Posts with the tag 'Iowa Caucuses'
The big loss to Obama in Iowa has thrown Hillary on the ropes - how does she get off them and back into the fight?
She can go heavily negative - Obama has a clean reputation, but his connections to Tony Rezko only wait someone willing to rake over that nauseating muck and show how close Obama is to the worst of Chicago politics. Given what we know of Hillary Clinton, I’m sure she has a comprehensive dossier on this issue but using it carries a huge risk - Obama is likable and an attempt by Hillary to go down and dirty might be resented among the Democratic electorate.
She can go heavily left - in my view, what did Hillary in was her refusal to comprehensively disown her 2002 vote in favor of liberating Iraq. The contest in Iowa was, in a sense, a negative contest - who was least like President George Bush? Obama proved to be the Un-Bush, and thus came out on top. The far left isn’t all of the Democratic party, but in a caucus where people self-select themselves to participate in a tedious process, it is the committed people who show up. One thing we know for certain, the far left is on fire to not just win in 2008, but entirely destroy everything associated with the Bush Administration.
These far left people will also make up a large percentage of the Democratic primary electorate - enough, I think, to ensure a Hillary defeat (this is why, all along, I thought Hillary was never going to get nominated). Hillary knows that a complete disavowal of the war would be political suicide for November (the far left is convinced otherwise - they believe that 70% of the American people back the far left position on Iraq and that only political cowardice on the part of Congressional leadership has prevented an immediate/swift end to the campaign in Iraq); but in order to regain traction against Obama, she might move far to the left and then hope she can triangulate her way back to the center (especially if there is a conservative/populist third party to split the GOP vote).
She can also just plug along and hope that money plus huge staff can just wear down the opposition and allow her to win the nomination in a long, drawn out process. And if she winds up losing? Then she saves her money and tries again in 2012.
No doubt about it, this is a bad time to be Hillary Clinton.
Tags: Barack Obama, Democratic Nomination, Hillary Clinton, Iowa Caucuses, Iraq, Kook Left
January 4th, 2008
First and foremost, it is a day all Americans can be proud of - a black American won a caucus in a mostly-white State, indicating that whatever racism remains in America, it is vestigal and of no great consequence. Race-baiters like Jackson and Sharpton will still shout “racism” at the drop of the hat, but America has largely gotten past race as an issue. Obama won in Iowa because a plurality of Democrats believed he will be the best man to recapture the White House - and the fact that he is black, as far as I can determine, made no difference at all…and in the measuring of the man against other Democrats and prospective GOP opponents, his chances are not predicated (plus or minus) on account of his race.
Second, while Hillary polls well nationally among Democrats, when faced with the true-blue, dyed-in-the-wool Democrats who attend caucuses, it has been demonstrated that Hillary Clinton lacks that magnetism which pulled Democrats over to Bill Clinton time and time again. This doesn’t mean she can’t get nominated, but it does demonstrate that all the talk of an inevitible Hillary nomination was just so much gas from people who, apparantly, haven’t bothered to check with rank-and-file Democrats about how they feel about her.
Third, to say the GOP race is wide-open is to understate the unsettled nature of GOP politics. GOP rank-and-file are looking for someone who can lead them to victory in 2008, and they are unsure whom it will be - except among Evangelical Christians, who have fallen rock-solid behind Mike Huckabee (word is that Evangelical participation in Iowa was double that of 2000). This doesn’t mean that Huckabee will now cruise to the nomination (Evangelicals are a major part of the GOP coalition, but they aren’t a majority of GOP voters), but it does mean that Huckabee is someone who can’t be easily dismissed - and, also, that whomever the GOP nominates will have to pay close attention to the issues dearest to Evangelical Christians (abortion, gay marriage, defense of Christian morality, etc.).
How this will all play out in the upcoming primaries and caucuses is anyone’s guess - will Edwards voters gravitate to Obama, or to Hillary? If Hillary continues to fall, will there be a late-arriving Gore in the Democratic race? Will a Romney win in NH really help him that much? Is Giuliani’s plan of winning late still viable? To al these and a score other questions I answer: I dunno.
Tags: Barack Obama, Iowa Caucuses, Mike Huckabee, New Hampshire
January 4th, 2008
It happens tonight.
You can follow on the ground citizen reporting of the results via Twitter. I’ve put a feed of the IowaCaucus Twitter in the sidebar to the right.
You are welcome to discuss the results as they come in, and offer your thoughts.
UPDATE 8:55 PM ET: FOX News projects Huckabee the winner of GOP caucus… Still no winner projected for Democrats, but last I saw Edwards was on top and Hillary and Obama were neck and neck behind him.
UPDATE 9:02 PM ET: FOX now shows Obama, Clinton, and Edwards all around 32-33%.
UPDATE 9:29 PM ET: FOX News projects Obama the winner of Democrat caucus with 35%… Edwards and Clinton trail each with 31%. Considering early reports of high turnout for Obama, it appears something happened once Democrats got inside to caucus… Obama may be the winner, but to me, the vote seems close enough that the impact on New Hampshire and beyond may not be huge. Based on early reports, it sounded like Obama was gonna win in a blowout… if the numbers don’t change much from now, then Clinton and Edwards are certainly still able to capture the nomination.
But, it’s not lost for Hillary either… Obama’s victory tonight could make him vulnerable. Dick Morris was saying earlier tonight that Democrats may start to really think about Obama and ask if they want to bank their hopes on him for winning in November.
As for the GOP… Let’s face it, Mitt Romney was the loser tonight, more than Huckabee was the winner. If Huckabee’s victory translates to more victories and stronger victories, then Romney will fall very fast.
UPDATE 10:22 PM ET: Will Hillary scream like Howard Dean? John Edwards just spoke… Does anyone really believe that John Edwards has any real understanding about problems of middle class America? Mr. 400 Dollar Haircut?
UPDATE 10:27 PM ET: Hillary speaks. She sounds hoarse… I’m sure she was screaming her head off earlier… Pushes electability in her speech. Refers to her “national campaign.”
Tags: Iowa Caucuses
January 3rd, 2008
A new Reuters/C-SPAN/Zogby poll released today shows Obama on top, with Edwards trailing by four, and Hillary Clinton back in third in Iowa.
What does this mean? It’s hard to say, Iowa polls have been all over the place, so the only thing we should take from this latest poll is that anything can happen. I’m still thinking that Obama is not going to come out on top, but if he does, it could be fatal to Hillary’s candidacy. If Hillary doesn’t win, she better hope that John Edwards comes in first, because an Edwards victory in Iowa, in my opinion, would hurt her less in New Hampshire. Both Obama and Clinton need to win Iowa to get some momentum over the other. If the perception of electability in the general election is as important to caucus-goers this year as it was in 2004, than I think that helps Edwards more than Hillary or Obama.
As for the GOP, I think Mitt Romney will come out on top. Huckabee may have been surging in the polls recently, but that may not make up for the fact that winning Iowa is a key part of Romney’s strategy and therefore he’s been building up a good operation on the ground that will be hard to overcome. If Romney doesn’t win the Iowa caucuses, he’s in trouble.
As for Huckabee’s surge, I don’t dismiss it, but one can’t ignore that since his surge, he was open to attacks and criticism that he largely avoided previously. He also comes across as less able to handle foreign policy, and he clearly appears to be the easiest GOP candidate for the Democrats to beat in November. If the perception of electability is as important to Republican caucus-goers as it is to Democrat caucus-goers, than John McCain and Mitt Romney should benefit the most… however, if Republican caucus-goers think Romney’s Mormonism will be a problem, than McCain experience the bigger boost.
What will be really interesting to see is McCain’s performance. If he can come in second place, it will be good shot in the arm for his campaign and an indication that the message in his recent ad campaigns have worked.
As of this moment, I’m thinking John Edwards and Mitt Romney will be the winners. The second and third place positions for both parties could go either way…
Tags: Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Iowa Caucuses, John Edwards, John McCain, Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney, New Hampshire
January 3rd, 2008
Via NRO’s The Corner:
You know, when I’m asked which of the current group of Democratic candidates I prefer to run against, I always say it really doesn’t matter…These days all those candidates, all the Democratic leaders, are one and the same. They’re all NEA-MoveOn.org-ACLU-Michael Moore Democrats. They’ve allowed these radicals to take control of their party and dictate their course.
So this election is important not just to enact our conservative principles. This election is important to salvage a once-great political party from the grip of extremism and shake it back to its senses. It’s time to give not just Republicans but independents, and, yes, good Democrats a chance to call a halt to the leftward lurch of the once-proud party of working people.
So in seeking the nomination of my own party, I want to say something a little unusual. I am asking my fellow Republicans to vote for me not only for what I have to say to them, but for what I have to say to the members of the other party—the millions of Democrats who haven’t left the Democratic party so much as their party’s national leadership has left them.
Good stuff - and, as noted at NRO, very Reaganesque in style and tone. While I haven’t settled on a candidate for the primaries, this is the sort of attitude I’m looking for - its the sort of attitude which long ago made me determine that Joe Lieberman would be the ideal VP candidate for whomever the GOP nominates next year. There is, indeed, a very deep divide in the American electorate - but we won’t eliminate it by shaking hands with those who stand against everything America stands for. In Thompson’s words, the “NEA-MoveOn.org-ACLU-Michael Moore Democrats” simply don’t want an America which is recognizable to most Americans - but they are in control of one of the two major political parties of the United States, and only by crushing them politically will be able to restore reasonableness to our political system.
A political coalition which would include such people as atheist/socialist Christopher Hitchens and Christian conservative James Dobson is not a coalition which will have a long lifespan - but if the Hitchens’ and Dobsons of this world want to have the civilization they love 20 years from now, they’d better darn well band together. We are under internal and external attack - the Islamists want us to convert to Islamo-fascism; the liberal/left wants us to become like Sweden. Do we want to remain America? Then we’d better fight for it - and bury the hatchet amongst all men and women of good will.
Tags: Fred Thompson, Iowa Caucuses, Joe Lieberman
December 30th, 2007
Our friend Patrick Ruffini - a Giuliani supporter - gives an excellent analysis of why Giuliani is no longer the front runner for the GOP nomination:
…there are some fundamental problems with how Rudy is positioning his campaign with this strategy.
First, it gives off the impression that he doesn’t want to win. That he’s looking for a TKO rather than a decisive knockout punch. That he won’t go mano-y-mano with any of the opponents who matter. And that he doesn’t care about retail politics (in fact, the IA and SC blowback alone has probably contaminated him in NH). Perceived electability is not just poll numbers in the general, but how someone conducts themselves in the primary. Do they fight, or do they try and win on a technicality? That’s a proxy for how they will perform against the Clinton machine, and voters pick up on those kinds of signals.
Second, it ignores the fluidity of the race. Rudy was never the frontrunner in any traditional sense. A fifteen point lead in the primary is not like a fifteen point lead in a general election. It can evaporate overnight. John Kerry went from 15 to 40 percent in the polls after winning Iowa. It was clear from the beginning that the situation was simply too fluid for Rudy to simply run out the clock.
Third (and I’ll concede this can be temporary until Florida & Feb. 5 is upon us) but Rudy has missed out on the publicity surrounding the Iowa and New Hampshire contests. The coverage of Romney vs. Huck in Iowa has created centrifugal motion around those two, with voters nationally aligning on both sides of the Iowa proxy war. The McCain surge in New Hampshire is not confined to one state, but creates a rallying effect around him nationally. Missing in all this is Rudy. Just as voters tuned in to the race in November and December, he was totally AWOL in the early state-centric coverage.
Of course, if neither Huckabee, Romney nor McCain emerge from Iowa/New Hampshire/South Carolina as a clear front runner, then Giuliani’s plan still might work - those three knock each other to pieces for a couple weeks, and then Giuliani does well in the second and third rounds. But I do have to agree with Ruffini that Giuliani needed to get down and dirty in Iowa and New Hampshire even if they were lost causes. Heck, even a strong third place showing in Iowa could be spun as a large victory for socially-liberal Giuliani in socially-conservative Iowa. Perception is vitally important in a Presidential race - and Rudy doesn’t seem to be putting out the right perception of himself.
Tags: Giuliani, Iowa Caucuses, New Hampshire
December 22nd, 2007
Mark and I have spoken privately about our predictions for Iowa, and a couple weeks ago, I said I think it could end up going Edwards, Clinton, then Obama. Mark and I have generally been at odds over how Iowa will turn out for the Democrats, but a new poll now shows Edwards on top, with Clinton and Obama not far behind makes me think that my prediction wasn’t too far out there.
Let me explain why I believe, at this point, that not only will Edwards come out on top, but that Obama will do surprisingly poor, in the same way that Howard Dean did back in 2004.
I watched some of the Iowa Caucuses in 2004, and the one thing that seemed to stick out in my mind was the common question everyone was asking: “Who can beat George W. Bush?” With no incumbent this cycle, the question I expect caucus-goers to be asking is “Who can win in the general election?” And I expect that most will not give “Barack Obama” as the answer. In 2004 Iowa Democrats made the strategic decision to bank their hopes on capturing the presidency on John Kerry. John Kerry had run a terrible campaign up to that point — and even had to loan himself a huge chunk of money to keep himself afloat at one point — but with the war on terror as the primary issue, it seemed logical to pick someone who served in Vietnam (albeit very briefly) and had a bit more experience than a governor of a small state who sealed his own records and appeals to the far light liberal bloggers.
If electability is as important to Iowa Democrats in 2008 as it was in 2004, then I wouldn’t count on Obama coming out on top. Obama’s inexperience is a huge problem for him. And, let’s face it, if liberals really believe that this country is racist, then how could they believe that Obama has a chance to win the General Election?
And how about Hillary? Aside from her past support for the war in Iraq, there is no one more polarizing and controversial than her. Still, I believe Democrats would consider her more electable than Barack Obama.
Democrats can claim all they want that there will be a blowout in 2008, but many factors will drive turnout on both sides, and I’m still thinking that this election will be close like the previous two.
The real thing we get out of this new poll is that Iowa is wide open. In the past few weeks and months, all of the top three Democrat contenders have come out on top of an Iowa poll. In the end, it can go either way. This latest poll strengthens my belief that Edwards can win Iowa.
So anyway, not too long ago I asked our readers for predictions about Iowa. Any revisions to past predictions? Any new predictions?
UPDATE: Strengthening the foundation for my prediction again… QandO points us to a story that says Democrats are worried about the electability of their nominee.
Tags: Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Iowa Caucuses, Iraq, John Edwards, John Kerry
December 18th, 2007
Now, this is a big endorsement for Romney.
Today, noted conservative jurist Judge Robert Bork endorsed Governor Mitt Romney for President of the United States.
Joining Romney for President, Judge Bork said, “Throughout my career, I have had the honor of serving under several Presidents and am proud to make today’s endorsement. No other candidate will do more to advance the conservative judicial movement than Governor Mitt Romney. He knows firsthand how the judicial branch can profoundly affect the future course of a state and a nation. I greatly admired his leadership in Massachusetts in the way that he responded to the activist court’s ruling legalizing same-sex ‘marriage.’ His leadership on the issue has served as a model to the nation on how to respect all of our citizens while respecting the rule of law at the same time.”
Judge Bork continued, “Our next President may be called upon to make more than one Supreme Court nomination, and Governor Romney is committed to nominating judges who take their oath of office seriously and respect the rule of law in our nation. I also support Governor Romney because of his character, his integrity and his stands on the major issues facing the United States.”
With judicial nominations being a big concern regarding who the next president is, getting Bork’s endorsement should help Romney in these crucial weeks before the Iowa Caucuses. The question is, will this eclipse the Tuttman/Tevares story? It might do just that, but I wouldn’t be surprised if the Huckabee camp will respond by bringing that up again.
Tags: endorsements, Iowa Caucuses, Judge Robert Bork, Mitt Romney
December 15th, 2007
Older Posts
