January 21, 2008
1/21: And The Beat Goes On
John McCain's SC victory makes him the (fragile) frontrunner in the eyes of many conservative bloggers. That said, many bloggers believe that McCain can only win in a divided field (as was the case in SC), and they doubt his ability to beat a conservative candidate in a two-person race. Patrick Ruffini summarizes the views of many righty bloggers when he writes:
"The trouble for McCain is although he has probably secured the moderate berth in the finals (sorry, Rudy), he hasn't made many inroads with the base and his vote still looks decidedly unlike what that of a GOP nominee should look like. To say that conservative South Carolinians somehow embraced McCain is to ignore the fact that McCain lost conservatives, pro-lifers, and Evangelicals, and eeked it out against the most divided field to date."
Can McCain put together a strong GOP coalition and rise above 32-33% in national polls? Only time will tell. But conservative bloggers are certainly skeptical.
On the Dem side, liberal bloggers are debating the causes of Hillary Clinton's NV caucus victory over Barack Obama. Chris Bowers thinks HRC won because of "superior labor organizing," while Big Tent Democrat attributes HRC's victory to "Democrats, women and Latinos." Matt Stoller thinks HRC won because Obama alienated liberal voters when he compared himself to Ronald Reagan. The latter explanation certainly fits into the overall netroots' critique of Obama -- which Jerome Armstrong summarizes here:
"[Obama's] whole strategy, make or break, revolves around getting into the general with appeal to moderate Republicans and right-leaning Independents intact. I've said all along that it's the calculation which is going to keep him from getting the nomination, but the strategy is a sealed deal at this point, and we'll know the outcome within a few weeks."
DEM FIELD: Breaking Down Hillary's Win
Open Left's Chris Bowers thinks HRC won NV "on superior labor organizing": "Clinton pulled out a narrow victory in Nevada of about 5%. Obama won everywhere outside of Clark county, and so he could have won the whole thing if the Strip precincts and union vote in Clark county had gone his way. However, the insider scoop is that AFSCME out organized the culinary workers on The Strip, and generally made the difference for Clinton across the county (UNITE-HERE apparently has little in the way of political staff). To put it one way, Obama might have had more unions, but Clinton's unions just did better...In a very real way, the results are emblematic of the divide in the Democratic Party. The NEA tacitly supported Clinton, and AFSCME is now pretty much the flagship union of the AFL-CIO, at least in terms of political organizing. By contrast, SEIU and UNITE-HERE, both of which endorsed Obama in Nevada, are key unions in Change to Win. Old labor beat new labor, just as older Dems beat newer Dems."
TalkLeft's Big Tent Democrat disagrees: "While Chris Bowers reaches for a union based explanation of Hillary's win in Nevada, the entrance polls clearly tell a different story -- it was Democrats, women and Latinos who gave Hillary the win."
TPM's Greg Sargent thinks the entrance poll results reveal "sharp divisions" among Dems: "If you look at the entrance polls of the Nevada Dem caucuses today, it's striking how starkly the vote is breaking down along racial, ethnic and generational lines. Among Latinos, Hillary is beating Obama, 64%-24%. But among blacks, Obama dramatically increased his lead over Hillary from earlier in the contest, beating her 79%-16%. Meanwhile, Hillary beat back what appeared to be a stiff challenge from Obama for the female vote, beating him 52%-35%. And the vote broke down sharply along generational lines, too. Hillary beat Obama handily among both the 45-59 and the 60 and older set, while Obama won by sizable margins among voters aged 18-44."
The racial and gender divisions suggested by the entrance polls seem to be confirmed by bloggers who actually attended the caucus:
MyDD's desmoulins: "What most surprised me was the heavy Latino turnout for Clinton and the very low turnout of Latino voters for Obama."
MyDD's Todd Beeton: "It was hard not to notice that the dueling factions were divided by more than just candidate preference; the culinary workers that were rallying for Obama were mostly African-American and mostly men and those that rallied for Clinton were mostly hispanic and mostly women."
Unsurprisingly, The Atlantic's Andrew Sullivan blames the Clinton campaign for creating this racial divide: "Fascinating data from Nevada: just as Hispanics went overwhelmingly -- 64-24 -- for Clinton, blacks went more overwhelmingly -- 80-16 -- for Obama. I'd say this is a vindication of the Clintons' racial polarization strategy: force Obama to be the 'black' candidate and rely on some white and Latino discomfort to build up their own vote margins. Not a good strategy for the South, but great for the West and California. The Clintons have done the math."
Daily Kos' mcjoan strongly disputes the notion that Dems are divided: "To answer the idiotic Andrea Mitchell and Howard Fineman who are doing their damnedest to spin this contest as either a war of the races -- Hispanic vs. African American -- or a looming civil war among the Democrats, just shut up. These were committed Democrats (and new Demcorats), all getting along remarkably well (posters at Daily Kos could take a lesson from them, ahem) and showing up in record numbers to prove how committed they are to taking their country back."
Digby agrees with mcjoan: "The press portray[s] any 'division' as an ugly battle between old vs young, male vs female, black vs white. I really hope people don't fall for it. There's no reason to believe that's what's happening. There is a much simpler explanation: Democrats aren't voting against candidates because they don't like women or blacks or young or old. They are voting for them because they are women or blacks or old or young. It's not the same thing at all. The candidates are nearly indistinguishable on policy. On what basis are we supposed to make the choice? Flip a coin?"
Meanwhile, several bloggers who attended the NV caucus are accusing HRC supporters of engaging in voter suppression tactics:
In a diary that received nearly 1500 comments, Daily Kos diarist (and Obama supporter) thereisnospoon writes: "I'm reporting in from one of the Obama field offices in Clark County, NV. My girlfriend and I just came back from being the precinct captains at our caucus, and the scene here is ugly. Everyone is reporting election irregularities on the part of the Hillary campaign. There is widespread cheating and voter suppression going on all over Clark County -- and it's obviously coming in from the top down. Whether it made enough of a difference to swing the election is another question -- but there is no question that Hillary was running a scorched-earth, no-holds-barred campaign in which all of her surrogates were instructed to cheat in every way possible."
Todd Beeton: "I'm reading a lot about accusations of voting irregularities and voter suppression tactics at various caucus locations on the part of the Clinton campaign. I saw no evidence of it at The Wynn, nor did my contacts I've spoken to at a North LV caucus site or at the Mirage, but my friend thereisnospoon catalogs the accusations, including his own first hand observations, over at dailyKos, and it's very disturbing if true...Depending on how big this story gets, the mere accusations could taint Clinton's win going into South Carolina."
Several bloggers think these accusations are overblown:
Digby: "My take on all of this is that there were a lot of sharp elbows thrown. Supporters of each candidate were very assertive and trying to do their best. The Hillary precinct captains may have been a little more prepared and a little more experienced for this kind of hardball politics...Is that suppression? I can't say that it is, really. I'd be more concerned by the Barack Hussein Obama robocall, if I were the Obama people."
Matt Stoller: "I don't buy the claims of the Obama campaign that there was voter suppression going on, and I do think that the Culinary workers were pressuring their members to vote for Obama. Unfortunately for them, AFSCME just flat out beat them at their own game."
Big Tent Democrat: "[This] story won't last a freaking hour except in the wild imaginations of some bloggers."
DEM FIELD: ...Or Did Obama Win?
Several liberal bloggers were confused by the fact that Obama appeared to have won 13 DNC delegates (versus 12 for HRC), even though HRC won the popular vote:
Open Left's Chris Bowers: "Barack Obama won Nevada. Did Hillary Clinton win more state delegates? Yes. However, Barack Obama will send more delegates to the Democratic national convention than Hillary Clinton. And that, really, is all these primaries and caucuses are about: sending more delegates to the Democratic national convention."
In a later post, Bowers expands on his view: "I've learned two things today. First, the Democratic presidential nomination system is not particularly democratic, since the system of delegate selection is different than the concept of one person one vote. Second, I have learned that the national media is not actually covering the Democratic presidential nomination campaign. If the media was covering the Democratic presidential nomination campaign, then they would have projected Barack Obama as the winner of the Nevada caucuses, projected New Hampshire as a tie between Clinton and Obama, and declared that Clinton finished second in Iowa. That is, after all, what actually happened in the Democratic presidential nomination campaign, which is based on delegates, not popular votes from states. Instead of covering the Democratic presidential nomination campaign, the media is instead covering who wins the popular vote of individual states. While what the media is covering is interesting and closer to the concept of one person, one vote, it isn't the Democratic presidential nomination campaign."
The Washington Monthly's Kevin Drum doesn't share Bowers' view: "Give it up, folks. Hillary won, and trying to pretend otherwise just makes you look dumb. Nobody's buying it."
TalkLeft's Jeralyn Merritt: "Supporters of Barack Obama continue to spin the 13-12 delegate count story as if it proves he won in Nevada. Their sour grapes attitude is so unbecoming...Hillary Clinton won 51% of the vote in Nevada and Obama won 45%. Neither one received a single Nevada delegate to the national convention in Denver. A screwy system? To be sure. But that's no reason to misrepresent the impact."
Moulitsas: "In practical and political terms, Hillary wins. She gets the little checkmark next to her name in the results. Losing the delegate count is inside-baseball. But the delegate thing -- assuming it holds up and confirmed -- is worth a psychological boost to Obama and his supporters."
MyDD's Jerome Armstrong: "Everyone knows, I'm all for the delegate battle, and now that Obama's campaign is too, I'm all giddy. but saying 'Barack Obama Wins Delegate Battle in Nevada' really shows a lack of understanding in how the delegate process works...All of these delegates in Nevada, today, in 'the first determining step' are 'soft' pledges. There's nothing concrete happening yet in the delegate selection of Nevada, it just started today. We'll check back April 19th, to see how it really goes down in Nevada on the state convention, and even before that, in the county conventions on Feb 24th; but to claim a 'delegate win' today is just meaningless."
OBAMA: Losing Liberals?
Matt Stoller thinks Obama lost NV because he alienated liberal voters when he compared himself to Reagan: "We have been fighting Ronald Reagan's psychologically diseased followers and predecessors since, well, since they called themselves the Confederacy and fought for slavery. And we will keep fighting them if we are to retain a republic. That's why the self-identified very liberal Democrats swung away from Obama and took Nevada from him. Because he very self-consciously explained that he is not part of that fight, and they want a leader who is."
The Atlantic's Matthew Yglesias: "Matt Stoller observes Barack Obama bleeding support among self-identified liberals. I doubt one can really attribute Obama's problems in this regard specifically to his remarks about Ronald Reagan, but the overall tendency has been for Obama to find himself positioned to HRC's right which isn't where you want to be in a primary."
Along the same vein, Daily Kos' Markos Moulitsas thinks Obama's lack of partisanship will likely be his undoing:
"Who is running with the most progressive rhetoric? [John] Edwards, first. Then Clinton. And then Obama, who is still trying to be a palatable general election candidate rather than close the deal in the primary. So riddle me this -- in a Democratic primary, where will many Edwards supporters go? Don't assume it'll be Obama if they're looking for the strongest Democratic voice in the race.
Obama's path to the nomination at this point runs through Democratic voters. And ultimately, while my absentee ballot will be mailed out Monday with his name checked off, I'm pessimistic that he can win. He has shown no proclivity for speaking in unambiguous progressive tones, and it could cost him the election. [...]
I never dismissed [Jerome Armstrong's] theories that Obama's fundamental weakness -- his refusal to run as a Democrat in a Democratic primary -- would ultimately prove his undoing. Of course it's not too late, and much can and will happen. Jerome may yet be wrong. But his core argument was never wrong, and subsequent contests have proven that."
Open Left's Paul Rosenberg also criticizes Obama: "Regardless of his intentions, Obama has been doing a pretty good job of splitting the left for some time now. Secular humanists, peace activists, Boomers, gays, all have had their turns feeling particularly spurned, while his version of triangulation has many even more nervous than the Clinton version made them. Many think he's got the perscription exactly backwards -- Democrats don't suffer from being too much like the always-combatative Republicans, but from being too wimpy, too reluctant to stand up and fight for what they believe. And many think that now's not the time to reach out with a hand of friendship, just when they're sinking like a stone."
Digby: "I agree with Obama that this is a potentially game changing election like 1980. And I am open to the idea that he's the guy to do it. He's young, he's brilliant, he's a fresh face with immense political skills. What I don't get is why he keeps using conservative phrases and adopting hot button conservative issues like social security when it's so unnecessary. If the people are there, then why keep using this tired old crap to appeal to the middle? I understand that he doesn't want to run as a traditional liberal and that's fine. I don't think he should. But people also don't need that stale stuff about love-ins and 'entrepreneurship' or 'fixing social security' or dissing 'trial lawyers' or they'd vote for Rudy McRomney. They want something new. Give it to them. If he wants to change the trajectory as Reagan did then he should take a page from his political strategy instead of his rhetoric, stop praising him and bury conservatism instead."
In slightly better news for Obama, the IL senator wins his first Daily Kos straw poll. Moulitsas: "So this is interesting. Edwards loses five points, which is pretty natural as people see him as less viable. There's also Richardson single point of support. So the pot is six percent of the vote being reassigned. Four percent of it goes to Hillary, and only two to Obama. I wouldn't have expected that. Obama now leads the field, and will likely do so from here on out. The netroots in general is more anti-establishment than anything else, so Hillary is at a gross disadvantage on that front. But Obama's lead is more a function of Edwards' deflation, and a significant chunk of Edwards supporters than any real spike in his support. And Hillary was the big (percentage-wise) gainer."
In addition, Obama is earning praise from several liberal bloggers for his MLK speech at Ebenezer Baptist Church:
Firedoglake's Scarecrow: "The contrast between this speech and Obama's recent comments on Ronald Reagan and Republican 'ideas' is striking...The unity Obama is calling for does not sound like DLC centrism; it's more like a precursor to struggle, not only against our own weaker instincts but against powerful beliefs, institutions and interests. You can read it as class struggle, even ideological struggle."
The Washington Note's Steve Clemons: "I don't like politicians speaking in churches...But all that said, Obama's lines here are impressive, and brave -- basically tough love for members of the African-American community...If I heard more commentary like that from pols -- that took risks at the pulpit and did less pandering -- I might revise a bit of my objection to this sort of politicking. But kudos to Barack Obama for surprising a devout secularist today."
Matthew Yglesias: "Barack Obama's MLK speech at Ebenezer Baptist Church is extremely good. It should remind Obama fans of what they like best about him. For campaign purposes, though, I think nobody's ever doubted that he's a great orator. The difficulty is that he hasn't established a policy argument on his behalf that people find compelling. With little differentiation between the candidates in terms of issues, things are breaking down on demographic lines and women outnumber men, old people outnumber young people, nonblacks outnumber blacks, and working-class people outnumber college graduates among the target audience on the primaries."
OBAMA II: Markos Gets His Back
On Thursday we reported that prominent netroots bloggers were joining HRC and Edwards in criticizing Obama for comparing himself to Reagan. On Friday, the Clintons criticized Obama for another statement he made during the interview, in which the IL senator said:
"I think it's fair to say that the Republicans were the party of ideas for a pretty long chunk of time there over the last 10-15 years in the sense that they were challenging conventional wisdom."
Bill Clinton said:
"[Hillary's] principal opponent said that since 1992, the Republicans have had all the good ideas."
Markos Moulitsas: "Huh. I didn't see the part where Obama said the GOP's ideas were 'all the good' ones. In fact, Obama isn't saying anything that couldn't come straight out of Crashing the Gate -- that the GOP build a Vast Right Wing Conspiracy that used its think tanks to create ideas, a media machine to sell those ideas, and a modernized campaign operation to win elections on those ideas. Yes, the GOP was the party of ideas. They were crappy ideas. But they were 'ideas'. That's not controversial, so I'm not sure why the Clinton campaign is making such a big deal out of it. Especially 'welfare reform' Bill Clinton."
In a separate post, Moulitsas notes that HRC once told the Salmon Press editorial board that she admired Reagan's communication skills. Moulitsas: "The hypocrisy of the Hillary campaign is almost overwhelming, trying to score cheap political points from the exact same things she's been obviously telling editorial boards herself."
Moulitsas' Crashing the Gate co-author, Jerome Armstrong, thinks Obama is pandering to conservatives: "Obama was meeting the editorial board of a rightwing newspaper...He wanted their friggen endorsement and worked to get it by pandering a bit by saying things they wanted to hear. That's what he was there for, as he says very plainly, TO GET THEIR VOTE...But lets all admit that for Obama, while running to be the Democratic nominee, his calling the Republican Party 'the party of ideas' was really dumb. Heck, I would never write that without some sort of qualification that the ideas sucked (as CTG did). But obviously, Obama couldn't say that in this context, as he was pandering for a few Republican votes. So he skipped over that messy part to keep the wingnuts happy. He got the endorsement, but he gave a lot of ammo up in doing so -- not a smart move at this point in path of the DEMOCRATIC nomination for President. Anyway, it's not something all that new from Obama. Their whole strategy, make or break, revolves around getting into the general with appeal to moderate Republicans and right-leaning Independents intact. I've said all along that it's the calculation which is going to keep him from getting the nomination, but the strategy is a sealed deal at this point, and we'll know the outcome within a few weeks."
CLINTON: Bloggers Mess With Bill
TPM's Josh Marshall is concerned by Bill Clinton's attacks on Obama: "I don't expect Bill Clinton, who's not a shrinking violet, to be neutral in his own wife's nomination campaign. But I have to admit that the intensity of Bill Clinton's attacks on Barack Obama really makes me uncomfortable. I know there are a lot of Democratic party insiders, mostly older than I am, who don't like it either. But I wonder if there's not some generational aspect to it for people my age. I was in my early 20s in 1992. And really throughout the 90s you couldn't be a bigger Clinton guy than I was. So it's hard to see that history (and it's quite some history) leveraged to muscle this campaign."
Meanwhile, Markos Moulitsas pushes back against another Bill Clinton statement: "Bill Clinton personally witnesses voter suppression. Yup. People are suppressing voters right in the face of the former President of the United States. Either that, or he's full of shit as he tries to bolster his wife's presidential bid."
Digby: "There WAS a real-world impact to the lawsuit brought by Clinton allies to shut down the Strip caucuses, and particularly Bill Clinton's comments that those employees' votes would 'count five times as much' as regular Nevadans. This is a complete and utter falsehood, but coming from a former President, it had weight. Apparently that soundbite was played over and over on Las Vegas TV and radio. There were statements from the teacher's union that the lawsuit was designed to protect voter rights, when the impact would have only been to shut down the Strip caucuses and prevent people from participating...And on the ground, people got that message, and the Culinary Workers union were absolutely painted as the caricature of 'powerful union bosses' trying to steal the vote. So Hillary's success in Clark County must be attributed to that in part."
Daily Kos diarist kid oakland: "Bill Clinton is a Democratic ex-President who should, if he is for anything, support the right of citizens to go to the polls and caucus regardless of who they are likely to support...In supporting a last-minute lawsuit to suppress the vote of working people in Las Vegas, to go back on a long-standing agreement made within the Nevada Democratic Party, Bill Clinton opened our party up to any and every last minute voter suppression tactic and lawsuit undertaken by the GOP in 2008. And yeah, after our experiences as a party in 2000 and 2004, that's unforgivable."
GOP FIELD: On To Florida!
Townhall's Patrick Ruffini: "The scenario I laid out yesterday came to pass in South Carolina, with John McCain emerging victorious against a conservative field divided three ways, a field that was two parts [Mike] Huckabee, one part [Fred] Thompson, and one part [Mitt] Romney...We are beginning to see the real dividing lines of this campaign. It's the battle of the moderates (McCain), metro conservatives (Romney), and rural conservatives (Huckabee). Stripped of all other hangers-on (Fred, and increasingly, Rudy [Giuliani]), nationwide this divide seems to work out to about 40-40-20, or 35-40-25. Conservatives ought to be winning this battle, but Huckabee's lock on the rural vote (just 16% of the vote in Charleston County, btw) will prevent any kind of clear two-man race before February 5th. Every day that Huckabee's nice guy act is allowed to continue is a gift to John McCain -- and he knows it."
Many conservative bloggers are already looking ahead to Florida:
Townhall's Hugh Hewitt: "Voters in Florida are in for the most interesting 10 day campaign in recent political history. It is an elimination round in which at least one and possibly two of the would-be nominees will be sent to the sidelines...What is said and done by the candidates over the next few days will decide Florida and nothing else. Even as they focus on this confused picture, the issues dominating the debate are changing rapidly to elevate the economy over immigration and the war. That has to favor Romney, and McCain is still burdened by the antipathy of many Reagan conservatives."
AmSpec Blog's Jennifer Rubin thinks the issues in FL favor Giuliani and McCain, not Romney: "The [FL] playing field is tipped in McCain and Rudy's favor on issues -- the economy and defense -- and away from a key issue Romney has tried to use against these two -- immigration. (Romney also will be squeezed by Huckabee in the search for social conservative votes.) Huckabee will have a shot at the state only because he has a base of value voters in the Panhandle and the I-4 corridor. Without Thompson nipping at Huckabee's heels he might secure 25% or so of the electorate. All that said, McCain will get a bump from SC and his poll numbers will rise, fueling his claims of inevitability and electability. He'll be the favorite and the target. Rudy will have to knock him down to size to stay in the race. Thursday's debate should be very interesting."
Captain's Quarters' Ed Morrissey: "I'd guess that Rudy wins Florida. It's tailor-made for him, with plenty of Northeastern retirees and an active Cuban-American base that wants to see hard-nosed policy rather than moderation. If that happens, we can forget clarification, and Super Tuesday becomes a delegate hunt, pure and simple, with everyone viable and a brokered convention more and more likely. If McCain wins Florida, it turns into a two-man race, with Romney becoming the improbable conservative standard-bearer."
MCCAIN: The Shaky Frontrunner?
Right Wing News'John Hawkins thinks McCain is now the leader of the pack: "At this point, John McCain is definitely the front runner. He captured conservative South Carolina and pre-South Carolina, he had a small but significant polling edge in Florida. He also had a significant lead in the national polling, and a lead in large Super Tuesday states like California, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania. At this point, McCain is probably the only candidate who could come in 3rd place or lower in Florida and still have a good chance to pull out the nomination. Is McCain still stoppable? Yes, but he has a better chance to capture the nomination than the rest of the field combined at this point."
NRO's Mark Steyn agrees with Hawkins: "You would have to think McCain is on course to be the nominee. He's won the two traditionally determinative primaries and he's the senior candidate in a party that rewards seniority. It's also clear that Huck can't get beyond his base, and Fred is the insurgent who never insurges, and Mitt is a dogged but weak campaigner whose tactical judgments seem to be self-defeating [...], and Rudy's 'strategy' has been to take a national lead and then see it wither to single digits in every state that schedules an actual vote in hopes that it will nevertheless decline sufficiently slowly to enable him to eke out a narrow victory in Florida."
NRO's John Hood disagrees: "There is no frontrunner here. Romney and McCain have won multiple contests and will be competing through and past Super Duper Tuesday. Thompson is out. Huckabee and Giuliani each still have a slim shot, fading quickly (indeed, within the next 10 days). Once the field narrows, winning a third of the vote won't cut it anymore. Don't be impatient -- this is far from over. "
RedState's Erick Erickson is not happy about McCain's victory: "I'm so damned frustrated with Thompson and Romney. *Neither* of the conservative candidates in the race has been able to close the deal. Romney has spent millions of his own money and Thompson had conservative support handed to him on a silver platter. Look at both of them -- 3rd and 4th in *the* state where conservatives should be controlling the board."
NRO's Mark Levin also has major doubts about McCain: "The problem for McCain is his record (which some of his supporters want us to downplay, or to limit to certain issues most important to them, or claim what matters is that he can beat the Democrat, or whatever). That's not going to work right now. Even if this website were to close down tonight and never reappear, McCain's positions on some major issues simply won't go down with a lot of conservatives...It is hard to see how some of these candidates can draw the movement together, especially McCain, has spent a decade undermining major parts of it."
Patrick Ruffini explains McCain's challenge going forward: "The trouble for McCain is although he has probably secured the moderate berth in the finals (sorry, Rudy), he hasn't made many inroads with the base and his vote still looks decidedly unlike what that of a GOP nominee should look like. To say that conservative South Carolinians somehow embraced McCain is to ignore the fact that McCain lost conservatives, pro-lifers, and Evangelicals, and eeked it out against the most divided field to date. With Romney's suburban base secure, for McCain to start racking up victory margins in the 40s -- which he'll need as candidates fade or drop out -- he'd need to add votes from the Christian conservative base -- from supporters of walking wounded like Huck and Fred. Because of their candidates' personal animosities towards Romney, that is a distinct possibility that such an alliance could be forged -- but it would be an alliance of opposites -- of pro-life and pro-choice, of liberal and conservative, of secular and evangelical. I don't know if conservatives are going to overlook that fact."
NRO's Jim Geraghty sees a similar challenge for McCain: "For what it's worth, McCain has led every national poll of Republicans in January except one at the beginning of the month...That has to be a good sign going into Super Duper Tuesday. The one potential flaw for McCain is that he's topping out at about 32-33 percent. If one or more candidates get knocked out after Florida's results, does McCain lead a three or four man race the way he's leading a five-man race?"
MCCAIN II: Putting The Fear Into Liberal Bloggers
Several liberal bloggers are growing increasingly worried about the prospect of facing McCain in the general election, as they consider him the GOP's most formidable candidate:
Chris Bowers wants to figure out a way to defeat McCain in the GOP primary: "According to general election trial heats, John McCain appears to be the only Republican who would not be a massive underdog against either Clinton or Obama...defeating John McCain means defeating Joe Lieberman and the Lieber-punditry by proxy...Given this, what I want to do is start thinking of ways to defeat John McCain in the Republican primary. Apart from our established techniques of search engine optimization (Googlebombing) and urging progressive independents and Democrats to vote for Mitt Romney in open primaries, what else can we do to defeat John McCain? I'm open to all ideas."
The American Prospect's Paul Starr: "[McCain] remains by far his party's best bet for holding onto the White House. The Republican field has been so preoccupied with appealing to the party's hard-core base that it seemed that the eventual winner would have little appeal to the independent voters who can swing a general election. Even McCain started out by embracing the evangelical Christians he had once denounced. But as his seemingly dead campaign has been reborn, his initial efforts to pander to the religious right have been forgotten, and he is once again happily running as a 'maverick.' Though his nomination is hardly guaranteed, the Arizona senator would provide the GOP with a powerful mix of continuity and change -- continuity with the Bush administration on Iraq at a moment when the conventional wisdom is that the 'surge' is succeeding, and a sense of change and freshness from McCain's past deviations from conservative orthodoxy."
THOMPSON: Should He Stay Or Should He Go?
Erick Erickson wants Thompson to stay in the race:
"There are a lot of us who have found Fred to be our candidate because he is the consistent conservative in the race.
Huckabee is economically populist.
John McCain's major legislative efforts are named McCain-Feingold, McCain-Edwards-Kennedy, McCain-Kennedy, and McCain-Lieberman. Notice a pattern?
Mitt Romney's problem is not his flips, but his flops and his, of late, tax the rich to help the poor rhetoric.
Rudy Giuliani dresses up like a drag queen and wants taxpayer funded abortions.
So doggoneit, stay in the race, Fred. You did better in South Carolina than Rudy or Romney. Your debate performances of late have been fantastic. The crowds are growing at your forums. The money is coming in.
Stay in Fred. Some of us have no where else to go and a lot of us want at least one conservative to talk common sense."
NRO's Jim Geraghty doesn't think Thompson needs to drop out: "There's no reason for Fred Thompson to leave the race. He's apparently put more effort into Louisiana than the other candidates (they vote Tuesday), and there's a bunch of deep red states he can fight in on Super Duper Tuesday, including his home state of Tennessee. If there were a clear frontrunner, and this thing was all over, I could see it. But if he really finds some of his other rivals as not-conservatives who are unacceptable to carry the Republican mantle, why not stay in this thing until the end, collect as many delegates as he can, and at the very least, throw them to the one he finds most acceptable at the GOP convention?"
NRO's Kathryn Jean Lopez disagrees: "This is the end. [Thompson]'s lead an honorable and conservative campaign. But it's probably about over."
Power Line's Paul Mirengoff also thinks it's time for Thompson to go: "Frankly, and I say this with regret, it's difficult to see the case for him remaining in the race."
NRO's Lisa Schiffren: "I think [Thompson] should drop out because I don't really see what he has to gain by staying in. It will only keep muddying the contest between the three leaders. Any smart Republican president will give him a serious job in the next administration."
Townhall's Jonathan Garthwaite: "How soon will [Thompson] get out? Who will he endorse? Will his supporters follow him into another camp? With nine days before Florida, there's plenty of time for this race to shift direction a time or two."
John Hawkins thinks Thompson might stay in the race in order to help McCain: "Normally, a candidate would help out another candidate in this situation by dropping out and endorsing him. But, given that Fred's supporters are mostly hard core conservatives and very unlikely to vote for McCain whether Fred endorses him or not, Fred can help his friend John McCain more by just staying in the race through Super Tuesday and peeling off some conservatives who would probably be inclined to vote for anyone but McCain."
THOUGHT OF THE DAY: The Maha Rushie Speaks
"I know that there are a lot of you out there that think McCain, because you look at these national polls, think McCain can beat Hillary, and beating Hillary, that's first and foremost, that's gotta happen. At this point, given the way things are shaping up, that's not a priority to me. Conservatism is the priority, and if what we do to beat Hillary destroys conservatism, what the hell. I'd just as soon have conservatism survive and go four years of abomination with Hillary or Obama, and then, you know, take it back."
LEST WE FORGET: The Words Of Dr. King
In honor of Martin Luther King, Jr.'s birthday, we present the following passage from Dr. King's 1963 "Letter from a Birmingham Jail" (h/t Matthew Yglesias):
"Oppressed people cannot remain oppressed forever. The yearning for freedom eventually manifests itself, and that is what has happened to the American Negro. Something within has reminded him of his birthright of freedom, and something without has reminded him that it can be gained. Consciously or unconsciously, he has been caught up by the Zeitgeist, and with his black brothers of Africa and his brown and yellow brothers of Asia, South America and the Caribbean, the United States Negro is moving with a sense of great urgency toward the promised land of racial justice. If one recognizes this vital urge that has engulfed the Negro community, one should readily understand why public demonstrations are taking place. The Negro has many pent-up resentments and latent frustrations, and he must release them. So let him march; let him make prayer pilgrimages to the city hall; let him go on freedom rides-and try to understand why he must do so. If his repressed emotions are not released in nonviolent ways, they will seek expression through violence; this is not a threat but a fact of history. So I have not said to my people: "Get rid of your discontent." Rather, I have tried to say that this normal and healthy discontent can be channeled into the creative outlet of nonviolent direct action. And now this approach is being termed extremist."
Posted by Ian Faerstein at January 21, 2008 01:21 PM
The Watergate · 600 New Hampshire Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20037
202-739-8400 · fax 202-833-8069
NationalJournal.com is an Atlantic Media publication.
