Well on the Republican side I prefer Giuliani to win but that ain't happening. I guess I woudl go for Huckabee since Romney would be too strong against Giuliani in later states if he won. On the Democrat side I prefer Hillary or Edwards since they are weaker general election candidates than Obama. However, Hillary as president scares me the most of the 3 so I'm rooting for Edwards.
Well I'll throw in my 2 cents of the candidates as well.
On the Republican side:
Giuliani - My favorite due to his executive experience and ability to actually do good things. I oppose his views on gay marriage and abortion but I trust that he is being sincere when he says he wouls support good judges for the courts which is where those battles are bing fought. He also seems to have the best grasp of the changing world we live in and is as far as I know he's the only candidate calling for a major expansion of the US Army. I think he's also the strongest candidate electorally. Bush lost in Pennsylvania by 1% and Michigan by 3%, winning either of those kills the Democrats' chances. He probably won't win New York but just by scaring the Dems there he could force them to waste resources they need in Ohio and Florida. He may scare some core Republicans away but I think he will win Alabama and S Dakota anyways.
Romney - I don't mind his stated policies so much. What really bothers me is how conveniently his political views changed when he went from running in liberal Massachussetts to the nation as a whole. People always complain about politicians who just say what voters want to hear and not what the politician believes. Well, they're going to keep doing that until voters stop supporting them so I'm not supporting Romney.
Huckabee - I'm an evangelical christian but I really don't like his resort to identity politics or his actual liberal policies. He also seems to have little clue about the world outside the US and is making gaffes left and right. He's a terrible candidate who will be destroyed come November.
McCain - I appreciate his service to our country and his sticking by the Iraq War (though he gets way too much credit for the turn around) but he has backstabbed conservatives too many times on too many issues for me to ever vote for him. In addition to some counterproductive Iraq policies his War on Terror policies are a total farce. We would be just as well off putting Obama in the White House. He's also a bit too old and short of temper for me.
Thompson - Seems like a nice fellow whose policies I would support. I can't really say since he's said he doesn't want to campaign. Hard to support someone who doesn't seem to really want the job and won't explain his policies.
For the Democrats
Well all the Democrats are pretty much the same policy wise so I can sum that up together. They all seem to have no understanding of the place we are in history and the problems their policies will cause (not surprising since most liberals I've met have little care for or understanding of history). The world is in one of its rapid change periods with Europe slowly dying with, Russia returning to great power status, Japan able to become a great power with the flip of a switch, and China and India becoming great powers, Muslims and Africans are having children at 4 times the rate of Europe and East Asia and are sending those people to Europe. The world that the UN, IAEA, WTO, et al were constructed for is fast disappearing. Yet the Democrats foreign policy consists of sucking up to dying Europe and antagonizing rising China, Russia, India, and Japan while ignoring the massive demographic changes going on in the world.
Their economic policies are the sort of tax and spend socialism that stalled Europe's economy and gave it 10% unemployment and that China and India are finally shedding to encourage economic growth. They've all been hoodwinked by the European plan to use global warming treaties to diminish US economic competition knowing that we would be the only nation to follow the treaty (Europe's CO2 output is rising far faster than America's despite slower economic and population growth and Kyoto). In short I believe at this moment in time any of the Democrats will turn out to be a disaster in historical terms. They also all have little to no experience (which I recall was such a big deal amongst Dems in 2000 regarding Bush, well don't Dems think events proved them right?).
Obama is a little diffferent in trying to play the he'll get along with everyone card. Sounds great in theory, doesn't work in reality nor should it. So I stick by electablity, I think Obama is more electable owing to his mushy make everyone feel good even as the world burns around them rhetoric so I hope Edwards beats him in Iowa because Edwards won't in NH.
To correct a few things, Republicans are not going to be voting for Obama. McCain has serious problems with a large part of the Republican base, like me, due to his past behavior (and is the only Republican I 100% will not vote for, well Ron Paul also but he isn't going anywhere). Iowa is a freak state politically so nothing is surprising. Amnesty for illegals is anathema to more than just Republicans. Hillary's major problem in Iowa is she positioned herself as inevitable, inevitable candidates don't lose (she could recover of course but only because support for the other 2 is somewhat weak).
EDIT: Whoops, didn't notice the thread was primarily about the Iowa Caucas. I think Edwards wins handily on the Democrat side due to the 15% rule and him being the 2nd choice of something like 60%+ of Democrats. Obama and Hillary should be close. The Republicans are harder to guess but I would say Huckabee wins but barely enough that Romney can claim to have "comeback" (don't forget that Clinton lost Iowa and NH but lost NH by less than expected generating the "Comeback Kid" news stories). Thompson and McCain should do well enough that each can claim to have beaten expectations. I doubt Giuliani does and Paul doesn't matter anyways.
