We’re finishing up today’s election round-up episode of TPMtv. And the big story is clearly John McCain. On balance, I think I’d still say Romney is the favorite for the nomination, as I’ve been saying for some weeks. But things are moving really quickly. And none of the quick stuff that’s happening is good for Romney.
Newspaper endorsements generally don’t amount to much. But what were effectively anti-endorsements from New Hampshire’s two leading newspapers — the Concord Monitor and the Manchester Union-Leader — come at the worst possible time. The liberal and conservative paper both saying, Don’t vote for Romney because he’s too big a phony to be president.
But on McCain, one thread of what’s happening, that’s important not to ignore, is the synergy between McCain’s and Giuliani’s support. We’ve already noted the effective collapse of Giuliani’s numbers. But at least a topline look at those numbers suggests that McCain’s surge is being fed by Rudy’s rapid decline.
And it makes a fair amount of sense. Whatever you think of either guy, both are basing their candidacy on hawkish foreign policy and what counts in a GOP context as centrism on key social issues. In my mind, the profile of each guy’s supporters is pretty similar. (To be clear, no, they’re not explicitly emphasizing this in the primaries. But it’s still a key selling point for each.)
It’s not hard to predict that if McCain gets even third place in Iowa, the airwaves will be dominated for the next five days by stories of his miracle comeback.
Obama advisor Axelrod: Assassination reminds us of Hillary’s wrong call on Iraq.
Kos and I are definitely of the same mind on this. And there is perhaps no political commentary bromide more impervious to evidence to the contrary. Newsweek’s Evan Thomas argues that our increasingly partisan and divided politics are creating two Americas — one very engaged minority of hyped-up political junkies and a great majority of citizens who are turned off and tuning out politics.
I have some articles from the late 1990s or early 2000s I wish I could refer back to (not sure where the links are), but Kos nicely sets forth some of the key and incontrovertible evidence that this is not only wrong but precisely the opposite of the case. It’s revealing that the source Thomas cites is Thomas Patterson, a conventional wisdom bathed press critic at the Kennedy School, rather than a more granular summary of voting statistics.
You can certainly make a qualitative argument that increased partisan adherence is damaging our politics — not one I’d agree with, at least not mainly. But the quantitative argument — that increased partisanship is driving people away from politics and voting — simply can’t be made. Nor should it be that surprising. The more people are engaged in the issues of the day, the more likely they are to vote.
Hillary Surrogate Evan Bayh: Assassination reminds us, GOPers could paint us Dems as weak if we don’t pick Hillary.
The leading Dem candidates for president appear to be in a pitched battle to make the most craven and insipid uses of the Bhutto assassination for immediate political advantage. A true horse race.
Musharraf or Al Qaeda behind Bhutto assassination? Think again says ex-US intel official.
Edwards releases statement on Bhutto: surprisingly the assassination turns out not to be about him.
(ed.note: There’s a bit of extenuating circumstances or clarification required. This is the formal Edwards response. The craven stuff out of camps HRC and Obama was from surrogates. On balance though I think the comparison is merited.)
We’ve got four days left of 2007 and six days left until the Iowa Caucuses. We survey the terrain in our sixth 2008 election roundup episode of TPMtv …
A new LA Times poll shows Barack Obama (32%) in a statistical dead heat with Hillary Clinton (30%), with Edwards a distant third (18%). In Iowa, it’s a three-way dead heat, at least when margins of error are factored in: Clinton (29%), Obama (26%), Edwards (25%).