I'm predicting....Hillary...Romney.
Good luck on the show! I'll keep an eye out for you!

Huckabee will make a stronger-than-expected showing. Guiliani will make a weaker-than-expected showing. Romney will win.

Toss the dice on the Dems. It's really too tough to call. Edwards may come through stronger in Iowa than we all think, also Hillary Clinton. I'm not sure Obama will be as strong there as the polls expect.

BTW, Obama's comments about Hillary were stupid. Suddenly there's nothing to be learned by being an observer? Good grief.

karoli (odd time signatures)

II think Huckabee will pull ahead in the end because he represents a more traditional conservative point of view. Romney, although he pleases conservatives on many levels, may still feel like an outsider to Iowans because of his religious affiliation. Even though his speech on the topic may have allayed some concerns, I think Iowans will feel more comfortable with Huckabee. I think McCain will have a strong showing because of his patriotic appeal, but Rudy might as well wipe this one off his slate.

On the Democatic side, the choices are not as clear to me. I think Hillary may ride Bill's tattered coattails to victory--but Edwards might well pull out a surprise win because of his blue-collar appeal.

I am remembering Obama's "arugula" comment and thinking he will seem too different from many of the voters in Iowa to win. His references to Bill Clinton may actually hurt his campaign because that seems to indicate that even he thinks Hillary is more on the right track than he is--like he's borrowing her ideas.

Just my take. It will be interesting to see what others have to say.

Granny Sue
Stories from the Mountains and Beyond
www.grannysu.blogspot.com
susannaholstein@yahoo.com

http://www.politicalseason.blogspot.com
With five days to go to the Iowa Caucus, our predictions now on how the Iowa Caucus results will shake out.

Democrats:

Our Prediction: Hillary Clinton will squeak out a narrow win in the Iowa Caucus.

We believe it will shake out Clinton, Obama, Edwards and then the rest of the field.

Our rationale: Based on polling data at Real Clear Politics Clinton is leading in the polls and if I'm reading their data right, the trending seems to be favoring her at least through 12/13/07. The results are within the margin of error currently, but if the trending is right, it may be breaking back Hillary's way. Furthermore, Obama is facing a serious challenge from Edwards, who appears to be making a surge and his numbers are drawing him closer to Obama. In our view, Edwards does not have a real shot at the nomination long term, both from an electability standpoint and a resource standpoint. A win or even a close third place run though will keep him in the game for a little longer, but ultimately his campaign is going to succumb to the liberal, left wing lack of depth and intellectual honesty in his campaign. We think Obama will manage to weather this late inning challenge and hold Edwards at bay to finish a near second to Clinton. However, in our view, the Clinton campaign should manage to edge Obama out with a win in excess of the margin of error. Political Season says Clinton wins by a 5-7% margin of victory.

Republicans:

Our Prediction: Mike Huckabee will win commandingly, with Romney taking 2nd place. We like Thompson to take 3rd place, since he is the next most appealing candidate for evangelicals after the Huckster.

Real Clear polling data has Huckabee holding a firm lead and Romney trailing. Huckabee appears to have tapped right into the evangelical vein in Iowa and that has helped propel him forward over Romney, whose Mormon background, flip floppy rep and quite probably his misstatements and/or outright lies about things like his father marching with King have not served him well.

While we are going to call the third spot for Thompson, based on the polling data, we take official blog notice of the Iowa Independents' power rankings, which have been released periodically throughout the campaign. The Independent has consistently had Edwards in first place in recent weeks, but has now switched to Obama as the front runner. Even more interesting to us, they are suggesting a Ron Paul third place showing, an interesting thought for a candidate that one can make a case has a real racial bias issue.

In any event, its our view that the Iowa results will not be indicative of the long term outcome of the nomination fight on the GOP side. We expect it to come down to a national slugfest of Guiliani, Romney and McCain.

Does anyone know what happens if there is indeed, a 3 way tie in Iowa? Probably unlikely, but fun to think about.

For the Dems:

I think Hillary wins Iowa. She is the "establishment" candidate. Edwards comes in a close second. Obama comes in a dissapointing third. People will be comparing Obama to Dean in 2004. However, Obama will save us from the "scream".

For the GOP: It's Huckabee, with Romney a somewhat distant second. Third place? I dunno. I've been following the Dem race much, much more. Have not paid too much attention to the GOP.

Now for who I WANT? That's easy

DEMS: Obama, Kicinich, Biden
GOP: Paul, McCain, Thompson

I'm thinking in terms of Iowans. And I don't expect Huckabee to be the nominee and probably not Edwards either but...just my speculation for the Iowa round.

On Sunday shows today, Huckabee showed great candor but a shocking lack of knowledge about important geopolitical facts. Edwards' appeal, I believe, is only going to grow. Obama has never flipped my lid and Clinton barely sqeaks into my straw polls unless there are at least five slots.

I'm a Biden/Dodd/Richardson type and often vote for people who, in the end, don't win.

But all that aside, in Iowa? I'll guess on Edwards and Huckabee - I just get a sense that they resonate the best there.

Do we know much about how many out of staters made it into Iowa to vote in the caucuses? I've heard about that but I don't know much more.

Good luck on the show!

Jill
Writes Like She Talks

I am hoping, hoping, hoping that Edwards will be the winner in Iowa, although I have no data to back up my prediction. (BTW, I like HIllary too, but I don't know if she can win in the final election. I've been a huge Edwards fan since I met him during the 2004 campaign.) I agree with Jill above who says that the appeal of Edwards is only going to increase as more people find out what he's all about.

For the Republicans, I have to say that I have no idea who will win Iowa.

Kalyn Denny
Kalyn's Kitchen

Do they make a three-sided coin you could flip for the Democrats?

Here is my SWAG as a former political scientist (which along with $3.50 will buy you a cup of coffee): Given how close the front runners are, on both sides it will come down to 2nd choices. Who will the Paul, Thompson, Giuliani, Biden, Richardson, and Dodd supporters swing to when their candidates fail to meet the 15% thresholds?

On the Democratic side I think Clinton is nobody's second choice (4th or 5th maybe but not 2nd) and I think Edwards will benefit more than Obama. So my prediction is Edwards, Obama, Clinton. I could change my mind 5 minutes from now, though, as it's that unpredictable. My hope will be that Obama wins because if he does I think he will be the next president. And then I hope he picks Edwards as his VP and Dodd as his Secretary of State.

On the Republican side I think it's hard to call on the second choices but I'll say Romney has organization whereas Huckabee does not so that will pull out the win for Romney in the end with Huckabee a strong second and McCain a compelling third given his limited Iowa campaigning.

PopConsumer
Beyond Help

Play it safe and refer to what Marty Kaplan refers to as a "Pundit Accountability Act" and recall how unpredictable Iowa voters have been in the past. And can you profile a western Iowan?

Of note, the assassination of Benazir Bhutto demanded that horse-race politics come to a halt. Not the case — and politicizing her death is in bad taste. Is this the kind of diplomacy we have to look forward to?

A.M.
www.backyardbeacon.org

But I think candidates discussing Bhutto's death is valid: the NIE on Iran allowed some candidates to get off the hook in terms of discussing geopolitical affairs- and of course no one wants to talk about the Iraq War. Bhutto's death brings the importance of global politics back into focus, and for that I am grateful!

Thank you for feedback and participation in the CNN forum. I agree -- exposing candidates to real-world scenarios as opportunities for leadership is key especially during this geopolitical climate. With the assassination of the former Pakistani prime minister, the U.S. has lost a key ally in fight against al Qaeda -- "at a time when Pakistani public opinion remains skeptical of the United States," according to the Pew Research Center. Diplomacy was key to Bhutto's return to Pakistan -- and to the promotion of democracy. For this reason, any candidate who attempts to capitalize on her death for electioneering purposes does the U.S. a disservice.

Fewer than one-in-five Pakistanis (15%) have a positive view of the U.S. -- of the publics included in the 2007 survey, only Palestinians (13%) and Turks (9%) are less favorably disposed. Moreover, despite their own concerns about terrorism, Pakistanis overwhelmingly oppose U.S.-led efforts to fight terrorism -- six-in-ten (59%) oppose America's anti-terror campaign, while only 13% back it. Pakistanis are also leery of American efforts to encourage democracy in their country -- 57% believe the U.S. only promotes democracy when it serves its interests, and 72% say they dislike American ideas about democracy.

A.M.
www.backyardbeacon.org