Serious question: Can anybody explain to me why all I read about Republican front-runner Mitt Romney is how he could lose, even though he seems to be running the board at this point, while all I read about Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton is how she can't lose, even though it seems anybody who really cares about politics is repelled by her?

The CW is that there will be NO media narrative coming out of Iowa and NH from the GOP - becayse the states have been ceded to Romney.

The media narrative is usually intensified by a surprise - not what is expected to happen. So I think a surprisingly strong showing from Huckabee could be the story.

Then again...GOP primary voters across the country COULD be surprised by a Romney victory - given that Romney is performing so poorly in national polls.

ejbenjamin -

It's actually better for Obama/Edwards that Hillary is seen as so inevitable. That way, if she loses Iowa, it will be a bruising surprise that will trigger all sorts of "What's Wrong with Hillary?" stories that will crush her.

Well, duh, if you keep writing NOW about how Huckabee will surprise with a second place finish in Iowa, will it still be a surprise if/when it happens??

I guess media narrative about media narrative makes sense if you divide the world into two groups of people: those who are exposed to the media and those of us (right here) who are exposed to the meta-media.  But it also exposes the "media narrative" as itself a fiction manipulated to sell advertising to the first group.

ejbenjamin and vc: I agree with ej and believe that coverage of Hillary the Invincible is playing right into Rupert Murdoch's hands.  I also agree with vc to a degree, that building up Hillary could be a good way to stop her (the old expectations game), but think it's risky to let that play out.  If the invincibility of Hillary is a right wing fantasy, why should respectable journalists and columnists treat it like it's real?  Nobody is invincible before votes are cast.  Ask any black candidate for office.

I'm sure somewhere Rudy Giuliani is reading this with a smile.

gmac: I never best against the home team or play rotisserie league.  It takes all the fun out of sport.  Root for the good guys and spend your money on popcorn.  That's my advice to you.

Jason asks a good question over at The Plank: Will a Romney win in Iowa matter if Huckabee takes second

I don't get it -- I keep reading about how moderate and reasonable Huckabee is.  Then I read a post like this that attributes his likely strong showing in Iowa to "religious conservatives" (ie, the same crowd that lifted Pat Robertson in 1988 - inspiring George W Bush to exploit this same segment of voters for his own political benefit in Texas and then in the presidential campaign of 2000 and 2004).

Huckabee is going to owe these people a lot, and like Bush, if he were to win the Presidency on the backs of these voters, he will have to kowtow to their self-appointed spokesmen.  

There are two things we ought to bring to an end in this campaign - two unhealthy trends that are eroding our liberal, democratic traditions.  

One is the dynastic trend reflected in two decades of Bushes and Clintons -- do we really need another decade of dynasticism in the Executive branch?  I think not.  

The second is the theocratic trend, which has completely taken over the GOP (to the point where even John Danforth, an ordained minister as well as a highly regarded Republican statesman, has decried the takeover of his party by representatives of an ambitious religious group).  

Huckabee's chances seem to depend on leveraging this second illiberal and anti-democratic trend to the hilt.  I hope he fails.  

Over at The Stump, Noam responds to my question about whether a Romney Iowa victory will matter with

What Neil said. I don't care how nice or compassionate or normal Huckabee sounds, the guy believes in creationism. Enough already with this infanitilization of our politics by religion-on-your-sleeve BS. Southern Strategy, good riddance.