Rev. Wright: Shut Up; Sen. McCain: Keep Talkin’

In-and-out blogging today so I can get back to my for-pay work–both topics meant to annihilate any lingering doubt that I might not be totally in the tank for Democrats in 2008 (It’s sometimes hard for me to forget that I once said good things about Senator Lugar.)

Reverend Wright
Reverent Wright knows better than I do which path will best serve his flock but here’s my opinion: If he really wants to promote social justice, if he really wants to help black people in American society, then helping Obama get elected is certainly as viable a plan–if not more viable–than him finding more ways to publicize his obviously antagonizing views.

Yes, I understand, he wants to antagonize; he wants to speak The Truth to The People–such is his obligation under the doctrine of his church. But part of being a good leader is understanding that there is a good time and a bad time for all things, a season, if you will…I read that somewhere. I’m not asking that he not say “God damn America,” I’m asking that he not say it right now. Is the second week of November just too far away? Honestly, one gets the feeling (and I am that one) that this is less about spreading the doctrine of black liberation theology and a lot more about collecting speaker’s fees–striking while the iron is hot and whatnot. If the love of God on Earth is made visible through the promotion of social justice then Wright will surely burn one day for flexing his vanity and working against the efforts of the larger movement.

The New DNC Anti-McCain ad:
Some thoughtful people have chimed in on McCain’s repeated admission that he doesn’t care if we stay in Iraq “for a 100 years” or “10,000.” To some, it seems that to continue to rag on McCain for his statements is purely and illegitimately to take them out of context. To others, like TPM’s Josh Marshall, these attackers are fully in the right because they are “using the senator’s own words.” The release of the new DNC ad has reignited this debate.

I had hoped to chime in on this myself before someone else made the proper defense but Marshall did it today. Basically it might be true that most of the attacks, to a very minor degree, take McCain’s statements out of context. He did say that he didn’t care if we were in Iraq for a 100 or 1,000 or 10,000 years. But he did not mean that we would be continuing the Iraq War for that long. What McCain meant was that we would occupy Iraq indefinitely under a similar arrangement as we have with Germany or Japan and boatloads of other nations, which, given the nature and success of those arrangements, is hardly a controversial policy.

The problem, as Marshall correctly points out is that:

…there’s little reason to believe our occupation of Iraq will ever be like that. We tried this in Lebanon; the French tried this in Algeria; the British even tried it in Iraq. Western countries have a very poor history garrisoning Muslim countries in the Middle East. Iraq isn’t like Germany or Japan, not simply because of the history of the country but because both countries accepted decades-long US deployments as a counterweight to threatening neighbors. The relevant point is that McCain believes American troops should stay in Iraq permanently. His pipe dream about Iraq turning into Germany doesn’t change that.

That’s the crux here, Iraq will continue to be a deadly experiment in imperialist overreach for years into the future and will likely never transform into anything else. So the fact that McCain really hopes that our 10,000-year occupation is a peaceful one is completely irrelevant. Marshall and I both love this elegant restatement of the point from the New Yorkers‘ Rick Hertzberg:

McCain wants to stay in Iraq until no more Americans are getting killed, no matter how long it takes and how many Americans get killed achieving that goal–that is, the goal of not getting any more Americans killed. And once that goal is achieved, we’ll stay.

So regardless of whether or not you believe that McCain meant that we would have a 100-year-long war in Iraq or not, his policy will result in one, and thus this ad and all others that accuse McCain of endorsing a 100-year war in Iraq are 100% justifiably and correct. The fact that he has deluded himself into believing that that is not the case makes him more deadly, not less. This is a case where the context hurts McCain rather than helping him. Out of context he is merely calling for 100 years of war with Iraq presumably in an effort to secure the safety of Americans. In context he’s strategically incompetent and dangerously naive about national security matters; and his incompetence and naivete will result in a 100 year long war. Vote for him at the peril of your sons and grandsons (and their kids, and their kids’ kids…at least.)

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.

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.

Political Bookmaking-Democrats

Here’s the obligatory race handicapping for Tsunami Tuesday. I wouldn’t be a political blog if I didn’t do this. I’m trying to be slightly more informative and detailed than many of these that I’ve read. My longwindedness is my niche. Also, I know that many of the readers that pop over here don’t really follow politics this closely and so I’m providing more information as a way of being a one-stop shop.

I have taken a regional approach so that I can avoid saying things like “the Hispanic vote may be critical for Clinton here” for every southwestern state. There is no need to write me to tell me that “many people include Missouri in the Midwest,” or “if you put California as its own region, how come Alaska is in with “the west?” I will either explain those things when I think to, or, you can assume I did it so that I wouldn’t have 18 regions. I mean, Illinois and and parts of Missouri and parts of Minnesota are part of the Midwest but all my other regions have five or more states. Besides those border states are problems no matter who is doing the line drawing.

The South
Alabama (52), Georgia (72), Tennessee (68), Missouri (72), Arkansas (35)
Throughout the south Obama has a substantial edge. He has been pulling in between 75% and 90% of the black vote and that is unlikely to change. African-American voters tend to vote Democratic. Half the country is Democrat (roughly). And half the south is black. If I wasn’t estimating and being a touch tongue-in-cheek, that would mean that all the Democrats in the South are also black, which gives Obama nearly every vote. My numbers here are very screwy (by which I mean wrong) but Obama is still likely to carry the black Democratic vote pretty handily. I award him 70% of the southern delegates except in Missouri. Missouri is only 16% black, but it’s northern parts are also adjacent to Illinois, Obama’s home state. I award him 60% there.He could have benefited a lot from a Nelly endorsement.

Regional total:
Clinton: 97
OBAMA: 202

The Northeast
New York (232), Delaware (15), Massachusetts (93), New Jersey (107), Connecticut (48)
New York is currently HRC’s home state and she is heavily favored in statewide polls there. But the Democrats award delegates proportionally. So while she is likely to win the state, most of her support is coming from Yonkers and northward. Obama will carry the minorities and young’uns in the world’s financial capital. New Jersey and Connecticut are almost exclusively made up of rich, white people that should be living in New York but don’t. They’ll probably go for Clinton. (I’m being unfair to New Jersey which has lots of minorities including the cultural heart of America’s 1 million Dominican ex-pats. But Latinos, as far as we know from the Nevada results, are favoring Clinton. I’m not so sure but I’m confident enough that the Garden State will favor Clinton. The hyperliberal Massachusettsians will probably go for Obama. They may have been undecided before but after last week’s onslaught of endorsements, I’ll say they’ve decided in favor of the Illini. I divide the regional delegates 60/40 in favor of Clinton, except MA where I give 70 to Obama

CLINTON: 269
Obama: 226

The Great Plains
North Dakota (13), Minnesota (72), Illinois (153), Oklahoma (38), Kansas (36)
Illinois will almost exclusively go for Obama. It’s his home state and he will substantially outpeform Clinton in the population-rich Chicagolandia. Opinions vary about how well the two contenders will do in the other states. On the one hand, some handicappers give the edge to Clinton. She went into the national race with more name recognition and a strong early showing at the beginning of the campaign (fall 2006). So some experts say that, since the candidates have been unable to devote any attention specifically to these voters, they are basically left with their early opinions still intact. I’m not sure I agree.

Obama’s winning in Iowa, I think, shows that he has some appeal with the salt-of-the-earth rural types that will make up most of the voters in this region. Obama’s image I think is what will save him here. His uniting and uplifting rhetoric plays more sympathetically across the heartland than Clinton’s East Coast, big city, image. Besides, he’s the more liberal of the two senators and his strong anti-war stance will play well in uber-progressive Minnesota (more accurately Clinton’s pro-war vote and her anti-flag burning bill will not play well). I give the region a 55/45 split in favor of Obama (except in Illinois where I split in 70/30 for Obama). It might have gone closer to 50/50, or even 55/45 Clinton, except the Minnesota thing and the fact that Obama is hoping to get, and will likely get, a homestate bump in Kansas because his mom lives there and he bothered to do a little campaigning in the traditionally Republican state.

Clinton: 118
OBAMA: 194

The West
Arizona (56), New Mexico (26), Utah (23), Colorado (55), Idaho (18), Alaska (13)
Substantial Hispanic voters going for Clinton will be competing against rural white voters going for Obama. The states are sparsley populated which means that the more complex Clinton machine may be able to effectively counter any leads Obama gains in the relatively few urban centers. Besides, those urban centers are largely white (pro-Clinton) or Hispanic (pro-Clinton). An endorsement from the Arizona governor (who is a woman, I might add) may help Obama there, but probably not by much. Latter Day Sainters in Utah (or the three non-LDSs in Utah) that vote Democratic may vote for Obama because he’s the more publicly religious of the two.

The exceptions here are Idaho and Alaska. Idahoans probably share more in common with Iowans than Arizonans and Coloradans do. And Alaska? Well, there just batshit crazy up there. Last I heard Kucinich was polling in the high 20s. If Alaskans have heard by now that he’s dropped out, that may help the more liberal Obama but probably not. In Alaska they’ll probably go by name recognition. I split the entire region 60/40 Clinton.

CLINTON: 115
Obama: 76

California (370)
We won’t hear the results from California until as late as Friday but my guess is the state will end up splitting the delegates pretty close to 50/50. Clinton had an early lead there but recent endorsements and a stepped-up (and strategic) campaigning schedule from Obama has significantly cut into that lead. Some polls now have Obama ahead. Some have him ahead more than the margin of error. Once again Hispanics may end up going for Clinton although I have no idea why. In terms of policy she and Obama are more or less identical. The name recognition argument only goes so far for me. For one thing, it seems pretty insulting to say that Hispanics, more than other groups, rely on the familiarness of a name rather than substantive policy issues. It seems even more insulting to say that, as I read somewhere, “Hispanics are family-oriented, and are probably voting for Clinton because she reminds them of their mothers.” That’s so insulting I feel insulted just typing it. If I had to guess, and I don’t have to but I will anyway, I’d say it comes down to two issues: The so-called black-brown divide and the fact that in many Latin American countries they’ve already had women presidents. They haven’t in Mexico which is where the majority of Hispanics have their roots, but since many of the nation’s Hispanic news outlets report on all things Hispanic, it’s reasonable to suppose that most of them are aware of this historical truth.

CLINTON: 185
OBAMA:185

National Total on Wednesday morning (or Friday 8, 2008):

Clinton: 784 (+241 already earned or pledged) = 1025
Obama: 883 (+ 169 already earned or pledged) = 1052

I’m sure to be off. Any many cases I was probably overly generous to Obama which was probably exactly the wrong thing to do in this handicapping exercise. However, most of the recent polls have Obama surging in the last few days. In a handful of states he’s polling significantly higher than Clinton. For her part, she’s higher in some states. In almost every poll they are neck and neck and the races will be decided on either 1) the larger size and efficiency of the Clinton machine in general or 2) the strategic placement and grassroots efficiency of the Obama machine in the rural areas. Obama’s last minute surges could end up throwing a lot of states his way but only barely. That’s what I’m counting on because if they do, I expect something like what I wrote here.

In any case, even if I’m wrong by 10% the race will still be completely undecided. Look for intensive campaigning starting tomorrow morning. Both candidates will be flying to Washington state for the next big push immediately upon giving their speeches tonight. At least one political scientist has predicted that whoever wins in Washington will be the recipient of the momentum that will compel them to the crown. If Clinton is that winner and I don’t suspect it will be that easy. Obama has been raising a lot of money and he has enough appeal with so many people that it will hard to keep him down. I wouldn’t be a bit surprised (if McCain locks up the Republican race tonight) if many independents and Republicans come out of the woodwork to vote for him rather than vote in their essentially worthless primaries (but that may be wishful thinking). His grassroots endeavors may cut into Clinton’s lead even more substantially once he can go back to concentrating on just a few states.

This is good for Democrats (well, since we are almost certain to have a Democratic president come next January it’s good for everybody). The intensity of the campaign after Wednesday should allow both candidates to sufficiently “vet” one another. Clinton supporters have been able to say that due to her involvement with 42’s presidency and her years as a senator, the Republicans have already carefully examined her. Well, expect them to “carefully examine” Obama. His admitted cocaine use and his friendships with indicted slumlords in particular probably need to highlighted more, (*sigh*) I suppose.

Also, the two candidates will need to find ways of explaining why votes for them will end with substantively different policy-makers in the White House. That is, they will need to find ways to explain to future voters why a vote for one is different (and better) than a vote for the other. America needs this sort of explanation because for the moment the two are only different in their public personae and very wonkish plan details.

I’m not going to bother handicapping the Republican race. I expect McCain to carry the day. McCain is leading in most polls in most states (Romney unsurprisingly leads in the states of his physical [Mass] and spiritual [Utah] homes.) Unfortunately for him, most of the states where McCain is ahead grant larger delegate sums and since Republicans go all-or-nothing, today is likely to anoint McCain the nominee, which, as I’ve said before, is probably the best thing that can happen to the Republican party. Because this way they can stop bad-mouthing their likely candidate and instead they can start rallying behind him and showing something like party unity which they will need regardless of who their Democratic challenger is (but especially if it’s Obama).

Back to the Races

So the biggest delegate-granting state had their primaries last night and Tsunami Tuesday is just around the corner. By next Wednesday we should all know who our presidential candidates will be. It’s probably unfair of me to say that. Only 40% of the delegates will have been parceled out by next Wednesday which means the race will not technically be locked up even if every state goes toward one candidate. But, c’mon, we all know what will happen: the press will treat the new frontrunner as the anointed candidate, the perception (press-inspired or not) will be that the frontrunner on Wednesday is “the winner” and “the only serious candidate.” It will become important to display “party unity.” The winner on Wednesday will likely waltz their way through the rest of the primaries. So, like just about everybody in the political/political science blogosphere I feel obligated to share with ya’ll my take on the race.

Republicans (Delegate count so far: McCain-97; Romney-74; Huckabee-29; Paul-6; Giuliani-Who cares?)

Giuliani: Thankfully out. He was by far the worst candidate the Republicans had running. He’s a balls-out fascist, a dirty politician, a despicable human being, and possibly certifiably crazy. He should just put on some plaid pants, buy a golf cart, and stay in Florida.

Romney: Well, the race is far from over but McCain’s victory in Florida has put him nearly an entire Huckabee ahead in terms of delegates–making him the frontrunner going into Tsunami Tuesday. McCain’s popularity is rising and has been for awhile. All trend lines have been coalescing around a McCain nod. Meanwhile, Romney’s trend lines could use a shot of Bob Dole’s Viagra. Right or wrong, Romney’s religion probably hurts him. Evangelicals were tempted to vote for Romney when they thought the race was just between him and Giuliani. Then Huckabee showed up to prove that there still were Christians in the Republican party. The evangelicals flocked around him like he was Jesus at a fish and bread dinner and they haven’t looked back. With Huckabee incapable of having another “miracle” comeback (despite God’s best efforts) it looks like evangelicals will stick by their initial promise and just stay at home in November.

Basically what I’m saying here is that McCain is most likely a lock as long as Huckabee stays in the race. If he drops out, the evangelical choice is between the guy who says that there should be more religion in politics (Romney) and the guy that called evangelicals “part of the problem” back in 2000 (McCain). And while McCain has won more delegates than Romney, he hasn’t won by that much. Good baptists in Alabama, Georgia, (most of) Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Kentucky, Tennessee, North Carolina, and Texas could still hurt his chances.

Huckabee: In case your just skimming to read about the candidate you like, I’ll repeat what I said above. Huckabee is toast. After helping him win Iowa, God hasn’t reached down to help the declining Huckabee campaign since. If God had given Huckabee just 15,000 more votes in South Carolina he could have had two wins and fourteen more delegates (and of course, “momentum” which may have helped out in Florida). But he didn’t. For some reason God, despite what you may have thought, seems to prefer McCain.

Huckabee appeals to the evangelicals and is probably pulling votes away from Romney. If Huckabee stays in until February 6, you can call him the kingmaker. The real question is, is he angling for a cabinet/veep spot in a McCain presidency. (I say, “you betcha.”)

McCain: McCain is the big winner in the two most important races so far. He’s ahead in delegates and all signs point to his coming out on top after the February 5 Tsunami Tuesday. This is both bad and good for Democrats and Liberals. On the one hand, a McCain presidency would be better than whatever monstrous crimes would otherwise be committed by Presidents Romney, Huckabee, Giuliani, or Thompson. On the other, well, he’s still not all that good and he’s the one who is likely to put up the best fight against either Clinton or Obama (but especially Clinton). It’s hard to decide if I’d rather line up a “best of all possible worlds” scenario with McCain vs. Clinton in November where I could easily end up with a President McAngryPants or if I want to root for Huckabee dropping out, relinquishing the evangelical vote to Romney who will then likely become the Republican nominee. Because…if that happens, Romney will likely lose to Clinton or Obama…but, if he doesn’t, we’re screwed.

Democrats (Delegate count so far [remember Dems have "superdelegates" so I count them here but their actual delegates are in parentheses]: Clinton-232 (48); Obama-158 (63); Edwards-Who cares? (Who cares?))

Edwards: Let’s get him out of the way early. He’s out. (Note: I actually wrote this this morning before he officially dropped.) He hasn’t performed since his close second place finish in Iowa and he’s not going anywhere after February 5. Pundits and bloggers are speculating that he’s staying in because he pulls (white) votes from Clinton and is therefore acting as kingmaker for Obama who he (presumably) prefers. I’m not sure if I believe that or not. He could just as likely be pulling progressive votes from Obama making him a queenmaker instead. In either case, I think his presence is negligible going into next week. (And of course, completely negligible since he won’t be there). If he really wants to help someone he should drop out during prime time on February 4th. The tiny bump his dropping out/endorsement might give to his preferred candidate might make a difference in some close races.

Clinton: She’s the likely candidate. When people first started talking about her assumed candidacy back in 2004 she was preferred. She was preferred after the rockstar Obama put his hat in the ring. She was preferred up until a week before Iowa and then was preferred after New Hampshire. So with that anomalous week between her third place finish in Iowa and her (rigged?) victory in New Hampshire aside, she has always been the preferred candidate. Going into next week she has the most superdelegates and the second most actual delegates. Her “scorched earth” campaign damages her possibilities in November but probably doesn’t hurt her chances that much in the primaries, where her lead contender can’t seem to get over a third of white voters. (We’ll have to see if that remains true after Edwards’ withdrawal.)

Obama: He’s technically the frontrunner with the most earned delegates and he’s been raking in some high-profile endorsements which may or may not help him on Feb 5. Perhaps the biggest helping hand came from Kennedy which may raise Obama’s appeal with two important (northern) constituencies [white people and Catholics] and one important western one [old people]. Unfortunately the jury is out on whether any endorsements matter. They certainly didn’t help him in the Florida “beauty pageant.” Of course, turnout there may have been hampered by his lack of campaigning there since the delegates don’t count (yet).

At least on blogger seems to think that Obama’s loss in Florida is indicative of a larger trend.

James Joyner from Outside the Beltway:

I believe it foreshadows what will happen on Super Tuesday. Despite both Clinton and Obama raising unprecedented sums of money, campaigning in 22 states in six days is next to impossible. As in Florida, no campaigning gives the advantage to the candidate with the best organization and name recognition. My guess is Clinton will have an impressive showing next week and all but wrap up the nomination.

This seems a reasonable and insightful analysis of what we’re likely to see. If the primaries had been spread out–given Obama’s messaging, his “above the fray” and “hopeful” image, and his momentum–he might have been a more clear favorite going into a Tsunami Tuesday. If he fails to win the nomination, this is why (not, as it will be written, because of the Clintons’ race baiting and “dividing the black vote.”)

However, I don’t think all hope is yet lost. Obama’s been getting a lot of good publicity from his victory in South Carolina and his high profile endorsements. He’s likely to out perform Hillary in the south. If he can pull the south and some of the small states he’s visited like Kansas and Alaska he may still be “in the race” even if Clinton wins California, New York, and New Jersey (delegate-heavy states where polls indicate a Clinton victory). After all, Obama, in addition “the south” will probably win delegate-heavy Illinois and the important swing vote in Ohio. Since he goes in ahead, (and with momentum) my guess is that the sun will shine on two frontrunners on February 6: Clinton ahead but with Obama close behind.

Expect additional ugliness.