Obamamania

It's hit New Hampshire. Accounts of large enthusiastic crowds for Obama, smaller ones for Hillary. According to some polls, Obama was already trending upward in New Hampshire before Iowa. Now he's pulling ahead: American Research tracking poll has him up by 12 points: he's beating Edwards among men, and Hillary among women. Rasmussen has Obama ahead by 10 points. They have Obama leading among Democrats by five points and among Independents (40% of New Hampshire's electorate) by 16 points.

"If we cast aside our fear and cast aside our cynicism and we stand up for what we genuinely believe, this is our moment, this is our time, you can feel it, you can see it," Obama told an overflow crowd in Nashua.

So far the polls I've seen haven't shown much of an Iowa bounce for Huckabee among NH GOPers. But more info on this should be available Sunday. Meanwhile, there are debates today for both parties' contenders. It may be Hillary's last chance to affect the outcome Tuesday, and Huckabee's only chance for GOPer voters to take a good look at him. He's still polling in the 11-12 % range.

Katherine Hall Jameison was on Bill Moyers last night. I always listen to what she has to say about the intersection of politics and media. She made a good point that commentators (especially Chris Matthews) who kept saying that two-thirds of the Iowa caucus voters voted against Hillary. She pointed out that the vote was for someone, not against anyone, and could indicate a preference among acceptable alternatives. She's right, especially this year. Polls show Democrats are pleased with the candidates running.

Where I differ from her is her assertion that the prediction that Huckabee will do less well in New Hampshire because of fewer Evangelical voters is an unfounded extrapolation. I think the data from Iowa entrance/exit polls pretty strongly indicates that Huckabee got most of his support from Evangelicals, and scant votes from GOPers who aren't. If he's going to be really viable, he'll have to do well in more groups than one.

Ironies of Change

Today everybody is a change candidate: Edwards, Hillary, even Mitt Romney join Obama and Huckabee. Well, they're all right--none of them is Bush.

Which is actually a big problem for Huckabee. If he was Gomer Bush, he'd be on his way to the nomination. But without establishment GOPer credentials, he's going to have to win it on his own, opposed not only by Democrats but by much of his own party.

But according to the persuasive E.J. Dionne, Huckabee may represent a change in the Evangelical community. In his conversation with Keith today, he points to a number of popular grassroots EC leaders who are folding in compassion for the poor and stewardship of the earth--in other contexts, traditional Christian constructions--to their political portfolios. However, at this point the EC community is split, and if Huckabee can unite it under a more capacious banner, that would be change.

Hillary Clinton would like to be the Democratic change candidate. The irony for her is that in 1992, Bill Clinton was the change candidate. I remember one network newser counting the number of times he said "change" in one of his debates with Bush the First, just as I heard one reporter today count the number of times Barack Obama said it in a speech.

On her first day in New Hampshire, Hillary and her people downplayed the significance of Iowa--they were never going to win there, it's a caucus not a primary, it's like running for mayor in a middle sized city. I'm not happy Hillary lost in Iowa, but I am happy Howard Wolfson and others on her staff lost. I'd like to see them lose their jobs.

But Hillary also sounded the theme she's likely to continue pushing, a judo move not on "change" which hasn't worked for her, but on Obama's "hope." She warned today against "false hopes," that is, pinning hopes on a candidate who doesn't have the experience to deliver. That's actually a reasonable argument and a decent formulation. We'll see how it plays. We'll see if Obama's personal qualities and charisma as well as his verbal response counter it.

But the Bill Clinton example is instructive in other ways. Clinton got elected as the change candidate, and he didn't bring it enough--or fast enough--and he was in political trouble pretty quickly in his first term. Perhaps he didn't have the experience. But it was also true that his missteps combined with an insurgency that had been building in the R party, led to the devastating losses of the 1994 off-year election in which Dems lost control of Congress.

If you listen to Obama talk about bringing people together to effect change, his premise is that he has the votes in Congress to make that possible. So if he gets the nomination that's going to be his message--he not only wants to be elected, he will make a Democratic majority in Congress part of his campaign.

Finally, this thought on change. The word itself isn't very specific--it could mean change for the good, for the worse, towards or away from any number of things. The direction of change is important. JFK ran effectively on the slogan of getting the country "moving again" which was a change in tempo and presumed direction, from the apparent torpor of the second Eisenhower term. Change in the right direction, and in the right way, is the support structure for the one-word anomalous slogan.

Dems in Iowa: Son of the Future


It's a phrase that popped out of the mouth of Chris Matthews, of all people, but if Iowa is any indication, it fits Barack Obama, the victor in the Iowa Democratic caucuses.

First the numbers: Obama won a decisive victory with 38%, 8 points better than John Edwards, 9 better than Hillary Clinton.According to entrance and exit polling, his victory was pretty much total: He won the highest proportion of men and women, of Democrats, Independents and Republicans; those making more than $50,000 a year and those making less--in fact he won every income group, except the one he tied ($15-30,000) with Edwards. He tied with Hillary among union households according to CNN (another poll says he won this), and won nonunion households. The only divided category was age: Hillary won 65 and older, Edwards won 45-64, and Obama won everyone younger, including a majority of voters 17-29.

Obama won on all the choices for top issue (Iraq, the economy, health care) and he won the categories of very liberal, somewhat liberal and moderate. Oddly, John Edwards won the self-described conservatives. But the most obvious statistic in Obama's win was this: 52% of these voters named "can bring change" as the most important candidate quality, and 51% of them voted for Obama.

The most sensational number was turnout. Something like 113,000 Dems voted in the caucuses in 2004. An optimistic projection was about 150,000. At last count, this year there were some 238,000. About twice as many voters caucused for the Democrats as for the Republicans--very good news for Iowa going Dem in the general election.

And as Obama pointed out in his victory speech, he and his campaign accomplished exactly what he set out to do: bring people together, bring people in, change the dynamic. And he did so by never compromising on principle.

He sure changed the dynamic of this campaign. He's now going to be the favorite in the first two primaries: New Hampshire and South Carolina. Hillary and Edwards will contest them, and everything up to and including February 5, but there's no minimizing the momentum this victory gives Obama. By the end of the evening, candidates Chris Dodd and Joe Biden officially ended their candidacies.

While Edward's "concession" speech was a solid but graceless rendition of his incisive stump speech (he failed to even mention Obama, let alone congratulate him, and barely acknowledged his wife Elizabeth, the hero of his campaign), and Hillary gave a graceful but slightly dazed concession, Obama's victory speech was remarkable. He had the MSNBC commentators falling over each other praising it, with Eugene Robinson nearly in tears and comparing him to Bobby Kennedy. In fact, both the speech and the victory seemed to bring out the best in almost everyone on TV, at least for awhile.

About the speech: first of all, it was beautifully stage managed. While Huckabee spoke with supporters right behind him--including Chuck Norris and an attractive blond--who took the focus away from him, and supporters were also crowded close to Hillary (with Bill Clinton perfecting his version of the Nancy Reagan adoring spouse stare--he never took his eyes off her), Obama's supporters were far enough behind him that they blurred when the camera focused on him.

I've only listened to excerpts from speeches of the past few days, but I heard the same mastery of cadence tonight. He has this little hand gesture with which he seems to be conducting his own sentences--his speech was so musical, that he had that largely white audience doing a little call and response. And he repeated not only some of the resonant lines from his latest stump speech, but a sentence from his 04 Dem Convention address that got him so much attention in the first place: "we are not a collection of Red States and Blue States, we are the United States of America..."

He spoke finally about hope, and this summarized everything that made this such an historic moment. The first (literally) African American candidate to win such a victory (I say literally because, as he said, he has a father from Kenya and a mother from Kansas), a person whose victory is going to be heralded around the world and especially in the Third World--the first step to bringing this country back into the world community. A person of practical vision: serious, humane and confident.

Almost as important as the sight of Obama rising to the occasion was the proving of his organization, and his (and its) ability to get young voters to the polls. We heard a lot about the Dean campaign's use of the Internet, etc. last time, and his appeal to the young, but neither worked this well. That's good news for Democrats as well as the Obama campaign. Now we'll see if they can scale it up to do several states at the same time, and then the massive challenge of Tsunami Tuesday in February. (And that was another smart feature of Obama's speech--he gave a lot of credit to his campaign, and he spoke to their hearts--he revved them up to give their all the rest of the way.)

So the American Dash fearless forecast got the order of finish correct here, and Edwards stays alive (barely) while Hillary is no longer the favorite. (It seemed that Edwards either didn't care that he lost or it didn't register, because his speech would likely have changed little in victory. Or maybe he was just moving on.) Hillary's best strategy may be to run dutifully in New Hampshire but concentrate on the Tsunami Tuesday states, where the electoral experience available to her is an advantage in so many simultaneous elections.

But Iowa looked very much like a major "change" moment, as the commentators said, and I guess some of us got a glimpse of what we've waited for decades to see again, at least that possibility. This son of the future might be the leader we need but thought we'd never see again. And those of us of an age hope that our hopes are not dashed in the same catastrophic way as they were before, in 1963, and 1968. We have to hope that in 2008, we're given this last chance.

GOPers in Iowa: Huckabee's (Possibly) Hollow Victory

Mike Huckabee scored a pretty decisive victory in the Iowa Republican straw poll/caucus--a 9 point victory over Mitt Romney. But it was a one-dimensional victory: about 60% of the voters identified themselves in entrance polls as Evangelical Christians, and most went to Huckabee. Of those who identified themselves as not EC's, less than a fifth voted for him. There just aren't that many ECs in New Hampshire. He'll get a bounce out of Iowa and some fresh funding, but it won't be enough.

There's more bad news for him. Though he soundly defeated Mitt Romney, John McCain is neck and neck for third place with Fred Thompson (with 95% of the votes counted.) That's good enough to both give McCain some bounce in New Hampshire, where he's moving up anyway against Romney to be the favorite, and it's also enough to keep Fred Thompson in the race, preserving an alternative as conservative as Huckabee.

Huckabee's victory is causing consternation among Republicans already. He doesn't have the Bush pedigree to bring the Evangelicals and the Wall Street and Washington neocons all together. The latter two hated the Clintons for being upstart poor whites, and here's Huckabee who's governor of the same state and was born in literally the same little town as the Big Dog. In that sense and others, Huckabee is divider.

If Fred Thompson can finish third in New Hampshire (he has better pro help and probably looks a lot better to the heirs of Bush right now) and Huckabee is fourth, then it could all become complete chaos for the GOPers, right on to their convention.

All that said, Huckabee is also a wildcard. The polls that said he'd peaked in Iowa and his bubble had burst were dead wrong: a lot of his voters came to him in the past few days. He's probably going to have the resources to keep going well past New Hampshire and he has the possibility of raining on everybody's parade--including Rudy's last stand down in Florida--while not being strong enough to actually win the nomination.

On the numbers: the Des Moines Register poll was just about on the money on both races, and on a huge turnout (although even they underestimated that.) If I'd read their polling info more carefully on the proportion of evangelicals expected to vote, I might not have stuck with Romney in my prediction. I haven't seen any numbers on this yet, but I'd guess that most of the GOPer first timers were evangelicals voting for Huckabee.

Live Blogging Iowa


630PT: NBC is calling it for Obama. Chris Matthews can't stop talking about how big a victory this is, and how it's going to be global news.

6 pm PT: CNN is calling the GOPer straw vote for Huckabee, by a significant margin. NBC quickly followed. Entrance poll shows that 60% of the total GOPer voters were evangelical Christians.

David Gregory points out something important on the Dem side. The sheer number of votes don't entirely matter--it's kind of an electoral college situation, with the total number of delegates fixed by turnout the last time. This was always an Edwards strategy--that if he did well in the rural districts, that could offset big numbers for Hillary or Obama in the cities. Right now, with about a fourth of the delegates allocated, Obama is slightly ahead but they're all bunched around a third of the total.

5:50
The first results are coming in. What's interesting to me is the 0% for uncommitted, which means that supporters of the second tier candidates are going to someone else as second choice, and not to uncommitted. There's been talk all day of deals (denied by Biden and Richardson representatives) which would trade votes for them where Obama has more than enough, in exchange for second choice votes elsewhere.

545 PT: Donna Braizile on CNN is spinning incoming entrance poll stats as good news for Hillary, while MSNBC is projecting an Obama lead, and word is that turnout could be as high as 200,000, when 130,00 was expected and the Obama people were hoping for 150, 000. But it still matters who those new voters are.

A couple of interesting observations about Independents in Iowa. Independents and even Republicans can choose to caucus with the Democrats. Tim Russert points out that if a lot of Is and Rs are caucusing Dem, it suggests that Iowa could go Dem in the general election (it went for Gore in 2000 but Bush in 04.)
Also, Chuck Todd suggests that if Hillary loses because of so many Is and Rs, her spinmeisters will suggest that the choice of real Democrats is not yet known (and won't be next week either, as Is can vote in the D primary in New Hampshire.

5:15 PT: Early entrance poll indications that turnout is indeed big. MSNBC is monitoring one precinct in Des Moines where turnout for the Dems is more than three times what it was in 2004. Also, a computer model shows the possibility of a strong showing by Ron Paul among the Republicans, possibly even third place.

4:45pm PT: The caucuses have begun. Weather across the state was favorable to a large turnout (i.e. cold but no storms or snow.) Apparently the doors closed about fifteen minutes ago, and if the turnout is big, it will probably take longer to sort things out. Republicans have a quicker, secret ballot process, so their results will probably be known first--maybe an hour from now.


Actually, it's live-blogging only in a loose sense--just updates through the evening as warranted.

It's mid afternoon in California and still more than an hour before the Iowa caucuses start. The buzz however continues to be for Obama. Zogby has been polling daily, and today's has Obama ahead for the first time: it's Obama 31%, Edwards 27%, Hillary 24%. Lots of talk of deal or no deal, most of it involving Obama as well.

Awaiting Iowa

The Iowa caucuses are tomorrow, at last. And then the first real primary in New Hampshire on Tuesday. Right now the buzz is about Barack. He came in first in the Des Moines Register poll by the biggest margin anyone's had in that poll, and Iowans read the Register. Then Kucinich asked his supporters to support Barack at their second choice, if (or rather when) he doesn't get the required 15% of caucus attendees and is disqualified. Today there's word--or rumors--that the Richardson people are also steering their supporters towards Obama. Chris Dodd announced that he's not sending his supporters to anyone. And nobody is suggesting John Edwards, which would be a blow to his chances--until now, the buzz had him benefitting from second choice votes.

So what will happen? It depends on who shows up. But the signs point to Obama, then Edwards, then Hillary. If Obama wins, he's going to surge in New Hampshire and could win there, and then it will be a matter of whether Hillary or Edwards can stop him in the super primaries. If Edwards wins, it's big for him, because it's now unexpected, but he still has a big mountain to climb. If Hillary wins, it's very big for her, because it reinstates her as the favorite. It's all about momentum going into New Hampshire.

On the Republican side I'm sticking with my original prediction: Romney, Huckabee, McCain. If McCain places, he'll hold on to his New Hampshire lead. If not, the race there tightens up, but I don't think New Hampshire is likely to go for Huckabee or even Romney. But if Romney wins Iowa, he stays alive. If Huckabee wins, that's expected; if he loses, he's in trouble because New Hampshire doesn't like him, and he's got no money for other states.

If this isn't complicated enough for you, here's a piece that speculates that an Obama victory in Iowa could lead to a long fight for delegates which would eventually mean the nominee will be...Al Gore.

I wrote about the polls as they came in at Dreaming Up Daily, but for the historical record--this blog does go back a ways--here they are:

12/30:This is about when the polls start to matter--three or four days before the voting. It's more of a mess this year because of the New Year's Eve/New Year's Day interval. But here's the latest:The McClatchy poll shows the Dems still virtually tied, but the trend line has Edwards moving up, and Obama and Hillary down. It also suggests that the Huckabee bubble has burst, and Romney's trend is up.

The Reuters/C-SPAN/Zogby poll has the Dem finish as Hillary, Obama, Edwards, and the GOPers as a virtual tie between Romney and Huckabee. The GOP finding is consistent with McClatchy; however the Zogby poll is not considered as reliable as most others. The poll to watch will be the Des Moines Register, which has been the most accurate.

A couple of other findings from the Zogby that supports the Hillary lead--she's still strong among older voters, who are (based on historical precedent) the most likely to caucus. (McClatchy agrees.) Zogby also found Hillary's supporters are the most firm in their support. Both of these bode well for Hillary, if they prove out.

McClatchy found that events in Pakistan have not changed preferences, and that Edwards would get the most "second choice" votes. My initial guess a month ago of Edwards and Romney is looking pretty good, but these two polls suggest Obama could finish third. On the other hand, the Washington Post touts the Obama Internet-savvy organization and get out the vote effort, which could provide an unprecedented counterbalance of younger voters. His crowds are reported to be younger. Young voters are probably the wild card in the caucuses.

Meanwhile, the American Research poll in New Hampshire also shows an upward trend for Edwards in that state, a lesser upward trend for Obama, and a large downward (9 points) for Hillary. But as in Iowa, it's essentially a statistical three-way tie. Romney and McCain are vying for top spot among the GOPers, both trending upward at the expense of Rudy. Huckabee apparently has no bubble to burst in NH--he holds steady at 11%, which thanks to Rudy's fall, places him third.

As the polls come in, I think I'll update this thread rather than start new ones, so if you're interested, you might revisit here.

UPDATE 12/31/07: This is the one I was waiting for: the Des Moines Register poll 3 days before the voting--which was just about the only poll that got the finish order right in 2004: it shows an upward trend line for Obama, who comes in first with 32% (up from 28% in November) while both Hillary (25%) and Edwards (24%) were flat: no change. Obama's lead now is the largest any candidate has had. There is some fluidity: 6% are undecided (the same percentage as in other polls) and up to a third could change their minds. The poll is of voters who are likely to attend the caucuses, and a great many of them are first-timers and even not registered (although they can register "on the way to the caucus"). A bright spot for Edwards: there was an uptick in his support during the four days of the polling, but there was also for Obama. Not good news for Edwards: the union household is split pretty evenly among the three candidates.

This poll also show GOPer Huckabee maintaining his lead, 32% to 28% for Romney. That's not a safe lead.

So three polls, three different Democratic leaders. The only commonality is that Hillary's support has remained firm--the question being how big it is. One thing does seem very likely: while the race between the top three Dems is very close, it is a three person race: no other candidate looks likely to get the 15% for viability in most caucuses. Perhaps for that reason, the Register poll shows that, contrary to McClatchy, the "second choice" votes aren't likely to change the outcome.

Update 1/1/08: To further muddy the waters, the CNN/Opinion Research poll (conducted Dec. 26- 30) shows a two-way tie on both sides. The GOPers are the same--Huckabee and Romney, with Romney showing the upward momentum and Huck downward. On the Dem side, though, the tie is between Hillary and Obama, with Hillary slightly ahead. This one shows momentum for both Hillary and Obama but not for John Edwards, who is a relatively distant third. Meanwhile, the Register poll may itself have given Obama new momentum. The other candidates attacked its new turnout model. It does seem that the outcome hinges on how many young voters actually caucus.

Also, Dennis Kucinich--who is polling at around 1 or 2%--has asked his supporters to give their second choice votes to Obama. He did this in 2004 as well, although then he steered his supporters to Edwards. The other candidates haven't weighed in, but observers believe that Dodd, Biden and perhaps even Richardson voters are more likely to back Hillary as second choice, but precedent indicates they are more likely to remain uncommitted, or in particular instances, to see if they can't get 15% for one of these second tier candidates by combining their votes. The Biden campaign is saying straight out that they're running for fourth.

How Iowa Decides

Iowa isn't just voting next week--they're caucusing. The Wall Street Journal (finally) explains what that means.

Democrats and Republicans gather at various locations in the 1,784 precincts of the state. Republicans make a pitch for their candidates and there is a secret ballot. Democrats gather in clumps around the room according to which candidate they support. But the key item for caucuses in both parties is this:

"Candidates who don't receive support from at least 15% of participants are "eliminated," but their supporters can realign with another group. A final head count at the Jan. 3 gatherings will determine how county-level (not statewide) delegates will be apportioned."

According to this account, the lingo is that more than 15% makes the candidate "viable." But that first vote isn't the last. If your candidate isn't viable, you can join your second choice candidate, or the group that remains uncommitted.

This is why polls ask for "second choice" candidates, but that doesn't say a lot because whether your second choice will matter depends on who your first choice is--that is, if your first choice is a second tier candidate unlikely to get 15%, your second choice matters more than if your first choice is one of the top tier, who are more likely to get 15%. Unless of course your second choice is also a below 15% candidate--then it's your third choice that matters.

Then again, there's nothing preventing anyone from switching for any reason or no reason, from any candidate (viable or not) or the uncommitted, until the final tally is taken.

The big variable is who will attend. Some of the problem is who can attend: even though the caucuses are held in the evening, lots of people work then--in retail, restaurants and other places open until 9, and notably police, fire and medical personnel who often belong to politically active unions. Employers are not required to give time off, because technically it isn't an election--it's a internal party matter.

In all, only about 10% of Democrats and 12% of Republicans are expected to caucus.

As things are shaping up now, if Obama wins it may be because of what some are reporting is a very strong new speech in the closing days, or because college students are able and willing to caucus; if Hillary wins it may be because her experience argument grafts onto concern about events in Pakistan, or because of her ad blitz or women who want to vote for a woman for President once in their lives; if John Edwards wins, it may be because of his strong organization in rural areas and the resonance of his anti-corporate argument where jobs moved offshore have created hardship and insecurity.

If Huckabee wins, it may be because his heavy fundie appeals have worked; if Romney wins it might be because his organization turns people out and some have become leery of Huckabee's weirdness; if McCain does well, it may be because the others seem untrustworthy and unappealing.

Who knows? Nobody. Who cares? Everybody involved. Iowa caucuses on Thursday, and New Hampshire votes the following Tuesday. The difference between who places first and third may be very slim, which may mean it means a lot, or not so much. All the chatter will immediately be about how the outcome will or won't affect New Hampshire. And nobody knows that, either.

At this point, it seems to me that if the top three Democrats finish as close as they appear to be in the polls (and once again the cell phone argument is being raised--the polls don't reach them, and lots of young people use them as their one and only phone), Iowa may not matter as much as it did last time.

But of course no one will be able to say that until a week from Wednesday, when the New Hampshire results are known. If Edwards wins Iowa (and I still think he's got the inside track) then he has to win New Hampshire--but it's not a given. If Hillary clearly wins Iowa, then she is likely to win New Hampshire--but that's not a given either. Last time, John Kerry from neighboring Mass. had an early lead there, and lost it in the Howard Dean (of Vermont) surge. But Kerry winning in the fields of Iowa made New Hampshire feel better about returning to him. Hillary's had a lead there for some time, but New York is not quite so close, and the suspicion has always been that her support was wider there (and nationally) than deep.

If Obama wins in largely rural white Iowa, he's got a better chance in not so entirely rural white New Hampshire. At the moment he's close enough in New Hampshire polls that an Iowa victory could well put him over the top in NH.

Sound like tapdancing? You bet. Personally I'm betting that there will still be three Democrats standing--and three Republicans--by the time I vote in February.