Wednesday, January 09, 2008
New Hampshire reax
I am still in San Francisco, and at the tail end of more than 16 hours of meetings. I am therefore hours behind the blogosphere and the MSM, and have little new to add to the national reaction to New Hampshire's stunning primary vote. Regular readers can almost certainly predict my reactions, in approximate order of concern:
- Since I believe that the Democrats have a better than even chance in 2008 and since I continue to think that Hillary is the least-bad on the issues I care about, I was happy to see her return to contention;
- While I agree with Romney, Thompson, and Giuliani on the issues more than I agree with John McCain, I like and admire McCain and am glad that he is solidly in the race;
- I agree with Ezra Klein -- New Hampshire was a farookin' disaster for John Edwards (a result that discourages Ezra almost as much as it delights me);
- The mainstream media, the blogosphere, the polls and the prediction markets all misunderestimated the Clinton ground game;
- Bill Clinton played no small role in this recovery, reinvigorating the Clinton mystique literally hours after the chattering classes had declared the end of the Clinton era;
- The public conversation on the right will move away from Mike Huckabee, which is a blessing; and
- This is a huge boon for those of us who enjoy politics as spectator sport -- we now have real races in both parties, at least for a few more weeks.
Some microlinks:
Heh - "Obama's [speech] was better, even though -- weirdly, given that it isn't his background at all -- he seemed to be channeling a traditional black preacher."
Mark Steyn thinks that every Republican lost.
Is it true, as some argue, that the pre-election polls were so wrong because race still influences what people do in the privacy of the voting booth? [UPDATE: Andrew Sullivan says no.] Did Obama survive that difference in Iowa because there is no secret ballot there? Or was his victory there a function of Iowa's unusually flat social structure? Or is it that a cornered Clinton is a far more dangerous -- and effective -- campaigner than a Clinton out in front? Smarter people than me will have to answer these questions.
16 Comments:
By 
, at
Wed Jan 09, 08:59:00 AM:
The Iowa Democratic caucus method almost predicts a beauty pageant-type result. Peer group pressure, writ large. Thank pointed ears and pitchforks that it is unique in the Primary campaigns.
The wild card in New Hampshire is the independent crossover voting; much of it was predicted for Obama, but maybe in the booth they went for McCain?
Edwards circling the drain? We can only hope.
-David
By 
Georg Felis, at
Wed Jan 09, 10:06:00 AM:
Forgive me for being highly suspicious that Hillary so desperately needed this primary, was nearly 10 percentage points behind in the polling, and amazingly enough seems to have picked up enough votes to win it. If a Republican with her political record were in this same circumstance, the MSM would be using a word that starts with F, and rhymes with “Broad”.
By D.E. Cloutier, at
Wed Jan 09, 10:17:00 AM:
Re: Hillary
This is all your fault, TH. You felt sorry for her, Now she's back.
By Georg Felis, at
Wed Jan 09, 10:19:00 AM:
Hillary, the Sequel. Sounds too much like another Jason or Friday the 13th movie. Yech.
By , at
Wed Jan 09, 10:20:00 AM:
One interesting observation (at least to me)is the change in HRC's language over the last few days. I do language-based personality modeling and have noticed that, in addition to the choking up incident, she has shifted her language from belief and data loaded terminology to emotion based terminology - which research shows is most appealing to about 30% of the populace and 45% of women. As the most obvious example, on the news shows this morning, every statement was about how she "felt" about things, rather than what she believed or thought, both of which are more in keeping with her natural speaking style. This could go part of the way toward explaining the result, especially among Democratic women.
By , at
Wed Jan 09, 10:33:00 AM:
It wasn't Bill who turned it around, it was racism! All those polls can't have been wrong. Obama WAS way out in front. But, as the democrats entered the voting booth, the ancient southern beliefs (see: Al Gore's father's speeches) hatred of blacks surfaced. The white liberal voter who, hours before, said, "Oh, yeah, I'm going to show the world that I am progressive and liberal by voting for the black guy," when in the private quiet of the voting booth had a stoke of reality.
Hillary's win is pure racism and bodes badly for Obama in the rest of the country.
By Christopher Chambers, at
Wed Jan 09, 10:39:00 AM:
Never underestimate the Clinton "magic." OK, maybe magic's too nice a word--the Zulu call it nsangoma. Evil Witch Doctor. They have the machine and, like the morons who worship Dick Cheney on the right, have a fawning subculture of middle aged single women who always follow Bill & Hill till the end. Yes--these people do exist in New Hampshire, and they are regular women, not professors at Dartmouth. It means Hillary can trot out Gloria Steinam to write op eds declaring that being "Missy Ann" (black code for allnon-redneck/trailerpark/blue collar/nonethnic white women...you should hear what we call you: "Mr. Charlie") is tougher and always has been tougher than bing black. Gulp! Plus, let us not also discount the Clinton machine, a sort of velvet Krakken first engineered by Dick Morris, which doles out largesse like it was breastmilk. Neither Edwards or Obama have that machinery in place. Of course, that kind of approach gave the nomination to people like Fritz Mondale and Mike Dukakis, and to some extent John Kerry--look what happened! By the way, I would expect on this blog and comments thereto a turning up the nose at any of Obama's speeches, victory or concession. Pray, please tell me the paradigm of a good public address--one of our current President's missives? hahaha. Look, you lot are living in another world anyway so I'll come out and say. For Barack to come as far as he has in this lunacy called Election 08 is an amazing story in and of itself, given the state of black America. Regardless of your dumbass opinions, YOU should be cheering the brother...
...and then explain to me why real story's not on the GOP side--or do you recoil from focusing the flashlight on that horror show? McCain isn't the savior most of the raving clowns who orbit this blog might think. As I've said and and again, his contention that he invented the idea of the Surge is a bit Gore-ish; and I swear to you when he's among friends and DC pals he confides that it worked only because we're also paying welfare to the militias, and the war has de-populated whole portions of Iraq, pushing rival folk into there own enclaves. Regular people still despise us over there, OK? McCain knows the messianic stuff from theAdministration is double talk. Oh and guess what--he LOVES Barack Obama. Would rather run against him not because he thinks he can beat him, but for the statesman-like reason of admiring a young man with vision. And another thing: McCain has a bit of the populist in him, so beware you big money folk. There's nothing more "paternalistic" than an insightful older white man with a lifetime of perspective and evolution behind him.
Still, there's all kinds mess to come. Giuliani, despite having Roger Ailes' Fox "News" Ringling Circusbehind him, is circling the bowl as well. Flush him. So is Fred. hey will both cause some mischief before they gurgle under, like the remnants of an unusually large turd. Tancredo's gone but Paul ain't. Don't discount the populists and the anti-immigration folk. One way or another that backwash of toilet paper will float back up. I have no idea what's up with Mitt Romney. Maybe he's the John Kerry of the GOP. He'll be in it till his moolah runs out, which means never, and that will gum up the plumbing even more. Huckabee--please folks, Jesus Christ doesn't give a crap about American politics. Don't do the Democrats a favor by nominating this darling of the Christian Taliban (or even putting him on the ticket). Even Hillary could make hay of that...
By , at
Wed Jan 09, 10:45:00 AM:
Heh. And they say that political satire is dead.
-Just another anonymous Cheney-bot
By Christopher Chambers, at
Wed Jan 09, 10:50:00 AM:
Supporting "anonymous's" comment: when Doug Wilder ran for guv of Va., his lead in the polls was even bigger than Obamas. Exit polling matched the poll numbers--and the polling was not done by the Nation of Islam, OK? He wins by a razor-thin margin.
So what indeed happens when Mr. Charlie, Missy Ann or Larry the Cable go behind closed doors? Hmmmm. Public Intellectuals like Stanley Crouch have always contended that the Democratic Party's smuggery re: race is fraudulent and insulting. Black "leaders"--especially "old guard" civil rights folk and more established politicians-- are the most nefariously nipple-suckling cadre on the Clinton tit from way back. The Congressional Black Caucus loves to have Obama speak or appear on panels andcontribute to issue/solution forums, yet the Maxine Waterses out there refuse to listen to his solutions and always demand this "Kneel before Zod, you son of Jor-el" crap...which he won't do. Against this backdrop you have white Democrats--supposed progressive, we are all family and angels of diversity who plainly, obviously, are lying to pollsters.
Give me Michelle Malkin and Ann Coulter over Gloria Steinam any time! At least with the former two screeching heiffers, you know where you stand...
By , at
Wed Jan 09, 10:54:00 AM:
Obama lost because he failed to get his expected turnout in Grafton, Strafford and Rockingham counties (though Rockingham has yet to report), college towns all (counting Exeter as a "college" for lefty faculty purposes). Hillary won because she was able to energize women voters (57% of the NH electorate). She won 46-34 over Obama among women.
The GOP is a wide open race. The Feb 5 states will be critical, and McCain has little or no organization in most of those states. That fact, combined with little money, could hurt him badly in those races. Amazingly, and contrary to past elections, Giuliani or Romney could still stage a comeback.
Andrew
By antithaca, at
Wed Jan 09, 11:08:00 AM:
I don't understand the aversion to McCain in the GOP (I mean, I hear what people say when they discuss him...but I don't understand why they're still hung up about it).
As a mostly foreign policy guy, TH, you should take McCain over any of the other GOP'ers any day. Romney just parrots a strange brew of Rudy & Bush. Huckabee? come back when yer all growed up kid.... Thompson's just trying to staying in long enough to get a Veep slot.
Rudy (9/11) is such a one track campaign (9/11) that it is transparent (9/11). (9/11).
I get that McCain is not a toe-the-line ideologue on every-single-issue...but that is precisely the issue many of us have "the left" and an increasing number of democrats. In fact, its driven us to register Republican in years past...every force in the universe right?
Don't over compensate. Working with the other party to solve hard problems will not ruin the GOP. Purging the party of impure members will.
By , at
Wed Jan 09, 12:20:00 PM:
If he's nominated and is up against Hillary, that will be a congenial election race (they seem to like each other), and a race where there is little disagreement on foreign policy. Unfortunately, that's McCains defining issue. The Democrats have a national registration advantage, and the greater percentage of Democrats who vote are women. So, to win, McCain needs to pull female Democrats into his camp. How will he do that? Traditionally, those voters come to the GOP because they are pro-life or small government, blue-dog Democrats. He isn't any of those things. So he'll lose to Hillary, and handily I believe.
Against Obama, the contrast of "old as dirt" Washington insider versus young, vibrant personality will be reinforced every time there is a debate and I think Obama would swamp McCain. If it were McCain-Obama, and I were Obama, I would schedule weekly "debates", and I would speak respectfully and admiringly to McCain every time I was there while essentially saying "Grandpa, tell me another story about the war". The contrast between those two would be devastating.
I believe the issue with McCain is his age and his anticipated inability to mobilize enough democrat votes to win, not some sort of desire to "purge the party of ideologically impure members", as you would have it.
By GreenmanTim, at
Wed Jan 09, 01:30:00 PM:
Aside from conforming to established norms for looking presidential, his business background and personal wealth, what is it about Romney that makes him a compelling presidential choice for Republicans? His woeful record as Massachusetts governor where he had no coat-tails, a highly autocratic style of governance, was campaigning for something bigger from day one, and has distanced himself from his one success in crossing party lines to bring about universal health care?
No coat-tails and autocratic governance is what exists right now in the chief executive branch of the federal government. That is not leadership, nor is it effective governance, and when high ranking Massachusetts Republicans are actively campaigning for "anyone but Romney", that is more than sour grapes. How does more of the same result in meaningful accomplishments with a Democratically-controlled Congress?
Thanks for any insights you can share.
By Georg Felis, at
Wed Jan 09, 01:43:00 PM:
As bizarre as it sounds, I actually agree with some of what CC posted. I have respect for John McCain and his experience even though his opinions on taxes, immigration, big government, campaign finance, and spending run completely against mine. I would even vote for him, provided the alternative was Hillary or Obama. What grates on most conservatives is how McCain would get on TV where the MSM would present soundbites and debates between a Democrat who opposed the conservative item, and a Republican who opposed the conservative item. Because that is what “Fair and Balanced” used to mean before Fox.
Still, with 1.04 percent of the primary delegates selected, it is a bit early to start measuring the White House for drapes.
By , at
Thu Jan 10, 10:38:00 AM:
Tim, I'll take a crack at responding to your engaging question, even though I'm not a supporter of Romney (yet, anyway). The GOP is a minority party, so to win the traditional wisdom would say a candidate has to persuade the voters he/she will support some fairly pre-defined positions if elected. Repub's get nervous when they vote for someone they believe is agreeing only out of convenience, but they'll sometimes still support candidates who will very firmly agree to hew to the line, if elected, on the orthodoxy (taxes, judges and abortion), even if it's clear the belief is not sincere. Bush 1 was an example of someone who the GOP gingerly supported when he took the pledge, even though he seriously disappointed the voters later on (with his ill-fated Andrews AFB tax cave-in).
Romney reminds me of Bush 1 in the way he has lately come to agree with these critical positions, which reflects poorly on him and causes concern. If my concern is typical, I'd suggest it's why he doesn't get more wholehearted support in the party (I believe).
Working in his favor is that he's a governor with no Washington experience. It's a plus in the GOP to have retail political experience, and another plus to have run a bureaucracy (while hopefully made it smaller in size). By contrast, there is a paradoxical sentiment amongst Republicans that extensive DC experience is a bad thing, or at least a highly questionable thing. I don't know why that seems true, but you see it with McCain. There's too much history of making deals GOP voters don't like in his past, on taxes, on judges, and on immigration.
While Romney has the governorship experience in his favor, his recent arrival at some key social positions work against him and so the net result is that voters are watching him carefully to see if they can trust him. I think the voters are also trying to figure out who amongst the candidates will be most effective at mobilizing conservative Democrat votes and independent votes to the GOP side in a year where the majority Democrats probably have big turnout working for them, and maybe a resulting landslide victory in most offices other than the presidency (and maybe even there). For that reason, candidates like Romney and Giuliani are getting lots of time before they're cast aside (if they are).
The question of what Massachusetts GOP leaders think of Romney really doesn't enter into it, mostly because one doesn't first think, when judging a candidate, "I wonder what the Republican leaders in Massachusetts thinks of the guy?". Are there really Republicans in Massachusetts? Isn't the Green Party bigger in Massachusetts than our party? My reaction to the lack of coattails is "Well, of course he didn't have coattails, but how did he ever get elected in the first place?!"
Our party doesn't have a great candidate thus far in the election: Romney is a latecomer to core beliefs, as is Giuliani (though Giuliani has lots of prominent GOP'ers vouching for him), Thompson has about as much charisma as a cantaloupe, and Mike Huckabee is an economic nutcase. McCain is a Washington guy, who's looks pretty much a mainstream Democrat on lots of key issues (particularly taxes). It doesn't look good for the home team, so Romney gets more of a look than he normally would, and I believe Giuliani will get a careful look too if he can pull off a victory in Florida.
Andrew
By GreenmanTim, at
Thu Jan 10, 04:02:00 PM:
Andrew, I deeply appreciate your taking the time on this question and will ponder what you have shared. The matter of trust is a complicated one, which when it comes to sizing up politicians comes down to matters of consistancy or character, or perhaps a healthy dose of both.
Consistancy gets expressed in a number of ways, some of which are more effective leadership traits than others. Some long-term incumbants on both sides of the aisle get reelected by constituents who may not like their national policy positions but admire them because they "know where they stand" and believe they wil fight for their share of the federal largess. Then there is the famous anecdote about FDR commenting on Anastasio Somoza García that "He may be a son of a bitch, but at least he is our son of a bitch."
Consistancy also implies predicability. Hard-liners are predictable, as are those who lead with their personal convictions. The basis for constituent trust in these examples has more to do with positions than the process of governing, which has more to do with character.
Character also has a lot to say about how a politician will act. Faith, honor, integrity, accessiblity, sincerity are attributes we often yearn for but less often find in our political leaders. Other aspects of character relevant to constitutent trust is governing style and effectiveness, the ability to articulate a vision and the political skills to accomplish it with the other branches of government. It is very rare in high executive office to find both kinds of character. Nelson Mandela had it. One or two others.
The origin of my concerns about Romney was driven by an emphasis on the effective governance aspects of his character. As a pragmatic registered Democrat who goes his own way more often than not, that says more about my orientation than many conservative Republicans as you have helped me understand. The fact that there are questions on the consistancy side for many Republicans and fewer on the character side is a helpful perspective.
Regards,
