Pending the appeal

The opinion polls are closing... and I should have put down my misgivings.

ZOGBY!

In my view, the least reliable opinion pollster is Zogby: let's just say that the next time one of his polls overstates the conservative vote please send me a copy so I can frame it.

Guess who predicted, most loudly, that Hillary Clinton had lost New Hampshire? Until the New York Senator came back and won, that is.

And who has been talking up the Barack Obama lead in Texas, and the gap narrowing in Ohio?

OK, here's evidence:
1) Reuters Zogby poll: February 16 Obama leads Clinton by 14%.
AP/Ipsos has Clinton +5% on the 10th.
Hotline/FD has Clinton +2% on the 17th.

2) Reuters Zogby poll: January 13 Clinton leads Obama by only 1%.
Same day: USA Today/Gallup says Clinton +12%.
Pew Research say Clinton +15%.

3) Eight opinion poll margins between Clinton and Obama in Ohio, listed in date order by RealClearPolitics (survey dates range from February 26 to March 2).
Guess which is the Zogby poll?
a) Clinton +8%, b) Clinton +4%, c) Clinton +4%, d) Obama +2%, e) Clinton +10%, f) Clinton +9%, g) Clinton +12% and h) Clinton +6%.

Truth is: the real counting starts tomorrow. I don't know what will happen, but I don't see a landslide for Obama in votes this time. My other thought is the Democratic party has set up at least two opportunities for the loser to take this whole process to court, maybe three or more.

First, the absurd rules for delegate selection in Texas. Yes, I know the Clinton camp should have looked into it a long time before the middle of February THIS YEAR. But come on! We have two sets of rules and a weighting system which, if it benefited white people in Mississippi at the expense of blacks the way it benefits black people at the expense of Latinos in Texas, would have people asking if its 2008 or 1948. Mind you, some of the character sniping against Obama would look a lot less out place coming from George Wallace and Strom Thurmond's presidential campaigns than from the high priestess of political correctness's acolytes.

To allow such a system to determine the outcome of the entire presidential candidate selection process, because that's effectively what Texas would come down to, is like having rival gangs of thugs outside Chicago City Hall deciding who gets past to choose the Mayor. It might have a vague coincidental similarity with the outcome one could have got in a free and fair election. Maybe.

So if the votes come out with an Obama victory in Texas, because of a screwy voting system, I expect the Warren Zevon cry to go out:

Send lawyers, guns and money/
The s*** has hit the fan

If the system is changed after tomorrow to "restore" balance, a different set of law firms move in: how can one change the rules after the race?

Second, now take Florida. There's an offer to have a re-run (cheeky, if you ask me). But if Florida can have a second vote, why can't Michigan? And if there's a good enough reason to deny a re-vote, why not let Senator Clinton have her Michigan delegates? Or half of them, like the Republicans did with their renegade states?

You try settling that lot of potential pitfalls without ending up in court.

The nightmare for the Democrats must be an inconclusive outcome tomorrow: Hillary Clinton wins the popular vote in both Texas and Ohio, and she gets Rhode Island, leaving Obama with Vermont. But Obama gets a disproportionate delegate allocation from Texas, and one of the camps demands a decision on Florida Governor Charlie Crist's (Republican) offer of a Florida re-run.

The NAFTA spin over Canada has hit Obama's credibility with the media. This in turn may trickle into the public arena.

What are the odds the Supreme Court of the United States (with a conservative majority - HEH!) Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and company get to rule on these issues (or worse, refuses to rule) some time in, say, September or October, on who the Democratic candidate is? As a precaution, will some states have to print ballot papers with BOTH Obama and Clinton, as well as McCain, to add to Nader and the Libertarian candidate? How divisive or confusing will that be?

I guess the televised debates would be tricky: John McCain has a go against each of them?

You want more confusing? Imagine both sides agree to have the other as vice president (Yeah, that shouldn't be hard to arrange!). So the ballot papers say "Clinton/Obama" and "Obama/Clinton" and "McCain/GOP-VP". But only one set of Democratic names counts, in some states. In others, both permutations count.
Perhaps.
Pending the appeal.

Can I help (you dig your own grave)?

A nice offer of a compromise from Florida Governor Charlie Crist: the Republican Governor is offering to allow the state to pay for a re-run of the Democratic presidential primary. How nice!

Before opponents of wasting public money jump up (I'm one of them) it's worth pondering any possible ulterior motives.

"I think it's very important though that those delegates are seated," Gov Crist said.

Of course, the current allocation is that no one gets any delegates from Florida, but Senator Hillary Clinton would like the results of a January vote to stand, even though officially she didn't campaign there and though no one else really didn't campaign there.

If Sen Clinton gets her way, we get: Clinton, 113 extra delegates; Barack Obama, 71; and John Edwards, 13.

If Gov Crist gets his way, the whole Democratic civil war goes on for a couple of months longer until a primary can be held, the lawyers earn their fees and judges end up choosing the Democratic candidate.

Any ideas why the Republicans might be so helpful?

Republicans for Clinton

You don't have to be a genius to figure out that Senator Hillary Clinton is the candidate Republican strategists would rather face in November. She's the scarecrow candidate, the one person capable of mobilizing 40% of Democrat voters to come out in a blizzard to vote "uncommitted" in a Michigan primary. And that's when the effort is also going in from Daily Kos to get Democrats to go and vote instead for Mitt Romney "because the GOP deserves the worst."

Fox News and Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter campaigning for Mrs Clinton (is the entire "vast right-wing conspiracy" really on her side?).

And now this:

Financial concerns have also played into a decision by Mrs. Clinton’s campaign to buy time on the Fox sports channel to broadcast across Texas a town-hall-style forum that she will hold Monday near Austin.

Her aides said the venue was chosen in part to reach white male voters who had moved steadily to Mr. Obama. But the bigger factor, they said, was that the channel was a relatively inexpensive outlet.

I like the idea that Mrs Clinton is funding Fox. I bet that plays well with Democratic voters.

Six to watch

Of the 50 U.S. states and Washington D.C., which between them provide the 538 electoral colleges votes for a presidential election, exactly six have been won by the winners of the 1972, 1976, 1980, 1984, 1988, 1992, 1996, 2000 and 2004 elections. It is therefore tempting to argue that the entire 2008 election can be defined by which candidate will win most or all of these states.

Intriguingly, all six have at least one common border with another, and they form a barrier between North and South as well as a barrier between the East and the West. One could walk from the Great Lakes (well, more likely drive) to the Gulf of Mexico without ever leaving one the six.




The furthest to the North is Ohio. No Republican has been elected President without winning that state, and the last Democrat to win a presidential election without winning the Buckeye State was John F. Kennedy in 1960.

Cross the Ohio River and one arrives in Kentucky. Like Ohio, J.F.K. was the last President to be elected without the support of Kentucky voters. However, in most respects this is traditionally a Democratic party stronghold. Since 1956 (General Eisenhower's re-election year), Kentucky has more often been Republican.

Kentucky is generally a lower-taxed state with less industry than Ohio. It also had slavery, whereas the 19th century Underground Railroad for escaped slaves led to Ohio. They should be opposites, but aren't.

Head South from Kentucky and one enters Tennessee. Here the Republicans hardly ever won until 1952 (Dwight W. Eisenhower's first term). However, the voting population nearly doubled in the 1945-1960 period and with it, it seems the Democratic party declined. Most dramatically, in 1968, virtually all the Democratic counties backed George Wallace, the segregationist candidate. The Democrats came third that year, but since then the state has been won by every winner.

Go West (or North-West) from Tennessee and you enter the southern tip of Missouri. This is the mother of all weather vanes. Since 1904, Missouri's electoral college votes have always been on the winning side, except, that same 1956 election where the Democrats took Ohio and lost nationally.

Move southwards again down the Mississippi/Missouri basin and one hits Arkansas, where Bill Clinton was Governor. Like Tennessee, Arkansas was solidly Democrat (never voted Republican from 1872 to 1972) and the segregationist candidate in 1968 won there. However, only a southern Democrat (Bill Clinton or Georgia's Jimmy Carter) has beaten a Republican since Richard Nixon in 1972.

Finally, push downriver to Louisiana. This is again a traditional Democratic state. Although Eisenhower managed to win there in 1956 and Louisiana managed to back segregationist candidates TWICE since 1945 (in 1948 and 1968), this was another state where Democrats used to win well over 80% of the vote on occasion.

In 2004, John Kerry came close in Ohio, but nowhere near winning any of the other states. I reckon that one difference this time round is that areas not considered vulnerable to either side in the past two elections, for example, Connecticut and Maryland or Indiana and Kansas.

Kansas of course was unique in having a Republican majority in every one of the state's counties. Not this time, if Barack Obama is the candidate...

Michael Barone at RealClearPolitics, says it's time to throw out the maps. Or maybe dig out some old ones.

ROFL

I'm not well, but this brought a chuckle:

To: Interested Parties

From: The Clinton Campaign

Date: Friday, February 29, 2008

RE: Obama Must-Wins

The media has anointed Barack Obama the presumptive nominee and he’s playing the part.

With an eleven state winning streak coming out of February, Senator Obama is riding a surge of momentum that has enabled him to pour unprecedented resources into Texas, Ohio, Rhode Island and Vermont.

The Obama campaign and its allies are outspending us two to one in paid media and have sent more staff into the March 4 states. In fact, when all is totaled, Senator Obama and his allies have outspent Senator Clinton by a margin of $18.4 million to $9.2 million on advertising in the four states that are voting next Tuesday.

Senator Obama has campaigned hard in these states. He has spent time meeting editorial boards, courting endorsers, holding rallies, and - of course - making speeches.

If he cannot win all of these states with all this effort, there’s a problem.

Should Senator Obama fail to score decisive victories with all of the resources and effort he is bringing to bear, the message will be clear:

Democrats, the majority of whom have favored Hillary in the primary contests held to date, have their doubts about Senator Obama and are having second thoughts about him as a prospective standard-bearer.

YOU CANNOT BE SERIOUS!!!!!


And if you want a real chuckle, check out the comments.

And here's another I saw on Wednesday.

I'm not a Clinton adviser... but

This is not how to win friends.

Of course, if one hired people who knew what they were doing when they decided to allow 11 states to be won by Senator Barack Obama on the trot (which aren't important)...

So having lost the votes where there was an election, scraped about half the vote when there wasn't another candidate (in Florida and Michigan), and taken the super-delegates for granted to the point where some are switching, she'll get the lawyers to fix it.

No, you try and rig the election process AFTER the voters have been, not BEFORE. That way, if you win, you can save on the lawyers and goons.

And you don't grin with him in the background, the day of the funeral of a police officer who was killed escorting your motorcade.

The only way Hillary Clinton wins from here is if Barack Obama does a Vince Foster.

Why Kos prediction looks wrong

I wrote a couple of days ago that an attempt to extrapolate the result of this year's U.S. presidential election "overstates the Democratic position."
Here's why.

My radar for possible bias comes from the Hillary Clinton versus John McCain match-up.
Poblano's list of variables is comprehensive:
1. John Kerry vote margin, 2004;
2. Fundraising;
3. Percentage of Baptists, especially Southern Baptists (Obama only);
4. LDS (Mormon) voters.

Then he writes:

However, the work is not done, as there are at least three other ways in which the polling data may differ from the eventual results.

These are: Sampling error, State-specific movement and National movement.

One problem is that the mechanisms to cancel out these effects run the risk of introducing their own distortions.
But what gets me thinking this analysis is a little too convenient is the state tally.
Florida, with a 3.2% Republican majority, is the closest to being lost by McCain to give him his 299 electoral college votes (remembering that Hillary Clinton get 239). But of the 50 states plus Washington D.C., 10 have smaller majorities, and ALL are estimated to go to Senator Clinton. Which seems a little unlikely.
For the sake of comparison, in 2004, there were SEVEN states in the less than 3.2% majority, and of these, John Kerry won THREE (Wisconsin, New Hampshire and Pennsylvania) while George W. Bush won FOUR (Iowa, New Mexico, Ohio and Nevada). Poblano also makes the mistake of listing Iowa as Democrat in 2004, when of course it was one of the two gains by President Bush.
It seems plausible that within the margin of error of this forecast, Senator Clinton could end up losing the following states (EC votes in brackets) in order of likelyhood (most to least): Missouri (11), Ohio (20), Washington (11), Michigan (17), Pennsylvania (21), New Hampshire (4), Minnesota (10), Delaware (3), Hawaii (4) and Maine (4, although more likely a 3-1 split). This would trigger a 403-135 or 404-134 thrashing for Senator McCain over his Democratic opponent.
To me, an interesting element of this forecast, is how well McCain appears to do, even against the Obama juggernaut. Obama picks up five states, but comes close elsewhere. Even a tidal wave for "change" does not remotely, at this stage, look like a Ronald Reagan triumph in 1980 in reverse.
If the projection that Barack Obama can't win Ohio by 1% is true, how will that square with the "Bush stole Ohio" nonsense last time round, when the majority for the Republicans was 2.5%? Silly me, only Republicans steal elections...

How does this compare with last time?

A view from the Daily Kos which scrambles the data from 2004, weights it and finds that Hillary could get mashed in November, while Obama becomes the biggest Democrat winner since 1964
OK, my first impression is it overstates the Democratic party's position, by perhaps overcompensating some effects (I'll have a closer look before elaborating).
But here's the bottom line:
Barack Obama: 289 electoral college votes (and wins the popular vote by 0.9%)
John McCain: 249 ECVs
With 5,000 re-runs Obama wins 64.2% of the time, allowing for variations in the margins of error to play, for example.

Hillary Clinton: 239 electoral college votes (and loses the popular vote by 1.4%)
John McCain: 299 ECVs
With 5,000 re-runs Clinton wins 37.6% of the time.

Incidentally, if the latest crazy Democratic plan to demolish the Electoral College were applied, California's EC votes to go to the winner of the national popular vote, regardless of who wins in California, Hillary Clinton would win California in terms of votes cast, but get nothing there in terms of EC.

So the total would be:
Clinton: 184
McCain: 354


Previous attempts to lose the election next time by changing the rules to suit the last election include the very dubious 2004 Colorado proposal which would have changed the system at the same time as people voted (so they wouldn't know when they voted how these would be counted).

Not winning

Was it the U.S. Democratic party that complained about President George W. Bush's failure to balance the budget?
Perhaps this story from Hillary Clinton's "invoice challenged" campaign says something about character, integrity, financial competence, narcissism, empathy for working people, and public reputation. Or perhaps not.

It was just $2,492.63, a pittance, really, alongside million-dollar television buys and direct mail drops.

But with Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton’s bid for the Democratic presidential nomination enduring a rough patch, Peter Semetis, the owner of a deli and catering business in Lower Manhattan, had been following the news and growing increasingly worried that he was not going to be paid for the assorted breakfast trays, coffee, tea and orange juice he had provided the campaign for an event in mid-December.

“I’m afraid of her dropping out of the campaign and me becoming a casualty,” Mr. Semetis said.

So on Thursday, he went to small claims court and filed suit. Mr. Semetis, 53, said he was hardly a political pundit but like others across the country, he had become caught up in the election in the last year and was able to offer some analysis. “There is potential for her to lose Texas,” he said — an assessment not at odds with the polls — “which would pretty much force her to quit.”

[Hat tip: Jackie D]

Good to see the New York Times join the misogynistic witch burners of the Vast-Right-Wing-Conspiracy (just like black women in South Carolina). Does anyone else wonder if there are a load of businesses in Texas about to demand C.O.D.?

Little things

Momentum is bad enough against you, but when little things go wrong too...

1) Hillary Clinton's campaign, because it was based on the assumption that there would not be a serious challenger left after "Super Duper Tuesday" (February 5), did not have a strategy for dealing with what is happening now.
In my view this is exactly what strategists are supposed to do anyway. I would personally be ashamed to charge fees if this report is true:

System Worries Clinton Backers
Delegates Won May Not Reflect Popular Vote

By Matthew Mosk
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, February 18, 2008; A06

Supporters of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton are worried that convoluted delegate rules in Texas could water down the impact of strong support for her among Hispanic voters there, creating a new obstacle for her in the must-win presidential primary contest.

Several top Clinton strategists and fundraisers became alarmed after learning of the state's unusual provisions during a closed-door strategy meeting this month, according to one person who attended.

What Clinton aides discovered is that in certain targeted districts, such as Democratic state Sen. Juan Hinojosa's heavily Hispanic Senate district in the Rio Grande Valley, Clinton could win an overwhelming majority of votes but gain only a small edge in delegates. At the same time, a win in the more urban districts in Dallas and Houston -- where Sen. Barack Obama expects to receive significant support -- could yield three or four times as many delegates.

The article then descends into a mixture of spin and "I am a poor victim" whining.
One word: Rubbish.

A Democratic Party member for 35 years? Who has spent the last EIGHT YEARS planning to become President? With a budget in the TENS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS (if not over $100,000,000)? A LAWYER BY TRAINING?

I think I might have thought to check the primary and caucus system before February 5th, or whenever it was Plan A went down the pan.

Bad luck that Texas happens to have the wrong sort of rules to suit Senator Clinton now. But it is criminal incompetence to be in a position where this wasn't recognized as a possibility. I assume the people planning the campaign aren't the sort of people Mrs Clinton would appoint to, let's say, negotiate with Iran, or design a health care system for the U.S.A. or anything as tricky as boil an egg.

2) If I were Hillary, I would smell a rat: the media are reporting a week ago that Wisconsin and Hawaii could mean Senator Barack Obama will clock up a "10 state winning streak." Clearly, if Wisconsin could have been won by Clinton, the narrative would have been destroyed and the momentum could swing back. This is why, despite assurances of a Maginot Line approach (hold the line at Texas and Florida oops, that really came out by mistake! I mean Ohio), there actually was some campaigning going on. Hawaii, Senator Obama's birthplace, was a write-off.

So the best media narrative for Hillary would have been either: Hawaii declared instantly and several days of recounts in Wisconsin, at worst breaking up the impression of the procession of victories for the Illinois Senator; or both declared wins quickly and simultaneously, so we could "move on."

Instead, Wisconsin unexpectedly got called as a crushing win at once. Hawaii, with no suspense, but almost a day's delay, duly declared an even bigger crushing win. So the media spend one whole day going on about the terrible result for Clinton in Wisconsin, and then, what could have been discounted in Hawaii become the "10th win in a row" with the percentages going up. Here's Kos on the winning streak.

You couldn't have planned the two results to put Senator Clinton in a less credible light as a candidate. I could well believe it was done on purpose. I know I have a less than favorable view of the Clintons, but I'd almost be surprised if they didn't feel up against more than just a natural chain of events.

3) The plagiarism row has completely tanked. By luck or design, the alleged victim is a friend who seems only to happy to endorse Senator Obama's use of a turn of phrase. My own view is that it was always going to look petty. But against another candidate, it might have rattled the Obama campaign team into a slip-up.

The Maginot Line

...in Paris, Texas, presumably.
The ineptitude of the Clinton campaign reaches the Grauniad, which itself has a less than perfect record at interfering in U.S. elections.
I like this extract:

Why have the Clintons campaigned so poorly in this election? It may just be that they were out-organised - and the story then is how a solitary junior senator from Illinois managed to put together such an accomplished political organisation from scratch. But another reason is that the Clintons have never fought a primary like this one. Hillary barely faced a contest in the primary for her New York senate seat in 2000. For Bill, 1992 was a long time ago - and Paul Tsongas was no Barack Obama.

There's more:

The spin coming from the Clinton campaign last night was that she was out-spent by Obama in Wisconsin. Well, duh. They are kidding themselves if they think it was about money - although the fact that Obama has more money is in his favour.

What get's me is that this is worse than Rudolf Giuliani's catastrophic decision not to campaign in New Hampshire and stake everything on winner-takes-all Florida. For one thing, the lesson ought to be fresh in everyone's mind.
Under Soviet occupation, the secret police in places like Czechoslovakia didn't need to be subtle when following people around. They just got a couple of heavies to loom menacingly. It seems that something like this has been going through the group-think minds of the Clinton campaign, living in their bubble for the past year.
They assumed that no one could outspend them, or counter the "it's time for a woman!" card. They assumed that the dirty tricks would work. They ignored the lessons, which to be fair even the mainstream media appears to have learned from the Swiftboat veterans affair and Rathergate in 2004.
Zugswang!

Heh

I don't get this. ;-)

Thanks Chris Muir.

Signed, Sealed, Delivered

I admit it: I like a winner.

Here's my favourite bit:

this would be the first time in a long time that Clinton and Obama would be together in a place where they'd be competing for applause.

As you might have guessed, it wasn't much of a competition. Obama is so vastly superior to Clinton in delivering a speech it's almost unfair. He was greeted with an enthusiastic standing ovation, received numerous standing ovations during his speech, and left the crowd standing, and buzzing, as he exited the stage to "Signed, Sealed, Delivered" by Stevie Wonder.

And how, exactly, does a CLINTON respond to this?

"Don't tell me that words don't matter," Obama said, his voice rising with indignation and scorn. "I have a dream. Just words. All men are created equal. Just words. We have nothing to fear but fear itself. Just words."

They'll have to kill him at this rate.

... or change the rules [from Daily Kos].

Mark Penn explains it all

OK, so I've been trawling RealClearPolitics. Sue me.

Here's Clinton's Chief Strategist explaining the path to power.

If I understand it right, Hillary needs to lose more states in order to emulate Walter Mondale(!) or Jimmy Carter(!).

As a well written exercise in bullshit, it's hard to beat.

Zugzwang for Clinton

RealClearPolitics has the graphic.



I said some time ago, Senator Obama has the vibe of a winner.

In a well executed positional attack, there may come a point where the defender is so constrained in terms of having limited possible moves that every move she makes, weakens her position. It's called Zugzwang and was a particular specialty of Aron Nimzowitch.

Here's a classic example from chess: Fritz Saemisch - Aaron Nimzowitsch, Copenhagen 1923.

And here's one from the current election cycle: the order, distribution and timing of the remaining primaries and caucuses is almost designed to produce an Obama nomination victory.

Via Drudge: SHE CAN'T CATCH US!

Final thought comes to me from Frank Rich's New York Times column:

The untold story in the run-up to Super Tuesday was Hillary Clinton’s elaborate live prime-time special the night before the vote. Presiding from a studio in New York, the candidate took questions from audiences in 21 other cities. She had plugged the event four days earlier in the last gasp of her debate with Barack Obama and paid a small fortune for it: an hour of time on the Hallmark Channel plus satellite TV hookups for the assemblies of supporters stretching from coast to coast.

By contrast:

A campaign operative, speaking on MSNBC, claimed that 250,000 viewers had seen an online incarnation of the event in addition to “who knows how many” Hallmark channel viewers. Who knows, indeed? What we do know is that by then the “Yes We Can” Obama video fronted by the hip-hop vocalist will.i.am of the Black Eyed Peas had been averaging roughly a million YouTube views a day. (Cost to the Obama campaign: zero.)

Not spend more, but spend smart.

I'll take that as a "No"

From ABC News:

Asked whether he intends to run for the Senate, [Mike] Huckabee said he would sooner dye his hair green, tattoo himself and go on a "rock tour with Amy Winehouse," reports ABC News' Kevin Chupka.

A Message to You Rudy 2

2:44 GMT
A frustrating night due to Florida's unique election style. Incidentally, for the Republicans it's a winner takes all contest but the delegation size was halved because the primary is held earlier than the party's rules allow. For the Democrats, Hillary Clinton is claiming victory and not claiming victory, and she is but she is not including the delegates from Florida in her camp. Under Democratic Party rules, which were broken by Florida's holding the primary on January 29, no delegates are eligible, unless, if Senator Clinton can wing it, for her.

First, they let the media report exit polls when part of the state, in a different time zone is still voting. This is called undue influence and the networks involved should have their boards of directors jailed for five to ten years.

Second, it's very close in places like Orlando.

Lake County: 0% in, Romney +412 votes
Osceola County: 87% in, McCain +21 votes (no, that is not a typo)
Orange County: 91% in, Romney +19 votes (neither is that)
Seminole County: 70% in, Romney +1,337 votes
NET: Romney +1,789 votes OUT OF 120,000 total votes.

That's called a tie! - JAY COST

With all these points in mind, it seems Rudolf Giuliani will do well to finish third. Mike Huckabee, close behind the former New York Mayor, should benefit from support in Florida's "panhandle," the bit in the northwest which has a different timezone and is more neighboring Alabama in the Bible Belt. Unless of course the leaked exit polls persuade people to not bother going to the polls.

And then, from the official Florida Department of State website I find this:

UNOFFICIAL ELECTION NIGHT RETURNS
(may not include absentee or provisional ballots)

Here's the rub. If that disclaimer means what I think it means, there could be 150,000 uncounted ballots or more from early voters who used the postal system. These, the New York Times said, should favor Rudy.

There are rumours going around RealClearPolitics to the effect that Giuliani and Romney are preparing to quit.

The joke is that Ron Paul, who is doing quite badly in Florida, could well outlast most of the supposed heavyweights. Remind me why Fox News wouldn't have him on a debate instead of Fred Thompson and Rudy Giuliani?

A bit late, but fascinating comment on Iowa Democratic caucus

I only came across this now. Penelope Trunk, who I read mostly for her advice on careers and managing work, has this on Iowa and the new generation of U.S. voters and activists:

My brother just started school at the University of Iowa, and this was his first caucus. He describes a room totally crammed full of young people: “It was basically all the students caucusing for Obama and the adults dispersing among the other candidates.”

In the end, in his Iowa City precinct, the students sat victorious at the Obama camp with 70% of the votes, while the caucuses for Edwards and Clinton were shouting over to the Kucinich supporters to abandon camp and come to them.

BTW, the image of Clinton and Edwards backers trying to reason with Dennis Kucinich supporters says it all.
Penelope follows this with:

This is a metaphor for the workplace. The young people have, effectively, shifted the balance of power to themselves, and the older people squabble between each other, as if their power structures still matter.

Millennials are fundamentally conservative

The victories of Generation Y will not look like the Boston Tea Party or Kent State. They will look like this Iowa caucus: Gen Y, playing by the rules, and winning.

Now think of Hillary Clinton and read Penelope's punchline:

This is not exactly the Civil Rights movement or grunge music. But Gen Y doesn’t need to rebel because, as I wrote in Time magazine, young people are already in the driver’s seat at the workplace. They can work within the established lines of business to get what they want, but they get it faster than we expect.

The gender divide is an antiquated view of the world

So many times I give a speech and explain to the room why women should not report sexual harassment. Invariably, the room divides. The millennials think the advice makes sense, the baby boomers are outraged.

Her problem is that "Hillary Clinton" is not the answer to a problem the new generation has. If Barack Obama was literally the hired help to stand in the group photo he would also be irrelevant.

Awesome. Read the whole thing.

Ouch!

Not a great day for the Clintons, unless you buy the conspiracy theory that Bill doesn't want to be Hillary's First Lady.

Among the news of the Kennedys backing Barack Obama, I saw this today from Dick Morris.

In 1990, Morris found Bill behind in the polls in a Governorship election:

When he learned of his decline in the polls, he immediately blamed me, accusing me of spending too much time with other clients. Yelling and screaming, he escalated his charges, refusing to listen to me tell him that his latest ad had not been on television yet when the poll was completed. He kept ranting.

Finally, I had enough. I stood up and said I was leaving, quitting the campaign. I grabbed my coat and headed out of the mansion. As I crossed the foyer, I suddenly fell to the ground, tackled by Bill Clinton. I saw his large fist coming at me. Hillary was trying to get between us, yelling “Bill, Bill, stop it. Think about what you are doing. Bill, stop it!”

Bill got up and I walked out the door. Hillary ran after me. She tried to calm me and asked me to walk around the grounds of the Mansion with her. “He only does this to people he loves,” she told me. (I’ll leave that one for the psychologists.)

And ends with this:

Bill’s tantrums are causing the press to focus on him and not Hillary. That’s what he wants. No more questions about her experience, her ethics, her flip-flops. Now it's all about Bill.

A Message to You Rudy

From the New York Times, it may not be over for the Rudolf Giuliani campaign. The former New York Mayor has banked on going for Florida and the 20 or so states that vote on February 5. However, the polls show him in big trouble, having been ahead for months.
It seems that:

There has also been a flood of early ballots from Republican voters, which has, again, already exceeded the turnout in the contests in Iowa, New Hampshire and Nevada. As of Friday night, nearly 400,000 party Republicans had cast early votes, either in person or by mail, party officials reported. By contrast, just under 200,000 Republicans had voted in person or by mail at this point in 2006, when there was a heavily contested Republican primary for governor. There were 3.8 million Republicans qualified to vote on Tuesday.

The point is that neither Mitt Romney nor John McCain were campaigning to get early votes out in Florida: Romney concentrated on winning Wyoming, Nevada and Michigan, trying to win New Hampshire and Iowa unsuccessfully and not really doing much in South Carolina. Meanwhile Senator McCain didn't have any campaign money until his win in New Hampshire, which has now been assisted by his performance in South Carolina and Michigan.
If the Giuliani camp has in fact been quietly pulling in a 150,000 early votes, the polls will be wrong.
Unlike the other contests so far, this is a winner-takes-all job with 57 delegates up for grabs. The Green Papers has a different calculation method than RealClearPolitics, but seems less inclined to leave out Ron Paul. According to the former, the Republican delegate "soft" count, including the sanctions against some states for holding their primaries early, is as follows:
MittRomney: 59 delegates
John McCain: 41
Mike Huckabee: 26
Fred Thompson (withdrawn): 11
Ron Paul: 8
Duncan Hunter (withdrawn): 1
Rudolf Giuliani: 0

So even assuming the Republican party doesn't relent and award Florida the 114 delegates it would normally qualify for, a win for Giuliani by a single vote in a split result puts him second place on the Convention board ahead of McCain and right up with Romney.

Truth is, if Giuliani comes close to the winner, either a virtual three-way tie or a close second, assuming he has the money to contest February 5th, he still has a hope. Not much of one though. A win would turn this contest right round.

For the record, 1,191 (out of 2,380) are needed to get the nomination at the party Convention on September 1st.

"Super Tuesday", February 5th for the Republicans, involves the following contests:
Alabama Primary
Alaska District Conventions
Arizona Primary
Arkansas Primary
California Primary
Colorado Precinct Caucuses
Connecticut Primary
Delaware Party-run Primary
Georgia Primary
Illinois Primary
Massachusetts Primary
Minnesota Precinct Caucuses / non-binding straw poll
Missouri Primary
Montana Caucus
North Dakota Caucus
New Jersey Primary
New York Primary
Oklahoma Primary
Tennessee Primary
Utah Primary
West Virginia State Presidential Convention
This lot will bring 1,081 delegates, with California the biggest chunk with 173 and Delaware the smallest with 18. Some are open to non-party supporters, some are winner-takes-all. Some are both.

Before then, on February 1-3 Maine will be holding its Municipal Caucuses (the state has 21 delegates in total). So by the end of Super Tuesday, a majority of the Republican delegates will have been allocated. Anyone who comes out of that with a couple of hundred delegates or more, in a split field, may well want to stick around if they can afford to. It's more likely though, that the losers will drop out. Normally, we'd say with confidence that the winner in Florida will now win. But this hasn't been a normal campaign so far.