What Happened ... Before It Happens

Chuck Todd reviews what the results of tonight's caucus mean:

Let's start with the Democrats.

John Edwards

No one HAS to win more than Edwards. The good news for him is that a win over two celebrity candidates will mean something. The three spins:

A solid win: Credit will be given to the fact that of the three candidates, no one's been more focused on domestic issues than Edwards. He's done a more credible job of "feeling the pain" of economically distressed Iowans than any other candidate, and as the economy becomes a bigger issue with local voters, Edwards' populist stance has looked prescient. The possibility of riding this wave to momentum in the very economically sensitive New Hampshire is very real.

A three-way tie: Edwards' populist appeal was effective in getting the voters he wooed for the last four years, but that appeal failed to bring in new voters and an influx of women, independents and Republicans looking for less polarizing candidates. This made Edwards' ability for a solid victory among Democratic activists very difficult.

A loss: As noted above, no one has more at stake in Iowa than Edwards. While a three-way tie might convince the Edwards campaign they can go on and compete, a loss will be extremely difficult to spin. That said, the Edwards camp wants the presidency badly. So, don't expect them to be forced out of this race easily even if the media ignores them after a less-than-impressive Iowa showing.

Hillary Clinton

A win: Strike up the inevitability pose. If Clinton squeaks out even a one-point win, it will have the effect of a landslide victory, particularly if she succeeds in a high-turnout scenario. She'll need to follow up a win in Iowa with a win in New Hampshire, of course, but success here could motivate both rank-and-file establishment Democrats (who had been on the fence) to climb aboard. And that will send a message, in particular to women voters, that there is a movement happening, one that the media has ignored until now.

A three-way tie: The Clinton camp will have two challenges in this scenario. One is to make sure the media doesn't somehow turn the tie into a "60-plus percent of Democrats rejected her" spin. While the Clinton campaign believes that they've gotten bad media coverage, they do have to worry about a certain segment of the press interpreting Clinton as the incumbent being rejected by majority margins. The second challenge is to make sure they declare victory in this case. With the polls indicating that Edwards and Obama had the juice to win, and Clinton seeming destined for no better than second, a tie may equal a win if her camp plays their cards right.

A loss: Obviously, the Clinton team would rather lose to Edwards than to Obama. Third place would be a near-disaster scenario; second is recoverable. There will be a lot of Friday morning quarterbacking about whether Clinton should have even played in Iowa. It was never a natural fit and because many in the national media know this, there's every chance she'll get a few more primaries to prove herself.
No chance anyone believes she's one or two and done. There's too much history with the Clintons and their ability to come back. Despite what they think of the media, they'll be looking for comeback hints at some point; maybe it's Nevada, maybe it's Feb. 5.

Here's another post-spin to expect from Clinton if Obama wins on the backs of independent and GOP support: Look for Clinton surrogates to feed the notion that the voice of rank-and-file Democrats is being drowned out by outside influences. The blogs have picked up on this, and despite not being big Clinton fans, one could envision how the campaign could pivot with "We've been in these fights with Democrats in the trenches; it's important for Democrats to have a greater voice" etc.
Something to watch for ...

Barack Obama

A win: I can't imagine a scenario where Obama wins the Democratic nomination and loses Iowa. If he's the nominee, it'll mean he won Iowa by a margin similar to what the Des Moines Register projected this week, allowing his "movement" candidacy to take off. Movements need victories, and no one may be better equipped to feed off a victory than Obama. That's why the Clinton campaign knows stopping Obama is essential. No campaign will have a greater bandwagon opportunity with a victory in Iowa than Obama, because a victory here will mean folks will start buying the idea that there is something going on out there. It would suggest that more folks are getting involved in the Democratic Party process (more indies, more GOPers, more youth, etc.). And that's a contagious thing with voters. But movement candidacies NEED victories; they die quick deaths if they lose — just ask Howard Dean.

A tie (either two-way or three-way): Obviously, Obama doesn't mind not winning as long as the person who is ahead of him is Edwards and not Clinton. The Obama folks are confident that they can marginalize Edwards post-Iowa if Clinton is the candidate in third, instead of Obama. A tie with Clinton puts more pressure on Obama to try to win New Hampshire and prove he can actually beat her. As I noted above, movements need victories, and a tie might hurt Obama more than people realize.

A loss: See above explanations about movement candidates. Obama has the money to run a national campaign, but the burden of expectations is with him right now, and negative "we told you so" narratives could take hold if Obama's plan to get indies, GOPers and young voters to the polls fails.

For the rest of the story, go here (it's good)