The Democratic Presidential Primary (part one)
Just to put down a few thoughts on where I see things headed for the Presidential primaries. I mean, I'd have for folks to actually start counting votes before I offer an opinion or two. Anyways ...
Iowa
There are really two questions that will be answered when the delegates are counted: what order do the top three place? ... and how close are the results?
A distant third might very well be the end of John Edwards. But a close third (think something along the lines of the 29-29-28 polls that have come out recently), leaves him with enough to press forward with. Likewise, a close third by either Obama or Clinton shouldn't necessarily be viewed as a death-knell to either. I'd place it as slightly more of a burden for Obama than Clinton at this point, but it's a debatable point given how close New Hampshire is between the two.
The quest for fourth could add an interesting sidestory to the race. If it's Biden, there's a chance that events in Pakistan might be credited. I'm not sure about that. Biden seems to have run a solid campaign in Iowa. The year just isn't his, so he's stuck below 10%. If he does any better than that when the delegates are counted, it'll be a minor miracle. Richardson's boomlet seems to have come and gone, but he's still got decent odds of finishing fourth here and maybe elsewhere if he stays in. Whoever the fourth candidate is, expect them to be the first name mentioned for VP ... at least on media lists.
Where things could be the most interesting is if there is a distant third finisher or a better-than-expected fourth. Let's say it's something like HRC & Obama close at the top (28ish to 27ish), Edwards hovering around 20% and Biden or Richardson north of 15%. In that scenario, Edwards should be done. If you replace him with Obama or Clinton, their road forward is still plausible, but far more steep than previously thought. The difference is money. The big two have it, Edwards is hemmed in by public financing. My money is on the notion that Biden can last longer as a #4 than Richardson. But I'm not sure it matters much. If Edwards drops out after Iowa, there'll be some pressure to see how close that #4 can move toward the Big Two. My hunch is that, in that scenario, either Biden or Richardson remain 15% candidates while the rest try and sort out Obama or Clinton.
My personal bet is that Clinton still wins Iowa. But I'd also expect to see a tightly-packed Top Three. So if I see her at #3, it won't surprise. iowa is really a jump ball right now and polling has to be taken with several grains of salt.
Just to cover my bases, I think it's just as plausible that John Edwards could win Iowa, but I'm not confident based on this article. That Obama and Clinton have moved beyond the typical pool of caucus-goers while Edwards sticks to lists of reliable caucus-goers is eerily reminiscent of Trippi's advice to Dean about late-breaking voters in Iowa. Also, I think there's something overlooked in Edwards' 2004 results - like the fact that it was Kucinich delegates who nudged him to a higher-than-expected finish.
On that topic of non-viables moving at the caucuses, there remains room to see a surprise from it. I can see where Edwards might not have 15% in some areas, aiding Obama presumably. But if you're a Biden, Dodd, or Richardson non-viable caucus-goer, are you there because you don't like the Clinton's? I don't see it and I think there's a long tail of voters who might move from them toward Clinton. And there should be more non-viable BidenDoddRichardson folk than there are Edwards folk - which ultimately should boost Clinton a tad at in the counting. It should be noted, I don't pretend to be an Iowa caucus expert and wouldn't even want to play one on TV. Just my guesses for now.
New Hampshire
There shouldn't be any surprise over any ordering of the Top Three in Iowa. But the ordering will have an impact on New Hampshire, just due to the closeness of that state between Clinton & Obama. An Obama win, even if slight, gives him a good chance of winning New Hampshire. A win by Clinton likely gives her a sigh of relief in New Hampshire. Both should be favored to follow up an Iowa win there. But the nature of the game changes and the five days till the votes are counted will be among the longest on the political calendar. The history of New Hampshire primaries is replete with candidates making all sorts of moves - both recovering from and emphasizing the Iowa results. How it plays out this time is anyone's guess.
Again, personal bet is that Hillary win. Though it's slim odds, I do think she runs the field start to finish. There's just as good odds that she starts off 0-for-3, though. Call my pick boosterish if you will, but I remain confident that there are more Dem voters out there who have confidence in the Clinton brand than there are "Nu Democrats" (ie - post 2002 leftists) who loathe everything about anything Clinton.
If the challenge before either Obama or Clinton is to overcome an Iowa loss, I don't think it's out of the question and that we have a win each for them after New Hampshire. I'm just not seeing any dynamic yet that suggests IA Dems are breaking differently than NH Dems with regard to anyone other than John Edwards on our side. Barring any future indication that NH Dems react differently, I think it's a smarter pick to think that New Hampshire confirms Iowa at this point. It strikes me as remarkable that this would be how it goes down, but there's not much out there to suggest otherwise right now.
Nevada
A caucus state and one where Hillary has remained resiliently strong. I'm not sure how much confidence to place in that, but I'll take it. If Hillary is winless before Nevada, I've got to believe something changes here. Maybe, maybe not enough to change who wins. For now, consider this Hillary's surest thing to win among the early states.
South Carolina
If Obama starts off winless, this is his best chance at mounting a comeback. African-American voters will likely continue to drift his way, it's just a question of whether it'll be enough for him to win. Under that winless scenario, it's slightly less than even odds of an Obama comeback. If Obama enters with a win or two, I've got to think it's even odds that he could manage a win here.
If I'm right about Hillary running the table on the early states, this remains as the best shot at Obama upsetting her perfect record. The polls continue to show Obama trailing Clinton. Also, I've got to believe that Edwards is out by this point and I have a hard time seeing the bulk of his voters moving to Clinton. That calculation might be different in a southern state, though. For now, I'll make the predictable bet of another Clinton win.
Michigan & Florida
I'm really not sure how to factor these in for Dems right now. At the time, they're meaningless for convention delegates, but still potentially important for defining momentum. Hillary has some solid leads in both states right now. I can maybe see a scenario where Edwards tries to hang on with a shock win in Michigan and drops out with a third place finish there.
Likewise, if Obama is 0-for-2, I can see a quick blitz into Detroit to try and gin up something. But if he's 0-for-2, I'm not sure that he'll have the juice to make it happen.
Florida, to the extent that it's relevant, should be a foregone conclusion. It's too big and too diverse of a state to have an impact on short notice. Maybe the numbers move depending on some surprises in the early states. Say, a winless Hillary. But even in that scenario, it's hard to see any massive spending done as it would bleed money out of the Super Tuesday round. Look for Florida to confirm New Hampshire. I'll predict a Hillary win in both of these, with more certainty on Florida than Michigan.
Pre-Super Tuesday
By this point, I'm assuming Edwards is out no matter what. At worst, if he's in, he should be even less relevant than he already is outside of Iowa and he's keeping Obama from competing seriously with Hillary. I really think it's a two-person race at this point with Kucinich hanging on for fun and Biden and/or Richardson hanging on to make a point. Together, they'll maybe get 25-30% of the vote while the Big Two try and break the 50% mark on Super Tuesday.
Super Tuesday could be incredibly dependent on momentum this time around. If I'm correct and Hillary starts off with all wins - regardless of how close - she'll kill on Super Tuesday. If the Big Two split some early states, I think she comes out of Super Tuesday the winner, but maybe just marginally. And if Hillary is winless going into here, it's "Game On." I think she still has a good opportunity to comeback at this point, but if the read on the campaign is that Obama's kicking tail, the early polls are just completely irrelevant.
Obama's best bet is to come into here, minimally, with a win in two of the major early states: Iowa, New Hampshire & South Carolina. Anything less and he's just running on dignity. Clinton's best bet is to come in strong and not have to do much more than the tarmac & airwave campaign. Two out of three of those states gives her enough momentum to do just that. A winless Clinton at this point will have to spend some quality time in California, New Jersey, and Massachusetts to ensure some big wins. If she's confident at this point, look to see her campaigning in Illinois of all places.
Super Tuesday is, for now, too far out to call with any sense of reliability. My sense is that Hillary is aided by the Clinton brand, if nothing else. It's conceivable to me that, if she's 1-3 going in (Nevada being the only win), she can come out fine with wins in NY, CA, NJ, MA, MN, MO and CT. That's seven of the top twelve states on the table for this date. Obama should take care of his home state just fine (3rd biggest), and have a shot at states like CO, TN, & GA with outside chances in CA, CO, AZ & MA. But all of that is contingent on the momentum coming out of South Carolina.
All that said, my bet for now is that Hillary wins from start to finish, though it's by no stretch of the imagination a lock. The race has tightened, she's endured some adversity and even made some slips along the way. And with all that done, she's rebounding according to most polls (again, grains of salt for holiday polling). They start counting votes any day now, so we'll see how much I know once they get to it.
The Iowa caucus is meaningless. The final Democrat candidate will be Sen. Clinton. The Republican candidate, however, is anybody's guess.
Some historians may suggest that we're on the "Detente" mode in foreign affairs, thanks to the efforts of Kissinger. Detente or not, we are facing two constantly growing dangers: Al Qaida and Red China. I think that a majority of Americans will cast their votes for the candidates who dare to identify these two sources of threat to world peace and their policies to deal with them.
So you pick the Clinton ticket? Oh yeah, your a man. Any man would like a wife that accepts a lying cheating man. And any woman who supports a female that accepts and rewards this type of bad behavior must have low self esteem herself. How could anyone vote for this type of person to run a country that when she supports morally wrongdoings in her personal life. Oh!! wait...politicians. If you are a modern women, a christian woman, and/or a mother. (remember the male Clinton broadcasted his lies about his sexual conduct to your children nationwide) Do not vote Clinton!!
Wow ... I see the Happy New Year spirit has kicked in ;-)
Sen Clinton deserves more credit for her endurance of her husband's sexual scandal--which was apparently a more politically motivated conspiracy than personal mistake. I truly do not know whether the American people will accept her as the first lady President in our history, but she is the best qualified candidate.
As for Sen McClain, it's ironic that a war hero has been repeatedly rejected in the previous races. He should have been treated better.
John Edwards deserves more credit for being consistent and forcing Clinton and Obama to adopt his "fighter for the people" rhetoric. For either of them, it will only be rhetoric. Obama and Clinton could make missteps which could bode well for Edwards on Super Tuesday. Edwards does have personal wealth and has raised substantial money even if not the massive amounts they have. Edwards is from South Carolina and can probably identify with that southern voter better than the others.