Debate

Debate has probably just started but I won't be able to see it and won't be able to read about it until it's over.

Bill Kristol suggests the possibility of smear. Romney's got to hit McCain hard, it's his last chance to break McCain's momentum. Come up with some charge as yet untried, or at least get McCain angry. Kristol says McCain has to recognize this is a possible tactic, and has to be prepared.

Could be presuming too much, too much inclination toward drama among the plebs. We'll see. Wonder if Huck would intervene in such a situation. Crack some jokes, ask Romney about jobs he destroyed as a turnaround artist...?

Or then it might just be a totally boring debate.

-----------------
8:37PM
Occurs to me Kristol's piece was a warning not to McCain but to Romney: Pull a smear and everybody will be primed to catch it. Now to start reading...

My own prediction...? Romney has said he would bring up the integrity issue. I really don't think there's anything he can do effectively other than get McCain angry, and I suspect McCain will hold his anger during the debate. But I do expect Huck could get in some barbs... And then a debate setting might be considered one not controllable, so the safest course would be to play it straight. Actually, in keeping with my intent to put down my predictions, I expect Romney will make some charges. I've repeated myself.

Wither Hence?

Giuliani out, support to McCain. Huckabee still in, support still... mainly taken from McCain. Normally in news coverage an equivalency is drawn, what Giuliani will give to McCain Huck would give to Romney were he to withdraw. Huck's conservative voters supposedly would go to the "conservative" Romney. That's not true. It's McCain who's largely the second choice of Huckabee supporters. How hard is that to understand? On the stump Huckabee doesn't attack McCain, he attacks Romney. My personal explanation for that is that Romney's a dirt bag. You know, the guy supported by talk radio.

(I should mention the exception, Michael Medved, who seems to be a man of some honor and judgment. He's been quite courteous to the Huck. There may be others, but I don't know, I don't listen to talk radio anymore.)

So Huck stays in. He takes some votes from McCain, but he does get to beat dirt, which has to be fun, and if Romney were to drop out, he would have the South. He'll gain some delegates and some influence anyway, and staying in he does embarrass, anger, and lessen the Great Gods of Talk, and that in fact is God's work.

So, things are going nicely. I did notice in my reading last night that some at The Corner have begun to develop some temperance of emotion. That's good. They certainly have some way to go to become gentlemen.

Note:
--I am disappointed that Giuliani's out --or on his way out. I rather liked the guy.
--I still hope Huck will begin to consolidate the Evangelical vote. Many still do vote for Romney and that's a wasted vote. I guess this is something that could be argued.
--Bill Bradley, Pajamas Media, yesterday, 7:32pm PST:

Mike Huckabee is staying in the race. He likes McCain, and will be drawing votes that might otherwise go to Romney. As Giuliani was doing to McCain.

--But matters can be complex. This from RCP blog FL Primary Election Thread:

9:42PM - Giuliani dropping out helps McCain, right? Well, not so fast. According to the exit polls, 49% of those who voted for Rudy today picked Mitt Romney as their 2nd choice while 44% picked McCain. And, interestingly, those who voted for Huckabee overwhelmingly picked McCain as their top 2nd choice over Mitt Romney, 54% to 32%. - TOM BEVAN

I'm going to presume that the Rudy types who picked Romney as their second choice were just being spiteful toward the man who was taking votes from Rudy. Rudy gone, and endorsing McCain, they'll follow and vote McCain. So I presume.

Florida

Going to be a bit tardy tonight to the results because of other matters pressing, but I'm more tense about this vote than any other so far this season, and that's because I think it's vital that the James Jones wing of the Republican party get it in the neck. I very much don't want Romney to win. I think he'll do for the Republican party what Bill Clinton did for the Democrat; he will make it a party of dishonesty and delusion. After all, to support a man with no known core principles means you have to make the decision to live without core principles yourself, and that means the mind can go anywhere and believe and support anything. Romney will destroy the conservative movement, because he will have destroyed its moral base. He's already exposed that the intellectuals of the right are not Christian, are often vehemently anti-Christian.

-------------------
7:05
Bill Bradley

Early exit polls indicate a tight race between John McCain and Mitt Romney. The horse race numbers: McCain 34.6%, Romney 33%.

But now I've got to do other stuff.

-------------
My own assessment of what could be the impact of the results, and I imagine it will be an assessment shared by most others, is that the only possible "knock out" punch would be a Romney wipeout of McCain. That's because then his money, momentum, and ideological support would then be seen as overwhelming. The opposite, a McCain blowout of Romney, would only damage the Romney camp. He would still have his money and his nut roots support. A close finish either way will simply be one battle fought and more to come. It wouldn't be more than a one night discouragement to either camp --though an immense morale booster to the winner.

-------------
8:24PM (Eastern) - Brit Hume just announced the final FOX exits: McCain 34; Romney 31.

-------------------
Multitasking, poorly.

--Some of the exit polling I find very strange. Evangelicals going for Romney over Huckabee? With McCain sandwiched in between?
--And people who think the economy is most important going for McCain over Romney? Maybe I'm reading things too fast and am too distracted with other things?
--I have no idea if the early ballots are being reported. --But it does seem it will be as everyone expected, close between McCain and Romney, Huck and Rudy battling for third (though Rudy is doing much better than I'd expected; that might be the early ballots being counted.
--Obama is not doing quite so well as I'd expected.
--It does seem the results will be something I can personally live with without suffering great angst.

--------------------
9:12PM(Eastern)

Fox News and AP call for McCain. It makes sense. LikeI said - if Romney is losing Tampa, is in a tie in Orlando, and getting trouncedin Miami - there just are not enough Floridians for him to make up the difference. - JAY COST

If it's good enough for Jay Cost it's good enough for me.

-----------------
Geraghty

We've had three major McCain-Romney showdowns - New Hampshire, Michigan,and now Florida. McCain won in New Hampshire, but hey, he won there in 2000,i t was home turf for him. Romney won Michigan, but hey, it was a state where his dad is fondly remembered. Now, on pretty much neutral turf, with a diverse set of key demographics, with a lot of voters, a lot of population centers,a lot of driving issues... McCain comes out on top.... And Romney had an 8-to-1 advantage in television advertising.

Pretty good assessment. Guess I'll check out the sourpuss responses on NRO...

Covering My Bases

The really big thing yesterday was Kennedy endorsing Obama. This means he sees Hill going down and wants to kick her in the head. This is a most wholesome orientation towards Hill and it's a signal to others of like mind to start taking their licks as well, or at least to start licking their chops. It's a progressive thing. Progressives have long protested Hill, that's why so many first supported Obama. Then they came to like Obama: "Change", there was glee in his victory last Saturday, and glee has now become a mass-movement-Hillary-stomp.

For this reason, in the "meaningless" Florida primary, there will be an anti-Hillary flourish of votes, and Obama will do quite a bit better than expected. (And this is Backlash-Billy as well).

Republicans? Romney popped up in the polls. That can have absolutely nothing to do with what he's done. He won an uncontested Nevada primary and came in forth in South Carolina. It has to be because of two things: Fred dropped out, and Fred-heads went Romney; and it's just become time to pick a winner, that means between two, and that's McCain or Mitt.

(The reason it's now time to pick a winner is because of the scientifically established Law-of-Zeitgeist; the Democrats did it Saturday, the Republicans have to do it today.)

Rudy is done. It was either him or McCain and McCain won, simply because he fought more. 4% for Rudy, the rest to McCain.

Huckabee will maintain double digits. That's because many of his supporters are message voters. The rest will go McCain. Boost, McCain.

And there are the undecided. Undecided equals uninformed equals moderate. Moderates like McCain. Boost, McCain. (The only problem with this statement is that "late moderates" just go with the flow. I don't really know what the flow is in Florida, but I would guess the emotion is McCain).

The Crist endorsement will help. His apparatus, though not up and running, still will help.

And there's talk radio. They've been hammering and hammering and hammering. McCain for years, Huck for months. But I have this thought: isn't there such a thing as a saturation point? How long can exactly the same yammering have any effect? It's possible they no longer talk to anybody but themselves, sort of the Ron Paulites of the airwaves.

So by a different line of reasoning I come to a different conclusion from yesterday. Rudy and Huck yet as predicted, but Romney, instead of a win by a squeaker, a loss by a large margin. That's because his mo was just Fred. There are no more votes out there to go to him. It's Romney who's the dinosaur, after all, he's done nothing more than memorize a thirty year old script. It's McCain who's the shakeup artist. Proof is that he's got talk radio all shook up. There are only so many more voters out there for the taking, and those are the voters dissatisfied and those voters go McCain.

The Archetypal Quest

Have a vague idea, sort of a psychology of parallelism: What happens in one party then happens in the other. In some sense the public views the two races in the same way --or as the same. If Hillary and Obama are neck-and-neck, then the Republican race will also become two candidates neck-and-neck...?

The idea is that there is a zeitgeist. The nation as a whole can have opposite views, but not views only subtlely different. If the views aren't strikingly in opposition, they tend to merge and become the same.

I'm thinking of the two contests. Opposite views would be where one party has a known successor, and the other party has a contest. "Subtlely different" would be where both have a contest but where the dynamisms are different. What tends to be lost within the melding of the zeitgeist are the subtleties of the dynamism.

The emotionally really powerful race is the one between Hillary and Barack. That's because over the last fifteen years the Clinton personality has infused every personality in America. Barack is attempting to take down an Established Power. "Change" is revolution, it means to upset the given order of things. It's like taking down the King and the Queen and forging a new state; new, even if unknown yet in detail and unimagined. It's the force of a revolutionary people in mass movement against a passe regime, confronting shrill ambition, saying a forceful no to entitlement and corrupted age and the sharp scent of decadence to come. It's romance. In concept it's historical, epochal; it's myth and legend and story. The glorious awaits. It's riveting.

And on the Republican side you have politics.

But I don't think it can stay that way. I think the Republican race will soon be viewed through the same prism as the Democrat. That's an immensely false similarity, but I fear that's the way it's going to be viewed. There will be corruption, an old order, and a call to sweep it all away with the new...

Unfortunately, if that happens, the old and the corrupt is McCain, and the new is Romney.

God, what a disgusting thought. Billy-Clinton-Romney as the new romantic hero of the Republican revolution!? It's insane, but that could be the zeitgeist.

The question is: Can the old order hold? McCain is the old order. The proof is that he works with Democrats. The new Prince is Romney, the proof is that he says he won't work with any body, not if they're in Washington... The true rebel is Huck, but he waits in the wings, his forces too small yet to take on the Black-Prince-faux-White-Knight. But the false prince must fall. Can The Huck summon his scattered forces soon, and defend yet the Old Codger King?

What drama.

Unfortunately I think it's something like this that we may be seeing. The average voter can't possibly know all the ideas and forces and groups that are now battling within the Republican party. There has to be something that can be seen in simpler terms, and those terms are now set by the emotionally charged battle of Obama against the Corrupt Queen. That battle is archetypal, and I'm afraid the Republican battle is going to be framed in the same terms.

I wonder if that means Rudy will fail entirely? He really doesn't fit into the script.

So: McCain and Romney really close. Huck some distant back in third, and Rudy with not 5% of the vote. I give the war, the final conquest, to McCain, because at some point the forces of Huck will join his, but I perhaps do not give him this battle. If the parallel is to hold Romney must stage an upset. He probably will, but it will be by a small margin, simply because he doesn't have his own massive private legion. The only way he could be stopped is if The Huck suddenly surges as the champion of Neither of the Above. It could happen.

Just a note

(since I may not have blog time today, I'm going to just post part of an email I sent off to a friend mostly on other matters...)

Dear J,

Spent last evening reading the blogs, following the South Carolina results. Hillary got whipped 28.9%. Since I hate the lady I'm very pleased. Now she and her supporters are going to try to claim it was a race based vote, and that it's whites against blacks. If she can sow enough racial discord, since there are more whites than blacks, she can still win. But she got about 35% of the white vote, Obama got about 25%. How is that racial? It's true Obama got 80% of the black vote, but in the general election the Democrat candidate always gets 95% of the black vote. How is this pattern different from any other pattern blacks exhibit when they vote? Nevertheless, she lost by a huge margin --because blacks were over 50% of the vote-- so to escape that embarrassment she's going to claim it was racial, not that Obama was merely the preferred candidate, but that it was blacks against whites. She'll create racial hatred if she can, for personal advantage. I very much dislike the lady.

--Mouse

.....

Hill's Bills, What's Going On?

Edwards could be within striking distance of a 2nd place finish. Leads among white males. Could win the white vote... How would you spin that?

According to the latest Reuters/C-SPAN/Zogby poll, Edwards has gained 4 percentage points since Wednesday and is the choice of 19 percent of likely voters. Obama maintains the S.C. lead at 39 percent but his lead is down 4 percentage points over Clinton from a day earlier.Clinton logged in at 24 percent. That puts Edwards, who desperately needs a victory Saturday,in a statistical tie with Clinton for second place.Edwards has overtaken Clinton among male voters in the poll, registering 23 percent support toClinton’s 19 percent, a rise of 8 percentage points for Edwards.

Some guys just can't vote for a black, or a sweet girl.

------------------
1:00PM
So, Big Day. Pooh. I just don't much care what happens in a Democrat primary. However, the outcome does have some meaning for the well being of the republic, so I should at least follow developments as information.

The Clinton orientation of the nation as a personal plaything I do think is new to American politics, and now that Obama wants to take away their toy the Billy and the Hilly are throwing a hissy fit. This is new, I mean to have an American political party dominated for fifteen years by a child mind just isn't what you would expect in a second Rome. But then Rome didn't remain Rome either.

I'll read and follow through the course of the day. My only real hope is that I see some damage occur, and that some mental health begin to return to one half of our political spectrum.

-----------------
6:15, First Results
(From RCP Blog)

Obama winning 24% of white voters... Among white voters, Edwards won white males 44, Clinton 28, Obama27. Clinton won white women 42, Edwards 35, Obama 22.

Fox News exits: Obama winning black vote 81-19 over Clinton. White vote is Edwards 39, Clinton 36...

--------------
1:30PM
......Breaking news so far is that the weather is fine.

-----------------
6:15, First Results
(From RCP Blog)

Obama winning 24% of white voters... Among white voters, Edwards won white males 44, Clinton 28, Obama27. Clinton won white women 42, Edwards 35, Obama 22.

Fox News exits: Obama winning black vote 81-19 over Clinton. White vote is Edwards 39, Clinton 36...

Interesting. Edwards leading among white males, and in general in the white vote; Hillary leading among females, who outnumber males, but only getting a small portion of the black vote, and leading only a little among white women. If Edwards gets any black vote he could beat Hill. This will be clear in just minutes.

--------------------
6:35

COLUMBIA, S.C. - NBC News declared Sen. Barack Obama as the projected winner in South Carolina's Democratic primary.

Obama won South Carolina by a substantial margin, with Sen. Hillary RodhamClinton running second and John Edwards third, NBC reported....

Clinton and Edwards each won roughly 40 percent of the white vote, with about 25 percent going to Obama.....

And this is enough exit poll data for the time being.

-----------------
6:45
Whoops! Bill Bradley reports Edwards only got 1% of the black vote. 2nd place doesn't look good.

Also, from CNN's Political Ticker:

“Roughly 6 in 10 South Carolina Democratic primary voters said Bill Clinton’s campaigning was important in how they ultimately decided to vote, and of those voters, 48 percent went for Barack Obama while only 37 percent went for Hillary Clinton.”

This is wholesome.

------------------
7:15
Barack may win by 20 points. A win is a win is a win, and a blowout is a blowout is a blowout. This has been a good night. Now I gotta go talk to my canary.

-------------------
8:03

ReutersC-span/Zogby
Last night:
Obama 41, Hillary 26, Edwards 19

Tonight, C-span,
86% reporting:
Obama 54, Hillary 27, Edwards19

Last Night's No Fight

So, on the debate. I spent several hours last night reading comment wherever I could find it and it seemed the consensus that nothing much happened. Big chance, no fight. Romney won, Giuliani won, McCain won, and even (in various condescending asides) Huck won (in points, of course, of no substantive significance). Each man won solidly, depending on who the blogger favored in the first place.

It does seem to indicate that no candidate knew how to attack. There are too many contending forces in play, gain from one competitor, lose to another. Not knowing how to court an advantage, each candidate decided to go with what strengths they now have; hunkered down, raised no waves, and merely tried to portray themselves as positively as they could. Dull debate, but not damaging.

I still argue that Giuliani gains the most simply by being on stage. That puts him competitively again in the public eye in a state he has declared is for him make-or-break; that means he's declared himself a factor, that means people paid attention, and as I understand he was forceful and agreeable. All a plus. And I think Huckabee loses nothing, because he only wants a strong nitch showing anyway. McCain and Romney had the most to lose, or gain, but each, not knowing what might be effective, simply played it straight. Whatever happens will happen by the dynamisms already in play. They'll just do more of the same in the remaining days, and see how things tip.

...I forgot about Ron Paul. Oh well, he has his core. If any of his supporters leave him, the idea being they want to cast a more meaningful vote, they'll probably go to Giuliani, as being the least moralistic of the remaining four.

So, I have no idea how things will go. The polls are the only indication, but I have no idea how they'll move. I see McCain gaining more from Fred than anybody else, and he'll also gain from Huck, should some of Huck's supporters decide to go with a winner; and I think the undecided will tend toward McCain disproportionately as well, as being the front runner nationally. So I see a McCain win more probable than any other.

One dynamism I want to note: I think the primary reason Romney has support is because he has support from the elite. If he wasn't constantly touted as the "most conservative" I just can't see that many people would give him a second look. But I think the exhortations of the punditry may be wearing thin. How long can you attempt to demonize somebody like Huck, such a clearly friendly guy, without coming to seem somewhat strange yourself? Same for McCain, to a lesser degree same for Giuliani. All these guys are clearly solid, agreeable (in their own individual ways) and authentic. So why all the adulation for Romney, who so clearly is unpleasant? The clique elite pushes the geek freak. At some point clique and freak are going to seem the same.

Fight Night?

(Accidentally posted this in the wrong blog last night so repost it now.)

Debate is already underway, but I won't get it except through reading anyway, so I want to first put down some thought:

Could be a big one. The last debate before make-or-break Florida. It's make-or-break for Giuliani because he said so, and absolutely everyone takes him at his word, and so he has the most to gain. My own feeling is that if he can establish a sense of "being in control" he'll gain immensely because he'll be seen as a player who's sticking to his strategy and it's a strategy that's working. I'm convinced a lot of people like him yet, they just have lost faith that he's a contender.

Huck is not a contender. He's said as much, and seems to have accepted his role as a nitch player. As such, he has nothing to lose; as such, he should be really relaxed. That may make for some very fine wit.

McCain will probably be fairly relaxed. He's already established that he's a man who's going all the way, plus, I think to a degree he doesn't much care how he comes across. He has a message and I think it's true that he's telling the voter "Take it or leave it."

Mitt will be tense. He's always tense. And in fact he's in the same shape as Giuliani, this is make-or-break. Either he'll be seen as a man who can win a contested election, or he'll be seen as a man who can only buy organization and some votes.

There is the question of absent Fred. He does have enough of a following that it does matter how his supporters break, and I've heard every possible speculation on that except that they break for Giuliani.

How Huck's break, and how many is also a question, now that he's effectively conceded to also ran status.

And there will have to be a question about Rush, Florida resident and all that. I hope somebody has a dismissive joke. Rush is a pain-in-the-ass, a man who would destroy the party to maintain his Reaganesque purity.

(Don't know how to spell "Reagnesque" and don't have time to find out.)

-----------------
Geraghty casls it a snooze fest... Says Huckabee is likable and asks the most pointed question of Romney, something about the assualt gun ban. I read Geraghty first because he's the only one who has some respect for Huck.

-----------------
The gals at The Corner think Romney's cute...

Monday Morning Notes

This is pretty incredible...

White House hopeful Barack Obama made a rare foray into the complicated politics of race on Sunday in a speech on the eve of a national holiday to commemorate civil rights leader Martin Luther King, Jr. "At a time when many were still doubtful about the possibilities of change, a time when those in the black community mistrusted themselves, and at times mistrusted each other, King inspired with words not of anger, but of an urgency that still speaks to us today," Obama said.

Speaking to hundreds of people at Atlanta's Ebenezer Baptist Church in the southeastern state of Georgia, where King launched the civil rights movement, Obama evoked the ongoing racial and ideological divide in America....

Former president Bill Clinton, who was popular among blacks during his two terms, was to visit the same Atlanta church on Monday, the day when the United States honors King, who was assassinated in 1968 at the age of 39, with a national holiday....

In addition to Bill Clinton's visit on Monday, the church prepared to welcome Republican White House hopeful Mike Huckabee, who was invited personally by one of King's nieces, Alveda King. She has indicated that she does not back the Baptist preacher and former Arkansas governor in his bid for the presidency, but that she agrees with his opposition to abortion and gay marriage.

Obama, Bill, Huck, all speaking at the same church? Huck is not your ordinary Republican. --I wonder how many conservatives will continue to crap on Huck if it becomes clear that they're also craping on blacks?

Florida

--Four man race.

--With Florida in the news for nine days, Rudy will be in the news for nine days. His numbers can't go down, they'll go up.

--He'll take votes from McCain.

--Huck will have his base. It may expand.

--Romney will play Reagan. He's a fake and unpleasant, but he will have a lot of advertising dollars.

--If Thompson stays in he'll take a little from everybody, but I would expect most from Romney. Mostly he'll embarrass himself.

--McCain won't have independents and not that much military. Anyway, a lot of military will go Giuliani.

--I doubt if these men will be ships in the night, they probably will confront each other, and in confrontation someone will be a victor. The confrontations will be the campaign.

--Romney will run attack adds. He can't help himself, he's Romney

--Some endorsements...? That could be part of the confrontation.

--The conservative punditry will maintain obsessive stupidity. They're becoming as relevant as MSM.

--Huck is the one guy who comes across as normal (followed by Guiliani) I wonder how many votes that brings in?

--Now that all the personalities are known, the confrontations will have much more force than just the words spoken.

-----------------
This Man Is Insane?

Before Huckabee's rise and McCain's comeback, it was thought this state might be Romney's. He spent more money in South Carolina than all the other Republicans combined.

But he gave up last week, leaving the state to campaign in Nevada (where fellow Mormons guaranteed him a state that other candidates ignored).

In South Carolina, Romney appeared likely to finish fourth in a virtual tie with third-place former Sen. Fred Thompson...

A bit more, and the conclusion:

This looks like a two-man race between Romney and McCain....

This man is insane.

-----------------
This man makes more sense...

Despite his fourth-place finish, Romney has to be considered the main threat to McCain going forward, given his resources and his ability to appeal to conservative Republicans. But Romney has yet to show he can win in states where he has stiff competition and where he doesn't have local ties. He won yesterday in Nevada, where no one else was competing, and last week in Michigan, where he grew up and his father was governor.

though I'm certain he found this hard to write.

SC & Nee-VADD-duh

(Initially posted Saturday morning, accidentally deleted, now reposted)
(No, have it figured out now. Not deleted, but posted in Three Day Post, the wrong blog)

Late Late Late. Was going to do this last night but fell asleep. Gotta get my predictions down:

--SC: Huckabee, McCain, Fred, Romney.
--Nee-VADD-duh: Obama, Hillary; and, oh, Romney.

I have managed to note over my short history of being a prognosticator that my predictions tend to accord exactly with my prejudices, and only occasionally do my prejudices accord exactly with an entire state. But that's actually my whole predictive methodology right now, to argue that others (mostly Republicans) are like me, and that the way I tend will be the way they tend. I'm not speaking absolute numbers, only tendencies, so that gives me some wiggle room. If the results aren't what I predict I can say: It's just because there wasn't enough time, but the movement is as I said it was.

But this is only an experiment anyway. I do have a sense that I'm normal, that I'm not caught up in any particular spectrum or special group prejudice, so that how I respond emotionally is about how most rank-and-file will respond. We'll see, but I expect my intuitions on the matter will be more accurate than most peoples more technical analysis. Could be dead wrong but here goes:

SC: Romney will have nearly Giulianis numbers, possibly single digits, because:
--He abandoned the state to go campaign in Nevada. That means he doesn't consider South Carolinians important and they will return the sentiment, they will abandon him. This is made easy because they're not abandoning a front runner anyway, and there's a completely "standard" conservative to switch to as well --Fred. And he's a southerner, and likable, and distinguished. So Fred will have a surge, and it will be almost entirely from Romney.
--But it won't be a great surge because he's not actually viable. Only dead head Fred Fred heads think Fred's not dead. Fortunately America is not burdened by a great many such types so the number who will in that way waste their vote is not great.

So the race is to Huckabee or McCain.

Huckabees only weakness in the South is that he knows nothing about foreign policy. With South Carolina having a great many military, and with McCain as an alternative, that will hurt him. But how much? I think a lot of McCain's stated support is more a statement of respect than a firm intention to give him a vote. Reservations would be mainly that he's an old guy, and that his "straight talk" tends to squewer(sp) only the Republican side and seems quite gentle towards the other. That somewhat diminishes him as Hero. And Huckabee, while not knowledgeable about military or foreign policy matters, is certainly not antimilitary, so while not a great choice for the military he's not anathema --and he is young and likable and southern. I think this slightly cuts McCain's margin and enables Huckabee to pull out a squeaker.

So:
--Huckabee, McCain (close); Fred (some distance back); Mitt, bottom.

Nee-VADD-duh:
--Mitt wins. Duh. He's the only one who's campaigned, he's the only one who will think his victory is important.

Democrats:

I still think the most powerful change Democrats want is a change away from Hillary. I see anti-Hillary sentiment as by far the most important aspect of this entire Democrat primary season. I see her surprise victory in New Hampshire as a fluke, possibly helped by those one time tears, but more probably made possible by Obama supporters overconfidence such that many gathered to celebrate without first going out to vote. That isn't going to happen again. This time, in Nevada, the fight is serious. This time anybody who supports Obama is going to be angry and out. They will vote. Whatever votes he gets will be the votes he's got.

Two interesting things: Edwards is now seen clearly as a third wheel and a wasted vote. His numbers should drop, I just don't know by how much. I don't see how anybody now can believe that a vote for him is sending a message to anybody... except in one respect. It might be a None of the Above vote, a refusal to vote for either a witch or a black. It could happen.

The second thing is the Latino vote. This will be the first primary where a minority demographic will have an influence on the outcome. I have no idea how they will vote. The culinary union's endorsement of Obama --apparently a conflicted vote itself-- seems to indicate the vote will be split. But the Clinton's apparently fear the balance will be against them, thus their attempt to ban the open caucuses in the casinos, which would have prevented many in the union from participating. They failed, so I expect the union will be even more negative than it would have been otherwise.

So: Obama by a squeaker. --To my mind it would be wholesome if Edwards' vote was about nothing.

And so we'll see. There should be meaningful numbers in nine or ten hours.

----------------
6:25
Hillary won Nevada, 51 -- 45; McCain leading Huck 33-- 27; Romney 16, Fred 15.

And I am despondent. I really wanted Hillary to lose, and Huck to win SC, and Romney to be embarrassed. It appears none of that really happened.

If the results hold I think Huck is done as a national candidate: if he can't win SC he can't win the South. Fred is dead. He's too often said he had to win SC to be credible if he stays in. Romney is perhaps hurt --finishing so far behind two other candidates, but he's still in for Florida and Super Tuesday and he does have a lot of money. --I note he has not gotten a great national bounce form his win in Michigan. He remains the only candidate who has not had his time at the top nationally. That does indicate that he can not excite the base. Possibly it also indicates voter preference is beginning to solidify.

The wild card yet is Huckabee's supporters, where will they go once it's clear Huck doesn't have a chance? (it is possible Huck will withdraw, possibly after Florida). And the other wild card is Giuliani. Will he actually do well in Florida? That's the greatest next uncertainty. If the SC results hold and McCain wins he's going to be awfully strong. He looks more like the eventual nominee now than anybody else.

But still there are at least three who are going to have a lot of delegates: Rudy, McCain, Romney, so there may not be a majority by the convention. --And it is possible Huck could stay in, though I'm uncertain what would be his reasoning...?

For the Democrats. It's interesting that Obama won blacks by an overwhelming majority, and Clinton, despite the Culinary Worker's Union endorsement of Obama, won Latinos overwhelmingly. That indicates a racial fissure, that Latinos won't vote for a black.

------------------
This from Geraghty:

Romney Spent How Much in South Carolina?Another campaign chuckles at the thought that Romney spent $4 million in South Carolina....

Besidesthe money, he did 52 events, spending 22 days in the state...

I think in South Carolina we're seeing a similar phenomenon that we saw in Iowa, New Hampshire, and Michigan... either you're in the top two, or you'reway behind. In the closing days, voters jump on the bandwagons of the top two leading candidates...
01/19 09:10 PM

This would be an argument for Huck to stay in the race and see what happens in Florida.

Continuing this thought. Florida is still uncertain: Is Giuliani for real, or now an asterisk? Won't know until Florida votes. Huckabee can make this argument: In SC there was a huge military presence that went overwhelmingly for McCain; independents went for McCain, and there was a substantial snow storm (by SC standards) that affected areas strong for Huckabee but didn't at all affect the areas along the coast strong for McCain; plus (according to Bill Kristol) Romney's in effect dropping out in SC helped McCain in that it was McCain who picked up the support that Romney lost. That wasn't my opinion but it would suit Huck's argument: that with all these negative, none of which will pertain in Florida (only Republicans can vote, for example), he still nearly won and so might win there. And if Giuliani pulls from anyone it will be from McCain (and according to Kristol, Romney from McCain as well).

If all these things are true, it would be reasonable for Huck to try out Florida. Florida will be a good test for Romney too. It won't be a "special situation" state like Wyoming, Michigan, and Nevada; he'll have no special advantage and all the players will be spending money and time. It's still possible the top two vote getters could be Huck and McCain. McCain will clearly be at the top, and the other could be Giuliani, but still, the social conservatives have got to have someplace to go, and maybe the Reagan conservatives as well (for Romney). --Fred might throw his support to McCain but I suspect in Florida that would be about .5% of the vote.

I just don't know how to predict Florida, other than that McCain will be one of the top two. But it does seem that everybody but Thompson has a reason to stay in for at least this one more state.

Republican results, 93% reporting:
McCain 33, Huck 30, Thompson 16, Romney 15, Paul 4, Giuliani 2

To Have a Hero

Got an insight. Totally obvious but an insight nevertheless:

The reason the GOP national polls have had so many leaders is because the rank and file so much want somebody they can follow. They want unity, they want force, they want to defeat Democrats. So once any candidate stands out, they rally behind him --until he fails them. Every candidate has had his time on top... except Romney.

This is going to be a test. If Romney is acceptable to the rank and file as a leader, now that he has his genuine win against McCain, he will be leading nationally in four days. If he's not, there's no chance he can be the nominee.

I don't think he'll make it.

And I think there is so much division within the GOP now that the only man who can lead is one who is a nice guy, because they might be able to rally behind a nice guy who at least has that as a unifying quality; they're certainly not going to unify on issues.

Romney or Fred should be able to unify on issues, but neither is a nice guy (though they're not at all equivalent), and in fact I expect that bundle of issues --the Reagan Coalition-- I expect that bundle is no longer tight.

More later.

Results Soon...

Word is that Romney is doing well, McCain second, and Huckabee a distant third. Pooh. This means that the "favorite son" aspect of the Romney candidacy did resonate, as well as his promise to take a special care for Michigan. That means people in Michigan do find him authentic. Byron York had this take last night:

The Corner
Mitt Romney, Behind the Wheel in Michigan [Byron York]

Good morning from Detroit. I have a new story up about Mitt Romney's could-be-last-stand here. Watching Romney campaign, there's something different here from his appearances in Iowa and New Hampshire. Romney is often criticized for telling people what he thinks they want to hear. Then, when people hear him, they think Romney doesn't really believe what he says, and they don't vote for him. But in Michigan, when Romney tells people what he thinks they want to hear, he is also saying what he truly believes, because he is talking mostly about his true love, the automobile industry:
....if Romney is ever able to get over the authenticity issue, it will be here.

Byron York is a pretty reasonable guy. If he's right I was wrong. Oh well, the season has already produced what I most wanted, a failure of Romney in the first two contests, so that he couldn't buy a slingshot to the nomination. I had said that would be enough, and that after that it would be relatively a fair fight. Sure did want to see him knocked out though.

The business with Hillary being actually challenged by Obama is pure gravy. Three months ago I didn't even imagine that possible.

There will be some results in an hour or two....

----------------
12:10 AM
Okay, I fess up. I'm dumb as a stump. --This from Jay Cost:

Last night, the McCain campaign was spinning its loss as a consequence of the fact that Romney is a "favorite son." There is evidence to support this claim. 41% of respondents in the exit poll reported that Romney's ties to the state were important factors in their vote choice. Romney won thosevoters decisively, 56% to 16%...

And:

Another factor of critical importance in Romney's victory was the economy. Romney's message in the last few days was tailored to the economic concerns of Michigan. It seemed to work. In New Hampshire, McCain won voters who said the economy was their most important concern, 41% to 21%. In Michigan, Romney won them, 41% to 29%....

Of course, Michigan voters were more concerned about the economy than others. For instance, 31% of New Hampshire exit pol respondents listed the economy as their primary concern, but in Michigan it was a whopping 55%.... [Romney] ran on an explicit promise to revitalize the auto industry.

So, the really big thing was that he was a favorite son, and being such, was believed in his pitch that he would dedicate himself to bring back the auto industry. Totally obvious. Where there's state pride, there's no judgment. Anybody with a brain would have recognized that.

The Cost article is more complex than what I've picked for emphasis, still, the thing I totally overlooked was the favorite son status coloring every other judgment. This was lack of good sense on my part. --I think if Romney hadn't been embarrassed in the first two states, Michiganders would not have felt such a need to support him now. They were voting for their own pride as much as in affection for Mitt. I know this kind of thing happens, but I just didn't think of it. I was too caught up in my own concept that his loss in Iowa and New Hampshire --the defeat of his stated intent-- had established him as a failure. But perhaps it was this very failure that compelled many in Michigan to vote for him, so that their state would not be embarrassed by his embarrassment.

But this is a one shot deal. True, a win is a win is a win, and he has now reestablished viability --but the affection, the salvaging of wounded state pride, the particular economic distress, the particular suitability he has to address concerns of the auto industry-- that won't happen again. --And fundamentally he was running only against McCain, Huckabee having put in only about one day campaigning, and McCain ran a blunt, in fact offensive campaign, with his "Green" orientation basically telling Detroit to shove it. That singular political ineptitude isn't something he'll so purely face again either.

So anyway, Mitt is onward, but I don't believe with force... But there still is Super Tuesday, when he can buy a lot more ads than anyone else...?

Topsy Turvey Time

Dear K,

Just a note. Another big day tomorrow. My great hope is that Romney will finally, fully, and indisputably be knocked out of the race. To my mind that's happened already, but the conservative intelligentsia (most of them) still cling to the hope that that the voter will come to his senses finally and appreciate their vast insight and vote for the only true blue conservative who can persevere the jobs of the conservative intelligentsia.

I presume he'll lose in Michigan. If the home state boy loses perhaps it will finally be evident to even an intellectual that nobody likes him. --It's possible he could come in third behind Huckabee. --Nevada, where only Romney has campaigned, could be another loss. Since it's considered a given for Romney it's not considered an important win; it would be considered an important loss.

Hillary will win Michigan --she's the only one on the ballot-- but there could be a strong vote for "Uncommitted", which would be an embarrassment; and Obama is picking up in Nevada, and could win.

This is an extraordinary season, I can't keep up with all that's happening. The last few days the Democrat party seems to be fracturing over matters of race. Actually, they're fracturing over the question of power. A great many Democrats hate Hillary. Now that she's seen as vulnerable a lot are speaking up. There is no principle or philosophy involved here, it's just this question: Will the Party be the fiefdom of Bill and Hill, or of Kerry and Kennedy?

Among conservatives by far the most intellectually interesting guy is Huckabee. He's the only one trying to put together a new, post-Reagan coalition. So the powers that be hate him, this is why he's portrayed as a dunce. He's actually very smart, and most importantly, not ossified; his mind does think. My own response to the conservative pundits is that 90% of those I used to read I read no more, other than to mock them.

Conservatives are in an ideological breakup, Democrats are only having an in-house fight for power.

(McCain, by-the-way, is respected about as much as Paris Hilton; with both their only interest is to be in front of the cameras.)

So it's a very fractured season. Tomorrow, if Obama, McCain, an Huckabee do well, a lot of people are going to be in a tizzy.


See you, --Mouse

PS
(Blog post only)
Is there more I should have written? On the Republican side the only variable I'm considering is "viability", who will people vote for as a leader. I ignore voting blocks, I ignore issues. Those are all givens at this point anyway, certainly in the case of McCain and Romney. Their positions are known as well as they're ever going to be known, and no voter demographics are going to change overnight. I'm not trying to predict numbers, only movement. The only real question I see is: Has Romney wiped out? Ordinarily his emotional appeal to his home state, and his promise --as a businessman-- to take special care to bring Michigan back to economic health, would have force... but does anybody believe him now? If he's not believed he's done.

Huckabee could still appeal on issues. His "economic populism" is something new. If he can explain it in the short time he'll be instate campaigning, it could resonate. But I don't know if he can explain it. It seems to be a different cast of philosophy, a concern for the worker's bottom line as well as for that of the corporation. To my mind this could lead to intelligent policy that could be broadly supported, it doesn't seem to me that it's necessary that labor should resent management --but the specifics are cloudy. I would say anything that gets rid of economic theory as worship would be a plus. Once theory is just theory it becomes a tool, it can be utilized alongside other concepts, and other concepts can be respected. It's the rigidity of the economic conservatives that's fracturing the party.

As to the Dems...? Who cares? I certainly see this from the outside. It's a cat fight. Can Hillary hatred win? That's the only "issue" I'm able to recognize. Who in the world would vote for such an unloved woman? It seems to me her only apeal is the presumption she has power, and that presumption is quaking.

------------------
The Real McCain Record
Obstacles in the way of conservative support.

Mark Levin has an excellent article listing the many cosy-up-to-liberals positions McCain has taken. The reason McCain can so well work with liberals is because he very much is one, at least in terms of loving to be loved. McCain, legislatively, is a fool. Levin is right in every criticism. But he gets foolish in his last paragraph:

My fingers are crossed that at the next debate, either Fred Thompson or Mitt Romney will find a way to address McCain’s record. (Mike Huckabee won’t, as he is apparently in the tank for him.)

The parenthetical statement is the statement of a dope. Of course Huckabee won't attack McCain, he needs McCain to defeat Mitt. And neither Mitt nor Fred can effectively attack the MaC because they're both seen as clowns and wipeouts. Mark should recognize that this is an election that Reagan conservatives have lost, and he ought to have enough insight to blame himself, as it's he and those like him that pushed forward flipflop Mitt and full-flop Fred.

Hill's Hell

Is there anybody but Hillary who doesn't recognize that the following is backwards?

NEW YORK (AP) - Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton suggested Sunday that Barack Obama's campaign had injected racial tension into the presidential contest, saying he had distorted for political gain her comments about Martin Luther King's role in the civil rights movement.
"This is an unfortunate story line the Obama campaign has pushed very successfully," the former first lady said in a spirited appearance on NBC's "Meet the Press." "I don't think this campaign is about gender, and I sure hope it's not about race."
....As evidence the Obama campaign had pushed the story, Clinton advisers pointed to a memo written by an Obama staffer compiling examples of comments by Clinton and her surrogates that could be construed as racially insensitive. The memo later surfaced on a handful of political Web sites.

To which Obama responds:

Obama later called Clinton's accusations "ludicrous," and said he found Clinton's comments about King to be ill-advised and unfortunate.
"If Senator Clinton wants to be distracted by the sorts of political point-scoring that was evident today then that is going to be her prerogative,"

Is there anyone in the world who doesn't recognize that Obama is right and that it's the Clintons who are raising the race issue?

From my standpoint as a Republican this is quite excellent. I've always considered the Clintons politically stupid. Their only political gift is to create hatred, to define "sides", and to gain immense support then from their side. During the nineties it was "the vast right wing conspiracy". This demonized the right, solidified the left. How many people on the right do you think thereafter were fond of Clinton? It was very useful for Bill, very damaging to the unity of the country.

They're exercising that same talent still, to split their opposition. This time though, dumb turkeys that they are, they are splitting their own party just to get the nomination. Maybe they'll succeed. Couldn't be anything better for Republicans. If they get the nomination by demonizing Barack they've lost blacks as an automatic part of the Democrat coalition. Without blacks 95% Democrat, there are no Democrat victories.

A good thing about this, about the Clinton personalities, is that they can't help themselves. They see themselves as the Party, anything opposed to them is the enemy --and anybody opposed to them is an enemy, they are not just people with different views-- and emotionally, they can not help themselves, they must strike out. It's righteousness, enemies must be destroyed. And so, righteously, in the end they will destroy the party. They must get what they want. It is inconceivable to them that what they want is anything other than what all good people should want. And this personality disfigurement, though bad for the nation, sure is good for Republicans.

------------
Jim Geraghty, of the campaign spot, has got to be one of the most sane men in America.

Sunday, January 13, 2008

What's To Like About Huck?

I don't know if this will persuade anyone, but here's where I'm coming from... If you're a member of any one of the "legs of the stool" in the Reaganite/conservative coalition, you're used to being portrayed in the media as... well, the last word of "legs of the stool" but with a different meaning, if you catch my drift. If you're an economic conservative, you're painted as a greedy miser, refusing to give government much-needed funds to take care of orphans, old people, and kittens. If you're a hawk who believes in a tough, aggressive stance against foreign threats, you're painted as a bloodthirsty warmonger, often in the service of a secretive, sinister cabal.

But I think we can give the "Most Endlessly Smeared" award to the social conservatives, who want a society where moms and dads don't have their daughters to grow up to be a slow-motion train wreck like one of the Spears sisters, and as a result have been painted as intolerant, hateful, ignorant, enraged, repressed, and snake-handling, ever since the Washington Post stated as fact in a front page story that they were "poor, uneducated, and easy to command."

Enter Mike Huckabee on the national stage.

If Huckabee's the nominee, the media may yet attempt to portray him as a fundamentalist maniac. They may even succeed....

But the Huckabee we see on the campaign trail today - bass guitar-playing, joke-telling, always deploying the right anecdote at the right time, ol' Huck - has already become one of the most influential social conservatives in America today....
I have my gripes with Huckabee, but when this show is over, I don't want him to wrap up his tent and go home. The man's a fighter, a communicator, and a silver-tongued persuader - skills the Republican Party doesn't exactly have a surplus of these days.

And in a previous post (Huckabee Charms...):

Actually, as much as Huckabee may grate on some righties from time to time — you know, the tax hikes, or the Obama-esque talk of raising hope, or the ugly portrait of American businessmen painted with the broadest of brushes, or the national workplace smoking ban, or the vague generalities when talking foreign policy, or the ten millionth homespun anecdote in response to a question about a complicated problem... where was I?

Ah, yes - we've witnessed about two decades of all-out political warfare, and Mike Huckabee appears on the horizon as a guy who, through good humor and charm, can defuse a lot of the explosive tension and furious tempers that have come to dominate our political discourse. It's a real gift, and even as some folks say they don't want Huckabee to be their nominee, they ought to recognize he's a gifted communicator who could do great things for the Republican party.

Geraghty for vice President!

---------------------
And Medved has a splendid post, commenting on this poor support for Romney:

As I’ve said repeatedly over the last several weeks, the problem for Romney isn’t his faith, it’s his phoniness. It’s even worse to see that in-authenticity combined with an all-too-visible mean and nasty streak in going after his rivals.

I know many good people and committed conservatives who say they like Romney and insist, despite his back-to-back losses against flawed candidates in Iowa and New Hampshire, that he’d still be the strongest Republican in November.

How then, do they explain his devastatingly poor performance in the latest trial heats – a performance that corresponds to his similarly feeble showing in prior polls (particularly against Obama) conducted by Rasmussen, USA Today/Gallup, and Zogby?

With key primaries coming up in Michigan and South Carolina, support for Romney would seem to indicate a powerful and problematic Republican death wish.

I should try to do some psycho work on these buggers. So many conservative thinkers I've read now seem to be nuts.

Dead Men Two

Mitt and Fred, dead dead dead. Mitt because he said he was a great businessman and would buy two states and tried and didn't and failed; Fred because he said he had great wisdom and didn't need to play the political game like the others and didn't and with his vast, self-pleased brain got one percent of the vote in New Hampshire. Dead Fred, dope.

So the race is now to McCain and Huck. And maybe Rudy. Rudy isn't dead yet because he hasn't failed yet. He said his race began late, he said he would win Florida. He might. Once Florida is in focus he's relevant again, and when he's relevant he's strong. He does have a resume'.

Mitt will be wiped out in Michigan, Fred in South Carolina. Mitt has the ignorant arrogance of the sheltered board room boss and Fred the stupidity of the intellectual memorizing his lines. Neither has had political experience, neither has a political brain. People in time get tired of twits.

On the Demo side it's Hill and Obama, the lady of experience with no experience and the man of vision with no vision. Vacant words, and fairy tale. Edwards has some slight viability yet, at least he's still None of the Above.

But that won't last long. It is a two man race, with a lot of bad blood. It's the ego of Hill opposed by those who have had enough of Bill. The stake is control of the Party. There is no principle involved, only power, and no principle will be shown. Somebody, for example, is soon going to discover that Barack is a black man, and somebody will mention it.

On the Republican side there is the struggle of principle, but the Reagan conservatives have no champion --probably because it's a dead philosophy. It's probably dead because the great God, Free Market, is a jealous god and leaves no room for ordinary human decency or minimally adaptive intelligence. 'Course, this is a false God, or at least falsely understood, created by a strange priestly class that strangely calls itself "conservative". Fortunately they will soon be dead too. In a year or so we will have a new Republican party, hopefully led by a Christian who recognizes a mere theory when he sees one.

----------------
It's my argument that men who have established they are losers, against the benchmarks they established for themselves, will be dismissed by the public. These Michigan polls don't agree. The order of the results listed is:

McCain, Romney, Huckabee, Paul, Giuliani, Thompson

Detroit News
01/09 - 01/12

M 27, R 26, H 19, P 4, G 6, T 5, McCain +1.0

Mitchell Research
01/09 - 01/12

M 22, R 21, H 12, P 7, G 7, T 3, McCain +1.0

Detroit Free Press
01/09 - 01/11

M 22, R 27, H 16, P 5, G 4, T 4, Romney +5.0

I don't agree with these polls, though they were taken after New Hampshire. They still show Romney with life. Maybe a lot of people think they're voting for his dad. --Earlier polls had shown McCain way down on occasion, and sometimes Huckabee even in the lead, so possibly it's just a matter of becoming focused just before the vote.

-------------------
Dan Riehl, a Huckabee hater ("He's thin-skinned and relatively shallow." "For all his preaching, Huckabee seems like a very low-minded, mean individual. That should be a concern. Character counts and Huckabee doesn't have very much of it." ) is encouraged by these reports and has a great many posts on the matter, and a scenario of Romney winning Michigan, and maybe Nevada, by passing South Carolina, perhaps Florida (they don't really matter anyway) and then using his superior advertising budget (no others can compete, they can't do retail politics in so many states at once) to do well on Super Tuesday, after which he will be ahead of everyone on the delegate count (or very high) and everyone will have forgotten the embarrassment of his early state losses, thenceforth on to triumph. --At least he recognizes that the early state losses are an embarrassment.

-----------------
And Thompson in South Carolina, with all the political touch of a dyspeptic bulldog, continues to attack Mike Huckabee:

"This is about the heart and soul of the Republican Party and where the Republican Party is going to go over the next several years," Thompson said during a meeting attended by more than 100 people and also broadcast on AM radio...

"On the one hand, you have the Reagan coalition, which was based on sound, conservative principles that were handed down from the very beginning of the country," Thompson said. "On the other hand, we've got people now saying, 'Well, we need to be more populist. We need to talk about, you know, about the man's holding us down.'

It's good to know that Reagan was part of the Uninterrupted Succession of Holy Popes of the Conservative Faith, not just that he was a bright guy who came up with an idea for a coalition that would work for a time in American history.

I suspect Fred's tone of bitching will be about as effective as Romney's negative ads in Iowa. If you want to criticize a man substantively you have to do more than just say he isn't Reagan. Reagan wouldn't still be Reagan after thirty years of change.

I Am Undone

I am undone, my happiness destroyed, we have yet Hillary with us.

I woke up this morning peeved that I'd been suckered. People told me Hillary was going to lose, I was delighted. She didn't lose. I am destroyed. But I wasn't really suckered. The polls were wrong. All the polls. That's not the same as being suckered. That means there was a mistake. And the mistake probably wasn't in the measurement of sentiment, of candidate preference, but was only in the prediction of turnout.

This is an argument made by Jay Cost, a pretty cerebral guy who looks at numbers. He examined the exit polls and to the question: When did you make up your mind? the answers were that for thirty days prior to the election the movement was towards Obama, the last three days the numbers stabilized, and in the last 24 hours those finally at that late date making up their minds broke evenly between Obama and Hillary. So there was no great Hillary resurgence, all Hillary actually did was just staunch the bleeding. Obama was genuinely ahead, the polls were right, but the Hillary supporters voted and the Obama supporters didn't, at least not in proportion to their inclination.

So the election was determined by turnout. You can't get more conventional than that. The candidate that can get his supporters to the polls wins. The Hillary campaign did that. --It is interesting to me though that I don't see evidence that it was because their organization was so much superior. It probably was marginally better, but I get the strong sense that it's just that the Hillary supporters were more committed. They were voting for something comparatively specific, the Obama supporters were just enraptured by vapors.

I should remember my initial thoughts. My first concern was that Romney be defeated in the first two states. My reasoning was that I didn't want to see a man buy himself the momentum that would lead to the nomination. That momentum has been stopped. I got what I wanted. I still powerfully dislike the guy and would prefer to see him disappear, but I think now that in terms of democratic process I've got what I should most want, a pretty even fight. He has the advantage of personal fortune, but that's something we accept in our process and in every other sense now things are equal, there's no bought-and-paid-for momentum. Each candidate has to still campaign.

I think the same is true for the Democrats. I so dislike the Clintons that I really wanted Hillary destroyed. It didn't happen, but then I'm not a Democrat. It's not really my business what those silly people do. They still want her in the race, ugh, but that's their business. At least now there is the possibility of a fight. That's immensely more than anyone would have anticipated just two months ago.

So, all-in-all, as a man who esteems the democratic process, I guess I have to be pleased. There will be no coronation in either party, there will be struggle, and struggle clarifies things. That's good, so I guess I'm just tickled pink. Bummer.

My Fate, My Happiness...

...is to be determined today. Do you know how unhappy Hillary will be if she loses? Do you know how unhappy I will be if she wins? Do you know who's happiness is most important?

Actually, I am pretty happy just now. It appears that the two things I most wanted to happen this election season are about to happen, that both Hillary and Romney lose both initial contests. To have thought that could happen two months ago would have been fairly tale. It seems now to be about fairy-tale-come-true.

My preference is that they both disappear from existence. I'll settle for just the two initial losses each. This means that Hillary can't any longer run as fantasy heir to the throne, she will have to run as an individual politician exhibiting personal skills and personal capacities --she hasn't any; and Romney too, having been unable to buy his first two states to slingshot himself to the nomination, will have to run on resume and capacity. Closely examined, he has none. He does have wealth, and a great many stupid people saying he's bright. Okay stupid people, prove it. We have now what politically I would call a level playing field. He no longer has his head start, he only has his millions. He's proven he can buy Rush Limbaugh and the National Review. Let's see if he can actually buy an American citizen.

-------------------
I should include this from David Brooks, one of the few sensible conservatives now writing. He was comparing the personalities of Obama and McCain, treating each quite well. I only quote a short bit on McCain:

John McCain has cordial relations with Obama, but he is very different.
He is most moved by examples of heroism and individual excellence. His books
are about individual character and patriotism, not networks or community-building.

He is not a loner (in fact, he dislikes being alone), but whether
he is a prisoner of war or a senator, he is acutely aware of how corrupt
social pressures encroach on individual integrity. While Obama seeks solidarity
with groups, McCain resists conformity. He fights fiercely, though not always
successfully, against political pressures in order to remain honest, brave and forthright.

More later. It appears McCain will win even just among Republicans, not actually needing the independent vote.

-----------
Romney Insane?

2:55 PM, Okay, I've done my first check of the news today. Very heavy turnout, maybe a record, no exit polls released until just before the polls close. Presumably an immense win for Obama, a more modest win for McCain.

Jim Geraghty at The Campaign Spot has an interesting entry. He considers the structure of the Independent vote, noting that almost all of them, despite their declared independence, still reliably vote either Republican or Democrat, so while their infusion is great in number, there's actually very little switch from one party to the other; nevertheless, those calling themselves Independent highly favor either McCain or Obama, so high turnout is good for both. Then he continues:

Second, polling for much of the year indicated that independents were much more interested in the Democratic primary - a 60-40 split, roughly - and recent days have shown that suddenly swinging back to 50-50. So.... 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.

And then there's this interesting bit:

Having said all that, I'm hearing reports of confidence in the Romney camp. Talk like, "high level officials have promised him a win," and "all the numbers are in place now." So maybe they see something the polls don't.

Or maybe they're all self-deceptive and crazy as loons.

Further note: If it's true that Independents of a Republican leaning are reliably Republican regardless of their self identification, then McCain's showing over all, is an actual indication of his Republican strength. What he can do in New Hampshire he can do in other states, because in other states "independents" are going to be registered as Republican. So how he does among registered Republicans in New Hampshire isn't as representative of his Republican strength as how well he does over all.

------------
Results:

First check, 7:20. McCain has already been declared the winner, 12% reporting (I believe one county); this would mean his victory is a projection based on exit polls.

Surprisingly, Hillary leads Obama, by a fair amount. Presumably both Republican and Democrat returns come from the same county. Does this mean that all independents voted Republican, leaving none for Obama? Could be, if it's a very Republican county. That would leave only registered Democrats voting for Hillary --and maybe very committed Democrats if existing in a Republican district...? Don't know, this doesn't make a lot of sense. Could be a ploy, give Hillary good press at the very beginning, to ease the sting later?

--------------
8:01
Obama seems to be coming up in the raw vote total. A possible explanation for his lag: To vote in any given precinct you only have to be in line by 8:00. Could be that in the Obama heavy districts there are long lines.

-------------------
More on Romney Insanity. This is Bradly quoting Minter quoting some other guy:

“Here’s a scenario I have heard at least dozen times from different Romney supporters across New Hampshire. The independent vote, which accounts for almost half the vote in the Granite State, will go disproportionately for Obama, they say. That will rob McCain of votes and give Romney a chance to eke out a victory.

“I buttonholed Andrew Smith, the renowned pollster at the University of New Hampshire. He had heard the Romney victory scenario too. But he isn’t buying it.

“While he acknowledges that the excitement of voters for Obama is overwhelming, he cautioned that the independent vote isn’t that independent or monolithic. The independent vote, he said, is really divided into three parts. Some 45% of self-declared independents regularly vote in Democratic primaries. They will vote for Obama and, to a much lesser extent, Clinton. Another 30% of the independent vote votes almost exclusively in Republican primaries; they are not going to shift to the Democratic primary to support Obama. These voters favor McCain disproportionately. As for the rest of the independents? They may vote in the Democratic primary or vote in the Republican primary for Ron Paul. They were never really counted in the McCain column anyway.

“So the Romney hope isn’t based on an understanding of traditional voting patterns.

“Besides, Smith points out, his latest polls of likely New Hampshire voters show McCain ahead among Republican voters.”

Romney conceeded likytysplit, presumably to get his defeat out of the public eye.

K Calls 4

Have to do a quick post, maybe more later.

Between 8:30 and 9:30 tonight had a conversation with a friend and we together agreed that it will be one of these four who will be our next President. On the Democrat side it's Obama; For the Republicans: McCain, Guiliani, Huckabee.

McCain, to my friend, is the immense favorite. I would probably favor Guiliani, I do want to see Huck do very well. I think he's an important guy and he's initiating an important shake-up.

11:03 -- Didn't quite beat Dixville Notch . But the results haven't been announced yet, so excluding Hill and Mitt from the oval office has nothing to do with getting cheat sheet early results from the first real poll of the year.

------------
DIXVILLE NOTCH, New Hampshire
Sometime after 12:00 Midnight

Okay, it's a sweep and a wipeout:

McCain 4, Mitt 2, Rudy 1

Obama 7, Edwards 2, Richardson 1, Hillary None!

Okay, that's how I thought it would turn out.

Saturday Night Debates

Who won means who changed votes, but how in the heck do you determine what will change a vote? Nothing would change my vote. I want Romney defeated, that means I vote for the guy who has the best chance against him, which means I vote for McCain, though I rate him, and his performance, behind Huckabee, Rudy, and Thompson.

I should note there was an atmosphere of a bunch of guys not liking the geek. In personality Romney just doesn't fit in. Somehow he's not manly. He can't take a gibe, he can't deliver a gibe, he doesn't seem relaxed among peers, and his support of Bush's policies doesn't seem to be conviction but goody two shoes polishing the apple. He's just an exceptionally easy guy to dislike and distrust. Even Ron Paul is more likable, even though I consider his libertarian views to be screwy.

This round table, this informal setting, was very bad for Romney. He just comes across as the prickly nerd nobody likes so why should you like him either? I would say each of the other candidates came across as more manly and normal, and each strengthened their support, at least vis a vis Romney. So Romney clearly lost votes.

That might be enough.

Did McCain lose votes? This possibility bothers me. He could have lost some to Rudy. New Hampshire voters know Rudy, he's been up there a lot, and he did well in the debate and while he has given the state up, he may have reminded some people why they initially liked him.

I don't know what the motivation to vote for McCain would be anyway, except that he's "authentic" compared to Romney (as are all the others) and that he could beat Romney. This later thought would keep McCain supporters from pulling their votes to one of the others.

Ron Paul's support will stay solid, because you've got to be a nut to support him anyway.

Huckabee's support will stay solid, because if you supported him in the first place you would want to maintain your vote to maintain his viability down the line.

With Rudy there's no reason to maintain your vote because he's as much as said no vote for him counts until Florida.

Thompson could have taken some votes from Romney. Their positions are the same, it's only their intellects and personalities that are different, and I think it was Thompson(?) who got Romney to talk about his Massachusetts health care plan --Romney's weakest response because he admitted to a provision that required people to get health insurance. There are arguments for penalizing people who need care though they haven't gotten insurance, but he seemed rather gleeful in that penalty/mandate aspect. So maybe Fred took some from Mitt. There are a lot of people who would put their vote on Fred because they would like to see him stay in the game.

So then there's McCain. Did he take any from Mitt? He is embarrassed on immigration, whenever that comes up, but then so is everybody else, and Mitt not least, though he was the one trying to hammer McCain.

So I don't know. Romney clearly lost votes, but I don't know where they went.

Did Huckabee take any from Mitt? Could have. He's now seen as the Giant Slayer. This might be the first time most people in New Hampshire paid any attention to him, and except for his first response defending his foreign policy article he clearly was more forceful and quicker that Mitt, --and he certainly does think outside the box.

Independents? Will they be inclined to vote in this primary, or with the Democrats? It may not really matter. These races are very close, and in either case on balance they're going to vote against the front runner.

So, Democrats?

Who cares? Defeat the Pill, that's the only thing that matters. I don't think she did anything to hurt herself, I don't think Obama lived up to his press out of Iowa. Edwards, I think, was more forceful than his reputation. Part of Hillary's appeal is that she's tough. It's possible Edwards could have taken a few of those votes.

And in New Hampshire, as in Iowa, there is the question of how many independents will show up. That is important because Obama still is probably slightly behind. If they show up they will vote Obama, very few will vote Hillary. He's new, she's just the same old all over again.

Final thought for the night:
The guys really got to quit beating up on the nerd, who dreams of soon being the leader of the free world. It could hurt his feelings. He might even make a face.

Dead People

Amazing how dead the Clintons seem now. Old, stupid, foolish people.

I've thought all along that if Barack could beat Hill in Iowa her candidacy would collapse, because there's nothing there, and I've thought all along that if that happened a lot of people would turn on the Clintons because they're are a lot of people --Democrats-- who really don't like those two but are afraid of them.

Now, I didn't know that Barack could win, I don't know that he can win in New Hampshire, though I expect it. I do know, that after New Hampshire, if he does win, comes the collapse; a lot of people are going to take pleasure in getting their licks in.

But it's only this morning that Bill and Hill have struck me as being old people.

I think part of the reason is that I see it as one and the same with the conservative intellectual establishment. These are people I follow and who have really disappointed me. But they are so thin. They're tired, they're old, they're arid. They're the Cold Warriors, who's faith in the free market destroyed communism. Very good, very laudable, a purple heart and a gold star. But the problem is, it is a faith. It's what they believe in, it's all they believe in, and as a faith it's merely the opposite image of Marxism, but just as thin. Their faith is true, and it can't be abandoned, but it's just not very much to live by.

But the image of this change is the two old people of the faded Democrat dynasty: Bill, with the flaccid, self-indulgent flesh, and Hill, with her make-up pasted face, trying to be twenty.

Morning Maunder

Nearly 6:00 PM. Sometime yet before the caucus results come in. Don't actually know when they'll be reported. Decided to type up some notes I wrote as I got up.

--It is possible there will be some movement between McCain and Thompson. Huckabee will maintain his base. Some of the more philosophically inclined might move to Thompson; but ditto would be the movement from Romney, finding Thompson philosophically as acceptable, but more trustworthy and more likable.

--Independents seem to be going Democrat, so they won't change anything on the Republican side. Almost certainly bad news for Hill.

--Romney's crowds are reported small... It's recognized he hasn't created enthusiasm... It's recognized he's the one who's gone negative...?

--Weather will be cold but much more mild than the last five days. That advantages Obama, because he's stressing first time young voters, and to someone young weather suddenly 20 degrees warmer is Springtime; but for old ladies, Hillary's superior demographic, 20 degrees warmer still below freezing is still below freezing.

--Occurs to me I don't know the age demographics on the Republican side. I can't believe Mitt would appeal to young people...? He doesn't excite emotion. Grumpy John McCain would excite much more emotion.

--I wonder if Romney's supporters have a supreme arrogance that they're the best people? I just don't see how you can support him without having convinced yourself that you are very superior. That attitude could turn people off during the caucus.

--I wonder if Rush going negative on Huckabee had any influence? It's influence on me was an extreme contempt for Rush.

--These caucuses are a really big deal, though they're only a big deal if Romney and Hillary are wounded. If not, then it will be much like nothing has happened, and the two worst candidates in the world will remain center stage. --Actually, they have already been damaged, because they've both been shown as vulnerable. Still, a win is a win is a win.

-----------
Drudge has a funny headline:

RESULTS:
Clinton 0; Obama 0; Edwards 0
Huckabee 0; Romney 0; McCain 0; Paul 0; Thompson 0; Giuliani 0

-----------
FromYuval Levin.
I don't know who he is or what his views are, but he posted this on The Corner (NRO). He was speaking of Romney:

It is important not to underestimate the costs of nominating a candidate who is just kind of strange in basic human terms....

Over all, the NRO writers are the premier group of Nuts For Romney

------------
Ha!

From Drudge, 8:47 PM

RESULTS:
Obama 36.70; Edwards 30.19; Clinton 30.03
Huckabee 31; Romney 23; Thompson 13; McCain 12

The world is good. These are projections, maybe Clinton will make second? McCain maybe third. But Romney won't make third, so I was off in that prediction, but he would have been third if the anti-Romney hadn't split between Thompson and McCain.

-------------
Newest In:
8:55PM

RESULTS:
Obama 36.98; Edwards 30.05; Clinton 29.75
Huckabee 34; Romney 25; Thompson 14

Margins holding. Don't know where McCain went.

Iowa & NH

Having followed the horserace for two months now it's time to make a prediction. I want Hillary to lose, I want Romney to lose. I predict Hillary will lose, and that Romney will lose.

There, that's it.

Now, should I have some arguments?

I've got one that's never left my mind and I'm certain it's evident to everybody but it's an argument that's never made, and it's that Romney's numbers never go up nationally. He's had tremendous national exposure, his numbers never go up. He was at 12% for months. In the last month he's sky rocketed to 15%. Meantime Fred and McCain and Huck have been all over the place (and Guiliani too, though I don't include him because he's always been at the top).

There's a reason that Romney's basically frozen at one spot, that's because for all of the exposure, for all of the millions spent, nobody likes him. Nobody with natural human instincts likes him.

He's a boob, an absolutely untrustworthy bloodless android. That's why he can not elicit an enthusiasm. A certain number can "intellectually" convince themselves that he's their man, but if they have enthusiasm rather than mere conviction I've never seen it, and no ordinary, wholesome man can be caught up in any emotion that he might engender. That's because what he engenders is distrust, and the sense of something out there being dead. The living dead can not sweep the emotions of the living breathing, those who believe things, those who have passions and hopes.

I don't like the guy, and that's why I think he's going to lose, because I think that in this basic respect most people are instinctively just like me, and this is a guy that gives them the creeps.

So I presume Huckabee will win. He has his core Evangelical support, and that support isn't going to leave him just because elite conservative opinion mocks him. Christians are used to being mocked, it goes with the faith. And I presume that their being mocked will stimulate them to get out and vote.

So Huckabee has that core, and I speculate there are other decent people out there who also just want to vote for somebody who is decent, and he will have those votes as well.

Some of those people will vote for McCain, and probably more for McCain than Thompson, because they want their vote to count and it looks like Thompson is out after Iowa.

But they're not going to vote for Romney, simply because he's a dead fish, and probably a dangerous one.

In fact I find it hard to believe that Romney will even maintain his 25%, or wherever it is that he stands now in the Iowa polls. I suspect a lot of people, once in the caucus with a lot of other excited people, will suddenly decide to vote for their second choice, not because it's necessitated by the Republican Party process but just because it will be so much more satisfying to vote for somebody who is real rather than fake. (I wonder if Romney's supporters are all androids too?)

Huckabee, McCain, Romney, in that order.

This is an analysis judging nothing but personality. If stated political philosophy mattered it would be between Romney and Thompson. But issues don't matter, because no wholesome person believes Romney, and poor Fred, though he could have been good, just hasn't cut the mustard. He hasn't shown the desire to win. Desire excites desire, and he hasn't excited anything.

Democrats:

I really do not much care about Democrats, but Obama is likeable, and Edwards excites rage. Both orientations can be pleasant, so both will have their supporters.

But Hillary? Again, emotionally, there's nothing there. Her strength is only the presumption that she will be the nominee. She still has the national poll numbers, and that's very powerful, but in Iowa the presumption that suports her may have begun to crack.

It's my speculation that in national polls, in the mind of the respondent, she's running against George Bush. That's because nationally, for Democrats, the bogey man still is George. So when asked: "Whom do you support?" of course it's Hillary because it's Bill and Hillary who lead the fight against the evil that is a Republican. But in Iowa, with George Bush a long way off to the east side, the people she opposes are Barack, or Edwards, real people, no phantasmagorical evil, and these people have some charm, or have some fire. And Hillary? It's just all very thin, and wearing thin. And in fact there never has been anything there, just the posturing that there was something there.

Obama, Edwards, Hillary, in that order.

Now, I don't know if that's going to happen. It depends on if the facade breaks, and that depends on perceptions regarding the raiment of the emperor (not to be visual here), and to what degree that will happen is uncertain. But it's close. If it does happen, since there's nothing there at all, I don't think all of Hillary's organization is going to be able to put her together again.

Summation:

Within the two parties there are presently no significant differences in terms of issues. All the Democrats are Democrats, and all the Republicans... are not Democrats. So on issues they're all pretty much peas in their respective pods. Issues won't matter until the general election... at least they won't matter through the first two votes. Until then it's all matters of personality and perceptions and that's been the entirety of my analysis. (That the Huck is hated is a separate matter, but as yet not germane to the vote).

I haven't said much about organization. That's because this year, at least at first, it might not matter as a differential. In Iowa on the Democrat side all three are equal. On the Republican side all three of the majors may be equal because Romney hasn't been able to buy himself enthusiasms though he has organization, while Huck, though without formal organization does have the churches and he certainly does have enthusiasms. And John? Don't know what he has, maybe magic.

I note now that I've slighted New Hampshire. This year New Hampshire will follow Iowa, that is, if Hillary and Romney are wounded. That's because if that happens there will be a piling on, and to New Hampshire will go the glory of the coup de grace.