Underreported Reason for Change in Presidential Polls

So the frontrunners aren't in front any more.

We've heard lots of explanations why Hillary and Rudy have fallen as the extremely early nominating process proceeds. And we'll buy some of them. Yes, Hillary is very unlikeable, and the more people see of her, the more they respond to that salient characteristic. No, Rudy hasn't done much to calm the fears of conservatives about his candidacy, sending them off to look for a True Believer to support.

But here's what we see as the most significant point: thanks to General Petraeus's remarkable success, the Iraq War is no longer the major issue of the campaign. The frontrunners were running in front because they were seen by those in the center as the best potential POTUSes to fix what was a very nasty situation. But it's nasty no more.

Rudy was the candidate of Republicans like SWNID who saw the war as the critical issue trumping all others. Hillary was the candidate of Dems who wanted to placate their pacifist base but act with reasonable responsibility.

But now, the war appears to be on a glide path to reasonable success, regardless of who is in the Oval Office. So voters are free to indulge other interests.

Getting past the boilerplate about whether this helps Democrats or Republicans in November, we opine that the surge's success has given voters the freedom to think about unconventional candidates like Obama and Huckabee.

Of course, there's a problem in all this: the next POTUS takes office about a year after tomorrow's New Hampshire primary. For all we know, by then we could be back in trouble in Iraq or dealing with another military matter in some other part of the world.

A nominating process that nominates so far in advance threatens to leave us with choices best suited to a year-old situation. Suddenly the old system of party officials picking their nominees in August looks very appealing again.