My Take On Iowa and the Future

Iowa settled nothing. In fact I think things are less settled than ever. This is a good thing. I hope things are still unsettled after New Hampshire too. I think that the things get interesting if they are still up in the air longer. Though in the end I think New Hampshire generally does a very good job of picking the right candidates. That is because we do take it so seriously here. In my ideal world the conventions would start without a winner already determined. Now that would be fun. Unlikely but fun.

The results in Iowa make New Hampshire more important in many ways. For Clinton she really needs to beat Obama here. If not she has to come a close second. If Edwards wins (unlikely but who knows) or comes in a strong second (no matter who is first) he moves on with an air that he could win it all. Second for Obama is fine although if he comes in first it will be difficult to beat him later. Third for Obama (unlikely I think) would really confuse things. Likely finish? Obama and Clinton to close to call with Edwards third. Although I was very tempted to change my registration so I could vote for Edwards. I read Obama on guns last night and I’m not sure I could vote for him now. A final straw not just because of that.

On the Republican side Romney really needs a big win. While he was not that popular in Massachusetts NH is a more conservative state. If he can’t win here where can he win? Huckabee needs to show that Iowa was not a fluke. There are not as many evangelical Christians here to boost him though so he has an uphill fight. It is probably enough for him to be in the top three to continue into the next round. He will have to win somewhere else though and soon.

McCain just might win in NH. If he does that gives him a huge push going forward. Rudy really needs to do well in NH. Top three at least. I think he is betting on catching up in the next round but he has to have some success in NH or he will lose credibility.

Giuliani does not seen to do well outside large cities. And of course we don’t have any large cities. My Dad likes him and he lived in NYC while Giuliani was mayor. My Dad is very clued in with how things work in NYC so that means a lot to me. Giuliani is off on a number of issues I think are important but as a manager he’s got proved skills. In any case if he doesn’t do well in NH he has to prove himself in Nevada or South Carolina. Things get risky for him if he doesn’t win in the first four events.

My prediction for NH is McCain first, Romney second and Huckabee a surprise at third. Giulani will be playing catchup and Huckabee with see an increase in attach adds against him. I think the attach ads against McCain are going to hurt Romney more than McCain BTW.

2 Responses to “My Take On Iowa and the Future”

  1. Matt says:

    Giuliani scares me. On the surface he’s a nice guy who did a lot in NYC. The more you look into it, the more you realize that he’s really a creep. He does a lot of what we so hate about Bush–he appoints incompetent people to some positions (Brown and FEMA, anyone?) based on loyalty. It’s been said that it was really his police chief who cracked down on crime in NYC, and, when the police chief tried to take credit, Rudy got rid of him. His dad was a Mafia enforcer. And I don’t see how any of the people out to “preserve the sanctity of marriage” can like a candidate who announced to his wife that he was divorcing her at a press conference. My concern is that a lot of voters–not necessarily NH voters, but elsewhere–don’t always look beyond the surface.

    NH polls have been all over the place about Clinton and Obama. Some show her with more than a 10% lead. Others show them tied. isn’t showing their compilation of polls right now.

    Huckabee, last I saw, doesn’t have a chance in NH. Iowa may help him out, but I strongly doubt he’s going to come in 1st here. Rudy’s not doing well here, either. It’s not where my priorities lie right now, but if he loses here and then loses overall, it’ll maybe reinforce the importance of Iowa and New Hampshire.

    I think you’re right about attack ads coming, BTW. Even the “Votemaster” at predicts it: “the Republican establishment and right-wing blogosphere are going to attack Huckabee mightily this week. They have little use for a tax-raising outsider who believes Jesus’ true message was helping the poor.”

    I think the real news in Iowa was Hillary coming in 3rd. I think everyone expected first, and second might have been okay. But third is a real blow. She’s leading in a lot of other places, but I liked the dominoes analogy someone else used–the first one fell in Iowa. If we get a second in New Hampshire, we might start something across the country.

    I know nothing at all about Obama’s gun policy. The one thing I’ve seen mentioned is some random survey in which he said he was for gun control, but it was never explained or discussed. You may well have better information than I do. I think guns are a non-issue in this election: I really can’t think of anyone who’s pro-gun, actually. Well besides Duncan Hunter. But his 0.4% finish in Iowa wasn’t that promising. I can’t see Giuliani, mayor of NYC and self-proclaimed anti-crime hero, supporting gun rights. Nor can I see Huckabee being pro-gun. Romney’s former governor of MA, which has very strict gun laws. Maybe Thompson, but I don’t think he’s viable. I’m not sure on McCain.

    The thing I like about Obama, though, is that even on issues where he could try to unilaterally impose something–e.g., gun control–he tries to bring all the parties to the table. Without actually knowing much about the issue, I’d think that the NRA would be given a seat at the table on any proposed gun control legislation.

    Tuesday’s just around the corner, and I can’t wait to see what happens!

  2. Mr. T says:

    Huckabee is pretty pro-gun. Obama according to what I read on CNN last night wants to ban hidden carry all across the nation. Other than to make the country safe for muggers I don’t know why one would do that.

Leave a Reply