tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post495021433217239206..comments2023-10-16T07:13:12.123-05:00Comments on A plain blog about politics: Join Us At the PicnicJonathan Bernsteinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15931039630306253241noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-72424803844064869742009-10-23T15:59:21.676-05:002009-10-23T15:59:21.676-05:00Douglas,
Thanks for the nice comments.
On Pawlen...Douglas,<br /><br />Thanks for the nice comments.<br /><br />On Pawlenty -- I'm saying he'll get lost in the shuffle if he skips Iowa. If he competes there, then, sure, he has every chance of being a serious contender. But there's no way, at least in my view, that he would be such a standout that he could afford to skip Iowa.Jonathan Bernsteinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15931039630306253241noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-72104339969532864622009-10-23T05:42:45.177-05:002009-10-23T05:42:45.177-05:00This is a brilliant blog, and I'm kicking myse...This is a brilliant blog, and I'm kicking myself for not noticing it earlier. Mr Bernstein, my hat goes off to you.<br /><br />However...your assumptions that Pawlenty will get 'lost in the shuffle' seem a bit presumptuous, especially given the absurd amount of time we have left untl the primaries. Pawlenty seems to be running the hardest of any 'candidate' so far (because, well, he's so far back). He's talented. He's acceptable to all the constituencies. Dukakis was a blip in '85, and yet the shaky nominal frontrunner by early 1988; similarly Clinton in '92, as much as 'the comeback kid' narrative sprung up. (Clinton was leading national polls of actual contenders, minus Cuomo, by early '92, faltered after Flowers, but kept on walking.) I think that by the start of the season Pawlenty has as much chance of being a heavyweight contender as anyone.Douglashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06345079564133624529noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-71422771954707836182009-10-21T22:51:43.273-05:002009-10-21T22:51:43.273-05:00Yup -- check carefully above, and you'll see t...Yup -- check carefully above, and you'll see that I referred to "contested Iowa," in order to account for 1992. <br /><br />I suppose that if all the other candidates agreed to concede it to Huckabee, they could turn it into an uncontested caucus. But the incentive to cheat and try to finish 2nd would be real strong (that even happened in the Harkin year), and once one candidate cheated, the press would resume covering it as a normal contested year, and everyone else would have to compete or suffer the consequences.Jonathan Bernsteinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15931039630306253241noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-62654995691684674842009-10-21T11:10:49.575-05:002009-10-21T11:10:49.575-05:00Well, most of the Democrats running in 1992 "...Well, most of the Democrats running in 1992 "skipped" Iowa because Tom Harkin was running. Iowa was a non-event that year and New Hampshire became the point at which the "Comeback Kid" emerged; the real start to that nomination race.<br /><br />But there aren't any Iowans on the horizon who look to be potential 2012 contenders. It is a factor, then, but a non-factor for 2012 from the looks of it.<br /><br /><a href="http://frontloading.blogspot.com/2009/10/if-you-hold-iowa-caucus-will-2012.html" rel="nofollow">Here's</a> a bit more from last week when the Des Moines Register was pushing the "no one's coming to Iowa for 2012" meme.Josh Putnamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06301836432446874997noreply@blogger.com