Both races are more open this morning than they were last night - but that also means it was a much, much better night for the Democrats than the Republicans.
It was difficult to see how the Republican race could prove decisive. The impact has been to make it more confused, though with one clear casualty. The Mitt Romney campaign looks fatally wounded. (John Ellis has a brilliant robust dissection of what went wrong with the most 'politics as usual' campaign offered to Iowans; while Michael Tomasky points out that his $6.5 million Iowa campaign comes out at $300 a vote).
I very much doubt Mike Huckabee will make the nomination in the end - nor how there could be a winning electoral coalition for Huckabee in November, as his economic approach is unacceptable to a large part of the Republican party, while his social agenda will scare off key groups of swing voters. This is good news for the absent Rudy Giuliani and for John McCain, though McCain did not do particularly well. But there is no Republican unity candidate - and that is going to affect their ability to mobilise in November.
Obama won big - by a striking seven point margin, exceeding expectations. The concentrated burst of primaries make timing matter more in 2008 than ever before. They may not pull it off, but right now, the Obama campaign have got everything right.
John Edwards edged Clinton for second place: a strong showing in such a competitive race. But it may prove the high point of his campaign, and may not be enough to keep his candidacy going into the Southern primaries after New Hampshire. Clinton-Obama will become a compelling media frame and Edwards will struggle to stay visible. What happens to Edwards fairly strong base of support in the South is an important unknown factor.
It is far, far too early to write Hillary Clinton off. This morning, she is probably still the favourite and frontrunner for the nomination. But for how long? I can see three strategic problems for the Clinton pitch, going into the next round of contests.
(1) Both results strengthen the sense that this is a 'change' election. The famous right track/wrong track indicator is at record levels, showing 7 out of 10 Americans believe the country is going in the wrong direction.
Hillary presented two main 'closing' arguments on the eve of the poll and returned to these in her post-caucus concession speech.
- First, that she can win in November; she has been tested and presents less electoral risk;
- Second, that she is the President who will be 'ready of day one'.
So Hillary wants to stand for 'the experience to deliver change'. But the contrast with Obama risks making her 'the Establishment' against the risk of 'Change', in a race with no other status quo candidate.
(2) The high turnout and Obama's crossover appeal to independents may strengthen his core 'uniter, not a divider' argument. The risk of Obama is reduced if he demonstrates the ability to deliver. Over the next week, a sense of what these results and New Hampshire mean on 'electability' will emerge, from detailed number crunching and how that then turns into a new common sense among the commentators, bloggers and activists. That is a primary consideration for many Democrats this year, and will be the substance at stake in the post-match spin and counter-spin.
(3) If the momentum of Iowa and the media focus propel Obama to victory in New Hampshire, Obama would become the favourite. The Hillary Clinton campaign has been a 'safety first' campaign of the frontrunner. Could she emulate her husband's 'comeback kid' reputation? They are very different politicians.
Time magazine is already this morning reporting talk of a change of strategy but I doubt she could change her argument significantly without it looking like panic, and costing her in authenticity. If, as Time's report suggests, this means 'going negative' it would backfire and play to Obama's strengths.
The Obama campaign is still an unlikely insurgency - yet that is precisely its appeal if it can be shown to be a viable one. Hillary Clinton will have to hold her nerve, but she may find that she is in the campaign race on the terms that her opponent wanted to define.
Friday, January 4, 2008
Before the spin comes in ...
Every campaign will want to declare that they are on the road to victory.
Real Clear Politics has a good ready reckoner as to what they really need
And here's a good spin explaining the thinking behind the campaign strategy we won't find out anything about tonight - Rudy Giuliani's unconventional bid for the Republican nomination.
Real Clear Politics has a good ready reckoner as to what they really need
And here's a good spin explaining the thinking behind the campaign strategy we won't find out anything about tonight - Rudy Giuliani's unconventional bid for the Republican nomination.
Thursday, January 3, 2008
Whose theory of change?
The Democrats have perhaps their strongest, and most progressive, field for generations. The party looks more able to unite around its nominee than after most hotly contested nomination races historically, and has the unusual experience of being much more cohesive than the Republicans this time around.
So what is the difference between the candidates? One of the most interesting pieces of analysis previewing the primary contests has been Mark Schmitt's essay in the American Prospect on the 'theory of change primary'.
But Schmitt goes on to offer a deeper analysis of Obama's pitch - and helps to explain how Obama manages to reconcile being probably the most conventionally 'liberal' of the major Democrats seem with his bipartisan appeal to independents and Republicans.
His piece has been much praised by commentators and bloggers. While this is a little late, this seems a good moment to link to it, just before we begin to find out which theory chimes most with the voters.
So what is the difference between the candidates? One of the most interesting pieces of analysis previewing the primary contests has been Mark Schmitt's essay in the American Prospect on the 'theory of change primary'.
This is not a primary about ideological differences, or electability, but rather one about a difference in candidates' implicit assumptions about the current circumstance and how the levers of power can be used to get the country back on track. It's the first "theory of change" primary I can think of.
Hillary Clinton's stump speech is built around the speechwriter's rule of three, applied to theories of change: one candidate believes you achieve change by "demanding" it, another thinks you "hope for it," while she alone knows that you have to "work for it."
That's accurate as a rendering of the candidates' language: Her message of experience and hard work, Obama's language of hope and common purpose, Edwards' insistence that those with power will never give it up willingly.
But Schmitt goes on to offer a deeper analysis of Obama's pitch - and helps to explain how Obama manages to reconcile being probably the most conventionally 'liberal' of the major Democrats seem with his bipartisan appeal to independents and Republicans.
His piece has been much praised by commentators and bloggers. While this is a little late, this seems a good moment to link to it, just before we begin to find out which theory chimes most with the voters.
Kenya should face suspension from the Commonwealth
I have a piece on Comment is Free arguing that a multilateral diplomatic effort could be crucial in pressing both sides to negotiate a peaceful political solution following the deeply controversial Presidential election and the violence since.
The Commonwealth is playing a useful mediation role. But if the Kibaki government resists international pressure to negotiate a political solution, then Kenya should face suspension from the Commonwealth.
Richard Bourne, the best informed observer of Commonwealth politics and founder of the Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative, argues that the Commonwealth can contribute to a political settlement but also suggests that suspension would be on the agenda if this fails.
The Commonwealth has been a pioneer among international institutions in basing membership of principles of democracy, but this could prove a difficult test of its internal cohesion. Suspension would be largely symbolic. But symbolism matters in international politics - and this would be an appropriate way to signal the lack of legitimacy of the Kibaki government.
I have a long-standing interest in the Commonwealth, and co-wrote a couple of Foreign Policy Centre pamphlets in 1999, launched at the Commonwealth summit in South Africa in 1999. At the time, the report was rubbished by Zimbabwe's Foreign Minister Stan Mudenge who called it "the toilet paper of the summit", though our warning about the need for earlier action to prevent crises was borne about by events since.
The Commonwealth is playing a useful mediation role. But if the Kibaki government resists international pressure to negotiate a political solution, then Kenya should face suspension from the Commonwealth.
Richard Bourne, the best informed observer of Commonwealth politics and founder of the Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative, argues that the Commonwealth can contribute to a political settlement but also suggests that suspension would be on the agenda if this fails.
The Commonwealth has been a pioneer among international institutions in basing membership of principles of democracy, but this could prove a difficult test of its internal cohesion. Suspension would be largely symbolic. But symbolism matters in international politics - and this would be an appropriate way to signal the lack of legitimacy of the Kibaki government.
I have a long-standing interest in the Commonwealth, and co-wrote a couple of Foreign Policy Centre pamphlets in 1999, launched at the Commonwealth summit in South Africa in 1999. At the time, the report was rubbished by Zimbabwe's Foreign Minister Stan Mudenge who called it "the toilet paper of the summit", though our warning about the need for earlier action to prevent crises was borne about by events since.
The Republican race
I want the Democrats to win in November. But there is widespread dissatisfaction among Republicans at the choices they have, and how the race has failed to crystallise.
It is difficult to know what to make of tonight's Republican contest in Iowa. The Mitt Romney - Mike Huckabee contest for first place may best be seen as a potential eliminator from which the right-wing contender for the nomination will emerge.
Somehow, the Mike Huckabee campaign is giving the impression of having turned into a serious Presidential bid. It shouldn't be. Huckabee has some charm, some startlingly absolutist right-wing views and no Presidential credentials at all, especially on foreign policy. Picking the low point of his campaign to date is difficult.
Was it attributing his poll surge to divine intervention?
Not having heard of the Iran intelligence report the day after it had dominated the news agenda was worrying.
But he topped that this week as his spat with Mitt Romney got nastier. Huckabee's decision to defend John McCain from negative Romney attacks - John McCain is a hero - was a smart move. Somewhat, less smart was declaring that he was resisting the temptation to go negative himself in retaliation - before showing the negative attack ad he had decided not to air at his press conference. Huckabee is putting himself beyond satire.
Mitt Romney is deeply unimpressive. Apart from the high profile issue of his being a Mormon, he stirkes me as a something of an identikit Republican, running a nasty, negative campaign from the Lee Atwater-Karl Rove textbook. ( Joe Klein's Tale of Two Romneys nails this). His credentials to be President don't seem to stretch that far beyond running the Winter Olympics. He has already struggled with his various campaign misstatements.
I haven't been able to work out what Fred Thompson is for. Neither, I think, has the candidate.
For a long time, Rudy Giuliani seemed the Republican most likely to threaten the Democrats in November. He is a worrying prospect as President. Nuance would not be the watchword of his foreign policy. But the Democrats have not yet worked out how to counter their vulnerability on national security in the General Election - and a single issue 9/11 Giuliani campaign could exploit that. Giuliani's problem has always been the strategy to secure the nomination, given that he is beyond the pale for a significant part of the Republican base. He is rewriting the rules of the primary contest. It will be another month before we know whether his unconventional gameplan of marginalising the early contests has paid off, or has cost him his frontrunner status.
My Republican pick is John McCain. He has the credibility and experience to be President, as the (London) Times set out in a well argued editorial this week. I don't agree with his views on foreign policy - and he has done much to bolster President Bush - but he is a candidate who commands respect. McCain has problems with the Republican base but perhaps also, by trying to reposition towards them, with the independent voters he appealed to in 2000. He has struggled for momentum, but seems to be picking up as the voters think seriously about the Presidency.
I suspect Huckabee or Romney would be easier for the Democrats to defeat in November. But Clinton, Obama or Edwards are capable of winning against any of the Republican nominees. And, given that the US Presidency is at stake, it might be a good idea for both parties to put up somebody who could do the job.
It is difficult to know what to make of tonight's Republican contest in Iowa. The Mitt Romney - Mike Huckabee contest for first place may best be seen as a potential eliminator from which the right-wing contender for the nomination will emerge.
Somehow, the Mike Huckabee campaign is giving the impression of having turned into a serious Presidential bid. It shouldn't be. Huckabee has some charm, some startlingly absolutist right-wing views and no Presidential credentials at all, especially on foreign policy. Picking the low point of his campaign to date is difficult.
Was it attributing his poll surge to divine intervention?
There's only one explanation for it, and it's not a human one. It's the same power that helped a little boy with two fish and five loaves feed a crowd of 5,000 people.
Not having heard of the Iran intelligence report the day after it had dominated the news agenda was worrying.
But he topped that this week as his spat with Mitt Romney got nastier. Huckabee's decision to defend John McCain from negative Romney attacks - John McCain is a hero - was a smart move. Somewhat, less smart was declaring that he was resisting the temptation to go negative himself in retaliation - before showing the negative attack ad he had decided not to air at his press conference. Huckabee is putting himself beyond satire.
Mitt Romney is deeply unimpressive. Apart from the high profile issue of his being a Mormon, he stirkes me as a something of an identikit Republican, running a nasty, negative campaign from the Lee Atwater-Karl Rove textbook. ( Joe Klein's Tale of Two Romneys nails this). His credentials to be President don't seem to stretch that far beyond running the Winter Olympics. He has already struggled with his various campaign misstatements.
I haven't been able to work out what Fred Thompson is for. Neither, I think, has the candidate.
For a long time, Rudy Giuliani seemed the Republican most likely to threaten the Democrats in November. He is a worrying prospect as President. Nuance would not be the watchword of his foreign policy. But the Democrats have not yet worked out how to counter their vulnerability on national security in the General Election - and a single issue 9/11 Giuliani campaign could exploit that. Giuliani's problem has always been the strategy to secure the nomination, given that he is beyond the pale for a significant part of the Republican base. He is rewriting the rules of the primary contest. It will be another month before we know whether his unconventional gameplan of marginalising the early contests has paid off, or has cost him his frontrunner status.
My Republican pick is John McCain. He has the credibility and experience to be President, as the (London) Times set out in a well argued editorial this week. I don't agree with his views on foreign policy - and he has done much to bolster President Bush - but he is a candidate who commands respect. McCain has problems with the Republican base but perhaps also, by trying to reposition towards them, with the independent voters he appealed to in 2000. He has struggled for momentum, but seems to be picking up as the voters think seriously about the Presidency.
I suspect Huckabee or Romney would be easier for the Democrats to defeat in November. But Clinton, Obama or Edwards are capable of winning against any of the Republican nominees. And, given that the US Presidency is at stake, it might be a good idea for both parties to put up somebody who could do the job.
The race is on ...
The race for both nominations remains incredibly open as the first votes are cast. Firm predictions are probably foolish.
I have felt that John Edwards would do better in Iowa than many expect. He could come through to top the poll on the night. His union support and strong appeal to the Democrat base on economic inequality should help him in a caucus. It is less clear whether, even if it happened, that would make the nomination a genuine three way race for long.
The influential Des Moines Register poll was very good for Barack Obama. Still, that might not help him in the expectations game. (A lower profile CNN poll had Clinton ahead). That Obama's lead was based on his appeal to independent voters strengthens his claims to electability in November. But will they caucus tonight? (The New Republic blogunpicks the numbers).
Obama's chances depend on increasing the caucus turnout. The university holidays don't help him. (However, Time says his strategy is to 'campaign young, but organize gray'). First place would be a remarkable achievement. It is still an outsider insurgency campaign, but victory could give Obama the momentum into a closely contested New Hampshire primary to make the February 5th contest too close to call.
Hillary Clinton is still the frontrunner with a strong national lead, and remains the most likely Democratic nominee. She is electable in November, particularly this year. The experience and credibility cards are her strongest suit. But this is a 'change' election: standing for 'change' and for 'less risk' is a balancing act. With no President or Vice-President in the race, there are dangers in Clnton becoming the establishment 'continuity' candidate, despite being a Democrat bidding to succeed a Republican President. But a credible bid to be the first female President will mobilise support (as well as anti-Clinton opposition). The 'big bang' nationwide contest in 22 states on February 5th is good news for her campaign, but she needs to win one of the first three contests to prevent the campaign dynamic changing against her.
So I have a feeling its still going to be Hillary - but quite probably not tonight. And there is still everything to play for.
I have felt that John Edwards would do better in Iowa than many expect. He could come through to top the poll on the night. His union support and strong appeal to the Democrat base on economic inequality should help him in a caucus. It is less clear whether, even if it happened, that would make the nomination a genuine three way race for long.
The influential Des Moines Register poll was very good for Barack Obama. Still, that might not help him in the expectations game. (A lower profile CNN poll had Clinton ahead). That Obama's lead was based on his appeal to independent voters strengthens his claims to electability in November. But will they caucus tonight? (The New Republic blogunpicks the numbers).
Obama's chances depend on increasing the caucus turnout. The university holidays don't help him. (However, Time says his strategy is to 'campaign young, but organize gray'). First place would be a remarkable achievement. It is still an outsider insurgency campaign, but victory could give Obama the momentum into a closely contested New Hampshire primary to make the February 5th contest too close to call.
Hillary Clinton is still the frontrunner with a strong national lead, and remains the most likely Democratic nominee. She is electable in November, particularly this year. The experience and credibility cards are her strongest suit. But this is a 'change' election: standing for 'change' and for 'less risk' is a balancing act. With no President or Vice-President in the race, there are dangers in Clnton becoming the establishment 'continuity' candidate, despite being a Democrat bidding to succeed a Republican President. But a credible bid to be the first female President will mobilise support (as well as anti-Clinton opposition). The 'big bang' nationwide contest in 22 states on February 5th is good news for her campaign, but she needs to win one of the first three contests to prevent the campaign dynamic changing against her.
So I have a feeling its still going to be Hillary - but quite probably not tonight. And there is still everything to play for.
Tuesday, January 1, 2008
Ten steps to a better world after Bush
I have a new year's day commentary ten steps to a better world on the Guardian's Comment is Free website.
This is extracted from my 'Manifesto for the World After Bush' in the new year Fabian Review, published on Thursday.
This is extracted from my 'Manifesto for the World After Bush' in the new year Fabian Review, published on Thursday.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
