The Belgravia Dispatch: More Predictions

January 08, 2008

More Predictions

In haste, my rapid-fire gut on NH, undertaken at the risk of tarnishing my accurate calls re: Iowa.

Democrats

Obama: The big 'mo. Youth factor, independents and 'undeclareds' bandwagon. Something of a 'RFK factor' is propelling him now, so he'll continue to snowball (but let's not yet get overly complacent). He noses up to or clears the 40% mark. Range 39-43%. For a hard number, I'm going to say he goes north of 40%, let's say 42%.

HRC: Below 30%, say 27-29%. She's cratering now, and while one almost can't help feeling sorry for her, it's frankly hard to, not least knowing with near certitude how dirty the Clinton campaign will fight after a defeat in New Hampshire and heading into February 5th. But I'm afraid they'll be hard-pressed to find attack-lines that stick. Obama is not some totally omnipotent Teflon-Man, but it's going to take more than poo-pooing his ability to make good speeches, or saying he can't win a match-up in the general, or that he's no JFK, RFK or MLK. Such attacks will increasingly feel like thin, petty gruel. Nor will mawkish tears work, even if they're heartfelt and genuine, and/or born of exhausted frustration.

Going forward, if Obama snags Culinary Union Workers endorsement in NV and wins SC, Hilllary is reduced to Rudy-dom (fitting somehow, no?), that is, casting about for major (and increasingly improbable) turnarounds in some big states (CA, FL) after being closed out for all of the seminal events of Chapter 1. Grim tidings for the Clinton dynasty, I'm afraid, barring major surprises indeed.

Edwards: 17-19ish%. He turned in a good debate performance recently but is still a southerner way up north, and HRC still has loyalists aplenty (which isn't to say her campaign isn't in quasi-meltdown, per above). And I'd argue--despite Edwards trying to portray Obama as having some 'academic bent' (e.g. intimating he doesn't have the real fire in the belly to create so-called 'change')--many of the Edwards/Obama 11th hour waverers will end up tilting towards Barack.

Richardson: Energy prices are a particularly big deal in NH this go around reportedly (unsurprisingly), and Richardson seems to be benefiting a bit from this given people recall his related Cabinet gig. Also, some good exposure for him given he was in a relatively more high-profile debate w/ Kucinich not included and Dodd and Biden out. He clears 5%-6%, if just.

Republicans

McCain: 'No Surrender' in gritty NH Hampshire--with a long history of liking underdogs, a plurality of independents, and where many espy Mitt's essential phoniness--looks to be playing pretty well. I say McCain comes out the winner. Still, Romney is a New Englander from a next door state, and he's no idiot. This will be close, especially as rather a few independents will steer Obama rather than McCain. Nonetheless, I predict McCain clears 32%, perhaps even 34%.

Romney: See above, and so get ready for more 'silver medalist' talk. I'm going to say 27-29%. Also, he's got cash, of course, so isn't going away anytime soon. Still, he's bloodied, and pugilists like Ed Rollins for Huck will land real blows as campaigns head south, with McCain simultaneously strengthening. I'm not saying Mitt's on life support yet, but he's in increasingly real danger if he comes in second in NH.

Huck: Decent momentum from Iowa, and perhaps siphoning a bit of Ron Paul's support as something of a 'protest vote', but nevertheless a southerner far from home (like Edwards). Still, the guitar-strumming, late-night talk-fest shtick might sell in some quarters. Let's give him 13-14%. If he comes in at this level (basically an arguably respectable 3rd), or even a smigden stronger percentage-wise, I like Huck's chances in the near to mid-term with some of the key action heading south. And as I alluded to above, Ed Rollins is a brass-tacks pro, armed with a strong BS detector, and with an instinct for the jugular better than most in the business. I expect more surprises emitting from this camp, therefore.

Ron Paul: I admit this is aspirational, but he ekes out ahead of Rudy, 10ish%. Putting it bluntly, people are mighty pissed in this country, and he's capturing quite a bit of that zeitgeist, obviously.

Rudy G (aka Jimmy Breslin's 'Small Man In Search of a Balcony'): He's been mostly MIA of late in NH, and will be making his stand later into February. Still, a gory start, with a dismal finish in Iowa and just 8-9% in NH, just behind Paul, I predict. I could be wrong on this, as it's a very close call, and again, I'm prejudiced given Rudy's foreign policy is so outrageously wacko that--even given the many nasty surprises of the Bush years--I am still stunned a major Presidential candidate in this country could hold such views. Thus my desire for Paul to visit a further humiliation on him, while also serving to better showcase the outrage of Fox News not including Paul in the recent debate.

Thompson: Dead man walking up there. Why is he wasting his time amidst the frozen tundra, so far from the cheery homefires down home, one wonders? At best, 3-4%.

P.S. More substantively, expect a piece on my take re: Obama's foreign policy in this space soon...

UPDATE: Well, time for some humble pie over here at B.D. I got a lot of predictions wrong this go around. C'est la vie. Guess we're in for a long ride, for both parties, re: who'll be the nominee. Look, I won't pretend not to be disappointed about Obama's loss in N.H., not least because I think he'd have a superior foreign policy to HRC's. I'll try to explain why soon. Until then, as I said, humble pie time...

...I should also add I agree w/ Sullivan's take here:

Part of me is crushed. But part of me is happy to see two candidates forced to battle it out in a long slog. We find out more that way. They grow more. More people get a say. That's a good thing. And I should say that although I remain a passionate Obama supporter among the Democrats, I also feel little compunction in recognizing that Clinton did have something of a personal breakthrough in the last few days. The brittle exterior cracked. What was beneath is more human and less calculated. She was forced to explain from the heart why she really wants to win. People responded. As they would. I have no doubt that Obama is the better candidate, for America and the world. And I believe after this very close race, he will go on to Nevada and South Carolina stronger for not winning in a wave of euphoria. Nothing worth winning comes easily. But Clinton is learning from Obama as he has from her. And both are growing as a result. This is a good thing.

Put differently, you might say the tears helped her some. Now we're in for a long, hard slog, one where we'll get to know better each candidates strengths and weaknesses.

Posted by Gregory at January 8, 2008 08:42 AM

Comments

Greg, do you secretly write for the Racing Form. The style of your predictions is precisely the same.

Appreciate your engagement!!

Michael

Posted by: michael pecherer at January 8, 2008 02:18 PM | Permalink to this comment

Michael-

I think what's at the heart of the matter, for all political aficionados, is the love of the game, the magic of the moment, and the desire to figure out and anticipate-correctly-who will cross the finish line..."and down the stretch they come." There are worse passions.

Also, the more chaotic the political moment, the more it seems to consume and delight the pundits. I'd venture that more words have been expressed and more ideas advanced on issues like Vietnam, Watergate and Iraq, to use some classics, than on all of those pedestrian issues combined that transpired since the Crucifixion.

Even on that matter, one might suppose, some spirited political guru probably couldn't wait to advise the world that Jesus was 2-1 over the Romans.

Posted by: resh at January 8, 2008 05:28 PM | Permalink to this comment

Resh, I am totally with you. I discovered this site during the last Presidential election and it provided a fantastic forum with lots of responsible and insightful participants. I even feel that I made some friends here, even though I haven't ever seen them in person. (I do keep a bottle of wine and a few beers in the frig in the event such occasion arises.) During the past three years I have been largely quiet although I do read the blog often. Now that we are back in the cycle, I am getting fired up again. I am a Republican and am moderate. I would add that I have 19 year old twins who are very fired up about Obama, reminding me of the JFK years when I was their age. If Obama brings the young people back into politics and gets them interested and involved, I would probably vote for him for that reason alone.

Michael

Posted by: michael pecherer at January 8, 2008 07:03 PM | Permalink to this comment

What's truly amazing--and ironic--is that these front loaded primaries were custom ordered to stack the deck for HRC: the presumption was that no other candidate could possibly obtain the financial resources and name recognition needed to fight a big, multi-front war on Feb. 5. Now it looks that HRC may not have time to revamp her image by Feb. 5. Had the primaries been more spread out, as in the past, she would have had time to reposition herself.

Also, with polls giving the Democratic Congress approval ratings of 20-25%, what were they thinking when they positioned HRC as an incumbent? If she had opposed Dems' cowering on Iraq, Iran, warrantless wiretappinng, politicization of justice, etc., etc. she might have made a name for herself as an independent thinker and leader in the old McCain mold. But instead, she chose to make herself part of the problem and shirk taking any leadership role on critical issues.

Posted by: JohnH at January 8, 2008 08:03 PM | Permalink to this comment

O_o, this is not looking good. I hate nail-biters...

Posted by: anti-neill at January 8, 2008 10:05 PM | Permalink to this comment

Well ... you DID do a superb job calling Iowa, GD. No one is perfect (smile). And it looks like you're right on the mark about Edwards at least.

I have a rather rudimentary question: doesn't the inherent differences between a caucus, like Iowa, and a primary, like New Hampshire, make it pretty difficult to extrapolate the results from the former to the latter? It almost seems like comparing apples to oranges. Not to go off topic, but would love someone to explain this to me. What are the pros and cons of a caucus vs a primary?

Posted by: jaej at January 8, 2008 10:48 PM | Permalink to this comment

In a nutshell, yes, big difference jaej. In the Dem (not Rep) caucus, everything is out in the open. They don't do secret ballots. And if a candidate doesn't get 15% of the vote in the polling place, they're considered non-viable, and their supporters need to go somewhere else (I guess they could just leave too, don't know). From what I could tell on TV last week, they seem pretty raucous, and I could see how someone could be cajoled/herded/intimidated into going over to a prevailing candidate by the other caucus-goers in the room.

The GOP IA caucus is basically a straight up secret ballot, and primaries are, well, primaries. The fact that your vote is ultimately secret has a huge effect, obviously, and many observers (including Obama supporters) are claiming that perhaps a "Bradley Effect" took place in NH, especially when you look at the results vs. the exit polling (most of the exit polls appeared to show a statistical dead heat, but it seems there will be about a 3% gap when all the precincts are done reporting).

As an Obama supporter myself, I of course would have loved to see him win this one. That's okay, though--means more work for the candidate to do to define himself for people out there like yourself and luka, who are obviously thoughtful but have significant concerns about him. Well, I hope you all will check out his position, as well as the other candidates. It goes without saying that the entire Dem field will be strong (imho), while I think the GOP would be crazy to nominate anyone other than McCain. We'll see. I hope my stomach can take the next 10 months.

Posted by: heh at January 8, 2008 11:26 PM | Permalink to this comment

Thanks for thoughtful and very articulate response, heh. As you can see, I'm something of a political novice. I wasn't happy with the Kerry nom in 2004, thought he was a weak choice, but assumed that the "powers that be" knew more than I. When he lost the election, I promised myself, I was going to be better informed and more involved in the next primary. So, thanks to all of you who have been so gracious about explaining the intricacies of the electoral system to me. I greatly appreciate it.

By the way, ITA with you about McCain. He seems to be the only reasonable GOP choice even given the age issue.

Posted by: jaej at January 8, 2008 11:53 PM | Permalink to this comment

"Bradley Effect"

This is why the Democrats only win with Southerners headlining the ticket.

Posted by: someotherdude at January 9, 2008 12:42 AM | Permalink to this comment

You should have parsed your Hillary comments a little better--would make it a little easier for you to eat them now. She won--it was a squeaker, but a victory is a victory is a victory. Hillary broke Senator Carter from Illinois' wave momentum, and now he has to play chess...and if you think Hillary will go down in a chess match without a fight, then you might want a second opinion on that. I'm a registered Republican and a military guy, and I admit I smiled when she took the podium for her victory speech...I thought "You go, girly". Don't forget what Dick Armey said about her--don't ever underestimate Hillary Clinton, because she is the smartest and toughest candidate in either field. You Obama types might want to take a deep breath, step back, and put on a crash helmet.

Posted by: Jeff at January 9, 2008 12:43 AM | Permalink to this comment

re: she's smartest and toughest

Hell, Dick Cheney is smart and tough, and rich, but noone would be stupid enough to run him for president.

Posted by: Frank Longer at January 9, 2008 03:19 AM | Permalink to this comment

You quite obviously have a strong bias against HRC Greg - which is why objective analysis demands circumspection re throwing support one way or the other - I really can't take anything you say seriously now since you obviously can't stand Hillary but get all warm inside for Obama - it's as if after Iowa you couldn't wait to start pissing on her grave and praising him most irrationally to god-like heights. Bit unseemly for an analyst, don't you think?

Posted by: Offerman at January 9, 2008 08:58 AM | Permalink to this comment

Of course you thought that Jeff. Your narrative squares well with the unsaid second part of your thought, which, let's face it, boils down to this: "I can't wait to see McCain beat the snot out of her in the general." Because, being a "Registered Republican and a military guy," do you expect us to believe you wouldn't pull the lever for McCain in November, if not before?

It's a perfectly reasonable, if cynical, position to take.

Posted by: hem at January 9, 2008 09:14 AM | Permalink to this comment

offerman: feel free to bring it on. there's no getting around I took it on the chin here and it's up on my little soap-box's front-page for all to see. so yeah, pile-on and call me a crap analyst. i've been called worse, and i can take it. Hell, it's probably true. still, i'll be trying to put up a sober analysis of obama's foreign policy soon. To the extent you're still interested (and I appreciate, even if you were, that you'd be coming to the table w/ a healthy dose of skepticism) pls do think about sticking w/ me for another go while i argue why an Obama Administration would have a superior foreign policy to a HRC one. But I'd understand if you're in no mood to give me that chance, not least given your (generally understandable, all told) sentiments expressed above.

Posted by: greg djerejian at January 9, 2008 09:37 AM | Permalink to this comment

for what it's worth Greg wouldn't read your blog if thought your analysis was crap - but certainly seemed appropriate to raise red flag re bias possibly compromising your take on things. Look forward to your defense of the Great Black Hope - although given the anodyne, youth addled enthusiasm his rhetoric seems to inspire I worry that you may resort to 'cult of personality' type musings about how he's going to change the rules of the game.

Posted by: Offerman at January 9, 2008 10:38 AM | Permalink to this comment

...because there's nothing like a cult of personality surrounding the Clinton's, is there offerman?

Pot, meet kettle

Posted by: hem at January 9, 2008 11:38 AM | Permalink to this comment

I don't see how Obama or Clinton can turn around traditional tribal politics in the US.

Most white boys (and girls) only feel comfortable voting for white men who promise to preserve the tribe.

Posted by: someotherdude at January 9, 2008 12:03 PM | Permalink to this comment

Shh--someone better not tell all my white friends they're voting for the wrong dude!

Posted by: hem at January 9, 2008 12:13 PM | Permalink to this comment

Greg:

I wouldn't be too hard on yourself. You called the GOP side pretty well, and you had lots of company on miscalling the Dems. I will say, though, that your comparative advantage as a blogger is likely to continue to be foreign policy.

Offerman:

Everybody's got a bias. Nice things about blogs is generally everyone knows what it is going in.

As a matter of fact, I'd be very interested in why greg has a bias against Hillary. I have a feeling it isn't just the Late Roman Republic feel of electing the wife after electing the son that gives me pause.

Posted by: Appalled Moderate at January 9, 2008 12:58 PM | Permalink to this comment

I'm interested in that question as well. I'd love to see a comparison/contrast type of essay from GD that focuses on the foreign policy strengths and weaknesses of Obama vs HRC.

Posted by: jaej at January 9, 2008 02:08 PM | Permalink to this comment

My above comment is in reference to Appalled Moderate's interest in GD's apparent bias toward HRC. Haven't yet mastered the whole "quote" thing, sorry.

Posted by: jaej at January 9, 2008 02:11 PM | Permalink to this comment

A note in defense of Rudy: If it is established that Ahmadinejad is Hitler, then Il Duce offers the best chance for rapprochement with Iran.

Posted by: Mahmoud at January 10, 2008 01:20 AM | Permalink to this comment

I have read (probably from some link on Sullivan, I don't remember) that the polsters pegged Obama's support, but HRC's operation turned out a hidden reservoir of older women to give Hillary a big boost.

If only our leaders were as adept at finding whether or not dictators have WMDs as they are at finding supporters to roust on election day.

Posted by: Dan at January 10, 2008 01:29 PM | Permalink to this comment

McCain is a racist. John McCain was overtly racist in the SC debate, read it here:
John McCain's racism in SC debate
Unfortunately it took segregationist Governor Wallace to reveal the truth that "there's not a dime's worth of difference between" Republicans and Democrats. The Democrats willingly went along with the War in Iraq, suspension of Habeas Corpus, detaining protesters, banning books like "America Deceived' from Amazon, stealing private lands (Kelo decision), warrant-less wiretapping and refusing to investigate 9/11 properly. They are both guilty of treason.
Support Dr. Ron Paul and save this great nation.
Last link (before Google Books bends to gov't Will and drops the title):
America Deceived (book)

Posted by: John at January 13, 2008 01:49 AM | Permalink to this comment