I'm wearing press passes from the various campaigns here in Vegas. The Obama one says "CHANGE WE CAN BELIEVE IN." The Clinton one reads "READY FOR CHANGE! READY TO LEAD!"
As frustrated as he is by the media's focus on those two, at his expense, John Edwards' probably says "I"ve Got Your !@#$% Change Right Here."
A few more humble suggestions:
Dennis Kucinich: "Change Begins In Outer Space"
Mike Gravel: "Change My Medication"
Rudy Giuliani: "9/11 Changed Me. Ask Me How" Runner-up: "Change Wives"
Mitt Romney: "Changing My Mind"
Mike Huckabee: "What Would Jesus Change?"
John McCain: "Change? At My Age?"
Ron Paul: "Change Planets"
Fred Thompson: "Change Channels - Law And Order Is On Somewhere"
Duncan Hunter: "Spare Change?"
Friday, January 18, 2008
Thursday, January 17, 2008
Live From Sin City
There's something strange about seeing a devout Mormon race around Las Vegas, pleading with gamblers, smokers, drinkers and other assorted sinners for their votes.
But then that's politics for ya.
Mitt Romney, who was not supposed to be here right now, has suddenly appeared in the desert, and enjoyed himself so much today, he's going to spend the next three days here, running hard in Nevada's Republican caucus. That means one of two things: either he's got South Carolina in the bag, and can afford to turn his attention to the Silver State...or he's giving up on South Carolina, and conceding it to John McCain or Mike Huckabee. I think it's the latter, so Romney has decided to go for broke in Nevada, which until today, the Republicans weren't taking very seriously. You can understand the strategy in Romney's camp: okay, we're not going to win in the Carolinas, so let's get out to Nevada and make a big deal out of winning there.
This is indeed fertile ground for Romney. Las Vegas was first settled by Mormons (did you know "las vegas" means "the meadows"? I always wondered what it meant. Ah, the many blessings of the tourist guide book in my hotel room). Utah is right next door. And Nevada's most powerful politician, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, is a Mormon, albeit a liberal Democrat. Nevadans in general may be a little too liberal for Romney, but he only needs 30% of their Republicans, or so, to win.
Look out for Ron Paul, though. He's the only other candidate running ads here, and the Area 51 Nevada fringe element may embrace his libertarian point of view.
It's surreal to be in Vegas on serious business at all, with its relentless glitz and 24-hour debauchery. I encountered a rowdy gang of hard-partying Republican businessmen on holiday, who were drunkenly arguing over who should get their vote. They seemed to be split between Fred Thompson and Ron Paul, and were debating who the truest conservatives were. Their political intercourse didn't seem to dovetail with the other kind they were seeking.
This town is lousy with Democratic candidates. I think there are six different permanent Cirque du Soleil shows running here, and I'll bet the Barack and Hillary Show puts on more performances tonight. Obama, Clinton and John Edwards are simply everywhere. From here to Reno, from Elko to Henderson to Boulder City, they are racing about, holding rallies, town halls and get-out-the-vote cheerleading parties. Hillary has a rally in Vegas at 9 in the morning tomorrow, and then another one back here at 9 at night. She has three more in other cities in between.
Obama took his wife Michelle out for a birthday dinner after tonight's rally. He wouldn't say where they were eating. Tomorrow night, he'll eat at a Martin Luther King Jr. dinner. His local headquarters is on MLK Boulevard. And no, Hillary's is NOT on LBJ Street.
The next two days will be a marathon, for the candidates, the voters, and for me, too. We'll be up and at 'em bright and early, and will blog as much as possible until we know the winners sometime Saturday afternoon...
But then that's politics for ya.
Mitt Romney, who was not supposed to be here right now, has suddenly appeared in the desert, and enjoyed himself so much today, he's going to spend the next three days here, running hard in Nevada's Republican caucus. That means one of two things: either he's got South Carolina in the bag, and can afford to turn his attention to the Silver State...or he's giving up on South Carolina, and conceding it to John McCain or Mike Huckabee. I think it's the latter, so Romney has decided to go for broke in Nevada, which until today, the Republicans weren't taking very seriously. You can understand the strategy in Romney's camp: okay, we're not going to win in the Carolinas, so let's get out to Nevada and make a big deal out of winning there.
This is indeed fertile ground for Romney. Las Vegas was first settled by Mormons (did you know "las vegas" means "the meadows"? I always wondered what it meant. Ah, the many blessings of the tourist guide book in my hotel room). Utah is right next door. And Nevada's most powerful politician, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, is a Mormon, albeit a liberal Democrat. Nevadans in general may be a little too liberal for Romney, but he only needs 30% of their Republicans, or so, to win.
Look out for Ron Paul, though. He's the only other candidate running ads here, and the Area 51 Nevada fringe element may embrace his libertarian point of view.
It's surreal to be in Vegas on serious business at all, with its relentless glitz and 24-hour debauchery. I encountered a rowdy gang of hard-partying Republican businessmen on holiday, who were drunkenly arguing over who should get their vote. They seemed to be split between Fred Thompson and Ron Paul, and were debating who the truest conservatives were. Their political intercourse didn't seem to dovetail with the other kind they were seeking.
This town is lousy with Democratic candidates. I think there are six different permanent Cirque du Soleil shows running here, and I'll bet the Barack and Hillary Show puts on more performances tonight. Obama, Clinton and John Edwards are simply everywhere. From here to Reno, from Elko to Henderson to Boulder City, they are racing about, holding rallies, town halls and get-out-the-vote cheerleading parties. Hillary has a rally in Vegas at 9 in the morning tomorrow, and then another one back here at 9 at night. She has three more in other cities in between.
Obama took his wife Michelle out for a birthday dinner after tonight's rally. He wouldn't say where they were eating. Tomorrow night, he'll eat at a Martin Luther King Jr. dinner. His local headquarters is on MLK Boulevard. And no, Hillary's is NOT on LBJ Street.
The next two days will be a marathon, for the candidates, the voters, and for me, too. We'll be up and at 'em bright and early, and will blog as much as possible until we know the winners sometime Saturday afternoon...
Wednesday, January 9, 2008
You Go, Girl
I was all set to call this post "You Gone, Girl" -- that is, if Hillary Clinton had lost New Hampshire. But she didn't.
I will proudly point you to last Tuesday's post, where I boldly predicted that the winners in New Hampshire would be Hillary Clinton and John McCain (you can ignore Monday's post, when I hedged my bets by saying okay, maybe Obama would beat Hillary in New Hampshire after all). But I have to admit, I am as stunned as anyone that Clinton derailed the Big O Mo' Mentum Express last night (I think the New York Post headline should be: "NO MO' O-MENTUM")
Here are the final vote totals from the Granite State:
DEMOCRATS
Hillary Clinton 39%
Barack Obama 37%
John Edwards 17%
Bill Richardson 5%
REPUBLICANS
John McCain 37%
Mitt Romney 32%
Mike Huckabee 11%
Rudy Giuliani 9%
Ron Paul 8%
Fred Thompson 1%
By the way, I am a little miffed at all those networks - including my own - which keep saying things like "a surprisingly easy win for McCain" and "it wasn't even close, McCain coasted to victory." Five points is pretty damn close in my book.
Anyway, how did Hillary do it?
Well, there are some conspiracists out there who think there may have been some hanky-panky with the Diebold machines in New Hampshire, but I see some pretty logical explanations in the exit polling data, which by the way, look far more accurate than all the polls leading up to the primary. CBS is part of the Exit Polling Consortium (along with the AP and the other big nets), so I get the data emailed to me, and the numbers are pretty consistent with the actual results.
Four factors leap out at me: women, youth, first-timers, and independents.
In Iowa, Obama surprised Hillary by taking 35% of the female voters, to 30% for Clinton. In retrospect, that shouldn't be so surprising. Did you know Iowa is one of only two states that has never elected a woman as governor or U.S. Senator? (Mississippi, that bastion of enlightenment, being the other - although it did produce my hero, Brett Favre, so it can't be all bad). But in New Hampshire, which often elects women to higher office, there was a huge turnout of women. Fifty-seven percent of the people who voted in the Democratic primary were women - and they broke for Hillary, 46% to 34%. The folks at Emily's List, who mounted a last-minute, full court press to get those women to the polls, must be turning cartwheels.
I asked campaign strategists for both Obama and Clinton this week, whether Obama would be able to replicate the huge youth turnout in New Hampshire, and beyond. They all thought he would. I have to tell you, I have met many young, enthusiastic Obama-niks in California, who spent their Christmas break in Iowa volunteering for his campaign. Very few of them continued on to New Hampshire. Either it was too far, or they had to get back to school or work. Coincidence or not, Obama did NOT get the young turnout in NH that he got in Iowa. There were far fewer young voters, far fewer first-timers, and those were the people who put Obama over the top in the Hawkeye Cauci.
Finally, in New Hampshire, independents can decide on Election Day to vote in either the Democratic or Republican primary (out here in California, independents are only able to vote in the Demo primary; the state Republican Party does not allow them). And they had two very appealing choices: one-time maverick, indy darling John McCain - or enchanting newbie Barack Obama. So, unlike Iowa, where Obama had the lion's share of the independents all to himself, he had to share them with McCain in New Hampshire. Obama did very well with the independents, but he lost enough of them to McCain to make a difference. One of the reasons some pundits thought McCain might lose to Romney, is that they theorized Obama would drain away the independent voters he needed to win. But he didn't. Hence, McCain DID win...and Obama didn't.
One other thing I notice in the exit polling: 56% of the people who voted for Hillary Clinton say they would rather vote for her husband! If Bill had been on the ballot, he would have beaten her, too.
Hillary's teary-eyed sprint to the finish may have helped put her over the top, too. Real or not, it humanized her a bit, especially in the eyes of women. Many male voters reacted cynically to her show of emotion, but women seem to have found it genuine and appealing, and they showed their empathy by marking their ballot for her.
All of this fuss is over a paltry number of delegates: Obama and Clinton picked up nine more each in New Hampshire, and McCain got seven to Romney's four. By contrast, there are almost 500 at stake in California's February 5 primary. But again, this is about momentum, perception, energy, all far more valuable than that handful of delegates - they translate into money, volunteers, and votes in the bigger states that lie ahead.
Why were all the polls - even the Clinton campaign's own internal tracking polls - so wrong? Well, New Hampshire voters have a history of confounding the pollsters. I studied polling in both high school and college, and the Live Free or Die state is a notoriously difficult place to run a survey. People there really are fiercely independent - registered independents outnumber both Democrats and Republicans. There have been election upsets for years in New Hampshire- remember Eugene McCarthy's stunningly close second place in 1968, forcing LBJ out of the race? How about the past primary victories by John McCain and Pat Buchanan? Harold Stassen's shocker over Tom Dewey? (Okay, that's going WAY back). But voters there aren't always that forthcoming with the survey-takers, they often don't make up their minds until the end, and there's also the race factor to consider. Just as with Tom Bradley's gubernatorial losses here in California in the 1980s, the voters may simply have said publicly that they would back Obama - but then decided not to, in the privacy of the voting booth, something that wasn't available to them in the very public Iowa caucus meetings. And actually, if you look at the percentages, the only thing that was way off, was Hillary's vote total, which can be explained by that record turnout of women.
I'm kind of glad we still have such wide-open races on both sides. I can't remember a campaign like this, and I've been following presidential politics since 1972. This makes it fun, and interesting, especially for a reporter, and it guarantees continued voter engagement, at least for another month. That means the candidates will have to start answering more of our questions, and provide more details on their ideas and proposals. I know the Republicans want to see the Democrats beat each other up in a protracted fistfight, and the Democrats love the idea of the GOP contenders bleeding each other dry. But I don't want the nominations to be decided before I even get to vote next month.
That would be a crying shame.
I will proudly point you to last Tuesday's post, where I boldly predicted that the winners in New Hampshire would be Hillary Clinton and John McCain (you can ignore Monday's post, when I hedged my bets by saying okay, maybe Obama would beat Hillary in New Hampshire after all). But I have to admit, I am as stunned as anyone that Clinton derailed the Big O Mo' Mentum Express last night (I think the New York Post headline should be: "NO MO' O-MENTUM")
Here are the final vote totals from the Granite State:
DEMOCRATS
Hillary Clinton 39%
Barack Obama 37%
John Edwards 17%
Bill Richardson 5%
REPUBLICANS
John McCain 37%
Mitt Romney 32%
Mike Huckabee 11%
Rudy Giuliani 9%
Ron Paul 8%
Fred Thompson 1%
By the way, I am a little miffed at all those networks - including my own - which keep saying things like "a surprisingly easy win for McCain" and "it wasn't even close, McCain coasted to victory." Five points is pretty damn close in my book.
Anyway, how did Hillary do it?
Well, there are some conspiracists out there who think there may have been some hanky-panky with the Diebold machines in New Hampshire, but I see some pretty logical explanations in the exit polling data, which by the way, look far more accurate than all the polls leading up to the primary. CBS is part of the Exit Polling Consortium (along with the AP and the other big nets), so I get the data emailed to me, and the numbers are pretty consistent with the actual results.
Four factors leap out at me: women, youth, first-timers, and independents.
In Iowa, Obama surprised Hillary by taking 35% of the female voters, to 30% for Clinton. In retrospect, that shouldn't be so surprising. Did you know Iowa is one of only two states that has never elected a woman as governor or U.S. Senator? (Mississippi, that bastion of enlightenment, being the other - although it did produce my hero, Brett Favre, so it can't be all bad). But in New Hampshire, which often elects women to higher office, there was a huge turnout of women. Fifty-seven percent of the people who voted in the Democratic primary were women - and they broke for Hillary, 46% to 34%. The folks at Emily's List, who mounted a last-minute, full court press to get those women to the polls, must be turning cartwheels.
I asked campaign strategists for both Obama and Clinton this week, whether Obama would be able to replicate the huge youth turnout in New Hampshire, and beyond. They all thought he would. I have to tell you, I have met many young, enthusiastic Obama-niks in California, who spent their Christmas break in Iowa volunteering for his campaign. Very few of them continued on to New Hampshire. Either it was too far, or they had to get back to school or work. Coincidence or not, Obama did NOT get the young turnout in NH that he got in Iowa. There were far fewer young voters, far fewer first-timers, and those were the people who put Obama over the top in the Hawkeye Cauci.
Finally, in New Hampshire, independents can decide on Election Day to vote in either the Democratic or Republican primary (out here in California, independents are only able to vote in the Demo primary; the state Republican Party does not allow them). And they had two very appealing choices: one-time maverick, indy darling John McCain - or enchanting newbie Barack Obama. So, unlike Iowa, where Obama had the lion's share of the independents all to himself, he had to share them with McCain in New Hampshire. Obama did very well with the independents, but he lost enough of them to McCain to make a difference. One of the reasons some pundits thought McCain might lose to Romney, is that they theorized Obama would drain away the independent voters he needed to win. But he didn't. Hence, McCain DID win...and Obama didn't.
One other thing I notice in the exit polling: 56% of the people who voted for Hillary Clinton say they would rather vote for her husband! If Bill had been on the ballot, he would have beaten her, too.
Hillary's teary-eyed sprint to the finish may have helped put her over the top, too. Real or not, it humanized her a bit, especially in the eyes of women. Many male voters reacted cynically to her show of emotion, but women seem to have found it genuine and appealing, and they showed their empathy by marking their ballot for her.
All of this fuss is over a paltry number of delegates: Obama and Clinton picked up nine more each in New Hampshire, and McCain got seven to Romney's four. By contrast, there are almost 500 at stake in California's February 5 primary. But again, this is about momentum, perception, energy, all far more valuable than that handful of delegates - they translate into money, volunteers, and votes in the bigger states that lie ahead.
Why were all the polls - even the Clinton campaign's own internal tracking polls - so wrong? Well, New Hampshire voters have a history of confounding the pollsters. I studied polling in both high school and college, and the Live Free or Die state is a notoriously difficult place to run a survey. People there really are fiercely independent - registered independents outnumber both Democrats and Republicans. There have been election upsets for years in New Hampshire- remember Eugene McCarthy's stunningly close second place in 1968, forcing LBJ out of the race? How about the past primary victories by John McCain and Pat Buchanan? Harold Stassen's shocker over Tom Dewey? (Okay, that's going WAY back). But voters there aren't always that forthcoming with the survey-takers, they often don't make up their minds until the end, and there's also the race factor to consider. Just as with Tom Bradley's gubernatorial losses here in California in the 1980s, the voters may simply have said publicly that they would back Obama - but then decided not to, in the privacy of the voting booth, something that wasn't available to them in the very public Iowa caucus meetings. And actually, if you look at the percentages, the only thing that was way off, was Hillary's vote total, which can be explained by that record turnout of women.
I'm kind of glad we still have such wide-open races on both sides. I can't remember a campaign like this, and I've been following presidential politics since 1972. This makes it fun, and interesting, especially for a reporter, and it guarantees continued voter engagement, at least for another month. That means the candidates will have to start answering more of our questions, and provide more details on their ideas and proposals. I know the Republicans want to see the Democrats beat each other up in a protracted fistfight, and the Democrats love the idea of the GOP contenders bleeding each other dry. But I don't want the nominations to be decided before I even get to vote next month.
That would be a crying shame.
Monday, January 7, 2008
Second Guess
Oops, I did it again.
No wait, that was for my Britney Spears blog.
Okay, so I was wrong about Iowa. As I wrote last week, it was a tough one to call. Actually, if I had just waited until Wednesday to write it, I would have predicted a Barack Obama victory. That's not 20-20 hindsight; all the tracking polls I read were clearly trending Obama's way by Wednesday, and even more so by Thursday morning. It was becoming apparent that the undecideds and the independents were breaking for Obama. But I had already made my call, two days before, and it didn't seem fair to log back on and change it. I stuck to my guns, and now I pay the price, absorbing the derision of my siblings, who ridicule my faulty prognostication abilities mercilessly. Hey, I never said I was Nostradamus.
So what really happened in Iowa? Well, in case our recent storms trapped you under a tree and you missed last Thursday's caucus, here are the final numbers:
DEMOCRATS
Barack Obama 38%
John Edwards 30%
Hillary Clinton 29%
(five other people who did really badly, 2% or less)
REPUBLICANS
Mike Huckabee 34%
Mitt Romney 25%
Fred Thompson 13%
John McCain 13%
Ron Paul 10%
Rudy Giuliani 3%
Duncan Hunter 0%
(and five people actually voted for Tom Tancredo. Not five percent; five PEOPLE).
According to all the entrance and exit polls, Obama won on the strength of a surge of young, first-time caucusgoers, benefiting from a record turnout. Fifty percent of the Democrats surveyed said they want change; only 20% are looking for experience. Obviously, that benefits a rookie Senator who's new and different, and hurts a veteran who's most associated with the politics of the last millennium (Remember Bill Clinton wanting to build "a bridge to the 21st century"? Note to Hillary: the bridge is out).
Only ten percent told the pollsters they care most about nominating someone who can beat the Republicans in November - and most of those people voted for John Edwards. Which I find interesting, because the Edwards voters often cite him as the most palatable candidate for middle America - a white, Southern male, just like the last THREE Democratic presidents (LBJ, Carter, Clinton). But the buzz I get from the Republican inner circle is that they view Edwards as eminently beatable, but are truly afraid of an Obama candidacy that galvanizes Americans across party lines and crushes the GOP in November like a pile of Barry Goldwater bobblehead dolls.
Iowa Republicans who were looking for a November winner voted mostly for Mitt Romney - but those who were looking for someone honest and trustworthy, who says what he really believes, and shares their values - voted for Mike Huckabee. I've been writing for months about Huckabee's likeability factor, and it showed up big in Iowa. It's playing well in New Hampshire too, though he doesn't have a big base of evangelicals to draw upon there. It may wear thin, though, if voters tire of Huckabee's affable-but-occasionally-lightweight shtick, and look a little more closely at some of the more controversial skeletons in his gubernatorial closet.
Hillary Clinton is still trying to mobilize female voters to help her come from behind in New Hampshire and rally in the next few states. Bad news, Senator: Obama beat you among women in Iowa, 35% to 30%. That's a shocker for the Clinton campaign. Obama even beat Johnny Labor (John Edwards) among union voters.
And Obama attracted vast numbers of independents and crossover Republicans like a human voter magnet, which also bodes very badly for the GOP if he wins the Democratic nomination. Yes, I know he's black; I've noticed. Yes, I know some of us think America is still too racist to actually elect a black president. Yes, I've heard the conspiracy theorists who say corporate America and the Powers That Be will never allow a young progressive of color to occupy the White House. Yes, I know only two U.S. Senators have ever been elected president. Yes, I know he's a northerner, and his middle name is Hussein, and (gasp!) he was raised abroad, in the world's largest Muslim nation, no less. This all means Obama will have even more to overcome than the typical Democratic nominee, but it doesn't mean he can't do it. Not if there's really a generational shift taking place in American politics, a true people's groundswell not seen since the likes of Bobby Kennedy.
Now let's see if Obama can handle the frontrunner's mantle (I think he can), if he can sustain his momentum (I think he will), and if he can roll from Iowa to the Democratic National Convention in Denver in August without a few stumbles and faux-pas (I doubt it; everyone falters at some point). Another note to Hillary: if you don't win in New Hampshire, You Gone, Girl. Hmm, maybe that's the name of my next post.
I'm sticking with my original New Hampshire prediction from last week: that John McCain wins the Republican primary there tomorrow. But yeah, I'm switching my forecast on the Democratic side. I think Obama beats Hillary in New Hampshire now. She'll have a better shot at beating him in Nevada next week, and we'll be reporting from there, covering the caucus in Las Vegas.
Given my recent track record, I'd better not place any bets while I'm there.
No wait, that was for my Britney Spears blog.
Okay, so I was wrong about Iowa. As I wrote last week, it was a tough one to call. Actually, if I had just waited until Wednesday to write it, I would have predicted a Barack Obama victory. That's not 20-20 hindsight; all the tracking polls I read were clearly trending Obama's way by Wednesday, and even more so by Thursday morning. It was becoming apparent that the undecideds and the independents were breaking for Obama. But I had already made my call, two days before, and it didn't seem fair to log back on and change it. I stuck to my guns, and now I pay the price, absorbing the derision of my siblings, who ridicule my faulty prognostication abilities mercilessly. Hey, I never said I was Nostradamus.
So what really happened in Iowa? Well, in case our recent storms trapped you under a tree and you missed last Thursday's caucus, here are the final numbers:
DEMOCRATS
Barack Obama 38%
John Edwards 30%
Hillary Clinton 29%
(five other people who did really badly, 2% or less)
REPUBLICANS
Mike Huckabee 34%
Mitt Romney 25%
Fred Thompson 13%
John McCain 13%
Ron Paul 10%
Rudy Giuliani 3%
Duncan Hunter 0%
(and five people actually voted for Tom Tancredo. Not five percent; five PEOPLE).
According to all the entrance and exit polls, Obama won on the strength of a surge of young, first-time caucusgoers, benefiting from a record turnout. Fifty percent of the Democrats surveyed said they want change; only 20% are looking for experience. Obviously, that benefits a rookie Senator who's new and different, and hurts a veteran who's most associated with the politics of the last millennium (Remember Bill Clinton wanting to build "a bridge to the 21st century"? Note to Hillary: the bridge is out).
Only ten percent told the pollsters they care most about nominating someone who can beat the Republicans in November - and most of those people voted for John Edwards. Which I find interesting, because the Edwards voters often cite him as the most palatable candidate for middle America - a white, Southern male, just like the last THREE Democratic presidents (LBJ, Carter, Clinton). But the buzz I get from the Republican inner circle is that they view Edwards as eminently beatable, but are truly afraid of an Obama candidacy that galvanizes Americans across party lines and crushes the GOP in November like a pile of Barry Goldwater bobblehead dolls.
Iowa Republicans who were looking for a November winner voted mostly for Mitt Romney - but those who were looking for someone honest and trustworthy, who says what he really believes, and shares their values - voted for Mike Huckabee. I've been writing for months about Huckabee's likeability factor, and it showed up big in Iowa. It's playing well in New Hampshire too, though he doesn't have a big base of evangelicals to draw upon there. It may wear thin, though, if voters tire of Huckabee's affable-but-occasionally-lightweight shtick, and look a little more closely at some of the more controversial skeletons in his gubernatorial closet.
Hillary Clinton is still trying to mobilize female voters to help her come from behind in New Hampshire and rally in the next few states. Bad news, Senator: Obama beat you among women in Iowa, 35% to 30%. That's a shocker for the Clinton campaign. Obama even beat Johnny Labor (John Edwards) among union voters.
And Obama attracted vast numbers of independents and crossover Republicans like a human voter magnet, which also bodes very badly for the GOP if he wins the Democratic nomination. Yes, I know he's black; I've noticed. Yes, I know some of us think America is still too racist to actually elect a black president. Yes, I've heard the conspiracy theorists who say corporate America and the Powers That Be will never allow a young progressive of color to occupy the White House. Yes, I know only two U.S. Senators have ever been elected president. Yes, I know he's a northerner, and his middle name is Hussein, and (gasp!) he was raised abroad, in the world's largest Muslim nation, no less. This all means Obama will have even more to overcome than the typical Democratic nominee, but it doesn't mean he can't do it. Not if there's really a generational shift taking place in American politics, a true people's groundswell not seen since the likes of Bobby Kennedy.
Now let's see if Obama can handle the frontrunner's mantle (I think he can), if he can sustain his momentum (I think he will), and if he can roll from Iowa to the Democratic National Convention in Denver in August without a few stumbles and faux-pas (I doubt it; everyone falters at some point). Another note to Hillary: if you don't win in New Hampshire, You Gone, Girl. Hmm, maybe that's the name of my next post.
I'm sticking with my original New Hampshire prediction from last week: that John McCain wins the Republican primary there tomorrow. But yeah, I'm switching my forecast on the Democratic side. I think Obama beats Hillary in New Hampshire now. She'll have a better shot at beating him in Nevada next week, and we'll be reporting from there, covering the caucus in Las Vegas.
Given my recent track record, I'd better not place any bets while I'm there.
Tuesday, January 1, 2008
Into the Great Wide Open
So it's finally here: 2008. Four years of speculation, two years of fundraising, one year of campaigning, and now we've actually reached our next presidential election year. The Permanent Campaign is about to give way to actual voting; slowly at first, then in great torrents of ballot-casting that should choose the Democratic and Republican nominees by Lincoln's Birthday (which happens to be mine, too).
And who will those nominees be? I'm proud to say I used to have a pretty good track record at picking them. Since January 1976, I have gone out on a very thin limb every four years, before the first primary or caucus, and published (or at least announced to my nerdiest friends) my predictions of the two parties' nominees. In '76, I gambled on Jimmy Carter, mainly because I was a big Allman Brothers fan, resisting my buddy Andy Borinstein's enthusiasm for Jerry Brown and my own soft spot for Mo Udall (he had "MO-mentum") and Birch Bayh (he was "BAYH-partisan"). I simply thought that in the aftermath of Watergate, the folksy peanut farmer routine might just work. On the GOP side, I decided President Jerry Ford would hold off the insurgency of Ronald Reagan. Okay, so I got lucky.
In 1980, it was easy: Carter and Reagan coasted to the nominations. Two for two.
1984 wasn't so tough either; Reagan ran essentially unopposed and Fritz Mondale was the obvious choice on the Democratic side (although you'd be surprised how many people miss the obvious when making these predictions. Gary Hart? John Glenn?? give me a break).
1988: The first race I covered as a reporter. Mario Cuomo told me to my face he wasn't going to run, so I tabbed his backup - Michael Dukakis. I figured a Greek-American liberal from Massachusetts was a reasonable replacement for an Italian-American liberal from New York. A lot of pundits (and my big sister) went with Dick Gephardt and Bob Dole, especially after they both won in Iowa, but I thought the Duke would take it, and I went with Vice President George Bush for the Republican nomination.
1992: Yes, I stuck with my original prediction of Bill Clinton, even after the Gennifer Flowers scandal broke; I'd had my eye on the Boy Wonder from Arkansas for a long time, and I figured his time had come. None of that Paul Tsongas or Tom Harkin stuff for me. President Bush's re-nomination was never in doubt, so that was easy.
1996: Again, it was an easy year: Clinton again, and this time, Bob Dole seemed a shoo-in for the GOP.
2000: Gore, natch, and George W. for the GOP; he'd been a lock for about a year before the primaries.
But the 21st Century is where it's all fallen apart for my fearless prognostications. In the 2000 general election, I predicted something crazy: that George W. Bush would win the popular vote, but that Al Gore would win the electoral vote, and the presidency. Whoever heard of such a thing? That happens once every century or so. But I went for it. I got it exactly backwards, of course. And then came 2004, when President Bush was an easily picked, unopposed GOP candidate...but the Democratic field was a MESS. As with Clinton, I had eyed John Kerry for the presidency for years, but when he finally ran, he blew it, with a wretchedly timid campaign. Howard Dean was my dark horse from the start that year, so when December 2003 rolled around, and Kerry was at 3% in the polls, and Dean was racking up dollars and supporters on that newfangled Internet thingy, I threw experience to the wind and picked Dean as the Democratic nominee. Ouch. We all know how Kerry surged out of Iowa, rolled into New Hampshire and locked up the top spot within a few days. Then, I predicted Kerry would beat Bush in the fall. Oops. Wrong again.
So, it is with great trepidation, no confidence at all, and no better shot than a blindfolded man throwing darts, that I make my annual predictions. I have no choice; I have to do it. But this exercise has gotten much more difficult than it used to be. Maybe my vision's getting fuzzier with middle age. I don't see this race clearly at all. It's quite close on both sides, and I think the general election will be another nailbiter, much like the last two, perhaps muddied further by a third-party independent candidacy (Mike Bloomberg? Ron Paul?).
So, again, who will the parties nominate for president? Let's run down our choices, two days before Iowa voters caucus. First, the easier one, the Democrats:
HILLARY CLINTON: The presumptive nominee for a year, with the highest name recognition, the best organization, the most money, the party establishment behind her - and the highest negative ratings, too. She's stumbled a bit down the December stretch, and has struggled to explain just how her "experience" makes her the smartest choice, but she remains the overall frontrunner.
BARACK OBAMA: He's gained momentum with a strong campaign in Iowa. Still a little vague on the stump, but his newness seems to have trumped his relative lack of government experience. He's successfully cast himself as the candidate of "change" - a campaign theme as old as the hills (remember Bill Clinton's "agent of change" campaign in '96?) - forcing his rivals to argue that THEY will better be able to actually effect change than the young Obama. Has the most passionate followers, but their numbers might not match their fervor.
JOHN EDWARDS: Edwards has put everything he's got into Iowa. If he loses there, he's toast. He's been campaigning there for eight years. He's running an angrier, feistier campaign this time but his one-note, anti-corporate schtick might not play that well with those mellow, corn-fed Iowans. The only way he gets the nomination is if he pulls off the upset in Iowa, rides a surge into New Hampshire, then rolls from there. That's asking a lot, I think. He does have a shot in Iowa if the Biden, Dodd and Richardson voters who aren't viable (a candidate needs 15% at each caucus or his/her supporters have to re-align with someone else) all end up in his corner.
JOE BIDEN, CHRIS DODD, BILL RICHARDSON, DENNIS KUCINICH, MIKE GRAVEL: The field. Forget it, folks. Of course, I would've lumped John Kerry into this group if I were writing this four years ago, so what do I know? But do you really think your 2008 Democratic nominee is coming from this bunch? Richardson could be Hillary's running mate if she gets the nomination, but I think she will also consider Wesley Clark and Bill Nelson.
Now, for the much tougher side - the Republicans. Damn, this is hard this year. They all have their flaws, making this the toughest nomination prediction I think I've ever had to make. I could go three different ways on this.
RUDY GIULIANI: Everyone's frontrunner but mine for most of 2007. I just have never seen how Rudy can win this thing. See my previous posts for the reasons why, but he's done nothing lately to change my mind. His "multi-state" strategy (which means he realizes he has no hope in the early states) just doesn't work. When was the last time someone won the nomination without winning either Iowa or New Hampshire? Well, Bill Clinton did it in 1992, but these states have grown in importance and it's a lot tougher to do now. Rudy will be completely forgotten while Huckabee, Romney and McCain get all the glory for their early state triumphs. By then, it will be too late for him.
MITT ROMNEY: I pegged Romney as my frontrunner last spring, but I think he's in real trouble now. He had the most money and the best field operation, which made up for his lack of national name recognition, but he doesn't come off as authentic on the stump, and that hurts him with voters who are looking for someone who at least SEEMS real. For the last two weeks, he's been lashing out savagely at Huckabee and McCain, as he watches his leads in Iowa and New Hampshire evaporate. There's a whiff of desperation about him all of a sudden. If he holds on and wins the first two states, he could yet be the nominee, but if he loses them both....
MIKE HUCKABEE: The December darling. Is he for real? Yes. Can he sustain the momentum, under greater media scrutiny and harsher attacks from his rivals? I'm not so sure. Will his Baptist conservative folksiness play outside Iowa? Again, tough to say. He does have the air of authenticity and likeability that can carry a modern presidential candidate a long way, but he has zero organization outside of the early states, which means he will have to parlay an Iowa upset into an extremely rapid infusion of donors and volunteers to capitalize in the two dozen states that vote on Super CaliTexIllistic Tuesday.
JOHN MCCAIN: The most interesting guy in the bunch. Now, McCain is starting to look like John Kerry four years ago: the early favorite who stumbles and is written off, only to recover on the strength of his foreign policy credentials. Kerry rode his opposition to the war in Iraq to a surprising win in Iowa. McCain could ride his sense of vindication over the apparent success of the surge in Iraq to a comeback win in New Hampshire. I would feel better about his chances if he were competing in Iowa; since he's not, he will have to overcome some early momentum for either Huckabee or Romney to get the nomination. McCain has the authenticity and a tremendous sense of honesty and integrity; he's also racking up endorsements from major, influential newspapers. He's less conservative than Huckabee, which appeals to everyone except the evangelicals; he's the most experienced candidate of all and can argue that the U.S. needs his steady hand right now. He's also wickedly funny. But he would be the oldest president ever, and doesn't have the money or organizational strength to compete with Romney right now, though those would presumably fall into place for him if he upsets Romney in his own backyard, New Hampshire.
FRED THOMPSON: Someone described him to me as a clumsy circus bear who can't stay on his feet. A soporific campaigner who can't generate any momentum. I don't see how he can win if he doesn't pull off some sort of magic act in Iowa or New Hampshire.
RON PAUL: He may surprise with a better-than-expected showing in the Granite State, and the passion of his followers could keep him in the race longer than he deserves. He's not a legitimate contender for the Republican nomination, but he could still emerge as a third-party, independent candidate (or even a fourth, if Bloomberg and his moderate brigade stage a rebellion of their own).
DUNCAN HUNTER, ALAN KEYES: Yeah, sure.
So where does this leave us? Did you really read this far? Is this the longest blog entry ever posted? Here, forthwith, are my bold and fearless predictions:
Hillary Clinton and Mike Huckabee win the Iowa caucuses....Hillary Clinton and John McCain win the New Hampshire primaries....and HILLARY CLINTON and JOHN MCCAIN win the presidential nominations.
Yes, McCain. Am I really typing his name? I still can't believe it, but the Republican race is so fraught with uncertainty that no one else makes sense to me right now. I will hedge my bets by saying that I did have Romney out in front all year, and that I picked Huckabee to emerge a couple months back...but when Rudy wins the nomination, I'll have no excuse and be unmasked as a fraudulent pundit.
I am not ready yet to predict who will win in November; we need to wait and see if there's a third, or fourth, party candidate (and if the Greens nominate Cynthia McKinney or Ralph Nader).
Now get out there and vote. Tune to KCBS for complete coverage of Iowa and New Hampshire, with much more frequent blogging in this space for the next month.
And who will those nominees be? I'm proud to say I used to have a pretty good track record at picking them. Since January 1976, I have gone out on a very thin limb every four years, before the first primary or caucus, and published (or at least announced to my nerdiest friends) my predictions of the two parties' nominees. In '76, I gambled on Jimmy Carter, mainly because I was a big Allman Brothers fan, resisting my buddy Andy Borinstein's enthusiasm for Jerry Brown and my own soft spot for Mo Udall (he had "MO-mentum") and Birch Bayh (he was "BAYH-partisan"). I simply thought that in the aftermath of Watergate, the folksy peanut farmer routine might just work. On the GOP side, I decided President Jerry Ford would hold off the insurgency of Ronald Reagan. Okay, so I got lucky.
In 1980, it was easy: Carter and Reagan coasted to the nominations. Two for two.
1984 wasn't so tough either; Reagan ran essentially unopposed and Fritz Mondale was the obvious choice on the Democratic side (although you'd be surprised how many people miss the obvious when making these predictions. Gary Hart? John Glenn?? give me a break).
1988: The first race I covered as a reporter. Mario Cuomo told me to my face he wasn't going to run, so I tabbed his backup - Michael Dukakis. I figured a Greek-American liberal from Massachusetts was a reasonable replacement for an Italian-American liberal from New York. A lot of pundits (and my big sister) went with Dick Gephardt and Bob Dole, especially after they both won in Iowa, but I thought the Duke would take it, and I went with Vice President George Bush for the Republican nomination.
1992: Yes, I stuck with my original prediction of Bill Clinton, even after the Gennifer Flowers scandal broke; I'd had my eye on the Boy Wonder from Arkansas for a long time, and I figured his time had come. None of that Paul Tsongas or Tom Harkin stuff for me. President Bush's re-nomination was never in doubt, so that was easy.
1996: Again, it was an easy year: Clinton again, and this time, Bob Dole seemed a shoo-in for the GOP.
2000: Gore, natch, and George W. for the GOP; he'd been a lock for about a year before the primaries.
But the 21st Century is where it's all fallen apart for my fearless prognostications. In the 2000 general election, I predicted something crazy: that George W. Bush would win the popular vote, but that Al Gore would win the electoral vote, and the presidency. Whoever heard of such a thing? That happens once every century or so. But I went for it. I got it exactly backwards, of course. And then came 2004, when President Bush was an easily picked, unopposed GOP candidate...but the Democratic field was a MESS. As with Clinton, I had eyed John Kerry for the presidency for years, but when he finally ran, he blew it, with a wretchedly timid campaign. Howard Dean was my dark horse from the start that year, so when December 2003 rolled around, and Kerry was at 3% in the polls, and Dean was racking up dollars and supporters on that newfangled Internet thingy, I threw experience to the wind and picked Dean as the Democratic nominee. Ouch. We all know how Kerry surged out of Iowa, rolled into New Hampshire and locked up the top spot within a few days. Then, I predicted Kerry would beat Bush in the fall. Oops. Wrong again.
So, it is with great trepidation, no confidence at all, and no better shot than a blindfolded man throwing darts, that I make my annual predictions. I have no choice; I have to do it. But this exercise has gotten much more difficult than it used to be. Maybe my vision's getting fuzzier with middle age. I don't see this race clearly at all. It's quite close on both sides, and I think the general election will be another nailbiter, much like the last two, perhaps muddied further by a third-party independent candidacy (Mike Bloomberg? Ron Paul?).
So, again, who will the parties nominate for president? Let's run down our choices, two days before Iowa voters caucus. First, the easier one, the Democrats:
HILLARY CLINTON: The presumptive nominee for a year, with the highest name recognition, the best organization, the most money, the party establishment behind her - and the highest negative ratings, too. She's stumbled a bit down the December stretch, and has struggled to explain just how her "experience" makes her the smartest choice, but she remains the overall frontrunner.
BARACK OBAMA: He's gained momentum with a strong campaign in Iowa. Still a little vague on the stump, but his newness seems to have trumped his relative lack of government experience. He's successfully cast himself as the candidate of "change" - a campaign theme as old as the hills (remember Bill Clinton's "agent of change" campaign in '96?) - forcing his rivals to argue that THEY will better be able to actually effect change than the young Obama. Has the most passionate followers, but their numbers might not match their fervor.
JOHN EDWARDS: Edwards has put everything he's got into Iowa. If he loses there, he's toast. He's been campaigning there for eight years. He's running an angrier, feistier campaign this time but his one-note, anti-corporate schtick might not play that well with those mellow, corn-fed Iowans. The only way he gets the nomination is if he pulls off the upset in Iowa, rides a surge into New Hampshire, then rolls from there. That's asking a lot, I think. He does have a shot in Iowa if the Biden, Dodd and Richardson voters who aren't viable (a candidate needs 15% at each caucus or his/her supporters have to re-align with someone else) all end up in his corner.
JOE BIDEN, CHRIS DODD, BILL RICHARDSON, DENNIS KUCINICH, MIKE GRAVEL: The field. Forget it, folks. Of course, I would've lumped John Kerry into this group if I were writing this four years ago, so what do I know? But do you really think your 2008 Democratic nominee is coming from this bunch? Richardson could be Hillary's running mate if she gets the nomination, but I think she will also consider Wesley Clark and Bill Nelson.
Now, for the much tougher side - the Republicans. Damn, this is hard this year. They all have their flaws, making this the toughest nomination prediction I think I've ever had to make. I could go three different ways on this.
RUDY GIULIANI: Everyone's frontrunner but mine for most of 2007. I just have never seen how Rudy can win this thing. See my previous posts for the reasons why, but he's done nothing lately to change my mind. His "multi-state" strategy (which means he realizes he has no hope in the early states) just doesn't work. When was the last time someone won the nomination without winning either Iowa or New Hampshire? Well, Bill Clinton did it in 1992, but these states have grown in importance and it's a lot tougher to do now. Rudy will be completely forgotten while Huckabee, Romney and McCain get all the glory for their early state triumphs. By then, it will be too late for him.
MITT ROMNEY: I pegged Romney as my frontrunner last spring, but I think he's in real trouble now. He had the most money and the best field operation, which made up for his lack of national name recognition, but he doesn't come off as authentic on the stump, and that hurts him with voters who are looking for someone who at least SEEMS real. For the last two weeks, he's been lashing out savagely at Huckabee and McCain, as he watches his leads in Iowa and New Hampshire evaporate. There's a whiff of desperation about him all of a sudden. If he holds on and wins the first two states, he could yet be the nominee, but if he loses them both....
MIKE HUCKABEE: The December darling. Is he for real? Yes. Can he sustain the momentum, under greater media scrutiny and harsher attacks from his rivals? I'm not so sure. Will his Baptist conservative folksiness play outside Iowa? Again, tough to say. He does have the air of authenticity and likeability that can carry a modern presidential candidate a long way, but he has zero organization outside of the early states, which means he will have to parlay an Iowa upset into an extremely rapid infusion of donors and volunteers to capitalize in the two dozen states that vote on Super CaliTexIllistic Tuesday.
JOHN MCCAIN: The most interesting guy in the bunch. Now, McCain is starting to look like John Kerry four years ago: the early favorite who stumbles and is written off, only to recover on the strength of his foreign policy credentials. Kerry rode his opposition to the war in Iraq to a surprising win in Iowa. McCain could ride his sense of vindication over the apparent success of the surge in Iraq to a comeback win in New Hampshire. I would feel better about his chances if he were competing in Iowa; since he's not, he will have to overcome some early momentum for either Huckabee or Romney to get the nomination. McCain has the authenticity and a tremendous sense of honesty and integrity; he's also racking up endorsements from major, influential newspapers. He's less conservative than Huckabee, which appeals to everyone except the evangelicals; he's the most experienced candidate of all and can argue that the U.S. needs his steady hand right now. He's also wickedly funny. But he would be the oldest president ever, and doesn't have the money or organizational strength to compete with Romney right now, though those would presumably fall into place for him if he upsets Romney in his own backyard, New Hampshire.
FRED THOMPSON: Someone described him to me as a clumsy circus bear who can't stay on his feet. A soporific campaigner who can't generate any momentum. I don't see how he can win if he doesn't pull off some sort of magic act in Iowa or New Hampshire.
RON PAUL: He may surprise with a better-than-expected showing in the Granite State, and the passion of his followers could keep him in the race longer than he deserves. He's not a legitimate contender for the Republican nomination, but he could still emerge as a third-party, independent candidate (or even a fourth, if Bloomberg and his moderate brigade stage a rebellion of their own).
DUNCAN HUNTER, ALAN KEYES: Yeah, sure.
So where does this leave us? Did you really read this far? Is this the longest blog entry ever posted? Here, forthwith, are my bold and fearless predictions:
Hillary Clinton and Mike Huckabee win the Iowa caucuses....Hillary Clinton and John McCain win the New Hampshire primaries....and HILLARY CLINTON and JOHN MCCAIN win the presidential nominations.
Yes, McCain. Am I really typing his name? I still can't believe it, but the Republican race is so fraught with uncertainty that no one else makes sense to me right now. I will hedge my bets by saying that I did have Romney out in front all year, and that I picked Huckabee to emerge a couple months back...but when Rudy wins the nomination, I'll have no excuse and be unmasked as a fraudulent pundit.
I am not ready yet to predict who will win in November; we need to wait and see if there's a third, or fourth, party candidate (and if the Greens nominate Cynthia McKinney or Ralph Nader).
Now get out there and vote. Tune to KCBS for complete coverage of Iowa and New Hampshire, with much more frequent blogging in this space for the next month.
Monday, December 3, 2007
SpongeBrain SmartyPants
Encouraging news: more than four million people watched the most recent Democratic presidential debate on CNN. Sobering news: that was only good enough for 14th place in the week's cable TV ratings. Ten of the Top 15 shows were episodes of "SpongeBob SquarePants" on Nickelodeon. Two others were WWE Raw wrestling shows. It's no surprise that more Americans would rather watch people in masks wrestle than see politicians wrestle with the truth. And having met Tom Kenny, the extremely funny guy who's the voice of SpongeBob, I have to admit he's far more entertaining than Dennis Kucinich. I'll take a SquarePants over a SmartyPants anyday.
Despite a whopping case of Debate Overload ("tonight, live from East Muscatine, Iowa, it's the Organic Bean Farmers Association's Vegan Voters Forum"), more and more people really are starting to tune in to this election, with only a month to go before primary and caucusgoers start casting ballots. And many of them are actually thinking for themselves, essentially ignoring the punditocracy. Most of America counts on Iowans and New Hampshire-ites (New Hampshireans?) to sort through the field and separate the wheat from the chaff, which is something farmers do better than the rest of us anyway. Have you ever actually seen chaff? I have a sneaking feeling it looks a lot like Mike Gravel. Typically, most Americans vote for the person they've heard of the most and believe will win, sort of like buying lunch at McDonald's and coffee at Starbuck's because they're familiar and you know what you're getting, even though the mom-and-pop cafe next door may grill a mean burger and brew a better latte.
But people in Iowa and New Hampshire take this process very seriously. They don't tend to care what the polls say. I'm mildly proud of the fact that I met every president from Carter to Clinton (they won't let me get closer than 20 feet or so to the current President Bush). But just about everyone in Dubuque, Iowa and Dover, NH has not only met every president since, say, Lyndon Johnson - they've also shaken hands and had coffee and talked at length with everyone who's even considered running for president in the last 40 years. They know how to measure their candidates, and unlike many in the media, they make up their own minds. I am always astonished by analysts and columnists who simply assume that the fall frontrunner is a shoo-in for the nomination. These are the people who gave you President Gephardt in 1992 and President Dean last time around. Nominations aren't won in August, or even November. We have all been told for six months that it will be Hillary Clinton vs. Rudy Giuliani in 2008. It may well be, but I don't believe it for a second. I've written here before about why I don't think Rudy can win the nomination, let alone the election. Hillary remains a formidable frontrunner, but don't dismiss Barack Obama or John Edwards just yet. And look what's happening in Iowa: someone forgot to tell the Hawkeye Cauci voters that they're expected to bring their "INEVITABLE" stamps with them on Caucus Night so they can ratify Rudy and Hill.
Now, given the sterling performances of our recent presidents, maybe it's a mistake to let Iowa and New Hampshire do the sorting for us. Iowa Democrats tend to be more liberal than the norm, and Iowa Republicans are more conservative, heavily influenced by the Christian right. That can give early momentum to candidates who may not be the best choice for the national party, in either case. The Democrats, in particular, might do better in November if a state like Michigan or Ohio wielded more early clout. But this year, it could mean a real shakeup for the conventional wisdom. Rudy Giuliani simply doesn't play well among Iowa Republicans, which is why he's invested less in the state, and has a truly national strategy that pins more hope on the February 5th super primary, than on the early, more conservative states. Rudy doesn't need to win Iowa or New Hampshire to remain viable, while all of his competitors, except maybe the deep-pocketed Mitt Romney, do. So it's likely that either Romney or surging Mike Huckabee will win in Iowa, which will vault one of them to the top of the field, and maybe, finally, rattle all those pundits who keep insisting Giuliani will be the nominee. Again, Rudy can survive two early losses, but if Huckabee, for example, suddenly starts raking in money, volunteers, free media coverage and some national buzz after some early upsets, he could take away an awful lot of February 5 delegates that Rudy's camp has already been counting in his column.
Meanwhile, Democrats in Iowa are warming to Obama, find him more likable and genuine than Hillary, and could knock her Inevitability Train right off the track. A recent AP-Yahoo survey found voters far more willing this year to vote for the candidate that impresses them the most, instead of the one they think will win, which bodes well for the underdogs and not so well for the frontrunners. They're not even basing their decision on the perennial "who would I rather have a beer with?" test - because last time, the answer to that question was George W. Bush, and we all know how that's worked out.
It's good to see voters resist the pack mentality. Fifty percent of those supporting Obama say they think Hillary will beat him - but they don't care. About a third of Edwards voters feel the same way. The only way America will elect more effective presidents is if we think for ourselves, and don't choose the leaders that we're force-fed. We can have cartoon heroes with spongy minds, but let's open our own, with critical thinking and tough questions, as we make these critical choices over the next two months.
Despite a whopping case of Debate Overload ("tonight, live from East Muscatine, Iowa, it's the Organic Bean Farmers Association's Vegan Voters Forum"), more and more people really are starting to tune in to this election, with only a month to go before primary and caucusgoers start casting ballots. And many of them are actually thinking for themselves, essentially ignoring the punditocracy. Most of America counts on Iowans and New Hampshire-ites (New Hampshireans?) to sort through the field and separate the wheat from the chaff, which is something farmers do better than the rest of us anyway. Have you ever actually seen chaff? I have a sneaking feeling it looks a lot like Mike Gravel. Typically, most Americans vote for the person they've heard of the most and believe will win, sort of like buying lunch at McDonald's and coffee at Starbuck's because they're familiar and you know what you're getting, even though the mom-and-pop cafe next door may grill a mean burger and brew a better latte.
But people in Iowa and New Hampshire take this process very seriously. They don't tend to care what the polls say. I'm mildly proud of the fact that I met every president from Carter to Clinton (they won't let me get closer than 20 feet or so to the current President Bush). But just about everyone in Dubuque, Iowa and Dover, NH has not only met every president since, say, Lyndon Johnson - they've also shaken hands and had coffee and talked at length with everyone who's even considered running for president in the last 40 years. They know how to measure their candidates, and unlike many in the media, they make up their own minds. I am always astonished by analysts and columnists who simply assume that the fall frontrunner is a shoo-in for the nomination. These are the people who gave you President Gephardt in 1992 and President Dean last time around. Nominations aren't won in August, or even November. We have all been told for six months that it will be Hillary Clinton vs. Rudy Giuliani in 2008. It may well be, but I don't believe it for a second. I've written here before about why I don't think Rudy can win the nomination, let alone the election. Hillary remains a formidable frontrunner, but don't dismiss Barack Obama or John Edwards just yet. And look what's happening in Iowa: someone forgot to tell the Hawkeye Cauci voters that they're expected to bring their "INEVITABLE" stamps with them on Caucus Night so they can ratify Rudy and Hill.
Now, given the sterling performances of our recent presidents, maybe it's a mistake to let Iowa and New Hampshire do the sorting for us. Iowa Democrats tend to be more liberal than the norm, and Iowa Republicans are more conservative, heavily influenced by the Christian right. That can give early momentum to candidates who may not be the best choice for the national party, in either case. The Democrats, in particular, might do better in November if a state like Michigan or Ohio wielded more early clout. But this year, it could mean a real shakeup for the conventional wisdom. Rudy Giuliani simply doesn't play well among Iowa Republicans, which is why he's invested less in the state, and has a truly national strategy that pins more hope on the February 5th super primary, than on the early, more conservative states. Rudy doesn't need to win Iowa or New Hampshire to remain viable, while all of his competitors, except maybe the deep-pocketed Mitt Romney, do. So it's likely that either Romney or surging Mike Huckabee will win in Iowa, which will vault one of them to the top of the field, and maybe, finally, rattle all those pundits who keep insisting Giuliani will be the nominee. Again, Rudy can survive two early losses, but if Huckabee, for example, suddenly starts raking in money, volunteers, free media coverage and some national buzz after some early upsets, he could take away an awful lot of February 5 delegates that Rudy's camp has already been counting in his column.
Meanwhile, Democrats in Iowa are warming to Obama, find him more likable and genuine than Hillary, and could knock her Inevitability Train right off the track. A recent AP-Yahoo survey found voters far more willing this year to vote for the candidate that impresses them the most, instead of the one they think will win, which bodes well for the underdogs and not so well for the frontrunners. They're not even basing their decision on the perennial "who would I rather have a beer with?" test - because last time, the answer to that question was George W. Bush, and we all know how that's worked out.
It's good to see voters resist the pack mentality. Fifty percent of those supporting Obama say they think Hillary will beat him - but they don't care. About a third of Edwards voters feel the same way. The only way America will elect more effective presidents is if we think for ourselves, and don't choose the leaders that we're force-fed. We can have cartoon heroes with spongy minds, but let's open our own, with critical thinking and tough questions, as we make these critical choices over the next two months.
Thursday, November 15, 2007
Obamapalooza - Here Comes Huckabee - Odd Bedfellows
OBAMAPALOOZA
Presidential candidates don't typically hunker down and stay awhile when they come to the Bay Area. This isn't Iowa or New Hampshire; usually, they sweep through in a whirlwind, leaving tired reporters and buzzing supporters in their wake. That's exactly what Barack Obama did this week, spending about 24 hours here, raising money as well as the hopes of his ardent fans.
Between fundraisers, Obama came to Google, the latest to appear in the company's "Candidates @Google" series. More than a thousand Googlers, mostly young, bright and enthusiastic, jammed the company cafeteria, clutching laptops and smart phones, to see Obama speak, and ask him a few questions. The charismatic presidential contender seemed downright middle-aged among this crowd; several times, he joked about his age and the relative youth of his audience, many of whom crammed onto the cafe's catwalks and balconies in positions older voters would never attempt. Think "Downward-Facing Democrat."
Google is a weird place. I haven't been there in a few years, and its growth is beyond exponential. It used to be a 20GB hard drive and now it's more like a 500-gig. Google security people escorted me everywhere I went, even to the men's room. I'm not sure what they were afraid of; I was more likely to scarf some of their legendary free gourmet food than company secrets. Their techno-smarts extend even to the bathrooms, where there are electronic bidets installed on the toilets, and Java code-writing tests posted in the stalls and above the urinals - something about mistakenly outfitting a Death Ray with a blue laser, when everyone knows green is cooler, so how would you fix that - and why not bone up on your software skills while answering nature's call?
Hillary Clinton probably drew the best of the five previous candidates to visit the Googleplex. But Obama's crowd dwarfed hers, according to numerous Googlers in the audience. Even the Google guys, Sergey Brin and Larry Page, were there, and they're not, usually. Obama was well-received, delivering a 12-minute or so speech about his "innovation agenda" - much of it similar to what all the other Democrats are proposing, except for his call for America's first Chief Technology Officer - and then sitting down for a 45-minute chat with Google CEO Eric Schmidt, and a few questions from the crowd. Obama was smart, funny and thoughtful, and the few Googlers I had time to speak with afterwards came away impressed.
I didn't have much time, because this was Obamapalooza, which meant I was off to the races - otherwise known as Highway 101 at rush hour - so I could make it back to San Francisco in time for the candidate's next appearance, a more typical campaign rally at Bill Graham Civic Auditorium. It was Obama's "Countdown to Change" event - except it turned into "countdown until the candidate shows up" for most of the throng of about six thousand. The line to get in snaked around the building, thanks to an oh-so-slow security process of metal detectors and body-wanding, which turned out to be a good thing, since most of the Obamamaniacs didn't get in until long after he was due to speak. But Obama ran especially late, not taking the stage until after 9pm, even though the doors opened at 6:30 and we were told to expect him around 7:30. He was busy raising money at the Atherton home of former California Controller Steve Westly, one of the leaders of his California campaign.
This was another young crowd, even more adoring than the Google bunch; after all, these folks paid money to be there, albeit just 15 to 30 dollars, but it still represents a commitment. They brought Obama to the stage with deafening shrieks, the kind people Obama's age (and mine) associate with Paul McCartney or maybe the Bay City Rollers. Obama's rousing 30-minute speech was punctuated with cries of "I love you!" from young women in the upper balconies. The Senator reacted with bemused smiles and sometimes a sheepish "I love you, too." I've covered most of the candidates now, and trust me, I haven't encountered too many voters with crushes on Hillary or Rudy.
Obama left the crowd buzzing about hope and change and possibilities. He does seem to have some new momentum, but is it enough to win the Iowa caucus? A victory there, or even a very close second, should give him a big boost in New Hampshire, but if he doesn't actually defeat Hillary in one of those states, it's hard to see him winning the nomination. An Iowa triumph will open the money spigot for whoever wins - it will bring magazine covers, a surge of new volunteers and media coverage - but without it, the only change Obama will be able to offer these loving crowds will be the loose stuff left at the bottom of his campaign piggy bank.
(To hear Obama's speeches at Google and in SF, please go to the Featured Audio column, either on the Sovern Nation home page or on Obama's Sovern Nation candidate page)
HERE COMES HUCKABEE
Which brings us to good ol' Mike Huckabee. We have written before in this space about his appealing qualities, and the good folks of Iowa seem to be embracing them. The former Arkansas governor is a tailor-made candidate for Hawkeye State Republicans: he is a staunch conservative with a terrific personal story, he's folksy and downhome, and he seems to be a sincere man of his word. He seems more reliably conservative than the Iowa frontrunner, Mitt Romney; he's more conservative in general than the national poll leader, Rudy Giuliani; and he's warmer and more likeable than Fred Thompson. And as Iowans cast about, searching for the right man from an underwhelming Republican field, more and more of them are settling on Huckabee. Why is he a longer shot than Mitt Romney? Huckabee is a former governor, with more experience in government than Romney, and he's a Baptist pastor, not a Mormon. The bottom line, sadly, is money: Romney's got it, by the bushel full, and has proven he can raise as much as he needs, while Huckabee has struggled to generate campaign cash. But the latest CBS News poll shows him hot on Romney's heels in Iowa, and if Huckabee scores an upset there, the money will flow as never before for him. Click on Latest Polling Data to check out those latest numbers from Iowa.
ODD BEDFELLOWS
Nothing underscores the angst of Republican voters more than the split among Christian conservatives, who find something to dislike about every one of these candidates, and whose failure to coalesce around one of them will weaken their own clout within the party and could undermine the GOP's eventual nominee.
We all know politics makes strange bedfellows, but Pat Robertson endorses Rudy Giuliani? The same Pat Robertson who famously said the September 11th attacks were God's punishment for rampant secularism? Now he's endorsing the pro-choice former Mayor of Godless City - I mean, Gotham City? In announcing his support, Robertson proclaimed Giuliani an "acceptable candidate." That's hardly a gushing endorsement. Kansas Senator Sam Brownback used the same words when he threw his support (such as it is) to John McCain, calling his former rival for the nomination "not perfect, but ideologically acceptable." Elsewhere in the past week, the National Right to Life Committee decided to go with Fred Thompson, who proudly touts his "100 percent pro-life voting record"...but Moral Majority co-founder Paul Weyrich endorsed Mitt Romney. Meanwhile, the last time I checked the AP-Ipsos poll, 24% of self-described born again voters were leaning towards Thompson, with 20% supporting Giuliani and 22% still not sure for whom they will vote.
The endorsement split reflects both uncertainty among the party's right wing and a reluctant concession to pragmatism. Conservative Republican leaders have gotten used to winning and they didn't enjoy the 2006 elections one bit. They're genuinely alarmed by the prospect of a Hillary Clinton presidency, and disappointed by many of the actions of the Bush administration. They want to win in 2008, desperately, and this time around, they're willing to sacrifice some political principles for the sake of victory. But their diffuse and lukewarm support may serve simply to nullify their clout. They won't have as much impact in the nominating process if they split among four different contenders, and they're less likely to rally behind the eventual nominee if only 25% of them actually like him. Let's not forget 1996, when the GOP's conservative wing dithered and waffled and wrung its hands over Bob Dole and Pat Buchanan. Buchanan eventually got their support, but it was too late, and the conservatives didn't turn out in great enough numbers for Dole to beat Bill Clinton, with many of them bolting to Ross Perot's candidacy instead. Democratic voters seem much more likely to be enthusiastic about their party's nominee in 2008, and that could spell the difference in a tight race next November.
Presidential candidates don't typically hunker down and stay awhile when they come to the Bay Area. This isn't Iowa or New Hampshire; usually, they sweep through in a whirlwind, leaving tired reporters and buzzing supporters in their wake. That's exactly what Barack Obama did this week, spending about 24 hours here, raising money as well as the hopes of his ardent fans.
Between fundraisers, Obama came to Google, the latest to appear in the company's "Candidates @Google" series. More than a thousand Googlers, mostly young, bright and enthusiastic, jammed the company cafeteria, clutching laptops and smart phones, to see Obama speak, and ask him a few questions. The charismatic presidential contender seemed downright middle-aged among this crowd; several times, he joked about his age and the relative youth of his audience, many of whom crammed onto the cafe's catwalks and balconies in positions older voters would never attempt. Think "Downward-Facing Democrat."
Google is a weird place. I haven't been there in a few years, and its growth is beyond exponential. It used to be a 20GB hard drive and now it's more like a 500-gig. Google security people escorted me everywhere I went, even to the men's room. I'm not sure what they were afraid of; I was more likely to scarf some of their legendary free gourmet food than company secrets. Their techno-smarts extend even to the bathrooms, where there are electronic bidets installed on the toilets, and Java code-writing tests posted in the stalls and above the urinals - something about mistakenly outfitting a Death Ray with a blue laser, when everyone knows green is cooler, so how would you fix that - and why not bone up on your software skills while answering nature's call?
Hillary Clinton probably drew the best of the five previous candidates to visit the Googleplex. But Obama's crowd dwarfed hers, according to numerous Googlers in the audience. Even the Google guys, Sergey Brin and Larry Page, were there, and they're not, usually. Obama was well-received, delivering a 12-minute or so speech about his "innovation agenda" - much of it similar to what all the other Democrats are proposing, except for his call for America's first Chief Technology Officer - and then sitting down for a 45-minute chat with Google CEO Eric Schmidt, and a few questions from the crowd. Obama was smart, funny and thoughtful, and the few Googlers I had time to speak with afterwards came away impressed.
I didn't have much time, because this was Obamapalooza, which meant I was off to the races - otherwise known as Highway 101 at rush hour - so I could make it back to San Francisco in time for the candidate's next appearance, a more typical campaign rally at Bill Graham Civic Auditorium. It was Obama's "Countdown to Change" event - except it turned into "countdown until the candidate shows up" for most of the throng of about six thousand. The line to get in snaked around the building, thanks to an oh-so-slow security process of metal detectors and body-wanding, which turned out to be a good thing, since most of the Obamamaniacs didn't get in until long after he was due to speak. But Obama ran especially late, not taking the stage until after 9pm, even though the doors opened at 6:30 and we were told to expect him around 7:30. He was busy raising money at the Atherton home of former California Controller Steve Westly, one of the leaders of his California campaign.
This was another young crowd, even more adoring than the Google bunch; after all, these folks paid money to be there, albeit just 15 to 30 dollars, but it still represents a commitment. They brought Obama to the stage with deafening shrieks, the kind people Obama's age (and mine) associate with Paul McCartney or maybe the Bay City Rollers. Obama's rousing 30-minute speech was punctuated with cries of "I love you!" from young women in the upper balconies. The Senator reacted with bemused smiles and sometimes a sheepish "I love you, too." I've covered most of the candidates now, and trust me, I haven't encountered too many voters with crushes on Hillary or Rudy.
Obama left the crowd buzzing about hope and change and possibilities. He does seem to have some new momentum, but is it enough to win the Iowa caucus? A victory there, or even a very close second, should give him a big boost in New Hampshire, but if he doesn't actually defeat Hillary in one of those states, it's hard to see him winning the nomination. An Iowa triumph will open the money spigot for whoever wins - it will bring magazine covers, a surge of new volunteers and media coverage - but without it, the only change Obama will be able to offer these loving crowds will be the loose stuff left at the bottom of his campaign piggy bank.
(To hear Obama's speeches at Google and in SF, please go to the Featured Audio column, either on the Sovern Nation home page or on Obama's Sovern Nation candidate page)
HERE COMES HUCKABEE
Which brings us to good ol' Mike Huckabee. We have written before in this space about his appealing qualities, and the good folks of Iowa seem to be embracing them. The former Arkansas governor is a tailor-made candidate for Hawkeye State Republicans: he is a staunch conservative with a terrific personal story, he's folksy and downhome, and he seems to be a sincere man of his word. He seems more reliably conservative than the Iowa frontrunner, Mitt Romney; he's more conservative in general than the national poll leader, Rudy Giuliani; and he's warmer and more likeable than Fred Thompson. And as Iowans cast about, searching for the right man from an underwhelming Republican field, more and more of them are settling on Huckabee. Why is he a longer shot than Mitt Romney? Huckabee is a former governor, with more experience in government than Romney, and he's a Baptist pastor, not a Mormon. The bottom line, sadly, is money: Romney's got it, by the bushel full, and has proven he can raise as much as he needs, while Huckabee has struggled to generate campaign cash. But the latest CBS News poll shows him hot on Romney's heels in Iowa, and if Huckabee scores an upset there, the money will flow as never before for him. Click on Latest Polling Data to check out those latest numbers from Iowa.
ODD BEDFELLOWS
Nothing underscores the angst of Republican voters more than the split among Christian conservatives, who find something to dislike about every one of these candidates, and whose failure to coalesce around one of them will weaken their own clout within the party and could undermine the GOP's eventual nominee.
We all know politics makes strange bedfellows, but Pat Robertson endorses Rudy Giuliani? The same Pat Robertson who famously said the September 11th attacks were God's punishment for rampant secularism? Now he's endorsing the pro-choice former Mayor of Godless City - I mean, Gotham City? In announcing his support, Robertson proclaimed Giuliani an "acceptable candidate." That's hardly a gushing endorsement. Kansas Senator Sam Brownback used the same words when he threw his support (such as it is) to John McCain, calling his former rival for the nomination "not perfect, but ideologically acceptable." Elsewhere in the past week, the National Right to Life Committee decided to go with Fred Thompson, who proudly touts his "100 percent pro-life voting record"...but Moral Majority co-founder Paul Weyrich endorsed Mitt Romney. Meanwhile, the last time I checked the AP-Ipsos poll, 24% of self-described born again voters were leaning towards Thompson, with 20% supporting Giuliani and 22% still not sure for whom they will vote.
The endorsement split reflects both uncertainty among the party's right wing and a reluctant concession to pragmatism. Conservative Republican leaders have gotten used to winning and they didn't enjoy the 2006 elections one bit. They're genuinely alarmed by the prospect of a Hillary Clinton presidency, and disappointed by many of the actions of the Bush administration. They want to win in 2008, desperately, and this time around, they're willing to sacrifice some political principles for the sake of victory. But their diffuse and lukewarm support may serve simply to nullify their clout. They won't have as much impact in the nominating process if they split among four different contenders, and they're less likely to rally behind the eventual nominee if only 25% of them actually like him. Let's not forget 1996, when the GOP's conservative wing dithered and waffled and wrung its hands over Bob Dole and Pat Buchanan. Buchanan eventually got their support, but it was too late, and the conservatives didn't turn out in great enough numbers for Dole to beat Bill Clinton, with many of them bolting to Ross Perot's candidacy instead. Democratic voters seem much more likely to be enthusiastic about their party's nominee in 2008, and that could spell the difference in a tight race next November.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)