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!)

More Presidential Primaries Predictions

Okay, so it was several days ago, but I must admit that I was a bit off in my predictions of the Iowa caucus results. At least on the Democratic side. As we know, Clinton did NOT win by a double-digit margin but came in a close third place. So, I got it backwards. On the GOP side, I was right about Huckabee, but that was no real surprise.

Still, I'm going to barrel ahead and make predictions for tomorrow's primary in New Hampshire. I've only heard a little of the polls and some of the coverage. That won't stop my half-informed self from prognosticating though.

As the cable news channels tell us, the key in New Hampshire is the independent voters who can vote in either primary. (It's an open primary state.) I saw one poll last week that claimed that 60% of independents would vote in the Dem primary. If true, that should help Obama and harm the "moderate" Republicans.

Here it goes!

Democrats
Obama will win New Hampshire by at least 5 points. Edwards will be lucky to break 10%. Edwards will probably not drop out of the race yet. Richardson will have to withdraw after New Hampshire. It will be interesting to see who Richardson or Edwards will endorse, if anybody, after they withdraw. And no, I'm not going to even bother talking about Dennis Kucinich.

Republicans
Who the heck knows? It's all in flux. Either Romney or McCain will win. Whichever one wins here becomes the Republican front-runner in a three way race with Huckabee and Giuliani. McCain won the primary in 2000 with the help of lots of independent voters. Unfortunately, many of those independents will be voting Democrat, or could be pairing off to support Giuliani, Thompson, and Paul. Still, I'll predict McCain will win New Hampshire narrowly over Romney. Romney will stay in the race but his time is about done. Giuliani needs to come in 3rd or a narrow 4th to look competitive going into other states. My guess is that Giuliani, Paul, and Huckabee will be clustered around 10 percent each and Thompson will be less. One hopes that Thompson will end the charade and drop out after New Hampshire.

Another item on the horizon is whether high-profile independent Michael Bloomberg jumps in the race. If the Republican nominee appears to be Huckabee, I think that gives Bloomberg a great opportunity. If it is Giuliani or McCain, that is less possible. If he does enter, I think it could be as early as Monday, February 11th: one week after Super Tuesday. I remain doubtful that Bloomberg candidacy would amount to anything more than a spoiler candidate.

Presidential Predictions

I do enjoy making political predictions, but can't claim to have a great track record. I think I somewhat accurately called the results of the 2006 election, and I knew (like everyone else) that 2004 was going to be a close one. I also remember confidently declaring a few days before the 2002 election that Tim Pawlenty would come in third in the three-way gubernatorial race in Minnesota. Gov. Pawlenty is currently serving is second term.

I was all but avoiding the presidential politics up to just a couple of months ago. Not having poured over polling data or anything like that, I still have suspicions on how the race is going to go based on my appraisal of the candidates, conventional wisdom, and gut feeling.

How I think the Iowa Caucuses are going to go down on January 3rd:

DEMOCRATS
Clinton will win the Iowa caucus. Her name recognition, near-solid campaigning, and ability to deal with the electability question will get her to the top. Obama and Edwards will trail in the 5-15 point range, with Obama squeaking into second place. Even if I'm off by a bit here, it will all likely remain a three-way race after Iowa. My guess is that all other Democrat candidates besides these three (and Kucinich and other fringe candidates) will drop out before February 1st. Clinton, Obama, and Edwards will all stay in the race into February at least.

That being said, I can't see Edwards winning the nomination. I think he'll have an impact on the contest between Clinton and Obama. Already, he and Obama are splitting the anti-Clinton vote (whatever amount of the Democratic electorate that is). Endorsements usually don't mean much, but an endorsement from Edwards could make a difference at a key moment in the race.

Early on, I thought Richardson would do better than he has. He might be a good running mate pick. A Latino, western governor with foreign policy experience is a good combination for either Clinton or Obama. Though the Dems may be skittish if it looks like the Republicans are going to make this race about immigration since they have no other issues.

REPUBLICANS
The polls say Huckabee. And maybe they're right. He may win Iowa, but he's not going anywhere beyond that. As has been the conventional wisdom the last few months, the contest for the Republican nomination is between Giuliani and Romney. McCain has new strength in his campaign and may very well be a contender again, which certainly surprises me. Quick question: Who has bent over backward the most to appease leaders of the religious right: Romney, McCain or Giuliani?

So, I think Huckabee is the most likely winner in Iowa. Romney will be second by a range within 15 points of Huckabee and McCain will trail as a close third. Giuliani will come in fourth. If McCain comes close to Romney (say, within 5 points), that will boost him significantly in New Hampshire. All four of these candidates will stay in the race after Iowa, but Huckabee will be the first to bow out after a presumed poor showing in New Hampshire (and South Carolina if he gets that far).

I've long said that I couldn't see Rudy Giuliani getting the nomination. Not only does he have the wrong positions, the wrong constituencies, and personal skeletons in his closet, he is a thoroughly unlikable guy. That being said, I'm surprised he's made it this far, and he'll stay in the race into February unless he does horrible in New Hampshire by coming in a distant fourth place or worse.

Romney is still the most likely Republican nominee. I guess McCain isn't out of the picture though. Huckabee might be a reasonable running mate pick for a nominee needing to shore up cred with the religious right.

There you have it. I'll be out of touch next week right after the caucus, but will return to the subject at some point to see how right or wrong I am.

Why dogs are Democrats

(Does this mean cats are Republicans?)

As has been noted all over the place, there have been some stories dealing with the maltreatment of dogs linked to the Republican presidential candidate frontrunners.

Rudy Guiliani's wife, Judith, apparently demonstrated the application of medical staples on dogs that were then euthanized in sales pitches for the U.S. Surgical Corporation. This was about 30 years ago.

Mitt Romney is apparently proud of the piece of family lore, when he stuck his dog in a carrier on top of his car on 12-hour family trips to Canada. On one such occasion, the poor dog lost control of his bowels on the window. Mitt Romney calmly pulled over, borrowed a hose, sprayed down the car and dog, and continued on as before. Says the Boston Globe which published this story earlier in the year: "It was a tiny preview of a trait he would grow famous for in business: emotion-free crisis management." Emotion-free, yes. But I think dogs in particular would draw additional conclusions from this story. (Interestingly, Romney is becoming more "emotional" on the campaign trail; tearing up on occasion.)

And most recently, Newsweek has dug up the story previously reported in Arkansas press, that Mike Huckabee's then 17 year-old son, David, was fired from his position as a Boy Scout camp counselor for violating the Scout Law to be "kind." Allegedly, David and another counselor who was also fired, led a group of campers to torture and eventually kill by hanging and/or stabbing a stray dog that had come on to the camp. The grisly details are disputed, and ultimately, David was never charged with animal cruelty.

What reflects even worse on the candidate Mike Huckabee, is the allegation that members of the governor's staff pressured the director of the state police to decline the request to investigate the incident. The director was eventually asked to resign. He claims Gov. Huckabee told him one of the reasons for his requested resignation was: "I couldn't get you to help me with my son when I had that problem."

These are stories that have surfaced regarding the three current front-runners. One wonders what other dog cruelty shows up with the other Republican candidates and their families. It would be hard to see the anti-torture John McCain with any dog skeletons in his closet though.

Voters of course should come to their own conclusions on if and how any of these stories should impact their votes. I'm not voting in the Republican primary, so I don't have to worry about that yet. I would say, personally, that the story around Mitt Romney does have an impact on how I would view his character. I think the press needs to investigate the allegations of Huckabee personally interfering with criminal investigation to protect his son.

I don't think the story of what his current wife did 30 years ago should matter in Rudy Giuliani's case. What worries me more about Giuliani is his virtual enthusiasm when it comes to torturing humans. Giuliani is beyond the arguments of whether "harsh interrogation techniques" protect the nation. He thinks it's funny, suggesting that sleep deprivation torture is just like running for president. Ha ha. Giuliani, like the rest of the GOP candidates save McCain, has no problem with waterboarding, the act of suffocating a person underwater, but stopping short of killing them.

So, my absurd assertion from all this is that all dogs are Democrats, Greens, or independents. (Dogs are too dependent to be Libertarian.) Well, maybe Dogbert is a Republican.