Dissecting Florida

OK, here goes. First of all, 34% of the electorate were late deciders, and McCain edged out Romney with them. The momentum he got from SC was definitely a big factor. This is how you win elections--not by skipping primaries (Romney) or avoiding the early calendar altogether (Giuliani), but by contesting for every vote. I've exculpated Romney from skipping SC, but you could argue that in the short-term it might have hurt him--what if he took votes away from McCain by campaigning harder resulting in a Huckabee win? Then could he have won Florida? Perhaps that's not such a stretch, but in the long term he needs to knock out Huckabee first, and then take on McCain. This must be his long-term strategy. That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

So I refuse to abandon my inside-outside paradigm of the Republican race. That is to say, the liberal-moderate vote (38% of Florida's Republican electorate) or the Democrat-Independent vote (20% of Florida's Republican electorate) is not enough to win the nomination, and a candidate like McCain needs to broaden his appeal in order to win in the end. McCain has been doing that, by attacking Romney's flip-flopping on social issues. He's been emphasizing national security, and has done well with people who served in the military (27% of Florida's Republican electorate) which he won heavily in Florida and also won in SC.

So can McCain pull it off? He's just passed two huge tests, SC and FL. In SC he relied on a split Republican field. But Florida included a candidate whose voters track McCain's: Giuliani. Both candidates did better with Hispanics, better with seniors than middle-aged voters, better with secular voters, better with pro-choice voters, and better with liberals and moderates. Giuliani's voters would to a greater degree support McCain rather than other candidates, I'm guessing, even though McCain tied with Romney for Giuliani voters' second-choice.

As a side note, Thompson voters' second choice was heavily for Romney.

Ever since Michigan, McCain's national standing in the polls has dropped, and Romney's have increased. Florida was a closed primary, which McCain had difficulty winning in 2000.

The conclusion is that McCain is the front-runner, having bested the two more conservative candidates in consecutive contests, and eliminated the other two top candidates. But this race is still wide open. If Romney had won, he would be in the drivers' seat, but he didn't.

Thompson voters redux

I appreciate this fascinating comment on my last post:

As a long time member of Thompson blogs and sites I can promise you very few 'Fredheads' will be going to Huckabee! And why should they? Huck's made it very clear how he feels about Fred and Rollins has been down right nasty towards Fred. Huckabee's push polling of Fred in SC doesn't help him either.

I can tell you that from the blogs and the postings I have seen that Mitt has the lion's share of support, but it’s a very reluctant support I assure you.

Steve Dinan reports the same thing. Taegan Goddard reports this: "Since Fred Thompson exited the race, McCain is up 5, Romney is up 9, Giuliani is down 2 and Huckabee is flat." Seems like Romney's benefiting, though it's tough to say so early. Jay Cost thinks the impact on Florida might be marginal only.

I can see Thompson's voters going for Mitt, albeit reluctantly. They are both conservatives in the traditional mold. It's also easy to suppose that for a lot of them Mitt is less offensive that the Huckster.

Robert Novak and this blog makes the point that Thompson's exit is bad timing for the Huckster, who could move in and capture some of Thompson's voters, but can't because he's out of cash.

Thompson hasn't endorsed anyone yet. He was an informal adviser to McCain before he ran. He endorsed McCain against W. in 2000 and might do so again.

If Romney wins Florida it will be huge for him and back for the Huckster. Huckabee has to hope that McCain wins instead.

Michael Brendan Dougherty has this on Huckabee:

Even if Huckabee fails to capture the nomination, he may still effect significant change in the GOP coalition. In 2004, Republicans nabbed three out of four white evangelical votes. Karl Rove credited them with Bush’s re-election. But just as these voters demonstrated their power, their leadership was disappearing. James Kennedy and Jerry Falwell have passed away; others like James Dobson are on their way out of public ministry. Carter believes Huckabee can easily fill the void of evangelical leadership, but he warns that Republicans shouldn’t expect another compliant pastor who will shepherd the masses to the polls then otherwise leave them alone. “Because Huckabee doesn’t come from the establishment, he doesn’t owe them any favors. He has the potential to lead a new movement—and not just evangelicals alone.”

If the affable preacher consolidates his influence over the largest bloc of voters in the GOP, he’ll have the whip hand in the Republican coalition. No wonder the establishment is wincing.

Romney's retreat

I saw the news early yesterday morning on the Politico that Romney was ceding South Carolina and focusing on Nevada. I've been thinking about that decision since then.

My first reaction was that this was a great tactical move. He's playing the expectations game--he can't loose if he doesn't try. Nevada is much more friendly to his candidacy. Finishing fourth in SC would be a huge blow if he was campaigning hard. He can play it off as Nevada having 10 delegates more, so he looks like a business-type who's concerned about the hard results, not media fluff.

But this morning I'm wondering if this won't be looked back upon as the moment in which Romney lost the presidential race.

First of all, the "you can't lose if you don't try" means that I personally am in a great spot to win the presidency. Giuliani's trying it and it's failing. Of course it hasn't failed yet, and I could be proven wrong in my contention that it was a miserable strategic decision to skip all these early states. But you don't win the presidential nomination by shying away from the tough fights. That's what so appealed to me with Romney's kindling strategy. Don't ignore Iowa and NH but get in there, get your hands dirty, mow people's lawns for them if that's what they want, and earn every vote.

The playing with the expectations game would work better if Romney had said all along he wasn't going to contest SC. But of course that would make him look rather weak if he said earlier that he didn't think he could win the primary that's chosen the Republican nominee since 1980. It would work better if the other candidates would play along and try to contest Nevada. The expectations game is always a matter of media perceptions. The media have to play along, in other words. It began in 1988, when before the second presidential debate between Bush and Dukakis ABC News and the Washington Post released a 50-state poll announcing that Bush had an electoral college lock. Dukakis had to blow Bush away in the debate, or he was thought to be finished.

I don't know that the media's going to play along with Romney's show tune. The stories will be the Democrats in Nevada, and the Republicans in South Carolina. Oh yeah, Romney was in Nevada. What was he doing there? He knew he couldn't win in South Carolina. I don't think that this works for the Romney campaign.

What does it say about Romney's willingness to spend his own fortune? As John Ellis noted yesterday, Romney's got a huge advantage in being able to outspend his broke competitors.

I don't think it would be a damaging blow to Romney to campaign hard in SC and not do well. Huckabee did pretty miserably in NH and Michigan, and he's still in this thing.

Perhaps his team is looking at the polls and seeing not much of a possibility of a bump from Michigan, and a downward trend from early December (21%) to now (16%) with the possibility that it could trend lower. If he campaigned hard and lost to Thompson, finishing a distant fourth, that would be brutal.

But after winning Michigan, to abandon a primary everyone has always believed to be important is a strategy that doesn't settle well with me at all. Fight for everything, I say, take your lumps and try to spin the results in the concession speech.

Romney was quoted as saying that he'd be shocked if McCain doesn't win SC, that it's McCain-country. This is also expectations management. He knows McCain'll be hard-pressed to beat Huckabee, and he's trying to knock McCain out of the race. That's not a bad strategy--if it comes down to Romney vs. Huckabee, Romney will more than likely edge him out.

Can McCain win NH and the nomination?

McCain's campaign was hovering around 25% in NH until the second week of June when it started a 3-month decline. This was just when the immigration bill was being considered by Congress. Immigration is, as I've posted on before, a hot topic in NH despite the state not having many illegal immigrants. But as that issue came out of the spotlight, McCain's polls in NH gradually improved to above where he was at the beginning of the summer. He's now in a statistical tie with Romney.

If John McCain does not win in NH tomorrow, his campaign will be over. But if he does win, could he win the Republican nomination?

The Republican race breaks down like this. There are three viable conservative candidates (Huckabee, Romney, Thompson) and two more liberal candidates (McCain, Giuliani). I've already posted on the impossibility of Giuliani winning the nomination. His poll numbers all along have been artificially high; since he hasn't challenged anyone for votes yet, no one has stepped up to attack him. Once (or if) that happens, Giuliani's numbers will fall even more precipitously than they already have. There is so much material for negative ads in Giuliani's background, he's almost smart in waiting out Iowa and NH rather than delving in the trenches and ending his campaign early.

On the conservative side, Thompson can't win due to an unattractive candidate. This leaves Huckabee and Romney.

And McCain. Could he go all the way?

In 2000, McCain won the following states before his campaign ended March 9: NH, Arizona, Michigan, Connecticut, Massachusetts, RI, Vermont. NH was an open primary, Arizona was semi-closed but of course was McCain's home state. The battleground of Michigan was an open primary, and McCain won it on the votes of independents despite losing 3-1 amongst Republicans. The rest of the states McCain won were: Connecticut and Rhode Island were closed, Massachusetts and Vermont were open. The only closed primaries McCain won were from the liberal Northeast.

This previous experience causes me to think that it's an inside-the-beltway fantasy that McCain could get the Republican nomination. Right now the conservative vote is being split three ways, and even four, adding in Ron Paul. Those four candidates got 82% in Iowa. They currently get a majority of the vote in NH. The point is, that there are more candidates running as conservatives and two as more liberal, which means that, though the conservative vote is a greater percentage, it is being split by more candidates who get less a share of the pie each. In NH in 2000, the candidates running as conservatives (Bush, Steve Forbes, Alan Keyes) got more votes combined than McCain.

Iowa and NH do not pick presidents. Rather, they just narrow the field for the other states to make their selection from. That's what's happening right now on the Republican side. Once the winnowing process takes place, it'll be a two or three way contest (Huckabee, Romney/McCain, Giuliani). At that point the more liberal candidate(s) will take a hit, just as happened to McCain in 2000. When conservatives are united behind one candidate, no matter how much they prefer him or would rather have a different conservative candidate, then the opposing candidate like McCain or Giuliani don't stand a chance.

Right now it is a Romney--Huckabee race. A Giuliani win in NH knocks Romney out, and he can't come back unless he wins a (currently narrowly contested) Michigan primary. The marriage of convenience between Huckabee and McCain favors both candidates, but ultimately it's Huckabee who would prevail if they were the last two candidates standing.

General election matchups

The above chart has numbers from Zogby. The only results outside the margin of error is Huckabee beating Edwards (I think that's correct) and Obama beating Giuliani and Romney (I think that's also correct). Notice that Romney is only in the margin of error against Clinton. Though they are not beyond the margin of error, I think Huckabee would beat Hillary, and Hillary would beat Romney.

Huckabee's advertising

The Caucus has a chart showing how many times advertisements have run for the candidates all year. Romney outdoes everyone on the tube with over 17,000 TV spots, but is running about even with Paul and Giuliani on the radio. The Democratic candidates have a lot less radio ads, which makes sense given the prevalence of the right on talk radio.

It's also interesting that Huckabee doesn't even make it on the radar screen. He just started running ads November 26. Shortly thereafter his national and Iowa polls started a steep climb.

What's the content of those ads? The first one is below. Here's the explanation from Advertising Age:

This is reportedly Mike Huckabee's first TV ad of the season. It features Chuck Norris playing straight man, telling the voter why he or she should vote for Huckabee. It also features Huckabee relating some Chuck Norris "facts." For the uninitiated, facts about Chuck Norris have been an internet sensation for the past couple of years, propelling Chuck (and his beard) into a sort of ironic-mythical realm.

Huckabee's rise

Huckabee is now in a dead heat with Romney and Giuliani in Florida. He's in a dead heat with Giuliani nationally. Romney is flailing away with attacks which smack of desperation, and more than likely won't change anyone's mind. Establishment Republicans are also desperate.

New York magazine compares the Huckster to Pat Buchanan:

In 1996, after all, the economy was in the midst of a historic boom, one that was on the verge of kicking into overdrive. Today, the situation is the reverse: Recession looms, the Dow sags, the housing and credit markets buckle. The economy has elbowed aside Iraq as the central locus of voter anxiety.

Hence the reason why the rise of Huckabee is causing so much consternation, even panic, among his fellow wannabe nominees. Though nobody sober believes that, even if he emerges triumphant in Iowa, Huckabee can win New Hampshire, his prospects in the next two contests (Michigan and South Carolina) are considerably better. Both are states whose industrial bases have been ravaged by foreign competition. Both have seen their property markets hammered by the credit crunch and the recent wave of foreclosures. And at least in South Carolina, the state that is often the sine qua non for securing the GOP nomination, the Evangelical vote is nearly as significant as it is in Iowa. If Huckabee wins there—and he currently leads—his momentum could prove unstoppable.

There are, naturally, a raft of reasons to doubt this scenario. Huckabee’s lack of money might trip him up on Tsunami Tuesday, February 5.

My prediction has always been that Super-Duper Tuesday is going to be about free media, not advertising, so I don't accept that last part.

Huckabee is starting to look like Buchanan in another area: foreign policy. He has written an article for Foreign Affairs magazine that's very interesting. In it he has strong criticisms of Bush's foreign policy and leadership style. Here's the highlights:

The United States, as the world's only superpower, is less vulnerable to military defeat. But it is more vulnerable to the animosity of other countries. Much like a top high school student, if it is modest about its abilities and achievements, if it is generous in helping others, it is loved. But if it attempts to dominate others, it is despised.

American foreign policy needs to change its tone and attitude, open up, and reach out. The Bush administration's arrogant bunker mentality has been counterproductive at home and abroad. My administration will recognize that the United States' main fight today does not pit us against the world but pits the world against the terrorists.

The Bush administration has never adequately explained the theology and ideology behind Islamic terrorism or convinced us of its ruthless fanaticism. The first rule of war is "know your enemy," and most Americans do not know theirs. To grasp the magnitude of the threat, we first have to understand what makes Islamic terrorists tick.

Although we cannot export democracy as if it were Coca-Cola or KFC, we can nurture moderate forces in places where al Qaeda is seeking to replace modern evil with medieval evil. Such moderation may not look or function like our system -- it may be a benevolent oligarchy or more tribal than individualistic -- but both for us and for the peoples of those countries, it will be better than the dictatorships they have now or the theocracy they would have under radical Islamists.

If I ever have to undertake a large invasion, I will follow the Powell Doctrine and use overwhelming force. The notion of an occupation with a "light footprint," which was our model for Iraq, is a contradiction in terms.

[On Iran:] Many Iranians are well disposed toward us. On 9/11, there was dancing in the streets in parts of the Muslim world but candlelit vigils and mourning in Tehran. When we invaded Afghanistan, Iran helped us, especially in our dealings with the Northern Alliance. Hoping for better bilateral relations, Tehran wanted to join us against al Qaeda. The CIA and the State Department supported this partnership, but some in the White House and the Pentagon did not. After President Bush included Iran in the "axis of evil," everything went downhill fast.

The conclusion:

Our history, from the snows of Valley Forge to the flames of 9/11, has been one of perseverance. I understand the threats we face today. When I am president, America will look this evil in the eye, confront it, defeat it, and emerge stronger than ever. It is easy to be a peace lover; the challenging part is being a peacemaker.

"The peacemaker" is the image the campaign would like to portray. Some strong rhetoric against Bush's policies from Huckabee, and it is earning him more denunciations from establishment Republicans. But it's precisely the establishment Republicans that messed up big-time in Iraq. Despite their declinations, that was precisely the reason for the 2006 result. After the primary race is over, whoever the Republican nominee is, he will have to start shifting on Iraq towards a better general election position. Huckabee is doing that right now. He could be playing towards Ron Paul supporters as well.

The rise of Huckabee should, in my opinion, help John Edwards. Huckabee is a dangerous commodity for Hillary to run against. The likability factor could be exploited against her. Huckabee's liberal-leaning positions would triangulate well against Hillary's liberalism. Edwards and Obama are another story. I think Huckabee might beat Hillary, would have less of a chance against Obama, but wouldn't beat Edwards. They are too much alike so that voters would just vote for the party (Democrats) that they want to control the White House. Edwards himself is now talking about his electability.

New Hampshire

Andrew Sullivan makes the point that if independents flock to Obama in NH, it's not only bad news for Hillary but bad news for McCain, since it's an open primary. But it's also bad news for Giuliani.

Rassmussen reports that Giuliani is now at his lowest level in NH, and that Thompson has disappeared behind Ron Paul in NH.

Sullivan also points to the downward trend for Hillary in New Hampshire, and Chris Bowers proclaims that for the first time Obama is leading the race. Obama is edging out Clinton in Iowa. He could translate an Iowa win into a NH win, and then lights out.

Huckabee and strategy

A good post over at Yahoo makes the point that Huckabee might be doing Romney a favor by making Iowa so competitive--if Romney wins Iowa, it'll be a huge win rather than an expected one. An expected win is no good. Harkin in 1992, or even Tsongas in NH that year did not profit from Iowa and NH wins due to the expectations game.

Another note on Huckabee at the debate. I first noticed at the values voter debate the amazing ability of the Huckster to have an internal clock inside him for answer the questions. He's never battling the moderator for more time. In the colloquy on immigration between Giuliani and Romney, Giuliani had one too many replies and got booed by the crowd. In the question on signing a federal abortion ban, Romney got testy with Cooper pressing him for an answer. The Huckster makes a contrast with this.

By staying within the time limit, you look like a nice guy. The problem is that people aren't just looking for a nice guy as president. Ronald Reagan asserting that it's his microphone in 1980 was a positive moment. Bob Dole's tearfulness after his wife's convention speech was a negative.

However, a number of factors are involved in these examples. There's likability, niceness, assertiveness, and sincerity. Likability and sincerity can only help you. Niceness and assertiveness are appropriate only in some circumstances. I was impressed in the last debate with Huckabee's ability to mix these attributes together well--he displayed passion on the immigration question in responding to Romney. But he doesn't go over his time. It's as if he's comfortable being a minor candidate. He's not anymore--he was in the middle of the stage, next to Romney. But he does not give off an aura of eagerness to self-promote, which contrasts to Romney. The sense of humor also contrasts with Romney. If I were Romney, I'd hit hard on the competence factor--I think there's an opening there. Huckabee's running as a kind of national self-help coach.

This is a Romney vs. Huckabee race. Everyone else is secondary.

Republican YouTube Debate

Warning: what follows is a Huckabee love fest.

Giuliani and Romney went at it on immigration at the beginning, and the sparks were flying. I thought Romney won the exchange by a nose. Thompson weighed in next, but that is a bad turn-of-phrase for a lightweight, and his answer was so weak it got laughed at. (Later on Thompson said he would "cut tax cuts"--typical.) Huckabee did not do such a bad job with his first part of the question on immigration. Romney then called Huckabee a Massachusetts liberal. Huckabee then made a powerful response to Romney. It was basically a liberal response, but a powerful response. Romney responded, but Huckabee clearly won the exchange. And he did it with basically a liberal position. You have to think he would make a dangerous (albeit underfunded) opponent to Hillary in the general. Huckabee got a lot of cheers, too, and was unflappable when Cooper told him his time was up. Huckabee's sincerity contrasts with Romney.

Huckabee up in Iowa

Did not expect this to come this soon! Since the end of August this blog has pushed the potential of the Huckster, and he just took a huge step with his lead in Iowa in a Rasmussen poll. A pro-Huckster blog says: "Forty-eight percent (48%) of Evangelical Christians support Hucakbee. That’s more than all the other candidates combined. Romney attracts 16% of the Evangelical vote." NPR's blog writes that even Huckabee's campaign seemed taken aback by the success. A recent Florida poll has Huckabee second to Giuliani.

The Huckster needs cash. This is a problem for populist candidates, and the Huckster is no Wall Street Journal Republican, as we've pointed out here. Populist candidates are the ones hurt most by campaign finance laws. Finding one rich person to finance a populist campaign is not an option. By limiting the money individuals can give, it perversely only helps the candidates who favor the rich--they bundle contributions from their rich friends to raise lots of cash.

Candidates who are media darlings also can raise money much more easily, since they give off an appearance of success to donors. I'm thinking of course of McCain and Giuliani. But giving money to Giuliani is a waste, since he can't win the nomination. Giuliani is up in the political prediction market in the last week, up 1.9 points. Huckabee is down .5 points. This is ridiculous. Not that I'm predicting a Huckabee victory; I think it will probably be Romney. But Huckabee has more of a chance than Giuliani, and for the markets to give Giuliani a 46.8% chance and the Huckster a 7.8% chance is silly odds.

Likability and the candidates

I've talked about likability before, and there's an interesting recent post by Dan Balz at the Washington Post.

Balz points out that likability is not as important this year (and next) as it was in previous presidential elections. With the scandals and failures at the federal level, competence is more important than likability.

This crystallizes what I've been trying to express to people who ask me about Hillary's negatives. She can be elected president even with high negatives, I say, without any real historical proof.

A recent Post poll that Balz cites puts Giuliani and Romney in a dead heat for the "strong leader" category, but the other candidates destroy him on "honest and trustworthy." Giuliani is not going to win in Iowa. Thus, his front-runner status right now will only hurt him in the end, since it will make an Iowa loss more devastating.

Republicans jump all over Hillary

Hillary's stumble at the end of the last debate was bad. Here's the Republican reaction:

WASHINGTON (AFP) — Suddenly, Republicans scent blood in the water, as a media storm rages over Democratic pace-setter Hillary Clinton's first stumbles of the 2008 White House race.

The New York senator's previously near-faultless campaign hit a hitch at a debate on Tuesday night, over her halting answers on illegal immigration, and the release of her papers dating from her husband's White House terms.

Republican White House hopefuls Rudolph Giuliani and Mitt Romney joined a feeding frenzy sparked by Democrats John Edwards and Barack Obama, hoping to please anti-Clinton conservatives and hurt a possible 2008 rival.

"I've seen Hillary, you know, do a southern accent in the South and talk like a New Yorker in New York and take two different positions on Iran and six different positions on Iraq," former New York mayor Giuliani told Fox News.

"But I never saw her take two different positions in one minute in front of the same audience."Romney also mocked her. "I watched her dancing around the issue. I thought I'd tuned to 'Dancing with the Stars,'" he said on Radio Iowa.

"She just wanted to have it both ways," said the ex-governor of Massachusetts, himself no stranger to charges of political reversals.

Hillary took two different positions on illegal immigration in one minute, yes. This makes her look silly, yes. But it's going to take more than that to move her poll numbers. People are not going to abandon her over one mistake.

Hillary better watch it though. The way these things build is through a totality impression, a host of things makes a candidate fit a certain image. Bush 41's playing golf with bad economic news being reported the same day, Gore's idiosyncratic debate performances, Kerry going windsurfing after he won the nomination. The blow of the last debate landed on Hillary, but there's another round, and she can absorb it by not goofing. Her last goof was right at the end. A two-hour debate; that's so fatiguing. I'm not blaming it on fatigue, I'm just pointing out how hard it is to run for president. She's the front-runner, so she has to be perfect.

Not goofing up is so hard, but it's required for a front-runner. This is why Richardson will never be the front-runner for more than a weekend.

Scenarios for Republican candidates

Bill Kristol has an interesting post up today on different imaginary scenarios the Republican presidential nomination could take. At the end he writes:

The key to the indeterminacy of the race is Iowa, and Iowa is up in the air, and New Hampshire is as well. One should add, incidentally, that it's also not determined that the race will be settled on Feb. 5. It might go on until Texas on March 4, probably as a two-way contest, but perhaps as a three-way (or conceivably a four-way). It's even possible no candidate will have a majority of the delegates at the end of the primaries. No one has a credible scenario as to what happens then.

Here's his different imaginary scenarios:

1. Huckabee wins Iowa (or places a very strong second), beating Romney. He then defeats at least Thompson in New Hampshire. Energized social conservatives rally to the real thing for Huckabee's showdown with Giuliani, as Thompson and Romney fade. Huckabee gets enough money flowing in to compete adequately, and beats Giuliani one-on-one on Feb. 5 and after, winning more delegates than Giuliani by doing better in the delegate-overweighted (because they've voted Republican more often recently) Southern states.

2. The Iowa result is really muddled (think a top four at 23-21-18-16). McCain pays no price for running fifth (or sneaks into fourth). The others are deflated, and McCain appeals to his old New Hampshire supporters to try to change history one more time. He flat-out wins New Hampshire, then wins Michigan, then . . . he can be Commander-in-Chief at a time of war, he was right about the surge in Iraq, he's the storybook old vet making a run for the ages, the media falls back in love--who needs money for TV ads at that point?

3. Thompson wins or runs a strong second in Iowa, as almost everyone else underperforms (except Huckabee?). Having over-performed in Iowa enough to be the story, Thompson over-performs in New Hampshire and then Michigan, and wins South Carolina. He'll then be on his way, as a center-right candidate running up the middle between Huckabee and Giuliani. (For examples of how being positioned in the center can pay off, consider Kerry in '04 between Dean and Gephardt/Lieberman, or Bush in 2000 between Forbes and McCain, or Dole in '96 between Buchanan/Forbes and Alexander.) Thompson wins Florida and most of the delegates (remember the overweighted South) on Feb. 5. In this scenario, Thompson will have exploited the distinction between what Jay Cost calls the "perpetual campaign" (or the pre-campaign) and the and the "real campaign." He will have gotten credit with voters for flouting what Cost calls "fake rules" that voters dislike (e.g., that you have to start running a year early), while obeying enough real rules (Thompson already has over 75,000 donors, few of them maxed out, and some $7 million cash on hand) to afford TV at key junctures.

It's obvious what Kristol's up to in this piece. Kristol likes McCain, which is the real point of this exercise--#2 is his fantasy dreamy heaven. The post is commenting on Fred Barnes's imaginary scenarios. Barnes writes:

Contrary to reports, Giuliani is not ignoring the early states. Well, Iowa maybe. He's campaigning aggressively in New Hampshire and leads in the Fox poll in South Carolina. If he stayed out of every state until the Florida primary, that would be fatal. The early winner would gain all the media attention and swamp him.

But Giuliani's focus is on Florida and then on the big-state primaries on February 5 in California, Illinois, New York, and New Jersey. He, too, has the funds to compete. His scenario--breaking out in Florida and blowing away the field on Super Tuesday--is credible in my view.

No. Not credible. You can't ignore Iowa. The Iowa winner will be the flavor of the month just in time for New Hampshire and Super Duper Tuesday. Giuliani will be swamped. You can't overcome the free media Iowa generates, even with millions of dollars. This is a poor analysis from Barnes and Kristol.

Obama to be more agressive

I said early this month that Obama needs to start going after Hillary. There was an NPR story on this week about how Obama's campaign is losing steam, and it interviewed a former Obama supporter who was so excited about his candidacy, bought all his books, but now could care less. Where's the excitement? It's unclear what Obama offers as opposed to the other candidates; as Dick Morris said, he doesn't know how to use issues to gain support.

Now a NY Times article: "Obama Promises a Forceful Stand Against Clinton."

His senior aides said they were now spending much of their day fielding calls from concerned donors and other supporters asking why Mr. Obama was not challenging Mrs. Clinton more forcefully and warning that he could cede the role of the main anti-Clinton candidate to former Senator John Edwards of North Carolina, who is running an aggressive campaign in Iowa. Typically, one aide said, the supporter asks some version of the same question: “What happened to the Obama we saw at the 2004 Democratic convention?”

Morale at his Chicago headquarters, aides said, has been dragged down by the perception that Mrs. Clinton is lapping Mr. Obama. And aides said that they had been struggling for weeks for a balance between offering a contrast with Mrs. Clinton and avoiding the anger that they said had marked Mr. Edwards’s candidacy.

In a 53-minute interview as he ate breakfast aboard a chartered jet that brought him here from Chicago, Mr. Obama said Mrs. Clinton had been untruthful or misleading in describing her positions on problems facing the nation. He accused her of “straddling between the Giuliani, Romney side of the foreign policy equation and the Barack Obama side of the equation.” He said that she was trying to “sound or vote” like a Republican on national security issues and that that was “bad for the country and ultimately bad for Democrats.”

This is exactly where Obama can hit Clinton--foreign policy. As I've argued recently, as a woman looking at a general election campaign Hillary has no choice but to look tough. There's dissatisfaction with Hillary's hawkishness amongst Democratic primary voters. The tough part is translating that into support for Obama. But by ratcheting up the rhetoric, Obama can at least start to draw contrasts.

The Huckabee problem

Check out this brilliant post on 2008central about Mike Huckabee. I agree with everything. Here's the essential section:

At the end of the day, the majority of people vote based on a simple idea of a candidate. For example, ‘Rudy Giuliani will protect us from terrorism and clean things up the way he cleaned up NYC’ or ‘Mitt Romney will make the government function like a business’ or ‘John McCain is trustworthy and knows foreign policy best’ or ‘Fred Thompson is lazy, but capable and that means he’ll protect me from terrorists and from intrusion of the Government but he’ll also leave me alone’ or ‘Ron Paul will finally remind Americans that the constitution is real, is the law of the land and should be adhered to’. I could go on, but I think my point is clear. After following this campaign very closely, I can boil all of these candidates down to a simple statement…an idea and come election time that’s what most voters do - they boil candidates down to a simple statement and pick based on the statement that is closest to them.

I can’t do this for Mike Huckabee…I mean, I could come up with a few…but not a single statement and that’s the problem. As he has in the beginning, Huckabee is left without a motto and without a solid constituency.

The Republican Race is Romney vs. Huckabee

Here's an article that best sums up the state of the Republican race right now. That race is up in the air in large part because the "values voter" base of the party has not coalesced around one candidate. Romney has been heavily courting their vote. But there's the flip-flopping issue, since he is taking positions now that he disavowed in the past. Huckabee is a real option for these voters in a way Giuliani isn't because of his issue positions and Thompson isn't because of a lack of charisma.

At a values-voter summit in DC this weekend:

The results of the event’s straw poll were especially telling: Of the 5,775 votes received at on-site voting kiosks, by mail, and online, Romney won 1,595, while Huckabee was only 30 votes behind, at 1,565.

But these baseline numbers don’t tell the entire story. Voting online required only a nominal donation to the Family Research Council, the organization that ran the poll and the leading sponsor of this weekend’s summit, held at the Hilton Washington. Candidates sent out appeals to their supporters to cast an online vote in the poll -- such votes turned out to generate about 94 percent of Romney’s support.

Among people who actually paid to attend the conference, people FRC President Tony Perkins has called “influencers” within their communities and church congregations, the result was far different, and a decisive victory for Huckabee. Over 51 percent of those who voted at the conference chose the former Arkansas governor. Romney was a distant second, garnering just over 10 percent of the vote.

Tony Perkins predicted that Huckabee, who also finished second to Romney at the Ames, Iowa straw poll in August, would see a benefit once attendees made their way back home from Washington. “I believe that Gov. Huckabee will get a significant bounce out of this,” Perkins said, later adding that Huckabee could join the company of Romney, Giuliani and Fred Thompson at the front of the GOP pack.

This is the real race, between these two candidates. The only thing Romney really has on Huckabee is his funding. This is obviously a huge asset.

But other leaders within the evangelical movement are not sold on Huckabee, particularly Gary Bauer, head of American Values, one of the summit’s co-sponsors. He said Huckabee, who raised only $1 million in the third quarter of the year, doesn’t have the time or resources to compete with the top GOP candidates.

“I’m skeptical, I am,” Bauer said. “I just don’t see how you go from having $600,000 in the bank one year before the election and go on to leap-frog everybody else, beat Giuliani and then go on to beat Hillary Clinton. I just don’t see it happening.”

Will this argument sway Republican voters? It could. The Iowa voters could very well make the rational decision to go with the wealthy candidate. But they could just as well go with the personality candidate. This thing is still up in the air. If the Huckster has untold millions, it would be a no-brainer. If he starts raising money, his campaign will really take off.

Can Hillary humanize herself?

The answer to the question is yes. This is something entirely within the power of the campaign. As I said in a previous post, attacking a female candidate's personal life is bad form and all the other candidates will stay far away from it. Hillaryland also knows which side of its bread is buttered--humanize her or die. It should be their number one priority.

The Times of London has this today:

Clinton has been coming up with some teasing one-liners, telling trade unionists “I’m your girl” and laughing on daytime television about the differences between her and her male rivals: “Well, look how much longer it takes me to get ready.” It is a disarming tactic, which her rivals are finding difficult to counter without appearing unchivalrous.

Hillaryland does have a lot of work to do, though. Caitlin Flanagan writes this in The Atlantic:

Hillary did try to be warm and chatty. The subject of panty hose, I seem to recall, was discussed in the banter preceding her formal address. But something freakish in her voice or inflection--you know what I mean--made me want to flee. Hillary can't talk about panty hose. It's cringe-inducing to watch her try to talk about any of the subjects that normally would cement a bond between women, because there's nothing more uncomfortable than witnessing someone straining to be natural.

Oh boy. This was the problem of the last two Democratic nominees dispatched by George W. Bush. Who would you rather have a beer with?--the answer was always Bush. It's a big problem if your candidate has trouble faking it.

I've talked about likability before and concluded that Hillary's likability might not be as big a problem as people think. Especially if the nominee is Giuliani or Romney. But if it's Huckabee? Huckabee beats Hillary on likability hands down. Hillaryland better pray it's not the Huckster.

Thompson on the economy

Fred Thompson gave a very unsurprising sub-par performance at the Republican debate. He blundered during his first response on the economy. He had a long pause during his answer, which is not atypical for him, and his rainbows-and-lollipops picture of the economy was such a weak answer to the question of why two out of three Americans don't think the economy is going well, especially compared to the answers given by Romney right afterwards and Ron Paul and the Huckster later on.

Giuliani gave a pro-free-market answer in between Romney and Paul, and he spoke with conviction and credibility, while Thompson just seemed like he answered because he had to. Politicians have to speak in generalities. The whole art is to do this while at the same time seeming to speak one's mind with passionate conviction. It's a difficult thing to do: inspire people to agree with you who might not if they really knew your concrete positions, motivate the people who agree with you already while not alienating too many on the fence, speak dispassionately and with gravitas on issues that divide people without giving the impression that you'll say and do anything that will get you elected.

Republicans in Iowa

Here's the results of the latest Iowa poll and commentary from Jonathan Martin of the Politico:

Romney: 29
Thompson: 18
Huckabee: 12
Giuliani: 11
McCain: 7
Others: 14
Unsure/Uncommitted: 9

What is interesting, per the Register's write-up, is that Huckabee is strongest among those Republicans who have made up their mind. Of the 1/4 of those sampled who said they had made up their minds, Huck gets 19 followed by Romney's 16 and Thompson's 15.

This is big. In the time we have before the caucus, Huckabee is going to gain ground while Thompson looses it. The real question will become, can Romney win a big enough victory. Huckabee's in a really nice spot here. His fund-raising is down, yes, but there's no expectations for him. That's key, because he could leverage a second-place finish into a "comeback kid" narrative for the media desperate for an angle. "Romney does just about as well as expected" is not an interesting angle. The comparisons will also be there with the other governor from Hope in NH fifteen years ago.