I'm beginning to think that victory in the presidential race is all about timing.
Four years ago, Howard Dean was doing quite well, leading in many polls as the Iowa Caucuses neared. However, he lost there, coming in third as I recall. Kerry, who had been quite a bit behind both Dean and Gephardt just a few weeks before the caucuses, pulled out a surprise victory and Dean and Gephardt saw their chances end that day. Many have attempted to explain that turn of events, none of them satisfactorily.
This year, just two weeks before the caucuses, the long time frontrunners in both parties, Romney and Clinton, also seem to have peaked too soon, and now we see Huckabee surging from out of nowhere, and Obama finally overtaking Clinton. These are clearly two of the most inexperienced candidates, in terms of governing at the federal level, but perhaps have campaign teams that know something about the psychology of the American people, who can be quite fickle, are easily bored, and embrace novelty.
It is possible, of course, that these last minute changes in candidate preference have to do with voters evaluating the clients over time and thus changing their minds as they accumulate more information. Or perhaps this really is a change election, and Obama and Huckabee, being unfamiliar to many Americans prior to the campaign, represent the biggest change. But it is also possible that American voters, trained by advertising to opt for the new brand, simply get tired of seeing and hearing so much from and about the frontrunners.
Could timing have as much to do with it as anything else? And if so, is this really the best way to choose a president?
