1:00 P.M. EST 
MODERATOR: Good afternoon, and welcome to the Washington Foreign Press Center. As you all read in our announcement, we have 576 hours to go until Iowa, and I know everybody is excited about that. Yes, I hear the yells. (Laughter.)
We are thrilled today to have Chuck Todd with us of NBC to talk about the hours ahead of us until Iowa and also touch on New Hampshire and The Big Picture of the 2008 elections. Just to give you a quick rundown, he will speak for a few minutes and we have plenty of time to take your questions. I say plenty. We will end probably about five till because we've got some folks doing a DVC after. So with no further ado, we have Chuck Todd.
MR. TODD: Great. Thank you. So did it really scare you when we said 576 hours? I mean, it's sort of -- it's one of these things like in my staff and the producers I work with, pounding it in their heads, it's like, guys, this thing is 24 days, so supposedly there are 24 hours in a day but we have a week for holidays. I mean, the really -- it's interesting. The campaigns, the Democratic campaigns in particular, are acting as if they're in the last week of the campaign. None of them are risking the idea that somehow they have more time to make their -- what a lot of times in politics is referred to as a closing argument, in the same way that you would in a trial or a law. All three candidates, major candidates -- Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, John Edwards -- are up or debuting a new sort of closing ad that tries to sum up their appeal.
What's been interesting about watching the three new things is that Obama's message is the one that hasn't changed from when he began in February to what his closing argument is. It's the same argument.
With Clinton, she's been changing her message quite frequently over the last three or four weeks. And when you see a candidate doing that, that tells you that they're struggling to close the deal; they're having a hard time getting over the hump. Today, they have a new ad up called "A New Beginning," and it talks about her giving this stump speech, which was really a fairly new stump speech last week, talking about a new beginning on healthcare, a new beginning on foreign affairs, a new beginning, et cetera, et cetera. She is desperately trying to get some of that change energy that Obama has been basically locking up and every day seems to be corralling more and more of the change -- of the folks that want change, of the Democrats that want change.
And it's gone back and forth. It's interesting for -- to me, for the first six months, this campaign was a referendum on him, on Obama and his experience. If you thought he had the experience, you were with him. If you didn't, you were basically with her. Then, as she really started to build a lead, as he really looked like he wasn't ready to do this, wasn't ready for primetime, then the race shifted back to being a referendum on her, on the issues of trust, honesty, credibility. And now it's shifted back and Obama found his opening, you know, came back basically, and this things feels, again, at least in Iowa and in New Hampshire, a referendum on him and on experience. If he can prove just enough experience, then he's going to be the Democratic nominee.
She is having -- it's interesting when you look at what she's done. She has done everything that she can do. You know, this idea, if she doesn't win this nomination, nobody can say, gee, Senator Clinton made this error, she made this mistake. She was playing with the cards she was dealt. You know, if Obama wasn't in this thing, she'd have a much -- she'd have a bunch more different avenues to go. She probably could have been the gee whiz candidate. I mean, the thing that's hurt her from the beginning, from the very beginning that Obama got into this thing, is that the idea of the first woman president no longer was this unique, interesting thing. Obama sort of stole a lot of that thunder. And you sort of actually saw it a little bit this weekend with the Oprah-Obama Oprahpalooza, as we've been calling it. See, that didn't go over well here. You guys don't know about all the different rock concerts that we call that always end in a -palooza.
But the amount of crowds that she got -- and here, I have no doubt in my mind a year ago when Hillary Clinton were thinking about the first time that they would debut the mother and daughter and grandmother on the trail together, that that would have been a big moment to appeal to women voters and to appeal to this idea to Democrats that you can elect the first woman president, would have been this huge thing and instead it was just a Clinton campaign attempt to just at least mute some of the Oprah stuff. I mean, the Oprah stuff was still the dominating story, but at least there was an, oh, by the way, Hillary Clinton was campaigning for the very first time with her daughter and mother.
That, no doubt in my mind a year ago, was going to be thought of as a huge moment for them, one of these moments that they could have gotten thousands to come and been a great way of humanizing Senator Clinton, helping her connect a little bit better. But instead, it's just used as a way to try to counter-program Oprah.
And I think that that has been the struggle for the Clinton campaign from the get-go, which is how to look like new and change when compared to Obama, who looks -- who just looks like he's new. Obviously, he is newer on the scene. He is the fresh face. But he was making the pitch that he can be the first African American president, and so that became almost more of the gee whiz than the first woman president. And so I think that you're seeing that struggle. And if she doesn't get this thing, it will be -- she will be another in a long line of candidates who have lost change versus experience arguments. Nixon-Kennedy in '60 was a change versus experience. Nixon closed the gap by making the case that Kennedy wasn't -- didn't have the experience to be president. Voters seemed to agree. You look at various -- when these arguments take place -- in 2000 Gore made the case that Bush wasn't experienced enough to be president, and in polls he was winning that argument by 20 points and Bush won. In '92 George H.W. Bush was making the case that Bill Clinton wasn't experienced enough to be president, and he was winning that argument by 20 points. I went back and looked at some polls. And yet Clinton won.
These are never equal arguments when you're making a change versus experience argument. Ford and Carter: Ford made the case that Carter wasn't experienced, and it was the same thing. They're never equal arguments. It's never -- you know, the person with experience wants to make the case that says, well, that candidate doesn't have not just any experience but the same amount of experience as they do, hoping that that's the judge. But what voters, and particularly in a change election, they just want to make sure the candidate has enough experience.
So this is where Obama is in the driver's seat. He just has to do C+ work on the experience front. He just has to prove that he's going to have enough experience, that he's going to surround himself with the right folks that, you know, will prove -- and you know, he's put on TV ads, for instance, with military folks in the ads to sort of prove this thing. So he's just having to prove just enough.
And we'll see. I think right now, when you've seen Clinton's numbers go down, you haven't seen Obama's shoot up. He has gradually moved up. Clinton's numbers have peeled from her to undecided, which is sort of step one in any kind of election like this. And I think you won't see them move to Obama, if they do end up moving to him, until very late. Polls may not show it. It may be one of those things where on the actual caucus night in Iowa -- and I'll explain that if you guys want me to try to explain that process, I will, it's very confusing -- or in New Hampshire, they may not move until very late because I think folks -- you know, they already have a very high favorable rating. We did some survey work that came out over the weekend. He's got -- Obama's got the highest favorable rating of any Democrat in New Hampshire. He's got a higher favorable rating than Clinton in Iowa, though a lower favorable rating, by the way, than John Edwards. Higher favorable -- her and actually Clinton -- he and Clinton, she and Obama are the same in South Carolina. But overall, he seems to have a little more room to grow. But it's sort of voters are waiting for him to make that experience -- make the -- just enough of the experience argument.
So she in this late stage is hoping he slips up. I mean, I think that she's proven she's capable of the job to plenty of Democrats. She's won that argument. But she has not won the change argument. So either she's got to figure out how to disqualify him. And I think that right now, the question is how much can she do it, does she have to hope he does it to himself, or does she have to go negative. And I think that they have -- they've been very hesitant. You know, this has not been a very negative campaign on the Democratic side because I think that they know, particularly on the Clinton side, they'll boomerang under her faster than any other candidate. It's just a very difficult thing for her.
And when you have a third viable candidate in John Edwards -- candidate A gets candidate B, sometimes candidate C benefits, and that's always another risk. So there's this weird three-dimensional chess.
The Republican side, I wish it were -- the picture was as clear as it is on the Democratic side; that's the irony, right? The Democratic side incredibly competitive, basically a two-and-a-half person race, you know. Not to undercut Mr. Edwards, but there's only sort of one path for him. Both Obama and Clinton have like more national campaigns that I think that they can lean on if things don't go well in Ohio and New Hampshire. But the Republican race is incredibly fluid. And I think the rise of Huckabee probably has all of you going "Who is this guy and what do I have to do? Now I have to go figure who this guy is." Trust me, we're trying to figure the same thing. Now we've got to assign producers to him, correspondents. I mean, it's the fun of this for my job -- it, of course, makes all of our actual work that we have to do when we have bosses telling us I need a story about Mike Huckabee, who is this guy?
One way to explain the rise of Huckabee, I think, is none of the other candidates are impressing the Republicans, so he is serving as a none-of-the-above. He is sort of the nice guy in the field, people like him. And right now voters are saying, you know what, yeah, if you're going to make me choose right now, I'd pick him. And it's almost a protest, like you know, the rest of you guys you're not speaking to me, you're not talking to me, you're not -- and I'm wondering, and it's something we're trying to do some more research on, I'm wondering if the mistake these other candidates have made is not understanding that Republican voters want change too.
I think that the mistake that John McCain, Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani made was this assumption that they had to prove that they were like Bush in some way. You know, Mitt Romney had to prove that he was like a Bush Republican when it came to social views. John McCain was proving that he was just like a Bush Republican when it came to the war. And Rudy Giuliani, the same thing on national security and on terrorism. And instead, the one guy that was speaking to change, speaking a little anti-Washington, from the very beginning and doing so with that sort of "nice guy" attitude was Huckabee. And so is he benefiting from being the lone guy being change.
Now, you've got McCain now trying to be a change candidate, but not when he got -- when he first started this campaign. Romney had a great resume to make the case that he could be sort of competent change. But again, he had so many issues that he had to -- he felt the need to make right with the social right of the Republican part that he spent the last eight months proving that he was just like a rank-and-file Bush Republican; rather than making the case that he could bring change. Giuliani hasn't done as much as Romney has on that front, when it's coming to prove that he is a Republican, but he has to do things throughout speeches in different ways. He's rhetorically walked away from some issues to prove that he is a rank-and-file Republican, that he is an heir to the Reagan legacy; rather than -- you know, when on paper, he could have made the best case than any of them that he would be a change agent as far as the Republicans were concerned. So when you look at national polls and you see that 75 percent of the country believes we're headed in the wrong direction, well, there's a heck of a lot of Republicans who also believe we're headed in the wrong direction too. And there's a heck of a lot of Republicans that want change.
And I think that when you look at the candidates, the only one that's even coming close to tapping into the change atmosphere that's inside the Republican Party as well is Mike Huckabee. I mean, we did a survey of Republicans nationally and they say, you know, do you want a president -- this was of Republicans -- a president that is going to keep the sort of Bush style and policies or something different from the Bush style and policies. And a majority picked something -- picked a new direction. There's a majority of Republicans.
So it's something that all of the major candidates, who have been front runners for eight months, have struggled with and now they're seeing sort of what would happen when somebody caught fire. And Huckabee's caught fire. Could he hold? History says no. This feels like Howard Dean. It feels like it's this -- like inflated thing and it's going to drop as fast as it went up. Plus, the Republicans never fall in love with long-shot candidates; Republicans are a very orderly party and they always go to the heir apparent. So you know, you sit there and say even if he wins Iowa, even if he wins South Carolina, even if he comes in, there's no way they'll nominate him, right? You know, only the Democrats nominate kooky unknown governors from Arkansas; not the Republicans, you know.
But, you know, at this point stranger things have happened. You could make a case that Huckabee, you know, having an outsider, a non-Washington -- you know, I've made this case that the best chance for the Republicans to hold the White House is to nominate a non-Washington Republican. I always thought Romney was that guy. Giuliani could fit that profile. I think it's what hurt Thompson and McCain is that how much change were they really going to be for Washington, because there is -- and that's another thing I think that you have to understand about this electorate; they desperately want change. It is a change electorate nationally. This is -- you know, I mentioned the wrong direction, but people are upset, they're worried about America's role, not just America's role in the world and its reputation, but are we still the number one economy. Are we still the number -- you know, are we still the -- is the American dream still alive, are our children going to have a better future than we did? And that question, when it's been asked, it's the first time a majority don't believe that the next generation is going to do better than -- I mean, that's been a standard assumption in American politics in the last hundred years. The assumption that of course -- because every generation has gotten better economically, every generation has been able to succeed and do better than their parents' generation. And this idea that that's not going to happen -- so you have a depressed country, too, that's looking for change but also looking for a little optimism.
And maybe it's no shock that Obama and Huckabee -- probably the two most optimistic guys on both sides at this point -- are benefiting from this. People want to feel a little good again, they want to -- I mean, when you look at all facets of life in America right now, and they are depressed everything, forget just Washington and the war which is wearing them down, the economy. All of a sudden our houses aren't worth what we thought they were; that's frightening, okay? I mean, when you own a home and you think, wait a minute, I thought -- but for so many people the home is their savings, that's their retirement. Okay, so then they're depressed and wonder, geez, is that just a house of cards. Even sports, people are cheating all the time in sports and, you know, that's a societal thing, whether it's baseball, whether it's cycling, whether it's football; there's just allegations of cheating there.
Religious institutions -- you know, obviously a lot of attention paid to the Catholic scandal, but we've seen it with some evangelical groups. So there isn't a positive feeling in some many -- the business community, CEOs, and the idea that they are laying people off and taking -- you know, cutting retirement benefits and then they take these huge packages. So you have this depressed and angry electorate. They don't know where to turn. Politicians don't seem trustworthy either, particularly Washington.
And so that's sort of, I think, the foundation of what this election is going to be about and what the eventual two nominees are going to have to deal with. And an electorate that's going to be this -- it's a very unstable electorate. You know, it was arguably last -- this unstable was in '92 and that's when we got the most competitive third party candidate in this country's history. I think a third party is potentially likely. The problem is where does it come from. Michael Bloomberg has the money to be this person but he doesn't seem to be -- have the ideology or the issue that the country's angry about.
When you actually look at the history -- the issues, by the way, that are coming out and becoming -- they're all part of this umbrella of American exceptionalism, you know, the immigration thing. Oh, my God, they're, you know, our American way of life is changing, right? That's the first sign of why you get angry at immigration. You also get angry about immigration when you think your job's at stake, when you think your benefits are going to benefit another group of folks, so that's another reason why you would lash out on the immigration issue. So you're seeing various issues pop up -- trade pacts. All of a sudden, the majority on both sides, both parties, are anti-free trade agreements because they think somehow this is undermining the economy. You know, the fear of globalization has absolutely, I think, taken hold in the middle class, working class America and they're not happy. Then, of course, you get news about toys from China potentially being, you know, problems with their kids. So that's a -- just sort of this other reminder that sits there and it makes people want to put up a wall, want to put that stuff, have the isolation mentality take place.
And that's usually where a third party would come from; that isn't Michael Bloomberg. And that's why, you know, when you hear talk of it and you hear Bloomberg and he can buy his way into this thing, but it doesn't make sense of where he would he fit in unless he hopes that the two nominees are so polarizing -- you know, that it is Clinton and Giuliani and literally nobody is happy on either side with their choice, maybe that's how he fits in. But it's not an easy task to see how he fits in, though, the climate for something crazy like this is possible.
So I'm going to stop there and open it up to questions because I imagine there a lot, so I wanted to leave a lot of time for questions. I hope that's okay. I'll start -- I'll try to go front, back, front, back, so go ahead.
QUESTION: My name is Sonia Schoot, Radio Valera, Venezuela. You mentioned this experience versus change factor. I would like to know where U.S. voters are looking for more experience, which issue? And where are looking for more change? What is the tendencies?
MR. TODD: Well, I think basically they want -- the change that they want is probably more in style than anything else. It's this idea that the Bush style hasn't worked on the world stage or that -- and so that that is -- that that's the change, the specific change that they want, it's in tone. Because when you look at it, particularly the policies don't seem to be dramatically different. Oh, no, we'll do a little more diplomacy over here. We'll move troops over into this country instead of this country. But it's not a huge policy difference, at least on the international front. But on the domestic front there is some real policy differences. I mean, whether on -- you know, on climate change is a government or private sector solution. Health care, is it a government -- is it a private sector. I mean, those are two -- and those are ideological, typical sort of Republican verse Democrat type of debate.
But the experience thing -- it's funny -- whenever it hits it's always on foreign affairs. It's never -- the idea of experience is never on any other issue. That ultimately that that's the way a voter thinks. When they think experience they think -- automatically think this person, commander-in-chief, world leader, leader of the free world; that's what they're picturing in their head when you hear them talk about experience.
When on change it's usually about something that they don't like: they don't like the way Washington operates, and the way Obama's made the argument they don't want to have to go back to the old fights and continue the same partisan bickering and the same fight. So, I mean, that's sort of what they -- when you hear that that's what -- experience is code for "are you ready on the world stage."
I think the Clinton folks have been trying to make the argument that experience shouldn't just be on foreign affairs. That experience should also be on political experience. The fact, you know what, sometimes you do have to fight, sometimes these things are messy, making policy in Washington's not easy, having lost battles she knows how to win them the next she has them. Obama's never had to have these battles. And of course, Obama makes the argument, well, that's right, which is why he'll have more credibility when he goes in, where she will automatically have 45 percent of folks against her. So the question is how well do you sell that argument.
Democrats, I think, do like to fall in love. They're more likely to pick changed candidates over experience. If you look at their history, Carter was a changed candidate and he won the presidency. Kennedy was a changed candidate and he won the presidency. Clinton was a changed candidate and he won the presidency. Walter Mondale was the experienced candidate. He won the nomination and lost. John Kerry won an experienced in the primaries, lost in the general. Al Gore won on experience -- I mean, that was how he beat Bradley in the primaries -- lost the general election. I mean, you can make the argument. The Democrats have done better when they've nominated the changed candidate in the primaries, rather than the experienced candidate.
And we go in the back to try to keep it fair. I'm sorry. I think it was that gentleman back here. Raise your hand. I think it was you that had questions. I'm sorry, raise your hands again. Right there. It was that gentleman. That's who I was pointing to. Sorry.
MODERATOR: Right here?
MR. TODD: Yes. Yes, yes. All right. Okay. I thought it was like, wow, did I imagine him raising his hand? I swear he did.
QUESTION: I didn't think I was (inaudible) in the back. My name is Reymer Kluever from the German newspaper Sueddeutsche Zeitung. I wonder what will it take for Obama to win the primaries? Will it be just a win in Iowa and loss -- a losing game in New Hampshire and then what does it take for him to continue with the momentum from Iowa?
MR. TODD: Well, I think, you know, when you're the challenger, once you get momentum, you better keep it and particularly when you're running against the Clinton machine. If you lose any momentum, I think they can fill that vacuum quickly. I mean, I think the path -- you know, if Obama's a nominee, if you told -- if I passed out today and woke up on Ground Hog Day or a little bit after, since that's when the primaries will end, woke up on February 6th and you told me Obama was a nominee, then I assume that means he won Iowa and New Hampshire, okay.
Could he be the nominee by winning Iowa and losing New Hampshire? Sure, but I don't buy it. I think that, you know, once he starts winning, he can't stop. So I assume his path is to win. And I think whoever wins Iowa wins New Hampshire. I mean -- unless it's Edwards that wins Iowa. I don't know if he'll have enough momentum to carry him forward to actually win New Hampshire. But I think if either -- if Clinton wins Iowa, she wins New Hampshire. If Obama wins Iowa, he wins New Hampshire. It's that close. It's that volatile. And with only five dates -- excuse me -- in between, when you see these momentum things, they usually peak on that day four or five. And then, you know, if there was more time between Iowa and New Hampshire, then I think that you could see the momentum -- I think Iowa's going to be overly influential on New Hampshire and the democratic side. Then I think what you'll see is you will see 18 days of where Barack Obama is truly treated like a frontrunner. He is still treated by the press corps as a challenger and very much, she's the incumbent and he's the challenger. If he wins those first two, the roles get reversed immediately. We saw it in 2000 between Bush and McCain. McCain wins New Hampshire, he gets treated like a frontrunner. Bush gets to be a play challenger and McCain proved he wasn't up to the task and he loses South Carolina.
And I think that you will see a similar thing play out for Obama. He wins the first two, he gets treated like a frontrunner. The question is can he keep his -- can he keep the momentum and he's got eight -- there are 18 days between New Hampshire and South Carolina. Yes, there's Nevada in the middle. I don't think Nevada's going to matter. It's an afternoon, lunchtime prime rib affair and all you can eat whatever it is in Vegas. I mean, I wish it mattered more. I mean, I want to -- but maybe it will, but it's hard to imagine it's really going to have that much of an effect.
But there are 18 days between New Hampshire and South Carolina. In those 18 days, it will be the first time Obama has to address the race issue. You know, he is campaigning right now in two predominantly white states that have never had major racial issues or racial voting or race-based candidacies before. So it is, you know, 95 percent white electorates. South Carolina is a different story. So it'll be the first time that he's having to both be -- appeal to both white Democrats and black Democrats. How does he handle that?
How does he handle balancing that? I mean, there are some white Democrats that might be turned off if he looks like he's overly pandering to African Americans or vice versa. If he looks like he's not stepping up and embracing his ethnicity, he could lose African American support to, you know, the wife of Bill Clinton, a very popular person with African Americans. So I've had this premonition that he wins Iowa and New Hampshire and it becomes a bloodbath in South Carolina. And that if she wins that, then it's a long drawn-out battle. February 5th is a doozy. And I'd put my money on her to pull this off.
If he can string together the three, then he's going to be hard to stop. They will make the argument and even the Clinton people acknowledge, they think if they lose Iowa and New Hampshire, it's over and Obama people think that. I don't. I think that it's a different way Obama will be treated, will be covered. He will be probed like a potential President does. He is yet to be that way. And so it'll -- you know, don't assume this thing is over if Obama sweeps Iowa and New Hampshire. The irony is if Clinton wins Iowa and New Hampshire it is over -- done, you know, and then we'll focus on the craziness, that's the Republicans. Go up here. Hang on. I got the mike, so I shouldn't have --
QUESTION: Adrienne Woltersdorf from the German newspaper Tageszeitung. And thank you for being here.
MR. TODD: Not fair -- I got two German news outlets in a row. I may get in trouble.
QUESTION: We have so many here. Could you please talk a little bit about the issues? The Iraq war seemed to be at the beginning of the whole campaign trail a very important issue, but it doesn't seem to be so now. So what do you think -- will the candidates address especially in between Iowa and New Hampshire. And then again, New Hampshire and South Carolina? What will be the issues in these --
MR. TODD: I think the domestic economy is starting to -- I think that, look, most elections are pocketbook elections, unless the pocketbook's full or unless a war is going badly. And the fact is as Iraq has faded from the headlines, I still think people knee-jerkly say Iraq's the number one issue and I think that in some ways it doesn't matter how much good news comes out of Iraq. Ultimately, most voters are still going to believe it was a bad idea, so it doesn't matter that there is initial good. And let's not kid ourselves one bad week of troop deaths and all of a sudden, Iraq comes racing to the front of the, you know, headlines and then the Iraq story can take hold. But I think this economy is really, I mean, the housing crunch, this mortgage crisis, this credit crisis, I think it's coming to the forefront. I think you have -- already you had this fear.
You know, another thing, you see healthcare pop up and I think that all of -- a lot of times what we in the media miss on the healthcare issue, people say healthcare is a concern for them, not because they don't think they get good care, but they worry that they don't have it. So when people are saying healthcare, there really -- it's an economic choice that they've made. It's not a medical choice. You know, everybody here in this country believes that our medical care is good. It's access to that care that they're worried about. And when they say they're worried about healthcare, it also means they're worried about losing their job because our -- obviously, we're an employer based system, so if you lose your job, you potentially lose your access to healthcare. So I think you will see a combination of those being the focus on the democratic side.
The Republican side, it's interesting, as the war has gone away, immigration has taken over because it's almost they don't know what else to talk about. And immigration, it's an easy issue to sort of demagogue and it's become one. And I think it's not the number one issue, but it's consistently the number two issue in Republican primary voters, where it doesn't even pop among democratic primary voters. So I mean, I think you're going to see a lot of talk on immigration. And so I also think immigration is sort of a code for the economy. You know, when these folks are saying immigration, it means, you know, yes, you hear that it's a cultural thing or they're worried about that. But what it's really -- it's sort of this. Everybody feels economic angst and they react in different ways, some react. I mean, the thing is if you look at the history of our country, whenever immigration has become an issue on the national stage, it's been during an economic downturn. So I think that ultimately you're seeing the economy start to take over.
Yes, sir.
QUESTION: Ron Baygents with Kuwait News Agency. Going back to some of your scenarios about Iowa, New Hampshire and then South Carolina, if John Edwards fails to win, say, Iowa and New Hampshire and even possibly South Carolina, do you see him dropping out prior to February 5th and endorsing one of the frontrunners?
MR. TODD: Well, look, I -- right. I assume he -- if he doesn't win Iowa, if he finishes third in Iowa, I think he gets out. I mean, I think that, you know, you're -- I think that. On the other hand, if you told me he doesn't, I could picture that because, hey, guess what, this is it for him anyway, right, either way. You're not running for President a third time. I mean, you can, but then you'd start becoming perennial candidates and those were never good descriptive words.
It's funny -- we polled -- we did some two-way polling in New Hampshire and South Carolina to try to see -- I mean, I think our assumption is there are two tickets out of Iowa, not three on the democratic side. So we polled Clinton versus Edwards and then Clinton vs. Obama to see where the others' support went. What was interesting was in New Hampshire Edwards voters broke 2-1 to Clinton. And when I said this to a Clinton person when I was giving him a briefing on our numbers, he said, you know, we're seeing the same thing in Iowa. Now, the Obama people say that's not true. But there is an interesting sort of -- the Clinton people believe and Edwards voter, they have a better shot at winning over an Edwards voter than an Obama voter.
The Edwards voter in Iowa is a little bit older. And is a little more blue collar and Clinton has done better with older voters and more blue collar voters. So they would love -- if you talk to a Clinton person, they would love Edwards out of this thing. You know, the old conventional wisdom was if in a two-way race Obama would kill her -- you know, that that was a terrible thing for her. I think that the Clinton people think they would have a better shot at stopping Obama in a two-way race, because they would do better with some of the Edwards voters.
That said, the Edwards people you know, certainly feel like where Edwards is, his entire campaign has been based on making the case against Hillary. So it's hard for me to imagine him endorsing her at the end of the day, If he endorses anybody, I would assume if it's a two-way, I mean, he's got to pick between the two, he would endorse Obama. But you know, I just hesitate. You know, a lot of people wrote Edwards off at this time four years ago and the guy, I think, came one day away from being the democratic nominee. If he had one more day in Iowa, he probably overtakes Kerry. I mean, he was on that kind of a roll in Iowa. He needed -- it was just he didn't have enough. You know, you can just see the trajectory that he was on. And of course, if he wins Iowa, it would have been the same thing that Kerry got treated and he could have carried out. So don't assume -- let's not completely write him off.
In fact, the average people have been making the case to me that they think this is -- Iowa is going to turn into a two-way race and she's going to be the one that fades -- that they've made such a good case that change -- for the change argument, that now the argument is okay, who's better at change -- an angrier Edwards or the soft-spoken Obama guy, but that it's the style of change that you want, if you -- that's what the Edwards people are pushing. I don't but it, but it's an interesting scenario in their own heads that they're painting -- put it that way.
Yes, ma'am. Yeah.
QUESTION: LeMonde Newspaper. Can you walk us through the February 5th primary, please?
MR. TODD: Okay. How much? (Laughter.) There's two different -- this is what's frustrating. This is what is frustrating. There's two different calendars. I mean, literally, there are going to be primaries where there'll be just Republicans holding a primary. So January 3rd, both Republicans and Democrats are going to be in Iowa. January 5th, both Republicans and Democrats have New Hampshire and this is where it starts splitting. Excuse me -- January 8th, yes. This is where it starts splitting off.
On the fifteenth, Michigan holds a Republican primary. Nothing on the Democratic side. On the 19th, South Carolina is going to be having a Republican primary and in Nevada, Democrats are going to be having a caucus. Now, the Nevada Republicans also claim they're going to have a caucus, nobody's quite sure. Excuse me. I left out January 5th are the Wyoming Republican caucuses. Wyoming, I think, has got a ward -- all of five delegates or something like that. So not a big deal. Romney apparently has got it all sewed up. Could be the first place Romney wins, if Huckabee wins Iowa.
Then you've got South Carolina. Democrats are weak after the South Carolina Republicans. So explain that to your editors when you're making the case. I've got to be in South Carolina to cover the race. Okay. Well, one half of the race is -- now I've got to stay an extra week -- you sure it's not there because -- you're not staying there because it's 74 degrees in Charleston? No, no, no, no, I swear. I want to be here. But -- so we have a week that separates the Republicans and Democrats there.
Then in January 29th, you have Florida which will only count for the Republicans. That's the first state that Rudy says that they have to win. Though I'd argue Rudy needs to win somewhere sooner. They claim that as long as they win Florida, that they still got to -- And then there's February 5th where we're up to some 20 -- I mean, literally, I used to say, oh, yeah, it's 23 states and then all of a sudden, Massachusetts moved to February. I mean, more states keep moving. Ultimately, it is a -- I call it tsunami Tuesday. Some people say that that's bad form, I shouldn't reference this as a tsunami that way. But the idea -- it is a wave of primaries all across the country -- California, New York, Illinois, Georgia, I mean, big states, small states, Missouri, swing states, little states, New Jersey, Connecticut. So it is -- Colorado is having caucuses that day, Arizona. So it is definitely a national primary. The question is how much -- you know, will momentum matter? Well, look at the national polls. Huckabee makes a small move in Iowa and he skyrockets to second place on the Republican side. The national polls will react to these early states and all of this stuff will go online.
I know that on paper you say, oh, none of this stuff becomes a sweep. But if you look at what John Kerry did, momentum was everything. He didn't lead in a single national poll before the Iowa caucuses, nor in any other state. And he went and he only lost two -- three states out of 40-some odd primaries and caucuses after Iowa. You know, South Carolina, Oklahoma, and Vermont, who cast a Howard Dean sort of honorary vote. And that was it. I mean, so momentum can be everything. And this -- you know, Obama seems a little more prepared for the February 5th states than Clinton does at this point, which is somewhat surprising. Giuliani is very much -- had this idea of the February 5th strategy. And frankly, when you look at the chaos of these early states on the Republican side, maybe that is true. I mean, if Huckabee wins Iowa, he doesn't have the organization to do anything in New Hampshire. That could open the door for somebody else to win New Hampshire. So the more -- the idea, the more crowded the race stays on the Republican side, the more logical the Rudy Giuliani February 5th strategy is.
Now don't assume February 5th does end it. There are another round of prime -- there's basically seven or eight relevant states holding primaries after February 5th. You have Virginia and Maryland are going on February 12th and the District of Columbia. That's not very relevant. On February 19th, you have Wisconsin. Historically, the Wisconsin primary has cache. A lot of old-timer political reporters will -- if the race is still going and I think you have a strong case on the Republican side it's still -- and then you have what was originally old Super Tuesday.
The whole idea of Super Tuesday was done on the first Tuesday in March. It actually used to be the second Tuesday in March and then it got moved up to the first Tuesday. Well, there's still some states that have stayed on March 4th -- Texas being the biggest prize that day and Ohio. Those are two big states. If the race is still going, then Texas and Ohio on March 4th become huge deals. After that there really aren't that many more actual events after March 4th.
There used to be a whole block of states that stuck around until June. Now, I think it's like South Dakota and Montana and maybe a couple others and that's really it. You know, Pennsylvania is stuck in there in April. But beyond that, March 4th is probably the actual last day this thing would go. And again, the Republican side seems much more likely to go that far. I think the Democratic side seems much more susceptible to momentum where one candidate starts putting -- stringing together some early victories. They're going to be hard to stop on February 5th.
Where the -- the Republicans absolutely, you could see McCain winning some -- McCain and Romney splitting western states on February 5th, Huckabee winning some southern states, Rudy winning some northeastern states. Suddenly everybody wakes up and they all have about 250 delegates and they're going, okay, now what do we do and they move on to the next week and the next week and the next week and see if some attrition can take over. So we'll see. People like me always hope that these things never end, but they always -- these things always -- momentum takes over in some form. Republicans are not interested in a drawn-out process. They want to hurry up and have a nominee. And so both parties do. They don't like -- they feel like the longer there's internal strife that's out in the public, the worse it is for them in the long run.
We got one up here.
QUESTION: You mentioned that the climate is right --
MR. TODD: Hang on. Hang on. I'm sorry.
QUESTION: Tadeusz Zachurski, Newsweek Polska, Polish edition of Newsweek. You mentioned that the climate is right for the third-party candidate, so-called third-party candidate. Do you see any potential candidate except Mike Bloomberg who is not interested? And second aspect, when would be too late for third-party candidate to appear?
MR. TODD: Well, Michael Bloomberg is interested. Don't let them think he's not interested. I think -- I think he's going to -- his issues, his set of issues that matter to him, I don't think fit where he could find a wedge in between the two parties. That said, you brought up the timing issue, which is the single most important -- the way the ballot laws work in this country, somebody that's interested in running better start telling us in February because March and April are for collecting some signatures that are needed to get on ballots in place. Texas and North Carolina in particular have very -- and I think Ohio, very early general election filing deadlines that you have to get past. So you know, we'll -- you can't linger. This can't drag on into the summer. It's got to be -- it's -- you got to start seeing -- these candidates have to make themselves known in February and start worrying about that process of actually getting on the ballot.
The other third party candidate, I think, to keep an eye on, is Ron Paul in -- the Libertarians. He's got a following, he's going to have some money, but he's also got a tricky issue. He's filed for a bunch of Republican primaries. He might need to -- if he wants to, a lot of states have what are called sore loser laws, so if you run in one primary and lose, you are barred from running as an independent or a third-party candidate. Not every state has them. Other states allow it. But some states do. You know, no presidential candidate wants to -- even a third party, you know, wants to suddenly not be on the ballot in some states. I mean, it's just -- and so if Paul is at all seriously -- the Libertarian Party is trying to draft him. He's run before as a Libertarian. If he wants to do this, he would have to make that decision even sooner than February because he needs to start getting off some of these ballots.
Let me go in the back there, either -- both -- we'll take care of both of you guys.
QUESTION: Peter Gold, Fuji TV. Two questions for you. One, following on the calendar question, the February 5th question, how does the rush to go earlier among the states in form change in the process four years from now? And then you talked about experience versus change and you said that experience is an indication of foreign policy on the world stage, but you also said that most of the issues in the election have become domestic. I'm wondering how you square that contradiction.
MR. TODD: Though it's -- I think it's -- ask the Clinton campaign how they're squaring that contradiction. I mean, I think the worst thing that has happened in this race is, the more it's domestic, the more voters are usually willing to roll the dice on change. You know, a lot of our change elections have been on domestic, not foreign -- you know, foreign affair election, usually an experienced candidate is going to do well. So I think it has -- I think it has hurt Clinton a little bit that Iraq and Iran are no longer topic A, that instead, they're having this fight over healthcare and the middle class and all that stuff. So I think -- I mean, I think -- you pointed out the contradiction. I think it's the Clinton -- it's what the Clinton campaign is experiencing.
As for the calendar, you know, the thing is nobody cares about the calendar except a few states. You know, the voters care after the fact, but it's definitely the last vestige of stuff that's done in the proverbial smoke-filled room in the back when they decide these things. That said, the unintended consequence of this early calendar is a couple of things. One, if you're a big time establishment candidate, this calendar is terrible for you because if you start losing, you can't -- you can't -- there's no time to make it up.
And I think that that's the -- I think the Clinton folks hate this calendar because I think they think that they could -- after time, could fix any problems that they had after Iowa and New Hampshire. The problem is everything just comes too quickly. To give some historical perspective, had Gary Hart had this calendar, he'd have been the Democratic nominee in 1984. Had John McCain had this calendar, he'd have been the Republican nominee in 2000, the fact that all this stuff is coming, bang, bang, bang, bang.
There is an unintended consequence. I've brought this up at previous briefings here and I'll bring it up again. And that is the idea that we're going to have two backseat-driving presidents of the actual -- we will have three presidents for nine months, if you believe this thing ends on February 6, which is -- I think that it's more likely that that's going to happen than less. We will have a nine-month general election. That is the longest general election we've ever had, one month longer than the Bush-Kerry general election, which unofficially got started in March of '04.
But we're having this general election with two nominees while we actually have a President who is still trying to fight a war, who is still trying to, you know, do some -- it doesn't matter what you think of Bush. That is not a healthy thing for this democracy to have three presidents, two backseat-driving presidents every day. That's not healthy. That's a terrible front to put up for the world that we have, sort of, two presidents in waiting. So I think that calendar -- just as a -- somebody -- if you care about the republic here, this calendar, they got to change it just -- you can't have nine-month general elections. It's just insanity. The one-year primary process, that's fine, that's done sort of as a sideshow. A general election is a different story.
Let me go back there to --
QUESTION: Thank you. My name is Jenny Ilustre of Malaya, a Philippine news daily. Are we going to sleep early on election night or is this going to be another cliffhanger?
MR. TODD: Are you talking about in November?
QUESTION: Uh-huh.
MR. TODD: Look, I would be shocked if this is a close election. I feel like -- that people are paying a ton of attention to this election. There's a feeling that this one matters, that this counts, a lot of huge issues. And they're going to make up their mind -- you know, the debates or whatever happens in October will be defining, but that once the mind is made -- I mean, I think you will see a movement in one direction or the other, more than likely to the Democrats. If they blow this election, they ought to just file for bankruptcy as a political party. I mean, it is all geared, you know, toward them.
Things can change. They could nominate somebody who just proves to be totally inexperienced to the point that it starts turning voters off. But I think you're likely to see a mandate-type election no matter what. Now mandate is what, 53-47? 53-47, relatively close, that's a landslide as far as the Electoral College is concerned. So I think it's more likely you see a decisive result in either direction, but I think there is a -- I think when you see numbers the way you're seeing them, when you see people feeling as much anxiousness -- when things move, they move in one direction.
I mean, I think -- you know, 2006 turned out to be -- in some ways, everybody sits there and say, "Oh, there was a lot of close elections," and yet it was a landslide to the Democrats, right? Because collectively, they all -- everything seemed to move in one direction and I think that's the way you'll see -- relatively close popular vote, but all of the sort of undecided Independents moving in the same direction.
So I got time for one more, I was told, so I'll go here.
QUESTION: Thank you. Natasa Briski, Pro Plus, Slovenia. What would you recommend is the best way to cover Iowa caucuses on the ground?
MR. TODD: Well, it's a good thing you're from a cold weather country, so you're very prepared weather-wise. You know, go to a caucus, okay? And go to a Democratic caucus. The two of them have two separate rules, the parties. The Republicans literally are holding a straw vote. Don't waste your time on the Republican side. It's not that interesting. They're not going to take a long time.
You know, obviously, if you have two people and, you know, you can split up and each do a -- like, go to a Democratic caucus and go to one -- try not to go to one in Des Moines, I mean, just because everybody's going to be in Des Moines. Try to go to one in -- I would argue, go to one in Western Iowa. Eastern Iowa is going to be very influenced by Obama (inaudible). I think Western Iowa in particular, whether it's Council Bluffs, whether it's -- stay away from a college town, but it'll give you sort of more of a taste of -- and it'll give you an idea of -- you know, find a larger county, maybe Story County or Carroll County, Sioux City even. But it'll give you more of a taste of, sort of, the process and you want to pick a smaller caucus so you can understand the whole threshold.
You know, if somebody goes in there wanting to support Biden and they don't have enough people to get Biden to 15 percent, well, then they have to go pick somebody else in that process and how it works. So that's interesting and I -- that's how I'd recommend, go to a western part of the state, stay away from college towns because -- I mean, Obama's going to do very well in those and it'll be almost too chaotic to follow. A smaller, western caucus is where I would suggest.
MODERATOR: We have (inaudible) if you have time for more questions.
MR. TODD: I'll take a couple more questions. Yes, sir, back there. Yeah, and then I've got to go right at 2:00.
QUESTION: Thomas Berbner with ARD German television. Chuck, where do you see the -- especially Obama and Hillary campaign in the days before February 5th?
MR. TODD: Where will they be campaigning?
QUESTION: Yeah, which states you think they --
MR. TODD: Well, I mean, they're -- look, the calendar is going to dictate a lot. I mean, they're going to be in -- they're going to spend the lion's share of their time in South Carolina, I think. Frankly, I think it'll depend on who's ahead. If you're -- if the candidate who is behind is going to live in South Carolina and the candidate who is ahead might start dipping their toes in some of these February 5th states -- obviously, you know, California.
There's some -- another thing to keep in mind, by the way, about California and Arizona, of those February 5th states, both of them have early -- a lot of notoriously early voters, they -- a lot of people who vote by mail, some 50 percent of voters now in California, I think, vote by mail, getting close to that number, Arizona, a pretty large number. So you may see some extra campaigning right after New Hampshire in those two states in particular because of that phenomenon. I think Missouri could end up being an interesting swing state in that race. Georgia, you probably see a lot of campaigning in Georgia, neighboring of South Carolina, so you're right there. You can do some events in Georgia on February 5th. Alabama, another one that's coming on February 5th, that'll be there.
Everything else sort of has this weird -- and then, like I said, in California and Arizona, everything else has a weird regional tie, right? Illinois, she's not going to bother going there, that's his home state. New York, he's not going to bother going there too much. Maybe he dips his toe into New Jersey a little bit for some campaigning, but ultimately, I think, you know, sticking around, I think there's the California/Arizona exception and then the states that surround South Carolina, which are easy to get in and out of while you're in South Carolina.
Sir, there's -- right here.
QUESTION: Ilin Stanev from Bulgaria newspaper Capital. What might happen in the last days before the Iowa caucus that could change the current trend? For example, Clinton finding, can you -- Obama says that he wants to become a president not in the kindergarten, but in the school? And at the same time, what do -- what happen in the Republican side?
MR. TODD: Well, I think -- and that's what so tricky about these caucuses and they're so close to the holidays, right? And the question is -- the campaigns are operating, for what it's worth, that the last campaign day before Christmas, in their minds, is going to be the 21st, okay? The last day that us and the media will pay attention, I think, is the 19th. Then we'll start all checking out for just a week, you know.
And then I'd say things really gear back up -- you'll sort of see it on the 20 -- I think the candidates will immediately be there the 26th. I think the 27th, you'll start seeing more media coverage of it. So I think it's the unscripted moment at this point, that is -- you know, we have some debates on Wednesday and Thursday. There are two Des Moines Register debates. They could -- it's the last chance on both sides the candidates have to sort of directly engage an opponent.
But then after that, I think it's the unscripted moment -- you know, Howard Dean yelled at a -- I'll never forget this. Everybody knew about the scream after, but before, about 10 days out, he yelled at a voter. A voter said, you know, "You said this," and he said, "Sir, you sit down," and it became this moment and it was that glimpse of that temper and -- you know, and it was this weird -- and it was one of these moments that -- you know, we're all -- the cameras are on and it was an unscripted moment and it was one of those that you wonder, how much did it hurt him a little bit. You know, it was one of those -- a 12-hour news cycle, wasn't much, but it -- I think a lot of Iowans saw it and it was sort of the beginning of the end for him.
It's moments like that; how are they on the trail, do they get tripped up by a voter, is there a moment where they look out of touch. You know, the Clintons have been trying to paint Obama as somebody who's really an elitist, he's not that in touch with the common man. Is there a moment where that pops up and all of a sudden, all of this groundwork that they've laid to prove that Obama is a little bit of an upper-class elitist, a typical ivory tower kind of guy, will it all come to fruition because he doesn't seem to relate to the local farmer on something, right, where the Clintons have always been good at relating to the -- relating to people in a room. That's just their strength, particularly his, but she's gotten better at it too. So -- that kind of unscripted moment.
You know, on the Republican side, the wildcards here are, what do Giuliani, Thompson, and McCain do in Iowa, right? Iowa seems to be this Romney-Huckabee affair. Does Thompson decide to pow on Romney or pow on Huckabee? You know, he's sort of -- you know, upper out, he's thinking he'll probably get out of this thing by the time Iowa's over, but he's got some money to spend.
So to me, the Republican side is odd because you just don't know, what are they going to do, where are they going to spend their money, how are they going to -- who will they attack? Will they attack Romney, will they -- I'd had this theory that literally, all the candidates at the end of the day don't care who the nominee is as long as it's not Romney. There seems to be this collective anti-Romney streak inside -- among the candidates themselves, that if you ask each of the candidates individually, who is your second choice, none of them would pick Romney. They all seem to have a beef with Romney. I don't know what it is. They don't like that he's trying to buy the election, maybe they don't like it that he's changed his positions and gotten away with it or whatever it is.
But Thompson seems to personally not like the guy, I'm told. We know McCain doesn't like him. He's let that show. Rudy doesn't seem to be a fan. Huckabee has enjoyed taking shots at him. You just sense that there's this collective "Anybody but Romney" and that they're going to -- you know, they're all going to succeed in taking him down, then they got to figure out amongst themselves, who is it going to be. But we'll see. I think that that's sort of the wildcard there.
I'm going to have to stop there. I think we rolled over too. All right. Thanks very much.
