Tuesday, January 29, 2008

Is it Tuesday already?

Man, I haven't even had time to write about the outcome of the S. Carolina primary yet...

Oh well, let's see. Florida! This is a big one for the Republicans. McCain and Romney have kind of settled in as frontrunners with Giuliani and Huckabee trailing. Giuliani's done after this one. Toast. Fini. An Ex-Contender. His presidential hopes have expired and gone to meet their maker... you get my point.

Huckabee never quite figured out how to build on his Iowa win, and his aimiable brand of extremism seemed less aimiable and more extreme as time went on. He will still have a following, and may win a state or two on Super Tuesday, but he's probably now just angling for a VP nod.

McCain and Romney seem set to duke it out the rest of the way. I'd have to guess McCain is likely to win in the end, as (some) Republicans swallow their dislike of him and concede he's their best chance to win in the fall. Romney has had some good moments, in what I saw of the last debate, he seemed confident and prepared. But I think there is just something in him that people don't quite trust.

On the Dem side, Obama's SC win was big, both in numbers and significance. The fact that Ted Kennedy endorsed him is also significant. But the Clintons--and I think we have to say The Clintons now, don't we?--have shown they're in this to win. They still have the advantage in the big states and on the organizational side. It's a harder road for Obama, but he has a shot.

I just hope the media doesn't make a lot of the inevitable Clinton win in Florida. Clinton, after pledging not to campaign in FLA (another one of those states that broke the DNC rules and is being punished) has all but made direct appeals to Fla. voters. Obviously, she sees a win here as more important than playing by the rules. Florida is easy pickings for Clinton, with its large number of senior citizens. Older voters are Clinton's main strength, so of course she'll win this one. But it wasn't an even playing field, and she muddied the issue further by shadow campaining there.

Predictions:
R: McCain, Romney, Giuliani, Huckabee
D: Clinton, Obama, Edwards

Friday, January 25, 2008

South Carolina

Another short post, I think. I've been getting a bit overloaded on political blogs, and there's really little I feel like adding to the general chatter. Obama needs a win, the bigger the better. He'll probably get one, but if Clinton finishes within double digits, she can claim she did better than expectations. The recent debate and the subsequent spinning has raised an interesting issue: what is a Hillary Clinton White House going to be like with the Big Dog casting his considerable shadow on everything she does?

This of course is one of the molehills that Republicans like to make a mountain of, except that it's really not hard to imagine it becoming more than just a molehill. The Onion has a great fake news story about Bill Clinton announcing, "Screw it, I'm Running for President." I'm not one that feels Bill Clinton is a power-hungry meglomaniac. But he is human, he is a politician (and can claim to be a rather spectacularly successful one), so he does have an ego. How's that going to work if Hillary gets the big chair? It's a fair question, it's a loaded question, it's one that's pretty hard to answer right now.

Prediction: Obama, Clinton, Edwards. Yawn.

Wednesday, January 23, 2008

Reason #1,627 Why People Are Voting For Change

"WASHINGTON—A study by two nonprofit journalism organizations found that President Bush and top administration officials issued hundreds of false statements about the national security threat from Iraq in the two years following the 2001 terrorist attacks.

The study concluded that the statements 'were part of an orchestrated campaign that effectively galvanized public opinion and, in the process, led the nation to war under decidedly false pretenses.'"

Story here. My goal with this blog is to focus on the campaigns and not get into Bush bashing, but the last 8 years do provide, shall we say, context for this election.

Tuesday, January 22, 2008

FINALLY

"WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Republican Fred Thompson said on Tuesday he has dropped out as a presidential candidate, following a dismal showing so far in the campaign."

Oh Fred, I will miss you. Who am I going to kick around now that you're gone?

Why, hello, Mayor Giuliani! What's that? You almost beat Ron Paul in S. Carolina? Two percent? That's VERY good!

Hey, candidates like these don't come along that often. You gotta enjoy them while you can.

Monday, January 21, 2008

MLK Day

“Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Hate multiplies
hate, violence multiplies violence, and toughness multiplies toughness in a descending spiral of destruction....The chain reaction
of evil--hate begetting hate, wars producing more wars--must be broken, or we shall be plunged into the dark abyss of
annihilation.”
Martin Luther King, Jr


“The first question which the priest and the Levite asked was: ‘If I stop to help this man, what will happen to me?’ But... the good Samaritan reversed the question: ‘If I do not stop to help this man, what will happen to him?’”
Martin Luther King, Jr.

Saturday, January 19, 2008

Likable Enough

I've been posting a lot about the R side of the primaries, so I want to make a stab at some balance and talk about the D candidates.

Even though I think most Americans would say that they vote on the issues and not on personalities, history suggests otherwise. The personal touch is arguably the most important factor in national elections. We may disagree with a candidate on this or that issue, we may think they're a bit too liberal or conservative, but if they make us feel like it's morning in America, or if they can convince us that they feel our pain, or that they'd be a fun guy to pal around with on the ranch, we are more likely to vote for them.

Even Jimmy Carter, not the most riveting of personalities, came across as a kind of southern gentleman ... and it didn't hurt that he was running against Gerald Ford. Of course, when he came up against a bone fide movie star in the next election, he didn’t fare so well.

The question that the Dems have to answer is whether their candidates are, to borrow a phrase, likable enough. With Hillary Clinton, one has to admire how she continues to tackle the rather overwhelming obstacles that fate has put before her. The unpleasant history of her husband's infidelity, the constant attacks from the right from people who sincerely believe that she is the most manipulative and untrustworthy politician in history, the natural pressure and balancing act that any woman would face as the first front-runner for the presidency. She really hasn't done a bad job. She's shown humor (maybe a tad forced at times), emotion (ditto), and most of all, grace under fire, which I think speaks very well for the job she might do as President.

But do people find her personally compelling?

With Obama, I believe he is one of the best public speakers I have ever seen. He can be inspiring to listen to, in fact, he nearly always is, and I think that is important in a leader. But in the debates he can come off as measured, almost distant. I recently heard an interview on NPR where he sounded almost bored with the questions. If Obama comes off as arrogant or disconnected from voters, they may vote for a different kind of change.

Edwards is perhaps the most “likable” of the three; at least he’s plenty charming. And yet he lags behind in the polls. And maybe that's where the "likable = electable" equation breaks down. Regardless of how much you like or dislake Hillary Clinton, she is just a bigger political star than Edwards. And that has to do with her history, her connections, and her ideas. Obama, of course, has been a star since he came on the national stage.

One thing I am interested in is how the, uh, several people reading this blog see Obama. I have a pretty good notion of how people view Clinton. But what about Obama? Any of us watching these primaries have seen him speak or debate by now. How does he come across to you? Politics aside, is he likable enough?

As far as predictions for Nevada and the GOP S. Carolina race, I think my winning streak is about to end. But I'll take a stab at it.

Nevada Dems: Clinton, Obama, Edwards
Nevada R’s: Romney, McCain, uh…. Huckabee. Ron Paul will beat Giuli-who?-ani again.

S. Carolina R's: Huckabee, McCain, Thompson.

Thursday, January 17, 2008

The GOP Primary: The Charge of the RINOs

As I PREDICTED (I got one right! I got one right!), Mitt Romney won a primary Tuesday night. The word of the day on Wednesday among media sources was “scrambled,” as in, the GOP race is more scrambled than my eggs were this morning.

Actually, I had a turkey sandwich but you get my point.

The Dems kind of sat this one out, Clinton won but since none of them campaigned and the delegates don’t count, it’s not really a meaningful victory. They did have a very nice, civil debate over on C-SPAN about, uh, something. I didn’t watch. We had Grey’s Anatomy burning a hole in our DVR.

But the merry-go-round of Republican candidates continues, and it’s driving us a little crazy. The fault, perhaps, lies not in our politics but in ourselves. There’s no rule that a party has to pick a candidate early in the primary season. It’s another manifestation of our horse-race mentality (and the modern urge to have every bit of information at our fingertips NOW) that we are impatient for this thing to play out.

Or at least I am impatient. You guys might feel differently.

But what I keep coming back to is how strange the Republican field is. Every one of the candidates has at least one issue that could be considered an Achilles Heel. In some circles, these candidates would be called “Republicans in Name Only” or RINOs. Now, this is a pretty clichéd perogative term that people regularly level at others simply because they disagree on some issue. Happens on the Dems side too (DINOs). Still, between the immigration stance that dogs McCain, the anti-corporate positions of Huckabee, and the anything-goes history of Rudy Giuliani, it is a strange group.

Even Ron Paul, whose No Government is Good Government libertarianism rings true with many of the hard-right conservatives I grew up with, goes completely against the grain of current Republican thought with his Out of Iraq Now position.

The most consistent Republican? Fred Thompson, aka He Who Will Not Be Nominated.

I suppose the reason Romney has been able to do as well as he has is that he now talks the talk of a conservative Republican. But his past is so inconsistent with what he now says … well, I’ve harped on that before.

As I'm writing this, there's an NPR report on this very topic. "Is the meaning of conservative changing?" asks the reporter. Some conservative spokeswoman (I'm listening with one ear) says something like "I hope not."

But change could be good. Especially if the Republicans could somehow shake this weird Flat Earth mentality that says tax cuts are good for deficits, science is wrong, war is peacemaking, etc. My problem with conservatives is not that they think differently. It's that they seem (lately) to be against thinking at all.

Maybe that's not fair. But when the half-dozen top Republicans in the country can stand on a stage, raise their hands, and say, "yes, we believe the theory of evolution is scientifically valid," or "yes, torture is wrong," I will rest a lot easier. We're just not quite there yet.

Tuesday, January 15, 2008

Michigan: the Mucked-Up Primary

Well, this is a fine mess. Michigan moved its primary up and the Democratic Party did not like that, ruling that delegates from the state would not be accepted. So nobody from the Dem side is campaigning in Michigan and I believe the only Dem candidates on the ballot are Clinton and Hervé Villechaize.

The Republican side at least is having a real contest, with Romney and McCain neck and neck, Huckabee in third. The storylines have been beaten to death; Romney's last stand, McCain straight-talking about jobs never coming back, Huckabee calling for mandatory vacation bible school ... made that last one up ...

RCP reports that Romney is getting a last minute surge, so maybe he'll pull this one off. If he does, the fine mess continues, with no clear front runner on the R side. I do think that Michigan's open primary, like New Hampshire's, gives McCain an advantage, because it allows Dems and Independents to come in and vote for McCain. If this was a straight-up contest for Republican voters, I think Romney would win a solid majority. But with so many independents coming in to vote for McCain, he could very well pull it off.

Which brings up another issue that contributes to Michigan's status as the Silliest Primary. Daily Kos and a few other sites are encouraging Dems in Michigan to vote for Romney!! Their reasoning is that anything that keeps the R side fractured and bickering amongst themselves is good for the D side.

This is not the first time that one side has tried to influence the other side. R's have done this sort of thing before, as Kos is quick to point out. And there's certainly nothing illegal about D's voting for an R candidate (again, open primary). I believe that most candidates are in favor of getting people's votes, no matter what those voters call themselves.

But it's petty and dumb, and I wish that Kos would cut it out. Not that it matters what I think.

So far my predictions have been mostly wrong. But I am garunteeing a Clinton win in Michigan. Hervé just did not have a good ground game.

On the Republican side, my gut tells me McCain will win again. But my left elbow, always my favorite joint, is telling me that Romney is going squeeze by with narrow victory.

So: 1. Romney, 2. McCain, 3. Muckabee

Friday, January 11, 2008

Bad Solutions to Nonexistent Problems

I can’t say I’ve been following the Indiana voting rights case before the Supreme Court closely. As I understand it, Indiana, my home state, passed a law requiring photo IDs for voters.

The law has been challenged in court, and has made its way to the Supreme Court, which heard arguments earlier this week. As explained in this excellent discussion by two Slate writers, the reaction of the justices suggest that the court will not only uphold Indiana’s law but will use the case as precedent to deny hearings to similar cases where harm to plaintiffs is “facial” (which basically means “not yet proven”) as opposed to “as applied” (harm that can be proven.) So kind of a twofer for the forces of darkness.

I have debated with some of my conservative friends these voting rights issues. Mostly, I have heard some variation of the “not my problem” argument, that is, if a voting restriction isn’t a problem for me, it’s not a problem for anyone.

Requiring photo ID for voters may sound reasonable to some, but it effectively disenfranchises those who for whatever reason, do not have such ID. For those of us in a certain economic group, having a photo ID is no big deal. For some people, it could be a barrier to voting. I think that’s a bad thing, just in principle.

On the other side are those who argue without photo ID, you could end up with voter fraud. Of course, in arguing the case, the state of Indiana could not come up with a single case of voter fraud. I would say that indicates how big a problem that is.

In any case, I think the Slate video is an informative and interesting discussion of the case and the issues around it. And it’s a little chilling, too. Right around the 6:00 mark the discussion starts to really illustrate how a far-right Supreme Court is beginning to undermine some of the basic historical concepts of justice in the United States.

Wednesday, January 09, 2008

The Comeback Kids???

In an election that’s supposed to be all about change and new faces, last night’s New Hampshire results shows that a significant number of voters aren’t ready to let go of their security blankets just yet.

How else to explain the victories by a 60-year-old Senator and a 71-year-old Senator, both of whom have been involved in Washington politics for decades?

Both of these victories were upsets to some degree. Clinton’s was a stunning turnaround, as it appears that many NH voters decided at the last minute that they would give her a chance after all. Did the tears do it? Or was it a backlash against all the attention that the tears (or the near-tears to be more accurate) drew from the media? Or did that moment have nothing to do with it?

Heck if I know.

As for McCain, his campaign was really on the rocks a few months ago, running out of money and laying off staff, but things certainly will improve with this win. I am not sure what the win says overall, though. He did well in the state where he’s done well in the past. Will he be able to sustain it? Do the people of the US want another old white guy as president?

I think Huckabee actually is looking better after last night, as Romney is pretty much on life support. Huck should do well in S. Carolina and OK in Michigan. If he wins SC and gets 2nd or 3rd in Michigan, he’s in great shape. Giuliani also has to like the results. I’m not sure there is a clear front runner. I just find it hard to believe that core Republican voters are going to support McCain in some of these states that don’t let independents vote in the primaries. Maybe I’m wrong.

The Democrats have two viable candidates left, and either would make a fine nominee for the party. There are some, of course, who think Obama is too inexperienced or that Clinton is, oh, the antichrist, but from my point of view, they both are strong candidates. Hopefully they can continue to debate and make their cases without getting too negative and divisive. Obama does rely more on young voters and independents to help his campaign, which makes the road maybe a little tougher for him. Despite the country’s appetite for change, the most mainstream Democratic candidate may be the one that emerges as the nominee (yes, I am talking about Clinton).

If nothing else, the unexpected results of last night’s primary has produced some funny lines in the blogosphere. My two favorites:

“In retrospect I regret posting the item about Obama turning water to wine.” – Joel Achenbach, Washington Post.

“I feel weird right now. Not the usual "breaking in a new thong" weird. It's something else.” Bill in Portland Maine, DailyKos.

EFT's Email

Just heard from a conservative who I've debated in the past. She has had some trouble getting her post up, so she emailed it to me. EFT always has interesting things to say, so I've decided to go ahead and post this on the main page of the blog. It was written before the NH vote, so keep that in mind. If anyone else is having trouble posting, let me know via email. I assume all the readers of this blog have my address.

I'll have some thoughts on New Hampshire later today.

Here's the email:


Izzy...it seems we are finally in agreement about several major points. Scary, isn't it?

Though I have the advantage of knowing how the Iowa Caucuses turned out (simply because I didn't have time to post before them), there are still 49 primaries to go and a lot of things could change. My helpmate pointed out this evening that only two Iowa winners have gone on to be president: Carter and Dubya, and that doesn't bode well for anyone or either party.

Let’s begin with the Republicans . . .

Giuliani certainly has name recognition as you say, but he has it in the same way that Ike did after the war and for much the same reason. He also reminds me of Chirac, a man who thought running a major metropolis would translate into national and international expertise-it didn’t and it nearly drove France and their role in the EU into the ground. They both have corruption issues and Giuliani’s personal issues make me think that something Craig-ish could happen. I mean, come on, a family-values conservative who’s been married 3 TIMES?!?! If he wanted to hold national office, he should have taken a page from the Clinton book and married for political strategery purposes.

Huckabee is a puzzle. I’m wondering if his late arrival to the race earned him the Iowa crown only because the media and his opponents haven’t had sufficient time to pick him apart yet. I am suspicious of anyone or anything that leans towards religious zealotry and he’s a minister and a Southern Baptist one at that. I have concluded that fundamentalists of any faith (Islam, Christianity, etc.) are to be carefully monitored and the Southern Baptists are one of the most fundamental Christian groups, coming just shy of qualifying as a cult on a good day. He doesn’t even know there is separation of church and state.

McCain is great but I think he peaked about 8 years ago. Unfortunately for him and us, the Republican powers at the time were bent on having another Bush, so McCain got screwed by his own party in much the same way that Dean did a la the NY Times and scream fiascoes. Maybe he’d make a good VP candidate?

Paul has great grassroots support, as you say. But he’s not going far, which is a shame. He reminds me of Keyes in this way-great ideas but not enough backing to make a national impression.

Romney is a study in contrasts. His background is much more down to earth than almost all of the other candidates combined. Despite the Mormon cult issue, he’s had real jobs and dealt with some serious personal issues (i.e. recovering from a near fatal car accident) that prove he’s a fighter. I’m also impressed that his resume includes a stint as governor of Massachusetts. How do you figure that he got MA, arguably one of the most liberal states in the country, to elect him as a Republican governor? It’s intriguing.

Thompson is a waste of time. He came on as the heir apparent to the Reagan dynasty-another actor turned politician, but he’s LAZY! Presidential candidate is just another role, and he’s not gonna get an Oscar.

And now on to the Democrats . . .

Biden is nuts. He’s been around forever, and yet he can’t translate that into anything that will help him make a splash in a national race. Most days he seems as divisive as Sen. Rodham and he has no appeal beyond his very liberal base, which is eroding fast in the blue party.

Clinton , oh my, what to say…there are days I think she’s the antichrist. Not because she’s so liberal, which she is despite her moderate rantings to appear more centrist, and not because she has her speech writers compose her talks based on the latest polls, which she does to an even greater degree than the rest of the political brat pack, but mainly because I have never, ever seen any politician make such bold grabs at power and get away with it! Only someone in league with the devil or the devil herself could pick a state that she’s “electable” in and then get enough voters to go for it or claim her experience as First Lady qualifies her over some other candidate. I mean, come on, the role of FL is largely ceremonial, much like her role as wife is to Bill, and it’s a little scary that she couldn’t even see her home state of IL as a possibility. Then again, Obama has that locked up, serving in the state legislature and all. Heck, even Elizabeth Dole chose her momma’s home state and was generally accepted. But if the people of Chicago won’t have you back, you’ve got issues.

Dodd and Kucinich are both going nowhere fast. Dodd reminds me of a Democrat Quayle, and Kucinich…he’s just not getting his ideas out there somehow.

Edwards is interesting. In 2004, I spent a good bit of time listening to his speeches and my conclusion was that if he’d been the Dems’ candidate rather than Kerry then things might have played out very differently in that election. He’s a smooth talker and he appeals to a wide range of voters. The consensus in his home state is that he jumped into the national spotlight too soon. If he’d finished at least one senate term, there are a lot who think he’d be President Edwards now. Hard to say and now he’s in a tough position, having been on the losing team just like poor old Lieberman, who I always liked.

Obama is the most interesting candidate in the race and he’s the real deal. He’s young and somewhat inexperienced, but he plays that to his advantage. (Frankly, he’s not any less experienced than his current close competition.) People seem to love him, including Oprah. He’s a good speaker and he clearly shows he’s human. He inhaled, after all, and did a bit more, yet was candid about it years ago. (I would be shocked to see some of the others be this up front with voters.) I think it would be cool to see him as the candidate with a VP of Richardson, Edwards, or even McCain, but I don’t think the Dem power structure is going to let that happen, at least not in 2008.

Richardson was stronger in the race about six months ago. Interestingly enough, I took an online quiz a while back where you answer questions about your political beliefs and it matches you with the closest candidate and Richardson was the guy! When I looked at his website, I had to admit that his stated views were ones I could support, but I think Izzy’s right…he won’t last much longer.

Prediction for New Hampshire

Republicans: 1. Romney (he’s close to MA…it’s going to be like going home), 2. McCain (NH loves a renegade), 3. Huckabee (not enough time still for his opponents to launch an attack)

Democrats: 1. Obama (he’s on a roll), 2. Edwards (always a bridesmaid, never a bride), 3. Clinton (the Clinton political machine and money grind on)

Tuesday, January 08, 2008

The French Are Different Than Us

C'est vrai.

I just heard an NPR story on the President of France's love life. Apparently yesterday he gave a two-hour press conference (!) in which the main topic was whether and when he was going to marry the supermodel he's been dating. The description of his response made him sound remarkably candid and straightfoward, for a politician. But my favorite line was from one of the newscasters: "Are there policy implications when the President of France is dating a supermodel?"

Now that's a question you don't hear every day.

Monday, January 07, 2008

Did You Watch the Debates?

I didn’t, but I’ve read some blogs and heard a five-minute recap on NPR, so I am totally qualified to write 6,000 words on the subject.

Nah, I’m not gonna do that.

I think my observation, worth just under two cents, is that no matter what happens tomorrow, the main candidates are going to continue to fight hard as Super Tuesday approaches.

All signs point to an Obama victory in New Hampshire. This is great news for the Obama camp, but it’s far from over. It’ll be interesting to see what tactics the Clinton camp adopts in upcoming primaries. So far, they haven’t gone negative. I think it’s a lose/lose proposition to start airing attack ads on Obama at this point. But they may be able to come up with a more effective message.

Speaking of new tactics, is it just coincidence that after some were saying that Clinton needs to show more emotion, her voice cracked during a meeting today and she was described as being “emotional?” Oooooo, she’s good. (Let’s be fair. It could’ve been completely unscripted. Hillary Clinton is not going to ever catch a break on this stuff, though.)

The imminent McCain victory in New Hampshire is not a completely sure thing. Some polls have showed a slight Romney rebound. I think if Romney can manage a respectable second place finish or pull an upset, he can claim his own “comeback kid” title (though the phrase is getting almost as old as Mike Gravel) and move on to the next round. Giuliani is still planning on jumping into contention in later, bigger states—he’s still leading in Florida, although Huckabee is closing on him. (thanks, RealClearPolitics.com). So I guess we’ll have him to kick around a while longer.

Thompson will continue to campaign for “Most Sleep-Inducing Baritone” at least until the Florida primary. Who else… Oh yeah, Huckabee! (So quickly we forget) Well, Huck may place a respectable third in New Hampshire, no biggie, expectations were quite conveniently lowered for him there. If he does well in South Carolina, he’s still a contender.

Some people are saying that some of the independents who voted for McCain last time are going to swing to Obama this time. Those would have to be some very flexible voters, to go from backing McCain to Obama. I could see some of those folks going to Ron Paul, though.

Speaking of which, Fox News excluded Ron Paul from the final NH debate, a move that led the NH Republican Party to drop its sponsorship of the debate. Paul beat Giuliani in Iowa and has respectable numbers in NH. So why was he cut from the debate? Was it because of his opposition to the Iraq war? Hard to see a legitimate reason.

Oh, predictions? Ummmmmmmmm...

R: 1. Romney, 2. McCain, 3. Huckabee
D: 1. Obama, 2. Clinton, 3. Edwards

Friday, January 04, 2008

Post Iowa Post

The dust is beginning to settle from last night’s Iowa caucuses, and it really was an extraordinary night. Obama wins decisively. Huckabee, despite a huge gap in money and party support, wins decisively. Clinton drops to third. Even with the razor-thin margin between her and Edwards, it’s still an amazing development. Ron Paul beats Rudy Giuliani. True, Giuliani didn’t really campaign much in Iowa, but the man has been leading in the national polls for months. Didn’t mean squat.

To me, one of the more interesting things to discuss is where the Republican race goes from here. On the Democratic side, it’s a pretty clear choice: Obama or Clinton, and Obama now has the front-runner mantle. Edwards will stay in the race, but where can he win? Hard to see any state where he’s going to do better than Iowa, where he’s practically lived for the past four years.

But the Republican side is really in flux. A lot of people are saying McCain is positioned for a comeback of historic proportions. The senator was all but written off by many observers months ago. But, the reasoning goes, everything has changed with Huckabee’s big win. Iowa was uniquely suited to respond to Huckabee, but it will be much harder for him to win in states that don’t have large numbers of evangelical conservatives. Therefore: McCain wins in New Hampshire, where he’s done well before, finishing off Romney, and goes forward as the frontrunner.

I’m not sure I buy that scenario.

First of all, the challenges that people say Huckabee faces are also the challenges that McCain must overcome. Huckabee an outsider with little support among party hardliners? McCain, the famous “maverick” senator, has often marched out of step with other Republicans. I’m not sure all of them are willing to forgive him, and his stance on immigration really puts him at odds with many hard-line conservatives.

Huckabee low on finances and lacking in infrastructure? McCain has been suffering the same problem. A few months ago, everyone was talking about how he had no money left. Has that problem gone away?

Huckabee inexperienced in foreign policy? Ok, you got me on that one. But McCain has his own weaknesses. His foreign policy position is largely based around doing whatever it takes to win in Iraq. Setting aside the question of what that means, I have a hard time seeing how a pro-war candidate does well with the majority of voters in the general election, or with independents in primaries such as New Hampshire's. People may be relieved that the level of violence is down in Iraq, and they may even credit the “surge” for helping. That doesn’t mean they want to stay the course with this war. McCain is swimming against a tide that is still very strong, even if some say it’s no longer the main campaign issue.

Many have commented on the so-called love affair between McCain and the media, but I think that’s overrated. Huckabee does very well whether he’s on TV or in person; he may be the only Republican candidate more media-savvy than McCain.

So I think it’s still a pretty complicated picture. Romney still has money and the Republican establishment behind him, I think. Huckabee is probably going to do well in states like South Carolina and Florida. Thompson and Giuliani are probably going to make a big push in Florida. So who knows where it will end up?

On a final note, these are indeed strange days, as I find myself agreeing with much of this David Brooks column.

Wednesday, January 02, 2008

My Analysis on the Prospects of Major Presidential Contenders on the Eve of the Iowa Caucuses, 2008.

How’s that for a self-important post title?

Ok, so it’s the day before the Iowa Caucuses. Here in Minnesota, we get a lot of news coverage of the campaigns, since Iowa is a neighboring state and there are manymanymanymanymany Iowa natives here. I’m happy and grateful to report that here in the Twin Cities, we are far enough away from the state border that we don’t see political ads. But the Caucuses are very much in the news.

And they should be. Iowa is important. It’s where Dean faltered and Kerry surged last time. Yearrrgh.

Of course this year, we have so many candidates from both parties, with no clear front runners, that there is a real horserace aspect to the campaigns, which is like catnip for the media. So there’s a lot of buzz, and it’s fun to speculate. Like so:


Republicans:

Rudy Giuliani
Consistently leading national polls, Giuliani made the mistake of writing Iowa off and will pay dearly for it. His strategy of coming on strong in the later races is not compatible with the way voters think. A sixth-place finish (or fifth, or fourth) just kills your credibility with people. Not that Giuliani was ever likely to win the nomination. He’s vulnerable on corruption issues, he’s an absolute nightmare for social conservatives, and he’s not terribly likable on a personal level. Name recognition can only take you so far.

Mike Huckabee
My favorite Republican candidate. No, seriously. I may disagree with him on a lot of things, I do question his experience, and I fear the prospect of another president who doesn’t understand the concept of separation of church and state. But doggone it, I like Mike Huckabee. He gets along with Jesus AND Jon Stewart. His phenomenal rise from nobody to contender shows that he’s got some kind of appeal with the common folk.
I think he’ll win in Iowa. He had a bit of a meltdown with his “I’m pulling my negative ad, but I’ll show it to the media” gaffe. But I think Iowa voters who are inclined to vote for him are not going desert him over that. On the other hand, it could be his Dean moment. But I doubt it.

John McCain
May do better than expected in Iowa. My take is that people may be thinking that Giuliani and Romney are flawed candidates, Huckabee is too inexperienced, and Thompson is just as dull as death, so McCain is the fallback. Sort of like Kerry in 2004. Ruh-ro.

Ron Paul
I have no idea of how he’ll do in Iowa. Probably not well, since his grassroots, independent-voter driven campaign will not translate easily to the rather complicated Iowa caucus system. On New Year’s Eve in Minneapolis, as we were leaving a downtown restaurant, we saw a mini-parade of Ron Paul supporters marching at 10 pm, waving banners and freezing their butts off. That says something. I’m just not sure what.

Mitt Romney
It’s tempting to say that Romney’s success so far just confirms that craven political pandering never goes out of style. But he does have strengths as a candidate. Consistency is just not one of them. For those longing for Reagan, this is probably as close as they can get, and that may keep him in contention throughout the primary season. Heck, it could win it for him.

Fred Thompson
“This thing will get out of control. It will get out of control, and we’ll be lucky to live through it.” (The Hunt for Red October)


Democrats:

Joe Biden
I’ve always thought highly of Biden. He is knowledgeable, experienced and likable, although not exciting. He knows how to talk to mainstream Democrats, but his appeal to Republicans and Independents is limited at best. It’s just getting harder and harder to see why he’s still in the race. If his campaign was going to catch on, it would have by now.

Hillary Clinton
Like Giuliani, name recognition keeps her out front in the national polls. Unlike Giuliani, her appeal doesn’t fall apart when you look at her more closely, if only because we already know about the Bubba, excuse me, the baggage, that she brings to the race. She’s smart, articulate, and tough. A significant number of people hate her, which, you know, could be a problem. But she’s won a lot of doubters over among the Dems. If she wins Iowa and New Hampshire by more than an eyelash, it could be all over on the Democratic side.

Chris Dodd
I’ve always thought highly of Dodd. He is knowledgeable, experienced and likable, although not exciting. He knows how to talk to mainstream Democrats, but his appeal to Republicans and Independents is limited at best. It’s just getting harder and harder to see why he’s still in the race. If his campaign was going to catch on, it would have by now.

John Edwards
People count this guy out ‘cause the media likes to make fun of his haircuts. But he has fervent support among the core Democrats who vote in primaries and caucuses. He could win Iowa. And that would do much more for his campaign than an Iowa victory would do for Clinton or Obama. His policy positions seem stronger and more thought-out than some of his rivals. I’m not sure he’s the strongest candidate overall, but he’s a fighter and he impresses people as being one of them. I’ve heard very conservative Republicans speak well of him, which surprised me.

Dennis Kucinich
A sad case of a decent man who doesn’t realize, or doesn’t care, that he’s become a punch line. Maybe he shouldn’t care. But he also shouldn’t be wasting his time or ours.

Barack Obama
Obama is in a tough place. People want him to be a saint, so when he takes the gloves off, as he recently did, sort of, they get disillusioned. But of course if he doesn’t, they’ll be saying he’s soft or that he won’t be able to compete with Republicans, who have been known to take the gloves off. It’s just another case of how this candidacy is different than all the rest. Clinton is, of course, also a ground-breaking candidate. But not like Obama. How he holds up, how he manages expectations and the gritty realities of a tough campaign, will probably say a lot about him as a candidate. And maybe something about us as a nation.

Bill Richardson
He’s got great credentials, he seems likable, but unless he really shocks us in Iowa I can’t see him continuing on much longer.

Prediction for Iowa:
Republicans: 1. Huckabee, 2. Romney, 3. McCain
Democrats: 1. Edwards, 2. Obama, 3. Clinton

The Democratic side is basically too close to call, so I’m throwing out one of the more interesting scenarios. The Republican side is more set; Romney could end up winning but it will be close if he does. Recent polls suggest Thompson could pull into the No. 3 spot but I dzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

Let me know how you see it.