by Gregory White
11th December 2007
After an interminable campaign so far, the US Presidential primaries are about to commence. While the buildup has been long, the actual competition may be short lived. Events begin on January 3 2008 with the Iowa Caucuses where both Republican and Democratic presidential hopefuls will find their candidacies debated and voted over in schools, churches, and homes across the state.
In previous elections, it was easy to underestimate the importance of the Iowa primary. Now that the pre-campaign goes on so long, its distance from the majority of national primaries means it can no longer be counted as such. Candidates this time around are pouring time and money into the state realizing its strategic importance as either the kick-start or the final piece their campaign needs. New Hampshire will quickly follow on January 8, and South Carolina is poised thereafter. The focus will then shift to February 5, when more than twenty states will be holding their primaries – hence its being named Super Tuesday, the Tuesday of Destiny or (unbelievably tastelessly) Tsunami Tuesday. Be prepared for the two nominations to be practically decided by then, however, having condensed two years of grind into a short burst of three weeks’ intense campaigning.
This is because the difference is profound in this election compared to 2004. There are no incumbents. No definitive front-runner for the Republicans has emerged so far, while the Democratic frontrunner, Senator Hillary Clinton, has recently faltered in the polls. The Republican who wins Iowa will move to New Hampshire five days later with a key logistical advantage, having already established precious legitimacy to his presidential bid. As for the Democrats, many view Iowa as the last chance for candidates other than Hillary Clinton to assert themselves.
The Republican Party is heavily divided as to which candidate best represents their chance for election simultaneously with their fervor for political morality. This will come out with a vengeance in the early caucuses. While former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani is the national frontrunner, he is not welcome in Iowa as many in the state view him as lacking the moral, Christian brand of rhetoric they desire in a candidate. Giuliani has divorced twice and moves with a crowd of liberal New Yorkers whom many Midwesterners naturally despise. While Mormon candidate Mitt Romney had been dominating here, his lead is now slipping to Arkansas governor and pastor Mike Huckabee. If Huckabee, who was just weeks ago considered an outsider in this fiercely competitive and financially draining campaign cycle, wins in Iowa he will have made a national campaign out of what weeks ago seemed a chanceless bid. If Romney wins, this turns the race for the Republican nomination into a two-candidate campaign, as New Hampshire no longer cares for the former rebel politician Senator John McCain. It seems as if the role of religion will yet again decide another Republican candidate for President.
Most Democratic candidates have a much simpler agenda to their Iowa Caucus campaigns: stop Clinton. Senator Hillary Clinton, stepping out and yet steeped in the shadow of her husband, has been in poll leadership from the start of this election cycle. She is ruthless, effective, and extremely organised. While she can at times appear cold and calculated, she is in the national lead by a wide margin and has seen little of that early success erode. Iowa, however, offers a point of weakness for her campaign. Senator Barack Obama and former Senator John Edwards, with their anti-establishment rhetoric and promise of hope for a new generation of Americans, are polling well in this state. Clinton has been forced to go on the attack against Obama, something his campaign is relishing as it gives this somewhat faded Democrat darling vital media space. Edwards is waiting patiently on the sidelines, hoping that somehow he will be able to pull off a similar surprise to his result in 2004, where he catapulted his campaign in Iowa with a third place finish.
Despite their importance for assessing the state of the field so far, polls will not really matter over the next few weeks. The faulty nature of such assessments was plain in the build-up to 2004’s election, when Howard Dean dominated before faltering in Iowa. Instead, the candidates will have to walk a tightrope of gaffes and slip-ups. With so much media attention paid to the campaign cycle – especially as the hyper-attentive blogosphere is far more influential now than in 2004 – there is little room for error from candidates on either side of the political spectrum. Clinton is fantastic at this and, while occasionally confronting the rogue staffer or two, she runs a tight campaign rarely ever stating policy in a way that would elicit antagonism. This is important for her, as Clinton’s national disapproval ratings are highest of the Democratic candidates: she is a highly polarising figure. Obama has a history of weak argument and failing to capitalise on his opponents’ mistakes. This may turn to his advantage in positive-campaign-loving Iowa, but hinder him thereafter. Edwards is rarely prone to a loose tongue, but has been overly aggressive against Hilary Clinton, considered by him as part of the Washington establishment. He has, however, adjusted to this failure by cutting back on the vitriol and running a positive campaign to appeal to Iowa’s voters.
Just a week into the New Year, American voters will have a clear idea of who has a chance for victory, and who has been relegated to the position of possible vice- presidential candidate. If, however, Huckabee and Obama or Edwards triumphs, things could remain cloudy through to February 5. Tsunami Tuesday, then, could become the most dramatic American political event since the Florida recount.