I know it's terribly unwise and opens you up to all sorts of scoffing in the aftermath, but I still think it's fun to make predictions, so I'm going to put out my predictions on who is going to win the Iowa caucus and by how much. Working from the polls and having watched endless talking heads blather about it, here's how I think things will shake out for the two parties:
The Democrats
Hillary Clinton - 28%
Barack Obama - 25%
John Edwards - 24%
As you can see, I've deviated slightly from the major poll results, which show the top three candidates virtually tied, but giving Obama a slight lead overall. I think that lead for Obama is the result of people answering pollsters to make themselves look good rather than in the way they are actually going to vote. Iowa Democrats have a mild, but deep-seated racism which will cost Obama at least 3 points and is not reflected in polls. I dropped Edwards by an extra point because he's a southerner and because he's trying to run as an outsider populist despite being a wealthy elitist insider. People can smell hypocrisy. Because it's a caucus rather than a real primary, Clinton will gain at least a point as the main insider. I think that when the actual vote happens about 5% are going to recoil from the major candidates and put in a protest vote for Richardson or Biden, bringing down the overall numbers for the top 3. I wouldn't be surprised to see either Richardson or Biden come close to 10% for what little that means.
The Republicans
Mike Huckabee - 24%
Mitt Romney - 23%
John McCain - 14%
Ron Paul - 14%
Rudy Giuliani - 10%
The polls currently give Huckabee a tiny lead over Romney. I think that lead is genuine, and I think his populist message of social conservatism and fiscal liberalism will appeal very strongly in Iowa. I think he'll beat Romney by more than the polls predict. Despite his relatively low position in the polls, McCain has been campaigning very strongly in Iowa in the last few weeks. I think he'll move up in the caucus. Iowa Republicans think more in national terms (over local terms) than Iowa Democrats do, so they will not be as negative on Huckabee for being a southerner as the Democrats will be with Edwards. At the same time, I believe that Iowans will recoil from the religious backgrounds of both Huckabee and Romney, closing the gap the polls show between the two front runners and the rest of the pack. The main beneficiaries of this will be Paul and Giuliani. Paul gains because of his outsider status and ability to motivate voters, but it doesn't help him as much in an insider-oriented caucus as it will in the more open primary in New Hampshire. Giuliani gains because he's the inside candidate and the least religious candidate, so those who lose confidence at the last minute or have religious concerns will turn to him. Thompson is also going to lose out, dropping well below where the polls have him and into 7th place. As you can see, I've got McCain and Paul tied. I think they'll end up very close, both with substantially better showings than they have in the polls, and with enough support to take them into New Hampshire - where both will do much better - claiming a 3rd place victory or the equivalent in Iowa as a virtual win.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Paul Johnson
Personal attacks are not allowed, but it's OK for you to accuse, with ZERO evidence, that "Iowa Democrats have a mild, but deep-seated racism that will cost Obama 3 points."
Believe it or not, we have internet access in Iowa.
2 - Matthew T. Sussman
"Personal attacks are not allowed, but it's OK for you to accuse, with ZERO evidence, that "Iowa Democrats have a mild, but deep-seated racism that will cost Obama 3 points.""
Right, because that's not a personal attack. Sweeping overgeneralization with an angstrom of truth, maybe, but not a personal attack.
This is the 3178th time that needed to be explained to a commenter.
3 - Dave Nalle
Paul, I'm sorry if my comment offended Iowa democrats, but the fact remains that the midwest is STILL the area where the KKK has its greatest strength, largely among the democrat working class. Iowa had major resurgences in Klan popularity in the 1980s and 1990s. It's hardly a thing of the past. But real, virulent racism of that sort is not really what I'm talking about here.
Racism is certainly not the defining characteristic of the democratic party or of Iowa, but it's a factor that has to be considered.
As states go, Iowa is among the whitest in the nation. It is only 2.3% african american compared to 12.4% average nationwide. It has only 3.8% hispanic population compared to 14.8% nationwide. It is also poorer than most states, about 10% below the national average in income, and similarly behind in levels of college education. But interestingly, it's better off than most of the nation in unemployment and poverty. It's a state of lower middle class workers, the ideal demographic for your basic Archie Bunker democrat.
So, no slur on Iowa, just a fact which I'm taking into consideration - as anyone ought to - in assessing how Obama will do in the state. Maybe I'm wrong, and if I am then Iowans should be proud to have exceeded our expectations.
Dave
4 - Paul Johnson
Did the editorialist say "some" Iowa Democrats, or "many" Iowa Democrats or "a few" Iowa Democrats or "3% of those Iowa Democrats who will attend the caucuses tomorrow"? No exceptions were made, and easily could have been. If I am an Iowa Democrat, that comment is a personal attack on me. It was thoughtless, and Internet "journalists" should be as accountable for such attacks as broadcast and print journalists.
Sorry to try your patience, Matthew.
5 - Dave Nalle
It was thoroughly thought through, Paul. When I say 'Iowa Democrats' as I did in the article, that does not mean ALL Iowa democrats or some percentage, it just means that the trend towards mild racism exists within the broad population of democrats in Iowa. That's why I kept the terminology so general. I'm not dealing with analyzing the votes of individuals in this article, but with extremely broad groups.
Dave
6 - Paul Johnson
Fortunately, members of the KKK don't have to go to the Democratic primary to vote against Obama. They can go to the Republican primary and vote for Ron Paul. Whitecivilrights.com has endorsed his candidacy.
The assertion that "democrat working class KKK supporters" are a major source of Democratic support might have had an angstrom of truth forty years ago. Hello, Southern strategy?
7 - Dave Nalle
Where did I use the word 'major', Paul. I'm talking about 3% of the people hesitating and changing their mind at the last minute. That's not a major number of people or a major racist act.
The relative popularity of the KKK in Iowa is just one indicator. I went over the demographics already.
As for Paul, he has no control over what crazies endorse him or over the fact that ALL the crazies have chosen to endorse him. He's done what he can to distance himself from them. He was very, very clear about it on Russet two weeks ago.
Dave
8 - Baronius
Glad to see someone else was offended by the accusation of racism. Also, it doesn't make sense. I'm pretty sure that the caucus isn't secret ballot - so if people are embarrassed enough to not tell a pollster about their closet racism, they won't show it to their neighbors.
Gutsy predictions, Dave. I can believe that Huckabee will narrowly beat Romney. I think you're overestimating Clinton's support though. And since Iowa is mostly klansmen, they won't go for Obama either. (I kid.) I think Edwards will win, in both real numbers and spin.
9 - Clavos
Just to clarify the "personal attacks" policy:
the policy prohibits personal attacks on other commenters, not public figures nor groups (such as Iowa Democrats).
The only way Nalle's comment could be construed as a personal attack on Johnson directly is if he (Johnson) is, in fact, part of the small minority of Iowa Democrats who are racists.
10 - Baronius
I should add one more thing: there's a pretty good chance that first and second place in Iowa will have only one name in common with first and second in New Hampshire. That will put at least seven viable candidates running around Michigan. Michigan's rise to prominence will be one of the big stories of this election.
11 - Dave Nalle
Glad to see someone else was offended by the accusation of racism. Also, it doesn't make sense. I'm pretty sure that the caucus isn't secret ballot - so if people are embarrassed enough to not tell a pollster about their closet racism, they won't show it to their neighbors.
I don't believe I ever said that 3% of Iowa Democrats would show up at the caucus waving a nazi flag or wearing a white hood, did I? The degree of racism I was talking about here was the difference between saying Obama is your guy in an anonymous and non-binding poll so that you feel good about yourself and then deciding to vote for Hillary instead in the actual Caucus.
Gutsy predictions, Dave. I can believe that Huckabee will narrowly beat Romney. I think you're overestimating Clinton's support though. And since Iowa is mostly klansmen, they won't go for Obama either. (I kid.) I think Edwards will win, in both real numbers and spin.
I just find it hard to believe that people won't see through Edwards hypocritical posturing. I see him talking to crowds in his brand new, starched jeans and work shirt and looking totally uncomfortable and they're all sitting around like he just came from mars. I don't think he's fooling anyone.
Dave
12 - Dave Nalle
I should add one more thing: there's a pretty good chance that first and second place in Iowa will have only one name in common with first and second in New Hampshire.
Yep. I said that in the last part of the article.
That will put at least seven viable candidates running around Michigan. Michigan's rise to prominence will be one of the big stories of this election.
Which is really scary, because Michigan is the one place where the fake-populist, anti-prosperity hogwash of the extreme left really sells.
Dave
13 - handyguy
The fact that many caucus-goers have to drop their first choice [when the vote totals are too low] and switch to another makes Iowa harder to predict. 4 years ago a lot of people expected Howard Dean to win.
My hunch is that HRC will win this year's caucus. But many of us Dems are in the happy position of liking all 3 of our front runners, even as sour-pussed GOPers like Dave feel compelled to take dumb cheap shots like "starched jeans hypocrite" and "fake-populist, anti-prosperity hogwash of the extreme left."
Dave's presumption of closet racism is off base in this context - the people who show up at Iowa Democratic caucuses are likely to mainstream liberal or slightly to the left of that. [They tried to be 'pragmatic' 4 years ago and got John Kerry, unfortunately. So they are more likely to go with their hearts this time.]
Closet racism will indeed be a possible factor in the general election next fall if Obama is the nominee and the margin is close.
14 - Dave Nalle
Handy, I wasn't talking about the blatant racism of the extreme left or the institutionalized racism of the party leadership, just the ingrained weakness of common people to stick by their better natures.
If Obama does get the nomination I imagine he'll get enough crossover votes from Republicans to make up for whatever racist votes he loses.
Dave
15 - JustOneMan
ooofah!!!
Why do people use the race card to defend a weak and unelectable candidate! Obama is creation of the media and those Americans in denial of what the real international and local issues are!
JOM
"Obama - policies based on wishful thinking and luck"
16 - Ray Ellis
And exactly what are those "real" international and local issues, JOM? For one who criticizes candidates as having no substance, you have a propensity for being overtly vague.
17 - REMF
"Obama - policies based on wishful thinking and luck"
- JOM
At least he's not a Deserter, former cocaine addict and pathological liar ("The reason I wasn't flying at Dannelly is because they didn't have the same kind of planes there").
18 - Ray Ellis
I believe Obama will take Iowa, and here's why. Iowans--at least the ones I've known--have a great deal of common sense. Democrats there want to win. They'll reject Clinton because she's too smooth, sensing something about her doesn't ring true. She has no problem with switching views as the winds favor. Edwards, on the other hand, is too combative, and would divide the country even more than it already is. Obama, despite his perceived lack of experience, represents the rumblings of desire for change. It will be close, but I think it will be Obama, Edwards and Clinton, in that order.
On the Republican side, I think Huckabe will edge out Romney. And as much as I hate to admit it, I think Ron Paul could actually come in second.
19 - Dr Dreadful
Why do people use the race card to defend a weak and unelectable candidate!
Why do other people use the race card to deem a candidate unelectable?
20 - handyguy
Dave:
the blatant racism of the extreme left or the institutionalized racism of the [Democratic] party leadership,
He's just trying to bait me I won't respond he's just trying to bait me I won't respond he's just...
21 - handyguy
The hell I won't.
Of course, please ignore the fact that blacks vote up to 90% Democratic, nationwide, and have for decades.
And that my [yes, racist and Dixiecrat] grandmother blamed Eleanor Roosevelt for giving blacks false hopes that led to the rioting in the 60s.
And that the Republican Party has been only too happy to welcome racists, blatant, closet and otherwise, since at least 1964. That's 43 years of "institutionalized party racism."
Your wishful thinking, about an idealized but no longer real vision of the GOP, does not make it so.
Your continued repetition of this slimy lie - that because some Democrats were, historically, racist, the Democratic party is inherently so; and that because the GOP is the party of Lincoln, it is inherently clean on this issue - is quite despicable, disingenuous, and unworthy of an apparently intelligent human like yourself.
22 - El Bicho
Dave is either trying to stir the pot or is being idiotic.
If Iowa Democrats "have a mild, but deep-seated racism," then why would they feel good about themselves for picking Obama in an anonymous and non-binding poll? If they don't like black people, they wouldn't derive comfort in secretly picking him, or is it an elaborate ruse to get the black man's hopes up only to crush them later?
As a Iowa Democrat, Paul is right to be annoyed at Dave's statement regardless of how Clavos inaccurately portrays it.
23 - Clavos
"
Of course, please ignore the fact that blacks vote up to 90% Democratic, nationwide, and have for decades."
True, and so do poor whites and Latinos, but racism (or the lack thereof) isn't the reason; it's because they all know who's going to give them government handouts and other financial assistance.
Like the majority of all american voters, they vote their pocketbooks first.
There are a lot of African American entrepreneurs and wealthy people (maybe most) who are Republican.
And many, if not most, Southern whites (especially in the so-called Deep South), regardless of party affiliation, are in fact still at least closet racists.
Racism, I'll grant you, knows no party affiliation, but it is no less present in the Democratic party than it is in the Republican party.
24 - Baritone
I believe one would find that the blue collar KKK members, if they have voted at all in the last few elections, did so by and large for the Republican tickets. That Klanners were traditionally Dems, especially in the south, and also during the early years of the 20th century up into the mid-west, that trend has changed as fewer racists of whatever stamp found the left-leaning Dems acceptable political cohorts. Some may still register as Democrats, probably more out of habit than conviction. They may, in fact, find it a useful tool in blind siding pollsters and muddying the waters in the various primaries, but most have levitated to the conservative, right-wing candidates when it comes to the actual vote. It is no wonder that Ron Paul has attracted Klanners. He speaks their language on many issues.
B-tone
25 - Clavos
"As a Iowa Democrat, Paul is right to be annoyed at Dave's statement regardless of how Clavos inaccurately portrays it."
Annoyed, maybe-that, I suppose, is his prerogative, though it's silly. I'm a Floridian, but not a racist. I would not be annoyed if someone were to make the remark that 3% of Floridians are racist.
To consider it a personal attack as defined by the management of Blogcritics (which was my point), no.
The remark hasn't been deleted.