StudioGlyphic

With 98% of precincts reporting, here are the final numbers, with delegates in parentheses:

Kerry - 37.6 (17)
Edwards - 31.8 (15)
Dean - 18 (7)
Gephardt - 10.6

Iowa was clearly an upset, since both Dean and Gephardt were relying on organizational strength to carry the day, and organizational strength lost out to "momentum." But the Dean camp clearly had an advantage over Gephardt's, beating them by a margin of over 7% (it was probably closer, but caucus rules tend to screw up these kinds of counts).

But where did the momentum come from? In the past month, Dean has been openly attacked by Gephardt. Kerry also engaged in some attacks, though not with the ferocity undertaken by Gephardt. The media also decided to take an overly critical look at their own annoited front-runner. Dean decided to strike back with negative ads and words. In the end, the two candidates who most openly sniped at one another and the candidate who underwent the most scrutiny ended up in third and fourth. So was it momentum for Edwards and Kerry? Or was it merely ducking out of the way of the Dean and Gephardt campaigns as they fell in their death struggle to the depths of Moria? It's all relative, of course. One man's fall can easily be interpreted as another man's momentum. Either way, Dean survived, Gephardt did not.

Just how relative are their finishes anyway? Kerry had a 20 point lead over Dean and 6 points over Edwards. But a last-minute bargain with Kucinich brought some of Kucinich's supporters into the Edwards camp in those caucuses where Kucinich failed to meet the viability threshold. There were wide reports of Gephardt followers funnelling primarily into the Kerry camp in caucuses where Gephardt failed to reach the threshold. That's potentially a high number (Gephardt received more than 15 percent of the vote in only 23 out of the 99 Iowa counties, according to the Washington Post). With these aspects of the caucus system coming into play, it may be that the finish was closer than it appeared; I would even go so far as to say that Edwards likely came very close to Kerry in terms of initial counts. Therefore, does this mark the end of Dean's bid for the White House? Not by a long shot. Does it mean he should rethink the negative aspects of his campaign? Absolutely.

As for New Hampshire, the Washington Post's Dan Balz reports that Jeanne Shaheen has high hopes for Kerry:

Shaheen recalled that in 1984, when she was leading Colorado Sen. Gary Hart's underdog campaign against former vice president Walter F. Mondale, Hart was able to catapult a surprising second-place finish in Iowa into an upset win in New Hampshire. While some Dean strategists here suggest that the "bounce" will be smaller for Kerry, because he is so well known in New Hampshire, Shaheen said: "I question that. There is a lot about John Kerry that people here are just learning."

It could be tough. Though Kerry started at the top of the polls and dropped precipitously over the past 6 months or so, his win in Iowa could translate into some "me, too" votes. Then again, some pundits, expecting a Dean win in Iowa, had been putting out the idea of New Hampshire flouting the Iowa results and picking another candidate. Either way, we enter this week with Dean ahead by 8 points, Kerry and Clark fighting over 2nd place, and an undecided vote big enough to make it anyone's game.

The campaign must do everything right to hang onto that lead.