The New Hampshire primary went as expected on the Republican side, though the Democratic race was something of a surprise. Hillary pulled out a victory over second place Obama, while Edwards was a distant third. There were three separate factors involved.
Hillary’s show of emotion during a town hall format question and answer period showed what is portrayed as a warmer, more feminine side that she previously seemed unwilling, possible unable, to show. At the same time, she managed to put this across as concern for the country, as opposed to taking her prior defeat by Obama personally.
At the same time, this did not denigrate her renowned steely resolve as much as enhance it. Hilary Clinton is seen by her staunchest supporters, and to an extent justifiably so, as a person much like Margaret Thatcher in her strength of character and determination, if not in her political beliefs.
So, where is all of this going from here? Frankly, there is a good chance now that Obama will lose South Carolina. If he does, he is finished. It would be a mistake to consider him the odds on favorite to win that state based on the majority black Democratic population. There are two things to consider. One is that the Clintons are themselves well liked by the black Democratic population in general. Another that may be just as pertinent to South Carolina, and to southern blacks in general, is the Clintons may have a secret weapon by the name of Harold Ford Jr.
Since his defeat in the Tennessee Senate race in 2006, Ford has gone on to become the chairman of the Democratic Leadership Committee, the moderate Democratic group co-founded by Bill Clinton, who still exerts a great influence on the group. Look for Ford-in the background of course-to call in favors amongst the leadership of southern black Democrats, among whom he is very influential.
Of course, Obama might yet still pull out a victory, which he definitely needs before Super Tuesday rolls around. When that day comes, the only sure safe state for Obama is Illinois-where he has the fabled Chicago Democratic machine at his disposal-and arguably California and Michigan. Those last two states, however, are by no means certain, especially Michigan if John Edwards is still on the ballot.
There is actually a good chance that, if Obama fails to win South Carolina and preferably one or two more states, he might well withdraw and throw his support behind Edwards, especially if he wins no states at all between now and then. Even if he does, ti might well be too late by then to stop what might be a Hillary steamroller. His name will still be on the ballot, after all, and his more faithful supporters will vote for him or no on else, regardless of his stated wishes.
There is also a chance he could throw his weight behind Hillary if he perceives the inevitability of a Clinton nomination.
In all likelihood, however, by the time Super Tuesday comes along, Hillary will have the nomination sewed up.
At any rate there were two other factors in her victory in New Hampshire. A good lot of the Democratic voters were undecided until practically the last minute, and sometime during that brief snapshot in time, decided on Hillary.
Finally, the independent voters of the state, who could vote in one or the other party primaries, opted to vote for John McCain in the Republican race instead of Obama in the Democratic one.
That brings us to the Republican results. So far, out of three state contests, we have three separate winners. Huckabee won Iowa, Romney won Wyoming, and McCain won New Hampshire on the strength of the independent voters of the state. It is still, technically, anybody’s race, but it would seem as though the race for the Republican nomination is shaping up as between Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani, with Mike Huckabee playing the role of spoiler. Due to his influence, I give a slight edge to Giuliani. Huckabee’s supporters would be unlikely to vote for Giuliani, at least in the primary, and as long as he is in the race, Huckabee will siphon votes from Romney.
However, Romney absolutely has to win Michigan, or you can stick a fork in him. Most people, even most conservative Republicans, see Romney as a smooth, practiced, polished politico who might be a bit of a phony, and every bit the flip-flopper as John Kerry. His support thus far is a distillation of the idea that he is the only true conservative who, at this point, stands a chance of winning. Yet, even his conservative views seem questionable, and self-serving, given his former record as governor of Massachusetts. Moreover, most voters view him as outright attempting to buy the nomination. Voters to a large degree automatically resent this. Because of all these factors, as well as some dismay amongst some circles as to his Mormon faith, his support is shallow at best.
By the same token nobody outside the evangelical, socially conservative Christians likes or trusts Mike Huckabee. The depth of his support outside that faction is almost non-existent. He might well win in South Carolina, and a handful of other states with a large evangelical movement, but if he does, as I say, it will be at Romney’s expense. He might even conceivably throw one or two of these states over into Giuliani’s column, as unlikely as that seems for now.
I do not want to count Fred Thompson out of the race yet. If he can pull off a win in South Carolina, and do well in others, he might well do considerably above expectations on Super Tuesday. In order for this to occur, however, two things have to happen as I see it. One, he has to win South Carolina, and preferably one or two others. The second thing is Mitt Romney has to lose Michigan, and afterwards drop out of the race.
I simply cannot see McCain being a factor in any place besides possibly Michigan, unless it would be Arizona. That is by no means a sure thing for him, despite the fact it is his home state.
It is actually very conceivable that the nomination will be undecided by the time the Republican primary rolls around. If so, whoever has the third most delegates-more than likely this will be Huckabee, possibly McCain-will be in the role of king maker. A Huckabee or even a McCain Vice-Presidential slot is not out of the question, and is actually likely, under a Giuliani or Thompson ticket-not so much under a Romney, who would doubtless opt for Thompson, at least the way things stand now.
As for the Democrats, is there any possibility of a Clinton-Obama ticket? It would seem unlikely, but stranger things have happened. Politics after all is partly the art of the practical. There are few if any dream teams in reality. When it comes to the promise of power, politicians of all stripe have one quality that distinguishes them above the common folk-the have an inner resolve that translates to all outward appearances into very thick skin
4 comments:
nobody outside the evangelical, socially conservative Christians likes or trusts Mike Huckabee.
That's true, but what it means is that only a minority of registered Republicans don't trust Mike Huckabee.
The Republican base consists of evangelical, socially conservative Christians. They might be a minority of the US population as a whole, but they are the overwhelming majority of registered Republicans, especially in the Central Time Zone states (like Iowa). Read this.
I doubt they are a majority, though they are probably the largest single segment, the other two being national security conservatives and economic conservatives. Without the economic conservatives who really run the party and who are the people in power within it, no candidate is going much of anywhere. Hucklebee could never raise enough money to mount a successful national campaign just on the strength of evangelical support.
You are also assuming that all evangelicals support him. Most of them might and probably do, based primarily on his anti-abortion and pro-Christianity stances, but a good many take exception to some of his more left-of-center views, and his outright liberal ones.
They pretty much flocked to him when Fred Thompson announced on Tim Russert's show that he preferred a Federalist approach to the abortion issue. Before that, Huckabee was in Duncan Hunter territory. Afterwards, his poll numbers shot up. He is a man who believes in big, interventionist government. A good many Christians, maybe most of them, do not believe in that and will not support him, at least not in the primaries.
If he becomes one of the top two contenders by Super Tuesday, it will only be because Romney has bowed out by then and Thompson just can't get traction due to his campaign style and because nobody in power in the Republican Party honestly believes in Federalism. In that event, it will come down to between Huckabee, McCain, and Rudy.
Rudy is the only one who the people in power in the Republican Party, the economic conservatives who run it, will support. The evangelicals hate him, true, but he can make up the votes he loses from them amongst independents and centrist Democrats like me.
If McCain or Huckabee get it, based on their past immigration views, I probably stay home. Rudy I have problems with as well, but I can live with him, because he has promised to support judges who are strict constructionists, and I believe him. I think McCain is a freak, Huckabee is a charlatan, Clinton is a control-meister, Edwards is an elitist, Romney is an opportunist, and Obama is just out of his depth.
Fred is my choice, but I think I'll be joining Kucinich on a peace mission to the far reaches of the Klingon Empire before that happens.
I believe McCain is heir to be the GOP nominee for president. Giuliani has too much baggage, his corruption, racism etc. He compromised his social liberalism (his only redeeming factor), with his Pat Robertson endorsement. In addition the more you know him, the less you like him.
At my blog is atleast a political look at Barack Obama. Instead of moronic talk about change, sincererty etc.
Ren-that was some good stuff about Obama's economic advisers. I agree that people need to look more at stuff like that, and get past the outer packaging.
Post a Comment