Iowa Caucuses

As might be expected, the political two-thirds of the U.S. sector in blogsville is abuzz with some quick dissection of yesterday’s caucuses, before turning speculation to Tuesday’s primary in New Hampshire.

One comment that caught my eye was over at Politico, where it was observed:

If Romney loses again in New Hampshire, where he had until recently been leading, his candidacy will go on life support.

You know….I realize that the ‘08 campaign cycle is unique, and it’s probably risky to attempt to draw comparisons to prior elections.   However, I can’t help but be reminded of ‘96, where Buchanan did surprisingly well in Iowa and New Hampshire, before fading in more relevant states, permitting Dole to win the nomination.

Buchanan was also a populist figure with strong conservative Christian credentials, although the similarity ends when you contrast Buchanan’s abrasiveness to Huckabee’s nice guy exterior.

Ah well…just a random thought on my part.   Let the circus continue!

So, tomorrow is the Iowa caucus, and as might be expected, folks are making their final predictions.

The most interesting of these, I think, are Robert Novak’s, who’s expecting:

• On the GOP side: Romney first, Huckabee second, Thompson third, McCain fourth, and Ron Paul fifth
   
• …however there’s potential for quite a bit of volatility among the number 3, 4, and 5 positions.  (”Ron Paul could make a splash, as well. He’s in fifth place in most polls, but his supporters are unmatched in enthusiasm and dedication. A third-place finish for Paul is not out of the question.”)
   
• Among the Dems: Obama first, Edwards second, Clinton third, and Richardson fourth-but-irrelevant.
   
• Expect Obama and Edwards to benefit the most from Iowa’s 15% viability rule, since Clinton is rarely anyone’s second choice.  (You apparently love Hillary or hate her.  Edwards appears to be the most popular choice among supporters for the also-rans.)
   
• Novak also mentions the possibility that the rest of the Democratic field could drop out, perhaps even before New Hampshire next week.

  (Personally, I’d think that Richardson, Dodd, and Biden would hold on in the off chance of a miracle in New Hampshire, but it’s likely that they’ll admit non-viability very soon now.  Kucinich and Gravel I’d think would hang on, out of nuttiness and orneriness respectively.)

One of the “strange” (to a casual observer, at least) elements of the Iowa Democratic caucuses is the viability rule. Essentially at any caucus location, if any particular candidate fails to achieve 15% support, that candidate’s supporters are asked to support a more viable candidate (or leave).

Given the large number of candidates seeking Iowans’ support, there is some expectation that deal-making may play a role in the outcome of the Dems’ caucus. David Yepsen with the Des Moines Register writes:

At most caucuses, frontrunners Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and John Edwards will have 15 percent. The others may not. The question then is, what do the Richardson, Biden and Dodd people do? Most will make up their own mind. It’s why the second choice preferences of their supporters are so important.

But some of these folks might like a little guidance from their standard bearer. It’s why the actions of the single digit candidates are still important in the closing days of the campaign.

Four years ago, on caucus day the Dennis Kucinich and John Edwards people cut a deal: In those precincts where one of them wasn’t viable, his people were encouraged to go with the one that was. In those precincts where neither were viable, people were encouraged to form a viable group around the one with the most votes. It proved an important factor in Edwards good showing.

While Kucinich didn’t have much support, his people did give Edwards a few extra percentage points that helped push him into second place.

If you’ve been living in a cave, the Iowa Caucuses are the evening of Thursday, 3 January (and Friday will probably be full of armchair punditry online and in the mainstream media….)