This is "analysis", and as with all analysis is a mixture of knowledge, experience, and pure conjecture. In other words, I have a logical basis for what I'm pulling out of my ass...
It's basically down to Clinton and Obama, and New Hampshire will be pivotal in determining how long the contest will go on.
Obama:
This was a convincing win, no question about it. Now he has to prove that he's not a one-state wonder. In his favor is the fact that NH is so close after Iowa that the "insurgent underdog" meme will still be working for him; all he has to do there is tie, and frankly, even a very close second will still work for him. He's put enough of a dent into the front-runner's armor that her poll numbers in the upcoming states are going to drop noticeably. He still has the "experience" thing to overcome, though -- most voters polled in Iowa seemed to buy his argument that "experience" wasn't necessarily a good thing, but it remains to be seen if voters elsewhere will agree.
Clinton:
I don't care how she spins it, Clinton's third-place showing in Iowa is disastrous, especially when coupled with the Reuters/C-SPAN/Zogby poll conducted just before the caucuses. According to said poll, Clinton leads Obama in New Hampshire 32%-26%. That's not really much of a lead, and when you take into account that this poll was conducted before the caucuses, it's nothing but bad news for Hilary. She has the money and the organization to carry on through Super Tuesday, but if she can't win convincingly in New Hampshire it'll be increasingly difficult for her to rationalize continuing her campaign. She and Obama were already essentially tied in South Carolina (the next big primary after NH), and this won't help at all. It's do or die for her on Tuesday; she needs to win and win big.
Edwards:
Still in the hunt in NH; if he can pull out another second-place finish there, he'll stay alive for a while. But at this point he's either campaigning for VP or to influence the debate; the nomination isn't a real possibility for him at this point. That said, personally I hope he stays in as long as possible; I voted for him in '04 and would do so again this time around. His emphasis on economic justice is a message that needs to be heard.
Everyone else: Dodd and Biden are already out. Richardson will stay in through NH as a formality. Gravel will stay in until they pull off his mask and he grumbles about those "meddling kids". And Kucinich will stay in as long as the UFO's tell him to.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
yea but does edwards have the right answers and the right skills to actually achieve economic justice (and don't quote his i've been fighting against the insurance companies as a defense lawyer and my family grew up poor)? please let us know as right now he seems more rhetoric than obama.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/06/opinion/06rich.html?em&ex=1199854800&en=9bb5369649eba7fb&ei=5087%0A
neat article re: your post.
Thanks a LOT for reading and commenting! And thanks for the article link -- I'm going to highlight it on tonight's post.
As to Edwards, I really don't want this to turn into a specific-candidate blog, as Moue is more about progressive politics, products and lifestyles in general. My own preferences are pretty easy to detect even when I don't lay them out so plainly, but I don't want that to sidetrack things here as it's done at other blogs that shall remain nameless. Let's just say ANY of the roads offered by Edwards, Obama or Clinton or Kucinich or Gravel is better than the one we're traveling.
Post a Comment