Predictions for Iowa?

These are mine.  I think it's exciting when it's close.    I could be wrong....  we'll see in just another couple of days.

Republican

1. Huckabee
2. Romney (distant)
3. Paul
4. Thompson
5. Guiliani (embarrassingly)

Democratic

1. Edwards
2. Obama
3. Clinton (distant)
4. No other viables

Some people are wondering if this will be the last time that Iowa is first...

I'm not sure if I think Iowa should be first or not.  They say that 80,000 people will caucus in the republican race and about 120,000 will caucus in the democratic race.

So that does seem like these 200,000 people have a disproportionate amount of influence... if every's vote is supposed to count.

What is the influence of what happens in Iowa, really?  I'm not an expert, but according to history:  

"In elections without a sitting President or Vice President, the Iowa winner has gone on to the nomination only about half the time."  (Wikipedia)

Good question. 

I don't know that I know the answer.

And I would also mention that elections without a sitting president or vice president have only happened a very few times.  This is the first one since 1928 -- and a lot has changed since 1928 in the world of politics.

In the three most recent Presidential administrations in which the President could not run for a third term due to term limits (those of Eisenhower, Reagan, and Clinton), the incumbent Vice President has immediately thereafter run for President (Richard Nixon lost the 1960 election, George H. W. Bush won the 1988 election, and Al Gore lost the 2000 election).

There is the perception that winning in Iowa and New Hampshire gives the winning candidates a boost, momentum (the big Mo), a sense of inevitability, etc.  It might be fair to assume that people believe that the earlier primaries have more influence, or that it's good for voters to get more time with/attention from the candidates, and hence, this year the very compressed election schedule in which the nominees will likely be known by Feb. 5th.  

The perception might be different if people took more interest in deciding for whom to vote and less interest in celebrity "news".  I dunno... 

Hmmm...maybe it's a public education thing, then.  Until I actually looked it up, I saw the Iowa thing as having as much influence as the election of the Homecoming Queen.  From what I gather, the "influence" thing only comes in because Iowa delegates to the conventions are determined.

I'm sure it has ramifications in terms of fund raising, but I'm not convinced that another poll is really going to make up the minds of voters - or at least, I would hope not.

Huck/Paul 22
McCain/Romney 20
Thompson/Giuliani 8

I found some interesting info about the Iowa caucuses on the History Channel site:

Presidential candidates spend a lot of time and resources to try to win the Iowa caucus. It must be very important right? Well, sometimes.

If you don't count the "uncommitted" slates that won the 1972 and 1976 Democratic caucuses, only two presidential candidates (excluding incumbents) have won Iowa and went on to win the presidency.

The most recent example was Texas Governor George W. Bush, who handily defeated publisher Steve Forbes in the 2000 Republican race. Bush went on to win the nomination and was elected that autumn.

And 1976, an unknown former governor of Georgia, Jimmy Carter came out of nowhere to beat Birch Bayh, propelling Carter to the nomination and the presidency.

But that's it. The only other Iowa caucus winners who went on to win the presidency were incumbents seeking re-election (and usually unopposed within their party), such as Ronald Reagan in 1984 and Bill Clinton in 1996.

So why is the Iowa caucus still important? Well, it is the first opportunity for Americans to pick the next President of the United States. And while the caucus doesn't have a great track record of picking the eventual nominee, it often determines who will not get picked.

Not to worry iggy!  I am currently crunching numbers from all over the place ... from sales of specific ice cream flavors to average number of putts per tournament by the #1 golfer in the world ..

If there is another random event/occurence that will predict the next president, I will find it!

;-D

perish the thought!

::giggles::

oh... nasty flashback... I voted for Dole and lost to Slick Willy in 1996, McCain in 2000 and lost in the primaries, and I considered 2004 a lost election, because the primary was already decided and the other party's candidate was equally distasteful and an unknown quantity.

I suppose I could tell you who I don't want to win, and given my track record that should be a strong indicator of who will win...

I suppose I could tell you who I don't want to win, and given my track record that should be a strong indicator of who will win...

oh no!

um... you need to stop caring!!!  Iggy, like, NOW!

i don't want that candidate either! (at least if it's who I think you're thinking and I think it is)

:(

the lone first lady in the race?

I keed, I keed... but not really :D 

mmm... I'm thinking you would be most askeered of Romney?  Not really sure because none of them appear to have "extremely high negatives"

::giggles::

Romney? What conservative wouldn't want to vote for someone that's got Reagan's hair, but none of his principles?

That'd be 2 for 2 btw...