Thank you, NH Democrats -- While I can understand why the GOP establishment wants to write the obituary for the Clinton Era, we shouldn't forget that we actually want Hillary to get the nomination. Any Republican who thinks Obama would be the weaker general election candidate hasn't been paying attention the past few weeks. The Democrats in NH did us a huge favor by maintaining Hillary's viability.
Kudos to McCain -- Apparently, the people of New Hampshire can't be bought either.
Forget the Bradley Effect… -- Some people are already speculating that the Obama was a victim of the Bradley effect, a phenomenon where statistically significant numbers of white voters tell pollsters in advance of an election that they are either genuinely undecided, or likely to vote for the non-white candidate, but those voters exhibit a different behavior when actually casting their ballots. I think this speculation is unwarranted.
As Steve Taylor noted on Monday, "For whatever reason there seems to be two kinds of NH polls out there–the kinds where the margin between Clinton and Obama is 5% or less, and those were the margin is 10% or more." If you assume the Bradley Effect then you probably were biased by the polls that showed the wide margin. If you think Obama lost a close race that he wasn’t really expected to win anyway, you probably believed the polls that showed the race was tight going into the primary.
…Consider the Sullivan Effect -- Instead of the Bradley Effect, I think the NH results may be the result of the Sullivan Effect: The effusive fawning over the candidate by the "Oakeshottian conservative" Andrew Sullivan caused liberal Democrats to have second-thoughts about Obama.
Sullivan officially endorsed the far-right libertarian Ron Paul yet has been constantly singing the praises of the solidly-liberal Democrat Barack Obama. Now if you're wondering how that makes sense then you're not a regular reader of The Daily Dish. Reading Sullivan's political commentary is like watching a David Lynch movie--it's oddly compelling and has some interesting moments but ultimately has no coherent theme.
Still, some people are convinced politics is rational. They assume that if Sullivan appreciates both Obama and Paul then they must be more alike than it might first appear. Since there is no doubt that Paul is a man of the Right, it raises questions about whether Obama is really an exemplar of the Left.
Now it's true that most NH Democrats probably aren't regular readers of Sullivan's blog. But I suspect that he has enough of a trickle-down influence that he could affect a few thousand votes in a small Blue State like NH. Although we can never know for sure, it would be a delicious irony if Sullivan damned Obama with his deafening praise.
Shorter Sullivan Effect -- The fact that Republicans were intrigued by "post-partisan" Obama made him less appealing to traditionally partisan Democrats.
Pundits Don't Know Anything (Redux) -- Need further proof? Check out the last week's worth of posts on NRO's The Corner.
I love the gang at NRO. I really, really do. But they have shown how the inability to be objective about candidates can lead to wishful thinking rather than prophetic analysis. For such astute political minds, this outcome--and the collapse of Romney--shouldn't have come as a surprise.
This Ain't No McSurge -- ABC News' Ron Claiborne reports: "To state the obvious -- The McCain win is huge. It reshapes the GOP race, at least for now. McCain now, arguably, becomes the front-runner."
No, it doesn’t. McCain has owned NH since 2000. This was his race to lose. The real test was whether Romney could pull out a win against a significant challenger and for the second time in a row he has shown he cannot.
Not to take away from McCain's victory but it will be his last win until February 5.
Skip Michigan, Mitt -- If Romney wants to have a chance to win in Michigan he needs to avoid campaigning in that state. As the voters in Iowa and New Hampshire have shown, the more they get to know Mitt the more they realize they don’t like him.
Hunting for Duncan's Voter -- If they were to do a recall I think the NH election commission would find that I actually received more votes than Duncan Hunter.
Future Predictions -- Huckabee will win at least two of the three following primaries: Michigan, South Carolina, and Florida.
Run, Rudy, Run -- If Giuliani was a savvy politician he'd drop out of the race now and run again in a future election. It worked for him before (he wouldn’t be in the race now had he stayed in the NY Senatorial race and lost to Clinton) and can prevent him from an embarrassing end to his political career.
In the RCP tracking polls he's currently running 4th Michigan, 5th in South Carolina, and 3rd in the national poll. He's also barely hanging on in Florida, which makes his late-start strategy look more foolish every day. If he was smart he'd drop out now so that he'd remain viable in the future…which is why I hope he keeps on running until he runs his career into the ground.
Delectatio Morosa Hughabusto -- What's that German word that means taking pleasure in someone else's misforturne? Oh yeah, schadenfreude. I have that.
...we shouldn't forget that we actually want Hillary to get the nomination. Any Republican who thinks Obama would be the weaker general election candidate hasn't been paying attention the past few weeks.
Between Hillary and Obama, I think Obama is actually the better talker. He speaks smart, thinks smart, looks smart and acts smart. If one of the two are going to polarize the election between the Republican and Democratic candidates, I think Hillary wins hands-down. But for a newbie, Obama could really surprise someone. I'm not saying he's going to be elected president or anything, but if it was going to be a battle between McCain and Obama, Obama might have the advantage. I don't know but that's just me.
btw...this is a great blog. I've blogrolled you.
I realize this was a very bad night for your candidate, Joe, but I expected you to at least address it and what it means for his campaign. It looks like you'd rather just ignore it.
The fact is that Huckabee had been polling about 11-12% in New Hampshire throughout December. After his big win courtesy of his fellow religionists in Iowa, what was his bounce from Iowa? As of right now, he has 11% of the NH primary. Wow.
but I expected you to at least address it and what it means for his campaign.
Okay, here goes: It's the scenario we had hoped for. Our plan all along was for McCain to win NH (just as it was McCain's plan for Huckabee to win Iowa).
The only thing I find significant is that Huckabee beat Giuliani in a Northern state. That says something about Rudy's collapse.
One more thing - it is disingenuous to say that McCain has owned NH since 2000. Throughout all of 2006 and most of 2007 he was running third in NH. As recently as 11-29-07 (just six weeks ago), Rasmussen had Romney at 34%, Giuliani and McCain both at 15% and Huckabee at 14%.
So why did Huck travel to NH almost as many times as McCain and Romney did?
So why did Huck travel to NH almost as many times as McCain and Romney did?
Um, because there were Americans there who were going to vote in a primary.
Huckabee doesn't have a lot of money but what he has he'll spend touching as many people as he can. Unlike Fred and Rudy, he doesn't have an "I can't win so I won't show up" attitude. He wants to remind people that as President he'll fairly represent all 50 states -- even those that don't vote for him. ; )
I agree with Joe, a third place finish is a victory for Huckabee. Romney's campaign now limps to Michigan on life support and will make one last stand there. If Romney can't win there he's effectively out. Huckabee and McCain now emerge as the favorites with the important battles in SC and Michigan looming. SC is virtually a lock for Huckabee. A close finish for him in Michigan and he'll probably end up taking FL as well. Huckabee has consistently proven to be the best campaigner of the bunch and with the religious right squarely in his corner he will continue to gain voters from among the Republican party's other groups and factions.
Joe, your posting has been great the past few days - keep it up! Thank you for providing an alternative to the conservative media that has inexplicably turned on Huckabee recently.
I do not think it is yet evident that Romney or Giuliani are sure to lose. This election is still wide open. I agree that Huckabee and McCain are the co-leaders since they have the wins, but I believe Romney still leads in delegates. And Giuliani has been focused on other, later states, so its hard to say his plan is failing yet.
A lot can happen in the next month.
I do find it amusing that after each race there are people saying the election is wrapped up for one candidate or another. I've seen a number of people saying that Romney is nearly finished now, but he's the leading candidate in delegates so far. He may not win, but it's nowhere near decided yet.
Similarly people were predicting Hillary was finished after losing Iowa. Obviously, there's a long way to go on that side as well.
Not voting for a pro-abortion, pro-gay Dem anyways. Will vote for any GOP nominee, even Rudy G., because he's tough on national security and will appoint conservative justices.
Given the above disclaimer, the more people (pundits, commentators on both the left and right) who unfairly bash, misrepresent, and distort Huckabee, WITHOUT DOING THE SAME THING, to the other candidates (which is grossly unfair IMHO), then the more I like Huckabee and hope he rises to a most unexpected win as the come-from-nowhere underdog.
I.e., the more unfairly anti-Huckabee you are without casting the same stones at your candidate, then the more I like Huckabee. If you insist on an unlevel playing field, then the better Huckabee looks to me.
Welll, and too Rudy got 9% of the vote after 126 campaign events in New Hampshire to Huck's 93. And spent $2.5 million on TV to Huck's $100K
Why make fun of the only real conservative in the race, Joe? I don't understand why nobody is giving Duncan Hunter the time of day (probably because he doesn't have the money to command it), but if you look at his website, he's clearly the only legit conservative. Don't agree with everything he says, but people should give him a shot in an election without a legit conservative (unless you count Ron Paul, who is also worthy of consideration but written off by the elites).
I live in SC and I don't think its a lock for anyone, but I'd say its between Huckabee and Romney. Thompson started barnstorming the state again yesterday and is calling this a must-win.
I agree with Joe, a third place finish is a victory for Huckabee. Romney's campaign now limps to Michigan on life support and will make one last stand there. If Romney can't win there he's effectively out. Huckabee and McCain now emerge as the favorites with the important battles in SC and Michigan looming.
Wait a second, Romney placed 2nd with 32% of NH's vote compared to McCain's 37%. If you consider NH to have been locked in as McCain's then that's a pretty close 2nd place. Huck, on the other hand, was 3rd with only 11%. That's a pretty distant 3rd IMO. If that's a victory for Huckabee then what would a defeat have been? 9% of the vote?
Also in Wyoming Romney swept it up while Huck barely placed anywhere. The challenge for Huckabee is to prove that he can capture voters outside his evangelical base. If he can't then Iowa is going to start looking a lot less impressive over the next few weeks.
Obama
I'm a bit worried about the racial impact. The "Archie Bunker" types I know are already saying he has a Muslim name. It would be good if we could finally say this crap is behind us now and it would be good to see the first black president be someone other than a Jessie Jackson/Al Sharpton type. Obama is also refreshing because he is new, I know 70% of the friction in a new Clinton presidency will be generated by the tired old arguments of the past. Why not roll the dice and go with someone who will shake things up.
On the other hand if Obama lost the general election I could see it as especially polarizing...especially if it happens with a lot of underhanded tricks (as in "He's really a Muslim! Ohhh yea he will make everyone gay too!").
Why make fun of the only real conservative in the race, Joe? I don't understand why nobody is giving Duncan Hunter the time of day (probably because he doesn't have the money to command it), but if you look at his website, he's clearly the only legit conservative.
I notice the same thing with Ron Paulites. When you say you're not voting for him their response basically falls along the lines of "ohhh so why are you against liberty?".
Exactly what makes everyone besides Duncan Hunter illegit as a conservative?
Conventional wisdom (like that has meant anything in this race) would say that if Romney loses Michigan he drops out. The problem is that he probably can self-fund his way through, which is what I see him doing.
I think Michigan will go to McCain or Huckabee. I'll be interested to see what the latest poll is there. Right now Huckabee is down one point to Romney.
Did you see the lastest Florida poll that has Giuliani in 4th place?
Joe is right. Gov. Huckabee's showing in NH was impressive. Anyone who thinks that a third place finish in NH somehow portends doom for the Huckabee campaign is out of touch with reality. Look at national polls and state by state polls and you'll find that Gov. Huckabee is competitive or leading in many of them. To say that anyone other than Huckabee is the national frontrunner right now would be disingenuous.
This is a funny scenario:
Huckabee takes Iowa
McCain takes NH
Romney takes Michigan
Thompson takes SC
I wish... just to watch the chaos.
Boonton -
If I removed the word "only" from my question would it sound better? Its a legit question. I'm not saying I'm voting for him either as I'm not sure yet - but Hunter is consistently conservative and, given the uncertainty in this field, I can't figure out why nobody even gives him a look.
Hunter is strong on national security (like McCain, a Vietnam Vet) and knows foreign policy inside/out because of leading that committee in Congress, he's got a solid conservative record on immigration (unlike Huckabee whose new policies are different than his old, fair enough, but still a contrast), a strong record on tax cuts (which many in this field lack), and has been consistently conservative on social issues (which many in this field have not been).
In general, I would caution against calling anything a lock-in or "it's over for someone" for any candidate.
At worst, it can lull people into smug overconfidence which makes them work less harder for their candidate.
At best, you could say: "Hey, I called that! I'm awesome!" and gain some reputation. Reputation is a human good, but in our cultural moment is made into an idol even by folks who would use it well.
I don't mean to sound preachy, but take it for what it's worth.
It ain't over until it's over. Huckabee should just keep campaigning.
I won't vote for him though.
People should make up their own minds and not be persuaded by the media.
ChristFollower,
I'm not saying Huckabee got defeated in NH or in the general election. I'm saying I don't see how a 3rd place finish and a distant one at that can be called a 'victory'. If Huckabee had placed 2nd I could see calling that a stunning victory over Romney but distant 3rd? Again what would be considered a defeat by this criteria?
ACF
he's got a solid conservative record on immigration
You guys are just itching to alienate every single Hispanic voter out there aren't you? Keep it up and the GOP may even lose the Cuban vote.
My first thought when they called the race for Hillary was--whew, that was close. I get satisfaction from seeing the Clintons falter, but Joe is right. We do not want Obama as the Democratic nominee.
Hillary would enter the general election race with several handicaps. Here are a few:
1) half of voters have already indicated they will not vote for her,
2) she has real likability problems (can you imagine a Hillary-Huckabee debate--the ice queen versus Mr. Rogers),
3) she would invigorate Republicans to get out and vote against her (regardless of their party's nominee).
Obama doesn't suffer from these handicaps and he may have the ability to inspire the mushy middle to lean his way.
"You guys are just itching to alienate every single Hispanic voter out there aren't you? Keep it up and the GOP may even lose the Cuban vote."
It may alienate voters, but there's no inherent reason that it should. Conservatives aren't opposing immigration. We're very much in favor of legal immigration, and opposed to those who break the law. What the heck is so darn evil about that, and why would anyone be so utterly opposed to simply enforcing the laws we currently have?
There is not a single person running who opposes enforcing the laws we currently have. This fetish, though, with immigration on the GOP side has grown beyond absurd. Supposedly not only must we enforce the laws we have but we must treat them as near sacred and can't even loosen them a bit here or there to accomodate reality.
Boonton:
The reality is that the current immigration situation is completely broken. We have millions of people who are in a kind of netherworld. Do you think that's not a problem? We have hundreds of thousands of people a year illegally entering the country. Do you think that's not a problem?
Why do you think that any attempt to even address the issue has to automatically alienate Hispanics? Why do you think that any attempt to address the issue is regarded as "a fetish"?
(This should not be taken as a statement that any of the plans proposed are steps in the right direction. If you want to argue that all the Republican candidates are addressing the issue in destructive ways, fine. But don't blame them for tackling a tough issue. Commend them for it - then blame them for crummy solutions if you have to, but at least respect the courage to not sweep this under the rug.)
Mike,
You guys aren't proposing anything to address the issue aside from trying to one up each other on who can be 'tougher'. Who was it? Romney or Huckabee who recently announced they would 'give' those 11 million people 120 days to leave the country. What the hell is that? Why not just give everyone who is poor 120 days to get rich thereby eliminating poverty?
I notice when people do try to offer constructive solutions, such as McCain opening a path to legalization with a $5000 penalty they are attacked with the charge of 'amnesty'. I've suggested half-seriously that the candidates should propose building giant catapults to fling illegals southward as a solution because no real solution will come from the GOP line up these days.
Boonton -
"You guys are just itching to alienate every single Hispanic voter out there aren't you? Keep it up and the GOP may even lose the Cuban vote."
At the risk of being inflammatory, you sound a bit like the other party in pandering to a particular demographic niche to maintain power regardless of whether its right or wrong.
Look, I don't claim to have an easy solution to immigration, and its honestly not the hot-button issue for me that it is for so many others. I'm merely pointing out that most conservatives are unhappy with the "major" candidates on one front or another (in the case of Huckabee, one such front is his immigration positions as governor - and he's not alone as Rudy, Romney, and McCain are all vulnerable on that issue).
I'm merely raising the point that Duncan Hunter (and again, I'm not at all sure I'll vote for him) has a strong and consistent record on issues that matter to most conservatives, who ignore him even as they complain about the rest of the field. It's curious to me.
“You guys aren't proposing anything to address the issue aside from trying to one up each other on who can be 'tougher'. Who was it? Romney or Huckabee who recently announced they would 'give' those 11 million people 120 days to leave the country. What the hell is that? Why not just give everyone who is poor 120 days to get rich thereby eliminating poverty?”
Well you can argue the practicality and cost of that, but if they’re here illegally, then the law says they should be deported. So again, simply advocating that we enforce the laws we have, which you’ve said no one objects to, says that we should find some way of sending back illegals.
As I said, a case could be made that that isn’t practical with the numbers, or desirable from a national interest, etc, and that’s all a valid debate for the issue of changing immigration law, but from an issue of law enforcement and what’s on the books, there’s nothing extraordinary about it.
McCain has certainly offered up a plan for dealing with the problem. Many on my side of the issue feel that giving a reward to those who come here illegally simply provides an incentive for more people to break the law, and offers a disincentive to all those who are trying to come in legally. So we debate his proposals. But you say that “There is not a single person running who opposes enforcing the laws we currently have.” and then seem annoyed by republicans explicitly saying we should enforce the laws we currently have.
Well you can argue the practicality and cost of that, but if they’re here illegally, then the law says they should be deported. So again, simply advocating that we enforce the laws we have, which you’ve said no one objects to, says that we should find some way of sending back illegals.
In this regards the law is unreasonable and therefore should be changed rather than pining for some mythical type of perfect enforcement that could only come with a police state if it could ever be achieved at all. To illustrate one problem with your statement, many of those 11 million people have children who were born here and are therefore US citizens. You can't deport US citizens and it is hardly practical to say we are going to force the breakup of hundreds of thousands of healthy families. You won't achieve respect for the law, you'll achieve a massive rebellion from law and many Americans will not coporate with what will essentially be unjust.
But you guys insist on the one upmanship so anyone with a constructive idea will be shouted down. A $5,000 fine is not an 'award' but there are many good people who could pay it because they are hard workers and would make fine citizens or if not that then perfectly fine legal residents. Yes it is good that people be told they must 'stand in line' but is it practical to uproot people who know this country, are economically established here, sometimes even own property here in favor of those who are none of those things? To be honest the status quo with millions in a 'netherworld' is a lot better than the uber-tough guy approach that many in the GOP slate seem to be gravitating towards. It's also not surprising that the places where this line seems to play the best are places that are most removed from the reality of the situation. I'm sure there are some illegal immigrants in Iowa and NH but let's face it, they aren't NY, Texas, Florida, California etc. and it's interesting that those places have little time for the nonsense being touted by the current roster of candidates.
But you say that “There is not a single person running who opposes enforcing the laws we currently have.” and then seem annoyed by republicans explicitly saying we should enforce the laws we currently have.
And we should. Law enforcement is not free. It costs time, energy and money and those things are limited. Where the Lou Dobbs style immigration nuts have gone wrong is to treat immigration law enforcement as something different from every other type of enforcement. Imagine we treated, ohhh, say taxes like this. "No tax reform until the IRS enforces the current law and stops the $100-$300B in tax cheating each year". Or "No changes to drug laws until the DEA stops all the drugs currently in the country".
Perhaps the biggest problem with conservatives is that some time ago they ceased to be the political philosophy of grown ups. They are more and more becomming the political party of cartoons with cartoon solutions to cartoon problems.
"Huckabee takes Iowa
McCain takes NH
Romney takes Michigan
Thompson takes SC"
And Giuliani takes Florida
Didn't Romney just make 4 million dollars in one day in contributions? Self funded indeed.
Romney is going to lose in Michigan, McCain is going to win. There is no Democrat primary there since Clinton is the only person on the ticket. I'm sure she will give a very shrill sounding victory speech after she wins there anyway.
Looking at the exit polls, I take great comfort in knowing that my fellow Conservatives in N.H. agree with me. Romney won the conservative vote by 8% over McCain. Of course, Romney is obviously the conservative favorite, in Wyoming he won with 64% of the vote and wyoming is very conservative and it wasn't a caucus but a primary vote so everyone got to have their say.
But McCain is going to get the "moderate" and "liberal" vote in Michigan, which means he's going to take Michigan. Even with the cafe standards nonsense that he spewed there a year or so ago.
The next chance for a Romney win will be Florida and then on to Super Tuesday. The last win for Huckabee will be SC.
I'd like to understand why Conservatives do not see a problem with immigration laws that make it just this side of impossible for poor people to immigrate, and specifically penalizes the law-abiding applicants with a quota limitation based on the estimated number of illegals. Talk about elitism... and then they talk like reforming those draconian laws is offering amnesty.
So where's this devastating Romney scandal you promised us?
advantageous to every society. A certain quantity of materials, and the Glasgow, of which the inhabitants are chiefly maintained by the employment
either the country loses by its commerce with the town, or the town by that means of their subsistence, and no species can ever multiply be yond it. But
advantageous to every society. A certain quantity of materials, and the Glasgow, of which the inhabitants are chiefly maintained by the employment
either the country loses by its commerce with the town, or the town by that means of their subsistence, and no species can ever multiply be yond it. But
aewdsa saf wefrasf adsf sdaf
There is no happiness like that of being loved by your these returning vnhxtrrpczayd was very pleasant or desirable no magnet drew me.