Race 4 2008 has a good post up today pushing for Charlie Crist as McCain's running mate, on the thinking that it takes Florida out of play, limiting the possibilities for Obama to flip Republican states.
He writes: By taking Florida out of play, McCain limits possible red state defections to seven states: Missouri, Virginia, Iowa, Ohio, Colorado, Nevada, and New Mexico. The geographical concentration of these states into two distinct regions would make multi-state campaigning easier on the part of a cash-strapped Team McCain, and would force Obama to make inroads into the very sorts of voters who are most suspicious of him in order to win. In this scenario, McCain could simply spend the entirely of the fall campaign jumping back and forth between Missouri, Virginia, Ohio, Michigan, and Pennsylvania, knowing that whoever wins the majority of those five states probably wins the election. And we all saw how far Obama’s millions went in places like Ohio and Pennsylvania during primary season.
The swing states can be seen at the bottom of this blog, with the margins from '04. If Obama wins Pennsylvania (and at this point seems like he probably will) and Michigan, he can win without Missouri, Virginia, and Ohio only by batting 75% in Iowa, New Mexico, Nevada, and Colorado. That's difficult, but not impossible. As Chris Bowers has posted, Obama has had a lead in Iowa in every poll since January 2007, is ahead in every Colorado poll, currently leads by over 5 points in New Mexico, and is down over 2 points in Nevada.
So Obama is likely to win today. But oh how the polls can change!
Showing posts with label Iowa. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Iowa. Show all posts
6/28/08
The Battleground States
The video posted below shows David Plouffe (the genius for the Obama campaign who saw early on that the primary could come down to delegates, and urged aiming for delegate-rich contests) mapping out Obama's strategy in the general. That strategy is, hold on to the Kerry states, and go on offense against some Bush '04 states.
He claims that Obama is doing well in the Kerry states, so that McCain doesn't have many opportunities to go on offense. He's right. The WSJ poll above of Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan show Obama with leads right now beyond the margin of error. Of course that could change. But as of right now it looks good for Obama to hold onto the Kerry states.
Kerry got 251 electoral votes, 19 shy of winning. Where can Obama get these 19 votes? I've posted my analysis of swing states at the bottom of this blog for easy reference. Of course Ohio or Florida would do it. A combination of Iowa, New Mexico, and Colorado would do it as well.
I'm going to be doing a series on this blog on the political situations for the campaigns in the states, starting with the battleground states. It's a fun way to pass a lazy summer. [I am no longer planning on doing this. Jay Cost is doing a great job of this over at http://www.realclearpolitics.com/horseraceblog/]
5/19/08
McCain's campaign contradictory
Peter Beinhart said this morning on Washington Journal that the Republican brand is tarnished, and that the long campaign, with the generation of excitement and infrastructure in so many states, has helped the Democrats. Mike Huckabee said the same thing about the Republican brand being tarnished on Meet the Press yesterday. NPR reported this morning on how Republicans are running twenty points behind Democrats on every issue ("Who do you want running the economy, etc."). But McCain is running ahead of the Republican brand. Was McCain a really smart choice by Republican primary voters?
Bill Kristol had a column in the NYT praising McCain's "exceptionalism." He's exactly wrong. I called into Washington Journal last week to make just this point. What's happening right now is similar to what was going on back in October of last year, when it looked like Hillary was edging out Obama and starting to become "inevitable." What happened then? Hillary stumbled in a debate over a question about illegal immigration. Her campaign put out a silly press release bashing Obama wanting to be president in Kindergarten. There was an overdone media frenzy over a hostage crisis in one of her campaign offices. Obama was outspending Hillary in Iowa, and she was losing ground, ultimately finishing third there.
All of this was nothing, however, compared to the real reason Hillary is going to lose the nomination. And that is her October 2002 Iraq vote. That is the big contradiction of her campaign, and she could just not overcome it. Obama exploited it to the hilt.
The contradiction is this: Vote for Hillary, she has experience. On the number 1 issue of the day, Hillary had a vote, a chance to weigh in when it counted, and she blew it. But vote for her; she'll be ready to lead; she has experience.
It's internally contradictory. Anytime you are trying to make an argument in politics it has to make sense. You can't paper-over a glaring contradiction on an issue people care about. You can emote, you can ask for forgiveness, you can say you're sorry, and that is really the only way to do it. I believe it was the YouTube debate on the Republican side in which Romney was asked about his position on abortion. He began with this: "I don't know how many times I have to say it, I'm pro-life." What a terrible response. Impatience with the audience, with voters, for not believing him that he's had a super convenient change of heart on an issue that the constituency he's after cares about. That was the time to emote, to show his sincerity, to sell his change of heart. Romney might have lost the nomination with that answer. Huckabee killed him by exploiting this contradiction in Romney's campaign--he was supposed to be the conservative candidate, but his record didn't support that.
It was the same way with Bush's Social Security reform plan. "Social Security is in a crisis; it won't be there for young people. We need to spend huge amounts of money to make private accounts." Well, if it's in crisis, then why spend so much money to change it to something different? And if you're in crisis mode, why not focus on Medicare which is in worse crisis?
McCain's argument for the presidency is internally contradictory. He trumpets his foreign policy experience. But he's been in favor of the war all along, and by any measure the war has been a disaster.
In a a speech in Columbus on May 15, McCain said this:
By January 2013, America has welcomed home most of the servicemen and women who have sacrificed terribly so that America might be secure in her freedom. The Iraq War has been won. Iraq is a functioning democracy, although still suffering from the lingering effects of decades of tyranny and centuries of sectarian tension. Violence still occurs, but it is spasmodic and much reduced. Civil war has been prevented; militias disbanded; the Iraqi Security Force is professional and competent; al Qaeda in Iraq has been defeated; and the Government of Iraq is capable of imposing its authority in every province of Iraq and defending the integrity of its borders. The United States maintains a military presence there, but a much smaller one, and it does not play a direct combat role.
"It's not a timetable; it's victory. It's victory, which I have always predicted," Mr. McCain told reporters. This has to grate on anyone who's payed a modicum of attention to the disaster in Iraq. McCain will lose because his argument for why he should be president doesn't make sense on the most basic level. What if the economy was a bigger issue than Iraq? McCain said last December, "the issue of economics is not something I've understood as well as I should." No, national security is all he's got. And it's internally contradictory. The reason McCain isn't hurting right now is that the attention is off of him, and he's benefiting from that.
In other news, following up on my post on electability in the general election, the Miami Herald has this report:
Bill Kristol had a column in the NYT praising McCain's "exceptionalism." He's exactly wrong. I called into Washington Journal last week to make just this point. What's happening right now is similar to what was going on back in October of last year, when it looked like Hillary was edging out Obama and starting to become "inevitable." What happened then? Hillary stumbled in a debate over a question about illegal immigration. Her campaign put out a silly press release bashing Obama wanting to be president in Kindergarten. There was an overdone media frenzy over a hostage crisis in one of her campaign offices. Obama was outspending Hillary in Iowa, and she was losing ground, ultimately finishing third there.
All of this was nothing, however, compared to the real reason Hillary is going to lose the nomination. And that is her October 2002 Iraq vote. That is the big contradiction of her campaign, and she could just not overcome it. Obama exploited it to the hilt.
The contradiction is this: Vote for Hillary, she has experience. On the number 1 issue of the day, Hillary had a vote, a chance to weigh in when it counted, and she blew it. But vote for her; she'll be ready to lead; she has experience.
It's internally contradictory. Anytime you are trying to make an argument in politics it has to make sense. You can't paper-over a glaring contradiction on an issue people care about. You can emote, you can ask for forgiveness, you can say you're sorry, and that is really the only way to do it. I believe it was the YouTube debate on the Republican side in which Romney was asked about his position on abortion. He began with this: "I don't know how many times I have to say it, I'm pro-life." What a terrible response. Impatience with the audience, with voters, for not believing him that he's had a super convenient change of heart on an issue that the constituency he's after cares about. That was the time to emote, to show his sincerity, to sell his change of heart. Romney might have lost the nomination with that answer. Huckabee killed him by exploiting this contradiction in Romney's campaign--he was supposed to be the conservative candidate, but his record didn't support that.
It was the same way with Bush's Social Security reform plan. "Social Security is in a crisis; it won't be there for young people. We need to spend huge amounts of money to make private accounts." Well, if it's in crisis, then why spend so much money to change it to something different? And if you're in crisis mode, why not focus on Medicare which is in worse crisis?
McCain's argument for the presidency is internally contradictory. He trumpets his foreign policy experience. But he's been in favor of the war all along, and by any measure the war has been a disaster.
In a a speech in Columbus on May 15, McCain said this:
By January 2013, America has welcomed home most of the servicemen and women who have sacrificed terribly so that America might be secure in her freedom. The Iraq War has been won. Iraq is a functioning democracy, although still suffering from the lingering effects of decades of tyranny and centuries of sectarian tension. Violence still occurs, but it is spasmodic and much reduced. Civil war has been prevented; militias disbanded; the Iraqi Security Force is professional and competent; al Qaeda in Iraq has been defeated; and the Government of Iraq is capable of imposing its authority in every province of Iraq and defending the integrity of its borders. The United States maintains a military presence there, but a much smaller one, and it does not play a direct combat role.
"It's not a timetable; it's victory. It's victory, which I have always predicted," Mr. McCain told reporters. This has to grate on anyone who's payed a modicum of attention to the disaster in Iraq. McCain will lose because his argument for why he should be president doesn't make sense on the most basic level. What if the economy was a bigger issue than Iraq? McCain said last December, "the issue of economics is not something I've understood as well as I should." No, national security is all he's got. And it's internally contradictory. The reason McCain isn't hurting right now is that the attention is off of him, and he's benefiting from that.
In other news, following up on my post on electability in the general election, the Miami Herald has this report:
Peter Brown, assistant director of Quinnipiac University's Polling Institute, said Clinton can cite recent polls to bolster her argument as to why she should be the nominee. A Quinnipiac survey earlier this month showed Clinton leading McCain in Florida (49 percent to 41 percent), Ohio (48 percent to 38 percent) and Pennsylvania (51 percent to 37 percent).
The same survey showed Obama leading McCain in Pennsylvania (47 percent to 38 percent), but in a statistical dead heat with him in Ohio and Florida.
Also, The Politico reports on the DNC's new website McCainPedia, which includes opposition research and video footage of the Republican candidate shot by Democratic activists.5/14/08
Hillary a strong general election candidate, Obama a realigning candidate
First of all, the stunning special election in Mississippi's 1st district. In the last two elections the Republican won with over 70% of the vote, and Bush won 59% in 2000 and 62% in 2004. But yesterday the Democrat won by 8 points. DCCC Chairman Chris Van Hollen said this: "For the first time in more than 30 years the Democratic Party has picked up three Republican seats in special elections in one cycle. The NRCC broke the bank and spent nearly 20 percent of their cash on hand on a ruby red district."
Now to the blowout in West Virginia. It's clear that Hillary is the strongest general election candidate. And here's why--she wins Appalachia. The second picture above show's Hillary's wins in dark blue (from Jay Cost who got it from Sean Oxendine). You can mentally fill in the white West Virginia cutout with a lot more dark blue.
The Democratic candidate needs to win these states. The swing states are pictured in the top map. Ohio, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia are in Appalachia. If Hillary wins these states and Arkansas, then all she has to win is New Hampshire or Wisconsin (both of which John Kerry won in 2004), to be elected president. The path to the presidency is pretty clear for Hillary if she wins Arkansas and Appalachia.
Without Appalachia it's difficult. Kerry came 19 electoral votes short. Adding to what he won without Appalachia (and Arkansas) would mean either winning Florida (Kerry lost by 5%) or a combination of Iowa (7 electoral votes, Kerry lost by 1%), Missouri (11 electoral votes, Kerry lost by 7%), Colorado (9 electoral votes, Kerry lost by 5%), Nevada (5 electoral votes, Kerry lost by 3%), or New Mexico (5 electoral votes, Kerry lost be 1%).
This means, hold all the states that Kerry won, and then go on and win the three states in which Kerry got close (Iowa, New Mexico, Nevada), or get the bigger but tougher states Missouri or Colorado. That's definitely more of an uphill battle if you are Obama. Hillary's path to the presidency is much, much easier.
Yet Obama's probably going to be the nominee. Which might not be such a bad thing for Democrats long-term. New voters coming into the fold is always a plus, and young people are identifying with Obama. He did the better with them than any other demographic group last night in WVA (save those with "some postgraduate study"). Obama's the candidate of the future, Clinton the candidate of the past. Obama's the candidate of inspiration, Clinton's the candidate of short-term political calculations. At least that's the image.
There's only one answer for Obama: add Jim Webb to the ticket.
2/25/08
The Republican race
Is it a race? McCain has 1016 delegates, and needs 1,191 to win. He proclaimed himself the nominee after Wisconsin. He's leading Huckabee in Texas by 12 points, which would give him 140 more delegates.
Still, there's a report from the LA Times that Romney still might rejoin the race. One of his sons said it was "possible." I always wondered why Romney said he "suspended" his campaign instead of "terminating" it. That is now explained--he thought there was a possibility that conservatives might deny McCain the nomination and there would be a brokered convention, in which he could come out on top as a compromise candidate. He endorsed McCain, which only confirmed what we've known all along which is that Huckabee was his real rival, and would position him to salve conservatives with his positions, and moderates with his endorsement, and straddle him in the middle as a compromise most Republicans could accept.
McCain seems like he's got it solidly in the bag now. His early victories in NH, SC and FL were just crucial, and he pulled off the kindling strategy that Romney was (rightly) attempting. The importance of the early contests have been affirmed and reaffirmed in this election. The two candidates in the final round for each party were the victors in Iowa and NH.
But things can change, and will change if somehow Huckabee started winning. Stranger things have happened. Because everyone thinks it's in the bag for McCain, wins for the Huckster in Texas or Ohio would be huge upsets. Questions would start to be raised about McCain, and fast. McCain would have to then win his 185 delegates from states that include a number of Huckabee-friendly areas like Mississippi and North Carolina. Pennsylvania (74 delegates in a closed primary) would be huge. It would be a close-run thing. A day is a lifetime in politics, and things can turn on a dime. They're not likely to, but they could change.
Then there's the NY Times story about the romance with the lobbyist Vicki Iseman. The paper has got a deserved beating for running the story because it was weak, including criticism by its own public editor. But if it turns out that McCain is not telling the truth about the Iseman matter, his presidential hopes are over, and we could be looking at a brokered convention on the Republican side.
Still, there's a report from the LA Times that Romney still might rejoin the race. One of his sons said it was "possible." I always wondered why Romney said he "suspended" his campaign instead of "terminating" it. That is now explained--he thought there was a possibility that conservatives might deny McCain the nomination and there would be a brokered convention, in which he could come out on top as a compromise candidate. He endorsed McCain, which only confirmed what we've known all along which is that Huckabee was his real rival, and would position him to salve conservatives with his positions, and moderates with his endorsement, and straddle him in the middle as a compromise most Republicans could accept.
McCain seems like he's got it solidly in the bag now. His early victories in NH, SC and FL were just crucial, and he pulled off the kindling strategy that Romney was (rightly) attempting. The importance of the early contests have been affirmed and reaffirmed in this election. The two candidates in the final round for each party were the victors in Iowa and NH.
But things can change, and will change if somehow Huckabee started winning. Stranger things have happened. Because everyone thinks it's in the bag for McCain, wins for the Huckster in Texas or Ohio would be huge upsets. Questions would start to be raised about McCain, and fast. McCain would have to then win his 185 delegates from states that include a number of Huckabee-friendly areas like Mississippi and North Carolina. Pennsylvania (74 delegates in a closed primary) would be huge. It would be a close-run thing. A day is a lifetime in politics, and things can turn on a dime. They're not likely to, but they could change.
Then there's the NY Times story about the romance with the lobbyist Vicki Iseman. The paper has got a deserved beating for running the story because it was weak, including criticism by its own public editor. But if it turns out that McCain is not telling the truth about the Iseman matter, his presidential hopes are over, and we could be looking at a brokered convention on the Republican side.
2/13/08
Romney's campaign--a postmortem
What was wrong with Romney's campaign? I think commentators have been generally right on in assessing what happened to him. Basically, he was vulnerable because of his record in Massachusetts. He tried to switch to more conservative positions, which made sense tactically, but opened up the vulnerability of coming off as a faker. Voters are loathe to trust their votes to a faker. This vulnerability became a festering open wound with Huckabee's rise. Here was a candidate whose strong point was his seeming genuineness--the polar opposite of Romney.
Jay Cost, the best election blogger out there, was right on when he wrote that Romney's negative attacks hurt him:
How might these negative attacks have hurt Romney? My sense is that it likely kept him from winning over those who supported McCain or Huckabee. That is, at its most basic level, it backfired; not only did it fail to convince Huckabee or McCain voters to back Romney, it alienated those voters from him.
That's exactly right. Supporters of the other candidates got angry about Romney digging the dirt on them, when at the same time he was asking them not to believe the dirt on him in his past record.
Cost has also argued that Huckabee was not taking away votes from Romney, enabling McCain to win. His conclusions go against the inside-outside theory I've held all along, about McCain's coalition being too small to win the nomination. Cost writes:
I do not think one can argue that McCain's wins have been dependent on a divided field. Independents, moderates, and Bush disapprovers have certainly formed the core of McCain's voting coalition. However, McCain has done what most winning candidates do: win his base by large margins while stealing plenty of voters from the other guy's base. McCain does not win conservatives or Bush supporters outright - but he has done well enough with them that he could probably win New Hampshire, South Carolina, or Florida in a head-to-head match up.
While it is difficult argue that a narrower field would turn any of McCain's wins into losses, the fact remains that each race would probably have been tight. Under my assumptions, McCain never would have won more than 54% of the vote - and his victory in South Carolina over Huckabee could have shrunk to a little less than one-half of one percent. So, McCain has been building a voting coalition that can trump the coalitions of other candidates - but not by much.
This analysis is true for what it's worth. But what it ignores is the bloodbath between Romney, Huckabee, and Thompson which ground down all those campaigns, leaving them short of cash, damaged from attacks, and abandoned in two cases. If the Huckster hadn't run, things would have been different for Romney and their kindling-strategy might have worked. Had Romney or Thompson not been in the race at all, or dropped out sooner, the situation would be a lot different for Huckabee now. In six contests since Super Duper Tuesday, McCain has won two by large margins, two by tight margins, and lost two. I predicted bumps in the road based on the inside-outside theory, and it has proven correct.
Jay Cost, the best election blogger out there, was right on when he wrote that Romney's negative attacks hurt him:
How might these negative attacks have hurt Romney? My sense is that it likely kept him from winning over those who supported McCain or Huckabee. That is, at its most basic level, it backfired; not only did it fail to convince Huckabee or McCain voters to back Romney, it alienated those voters from him.
That's exactly right. Supporters of the other candidates got angry about Romney digging the dirt on them, when at the same time he was asking them not to believe the dirt on him in his past record.
Cost has also argued that Huckabee was not taking away votes from Romney, enabling McCain to win. His conclusions go against the inside-outside theory I've held all along, about McCain's coalition being too small to win the nomination. Cost writes:
I do not think one can argue that McCain's wins have been dependent on a divided field. Independents, moderates, and Bush disapprovers have certainly formed the core of McCain's voting coalition. However, McCain has done what most winning candidates do: win his base by large margins while stealing plenty of voters from the other guy's base. McCain does not win conservatives or Bush supporters outright - but he has done well enough with them that he could probably win New Hampshire, South Carolina, or Florida in a head-to-head match up.
While it is difficult argue that a narrower field would turn any of McCain's wins into losses, the fact remains that each race would probably have been tight. Under my assumptions, McCain never would have won more than 54% of the vote - and his victory in South Carolina over Huckabee could have shrunk to a little less than one-half of one percent. So, McCain has been building a voting coalition that can trump the coalitions of other candidates - but not by much.
This analysis is true for what it's worth. But what it ignores is the bloodbath between Romney, Huckabee, and Thompson which ground down all those campaigns, leaving them short of cash, damaged from attacks, and abandoned in two cases. If the Huckster hadn't run, things would have been different for Romney and their kindling-strategy might have worked. Had Romney or Thompson not been in the race at all, or dropped out sooner, the situation would be a lot different for Huckabee now. In six contests since Super Duper Tuesday, McCain has won two by large margins, two by tight margins, and lost two. I predicted bumps in the road based on the inside-outside theory, and it has proven correct.
2/11/08
Obama on top
Saturday night was such a big night for Obama; it was the first time I really thought he could win this all. Throughout this process I've been an Obama-skeptic. I was skeptical of his ability to motivate young caucus-goers to turnout. That was proved wrong big-time in Iowa. I was shocked by Iowa, but I wondered whether he wouldn't be a one-hit wonder after Hillary won in NH.
The plan of the Clintons to turn Obama into the black candidate after South Carolina I thought was despicable, but would be effective. It turned out to backfire on them. Obama got 31% of the white vote in New Jersey, 39% in Missouri, 40% in Delaware and Massachusetts, 43% in Georgia, and 48% in Connecticut. This was a lot more than his 25% in South Carolina (albeit in a 3-person race).
Obama has cobbled together a coalition of black voters and upper-class liberals and moderates. The ideological pattern is not as clear as it is in the case of McCain on the Republican side, who attracts moderates and independents. McCain is disliked in his own party because he's not a true-blue conservative. Huckabee has positioned himself as the anti-McCain, but only too late--he lost talk radio in his bloodbath with Romney, and McCain's overwhelming lead in delegates will lead to a nominee the Republican base is none-too excited about. Obama on the other hand has a plain-vanilla liberal voting record, which is brilliant triangulation in my book, because it enables him to run against Hillary on personality. Apparently Hillary showed very little personality in her 60-minutes interview last night. People really don't like her. Obama is the anti-Hillary. But he's also very charismatic himself.
The reason I haven't been impressed by that charisma thus far is that I didn't think sheer charisma could translate into votes when you're relying on a coalition that is smaller and less likely to turn out (black vs. white voters, young vs. older voters, male vs. female voters). But Obama's coalition includes that other element of class--better educated and higher income voters like him. And they are more likely to turn out. That's an angle the media likes to ignore; the reason is, it just sounds bad to talk about Hillary being the candidate of "lower-class voters." They don't want to label her like that. Talk of class is Verboten. This is true beyond presidential politics. We're supposed to be a classless society.
The other reason I haven't been as impressed with Obama up to now is that his entire campaign has one really major substantive difference with Hillary--he opposed the Iraq war and she voted for it, so he offers better judgment compared with her political posturings and hesitations. This has been an effective tool in Obama's arsenal all along. Whenever he's down, he can always bring it up and she doesn't have an answer for it.
I got an email and telephone call from an Obama supporter and reader of this blog making this case yet again. He wrote that Hillary didn't even read the full NIE report on Iraq before casting her vote. The original story on this ran in the Washington Post, and The Hill did some follow-up reporting and concluded the following:
Whether the number of senators who read the document can ever be known is also in dispute. The Washington Post reported in 2004 that only six senators had read the NIE, citing logs that senators were required to sign, but the Intelligence panel now says no such proof exists.
“There is no record, committee or otherwise, of who read the NIE,” said Wendy Morigi, spokeswoman for Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.), now Intelligence Committee chairman, who read the NIE before the pivotal fall vote of 2002.
When Rockefeller referred to the half-dozen number during a 2005 Fox News interview, Morigi added, he was citing the Post’s report. Spokeswomen for Intelligence vice chairman Christopher Bond (R-Mo.) and Carl Levin (D-Mich.) also said that the number of senators who read it is unknowable.
But the former senior congressional intelligence staffer, who asked to comment anonymously due to the sensitivity of the subject, said that knowledgeable aides can estimate the approximate number of senators reading the NIE.
"It’s probably pretty hard to say with 100 percent certainty how many read it,” the senior staffer said. “You can say with 100 percent certainty that it’s less than 10.”
The Hill put Clinton in the "Did Not Read/Could Not Recall" category. More than likely she did not read it. But is this so damning? A whole lot of other congressmen and women didn't either.
The answer is yes. The reader says the media has not picked up on this--I disagree. It's widely known that Hillary supported the war and voted for it, and it has hurt her campaign to death. I don't see Obama's candidacy surging without the prop of Hillary's war stance. It's been covered ad nauseum. The reader objects to the lack of coverage of her reading the full NIE, and fudging the issue with her claim that "the best intelligence available said" x, y, and z. Fair enough, but that's the kind of nuances that don't get widespread reportage because they're more difficult for people to understand. The fact remains that Hillary has been damaged greatly by her war vote, and Obama has benefited.
The plan of the Clintons to turn Obama into the black candidate after South Carolina I thought was despicable, but would be effective. It turned out to backfire on them. Obama got 31% of the white vote in New Jersey, 39% in Missouri, 40% in Delaware and Massachusetts, 43% in Georgia, and 48% in Connecticut. This was a lot more than his 25% in South Carolina (albeit in a 3-person race).
Obama has cobbled together a coalition of black voters and upper-class liberals and moderates. The ideological pattern is not as clear as it is in the case of McCain on the Republican side, who attracts moderates and independents. McCain is disliked in his own party because he's not a true-blue conservative. Huckabee has positioned himself as the anti-McCain, but only too late--he lost talk radio in his bloodbath with Romney, and McCain's overwhelming lead in delegates will lead to a nominee the Republican base is none-too excited about. Obama on the other hand has a plain-vanilla liberal voting record, which is brilliant triangulation in my book, because it enables him to run against Hillary on personality. Apparently Hillary showed very little personality in her 60-minutes interview last night. People really don't like her. Obama is the anti-Hillary. But he's also very charismatic himself.
The reason I haven't been impressed by that charisma thus far is that I didn't think sheer charisma could translate into votes when you're relying on a coalition that is smaller and less likely to turn out (black vs. white voters, young vs. older voters, male vs. female voters). But Obama's coalition includes that other element of class--better educated and higher income voters like him. And they are more likely to turn out. That's an angle the media likes to ignore; the reason is, it just sounds bad to talk about Hillary being the candidate of "lower-class voters." They don't want to label her like that. Talk of class is Verboten. This is true beyond presidential politics. We're supposed to be a classless society.
The other reason I haven't been as impressed with Obama up to now is that his entire campaign has one really major substantive difference with Hillary--he opposed the Iraq war and she voted for it, so he offers better judgment compared with her political posturings and hesitations. This has been an effective tool in Obama's arsenal all along. Whenever he's down, he can always bring it up and she doesn't have an answer for it.
I got an email and telephone call from an Obama supporter and reader of this blog making this case yet again. He wrote that Hillary didn't even read the full NIE report on Iraq before casting her vote. The original story on this ran in the Washington Post, and The Hill did some follow-up reporting and concluded the following:
Whether the number of senators who read the document can ever be known is also in dispute. The Washington Post reported in 2004 that only six senators had read the NIE, citing logs that senators were required to sign, but the Intelligence panel now says no such proof exists.
“There is no record, committee or otherwise, of who read the NIE,” said Wendy Morigi, spokeswoman for Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.), now Intelligence Committee chairman, who read the NIE before the pivotal fall vote of 2002.
When Rockefeller referred to the half-dozen number during a 2005 Fox News interview, Morigi added, he was citing the Post’s report. Spokeswomen for Intelligence vice chairman Christopher Bond (R-Mo.) and Carl Levin (D-Mich.) also said that the number of senators who read it is unknowable.
But the former senior congressional intelligence staffer, who asked to comment anonymously due to the sensitivity of the subject, said that knowledgeable aides can estimate the approximate number of senators reading the NIE.
"It’s probably pretty hard to say with 100 percent certainty how many read it,” the senior staffer said. “You can say with 100 percent certainty that it’s less than 10.”
The Hill put Clinton in the "Did Not Read/Could Not Recall" category. More than likely she did not read it. But is this so damning? A whole lot of other congressmen and women didn't either.
The answer is yes. The reader says the media has not picked up on this--I disagree. It's widely known that Hillary supported the war and voted for it, and it has hurt her campaign to death. I don't see Obama's candidacy surging without the prop of Hillary's war stance. It's been covered ad nauseum. The reader objects to the lack of coverage of her reading the full NIE, and fudging the issue with her claim that "the best intelligence available said" x, y, and z. Fair enough, but that's the kind of nuances that don't get widespread reportage because they're more difficult for people to understand. The fact remains that Hillary has been damaged greatly by her war vote, and Obama has benefited.
1/31/08
Edwards' thinking
Edwards is out. From the NY Times:
“Having the first serious African-American running against the first serious female — it’s a hard story to get into,” Mr. Moylan said. “There was an alignment of the stars this year, and it wasn’t for us.”
So Mr. Edwards’s pitch to voters came down to the personal. Over and over, he spoke of his hardscrabble upbringing, his rise from poverty and what he described as the deeply held determination that led him out of difficult circumstances, growing up in mill towns in the South.
Also, he got more votes from rich people in Iowa and SC, the two states he wanted to win in the worst way.
Why did he jump ship? Again from the Times:
“He wanted to have a shot at being president,” said Joe Trippi, a senior adviser. “He wanted to have a chance to change people’s lives, not be a spoiler or a kingmaker and not play political games.”
Right. He's out of money, which is always the prime consideration for a candidate leaving a race. Also, the Prince of Darkness reported a week ago that Obama would name Edwards Attorney General if he won.
Also Edwards, it seems to me, doesn't want to alienate Clinton too much. By dropping out before Super Tuesday, he takes less votes away from her and thereby gets on her good side.
“Having the first serious African-American running against the first serious female — it’s a hard story to get into,” Mr. Moylan said. “There was an alignment of the stars this year, and it wasn’t for us.”
So Mr. Edwards’s pitch to voters came down to the personal. Over and over, he spoke of his hardscrabble upbringing, his rise from poverty and what he described as the deeply held determination that led him out of difficult circumstances, growing up in mill towns in the South.
He pitched himself as a populist, but it was hard to overcome what became known as the three H’s: his haircuts ($400), his house (28,000 square feet in Chapel Hill, N.C.) and the hedge fund where he worked after his 2004 loss (which invested in companies that foreclosed on mortgages of Hurricane Katrina victims in New Orleans, the city Mr. Edwards was trying to make the emblem of his antipoverty work).
Also, he got more votes from rich people in Iowa and SC, the two states he wanted to win in the worst way.
Why did he jump ship? Again from the Times:
“He wanted to have a shot at being president,” said Joe Trippi, a senior adviser. “He wanted to have a chance to change people’s lives, not be a spoiler or a kingmaker and not play political games.”
Right. He's out of money, which is always the prime consideration for a candidate leaving a race. Also, the Prince of Darkness reported a week ago that Obama would name Edwards Attorney General if he won.
Also Edwards, it seems to me, doesn't want to alienate Clinton too much. By dropping out before Super Tuesday, he takes less votes away from her and thereby gets on her good side.
1/6/08
Looking back at Iowa, forward to NH
The youngest candidate won on both sides in the Iowa caucuses. Obama and Huckabee offered platforms of change within their respective parties. A quote from Fred Thompson in tonight's debate sums it up: "We had some folks vote in Iowa, and now everyone suddenly comes out talkin' about change."
Huckabee calmly handled a heckler today. He continues to embrace the change mantle. This from the Politico:
“I think the Republican Party needs some repair,” Huckabee said on “Fox News Sunday.”
During back-to-back interviews on Fox and ABC's "This Week," this year’s Cinderella candidate complained that the Bush administration ignored recommendations by Pentagon brass to send more troops to Iraq after the initial invasion.
He also questioned the administration’s embrace of harsh interrogation methods. And he took a veiled shot at the White House for offering overly rosy economic assessments after unemployment rose last month.
In addition, Huckabee suggested Bush is in bed with the tax lobby in Washington. “His commission [to reform the tax code] was essentially a group of tax lobbyists,” the former governor declared in response to a question about his support for a national sales tax — a sales tax the president’s commission condemned.
Here's what I find noteworthy in the exit polls from Iowa. Here's the "most important issue" percentages for Huckabee, Romney and McCain (% of the total, the marginals are in parentheses):
Immigration (33) -- Iraq War (17) --Economy (36)
Huckabee: 36--33--34
Romney: 30--17--25
McCain: 4--25--11
Romney voters thought domestic issues were more important than Iraq. McCain voters were the opposite. Huckabee voters were even between them.
McCain won NH in 2000. But it's a different era now, and the state has different demographics. From the Dallas Morning News:
New Hampshire, once among the reddest states in the country, has undergone an elephantine demographic shift since its last hotly contested presidential primary, with an influx of new voters that could turn the outcome of both races Tuesday.
Clinton's campaign has now acknowledged that it will lose South Carolina. They could just be lowering expectations, as the polls are running even. But if black voters turn to Obama, then Hillary's toast, since they are expected to be around half of the voters in that primary. New Hampshire is thus very, very important for Hillary. After NH there's Michigan, Nevada, South Carolina, and Florida, and then Super-Duper Tuesday. Michigan is no contest on the Democratic side, as Obama and Edwards are not on the ballot there, and the DNC stripped the state of all its delegates. Hillary had an 8-point lead in Nevada around Christmas, and she still maintains a big lead in Florida. There's not a whole lot of time before Super-Duper Tuesday. The Obama enthusiasm could still be rolling by then, especially if he wins NH.
Huckabee calmly handled a heckler today. He continues to embrace the change mantle. This from the Politico:
“I think the Republican Party needs some repair,” Huckabee said on “Fox News Sunday.”
During back-to-back interviews on Fox and ABC's "This Week," this year’s Cinderella candidate complained that the Bush administration ignored recommendations by Pentagon brass to send more troops to Iraq after the initial invasion.
He also questioned the administration’s embrace of harsh interrogation methods. And he took a veiled shot at the White House for offering overly rosy economic assessments after unemployment rose last month.
In addition, Huckabee suggested Bush is in bed with the tax lobby in Washington. “His commission [to reform the tax code] was essentially a group of tax lobbyists,” the former governor declared in response to a question about his support for a national sales tax — a sales tax the president’s commission condemned.
Here's what I find noteworthy in the exit polls from Iowa. Here's the "most important issue" percentages for Huckabee, Romney and McCain (% of the total, the marginals are in parentheses):
Immigration (33) -- Iraq War (17) --Economy (36)
Huckabee: 36--33--34
Romney: 30--17--25
McCain: 4--25--11
Romney voters thought domestic issues were more important than Iraq. McCain voters were the opposite. Huckabee voters were even between them.
McCain won NH in 2000. But it's a different era now, and the state has different demographics. From the Dallas Morning News:
New Hampshire, once among the reddest states in the country, has undergone an elephantine demographic shift since its last hotly contested presidential primary, with an influx of new voters that could turn the outcome of both races Tuesday.
The Granite State gained 207,000 new residents between 2001 and 2005 – including about 90,000 who moved over the border from Massachusetts, according to a recent report by the University of New Hampshire's Carsey Institute. During the same period, 188,000 people left the state.
The turnover, along with anti-war feelings, has muddied the small state's political tableau. Democrats swept statewide elections in 2006, winning control of the Legislature and governor's office for the first time since 1911.
[...]
Mr. McCain, 71, polls best among GOP voters who have lived in the state longer than 20 years, according to a recent Boston Globe poll. Mr. Romney was favored, 36 percent to 27 percent, among Republicans who have been in the state fewer than 10 years.
Clinton's campaign has now acknowledged that it will lose South Carolina. They could just be lowering expectations, as the polls are running even. But if black voters turn to Obama, then Hillary's toast, since they are expected to be around half of the voters in that primary. New Hampshire is thus very, very important for Hillary. After NH there's Michigan, Nevada, South Carolina, and Florida, and then Super-Duper Tuesday. Michigan is no contest on the Democratic side, as Obama and Edwards are not on the ballot there, and the DNC stripped the state of all its delegates. Hillary had an 8-point lead in Nevada around Christmas, and she still maintains a big lead in Florida. There's not a whole lot of time before Super-Duper Tuesday. The Obama enthusiasm could still be rolling by then, especially if he wins NH.
1/4/08
The concession and victory speeches: Romney
I watched Romney's speech this morning and was impressed. Short and sweet, relentlessly positive (like Hillary's), gracious in defeat, Romney looked good.
He emphasized finishing above a bunch of household names--Giuliani, McCain, Thompson. In the wider view of things, that is impressive.
Romney emphasized that he is an outsider to Washington. This is something of course that Hillary can't do. But Romney and Hillary have a similar problem, and that is that their appeal is based on a political situation that is a decade out of date. Romney's running a year-2000 campaign; rewind the clock eight years and his campaign would be very formidable. Hillary is appealing to an older set of voters. Romney as well ran even with Huckabee only with older voters.
The mood is for change. Here's a factoid: 44% of Republican voters in Iowa voted for candidates who have expressed displeasure with President Bush's foreign policy. If Republicans are ready for change, Democrats are dying for it. Romney does not tap into this passion. He did emphasize from the beginning of the speech that he is an outsider, so this is a belated recognition of what voters were after.
He emphasized finishing above a bunch of household names--Giuliani, McCain, Thompson. In the wider view of things, that is impressive.
Romney emphasized that he is an outsider to Washington. This is something of course that Hillary can't do. But Romney and Hillary have a similar problem, and that is that their appeal is based on a political situation that is a decade out of date. Romney's running a year-2000 campaign; rewind the clock eight years and his campaign would be very formidable. Hillary is appealing to an older set of voters. Romney as well ran even with Huckabee only with older voters.
The mood is for change. Here's a factoid: 44% of Republican voters in Iowa voted for candidates who have expressed displeasure with President Bush's foreign policy. If Republicans are ready for change, Democrats are dying for it. Romney does not tap into this passion. He did emphasize from the beginning of the speech that he is an outsider, so this is a belated recognition of what voters were after.
1/3/08
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'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.
The concession and victory speeches: Obama
Obama, his wife and two very cute kids wave to the crowd at the start. A powerful podium sign: "Change you can believe in." He looked poised and confident. Very presidential. The platform echoed Bush's 2004 convention speech--down amongst the people. The tie was presidential striped blue.
Spoke first of a country that's not cynical and divided. A strong contrast to Hillary's "Democrats, Democratic-leaning Independents, and Republicans who have seen the light." She's the candidate of hard-core Dems. Obama on the other hand: "We are one nation, one people, and the time for change has come." Huge applause line. He looked very strong and determined.
"We are choosing hope over fear." Chants of USA! USA! A call to NH to "do what Iowa did tonight."
His first nuts and bolts issue is health care. Then middle-class tax cuts. Oil addiction number three. Iraq is last. "I'll be a president who ends the Iraq war and finally brings the troops home."
His hand gestures were good too--it's hard to do actually, you have to gesture not too much or too little.
The contrast with Huckabee's speech couldn't be stronger, as the Huckster's looked ragged and rough while Obama looked rested and professional.
A call to hope, the campaign theme, at the end, including a reference to the civil rights movement. He went on a little long, and the ovations were a little off where they should have been. It's hard to get people to cheer for too many general banalities like politicians are forced to spew.
But overall it was a tremendous speech. Powerful. He only stumbled once by my count. Did himself a lot of good in the speech for New Hampshire.
Spoke first of a country that's not cynical and divided. A strong contrast to Hillary's "Democrats, Democratic-leaning Independents, and Republicans who have seen the light." She's the candidate of hard-core Dems. Obama on the other hand: "We are one nation, one people, and the time for change has come." Huge applause line. He looked very strong and determined.
"We are choosing hope over fear." Chants of USA! USA! A call to NH to "do what Iowa did tonight."
His first nuts and bolts issue is health care. Then middle-class tax cuts. Oil addiction number three. Iraq is last. "I'll be a president who ends the Iraq war and finally brings the troops home."
His hand gestures were good too--it's hard to do actually, you have to gesture not too much or too little.
The contrast with Huckabee's speech couldn't be stronger, as the Huckster's looked ragged and rough while Obama looked rested and professional.
A call to hope, the campaign theme, at the end, including a reference to the civil rights movement. He went on a little long, and the ovations were a little off where they should have been. It's hard to get people to cheer for too many general banalities like politicians are forced to spew.
But overall it was a tremendous speech. Powerful. He only stumbled once by my count. Did himself a lot of good in the speech for New Hampshire.
The concession and victory speeches: Huckabee
With Chuck Norris in the background, the Huckster thanked the people in Iowa who treated him "with respect." A (very) subtle dig at Romney.
Three "lessons":
1. "People are more important than the purse." Tried to crescendo at the end, and the applause line kind of fizzled.
2. Convictions are to be subordinated to bringing the country together. No really effective sound bite here.
3. "This election is not about me, but it's about we." Starts "a prairie fire of hope and zeal." Leaders are not elected "to be a part of the ruling class, but a part of the serving class. We the people are the ruling class."
After this he quoted Chesterton. Was veering a little too much into preacher-land at this and the previous point.
You could see the fatigue on Huckabee's face. He stuttered somewhat and was looking for the word throughout.
Used a marathon metaphor badly at the end: "If this was a marathon, we'd have run half of it."
Not as effective a speech as Hillary's, who was in a much tougher spot.
Three "lessons":
1. "People are more important than the purse." Tried to crescendo at the end, and the applause line kind of fizzled.
2. Convictions are to be subordinated to bringing the country together. No really effective sound bite here.
3. "This election is not about me, but it's about we." Starts "a prairie fire of hope and zeal." Leaders are not elected "to be a part of the ruling class, but a part of the serving class. We the people are the ruling class."
After this he quoted Chesterton. Was veering a little too much into preacher-land at this and the previous point.
You could see the fatigue on Huckabee's face. He stuttered somewhat and was looking for the word throughout.
Used a marathon metaphor badly at the end: "If this was a marathon, we'd have run half of it."
Not as effective a speech as Hillary's, who was in a much tougher spot.
The concession and victory speeches: Hillary
With Bill, Chelsea, and Madeline Albright in the background, Hillary focused on what unites Democrats, and winning the general election for Democrats and "changing the country."
On the list of important issues, Iraq was number one. "I'm optimistic about the country" was a line in the middle that turned again to Iraq before other issues.
Big applause line: "I am so ready for the rest of this campaign, and I am so ready to lead." The delivery was excellent, after having stumbled in her cadence a little.
After touting her 32 years of experience, Hillary is pushing the Iraq issue. She's thinking Obama is a Gary Hart. I'm inclined to agree. Now Obama's in the hot seat, kind of like Huckabee has been for the last four weeks. We'll see how he handles the heat.
Her facial expressions were right on target. It was the expression of a winner, not a loser. Impressive.
On the list of important issues, Iraq was number one. "I'm optimistic about the country" was a line in the middle that turned again to Iraq before other issues.
Big applause line: "I am so ready for the rest of this campaign, and I am so ready to lead." The delivery was excellent, after having stumbled in her cadence a little.
After touting her 32 years of experience, Hillary is pushing the Iraq issue. She's thinking Obama is a Gary Hart. I'm inclined to agree. Now Obama's in the hot seat, kind of like Huckabee has been for the last four weeks. We'll see how he handles the heat.
Her facial expressions were right on target. It was the expression of a winner, not a loser. Impressive.
The concession and victory speeches: Edwards
Edwards went first. His speech was combative, challenging "corporate greed." Similar to his stump speech. He started sounding like Dean with his "tidal wave of change..." but stopped before he screamed. He was shouting in the end. Matthews pointed out that he didn't concede, didn't acknowledge that he lost, and didn't congratulate the winner. The contrast with Obama will be sharp.
Edwards and Hillary lose
The pundits are predicting the demise of Edwards. I have to think they're right.
They're also speaking about the hit that Hillary has taken. Her concession speech better be good.
They're also speaking about the hit that Hillary has taken. Her concession speech better be good.
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.
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.
Early results
The exit polls (questioners asking voters as they are going in to caucus) predict a Huckabee win, and they show Obama pulling away.
Let the caucuses begin
Caucus time!
The weather is not inclement, so heavy turnout is likely tonight. That favors Obama and Huckabee, who win a higher % of first-time caucus-goers.
Thompson has denied that he will drop out and support John McCain if he gets less than 15%, but the report has a ring of truth to it.
There's a fascinating report of deals going on on the Democratic side from Fox News. Kucinich has pledged his caucus-goers to Obama, should his supporters fail to reach viability. The report says that Biden and Richardson have also pledged their supporters to Obama as well. They deny it. But Obama could gain through the realignment process.
The old saw is that there are three tickets out of Iowa, win, place or show. But all along I've been wondering about a factor that I haven't seen reported on until today in the Politico. And that is the following: in this first primary contest without a clear front-runner for both parties in the modern era (meaning, no incumbent or Vice President successor). What's the media play going to be? There can't be multiple stories. There's really only one story.
Here's Roger Simon:
Even second place sometimes is not good enough in Iowa. Ask John Edwards. He came in second here in 2004 and expected that “bounce” to help him win in New Hampshire. But it didn’t.
Why? The media had a better story. They had Howard Dean’s scream.
As Edwards’ then-campaign manager Nick Baldick put it: “Instead of headlines that said, ‘Kerry Wins, Edwards a Surprising Second’ it was all about [John] Kerry winning and the Dean speech. We were the seventh paragraph. That did not give us a New Hampshire bounce.”
The same thing happened in 1988 when the big story was Pat Robertson's strong second-place finish, and Dick Gephardt's win on the Democratic side was ignored.
Simon continues:
Edwards might face the same problem this time. If he comes in second and Barack Obama comes in first, the headline could be: “Obama Wins, Hillary Third.”
That's right. Edwards needs a win. So does Huckabee. I heard a reporter on CNN a few hours ago say that "Romney has the most to lose" and that's just totally false. Romney can weather a loss; Huckabee cannot. Heres' a report from Time:
[T]he simple fact remains: The outcome in Iowa may very well determine Huckabee's fate as a presidential candidate. With a first place showing, he will fly out of Des Moines tonight as a political golden boy, who beat the odds by taking down the massive political machine of Mitt Romney, without any real money or organization. If he comes in second, however, he risks being sidelined in the Republican contest by the coming fight between Romney and John McCain in New Hampshire on January 8, which will likely carry over to the Michigan primary on January 15.
This framing works best for Huckabee if he is able to pull off an upset. A second place finish, which only a few months ago would have been considered a major victory, would now likely result in legitimizing the big-spending campaign of Mitt Romney, who led the polls in Iowa for months, largely because of his ability to lavish the state with money. By all rights, Huckabee would proudly continue his campaign to South Carolina, which will vote on January 19 and should be receptive to his down-home, conservative appeal. But the chattering classes will dog him for weeks; Iowa, after all, is a state teaming with evangelical values voters. Over and over again, Huckabee, the former Baptist pastor, will be asked the inverse of Frank Sinatra's famous lyric: "If you can't make it here, how can you make it anywhere?"
The weather is not inclement, so heavy turnout is likely tonight. That favors Obama and Huckabee, who win a higher % of first-time caucus-goers.
Thompson has denied that he will drop out and support John McCain if he gets less than 15%, but the report has a ring of truth to it.
There's a fascinating report of deals going on on the Democratic side from Fox News. Kucinich has pledged his caucus-goers to Obama, should his supporters fail to reach viability. The report says that Biden and Richardson have also pledged their supporters to Obama as well. They deny it. But Obama could gain through the realignment process.
The old saw is that there are three tickets out of Iowa, win, place or show. But all along I've been wondering about a factor that I haven't seen reported on until today in the Politico. And that is the following: in this first primary contest without a clear front-runner for both parties in the modern era (meaning, no incumbent or Vice President successor). What's the media play going to be? There can't be multiple stories. There's really only one story.
Here's Roger Simon:
Even second place sometimes is not good enough in Iowa. Ask John Edwards. He came in second here in 2004 and expected that “bounce” to help him win in New Hampshire. But it didn’t.
Why? The media had a better story. They had Howard Dean’s scream.
As Edwards’ then-campaign manager Nick Baldick put it: “Instead of headlines that said, ‘Kerry Wins, Edwards a Surprising Second’ it was all about [John] Kerry winning and the Dean speech. We were the seventh paragraph. That did not give us a New Hampshire bounce.”
The same thing happened in 1988 when the big story was Pat Robertson's strong second-place finish, and Dick Gephardt's win on the Democratic side was ignored.
Simon continues:
Edwards might face the same problem this time. If he comes in second and Barack Obama comes in first, the headline could be: “Obama Wins, Hillary Third.”
That's right. Edwards needs a win. So does Huckabee. I heard a reporter on CNN a few hours ago say that "Romney has the most to lose" and that's just totally false. Romney can weather a loss; Huckabee cannot. Heres' a report from Time:
[T]he simple fact remains: The outcome in Iowa may very well determine Huckabee's fate as a presidential candidate. With a first place showing, he will fly out of Des Moines tonight as a political golden boy, who beat the odds by taking down the massive political machine of Mitt Romney, without any real money or organization. If he comes in second, however, he risks being sidelined in the Republican contest by the coming fight between Romney and John McCain in New Hampshire on January 8, which will likely carry over to the Michigan primary on January 15.
This framing works best for Huckabee if he is able to pull off an upset. A second place finish, which only a few months ago would have been considered a major victory, would now likely result in legitimizing the big-spending campaign of Mitt Romney, who led the polls in Iowa for months, largely because of his ability to lavish the state with money. By all rights, Huckabee would proudly continue his campaign to South Carolina, which will vote on January 19 and should be receptive to his down-home, conservative appeal. But the chattering classes will dog him for weeks; Iowa, after all, is a state teaming with evangelical values voters. Over and over again, Huckabee, the former Baptist pastor, will be asked the inverse of Frank Sinatra's famous lyric: "If you can't make it here, how can you make it anywhere?"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
