×
Two interesting points on the state of play in Iowa and New Hampshire. First, Chris Bowers on whether Hilary Clinton is inevitable:
It is possible that Clinton isn’t even winning in Iowa anymore. Rasmussen actually shows a three-way tie in Iowa at 26% among “certain” voters. ARG has long been thought to sample too broad a population in Iowa for an event as narrow as the caucuses. CBS / NYT shows Edwards and Obama with a gaping advantage among second-place choices (page 10, Edwards 30%, Obama 27%, Clinton 14%). Combine this all with a negative trendline for Clinton, and yes, it is entirely possible that she is no longer winning in Iowa. Then again, she might still be winning. Right now, it is impossible to say.Then, George Will -- yes, I know -- on how a Barack Obama victory in Iowa could affect the Republican primary:
An Obama victory in Iowa might be initially injurious to Romney, but beneficial to him four days later in New Hampshire. If Romney, who leads in Iowa, wins there and Obama beats Clinton, the latter story will overshadow the former. But an Obama win in Iowa would radically raise the stakes of the Democrats' New Hampshire primary. Independents there can vote in either party's primary. In 2000, they flooded into the Republican contest, dooming Bill Bradley's challenge to Al Gore and propelling John McCain to victory over George W. Bush, who won the Republican portion of that primary. If this time independents are drawn to the Democratic primary, that will hurt not just McCain but also Giuliani, whose strength with independents supports his claim of superior electability.You know what's fun about primary season? Nobody knows anything, and there are six completely plausible arguments for any position you care to advocate.--Ezra Klein
