Let's all take a moment to relax: the Iowa caucuses are over, finally. It's no small sigh of relief for Iowans, who are already fed up with the election more than a year out. (One Iowan interviewed on FOX News this evening claimed to have received more than 100 pieces of campaign-related mail in the last month.)

But, what does Iowa mean, and what's the state of the campaigns as a whole?

In case you haven't heard:

DEMOCRATS
38% Sen. Barack Obama
30% Former Sen. John Edwards
29% Sen. Hillary Clinton
2% Governor Bill Richardson
<1% Sen. Joe Biden (withdrawn from race)
0% Sen. Chris Dodd (withdrawn from race)

REPUBLICANS
34% Governor Mike Huckabee
25% Former Governor Mitt Romney
13% Former Sen. Fred Thompson
13% Sen. John McCain
10% Rep. Ron Paul
3% Former Mayor Rudy Guliani (did not campaign in Iowa)
0% Rep. Duncan Hunter
0% Rep. Tom Tancredo

For the Democrats, the field has more or less officially narrowed to Obama, Edwards, and Clinton, but seemingly has had the opposite effect for the Republicans. They now have five candidates (with no disrespect to Ron Paul) who are viable options for the nomination: Huckabee, Romney, Thompson, McCain, and Guliani (who, though finishing last among those five in Iowa, leads in many national polls).

MY PREDICTION
The Republican ticket will be Guliani-McCain
The Democratic ticket will be Obama-Edwards
Guliani wins in a close race with lower voter turnout closer to 2000 than 2004.
(This prediction was made at 2 p.m. this afternoon before any Iowa caucuses were held.)

Why?

Thompson is short on cash, and has shown absolute incomptence at managing his campaign thus far. Once considered "the next Ronald Reagan" earlier this summer, his inability to effectively manage his campaign has not only proven he won't get the nomination, it raises serious and damaging questions about his ability to manage a nation.

Romney will continue to falter as he's seen as too plasticine by some, too religious by others, and everywhere his Mormonism will haunt him. Especially in contrast to the off-the-cuff Huckabee, Romney seems pretentious and rehearsed. Further, you get nothing with Romney that you don't already get with someone else, except moreso. If your issue is national defense, you vote for Guliani, the 9/11 candidate. If you want to stay in Iraq until it's done, you vote McCain, the war verteran and former P.O.W. If you want out of Iraq, you vote Ron Paul, who pledges to get out now. If you're a "values" voter, you vote Huckabee, the Baptist minister. If you're for lower taxes, you vote Huckabee (he's a FairTax supporter). If you're a moderate or liberal conservative, you vote Guliani, the pro-choice, pro-gay, anti-gun candidate. Romney is the lukewarm candidate -- there's no need for him to be in this election, as he has no niche, no unique support or issue.

Huckabee is long on anecdotes and short on policy initiatives. He's a FairTaxer (so he claims) but then spews protectionist anti-trade populism (the two are like oil and water). He's a straight anti-abortion voter's dream, but ultimately the nation can't run on someone like that. Huckabee is this election's Howard Dean, without the scream. He's peaked already and we'll see him come in a distant third if not fourth in New Hampshire (Romney, McCain, Guliani/Huckabee), and fade into the background before he runs out of money and support after Super Tuesday.

Guliani has been consistently popular with swing voters and moderates, and is an electable candidate. Despite the fact that many in the conservative base despise him (yours truly included), he's earned a reputation post-9/11 as some kind of anti-terror zealot, which will scare the base into voting for him, and he's liberal enough on social issues to get the moderates and swing voters to support him.

McCain is gaining in popularity and will peak at just the right time: mid- to late-January, right before the Super Tuesday primaries in early February. Like Guliani, he's the national defense candidate and will appeal more to the base with his social conservativism than Guliani. While some have been spoiled on him (again, yours truly) because of his rogue-ish behavior in the Senate (he voted against the Bush tax cuts, he limited civil liberties with McCain-Feingold, and his voting record on social issues is spotty sometimes), when it comes down to Guliani-McCain or Obama-Edwards, conservatives will (perhaps grudgingly) support their party's nominees.

My back-up choices are Guliani-Huckabee, or McCain-Huckabee.

As for the Dem's...

Clinton is still seen as untrustworthy by many, but her real problem is that she's tried to play both sides of the coin for the last 8 years in the Senate. Now, she's having trouble convincing the liberal anti-war anti-Bush Democrats that she's not a moderate (she did vote for the Iraq War), and she's having trouble convincing the moderate pro-growth pro-family Democrats that she's not an abortion-loving hippie (and she voted against the Bush tax cuts, too). She's tried to play both sides for so long that now they're both biting her in the ass. She'll come in a distant third place continually to Obama and Edwards, but won't back down or withdraw until she literally runs out of delegates to court for the nomination. Then she'll slink back to the Senate in disgrace, possibly to run again in 2012 or 2016 (though by then she'll be 68, a rather ripe age to be elected President).

Edwards is populist, well-spoken, and well-liked by families with kids and small business owners. Which is ironic, considering he's a multi-millionaire trial lawyer and corporate investor. But let's face it, he had one term in the Senate and that's it; he was on the ticket the last go-round with that other fellow, the one with the long face whom we're trying to forget. And ultimately, I think he makes a good Vice-Presidential candidate, so I foresee him running alongside...

Obama. He brings everything the Democrats are looking for: a steadfast anti-Bush rhetoric, opposition to the war, an amiable personality, a populist rock star appeal, and a message that resonates with Democratic voters: New Hope. While this isn't some Star Wars knockoff, it does work much better than Clinton's messages of "experience." Democrats are desperate to change anything and everything they can as they see Washington being run by Republicans in every facet. Granted, it's been a tough 8 years for the libs, their retaking Congress notwithstanding. They don't want anyone in the White House who was a part of the "experience" of the last 8 years. But Barack has the ability to make voters forget he's a one-term Senator running with a one-term Senator to try to lead the most powerful nation on the face of the planet. Why? Because he's got Oprah Winfrey.

If the Republicans are smart, they will understand that Obama-Edwards has a huge gaping flaw: lack of experience. No matter how much people may want a change, you don't elect people who don't know what the hell they're doing. The best thing the Republicans could do is to nominate people who have powerful experience. That's Guliani-McCain. The mayor of New York on 9/11 runs with the war veteran who spent five years in the Hanoi Hilton. No one can question their character! No one can question their experience! And like parents gently but firmly disciplining their children, they'll spank Obama and Edwards and send them back to their room.

More on this prediction to come.

Labels: Democrats, Election 2008, Republicans