It’s prediction time again

Less than a week after I got the Republican order in Iowa exactly right, while being embarrassingly wrongabout the Dems, I get to do it all over again in New Hampshire.  I’ll start with the Dems, in no small part because their primary is easier to predict:

1. Barack Obama (this will solidify him as the new front-runner and eventual nominee)
2. Hillary Clinton (there are rumors all over the place that she will withdraw soon; I don’t buy it, but she is running practically by herself in Michigan - if “uncommitted” gets more than 1/3 of the vote there, she may finally see the writing on the wall - stress, may)
3. John Edwards (his last stand is South Carolina)
4. Bill Richardson

The Republican race is a little harder to figure.  A couple of pollsters are finding that Obama’s support among independents (who can vote in either primary) is drawing voters away from John McCain, and thus helping Mitt Romney.  Could it be enough to give Romney the win?  I say it won’t.  I’m basing this on the one poll that doesn’t show a Romney recovery (CNN/WMUR).  Sure, it’s a small voter sample (492 Republicans), but it’s the only poll that I think reflects Ron Paul’s strength in New Hampshire (and he does have strength there).

Here’s how I see New Hampshire shaking out:

1. John McCain
2. Mitt Romney (but I do think Romney gets close enough to maintain an ever-so-slender lead in his must-win state: Michigan)
3. Ron Paul (yeah, I know, I’m taking a risk here)
4. Rudy Giuliani
5. Mike Huckabee
6. Fred Thompson (I think he has greater support than the polls suggest, and it will come at Huckabee’s expense)
7. Duncan Hunter

Looking beyond NH, Michigan is next.  For the Republicans, it’s simple: Romney wins or Romney goes.  McCain will be looking to build on his New Hampshire momentum, while Giuliani will desperately need to show strength somewherebefore Florida.  On the Democrat side, again, the only candidates on the ballot are Clinton and Mike Gravel (the rest stayed away in deference to New Hampshire - I think).  Still, there are rumors of an “uncommitted” surge, as I mentioned earlier.  With the Republican contest being so critical (keeping independent voters away from the Democratic race) and Edwards and Obama supporters both energized and seeing a chance to embarrass Clinton, don’t be surprised if Gravel and “uncommitted” keep Clinton below 50%.  Heck, “uncommitted” might even win out there (at which point, Clinton is definitely out).

Then it’s South Carolina (Edwards and Thompson’s last stand).  If either of them win, they survive.  If they lose, they’re done.  I’m also guessing SC will be Duncan Hunter’s last state (as much as it pains me to say it).

FWIW, that’s how it looks from here.

What (I think) happens next for the Republicans

The Democratic aftermath from Iowa is, I believe, still quite simple: if Obama wins New Hampshire, he is the nominee; if Clinton or Edwards wins, the race is still a race.  Therefore, I’ve been more focused on the Republicans, and this is what (I think) this the current state of affairs.

Each of the five major candidates (i.e, Giuliani, Huckabee, McCain, Romney, and Thompson) have a must-win state in order to make it to Super Duper Tuesday (February 5).  They are as follows:

Huckabee - Iowa (check - his ticket is punched)

McCain - New Hampshire

Romney - Michigan (although if he were to win New Hampshire, that would suffice)

Thompson - South Carolina

Giuliani - Florida

Now, even if Giuliani loses Florida, he’ll still get to February 5, but I don’t think he’ll do well enough to get past it.  The others will, I suspect, drop out between now and then if they lose their must win state.  I should also note that if each one does win their must-win state, the odds of a brokered convention increase dramatically.  They key to that will be how many candidates come out of Super Duper Tuesday (if it’s only two, there’s no likelihood of a brokered convention), then how evenly spread the delegate counts are in the states after February 5.

Some other things that haven’t hit the radar, but might:

If Thompson and Giuliani are knocked out early, Ron Paul could win a few states.

If Thompson, Giuliani, and Romney are knocked out early, Ron Paul will win a few states.

This could be the first time since 1976 that candidates for nomination announce running mates (it could become a vital part of winning over delegates from outside the candidate’s natural supporters).

Outside of that, it’s just really, really fluid right now.  I’m just glad my guy won a delegate in Wyoming today (NRO - The Corner).

On Communist China’s poisonous exports

Over at the China e-Lobby, I’ve been keeping track of the growing horror of Communist China’s exports of poison grain products, cough medicine ingredients, and now, toothpaste. I have wondered how long this would take to hit the American political scene. Well, Jim Geraghty at National Review Online has noticed:

The discovery of all kids of toxic, poisonous, and horrific substances in food and related products from China will benefit Duncan Hunter’s campaign, as he’s been taking the hardest stance on China and foreign imports.

Indeed it will, and indeed it should, since as Geraghty himself noted: “we generally have no idea what is in the stuff we’re importing, and the Chinese sure as heck aren’t keeping a close eye on it.”

Duncan Hunter’s tough stand on Communist China was the reason I endorsed him in the first place. Now we know it isn’t just about foreign policy, human rights, or trade economics; this has literally become a life-and-death issue.

Cross-posted to Bloggers for Hunter

David Frum on Duncan Hunter

There aren’t a lot of right-wingers who like David Frum. His Canadian past, his painful yet accurate indictment of Ronald Reagan’s budget excesses (Dead Right), and his weak views on the unborn have made him many enemies on the right. That said, he is very good on the issues that matter most to me (anti-Communism and the WBK War), and even on issues where we disagree, he is one of the more thoughtful pundits with whom I’ve had disagreements. So I was genuinely happy to see his comments on Duncan Hunter today:

I started with a prejudice against Duncan Hunter . . . But as chairman of the House Armed Services Committee between 2002 and 2006, he did important work, pushing the Bush administration to expand the military budget (”You can’t run a Ronald Reagan foreign policy,” he often said, “on a Jimmy Carter defense budget.”) He has been an effective, balanced voice in favor of tighter immigration rules and led the fight to build a border fence between his district in San Diego and the Mexican city of Tijuana.

In the debates, he has been forceful and thoughtful. It would be better if he left it to others to remind voters of his service in Vietnam and his son’s in Iraq. That said: Hunter’s solid and often eloquent performance in the race so far has justified his claim to a larger role in Republican politics in the future.

Sadly, Frum hasn’t quite gone far enough (he calls for Hunter to square off against Senator Barbara Boxer in 2010), but there’s still plenty of time for him to come around see Hunter’s “larger role in Republican politics” should include at least a place in the 2008 top tier.