It may seem paradoxical, but New Hampshire is poised to close down the race for the Democratic presidential nomination and launch a wide-open Republican contest.
The difference is that Barack Obama, the winner of the Iowa Democratic caucuses, can well repeat his victory here over Hillary Clinton and John Edwards. But Mike Huckabee faces much steeper odds in duplicating his Iowa win on the Republican side.
While Huckabee shattered Mitt Romney’s strategy by winning Iowa, where Romney had invested massively in advertising and organization, he is likely simply to empower John McCain to repeat his 2000 victory in New Hampshire.
A second Romney loss would effectively end the former Massachusetts governor’s candidacy — a victim of a campaign that lost its credibility along with its ideological definition.
Don’t count out Guiliani, who’s strategy is post-New Hampshire. As much as I like McCain, he’s won New Hampshire before, so that’s not definitve anyway. A Huckabee win would be huge, mostly because it’s unexpected. But even at that, don’t count out Guiliani.
Obviously, an Obama win is likewise huge, only because a Hillary loss is… well, a Hillary loss.
I can’t believe I’m writing this… for me to be this interested in politics is something different.
Obama is not going to be the next president of the United States.
Neither will Huckabee
People who win Iowa do not become president – except (in certain circumstances) when they are a sitting president (Reagan ’84, Clinton ’96, and GW Bush ’04). But these guys are now either running for Vice President or for the future.
bb
BB, I’ll have to check, but didn’t Carter win Iowa in 76? I normally would agree with you, but we haven’t faced this kind of massive disillusionment (from folks in both parties) with our leadership since Watergate. That could change things pretty dramatically I think and make folks much more open to a radical change in who is “electable”
Hmmm. Apparently I’m not the only one seeing parallels with Watergate and Carter’s win in both Iowa and nationally 76. Here’s a Newsweek piece that says essentially what I just said in my comment above, and yes, it appears Carter won Iowa in ’76
http://www.newsweek.com/id/84539
Not sure Romney’s campaign is over if he is a very close second to McCain. Even if it’s not close, he will surely stay in until the late January/early February rounds are over. Republican voters know McCain, and they will come to know Huckabee. And the actual strength of Guiliani’s support remains to be tested. The Democratic battle appears to be much more based on emotion, since except for foreign policy there is little difference between Clinton and Obama.
If the Republicans nominate Huckabee, 1964 will be repeated, regardless of whom the Democrats nominate. And we may enter another 40 years of Democratic rule. I bet the Democrats are hoping against hope that Huckabee is nominated.This is scary for moderate and even conservative Republicans.
The Republicans have to capture the 20% mushy middle that’s up for grabs every election. To what can they point to convince that 20% that they can govern competently? Billions to rebuild Iraq after billions to bomb Iraq? Illegal immigration that has become so entrenched it is a problem no longer capable of being solved? Fiscal deficits that can no longer be repaid, even by our children’s children’s children? Clumsy airport security that exists solely to harass and delay the law-abiding? To that mushy middle, President Hillary Clinton doesn’t sound so scary anymore.
And if Republicans think it’s bad now, wait ’til all those anchor babies they encouraged grow up and start voting.
Oh, and thanks so much for Campaign Finance Reform and the PATRIOT Act. It’s sure gonna be fun when the Democratic Executive branch gets to enforce them.