January 18, 2008

1/18: The Saga Continues

Tomorrow is a big day in the presidential race, with a GOP primary in SC and Dem & GOP caucuses in NV. At the time of this writing, few bloggers have made predictions about who's going to win tomorrow -- although most believe that Mitt Romney should easily win the barely-contested NV GOP caucus. Fred Thompson's online supporters are talking excitedly about his momentum in SC, but will it be enough to push him into the top two when John McCain and Mike Huckabee are far ahead in most of the recent polls? Meanwhile, several bloggers are already speculating about the looming showdown in FL, where Rudy Giuliani will make his last stand. With 10 long days separating the GOP primaries in SC and FL, there will certainly be a lot of horserace chatter in the conservative blogosphere.

Meanwhile, liberal bloggers are noting that Hillary Clinton leads Barack Obama in three NV polls. Will the Culinary Workers be enough to carry Obama to victory? At this point, no one knows. MyDD's Jonathan Singer writes:

"Don't write Nevada off as a sure win for Obama...There is very much still a race on our hands in the Silver State, one that we don't know how will turn out at this point and won't until the results come piling in Saturday afternoon."

GOP FIELD: Where's The Mo?

NRO's Rich Lowry: "The Republican race has seemed momentum-less because there hasn't yet been a winner of consecutive contests. But momentum is real. If you look at McCain's national numbers, they shot up to the upper 20's or low 30's after his win in New Hampshire. In the past, I've discounted national polls, but we're almost reaching the point where they will be significant. If McCain wins South Carolina and Florida, he will have at least his current 10-point lead in the national polls and probably more. That will matter when a week after Florida 21 states hold their contests, and no one will have the time to camp out in any one of them. A candidate's national standing will then be very important."

Townhall's Patrick Ruffini: "Amidst the chaos that is the GOP race right now, it's interesting to see one pattern repeating itself over and over again: candidates with single-state strategies beating candidates with multiple-state strategies. Huckabee emphasized Iowa over New Hampshire and he won. Romney was the only one to play in Wyoming and he won. McCain emphasized New Hampshire over Iowa and he won. Romney emphasized Michigan over South Carolina and he won...Are early state voters such zealous guardians of their local prerogatives that 60-80% of support a candidate would have otherwise gotten simply peels away once the candidate leaves? Does local earned media matter that much? Or do voters just gravitate towards the two top horses in any horserace -- regardless of what national polls or other states may say?"

MCCAIN: The Luck Of The Irish

Power Line's Paul Mirengoff speculates about why McCain is doing so well in a conservative state like SC: "It seems to me that McCain is riding quite a bit of luck. First, until very recently his opponents hadn't pointed out to voters McCain's main deviations from conservatism. Second, and this is a related point, Mitt Romney decided that Michigan, not South Carolina, was the place to revive his fortunes. Not only is Romney willing to go after McCain, but he also had the endorsement of South Carolina Senator Jim DeMint. His decision to 'go dark' in South Carolina probably helped McCain. Third, Giuliani's decison not to compete in South Carolina means the 'moderate' vote won't be split to any meaningful degree. Finally, McCain doesn't need a big number to win the South Carolina primary...[his] stature coupled with the support of the state's political establishment might well be enough to get him to 33 percent...Subtract out 12 percent support for Ron Paul and Rudy Giuliani combined, and you have three South Carolina-friendly candidates -- two running as traditional conservatives plus one very strong social conservative -- vying for the remaining 55 percent of the vote. That formula would very likely translate into a win for McCain."

Linking to The Weekly Standard's Adam White and Kevin White's defense of McCain's membership in the bipartisan "Gang of 14", Townhall's Hugh Hewitt slams McCain: "The Gang of 14 got the GOP nothing. It cost the party much. It cost many fine people their seats on the bench and a lot of their dignity. And the seven senators led by John McCain betrayed promises made by the GOP as a whole, and undermined the widespread originalist understanding of the Constitution in the bargain. I am glad White and White have chosen this moment to remind Republicans across the country about John McCain's Gang of 14. There's a reason why Senator McCain never brings it up when asked to discuss his qualifications for the presidency. It is on the list with the votes against the Bush tax cuts, the McCain-Kennedy immigration 'reform,' McCain-Feingold, ANWR and many other things. The Gang of 14 is short hand for why John McCain should not be the nominee of the GOP."

HUCKABEE: A Brief Respite From Huckabashing

On Wednesday, we noted that Huckabee took a lot of heat from angry Cornerites for his remarks about the need for a constitutional human life amendment and an amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman. In what is probably a first, Hugh Hewitt (!) comes to Huckabee's defense: "Huck called for amendments to the Constitution to protect life and traditional marriage. These are mainstream, conservative positions. He is not a 'reconstructionist' Christian, as even a casual glance at his decade of governing in Arkansas shows...Disagree with Huck on economics, but his positions on life and marriage are mainstream GOP positions, repeatedly endorsed at the ballot box across the country."

Right Wing News' John Hawkins still has some problems with Huckabee: "I'm of the opinion that Huckabee is more conservative and electable than people give him credit for, but he relies too heavily on religious rhetoric, has been mistake prone, has an incredibly unorganized campaign, and has allowed an adversarial relationship to develop with the conservative media."

ROMNEY: Playing Possum In SC?

Campaign Standard's Richelieu analyzes the significance of Romney's decision to skip SC and focus on NV: "It's an understandable move, but a risky one that may prove to be a big strategic mistake in the overall race. First, it means Romney must now win Nevada. He is favored there -- he's well organized and southern Nevada has a large LDS population -- but you never know for sure in a caucus. Second, by pulling back in South Carolina, it is likely a chunk of the regular Republicans who make up Romney's vote will move to John McCain, potentially helping McCain defeat the bigger SC threat of Mike Huckabee. Since McCain is Romney's most serious rival for the nomination, a McCain win in South Carolina is bad news for Romney in the big picture. One can argue that a strategy of playing hard in South Carolina up to the end and trying to pull McCain down into second place to a victorious Huckabee would have been a better Romney move. That would weaken McCain going into Florida. Now, if McCain wins South Carolina, he'll build new momentum quickly. While a Nevada caucus win allows Romney to claim an offsetting victory on Saturday, it'll be seen as small potatoes compared with South Carolina. Finally, the Romney decision to pull back in South Carolina could result in Romney dropping to fourth place and being edged out by Fred Thompson. Such a weak Romney result in South Carolina would stoke media speculation that Romney cannot attract votes in the South. That's a toxic label no GOP candidate wants."

NRO's Byron York doesn't think Romney is completely skipping SC: "I think Romney's re-positioning himself on South Carolina leaves out a bit of the story. He may be downplaying his chances here, but he has worked the state very hard for a long time -- and he still is...I spoke last night to Richard Quinn, who is McCain's chief strategist in South Carolina. 'I think Romey's playing possum,' Quinn told me. 'He has spent more money on TV, radio, mail, phone, staff, and consultants by at least ten to one than any other candidate running for president. He only went black on TV for about three days. This is all spin for them to say they're not playing in South Carolina.' Quinn might be exaggerating a bit, but if he is, it's not by much."

Meanwhile, John Hawkins thinks Romney is a general election loser: "Romney [is] a flip-flopper who essentially just tells people whatever they want to hear. He's also almost certain to lose in a general election. We're talking about a guy who turns states that Huckabee and McCain win by 20 points into toss-ups."

THOMPSON: Back Against The Wall

David Limbaugh urges conservatives to rally behind Thompson: "This primary season, relatively speaking, has just begun. But Fred is now up against the wall. How can we expect him to have done much better than he has to date with everyone prattling on about the overwhelming odds against him?...Supporters have asked Fred to step up, and he has -- he has shone brilliantly in the last month, setting himself head and shoulders above the pack in many cases. Now it's time for conservative voters to step up and quit placing artificial limitations on Fred, and on themselves. Fred has answered the conservatives' call. Shouldn't we answer his?"

Meanwhile, RedState's Erick Erickson thinks Thompson has momentum in SC: "From the ground it seems objectively clear that Fred Thompson has momentum. While still third or fourth in polling, he is trending up enough that the national media has taken notice and has started paying more attention to him...It may very well be too late. But with Romney ceding the field and Huckabee going down, it may be possible. One thing that is clear -- conservatives are making up their mind and as they do, Thompson is going up."

NRO's Peter Robinson agrees: "Fred needs to win or place. Can he do it? Romney has pulled out of South Carolina altogether, the situation remains fluid, all the polls show Fred trending sharply upward, Fred's ads will remain on the air until Saturday, and the emails I've received from folks who've been to Thompson's campaign events all agree that Fred's on fire. In other words, Fred can do it. He can indeed."

NRO's Jim Geraghty rains on the Fredheads' parade: "There's a danger in race-watching of mistaking what's happening for what you want to see. So I want to warn the Fredheads, who I've got some deep reserves of sympathy for...some polls show your guy with some momentum, some don't. I'd love to report, as Peter Robinson offers, that 'all the polls show Fred trending sharply upward.' But when you look at all the polls, you see that some do, some show a modest increase, and some show little change."

GIULIANI: Rooting For Huckabee?

Several bloggers are already looking ahead to the big showdown in FL:

CBN's David Brody: "There's no doubt that the Giuliani campaign would much rather see Huckabee win South Carolina than McCain. McCain can compete on the electability issue and has a moderate streak just like Giuliani. The question is will Giuliani go after McCain and if so, on what exactly? Giuliani has his skeletons too. It's a risky strategy. As we like to say in politics, the situation is 'fluid'."

AmSpec Blog's Jennifer Rubin: "I think Rudy is going to have a tough fight [in FL] but so will everyone else...Let's say McCain gets a solid (4-7 pt) win [in SC] with Huckabee in second. What happens then? McCain will get a bump going into Florida where he leads in the RCP average by 2.9 pts now...However, unlike the last few stops, he will also have to contend with the another candidate who appeals to moderate voters, stresses the importance of terrorism and who has a firm base of support -- Rudy. Coupled with Rudy's intensified push on taxes it will be a tough race. Huckabee, even if he comes in second, has not declared SC a 'must win' and will continue on in Florida, appealing to social conservatives...Now if McCain is upset what happens then? (After the all night Rudy campaign party ends, I mean.) Rudy will have himself ideally positioned to consolidate the moderate, national security, fiscal conservative voters. The others will scramble over the remainders but in this case perhaps Thompson stays in, hopeful that the shift from a chaotic race to an utterly chaotic race will leave room for him."

Meanwhile, John Hawkins still doesn't trust Giuliani: "Rudy is pro-amnesty, pro-abortion, and generally has more in common with pro-war Democrats like Christopher Hitchens and Joe Lieberman than he does with conservatives."

DEM FIELD: Yay For Democracy

Most liberal bloggers are pleased that a federal judge ruled in favor of allowing at-large Dem precincts on the Las Vegas Strip:

Open Left's Chris Bowers: "Thanks to all of those who supported the at-large precincts in this case. This is a victory over voter suppression. To tell you the truth, I don't even know if it will help Obama, since there doesn't appear to be any difference in who union members and non-union members support so far in the primaries. I'm just glad more people will take part in the process, and a crass, last-minute attempt to shut them out failed after the plan had already been public for nine months."

TAPPED's Dana Goldstein: "Well, despite what our esteemed former President believes, the Las Vegas at-large caucus sites for workers unable to get home in time have been declared legal...I'm all for measures that make it easier for people to caucus. Ideally, I believe they should be applied evenly, so that workers in many industries have the opportunity to caucus close to their job sites. That isn't the case in Nevada, but in my book, increased voter participation is always a good thing."

The Atlantic's Matthew Yglesias: "The Clinton team's nominal complaint that this procedure still makes it very difficult for other shift workers to vote is accurate, but of course their proposed remedy of making it harder for casino workers to vote is no remedy at all. Caucuses are, in general, an abomination but working to make them even less democratic doesn't help anything."

OBAMA: Facing A Roadblock In Nevada?

Last week, Jonathan Singer observed that Obama needs to be careful about managing expectations in NV:

"Although receiving the endorsements of both the Culinary Workers union and SEIU within Nevada greatly increased Barack Obama's chances of winning the state's caucuses next week those endorsements also presented him with the significant challenge of raised expectations...Before the big union endorsements, Obama was sitting quite nicely in the expectations game in Nevada, trailing by a wide margin, so even a loss by less than 20 points (and certainly less than 10 points) would have beaten expectations (at least of the existing polling). Now, at least according to [Chuck] Todd and [Marc] Ambinder (even if I disagree slightly), it seems that the Beltway is now expecting a win from Obama in Nevada, and anything less would represent a failure to meet expectations."

Now, with a new Mason-Dixon poll showing HRC leading Obama by 9 and a new Zogby poll showing HRC leading Obama by 5, Singer's warning is looking increasingly prescient.

In more positive news for Obama, Singer links to a new Rasmussen poll showing Obama gaining on HRC in CA: "We're still a long way off from the California primary, and a lot can happen between now and February 5th (like Nevada and South Carolina, for instance, and at least one or two more debates). That said, a lot of California voters like myself have their ballots in hand now, and with perhaps half of all primary voters sending in their ballots before super duper Tuesday, voter sentiments today do in fact matter. This poll, which was in the field just a single day (Monday) and had a margin of error of plus or minus 4 percentage points, could be an outlier. Clinton's lead in the other three polls taken in California this month have shown her lead to be 12, 15 and 16 points, much higher than her 5-point lead per Rasmussen (which is within the poll's margin of error). That said, if there is in fact a tightening in California, it might be an harder for Clinton to put away the race on February 5."

OBAMA II: The Ultimate Rorschach Test

Back in December, The Washington Monthly's Kevin Drum described the Dem primary as a kind of "Rorschach test" in which people "project their own desires and fears onto the top three candidates, often in completely contradictory ways." Obama's comparison of himself and Ronald Reagan, which we discussed yesterday, provides a perfect example of this phenomenon. Open Left's Matt Stoller, who generally views Obama with suspicion, interprets Obama's words as evidence that Obama "admires Reagan" and "agrees with Reagan's basic frame that the 1960s and 1970s were full of 'excesses' [like] feminism, the consumer rights movement, the civil rights movement, the environmental movement, and the antiwar movement." Matthew Yglesias, on the other hand, is more inclined to view Obama positively, and he thinks that Obama was "pretty unambiguously claiming that much as Reagan was a friendly, popular face of a much more conservative governing agenda than the country had seen before, [Obama] thinks he can be the friendly, popular face of a much more liberal governing agenda than the country has seen before."

Today we find additional examples of liberal bloggers interpreting Obama's words about Reagan in completely different ways. On the one hand, Stoller's Open Left co-blogger, Paul Rosenberg, writes:

"When Obama praised Reagan, he was...simply echoing the conventional wisdom of the elites who have tried to change America's direction, who have tried to deny the will of the people, and misrepresented America to itself. This reflects the larger fear that I have about Obama, that what he offers us is, quite simply, 'An Echo, Not A Choice.'"

On the other hand, The American Prospect's Ezra Klein writes:

"What [Obama]'s saying is that Reagan effectively understood the ideological currents in the country and used that mastery of public opinion to drive popular sentiment. In other words, he admires Reagan for shifting the center. When he says that 'Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not,' he's articulating a fundamentally different idea of the presidency than Clinton is -- more inspirational than managerial, as concerned with the prevailing ideological atmosphere as with the specifics of contemporary legislative initiatives."

We find it interesting that the more journalistic "wonkosphere" bloggers (such as Yglesias and Klein) are more inclined to view Obama favorably, whereas the more activist "netroots" bloggers (such as Stoller and Rosenberg) are more inclined to view Obama unfavorably. Perhaps it is not surprising that the netroots -- with their message of unabashed partisanship -- are turned off by Obama's post-partisan rhetoric, whereas other liberal bloggers find it less offensive.

Meanwhile, The Huffington Post's Sam Stein reports that several former Reagan officials (as well as the ex-President's son) "see a bit of their former boss in Obama":

Ron Reagan Jr.: "If I understand what [Obama] was saying I can't entirely disagree with it. They both came along at times when society was on the cusp of change and they are both agents of change. As far as Barack Obama being a similar agent of change, that remains to be seen. But what I do see him saying is that we are in a historical moment right now like the 60s and 80s. And I think he's right. We are overdue for a cultural shift."

Ex-Asst Defense Sec. Lawrence Korb: "Ronald Reagan was an inspirational leader who also was a uniter. There was never any vindictive stuff to the other side. In 1983, when you had the commission to fix Social Security, which basically gave us 20 more years with the program, after it was over Reagan would not campaign against any [Democrat] who supported that. And the harshest thing he said against [Walter] Mondale was that he was too young. There was never any of this vindictiveness...I think Obama is trying to get us back to that pleasantness."

Ex-speechwriter Peter Robinson: "I do believe Obama is right in looking back at the election of 1980 and saying that was a historical inflection point. Of course there is a certain amount of self-flattery involved in that statement, but he might be right. I do think Ronald Reagan would have found Barack Obama appealing."

OBAMA III: Tackling The Causes Of War?

Open Left's Chris Bowers explains why he prefers Obama to HRC: "Last month, I wrote a piece listing seven key policy areas that would tackle the causes of the Iraq war, and prevent future disasters of the same type. Despite Obama's weakness on health care and continuing habit of reinforcing right-wing narratives, it now seems to me that he has a clear advantage over Clinton when it comes to tackling the causes of war...Further, that Obama opposed the war from the beginning, while Clinton has not only refused to admit a mistake and her advisers boast of her hawkishness, matters quite a bit, too. Also, I admit that I simply have a cultural preference for Obama, probably because I fall into the most of the demographic groups where he performs well. So, if at any point this becomes a two person campaign, I will support Obama over Clinton. Right now, I still prefer John Edwards...However, if [Edwards] finishes third in Nevada, I will probably begin rethinking my preferences."

Meanwhile, Kevin Drum thinks that Obama and HRC have similar positions on withdrawing troops from Iraq: "Although Obama has been consistent in opposing the invasion, he and Hillary have taken pretty similar positions on withdrawal since then...over the past few months what few disagreements they had have been sanded down even more. I have a very hard time really seeing any daylight between them at this point."

EDWARDS: Russ Ain't A Fan

Last Friday, many liberal bloggers were surprised when '06 CT SEN nominee (and netroots hero) Ned Lamont endorsed Obama. Today, liberal bloggers are once again surprised -- this time because progressive hero Sen. Russ Feingold harshly criticized his former colleague John Edwards in an interview with the Appleton Post-Crescent. Feingold said:

"The [candidate] that is the most problematic is Edwards, who voted for the Patriot Act, campaigns against it. Voted for No Child Left Behind, campaigns against it. Voted for the China trade deal, campaigns against it. Voted for the Iraq war...He uses my voting record exactly as his platform, even though he had the opposite voting record.

When you had the opportunity to vote a certain way in the Senate and you didn't, and obviously there are times when you make a mistake, the notion that you sort of vote one way when you're playing the game in Washington and another way when you're running for president, there's some of that going on."

MyDD's Jonathan Singer: "Listening to the rhetoric and proposals of the leading Democratic candidates, one comes to the conclusion (or at least I do) that John Edwards is running both the most populist and progressive campaign. But Russ Feingold, perhaps the Senate's leading progressive and a man that a lot of folks would have liked to have seen run this time, comes to a clearly different conclusion about Edwards...That's some pretty blistering stuff -- and from someone with a lot of credibility, someone, perhaps even more importantly, who is not making an endorsement in the race. And, frankly, it's kind of hard to argue with what Feingold has to say. That doesn't necessarily mean that Edwards is running a disingenuous campaign or that, as President, he would not lead in a very progressive way. Nevertheless, when someone with Feingold's standing and comes out with such blunt and strong language -- and backs it up with real tangible facts, in this case in the form of votes on the Senate floor -- it's worth paying heed."

Matt Stoller: "Russ Feingold absolutely destroys John Edwards in this interview...I think it's relevant and shows why Edwards has always had trouble gaining traction. It's not just a media blackout."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Is The Media's Influence Waning?

Slate's Mickey Kaus makes an interesting observation:

"If McCain loses in 'make-or-break,' 'single elimination' South Carolina on Saturday, will he be forced to drop out? Probably not. For one thing, he has too many supporters in the press. They can't quit him! For another, as First Read suggests, the press may have lost its ability to hound a candidate out of the race -- a long-term consequence of Hillary's bolt-from-the-blue victory in New Hampshire. It's not just that the candidates themselves see less reason to drop out after the press has pronounced them dead, though that's probably true. (The press pronounced Hillary dead, and look what happened.) It's that one of the important mechanisms of hounding-out -- increasingly negative coverage that turns off your funders and embarrasses you with constituents back home -- may have broken down. That would be because the press itself has lost confidence in its ability to declare a candidate 'over,' and funders would be less likely to believe the press if it did...I predict that even Edwards, if he loses in both Nevada and South Carolina, will continue to get respectful MSM treatment..."

LEST WE FORGET: I Know Where You Can Stick That Flagpole

Wonkette's Greg Wasserstrom:

"Mike 'Former Arkansas Governor' Huckabee had his pander on lock in South Carolina today, promising swift rectal justice to those who take issue with the Palmetto State's fondness for the Confederate flag. 'In fact, if somebody came to Arkansas and told us what to do with our flag, we'd tell 'em what to do with the pole, that's what we'd do,' Huckles said, trying to win over a room of leather-clad GOP bondage fetishists. The Stars and Bars, of course, is a litmus test for many South Carolinians, in much the same way that many other nationally irrelevant issues are litmus tests for other retarded voters in places that aren't South Carolina."

Posted by Ian Faerstein at January 18, 2008 12:48 PM