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.

"Vote for me because the racists will..."

...seems to be the latest bizarre message from the Clinton campaign.

The Associated Press is not exactly where I normally go looking for dirt on Democrats, but this sums up the situation nicely:

Clinton campaign strategists denied any intentional effort to stir the racial debate. But they said they believe the fallout has had the effect of branding Obama as "the black candidate," a tag that could hurt him outside the South.

Let's just remember that we are talking about Democrats choosing their candidate for U.S. President.
How can being "the black candidate" hurt someone's chances of winning Democratic party supporters votes?
Let's leave aside the obvious point that one would expect racist bigots, who have "NO N*****s IN THE WHITE HOUSE" car bumper stickers, to come from Alabama (or South Carolina, come to think of it) rather than, say, Colorado, Hawaii or Maine.

Could it be that the party of affirmative action, of civil rights and political correctness likes to have its leaders photographed next to the hired help, but not, you know, actually let the servants run the country? "The poor dears, they try so hard, but they can't help it, you know?"
Until last year I would have found it barely conceivable. But the more "liberals" I have met who talk about their moral superiority because they demand that other people pay taxes to provide public transportation (for blacks), public schooling (for blacks), quotas for universities (for blacks) and corporations (for blacks), the more I see something ugly.
This is not "white guilt." These are white people who have a visceral unease with ethnicity and who project this by blaming "society," or "capitalism," or "a right-wing conspiracy" for racism. They remind me of nothing more than those British Conservative Party members who shouted loudest about the evils of homosexuality, demanding that it be outlawed or "all the boys will turn into perverts," only to turn out to be repressed gay men.
Is this really the Hillary Clinton base constituency? I hope not.
I like the bluff: "Me, a racist? No! no! I voted against having black candidate because I couldn't let him be humiliated by REAL racists."
Senator Barack Obama is not (in my personal view) the beautiful orator that Jesse Jackson was 20 years ago. On form, the Reverend is someone I would gladly buy a ticket to hear give a sermon. That's certainly not true of any candidate this time round for me. Sen Obama is more like a bank manager with the common touch, I like his demeanour and his "winner" outlook, but that's not the same. In fact, without Bill Clinton's attempt to not make race an issue, by making it an issue, it would not have occurred to me to compare the two. Senator Obama has plenty of flaws: some of his policies and the dubious Chicago connections. But if it comes to a "which candidate has the worst criminal connections" I don't see Bill Clinton as offering much constructive help. A list of the crooks he pardoned in his last day of office, and the one whose wife by an AMAZING COINCIDENCE gave a lot of money to his wife's 2000 campaign, will make anything Senator Obama is likely to have done look minor.
I'm not impressed with the Republican line-up so far in this election campaign, but if Hillary Clinton wins her party's nomination by pandering to racism, I don't see how any decent human being could campaign for her in November, against what is likely to be a fairly moderate Republican candidate.
In pure election terms, we now know how black women voted in South Carolina: they're misogynistic witch burners, apparently.

Obama wins again

Ron Gunzburger, who runs the very comprehensivePolitics1 blog, says it all on his Facebook profile status:

Ron Gunzburger
is thrilled that Obama won a LANDSLIDE victory in South Carolina. Congrats to the SC Dems for soundly rejecting the racially divisive Clinton strategy.
Updated about an hour ago

I think we can take it as read that we are not looking at a Clinton/Obama or Obama/Clinton ticket for November given the bile, especially from the Clinton camp.
Bearing in mind just how convoluted each party's primary rules are, and the fact I got it wrong in Nevada[*], I hesitate to make any comparisons between the Democrat and Republican turnouts.
However, with under 60% of precincts reporting, it looks as though Senator Obama could win South Carolina in November, if we assume that the Clinton voters don't go for a Republican rather than the black man. Between them the Dems look like getting almost 500,000 votes, compared with 443,203 votes in the recent Republican primary.

[*]

A quick look at turnout suggests Romney is outscoring Hillary Clinton in Nevada too. This is very bad for the Democrats, if repeated in November. Husband Bill Clinton won the state in both 1992 and 1996.

Wishful thinking 0, reality 1

Last weekend's South Carolina primary election for the Republicans did not get any coverage here, for which I apologize. The timing was bad.

However, I did wonder if the conservative blogs who seemed to doubt if Fred Thompson was quitting after coming third in what had been described as his "firewall" weren't putting hope before realism.

Unlike Ron Paul, who has the record of standing for President on a third party ticket and has the money and the message, libertarianism, to motivate him to stick around, I had the impression that Fred Thompson was never really hungry for politics. This, of course, made him the sanest candidate if he could have somehow won.

Here's the announcement that Fred Thompson has quit and here is a post on Real Clear Politics explaining what it could all mean:

In Thompson's exit we have our first real shake up of what has been a wide open Republican race, and it comes just a week before a pivotal vote in Florida. Thompson's campaign never lived up to the promise so many Republicans had for him in this race, and while he leaves with the disappointment of those unrealized expectations, what support he has left may prove to have a significant influence on the vote in Florida, and thus perhaps on the selection of the nominee as well.

If I'm not mistaken, in our podcast last Friday, Brian Micklethwait and I touched on the Fred Thompson campaign, or lack of it. I'm pleased to say the podcast can be access thru here.

And yes, I'd say Mr Thompson would probably make a fine vice-presidential candidate. He could be very dangerous to an aggressive opponent in a televised debate.

Here's one for the Ronbots

I found a county in Nevada that voted Ron Paul ahead of the rest:

Nye County
Giuliani 33 votes 3%
Huckabee 172 votes 14%
Hunter 18 votes 1%
McCain 134 votes 11%
Paul 415 votes 34%
Romney 399 33%
Thompson 55 4%
Total 1,226 100%
33 of 33 precincts reporting
Figures from Nevada Republican Party.

Ron Paul SECOND in Nevada (98% votes counted)

This is the result of the primary season for the Ronbots. Their man is holding second position behind Mitt Romney in Nevada.

At 00:49 GMT Sunday morning:

Mitt Romney 22,629 51%
Ron Paul 6,077 14%
John McCain 5,641 13%
Mike Huckabee 3,607 8%
Fred Thompson 3,518 8%
Rudy Giuliani 1,907 4%
Duncan Hunter 890 2%
With 2% of precincts to report, so it's very unlikely to change, except possibly between Mike Huckabee and Fred Thompson.

To beat Rudy Giuliani by three votes to one is one one thing, to lead John McCain is another.

However, this is clearly a great result for Romney, not just over 50% but also his rivals are nowhere near him. A quick look at turnout suggests Romney is outscoring Hillary Clinton in Nevada too. This is very bad for the Democrats, if repeated in November. Husband Bill Clinton won the state in both 1992 and 1996.

Resounding silence on Ron's performance at RealClearPolitics.

Over at Daily Kos, DHinMI writes:

And MSNBC just announced that crazy-ass Ron Paul finished second in Nevada. Thus, the top two finishers in South Carolina were unable to beat Ron Paul.

I think the point here is that none of the Republican candidates is shining at the moment. Mitt Romney seems the most effective so far, but is it down to the right states coming up early? We shall see.

ARRRRRGH!
Update: The Democrat votes aren't votes. Washington Post explains:

About the Nevada 2008 Democratic Caucus Results

The Nevada Democratic Party is not reporting votes for its Jan. 19 caucuses. Instead, the party will only release the number of county delegates won by each presidential candidate (or "Uncommitted"). This is the data being collected by the Associated Press and displayed on washingtonpost.com. There will be at least 10,446 delegates to the county conventions in the state's 17 counties. (More information here.)

On the Republican side, the party caucuses are essentially a straw poll. Thus, the votes reported by the party and collected by AP are actual votes. (More information here.)

My error demonstrates that the primary system is too complicated for a quick skim through of the rules, as I mentioned here and here [or will be when Brian loads our podcast!].

Quote of the election campaign

Ok, so we've had the speech of the campaign from "uncommitted."

Here's the quote of the (Republican) campaign:

"These primaries are like the Special Olympics: Everybody gets a ribbon!"
Jim Treacher. [via Instapundit]

The speech of the campaign so far!

Uncommitted wins Michigan.

Victory speech here.

[Hat tip Instapundit.]

Divisive?

In Michigan, a state John Kerry won in 2004 with a 3.42% lead over an unpopular George W. Bush, Hillary Clinton scored 55% in an effectively uncontested election.

Now pretend she has a Republican opponent in November.

You can see why the Republicans reckon they have a chance against the New York Senator. Let's not forget that she has vastly more resources than all her opponents combined, if we include the backing from George Soros' proxies, for example.
If I had to define "divisive"...

About the turnout, here's the score:
Democratic votes total= 592,798
Republican votes total= 867,577

Now the question is, how much did Kos' call for Democrats to vote for Mitt Romney affect this result? Did a lot of Democrats stay at home? Or is Michigan the first hard evidence that Republicans might do better in 2008 after George W. Bush?

My guess is that the wrong Democratic party candidate could get hammered in November. But so could the wrong Republican. A communicator like Ronald Reagan against Clinton-Edwards-Obama on current form would probably take the 50 states, leaving the District of Columbia to cling to. As for Bill Clinton against the current Republican field? No need for Ross Perot or an Oklahoma bombing.

Ron Paul hanging in there

The LA Times has noticed Ron Paul "thumped" Giuliani and Thomson In Michigan. Overall, Representative Ron Paul (Texas) is ahead of both Giuliani and Thompson, both of whom have to do well in at least one of South Carolina, Nevada and Florida. Thanks to the "Ronbots," he has more cash than his closest rivals. As he is putting out an ideological message rather than merely seeking the nomination, there is every reason to assume Ron Paul will stick around.
Here's the "popular vote" from Iowa, Wyoming, New Hampshire and Michigan for the Republicans.

Candidate	Popular Vote	%
Romney, Mitt	443,139	36.18%
McCain, John S.	361,546	29.52%
Huckabee, Mike	207,308	16.93%
Paul, Ron	84,554	6.90%
Thompson, Fred Dalton	50,925	4.16%
Giuliani, Rudolph W.	49,198	4.02%
Uncommitted	17,971	1.47%
Others	4,796	0.39%
Hunter, Duncan	4,567	0.37%
Tancredo, Thomas Gerald "Tom"	317	0.03%
Keyes, Alan L.	220	0.02%
Brownback, Samuel Dale	197	0.02%
Total	1,224,778	100.01%

I made this from data here.

Michigan thread and why it matters

I'm not staying up for the Michigan primary results, but you can follow the Republican-leaning viewpoint here and the Democrat-leaning viewpoint here (not sure if there's a specific thread on Daily Kos yet). Wordy but pretty straight reporting later here.
Here are my thoughts for what they're worth.
1) The Democrats will go and vote Republican to push Mitt Romney for two reasons. They are convinced he is beatable in November, and the more Republicans win different primaries (Huckabee got Iowa and McCain got New Hampshire), the more divided the Republicans will be. It's good politics, provided they start with the right "loser" to back.
2) Because the Democrats votes don't really count (it's a complicated issue to do with the party's nomination rules, see The Green Papers), there should be a lot less of them than Republicans, given that this is a very marginal state in the last presidential campaign. John Kerry beat George W. Bush with a 3.42% lead in Michigan. That's one of the SIX states the Democrats won with less than 4% leads (Wisconsin 0.4%, New Hampshire 1.43% [but a gain], Pennsylvania 2.5%, Minnesota 3.48% and Oregon 3.9%) in 2004. With a relatively unpopular incumbent...
For the Democrats, the easy targets are few in number: Iowa 0.67%, New Mexico 0.79% [both gains], Ohio 2.12% [yes FOUR states were closer than Ohio but somehow the conspiracy theorists never mention them] and Nevada 2.59% are the only targets under 4%. You can add Colorado on 4.67%.

So my tip is to look at the vote totals. If the Democrats poll more heavily in total than the Republicans do, then its VERY bad for the Republicans. It adds to the evidence from Iowa and New Hampshire of a party in organizational chaos.


3) Check the accuracy of the pollsters. If they broadly get Michigan right this time, they might get November right in this state, which could be cricial.

Now for some background.
The November election will be decided by an Electoral College count, with 269 (if you get the casting vote in Congress) or 270 (to be sure) votes required.
Here's the breakdown in the most tightly contested states in 2004 that I mentioned above.
0.40% Wisconsin (D), 10 votes
0.67% Iowa (R), 7 votes (gain from D)
0.79% New Mexico (R), 5 votes (gain from D)
1.43% New Hampshire (D), 4 votes (gain from R)
2.12% Ohio (R), 20 votes
2.50% Pennsylvania (D), 21 votes
2.59% Nevada (R), 5 votes
3.42% Michigan (D),17 votes
3.48% Minnesota (D), 10 votes
3.90% Oregon (D), 7 votes
4.67% Colorado (R), 9 votes

Democrats "at risk" 69 votes. Republicans "at risk" 46 votes.

And just for fun, every winning Presidential candidate since 1972 inclusive has won the following SIX states: Arkansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Missouri, Ohio, Tennesee. In 1968, a third party candidate scored wins in some of the Southern states so I haven't included that election.

Kos is a (fiscal) Conservative!

The man himself sez about Ohio Representative Dennis Kucinich's complaint:

I find it somewhat amusing that so many people are demanding the taxpayers of New Hampshire indulge their paranoia by paying for a recount. What I'm not seeing, however, is an effort to raise the money to pay for such a recount. It seems that no one wants to put their money where their mouth is. It's much easier to spread rumors and baseless allegations than it is to actually do something concrete about it.

Kos adds:

Again, if the people making unsupported allegations want to pay for a recount, all the power to them. That's not a bad thing, that's a good thing. But ante up the cash. If they are so convinced that fraud exists, they can even justify the expense as an opportunity to have me and other skeptics in the reality based community eat some serious crow. But other than Kucinich putting a $2,000 down payment toward the cost of that recount, I haven't seen any efforts to raise that money.

If a candidate loses by more than three percentage points, a candidate may demand a recount in New Hampshire, but only if he or she pays for it.

I can only imagine that Rep Kucinich thinks he should have got FEWER votes than the write-ins(*) (figures from Washington Post):

New Hampshire Democratic Party Primary
Candidate name	votes	%
Bill Richardson	13,245	5
Dennis Kucinich	3,912	1
Total write-ins	3,076	1

Hmm. I find Kos making a lot of sense. Reminds of his proposal of what to do with John Kerry's campaign team in 2004.

I also agree with Kos' call for Democrats to vote for Mitt Romney in the Michigan primary on January 15. If I were a Democrat, the people I would not to face are: Rudy Giuliani and Senator John McCain (Arizona). (OK if it looked like they could lose to Ron Paul or Fred Thompson, this would set back the liberals 50 years, but I'm talking about someone who the Dems think could beat them.) So it makes total sense to have Democrats for Romney. I like the logo too.




(*) Some elections allow a voter to write-in the name of the candidate who isn't on the ballot.

I'm at the Putney Debates tonight

I'm the last minute change of speaker for the Putney Debates in London tonight. The title of my talk is ‘Change at the Top: How the US Election Process Works and What are the Opportunities for Ron Paul?’

My audience will mostly be British so it's mostly about explaining just how decentralized the U.S. electoral system is. Because anyone turning up is likey to be a Libertarian, I shall be concentrating on Ron Paul's campaign and what he can realistically hope to achieve. I shall try to post a summary of the talk somewhere.

For details, see the Libertarian Alliance blog. Time: 7.30pm (GMT).

Quicks thoughts on New Hampshire: Live Free or Die of Boredom

I don't recall opinion polls getting it this wrong since 1987 in the U.K. General Election, although maybe 1992 was also as bad.

Unless Barak Obama wins at least 70% of the remaining votes to count, he has come second to Hillary Clinton.

The Republican results are nearer the polls.

Yet again, Democrats outvoted Republicans in a battleground state. And the Democrat counting was faster for at least the early part of the evening. In November, this will translate into early declarations by the networks for the Democratic Party candidate and will influence voters further West (Colorado, New Mexico, California, Oregon, Washington), as they will still be voting when the Democrat victory will have been announced.

Ron Paul didn't quite match Rudy Giuliani. However, when was the last time someone focused the policy element his speech on the abolition of the Federal Reserve?

Final thought for know: Hillary Clinton, John McCain. This does nothing to enhance New Hampshire's reputation as an independent minded state. Very dull. Live Free or Die of Boredom.

Election thread

02:56
Spoke too soon: McCain lead down to 6% over Romney, Clinton down to 2% over Obama. Ron Paul 1% behind Giuliani.

02:42
Turning in.
Final count as I write:
Democrats
Hillary Clinton 49,941 39%
Barack Obama 45,850 36%
John Edwards 21,299 17%
with 48% results in.
(Exit polls now project Clinton win by 2%)

Republicans
John McCain 36,685 37%
Mitt Romney 31,085 31%
Mike Huckabee 11,506 12%
Rudy Giuliani 8,639 9%
Ron Paul 7,811 8%
with 47% of results in.
Fred Thompson is on about 1%.





02:18
HEH. Romney creeps into the 30%, McCain's 37%, with two thirds of votes to count, there's still time to start thinking of recounts...

02:08
My Twitter comment: " Turning in soon. Hillary looks very good in early results. Paul close to Giuliani. Obama underdelivers."

02:04
Kos is worried.

02:02
Over at the RealClearPolitics blog:

8:58 PM Michael Barone just said he thinks Hillary Clinton has a "good chance" of winning tonight. That would be an unreal outcome given the events of the last few days and the overwhelming amount of polling data showing her trailing Obama. - TOM BEVAN

01:57
Perry de Havilland writes: "If Ron Paul can only do single figures in NH, he is going to be pointless from our perspective."
Well it's less than 200 votes between Giuliani and Paul as I write. And it is becoming clear that it's going to be an open fight for some time.
Clinton staying clear of Obama still. Any conspiracy theories yet?

01:27
Credit where it's due. Washington Post has a quick loading quick reporting set of pages od results. In Iowa, they were far, far better than the Republicans at getting Republican results out.
Dems
Reps


01:22
The bad news: Clinton 5 points up to 40%-35%
The good news: Giuliani and Paul tied at 9%.

01:19
Democrats are outscoring Republicans again in a battleground state. Good for the Democrats again.

01:14
John McCain is projected to win the Republican vote. Clinton leads Obama 38%-36%.
Giuliani 9%, Paul 8%.

01:02
Polls closed in New Hampshire.
John McCain, the blogosphere's enemy, is leading the Republican field.
Hillary Clinton edging it in the urban districts (37% to Obama's 36%).
UPDATE: 00:43
From Drudge.
OBAMA 36; CLINTON 37; EDWARDS 17; RICHARDSON 4; KUCINICH 2...
MCCAIN 38; ROMNEY 29; HUCKABEE 11; PAUL 8; GIULIANI 9; THOMPSON 1...

00:39
Obama 37% Clinton 35%
Ron Paul 6%, Giuliani 8%

00:38 GMT Earliest figures showed Clinton ahead of Obama, but like Iowa, Obama is clawing back. Obama 36% Clinton 36%.

Voting still going on in some precincts with paper ballots, this will delay matters.

Why does New Hampshire matter?

New Hampshire has a pretty good record as state that votes the same way as the country as whole, despite not being typical from a demographic point of view.

In 2004, John Kerry famously claimed that all he had to do was win there to overturn the 2000 defeat of Al Gore. He was wrong of course, because the 200 Census meant Kerry needed 11 extra electoral college votes than Gore needed the previous time.

Here's the record of New Hampshire in presidential elections since 1972:
1972: Richard Nixon (Republican, winner)
1976: Gerald Ford (Republican, loser)
1980: Ronald Reagan (Republican, winner)
1984: Ronald Reagan (Republican, winner)
1988: George HW Bush (Republican, winner)
1992: Bill Clinton (Democrat, winner)
1996: Bill Clinton (Democrat, winner)
2000: George W Bush (Republican, winner)
2004: John Kerry (Democrat, loser)

Two losers in nine elections ain't bad. I'd settle for that prediction ratio myself.

Another win for Barak Obama kills any notion (assuming anyone not on the Clinton payroll needs convincing) that a black man can't win a U.S. presidential election. The Clintons look so 1990s...

On the Republican side, Rudy Giuliani really needs to start getting some votes. I love having a former Libertarian Party candidate for President (Ron Paul) outscoring him, but come on! The G.O.P. nomination looks as wide open as ever.

Clinton (Hillary)... NUL POINTS!

For non-European readers, the title of this post is a reference to our version of presidential primaries, the Eurovision Song Contest, or the cultural atrocity to end them all.

Two little hamlets in New Hampshire, Dixville Notch and Hart's Location, have an exemption which allows them to close the polling station as soon after midnight on election day as all the registered electors have been to cast their votes. So we have our first tallies of the the day.

Dixville Notch:
Barak Obama (Democrat): 7 votes
John McCain (Republican): 4
John Edwards (Democrat): 2
Mitt Romney (Republican): 2
Rudy Giuliani (Republican): 1
Bill Richardson (Democrat): 1
Hillary Clinton (Democrat): NUL POINTS
Mike Huckabee (Republican): 0
Ron Paul (Republican): 0
Fred Thompson (Republican): 0

Hart's Location:
Barak Obama (Democrat): 9 votes
John McCain (Republican): 6
Mike Huckabee (Republican): 5
Ron Paul (Republican): 4
Hillary Clinton (Democrat): 3
John Edwards (Democrat): 1
Mitt Romney (Republican): 1
Rudy Giuliani (Republican): 0
Bill Richardson (Democrat): 0
Fred Thompson (Republican): 0

So the total so far in New Hampshire is:
Democrats:
1. Barak Obama (Democrat): 16 votes
2. Hillary Clinton (Democrat): 3
2. John Edwards (Democrat): 3
4. Bill Richardson (Democrat): 1

Republicans:
1. John McCain (Republican): 10
2. Mike Huckabee (Republican): 5
3. Ron Paul (Republican): 4
4. Mitt Romney (Republican): 3
5. Rudy Giuliani (Republican): 1
6. Fred Thompson (Republican): 0

To say that this would be catastrophic for Clinton, Giuliani, Romney and to a lesser extent Richardson and Thompson is not too extreme, if these tallies were proportionately repeated across New Hampshire. No I'm not predicting. But it looks terrible for Mrs Clinton. Level with Edwards here is a very poor showing.

A shambles

Last night's Iowa caucus was a triumph for the U.S. Democratic party's organization and a warning for Republicans. As Kos put it, all the Republicans had to do was give out pieces of paper, let people mark it, count them and put the numbers on a website.

The Democrats on the other hand, had to hold informal hustings, jostle around a room to form bunches, get counted, argue, haggle and plead the "unviable" candidates' supporters to switch, count again, and then post their results.

Guess which turned out quicker?

The Democrats had over 100,000 more votes to count, and did so more effectively. It got to the point that I never got a score out of the Republicans own website, whereas I found the Democrats to be very effective.

If this was Wyoming, or Massachusetts, it might not matter. But in the past 36 years, Iowa has changed from Republican to Democrat and back again several times.

In 1972, 1976, 1980 and 1984, Iowa went Republican and the party's candidate won in cases apart from 1976. In 1988, 1992, 1996 and 2000, Iowa's electoral college votes went to the Democratic party candidates, who won the presidency in 1992 and 1996. In 2004, the Republicans came back to narrowly win the state, by 10,059 votes out of a total 1,506,908. That's a majority of 0.73%. In a British parliamentary election this would be about equivalent to 540 votes in an average sized constitutency.

For those who remember the fuss made by some people about Ohio in the 2004 presidential election, the majority in Iowa was one third of that in the Buckeye state. Although there are "only" 7 electoral college votes in Iowa, a shambolic local organization by the Republicans is not a good omen for the coming election proper.

Kos is right. If the Republicans can't handle this caucus in Iowa, they're not about to sweep places like Pennsylvania or Michigan. He also has a point about the Mike Huckabee movement being a mirror of the Kossaks in 2004.

I would also add that Barak Obama has the look of a winner right now, in a way that no British Conservative has looked for the past 15 years. Considering that inexperience is the only serious objection (from a Democratic party perspective) to his taking his party's nomination, if he wins New Hampshire and John Edwards focuses on attacking Hillary Clinton, we could witness a sudden realignment.

Turning in

The news from Iowa is not great for Hillary Clinton, good for Barak Obama, lousy for Mitt Romney, good for Mike Huckabee and Fred Thompson. Ron Paul leading Rudy Guliani, 3 to 1, is curiousity of the night.

I'm turning in. Further updates tomorrow.

Ron Paul thrashes Rudy

Ron Paul 2,425 11%
Rudy Giuliani 830 4%

after 25% of precincts reporting. Not bad for the Libertarians. Figure from Associated Press via Washington Post.

UPDATE:
Giuliani comes back, threatens to overtake John McCain. Ouch! However, Mike Huckabee with less than 5% of the spending of Mitt Romney, appears to be making the case against "money buys elections."
Iowa Republican Caucuses Results
Candidate Votes * %
Mike Huckabee 14,045 31%
Mitt Romney 10,084 23%
Fred Thompson 5,950 13%
John McCain 5,194 12%
Rudy Giuliani 4,901 11%
Ron Paul 4,379 10%
Duncan Hunter 168 0%
Tom Tancredo 2 0%
Key: * Explainer: What are these votes? | Red Checkmark Winner
Precincts: 41% | Updated: 9:20 PM ET | Source: AP

Iowa

I'm following the early Iowa caucus returns for the 2008 U.S. presidential election. The BBC's first error of the night was to predict that Republican returns would appear an hour before the Democrats.

In fact the Dems here got off to a brisk start.

The first result gave John Edwards 50% and Obama and Clinton 16.67% each.

For the Republicans here. Nothing as I write.

Latest figure:
Democrats:
Senator John Edwards : 34.24%
Senator Hillary Clinton : 32.12%
Senator Barack Obama : 30.28%
Governor Bill Richardson : 2.02%
Senator Joe Biden : 1.11%
Senator Chris Dodd : 0.14%
Uncommitted : 0.10%
Precincts Reporting: 205 of 1781

UPDATE:
The pundits suggest Barak Obama will have strength in depth, which suggests that he can pick up in the later reporting precincts.
Latest figure 1:48am GMT
Senator John Edwards : 33.44%
Senator Hillary Clinton : 32.24%
Senator Barack Obama : 31.63%
Governor Bill Richardson : 1.80%
Senator Joe Biden : 0.78%
Senator Chris Dodd : 0.07%
Uncommitted : 0.05%
Precincts Reporting: 367 of 1781
(Percentages are State Delegate Equivalents.)

UPDATE:
I was about to post figures showing Barak Obama ahead of Hillary Clinton, but the second place switched back. John Edwards is the leader though. But not by much...
Senator John Edwards : 32.52%
Senator Barack Obama : 32.41%
Senator Hillary Clinton : 32.15%

UPDATE:
with 530 precincts reporting...
Senator Barack Obama : 32.70%
Senator John Edwards : 32.38%
Senator Hillary Clinton : 32.02%
If Clinton comes third it's an open contest.

UPDATE: (2:40am GMT)
Senator Barack Obama : 36.68%
Senator John Edwards : 30.24%
Senator Hillary Clinton : 29.99%
Governor Bill Richardson : 2.01%
Senator Joe Biden : 0.94%
Uncommitted : 0.11%
Senator Chris Dodd : 0.03%
Precincts Reporting: 1487 of 1781

Hillary Clinton below 30% is not good for her, but Edwards failing to pull ahead of her is OK. Barak Obama's team can certainly feel good right now.

Update

I've been working at a desk with Blogger-hostile equipment, and I've been concentrating on the day job. Because of spam, I try not to leave my e-mail address lying around on-line. But anyone interested in a business contact should be on Linked In, and anyone wishing to socialise should be on Facebook.

Sarko

Tonight I'm speaking at the Putney Debates on the recent presidential election in France. Details from the Libertarian Alliance. I hope to post comments over the week end.

10,000 not out

Last week I hit 10,000 hits on Antoine Clarke's Election Watch.

It's a milestone. And I'm happy about it. I once set up a newspaper with a circulation of less than 100, so a trickle of readers does not bother me.

I realize that the key to better visibility is more writing, more often. It took from 13 July 2004 to 17 January 2007 to hit the 10k mark (visitor #6,969). We shall see how long it takes to hit 25k.

Netroots against Hillary?

From MyD, Matt Stoller writes:

Hillary Clinton's strategy is to scoop up money from the elites, keep
enough women to hold off from losing badly in Iowa and New Hampshire, and rack
up huge margins in the black vote in the later states.

This doesn't read like a fan...

Hillary Clinton's strategy is to scoop up money from the elites, keep enough women to hold off from losing badly in Iowa and New Hampshire, and rack up huge margins in the black vote in the later states.

So it looks like Republicans aren't the only ones hoping the situation in Iraq stabilizes soon.

I did find this funny though:

I didn't realize this until I was in Connecticut, but Maxine Waters is a hero in the African-American community.

Not funny for the African-American community that their selection of heroes is so poor, but the "with it" Democratic white boys should be a little more aware of who and what their allies are. Next they'll discover that Nation of Islam is anti-Jew.

10,000th hit sometime this week

OK. Instapundit or Daily Kos this ain't. But I can remember hoping to reach the 25th issue of my 100 circulation TANSTAAFL Times.

Politicians adverts target bloggers and blog readers

Two U.S. presidential candidates for 2008 have started advertising on blogs.

One of them, John Edwards, was the 2004 Democratic Party Vice-Presidential candidate. He is using a video broadcast hosted on YouTube to launch his campaign for his Party's presidential nomination. The other, Mitt Romney, is a medium chance to be the Republican Party's candidate for President. His adverts point blog readers to mittromney.com.

It's worth noting that the ads are both cheaper than television and will be better targeted.

We vote for them...

No comment.

Final results for 2006 mid-term U.S. elections are in...

...except they're not!

The final counts have been made but there are still two loose threads.

In the House of Representatives, the 23rd congressional district of Texas has been won by Democrat and former Representative Ciro D. Rodriguez, defeating Congressman Henry Bonilla (Republican) with 54.32% to 45.68% of the vote.

This means the House of Representatives final score would be 233 Democrats to 202 Republicans. However, according to the Green Papers, in Florida's 13th congressional district:

Democratic Christine L. Jennings filed a lawsuit requesting a new election arguing that a malfunction in the voting machines caused a 13% undervote (blank ballots). An audit indicated the machines worked correctly. Jennings' legal challenge will be heard in Leon County on 19 December. She has until 20 December to file a notice of contest with the U.S. House.

The declared winner there was Vernon Buchanan (Republican). However, I gather the House of Representatives will appoint the Democrat candidate if the decision is made by the new majority. This will kick up a stink.

Meanwhile the Senate could change hands back to the Republicans before the Democrats and allies take over in January.
The voting last month produced a split of Democrats 49, pro-Democrat Independents 2, Republicans 49.
However, the news [received by email] that 59-year old Democratic Senator Tim Johnson (South Dakota) has been hospitalized with a brain haemorrage opens the possibility that he will be replaced by Governor Mike Rounds's choice. As the latter is a Republican, he could push the Senate back to an effective 50-50 split, with Vice-President Dick Cheney casting the deciding ballot.
Expect lawyers to pore over the definition under South Dakota law of "incapacity."

"This should not be a 50-50 nation"

I think most people would agree, but Mark Steyn argues that President Bush blew it in 2001:

"11.40pm
How you read this election depends on which way you pick up the book. If you look at it as a conventional sixth year race, the Democrats underperformed, as noted below. If you look at it as a contest between the September 11th party and the September 10th party, the Democrats did distressingly well. I look back on what I wrote in 2001/2002 - some of it's in The Face Of The Tiger - and I'm more than ever convinced that Bush and the Republicans lost a big opportunity to shift the culture in the wake of 9/11. This should not be a 50/50 nation."

Mark Steyn also rates this as the best night for Democrats since 1998 if not 1992. In the sense that this is about revenge against George Bush, a bigger hate figure than Newt Gingrich was, I should have thought that emotionally this was on a par with Little Rock 1992.

Republicans hold Senate: final forecast

With Democrats needing to find three wins from Arizona, Missouri, Georgia, Montana and Tennessee it looks like the Republicans have held the Senate, albeit by a thread.

The forecasts for the House of Representatives look better for the Democrats but at this time they are just that: forecasts. Good results for them in the gubernatorial elections.

No news yet on the the South Dakota abortion referendum, or Arnold Schwartzenegger. I expect the latter to be re-elected.

From 2004, tonight has been an excellent result for the Democrats. Will they think so? Only if they either sweep a lot of close races in the next few hours, or if their expectations were a lot lower than they claimed.

I'm off to bed at 03:55AM GMT (10:55PM EST).

Update: Jim Talent has conceded in Missouri and local report does not suggest that litigation will follow.

With George Allen and Conrad Burns looking weak in Georgia and Montana, the Democrats could yet take the Senate too.

If this narrow Democrat victory is cathartic for the Republicans, it will bring the latter down to earth with a solid bump (the voters have not done a 1997 UK election to the incumbants). Yet no one should underestimate the extent to which Democrat House and maybe Senate committees will dictate the headlines over the next two years. They would be foolish to miss the opportunity to hold hearings designed to embarrass their opponents on lobbying practices, the public finances and Iraq. The Democrats will not however be the Gingrich restraint on Clinton that fiscal conservatives and libertarians dream of. They will support almost every spending plan of President George Bush, and push forward their own pet schemes. The only surprise would be to see this president start vetoing spending bills.

Democrats winning tight races in House of Representatives

Tradesports is offering trades at effectively 16 to 1 against the Republicans hold in the House of Representatives, but odds on to hold the Senate.

To my U.S. readers, it may be illegal for you to use Tradesports. I use it to measure punters' estimates of future events, as they are generally more accurate than the so-called experts.

N.B. I have never placed a contract on the site and they haven't paid me a commission, nor am I looking for one.

Good results for Democrats in the Senate

Fox News says Rick Santorum has lost Pennsylvania (no surprise, he was behind all year). However, Menendez holding New Jersey is good for Democrats.

Disgraced Tom Foley does not cost GOP his seat...

...though he may yet contribute to losing the House of Representatives by discouraging some loyal supporters elsewhere. Vote counting in Florida's 16th congressional district is showing a lead for Foley's replacement.

Republican presidential hopeful looks finished

Perhaps one of the most significant developments has been the implosion of Virginia Senator George Allen's ambitions to become the next Republican candidate for President.

As I write, he may actually have lost his senate seat (where George Bush did "badly" to win by 9% in 2006). Even if Senator Allen is re-elected narrowly, his credibility as a presidential choice is shot to pieces. Double bonus.

Score 1 to the Democrats.

High turnout means polls could be wrong

Either the angry masses come out to "throw out the bums," so Democrat leads are underestimated.

Or the silent majority comes out and turns the pollsters into a laughing stock, again.

First results: no change in Indiana or Vermont

Early report here.

No indication of local swing, but I expect that there will be a lot of local variation. I don't expect to read too much if any Republicans or Democrats win by bigger or smaller margins, unless they are 2008 presidential hopefuls (George Allen [Republican] in Virginia for example).

Live blogging US mid-term elections

Tonight I risk my shirt: here's a round up of predictions:

Pro-Democrat sites
Politics1 says Governor: Dems 30, Reps 20; Senate: D 51, R 49; House of Representatives: D 235, R 200.
Electoral Vote says: Senate: Dems 51, Reps 49; House: D 239, R 195 and 1 tie.
ThinkProgress: uses CNN early poll data to predict exactly six Senate gains and no losses for the Democrats.
Chris Bowers at MyDD says: Senate: Dems 50, Reps 50; House D 229, R 206.
Jonathan Singer at MyDD says: Governors: Dems 30, Reps 20.

Pro-Republican site
RealClearPolitics says: Governors: Dems 28, Reps 22; Senate: D 49, R 51. House: D 222, R 213.

In 2004, RCP got it right, the others were way out. We shall see.

My own view is that the Senate stays Republican but the House of Representatives goes Democrat. This is a good night for them after the débacles of 2002 and 2004. A majority of governorships will be useful, but California stays Republican.

Turnout: elector bums on seats

Kos writes about the U.S. Republican get out the vote effort (GOTV), which he says, will actually determine the outcome of the elections in two weeks.

The Congressman Foley affair is precisely the sort of scandal that can cause a small number, but spread across all the narrow contests, of Republican voters to just sit at home and not bother to vote. The only chance this had of turning into an advantage for the G.O.P. was if there were evidence that Democrats knew about the activities of Mark Foley, and did not act to protect underage youths from being harassed, for the sake of using the scandal at election time.

There is some feeling among Republican supporters that this is exactly what happened, so far from demoralizing Republicans, the scandal could reinforce the sense of partisanship, which is precisely what mid-term elections are won on.

I'm holding my prediction of no change in control of either House or Senate, but major Democrat gains in the Governor elections (apart from California, Florida and Texas).

Swedish hacker to swing the election?

Kristine Lowe offers a curious tale of 11:30pm press conferences to deflect attention from the opposition.

I can honestly say this is a new one to me.

The story of a hacker caught interfering in the intranet of the governing party is noteworthy however. This is surely, at face value, a Watergate-style violation.

Nice way to kick off Election Watch's coverage of Sweden's election campaign!

Updates from Kristine here and here.

A good idea!

A good idea!

Boing Boing: Wikipedia founder calls for political campaign wikis

A daft idea

I should have covered this earlier:

MyDD :: Movement to Render Electoral College Obsolete Gains

Counting the Gains, Ignoring the Losses

From the The Rothenberg Political Report, comes an assessment of the chances of U.S. Republicans winning some seats while the Democrats make inroads.

In summary, although pundits predict that Democrats will win enough seats in the U.S. House of Representatives to take control back for the first time since 1994 (I don't), they fail to take into account any Republican chances of local victories.

A Fascist is always a disappointed Socialist

One of the best kept secrets among the socialists of the world is that their favourite object of insults: "Fascist!" is in fact a mutation of themselves.

Benito Mussolini, the original Fascist Party leader, was of course the erudite Marxist intellectual, who translated the original version of Karl Marx's Das Kapital (Volume 3) into Italian, who wrote copiously about the injustices of capitalism, and who at gatherings of international socialists would take the chair, as his preeminence over such characters as Lenin was universally recognized in the movement.

Andres Lopez Obrador is taking the same route.

Mussolini took power in Italy in 1922 after staging the infamous "March on Rome". The reason being that he couldn't win an election.

After losing the Mexican presidential election, guess what?

The love that dare not speak it's name: pork barrel

A secretive U.S. Senator has put a "hold" on legislation proposed by colleagues from both parties in the Senate, Tom Cockburn (Republican, Oklahoma) and Barak Obama (Democrat, Illinois), which would require organisations that receive U.S. federal tax funds to be listed on a website, with the amount received.

Daily Kos thinks this is a disgraceful abuse of senatorial privileges. I agree.

I'm sure that under U.S. law it would be illegal to "out" the snivelling coward. Under British law, where I am writing, I suspect that this would not hold up in court. You can leave an anonymous comment here (see below).

Update: Busted! And you what what? I would have bet serious money the Porkmaster-General, Senator Robert (ex-KKK) Byrd (Democrat, West Virginia) was involved.

That's all right then!

Don't panic. The Alabama, U.S.A. Democratic Party has not disqualified an openly lesbian candidate from contesting a seat for the southern state's House of Representatives on the grounds that she's not straight.

The rule under which she was disqualified after winning the primary hadn't been enforced for over twenty years and neither the Party's candidates for Alabama Governor or Lieutenant Governor had followed it. It's not like the scandal would affect the result: no other candidate has registered to contest the full election.

No the reason is that Patricia Todd is WHITE and most of her voters and political colleagues are BLACK.

So that's all right then!

Details: Politics1 - American Politics, Elections, Candidates & Campaigns

powered by performancing firefox