September 29, 2007
The Politico is reporting that Newt Gingrich, after all, will not seek the GOP nomination.
We're not completely surprised, though he was making noises about running. He was never going to come close to the $30 million fundraising goal he had recently set for himself. And, he had virtually no chance of winning either the nomination or the general. He was starting too late for the nomination and, as to the general, his negatives are as high, if not higher, than Hillary's.
September 29, 2007
The Washington Post's able Chris Cillizza is reporting that Joe Biden has decided to put virtually all his campaign resources into Iowa in the hopes of springing an upset there.
It's a move born out of necessity but it's a good one. If Biden can't place in the Top 3 there, he's finished, and even third probably won't be enough.
It's too bad. We think he's gotten an unfair shake from the press, as he's been among the Democratic stars in debates and even Wednesday night, he engaged Hillary Clinton in a way no one else has before.
September 28, 2007
John Edwards announced yesterday that his campaign will go the public funding route, following an identical step by John McCain earlier in the summer. It's not a good sign. Edwards is attempting to portray this as a principled stand against the flood of money in politics. But that explanation is unlikely to fly because it raises the question why it took Edwards this long in the campaign to realize the evils of big money.
The likelier explanation is that Edwards is having trouble raising money to compete with Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. Fair enough -- almost anyone would. And this move will likely give him a needed infusion of cash for the early states. But by doing this, Edwards is going to run up against spending caps in later individual states and will have great trouble, even if he's successful in the early states, sustaining major efforts down the line.
The real problem with his announcement is that it is likely to be read by Iowa supporters and unions who might have endorsed him as a sign his campaign is in trouble. And they may well begin to drift away.
Edwards already has a reputation as being a bit two-faced -- he's for the poor but he gets fancy haircuts and lives in a mansion. Trying to sell this latest move as based on principle (which McCain never did) is likely, alas, to cement that reputation.
September 27, 2007
For the first time since the column began last February,
Hillary Clinton is now listed as the favorite for the Democratic nomination. To be sure, we still rate Barack Obama's chances much more highly than virtually any other source out there. He continues to possess great advantages -- not the least of which is a ton of cash that he'll be able to spend freely in the coming months. And there's still time, despite what much of the press is saying.
But Obama hasn't taken advantage of his strengths nearly as much as Clinton has. To win, he'll have to do something differently than he's doing now.
September 27, 2007
This week's Tote Board column looks at how the behavior of Independents and voters whose first choice has dropped out of the race could confound the expectations of pollsters when voting actually begins this winter.
September 27, 2007
In one sense, this debate was like all the others. Nothing happened that was memorable, which in the long run, helps Hillary Clinton, who continues to put in competent, if passionless, mistake-free performances. The star performer of the evening was Tim Russert, whose probing “Meet the Press” type questions elicited more information and disputes between the candidates than any of the previous efforts by other hosts. (Maybe he should be the candidate in 2012.)
Though there were exchanges that drew distinctions between the various candidates and Hillary, no one really went after her (save Russert). Barack Obama was the same as he has been before, which is the identical pose that has gotten him into a position where he’s now far closer to the pack than he is to the front-runner. He needs more passion and more vision if he’s ever to make a move and distinguish himself from the field. He’s calm and reasoned to a fault and it’s no longer helping him.
Of the rest, John Edwards did the best at stressing his own themes, offering a populist alternative (save for his over-the-top defensiveness when Russert asked about the haircut and other missteps). Joe Biden also showed leadership by, surprise!, actually answering the questions. If voters are looking for an alternative to the Clinton-Obama race currently framed by the press, they may find an opening. But in the end, these multi-candidate debates make it very difficult for any one candidate to shine or make a move and, alas, no one did.
Still, it would be nice for future debates if Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel decided to take a few months off. And Russert really is a star.
September 26, 2007
September 25, 2007
Two more articles from the Chicago papers indicate that Obama may be having his problems.
The Trib details how Obama is having trouble connecting with working-class voters --
a trend we predicted a while back. Then the Sun-Times has a
dispatch on how the Obama campaign is counting on a hidden youth vote.
This is a bad sign. Democratic campaigns in trouble almost always talk about how there is a hidden vote somewhere that's going to bail them out. It started with George McGovern in 1972, whose campaign told everyone not to believe the polls with Richard Nixon because the newly-enfranchised 18-21 year-olds would flock to the polls and carry him to victory.
For those who have forgotten their history, McGovern carried one state that fall (Massachusetts!!).
Obama has a lot of energy going for him with his youth support. They'll ring doorbells, leaflet, and give him a lot of energy on the ground in Iowa and New Hampshire. But historically, youth don't vote in great numbers and even if they did, there are probably not enough under-30's to swing a primary or caucus anyway.
September 25, 2007
September 24, 2007
President Bush, in a book to be published later this week,
ventures his opinion that Hillary Clinton will be the Democratic nominee. So it goes. (He also thinks she'll lose in the fall but doesn't he have to kind of say that?)
September 24, 2007
Hillary did the Sunday talk shows to rave reviews. The Times almost conceded her the nomination
in its lead piece Sunday. Senator Bayh of Indiana will endorse her today. It's all going swimmingly, but . . . .
There is a terrific piece in the Washington Post Sunday,
dealing with voters in swing congressional districts,
based on a Celinda Lake poll. What it finds is that both Clinton and
Barack Obama aren't doing well at all among these key voters.
That bodes poorly for the general election and perhaps even worse for
the Dems' prospects to put together a strong majority in the House and
Senate in 2008.
September 24, 2007
Going back to the polls we
discussed this
weekend, the question arises why Hillary Clinton is running even or behind Rudy Giuliani in key swing states such as Missouri and Ohio, when the Democrats seem to be going so strong at present. A friend who looked at the
poll internals in Missouri suggests a reason. In the St. Louis metro area, for example, Hillary and Giuliani are running even. One has to assume that Hillary leads in the city proper.
That means that in the suburbs, Giuliani is doing quite well -- in fact, better than expected. That means that Hillary may have a general election Achilles heel running strongly in the suburbs. Her supporters will undoubtedly point out that she has run strongly in the New York suburbs in her Senate campaigns. But, as we all know, New York is unique.
This is a trend to keep an eye on in the coming months.
September 23, 2007
Survey USA has followed up its Ohio poll with one in Missouri
and it basically confirms the findings there -- with one twist. In this
swing state, Rudy Giuliani is actually leading Hillary Clinton 48-45%,
while Fred Thompson loses narrowly to Clinton by the identical 48-45%.
For the record, Barack Obama, in contrast, beats Giuliani by three points and John Edwards beats him by five.
The significance? At least in these polls, Clinton is not the strongest
Democrat of the major contenders. And, with the Republicans in a funk,
Giuliani still beats Clinton.
The Democrats may
all be flocking to the Clinton standard on the basis that she's their
most electable candidate. On the basis of the Survey USA polls in Ohio
and Missouri, it's Edwards who deserves the mantle.
September 22, 2007
It's not much of an exaggeration to say that as swing state Ohio goes, so goes the nation. So it's a bit of a surprise that as unpopular as the current incumbent appears to be,
a new Survey USA poll shows Rudy Giuliani leading Hillary Clinton by a point (48-47) in Ohio and Fred Thompson losing to her by a point (47-48). It's also significant that John Edwards also loses to Giuliani by a point but clobbers Fred Thompson by nine points (43-52) -- which could aid his electability argument.
The big loser is Barack Obama, who loses to Giuliani by 13 and Thompson by 8. There are beginning to be worrying signs that the Obama campaign may be headed for trouble.
September 21, 2007
Esteemed Iowa pundit David Yepsen
takes Barack Obama to task for failing to appear at last night's Iowa debate, calling him the big loser. We couldn't disagree more: Obama was being overexposed by the plethora of debates. He'll have plenty more chances to appear at these forums, beginning next week in New Hampshire. And, because he wasn't there, the press, by and large, ignored the event.
It was the right decision. He should do it more often.
