2008 Analysis: Iowa Caucus, New Hampshire Primary, and South Carolina Primary
Because a Presidential election is more than "pick your favorite candidate" no 2008 analysis can be had without detailed inspection into the first caucus and three primaries of the nomination process.
The results of the Iowa caucus and the New Hampshire, and South Carolina primaries will decide who our candidate will be in 2008. Each state has their own rules a candidate must obey to get elected, so they need to dealt with individually. This is why the polls that are normally used for 2008 are inaccurate.
This is early analysis, but 2008 really isn't that far off, and its not too early to make educated guesses.
So lets break it down, state by state. (Excluding all politicians who have ruled out campaigns and candidates who are very not likely to run: Condi, Jeb, Pawlenty, Sanford, Pence, Santorum, Barbour)
Also, I will use the terms first and second tier throughout the diary. I define candidates in the first tier as politicians who register double digits in polls (Rudy, McCain, Newt), and candidates in the second tier as politicians who normally find themselves in the high single digits (Romney, Allen, Brownback).
Jan 2nd, 2006: 00:48:37
Iowa Caucus:
The Iowa caucus is the first indicator for 2008. The biggest issue in Iowa for Presidential elections is always the support for ethanol and increasing its use as an alternative fuel in the United States. This means trouble for Senator McCain, who holds an anti-ethanol stance, which is one of the reasons he skipped the Iowa caucuses in his 2000 presidential campaign. That leaves Rudy and Newt as the only first tier candidates remaining, with Allen, Brownback, and Romney vying for attention in the second tier.
Also worth noting, which could be damaging to Rudy's candidacy is that the Iowa GOP is a pro-life anti-roe organiztion, and will not support a pro-choice candidate.
The candidate spending the most time in Iowa has been Newt Gingrich so far, and considering his pro-life and pro-ethanol stances, I give Newt the edge in Iowa. Also on Newt's side is name recognition, which is huge in Iowa considering the lack of money spent there because of the earliness of the event. That's what will hurt the second tier most in Iowa.
New Hampshire
In 2000, New Hampshire was McCain's state, as he beat Bush by 19 points. This shows New Hampshire's appeal for non-establishment type candidates, reinforcing the belief established in 1996 when Buchanan won the New Hampshire primary.
However, 2008 looks much different than 2000, considering the ammount of northeastern candidates that will be considering a 2008 bid. Geographically, Giuliani has the strongest advantage. Also, Governor Romney should have a strong showing considering the proximity of New Hampshire and Massachusetts.
Politically, Giuliani seems to have the strongest hold on the views of the New Hampshire voter, considering New Hampshire is one of the more moderate states when it comes to abortion.
All things considered, it seems as if Rudy has a lock on New Hampshire regardless of what he plans on doing about his social issues (but a federalist argument should work fine too.)
South Carolina
South Carolina seems to be the most wide open primary of the bunch, with the most electable conservative seeming to be the most important issue on the table. South Carolina also tends to favor establishment type candidates.
Regardless of a federalist argument, I do not see Rudy Giuliani winning South Carolina. South Carolina will not go for a New Yorker.
That leaves McCain, Gingrich, Allen, Romney, and Brownback. All of whom should have put up good numbers. That's why it's so incredibly difficult to project who will win South Carolina.
In 2000, McCain registered 42% of the vote against Bush's 53%. The major difference between that primary and this primary is the ammount of credible candidates that will demand attention. There are as many as six candidates who could put up double digits.
There are two situations I see playing out in South Carolina, either Allen narrowly wins South Carolina by presenting a conservative enough establishment alternative to Rudy and McCain. Or Newt narrowly wins the primary by clearly defeating his opponents in primary debates.
The first scenario seems more likely. But Newt really is a wild card that's hard to measure.
The Next Primaries
Will be further analyzed later. (Michigan, Arizona, Virginia, Washington)
The author is correct about South Carolina being the most wide open of the bunch. He is also correct about the most electable conservative winning. He is wrong about Allen. I just do not see him having a strong campaign. He is also wrong about Indiana Congressman Mike Pence. I think this new style Reagan will run and he will do exceptionally well. Pence is the guy to watch for.
The results of the Iowa caucus and the New Hampshire, and South Carolina primaries will decide who our candidate will be in 2008. Each state has their own rules a candidate must obey to get elected, so they need to dealt with individually. This is why the polls that are normally used for 2008 are inaccurate.
This is early analysis, but 2008 really isn't that far off, and its not too early to make educated guesses.
So lets break it down, state by state. (Excluding all politicians who have ruled out campaigns and candidates who are very not likely to run: Condi, Jeb, Pawlenty, Sanford, Pence, Santorum, Barbour)
Also, I will use the terms first and second tier throughout the diary. I define candidates in the first tier as politicians who register double digits in polls (Rudy, McCain, Newt), and candidates in the second tier as politicians who normally find themselves in the high single digits (Romney, Allen, Brownback).
Jan 2nd, 2006: 00:48:37
Iowa Caucus:
The Iowa caucus is the first indicator for 2008. The biggest issue in Iowa for Presidential elections is always the support for ethanol and increasing its use as an alternative fuel in the United States. This means trouble for Senator McCain, who holds an anti-ethanol stance, which is one of the reasons he skipped the Iowa caucuses in his 2000 presidential campaign. That leaves Rudy and Newt as the only first tier candidates remaining, with Allen, Brownback, and Romney vying for attention in the second tier.
Also worth noting, which could be damaging to Rudy's candidacy is that the Iowa GOP is a pro-life anti-roe organiztion, and will not support a pro-choice candidate.
The candidate spending the most time in Iowa has been Newt Gingrich so far, and considering his pro-life and pro-ethanol stances, I give Newt the edge in Iowa. Also on Newt's side is name recognition, which is huge in Iowa considering the lack of money spent there because of the earliness of the event. That's what will hurt the second tier most in Iowa.
New Hampshire
In 2000, New Hampshire was McCain's state, as he beat Bush by 19 points. This shows New Hampshire's appeal for non-establishment type candidates, reinforcing the belief established in 1996 when Buchanan won the New Hampshire primary.
However, 2008 looks much different than 2000, considering the ammount of northeastern candidates that will be considering a 2008 bid. Geographically, Giuliani has the strongest advantage. Also, Governor Romney should have a strong showing considering the proximity of New Hampshire and Massachusetts.
Politically, Giuliani seems to have the strongest hold on the views of the New Hampshire voter, considering New Hampshire is one of the more moderate states when it comes to abortion.
All things considered, it seems as if Rudy has a lock on New Hampshire regardless of what he plans on doing about his social issues (but a federalist argument should work fine too.)
South Carolina
South Carolina seems to be the most wide open primary of the bunch, with the most electable conservative seeming to be the most important issue on the table. South Carolina also tends to favor establishment type candidates.
Regardless of a federalist argument, I do not see Rudy Giuliani winning South Carolina. South Carolina will not go for a New Yorker.
That leaves McCain, Gingrich, Allen, Romney, and Brownback. All of whom should have put up good numbers. That's why it's so incredibly difficult to project who will win South Carolina.
In 2000, McCain registered 42% of the vote against Bush's 53%. The major difference between that primary and this primary is the ammount of credible candidates that will demand attention. There are as many as six candidates who could put up double digits.
There are two situations I see playing out in South Carolina, either Allen narrowly wins South Carolina by presenting a conservative enough establishment alternative to Rudy and McCain. Or Newt narrowly wins the primary by clearly defeating his opponents in primary debates.
The first scenario seems more likely. But Newt really is a wild card that's hard to measure.
The Next Primaries
Will be further analyzed later. (Michigan, Arizona, Virginia, Washington)
The author is correct about South Carolina being the most wide open of the bunch. He is also correct about the most electable conservative winning. He is wrong about Allen. I just do not see him having a strong campaign. He is also wrong about Indiana Congressman Mike Pence. I think this new style Reagan will run and he will do exceptionally well. Pence is the guy to watch for.
posted by SCGOP at 7:24 AM
<< Home