How’s that for a self-important post title?
Ok, so it’s the day before the Iowa Caucuses. Here in Minnesota, we get a lot of news coverage of the campaigns, since Iowa is a neighboring state and there are manymanymanymanymany Iowa natives here. I’m happy and grateful to report that here in the Twin Cities, we are far enough away from the state border that we don’t see political ads. But the Caucuses are very much in the news.
And they should be. Iowa is important. It’s where Dean faltered and Kerry surged last time. Yearrrgh.
Of course this year, we have so many candidates from both parties, with no clear front runners, that there is a real horserace aspect to the campaigns, which is like catnip for the media. So there’s a lot of buzz, and it’s fun to speculate. Like so:
Republicans:
Rudy Giuliani
Consistently leading national polls, Giuliani made the mistake of writing Iowa off and will pay dearly for it. His strategy of coming on strong in the later races is not compatible with the way voters think. A sixth-place finish (or fifth, or fourth) just kills your credibility with people. Not that Giuliani was ever likely to win the nomination. He’s vulnerable on corruption issues, he’s an absolute nightmare for social conservatives, and he’s not terribly likable on a personal level. Name recognition can only take you so far.
Mike Huckabee
My favorite Republican candidate. No, seriously. I may disagree with him on a lot of things, I do question his experience, and I fear the prospect of another president who doesn’t understand the concept of separation of church and state. But doggone it, I like Mike Huckabee. He gets along with Jesus AND Jon Stewart. His phenomenal rise from nobody to contender shows that he’s got some kind of appeal with the common folk.
I think he’ll win in Iowa. He had a bit of a meltdown with his “I’m pulling my negative ad, but I’ll show it to the media” gaffe. But I think Iowa voters who are inclined to vote for him are not going desert him over that. On the other hand, it could be his Dean moment. But I doubt it.
John McCain
May do better than expected in Iowa. My take is that people may be thinking that Giuliani and Romney are flawed candidates, Huckabee is too inexperienced, and Thompson is just as dull as death, so McCain is the fallback. Sort of like Kerry in 2004. Ruh-ro.
Ron Paul
I have no idea of how he’ll do in Iowa. Probably not well, since his grassroots, independent-voter driven campaign will not translate easily to the rather complicated Iowa caucus system. On New Year’s Eve in Minneapolis, as we were leaving a downtown restaurant, we saw a mini-parade of Ron Paul supporters marching at 10 pm, waving banners and freezing their butts off. That says something. I’m just not sure what.
Mitt Romney
It’s tempting to say that Romney’s success so far just confirms that craven political pandering never goes out of style. But he does have strengths as a candidate. Consistency is just not one of them. For those longing for Reagan, this is probably as close as they can get, and that may keep him in contention throughout the primary season. Heck, it could win it for him.
Fred Thompson
“This thing will get out of control. It will get out of control, and we’ll be lucky to live through it.” (The Hunt for Red October)
Democrats:
Joe Biden
I’ve always thought highly of Biden. He is knowledgeable, experienced and likable, although not exciting. He knows how to talk to mainstream Democrats, but his appeal to Republicans and Independents is limited at best. It’s just getting harder and harder to see why he’s still in the race. If his campaign was going to catch on, it would have by now.
Hillary Clinton
Like Giuliani, name recognition keeps her out front in the national polls. Unlike Giuliani, her appeal doesn’t fall apart when you look at her more closely, if only because we already know about the Bubba, excuse me, the baggage, that she brings to the race. She’s smart, articulate, and tough. A significant number of people hate her, which, you know, could be a problem. But she’s won a lot of doubters over among the Dems. If she wins Iowa and New Hampshire by more than an eyelash, it could be all over on the Democratic side.
Chris Dodd
I’ve always thought highly of Dodd. He is knowledgeable, experienced and likable, although not exciting. He knows how to talk to mainstream Democrats, but his appeal to Republicans and Independents is limited at best. It’s just getting harder and harder to see why he’s still in the race. If his campaign was going to catch on, it would have by now.
John Edwards
People count this guy out ‘cause the media likes to make fun of his haircuts. But he has fervent support among the core Democrats who vote in primaries and caucuses. He could win Iowa. And that would do much more for his campaign than an Iowa victory would do for Clinton or Obama. His policy positions seem stronger and more thought-out than some of his rivals. I’m not sure he’s the strongest candidate overall, but he’s a fighter and he impresses people as being one of them. I’ve heard very conservative Republicans speak well of him, which surprised me.
Dennis Kucinich
A sad case of a decent man who doesn’t realize, or doesn’t care, that he’s become a punch line. Maybe he shouldn’t care. But he also shouldn’t be wasting his time or ours.
Barack Obama
Obama is in a tough place. People want him to be a saint, so when he takes the gloves off, as he recently did, sort of, they get disillusioned. But of course if he doesn’t, they’ll be saying he’s soft or that he won’t be able to compete with Republicans, who have been known to take the gloves off. It’s just another case of how this candidacy is different than all the rest. Clinton is, of course, also a ground-breaking candidate. But not like Obama. How he holds up, how he manages expectations and the gritty realities of a tough campaign, will probably say a lot about him as a candidate. And maybe something about us as a nation.
Bill Richardson
He’s got great credentials, he seems likable, but unless he really shocks us in Iowa I can’t see him continuing on much longer.
Prediction for Iowa:
Republicans: 1. Huckabee, 2. Romney, 3. McCain
Democrats: 1. Edwards, 2. Obama, 3. Clinton
The Democratic side is basically too close to call, so I’m throwing out one of the more interesting scenarios. The Republican side is more set; Romney could end up winning but it will be close if he does. Recent polls suggest Thompson could pull into the No. 3 spot but I dzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.
Let me know how you see it.
2 comments:
Well, Slart (if that is your real name), an interesting analysis here. Makes a lot of sense to me, actually. I'd add only that if Kucinich is continuing even though his candidacy has become a joke, that's less a flaw with Kucinich than a flaw with our electoral system, or the way we think of politics period. We no longer have elections; we have meta-elections in which the concept of "electability" predetermines who can be elected.
Which is paradoxical in a way: I mean, shouldn't "electability" not be determined until, you know, there's an election and someone is elected? But there I go, being all idealistic and imagining that our deeply flawed two-party, all-or-nothing, but-wait-there's-the-Electoral-College system has any relation to people finding a candidate who most closely expresses their own views.
Those are good points. I think a lot of people find the current system very frustrating, and blame it for the fact that candidates seem to be out of touch -- or hopelessly pandering.
Have you read Larry Sabato's stuff on reforming the electoral process? (He also has a lot of ideas on actually updating the Constitution. Now there's a Revolutionary idea.)
here's a link
http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/article.php?id=LJS2008010301
Post a Comment