Where Things Stand & What to Watch Going Forward...

Sorry for the radio silence for the last week or so, but from time to time, I have to deal with my "real" job! If you've seen the stock market lately, I am sure you can imagine that things have been just a tad busy around here. Speaking of busy, the presidential candidates have also been very active, and there will be no rest for the weary anytime soon. So where do things stand now?

On the Democratic side, we are down to three candidates: Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and John Edwards. (Bill Richardson withdrew from the race last week after poor showings in both Iowa and New Hampshire). To say that Hillary's win in New Hampshire was unexpected would be a massive understatement. Not only did every poll taken in New Hampshire indicate that Obama would win there (and decisively), every political operative on the ground and on the television predicted the same. Perhaps more interesting is that even the Clinton Campaign expected a loss, and it wasn't until they saw exit polls late in the day last Tuesday that they thought she might have a chance to just keep it close. She did more than that, obviously, taking 39% of the vote to Obama's 36% and Edwards' 17%. The media were baffled, having swooned over Obama in the days between Iowa and New Hampshire, and in their haste to explain their erroneous predictions, many theories for her "comeback" were put forth. Here are two of the more (in my opinion) plausible theories:

1) Hillary Humanization: Hillary's "emotional" moment highlighted here last week -- whether genuine or calculated -- seems to have been effective in making her seem more like "you and me", and potentially more likeable as well. She also had a moment in a debate prior to the Primary (not this one!) in which she was asked to address the "likeability issue" (a reference to the fact that in many polls, respondents expressed that they "liked" Obama more than Clinton). She responded deftly, jokingly saying "Well, that hurts my feelings," followed by assuming a mock puppy dog face, and then adding with a smile, "But I'll try to go on". The crowd laughed, and it was effective political theater for her. Have a look:

The "humanization" theory would also assert that through the tears and the self-deprecating humor, she became a sympathetic figure to many, but to women voters in particular. Women turned out in greater numbers than men in New Hampshire, and as it turned out, Clinton took 47% of the female vote to Obama's 34% -- a striking reversal from Iowa where, as you may recall, Obama won the women's vote by a 35% to 30% margin over Hillary.

2) The "Bradley Effect": The "Bradley Effect" (a.k.a. "The Wilder Effect") is the name given to a political phenomenon that allegedly occurs with the presence of an African-American candidate (or presumably any minority candidate) in an election, rendering pre-election polls inaccurate and producing final results far different from what the political experts predicted. (The theory is so named because of two elections in the 1980's with black candidates in which the polls and prognostications prior to the election proved to be seriously flawed: in the 1982 Los Angeles Mayoral Race between Tom Bradley, an African-American, and George Deukmejian, who was white, Bradley narrowly lost a race he had been universally expected to win; and in the 1989 Virginia Gubernatorial Election between Douglas Wilder, who was black, and Marshall Coleman, a white candidate, Wilder was shown with an average lead of nine points going into Election Day, but ended up barely winning with a margin of victory of less than 0.5%). The theory holds that when a black candidate is on the ballot, white voters feel compelled to tell pollsters or anyone who might ask that they are supporting the black candidate over the white candidate for fear of being judged as racist or closed-minded. When these same voters are in the privacy of the voting booth, however, there is no such fear of the consequences for not casting a vote for the minority candidate. As a result, many of these voters who may have told a pollster or journalist or friend one thing, in actuality end up doing another. New Hampshire, it should be noted, is an overwhelmingly white state, and this theory could help explain how Obama lost a race in which he had commanding leads in the polls. In many ways, it's possible the phenomenon was compounded by the overwhelming media attention Obama received between Iowa and New Hampshire, perhaps making the respondent to a poll even more self-conscious about not voicing an intention to support the "hot" candidate.

For the Republicans, John McCain appears to be the "front-runner" after his victory in New Hampshire last week in which he garnered 37% of the vote to Mitt Romney's 31% and Mike Huckabee's 11%. (Rudy Giuliani finished with 9%, Ron Paul with 8%, and Fred Thompson with only 1%). As predicted here, the win was huge for McCain and his chances for the GOP Nomination, and Romney's loss was a big blow to his already-bruised campaign. Huckabee's distant third-place finish was undoubtedly disappointing for him, as he and his campaign likely felt that the momentum of his Iowa win would translate to a better showing in New Hampshire. The results were essentially right in line with what the polls and experts expected and, with no shocking outcome here like that of the Democrats, there frankly isn't much postmortem analysis necessary.

That's where things stand now. So what do we watch this week? In short, the schedule is busy, and with the relatively volatile and unpredictable results of the first two major contests, the race could look entirely different by this time next week. Here's how the calendar looks:

• Today (Tuesday, January 15th): The Michigan Primary (Essentially a Republican-only Contest)
• Saturday, January 19th: The Nevada Caucuses
• Saturday, January 19th: The South Carolina Republican Primary
  

For the Democrats, the Michigan Primary is really a non-event. The reasons are complicated and not worth elaborating on here, but in short, there was a disagreement between the Democratic National Committee and the Michigan Democratic Party that resulted in every candidate other than Hillary Clinton officially withdrawing from the Michigan Primary. (If you'd like more details on this, have a look at this story which explains the situation well). The Nevada Caucuses, on the other hand, will be important, and in fact, MSNBC will broadcast a debate tonight between the Democratic candidates from Las Vegas. One story that is not receiving much attention could have a big impact on what happens in Nevada on Saturday. After the New Hampshire Primary, the largest and most politically active union in Nevada -- the Culinary Workers Union (largely comprised of Las Vegas Strip casino and hotel workers) -- endorsed Obama, a significant feather in his cap there. In what can only be described as ironic timing, the Nevada State Education Association filed a lawsuit to shut down the nine so-called "at-large" caucus locations that had been established on or near the Vegas Strip to allow shift workers to participate in the caucus at or near their place of work. Many of the people who would use these locations just happen to be members of the same Culinary Workers Union that is now supporting Obama, and are people who would otherwise be unable to leave work to vote. In another "coincidence", while the Nevada State Education Association has not officially endorsed a candidate, the NSEA's leadership is comprised largely of Clinton supporters, including the Deputy Executive Director of the NSEA, Debbie Cahill, who was a founding member of Clinton's "Nevada Women's Leadership Council". The Clinton Campaign has denied any involvement in the lawsuit, but also has refused to call for the NSEA to drop their case which, if successful, would result in essentially disenfranchising thousands of shift workers who would likely be supporting Obama. This is something to keep an eye on as Saturday's Nevada Caucus approaches.

One could argue, however, that the Nevada lawsuit isn't the biggest storyline in the Democratic contest right now, because since New Hampshire, there has been a far larger issue brewing for the Democrats: Race. The issue has not been explicitly raised by either candidate, but as Clinton and Obama each dig in for what now appears likely to be a more prolonged battle for the nomination than originally thought, the negative campaigning has begun. With the negative rhetoric comes the chance for observers to search for implicit meanings and innuendo within the statements and comments emerging from the campaigns. The trouble began last Monday with none other than Bill Clinton, who made controversial remarks while he campaigned for his wife in New Hampshire. While addressing what he alleged was Obama's inconsistent stance on the Iraq War, Former President Clinton angrily declared "This whole thing is the biggest fairy tale I've ever seen":
With that, the rhetorical dissection began. Obama supporters and even some Clinton supporters were offended by the former president's comments, interpreting them as derogatory about the overall Obama candidacy and, perhaps more significantly, some believed Clinton was dismissing Obama's chances of becoming the first black president as merely a "fairy tale". Hillary found controversy last week as well. While acknowledging that Barack Obama is an inspiring person, a terrific and moving speaker and a hero to many, she implied that this wasn't enough, and she did so by invoking Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. "I would point to the fact that Dr. King's dreams were realized when President Lyndon Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964," Clinton said. She continued, "...it took a president to get it done". Here again, many felt there was an implied message in Clinton's comments, and were now doubly furious that she would tear Obama down by essentially downplaying (as they saw it) the importance of Martin Luther King's role in the civil rights movement. The Clinton Campaign went into full damage-control mode, but the issue of race seemed to have officially been put into play in the campaign -- highly-charged and dangerous territory for either candidate to navigate. The battle raged on throughout last week, over the weekend, and until yesterday. Monday afternoon, the Clinton campaign issued a statement that can only be described as a white flag. The statement read:

“Over this past week, there has been a lot of discussion and back and forth - much of which I know does not reflect what is in our hearts."

“And at this moment, I believe we must seek common ground."

“Our party and our nation is bigger than this. Our party has been on the front line of every civil rights movement, women's rights movement, workers' rights movement, and other movements for justice in America."

“We differ on a lot of things. And it is critical to have the right kind of discussion on where we stand. But when it comes to civil rights and our commitment to diversity, when it comes to our heroes - President John F. Kennedy and Dr. King – Senator Obama and I are on the same side."

“And in that spirit, let's come together, because I want more than anything else to ensure that our family stays together on the front lines of the struggle to expand rights for all Americans.”

Obama responded last night, telling reporters that "Bill and Hillary Clinton have historically and consistently been on the right side of the civil rights movement," and that he did not want the campaign "to degenerate into so much tit-for-tat, back and forth that we lose sight of why all of us are doing this". In my opinion, the Clinton's only sought this "ceasefire" because they realized they were on the losing end of the battle. So while it might seem to be a truce by all outward appearances, it's a fragile and uneasy one at best. The dysfunction within the Democratic Party -- the rifts and infighting and conflicts that the Democrats and the media try so hard to hide -- was on full display over the past week. Should Obama win in Nevada on Saturday, I would expect the tone of the rhetoric between the Clinton and Obama Campaigns to deteriorate even further as the Clintons become increasingly desperate in their attempt to salvage victory.

So what of the Republicans? Well, the GOP race looks downright dull in comparison to the Democrats. Since New Hampshire, the focus has turned to two states: Michigan, which holds its Primary today; and South Carolina, which holds its Primary on Saturday. In Michigan, it's really a two-man race between McCain and Romney. McCain is riding the wave of momentum from his New Hampshire win, and he won the Michigan Primary in 2000. He began campaigning there last week with a lead in the polls. Romney, a Michigan native and son of a popular Governor of Michigan in the 1960's, George Romney, now is in "must-win" mode, and he is banking on his home state to breathe new life into his campaign. In the last several days, the polls have tightened, with some even giving Romney a slight edge going into today's voting. Polls have proven very fallible after New Hampshire though, and further complicating matters is the fact that the Michigan Primary is "open", meaning anyone can vote in the Republican Primary regardless of party affiliation. In other words, Michigan voters who have not registered with a party, registered Independents, and even Democrats can vote in the GOP Primary. This allows for Independents -- longtime fans of McCain -- to play a big role in determining his fate in the quest for the nomination. It even allows for Democrats to infuse the Republican primary with their own votes, likely cast in a way they think most benefits the Democratic Party's overall chances against the Republicans in November. (In other words, one could argue that the Democrats' General Election prospects would benefit from a Romney victory in Michigan, as his political reinvigoration would lengthen the contest for the GOP Nomination and cause the candidates to spend more money and attack each other. The aforementioned Obama-Clinton battle is a perfect example). Regardless of how he wins, should Romney indeed emerge victorious in Michigan tonight, the race for the GOP Nomination will again be significantly altered. The media have seemed awfully eager to write the former Massachusetts Governor's political obituary, and have tried to do so following his second place finish in Iowa and particularly after his loss to McCain in New Hampshire. (The press virtually ignored Romney's win in the Wyoming Caucus on the Saturday between Iowa and New Hampshire's contests). While Romney's personal fortune will allow him to continue beyond Michigan should he fail to win tonight, the media will likely cross their t's and dot their i's on the story of his political demise -- and this time they will likely succeed.

McCain is also keeping a close eye on South Carolina, and is hoping for a victory there too. Were Romney to win Michigan and have his own "Comeback Kid" moment, he could probably legitimately compete in South Carolina as well, making the task of winning there harder for both McCain, and for Mike Huckabee who feels that his Southern roots and evangelical background give him a good shot at winning. Already muddying the waters for them, however, is the surprising resurgence of former Tennessee Senator Fred Thompson, a candidate who entered the race late to great enthusiasm, but who has never seemed to truly engage in the process and has essentially fizzled thus far. In a GOP Debate last Thursday night in South Carolina, however, Thompson seemed to "wake up" from his political slumber, putting on a terrific performance, and he was almost unanimously declared the debate's winner. As long as debates have been televised, humor and the ability to deliver a memorable one-liner often play a larger role in who "wins" the debate than who is truly the best candidate or who has the best grasp of policy. To Thompson's credit, while he's no slouch when it comes to details or grasp of policies, the power of the one-liner was on full display last Thursday. Take a look at one of Fred's best "lines" from last week's debate. In this clip, he is responding to a question about last week's incident in which American Navy ships in the Strait of Hormuz were provoked by speedboats allegedly manned by members of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard. The incident was viewed as a threat, and the American ships apparently came very close to firing on (and destroying) the speed boats and their occupants:
The debate performance has apparently given new life to a campaign long ago left for dead, and Thompson's resurgence could make winning South Carolina particularly difficult for Huckabee, as he and Thompson would likely be competing for the same group of very conservative voters.

So first and foremost, tonight is important. If McCain wins Michigan, he would probably follow that up with a win in South Carolina, and then likely be unstoppable on his way to taking the nomination. But, if Romney wins Michigan, it's a whole new ballgame. We would then have three different GOP winners in the first four primaries/caucuses, and potentially a fourth winner to come on Saturday in South Carolina if Thompson is able to pull off the upset win. (The Nevada Caucuses are, for some reason, largely being ignored by the Republican candidates, thereby lessening the significance of who ultimately wins or loses there). Next on the schedule is the Florida Primary on January 29th, where Rudy Giuliani has now bet the house on his chances there. Were Romney to win tonight, Thompson on Saturday, and Giuliani on January 29th, this would be one of the most competitive (and likely entertaining) nominating contests in GOP history. Sit back and enjoy the show!