The absentee ballot for the New York primary election arrived at my house last Monday, and I wanted to mail it from my house before I left. This meant that I had to choose my GOP nominee before I left Tuesday morning.

For the past few months, I've honestly had no idea who to support. I like Rudy Giuliani because of his great successes with crime and the economy and his tough stance on national security. Sure, he had some issues with social matters, but as long as he nominated conservative judges (which he has pledged to do) it really isn't a problem. He also seemed the most electable at the time (which is beginning to change, but we'll see on Super Tuesday...).

I also have little to complain about with Mitt Romney. He is appealing to Republicans. His flip-flops are over the course of years, as opposed to Kerry's which were over the course of minutes, indicating what could be honest changes of opinion (or catering to voters, of course). He has extensive private sector experience and did a decent job as MA governor.

Either of these I would support in a national race for president with little to complain about.

But in the South Carolina debate last week, Fred Thompson shined. The reason I haven't been an outspoken supporter for him is because he hasn't been an outspoken supporter for himself. He has shown little passion or interest throughout his campaign which has turned me and I think many potential voters. But at the debate, he was on fire. He was making jokes, calling out Mike Huckabee (see below), and proving that he truly believes in Reagan and all the great things he represents.

Do I honestly believe he will get nominated? Granted, his chances are slim if nonexistent. But a strong showing in any of the upcoming states could give him some airtime and publicity. And the message of Reagan has always won, if delivered correctly, in a national election. If this change of face is permanent and he can get some airtime, who knows what can happen in the fickle creature that is the GOP race.

So I checked the box for Fred, because it was the right decision that I hope many Republicans will make. If he doesn't get the nomination, that's all right. There are tolerable alternatives. But if there is a true conservative in the race, I cannot ignore him.

Mitt Romney's victory over John McCain in Michigan last night further complicates the GOP race, and continues to prove how this is by no means a normal election. Momentum does not seem to be important to voters right now, but I think this victory signals a shift that will happen nationally in the next few states: identity politics to issues.

In Iowa, Huckabee won because of the turnout of evangelical voters that feel they must vote for him because he himself is an evangelical. He is liberal on many key conservative issues, such as taxes, immigration, and national security; he is, however, forgiven by his evangelical compatriots. In New Hampshire, McCain won (again) as the turnout of Independents greatly benefit him (again). Polls touting Obama as the obvious Democrat winner probably convinced many Independents to vote for McCain instead.

In Michigan, however, Romney's family history (his father was a MI governor), while I'm sure it didn't hurt, probably isn't why he won. Romney has been spending a lot of time and money in that state trying to appeal to conservatives and Republicans, something Huckabee and McCain seem to have no interest in doing. Giuliani and Thompson are doing the same as Romney, but in they had no presence in Michigan to speak of. I believe that as this race goes on, Huckabee and McCain will fade away as nominees who are running a very broad, shallow campaign as opposed to the deep, narrow campaigns of Romney, Giuliani, and Thompson.

Outlook

The GOP field is now very cluttered, and it could stay that way for another couple weeks. If Thompson can pull a second or even definitive third in South Carolina, he can become a serious candidate with a revitalized campaign. If he gains some airtime and momentum, his true conservatism could attract Republican voters in other states.

Huckabee will have to fight in SC, where his numbers have begun to slip, and in the long run he will need to extend his appeal beyond evangelicals. I do not think he can.

Giuliani's next target is Florida, and he could very well win it. His lack of any presence thus far is damaging him greatly, but if he pulls through in Florida, he has a shot. He is also in the top tier in many Super Tuesday states. If he wins in Florida, we'll have yet another major candidate to consider in this crazy contest.

McCain is an interesting study. He leads in the national polls by nearly 10 points (RCP average), but I really do not think he can get the nomination. Against a Democrat, he could probably do very well, but in the race against the 3 aforementioned targeting conservatives, he will begin to have trouble in closed primaries that are only available to GOP voters (unlike NH and MI).

Tonight is the Michigan primary election for the Republicans. Mitt Romney holds a nearly 3 point lead over John McCain according to the latest RCP average, but of course anything can happen. What I'm more interested is what the media has been proclaiming will be the fallout for Romney depending on this election.

After Iowa, commentators stated that Romney suffered a devastating loss that could only be saved by a win in New Hampshire. After coming second in New Hampshire, he is still alive and well. In fact, he actually has the most delegates of all the Republicans. Now all I am hearing is that Romney needs to win in Michigan to have any chance.

How much longer will this go on? Once we get into the closed primaries, I think the race will truly begin to take shape. Michigan and NH are both open, meaning Independents and even Democrats can vote for GOP candidates. And if you watch McCain and Huckabee in the debates, it's as if they are targeting more liberal voters. This strategy will work for now, but once the closed primaries begin, candidates like Romney, Giuliani, and Thompson are going to do better as they campaign for conservative Republicans.

The point is, don't discount Romney or even Rudy at this point. A late break is even possible, though unlikely, for Thompson, after an incredible performance at the SC debate. Hell, he got my primary vote just for that. It'll be interesting to watch!

Barack Obama has been campaigning on one thing and one thing only: Change. His posters proudly proclaim "Change we can believe in." He talks about change and how he is a new face to revolutionize Washington.

All this may be true, but what is the point of using the word "change"? Why not just explain your solutions to the problems with our government right now?

The answer is that he is afraid that these solutions are going to be unpopular. By using the term "change", he can effectively mask all of his ideas. His speeches sound great, as he hails himself as a new John F. Kennedy and Martin Luther King. But after you hear them, stop for a second and think about what he said. There is absolutely no substance, it's amazing! In his speech after New Hampshire, he quickly repeats the typical campaigning Democrat mantra: healthcare for the unfortunate, middle class tax cuts, end the war in Iraq. But all of this pales in comparison to his cries for change and bipartisanship.

Recently I was having a pleasant debate with a liberal Obama supporter, and I explained that liberalism doesn't win in this country, which is why he will probably lose in November. But he stated, word for word: "Liberalism isn't running. Change is." So I asked, what does he want to change? This friend begins to rattle off the things Barack wants to do. And I stop him and say, that's liberalism! "Change" is just an alias for liberal "solutions" to the problems we face. I'm as ready to admit the problems with our public policy, but the difference is how we solve these problems.

Hillary and even Mitt Romney have embraced this concept, although Romney is saying "Washington is broken." This is at least more accurate, saying that we have problems to fix rather than go and change everything. I still have issues with it though.

A quick note on bipartisanship. On the Tonight Show, Huckabee said that we have to end "horizontal politics", vis a vis left vs. right. Instead we have to go "up", not down. This is not a conservative. Conservatives know that we can only take the country up by going right first. Furthermore, Barack's record is hardly bipartisan, voting with is party on some 97% of bills. I'm all for that, as I just made clear, but do not try to fool us or yourself, Mr. Obama, by claiming to be "bipartisan."

While I was distracted from the South Carolina Republican debate Thursday night by an incredible Sabres game, I was left in shock and awe when I read some of the excerpts and recaps from it. I wish I hadn't missed it, because it appears that the candidates appeared for what they truly are.

There are two candidates that caught my eye in this debate, and definitely for the better. They are Fred Thompson and Mike Huckabee. Mike Huckabee exposed himself as the liberal, anti-Reagan that he is. Here is one excerpt in particular:

"The Reagan coalition certainly has not seen those same middle class, working-class Republicans feeling a part of the Republican Party as they should. Over the years, sometimes Republicans have thought that one part of the coalition was more important than the other. I think they're all important, and we need to recapture them. But we need to make sure that we can communicate that our party is just as interested in helping the people who are single moms, who are working two jobs, and still just barely paying the rent; as we are the people at the top of the economy."

What is the theme of that speech? Classes. Class warfare. The difference between the classes. The failure of the "coalition," an allusion right there to what became known as the Reagan Coalition. That monologue essentially exposed Huckabee as someone who does not believe in the success of what Reagan stood for, who does not believe in the success of conservatism. His Arkansas record is hardly conservative, and his campaign is populist rather than conservative (which is a veiled form of liberalism: using big government to help the individual).

This provides a nice segue to the other distinguished individual from last night: Fred Dalton Thompson. He's been proclaimed by pundits as the Reagan in this race, but he hasn't really been able to prove it. He hasn't campaigned, and his depth has not allowed the opportunity for him to provide 30 seconds sound bites to the media (resulting in his being underplayed). He has never shown fire or passion. But last night, he was on fire. He was a conservative. He was Reagan, and he called out Huckabee. Here's what he said:

"Governor Huckabee's campaign manager said it accurately in terms of what they believe. They believe that it is over. This is a battle for the heart and soul of the Republican Party and its future. On the one hand, you have a Reagan revolution; you have the Reagan coalition of limited government, and strong national security. On the other hand, you have the direction that Governor Huckabee would take us in. He would be a Christian leader, but he would also bring about liberal economic policies, liberal foreign policies. He believes we have an arrogant foreign policy in the tradition of "blame America first." He believes that Guantanamo should be closed down and those enemy combatants brought here to the United States to find their way into the court system eventually. He believes in taxpayer funded programs for illegals, as he did in Arkansas. He has the endorsement of the National Education Association, and the NEA said it was because of his opposition to vouchers. He said he would sign a bill that banned smoking nationwide. So much for federalism, so much for states' rights, so much for individual rights. That's not the model of the Reagan coalition, that's the model of the Democratic Party."

BAM! Thompson: 1, Huckabee: 0. This is what America and Republicans especially needed to hear. This was excellent PR for conservatism: Thompson proved to be one, and he proved Huckabee not to be one.

In a previous post, I stated that Thompson is an irrelevant factor in this race because of his lack of energy and campaigning. But this moment is what he needs, and it provides that energy and passion. I really hope he can build off of this, and I hope Republicans start to consider him more seriously.

I will be greatly disappointed if Huckabee is nominated. In fact, I will be angry. Huckabee makes me angry. I wish he knew the damage he is doing to the conservative movement and to the future of this great party that has maintained control in at least one branch in Washington every year (except 92-93) since 1980.

Thompson is officially my favorite candidate, and depending on his success over the next 3 weeks, he may just get my vote.

A major question going into the election process that voters have to ask is that of electability.

The Democrats

The Democratic field only consists of 2 candidates: Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. Electability doesn't appear to be going through the minds of any voters at this point, which is actually typical of Democrats. Clinton has a major advantage in the nomination race: She is the establishment candidate. And in the Democratic Party, the establishment candidate has always won. 2000: Al Gore defeats insurgent Bill Bradley. 2004: John Kerry defeats insurgent Howard Dean. It is very likely that now, in 2008, Hillary Clinton will defeat insurgent Barack Obama.

But in a national race, electability is a difficult question between these. They are both very similar on the issues, but likability is a big difference. Barack Obama is just more likable than Hillary Clinton. This gives him a much greater chance over any Republican, none of which seem to have the likability that Obama enjoys.

The Republicans

The GOP field is interesting because each candidate has individual obstacles to overcome. However, what will become the primary difference between the candidates will be the issues and conservatism. None of the candidates are Ronald Reagan, but some are more conservative than others. Conservatism wins in this country every time it runs against liberalism, and Republicans need to choose a conservative. This rules out both McCain and Huckabee, who are blatantly liberal on several issues, not least of which include immigration and taxes. If we nominate any of the candidates except for these two, I believe that ticket can defeat either Democrat.

The Last Word

For the Democrats, the most electable nationally is probably Barack Obama, not because of the issues but because of how likable he is. For the Republicans, any candidate other than Huckabee or McCain can defeat either Democrat.

No one, and I mean no one, saw this coming. Hillary Clinton won a close yet decisive victory over Barack Obama in the New Hampshire Democratic primary. It was a major surprise; as I type this, the RealClearPolitics poll average for NH still has Obama in the lead by nearly 9 points.

The main reason relates to the Republican results, which were somewhat surprising: John McCain won, as expected, but by a somewhat greater and more decisive margin than predicted by most. Romney was supposedly gaining ground, but instead he lost by nearly the same amount he did in Iowa.

Both results are connected to one major factor: Independent voters. Registered Independents are allowed to vote for any party candidate in the NH primary, and Independents have historically been very popular with the moderate, mixed-bag John McCain (he even won in 2000 over George W. Bush for the same reason). What pollsters were predicting was a more even split in Independent votes to favor Obama (which was accurate: the Independents that did vote Democrat voted for Barack); however, nearly all the Independents voted Republican for McCain, giving him a greater margin than expected and a narrow loss for Obama.

John Edwards, too, had an inadvertent effect, causing a split of the anti-Clinton vote between him and Barack. The fact that Edwards didn't drop out tonight will continue to help her.

Outlook

For the Democrats: I have been predicting Hillary Clinton as the Democratic nominee ever since the beginning, and after this win I am going to stand behind it. An Obama win is entirely plausible, but Clinton has the organization and base that Obama now needs to build. She is leading big in Nevada, California, and New York; but Obama still leads big in South Carolina. It's impossible to say how the momentum will affect either candidate.

For the Republicans: I cannot make any certain predictions. Michigan is going to be a big barometer. It is a dead heat between Romney and Huckabee for first, Giuliani and McCain for second. Giuliani is the man to watch for the next month: he could pull ahead in some of the bigger states such as Florida, California, and then a handful on Super Tuesday.

Just a quick prediction for NH:

Democrats:

Barack Obama, no question. He is going to win in NH and do very well. He might even win with over 10 percentage points, which could do serious damage to Clinton's national campaign.

Republicans:

This field is a virtual tie between John McCain and Mitt Romney. John McCain will benefit from the fact that Independents can vote in the primary in NH. However, Romney is catching up fast and it's too soon to say McCain is going to clean up. It is going to be extremely close, but I'm going to give McCain a very narrow victory. I'm not trying to avoid being wrong, but don't be surprised if Romney clinches a close victory himself.


Bottom Line:

Obama wins big, McCain wins narrowly.

Let's dive right into it, shall we? Iowa was only a few days ago, on January 3rd, and it brought some interesting results. Here are some things to keep in mind about what happened, how it happened, and what possible results could be:

-------------------------------------------

The 2008 nomination process is proving to be just as exciting as we all expected! A quick recap: In the Iowa Caucus, Mike Huckabee took the delegates for the Republicans at 34%, followed by Mitt Romney (25%) and then distantly by a (virtually) tied Fred Thompson and John McCain (13%). Ron Paul was around 11%, and Rudy Giuliani was nowhere to be seen around 4%. For the Democrats, Barack Obama came in a solid first place with 38%, followed by John Edwards (30%) and Hillary Clinton (29%). Bill Richardson was next at 2%, and Chris Dodd dropped out of the race.


REPUBLICANS

How did it happen?

Mike Huckabee has been leading in Iowa for a couple weeks, but the average of all the major polls showed his lead by under 1%. Clearly, his victory was by a far greater margin. The secret to his victory tonight was the turnout of evangelical voters. According to the entrance polls, 60% of Iowa Republicans identified themselves as Christian evangelicals, and 45% of this group pledged their support to Huckabee. Furthermore, Christian evangelicals are less likely to support a Mormon, further putting Romney at a disadvantage. Identity politics clearly gave Huckabee a huge leg-up; he spent about $400,000 in Iowa compared to Romney’s $8 million. Huckabee’s record is not conservative, but Midwestern evangelicals identify more closely with the buck-toothed southern minister than the slick northeastern politician.

What does it mean?

Mike Huckabee did very well in Iowa, but the only real surprise was the margin by which he won. Polls had him pegged as the victor in Iowa for the past 2 weeks, and the fact that his evangelical background attracted that crucial voting bloc is not an upset. He has a very difficult, uphill battle ahead of him. He is off the map in New Hampshire, a full 20% below Romney and McCain. While this victory is sure to boost him, he will not have the massive base support he enjoyed in Iowa. Without a New Hampshire victory, he may quickly lose the momentum of this race. What will really make a difference for Huckabee is the Michigan primary which is on January 15. It is his next chance to seal his place as a top-tier candidate, but it will be tough. Giuliani and Romney are both polling well there, and if McCain wins in New Hampshire it will be another competitor he needs to overcome. He has a significant lead in South Carolina as well.

Tonight brought a very disappointing result for Mitt Romney. He spent more money than any Republican in Iowa and his big chance went south. However, it’s not the end for Romney; in fact, it may be a blessing in disguise. This could help get his name out there and increase his publicity, which can’t hurt; I foresee him being thought of as “second-place in Iowa” as opposed to “the guy who lost in Iowa.” New Hampshire is his next big chance, where McCain is the man to beat. Luckily for him, his massive personal wealth will allow him to devote a lot of efforts in both Michigan and New Hampshire, a luxury that McCain and Giuliani do not enjoy.

Fred Thompson’s results tonight epitomize his place in this election. He is worth mentioning, but really doesn’t have a chance to win this election. His supporters see him as the only true Reaganesque conservative, but he isn’t leading anywhere at the moment. If he had pulled a solid third in Iowa, he might have had something to build on; but he came in a very close fourth with McCain. I don’t foresee him lasting much longer in this race unless he can drum up some real support in a major state, which is unlikely.

John McCain had a good night in Iowa. Even though he was in third place, his biggest fear was averted, namely a Romney victory. Romney is his biggest threat in New Hampshire, and a win in Iowa could have given him a big boost to beat McCain. But because of Huckabee’s victory, we might see a stall in Romney’s campaign, giving McCain a clear path to the 24 delegates from that state. But it’s too early to tell how Iowa will affect Romney’s (and McCain’s, for that matter) support.

Ron Paul? While a fundraising miracle, his supporters do nothing more than log in to their Pay-Pal accounts and put up signs in the middle of the night. He has a huge cult following, but they are far and few between. He remains in the single digits, remaining so insignificant that not only does he have no chance of winning, but he won’t even affect other candidates. Don’t expect to hear more from this one.

Rudy Giuliani was conspicuously absent from tonight’s proceedings, both in the numbers and in the commentary. But this is hardly a surprise. He barely spent any money or time on Iowa, focusing instead on the big states. This could either be smart or stupid: he does not have as much money as Romney, and he saved a lot by not campaigning in Iowa (where he probably wouldn’t have done well anyways); however, the momentum from winners in these states could overcome his efforts elsewhere. He’s way down in New Hampshire, but is part of the 3- (and maybe 4-) way tie we are seeing take shape in Michigan. But his real chance will be in Nevada and then Florida. If he can win in Florida, that victory can propel him into Super Tuesday (February 5), where over 20 states are holding primaries in which he has good chances (such as New York and California, which total 274 delegates alone, and over 1000 that day alone).

The Last Word

Huckabee’s Iowa win is significant, but only means that the field is becoming more cluttered rather than clearer. His success probably won’t transfer into New Hampshire, which will allow either Romney or McCain to gain some momentum as well. However, Giuliani, while completely absent in these first two states, is someone to watch as a late-breaker. He is hoping that his decision to focus on late, big states will overcome the momentum gained by winners of the early ones. Fred Thompson and Ron Paul are slowly descending into oblivion.

DEMOCRATS

How did it happen?


Barack Obama won Iowa for the Democrats, but the real story here is Clinton’s third-place finish. The entrance polls tell the story: 45% of the voters claim that change is the most important quality in the candidate, and 50% of those said Barack was the candidate most able to bring about change. Ipso facto, Barack wins. Turnout was also a huge surprise for the Democrats. Many of their caucus places were full, lines going out the door, and actual turnout exceeded expectations by double, in some cases quadruple. Some speculate dealing behind the scenes designed to hurt Hillary, but it is all hypothetical and also requires a detailed explanation of the caucus process which I will not go into here. Obama’s supporters showed up in huge numbers, giving him the solid victory most were expecting.


What does it mean?

Barack Obama’s victory was not a big surprise. He has been leading significantly in the polls for a much longer time and by a much greater margin than Huckabee was. This win is obviously important, giving him momentum and propelling him into the next stage of the race. However, the Clinton Machine is just that: a machine, and it is going to be difficult to take down.

John Edwards did well tonight, and he could not have expected much more. He defeated the “inevitable” Hillary Clinton, and his jubilation was evident and appeared genuine as he spoke in front of cheering fans after the results came in. But it is not easy to say how this will play out for Edwards in the long haul. He has been relatively under the radar in this race, but still bringing up the rear of the top tier. He is polling well behind Obama in his home state of South Carolina, but he may be able to pull ahead after this win and some serious campaigning.

Tonight was all about Hillary Clinton, and not in a good way. This loss is a massive blow to her campaign. It had everything it needed to win Iowa, but it failed. She is not a likable candidate, and I think she may be confusing voters. She has been having trouble coming up with an image that works, but she can’t settle on one. Sometimes she is the woman, sometimes one of the guys. Sometimes she is the experienced commander-in-chief, sometimes she is for change. In her speech from Des Moines after the returns came in, she rattled off her experience but also used the word “change” repeatedly. She is expected to spend tomorrow proving her healthcare plan’s superiority to Obama’s. Her campaign is far from derailed, and tonight I still say that she will win the Democratic nomination. She is leading significantly in most of the next several primaries: 7 points in New Hampshire, 20 points in Nevada, 25 points in Florida; she also holds a very slight lead in South Carolina. She remains over 20 points up nationally. Of course, Iowa’s effect remains to be seen, but her lead is substantial and could simply recover from this blow. New Hampshire is historically more crucial for the Democrats than Iowa anyways.

Bill Richardson’s fourth place finish with 2% shows the irrelevance of every other Democrat. Chris Dodd dropped out tonight, and I’m sure most will follow. Obama, Clinton, and Edwards each represent the three major wings of the Democratic Party, and the others don’t really have anything else to offer. Obama is the symbol of the new Democrats, campaigning as a moderate liberal but mostly just offering an alternative to George W. Bush. Hillary is the symbol of the 1990s, trying to remind voters of the peace and prosperity of that decade and her ability to bring us back to that tranquility. Finally, Edwards is the progressive uber-liberal, openly touting wealth redistribution and anti-American rhetoric.

The Last Word

While a big victory for Obama, the Iowa Caucus remained about Clinton. She lost big, and it is a massive blow to her campaign. However, it is entirely possible that she can recover and maintain her significant leads she currently holds in future primaries. The question is whether her inevitability has been completely lost among Democratic voters, and whether Obama as a viable alternative will dethrone her. The polls of the next few days, from New Hampshire and elsewhere, will tell us how the Iowa results will shape the field. I don’t believe Edwards is for real nationally, due to his extreme liberalism that is unpopular with Americans. But primaries do attract extremes of both parties, and his victory over Clinton could draw more Edwards supporters out to the polls. Again, time will tell. He may just find himself as a running mate once again to attract southern and mega-liberal voters. In any case, the only real players in the Democratic field are these three. If the most conservative candidate can only garner 2% in Iowa, the top tier is closed and sealed.

Well,

So is born another addition to the conservative blogosphere. Primary topics will be purely political and, as the title implies, from the right angle. The next few months will focus on that most important of political events in the U.S. that only happens every four years: the presidential election. This election is particularly interesting and should be fun to predict and analyze.

I hope you find my political analyses interesting and useful! Feel free to leave comments or questions and I will get back to you.

Thanks all,

BK