Hillary wins Iowa: She wins the nomination.
Hillary loses big in Iowa: Obama wins the nomination (I don't see how Edwards can win Iowa or the nom; Obama is the stronger anti-Clinton at this point).
Hillary loses by a little in Iowa: Then things get interesting. It's fairly unclear what happens in that scenerio, given Clinton's huge lead everywhere else in the country. Does she collapse enough to lose? Or do 20 point leads merely turn into 10 point ones?
Here's a poll that says that, of people who's first choice is somebody other than the top three (IE, people who support "non-viable" canidates who get eliminated, but get to pick again), thier second choice is Edwards at 30%, Obama 27%, and Clinton only 14%.
Means a scenerio where Obama beats Clinton by a few points, with Edwards a few points behind, seems highly likely. And then we find out how much of a hit that narrow Iowa loss hurts Clinton nationwide.
I think we have 2008 in the bag. We should pick up the Presidency, 4-11 Senate seats (a filibuster-proof majority, or something very close to it, would be very nice), and a handful of House seats (the House is hard to get more significant gains, since we already picked off the low hanging fruit in 2006). But 2010 could prove to be a mini-1994 if we aren't careful and competent. If we still have significant troops in Iraq by 2010, for example, the Dems will be punished.
...if Congress simply doesn't pass a supplemental bill for Iraq spending? The troops magically come home?
A more likely real world scenerio in that case is that Bush keeps them there, spending money Congress didn't give him, and dares Congress to remove him from office; which they won't, since we would need 16 Republican senators to prefer President Pelosi to President Bush, which will never happen. Most likely though, is that it won't come to that point-enough Dems will crack that they will pass something with toothless restrictions that Bush ignores via a signing statement.
That is, Democrats think for themselves and make up thier own minds; Republicans play follow-the-leader and say yes master, whatever you say master. Of course whipping Democrats in the House is like herding cats.
...with a few, extreme exceptions (say, a mythical contest between Zell Miller and Lincoln Chafee), any Democrat is better than any Republican, especially since the existance of these types of Democrats are why we have the majority today. There are many districts where a Progressive Democrat can not be elected but a Blue Dog can.
In any case, the existance of the veto and filibuster means the Democrats can probably not stop the war in any case, since we don't have 67 (or even 60) Senators and 290 House members. The only thing that they can do is to refuse to fund it (which only requires 51 Senators and 218 House Reps), but that doesn't bring the troops home, it just means that they won't be paid or given food or bullets (so that will never happen in a meaningful way)-only the President can bring the troops home. This is the Blue Dogs blinking in this particular game of chicken-understandably so.
That is, to do something proactive, Congress would need a 60 Senators to override a filibuster (we don't have that) and 67 Senators and 290 House members to override a veto (we really don't have that).
But simply not authorizing funds for the war is the opposite-refusing to take an action. You only need 51 Senators and 218 House Representatives to refuse to take an action.
However, while Congress can cut off funding, it can not force Bush to bring the troops home. So, what would happen (apparently) is that the troops would stay put, they just wouldn't be paid or receive any food, bullets, or supplies. Obviously, that will cause the Blue Dogs (and others) to refuse to do such, so this won't happen-Congress will blink before Bush does.
Alternatively, Bush would simply continue the war using other funding or ignore the budget completely, daring Congress to remove him from office (which wouldn't happen-you need 67 Senators for that, too).
Net result: Congress can't do anything meaningful to stop the war. It simply isn't possible. Sorry.
Due to the structure of the United States Constitution, Congress can only go against an entrenched President to stop a pre-existing war if they have at least a two thirds majority in the Senate and at least a majority in the House (for impeachment and removal). If you have two thirds in both houses, you can override vetoes, as well.
He just needs to let his "maverick" nature shine through-works for McCain. Besides, the 08 election may be just as much about the Iraq war as the 06 one was, maybe more so, and he's the most credibile anti-Iraq war voice.
They are so high that I personally might not vote for her if she wins the general (I live in California, so my vote is 100% worthless). A large section of the population in the middle (and right) simply hates her. A large section on the liberal left and libertarian left (I'm in the second category here) does too, and they might flock to Nader and whoever the Libertarians run, respectively. She's really damned close to Lieberman in many of he policy positions (weak anti-Iraq war stance, is a cultural warrior like Lieberman, etc.).
She of course has high positives too, especially amoungst women and blacks. She could win in the general. But I rather she lost in the primary so we don't have to find out.