Caucuses, Primaries, Media & Money

OK, that may sound like revisionist history (and certainly doesn't explain Obama's lead in the polls). But it's true, at least to some extent, and it has to do with the difference between primaries and caucuses.

In the Iowa caucus, there was a 15% threshold for any candidate to win delegates. People caucusing for a candidate that didn't make that threshold (Biden, Dodd, Kucinich, Richardson, and even Edwards in some cases) could then choose a second-choice candidate. Anecdotal reports from the closely-watched Iowa process indicate that second-choices flocked to Obama and not to Clinton, pushing the former over the top. The caucus didn't require a majority, but it favoured a plurality against any candidate who might have a significant "anybody but X" factor.

Now, let's take New Hampshire: a straightforward one person/one vote system, with no second choices. A natural plurality here wins the day and gets the headlines and favours the strong candidate who can divide the "anybody but X" opposition. Take Obama's 36 percent and add it to Edwards' 17 percent, and you have two anti-party-Establishment candidates polling a combined majority — and there's every reason to believe that if Edwards weren't in the race, or if his voters could have marked a second choice, his support would break strongly toward Obama. But Clinton was first past the post, and she won the day.

But beyond the voting mechanics, the dynamic in the U.S. primary season is all about generating positive media coverage so that campaign contributions won't dry up. Obama's big win in Iowa generated an awesome amount of positive coverage, proving his viability to voters, but more importantly to contributors.

Anybody who's read the papers this morning can see that Clinton's surprise in New Hampshire will generate an intense amount of positive, "comeback kid" coverage, reassuring her contributors as well, and ensuring she has the resources to fight through to the 22 states that vote or caucus on "Super Duper Tuesday" (February 5th).

And Edwards — who is already at a distinct coverage and money disadvantage — Westmonster suspects a) he'll have even more trouble raising funds, and b) he'll come under increasing pressure from the anti-Establishment establishment to drop out, lest his 17 percent of the vote (or thereabouts) hand the nomination to Hillary.

Westmonster can't emphasise enough to those readers who are awe-struck by and envious of the "exercise in democracy" that is the U.S. primary process — the entire system is set up to favour the candidate who can raise the most money. You'll note that Clinton and Obama are neck-and-neck in the polls and in the delegate count. That stands to reason, because they're neck-and-neck in the fundraising game as well. Edwards lags in fundraising by a sizeable margin — just as he does in the polls.

For the next week, Clinton's comeback will be the story. Next week's Nevada caucus and the January 26th's South Carolina primary each give Obama a chance to change the conversation heading into February 5th. Whether he can do so will more than likely determine whether or not he has a realistic shot at the Democratic nomination.