Nevada and SC-GOP Aftermath

The headline today is, "Hillary Wins Nevada."

It should be, as it should have been in Iowa and New Hampshire, "Another Democratic Tie." Hillary won a 51%-46% majority of the delegates to the state convention, but barring unfaithful delegates the actual national delegates picked in April will split 13-12 in favor of Barack Obama.

More notable is that, in this contest, Hillary barely broke the 50% mark. I hadn't expected her to do that well. Reports of a 2-1 or better Hispanic vote in her favor over Obama indicate at the very least a strong backlash against the unions' political action. If it's more than that- if it's an actual racial support for Mrs. Clinton over all other candidates- then Obama is cooked in California and probably overall. He needs to do some fence-mending with the Latinos fast... or else Tsunami Tuesday is going to go very, very badly for him indeed.

As for Obama's chances overall, the facts on the ground show him running even with Clinton, but facts almost never determine political outcomes. The popular view is now that Hillary is on a roll, and that Obama is just a little bit short. He absolutely, positively has got to win South Carolina now, and that state is no longer a "gimme" with his losing both the Hispanic and white vote in Nevada. Part of his problem- and this is becoming more apparent over the past week- is that Obama is the more conservative of the two as a matter of philosophy. Unlike Hillary, who advocates rapid, untested intervention into the economy and micromanagement of the lives of all individuals, Obama is willing to watch, wait, and let people run their own lives... or, at least, he's willing to do so more often than Hillary. With the Iraq war fading fast as a political issue in the light of economic troubles, he's losing his advantage there- an advantage which, quite frankly, was his strongest suit in Iowa after being "the change candidate."

Obama has to do two things. First, he has to start a talking campaign- not from his own mouth, nor directly from his campaign staff, but among his grass-roots supporters- reminding people of the old Clinton "trustworthiness." People need to be reminded of the Rose Law Firm records, of the Clinton White House records secrecy, of every single vote Clinton has made to give more power to the Bush White House. He absolutely MUST do this... because both Bill and Hillary have, in the past week, attacked Obama on his war record, on his effort to rig Nevada, on his race-baiting, and even on his religion- without any grounds, but people are buying it all anyway. If Obama doesn't attack the Clintons, and attack them with solid facts rather than allegations, he loses.

Second, Obama needs to jump into the economic issue with both feet. He needs a solid, simple-to-understand proposal for helping people swamped in debt, losing their homes, losing their jobs, etc. Clinton has done this with a band-aid moratorium on foreclosures that can only function if lenders are coerced by government fiat into complying- which would lead to their collapse just as inaction will. Her proposal is factually bankrupt but SOUNDS good- just as all her proposals. Right now Obama's acting as if he's content to see what comes through the Senate... and he absolutely cannot afford to do that.

If Obama spends this week starting whispers about Clinton and countering her economic proposals with his own, he'll take South Carolina and make a good showing on Tsunami Tuesday. If Obama reaches out to Hispanics, his odds will be further improved. If he fails to do any of this, Clinton will take a strong and definite delegate lead out of Tsunami Tuesday... one which Obama probably won't be able to overcome.

As for John Edwards... he's done. He has nowhere else to go. South Carolina won't turn for him, no matter what happens. He leads nowhere- he's not even in second place in his home state of North Carolina at the moment. His campaign is running on empty. The longer he stays in the race, and the more his support bleeds away to nothing, the less power he'll have to negotiate with either Clinton or Obama. Right now Edwards should be shopping his endorsement to Obama for whatever he can get. Clinton might like Edwards' support, but she doesn't need it, not with the backing of the Democratic machines and establishment. If Edwards stays in, based on Nevada's results, his followers split evenly between Hillary and Obama... which is good for Hillary, possibly disaster for Obama.

Now over to the Republican side. Romney has proved, for the third time, that he can buy elections provided he has a long period without substantial opposition. His money, and his current lead with delegates, makes him one of the two frontrunners. The other frontrunner is John McCain, whose marginal win in South Carolina proves that he can succeed in a badly divided race. Ron Paul's second place effective tie with McCain in Nevada sounds good until you recall that Romney got a clear majority there, and Paul and McCain split half of what was left over. The fact that Paul only got 4% in South Carolina only emphasizes the lack of importance to his Nevada finish.

Huckabee is done. Finis. So is Fred Thompson. Both are Southerners, both are hard-line religious conservatives, and both lost to McCain. If they didn't win in South Carolina (and they didn't), then they can at best hope to win their home state. Giuliani, despite finishing behind Ron Paul again in both Nevada and South Carolina, is still a question mark awaiting the votes in Florida, California and New York- the places he's focused his campaigning. At this point McCain, Romney and maybe Giuliani can be considered viable nominees. Unfortunately for Republicans, of the four other candidates only Duncan Hunter has read the writing on the wall and formally bowed out.

What do the three GOP frontrunners need to do? McCain needs to get Thompson firm on his promise to back McCain if and when he bows out; without Thompson's active support, virtually none of his people will come to McCain based on their own thoughts. Romney needs to win in a tightly contested state that doesn't have some of its delegates docked- that means neither Florida nor Maine qualify. Giuliani absolutely, positively cannot afford to lose Florida, after all the effort and time he's invested there. McCain and Romney can go on without any more wins before Tsunami Tuesday: Giuliani cannot.

New Hampshire: Now It's a Race.

Well, no surprises on the Republican side. McCain won, Romney second, Huckabee third; and those, I think, are the only remaining viable candidates for the GOP nomination. Giuliani needs a miracle, an absolute miracle, in Florida and New York on Tsunami Tuesday to get back in the race. Ron Paul is done; his big push, the place he has been expected to do best of all, was New Hampshire, and he finished fifth out of seven.

On the other side: Clinton wins. BIG surprise, after the last couple days.

What annoys me about this outcome is the reason the pundits are giving for Hillary's come-from-behind win: the sympathy vote. If New Hampshire voted for Clinton because of a her crying about not being handed the Democrat nomination on a silver platter, then my disgust with elective politics in general knows no bounds. If New Hampshire women turned out for Clinton because they didn't like the fact that her opponents attacked her positions and character, then gender equality is a lie: Clinton won because people still believe women are the weaker sex, to be coddled and protected, if the talking heads are guessing right.

Nauseating. Do we really want to elect someone on the basis of his or her ability to present himself/herself as a victim? I really hope the pundits are full of it on this one.

That said, the vote is close- 39% to 37% over Obama with 83% of the vote in. This is less than a victory for Obama, but it's not defeat- not by a long shot.

Ignore all the post-Iowa polls that showed Obama up by ten points over Clinton. Instead let's look at the polls in New Hampshire for the week leading up to and including January 3, the day of the Iowa caucuses, according to usaelectionpolls.com...

Jan. 2 - Suffolk University - Clinton 39%, Obama 23%
Jan. 2 - Zogby - Clinton 32%, Obama 26%
Jan. 2 - American Research Group - Clinton 35%, Obama 31%
Jan. 1 - Suffolk - Clinton 37%, Obama 20%
Dec. 30 - RKM Research - Clinton 32%, Obama 28%
Dec. 29 - Suffolk - Clinton 36%, Obama 22%
Dec. 29 - U. New Hampshire - Clinton 34%, Obama 30%
Dec. 28 - ARG - Clinton 31%, Obama 27%

Averaging the lot, we get 34.5% for Clinton, 25.9% for Obama- a nine-point spread for Clinton.

It appears, as I type this, that the spread will only be two points in the final. Clinton only gained four points on the pre-Iowa polls in the final vote; Obama gained ten points.

New Hampshire shows that Clinton and Obama are equals in the eyes of the electorate. Obama has shown strength by winning Iowa and coming close in New Hampshire.

Now the campaign moves on to South Carolina and Nevada- Michigan not counting for much on either side, and with Obama and Edwards not on the ballot there. On the Republican side, I predict Obama and Huckabee win in South Carolina; Clinton and McCain win in Nevada; and Romney finishes second in both and tries to point to an empty win in Michigan as a sign of his viability.

I'm solid with my pick of Clinton in Nevada, but I favor Obama in South Carolina only marginally. He needs one of the two, and Nevada as an in-party caucus will be the longer shot. If Clinton wins both, Obama's essentially out; Clinton will have both momentum and home-field advantage in Florida and in New York and California come Tsunami Tuesday. Even if Clinton loses both, her win in New Hampshire and her prohibitive advantage in those huge states keeps her in the race pretty much for the duration.

On the Republican side there's no favorite. You have three candidates who each represent one faction in the modern Republican party: the national defense activists (McCain), the economic conservatives (Romney), and the social conservatives (Huckabee). Giuliani has little or nothing beyond name recognition and electability to recommend him to Republicans; and Ron Paul, let's be honest, has demonstrated that small-government Republicans are all but extinct. Romney could well win by just continuing to finish a strong second again and again and again, thereby building up enough delegates to finish first in the delegate count without a majority... which leads, again, to a contested Republican convention.

And finally, let's look at the delegate count to date, according to CNN:

DEMOCRATS: Clinton 185 (24 state delegates plus 159 superdelegates), Obama 78 (25 state delegates plus 53 superdelegates), Edwards 52 (18 state delegates plus 34 superdelegates), Richardson 19 (all superdelegates), Kucinich 1 (superdelegate), 2025 needed for majority.

REPUBLICANS: Romney 30 (24 state delegates, 6 RNC delegates), Huckabee 21 (18 state delegates, 3 RNC delegates), McCain 10 (all state delegates), Thompson 6 (all state delegates), Paul 2 (state delegates), Giuliani 1 (RNC delegate), Hunter 1 (state delegate), 1,191 needed for majority.

Looking for My Candidate: Rudy Giuliani

If you read my last post, you'll see that Rudy Giuliani approves quite wholeheartedly of all the power George W. Bush has illegally usurped into the Presidency.

He also recently said he'd like a man like Dick Cheney to be his vice-presidential running mate.

That alone would be sufficient to ensure I never voted for him, but let's go down the issues and be thorough about it, hm?

Again, going by these standards:

WAR: Supports permanent occupation of Iraq; "Iraq is only one front in the larger war on terror, and failure there would lead to a broader and bloodier regional conflict in the near future." Favors war with Iran. Supports pre-emptive war, invasion of other nations. Would expand military. 20%.

SEPARATION OF POWERS: Approves of expanded Presidential power. Supports USA-PATRIOT, FISA. 0%.

HEALTHCARE: No individual mandates. Tort reform. Economize healthcare by new information technology, targeted tax exemptions and credits, etc. Supports de-regulating insurance corporations, buying insurance across state lines. 50%.

TAXATION AND BUDGET: More tax cuts. Silent on borrowing. Opposes flat tax, simpler income tax; prefers special credits, deductions, etc. that add complexity to taxes. Proposes sunset requirements for all Federal programs. Would cut 20% of Federal civilian workforce in ten years. Supports amending Constitution for line-item veto. Lower corporate taxes. 15%.

CIVIL LIBERTIES: Supports USA-PATRIOT, FISA, Guantanamo, torture, renditions, warrantless searches. As mayor of New York, worked to squash free speech. Supports sexual censorship. 0%.

IMPEACHMENT: No position. 0%.

IMMIGRATION: Supports national ID to track non-citizens. Supports national database to track citizens and non-citizens alike. Supports English as sole official language in USA. Favors amnesty after fines, expanded legal immigration. Supports border fences. Opposes mass round-ups of illegal immigrants. 50%.

TRADE: Supports GATT, WTO, NAFTA, unlimited free trade. 0%.

ENERGY: Supports nuclear. New oil refineries, better energy infrastructure. Supports alt-fuel vehicles. Supports subsidies for corn-based ethanol and biodiesel; indeed, supports all sources of energy, including oil, without apparent preference. 60%.

ENVIRONMENT: Believes in global warming, doubts human causation. Supports carbon sequestration. 25%.

TORT REFORM: Calls for caps on punitive damages. Would reduce power of plaintiffs to "discovery," i. e. search of defendant's records for evidence. Favors partial "loser-pays" system only for frivolous lawsuits. 25%.

AVERAGE SCORE: 22.3%

VOTE KILLERS:

IRAQ: Supports indefinite, permanent occupation of Iraq.



RANKINGS TO DATE

Candidates in italics are not in consideration due to vote-killer positions.

Dennis Kucinich - 40.9%
Ron Paul - 28.2%
Rudy Giuliani - 22.3%
Mike Huckabee - 16.9%
Duncan Hunter - 11.8%
Fred Thompson - 11.1%

Next time: John McCain, who one person commented was a Democrat in all but name, and therefore a good choice for me... ha ha ha...

Saturday Debate Notable Quotes

Reading the transcripts from Saturday's ABC debates (findable here and here until the New York Times makes them subscriber-only), the following quotes stood out to me:

We have been responding. The president set a whole different mind- set. It was let's anticipate, let's see if we can prevent another attack. That led to Afghanistan. It led to Iraq. It's led to the Patriot Act. It's led to electronic surveillance. It's led to changing our intelligence services. All that is very, very good.

--- Rudy Giuliani, endorsing USA-PATRIOT, domestic spying, and torture

CHARLES GIBSON, MODERATOR: . . . in 2002 the president said we have a right to a preemptive attack, that we can attack if this country feels threatened. And on that basis -- WMD -- we went into Iraq. We have cited the threat of a nuclear Iran to leave the military option on the table. Do you agree with the doctrine, Senator McCain, if you were president, or would you change it?

JOHN MCCAIN: I agree with the doctrine . . .

RON PAUL: Of course, the excuse is that 9/11 changed everything, but the Bush doctrine of preemptive war is not a minor change. This is huge. This is the first time we as a nation accept as our policy that we start the wars. I don't understand this. And that all options are on the table to go after Iran? This -- this is not -- this is not necessary. These are third-world nations. They're not capable.

So John McCain endorses aggressive war, and Ron Paul again demonstrates his incoherence. In fact, I'm now officially waiting for Paul to say, "Who am I? Why am I here?" in the next debate he's in.

But we're going to have to move our strategy from simply being a respond to military threat with military action to an effort that says we're going to use our military and non-military resources -- non-military resources, combined with other nations who are our friends, to help move the world of Islam towards modernity and moderation. It's something that former Prime Minister Aznar of Spain spoke about.

The new mission for NATO and for other nations is to help provide the rule of law, education that is not through madrassas, agricultural and economic policies that can be instilled in various Islamic countries so the Muslims are able to reject the extreme and the -- and the terrorists.

We can help them. Our military is going to be needed. We do need -- I agree with what the mayor said; we need to add to our military by at least 100,000 troops, but the answer is to move now to a second phase, a phase of helping Muslims become so strong they can reject the extreme.

--- Mitt Romney, advocating the invasion of more Islamic nations to bring them democracy at gunpoint

I served on the Intelligence Committee in the Senate. I was the floor manager for the Republicans on the homeland security bill. So I have a bit of a different vantage point than some of my colleagues on this.

The question had to do with preemption. Preemption didn't just appear one day as a good idea. After the Cold War, we had one big enemy and one big weapon against us. When we kind of took a holiday from history in the '90s and let our military slide and our intelligence capabilities slide, the world was changing. We now have multiple enemies. We now have terrorists and various groups, al Qaeda, rogue nations in different stages of developing nuclear weapons. We must be prepared for the different kind of weaponry that we're facing. We could be attacked with a biological weapon and not even know it for a long period of time. This is a different world.

So instead of mutually assured destruction, which we lived under for a long time, it's now a world where preemption has got to be an option under the right circumstances.

--- Fred Thompson, also supporting aggressive war... but "only go in where we should and where we're able to." (In other words, only beat up the LITTLE kids.)

You made a statement about European nations; they all get health care. Well, somebody -- some people here in New Hampshire have been to Canada. I don't think they want that system.

--- John McCain, demonstrating his ignorance of very basic geography

And then -- we should operate that for two, three, four years, change behavior, and then we should take that system, with a tamper- proof ID card which would be used for people coming into this country. And what we should do with the people that are here -- first of all, right now our priority should be, since you can't throw out all 12 million people, whether Governor Romney would like to do that or not, or anybody else would, you just can't do it. It's not physically possible to do. I would focus on the illegal immigrants that are here who have committed crimes. They should be given priority. That's a number we can deal with. That's a number we can throw out.

Then what I would do with the people that are here, when you had a good system place -- and I believe my plan is the best plan for doing that, and these are the kinds of things I achieved in the other jobs that I've had in my life, as mayor and associate attorney general -- I think what you would do then is you would say to the 12 million people that are here, come forward, get a tamper-proof ID card, get fingerprinted, get photographed. If they don't come forward, then you throw them out of the country.

The ones who do come forward would have to pay taxes. They'd have to pay fines. If you pay fines, it is not amnesty. They would not get ahead of anybody else.

They'd be at the back of the line. But then they could eventually become citizens so long as they could read English, write English and speak English.

--- Giuliani, demonstrating a little bit of common sense on immigration- absent from all other Republican candidates

But there -- so we could talk about issues, but the biggest difference I think -- and it's going to be true for me and others who talk about it -- is that this is a time when America wants change. Washington is broken. That was the message coming out of Iowa. I've heard it across the country. Washington is broken. Not just the White House, not just Congress -- Washington can't get the job done on immigration, on lowering taxes, on fixing schools, on getting health care, on overcoming radical jihad. They want change.

--- Romney, asked why people should not vote for Obama, gives the answer why they SHOULD...

Senator Obama does not have the national security experience and background to lead this nation. We are facing the transcendent challenge of the 21st century, and that is radical Islamic extremism. In his recent statements on various foreign national security issues I've strongly disagreed, but I am -- can make it perfectly clear that it requires a lot of knowledge and a lot of experience and a lot of background to have the judgment to address the challenges that our nation faces in the 21st century.

--- ... and John McCain points out again how being a POW for seven years gives him expertise on foreign policy and diplomacy. Tell us, John, when you were in the Hanoi Hilton, did Mao Tse-Tung, Charles de Gaulle, Anwar Sadat or anyone like that drop in to discuss the state of world affairs?

I think we ought to have the strongest possible military that nobody else on Earth wants to ever even think about engaging in battle.

--- Mike Huckabee has apparently forgotten we HAD the strongest military on Earth in 2001, and it didn't stop the terrorists then.

And now over to the Democrats...

OBAMA: What I said was that we should do everything in our power to push and cooperate with the Pakistani government in taking on al Qaeda, which is now based in northwest Pakistan. And what we know from our National Intelligence Estimates is that al Qaeda is stronger now than at any time since 2001, and so back in August I said we should work with the Pakistani government. First of all, they encourage democracy in Pakistan, so you've got a legitimate government that we're working with, and secondly, that we have to press them to do more to take on al Qaeda in their territory.

What I said was if they could not or would not do so, and we had actionable intelligence, then I would strike. And I should add that Lee Hamilton and Tom Kean, the heads of the 9/11 commission, a few months later wrote an editorial saying the exact same thing. I think it's indisputable that that should be our course. . . .

EDWARDS: If I know what -- if I as president of the United States, know where Osama bin Laden is, I would go get him. Period. This man is the mastermind of a mass murder in the United States of America. He is public enemy number one, as al Qaeda is. . . .

RICHARDSON: If we have actionable intelligence that is real, and if Musharraf is incapable -- which he is, because here's a man who has not stood up for his democracy, he is virtually in a situation where he's losing control -- then you do take that action. . . .

CLINTON: Secondly, I think it's imperative that any actionable intelligence that would lead to a strike inside Pakistan's territory be given the most careful consideration, and at some point probably when the missiles have been launched -- the Pakistani government has to know they're on the way because one of the problems is the inherent paranoia about India in the region in Pakistan, so that we've got to have a plan to try to make sure we don't ignite some kind of reaction before we even know whether the action we took with the missiles has worked.

Four candidates, essentially the same position.

CLINTON:You know, Senator Obama has been -- as the Associated Press described it, he could have a pretty good debate with himself, because four years ago he was for single-payer health care. Then he moved toward a rejection of that, a more incremental approach. Then he was for universal health care; then he proposed a health care plan that doesn't cover everybody.

I think that's relevant. I mean, I think that what we are looking for is a president we can count on, that you know where that president is yesterday, today, and tomorrow. And I think that, you know, there questions that, you know, should be asked and answered from each of us. And I'd certainly have no problem with whatever scrutiny comes my way.

OBAMA: Well, I think the Associated Press was quoting some of your folks, Hillary, so let's talk specifically about health care, since you mentioned that.

--- Clinton takes the low road, oblivious to the irony involved in a Clinton accusing anyone else of flip-flopping... but Obama counters well.

We do have a philosophical difference. John and yourself [Hillary] believe that if we do not mandate care -- if we don't force the government to get -- to -- if the government does not force taxpayers to buy health care, that we will penalize them in some fashion. I disagree with that because as I go around town hall meetings, I don't meet people who are trying to avoid getting health care; the problem is they can't afford it. The costs are too high. And so, as a consequence, we focus on reducing costs.

Now, this is a legitimate argument for us to have, but it's not true that I leave them out. Your premise is they won't buy it even if it's affordable. I disagree with that.

--- Obama hits the nail right on the head.

But you know, what ever happened to experience? Is experience kind of a leper? (Laughter.) What is wrong with -- you know, what is wrong with having -- (scattered applause) -- what is wrong with having been like myself -- 14 years in the Congress, two Cabinet positions? I mean, I've gone head to head with the North Koreans. We got the remains of soldiers back. We persuaded them to reduce their nuclear weapons. What is wrong with being a governor and going to a state and giving health care to kids under 12 and creating jobs and balancing budgets? What is wrong with being a secretary of Energy who has made America or tried to make America a land of clean energy or as a governor -- my point is this: We want to change this country, but you have to have -- you have to know how to do it, and there's nothing wrong with having experience.

--- Bill Richardson, wondering why nobody loves him

So it's time to bring our troops home and to bring them home as quickly and responsibly as possible and unfortunately, I don't see any reason why they should remain beyond, you know, today. I think George Bush doesn't intend to bring them home, but certainly I have said when I'm president I will. Within 60 days, I'll start that withdrawal.

--- Wait, Hillary, what happened to your statement that you wouldn't commit to withdrawing ANY troops during your Presidency?

I bring the troops back within a year. I don't want in five years because I did, in another debate -- some of you said you would keep troops -- you wouldn't say -- you wouldn't get them out by 2013. I don't want in five years to have to look at an eight-year-old today -- an eighth-grader -- an American eighth-grader today who is serving five years from now in Iraq. I don't want to hear about a death of an American.

--- Richardson calls the other three candidates on the statement I just mentioned.

You know, what we need is an energy revolution in this country. Not some of the bills that the congress has passed. We need to go to 50 miles per gallon fuel efficiency. We need to have 30 percent of all our electricity renewable. We need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 80 percent by the year 2040. And we need the American people to sacrifice a little bit.

--- Richardson, proposing the impossible for energy policy

That's why I have proposed specific tax relief now, immediately, so that we would offset some of the payroll tax, that we would immediately put some additional dollars in the pockets of American families, working families typically making $75,000 a year or less, to not only stimulate the economy, but also to balance out a tax code. And I would pay for it very specifically by closing tax loopholes and tax havens. You've got a building in the Cayman Islands that supposedly houses 12,000 corporations. That's either the biggest building or the biggest tax scam on record.

--- Is this Obama advocating tax -cuts-? I'm liking him more and more... especially since the other three all focused on raising taxes...