You say you want a revolution
Well, you know
We all want to change the world.-- The Beatles
Since I can think about nothing else today, which shouldn't be a suprise since I haven't thought about much else since last February when the madness really began, I thought I would go out on a limb in sharing my read of the current political landscape, as well as my predictions for tonight's caucus results. Drum roll please!
1.Americans want real change, not just a new President. GWB’s ratings are not only low because of him though he is the easiest target for much of the blame. Anyone connected with the current government will pay a price for that relationship, not just Republicans. We are ultimately a revolutionary people. A change in political parties controlling the Executive branch does not satisfy our historical spirit for rebellion and change. The American Revolution itself was a unique and radical event that produced deep changes and had a profound impact on world affairs. I believe each generation of Americans produce their own revolutions with similar results. The current political atmosphere is suggesting now is the time.
Despite pundits focus on the democrats having the upper-hand in this election cycle, the Republicans have no one running that is heavily connected to a government legacy. A Clinton victory in Iowa will lead to a Republican win in the fall regardless of the Republican on the ticket because the general electorate will see her, not only as the liberal caricature that anti-Clintonians love to paint her as, but more importantly as the candidate least likely to revolutionize the current State of the Union. Since 1980 a Bush or Clinton has appeared on the national ticket, Senator Clinton in the White House will be seen as a continuation of the governments we have had over the last 30 years.
2.The “revolutionary” feel will drive unprecedented numbers to the caucuses in Iowa, regardless of weather, voting history and Independent status.
Based on some of these thoughts, trends in the polls over the last several months, and naturally a bit of my heart, I predict:
The democratic caucuses will place Senator Barack Obama in first place, the candidate of change (see revolution), John Edwards in second, and Senator Clinton in third. The results will be close, but not the dead heat many pundits are expecting.
Romney will barely squeak out a win in the Republican caucuses, over a second place Huckabee, but the story that will dominate media coverage of the Republican caucuses with be Senator John McCains stunning thrid place finish.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
I, too, have been preoccupied all day. What good is a dissertation when there is an election (or caucus) to be had? I was going to email you if we didn't get a post today.
I agree with many of your predictions. I think Obama will win (with a 4 or five percent margin) for the Democrats. I'm guessing it will be a toss-up between Edwards and Clinton. I'm not as convinced (as much as I would like it to be the case) that the American people are revolutionary in their electoral politics (at least not since the New Deal). The moments of real potential revolution--such as the '72 McGovern campaign--have been undermined by a persistent old guard that seems to weather political unrest pretty well. Seeming revolutions, such as JFKs election in 1960 or Reagan's election in 1980 were more emotional revolutions than policy revolts (JFK for all the youth and vigor he seemed to bring the office and a renewed sense of civic engagement that had diminished during the 1950s, held on to most of the Cold War policies of he inherited. The Civil Rights revolution of the late-50s and 60s, I would argue, was largely extra-governmental--even the federal government only came along dragging its feet as much as possible. Reagan brought new constituencies to the table but basically sought to return the country to pre-New Deal policies--a reactionary rather than revolutionary approach). That is just a long way of saying that I think there is as much sentiment in the country (even now) for the familiar and institutionally entrenched as there is for revolution. So I think it is quite possible that a Clinton win in the primaries would result in a Democratic win in November. For all of the "throw-the-bums-out grumbling" about congress as well as the presidency, the Democrats are still out-fundraising the Republicans by substantial margins--unheard of in the last several decades. I hope that Obama takes Iowa, giving him enough momentum to take New Hampshire and South Carolina. If that is the case, I think the party regulars will swing toward him in the remaining primaries.
On the Republican side, I hope that Romney edges out Huckabee--not out of any love for Romney (as if I would vote for any of the Republicans anyway), but out of a deeply felt repulsion for the way that Huckabee has attempted, through careful but obvious equivocation, to undermine the separation of church and state and make the election about his Christian credentials. What I do think is interesting about the Republican campaign is that they have not tried to distance themselves from W. With the exception of Huckabee (who for the above reason I find intolerable--along with his tax plan that is such a give away to the rich I can hardly believe that he manages to maintain his "populist" appeal) all of the candidates have closely allied themselves to the President on one or more issues (even McCain has tied his horse to the President's (current) war policy and immigration policy). So I think that the Republicans--with the possible exception of Huckabee--will lose the general election because they can't win the infamous "base" of the currently constructed Republican Party without aligning themselves too closely with the current administration to be viable in the general election.
In any case, about three hours from now we'll know how many of our initial predictions for Iowa are accurate.
Tad
One state down . . . just a few more to go. Yeah, Senator Obama!
Tad
Sina-
What excellent predictions! We went and caucused last night and it was quite exciting. In our city, Mitt Romney won by a huge margin, but somehow silly Huckabee won the state. Ah well. We were exctied about Obama's significant winning margin. Mostly we are just glad that you care enough about little ole Iowa to write a post such as this. Merry Caucus.
Well you nailed the Democrats. I have to say though I'm certainly not one of his nutsos I think the media's ignoring of Ron Paul's performance is a travesty. How can an obscure Congressman poll 10% of the vote and then be excluded by Fox news from their debate? Do you think they're worried about the emminent Libertarian revolt from HuckOP?
Post a Comment