More caucus notes

Biden has dropped out. Dodd has dropped out. These experienced candidates did abysmally. Clinton's claim that the voters want experience falls flat. Mike Gravel has also dropped out.

Obama's win and speech will be the story tomorrow. With 236,000+ Democrats showing up (dwarfing the 115,000+ Republicans, and 2004's Dem turnout of 124,000), he got a huge number of votes.

This might seem bad for Huckabee, as far as most the attention will be on Obama. But Obama leads overwhelmingly with independents, and this could suck them away from voting on the Republican side and end up helping Huckabee in NH. Huckabee said to Chris Matthews that he "doesn't have to" win NH. Howard Fineman said Huckabee's in a way the anti-Obama, being the "intimacy candidate" rather than the big, impressive candidate. Disarming people as he can do will take him a long way, according to Fineman.

Obama's support was strong with young voters. I thought this was a potential weakness of the Obama campaign, and I was dead wrong. Obama even beat Hillary among women.

Here's John Ellis on Romney:

He’s all but doomed now. Senator John McCain will beat him in New Hampshire, probably by a lot, and Romney’s media coverage will evaporate and his candidacy will consequently die. On January 9, his managers will walk in and say that the campaign needs $10 million or $15 million to continue and that he, Romney, will have to write the check. Everyone who would contribute has maxed out. Everyone who might won’t. Two-time losers don’t get new money. It’s a basic rule of politics.

Pat Buchanan said on MSNBC he thinks Romney has to win NH or he's doomed.

Obama and Huckabee win Iowa

The networks are calling Iowa for Obama and Huckabee.

The questions about Romney are beginning. If he doesn't win NH, his campaign will be in a tailspin. What's the excuse after hugely outspending his rivals? But I think Romney can rebound from Iowa. Rush Limbaugh is solidly in his corner.

Hillary is deadlocked with Edwards. Edwards loses either way, as was mentioned in this post.

Chris Dodd hinted that he might bow out of the race if he finishes below 4th place. Right now he's at fifth.

Obama in Iowa

According to the latest WashPost-ABC poll, Obama and Hillary are neck and neck. Here's the second choice of Iowan Dems who support the minor candidates (Richardson, Biden, Dodd, Kucinich):

Barack Obama 37
Hillary Clinton 31
John Edwards 26
Other (vol.) 0
None of these (vol.) 1
No opinion 4

This is important because it is the minor candidates who will fail the viability test.

Iowa Black and Brown Debate

The technology-challenged Black and Brown Debate last night had a great Hillary one-liner to Richardson. Here's myDD's play-by-play:

Richardson to Clinton: He's equating Bill Clinton to himself and asks her "Don't you think Governors make good presidents?" "Well Bill. I also think they make good Vice Presidents." Hilarious. That's her entire answer. Moderator: "Aren't you sorry you asked?" Richardson doesn't know what to do.

Here's what HuffPo said:

The forum also allows candidates to ask other candidates questions.

Dodd and Edwards played along but when Norris asked Kucinich what he would like to ask the other candidates, Kucinich thought for a moment and then said, "Gee, I'm going to ask Congressman Kucinich a question" and then proceeded to ask and answer a question on single payer, nonprofit health care plan, of which he is the only Democratic candidate advocating such a
plan.

The crowd erupted in laughter.

This is the type of thing that accounts for Hillary's position. She's clawed her way to the top of the Democratic heap day by day. She's aided by the flaws of the other candidates, whether it be imbecility (Kucinish, Gravel, Richardson), long congressional track records (Biden, Dodd), or inexperience (Edwards, Obama). Of course, she's in a dead heat with Obama right now in Iowa. That could be the knockout blow if she wins. I don't think that it is necessarily a dead sentence if she looses. If Obama wins, it'll be similar Buchanan winning in 1996 in New Hampshire. Here's what the Democrats will say to themselves: we've got a really good shot at winning the White House in '08, so do we want to blow it by fielding an inexperienced candidate named "Barack Obama"? The frontloaded primary calendar might make this harder, ironically making Iowa and NH more important, as we've said here.

Hillary fighting a close race

Mark Mellman from The Hill has a nice summary of why the Democratic race is still up in the air. Here's his conclusion:

Questionable polls, the possibility of a close race today, late-deciding voters and events yet to unfold combine to create real uncertainty about the Iowa outcome — and that means the race for the nomination is far from over.

I've talked about voters deciding late before. High School students don't write thesis papers over the summer; they do it when they have to, when they're forced to, when there's a deadline. Voters do the same thing. If I don't have to decided who to vote for for three months, why decide now? It's perfectly rational behavior.

As far as the polls go, Mellman is referring to the very low turnout in the Iowa. I've mentioned before that turnout last time for the Democratic caucuses was 6% of all registered voters! People do not want to admit that they probably aren't going to vote in the caucuses, so it's impossible to weed out the population who is really committed to going.

It's a close race because it's not like Hillary has no competition. Both Obama and Edwards want it. And Biden, Dodd, and Richardson are likewise Presidential material. Hillary has an edge, but she's not leaving anyone in the dust.

Iowa is more important than ever because of the uncertainty of the primary calendar. Why spend money where there are question marks on whether it will make a difference? Spend it on Iowa, since you know winning there will have a huge impact. And if Hillary doesn't win Iowa, this is wide open. If she wins it she locks it up, according to Mellman, and I think he's right.

Health care debate reflections

Some reflections on the Democratic debate on health care in Iowa this past Thursday...

Joe Biden has an effective answer on the first question, and it's praised by Edwards in his response which followed. Dodd also chimes in after Clinton's answer with the same message: it's about leadership, who can bring people together, etc. All jabs at Hillary's closed-door meetings in 1993, but without mentioning her by name. Biden follows up on the leadership theme throughout the debate, doing very well referring to his own experience.

Biden and Richardson talk about home care of elderly relatives and Hillary joins in; with the baby-boomers retiring this will become an economic necessity. Edwards has an impassioned plea for taxing work and capital gains the same, at least, and it gets a nice audience response, as does his plea for reality-contact that universal care will be very expensive and his joke that Hillary's plan is the same as his--the split-screen on this last one showed Hillary's stone-faced expression. Edwards is scoring some points here. Later on he had a proposal to treat bonuses and golden-parachutes for CEOs the same as workers' pensions.

Hillary's response points to her first attempt as the vanguard that moves the sticks as far as Democratic positions go. She's right that there's a huge difference on health-care with the Republicans. Biden gets a laugh with his desire to raise obscene amounts of money like the other candidates, and his jabs at Richardson's experience. Biden wants reality-contact with the need for a chunk of Republicans to go along with the plan of any Democratic president. Richardson gets laughed at for being unable to answer with a yes or no. Later on he is laughed at for, as Biden put it, "When in doubt, blame President Bush." Biden's constant joking about Richardson running to be Secretary of State is funny because it's so true, and Biden can do it without seeming nasty because he's doing the same thing. Biden could actually be president, while Richardson doesn't have a chance.

The debate was good for Biden and Edwards, neutral for Dodd and Clinton, and bad for Richardson.

Democratic party and labor endorsements

At the end of last month, John Edwards got the endorsements of the United Steelworkers and the United Mine Workers. The Service Employees International Union, with 1.9 million members in North America, is still deciding which Democrat to endorse. They are streaming a webcast of all the major Democratic candidates this morning.

Here's a a WSJ article earlier this month on unions and the presidential race:

As the first major unions endorse presidential candidates, it appears the labor movement will once again divide its early support among several candidates, potentially eroding its overall impact in early caucus and primary states.

Yesterday, the International Association of Fire Fighters, representing 280,000 members, endorsed Sen. Christopher Dodd, energizing the Connecticut Democrat's campaign. Tuesday, the smaller United Transportation Union, which represents 80,000 rail and bus workers in 49 states, endorsed New York Sen. Hillary Clinton.

Meanwhile, Bruce Raynor, president of Unite Here, which represents 450,000 hotel and apparel workers, said yesterday he favors former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards and expects an endorsement soon. "The presidential process is moving more rapidly than ever before. If you want to influence the choice for the Democratic candidate, you've got to move sooner rather than later."

Mr. Edwards also has strong support from the Service Employees International Union and the United Steelworkers.

Labor experts expect other big unions, including the American Federation of Teachers and the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, to support Mrs. Clinton, in part because they believe she has the best chance to win the presidency. Sen. Barack Obama is expected to get more support from union members in and around Illinois, his home state.

Within the next week, the International Association of Machinists, with 410,000 members, is expected to endorse Mrs. Clinton or Mr. Edwards. In a new wrinkle, the union will also separately endorse former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, the only Republican to accept the union's invitation to address members. Rick Sloan, the machinists' union spokesman, said his organization wants to give more voice to its 100,000-plus Republican members.

"There is some division, and there's the real possibility that that's going to seriously mitigate the impact that labor can have in the primaries," says Peter Francia, an expert on labor and politics at East Carolina University in Greenville, N.C. A split labor movement could especially hurt Mr. Edwards, who many political experts believe needs to win the Iowa caucuses to keep his campaign alive.

Early labor endorsements are particularly important in Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire and South Carolina, which hold the first caucuses and primaries, because the moves let unions begin spending political funds and set in motion voter-outreach operations in those states. Voters from union households have traditionally made up a big percentage of people who turn out for caucuses and primaries.

Union leaders had hoped to avoid dividing their early support, as they did in the 2004 election. In the months before the nation's first caucuses in Iowa, major unions endorsed Richard Gephardt and Howard Dean, who lost, while John Kerry, with the firefighters' union the only major one to support him, won and emerged as the front-runner. Eventually, he garnered all labor support but by then, precious time and resources had been spent on rallying voters around losing candidates, diluting organized labor's impact.

Although Mr. Edwards has been more visible courting labor the past two years, joining steelworker picket lines and publicly supporting organizing campaigns for hotel workers, he is most vulnerable to labor divisions. "Splitting votes in the Iowa caucus would be destructive to him," said Robert Bruno, a labor expert at the University of Illinois- Chicago. He called Iowa Mr. Edwards's "best shot, and probably his only shot" at waging a successful campaign.

In endorsing Mr. Dodd, the firefighters ignored polls and campaign war chests. Harold Schaitberger, president of the firefighters' union, said he believed he has backed "the person that should be the nominee and the next president."

"It's going to be a big boost to us. The overwhelming majority of people we're talking to in Iowa and New Hampshire are truly undecided," Mr. Dodd said in an interview.

Here's commentary from the Huffington Post last month on the importance of unions:

To state the obvious, labor support means troops and money to get out the vote. It's particular crucial in caucus states like Iowa and Nevada. At this point, the conventional perception is that, if unions went with their heart, they'd endorse John Edwards. But, many of the union leaders are being influenced by the measures that are influencing the media coverage and some public perceptions: polls, money and celebrity. And, as a result, some of the unions might decide to stay neutral for some time and, perhaps, even stay out of the primary fight period.

I would also say that Hillary Clinton has a significant base of support within certain unions. But, two things are hurting her. First, a number of unions still don't trust her instincts on trade, which, for a number of unions, is a bottom line issue. Though she announced that she would oppose the South Korea so-called "free trade" deal, there is still a lingering suspicion, fairly or not, that she is much more likely to mimic Bill Clinton's support for so-called "free trade" (after all, NAFTA was promoted and pushed by Bill Clinton... And as an aside, Robert Reich, Clinton's labor secretary); unions have no desire to see more "liberals" elected who will push bad trade deals. Second, she can't shake the stories that have linked her senior advisor Mark Penn to public relations work that was done for anti-union companies (in fact, there is yet another story on the subject in today's Los Angeles Times); that fact, whether relevant or significant or not, is still lingering in the background.