Posts with the tag 'New Hampshire'
I honestly didn’t see this coming.
Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts, the 2004 Democratic presidential nominee, endorsed Sen. Barack Obama for the White House Thursday in a timely slap at Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton as well as his own vice presidential running mate.
Quoting a black American hero in endorsing the man who hopes to be the first black president, Kerry declared, “Martin Luther King Jr. said the time is always right to do what is right. And I’m here in South Carolina because this is the right time to share with you, to make sure that we know that I have the confidence … and that Barack Obama can be, will be and should be the next president of the United States.”
Kerry delivered his endorsement in South Carolina at a time, two weeks before that state’s primary, when Clinton is riding a wave of enthusiasm following her victory over Obama in the New Hampshire primary.
The obvious question to ask is “Why?” Why would Kerry endorse Obama over Hillary Clinton, whose husband helped him significantly in 2004; and John Edwards, who was his running mate in 2004.
After Al Gore’s embarrassing pre-implosion endorsement of Howard Dean, it’s obvious that politicians now are going to look before they leap when it comes to making an endorsement. So, one has to ask why Kerry endorsed Obama now, instead of after Iowa. Endorsing Obama immediately following Iowa could have helped him secure victory in New Hampshire — a state Kerry won in 2004. But he didn’t.
Here’s how I see it. Barack Obama, despite the enthusiasm for his campaign, is unelectable in the general election. John Kerry, who didn’t seek the presidency this time despite wanting to, is sure to want one more go at it. Endorsing Barack Obama helps him on a couple fronts… First, he can conceivably give Obama enough of a boost in the primaries to help him win and secure the nomination, and second, he gets to align himself with Obama’s anti-Iraq war position, which he might see as vital for a potential run in 2012. Would Kerry have endorsed Obama if he won New Hampshire? Probably not, it wouldn’t have been necessary. Had Obama won New Hampshire, he’d most certainly have been a shoo-in for the nomination. But now, Kerry sees he needs to do what he can to ensure Obama gets the nomination … if deep in his heart, he really wants to run for president again in 2012.
Tags: Al Gore, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Iraq, John Edwards, John Kerry, New Hampshire, Primaries
January 10th, 2008
And Andrew Sullivan reader had this to say about the New Hampshire results:
Watched the NH returns with some friends last night, and something quite unexpected happened when the AP called it for Clinton — inexplicable ANGER. I was surrounded by people in their early 30’s, registered Democrats, receptive to the Clintons in the 90’s, and I swear I thought someone was going to throw their wine glass at the tube during her ‘victory’ speech.
Just an oddity, or an indicator of just how little the left will like it if Hillary is the nominee? Could be a very interesting couple months coming up…
HAT TIP: Instapundit via NRO’s The Corner
Tags: Barack Obama, Democratic Nomination, Hillary Clinton, New Hampshire
January 10th, 2008
Polls pretty much predicted the results of last nights GOP primary, but polls were showing another blowout victory for Obama. So, what happened?
A local radio host predicted after Iowa that Obama wouldn’t do as well in New Hampshire. Why? Because New Hampshire had a primary, not a caucus… and in a caucus, the selection process is not secret ballot… Democrats, ever so mindful of race, really, really want to support a black candidate — even though their view of our country tells them that Obama can’t possibly be elected — still, it makes them feel good about themselves to say they are backing the minority candidate, be it during a caucus, or while being polled on the phone… But when push comes to shove, or when it comes to pulling that lever in the privacy of their own voting booth, they are more inclined to vote for the candidate that they think really has a chance to win.
Was that a factor? Or was Hillary’s teary-eyed display actually helpful to getting women to push her back on top?
UPDATE, by Mark Noonan: Richardson is out
UPDATE, by Mark Noonan: Kossacks think that Diebold stole the election for Hillary.
Tags: Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, New Hampshire
January 9th, 2008
It was a shock for Hillary to win - except, it really wasn’t. Not for me - ’cause I’m the guy who freely admits he doesn’t have a clue how primary voters will go this year. It was fun to check ’round the ‘net today and watch pundits re-re-re-re-cast their political prognostications as the returns came in. Face it, folks, this is a political tsunami - its going to go where it goes, and all any of us can do is argue our case as best we can, and let the chips fall where they may. The American people do, indeed, seem in a mood for a fresh start - but this doesn’t necessarily come down in anyone’s favor at any given moment. And the further we get into this, the more people will demand details of just what sort of change a candidate proposes to bring. One comment over at NRO’s The Corner indicates that at least some late-deciding Democrats were swayed by Hillary’s more detailed (though still nebulous) message - Obama is the agent of change, but for all we know he’s proposing changing the batteries in the smoke alarm; he’s got to get down and tell voters some specifics.
With no President or designated successor on the ballot, any and all candidates can reasonably present themselves as agents of change - the winner (both in the primary and the general) will be the candidate who most successfully implants a program of change into the voters’ minds. Of course, a bit of care has to be taken - what wows a GOP or Democrat primary voter might be political poison come November. Democrats are at greater risk here, because the people who most want change are the far left, and the changes they want are by and large anethema to the general electorate. Democrats will hate to hear this, but the guy (or gal) who wins will be the first one who cobbles together something like the 1994 Contract With America - a series of promises and proposals which will be adhered to by the candidate once he (or she) takes office…and this will have to be very specific without alienating too large a segment of the general voting population.
The next big step in this process is Nevada - where Hillary is strong, Obama has a growing presence and the only GOPer I’ve seen around is Giuliani (his people were calling me months ago). Nothing like being the vortex of the election, even if only for a day - and there is no way to predict turnout for Nevada, as we’ve never done this before. This will lead to, possibly, some monumental screw ups, but from people I’ve talked to ’round town, there is a sense of excitement and anticipation that we’re going to be a part of the big show. Turnout could end up being quite large (I’ve had to explain the process several times to people - Democrats and Republicans - who want to participate, but haven’t got a clue how a caucus works).
I’ll be keeping the blogosphere posted on this Nevadan’s view of the race, but as I’ve been saying all along - buckle in for a long, wild political ride in 2008.
Tags: Nevada Caucuses, New Hampshire
January 8th, 2008
Rasmussen says so:
The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey in New Hampshire shows John McCain leading Mitt Romney by five percentage points. It’s McCain 31% Romney 26%. The survey was conducted Friday night, the night following the Iowa caucuses. As noted yesterday on Rasmussen Reports, McCain was one of the big winners on Thursday in Iowa. The current poll is a reversal from a pre-Christmas survey when Romney had a slight advantage.
Ron Paul earns 14% of the vote and Mike Huckabee gets 11% as the only other candidates in double digits. Rudy Giuliani attracts 8% of the vote, Fred Thompson 5%, some other candidate 2%, and 3% are not sure.
If this is correct, then Romney is heading for a very rough patch in his quest for the White House - losing New Hampshire would be a blow tough for Romney to recover from. The only bright spot for Romney if he comes in second is that the GOP race is still so unsettled that even if he flops several times, there is still a chance of pulling it off - if nothing else, at a brokered GOP convention (something I put down as just a bit less than a 50/50 probability at this moment - for the Democrats, its about 70/30 against). Bottom line - the nature of the GOP contest in 2008 (and, to a lesser extent, the Democratic contest) is that there’s no reason for anyone who comes in second or third to back out. While its not likely, there is even a chance that in the first five contests, the GOP will wind up with five different winners.
The GOP contest is wide open because none of the top-tier candidates have been able to take the mantle of Ronald Reagan - in other words, the Reagan coalition is waiting for a leader, but none of the GOP candidates has yet to seal the deal. The Democratic contest is less wide open, but the Democratic primary voters might be in a mood to really punish anyone who isn’t devoutly anti-Bush in word and deed. Still, there is no reason for any of the top three Democrats to pull out - Hillary because she’s got bag of money to keep it going, while Obama and Edwards circle each other, wondering how the kook left will settle out as time goes on.
Tags: Barack Obama, GOP Nomination, John Edwards, John McCain, Mitt Romney, New Hampshire
January 6th, 2008
Rasmussen says so:
Barack Obama, fresh from his victory in Iowa, now holds a ten point lead over Hillary Clinton in New Hampshire. The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of the race found Obama with 37% of the vote while Clinton earns 27%. John Edwards is the only other candidate in double digits, with 19% support. Bill Richardson is the choice for 8%.
We’ll see if this is just a blip, or whether it indicates a definitive choice by the Democratic party that they want someone who 100% against everything President Bush is identified with, including and especially the liberation of Iraq.
Tags: Barack Obama, Democratic Nomination, Hillary Clinton, New Hampshire
January 5th, 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
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
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
I’ve long thought that it might come out that way, and now Michael Barone raises the possibility, at least as far as the GOP contest goes:
As for Republicans, the number of combinations of plausible results in the early contests rises into the dozens. Mike Huckabee is coming on strong in Iowa, threatening Mitt Romney’s lead; John McCain is roughly tied with Rudy Giuliani for second place in New Hampshire; Giuliani and Romney are leading in Michigan; Fred Thompson seems to be narrowly behind Romney and Giuliani in South Carolina. These five candidates all have scenarios of varying plausibility showing them winning the nomination. The key question is whether the winners of Iowa and New Hampshire will get a bounce in the next contests. Bounces have been common, but not universal (Edwards 2004 and George W. Bush 2000 in New Hampshire). Will voters in Michigan and Florida be willing to subcontract their judgment to the voters in Iowa and New Hampshire who have seen more of the candidates? No one knows for sure.
Some Republican insiders are talking about the possibility that none of the candidates gets a majority of delegates. Presumably the nomination will be brokered, probably long before the convention, but not before the party goes through considerable turmoil. I think that’s possible; unlikely things can happen (Florida 2000).
Remember, when delegates are selected through the primary process, they are only committed to vote for their candidate on the first ballot. Certainly, someone who goes to the convention for, say, Romney will likely keep voting for Romney…unless and until it becomes clear that their guy won’t make it…then it becomes time to say, “ok, I’ll back your guy, instead, provided that…”; he gets to be VP, or SecState, or what have you. A lot of political dealmaking will go on behind closed doors if no candidate gets a first ballot majority. This sort of thing hasn’t happened at all for more than 50 years - and we have to go back nearly a century to find genuinely contested major party conventions. The modern primary system was designed to take decision making on nominees out of the hands of party bosses and place it in the hands of the people - and it worked, except that it has now turned our nominating process into a political circus where money becomes ever more powerful…and it just might be breaking down as a large number of candidates are able to raise sufficient funds to be competitive for an extended period of time in the nominating process.
Barone doesn’t get into the prospect of the Democrats having a brokered convention - the conventional wisdom being that if Hillary wins IA and NH, she’ll then roll irresistibly on to the nomination. Of couse, I’m not so sure Hillary will win IA - in fact, I’m becoming just a little bit convinced that she’s going to lose there, and perhaps lose rather badly (coming in third, or worse). After such an event, even a win in NH (unless by a clear majority over the other candidates, combined) might not be convincing enough to the party bosses to rally ’round her…and certainly wouldn’t be convincing enough for the leftwing ‘netroots (who don’t really like her all that much) to surrender their fight for a purely leftwing candidacy in 2008. And even if Hillary does win in both places, I’m still not 100% convinced that this will sew it up for her - might sew it up as far as the party bosses are concerned, but won’t sew it up as far as the kook left base of the party is concerned.
In short, there are strong prospects of both parties failing to secure a first-ballot nominee in the primary/caucus process. This can get really rather messy - several times in the past, when a convention was contested, part of the party bolted and formed a third party (Democrats in 1860, Republicans in 1912, eg). Given the poisoned political atmosphere, the stong passions on both sides, it may become impossible for the United States to get a President in 2008 elected by a majority of the people…depending on which way the political cookie crumbles, 40% might be sufficient to elect the next President. All I can say is: keep yourself braced for a wild political ride next year.
Tags: Iowa, New Hampshire, Party Conventions, Primaries
November 26th, 2007
