The received wisdom in the upcoming primary season is that the move toward early primaries and caucuses will mean the campaign's over after one or two days of voting. I'm not sure I buy it.
Yes, if Iowa, New Hampshire, the new early voting states of Nevada and South Carolina, and the swathe of February 5th primary states all vote the same way, us commentators might as well pack up and go home. If, say, Hillary Clinton wins big everywhere those first three weeks, then it's game, set, and match, and she can spend her time from February through the Denver convention honing her skills at grabbing GOP votes away from Giuliani, or Thompson, or whoever.
But, there's an alternative scenario: that the anointed, big-fund-raising front-runners, don't score so well in the slew of little states that are going to have such a disproportionate early influence.
I've spent a lot of time reporting out of the Western states in recent months. My article on Nevada is out in the current issue of Mother Jones. At the start of the year, I wrote on the blue-ing of the interior West for the Nation. Time and again, I've been amazed by the difference in political culture between states like Arizona, New Mexico, and Nevada on the one hand, and the east-coast, D.C. worldview of many of the leading candidates and pundits. I've also been fascinated by the ways in which candidates either connect or fail to resonate in a place like Nevada. And, while Clinton's clearly running a powerful campaign, it wouldn't surprise me if, come caucus-day in Nevada, she doesn't score nearly as big as the polls suggest she will. The sense I get is that many caucus and primary voters in those states have still to make up their minds.
For Clinton, that's the danger of being the undisputed front-runner for so long. Stumble even marginally in a state like Nevada and suddenly a lot of questions start to be raised. If her support is hard, those questions won't matter, and she'll bounce back come the next contest. If, however, her support is somewhat soft, is to a degree reliant on the perception of her invulnerability, then even a small stumble could alter the dynamics of the race.
And that's where things could get interesting: if Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire and South Carolina, split their votes between the major candidates, then voters going into the February 5th super-primary will be voting from their hearts rather than lending their support to a man or woman seen as riding an inevitable wave to victory... And if February 5th proves inconclusive too, we would be in for a long, and exciting primary season...
The same holds, to an even greater extent, for the GOP. With the candidates all jockeying for position, with no clear giant-amid-dwarves, it's likely the first several caucuses and primaries will winnow down the field but produce no clear-cut winner.
Of course, it's also possible that come February 6th it'll all be over bar the shouting. We'll know more soon. But I, for one, am anticipating a long springtime of politics.
Follow Sasha Abramsky on Twitter: www.twitter.com/www.twitter.com
That leaves the VeeP position on the Dem ticket. Playing into the bluing of the West (and thanks for that incredibly good link to the article in the Nation), more than likely, a VeeP from the West is the answer to balancing the ticket. Clinton's east coast liberalness won't play well in the West. But Colorado's Ritter, New Mexico's Richardson, Montana's Schweitzer or long shot Wyoming Freudenthal on the ticket might play down her weaknesses and do a lot to calm everone down. The Revival Tent Republican wing of the GOP is that unpopular out here.
Where the real fun will be is with the Republican candidates. The sudden ascendancy of the populist and Southern Baptist minister Huckabee is throwing a serious monkey wrench into what was already an uncharacteristically unsettled Republican race.
Huckabee could win Iowa and South Carolina. At that points all bets would be off. Huckabee would be political suicide for the GOP in either slot on the ticket, which would probably be a good thing, since the party is certain to go down to defeat anyway. Blame it on the fire and brimstone crowd. Burn it down and start over in 2016.
And on that historical night in 2008 when a woman is elected to the highest political office in the world, all the political pundits can play the words of Barry Goldwater as to how this happened: "If they suceed in establishing religion as a basic Republican Party tenent, they could do us in."
Obviously, I don't believe everything a politician says and she is one of the slickest there is at choosing her words to allow ambiguity, and to parse them later. In other words, with most politicians you have to take what comes out of their mouth with a grain of salt. With HC - for me - she ranks low on the believability scale - pass the salt.
Obama at least has a better historical record of working at the state level before moving to the senate. And he has some professional achievements that seem worthy that might allow you to gauge his future performance, and he speaks with more conviction and passion. He seems much more believable - to me.
Biden and Dodd are both very experienced and have extensive records, but are not strong candidates (poll-wise), yet you know from their records more about who they are.
Edwards, Im' sorry to say, is out of the question for me. No way.
What can be said to help convince me that HC is truly accomplished and is an attractive candidate I should support?