Horse Race Trading

by digby

Jane Hamsher is doing some fun reporting from Iowa, sharing all the rumors about strategy and tactics she’s getting on the ground. Apparently, there’s one rumor that the Clinton camp will willingly trade their votes to Edwards, and take a third place finish, to damage Obama. That’s interesting, but I doubt it would work unless she had a 20+ lead in New Hampshire and South Carolina. The vaunted “sling-shot effect” the chatterers keep yammering about will dominate the coverage and the candidates who win first and second in Iowa will be considered the front runners. It’s possible for either Clinton or Obama to survive past South Carolina and go on to win, of course, but I really doubt that either of them want to purposefully take a chance that they will come in third in Iowa and end up with the Giuliani Big State strategy. It could work, but it’s very risky. (Personally, I’d love it because my vote has never been courted, much less been decisive, in a presidential primary.)

All of this stuff is lots of fun for us political junkies, who are mainlining rumors like China White at this point. Chris Cilizza has gathered some predictions by operatives and pollsters, here, if you need a fix. (His blog is actually called “The Fix”) But the sad truth is that the Iowa caucuses are now in the hands of those grubby little bastards who have no business deciding who presidents should be when we have experts and gasbags (and bloggers!) who should be making the decision. Yes, I’m talking about real live voters. Long may they reign.

.