Rudy Giuliani Withdraws

Following on the heels of John Edwards announcement of withdrawal from the race for nomination, the Republican race has also today decreased by one candidate - Former Mayor Rudy Giuliani has, in the last few minutes, announced the end of his campaign and endorsed Senator John McCain for President.

Wow, that was fast after Florida. I guess it wasn't completely unexpected; he's already lost a lot of contests and fell third in the place where he pegged his flag to the mast. But it just seemed to come all so fast, and seemed a bit like a waste for Giuliani. He didn't compete in so many contests, then competed once, lost and dropped out.

People will write about the Giuliani strategy for quite some time. The critical ones will speak of the stupidest presidential campaign ever waged. The serious ones will discuss an attempt by the Giuliani campaign to remake the way that primary campaigns are fought, casting them as national and not local battles that take place in several, unrepresentative states.

The strategy may have worked if there were 2 or 3 states prior to Florida and Super-Duper Tuesday. The people could put up with Giuliani skipping Iowa and New Hampshire - after all, why do those two states get all the attention as it is? But having then skipped Michigan, Wyoming, Nevada and South Carolina indicates a real weakness in the Giuliani campaign which we hadn't really prediced because of his phantom 'national' frontrunner status. It only really now becomes clear (though I spoke about this in my previous post on Giuliani) that he'd bowed out of competing in every state that, combined, had created a fair slice of America. He chose not to compete amongst Evangelicals, independents, Hispanics, southern conservatives...who in the Republican Party was therefore left to support him? Retired New Yorkers, who got him as far as third place in the Florida primary.

Why then was Giuliani the national front-runner? It's a question I'll have to look into. It seems that Rudy's Republican party doesn't exist anymore. Senator McCain is finding that his Republican Party isn't quite there anymore, but he's not as far out in the socially conservative cold as Giuliani was. Pro-choice, pro-gay, pro-gun control, pro-anything that social conservatives hate. Tough job, Rudy.

Where Rudy's national frontrunner status originated from will provide us with a lot of information about his campaign. There's also been a lot of talk about the laziness factor for Giuliani in the same way that there was for Thompson. He was too lazy to fight in the previous states, where he needed to get down and scrap with McCain, Romney and Huckabee. He wasn't willing to do that...and so was he lazy? Or was he (failing to) reshape the way that primary campaigns are fought? Give it a couple of weeks to simmer down, and we'll see what reflections come forward.

What now for Rudy Giuliani? He's made a ton of money. He may go back to doing that...or perhaps there's a spot in the McCain Adminstration. Or an open Senate seat in New York... Many, many options to see Giuliani again.

John Edwards Withdraws

John Edwards has just announced his withdrawal from the race for the Democratic nomination in the place where he started that race - the Ninth Ward of New Orleans. I have to be completely honest - I wasn't expecting this decision at all. See my last post for the multitude of ways that Edwards still had a role to play going into February 5th and even beyond. He had the power to make king, but apparently that wasn't enough for John Edwards. I respect him for that decision, because it's the good decision of a good person, and not political.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, but John Edwards is a good man. He's also a good candidate. It's just such a shame that he was running in this cycle against a woman and an African American. His contribution to the race has been substansive - he's talked about issues that few Democratic candidates in recent times have had the stomach to talk about. He speakes about poverty because noone else will. I wish he'd stayed in the race; I don't particularly relish the idea of a two person Democratic debate. That's going to be brutal, and there won't be a moderate Edwards voice to bring the conversation back to the issues.

Why did Edwards do this considering his options? Perhaps he wants Barack Obama to be nominated more than Clinton, in which case he was standing as something of an impediment to that (Edwards supports are likely to split to Obama who shares a similar message.) Without Edwards it's possible Obama gets a boost and can overcome Clinton. Perhaps he'll endorse another candidate and receive a reward because of that (a spot on the ticket as Vice President.)

I hope that we haven't seen the end of John Edwards. He's a crusader for important issues and his Two Americas theme resonates quite a lot. He wasn't going to win the nomination, but I think it's a shame he's dropped out now. I hope he'll continue to play a role in this campaign and not disappear off the radar, and I hope his voice in the Democratic Party continues to be heard.

Bless you and your campaign, John Edwards.

And now the race is down to two.

McCain Wins Florida!

Ladies and gentlemen, I present to you the Republican front-runner: Senator John McCain! With 99% of precincts reporting John McCain is the winner in Florida with 36% of the vote, beating Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee and Rudy Giuliani for Florida's 57 delegates. After six contests a Republican front-runner has emerged with a candidate who has won 3 states - New Hampshire, South Carolina and Florida. The candidate who was declared dead by the news media in the summer is now best placed to become the Republican nominee for President.

However, is it all over? Not by a long shot! Though we can definitely say that McCain is now the front-runner, he's not decisively so. He took 36% of the vote and won all the state's delegates - Romney wasn't all that far behind at 31%. McCain, after all, was only the choice of just over one third of Floridian Republican primary voters. But that's for Super-Duper Tuesday to see if McCain can lock things up there. For now he should bask in front-runner status.

Mike Huckabee's campaign is drawing to a close. He almost came third in this race, but he can't always be fighting for the spot behind the front-runner. After Super Tuesday, in which it's certainly possible that he walks away with a couple of wins, Mike Huckabee will probably withdraw (and if McCain is the nominee get chosen to be his Vice President).

Rudy Giuliani... Well, D-Day came. Ladies and gentlemen, I not only have the honour of presenting you with the Republican front-runner but one of the stupidest campaigns in the history of presidential primaries. I have more to say analysing the Giuliani strategy now that we know it hasn't worked...and so will confront the issue in another post. For now what I will say is that the news media is talking about Giuliani dropping out and endorsing John McCain, perhaps as early as tomorrow.

On the Democratic side Hillary Clinton won with 50% of the vote, but it doesn't matter because Florida had all its delegates stripped for moving its primary before February 5th without the sanction of the Democratic Party. The results, therefore, are suspect since none of the candidates campaigned there or were able to influence the results. Much like Michigan, I'm not covering it because I don't trust the results (and it doesn't matter.)

Bush's Last State of the Union

Last night President Bush gave his last State of the Union address to Congress. Many were rejoicing that this is the last time he would step foot in the House chamber to address a joint session of Congress, and many more hoped that the next person standing in the well of the House would either be a woman or an African American (but certainly a Democrat.)

It was a fairly good speech by Bush standards. But it suffered from lame-duck-itis. So many worthy ideas (and a lot of stuff about global warming, which was very nice to hear from a President whose administration refused to accepts its existence for much of the President's two terms) but alas, so much campaigning to be done. This last State of the Union doesn't matter for how it'll effect President Bush's last year, but rather what effect it had on the campaigns. Case in point, the CNN Political Ticker this morning whose top story (right now, anyway) has been carried over from last night:

Yes, Clinton and Obama shared an awkward moment and were saved from it by Teddy Kennedy and Claire McCaskill. One important thing we did hear from the President, and picks up on a previous post, was about earmarking. Now in his last year and so with literally nothing to lose and nothing that he really wants from Congress anymore the President is going to get tough on earmarks. He's going to be John McCain 7 years late. He'll veto any bills which contain earmarks not voted upon by the Congress (many earmarks are inserted into conference reports and bypass the vote of the two houses.) Way for Bush to get tough when he's got nothing to lose!

I'm personally not a fan of earmarks, simply because they drive member ambitions in some ugly directions. Their congressional careers shouldn't be about who can be the biggest ear-marker, but about who can do the most good for America. The people's schyzophrenia on this issue aside - earmarks are bad because they do not efficiently allocate money. They do it based upon the political power of the Representative or Senator and not based upon where that money is best spent. I think it's a shame Bush is manning up on this issue so late. He seems to have huge balls on the issue of Iraq, but not on earmarking? Perhaps because the practice is just as popular (if not more so) amongst his Republican brethren as it is amongst Democrats. Senator Ted Stevens was no doubt weeping, though Representative Jeff Flake may have been celebrating.

Dennis Kucinich Withdraws

Dennis is done. Apparently he read my open letter (I imagine that he has time) and found its points relevant. I'm not going to miss Dennis Kucinich, he is one of the goofiest presidential candidates that have run for the highest office in the land. I'm not even sure why the people of Ohio's 10th District keep returning him to office - and apparently neither do they considering that he's facing a tough primary fight this March.

He claimed that his reason for withdrawal is because his exclusion from the presidential debates effectively ended his campaign. That has nothing to do with why he's done so badly - so few people watch all of the debates that they would have made zero difference. Dennis Kucinich lost because he sucked as a candidate. He's not presidential.

Cya Dennis.

Bill Clinton 2008?

There are a lot of stories in the press about Bill Clinton and his role in the campaign of his wife, Hillary Clinton. I think not since...well...Hillary Clinton in 1992 has a campaign spouse been so heavily in the spot-light - and over this past week - actually taken some of that spotlight away from the candidate themselves. It was somewhat inevitable since that spouse is a former President, but former President Clinton has done much more, well beyond simply *being* a campaign spouse, to put himself in the headlines on behalf of his wife's campaign.

And noone seems to be fooled about exactly what he's doing. Bill Clinton seems to have been the attack dog of the Clinton campaign, and it seems to have hurt more than it helped. There's news today that unofficial Clinton advisors are seriouslly counselling the candidate to get Bill to stop being such a headline-grabber, because he's not doing it positively. He's the source of the negative campaign against Obama, and so I think much of the blame for the current negative tone of the campaign rests on his shoulders.

But it rests on Hillary's too. For two people who share a bed, I don't think you can easily dismiss the comments of your spouse as not your own. If you disapproved of the comment you'd ask them to stop. So it leads me to believe that Hillary's quite happy to have Bill keep hitting Obama and get headlines because of it, while Hillary retains a higher road (lowered after the CNN debate last week.)

It's 'two for the price of one' all over again. It's as though Bill Clinton is running for President again. But the voters rejected 'two for the price of one' back in the first two years of the Bill Clinton presidency. I don't think it was just Hillary they were rejecting in that... Expect to see less of Bill Clinton on the campaign trail now that his tactics haven't stopped Clinton from receiving a South Carolina crushing.

Obama Wins South Carolina!

Well that is interesting, isn't it? Obama wins South Carolina...nay, Obama *triumphs* in South Carolina and crushes his opponents. Clinton was completely swept away by Obama, garnering only half of the votes that Obama received. It seems that African Americans have spoken out about who they support, and that candidate is Barack Obama.

It's not surprising that Obama won, because it was thought to be an incredibly close race and what thus far of the campaign has allowed us to reliably predict the nominee? But he ran away with the spoon in this particular contest.

John Edwards continues to pull a respectable margin for a third place candidate to keep him in the race. However, since he pegged his chances of nomination on South Carolina and performed poorly for someone who absolutely, desperately needed a win, his chances of nomination has shrinked to zero. His chances of being Vice President, however, are still strong.

MSNBC Republican Debate

On Thursday evening the Republican candidates met up on MSNBC for their final debate prior to tomorrow's Florida primary. The debate was largely civil and substansive, hence there's not a huge amount of analysis to be done about it. I think that it shows how none of these guys has any particular lead - if there were a giant in the room all the other candidates would be looking to take that giant down. But paradoxically, because there's no front-runner they seem to be promoting themselves (perhaps part of the problem with these candidates, an inability to widely connect) rather than beat up on their opponents like on the Democratic side.

Ron Paul was hardly included in this debate. But Huckabee is starting to look a little on the outside too. Giuliani still doesn't, though he really should. D-Day Minus 1 for him.

John Edwards - King Maker

This race is so much about hypotheticals. So often by this point the whole thing is predictable, and we can tell exactly why someone lost and someone won. We can't with this most fascinating presidential race, which makes things both incredibly exciting but also frustrating (pundits like to be able to tell you with absolute certainty what will happen.) I look back through the 3 weeks of this blog and find that so much changes. But my message throughout seems to have always been 'We'll know more after [insert state name here]'s primary.'

Well, with this next theory about Edwards we'll only know after Super Tuesday, but as this race seems to convert from the standard presidential race in which one candidate emerges from the pack and surges to nomination, to one in which two candidates will be totalling their delegates and running level beyond Super Tuesday noone knows how far, it seems an appropriate time to talk about John Edwards.

Edwards has said that he's in the race for the long run. I like this, because as last night's debate showed it's important he be on the stage. It's important to have a third candidate crystallising the issues and keeping the others honest. Edwards showed how stupid Clinton and Obama's bickering was last night, and someone had to, because Wolf Blitzer wasn't in a position to do so.

He's also picking up delegates. As long as he doesn't continue to do as badly as in Nevada, he'll end up with a chunk of delegates because most of the Democratic primary campaigns assign delegates based upon the proportion of the debate that they receive. That could make Edwards a king maker if neither Clinton nor Obama have enough delegates to put them over the threshold (about 2,000) and clinch the nomination. He could perform a coronation of one of the candidates and get a lot of his agenda through this effort. It'd be the kind of brokering we haven't seen since the 1960s. Which is why it's fascinating!

I want John Edwards to stay in the race. I also want John Edwards to be the VP candidate of whichever of the two front-runners eventually gets the nomination. I think he deserves it, and neither Clinton nor Obama deserve each other to support them after the last couple of weeks of fighting.

Damn, can you sense the same tinge of anger I have that Obama is getting his hands dirty? This is probably an issue for another post, since I also recognise that in some ways he can't avoid it... but...It hurts a little. I want to believe. It's annoying me that my belief in Obama is being confused by the arguments. Politics, huh?

Fred Thompson Withdraws

The news is in, Fred Thompson has left the building. After a disappointing showing well...everwhere...but especially in South Carolina Thompson has decided to withdraw from the race for President. He was such an over-hyped candidate in the lead up to his entrance to the race. A lot will be made about whether he could have done better if he had entered the race earlier (Thompson waited until September to enter the race, about 7 months after the other candidates had entered the race.)

I could sort of see the logic behind that decision - wait until everyone gets bored with the existing candidates and then turn up as a breath of fresh air. One problem though: the voters back in the summer of 2007 didn't know or care who any of the candidates were. Only political junkies knew, and they're the kinds to take sides and stick to those sides. The kind of people who might get bored with a candidate and flip from boring to fresh are exactly the people who aren't paying attention to presidential races in the summer of the year before. Diehards and donors are the important constituency in the year before election - not the voters themselves. And so Thompson played to the wrong audience. By the time he entered many of the donors were sucked dry by the other candidates, and so he couldn't establish himself.

That, of course, is the one story of Fred Thompson. It applies political thinking to his decision to enter the race later on in the campaign. It was a bad strategy...but it was a strategy nonetheless. The other story about the Thompson campaign is that it has nothing to do with strategy and everything to do with what would hurt Thompson throughout the campaign - his laziness. He's a lazy candidate. He's too hands-off. Not until the debate in South Carolina did I see the fire in the Thompson belly. It's possible to see fire even in a laid-back candidate. Huckabee is laid back, but I know that he wants it. I could never tell whether Thompson really wanted it or not...and I think that killed him. Who cares who the National Right to Life endorses when you're a lazy candidate who can't get fired up about his own campaign?

And so the Republican field reduces to five....what a crazy thing to say post South Carolina. This is one crazy race.

CNN Democratic Debate

I think I should actually have titled this post 'Fight Night' because there was FIGHTING TALK! from the three Democratic candidates. That was fun to watch if you weren't aware that these three people were vying for the nomination for President - and how could you watch the debate and NOT know that? Particularly between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama things got very heated. The opposition research was firing back and forth - Clinton is a WalMart board member, Obama took money from a slum-lord, John Edwards is...shock...white! Thank God we didn't get to 'You're a Muslim!' 'You're a lesbian!' level of charges.

There's been talk in the past few days about whether Clinton or Obama would choose the other as their VP running mate. I've never thought it was a possibility, and after tonight it looks like I'm going to be right. They pounded each other out there - just go and watch the debate and see.

That's not to say that the debate wasn't good. There was a lot of discussion about substansive issues, and there was heated discussion about the best plans for America (which is significantly better than the heated discussion about who's lying - but not as good TV...).

And then there's John Edwards. Thank God for John. Good humoured, cut through the fighting between Clinton and Obama to make a number of eloquent speeches about poverty (but again with the Mill thing.) I wish he was able to have his shot for the presidency without Clinton and Obama in the race, because he's an excellent candidate for President if he had the opportunity to be heard. I want to talk more about Edwards in another post, because his influence in this race is about to become clearer and I think it's very interesting what role he may play (even though his nomination is severely in doubt.)

Who won this debate? John Edwards for sure. Obama and Clinton spent too long hacking at each other in the first half for them to come out on top. It was too messy between them and far too negative for me to award either the win. Though Clinton seemed more comfortable on the attack - and it seems to be obvious that no matter how much Obama may want to change the tone of politics it's too strong for even him to overcome. If that's the case, and this campaign will in many ways be politics as usual, then Clinton is a better player. As she explained, she's been putting up with the attacks for 16 years. Clinton is tougher than Obama and I think she'd be better able to handle the Republican attacks (though pehaps on the downside there would be *more* attacks with a Clinton nomination because of her divisive nature.)

John Edwards, I applaud you for your substance. I'm sorry you won't be the nominee.

It's Getting Ugly Out There...

It's getting ugly out there, folks. And actually it's the Democrats who are turning ugly much more than the Republicans. Remember Iowa (yeah, ages ago wasn't it?) when we were talking about Romney and his political hackery in his constant negative attacks upon Huckabee and McCain? And the same in New Hampshire? Well, that seems to have gone by the by, and the contest on the Republican side has actually been rather civil in the past week through Michigan, Nevada and South Carolina. Surprisingly so with 6 Republican candidates fighting for every vote on offer. Ronald Reagan's 11th Commandment seems be to have re-asserted itself a little bit in the past week - 'Thou Shalt Not Criticise a Fellow Republican.'

But it sure seems okay to criticise a fellow Democrat! Those three are attacking each other pretty heavily. And it annoys me that they are. I feel that the Democratic campaign, which is supposed to be about breaking glass ceilings and encouraging change, has had a little too much of the stench of politics as usual about it. These are supposed to be the candidates of change, who can reach across the aisle to form a grand coalition that will solve the problems facing America and re-cast the USA for a prosperous 21st century. How can the Democrats claim to be able to bring change when they can't bring change to their campaigning?

It's intensely frustrating that the negative campaigning works so well, too. Do we honestly think that Barack Obama is a closet Reaganite? No...there's no way you can paint him as such. But you can't deny the transformative effect that Ronald Reagan had upon America, whether it was for better or for worse (and Obama made no statement about whether it was for better or worse.) Of course, from the Democrats perspective, Ronald Reagan did a lot of harm to their interests, but that isn't to say that he wasn't a stand-out President from the recent crowd, for good or ill. In 1984 Ronald Reagan swept 49 states. It's clear that he had more of an overall influence on America than Bill Clinton did. But suddenly, according to the Clinton campaign, Barack Obama is a Reaganite! It's the same weak interpretation with a view to attacking a candidate which Obama supporters used in their criticism of Clinton for playing the 'race card'. It's not as explosive an issue, but it's the same spirit. Take something that's completely ridiculous and apply it to comments without context.

And I've forgotten to mention John Edwards in all of this... Well...

Rudy Giuliani - D-Day Minus 9

Crunch time is approaching for the Giuliani campaign. He's about to prove whether his strategy was genius or one of the stupidest strategies a national front-runner could possibly have won. He will have recast the future of presidential primary campaigns, or he will crash and burn and vindicate the theory of the power of the early states and perceptions. So far we've written off all his poor results, and they have been poor (he's lost to Ron Paul is many states) because 'Oh, he hasn't campaigned there', 'Oh, he's banking on Florida' but now Florida's coming up. It's a state in which he has spent a huge amount of time campaigning and has set his flag to the mast there. If he loses that, then all his poor showings begin compounding upon each other to make a Giuliani nomination about as likely as a Thompson nominaton.

And guess what? He may lose Florida. With all the other candidates stampeding down there at warp speed Rudy's free ride around Florida is over. McCain, Romney, Huckabee and Paul (I think Thompson won't be there) are coming to take away the support Giuliani has been working hard to build. He doesn't have a convincing poll lead in Flordia - in fact it's a tie between Giuliani and some of the other candidates - a bad situation when you consider the disparate resources invested by the different campaigns in Florida so far.

Giuliani's campaign was rested on the premise that 2008 would not see a king-making Iowa and New Hampshire, but would be a national campaign, fought and won on Super-Duper Tuesday. Giuliani wrote off those two early states and moved on, and put all his hope on Florida. But...he sort of forgot the other three contests before Florida. Okay, I applaud him challenging the king-makers of Iowa and New Hampshire...but what about Wyoming? And Michigan? And Nevada? And South Carolina? If it had been just Iowa and New Hampshire before Super-Duper Tuesday and he'd performed badly amongst, as Jon Stewart calls them, cold white people and colder whiter people then we wouldn't have minded. But we've had the Iowa, Wyoming, New Hampshire, Michigan, Nevada and South Carolina. Exactly how many states can you write off before you've written them *all* off and there's noone left to support you?

He hasn't pulled majority support from any of the major groups in these states, and we've now seen a lot of groups weigh in on the contest - white people, evangelicals, voters whose main concern is the economy, Hispanics, Republican African Americans, Northerners, Southerners, independents.... Is he really banking on all those retired New Yorkers? That is a hell of a gamble if you want to be the national nominee. I think the strategy might have worked back when there were only 3 contests before Super Tuesday, but now we have a more representative sample of the nation in the early states who vote...and none of them have liked Giuliani.

I know what you may say to me - 'Well, Romney lost Iowa and New Hampshire and he'd spent all his time and all his money there, but in your last post you said that Romney could still be the nominee.' Yes, but there's a difference between Romney and Giuliani. Romney lost, won, lost, won, won, lost. He used the early contests to pull back from the declarations that he was DOA. Giuliani has lost, lost, lost, lost, lost, lost. And after Florida...BAM...Super-Duper Tuesday. There's no time to remake himself as a winner if he doesn't win Florida.

There have got to be nerves amongst the Giuliani campaign. Not since John McCain in 2000 has one state mattered so much to one candidate. Cue Florida primary.

McCain Wins South Carolina!

The state that ended his campaign in 2000 when the George W Bush Juggernaut crushed him beneath its weight has delivered John McCain the victory he needed to finally be considered *a* front-runner in this race (though not *the* front-runner.) McCain goes into Florida riding fairly high with his victory here, though he could have been in a much stronger position (if he won Michigan and won more convincingly in SC.) That's why he's one *a* front-runner, because there's a significant chance that someone else walks away with the nomination.

Let's look at the numbers.

John McCain - 33% - Two victories puts him, in number of victories, second to Romney, but actually equal with Romney because noone cares about Iowa. That's in the expectations game at least - if this is actually a delegate race, as will become crystal clear on Februrary 5th, then Romney's ahead, but we'll continue playing the expectations and momentum game for a little while longer (at least until after Florida) to see if *the* front-runner is going to emerge. That front-runner could very well b John McCain. It wasn't a huge win in South Carolina, he only collected one third of the votes cast, but that's partly because the field is so diverse and cuts a large chunk of votes amongst a few candidates.

Mike Huckabee - 30% - He needed to win South Carolina to prove that he had the power of the South behind his candidacy. He almost won, and many will say that if Thompson had not been in the race he probably would have, but unfortunately this is a blow to Huckabee because he can't continue to be second or third. It's like Barack Obama, who if he doesn't winmore contests is going to hit up against momentum problems (despite the closeness of delegate count.) He has to win some contests, and this was where he was supposed to be able to do it. He needs to win in Florida to be *a* front-runner once again, and not a close second. Be a winner Mike, not a loser.

Fred Thompson - 16% - He said that third place was okay, but how many times is third place going to be enough just to stay in the race? A Southern Conservative needs to be able to win a Southern Conservative state. If he can't pull that off then there's nowhere in the country he can possibly win. Expect to see a Thompson drop-out either in the next couple of days, but I think certainly after Florida.

Mitt Romney - 15% - The duality of the Romney campaign is pretty crazy. He wins some states and comes fourth in others. It's clear the game he's playing - delegates, delegates, delegates - but I'm not sure it builds him the wide-spread good will in the Republican Party. It seems that he's sneaking off to the states the other candidates aren't campaigning in and winning those states because he turned up (Wyoming, Nevada.) I continue to be deeply troubled about the prospect of a Romney nomination. There's no doubt he's in this race for the long-haul. Unless he's crushed on Super Tuesday we'll see him for a while, and he could win. *sigh*

Ron Paul - 4% - We'll never know at which point Ron Paul will pull out. Probably never since he has so much money. He'll still be running for the Republican 2008 nomination in 2010 considering the amount of money he has available to him. A few times now he's been Giuliani. That's got to smart a bit for Rudy's campaign. Paul's not going anywhere nationally, but he'll continue sweeping the small, zealous group of his supporters.

Rudy Giuliani - 2% - In 9 days we will see whether Giuliani's strategy was a clever one, or one of the stupidest ways of conducting a primary campaign...well...of all time. This is not Senator Jackson in 1976, when he waited to later states because noone yet knew how important the early states were. This is eyes wide open 2%. If he doesn't win Florida he's a failure. And I think he might lose there... I'm going to talk more about this in the next post.

Duncan Hunter - 0% - And...he's out. Hunter is gone. I'm not even going to bother with a separate post to discuss Hunter's campaign, because it would be an incredibly short post.

Clinton and Romney Win Nevada!

The Nevada caucuses took place this afternoon and the projected winners are in - Hillary Clinton for the Democrats and Mitt Romney for the Republicans. It's close on the Democratic side, the win may only be as large as two or three points for Clinton. Is that much of a win at all? Well, if the race continues to be this close and things go down to the convention it may not be much of a win because it probably won't accrue Clinton that many more delegates.

Particularly disappointed is going to be John Edwards, who has pulled around 4% of the vote. That's well, well below both Clinton and Obama who clock around 51% and 45% respectively. He won't take his bat and go home though, he's said he's in it until the Convention but South Carolina for the Democrats next Saturday will truly make or break his chances of actually winning this thing (and let's be honest, it's probably going to break. Even if he wins he's still barely alive, rather than dead on arrival.)

On the Republican side Mitt Romney takes Nevada. That's not surprising - his Mormon faith plays well in Nevada and he's one of the only candidates to have spent any time here. He's playing a delegate game too, attempting to gain as many delegates at the convention as he can. So it's not surprising that he won, and all attention for the Republicans is on South Carolina, where Romney has downplayed expectations. Since South Carolina is a primary and not a caucus we won't know the results until later tonight when the polls close. Interestingly in Nevada, and as I type this only 38% of precints are reporting, Ron Paul is just edging out John McCain for second place. It's a bit of an underwhelming second place - 13%, but second place it is nonetheless. I'll provide some more analysis on the Republican race when the South Carolina results become known.

MSNBC Democratic Debate

While the Republican candidates were watching the returns from the Michigan primary and the Romney campaign was celebrating its projected win, the Democrats were debating. I don't have much to say about this debate really - it was civil and there isn't a huge amount to point out that hasn't already been said.

Obama responded to the question about his greatest weakness by saying he was terrible with keeping track of paper. Clinton provided a veiled criticism by saying that Presidents needed to be able to manage the bureaucracy and implied that Obama had just said he wasn't up to that task.

It seems like both campaigns took my advice and the race thing has been put to bed. Thank goodness. It was ridiculously stupid for both campaigns to get involved in. You can read below about why.

Give Up, Dennis - An Open Letter

Dear Dennis,

It's time to give up the race for President. Three separate sets of voters have weighed in...and you are not their candidate. Your national poll numbers consider to be exceptionally low, and that fire-brand of a candidate 'Uncommitted' beat you by 10 times your votes in Michigan last night.

We don't really appreciate your attempts to get in on the Democratic debate. Some of the people have spoken, and they have resoundedly rejected you. When all of the people have spoken, they will too have resoundedly rejected you. Who are we kidding?

In an election where John Edwards is struggling to get a look in with Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama proving such attractive candidates, you know this isn't your time. Let's face it Dennis, if you were really cut out to be President you'd hold much higher office than a Congressman from Ohio. You just aren't compelling property. Back in 2004, your candidacy made sense - you were against the War and the Democratic Party needed to hear from you. But this time, they don't.

You fail to bring anything to the race and you wouldn't make a better President than either Senators Clinton or Obama. MSNBC don't want you in the debate because they, and yes us as well - it isn't just the media conglomerates - want to hear more from the candidates we like. We don't want to hear from the ones we don't care about.

Maybe if you were a Republican, you'd be able to at least win a primary - they're throwing out victories so fairly you would have thought it was Communist China.

Please stop. We'll think better of you if you do.

Kind Regards,

98% of the people.

Romney Wins Michigan!

The Republican race continues to be without a clear front-runner, and the number of viable contenders has increased by one - Mitt Romney is back in the game. For all the money he has spent in this contest as a whole it seemed inevitable that he would win something. He couldn't be so unappealing that after millions and millions of dollars invested he wasn't going to win anything but...well, you know that anything I write about Romney now is not going to be impartial, right? Because it isn't. I don't like him. I still don't like him. And I'm somewhat annoyed he's still in the race and now back in contention again.

Why did Romney win in Michigan? Because he offered the easy message. The dishonest one. He told the people of Michigan he would rebuild the auto-industry and take Michigan back to the good old days. It's a comforting thing to tell people, that you can reverse time and make them prosperous again. It's also a lie. McCain lost because he told the *truth* to the people of Michigan, for whom the economy was overwhelmingly the biggest factor in deciding their vote. McCain told them a harder story, that you can't go home again and the jobs were lost, but that he would support Michigan in building itself back up by going down the harder but realistic route - constructing new industries in Michigan based off of clean energy technology to become the world's centre for green tech, in the same way Michigan was the world's centre for the auto-industry fifty years ago.

I think Romney's win is based upon extreme dishonesty, which doesn't help my image of him one little bit. But he did win quite convincingly, so congratulations to him for that. I just hope the people of later states hand him his things and ask him to go home.

Giuliani has got to be happy about the situation, though not his personal showing. For all the feigned lack of concern over his extremely poor showing I put forward this thought - if he was a compelling national front-runner whose appeal transcended his need to campaign (which he's relying on for Super Tuesday states to sweep for him) why isn't he doing better in states he's not campaigning in? If Rudy's not there leading the people by the hand to the polling station, Rudy does *badly* at the polls. What prospect does this create for his nomination? I think he could pull it off in Florida (though latest polls say that, despite having the state all to himself he's in a tie with the other front-runners) but we should be cautious about projecting his potential beyond the state to which he seems to have permanently moved.

Let me spin a hypothetical. It's unlikely, but something close it to is certainly possible. Huckabee took Iowa, Romney took Wyoming (but noone cared), McCain took New Hampshire, Romney took Michigan (and this time they did care.) So essentially it's one win for Romney, Huckabee and McCain. It's not out of the realm of possibility that Giuliani wins in Florida - after all, he's spent enough time campaigning there! The slightly crazy part is if Thompson wins South Carolina, which he's banking on to stay in the race but is rather unlikely. Going into Super Tuesday you have the potential of having literally no clear front-runner. If the Super-Duper Tuesday nations split for different candidates then the later calender gets to play a role in the nomination and it could go all the way to the convention. Fun stuff!

The Earmarking Game

I find the debate around the practice of ear-marking to be a fascinating one, because of all the contradictions that it throws up and shamelessly ignores. It is perhaps one of the most fascinating parts of Congressional reform efforts because of the competing narratives about earmarks that represents a key contradiction of the American political system.

Much like Congress's approval rating, there's an incredible duality about the American people's opinions towards earmarks. In one sense, earmarks, provisions added to Appropriations legislation that specifically appropriates an amount of money to be spent on a specific project in a specific district, are widely disapproved of by the American public. Congressmen are perceived as scraping pork from the barrel and cutting up the taxpayer's pie in a selfish way that focuses only on their own re-election.

On the other hand, the beneficiaries of earmarks within the states are perfectly happy about the fact that they've received a government contract! The people disapprove of other people's earmarks, but still respond incredibly well to their Congressmen bringing money (and therefore jobs) to their state in the form of government contracts. It seems like noone can win - if earmarks are eliminated then the people will widely approve of it but will severely disapprove of the fact that their district isn't receiving prized government contracts anymore.

Anti-pork crusaders like Jeff Flake play a noble game, because after all he is not dipping into the conventional methods of securing re-election and buttering up his district with all the pork he can possible accumulate. On the other hand there must be businesses in his district which would like to receive government contracts which don't. As I say, there's a real duality about the approach to earmarking. It's so attractive for representatives because the general disapproval of the people doesn't affect them except in a wider 'control of Congress' kind of way.

For the member of Congress set upon their own re-election in their own districts who care what the 'people' think if they aren't registered voters in that member's district? The truth is they don't, except when earmarking is an important issue in the control of Congress. Let's face it - that's never happened, and it seems unlikely that it will (pork isn't sexy enough to provoke a wave unless it's part of a wider theme of government waste, but as the crown jewel of that perceived waste unless it's specifically named and mercilessly attacked it gets away without reform.)

Pork-barrel politics isn't something that the members of Congress should be responsible for legislating. If only there was someone else who could do it and stop them from their own excesses. Members of Congress are election-orientated machines - there are very few saints left. Efforts are needed to ensure that they don't use this machine-like drive for re-election to abuse what should be in the best interests of the American people, which one wonders if they do.

Clinton and Obama - STOP IT!

I'm reading the stories about the spat between Senators Clinton and Obama that has been developing and the only response I can muster is...Seriously? Are you two honestly that stupid? I don't care who started it, I don't care who sent surrogates to attack the other - would you two please stop? The American people don't care about your petty arguing over a few comments about Dr. Martin Luthur King Jr. He was a great man and he won't be brought down by what are most likely mis-interpreted remarks from Senator Clinton. I don't think the Obama campaign is going to score any points by implying that Senator Clinton doesn't believe that Dr. King played a major role in bringing about the success of the civil rights movement.

So just STOP IT! Though I predicted that things might get ugly between these two candidates, I had held out some hope that I was wrong. It seems I was not and that the Democrats are descending into the down and dirty politics that will hurt them in the General Election and possibly cost them the White House. Can't either candidate see how stupid this spat is? It's a non-issue! It's not like they're having a spirited and heated debate about the best way to solve the impending social security crisis, or how to fix a slugging economy, or provide quality health care to those without insurance and those with insufficient coverage. No - it's an argument over the interpretation of one remark by using an interpretation that is incredibly stupid - that somehow Senator Clinton doesn't believe that Dr. King's contribution to the Civil Rights Movement wasn't critical to creation of Civil Rights legislation.

The Democrats need to stay positive. I hate to break it to you Senators, but one of you is going to lose. Would you *please* accept that and then let the American people decide between you rather than using petty means to try and drag the other candidate down? Build yourselves up, don't break yourselves down. One of you will build higher - but isn't that the kind of campaign we want to see between candidates? Not this. For shame Senator Obama for letting your campaign make this an issue, and for shame Senator Clinton for getting your surrogates to hit back on the drug thing. For shame.

Congress Returns to Session Tomorrow

The second session of the 110th Congress gets properly underway tomorrow as Congressmen and Senators return from their Christmas and New Year vacations to get back to the task of governing. The results of the first session are a little bit mixed - there were several major policy accomplishments for the Democratic majority, however there also some very public failures that have caused the approval ratings for Congress and particularly the Democrats in the majority to continue to slip. It seems that nothing and noone will be able to reverse the downward trend of Congressional approval and make it an institution that isn't completely hated by the American people (it'd be nearly impossible to make it barely tolerated again.)

Unfortunately, though, a lot of the impetus for why Congress is held in such low self-esteem, at least coming out of the last session of the 110th Congress, is not actually the fault of the Democrats at all. It isn't that their policy choices have been objectionable and that they aren't trying to push through initiatives that the majority of Americans approve of, but rather that they haven't been very successful in doing it and that has caused great frustration amongst the American people, particularly when it comes to ending the War in Iraq, which a sizeable majority of Americans still disapprove of despite indications that the military situation is improving.

Congress can't get anything done because of the President and to a lesser extent the Senate. The President vetoes anything he finds objectionable, and has the votes in the Republican minority to have sustained all except one of those vetoes due to the slim Democratic majority. This President is not shy with the veto pen - he's wielded it and the threat of using it numerous times throughout the session. Changes in Iraq policy that managed to make it through the Senate and the conference process, S-CHIP and even the Defence Appropriations Bill have all been vetoed by the President for various reasons. Other Democtic priorities, such as their preferred fix to the AMT, FISA reauthorisation and the energy bill, have been considerably revised based upon the President's threat of a veto. Particularly in the appropriations battle that consumed much of the time after the summer has the President's influence sliced out a lot of the extra domestic spending the Democrats decided to add.

All the while they have continually been forced to sign supplemental appropriations legislation for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, running into the hundreds of billions of dollars, with very little more than a 'by your leave' attached to them in way of showing Congress's disapproval with appropriating that money without some kind of timetable for withdrawal of the troops. Unfortunately for the Democratic Congress the President still wields great power in the legislative process that they just do not have the muscle to overcome.

Particularly now that we're into an election year we shouldn't expect to see much legislating from Congress. The major pieces of legislation passed in 2007 will probably stand as the majority of major legislation for the 110th Congress, while Representatives and 33 Senators spend much of their time at home campaigning for votes to return and see the 111th Congress. Those Democrats who were elected and put the gavel in Speaker Pelosi's hands also have a lot to do to ensure that they do not just as quickly lose their seats they won in 2006, and so they'll be particularly busy securing a second term and setting up their long-term Congressional careers.

So perhas me saying that members of Congress are returning to 'govern' was a little over-stating the matter...

Michigan Illustrates the Value of Being Early

Wyoming's exercise in moving up the primary calender to have more of an impact upon the course of the nomination struggle may have been something of a failure, but if you want to see how that re-scheduling can have a big effect, look to Michigan. Republican presidential hopefuls John McCain, Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee are now campaigning in Michigan (Rudy Giuliani and Fred Thompson are in Florida and South Carolina respectively.) For the first time in a long time, Michigan's unique issues are being talked about by presidential candidates - and in much the same way that ethanol subsidies are preserved in Washington because they primarily come from Iowa, if the good people of Michigan choose the eventual nominee as victor of the party's primary tomorrow they may be looking for some payback come 2009.

Senator Carl Levin's support for moving the primary date forward seems not to have been misplaced - for the Republicans anyway. The DNC has stripped Michigan of all of its delegates and most of the major candidates have removed their names from the ballot (making tomorrow's Democratic primary rather pointless.) But the RNC only penalised Michigan with half its delegates for moving its primary into January, which the state party is confident they can regain before the convention. For once presidential candidates are giving Michigan the attention that South Carolina receives (though the fact that it's the second primary means it'll never have the same influence as New Hampshire.) Economics, particularly for the auto-industry, are important in Michigan, which fits well with the fact that the greatest emerging concerns for American voters for the upcoming election is the economy.

With an unemployment rate well above the national average (8% to the national average of 5%) the citizens of Michigan are particularly eager to hear what the candidates have to say about the economy and how they will reverse what Mitt Romney has called a 'one state recession'. And it seems to be provoking some differences between the candidates, particularly the two front-runners of Romney and McCain. Romney is pledging to bring the jobs that have been lost in Michigan back - the same jobs that have moved out of state and overseas. He's pledging to rebuild the auto-industry in Michigan pain-fee. McCain on the other hand is telling the people of Michigan that he can't bring the jobs already lost back to the state, but rather he can help them retrain to new jobs and become a hub for an alternative industry - clean technologies seems to be his biggest idea for what Detroit could get into next ("If Michigan has saved the world once in the last century, why can't it do it again?")

It seems to me that McCain has the more honest approach to the economic situation in Michigan. Short of whacking up giant protectionist barriers that make cheap cars and car products prohibitively expensive, and downgrading much of the automation that has eliminated the need for some workers entirely, the auto-jobs have mostly left Detroit. They aren't coming back, and I think Romney is being dishonest with the people of Michigan when he says that he'll bring them all back no fuss. I think Romney really needs a win in the state in which his father used to be a Governor (he won't refer to it as 'do or die' - but that's pretty much what it is if he's to remain viable and not the John Edward of the race) and I think he's lazily cutting corners to win support. McCain is straight talking as always - the jobs are gone, but the prospects aren't completely bleak for rebuilding the Michigan economy. Unfortunately, the Truth isn't necessarily as attractive as a lie, particularly when a hack like Romney is providing it.

Mike Huckabee's role in this state is not year clear. He's the third contender, who's vying for a victory in Michigan, but it still has yet to be entirely determined where his support base is. He's certainly going after values voters in Michigan, but is that necessarily going to be enough to put him over the top? It very well might in South Carolina, but I wonder if Huckabee wouldn't consider a win to be second place. Michigan is a good test of Huckabee's national power - it's more culturally representative of the rest of the nation than some of the other early primary states (not as religious as Iowa, not as independent as New Hampshire, not as conservative as South Carolina.)

Tomorrow's Republican primary is certainly going to be close. The latest poll has McCain and Romney statistically tied with 28% and 26% respectively. Huckabee comes third with 17% (though considering the 5 point margin for error, it's still pretty close.) Giuliani and Thompson aren't factors in the race - 5% each. The Michigan Republican Party has got to be happy about the results of their experiment in leap-frogging many other primary states - the candidates are talking about jobs, talking about manufacturing and addressing some of the issues that otherwise might get pushed to the side in a weighted rural early primary calender.

McCain Best Placed To Beat Democrats - Latest Poll

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/12/poll.matchups/index.html

According to a new poll conducted by CNN John McCain is best placed to defeat the Democrats in November. The poll paints a worrying picture for the Republicans, though let's remember that New Hampshire taught us not to believe in everything the polls tell us!

Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama beat hypothetical match-ups with Rudy Giuliani, Mike Huckabee and Mitt Romney by double digits. John McCain doesn't lose to either Clinton or Obama, but he doesn't beat them either. McCain is in statistical tie with both candidates.

This poll doesn't prove *much*, as we can't really predict November when February looks turbulent enough, but it has to give some pause to the Republicans about how well their message is resonating beyond the Republican primary electorate. Is this a Democratic year? Just under eight months until we find out!

Fox News Republican Debate

I was particularly interested in this debate at the way in which the interactions between the candidates reflected the dynamics of the race as it currently stands. This wasn't my favourite debate, I feel that the time limiting mechanisms imposed by Fox News don't allow for interaction between the candidates but just a series of independent statements, but it was another chance to hear from the candidates and particularly interesting because it's the first debate since New Hampshire.

There is no front-runner in this race. Unlike the Democratic debates, where we'll be able to identify the two candidates fighting for first, the Republican contest still doesn't have a decisive front-runner or pair of front-runners. It could still tip in any direction before the end, or it could remain in this fairly balanced form right up to the convention (and wouldn't that make the Republican convention fun to watch?) You can also tell that there's no front-runner because the candidates don't know who to go after. Romney received a pass in this debate - he wasn't criticised by any of the candidates despite previous debates which were all about Romney bashing. Some candidates went after McCain, some Huckabee, some Giuliani. Thompson, who has nailed his flag to the mast in South Carolina was obviously going after Huckabee because that's probably who he needs to beat to win in South Carolina and stay alive.

Ron Paul, as usual, was Ron Paul. You can see the MSM treating him a little bit like the odd brother of the group. Each candidate got asked about the Reagan Coalition and what had happened to it, but Ron Paul wasn't, and then they asked him about his following from the 9/11 Truth movement. That was just a 'You're crazy and so are your followers' question, and I think it was a little unbecoming of a serious news organisation. I expect that kind of commentary from 'A Daily Show With Jon Stewart,' not Brit Hume.

Nothing's been shaken up by this debate, I don't think. Thompson was a little better than in previous debate performances. I'm also getting tired of candidates responding to questions about another candidate's criticism using a billion different ways to say 'They're attacking me because I'm ahead, and therefore I'm popular and they're not.' I'd never heard Huckabee's variation on it before - 'You know what they say, if you're taking flak you must be over the target' but I'm still tired of it.

Also someone needs to teach these candidates about managing time when they're in one of these debates which has strict time limitations. Huckabee, for example, gets asked a question, and slow-talks (with pauses) his way through a good chunk of it, then insits on going over the time at the end when Hume tries to cut him off. If you've got points to make, make them first and cut the rest of the stuff. McCain's pretty good at this.

Bush Commits to Middle East Peace

In a break away from the presidential race, President Bush is in the Middle East this week. Odd as it may seem to believe, there is currently one person NOT running for President - the President himself! Bush announced today that he's confident a peace agreement can be reached between Israel and Palestine on his watch. That would be quite an item for the Bush Legacy. He also went one further today and met with President Abbas in Ramallah, and called Israeli settlements in the Occupied Territories...an 'occupation'. It's the first time that President Bush has come out and said this, which indicates a shift in how he's approaching Middle Eastern peace.

I think it's about time. I'm happy he's come to the party of trying to create peace in the Middle East, but he should have put much more time into this much earlier. I know the Roadmap was a Bush thing, but after being published the Administration let it die. Bush refused to deal with Arafat and that put things back on the timetable quite a lot, but if he's truly committed to peace across the whole Middle East the Israel/Palestine question should have been occupying his time much, much earlier than one year before the end of his Administration. Being in his final year doesn't matter so much in foreign affairs as it does in his dealings with Congress, but it will have an effect. He won't be able to exert as much influence over the different parties because he can't be sure his successor will carry on that exertion of influence, and the Israelis and Palestinians know that too.

If he can do it, I will cheer. It'll certainly improve his legacy a whole lot, as he'll be remembered both as the person who created the situation in Iraq AND created peace in the Middle East. That would leave Bush with a mixed legacy, as opposed to a negative one. It's far too late for him to a positive legacy. He'll receive a re-assessment in time, but nowhere near to the degree of some Presidents and his name won't be spoken in the same breath as Truman, Kennedy and Reagan.

Bill Richardson Withdraws

Bill Richardson is out of the race for the Democratic nomination, effectively reducing the size of the field to three candidates. That doesn't mean that there was ever really a chance for Richardson to get the nomination, but there'll now only be three candidates at the debates, and we'll continue not caring about Kucinich and Gravel. Richardson's withdrawal comes on the heels of two disappointing showings in the Iowa Caucuses and the New Hampshire primaries, and the need as this race gets more intense to raise money quickly. Now that candidates can't stay in one state for very long but need to be mobile (and therefore, have lots of money) he couldn't really compete.

I was never bowled away by Richardson. I was impressed by his resume, but his charisma factor was missing. I found him boring in debates and interviews, which is a shame because the first Hispanic presidential candidate should have received more coverage. But alas, in a race in which there are two 'firsts' running who have a much better chance of receiving the nomination, I suppose it was to be expected.

My Hillary Clinton Enigma

Though I don't really have a horse in this race, I have a clear opinion about each of the candidates, nearly all of which I've made clear. But the only candidate I've not really shared my feelings on is Hillary Clinton and I'll tell you why... I don't know what to think. I believe in Barack Obama, I like John Edwards, I respect John McCain, I find Fred Thompson boring, I hate Mitt Romney, but I don't know about Hillary Clinton, and it makes it difficult for me to write about her and her campaign strategy with ease.

Bill Clinton was a good President. If he's kept his pants zipped he might have been a great President. But I try to evaluate Hillary without the Clinton brand, because as much as I'd like to see Bill Clinton have another shot to enter the pantheon of great Presidents that won't happen under a Hillary presidency. He wouldn't be Secretary of State, he'd be First Gentleman, and one who probably spent a lot of time out of the spotlight so as not to usurp it from his President wife.

So let's look at Hillary. Surprise result for her in the New Hampshire primary. It's crazy how quickly the news stories turn around from 'Mark Penn is about to be fired, Carville and Begala poised to come back, Clinton campaign about to undergo post-NH defeat re-assessment' to a restoration of Clinton as an equal front-runner with Barack Obama. Hmm...I realise I'm still avoiding talking about Hillary herself.

Do I like her? I don't know. A lot of Americans don't. A lot of Americans hate Hillary Clinton a whole lot. I don't find her very inspiring. I think she's a competent candidate who obviously has a lot of appeal if you view her from a disinterested perspective, but I don't find anything about Hillary that makes me inspired. I wouldn't cheer at one of her events, I would listen respectfully. She evokes a more reasoned approach to choosing a President, not a passionate one. Perhaps that's a good thing, perhaps passion is misplaced in making the best choice about who the next President should be, but I personally disagree. In choosing a Prime Minister, who doesn't have all the symbolic power and awesome position of the President, perhaps disconnect creates better results. But if you can't connect with your President, the symbol of your nation, then there's an issue.

I'm loathe to repeat the media line about Hillary's 'humanising' choke-up moment, but it did make me respond to her a little more. My jury is still out on Hillary Clinton. I do want to be won over by her, as I feel that she probably would be a good President. But she's not succeeded in making me a fan yet. I shall continue to struggle with it, until I come to a Clinton conclusion.

John McCain - From New Hampshire, Anywhere?

John McCain scored a big win in New Hampshire last night, proving many pundits wrong when they wrote of his campaign last summer. They said he was out of the race before it started, but McCain proved that he still has plenty of life left in him. New Hampshire came through for John McCain, as it needed to, in order to keep him in the race and prove the possibility of McCain winning the nomination.

But can McCain take things further than New Hampshire? That's something I'm going to have to be more doubtful about. He won in New Hampshire, but for John McCain this was by far the easiest state to win in. The New Hampshire crowd, with their 'Live Free or Die' mentality and independent nature (44% of New Hampshire voters are independents), resonate easily with McCain, whose maverick image has never quite gone away. McCain doesn't fit with the party regulars, particularly obvious when he was the establishment front-runner and chafed in this position, and that's why New Hampshire loves him. He's as independent as they are.

Unfortunately, New Hampshire is something of an oddity on the national level. It is the only state without a state-level income tax and as we have seen contains a large section of vociferous independents. This is not true nationwide, and it's a problem that Barack Obama also faces. Primary rules in most states do not allow independents, McCain's main audience, to participate in the Republican primaries. Registered Republicans aren't so hot on McCain, though they're hotter than some of the other candidates. His independent streak isn't as endearing in South Carolina as it is in New Hampshire, so I wonder whether McCain can translate his victory into further momentum.

The voters of New Hampshire don't like to be told that they just affirm the decisions of Iowa, and later states don't like being told that they just affirm the decision of New Hampshire. If NH can vote radically differently from Iowa, then so can South Carolina, and Florida, and California, and New York, and Texas...

Is McCain's victory the start of a trend? We'll see...but I doubt it. I think McCain's done a stellar job proving the doubters wrong, but I don't think he's going to take the nomination because he now runs head-first into the rest of the Republican Party, who were never his biggest fans. Which is unfortunate, because I'd love to see him get the chance to go national in a General Election campaign because I like McCain. I think he'd be good for America. But I don't think he'll win.

Which really leaves...who? Well that's the big question Republican voters up and down the country are asking. It may be a long time until they decisively make up their mind and let the rest of us know.

Clinton and McCain Win New Hampshire!

Well isn't that interesting... Okay, I hold my hands up and admit it, I was sucked in the giant media meta-narrative for a few days, and New Hampshire has provided a collective 'snap out', at least as far as the Democratic race goes. Once again we see Iowa doesn't matter all that much, and it's possible for anything to happen in these races above and beyond what the media claims. Damn, I'm a little disappointed in myself that I got duped - but I wanted to believe in Obama now and ignored the history of the primary process. It makes things very interesting in both races, and means that we won't see a king-making on either side! Things are going to get seriously interesting getting into South Carolina and Nevada, and then into Super-Duper Tuesday.

The Republicans are on course for anything to happen. There are four candidates who could come away with the nomination at this point, no one seems particularly strong (and very few seem particularly weak.) I think we could end up with something messy on the Republican side - each candidate has their niche support and a lot of the upcoming states cater to different niches, which means I think that this situation of multiple runners (can't call them 'front-runners' - there are too many) will continue at least going into February 5th.

Right, now let's look at the individual candidates. (95% of precincts reporting.)

DEMOCRATS

Hillary Clinton - 39% - By pulling off a very close first place finish she did what she needed to do to restore a lot of the faith in her that was disintegrating or abandoning to other candidates. It was by no means a decisive victory, just 2%, but it was enough to make this a real fight to the nomination. Clinton still did poorly amongst voters most interested in change, and managed to score big amongst blue-collar die-hard Democrats, women and older voters, of which New Hampshire has a lot (and so do a lot of the upcoming primary states.) She scored much better than Obama on experience and on the economy, which is fast becoming a big issue in this election. She needs to examine why she succeeded in New Hampshire and play to those strengths. Clearly she's not going to win over the 'change' voters, but that may not matter when many of those voters are independents who will be shut out of upcoming closed primaries. She hasn't restored front-runner status, but come into equal contention with Barack Obama going into Nevada and South Carolina.

Barack Obama - 37% - A close second but second place nonetheless. He's got to be smarting about how wrong the pollsters called this one (even the moving average of all polls, the Poll of All Polls, which tends to be fairly accurate had Obama up by 4 and I'm sure there'll be a lot of examination as to why those polls turned out to be off the mark). However, the Obama Movement isn't over yet, it's just going to be harder for him to pull it off. And it may mean that both campaigns start resorting to politics as usual to sell their messages, and I really don't want to see that from the Democrats. It disappoints me from the Republicans, but it would hurt a lot of people if the Democratic race went negative. The gap between Nevada and South Carolina could be uuuggggllllyyyy.

John Edwards - 17% - He said tonight on Larry King Live how this contest proved the race was still wide open, but I'm not too sure how open it is for Edwards. He's pledged to remain in the race because he feels he's giving a voice to those who have traditionally been neglected and because 99% of the American people have yet to weigh in on the process, but two non-victories shows how unlikely it is that those other 99% will be moved in any significant ways. The Edwards campaign is far from over, but I think he's now out of the nomination race.

Bill Richardson - 5% - Once again, very disappointing for Richardson. He's returning to New Mexico to reassess the campaign, and I think a withdrawal will come from it. He's the Governor of New Mexico, and he needs to tend to his state.

Dennis Kucinich - 1% - You're done, Congressman.

REPUBLICANS

John McCain - 37% - This race went much more as expected. McCain came away with the win, proving the doubters of the summer wrong. They wrote his campaign off and he said 'Well then we'll go to New Hampshire and prove you wrong', and that's what he did. He should be particularly impressed because, though being associated with support for the Iraq War it was Romney who got the support of the few remaining Bush supporters. This was the easiest state for John McCain to win because he did it in 2000 and it best fits the contours of his political ideology. It's given him a big boost going into future states, but it doesn't make it much easier to pull them around to supporting him as a front-runner. South Carolina, once again, becomes the place where McCain must next prove himself.

Mitt Romney - 32% - Oh dear. He spent more money than all of his opponents combined on the New Hampshire race...and he lost. Two losses in a row based upon a strategy that completely revolved around two victories in a row does not bode well for the tail-spinning Romney campaign. He has too much money to give up, and at a third of the vote he shouldn't because there's still a small chance, but I hope he's not too much longer for this race.

Mike Huckabee - 11% - In a state he was not expected to do at all well in, to come third is big for Mike Huckabee going into South Carolina. It definitely puts him in top contention out of all the Republican runners, because he has impressive showings in two states (which is one more than any other candidate.) Needs to keep this up in South Carolina and win there if he is to really become the front-runner though.

Rudy Giuliani - 9% - He's still in it, much more so than if one candidate had won both states. He's got to be very pleased that Romney didn't win Iowa and New Hampshire big and was now moving onto Giuliani's turf with the Big Mo. As we get closer to Florida we'll see much more of Giuliani and be able to review how well hi strategy will work. I still think it's not a hopeless strategy.

Ron Paul - 8% - A little less than expected for Paul, but it's enough of a showing to mean that his supporters justify his presence in the race. And it's on to the next stop.

Fred Thompson - 1% - He won't give up, I don't think, because he's painting South Carolina as his final stand. But he won't over-perform there so he's effectively done. He's out after South Carolina.

Duncan Hunter - 0% - Perhaps re-considering staying in the race. I certainly would.

Bill Clinton Attacks Barack Obama

Is this the shape of things to come? There's about four hours left for New Hampshire voters to pick their preferred candidate to represent them in the General Election and it looks as though there's record turnout on the Democratic side. The Clinton campaign seems to be preparing everyone for a second place finish and potentially a big shake-up in their campaign strategy, and Mitt Romney appears unusually happy considering that I hope he's going to losetonight.

But Bill Clinton has come out on the attack against Barack Obama today. Things have gotten pretty dirty on the Republican side, and I thought that the Democrats were being wise not to resort to politics as usual, but it looks like former President Bill Clinton has ended that. He has strongly criticised Barack Obama and the media coverage of his campaign. He was pretty scathing too. You can read his comments in this CNN Ticker article - http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/01/08/bill-clinton-targets-media-coverage-of-obama/

I think it's the wrong move for the Clinton campaign to go so negative. They'll only make the Obama campaign look better and it doesn't suit the tone of this campaign. I have a little less respect for former President Clinton today. He should have stayed positive. If voters weren't responding to that, then it just wasn't Hillary Clinton's time. It's not an excuse to go negative.

The Votes Are In! (For Dixville Notch)

Dixville Notch, a town with inhabitants numbering in the...well, around 75, has cast its votes in the New Hampshire primary. The town prides itself in being the first town in the first in the nation primary, but their aim in recent contests has been off (unlike the fictional town that stood in for them in 'The West Wing', in the episode of the same name - Hartsfield's Landing).

REPUBLICANS

John McCain - 4 votes
Mitt Romney - 2 votes
Rudy Giuliani - 1 vote

DEMOCRATS

Barack Obama - 7 votes
John Edwards - 2 votes
Bill Richardson - 1 vote

Those candidates not named did not receive any votes. Interesting stuff, but it's a tiny hamlet near the Canadian border in which 17 votes were cast - so let's not get worked up about it! But for a hungry news media on the eve of the primary, ready to get stuck into exit polls and punditry, it provides a morsel of what's to come.

Tomorrow's New Hampshire Primary

Voters head to the polls tomorrow for the first in the nation primary in New Hampshire. The stakes are incredibly high for some candidates, with the contest tomorrow representing what is probably make or break time for their campaigns. This is an important contest tomorrow for a lot of reasons, particularly to do with the expectations facing a lot of candidates.

So let's have a look at the different candidates and see what the stakes are:

DEMOCRATS

Barack Obama - He's got to be feeling pretty good right now. For Obama, tomorrow's result won't threaten him immensely. If he wins it becomes even more likely that he's the nominee. If he loses, then it's on to South Carolina for the next round of the battle. From the most recent polls it's possible that Obama will win in New Hampshire, which would help him show that he is likely to be the nominee going into South Carolina and Super-Duper Tuesday.

Hillary Clinton - She has to win to remain a front-runner, otherwise she slips decisively into second place and then has a huge amount of work to do to pull things back. If she wins then it's a proper contest between these two candidates. One took Iowa, one took New Hampshire - the jury's out on who wins and we move on to the next contest. If she loses, it comes hard for her to reassert herself and clinch nomination. The momentum would move away from her and towards Obama decisively.

John Edwards - He's said in recent days he's in it to the convention, but if that's not to be a nonsense proposal he needs a second place win at minimum. Even with that second place, it still doesn't mean he's going to be the nominee, just that he has reason to continue the fight. If he's going to be the nominee he's going to need to win here really, waiting until South Carolina isn't enough. And that's not going to happen.

Bill Richardson - Needs to pull off a surprise upset over Edwards to get a ticket to move on. It's not going to happen, though. He may remain in the race and put that last sliver of hope on the Nevada caususes, but it won't amount to much.

REPUBLICANS

John McCain - He needs to win to throw himself into contention, and it looks like he's going to be able to pull it off. It makes him a player in the process and gives him some doubt that the campaign everyone had written off in the summer still has a shot at becoming the Republican nominee. If he doesn't win in the state that seems to appeal most to McCain, it's very difficult to justify his continued presence in the race.

Mitt Romney - If he loses tomorrow he's done. He's sunk so much money into the two early states and he's probably going to lose both of them. He's spent more in New Hampshire than all of his competitors *combined*. If he can't win by spending that much money, then he's not going to be the nominee and he's wasted a significant chunk of his personal fortune on being an ass on national TV. I won't regret seeing Romney leave the race. Not one little bit.

Mike Huckabee - If he comes in the top four he's still in it going into South Carolina without damage. If he's in the top three it makes him more of a front-runner, because he ended up doing unexpectedly well in a state that isn't a natural fit for him and has an advantage going into Michigan and South Carolina. If he comes outside the top four then he's slightly damaged, but won't be going anywhere until later contests.

Fred Thompson - Has written off New Hampshire and is putting all his eggs in South Carolina's basket. I don't know how wise that is. If he's in the top four he's drawing breath. Lower and his nomination is written off.

Rudy Giuliani - See Thompson. He has the same problems, except he's waiting longer to Florida. He's seemed a little out of the fray it in the past couple of debates, and you can see that because none of the other candidates really went out of their way to criticise him and take him down. Needs a top four win otherwise he's damaged (though not as much as Thompson will be.)

Ron Paul - He has the capacity to surprise, but whatever he polls he's in this for however long he wants. His band of followers are too dedicated to let him pull out except on his own terms.