would bet money that, if Obama wins, she would be the leading candidate for the next Supreme Court opening.

In many ways, that might even be a better scenario than the presidency. She could really leave a lasting legacy there.

[DoTheMath]

Talk about grasping for straws! No only do the facts contradict Wolfson's hypothetical outcome, but just look what he was reaching for here: If only this other candidate, not his candidate or the candidate who won the primary, but a third candidate, had left the race sooner . . . Where can you really go from there?

[IrishJim]

The only way Clinton would have one Iowa is if both Edwards and Obama dropped out of the race. Is it any wonder that Wolfson works for Fox News now. Can we just let the Right Wing Nuts have him? What a whiner.

[William Chirolas]

What nonsense - Your "Iowa expert: An early Edwards exit would have aided Obama, not Clinton" headline presumes this expert can con your readers based on his assertion that his exit poll facts predict what would have happen - an assertion that is as unprovable as any other. Without Edwards in the race the turnout is different, and other candidates get more air time - the "second choice" poll can not be predictive because of this. As an actuary I am aware of the limitations of polling - apparently your expert and your writer are not.

[jon]

I voted for Hillary in the Primary, but I'm so tired of Clinton's people (and many supporters) - - always making excuses, and showing no respect for what Obama achieved.
It wasn't Obama, his campaign, the DNC, Edwards, or the Easter Bunny, that conspired against a Hillary win - - Hillary ran a terrible early campaign. By the time she started to hit her stride, she was just too far behind.
As a HIllary supporter, I knew by the end of March, that Obama would win. I just wish the sore-losing Hillary supporters, would start exercising their mental acuity, and stop trying to take down Obama.
Man, will they be sorry if McCain wins, especially the women.

[Ron Johnson]

It doesn't get any more stupid than Howard Wolfson. He is coyote ugly and sour grapes personified.

Hillary and Bill should stop blaming Obama and others for their defeat and place the blame on this pathetic Penn/ Wolfson team THEY assembled.

[jon]

@William Chirolas - It wasn't just one exit poll, it was numerous exit polls, that had the 2nd choice question.
All of them had the majority of Edwards supporters, going to Obama as 2nd choice.
The Progressive community has always been more in-line with Obama, than Hillary, especially after Hillary voted for the Iraq Authorization. What drove the Obama Campaign, was the Anti-Iraq sentiment. Edwards renounced his vote, Hillary didn't, thus, the Anti-Iraq Edwards vote, would not have gone to HIllary.
Actuary or not, you are wrong.

[m scibilia]

How many of those polled are really just going with the winner now? People don't like to be associated with a loser. Of course a high percentage are going to now say their second choice was Obama.

[Bitter Nation]

Hey, how about this ? If we only lived under a dictatorship, or a monarchy... then Clinton would have been coronated. It was the founding fathers who stole the election from Clinton. Yeah.

[Tom C]

M Scibilia:

How many of those polled are really just going with the winner now? People don't like to be associated with a loser. Of course a high percentage are going to now say their second choice was Obama.

Posted by: m scibilia | August 12, 2008 at 01:20 PM

---

Um, you are aware that this was *exit polling*, right? Meaning that it happened at the time of the caucuses, not today. So your "they're just going with the winner" theory is kinda silly; they didn't KNOW Obama would be the winner, back then (in theory).

[Rob McMillin]

William Chirolas would like us to ignore actual polling data in favor of his opinion. A fine idea that would no doubt be agreed upon by Pope Urban VIII, who never let a little heliocentrism get in the way of an article of faith.

[Nureet Cohen]

The real Barack Obama, What is that?

[Nureet Cohen]

I also voted for Hillary in the Primary, and I am so sorry she didn't get in. She could have been a great president. Anyway, Obama has no chance. And how come we don't hear his wife anymore? Is someone keeping her quite? She had so much to say before.

[Linda]

Iowa has just over 660 thousand registered Democrats. In the caucus he only got 89,818 votes. Less than 14% of ALL registered Democrats.

The State has 1,922,235 total registered voters. He got 4.7% of ALL registered Iowa voters. The fall election will not be a caucus.

Only 239,000 were able to attend the set time for caucus which eliminated all but three of the Democrat candidates. The rest couldn't afford to go on.

Then the 'Super Delegates' wrapped it up.

I challenge all of you to research the creation of caucuses. How they evolved. They are totally contradictory to a secret ballot. But of course that is what they are meant to be. Intimidation at its best.

[SteveJJ]

Who really cares? John Edwards is an idiot. I cannot believe that he would have even conceived of running for President knowing that he had an extra-marital affair with a wife that had cancer "in remission". If he had been the Democratic nominee, could you imagine where the party would be right now. He has already provided Bill O'Reilly with enough material to last the rest of the year. What a freaking dumbass. I hope his wife finds herself a stud boyfriend and kicks Edwards to the curb.

[CAROLINE]

comedy central’s indecision 2008.

check out the new marketing campaign i'm working on...we just started it and theres really good chances of winning... so enter!

MAKE JON STEWART & STEPHEN COLBERT PROUD.

THINK YOU KNOW A GOOD CAMPAIGN PLATFORM WHEN YOU SEE ONE?

Don't let Paris win the vote. What would YOUR stand on the election be? Get your thoughts out there! Lay out your presidential platform in a short video (less than two minutes long) and you could win a trip to NY and two passes to Comedy Central's exclusive, star-studded election night party!

check it out: Comedy Central's Indecision 2008

[Joe]

> As a HIllary supporter, I knew by the end of March, that Obama would win.

Unless you were just highly cynical, that would make you one of the well-informed ones who looked at the polls and the delegates and the math. There aren't many of those supporting any candidate in either the primaries or the actual election.

Even with data from RealClearPolitics, FiveThirtyEight and Electoral-Vote.com, there are always people who don't bother to look at the data and make claims about who is ahead or behind on one or two polls without any real knowledge of the entire map.

They're called "low information voters." Do your own research and don't be one of them.

[NinaK]

Hey, how about this ? If we only lived under a dictatorship, or a monarchy... then Clinton would have been coronated. It was the founding fathers who stole the election from Clinton. Yeah.

Posted by: Bitter Nation
----------------------------
Bitter Nation, love your post!! Watch, Wolfson will come out with this as well, since he has not blamed our founding fathers...YET! What really bug the heck out of me with the Clinton supporters, they KNOW Hilliary ran a shabby campaign but they choose not to admit it...it's much easier for them to call Senator Obama names and tear him down than to face the reality Hilliary truely is incompetent as a leader, manager, and hard decision maker. She could "RECITE" policy but not much more.

[NinaK]

How many of those polled are really just going with the winner now? People don't like to be associated with a loser. Of course a high percentage are going to now say their second choice was Obama.

Posted by: m scibilia |
--------------------------
These polls were taken in Iowa, the FIRST contest of the campaign. NOONE knew who had won Iowa when these polls were taken so how could they "just go with the winner'?? Hilliary did NOT impress Iowans; she went to Iowa with the "inevitability crown" on her head and literally acted like she was Queen...lavish spending in the best hotels, driving SUVs, buying doughnuts and pizza for the caucus voting sites, and running all her Hill-a-Copter tours, Hill-a-this, Hill-a-that. All those Hill-a-whatevers bespoke of an ultraegoist. Hilliary was aware Iowa was not "in love" with her so she decided to drag in her 80+ year old mom, her daughter, and FEMALE friends from New York and Arkansas to tell the world what a WONDERFUL, LOVING, CARING, NICE, SWEET, AND FRIENDLY WOMAN Hilliary really was. Iowa did not buy the BS. I thought anyone who felt she has to run a likeability tour to gain the people's trust and to get them to like was really pathetic. I was right!! All that tour did is highlight just how much Hilliary Clinton WAS disliked by 49% of our population. By the end of her campaign, Hilliary had gained a 65% DISLIKEABILITY RATING. So, as the campaign progress, more and more people got to dislike Hilliary more and more and with good reasons!!

[NinaK]

> As a HIllary supporter, I knew by the end of March, that Obama would win.

Unless you were just highly cynical, that would make you one of the well-informed ones who looked at the polls and the delegates and the math. There aren't many of those supporting any candidate in either the primaries or the actual election.

Even with data from RealClearPolitics, FiveThirtyEight and Electoral-Vote.com, there are always people who don't bother to look at the data and make claims about who is ahead or behind on one or two polls without any real knowledge of the entire map.

They're called "low information voters." Do your own research and don't be one of them.

Posted by: Joe
------------------
Joe, have you ever heard of "gut instinct"? How about, "trust your gut"? Early on, I, too, felt Hilliary was not going to win the primary. She was very harsh and hyenish, and remember her "cackling" laugh at the debates?? Her behavior embarrassed a lot of us. She tried to act like a "strong robust male with a hearty laugh", we weren't buying it. She was also changing her persona from day to day and it got to the point that many of us did not know which of the MANY Hilliaries was going to show up!! Her message was inconsistent, after awhile she even gave up her "experience" theme. Hilliary's campaign memos and E-mails show a Hilliary who shied away from making hard decisions, a Hilliary would could not lead and could not manage her campaign, her gurus did NOT listen to her. Mark Penn thought it was HIS campaign instead of Hilliary's. The end result was Hilliary proved herself to be very incompetent.

[NinaK]

Linda, the caucuses were NEVER a bad thing until Hilliary came along!! You know, Bill Clinton won most of the caucuses when he ran both times, I don't remember either Hill or Bill complaining about the caucuses then, Hilliar made a big deal out of the caucuses "being undemocratic and not counting" simply because SHE wasn't winning them. Hilliary had already devided the UNITED STATES of AMERICA as: BIG STATES + BIG DELEGATES = IMPORTANT AND THEY MATTER; SMALL PRIMARY STATES + SMALL DELEGATES = NOT IMPORTANT AND DON'T MATTER; CAUCUS STATES + SMALL DELEGATES = ARE UNDEMOCRATIC AN DON'T COUNT. YES, she said this, her campaign said this!! So when it came time to vote, gues what?? The majority in these states VOTED FOR SENATOR OBAMA---TWELVE (12) CONTESTS IN A ROW!! Why would Hilliary and her camp expect US to vote for her when she had already labelled us as unimportant, not mattering, not counting, and being undemocratic?? She clearly toldl you she DID NOT NEED OUR VOTES!! Another big reason why she lost!!

[Obama Edwards sombre plot]

Obama and Edwards essentialy defeated Hillary by blaming her for the Irak war.Edwards knew he had no
chance of winning the nomination and was only interested in defeating Hillary to become Obama"s running
mate.Edwards voted for the war but was saying that he
now realized it was a mistake while Obama as the true
demagogue he is said he was against the war even though he never got to vote on it since he was not a senator at the time of the vote.What a cheap shot. And it
irks me to no end to see just how constipated Don
Frederick and the other Obama sycophants refuse to
see how much damage will result from this usurpation
of the nomination by an un-dignified and un-becoming
hypocrit.

[TETE DAKU]

THE EDWARDS CASE NEVER CAUSED HILLARY FAILURE. NOT AT ALL! THE PRIMARIES AND CAUCUSES ARE DEFINTELY OVER! THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY NOMINEE NAME’S IS BARACK OBAMA! THE TIME NOW IS ABOUT THAT PARTY’S CONVENTION IN DENVERS! SEN. HILLARY CLINTON SURROGATE WHO WAS BILL CLINTON SURROGATE FOR YEARS SHOULD THINK TWICE BEFORE MAKING SUCH ALEGATION! IF MONICA LEWINSKY AND MULTITUDE OF BILL CHEATING ON HER DID NEITHER SINK HILLARY NOR HER HUSBAND --IN SPITE OF THE FACT THAT BILL CLINTON REMAINED IN THIS PARTICULAR DOMAIN AND HISTORY A WELL DOCUMENTED SERIAL PHILANDER --NEVER PREVENTED HIM TO VIGOROUSLY AND AGGRESSIVELY CAMPAIGN FOR HER AGAINST BARACK OBAMA. HOW COULD EDWARDS CASE CAUSE HILLARY TO LOOSE? LET US TALK ABOUT THE CONVENTION! PERIOD! SEN. CLINTON SURROGATES SHOULD STOP CONTINUING RIDICULING THEMSELVES!

[Mr. Unite Us]

Fox News and Wolfson vs. the facts. The facts win.

Kind of makes Fox and Wolfson look stupid