Hot Air Mobile
Home The Vault Gear About
Hot Air -- get your fill


Predictions: Who’ll still be in the race by this time next week?

posted at 12:40 pm on January 2, 2008 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | regular view

We’ll save the predictions about the caucus for tomorrow. Iowa on Thursday and New Hampshire a week from today: Who survives both and is still alive and kicking come next weekend? Among the Democrats, only Richardson and Biden are anywhere on the grid in any of the early primary states and even then just barely at around 3-5%. Hard to see any reason for them to hang around absent a surprise in one of the first two primaries. That leaves Silky, whose only chance is to win Iowa and then ride the bounce there to a surprisingly strong finish in NH, where he’s 10-15 points behind. If that doesn’t happen and he finishes third in both, does he get out? I’m guessing no, that he’ll push his southern pedigree as hard as he can and hope for the best in South Carolina on the 19th. But Obama desperately needs him out so he can pick up Silky’s lefty supporters. I asked this once before but I’ll ask again, is there anything he could offer Edwards to get him out of the race before then?

As for the GOP, Hunter was done months ago and should be out already. Paul’s got too much money to quit and will be there to the bitter end. Huck’s not getting out before South Carolina even if he craters in Iowa since he’ll have both southern and evangelical support there. That leaves Ol’ Fred, who’s guaranteed to finish poorly in New Hampshire but may yet surprise in the caucus. If he finishes a strong third he’s in it until SC; if he finishes fourth or lower, he’s probably out by this weekend since he’s scheduled to participate in the Fox News debate on Sunday and won’t want to do that when he knows he’s got another bad finish coming up in NH next Wednesday. What if he finishes a weak third, say, 12 percent or so to McCain’s 10? In or out? And what if Maverick finishes second in New Hampshire instead of first? That’ll be enough to keep him in the race for awhile, but for how long? Probably all the way through Super Ultra Mega Tuesday, I’m guessing.

Rudy’s in it until then too, of course, but take a good long look at the results near the end here. The Giuliani camp’s counting on Floridians to shrug at the early primary results and give him a clean slate on January 29. It’s not that simple. And what if everyone stays in and the primaries split two or three ways? Good news indeed, my friends:

That instability has fueled fears that if a winner does not quickly emerge in a primary calendar loaded with contests in January and early February, a prolonged primary fight could delay the GOP’s focus on election day in a campaign in which Democratic voters already have contributed more money and, according to several polls, expressed greater satisfaction with their choice of presidential contenders…

History is not on the side of a party that takes a long time to winnow its field to one candidate. In almost every presidential campaign over the last generation, the party that settled on its nominee first won the general election, said Rhodes Cook, an expert on presidential campaigns.

“If the nominating process is going on for a while, it shows the nominee is having some problem pulling his base together,” Cook said. “That does not bode well for the general election.”

But back to Iowa. Here’s a little preparatory reading for you about how painfully ridiculous the caucus system is. If you can’t get away from home or work during a very small window of time tomorrow night, you’re hosed and that’s all there is to it. Tomorrow’s forecast: Mostly sunny, highs in the high 20s. Tonight’s forecast: -1.

Update: Oops. New Hampshire is next Tuesday, not next Wednesday. Apologies for the error.


Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages:

Rush is trying to suppress the Rep. turnout in Iowa as an anti-Huck move. He’s going to have to tread very carefully with his Iowa listeners.

JiangxiDad on January 2, 2008 at 12:46 PM

AP, our NH primary is Tuesday, the 8th, not Wednesday.

rslancer14 on January 2, 2008 at 12:46 PM

Kucinich?

amerpundit on January 2, 2008 at 12:46 PM

Hilary’s camp is now realizing Giuliani’s strategy is the smart one. She should have avoided Iowa and all that attacks.

And how is it that the Dems have already decided on a candidate? The way I see it, there’s three viable.

On the GOP side, there are probably four viable candidates.

Looks the same to me.

As for my boy Rudy, he’s avoided all the fighting and scrapping and clawing during Iowa. He’s been off the radar. Of course that’s hurt his polling numbers, but once the news starts covering him again in the other primaries, he’ll shoot right back up.

Hilary should have done the smart thing, and avoided Iowa like Rudy did. Shame for her.

Vincenzo on January 2, 2008 at 12:48 PM

SECOND LOOK AT MIKE GRAVEL!

MadisonConservative on January 2, 2008 at 12:50 PM

I still can’t for the life of me why sooo much weight is placed on Iowa and New Hampshire…

JetBoy on January 2, 2008 at 12:50 PM

Alan Keyes.

/

JammieWearingFool on January 2, 2008 at 12:51 PM

JetBoy,

It’s been that way becuase of the primary dates in the past. But this year is different.

The smart candidates have leveraged themselves across the states that will benefit them the most.

Iowa and New Hampshire will not decide this for the country this year. Mark my words.

Vincenzo on January 2, 2008 at 12:52 PM

Iowa is important! Ask President Gephardt, circa 1988.

Attila (Pillage Idiot) on January 2, 2008 at 12:52 PM

Finding it hard to care anymore. This stopped being fun at some point. I honestly don’t know why I get worked up every election cycle in the first place. My guy’s always off the ballot before I vote in Texas, and I always feel like I have to settle for someone I don’t really want. Nothing new. I’ll just do my duty and vote for whomever the rest of you say is the Republican nominee. Doesn’t matter what I think.

(Yes, the wind is officially out of my sails. Disenfranchisement can do that to a person.)

aero on January 2, 2008 at 12:52 PM

JetBoy on January 2, 2008 at 12:50 PM

Haven’t you heard? Iowans “deserve” it. My favorite part:

And the stark fact is that Iowa is not representative of the rest of the country.

With a population of 3 million, Iowa ranks 30th among the states. The population is 94.9 percent white, 2.3 percent black, 1.4 percent Asian and 3.7 percent claim Hispanic origin.

amerpundit on January 2, 2008 at 12:53 PM

I asked this once before but I’ll ask again, is there anything he could offer Edwards to get him out of the race before then?

Supreme court justice?

infidel on January 2, 2008 at 12:54 PM

Attila (Pillage Idiot) on January 2, 2008 at 12:52 PM

Don’t forget President Tom Harkin, circa 1992. Or, from NH, President John McCain.

amerpundit on January 2, 2008 at 12:55 PM

I asked this once before but I’ll ask again, is there anything he could offer Edwards to get him out of the race before then?

Head of Health/Human Services.

Just Imagine the havoc Edwards could have with Universal Health Care jackbootery there.

BKennedy on January 2, 2008 at 12:56 PM

What about President Pat Robertson?

Vincenzo on January 2, 2008 at 12:56 PM

My guesses:

-Most of the Democratic 3rd tier drops out (but then I don’t know why these guys were in it to begin with)
-Edwards stays in until at least SC

-Fred does well enough to stay in until at least SC (especially if Rush Limbaugh starts promoting him)
-McCain gets a boost from NH and will stay in until Super Tuesday
-Ron Paul stays in because he has the money now and may surprise people in Iowa and NH
-Mitt is in for the long haul
-Rudy of course stays in, he won’t start until Mich

But back to Iowa. Here’s a little preparatory reading for you about how painfully ridiculous the caucus system is. If you can’t get away from home or work during a very small window of time tomorrow night, you’re hosed and that’s all there is to it

Yea, it’s pretty bad, and worse for the Democrats because they have to stay for 2-3 hours whereas the Republicans can leave after they initially declare their support or someone. You know if you don’t like your neighbor who is running the caucus, what do you do?

bnelson44 on January 2, 2008 at 12:56 PM

our NH primary is Tuesday, the 8th, not Wednesday.

Republicans vote on the 8th, Democrats and Ron Paul supporters vote on the 9th. Didn’t you get the memo? ;-0

highhopes on January 2, 2008 at 12:58 PM

Vincenzo on January 2, 2008 at 12:52 PM

amerpundit on January 2, 2008 at 12:53 PM

Yeah…I love that “deserve” thing…But the thing I really don’t (nor ever have) understand is why we talk about “…If so-and-so doesn’t do well in Iowa, they’re out of the race”

How many times has Iowa picked the eventual winner? Not often.

JetBoy on January 2, 2008 at 12:59 PM

highhopes on January 2, 2008 at 12:58 PM

LOL

A++++++++ would vote again!

Vincenzo on January 2, 2008 at 12:59 PM

History is not on the side of a party that takes a long time to winnow its field to one candidate. In almost every presidential campaign over the last generation, the party that settled on its nominee first won the general election, said Rhodes Cook, an expert on presidential campaigns.

This adds a sad weight to my belief that we’re looking at a (D) in the White House for the next 4-8 years.

flipflop on January 2, 2008 at 1:01 PM

I was in college writing a thesis on Presidentual Primary campaigns. I wrote about the effect of “regionalism” where a candidate from certain regions benefits in certain races.

Iowa being midwest tends to trend towards a midwesterner. New Hampshire trends towards a new englander. That is if other factors like candidates ideology dont mesh with the locals. (both NH and Iowa tend to be more moderate than say the south)

Huck being from nearby Arkansas benefits from this regionalizm. As does Obama. Hillary is doing well because of her organization while Edwards does well because of his liberalism in Iowa (Iowa tend to be very dovish on foreign policy in both Republican and Democratic votes)

So point is that Huck gets a break in Iowa. New Hampshire will be the key. If Mitt does well he still has to sell in the south and that area is more favorible to Huck. If McCain does well then Huck has more problems because the south is much more Hawkish than many regions.

Paul is done in republican circles after NH. He will hang on to run Independant. Hunter will fall out by Friday to back probably Fred. If Fred takes 3rd in NH he can still carry the south. A McCain victory in NH keeps Fred in else if its Mitt look for Fred to leave

William Amos on January 2, 2008 at 1:01 PM

SECOND LOOK AT MIKE GRAVEL!
MadisonConservative on January 2, 2008 at 12:50 PM

Maybe not the look you wanted, but a look nonetheless:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=fZ9SxLQewlU

Hannibal Smith on January 2, 2008 at 1:02 PM

Oops. New Hampshire is next Tuesday, not next Wednesday. Apologies for the error.

Been reading Hillary fliers again with the wrong date?

William Amos on January 2, 2008 at 1:07 PM

Hilary’s camp is now realizing Giuliani’s strategy is the smart one.

You New Yorkers just can’t possibly believe that you are STUPID. Lets say Rudy does win Florida and California and New York. What he’s counting on is winning EVERY SINGLE STATE on that Tuesday after LOSING EVERY SINGLE PRIMARY up to then.

Don’t wonder why we don’t want another delusional New Yorker for President. I’m not concerned with him ever taking residence in the White House because of this mentality. Tell me how stupid Hillary is when she gives her victory speech after South Carolina and Rudy is still hoping that people forget that he has lost every single primary to ‘rubes’. I’m sure it won’t be this geniuses fault. . . it’ll be the evangelicals or the southerners or the dumb people who don’t know what’s good for them that they have the privilege and honor to vote for Rudy. This Rudy guy who didn’t know how to parlay a Pat Robertson endorsement into a victory in Iowa (a state that Robertson won in 1988). That’s got to be the worst political play in history. . . get an endorsement from a winner and still lose dramatically.

Yeah, you New Yorkers are geniuses just because you are from New York. . . if you would just stay there, you might not find out any different because everybody from there tells everybody else that is from there how smart they are and how stupid everybody else is. Whatever.

ThackerAgency on January 2, 2008 at 1:18 PM

Oy:

Bloomberg has … [privately] suggested he would give serious thought to a run if the opposing major party candidates are poles apart — for example, if Mike Huckabee is the GOP candidate and is opposed by Barack Obama or John Edwards.

In that case, Bloomberg might decide “those candidates are vulnerable to a challenge from a pragmatic, progressive centrist, which is how he would promote himself,” the Times observes.

The Republican “big government, compassionate” Party is moving to the left and confused about why people aren’t voting for them… and there’s still room in the middle for a centrist 3rd party? The conservative movement is indeed ebbing.

MT on January 2, 2008 at 1:18 PM

Finding it hard to care anymore. This stopped being fun at some point. I honestly don’t know why I get worked up every election cycle in the first place. My guy’s always off the ballot before I vote in Texas, and I always feel like I have to settle for someone I don’t really want. Nothing new. I’ll just do my duty and vote for whomever the rest of you say is the Republican nominee. Doesn’t matter what I think.

(Yes, the wind is officially out of my sails. Disenfranchisement can do that to a person.)

aero on January 2, 2008 at 12:52 PM

Yep. I donated (to Fred) for the first time this year after realizing that it was my one chance to have a say in the early primaries, which are the only ones that matter.

We have to have to have to change the primary system to make the rest of the country count.

And why would Fred bow out before the debate on Sunday? Surely the Iowa results won’t be so bad that he slits his wrists on the spot. I don’t think Fred gets out until after South Carolina, come what may. A decent showing in Iowa and at the debate = more money and time for Fred.

TexasDan on January 2, 2008 at 1:21 PM

ThackerAgency on January 2, 2008 at 1:18 PM

NY Derangement Syndrome?

JetBoy on January 2, 2008 at 1:26 PM

You New Yorkers just can’t possibly believe that you are STUPID. Lets say Rudy does win Florida and California and New York. What he’s counting on is winning EVERY SINGLE STATE on that Tuesday after LOSING EVERY SINGLE PRIMARY up to then.

(edited out all the other crap you typed in)

ThackerAgency on January 2, 2008 at 1:18 PM

Perhaps you should go back and count up the votes and dates of each primary. On the other hand, what’s your candidate’s winning strategy?

Vincenzo on January 2, 2008 at 1:26 PM

ThackerAgency on January 2, 2008 at 1:18 PM

Also, do you really think Giuliani could put an entire state into play from a single endorsement by a guy who won the state two decades ago, while a Baptist minister from the Arkansas is trying to win it?

I guess it makes Giuliani a big headed jerk for seeing the obvious and coming up with a strategy to win in a manner that reflects the new primary schedule.

Vincenzo on January 2, 2008 at 1:29 PM

I asked this once before but I’ll ask again, is there anything he could offer Edwards to get him out of the race before then?

Maid of honor?

Canadian Imperialist Running Dog on January 2, 2008 at 1:32 PM

If you know anyone in Iowa, Newt has some advice.

Here’s the platform he’s promoting, which contains these planks:

English and American Civilization
Immigration, the Border and Assimilation
Science and Technology
Prizes
Energy and the Environment
Taxes and Jobs
Social Security and Retirement
Freedom of Religion
Defending America

MT on January 2, 2008 at 1:32 PM

JetBoy,

It’s been that way becuase of the primary dates in the past. But this year is different.

The smart candidates have leveraged themselves across the states that will benefit them the most.

Iowa and New Hampshire will not decide this for the country this year. Mark my words.

Vincenzo on January 2, 2008 at 12:52 PM

Agreed. That king maker reputation is media created. Anyone who casts votes depending on what IA and NH do, is the proverbial lemming. Both states like the power buzz and headlines, but it ultimately comes down to how well the average voter knows the candidates. It isn’t either state’s responsibility to make that happen, it is the voter’s.

a capella on January 2, 2008 at 1:34 PM

I think the big six (Mitt, Fred, Rudy, Ron, John, Mike) are all still in this time next week.

MT on January 2, 2008 at 1:36 PM

ThackerAgency on January 2, 2008 at 1:18 PM

Get out a calculator and count delegates.

We have a more compressed schedule than ever before. How will voters react on 1/29 because Rudy lost in Iowa and NH. I do not know. You do not know. Some “experts” believe in momentum. Others do not. It does not have anything to do with who is smart and who is not. Rudy was not going to win in Iowa or NH anyway. The strategy he is running is the only one available to him. Rudy is attempting to rewrite a lot of rules and very may well do it, or he will confirm conventional wisdom. We shall see.

tommylotto on January 2, 2008 at 1:40 PM

Why would anyone capable of getting 3 percent in Iowa drop out? It’s not even a convention election. New Hampshire might start making a difference but we probably won’t really see the mittle of each candidate until South Carolina.

Jimmie on January 2, 2008 at 1:46 PM

Rudy’s in it until then too, of course, but take a good long look at the results near the end here. The Giuliani camp’s counting on Floridians to shrug at the early primary results and give him a clean slate on January 29. It’s not that simple.

True but I think it matters that this field is so absent a strong front runner. It’s not like Huck or Mitt or Maverick is gonna run away with it is it? I’m presuming a tight match. So will people say “I should pick from one of the three who won earlier states”? Eh.

I think he should have focused on at least one of the early states he was strongest in to assure a top 3 showing at least early on.

We’ll see!

Dash on January 2, 2008 at 1:53 PM

I personally like the schedule this year. I would really like it if all the primaries were on the same date, nationwide, with perhaps, Iowa and New Hampshire being one week ahead.

This would make the most sense, and allow candidates to work a strategy different from others, and still getting a larger portion of the country behind them, then say, the way the primaries ran four years ago.

Vincenzo on January 2, 2008 at 1:53 PM

ThackerAgency on January 2, 2008 at 1:18 PM

Easy boy. What did you get mugged on your last visit to
the big city or something?

awake on January 2, 2008 at 1:58 PM

Yep. I donated (to Fred) for the first time this year after realizing that it was my one chance to have a say in the early primaries, which are the only ones that matter.

We have to have to have to change the primary system to make the rest of the country count.

And why would Fred bow out before the debate on Sunday? Surely the Iowa results won’t be so bad that he slits his wrists on the spot. I don’t think Fred gets out until after South Carolina, come what may. A decent showing in Iowa and at the debate = more money and time for Fred.

TexasDan on January 2, 2008 at 1:21 PM

I think youre right about Fred all the way around. I hope so.

NickTx on January 2, 2008 at 1:59 PM

I think a commentor on Mike Huckabee identifies a sticking point young christian Women are having with Fred Thompson. Where Mike Huckabee is seen as being acceptable in his family life FT is being viewed as a yukky old man with a wife too young for him. While on the other hand MH not only is a married former pastor, he plays guitar in the music ministry as well. These are all valid points when choosing your candidate don’t you know!

sonnyspats1 on January 2, 2008 at 2:02 PM

I think Fred will stay as he originally said he would (if he shows 3rd in IA.

Mitt and Shuckster stay.

Rudy will stay in no matter what happens in IA or NH, maybe even SC.

Ron Paul will probably stay in too, in complete MARS ATTACKS mode.

Thats what I think.

Like the article on Drudge asked yesterday… “What if Iowa Solves Nothing?”

NickTx on January 2, 2008 at 2:04 PM

FRED THOMPSON SHALL EMERGE AS THE DARK HORSE sometime near South Carolina.

NickTx on January 2, 2008 at 2:06 PM

I love how its all about Huckabee being a real Christian, yet its Giuliani who has actually put his foot to the fire to defend Christianity (see: Virgin Mary w/ dung smeared on it in a Brooklyn Museum – http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0999/virgin.dung.html)

and Judiasm….

Vincenzo on January 2, 2008 at 2:07 PM

Still in (in order of votes received between Iowa and New Hampshire):

- Dem side: Obama, Clinton, Edwards, Richardson (though more to prop up Clinton than himself), Kucinich (the mother ship hasn’t called yet)
- Rep side: Romney, Thompson, McCain, Huckabee, Paul, Giuliani (who will still be in with a pair of 6th-place finishes as he has adopted the official RNC Super-Duper Tuesday stragedy)

- Dropped out: Biden, Dodd, Hunter, Gravel

steveegg on January 2, 2008 at 2:09 PM

This Rudy guy who didn’t know how to parlay a Pat Robertson endorsement into a victory in Iowa (a state that Robertson won in 1988). That’s got to be the worst political play in history. . . get an endorsement from a winner and still lose dramatically.

ThackerAgency on January 2, 2008 at 1:18 PM

Dude gimme a break with Pat Roberson. Geez. If he sucked up to Pat he’d have lost my vote, I’m glad he didnt.

Dash on January 2, 2008 at 2:09 PM

On second thought, flip McCain and Thompson in the vote order. There are more “mavericks” in Iowa than there are federalists in New Hampshire.

steveegg on January 2, 2008 at 2:10 PM

sonnyspats1 on January 2, 2008 at 2:02 PM

More evidence that Ann Coulter has a point :-)

Replace “Democrat” with “Liberal”…

If we took away women’s right to vote, we’d never have to worry about another Democrat president. It’s kind of a pipe dream, it’s a personal fantasy of mine, but I don’t think it’s going to happen. And it is a good way of making the point that women are voting so stupidly, at least single women.

Buy Danish on January 2, 2008 at 2:17 PM

aero on January 2, 2008: We’ve all had to grit our teeth and vote at times, aero. Don’t take it too hard-I didn’t enjoy voting for George H.W. Bush, but did so out of loyalty to Reagan and his leadership. Better luck next election, friend.
BTW, so far, I’m witt Mitt, but if I have to vote for someone else in the general, so be it.

Doug on January 2, 2008 at 2:20 PM

I think Fred needs to get in the high teens, maybe even 20%, in Iowa to stick around for SC. If he’s below 15%, he’s out.

Dudley Smith on January 2, 2008 at 2:36 PM

Hopes Hunter surprises and stays in.

MarkB on January 2, 2008 at 2:39 PM

In almost every presidential campaign over the last generation, the party that settled on its nominee first won the general election, said Rhodes Cook, an expert on presidential campaigns.

A generation? Seriously? That’s what, 24 years? Not a very impressive sample size. Plus, I don’t really count running with the incumbent as settling on the nominee first. There are much better reasons for incumbents to have a better chance of winning.

viking999 on January 2, 2008 at 3:26 PM

Seems to me the world would not come to an end if all the primaries were held on the same day, just like the general election.

doufree on January 2, 2008 at 4:03 PM

I have never believed Fred was out of money. He had 8 million dollars and I haven’t seen him do much to spend it. It may be that he is holding his mud until after NH and then leaping out of the weeds to skewer the rest of the reps.

csdeven on January 2, 2008 at 5:41 PM

I predict that Duncan Hunter and Fred Thompson will both drop out after NH. Ron Paul is in it until the bitter end, and he has enough money to stay in (besides, he’ll do better than polls suggest in freedom-minded NH and cold weather caucus’n Iowa). Huckabee doesn’t have a huge amount in the bank, so he better not tank in early states. Huckabee also suffers from shallow support, that may move on if he wavers. Rudy is staying until Florida, at least, but I could see him dropping out if he finishes second in FL. Romney can rely (as he has already done) on his personal wealth to sustain his campaign. He won’t go down easy. McCain has to do well in the early states, where I think he has the best chance. Anything less than third in both early states and he is gone.

By Super Tuesday, I predict it will be (and in this order): Romney, Huckabee, McCain, Paul. But honestly, there is so many related forces and potential scenarios, that it could any number of ways. I wouldn’t be surprised if any one of Romney, Huckabee, McCain or Giuliani was the frontrunner by Super Tuesday. God — sad that McCain is the least of the four evils there.

I think it’ll be Hillary, Obama, Edwards by Super Tuesday for the Dems. Less room for movement there.

And “hear, hear” to suggestions of a nationwide primary date. Too much emphasis on small states as it is.

Mark Jaquith on January 2, 2008 at 5:55 PM

Something about Ron Paul’s war chest bugs me. If this batsh*t-crazy lunatic can scare up that kind of dough, what does that tell you?

It tells me that there are tons of lunatics out there who have never donated to a campaign because nobody before now was lunatic enough for their tastes. Now, however, that the mother ship has arrived…

Why are other candidates, who are far more mainstream, suffering from a lack of funds? My guess is because the mainstream feels that decent candidates come up with the rations and don’t require funding.

I suspect that when things get down to the dirty end, money will flow.

thejackal on January 2, 2008 at 7:34 PM

Don’t wonder why we don’t want another delusional New Yorker for President.

Who were the other delusional New Yorker Presidents?

dedalus on January 2, 2008 at 8:49 PM

Comment pages:


You must be logged in to post a comment.