Personally I think a primary is a better gage than a caucus. And New Hampshire is traditionally the first in the nation test. But even then, no one ever says as Iowa or New Hampshire goes, so goes the nation.
The early primaries accomplish just two viable roles, as early showcases, they raise the questions that will later shape the other campaigns and weed out the candidates with no appeal.
We have already lost Dodd and Biden in Iowa, and lost Tommy Thompson, and Tom Tancredo earlier. Its difficult to see how Duncan Hunter can stay in.
Which set of candidates will be the next to drop? But traditionally one candidate on both sides comes into the political convention with better than 50% of the delegates and is therefore unstoppable.
And 2008 is the most explosive year since 1968 in MHO. 2008 is a minefield of volatility with many issues in a state of flux as the curtain starts to descend on the GWB years. The main danger for both parties is to select an unstoppable early front runner and then to have events break the other way leaving their certain nominee totally discredited by events. And front loading our primaries increases that danger.
In 1968 we saw the dems fall apart into an inter party civil war, in 2008, it may well be the GOP that falls into that inter party civil war. Its really going to depend on unknowable future events.
Facebook
Twitter