Novak Predicts: Obama and Romney Win Iowa
Robert Novak has sent out an e-mail (to those who have subscribed to receive e-mails from Human Events Online) in which he predicts that Iowa will got to Barack Obama and Mitt Romney.
He believes that Romney will beat Huckabee because of two reasons:
1. Romney has more money, which means that it will be easier for him to get his supporters to the polls.
2. Romney’s doing better in the post-Christmas polls, whereas Huckabee is slipping in most of them (trend and momentum).
Novak also explains that the race for third place is quite exciting - and significant: John McCain, Fred Thompson and Ron Paul could all finish third. Whosoever finishes in third place will have quite some momentum going into New Hampshire as well, Novak explains.
The most likely outcome according to him:
1. Mitt Romney
2. Mike Huckabee
3. Fred Thompson
4. John McCain
5. Ron Paul
Frankly, I’m not so sure that both McCain and Thompson will do better than Paul. Having said that, Thompson has spent so much time in Iowa recently, that everything below third place would be a defeat. If he finishes third, however, he has shown that he’s competitive and he might be able to win in some states, or at least to do reasonably well afterwards. The same goes, of course, for John McCain. And Paul? If Paul finishes in third place his supporters will have proven that he too can compete and that he could do better than most anticipated.
For the Democrats Novak predicts:
1. Barack Obama
2. John Edwards
3. Hillary Clinton
The reasons:
The similarities between Obama 2008 and Howard Dean in 2004 are real and could show themselves Thursday night. Obama is the new, fresh face in the race with youthful, enthusiastic, and idealistic supporters.
Obama leads in most polls, and significantly in some. His negatives are much lower than Clinton’s, and his positives are higher than Edwards’. He has as much money as Clinton and the edge in enthusiasm. However, his campaign team in Iowa is the least experienced of the top three. He could flame out like Dean, but all considered, he has to be viewed as the favorite.
Hillary’s organization may be the strongest, but her negatives are the highest.
Edwards has run in Iowa before and done well. His second-place finish in 2004, however, was in a weaker Democratic field. His negatives are low, however, and many polls have shown him as the most popular second choice among supporters of the second-tier candidates. In polls, he is right on Hillary’s heels, and it is likely he will pass her in the caucuses.
And fourth: Bill Richardson.
I’m afraid that we have to wait more than 24 hours, but Novak could very well be right. I took Pajamas Media’s quiz yesterday, I participated in it, and predicted that Obama would win in Iowa and Romney in New Hampshire. If I remember correctly, this is what I predicted:
Democrats:
1. Barack Obama
2. Hillary Clinton
3. John Edwards (edited, h/t Lynx)
Republicans:
1. Mitt Romney
2. Mike Huckabee
3. John McCain
Lastly, be sure to read Justin Gardner’s post called “Can Ron Paul Win Third in Iowa?”
Hmmm, took the quiz myself. I hope that isn’t your real list Michael, since I doubt Obama has the ability to come in first AND third
I predicted for Dems in both states:
1. Barack Obama
2. Hillary Clinton
3. John Edwards
For republicans I predicted in Iowa:
1. Mike Huckabee
2. Mitt Romney
3. Ron Paul
and in NH:
1. Mitt Romney
2. Mike Huckabee
3. John McCain
Iowa
Dem
Obama
Edwards
ClintonRepub
Romney
McCain
Huckabee
NHDem
Obama
clinton
BidenRepub
McCain
Huckabee
Paul
Fascinating Lynx (I corrected it by the way, thanks): so you think that Huckabee will create so much momentum that he’ll beat McCain in NH? But… not enough momentum to beat Romney?
Why not if I may ask (just a game of course, but interesting nonetheless).
Interested:OK,those are some interesting and unconventional guesses.
Where’s Romney in New Hampshire (where and he mccain are well ahead in the polls), especially considering the fact that you think he’ll win in Iowa? And Iowa? Will McCain make a sudden surge there in 24 hours?
Clinton loses twice: do you think that, if that happens, she can make a comeback?
Man, it’s fun!
I agree with Lynx’s predictions in Iowa but in NH I would place McCain second and Paul 3rd, or vice versa. Huckabee won’t do very well in NH. Iowa, yes. NH, no.
J. Bradford: what would a third place mean for Paul? Twice I mean?
And I agree, Huckabee won’t do so well in NH.
I think if McCain does well he’ll do better in NH, Paul’s a long shot - IMO - he has to place first to keep going, but NH is the state for him if he’s anywhere. I don’t see Romney’s showing in Iowa having much affect on him in NH - he’s been too close to the state from the start.
I think that like Bill, she’s the only Candidate that could.
Fascinating stuff that. If she would come back from the dead, that would be quite something.
Well, one would think it would give him a much deserved boost in media attention and let his message get out to the majority of voters before Super Tuesday. But somehow, I think the media wouldn’t focus on him but rather on the "disappointment" of the candidates who were below him.
If he polls 3rd in Iowa, one should expect him to receive a bump in the media coverage before NH, but my guess would be they will focus more on whether Thompson or Giuliani stand a chance by placing lower than the "fringe-candidate Ron Paul."
Hopefully I’m wrong, but somehow I don’t think I am. Democracy at it’s best…
Michael,
Question for you, or others on here…
If Ron Paul’s money is higher than the other GOP candiates this last quarter, and 4 times greater than his 3rd quarter take, what is the explanation for his polling numbers remaining fairly the same?
Personally, I don’t think anyone has a clue how much support Paul has because the polls obviously don’t reflect his numbers, otherwise they should’ve risen with his donation increase.
Just wondering what others thought about this.
Thanks
That could actually very well happen indeed. And that would be sad, yes.
If Ron Paul?s money is higher than the other GOP candiates this last quarter, and 4 times greater than his 3rd quarter take, what is the explanation for his polling numbers remaining fairly the same?
1. Ron Paul supporters aren’t consider "Likely Republican Caucus Goers."
2. His supporters become more generous and convince more of their fellow passionate libertarians to donate money, but there simply aren’t a lot of people out there %-wise who’ll vote for him. In other words: normally only, say, 1% of supporters donate money (random number) but with Paul that number is, say, 10%.
Other than that, we’ll see. Only a few days!
Eleanor Roosevelt taught us that sometimes silence is the greatest sin by Mrs. Lyndon Baines (Ladybird) Johnson
Former First Lady, United States Of AmericaWomen can move beyond the struggle for equal status and for material goods to the challenges and opportunities of citizenship. Quality of goals and the achievement of goals which will mean a better life for all. For me, it was the beginning of seeing how politics can bring tangible results. I always hope that the very best of our people will go into politics, and I am sure that some of our best are women. So, I say: "Don’t hold back. Don’t be shy. Step forward in every way you can to plan boldly, to speak clearly, to offer the leadership which the world needs. Let us today earnestly resolve to build the true foundation for Eleanor Roosevelt’s memory–to pluck out prejudice from our lives, to remove fear and hate where it exists, and to create a world unafraid to work out its destiny in peace. Eleanor Roosevelt has already made her own splendid and incomparable contribution to that foundation. Let us go and do likewise, within the measure of our faith and the limits of our ability. Let Eleanor Roosevelt teach Us all how to turn the arts of compassion into the victories of democracy.Eleanor Roosevelt taught us that sometimes silence is the greatest sin. “PROGRESS IS CALLING ON YOU TO MAKE NO PAUSE” ACT! The Carrie Chapman Catt Center for Women & Politics at IowaVOTE CLINTON 2008
If you are considering Obama, PLEASE research! Your county deserves better that a player like obamawinphrey! I think it’s a big mistake to believe that obama will win because older Americans will not come out in bad weather to support another candidate like Hillary or Edwards! I’m 67 yr old mixed race man and I can tell you that the older generation is wide awake and very much realizes we need the experience and not a snake oil salesman that needs a TV talk show host to get noticed, obama is just yelling with no substance. Its obvious in EVERY debate he kept losing his thoughts in the middle of making one, (pay attention to all the “ahhs” and “umms” he says between words, sign he doesn’t know what he’s talking about because he can’t remember what is “written for him”(not a leader) he’s running on Hillary and Edwards solutions. Notice also, once the media has begun to report his short comings, oprah is no where in sight, feeling pretty foolish at this point id imagine. He did not show up to vote in the senate often in his short time there, missed 130 votes out of 153! bashes ALL the other 72 senators who voted for the war based on the intelligence they were provided by OUR PRESIDENT, but he will not answer any reporter on how we would voted at the time. But his record after fact shows he supports the war, voted twice in 2006 against bringing America’s troops back home. He votes for war appropriations giving our money to Halliburton and Blackwater. His latest bit of posturing S 433 allows the Bush Administration to suspend any troop withdrawal!!!!Which if not suspended, still keeps the troops in Iraq for a long time to come? Obama when faced with tough choices always gave in to pressure from the Bush administration or corporate lobbyists. Such as Obama voted for Bush’s energy bill, sending more than $13 billion in subsidies and tax breaks to oil, coal, and nuclear companies. Obama voted with Republicans to allow credit card companies to raise interest rates over 30 percent, increasing hardship for families. Obama voted for one of Bush’s top priorities - expanding Nafta to South America - even as President Bush obstructed all the top Democratic priorities. Obama voted with Bush to make it harder for ordinary people to hold big corporations accountable when they do things like sell toxic toys, poisonous pet food, or just plain rip you off. Obama was the Senate’s biggest Democratic advocate of subsidies for liquid coal, even though liquid coal produces twice the global warming pollution of the crude oil it’s meant to replace (Obama "backed off" this position after being pummeled by environmentalists for several months, but still voted for increased subsidies, albeit with conditions)Obama, a Hamiltonian believer in free trade and supporters of globalization has lent his support to the "Hamilton Project formed by corporate-neoliberal Citigroup chair Robert Rubin and other ‘Wall Street Democrats’ to counter populist rebellion against corporate tendencies within the Democratic Party. Obama provided assistance to pro-war candidates (such as Joe Lieberman). Obama voted for "business-friendly ‘tort reform’ bill that rolls back working peoples’ ability to obtain reasonable redress and compensation…from corporations!!! Obama considers single payer universal health care too socialist and has stated that he prefers voluntary solutions. He has no substance. He has provided no solution to any problem until Hillary, Edwards or even Mitt Romey publically expresses theirs, then he copies, He’s been constantly negative with everyone.
Donations don’t vote.
Fund-raising is an expression of passion, not breadth of support. A few tens of thousands of people giving money do not come close to the many millions necessary to win an election OR a primary, especially considering that many of Ron Paul’s supporters may be really Democrats who are trying to sabotage the Republicans by voting for Paul in the primary and planning to vote for the Democrat in the general election (as requested by some of Paul’s supporters).
Ron Paul might well exceed the poll numbers, but there is no way he can win the nomination, let alone the general election. His positions are too wackadoodle to withstand serious scrutiny. If he does finish high in some primary, the media and/or the opposition are going to start highlighting some of the really bizarre Lyndon LaRouche-style rantings and the willing associations with groups like Stormfront and that will be the end of it. The high fundraising numbers are merely an expression of the power of the internet to provide a rallying point that brings together various marginal groups that were always out there but never donating. They get all excited about the unfamiliar experience of feeling that they are part of a broad movement, but their herd mentality and the fact that they dismiss all contrary information as merely being evidence of just another conspiracy causes them to grossly over-estimate their own actual numbers.
"their herd mentality," "conspiracy," "wackadoodle…"
Jason, to be frank: some certainly are like that - many even perhaps - but we’ve got some good Ron Paul supporters commenting at this blog these days who aren’t like that. Alan comes to mind, but also Robert E. and Bradford.
But you are right about one thing: the fact that they’re very passionate and communicate with people who are like that as well may give them the impression that there are many more people who agree with them out there, even when that’s not the case.
Michael, the three you mention are unfortunately a very distinct minority that emerge from the swarm that descends from the obsessively Google-searching Ron Paul hordes. My terms are generalizations and, like all generalizations, there are exceptions. But they do describe the general impression.
Also, "wackadoodle" referred to many of Paul’s IDEAS, it was not a reference to anyone here. I reserve the right to state my opinion of Paul’s IDEAS without the sugar-coating or selective gaze-averting that so many Paul supporters prefer.
Jason, regarding your post above:
Logical arguments: lacking
Hate, ad hominem, sweeping insults: in spades
admin: personal attacks are not welcome
Michael, please review Jason’s post above, and tell me in all honesty if you would not have immediately censored it had it been posted by anyone but Jason.
Alan,
I have a negative impression of Ron Paul produced by both his ideas and the frequent behavior of his supporters on this site.
I know most Paul supporters find any expression of such feelings to be intolerable and that any questioning of the Great Man must, by definition, be “ad hominum” and out of line. They prefer that only positive things ever be allowed to be said about their “freedom” candidate.
Tough. It just ain’t so. Unlike yours, my comments while critical and disparaging towards the Ron Paul campaign in general, did NOT attack any individual on this site. I don’t attack your personal integrity just because I find the Ron Paul movement generally to be characterized by infantile chanting, massive intolerance, and a herd mentality. Why do you openly question my integrity just because I slam the Paul movement?
If you really wanted your candidate to be treated as a serious candidate, then you should have been prepared for the notion that some people might not like his ideas or the statements and behavior of his “movement”. With elevated status in the polls comes elevated scrutiny and criticism. Better get used to it, because critics of Ron Paul have just as much right as you do to speak their minds about him.
"Obama is a mistake" you asked that we "please research". I did. For starters I googled the first part of your unbelievably long text and violá, it turns out you copy-pasted it from a blog on the baltimore sun.
If you are trying to convince others or your views, please use your own words!
Michael, I might be mistaken on McCain, on second thought. He seems to have the right momentum behind him and I thought he might bring in a lot of voters who see him as a less controversial candidate. I admit I know less about the republican campaign than the democrat one. My feeling is that Huckabee will really motivate religious voters in Iowa, a state that’s full of them. But once he wins his views will get huge coverage, and voters who may worry about his electability in a general election will come out for Romney in NH.
Ron Paul has a hugely enthusiastic support base. Virtually every single RP supporter in Iowa will walk, crawl or swim to the polls to vote for him, and I do think there is more significant support for him than is usually talked about, even if I don’t share the conspiracy minded ideas of the Paulites themselves. However, in NH more people will be paying attention and I think he’ll get crowded out by other candidates.
I wouldn’t be surprised if the repub results were totally different from what I put down, I’m not an expert in that field. I WOULD be very surprised to see either Romney or Huckabee not make the top three in both states.
Looks like everybody, at least on this blog, gave up on Rudy ?
My predictions for Iowa: Edwards,Obama,Clinton
Huckabee,Romney,Thompson
Rudy isn’t contesting Iowa.
Jason, is he on the ballot ?
Btw, great post about nuclear weapons .
I don’t know if they even have formal ballot-access provisions for caucuses. Given what I have heard about how Iowa’s caucuses operate, I doubt it. I think caucus-goers can vote for whomever they want.
But I just don’t think Giuliani is relevant in Iowa. I also think he is rapidly collapsing nationwide. If in later caucuses he turns out to have a significant role to play for the race for the nomination, I might post about him and consider endorsing him. But right now, I just don’t think it is likely or that his campaign is in any way interesting.
Jason Steck wrote:
"Fund-raising is an expression of passion, not breadth of support. A few tens of thousands of people giving money do not come close to the many millions necessary to win an election OR a primary, "
While I agree that fund-raising is an expression of passion, it is a much more accurate measure of support than a poll of "likely" voters. And a few tens of thousands of people giving money come a lot closer than the few hundred in a "scientific poll" to predict who the next president will be.
Passion is what is going to drive people to actually go out and vote in a caucus or primary. Huckabee, the supposed front-runner, has only raised 1/4th the money this quarter that Paul has. If he has so much support, we would be seeing it in dollars.
Something just doesn’t add up, but we will soon see which line of thinking is flawed.