In this update, I have removed most polls from the averages. Every major campaign is now on the air in at least Iowa and New Hampshire, and I want the glance to reflect public opinion after the air war began in earnest.
All State Polls Taken August 8th through September 6th Democratic Nomination, At a Glance
State
Est. Date
# Polls
Clinton
Obama
Edwards
Richardson
Net Avail Cash
Jun 30
Q2
$29.6M
$33.6M
$11.8M
$6.9M
Iowa
Dec-Jan?
4
25.8%
21.5%
23.8%
12.0%
New Hampshire
Jan 08
2
37.0%
19.5%
14.0%
8.0%
Michigan
Jan 15
2
41.5%
21.0%
15.0%
3.0%
Nevada
Jan 19
1
33.0%
19.0%
15.0%
11.0%
South Carolina
Jan 29
3
32.0%
22.3%
15.7%
2.6%
Florida
Jan 29
2
41.5%
19.0%
13.5%
--
National
Feb 05
NA
38.1%
22.2%
11.2%
2.7%
Even after removing the July polls from the average, there is not a huge amount of change here, which is a testament to the stability (some would say boredom) that the campaign has displayed thus far. I wonder if I should still include Michigan and Florida in the averages, since victories in those states will mean very little in the way of momentum boosts now that every candidate has agreed not to campaign there. In fact, I wonder if any candidates will even be on the ballot in those states, since gathering ballot signatures is a form of campaigning. Florida and Michigan really might not matter at all on the Democratic side. I have to wonder why Hillary Clinton went along with that pledge, since Florida in particular held out the promise of a real campaign boost should she stumble in the early states. Now, there is more pressure than ever for her to perform well in Iowa and New Hampshire.
Also, I really wish Iowa and New Hampshire would finally just make up their minds, and announce when they will take place. It is getting very late in the campaign season for the primary calendar to still be up in the air.
Republican Nomination, At a Glance
State
Est. Date
# Polls
Romney
Giuliani
Thompson
McCain
Hukabee
Net Avail Cash
June 30
Q2
$12.1M
$14.7M
$2.8M
$0.1M
$0.4M
Iowa
Dec-Jan?
4
31.5%
14.0%
12.8%
6.5%
10.3%
New Hampshire
Jan 08
2
29.5%
21.5%
9.5%
11.5%
6.0%
Michigan
Jan 15
2
32.0%
18.0%
14.0%
12.0%
3.5%
South Carolina
Jan 19
3
10.0%
21.7%
21.0%
13.7%
7.0%
Florida
Jan 29
2
12.5%
32.0%
17.5%
7.5%
--
National
Feb 05
NA
10.6%
26.5%
17.8%
12.9%
2.3%
Well, I have finally made the leap, and bumped Romney up to frontrunner status. At this point, he seems close enough in South Carolina, down 11-12% against Giuliani and Thompson, that a double victory in Iowa and New Hampshire should be enough to put him over the top there. Also, the resulting sweep of Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina will almost certainly be enough to put him in a position to dominate on February 5th. Finally, even though he Giuliani has more money in the bank, with his personal wealth, Romney will not be outspent by anyone.
In short, at long last I think Romney has emerged as the fairly clear Republican frontrunner. Of course, he lead is by no means dominating, and could easily change in the weeks and months ahead. Also, Huckabee has entered the glance for the first time. I freely admit that Huckabee’s upward rise scares me a little bit. I really hope he isn’t the Republican nominee.
Methodological notes can be found in the extended entry.
Senator Obama introduced legislation in January 2007 to offer a responsible alternative to President Bush's failed escalation policy. The legislation commences redeployment of U.S. forces no later than May 1, 2007 with the goal of removing all combat brigades from Iraq by March 31, 2008 -- a date consistent with the bipartisan Iraq Study Group's expectations. The plan allows for a limited number of U.S. troops to remain in Iraq as basic force protection, to engage in counter-terrorism and to continue the training of Iraqi security forces.
The tasks that Obama lists for American troops to conduct in Iraq are virtually identical to those listed in the Clinton legislation for redeployment, the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group, and those proposed by the Center for a New American Security. It appears that both Clinton and Obama would keep 40,000 troops in Iraq for a while if they become President, plus between 6,000 and 20,000 advisors and an always unspecified numbers of private contractors. I actually feel very confident in these numbers at this point, given how they have repeatedly appeared in several sources.
That's why I would include three narrowly targeted exceptions for redeployment - the protection of U.S. personnel and infrastructure, specific counterterrorism operations, and assistance with the training and equipping of Iraqi forces.
If, in the interim we actually make progress on a political settlement in Iraq and start to make Iraq the world's problem, not just our own, then I would support continuing what Democrats are trying to do now: transition our troops out of the civil war and into a limited mission of targeted counter-terrorism operations against Al Qaeda and like-minded groups, training Iraqis and force protection. If there actually is a political settlement, I'd also support U.S. troops taking part in any international peace keeping force, as they did in the Balkans. But if the current level of violence persists until the end of 2009, Iraq will be on the edge of breaking apart or fragmenting, if it was not already over the edge, and most of those missions would be impossible. By then, we would have either withdrawn virtually all of our troops, including the thousands necessary just to protect the Green Zone, in an orderly fashion, or gone through another terrible Saigon moment. In that case, the only mission I could see for U.S. troops in Iraq would be targetted counter-terrorism to deny Al Qaeda sanctuary (probably from outside Iraq) as well as working with other countries to contain the fall out of Iraq's civil war within the country.
Edwards goes further than Biden, Clinton, Dodd and Obama, citing the protection of American personnel and the American embassy as the only task he would have American troops conduct in Iraq under his presidency: (emphasis mine)
If John Edwards is president, we're not going to leave the American Embassy in Iraq as the only undefended embassy in the world, for example. There will be Marine guards there, just like there are at our embassies in London, Riyadh, and Tokyo. And just the same, if American civilians are providing humanitarian relief to the Iraqi people, we're going to protect them. How in good conscience could we refuse to protect them and then allow humanitarian workers to be at risk for their lives or the work not to happen at all? Finally, it's also Senator Edwards' position that we will have troops in the region to prevent the sectarian violence in Iraq from spilling over into other countries, for counter-terrorism, or to prevent a genocide.
So, here is the quick breakdown for what the Democratic candidates would have American troops do in Iraq if they become President, and how many troops it would require to perform those missions:
No residual forces outside of embassy protection: Richardson, Kucinich. This would require 5,000 to 10,000 troops, though possibly less, depending on the size of the embassy each would decide to maintain in Iraq.
Residual forces for embassy and personnel protection: Edwards. This would require between 5,000 and 10,000 troops for the embassy, and probably a similar number outside of the embassy. So, 10,000 to 20,000 seems likely.
Residual forces for counter-terrorism, Iraqi troop training, personnel protection and embassy protection: Clinton, Dodd and Obama, plus Biden conditionally. This will require roughly 40,000 troops, plus the number of advisors for the Iraqi military, plus an indeterminate amount of mercenaries private contractors. The Biden plan might require as few as 20,000, depending on the circumstances.
Since I often engage in criticism of Democratic Presidential candidates, but less frequently praise them, I thought it would be useful to spend some time to explain what I am looking for in a Presidential candidate before making an endorsement in the primary season. Here are the broad principles:
A Progressive Core. Beyond any specific policy proposals made on the campaign trail, I am looking for a candidate who I believe will take a progressive approach to issues and legislative scenarios that have yet to arise. In other words, I am looking for a candidate who, at his or her core, is reflexively and instinctually progressive. Is someone's first reaction typically a progressive one, or does a candidate typically have to be cojoled and pressured before taking a progressive direction?
Admittedly, this is a nebulous realm of candidate analysis. At different times, I have engaged in different means of determining it. Does a candidate refer to himself or herself as a progressive? To what extent does a candidate's background and formative years foreshadow their future actions? Who is willing to stand with the movement in the face of right-wing smears and engage the bar fight primary? Different candidates excel at different aspects of these methods of determining a progressive core. Edwards stands with the movement, for example, and I think he has a solid, immutable progressive core named Elizabeth. Obama has the background as an urban community organizer, a member of the religious left, and an international, multicultural upbringing. Clinton repeatedly self-identifies as a progressive, and viciously attacks the Republican Noise Machine. But they all have problems, too. Right now, in this category, I am leaning towards Obama, but that decision is not final.
A Populist Attack On Elites. I believe that the political and media establishment in America is fundamentally elitist and instinctively anti-progressive. These are two of the main reasons why this establishment has been wrong about pretty much everything over the past ten years. I want a candidate who attacks that establishment, and whose campaign drives fear into significant sections of it. In my time as a political professional, the only two campaigns that I saw really scare the establishment were Howard Dean for America in 2004, and Ned Lamont for Connecticut in 2006. Back in 2003, in was widely viewed as dangerous to your career to work for Howard Dean. In 2006, Ned Lamont's primary campaign against Joe Lieberman seemed even more frightening to the establishment than Dean, as it dominated national headlines for weeks before the primary, every pundit slammed Lamont supporters as Stalinists, and as Lieberman took in $2,100 donations in amounts typically only seen with small donors. If you are not scaring the establishment, are you really going to be in a position to challenge them once in office? Call this the FDR criterion, perhaps, considering that media elites overwhelmingly hated the man early in his time as President, and that wealthy industrialists even tried to oust him as President in a military coup.
Right now, Edwards has the clear lead in this category. Not only does he regularly engage in populist attacks on elites, but his campaign does seem to be the target the rather excessive establishment smearing. Obama has made motions in this direction when he talks about change, but to be honest one of the aspects of Obama's campaign that worries me the most is that he is surrounded with insider, establishment types. Some will argue that Obama, as an African-America, is not in a position to diss the establishment as openly as someone like John Edwards can, but I would argue that even if that is true, he certainly does not have to be as in bed with the establishment as he has been so afar in the campaign. As far as Clinton goes, if she wins, I feel like the establishment wins.
Clarity On Iraq. My transformation from a part-time, volunteer political activist and union organizer to the world of professional politics and activism was spurred on in large part by the run-up, and eventual start, of the war in Iraq. I remember once, in mid-March of 2003, ranting to my brother that I have never been as angry with "my" government than I was at that time. Everything was bult on a series of lies and propaganda, and large numbers of Democrats and the media went happily along with it all. I knew that not only was the war immoral, but that it would have disastrous, long-term consequences for America. I vowed to make certain that those responsible would face both legal and electoral consequences for their involvement in this ruinous colonial clusterfuck.
Right now, the only candidate offering clarity on Iraq in Bill Richardson. Quite frankly, by not offering estimates for how many troops they intend to leave in Iraq, I feel like the big three are lying to me when it comes to Iraq. Clinton, Edwards and Obama offer clarity and hypothetical estimates on everything from energy, poverty, health care and pollution, but they refuse to offer hypothetical estimates on troops levels in Iraq. That feels both dishonest and all too familiar. This is a huge missing ingredient when it comes to any of the "big three" receiving my support in the primary.
A Willingness To Help Him Or Herself. I don't like lazy candidates, and I don't like candidates who don't stand up for themselves. If you aren't hitting the campaign trail until you are near the brink of exhaustion, if you are not engaging in a huge amount of call time to raise money, it you seem unprepared or extemporaneous on the stump, and if you are generally not doing all of the demeaning things required of a winning candidate, then I am not interested in supporting you. I am not going to waste my time supporting candidates who are not doing pulling out all of the structural stops necessary in order to win a campaign. My time is limited, are people are constantly hitting me up to support their campaign or cause. I will not waste my time on candidates and causes that are not absolutely dedicated to victory. And the same goes for candidates who are smeared by the right. If you do not respond in kind, f you apologize when the right-wing asks you to apologize, and if you allow bullshit media narratives to form around you without doing everything you can to hit back against the Republican Noise Machine, then I won't bother offering you my activist support.
In case you are wondering, this is why it makes supporting Biden, Kucinich and Gravel impossible for me. Not only are they the three weakest campaigners in the 2008 field, but they all singed on for the non-cancelled Fox News debate. I can't be bothered to associate with self-defeating weakness of this sort. Clinton and Obama clearly lead in this category, but Edwards has improved of late.
Who Has Movement Support? I generally trust the judgment of my progressive movement-oriented colleagues, and if they start to endorse a candidate en masse, I will probably follow along. This is especially the case when I am convinced that supporting a candidate can actually help grow the progressive movement. Overall, in this category, Obama has the most activism being engaged on his behalf. In my narrower realm of the progressive blogosphere, Edwards appears to be the most popular. This divergence within one segment of the movement from the movement as a whole, not to mention very real questions as to whether or not endorsing either Edwards or Obama would actually help build the progressive movement, is a serious barrier toward making any endorsement. It is also worth noting that Clinton actually has a decent amount of grassroots activism conducted on her behalf, too.
So, that is what I am looking for in a Democratic to endorse in the 2008 primaries. A Carbon tax and single-payer health care would be nice, too. No candidate has a clear lead according to all these criteria, although obviously Edwards and Obama hit more categories, and thus have advantages over the rest of the field. Hopefully, a post like this will be useful not only in that it shows where I am leaning in terms of the 2008 field, but that it also provides real transparency in how I view and critique the campaign. I think that if either Obama or Edwards were to adopt Richardson's Iraq plan, I would probably end up endorsing the candidate who did so. However, right now, I feel that there is at least one major red flag for all of the candidates, and so I remain in the undecided column.
As you may have noticed by now, I consider Iowa and New Hampshire polls worth of front-page status, while all other polls fit mainly for a round-up post or the quick hits section. This fits with what I consider to be the relative importance of each type of poll. As such, for an election junkie like myself, a new poll from Iowa or New Hampshire always feels like receiving a present. So, today, I am happy to say that we are treated to a New Hampshire poll from Rasmussen. Click here for Democratic results, and here for Republicans. August 9th, 453 LVs, 6/28 numbers in parenthesis:
Not much movement, although Edwards appears to have pulled out of his tailspin in the state. His more recent pushback on the bullshit "hair" narrative might be working (see here and here). I put the current New Hampshire five-poll average at Clinton 34.6%, Obama 24.8%, Edwards 13.2%, Richardson 9.4% (no one else over 5%). Pollster.com places the current regression line at Clinton 34.5%, Obama 23.6%, Gore 10.8%, Richardson 10.6%, Edwards 10.2%.
I am starting to think that the Republican campaign looks basically to be Giuliani versus Romney. We all know that McCain has suffered several major blows, but lately Thompson seems to be struggling, too. It does not strike me as a good sign for a candidate's poll numbers to go down during an endless exploratory phase. Combine this with little money, staff shakeups, few trips to early states, and that Republican insiders like Romney and Giuliani more, and I think Thompson is pretty much in the second tier with McCain right now. The only thing that is in his favor lately is a favorable calendar that foregrounds southern states South Carolina and Florida.
The Republican five-poll mean in New Hampshire is Romney 30.4%, Giuliani 20.6%, McCain 13.4%, Thompson 12.2%. The Pollster.com regression line for the state stands at Romney 31.4%, Giuliani 18.9%, Thompson 12.2%, McCain 11.9%.
This is not entirely new language from Obama, and as an attack it is actually kind of tame (at least ocmpared to "Bush-Cheney light"). However, it is new that he is using it to overtly differentiate himself from Hillary Clinton:
"I think it is fair to say that I believe I can bring the country together more effectively than she can," Obama said. "I will add, by the way, that is not entirely a problem of her making. Some of those battles in the '90s that she went through were the result of some pretty unfair attacks on the Clintons. But that history exists, and so, yes, I believe I can bring the country together in a way she cannot do. If I didn't believe that, I wouldn't be running."(…)
"Her argument is going to be that 'I'm the experienced Washington hand,' and my argument is going to be that we need to change the ways of Washington," he said. "That's going to be a good choice for the American people."
Saying that Bill Clinton's presidency was good for America, he added: "The question is, moving forward, looking towards the future, is it sufficient just to change political parties, or do we need a more fundamental change in how business is done in Washington . . .? Do we need to break out of some of the ideological battles that we fought during the '90s that were really extensions of battles we fought since the '60s?"
Obama never used the term "polarizing" to describe Clinton but made it clear he has studied polls that show that many people have an unfavorable opinion of her. "I don't think there is anybody in this race who's able to bring new people into the process and break out of some of the ideological gridlock that we have as effectively as I can," he said.
There is quite a bit to unpack here.
First, there is a reference to Clinton's high unfavorables, which is basically an electability argument. (Update: some have argued that this is not an electability argument, but instead an argument about passing legislation once elected. That is possible--Chris) I think we all knew this would be used against Clinton from one campaign or another, probably either Obama or Edwards, at some point. Electability has almost always played a major role in virtually all Democratic primary campaigns for some time, even though I certainly haven't seen much of it floating around so far in 2008 (except as a "coattails" argument). What is perhaps most interesting about Obama's "attack" is how he tries to soft-pedal and tip-toe around the issue with several qualifiers, including the notion that Clinton's higher unfavorables are the result of unfair attacks from the right. I wonder how much of this is fear of angering the base for attacking Clinton, worries that the last attack on Clinton did not go well for the Obama campaign, and trying to stay on his campaign message of "a different type of politics." It is probably a combination of all three.
Second, there is a strange "meta" moment where Obama repeats the media and campaign narratives so far. This is part of a growing trend where candidates, especially Democratic candidates, want to be media pundits, for some reason. (I think Biden and McCain are a good examples of candidates who want to be pundits really badly.) I don't think it is particularly appealing to voters, and Obama would be better off staying away from the meta campaign talk when he is actually the candidate.
Third, there is an interesting, generational jab at the 1960's: "do we need to break out of some of the ideological battles that we fought during the '90s that were really extensions of battles we fought since the '60s." This is a direct appeal to younger Gen X, Gen Y, and Millennial Voters, not to mention to differentiate himself from Clinton (Clinton = 1990's in this formula). I have to admit, it is appealing to me because, as I wrote last year, I am so sick of American politics being fought over issues that took place before I was born using cultural references to events that happened before I was born (which basically was politics in the 1990's). However, it is important to remember that the primary and caucus electorate is older than the general election electorate, so a direct generational appeal might be dangerous territory. But I still like it, because it is appealing to me. :)
Fourth, Obama uses the term "ideological gridlock" in a way that is less progressive than his more recent "post-partisan" rhetoric, including "a more fundamental change in how business is done in Washington." However it was intended, "ideological gridlock" sounds very centrist, and very non-partisan. This, I think, presents a huge opening for the Clinton campaign. Instead of talking about ideological gridlock and post-partisanship, Clinton could emphasize her progressivism and Democratic partisanship, and actually come at Obama from the left. She has done a decent job so far with labeling herself a progressive, but I think if she really wanted to hit back at Obama over this, it would be the perfect moment to emphasize that she self-identifies as a progressive. It would also be a good moment to start emphasizing that she is a Democrat since, as Matt points out, neither she nor Obama did so in their first Iowa ads.
Certainly an interesting development, even if I don't think these messages from Obama will work very well if employed broadly. Still, Obama is clearly going to be the initiator of these attempted moments of differentiation, since he is currently in second place in most polls. He has to do something. Due to her lead, Clinton can instead focus on differentiating herself from Bush and Republicans, which puts her in a stronger rhetorical position. It won't be easy for Obama to break out of his current position, but he is trying to find ways to do so.
When comparing the 2004 and 2008 Democratic primary campaigns, one thing I find strange is that the 2008 campaign appears, at least so far, more static on the national level than was the 2004 campaign. Consider the following table of Gallup polls from March 2003—December 2003:
Throughout this period of the campaign in 2003-2004, Howard Dean seemed to have a fairly consistently upward climb, starting in the mid-single digits, and ending near 30% following Al Gore’s endorsement in the second week of December. By way of comparison, in 2008, we haven’t seen anything like that sort of movement for three or four months. Obama’s upward momentum seems to have, for one reason or another, just plain stopped at some point in the early spring, after which no candidate has seen his or her national numbers move more than two points in either direction.
What is the cause of the greater stability so far in the 2008 campaign cycle? For that matter, what was the cause of Howard Dean’s rise from March through December in 2003? I am having a difficult time developing answers to these questions, but my current theories can be found in the extended entry.
The Democratic presidential candidates have chosen sides in the latest skirmish in the long-running war between the party's business-friendly moderates and liberal-leaning activists. This time, they are with the liberals.
The front-running candidates all are staying away from Nashville, Tenn., this weekend, which is hosting the annual gathering of the Democratic Leadership Council, the business-friendly group of centrist Democrats who played such a key role in guiding the party from Walter Mondale's defeat in 1984 to Bill Clinton's victories in 1992 and 1996.
But they all will be in Chicago next weekend for the second annual convening of Internet bloggers, a relatively new part of campaign infrastructure that wasn't even imagined when Mondale and Clinton were campaigning for votes.
Al From isn't concerned. He says the DLC isn't very comfortable with primaries and is focused on helping Democrats in the general election. From the same, subscription-only article:
"Always the most uncomfortable year for us is the third year in the cycle when people are looking at the early primaries and caucuses," he said. Candidates now "are focused on winning interest group votes... We were organized and always have been the force in the party that looks to the general election and tries to connect the Democratic Party to the mainstream values of the country."
Uncomfortable with the third year of the election cycle, eh? They didn't felt hat way back in 1995, when they advocated cutting ties with then sitting president Bill Clinton, and even tried to find a primary challenger against him. Rick Perlstein:
After the 1994 elections Joel Kotkin, a senior fellow of the DLC's Progressive Policy Institute, called for New Democrats to cut Clinton loose in favor of a primary challenger in 1996 or even think about leaving the Democratic Party altogether. The DLC's Progressive Foundation put out feelers to begin a third-party movement-"a new approach," according to the PPI board chairman Michael Steinhardt, "to separate ourselves from the Democratic Party."
According to Michael Steinhardt, chairman of PPI's Board of Trustees until he resigned at the end of 1995, the Third Way Project was to be 'a new approach to separate ourselves from the Democratic Party.' He explained [to author Baer] that the DLC began to take on a more bipartisan focus, which appealed to a number of contributors, including Steinhardt himself, who advocated the formation of a third party and went so far as to meet with Bill Bradley to try to persuade him to run for President in 1996."
Now, some might protest that was twelve years ago, and surely the DLC has improved since then. When have they ever threatened splintering with the Democratic Party in the last decade? Surely, they will be with Democratic in 2008, right? Wrongo. Last year, both From and Steinhardt held a dinner to encourage Michael Bloomberg to run in 2008:
CBS 2 has learned the details of a private dinner for the mayor that was held at an apartment building on Manhattan's Upper East Side last month. There, he spent the evening in serious discussions about the viability of a White House run.
Sources told CBS 2 Bloomberg brought three deputy mayors with him, and proceeded to talk through every angle of a presidential run. By the end, the group had zeroed in on his running as an independent in 2008. And, the sources said, he seemed intrigued.
The dinner was held at the home of Michael Steinhardt, a legendary Wall Street hedge fund manager and a Bloomberg friend. He brought along Al From, head of the Democratic Leadership Council, which played a part in Bill Clinton's rise to power in 1992.
DLC leaders are currently encouraging Michael Bloomberg to run as an independent. That is even worse that encouraging Bill Bradley to run in the primaries against Clinton. At least a primary fight keeps it in the Democratic Party. Now, they are actively seeking candidates to run against Democrats in general elections. As such, From's lines about being uncomfortable with primaries and being there for the party in the general seem like little more than lies. If there were anything else, then the DLC would not have sought a primary challenger against Clinton in 1995, and would not be encouraging a Bloomberg independent run in 2007.
Before the Democratic nominee decides whether or not to speak at the 2008 DLC convention, s/he should ask the DLC what side it is on. This is especially since the nominee might be forced to share the stage with another presidential candidate, Michael Bloomberg. If nothing else, that certainly isn't a problem s/he will face at Yearly Kos 2008.
I would like to try to draw down my discussion of Obama and foreign policy this week with the following video:
Towards the end of this video, starting at 2:03, Obama is asked how he would have voted on the AUMF. He says that he would have voted no, because he was "concerned about… a carte blanche to the administration for a doctrine of pre-emptive strikes that I am not sure sets a good precedent." That very much answers the second of my three questions on measuring foreign policy judgment beyond the AUMF on Iraq. Demonstrating a pattern of sound, progressive foreign policy judgment goes beyond the authorization for the use of military force vote, and very much requires an open rejection of the neoconservative doctrine of pre-emptive invasion. This appears to be something Obama has done. This is good to know, and it right up there with Edwards's rejection of the "war on terror" as a "political slogan." I hope that every candidate will step up to the plate and do the same, on both counts.
And that brings me to a second point on pre-emption: an attempt to pre-empt flame wars on this site. As you may have noticed, I have stepped up my discussion of the 2008 Democratic primary in recent days. Expect me to continue to do so. The Democratic nomination will be decided in, at most, 194 days, and as such I think it is an extremely pressing issue in which progressives should involve themselves. No matter how far away the general election is, with Iowa probably taking place in mid or early December (four and a half months), then the time to pay attention to the campaign, if you want to influence the campaign, is right now.
But this is not going to be merely horserace blogging, or discussion of the latest strategic move on the campaign trail. As I think you can see from my recent posts on the subject, this is going to be election blogging from an overtly progressive movement perspective. Sure, I will cover the horserace, because I like dissecting polls, but mainly I will be examining how candidates comport themselves relative to the structure and ideology of the progressive movement (and hopefully influencing the campaign in the process). As such, I want to tell commenters ahead of time that this is not about giving equal time to every candidate, this is not about rah-rahing one candidates chances to win, and this is not about me or any other poster having "biases" in favor of one candidate or another. Discussion of Democratic primaries can easily turn into flame wars, or fail to scratch the surface of issues, if you expect me to be an objective filter through which reporting on the campaign takes place. I am not going to be that, and I am telling you upfront where my allegiances rest. Beyond that on which I am being upfront, I will not tolerate other accusations of bias or ulterior motives lightly, whether directed against me, other commenters, or other front page posters. Let's try to keep it clean and productive.
In short, if, for your candidate, you have a "with us or against us" mentality, or even an "against them or against us" mentality, then this will not be the place for you for very long. However, if you want to follow the election closely, and / or you are interested in the progressive movement, this will be a great place for you to visit on a daily basis! This is because, in the primary, I officially endorse the progressive movement. We will see what flows from there. Although I do not want to speak on their behalf, I imagine that my Open Left colleagues on the front page feel much of the same way. The movement needs to play a role in the campaign in some form, and for my small part, I hope to help it do just that.
Enough snarling for now. I look forward to an exciting and productive campaign. I hope you will join me!
I am also struck by the distinct possibility that Edwards and Richardson are “anti-“ candidates. This is not to say that either are running negative campaigns, but rather that given how more than two-thirds of Democrats have reported for months that Clinton and Obama are what they are hearing about most in 2008 news, one might image that those Democrats who haven’t lined up with one or the other are simply not sold on either. This is further reflected how, in late June, a CBS poll found that nationwide 92% of Obama supporters, 58% of Clinton supporters, and only 18% percent of Edwards supporters described themselves as “enthusiastic” in an open-end question. People seem to be turning to Edwards not necessarily because of him, but because they are not exactly giddy about Clinton and Obama. This could especially be the case in Iowa, which has a low African-American population, and thus smaller bases for Clinton and Obama. Richardson seems to be a further beneficiary of voters who are not thrilled with Clinton and Obama, especially since he has picked up significantly more support from those two than Edwards has in recent months. This leads to two important questions:
Are Edwards supporters in Iowa are as equally unenthusiastic as they are nationwide?
Are Democrats who are unenthusiastically supporting Edwards and Richardson dead set against voting for Clinton or Obama, or still open to the possibility?
If the answer to both questions is yes, the Richardson has a ton of upward potential in the state. If the answers to both questions are no, then don’t expect much movement in Iowa, even as caucus time approaches. If the answers are first yes and then no, then get ready for a hard-core, four-way horserace over the next few months. If the answers are no and then yes, then Iowa is basically a two person campaign between Edwards and Richardson.
Republican table and methodological notes in the extended entry.
Currently, the political blogs are seen as agitators and outsiders. That's true now. But that doesn't mean it will stay true through all of time. In fact, not only do blogs have a bright future, but they are an indication of what the future might hold for the whole political system.
People who read blogs are among the most politically educated people in the country. They care to know what's happening in current events and politics. So, they knew there was no link between Al Qaeda and Iraq well before the general population. Not because they were privy to some secret information, but because they cared to find out right away.
The facts always catch up to the American people. But sometimes it takes awhile. Bush didn't earn his 30% approval rating over the last year and a half, he did that in the last five and a half years. It just took awhile for the general population to catch up to what the bloggers and blog readers already knew about.
Cenk is certainly right about bloggers being outsiders. Those who would argue that many "short head" progressive blogs have become otherwise, like Daniel Schulman factually-challenged discussion of the subject at Mother Jones, have a remarkably low threshold for what being an "insider" means. Bloggers are simply not decision makers in the progressive ecosystem. Bloggers have no say in deciding where progressive money goes for infrastructure building (if we did, there wouldn't be a funding problem in the blogosphere). We are not involved in policy decisions on the Hill. We are not offered a seat at the table in determining strategy for major electoral, media or legislative campaigns (if we were, why would we constantly complain about these strategies?). On the rare occasions when we do talk with Democrats and people in power, it is virtually always in one of the following capacities:
As a mini-press gaggle where we are allowed to ask questions just like other media.
To provide some variation on the "introduction to the blogosphere" speech for the millionth time.
To be told how an existing campaign is developing, and how we can then become cogs in plans that were developed without our insight or approval.
Insiders are decision makers, and bloggers don't make decisions for the broader progressive ecosystem. Whatever influence we have is most definitely leveraged from outside agitation.
Even though it probably was not worth much else, one positive from my post yesterday on the general lack of progressive blogger endorsements so far in the Democratic presidential nomination campaign is that it started several interesting side conversations. One of those conversations is centered around Hillary Clinton and the blogosphere. This conversation is actually two-fold, discussing both whether or not the progressive blogosphere has "vetoed" Clinton support within its ranks, but also why there does not seem to be as much overt anti-Clinton blogging as one might have expected before the campaign began.
Those questions are fairly amorphous, but let me try to ground them both with some numbers, since they both stem from the same observation. Specifically, there has long been a perception that that Hillary Clinton is not a blogosphere favorite, demonstrated quantitatively both in her consistent single-digit showing in progressive blog straw polls, and in her net negative favorable / unfavorable rating among regular blog readers in the BlogPac Netroots poll of MoveOn.org members. The chart below breaks down favorable / unfavorable ratings of Hillary Clinton by how often MoveOn.org members read progressive blogs (the data measures up to standards of scientific randomness in polling, too):
Now, a quick impression from these numbers is that not only is Senator Clinton not the first choice of regular progressive blog readers, but that she is actively and vehemently disliked by many progressive blog readers. However, that dislike does not seem to be translating into much "anti-Clinton" blogging.
Note: I am retracting much of the original post. What remains can be found in the extended entry and has been placed in a purely personal context. I apologize if my tone or assertions offended anyone, especially since I now agree that those assertions were incorrect. I just find it interesting that so few bloggers who I remember making endorsements in 2003 have done so in 2007. I wanted to try and figure out why that is. I found the feedback I received to be very helpful in that regard--Chris
Last update: July 19, 1:00 pm eastern State polls taken from June 13th through July 18th
Democratic Nomination, At a Glance
State
Est. Date
# Polls
Clinton
Obama
Edwards
Richardson
Net Avail Cash
Mar 31
Q1
$30M
$33.1M
$11.7M
$7M
Iowa
December
4
24.5%
17.3%
27.5%
8.8%
New Hampshire
December
5
35.6%
23.2%
10.8%
9.0%
Nevada
Jan 19
2
39.5%
16.5%
14.0%
6.5%
South Carolina
Jan 22
2
31.0%
27.5%
17.0%
1.7%
Florida
Jan 29
4
40.5%
21.3%
12.3%
4.5%
National
Feb 05
NA
36.2%
23.4%
12.0%
3.0%
Given these numbers, right now the only real issue is determining just how far ahead Clinton actually is. Considering the typical poll bounce Democratic candidates receive for first place finishes in Iowa and New Hampshire, I have long operated under the assumption that in order for there to even be a chance for her to lose the nomination, she must lose both states. Her national lead is simply too large to not result in Florida, and then February 5th, victories if she gets a further bounce from a win in either Iowa or New Hampshire. As such, the numbers to watch out for when determining Clinton’s lead break down like this:
If she leads Iowa, the nomination is hers to lose.
If she is second in Iowa, the nomination is still hers to lose as long as, in New Hampshire, she is more than 11 points ahead of the candidate leading Iowa. (Note: this is the current scenario.)
If she is third or fourth in Iowa, the nomination is still hers to lose as long as, in New Hampshire, she is more than seven points ahead of the candidate in second in Iowa, and more than eighteen points ahead of the candidate in first in Iowa.
If she fails to meet all of the above three scenarios, and thus loses both Iowa and New Hampshire, she can still win the nomination if Iowa and New Hampshire are won by two different candidates, if she finishes second in Iowa, and if she is more than fifteen points ahead nationally.
In all other scenarios, I would currently forecast that Clinton would not win the nomination. The shortest route to cause one of those scenarios to come to pass would be, first, for her to fall behind Obama in Iowa. She currently leads him by 7% in Iowa, so that would take about 5,500 Clinton caucus goers flipping to Obama. Second, Obama would then have to pull closer than 7.0% in New Hampshire. Since he currently trails Clinton by 12.4% in New Hampshire, he need to flip about 3% of Clinton’s New Hampshire supporters, or about 7,500 primary voters, to his side. So, the absolute smallest expression of Clinton’s advantage is about 13,000 Iowans and New Hampshirites. To put it a different way, Clinton is currently the favorite for the nomination unless Obama gains 8% on her in Iowa, and 6% on her in New Hampshire. Were that to happen, Obama would become a slight favorite for the nomination. At this point, Edwards needs more help. He would need Obama to gain eight points on Clinton in Iowa without falling behind Obama in Iowa himself. Further, he would also need to gain three points on Obama in New Hampshire and eight points on Clinton in New Hampshire.
So, that is how large Clinton’s lead is right now. Decide for yourself just how significant that advantage is. (And no, Nevada is not going to take place between Iowa and New Hampshire. Not. Gonna. Happen.) It is also interesting to note that these scenarios mean Edwards was the favorite for the nomination from December 20-January 31, from April 29-May 15, and again from May 20-May 25, as the New Hampshire projection tables had him sweeping Iowa and New Hampshire during those times, resulting in a national lead. Otherwise, Clinton has been the favorite, as the New Hampshire projection tables have never shown Obama ahead in either Iowa or New Hampshire. (Note: paragraph updated after further research.)
Republican numbers and methodological notes in the extended entry.
A new New Hampshire poll actually came out last night, but I did not want to interrupt discussion of the important, and most welcome, Senate all-nighter. One of the things I like about Soapblox is the ability to write posts, but then schedule them to appear at a later time. CNN / WMUR / UNH, July 9-17, 333 Democratic primary voters, MoE 5.5 (June results in parenthesis)
There can be no doubt that Edwards is struggling in New Hampshire now. Back in April, his poll average in the state was 23.0% for second place ahead of Obama, and only 8.0% behind Clinton We all know the reason, too. What I find remarkable is how every journalist in America finds it remarkable that the truly bullshit haircut story remains the news about Edwards. It seems to always be other journalists who are "remarkably" keeping the story alive, rather the the journalist doing the reporting. Funny, that.
However, a quick review of Google news results for Edwards haircut shows immediately that it is a right-wing smear job that the corporate press is happily reporting. Who is talking about the Edwards haircut? Why, Forbes, Powerline, the Daily Telegraph, Fox, Real Clear Politics, New Busters, the Politico, Town Hall, the New York Sun, Rush Limbaugh, American Spectator, Hot Air and Human Events. Al Gore must be watching this with a real sense of deja vu.
Looking at the top two candidates, this is the third consecutive New Hampshire poll showing Obama gaining ground, and moving within single-digits of Clinton. However, flashes like this have happened before, and I would wait for more polls in the state before declaring it a real trend. Also, it seems that Obama is the candidate taking support from Edwards in New Hampshire, rather than Richardson, who seems to have leveled off after his quick rise two months ago.
No Iowa polls for three weeks now. It will be interesting to see if Edwards has suffered any problems there, as well. Given the state of play in New Hampshire, it is more important than ever for him to stay in front in Iowa.
Total events in the first four states:
Edwards: IA 56, NH 35, SC 17, NV 9
Obama: IA 55, NH 20, SC 11, NV 6
Clinton: IA 35, NH 26, SC 12, NV 6
Richardson: IA 25, NH 44, SC 15, NV 25
Even if it was not supposed to be public, I am glad that Democratic candidates are starting to voice frustrations with existing debate formats. Edwards is apparently leading the charge:
An angry Dennis Kucinich lashed out at John Edwards today, saying his Democratic rival showed "a consistent lack of integrity" by suggesting fewer candidates should participate in presidential forums and then trying to explain his remark to reporters.(...)
Kucinich's comments came after Edwards and Hillary Rodham Clinton were overheard Thursday discussing the possibility of limiting the number of participants in future presidential forums.
In an exchange captured on camera and open microphone by broadcasters after an NAACP forum in Detroit, Edwards approached Clinton onstage and whispered in her ear.
"We should try to have a more serious and a smaller group," Edwards said, and Clinton agreed.
"Our guys should talk," Clinton said, complaining the format had "trivialized" the discussion.
Considering that Kucinich has agreed to a "debate" on right-wing propaganda outlet Fox News, I am not particularly moved by his claims about "integrity" when it comes to debates. However, considering the struggles of lower-tier candidates for media attention, I can also understand his desire to make an issue out of this. So, I don't plan to get angry at him over this, either.
No matter how it may end up being portrayed in the media, I think Edwards is right to try and seek new debate formats. The established format of having eight candidates on a stage at the same time providing 60-second answers, in random order, to questions that generally lack focus simply does not work for anyone. Voters do not learn much about candidates. Issues are not discussed in depth. There is no meaningful exchanges between candidates, and candidates themselves have little chance to offer more than sound-bite insight into their ideas for America. These formats are so awful, that even a political junkie like myself can't watch them. We need something better.
So far, I think the most compelling candidate forums have been produced by MoveOn.org. By giving each candidate 5-10 minutes of interrupted time to answer questions on a focus issue--first Iraq, and now global warming--Democratic primary voters can actually learn useful things about each candidate. For example, back in April it was during the MoveOn.org forum on Iraq where Bill Richardson began to receive real traction for his "no residual troops" proposal for Iraq. That was useful. That was insightful. Watching Mike Gravel ask Barack Obama who he wanted to nuke was not useful, even if it was a little funny.
The candidates themselves, including "lower-tier" candidates such as Kucinich, need to start engaging in more pushback against the format of the televised "debates." It would be a mistake for Kucinich to cling to existing debate formats simply because it puts him on stage with the other candidates. What we all need are forums where every candidate is able to go more in depth on focused areas of political ideology and public policy. I don't know if his suggestions are the best way to go, but at least Edwards is thinking about new possibilities (from the same article linked above):
For his part, Edwards told reporters in Iowa that he wasn't in favor of barring anyone from future gatherings. Rather, he said he wanted to see them separated into two groups of four each, chosen randomly.
"The result would be that we would have a much more serious discussion and people would actually be able to see what the differences are between us," he said.
Kucinich called Edwards' explanation "disturbing" and said he planned to contact Edwards and Clinton immediately to demand an apology.
By immediately demanding an apology for even suggesting that we change an awful debate format, Kucinich reminds me of otherwise progressive Democrats who join in calls for immediate apologies whenever anyone even questions AIPAC's right-wing approach to the Israeli-Palestinian issue. No matter who poorly the status quo may be working, for some reason changing debate formats, much like changing American policy in Israel, is something that you are not even allowed to talk about, much less openly support.
Kucinich is better than that, and instead of demanding an apology, he should work with Edwards and Clinton to find a debate format that actually works. Right now, our debate formats just plain suck. Chris Dodd, another "lower-tier" candidate, has even shown that, in terms of candidate talk time, existing formats are more unfair to candidates like Kucinich than MoveOn.org style debates. If Kucinich wants to maintain that sort of caste system, it is his prerogative. However, I think it would be better for everyone if we came up with some new ways to conduct these debates.
STATE BLOGS
