A double standard? (Barf Alert)

The Carpetbagger Report ^ | December 30, 2007

[2ndDivisionVet]

TNR’s Noam Scheiber had an interesting item the other day, gaming out possible post-Iowa-caucus scenarios, and describing the various “paths” Democratic candidates have to the nomination.

First, the three easy scenarios: 1.) Hillary wins by more than a point or two, in which case the race is basically over. 2.) Obama wins convincingly (five points or more), in which case it starts looking pretty good for him and Edwards is done. 3.) Edwards wins convincingly and Obama is third, in which case Obama is probably done and Hillary and Edwards duke it out (with Hillary enjoying a near-prohibitive financial advantage).

Short of one of these things happening, I think we’re looking at the muddle Mike was talking about last weekend. But here’s the thing: An inconclusive muddle actually benefits Obama. The reason is that a muddle kills Edwards, who needs the kind of fundraising and free-media boomlet that only a clean victory can provide. And without Edwards in the race, Obama consolidates the anti-Hillary vote, which nudges him over the top in what’s now a dead-even race in New Hampshire, makes things look pretty good for him in South Carolina (where he’s been closing but still has to convince some African-Americans he can win), and generally gives him the upper hand for the nomination.

Maybe you find this compelling; maybe you don’t. But I think Scheiber’s analysis is largely in line with the conventional wisdom crafted by the media: whichever Dem comes in third is pretty much finished, and even a modest Clinton victory effectively ends the competition. To be sure, I don’t necessarily buy into this, but I realize that the self-reinforcing chattering class looks at the race this way, and will report it to the public accordingly.

What I don’t quite understand is why none of this seems to apply to the Republican presidential field.

As of now, Mike Huckabee looks like he’s going to win the Iowa caucuses. Mitt Romney, who had enjoyed the lead in Iowa, will finish second. After the top two, there’s a huge drop off, at least as far as recent polls are concerned, and Fred Thompson, John McCain, and Rudy Giuliani are bunched up between third and fifth place, though all of them are polling in single digits right now.

None of the rules that have been applied to the Democratic field seem to apply to these five. There’s no talk about the third-place finisher having no chance at the nomination; there are no assumptions that the winner in Iowa will have smooth sailing to the nomination; and there are certainly no assumptions about a candidate finishing fourth or fifth and having to automatically drop out of the race.

History doesn’t seem to matter, either. To be sure, we’re dealing with a modest sample size — five competitive Republican contests in Iowa over the last three decades — but no GOP presidential hopeful has finished outside of the top three in Iowa and gone on to win the nomination. This year, Giuliani will likely come in fifth, and face no pressure whatsoever to drop out. Indeed, with his Feb. 5 strategy in mind, Giuliani will remain a competitive candidate no matter what place he comes in this week.

I suspect some of this has to do with money — Edwards is “finished” if he comes in third because his coffers aren’t flush, and Huckabee’s victory is meaningless if he can’t compete elsewhere — but is it me, or are we looking at a double standard here?

[2ndDivisionVet]

Too funny! But they really believe this tripe! Read the comments after, too, they're hilarious!

[raynearhood]

It amazes me: The ignorance and the Conspiracy theories.

That’s right, we are being unfair because of a percieved even spread of support for 5 candidates in a primary that doesn’t even involve them.

Is it just me or is it unfair that the Dems may have a clear two man race following the Iowa and NH primaries? (<sarcasm)

[ARCADIA]

Sadly, Hillary is going to win Iowa, IMHO. All this analysis on the Dem side is just to sell newspapers.