Campaign Blog: News & Updates

» WaPo: Economic Slump Underlines Concerns About McCain Advisers

This article's worth a read in it's original intent, but there's one small portion of it that warrants a quick reaction:

Former senator Phil Gramm, with his aw-shucks Texas drawl

Umm, Phil Gramm was born in Georgia and therein lies the origin of his drawl. Anyone with a rich, appreciative understanding of southern culture would be able to tell the difference between a Texas & George accent.

... or at minimum, the ability to dig up a bio of Gramm online somewhere.

» NYT: The Maverick and the Media (Neal Gabler)

Just read the whole thing and consider it a meta-datapoint in the whole "liberal" media shootdown that I otherwise relish in blogging about.

The other Sullivan returns from vacation (what a slacker!) to comment on the McCain story. True to form, Andrew still finds reason to tweak the Times. But this comment seems to offer another point that should be highlighted:

Several liberal bloggers exercised some skepticism toward the story and some conservative ones had a little Schadenfreude, but in general, it felt like a lot of people on the right were just relieved to be able to do the old Hannity-hate routine at the NYT. After this demoralizing campaign for Republicans, you can't blame them, I suppose. But it's still a little sad to see how much of conservatism is now a series of hate objects.

Well, it's a strategy. I'll give them that. Remember, these were the same folks just frothing at the mouth over how their collective hatred of Hillary would save them from defeat.

Michelle Cottle ...

How classic is this? I just got an online call for cash from the RNC with the message line, "Shameless Liberal Media." The email reads, in its entirety:

Dear Republican,

The New York Times has proven once again that the liberal mainstream media will do whatever it takes to put Senator Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama in the White House.

From the beginning of Campaign 2008, liberal media pundits have fawned over the Democrat presidential candidates while ignoring their lack of substance on the issues. You can be certain that as the campaign heats up they will continue to mislead voters with their anti-Republican agenda.

Republican, Republicans must fight back against the mainstream media's clear liberal bias -- and we need your help to do it.
Please make an urgent secure online contribution of $1,000, $500, $100, $50, or $25 to help the RNC get our responsible message of lower taxes, a strong national defense, and limited government past the liberal media filter and directly to the voters.Thank you in advance for your support.Best Wishes,Robert M. "Mike" DuncanChairman, Republican National Committee

Anyone notice anything odd? Chairman Mike goes on and on about the venality of the liberal MSM--but never mentions what exactly it is that the Times has done. Obviously, the RNC doesn't want to detail the allegations being leveled at its presumptive nominee. But it tells you something about the committee's view of its supporters that Duncan's solicitation need not bother with even a cursory explanation of the Times's latest transgression. (McCain's name appears doesn't even appear in the email!) Simply brandish the phrase "liberal media," and the party faithful are expected to whip out their checkbooks, no questions asked.

Indeed, sheep give more thought to their bleats.

Ramesh Ponnurru on the McCain Imbroglio ...

The story is thin, and its timing is suspicious.

I'm sorry, did he say the timing was suspicious? Last I checked, it's still February. Not October. Not Labor Day. Not the Sunday before Election Day.

February!

Granted, the arguments tend to get real thin real fast when beating the "liberal media" drum.

» NYT: For McCain, Self-Confidence on Ethics Poses Its Own Risk

Just a reminder that it's not just the Obamania bubble that could burst ...

Mr. McCain's confidence in his ability to distinguish personal friendships from compromising connections was at the center of questions advisers raised about Ms. Iseman.

The lobbyist, a partner at the firm Alcalde & Fay, represented telecommunications companies for whom Mr. McCain's commerce committee was pivotal. Her clients contributed tens of thousands of dollars to his campaigns.

Mr. Black said Mr. McCain and Ms. Iseman were friends and nothing more. But in 1999 she began showing up so frequently in his offices and at campaign events that staff members took notice. One recalled asking, "Why is she always around?"

That February, Mr. McCain and Ms. Iseman attended a small fund-raising dinner with several clients at the Miami-area home of a cruise-line executive and then flew back to Washington along with a campaign aide on the corporate jet of one of her clients, Paxson Communications. By then, according to two former McCain associates, some of the senator's advisers had grown so concerned that the relationship had become romantic that they took steps to intervene.

A former campaign adviser described being instructed to keep Ms. Iseman away from the senator at public events, while a Senate aide recalled plans to limit Ms. Iseman's access to his offices.

In interviews, the two former associates said they joined in a series of confrontations with Mr. McCain, warning him that he was risking his campaign and career. Both said Mr. McCain acknowledged behaving inappropriately and pledged to keep his distance from Ms. Iseman. The two associates, who said they had become disillusioned with the senator, spoke independently of each other and provided details that were corroborated by others.

Separately, a top McCain aide met with Ms. Iseman at Union Station in Washington to ask her to stay away from the senator. John Weaver, a former top strategist and now an informal campaign adviser, said in an e-mail message that he arranged the meeting after "a discussion among the campaign leadership" about her.

"Our political messaging during that time period centered around taking on the special interests and placing the nation's interests before either personal or special interest," Mr. Weaver continued. "Ms. Iseman's involvement in the campaign, it was felt by us, could undermine that effort."

Politico, meanwhile, details the McCain camp's "War Against the NY Times":

The McCain campaign is using a two-pronged attack to push back against the story. First, they'll argue it was a thinly sourced piece of innuendo journalism. But McCain aides also will strike at the source, using the Times' liberal reputation as a means of self-defense to draw sympathy from the GOP's conservative base.

Ahem ... I believe I've been saying for some time now that the only reason rightwingers ever took up the whole "liberal media" mythology was to merely deflect bad news that inevitably befalls all campaigns. Nothing more, nothing less.

An addendum of sorts to the previous post, I feel compelled to dig up this now-archaic news item on the 2008 election from Newsweek. Bear in mind that I offer this with the utmost of respect for Rick Warren ... just that not all of us are called to be political commentators.

Opening of the interview:

The biggest myth and the biggest misunderstanding about evangelicals is that they are a voting bloc. This article that came out on the cover of The New York Times Magazine saying the evangelical vote was splintering--the guy just didn't get it, they never have been a voting bloc. They tend to vote for people, not down party lines.

Later in the same answer:

In the 2008 race, two guys could have been the evangelical candidate, Sam Brownback or Mike Huckabee, and they divided that vote in half. One drops out, and all of a sudden you have a "surge" for Huckabee.

So, they've never been a voting bloc and with the field limited to one evangelical candidate, they somehow are.

Pastor Joel Hunter on the 2008 elections (via PBS' Religion & Ethics program)

I'm in the midst of a brisk read of Hunter's "A New Kind of Conservative," which I cover a bit of over at ye olde other blog.

Well, my official hope is for a great night by Hillary. But it certainly looks as if Obama might have caught up just enough - at least in the key, big states. And let me add that hte polling in this cycle has been a crapshoot. Maybe it's not quite the fault of polling in general, I don't know. You've had Iowa and New Hampshire effectively decided over the holiday season. Everything after that has had a short lead time and an unpredictable electorate to account for. It's tough to even average out the divergent methodologies of various pollsters. Mathematically, it looks fairly even on the Dem side. My hunch at this point is that Obama comes out ahead one way or the other - either in terms of delegate counts or he picks up California and the delegate count is close.

If there's a broad-based Hillary win, however, I would only hope that there's a bit of credit given where it's due. Obama certainly earned his fair share of praise for amping up turnout in Iowa while picking up the win. But by my calculation, Hillary had the same outcome in New Hampshire ... yet with nobody in the media saying "Gee, Hillary really drove turnout here!" I guess if you're a chick, they only care if you shed tears. That strikes me as yet another sad indictment of mainstream media coverage.

As for me, I'll be watching the outcome with Team Skelly at Cafe Adobe.

On the Republican side, I think this is the final chapter for Romney. At least, I think it should be. It still confounds me as to how he's still even within range of winning California and that would be a huge monkey wrench in the plans of establishment Republicans. Does that suggest anything about the depth of any McCain hatred among the GOP ranks? Guess we'll see by taking a headcount of who's on board the bandwagon by Convention time. I still think the vast majority of those who were saying McCain was too liberal back in 2003 will magically find it within their Republican hearts to rationalize their shift. Something about that letter next to his name, I suppose.

Democrats    Vote   %   
Clinton    856,944    50%
Obama      568,930    33%
Edwards    248,575    14%  
99% reporting

Republicans    Vote    %   
McCain     693,425    36%
Romney     598,152    31%   
Giuliani   281,755    15%   
Huckabee   259,703    13%   
Paul        62,060     3%
99% reporting

Put an asterisk next to the Dem votes and an exclamation next to the GOP vote.

Worth a minor observation is the total vote: 1724855 - D; 1925728 - R. Is that fully explained away by the delegate stripping? ... or at least the lack of activity that the state saw from the candidates? And add in the fact that the state had a Constitutional amendment on the statewide ballot to cap property taxes. Sure to be a convenient way to drive out GOP voters. But as the campaign now heads to the airwave & tarmac phase, it might be a curious parlor room debate as to whether we Texans will see higher turnout on one side or the other.

On a political map-loving note, it's interesting to see the overlap of some of the "Edwards-D, Huckabee-R" counties. Also interesting to see how poorly Giuliani did in his presumed base of Miami-Dade county.

So ... moving on to Feb. 5, it looks like a coronation run for John McCain (who's set to have a nice press day tomorrow). The only question left is how much dough Romney digs up to try and make a race of it. This race may well be over before the polls close in California.

For the D-side ... still waiting for a reading. While California is the biggest prize, I'm of the view that watching Missouri and Kansas might give the quickest indication (that is, if they poll them) of a boost for Obama. Massachusetts could be another. Obama's had great endorsements from each state. But the narrative could likely come down to a choice between Obama being just a bit too little, too late on Feb. 5 ... or the bump is official and he could (again) be off to the races.

Or, Edwards' 15% could be the spoiler between one of two heavyweights declaring victory. Kinda looking likely. But we'll see what the delegate count looks like on the other side of Feb. 5 before reaching for a panic button.

So I was bogged down a bit to speculate on South Carolina for the Democratic side of the equation. About all that's left to say is "Ouch!" Nearly 30 points? I've got to think that moves some numbers in the Feb. 5 states, but I'll wait till there's more polling after that cutoff date before making any firm predictions.

Tomorrow, of course, is the day we get to see who wins Florida for the GOP. As it stands, it's about as close as you can get between McCain and Romney ... which sucks if your name is Giuliani. And what of Huckmentum?

The conventional wisdom certainly seems that if McCain wins Florida, then Feb. 5 belongs to him. And if Romney wins, it's game-on for Feb. 5. I don't find a lot to quarrel with on that analysis. I'm still a bit confounded as to how Romney is still even around, but I think the leading cause of that may be the lingering Republican dissatisfaction with McCain. The good news - for Dems - is that the race can only come down to one of them. And whatever dissatisfaction may exist in the primaries may still have an impact in November. It's hard to believe they can make that ground up by going around and telling people that Hillary Clinton wants to be President.

So who wins Florida? I'll put a chit on McCain, but I'd obviously love to see Romney declaring victory.

Trust me, I loathe aggreposts. But the workload is what it is. So bear with me. I'll look into eradicating this habit after the primaries are over. Might also need to look into this concept I hear about once in a while: vacation. Sad fact of the matter is that I'm an awful vacationer. I vacation like I shop: with a distinct mission that must be accomplished in as record a time as possible. "Winning" at Vacation is akin to seeing Disneyland in 30 minutes ... and bragging about it!

Till then ...

» Is it just me, or is Buckley getting lazy in his old age? I mean, concluding that Obama "might" have wanted to offer a guaranteed success in stock market investing? THAT'S the best the guy can come up with?

» In other news, the internet is everywhere. Film at 11 ... YouTube at 10:30.

» In another instance of YouTube speed versus MSM speed: Tom Brady's cast. I expect the Super Bowl to be a great game, but I may love it a little more if Giants fans get their hopes up over this, only to be crushed in a manner that only New York sports fans should: harsh. Is it too much to ask that Belichick run up the score in a Super Bowl?

» Back to conventional warfare, pretty cool article here on the software that goes into the military's Future Combat Systems.

» Maybe it's a sign I'm getting old (a point my co-workers will cruelly pointed out for a rusty nickel), but with actors dropping and musicians snorting, I'm already longing for the days when I actually used to know who these people were before they crashed and burned. Seriously, I own a grand sum of zero Amy W(h)inehouse tunes and the only Heath Ledger flick I'm going to see if the one that comes out after he's dead. And that, only because of an affinity for the Batman genre - a point that scores me zero points on the so-called "hip, youth culture" index that I'm graded against. To heck with it all. Van Halen arrives in town Monday. At least when those guys crash and burn, everyone will know who they were!

» More or less finished Randall Ballmer's "Thy Kingdom Come: An Evangelical's Lament." Sadly, I'm reminded why I didn't pick it up originally ... there's too much of it that comes across as a liberal screed than a more sincere lament. Ah well, not much lost. The book was inexpensive and a quick read. Back to Taylor Branch, though.

» On the topic of nerdy bookworm habits, I'm still on the lookout for anyone willing to rent out an Amazon Kindle. Seriously, I've asked every nerd I know and not a one of them knows a soul who owns one (often after having to explain to my target audience what it is I'm actually talking about). I'm trying to rationalize the purchase even if I don't take to it as a book replacement - the browser and free internet seem like a nice lure. But if I can adjust to reading on it and plunking down fewer dollars per book at the same time, it's a cinch for me. First things first, though. For a small chunk of change and the addition of a book or two (can even be negotiated for mutual interest), I'm offering to take the gizmo off your hands for a week.

» A few minor Pres-race notes: Huckabee seems to be tanking for lack of money and a shrinking field. I'm more than a little relieved to see that. Oddly, Romney seems to be back in contention for Florida. Is that really how the GOP side is going to come down? ... Romney vs McCain? What a faustian bargain for conservatives. I mean, Bush more or less altered the mix temporarily for what it meant to be a conservative - at least on the surface. Suddenly - and briefly - concerns for education and social services were the new fad. No more. Now, it's seemingly down to two guys who will switch any position necessary in order to grab the mantle of party leadership.

» For my own side, it seems more and more like South Carolina is a runaway for Obama. Saw the question out there somewhere - I'll have to look it up for a h/t - but if you add up an Obama win in SC and a Hillary win in Florida, is there anything that undoes the calculus for Feb. 5 states that show Clinton with a still significant lead in most states? I guess this has me a bit closer to speculating what we'll see that day. And obviously, I'd love to see a tidal wave for Hillary - so that's what I'll call. But Obama's rise in those states is just as significant and could be worth some attention as some states get more and more attention (say, California).

The lack of a winner-take-all scenario, however, does also raise the possibility that it could be difficult to get 50%+ of the delegates going into the convention. Yes, another brokered convention theory. But let's say the majority of states go something like 45-40-15 for any one candidate. That makes Edwards (Mr. 15%) the spoiler in all this. Could it be his leverage to once more be an ineffective VP pick by one or the other frontrunners? Here's hoping not. My original pick for automatic VP was Mark Warner, but now he's got a good Senate race he's likely to win. I'm partial to a border south pick for VP and if I were to make a sentimental pick, it'd be Georgia's John Lewis. Watch the guy on TV, though, and he doesn't have a great presence (which I hate to concede). Lacking that, the crowd is thin for my top tier: O'Malley is facing low ratings back home. Kaine is a possibility, but he's no Mark Warner. Does Evan Bayh sneak into consideration once again? I still find him insufferably boring. Something to shore up Ohio a bit, maybe? I love Ted Strickland (and, apparently, so does Ohio), but he's still new on the job as Gov.

Maybe go midwest and pick up Gov. Sebelius. Think about it ... in 1992, Bill Clinton picked someone who was, in a sense, something of a mirror image. Worked for him. If Hillary does that with Sebelius, I think it'd help on a meta-level for her even if it means she doesn't carry Kansas. How'd she play in Sandusky? Go ahead and pencil her in as my preferred pick for Hillary.

First things first: Happy MLK Day

UPDATE: Greg Boyd offers a few theological thoughts that I tend to agree with on the meaning of this day.

A few additional thoughts over at the other blog. I've got more on my reading list, podcast list, and DVD viewing list than I really ought to have right now. But it's all too highly engrossing to pass up on. For today, I'll just try and stick to Taylor Branch's "Parting the Waters."

Secondly: Patriots and ... Giants??? Way to suck out half the joy of the Super Bowl for me, guys! I guess I'm stuck with being just another hostile Patriots fan for two weeks instead of cheering on what should have been one of the most memorable Super Bowls ever. Granted, the Giants aren't pushovers and Eli's last name is still Manning. But all that said, I'm still hoping we see 19-0 this season.

Thirdly: It's a week of decisionmaking in Gregville. Van Halen comes to town, but I'm leaning against the principle of plunking down $150 for a ticket. Stellar Kart hits town on the 26th. Much cheaper ticket, but the bill looks a bit longer than my interest in youthful Christian punk rock does these days. Maybe I'll hit it, but plan on arriving somewhat late. We'll see.

Among a few other quick links to pass on for the day:

» Sheila Dracula-Gonzales discusses her change of heart on the issue of abortion. Naturally, none of the reasoning had anything to do with her sudden interest in running for Congress.

» In East Texas, they're having their way with graven images: Beaumont with an MLK statue ... Port Arthur with a Janis Joplin historic marker.

» Decent article in the NY Times about Huckabee's use of the pulpit as part of his campaign methodology. It's among the issues I have with Huckabee. You'll see him take the pulpit at a church - almost always arranged by James Robison - and announce that he's not there as a Presidential candidate. Really? I can't imagine what it feels like to open up a sermon with a flat-out lie like that. Where was the whirlwind tour of megachurches when you were a lowly Lt. Governor? ... or Governor?

FWIW, the Chron opens up their primary campaign attention with a Huckabee story.

» With only a small amount of voting to be done before SuperDuper Tuesday, it looks like Obama should pick up South Carolina and Florida should get the second verdict in on whether the south is more favorable territory for McCain or Huckabee. Seems most of the analysis of the South Carolina numbers suggest that McCain won with less support among Republican than he had in 2000. Chalk it up to a fractured field. That's what should make Feb. 5 so interesting. Are there enough winner-takes-all states out there to prevent a muddled outcome for the GOP side?

» And what of the Dem side on that day? Some early number crunching going on about the views of southern black voters, with most of it suggesting Hillary still has a healthy plurality. We'll see if that holds after South Carolina.If Hillary can manage some key wins in the south (I'm not including Florida, though she should win there), it'll go a long way towards handing her the nomination. Add California to that mix, too. That state always has been an oddball in the primaries. Hill's up by double digits for now, but my gut tells me that's due to be incredibly competitive. Time to check and see where folks are spending their ad dollars.

Well, that was fast ...

» WaPo: Clinton and Romney Win in Nevada

Nevada Democratic Caucus  
Candidate	       %
Hillary Clinton   51
Barack Obama      45
John Edwards       4
Other              0
Precincts: 82% 

Nevada Republican Caucus  
Candidate     Votes     %
Mitt Romney   17,582   53
Ron Paul       4,341   13
John McCain    4,309   13
Fred Thompson  2,559    8
Other                  14
Precincts: 38%

Close race on the Dem side and my hunch is that this is what we're in for on Feb. 5 ... a lot of 50-40-10 results with some blips of greater and lesser support here and there. In this case, it's a caucus state, so Edwards' support is understated - even if only slightly.

As for the GOP side, it'll be interesting to see if this is truly Mitt's Last Stand. There's other caucus states coming up, though, and that plays to his strengths. But that only gets you so far toward the nomination.

GOP outcome in South Carolina coming up tonight. Stay tuned. The polling sources have a slight McCain edge and it's apparently a winter wonderland in the Palmetto State and one county is having problems galore with the voting machines. Heh, I thought that only happened with Democrats.

South Carolina ... Obama wins, probably big (ie - over 10pts). My sense is that with one early win, Obama can possibly count on some increased gravitation with southern black voters. Maybe that's a national trend as well, but southern blacks, in particular, have been a critical cog of Clinton's support. She can afford to lose some and still put together a winning coalition. But I don't see a way to systematically lose them en masse and hang on. It remains to be seen whether South Carolina is a one-off event on this count ... or if it's the canary in the mine. My sense is that it's somewhere between - Hillary manages to split them in some states, not so much on others. That helps translate to the notion that this race could be a marathon between the two. Team Sunshine will finish third in the state of his birth. That's definitely a bad sign leading up to the vote in his home state.

For the GOP, it's obviously McCain v Huckabee here. But how Fourth-Place-Fred and Mitt Romney play as spoilers strike me as equally important. I don't want to venture a prediction here. Obviously, partisan that I am, I'd prefer to see Fred win here and really drag out the question mark that is the Republican nomination. But if forced, I'll go with a slim McCain win. What the heck. I'd love to be wrong and see a Huck win, fwiw.

Nevada ... Easy call first. Romney wins for the GOP. Again, the happier outcome would be to see a Ron Paul shocker here. Sorta ties into his support among prostitutes all too well. But everyone knows that real people (as opposed to technorati search results) don't support Ron Paul for President ;-)

For the Dem side, I think the polling has been just a ton of garbage. It seems to me that the result will come down to how much of a hedge Hillary's early organization holds on against Obama's momentum. Based on hope, I'll take a Hillary win on any count. But I think we're going into this one blind. If I wake up and see Obama wins by 20, I don't think I'd count it a surprise given that the biggest union in the state can literally caucus while clocked out for a lunch break at their place of employment.

The more important picks are easier for me: Patriots v Packers in the Super Bowl. Anything else would be a letdown. Well, granted the notion of the Patriots playing the younger Manning would have some interesting story lines. I just think it's meant to be that Brett Favre goes down in a noble effort that has us all on the edge of our seats as to whether the only man who can beat the Patriots has more gray hair than myself.

Back to Presidential politics, though. I'll confess this much: I totally bought into the notion that Obama left Iowa with something like 101% of all the momentum in the free world. I anticipated a double-digit loss for Hillary in NH in the late-betting office pool. Obviously, I'm pleased as punch to be wrong on that one.

Now, I say that because I also picked Hillary to win every dang primary and caucus there is. Who knows, maybe I'll only be off by one or two when it's all said and done. But I do think the race has fundamentally changed with Iowa. The two races you see here are too minor to be so much as a microcosm for what it means by Super Tuesday.

David Corn think that Tsunami Tuesday does Obama in. I'm not convinced. In several of the larger states, Obama's rise charts like a hockey stick. The races have tightened and California has a history of being a wildcard in primary politics. If southern blacks break for Obama like they are in SC, there's a lot of states for him to pick up on that alone. I'll have to revisit my Feb. 5 picks as they're closer on the calendar. But right now, I don't know which position warrants the most optimism.

UPDATE: Oh, and just so I don't self-inflict another screed about how not giving John Edwards any run means I somehow opposed everything "progressive" ... dude's on a Coast to Coast tour. And he only visits one coastal city. How progressive!!!

One of those classic games played by rightwingers to identify a supposedly "liberal" media has been to show two contrasting headlines ... one that downplays their side despite what should be some dose of warranted praise, and then another glowing headline trumping the supposedly liberal side despite the lack of substance to warrant such praise. With that, here's today's Boston Globe:

» With Huckabee's win, Republican contest is transformed

» Win may give Obama burst of momentum

Those are the headlines on the front of the site. The Huck story has a different headline inside - but no less exalting: "Upheavals leave Huckabee exultant, competitors scrambling."

But Obama may have some momentum.

Once more, the absolute fallacy of the tricks of the rightwing trade crumble all too easily when exposed to even the slightest ounce of sunlight.

ADD-ON: Hat tip to Sully for adding this grist for my mill. From a Huckabee staffer:

Many bloggers (including me) have a knee-jerk reaction to the mainstream media. We "just know" they have a liberal bias and that they can't be trusted to report accurately on Republicans and conservatives. If my experience is any indication, then most of what we know is "just wrong."

My job wasn't to spin the press but to present the facts for the Huckabee campaign's side of the story. I expected that I'd have the toughest time with the professional journalists but most of the reporters that I dealt with (especially Michael Luo of the New York Times and Jonathan Martin of Politico) were quite fair and always professional. Even when their coverage was cringe-inducing I rarely could fault them for being inaccurate or putting their own biases ahead of the facts.

Unfortunately, the same can not be said of the conservative media.

My rapid response list included a broad range of journalists, pundits, and bloggers and variety of outlets--everything from The New York Times to HotAir. Often they would ask me to clarify statements made by the Governor, defend claims made by the campaign, or offer evidence on a point of contention. Almost always the mainstream media from the "liberal" outlets were more fair and balanced than were the ones from the "conservative" side of the media.

The whole post capture his sentiments on the aftermath of Huck's impressive win. A recommended read on for a variety of purposes.

In my previous posts on the Iowa caucuses, I made repeated references to "perceived momentum" and words to that effect. The Huckabee press conference/fiasco probably fits that description. If the guy loses, it'll be blamed on that. If he wins, it's still a relevant issue that makes him wide open to attack.

RCP now has Romney ahead on their averaging. There's good reason to expect the outcome between him and Huck to be close. I still think Huck wins it. But the most malleable aspect of the race seems to be Huck's personal appeal that makes him the favorite second choice of people. I would have said he was the hands-down favorite for that after the Iowa straw poll on out. But with his increased spotlight, there's been a certain wilting of his appeal.

Is it enough to make a difference? I dunno. But it's enough to put away in the memory banks for how politicians ruin themselves in the process of running for President. Remember how John Glenn was an American hero before his entry in 1984? Yeah, it happens to the best of 'em.

My pick still stands, but it's looking wobblier and wobblier by the press conference.

At once, this is easier and more difficult than looking at the Democratic contest.

Iowa
And here's why. I think it's a given that Huckabee wins here. Everyone not named Mitt Romney wants Huckabee to prevent Romney from starting off 2-0. As close as the race really is and as relatively unorganized as Huckabee is in this state, my sense is that the non-viables will move very heavily to Huckabee. Still, if I'm assigning probabilities to the outcome, I think that warrants maybe between 55-60% probability. Romney's still been at this a long time, is still willing to pour his own money in, and isn't all that terribly far behind in the polls (grains of saly be damned).

Still, if Romney manages a win, it goes a long way to securing his place as the anti-Huckabee. That's the contest he and McCain are really engaged in. Romney has everything to lose in that quest ... McCain everything to gain. And speaking of McCain, a strong third place finish probably boosts him in New Hampshire. Given his campaign's interest in shifting delegates to Huckabee, that may be asking much. But he should still be in fair shape for a distant third, which I'm sure he'll try to spin.

If there's any surprises outside of that, look for it to have reverberations in New Hampshire. And include a wildcard idea like Ron Paul finishing third among those.

New Hampshire
This one is all Romney vs McCain right now. There's room, I think, for a third contender to alter that calculus. But the top two should still hold here. It remains a question as to how much Huckabee can gain here. My hunch is "not much." He's around 10% with all the gushing national press he's gotten. That places him within the margin of error of an asterisk. Maybe an Iowa win for him boosts him a bit, but Huck ain't Pat Buchanan. My sense is that he'll have a hard time topping 20% here regardless of what he does in Iowa. His peak poll numbers to date is 14% in two polls done at the height of Huck-mania.

If McCain wins here, look for the "McCain Surge" story to have legs beyond the Granite State. If Romney wins, look for McCain to fade slowly as his lack of fundraising support snowballs. I think there's reason to expect the outcome to be close between the two. But a close second does Romney no good. A close second for McCain still leaves him some wiggle room to claim to being the Second Comeback Kid.

Nevada
As with the case of the Dem read, I have to take a heavy dose of salt with the polls on this one. Maybe the pollsters are as smart as some of us hope they are, but this is a relatively new game in town to poll for. At minimum, the change in relevance for NV is a dramatic shift from the past and I've got to think there's a dynamic there that makes it tougher to poll. Adding to that is the fact that the polls have been all over the place for the GOP.

That said, it looks like a three-way: Romney, Huck, & Rudy. The polls have shown huge leads for Rudy and Rudy, with Huck getting a rising tide into the Top Three. Pollster's averaging shows Rudy with some life here. If he wins it, look for Florida to be a hot contest. If he loses, look for Rudy to be desperate in South Beach.

South Carolina
For all the chatter about McCain's resurgence, it seems to have little evidence of appearing in South Carolina. Maybe that changes a bit with a win in NH. But McCain runs into a Huckabee problem outside of NH. Suddenly, all those nice glowing remarks about Huck in Iowa will have to be erased from the talking points.

I can see this one turning into a three-way mess with Huck, Romney, and McCain. And as it stands, that's the smarter bet. Granted, even some slight alterations in the perceived momentum can alter that. But Romney still has some life here. Huck is rising with his national tide. And McCain is a question mark right now.

Perhaps a bigger question is where Fred Thompson and Rudy Giuliani are by this time. They're not exactly polling insignificantly here. A drop out by either might boost McCain somewhat. But it's still early enough that they might all see SC as their last ride (or, in Rudy's case: Florida).

Florida
Rudy's last stand, obviously. Huck's rise emphasizes the nature of Florida politics - that there are really two Floridas (apologies to John Edwards). Assuming Huck comes out with a win and Rudy's still polling well after his early losses, look for this to be close. Rudy's hold on the top is still somewhat perplexing, but it's worth emphasizing that many of the leads in the early states are at or around 30%. Until a candidate can start locking in some 50+% numbers, this is headed to a wild and tough-to-predict nomination race.

A Huck win here is critical for his chances on Super Tuesday. I've not seen any reports on Huck raising money better in light of his media love-fest. But we should know soon enough where the money race stands. Without a win, Huck might have enough viability to hang on, but it's tough to see him winning. Adding to his challenge is what happens to dropout candidates. It's not difficult to see Fredheads favoring Huck somewhat as a second choice. But Rudy supporters?

Pre-Super Tuesday
My sense right now is that Huck should have a fairly good opportunity in the southern states - and maybe some others like Kansas. The challenge in analyzing the GOP side is that this has the potential to be a long ride for maybe as many as four major candidates. As much as I tend to be dismissive of early chatter about brokered conventions, it's worth at least a few lawyers' time to brush up on the matter.

As it stands, I think I see the field here going in with a very unsettled pack. That's why I think the race may come down to very minute interpretations of momentum. The easiest path out of that is if McCain catches fire in NH, wins pretty handily ... then wins SC and mounts at least a comeback of sorts in Florida. That bodes well for him on Super Tuesday so long as he's got money.

Money, however, is what keeps Mitt Romney around. He'll have it to spend. But he's still a relative enigma outside of the early states. Which aids Rudy, who's at least got name ID, some positive brand value ... and a confounding ability to remain at the top of polls beyond the early states. The more muddled the race is on Feb. 4, the better it is for Rudy.

I'd look for the results on Super Tuesday to be scattered, with Romney, Huck, McCain, & Giuliani picking up gains. Again, minute reads on momentum will matter most.

Trying to look at Super Tuesday from the vantage point of a surging McCain or a strong Huckabee or even a resilient Romney somehow doesn't make the task easier to sort it all out. Of those scenarios, I think McCain's could be the clearest to follow up with a strong Super Tuesday.

Multiplying the problem is that it's not difficult to see at least three - and possibly four - strong candidates come out on the other side of Feb. 5. That makes the delegate math next to impossible to lock things up before the convention. Still, I dismiss the notion of a brokered convention. I think it gets sorted out one way or another - whether between candidates forming an alliance or by the party herding cattle on Super Delegates and anyone else they can move.

I wish I could say with some sense of probability what that might mean for who the nominee is. My sense early on was that Rudy couldn't win the nomination, but would be a heavy favorite for VP. I might prefer to change that VP pick for McCain, but it's not a given that he's not the nominee. I think it's easier to read the path through the summer if it looks like McCain's the nominee. He's a known quantity. Though it's tougher for me to see Romney as the nominee, I think it's a challenge to see how his summer plays out. He's polling incredibly poorly in head-to-heads, but I think he has some rebound potential that could boost him in the minds of people who don't take a side on Mormonism as an issue. Given his innate talents as a campaigner, I think he's more dangerous than polls presently suggest. Then again, I'd love to be wrong and win an election by 20%, only to watch National Review devote an issue to how the election was stolen. Giuliani as nominee? Improbable to fathom, to be sure. But not out of the question as things stand. He's fading, but he's not completely done. Still, as a campaigner, he's a flake and my hunch is that it won't play well for November. His ads, also, have been horrendously bad. For the time being, consider the nomination a jump ball. I'll have to make a note of revisiting this contest after New Hampshire to see if anything's cleared up by then.

Let the crackpottery begin ... or at least heighten. Ron Paul hits Iowa airwaves with a 30-minute onslaught. I can only make it a few minutes in before finding Paul's voice comical (annoying, you might say). If anyone cares to watch the whole thing, my over under for mentioning the gold standard or his views on legalizing heroin at somewhere around the 31st minute.

For now, without comment. We'll see what the day brings in terms of time to opine more on this.