campaign junkie update

Shaping up as the states to watch over the next couple of weeks are Tennessee next Tuesday (2/10) and Wisconsin on February 17.

Both John Edwards and Wesley Clark are devoting time and resources to Tennessee, and both have something of a home field advantage. But as of now, John Kerry is leading in the polls. With another string of victories likely this weekend, he will be taking on the math of inevitability by the 10th as well as the air of inevitability. So two things could happen to slow Kerry's momentum, apart from voters who simply favor another candidate: voters who want to slow down the process, or voters who assume Kerry will be the nominee and doesn't need their vote, so they can vote for Edwards because he used to practice law in the state and is a southerner, or Clark because he shook their hand or something. But right now it looks like: Kerry, Edwards, Clark in that order. If that holds, Clark would essentially be finished (and it would probably be a great relief to him, because he's not very good at this and probably knows it by now, and he appears not to really have the stomach for campaigning over the long haul.) Edwards stays alive with a win or possibly a close second.

The last battlefield could be Wisconsin on 2/17. Howard Dean is making his last stand there. If he doesn't win it, he may very well get out of the race. Edwards has chosen Wisconsin as the place he needs to show he can win outside the south. If he doesn't win there, especially if he has not won another state besides South Carolina, he may concede. Kerry would go into March 2 Super Tuesday essentially unopposed. Again, voters in Wisconsin could simply try to keep the race going by coming out for Edwards or Dean. But it is highly likely that they will split that vote. Unless Edwards comes out of 2/10 with momentum from two southern victories (which is unlikely as of now) he probably couldn't be the focus of the non-Kerry voters, but he does have the best chance at the moment to survive. There's also the possibility that the Dean activists will pull out all the stops for at least a symbolic victory in Wisconsin, achieving at least some emotional satisfaction. But it is more likely that they will have their moment at the Convention when Dean speaks (as he certainly will.)

The problem for these candidates is that they need clear victories over Kerry, and that is highly unlikely. He is going to pick up almost as many delegates in these states, even if he is a few percentage points off the top spot. And he is going to be winning every other state in contention. Winning Michigan, Washington and Maine will be huge. And for the other candidates this is just a strategy to stay in the race until Super Tuesday. Wresting the nomination from Kerry is even more of a long shot. The only surprise since Tuesday so far is how much money these candidates claim they continue to raise. The Democrats are benefitting from this primary race in getting attention for their agenda and point of view. It's not certain that the money going to these campaigns would be available to the Democratic ticket anyway, but if it would be, there may be reason down the road to regret spending it now on candidacies that have no realistic chance.

Side note: we don't see Letterman much anymore but apparently candidates have been doing Top Ten Lists for him lately. John Edwards did "ten things you'll never hear candidates say." #3 was "Lady, that is one ugly baby." #1 was "Read my lips: no new wardrobe malfunctions."

The Results

John Kerry won primaries and caucuses in five states; in the largest and most important primary (Missouri) he got a majority of votes cast in a field of 7 candidates, as he did in the North Dakota caucus. In South Carolina, which John Edwards won by about 15 percentage points, he got a quarter of the votes cast, and more than that in Oklahoma, where Wesley Clark was the apparent winner, just a few hundred votes ahead of John Edwards. In addition to Missouri and North Dakota, Kerry won Delaware, Arizona and New Mexico. So he has won in every region of the country except the traditional south, and today he has shown strength among black and Latino voters, who were not present in significant numbers in New Hampshire and Iowa.

Apart from the total delegates that Kerry won, the most significant number of the night comes from the exit polls. Asked if Kerry was an acceptable nominee even if they didn't vote for him in the primary, 80% in 3 of the 4 primary states said yes. In Oklahoma, where he ran slightly behind Clark and Edwards, it was 70%.

Joe Lieberman dropped out of the race, while Howard Dean polled behind Al Sharpton in South Carolina. John Edwards' strong win in South Carolina, and his eloquent stump speech in victory (which moved the MSNBC panel to high hosannas), raised his campaign, which had staked everything there, outspending Kerry by 5 to 1. Senator Edwards of North Carolina was born in South Carolina, and used that to his advantage. Wesley Clark, as off-putting in victory as he is in defeat, claimed a great victory in Oklahoma, where he camped out since New Hampshire. Clark is from neighboring Arkansas, and was perceived as conservative because he's career military. Edwards did better than expected in Oklahoma, principally because he was endorsed by Barry Switzer, the famed Oklahoma football coach whose endorsement is credited with electing the current governor. (The source of this information was the Edwards campaign.)

Edwards' victory may result in a cash infusion. If so, he can mount campaigns in the next round of southern states, and then he is hoping to break out of the south with a win in Wisconsin. Clark will also need inspired contributors to mount any sort of challenge, although it's not clear where he will be able to challenge Kerry.

Kerry asserted that he was the only candidate to campaign in all seven of the Feb. 3 states, and is committed to campaigning in every primary and caucus state in the future. This is not only a good strategy for the frontrunner, it's an appropriate practice if the party is to test for its best nominee. Edwards is likely to be his final viable opponent in the weeks ahead. We've been saying since before Iowa that his "two Americas" theme is a winner. He is eloquent, intelligent and straightforward. But he may look a little too much like Jimmy Carter, a good man not prepared to swim with the sharks. Lack of experience has become a qualification, but maybe the tide has turned on that as it may have on many other knee-jerk truths from recent elections.

South Carolina was the first state to report, so Edwards got his media moment early in the evening. At that point the media bobbleheads were touting his chances based on the "domestic themes," of jobs, health care, education and so on, whereas Kerry's appeal as the war hero was as a leader on "foreign affairs," which they once again denied would be the deciding factor against Bush. But they don't quite understand Kerry's appeal as a war hero---because he is also an anti-war hero. His war hero image does reinforce his foreign policy experience as a U.S. Senator who has been very active in debating policies and making law in foreign and military affairs. His anti-war hero image does reinforce his ability to distinguish bad wars from necessary actions, and his resolve to not involve American young people in unnecessary military adventures, let alone kill the innocent of other countries in order to make wealthy people more wealthy. But his warrior in war and peace image translates to those domestic issues as well. He will fight for jobs, for health care, for education, and stand up to the very powerful oligarchy of corporations and entrenched interests.

Most importantly to Democrats now, this peaceful warrior image means he will give Bush and the Republicans a fight to the finish, which is what voters dearly want. (A large percentage classified themselves as either "angry" or "dissatisfied.") In his evening interviews, you could see this quality: no criticism went unanswered, and he repeated that he looked forward to the fight for the nomination and the election.

Kerry is battle tested, in war, in the war against the war, and in the political wars. Kerry won a very tough election for the Senate against a very popular Republican Governor---and in Massachusetts you had to be very popular to be both Republican and governor--- Bill Weld. Here's what one of Kerry's Navy buddies told New Yorker reporter Joe Klein: "John's at his best under pressure, when he's being seriously challenged. He gets really cool, very calm. He really is a warrior---he just loves it. I took one look at him as he was walking into Faneuil Hall for one of the last debates and I thought, Bill Weld has no idea what's about to hit him."

That's what Democrats are looking for in a nominee. Not somebody who seemingly changes his entire personality from debate to debate, like Al Gore apparently did, giving the woeful George W. Bush an opportunity that probably surprised even him. Wesley Clark's basic message is fine with most Democrats. John Edwards message, eloquence and intelligence will inspire most Democrats, as did Howard Dean's. But Democrats want the nominee who will beat George Bush, and beyond the Democratic party (but including those in it), voters want somebody who is equipped to be President from Inauguration Day, who can deal with foreign challenges and get America back into the international community, while making sense of our affairs at home. That's why John Kerry won seven primaries and caucuses out of nine, and why he's going to win in Michigan and Washington state later this week. Kerry's campaign slogan, a nasty cooption of Bush posturing, is "bring it on." He means it.

More vice presidents from Speculation Central: John Edwards continues to deny interest in being the v.p. nominee, and who can blame him? Of course it is something he has to say at this stage, or no one would donate money to his campaign. If he is asked, and he does accept, he would be a strong v.p. candidate because of his eloquence, intelligence and energy. Coming from the south may not add a lot.

As we mentioned before, Kerry could choose a Midwesterner like Gephardt, to help win the crucial industrial states. Or Jennifer Granholm, the very popular governor of Michigan, a key battleground state. That she's a woman will also help, especially since the Republicans aren't going to be able to portray Kerry as a wimp (or as those Arnold clones on Saturday Night Live used to say, a "girlie man.")

Or Kerry could look to a southwestern strategy, and choose Bill Richardson, governor of New Mexico, a Latino, and former ambassador to the UN in the Clinton administration. Richardson himself is a proponent of such a strategy, so he wouldn't have to be convinced it's a good idea. Richardson mentioned the environment as an important issue in the west, and though this crucial area has barely been mentioned in the campaign so far, Kerry is very strong on environmental issues.

A musical note: One beat after Kerry finished his victory speech in New Hampshire, the ballroom speakers boomed with the Boss, singing "No Retreat, No Surrender," a great, great song. Tonight in Washington state, the same timing but a different song: native son Jimi Hendrix: "(Let Me Stand Next To Your) Fire."

(Reminds me of the best commercial I saw on the Super Bowl-a very young Jimi in 1953 chooses a bottle of Pepsi from a blue machine outside a music store, with electric guitars in the window (everything about the Pepsi bottle and machine were vintagely correct, but not the guitars.) He had passed on a Coke from the red machine across the street, also in front of a music store, but with accordions in the window. The soundtrack treated us to a few notes of "Foxy Lady" on each instrument. "Good choice" was the conclusion.)

(Yeah, I saw that, and most of the actual game, but during the infamous halftime show I was watching C-Span 2, and a fascinating interview with Franklin Toker-met him a few times in Pittsburgh---about Fallingwater. And I do not regret it, having already seen the Latoya model of the Jackson breast in Playboy. Same model, probably, from the same surgeon.)

the day before

National poll numbers today are shaking the assumptions of the media bobbleheads. The numbers show Bush more than vulnerable both on Iraq and on the economy---specifically on jobs. His approval rating has fallen below 50% for the first time, and John Kerry has a 7 point lead in a head to head matchup for November. This just after a weekend in which bobbleheads pooh poohed Iraq as an issue, and gave the economic issue to Bush. They also talked about the Democrats hurting each other on the campaign trail, but that turned out not to be so: because the media covers conflict, the Democratic message got repeated by all or most of the contenders, so it made an impression.

But here at Speculation Central we don't think the primary campaign is going to be all over tomorrow, and that's a good thing. Judging from Kerry's last two days of scheduling, he may have concluded that John Edwards is going to win South Carolina, and Oklahoma may go to Wesley Clark. Our barely educated guess is that he's looking at 5 outright victories out of 7, and will come in second in the other two. If Edwards wins South Carolina by 5 points or more, and shows a consistent second place in other states, he remains enough of a contender to satisfy the media, who will then keep covering the race. Howard Dean will need outright victories before March 2 to remain legitimate and not just an annoying spoiler. By the March 2 primaries it's likely that Kerry's opposition will be token, unless Edwards has run up some victories beyond the South. Right now, the national polls show him not as strong against Bush as Kerry. That of course could change as he becomes better known. But Howard Dean is unlikely to recover as a viable candidate. He is shown losing to Bush by a clear margin in the new poll.

Kerry is in striking distance in all seven states tomorrow. If voters are still strongly motivated by electability and they see these poll numbers, it could be enough to give him the additional two or three victories. But this may also be a time that voters want to pause and take a second look at other candidates. The frontrunner has the powerful appeal of a winner, but also the prominent position as target and symbol for whatever negative messages voters want to send. Our gut feeling is that he does not win South Carolina or Oklahoma. If he doesn't, it's not necessarily a bad thing, and doesn't really slow down his pace to the nomination. If he does, it's a strong message that voters are focused and powerfully motivated to get rid of the Bush.