Of Caucuses and Primaries and Conventional Wisdom and Bellwethers

---

---

One of the things that makes American politics so fascinating is the fact it is constantly evolving. Something is always conventional wisdom — until it isn't.

For example, conventional wisdom once held that a candidate for president who had been divorced could not be elected president. A noteworthy example is Illinois Gov. Adlai Stevenson, who was nominated by the Democrats in 1952 and 1956 but lost both times. He had been divorced in the late 1940s — and did not marry again — and most of the books I have read about Stevenson and presidential politics indicate that his divorce was an obstacle he could never overcome in the more puritanical environment of the 1950s.

But I wouldn't rule out other contributing factors, such as:

When Stevenson ran in 1952, Democrats had held the White House for 20 years, and incumbent Harry Truman's popularity was mired in the 20s, according to Gallup. Voter fatigue was likely a strong factor.

Stevenson's opponent in 1952 was war hero Dwight Eisenhower, who was less than 10 years removed from his triumph in World War II. The amiable, popular Eisenhower was seeking a second term in 1956. That was likely another strong factor.

Stevenson was perceived as an intellectual; while that had appeal for some, it was seen as elitist by blue–collar voters. Yet another strong factor.

Divorce was still a problem for would–be presidents in the '60s. It was problematic for New York Gov. Nelson Rockefeller, who unsuccessfully sought the Republican nomination in 1960, 1964 and 1968, but not necessarily a permanent problem. In 1960 his problem had not been divorce but Vice President Richard Nixon. Between 1960 and 1964, however, Rockefeller was divorced from his wife of more than 30 years. Divorce was still an issue in many places, but, as historian Theodore H. White observed at the time, "American politics can accept divorce: for every four new marriages each year, one old marriage breaks up. ... Divorced candidates get elected and re–elected in American life; and even after his divorce Nelson Rockefeller was re–elected."

But, White went on to observe, "Remarriage ... complicates even more the political problem," and Rockefeller's remarriage definitely complicated his presidential campaigns in 1964 and 1968.

Rockefeller did become vice president. When Gerald Ford, the first to be appointed vice president under the provisions of the 25th Amendment, became president after Richard Nixon's resignation, he nominated Rockefeller to take his place. But when Ford was nominated in 1976 for a full four–year term as president, Rockefeller was not his running mate.

It was ironic, I suppose, that, while Ford was never divorced, his wife Betty had been married and divorced prior to her marriage to the future president.

Four years later, divorce and remarriage were not issues at all when Ronald Reagan sought and won the presidency. He had been divorced in 1949 and remarried in 1952, but he was elected president twice by landslides.

In 2016, divorce and remarriage clearly are not part of the political equation. The apparent Republican front–runner, Donald Trump, has been divorced twice and is on his third marriage.

Today, conventional wisdom is being challenged in other more — shall we say? — conventional ways. In truth, conventional wisdom is always being challenged — sometimes successfully, sometimes not. Eight years ago, conventional wisdom still held that a black man could not win the presidency. In my grandparents' America — and even my parents' America — that was so. It is so no more.

And, in my grandparents' America and my parents' America, the primary in tiny New Hampshire always played a significant role in the selection of a presidential nominee. New Hampshire only chooses a handful of delegates in its primary, though; alone, they are unlikely to influence the eventual decision at the convention unless the vote is very tight. The primary's real value is in the media attention and perceived momentum it gives the winners.

And much of that was due to New Hampshire's reputation for choosing the ultimate winner of the general election.

It is important to remember that presidential primaries are largely post–World War II creations. For much of our history, the delegates who selected presidential nominees at their parties' conventions were chosen by state party conventions, and the delegates to those conventions were generally chosen at the county level via caucuses.

Thus, caucuses, although not how the delegates from most states are chosen today, have deep roots in the American political system. They operate in quirky and inconsistent (from state to state) ways, but that was how the majority of states chose delegates to the national conventions for a long time.

Primaries have existed since the early 19th century, but unless you're well over 40, you probably have no memory of a time when primaries were still a secondary form of delegate selection — if delegates were chosen at all. Some primaries were called "beauty contests" because the results were not binding on the delegates who were chosen.

New Hampshire has been holding first–in–the–nation primaries to choose delegate slates since 1920. The names of candidates were on the ballot starting in 1952, and the history of the primary from 1952 to 1988 was that it was possible to win a party's presidential nomination without winning the New Hampshire primary, but it was not possible to win the presidency.

But the last three nonincumbents to win the presidency — Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Barack Obama — did not win the New Hampshire primary before being elected president. All three won it when they ran for re–election.

Clearly, the conventional wisdom about the New Hampshire primary has changed. It is still the first primary in the nation, but its influence is questionable.

The role of the primary system in the selection of presidential nominees changed in 1976 when Jimmy Carter made a point of running in every primary. Prior to 1976, candidates could pick and choose where to campaign. In many states, delegates were not obligated to follow the primary results when they voted for a presidential nominee at the national convention.

After 1976, voters expected every active candidate's name to be on their state's primary ballot. Whereas maybe one–quarter of states (at most) held primaries in the years before Carter's historic campaign, each party will have primaries in 38 states in 2016.

And the results in each will be reflected in the delegates who go to Philadelphia (Democrats) and Cleveland (Republicans) this summer.

OK, so divorce/remarriage no longer matters in presidential politics, and the winner of New Hampshire won't necessarily win the presidency.

If you're looking for a political bellwether, we may have just witnessed one in South Carolina yesterday.

---

---

Businessman Donald Trump won with just under one–third of the vote. Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio were locked in a battle for second place and appear to have emerged as Trump's leading challengers. Cruz, of course, won the Iowa caucuses. Rubio has yet to finish first in any presidential electoral contest, but both he and Cruz predicted they would be nominated. Ohio Gov. John Kasich finished fourth. Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush withdrew, and Dr. Ben Carson appears to be in the race at least through Nevada's Republican caucuses on Tuesday.

As I observed a few days ago, the South Carolina Republican primary has been won by the party's eventual nominee in every presidential election year but one since 1980 — the last three Republican presidents won the South Carolina primary before being elected. Historically speaking, Trump's win there yesterday should make the nomination, if not the general election, a done deal.

Of course, he also won in New Hampshire, and the history of the last 24 years indicates that, while the winner there might win the nomination, he won't win the election.

Both streaks could continue this year — if Trump wins the nomination but loses the election. Much will depend upon what happens in the next couple of weeks. Polls are suggesting that Trump will win Tuesday's caucuses in Nevada by more than a 2–to–1 margin. Super Tuesday is a week later. If Trump is on a winning streak after Super Tuesday, it will probably be all but over — especially since Cruz's home state of Texas will be voting on Super Tuesday.

---

---

The Democrats held their caucuses in Nevada yesterday, and Hillary Clinton defeated insurgent socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders, but by a margin that was almost as narrow as the one she had in Iowa.

She seems likely to win next Saturday's South Carolina primary by a comfortable margin — but that was also the conventional wisdom before Iowa and Nevada.

Conventional wisdom holds that Clinton will score well with black voters in South Carolina, who represent more than half of the state's Democrats, because of the good will many blacks still have for her husband. If that proves to be true, she will no doubt win the primary — and in a big way.

But she is still facing a problem with young voters, and the Nevada caucuses revealed her weakness with Latino voters. Neither group has a reputation for voting in large numbers, but they have appeared to be a part of the new emerging Democrat coalition.

What will the outcome in South Carolina next Saturday tell us about the new conventional wisdom concerning those demographics?

Palmetto Principles, Part I

---

---

"History is inescapable anywhere," wrote Richard Cohen and James Barnes in their entry on South Carolina in the 2016 edition of The Almanac of American Politics.

They wrote that as their lead–in to a discussion of last year's racially motivated shootings at an historic black church in Charleston — but in a larger context it was about South Carolina's often troubled history that, as often as not, has crossed all kinds of boundaries — not only racial but economic and social as well.

The state's political history, however, has been more progressive than many people outside the South would care to admit — and that really is representative of many Southern states as well. The state's governor is an Indian–American woman — the first woman and the first racial minority to be the state's chief executive. She won with 51% of the vote in 2010; she received 56% of the vote when she sought re–election in 2014. One of the state's U.S. senators is black. He was appointed to replace Jim DeMint who resigned suddenly in 2013, but Tim Scott received 61% of the vote in a special election to fill the last two years of DeMint's term in 2014.

Both are Republicans, though, which reflects, in historical terms, a recent phenomenon in both the state and the region. Democrats were long in the majority in the South, and most officeholders in most Southern states were Democrats, but then Richard Nixon introduced his Southern strategy and put the transformation into motion.

South Carolina and the rest of the South have been trending solidly Republican in presidential politics for decades now. South Carolina was the only Deep South state — with the debatable exception of Florida — to support Nixon over George Wallace in 1968, and it has only voted for one Democrat (Jimmy Carter in 1976) since then.

"The primaries are not so predictable," wrote Cohen and Barnes. "South Carolina was decisive in determining the Republican nomination from 1988 to 2008," in no small part because it was moved to the front of the political calendar, putting it in position to influence the largely Southern "Super Tuesday" that follows. That is precisely what happened in 1988. Vice President George H.W. Bush won by a wide margin in South Carolina, then went on to do rather well on Super Tuesday a few days later.

The first two electoral skirmishes in the 2016 presidential calendar were held in places that have been known more for supporting ill–fated insurgents than realistic candidates for presidential nominations. South Carolina, which holds its Republican primary this Saturday and its Democratic primary on Feb. 27, has become known for frequently endorsing candidates who ultimately won their parties' nominations.

There have been exceptions, of course. On the Republican side, Newt Gingrich defeated eventual nominee Mitt Romney in South Carolina four years ago.

But South Carolina's Republicans had an unbroken streak going from 1980 to 2008, endorsing Ronald Reagan in 1980 (he was unchallenged there when he sought a second term in 1984), George H.W. Bush in 1988 and 1992, Bob Dole in 1996, George W. Bush in 2000 (like Reagan, Bush was unchallenged when he sought his second term in 2004) and John McCain in 2008.

From an historical perspective, it seems to me that winning South Carolina would be more meaningful than a win in New Hampshire or Iowa, even though those earlier clashes offered early momentum and media exposure to the winners.

Not that Donald Trump needs much in the way of exposure. But New Hampshire gave him a little momentum, perhaps a little credibility in his new field — and cut back on some of the momentum and media buzz generated by Ted Cruz in the Iowa caucuses. A second primary win would add to Trump's electoral credibility.

As I say, though, the outcomes in Iowa and New Hampshire have had little influence on the races for the nomination in recent years. It wasn't always that way in New Hampshire. For a long time, conventional wisdom held that, if a candidate did not win the New Hampshire primary, that candidate could not win the election.

Bill Clinton was the first presidential candidate to lose the New Hampshire primary (in 1992) but go on to win the election. Both of his successors did the same thing. George W. Bush lost to McCain in 2000 and Barack Obama lost to Hillary Clinton in 2008. Like President Clinton, both won the New Hampshire primary with no credible opposition when they sought re–election.

Thus, no nonincumbent has been elected president after winning the New Hampshire primary since George H.W. Bush in 1988.

On the other hand, history is loaded with recent examples of eventual presidents–elect who won the South Carolina primary.

So it seems to me that South Carolina is clearly the prize for Republicans. If the state's Republicans endorse a candidate who goes on to win the nomination — and, as I have observed, only Mitt Romney failed to achieve both in the last 36 years — he will probably end up with a convincing win in the Palmetto State in November. After all, Romney defeated Obama by more than 200,000 votes in South Carolina in 2012.

Defeat in South Carolina need not be decisive. But I guess that depends on how wide the margin is.

Let's take a look at some of the recent polls in South Carolina for clues to what might happen on Saturday:

Today a Public Policy Polling survey of nearly 900 likely primary voters was released that showed Trump with nearly a 2–to–1 lead over Cruz and Marco Rubio. Trump had 35%, and Cruz and Rubio each had 18%. The poll has a 3.3% margin of error.

On Monday, the South Carolina House Republican Caucus released a survey of more than 1,300 likely voters that showed Trump with a better than 2–to–1 lead. In that survey, Trump had 32.65%, Rubio had 14.02%, Cruz had 13.94% and former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush had 13.39%. The margin of error in that survey is 2.83%.

CBS News/YouGov reported the results of a survey on Sunday that, once again, showed Trump with more than a 2–to–1 lead. Trump had 42%, Cruz had 20% and Rubio had 15%.

On Saturday American Research Group reported the results of a survey that had Trump leading by something like 2⅓ to 1. Trump had 35%, Ohio Gov. John Kasich had 15%, Rubio had 14%, Cruz had 12% and Bush had 10%.

Last Friday the Augusta (Ga.) Chronicle reported that its survey had Trump with the narrowest lead of all, 36% to Cruz's 20% and Rubio's 15%.

There are sure to be other surveys in the next few days — and I always remind people that polls are like snapshots, not videos. They give people an idea of what sentiment was like at the time the survey was conducted. But sentiments can change in a matter of days, hours, even minutes.

Right now, the polls suggest that Trump is likely to win by a wide margin. Thus, most of the attention probably will be on who finishes second — and, thus, who may emerge as Trump's main challenger for the nomination. The polls seem to suggest that Cruz is likely to finish second — although it could be Rubio. It might even be Bush, whose father and brother always did well there.

But that really is nothing more than a sideshow because, as I observed earlier, the winner in South Carolina usually goes on to win the nomination. At best the runner–up buys himself some time to compete in upcoming primaries, but in the last three dozen years, only Romney has come back from a second–place finish in South Carolina to win his party's nomination.

It's getting serious now. That's true in both parties, as I will point out in this space next week.

Two Weeks to Go Until Iowa Caucuses

---

---

I have mentioned here before that I have little faith in polls except for the ones in which actual voters participate on Election Day.

And the first such actual vote will take place two weeks from today in Iowa — where it won't be an actual vote, as in a primary. It will be a caucus, and results from caucuses are less precise than those from primaries.

Until that happens, though, we really won't know if the polls are right or wrong. For now, the polls are all we have, whether the findings turn out to be accurate or not.

Another point about caucuses: Participating in one require more — much more — of a commitment of one's time than merely walking into a voting booth and selecting the candidates for whom one wishes to vote so caucuses are notorious for attracting the diehards, the extremists. Consequently, it would not surprise me if the extreme element among Iowa's Democrats hand a victory to Bernie Sanders.

Earlier in 2015, Sanders was far behind Hillary Clinton in Iowa polls. But that was months before the caucus — and Hillary has had some setbacks — and the latest polls show the race tightening. Just in time for the caucus.

Hillary still leads in the Des Moines Register/Bloomberg poll, but only by two points, 42% to 40% — and that falls within the poll's margin of error.

Sanders leads in the latest Quinnipiac University poll, 49% to 44%.

I guess Hillary can take some solace in the fact that she leads in the latest CBS/New York Times poll, 48% to 41%, although that lead shows some slippage.

For Hillary backers who are nostalgic for the days of summer, Gravis Marketing finds Hillary leading, 57% to 36%.

I wouldn't count on anything that lopsided, though.

On the Republican side, the Des Moines Register/Bloomberg poll finds Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas leading Donald Trump by three points, 25% to 22%.

But as much as Trump has appeared to be preparing his followers for a defeat, I think he may actually be trying to lower expectations so the victory he anticipates will be that much more meaningful. Gravis Marketing has Trump in front by six points, 34% to 28%. Public Policy Polling says Trump is ahead but by a narrower margin, 28% to 26%.

I'm thinking we could be in for a couple of cliffhangers two weeks from tonight.

The Rubber Hits the Road

---

---

The past, as they say, is prologue, and the changing of the calendar to the official start of a presidential election year brings a new seriousness to the pursuits of the parties' presidential nominations.

All that went before was little more than strutting and posturing. The party campaigns were popularity contests last year, entertaining but, once the holidays are over and the primaries loom on the horizon, the rhetoric becomes strangely irrelevant.

Participation is what is relevant, and that is a whole other thing.

The people who participate in the voting that will matter — the contests that will assign the actual delegates who will be voting at this summer's conventions — will be highly motivated, especially the ones who participate in the caucuses. They are very different from primaries.

If you live in a caucus state, you must get organized with like–minded folks so you can make an effective case for your candidate at the caucus. Caucus goers often have to devote several hours to their caucus — as opposed to those who vote in primaries, in which you may have to stand in line for awhile but, eventually, you will only spend a brief period in the polling booth — and you will do so alone. With the extended voting periods in so many states, if you plan it well, you can walk right in, vote and walk back out in a matter of minutes. I know. I've done it.

Taking part in either a primary or a caucus does require a level of commitment that not everyone is willing to make. Those are the only poll results I want to see. It doesn't really mean anything until people start voting in primaries or caucuses.

The people who attend political rallies may be registered to vote, but registered voters and likely voters are two different breeds altogether.

It doesn't take much commitment to attend a political rally. Donald Trump has been drawing thousands to his rallies, but many in the crowds are those who, while they may be registered to vote, do not tend to make a habit of voting. Thus, they are not likely voters.

Of course, the same could be said of many who attended Ross Perot's rallies in 1992, but in the end Perot brought nearly 20 million Americans into the electoral process. It remains to be seen if Trump's supporters can match Perot's in terms of commitment.

And we'll start finding out in three weeks, when Iowa holds its caucuses.

The closer we get to actual voting, the more pollsters seem to be moving in the direction of differentiating between merely registered voters and likely voters.

Reach Communications' most recent survey ahead of the Feb. 9 New Hampshire primary was conducted with Republicans and independents who said they would be voting in the primary. Donald Trump led by 20 percentage points. Fox News' most recent poll was with likely voters, who are determined through a series of screening questions. That survey showed Trump with an 18–point lead.

Public Policy Polling's latest survey — also conducted among likely voters — shows Trump with a 14–point lead.

The Trump–Ted Cruz battle in the Feb. 1 Iowa caucuses could be fierce. The most recent Gravis Marketing survey in Iowa was conducted in December, but it, too, emphasized those who were likely to participate. It found Trump and Cruz tied at 31% apiece.

"Many more people say they will vote than actually do," observes the Gallup Organization at its website, "so it is not sufficient to simply ask people whether they will vote."

Gallup's screening questions are:

---

Thought given to election (quite a lot, some)
Know where people in neighborhood go to vote (yes)
Voted in election precinct before (yes)
How often vote (always, nearly always)
Plan to vote in 2016 election (yes)
Likelihood of voting on a 10-point scale (7-10)
Voted in last presidential election (yes)

---

Each pollster uses its own screening questions, but the process is essentially the same from one to another.

My guess is that, as we get closer to each primary or caucus, the polls from each state will be conducted with likely voters.

And that is when we will start to get an idea whether a candidate's support has any real depth to it.

We're Five Months Out ...

---

---

... and the landscape is looking pretty good for the Republicans.

There was a time when Democrats believed — or said they believed — that they could recapture the House and hold on to the Senate in 2014, giving the president a Democratic Congress with which to work in the final two years of his presidency.

But that idea seems to have disappeared. (I have a Democrat acquaintance who would call such a statement "rabid right." I think he's been drinking a bit too deeply from the left–wing Kool–Aid.) Presidential approval numbers have been stuck in the low to mid–40s for a year, and a president's party almost never fares well in midterms when the president is struggling.

That's from the lofty perspective of history, which is not infallible. Conventional wisdom said a black man could not be elected president, yet one has been elected president — twice. Conventional wisdom once said a woman could not be elected president, but two women have been nominated for vice president, one in each party, and it appears likely that, at some point, probably in the near future, a woman will be nominated as the standard–bearer for one of the parties.

The conventional wisdom is that midterms are difficult for every president, even the popular ones, although there have been cases in which the president's party did well in a midterm — and it is the hope for that miraculous victory, like Truman's upset win over Dewey in 1948, that always encourages losing candidates and parties. Typically, though, a political miracle like that in a midterm requires some sort of backlash against the other party or some other unusual circumstance (like the September 11 terrorist attacks) that prompts voters to rally around the flag.

Realistically, such a thing is still possible — and will remain possible until the votes are counted — but we're only five months out ...

... and, on the ground, the Rothenberg Political Report currently sees anything from no net gain to the gain of a few seats by the Republicans in the House. Sabato's Crystal Ball sees Republicans gaining between five and eight seats. The Cook Political Report doesn't see a great likelihood of a shift.

The Republicans already hold a 33–seat advantage; Democrats, as I say, believed — at one time — that they could wrest 17 seats from the Republicans and claim a slim majority. The closer we get to November, though, the more it looks like the Democrats will be lucky to avoid losing ground.

Republicans, meanwhile, have been keeping their eyes on the Senate, where flipping six seats would give the GOP a slim majority. Numerically, it seems like an easier task, doesn't? Truth is it's more of a challenge when you look at it as a percentage of the legislative body. Seventeen House seats represents less than 4% of the membership; six Senate seats is 6% of that body's membership.

Democrat–held Senate seats in South Dakota, West Virginia and Montana currently are expected to flip, according to the Cook Political Report, Rothenberg Political Report and Sabato's Crystal Ball.

That gets the Republicans halfway to their goal. Cook sees seven tossups, only one of which is held by a Republican. Sabato sees four tossups, all held by Democrats. Rothenberg sees two pure tossups, both held by Democrats.

That suggests that the Republicans are in a good spot — and, if things proceed in this manner, they could start focusing on second–tier seats, the ones they probably never dreamed they might be able to win — until recently.

Like Tom Harkin's seat in Iowa.

Harkin is retiring after 30 years in the Senate. Alex Roarty writes in National Journal that Democrats need to be concerned about Harkin's seat. State Sen. Joni Ernst won the Republican nomination there this week; she still needs to demonstrate that she is a tough candidate, Roarty says, but she is facing a mediocre Democrat in a year that looks more Republican with each passing day, and she doesn't look like the kind of candidate who is likely to shoot herself in the foot.

In fact, recently, the one doing such shooting was her rival, who seems to have fired a machine gun at himself.

Persons who are unacquainted with Iowa's history may be inclined to look only at the returns in presidential elections; Iowa has voted for Democrats in six of the last seven, including two (Dukakis in '88, Gore in '00) who lost. But in eight of the nine elections before 1988, Iowa voted for the Republican nominee.

But what about the midterm elections since 1988? Well, Harkin was re–elected twice in midterm election years, and Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley was re–elected in two midterms as well.

The governor is elected to a four–year term every midterm election year, and Democrats and Republicans have split those, 3–3.

That sounds to me like a state that really could go either way. It is also a state that seems to be quite comfortable with its incumbents. Harkin survived in years when it was risky to be a Democrat elsewhere; Grassley, who was elected in the Reagan Revolution of 1980, won his second term in the decidedly un–Republican year of 1986. The popular Republican governor is now the state's longest–serving — and the second–longest serving governor in the nation's history

Iowa has four representatives in the U.S. House. Two are Democrats, two are Republicans.

Recent polls show Ernst leading — by six points in the latest Loras College survey, by one point in the latest Rasmussen survey. Her Democratic opponent was leading in surveys held before the June 3 primaries.

PDQ Bachmann

The last presidential election demonstrated rather vividly that growing portions of both political parties are embracing the idea of electing a woman to the executive branch of the federal government, as either president or vice president.

On the Democratic side, Hillary Clinton was narrowly beaten for the presidential nomination by Barack Obama in a race that came to be seen by many as a battle between historical guilt trips, misogyny and racism. And, on the Republican side, of course, Sarah Palin became the first woman nominated by the GOP for vice president.

But each party wants different things from its female candidates — and will tolerate nothing less from the other side. And both continue to hold female politicians to expectations they would never impose on men. In that regard, I suppose, women continue to be subjected to a political double standard if not a societal one.

As far as they have come in my lifetime — and that includes occupying seats on the Supreme Court, traveling in space, acting as diplomats on behalf of the United States and serving as speaker of the House — women are still expected to do things that no man is expected to do — like remain young and attractive long after it is natural for anyone to be young and attractive.

In our highly visual age, appearances have taken on more influence than ever before, but men are not subjected to anything like the scrutiny that women are. Gray hair on a man is seen as distinguished; it is a sign of advanced age in a woman. A few extra pounds have seldom stood between a man and electoral victory; on a woman, they can be politically fatal.

I suppose that accounts for the reaction to Newsweek's unflattering photo of Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann on its cover.

Such negative stereotypes are offset, to a degree, by positive ones — such as the image of nurturer and healer — that make the idea of electing a woman president an appealing one for so many in these troubling times. They see a dysfunctional political system that needs a "woman's touch" after being taken to the brink of catastrophe too many times in recent years.

In Republican circles, Palin had that market cornered for a long time because she was really the only female whose name was being bandied about. But things have changed. While Palin has been motoring around the country, Bachmann jumped into the 2012 race and won yesterday's straw poll in her home state of Iowa — and some are wondering if Palin's moment in the spotlight has ended. She is supposed to reveal her 2012 plans next month.

(Personally, I would think that Palin — if she really does intend to run for president, and I am inclined to think she will not — would not mind relinquishing the spotlight for awhile.)

It's made me think about expectations, cliches and modern "firsts" in the American presidency in ways I never did before.

There is a desperation in people's expectations these days, I believe, born in part from a certain amount of disappointment in the policies of the current administration. Many of the president's supporters seem content to give him the benefit of the doubt — and additional time for these saplings to bear fruit. But not everyone, particularly the unemployed, is so generous — and patient.

This president was symbolic, of course, because of his race. He was the first black president. Whatever history may ultimately say about his tenure in the Oval Office, he will always be the first black to be nominated for — and elected to — the presidency.

When a female becomes president, she will be the first of her gender — and therefore will be symbolic as well.

Such distinctions may have made Barack Obama — and may someday make the first female president — sensitive (and vulnerable) to allegations of favoritism or preferential treatment. The religious issue presented similar challenges for John F. Kennedy half a century ago.

My experience is that, after a certain point, most historic "firsts" in the American presidency became isolated, no matter how successful the groundbreaking president may have been, and that the second of whatever it is hasn't come along rapidly.

Kennedy, of course, was the first Catholic to be elected president. He wasn't the first Catholic to be nominated, but he was the first in more than three decades. As president, his job approval ratings never fell below 56%.

Well, it's been more than 50 years since Kennedy was elected and nearly 50 since he was assassinated, but America still has not elected its second Catholic president. Catholics have sought the nomination, including JFK's younger brothers, but only one has been nominated for the presidency.

That's three Catholic presidential nominees in 83 years.

This applies to the vice presidency, too. Geraldine Ferraro was the first woman on a Democratic ticket. There have been half a dozen Democratic tickets since then, and none of the nominees was a woman.

I strongly doubt that Bachmann will be nominated in 2012, but if Republicans really are strongly considering nominating a woman for president, it may be largely because they and the voters who support her believe the kind of healing and nurturing the nation and its economy need can only be provided by a woman.

To meet the unrealistic expectations of the voters, that woman would need to revive this economy P.D.Q. — in an era long before texting, that was a well–known abbreviation for "pretty damned quick." Given the dire forecasts from economists, that doesn't seem likely.

With unemployment stuck in the 9% range and the stock market bouncing back and forth like a tennis ball, the experiment with a black president (whether it is acknowledged as such or not) may come to be widely regarded as a failure, and it may be as long before America elects its second black president as it has been between Catholic presidents.

Even if Barack Obama turns things around and manages to win re–election, my gut feeling is that it will be decades until another black candidate is nominated for the presidency. If he is replaced with a woman — Bachmann, Palin or someone else — this economy may prove too stubborn for her, and the next female presidency will be a long time coming as well.

I don't know what to expect in 2012. There are times when I think Obama is on the verge of righting the ship and really living up to the standards he set for himself and the nation — but then he does something that tells me that my original conclusion, that he is in over his head, was the correct one.

Sometimes, though, presidents rise to the occasion.

And if there is anything of which I am certain, it is that the next president, whoever he or she turns out to be, must rise to the occasion.

Or he/she seems likely to be the last American president.

Much Ado About Nothing

---

"I've had a perfectly wonderful evening, but this wasn't it."

Groucho Marx

---

Peter Hamby of CNN reports that today's straw poll in Ames, Iowa, could make or break Republican presidential candidacies.

Well, perhaps. Frankly, though, I think it's a non–event. No delegates are assigned. Very few people participate in it (there are roughly 3 million people in Iowa, and fewer than 15,000 took part in the 2007 straw poll — the high water mark for the poll was in 1999, when just under 24,000 participated).

Over the years, I've heard a lot of people complain about the inordinate influence that New Hampshire has on the races for the nominations by holding the first presidential primary every four years — and at least the New Hampshire primary has the redeeming quality of allocating actual delegates, few though they may be.

Iowa's straw poll doesn't even do that. In fact, it doesn't have much of a record.

Hamby points out that, since the straw poll (which is conducted whenever the Republican nomination seems to be up for grabs) began in 1979, the winner has gone on to win the general election only once.

The poll's record in forecasting the eventual Republican nominee is only slightly better. Two of the winners of the previous five polls went on to be nominated the next year.

Most of the time, the winner of the poll means nothing. Mitt Romney won it last time; John McCain, the eventual nominee, was last among the active candidates.

In 1987, Pat Robertson won the straw poll. Vice President George H.W. Bush was nominated the next year; he finished third in the poll.

Bush was the winner of the first straw poll in 1979, but Ronald Reagan won the nomination and picked Bush to be his running mate.

The Iowa caucus is only marginally better. It does mean something in the pursuit of delegates to the national convention, but the winner of the straw poll and the winner of the caucus are not always the same candidate.

(Actually, Iowa had little, if any, role in choosing presidential nominees before 1976. Jimmy Carter finished first among the candidates — "uncommitted" received the most support — in Iowa's Democratic caucus, which received little attention prior to that year, and that gave him the momentum that helped him win early primaries and, ultimately, the nomination.)

George H.W. Bush did win the caucus in 1980, but Bob Dole won it in 1988. Dole was a particular favorite in Iowa, most likely because of his Midwestern roots; he won the caucus again in 1996 en route to the nomination after sharing the victory in the straw poll with Phil Gramm.

George W. Bush won both the straw poll (outright) and the caucus in 1999, the first to do so since his father 20 years earlier.

Four years ago, after Romney won the straw poll, Mike Huckabee won the caucus.

Romney is skipping the straw poll this year. Been there, done that, he says. He says he's focusing on winning the nomination this time.

So, too, apparently is Rick Perry, governor of my state, who will be in South Carolina this weekend, presumably to make his candidacy official. Jon Huntsman won't be participating in the straw poll, either. I'm not sure what he's doing this weekend.

For that matter, I don't know what noted political observer Stuart Rothenberg is doing this weekend, but he won't be in Iowa. He writes in Roll Call that it is "little more than an opportunity to consume large amounts of beef, gossip and alcohol with my fellow journalists."

He has no objection to that, Rothenberg writes, but it "wasn't enough of an incentive to schlep halfway across the country to cover something that is close to being irrelevant."

Rothenberg acknowledges that a poor showing in the poll could prompt a candidate to drop out — months before any delegates have actually been committed to any candidates. It has happened before.

"But, really now," he writes, "would a candidate who does so poorly in Ames that he drops out have had much of a chance anyway?"

Probably not. And my guess is that, at best, the Iowa straw poll might produce the dark horse that lasts into a few of the early primaries. But current surveys suggest that the top two candidates are Romney and Perry — and the only way they will get any votes in this grassroots organization–driven poll is if people write in their names.

Thus, that dark horse could make it a three–candidate race for awhile.

It's even possible that someone could emerge as a serious candidate — but we won't really know that until voters start going to the polls early next year.

Until then — and even, probably, thereafter — what happens in Iowa is, as Rothenberg writes, irrelevant.

Parallel Lives

---

---

The recent release of Sarah Palin's memoir, "Going Rogue: An American Life," has made me ponder the course of her political career and that of the other woman who was a running mate on a major party ticket a quarter of a century ago, Geraldine Ferraro.

Certain similarities jump out at me, starting with their ages. Both were in their 40s when chosen to be running mates. Ferraro was 48, which was within the range of most previous Democratic running mates. Palin, on the other hand, was 44, the youngest Republican running mate in 20 years (considerably younger than Dick Cheney or Jack Kemp had been).

Initial surveys indicated that both were popular choices, although they ran into trouble once their conventions were over and the campaigns began in earnest. Palin's problems in the 2008 campaign have been well documented, but, in case you need a reminder (or you are too young to remember the 1984 campaign), not only was Ferraro criticized for a style that was regarded by some as reckless and defiant, but she had problems with her family as well. Less than a month after being nominated, Ferraro had to face relentless questioning about her and her husband's finances.

That was a distraction, but Ferraro wasn't helped by her shoot–from–the–hip style. After telling reporters that she would release her tax returns but her husband would release only a tax statement (his explanation to her, she said, was "Gerry, I'm not going to tell you how to run the country, you're not going to tell me how to run my business"), she made a remark that dogged her: "You people married to Italian men, you know what it's like." Republicans sensed a gender–neutral opportunity to attack and they didn't let it go to waste.

Both Palin and Ferraro had somewhat limited political careers prior to being nominated, and their lack of experience frequently was compared (unfavorably) to the abundance of experience possessed by their opponents. After Ferraro's debate with George H.W. Bush and Palin's debate with Joe Biden, both were said to have performed better than expected, but they were hammered, nevertheless, by the opposition for their "extremist" political views, and both lost the general elections by wide margins — even though it could be rightly said that the opposition's presidential nominees were more popular personally than their policies.

Ferraro and Palin were chosen in large part to appeal to female voters. It was a roll of the dice that didn't pay off. They may well have attracted some female voters, but exit polls indicated that neither succeeded in winning the women's vote. After the 1984 election was over, most political observers agreed that no potential Democratic ticket could have defeated Ronald Reagan, and, following last year's economic meltdown, the same probably could be said of any potential Republican ticket in 2008. Blaming the female running mates strikes me as convenient but ultimately indefensible.

Like Palin, the year after the campaign, Ferraro published her memoir, "Ferraro: My Story," which was a bestseller. There was talk about her political future, and she was labeled a "rising star" in party politics, but, beyond founding a political action committee that had as its mission the goal of electing 10 women in the 1986 Congressional elections and two unsuccessful bids for the Senate in the 1990s, Ferraro's political career was over.

There is talk today about Palin's political future as well. What that future holds has been debated since Palin's resignation as governor of Alaska a few months ago, but she still clearly appeals to some Republican voters.

I hear some of today's Democrats fretting about Palin. What will become of the nation, they ask, if Sarah Palin is nominated for president in 2012 — and, God forbid, actually wins? I've heard some cite, as an ominous sign, reports from the Des Moines Register that suggest that more than two–thirds of Iowa Republicans have a favorable opinion of Palin.

"That's close to the 70 percent who hold favorable views of former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, who won the 2008 caucuses," writes the Register's Thomas Beaumont, "and it's higher than the 66 percent who view former U.S. House Speaker Newt Gingrich favorably. Palin's number is also higher than that of former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, runnerup in the 2008 caucuses, who is viewed favorably by 58 percent of the state's Republicans."

I would give a lot more credibility to those numbers if this were November 2011 and the Iowa caucuses were a few weeks away. But even that couldn't be viewed as conclusive. In mid–November of 2007, polls indicated that Hillary Clinton and Mitt Romney would win the Iowa caucuses.

I may be wrong, but my inclination since July has been that, unless she runs for and wins a seat in the Senate or the House next year, Palin ultimately will not pose nearly as much of a threat as many Democrats fear. She will have no recent achievements to bolster a political record that was — to put it charitably — quite thin in 2008, but it was acceptable for a vice presidential nominee. It will be far less plausible for a potential president.

Beaumont quotes a former director of the state's Republican Party, who claims Palin is misunderstood and has been victimized by mistakes that were not hers. Therefore, this isn't about achievements. "She's getting the chance to set the record straight."

Fine. I'm all in favor of personal redemption. But my belief has been that resigning her post will work against her when many Republicans ask themselves the tough questions that caucus participants must ask about every candidate. Typically, if you don't have recent achievements, you'd better have a record of achievements. Palin doesn't have the latter and she quit the former. That's not exactly a bumper sticker slogan.

Even today, more than two years before the next Iowa caucuses, there are signs that decision will hurt a potential Palin candidacy. A GOP activist told the Register that Palin "needs a policy platform, with a conservative organization or media outlet, to boost her credibility."

And, even though she enjoys high favorable ratings from Iowa Republicans, Beaumont reports, "24 percent of Iowa Republicans view Palin unfavorably, compared with 12 percent for Huckabee." Party activists told Beaumont they believe the decision to resign has a lot to do with that.

Democrats who are worried about 2012 are getting ahead of themselves. They need to be promoting the idea of getting all their senators and representatives on the same page.

History says the party in power will lose ground in the midterm elections. Lately, public opinion surveys are saying the same thing.

Without the bullet–proof majorities in Congress, how much of his agenda can Barack Obama expect to push through in the last two years of his term? How will his record of achievements look then? I suppose that depends on exactly how much ground is lost in 2010.

See, that achievements thing works both ways.

The Effect of Iowa on New Hampshire

If you've been wondering what kind of impact the Iowa caucuses may have on the New Hampshire primaries, perhaps the latest survey results from Rasmussen will answer your questions.

On the Democratic side, Rasmussen says Barack Obama now leads Hillary Clinton by 10 percentage points, 37% to 27%, in the only post-Iowa poll of New Hampshire Democrats I've seen to date. John Edwards is the only other Democrat who scores in double digits -- he has 19%.

Rasmussen's poll of New Hampshire Republicans finds John McCain leading with 31% and Mitt Romney running second with 26%. The result, as Rasmussen points out, is almost an exact reversal of a survey conducted just prior to Christmas.

New Hampshire's voters go to the polls on Tuesday, so there isn't much time to turn things around.

Historically, Iowa is a mixed bag, when it comes to predicting the eventual nominee in either party.

For the Democrats, the winner in Iowa has gone on to win the last three nominations (John Kerry in 2004, Al Gore in 2000, and Bill Clinton in 1996). Iowa supported favorite son Tom Harkin in 1992 and Dick Gephardt from neighboring Missouri in 1988. Walter Mondale won Iowa and the party nomination in 1984, and President Carter won Iowa in 1980, but an "uncommitted" slate finished first in 1976 and 1972.

For the Republicans, the last four GOP nominees finished first in Iowa (George W. Bush twice, Bob Dole in 1996 and George H.W. Bush in 1992), but only an unopposed Ronald Reagan won both Iowa and the party nomination (in 1984) in the 1980s.

Is it true, as Roger Simon writes in The Politico, that "Hillary should be running scared?"

He cites as an example George H.W. Bush's "retooling" after he finished third in the 1988 Iowa caucus.

Bush, he writes, "took off his coat and tie and put on a parka and a green-and-white baseball cap from East Coast Lumber and went to the Cuzzin Ritchie’s Truck Stop ... He drove an 18-wheel Mack truck, had a friendly snowball fight with reporters and transformed his image from that of a privileged preppie 'wimp' to that of a regular guy."

Bush's transformation led to some jokes from the late night crowd, Simon recalls. "Johnny Carson said in his monologue:" '[Bush] went into a truck stop wearing a pair of overalls, but he had a little alligator sewn over the pocket.'

When Bush's press secretary was asked what was behind the change, he replied, “We’re running scared.”

Bush went on to win the New Hampshire primary, the Republican nomination and the general election. Does Mrs. Clinton need to be retooled?

About three hours to go until tonight's debates ...

In the Aftermath of Iowa

Were you surprised that Barack Obama won in Iowa? Or that Mike Huckabee won on the Republican side?

Neither outcome really surprised me. The caucuses are held with different rules in Iowa, rules that seemed to favor each winning candidate.

For the Democrats, it seemed fairly obvious that money would be a key factor, so it appeared likely that one of the two best financed candidates, Obama and Hillary Clinton, would be at the top.

Things are done in a very public manner in caucuses. In Democratic caucuses, "viability" as a candidate is rewarded. If a candidate fails to get 15% support in a caucus' first round, that candidate is eliminated and his/her supporters are encouraged to line up with their second choice from among the surviving candidates.

For example, Candidate A receives 12% in the first round. Candidate B receives 27%, Candidate C receives 26%, Candidate D receives 24%, Candidate E receives 6%, and Candidate F receives 5%. Candidates A, E and F are eliminated and only Candidates B, C and D will be considered in the second round.

The supporters of A, E and F must choose a candidate to support in the second round. And their support will be critical, since they represent nearly a quarter of the vote in this hypothetical scenario.

The second vote is taken, and that outcome is what is reported.

Clinton's problem was that too few Democrats considered her to be their second choice. Hence, she lost some caucuses she might have won. The results suggest she was only able to hold on to her base in the caucuses, and that may indicate that Clinton has more of a problem with her well publicized "negatives" within her own party than her campaign has been willing to acknowledge.

If Clinton wins the nomination but can't build a coalition of Democrats, she isn't likely to win independents or make a dent among Republicans.

Obama reveled in the victory. "They said this country was too divided, too disillusioned to ever come together around a common purpose. But ... at this defining moment in history, you have done what the cynics said we couldn’t do."

But, although the victory was significant for Obama, it is a sign of his inexperience in national politics that he doesn't appear to realize that winning tends to subject a candidate to renewed scrutiny. If he is perceived as the front-runner now, everything will be under a media microscope.

That's a lesson that Huckabee's campaign has been learning following the assassination of Benazir Bhutto.

But it remains to be seen if the Iowa caucuses mean anything. Caucus winners don't always win the nomination or the presidency.

Officially, on the Democratic side, Obama received 38%. John Edwards finished second with 30% and Clinton was third with 29%.

The Republican caucuses are similar, but there is no viability threshold. Republicans vote once and that outcome is what is reported. So it's closer in that regard to a primary. One gets a truer picture of the support for each candidate.

As was anticipated, the activist social conservatives turned out to support former Baptist minister Huckabee, who received 34%. Mitt Romney was second with 25%. Fred Thompson edged out John McCain for third; they both finished with about 13%.

Twenty years ago, another evangelist, Pat Robertson, made headlines by finishing second in the Iowa caucuses. Bob Dole won in Iowa that night, but Vice President George H.W. Bush went on to win the nomination and the presidency.

Romney's campaign is wounded but it has little time to lick its wounds. In a few days, voters will go to the polls in New Hampshire, where McCain is perceived as a legitimate threat to Romney.

It was to be expected that each candidate would put the best spin possible on the outcome.

"The one thing that’s clear with the results in Iowa tonight is the status quo lost and change won," Edwards proclaimed.

Acting more like a winner than the third-place finisher, Clinton told her supporters, "We are going to have change, and that change is going to be a Democratic president in the White House in 2009."

David Brooks, in The New York Times, calls the victories for Obama and Huckabee "the two earthquakes" that rippled through American politics last night.

"I’ve been through election nights that brought a political earthquake to the country," Brooks writes. "I’ve never been through an election night that brought two."

The Los Angeles Times suggested the Iowa results would help to "narrow the field," which seems to be happening. Senators Joe Biden and Chris Dodd apparently are dropping out of the Democratic race.

New Hampshire's voters go to the polls on Tuesday.

Making Assumptions in Iowa

Everyone seems to be assuming things about the Iowa caucus, and no one seems to know exactly who's going to show up tomorrow night.

Maureen Dowd, in today's New York Times, seems to assume it will all come down to Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama on the Democratic side -- just barely acknowledging that there is a third candidate, John Edwards, who could finish first in the Hawkeye State.

"Should Hillary have skipped Iowa?" frets Roger Simon in The Politico, pondering an internal campaign memo in which it was recommended (unsuccessfully) that Clinton pull her resources from Iowa and devote them to other states.

Simon seems to feel Obama stands to be the beneficiary of the anti-Hillary, anti-Iraq activists who are likely to participate in the Democratic caucus. Iowa, he says, has always been one of Clinton's weakest states.

In the National Journal, Ronald Brownstein examines the campaigns being waged by the "big three" in Iowa.

Funny, isn't it? When Hillary Clinton's husband first sought the presidency in 1992, President Bush was considered invincible and the Democratic field was regarded as minute by comparison. The popular phrase for the 1992 Democrats was "the dwarves," and 16 years later, the top contenders are regarded as "the big three."

Robert Novak writes that Obama will win the Iowa Democratic caucus -- and Mitt Romney will win on the Republican side.

Novak has really gone out on a limb in both parties. He picks Clinton to finish third among the Democrats, and he picks Fred Thompson to finish third among the Republicans.

John Heilemann, in New York magazine, says Clinton has "lost her footing" in Iowa. Going negative is "considered dumb politics in Iowa, where the aversion to campaign bile is acute," he writes, going on to suggest that Clinton's campaign orchestrated things "to help Edwards win and deny Obama victory at all costs, including a third-place finish for herself."

A few months ago, things looked settled on the Democratic side. Now, it doesn't seem so sure, does it?

The Republicans needn't act smug. In the Washington Post, Dan Balz writes that Iowa is the "big test" for Mike Huckabee, whose poll numbers rose in meteoric fashion and then began to slide right after Christmas. And Huckabee has struggled on foreign policy since last week's assassination of Benazir Bhutto.

In fact, according to the Washington Post, illegal immigration is the "hallmark" of the campaign. In a state like Iowa, where more than 90% of the population is white, it remains to be seen if immigration is a big issue. But terrorism -- and its alleged role in Bhutto's murder -- should be on the minds of voters tomorrow night.

If the Republicans are looking for things to take credit for, Bloomberg.com has a list of good economic news items from 2007 that nobody seems to be talking about. That's certainly something to ponder on the day that oil hit $100/barrel for the first time.

Although oil prices dipped back below $100/barrel, CNN reports that we should prepare ourselves for record gas prices and higher airfares. By the time the market begins to anticipate the summer driving season, $4/gallon gasoline could be a reality.

That's going to make a candidate's position on ethanol important not only in Iowa but in other parts of the country as well.

Fuel will be important in Iowa tomorrow for other reasons. It's going to be cold in Iowa, as it usually is on the third day of January. In Des Moines, for example, the forecast says it will be 26 and breezy during the day. But the caucuses are at night, and the forecast low for tomorrow night is 19 degrees with a wind chill around 10.

The hardiest activists will get out and participate. We'll see who else is motivated enough to brave the cold and the wind to participate in the caucuses.

A New Year, New Polls

Happy New Year!

It is, at last, 2008, and nearly every presidential candidate is spending today (and, I assume, tomorrow) in Iowa, where the presidential caucuses will be held on Thursday.

CNN/Opinion Research has released its latest poll from Iowa, and it shows that both parties are knotted up.

For the Democrats, Hillary Clinton leads with 33%, Barack Obama is second with 31% and John Edwards is third with 22%.

Since the last CNN/Opinion Research poll, Clinton and Obama have seen their numbers go up while Edwards' numbers have dropped.

"The survey suggests that for the Democrats, a three-way race may have effectively become a two-way race," CNN polling director Keating Holland said.

Meanwhile, Adam Nagourney of the New York Times ponders the possibility that, when the dust settles on Thursday, all three of the leading Democrats will be tied up, essentially where they are today.

But turnout for Iowa's caucuses is traditionally low, and it remains to be seen whether those voters who expressed a preference for any of the Democrats will actively support their choice on Thursday.

On the Republican side, Mitt Romney leads with 31%, and Mike Huckabee runs a close second with 28%.

With a margin of error of 5%, the results indicate a dead heat in both parties.

The Des Moines Register, which recently endorsed Clinton and John McCain, also released a new poll this week. Obama leads among the Democrats with 32% while Clinton has 25% and Edwards has 24%. Huckabee is the leader among the Republicans with 32% while Romney has 26% and McCain has 13%.

By the way, if you want to participate in the caucuses, the Des Moines Register is devoting a section of its website to a list of caucus locations, news and general information.

If you're going to participate, be sure to be informed!

And if, as a participant, "change" is your buzzword this year, you owe it to yourself to read Rich Lowry's article in the National Review. He examines what change means to several of the leading candidates.

Take Lowry's assessment with a pinch of salt, and have a Happy New Year!

As They Prepare for the Caucus and the Primary ...

Today is Christmas, and my gift to my readers is my view of the presidential races and what is likely to happen when Iowans hold their caucuses a week from Thursday and voters in New Hampshire hold their primaries two weeks from today.

DEMOCRATS

Hillary Clinton likes to use the word "experience" to describe her qualification to be president. But this is her first national campaign as the candidate. Previously, she was in a supporting role.

The one with the experience in a national campaign is John Edwards, and he has a network of support in place in Iowa that propelled him to a second-place finish there four years ago. The question in the caucus is whether those supporters will actually turn out this time. Are those voters as reliable in 2008 as they were in 2004?

I've heard political analysts say that only about 10% of Iowa's electorate turn out for the caucuses, so the old adage about how "every vote counts" really is true in Iowa.

I have the feeling that Edwards is poised to spring a surprise in Iowa. He can survive until the New Hampshire primary the following week, even if he finishes second again in Iowa. But to remain in the race, he needs a strong showing in one or both of those states -- if only to demonstrate his appeal and vote-getting ability outside the South.

Can Barack Obama fail to win Iowa and New Hampshire -- and still be a factor in the race? That depends on how well he does. If he loses either state -- or both states -- by double digits, it may be over for him. If he is close to the top finisher, his campaign can survive awhile longer.

If Mrs. Clinton finishes first in both states, the party is over for the rest of the field, and momentum will take over. If she loses in both states, the party may be over for her.

REPUBLICANS

I think Mike Huckabee is likely to win Iowa, where evangelical Christians represent a sizable bloc. They seem comfortable with him. He's apparently the kind of candidate those voters thought they were getting when George W. Bush first sought the nomination in 2000.

Mitt Romney will likely finish second in Iowa. I think he and Huckabee will combine for perhaps 60% of the Iowa vote. The remaining 40% will be divided up among the rest of the Republican field.

After that, Romney's main challenge in New Hampshire appears to be coming from John McCain. Like Edwards in Iowa, McCain has a strong core of support in New Hampshire from his successful primary campaign there eight years ago. But McCain must contend with questions about his age. He will be 72 when the next president is sworn in.

I think Romney may be able to pull off the win in New Hampshire, but I think he will be wounded in Iowa and may not be an effective candidate in the other primaries that are coming up in January and early February.

If he's unable to win in New Hampshire, McCain's campaign is probably finished.

I think Rudy Giuliani's best chance to win comes later in January when voters in Florida will vote. Giuliani has been polling well in Florida. American Research Group, for example, has been reporting that Giuliani consistently has been receiving between 26% and 33% in Florida, which leads the field there.

If Giuliani's support in Florida collapses in favor of McCain (following a hypothetical McCain triumph in New Hampshire), Giuliani should consider withdrawing from the race.

Fred Thompson needs to win somewhere early in order to establish the momentum he needs in the primaries to come. The super Tuesday primaries on Feb. 5 will be costly for candidates and only those with the best financing and the best organizations will be competitive that day.

One last thing ... VOTE! If you live in Iowa, participate in the caucus. If you live in New Hampshire, vote in the primary.

And a Merry Christmas to all.

A New Voting Bloc Gets Attention in Iowa

We've all heard about the influence the social conservatives are having on the Republican polls in Iowa. And we've heard about the influence they presumably will have when the caucuses are held in 11 days.

Now, CNN reports on another voting bloc that candidates need to be aware of -- the youth vote and the influence it could have on the Democratic side.

According to CNN, the top three Democrats -- Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards -- have been actively courting young voters in Iowa. The state's election law says people as young as 17 may participate in the caucuses if they will be 18 by the time the election is held in November. And people from out of state may participate if they are attending college in Iowa.

So the target group is larger -- and more diverse -- than you might expect in a state in which the population is more than 90% white.

But the drawback, as CNN observes, is that younger people haven't proven to be reliable caucus-goers in the past -- and the fact that the caucuses are being held when most colleges are still on winter break means the younger voters aren't centrally located, as they would be if classes were in session.

That makes it more difficult to do the things that can be done to get people out to participate. In some instances, the out-of-state students won't be in Iowa in time to attend the caucuses, and they can represent an important part of a candidate's equation.

Turnout rate among young voters hasn't been good in the past, but activists, including young activists, who spoke with CNN insist 2008 will be different.

We'll see.

Entering the Home Stretch in Iowa

As the races in Iowa near the finish lines, a friend of mine, who was in Des Moines on business this week, reports that everyone in Iowa has an opinion about what will happen in the Jan. 3 caucuses, but no one has any hard facts.

The latest poll of Democrats, from American Research Group, shows Hillary Clinton leading Barack Obama, 29% to 25%, with John Edwards drawing 18%.

Mike Huckabee tops the Republicans with 28%. Astonishingly, the ARG survey shows John McCain running second with 20%. In most of the recent polls in Iowa, McCain has been registering in single digits.

But the numbers suggest that he has gained support as support has dropped for Mitt Romney and Fred Thompson. Romney was third with 17% and Rudy Giuliani was fourth with 13%. Thompson registered in single digits and those claiming to be undecided are at 11%.

E.J. Dionne writes in the Washington Post today that Huckabee scares the Republicans because he is an "evangelical populist."

Dionne points out that, in an endorsement of Romney, National Review fretted about the future of the conservative coalition that has been responsible for the Republican Party's successes in the last few decades.

Dionne suggests that the "crackup" that National Review fears already may have begun. The Pew Research Center identified two years ago a sub-group within the GOP, representing about one-third of its base, called "pro-government conservatives." These voters are religious and socially conservative, but they favor things that are not considered traditionally Republican, like more government involvement in regulation and more financial aid for feeding the poor.

"The faithful are restive," concludes Dionne, "tired of being used and no longer willing to do the bidding of a crowd that subordinates Main Street's values to Wall Street's interests."

As The New York Times observes, Romney is learning that “facts are stubborn things.” The Times refers to the assertion that Romney's father marched with Martin Luther King, well before the Mormon church reversed its racial discrimination policy. Turns out, that might not be quite true.

It will be interesting to watch the Republican race in the next several weeks.

New Endorsements in Iowa

Perhaps it shouldn't come as a surprise, with more than a majority of its editorial board being female, but the Des Moines Register has endorsed Hillary Clinton in the Democratic caucus for president.

"Readiness to lead sets her apart from a constellation of possible stars in her party, particularly Barack Obama [who has taken the lead in recent Iowa polls], who also demonstrates the potential to be a fine president," writes the Register.

"When Obama speaks before a crowd, he can be more inspirational than Clinton," the Register says, and I'm inclined to agree. I was watching C-SPAN yesterday and I saw a live broadcast of Obama speaking to an audience in Iowa. It was impressive, but it reinforced my opinion that Obama's biggest problem is that he's green, not that he's black (even though his race may be a major stumbling block in the South).

The Register seems to agree about Obama's inexperience. "Yet, with his relative inexperience," the newspaper says, "it’s hard to feel as confident he could accomplish the daunting agenda that lies ahead.”

More surprising, perhaps, is the newspaper's endorsement of John McCain on the Republican side.

Polls have shown McCain far behind Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney, Rudy Giuliani and Fred Thompson in Iowa, where McCain has barely made any effort at all. But the Des Moines Register seems intent on rewarding McCain for his consistency in his positions -- even when those positions hurt Iowans, as in his opposition to ethanol.

“The force of John McCain’s moral authority could go a long way toward restoring Americans’ trust in government," the Register says, "and inspiring new generations to believe in the goodness and greatness of America.”

That's going to be a tall order for the next president, whomever it turns out to be.

By the way, for a humorous take on the Clinton-Obama war of words, read today's column by Maureen Dowd in the New York Times.

A Commanding Lead for Huckabee in Iowa

Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee has opened up a huge lead over Mitt Romney in Iowa, according to the latest Newsweek poll.

Newsweek found that 39% of Republicans in Iowa favor Huckabee, while 17% favor Romney. Fred Thompson's support level stands at 10%. The rest of the Republican presidential hopefuls drew less than 10% support apiece in the poll, which was released today.

The timing of the poll is interesting, primarily because a large number of Iowa's Republican caucus participants are social conservatives -- the very same group Romney has been trying to appeal to. It's clearly the group he was appealing to in yesterday's speech. (David Kusnet of the New Republic found the speech to be "divinely uninspired.")

Yet Huckabee, who hasn't spent nearly as much money on his Iowa campaign as Romney has, appears to be running away with the apparent victory there. The caucus is to be held January 3, which is less than four weeks away. CNN's John King says he has been told by a senior Romney adviser that Huckabee's lead is "not a surprise" and there is "not a lot of time to turn them around."

The comment about Huckabee's lead not being a surprise reminded me of Election Night 1980 in Arkansas. I was a young University of Arkansas journalism student who was working at the county courthouse as part of a class assignment to help with the county vote tabulation.

History buffs will recall that was the election that put Ronald Reagan in the White House. It was also the night that Gov. Bill Clinton lost his only statewide campaign in Arkansas. He lost a close vote to Frank White, a defeat Clinton would avenge two years later.

I recall many of us gathered around a TV late that night to watch Clinton concede the election. He told his listeners that White's victory was "not a surprise" to his campaign staff, who had been monitoring tracking polls -- but the vote clearly shocked most of us in the courthouse that night.

It will be worth watching Iowa to see what kind of efforts the Romney campaign will make to lure Huckabee supporters to its side in the next four weeks.

Or will Romney's staff be in the role of Clinton's staff in 1980, insisting that the defeat -- much like the deficit in the latest poll -- was not unanticipated?

What About Iowa?

Republicans and Democrats will be making their way to the caucuses in Iowa on January 3. That's about five weeks from now.

And Rasmussen Reports says that, for the first time, a poll shows former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee leading the GOP pack.

Rasmussen's latest poll has Huckabee with 28% and his nearest competitor, Mitt Romney, at 25%. Everyone else is far behind. For Huckabee, that reflects a 12-point increase; for Romney, it's a 4-point decrease.

And what makes Huckabee's lead even more remarkable is that he hasn't spent nearly as much money in Iowa as Romney has. In that competition, it hasn't even been close.

Romney's been banking on a win in Iowa to give him momentum in New Hampshire. But it's looking like Huckabee might be the one who comes away from Iowa with the momentum for the New Hampshire primary less than a week later.

More About Huckabee

The Washington Post reports that former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee's surge in Iowa, which holds its caucuses in about five and a half weeks, "has further scrambled a race that already defied easy prediction."

Huckabee really began drawing attention as a candidate when he finished second in the Iowa straw poll back in August, despite making a minimal financial investment and earning, through his oratorical skill, the support of people who attended the event on Mitt Romney's dimes.

Christian conservatives are the key for Huckabee. If his campaign staff can get them to the caucuses in Iowa and produce a win, their hope is that it will create a groundswell that will carry them in New Hampshire and South Carolina and then translate into big victories in February when most of the big states hold their primaries.

Money has been coming in at a faster clip for Huckabee now that he's rising in the polls and getting more press attention. But he still trails Romney and other high-profile candidates in that department.

His success will depend, in part, on energizing his base, the evangelical Christians.

In the words of Christian conservative radio personality Steve Deace, "The most loyal and largest voting bloc the Republican Party has are pro-life voters . . . marriage issues, family issues. Those are issues of priority for us. Mike, by far -- and it's not even close -- has the most consistently positive positions."

The Post quotes Deace as urging big-name Christian conservative leaders to "stop playing games" and get behind Huckabee. "If we rally around him, he could win. Maybe you're like me. I'm tired of plugging my nose and voting for someone."

New Polls From Iowa

We've got some new polls from Iowa. Get used to it. With the caucuses due to be held on Jan. 3, 2008, we'll be getting these on a regular basis through the holidays.

The latest results are from American Research Group and KCCI in Des Moines.

We often seem to start our reports on surveys by telling you the Republican results first -- at least, that's what I've been told lately. So, to keep things balanced, let's start with the Democrats.

Hillary Clinton is the leader in both surveys and she has 27% in each. Barack Obama is second in both polls, but he is getting 25% in the KCCI poll and 21% in the American Research Group (ARG) poll. John Edwards is third in both surveys, with 21% in KCCI's poll and 20% in ARG's poll. Bill Richardson is fourth in both polls, by a wide margin. He has 10% in KCCI's survey and 12% in ARG's survey.

Clearly, on the Democratic side, it is a three-way race.

On the Republican side, Mitt Romney is the leader in both surveys, but, like Clinton, he has a larger lead in one poll than he does in the other. KCCI shows a closer race on the Democratic side; ARG reports a closer race among the Republicans.

Like Clinton, Romney's total is consistent, and it's almost identical to the support level Clinton is holding in her party. Romney has 27% in the KCCI poll and he has 26% in the ARG survey. Mike Huckabee is second in both surveys, but he has 24% in ARG's poll. The KCCI survey gives him 18%.

Rudy Giuliani is third in both surveys, with 16% in KCCI and 11% in ARG. Giuliani shares the third spot with Fred Thompson in ARG. Thompson also has 11% in that one. Thompson has fourth place to himself in the KCCI poll, with 10%.

John McCain is fifth in both surveys. He's running close to Giuliani and Thompson in the ARG poll, with 10%, but he's farther behind in KCCI with 6%.

For the GOP, it's looking like a fight between Romney and Huckabee. For Giuliani, Thompson or McCain to make a difference in Iowa, they need to start making a surge soon.