Edwards Poised to Take Iowa

According to an article on Politico, John Edwards is now in a statistical tie with Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton for the upcoming Iowa Democratic caucus, and has distinct advantages over the front-runners going into the home stretch. Not only is Edwards on the upswing in the polls while his opponents have stabilized, but he also has a lead in support from voters who actually showed up for the 2004 caucus. Perhaps more important than t

hat is Edwards' ground game:

Edwards' campaign boasts the most deeply rooted rural operation, allowing it to possibly win small precincts across the state that could prove crucial in the final tally.

"We have a really good ground game," Edwards' Iowa co-chairman Rob Tully said. "We have people that are seasoned from last time and we know what to do. If the weather is bad, our people are the most dedicated and we will win."

This is good news for voters and a lesson that surely will be lost on the GAHOPC. (Gaffe and Horserace Obsessed Pundit Class) To quote that great American political consultant Charlie Brown, "Tell your statistics to shut up!"

Edwards' rise is a good sign because it tells voters that it's OK to vote their conscience. Too often, voters are influenced by polls that have proven, time and again, to be both mercurial and utterly useless at predicting the outcomes of political contests. The problem isn't really the polls themselves, but the way they are used. The poll drives the story, instead of the story driving the poll.

In Edwards' case, Politico cites Edwards' populist message and ground game as factors in his rise in the polls:

But Edwards rise may be equally due to a full year of forthright populism. He has pounded issues of economic insecurity, from rising health care costs to curtailing free trade to challenging "abusive lenders."

This is a good point, to be sure. Edwards' message indeed resonates with many voters who see themselves struggling to make ends meet while corporations reap record profits with help from our government. But that doesn't really explain the recent uptick, as Edwards' message has been the same throughout.

I think the polls are a response to the political noise machine that has so far focused its sonic disrupter beam at Obama and Clinton, while ignoring Edwards.

I've railed against this type of campaign coverage before, and to be honest, I'm not sure what the answer is. In a way, it's good to see so much attention paid to politics, even if its the wrong kind of attention. If all coverage were dry and policy-driven, who would watch? Well, think back to a time before the internet and 300 channels of cable. How many people watched channel 13?

I could take it if, say the coverage now is 90% crap, 10% substance, if the 10% was really solid, platinum analysis. Instead, even the candidates' policy positions are oversimplified or just misstated, and the media does not judge the merits of their positions. That's not partisanship, that's analysis, and it's supposed to be their job.

As I've said before, Chris Dodd has earned my vote, and he will get it as long as he stays in the race. Having said that, I think any of the 3 Democratic frontrunners would make a fine president. Out of the 3, I'd like to see an Obama/Edwards or Edwards/Obama ticket, although the proven-useless conventional wisdom would recommend a "balanced ticket" with some old guy on it. A ticket like that would be a signal to America that they really have a fresh choice.