Prediction Time
We all knew this post was coming eventually, right? The holidays are almost over, in a few hours it will officially be an election year, and the Iowa caucus is a few short days away. So what do you say we all show off how completely out of step we are with the good people of Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, and perhaps others by predicting the outcome of what has been a long and grueling primary campaign?
It’s a moment we should all savor, given how rare it is for both parties’ nominations to be so unpredictable, thus doubling the extent to which we can all make fools of ourselves. We’ve done this before with the 2006 midterm elections, so we should all know how it works: everybody who cares to participate (and I hope that is all of you) post a comment predicting the outcome of the primaries for each party. Be as specific or as general about how that outcome comes about as you want. And of course do it before the results come in from Iowa on January 3rd (though if this post is still up toward the top of the page by then, feel free to come up with new predictions after the Iowa results are in).
Okay, here’s mine:
The Democrats
For a while I thought (along with everybody else, it seems) that the Republican race was by far the more difficult race to predict, but now I actually feel like the Democratic race is (even as the GOP race is still quite difficult) because of how totally unclear it is how Iowa will come out, and how much potential Iowa’s results have to influence the outcomes of the later states. So while I have what I think is a coherent rationale for my predictions for the GOP race, this one really is pretty much just a total stab in the dark (and is therefore likely the result of more than a little wishful thinking), but it basically relies on the fact that the media seems to really be pulling for Obama and will do him some favors if it gets the opportunity, as follows:
1. Edwards wins the Iowa caucus, with Obama in second and Clinton in third, but all are very close to each other. The media reports Edwards’ victory as a result of his long presence there and his strong organization, but focuses mainly on how much of a blow it is to the Clinton campaign to come in third.
2. Clinton dips further in New Hampshire than she already has, Edwards surges (in part due to his victory in Iowa and also because a lot of the 2nd tier candidates drop out and much of their support goes to him), but not enough to come in more than a stronger-than-expected third place, with Obama pulling ahead of Clinton by between 5 and 10 points. The media reports this as a big victory for Obama, and uses the fact that Edwards almost beat Clinton for second place as a further blow to the Clinton campaign.
3. Clinton wins Nevada, but in an as-expected fashion, thus not boosting her campaign much. Obama second, Edwards third.
4. Obama does much better than expected in South Carolina, even better than whatever the most recent polls show, because a significant portion of the black vote breaks for him after seeing that he has a real shot at winning. Clinton in second. Edwards comes in a fairly distant third and drops out soon after.
5. By February 5th, polls show that a majority of Edwards’ support has gone to Obama, who has already jumped in polls as a result of his strong performance thus far, making him the frontrunner by a small but not insignificant margin. The media continues to go crazy for him, making a big deal out of how Clinton had once seemed inevitable and is now struggling to stay alive. Obama wins the large majority of the February 5th states, and it’s all over. Clinton concedes defeat and Obama wins the nomination.
The Republicans
My fear in this one is that just as I think the media will do its best to boost Obama if it can, it will also do its best to boost McCain, who is, for whatever reason, the media’s wet dream of a candidate, and who is in fact doing some surging right now in some of the early states and in some national polls. However, I don’t think even the media can give McCain what he needs, and I think establishment Republicans will ultimately be more comfortable falling behind Romney as the anti-Huckabee candidate instead of McCain. So I think it will go like this:
1. Huckabee and Romney basically tie for the Iowa caucus, with Romney a point or so ahead of Huckabee. McCain comes in third, followed by Thompson, followed by Ron Paul, followed by Giuliani. The media reports this as a blow to Huckabee, but still portrays him as a surprising out-of-nowhere threat; reports Romney as doing well but being damaged given his long presence and organization there; and pays more attention to McCain’s third place finish than McCain deserves. Giuliani is embarrassed by coming in behind Paul. Nobody cares about Thompson.
2. Romney wins New Hampshire, with McCain a stronger-than-expected second. Giuliani and Huckabee basically tie for third, with Paul close behind them, and Thompson way behind them. The media pays a lot of attention to McCain’s second place finish, but this is still a victory for Romney. Huckabee finishing even with Giuliani keeps him alive.
3. Romney wins Michigan, Huckabee second, McCain third.
4. Romney wins South Carolina, edging out Huckabee, with McCain edging out Thompson for third. This is a clear victory for Romney, and the media finally decides it can’t save McCain. Thompson drops out.
5. Giuliani, badly damaged by a lack of attention up to this point, drops significantly in Florida. He comes in a close second to Romney, with Huckabee right behind in third, and McCain a distant fourth. The media reports this as a severe blow to Giuliani, a surprising victory for Romney.
6. February 5th comes along. Both Huckabee and McCain are in bad financial shape and don’t have the resources to mount strong campaigns. The fanfare over Huckabee has also decreased dramatically over time as people start to realize he doesn’t really know what the hell he’s talking about. Giuliani drops dramatically in national polls, McCain drops, Romney surges. Romney wins a large majority of the February 5th states, Huckabee wins a few but not enough, and the race is over. Romney wins the nomination.
Comment by J. Prescott on 31 December 2007 at 12:52 pm:
Brian’s reasons are perfectly reasonable based on the domestic criteria as is, and maybe even likely, but I wonder what will happen if Pakistan gets more out of hand. Bhutto’s 19 year old son is running in his mom’s stead, which is trouble, and now there is talk of delaying the election to “investigate.” This is a country with nukes, and if Pakistan were to devolve into a civil war, foreign policy in a broader sense, as in not just Iraq, becomes an issue. McCain, I think, has an advantage in foreign policy over his opponents, and Obama’s foreign policy of lets buy the world a coke, and talk it over might not seem as appealing in the face of a more specific crisis. Would further problems in Pakistan be sufficient to change the outcome? I dunno. But it would have an effect.
Comment by Hanno on 31 December 2007 at 1:19 pm:
If Pakistan implodes, we get Clinton-Giuliani for the general. If it doesn’t, we get Obama and Huckabee in Iowa. Momentum from Iowa carries Obama and Romney (despite Huckabees surge) in New Hampshire. Michigan goes to Clinton because no one else is campaigning there and Romney because of daddy. Nevada predictably goes to Clinton and Giuliani finally gets a break. Obama edges Clinton out in South Carolina for much the same reasons Brian stated and Huckabee takes the Republicans. Florida goes to Clinton and Giuliani because Huckabee is short on cash by this time. The Super Duper Tuesday Primaries will be an utter mess though I think it’s very interesting to note that the more face time voters have gotten with Clinton, Obama, and Edwards, the less they like Clinton. It’s only in states where Clinton has either a) been the only one campaigning, or b)hasn’t had much face time with voters that she is clearly leading.
Comment by tet on 31 December 2007 at 1:22 pm:
I think that the situation in Pakistan is very, very bad for the neocon-type Republicans. After all, there are two possible explanations for what happened to Bhutto:
1) Our friend and ally knocked her off.
2) The organization that we’ve been trying to wipe out since 2001 (two more years than it took to defeat the gigantic Japanese and German war machines) is still strong enough to shake the world.
I could have told you (and did to those who were around me) that Bhutto was a walking dead woman from the moment that the US encouraged her to return. She was much too dangerous to the status quo to be allowed to live. You guys really didn’t see that coming?
I am still holding to the belief that Romney’s got the nomination for the Republicans. Huckabee is leading at the moment, but he is totally and completely broke.
Paul is going to do surprisingly well in New Hampshire, maybe even coming in second. Fox Network is seeing him as such a danger to its pro-war, pro-big government “conservatism” that as of yesterday, they weren’t going to allow him into their next debate.
Hillary’s going to win, even if she has to plant a teenage girl in Obama’s bed. You are underestimating the degree of “ends justify the means” that she’s capable of.
The November election? If anyone but Paul is the Republican candidate, Hillary will get almost all of the electoral votes.
Tom
Comment by Augur on 31 December 2007 at 3:04 pm:
Brian – I mostly agree with your scenario, but I don’t see Edwards dropping out as early as you do.
Also, I think he’ll get a smaller boost in NH than you predict b/c of the dead heat of Iowa plus the shortened primary schedule. By “dead heat” I mean, even if he wins it’ll be by a small enough margin that the story will be Hillary finishing third. The talk will be about how close Obama was to Edwards rather than focusing on Edwards winning, and that Hillary was actually third, even if she is just a hair behind those two. Could the media possibly be sick of Bill Clinton?
In the GOP race I cant you minimize Rudy a little too much, but I still think Romney will be the victor. Huckabee is probably the smartest politically of the GOP candidates, look how much free air time he got out of the floating cross despite his lack of cash. It’ll be interesting to see what happens next. The viral Chuck Norris ad is another example of the creative way he is getting more out of less cash. Reminds me of the famous LBJ ad w/ the girl counting daisy petals before the Nuke goes off, they only had to pay to run that once, even though they had all the cash in the world, you can get a lot of free play out of a clever enough ad.
Rudy has some vicious criminal politicos behind him, I think he’ll make Romney take some body blows that’ll ultimately help Obama win the general. However if Hillary is the candidate, I think Romney will eat her alive b/c she’ll have to switch messages so dramatically from her experience message b/c he’s stronger on that message.
Folks I’m talking to on the ground in Iowa think Hillary’s organization is a lot stronger and her caucus machine is in better shape than the Obama or Edwards machine. Obama probably has the most gung ho staff, they had a massive flood of out of state volunteers.
Comment by Evan on 31 December 2007 at 9:08 pm:
Has Giuliani really become that much of a non-factor? Serious question, I don’t follow this stuff nearly as closely as you guys do. Doesn’t seem like it, simply looking at the odds that theTodd reported in his post.
I do get the vibe that Romney is going to emerge as the frontrunner. I have to wonder to what extent he’ll get the John Kerry “flip-flop” treatment in the general election; that seemed to be exploited to no end during the last election. Maybe I haven’t been paying close enough attention, but I haven’t heard a lot about that for awhile.
Re: Pakistan, I have to agree that is a bad situation for Obama. His foreign policy stances have not been portrayed favorably by the media, IMO. For all the favorable press coverage he gets, I recall the media seeming to harp on his foreign policy views from the debates as “gaffes.”