I told someone- maybe it was you who read- that I fear an attempt at armed revolt sometime in my lifetime, and that not far off. When it comes I believe the government will win, but in the process most of our remaining liberties will be destroyed forever, or at least for the remainder of my lifetime. Those liberties will include privacy, free speech, free assembly, protection against unwarranted search and seizure, and the right to refuse to testify against oneself.
I do NOT believe the armed revolt will be justified. It will be led by demagogues who seek to retain certain privileges, such as the supremacy of their religion, their race, and their social and economic class. It will be fought by people who hate the very idea of government and who think they will prosper once namby-pamby regulations and laws are abolished once and for all. And it will kill hundreds of thousands of people who wanted nothing more than to be let alone by both sides to improve their own lot as much as they can.
Those of you who scoff and say, "Oh, that Overstreet, he's just a radical- pay him no mind," please read the following stories and tell me how delusional you really think I am...
29% of Americans Think Armed Rebellion Might Soon Be Necessary
Thousands of Paranoid Libertarian Gun Nuts Planning to March on D.C. With Loaded Weapons
Texas House Approves 12 Firearms Bills To Put More Guns In Classrooms And Defy Federal Law
South Carolina House passes nullification bill to make Obamacare a crime
Tea Party-Type Militia Leader’s Domestic Terror Plot Thwarted by Authorities
Civil war is coming, folks. And conservatives will be the ones pushing the bayonet into YOUR back, forcing you up against the guns of YOUR government.
Showing posts with label South Carolina. Show all posts
Showing posts with label South Carolina. Show all posts
Thursday, May 9, 2013
Sunday, January 27, 2008
Wanna Look at Edwards' "Strength" Again?
I hadn't intended to post anything today about South Carolina. By now you've all seen the news: 55% Obama (25 delegates), 27% Clinton (12 delegates), 18% Edwards (8 delegates). It's nothing but good for Obama, nothing but bad for Clinton, and a good hope for a tightly competitive Tsunami Tuesday.
But while I was researching the last post, I saw a link to this article about how the John Edwards campaign intends to fight on.
The money line for me: "They also point to the fact that he did much better in SC than in NV where he got just 4%."
Oh, yes? Remember, please, that Nevada was a caucus, not a primary. Edwards didn't get 4% of the total vote, he got 4% of the delegates named by caucus-goers to the state convention in April. In Democratic caucus rules you have to get 15% or more of the vote in each precinct's caucus to get any delegates at all from that precinct. In Democratic primaries, the threshhold is 15% statewide... which Edwards, despite heavy campaigning in his birth state for months, just barely exceeded in South Carolina.
So, as a thought experiment, what if we gave South Carolina a caucus again under the rules used in Nevada? Nearly 20,000 delegates were named to Nevada's state convention under fairly arcane rules; for simplicity's sake, let's keep this hypothetical down to only 1,000 delegates divided on a strictly proportional basis by county, with candidates polling under 15% in a county not getting any of that county's delegates.
CNN has a by-county breakdown of the South Carolina results we can use for this. As I observed on my LiveJournal in passing, the total Democratic vote was 529,789. For this experiment, that means about one delegate per every 530 votes.
In Nevada, candidates who didn't meet 15% were disqualified, and their supporters had to declare support for someone else. Here we just can't do that, because we don't know where Edwards voters would have gone. Instead we'll presume that they split in proportion to how Obama and Clinton did.
This calculation gives Obama 598 delegates in our hypothetical caucus, Hillary 280, and Edwards only 124. (Out of 1,002. Yes, rounding errors produced two surplus delegates. I'm not going back to correct my math over it.) Put another way, Edwards would have had 18% popular support... but only 12.4% of the delegates at the state convention as opposed to 60% for Obama and 28% for Clinton.
Now take the above, reverse it, and apply it to Nevada. In a lot of precinct caucuses Edwards might have had 12%, 13%, or 14% of the vote... but those voters would not be allowed to vote for Edwards, because the rules say candidates with less than 15% support aren't viable. The 4% of delegates he actually drew wasn't an accurate measure of his support; it was a measure solely of how many precincts had 15% or more of their caucus members vote for him.
So don't believe it when Edwards claims to be riding big momentum, coming from 4% to 18% in the course of a week. Read it the way it should be read: support of between 12% and 14% in Nevada, mostly not counted due to caucus rules, raised to 18% in Edwards' birth state with the other two candidates attacking one another all the previous week.
That's not momentum. That's a favorite-son vote, nothing more.
Today's news: John Edwards' campaign is STILL dead.
But while I was researching the last post, I saw a link to this article about how the John Edwards campaign intends to fight on.
The money line for me: "They also point to the fact that he did much better in SC than in NV where he got just 4%."
Oh, yes? Remember, please, that Nevada was a caucus, not a primary. Edwards didn't get 4% of the total vote, he got 4% of the delegates named by caucus-goers to the state convention in April. In Democratic caucus rules you have to get 15% or more of the vote in each precinct's caucus to get any delegates at all from that precinct. In Democratic primaries, the threshhold is 15% statewide... which Edwards, despite heavy campaigning in his birth state for months, just barely exceeded in South Carolina.
So, as a thought experiment, what if we gave South Carolina a caucus again under the rules used in Nevada? Nearly 20,000 delegates were named to Nevada's state convention under fairly arcane rules; for simplicity's sake, let's keep this hypothetical down to only 1,000 delegates divided on a strictly proportional basis by county, with candidates polling under 15% in a county not getting any of that county's delegates.
CNN has a by-county breakdown of the South Carolina results we can use for this. As I observed on my LiveJournal in passing, the total Democratic vote was 529,789. For this experiment, that means about one delegate per every 530 votes.
In Nevada, candidates who didn't meet 15% were disqualified, and their supporters had to declare support for someone else. Here we just can't do that, because we don't know where Edwards voters would have gone. Instead we'll presume that they split in proportion to how Obama and Clinton did.
| County | Obama Popular Vote | Obama Hypothetical Caucus Delegates | Clinton Popular Vote | Clinton Hypothetical Caucus Delegates | Edwards Popular Vote | Edwards Hypothetical Caucus Delegates |
| Abbeville (3,517 = 7 del.) | O 1,989 (56%) | O 4 | C 733 (21%) | C 1 | E 793 (23%) | E 2 |
| Aiken (14,476 = 27 del.) | O 7,722 (53%) | O 17 | C 4,881 (34%) | C 10 | E 1,858 (13%) | E 0 |
| Allendale (1416 = 3 del.) | O 933 (66%) | O 2 | C 388 (27%) | C 1 | E 91 (7%) | E 0 |
| Anderson (17,304 = 33 del.) | O 6,253 (36%) | O 12 | C 5,459 (32%) | C 10 | E 5,582 (32%) | E 11 |
| Bamberg (2701 = 5 del.) | O 1,720 (63%) | O 3 | C 751 (28%) | C 2 | E 221 (8%) | E 0 |
| Barnwell (2728 = 5 del.) | O 1,632 (60%) | O 3 | C 820 (30%) | C 2 | E 273 (10%) | E 0 |
| Beaufort (16,876 = 32 del.) | O 9,531 (56%) | O 21 | C 5,108 (30%) | C 11 | E 2,237 (13%) | E 0 |
| Berkeley (16,406 = 31 del.) | O 9,843 (60%) | O 19 | C 3,870 (24%) | C 7 | E 2,675 (16%) | E 5 |
| Calhoun (2722 = 5 del.) | O 1,605 (59%) | O 3 | C 699 (26%) | C 1 | E 413(15%) | E 1 |
| Charleston (47,676 = 90 del.) | O 29,951 (63%) | O 65 | C 11,256 (24%) | C 25 | E 6,413 (13%) | E 0 |
| Cherokee (4719 = 9 del.) | O 1,994 (42%) | O 4 | C 1,231 (26%) | C 2 | E 1,491 (32%) | E 3 |
| Chester (4292 = 8 del.) | O 2,550 (59%) | O 5 | C 1,087 (25%) | C 2 | E 649 (15%) | E 1 |
| Chesterfield (5493 = 10 del.) | O 2,732 (50%) | O 5 | C 1,466 (27%) | C 3 | E 1,290 (23%) | E 2 |
| Clarendon (6003 = 11 del.) | O 4,043 (67%) | O 9 | C 1,149 (19%) | C 2 | E 802 (13%) | E 0 |
| Colleton (4928 = 9 del.) | O 2,954 (60%) | O 6 | C 1,112 (23%) | C 2 | E 853 (17%) | E 1 |
| Darlington (8872 = 17 del.) | O 5,663 (64%) | O 13 | C 1,911 (22%) | C 4 | E 1,282 (14%) | E 0 |
| Dillon (4258 = 8 del.) | O 2,749 (65%) | O 5 | C 814 (19%) | C 2 | E 692 (16%) | E 1 |
| Dorchester (12,824 = 24 del.) | O 7,146 (56%) | O 13 | C 3,223 (25%) | C 6 | E 2,443 (19%) | E 5 |
| Edgefield (2907 = 5 del.) | O 1,906 (65%) | O 4 | C 754 (26%) | C 1 | E 243 (9%) | E 0 |
| Fairfield (4950 = 9 del.) | O 3,410 (69%) | O 7 | C 996 (20%) | C 2 | E 537 (11%) | E 0 |
| Florence (16,694 = 31 del.) | O 10,759 (65%) | O 23 | C 3,699 (22%) | C 8 | E 2,220 (13%) | E 0 |
| Georgetown (8856 = 17 del.) | O 5,323 (60%) | O 10 | C 1,950 (22%) | C 4 | E 1,569 (18%) | E 3 |
| Greenville (42,274 = 80 del.) | O 21,371 (51%) | O 40 | C 11,857 (28%) | C 22 | E 8,998 (21%) | E 18 |
| Greenwood (7242 = 14 del.) | O 4,308 (59%) | O 8 | C 1,507 (21%) | C 3 | E 1,419 (20%) | E 3 |
| Hampton (3321 = 6 del.) | O 2,231 (67%) | O 5 | C 726 (22%) | C 1 | E 362 (11%) | E 0 |
| Horry (25,691 = 48 del.) | O 8,503 (33%) | O 16 | C 9,937 (39%) | C 19 | E 7,222 (28%) | E 13 |
| Jasper (3053 = 6 del.) | O 2,285 (74%) | O 5 | C 577 (19%) | C 1 | E 190 (6%) | E 0 |
| Kershaw (7954 = 15 del.) | O 4,249 (53%) | O 8 | C 2,221 (28%) | C 4 | E 1,480 (19%) | E 3 |
| Lancaster (7492 = 14 del.) | O 3,495 (47%) | O 7 | C 2,312 (31%) | C 4 | E 1,677 (22%) | E 3 |
| Laurens (6813 = 13 del.) | O 3,561 (52%) | O 7 | C 1,541 (23%) | C 3 | E 1,705 (25%) | E 3 |
| Lee (3747 = 7 del.) | O 2,667 (71%) | O 6 | C 649 (17%) | C 1 | E 426 (11%) | E 0 |
| Lexington (22,754 = 43 del.) | O 9,274 (41%) | O 17 | C 7,871 (35%) | C 15 | E 5,587 (24%) | E 11 |
| Marion (6373 = 12 del.) | O 4,627 (72%) | O 10 | C 955 (15%) | C 2 | E 783 (12%) | E 0 |
| Marlboro (4201 = 8 del.) | O 2,454 (58%) | O 5 | C 989 (24%) | C 2 | E 755 (18%) | E 1 |
| McCormick (1758 = 3 del.) | O 1,189 (67%) | O 2 | C 382 (22%) | C 1 | E 186 (11%) | E 0 |
| Newberry (4535 = 9 del.) | O 2,209 (49%) | O 4 | C 1,200 (26%) | C 3 | E 2,120 (25%) | E 2 |
| Oconee (7214 = 14 del.) | O 1,872 (26%) | O 4 | C 2,098 (29%) | C 4 | E 3,240 (45%) | E 6 |
| Orangeburg (21,187 = 40 del.) | O 14,168 (67%) | O 29 | C 5,316 (25%) | C 11 | E 1,682 (8%) | E 0 |
| Pickens (8241 = 16 del.) | O 2,901 (35%) | O 6 | C 2,516 (31%) | C 5 | E 2,811 (34%) | E 5 |
| Pickens (8241 = 16 del.) | O 2,901 (35%) | O 6 | C 2,516 (31%) | C 5 | E 2,811 (34%) | E 5 |
| Richland (62,960 = 119 del.) | O 41,898 (66%) | O 88 | C 14,828 (24%) | C 31 | E 6,176 (10%) | E 0 |
| Saluda (2396 = 5 del.) | O 1,271 (53%) | O 3 | C 659 (28%) | C 1 | E 465 (19%) | E 1 |
| Spartanburg (25,306 = 48 del.) | O 11,245 (44%) | O 21 | C 7,717 (31%) | C 15 | E 6,325 (25%) | E 12 |
| Sumter (14,796 = 28 del.) | O 10,651 (72%) | O 22 | C 2,852 (19%) | C 6 | E 1,286 (9%) | E 0 |
| Union (4164 = 8 del.) | O 2,038 (49%) | O 4 | C 904 (22%) | C 2 | E 1,221 (29%) | E 2 |
| Williamsburg (7225 = 14 del.) | O 5,369 (74%) | O 11 | C 1,266 (18%) | C 3 | E 578 (8%) | E 0 |
| York (18,992 = 36 del.) | O 8,847 (47%) | O 17 | C 6,891 (36%) | C 13 | E 3,231 (17%) | E 6 |
This calculation gives Obama 598 delegates in our hypothetical caucus, Hillary 280, and Edwards only 124. (Out of 1,002. Yes, rounding errors produced two surplus delegates. I'm not going back to correct my math over it.) Put another way, Edwards would have had 18% popular support... but only 12.4% of the delegates at the state convention as opposed to 60% for Obama and 28% for Clinton.
Now take the above, reverse it, and apply it to Nevada. In a lot of precinct caucuses Edwards might have had 12%, 13%, or 14% of the vote... but those voters would not be allowed to vote for Edwards, because the rules say candidates with less than 15% support aren't viable. The 4% of delegates he actually drew wasn't an accurate measure of his support; it was a measure solely of how many precincts had 15% or more of their caucus members vote for him.
So don't believe it when Edwards claims to be riding big momentum, coming from 4% to 18% in the course of a week. Read it the way it should be read: support of between 12% and 14% in Nevada, mostly not counted due to caucus rules, raised to 18% in Edwards' birth state with the other two candidates attacking one another all the previous week.
That's not momentum. That's a favorite-son vote, nothing more.
Today's news: John Edwards' campaign is STILL dead.
Saturday, January 26, 2008
SC: Is the Clinton Plan Backfiring?
Two days ago I checked the Rasmussen Poll daily tracking poll for the Presidential campaign. What I saw depressed me so much I decided not to say anything about it: the appearance that Bill Clinton calling Barack Obama "the black candidate" (i. e. the candidate of the blacks and nothing else- that's what it means, at least in the South) and Hillary Clinton claiming (falsely) that Barack Obama liked Republican ideas, that these dirty tactics were working. Obama's national numbers went down, Clinton's went up.
(Note: Bill and Hillary lied. L-I-E-D. Am I the only one who is annoyed almost to incandescence that nobody on TV, in the press, not even Obama himself can use the "L" word to describe what's being done? They didn't "mislead," they didn't "shade the truth," they didn't "spin", and they didn't "distort the truth." They out-and-out LIED. As they've done repeatedly before.)
But in today's polls, there is a massive swing in the other direction. Look for yourself: the numbers jump from 41% for Clinton, 30% for Obama (pretty much where it's been since Monday) to 36% for Clinton, 33% for Obama.
At the same time more and more liberals, including some liberal bloggers are expressing their disgust with the Clintons. Anecdotal evidence seems to show that Obama is strengthening his core support, while Clinton's support is beginning to flake away.
Will the numbers support this tomorrow, or next week? I don't know. This may be a one-day glitch, or misleading polls as they were in New Hampshire. We'll find out in the next hour or two, at least so far as South Carolina is concerned.
But what does tonight mean? If Obama gets over 50% of the total vote (or twenty percentage points ahead of Clinton), or if he shows parity in the far-too-much-discussed white vote with Clinton and John Edwards, then he's scored a major win. A win of less than ten percentage points over Clinton is crippling, probably meaning a Clinton, er, tsunami on Tsunami Tuesday. An outright loss- not likely but possible, with the polls all over the place in the past week- puts an end to his viability.
Clinton, on the other hand, needs to do only two things: prevent Obama from getting a large share of the white vote (as part of the race-baiting strategy she and Bill have taken), and avoid finishing third. There's a chance, although a small one, that Edwards will tie or even surpass her tonight. If Clinton finishes third, she looks weak- and, at the same time, the dirty tactics which have always been the Clintons' strongest suit will be shown as a loser. With inevitability gone, and with dirty pool either gone or much reduced, the Clintons will be highly vulnerable going into February 5, probably leading to some major Obama upsets.
Edwards gets little or nothing out of tonight, whatever happens. He's done. At this point his apparent strategy is to snipe at whichever candidate looks like they might go ahead in order to split the delegates and create a brokered convention. No dark-horse nominee has won the Presidency in the last hundred years; in fact, no dark horses have been nominated since George McGovern in 1972, and remember who was trying to pull the strings at that time. I still say that Edwards needs to make a deal, the sooner the better, especially since tonight is really his last chance at any significant number of delegates.
Well, less than half an hour to go. I'm rooting for Obama. In fact, next week I'm going to buy some stencils and some spray paint, recycle some old signs from my legislature campaign, and make a Burma Shave type campaign sign series:
WE GOT OFF TRACK
INVADING IRAQ
LET'S GO GET OSAMA
BY VOTING OBAMA
(Note: Bill and Hillary lied. L-I-E-D. Am I the only one who is annoyed almost to incandescence that nobody on TV, in the press, not even Obama himself can use the "L" word to describe what's being done? They didn't "mislead," they didn't "shade the truth," they didn't "spin", and they didn't "distort the truth." They out-and-out LIED. As they've done repeatedly before.)
But in today's polls, there is a massive swing in the other direction. Look for yourself: the numbers jump from 41% for Clinton, 30% for Obama (pretty much where it's been since Monday) to 36% for Clinton, 33% for Obama.
At the same time more and more liberals, including some liberal bloggers are expressing their disgust with the Clintons. Anecdotal evidence seems to show that Obama is strengthening his core support, while Clinton's support is beginning to flake away.
Will the numbers support this tomorrow, or next week? I don't know. This may be a one-day glitch, or misleading polls as they were in New Hampshire. We'll find out in the next hour or two, at least so far as South Carolina is concerned.
But what does tonight mean? If Obama gets over 50% of the total vote (or twenty percentage points ahead of Clinton), or if he shows parity in the far-too-much-discussed white vote with Clinton and John Edwards, then he's scored a major win. A win of less than ten percentage points over Clinton is crippling, probably meaning a Clinton, er, tsunami on Tsunami Tuesday. An outright loss- not likely but possible, with the polls all over the place in the past week- puts an end to his viability.
Clinton, on the other hand, needs to do only two things: prevent Obama from getting a large share of the white vote (as part of the race-baiting strategy she and Bill have taken), and avoid finishing third. There's a chance, although a small one, that Edwards will tie or even surpass her tonight. If Clinton finishes third, she looks weak- and, at the same time, the dirty tactics which have always been the Clintons' strongest suit will be shown as a loser. With inevitability gone, and with dirty pool either gone or much reduced, the Clintons will be highly vulnerable going into February 5, probably leading to some major Obama upsets.
Edwards gets little or nothing out of tonight, whatever happens. He's done. At this point his apparent strategy is to snipe at whichever candidate looks like they might go ahead in order to split the delegates and create a brokered convention. No dark-horse nominee has won the Presidency in the last hundred years; in fact, no dark horses have been nominated since George McGovern in 1972, and remember who was trying to pull the strings at that time. I still say that Edwards needs to make a deal, the sooner the better, especially since tonight is really his last chance at any significant number of delegates.
Well, less than half an hour to go. I'm rooting for Obama. In fact, next week I'm going to buy some stencils and some spray paint, recycle some old signs from my legislature campaign, and make a Burma Shave type campaign sign series:
WE GOT OFF TRACK
INVADING IRAQ
LET'S GO GET OSAMA
BY VOTING OBAMA
Sunday, January 20, 2008
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
