Estimating Super Tuesday Results

Here is my forecast of the Super Tuesday results.

Democrats:
Both Clinton and Obama will win some of the state contests. I expect Clinton to win 55-60% of the delegates with Obama winning the rest. Super Tuesday will not end the contest. Obama raised $30 million in December so he will still have money to spend.

Republicans:
McCain will win most of the states with a few going to Romney and maybe a couple to Huckabee. After South Carolina and Florida the party leadership, the endorsements, and the media all seem to be swinging McCain's way. I don't think enough people trust Romney's conservative credentials enough to swing the election his way. McCain has his conservative detractors but his long record is mostly conservative with some moderate elements. He at least has a track record so people have a good idea what he will do. Huckabee does not have the name recognition, the money, or a broad enough constituency to win the nomination. I expect him to drop out of the race after Super Tuesday or just stay on the ballot but not really pursue the nomination.

Hopefully the people in states holding later primaries will have at least one meaningful contest.

Paul

Biden and Dodd Out - Why?

Two experienced candidates, Joe Biden and Christopher Dodd, dropped out of the presidential race after one state (Iowa) held its caucuses. Why? Why not stay in the race at least through February 5th when about 20 states will hold their primaries? I think their early exits point to a fundamental flaw in the primary system. It appears only 2 values enable candidates to remain in the race for the long haul - media backing and money. If you don't get media backing, you don't get money. If you don't get money, you don't get media backing. Political experience means nothing (see George Bush in 2000). On the Democratic side, the media has focused upon Hilary Clinton, Barack Obama, and John Edwards from the beginning. What a surprise that they are the leading contenders! They are interesting candidates but none of them have the years of experience of Biden, Dodd, Richardson, or Kucinich. It would have been nice to see voters in other states have a chance to support Biden or Dodd. Maybe the verdict would have been the same but a 10-20 state verdict is a lot more meaningful than one, unrepresentative state.

Should Iowa and New Hampshire be first?

This question has been debated for some time with no definitive answer emerging. There are some advantages and disadvantages. I personally like these states going early for a few reasons. I have to admit to a bias in terms of Iowa since I grew up there. More importantly, both states are relatively low in population so the candidates and people can get to know each other at least a little bit. The candidates are forced to define themselves in ways they will not later in the big state primaries. This is especially true with the heavy front loading of the primaries for both the Democrats and Republicans. After the first several states, citizens in most states will only receive a TV ad blitz with candidates spending little or no time in the state. Another positive is that Iowa leans conservative and I think New Hampshire leans liberal. A third benefit is that volunteers from all over the nation gain experience working in these states for the candidates they support. On the down side, both states are rural in nature and primarily Causcasian in race/ethnicity. Demographically, they do not mirror the nation as a whole. I think the larger question is whether any two states should have such a disproportionate influence on the nomination process. This problem might be unavoidable given the prevalence of media today. Whichever states go first, they will exert an exaggerated influence.

Paul