Some predictions on how the 2008 Primaries will play out

[WorldResident]

Y'all can hold me to this in a year.

Only those candidates with sufficiently high name recognition (in this case Clinton, Obama, and Edwards) who can show him or herself to be both liberal and electable can be the national frontrunner(s) come the first Iowa caucus. All three candidates fit these criteria, so the tiebreaker come January will be who has spent the most money on the primary race.

So ...

1. Whoever has spent the most money out of Obama, Edwards, and Clinton will be the national frontrunner before the Iowa caucus.

Moreover, whoever has made it to the Iowa caucus will have enough steam to get through at least the New Hampshire primary.

2. No one who is viable right before the Iowa caucus will drop out until after the New Hampshire priimary.

Regardless of how bad the initial frontrunner does in the first three elections, he or she will not be forced to drop out until after further primaries. Furthermore, any candidate who performs worse than the initial frontrunner in Iowa, Nevada, and New Hampshire will not have a shot and will have to drop out.

3. After the New Hampshire primary, the only viable Democratic candidates will be the pre-Iowa caucus front runner and any candidate that has earned more votes than that frontrunner in any of the three primary races. If there is a tie for who was frontrunner, then anybody who polls higher than either one of the frontrunners remains a viable candidate.


After the Iowa caucus comes the Nevada primary then the New Hampshire primary. If the initial frontrunner does not win all three states, his or her frontrunner status may be challenged by anyone who ever polled higher than him or her depending on the specific results.

4. The post-New Hampshire frontrunner will be the intitial frontrunner or anybody that has polled higher than him or her in any election. If the intial frontrunner was outpolled in all three states by the same one or more people, then he or she will no longer be the frontrunner. Then, the frontrunner status will go to anybody who has not been outpolled by the same person or people in all three races.

The only candidate who did not win Iowa or New Hampshire to really come back in recent memory was Bill Clinton. However, the only reason this was possible was because Tsongas really could not compete with Clinton in the South. This was an exception, not the norm.

5. The only way a non-frontrunner can win the nomination after New Hampshire is if he or she has a distinct advantage in the upcoming states.

[illinoisprogressive]

1. Very interesting. We will see if you are right!

[yourout]

2. Something is wrong with having to BUY the presidency.

Our founding fathers would be furious with the currrent state of elections and politics in general.

[Kelly Rupert]

3. Good common sense.

Good reading.

[Ignacio Upton]

4. Well, since Nevada is going up early

and since the primary system will be more frontloaded than ever, I think we can safely throw history out the window on this one...unless the person who wins Iowa does it in such a shocking "comeback kid" type of way that Kerry did in 2004, thereby creating a snowball effect that gave him crucial victories in NH and other early primaries due to frontloading. Assuming that Hillary wins Iowa and New Hampshire in terms of the expectations game, then if Edwards, Obama or Richardson (being a southwestern Governor) win Nevada, then there will be a drawn out primary. 2004 would have had one too had Dean won Iowa and New Hampshire as expected. Such a drawn out scenario would have led to Clark emerging as the "anti-Dean." We'll see if Hillary is still the front runner in ten months from now, and if the "anti-Hillary" will be Obama, Edwards or Gore (and to a lesser extent, Clark and Richardson.)