Can Clinton still get an edge out of Florida?

I wrote a few days ago that Giuliani's strategy to use Florida as a "firewall" to recover from poor results in IA and NH was encountering serious problems because of Michigan's leap ahead of Florida in the primary calendar. These past two days, developments in the Democratic race have led many to argue that Clinton wouldn't be able to gain anything from her edge in Florida. The New York Times wrote, "The decision seemed to dash any hopes of Mrs. Clinton relying on a strong showing in Florida as a springboard to the nomination." But the damage to Clinton's campaign will probably not end up being as severe as many expect.

The chairmen of the Democratic parties of IA, NH, SC and NV asked the Democratic candidates on Friday to sign a pledge to stay away from campaigning in FL and MI:

THEREFORE, I _______________, Democratic Candidate for President, pledge I shall not campaign or participate in any state which schedules a presidential election primary or caucus before Feb. 5, 2008, except for the states of Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire and South Carolina, as “campaigning” is defined by the rules and regulations of the DNC. It does not include activities specifically related to raising campaign resources such as fundraising events or the hiring of fundraising staff.

All of the candidates but Clinton had agreed to the pledge by Friday evening, and Clinton ended up following their lead soon after. Now, there will be a vote in MI on January 15th and in FL on January 29th, but none of the candidates will actually campaign there. This would basically guarantee that Clinton wins both these states - especially Florida. But with Obama and Edwards not competing, Clinton would get almost none of the momentum a contested victory would give her. Thus, if Clinton were to be badly damaged by poor results in Iowa and New Hampshire, a triumphant victory in Florida would not redeem her campaign.

This is all true, and it is undeniable that these developments hurt Clinton more than they do other candidates. But there are some factors that could still allow Clinton to get some edge out of Michigan and Florida. Those two states are intent on voting early, so results will come in on January 15th and on January 29th. Will voters really care that the elections were just beauty contests? More importantly, will they even know?

Not to mention that the GOP will hold primaries on the same day, and Republicans are expected to compete in MI and in FL. The media thus will cover the GOP primaries extensively, and some of that coverage will spread to the Democratic race. Here's Marc Ambinder's take on this:

But here's something to consider: the Republican National Committee's rules allow it to take away only half of the delegates. So Florida and Michigan will be covered by the press as real contests for the Republicans. That makes it more likely that Clinton's victory in those states will be known -- and while the press will certainly apply the no-delegate caveat, it's going to be tough for them not to spread the word that the majority of Democratic voters in those populous states chose Hillary Clinton.

A month will have gone by between contests in Iowa/New Hampshire and the February 5th primaries (which is almost entirely due to Michigan and Florida's going forward in the first place). Clinton will have plenty of time (and money) to recover from poor results early, and a triumph in Florida would put to rest talk of a faltering Clinton campaign. And by the time California and New York go to the polls, is it more likely that voters have in mind one-month-old results from small sized states? Or is it more likely they remember the outcome of a primary that just happens to be a beauty contest, in one of the most populous states and that happened a week before?

In other Clinton news, The New York Times also reports on Clinton's new stump speech.