The Agora

At least there are book reviews.

Márquez begins 'one hundred years of popularity'. The master of magic realism revisits his childhood. [Christian Science Monitor | Books]
8:52:43 PM    comment []trackback []

For a long time, I have said that the three most important factors in winning a party's presidential nomination are Iowa, New Hampshire and money. After all, 13 of the 14 major party nominations over the past seven elections have gone to a candidate who won Iowa or New Hampshire or both. Nine of the 10 nominations over the past five elections have gone to the person who raised the most money in the odd-numbered year before the presidential election.

Notwithstanding the fact the nine Democratic contenders will be gathering today in New Hampshire for the ABC News/WMUR-TV debate and I will be dutifully heading there next month for the primary, it's hard to argue with the premise that for the first time in memory, New Hampshire (22 delegates) might be of little if any consequence. The three most important factors now in winning the nomination are Iowa, money and Feb. 3, when six states host primaries.

Consider the two most likely scenarios (not in any particular order) in Iowa. Today former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean and Rep. Richard Gephardt of Missouri are locked in a neck-and-neck fight for the Jan. 19 caucus. With polls showing the race so close for so long, there is no real point spread. A win is a win. First, let's say Dean wins in Iowa. Given the past four polls taken in New Hampshire have shown Dean with a lead of anywhere from 14-32 percent, and Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry is doing a political "Dead Man Walking" imitation, it is hard to believe Dean would not win New Hampshire by an enormous margin. At this point, it looks as if no one else will be close enough to be in the same time zone as Dean in New Hampshire. Dean would prevail in the Gephardt stronghold of Iowa and the Kerry stronghold of Massachusetts. He then heads to Feb. 3, where his Iowa/New Hampshire victory momentum may well carry him through. This might allow him to win or do well enough to prevail even in what should be enemy territory (remember Michael Dukakis in the South on Super Tuesday in 1988).

It seems clear that Dean is going to win the nomination for two reasons: money and organization.

That he has the most money in itself wouldn't do it, but when you couple that with the fact that he is the only potential nominee who has run a decent campaign. Kerry, Gephardt and Clark just haven't run good campaigns, and at every turn that have failed to learn from the example set by Howard Dean. Sadly, Kerry's efforts have been a miserable failure to galvanize wide support; Gephardt hasn't run well outside of Iowa. Both Lieberman and Edwards have barely made an impression on primary voters. Any one who wants to make a case that this isn't over needs to float some vaguely plausible scenario where anyone but Dean can win.
7:14:07 AM    comment []trackback []