Your Complete Guide To Super-Duper Tuesday: The Republicans

With Mitt Romney's win in Michigan last night, it's pretty clear the Republican field will traipse on through to the mega-contests on February 5--"Super Duper Tuesday"--without any clear leader. (Caveat: if McCain wins SC and Florida, he could re-emerge as the GOP favorite.)

Let's assume that Huckabee wins SC and either Giuliani wins Florida or it's so close as to be a four (or five)-way tie.

That then sets up a HUGE day for Republicans on Feb. 5 (it likely also will be a big day for Dems--we'll get to them in a later post). What to expect? Below, we go state-by-state, making your job as easy as sitting in a recliner and watching the Super Bowl.

First, a couple observations. 1. No candidate in the GOP race has the funds left to overwhelm his competitors in the Super Duper Tuesday races. There's simply too many states, including the massive media markets of New York and California. Nor is there time between Florida--on January 29--and the Feb. 5 mega-races for any candidate to do any meaningful retail campaigning. That means Florida is important from a momentum standpoint, but Florida will only get you so far.

2. The rules for awarding delegates vary considerably from state to state--we sort those out below as we handicap the races.

Overview

On February 5, nineteen states will hold presidential nominating primaries/caucuses for both parties, and two states--Montana and West Virginia--will hold Republican state conventions to make their picks. Roughly 40% of all delegates to the GOP national convention in September will be selected in these contests, including large numbers in New York and California. (Rougly 1081 delegates are at stake, although arcane rules in the various states mean that some of these won't actually be allocated on Feb. 5.)

No Republican candidate has any chance of sweeping, or even coming close to sweeping, the Super Duper Tuesday primaries. All five of the major GOP contenders have at least one easy win: their home states. Romney gets Massachusetts; Huckabee gets Arkansas; Giuliani gets NY; Thompson--if he makes it this far--gets Tennessee; and McCain gets Arizona.

As we see below, the rest of the states divide out across the field, with California and Illinois being the two largest contested prizes of the day.

Who'll Win What

We'll update this as we get closer to Super Duper Tuesday, but as of now, here's how the races stack up by candidate. Numbers in parentheses are the total number of delegates from that state.

Romney: Wins Massachusetts (43) and Utah (36). Utah is a great win, because it's a winner take all state and has a lot of bonus delegates for its past GOP loyalty. Massachusetts awards its delegates proportionately, so Mitt may have to share a few delegates with other candidates--probably McCain and Giuliani. Romney has a shot at Montana (25), but Montana is picking from a closed convention of roughly 3000 invited Republican insiders. Otherwise, Romney's only other pick-ups are from individual congressional districts in, possibly, California (173) and maybe Illinois (70).

Huckabee: Wins Arkansas (34), Alabama (48) Georgia (72), and Oklahoma (41). If he gets 50% of the vote in homestate Arkansas (no guarantee of that), it becomes winner take all; otherwise, he may have to share a few delegates with McCain or maybe Thompson. Georgia, which is a big prize--it's so red state that is has a large number of bonus delegates, giving it the third highest delegate total of the day--awards its delegates on a winner-take-all basis by congressional district. Huckabee should get everything in the rural parts of the state, but may give up a district or two around Atlanta. Alabama is like Georgia--winner-take-all by district. Oklahoma is a closer call, but if Huckabee can do well, it's also winner-take-all by congressional district, so he could sweep.

The Huckster has a shot at delegates in Montana (25)--there's a good chance the evangelical right makes up a big percentage of those GOP convention insiders--and maybe West Virginia (30--only 18 of which will be selected Feb. 5), which also has a convention. He could also pick up delegates in various congressional districts around the country that have high proportions of evangelicals and homeschoolers, like downstate Illinois.

Giuliani: Rudy should win New York (101) and New Jersey (52), both of which are winner take all states. He also has a good shot at Connecticut (30), which he and Romney will have to fight it out over. IF Giuliani wins Florida, his chances in Connecticut go up, but if Romney bests him in Florida, then we'd give the edge to the Mittster. In any event, Connecticut is winner-take-all, so it's worth the fight for both of them.

Otherwise, Giuliani has a shot at Illinois (70) and Delaware (18), but we think both states will be hotly contested between Rudy, Mitt and McCain. Delaware is winner-take-all, but Illinois is a delegate selection contest, meaning candidates can easily divide up the spoils. Indeed, we think Giuliani (IF he comes out of Florida viable), Romney, McCain and Huckabee will all come out of Illinois with some delegates. Giuliani also has a shot at some California congressional districts.

McCain: Here's where it gets tough for the old warhorse. His only sure bet is Arizona (53), which is winner-take-all. McCain has no real regional base in the party--his is more nationally oriented. Still, McCain can come out of the day with a large number of delegates from individual congressional districts--in states that award delegates that way--around the country. His best bets for pick-ups are delegate rich California (173) and Illinois (70).

Thompson: The Fredster doesn't have much of a shot, unless he outright wins South Carolina, and even then it's hard to see his path. However, if he stays in through Feb. 5, he should win his homestate of Tennessee (55), which awards delegates proportionately, except for winner-take-all in any congressional district where a candidate polls 50% or better. If we were Fred, we'd stay in, because those delegates could be a big bargaining chip in a deadlocked convention, and, of course, Fred could still emerge from such a deadlock as everyone's second choice.

What does that leave as openly contested?

Alaska (29): Alaska is caucusing. The delegates will probably get split up between three or four candidates.

California (173): These delegates are awarded on a winner-take-all basis by congressional district. McCain, Romney, Giuliani and Huckabee should all have a shot at some of these delegates. The statewide winner gets all--eleven--of the at-large/bonus delegates.

Colorado (46): Colorado is also caucusing. McCain should do well here, but Huckabee and Romney could also collect delegates.

Delaware (18): Winner-takes-all, so worth the fight between Giuliani, McCain and maybe Romney.

Illinois (70): Delegate selection, will be roughly proportional, so count on McCain, Giuliani, Romney and maybe Huckabee (downstate) to have an opportunity to make a few pick-ups.

Minnesota (41): Another caucus state, so expect roughly proportional distribution. McCain, Huckabee, Romney, maybe Giuliani, could collect delegates.

Missouri (58): Winner-takes-all and up for grabs. Worth contesting by Huckabee, McCain.

Montana (25): Totally insider system--closed statewide convention where the winner takes all. McCain, Romney and Huckabee should all contest this one.

North Dakota (26): Winner-takes-all. Huckabee could get this if he gets the evangelicals out in the cold; McCain has a shot, too. Maybe Romney?

West Virginia (30): Statewide convention, where the winner-takes-all in a multiple ballot process. Interesting! There will be a runoff amongst the top three candidates, then, if none gets a majority, another run-off among the top two. Winner-takes-all of 18 delegates, the other 12 to be awarded later in a primary. This could go any which way, depending on how losers' delegates pick their second choices. It could come down to who West Virginia Republicans dislike the least.

Conclusions

As you can see, there's no scenario that greatly favors any of the four most viable GOP candidates (sorry, Fred). More likely than not, each one gets some delegates, and it's doubtful any one of them would pick up more than 35% of the delegates at stake on February 5. It's almost impossible for anyone to get 50% of those delegates.

For example, if Giuliani does well, and wins NY, NJ, Connecticut and Delaware, plus some delegates in Illinois and California, he could haul in as many as 250 delegates--a little less than 25% of the total awarded on the day. Rudy's problem is that he runs well in blue states, which have few bonus delegates and thus are disproportionately small in the GOP world.

Likewise, if Huckabee does well, sweeping up Arkansas, Alabama, Georgia, Oklahoma, and even Montana, West Virginia, North Dakota and Missouri, he'd have 334 delegates--a little less than 35% of the day's take.

A good day for Romney would be Mass., Utah, Montana, Connecticut and decent blocks of delegates from California and Illinois, (say 25%), which would put him around 200 delegates.

And a good day for McCain would be Arizona, Colorado, Delaware, Missouri, Montana, West Virginia and a good haul from California and Illinois and a few more from other proportional states, still giving him less than 300 delegates.

[Each of the candidates above could reap another 50-100 delegates from various proportional contests.]

In other words, unless someone comes out of the next three contests--SC, Nevada and Florida--with real momentum, the prospect for Republicans to have a nominee by February 6 is pretty small. The only ones who could get that kind of momentum are (1) McCain, by winning SC and Florida, or (2) Huckabee, by doing the same thing. And both of them have fairly large "anti" contingents awaiting them even if they do pull off such a mini-sweep.

As we said, we'll update this analysis after the SC and Nevada contests over the weekend.

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.

Deeper Doo-doo For Dickie Scruggs

Already facing indictment for an alleged scheme to bribe a Mississippi state court judge, mega-tort lawyer Dickie Scruggs' name has now come up in a second case involving illegal attempts to influence a judicial officer.

In the new case, according to a report in today's Wall Street Journal, Mississippi lawyer Joey Langston has agreed to plead guilty to conspiring to influence state court judge Bobby Delaughter by offering him favorable consideration for a federal judgeship.

Langston previously represented Scruggs in a dispute over asbestos litigation fees. Scruggs is accused in court papers of having conspired with Langston to influence Delaughter, although Scruggs has not been charged in the case.

Coincidentally, Delaughter happens to be the judge who just ruled yesterday in a high profile political/legal dispute that Mississippi must hold it's special election for the open Senate seat vacated by Trent Lott by mid-March, instead of in November, which is when it had been set by Republican Governor Haley Barbour.

We have to wonder, also, whether Lott's name will surface in connection with the Langston case: Lott is Scruggs' brother-in-law and it's hard to see how anyone could credibly have suggested that Delaughter would be considered for a federal judgeship without at least invoking Lott's name, although it could've been done without Lott's knowledge.

Are more judicial corruption cases on the horizon in Mississippi? Possibly. It does appear that a sleazy culture of corruption had developed in the state, and Scruggs is certainly at the center of the allegations. So far, three lawyers have plead guilty. Scruggs denies the claims and says he'll fight them, but one has to wonder whether Scruggs tremendous success over the years might have been more than just skill.

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!

Giuliani's Advisors Now Working For What They're Worth: Nothing

Rudy Giuliani's senior advisors reportedly are now working without pay to help the cash-strapped campaign stay afloat through the Florida primary.

Heck, they should be working for free! These are the same advisors who concocted the wacky theory that Rudy G. could lay low for the first six or seven nominating contests and somehow still be relevant come Florida. Their advice was worthless, so they're now making what they were worth all along.

After leading in national polls as late as two months ago, the Rudester had been in free fall in national polls. Indeed, McCain should richly reward Giuliani's men, because most of the Straight Talker's newfound support is clearly coming from national security conservatives abandoning the USS Giuliani as it founders in bad advice.

Slip-Sliding Away: Anarctica Melting Faster Than Thought

Today's news brings us word that the western Antarctic ice sheet is melting a good deal faster than previously thought. (See "Escalating Ice Loss Found In Antarctica" in the Washington Post.)

Since air temperatures have not risen appreciably in the Antarctic--at least not yet--compared to a fairly dramatic rise in the Arctic, scientists had not expected to find much in the way of melting to the South. It turns out, however, that because the ocean itself is getting warmer, the portion of ice in Antarctica that sits on the water is melting, more so than previously thought.

Significantly, in the most recent IPCC report on global warming, the forecast sea level rise by the end of the century, which was modest, excluded any contribution from melting in Antarctica and Greenland, the two potentially largest contributors to rising oceans. By the time of the next IPCC report, additional data may merit some rather dramatic revisions to the predictions for coastal flooding.

We do wish, however, that the Post's article--similar ones in other publications--had addressed the data from this past summer (the Antarctic winter) reporting that sea ice formation was at a record high, which is certainly different than one would expect with warming. There may be reasonable explanations for both the observed melting and the anomolous record ice formation, but we'd like to hear them, and, at a minimum, have the ice formation story acknowledged when reading stories about melting in Antarctica.

As for the Curmudgeon, we're sticking to mountain properties for our old age.

Thousand Dollar Fine For Bicyclist Under Virginia "Abusive Driver" Law

For those of you who don't live in Virginia, here's the background on this story: last year, the General Assembly, desperately needing to raise money for transportation improvements, but equally desperate to avoid doing so with a "tax," decided to fund it with a hodge podge of disguised taxes, the most significant of which were enormous fines on "abusive drivers."

As with all silly laws, this one has had some silly results. The worst we've heard of, so far is this one (from today's WaPo):

NEWPORT NEWS

19-Year-Old Cyclist Faces Abusive-Driver Fee

A traffic court in Newport News, Va., has ordered a 19-year-old man to pay a $1,050 abusive-driver fee for driving his 18-speed bicycle recklessly in traffic.

Kajuan Cornish, who is appealing the fee, got a ticket Thursday after police said motorists had to slow down to avoid hitting him.

The day before, Virginia Gov. Timothy M. Kaine (D) called on state lawmakers to repeal the fees, saying they were a mistake. The General Assembly and Kaine approved them last year in an attempt to raise money for transportation projects by cracking down on drivers cited for the most serious offenses, such as reckless driving.

Now really, does that make sense? We might add that we caught a clip of the bicyclist offender on the TV news and, lo and behold, he was African-American. Would that happen to a white guy on a bicycle? We don't think so.

We're not against ticketing a reckless bicyclist, but let's get real.

Michigan Up For Grabs

Should we even bother with the polls in Michigan after what happened in New Hampshire?

Well, the New Hampshire polls were pretty accurate with the GOP side of the race, so let's give it a try.

Six polls have been released in Michigan covering interviews conducted January 9 or later. Of those, three give Romney the lead and three give McCain the lead, with the largest lead for Romney at 8% and the largest for McCain at 7%. Huckabee is in third, about 9 points back.

(For a complete tabulation of the Michigan polls, go here.)

That means Michigan is a toss-up. A lot hangs in the balance: if McCain wins, his momentum could be enough to run the table in SC, Florida and Super Duper Tuesday. If Romney wins, however, it knocks McCain down a peg, gets the Mittster back into the race, keeps SC up in the air (leaning Huckabee) and even gives Giuliani a shot in Florida.

McCain could even come in third in Michigan--Huckabee's numbers may be a bit better than the polls, because his people will turnout. We think Romney is enjoying a mini-surge of support in Michigan, and it's not clear that independents, who McCain needs, will really turn out.

And, if Romney wins Michigan, he could end up with a very good week, as he has a good shot at Nevada with it's large Mormon population.

Looks to be another interesting week.

The Start Of A McCain Bandwagon, Or The Latest GOP Fad?

Based on the post-New Hampshire polls, it sure looks like a McCain bandwagon is starting up on the Republican side. He's leading in polls in Michigan, SC, Florida and in a couple of national polls, including CNN poll with McCain leading Huckabee by 14 points and everyone else trailing. (We will say that CNN's track record with polls in this election has been erratic, at best.)

But then, McCain had the lead early last year. Then it was Thompson. Then Giuliani. On occasion it has been Huckabee. So maybe McCain is just the latest fad.

We'll know pretty soon.

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!

New Hampshire Gives McCain A Bounce In The Polls

Two polls are out today with post-New Hampshire results in the upcoming GOP contest for South Carolina, both showing a distinct bounce for John McCain.

Just prior to NH, Insider Advantage and Survey USA gave Huckabee a commanding, double digit lead over McCain. The two polls out today, from Rasmussen and Faux News, reverse that and give McCain a small, but significant, lead over Huckabee with Romney close behind. (Thompson, who we said five weeks ago needed to move his operation to SC, is probably too late--he hasn't really moved in the polls.)

In Michigan, we also have a new poll with McCain taking a small lead, although that poll was taken before NH and conflicts with another poll taken in the same period. (For Michigan poll results, click here.)

That's all good news for McCain--if he can win both Michigan and South Carolina, he'll be in terrific shape to vanquish Rudy G. in Florida and run the table. If he wins neither, it's back to the old grind.














5

Why Hillary Won In New Hampshire

To know why Hillary won in New Hampshire, you need only speak to a politically savvy Democratic woman. The Curmudgeon's stepmother clearly fits that bill, and her comments, validated by Mrs. Curmudgeon, tell the story.

"First of all, the people that caused Hillary to win were (besides Hillary and Bill, who worked their butts off) Rush Limbaugh, Fox News Pundits, Chris Matthews and Keith Oberman.

Bill Reilly's rush to get an interview with Obama pointed up the
ridiculousness of this infatuation with the newness of Obama as Reilly made a
total boor of himself. Matthews, Limbaugh, and even ultra liberal
Oberman, for different reasons, excoriated Hillary day after day, pounding nails
in where ever they could -- from hair do and bags under her eyes to tears of
exhaustion.

One now has to question polls that asked if people liked Obama more than
they did Hillary, setting her up for that question to which she answered, "It
hurts my feelings" when asked how she felt about it. This answer, and her
continual step by step actions through the slog they have been throwing at her,
humanized her in ways she couldn't do herself. It made it clear that those
kind of men would prefer any man to a woman.

Then, Gloria Steinheim's marvelous op-ed in the NY Times was over the top -- asking if a woman had only two years as a US Senator, and a few terms in a state legislature if she would ever have been considered a viable presidential candidate.
Asking whether these pundits that call Obama "fresh" and his speeches
"inspiring" wouldn't instead call them "emotional" if they had come from a
woman. It pointed out quite clearly what women have been feeling
since Iowa.

Darn it, enough is enough. Obama may be a phenomenon. But a
woman getting this far is also one. Hill won because the NH women
were furious at the pundits and the men who criticize her. If
men pull back and stop jeering at her, then we can have a civilized race.
If not -- well, there ARE more women then men."

There you have it. The women have spoken, now listen up!

Maybe Mitt, Not Hillary, Should Look To Bill's '92 Example

Back when everyone thought Hillary was going to lose New Hampshire, her campaign kept reminding everyone that in 1992 Bill lost seven of the first nine contests, and do don't count Hillary out.

Perhaps it's Mitt Romney who should be pointing to 1992. The key to Bill Clinton's win in '92 was that four different Democrats--Bob Kerrey, Paul Tsongas, Jerry Brown and Tom Harkin--were winners in the other contests, meaning there was no front runner.

Likewise, by the time we get to Tsunami Tuesday on February 5, there could be at least three different Republicans, besides Romney to have won a round (recall that Romney did win Wyoming already). The idea that Romney is finished, in a five man field, after a couple second places is absurd.

Bill Richardson Calls It Quits

New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson will announce tomorrow that he is quitting the presidential race, AP reports.

Good for Bill--it's the right thing for him to do. We liked Gov. Bill and endorsed him early on, but despite about a month of movement during the summer he never really caught on, hindered especially by a couple of erratic debate performances.

Look for Richardson to resurface in someone's cabinet, possibly as Secretary of State, and look for him to help out with the Latino community come this Fall, regardless of who the nominee is.

That is, unless he decides to run for the Senate seat in New Mexico being vacated by Pete Domenici--it would be Richardson's for the taking, although he told Democratic Rep. Tom Udall he wouldn't run, and he should probably honor that promise.

First Michigan Poll In A Month Shows Tie Between Romney and Huckabee

It's been nearly a month since anyone release a poll of Michigan voters, which is the next battleground for the GOP. Today, an outfit called the Rossman Group released a poll, obviously taken before the NH results were known (but the expectations of a McCain victory were already in hand). The results:

Huckabee 23%
Romney 22%
McCain 18%

Huckabee could do well--evangelicals are an important component in Michigan and they will turn out.

The Double Deadlock Scenario

Last night's result in the Democratic race in New Hampshire, with Hillary making a "comeback," raises a new spectre--the Double Deadlock scenario.

[As an aside, we have to wonder about the media's role in painting these "victories" and "defeats." If the polls had shown Hillary with the lead that they instead attributed--falsely--to Obama, then Hillary's three point victory would have been portrayed much differently, maybe even as Obama exceeding expectations. The delegate count puts it where it should be: a tie.]

For months now, we've speculated about the possibility of a Republican deadlock, i.e., no one in the field having a majority of delegates before the convention. That possibility remains quite real, with four viable candidates, none of whom draws better than 25% support in national polls. If those four stay in the race and divide the delegates along their poll lines, no one will have a majority.

But we haven't discussed the possibility of a Democratic deadlock as well, the conventional wisdom being that the Dem race would quickly come down to two candidates. But we now have to consider the possibility. The Democratic Party awards delegates much more proportionally than the Republicans. The result is that although Hillary won yesterday, she and Obama got the same number of delegates. Likewise, in Iowa, Obama won, but got only one more delegate than Hillary.

And, in both races, Edwards won a few delegates. Edwards says he going to stay in it for the long haul, and he may very well do so. If that's the case and he gets 15-20% of the delegates while Hillary and Obama go back and forth, then the Dems could end up in a deadlock, too.

We wouldn't put it past Edwards to be a spoiler, with his huge ego. And we wouldn't put it past Democratic voters to consistently give him 15-20% of the vote--he appeals to the "angry" Democrats who believe his schpiel that the world's woes are caused by corporate greed.

We don't think a deadlock would be good for either party. A double deadlock might even things out, but it would encourage third party candidacies and lead to an endless summer of speculation and hand wringing. The odds of a deadlock on the Democratic side are still pretty low, but if neither Hillary nor Barack comes out of February 5 with a clear advantage, the odds go up.

Meanwhile, just think of the irony here: everyone moved their nominating contests up this year because they wanted their votes to "count," to be "meaningful." And yet it now turns out that the LATE nominating states may have the more meaningful say.

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.

New Hampshire: BIG WINNER--Hillary; Other Winners and Losers

Here's our New Hampshire wrap-up and analysis of winners and losers.

Clearly, the biggest winner is Hillary, because she completely defied expectations. (The pollsters didn't know Hillary's secret weapon, which we at the Curmudgeon will now reveal: between Iowa and New Hampshire, Hillary got a large monetary infusion from Mrs. Curmudgeon, which clearly put her over the top.)

EVERYONE said, based on unanimous polls, that Obama was going to win. The only question was by how much--would it be double digits? The question now is why, and how could the polls be so wrong? Hillary now has some momentum and has taken some of the air out of Obama's balloon. Meanwhile, Edwards is finished, so we're down to a two candidate race.

The rest of our winners and losers:

Democrats:

Pretty simple here. Hillary wins, Obama has a significant setback, but it could be only temporary, and Edwards, while he'll probably keep at it, is really out of it. This race will probably go down to Super Duper Tuesday on February 5 and be decided then. Or maybe a week later when Virginians vote--yea!

The pollsters lose. For the record, realclearpolitics.com lists all the publicly released polls for New Hampshire in chronological order. Of the last 20 polls in the state, all taken between January 4 and January 7, only 1 (Suffolk/WHDH) had Hillary in the lead, and that one by two points. We can't give that poll credit however, because that same poll had LATER results (yesterday) showing Obama up by 5 points.

Bill Richardson is a loser. He barely registered after spending a fair amount of time and money on the state. He loves campaigning and pressing the flesh, but he really should drop out now, lest he become a caricature of himself.

The press and the political commentariat is a loser, too--to a person they didn't see this coming. Now, they get to question the polls the rest of way out.

Whether the Democratic Party is a winner is yet to be seen. On the positive side, despite a disadvantage to Republicans statewide in voter registration, Democrats had about 40,000-50,000 more voters. On the other hand, the party is now looking at a drawn out fight that could turn divisive, rather than an Obama bandwagon that might have brought newfound enthusiasm to independents and young people.

It will be interesting to see how the independents broke. Obama may have been hurt by more of them going over to the Republican race at the last minute. Just doing a quick count of the numbers, it looks like about the same number of voters selected each party's primary (slight edge to the Democrats).

Republicans

Obviously, McCain is a winner. If he had lost New Hampshire, his campaign would have been crippled. There were some signs in late polls that Romney might be coming back (although they said that in Iowa too, so we discounted it here), so McCain's people were a little concerned. McCain's margin of victory--5%--is just enough to make it a comfortable win, although they clearly were hoping for something a little bigger.

Now McCain has a shot at the nomination. But those predicting it's all his are WAY premature. This race is still wide open, with a lot yet to happen.

Another winner is Huckabee, who cinched third place with 12%, which was about the upper limit of what he could've achieved in New Hampshire. It demonstrates that Huckabee's people really do come out to vote. He'll have a shot in Michigan, will be formidable in SC, and has a good shot in Florida if his folks stay loyal and turn out like they have. Then, anything goes on Super Duper Tuesday.

Romney is a loser, but not as badly as the punditocracy thinks. He's had two strong second place finishes in a six man field. Yes, he spent heavily in Iowa and New Hampshire, but guess what--so did Thompson and Giuliani at one point, before they gave up. Romney can and will go on, although he'll need to shake up his campaign and run on a leaner organization (which might free him up to be himself instead of the Manchurian candidate).

Giuliani is a loser. Once again, he's out of the national spotlight with his silly strategy. Finishing fourth, barely ahead of Ron Paul, is not the stuff of a winner. We can guarantee you that whatever Giuliani is doing in Florida, it's overwhelmed by the headlines there about New Hampshire.

Thompson is a loser. He probably ought to suspend his campaign and endorse his friend McCain. But another option is to keep going, in a low key way and amass a handful of delegates and be an option for a deadlocked convention. We just don't think he has the heart for the campaigning--too bad he can't subcontract with Bill Richardson to do the pressing the flesh part of it.

Ron Paul is a loser--he really needed to get in the top four to be taken more seriously. New Hampshire is probably his high water mark. It will be downhill from here for Dr. Paul, especially after everyone takes a look at The New Republic's piece detailing Paul's history of racist and anti-semitic writings over the years.

The Republican Party may be a loser, or may be a winner. It clearly has a badly splintered electorate. If they decide McCain is the man they need, and rally around him, then the GOP may yet be saved. Absent that, it could be a long, hard and potentially disastrous year. Can anyone say 1964? (On the other hand, the Republicans may be happy--they'd clearly rather run against Hillary than Obama, although you should always watch what you wish for.)

The pollsters did a better job on the GOP side. Our pollster winner is: CNN/WMUR/UNH, which had McCain by 5%, had Huckabee in third by himself by three points, and had Giuliani and Paul tied, which is pretty much the way it played out. That's good for CNN, because it was our loser in Iowa. Our poll loser is Suffolk/WHDH, which had Romney winning and had Paul at only 5%.

And once again, a big winner is the commentariat, because every time the voters defy expectations, they give us that much more to write about!

Hillary Upset In The Making?

With 27% of the vote counted in New Hampshire, Hillary leads 40-36. The exit polls also give her an edge of about the same margin.

Good lord, how could almost ALL the polls be wrong!

Later we'll do our winners and losers analysis. Things could be quite topsy!

UPDATE: Here's the exit poll numbers--frustratingly, they don't give you a bottom line number, but you can get pretty close with the gender breakdown.

Among women, who made up 57% of the poll (and presumably of the primary voters where the exit polls were conducted), Hillary beats Obama 47%-34%. Among men, the percentages flip, but men are only 43% of the respondents, so a much smaller group. There, Obama leads Hillary 42%-30%. Based on the exit poll, then, Hillary should win. You can find the whole darn thing on CNN here.

Goodbye, Joe Gibbs

Joe Gibbs is retiring as Redskins head coach.

We have a fond place for Coach Gibbs in our heart, but it's the right decision.

Gibbs was a good coach for the Redskins in the '80's--he fit what the Redskins had and the envirnoment in which they played.

But he's not a terrific coach in today's environment. Mostly, he's just too conservative with play calling. No sooner than the Redskins get a lead than does he go into a stall. You may burn up three minutes in the last quarter on three consecutive running plays, but if you then have to punt it away, you're giving the other team a chance. Too often Gibbs did just that, rather than take a little risk for the reward of keeping the ball longer--or, heaven forbid, scoring again.

Contrast Gibbs with Bill Belichek, who frequently goes for it on fourth down, and succeeds. You just can't win consistently without taking some measured risks.

The Redskins did well to make the play-offs this year, but they should have had at least two, and as many as four, more victories during the season.

A fresh face will do the 'Skins good. We'll miss ol' Joe, but somehow we think he'll be having fun with his racing toys.

Mitt Romney's To Do List: Pander, Pander, and Pander Some More

Talk about pandering! Yesterday, at one of his rallies, Mitt Romney unveiled the following "to-do" list if he's elected President. See if you can spot any contradictions.

1. Make America safer
--Stronger military
--Better intelligence
--Strengthen alliances
2. End illegal immigration
3. Reduce taxes
4. Cut pork
5. Better care for veterans
6. Health insurance for everyone
7. End dependence on foreign oil
8. Make government simpler, smaller
9. Grow the economy and keep our jobs
10. Fix social security
11. Put people ahead of selfish interest
12. Strengthen our families
13. Balance the budget

Well, now; that's certainly utopian. Why not: world peace, end poverty, end hunger, end crime.

Let's see, how does this distinguish Mitt from any of the other Republicans running? Oh, it doesn't. Well, what about the Democrats? Nope, they're for all that too.

Mitt seems to be getting dopey as he gets desperate.

More On Bob "Taliban" Marshall's Run Against Gilmore

Here's a follow-up from the Washington Post to our piece yesterday on Del. Bob Marshall--aka Virginia's Taliban--plan to seek the GOP nomination for the open seat being vacated by Senator John Warner.

Could the "abortion is the only issue I care about" wing of the Republican Party in Virginia be enough to propel this whackjob to the nomination?

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!

Virginia's Taliban--Bob Marshall--To Oppose Gilmore For Senate Nomination

Now this is entertaining: Virginia Republican Delegate Bob "Taliban" Marshall has announced that he is running for the Republican nomination to fill the Senate seat being vacated by John Warner.

[We call Marshall the Virginia Taliban because he is one of those ultra-right wing legislators who, like the Taliban, would like the State to tell you how to live your life, especially when it comes to sexual mores. For more, see our prior posting, "Virginia's Taliban: Bob Marshall."]

We love it--in announcing his run, Marshall accused Gilmore, a stalwart of the party's conservative wing, of being too moderate. "I did a lot of calling around the state, and I got an excellent response from Republican Party officials," Marshall was quoted in the WaPo. "I just concluded I matched their aspiration for the views they think should be expressed and defended by a Republican candidate for the U.S. Senate."

Too bad Virginia's GOP isn't holding an open primary, rather than a closed convention. With Marshall running to the right of Gilmore, perhaps Tom Davis should reconsider whether to run as well, splitting delegates three ways.

The GOP nominee will face off against Democrat Mark Warner, who, at this point is heavily favored. (But, we remind our readers: George Allen was heavily favored at this point two years ago and look how that turned out.)

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.

Waste of Newsprint: McGovern Op-ed In WaPo Calling For Bush Impeachment

You'd think in this hectic time of political activity, the Washington Post would have plenty to fill it's Sunday "Outlook" opinion section with.

Evidently not. The lead piece in today's Outlook was an op-ed by former Senator George McGovern, who must be like a million years old by now, calling for the impeachment of Bush and Cheney.

It's a waste of newsprint. Titled "Why I Believe Bush Must Go," it recounts how McGovern "belatedly and painfully" reached his conclusion.

And the Post wonders why it's circulation is stagnant. The Curmudgeon agrees with much of McGovern's reasoning--but not his conclusions. The question is, why should anyone care about McGovern's personal opinion on the matter?

McGovern isn't somebody who matters today. And, as he says, he reached his conclusion "belatedly." In fact, so belatedly that it's too late to impeach the President and Vice President. McGovern "believes" the Prez "must go," but the fact is that he will be gone in just over one year. And he (like McGovern) is largely irrelevant already--he has no ability to set an agenda with Congress.

If impeaching Bush and Cheney could somehow undo all the harm they've done to this country, we'd be all for it. But it wouldn't do that--indeed, it would create more harm, paralyzing our government during an election year with a process that couldn't logically be completed until just months or weeks before the White House changes occupants anyway.

We don't have any real truck with McGovern's opinion, but by the same token there's nothing new or newsworthy in his argument. Many have already made similar arguments, much sooner.

Our problem is with the Post's judgment that this is somehow important--so important, for that matter, as to merit being the lead opinion item on a weekend between the Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire primaries. The fact of the matter is that NO ONE CARES what McGovern thinks at this late date. (Yes, we know--save your comments--no one cares what the Curmudgeon thinks, either.)

Whoever's running the Outlook page really needs to get a clue.

Blowhard O'Reilly Bullies His Way Around Obama Rally

Here's a great piece from Slate's John Dickerson on Fox blowhard Bill O'Reilly's asshole antics at an Obama rally in New Hampshire.

There's more. Other bloggers report on details, including the Secret Service restraining the Bloviator, and O'Reilly going on Faux News to lie about "his" side of the story. Huffington Post says it will have video.

O'Reilly claims he was just there to ask Obama to come on his show. Sure. Right. There are ways O'Reilly could have done that without creating a spectacle, but, of course, it was all about the attention O'REILLY could get. He wanted a spectacle, which is why he went in with a full entourage and Faux "news" camera and then took up a position guaranteed to cause a problem.

The really bad part: now all the other right wing nut job "commentators" will try to one up each other with similar stunts.

Ron Paul Tops Virginia

That's right--Ron Paul is on top in Virginia.

The Board of Elections, in its random drawing, ended up picking Paul first, allowing his name to be listed first for Virginia's February 12 primary.

Speaking of Paul, here's a little factoid: Paul was the only GOP candidate besides Huckabee or Romney to actually carry an Iowa County. Jefferson County is Ron Paul territory--he beat out Huckabee's evangelicals 298 to 263.

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.

ACC Football Stinks Up The Joint

Back in September, as the college football season got underway, we curmudged about the Atlantic Coast Conference and how it had miserably failed to live up to expectations as a football powerhouse.

The post-season has confirmed those views. In bowl games this year, the so-called "power-conference" ACC is 2-6--right up there with the WAC. And in the history of BCS games, the ACC is a stunning 1-9.

Perhaps in football, it would be better to refer to the ACC as a "mid-major" conference.

A Good Night For Tim Kaine

Obama's better-than-expected showing in Iowa is good news for Virginia Governor Tim Kaine.

Kaine was an early supporter of Obama, resisting what must have been pretty intense pressure from the Clintonites to, at a minimum, stay neutral.

And Kaine has put his money where his mouth is, so to speak, including stumping for Obama in Iowa the last couple days before the caucuses.

Kaine for Vice President? Could be. Kaine is a popular governor in a state that could--just maybe--go blue in November. If Obama gets the nomination, you can certainly bet that Kaine's name will be on the "short list" bandied about before the convention (although it could be a pretty long short list).

Now, wouldn't it be wild if, come 2009, Virginia had two Democratic senators and the Vice President?

Iowa: Winners and Losers

The Iowa results are official, and they're quite interesting for us political junkies.

The first thing they tell us is that both parties have wide open races. That, in turn, will encourage folks like Bloomberg, and maybe Ron Paul, to run as independents.

Let's examine the results in turn.

Democrats

Barack Obama is a big winner. He beat expectations, besting both Hillary and Edwards by eight points.

Hillary is a loser for coming in third, but it's not as bad as it looks--she basically tied Edwards. Still, Iowa is going to give Hillary supporters around the country a lot of pause. So far, she hasn't found a strategy for dealing with Obama's popularity.

Edwards is a loser. Oh, his campaign will spin second place (barely) as some sort of win, but let's face it--he pinned everything on Iowa and he really didn't come close to winning. As the campaign turns to New Hampshire, most serious voters are going to be deciding betweeen Hillary and Obama, leaving Edwards far behind. We think he's done, save maybe for a brief showing in Nevada.

Amongst the pollsters, give kudos to the Des Moines Register, which called Obama by seven points, with Hillary and Edwards statistically tied, and which predicted independents would be the key. Maybe give second prize to the Zogby tracking poll for getting the order correct and giving Obama a decent advantage.

Another winner is the Democratic Party, which had robust, enthusiastic turnout across the state, and which reported it's results quickly and professionally. If Democrats can ultimately unite around their nominee--and all indications are that they will--they should win this election.

Republicans

Obviously, Huckabee is a winner, doing slightly better than the polls predicted. He's even showing some teflon coating--just think how much Romney spent on negative advertising without making a dent, even with the Huckster shooting himself in the foot a few times to boot!

But where does the Huckmeister go from here? New Hampshire will be tough on him, but he has opportunities in Michigan and South Carolina. He needs to come up with a national strategy--winning Southern and border states while letting others divide the spoils in the rest of the country. Ed Rollins is smart--he might just get Big Mike across the finish line.

For Huckabee to win, however, he'll need someone to be strong enough to counterpoise McCain in northern states. If it gets down to a race just between Huckabee and McCain, the Huckster will lose.

Romney is a big loser. He spent untold millions on Iowa, used every trick play, brought in all the free agents, and still lost. He's like the New York Yankees. And now there's every sign that Romney will lose New Hampshire to McCain. The one wild card is that with the Democratic race suddenly so interesting, many Granite State independents who would side with McCain may opt to vote in the Democratic primary instead. Romney needs to regroup--his whole campaign could come crashing down in a hurry.

Giuliani is also a loser. He came in SIXTH place, well behind Ron Paul. The Giuliani people will say that's fine--they didn't compete in Iowa. But they did, for awhile, and then gave up. Giuliani could well come in fifth or sixth in New Hampshire too. By the time Florida rolls around, most folks will have forgotten that's he's running.

Ron Paul is a winner. He took home 10%. We sure hope that in the debate this weekend they include Dr. Paul--as one of the top contenders--and exclude Rudy G. With all the money he's got, and his dedicated corps of volunteers, we think Dr. No will ultimately throw his hat in the ring as the candidate of the Libertarian Party come November. Excluding him from the debate will only make that more certain.

The one question still undecided as we sit here tonight is who gets the "honor" of "winning" third place among the GOP field in Iowa. It's neck-and-neck between McCain and Thompson. But, really, WHO CARES?

Let's say Thompson ekes it out over McCain. Big deal. Fred has no standing in New Hampshire, and as we've said a million times, he has no strategy. Where's he going to go next? Fred is dead. A distant third in Iowa, basically tied with someone else, does not a political future make standing alone.

McCain, on the other hand, basically skipped Iowa in the end (unlike Fred, who made the motions of canvassing the state) and has momentum in New Hampshire. We think he's a pretty big winner, because of lot of old time Republicans, horrified at the prospect of Huckabee as their nominee, are going to rally to him.

Amongst the pollsters, the winners are Zogby tracking and Insider Advantage, with an honorable mention to the Des Moines Register. Zogby had Huck up by six points over Romney, with McCain, Thompson and Paul clustered around 10-11% and Giuliani in sixth. Insider Advantage also had Huckabee up by six, with McCain and Thompson tied and Paul close behind, with Giuliani in sixth. The Register had Huckabee up by six, but gave McCain a distinct edge over Thompson, followed by Paul and Giuliani.

And the big poll loser: CNN!! The CNN poll got both elections wrong, predicting Hillary for the Dems and Romney for the GOP and basically getting the rest of it wrong, too. Memo to CNN: fire your pollster!

And finally, another loser: the Republican Party. With turnout far below that of the Democrats, and lackluster rallies for the candidates (compared with those for the Democrats), the Iowa GOP showed little enthusiasm. Their website crashed. They got their results in much slower than the Dems despite smaller numbers and a simpler caucus system. And the party faithful that turned out were so disproportionately evangelical Christians that you really wonder what the party has come to. It really did reflect the party of George W. Bush.

And our final winner: political pundits! Iowa confirmed that this will be a raucous year of elections, with the possibility that the GOP won't even have a candidate come their convention, and with a three-four-or more-way race in November certainly possible.

Iowa Caucus Results

Looking for "real-time" Iowa caucus results? For the Democrats, you can find them HERE on the Iowa Democratic Party website, which is working quite nicely (and it's a very close three-way race--basically, a tie--so far.

The Republicans are supposed to have results available HERE, but the servers seem overwhelmed (darn incompetent Republicans!)--so far we haven't gotten anything. (If you find an alternative source, let us know!)

Iowa Polls: Huckabee and ????

Let's see if the Iowa polls are worth anything. On the GOP side, they clearly predict Huckabee by a small margin, with ARG, Zogby, Insider Advantage and the Des Moines Register all giving the Arkansan a 5-6 point advantage over Romney in their final polls.

So it's up to Romney to prove the polls are meaningless--as they may well be. It's very tricky predicting who will actually show up.

On the Democratic side, the polls are not consistent enough to make a prediction based on them, especially since it's a three candidate race, instead of two as on the Republican side. Of the final six polls, two have Hillary in the lead, four have Obama in the lead, and of those three have Hillary in third place. So the only issue will be whether any of the polls get it right, and hence get bragging rights.

Iowa Is Fun, But New Hampshire's The Real Deal

We'll certainly enjoy the spectacle unfolding tonight in Iowa, and will no doubt put up a post or two late tonight on what it all means with New Hampshire just five days away.

But we can already tell you this much: it doesn't mean all that much. Indeed, it would be kind of neat if Huckabee and Edwards won tonight, just to prove the point, because we doubt either could get the nomination even if they do win.

New Hampshire is where the real action is, as David Broder points out in today's Washington Post. (See "Wait For New Hampshire.") In the past 30 years, Iowa has rarely picked the eventual nominee when there's a wide open contest in either party, whereas New Hampshire has often been on the mark.

Still, momentum out of Iowa will count for something going into New Hampshire.

And, it really doesn't pay to simply skip Iowa because--Rudy Giuliani, are you listening?--then you're name is out of play at a time of immense media interest. Does Rudy G. REALLY think he's getting more mileage out of some appearance in Florida that's getting NO coverage, while the Florida media, along with everyone else, is reporting on what's happening in Iowa (and then New Hampshire)?

If anything, the real indictment against Giuliani from this whole process is that he lacks the judgment to hire good people, and the competence to vet their advice. If that sounds like a familiar problem that our current President has had for at least the past seven years, then you realize just how scary a Rudy presidency could be.

Touche'--Edwards And His Special Interest Money

A couple follow-ups to our post yesterday on John Edwards' lame campaign message.

In "Edwards--Too Cute By Half" The Hill's Peter Fenn neatly sums up Edwards' hypocrisy when it comes to taking special interest money, and his not so cute evasions about the 527 groups supporting him.

Among the other indictments of Edwards' cynicism is his response to a question about a 527 group run by his former campaign manager, Nick Baldick, which has funnelled millions of dollars in support Edwards' way: "It’s my understanding that the guy who runs the organization worked for me years ago. Yes, that is true." Years ago? Baldick's consulting firm was under contract to the Edwards campaign last year.

Cut the crap, John.

One other observation: yesterday, when oil spiked at $100 a barrel, Edwards predictably said it was "just another example of how corporate greed is squeezing the middle class."

Corporate greed is not the cause of $100 barrel oil. The cause is Americans' lavish, addicted-to-oil lifestyle, and the rest of the world's attempt to emulate it. What's Edwards going to do--impose price controls on oil? That would be silly and result in rationing. There's no sign in Edwards or his campaign of any effort to conserve.

People criticize Hillary for "triangulation" and "nuance," but hearing Edwards' simplistic themes makes us appreciate Hillary's attention to detail. Wonky? Yes, but that's the way the real world works.

What Is John Edwards' Problem?

Any astute reader of the Curmudgeon will have realized a good while ago that we're not all that fond of John Edwards this go 'round (we liked him in '04), but we thought we'd make it official. The guy has gone nuts.

In the past, we've mostly been critical of Edwards for his hypocrisy. All that talk about growing up poor in a mill town, yada, yada, while building a 25,000 square foot mansion and getting $400 haircuts makes us pretty cynical about the guy. You can have a lot of money and still live a modest lifestyle, but that doesn't appear to be Edwards.

In any event, Edwards has increasingly turned to an angry brand of populism in a desperate effort to jump start his campaign. Is Edwards really that angry, or is he just doing what he thinks will work? We think the latter. If this were 1960, and he was in the South, he'd instead be trying to out N-word the next guy, like Strom Thurmond or George Wallace, just to win.

Angry populism will always get a decent draw, especially in primaries where you can focus on a smaller segment of the population. But Edwards' current stump speech in Iowa, however successful it may be, is a sure-fire loser for the general election, so he's basically throwing it all away in the hope of just somehow getting the nomination.

Right now, Edwards blames "corporate greed" for all of America's ills. That's a bit simple-minded, to put it mildly. To begin with, a lot of our problems are simply due to seven years of George W. Bush in office. After all, before Bush, we were in pretty good shape.

Corporations make nice fall guys, but Edwards won't solve any problems with his corporate bashing. Yes, corporate CEO's are overpaid, but so what--that's not why richer Americans are getting richer. Further, when it comes to complex legislation (is there any other kind?) corporations should be heard, through their lobbyists, about how the bills will affect them and what they will do to jobs, profits, etc. The key, of course, is to listen, but not to kowtow. Edwards, however, says he wouldn't even listen.

Edwards is acting like a child. It might even work in Iowa--he could pull off a narrow victory. But it won't work past that, fortunately. Any Democrat who wants to win in '08 would be wise to take a pass on Mr. Edwards' brand of pop populism.

Run, Gerry, Run!

Word has it that Fairfax County Board of Supervisors Chairman Gerry Connolly is seriously looking at a run for the 11th District congressional seat currently held by Republican Tom Davis. (See "Connolly To Study Run For U.S. House.")

All we can say is RUN, Gerry!

Davis may yet retire from the seat, but no need to wait and see--Connolly would beat him in this year's race. (Davis has many reasons to retire: he had hoped to run for the Senate seat vacated by John Warner, but the closed club of Virginia Republicans, worried they might have a moderate--with a chance of winning--running for the Senate decided instead to fix the process so that conservative former Governor Jim Gilmore (with little chance of winning) would get the nomination instead. In addition, Davis's wife, Jeannemarie, recently lost her Virginia state senate seat in a close election, and Davis knows that his seat, in a demographically Democratic district, is increasingly vulnerable. Davis could make good money in the private sector.)

Connolly is a well-known and popular Democrat in Fairfax County, with a proven ability to raise money. If he runs, he will quickly amass a decent war chest. As we said above, the demographics of Virginia's 11th District have swung dramatically to the Democrats in recent years. If Connolly runs, we think the national pundits who rate these things will quickly put the 11th into the "leans Democrat" column. Connolly could also expect to get financial support from the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, which will have far more funds to spend than it's GOP counterpart.

The dynamics of the 2008 election also favor Connolly (or frankly, any Democratic candidate in that district). The way things are shaping up, Democratic turnout in Northern Virginia should be strong to support both the Dem nominee for President (whomever it is) and to support Mark Warner's run for the open Senate seat. Virginia Republicans, on the other hand, are demoralized and divided. Jim Gilmore is not going to excite Northern Virginia Republicans, and there's a good chance that whoever the GOP nominates for President will also have weak support.

So, Gerry, go for it!

Blame The Banks, Not Online Records, For ID Theft

Today's Washington Post has a page one article blaming online government databases for making identity theft so easy. (See "Online Records May Aid ID Theft.")

As is often the case, the Post has hit the wrong target.

The problem--and it's a big one, with an estimated 8.3 million identity theft victims in 2005--is not the easy availability of people's social security numbers in various online databases. Rather, the problem is with the banks that issue credit cards and the credit agencies that facilitate the whole process.

Social security numbers were never intended to be used to issue credit cards. Those numbers are not designed to be kept secure, and as a practical matter, they can't. And one can hardly expect that with the automation of billions of records and the easy availability of such information in otherwise handy online services, that they would be kept secret.

Nonetheless, banks decided to make social security numbers the key to their credit card operations. Now that's it's clear that doing so poses a huge security risk and exposes millions of the banks' customers to expensive and time-consuming identity fraud scams, the BANKS should reform the system.

Yet, it's obvious the banks don't want to, having successfully passed on most of the costs of identity fraud to their customers. So CONGRESS should get in the act and force the banks to reform.

In any event, don't blame databases for the problem. Blame the banks.

Happy Election Year!

It's a bit weird sitting here in a New Year, nursing a hangover, uninspired by the football bowl fare, and staring at the Iowa caucuses JUST TWO DAYS AWAY.

Let's hope that the political parties fix this insanity before the 2012 election.

Normally, we'd take New Year's Day off, but with Iowa looming and New Hampshire just a week away, we'll give you a quick update:

Democrats

On the Democratic side, Hillary, Obama and Edwards are basically tied. Polls can only get you so far in a caucus state--the outcome will depend on turnout, particularly, who gets their voters out Thursday night. Hillary's campaign is well-organized, which could give it an edge, but we think all three campaigns will do well. (And Democrats will turn out in twice the numbers of Republicans--consistently, in campaign coverage, you see that the Democratic rallies are far bigger than those of the Republicans in the state.)

We expect the three front-runners to end up very close to each other, with roughly 30% apiece. If Hillary wins, even by 1%, it's a victory for her. If she comes in third, trailing by 5% or more, it's a loss. Obama is fine if he wins or comes in a close second to Hillary. Edwards MUST win or he's probably done--he's staked his whole campaign on Iowa for the past four years. He'll declare some kind of victory if he trails Obama, but still beats Hillary, but it won't be enough to get him any traction in New Hampshire or South Carolina.

Speaking of New Hampshire, a poll came out today that could be very good news for Hillary in the Granite State: it has Hillary up 14 points over Obama at 36% to 22%, with Edwards far behind at 14%.

Republicans

On the GOP side, it looks like Huckabee has stabilized with a small lead over Romney, but again, it will all depend on the ground game. Romney has the organization, but Huckabee's followers have the fervor, so we'll see which wins out. The rest of the field is competing simply to come in third.

A big win for Huckabee would be beating Romney by anything greater than 5%. A big win for Romney would similary be beating Huckabee by 5% or more. Anything closer is basically a tie, although at this point Romney probably gets a boost by anything that can be called a "win" in Iowa, even if by the slimmest of margins.

The rest of the guys are competing for third place. McCain would get a good boost going into New Hampshire with a third place showing, with bonus points for anything better than 15%. Thompson MUST get third to have any chance of going on--and we don't think he'll get it. Giuliani really needs to avoid an embarassing sixth place finish. And, we wouldn't rule out Ron Paul pulling off a bit of shocker by coming in third himself--he has a dedicated corps and they just might pull it off.

For some of the Republican candidates, the Iowa results will be important going into New Hampshire. Romney desperately needs the win in Iowa to shore up his slipping candidacy in NH--indeed, a new poll there has McCain leading Romney 31%-25%. Likewise, McCain would benefit from a third place finish in Iowa, but he doesn't really need it. The rest of the field isn't really competitive in New Hampshire, although Ron Paul could, again, pull off third place in New Hampshire, which would be a big embarrassment to Giuliani and Thompson. Meanwhile, if Huckabee could pull off third in New Hampshire, it would give him some help going into South Carolina.

One other thing: what if Romney, per his campaign plan, does pull off wins in Iowa and New Hampshire, no matter how small the margins? He would be well on his way, but to where? David Brooks has a good column in today's NYT, "Road To Nowhere," positing that Romney's selection by the GOP would be a disaster for the party. We think that's right. It's an interesting analysis that pegs Romney pretty well.