Edwards (and Obama) didn't need to win Iowa, they only had to beat Hillary. Here's why:

[Stop Cornyn]

Hillary (not Obama) has a huge lead in the Super Tuesday states.

If Hillary had won Iowa, there is every reason to believe she'd have had momentum going into New Hampshire, and -- given her pre-Iowa standing in New Hampshire she likely would have won, and with two early wins -- and given her wide pre-Iowa lead in Nevada -- she likely would have won there, too, and with all three wins, she'd likely run the table. That scenario would have effectively ended the campaign for everyone.

If Hillary came in second and either Edwards or Obama came in third, the media would spin it as a two person race in New Hampshire between Hillary and whoever won Iowa (the MSM would ignore the third place finisher the same way they are currently ignoring Richardson who's getting ZERO credit for finishing in fourth place ahead of some excellent opponents). That scenario would have effectively ended the campaign for the third place finisher.

Because Edwards beat Hillary, the MSM is emphasizing the race as a three way race. Edwards has gotten good face time on the news last night and this morning. This is keeping his campaign in the voter's mind.

By Super Tuesday, the race will be down to two candidates (I don't mean that literally because there will probably be three or four candidates in the race for the next month, yet if there is a pattern in the early contests of two candidates performing better than the others in more states than not, all but those two candidates will likely have devolved into "also rans"). If Hillary came in second in Iowa, it is clear that those two candidates would be her and the winner in Iowa, but because she came in third, there remains the possibility that the two candidates who will vie on Super Tuesday will be Edwards and Obama.

In order to be one of the two candidates who goes into the head-to-head of Super Tuesday, Edwards needs to continue to beat Hillary in most of the early states.

If Edwards can finish ahead of Hillary in New Hampshire or Nevada or South Carolina (he probably needs to beat her in two of these three states, but again, beating Hillary is more critical than winning), Edwards goes into Super Tuesday as the alternative to Obama.

70% of the Iowa caucus participants chose change over experience in the status quo system. If this is an election about change, Edwards offers a different, more detailed, and much more progressive model for change as compared to Obama.

[Tejanocrat]

1. Agreed

[frogcycle]

2. generally agree

and the MSM treatment of any but the three musketeers has been abominable.

That said, Richardson's "fourth place finish" was so far away from third as to be inconsequential. While it WAS the result of a self-fulfilling prophecy, given the final numbers you can't really blame them now. The blame goes to their trivializing/marginalizing Richardson, Biden, Dodd, and Kucinich from the get-go.

[Dhalgren]

3. Good analysis...

:thumbsup:

[MilesColtrane]

4. Unfortunately, things are only going to get tougher for John E.

Clinton has a 15 point lead over him in N.H., and he's got 4 days to bridge that gap. (something that he'll have to do with a LOT less money than Clinton...)

If by a miracle he can edge past her, or tie her, his campaign will have some breathing room before Nevada, and they'll need it.
Clinton leads him there by 30 points.

What a fucked up system. $$ rules all.

[Stop Cornyn]

6. Actually, the short 5 day window makes the cash difference almost completely irrelevant. Edwards has

well more than 5 days worth of funds to spend in New Hampshire.

For Edwards to catch Hillary, he needs to move up some (and I feel sure he will) but he doesn't have to move up 15% because Hillary will quite likely move down as Edwards is moving up. It is entirely conceivable, for example, that Edwards could get an 8% bump from Iowa if he does well in the debate and Hillary could easily fall 8% as a result of her poor performance in Iowa and her negative attacks against Obama (which she will need to engage in if she has any hope of catching Obama).

Plus, if Hillary loses New Hampshire -- even if she beats Edwards -- it will be perceived as Hillary ONCE AGAIN failing to meet expectations (remember, New Hampshire was her "firewall" state).

Even if Hillary beats Edwards, if Hillary loses New Hampshire to Obama the story will be about the wheels coming off her campaign, which may open an opportunity for Edwards to pass Hillary in Nevada and South Carolina.

[Tejanocrat]

7. Good point

[MilesColtrane]

8. Let's hope so.

[Stop Cornyn]

9. I'm right there with you.

[mohc]

5. I agree as well

With a few additions. The basic premise being the likely establishment of a two candidate race by Super Tuesday. From here there are basically 4 paths the race can take, in increasing likelihood of them occurring.

1. Obama collapse.
This would require some huge, or multiple smaller, scandal to break in the next few weeks. Bill Clinton weathered a succession of bad press stories in 1992 (Flowers, draft dodge, Rector) and still went on to win. Thus far we have not heard any rumblings that could bring Obama down, so I this path is highly unlikely. The result though would be a two way race between Hillary Clinton and Edwards.

2. Obama surge.
This is the one path where there is not a two way race. If Obama rides successive bounces from the early contests, the "inevitability" theme will break down for Clinton. Edwards has lost the state he had the best chance in and most notable support, and could easily fade. Obama could win South Carolina handily and be the only candidate winning primaries come Super Tuesday.

3. Clinton stumbles.
With Obama now as the presumptive front runner, we will have to wait and see how much Clinton's support erodes, both nationally and in the early contests. Edwards coming in second in Iowa was not a shock, and will not get him much press. But if he can rise up even modestly in New Hampshire with Clinton support flowing over to Obama, he may well come in second (although probably distantly to Obama). This would be surprising, and perhaps enough to create a two way race between Obama and Edwards. Edwards would still be unlikely to win in this scenario, but anything could happen.

4. Edwards fades.
Basically the same as the Obama surge, but Clinton uses her infrastructure, national support, and financing to stay afloat. A two way race between Obama and Clinton would follow.