It's Saturday night in Holmen, Wisconsin.... to keep me entertained I just watched the double-header Republican and Democrat New Hampshire debates. What it all boiled down to: Big Bad Government vs. Change and Secure the Borders the Muslims are Coming! vs. Secure the American Dream.

My picks for the winners -
Republicans: Gov. Mitt Romney. Although largely by power of elimination and some votes from Wyoming. Romney came across as the nice guy getting needled by Sen. McCain and the rest on the flip-flopping charge that really didn't seem to stick tonight (to the average viewer). Plus, after his showing in Iowa, Gov. Huckabee didn't impress as was necessary to court New Hampshire voters. He had the chance to show that he was electable beyond Iowa, and he blew it by not defining his positions more and just sitting quietly as a spectator. Mayor Giuliani... well, to borrow from Sen. Biden, his sentences contained a subject, a verb, and 9/11... the Islamic terrorist threat...and 9/11 again...radical Islamic jihad...and (in case you missed it) 9/11. And Ron Paul, although sounding quite intelligible and refraining from mentioning home schooling (though I was waiting for it when he said education and schools), was treated as a joke by the other 5 candidates on the stage.

Democrats: Gov. Bill Richardson. His eloquence and his reiteration that he is a Governor with executive experience stood out tonight amidst the three-way catfight. He rose above the fray and gained a lot of publicity and was able to clearly make his case. Senator Clinton gained points in toughness, and Senators Obama and Edwards apparently gained a friendship. If for no other reason, Richardson won because he was able to reach thousands of voters that may not have otherwise heard of him or heard about his policies. Senators Obama, Edwards, and Clinton already had that exposure, and a lot of voters already have their conceptions about them. But Richardson I think had the chance tonight - and took full advantage of it - to introduce himself to a larger crowd. The question as always is Will it convert into votes on Tuesday?


My summary of the Republican debate (the only direct quotes are actually in quotes):

• America is the greatest country in the world. Our military is the strongest in the world. Islamo-fascism will kill us all. America! Fuck yeah! God Bless the USA.
  (I could stop here, and that would have effectively summarized the whole Republican debate...)
• Ron Paul is there! I feel sorry for Rep. Kucinich that he wasn't invited to the Democratic debate but this newcomer and fellow renegade got himself invited to the Republican debate. I guess winning the MySpace primary really did mean something for Paul.
• The question of "running on or running away from" Bush foreign policy.
• Rumsfeld gets a beating from all sides (Huckabee: don't let the politicians make the decisions).
• Radical Islam, Islamic jihad, and Islamo-fascism are buzzwords that are meant to strike fear (and hatred) in the hearts of the voters - and after repeating them enough like the candidates did tonight, the message does get through
• Giuliani: the Patriot Act and electronic surveillance is "very, very good" AND we should increase the size of the military immediately (smell that? ah the draft cards are burning)
• Some embrace the Bush Doctrine of pre-emption. Romney defends him, and McCain gives him credit for his oh-so-great leadership.
• McCain: "America is not safe, America is safer."
  
• Ron Paul: They "don't attack us because we're free and prosperous" but because we invade their country. I was surprised that the other candidates laughed at this and so vehemently opposed this reasoning.
• Fred Thompson: "We should only go in where we should and where we are able to." Uhhhh thanks for that brilliant insight. You really cleared up things for me.
• Huckabee (the candidate that has openly distanced himself from President Bush): He supports the President but his [Bush's] policy has problems. Then, Gov. Huckabee, do you support him because golly gee he's a nice guy?
• Huckabee: "I'm not running for George Bush's third term."
• Romney and Huckabee try to one up each other on the history lesson about Sayyid Qatb by pulling random dates out of their heads. Ok, so you're smarter than the current President. Congratulations.
• Asked about the constancy of their principles:
  
• McCain: I am a veteran.
• Romney: Family values. America is great. At the "heart of our strength is the family." Moms and dads (but don't even think about two mommies or two daddies!).
• Giuliani: Ronald Reagan. I laid out my 12 commitments. End illegal immigration. Appoint strict constructionist judges.
• [Charlie Gibson, the moderater, goes around and points out how each of them has waffled on issues...except Paul who just switched parties]
• Giuliani: But wait! Ronald Reagan!
• Huckabee: "...the simple answer for me is all the way back to the document that gave us birth. And it goes like this: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that we are endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights, these being life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That we are created equal." Really, Mike? Is that how the Declaration goes? Maybe you haven't distanced yourself from our current President enough...
• Thompson tries to one-up Huckabee with a lesson on the 9th and 10th Amendments. Really, guys, if you invested in our public schools a bit we wouldn't need you teaching us civics on TV.
• Healthcare - why can't we afford insurance for everybody?
• Private insurance is good, socialized medicine is bad.
  
• McCain: "problem isn't quality - it's inflation."
• Romney stands by his Massachusetts plan.
• Paul: don't print any more money!
  
• Thompson: never going to achieve total coverage
• Romney likes mandates...but only his kind
• Giuliani: Health Savings Accounts
• McCain attacks Big Pharma (and wants reimportation of drugs from Canada)
• Romney defends Big Pharma
• Illegal immigration
• We like legals, we swear we do.
• McCain: "God's children" and we need biometric documents to keep track of everyone
• How many times can you mention that you are painting this as a national security issue?
• Romney: id card of some sort
• Giuliani: Build a fence, build a technological fence. Tamperproof ID card. We "can't throw out 12 million people" so focus on those who have committed crimes.
• Y'all have to read and write and speak English good now, ya hear?
• Romney: get in line -- outside the country
• Giuliani: Ronald Reagan!
• Thompson defines amnesty as being rewarded for your illegal behavior in any way and advocates "enforcement by attrition."
• Huckabee: The "government didn't escort them over the border in the first place, so the government doesn't have to take them back."
• Paul: The tamperproof ID opens the door for a national ID card - bad idea.
• What don't you like about Barack Obama?
• Change is good, and Obama is an inspiring figure (they all agree on that).
• Romney: Washington is broken. I've lived the change.
  
• Thompson: He's adopted the position of every major liberal interest group (painting Obama as extreme left-wing).
• McCain: Dealing with radical Islamic extremists requires "a lot of knowledge, a lot of experience, and a lot of background."
• Giuliani: Obama wants a "precipitous withdrawal in Iraq."
• Huckabee: Welllll, the 2nd Amendment, sanctity of life, same-sex marriage
• Paul: Young people like us. But I don't like his welfare state. And c'mon, Obama's not going to talk about getting rid of the income tax. But I will! Free markets!
• Gas prices are high. Duh.
• Paul: Gold standard would have fixed everything.
• McCain: Alternative energy good, greenhouse gas bad.
• Thompson: Cleaner coal and tap into the oil reserves in the US (aka ANWR).
• Giuliani: We need to think about "energy independence on the scale of putting a man on the moon."
• Huckabee: It is possible to achieve energy independence in 10 years.
• Romney: No, it's not. But it's possible to be "on track" to get there. This is our "highest domestic economic priority."

My summary of the Democratic debate (the only direct quotes are actually in quotes) (Apologies for incompleteness...I got so caught up in listening I forgot to take notes sometimes):

• Nuclear terrorism/Osama bin Laden/national security
• Obama: We should go into western Pakistan without the agreement of the Pakistani government if necessary. Al Qaeda is stronger now than it has been at any point since 2001.
• Edwards: Go get Osama. We need to deal with nuclear nonproliferation in the long term. Musharraf is a radical, and we need to rid the world of nuclear weapons.
• Richardson: Diplomacy comes first in any foreign policy situation. We would ask Musharraf to step aside using "leverage" and a "high-level envoy." We act when we have real and actionable intelligence and the leader aka Musharraf is incapable.
• Clinton: We need more NATO troops training the Afghan army. We have to be careful not to inflame the Pakistan/India conflict. Musharraf must share the security responsibility of the nukes. This is the "forgotten front line of the war on terrorism."
• What if a nuclear weapon hits a US city?
• Edwards: Find out who's responsible and go after them. And stop them. But we must be strong and calm.
• Obama: This is our most significant foreign policy issue. We must rebuild the nuclear nonproliferation treaty.
• Clinton: "There is no safe haven" for "state-less terrorists."
• Richardson: "Transnational challenges requires international cooperation."
• Concept of change.
• Clinton: We're all advocating for change.
• Edwards: Obama and I are "powerful voices for change." The "forces of status quo" are attacking us.
• Clinton: "Making change is not about what you believe; it's about results." "I'm running on 35 years of change."
• Richardson: I've been in "hostage negotiations that are a lot more civil than this." "Is experience kinda a leper?"
• Edwards: We have to "fight for the future of the middle class." Costco and AT&T are good corporations.
• Obama: The "American Dream is slipping away."
• Has the surge in Iraq worked?
• Clinton: It was designed to create time for the Iraqi government to fix itself, but there has been "no political action. They're not willing to do what they need to do."
• Richardson: There is "no military solution." There is "only a political solution."
• Obama: "Two years later, we're back where we started two years ago." We must be "as careful getting out as we were careless getting in."
• Edwards: The President must consult the uniformed advisors.
• Richardson: As Governor, I'm sick of flying flags at half-mast.
• Likeability.
• Clinton: "Well that hurts my feelings." [being called not really likeable]
• Obama: "You're likeable enough.
• Responding to Republican attack on Obama.
• Obama: I was watching football. But seriously, they'd do that to any Democrat.
• Is relative youth a detriment?
• Richardson. I'm the only one who has balanced a budget. I've lowered taxes, improved education, insured 12 million children. I'm the only one who has negotiated with foreign governments. "Both parties have been failures in dealing with energy policy." We need American people to sacrifice a bit. I'm glad Al Gore stayed out of the race. JFK JFK JFK!
• Edwards: I'm the son of a millworker. I don't take money from lobbyists or special interest PACs. I'll fight for the middle class. I'm the son of a millworker. Health insurance companies killed Natalie Sarkisyan. I'm the son of a millworker. Where is their voice in this democracy?
• Obama: Bet on the American people. They're ready for change. I prohibited lobbyists from buying meals from Congress... but there's something about standing up and sitting down that confuses you, Charlie Gibson.
• Clinton: "Reality break." I'm going to be the buzzkill for this session of warm-fuzzies and talk about how "words are not action" even though they are "beautifully presented and passionately felt." We need to "translate talk into action and feeling into reality."
• Clinton follows the footsteps of Gerald Cox and his favorite word tendentious and pulls out "excoriated" to describe what Edwards and Obama did to the special interests.
• Clinton: Bill Clinton rocked. "Change is hard, but change is possible."
• Edwards: "Entrenched interests are literally stealing our children's future."
• Obama: America is hungry, "hungry for something different." "Yes we can."
• Richardson: "You guys and the President get nothing done" and the burden is on us Governors. I'm sick of Washington bickering - we need bipartisanship.
• Edwards: It is the responsibility of the President to unite. I'm going to "fight FOR the American people" because "I have been in the trenches."
• Global warming and the carbon tax.
• Richardson: Carbon tax is a bad idea because it is not a mandate. Cap-and-trade is the way to go.
• Obama. Cap-and-trade, I agree. We must shield the consumer from the cost, though. Change your lightbulbs and insulate your homes, everybody!
• Clinton: The economy is slipping towards a recession. The energy issue will jumpstart economic efficiency.
• The fate of the Bush tax cuts
• Clinton: The middle class will get the "tax relief they deserve." Don't cut the taxes on the wealthy.
• Edwards: We have to help the homeless veterans and help people find jobs. The "trade and tax policy is bleeding American jobs." I would know - I'm the son of a millworker.
• Obama: We must close tax loopholes and offer specific tax relief immediately. It's a change.
• Richardson: We need a balanced budget and line item veto authority for the President. And I want to talk about education! We must improve schools, pay our teachers better, end NCLB, emphasize the arts, and fund science and math education.
• What do you wish you hadn't said in the debates so far? What would you take back if you could?
• Clinton: We're all great candidates, and the Democrats are in such contrast to the Republicans.
• Richardson: "I was asked who my favorite Supreme Court justice was, and I said, dead or alive? ...I should have stuck to the alive because I then said, "Whizzer" White, because I idolize John F. Kennedy and I figured if he appointed "Whizzer" White, this was a great Supreme Court justice. Well then I find out that "Whizzer" White was against Roe versus Wade, against civil rights. You know, so that's -- that wasn't a good one."
• Edwards: "I made the horrendous mistake of teasing Hillary about her jacket. And I want her to know I think you look terrific tonight."
• Obama: "Here's an area where I agree with Hillary." We need to be "ending the politics of fear."

All four of the Democratic candidates would do a great job as President. We're lucky we have such a great field... but I guess unlucky in that we have to pick just one. But, if tonight's debates were any indication, that one Democrat will be able to crush any of those six Republicans in November.

Labels: 2008, debate, primaries

The Wisconsin State Journal solves the mystery.

"He is a person who has shown he can build coalitions and he can inspire people and he can bring more people into the political process, and I feel very strongly he can govern like he can campaign," Doyle said...

"They [Gus and Gabe Doyle] helped me understand how a younger person sees the world," Doyle said. "When a younger person looks at Barack they see the country moving into the future."



It certainly seems like Obama receives a lot of strength from young voters. He did win the MySpace primary (him and Ron Paul...), and there was a record turnout of young voters in Iowa, contributing to his win. People like Gov. Doyle recognize the power of the college-age vote (it's about damn time).

However, this young-voter revolution (finally being taken seriously by the media etc.) may disappoint a lot of people. When women first got the right to vote in the early 20th century, it was partly because the legislators thought that women voted in a bloc. Today, with increased pushes for 17-year-olds to have the right to vote in a primary if they will be 18 by the general election, and with college activists always being touted by the media as this great phenomenon (oh my gosh, look at these kids -- they actually care! whodathunk?), and looking at Obama's poll numbers, some may be deluded into believing that young people vote in a bloc.

I'd hope no candidate or reporter or donor really believes that, but who knows?

Labels: 2008

This afternoon Senator Obama's campaign will receive a 'major Wisconsin endorsement' from a political figure. My guess is Senator Russ Feingold, who has said that he won't make early endorsements.

But what about the other Wisconsin "elite?" This is the list I could come up with -- please add to i!

Senator Obama:
- Rep. Gwen Moore
- Gus Doyle
- Madison Alderman Eli Judge

Senator Clinton:
- Lt. Gov. Barbara Lawton
- Rep. Tammy Baldwin
- Dane County Exec Kathleen Falk

Senator Edwards:
- Joe Wineke, DPW Chair
- Mayor Dave of Madison
- Rep. Dave Obey
- fmr Gov. Tony Earl

I know I'm missing quite a few and there has to be someone other than Adam Lang endorsing Bill Richardson -- help me out!

Labels: 2008

An editorial in the Washington Post today -- from former Senator Warren Rudman, no less -- provides a different spin on the Iowa caucuses (and early primaries): they're an efficient and transparent way of cutting through the bureaucracy, and the involved candidate appeals are more genuine:

"The early primaries and caucuses offer no such shelter. Whether at a diner, a town hall meeting or on a factory floor, there is little separation between those seeking office and those who can help get them elected. Strategies driven by Madison Avenue and K Street tend to flounder. Attempts to provide cosmetic answers to complex challenges are often met with disaffection and more than a few lost votes, especially among those ever-important independents. On the other hand, votes can be won when candidates convey that they mean what they say."

The real argument here is that there are trade-offs implicit in any democratic process. If the caucuses mean heightened candidate accountability, it might be worth permitting a certain institutional clumsiness. That's a fair argument, but there really should be a middle ground. What we saw last night in Iowa was democratic enough to pass a minimum standard, to be sure. Is that something we should settle for, though?

Channel 3000 reports that all Justice Annette Ziegler gets for all those judicial ethics problems is a reprimand.

If you recall the campaign last spring, Ziegler was called out on mishandling 11 cases in which she had a personal interest and possibly a conflict of interest (her husband was a director at the involved bank).

According to the La Crosse Tribune, the special panel agreed that Justice Ziegler "committed judicial misconduct" but didn't benefit from it and has taken steps not to do it in the future."

So... a slap on the wrist... Kinda reminds you of another resounding slap on the wrist....

Labels: Wisconsin Supreme Court

The Wisconsin State Journal paints former Governor Lee Sherman Dreyfus - a Republican who passed away on Wednesday - as "a maverick." Indeed, if asked to align with today's Republican crowd of Mike Huebsch, John Gard, Steve Nass, Mark Gundrum, Tommy Thompson and Mark Green, Dreyfus really does break the mold.

A couple achievements stand out in Dreyfus's story:

He signed our country's first gay-rights law. "The law banned discrimination against gays and lesbians for jobs and housing as well as in bars and restaurants," saying 'there are some questions the government has no business asking.'

Can you imagine if Mike Huckabee were the Governor of Wisconsin at that time? Instead of preserving LGBT rights in a precursor to ENDA, he would be labeling gays and lesbians as "public health risks." And if only Mark Gundrum had spoken to Dreyfus about what the role of government is on this issue...

He advocated for the creation of the UW System. "Dreyfus was chancellor at UW-Stevens Point [during the time when it doubled in size]... He also served on the UW Board of Regents..." "Dreyfus was also an early advocate of the merger of two state university systems into what is now the University of Wisconsin System."

What?? Fighting for the great state University of Wisconsin? Really? Republicans did that back then? Oh, I guess I've been too accustomed to the likes of Huebsch and Nass.

Labels: LGBT, UW

Hillary Clinton gives an indirect criticism of the Iowa caucuses, describing the New Hampshire primary:

"This is a primary election," she said. "You're not disenfranchised if you work at night. You actually can come out and vote. You're not disenfranchised if you're not in the state. You can actually send in an absentee ballot. So this is going to be a much more representative electorate because we've got people who are going to be able to express opinions in the way we run elections in America."

Clinton is correct here. The case against the Iowa caucuses has been complete for quite a while. They "disenfranchise" critical voting blocs for many candidates -- for Clinton, the elderly and homebound; for Edwards, night workers.

If Iowa 2008 does anything for the Democrats, it should provoke major internal debate about the Iowa caucuses as an institution. No nominating system is perfect; the democratic issues with primary elections have been documented ever since the post-1968 reforms. But in the case of the Iowa caucuses, this particular nominating system seems arrogantly (even compulsively) imperfect.

David Brooks hits the nail on the head about the Iowa caucuses results, particularly the success of Huckabee. Unlike the Obama victory, Huckabee's victory is something of a mandate. His odds of being the nominee just sky-rocketed. However he does in New Hampshire, Huckabee has harnessed something which will make Super Tuesday very profitable for him. We owe it to ourselves to understand and absorb this analysis:

"Some people are going to tell you that Mike Huckabee’s victory last night in Iowa represents a triumph for the creationist crusaders. Wrong.

Huckabee won because he tapped into realities that other Republicans have been slow to recognize. First, evangelicals have changed. Huckabee is the first ironic evangelical on the national stage. He’s funny, campy (see his Chuck Norris fixation) and he’s not at war with modern culture.

Second, Huckabee understands much better than Mitt Romney that we have a crisis of authority in this country. People have lost faith in their leaders’ ability to respond to problems. While Romney embodies the leadership class, Huckabee went after it. He criticized Wall Street and K Street. Most importantly, he sensed that conservatives do not believe their own movement is well led. He took on Rush Limbaugh, the Club for Growth and even President Bush. The old guard threw everything they had at him, and their diminished power is now exposed."

Democrats will get our asses handed to us against Huckabee if we reduce him to a straw man. He's one of the most complex, sophisticated, and (as Brooks notes) "ironic" political figures of the past 20 years. We should be praying he's not the nominee, because I don't trust the DNC to understand his appeal. He can win a national election if our rhetoric falls flat. For all practical purposes, he already might be our opposition.

A few points: My predictions of a Clinton victory by 6 to 8 percent didn't pan out last night. I got the winner's margin of victory right, though! (That's only partly tongue-in-cheek -- my logic about the importance of second choices still holds.)

The probable explanation, as several bloggers suggested yesterday, is that Richardson and Biden's campaigns instructed their voters to flock to Obama as their second choice. This is very bizarre and counterintuitive, but there you have it. The logic of second-choice still holds, but it defied the conventional wisdom this time (that party insiders stick together.) The second-tier campaigns probably wanted to forestall the inevitable -- Hillary Clinton being nominated. Can't wait to see what others have to say about this.

I don't believe precincts record initial tallies -- probably because the stats would be embarrassing to those who romanticize the Iowa caucuses as a perfect democratic institution. My hunch: Obama might not have won without second choices (or the results might have been a virtual tie.) If that's true, it should cause the Obama campaign some unease -- 38% in Iowa suddenly becomes less of a mandate, and more the misleading result of last-minute strategic exchanges.

On to New Hampshire!

Hey Guys,
Just quickly checking in with you all. The caucus was one of the most amazing things I've ever seen in Democracy. I'll be writing more later tonight as things start to die down.

Numbers as of right now are as follows:
Senator Obama: 37%
Senator Edwards: 30%
Senator Clinton: 29%

95% of precincts reporting.

Fantastic turnout across the state, great night for the Democrats!!!

Huckabee Wins GOP Caucus, CNN Projects.

And he must have won by a lot because they projected it after like 15% of precincts reporting.

Update 1: Obama Wins Iowa, ABC News. 2nd and 3rd neck and neck between Clinton and Edwards.

Update 2: All the Democratic caucus results are in. Edwards is 2nd, Clinton is 3rd, but just by a hair. They are followed by Richardson 4th, Biden 5th, and Dodd 6th.

Biden and Dodd announced they are dropping out. For some reason Kucinich and Gravel are still in it to win it.

For the Republicans, with 93% of precincts reporting, it's Romney 2nd, Thompson 3rd (by a hair), McCain 4th, Paul 5th, Giuliani 6th, Hunter 7th.

Somehow 4th place is great news for McCain our media tells us, even though he lost out to empty-suit Thompson and McCain was endorsed by the Des Moines Register.

Giuliani, who garnered a massive total of 4%, was beaten out by the anti-war Paul (10%), which has to hurt.

Final Update: MSNBC estimates turnout was about 220,000 for the Democratic caucuses, nearly double the 114,000 for Republican caucuses. Damn.

Gravel also drops out, joining Biden and Dodd.

Morning Update: New numbers from the Des Moines Register. Apparently turnout was more like 239,000 for the Dems (90% greater than in 2004) and only 112,000 for the Repubs so MORE than double their turnout.

CNN's entrance poll indicates that young voters (17-29) made up 22% of the Democratic caucus goers which is straight up massive compared to any previous election I can think of. 57% of them chose Obama. Obama also won pretty much every demographic group except married women, conservatives, rural voters, and people over 45. Take a look at it. Here's the Republican one if you're curious.

And in case anyone cares, Gravel's campaign claims he isn't really dropping out.

LAST UPDATE (I promise): Evangelical Christians made up an astounding 60% of the Republican caucus goers last night, versus 40% in 2000 (the last competitive caucus). About half of them chose Huck so 80% of his supporters were Evangelicals.

Oh and the top issue facing the country in the minds of Republican caucus goers? Immigration. Seriously. Didn't even break the top 3 for Democrats.

The Iowa Democratic Party has caucus results as they come in at iowacaucusresults.com. With 433 precincts of 1781 in, Edwards is up less than a percentage point over Obama, who is up .06 points over Clinton.

This is getting good.

Yeah, yeah, I know the caucuses are in half an hour...but I found this nugget of globalism on Bloomberg.com:

Ford Motor Co. (USA) has selected Tata Motors Ltd (India) as the likely buyer and "preferred bidder" on Jaguar and Land Rover (UK).

So a former British colony company will probably be buying another former British colony's companies in the former colonizer's country of Britain. I kinda laughed.

If you're not watching C-SPAN tonight or in Iowa...curl up with Friedman's book.

Labels: economy

In what should be the last poll released prior to tonight's showdown, the C-SPAN/Reuters/Zogby Tracking Poll suggests that the conventional wisdom on the ground may be true.

Clinton, Romney dip as Ron Paul gains

UTICA, New York – Democrat Barack Obama continued his upward momentum through the evening before the Iowa caucuses, capturing the lead ahead of rivals John Edwards and Hillary Clinton...

Obama broke through the 30% barrier for the first time, gaining 31% support after another strong day leading up to the caucuses. But more dramatic was Clinton’s four-point drop in this last day of tracking. Edwards moved into second place by himself after another day where he steadily gained ground.

Here's the tracking data:

Clinton
12/30-1/2: 24
12/29-1/1: 28
12/28-12/31: 30
12/27-12/30: 30
12/26-12/29: 31

Obama
12/30-1/2: 31
12/29-1/1: 28
12/28-12/31: 26
12/27-12/30: 26
12/26-12/29: 27

Edwards
12/30-1/2: 27
12/29-1/1: 26
12/28-12/31: 25
12/27-12/30: 26
12/26-12/29: 24

Keep in mind that tracking polls take into account multiple days of data; this one includes four days. Thus, a candidate's support must increase or decrease significantly in the newest day of polling to show any movement in the overall number. Tracking polls are designed to be stable; a point or two of movement (called statistical noise) shouldn't move the average too much unless a trend is clear (which, of course, is the point).

Here's a possible version of Hillary's numbers over the past few days. In five days, she dropped 7 points, including a 4 point drop from the 1st to the 2nd. Using the released numbers from Zogby, I figured out what set of data was necessary to produce a number that would round to the released data. Please note that 1) these are just an educated guess and 2) Zogby rounds numbers (.5 and .75 rounds up, .25 rounds down).

HRC Daily Polling Data (Four Day Rolling Average)

12/26: 31
12/27: 30
12/28: 31
12/29: 32 (31.00 - 31, released 12/30)
12/30: 28 (30.25 - 30, released 12/31)
12/31: 27 (29.50 - 30, released 1/1)
1/1: 23 (27.50 - 28, released 1/2)
1/2: 19 (24.25 - 24, released 1/3)

Again, these are simply an estimate, but they illustrate quite nicely the fall in support necessary to produce the 4 point single day drop. If anyone else wants to experiment with the numbers and post what you come up with, feel free. Edwards steady increase is more steady, while Obama's 3 point jump likely mirrors the large movement present in Hillary's numbers (but obviously, in reverse). Feel free to figure out the Obama/Edwards daily numbers and post them!

On the ground sources as well as various media outlets agree that Obama and Edwards are surging, and Clinton seems to be falling off. The Des Moines Register Poll from a few days ago showed Obama leading by 7 points, but was criticized by many because it seemed to be so far out of line with what other polls suggest, particularly due to the fact it suggested that 2 in every 5 Democratic caucusgoers will be independents (which would double the amount of independent participation from 2004). The DMR stood by the numbers.

If the Zogby tracking poll is correct (and it may be important to note that Zogby isn't considered one of the most reliable polls), it would suggest that the DMR Poll's finding may be correct in pointing to an Obama win this evening. Even if these exact numbers are wrong, they do point toward movement toward Obama and Edwards and away from Clinton, which fits into both the current media narrative as well as the polling data from the last few days. If the caucuses are down to an Obama-Edwards contest, which candidate prevails could depend on how 2nd-tier supporters move after the first round of voting.

The one thing I'd add to the previous posts about 2nd tier voting is that conjectures of how supporters of a certain candidate will move based on similarities between candidates are dangerous. Assuming Biden voters will move to Clinton because of "experience" assumes that Biden voters like him because of his experience AND view Clinton as experienced AND value experience more than all other issues across the entire field of candidates. All of these assumptions lack quantitative evidence. I would suggest a safer way to look at this question is through the polls that have asked about 2nd-choice support. Not surprisingly, Obama and Edwards are the leading 2nd choices (with Edwards slightly more favored than Obama). Clinton trails distantly in 3rd place.

I hope you find this statistical geek-ery interesting as I do. I love breaking down polling data. If you want a class where this stuff is gone into in depth, I'd recommend taking a course with Prof. Charles Franklin (particularly 218) in the Political Science Departmet.

Also, my predictions:

Dem
1) Obama, 34
2) Edwards, 31
3) Clinton, 28
4) Biden, 4
5) Richardson, 3
6) Dodd, 1

(I'm an Obama supporter - that isn't influencing my prediction.)

GOP
1) Romney
2) Huckabee
3) McCain
4) Thompson

Stay posted for more updates from your fellow College Dems. It's going down to the wire!

Bluestatecannon, commenting on the previous post by Micah, notes that:

"Assuming that Biden supporters move to Clinton, for example, simply because of "experience" or whatever other traits they have in common doesn't work. It's guessing, pure and simple. I think we all need to look at the polls that actually ask voters about second choice more so than guessing."

It's true that guessing is dangerous business. But's it's hardly more dangerous than polling. A poll is a poll is a poll -- did we learn anything from 2004? Would any political junkie predict that the results tonight will neatly reflect yesterday's polls? I wouldn't.

This morning Micah noted that Richardson is encouraging his supporters to make Obama their second choice. Other polls suggest that among likely caucus-goers, Edwards is the most popular second choice. Clinton seems under-represented here, and I still stick with my conventional wisdom: Supporters of party insider candidates are likelier to pick other party insiders as their second choice. There's an elegant argument to be made that the Iowa Democratic caucuses indirectly (perhaps ironically) favor insider candidates like Clinton.

Also, one interpretation of the alleged Biden-Obama and Richardson-Obama alliances is that Biden and Richardson already anticipate Clinton's attractiveness as a second choice, and want to cut the margin between Clinton and Obama to make it easier for them to stay in the contest for a couple weeks.

But yeah, it's all conjecture at this point. What else could it be?

Others should chime in with their predictions, by the way. One of us is bound to have bragging rights tomorrow...

Last night, Eric did a great job of emphasizing how much influence second choices will have in determining the final tally of the caucusing process later on today. As our top three candidates are effectively tied going into this thing, Dennis Kucinich's decision to ask his supporters to choose Barack Obama as their second choice could very well shift a good deal of momentum toward Obama. Given the forecast of record turnout among caucus-goers, and the conventional wisdom that such a phenomenon favors candidates like Obama and Kucinich, the Senator from Illinois may benefit significantly from the added support.

But of course, as Eric pointed out, the more-viable second-tier candidates seem likely to see their supporters move toward the Hillary Clinton camp as the night moves on. And if you trust the polling, Kucinich appears likely to only draw enough supporters to finish at or near the bottom of the initial tally. Initial supporters of Joe Biden, and especially Bill Richardson, will likely have far more say in the final outcome, which is why this developing story could be huge:

Gov. Bill Richardson's campaign is expected to direct their supporters to caucus for Sen. Barack Obama in the second round of voting at Thursday's caucuses in precincts where he is not viable. Two sources familiar with the plan told Iowa Independent that the New Mexico Governor's organizers have been instructed to direct supporters to Obama in the places where they fail to reach the 15% threshold for viability.

Richardson, whose poll numbers in Iowa have hovered near 10% since June, may need a solid fourth-place finish in the caucuses to continue his campaign. And he is best served by directing support away from former Sen. John Edwards, who consistently polls between him and the two national front-runners, Obama and Sen. Hillary Clinton, in national and early state polls.

Before today I had never heard of Iowa Independent, but the logic behind this claim seems to make perfect sense, even if I have little reason to trust the messenger. Edwards seems to poll quite well as a second choice candidate, but for Richardson to retain any mindshare following the caucuses, the Governor likely needs to become the alternative to whoever finishes in first and second in Iowa. Even if Richardson's supporters may not be naturally inclined to back Obama, they may very well do so if it keeps their candidate viable in the next few contests. And while they (as Eric pointed out) would appear inclined to favor Hillary Clinton out of all three first-tier candidates, they may very well send their support elsewhere if Richardson may still gain down the line.

Hey, everyone.

Thought I'd post my predictions for the caucuses tomorrow. I look forward to being proven wrong on a few of these, as I am no guru of election forecasting. But here goes:

1) Mike Huckabee wins on the Republican side, with Mitt Romney (very) close behind. It is possible that if the Republicans ran their caucuses like the Democrats, Romney would win. But since the GOP uses a secret ballot straw-poll-style system, the Huckabee votes will count everywhere -- not just in places where he has support. Who will finish after Huckabee and Romney? No idea, really -- but Fred Thompson seems the most logical guess.

2) The Democratic side is much more fun to predict. They use a 15 percent threshold at every caucus site below which a candidates' supporters are not counted. So the small pockets of support for lower-tier candidates (at sites where their support is below 15 percent) will need to gravitate towards their second choices -- sure to be Clinton, Edwards, or Obama. Collectively, these lower-tier candidates make up from 15 to 30 percent of the vote. The winner of the caucuses will be the person who gets the highest percentages of second-choice support from people who initially caucus for Biden, Richardson, and Dodd. Obama and Edwards -- strong "grassroots" candidates who distance themselves from the national party -- are probably not favored by most supporters of the lower-tier candidates. Biden, Richardson, and Dodd are all "party establishment" insiders -- their supporters are unmoved by the romanticized "clean up Washington" line. I would bet their supporters will pick Hillary Clinton as their second choice, propelling her to a 6-8 percent margin of victory over Edwards and Obama. (Remember: Dean probably lost in Iowa in 2004 because Gephardt's supporters largely moved over to Kerry and Edwards.)

3) It's unlikely, but there is a very small chance that Joe Biden will finish third. His support may be centralized enough to overcome the "threshold" rule -- mostly because his major campaign strategy has been to obtain endorsements from state senators with very centralized pockets of supporters. And he's doing better-than-expected in the heavily-Catholic counties at the state's outlying regions. This is very hypothetical, and probably won't happen. But it's certainly possible.

So, my predictions: Democrats: 1) Clinton, 2) Edwards, 3) Obama (again, there's remote potential for a Biden surprise). Republicans: 1) Huckabee, 2) Romney, 3) Thompson. There you have it.

Eric

P.S. I predicted Little Miss Sunshine to win Best Picture at the Oscars last year, so take this with a grain of salt.

Des Moines, IA - Current Local Temperature: 5 degrees.

I finally got into Des Moines this evening, a little later than I was expecting do to the need to recover from a very celebratory New Years. It turned out to be pretty good timing, however, as I was cruising down I-235 next to Chris Dodd's campaign bus. He was endorsed by the IFAA, a large firefighters union, and has plastered their logo and slogans all over the sides of the bus.

I heard a couple of radio ad's for Obama as I was scanning the dial on the drive in. He's promoting his health care plan, which differs from Senators Clinton and Edwards in that it doesn't mandate health coverage for all people. I talked at length about the failures of this plan in a previous post entitled, "My Brother's Keeper" (December 2007), but I'll suffice to say that when healthy people aren't require to buy into a health plan they won't do it, and the result is a bunch of sick people paying a lot more for their coverage.

I'll be out on the town tomorrow in the freezing cold, and I'll post again what I see once I'm a bit more settled in.

Goodnight, and Good Luck.

I have not yet finished this diary series myself, but I've already found it to be packed with useful information about what I can imagine to be a favorite pastime in Iowa: caucusing. I would advise reading it before succumbing to the barrage of polling analysis in that state, because you'll learn exactly why Iowa's caucuses are so much more difficult to call than primary elections.