The other side of Iowa
By docj Posted in 2008 — Comments (2) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Or, But "She" is inevitable, right? Right??
I'd like to interrupt the ongoing Mitt/Huck food-fight for a moment to talk about some interesting things that seem to be going on in "the other side" of Iowa - that being, the Democrat caucus - polling summarized here.
And right up front I'm going to make a prediction that is almost certainly going to come back to haunt me - Hillary Clinton will not win the Iowa Caucus.
Hillary Clinton - the inevitable nominee of the Democrat(ic) Party - is polling within the margin of error with Barak Obama in the RCP average, and is only 4-points ahead of Silky Pony in the Gold Standard (Rasmussen) poll. That cannot be giving her campaign staff a warm-fuzzy feeling at this point, though that's not entirely bad news for her, either.
For on thing, she is leading and, in fact, has not trailed in a poll since overtaking Edwards (who practically set-up housekeeping in Iowa after 2004) this summer. Axiomatically, it's always better to be leading than not. For another - she's, well, Mrs. Bill Clinton - and in many states (including, probably, Iowa), that could be enough to eek-out a close victory in a 3-way race with Richardson (who had the dumbest answer of the evening last night, by the way) running for Veep. And finally, her organization will be ready to turn-out the vote when called upon.
But that's about it for upside for Mrs. Clinton. There's more than a little downside as well. Iowa, as has been mentioned before, is a beauty pageant, not an election. And Obama is, let's be honest, the type of person for who people will brave a cold, Iowa January night.
Factor in also that the media, though of course they are pulling for any Democrat and certainly for Hillary, will do everything they can to try to extend the campaign for another week (if only to sell a few more papers, those greedy capitalists), and will, I'm sure, do what they can to try to play-up any drama on the campaign trail.
There's still plenty of time and Obama certainly didn't help himself last night (aside: a local radio guy of some note here put it this way (paraphrasing) - short of picking his nose and eating it on camera, Obama couldn't have hurt his campaign more with his performance last night - and I concur). But I have to believe that unless Hillary opens-up a substantial lead before Christmas that she will lose the caucus to Obama and will be quite wounded going into New Hampshire, where she leads pretty comfortably. This is especially true if Edwards continues to fade and the "I'm-not-voting-for-Hillary-the-war-monger" (aka, moonbat) vote begins to coalesce around Obama.
What does this mean for the Republican primaries? Well, I'll say briefly:
1) I think the longer the Democrat primary is an actual race and not a coronation, the more "unenroled" voters will be picking-up a Democrat ballot (in states where they are allowed) instead of a Republican ballot - not helpful for Rudy
2) The longer it takes Hillary to secure the necessary delegates, the more the armor of "invincibility" becomes rusted - better for us across the board
3) The longer the media's attention is split between two active races, the less time they have to focus on GOP food-fights - better for us across the board
4) The longer the Democrats are the center of attention, the more campaign footage they generate for the eventual GOP nominee - huzzah!
5) Every time these luminaries have to be seen on stage with Dennis and Gravel - well, you can fill-in that blank.
I saw a poll summary on the Donks race - can't remember who ran it or where I saw it. Not important as I will tell you the meat that is my point:
She, Obama and the Pony were all pretty much right there with about 1/3 each. The summary reports that voters in Iowa feel Clinton is the electable one, the Pony is the one that has the best ideas, and Obama is the "fresh face" - the one who will bring change and a new tone.
The longer the meme of 2008 being the Democrat year and some inevitable Democrat victory, the worse for Hillary. Kerry won in 2004 because Dems felt they were fighting uphill and needed elctability. If they feel like they have a built in lead, they may not feel the need to "play safe" with electability. Not to mention the fact that current head-to-head polls show Obama doing much better against all comers on the GOP side than Hillary does.
If I were Obama and the Pony, I would be reminding voters about 2004. Voters picked the guy who was "electable" and he lost. So how much is it really worth to be assessed as "electable?"
Even if Hillary does win in IA, I think it will be a loss - she is "inevitable," she is the juggernaut. Oh wait, she only got 35% in IA. Some powerhouse. And if she does lose, she will still bounce back in NH. The polls there aren't even close - and unless they get much closer in the next 6 weeks, even an IA win for Obama will not get him enough new support in NH to overtake her. He'll be hoping just to make it close so he can keep going.
1. She has the most support (it's close, but Hill has the most). I predict she pulls away from Barack and Silky before too long.
2. She has the best organization and backing of party establishment - this will prove to be the difference on GOTV efforts the day of the caucus.
“.....women and minorities hardest hit”