Search
17739
DOORS
1732
CALLS
User login
Syndicate
Post-caucus analysis
You've all suffered through enough of my own 'analysis' that I won't subject you to any more of it, but some interesting insights on last night's caucus victories for Obama and Huckabee.
Tom Bevan at Real Clear Politics calls it a victory for "authenticity," on the grounds that Romney and Clinton's respective rebrandings as a lifelong conservative and a change agent simply didn't fly with Iowa voters. Bevan points out that this could be especially tough for Romney since John McCain stands in for Mike Huckabee as the 'authentic' candidate in New Hampshire.
Bevan also draws probably the most conclusive lesson, which is that Ann Selzer knows what she's doing. Selzer polls Iowa for the Des Moines Register, and she took a lot of flak for the latest Iowa poll, which had Obama at 32%, Clinton at 25, and Edwards at 24. The Clinton and Edwards campaigns had both slammed Selzer's poll for its turnout model: the poll's sampling proportions were based on the assumption that a large number of independents and first-time caucusers would turn out. Both of those campaigns argued that such a level of turnout was totally unprecedented, which it was, and that it wouldn't happen, which it did - as Rob pointed out, over 220,000 people turned out for the Democratic caucuses, an improvement of about a hundred thousand people over the 2004 caucus. Moral of the story: Ann Selzer knows Iowa.
Patrick Healey at the New York Times calls it a rebellion against the party establishments and suggests that the "inevitability" narrative cultivated by Clinton and (perhaps to a lesser extent, given his mediocre showing in national polls) Romney simply didn't work out. In the Democratic race, Healey also suggests that Obama's victory in Iowa, whose population is 95% white and largely rural, and where women supported him in greater numbers than they supported the female candidate, could show good things about his electability.
The Times' Matt Bai on Bill Richardson's spin of the final results:
Until last night, I thought the most creative spin I’d ever heard from a losing candidate came from Joe Lieberman, who declared, after finishing fifth in New Hampshire: “We’re in a three-way tie for third!” But then I got the e-mail from Bill Richardson in which he exulted, after garnering 2 percent of the vote: “We made it to the Final Four.”
Well, yeah, I guess that makes sense, if the Final Four consisted of Duke, North Carolina, Florida and the Maharishi University of Management. Sometimes it’s just better to say you lost and move on.
On a yay-Democrats note, Group News Blog (via Blue Hampshire) points out that each of the top three Democratic candidates did an awful lot better than Mike Huckabee:
Percentage of total vote 24.5% Obama 20.5% Edwards 19.8% Clinton 11.4% Huckabee
In less-publicized election night news, David Schraub covers the special election for the Minnesota State Senate, in which the eight precincts in Northfield, home of Carleton College (great school), St. Olaf College (great choirs), and a Malt-O-Meal factory (great Marshmallow Mateys), collectively made it a landslide for the Democratic candidate.
Finally, my earlier prediction was totally off-base: Kansas beat Virginia Tech in the Orange Bowl last night, 24-21. Incidentally, let me just express my utter amazement that on the night of a major bowl game, only one television in the entirety of Uno's bar area was showing the Orange Bowl; the rest were showing caucus results.
As promised, none of my own analysis - but I am quite curious for comments on Iowa, especially from those of you in non-Obama camps. Does Hillary need New Hampshire to take the nomination? Will Mike Huckabee go anywhere, or will Romney come back in New Hampshire, or will McCain play Romney's weakness to his advantage? And what cabinet positions are Chris Dodd and Joe Biden going to get?
Have at it, and for those of you involved in the various campaigns, I'll see you in New Hampshire.
Re 1. Not if people point
Re 1. Not if people point out stuff like this to New Hampshire voters: the attack you linked to contradicts something Hillary said at the forum with Tavis Smiley - namely, "we have to go after mandatory minimums." The Democratic primary hadn't gone negative in NH before the caucuses and I'm not sure that voters will appreciate it going negative now - but that's a totally unfounded guess. I think whether Hillary's attacks, if they continue, backfire and translate into a boost for Obama depends on why exactly it is people like Barack. (Specifically, I mean those people who say that they like both Hillary and Barack - and there are a ton in New Hampshire, if my experience is representative.) If people are receptive to Barack because they like his message about changing the way we do politics, then anything unduly aggressive on Clinton's part will provide him with the best possible illustration of what people would rather see change about the political process. If they like him for some other reason, I think the backfire will be less severe or nonexistent.
Re 2. What exactly do you mean by Obama's core demographics? I think the fact that he's made a particular effort to cultivate young people is obviously significant, but it doesn't mean that young people are necessarily his only base. It seems to me that his primary strength is not appealing to one particular established group (say, unions, or retired folks, or "security moms"), but rather in bringing in people who haven't participated in Democratic politics much before, and who are consequently off the radar for a lot of other campaigns. It's smart for Obama to court independents because the other campaigns are making much less of an effort to do so. I would say it's more about how many independents he brings into the Democratic primary - the same process that gave John McCain a big victory over George W. Bush in 2000 there.
Re 3. I don't know this for a fact, but does John Edwards really have a competitive organization in South Carolina? I would think that the sad fact of money would make it pretty difficult for him to have a big organization in SC, and even if a strong showing in NH gives him an influx of money, it'll come too late to establish the kind of field operation he would need to overcome Obama and Clinton.
Also, I'm not sure that the fact that Edwards and Clinton share the same demographic means that, in the event that one of them begins to flop this week, the other will necessarily get those votes. The older, more traditional Democrats who support Clinton are distinguished from the older, more traditional Democrats who support Edwards by ideology - Edwards has been much more consistent about espousing a broad-based "change" agenda than Clinton has. (Same for Richardson, incidentally - at any rate, speaking in NH last night, he sounded a lot closer to Barack than to Hillary.) So if, say, Edwards flops and his supporters are looking for a new candidate to support, the question is whether they'll be pulled more strongly by demographics or by ideology. Looking at the Iowa results (in which Obama beats Clinton among women, and Edwards among union members, and both pretty roundly who say that "change" is their top issue), I have reason to believe that ideology will win - but obviously this isn't totally conclusive.
That said, all of this is fairly specious on my part - in the three days of campaigning between now and the New Hampshire primary, anything could happen.
Hmm, you might have a point
Hmm, you might have a point about the demographic/ideology split. I've been working off some numbers I saw a while ago that said Edwards supporters in NH liked Clinton as their second choice (can't find them now) -- but looking at the most recent Globe/UNH poll (Dec. 23), which gives us real nice crosstabs, Edwards supporters asked which of the big three they would be "least likely to vote for" pick Clinton by 60% (to 34% saying Obama). Clinton supporters split evenly, and Obama supporters likewise display no preference. So I think I have to throw out my thesis, if that's the case, and reconsider the playing field...
On your points:
--1. Why else would people like Obama, other than his transformative "changing politics" deal? Has he campaigned on anything else? And you're right, that's a pretty hard message to attack without looking like you're part of the problem; but if anybody can find a successful angle, it's the Clinton team. Still, if this mandatory-minimum too-liberal stuff is the best they've got, a big backlash is quite possible.
--2. Independents make a big difference in NH, and I expect Obama to win because of them; but what about a contest among real Democrats? (Those same Iowa results show that self-identified Democrats split between Obama and Clinton, 32-31. Republicans and independents went for Obama by big margins.) My point is that Obama draws his strength from nontraditional groups -- young people, wealthy people, urbanites -- and he is comparatively weaker among the mainstream. NH will not be representative of that.
--3. I don't know anything about Edwards' SC organization; since this is the first time they've had an early Democratic primary, it's anybody's guess as to what'll matter most there (resources or message).
And yeah, anything can happen, so we're both basically pissing into the wind here -- but there's no harm in giving it a shot.
- Op-Ed: Let Detroit Go Bankrupt
- Here's What I've Decided
- "Day of Reckoning"
- Obama Talks Policy, Family... and Football
- Sunday Screening
- And Now, a Moment for Blind Ambition
- Death to Parochialism
- For Our Two Readers Who Care About The Undergraduate Council
- Whatever You Like Parodies: An Awesome YouTube Genre
- 2am Discovery of the Day
Register to Vote!
 Voters registered on the website so far: |
I think
I think Obama-Edwards-Clinton was pretty much the most interesting outcome we could have gotten from Iowa. Because now, Hillary's bleeding, and she's going to pour all her (considerable) resources into a New Hampshire shitstorm -- which will be awesome to watch. (The attacks are already starting -- and she's attacking from the right. Boo!) I don't think Hillary needs to win NH necessarily, but she needs to do well, bring Obama back down to earth and get Edwards off her back; if she can knock Edwards into 3rd in NH, he probably drops out or stops being a factor, and in a two-person fight with Obama she can beat him. (Bear in mind, Clinton and Edwards share the same demographic base, that is older, lower-income/union, and more traditional-minded Democrats; stacked up together they probably outnumber Obama's younger and creative-class supporters.)
Edwards meanwhile still has a chance, albeit a very slim one -- if Hillary implodes, which she might (if there is any justice, these crappy attacks from the right will backfire and make her look cynical/desperate), then Edwards comes out with 2nd place in NH and becomes the non-Obama alternative in SC. In a two-person fight between Obama and Edwards, Edwards has a real shot, since he'll have momentum and can mobilize that older demographic better than Clinton (with her high negatives) could. But this is not very likely, given Edwards' money disadvantage and the media's notorious hatred of him. Now, if by some voodoo both Clinton and Edwards are competitive to Feb. 5, I think Obama wins without breaking a sweat; it's in a two-person fight with either candidate that he's vulnerable.
I guess the other big question is: how real is Obama's turnout advantage, and how wide does his support go? We saw that he could bring new people out to the IA caucus; but that's about getting one excited demographic (young creative-class people) out to storm an event with average 10% turnout. Can that be translated into a broad-based primary vote? It certainly could, but we have no evidence. NH will give us some indication, but there's a lot of independents who mess with the vote there, so I hope there's still a contest in S.C. and on Feb. 5 so we can find out for sure.
So the determinant factors in this race are:
Answer those questions and we can probably predict the outcome.
That's how I see it; of course I was catastrophically wrong about Iowa, so take it with a grain of salt. (I also said for months in 2006 that I was sure Obama wouldn't run. I'm cursed when it comes to predicting this guy.)