On Thu, 3 Jan 2008 21:19:06 -0800 (PST), Chuck Gould
wrote:

On Jan 3, 6:42?pm, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Wed, 02 Jan 2008 13:00:17 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing

wrote:
I'm thinking Obama gets out with a lead of three or four points over
Edwards in second and Clinton a very close third to Edwards - say
within a point or two.

Did I call that one right or what?

Tada.....

Too bad about the *other* half of your prediction, however. You didn't
account for the political muscle of the evangelical Christian
contingent.

Yep - that one surprized me that's for sure. What interests me is
that Huckabee would be the ideal Democrat candidate. What he proposes
isn't conservative Republican in any sense of the word. I think he
was selected on the strength of his faith and his pro-life stance - in
ever other aspect, he's a Democrat.

I read an account that said more than half of the Republicans
attending caucus in Iowa described themselves as "born again" or
"evangelical" Christians. Romney actually led among the Republicans
who didn't arrive in a chruch bus, so you weren't completely unfounded
in your Republican guesstimate.

That's a good point and reading through the post mortems this morning,
that one jumped out as an interesting data point.

New Hampshire will be interesting. Personally, I think Edwards is
done - he's seen as a phoney populist - New Hampshire will finish him
off. Romney has some support in New Hampshire and I don't think
Huckabee's approach will play well there. I also think The Fred! will
do well there.

On the Democrat side, it's Mrs. Clinton's to loose. If she comes in
second in New Hampshire, it's over.

It will be an interesting couple of weeks.