Edwards for Iowa?

"John Edwards - his time is now"
Des Moines Register Editorial Board

This headline shows Iowa's statewide newspaper endorsing democratic candidate John Edwards - in 2004. Why bring up this obscure part of caucus history? There's no doubt that the Register's endorsement helped propel Edwards to second place behind Edwards in the 2004 caucuses. But just a few days ago the Register endorsed Hilary Clinton; supporting her nomination for the Democratic party. This is strange in light of the fact that the Register's editorial board still considers Edwards to be right on his main 2004 theme of two America's; one for the rich and one for the poor and the middle class. The Register goes on to heap praise upon for the former NC senator until the last line where they claim that he may be "too divisive a figure". Balls.
Senator Edwards has staked out clear positions on major issues such as Iraq (wrong to vote for it) and healthcare (government mandated). These policies do appear quite populist in nature. But can the Register really disqualify Edwards because he has staked out clear positions? On top of that, the Register is endorsing Senator Clinton who is just as divisive a figure if not more.

So what really disqualifies Edwards this time around?
Poll numbers. Plain and simple.

According to RealClearPolitics.com, Edwards is averaging around 13% nationally among the Democratic contenders and for the past month or so has been pushed into 3rd place in a media-hyped two horsed race between Senators Clinton and Obama. In other words, the media has forgotten about Edwards while they were (at first) relishing inevitability of a Hilary nomination and (now) caught up in Obama's ascent.

But don't count Edwards out. If anything, count on him for an upset.
Why?
Because the Iowa caucus system among the Democrats is not a straightforward go in and vote for your guy and hope for the best. Not at all. Basically, all caucus-goers convene at their precincts meeting place and proceed to stand in the corner that corresponds to which candidate they support. Then each team tries to convince fellow caucus-goers why there candidate is the best. Now caucus-goers may switch allegiances. Then, any candidate who does not muster enough support to be viable (15%) is deemed out of the running and the caucus-goers who supported that candidate are free to align themselves with another candidate. Let me illustrate the importance of the last few sentences with a (hypothetical) example.
If I was in Iowa(too cold) and could caucus (I'm not even a citizen), imagine I supported Biden (I do like the guy) and Obama was my second choice (quite possible). If while caucusing, Biden was deemed 'not viable' I would switch my support to Obama. Why is that important? Because Clinton, Obama and Edwards seem to be getting around 25% support in Iowa. This leaves 25% for all the other candidates. But that 25% may have to make a choice as to who they like they most between Clinton, Obama and Edwards. This choice could make all the difference.

I wasn't the first one to discover this idiosyncrasy in the system. The Washington Post cites a Rasmussen poll where among the lower polling candidates (mid tier/lower just seems so disrespectful for men of their background and experience) John Edwards is the 2nd choice of 29% of those polled; followed by Obama with 24% and Clinton with just 15%. Upset anyone?

And that's jus' the tip.

References

Why Clinton, DesMoinesRegister.com

Rating the Other Candidates, DesMoinesRegister.com

RCP Democrats, Iowa

RCP Democrats, National

Second choice voters, WashingtonPost