The conventional wisdom going into this campaign season was that Democratic voters were, overall, much more enthusiastic about their presidential choices than Republicans were about theirs. In general, most Democrats felt they could live with any of the top three candidates seeking the nomination. There were the conspicuous Hillary-haters, but not enough of them to keep her from looking like the prohibitive favorite most of the time. The conventional wisdom going into this campaign season was that Democratic voters were, overall, much more enthusiastic about their presidential choices than Republicans were about theirs. In general, most Democrats felt they could live with any of the top three candidates seeking the nomination. There were the conspicuous Hillary-haters, but not enough of them to keep her from looking like the prohibitive favorite most of the time.
The Republicans, on the other hand, somehow assumed the usual Democratic mantle of the party of disappointment and dismay -- disappointed in their candidates and dismayed at their chances. The Democrats were unified; Republicans were in discord.
As was predictable, the conventional wisdom has begun to collapse, and one question facing Democrats is whether they will have anything to unify around after the fire season that the next month will represent.
Already, we have seen congressional Democrats' unity evaporate in the face of effective pushback from the White House, and as the primaries draw closer and the tempers get shorter, we've seen previews of how ugly the presidential campaign will get. Bill Shaheen's deep concern about what the Republicans would do to Barack Obama over his drug use in college was only the beginning.
In Iowa, the polls are close; the stakes are high and the process is wholly unpredictable. Which means the next phase is bound to be really nasty. The most recent Washington Post-ABC News poll shows Obama building on a small lead over Hillary Clinton and John Edwards, with 33 percent of the vote, over Clinton's 29 percent and Edwards' 20 percent. But the polls also show that Hillary's voters are more sure of who they are going to vote for, while Edwards leads among veteran caucus-goers who have a demonstrated history of turning out.
Anyone who reads an Obama win in the most recent poll is quickly reminded that Hillary Clinton has in her corner Teresa Vilmain, the Democratic operative who has been running campaigns in the state for 20 years and is regarded as something of an oracle when it come to Iowa politics.
And although the overheated national media coverage says Iowa is a two-person race on the Democratic side, none other than David Yepsen, dean of Iowa political press, presents a scenario in which Edwards can still win. He notes that "Edwards and his people never quit, no matter how bleak things got in recent months. On Monday, he picked up Iowa first lady Mari Culver's endorsement. And he still shows enough strength in rural Iowa that Obama is devoting considerable time to those areas these days in an effort to take some of the anti-Hillary vote from Edwards."
Yepsen also believes that Thompson can make a run at Mike Huckabee and Mitt Romney. Consider that fact as you weigh his analysis.
It is worth remembering that just over 124,000 people voted in the last Iowa caucuses. With so much riding on what these few caucus-goers from this little state might do an a very cold night in January, expect panic and desperation to kick in among the campaigns sometime soon.
Despite all the talk that Iowans won't countenance or reward meanness in campaigns, it's a safe bet that at some point just after Christmas, this thing is going to go nuclear. Already, the conspiracy theories have begun to emerge. Among the questions:
- Will Edwards, if he loses Iowa, at some point throw his support to Obama, just to stop Hillary?
- Will he stay in just to keep his supporters from going to Hillary?
- Is the Clinton campaign secretly helping Edwards in Iowa, to prevent Obama from winning?
- Would a fading Obama campaign align itself with Edwards or step aside and let Hillary proceed to the coronation that had been predicted?
I dismiss all of these notions and suspect that since each campaign still thinks it has a shot to win, even if they were so inclined, there would not be enough time for conspiring. Three weeks from now, Democrats may not recognize the candidates about whom they were so enthusiatic when the campaign began. Edwards, who a few weeks ago was the biggest attack dog in the race, harshly criticizing Clinton at every turn, has decided to play nice all of a sudden. Obama, who had allowed Edwards to do his dirty work for him against Hillary early on, is now attacking both Clinton and Edwards. And the once-unstoppable Clinton juggernaut is downplaying expectations in Iowa.
All of this is happening just as Republican evangelicals, at least in Iowa, seem to be settling on Mike Huckabee as their candidate and just as John McCain's steadfast support of the Iraq War has finally begun to pay dividends among the Republican base.
A month from now, it'll be interesting to see who's enthusiastic and who's disappointed.
