A Solo Dialogue
Edwards ahead in SC?
A
new CBS poll has John Edwards ahead of John Kerry in South Carolina by 12% (30%-18%).
That is a much more comfortable lead than either ARG or Zogby gives him.
Evolution? -
Every time I wonder about how Democrats can compete in the South, I read a story like
this one for The Atlanta Journal Constitution, detailing how Georgia state Schools Superintendent Kathy Cox would like to strike references to "evolution" and replace them with the term "biological changes over time" in an attempt to undermine that
radical notion of "evolutionism" and promote "creationism."
Then I think maybe we can't compete in the South and maybe it is futile to even try.
ARG Poll-
American Reserach Group has four new polls out:
Arizona
South Carolina
Oklahoma
National
Latest Zogby-
From the latest
Zogby Poll -
SC
Edwards - 25
Kerry - 24
Dean - 9
Clark - 8
Lieberman - 5
Sharpton - 2
Undecided - 22
Missouri
Kerry - 45
Edwards - 11
Dean - 9
Lieberman - 4
Clark - 3
Sharpton - 2
Kucinich - 1
Undecided - 20
Oklahoma
Clark - 27
Kerry - 19
Edwards - 17
Dean - 9
Lieberman - 5
Kucinich -1
Sharpton - 1
Undecided - 23
Arizona
Kerry - 38
Clark - 17
Dean - 12
Edwards - 6
Lieberman - 6
Kucinich - 2
Sharpton - 1
Undecided - 18
Missouri (or Missoura) Poll -
This
Survey USA poll has John Kerry out big, 41% to Edwards' 17%, Dean's 16% and Clark's 8%.
That is a hefty lead. Maybe this thing will be over sooner rather than later.
Latest Sign of Dean Desperation -
Dean has asked his 500 staff members to skip their paychecks for two weeks. This is a sign of complete disarray in a campaign. You have to pay your staff, otherwise much of the time needed for staffers to direct the campaign will instead be spent grousing about not getting paid. It is just human nature.
More and more I am beginning to think that Dean is done.
[UPDATE - Skipping paychecks means you have no money left. So the real question is how do you blow $40 million, with 98% of the delegates still to be decided and without coming in first in either of the two races that have been run? How can you still ask people to believe that you may be the eventual nominee? The Dean campaign is increasingly looking like amateur hour. Maybe they needed Roy Neel even sooner.]
The Battlegrounds States -
It seems to me that there are 4 states really in play for Tuesday.
South Carolina: John Edwards has said this is a must win state for him. For that reason alone this will be contested by Kerry and Clark, even though Kerry would otherwise be happy to ignore SC. Edwards is the frontrunner here, but both Kerry and Clark will look to SC to knock him out . Sharpton is another problem, and might get up to 15% of the vote. It will be interesting to see if he pulls punches at tonight's debate or goes complete demagogic. (Is that actually a word?)
Missouri:Both Edwards and Kerry have recently made substantial ad buys here. With Gephardt out, Kerry becomes the frontrunner. The Missouri Dem. Party is trying to schedule a debate for Monday night, which could mean that this race is fluid until the very end. Is this a state that Dean trys to have an impact?
Oklahoma: This might be the state where all of the candidates try to give it their all, but I sense that if pushed, this is the state that the Kerry campaign will drop the quickest, if the resources could be better used in SC or Missouri. Edwards and Clark have both done some heavy campaigning here, and Joe Lieberman might have his best showing here (or in Delaware).
New Mexico: Another state that everyone seems to be working on, although I would guess that both Edwards and Clark put this one much lower on the priority list. If I were Dean, this is the state I would use to show everyone that I can win a state.
I will try to provide as much polling data for these state as I can. Stay Tuned.
Dean -
Let me echo the confusion felt everywhere over Dean's choice of Roy Neel to head his campaign following losses in Iowa and NH. Now, Neel is a very smart political mind and clearly there needed to be a change in the organization. But how do you run as the outsider when your campaign is headed by one of the ultimate insiders?
Furthermore, the Post is reporting that Dean is forgoing
additional campaign advertising for now in the Feb 3rd states because of a lack of funds.
There must be a Dean strategy somewhere, but for the life of me I can't see it.
NH Losers -
The winner is clear. Senator Kerry won by 15+, but how did the also-rans do?
Here are the Top 5 losers of the NH Democratic primary (in descending order):
5) John Edwards - He hoped to use a second place Iowa finish as a sprinboard into something special here, but clearly that didn't happen. His 3rd or 4th place finish is disappointing, but still light years above where he was a week and a half ago. A win in SC and a strong second in OK or Missouri will keep him in this race.
4) President Bush - It look like Dean might be done, this was clearly the favored candidate of the WH.
3) Wes Clark - His 3rd or 4th place finish is not so impressive considering he passed up Iowa. He needs to win SC, but the fact is that the Democrats have reject a guy who just decided recently he was a Democrat. It worked for Ike, but Wes, you ain't no Ike.
2) Joe-Mentum a/k/a Joe Lieberman - 5th place doesn't work. Joe come back to CT, where you can still enjoy the best asset of your campaign, Hadassah.
1) Howard Dean - Second place is fine, but 15 points? You have created a lot of energy and you are still a viable candidate, but come on, you have to win at least 2 races next week. If you can't win a Democratic primary election, how can you win a general election?
Close Battle in NH -
The coveted super secret exit polls are showing a closer battle than expected in NH, with Kerry leading Dean 36 - 31, and Edwards and Clark tied at 12.
This certainly would lead to some very interesting races on Feb. 3rd.
[UPDATE] - The LA Times exit poll apparently has Dean ahead by a point.
Final NH Polling -
John Kerry leads by 10 or more points in all three of the major tracking polls:
Zogby,
ARG, and
Suffolk University.
The over/under for Dean's success in the NH primary seems to be set at around 10%. If he can lose by only 6% or less, then he can claim "victory". A 6-12% loss will meet expectations, a loss of 12% or more will be a "devastating defeat." And a third place finish could result in claims that he is done.
While Dean seems a solid second, the real life and death battle is for third. Clark and Lieberman must come in third, or they will be done.
The situation is not as grim for
John Edwards, a 15%, third place finish will also be a "victory", 10% will be disappointing, and a second place finish would mean that he is the "winner" of the primary.
**Always remember this is politics, getting the most votes doesn't mean you will actually win. (Just ask President Gore.)**
New Hampshire Prediction -
My best NH guess is now posted over at
Political Predictions.
Thinking Alike -
Instapundit has a post similar to an earlier post of mine about President Bush the Younger losing favor with conservatives.
It is, of course, easy for conservatives to express their unhappiness now, but when push comes to shove almost all will be at the ballot for Bush. But not all, and in an electoral environment like this, that could be a key difference.
More Edwards -
And, just in case you thought the WH wasn't worried about
John Edwards, look at the President's schedule today:
—11:30 am: President Bush speaks about medical liability reform at the Baptist Health Medical Center, Little Rock, Ark.
Now, which one of the Dems is a trial lawyer again? What a coincidence.
Edwards in NH -
Bob Novak gives hopes to those of us who would like to see
John Edwards surprise some people in NH by finishing second.
That said, if Edwards can get to 20%, he will come out as tomorrow's clear winner. As it is, a third place showing should help propel the campaign as it moves to South Carolina.
YOU CAN'T SAY I DIDN'T WARN YOU -
The New York Times is reporting today that Roger Stone, a GOP political consultant, and a ultra-sleazy one at that, is helping Al Sharpton's Presidential campaign. A confessed Bush supporter, Stone is only involved to damage the eventual Democratic nominee as much as possible, especially in the black and latino communities.
As this site has been saying for a long time, Sharpton is a rattlesnake, and if you bring him into bed with you, don't be surprised when you get bit.
I implore the candidates (especially
John Edwards) to call Sharpton on this, and take a stand against this demagogue. Sharpton is well into his 16th minutes, lets Sister Souljah him and send him packing!
MSNBC/WSJ POLL -
The obvious numbers that are causing agita in the WH in the
latest MSNBC/WSJ poll are the reelect numbers, down to 44%, versus 53% choice someone else. This isn't the lowest numbers that the President has seen, but they are close. The general rule of thumb is that a incumbent with numbers under 50% is in trouble. The WH spin has been of late that with the country divided the way that it is, the real reelect floor is 40%. Well the floor is quickly coming.
But the more interesting numbers to me are the 85% GOP support and the 53% of people who do not believe that the war in Iraq has made the US safer. Both of these numbers are red flags. To win reelection, even by a hair, President Bush the Younger need 80% GOP support. And if the war in Iraq hasn't made us safer, the obvious question is why did we do it? And it is hardly seems a giant leap of logic to assume that voters who don't think that Iraq made us safer heree in the U.S. won't be voting to reelect.
BUSH AWOL IN 1972? -
The charge that President Bush the Younger was AWOL from his duties in the Texas Air National Guard seems to be getting a lot of new press in the last few days. First, Peter Jennings asked a question of Wesley Clark about it during Wednesday's Democratic debate, and now Drudge seems to be hyping charges that John Kerry may, or may not, have made.
Now I know that this is an issue that is always just a little under the surface for Democrats (just type
"Boston Globe Bush AWOL Alabama" in Google and see what you get.) It has some of the same feel for Democrats that the charge that President Clinton was some type of criminal mastermind had for Republicans. Among the Democratic faithful, there is little doubt that there is fire to this smoke, and lets face it, if he had a good excuse, or this was all a misunderstanding, this would have been put to rest during the 2000 election.
I can't figure out who this charge hurts more though. It makes Democrats look petty, but the issue cannot be raise with also making President Bush the Younger look bad. But since the issue has resurfaced, I would expect some additional reporting on the topic, at least I would expect that there would be.
I have been sensing for some time that many conservatives (not least of all my favorite conservative) are increasing dissatisfied with President Bush's policies, and even cooling on him a little personally. The Washington Times lays out something similar
here.
I don't think it is to the point of being a problem yet, but if the Democrats nominate someone moderate (say, like
John Edwards), this unease could become a greater problem for the President, just when he needs his base the firmest.
Senate Dirty Tricks
This Boston Globe story details the lengths to which power is corrupting again in Washington.
There are certain principles in life that should be fairly easy to understand. Not breaking into to a computer server should be one of them. It is wrong, and it is a crime. You would think that it would be pretty easy to denounce this, but so far the GOP Senate leadership has been pretty quiet. Apparently political advantage outweighs principle.
But with the current leadership that doesn't really come as a big surprise now does it?
Boston Herald tracking poll
Kerry - 31%
Dean - 21%
Clark - 16%
Edwards - 11%
Lieberman - 4%
501 likely Democratic primary voters, taken Tuesday and Wednesday. The poll's margin of error is plus or minus 4.4 percent.
PS - Not so far off from
my guesses of yesterday.
Drudge does John Edwards -
This overhyped story in
Drudge on John Edwards and Social Security tells you two things: 1) Republicans fear Edwards a whole bunch!; and 2) if this is the worst thing they can come up with, Edwards is pretty clean. I mean, ohmygosh, a politician changed positions!
I am sure there will be other attacks coming in the near future, because John Edwards in the White House's worst nightmare: a smart, charismatic Southerner without scandal baggage. That is fine, bring them on, because it is becoming more and more clear that the White House's fears are well founded.
A Little Desperation -
Although missed votes can be a win strategy in some campaigns (see Lieberman v. Weicker, 1988),for Republicans to
bring up the issue at this point has an air of desperation.
Conservatives are a little less smug than they were a week ago, and a lot more worried. Usually trotting out the "he missed a lot of votes" arguments doesn't occur until much later in the race.
Tracking Polls -
We should be getting today some tracking polls that reflect the Iowa caucus results. An early prediction, Kerry and Edwards up (maybe 30% and 15%), Dean and Clark down (24% and 16%), Lieberman unchanged (9%).
[UPDATE - I know that this doesn't add up to 100%, and no, I don't think that Sharpton's support is substantial, but some tracking polls don't include "Not Sure/No Preference", so I've fudged the overall numbers a bit.]
SOTU -
I did not watch last night's SOTU speech (baby duties, plus a a new episode of
One Tree Hill). I will read the speech and have comments later.
The danger of making predictions in an Internet World -
I am not familar with this site, but its August 25 post giving "
9 reasons John Edwards will drop out of the presidential race before Christmas" does seem rather quaint right now. (Of course, I think it is fair to say that
The Monkey Media Report, unlike some sites, like say for example
this one, has not endorsed Senator Edwards.)
Iowa Thoughts -
Dean: After his jarring performance following the results, Dean is in a very precarious position. He is looking more and more unstable, and people will not vote for someone unstable, nor should they. (Part of the problem is the media's overreaction to his speech, but at this point you have to realize that the media will be all over what they think is your weakness. In 2000, Bush was a little dim, while Gore couldn't tell the truth.) But people are taking a hard look at Howard Dean, and while they appreciate the message, the messenger is a little unsettling.
Kerry: His biggest problem will be getting NH voters to take a second look. They know Kerry in NH, and he may have some trouble convincing voters who had supported him to come back after leaving the reservation.
Edwards: Money, Money, Money. That's what he needs. If he wants to run the long term race, he will need the money to keep him competitive. All he needs is a respectable showing in NH, even a solid 4th with 15% won't kill him, but then he needs to win South Carolina, and probably Oklahoma. (The endorsement of this website was certainly enough to push him into second in Iowa, but that won't last forever.)
Clark: I would be very worried if I were a Clark supporter right now. There are one big lesson from Iowa that they should take: Voters have to feel comfortable with the candidate's personality. I don't know if Clark has achieved that comfort level yet. Plus, if Dean is faltering, Clark has lost his biggest rationale for being in the race. I wonder if he might not start taking shots at Kerry to keep him from being the anti-Dean? But remember the Gephardt/Dean feud didn't work out so well, so if he decides to go negative, he must be careful.
Its is a long week, but Dean and Clark have a lot of work ahead of them if they want to survive. A fourth place showing for either of them is deadly.
John Edwards -
Although he is not the most experienced candidate in the field, John Edwards will be receiving the formal endorsement (and the vote) of A Solo Dialogue.
Edwards biggest problem is that voters have not given him a good look yet. When they do, his message of hope and optimism comes across as different that what the rest of the field is advertising.
Edwards is a Southerner (positive), good looking (positive), smart (positive) and a trial lawyer (you decide). He has laid out detailed policy positions that belies the "he's not experienced enough" argument.
But what finally sold me is his argument against President Bush's tax cuts. Almost all of the candidates oppose them, but their reasons for doing so are not as eloquent or well thought out. Edwards makes the case that the tax cuts benefit wealth, as opposed to work. This work vs. wealth argument is the single best position I have heard a Democrat take when it comes to taxes in years, maybe ever.
He also has a compelling personal story, the son of a mill worker who became a hugely successful trial lawyer. (A son of a mill worker versus a son of a President.) He embodies the American dream.
My guess is that John Edwards will not win the nomination, but he will have this voter's vote, as well as my hope that other voters will give him a hard look.
Less you think that I am alone, The Des Moines Register also endorsed Edwards. You can read that endorsement
here.
John Kerry -
Kerry seems to have caught his stride right when it matters the most. He is sounding more and more like a normally person, and comes across as less aloof. If he had been able to do these things in August and September, he would been in a position to lock this away early. As it is, if he can come in first in either Iowa or New Hampshire, he will be in a very good position.
Kerry has both the knowledge and experience to make an excellent President. Although he would face the tag of a "Massachusetts liberal", his policy positions are relatively moderate.
John Kerry would probably be the strongest candidate to run against President Bush, if it is the John Kerry of January 2004 and not September 2003. There is no good reason that he is not receiving the much sought after A Solo Dialogue endorsement, except for some personal reasons that are too silly to go into and reflect poorly on the author, not the candidate.
Howard Dean -
I can see myself endorsing any of the three candidates left. I believe that they would all do a fine job both as the Democratic Party's nominee, and more importantly, as President.
I find myself liking the Howard Dean of a year ago better than the Howard Dean of today. A year ago he was more of a political moderate, even if he is from Vermont. He seems to be nudging back to the center again, but his trip to the left does give me pause.
That said, I think Dean is a very good candidate, if not from the regular mold. I know that many Republicans hope that he is the nominee, because they think it will be easy to characterize him as some liberal, hippie, gay-loving atheist. But before the GOP gets too giddy, they should watch him give a speech. He is passionate in a way that can really rally the faithful. He also is a candidate who could attract new people to the process, and that is a factor that could be key in a close election, with this divided electorate.
He has a great upside. He can run as a fiscally responsible governor, as well as a populist, and with a moderate position on guns, would be able to make a credible candidate in places like Pennsylvania, Arkansas and West Virginia. That said, I believe that Dean also has the biggest downside. He is capable of making an off the cuff comment that could really derail him.
I still believe that as things stand right now, Howard Dean will be the 2004 nominee, and will be a strong challenger to President Bush, but I don't believe that he would be the best one.
Iowa Predictions -
My predictions for tonight's caucuses are up
here.
Wes Clark -
It is hard not to be impressed by Wes Clark's resume. Rhodes scholar, veteran, rose to the heights of the military, but frankly, beyond that, I don't know anything about him or his policies. His support seems to come mainly from people who think that the Democrats need someone with strong military or foreign policy background to compete in this election. But I believe this is a mistaken theory. You only have to look at the disgraceful campaign that Saxby Chambliss ran to know that their background is not going to inoculate any candidate from the charges that he won't do what is necessary to defend the U.S.
For good or bad, Clark is a political neophyte. He has made some political errors that are to be expected from someone who is not used to the glare of the 24/7 spotlight.
Some find his political virginity to be a positive, but personally, I don't think that the Presidency is something you run for the first time out of the box. I expect him to be a strong contender for the second spot on the ticket, but I don't think that he should be the standard barer in 2004.
Dick Gephardt -
Dick Gephardt's biggest strength is that he is an establishment politician. His biggest weakness is that he is an establishment politician.
With 27 years of Washington experience, there is little that Gephardt has not seen. He knows both policy and politics, and has proven to be adept at both, although not always successful. He is eminently qualified to take the reins of the country and be in a position to make difficult decisions immediately.
For me experience is not a negative, but with many in the Party (especially the Deaniacs) experience and establishment are bad words. (His strong position for the Iraq war, certainly doesn't help with that crowd either.)
Gephardt's policies are fairly establishment as well. He has the strong support of Big Labor, and is a strong opponent of free trade. (Although to be fair, his trade position is much more nuanced that when he ran for President in 1988.) It would not be fair to say that he is an old school liberal, but he certainly would feel comfortable in the crowd, even if he does have policy differences.
My problem with Gephardt is his failure to inspire. While I could see him as President, I can't see him winning an election. The Democratic candidate has to be someone who voters will find compelling, someone who can mesmerize a crowd. Gephardt is just not that candidate.
Joe Lieberman -
Now that we have dealt with the also rans, we can have serious discussion about serious candidates.
Unfortunately, I won't be able to do that with Joe Lieberman. I simply don't like him. I haven't like Joe since his 1988 campaign against Lowell Weicker. I didn't like him as the VP nominee in 2000, I would have preferred Bob Graham, John Breaux or Gary Locke. I didn't like his performance in the debates, and his post-election performance (specifically his comments on faulty military ballots) help to set a tone that was decidedly unfavorable to Al Gore.
Policy wise, he seems to have too much flexibility for a candidate whose biggest asset would be his integrity. Plus he has run a rather lackluster campaign.
Simply put I can't even see him as the President, let alone actually winning my support.
[UPDATE - To read a pro-Joe piece, here is
The New Republic's endorsement of him.]
Dennis Kucinich -
Kucinich may be running the most principled campaign of this election season, but his principles are way far out there. He has created a bit of enthusiasm, and has given true die-hard liberals a place to feel included, but the time has come for him to be cast aside. If this happens is hard to predict, unfortunately, candidates like Kucinich, and Sharpton, have nothing to lose by staying in the race until the end.
Dennis, your 15 minutes are up, please exit stage left (naturally), and enjoy the fact that you have left with your principles intact.
Al Sharpton -
As my two and half loyal readers know, this site has no love for the Rev. He is a demagogue and will probably turn against the ultimate winner if he thinks it might help him politically. Throughout the race, I have been hoping that one of the candidates would make a stand against him, but that hasn't happened.
If I were a frontrunning candidate, I would be very wary of Sharpton, unless it is made clear to him that he will become a pariah if he mucks things up. Because otherwise he will do just that. I can easily envision him still running long after the nominee has been decided. Please someone take my advice, ignoring Sharpton is not enough, you have to take him down.
Carol Moseley Braun -
This one is easy. She just
dropped out and endorsed Dean. She wasn't going to win and she may have only been in it to keep Sharpton's numbers down, but she may have done enough to rehabilitate herself politically. (Not to say she can run for President or even Senate again, but she could run for office, or be appointed without too much hullabaloo.)
The Democratic Candidates -
The Iowa caucuses are less than one week away (and a meaningless DC Primary was actually held yesterday), so the campaign season is now fully upon us.
So for those of you who have not been paying any attention, Over the next few days I will provide a review of the nine Democratic candidates for President. None of these candidates are perfect, by some are more imperfect than other.
This will culminate in the much anticipated and sought after A Solo Dialogue endorsement.
THE FINAL STRAW? -
Is the latest revelation that he
sold his Washington DC condo for about double what comparable condos were going for in 1997, the one that will finally mark the end for Connecticut Gov. John Rowland? Add this to the admission that he lied about who paid for summer home renovations, indictments of top aides and supporters, along with seemingly scores of other "troubles", the question seems to come down to resignation or impeachment?
My guess is impeachment , which will be very messy and political, but so far Rowland has shown no shame and will probably try to fight this one out.
UPDATE -
Here is the NY Times story on the condo situation.
PLEASE STAND BEHIND THAT WALL -
Disturbing article on how the Secret Service quells free speech. If this had been happening under the previous administration, you can be sure that the right would be up in arms.
"RULE OF LAW"
Apparently one of Rush Limbaugh's defenses to investigations into his drug habit will be that the prosecuting attorney is out to get him and will pull out all the stops to do so. You can see this defense taking form in
this story about how rarely the crime of "doctor shopping" is prosecuted in Palm Beach County.
Apparently breaking the law is okay, as long as the crime you are charged with is rarely enforced. I could be wrong, but I believe that Rush took a similar principled stand against the popular conservative thinking when it came to lying under oath in a civil lawsuit a few years back. . . but I'll have to verify that.
I'M BACK -
So the posts have been light as of late, because of illnesses, visiting in-laws, babies being born (actually just one, Nicholas Perez, 8lbs 14 ozs. on 12/9), late night/early morning feedings and diaper changes and the general craziness surrounding the holidays. But the New Year is here (it's an election year, you know), so I am back to pontificate and share my wisdom with my two and a half semi-loyal readers.
So sit back and enjoy, it will be a fun year!
