January 08, 2008

1/8: Independents Flex Their Muscles

It's primary day in New Hampshire, and bloggers on the left and right are making their final predictions. With a string of recent polls showing Barack Obama leading Hillary Clinton, most bloggers are predicting a victory for Obama. That said, bloggers believe that the margin of victory will matter: a closer-than-expected finish will give HRC a much-needed shot of momentum, while a 15-point Obama win will be harder for the HRC camp to spin. Daily Kos' Markos Moulitsas, like most observers, thinks that NH's famous independent voters hold the key:

"The big challenge here is trying to figure out where the independent vote will go. If they decide to cast a Democratic ballot, Obama wins huge. If they decide to cast a Republican one, Obama wins less big."

While liberal bloggers agree that Obama will probably win NH, they are divided on his overall chances of winning the nomination. Moulitsas thinks that Obama is rapidly becoming an unstoppable "tsunami", but other prominent bloggers -- including Jerome Armstrong and Matt Stoller -- think that HRC still has an excellent shot at the Dem nomination even if she loses NH.

On the GOP side, most conservative bloggers are predicting a victory for John McCain, as recent polling would suggest. However, several prominent bloggers -- including Richelieu and Rich Lowry -- think that a Mitt Romney upset is possible (albeit unlikely). One thing is clear: if McCain triumphs in New Hampshire and consolidates his support as the mainstream GOP alternative to Mike Huckabee, a lot of conservative bloggers will be very unhappy with the choice.

DEM FIELD: New Hampshire Predictions

Open Left's Matt Stoller makes an NH prediction: "I'm going to go out on a limb and predict that Obama will win the New Hampshire primary by a substantial margin tomorrow, followed by Clinton and then [John] Edwards...I'll say, randomly, 40-28-22-8-2, Obama-Clinton-Edwards-Richardson-Kucinich."

Markos Moulitsas predicts an even more lopsided win for Obama:

"Obama 45

Clinton 26

Edwards 21"

TalkLeft's Big Tent Democrat thinks that the margin of victory will matter: "Clinton is closing in all but the Zogby poll. But the margin seems too large. So the spin is critical here. If Clinton can come within say 5, she has a fair chance of arguing she did decently in the face of Iowa Mo. Edwards is done it seems. Obama is the winner if he wins, but how big a win is subject to spin."

DEM FIELD II: A New Frontrunner?

Markos Moulitsas ranks the Dem candidates in order of their chances of winning the nomination:

THE TOP TIER

1.) Barack Obama
He won Iowa, New Hampshire is falling in line for the expected rubber stamp, and the Clinton campaign is reeling (see below). His youth participation numbers are off the charts, independents love him (and may even help deprive McCain of a big NH victory because they'd rather vote for Obama), and the Republicans have no idea how to respond to him.

2.) Hillary Clinton
Her campaign is in civil war mode. Her advisers are conceding likely losses in New Hampshire and South Carolina. And suddenly the firewall becomes Florida -- alongside Rudy, two New Yorkers praying against hope that transplanted Yankees breathe new life into their campaigns.

I'm not necessarily going to discount Hillary's chances in places like New Jersey and California (New York seems a given) or places like Texas, but her 'inevitability' theme -- deeply wounded by Iowa -- would be a rotting corpse after a full month of primary losses. Designed to scare off strong opposition and dry up her opponents' fundraising, the 'inevitability' thing simply set her up for a bigger fall. Oops.

THE SECOND TIER

3.) John Edwards
Edwards clearly aligned himself with Obama against Hillary in Saturday's debate, perhaps hoping that the rest of the contests this month deliver a Hillary knock out. But a 1-on-1 contest between Edwards and Obama favors the frontrunner, as Obama has the money, crowds, and organization that Edwards was never able to generate. Yet his fiery rhetoric often set the tone for the campaign, and his leadership on issues as diverse as the Nevada Fox News debate and Iraq helped push the primary in a decidedly progressive direction.

THE REST

Richardson is playing for Veep, the others are playing for...I don't know why. I won't try to guess.

Meanwhile, a number of liberal bloggers were impressed by Obama's national surge, which is evidenced in the latest Gallup poll:

Moulitsas: "This thing is becoming a tsunami, and that's before Obama even wins New Hampshire and South Carolina. I don't see how Clinton recovers."

Open Left's Chris Bowers: "With Obama's Iowa bounce now peaking in the mid or high teens, a New Hampshire win would put him well on pace for the typical bounce of net 33% for winning both Iowa and New Hampshire. That is a large enough bounce that he will probably take Nevada, too, thus creating real problems for Clinton. If Clinton were to win Nevada, she would still be in the game come February 5th. However, without any non-Michigan wins heading into January 29th, she could very well lose Florida, and be in real trouble."

MyDD's Jonathan Singer: "There is quite a bit of time, still, between now and the beginning of February (nearly a month, in fact...), so there could be a potential for Clinton to stop some of the hemorrhaging of her support in time to make a real push for the big states that will chose their delegates on the superest of super Tuesdays. Yet even leaving aside the longer term meaning of these numbers, one cannot help but think that this poll could serve to reinforce the results of Iowa in further indicating to voters nationwide, through the establishment media, that Obama can win. This is big time news for the Obama campaign in the short term."

MyDD's Jerome Armstrong, in contrast, thinks the race is far fom over: "There will be a big swing to Obama, but that bounce is reversible. True, with [John] Kerry, there was no reverse, but there are three recent instances (1984, 1992 and 1996), when the bounce from New Hampshire substantially receded about 3 weeks afterwards...if Clinton goes big into Florida, I don't see how Obama or Edwards can ignore the state's election, and then it matters even more, and a Clinton win in Florida is even bigger. That's Jan, then on Feb 5th, Clinton is going to win a lot more states and their delegates. So will Edwards. They will both ensure that Obama does not have enough delegates to win the nomination on his own."

Matt Stoller is similarly dubious: "In October, Clinton's perfect campaign had Obama donors panicking, just as today Clinton's campaign is in meltdown (and Obama's is the reverse dynamic)...And while Clinton has been swinging wildly and missing in incredibly clumsy and sometimes racist ways, she will find an attack that works. Obama hasn't been criticized yet in any real way, so don't be surprised if the story arc turns against him. He's starting to get real flack and scrutiny, beginning with nasty establishment types that nonetheless have real influence."

CLINTON: Channeling Cheney?

Several liberal bloggers were angered by HRC's invocation of the terrorist threat as a reason to support her over Obama:

Moulitsas: "The wheels are off the Clinton bandwagon. She faces an epic Obama surge with few options to stem the bleeding. But just when I was feeling sorry for her, she has to morph into [Rudy] Giuliani...The scary terrorists will attack us if we don't elect Hillary! Or something. An act of desperation for a campaign dead in the water."

AMERICAblog's John Aravosis: "I would disagree with Markos about one point. Hillary isn't channeling Rudy. She and Rudy are channeling Cheney: 'Vice President [Dick] Cheney warned on Tuesday that if John F. Kerry is elected, 'the danger is that we'll get hit again' by terrorists.'"

The Atlantic's Matthew Yglesias: "For the 'using Republican talking points' watch, Hillary Clinton warns that terrorists will devour your children if Barack Obama is elected president."

Arianna Huffington: "Clinton is again taking a page from the Bush fearmongering playbook -- insinuating very bad things could happen if we don't elect her...It's a sequel to her husband's Roll the Dice -- which, in itself, was a sequel to the entire Bush/Cheney reelection campaign."

EDWARDS: Cry Me A River

HRC's display of emotion at a meeting with NH voters yesterday drew a largely sympathetic response from the netroots. Many liberal bloggers were angered by Edwards' response to the incident, in which the ex-senator reportedly said, "I think what we need in a commander-in-chief is strength and resolve, and presidential campaigns are tough business, but being president of the United States is also tough business."

TPM Cafe's Todd Gitlin: "This is the kind of response that gives my entire sex a bad name -- the 'resolve' to rough up the opposition any old way. Where is Edwards' regional charm all of a sudden?"

Matt Stoller: "When Edwards almost gets choked up and talks about how personal XYZ person is on the trail, he's just passionate. When Clinton does it, she suddenly becomes a hysterical weak woman. I thought her appearance was one of the sweetest, toughest, and most forthright expressions of Hillary Clinton's belief system I have ever seen...Todd Gitlin is right -- John Edwards is acting like a prick."

Firedoglake's Jane Hamsher: "Why shouldn't [HRC] be emotional at this point? Her male fellow candidates don't have to put up with leering, chortling, oily creeps like Chris Matthews and Joe Scarborough laughing at them and disrespecting them when they're trying to run a fucking political campaign...Oh and John Edwards? Please stop being a patronizing, sexist jerk."

Ezra Klein: "Assuming the quote and context is correct, I think it's appalling that Edwards attempted to equate a momentary display of emotion with an absence of strength and resolve."

Longtime Edwards supporter Amanda Marcotte was so infuriated by Edwards' statement that she switched her support to Obama: "It's bad enough that the media plays the game with Clinton where if she shows any emotion, she's too feminine or too scary, but if she's more stoic, she's a scary ballbuster, but to have her own party members (if political rivals) play that cheap sexist card is too much. I've been reconsidering moving my Edwards support to Obama, and unless someone can show me evidence that Obama is just as likely to take cheap, sexist shots like this, I think that's what I'll be doing in light of this."

Not every netroots blogger was convinced that HRC's tears were authentic, however:

AMERICAblog's John Aravosis: "Was the tearing up even sincere? Hillary gave an awfully nuanced and subtle attack on Obama during her tearing up. Yes, she could have winged it while sincerely welling up, but if she wung it, she's damn good."

OBAMA: If They Hate, Let 'Em Hate, And Watch The Money Pile Up

The Washington Post's Jose Antonio Vargas has a new article entitled, "Obama's Rise Sidelines Bloggers." Vargas quotes several of Obama's netroots critics as they explain their problems with the IL senator:

Jerome Armstrong: "Obama doesn't want partisan Democrats like the netroots on his side, so we'll see if, when we start having Democratic primaries, he can win on his own terms or not. I was rooting that it would come down to Edwards and Clinton -- that to me represents a battle of Democratic values and ideas. Obama's candidacy is really just personality-driven, wrapped with quasi-religious overtures of 'believe' and 'hope' and 'unity' and 'trust'. He's the first mega-church candidate."

Jane Hamsher: "What Obama did in Iowa, getting all those young people to vote, was really inspirational. It was a miraculous achievement. But the idea that you can reach out to Republicans and they'll work with you isn't so convincing to people who have watched the Republicans in Congress. There are those who are worried that it's a false hope he's giving."

OBAMA II: The View From The Right

Conservative bloggers are increasingly discussing Obama's candidacy and the threat he might pose in November:

Townhall's Mary Katharine Ham: "In the past, Republicans have relied on young people, who naturally lean liberal, not turning out. Obama has the potential to change the turnout dynamic, for real, not just as an empty promise...Obama is becoming the candidate that it's 'cool' to back in the same way that it's 'cool' to attend anti-war rallies and protests against Bush. One doesn't need to be interested in politics or informed to gain the socially-conscious cred one gleans from mere appearance at an Obama rally. One must only be default lefty and have some time on one's hands, as most college kids do. Those people aren't often swayed by more cerebral discussions of Obama's weaknesses, either."

NRO's Andy McCarthy: "It's very tempting to get giddy over what is looking like Hillary's collapse. The Clintons have been so destructive of our politics and have hurt so many people along the way that satisfaction over their seeming comeuppance is irresistible. But make no mistake: From a policy perspective, Barack Obama is every bit as bad and in many ways worse. And he can win -- as in win the whole thing...and, because he is undeniably charismatic, is more likely than Hillary to do so."

RedState's Erick Erickson: "I expect that Barack Obama is actually a more formidable candidate than Hillary Clinton. He will actually be harder to beat. He should not be. But he will be. The media portrays him as a likable fellow and agent of change. I suspect he will see a total of 24 hours of bad press in the coming 11 months...A lot of people think Barack Obama is a transformative politician. They think he will set the GOP back a hundred years. I do not...I see Barack Obama as a superficial media created agent of change. At heart, like Fred Thompson said this past Saturday night, Barack Obama is a liberal. We are a center-right nation...Even if we lose this year, and history is against us, I suspect those on my side who are extremely pessimistic about Obama will come to see him as I do."

GOP FIELD: New Hampshire Predictions

Campaign Standard's Richelieu: "[NH has] been McCain city, but Romney has re-grouped in the last 48 hours with a good debate and finally an effective message. I still would bet on McCain winning [today], but a Romney upset is possible. Call it 60/40 odds. Michigan will be the next stop, and my view is that any Republican candidate who has not won a major contest by next Wednesday is living on borrowed time."

Captain's Quarters' Ed Morrissey predicts: "McCain 32%, Romney 30%, Huckabee 16%, Giuliani 10%, Paul and Thompson 8%."

AmSpec Blog's James Antle: "None of this is especially earth shattering, but just to be on the record (for whatever it's worth)...McCain beats Romney, Ron Paul beats Rudy Giuliani."

AmSpec Blog's Jennifer Rubin: "McCain will win by 5-7 pts including a narrow win among registered Republicans. Romney will say he never said NH or Iowa were must wins. Rudy will edge Huckabee (if enough people watched the debate on Sunday) and will point out that his Florida strategy envisioned no one running the table early on."

NRO's Jim Geraghty thinks McCain is looking strong: "If, as polls indicate, John McCain is tied or just a bit ahead of Romney among registered Republicans, and is ahead among independents by two to one, then it doesn't really matter what proportion of the GOP electorate is independents."

ROMNEY: In A Granite State Of Mind

Townhall's Matt Lewis wonders if Romney's organization will help him win NH: "It was clear that [Romney's] supporters truly love and admire him...Organization wasn't enough to win Iowa for Romney, but then again, he was competing against an organized Evangelical movement. Will organization be the difference-maker in New Hampshire?"

In a separate post, Lewis discusses the stakes for Romney in NH: "A Romney win today, combined with his second-place finish in Iowa, would make him once again the frontrunner. But more than that, it would probably also guarantee his victory next week in Michigan -- where his father was governor -- thus making him the 'undisputed' front-runner for the GOP nomination. The Romney folks...argue that two consecutive second-place finishes in Iowa and New Hampshire would make him the consistent winner, and thus, the candidate to beat. But this theory ignores the fact that Michigan is next week."

NRO's Rich Lowry wonders if Romney is rallying: "[Robert] Novak, [Marc] Ambinderhere and here, and Richelieu all sense some movement for Mitt. If he is closing strong, he could still probably use another day or two -- say, a Thursday vote instead of Tuesday. You'd still bet on a McCain win, but maybe something interesting is going on. I thought the Romney two-minute closing statement was very good, by the way."

Meanwhile, longtime Romney supporter Hugh Hewitt describes how he and other Romney supporters are feeling: "We're nervous this morning, and would like a win tonight, or a close loss that suggests momentum turned on Saturday and Sunday night and can continue forward, marking the Friday after Iowa as the low point of the long campaign. But we are most definitely not packing our bags to go home if it turns out otherwise...[Romney] has impressive organizations in South Carolina, Nevada, Florida, California and elsewhere. His appeal to Reagan conservatives especially the Club for Growth-types and social conservatives who care about at least three SCOTUS vacancies in the years ahead and know Huck doesn't have a chance isn't going to fade because Iowa evangelicals and New Hampshire Independents favor Mike Huckabee and John McCain respectively."

Another Romney supporter, NRO's Kathryn Jean Lopez, thinks Romney needs to stop explaining his policy goals and focus on inspiring people: "Mitt Romney knows how to inspire people -- remind them of why any of us love this country and why he loves it and wants to lead it into the future, protecting and defending its Constitution and founding principles -- he did this during his religion speech in Texas before Thanksgiving. Mitt Romney knows how to take command, he did it in the debate Sunday night. This is the Mitt Romney voters in Michigan, South Carolina, Florida...need to meet, see, know."

MCCAIN: He Knows Jack

NRO's Larry Kudlow thinks Jack Kemp's endorsement will help McCain with fiscal conservatives: "Jack Kemp's endorsement of Sen. John McCain for president is both interesting and significant. Kemp was one of the founders of the Reagan supply-side tax-cutting movement. And of course, he's been a prominent free-market advocate for economic-growth policies for several decades...Getting him on board is a real coup for Sen. McCain."

NRO's Mark Levin doesn't think Kemp's endorsement will help: "Sorry Larry, but most endorsements mean little, and Kemp means less. His 1996 performance against Gore was a long-time turn-off for many, not to mention his affinity for open borders and affirmative action."

AmSpec Blog's Quin Hillyer is surprised that Kemp endorsed McCain: "I was surprised that Jack Kemp endorsed [McCain] -- a significant endorsement, to be sure -- both because of McAmnesty's opposition to the Bush tax cuts and especially because of McNasty's fondness for a regulatory state that Kemp, to his credit, always opposed. For that matter, where does McAngry stand on monetary policy? Kemp is well known as a gold bug. Is McCain? If he's not, then that is another reason why Kemp's endorsement would seem McInane."

James Antle is also surprised by the endorsement: "For the past decade, John McCain hasn't exactly been a standout economic conservative. He has fought some good fights against wasteful spending, and he bravely voted against the Medicare prescription drug benefit. But he's generally moved in a big government direction since the latter half of the 1990s. We're supposed to ignore that record because Jack Kemp endorsed him?"

Jennifer Rubin defends McCain: "While Rush [Limbaugh] and others are running lifelong Republicans out of the conservative movement, I am making a perhaps vein attempt to recognize that although hardly perfect McCain's economic record is infinitely better than his primary rival (Huckabee) and not bad on the merits. He has not, as another candidate has done, gone through every item on the conservative agenda and reversed his position. He has been a lifelong spending hawk and free trader and has come out with a free market healthcare plan. He voted for the Reagan tax cuts and against the Bush ones. His affection for government regulation is I think entirely misplaced. All that in my book comes out to an A- or so...Thompson and Giuliani I would suggest are stronger on this front but I'll have to be convinced McCain is not the most viable alternative to Huckabee at this point."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Media's Love Affair With McCain

The New Republic's Jason Zengerle has an explanation:

"The simple explanation is: McCain affords the press access like no other candidate. In the McCain campaign, there's no barrier between candidate and reporter. If you have a question for McCain, you don't have to bother going to his press secretary; you simply go ask him. On some days, you literally spend eight hours with the candidate, just riding with him in the back of his bus peppering him with questions on everything from Pakistan to his philosophical thoughts about suicide. Toward the end of the day, this amount of unfettered access to the candidate can actually be a bit of a problem, when you start to run out of questions for him and there are awkward silences. But, on the whole, it's hard to overstate the sort of goodwill this access engenders among reporters."

LEST WE FORGET: When D.C. Comes To New Hampshire

Campaign Standard's Richelieu describes the irony of the NH primary:

"Stop your car on an icy street at twilight among a crowd of eager sign wavers at any major intersection and interrogate the 27-year-old fleeced-up chief sign waver and you are likely to find this paragon of New Hampshire's vital small-D-democracy is actually a Hill staffer on the House Foreign Relations committee. Yup, a whole lot of the busy door knockers, sign wavers, and rally applauders here are short time imports from the Beltway political machine, here to support their favored candidates. Never have so many SAT and LSAT points been assigned to such chimp-level labor. Yesterday, in the nicotine-scented bar area of a working class Manchester political hangout, I bumped into a sweater-wearing guy clearly exploring the sacred and the profane, as he had a beer in one hand and a big Huckabee pin on his sweater. I was going to ask him the local temperature until I recognized him as an old pro lobbyist pal who's take-home pay last year was at least 20 times the average family income in New Hampshire."

Posted by Ian Faerstein at January 8, 2008 01:14 PM