Political Currents: Don’t Count Clinton Out Yet

Some interesting poll developments in the wake of Iowa’s caucuses, and with the New Hampshire primaries unfolding today–from Real Clear Politics aggregation of polling data:

Mike Huckabee has moved to the front of the pack (barely) at 20.7% to McCain’s 20% and Giuliani’s 19%. The freshest poll data, from USA Today and Rasmussen, have Huckabee’s chances of nomination at 25% (a 5% point lead) and 20% (1% point lead), respectively, while Romney is at 9% and 15%, respectively. Looking at the one year chart comparisons, Huckabee’s surge since late November has allowed him to leapfrog past Romney, and it coincides with Giuliani’s fall from near 30% to below 20%. It will be interesting to see what strategy and tactics the Giuliani team employs given recent developments.

[Addendum: Barron's Online (subscription required) makes an odd claim, saying that Romney "has a unique advantage over Huckabee in New Hampshire. According to that state's census data, 92,000 people migrated from Massachusetts to New Hampshire between 2000 and 2005. Not one resident of Iowa or Arkansas moved to New Hampshire during this period." We would normally refer to such a "migration" as "emigration". Without knowing the specific factors at work, or where the blame should be placed, it's nonetheless clear that a Mass emigration occurred during Romney's tenure as governor!]

Of interest in the Democrats’ race is that Clinton’s slide has not been as bad as Giuliani’s (she’s had a much stronger presence in Iowa and New Hampshire than Giuliani, which may be a factor). This despite reports of her becoming a bit choked up by a supporter’s question in New Hampshire yesterday, and an extraordinary number of political pundits writing off her campaign. See the TimesOnline’s pre-postmortem of the Clinton campaign, and Gerard  Baker’s interesting assessment of her chances:

…[Clinton] doesn’t really get what the clamour for change among Democrats is about.  She did what she always does now in answer to the challenge that she does not represent enough change, by reeling off a list of things she has actually managed to do in Washington.

It’s an impressive list – children’s health insurance, support for US troops – but as important and concrete as these things are they don’t seem to match up to the much bigger, almost spiritual dimension of change that I think Obama represents.  The critique of Obama – fairly – is that what he says is all very inspirational but hopelessly vague and ethereal. But Hillary’s problem is that this is what people seem to like.  The desire for change is about more than a desire to change a few policies here and there. it is about transforming the very nature of politics and the fact is, with her baggage, Hillary just can’t do that.

Clinton is now employing a "Where’s the Beef?" approach to Obama’s candidacy. Whether it  succeeds remains to be seen, but we’re not ready to count her our yet. A one year chart provides visual confirmation that she is still in the race, having fallen back to the 38% level she enjoyed for most of 2007. Removing the older Pew data from December, she is tied with Obama at 33% in one poll, and ahead of him by 4% in another. Those are not white-flag-waving numbers, not yet anyways. Assuming the fresher 33% data is more accurate, it simply means that the nomination is now a real contest. If her numbers fall further, then it could be over, but it’s by no means clear that she has fumbled the game away yet (with apologies to Senator Clinton, who does not think that political contests should be viewed as–well, contests).

Obama and Edwards have both enjoyed higher numbers since Iowa, which could be due to momentum, consolidation of the field, and/or other factors. This presents some real strategic intrigue, as an Obama+Edwards ticket might be seen as more electable than a Clinton+TBD one. Their two camps have been targeting her. If they start to coordinate their efforts (some suspect they already do), we’d fully expect such a ticket. But while Edwards might be a good running mate for Obama, we don’t think his economic views will provide much help.

Idle Speculator: Huckabee and Obama

Please see our latest Idle Speculator piece, an assessment of the Obama and Huckabee victories in Iowa and their respective tax platforms: http://www.symmetrycapital.net/idlespeculation/20080104.pdf

Further reading:

Alan Fram of Associated Press reports that Huckabee’s supporters were overwhelmingly driven by religious motives, and that Obama was helped by turnout among younger voters: http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hWo9LoUnPeka7_l2cOeaLRisAJ5gD8TV5IJ80

The Economist’s take, "A call for change", is available at http://www.economist.com/daily/news/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10473364&top_story=1 

CSM also sees the results as an endorsement of political change: http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0104/p25s03-uspo.html 

NPR looks ahead to New Hampshire: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=17844497 

Economist: Obama Makes Choice Tougher for Democrats

The Economist offered this interesting take on the ascendant candidacy of Sen. Barack Obama:

Mr Obama is now ahead, by a slender margin, in Iowa…This week he seemed to have eliminated the gap in New Hampshire…Some polls now even show him ahead in South Carolina, the third important Democratic race, where until very recently Mrs Clinton was leading by more than 20 points. But Mrs Clinton still has a formidable machine behind her. For Mr Obama to sneak past her, he needs everything to go right (whilst she just needs him to trip up once); but there is now a real contest.

 

In principle, this is a good thing. Democrats deserve a choice. Even if Mrs Clinton prevails, it is better that she has been tested. But what about Mr Obama himself?

…Offering America a chance to heal its divisions is a powerful selling point. But like Mrs Clinton’s competence, it is not enough. Mr Obama still needs to do more to show how he defines change, as opposed just to personifying it. If he can somehow do that, though, he will be a hard man to beat.

___