Following last night's huge win in Mississippi, the Obama strategy is, in a nutshell, to play down Pennsylvania, thus eliminating the media suspense behind it. According to the campaign , Obama will also campaign early and hard in North Carolina. This doesn't mean he is writing off Pennsylvania. He will campaign hard there too. But just think -- if Obama loses both Pennsylvania and North Carolina, he is in big trouble. Better to campaign for both now, rather than putting all the eggs into one basket and doubling down on Pennsylvania. The campaign believes that the number of delegates gained by a Hillary victory in Pennsylvania can be offset by wins in the other contests.
Iowa is a very important state because it will determine whether Hillary Clinton runs away with the nomination. If Obama or Edwards win, the race will move to New Hampshire, where independent voters make up of the electorate. These independents will need to make a decision: Democratic ballot or Republican ballot? They can only pick one.
Political wisdom suggests that if Obama or Edwards win Iowa (especially in Obama's case), a flood of New Hampshire independents will vote in the Democratic contest because they will want to see Hillary go down. If McCain loses big in Iowa, even more registered New Hampshire independents will want to vote in the Democratic race, fearing that McCain is done and there is no point in filling out a Republican ballot.
This is all good news for Obama and Edwards. But there is one variable they are leaving out: the Ron Paul factor.
Earlier this week, Ron Paul raked in in just 24 hours. If this keeps up, he will be able to increase his campaign resources in early states, including Iowa. If Paul finishes as high as third in Iowa, he will become the media darling overnight, and be labeled as the independent maverick Republican (?). Obama or Edwards, should they win Iowa, could count on significantly less independents crossing over to help beat Hillary in New Hampshire. Plus, Ron Paul is basing his campaign in New Hampshire more than anywhere else. He will attract a lot of independents -- keeping them from voting for Hillary's number one competitor.
Whether Obama or Edwards put up a fight in New Hampshire will depend on the attractiveness of Ron Paul to independent voters.
This is it. On the same day the Federal Elections Commission that John Edwards was eligible for public funds, he kicked off the last leg of his push to become the Democratic nominee. He is now spending big in Iowa on television ads geared at establishing himself as the alternative to Hillary Clinton.
In the first TV ad of this major push, Edwards bought an entire minute of airtime to highlight two major themes:
This campaign is not about him, it's about middle class voters with needs.
Democrats must show backbone for a change.
This is significant because although Edwards has focused his money on Iowa, until now his campaign had yet to air one ad in the state. It is not some weird coincidence that he waited until the beginning of November to launch his first television spot. This is definitely the beginning of a huge push on his part in the remaining two months.
When asked point blank, Edwards thinks he is because Obama and Hillary began showing ads months ago:
Asked last month while campaigning in Davenport, Iowa, about trailingHillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama in state and national polls, hesaid it was because they had spent more money on television advertisingthan he did.
In a few weeks we will know for sure whether these television ads, coupled with his excellent debate performance, made a difference in the polls.
Hillary Clinton will not win the presidency in 2008. That still might not prevent her from winning the Democratic nomination, although voters from her party would be smart to find another candidate to head their ticket.
During Tuesday's Democratic debate, Hillary Clinton committed political suicide by not only endorsing drivers licenses for illegal immigrants, and not only changing her mind the next minute, but by changing her mind yet again the very next day. Immigration just so happens to be the number one political issue in every Midwestern swing state. Even more significantly, Hillary's inability to take a stand begs the question: does she actually have a clear opinion on anything?
Don't believe me? Take a look at this debate transcript:
MR. RUSSERT: Thank you, Brian.
Senator Clinton, Governor of New York Eliot Spitzer has proposed giving driver's licenses to illegal immigrants. You told the Nashua, New Hampshire editorial board it makes a lot of sense. Why does it make a lot of sense to give an illegal immigrant a driver's license?
SEN. CLINTON: Well, what Governor Spitzer is trying to do isfill the vacuum left by the failure of this administration to bringabout comprehensive immigration reform. We know in New York we haveseveral million at any one time who are in New York illegally. Theyare undocumented workers. They are driving on our roads. Thepossibility of them having an accident that harms themselves or othersis just a matter of the odds. It's probability. So what GovernorSpitzer is trying to do is to fill the vacuum.
I believe we need to get back to comprehensive immigration reformbecause no state, no matter how well-intentioned, can fill this gap.
There needs to be federal action on immigration reform.
OK, so for the record, Hillary Clinton believed it made sense to offer illegal immigrants drivers licenses.
Just moments later, Clinton tried to deny it, and Chris Dodd called her on it:
SEN. CLINTON: I just want to add, I did not say that it should be done, but I certainly recognize why Governor Spitzer is trying to do it. And we have failed --
SEN. DODD: Wait a minute. No, no, no. You said yes, you thought it made sense to do it.
SEN. CLINTON: No, I didn't, Chris. But the point is, what are we going to do with all these illegal immigrants who are (driving ?) -- (inaudible)?
So, then at the end of the debate, Hillary Clinton left us with the impression that she didn't support it.
Guess what happened next! The very next day, as explained on by Chris Matthews on Wednesday's , Hillary's campaign released a statement saying she now supports allowing illegal immigrants to get drivers licenses after all.
Forget the issue for a minute -- regardless of whether or not you support the idea. The point is we don't even know where Hillary Clinton stands. Do you really think Republican strategists will just sit around and not exploit Clinton's inability to take a stand on this or any other issue? This was John Kerry's problem -- except this time it is worse because of how bad her moment was on Tuesday.
If Democrats do not want a Republican back in the White House, they should look elsewhere for their nominee.
Maybe the question of the day is why would you give someone a that you will confront them? Hopefully that question and more will get answered tonight when the Democrats debate at 9 PM ET/6 PM PT.
So what will end up happening? thinks that either we are in for a surprise, or the Obama team underestimates the rapid-response power of the Clinton Campaign:
For some reason, the Obama camp spends a lot of time telegraphingwhat they are going to do. This has allowed the front-running Clinton’steam plenty of opportunities to prepare counter-offensives or schedulenews-making announcements that eclipse Obama’s plans.
In the days leading up to tonight’s debate, Obama and his aides haverepeatedly predicted that he will come out swinging, detailing theissues that he will raise against Clinton, ranging from her policyviews on Iran and Social Security to doubts about her electability. Notsurprisingly, Clinton’s public schedule was cleared yesterday so thatshe can prepare in detail for all the attacks that Obama has been kindenough to preview.
Perhaps the Illinois senator — and runner-up to his New Yorkcolleague in Democratic preference polls — has saved something for asurprise. But so far, he has not displayed much savvy for doing that.
Join us for a live chat during the Democratic debate.
I think Barack Obama is finally getting the picture. He waited too long to distinguish himself from Hillary Clinton, and challenge her each and every day. Now, in an , Obama finally admits that it is time to turn up the volume:
In an interview that appeared timed by his campaign to signal thechange of course, Mr. Obama said "now is the time" for him todistinguish himself from Mrs. Clinton. While he said that he was notout to "kneecap the front-runner, because I don't think that's what thecountry is looking for," he said she was deliberately obscuring herpositions for political gain and was less likely than he was to winback the White House for Democrats.
So now is the time, eh? Not during the spring, not during the summer, not during the early fall? Well OK. At least he is starting now:
Asked if Mrs. Clinton had been fully truthful with voters about what she would do as president, Mr. Obama replied, “No.â€
“Idon’t think people know what her agenda exactly is,†Mr. Obamacontinued, citing Social Security, Iraq and Iran as issues on which shehad not been fully forthcoming.
“Now it’s been very deft politically,†he said. “But one of the thingsthat I firmly believe is that we’ve got to be clear with the Americanpeople right now about the important choices that we’re going to needto make in order to get a mandate for change, not to try to obfuscateand avoid being a target in the general election.â€
How about discussing her electability? Why has no one spoke about this? In 2004, many Iowa voters felt that because Dean was too divisive, maybe someone like Kerry or Edwards would be better.
This time around, no one brings the Republicans together like Hillary Clinton. We can complain all day about Clinton's Washington establishment roots. In the end though, if Obama's team is going to make headway in Iowa, what matters to voters is electability. That is what all of us need to be discussing as well.
Although I am a proud Democrat -- for universal health care, against dumb wars and hopeful of what happens when we let realism instead of jingoism guide policy -- something I have never appreciated about our party is the lack of structure when it comes to campaign strategy. Yes, I understand that our party is much more single-issue-driven than the GOP, and therefore it can be difficult to reign in support from all sides. However, every Democratic candidate since 1980, with the exception of Bill Clinton, has not been as 'by the book' as they should have.
In 2004, John Kerry's campaign was in disarray, partly because he sought and implemented the advice of outside consultants, many of which did not even meet with his campaign staff. One of the most notable was James Carville, who was not even on the payroll. Not only is that a slap in the face to those that did work for Kerry, but it underscored the noticeable lack of structure as a whole.
In addition to choosing a Democratic nominee with both the ethics and progressive vision to change this country, we have to think about which ones are prone to the same faults that previous candidates failed to realize until it was too late? And which ones are capable of stepping beyond those tendencies, running a strictly structured campaign with a charismatic vision and letting it rip.
As people questioned as a legitimate campaign tool, his campaign turned to another Republican wedge issue: Hillary Clinton.
The 1980 Reagan Revolution brought social wedge issues into the forefront -- mainly guns, god and gays -- which Republicans used to hold onto power in each even election year. Being that Giuliani is pro-gun control, does not wear his religion on his sleeve and is relatively tolerant of the gay community (compared to the other GOP candidates), he needed to invent a whole new wedge issue. His is :
The truth of the matter is, however, that Giuliani needs Clinton tocontinue to look like the frontrunner if he wants to have the bestchance of winning the Republican nomination next year.
Why?
It's no secret that Giuliani is far more moderate/liberal on socialissues like abortion, gay rights and gun control than the averageRepublican caucus or primary voter. Giuliani has largely neutralizedattacks from his rivals on these matters with a two-pronged message:you may not agree with me on everything but I am the best leader inthis field and I am the only candidate who can beat Hillary Clinton.
The latter appeal to electability has become more and more a part ofGiuliani's pitch to Republican voters. "We would have to view ourselvesas the underdogs and we should give ourselves the best chance to win,"Giuliani said in our interview late last week.
And for good reason. In a late September NBC/Wall Street Journalpoll, Republican voters were asked which of their candidates had thebest chance of defeating Clinton in the general election. Giuliani took47 percent as compared to 16 percent for former Sen. Fred Thompson(Tenn.), 14 percent for Sen. John McCain (Ariz.) and eight percent forformer Gov. Mitt Romney (Mass.).
It is no wonder that Giuliani does not spend time on actual issues. He would not be able to win the GOP nomination that way.
As far as Hillary Clinton, if she is a wedge issue in of herself, then Democratic voters might want to find a more electable candidate.
The media has been repeating this for the last two weeks. After being somewhat skeptical of the conventional wisdom at first, I could not agree more. Even though in theory Obama has enough money to "compete" through the February 5th contests, which will probably end up happening no matter what, so many of his resources are front-loaded in Iowa. Obama's Iowa field staff is expected to be at least double that of every other rival.
If he can't beat Hillary there, it will be about impossible for Obama in every other state, especially South Carolina, where black voters, which make up about 50% of the Democratic electorate, are torn between the two candidates. They are waiting to see if Obama has the potential to beat Clinton. If he doesn't do that in Iowa, South Carolina Democrats will stay with the Clintons.
So can Obama win Iowa? Maybe an even better question to ask is how would Obama win Iowa?
Most likely, it will depend on whether typically apolitical young voters show up to the caucuses. If that happens, Obama will have the edge. believes they will turn out:
The campaign is trying to drum up supporters who are oftenoverlooked in politics, with much of the effort geared toward blacksand young people — even high school seniors.
"If they show up every Wednesday night to volunteer in your localoffice, do you think they aren't going to show up on election night?"Hildebrand said, wearing a T-shirt that said "Building a GrassrootsMovement" with the Obama campaign logo.
If Obama's strategy is successful he would surprise a skepticalpolitical establishment that doesn't put much faith in younger and newvoters turning out, especially in the Iowa caucuses.
In many ways, this is like Dean 2.0. This time, for his sake, it had better translate into votes.
There is something special about New Hampshire. In Iowa, the contest is usually decided by carefully-calculated, hardcore Democratic activists that take into account the unique responsibility they have in choosing an electable candidate for the general election. New Hampshire is much different in that it comes down to :
Independent voters, or undeclared voters as they are called here, makeup 45 percent of the electorate, up from 28 percent in 1996, when thelegislature changed the law to simplify same-day registration.
So who would benefit and who would lose from these independent voters? Adam Nagourney has an idea:
The shift has injected turmoil and uncertainty into thefirst-in-the-nation primaries, experts and campaign officials said.That creates an opportunity for Mr. Obama while posing complications tothe candidacies of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton.
It poses complications for McCain because any independent voters that choose to vote Republican will probably vote for him, as was the case in 2000. However, that might not happen this year because so many independents are leaning Democratic. As for Obama and Hillary, New Hampshire voters tend to pick the fresh, young face. They did that in 1992, when they took a chance on a young .
If New Hampshire independents vote overwhelmingly Democratic, then Obama might win. If they split evenly, Hillary will get it. Almost all of the New Hampshire polls, which show Hillary way ahead, are only conducted among New Hampshire Democrats, not independents as well. Obama can only hope that New Hampshire independents show up or else he will have trouble pulling this one out.
Candidates that are electable in the general election are able to win independent votes. If Obama has the support of independents, doesn't that make him the most electable?
Recent Comments