Post-Caucus Thoughts

Iowa Republican Caucus Results:

Mike Huckabee: 34%
Mitt Romney: 25%
Fred Thompson: 13%
John McCain: 13%
Ron Paul: 10%
Rudy Giulani: 4%
Duncan Hunter: 1%
Alan Keyes: <1%

Now that Mike Huckabee has handily won the Iowa caucus, I can tell you why I think Iowa was so important.

My predictions:

The momentum from this victory will likely catapult Mike Huckabee ahead of Rudy Giulani into 3rd place in New Hampshire's primary, which takes place January 8th. The Real Clear Politics Average places Giulani just half a point ahead of Huckabee, 10% to 9.5%.

John McCain will likely pull away from Mitt Romney for first place. Then...

Romney, reeling from two debilitating blows in Iowa and New Hampshire, will waver in Michigan, where the primary takes place in 11 days. Currently, Romney leads Huckabee there by only 1 point.

With increasing momentum from three impressive performances, Huckabee will benefit from strong evangelical support in South Carolina (January 19). As of now, he leads Romney there by an average of 6.5%.

Then, with three wins and a victory over Giulani in New Hampshire, Huckabee will overtake Giulani in Florida (1/29), where Mike currently trails by only 2 percentage points, according to Real Clear Politics.

By this point, both Romney and Giulani will be in a bad way, with no momentum, heading into Super-Duper Tuesday.

Admittedly, I'm no psychic, prophet, or political forecaster. After all, I projected 6 months ago that the general election would come down to Mike Gravel and Hugh Cort (JUST KIDDING!). But I feel that these are sincere, logical projections, although I may be overestimating the momentum factor, and I most certainly am not accounting for any unforeseen setbacks for Huckabee.

More thoughts:

~Fred Thompson essentially lengthened his campaign by the skin of his teeth, beating out John McCain for third place by the slimmest of margins. They both had approximately 13% of the vote. The question remains, though, where can Thompson win? His campaign seems to be riding on the hopes of a Huc-collapse. He's set to finish far in back of the rest of the pack (including Paul) in New Hampshire. Several polls have him at a feeble 2% in that state. South Carolina is where he is doing best in the pre-Super-Tuesday states, but, even there, he's presently slated to finish in fourth.

~John McCain's fourth-place finish could temper his recent surge, but Romney's second-place finish in Iowa should help McCain in New Hampshire.

~A fifth-place finish with 10% of the vote would not be good for most serious candidates, but it's good enough for Ron Paul. Considered a non-viable candidate by some because of his stance on foreign policy, Paul proved last night that he can get significant chunks of the voting public to join his so-called "Revolution." In all likelihood, that won't translate into the Republican nomination, but it's worth noting.

~On the Democratic side, Chris Dodd (<1%) and Joe Biden (1%) immediately withdrew themselves from the race when the results came in. On the Republican side, I don't know how much longer Duncan Hunter (1%) can hold out for a miracle. It will be a shame if and when he has to drop out.

~Mike Gravel, Dennis Kucinich, and Alan Keyes might stay in the race just for the fun of it. Bill Richardson, newly established as the only viable "second-tier" candidate on the democratic side, still has something to play for.

~Although you wouldn't know it by watching the media coverage, Wyoming, the least-populated state in the Union, finishes up its Republican caucus process tomorrow. With no public polling done there and little attention from the candidates, no one knows who will win there. Will it even matter? We shall see.

We've only just begun, people. If you haven't yet, go ahead and buckle your seatbelts now. And don't stop praying!

Deep, Independent Thinkers, You Are!

Thanks to everyone for participating in the third WWCP poll--a double edition.

Both parts of the poll pertained to celebrity and high-profile endorsements. The first asked, simply, how do they affect you?

As I suspected, they don't really affect you at all. Out of 30 total votes cast, a whopping 69% (21 votes) said that endorsements have absolutely no impact on them, with 46% (14 votes) saying, "They never affect me. I study the candidates independently and couldn't care less what 'big-name' people think." The other 23% (7 votes) clarified that endorsements don't affect who they support, but they "appreciate them because they can help my [their] candidate[s]."

29% (9 votes) said that endorsements do affect them. 3% (1 vote) pointed out that it depends on the endorser, and 13% (4 votes) further defined that position by stating that only "endorsers with credibility and credentials"--not celebrities--impact them. The remaining 13% (4 votes) noted that some endorsements make them less likely to support a candidate. Not one person said that endorsements "almost always affect" them--that they "put a lot of stock in a celebrity and high-profile endorsements.

The second part of the poll was very intriguing. In this part, I wanted to know people's specific reactions to particular endorsements. Here are the results:

10 people were less likely to support Obama because of Oprah's endorsement. 2 were more likely.

4 people were more likely to support Huckabee because of Chuck Norris' endorsement. 5 were less likely.

3 were more likely to support Mitt Romney after the National Review's endorsement. 8 were less likely.

1 was more likely to support Mike Huckabee after Jim Gilchrist's endorsement. 5 were less likely.

There were a total of 25 votes cast in the second part, yet the most reactions to any endorsement was twelve. How can this be? Well, 13 said that none of the endorsements they didn't check influence them one way or another. That still doesn't seem to be proportionate to the percentage which said, in the poll's first part, that endorsements has no impact on them. However, that seeming contradiction can be explained in two ways:

1) Different people voted in the different parts of the poll.
2) In the second part, you were recording your reactions--whether positive or negative--to an endorsement, rather than how they actually influence you.

Please vote in the new poll.

My "Lemonade Stands"

I just opened two "Lemonade Stands," which I have nicknamed "For on the Campaign Trail 1" and "For on the Campaign Trail 2" , respectively. They are located in the sidebar for quick reference.

Stand 1 contains books and periodicals of interest. I do not, and cannot, recommend or endorse all the content found therein, but I did try to select products which you may very well find useful.

Stand 2 contains some of my favorite movies, including family, Christian, and action-adventure films. It also has some of my favorite music, ranging from contemporary Christian to epic soundtracks to Andrea Bocelli.

By purchasing products directly through the Lemonade links on this site, you thereby support this blog. Please take just a couple of minutes to scroll through my inventory of items. Don't shy away from clicking on an item for more information. Thank you in advance for any purchases you may make.

You can also make your own Lemonade stand.

Pre-Caucus Thoughts

We've just about made it to the Iowa caucuses. The following is a collection of some campaign news sprinkled with my opining.

~The most recent Des Moines Register poll has Mike Huckabee leading Mitt Romney by six percentage points in Iowa, 32% to 26%. However, this poll was taken before what some consider Huckabee's "debacle," when he filmed a negative ad, then decided not to run it, but showed it to the media and thereby garnered it a lot of free air time. Some consider the move devious, while others consider it stupid.
Furthermore, the Real Clear Politics poll average suggests that the race is a dead heat, well within the margin of error, and Fox News correspondent Karl Cameron reported that some within the campaigns think that the race will be decided by less than a percentage point.

~Outspending Huckabee in Iowa 20-1, Romney, who is reportedly a great businessman, has to admit that Huckabee's campaign has been far more productive and efficient than his own. Or, Romney has to concede that boatloads of money can only buy so many votes. Maybe it's a little of both. He has spent over $6 million in Iowa.

~According to the latest Des Moines Register poll, Fred Thompson is dangerously close to losing fourth place to Ron Paul. Yes, I speak of the same Ron Paul who everybody either loves or wants to have committed. (Okay, so there are some who fall in between--like me.) If this unthinkable does occur, Thompson's bid for the presidency could be just about over. Even if he holds onto fourth place, he will be in bad shape. He just doesn't seem to have an "identity" to develop a voting bloc, and a fourth-place finish or worse can't be spun positively to supporters.
However, a third-place finish, ahead of a surging John McCain, would be a boost, and that is not entirely out out of the question.

~If Romney loses Iowa, that defeat would likely propel him to two more defeats: one in New Hampshire at the hands of John McCain and another in South Carolina. Those two losses would likely make him lose Michigan. Clearly, Iowa is exceedingly important for Romney, although much the same applies to Huckabee, who would likely lose the steam to win South Carolina and Michigan following a loss in Iowa.

It's time to be praying, people.

WWCP Linked from Duncan Hunter's Website

Check it out here.

In other news, WWCP now has an official e-mail contact address: WeWantaChristianPresident@gmail.com

If you have questions or comments about any of my posts, please comment on the relevant one(s). But if you have more generic inquiries or would like to correspond privately by e-mail, feel free to e-mail me.