 | ||
 | Elian Gonzalez saga could haunt Obama | |
| Gitmo trial looms in election homestretch | |
| Back at Senate, Clinton treated like royal | |
| GOP favoritism in new IG report | |
| How Hoyer got the deal done | |
| LA Times/Bloomberg Poll: Obama +12 | |
| IN Polls: Prez Race Even, Gov Race Close | |
| McCain's Psychological Benefits | |
| VP Watch: Michigan Numbers | |
| The Charm Offensive Continues |
| A Transportation Stimulus | |
| McCain's Speech in Santa Barbara | |
| A Serious Energy Policy for Our Future | |
| The Imitators | |
| 'Victims' of Cut-Rate Loans |
|
January 06, 2008
Year of the Outsider
By Steven StarkAdmittedly, only one state has voted - and a caucus state at that whose sentiments are often sharply at odds with those in the rest of the country. But so far, at least, it's the year of the outsider.
In most presidential years, the well-known, establishment candidates who have always led the polls dominate the race - Bob Dole, Al Gore and George Bush. The Republicans, for example, have never nominated a candidate in the modern era who wasn't near or at the top of the public opinion polls a year before the first vote was cast.
But in years in which the public is particularly upset at the direction of the country, outsiders rise to the fore, such as Jimmy Carter in 1976 or George McGovern in 1972. After all, Carter's calling card in the years after Watergate and Vietnam was that the country needed someone completely unconnected to anything that had been going on in national politics before. And it worked.
The Iowa results - if they're replicated around the country, admittedly a big "if" - are indicating that 2008 may be one of those years. After all, the Hawkeye State has spoken and its choices are a Democrat, Barack Obama, who has been on the national scene less than four years and a little-known former Republican governor, Mike Huckabee, who has never been on the national scene and few had even heard of until several weeks ago.
The big question, of course, is can it last? For starters, Iowa is frequently out of sync with the rest of the country. Political history is littered with nominees who lost the first contest in Iowa and roared back to win, such as Ronald Reagan in 1980 and George Bush in 1988. Neither Bill Clinton in 1992 nor Michael Dukakis in 1988 won Iowa, either.
But, with the exception of Bill Clinton in '92, all did go on to win the next contest - in New Hampshire. So, if Hillary loses that one, history begins to run against her.
The other thing working in Clinton's favor - and in favor of the Republican contenders other than Huckabee - is that few delegates are chosen in January. This month is really about creating a sense of momentum and national identity that can be ridden into February when the bulk of the delegates determine the nominee chosen in over 20 primaries nationwide, including California's. Thus, Clinton and the other Republicans have a month to recover - an eternity, really, in the age of the Internet when the public processes news far more quickly than it did in the past.
What Iowa did do was to winnow the field significantly. For the Democrats, it's hard to see how John Edwards can win somewhere else if he couldn't win the state in which he had campaigned virtually nonstop for four years, so the Democratic race seems to be down to Clinton and Obama. For the Republicans, if Mitt Romney doesn't win New Hampshire on Tuesday - and right now things aren't looking good for him - his chances virtually disappear. Add to that the floundering state of Fred Thompson's campaign and the GOP race looks like it could be heading to a Huckabee vs. John McCain contest (assuming McCain wins New Hampshire on Tuesday), with Rudy Giuliani waiting in the wings, hoping to emerge late in the month in Florida.
So, as we head into New Hampshire on Tuesday and then on to the other major contests this month (for the Republicans, Michigan on Jan. 15, South Carolina on Jan. 19 and Florida on Jan. 29; for the Democrats, South Carolina on Jan. 29), here are the questions that will determine the course of the race.
THE DEMOCRATS
1. Can Obama erode Clinton's national lead in the polls? Before the Iowa results, Clinton had almost a 20-point lead in the national polls - a huge mountain for Obama to climb. Even if he wins New Hampshire on Tuesday - and then goes on to win South Carolina three weeks later - it's not at all certain that this would be enough to erode Clinton's advantage.
2. Will voters get buyer's remorse? So far, all the negative heat in the campaign has focused on Clinton, as the putative front-runner. Now the tables are going to turn a bit and that heat will be focused on Obama.
The truth is that a defeat may humanize Clinton a bit - making her more appealing. And, it's also true that all "new faces" eventually fade somewhat, as voters discover that their new-found love is more of a politician than they realized and that they might not want to entrust the presidency to someone with so little experience. Carter, after all, went through periods in his campaign in 1976 when he seemingly couldn't win a primary late in the spring, and in the fall his 30-point lead in the polls vanished to a single percentage point by Election Day.
The key is if and how quickly voters will become disillusioned with Obama. There's an argument that in the accelerated age of the Internet, it could come quickly, if at all. Or, his first impression could be so overpowering that it may last for months.
3. Was the independent surge that fueled Obama's Iowa victory a trend or a one-time happening? Among Democrats in Iowa, Clinton and Obama were roughly even. It was the surge of independents into the Democratic contest that largely gave Obama his margin of victory.
The bad news for Clinton is that while some Democratic primaries don't allow independents to participate, New Hampshire and South Carolina do. But it could be that independents sought out the Democratic contest in Iowa on Thursday simply because the Republican contest was so boring (most of the GOP candidates didn't even actively participate, after all). In future states, the surge may not be replicated.
THE REPUBLICANS
1. Does Huckabee have a second act? Unlike Obama, Huckabee's campaign has been running on a shoestring, propelled in Iowa by favorable publicity and the intense support of evangelical voters. That won't be the case elsewhere. He's probably not going to win New Hampshire and Michigan doesn't look that promising, either. He has to follow up his Iowa victory with a strong showing in either South Carolina or Florida or he's going down in history as a one-night stand.
2. Can McCain run away with it? If the trend is to outsiders, John McCain may be better positioned than anyone. On the one hand, he's been on the national scene long enough to be trusted. On the other, he has a reputation as a bit of a freewheeling outsider himself. If he can win New Hampshire on Tuesday, he's well positioned to do well in Michigan and South Carolina the following week. If he starts running the table, he could well be unstoppable.
3. Is there a place for Romney, Thompson or Giuliani? The short answer is maybe not. Romney now faces a must-win Tuesday in New Hampshire or else it would be very difficult for him to recover and win the nomination. Thompson faces the same situation in South Carolina on Jan. 19, and right now the polls don't look good for him.
Giuliani's strategy has always been to hang around until Florida - when delegate selection really begins - and then begin his campaign. That strategy might work, as long as McCain hasn't developed a head of steam before the 29th. Right now, it looks like he might, which would derail the Giuliani campaign before it even starts.
