OK, so Kerry's not my favorite candidate, but I think we might want to rethink the meaning of the Iowa effect.
My initial reaction was to wonder, are Dems that fickle? How could national polls swing so quickly?
But that may be the simplistic interpretation. The new polls, showing a massive Kerry surge nationwide, are probably a good sign. They say that:
- Enough Dems are paying attention that news travels fast and can have a large effect quickly. This would not be the case if people were ambivilant.
- Dems are itching to close ranks. What they care about is uniting around a winner. When Dean was strong, they rallied around him. When Kerry is strong, they do the same. Sure success follows success, but I think the magnitude of this effect is striking. And it seems that the main deviations from that effect - both when Dean was in the lead and when Kerry is - is electability; in other words, people don't agree about who the strongest candidate is, but they all agree we have to win this November.
Even the large number of undecideds is consistent with this - it seems that even in states that have gotten to know the candidates well, many likely voters are undecided. My impression is that, this year, it's not because they can't find someone they like. It's either that they like them all, or they don't care so long as it's not Bush.
Perhaps I'm reading too much into this. But despite some strong emotions out there, I suspect the Iowa effect may be further confirmation that this party will not be fractured after the nomination.