My preseason predictions

You know, I was planning to sit down here and write a column in which I made a series of bold (or maybe not-so-bold) predictions for the coming "political season." I figure, hey, if sports columnists can make playoff predictions at the start of the football season, then why shouldn't I be able to make some predictions at the start of the political season?

You might have heard earlier this week that Gen. Wesley Clark and Sen. Joseph Lieberman decided to pull out of the Iowa caucus, which is the first real test for the candidates. Now some were quick to attribute those decisions as signs of weakness in the two campaigns. But I suggest that it is a tactically brilliant maneuver by both, and a strategy that Sen. John Edwards in particular -- and possibly Sen. John Kerry -- should consider following.

Iowa is a unique case: it is a statewide caucus, not a primary. To win in Iowa, you need a massive organization that can really spread the word and pull strings with local party leaders. Dean's grassroots campaign and his fiery anti-war stance have Iowans raving, and he has had a presence in the state for close to a year now. Gephardt's connections there are long-standing, dating back to his last presidential campaign in 1988. And his union support and being from next-door certainly don't hurt. He and Dean have run away from the field in Iowa (though Kerry is hanging in a tough third) and given the structure of the Iowa caucus; it seems unlikely that the powers-that-be who will call the shots on caucus day are going to shift much in the next two to three months.

So the strategy plays out like this: Dean and Gephardt will campaign in Iowa relentlessly and spend massive amounts of cash. In the meantime, Clark and Lieberman will be focused on stop number two and beyond: New Hampshire, then South Carolina and all the rest that follow quickly thereafter. Clark and Lieberman are hoping for a second-round knockout of whoever emerges victorious, though exhausted, in Iowa.

And to spice it up even more: Clark and Lieberman are betting that the media will cheapen the "meaning" of an Iowa victory if some of the serious contenders sit it out. The media will immediately question if the candidates were helped by the other candidates not running there and will start to focus on New Hampshire to see how things play out with all of the candidates running.

Some pundits have been quick to point out that skipping Iowa has failed in the past. But I maintain that there is a huge difference this time around: there are six honest-to-goodness serious candidates -- a four-star general, three Senators, a former House minority leader, and the former longest-serving Democratic governor in the country. Any one of tem could wake up tomorrow and realistically say, "You know, 14 months from now, I could be president of the United States." That's remarkable.

It seems to me that there is only one way that this primary season could end quickly: if Dean were to win in both Iowa and New Hampshire. That is the traditional one-two punch that has knocked out all other contenders and has led to a party rallying around a candidate. And there is a potential for that to happen this time. But there is also the potential for utter mayhem to ensue.

Imagine this: Gephardt wins Iowa, Kerry wins New Hampshire. Dean finishes a strong second in both. Delegates to the convention, unlike the Electoral College that selects presidents, are awarded according to the proportion of votes garnered in that state. So say Kerry and Gephardt each win with 26 percent in those states and Dean finishes a strong second with 22 percent in each. Dean could have more delegates after the first two states than either of the other two 'winners.'

But if that's not bad enough, the real craziness begins the following week: on Feb. 3 there are half a dozen or so primaries. South Carolina is traditionally the biggie, but on the same day there are also primaries in Oklahoma, New Mexico, Arizona, Delaware, and elsewhere. If the first two split in some fashion (maybe not precisely as I have outlined, but in some similar way), then it is unlikely that any of the major candidates will drop out until after Feb. 3.

But let's look at this: what if Edwards wins his neighboring South Carolina with Clark in a solid second? Clark wins Arizona, New Mexico, and Oklahoma. And Lieberman wins Delaware. This field is so split (look at the polls: even though there is usually a steady "frontrunner" outpacing his rivals by five percent or so at any given time -- it once was Lieberman, then Dean, now Clark -- consistently there have been at least four candidates clumped around the mid-teens) and the primaries are so close together that it is impossible to really say how this thing is going to fall out.

It could even come down to those last primaries in early March in states where candidates have not campaigned at all. In such a situation, I could see Lieberman emerging victorious on the strength of his name recognition alone (candidates like Dean have pockets of high name recognition, but generally in areas of the country where they have campaigned relentlessly).

Even still, if the delegates are sufficiently split among the candidates and no one has a majority, prepare for an adventure in Boston next July at the convention. A dead-locked convention would be a spectacle, that's for sure. In such a case, you might even watch out for a Clinton restoration to materialize before your eyes. Hillary might be the only candidate who could unite a divided convention and pull the party together to take on Bush.

Imagine that. Now that's a crazy scenario. But is it a prediction? Nah, I wouldn't be that bold.

Adam Schultz is a senior majoring in Political Science. He can be reached via e-mail at schultz@tuftsdaily.com.