Election Recap And Thoughts

If you haven't seen the buzz over the past few days, you've probably been in the middle of a jungle somewhere. Here's a quick recap for you.

Republican
Huckabee ran away with the Iowa caucus win, but isn't expected to do particularly well in New Hampshire. He's focusing more on South Carolina, the next state up after NH. Mitt Romney finished second in Iowa, and looks to finish strong in New Hampshire, as well, though he may not win it. John McCain has come out of nowhere to take the lead in New Hampshire, and is expected to win, or finish second at worst. If he doesn't, his campaign is likely over.

Democrat
Barack Obama beat the stuffing out of Hillary Clinton in Iowa (she actually finished third). There seems to be a tidal wave of momentum for Obama, and it looks like he will run away with New Hampshire, as well. Questions about Hillary's viability are being asked, and there are rumors that Clinton staffers are quietly putting out their resumes. Hillary (the 'inevitable' candidate, remember) is facing the very real potential of losing the first four states.

Now, here's a bit more background to help put things in perspective. New Hampshire is a state with an open primary, which means Independents (and there are a lot of them there) can vote for either party. That really changes the situation, allowing many Indies to vote outside of traditional party lines. So, McCain is likely to pick up a lot of the more liberal Reps and Indies, while Obama is looking to do the same on the Dem side. The most common predictions I've seen are that McCain and Obama will win the state, with Romney coming in a close second on the Rep side. Voting is taking place today, so we'll know tonight how those predictions come out.

Now I want to address a couple things that irritate me a little bit. First is the way presidential debates are conducted. As I watch all these candidates go back and forth on various issues, I find it hard to care a whole heckuva lot. Honestly, I've only watched one or two of the debates myself. They're boring. The moderators usually suck. With only 60 seconds in which to speak, the candidates can't fully explain their positions, and all of their answers seem at least a little canned. Most of the questions only go to one or two candidates, so we don't even get a full comparison on the most important issues. I'd rather read up on the results the next day.

I would absolutely love to see a series of open debates between the candidates, allowing them to debate directly with each other without interference from a moderator. Set up a playoff of sorts, with two or three candidates at a time, mixing and matching candidates throughout the process. You might even generate a little bit of buzz when talking about the 'match-ups'! I think that would be a fantastic way to really see the candidates. You would get a much better picture of their visions for America, and you would really see how they handle themselves in an intense situation. Would they keep their cool, or would they lose their temper? Would they remain professional, or would they resort to insults? Would they stick to the issues, or would they wander into personal territory? Do they truly understand the issues enough to debate them on the fly? These things are important, and would tell us a great deal about the character, experience, and knowledge of these candidates.

Second is this notion of 'change'. Lots of candidates (most notably, Obama, Huckabee, and Clinton) are talking about how they are 'for change'. That's all fine and good, but exactly what changes are they for? What changes do they plan to make if they become President? I think it's a great oversight that the media is failing to ask for specifics on this, because it's kind of a key point for all these candidates right now. If this is what they're running on, we need to understand what they mean, don't we? Right now, 'change' is simply a buzzword that allows candidates to sound pretty while saying nothing. It's a joke.

The funny thing on the Democrat side is watching Hillary go down in flames. I've heard lots of possible explanations, from the MSM wanting her to be the 'come-back kid' and show how she's such a strong fighter when the going gets tough to her candidacy being the last gasp for the 60's hippy generation to regain power to Bush/Clinton fatigue. While I think all of those probably have a grain of truth, I think the simple explanation is the best: people just don't like her. If you look at her poll numbers, they go up when she keeps a low profile, and they go down when she gets out there and mingles with the peasan...I mean, real American people. Remember a few weeks ago when she went on all the Sunday morning talk shows and tried to show her 'warmer' side? What she got from that effort was relentless heckling because she was forcing laugh after laugh after laugh. If you haven't heard it, check it out here (longer versions complete with...uh...analysis...can be found here and here) - her cackle is chilling enough to be used in a haunted house! If you look at the platforms of Clinton and Obama (and any of the Democrats, really), you'll see very little substantive difference. So, what it comes down to is who people like. By all accounts, Obama is a very personable, friendly, and genuinely warm person. Hillary, on the other hand, is cold, calculating, fake, and maliciously manipulative.

It's a no-brainer, and I think that may ultimately be what is playing out right now.

With all that being said, I again urge you to not get caught up too much in the hype. Hillary may be tanking now, but she's seasoned enough to know that she can lose states 1-4 if she wins 5-15. Although I'd love to see it, I don't think she'll give up quite yet.

There's a lot of campaigning left to do on both sides, and I'm sure we'll see some more surprises in the coming weeks. I'm planning to post a chart in the near future to help you understand where the major candidates stand on some of the key issues. It won't be comprehensive, and it is based purely on my understanding of things -- so take it with a grain of salt -- but hopefully it'll help you decide which candidate most closely represents you before you go vote in your primary.

Voting to elect our leaders is one of the most important rights we as Americans have, and I'm encouraged by the accounts of record turnouts so far in Iowa and New Hampshire. I truly hope that trend continues across the nation, because that means Americans are engaging and taking an active role, and that's a very, very good thing.

There's my two cents.