Some Inconsequential Thoughts on The Presidential Races
If current national polling of presidential preferences for 2008 matter, then Senator Hillary Clinton and former Mayor Rudy Giuliani are the clear favorites to win their respective nominations. Historically, national polling has not meant that much. The early primary results have been much more important. Look we know who is not going to win I think - anyone not named Clinton, Obama, Edwards, Gore, Giuliani, McCain, Romney or Fred Thompson. But which of these will?
The most important factor that can change where we are today is the results of the early primaries. Some candidates in the past have withstood losses in early primaries and cacuses. Ronald Reagan withstood losing Iowa in 1980. George H.W. Bush and Michael Dukakis also lost in Iowa in 1988. They needed to win in New Hampshire to win the nomination and they did. In 1992, Tom Harkin ran for President and took Iowa out of play. Bill Clinton finished second in New Hampshire but it was deemed a "win" for the Comeback Kid.
Here's the bottom line. In the modern era, other than the exceptional circumstances of Clinton in 92, no candidate who has lost both Iowa and New Hampshire has captured the nomination. I do not believe this year will be any different.
|< Steven Spielberg Chooses Hillary Over Obama | Exhibit 2 of Why Campaign Staff Cannot Blog >|