Campaign 2008: rambling musings on where we're at, IMO

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

Iowa is always a big surprise. This time around the big surprise may be the lack of surprise, if Hillary and Romney pull out easy victories after being written off in Iowa in the face of Huckabee and Obama surges.

Huckabee and Obama will both under perform their expectations in Iowa. For Obama, that probably means third place. For Huckabee, under performing his polling could still mean a narrow victory, since he has a decent cushion in the polls.

The Democratic race in Iowa is really between Clinton and Edwards, and that's too close to call.

Now here is where a few hundred people get to put a big foot on the nomination process... there is a world of difference between Clinton 32%-Edwards 31% and Edwards 32%-Clinton 31%. There should be no difference at all, but the media demands a winner. If Edwards wins Iowa, even by a tiny margin, he will be competitive in NH. This isn't 2004. Nobody really had anything against Kerry. Some people have a lot against Hillary.

I wouldn't drop dead from shock if Edwards parlayed an Iowa win into a NH win. (against all CW expectations) But he would get slaughtered in NV and SC, and dispatched on super-duper Tuesday.

If Obama pulls a big win in Iowa somehow, I would expect a buyer's remorse backlash in NH, running counter to the CW of momentum. It is rare for Iowa and NH to go for the same candidate in an open race. So I would see Obama winning Iowa and SC, Hillary winning NH and NV. Unfortunately for Obama, the media would spend January on make-up calls for the free-ride Obama has enjoyed thus far, so super-duper Tuesday would end up with a big Clinton win.

If Hillary implodes in Iowa some second tier candidate would emerge in NH. It is hard to see Hillary winning NH if she is humiliated in Iowa. So that would all make for a spirited January with an uncertain outcome.

Something to keep in mind... they only reason this race is at all competitive is because of the disastrous screw-ups in Michigan and Florida. If those were live primaries for the Democrats it really wouldn't matter who won Iowa, because Clinton would be unstoppable in every scenario. But they aren't, so she isn't.

We have no idea how Clinton would do in a two-person race. Maybe she would run behind Edwards or Obama heads-up. An Edwards or Obama collapse could boost the other into a strong first.

But I am still expecting Clinton vs. McCain as I have been for months. I don't like that match-up... McCain is about the only chance the pugs have of winning in 2008. But maybe they'll actually nominate Romney or Huckabee and make this easier on us.

[cali]

1. Pretty much agree, except for your

end result. I don't see McCain getting it. I still think it's Romney. And I think Obama could do much better than you seem to think.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

2. Voters are somber, like jurors. I happen to think the Obama vote will not materialize.

If I am wrong, I will probably be dramatically wrong.

But I don't see hope as a live issue in 2008. Edwards offers the grim desire for justice. Clinton offers a status quo resumption of life beyond Bush... a safe do-over. Obama offers a vague spiritually transformative something-or-other.

The entire middle class is facing the destruction of the value of only major investment they have, their home equity. When push comes to shove, I just don't see a market out there for faith.

Bill Clinton was right that Obama represents a roll of the dice. That's not just a dismissal of something as dumb. Rolling the dice is a hopeful act. If people feel safe they like to roll the dice, like voting in large numbers for an actual moron as a gesture of spite in 2000. Obama's campaign makes all the sense in the world for 2000. It's awful for 2008.

People are really afraid, and not about Iran.

We will see.