So this figures to be a very late night, but I'll give NH its moment.
After all, the world only gives a shit about it for a couple weeks (and one big night) every four years. One thing is true, and not just media hype: thus far, this is a primary season unlike any other. It's enough to make someone as lame as me really excited. Here are some ideas, feel free to add your own alongside your reactions.
1. I had some serious doubts about Fred Thompson's viability, but I'm not going to pretend that I thought he'd be this bad. I'm past pointing out the obvious (he's finished) and now I'm simply marveling at the historical shittiness of his stillborn campaign. Remember when all those right-wingers were so excited about him? Good times.
2. Hillary Clinton has really dug in her heels and made a stand. Can anyone be optimistic about her odds, though? After she gets her ass handed to her in South Carolina (and probably Nevada) she will be, at best, 1-for-4 in January. Assuming she hangs on tonight, is having a narrow win over Obama in New England really an inspiring accomplishment for hat-hanging? This is a state in which she should be cruising. Instead it's 10:30 PM and she's sweating it out. Kudos to her for her victory, but I can't say it inspires confidence.
3. Giuliani is pathetic. Despite his repeated insistence that he wasn't trying to win the early races (a dubious strategy in any case) he spent more than almost any other candidate – $3 million plus. And he's duking out 4th place with Crazy Uncle Ron Paul's circus sideshow. When you're neck-and-neck with the joke candidate, things are not going well for you.
4. This story does an excellent job of illustrating how little public opinion polling is worth.
5. Mike Huckabee did better than I thought – he cracked the top 3 – but it's fairly obvious how limited his appeal is outside of Jesusland. If, as I suspect, this is McCain's high point (a la 2000), I still think that Romney is well-positioned. The commentators are speaking of him in dire terms, but the guy has a shitload of money and is the middle ground between the religious zealot and the 71 year-old war cheerleader.
6. Almost 60% of the voters in New Hampshire took Democratic ballots. That's two straight lopsided margins in favor of the Democrats. It will be very interesting to see how this shakes out in SC.
7. If Edwards is serious about refusing to exit the race prior to the convention, he's A) delusional and B) going to do significant harm to Obama.
Things feel very unclear at the moment, and I suspect that anyone who argues otherwise is lying.
buy xenical Canada buy xenical online no prescription
Brandon says:
Good points, Ed. I do, think, however, that Hillary
Ed says:
Oh, I don't think she's unviable. No one with $90 million on January 1 can be considered anything but a serious contender.
I do, however, think she is in a lot more trouble than SHE thinks. Her attitude for the last 4 years (up to about….oh, a week ago) has been that she is the presumptive nominee and this process is just a rubber stamp to anoint her. Pride like that usually comes right before the fall.
Historically, the primary process simply does not work the way she's expecting – lose a bunch at the beginning but then be really competitive later. I know that's her plan, and I understand your logic too. But if she succeeds in doing so, she'll be the first.
The only person to win the nomination after starting poorly (again, I'm assuming that things aren't going to go well for her in SC or NV) was Bill Clinton – he lost IA and NH in 1992. But he was running against f'n Paul Tsongas. I question Hillary's ability to have a mediocre-to-bad January and then just snap her fingers and win a bunch on Super Tuesday.
j tyler says:
I wonder if the only reason why Obama didn't fair better is because there aren't enough young people in New Hampshire.
As pointed out elsewhere, it seems that Obama got a bump in Iowa from other candidates below the 15% so it stands to reason that he will improve assuming more candidates drop. Especially Edwards as you pointed out.
The Democrat nomination has become a lot more interesting, if Obama won then he would have been the apparent choice going into super tuesday…Now its back demographics. Clinton will win Florida because of older white possible Jewish women, Obama will beat Clinton in SC because he is black and the population is younger…etc
I disagree with NH being McCain's high point, with the traditional Republicans running to his side instead of Huckabee and the assumption that he is more electable against whoever the Dems nominate, he still has a fighting chance. With evangelicals backing Huckabee and other Republicans having McCain…I think Romney is out.
Ed says:
Did you see McCain's "victory speech?" I'd bet the establishment GOP is having some serious doubts about his electability too. It has to be one of the worst political performances I've ever seen. On MSNBC they were laughing so hard you could barely hear him….
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/01/08/john-mccains-less-than-victorious-victory-speech/#more-25135
Michael says:
While I firmly believe that Bill Richardson would make the best president on either side, and Kucinich would've already been president if he sounded like Obama and looked like Romney, Obama's only real threat at this point from D or R is Mike Bloomberg. Well, that and a bolt-action rifle in the hands of some troglodyte.
Hillary Clinton is so entirely a political Magic 8 Ball willing to play the game (e.g., endless war, corporate wealthfare, energy industry fellatio, etc.) even more than her husband that, even though Barack has (inevitably) been surrounded by the usual cult of election consultant drones, the substance of his candidacy will surely show H. Clinton for the bag of vinegar and ambition that constitutes her life, let alone her candidacy.
Unless Bloomberg comes in, which I fervently hope does not happen; the guy is dangerous. No one worth billions who presides over the artificial housing shortage, among many other willful acts of callous governing, here in NYC should be allowed to run this country. It couldn't be worse than the current situation, but it could be as bad in different ways.
BK says:
Hillary is not done, and a 1-4 in January won't matter a whole lot come Super Tuesday.
I also argue that Hillary will do well in states with closed primaries – she polls well with registered Dems whereas Obama's strength has been with independents and young voters (who, let's be honest, are not the most reliable voting block).
Here's the list of closed primary states, there are some notable big delegate states, which this is all about anyway. Don't lose sight of the fact not all primaries are winner take all. Obama and Clinton have the same number of delegates right now after both received them Iowa and Hew Hampshire
Arizona
California
Connecticut
Delaware
District of Columbia
Florida
Kentucky
Maryland
Massachusetts
Nebraska
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Dakota
Utah
West Virginia
Brandon says:
"I do, however, think she is in a lot more trouble than SHE thinks. Her attitude for the last 4 years (up to about….oh, a week ago) has been that she is the presumptive nominee and this process is just a rubber stamp to anoint her. Pride like that usually comes right before the fall."
Ed, I think you're entirely correct that this was her attitude coming into the campaign, but I think it's safe to say that ever since Iowa, she realizes she can't take anything for granted, and that even after victory last night, it will be an uphill battle. I mean, do you honestly think that she still views the campaign as a rubber stamp?
Desmond says:
On McCain's speech, I was also struck by the ridiculous over-enthusiasm of his supporters. They seemed to cheer wildly on every other word, especially when he mentioned God (which was often).
For a while I was thinking he might be the most serious threat to the Democratic nominee, but after that laughable performance…I dunno. It's not clear how much Republican support he has outside of New Hampshire, either.
Ed says:
BK, what's the historical precedent for candidates doing poorly pre-Super Tuesday and then cleaning up when that day arrives? You seem pretty confident that something which has never been done before is in fact highly likely to happen.
Bill Clinton is the only person to do poorly early and then win. And he was running against Paul Tsongas and Jerry Brown. Hillary is not running against Paul Tsongas and Jerry Brown.
BK says:
Ed –
Contrary to mainstream thought, I'm not sure historical precendent is the best indicator when it comes to the democtatic nomination.
The two front runners are a woman and a black man. Both have substantial resources. One has the best political machine in the race inherited from her husband and the other one comes in as a fresh face. This isn't anything we've seen before.
Polling data I've seen shows Hillary does very well with the party faithful – Obama does well with indes and non-party members.
Clearly, when push came to shove in NH, Clinton – in sharp contrast to what even her internal polling data showed – won by 3%
I don't have a crystal ball, but if I did and I was reading it honestly I would think it would look very clowdy.
dbsmall says:
In my astounding naivete (or incisively cynical realism), I see the primaries as little more than PR/marketing campaigns for the parties.
Oh, sure, it gives them the ability to switch things up if they colossally mispredicted things. But mostly, it's a chance to get news coverage and give the appearance that the "chosen candidate" was chosen by the people, rather than a few decision-makers at party HQ.
Clinton is the chosen candidate for the Dems. [They believe there are more racists than sexists in the country, perhaps? I don't know.]
What's less clear is who the GOP will put up. If they're smart, it's McCain…the only one who has a chance to draw voters from outside the party.