Why-O, Why-O, Why-O?

Why is Barack Obama behind in Ohio? This, to me, is the most interesting question of the election at this point. For the last week he has been trending upward nationally and strengthening his position in a number of states, yet Ohio is still in the McCain column. To be fair, Michigan has been a bit of a laggard for him as well, and Pennsylvania has tightened up, but Ohio is the one state in that region where John McCain is ahead, and that seems strange. Republican economic policies have hit OH hard. The Ohio GOP is in disrepute. Dems control the governorship, the legislature, and the US Senate seats. Yet somehow, McCain is ahead there. I freely admit that I thought Obama would have little trouble in Ohio, given the conditions I just stated, so I am thoroughly confused by this state of affairs. This has been a tight state in every Presidential election, with the Republicans in far better shape as a party than they are now, so why is McCain running better than Bush did?
The only answer I can come up with is the primary. While, for the most part, the Democrats have come home – although Obama is running behind where he should be in some states among Dems – they weren’t the only ones who saw the anti-Obama ads during the primary. Perhaps the ton of money poured into OH and PA has had a negative effect among Independents. McCain has led among them in OH, and still does. Perhaps that is the residual effect of Clinton’s poisoning the well for a month. The debates will be Obama’s chance to get these people on his side, or at least even things up among them, which should be sufficient for him to win there. He can win the election without Ohio, but it’s a lot easier if he has it.

Miss Congeniality

Back in 1964, when Barry Goldwater picked obscure NY Congressman William Miller as his VP nominee, Democrats came up with this bit of doggerel:

I’ve got a riddle and it’s a diller
Who the hell is William Miller?

So with the choice of an obscure Alaska Governor (is there another kind?), let me contribute this:

Iraq’s a mess, the economy’s failin’
And John McCain picked Sarah Palin??

Who is Sarah Palin? She is a right-wing icon: anti-abortion, pro-gun, pro-home schooling, in favor of teaching creationism, anti-stem cell research. She also has as little experience as any person who has ever run for national office. She is in favor of drilling in ANWAR and doesn’t think polar bears should be an endangered species. She doesn’t think global warming is man-made, but has created a commission to study its effects on Alaska.
She has already contributed perhaps the most surreal moment in American political history, as the Republican presumptive nominee for Vice President finished her first speech praising Hillary Clinton. If any of Hillary’s voters actually cross over to vote for her, they should be shot, since she is as far politically from Hillary as anyone could be, genitalia excepted.
What was the McCain campaign thinking? My guess is that this makes the base extremely happy and enthusiastic, as the religious right loves her. It does sort of blow a hole in their attacks on Obama’s experience. What they are likely to do is work on the concept of two maverick Republicans, ready to take on the establishment at the drop of a hat. McCain has a bunch of things where he went against the party leadership, from campaign financing to immigration, from global warming to Iraq strategy. She took power in Alaska by defeating a Republican, cleaned up the state government by firing a number of Republican appointees, and enforced ethics regulations while creating new ones. This willingness will be contrasted to Obama’s steadfast party regularity, never opposing the Democratic leadership, and will be referred to as demonstrating gutsy leadership, while Obama is just a follower. This argument could work with some independents who fear partisanship more than anything.
This morning, every Republican had the key talking point down pat – every one of them said “she is very well-qualified”, like saying it made it true. In reality, she is one of the least qualified VP candidates ever. Expect the Democrats to use the phrase “a heartbeat away from the Presidency” as often as possible. She will help in certain areas – religious, pro-gun parts of Midwest states, like western PA, eastern OH, and with her accent, she should play very well in rural MN. Being a MILF shouldn’t hurt her on the campaign trail either, although less makeup might be good – this is the one job where seeing a few more lines in her face could help.
Two weeks from now, she will be debating Joe Biden on national TV. Biden will have to be careful in how he handles her, but she has a lot of learning to do in a short time. It could be grisly. On the other hand, she has a good deal of TV experience, having been a sportscaster in Anchorage (her career goal was working for ESPN), so she should be cool under the lights.
Does this help or hurt McCain’s chances? I think it hurts, because his age and cancer history should make people a little nervous about such an inexperienced VP. I also think they don’t look good together. He makes her look too young, she makes him look older – and neither of those is a good idea. Still, it’s a more interesting choice than Tim Pawlenty, and it could serve as a good audition for the darling of the religious right and doctrinaire conservatives.
Fun Facts About Sarah Palin
1. She was a basketball player in high school. She played point guard in the state championship with a stress fracture in her leg – take that, Kerry Strug.
2. She and Cindy McCain were both in beauty pageants – so they should have no trouble smiling or waving for the next two months
3. She was runner-up in the 1964 Miss Alaska pageant – beating, I assume, two Eskimos and a moose.
4. She won Miss Congeniality is that pageant – the moose bit one of the judges, I believe.
5. Her talent in the pageant was playing the flute – one time, in band camp…

Leaving Early, Staying Late

Last week, two of my favorite athletes retired, both surprisingly. Annika Sorenstam is one of the greatest female golfers of all time, maybe even the best. At age 37, she figured to have a number of high-quality years left in her career, with a number of career records in sight. Last year she was injured and Lorena Ochoa took over the number one ranking. This year she is back and is ranked second behind Ochoa, pretty impressive coming off an injury. Yet she has announced that this year would be her last. It seems that her time off while injured showed her that there were other things she enjoyed doing. Add that to her impending marriage with the possibility of kids out there and she doesn’t want to hang around as a part-time player. Maybe, a few years down the road, she’ll be back, as others have returned. For now she will leave, but the sport she leaves behind is in fine shape, with youngsters like Paula Creamer and Morgan Pressel emerging as possible stars, as well as an endless stream of Korean youngsters set to challenge Ochoa at the top.
The other departure is sad in a different way, as Justine Henin has decided to leave tennis while on top. In the modern era, no woman has quit while number one. She was a player of incredible talent, combining speed and power with competitive fury rarely matched. Her talent and spirit enabled her to overcome a lack of size relative to the other top players. Most of the top players are anywhere from 5’10 to 6’2, she is only 5’5 ½, not an unusual height for a woman, but for a top tennis player, quite small. Add in her beautiful one-handed backhand, a shot rarely seen anymore, and she will be sorely missed. The game has been given over to the giants, with spectacular power and court coverage. There’s nothing wrong with that, but all tennis fans will miss the variety which Justine brought. Why quit now? The fire had gone out – it was that simple. She couldn’t coast on talent until it came back, she suffered the worst defeat ever by a number one. So now she is gone – maybe the desire will return, but her body and will were being pushed to their extreme all the time, resulting in injuries to her body and now her departure. It’s hard to believe she can recapture her greatness if she does come back.
Which brings us to Hillary Clinton – she ain’t going nowhere. Her competitive fire has not gone out, not for a second. She is still talking about going all the way to the convention, still talking about the popular vote, still talking about Florida and Michigan. Tonight she will win Kentucky easily, in two weeks she will win Puerto Rico. Does any of this really matter? It’s not like the super delegates are coming to her side. With every victory of hers, more and more of them endorse Obama. Does she really think she can win? Maybe she does, as unlikely as that seems. There is a real chance that she will win the popular vote race – a race only she seems to be running, but nonetheless, a talking point. Puerto Rico is the key there, as they could cast upward of 2 million votes there, as it is the only chance they get to select the President. Give her 62% of those and she makes up nearly half a million votes on Obama. Look for the Clintons to keep talking about this and saying how she is the real choice of the people. I’ll have more on this tomorrow.

Showdown Tuesday

It’s Showdown Tuesday – hey, I have as much right to make up a pointless name for the NC and IN primaries as the networks, who keep calling everything Super Tuesday.
So what is going to happen today? My prediction: Clinton wins Indiana by a bigger margin than Obama wins North Carolina – let’s say Clinton by 7 and Obama by 5 (or less). The turnout is very heavy, with a particularly large surge in Republican crossovers in NC. That surge will help Hillary, not just because of Rush Limbaugh, but because the National Right to Life organization has been robo-calling on her behalf in NC and IN.
What will all this mean? Look at the exit polls – unreliable as they are, the media will be all over them – and check the white vote for Obama. If he drops under 30% (a real possibility, if it’s close and chock full of GOP voters), there will be great hand-wringing and gnashing of teeth about his collapse in white support. This is the opening Hillary needs to try and convince super delegates that she is the one they should support. More about that tomorrow.

Turning Things Around

Amid a mass of bad sports analogies, the networks have all decided that a) Clinton is turning things around because b) Obama can’t “close the deal”, and yet c) Obama can’t really lose. So what is really happening here?
First, the bad sports analogies department: this has been likened to a tennis match where Obama gets to match point (NH, OH, PA) and just can’t put her away, revealing a fatal weakness in his candidacy. Boy, talk about missing the big picture, tennis analogy-wise. What we have is a three set match where they split the first two (IA, NH, SC, Super Tuesday) and then Obama got s service break in the third, with his run of victories in February, which gave him a clear lead. What Obama has failed to do is break her again, but she hasn’t broken back and we seem to be at 5-4 with him serving in North Carolina. A decisive win there and this is over. Well, in the sports analogy sense and the theoretical sense. It ain’t over until the votes are cast at the convention and the Clintons are not going away. They will fight until the last vote, using Michigan and Florida as their ultimate weapons to keep things going until the convention.
Does it matter? Can she win? The expert analysis seems to be in three similar camps:
1) She’s a long shot, but if she can win Indiana, keep NC close, then win big in Kentucky and West Virginia, her momentum (and his slide) could turn things around. Many people have doubts, but the super delegates just might consider her the better choice.
2) It’s over, Obama will be the nominee, the Clintons refuse to accept the reality. They can fight as long and hard as they want, Obama will win NC, wiping out most of her delegate and popular vote gains from PA and he will have wrapped up the delegate lead and popular vote heading for the convention and the super D’s will fall in line very quickly to end the bloodshed.
3) Even the Clintons know it’s over, the campaign is designed to destroy Obama, with Hillary really aiming at 2012. This is the theory James Clyburn espoused this week and there is some merit to it, although the Clintons probably still think they have a chance at victory, the destruction of Obama’s chances are the one thing they know they can do. After all, it’s one thing for Republicans to attack Obama with partisan ads, it’s quite another to pepper those ads with quotes from HRC and Bill, both attacking Obama and praising McCain.

I tend to lean toward number 3, but I also think there’s a fourth scenario which no one is talking about. The first thing is to keep this going as long as possible, the PA victory was big for that, bringing in money and some campaign credibility. A decent showing in NC combined with a win in Indiana and the stage is set. Let’s call this the “deus ex machina” route to the nomination – an external event makes her the obvious candidate to everyone. In a saner world, her astounding pledge in the PA debate to use our defense umbrella to respond to any attack by Iran on Israel, Saudi Arabia, or any other friendly nation in that region would have been a huge story. In our silly society, it passed by quietly. Obama gave a more reasoned, less militaristic response. Combine that with her vote on the Lieberman-Kyl amendment and you have the warrior Hillary, set to pounce on Iran. The external event is a simple one -- we attack Iran. This week saw a string of accusations, not just from the Bush administration, but from assorted military leaders, regarding Iran’s attempt to destabilize Iraq militarily. The groundwork is being laid. We know McCain is on board, and Hillary has given notice that she is ready to fight as well. When the bombs fly, Obama will be left in a terribly awkward position and HRC will emerge as the only one ready to take on McCain in the battle for Commander In Chief. This isn’t over by a long shot.

Groundhog Day

Tomorrow is the Pennsylvania primary, in case you haven’t heard. Oh, you have heard? Nice to hear you are no longer in that coma. This has become the most over-hyped political event since, well, the Ohio and Texas primaries, which were almost two whole months ago. The seven weeks of campaigning and advertising since the last time someone voted will be almost as long as the general election campaign following the two conventions. It has also been just as dirty as that will be and cost almost as much money. So where are we in this mess?
This has been the weakest showing by the Obama campaign. Unless they pull off a huge upset, they have squandered time, money, and showed a serious lack of coherence in their strategy and tactics. Maybe it was the debate that changed things. That was a crappy performance by Obama – although nowhere near as crappy as the one by the moderators – and seemed to be fueled by a reluctance to really go after Clinton, based, I assumed, on the eventuality of his nomination and the need to not offend HRC’s people. It was like a major heavyweight fight, where one boxer was in control and just was content to box and be careful rather than go for the knockout, avoiding injury and getting the win unhurt, with a bigger fight on the horizon. But after the debate, things turned really nasty, with negative speeches and negative commercials flooding the airways. Now that was true of both sides, but Clinton has nothing to lose, she is desperate and the last thing she is worrying about is uniting the party after the nomination. It is a strange choice and I can only assume that it was driven n some way by polling data showing that Obama had closed the gap and had a real shot at winning, enough of a shot that it was worth going for the knockout.
The problem with that strategy is that it is a risk combined with a stunning disregard for the history of this campaign. The risk is that Obama has really done everything he could to win PA, leaving him with no excuses at all; the money was spent, every possible tack was tried, a loss here is a real loss. As for the money, much has been made of how much Obama has spent relative to Hillary. Frankly, as long as you have enough to get out your own message, which Hillary does, there is no evidence at all that outspending your opponent on advertising helps. In fact, there have been reports of polls showing people are more annoyed by the constant advertising. What does help in PA, the last of the machine states, is having Gov. Ed Rendell and his machine on your side, as well as the mayors of Philadelphia and Pittsburgh and theirs, which Hillary does. As for the history, the pattern in this state has been the same as in all the other major states she has won. She starts with a big lead in the polls, he shows up, drives the numbers down to where it looks like he might actually win, then loses by ten points. It was that way in Ohio, in California, in New Jersey, in Massachusetts, and it will be that way in PA as well. Hillary wins by ten points (dodging a hail of sniper fire on the way to the celebration), we move on to May 6th, with Indiana too close to call, and starring North Carolina as the state that Obama wins to wrap things up.

Oh Just Shut Up

Last night, Bill Clinton, for reasons known only to Bill Clinton, decided to attack the press and defend Hillary by saying that Hillary’s Bosnia lie was a “misstatement” that she made “once, late at night” then “immediately corrected”. Of course, she made it several times, all during the day, and didn’t immediately correct anything -- but truth and Bill Clinton are pretty much complete strangers. The best part of it all was his excusing the “misstatement” by saying she’s 60 years old and “when some of you are 60, you’ll have trouble remembering things late at night, too”. Really, he said that. The former Whoremaster-In-Chief is clearly losing it. Maybe he just hasn’t had any nookie lately. Maybe he’s having his own senior moments. Maybe he just thinks he can say anything and no one will care. But if that isn’t the stupidest thing anyone has ever said, I’d like to hear the winner. That’s it, point out that your wife is a)old, b)vulnerable to foggy thinking because she is old, and c) really shaky late at night. No wonder he thinks it would be a good race between her and John McCain – she would be the kid in that battle and they could each take CAT scans to see whose brain activity is soundest.
Apparently, when word of this got back to Hillary, the former First Enabler called her husband and told him to shut up. This morning he attacked the press some more and put his foot further in his big lying mouth. I just don’t get the appeal of these corrupt scum. They did everything they could to destroy the Democratic party in the nineties and if given a chance, will finish the job over the next four years. For the sake of the party and the country, the Clintons must be stopped. Now is the time for all good men (and women) to come to the aid of the party – I pray they do and end the madness.

How Hillary Wins

In David Brooks’ column in the NY Times this week (where he used the wonderful phrase “the audacity of hopelessness” to describe HRC’s campaign) he said she has about a 5% chance of getting the nomination. I’m not sure we can measure it quite so precisely. I do believe there are a number of hoops she needs to jump through and more important, I don’t think she has any control of the situation at any point. In other words, I don’t believe she can win the nomination, she has to hope Obama loses it – a possibility, which, based on the Wright insanity, does exist.
The path is somewhat simple – first, win Pennsylvania big. By big, I mean over 15%. If she wins by less than ten, it will impress no one. If she wins by 12 or 13, it’s a solid win, but no indication of underlying trouble for Obama and it will look like the Rendell machine just did its job well. But if she wins by 17 or 18%, then Obama’s numbers among white voters will look like they did in Mississippi and that will be all the media will talk about for the next two weeks. The question, asked constantly, will be “is Obama’s campaign collapsing”? The next step would be winning North Carolina and Indiana, leaving the impression that Obama is done. Then she wins almost all the remaining primaries and although she doesn’t catch him in pledged delegates, she can go to the super delegates and say “this is why you were created – we have a candidate who won early but who is collapsing late, based on information early voters didn’t have; now for the sake of the party, you have to pick the only candidate with a chance of winning, which is me.”
It all sounds possible and logical. Unfortunately, there are a few little problems. First, the most recent polling data seems to indicate that Obama has weathered the storm of Rev. Wright – although the Clintons are going to keep seeding those clouds. Then the NBC/WSJ poll had ominous news for Hillary, as her negatives are climbing along with his and her positives are dropping sharply; nearly 18% of her own voters don’t view her favorably. But for the sake of argument, let’s assume that the electoral results are exactly what Hillary needs them to be. Then she gets to try and convinces the SDs that they should join up with her to overturn the delegate vote – which is where the real problem for her shows up. You see, back in 2007, the Clinton campaign was pushing the inevitability of Hillary’s nomination to super delegates, basically telling them to get on the bandwagon before it leaves town and they will remember who was with them and who wasn’t. There’s nothing very unusual about this, although it did rub a number of people the wrong way. Many joined up, others resisted. We are now left with those who resisted, which may not be the audience the Clinton campaign wishes to deal with again. The other reason super delegates exist is to have office holders and politicians help make the decision from a political point of view; that is, who would be best for the ticket (or more specifically, for me)? That is where Hillary runs into big trouble. You see, back in the 90’s, Bill was useless to the party. He raised money, but he had no coattails at all, and everything he did, every stance he took, every person he consulted (Dick Morris, most notably) was about his own future. He left the party in shambles, losing both houses of Congress, and destroying many careers. These pols don’t forget that and see Hillary – especially given her scorched-earth campaign – as the same. Then there’s the supporter problem. In the NBC/WSJ poll, 28% of Clinton supporters said they would vote for McCain over Obama, while 19% of Obama supporters returned the favor. This might look like an advantage for Hillary, but many Obama supporters aren’t going to vote for McCain, because they aren’t going to vote at all. Let’s face it, the SDs overturning the pledged delegates would arouse a fury among the hard-core Obamaites, mostly black and young – two groups notorious for not voting. The Clintonites who desert Obama, mostly older, but many blue-collar types as well, will still vote – they may vote McCain, but they will then vote for other Democrats. So if you’re a super delegate, who would you rather have, a candidate with a slightly better chance of winning the White House, or one who makes it more likely that you and your colleagues win? If you don’t know the answer to that question, you are not a politician.
All in all, things do not look good for Hillary. I think Obama’s collapse (which doesn’t seem to be happening) would have to be so complete that it would seem like an obvious decision to go with her. Where there’s life there’s hope, and the Clintons don’t go quietly, so we can look forward to months of nastiness.

The Many Lies of Hillary Clinton

Time and time again during this long and divisive campaign, Hillary Clinton has made many claims about her positions and activities, mostly as First Lady, as well as Senator, most of which are somewhere between exaggeration and outright lies. Herewith a sample of her current collection of baggage:

1) “I was opposed to NAFTA” – When Obama pointed out that she actually worked for its passage, Hillary went ballistic, calling it a lie. The release of her White House schedules demonstrates the depth of her involvement in getting NAFTA passed. Holding meeting with recalcitrant Democrats in Congree, badgering labor leaders, doing everything she could to get it passed. As Hillary is fond of saying, it’s easy to make speeches, actually working to get something done is what matters. Hillary worked hard to get NAFTA passed, then claimed it proudly as an accomplishment of the Clinton Administration. Maybe she wasn’t enthusiastic about it – but her fingerprints are all over it.
2) She only voted for the Iraq War resolution in order to get inspectors back into Iraq and never intended it to be a vote for an attack -- Oh, please. The record shows that she supported the war, saying that there could be no doubt that Saddam had WMD. She also voted against the Levin Amendment, which specifically would have authorized military action only if Saddam defied the UN on the return of inspectors – which he had already signed an agreement to do. Then there’s Bill Clinton, who wrote an op-ed piece in the Times of London agreeing with Tony Blair’s position and was clearly in favor of the war. She only opposed the war when it was time to run for President, knowing she had to be opposed to it to get the nomination.
3) “I was in Bosnia and had to duck sniper fire at the airport” – This was clearly designed to show her experience as a world leader, that she had been under fire – literally- when Obama hadn’t. This now turns out to be a complete lie. She also said she was sent there because it was too dangerous for the President to go. That’s right, it was too dangerous for Bill, so he sent Hillary (understandable) and Chelsea??? Yes, it was so dangerous he sent his teenaged daughter. We now have video of the ceremony on the tarmac and there were no snipers, no ducking and running, just dignitaries and little girls with flowers. When confronted with the truth, Hillary claimed to have “misremembered” and said she “misspoke” – and, my favorite part, said it showed she was human and laughingly said that humanity would surprise some people. No, Senator, it didn’t show you were human, it showed you were a Clinton, that you treat the truth as an inconvenience, just like the former Whoremaster-In-Chief does. She didn’t just tell this creative anecdote, filled as it was with vivid images of a courageous First Lady ducking incoming fire, she told it multiple times. She has no integrity and no shame either. She is morally unfit to be President, and all her time as First Enabler doesn’t make her any more qualified to take the reins of this country. It is time to drive Clintonism, with all its lies and corruption from the party and country once and for all.

What Obama Must Do

Last night’s victories by Clinton should scare the Obama camp, especially combined with dramatic shift over the last three days in Presidential tracking polls, where Clinton has regained the lead. Her attacks on him have worked, especially combined with her all out “soft” campaign on late night shows, morning shows, and her constant whining about how she’s being picked on.
It is time for Obama to take action on two fronts.

1) Attack her at the heart of her argument – she is not ready to be commander-in-chief. It’s simple really, and he has started it.
“Hillary Clinton claims that her experience makes her the one you want in the White House when a crisis comes up. But that moment will require decisions to be made, and for all her alleged experience, she has been terrible at making decisions on issues of war and peace. In 2002, she voted with John McCain and George Bush to authorize the war in Iraq – she had a decision to make and made the wrong one. In 2007, she voted for Iran an resolution backed by George Bush and John McCain, a vote Joe Biden described as ‘stupid’ – she had a decision to make and made the wrong one. Like John McCain, Hillary Clinton has experience, but like McCain, her lack of judgment makes her a dangerous choice for commander-in-chief.”

2) Clinton has been making the rounds of the morning shows talking up the possibility of a Clinton-Obama ticket. This will be a key part of her strategy, since she know that a brokered convention, which she will need to get the nomination, will need to get Obama and Obama’s supporters on board before they can give Clinton the nomination. It is imperative that Obama eliminates that possibility and makes it an either-or choice. Here is what he should say to his supporters:
“Hillary Clinton has been going around talking about the possibility of a Clinton-Obama ticket. Let me be absolutely clear about this – I will not accept the vice presidential nomination under any conditions. To do so would betray the principles of change this campaign has been built on. I have no intention of being the third wheel on Bill and Hillary Clinton ticket. We – you and I – have come too far in this journey to end up in the back of the Clinton bus”

Pointless Predictions

Today is not-quite-super Tuesday and my junior pundit’s license demands that I make some kind of prediction about the results. This is something resembling a guess, educated only by polling data, which has been, to put it kindly, less than reliable. The problem with polling in primaries has always been about predicting turnout. In most cases, the likelihood of getting an accurate sample in an extremely low-turnout election is small. In this case, there is a whole new wrinkle, polls have to try and guess not only the turnout, but the very composition of the turnout, since that seems to be key to the results. Historical turnout numbers and demographic composition has been blown away in this election, leaving pollsters with numbers that are next to useless. Once in a while someone gets it right. This is probably sheer luck, rather than a superior methodology. Survey USA has had the best luck so far – in particular, getting Wisconsin sort of right. But there is no guarantee that they will be more accurate tonight than anyone else.
Having said all that, all I have to judge is polling data and I will fire a few bullets in the general direction of the moving target. I figure VT goes to Obama and RI to Hillary, ending the streak. Which brings us to the big two – OH and TX. A clue about the results can be found in where the candidates are going to be tonight – HRC is in OH, Obama in TX. This tells me that both camps expect her to win OH – if Obama thought he was about to win it, or even had a 50-50 chance, he would be there, since it is a more valuable place to be for the fall campaign. The polls seem to have turned around late for Clinton there, possibly based on health care, possibly on the Canadian NAFTA nonsense. Or maybe it’s just a parallel to the other big states, where Obama closes in the polls, then falls short in the end, as Hillary voters return to the fold. In any case, I expect a Clinton win there, maybe by a sizable margin.
A quick comment on the Canada story: is it unreasonable for Obama’s economic advisor to say to the Canadians “look, for the campaign, we have to be evenhanded about this, but there are no extra standards we will propose that you guys don’t already meet, so clearly you have nothing to worry about”? Of course, no one can say that publicly, since Mexico and folks in border states (like Texas) will get very nervous. It’s all silliness, but then, so is much of what we hear these days. Anyone who trusts Clinton more than Obama on changing trade deals is a fool – the Clinton Administration’s biggest accomplishments were trade deals and it’s hard to believe she is that far from the economic policy of the administration she is so proud of.
As for Texas, who knows? One thing is almost certain: Obama will win more delegates there. The system and the allotment of delegates by district will help him. Given the way this campaign has gone, a Clinton primary win there (as opposed to caucuses) wouldn’t surprise me. Her final numbers in most of the big states have exceeded her polling numbers and it may go that way again.
If Hillary wins OH and TX, it will be a big night for her, with much celebrating and a story line of “she wins the big states where more people get to vote, therefore she is the better candidate”. (This story will last about 48 hours, which is when Obama wins North Carolina and everyone realizes that despite Hillary’s two big wins, Obama actually widened his delegate lead this week. At that point, look for a number of notable names (Bill Richardson among them) to move to Obama.)
Edit: I misread the electoral map, NC is on May 6th, not March 6th. Mississippi and Wyoming are coming up in the next week and Obama can recover with those.

It's Not TV, It's Nonsense

I will freely admit to not having seen 60 Minutes last night, just the moment in which Hillary Clinton was asked by Steve Kroft whether she thinks Barack Obama was a Muslim. When she said, basically, no, Kroft asked her again. This is a disgraceful attempt at journalism, by someone who, in a better world, would have been fired this morning, along with the producer who actually put that crap on the air. This isn’t just a stupid question, it’s a repeat of a rumor on the internet which has no credibility whatsoever. Yet Kroft, lacking in all journalistic integrity, decided to ask it, in an attempt to create news. Clinton, gave a reasonable answer, although could have been more definitive in her ultimate denial. Today, we can only assume Kroft and his CBS whore masters got their wish – free publicity, as news programs decided it was worth talking about. It seemed like a harmless enough moment to me, considering the basic inanity of the question, but MSNBC apparently made the decision that it was interesting. Chris Matthews showed the clip, then pretty much denied that there was any point in showing it. Clinton was asked about it on the campaign trail and got to go into her “Hillary as victim” routine, talking about all the “scurrilous rumors” which have dogged her through the years. Obama addressed it by talking about how much he loved Jesus, how he prays to Him nightly, when not too busy, and is absolutely not a Muslim.
Every American should be sickened by the whole episode. Sickened by a news media which is about its own promotion rather than illumination of ideas and facts. Sickened by the description of someone’s possible religion as a “scurrilous rumor.” Sickened by the need, in America, to pass some kind of religious test for office – not just saying you’re a Christian, but giving the details of your devotion, so people know you are really, really Christian, not some closet Muslim or, maybe worse, non-believer. Unfortunately, in Bush’s America, the religious fundamentalists must be placated, no matter how repulsed and frightened the founding fathers would have been by the complete denial of all they believed in.
Speaking of NBC, Hillary Clinton was on Saturday Night Live this weekend. For the second week in a row, the erratic comedy show decided to crap on Obama and genuflect before St. Hillary in their opening segment. Last week, in their return from the strike, they showed their version of CNN’s debate, where the anchors and questioners, led by Campbell Brown (played by Kristen Wiig), admitted their clear preference, even adoration, for Obama, and asked him nothing but fluff questions while basically ignoring Hillary. This is, of course, ironic, as in an earlier CNN debate, Brown ended the proceedings by asking Hillary the probative question “Diamonds or pearls?”
This time around, it was MSNBC’s turn, with Brian Williams and Tim Russert being lampooned, asking Hillary the tough questions and Obama the easy ones. That’s right, the same Tim Russert who asked the real Obama the fluff question about Louis Farrakhan and in the middle of Obama’s answer, added Obama’s pastor to the mix with statements he made about Obama and the Jewish vote following his trip to Libya with Farrakhan. So their take on him was pure slander, but they had established their pro-Clinton position the week before (a position bizarrely quoted by Hillary in a debate) and weren’t easing up. The week before, Tina Fey and Amy Poehler effectively endorsed Hillary on the show. This time around, the sketch was followed by Hillary herself, pointing out that they weren’t endorsing her formally, but that she liked what they were doing and then she had a lovely comedic moment with Poehler (as her) and altogether came across as charming and funny – something the Clintons are great at, by the way.
Now you may say, so what, it’s only SNL, no one cares what they say about politics. The problem is that’s not how they think. After the 2000 election, Tina Fey posited that their selection of the appealing Will Ferrell to play Bush and the unappealing Darrell Hammond to play Gore (in spite of their heights being reversed with the actual candidates) might have unintentionally cost Gore the election. If you remember, the SNL debate piece, mocking Gore’s Social Security lock box, was widely shown, with Gore even using it as a “what not to do” for future efforts. So here we have a pleasant, vivacious Hillary contrasted with a wooden, charmless, and dull Obama, played by the charmless Fred Armisen in blackface. You know, you can do anything you want in the name of satire and they have a right to pimp for Clinton all they want, but I think they really need to try and be a little fair to Obama, if for no other reason than much of their audience supports him. Of course, maybe there’s something else at work here involving Lorne Michaels. I thought the portrayal of Obama I saw was mighty close to racist. Having him played by a stiff and boring white guy was an intentional choice by Michaels. Maybe it’s time for Lorne to hang up his comedy holster and go back to hanging out with his rich friends.

On Wisconsin

Joey LaMotta: You win, you win. And if you, lose, you still win.
Jake LaMotta: I lose, I still win?
Joey LaMotta: Yeah.

From Raging Bull, written by Paul Schrader and Mardik Martin.

Conventional wisdom – usually far more conventional than wise – has Barack Obama’s momentum rolling through Wisconsin en route to a showdown with Clinton in Texas and Ohio, both of which will be must-win states for her. Today, the Clinton campaign announced that the candidate wouldn’t even be staying in the state through Tuesday, further fueling assumptions that she has no chance of winning there.
The problem is that there is no reason why she shouldn’t be able to win there. I haven’t seen a poll that shows her more than five points behind – there is an ARG poll today with her actually ahead. Basically, the Clinton camp, aided by the media, have played the expectations game perfectly. If she wins, she wins – it will be hailed as a huge comeback, a momentum-stopper, and put immense pressure on Obama to win in either Texas or Ohio. If she loses close, that will also be called a win, as polls will undoubtedly show her winning among Democrats, with independents and Republicans giving Obama the win. If Obama wins by less than ten, it will excite nobody, since people are expecting a victory for him. Only a double-digit win by Obama will impress the punditocracy, and that will still merely be a prelude to March 4th.
The close victory by Obama, which, if the polls are to be believed (I know, given how crappy they’ve been, no real reason to believe them), is the most likely outcome, would be fueled by votes by non-Democrats. Which brings to mind the question of why the Clinton campaign hasn’t created an alternate primary universe, based on exit polls, consisting only of Democrats, reallocating the delegates and recomputing the popular vote totals. Doesn’t it seem like an obvious thing to do? Make the battle cry that Hillary is the candidate that Democrats want to represent them. I’m from the school that thinks primaries should be closed, although the point could be made that winning in the Fall will require independent voters. I think appeal to independent voters is something Democrats can, and should, take into account when voting for their candidate, but that the choice should be within the party. It’s not how the rules are, though, so what I (and the Clintons) would prefer is irrelevant. Still, you’d think it would be a selling point worth pursuing in the battle for Super Delegates.

About Last Night

Barack Obama’s Potomomac Primary romp last night got a lot of people a lot of excited. There are two big questions: 1) is the excitement warranted? and 2) what the excitement itself resonate in this election? The victories were all expected, but the margins were immense, with Obama winning every demographic except white women. Ignoring the obvious place for a jungle fever reference, let’s look at this carefully. Obama found electorates well in tune with him in Maryland and Virginia upscale whites combined with large African-American voting blocs (which he is now carrying 8-1). Getting over 60% is still impressive and the delegate total is mounting. So the excitement might be a little overblown, but the results were exciting for Obama, for he now leads by over 100 elected delegates, maybe as many as 130. The Clinton campaign itself has said that it is almost impossible to catch Obama in that number and has now started talking about how Super Delegates should be included in all counts, even though they aren’t bound at all. Look for them to start adding in Michigsn and Florida delegates soon, since the numbers look bad as they are. As for the popular vote thus far, Obama leads that by about 800,000. If he finishes the primary season leading in both, it will be very hard for the SDs to reverse the results.
As for the resonance – look for SDs to be very careful before endorsing Clinton from this point. It is quite possible that the electorate is starting to accept the concept of President Obama, that victory after victory is starting to create a bandwagon effect. That is why Clinton has started to spend money in Wisconsin – a 60% victory there could just render March 4th meaningless. As big as winning all the major states but Obama’s own would be, losing this many others, along with the pledged delegate count, might render it moot. Things are not looking good for Clinton at the moment, as momentum can be a bitch to overcome this late.

***************************************************

Speaking about last night, the Senate voted on the new eavesdropping bill, passing the version the Bush Administration wanted, with immunity for the telcoms who collaborated with the fascists. Of course, it is expected that Republicans would go along with it. That only 29 Democrats would go along with the noble filibuster attempts of Chris Dodd and Russ Feingold is sad.

It's a Bird, It's a Plane, It's a...Superdelegate!

The big discussion in Democratic circles is what will the superdelegates to the convention do. It seems apparent that neither candidate will have the nomination locked up before the convention, or even have a substantial lead. So that throws the ultimate decision to the superdelegates, a collection of Senators, Congressmen, Governors, and party officials. This has been decried as undemocratic. Donna Brazile has threatened to quit her party position if they act badly – like anyone would give a shit. Others, including Obama himself, have suggested that SDs follow their district/state’s voting preference – which enabled Hillary to get off her best response of the campaign, saying how she would welcome Ted Kennedy and John Kerry’s votes at the convention. Of course, that would cause an amusing situation in the Clinton camp as well, with Charles Rangel, a Clinton surrogate, whose district (not to mention his wife) supported Obama.
All of this ignores why they exist in the first place. Back in 1980, people realized that in a contested race, it was possible for a lot of office-holders, big ones even, to not even be delegates to the convention, since they might have been on the losing side of a primary contest. More and more people felt that the party was becoming leaderless, with experienced politicians left out of deliberations, and with the real risk of nominating a candidate who might not be the one that local candidates would want at the top of the ticket. If there is a Senate race in North Carolina or Virginia, who is at the top of the ticket could determine the winner of that seat. Certainly the coat tails are very important when you get to House races. This system was designed to give the experienced pols a shot at fixing a mistake, especially with most delegates selected months in advance of the convention.
Rampant democracy and the 24-hour news cycle has made it seem outdated. This is the first time they will clearly have the say and they are frightened by it. In a race this close, this divisive of interest and demographic groups within the party, it’s not going to be easy. Obama running the table would solve their problem, but that doesn’t figure to happen. How can they make a decision?
After this week, after Obama’s 8 wins (and a Grammy), he will be referred to as the frontrunner. Next week in Hawaii and Wisconsin will probably reinforce that – although Hillary’s new team may well decide to try and slow his momentum in WI, risking money and time in what might be a lost cause. Still, she figures to come back in March, focusing on Texas (a likely significant win because of the large Latino vote) and Ohio, which will be the first of two showdown states, with Pennsylvania following seven weeks later. Here is the Clinton scenario: Obama piles up delegates in caucuses and smaller, mostly African-American dominated states, then she takes Texas, Ohio, and Pennsylvania, giving her a virtual sweep of every major state except for his home state. With the delegate totals close, the SDs have no choice but to turn to the person who wins the major primaries. It might work, since Texas is naturally hers, and she has a big polling lead in Ohio, which looks a lot like all the other states where Obama starts from way behind and closes fast at the end, ultimately falling short. That means the seven-week campaign in PA could be decisive. Where the SDs really have trouble is if Obama ends up with more delegates, more total votes, and loses all the big states decisively. I think if he stays close in OH and PA, they’ll go with him, but the entrails of birds would be just as likely to give us the likely outcome of this race as any reasoned analysis.

Uncivil War

The last Democatic debate was nothing if not entertaining and would have been more appropriately held at Fort Sumpter, given the divisiveness. The nastiness and hostility between Obama and Clinton was first rate political theater and the whole thing might have escalated (or devolved, if you prefer) into fisticuffs had John Edwards not been there. It is very clear that the Clinton strategy is to drag Obama into the mud with them, giving the perception that he’s just as sleazy as they are, destroying his fresh and clean image. Will it work? Probably. How damaging this is to the party is hard to say, as there’s a long way to go until the convention and if it doesn’t continue for months on end, it could fade into distant memory. Several points need to be made:
1) The whole Rezko thing is nonsense. Rezko was a hanger-on who liked to inflate his own importance and there’s no evidence Obama did anything for him politically. Compare that to the Clinton attitude toward Tyson in Arkansas, “travelgate”, and the Mark Rich pardon on the way out of the White House and which candidate is more corrupt is pretty clear.
2) Obama did say nice things about Reagan. He talked about some positive things he did and his denial of that is hollow. Obama’s problem is that he tends to actually think about things and then discuss them, without thinking about what the political ramifications would be. This is refreshing. This is also dangerous. Hillary made one slip regarding driver’s licenses for illegal immigrants and all hell broke loose. This should have been a cautionary lesson for Obama, but apparently he just likes to ruminate about things. Running against the Hillarybot 2008, which has vetted everything she’s going to say before she says it, he has to be better prepared.
3) Speaking of prepared – commenting that “I don’t know which of them I’m running against” got the expected response from HRC, regarding how wonderful Bill is and how the other candidates spouses are strong advocates for them. Obama was not prepped with the response he should have had, namely that Michelle Obama was not the ex-President, whose every word is newsworthy, and that being married to Bill Clinton is the reason HRC considers herself more experienced, while none of Obama’s qualifications come from whom he is married to.
4) Edwards was the best candidate out there, but it won’t matter much, I fear.

So what will happen tomorrow? I have a feeling a surprise is out there. Maybe not in the winner, but perhaps in the margin, or maybe with Edwards getting a larger than expected vote. ARG says Clinton is closing ground, losing white voters to Edwards, but taking older black women back from Obama. Zogby says Edwards is the one moving late. Public Policy says Obama is widening his lead. And my favorite poll comes from Clemson, which has Obama at 27, Clinton at 20, and Edwards at 17, with a whopping 36% undecided – frankly, that may be the most accurate representation of where people really are. But tomorrow, those undecideds will have to decide, and that could result in anything.

Nevada Democratic Debate

After several days of nonsensical race-based acrimony, last night’s Democratic debate figured to be a love fest, with the candidates seated close to each other and trying to cut down on negativity which had permeated the campaign. I suspect that this will not be the last time this devolves into personal infighting, as Clinton and Obama are remarkably similar politically and much of this campaign is based on who they are rather than what they stand for. As for the LBJ-MLK controversy, Clinton was right, much ado has been made over nothing, as it was over Bill Clinton’s “fairy tale” comment, and reflects an over-sensitivity which could completely backfire on Obama in the long run. I give Hillary credit for not backing off the premise of the statement in her subsequent discussions of it. Far too often politicians say something which is totally justifiable, then when they find out it upsets people, run away from it as fast as they can. Of course, the Clinton campaign is run in the classic modern manner, where the candidate stays a bit above the fray, while the surrogates say the most obnoxious things possible. Time and again Clinton’s surrogates say the kind of things, often about Obama and drugs, which are odious, yet somehow the campaign is doing nothing to stop them. Even after the departure of Bill Shaheen, there have been statements like Robert Johnson’s which carry disgusting implications with them. It is inconceivable to me that a responsible campaign has no stated policy regarding this, but then again, the Clintons are known for saying or doing whatever they have to in order to win, so I guess I shouldn’t be surprised. Even yesterday, Charles Rangel was on TV saying utterly untrue things about Obama. It’s the Karl Rove technique – say enough bad things often enough and people will believe them.
As for the debate, once again Hillary proved to be the master (mistress?) of the form. Tight answers, with content and purpose, combined with complete command of the rhythm of things enabled her to dominate. The polls showed a tight, three-way race in NV, so she had to bloody John Edwards and did, with the Yucca Mountain exchange where she pointed out that he had voted for it not once, but twice, once to override a Clinton veto – a double-dip point which reinforced a Clintonian history of opposition. As for Obama, her pointing out his vote for the “Cheney Energy Bill” (a nice touch for HRC with that description), combined with his weak defense of it, was a knockdown punch. He fought back a bit by pointing out her using the “politics of fear” which was a Bush tactic, but in the end, I thought he seemed to be defending much more than anyone else throughout. Obama may have scored points against Edwards by claiming their small differences on Iraq were “distinctions without a difference”, but the fact that they were even discussing it left HRC above the fray on that issue, which has totally faded into the background in the Democratic debate. Obama also fails to attack Clinton’s readiness, which is a major problem for him. In fact, his weakest moment may have come when he defended his “the President doesn’t have to run everything, just provide a vision” statement. It was a weak defense and HRC attacked him effectively for it. He seems trapped in his own avowed political philosophy of uniting people. He only is able to counterpunch, not try and take the lead, which is why so much gets made of trivial Clinton statements, while not really going after her on big issues.
Edwards had a very good night, even if he got to talk less than the others. The format is okay, but would have been better with less formality. If you are going to have the candidates ask questions of each other, make sure you know the rules and make sure it’s fair. Edwards and Obama asked questions of each other but never got to ask one of Hillary. In fact, Russert refused to let Obama back off something that sounded like a question to Edwards. This was totally unfair. Clinton turned her question of Obama into a pro-Hillary statement which Obama had to agree with.
The real question with debates is who watched and what their reaction was. If enough NV voters watched, it could be big for HRC. But it’s possible that very few of the remarkably small percentage of Nevadans who will be caucusing watched, in which case, it matters far less. Obama is the better speaker, but fewer people see his speeches than see debates, and that is where Hillary shines. Overall, I thought Hillary won last night, Edwards was a solid second, with Obama third. Oh yeah, and it was really nice to not have Richardson and Kucinich there.

Numbers and Notes -- New Hampshire

I have spent some time before writing about New Hampshire because I wanted to see more analysis from other sources, including actual breakdowns of polls. In the end, there are conflicting numbers, it’s hard to analyze specifics, and different people have come up with assorted reasons for the “error”. The pollsters are investigating their methodology – although apparently it was only wrong with the Dems, since it got the GOP race exactly right.
Here is my take:
1) There is no reason to believe half a dozen or more polls were all wrong in their poll results, especially in light of their accuracy in the GOP results. The polls were mostly finished by Sunday, with a few exceptions. I think they were accurately reflecting how things stood.
2) There was a sea change, mostly among women, which took place on Monday and Tuesday. Two of the three polls (the exception being the Suffolk U. poll, which was off on the GOP and had bizarre gender splits in both parties), both had Obama ahead with women by about the same amount he won them in Iowa. The exit polls show Clinton winning them by double digits. That swing accounts for almost all of the difference. Why?
Well, by Monday, newspapers and other media were talking about Obama winning easily and the race effectively being over – the NH voters are often contrarian about such things and may have not wanted it to end there. There were also reports that Clinton advisors might suggest she leave the race to avoid further embarrassment – this might have been especially telling among women, who would not want that to happen to her. And then she cried...or almost cried...in the diner. That moment, revealing a passion few had seen, was shown over and over again and had to have some effect.
3) But what about the exit poll question “when did you finally decide who to vote for?”, which yielded no significant late gain for Clinton? My theory on this is that there were large numbers of women who were always intending to vote for HRC, as the polls had shown prior to Iowa. Then Obama won Iowa, HRC finished third, Obama made a great speech and they shifted to Obama likely voters. They came back home on election day and simply ignored their three-day dalliance with Obama, just coming back to their original decision, made months earlier.

In any case, this primary turned the race around and we will head into the February 5th primaries with a battle on our hands. It may not be the battle I would like to see, but that’s for another day.

Numbers and Notes -- Iowa and Beyond

The Iowa Caucus entrance polls ended up being quite accurate in predicting the result, so that makes the underlying numbers very interesting to look at. Let’s look at the results.

Obama – A huge winner by any measure. Brought in new voters, both young and non-Democratic. This win, in a lily white state, will give him serious street cred among African-American voters – yes, he can get elected President. No troubling numbers exist, as those groups which weren’t his strength – older voters and low-income voters – are traditional Democrats who he can pick up in the Fall.
Key number: Among those voters who voted for change (52%), he won 51-20, which is devastating to Edwards and Clinton.

Edwards -- A loss is bad, a big loss to Obama on change is very bad. Strategy in NH is to go after Clinton and try to make it into a race between two different visions of how to accomplish change. How he executes that in tonight’s debate could be the key to his future.
Key numbers: Losing the change vote to Obama (51-20) and the union and low-income vote to Hillary was a two-front disaster. If he can get Hillary out, he could bounce back. This is easier said than done. Has become a “movement” candidate, which makes an early exit from the campaign far less likely. He lost the “Iraq war is most important issue” vote to both Hillary and Obama, getting just 17% there. Hard to figure that one.

Clinton – Iowa was a disaster, no matter how she spins it. This is clearly a change election and she is going to have trouble selling a Clinton revival as real change. The “Ready for Change” signs her people were holding up at her staged post-caucus address looked really desperate. Has to go after Obama while Edwards goes after her, leaving Obama free to be Presidential. A difficult task for Hillary. There is great irony in the way things have broken here. This compressed schedule and three-way race seemed set up for her. No time to eliminate someone and have the anti-Hillary forces coalesce meant that her money and organization would dominate, she would roll through February 5th and be the nominee before anyone could focus. Now she desperately needs time and a head-to-head race.
Key Number: 57% of caucus-goers were women, good for Hillary. She lost women to Obama 35-30...oops. In fact, she only beat Edwards by 7 among women. Her firewall wasn’t NH, it was her dominance in the dominant segment of the party, women voters. In spite of all the focus, in spite of Emily’s List’s economic and organizational support, she lost that demographic.

The other Dems are either irrelevant or gone – sorry to see you go, Joe and Chris, the race is poorer for your leaving.

Note: The older the voter, the more likely to vote for Clinton. The younger the voter, the more likely to vote for Obama.

Huckabee – Easy win on the shoulders of the evangelicals, who comprised an amazing 60% of the vote. NH will be a tougher case, but there is a bounce happening and a solid third there will certainly be considered a victory of sorts. The party establishment hates this guy and won’t go quietly.
Key Number: Only got 14% of the votes among those not born-again. This finished fourth behind Romney 33%, McCain 18%, and Thompson 17%. He must find a way to reach those voters or he won’t win anything.

Romney – The best-laid plans often fall apart worse than you could have imagined. In spite of spending $238 for every vote he got, Mitt finished a bad second. Now he must win NH or get branded a loser, heading for southern primaries where he is weaker. His “silver medal” analogy was cute, but finishing second in the Olympics isn’t great if you entered the favorite, and he did.
Key Number: Mitt only lost the male vote to Huckabee 29-26, women voted for Huckabee 40-24. Is it because women like Huckabee so much, or dislike Mitt? Well, I had a neighbor who used to refer to slick, well-dressed guys who would hit on her in bars with only a quick roll-in-the-hay on their mind and no intention to ever call her again as “striped shirts”. In the political sense, Romney is the ultimate “striped shirt” and women spotted that. You go, girls.

Thompson/McCain – Finished with a couple of hundred votes of each other, due to Thompson actually spending a week there. This is bad for McCain, as it might keep Thompson in the race through SC and McCain had to hope to pick up his support by then. Worse for McCain was the tremendous appeal Obama had for independent voters. If Obama takes too many of them away in NH, McCain could be in trouble and he must win NH. Whoever loses in NH, McCain or Romney, is in serious trouble.
Key Number: Of the 33% of GOP voters who thought illegal immigration is the most important problem, only 4% voted for McCain – this will be a big problem if he gets head-to-head with anyone. Not key, but interesting. Thompson got 16% of men, 10% of women Women don’t trust “striped shirts” or men with trophy wives.

Ron Paul – Got 10%, raised more money than anyone, was not invited to Fox News debate. Fascists don’t want to hear from Libertarians, so the house organ of the GOP has no interest in hearing from Ron.
Key Number: Paul got 21% of the voters under 30, third behind Romney’s 22%.

Rudy Giuliani – 3%? I know he wasn’t trying, but jeez. Don’t they care about 9/11 out there? Still, if McCain wins in NH, then Huckabee and Huckabee and Thompson run 1-2 in SC, this could make Rudy’s strategy look brilliant.

Mike Bloomberg – Huckabee’s big win is just what he needed. Obama, on the other hand, could be a problem.

Guessing Iowa

Predicting the Iowa caucuses is somewhere between hard and impossible, with all the reliability of predictions based on animal entrails. Still, punditry demands these kinds of things, so here goes.

Democrats
1. Edwards
2. Obama
3. Clinton

A few days ago this would have been different, with Obama in third. The Des Moines Register poll changes that, not because I think it’s all that accurate, but because it has created a perception about the race which benefits Obama. Perhaps there will be, as the poll shows, a 33% increase in first-time voters, perhaps there will be a huge turnout of Independents and Republicans voting for Obama, but I wouldn’t bet on those two happening. Still, in politics, perception is reality, and the perception that he is surging late and has broad appeal could well lead to that happening or just adding a few points by other means. I still think Edwards wins the caucuses on second-choice votes, but Obama could win the entrance polls and that could really confuse things. The key is the margin – 30-29-28 is meaningless, 34-29-24 is very meaningful, with the story split between the winner and the loser. If it should be Edwards with 34 and Obama with 24, this race would be turned on its head. The other way around eliminates Edwards, and would give Obama a huge boost. A bad third by Clinton would puncture her inevitability balloon and leave this wide open. The Kucinich “endorsement” of Obama might be worth a point or two and that might prove significant. A significant Clinton win would depress far too many people to even think about.

Republicans
1. Huckabee
2. Romney
3. McCain
4. Paul

I included Paul because I think he’ll get to 10% and Thompson won’t. The question here is whether Romney’s all-out assault on Huckabee worked. If it didn’t, it is a major blow to Romney. The key number here is McCain’s vote total. If he gets to 15% or more, without really having a campaign in Iowa, it will be treated as a victory by the media and will get him a bump in NH. Big Prediction Alert....if McCain gets 15% or more and Huckabee and Clinton win, John McCain will be the next President. Even without the Clinton win, I wouldn’t bet against McCain if the other two happen.