"Quality" Wins

The latest Mark Penn spin -- namely that Obama doesn't have (to use a phrase that we will be hearing in a few weeks on Selection Sunday) any "quality wins" -- has gone over about as well as would be expected in the blogosphere.

But the MSM is making a mistake in thinking about attributing value to anything other than what matters at this point: namely, pledged (or earned) delegates.

Who won which state, or who is doing better with which Democrat voting bloc, or whether caucuses or primaries are a better test of voting, are all flawed. Take the last point, for instance.

Caucuses exist because they are cheap for the states. No polling places, no contested results, no mess. The local parties pay for their own facilities (caucus places) and they decide the rules.

Caucuses, from a campaign point of view, are expensive. They require relentless organization and effort. They are hard-to-predict. They usually (especially in Iowa) reward experience party operatives, and those people are heavily courted by presidential campaigns.

Sometimes, like John McCain did in 2000, and to a lesser extent this year, campaigns will make a strategic decision to write off the (Iowa) caucuses as being too "costly" both in terms of candidate time and money, but that means that the campaign has decided to invest in other locales. Or can't afford to play. Or both.

But it is usually the insurgent candidate that makes the decision to write off caucuses. The argument that the Clinton camp is currently making, saying that caucuses shouldn't count because they disadvantage Clinton supporters, should laugh-out-loud funny because it is Hillary, not Obama, who is the candidate of "institutional" support.

The fact that Obama has rung up wins in most of the caucuses following Iowa (where he won a truly contested caucus) is not an argument for discounting them; rather, the mismanagement of Clinton campaign resources (both organizational time and money) has allowed Obama to dominate the caucuses, which has been the real source of his current (and perhaps unsurmountable) delegate lead.

At the end of the day, to paraphrase another Democratic nominee, there is only one valid test for being the Democratic nominee: to accumulate more delegates than the other candidates.

Predictions: Iowa

Yes, yes, it's impossible to predict the Iowa caucuses, and the polls (especially those released in the last few days) are more likely to be wrong than right, but for just-for-the-heck of it, here's one view how the caucusing will go tonight, with one- or two-words of analysis (with kudos to the Daily Racing Form):

Republicans:
1. Romney - Muddy win
2. Huckabee - Bad homestretch
3. McCain - Closing
4. Giuliani - Went wide
5. Thompson - Broke down

Democrats:
1. Obama - Closed
2. Edwards - Holding on
3. Clinton - Faded
4. Biden - Classy, consistent
5. Dodd - Slow start


Post-Iowa Update:

Here's what the analysis should have been, with the apparent results at 12am:

GOP:
1. Huckabee - resolute
2. Romney - desperate
3. Thompson - uncertain
4. McCain - restarted
5. Giuliani - out-of-touch

Dems:
1. Obama - impressive kick
2. Edwards - clinging
3. Clinton - shaken
4. Richardson - surprising
5. Biden - distant
6. Dodd - quietly

Hillary and the Expectations Game

Could not agree more with Seth Gitell's recent post about the 'Hillary-in-free-fall' stories that are now rampant in the press. For instance, Howard Fineman's piece earlier in the week (clearly written pre-debate, although the dynamics did not change yesterday) is featured prominently on Drudge this afternoon. Billy Shaheen's comments over the past few days resulted in his resignation from the NH campaign yesterday, giving rise to a series of stories about a 'campaign-in-disarray'. And the New York Times' Adam Nagourney earlier in the week wrote a story emphasizing how the Clintons have never really campaigned in Iowa (the 1992 caucuses were ceded to favorite son Tom Harkin) and that there was tension between the President's advisors and the campaign's staff.

The reality is that as a former First Lady, with extremely high name-recognition, and a national front runner for months on end, expectations should be -- fairly -- for convincing wins everywhere. Moreover, the 'inevitability' argument that the Clinton campaign has been touting for months should be making a loss anywhere -- Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, or South Carolina -- a mortal wound.

(Just as a point of comparision -- and yes, it was a different era and before the Iowa caucuses took on their current importance -- but, LBJ 'lost' the New Hampshire primary in 1968, even though he received a majority (49%) of the votes, to Gene McCarthy's 42%.)

Yes, Hillary has had a bad month. Yes, Obama has proved to be an effective counter-puncher. And yes, there's still a lot of time left (although less time than the calendar would indicate, when one takes into account the days lost to Christmas and the holiday week.)

But right now, a win in Iowa for Hillary would effectively end the race. And even a convincing win by Obama there may not end the talk of a Clinton 'firewall' in New Hampshire, Nevada, or
South Carolina. Moreover, with the Democratic delegates reflecting proportional representation (see, e.g., 2004 NH Democratic results) -- rather than the closer-to-winner-take-all primaries on the GOP side (see 2000 Michigan results) -- meaning that a wounded Clinton campaign could continue on past Super Tuesday and into the Spring.

The Clinton campaign has one other advantage: a base level of support that is the flip side to her high negative ratings. While some voters will not vote for her under any circumstances, others -- and especially women -- want to vote in favor of the first truly viable woman candidate. It should surprise no one that Clinton's new ad is focused on three generation of "Rodham" women, all of who think Hillary should be president.

January 8th: Bad News for NH

Shortly before Thanksgiving, New Hampshire Secretary of State Bill Gardner did the expected: he set the date for the New Hampshire Primary to be January 8, 2008. And the big winner with that decision: The Iowa Caucuses.

Gardner, to his credit, felt that he was hamstrung by the NH statute that required the primary to be set at least seven days before any 'similar' event -- in this case, the Michigan primary, scheduled for January 15th. While most Democrats (all except Hillary and Mike Gravel) have eschewed the Michigan contest (to support to the DNC-mandated protection of the 'early' states), the Republicans expect to have a full-throated contest, which forced Gardner's hand.

While everyone has been focusing on the scant five-day period between Iowa and New Hampshire, it also matters which five days. Iowa itself is just two days after New Year's Day; and occurs on a Thursday. Coverage of Iowa will dominate the Friday (1/4) papers and broadcasts, and the "winners"(*) will also get the benefit of an additional day of bounce because Saturday (1/5) is a traditionally slow-news-day.

The battle to be on the Sunday (1/6) talk shows will pit Democrat against Republican, especially among those top-tier candidates who did not perform well in Iowa, and who need a New Hampshire bounce to stop the bleeding. Monday's (1/7) coverage will be about the
various candidates racing around the state, followed by 'soft' news stories about the early voting at Hart's Location and Dixville Notch.

The bottom line is that whomever "wins"(*) Iowa will have a huge leg up on New Hampshire, and that the cycle of press coverage is likely to make a double-winner -- like John Kerry did in 2004.

Meanwhile, somewhere in the US Capitol, Senator Lamar Alexander shakes his head and thinks of what might have been in 1996, a primary that was held on February 20th. (Alexander finished a strong third in Iowa, behind Senator Bob Dole and TV commentator Pat Buchanan; Buchanan then won New Hampshire, but Dole held off Alexander by a mere 6,000 votes, meaning that Dole became the 'insider' hope to prevent a Buchanan nomination.)

(*) - "win" means to perform above press expectations, and/or win outright.

"I Was Wondering What that Song Was..."

Mitt Romney in Iowa, wondering what song is playing in the background. (Hat tip: MassLive (Springfield Republican) and Politico.)

Hillary: Skipping Iowa?

A 'leaked' memo apparently advises Hillary Clinton to skip Iowa's first-in-the-nation caucuses. The Clintons have never competed in Iowa (Bill skipped Iowa in 1992 on the grounds that Iowa's Tom Harkin would dominate the caucuses anyways), and Hillary apparently is having trouble making up ground on current leader John Edwards.

But the bet here is that Hillary declares that she "is in Iowa to stay" on her next trip. Perhaps that announcement will jump-start her Iowa efforts.

Nominees Finish...Second?

Today's Globe article by Scott Helman featuring a leaked (or perhaps lost) Romney campaign strategy memo contains the following:

The plan concedes that, with McCain and Giuliani in the race, Romney is unlikely to be the top pick for those voters looking for a "war/strong leader." His goal appears to be establishing himself as a credible second choice for those voters, but the first pick for voters looking for an energetic, optimistic, and innovative chief executive. (A page titled "Own the future" dubs McCain the past, Giuliani the present, and Romney the future. )

Running for second place, or at least running to be the second choice of McCain- or Giuliani-supporters is a little reminescent of the last Massachusetts politician to run for President:

Bumper Sticker in Iowa and NH: "Dated Dean, Married Kerry."

Vilsack's Out

Former Iowa Governor Tom Vilsack is apparently dropping out of the Presidential race this morning. Much like Senator Evan Bayh, who dropped out just days after declaring, the surprise is that these candidates, having geared up for years to prepare themselves for what is a long slog, can determine in a matter of days or weeks that it's not going to happen. The days of Jimmy Carter meeting individual Iowa caucus-goers ahead of the national press are certainly a distant memory; perhaps a true national primary is now upon us.

Post-Announcment Iowa

Drudge is reporting that Hillary has "Jumped a to 17-Point Lead Over Edwards In Iowa Poll."

However, upon further inspection the American Research Group (ARG) polls shows little movement, if any, among the major contenders from December (before any of the major announcements) to January(post-annoucements):

January numbers:

Clinton 35%
Edwards 18%
Obama 14%
Vilsack 12%

In December, the numbers looked as follows:

Clinton 31%
Edwards 20%
Obama 10%
Vilsack 17%

The margin of error in the latest poll is +/-4%.

The biggest 'mover' in the poll, on a percentage basis, was "Undecided", which jumped from 8% to 13% (an increase of 63%). Perhaps "likely Iowan caucus goers" realize that there's still a year to go before caucusing commences.

A President's Obligation

Hillary Clinton raised an interesting point over the weekend in Iowa. Speaking of Bush's plan, she said:

I think it’s the height of irresponsibility and I really resent it — this was his decision to go to war, he went with an ill-conceived plan, an incompetently executed strategy, and we should expect him to extricate our country from this before he leaves office.

Today, the Naval admiral that will likely lead the US forces in Iraq, William Fallon, pointed to what "victory" might look like:

And maybe we ought to redefine the goals here a bit and do something that's more realistic in terms of getting some progress and then maybe take on the other things later...I think that we would probably be wise to temper our expectations here, that the likelihood that Iraq is suddenly going to turn into something that looks close to what we enjoy here in this country is going to be a long time coming.

The Administration may be preparing, in the words of George Aiken, to take Hillary's advice and find a way to 'declare victory and go home.'