With the first presidential contest behind us and the next one less than 24 hours away, I thought it might be appropriate to give my own hare-brained analysis of where the race currently stands and where it's probably headed.
First off, the Democrats. It has become resoundingly clear that the Democrats do
not want a Hillary presidency. Her third-place finish in Iowa is nothing short of an ass-kicking -- as much as she might attempt to portray it differently. She had more money than Obama, more endorsements, a larger staff, etc. The only things missing were the actual votes. She couldn't even muster enough to get ahead of John "Silky Pony/Breck Girl" Edwards. That's saying something. The Democrats' main reservation with Obama was about his viability as a candidate -- i.e., could he win. With such a strong showing in Iowa, that reservation has largely disappeared and Democrats are no longer 'afraid' to vote for him. He'll likely win New Hampshire tomorrow, further driving a stake through the heart of the Clinton campaign. I don't expect Hillary to drop out any time soon, but her fund raising is bound to start drying up and she'll eventually have no other choice. As a side note, the thought of conceding probably never crossed her mind, so that will be an interesting speech. I haven't mentioned Edwards much because I'm pretty sure he's done. He's not registering higher than third in any upcoming states, and I imagine that most of his supporters are going to jump on the Obama bandwagon in the coming days/weeks. I personally believe he had a laughable candidacy to begin with with the whole "Two Americas" bit. 90 percent of people live in the "good" America, so it's hard to start a groundswell of support with 10 percent of the country. But I digress.
The Republican side is much less clear. Mike Huckabee pulled off a somewhat-surprising victory in Iowa, but his appeal beyond there likely isn't very broad. He won't win New Hampshire, and is likely to received massive amounts of negative press between now and South Carolina (his best chance for another victory between now and Feb. 5th). Full disclosure: I loathe Mike Huckabee. It's nothing personal. He seems like a nice guy. He just doesn't seem presidential. At a time when foreign policy is arguably the most important responsibility of a president, his main response is --
and I'm not making this up -- "I might not know a lot about foreign policy, but I
did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night." Spare me. First off, that ad campaign is like two years old. So it's not even a current joke. Second of all, with nuclear-armed Pakistan falling apart, Iran provoking American warships, Hugo Chavez using oil as an economic weapon, and China building up its military, now is not the time for cute little jokes about how you don't know anything about any of those things. I also don't trust him on taxes, the size/role of government, and, quite frankly, the improvement of America's image abroad.
The likely winner in New Hampshire is John McCain. It likely won't decide anything, but it will certainly put Romney in a tough spot, going 0-2 in states in which he heavily campaigned.
Which brings me to Romney. He didn't do nearly as well as he hoped in Iowa, and New Hampshire isn't looking good. He did win Wyoming, however, so, you know, there's that. His next best shot at a victory is in his home state of Michigan. If he doesn't win that, he's probably in trouble. He's got a massive chest, but if he doesn't started picking up substantial victories he'll have to face reality that money doesn't equal votes. Just ask Hillary.
Fred Thompson is, in my humble yet accurate opinion, the best candidate on the Republican side. The only problem is, he's the worst campaigner. And even that might not be totally accurate. It's like he doesn't see the point in campaigning. He doesn't bow at the altars at which conventional wisdom deems he bow. As I explained to a co-worker: "[Primary voters] aren't upset about the substance, they're just upset that he doesn't come diddle their undercarriage." He's the only one who's come out with detailed policy positions, he's just not flashy. And apparently people want flashy. That pisses me off to no end.
Rudy's strategy of sitting out the first few primaries was once thought to be incredibly stupid, but it's actually turning out to be -- at least of this writing -- quite brilliant. With three different winners in the first three contests (Iowa, Wyoming, and New Hampshire) there's no clear front runner, and the rest of the pack is cannibalizing itself. Rudy was hoping to go into Super Tuesday without getting attacked too heavily, and it looks as if he'll do just that. Whether people will still remember he's campaigning is another story.
Ron Paul has been suspiciously absent from my analysis, because, well, I loathe Ron Paul more than I loathe Mike Huckabee. He will never be president. He's nothing more than a gadfly candidate, somewhere between Ross Perot and Ralph Nader. I would say he's the modern-day Barry Goldwater, but to do so would insult Barry Goldwater. His candidacy is a side show. Ron Paul is a rabid constitutionalist, for which I give him credit. I agree with him on several domestic policies. But beyond that, he is, simply put, batshit insane. He wants to go back on the gold standard. Where he plans to get 13 trillion dollars worth of gold remains to be seen. He wants to abolish the CIA and FBI. How he plans to prevent terrorist attacks from happening, say, daily, remains to be seen. He wants to bring every soldier home from abroad. What he plans to do with a few hundred thousand soldiers returning home, again, remains to be seen. He wants to be isolationist -- excuse me, "non-interventionist" -- what he would do when Iran marches into Baghdad, or Tel Aviv for that matter, remains to be seen. On a slightly unrelated note, he's a gynecologist. And, I'm sorry, but I just don't trust male gynecologists. He's a cult of personality that will fade away when the primary season is over.
Judging by his fervent support among college students, I think he serves as the poster boy for raising the voting age to 21. His supporters spam polls, crash parties and campaign events, and otherwise give unrepresentative exposure to their candidate. If they can't garner genuine support through the traditional channels, they shouldn't resort to guerrilla tactics. They're ruining the electoral process by siphoning votes away from reputable candidates.
In summation, I'm not ready to give the Democrat nomination to Obama, but it's his to lose. As it was explained by a favorite radio host of mine earlier today, he's the Prius of presidential candidates. He might not be the best vehicle, but people feel good voting for him. They might not actually be doing any good, but they like how it reflects upon them. Not a single Obama supporter I've met can articulate a specific policy from his platform, but they're sure proud to be voting for him. Why, look how
tolerant they are! But hey, God bless them for taking down Hillary.
The Republican race is too close to call, but I could get behind any of them, aside from Huckabee and Paul. For what it's worth, my preferences are as follows:
Thompson
Rudy
Romney
McCain
Huckabee*
Paul*
The next few weeks should be very interesting.
Note: *If either of these are the nominee, I'm becoming one of those bunker-dwellers in Montana.
