(no subject)

[bryant]

My call for New Hampshire: McCain, Romney, Huckabee; and Obama, Clinton, and Edwards. I was off on my Democratic predictions. Bad me. It's interesting and somewhat worrisome that the independent voters went to vote for McCain over Obama. Of course, the media was calling that a race while the Democratic primary was supposed to be sewn up, and people like to feel as though they're making a difference, so who knows?

Michael Whouley took over field operations in New Hampshire for Clinton a couple of weeks ago. Google him. I have no doubt that his efforts helped.

I'm pleased that Hillary came back. I like Edwards better as a candidate, but (call me a grinch) I do think experience matters.

Nevada and South Carolina get the next chance to be critical on the Democratic side. There's no good current polling. Watch for either Edwards or Richardson dropping out and endorsing someone -- Richardson would matter in Nevada, and Edwards would matter in both states.

For the Republicans, Michigan is set to be pretty big, since it's another state Romney "should" win. Huckabee's polled well there too. If Romney wins it, he's back and it's a three-way slugfest. (My preferred outcome.) If McCain wins it, he's got the advantage for a while. If Huckabee wins it, he looks like the frontrunner.

Comments

[head58.livejournal.com]

I haven't had much chance to check out the media reactions to HRC's win last night. My gut sense is that a lot of women turned out for her as a reaction against how the media handled the whole "emotional" incident on Monday. Which is good in my book.

Although I do wish she'd opened her victory speech last night with "IRON *THIS*, BITCHES!!!"

[foxbat.livejournal.com]

You're a grinch.

[telepresence.livejournal.com]

I'm still liking Obama. Going from 14 or so down to 2 or 3 down in NH is great, even if pollsters predicted a win. I can't support Hillary if she sticks with Mark Penn and the misleading negative ads. Edwards...like the message, increasingly don't like the guy.

[bryant]

And a mean one!

Hey, cool, you're at Lucasarts now?

[bryant]

There was also a big big undecided contingent in the polls that the media neglected to talk about.

[foxbat.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I've been here for about two years now. Fun place! :)

[halfway-back.livejournal.com]

I think her victory could work to Obama's favor. We've now seen him lose, we've seen how he takes it, and he's back to the underdog status. And it might actually get me off the couch and start volunteering for his campaign (something a victory would not have done). Also, it should be noted that a 2% win is not a decisive victory, especially in a state where the independent voters can shake up one party or the other.

I thought Andrew Sullivan (http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com) summed it up perfectly: it puts Obama back in the underdog position. And that's certainly powerful.

[jeffwik.livejournal.com]

Whew, thank God Obama didn't win! That would surely have sunk his campaign. Can you imagine what an awesome position he'd be in if he'd come in third?

[halfway-back.livejournal.com]

No, but given the media in this country, they like to play kingmaker and kingbreaker.

See also: Howard Dean.

[rfrancis]

History's against you on Romney; the only person in ages to win after taking neither Iowa nor NH was Bill Clinton, and he did it in the year Harkin made Iowa a skip for everyone else, so I'm not sure that counts. Before that, it appears to have been, uh, McGovern. So I'm going to guess that Romney's done in practice. He poured a lot of time and money into both places (unlike Clinton in Iowa, for example) and came up lagging. If he wins Michigan, it's "big deal" because of his insane political connection there. If he doesn't take first, of course, it's totally game over; might as well have lost his own state. But honestly, I think he's already missed it Ditto Edwards, as you say, and honestly, I think Edwards knows it; right now I'd say from his behavior that he's angling for Obama's ticket and he'll stay in to keep a voice so he can sling stuff at Clinton, at least until the money gets slim. Which it will, soon, I expect. Obviously McCain and Huckabee are in it; personally, I think McCain's going to startle everyone and make it all the way. Huckabee's not very good at this and it's going to start showing (well, in my opinion it already has.) One of those candidates who does better if he shuts up, but doesn't. Guiliani is, frankly, totally deluded at this point; planning to blow off January then win it in Florida and Super Tuesday, while mathematically possible, of course, is in practice fat chance. But hey, more power to him if he wants to try to make history. A tip, though: it helps if people LIKE you.

I dunno, man, I think it's at best a three-way on each side, with Edwards and Romney in bad shape. Not 100% out of luck bad shape, but I doubt either has what it takes to come back from it; neither is a Bill Clinton or even a George McGovern (and as I say, Clinton was in an odd situation anyway.) So I'm thinking Obama v Clinton with Edwards spoiler; I'll pick Obama to win it in a hard, hard fight because I'm an idealist. (Well, I picked Kucinich because I'm an idealist, but I can count, too.) Likewise McCain v Huckabee with Romney spoiler; Romney will pitch everything behind McCain when he bows out and McCain will prove that Huckabee doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground and take it handily. Now we can all mock me when I'm dead wrong! If I'm right, I tentatively think Obama can take McCain because of McCain's pro-Iraq-war harping, but I'm very tentative about it; it'll be a tough race if it happens -- both are popular as all hell with independents because of maverick reputations and good TV skills and all that jazz. Could be fun.

Oh, and one last thing. Fred Thompson needs to duck out now, pausing only to apologize to everyone. Geez.

[bryant]

I'm pro-three way, but I'm not pro-Romney. Although I'm not anti-Romney. He is very much a politician, but I can't say I think Massachusetts has been ruined by his term as governor or anything. Really, the soc-cons are correct in thinking Romney wouldn't really stick to the party line on social issues.

I just find three way races to be more interesting.

My guess on final outcomes right now matches yours, for all the same reasons.

[halfway-back.livejournal.com]

Oh, and one last thing. Fred Thompson needs to duck out now, pausing only to apologize to everyone. Geez.

Tell him to grab Duncan Hunter while he's heading towards the exit.

Richardson is have to find his own way out.

[that-cad.livejournal.com]

You should be anti-Romney because, pandering flip-flopping lying-to-your-face-while-sticking-a-knife-in-your-back asshat aside, he is so thoroughly pro-big business, free-market economy that he will only accelerate the continued ruination of our nation's economy. Plus he's a Mormon, and despite the media telling me it's wrong to think Mormons are weird, Mormons are weird.

[death-by-monkey.livejournal.com]

I'm pretty much in agreement with you about everything on the Democratic side, but do you really think that McCain can go that far? I mean, I'd prefer to see McCain get the nom than the other Republican candidates, but can McCain's win in New Hampshire carry him? He's already in a delegate deficit behind Romney and Huckabee and Romney winning Michigan won't make things any better. I see Romney winning Michigan with McCain and Huckabee pretty close to each other in second and third place.

One point that I found interesting in all the press about New Hampshire that no one really picked up on is that even though Hilary won, because of how close Obama was, they both got the same number of delegates out of the state, keeping Obama in the lead from that aspect.