Huckabee rapist story (0.00 / 0)

This story is pretty damning.  I'd bet Romney retakes the lead in Iowa and McCain rises from Giuliani's fall.

John McCain won't insure children

---

by: magster @ Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 13:59:56 PM CST

You Are Wrong (0.00 / 0)

This has been talked about many times before, and I doubt that this will put a dent in his popularity.  Since the Clintons were involved it will probably just make him more popular with repugs.

---

by: spanky2007 @ Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 15:59:53 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Story did not go way national until today. (0.00 / 0)

John McCain won't insure children

---

by: magster @ Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 17:28:34 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Romney is still decently positioned (0.00 / 0)

I still think Romney will become the likely repository for those non Huckabee, anti tax pro-business free market fundamentalists who aren't currently with Willard.  I think enough of these will desert McCain, Rudy and Freddie in a bandwagon effect to push Romney over the top as he wins a couple of early states. 

I'm not surprised that Huckabee is in this at all.  When I saw him on a video clip last summer (2006), it was plain as day that he had the most retail talent in the R field. 

---

by: Crab Nebula @ Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 14:03:05 PM CST

Hillary County Chair Behind Muslim E-mails (0.00 / 0)

I wonder what effect this will have on the race...looks like a big story to me.

http://tpmelectionce...

I long wondered if Clinton's supporters were behind the "Obama is a Muslim" e-mail rumors. Who else would have the motive to attack Obama at this point?

Whoever is behind this, it's disgusting and racist, and we should denounce it in the strongest terms.

---

by: ukit @ Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 14:11:45 PM CST

Which Clinton has done (4.00 / 1)

I don't think there's any way this hurts the candidate herself or reflect the larger campaign.

---

by: tomwatson @ Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 16:22:55 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Ugh. (0.00 / 0)

I stopped reading after "Zogby"...

You should know better.

---

by: db @ Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 14:11:58 PM CST

It has been 16 years since any candidate has done (4.00 / 1)

well since being shut out of IA and NH...

Well, that's also a really small sample size, right?  You have the 2004, 2000, and 1996 elections in that period of time, and there was no serious democratic challenger in 1996, and no serious republican challenger in 2004.  Bradley was at a severe disadvantage, and had a strategy entirely predicated on an early state win.  So, in the last six cases, only two to  of which are actual tests of the hypothesis, it has worked out that way, but I don't think it's necessarily impossible that a candidate can win without IA and NH, particularly if Hillary gets shut out of the early states, or if Guliani wins Florida, and can keep his national strength from collapsing.

---

by: Valatan @ Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 14:32:03 PM CST

Obama needs to be in Iowa (4.00 / 1)

Pretty much everything after New Hampshire is soft, and the fact of the matter is that pretty much each of the top three need a win in Iowa, Obama and Edwards especially, so I don't see how one could argue that because a candidate isn't showing strength in one area that's less important than another where they are stronger, they should divert resources from the more important one where they're doing better.

---

by: expatriatedjerseyan @ Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 14:54:04 PM CST

Clinton supporter responsible for defamatory Obama e-mails (0.00 / 0)

I heard rumors about this, but I thought it was bull, I was wrong.  Shameful, the kind of thing I expect from Republicans, but not Democrats.

Hillary Campaign Acknowledges That County Chair Backing Hillary Passed Along Obama Muslim Smear Email

Clinton County Chair In Iowa Is Asked To Step Down After Sending Anti-Muslim E-mail

Clinton staffer on anti-Obama email chain (UPDATED)

---

by: AaronBBrown @ Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 15:40:26 PM CST

Dean/Clark different from Clinton in one big area... (4.00 / 2)

Chris, very much enjoy your analysis of the numbers - it's fascinating stuff, no question.

I, too, don't believe that the Dean/Clark analogy holds and for one good reason. Clinton is a superstar with 100% name recognition. Dean and Clark were not. At this stage in '03 many Democrats were still asking "who's this Dean guy?" Nobody's asking that about Clinton, so I think her national lead means more than Dean's did.

So the early state stuff means less for her - she's been a national candidate from the first second of her campaign, while Dean and Clark aspired to become national candidates from the he early states but didn't pull it off.

Further, she won't quit anytime before mid-March - she'll stay through all the big primaries, even if she loses early. She's got the dough and the organization to do so.

---

by: tomwatson @ Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 16:28:01 PM CST

momentum (4.00 / 2)

The discussion is almost entirely on "momentum" as an ineffable quality. There's something to that, esp to the person above who notes that all support in states after NH should be considered soft.

But as usual, there's too much focus on polls and the perception of movement in polls, and not enough thinking about mechanics and resources.

The reason Dean collapsed so suddenly and Kerry shot to the moon in 04 is that Dean had spent all his money on Iowa and NH, and Kerry -- while broke on the eve of Iowa -- had a very high ceiling under which to grow financially since so many small (as well as big) donors inclined to support the nominee had not given to him already.

The question for 08 is not only who will have "big mo" coming out of Iowa, and NH, but whether -- as I suspect -- Clinton and Obama will have spent away a lot of their advantage by Jan 9. Both have invested massively in early state advertising, mail, staff, voter targeting, etc. Obama's been opening offices around the country, and Clinton's got the most and most expensive roster of consultants ever seen in a Democratic campaign. Now, if one or both will have have held back enough dough, then a loss, even a third place finish in Iowa and 2nd in NH, is survivable.

But if Clinton is tapped out financially and finishes below expectations in the two early states, its hard to see where she turns to replenish her coffers. So much of her money is from maxed-out donors and as of Q3, she still had the smallest number of <250 donors of any of the major campaigns. A lot of her fundraising since last July has been focused on bringing in new donors, among inds and even republicans, who will presumably be much less likely to give again if she no longer seems the inevitable nominee or president. Thus, her chances to lose momentum from the early states are the greatest.

Obama, harder to say; he's had >80% from top-dollar donors but also the largest # of small donors. Obama would benefit the most from clearing the field in the early states; if he gets a clear 1-on-1 crack at Clinton in NV, SC and Feb 5, he's probably in good shape to capitalize. In that sense, though, its not so much momentum he would get from Iowa as maintaining velocity while others fall off the pace.

Edwards is the most interesting case. How much "momentum" he builds if he wins Iowa will depend in part on what not winning does to Obama's support in NH, but also it depends on how quickly he is able to bring in money from previosu small donors and donors new to his campaign -- and how much having matching funds at that point will help him. In other words, his ceiling is far and away the highest. Add in the prospect of sympathetic but fence-sitting unions jumping on his bandwagon, and his chances seem the best for a momentum-powered, "slingshot" victory, a la Kerry in 04.

---

by: desmoulins @ Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 16:57:52 PM CST