So...I Was Way Off
As far as my Republican predictions in Iowa, I went 0-3, while I was 1-3 in my predictions for the Democrats. All in all, not great guesswork on my part.
I thought Huckabee's numerous gaffes, especially on foreign policy matters, would propel Romney into first in Iowa, but the voters were swayed more by fluffy, sappy rhetoric than the actual issues. Republican voters need to realize that Huckabee has no shot of beating either Obama or Hillary in a national election, and the sooner they do realize that, the better.
I was way, way off on the Democratic side of things. I thought Obama would nudge out Hillary instead of obliterating her like he did. He is now in the driver's seat in New Hampshire (one poll has him getting as much as 41% of the vote), and has pulled into a national tie with Clinton according to a recent USA Today/Gallup poll.
This election has now turned into one about "change," which is a phrase that has been used dozens of times over the last two days of debates in New Hampshire. I thought Rudy Giuliani brought up a great point last night during the Fox News debate, when he challenged the entire concept by saying that change isn't necessarily a good thing:
"Change is a slogan, and the examination has to be is it change for good or change for bad?" (link).
Giuliani continued this line of thinking on the campaign trail today:
"A lot of candidates are talking about change. Change is natural. Without change we regress. But change can be good or bad. One change is that the government can raise taxes. That's the kind of change Democrats are talking about." (link)
I think people are making a mistake by counting Giuliani out this early. I believe he is the best Republican candidate in the field, and while he is not the most conservative socially, I believe that could be smoothed out with voters with the selection of Fred Thompson as his VP. I know that is a very premature notion, but I believe that a Giuliani/Thompson ticket is a winner.
Back with New Hampshire primary predictions later...
I thought Huckabee's numerous gaffes, especially on foreign policy matters, would propel Romney into first in Iowa, but the voters were swayed more by fluffy, sappy rhetoric than the actual issues. Republican voters need to realize that Huckabee has no shot of beating either Obama or Hillary in a national election, and the sooner they do realize that, the better.
I was way, way off on the Democratic side of things. I thought Obama would nudge out Hillary instead of obliterating her like he did. He is now in the driver's seat in New Hampshire (one poll has him getting as much as 41% of the vote), and has pulled into a national tie with Clinton according to a recent USA Today/Gallup poll.
This election has now turned into one about "change," which is a phrase that has been used dozens of times over the last two days of debates in New Hampshire. I thought Rudy Giuliani brought up a great point last night during the Fox News debate, when he challenged the entire concept by saying that change isn't necessarily a good thing:
"Change is a slogan, and the examination has to be is it change for good or change for bad?" (link).
Giuliani continued this line of thinking on the campaign trail today:
"A lot of candidates are talking about change. Change is natural. Without change we regress. But change can be good or bad. One change is that the government can raise taxes. That's the kind of change Democrats are talking about." (link)
I think people are making a mistake by counting Giuliani out this early. I believe he is the best Republican candidate in the field, and while he is not the most conservative socially, I believe that could be smoothed out with voters with the selection of Fred Thompson as his VP. I know that is a very premature notion, but I believe that a Giuliani/Thompson ticket is a winner.
Back with New Hampshire primary predictions later...
posted by Nick J. | 5:56 PM
<< Home