I thought I would resurrect this blog to put some Election Eve predictions.
National
Obama 53%, McCain 46%, Barr/McKinney/Nader 1%
Electoral College: Obama 353, McCain 185
Senate: Democrats pick up eight seats: Virgina, New Hampshire, Colorado, New Mexico, Minnesota, Alaska, Oregon and North Carolina. Republicans pick up none, and hold Kentucky. Georgia goes to a December run-off election as neither Chambliss or Martin breaks 50%.
California: Proposition 8, the Gay marriage ban, fails 52%-48%
State
Governor: Gregoire 51%, Rossi 49%
I-985: No 54% - Yes 46%
I-1000: Yes 55% - No 45%
Sound Transit Proposition 1 -No 52% - Yes 48%
WA-8: Burner 53% - Reichart 47%
Thoughts?
Monday, November 3, 2008
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
Ready to Lead... and Liberate Spain
Okay, so we all know John McCain is the experienced one right? He knows what he's doing, he's ready to the job and all that? We also know that everyone has to steer clear of the fact that John McCain is the oldest person to ever run for a first term.
So, judging from this bizarro-world interview with Spain's national radio, John McCain either thinks that Spain is a Latin American dictatorship like Chavez's Venezuela OR John McCain is tired and confused and nearly senile. Anyone want to guess which it is?
So, judging from this bizarro-world interview with Spain's national radio, John McCain either thinks that Spain is a Latin American dictatorship like Chavez's Venezuela OR John McCain is tired and confused and nearly senile. Anyone want to guess which it is?
Saturday, March 15, 2008
Why we're in this mess.
Hillary can't run a coherent campaign. She should have won this thing, easily.
Her advisers warred over where to compete or what their message should be. She ignored warnings that she wouldn't do well in Iowa, she went ahead anyway, when she could've taken the McCain route and commanded the race. The divisions in her camp were reminiscent of the early days of Bush's presidency, where unqualified loyalists clashed with seasoned professionals and it was unclear who was setting the agenda.
Foolishly she believed that the nomination would be over by Super Tuesday, while Barack's campaign saw the impending delegate race and opened offices and began organizing in every post Super Tuesday state. She was demolished in February and tried to play it off as if they had no intention of winning in Virginia, Wisconsin, or Washington.
Then her campaign focused on the only states where it looked like she could win. Then when Barack began to close the gap in Texas, she pulled out the 3am ad, which is ridiculously shameless fear mongering. How can a woman who can't control her campaign, who can't control the statements her husband makes in the midst of a national campaign, who can't even steady her own emotions on camera be expected to run the United States of America?
Now she acts as if her recent losses don't mean anything, when she is still far behind, and realistically can't catch up. Her only hope is that she can shame Barack. Make the unflappable young hero of disheartened liberals and disenchanted moderates, lose his cool.
So she'll continue to attack him, make him look bad. Make him appear self important and tacky. She is dividing the democratic base and that could cost the party dearly in November. She doesn't realize that she's beat, and she is going to take this battle all the way to convention, hoping her loyalty among superdelegates help her carry the day.
Of course she claim she has a mandate when she wins in Pennsylvania. She'll claim Barack is unelectable. When Barack wins the nomination, she may just be right he may not be electable anymore, thanks to the damage she's done by running such a poor campaign.
Her advisers warred over where to compete or what their message should be. She ignored warnings that she wouldn't do well in Iowa, she went ahead anyway, when she could've taken the McCain route and commanded the race. The divisions in her camp were reminiscent of the early days of Bush's presidency, where unqualified loyalists clashed with seasoned professionals and it was unclear who was setting the agenda.
Foolishly she believed that the nomination would be over by Super Tuesday, while Barack's campaign saw the impending delegate race and opened offices and began organizing in every post Super Tuesday state. She was demolished in February and tried to play it off as if they had no intention of winning in Virginia, Wisconsin, or Washington.
Then her campaign focused on the only states where it looked like she could win. Then when Barack began to close the gap in Texas, she pulled out the 3am ad, which is ridiculously shameless fear mongering. How can a woman who can't control her campaign, who can't control the statements her husband makes in the midst of a national campaign, who can't even steady her own emotions on camera be expected to run the United States of America?
Now she acts as if her recent losses don't mean anything, when she is still far behind, and realistically can't catch up. Her only hope is that she can shame Barack. Make the unflappable young hero of disheartened liberals and disenchanted moderates, lose his cool.
So she'll continue to attack him, make him look bad. Make him appear self important and tacky. She is dividing the democratic base and that could cost the party dearly in November. She doesn't realize that she's beat, and she is going to take this battle all the way to convention, hoping her loyalty among superdelegates help her carry the day.
Of course she claim she has a mandate when she wins in Pennsylvania. She'll claim Barack is unelectable. When Barack wins the nomination, she may just be right he may not be electable anymore, thanks to the damage she's done by running such a poor campaign.
Wednesday, March 5, 2008
Tuesday, March 4, 2008
Mini Super Tuesday Results
*The networks called Vermont for Obama right at the close of the polls. Early returns show Clinton with a lead in Ohio. Fifteen precincts in Cuyahoga county will be open until 9 local time due to inclement weather.
*Clinton seems to have the wind at her back right now, but look for Obama to blunt that later this week by releasing a presumably jaw-dropping fundraising numbers for February and up to 50 superdelegate pledges.
*Hey, this isn't totally sleazy, now is it? This is fun too.
*No matter what happens tonight, we're stuck with this until Pennsylvania.
*The winner of tonight's Democratic contests? John McCain.
*Clinton seems to have the wind at her back right now, but look for Obama to blunt that later this week by releasing a presumably jaw-dropping fundraising numbers for February and up to 50 superdelegate pledges.
*Hey, this isn't totally sleazy, now is it? This is fun too.
*No matter what happens tonight, we're stuck with this until Pennsylvania.
*The winner of tonight's Democratic contests? John McCain.
Monday, March 3, 2008
Mini-Super Tuesday Prediction
Wasn't this supposed to be over by now? With the front-loaded primary season, the nominations should have been settled by now. It worked with the GOP; John McCain is the nominee in all but name. For the Democrats, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama keep on keepin' on. Tomorrow, giant contests in Ohio and Texas, plus primaries in Rhode Island and Vermont. The conventional wisdom is that Clinton must win both big states in order to proceed, and that Obama winning one could cripple her campaign and winning both would kill it.
But, if you read the various polls, it's clear nobody has a freakin' clue what is happening in either state. The two smaller states are somewhat predictable: Obama has a healthy lead in Vermont, and Clinton holds a steady lead in Rhode Island. Clinton opened both Ohio and Texas with huge leads, and has seen them steadily dwindle. Texas is deadlocked, and Ohio is a mess. One poll shows Obama with a one point lead, another shows Clinton with a nine-point lead.
Our prediction? Obama wins Texas in a squeaker and Vermont handily. Clinton wins Ohio and Rhode Island comfortably. Due to the way the Democrats split delegates, Obama's lead stays pretty much the same. Clinton will feel serious pressure to drop out, but won't until after the Pennsylvania primary in April.
But, if you read the various polls, it's clear nobody has a freakin' clue what is happening in either state. The two smaller states are somewhat predictable: Obama has a healthy lead in Vermont, and Clinton holds a steady lead in Rhode Island. Clinton opened both Ohio and Texas with huge leads, and has seen them steadily dwindle. Texas is deadlocked, and Ohio is a mess. One poll shows Obama with a one point lead, another shows Clinton with a nine-point lead.
Our prediction? Obama wins Texas in a squeaker and Vermont handily. Clinton wins Ohio and Rhode Island comfortably. Due to the way the Democrats split delegates, Obama's lead stays pretty much the same. Clinton will feel serious pressure to drop out, but won't until after the Pennsylvania primary in April.
Friday, February 29, 2008
No, THOSE are the bad guys!
President Bush thinks it's a bad idea to say hello to bad guys:
This, of course, is in response to Barack Obama's continued statements that he would “never fear to negotiate” with anyone. Now, I'm not entirely convinced that Obama is correct on this. I would set down some pretty stringent conditions to meet with various dictators. My issue is what is the difference between the tyrant in Cuba and the tyrant in say... Saudi Arabia? This stark, black/white split between “with us” and “against us” doesn't serve us well, and it makes US foreign policy even more incoherent than usual.
The Saudis, Uzbekistan (they like to boil people alive) and Pakistan are the good guys. Iran and North Korea are the surviving members of the Axis of Evil. I dare you to figure it out.
Sitting down at the table, having your picture taken with a tyrant such as Raul Castro, for example, lends the status of the office and the status of our country to him. He gains a lot from it by saying, look at me, I’m now recognized by the President of the United States.
This, of course, is in response to Barack Obama's continued statements that he would “never fear to negotiate” with anyone. Now, I'm not entirely convinced that Obama is correct on this. I would set down some pretty stringent conditions to meet with various dictators. My issue is what is the difference between the tyrant in Cuba and the tyrant in say... Saudi Arabia? This stark, black/white split between “with us” and “against us” doesn't serve us well, and it makes US foreign policy even more incoherent than usual.
The Saudis, Uzbekistan (they like to boil people alive) and Pakistan are the good guys. Iran and North Korea are the surviving members of the Axis of Evil. I dare you to figure it out.
The Unseen Issue
One out of every hundred adult Americans is in prison, according to a newly-released Pew Center report. The demographics are often horrifying. One out of every nine African-American males between the ages of 20-34 is incarcerated. While 1 out of every 355 women between the ages of 35-39 are in jail, for African-American women in that same age group the ratio is 1 out of every 100. Four states (Vermont, Oregon, Connecticut and Michigan) now spend more on prisons than they do on higher education. America leads the world in prison population, both by sheer numbers (2.3 million, compared to 1.5 million for the far more populous China) and per capita (750 per 100,000, compared to Russia and 628 per 100,000). America also ranks sixth in the number of executions per year, behind such luminaries as China, Iran, Pakistan, Iraq and Sudan. Judging from these numbers, you might think that America is in the grips of a terrifying crime wave.
Only, we aren't.
Over the past 20 years, when spending on prisons has increased from $11 billion per annum to the current $49 billion, the crime wave has stayed consistent. The issue is politically-motivated, “get tough on crime” initiatives like mandatory minimums and the bordering on-ridiculous War on Drugs. Now, faced with crushing budget shortfalls (California for instance, is $16 billion in the hole for 2008), states such as Kansas, Texas and Kentucky are taking clear-eyed looks at ways to decrease recidivism and lower incarceration rates. The Second Chance Act, currently in limbo in the Senate, is a small, but important step on the federal level.
Now, the question is what and how does this play in the election in November. Barack Obama and John McCain both fancy themselves as those who speak the hard truths. Will either of them talk about this one?
Only, we aren't.
Over the past 20 years, when spending on prisons has increased from $11 billion per annum to the current $49 billion, the crime wave has stayed consistent. The issue is politically-motivated, “get tough on crime” initiatives like mandatory minimums and the bordering on-ridiculous War on Drugs. Now, faced with crushing budget shortfalls (California for instance, is $16 billion in the hole for 2008), states such as Kansas, Texas and Kentucky are taking clear-eyed looks at ways to decrease recidivism and lower incarceration rates. The Second Chance Act, currently in limbo in the Senate, is a small, but important step on the federal level.
Now, the question is what and how does this play in the election in November. Barack Obama and John McCain both fancy themselves as those who speak the hard truths. Will either of them talk about this one?
Thursday, February 28, 2008
Fun With Double Standards, Part 1
The most publicized item from Tueday's Democratic debate? Tim Russert's gotcha moment about Louis Farrakhan for Barack Obama, his slightly nuanced answer and Hillary Clinton's oddball coda. In the end, Obama both “denounced and rejected” Farrakhan.
And this is for good reason, Farrakhan and his Nation of Islam is notoriously anti-Semetic and often lunatic.
Today, John McCain (St. John of Straight Talk, if you watch CNN or MSNBC too often) received and celebrated the endorsement of John Hagee, pastor of a 19,000 parishioner megachurch in San Antonio. He's also the head of Christians United for Israel, a somewhat mislabeled group that fully supports Israel only as long as it promises to begin the end-times. Now, we accept many definitions of “support” but usually draw the line at “convert or suffer eternal damnation”. How serious is this gentleman about triggering the Apocalypse? Try this on:
Of course not.
More fun with religious nuts available: Here
And this is for good reason, Farrakhan and his Nation of Islam is notoriously anti-Semetic and often lunatic.
Today, John McCain (St. John of Straight Talk, if you watch CNN or MSNBC too often) received and celebrated the endorsement of John Hagee, pastor of a 19,000 parishioner megachurch in San Antonio. He's also the head of Christians United for Israel, a somewhat mislabeled group that fully supports Israel only as long as it promises to begin the end-times. Now, we accept many definitions of “support” but usually draw the line at “convert or suffer eternal damnation”. How serious is this gentleman about triggering the Apocalypse? Try this on:
The United States must join Israel in a pre-emptive military strike against Iran to fulfill God’s plan for both Israel and the West… a biblically prophesied end-time confrontation with Iran, which will lead to the Rapture, Tribulation, and Second Coming of ChristHuh, sounds like fun. Now, will Timmeh or The Completely Insane Chris Mathews mention this come the time for next debate.
Of course not.
More fun with religious nuts available: Here
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
Vast Right Wing Conspiracy or Bunch of Morons
You decide.
In case you were wondering what nastyness awaits Barack Obama if and when he wins the Democratic nomination, check out this goof.
H/T to Wonkette
Update: Looks like this was taken down. Don't worry, the "Obama is a Muslim meme" won't die an easy death.
In case you were wondering what nastyness awaits Barack Obama if and when he wins the Democratic nomination, check out this goof.
H/T to Wonkette
Update: Looks like this was taken down. Don't worry, the "Obama is a Muslim meme" won't die an easy death.
Thursday, February 7, 2008
The BarackStar Cometh
Okay yeah.... we haven't been very good at this political blogging stuff. We're getting better (lots of upcoming free time!), and it starts tomorrow. Along with the amazing Mrs. Frinklin, we will be voyaging – along with 10,000 or so of our closest friends – to the revival meeting at Key Arena.
Report (with lousy, unfocused pictures) to come!
Report (with lousy, unfocused pictures) to come!
Thursday, January 10, 2008
Sure it's messy, but now it's gonna get confusing
The Dems of Michigan have a bit of a quandry on their hands. Their delegates have been sent to the penalty box for moving up their primary (that's what ya get for trying to have your voices heard). Will they be released in time to be counted at the convention, and who will they vote for, if you're formerly not allowed to vote for Obama or Edwards since they're not on the ballot. If it really does come down to a tight delegate count this summer, the DNC may have an internal-Florida/Ohio situation on their hands.
WASHINGTON (CNN) Democratic leaders in Michigan are urging supporters of John Edwards and Barack Obama, who are not on the ballot in the state, to vote "uncommitted" in the January 15 primary a move that could create an unexpected headache for Hillary Clinton campaign.
Clinton is the only major presidential candidate who did not pull her name from the Michigan ballot after the national party penalized the state for scheduling the vote in mid-January, rather than later in the cycle.
The national party voted to strip Michigan of delegates as a penalty, but party leaders in the electoral-vote rich state have expressed confidence that they will be seated at the convention.
None of the candidates, including Clinton, will be campaigning here, and none have authorized write-in campaigns which means that, under state law, their supporters cannot cast write-in votes for any of them.
But if at least 15 percent of the voters in a congressional district opt for the "uncommitted" option rather than voting for Clinton, delegates not bound to any candidate could attend the national convention, a development that could allow Edwards or Obama supporters to play a role in candidate selection there.
A new group, Detroiters for Uncommitted Voters, is launching a grassroots campaign to promote the "uncommitted" option. The Detroit News reported Thursday that Democratic Rep. John Conyers and his wife, Detroit City Councilwoman Monica Conyers, said they will launch ads calling for "uncommitted" votes if there is no other way to register support for Barack Obama.
CNN Associate Political Editor Rebecca Sinderbrand
WASHINGTON (CNN) Democratic leaders in Michigan are urging supporters of John Edwards and Barack Obama, who are not on the ballot in the state, to vote "uncommitted" in the January 15 primary a move that could create an unexpected headache for Hillary Clinton campaign.
Clinton is the only major presidential candidate who did not pull her name from the Michigan ballot after the national party penalized the state for scheduling the vote in mid-January, rather than later in the cycle.
The national party voted to strip Michigan of delegates as a penalty, but party leaders in the electoral-vote rich state have expressed confidence that they will be seated at the convention.
None of the candidates, including Clinton, will be campaigning here, and none have authorized write-in campaigns which means that, under state law, their supporters cannot cast write-in votes for any of them.
But if at least 15 percent of the voters in a congressional district opt for the "uncommitted" option rather than voting for Clinton, delegates not bound to any candidate could attend the national convention, a development that could allow Edwards or Obama supporters to play a role in candidate selection there.
A new group, Detroiters for Uncommitted Voters, is launching a grassroots campaign to promote the "uncommitted" option. The Detroit News reported Thursday that Democratic Rep. John Conyers and his wife, Detroit City Councilwoman Monica Conyers, said they will launch ads calling for "uncommitted" votes if there is no other way to register support for Barack Obama.
CNN Associate Political Editor Rebecca Sinderbrand
Tuesday, January 8, 2008
New Hampshire Running Totals
New Hampshire! Voting! Crack for Political Junkies!
The polls in New Hampshire have been closed for about 90 minutes, and we already have one winner for sure, and another probable.
John McCain won the Republican side in a convincing manner. With 43% of the vote total, he's up 38% to 30%. The Democrats are considered too close to call, with Clinton up 39% to Obama's 37%. Obama has been trending strong, but regardless, this is a victory for Hilary's campaign. Expect to hear the Comeback Kid meme non-stop for the next week.
The polls in New Hampshire have been closed for about 90 minutes, and we already have one winner for sure, and another probable.
John McCain won the Republican side in a convincing manner. With 43% of the vote total, he's up 38% to 30%. The Democrats are considered too close to call, with Clinton up 39% to Obama's 37%. Obama has been trending strong, but regardless, this is a victory for Hilary's campaign. Expect to hear the Comeback Kid meme non-stop for the next week.
Look! Real Voting!
After the rather convoluted Iowa caucuses, New Hampshire is pretty easy. Voting like we're used to, with independents allowed to vote in either primary. The questions on Tuesday are many: How much of a bounce do Barack Obama and Mike Huckabee get. Can Hilary Clinton and Mitt Romney recover? Is the John McCain of 2000 back? Do Guiliani and Thompson have pulses?
Democrats
Before the Iowa caucuses, Obama was rising, Clinton was holding serve and Edwards holding on. Since Obama's very impressive win, he has been rising and now leads the state from anywhere from 5 – 12 points. Now, this becomes question of how big his victory is. After holding a solid lead for a year, Clinton now find herself the underdog. A victory is probably out of reach, but a close second could set her up with a slight bounce heading to South Carolina and beyond to February 5th. Obama, conversely, now find himself hampered by expectations. A convincing win continues his wave, sets him up well in South Carolina and puts unbelievable pressure on both his rivals. John Edwards has settled into a solid third. While he lacks many chances for a breakthrough, his base of support is solid enough to see him though February.
Predictions
1 – Obama – 36%
2 – Clinton – 28%
3 – Edwards – 19%
Republicans
John McCain won this primary in 2000 in rather spectacular fashion. Romney has been in the lead for several months, but just prior to his Iowa implosion, the former Massachusetts governor was slipping in New Hampshire as well. Now, weirdly enough, Mitt has regrouped somewhat over the past 48 hours and might even slip past McCain. Romney still isn't beloved by anybody, but McCain rode independents to victory in 2000. Those votes seem to be flocking to Barack Obama this cycle. McCain still has a testy relationship with Republican regulars, so a lack of independents could seriously hamper him. I still think that McCain will take this one, but a close second for Romney keeps him alive through the beginning of February. Mike Huckabee has very little presence here, but a double-digit showing counts as a bit of a victory. He is the overwhelming favorite in South Carolina, so a victory there sets him up as the GOP frontrunner. The anti-Huckabee vote then settles between McCain and Romney, with Thompson and Giuliani on the verge of complete collapse.
Predictions
1 – McCain – 35%
2 – Romney - 32%
3 – Huckabee – 13%
4 – Paul – 9%
5 – Giuliani - 7%
Democrats
Before the Iowa caucuses, Obama was rising, Clinton was holding serve and Edwards holding on. Since Obama's very impressive win, he has been rising and now leads the state from anywhere from 5 – 12 points. Now, this becomes question of how big his victory is. After holding a solid lead for a year, Clinton now find herself the underdog. A victory is probably out of reach, but a close second could set her up with a slight bounce heading to South Carolina and beyond to February 5th. Obama, conversely, now find himself hampered by expectations. A convincing win continues his wave, sets him up well in South Carolina and puts unbelievable pressure on both his rivals. John Edwards has settled into a solid third. While he lacks many chances for a breakthrough, his base of support is solid enough to see him though February.
Predictions
1 – Obama – 36%
2 – Clinton – 28%
3 – Edwards – 19%
Republicans
John McCain won this primary in 2000 in rather spectacular fashion. Romney has been in the lead for several months, but just prior to his Iowa implosion, the former Massachusetts governor was slipping in New Hampshire as well. Now, weirdly enough, Mitt has regrouped somewhat over the past 48 hours and might even slip past McCain. Romney still isn't beloved by anybody, but McCain rode independents to victory in 2000. Those votes seem to be flocking to Barack Obama this cycle. McCain still has a testy relationship with Republican regulars, so a lack of independents could seriously hamper him. I still think that McCain will take this one, but a close second for Romney keeps him alive through the beginning of February. Mike Huckabee has very little presence here, but a double-digit showing counts as a bit of a victory. He is the overwhelming favorite in South Carolina, so a victory there sets him up as the GOP frontrunner. The anti-Huckabee vote then settles between McCain and Romney, with Thompson and Giuliani on the verge of complete collapse.
Predictions
1 – McCain – 35%
2 – Romney - 32%
3 – Huckabee – 13%
4 – Paul – 9%
5 – Giuliani - 7%
Saturday, January 5, 2008
Double Debate Pregame Show
ABC is gracing us with both the Democratic and Republican debates tonight from New Hampshire. I'm at the Freitai Estate watching on HD (which is actually a little frightening, most candidates are not meant to be seen in HD). There may be liveblogging to come, but I make no promises. Regardless, what to look for tonight.
Obama has to make the transition from insurgent to frontrunner, and continue the momentum. He has a tendency to disappoint in debates. Modern television debates focus on short, punchy moments. For all his many strengths, short and punchy is not one of them. Obama can meander during his answers, and often will answer questions that haven't been asked. Clinton and Edwards will both attack, the question is how and where. Clinton could go on experience, and her surrogates have been pointing out the more leftward postilions Obama has taken in the past. Edwards has tested out a fairly clunky “tool of the man” line over the past two days. We may see variations on that theme. The wild card is Bill Richardson. He has virtually no chance for the nomination now, and it's a question of who he thinks gives him the best chance for the VP slot. It seems that would be Obama. He could come out swinging against Hilary.
For the GOP, it will be as weirdly disconnected as it has been in the recent past. Like Obama, Mike Huckabee has to make the transition to frontrunner. Unlike Obama, he's basically flatlined in New Hampshire, and the state lacks a natural evangelical base for him. Due to continuing money problems, this will be his best shot to reach New Hampshire. No one is expecting anything from him in the Granite State, and any good showing will count as an expectations game win. New Hampshire is doubly important for Romney and McCain. Both are aiming for the anti-Huckabee faction, and the loser of this primary is dead on arrival. The debate between the two of them will be negative, ugly and oftentimes preposterous. As for Guiliani, he needs a big moment to find some traction after a difficult month. The debate will almost certainly turn on immigration and terrorism, and will almost certainly be negative. Really negative.
Really negative.
Have I mentioned negative?
Obama has to make the transition from insurgent to frontrunner, and continue the momentum. He has a tendency to disappoint in debates. Modern television debates focus on short, punchy moments. For all his many strengths, short and punchy is not one of them. Obama can meander during his answers, and often will answer questions that haven't been asked. Clinton and Edwards will both attack, the question is how and where. Clinton could go on experience, and her surrogates have been pointing out the more leftward postilions Obama has taken in the past. Edwards has tested out a fairly clunky “tool of the man” line over the past two days. We may see variations on that theme. The wild card is Bill Richardson. He has virtually no chance for the nomination now, and it's a question of who he thinks gives him the best chance for the VP slot. It seems that would be Obama. He could come out swinging against Hilary.
For the GOP, it will be as weirdly disconnected as it has been in the recent past. Like Obama, Mike Huckabee has to make the transition to frontrunner. Unlike Obama, he's basically flatlined in New Hampshire, and the state lacks a natural evangelical base for him. Due to continuing money problems, this will be his best shot to reach New Hampshire. No one is expecting anything from him in the Granite State, and any good showing will count as an expectations game win. New Hampshire is doubly important for Romney and McCain. Both are aiming for the anti-Huckabee faction, and the loser of this primary is dead on arrival. The debate between the two of them will be negative, ugly and oftentimes preposterous. As for Guiliani, he needs a big moment to find some traction after a difficult month. The debate will almost certainly turn on immigration and terrorism, and will almost certainly be negative. Really negative.
Really negative.
Have I mentioned negative?
The Natural
With Obama's Iowa win and rising poll numbers, Barack has done what I had always thought was impossible. No, not win as a black man in a white state, nor defeat Hillary for the female vote. No, the miracle of the Barack Obama campaign is that they have created the image of a political candidate who isn't a complete douche bag.
Barack Obama may actually be . . . (pause for effect) . . . cool.
Politicians always seem to reek of ambition. They have a reputation as being self serving and arrogant. On the ladder of public loathing, politicians are barely a step up from America's least favorite professionals, lawyers. Listening to a political candidate speak is about as pleasant as listening to a David Hasselhoff Christmas album on repeat. John Kerry sounded like a reanimated corpse, and Al Gore, before he found religion (mother earth), was stiffer and more robotic than Optimus Prime, without the ability to transform into a semi-truck. John Edwards can charm the wallpaper off of a Carolina living room, but his folksy routine doesn't work on television; it comes off hollow and tends to irritate Northerners. Howard Dean had the opposite effect, he spoke of the South like they were an alien race and he had a forced smile that made people nervous, and had Iowans locking their doors at night. Mitt Romney has a tone of desperation, and even McCain, who once had honesty on his side now sounds old and weary. Listening to Hillary Clinton's oration is like being stabbed with spoon, it hurts so much and you wish it would just puncture the skin so you could feel something other than sheer discomfort. Then there was George Bush, who was a master at schmoozing with the common people, but when you put him in front of a microphone he had about as much confidence as an 8th grader with dental headgear giving a pep talk at the school homecoming rally.
So why doesn't Obama sound like a phony? How come he can say the same thing as the other candidates and seem authentic. How can a man run for the Presidency of the United States and somehow appear humble? What makes Obama the smoothest most natural politician in a generation. I'm not sure but I think it's his voice.
Barack Obama may actually be . . . (pause for effect) . . . cool.
Politicians always seem to reek of ambition. They have a reputation as being self serving and arrogant. On the ladder of public loathing, politicians are barely a step up from America's least favorite professionals, lawyers. Listening to a political candidate speak is about as pleasant as listening to a David Hasselhoff Christmas album on repeat. John Kerry sounded like a reanimated corpse, and Al Gore, before he found religion (mother earth), was stiffer and more robotic than Optimus Prime, without the ability to transform into a semi-truck. John Edwards can charm the wallpaper off of a Carolina living room, but his folksy routine doesn't work on television; it comes off hollow and tends to irritate Northerners. Howard Dean had the opposite effect, he spoke of the South like they were an alien race and he had a forced smile that made people nervous, and had Iowans locking their doors at night. Mitt Romney has a tone of desperation, and even McCain, who once had honesty on his side now sounds old and weary. Listening to Hillary Clinton's oration is like being stabbed with spoon, it hurts so much and you wish it would just puncture the skin so you could feel something other than sheer discomfort. Then there was George Bush, who was a master at schmoozing with the common people, but when you put him in front of a microphone he had about as much confidence as an 8th grader with dental headgear giving a pep talk at the school homecoming rally.
So why doesn't Obama sound like a phony? How come he can say the same thing as the other candidates and seem authentic. How can a man run for the Presidency of the United States and somehow appear humble? What makes Obama the smoothest most natural politician in a generation. I'm not sure but I think it's his voice.
Friday, January 4, 2008
Results - Democrats
Barack Obama – 38%
John Edwards – 30%
Hilary Clinton – 29%
Bill Richardson – 2%
Results – Republicans
Mike Huckabee – 34%
Mitt Romney – 25%
Fred Thompson – 13%
John McCain – 13%
Winners
1 – Mike Huckabee: He and Obama's winning margins were just about even, but the Huck won this after being outspent about 10 – 1. Huckabee did a very nice pivot with his speech tonight, focusing on economic issues, mentioning Jesus only once and generally positioning himself for South Carolina. He needs to ride this bounce, pick up money and build a quick ground game in SC and the February 5 states. New Hampshire will be difficult for the Huck, but he should get at least some name improvement after this very impressive win.
2 - Barack Obama: While this is nowhere near the a killing blow, Obama did serious damage to Hilary Clinton and showed he can focus his rock-star status into real results. The vaunted youth vote, proclaimed a big deal in every election since 1972, actually showed up in Iowa. Add his gorgeous acceptance speech, his ability to grow the party, and he looks like the new frontrunner.
3 - John Edwards: While he should have won this thing with the sheer amounts of time and effort spent in Iowa, his second-place finish gives him reason to continue his campaign. Edwards' palpable anger resonates with the Democratic base, especially the netroots. It will be interesting to see how much and how often he attacks Obama. He was effective in attacking Clinton, and could do damage.
4 – The Democratic Party: The turnout for Iowa was an astonishing 239,000. In 2004, turnout was 125,00. The Republicans managed 120,00 this year. And don't listen to those who claim that this was a turnout based on independents and Republicans, according to exit polls, 76% of Democratic caucus-goers identified as Democrats. In 2004 that number was 79%. This is just a larger, more energized party than it was before. Iowa is a nominal red state, won by George W. Bush in 2004.
5 - The Democratic Party: No, this is not a misprint. According to entrance polls, the Democrats have
successfully positioned themselves as the mainstream, centrist party. From Andrew Sullivan:
The “Very Conservative” and “Very Liberal” numbers are striking. The GOP has painted itself as a borderline-extremist party, the Dems have done the opposite, and have done so running to the left of 2000 and 2004. Sully blames Rove and Bush for this, and I think he's right.
6 – Outsiders: Obama and Huckabee are not really supported by the mainstream machinery of their respective parties. For Obama, the Clintons still have a hold on the party. For Huckabee, large swathes of the GOP (basically anybody not an evangelical) actively loathes him. This is a good thing for American politics.
Losers
1 – Mitt Romney: Ouch... this has to hurt. Romney spent massive amounts of money (approximately $100 million total) and ended up getting whipped by a guy who was, let's face it, a nobody until about two weeks ago. The Mittronic 2000 has to win New Hampshire now, or he's toast.
2 – Hilary Clinton: Ooops... Clinton's campaign featured the ugly scent of entitlement, and that has to disappear if she expects to get anywhere. About 48 hours prior to the caucus it become obvious that things weren't going her way, and her people began to furiously backspin away, with Tom Vilsack stating that a strong third would prove Hilary's candadicy. No, it didn't. As the Mrs. Frinklin stated during her concession, “She looks so pissed-off.” She did, and the aging luminaries around her looked shell-shocked. It was an awful, robotic speech too.
3 – The GOP: Okay, so turnout was less than half of that of the opposition. The winner is actively disliked by large portions of the party, the chosen candidate of the party insiders is in shambles, Fred Thompson could dropping out as soon as yesterday, and John McCain (another guy everybody in the party hates) is probably the best candidate in the general election left. Have fun kids!
4 – Chris Dodd and Joe Biden: Well, we hardly knew them did we? Dodd and Biden, both northeastern liberals with sterling resumes, never get an inch of traction and sunk beneath the waves. Yeah, I know I mixed metaphors. Both will be considered for cabinet posts in a possible Democratic administration, and it will be interesting to see who, if anybody, either man endorses. Biden in particular, would make an excellent VP candidate for Obama.
5 – Tom Vilsack: Speaking of VP possibles.. the likable former governor of Iowa ended his own presidential campaign before it started and became one of Hilary's most active surrogates. It didn't take a genius to realize that Vilsack was angling for Hilary's VP slot. Well, getting your candidate waxed in your home state really doesn't help that, now does it?
6 – Rudy Giuliani: Mr. 9/11 finished sixth. I know he pulled out and is concentrating on the February 5th states, but c'mon. Sixth?
What Comes Next?
Obama makes the transition from insurgent to frontrunner, and he will be the story for the next 48 – 72 hours. His story is just too damn good to pass up. Clinton will have to go negative, which is far more acceptable in New Hampshire then in Iowa, and Edwards will hope to edge into second to keep his candidacy alive. The last man standing amongst the Democratic second-tier is Bill Richardson, who may have made a deal with Obama in Iowa, and again could be angling for VP or cabinet post. This has to scare Clinton a bit, he could do serious damage in the debate.
For the GOP, this is now a single elimination tournament for McCain and Romney. One of these two will win New Hampshire and become the anti-Huck. The other goes home with no parting gifts. Huckabee has show something in New Hampshire, and move forward to Michigan and South Carolina, two places where his populist economic message (Michigan) and his Pro-Jesusness (SC) will serve him well. He's still got a ways to go to become a national candidate, but the deck is clearing a bit. Rudy is... well hell, Rudy's dead and he just doesn't know it yet.
Barack Obama – 38%
John Edwards – 30%
Hilary Clinton – 29%
Bill Richardson – 2%
Results – Republicans
Mike Huckabee – 34%
Mitt Romney – 25%
Fred Thompson – 13%
John McCain – 13%
Winners
1 – Mike Huckabee: He and Obama's winning margins were just about even, but the Huck won this after being outspent about 10 – 1. Huckabee did a very nice pivot with his speech tonight, focusing on economic issues, mentioning Jesus only once and generally positioning himself for South Carolina. He needs to ride this bounce, pick up money and build a quick ground game in SC and the February 5 states. New Hampshire will be difficult for the Huck, but he should get at least some name improvement after this very impressive win.
2 - Barack Obama: While this is nowhere near the a killing blow, Obama did serious damage to Hilary Clinton and showed he can focus his rock-star status into real results. The vaunted youth vote, proclaimed a big deal in every election since 1972, actually showed up in Iowa. Add his gorgeous acceptance speech, his ability to grow the party, and he looks like the new frontrunner.
3 - John Edwards: While he should have won this thing with the sheer amounts of time and effort spent in Iowa, his second-place finish gives him reason to continue his campaign. Edwards' palpable anger resonates with the Democratic base, especially the netroots. It will be interesting to see how much and how often he attacks Obama. He was effective in attacking Clinton, and could do damage.
4 – The Democratic Party: The turnout for Iowa was an astonishing 239,000. In 2004, turnout was 125,00. The Republicans managed 120,00 this year. And don't listen to those who claim that this was a turnout based on independents and Republicans, according to exit polls, 76% of Democratic caucus-goers identified as Democrats. In 2004 that number was 79%. This is just a larger, more energized party than it was before. Iowa is a nominal red state, won by George W. Bush in 2004.
5 - The Democratic Party: No, this is not a misprint. According to entrance polls, the Democrats have
successfully positioned themselves as the mainstream, centrist party. From Andrew Sullivan:
Now look at how the caucus-goers defined themselves in the entrance polls. Among the Dems: Very Liberal: 18 percent; Somewhat Liberal: 36 percent; Moderate: 40 percent; Conservative: 6 percent. Now check out the Republicans: Very Conservative: 45 percent; Somewhat Conservative: 43 percent; Moderate: 11 percent; Liberal: 1 percent.
The “Very Conservative” and “Very Liberal” numbers are striking. The GOP has painted itself as a borderline-extremist party, the Dems have done the opposite, and have done so running to the left of 2000 and 2004. Sully blames Rove and Bush for this, and I think he's right.
6 – Outsiders: Obama and Huckabee are not really supported by the mainstream machinery of their respective parties. For Obama, the Clintons still have a hold on the party. For Huckabee, large swathes of the GOP (basically anybody not an evangelical) actively loathes him. This is a good thing for American politics.
Losers
1 – Mitt Romney: Ouch... this has to hurt. Romney spent massive amounts of money (approximately $100 million total) and ended up getting whipped by a guy who was, let's face it, a nobody until about two weeks ago. The Mittronic 2000 has to win New Hampshire now, or he's toast.
2 – Hilary Clinton: Ooops... Clinton's campaign featured the ugly scent of entitlement, and that has to disappear if she expects to get anywhere. About 48 hours prior to the caucus it become obvious that things weren't going her way, and her people began to furiously backspin away, with Tom Vilsack stating that a strong third would prove Hilary's candadicy. No, it didn't. As the Mrs. Frinklin stated during her concession, “She looks so pissed-off.” She did, and the aging luminaries around her looked shell-shocked. It was an awful, robotic speech too.
3 – The GOP: Okay, so turnout was less than half of that of the opposition. The winner is actively disliked by large portions of the party, the chosen candidate of the party insiders is in shambles, Fred Thompson could dropping out as soon as yesterday, and John McCain (another guy everybody in the party hates) is probably the best candidate in the general election left. Have fun kids!
4 – Chris Dodd and Joe Biden: Well, we hardly knew them did we? Dodd and Biden, both northeastern liberals with sterling resumes, never get an inch of traction and sunk beneath the waves. Yeah, I know I mixed metaphors. Both will be considered for cabinet posts in a possible Democratic administration, and it will be interesting to see who, if anybody, either man endorses. Biden in particular, would make an excellent VP candidate for Obama.
5 – Tom Vilsack: Speaking of VP possibles.. the likable former governor of Iowa ended his own presidential campaign before it started and became one of Hilary's most active surrogates. It didn't take a genius to realize that Vilsack was angling for Hilary's VP slot. Well, getting your candidate waxed in your home state really doesn't help that, now does it?
6 – Rudy Giuliani: Mr. 9/11 finished sixth. I know he pulled out and is concentrating on the February 5th states, but c'mon. Sixth?
What Comes Next?
Obama makes the transition from insurgent to frontrunner, and he will be the story for the next 48 – 72 hours. His story is just too damn good to pass up. Clinton will have to go negative, which is far more acceptable in New Hampshire then in Iowa, and Edwards will hope to edge into second to keep his candidacy alive. The last man standing amongst the Democratic second-tier is Bill Richardson, who may have made a deal with Obama in Iowa, and again could be angling for VP or cabinet post. This has to scare Clinton a bit, he could do serious damage in the debate.
For the GOP, this is now a single elimination tournament for McCain and Romney. One of these two will win New Hampshire and become the anti-Huck. The other goes home with no parting gifts. Huckabee has show something in New Hampshire, and move forward to Michigan and South Carolina, two places where his populist economic message (Michigan) and his Pro-Jesusness (SC) will serve him well. He's still got a ways to go to become a national candidate, but the deck is clearing a bit. Rudy is... well hell, Rudy's dead and he just doesn't know it yet.
Thursday, January 3, 2008
OBAMA/HUCKABEE
Dateline: Dave Swidler's Basement!!
I'm blogging live in the middle of the caucus counting. No I'm not drunk, yet.
Well I'm eating crow with a delicious Mediterrean salad. Barack Hussein Obama is the projected winner of Iowa. Huckabee has won in Iowa as well.
Personally I'm backing Obama, so I'm delighted. I want Huckabee to win the GOP nomination, because it exposes the ridiculous dichotomy of the Republican base. It's amazing how the press has already written off Hillary, claiming that Super Tuesday may be her last stand.Uh, 200,000 farmers have had their voice heard.
Also, I'm gay.
Thanks, that was Dave Swidler, filling in for me as I made myself a delicious Kenyan Hawaiian style Kabob with a delicious Iraqi sauce to celebrate Obama's victory.
So the media is currently anointing Obama as the nominee. Which we all know is extremely premature. However they could be right. Every primary season we see the nominee is usually picked in the first few primaries. Why does the voting population get behind the one who wins early. Is it because they are sheep, and will blindly follow whoever looks like the early winner. Or does the media, once they've picked a favorite, make voters feel like losers for not getting behind the "obvious" front runner.
We're watching Edwards deliver his concession speech and everyone in this room hates this guy. Honestly I like how he speaks more frankly and specifically about issues than his competitors. Hillary and Barack often speak in giant sweeping generalizations "Are you ready to Change America!"
The corporate greed monster is going to bury you Edwards, thanks for trying though.
I'm blogging live in the middle of the caucus counting. No I'm not drunk, yet.
Well I'm eating crow with a delicious Mediterrean salad. Barack Hussein Obama is the projected winner of Iowa. Huckabee has won in Iowa as well.
Personally I'm backing Obama, so I'm delighted. I want Huckabee to win the GOP nomination, because it exposes the ridiculous dichotomy of the Republican base. It's amazing how the press has already written off Hillary, claiming that Super Tuesday may be her last stand.Uh, 200,000 farmers have had their voice heard.
Also, I'm gay.
Thanks, that was Dave Swidler, filling in for me as I made myself a delicious Kenyan Hawaiian style Kabob with a delicious Iraqi sauce to celebrate Obama's victory.
So the media is currently anointing Obama as the nominee. Which we all know is extremely premature. However they could be right. Every primary season we see the nominee is usually picked in the first few primaries. Why does the voting population get behind the one who wins early. Is it because they are sheep, and will blindly follow whoever looks like the early winner. Or does the media, once they've picked a favorite, make voters feel like losers for not getting behind the "obvious" front runner.
We're watching Edwards deliver his concession speech and everyone in this room hates this guy. Honestly I like how he speaks more frankly and specifically about issues than his competitors. Hillary and Barack often speak in giant sweeping generalizations "Are you ready to Change America!"
The corporate greed monster is going to bury you Edwards, thanks for trying though.
The Raucous Caucus
Okay, since my blogpartner has done the same, I'll give you some completely uniformed predictions about Iowa. The standard caveats apply. I have no idea what I'm talking about. Nobody else does in Iowa either.
Democrats
I've been pretty confident about calling this for Edwards, but I'm not so sure all of the sudden. The wind seems to have changed a bit and Obama seems to be closing strong. Or maybe he isn't, and Clinton is closing strong. Or maybe Edwards really IS going to take it. It's a crapshoot, and has been for months now. Edwards is the safest bet here, despite his lower national profile. He's basically lived in Iowa the past four years, made huge inroads with the traditional Dem power bases like the unions. The issue with John Edwards is what happens after Iowa. While he's more popular in New Hampshire then four years ago, he still lacks the money and base that his rivals have built. Clinton started with the most name recognition and is still the national frontrunner, but her Iowa machine has struggled. She counts former Governor Tom Vilsack amongst her most vociferous supporters (Tom is practically begging for the VP slot, lets be honest), and she has impressive supports amongst down strata dems, particularly non-college educated women. Obama is the only one here with any real transformative power. If the Des Moines Registrar is correct, and we see an influx of new voters, they will break for Obama. This is a risky strategy though; Iowa is very traditional and the caucus is difficult to break into. This nearly killed Howard Dean in 2004. Obama seems to be doing it the correct way though, focusing on Iowans, disregarding Dean's legions of outsiders. Obama is also helped by strength with “second-choicers”. Dennis Kucinich has already requested that his followers back Obama if he falls below the necessary 15% (and he will), and there are rumors that Biden and Richardson might do the same. Neither man has any particular love for Obama, but both have a better shot at the VP or Secretary of State jobs in an Obama administration than they do a Clinton Redux.
Predictions
1-Obama – 27%
2-Edwards – 24%
3-Clinton – 23%
4-Chris Dodd – 16%
This would be a huge win for Obama, a disappointment for Edwards and a manageable-but-difficult loss for Clinton. The issue with Hilary Clinton is her chilly relations with the press. The MSM might be all to happy to pile on Clinton, and call this a much bigger loss than it actually is. I think Dodd is the most likely lower-tier candidate to break through. He's earned much cred with the base for his fight against the Telecom bill.
Republicans
After soaring into the frontrunner spot, Mike Huckabee has, well, revealed himself to be... a bit of a moron. He's easily the nicest, most friendly Republican around, but damn... I would like a president who has a clue about where Pakistan is. Plus, this goofy “I'm going negative! No I'm not!” hat dance of the past week has damaged his standing with non-evangelical Republicans. There has been a turn away from the Huck the past couple days. Unfortunately for his main rival Mitt Romney, they haven't been turning to him. The Mitt, despite pouring vast amounts of money and time into Iowa, is still stuck in a duel with Huckabee, who's evangelical base won't go anywhere. There has been a surge toward John McCain, despite his spending minimal effort in Iowa. Throw in the expected end of Fred Thompson's campaign, and you have a bit of a mess.
Predictions
1-Huckabee – 29%
2-Romney – 24%
3-McCain – 18%
4-Ron Paul – 10%
The problem with Mike Huckabee is that he's basically a one-note candidate. He's had difficulty pushing past his evangelical base, and he lacks the money and structure to expand his support. Win Iowa, lose Iowa, this is his peak. And yes, I'm well aware this statement is now guaranteed to bite me in the ass. Romney – the most patently insincere man ever considered by either party – is in trouble with a second in Iowa. The massive amount of resources expended will give the press something to harp on, and not a good something for Mitt. The winner in this scenario is McCain, who scores a solid third without much work involved. Couple this with a surge in New Hampshire and he might become the frontrunner again.
Democrats
I've been pretty confident about calling this for Edwards, but I'm not so sure all of the sudden. The wind seems to have changed a bit and Obama seems to be closing strong. Or maybe he isn't, and Clinton is closing strong. Or maybe Edwards really IS going to take it. It's a crapshoot, and has been for months now. Edwards is the safest bet here, despite his lower national profile. He's basically lived in Iowa the past four years, made huge inroads with the traditional Dem power bases like the unions. The issue with John Edwards is what happens after Iowa. While he's more popular in New Hampshire then four years ago, he still lacks the money and base that his rivals have built. Clinton started with the most name recognition and is still the national frontrunner, but her Iowa machine has struggled. She counts former Governor Tom Vilsack amongst her most vociferous supporters (Tom is practically begging for the VP slot, lets be honest), and she has impressive supports amongst down strata dems, particularly non-college educated women. Obama is the only one here with any real transformative power. If the Des Moines Registrar is correct, and we see an influx of new voters, they will break for Obama. This is a risky strategy though; Iowa is very traditional and the caucus is difficult to break into. This nearly killed Howard Dean in 2004. Obama seems to be doing it the correct way though, focusing on Iowans, disregarding Dean's legions of outsiders. Obama is also helped by strength with “second-choicers”. Dennis Kucinich has already requested that his followers back Obama if he falls below the necessary 15% (and he will), and there are rumors that Biden and Richardson might do the same. Neither man has any particular love for Obama, but both have a better shot at the VP or Secretary of State jobs in an Obama administration than they do a Clinton Redux.
Predictions
1-Obama – 27%
2-Edwards – 24%
3-Clinton – 23%
4-Chris Dodd – 16%
This would be a huge win for Obama, a disappointment for Edwards and a manageable-but-difficult loss for Clinton. The issue with Hilary Clinton is her chilly relations with the press. The MSM might be all to happy to pile on Clinton, and call this a much bigger loss than it actually is. I think Dodd is the most likely lower-tier candidate to break through. He's earned much cred with the base for his fight against the Telecom bill.
Republicans
After soaring into the frontrunner spot, Mike Huckabee has, well, revealed himself to be... a bit of a moron. He's easily the nicest, most friendly Republican around, but damn... I would like a president who has a clue about where Pakistan is. Plus, this goofy “I'm going negative! No I'm not!” hat dance of the past week has damaged his standing with non-evangelical Republicans. There has been a turn away from the Huck the past couple days. Unfortunately for his main rival Mitt Romney, they haven't been turning to him. The Mitt, despite pouring vast amounts of money and time into Iowa, is still stuck in a duel with Huckabee, who's evangelical base won't go anywhere. There has been a surge toward John McCain, despite his spending minimal effort in Iowa. Throw in the expected end of Fred Thompson's campaign, and you have a bit of a mess.
Predictions
1-Huckabee – 29%
2-Romney – 24%
3-McCain – 18%
4-Ron Paul – 10%
The problem with Mike Huckabee is that he's basically a one-note candidate. He's had difficulty pushing past his evangelical base, and he lacks the money and structure to expand his support. Win Iowa, lose Iowa, this is his peak. And yes, I'm well aware this statement is now guaranteed to bite me in the ass. Romney – the most patently insincere man ever considered by either party – is in trouble with a second in Iowa. The massive amount of resources expended will give the press something to harp on, and not a good something for Mitt. The winner in this scenario is McCain, who scores a solid third without much work involved. Couple this with a surge in New Hampshire and he might become the frontrunner again.
Wednesday, January 2, 2008
Oh yeah, about tomorrow
The Iowa caucus is tomorrow, kicking off the 2008 campaign in fine, completely non-democratic style. For those unaware, this is nothing like a primary, where you vote in private, by secret ballot and everyone's ballot counts the same. In a caucus, your required to spend up to several hours arguing your point, moving into designated parts of the room to show your support, and if your candidate falls under 15% in your district, you have to choose someone else. James Kirchick on this lunacy:
For an amazing, in-depth instructional check out all eight parts of this series by MyDD blogger desmoinesdem.
Yes, the fact that it takes eight parts is all you really need to know about the Iowa caucus
Of course the secret ballot -- fundamental to any democratic process -- is absent in the caucus, replaced by a bizarre, Midwestern public shaming ritual straight out of a Garrison Keillor novel, pretty much all that's needed to render the Iowa primary illegitimate
For an amazing, in-depth instructional check out all eight parts of this series by MyDD blogger desmoinesdem.
Yes, the fact that it takes eight parts is all you really need to know about the Iowa caucus
Tuesday, January 1, 2008
IOWA PREDICTIONS
Dems:
The winner in Iowa will be John Edwards by the slimmest of margins. I love to make sweeping generalizations about geographical areas, and the primaries are the perfect time to indulge my preconceived notions about midwesterners. The practicality that had Iowa dump Howard Dean in 2004 for being too prickly and Vermontish, will have them dumping Barack and Hillary for being too black and too female respectively. It's not that the good people of Iowa don't want to vote for a black man or a woman, they're just practical. Like me they share a prejudice against different parts of the country. They want a democratic nominee that can win it all, and they don't trust the South when it comes to Obama, and they don't expect anyone between the Mississippi river and California to vote for Hillary. I can't imagine a world where Hillary carries Nevada, and neither can the Buckeye state.
GOP:
Huckabee will win Iowa. The Evangelicals are determined to hold onto the power they've wielded for so long and they've proven themselves to be one of the most dedicated voting blocks in the country. Romney's an appealing candidate to many Republicans, but he won't be able to bring people in droves to town hall on a cold January evening the way Jesus can. The thing I'm waiting to see is if Ron Paul shows up on the radar screen at all.
I fully expect to be eating crow next week, but by then it'll be time for a new round of completely inaccurate and underinformed predictions.
The winner in Iowa will be John Edwards by the slimmest of margins. I love to make sweeping generalizations about geographical areas, and the primaries are the perfect time to indulge my preconceived notions about midwesterners. The practicality that had Iowa dump Howard Dean in 2004 for being too prickly and Vermontish, will have them dumping Barack and Hillary for being too black and too female respectively. It's not that the good people of Iowa don't want to vote for a black man or a woman, they're just practical. Like me they share a prejudice against different parts of the country. They want a democratic nominee that can win it all, and they don't trust the South when it comes to Obama, and they don't expect anyone between the Mississippi river and California to vote for Hillary. I can't imagine a world where Hillary carries Nevada, and neither can the Buckeye state.
GOP:
Huckabee will win Iowa. The Evangelicals are determined to hold onto the power they've wielded for so long and they've proven themselves to be one of the most dedicated voting blocks in the country. Romney's an appealing candidate to many Republicans, but he won't be able to bring people in droves to town hall on a cold January evening the way Jesus can. The thing I'm waiting to see is if Ron Paul shows up on the radar screen at all.
I fully expect to be eating crow next week, but by then it'll be time for a new round of completely inaccurate and underinformed predictions.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)