What if the unthinkable happens and Hillary Clinton wins neither Iowa nor New Hampshire, while Mike Huckabee takes both contests on the Republican side?
Don’t laugh…it could definitely happen. Barack Obama is now polling ahead in Iowa and closing the gap in New Hampshire, while Huckabee has closed to a virtual tie in the Hawkeye State.
If you take a look at the Democratic nominating schedule you’ll see that the New Hampshire primary (on January 8) is followed by the Michigan primary on the 15th and the Nevada caucus on the 19th. That is followed by the South Carolina primary on the 26th and the Florida primary on the 29th. These are the contests that will set the stage for Super Tuesday when 2,064 delegates will be pledged from the results of contests in twenty-two states (including California and New York).
Given the schedule (and our scenario where Hillary does not win in IA or NH), Michigan looms large as a place where Hillary can regain her footing. But there is a problem. The DNC just stripped Michigan of all its delegates because they violated party rules by scheduling their primary too early. None of the major candidates will campaign in the state and:
Democratic candidates John Edwards, Barack Obama, Bill Richardson and Joe Biden have withdrawn their names from the ballot to satisfy Iowa and New Hampshire, which were unhappy Michigan was challenging their leadoff status on the primary calendar.
That leaves Hillary Rodham Clinton, Dennis Kucinich, Chris Dodd, Mike Gravel and “uncommitted,” as the choices on the Democratic ballot in Michigan.
In other words, Hillary Clinton is going to win in Michigan no matter what happens in Iowa or New Hampshire. And she will probably get those delegates back at the convention. But it isn’t the issue of the delegates that is important (although it could become an issue if no candidate gains a majority of the delegates prior to the convention). The issue that should concern all of us is the perception of a Clinton win in Michigan and the potential for that perception to catapult her to victory in the nomination process.
On the Republican side, early Huckabee wins will create something close to pandemonium in Republican establishment circles. I think Robert Novak expressed the sentiment best in his column earlier this week.
Huckabee is campaigning as a conservative, but serious Republicans know that he is a high-tax, protectionist, big-government advocate of a strong hand in the Oval Office directing the lives of Americans…
The rise of evangelical Christians as the motive force that blasted the GOP out of minority status during the past generation always contained an inherent danger if these new Republican acolytes supported not merely a conventional conservative but one of their own. That has happened now with Huckabee…
That’s an unusually naked admission that evangelical Christians are seen as merely a means to an end, and they are less welcome leading the party than an African-American would be leading the Democratic Party. The embrace of Obama is proof enough of that. The real monied interests that have run the Republican Party from time immemorial are terrified of a Huckabee presidency, and they are not impotent to effect the outcome of the primary.
If Huckabee wins the first two contests (especially after not seriously contending in New Hampshire) it will do mortal damage to the campaign of Mitt Romney. That’s why Ryan Sager of the New York Post welcomes that possibility.
If there’s any redeeming irony here, it’s this: This populist surge [of Huckabee’s] could end up nudging the GOP in a more libertarian direction after all. If Huckabee knocks out Romney in Iowa, the Republican nomination seems assured for Rudy Giuliani.
Rudy is nobody’s idea of a libertarian (at least on issues such as government surveillance and executive power), but he’s fiscally conservative and socially liberal – the best a libertarian can hope for from today’s GOP.
Sager would be right except for one little thing. Giuliani’s campaign is currently imploding. What if Giuliani isn’t around to pick up the pieces?
If you take a look at the Republican nominating schedule you’ll see that they have a similar early schedule to the Democrats: Michigan on the 15th, Nevada and South Carolina on the 19th, and Florida on the 29th. Unlike the Democrats, the Republicans have not stripped all the delegates from Michigan and the candidates remain on the ballot and will campaign there. It is thought that Romney has an advantage in Michigan because his father was the governor (a long, long time ago). If Romney hasn’t won either of the first two contests, Michigan will be his last stand. Either way, Huckabee will be in a strong position in South Carolina.
Giuliani’s strategy is to stay competitive until January 29th and then win Florida. That’ll set him up on Feb. 5th to pile up delegates in states like New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, and California. But what if Giuliani isn’t viable anymore because of the collective weight of early losses and mounting scandal?
Who will stop Huckabee? The answer is, of course, John McCain. McCain could win in New Hampshire, but if he doesn’t he will be in a very poor position to stop Huckabee. Based on his current fundraising, he will be broke going into Super Tuesday. What will Robert Novak and the monied class of the Republican Party do to resuscitate the McCain campaign?
One problem they will have is that unlike Howard Dean or Bill Bradley, Huckabee has a very good relationship with the press. His pals in the media may not be willing to do their master’s bidding.
Clinton is brilliant to stay on the ballot in Michigan. It looks to me like it might be the deciding factor in the nominating process. Meanwhile, as I said in my strategy for Ron Paul the Republicans could wind up after Super Tuesday with a two man race between Mike Huckabee and Ron Paul. And when they pile up all the delegates for the convention…the Yankee republicans will run in droves to the candidacy of Michael Bloomberg.
I hate what the dumbass Michigan Democratic party did to the Michigan primary. What a bunch of tools.
Good analysis, but I’m not ready to bury Rudy yet. Years of missing public outrage over Republican scandals have taught me better.
I agree. It was idiotic. Do you think ‘uncommitted’ can win?
No, I don’t. I think Hillary is going to win in a landslide because too many of the people who want Edwards, Obama, Biden, etc are just going to stay home instead of coming to vote ‘uncommitted’. My prediction is that voter turnout will be pathetic and Hillary breaks the 65% mark.
Makes sense to me, although a well organized backlash campaign could dampen those numbers.
My pie in the sky hope is that the Hil and Obama cancel each other out and Edwards wins or even more preferably Kucinich.
Edwards is screwed by the Feb 5th primary, which includes 22 states. I can’t see how he can win unless he it is in a brokered deal with Obama at the convention. For that to happen, Edwards will need to learn the first two contests and with the help of Obama, keep Hillary under 50% of the total delegates.
It could happen, but it won’t be easy.
Maybe a little, but I don’t think it would have much of an effect. I would love to be wrong about this.
You also have to remember that the story now is that the delegates won’t be counted at the convention. You and I both know that it is possible, even likely that they will; but to the average voter (even the average primary voter), now they can not only not vote for their favorite candidate, but the election is meaningless anyway. Who shows up to cast protest votes in a meaningless election?
It’s dispiriting, to say the least.
I think you’re right, but then again, why would Hillary voters show up either? I think the candidates will get it across that the delegates will in fact count.
They’ll show up for a variety of reasons. Not taking victory for granted. Being proud to be able to cast a vote for the most qualified female Presidential candidate to ever be on a primary ballot. Knowing that a resounding victory will at least garner favorable press.
That’s not to say I think all of Hillary’s supporters will show up. But you have to admit that the positives for showing up to vote as a Hillary supporter far outweigh the positives as a supporter of any of the other top tier candidates.
I think I’m going to vote for Dodd. On a full ballot he wouldn’t be my first choice right now, but he’s also shown enough in the last couple months that I feel he’s earned my vote in this contest.
Well…we’ll have to decide whether to push all the anti-Hillary voters to Dodd or to ‘uncommitted’.
My guess is that Dodd wouldn’t really benefit for winning anyway, and he shouldn’t have allowed his name to be on the ballot. Plus, it just splits the ‘uncommitted’ vote.
And I say that as a person that would select Dodd if I had the power to choose the president (without worrying about nuisances like campaigning skills).
I disagree. I think that Hilary would have a good shot at winning Michigan if there was a campaign. The other candidates were being both clever and abiding by the spirit of the DNC rules by taking their names off. Now the campaigns who have withdrawn from the ballot are all on the same line on that ballot.
My guess is that grassroots efforts for all of the other candidates will try to turn out a decent turnout to vote for uncommitted. I don’t know what kind of support they will have, but especially if the race is turned on its head those volunteers will be very energized. Even if Hilary would have won a primary, if she loses to uncommitted she is in serious trouble.
Early states are about expectations as much as delegates and getting the word out. Hilary is expected to win in a landslide, there are no delegates, and the press will play down the story. Most of the coverage will be on the Republican side, not on this straw poll for the Democrats.
I agree that Hillary would have had a good shot at winning Michigan if there was a campaign. But I think it would have been a very interesting race, and it is a damn shame that we’re going to miss out on that now.
I just don’t see anything other than a Hillary landslide right now. Most people here are genuinely disappointed in what a joke the primary has become. Nearly all of my friends are Obama or Edwards supporters, and not a single one of them is planning on voting in the primary at all now.
The other campaigns’ volunteers may be moderately successful in pushing some of their supporters towards an uncommitted vote, but I just don’t think that many people are interested in casting what amounts to nothing more than an anti-Hillary symbolic vote.
I gotta side with ejmw here.
Who shows up to vote ‘uncommitted’?
Plus, I think you underestimate Team Clinton’s ability to spin things their way.
You’re right about one thing, though. Most of the media will be focused on the Republican side of the ledger.
So what’s wrong with a Guliani ticket? Okay, shut up. I only asked a question.
So is the religious right going for McCain instead of Romney? The guy said he made a mistake, while McCain thinks he can make on AIPAC money alone. What’s worse. And who is this guy, Huckabee? I think he is a Ron Paul lookalike and hopes to get ahead with the confusion.
I have been predicting a Huckuabee win in Iowa and a Guilliani win in NH. Romney is ahead there now but a loss in Iowa will hurt him badly. Now that Rudy is plagued by scandal I am not sure where those voters will go.
McCain did win there in 2000, but he was a very different candidate then. I am not sure if Huckabee can get a Buchanan style victory in NH especially with Ron Paul in the race. There do not seem to be enough social conservatives in NH give Huckabee a victory.
Unless Huckabee wins New Hampshire, the real showdown for him will be South Carolina. He can secure his position as the evangelical candidate in that state. I am not ready to call that, but I say it leans Huckabee regardless of the result of other states.
And if Hillary loses to Kucinich?
If America is tired enough of the bleeding war, just maybe everybody who enabled it and profited from it will get sent packing.
And if the Lions win the Superbowl?