Monday, October 01, 2007
Over the past week or so, the pundits narrative of the race for the for the Democratic Presidential nomination has revolved around the question of whether Hillary Clinton’s nomination is inevitable. Those who say yes point to her large and growing leads in the national polls and in early primary states such as New Hampshire, Florida, and South Carolina (see summary of weekly poll results).
Those who take the opposite view point to Iowa and Howard Dean’s temporary status as frontrunner in the 2004 campaign.
In Iowa, polls suggest a much tighter race than anywhere else. This, plus the fact that caucus polling is less reliable than primary election polling, means that just about anything could happen when voters finally get to participate in Election 2008.
What all this means is that Clinton is a far more serious frontrunner than Howard Dean. She has more organizational depth, support, and other resources than Dean ever imagined. Also, while Dean had a committed following, he was hardly anybody’s second choice during the run-up to Election 2004. Clinton is more acceptable to those who see other candidates as their top choice.
But, her nomination is not inevitable. Self-inflicted wounds are always a threat to any frontrunner and the Senator from New York proved that point last Friday—by a 2-to-1 margin, voters oppose her proposal to provide a $5,000 savings bond for every child born in the United States. More unforced errors might provide just the break needed by her challengers.
And, of course, there is always Iowa. Supporters of Barack Obama and John Edwards are quick to remember that Howard Dean was the polling frontrunner everywhere until he lost in Iowa. They are right to point out that a loss in Iowa would probably have an immediate impact on Clinton’s polling and prospects in other states.
But, the magnitude of the impact will likely depend on the magnitude of the defeat.
In 2004, Howard Dean didn’t just lose in Iowa, he lost very badly. Kerry won 38% of the vote and John Edwards came in second at 31%. Dean couldn’t even reach half of Kerry’s total and finished a distant third at 18%. If Clinton loses that badly in Iowa 2008, her status as frontrunner would be in serious jeopardy. A more narrow loss in Iowa would be a challenge for Clinton, but not necessarily a challenge that would undo her campaign.
At the other end of the spectrum, a Clinton victory in Iowa would likely end any hopes for Obama or Edwards to wrest the nomination from her. As noted last week, Iowa has become a must-win state for the challengers.
http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/2008_democratic_presidential_primary