Prudent, empirical, and sane, the voters of the Granite State have once again shaken the foundations of the political world with their choices in yesterday’s presidential primary.
On the Democratic side, Barack Obama’s New New Deal will just have to wait as Obamania has been pushed aside in order to make way for Hillary Rodham Nixon. Hillary’s victory seems to be due to her strength among women, who at the end of the day still want to vote for one of their own, as well as the continued potency of older voters in American politics, who apparently aren’t ready for a post-Boomer political world. None of that explains, of course, why the polls were so very wrong about the outcome of this race. A part of me suspects that African-American candidates for office may still enjoy more support in public than they do when the curtain to the voting booth is closed. That’s why Iowa, where all voting was public, gave Barack a win. Not so when the ballots are secret though. While this unfortunate dynamic is most certainly residue from our country’s ugly racial past, that doesn’t mean it isn’t real.
In any case, Hillary now has the momentum, which is good, considering that she never lost her lead in Florida or New York or any of the big states she needs to win the nod. Obama needs another win to shift the momentum back in his direction. Unless Obama wins South Carolina, the race is pretty much over. But Hillary will spend the next few weeks climbing in the Palmetto State, and will probably win there too. Like George H.W. Bush in 1988, who lost Iowa to Bob Dole and was written off as politically dead, Hillary’s resurrection will make her candidacy red hot, and that will likely ensure that Obama fades out just as quickly as Dole did two decades ago.
Meanwhile, it’s on to Michigan for the Republicans, where McCain with momentum will likely add another win to his column. McCain won Michigan in 2000 under pretty much the same conditions: momentum from New Hampshire and no real Democratic primary in the state, allowing Independents and Democrats to vote heavily for McCain in the GOP primary. At that point, McCain will head into South Carolina to face Huckabee, who currently leads the field in the Palmetto State by double-digits, and the winner of that contest will face Rudy in Florida, who currently leads the field by single-digits. What all of this means is that, unless Romney somehow pulls out a Michigan win next week, or unless Thompson comes back from the dead in South Carolina, we’re probably looking at a McCain/Rudy/Huckabee race. And at this point, I would consider both a Romney and a Thompson comeback to be highly, highly unlikely events.
What all of this means is that the next president will either be a Republican or a Clinton, the latter option being more of a nuisance than a game-changer. While Obama had the potential to make liberalism cool again, Hillary can’t, nor will she try. She’ll run under the same basic premise as her husband, under the assumption that she’s running to lead a center-right nation and thus has to triangulate and appease. While I certainly hope that we can avoid a Hillary presidency, I can rest easy knowing that we won’t have a president who can use his charisma and a nifty stump speech to convince Americans that a 20-percent tax increase is a good thing. The Clintons are to conservatism what Nixon was to liberalism — an annoyance, but not a threat to the existing order.
But Rodham is ultimately beatable, and I’m torn on the prospects of our remaining three viable candidates. I fear what Huckabee would do to the conservative coalition, though I suspect he’d probably beat Hillary in Ohio. I still have a special place in my heart for Rudy, though I often wonder if he’s just too bellicose for a year in which voters want a candidate who reaches out to the middle and who feels our pain. I know that McCain seems old and tired and has pissed off every Republican in the country at least once over the last eight years, but I am also aware of his strength among Independents, and his potential to create a red-plus-purple-equals-victory center-right majority in this country. You know, the one that Bush was supposed to build. Besides, the idea of Phil Gramm as White House Chief of Staff and Joe Lieberman at the Pentagon is far from the treason against conservatism that many on the Right seem to envision when they think of a President McCain. Meanwhile, remember all of those new voters that Obama has brought into politics? What happens to them if Barack loses to Hillary? If Andrew Sullivan’s mailbag is any indication, it appears they are ready and willing to vote Republican should we nominate the senator from Arizona. My favorite quote, yes, from an Obama voter:
Someone get me a McCain ’08 sticker … These current Dems would have nominated Adlai Stevenson over Kennedy in 1960.
Hillary’s likely nomination sends millions of Obama Independents into limbo. McCain can clearly scoop them up. The old Rudy — the one who won millions of blue New Yorkers — could have done so as well. But Rudy has been forced to run so far to the right and to become so partisan that he has lost much of his crossover appeal. Can he get it back during the general election season? There are no clear answers to these questions, and these are the queries that we must wrestle with as we select our nominee over the next few weeks.
January 9th, 2008 at 1:08 am
Clear Evidence that Mitt Romney is done come from the latest AP article by Glenn Johnson that reads:
“Romney spent more than $7 million on advertising in each state, and held as many, if not more, events in both places than any of his GOP rivals.”
OUCH!!! He is almost finished.
It also says he is going to work on getting earned media and less paid media. That means Romney is hesitant about using his own fortune to win. He is wounded and brused, BADLY!
January 9th, 2008 at 1:10 am
He doesn’t have the hope of Obama, the momentum of McCain, the appeal of Huckabee, or the machine of Clinton.
All he’s got is ASTROTURF!!!
January 9th, 2008 at 1:12 am
DaveG:
I have nothing but respect for you. You know, I was just thinking to myself when I saw this “When is DaveG going to give us his take?”
I always look forward to your thoughts. I’m proudly a “DaveG Republican”!
January 9th, 2008 at 1:13 am
When we heard Obama tonight his supporters chanted… “YES WE CAN!”
When we heard Mitt’s supporters tonight they said… “We got a silver at least… that’s good right?”
It is clear that Romney is toast. You are right. It is now a McCain/Huckabee race… I’m not even sure that Rudy can survive after ignoring MI and SC for the next 2 weeks. His relevance diminishes greatly as well.
January 9th, 2008 at 1:14 am
There goes LaJ again. Doesn’t ever do a post without saying “Romney is out!” Or “Romney is done!” Scared to death of him.
January 9th, 2008 at 1:15 am
What if the GOP offers the VP slot to Obama on a unity ticket and gives him the chance to finish off the Clintons once and for all?
January 9th, 2008 at 1:19 am
It’s no wonder McCain won New Hampshire. NH is known as a very liberal state, therefore they picked a liberal Republican candidate. True Republicans see McCain for who he is, and he won’t make it very far in more Republican states.
January 9th, 2008 at 1:20 am
#7 John S.
I said this to another kool-aid drinker earlier. I am copying it for your benefit:
“Obviously I disagree that McCain is the choice of “liberals†but just for the sake of argument, how do you expect the Mitt-flopper to win a national election if he only appeals to the “true conservativesâ€? I got news for you: he can’t.
The thing you criticize McCain for is the ONLY thing that will allow a Republican to win next year.
Accept it.”
January 9th, 2008 at 1:22 am
Oh, one more thing to specifically address your insanity:
NH is NOT known as a “very liberal state”. In fact, NH is known as the “most conservative state in New England”. There is a reason why it’s a swing state and the rest of New England isn’t, though I guarantee more of it will be when Sen. McCain is the nominee. NH is certainly more conservative than Massachusetts, which elected Mitt Romney.
So who wins in the liberal states, again?
January 9th, 2008 at 1:27 am
The look on Ann Romney’s face tonight told me she isn’t ready to see their fortune mostly spend if Mitt doesn’t win Michigan.
Next week, it will be revealed Mitt spent close to $50 million of their fortune before the end of 2007.
January 9th, 2008 at 1:34 am
Patrick
So true Republicans are supposed to shift to the left with the Huckster or McCain? I can’t stand either one of them I’d rather vote for the Green party.
January 9th, 2008 at 1:36 am
Metro:
It’s funny that you should mention that. I saw that look too, and interpreted it in the exact same way.
January 9th, 2008 at 1:40 am
Mitt Romney has a lifeline to Michigan to turn his campaign around. If he loses Michigan his role will be primarily as a spoiler.
January 9th, 2008 at 2:04 am
NH is NOT known as a “very liberal stateâ€. In fact, NH is known as the “most conservative state in New Englandâ€. There is a reason why it’s a swing state and the rest of New England isn’t, though I guarantee more of it will be when Sen. McCain is the nominee. NH is certainly more conservative than Massachusetts, which elected Mitt Romney.
Rush Limbaugh, while trying to prop up Romney 2 days ago, stated that New Hampshire was now a Liberal state because Massachussetts liberals moved there to avoid the high state income taxes. Hmm, did Rush not think listeners would put two and two together that Mitt Romney was the governor for these high state income taxes that residents were fleeing from?
January 9th, 2008 at 2:05 am
“But Rudy has been forced to run so far to the right and to become so partisan that he has lost much of his crossover appeal.”
Dave, I usually like and agree with your analyses, but I have to disagree with this statement. I believe Rudy is being Rudy. Your comment about his having to run far to the right implies that he’s trying to be something he isn’t, that he’s pandering to the right wing of the party, and I disagree. One reason I like Rudy is that he panders to no one; he could have done a Romney-like flip-flop on abortion or local gun control to pander to the right, but he hasn’t. What you see with Rudy is the way he is, I believe, and that’s part of his appeal to me…he’s going to stay true to himself and to his principles, and if people disagree with or don’t like either, well, he’s willing to accept the judgment of the voters.
January 9th, 2008 at 2:14 am
DaveG and Metro,
Don’t forget that Mitt admitted over the weekend that Ann has given him a hard spending cap; setting a limit on what he can continue personally contributing toward his floundering campaign. I find it rather surprising that someone like Romney with such a disciplined, analytical mind; someone so successful in the business world as a venture capitalist would turn a blind eye to a CBA that reflects a negligible ROI. His stock, in part, has plummeted as a result of poorly managed street expectations, and the lingering perception, fairly or not, is that Romney has grossly underperformed.
January 9th, 2008 at 2:15 am
geez Dave,
Hillary goes from inevitable, to absolutely finished, to inevitable again, all in 5 days?
Has this campaign not managed to teach you the obvious point? None of us know what is going to happen, and there are lots of scenarios still in play. Including an Obama win.
January 9th, 2008 at 2:23 am
Aron, yeah, but I chalked up the Ann comment over the weekend as just another line from the shyster.
January 9th, 2008 at 2:30 am
On #15. I agree that Rudy basically has stayed on who he is. Same with McCain. Now both have changed slightly. McCain immigration position changed a bit as did Rudy’s abortion position. But there was no flip-flop followed by attacking your opponents at that very issue. that’s the thing Romney supporters neglect when they defend romney’s flip-flops by saying “but McCain changed his position on X or Rudy changed his position on Y”. That might be true but it was more of an adjustment not a complete 180.
On the other hand, Huckabee has flip-flopped on immigration although he has yet to attack anyone on the issue (as far as I’m aware of).
January 9th, 2008 at 2:44 am
Mitt is no shyster.
He won’t admit it but he will pull out after Michigan if he doesn’t win.
I expect he will though.
January 9th, 2008 at 2:49 am
DaveG writes,
” A part of me suspects that African-American candidates for office may still enjoy more support in public than they do when the curtain to the voting booth is closed.”
This used to be true – doesn’t seem to be so anymore.
http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/05/09/guest-blog-whos-to-blame-for-inaccurate-election-polls/