Your Complete Guide To The Potomac Primary

Tomorrow we get the Potomac Primary: Virginia, Maryland, and DC hold their presidential primaries for both parties. All are "open" primaries--anyone can vote (but only in one or the other party's contest--not both).

Here's what to look for: polls say Obama will trounce Hillary in all three contests, extending his string of four strong wins over the weekend. If the spread is less than 10 points in Virginia and Maryland, then Hillary has exceeded expectations. If Obama scores over 60% in either or both states (he should do very well in DC), then he's exceeded expectations. At the end of the day, the question will be by how much has Obama padded his small delegate lead. And, does he become the "front-runner"?

On the GOP side, the question is whether Huckabee can catch McCain in Virginia. The Survey USA poll released late today shows Huckabee surging--"closing strong"--in Va. If he wins, it will reveal further weakness in McCain's position. McCain should carry Maryland and DC without too much problem, but if he gets less than 50% in Maryland, it's another sign of trouble.

By the same token, if Huckabee can't get within 10 points in Virginia, and gets clobbered in Maryland, then his miracle is probably over.

Best of all for us Potomac'ers: our votes count, for a change!

Romney Win In Michigan Scrambles The GOP Field

After the punditocracy said Romney would be dead if he lost Iowa and New Hampshire, his zombie has returned to capture Michigan.

After the punditocracy said McCain would run all the way to the nomination after capturing New Hampshire, his stumble in Motor City could prove fatal.

Next up is South Carolina, where a win by Huckabee--or heaven forbid, Freddie Thompson (is he still running?)--would further scramble the race going into Florida and Super Tuesday.

Giuliani's people are no doubt cheering--they're like one of those football teams that can't get into the playoffs on it's own, but instead has to have another team (in this case, McCain) lose. But it hardly vindicates Giuliani's strategy. He could yet win Florida--by a small margin--but that will only set up a very messy day on February 5, with the likelihood that all five major candidates (if Thompson makes it that far) would capture at least one state (Thompson=Tennessee), with Huckabee, Romney, McCain and Giuliani all getting three or four apiece.

Romney's win puts the GOP back--potentially--on a path to deadlock. There's still another way: if McCain earns a convincing victory in South Carolina Saturday, then pulls out any kind of win in Florida, he should get the nomination. The only way McCain gets there, however, is for his friend Fred T. to take just enough votes away from Huckabee to open the door.

Will South Carolina, which derailed the Straight Talk Express in 2000, be the spark that propels McCain to the nomination? Or will the Palmetto State once again be the last station stop? We'll know in a few days.

Meanwhile, it's not all that clear where Romney goes from here. He certainly can win Massachusetts and Utah on Super Tuesday, maybe Nevada this Saturday. But how does he get the delegates to win? We don't see it.

McCain's For The Taking?

John McCain is oh so close to making a run that would get him the GOP nomination. He now leads, somewhat comfortably, in the national polls--having snagged, apparently, most of Giuliani's supporters--and also leads, albeit narrowly, in some Michigan, SC, Nevada and Florida polls.

But then, it was just a few weeks ago that Mitt Romney had the lead in Iowa, New Hampshire and SC, and looked like he might just sweep to victory.

The key is Michigan. If McCain wins there, even by a whisker, his chances go up exponentially. But, if he loses--even by a whisker--then Republicans are back into the soup.

Frankly, Giuliani has been a huge disappointment. But a guy who's run the worst possible campaign and shied from the fight is hardly worthy of the oval office.

Surprisingly, we may know the GOP nominee before the Democrats make their choice--something the Curmudgeon certainly would not have predicted even a couple weeks ago!

Fractured GOP: Beauty Is In The Eye Of The Beholder

If you want to know how fractured the GOP is today, just compare the following analyses of last night's Republican debate in Myrtle Beach, SC from respected political pundits:

Chuck Todd, MSNBC: "Post-Debate First Take: Fred's Not Dead . . ." Todd thinks Fred Thompson did the best. But this isn't the first time pundits thought Fred was superb in a debate--they said the same thing in Iowa. Problem is whether anyone is watching. Fred probably is dead, due to poor campaigning and lack of strategy.

Jonathan Martin, Politico: "McCain Emerges Unscathed." Martin says no one touched McCain, but these other commentators beg to disagree--for example, Dean Barnett, below, who said McCain had some good and bad moments, the bad including "annoy[ing] conservatives for no apparent reason" with his discussion of global warming.

Dean Barnett, Weakly Standard: "A Big Night For Huckabee." Barnett praises Huckabee as "an exceptional politician whose package of skills is often sold short" and says his political skills were on full display in the debate.

The two candidates who seemed not to bet much out of the debate were Romney and Giuliani, but if we look hard enough we'll probably find someone reasonably neutral who thought one or the other was superb.

Is McCain the "front-runner?" Martin, above, is one of those who thinks McCain is the "front-runner"--evidently on his own say-so. National polls of Republicans show no such thing. In the Rasmussen's four-day tracking poll, McCain is on top--by two points--over Huckabee and Romney today, but Huckabee was on top yesterday.

The more interesting story in the national polls is Giuliani--having deliberately sat out Iowa and New Hampshire, and doing the same with Michigan and Florida--Giuliani has been out of the mind's eye during all this intense media glare. He's now down to 9% in the Rasmussen tracking poll. He could resurrect himself with a strong showing in Florida, but that's not going to be easy, and even then, all he does is get himself back into the race--he hardly becomes the favorite.

McCain has small leads in recent Michigan and SC polls, but will they hold up? If they do, he will be the front-runner. On the other hand, suppose Mitt wins Michigan and Thompson wins SC (highly unlikely, but within the realm of possibility)--then we have four winners in four contests. Give Rudy Florida and you start all over on Super Duper Tuesday!

The Punditocracy Has It Wrong On The GOP Race

Now that we've digested last night's results and surveyed the punditocracy this morning, we have a few more thoughts on the Republican side of the presidential race.

1. While Democrats get a bit of a breather, the Republican field will continue at an all-out sprint. That's because in the next contest--Michigan (next Tuesday, January 15)--Obama and Edwards boycotted the ballot, so it really doesn't count for Democrats, whereas Republicans have a fully contested race (well, at least between McCain, Romney and Huckabee). Then Republicans have both Nevada and South Carolina on Saturday, January 19, but Democrats don't have SC until January 26. Florida is on January 26 for both parties, and then Super Duper Tuesday.

2. The pundits are being very unfair to Mitt Romney. Contrary to conventional wisdom, Romney does not have to win Michigan. He probably cannot afford to come in third there, but a strong second wouldn't finish him. We don't like Romney, but the claim that he's somehow finished is hogwash. At this point, the GOP race looks like a four-man field (if you count Giuliani--more on that below). In that field, Romney has one win--Wyoming--and two strong second places. McCain has a win, a fourth place and a tie for fourth (in Wyoming). Huckabee has a win, a third place and a tie for fourth (in Wyoming).

Romney leads in delegates, he has money and a national organization. All of that counts in a race that looks to go the distance. To anoint McCain at this point is silly, especially when NO Republican polls above 25% in national polls.

Romney is also well-positioned to win Nevada. The press may decide that some races are more important than others, but in such a crowded field, winning "inconsequential" races and coming in second in others is not a bad strategy. Wouldn't ol' Fred Thompson wish he was in Romney's shoes. If Romney wins Nevada and comes in second in Michigan, then he's got two firsts and three seconds and still the most delegates.

Romney's campaign does need to start managing expectations and make clear he's in for the long haul. And, if I was in Giuliani's campaign, I'd have the same message, otherwise McCain could look like a runaway winner before Florida.

3. While the pundits declare Romney dead, they're giving Giuliani a free pass for a suspect strategy. The fact is that Giuliani was the second highest spender in New Hampshire, after Romney, and he came in a very distant fourth. You can say that's because he didn't compete, but it would be false--he did compete, but then when it was clear he wasn't doing well, he took his ball and went home.

Likewise, Rudy spent a fair amount of energy on Iowa. Now he's retreated to Florida, but the press shouldn't let him off so easily. In any event, Rudy's Florida strategy is fatally flawed. In the most recent Florida poll, released yesterday from Insider Advantage, Rudy leads Huckabee and McCain by five points (24% to 19% for each of Huck and Mac).

Let's say that holds up and Rudy wins Florida by five--a big if, since the numbers will change in response to the upcoming contests that don't include Rudy. Big deal. That's hardly a resounding bounce into the February 5 mega-primaries. If you look at who's voting on Feb. 5, you see that all four candidates (and even Thompson if he's so inclined) have states they are likely to carry and states where they're likely to do poorly. It's not likely anyone could come out of Super Duper Tuesday with more than 40% of the delegates awarded that day--unless a couple guys drop out before then.

On the downside for Rudy, if he loses Florida, the pundits will say he's finished. (They'll be wrong, too.) As long as Rudy, Huck, Mitt and Mac keep going at this, it's anybody's game--or maybe no one's. And for that very reason, we think they'll keep at it.

4. There is one scenario for a "roll-up" by McCain. He wins Michigan and Romney drops out. McCain then gets Nevada and comes in second in SC and goes into Florida as a fairly clear front-runner and trounces Rudy. He might then have enough momentum on Super Duper Tuesday to knock out Huckabee.

5. Fred Thompson is done. He never had a strategy, or any passion. He could, however, stay in and try to collect Tennessee's delegates on February 5 and use that as a stake in case there is a deadlocked convention.

Don't Count Out Hillary Or Romney, Even If Both Lose New Hampshire (As Expected)

That was fast--the New Hampshire primary is tomorrow already. And just like that, pundits and politicos are prognosticating that Obama will be the Democratic nominee, and that Mitt Romney's campaign will be finished if, as expected, the NH winners are Obama and McCain.

Not so fast.

We fully expect another Obama victory. The man is on a HOT streak. He may even win by 10 points or more. And that will give him considerable momentum--enough, at the least, to run the table through Nevada, Michigan and South Carolina.

But don't count Hillary out. She's got the money, she's got the party mainstream, she's got the ambition, and she's got the drive to keep at it. Remember when McCain was done? Hillary will be able to stick it out through February 5 and the Super Duper Tuesday primaries.

In the meantime, Obama will become the frontrunner, and that stubborn little pest John Edwards will fade away. As the frontrunner, Obama will undergo a different kind of scrutiny. Suddenly, the smallest little mis-step, the gentlest of gaffes, will make the news.

Further, a lot of Democrats not quite yet swept up in Obamania will have to ask themselves, "what do we really know about this guy?" There will be revelations. Obama's bound to slip up--maybe not big time, but something. And the expectations for him will be oh so much higher.

If we were betting real money right now, we'd have to give Obama the edge--he's got momentum and lot else going for him. He really does look Kennedy-esqe. But we wouldn't bet the house--Hillary's got the resources and she could still win the nomination.

Likewise, many in the commentariat are saying that Romney is finished if he doesn't win New Hampshire. Certainly, we'd agree, he's wounded. But he's not dead yet.

Like Hillary, Romney has the resources to continue to compete up through Super Duper Tuesday. And it's a bit much to write him off so quickly in a five-man field. After all, Romney would have won two second place finishes in hotly contested races. Yes, he was the leader for some time in both Iowa and New Hampshire, but he never came close to leading in national polls.

More to the point, there's no reason for Romney to concede anything to the rest of the field. McCain could emerge from New Hampshire as the "front-runner," but a fellow standing at 20% in national polls who is unpopular with a significant percentage of Republicans is hardly running away with it. McCain could win Michigan--with Romney again in second (or Huckabee)--but then Huckabee will probably take South Carolina, and any of them could take Nevada.

That then sets up the showdown in Florida to see if Rudy can vindicate his strategy. If Rudy wins, then there's no clear front-runner. Even if McCain gets a narrow victory, with say 30% of the Florida vote, that's hardly a ringing endorsement.

Romney should stay in through Super Duper Tuesday. So should Thompson. There's a good chance that no one emerges from that contest with a clear lead: Rudy gets NY, NJ, Connecticut; Romney gets Utah, Massachusetts; Thompson could get Tennessee; Huckabee gets Georgia, Alabama, Arkansas, maybe Missouri, Oklahoma; McCain wins Arizona and a few other western states and maybe Minnesota. California is up for grabs.

So now everyone's got some delegates and the rest of the race is a muddle. Romney goes to the convention with enough delegates to make an impact and anything can happen over a long summer of bargaining and bickering. He could still end up the nominee.

It's true that Romney's original strategy for winning--sweep Iowa and NH--would be in tatters, but it wouldn't mean he couldn't win it all.

Meanwhile, maybe such a mess will convince at least Republican Party leaders that they REALLY need to do something about the crazy nominating calendar!

Murky Electoral Process May Not Clear For Some Time

We thought we'd pass along this analysis from Dick Morris and Eileen McGann in the New York Post, "There Will Be Blood," outlining likely scenarios for both parties' nominating contests as we go forward.

Dick Morris is not a very savory character, but he is an astute political observer. The key points, as we see them: Hillary won't stop just because she loses New Hampshire, or even SC and Nevada to boot--she'll be there through Super-Duper Tuesday, whereas Edwards will soon be gone.

And, on the GOP side, Giuliani doesn't benefit from McCain being the front-runner and the Republicans could still wind up at their convention without a nominee.

Wither The GOP?

After Iowa, Rudy Giuliani pronounced himself happy and satisfied with his strategy of skipping the state. And skipping New Hampshire, and South Carolina, and Michigan, Nevada and Wyoming too.

Here's Giuliani's best, and really only, hope. After Huckabee's win in Iowa, McCain takes New Hampshire. But then, just as everyone writes him off, Romney takes Michigan after McCain and Huckabee cancel each other out. Then, another close one in South Carolina between those three.

So, by the time Florida rolls around, there's no frontrunner (presumably, by then, Thompson has dropped out and endorsed McCain, which he almost did yesterday until he eked out third place in Iowa). Then, in the Giuliani playbook, Rudy wins Florida.

Ok, we could see that happening. But we can't see the part where that propels the Rudester to victory on February 5. At best, Giuliani would "win" by a small margin in a fractured field in Florida, leading the press to make what looked like a three-man race into a four-man race.

Then along comes February 5. All that would happen is a horribly divided Republican party remains . . . horribly divided. Each candidate wins a few states and some delegates, but no one emerges as the leader. At that point, the GOP is looking at a deadlock going into it's September convention, an ugly scenario if ever there was one. And no great way to break the deadlock.

There's another plausible scenario. McCain wins New Hampshire with a decent margin, say the same as Huck's over Mitt in Iowa. Thompson drops out and endorses McCain (not that these endorsements matter--the supporters scatter to the winds). Romney, having shot his wad, stumbles through to Michigan, but loses to McCain again, while Huckabee has a respectable showing (Michigan has a pretty large evangelical base). So Romney's done and drops out.

Now it goes to South Carolina, with Huckabee versus McCain. Either one could win in this scenario--the point is, it's now a two man race. They go on to Florida, where Giuliani has been waiting patiently. But wait--he can't afford to lose, not even by one vote. And suddenly all those former supporters of Fred and Mitt are turned loose. Are they going to jump on an uncertain Rudy bandwagon? Dubious.

Ok, so Rudy's lost Florida. He limps into Super-Duper Tuesday, wins New York and New Jersey, but nothing else, while McCain and Huckabee divide the other states. It's now a two-man race. And after a good show, Huckabee loses out to McCain, who turns around and makes Huckabee (who's otherwise unemployed) his veep pick.

That's not a bad outcome for the GOP--actually, a pretty viable ticket, with at least a shot at winning in November.

One Week To Showtime In Iowa!

After a brief holiday break to catch up with the Curmudgeonly relatives at a family gathering in Raleigh, we're back, with just one week until the Iowa caucuses.

After a year of watching the crowded fields of candidates run their marathon, it's fun to finally get to the sprint, especially with the runners pacing each other neck and neck. Let's take a moment to review where we are, how we got here, and (of course) some Curmudgeon predictions.

DEMOCRATS

For a year now, it seemed like Hillary was inevitable. That is, unless you took her numbers and compared them to the combined numbers of her opponents.

Now, Hillary doesn't look so inevitable. Obama has finally energized his own supporters and emerged as a credible threat, and we think this race could go down to the wire. We've always liked Obama's fairly patient strategy of biding his time and running a national campaign. A lot of folks thought he'd stumble along the way--the fact that he hasn't is enough, by itself, to get him additional support.

We never liked Edwards' strategy, which was to concentrate all his effort on Iowa, and to focus on poverty as his big issue. Edwards comes across as a phony on poverty, and in any event it is about the biggest loser of an issue for the GENERAL election that one can imagine. Edwards may well pull off an upset in Iowa, coming in second, or even first by a hair. But he won't be able to follow that up in either New Hampshire or South Carolina. And Dems should say "thank goodness" because Edwards would he as hapless as Dukakis in a general election contest.

We were hoping Bill Richardson would be able to follow-up his summertime surge with some additional progress, but he's gone nowhere since then, due, in part, to some very shaky debate performances. We do hope he'll stay on the national scene--he'd be a good veep, or Secretary of State.

Our prediction: Iowa will see Clinton, Obama and Edwards get roughly a third of the vote each in a tight three-way race. Any one of them could "win"--it will depend on their ground games, i.e., getting out the vote. But then New Hampshire will just be Hillary and Barack, again a close race, as will be South Carolina. We aren't ready to predict a winner, although we'd say Hillary may have an edge with money and organization when it comes to Super-Duper Tuesday on February 5.

Republicans

Our forecasts have been pretty good on the GOP side. A few weeks ago, we reviewed the candidates' strategies for winning. We said Thompson had no strategy and needed one, predicting he'd be the odd man out. That now looks like a safe bet, despite some conservative pundits' predictions that he could somehow pull it out in Iowa.

We also criticized Giuliani's Florida strategy, which appear to be the work of some political amateurs who thought they were the next geniuses. Sorry, Rudy. While Giuliani will stay in it for awhile, and pick up a good number of delegates from Yankee states--if he sticks around--his shot at the nomination is fading fast. Giuliani will blame his troubles on the bad timing of various damaging revelations, but the fact is that his screwy strategy left him way too vulnerable.

Romney, on the other hand, with his phalanx of political professionals, has always had a good strategy, and just might still pull it off. At one point, he was leading in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina, a feat which, if sustained, would have won it all. Republicans should be glad Romney has slipped because his nomination would have been dangerous to the party. Romney is the Manchurian candidate--a good-looking man of no personal conviction, professionally managed, who wants nothing more than to win. He is a plastic robo-candidate, who will say whatever is programmed into him. His only chance for winning would be if the Dems decided to self-destruct and nominate Edwards.

Huckabee's also had a good strategy: position himself as the candidate of the evangelicals. By maintaining a good sense of humor and hanging in there while others faded or dropped out, Huckabee has succeeded. He should win Iowa, and he will do well in South Carolina and other southern states, especially as it becomes obvious that Thompson has no shot.

We also noted that McCain's strategy hinged on New Hampshire and said don't count him out. In particular, we predicted that Huckabee's rise in Iowa would redound to McCain's benefit in New Hampshire, as old-school Yankee Republicans, recoiling in horror, would give McCain a second, more serious look. That strategy is working and McCain could win New Hampshire. A solid second there will be enough to put him in the top three as the field winnows down. Indeed, McCain could yet win the nomination, just as Bob Novak predicted today.

Our fearless forecast: Huckabee wins Iowa, followed by Romney, with McCain a distant third. Giuliani could end up in fifth. McCain will then win New Hampshire, narrowly over Romney, with Huckabee in the single digits and Giuliani possibly behind Ron Paul. In between, Romney will get a little publicity by winning Wyoming. And then we'll see. Will the GOP end up with a deadlock? Or will the party coalesce behind someone--we'd have to think it would be McCain, but we wouldn't rule out Romney, or even Huckabee, or maybe even Giuliani.

McCain Catches Romney In New Hampshire

Poor Mitt Romney. Just as he was succeeding in bringing Mike Huckabee down a peg in Iowa, at the cost of a massive blitz of negative television ads, along comes John McCain and catches up with the Mittster in New Hampshire.

A new poll in NH has McCain tied with Romney, both at 26%. A new Fox national poll also has McCain statistically tied with Giuliani and Huckabee.

Could it be that New Hampshire Republicans, watching the rest of the field--Mitt and his flip-flops and pandering; Huck and his holier than thou Christian leader schtick; Giuliani and his dubious jugdment on friends and lovers; and plain ol' lazy Fred T.--are starting to remember why they liked McCain in the first place?

The Republicans could do a lot worse than McCain. He regularly beats Hillary in head-to-head poll match-ups because independents view him as, well--independent. And the baggage he carries is that he's occasionally offended the GOP "base" by refusing to pander to them and rejecting some of their sillier notions.

If the Iraq war was still going poorly, it would be a problem for McCain, but if things keep improving, he looks like a genius.

New Hampshire will be close. But if McCain can pull out a win in the Granite State, we'd expect to see a strong surge of support for him elsewhere, as party regulars--understandably queasy at the prospect of a brokered convention--rally around him. They've test driven all the other candidates and now, guess what--Senator McCain doesn't look so bad after all.

Personally, as Democrats wanting to win in November, McCain strikes us as the Republicans' strongest candidate, one we'd rather not face.

Round And Round They Go: The GOP Presidential Nomination Race

With two weeks to Iowa, the Republican presidential nomination is wide open.

Nationally, Giuliani's lead in the polls has dwindled to where he's in virtually a dead heat with Huckabee and Romney. With no candidate getting more than 25% in the national polls, and at least four candidates in double digits, it's clear no consensus is emerging among badly fractured Republican voters.

At the same time, it looks like Huckabee's rise nationally has probably peaked out, with some of the shots taken at him having stuck. That said, Huck is not going away--he's finally coalesced the hard core Christian values crowd, which is a significant GOP voting bloc.

In Iowa, it looks like Romney and Huckabee will be neck and neck, distancing the rest of the field. The other candidates would probably be pretty happy if no clear winner emerged from the Iowa process.

In New Hampshire, Romney has long enjoyed a comfortable lead, but McCain is now moving up steadily, and could catch him. The latest Rasmussen poll out of NH has McCain at 27%, just four points behind Romney's 31%. This is consistent with our forecast a few weeks ago that a Huckabee surge in Iowa would sober up Yankee Republicans and get them to rally around McCain as a sober standard bearer.

After Iowa and New Hampshire, we'd expect Romney to do well in Michigan, Huckabee to do well in SC and Giuliani's lead in Florida to continue to slip. Nonetheless, Giuliani will carry a couple big states on Super Duper Tuesday--certainly NY and NJ.

By the end of the day on Feb. 5, we expect that Romney, Huckabee and Giuliani will all have a significant number of delegates, with McCain MAYBE having a few, especially if he makes a strong showing in New Hampshire. The odd man out will be Thompson, but the way forward to a deadlocked convention may be pretty clear by then. (Washington Times columnist Tony Blankley agrees on the risk of a brokered convention--see "None of the Above: GOP Heading To A Brokered Convention.")

Will A Sex Scandal End Edwards' Campaign And Shuffle The Democratic Deck?

With just two weeks to the Iowa caucuses, the National Enquirer is reporting that John Edwards had an affair with one of his staffers, resulting in her pregnancy. The woman reportedly is in hiding, but the Enquirer claims to have statements from the woman's friends and an email trail. (The Enquirer previously reported, on Oct. 22, that Edwards had been involved in an affair, without naming the woman; it's new story names her. She denies that Edwards is the father of her child.)

Although the Enquirer is nothing more than a supermarket tabloid, it doesn't just make up stories, and typically requires fairly vigorous verification of its claims. Certainly, the Enquirer wouldn't want to go to press with a story like this against a very accomplished trial attorney without some plausible evidence.

Now the Edwards campaign faces a nightmare scenario--whether the claim is true or false, it could dominate the headlines for at least the next few days. And if Edwards denies the charge, the race will be on to prove him a liar. If true, then Edwards' campaign is over.

What could this do to the Democratic race? It could re-shuffle the deck, certainly in Iowa. It may help Obama: Edwards' supporters, in the short run at least, are likely to suspect Hillary's campaign--fairly or unfairly--for planting the story. In the long run, however, it may help Hillary. Our gut tells us that in a two-way race with Obama, Hillary is going to win. It may take awhile, but we think her superior organization, and a sense among Democrats nationwide that Obama is a bit of a risk, will propel her to the top.

The nightmare scenario for Clinton's campaign--one that had real potential--was to come in third in Iowa, behind Edwards. The Enquirer's story could make that a whole lot less likely now. The next week will be quite telling.

And The Nominees Are . . .

Last night, at a holiday dinner party in D.C., the Curmudgeon and friends--pretty much all Democrats--tried to predict who the nominees will be, including running mates. A tall task this year.

It was an interesting exercise amongst a very politically savvy group. On the Democratic side, everyone thought Hillary would eventually be the nominee. The ticket would be either Clinton/Richardson or Clinton/Obama. Our consensus was that a Clinton/Obama ticket would be fabulous, if it could be pulled off. Polls show that Democrats around the country like that scenario, too.

[We did have one intriguing pick: Hillary with Virginia Governor Tim Kaine as her running mate.]

On the Republican side, not surprisingly, everyone was all over the map. A couple of our predictors thought Giuliani would prevail. One said Huckabee would be nice because he'd be easy to beat, at which there was immediate protest from others not to take Huckabee too lightly. There was some agreement that a Giuliani/Huckabee pairing might be just the ticket for the GOP.

Someone thought Romney still had a good chance, and some wondered about a full-circle tilt back to McCain. (Notice that the major newspaper endorsements in Iowa and New Hampshire are going to McCain.)

Kay Bailey Hutchison and Liddy Dole got thrown out as possibilities for a VP pick--to counter Hillary.

Where did the Curmudgeon come out? What the heck, we decided to go for the long bomb! Our prediction: a deadlocked GOP convention turns to someone not running, because all the candidates in the race now will be viewed as "damaged goods" by September, when the convention rolls around. The party's savior: Newt Gingrich. His running mate: Tommy Thompson.

Now that's a long shot, for sure. A simpler prediction: it will be chaos for the GOP and they could well turn to someone not running now. And, their chaotic selection process will spin-off independent third-party candidates.

Republican Nomination: 4-Way Statistical Dead Heat NATIONALLY

Here's an interesting NATIONAL poll from American Research Group (ARG) on the Republican presidential nomination, showing it has now become a four-way statistical dead heat. This may be a first in modern presidential politics.

The numbers:

Giuliani 21%
Huckabee 21%
McCain 18%
Romney 16%
(Margin of error: =/-4%

What's happened since the last ARG national poll, just a month ago in November, is that Thompson has melted down (from 18% to 6%) and Giuliani and Romney have lost support, while Huckabee and McCain have gained.

If other national polls show a similar trend, then our GOP deadlock scenario looks awfully plausible.

Campaign Round-up: Thompson Goes "All-in" In Iowa; Mitt Launches Attack Ad At Huck; Obama Bounces In SC

As usual in the middle of a week less than one month from the first nominating contest, things are busy out there on the campaign trail.

Here's some of the more interesting items:

Fred Thompson's Last Move?

Fred Thompson has practically closed up shop in New Hampshire (where he stands at a whopping 1% in one recent poll) and announced he's going to spend the rest of the campaign in Iowa. In effect, the Fredster--who's chip pile in Word Series of Poker Politics has been dwindling fast--is going "all in" for Iowa.

The rationale for this move is that Thompson is the second choice of many Huckabee supporters in Iowa, so if Huckabee stumbles--or Romney manages to destroy him (see below) then Thompson will be the beneficiary.

Don't hold your breath. We long ago derided Thompson's campaign for having no strategy, and now it's getting a little late. In Iowa polls right now, the tall Tennessean is basically tied with Giuliani in third place, well behind both Huckabee and Romney. He might be able to squeeze out a third place finish, but we wouldn't be surprised if his supporters instead moved over to Huckabee in the end. Thompson should have listened to us: several weeks ago, we said he should move his entire operation to SC and stake the campaign there.

By putting all his chips on Iowa, it looks like Fred is positioning himself to be the first man out of the race (although he should do no more than "suspend" his campaign--just in case the GOP ends up deadlocked and looks for a "compromise" candidate).

Romney Goes After Huckabee With Negatory TV

Governor Huckabee has it right: in a "desperate" move, the Romney campaign has now launched a full-scale attack ad on the Huckster, going after his position on immigration.

Not only is the move desperate, it won't work. Voters in Iowa already know about Huckabee's position on immigration and they're fine with it--he's moved up in the polls, not down.

Romney is also attacking Huckabee on the tax front. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black--Romney, as Governor of Taxachusetts, also had quite a record of raising taxes. Here's a nice little hatchet job on Romney from the New Hampshire Union Leader--which is supporting McCain--written by former Republican acting governor of Massachusetts, Jane Swift. Not so subtly titled "If Republicans Nominate Flip-Flop Romney, They'll Lose," this Swift-boat piece talks about the $700 million per year in increased corporate taxes and fees that Romney oversaw as governator.

[The online comments to Swift's op-ed are as interesting as the commentary itself--overwhelmingly Romney oriented, they look like something organized by the Mittster's campaign. Something worth an enterprising blogger looking into.]

In any event, genteel Iowans are likely to react negatively to Romney's negativity, and those evangelicals will simply dig in their heels for Huckabee.

Speaking of Huckabee, you can already catch online the New York Times Magazine's forthcoming (this Sunday) lengthy profile of the Huck-man--"The Huckabee Factor." It's an interesting piece, with, of course, the Times looking to damn Huckabee with faint praise and sink him with not-so-charming revelations.

But don't think Huckabee's not a legitimate threat to Democrats in November. True, the Drudge Report yesterday claimed that Democrats were "holding fire" on Huckabee, viewing him as "easy kill" in the general election, but don't be so sure of that. (Indeed, other reports said the Drudge piece actually came from Team Romney, which would be no surprise at all--a lot of signs are pointing to Romney's operation as the slickest and dirtiest of all.) We'd bet the Republicans said the same thing about little known Jimmy Carter in 1976. If you don't think Huckabee's dangerous, just look what he did to Romney is just four weeks (with Romney's mishandling of his rise adding fuel to the fire).

Oprah Helps Obama Bounce In South Carolina

On the Democratic side, Obama continues to rise as Hillary slips. This one will devolve into an intense, two-person race, and it may all hinge on Super Duper Tuesday--February 5. (Although we hope the race will still be contested a week later, on Feb. 12, when Virginians get to vote.)

After appearing with Oprah Winfrey before a huge crowd of 30,000 at Carolina stadium in Columbia this past weekend, Obama has jumped into the lead in a SC poll, leading 28-22.

Look for Mr. Hillary--that's Bill--to make more SC appearances. He's about as popular as Oprah among the state's African-Americans, and while he won't draw a crowd of 30,000, he'll nonetheless get voters' attention in the state.

Obama Can't Re-Write The Political Book

Can Barack Obama rise above our politically divisive times and unite the country in bipartisan cooperation to solve our major issues?

Can he put an end to years of political bitterness, to the red-blue divide, to petty partisanship?

Don't bet on it. We like Barack Obama. He is fresh. He is thoughtful. He may be different.

But if Obama becomes the Democratic nominee for President, he won't be able to erase the bitter divide in our country. He might, however, convince hopeful independents that he has a chance.

Here's the problem: no matter who the Democrats nominate--even if they resurrect Ronald Reagan himself and run him as their candidate--they won't be able to quiet the vast right wing commentary machine, upon which tens of millions of dollars in media revenue now rest.

Do you really think Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, Ann C . . . . . r (we try not to mention her name here), Fox News, the Wall Street Journal, the American Enterprise Institute, Weakly Standard, National Revue and their coterie of hangers-on are going to go meekly into the night just because Barack Obama is the Democratic standard bearer instead of Hillary Clinton? Give us a break!

Do you really think those emails circulating around about Obama being a Muslim sleeper agent will go away?

Do you really think Obama's race won't be an underground issue?

This election will be a close one, once again. The Democratic nominee will handily carry the Northeast, the West Coast and parts of the Midwest; the Republican nominee will have no trouble with the Deep South and the Mountain West. It will boil down to the same handful of battleground states as in the last two elections, and it will be tight.

That's not to say that Obama wouldn't be an attractive candidate. For now, at least, he has lower negatives than Hillary. He probably always will--a certain percentage of Americans will refuse to tell pollsters they view him negatively simply to avoid a perception of their being racists.

But Hillary has a decent point: she does have experience, including fighting against these same bastards for a long time. And knowing how to fight them may yet be a crucial quality in this general election campaign, one that, unfortunately, will last longer than any other in recent history (because both parties are picking their nominees so early).

We'll see. We certainly wouldn't be against combining their strengths into one ticket.

Huckabee, Obama, Continue To Come On Strong

More polls, with more good news for Huckabee and Obama, and bad news for Thompson, Giuliani, Romney and Clinton.

Republicans--More Huckabee!

First, SC, where two new polls have nearly identical numbers, both with Huckabee leading for the first time. Rasmussen has Huckabee at 25%, followed by Romney and Thompson at 18%; Insider Advantage has the Huckster at 23%, followed by Thompson and Giuliani at 17% and Romney at 14%.

It was just a few weeks ago that we marvelled at how Romney had seized the lead in SC--a lead, that had it held up with victories in Iowa and New Hampshire could easily have propelled the Mittster to the nomination. Now Huckabee has the lead, and he'll probably keep it unless he gets derailed by Arkansas parole flap. Thompson is second in both polls, but barely. If he doesn't outright win SC, his campaign is done.

In Iowa, Strategic Vision is the latest poll, and it confirms that Huckabee is on top with four weeks to go. Romney trails close behind, so his big religious speech, combined with fallout to Huckabee from the Arkansas parole controversy, could put him back on top.

In New Hampshire, Romney is maintaining a comfortable lead and Huckabee has moved less than just about anywhere else. We don't see Romney losing the Granite State.

But in Florida, where Giuliani has staked his campaign, Huckabee is coming on strong, rising to second place in the recent Survey USA poll, with 18% to Rudy's 32%. The problem for Giuliani is that if Thompson melts down--we think he could be gone by SC--Huckabee stands to gain further and could do quite well in Florida. We've said all along that Giuliani's strategy is flawed, and we stand by our claim. If Giuliani comes in third, or worse, in the first five contests--Iowa, NH, Michigan, Nevada and SC--as is quite possible, his support in Florida will dwindle too and he could be in big trouble.

One other word on Huckabee. Some pundits are now positing that the Baptist preacher from Arkansas could be, in one's words, the Democrats' "worst nightmare" (that would be from Chris Cilizza in the Washington Post). We're not prepared yet to worry about Huckabee in the general election. Granted, he would do well in the Deep South, where Dems have little chance; and, he'd be eaten alive in the industrial Northeast and on the Left Coast, which remain true blue. How would he do in the battleground states? We think his lack of foreign policy experience, his overt religiosity, his very right-wing social views and some of his whackier proposals, like his crazy "voluntary" flat tax plan (we call it the Alternative Maximum Tax) would do him in.

The Democrats--More Obama

Obama's surge continues unabated, with Hillary's leads in states following Iowa starting to slip. We won't go into all the data--suffice it to say that Hillary has dropped in NH and SC (but not Florida, yet).

The question is what will happen when this becomes a two-candidate race? Will Democrats across the country embrace Obama, or will they be risk-averse and stick with Hillary. Still hard to say. Would it still be possible, after the recent nastiness, to have a Hillary/Obama ticket? Many Democrats would like that one quite a bit.

In a separate post, we will address shortly what many view as the key "difference" between Hillary and Obama--her tendency to polarize versus his claim to be able to bring on an era of new politics.

Willie Hortonization of Mike Huckabee

When you become the frontrunner, the media plants a big 'ol fat juicy target on you.

So Mike Huckabee is learning.

The story isn't new, but with Huckabee now taking center stage in the GOP nominating contest, he's suddenly fair game for whatever crap his political opponents can dredge up.

In this case, it didn't take too much dredging: the story was one of the biggest in Arkansas while Huckabee was governor. It's a Willie Horton type of thing. This time, the criminal is a man named Wayne Dumond. He kidnapped and raped a 17-year-old high school cheerleader in 1984. While awaiting trial--he was free on bond--two masked men tied him up and castrated him. He was later convicted and sentenced to life plus 20 years.

During the Clinton governorship of Arkansas, the Democratic Lt. Governor reduced Dumond's sentence enough so he could qualify for parole. Then, during Huckabee's governorship, the parole board released Dumond, evidently with Huckabee's blessing.

You can guess the rest: Dumond moved to Missouri, where he subsequently sexually assaulted and murdered a 39-year-old woman. (These facts come from a Byron York column in the National Review, where they love to Willie Horton their own.)

Now the story is hitting the mainstream media--see, e.g., CNN's "Huckabee Faces Scrutiny For Involvement In Rapist Parole."

We wonder what other skeletons the Huckster has in his closet.

Peaking Too Soon?

It's official: Obama and Huckabee are Iowa leaders according to the media consensus. And their opponents appear to concede the point: Hillary is attacking Obama broadly now, while Romney, in desperation, prepares to give a major speech on his faith.

The problem is that once the media pack come to agreement like this, it's time to reconsider. Remember when Howard Dean had Iowa locked up, only to lose to Kerry, who had been written off?

Or McCain nailing Bush in New Hampshire, only to have Bush mug him in South Carolina. And so on.

The question of the day: have Huckabee and Obama peaked too soon? Or maybe we should first ask if they have peaked yet.

Let's start with whether they've peaked. Huckabee has surged from the single digits to the upper 20's percentage-wise in Iowa. We doubt any Republican in this crowed field can do better than 35 percent, and that will be a stretch. Huckabee's probably about near his peak in Iowa, although he's still rising in the rest of the country.

Obama probably hasn't peaked yet in the smaller Democratic field. Most Democrats actually like Obama, Hillary, Edwards and the rest of the field. They're more focused on who can win and govern effectively, and they're torn. It will be a tough general election, and Hillary is battle-tested. But she is polarizing and may not play as well to independents. Many Dems are giving Obama a fresh look from the standpoint of "change" and "something new." We think Obama can climb a bit higher in Iowa, but he will have to be tough--Hillary ain't going to take this lying down.

Now, have they peaked too early?

The guy who peaked too soon is Romney. He was looking good as little as two weeks ago, but now he's in trouble. Huckabee looks pretty solid in Iowa: he has the highest percentage in polls who say they've completely made up their minds, and he has the highest percentage of supporters who have previously attended a caucus. If the Huckster can maintain his sense of humor and charm for four more weeks without a gaffe--not that easy, mind you--he'll win.

The other thing Huckabee has going for him in a five-way contest is the old issue of "who do I want to play in the play-offs?" Giuliani, it appears, would rather use Huckabee to eliminate Romney, then deal with the Arkansan. McCain also stands to benefit in New Hampshire if Huckabee wins Iowa, having a better chance to steal votes from an imploding Romney.

What of Obama? No question, this is going to be a bare-knuckle fight. Clinton doesn't have to win Iowa, but she can't afford to come in third or lose by a wide margin. Furthermore, there's the expectations game: if the media says Obama is going to win, and he doesn't, he's in trouble. Indeed, if Hillary can come back in the next month and, through organizational strength and ad money, win Iowa, she should easily be propelled to the nomination.

Our fearless forecast: Huckabee wins Iowa by 5-10 percentage points over Romney, who barely fends off Giuliani. Obama edges out Hillary, but by less than the pundits had forecast, resulting in a tactical victory for Clinton. And yes, we reserve the right to change our forecast, as early as tomorrow!

The good news for Huckabee--his supporters seem more firmly entrenched for him, and they are more experienced caucus-goers, so he has a good chance of retaining his support.

Prez. Contest--More Polls With Huckabee, Obama On The Move

As we write this, some crazed jackass has taken a couple hostages in Hillary Clinton's New Hampshire campaign office. We hope this ends with one guy--who turns out to be just a crazy--in jail and no one else hurt.

In today's political news, more polls, of course. What to make of them?

Interpreting small changes from poll to poll is dangerous, since there is a lot of data "noise" in these polls. More important are trends. A consistent gain or loss by one candidate over a series of polls is probably real. Likewise, a big move between two polls taken by the same organization may mean something--at least we know the methodology is the same between those polls.

[Methodology is more important in some places than others. In Iowa, for example, methodology matters a lot, because a pollster is trying to measure preferences amongst those who will actually turn out on caucus day, which is a very small minority of voters. Just asking every recipient of a telephone call in Iowa who they prefer won't be very accurate in projecting caucus results. The various polling organizations all use somewhat different approaches to identifying those most likely to attend their caucuses.]

With those caveats, here's what we see in a round of new polls from Iowa, NH and SC (by the way, if you want the best place to get up to date polling info, go to Realclearpolitics.com):

First, Obama may now be in the lead in Iowa. Probably better to call it a tie, but his recent strength in Iowa polls has been consistent. And Edwards isn't far behind. However, Obama's strength in Iowa hasn't translated into surge elsewhere, at least not yet: in both NH and SC Hillary still has a comfortable lead that hasn't changed much.

In SC, a Clemson University poll had Obama only two points back, trailing Hillary's 19% with 17%. But three other polls by professional pollsters--two before Clemson and one after--all consistently have Hillary in the 43-47% range with Obama in the 21-33% range. We have to view the Clemson poll as an outlier, although it may show that among the hardest core voters who have really made up their minds, Obama is closer to Hillary. (There were a lot of undecided voters in the Clemson poll.)

In New Hampshire, the last seven polls are remarkably consistent. Hillary ranges from 34-38% while Obama ranges from 21-26%, a comfortable lead for Hillary that hasn't budged over the past month.

Still, what we've seen before is a delay between moves in Iowa and those elsewhere. If Obama starts to move in New Hampshire, then watch out!

On the Republican side, the story continues to be Huckabee. He's a good example of the Iowa delay factor. After a steady rise in Iowa that didn't appear to be translating to other states, Huckabee is now getting a momentum effect, helped by not only Iowa, but tons of media attention, his debate performances and his good humored deflection of attacks on him.

Bear in mind, no one had ever heard of Jimmy Carter before Iowa in 1976, and he went on to win the whole thing. We might have to start thinking about how Huckabee would play in a general election. But not yet.

Here's what the most recent polling data shows: in Iowa, an ARG poll--the most recent--has Huckabee one point behind Romney. Consistent with other recent polls, this means the two men are tied. But Huckabee has an edge--in the ARG poll, 89% of Huck's voters say their support is "definite" compared to 56% for Romney. And, in other polls, the Huckmeister's support is greater amongst previous caucus goers--considered the most reliably likely to attend again. In short, we think Huckabee will be able to get his supporters to the caucus rooms, and if so, he will best Romney by a small margin.

In New Hampshire, Huckabee is moving up fast. In the Rasmussen and ARG polls, Huckabee is at 13% and 14%, up from 10% and 7% at the beginning of the month. His support is not coming at Romney's expense, however--the Mittster has remained consistently in the mid-30's all month.

How's this for a scenario: Huckabee wins Iowa and comes in second in NH? Then he'd be for real, for sure.

Finally, in SC, a new ARG poll has Huckabee at 18%, up from just 1% in an ARG poll a month earlier. Now that's movement! His support came from Romney, Thompson and and McCain.

If the overall ARG results for SC are accurate, then Thompson clearly has to worry. SC is make or break for the Thompson campaign, yet he's running in FOURTH place, barely ahead of McCain. That said, other recent polls had the Fredster as high as second place, but Thompson really needs to move to SC for the duration if he's going to have any shot.

Huckabee also leapt into second place in a recent Florida poll, behind Giuliani, which is consistent with his trend around the country.

What we don't have is any particularly recent--or robust--data from the two states that will vote between NH and SC: Nevada (caucus) and Michigan (primary). No one's really campaigning much in those states, so why worry.

So, with five weeks to go before the real voting starts, Huckabee's the story of the moment, along with Obama. Iowa is going to be tight all the way around. And the media's going to have something better to write about than holiday traffic, gloomy Christmas retail sales and whether we'll have a white X-mas.