Fighting Baucus And Grassley From Within

The only way you can really get to a Max Baucus or a Charles Grassley is by threatening their job security. In particular, Grassley is up for re-election next year, in a state that went for Barack Obama by a fairly hefty margin. If I didn't know better, I'd say that Rep. Bruce Braley, chair of the Populist Caucus in the House, is setting himself up for a challenge to him.

Grassley used scare tactics last week at a town hall meeting in Iowa to convince voters that optional coverage for end-of-life counseling in the House health care reform bill would force people to "pull the plug on grandma" (even though he supported a nearly identical end-of-life counseling provision in a 2003). Earlier this week, Grassley told reporters that even if a health care plan included the changes he's been pushing for, he likely wouldn't support it if it didn't attract the support of more than a few of his GOP colleagues. Today, the Washington Post reported that Senator Grassley has begun calling for "scaled back" health care reform.

For someone who claims he wants to help forge a bipartisan health care plan, Senator Grassley sure isn't acting very bipartisan. In fact, he's been behaving like someone who wants to see meaningful health care reform defeated [...]

Senator Grassley is in a stronger position than just about anyone to bring Republicans on board with Democrats to achieve the health care reform we need. But when he uses the same rhetoric as pundits advising Republicans to "just kill it" and a Republican Senator who wants to make health care President Obama's "Waterloo," why would the President or Senator Baucus think he is their ally in achieving meaningful health care reform?

Sadly, it appears that Senator Grassley has decided to put his party before what's best for the people of this country.

The Des Moines Register has already floated the rumor about a "mystery" Democratic candidate willing to take on Grassley. Braley has certainly become more vocal in his criticisms. And the fact that Grassley immediately released a statement attacking Braley shows that he is sensitive to this rumor. I don't know if an announced challenge would put Grassley on the defensive, but it sure couldn't hurt.

As for Baucus, he doesn't come back up for re-election until 2014. But Montanans are split on his actions on health care to this point. 42% approve and 44% disapprove. Baucus has previously been fairly popular in the state, now a public option is more popular than he is, and if he helps to kill a health care reform bill, his numbers will plummet. The Montana Democratic Party is trying to cover for Baucus by sending around the Paul Begala article telling Democrats to accept half a loaf, but based on the polling, that's not working.

I'm not certain either of these two arrogant members of the House of Lords are reachable, but the road to reaching them runs through their home states.

"...No, It's Iowa."

The Iowa Supreme Court today ruled unanimously that a 1998 state law banning same-sex marriage is unconstitutional.

The Iowa Supreme Court this morning struck down a 1998 state law that limits marriage to one man and one woman.

The ruling is viewed as a victory for the gay rights movement in Iowa and elsewhere, and a setback for social conservatives who wanted to protect traditional families.

The decision makes Iowa the first Midwestern state, and the fourth nationwide, to allow same-sex marriages. Lawyers for Lambda Legal, a gay rights group that financed the court battle and represented the couples, had hoped to use a court victory to demonstrate acceptance of same-sex marriage in heartland America.

Here's the opinion and the summary. You may be wondering whether Iowa can pull a Prop. 8 and reverse the decision at the ballot box. It's a little more difficult to do there under state law.

Some Iowa lawmakers, mostly Republicans, attempted last year to launch a constitutional amendment to specifically prohibit same-sex marriage.

Such a change would require approval in consecutive legislative sessions and a public vote, which means a ban would could not be put in place until at least 2012 unless lawmakers take up the issue in the next few weeks.

“If you’ll remember when we proposed the Iowa marriage amendment, the Democrats’ excuse for not taking it up was that it was in the hands of the Iowa Supreme Court,” Senate Republican leader Paul McKinley of Chariton said Friday. “It was implied that should they find against traditional marriage, that the Legislature would handle that. I would certainly hope they’ll keep their promise.”

Democrats run the House and Senate in Iowa, and could conceivably bottle this up in their respective Judiciary Committees. Even if they didn't, same-sex marriage will be the law of the land for a minimum of three years in Iowa.

Change happens slowly...

...I should add that the Vermont state House voted to allow gay marriage by a 95-52 count. The Republican governor Jim Douglas is expected to veto, but activists feel they have a shot to override it.

Battle Royale

This is the kind of stuff that happens shortly after an election, not 10 days prior:

Even as John McCain and Sarah Palin scramble to close the gap in the final days of the 2008 election, stirrings of a Palin insurgency are complicating the campaign's already-tense internal dynamics.

Four Republicans close to Palin said she has decided increasingly to disregard the advice of the former Bush aides tasked to handle her, creating occasionally tense situations as she travels the country with them. Those Palin supporters, inside the campaign and out, said Palin blames her handlers for a botched rollout and a tarnished public image — even as others in McCain's camp blame the pick of the relatively inexperienced Alaska governor, and her public performance, for McCain's decline.

"She's lost confidence in most of the people on the plane," said a senior Republican who speaks to Palin, referring to her campaign jet. He said Palin had begun to "go rogue" in some of her public pronouncements and decisions.

"I think she'd like to go more rogue," he said.

This is one of those delicious stories that we've seen about Democrats for the past several years, but I have a quibble. This is NOT an insurgency. This is jockeying for position inside the party from a position of strength. John McCain is not the future of the GOP - I wouldn't be at all surprised if he went ahead and retired next year. Sarah Palin has the biggest stage in the world for the next ten days and she's going to use it to try to set herself up for a run in 2012.

Check this out today from Iowa (Palin has been in Iowa and New Hampshire in recent days):

SARAH PALIN: John and I will adopt the all-of-the-above approach to meet America's great energy challenges. Yes. [crowd cheers] [...] That means harnessing alternative energy sources, like the wind and the solar and the biomass and the geothermal -- and the ethanol!

A politician pandering to push ethanol in Iowa is unremarkable. But John McCain has made opposition to ethanol subsidies one of the bedrocks of his campaign, an example of how he puts his "country first." You know, we actually don't need to have these massive subsidies to the corn industry, but that's besides the point. Palin is no longer promoting the ticket, she's promoting herself.

It's kind of fascinating to watch, I must admit. Palin has gone completely off message and McCain's staffers are rebelling. They're going public with the recriminations, maybe out of some belief that she would destroy the party as its titular head. I don't know if it's true or not. She has captured the hearts of the hardcore base, and most of the rest of the party is running for cover. Given who's left, I see no reason why she wouldn't be able to consolidate the remnants. She's obviously got the fundie side locked up, and she's charging hard for the economic royalists:

Sarah Palin had a few memorable moments during her campaign stop in Des Moines, Iowa, on Saturday. But the most eye-opening of them all came, it would appear, when the Alaska Governor somehow drew a connection between Barack Obama's tax policy and an encroaching, nightmarish, communist government. The Illinois Democrat, she hysterically suggested, would, through his proposals, create a country "where the people are not free."

"See, under a big government, more tax agenda, what you thought was yours would really start belonging to somebody else, to everybody else. If you thought your income, your property, your inventory, your investments were, were yours, they would really collectively belong to everybody. Obama, Barack Obama has an ideological commitment to higher taxes, and I say this based on his record... Higher taxes, more government, misusing the power to tax leads to government moving into the role of some believing that government then has to take care of us. And government kind of moving into the role as the other half of our family, making decisions for us. Now, they do this in other countries where the people are not free. Let us fight for what is right. John McCain and I, we will put our trust in you."

I don't see a lot to complain about from the Big Money Boyz. And if there's one thing those types like, it's an empty suit (or an empty $150,000 wardrobe) to fill with their conservative mantras. Not to mention how they love a figure who is misunderestimated.

The war to blame either McCain or Palin in the aftermath is going to be so intense that it's already started. And the damning with faint praise we're seeing from McCain allies (Lieberman, Ridge) is part of that brawl. But I'm not certain that can stop her. She's going for it.

...McCain's people calling her a diva is really kind of amusing. It's the SAME attack they made on Barack Obama through the summer. They couldn't manage to mix it up a bit?

Hot Under The Collar

McCain shows off some of that trademark hot temper with the Des Moines Register editorial board.



More clips here and here. Wow, McCain can't stand being challenged. Don't these writers know that he deserves the Presidency by fiat?

Meanwhile, Mike Murphy (of all people) gets it right that McCain has no business being in Iowa in the first place. It's a sure loser for McCain and a total waste of resources, and just another opportunity for him to get angry.

Of course, his NPR interview this morning went the same way. The campaign narrative got set when nobody was looking. McCain is running a dishonorable campaign and the Palin pick was a stunt, and everybody knows it. It must be killing him at some level that he's been unmasked. He's now denying his slanders within minutes of saying them. What an empty suit.

Bottom Of The Ticket

McCain can't hold a crowd in Iowa:

McCain starts speaking 18 minutes into the rally. He begins by reminiscing about the State Fair. "I'm very grateful to be here. We intend to campaign hard across the state of Iowa again...I think we're going to be up late on Election Night, my friends, and we're going to need your help."

I look up, about five minutes into McCain's address and see a steady stream of people walking out of the rally. They just came to see Palin apparently.

The hard-core wingers want their tabula rasa gal at the top of the ticket. The problem for them is that she's divisive and her charm is fading. Markos is right - the intense focus on her made sense to drive up her negatives. Now that the financial ship has hit the iceberg, thoughts turn back to McCain, and his own party faithful don't want to hear from him.

This isn't ending the way the Disney movie would.

...wow, I missed this:



A Palin and McCain Administration?

Lead On Energy Now Or Follow Later

Apparently the "Drill Now! Wait Eight Years! Yell Again To Drill Now" crowd of Republicans has cowed the Democratic leadership into halting all efforts at moving on energy bills for the rest of the year. They took sensible lines of attack, like demanding that oil companies actually drill on the fields they have already leased instead of holding them in reserve to add to their stock price, and let them go.

Just before leaving for their districts, a number of House Democrats called a press conference to declare victory on a number of energy bills — including overwhelming passage of a bill to rein in excessive oil market speculation.
Democrats declared victory on a bill they failed to pass on the suspension calendar — their “use it or lose it bill” to force energy companies to either start drilling on their federally leased land or give it back — saying they had put 176 Republicans on record as siding with the oil companies over consumers.

And they vowed that the bill, the centerpiece of their energy message, would be back.

“We’ve taken some bold steps this week, and we’re going to build on that [after recess] with the bills we take up,” Democratic Caucus Vice Chairman John Larson (Conn.) said at the press conference.

But, as of Monday afternoon, neither “use it or lose it” nor any other energy measure had been scheduled for floor action this week.

Democrats said they were simply taking a different approach to passing their top energy-related priorities.

The approach should be to fight back. For example, the fact that in the last two days major oil developers have admitted that there's nothing left to drill and high prices are a new reality might be a place to start. For example:

Chip Johnson, the president and chief executive of Carrizo Oil and Gas, a Houston-based company, said he was “confused” by “such wild swings.” But he added: “I can’t see oil getting cheap again ever. It’s just too hard to find, and too many people want to use it.”

Example two, from T. Boone Pickens, fercryinoutloud:

Can’t we just produce more oil?

World oil production peaked in 2005. Despite growing demand and an unprecedented increase in prices, oil production has fallen over the last three years. Oil is getting more expensive to produce, harder to find and there just isn’t enough of it to keep up with demand.

The simple truth is that cheap and easy oil is gone.

So the Democrats can cede the point to the "Drill Now" crowd, and implicitly agree that more production is the answer, or they can offer a cleaner, safer, renewable alternative that will actually be cheaper over time and help save the planet from ruin as an added benefit.



One thing we can do is open up the ethanol market to all countries, and end our subsidy program for the corn industry. By the way, if anyone thinks the primary process isn't detrimental to the nation and its priorities, consider the harm done to the global food market by pleasing Iowan farmers. Illinois also has a lot of corn production, which is why Sen. Obama has been historically in favor of it. As he transitions into a national politician, he needs to allow the global ethanol market to prosper instead of the parochial one, and focus far more strongly on renewable sources rather than alternative fuels which expend just as much (if not more) energy to produce. He's starting to do that, but he needs to also educate his party. Obama's energy ad stated up-front that "McCain and Bush support a drilling plan that won't produce a drop of oil for seven years." So both the leadership and the candidate need to show improvement here. They both need to talk to Mark Begich.

Photo-Op Buddies

No surprise that President Bush parachuted into Iowa, spending lots of resources and the attention of law enforcement, to "show people that he cares". John McCain, of course, just had to follow him, even though the Governor asked him to lay off:

An aide to Gov. Chet Culver said Thursday that Republican presidential candidate John McCain ignored the governor's request to cancel a campaign visit amid a massive flood recovery effort in the state.

McCain toured flood-damaged sites in Iowa on Thursday, including the town of Columbus Junction in the southeast.

Patrick Dillon, Culver's chief of staff, said the governor was concerned that McCain's trip would divert local law enforcement from the flood recovery effort to provide security for McCain.

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama canceled a scheduled visit to eastern Iowa last week at the request of state officials.

McCain also opposed funding for flood control in Des Moines as recently as last year.

But he did show up with a camera crew in tow. He "cares." Isn't the first time he's used a backdrop whose funding he called for cutting.

UPDATE: Obama took a whack at McCain on this today.

And just the other day, Senator McCain traveled to Iowa to express his sympathies for the victims of the recent flooding. I’m sure they appreciated the sentiment, but they probably would have appreciated it more if he hadn’t voted against funding for levees and flood control programs, which he seems to consider pork. Well, we do have to reform budget earmarks, cut genuine pork, and dispense with unnecessary spending, as we confront a budget crisis left by the most fiscally irresponsible administration in modern times.

But when it comes to rebuilding America’s essential but crumbling infrastructure, we need to do more, not less. Cities across the Midwest are under water right now or courting disaster not just because of the weather, but because we’ve failed to protect them. Maintaining our levees and dams isn’t pork barrel spending, it’s an urgent priority, and that’s what we’ll do when I’m President. I’ll also launch a National Infrastructure Reinvestment Bank that will invest $60 billion over ten years, and create nearly two million new jobs. The work will be determined by what will maximize our safety, security, and shared prosperity. Instead of building bridges to nowhere, let’s build communities that meet the needs and reflect the dreams of our families. That’s what this bank will help us do.

The larger point is that McCain makes no distinction between "pork" and infrastructure investments that are vital economically. It allows him to demagogue about "reducing government spending" in a blind and morally corrupt way. McCain's America is one where bridges in Minneapolis fall down.

Shiftless And Lazy

The flooding in Iowa all flowed into the Mississippi River, and now it's a floating hazard running downstream, encountering levees throughout the Midwest and breaching them. 19 levees in all have been compromised in cities in Iowa and Illinois. This is going to play out for the entire week, and Bush is back from his European vacation vowing quick action.

This is a disaster, but it's largely a property disaster. Towns on the river are not surrounded by water on all sides, they have plenty of notice, and deaths have been thankfully minimal. Most reasonable people would see this and be happy that this is not the challenge residents faced on the Gulf Coast. Rush Limbaugh sees it and can only see color.

Limbaugh: I want to know. I look at Iowa, I look at Illinois—I want to see the murders. I want to see the looting. I want to see all the stuff that happened in New Orleans. I see devastation in Iowa and Illinois that dwarfs what happened in New Orleans. I see people working together. I see people trying to save their property…I don’t see a bunch of people running around waving guns at helicopters, I don’t see a bunch of people running shooting cops. I don’t see a bunch of people raping people on the street. I don’t see a bunch of people doing everything they can…whining and moaning—where’s FEMA, where’s BUSH. I see the heartland of America. When I look at Iowa and when I look at Illinois, I see the backbone of America.

How must it feel to be so aggrieved that any opportunity to denounce blacks as lazy is taken. Never mind that there was one high-profile black man who was working on the front lines of the floods in the Midwest.



Now I could go ahead and debunk all of Rush's lies. The devastation in New Orleans and the Gulf was orders of magnitude above that of Iowa. Nobody in New Orleans shot at cops. The lurid stories of rape and gang warfare weren't true. But there is no point, really. Because all we're seeing here is a stone racist, convinced of his own biases, assured of his beliefs in how Heartland Americans are real Americans.

These next eight years of a black President are going to put him over the top.

Midwest Katrina?

I'm cooped up in a TV-free office, but is this getting the attention it deserves?

Hospital patients in wheelchairs and on stretchers were evacuated in the middle of the night as the biggest flood Cedar Rapids has ever seen swamped more than 400 blocks Friday and all but cut off the supply of clean drinking water in the city of 120,000.

As many as 10,000 townspeople driven from their homes by the rain-swollen Cedar River took shelter at schools and hotels or moved in with relatives.

About 100 miles to the west, the Des Moines River threatened to spill over the levees into downtown Des Moines, prompting officials in Iowa's biggest city to urge people in low-lying areas to clear out by Friday evening. The river was expected to crest a couple of hours later.

"We are perilously close to topping the levees," said Bill Stowe, public works director in the Iowa capital, population 190,000. He added: "It's time to step out of harm's way."

Only two deaths have been reported so far, but without clean drinking water in Cedar Rapids and the potential for topped levees in Des Moines the situation is, pardon the pun, fluid. There's a local report at this blog and also Iowa Independent. I was out in Des Moines last September and made some friends there, so I hope they're OK.

More broadly, I have to agree with Matt Stoller here. Storms and disruptive weather events like this are catalyzing. They actually do shape opinion if organizations bother to make the proper connections. In this case, the main environmental groups are not.

None of these stories mention climate change, yet, as Joe Romm points out, extreme downpours are exactly what the NOAA found is increasingly common in the last fifty years, with "a 20 percent increase in "very heavy rain events", and these fit with global warming prediction models. Romm goes on to point out that "2007 saw the second most extreme precipitation over the United States in the historical record, according to NCDC's Climate Extremes Index."

So one would think the press would cover global warming in the context of extreme weather. Of course journalists don't. But is this a media problem? Yes, but it's not just a media problem. I looked at the home pages and press pages of the Sierra Club, NRDC, Environmental Defense, the League of Conservation Voters, and Al Gore's We Can Solve It. The Sierra Club is asking for higher mileage standards on cars, NRDC is discussing lead and growing support for action on global warming, the League of Conservation Voters brags about its recent endorsement of Gabrielle Giffords, Environmental Defense asks for lower gas prices, and We Can Solve It puts its new ad front and center.

So yes, the media isn't tying the Iowa floods to global warming. But then, neither are the major environmental groups. As these extreme weather events become more common due to global warming, there will be more competition to tie these events to climate change policy action, a sort of Shock Doctrine in reverse. One interesting irony is that Iowa is ground zero for these floods, and it was in Iowa where none of the major environmental groups backed a candidate - Ed Fallon - calling for a moratorium on coal versus conservative Democrat Leonard Boswell that wants to continue tax breaks for oil companies. Gore, of course, endorsed Boswell, and he and Tipper maxed out to him.

You shouldn't expect people to put two and two together if the leading voices remain silent.

She Can't Win

If this outcome in Iowa is any indication, the activist Democrats, basically the superdelegates, are simply not going to deliver the election to Clinton no matter what she does. In Iowa, Obama gained 10 delegates and Clinton lost 1 at the county convention, as Edwards delegates drifted to him. This is the delegate poaching that Clinton has claimed is within the bounds, so I don't see how she can object. The system simply wasn't designed for a close race like this, so the inequities in the system are all coming out, but clearly, this says to me that superdelegates and activists aren't moving toward Clinton no matter how many kitchen sinks she throws at Obama.

Clearly Clinton will have to win with the voters, which of course she can't do from the standpoint of pledged delegates. And the popular vote is out of reach, particularly if the do-over in Michigan comes to pass.

There is no path to a nomination. And yet somehow, Pennsylvania is still a "battleground".

Richardson Out

So now we're down to three (five with Kucinich and Gravel, if you want to be charitable). This "Iowa and New Hampshire didn't matter meme" is simply wrong. It mattered plenty. In these states where retail politics is supposed to be important, where you can't buy the race, they winnowed the field down to the two candidates who raised $100 million dollars. And I would argue that it was because there was this February 5th backstop that demanded a quick start. If raising money is a key factor in picking a candidate then so be it. But let's be honest about it.

Don't be fooled into thinking this primary system is somehow fixed.

On a side note, I met Bill Richardson out in San Diego at the state convention. Nice enough guy, couldn't stand his domestic agenda, particularly the insidious "I'm a pro-growth Democrat" theme.

The Dwindling Options For Obama's Challengers

Hillary Clinton actually gave a pretty nice speech at the NH Democratic Party "100 Club" Dinner. She emphasized some issues you don't much hear about on the campaign trail, like mental health care and the moral imperative of the United States helping deal with the severe Iraqi refugee crisis. But Barack Obama blew her off the stage, to the extent that she almost shouldn't put herself in that position to suffer from the comparison. Obama is simply in his element in the speechifying format; Clinton is not. That doesn't mean one is a better candidate than the other, though oratory is a key element of being President, especially after 8 years of "Is our children learning." But when you have these duelling speeches you're clearly playing on Obama's turf.

Another thing she shouldn't be doing is trying to create a boogeyman out of Obama's "progressive" record. This is pretty much the only thing holding the entire blogosphere back from running into Obama's waiting arms, and these kind of potshots from a right-wing perspective are infuriating because it brings down the party and makes the liberal viewpoint look like a bad thing.

Hillary's aides point to Obama's extremely progressive record as a community organizer, state senator and candidate for Congress, his alliances with "left-wing" intellectuals in Chicago's Hyde Park community, and his liberal voting record on criminal defendants' rights as subjects for examination.

(Edwards is no saint on this either, by calling Obama a sellout to corporate America, which I think is a bit strong.)

The problems for Clinton and Edwards are manifest. There's only five days between Iowa and New Hampshire, not enough time to stop Obama's momentum without a major gaffe. And Obama isn't likely to provide that (though watch Clinton and Edwards go after him hard in tomorrow night's debate).

And on the Republican side, it's even worse. There's a caucus tomorrow in Wyoming. Not that the media has noticed; why would they take heed of a small state that's mostly white and in the middle of nowhere? That would be nutty!

I keep hearing not to count out Hillary Clinton, but with the inevitability balloon punctured, and with really only two business days until primary day, I don't see her finding a way to win.

UPDATE: Just a little more about Obama's speech. He does have this way of making you feel listened to. He directly addressed concerns of naîvete, concerns that hope may equal blind optimism, et cetera:

"I know how hard it will be to get the insurance companies and drug companies pushed back so we can actually deliver universal health care. I know climate change and educational reform don't lend themselves to easy change. I know because I've fought these battles out on the streets. I know because I've seen good legislation fail, because those with good intentions didn't have the powerful sway or the political will to overcome the obstacles. I know how hard this is going to be."

He then goes on to say that every gain we've had was the result of a few people's commitment to change, and that if you know who you're fighting for, you can talk to the other side and get them on board. Which is true, but not really an answer in the face of expected Republican intransigence (which of course is a problem for any Democratic President). Still, you do feel that the concern is at least taken into account, that there is a plan to deal with it.

Out Come The Knives

I just don't think going relentlessly negative is going to work against a movement candidate. Hillary Clinton has every right to draw contrast, but calling herself "the most innocent" as if Obama and Edwards have something to hide is silly. The only notable part of her speech last night was when she congratulated the party on bringing so many people in to the caucuses. Now she's trying to slash and burn that with a fairly cynical politics.

Politicians do this because negative campaigning works, normally. But against someone who has built a grassroots coalition, I'm not so sure. Especially when it's into the headwinds of momentum. Barring a major meltdown at tomorrow's debate, I think Obama will catch up and take New Hampshire. Chris Bowers, offering an alternative viewpoint, thinks there's less momentum to be had.

Oh, This Is Delicious

GOP Race In Total Disarray, says the Drudgico.

Stephen Green speaks for most wingnut bloggers who are actually contemptible of "regular people," calling Iowans "corn-sucking idiots" for picking the non-millionaire.

The National Review is imploding, as Tagg Romney sees his inheritance go to some ad sales director in Des Moines with nothing to show for it.

Fred Thompson is resting, and offered this STIRRING oratory:

"It looks like somebody is going to need to carry a strong, consistent, conservative message — and it looks like it ought to be me."

It's a great day to be a Democrat.

(But it's good news for John McCain, because as we know, everything is good news for John McCain.)

Rhymes With "Going To Be Out Of A Job In A Month"

First of all, Satan is an off-rhyme, at best, and really not a rhyme at all.

Second, why are Biden and Dodd dropping out when California is SO important and a whole month away?

Third, watch those tracking polls in California over the next week. Will they differ by even a point from the national numbers? Signs point to no. That would kind of be the key. A bunch of candidates spending money in a primary state when it grows closer is the lamest justification you could ever make for moving up the primary. It's Mr. Magoo-like in its myopia. "Californians actually showed up for the primary, proving it was a good idea to have the primary!"

Fourth, you'd think someone looking dead in the face at lame-duck status in 33 days would have better things to do than care what some dude on the Internets has to say.

John McCain Won Big Among People Who Voted For John McCain

Well, from my watch party-eye's view it seemed to me that it wouldn't be possible to spin the win for McCain after such a decisive victory from Huckabee. But apparently, I was mistaken.

Tonight is a fantastic night for John McCain. … He’s one of the biggest winners of the night. He’s now in a fantastic position. Except for Barack Obama, there’s almost no one you’d rather be tonight than John McCain.

The fluffing is almost embarrassing. Journalists all over the country are doing the walk of shame this morning.

Look, McCain finished FOURTH. A win for Huckabee is not a win for McCain. It's a win for Huckabee. McCain may take New Hampshire by default, but nothing he did yesterday prepped him for that. You're TRYING TO PICK THE CANDIDATE and it's both obvious and embarrassing.

And here's the thing: if McCain and Huckabee last until the finish, then it'll come down to the GOP establishment firewall in South Carolina. Who do you suppose will take that? The Southern preacher, or the guy who was slandered 8 years ago, subject to a whisper campaign that he had a black baby?

Unlike a lot of Democrats, I'd be THRILLED to face John McCain. Anyone who wants to spend a million years in Iraq would be a dream. The only "threat" from McCain is from his natural constituency, the media. This was the line of the night:

I think Kansas will beat Virginia Tech, but the real winner of the Orange Bowl will be John McCain as the merest thought of football reminds voters of his toughness.

UPDATE: Candidates who have the election all sewn up and will float to victory don't launch negative attack ads the same day. Also, what was that part of McCain's speech last night where he said negative attacks don't work?

Iowa Post-Mortem

Well, I was at a debate watch party that ended up not having any WiFi, so I wasn't able to update. But here are some disconnected thoughts:

1) The big winner is the Democratic Party. 236,000 Democrats came out versus about 115,000 Republicans, a 2:1 ratio, in a state where it's easier to vote in the Republican caucus, in a state with same-day registration so anyone can go to any caucus, in one of the three swing states that swung in 2004. Democrats CRUSHED Republicans here and even managed to get 30%-plus turnout statewide, for a two-hour meeting. That's very significant, and bodes very well for the future (especially because the coalition will be strong no matter who wins).

2) A hearty congratulations to Barack Obama. Independents were not decisive; Obama would have won 32-31 among Democrats, according to entrance polls (which appeared to undercount Edwards). Obama really went out and energized young people (he won 57% of Democrats under 30), and that really heartens me. I saw back in October 2006 how he excited young people at a rally at USC. He does represent an opportunity at a new coalition unlike what the Democrats have seen before. The youth vote TRIPLED in Iowa. Now can the media shut up about how young people don't vote?

3) This is also a great day for black America, a hopeful day.

4) Obama goes into New Hampshire as the front-runner, and should he win there, he will continue that trend and become the front-runner nationally. I think Edwards has a firewall in Nevada. If he's not competitive there, it's over. I thought Edwards' Nevada ace in the hole was unions, but he finished third in Iowa among union households, according to the entrance poll, which again seemed to undercount him. I think Clinton is badly wounded. I know that she'd be happy to play the whole "comeback kid" thing, but 2008 is not 1992, and you can't wait until Georgia to win your first primary. Unfortunately, we're front-loaded, and that wave for Obama is not likely to crest in New Hampshire, particularly given his strength among independents.

5) I think Obama's win hurts McCain, who leaves Iowa without a bounce (he tied Thompson for third last night). With many independents likely to vote for Obama, McCain's independent base shrinks. But he might win out of attrition. Romney is very wounded, perhaps fatally. Huckabee just isn't the type of candidate that'll gain traction up there. Giuliani is now frantically trying to get back in the race up there, but his 3% tally in Iowa really looks awful. I think the winner on the Republican side in New Hampshire probably doesn't need much more than 20%.

More in a minute.

Watching the Numbers

Here. Looks like the rural caucuses staked Edwards to a lead that is gradually slipping. So far it's Edwards-Clinton-Obama, but it's really tight. About 12% reporting. The top three are within 4 points of each other.

In a sane world they'd all call it a tie and move on.

UPDATE: 390 of 1,781 precincts in, the top three are within less than two points of each other.

Edwards 33.3%
Clinton 32.3%
Obama 31.6%

More Iowa Musings

• Damn. My hope was that Ron Paul coming ahead of John McCain in Iowa, which is totally possible, would hurt him severely. But apparently the pre-spin is that any number McCain posts is better than expected because he wasn't even competing in the state (even though he was there as recently as last weekend). The media REALLY wants to write the Comeback McCain story.

• Giuliani, unafraid of terrorists, afraid of a Segway.

• I agree that this bipartisanship virus is a function of leadership. When Obama runs a whole campaign on bringing the country together, then he wins and realizes that the hard-core Republicans don't want to hold hands and will work just as hard to filibuster his entire agenda, what then? Will that be a Republican failure or his failure of leadership? It's a risky and dangerous game to be playing.

• Joe Lieberman is a simpleton. The fact that McCain is hitching himself to that star is one reason why his candidacy doesn't concern me to the extent that other bloggers have shown concern.

• FDL has a rundown of everyone's closing ad in Iowa. Duncan Hunter's cracks me up. He looks like he's selling low-cost insurance or some new wonder knife or something.



What he loses in all manner of professionalism he more than makes up for in savings! Call now while supplies last! Operators are standing by!

Whoever Loses, We're All Winners

The smart money continues to be on Obama today, with the final poll giving him a wider lead and showing Clinton sinking into third, which would be quite interesting if it's a significant enough spread. Obviously these caucuses, the leaders of whom never even allow the final numbers to be shown because the "winner" might conflict with the candidate who got the most votes, are ridiculous, and I hope they get a decent Viking funeral today. But the real impact, the story everybody should be running tomorrow but won't, is that the Democrats will pummel the Republicans tonight on turnout.

Thousands more Iowa independent voters are expected to turn out for Democrat presidential candidates than Republicans at today’s Iowa caucuses.

Iowa independents are expected to follow the lead set by their national peers in 2006. Nationwide, independents backed Democrats heavily in the watershed 2006 elections, in part out of a rejection of President Bush and a loud cry for change that has continued into the 2008 campaign, strategists in both parties agree.

Recent polls have shown the percentage of Iowa independents planning to participate in the Democrat caucuses is far higher than those who say they’ll caucus for Republicans. Turnout for the Democrats is projected to be higher than Republicans, perhaps double.

Considering that more Democrats will caucus than Republicans, that's as high as a 70-30 spread among independents. And they have to register for the party on site. This makes Iowa very likely to go blue in November, despite the fact that it was a very close state in 2004. I think we could absolutely see as much as 175,000 caucus goers for the Democrats tonight, while projections for the Republicans are around 80,000.

That's the real story coming out of Iowa.