Wednesday, January 30, 2008
go, Nader '08! http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/story?id=4215961&page=1
I actually think this would be a good idea:
Nader makes a good point that the truly "progressive" candidates - Kucinich, and to a lesser extent, Edwards - have dropped out. Nader making a run would basically be an outlet for the far left. By bleeding off some of that fringe, Nader would actually free the Democratic nominee to tack back from the far left and settle more comfortably in left-of-center, which will improve their broad-spectrum appeal (especially against McCain).
Note that Nader poses zero "spoiler" threat as he did in 2000, because after 9-11brought the GOP's latent authoritarian streak to the forefront, no one can credibly claim that there's no difference between the parties anymore. Nader argued in 2000 that Bush and Gore were the same, and that he was the only genuine liberal alternative. Now, as in 2004, he is reduced to arguing that the Dems are merely liberal, and he is the only progressive. In so doing he has moved too far left to draw much support from the liberal mainstream.
Personally, I don't subscribe to the Progressive label because the social and domestic issues advocacy is redundant with traditional liberalism (of which both Hillary and Obama are admirable scions). Where I part ways with Progressivism is in its rigid embrace of left-wing orthodoxies. One example: knee-jerk opposition to nuclear power. Another: total and absolute withdrawal from Iraq as fast as possible (and incidentally, may I remind the reader that no Democratic President will leave Iraq?). Another: disdain, condescension, and hostility towards spirituality and religion. The bottom line is that Progressives make great allies but on certain issues they can be as unyielding as evangelicals to the right.
The winning strategy for a transformation of American politics is not to try and pull the country ever further leftwards and deeper blue, but to broaden the tent, using purple rhetoric (Obama's staple) to create a true American Majority. I agree with the progressives at myDD that Democrats are more representative of the American majority than the Republicans, but the Democrats are a true majority yet. To attain that status, Democrats have to convince Independents to make a longer term commitment, and also peel off Republicans as well. Obama has alluded to this in his own comment about Reagan, which were seized upon as blasphemy by the progressive netroots. However, Obama's actual comments are hardly idolatrous and simply acknowledge that Reagan built a coalition of voters that transcended party affiliation:
transcript of his remarks courtesy of Matt Stoller:
Obama's point is clear here - Reagan attracted Democrats because the party affiliation had become less meaningful. The same thing is happening today, after 16 years of bitter partisan warfare, and Obama's message is resonating because of it. If the public was genuinely hungering for a hyper-partisan, progressive voice, then Edwards would be where Obama is, but he isn't.
In some ways I am making a mirror-image critique of the progressive movement that they themselves make of the DLC. The DLC's approach is to try and pull the party further right, almost right of center. From where I sit, a broad coalition centered on a position left of center is the true center of mass, but still include progressives at the far left and DLCers at the right. Going too far beyond those boundaries however is diluting the majority appeal, not strengthening it. Not tent can be infinitely wide. In that context, Nader as a release valve has genuine utility in helping craft a true governing majority.
Ralph Nader has formed a presidential exploratory committee, and said in an interview Wednesday that he will launch another presidential bid if he's convinced he can raise enough money to appear on the vast majority of state ballots this fall.
Nader, who ran as an independent candidate in each of the past three presidential elections, told ABCNews.com that he will run in 2008 if he is convinced over the next month that he would be able to raise $10 million over the course of the campaign — and attract enough lawyers willing to work free of charge to get his name on state ballots.
Nader makes a good point that the truly "progressive" candidates - Kucinich, and to a lesser extent, Edwards - have dropped out. Nader making a run would basically be an outlet for the far left. By bleeding off some of that fringe, Nader would actually free the Democratic nominee to tack back from the far left and settle more comfortably in left-of-center, which will improve their broad-spectrum appeal (especially against McCain).
Note that Nader poses zero "spoiler" threat as he did in 2000, because after 9-11brought the GOP's latent authoritarian streak to the forefront, no one can credibly claim that there's no difference between the parties anymore. Nader argued in 2000 that Bush and Gore were the same, and that he was the only genuine liberal alternative. Now, as in 2004, he is reduced to arguing that the Dems are merely liberal, and he is the only progressive. In so doing he has moved too far left to draw much support from the liberal mainstream.
Personally, I don't subscribe to the Progressive label because the social and domestic issues advocacy is redundant with traditional liberalism (of which both Hillary and Obama are admirable scions). Where I part ways with Progressivism is in its rigid embrace of left-wing orthodoxies. One example: knee-jerk opposition to nuclear power. Another: total and absolute withdrawal from Iraq as fast as possible (and incidentally, may I remind the reader that no Democratic President will leave Iraq?). Another: disdain, condescension, and hostility towards spirituality and religion. The bottom line is that Progressives make great allies but on certain issues they can be as unyielding as evangelicals to the right.
The winning strategy for a transformation of American politics is not to try and pull the country ever further leftwards and deeper blue, but to broaden the tent, using purple rhetoric (Obama's staple) to create a true American Majority. I agree with the progressives at myDD that Democrats are more representative of the American majority than the Republicans, but the Democrats are a true majority yet. To attain that status, Democrats have to convince Independents to make a longer term commitment, and also peel off Republicans as well. Obama has alluded to this in his own comment about Reagan, which were seized upon as blasphemy by the progressive netroots. However, Obama's actual comments are hardly idolatrous and simply acknowledge that Reagan built a coalition of voters that transcended party affiliation:
transcript of his remarks courtesy of Matt Stoller:
I don't want to present myself as some sort of singular figure. I think part of what's different are the times. I do think that for example the 1980 was different. I think Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not. He put us on a fundamentally different path because the country was ready for it. I think they felt like with all the excesses of the 1960s and 1970s and government had grown and grown but there wasn't much sense of accountability in terms of how it was operating. I think people, he just tapped into what people were already feeling, which was we want clarity we want optimism, we want a return to that sense of dynamism and entrepreneurship that had been missing.
Obama's point is clear here - Reagan attracted Democrats because the party affiliation had become less meaningful. The same thing is happening today, after 16 years of bitter partisan warfare, and Obama's message is resonating because of it. If the public was genuinely hungering for a hyper-partisan, progressive voice, then Edwards would be where Obama is, but he isn't.
In some ways I am making a mirror-image critique of the progressive movement that they themselves make of the DLC. The DLC's approach is to try and pull the party further right, almost right of center. From where I sit, a broad coalition centered on a position left of center is the true center of mass, but still include progressives at the far left and DLCers at the right. Going too far beyond those boundaries however is diluting the majority appeal, not strengthening it. Not tent can be infinitely wide. In that context, Nader as a release valve has genuine utility in helping craft a true governing majority.
Labels: 2008, liberal, nader, Purple
nutpicking http://redstate.com/blogs/randomguy/2008/jan/30/think_youre_a_conservative_dont_like_mccain_listen_to_barry_goldwater#comment-661261
I couldn't resist highlighting this one.
What do rich "ignoarnat" people ALWAYS vote for, then?
John McCain will create 20 million new Democrats by jackbenimble
The damage to conservatism of a McCain win will be irreversible.
We can't just keep importing poor, ignorant people from the third world and expecting them to vote anything but Democrats and socialism. Poor ignoarnat people ALWAYS vote for socialism.
Prior to the Reagan Amnesty California had voted Republican in 9 out of the 10 prior elections. The Reagan Amensty turned California irreversibly blue and the McCain Amnesty will be 6 to 10 times larger. We can't lose anymore Red States and expect conservatism to ever win again.
A win by John McCain would be a tactical victory and a strategic loss that would doom conservatism. I'd rather have a tactical loss and have conservatism survice to fight another day.
What do rich "ignoarnat" people ALWAYS vote for, then?
Labels: Republicans
And then there were four (well, three)
Predicting the outcome of Florida was not really that difficult. Romney and McCain were battling for the prize, with Rudy a distant third and Huckabee off the radar. As it turned out, McCain pulled off the upset, partly because Huckabee bled Romney of the evangelical vote, and partly on the strength of military voters. In winning Florida, McCain literally flipped the coin; had he lost, he'd be bankrupt, whereas now he's the front runner (especially with Rudy's endorsement).
McCain's next move is to free himself from federal matching funds, which he must do lest he be utterly crippled against the Democratic nominee in the general election. He has already been forced to embrace lobbyists on K-street to get this far - as others put it, "embrace the same moneyed interests he's declared are among the biggest problems facing America."
And the silver lining for all of us is that the authoritarian, egomaniacal, and thoroughly corrupt Rudy 9iu1liani is never, ever going to be President of the United States, and the GOP is far better of for it in the long run. I remain a firm believer in avoiding one-party rule; a Giuliani era immediately after the Bush era might well have relegated the GOP to Whig status, and that is unequivocally bad. Like it or not (a debate for another day), we have a two-party system, and that bicycle works best with both wheels intact.
The dilemma for McCain is that he's running against his own base. On issues such as the judiciary, on immigration, campaign reform (somewhat ironic given his present money woes), and a host of lesser insults he has outraged the Republican faithful. Though his strength, at least as far as the base is concerned, is that he is the strongest advocate in the field of the present course in Iraq - often more so than the present Commander in Chief. Also, it seems that while the Club for Growth remains unimpressed with McCain's record, at least some fiscons are embracing him. It should also be noted that principled, moderate Republicans like Adam C and Charles Bird rallied to McCain quite early on, not least because of McCain's ability to work across the aisle and more liberal stance on some of the hot-button issues that the mainstream GOP factions use for red meat.
The bottom line is that those in the GOP fold hoping for an anyone-but-McCain outcome are going to be disappointed. Social conservatives simply don't have the clout that anyone thought they did (witness their inability to make Huckabee a stable firts-tier contender). My friend Josh Trevino tries to argue that Florida had a silver lining for Romney, but the argument is a stretch; Romney won the social conservatives for the most part, but even then he had to share them with Huckabee. And while winning the votes of immigration hard-liners, the upper middle class, white voters, and pro-GWB voters is probably a good segment of the base, they aren't enough to sustain a truly national party. They certainly aren't equivalent to the entirety of the conservative base, as Josh tries to imply. But the argument that the Republican Party is not necessarily the (True) Conservative party is one that you will see being made with increasing frequency on the right. The problem is that Conservatives are no longer a movement, they are just a faction, and (judging from Josh's laundry list of traits) a poorly-defined one at that.
Ultimately, the delegate math is inexorable: the nomination is McCain's to lose, though we can expect that Romney will soldier on to save face if nothing else, and that Huckabee will also hang in there. At this point I think Romney's only chance at beating McCain is if he convinces Huckabee to drop out and endorse his own run instead (probably with a VP enticement). But even then, watch for the party establishment to coalesce around McCain.
McCain-Thompson 2008. Better start getting used to it. The next President of the United States is going to be named Clinton, Obama, McCain, or Romney (in descending order of probability). (Edwards is dropping out today). Who knew that the real super Tuesday would occur a week early?
McCain's next move is to free himself from federal matching funds, which he must do lest he be utterly crippled against the Democratic nominee in the general election. He has already been forced to embrace lobbyists on K-street to get this far - as others put it, "embrace the same moneyed interests he's declared are among the biggest problems facing America."
And the silver lining for all of us is that the authoritarian, egomaniacal, and thoroughly corrupt Rudy 9iu1liani is never, ever going to be President of the United States, and the GOP is far better of for it in the long run. I remain a firm believer in avoiding one-party rule; a Giuliani era immediately after the Bush era might well have relegated the GOP to Whig status, and that is unequivocally bad. Like it or not (a debate for another day), we have a two-party system, and that bicycle works best with both wheels intact.
The dilemma for McCain is that he's running against his own base. On issues such as the judiciary, on immigration, campaign reform (somewhat ironic given his present money woes), and a host of lesser insults he has outraged the Republican faithful. Though his strength, at least as far as the base is concerned, is that he is the strongest advocate in the field of the present course in Iraq - often more so than the present Commander in Chief. Also, it seems that while the Club for Growth remains unimpressed with McCain's record, at least some fiscons are embracing him. It should also be noted that principled, moderate Republicans like Adam C and Charles Bird rallied to McCain quite early on, not least because of McCain's ability to work across the aisle and more liberal stance on some of the hot-button issues that the mainstream GOP factions use for red meat.
The bottom line is that those in the GOP fold hoping for an anyone-but-McCain outcome are going to be disappointed. Social conservatives simply don't have the clout that anyone thought they did (witness their inability to make Huckabee a stable firts-tier contender). My friend Josh Trevino tries to argue that Florida had a silver lining for Romney, but the argument is a stretch; Romney won the social conservatives for the most part, but even then he had to share them with Huckabee. And while winning the votes of immigration hard-liners, the upper middle class, white voters, and pro-GWB voters is probably a good segment of the base, they aren't enough to sustain a truly national party. They certainly aren't equivalent to the entirety of the conservative base, as Josh tries to imply. But the argument that the Republican Party is not necessarily the (True) Conservative party is one that you will see being made with increasing frequency on the right. The problem is that Conservatives are no longer a movement, they are just a faction, and (judging from Josh's laundry list of traits) a poorly-defined one at that.
Ultimately, the delegate math is inexorable: the nomination is McCain's to lose, though we can expect that Romney will soldier on to save face if nothing else, and that Huckabee will also hang in there. At this point I think Romney's only chance at beating McCain is if he convinces Huckabee to drop out and endorse his own run instead (probably with a VP enticement). But even then, watch for the party establishment to coalesce around McCain.
McCain-Thompson 2008. Better start getting used to it. The next President of the United States is going to be named Clinton, Obama, McCain, or Romney (in descending order of probability). (Edwards is dropping out today). Who knew that the real super Tuesday would occur a week early?
Saturday, January 26, 2008
SC prediction: Edwards
I know my track record thus far is dismal but I'm going out on one of the remaining limbs and calling SC for Edwards today. This won't help Edwards much on Tsunami Tuesday in February, but what it will do is keep him viable enough to survive beyond it. I assume that Edwards will have a solid bloc of delegates going into the convention, maybe not for kingmaker, but enough at least to influence the policy platform. Is he angling for Veep? I don't think he can appeal to either Hillary or Obama for that, and he is in a sense somewhat damaged from 2004. Let's see how it goes today.
Labels: 2008, Edwards, Hillary
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
Huck not to be, Fred's dead...
Mick Huckabee doesn't have enough money to play in Florida:
With Fred! out of the campaign today, that leaves Florida as a three-way race between McCain, Rudy, and Romney. No matter how the votes break, this doesn't look good for Rudy. Huckabee's socon support is going to switch to either Romney or McCain, deprived of the Fred option as they are. And it's doubtful that everyone supporting Fred is going to go the Rudy route. It's much more likely now that McCain takes Florida and that Rudy drops out before MegaTuesday.
I think that by the time we hit February the GOP nomination will be a two-person race between Romney and McCain, and I'm pretty sure that McCain is going to have the edge.
"The money simply hasn't come in at the rate that we expected," says the [Huckabee Campaign] aide. "Florida is a $7 million commitment that we can't meet, and if we did, that leaves us exposed for Super Tuesday, where we have a lot of states and a lot media buys. We had to make tough decisions."
With Fred! out of the campaign today, that leaves Florida as a three-way race between McCain, Rudy, and Romney. No matter how the votes break, this doesn't look good for Rudy. Huckabee's socon support is going to switch to either Romney or McCain, deprived of the Fred option as they are. And it's doubtful that everyone supporting Fred is going to go the Rudy route. It's much more likely now that McCain takes Florida and that Rudy drops out before MegaTuesday.
I think that by the time we hit February the GOP nomination will be a two-person race between Romney and McCain, and I'm pretty sure that McCain is going to have the edge.
Labels: 2008, Giuliani, Huckabee, McCain, Thompson
exit white knight, stage right http://time-blog.com/real_clear_politics/2008/01/fred_out.html
Somewhere, a million conservative voices cried out in agony and were abruptly silent:
Succinct. Luckily for Fred, there's already a suggested farewell speech pre-written for him courtesy of Fredstate. So ending his campaign should be even less work than running it.
When - not if - McCain wins the GOP nomination, watch for him to pick Fred as his running mate. Then all the gnashing of teeth from those who argue that McCain is absolutely unacceptable will promptly be forgotten as the inclusion of Fred! on the ticket suddenly demonstrates McCain's genuine commitment to conservative ideals, or something.
Oh, and Fredstate assures us, it's not the end for Fred Thompson. Stage 1: denial...
"Today I have withdrawn my candidacy for President of the United States. I hope that my country and my party have benefited from our having made this effort. Jeri and I will always be grateful for the encouragement and friendship of so many wonderful people."
Succinct. Luckily for Fred, there's already a suggested farewell speech pre-written for him courtesy of Fredstate. So ending his campaign should be even less work than running it.
When - not if - McCain wins the GOP nomination, watch for him to pick Fred as his running mate. Then all the gnashing of teeth from those who argue that McCain is absolutely unacceptable will promptly be forgotten as the inclusion of Fred! on the ticket suddenly demonstrates McCain's genuine commitment to conservative ideals, or something.
Oh, and Fredstate assures us, it's not the end for Fred Thompson. Stage 1: denial...
Sunday, January 20, 2008
McCain is Kerry, Huck is Dean http://dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/1/19/214832/430/589/439790
It's starting to look like John McCain is this cycle's John Kerry, at least as far as the electability argument goes. Since all the putative front runners are unacceptable to at least one segment of the GOP base, McCain is increasingly seen as the only "viable" alternative who is "acceptable" - and his South Caroline victory pretty much seals that view in the GOP mainstream (something that neither Iowa nor New Hampshire could have provided him). No one else has as much momentum as McCain now.
GOP primary results for South Carolina were at last count,
Huckabee is the Dean of this cycle, pulling in a close second and thus far still second fiddle to McCain, though of all the others, he's got the broadest support. The one ticket that I think can present a strong challenge to Clinton or Obama is a joint McCain/Huck one and I don't see such a joining as improbable as Kerry/Dean would have been.
GOP primary results for South Carolina were at last count,
92 percent of precincts reporting
McCain 137,000 (33%)
Huckabee 123,117 (30%)
Thompson 65,108 (16%)
Romney 62,367 (15%)
Paul 15,235 (4%)
Giuliani 8,518 (2%)
Hunter 991 (0%)
Huckabee is the Dean of this cycle, pulling in a close second and thus far still second fiddle to McCain, though of all the others, he's got the broadest support. The one ticket that I think can present a strong challenge to Clinton or Obama is a joint McCain/Huck one and I don't see such a joining as improbable as Kerry/Dean would have been.
Labels: 2008, Huckabee, McCain
Wednesday, January 09, 2008
angry man for an angry party http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=e2f15397-a3c7-4720-ac15-4532a7da84ca
The TNR has a lengthy article on Ron Paul, looking beyond the short horizon of his campaign and at the years of newsletters he has written over the years with his political screeds, and concludes he is "angry".
What the essay completely misses is that Ron Paul's views and his hate towards minorities and gays is actually well within the mainstream of the GOP, a party that has exploited divisions in its cultural war (one that promises to be waged anew should Huckabee take the nomination). The essay describes Paul as an iconoclast within the GOP, but other than his view on Iraq, he isn't really beyond the party orthodoxy (and even is Iraq views have a solid grounding in the paleocon school, who are out of favor at present but clearly remain a part of the base).
Paul's candidacy is one that has exposed the fault lines within the GOP, but within the GOP he remains. It isn't that Paul is an angry man. It's that he's an angry party man, however much the party today tries to deny it.
Ron Paul is not going to be president. But, as his campaign has gathered steam, he has found himself increasingly permitted inside the boundaries of respectable debate. He sat for an extensive interview with Tim Russert recently. He has raised almost $20 million in just three months, much of it online. And he received nearly three times as many votes as erstwhile front-runner Rudy Giuliani in last week's Iowa caucus. All the while he has generally been portrayed by the media as principled and serious, while garnering praise for being a "straight-talker."
From his newsletters, however, a different picture of Paul emerges--that of someone who is either himself deeply embittered or, for a long time, allowed others to write bitterly on his behalf. His adversaries are often described in harsh terms: Barbara Jordan is called "Barbara Morondon," Eleanor Holmes Norton is a "black pinko," Donna Shalala is a "short lesbian," Ron Brown is a "racial victimologist," and Roberta Achtenberg, the first openly gay public official confirmed by the United States Senate, is a "far-left, normal-hating lesbian activist." Maybe such outbursts mean Ron Paul really is a straight-talker. Or maybe they just mean he is a man filled with hate.
What the essay completely misses is that Ron Paul's views and his hate towards minorities and gays is actually well within the mainstream of the GOP, a party that has exploited divisions in its cultural war (one that promises to be waged anew should Huckabee take the nomination). The essay describes Paul as an iconoclast within the GOP, but other than his view on Iraq, he isn't really beyond the party orthodoxy (and even is Iraq views have a solid grounding in the paleocon school, who are out of favor at present but clearly remain a part of the base).
Paul's candidacy is one that has exposed the fault lines within the GOP, but within the GOP he remains. It isn't that Paul is an angry man. It's that he's an angry party man, however much the party today tries to deny it.
Labels: Republicans, RonPaul
people, not poll, powered primaries
It is almost obscene how much I am enjoying this election year, and it's only just begun. I love being wrong because my predictions thus far have been the kind you make in a year where the dynamics are known and oppressive, where polls not people matter.
But not this time. It seems instead that there is a poll backlash instead.
Consider: Hillary took New Hampshire. That excites me to no end. How about this for a crazy theory? Obama's wave of independent support was imminent and then indies said to themselves, "he we like Obama. You know, we also like McCain. Since Obama's got this in the bag (according to all the polls), they reason, what the heck, let's support McCain instead and keep Romney down. Result? McCain sins the indies, and Obama loses them - making the race closer on the Democratic side. Meanwhile, Democrats who've been following the news are suddenly reading how after the meaningless Iowa caucuses, Hillary is supposed to close up shop, it's over, she's deader than HD-DVD. Rather than depress turnout for her, it stimulates it.
This is exciting because in many ways it's the opposite of 2004 where despite all the energy at the people level, the "inevitability" meme took over and Kerry utterly swamped Dean. The race is far closer and much more in play this time, and its because the polls aren't in charge.
And another thing that is equally exciting is that the Democratic and Republican nominations are not running in a vacuum, but have some feedback between them, again at the people level. This makes this a truly national race, and it also shows that despite the partisan establishment, independents matter.
The dynamic on Feb 5th will defy all expectation. Some states are closed primaries, others wide open, and others in between. Obama can't take the indies for granted, but neither can Clinton bank of the Dems, and who knows what the spillover from McCain is.
If anything, this cycle has shown me just how awesome the Iowa-NH-go-first system can be, even if everyone else goes on eth same day for a truly national primary on feb 5th (and they might as well, to be honest).
The only prediction I will make is that McCain, not Romney or Huckabee, takes the GOP nomination. As for the Democrats, I declared myself for Hillary a while back but my recent issues analysis of their foreign policy, and Hillary's position on Dubai Ports World, make me agnostic as to whether her "experience" is truly an asset. An excellent analysis by farangi at Chapati Mystery questions the whole framing of "experience" as well.
To be honest, I want to want Obama to win. The main reason I still am on Hillary's side of the fence is because I am partly cynical about where we are and where we need to go. And maybe if the rest of this primary goes the way of Iowa and NH, in other words an utter joyride, I might find the audacity for hope after all.
But not this time. It seems instead that there is a poll backlash instead.
Consider: Hillary took New Hampshire. That excites me to no end. How about this for a crazy theory? Obama's wave of independent support was imminent and then indies said to themselves, "he we like Obama. You know, we also like McCain. Since Obama's got this in the bag (according to all the polls), they reason, what the heck, let's support McCain instead and keep Romney down. Result? McCain sins the indies, and Obama loses them - making the race closer on the Democratic side. Meanwhile, Democrats who've been following the news are suddenly reading how after the meaningless Iowa caucuses, Hillary is supposed to close up shop, it's over, she's deader than HD-DVD. Rather than depress turnout for her, it stimulates it.
This is exciting because in many ways it's the opposite of 2004 where despite all the energy at the people level, the "inevitability" meme took over and Kerry utterly swamped Dean. The race is far closer and much more in play this time, and its because the polls aren't in charge.
And another thing that is equally exciting is that the Democratic and Republican nominations are not running in a vacuum, but have some feedback between them, again at the people level. This makes this a truly national race, and it also shows that despite the partisan establishment, independents matter.
The dynamic on Feb 5th will defy all expectation. Some states are closed primaries, others wide open, and others in between. Obama can't take the indies for granted, but neither can Clinton bank of the Dems, and who knows what the spillover from McCain is.
If anything, this cycle has shown me just how awesome the Iowa-NH-go-first system can be, even if everyone else goes on eth same day for a truly national primary on feb 5th (and they might as well, to be honest).
The only prediction I will make is that McCain, not Romney or Huckabee, takes the GOP nomination. As for the Democrats, I declared myself for Hillary a while back but my recent issues analysis of their foreign policy, and Hillary's position on Dubai Ports World, make me agnostic as to whether her "experience" is truly an asset. An excellent analysis by farangi at Chapati Mystery questions the whole framing of "experience" as well.
To be honest, I want to want Obama to win. The main reason I still am on Hillary's side of the fence is because I am partly cynical about where we are and where we need to go. And maybe if the rest of this primary goes the way of Iowa and NH, in other words an utter joyride, I might find the audacity for hope after all.
Tuesday, January 08, 2008
NH: Romney and Obama dual-team McCain, Paul beats Fred
OK, so I was waaaay off base in my prediction for Iowa. It would have been pretty dull if I'd just parroted the Des Moines Register final poll as my predictions, wouldn't it? I am fine with having been so utterly wrong (and at least I still claim first dibs on "Huck fin". I just need to wait a bit longer to use it.)
For the Dems, conventional wisdom prior to Iowa was that if Indies turn out en masse, it favors Obama, whereas if Dems turned out en masse it would favor Hillary. Well, it seems both happened, and it all went Obama's way. The overall turnout was enormous, with a record youth vote, but Democrats accounted for 3 out of 4 voters overall.
In contrast, GOP turnout was abyssmal. If that pattern continues, and the indies defect to Obama rather than McCain, there could well be a major upset even on the GOP side. With that in mind, here are my predictions for NH.
GOP: I am going to postulate that the independents go for Obama 3-1, leaving only scraps for McCain, giving Romney the edge. McCain will probably still take second, and Thompson and Ron Paul will duke it out for the next tier. I think Ron Paul has a better advantage in NH than he did in Iowa so I will go out on a limb and say he edges out Fred. Huck will place far below, but still beat Rudy.
Democrats: Obama is the easy call here, followed by Clinton and then Edwards. Not much else to really say about that. Hillary's path to the nomination hinges on her taking all the Feb 5th states that she can. Any of those states where indies can vote in the primary will probably go to Obama. The closed primaries, she has a fighting chance and will focus her energy there. From there on out it will be a horse race.
For the Dems, conventional wisdom prior to Iowa was that if Indies turn out en masse, it favors Obama, whereas if Dems turned out en masse it would favor Hillary. Well, it seems both happened, and it all went Obama's way. The overall turnout was enormous, with a record youth vote, but Democrats accounted for 3 out of 4 voters overall.
In contrast, GOP turnout was abyssmal. If that pattern continues, and the indies defect to Obama rather than McCain, there could well be a major upset even on the GOP side. With that in mind, here are my predictions for NH.
GOP: I am going to postulate that the independents go for Obama 3-1, leaving only scraps for McCain, giving Romney the edge. McCain will probably still take second, and Thompson and Ron Paul will duke it out for the next tier. I think Ron Paul has a better advantage in NH than he did in Iowa so I will go out on a limb and say he edges out Fred. Huck will place far below, but still beat Rudy.
Democrats: Obama is the easy call here, followed by Clinton and then Edwards. Not much else to really say about that. Hillary's path to the nomination hinges on her taking all the Feb 5th states that she can. Any of those states where indies can vote in the primary will probably go to Obama. The closed primaries, she has a fighting chance and will focus her energy there. From there on out it will be a horse race.
O'Reilly is a thug http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/05/oreilly-involved-in-shoving-match-at-obama-event/
The sense of entitlement that this oaf wears so proudly is just baffling to me. Apparently O'Reilly decided that he had a right to speak to Obama and no one would stand in his way. OOPS!
A Secret Service agent, center, intervened after Bill O’Reilly, of Fox News, shoved Marvin Nicholson, the national trip director for the Obama campaign. (Photo: Jim Bourg/Reuters)
From the NYT article:
The spin from the supposedly No-Spin Zone?
judge for yourself - it's on video:
Obama did end up speaking to Princess after all. I'm sure that Obama's going to regret that.
A Secret Service agent, center, intervened after Bill O’Reilly, of Fox News, shoved Marvin Nicholson, the national trip director for the Obama campaign. (Photo: Jim Bourg/Reuters)
From the NYT article:
NASHUA, N.H. – After a rally for Senator Barack Obama here today, a brief tussle ensued between Fox News host Bill O’Reilly and a campaign aide for Mr. Obama, which created enough of a stir for the Secret Service to get involved.
Mr. O’Reilly, who had attended a campaign event earlier for Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, sought to get Mr. Obama’s attention along a rope line. With cameras rolling, Mr. O’Reilly was trying to shout a question to Mr. Obama. But according to a photographer who witnessed the scene, Mr. O’Reilly grew agitated when he couldn’t get close to the senator.
“Move,” he shouted to Marvin Nicholson, the national trip director for the Obama campaign, according to witnesses.
Photographs of the incident show that Secret Service agents intervened after Mr. O’Reilly pushed Mr. Nicholson.
The spin from the supposedly No-Spin Zone?
O’Reilly: Some guy comes over, he’s about six foot eight according to the press reports and he stands in front of the Factor camera. So I asked him fairly nicely, “you’re blocking our shot sir, you need to move a little bit.
…so I had to gently remove him from that position. No scuffle, I just moved him from the spot.. I might have called him an SOB, that’s possible, nothing more than that. No one on this earth is going block a shot on the O’Reilly Factor. It is not going to happen.
judge for yourself - it's on video:
Obama did end up speaking to Princess after all. I'm sure that Obama's going to regret that.
Labels: Rethuglicans
picking on a girl
Monday, January 07, 2008
two fronts
A pair of similar news reports give me pause. First,
and second,
It should be noted that the target in Pakistan was actually a Taliban leader, Maulavi Nazir, albeit one who recently was aiding the Pakistani military against foreign militants. The killers are suspected to be Uzbek militants, jihadis imported by Al Qaeda to buttress their stronghold of Waziristan. The targets in Baghdad meanwhile were Sunni tribals who have allied with US forces. In both cases, however, the principle is the same: retaliation against domestic leaders who are opposed to the foreign jihadis.
Lets keep in mind that the primary source of conflict in the Afghan campaign is the Taliban-Al Qaeda alliance, though the example of Nazir suggests that the Taliban are not a monolithic bloc. In Iraq, the primary source of conflict remains the domestic insurgents, with Al Qaeda playing a smaller role (but they do inflict a disproportionate amount of mayhem since they tend to target civilians more).
Overall, what these attacks mean is difficult to gauge, though of course pro-withdrawal people will throw up their hands and say it's all chaos and anti-withdrawal voices (which still includes me, though the label chafes) will say it is a desperation ploy. I think actually it is neither - rather it's evidence of a drawn-out protracted struggle which is the status quo between what can be boiled down into a "revolutionary" vs "establishment" frame. However, it's clear that the situation in Afghanistan is the more critical one since Waziristan is arguably already a mini jihad state, whereas the claims of Al Qaeda in Iraq to have established any sort of control are laughable. It is frustrating therefore to see the continued emphasis on Iraq and the relative neglect of Afghanistan.
Something worth noting however is that while the Republican presidential candidates continue to stress Iraq status quo as crucial, none seem to really have much to say about Afghanistan (particularly ironic given the frequent invocation of 9-11, which required a ase of operations in Afghanistan to come to fruition). Here's what the three leading Democratic candidates have to say about Afghanistan, however.
John Edwards
Summary: special forces in Afghanistan, not combat troops. This is not enough. Special forces are intended for special operations, not peace-keeping, nation-building, and safeguarding embryonic institutions of government. On Pakistan, he wants to make future aid conditional upon progress by Pakistan to eradicate terror? This is meaningless without definitions of "progress". Such a vague formulation suggests Edwards is not really cognizant of the Pakistani political situation. And as for Iraq, I told you so.
Hillary Clinton: I can't even find any mention of Afghanistan on her website. It seems to lack a search box. Turning to google, I found this speech, in which she says,
So, it "shocks the conscience" that manpower, resources and intelligence capabilities are being "drained" from Afghanistan, but after she got back from the forgotten front line of the war on terror, her call was for... a special presidential envoy? to reduce tensions between Afghanistan and Pakistan? As the news links I provided above illustrate, the main problem in both countries is not each other.
However, a but of further googling revealed another speech, where Hillary had a bit more reassuring words:
But having come so close, she still doesn't spell out what she would do, she is only highlighting what we haven't done. Since there is no mention of Afghanistan as a stand alone issue on her official issues pages, it's impossible to know exactly what she has in mind or what specific thought she has given to the issue.
Finally, Barack Obama: No mention of Afghanistan on his foreign policy page. No search box on his site either. Googling, we do get some good hits though. First, we see that Obama has explicitly called for shifting some Iraq troops to the Pak-Afghan border:
A PDF document on Obama's site gives a bit more detail about this redeployment:
This isn't bad, but 7000 of our troops is a drop in the bucket, our NATO allies raent going to match that let alone exceed it, and training Afghan troops is a long term solution. The short term, we need more boots on the ground.
In sum, all three candidates have given some thought to the Afghan issue, but all are overly cautious. These are all miles better than the Republican field, at least. Still, only Obama bothers to give any actual hard estimates of troops.
Pakistan tribal elders shot dead
Gunmen in Pakistan have shot dead eight pro-government tribal leaders in the troubled South Waziristan region on Afghanistan's border, officials say.
The tribesmen were killed in two separate attacks on Sunday night and early Monday, a security official said.
and second,
Suicide Bomber Kills Key Sunni Leader in Baghdad
BAGHDAD — A suicide bomber assassinated a key leader of American-backed militia forces in a Sunni stronghold of Baghdad on Monday morning, the latest attack on nationalist Sunnis who have recently allied themselves with American troops. That attack, and a second bomb that exploded minutes later, killed at least six and wounded another 26 in total, hospital officials said.
The killing of the militia leader, Col. Riyadh al-Samarrai, on the fringes of north Baghdad’s Adhamiyah district, was one of the most significant attacks so far on leaders of former Sunni insurgents who have banded into militias, known as Awakening groups, to fight extremist militants.
It should be noted that the target in Pakistan was actually a Taliban leader, Maulavi Nazir, albeit one who recently was aiding the Pakistani military against foreign militants. The killers are suspected to be Uzbek militants, jihadis imported by Al Qaeda to buttress their stronghold of Waziristan. The targets in Baghdad meanwhile were Sunni tribals who have allied with US forces. In both cases, however, the principle is the same: retaliation against domestic leaders who are opposed to the foreign jihadis.
Lets keep in mind that the primary source of conflict in the Afghan campaign is the Taliban-Al Qaeda alliance, though the example of Nazir suggests that the Taliban are not a monolithic bloc. In Iraq, the primary source of conflict remains the domestic insurgents, with Al Qaeda playing a smaller role (but they do inflict a disproportionate amount of mayhem since they tend to target civilians more).
Overall, what these attacks mean is difficult to gauge, though of course pro-withdrawal people will throw up their hands and say it's all chaos and anti-withdrawal voices (which still includes me, though the label chafes) will say it is a desperation ploy. I think actually it is neither - rather it's evidence of a drawn-out protracted struggle which is the status quo between what can be boiled down into a "revolutionary" vs "establishment" frame. However, it's clear that the situation in Afghanistan is the more critical one since Waziristan is arguably already a mini jihad state, whereas the claims of Al Qaeda in Iraq to have established any sort of control are laughable. It is frustrating therefore to see the continued emphasis on Iraq and the relative neglect of Afghanistan.
Something worth noting however is that while the Republican presidential candidates continue to stress Iraq status quo as crucial, none seem to really have much to say about Afghanistan (particularly ironic given the frequent invocation of 9-11, which required a ase of operations in Afghanistan to come to fruition). Here's what the three leading Democratic candidates have to say about Afghanistan, however.
John Edwards
Afghanistan
Increase Special Forces in the country. Perseverance and success in Afghanistan are essential for the continuing viability of the NATO alliance. As president, Edwards will work with our principal allies and the other members of NATO to ensure the commitment of adequate forces and rules of engagement robust enough to ensure their ability to defeat the Taliban and ensure continuing progress of the democratic government in Afghanistan. As part of this effort, President Edwards will commit additional American Special Forces to work against the emergence of Taliban cells in Afghanistan, which are increasingly challenging the legitimate government, as the recent kidnapping of South Korean missionaries demonstrated.
Pakistan
Work with the government to extend the state to the northwest provinces. The recent National Intelligence Estimate found that Al Qaeda has established a safe haven in the northwest provinces of Pakistan. We have given the Musharraf government billions of dollars of aid and it has done far too little to get control over these provinces. As president, Edwards will condition future American aid on progress by Pakistan. With the cooperation of the Pakistani government, he will also deploy America's extraordinary intelligence and logistical assets to support Pakistan's efforts to establish control in the northwest. This will include strengthening the reach of police forces and working more effectively with tribal leaders and their members to ensure their acceptance of the government. He will also use our aid agencies to help Pakistan develop strong educational alternatives to the madrassas that are radicalizing Pakistani youth.
Iraq
Get over-the-horizon Quick Reaction Forces up to speed. Under the Edwards plan, combat troops should be withdrawn from Iraq within the next year. Even though the presence of U.S. troops has served as an attractive target for terrorists, our withdrawal will not remove the threat. As president, Edwards will deploy troops in Quick Reaction Forces in friendly countries including Kuwait, to perform targeted missions against Al Qaeda cells in Iraq.
Summary: special forces in Afghanistan, not combat troops. This is not enough. Special forces are intended for special operations, not peace-keeping, nation-building, and safeguarding embryonic institutions of government. On Pakistan, he wants to make future aid conditional upon progress by Pakistan to eradicate terror? This is meaningless without definitions of "progress". Such a vague formulation suggests Edwards is not really cognizant of the Pakistani political situation. And as for Iraq, I told you so.
Hillary Clinton: I can't even find any mention of Afghanistan on her website. It seems to lack a search box. Turning to google, I found this speech, in which she says,
The catalog of misjudgments offends common sense and shocks the conscience: the unilateral decision to rush to war without allowing inspectors to finish their work or diplomacy to run its course; the failure to send enough troops and the disgraceful lack of equipment for those we sent; the draining of manpower, resources and intelligence capabilities from Afghanistan; the inability to stop rioting or to secure weapons caches; dismantling Iraq's security and governmental capacity; the ignorance of a rising insurgency; and the adherence, which continues to the present day, to a broken policy more than four years after the invasion began.
[...]
We also cannot allow the failures taking place in Iraq to cause us to lose focus on the war in Afghanistan. The first time I visited Afghanistan in 2003, a young soldier said to me, "Welcome to the forgotten front line of the war against terror." This administration is not only failing in Iraq, its inattention risks failure in Afghanistan.
During my visit to Afghanistan last January, I heard disturbing reports about continued cross border infiltration from Pakistan into Afghanistan by Taliban and Al-Qaeda fighters. The tensions between the Afghan and Pakistani governments were palpable.
During my meetings with President Karzai and President Musharraf, I asked if they thought that a special presidential envoy from the United States would help them resolve their disputes and they both expressed the belief that such an envoy could be very useful. When I returned to the United States, I called the White House to suggest a special envoy and to convey the reactions of Presidents Karzai and Musharraf. The White House, however, did not follow up on this idea and the tensions between those two critical countries continue unabated.
So, it "shocks the conscience" that manpower, resources and intelligence capabilities are being "drained" from Afghanistan, but after she got back from the forgotten front line of the war on terror, her call was for... a special presidential envoy? to reduce tensions between Afghanistan and Pakistan? As the news links I provided above illustrate, the main problem in both countries is not each other.
However, a but of further googling revealed another speech, where Hillary had a bit more reassuring words:
a quote making the rounds in Kabul sums the situation up nicely: a Taliban commander supposedly boasted to his captors that "you have watches, but we have time."
To prove him wrong, we need to give our Afghan allies time, yet all we seem to do is check our own watches. Convinced first that we had all the answers, and then that we could sub-contract out counterinsurgency to our allies, we seem to have gone on auto-pilot. Inattention and false optimism are not only endangering all that we accomplished there; they are costing lives.
It is a great and brave thing that our allies from Canada, Britain, the Netherlands and other NATO countries have done by sending troops to Afghanistan. But Afghanistan and NATO need us as a leading partner, to help with security, to root out corruption, to find alternatives to opium, to improve the situation with Pakistan. We know the general area where the leaders of the Taliban and probably the leaders of Al Qaeda are. It is a failure of our policies on all fronts that five years later they are sending waves of fighters into Afghanistan from their safe havens. The stakes are unbearably high: for Afghanistan, for Pakistan, for the country's northern neighbors in Central Asia; for the reach of Al Qaeda; and for our own credibility and leadership.
We should begin by responding to our NATO commander's call for more troops in Afghanistan, where on a per capita basis we have spent 25 times less than we spent in Bosnia, and deployed one-fiftieth as many troops.
But having come so close, she still doesn't spell out what she would do, she is only highlighting what we haven't done. Since there is no mention of Afghanistan as a stand alone issue on her official issues pages, it's impossible to know exactly what she has in mind or what specific thought she has given to the issue.
Finally, Barack Obama: No mention of Afghanistan on his foreign policy page. No search box on his site either. Googling, we do get some good hits though. First, we see that Obama has explicitly called for shifting some Iraq troops to the Pak-Afghan border:
The U.S. should shift troops from Iraq to pursue al-Qaida along the Pakistan-Afghanistan border, Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama said Saturday.
He said President Bush's war-fighting policies have left the United States at greater risk from terrorists. The first-term Illinois senator said decisions by the Republican president had allowed Osama bin Laden and his deputies to elude capture.
"We cannot win a war against the terrorists if we're on the wrong battlefield," Obama said. "America must urgently begin deploying from Iraq and take the fight more effectively to the enemy's home by destroying al-Qaida's leadership along the Afghan-Pakistan border, eliminating their command and control networks and disrupting their funding."
A PDF document on Obama's site gives a bit more detail about this redeployment:
Redeploy American Troops to Afghanistan. Barack Obama will deploy at least an
additional two brigades (7,000 personnel) of rested, trained American troops to
Afghanistan to reinforce our counter-terrorism operations and support NATO’s
efforts to fight the Taliban.
• Strengthen NATO’s Hand in Afghanistan. NATO currently has 39,000 troops in
Afghanistan. However, the force is short-staffed according to requirements laid down
by NATO commanders. At the same time, some countries contributing forces are
imposing restrictions on where their troops can operate, tying the hands of
commanders on the ground. In particular, France and Germany have been unwilling
to commit troops to areas where the fighting is heaviest. As president, Obama will
work with European allies to end these burdensome restrictions and strengthen
NATO as a fighting force. An increased U.S. commitment to the NATO mission will
substantially strengthen our hand in asking for more from our European friends.
• Train and Equip the Afghan Army and Police. American Major General Robert
Durbin, who oversees the training of Afghan security forces, recently said only 40
percent of the 70,000-strong police force is properly equipped with weapons,
communication equipment and vehicles. The outgoing head of Canada’s force in
Afghanistan estimated it will take at least three years before Afghanistan's corruption-
plagued police can stand on its own. Barack Obama will strengthen the training and
equipping of the Afghan army and police and increase Afghan participation in U.S.
and NATO missions, so that there is more of an Afghan face on security.
This isn't bad, but 7000 of our troops is a drop in the bucket, our NATO allies raent going to match that let alone exceed it, and training Afghan troops is a long term solution. The short term, we need more boots on the ground.
In sum, all three candidates have given some thought to the Afghan issue, but all are overly cautious. These are all miles better than the Republican field, at least. Still, only Obama bothers to give any actual hard estimates of troops.
Labels: 2008, Afghanistan, Edwards, Hillary, Iraq, Obama, Pakistan
Friday, January 04, 2008
Bush: "Mr. Olmert, tear down these walls." http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/05/world/middleeast/05mideast.html?ex=1357189200&en=de6dc1d4090b524a&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
Kudos to the President for making a clear and unambiguous statement:
Unfortunately, Olmert has to pay tribute to the extremist settler political bloc, in much the same way that the Democratic candidates must soothe the progressive left with insincere talk of Iraq withdrawals. That's unfortunate however because the settler movement has done major harm to Israel's economy and security.
President Bush, however, is seeking a legacy that isn't defined solely by Iraq, and it's possible that he has decided that the Palestinian issue must be resolved on his watch. If so, he will indeed be remembered as having truly remade the middle east.
One advantage that Bush has over his predecessors? Close ties with the Saudis - whose peace proposal remains the best route to peace. But even that is not a complete solution. There's hard work ahead, and maybe only a President of the United States can spur all parties involved.
Mr. Bush praised the Israeli prime minister, Ehud Olmert, for honesty, but said he expected Israel to keep its promises to dismantle outposts illegal under Israeli law that were built after March 2001. “The Israeli government has said that they’re going to get rid of unauthorized settlements, and that’s what we expect, that’s what we’ve been told,” Mr. Bush said. “We expect them to honor their commitments.”
Mr. Bush suggested that some Israeli settlements were bound to be kept by Israel in any peace agreement, which would define final borders. “But the unauthorized settlements, which is different from the authorized settlements, is an issue we’ve been very clear on,” he said.
When Ariel Sharon was prime minister, he promised Mr. Bush personally that all Israeli outposts built after he took office in March 2001 would be dismantled before the next elections. Mr. Olmert was his deputy and said he would keep the commitment, which is also part of Israel’s obligations under the first stage of the 2003 “road map” for peace.
But two years ago this Friday, shortly before those elections, Mr. Sharon suffered a severe stroke and Mr. Olmert was elected instead. And the outposts in question — more than 20 of them — have not been dismantled, but have grown.
In fact many more such outposts unauthorized by the Israeli government were built before March 2001. The Palestinians, and much of the world, regard all Israeli settlements in land occupied in the 1967 war to be illegal under international law, including East Jerusalem, which Israel annexed.
Unfortunately, Olmert has to pay tribute to the extremist settler political bloc, in much the same way that the Democratic candidates must soothe the progressive left with insincere talk of Iraq withdrawals. That's unfortunate however because the settler movement has done major harm to Israel's economy and security.
President Bush, however, is seeking a legacy that isn't defined solely by Iraq, and it's possible that he has decided that the Palestinian issue must be resolved on his watch. If so, he will indeed be remembered as having truly remade the middle east.
One advantage that Bush has over his predecessors? Close ties with the Saudis - whose peace proposal remains the best route to peace. But even that is not a complete solution. There's hard work ahead, and maybe only a President of the United States can spur all parties involved.
Labels: Israel
Thursday, January 03, 2008
GOP Iowa caucus predictions: Fred's dead, Huck fin
Fred's dead, baby. His own campaign is sending signals of defeat before the caucus has even started.
I think the conventional wisdom is that Huck will take first and Romney second. However, given the depressed turnout for Republicans, it's really about ground game and organization, and a candidate who doesnt necessarily poll well might walk away with the prize. Both Huckabee and Romney are heavily counting on their field operation to turn out their respective bases, in Huckabee's case the evangelical vote and in Romney's case the GOP establishment (and anyone-but-Huck).
What if Ron Paul pulls it off?
A scenario for Ron Paul to win would be that the conventional GOP base is depressed, undermining Huckabee and Romney. However, an influx of first-time caucus goers, especially youth, could potentially counterbalance that. Keep in mind that both Huckabee and Romney have to fight for their "market share" among the traditional three wings of the GOP coalition, whereas only Paul has been widening the tent and drawing appeal from beyond the tight confines of the GOP fiefdoms.
I'm going to prepare my crow pie for tomorrow morning and go out on a shaky limb to predict that Romney will prevail over Huck for simple reason of money and organization. The backing of the establishment, as we saw with Kerry in 2004, is a powerful thing not to be dismissed no matter how many orange hats you throw out, and in many ways the Huck boomlet is relying on the same assumptions as Dean's campaign did back then. However, I wouldn't be surprised to see a lot of Huck's support go to Ron as second choice. Couple that with a huge surge of new voters for Ron and the final breakdown would be: 1: Romney, 2: Ron Paul, 3: McCain or Huckabee. And of course, N: Fred.
If Huckabee places third in Iowa, it's over. And let's not even bother with Fred anymore.
DES MOINES, Iowa – Several Republican officials close to Fred Thompson’s presidential campaign said they expect the candidate will drop out of the race within days if he finishes poorly in Thursday’s Iowa caucus.
[...]
Thompson’s departure could shake up the race more than his continued presence. Friends and advisers said they have long considered it likely that if the lobbyist-actor is forced from the race he would endorse John McCain his former Senate colleague who lately has been staging a political revival in New Hampshire.
I think the conventional wisdom is that Huck will take first and Romney second. However, given the depressed turnout for Republicans, it's really about ground game and organization, and a candidate who doesnt necessarily poll well might walk away with the prize. Both Huckabee and Romney are heavily counting on their field operation to turn out their respective bases, in Huckabee's case the evangelical vote and in Romney's case the GOP establishment (and anyone-but-Huck).
What if Ron Paul pulls it off?
A scenario for Ron Paul to win would be that the conventional GOP base is depressed, undermining Huckabee and Romney. However, an influx of first-time caucus goers, especially youth, could potentially counterbalance that. Keep in mind that both Huckabee and Romney have to fight for their "market share" among the traditional three wings of the GOP coalition, whereas only Paul has been widening the tent and drawing appeal from beyond the tight confines of the GOP fiefdoms.
I'm going to prepare my crow pie for tomorrow morning and go out on a shaky limb to predict that Romney will prevail over Huck for simple reason of money and organization. The backing of the establishment, as we saw with Kerry in 2004, is a powerful thing not to be dismissed no matter how many orange hats you throw out, and in many ways the Huck boomlet is relying on the same assumptions as Dean's campaign did back then. However, I wouldn't be surprised to see a lot of Huck's support go to Ron as second choice. Couple that with a huge surge of new voters for Ron and the final breakdown would be: 1: Romney, 2: Ron Paul, 3: McCain or Huckabee. And of course, N: Fred.
If Huckabee places third in Iowa, it's over. And let's not even bother with Fred anymore.
Labels: 2008, Huckabee, Iowa, Romney, RonPaul, Thompson
Tuesday, January 01, 2008
It begins: Iowa
I have largely avoided any end of year introspection, not because 2007 was particularly bad but because in many ways this cycle the distinction between Dec 31st and Jan 1st just didn't carry as much significance. To be honest, Thursday feels more like a transition point, because it marks the beginning of the 11-month long circus wherein we the People select nominees and then a President.
At any rate, Iowa is in 2 days and the general concensus seems to be that it's too close to call on the Democratic side, and that Huckabee will probably win with Romney in second on the Republican side. However, the famed Des Moines Register pre-caucus poll has thrown everyone for a loop. Kevin Drum summarizes the findings for the Dems:
The caveats are that this is the holiday season, and the DMR poll assumes a very large share of independents. The funny thing is that the DMR, by virtue of being so notable and prestigious, is not just a poll but also a precursor to the caucus itself. As Noam Scheiber puts it at TNR,
But the expectations generated by the DMR poll cuts both ways, as RCP points out:
Lose if you win and win if you lose, it seems! But this double edged sword is nothing new - in fact it is the same dynamic that applies to the primaries themselves. As RCP says, January is all about momentum, and whether its a full-fledged state primary or an important poll that precedes a primary, it's all the same in terms of public perception and the expectations game.
Obama's team is either supremely confident, over-reaching badly, or both. Given that the closing argument for the Obama camp is suspiciously full of right-wing talking points, one has to wonder whether the underlying motive is hubris, or desperation.
At any rate, Iowa is in 2 days and the general concensus seems to be that it's too close to call on the Democratic side, and that Huckabee will probably win with Romney in second on the Republican side. However, the famed Des Moines Register pre-caucus poll has thrown everyone for a loop. Kevin Drum summarizes the findings for the Dems:
Among Dems, Barack Obama is in the lead with 32% (up from 28% in early December), followed by Clinton with 25% (unchanged), and Edwards with 24% (up from 23%). No other candidate had more than 6% support, and Obama's seven-point lead is the largest any Democrat has enjoyed in any DMR poll this year.
The caveats are that this is the holiday season, and the DMR poll assumes a very large share of independents. The funny thing is that the DMR, by virtue of being so notable and prestigious, is not just a poll but also a precursor to the caucus itself. As Noam Scheiber puts it at TNR,
Now, the Register has a reputation for being the gold standard of caucus polling, so that may well be true. Or the paper could be way off the mark. But the thing is, it may not matter either way. That's because the Register poll isn't just a description of what's going on. More than any other poll, it actually influences what goes on. Iowans will wake up tomorrow to find a headline that says, "Obama Widens Lead Over Clinton." And, human psychology being what it is, that may well push them into the Obama camp Thursday night.
But the expectations generated by the DMR poll cuts both ways, as RCP points out:
Part of that is due to last night's Des Moines Register poll that - thanks to its forecast that independents and even Republicans would flood the Democratic caucuses for Obama - gave him a final poll lead no one else has found. But part of it was happening even before this poll. "Obama campaign predicts Iowa win," reads the headline of this morning's Newsday.
[...]
The truth is that on paper, Obama doesn't have to win Iowa. (Edwards with far less money probably does.) January is all about momentum; it's in February when the actual delegate selection begins in earnest. Obama could finish second in Iowa, and then certainly go on to win New Hampshire or then South Carolina. Even an Iowa result with the top three tightly bunched wouldn't have hurt him really - at least before the expectation bar got raised.
Now, anything less than an Iowa victory will look like a defeat.
Lose if you win and win if you lose, it seems! But this double edged sword is nothing new - in fact it is the same dynamic that applies to the primaries themselves. As RCP says, January is all about momentum, and whether its a full-fledged state primary or an important poll that precedes a primary, it's all the same in terms of public perception and the expectations game.
Obama's team is either supremely confident, over-reaching badly, or both. Given that the closing argument for the Obama camp is suspiciously full of right-wing talking points, one has to wonder whether the underlying motive is hubris, or desperation.
Election 2008 feed
Nation-Building feed
Archives
Obama 2008 - I want my country back
About Nation-Building
Nation-Building was founded by Aziz Poonawalla in August 2002 under the name Dean Nation. Dean Nation was the very first weblog devoted to a presidential candidate, Howard Dean, and became the vanguard of the Dean netroot phenomenon, raising over $40,000 for the Dean campaign, pioneering the use of Meetup, and enjoying the attention of the campaign itself, with Joe Trippi a regular reader (and sometime commentor). Howard Dean himself even left a comment once. Dean Nation was a group weblog effort and counts among its alumni many of the progressive blogsphere's leading talent including Jerome Armstrong, Matthew Yglesias, and Ezra Klein. After the election in 2004, the blog refocused onto the theme of "purple politics", formally changing its name to Nation-Building in June 2006. The primary focus of the blog is on articulating purple-state policy at home and pragmatic liberal interventionism abroad.
