Pre-Iowa '08 Analysis

Well, it's been well over a year since we've started watching the presidential race. I personally haven't watched a debate in months, concluding that they really don't have anything else to say(seriously, how many times can you have a debate between the same people in such short an amount of time?)

But at long last tomorrow is the Iowa primary, the first real test of the candidates. For some candidates, victory is required, without victory they will have disappointed their supporters(Hillary and Romney), for others a victory would be proof that they can be a serious contender, while a second place victory would meet the expectations of their supporters(Obama and Huckabee). Quite frankly, if the tickets should turn out to be anything other than Hillary/Obama and Romney/Huckabee in first and second places respectively then this race will be a REAL race. Romney has invested the most time in Iowa out of the front runners and a defeat to Huckabee would be a serious blow to his campaign and could hurt him in New Hampshire, while Guiliani making anything above third place would be a boost for him because he had given up on the state, much the same if Ron Paul were to finish in third with anything resembling a close margin it could be a boost for him.

For the Democrats, Hillary has to win, Iowa is heavy on union support and if Hillary loses Iowa it will most likely be the beginning of the end, but in a lot of ways so too must Obama and Edwards, if Obama or Hillary were to somehow finish in Third and Edwards in second or(dare I say?) first it could be Edwards real chance, a second place finish would boost his ticket but he had second place in 2004 too, it's almost expected that he'll get at least second place among his supporters and if he doesn't it will likely be the end.

Reality of the situation is for Iowa it won't impact the Republican field much, while Romney has invested the most time there he is the least likely to win for the simple fact that he's a Mormon and Iowa's Republicans are traditional conservatives(the kind that hate what they don't understand). That means that while polls do give Huckabee the likely victory a bit late, unless he actually gets the victory it won't help him that much because it's anticipated that he WILL win, but he has to have a victory for any kind of impact on the field. However, that impact won't be felt by Romney who is almost guaranteed to win New Hampshire, so regardless of which of the two gets the victory in Iowa, it will be irrelevant unless Romney should somehow lose New Hampshire to Guiliani. If Romney loses both then we will see a change, New Hampshire is a must win for Guiliani but he was DoA in Iowa, so it won't impact his campaign any if he has a third place or even worse, so long as he beats Paul he should be fine.

The Democrats on the other hand have a three-way must-win race. All three of them HAVE to pick up the victory in order to succeed, all three of them anticipate victory, but only one of them can win. Hillary is the favorite, naturally, but Hillary's lead has dwindled since the start of the race. If the Democrats are smart she won't win, but you never really know. One thing I've observed from Democrats is they tend to..well..do what they're supposed to do in Primaries, voting for whomever most ideally represents the party, regardless of how likely they are to win the general election.


Before someone randomly replies with some garbage about Hillary, just keep in mind that it's unlikely that ANY candidate can win an election when most of their name recognition is negative press, and while any press is good press, Hillary entered the campaign with a 50% disapproval rating.




Now I'll leave this blog with a point that I've made to people several times as of late:

The 2008 election is irrelevant. I might not even vote. Why is this election irrelevant? Because the Democrats won and they won big in 2006. I'm not saying the Democrats will win big again in 2008, on the contrary right now it's anyones game, what I'm saying is that if you think this election matters you either don't know how this country runs or you aren't aware of the terms that are coming up in the next four years. In 2008 and 2010 there are more Republican senators up for reelection than there are Democrats, in both elections the Republicans have an up-hill battle to MAINTAIN their minority, in fact it's a possibility that the Democrats could strengthen their majority to a veto proof margin.

Now, granted if we have a 60+ Democratic caucus in the senate AND a Democrat president who knows how to work the system(IE a senator or former senator, coincidentally the worst kind of presidential candidate and ironically the three front runners amongst the Democrats all are..) then this election would matter because that would allow for the Democrats to do anything that they wanted, provided they could agree to it, but such a huge Democratic victory in 2008 isn't likely. It's possible in the presidential election but not in the senate, it would require a national landslide.

Frankly, speaking from an unbiased position, it's best for this country if a Republican like Romney wins, someone who is used to dealing with the opposition controlling the majority, and if Romney can make that position very clear than he could probably win.

If a Democrat wins, we'll have nothing different than what we had from 2000-2006, whether you like it or not power corrupts, and the Democrats are no different than the Republicans when it comes to power, and if they're allowed control of both branches they'll do nothing more than attempt to exact the revenge that the far left feels they deserve.

And that is exactly what the Republicans did when they got control of both branches, and that is why they fell in 2006.