Well, everyone seems to be getting into this horserace called the presidential primary. Well, okay, maybe not *everybody*.

 

But, even when I haven't commited to a candidate, I find it exciting. It's like my sports. If they had fantasy politics, I'd probably play. I could read a good novel about a presidential campaign. One of my favorite comic books was about a presidential race. I guess most people think I'm kinda odd.

 

If you've never volunteered for a campaign then you probably can't understand the attraction. I guess it gets into your blood. I can't explain, and today is not the time to try.

 

So, without further adieu, I shall [not so] briefly bloviate about the race, my opinions/spin on why it turned out like it did in NH, and my predictions for the non-existant office betting pool.

 

First, In case you haven't guesed already, I am voting for a Democrat. Actually, I listened to the entire GOP NH debate, and I was pleased to say that each and every candidate there said at least one thing that I could agree with. Given another four years of reform maybe the Republicans will become a respectable party again. (Note to Freepers and RP Revolutionaries: bring it on...LOL) Anyway, that's off topic for now.

 

I want to talk about the big so-called "upset". I have to admit that it seems like every poll out there had given Obama the big mo' in a big way. I was pretty surprised it actually went to Hillary at all. I guess that's what they call the expectations game, huh. I like Obama. He's my guy, more or less since a few months ago, but official for about a week or so. So, this wasn't a happy thing - but it didn't hurt the way watching Dean get creamed four years ago did.

 

So, firstly let me say, "Well played Barack. Keep it up. Dreams don't come true overnight." I believe he knows that or he wouldn't be running for President. I think we did pretty well all things considered, and we did learn something valuable about the shape of the race to come.

 

I was amused to see that Hillary's three point (rounded up?) lead over Barack somehow translated to exactly the same number of commited delegates for both of them, 9. How odd is that!? Anyway, it means we are still ahead in the delgate count. But you won't hear the media reporting on that fact. Delegate counts are boring, even if they do win elections. Momentum is the big story. Comebacks make headlines.

 

So why did NH turn out the way that it did?  Well, I think DailyKos is more or less right about this one. There were too many instances of people - particularly men - treating Hillary badly: in the debate, in the press, and at her events. I think that this is the primary reason that women voted for her in larger numbers. Obama was also not helped by a weaker showing among Indi voters (yes, capital I, in NH at least) turning out for Dems.

 

I think everyone had a hand in this, and I'll put it out there first because I think my guy should be (and is) accountable for his errors, however explainable they may be. Barack did not help himself when he told Hillary she was "likable enough". That rolled over me during the debate, because I wasn't undecided. I think supporters will give him a pass, because everyone knows the campaign trail can be withering and it's very, very difficult to be sincere and cordial to someone who is making pointed barbs and putting you down behind your back at every turn. Still, it was a poor choice of words and I think it probably cost us a little. I do take issue with the moderator who came up with that question in the first place though; what kind of a question was that supposed to be anyway?

 

As for Hillary and her 'emotional moment', well, here is how I see it. It struck me as sincere, but probably partly planned. In fact, I'm certain she was coached to let more of her emotions show. Given that debate question about likability, I am sure the pollsters know this is something she had to work on. You could see that in the later part of the debate, after she put her frustration in check. That doesn't mean she doesn't have emotions, or that she was just acting. But, all politicians have a game face - you have to be "on" all the time. Now, I don't really want my President to break down unpredictably, so I'll be keeping an eye on that to see how it develops. But, I will be consistent and give her a pass for it, for the same reason that I'll let Barack slide on being obviously tired and a bit snarky during the debate. Again, 'Kos nails it. The media treatment of her show of emotion was unfavorable, and that helped her because it caused people to emotionally run to her defense.

 

Finally, that shock-jock from Boston had no business pulling his little stunt [Sunday?] when he said, "Iron my shirt!" I woke up to hearing that on the morning radio on Monday and I was like "whaaaaa!?" I mean, there's just no place for that kind of thing in politics. I admit I am a little cyncial and believe it may have been engineered, because I think the outcome of it was fairly predicatable.  I'm guessing that if someone had stood up in from of Obama and made a racially charged comment, that he would've gotten a bump from it. My experience from NH '04 tells me that there isn't time to get the word out about events that happen late. Most people probably didn't know that guy was a plant from a radio talk show - and for many folks it doesn't even matter if he was.

 

Is that a sympathy vote? Yes and no, I think. It's also an example that highlights our own beliefs and those of the people around us, and I think that 'reminds' women of their need to have solidarity. If women feel threatended - and I think that, since I thought that comment was threatening, at least to feminist ideals, then to a woman it would be - then they will stick together. For a certain number of people, that emotional need is probably strong enough to sway them at the last minute.

 

(Update: In retrospect, it is easy to see why the McCain/Palin campaign thought they could benefit by creating a similar perception of a threat to feminism. Good for us - and too bad for them - that it didn't work out. Maybe it's just a bit of post game bravado that I feel the need to say this now, but next time Republicans should think about coming up with some independent ideas, instead of just treating the general election as a retread of the primary.)

 

Barack will need to remember that although the hopes of many minorities (racial and otherwise) are pinned on his success, there is an even bigger and very formidable minority represented by his opponent. It is not hard to find examples, either unfortunate accidents or engineered ones, that highlight that fact. If it isn't difused, it will come up again and again during the race. Campaigns will use whatever works.

 

I think there are two ways to counter this.

 

One is to successfully remind everyone that we should not care about whether a candidate is a man or woman the same way we shouldn't care if they are black or white. I believe this is difficult thing to do. The divisions between men and women are still very strong, and even within families there is tension from gender roles that people don't discuss often or easily. I think it is a case that needs to be made, even if you also do other things as well.

 

The second approach would be to remind your own supporters not just of what unifies them, but of their own need for solidarity as well. To me, this goes beyond just drawing contrasts between the two candidates or making the 'change vs establishment' argument. I think it also involves sharing whatever other reasons there are not to choose the other candidate. We call it going negative, and I think we'll see more of it as the compaign progresses. But, it's a slippery tactic that can backfire.

 

Perhaps a third approach would be to highlight similar adversities that Obama has faced throughout the campaign. I am sure they will happen from time to time as the campaign moves forward. Right now, I think (however wrongly) people have a euphoric feeling that we have really moved past race as an issue in politics, and also now a sense that we have *not* really moved past sexist thinking in the same way. Thinking about it, I am sure that really we have probably not actually come so far on either. This will probably become more clear as the campaign moves to South Carolina, but it will be interesting to see how the race issue plays out, and if it works in Obama's favor or agaisnt him.

 

But, whatever the dmeographic makeup of our country, there are women in about the same numbers in every sate. Women will decide the way this primary turns out. Obama has the young people on his side, and at the ripe old age of 33, I count myself among the young - for once. He and Clintion are now almost entirely in a contest for the votes of women.

 

So, what's that going to look like?

 

Here's the election schedule. Thanks again Kos. Time magazine's impressive map is also misinforming because the dates and delegate counts are often wrong.

 

Michigan 1/15*
Nevada 1/19
South Carolina 1/26
Florida 1/29*
Super Tuesday 2/5

 

I think Obama needs to campaign in Michigan, both because he is more likely to do well there and because he needs to maintain the trust of his supporters who largely see Michigan as a place of depression, declining industry, and poverty. Edwards' argument will also play well here. Hillary will probably do less well, because the [Bill] Clinton era really didn't do so much to improve their state. (Anyone seen Roger and Me?) Barack needs his supporters to be strong, and ignoring Michigan would be a mistake because it would give them pause to consider his character and whether he really supports the little people.

 

However, MI comes at a heavy price, since they have been stripped of their delegates. If that holds, then Hillary can afford to ignore the state completely and focus on Nevada where her chances are at least somewhat better. This would partly rob Obama of even a moral vicotry and some momentum, by turning Michigan into a non-contest that won't get the media coverage it should. So, I think she will blow it off. If she does and Barack is smart, he can highlight what that says about her, and he'll have a bully pulpit to do so, assuming anyone is listening. Heck, he can use that in Nevada as well, to some degree. So, we'll see if her campaign gives him an 'in' or not.

 

(Update: Looking back, I still think Obama made a tactical error in sidestepping Michigan. Perhaps he and his team had their reasons, but it created a huge opening for Clinton. She used that "count all the votes" argument to hang on for what seemed like forever, and there was real nailbiting over whether we would be able to devise a comprimise and avoid poisoning the well in MI and FL for the general. In hindsight, I think we were lucky on a couple of points here that things did not go differently.)

 

I am not making any predictions about NV. I have no idea what they will do and I need to research it more. If MI is a real contest then it may shape NV and if not, then at least there is the Nevada debate.

 

Whatever happens there in NV, will probably not affect SC too awfully much. I see South Carolina as going largely Barack and Edawards among Democrasts.

 

I think Edwards may be able to effectively chip away at Hillary on his home turf, assuming he isn't deemed totally irrelavant by then. Funny how he finished second in Iowa, but a distant third in NH suddenly takes him out of the race? He may come back, but he needs to pick up some support in Michigan at least to make SC a strong 'win' for him.

 

Edawrds will probably drop out at some point after super Tuesday. There's no reason not to stay in until then, unless he really tanks. I don't think his chances of a clear win are very good, but if he is smart he will want to collect the delegates that he can, especially since it seems like this will not be a shut out race like '04. We may have a brokered nomination, giving Edwards a chance to play kingmaker in exchange for... the VP slot?

 

(Update: Well, I guess he killed any chance of that happening.)

 

I believe that if he drops out early, his votes will go mostly to Barack: because of their emphasis on change and because they have both admitted that the war was a mistake where Hillary has not. If he stays in for the long haul, and syphens even a few delegates away from Clinton, then he may prevent her from getting anything better than a plurality and suddenly find himself in the position of being able to single handedly decide who the nominee will be. This may be cynical of me, but I am sure the compensation packages will be excellent at his next job, so I am not willing to say for certain that he would 100% pick Barack even if they align ideologically right now.

 

After South Carolina, FL will be next, and very important for two reasons. First, can anyone really afford to say for certain the the DNC will stick to its guns and not give them back their delegates after the fact? There would be just too many at play there. The other thing is momentum. Hillary will campaign there *hard* if Barach does well in SC (and probably harder if he doesn''t), in an effort to build momentum going into super Tuesday. We'll have to see what happens, but if it's still really close before FL, then it'll still technically be close afterwards. That's a lot of money to spend for just a little bump - but a bump for ST will be a very important bump indeed.

 

On Super Tuesday we'll all pick whomever we think the winner was prior to that. In the absence of a clear winner, the media will declare whoever has the most mo' the winner. Call me a skeptic, but I have seen in play out that way in past elections. Super Tuesday states include a lot of big states that are strongly Democratic, where independents don't get to vote in the primaries. Clinton has more establishment support in those states, so if Barack hasn't successfully countered her by then she will be very difficult to stop. Then again, there is always California. Who knows what the heck those folks will go for?! LOL

 

Then there's money. I hear Baraack's campaign is doing well fiancially and is already positioned to operate in many states. I heard that Clinton campaign has burned through much of its stash already. She needs the momentum from NH to raise more cash. That's why I will be making a [another] donation to the Obama campaign this week. Hillary will have no trouble getting more money after her perceived success; Terry M. is good at that kind of work - but it may be that many of their big donors have already given their limit early on. Bad financial management can kill a campaign, but the fact that Clinton represents the establishment means that she can rely on local democratic party organizations as a kind of secondary base; Democratic office holders in those states iwll still have their own resources they may be able to pitch in.

 

So I guess in the final analysis I am saying that the ball is definitely on Barack's side of the court right now. Everyone knows that all Hillary needs to do is pitch what worked in NH. Barack needs to effectively neutralize that and counter it. We'll see what he does to make that happen.

 

Whatever happens, we'll be nominiating one tough cookie and this willl be a race to be remembered for some time to come. :-)

 

(Update: All other things aside, that last bit there was a prediction that I nailed!)