Outside Counsel

The interesting thing about the Iowa Caucus outcomes is the turnout: 100k more than ever before in history on the Democrat's side. That's pretty significant, as is the fact that on both sides the turnout favored the, you should excuse the expression, dark horse. The Hawkeye State story has historically been about organization, but it wasn't this time. Romney spent a ton of dough, and had serious operational infrastructure in place-- this loss is very serious for him. Edwards wasn't quite all in, but it is still surprising to see that big turnout didn't favor him-- I expect he will get some traction back on Super Tuesday, but I doubt it will be enough. This is turning into a two person contest, and the front runner has changed. I don't think New Hampshire is going to make much difference in sorting things out. I'd expect that Edwards is prepared for a third place finish there. I haven't given much thought to Obama's appeal in the South. Thinking about it now, South Carolina is looking like an interesting place to watch.

It's a nice problem to have, the choice between three people who would all be far better than the last eight years. I still think that HRC is probably the only Democrat that could lose, basically for the reasons Scott Lemieux argues: I'm a liberal, and want a liberal to win, rather than a moderate who is percieved as a liberal. "Given that there are at least two good alternatives, I just can't see supporting a centrist candidate with a reputation as a liberal, and who also seems especially likely to mobilize what may otherwise be an undermotivated GOP base." (I also think that Hillary would poll particularly poorly against either McCain or Huckabee.) I reckon last night's results will pull the Dems a bit to the left, and I like that; I'll be voting for Mike Gravel when the time comes, but I don't mind rooting for Barak.