New Hampshire: Wrong again

So, I, like the majority of the pollsters and political reporters, called New Hampshire's primary wrong. The story now is the big boost Clinton's and McCain's respective wins give them. I had predicted, like some polls, Obama winning the Democratic primary by at least five points. Instead, with 95% of precincts reporting, Clinton won 39% to Obama's 36%. Edwards and Richardson got 17% and 5% respectively. I had also said that Edwards would be lucky to break 10%.

The Democratic side

What bothers me is the inflated media response. To be sure, Clinton's victory is a surprise and a boost to her. But the language out there is a bit much. Washington Post reporter Chris Cizzela described Clinton's win as "one of the most stunning comeback victories in modern American politics" in his Tuesday night blog post.

Clinton had been leading in the polls in New Hampshire by double digits for months. Her defeat in Iowa brought her numbers down drastically and over the weekend many New Hampshire polls had Obama with a good lead. The fact she bounced back for Tuesday with a slim, but real win, isn't the most stunning comeback victories. It is simply a surprise.

I would argue that McCain's win, although predicted by the polls, represents a more stunning turn around when you consider where his campaign was a couple months ago. John Kerry's resurrected campaign in 2004 was also more stunning than Clinton's victory.

Still, even without the media's self-fulfilling prediction of this lifting Clinton from the brink, it's clear the New Hampshire Democrats have a lot of faith in her. The Democrat side is now a 2.5 person race. It will be interesting to see how the half, Mr. Edwards, will impact the other two in South Carolina and Nevada and maybe even on Super Tuesday.

The Republican side

If the Democrat nomination contest is now a 2.5 person race, the Republican one is a 3.5 person race. It's McCain, Huckabee, and Romney, with Giuliani as the half. I still don't see Giuliani getting the nomination. In New Hampshire, he came in fourth, narrowly avoiding embarrassment by beating Paul by one point. He's not completely out yet, and can make some interesting things happen, particularly in Florida. Romney has been badly hurt by the results in Iowa and New Hampshire, but with his skill, funds, and ambition, I wouldn't count him out yet.

If it comes down to McCain versus Huckabee, which looks most likely, I think McCain will be the nominee. It is strange to think, as political analysts and commentators have pointed out in recent days, that the Republican establishment could quickly find themselves rallying around McCain because they are worried about Huckabee, both for his economic populisms and presumed unelectability. The irony that McCain, who used to have his name always preceded with the word "maverick," would be an establishment Republican would have been difficult to foresee a short couple of years ago.

Pluses and Minuses of a McCain nomination

I have mixed feelings about McCain. His newfound ability to pander isn't endearing. He is even more of a hawk than George W Bush (but at least probably would expect competency). He's a true social conservative despite conservatives' long-held distrust of him. He is also an angry, unstable person. Even so, due to his stature and reputation and political profile, he is probably the most electable of the GOP candidates. I once thought that of slippery Mitt Romney, but his recent failures to run a primary campaign make me fear him less in a general election.

Another McCain irony would be that a general election with him as the nominee wouldn't be all about trumped up, imminent threat of immigrants. McCain is the lead proponent in the Senate on immigration reform, but does not approach it like the Republican base. To listen to the other Republican candidates, immigration is not only the defining issue of the race, it's the only issue.

I disagree with McCain on most of the major issues. I would still be delighted with some of the issues he'd bring to the campaign. I would love to hear him resurrect talk on a national service program and ethics reforms. He would talk about solutions to the economy and health care reform. He'd continue to be against torture and for a return to the rule of law. These would all be good things for a Democrat who fills the White House to be able to fulfill their own (better) solutions to these issues. If a Republican candidate succeeds in making the election all about immigration and taxes, there are no real issue-based mandates that the victor carries into the White House.

McCain would be a disaster in the White House. This is a guy who thought it was funny to joke about bombing Iran. You would think a former POW would regard armed conflict as less than funny. But I've never been a POW in North Vietnam, so I can't rightly judge how any former POW should and shouldn't find something humorous. I think of all the candidates, McCain is the most likely to lead us into unnecessary armed conflict. Clinton might be second on that front. (Oh wait, there's Giuliani!)