For those of you who don't know, the Iowa caucuses are the first contests in the US presidential election cycle. The caucus is different from a primary in that it is that is somewhat informal. Iowans gather at precincts and discuss issues and choose a candidate, electing a country delegate who then elects another delegate to cast votes in each party's national convention. Both sets of delegates nearly always cast the same votes as the majority of the voters in a county. Winning the Iowa caucus is considered important because the winner tends to experience momentum going into other primaries. This year, the caucuses are scheduled for January 3rd.

For the Democratic side, there are essentially three candidates:

Hillary Clinton, who is slightly favored to win, is seen as somewhat of an inevitability for the Democratic nomination. Her experience as first lady and senator is largely seen in a positive light although her stands on most issues is to the right of most Democratic voters and large segments of the population see her as cold and calculating. Also, she has among the highest negative ratings of candidates in either party. Clinton is the only Democratic candidate who can lose the Iowa caucuses and come out relatively unscathed, because her huge lead nationally.

Barack Obama is polling nearly even with Hillary Clinton and has a great chance of victory. Obama has a record much in step with the average Democratic voter and draws much support for his position against the Iraq War while other Democratic candidates (Clinton, Edwards, Biden etc.) supported it in its inception and later claimed either it was a mistake or the war was badly mismanaged. Obama could realistically lose in Iowa and then make his comeback in the next contest, which takes place in New Hampshire five days later.

John Edwards, who was the Democratic nomineee for vice president in 2004, has basically lived in Iowa ever since 2006 and is slightly trailing Clinton and Obama in most recent polls. The Edwards campaign was counting on him locking up the "anti-Hillary" vote, but his thunder seems to have been stolen by Obama. Edwards, who seems to have put all of his eggs in the Iowa basket, needs to win here or at least place a close second in order to remain a viable candidate.

None of the other Democratic candidates are placing above single digits in polling -- which would make it nearly impossible and unprecidented to win in Iowa.

I predict: Obama wins with a razor-thin margin over Clinton. 

On the Republican side, the contest is a bit murkier with five candidates: John McCain, Rudy Giuliani, Fred Thompson, Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee all showing significant support.. although there are two candidates who are favored to win the caucus, Romney and Huckabee.

Mitt Romney desperately needs to win the Iowa caucus, as he is showing much higher support here than nationally and outspent all candidates from either party. Until recently, he had a large lead but his changing of positions on social issues (gay marriage, abortion) have hurt him immeasurably and he is counting on momentum from an Iowa victory to propel him into later contests. He has mercilessly attacked his opponents, which appears to have backfired.

Mike Huckabee has enjoyed a booming of support in the past month. His socially conservative positions and religious background have made him very appealing to the Republican base. Contrasted with the other candidates, Huckabee has an affable demeanor and appears to be on-track to win. Negative attacks from Romney and others seems to have no affect on his campaign.

John McCain is trailing Romney and Huckabee in polling, but seems to have greatly increased support in recent weeks. McCain is the best known of the Republican candidates but has alienated a lot of the Republican base for his stance on immigration. If he places respectably here, he has a good chance of winning New Hampshire and the nomination.

Rudy Giuliani and Fred Thompsons' campaigns are in a downward spiral and it seems too late to recover. While the Republican base seems to share Giuliani's foreign policy and homeland security viewpoints.. the establishment is completely at odds with his stances on social issues. Fred Thompson's lethargic campaign has met with nearly universal disappointment and will likely not last far past Iowa.

Ron Paul is not a serious contender in Iowa.

I predict: Huckabee wins in a rout. 

.

Although I'm an Obama supporter, I've tried to be fair in my analysis of all candidates. Who do you think will win the Iowa caucuses? Who do you want to win?

 

Go Mccain. As always he's the only republican who interests me at all.

On the other side, I hope Obama wins. As Hillary can't win a general election, and aside from Mccain the rest of the republican canidates seem to have problems

Mike Huckabee is basically the republican version of John Kerry. He could win the primary because he's so quintisential the guy his party is looking for... but he doesn't seem to have any real ideas of his own...

and Romney... yeah.

I'm glad the Law and Order guy is out... whose campaign has gone downhill since he annouced he wanted to be in the race. He had more appeal as that guy from TV.

Guliani being out is good too, who would of thought the guy who was pro choice and pro gay marriage and has dressed as a woman in public more often then Dame Edna wouldn't make it through the republican primary. Didn't help that he didn't seem to have a plan for anything other then "I was a great mayor during 9/11." which honestly, he didn't seem that great.

@kasz216

I agree with pretty much your whole post. Although, I would not be interested in voting for John McCain, he would clearly give the Republicans their greatest hope of winning in November because he has a reputation for bipartanship, broad experience and is looked upon as a hero by a lot of people. He would fare better in the general election (especially against Clinton) but he is too-often at odds with the gop base and his immigration bill this summer nearly killed his candidacy.

 

Dear God, If Huckabee wins the election I am moving to Canada.

loadedstatement said: Dear God, If Huckabee wins the election I am moving to Canada.

 Hillary v. Huckabee would be the very definition of being forced to pick from the lesser of two evils. Sadly, I see that as being the outcome.

loadedstatement said: Dear God, If Huckabee wins the election I am moving to Canada.

 Don't underestimate hickabee. Remember that bush ran as an science-hating, aww sucks, "compassionate conservative" in 2000 and it worked for him. He seems to be trending very well in the republican primary and is actually leading at the moment. If they're smart they'll nominate McCain but he just doesn't appeal to their base like hickabee does. The good news is that you'll have option. Michael Bloomberg is expected to announce his candidacy in February and I'm all but certain Ron Paul will run as a Libertarian.

 

Garcian Smith said: loadedstatement said: Dear God, If Huckabee wins the election I am moving to Canada. Hillary v. Huckabee would be the very definition of being forced to pick from the lesser of two evils. Sadly, I see that as being the outcome.

It'd be the flip of the last presidential election. Somone everyone hates vs someoen noone has heard of. If Hilary wins i imagine "republican candidate" will rank higher then an actual name in the polls. Well except for the affore mentioend John Mccain who actually stands a chance to get some of the "I hate hillary because of who she is" vote. Shame he's actually too much of a middle party candidate to win. Well that and campaign finance reform. That's really something that you shouldn't advertise you want to change, and than just do when your in power. Otherwise they use those unfair advantages against you. Hence why the Mccain campaign has had budget issues despite being the likely successor. He should of been president if it wasn't for the whole Karl Rove planned "John Mccain has a black baby that he fatehred." telephone campaign in south carolina that tankes his poll numbers. To use someones adopted kid against them? As Mccain put it himself, "I believe that there is a special place in hell for people like those."

For the Dems, remember that if a candidate receives less than 15% of the vote is eliminated, his/her voters must pick a new candidate. That means all those Kucinich/Dodd/Richardson/Biden voters will be tossing their votes to Hillary, Edwards, or Obama. Seems to me anyone who wants to vote for Hillary would do so anyway. Edwards & Obama will be the likely benefactors in this "second choice" contest. Add in the fact that Hillary's supporters have a disproportionately high number of people who have never voted in a caucus, and I'm predicting a close 3rd place finish for her, which will be the beginning of her campaign going off the rails (since her main appeal seems to be her "inevitable victory"). As for first and second, that's something I'm having trouble with. Obama is the hot horse, but Edwards has the support of the unions and traditional Caucus voters. In deference to my Edwards supporting wife, I'm picking him for a suprising but narrow win, with Obama in 2nd. However, I expect less than 5% to separate the three candidates (something like a 35-33-32 split).

The GOP rules are more straight foward. Expect rabid Ron Paul voters to move him to the middle of the pack (though no higher than 3rd). Giuliani has been losing votes and abandoned the state, so I don't see him finishing well. Whether this derails his campaign strategy depends on whetehr a front runner emerges before the Florida, California, NY, PA and NJ vote. Thomson has never really caught on, though he seems like a great VP pick, andis in many ways exactly what GOP voters want, but for some reason, don't. Still, his down home Tenessee demeanor plays well in Iowa. McCain is experiencing a resurgence, but he too wrote the state off, and his refusal to support ethanol subsidies can't help. That leaves Romney and Huckabee. Huck had it in the bag 2 weeks ago, but since then people have looked in the bad. He hasn't looked strong on foreign policy, and is looking less and less ready for prime time. Still, evangelicals make up over half the GOP caucus, which will give him at least a 2nd place finish. Romney should have had this thing sown up a long time ago, but he's faltered a bit too. He's gone hard after Huckabee (in fairness all the candidates have gone negative, but Romney moreso), and has made some significant flubs (the MLK Jr quote).

Best guess? Huckabee barely edges out Romney, followed by McCain, Fred, Paul, and Rudy. However no candidate will emerge a clear favorite, and the situation will remain muddied for most of the year. I am very much expecting a convention fight for the GOP.

Guessing percentages?

Huckabee and Romney - around 25% each, combined for 40-60% of the total.

McCain and Fred - around 15% each, between 20-35% total

RuPaul and Rudy - Under 10% each, at most 15% combined.

Kasz216 said: Garcian Smith said: loadedstatement said: Dear God, If Huckabee wins the election I am moving to Canada. Hillary v. Huckabee would be the very definition of being forced to pick from the lesser of two evils. Sadly, I see that as being the outcome. It'd be the flip of the last presidential election. Somone everyone hates vs someoen noone has heard of. If Hilary wins i imagine "republican candidate" will rank higher then an actual name in the polls.

Actually the opposite seems true. Generic "Republican Candidate" never fares as well as "Actual Republican Candidate", and that appears to hold true this year as well.

And for the record, I'm a moderately conservative GOP voter and New Yorker. I like most of the GOP field (or at least those left - I never liked Brownback or Tancredo). I lean towards Rudy, but would be happy with McCain and Romney. Paul is not well tethered, and Huckabee just seems like Bush with a better tongue.

Romney is the one I feel is the most competet, the best problem solver - if he can get elected. A more savvy version of Kerry, but with many of Kerry's weaknesses too (flip-flops, money, Massachusettes "liberal"). Add in the Mormon thing, and I'm not sure he'd be able to beat superstars like Hillary or Obama (though he'd eat Edwards for lunch).

Fred? I like him when I see him, but am not sold on his ability to be an effective leader. He manages to appeal to the religious base without really alienating those of us who are more secular. But being a good spokesperson is just not enough.

Rudy is the wild card - he'd chase away many traditional GOP voters (though they may return to the fold if he ran against Hillary), but he'd also put California, New York, Pensylvania, and New Jersey into play (among others). Win just one of those,and the election is likely over. (As for experience, some denigrate him as "just a mayor", but remember that NYC has a larger population than a great many states).

But McCain is the guy who would be toughest for the Dems to beat. He's done some things I disagree with (notably the campaign finance reform bill), but he's too established as a bipartisan guy and too respected as a veteran for the Dem candidate to attack effectively. He very much seems to be most GOP voters second choice (and his opponents go out their way to salute his service in the debates), and so as the "least worst" option could easily take a convention fight. Either Rudy or Thompson would make a solid VP pick (Rudy for the electoral strategy, Fred because he has broad appeal to the base, even if they aren't sold enough to give him the top spot).

As for the Dems, I respect Hillary's abilities but dislike her and her policies (though thats' going to be true of most of the Dem policies). I was impressed with how quickly she learned the issue in NY for her Senate run, and don't feel she's been a terrible sentaor. However, I don't see that she's actually done much in the Senate (that is, if another Dem were in her seat I don't believe the state or nation would be any different), and really has not be challenged in an election (Rudy dropped out the first time due to health issues, and this is such a Dem heavy state she was able to win without much resistance. And she really never got grilled by reporters either). It seems to me that we have been conditioned to think of a "Clinton Legacy" presidence as far back as 1992 (yes, people were talking about President Hillary then, though in more joking terms), and it seems her entire candidacy is based on inevitablity. If she falters in Iowa and New Hampshire (as seems more and more likely, though the Bhutto assassination may inadvertantly help her), the justification for her support disappears, and I'm not sure she will recover. Moreover, she is just too dominant a person, with too many negatives, for a strong candidate to name as VP.

Edwards rubs me the wrong way, though he would actually be the candidate I'd most want to face as I don't think he's half as slick as he appears. He was supposed to be the "not Hillary" candidate, but he's lost that vote to Obama, and I'm not sure his blue-collar support will be enough to carry him to the nomination unless both Obama and Hillary falter substantially. And after Kerry (and what was said about Edwards after that campaign ended), I don't see him getting the VP nod either.

Obama is a star, and I can see his appeal. Unlike Hillary or Edwards, I wouldn't hate losing to him in a general election - though again I would likely disagree with many of his policies, I can respect him personally. I just think he's not ready for the big stage yet. Had he not done so well, this could have been a good platform to VP or at least for a future Pres run, but now he becomes a dangerous VP pick (risks overshadowing the nominee), but if he wins and falters in the general election (which again I think is likely due to his inexperience), he may never get another shot. Then again, if there is anyone out there who could go from State Senator to President in just 4 years, it would be Obama. My question is who would he take as a VP pick? Edwards and Hillary are out IMO. Richardson seems to have spent all his sucking up chips on Hillary. Get someone too experienced and he risks being overshadowed. Strategically, Ohio governor Strickland would have the best chance to tip the electoral scale (most other big states are already blue, or hopelessly red), and he has a reputation for pulling republican support, which would tie into Obama's "heal the divide" theme.