« Is Huckabee Clinton or Carter?
North Korea Update »



Novak: In Iowa It’ll Be Obama (Clinton Third) And Romney

January 2nd, 2008
By JOE GANDELMAN, Editor-In-Chief

Print Print

Columnist Robert Novak, in his newsletter, is now calling it for Iowa: former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney for the Republicans and Senator Barack Obama for the Democrats — and Hillary Clinton third behind Obama and Senator John Edwards.

This is a topsy-turvy election season when polls resemble see-saws used by hyperactive school-kids, but Novak offers a detailed analysis. Some highlights:

Ever since finishing second in the Iowa straw poll last August, Huckabee steadily climbed here in Iowa, aided by his evangelical pedigree, his sincerity and the fresh-face factor, and less critical press coverage than any other candidate. Polls of likely Republican caucus-goers consistently showed Huckabee ahead throughout December, but more recent surveys are a mixed bag, showing slippage by Huckabee.

Huckabee’s press conference fiasco seemingly didn’t help — but there are now accounts coming out quoting his famous consultant Ed Rollins and others saying that Huckabee lost a ton of money by pulling the ad…which was shown anyway to reporters. This is calling making lemons out of lemonade from the way these accounts read (sympathetic).


In the end, though, Novak believes Romney’s $$$$ will trump all (and reports say Romney is spending a lot of his own money):

Romney is close or leading in the post-Christmas polls. This is probably good enough for him. He has a much bigger team in Iowa and much more money to spend than do Huckabee and the other Republican candidates. Romney’s campaign should be better than Huckabee’s at getting its supporters to their caucuses.

His final call on the GOP side:

1st Place: Mitt Romney
2nd Place: Mike Huckabee
3rd Place: Fred Thompson
4th Place: John McCain

He also believes it is “not out of the question” that Ron Paul could finish third — which would be a HUGE story and vindication for Paul’s supporters.

On the Democratic front, he has a lot to say about Obama but here’s a tiny taste:

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. For Dean, that same formula translated into caucus-day bust. Will the same happen to Obama?

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.

And Hillary Clinton?

Hillary’s organization may be the strongest, but her negatives are the highest. Her hardball tactics against Obama will hurt her. For the Democrats, who have a viability threshold of at least 15% in each precinct, second choice matters, and that is where Hillary’s negatives will hurt her. She doesn’t appear to be the second choice for very many voters at all.

He feels Edwards is the the second choice for many and will pass Clinton in the polling. And in the end?

1st Place: Barack Obama
2nd Place: John Edwards
3rd Place: Hillary Clinton
4th Place: Bill Richardson

FOOTNOTE: A new Rasmussen poll has the same findings as Novak’s predictions:

–Romney first among GOPers.
–Obama first among Democrats, Edwards second and Clinton third.

The biggest surprise: it has John McCain coming in THIRD in Iowa — which could give McCain more Big Mo in New Hampshire, where Romney has been denounced by the Union Leader’s publisher. A few sections:

Fair enough. Politics isn’t beanbag.

But Romney is apparently so desperate that he has chosen distortion over facts. He is claiming on TV that Sen. McCain supports Social Security for illegal immigrants. That is patently and demonstrably false. In fact, McCain wants to make sure that LEGAL immigrants have their Social Security taxes properly accounted for so that the rest of U.S. taxpayers aren’t footing that bill, too. Anyone who cares for the details can find them at factcheck.org. That respected nonprofit Web site, in an unusually harsh criticism, dubbed Romney’s claims “Mitt Malarkey.”

The last time Social Security was so blatantly misused in a Presidential Primary race, the victim was Barry Goldwater. That senator from Arizona wasn’t able to fend off the distortion in time to win that primary. This time, we think the voters of New Hampshire will catch on.



This entry was posted on Wednesday, January 2nd, 2008 at 11:08 am and is filed under Ron Paul, Mike Huckabee, John McCain, Newsweek Blogitics, Primaries, New Hampshire, Iowa, Mitt Romney, Barack Obama, Polls, 2008 Elections, Independent Voters, Democrats, Hillary Clinton, Republicans, Politics. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

 
close Reblog this comment
Powered by Disqus · Learn more
blog comments powered by Disqus

« Is Huckabee Clinton or Carter?
North Korea Update »


By posting comments on The Moderate Voice you are acknowledging and agreeing to the following general comments policy:

(1) The Moderate Voice's comments are hosted by Disqus (http://disqus.com). If your comment doesn't appear immediately, please be patient since it is an off-site system.

(2) All e-mail received from readers by The Moderate Voice is considered intended for publication unless otherwise indicated in the initial message from the writer. Please do not send us attachments unless you contact us and we agree to it.

(3)The Moderate Voice reserves the right to edit all e-mail and posted comments for content, clarity, and length.

(4) Our comment space is reserved for comments that relate to a post's topic. You should not reprint lengthy text from your own works or those of others, including news articles. You MAY link to them.

(5) Comments that are abusive, offensive, contain profane or racist material or violate the terms of service for this blog's host provider will be removed and the author(s) banned from future comments. Such comments also violate the very SPIRIT of this site -- which was created to encourage thoughtful and vigorous discussion among readers who may share differing viewpoints.

(6) All points of view are welcome on The Moderate Voice, with the following exceptions:

(a) Comments posted several times a day with the intent of dominating, re-directing or hijacking the thread by turning a discussion into the equivalent of a bitter shouting match.

(b) Comments posted several times a day that insult or call other commenters or blog writers names or repeatedly make the same point with the effect of or clear intent to annoy other commenters or blog writers.

(7) Name-calling, personal attacks, racist comments or use of profanity by any commenter, whether they are by persons who agree or disagree with the views expressed by The Moderate Voice will NOT be tolerated and will result in the deletion of the comment and the banning of the commenter's ISP address, without notice. In some cases a comment may be deleted and the writer will be given another chance. Commenters who virtually ASK The Moderate Voice to ban them by ignoring any warnings or daring TMV to ban them will quickly get their wish.

(8) Anonymous commenters should identify themselves with the same moniker, so readers know their comments are coming from a single individual. If they don't, they are subject to a banning.

(9)If we have problems with inappropriate or inflammatory comments from a commenter who it turns out gave a fake email address that person is subject to immediate banning.

(10) Quotes from material appearing on The Moderate Voice with attribution are allowed. Reprints are allowed only by permission from The Moderate Voice. You may request permission by e-mail.

(11) The Moderate Voice is a personal site. It is not the Government. It is NOT aligned with any political party. It is NOT promoting any specific candidate for office. It is not a public institution or a media organization. It is not a neutral site. It is intended to express and disseminate the authors' varying points of views. Writers on this weblog WILL take positions. It reserves the right to limit comments to those that, in its view, comport with its stated comment policy. Comments that do not comply are subject to deletion and banning of the author's ISP.

Disclaimer:

--Reading and posting comments at The Moderate Voice constitutes acknowledgment of and agreement to the terms outlined in this comment policy. This comment policy may be revised in part or in full at any time.

--All comments must comport with applicable state and federal laws. The Moderate Voice has no obigation to monitor, edit, censor, or take responsibility for comments. It may or may not act upon a violation of its comment policy once a suspected violation has been brought to its attention. Therefore, commenters are solely responsible for the content of their comments and should ensure that that their comments are lawful and fall within the stated guidelines of both The Moderate Voice and its hosting company.

--The Moderate Voice is not be responsible for injury or liability to any reader or commenter resulting from its own communications or those of commenters, that may be offensive, misleading, inaccurate, illegal, or otherwise unsuitable in the view of the reader. Readers and commenters further agree to indemnify and hold harmless The Moderate Voice from claims resulting from the use of any material appearing on The Moderate Voice which damages the reader, commenter or any other party.

--The Moderate Voice is not responsible for and might disagree with material posted in the comments section. While we strive for accuracy in our posts and DO correct errors, material posted by The Moderate Voice in its posts -- or those left by others in the comments section -- may or may not be accurate.

Read and Post at your own risk.