Huckabee Gives Wright Some Slack

I know I have at least one  Huckabee fan as a semi-regular reader so I thought I’d post this (I snagged it off Ezra Klein’s blog): Huckabee on the Reverend Jeremiah Wright (he of “God damn America” fame).

 And one other thing I think we’ve gotta remember. As easy as it is for those of us who are white, to look back and say “That’s a terrible statement!”…I grew up in a very segregated south. And I think that you have to cut some slack — and I’m gonna be probably the only Conservative in America who’s gonna say something like this, but I’m just tellin’ you — we’ve gotta cut some slack to people who grew up being called names, being told “you have to sit in the balcony when you go to the movie. You have to go to the back door to go into the restaurant. And you can’t sit out there with everyone else. There’s a separate waiting room in the doctor’s office. Here’s where you sit on the bus…”

Prolonged Campaign Helps Democrats?

Bouncing between historical analogs and modern day media realities Walter Shapiro answers the biggest question bounding around the blogosphere yesterday: Is the prolonged Democratic race bad for Democrats come November?

Conventional wisdom and Rush Limbaugh (oddly enough) agree that it does. Clinton and Obama both vying for the lion’s share of the ever-diminishing pool of available delegates will resort to nastier and nastier attacks. Already critics of Clinton’s smear machine have spoken up against Clinton’s 3AM ad which implies, not only that Clinton will be ready on Day One, but that Obama will cause your children to be murdered in their sleep if he’s the guy in the Oval Office. The problem, of course, is that a charge like that doesn’t go away when the person delivering the message is John McCain. In fact, it gets worse. “Look,” Citizen McCain can say, “Even his fellow Democrat doesn’t trust this guy to keep your children safe.”

Shapiro takes issue with the conventional wisdom by focusing on two specific pieces of data. Democrats are famous for settling on a candidate fairly early, by March at least and it hasn’t helped them so far. Even Bill Clinton, he points out, was only nominally challenged until the California primary and despite his early clinching of the DNC nomination, he trailed behind both Bush 41 and Ross Perot.

And the other reality is the slathering maw of a press hungry for drama-laden stories. There is no more drama in the Republican race. According to Shapiro there were roughly four times as many stories following up on the Democratic primaries as on the Republican ones–and that despite the fact that McCain still had a “challenger” in Mike Huckabee.  In the months and weeks ahead, with McCain campaigning for November with the full arsenal of the GOP, he can only divide his attacks between both candidates or hurl them more broadly on Democrats  in general–and no one will care.

Meanwhile Clinton and Obama will dominate the press as they go for each other’s jugulars.

It bears pointing out that this is exactly what did in John Edwards  before Nevada and South Carolina. Despite running strongly in both Iowa and New Hampshire, the press completely ignored Edwards when Obama and Clinton began flaring up at one another, focusing instead on the tit-for-tat going on between the frontrunners.

Is the double-headed beast Clintama-Obamaton going to Edwardsify McCain? It could happen. I think Shapiro is ignoring the harms of a prolonged campaign in favor of underscoring the gains, which is probably for the best since most everybody else is doing the opposite.

McCain…is…so….close….

Romney is backing McCain today, a move that should send all of Romney’s pledged delegates to McCain. The contenders are racing to gain 1,191 delegates. If McCain collects all of Romney’s votes, he’ll be about 80 shy. Huckabee will be about 800 shy.

Rightly or wrongly, the GOP race should have been over on February 6th were it not for Huckabee’s inexplicable pig-headedness. Unfortunately Wisconsin, the next Republican primary doesn’t offer enough delegates for McCain to lock it up on his own before March 4. It’s a mathematical certainty that Huckabee can’t win, so his insistence on staying in is already suspect, but now the odds that McCain can sit out the remaining primaries and win by default are too high for Huck to continue wasting his money.

However, I feel obligated to mention that, as a person voting for a Democrat this year, I hope Huckabee does stay in. Not only does it weaken McCain economically and politically, it also ruins his own chances at a successful run in the future since he’ll be the guy that helped sink the GOP in 2008.

George Bush Shifted Government to the Left

As I prance around the blogosphere listening to all this vitriol against John McCain I have to wonder if people are just saying things because they think it’s persuasive or if it’s because they actually believe it. A comment to this post is a perfect example. According to that person, American governance has so hopelessly drifted to the left since 2000 that “Bill Clinton is now a moderated [sic].” That’s right, George Bush, easily the most imperialistic president since Teddy Roosevelt and the most contrary to the rule of law president since Andrew Jackson has moved American politics to the left. Clinton is now a moderate.

Democrats tend to remember Bill Clinton fondly. They are naturally embarrassed by that whole Lewinksy business but they remember a powerful Democrat in office. They remember his struggle with the loudmouthed Newt Gingrich faction of Congress. They remember the “humanitarian wars” that brought a multilateral offensive force crashing down on the heads of ethnic cleansers like Slobodon Milosevic. They largley forgive him for his Haitian catastrophe, Somalia, various other marital indiscretions, and NAFTA.

Republicans seem to only remember FMLA.

Both parties seem to hate the various compromises that lead to welfare reform.

To Democrats he is remembered as the best Democrat since JFK. To Republicans he is remembered as worse (more left) than Jimmy Carter.

Bill Clinton was and remains a moderate…a centrist…a “new” Democrat that co-opted Republican liberal trade agendas and realist offensive maneuvers to find room for America’s first “wars of choice” while remaining committed to fundamental Democratic social concerns like equal rights and the War on Poverty.

Bill Clinton was considered a moderate when he took office in 1992. He was, after all the Democratic chief executive a Southern state. Sort of like how Evan Bayh would basically be palatable to New York Republicans. During his presidency he passed more Republican-style legislation than the first George Bush, for example, welfare reform and America’s to-date largest free trade agreement. He increased military spending every year he was in office. Bill Clinton did not and does not represent the interests of either Democrats or “the left.”

With the election of George Bush in 2000 the Republican Party moved markedly to the right. I guess, by comparison, reasonably Democratic legislation seems to be a radical shift to the left, but it is nothing of the sort. And Obama is hardly the most liberal senator in office. That title would more accurately be held by Feingold or some other Great Lakes progressive…a senator so far to the left he is able to work with several Republicans on a variety of bills.

In any case the point of that post was not to encourage Republicans to rally around McCain. I hope they do because it may show that the entire conservative movement isn’t controlled by fascist evangelicals that want to pass the moralistic laws that would turn this country into a theocracy. The point of the post was to say that, despite what people have heard on the blogosphere and in the MSM, McCain is a conservative, he does express the interests of the conservative branch, and Republicans will rally around him. That doesn’t, of course, mean they will win in November. The Republicans have a lot going against them right now, most of which will likely prove impossible to overcome.

It is a sad state of affairs, really, that an imperialist, pro-life, strict constructionist, fiscal conservative, centrists Republican who helped pass Reagan’s laws in practical lockstep can even have his conservative credentials questioned. The comment linked above even implores conservatives to stand behind McCain while the author is filled with obvious despair that conservatives will have to “settle” for the Arizona Republican.

Romney and Huckabee have less experience in government than McCain and they didn’t win the primaries because they aren’t as well liked by the Republicans. Even though the Bush Administration would probably like to put the mistake of Guantanamo behind them, Romney is saying he wants to double it. Huckabee doesn’t have a clue how foreign policy works. Real Republicans were scared of having these two in office because they just aren’t up to the job. Winning the primaries is not some fluke or accident. McCain won in New Hampshire for goodness sake! He was famously touted the Republican “comeback kid.” If the ultra-right was capable of rallying against him, they would have. When they had the chance in West Virginia, they rallied against Romney instead. I know politics is complex but it isn’t rocket science. When McCain wins the primaries it will be because he was liked by the majority of Republicans. I think most of the ire against McCain is rooted in the fact that if a guy like McCain gets the nomination it acts as proof that evangelicals are minority in the Republican Party–and that’s a pill that’s hard for them to swallow. As another commenter put it: “The GOP needs us!” No–it doesn’t. The GOP has probably caused itself long-term injury by teaming up with evangelical extremists.

Seriously, what’s the most anti-Bush thing that McCain has done? He wrote and passed a law that makes it illegal for the president to torture people. Seriously!? The current Republican administration needed a brand new law to remind them it’s illegal to torture? And therefore McCain isn’t a conservative because he thinks torturing is wrong. Christian Republicans have a few things to learn from a guy who was tortured for six years and still doesn’t want his own government to torture its enemies. Meanwhile George Bush is preaching to the National Prayer Breakfast group that “all life is precious” while simultaneously ordering the CIA to waterboard prisoners of war. Apparently “all life is precious” is a doctrine that doesn’t extend to people that Bush doesn’t like. Evangelicals, I think, must actually prefer hypocrites.

There are two big crews of people who don’t like McCain: hardline anti-immigrants and radical evangelicals. Neither of which have an inkling of what true American thought is. One group wishes they could re-elect the Indian-killer Andrew Jackson, the other wishes that Torquemada would run. In either case the person elected would be a close-minded bigot and I can’t say I’m sorry that the Republicans are just going to have to deal with the fact that they will either have a Democrat in office or a Republican who understands a little something about humility, forgiveness, and proper human conduct.

I almost wish that McCain would win in November if only to send the message all the way home: Republicans can get elected without evangelical support. Unfortunately it’s not real likely. And Republicans will most likely learn the wrong lesson.

The Form of the Race So Far

Who won on Tsunami Tuesday?

It’s a stupid question but everybody else asked it so let me chime in too.

Republicans:

McCain won and everybody knows it. He proved he could win in general [and he proved he could beat Romney in particular] in several key areas which was important because going into Tsunami Tuesday McCain was only thrashing Romney by approximately twice the amount of delegates, which apparently was not enough for sensible people to discount his chances of eventually winning. Romney recognized the level and kind of beating he got on Feb 5 and eventually backed out, giving a concession speech, that both in environmental context and rhetorical substance, was designed to encourage the conservative base to get behind the Arizona senator. Fred Thompson came out and supported McCain and then Bush (the PRESIDENT) did too. That left Huckabee still in the race but politically out in the cold.

Democrats:

Obama won. This seems so obvious as to practically make the question moot and yet so many have found it intriguing. I have mentioned this before and I will mention it again: Obama has been ahead since Iowa…that is, since the very first vote of the very first primary. This cold fact has been so supremely muddled by the DNC and the MSM that to even say it raises eyebrows on the faces of the uninitiated. Clinton has been ahead in superdelegates–a bizarre system wherein party loyalists (in the form of elected Democratic officials and party workers) are given a vote in choosing the nominee. The superdelegates sort of…er…promise…ahead of time to vote for a specific candidate. But they don’t have to do what they say…that is, unlike the delegates that are earned through winning the popular vote, superdelegates can change their mind and change their mind and change their mind…as many times as they would like until they finally cast their vote at the Democratic Convention.

The race has always appeared lopsidedly in her favor because she earned the lion’s share of superdelegates before the first vote was cast. In the buildup to that first vote Clinton was the clear frontrunner. She was the frontrunner in terms of the general public perception of her campaign, her national name recognition, and her strong nationwide polling. One practical effect of the superdelegate system is that the Democrats even have a frontrunner before the votes are cast, so, in that way too, Clinton was a frontrunner going into Iowa.

But on that day in January when the citizens of Iowa did that wacky thing they do, Obama became the official frontrunner by earning the only votes that were definitely his no matter what else happened. He followed that victory with a loss in New Hampshire, so the story goes. But that isn’t true either. In reality Obama, Edwards, and Clinton were all pretty close in both races and the Democrats split delegates proportionally. Iowa is bigger than New Hampshire and Obama’s plurality there is worth more than Clinton’s in New Hampshire. That is, he earned more delegates. That means that even after his loss in New Hampshire he was still “winning” and he was officially, if not technically, the “frontrunner.”

Then he lost in Nevada–but then won in South Carolina a week later and he was still winning.

Then there was Super Tuesday where he won, won, won. He basically swept the South. He kept the race close in New York and he won in Connecticut. He won in Illinois and Missouri. He won in the sparsely populated West. Apparently he lost in California and that alone was sufficient to question whether or not he had “won” at all. What a crock! California has a lot of delegates, but the fine people in the Golden state will line up behind Obama if Clinton’s out of the picture, have no fear. His loss there was not sufficient to bump him from the frontrunner status that many people continued to ignore he had ever had.

Then Clinton admitted she was so financially strapped, she donated 5 million of her own dollars to her campaign. Ouch. Meanwhile, in the three days following Tsunami Tuesday Obama raised 5 million dollars. Double ouch. If you need to ask, “Who won on Tsunami Tuesday?” after the reports of a 3-day 10 million dollar difference between the two frontrunners emerges, you really shouldn’t be covering politics.

Who won on Sidekick Saturday?

Four days after Tsunami Tuesday was this past Saturday’s primary and caucus parties. Things lined for the donkeys but the Republicans went all cockeyed.

Republicans:

Huckabee won. I know! Right!? At least one political spectator explained Huckabee’s surprising victory on Saturday this way: McCain is still substantially ahead in delegates, Huckabee did win 36 delegates in Kansas but earned nothing in Louisiana since he failed to get a majority of the vote, and McCain won in Washington. So even after McCain’s “bad day” he’s still the presumptive nominee. The crucial point here, according to Taylor is that once McCain became the clear nominee people didn’t come out and vote for him. The “anybody but McCain” contingent is still out there, and they did come out to vote. If you follow the link you can see the amazing difference in voter turnout between the Kansas and Louisiana 2008 and 2004 primaries. His analysis seems more than plausible to me. McCain will have to do a better job going forward convincing people that he still needs slightly less than 500 delegates to make it official so they better head to the polls.

Democrats:

Obama won. Obama won in four very different locations: he won in the Democratically dense Washington [State], he won in the highly rural Nebraska, he won in the the super Southern Louisiana, and he won in the US Virgin Islands (not that anybody’s talking about that). Again, Democrats parcel out their votes proportionately which means that Clinton didn’t disappear in the race to the convention, but she’s hurting. After her losses this weekend she fired her campaign manager.

Now, losing a shit ton of cash and shaking up your campaign staff isn’t necessarily a death knell for a campaign, one need only look so far as the GOP frontrunner to see that, but it is always a bad sign, especially with Texas just around the corner. If case you haven’t looked a map lately, Texas is huge, and it requires a well-organized, well-funded machine to properly canvas it. It takes skilled (read: paid) staff, it takes volunteers, and it takes TV and radio spots (which don’t run cheap).

People keep saying that the superdelegates “largely favor Clinton if the nomination has to be brokered at the convention.” I’m not so sure that’s true. For one thing, many of the superdelegates are elected officials who are beholden to citizens that voted largely for Obama. They don’t have to vote as their constituencies voted, but it’s probably not a great idea to tell the people you want to re-elect you that you don’t value their opinion. The rest are party officials that want to win in November and if the majority of voters are going for Obama, they are likely to vote for Obama. The assumption that superdelegates favor Clinton is based mostly on their early support of her and some kind of shady financial ties between her and them. The early support was based on her title as Once and Future Queen and that support has likely already faded away and will fade away entirely if Obama continues to win as he has. And financial ties are notoriously weak. The money follows the power (and vice versa) if Obama looks like the current leading to future economic gains, you can bet that the superdelegates will make sure they have their sails rigged (ahem) to catch the wind whichever way it’s blowing.

There are some important contests coming up that favor Clinton but only if she can pull together her struggling campaign machine and get in front of the voters. As I said before though, the longer the campaign goes on the more people like Obama. He’s a charmer and a great orator. His image of hope plays well everywhere. Clinton and Obama have the same steak, but his has a sizzle hers lacks. As of now, wherever she can be, he can be, and he will look better while he’s there.

Some commentators have Clinton winning in Ohio and Texas. Based purely on the primaries up till now, I’m not where those predictions are coming from. In the Midwest Obama has won in Iowa, Illinois, and Missouri, while Clinton..er…has not. Her win in Michigan is not just moot because it won’t count but because Obama wasn’t on the ticket there. In the West, Obama has won in Utah, Nebraska, Idaho, Kansas, North Dakota, Colorado, and Alaska (if you count them as a “western” state.) Clinton has won Arizona, California, Oklahoma, New Mexico, and Nevada. Which means they have essentially split the western states between them. The strength of either candidate in the West hinges on a few issues: the Hispanic vote which, until recently seemed to favor Clinton and the organization of the campaign which previously favored Clinton but now clearly favors her opponent.

In between now and Texas is Washington DC, Maryland and Virginia–the next big stage in the primary narrative. Obama is clearly favored in DC. Maryland and Virginia are tossups (to me) but I think Obama will take them. Both states are just Democratic enough and just southern enough that Obama should be able to take the majority (of course I tend to be overly optimistic about Obama’s chances than I probably should be). When it comes down to it, Clinton just seems wounded and the longer her downfall lasts the more the voters will sense her weaknesses. Meanwhile Obama keeps looking better and better. If he can pull out a win in DC and either Virginia or Maryland his campaign will earn more money and media attention going into Texas and Ohio than Clinton’s will, and she literally can’t afford to continue losing. If she loses Texas, even if the race is close at convention time, her chances are slim for gaining the nomination

We’re Doomed

As I mentioned in my last post, Romney is out. During his speech he provided the reason he is dropping out:

“If I fight on in my campaign, all the way to the convention, I would forestall the launch of a national campaign and make it more likely that Senator Clinton or Obama would win. And in this time of war, I simply cannot let my campaign, be a part of aiding a surrender to terror.”

Which means of course that if Clinton or Obama win they will most likely immediately lower the flags in DC, fold them up, and ship them to “Unknown location in the Pakistani Desert, c/o Mr. Bin Laden, RE: Unconditional Surrender of United States to Miscellaneous Terrorists Groups.”

But Romney, let it be known, isn’t going down alone. You see, him staying in the race–and he was such a strong contender that he has as much as 50% of the delegate votes as the frontrunner–distracted from the formation of a national campaign. Which means, of course, that unless Huckabee drops out too, he is no better than Clinton or Obama, since he’ll aid in their election by forestalling the GOP national campaign.

I hate to break this ya’ll, the GOP knows what time it is. Their national party machinists are already at work, greasing the wheels, sharpening the sprockets, oiling the chains, etc. Romney was a no go since New Hampshire and Huckabee’s strong performance in the South two days ago won’t be enough to salvage his campaign.

But the real issue here is….

Seriously?

On a related note–As OTB says, when candidates decide to “suspend their campaigns” it means something different for Republicans and Democrats. Suspended Democratic candidates are still technically in the race and their delegates stay with them. Republicans give their delegates back and the GOP state parties will divvy them up.

Up until today here are the states (and delegate numbers) that Romney won…and the second place winner.

Massachusetts (22)–McCain
Utah (36)–McCain
Michigan (23)–McCain
Minnesota (38)–McCain
Alaska (12)–Huckabee
Colorado (43)–McCain
Montana (25)–Paul (McCain was 3rd)
North Dakota (8)–McCain
Maine (18)–McCain
Nevada (17)–Paul (McCain was 3rd)
Wyoming (8)–Thompson (Hunter was 3rd; Giuliani 4th, and Huckabee 5th)

If the various GOP state parties just roll Romney’s pledged delegates to the 2nd place winners that’s 188 more votes for McCain bringing his total to 906 (pushing him that much closer to 1,191). They could very well elect not to do that…attempting to reapportion them by share of remaining voters. But even that, while helping Huckabee a little, will still help McCain a lot more, both because Huckabee is 2nd to McCain more often but also because McCain was 2nd to non-Huckabee wins more often too. (That is, in the two instances above where Paul was 2nd, McCain was third.)

Obama versus McCain in November?

Mitt Romney “suspended his campaign” today. Which I guess gives him the wiggle room to squirm back in the contest if there’s some sort of foot-pounding call for an encore. But if Romney couldn’t get the people to rally around him when he was shelling out the big bucks, I doubt if he will get it for free. Meanwhile the experts are asking, with Romney gone, will Huckabee keep going? Since Romney was in second place throughout most of the campaign it was easy to see that Huckabee was pulling votes from him–evangelicals specifically that would rather crucify McCain and themselves than to see him elected (for the moment). But it is equally true, I suppose that Romney was pulling some voters from Huckabee. “Double Guantanamo” sorts of conservatives that think McCain is a RINO. The question is, will it be enough? Huckabee has paid the big blind at this point, he may as well stay in to see the flop which is why my guess is that he’ll stick through at least this week to see if he even gets close to McCain. If he doesn’t, he’s out. If he can win, he may opt to stick it out. I was Huckabee and I had the money to do so, I would stick it out until March 4 when Texas votes. Huckabee’s already proven he can pull southern voters, McCain has connections but also big money enemies there and the prize is 137 delegates. Meanwhile this Saturday both Kansas (36) and Louisiana (23) head for the polls. Louisiana hates Republicans for the moment but as Matt Yglesias has pointed out, a Republican always wins the Republican primaries. One of the two of them have to win, and McCain’s momentum might not be enough to stuff Huckabee’s appeal in Dixie. Kansas is more up in the air but not an impossible victory for the Arkansan (from next door). Wins in all three will award Huckabee 196 delegates, cut off McCain’s momentum and make himself competitive. It’s possible, but not likely. It’s not that Huckabee can’t win, it’s that he has to win 1,010 delegates before McCain wins 477. My take is that barring divine intervention* this race is over. I for one salute the GOP’s more-or-less sensible overlord.

Meanwhile, on the Democratic side, Clinton has admitted that she had to “loan” her campaign $5 million of her own money to remain competitive and several of her staffers have volunteered to work for free. Obama, on the other hand, has received $5 million dollars since Tusnami Tuesday. Clinton is not defeated yet, but she’s hurting. Compounding the speed of her fall from grace is that the more people see and hear from Obama the more they like him. His last minute surges helped him undercut her victories in Clinton strongholds on Tuesday. He kept Clinton’s win in New York narrow (while his margin of victory in Illinois was substantial) and he won in Connecticut basically in her NY backyard–and with a significant amount of affluent white voters like those that voted against him and for Clinton in New Hampshire. Recent reports are showing that nationally he got about 50% of the white male vote (he previously couldn’t get above 35% of the white vote at all.)

Some experts, myself included, favor Obama in all three of the next primaries. If he does win in all three he will lock his position as frontrunner and add significantly to his Tsunami Tuesday momentum. If he does win in all three, expect two things: Clinton will begin to lose her superdelegates (if not the already announced ones then her chances at future ones) while Obama locks them up ;and, Clinton will increase her fight to include Michigan and Florida delegates in her official figures.
Speaking of which, the DNC is apparently trying to convince both states to hold new caucuses with all the contenders on the ballot.  Clinton, of course, wants to count the victories she already “earned” there by running unopposed even though if the DNC admits those delegates now it is basically voter fraud. Running new elections in those states seems a fair compromise where the party, the candidates, and the people can all get what they want/deserve.

*NOTE: Huckabee’s getting the nomination does not serve as an admission in my belief in divine intervention in an American political race.

Obama versus McCain in November?

Mitt Romney “suspended his campaign” today. Which I guess gives him the wiggle room to squirm back in the contest if there’s some sort of foot-pounding call for an encore. But if Romney couldn’t get the people to rally around him when he was shelling out the big bucks, I doubt if he will get it for free. Meanwhile the experts are asking, with Romney gone, will Huckabee keep going? Since Romney was in second place throughout most of the campaign it was easy to see that Huckabee was pulling votes from him–evangelicals specifically that would rather crucify McCain and themselves than to see him elected (for the moment). But it is equally true, I suppose that Romney was pulling some voters from Huckabee. “Double Guantanamo” sorts of conservatives that think McCain is a RINO. The question is, will it be enough? Huckabee has paid the big blind at this point, he may as well stay in to see the flop which is why my guess is that he’ll stick through at least this week to see if he even gets close to McCain. If he doesn’t, he’s out. If he can win, he may opt to stick it out. I was Huckabee and I had the money to do so, I would stick it out until March 4 when Texas votes. Huckabee’s already proven he can pull southern voters, McCain has connections but also big money enemies there and the prize is 137 delegates. Meanwhile this Saturday both Kansas (36) and Louisiana (23) head for the polls. Louisiana hates Republicans for the moment but as Matt Yglesias has pointed out, a Republican always wins the Republican primaries. One of the two of them have to win, and McCain’s momentum might not be enough to stuff Huckabee’s appeal in Dixie. Kansas is more up in the air but not an impossible victory for the Arkansan (from next door). Wins in all three will award Huckabee 196 delegates, cut off McCain’s momentum and make himself competitive. It’s possible, but not likely. It’s not that Huckabee can’t win, it’s that he has to win 1,010 delegates before McCain wins 477. My take is that barring divine intervention* this race is over. I for one salute the GOP’s more-or-less sensible overlord.

Meanwhile, on the Democratic side, Clinton has admitted that she had to “loan” her campaign $5 million of her own money to remain competitive and several of her staffers have volunteered to work for free. Obama, on the other hand, has received $5 million dollars since Tusnami Tuesday. Clinton is not defeated yet, but she’s hurting. Compounding the speed of her fall from grace is that the more people see and hear from Obama the more they like him. His last minute surges helped him undercut her victories in Clinton strongholds on Tuesday. He kept Clinton’s win in New York narrow (while his margin of victory in Illinois was substantial) and he won in Connecticut basically in her NY backyard–and with a significant amount of affluent white voters like those that voted against him and for Clinton in New Hampshire. Recent reports are showing that nationally he got about 50% of the white male vote (he previously couldn’t get above 35% of the white vote at all.)

Some experts, myself included, favor Obama in all three of the next primaries. If he does win in all three he will lock his position as frontrunner and add significantly to his Tsunami Tuesday momentum. If he does win in all three, expect two things: Clinton will begin to lose her superdelegates (if not the already announced ones then her chances at future ones) while Obama locks them up ;and, Clinton will increase her fight to include Michigan and Florida delegates in her official figures.
Speaking of which, the DNC is apparently trying to convince both states to hold new caucuses with all the contenders on the ballot.  Clinton, of course, wants to count the victories she already “earned” there by running unopposed even though if the DNC admits those delegates now it is basically voter fraud. Running new elections in those states seems a fair compromise where the party, the candidates, and the people can all get what they want/deserve.

*NOTE: Huckabee’s getting the nomination does not serve as an admission in my belief in divine intervention in an American political race.

Will both VeePees be Whistlin’ Dixie?

Karl Rove disagrees but I think there is still a really good chance. Karl Rove also thought the Bush would become president in 2000 and maintain the job in 2004. I did not. So you can see who much better at this game I am than him. With that said, here goes nothing:

Yesterday Huckabee won in Tennessee, Georgia, Alabama, Arkansas and West Virginia. In every one of those [southern] states, save one, McCain trailed by no less than 2% of the vote. It would make no sense for McCain to pick up Romney as a candidate since he has no appeal on the more populous side of the Mississippi River (Romney’s pretty popular amongst men in cowboy hats; I can’t explain it.) And quite frankly, McCain’s irregular conservatism is outperforming both Romney and Huckabee, so it makes little sense to look at more traditional Republicans since, it seems, there’s some dissatisfaction there. Picking anybody from the Bush Administration to capitalize off some name recognition would be a mistake given the high disapproval ratings there and who else does anybody know?

McCain has already proven he can get votes in the big states: he won California by a good margin and he was basically declared the emperor of New York yesterday. But a Huckabee nod for Veep hurts Clinton where right where she lost to Obama yesterday. In addition to canceling her substantial homefield advantage in Arkansas (also Huckabee’s homefield), Huckabee can pull the same evangelicals that gave Bush the White House in 2004.

I’ve already said I think McCain is likely to do better against Clinton than he does against Obama; with Huckabee as his running mate, the race between them gets even closer.

I’m ignorant of the field of Democratic possibilities for Veep, except the governors of Kansas and Arizona (which are really only good options for Obama, if they’re good options at all.) Clinton has already made strong moves toward the center in order to make herself more appealing to moderates and swing voters (e.g. by proposing an anti-flag burning bill). So a running mate that appeals to the center doesn’t seem like a great option: undesirable for the liberal base and unlikely to compel additional swing voters to go Democrat. The vanilla-coated Evan Bayh who dismissed the chances of a viable run when he discovered that Clinton was running is an uninspiring choice. Bayh is just popular enough to win a senate seat in Indiana against nominal Republican contenders (and he wins that seat based mostly on the lasting reputation of his dad and not because he spends a lot of time here meeting-and-greeting.)

I fear that Clinton may have to look further left than her typical vote and she should try to reach across the generational divide to really inspire Democrats to come out for her and help her win where McCain/Huckabee is strong but where she is weak. Which, unfortunately means heading to the South. But what can be waiting for her down there? Is there even one youngish, Democrat, that is likely to appeal to (or at least not disgust) evangelical voters in the South that is also not just a Republican in disguise? Oh! and who has the requisite experience to take over as president in the event that Clinton is incapacitated?

Max Cleland isn’t young and I don’t know if he’s more to the left than Clinton (although I would doubt it) but ever since the Bush administration questioned the disabled veteran’s patriotism he has served as a rallying point for leftist bloggers and other Democratic activists. He’s a lifelong resident of and ex-Senator from delegate-heavy Georgia. He even has executive branch experience (as Georgia’s secretary of state). As a board member for the Export-Import Bank of the United States he has some free trade cred to calm the minds of big business Democrats that might be wary of Clinton’s anti-NAFTA talk–and for that matter hits McCain where he’s weakest: with the economy.

And, I think this is interesting: Very recently the Bush Administration has come under some criticism that they effectively blocked the 9/11 Commission investigation. A lot of people are pretty upset by this now, but they can’t say they weren’t warned. Max Cleland resigned from the 9/11 Commission precisely because he said the Bush administration was influencing the potential outcome in a way that would be more favorable to it.

And, not that it should matter, but Cleland is very white and very male, which may put some people at ease by putting someone in the White House that looks like them. As I’ve said previously, with all the talk of the evangelical vote, the Hispanic vote, the black vote, and the woman vote, there is still a very large group of White Male Voters Over the Age of Fifty.

Furthermore Cleland hits McCain in another tender spot: with veterans. Despite his POW status, McCain has few friends in the veteran camp because of his push to normalize relations with Vietnam and his recommendation to end the hunt for living POWs. He’s even been the victim of a whisper campaign that he was a Manchurian Candidate-esque operative for the baddies back when he was being tortured by them. And to add insult to injury, in 2002 McCain was still stinging from the filthy way he was betrayed by the GOP and he stood up to defend Cleland as an American hero who’s patriotism was beyond reproach. How could the DNC spin an endorsement from the Republican nominee for president? I can see the ads already.

I’ve not heard anybody else mention Cleland, but if Clinton gets the nod he seems a logical option. Furthermore, I’m not recommending Cleland, I have no idea (for the moment) what his senatorial record looks like. I’m just saying that Clinton is likely to choose, if not Cleland, somebody that looks a lot like him on paper although more to the left and younger, if that’s an option.

McCain Can Unite the Party Just Not Today

I know most of the blogosphere can’t stop commenting on the conservative’s hatred of John McCain, myself included. Conservative bloggers are no doubt already spinning McCain’s victories as some sort of strange anomaly–or they’ll try to pin it on some sort of wildly successful shady vote-rigging or whisper campaign like the actual ones that sank McCain’s campaign in 2000. Meanwhile the fairly legitimate press will be claiming that Romney’s failure to overcome the Arizona senator serves as a repudiation of the claim that McCain isn’t well liked enough by the base.

All will likely cite Huckabee’s Bible Belt victories as proof that McCain can’t cross back over the evangelical bridge he burnt in 2000.

I don’t think any of that is true.

This is the primaries and Republicans and Democrats are voting in a way that is consistent with the way that primaries are supposed to work. The whole reason that parties have primaries is because they recognize that even within a single party, a variety of views can be represented. Allowing the voters to choose which of those views is most popular is how the parties vet the nominees. Whoever wins the primaries is supposed to be the one who can rally the most voters, not all the voters.

The far right wing of the conservative party doesn’t like John McCain because he’s done some things that far right wing conservatives haven’t liked, like being semi-descent human beings sometimes. That aside, when Giuliani was still a contender, the right wing was equally nasty about him (although because of a far clearer misalignment of values). At that time several evangelicals were claiming they would sit at home rather than vote for Giuliani (if he got the nomination). Several others lightly tossed around the idea of running their own evangelical candidate.

Shortly thereafter Giuliani realized that voters in Iowa and New Hampshire could see right through his fear-mongering bologna and Hucakbee stepped up to take the evangelicals to the promised land. (Of course it turns out that it wasn’t just the voters of Iowa and New Hampshire that hated Giuliani. Everybody did…er….does.) In the meantime it turned out that only evangelicals wanted a pure evangelical on the ticket and after his win in Iowa it took traveling into the thick of Baptist country for Huckabee to once again smell the sweet scent of victory. Huckabee did pretty well throughout the South yesterday but proved that he couldn’t pull the traditional conservative base, who, presumably are going for Romney. Except they didn’t.

Romney won pretty much where he was expected to–in Utah and Massachusetts and some western small caucus states. McCain meanwhile basically just tromped all over everybody and now has just over half of the necessary delegates for the nomination.

It is true that McCain doesn’t inspire evangelicals and I have no doubt that many of them would rather not vote than to either vote for a Democrat or the guy that once called them part of the problem. But, if McCain gets the nomination, I also have no doubts that many evangelicals will vote for McCain because he’s the best choice (they’ll think). I also think that more traditional conservatives, the ones with the economy on their minds will pull behind McCain once Romney is gone. What? They’ll vote for a tax and spend liberal? Not freaking likely. Nobody currently considering Romney is also considering Clinton or Obama.

The fact that Romney and Huckabee won some states should not be construed as McCain’s inability to inspire the party to cohere behind him. They will. They aren’t now because they aren’t supposed to. They’re supposed to be telling the party what their vision for the future of the party is. If they gel early they betray themselves and, presumably, the rest of the country. So let them duke it out for a little bit.

The same is true on the other side. As predicted, Clinton and Obama traded states like they were pogs yesterday. In most states they split the share of voters by a difference of no more that 65/35 and pretty often closer to 55/45. Even in states where the two senators had homefield advantage (New York and Illinois respectively) the difference was pretty close considering the obvious advantage there (Clinton won by 17% in NY and Obama by 32% in Illinois–which is a lot but considering that Clinton won by 43% in Arkansas despite a sizable African-American vote its closer than I would have imagined.). They’re running so close because they don’t represent fundamental differences in the way the party will be run. Well, they have different public images, but they don’t appeal to broad differing vision of the Democratic Party within the Democratic Party and the primary votes are reflecting that.

No, my guess is that Huckabee’s handful of Tsunami Tuesday victories are due to stubborn evangelicals who refuse to believe that they will have to vote for McCain in November or help elect a Democrat by staging a sit-in in their living rooms. Romney’s few victories are related to the name recognition he bought early by spending so much cash. After his poor showing yesterday he’s going to struggle pulling in new donors who should be flocking behind McCain by now. Romney still has personal reserves he can dip into but he’s a smart businessman and it won’t take him long to realize that he’d be throwing good money after bad. He may feel like he got swindled out of some votes because of Huckabee staying in, but it’s not like Huckabee invented pigheadedness in evangelical voters. He had every right to hope that more of them lived north of the Mason-Dixon line although I’m sure (as Romney is) that Huckabee stayed in specifically to hurt Romney’s chances. And bully for him. Romney would have made a lousy president. If McCain gets the nod, the Republicans will soon learn they’ve gotten their hands on the closest thing to Reagan their part’s seen since they got rid of Barry Goldwater.