I’ve got no data to base this on, just a gut feeling, but I think in the last few days before the Iowa caucus we could very well see voters break in favor of Sen. Clinton. Why? I think a vague sense of the unknown with Sen. Obama, coupled with some movement from the Bhutto assassination may make Sen. Clinton the “safe” choice for Iowa’s older, less liberal Democrats. Looking at caucus history, “daring” doesn’t exactly describe their past choices.
» Breaking News
Babysitter Synjan Mitchell Arrested For Leaving Kids To Go Drinking
Gemma Atkinson Promotes Command & Conquer Red Alert
Uganda Cops Warn About Knock-Out Breasts
CNBC Forced To Cut Costs
Sumner Redstone Sells Midway Games To Ease Cash Crunch
I think the voting system, which you’ve described in terms similar to, ‘a fucking catastrophe,’ to low voter turnout will help Edwards win in Iowa. However, it will hurt Obama more than Clinton and she will come in second place.
On the other hand, Huckabee would win in Iowa if the same system was used, but I think Romney will eek out a win. (Or at least come within 1-2%. McCain will crack 10% while the rest will embarrass themselves.
Three days later in New Hampshire…
Obama will sink enough to give Clinton a safe win making her the winner of the nomination while Romney will do the same for the Republicans.
Some people have suggested that the caucus voting system may hurt Clinton–I think just the opposite, and you’ve put your finger on the reason, OW.
In caucus voting, a candidate has to garner a minimum percentage of voters present (15 percent, I think?) for the vote to count. If a candidate doesn’t reach the threshold, his or her supporters align with another candidate or stand as unaffiliated.
I think this is most likely to happen to Obama supporters in precints that are small, conservative, or with an older demographic. Unless those caucusers are prepared to hold out as unaffiliated, the so-called “safe” choice will get the benefit.