Wednesday, February 18, 2004

What happened in Wisconsin

John Kerry won the primary with about 40% of the total vote. John Edwards got about 34%, with Howard Dean getting only about 18%. Edwards' better-than- expected second place showing (of course we called that part) was probably due to a set of conditions and situations that won't be repeated for the rest of the primary season. (Which is not to say that he won't do well or even win some other states.)

Wisconsin allows voters to choose which primary-the Republican or Democrat-- they want to vote in, regardless of their party registration. That doesn't happen again, at least not in any of the big states coming up. Edwards got a lot of Republican votes and a sizeable number of Independents. Kerry did about as well with Democrats (nearly 50%) as he has in most other states, and his numbers in the various exit poll categories (by race, etc.) remained about the same.

Does Edwards' strength with non-Democrats say something about his appeal in the general election? Not necessarily. None of the media bobbleheads mentioned this, and we haven't seen geographical breakdowns yet, but we're guessing he got a lot of votes in Madison and Milwaukee from students and others who were voting to keep the process going---that is, to not settle on the candidate quite yet. Though Howard Dean might have expected to get that vote, probably it went significantly to Edwards. Edwards had the not-Kerry buzz in the past few days. (He was endorsed by the biggest newspapers in Milwaukee and Madison.) Kerry's percentage was down between one and five points from pre-election polls, but Edwards' was up considerably, indicating that he probably took more votes from Howard Dean than from Kerry.

Another factor clearly was his anti-NAFTA emphasis in the final week of campaigning. NAFTA is a weird issue. It resonates both with the anti-globalism left and with the Pat Buchanan far right, who couple it with being anti-immigration. As the only candidate on either ballot (including Bush) talking the anti-NAFTA talk in a state that has lost jobs, some to Mexico and other countries, Edwards was a magnet for disaffected voters of both kinds. Besides, with Kerry's string of victories and the fact that he is the presumptive nominee, voters are beginning to talk about casting "symbolic" votes, because they don't think those votes will matter, Kerry will win anyway.

The media bobbleheads were falling all over themselves early praising Edwards, salivating for a close race and a chance to dis Kerry, but by the end they had to admit that tomorrow's headline would be that Kerry won (which it is, in the NY Times and USA Today, with Kerry's picture on page one.) They talked about Edwards' appeal and eloquence as a speaker, which is frankly lost on us. As we said, he doesn't wear well. They dissed Kerry for giving the same victory speech as he has for weeks, and they were right to do that---he really needs to retire a good bit of it. But there were differences, he did emphasize jobs and trades more, earlier in the speech than usual. And Edwards isn't saying anything new really; they're just paying attention for once.

The political play of the evening was the order of after-election speeches. Howard Dean went first, and the networks covered his every word, just in case he might make news by dropping out, but he didn't say much new---just emphasized what his movement has accomplished and that it will go on, which suggests what some were saying today, that he's looking for a way to retire as a candidate but stay in it as head of a kind of issues oriented Internet Army movement.

But just as Dean was coming down the home stretch, John Edwards leapt on his stage and started talking and pumping his arms and grinning, and the networks abruptly abandoned Dean to cover what an Edwards aide had billed as the most important speech of his political life (for at least the second time so far). Apparently he had planned to speak long before this, when he was a good deal closer in early returns, but the room at his headquarters was half-empty and his people delayed his appearance until they could scare up more of a crowd from a nearby bowling alley. He got out one good line, that the message of the primary vote was : "Objects in your mirror may be closer than they appear."

But just as Edwards was getting started, John Kerry appeared on the stage of his headquarters, and every one of the networks and cable stations switched to him giving his stump speech (since by then he was clearly the winner), effectively erasing Edwards' "give me a second look" speech.

Edwards had probably started his momentum with his NAFTA talk and a moment in the debate when he caught Kerry talking like the nominee already, saying "I" will beat George Bush. "Just a minute, John Kerry," Edwards said, and with that became the "let the process go on" candidate. But the mishandling of the timing of his speech may have cost him almost as much as his showing gained him.

Earlier in the day, a distracted looking Kerry had said something to a reporter about candidates not cherry-picking one state or another to run in, that like him they should campaign in every state. He's said this before but in the context of the Edwards showing, some bobbleheads acted as if they hadn't heard it before. But he had a point in Wisconsin, because Edwards really did direct a lot of resources there. He spent more time there than Kerry, and even outspent Kerry on media advertising.

For that he gets the chance to reap some free exposure with media that have little else to report on for a couple of weeks until Super Tuesday, when Edwards' candidacy will be duly slaughtered. (Kerry will actually have a few more victories next week, in small states.) A lot depends on how much money this showing will inspire. But Edwards is still probably not going to be competitive in many of the Super Tuesday states, like California and Minnesota. He's apparently looking to mount special efforts in Georgia (the one Southern state of that day) and New York State (campaigning in the upstate industrial cities with his anti-NAFTA song); the test of his appeal will probably be in Ohio. If he can win an industrial heartland state, then he’s shown something.

Kerry is probably kicking himself for not spending more in Wisconsin but the challenge should energize him and alert his campaign. (Maybe even inspire them to write a new speech.) It should also alert his voters, that this is no time for symbolic votes. His fundamentals in Wisconsin were undamaged---the 50% of Democrats, the 80% of all voters who said they would be satisfied with him as the nominee, including 70% who voted for Edwards. At this point Kerry is still likely to win most of the Super Tuesday primaries and enough delegates to be within mathematical striking distance. It gets a little tricky the week after Super Tuesday with a slate of Southern primaries, but he may have enough by then to wrap up the nomination even if he doesn't win several of these states outright.

Several things to watch in the next week or so: more talk of Edwards as v.p.? More media coverage of his campaign? And especially, do the expected endorsements of Kerry, by the AFL-CIO and politicians like Governor Rendell of Pennsylvania, materialize on time? One thing the media will watch because every story has to have an ending: what Howard Dean decides to do on Thursday. But whatever he does is unlikely to be much of a factor at this point. He's very unlikely to endorse anyone if he drops out, and Kerry will benefit as least as much as Edwards.

One other potentially interesting decision will be CNN's candidate debate (moderated by Larry King, as he so often reminded us for the past couple of weeks of primary coverage): they may decide to not invite Al Sharpton or Dennis Kucenic, which according to the rules they could (because they haven't gotten the threshold percentage of votes). If Dean has dropped out by then, it could be John Edwards' fond desire: a two-person debate. That would be pretty interesting, and not at all certain that it would really be so good for Edwards. But they are two very smart guys, both of them former trial lawyers, so it could be fun to watch.

No comments: