Edwards' Endorsement

Another prediction, since I'm on such a roll: Hillary will get Edwards' endorsement. She has more to offer him in terms of perks--including, obviously, running mate. I don't know that he'd go for it, but Obama can't make that offer (he doesn't need another young, largely inexperienced guy on the ticket). Maybe I'm just paranoid.

Give Up?--Never!

Of course, I was joking about that "giving up" the blog comment. How could I?--the pay's too good.

Anyway, one other note, for those of you who haven't stumbled on George Packer's nice piece (mainly) on Hillary in last week's New Yorker (I'm still trying to catch up after the Hawaii backlog). It's a strangely compelling portrait of her that persuades me to think even less of her as a candidate while simultaneously causing me to wish a little more that she'd win. For example:

During the debate in Las Vegas, she tried to explain her commitment to social change by talking about herself, not about the people she wants to help: “It is really my life’s work. It is something that comes out of my own experience, both in my family and in my church—that, you know, I’ve been blessed.” Her response displayed the awkwardness that comes from a lifelong habit of self-concealment in the face of exposure, and toughness in the face of hurt. It’s a little sad and painful that this enormously accomplished and capable woman, in her sixty-first year, had to bring her mother and daughter on a “likability tour” in the days before the Iowa caucus, and found her voice—as she put it—only on the night of her upset win in New Hampshire.

It's a portrait that also characterizes her opponent as an almost transcendentally cool figure--like she's running against a combo John Lennon and JFK:

The next morning, Obama was scheduled to appear before an overflow crowd at the opera house in Lebanon. When he walked onto the stage, which was framed by giant vertical banners proclaiming “HOPE,” his liquid stride and handshake-hugs suggested a man completely at ease.

“I decided to run because of you,” he told the crowd. “I’m betting on you. I think the American people are honest and generous and less divided than our politics suggests.” He mocked the response to his campaign from “Washington,” which everyone in the room understood to be Clinton, who had warned in the debate two nights before against “false hopes”: “No, no, no! You can’t do that, you’re not allowed. Obama may be inspiring to you, but here’s the problem—Obama has not been in Washington enough. He needs to be stewed and seasoned a little more, we need to boil the hope out of him until he sounds like us—then he will be ready.”

The opera house exploded in laughter. “We love you,” a woman shouted.

“I love you back,” he said, feeding off the adoration that he had summoned without breaking a sweat. “This change thing is catching on, because everybody’s talking about change. ‘I’m for change.’ ‘Put me down for change.’ ‘I’m a change person, too.’ ”

From time to time, I stop to think what an important moment this is in American history. There have been moments like it before--1932, 1941, 1968--and I've wondered, "did people realize what a big deal it was at the time?" It's an article that can make you stop and think and appreciate the enormity of this moment in American politics. No matter what happens, remember these days--we'll be talking about them for the rest of our lives.

Or Maybe Not, Part 2

I have a friend who used to joke--rather more derisively than I liked, "wow, a blog!--they don't just let anyone have those, you know." (Needless to say, he is now a blogger.) But he may have had a point. Only days after I sagely predicted that Tsunami Tuesday* would depend on a surrogate race that Hillary would surely win (wrong) since they couldn't possibly afford to advertise in all states, I am proven wrong yet again:

The Obama campaign confirms that it raised an astonishing $32 million -- in the month of January alone.... Obama will reportedly go on the air in all the states with primaries on February 9th, 10th, and 12th. Sizable amounts of money have already been plunked down for ads in just about every Feb. 5th state. (Itals mine.)

I give up. They should never have given me this blog.


___________
*Can we improve on this? I mean, even the MSM hasn't managed to cohere on a name for Feb 5, which goes to show how lame "Tsunami," "Super," and "Super Duper" are.

Edwards Out, Rudy too

Interesting. Maybe the talk of being relegated to "kingmaker" role bothered the populist.

NEW ORLEANS — John Edwards, the progressive Democratic candidate who made his populist, anti-poverty message a centerpiece of his campaign, has decided to drop out of the presidential primary race, and is to give a speech this afternoon at the same place where he began his campaign — in New Orleans.

He is apparently not going to endorse anyone, which is probably fine. Endorsing Obama wouldn't particularly boost him among the white men he could use, I expect. (Might help Hillary if he endorsed her--and it would be a huge shocker to boot.)

The biggie is Richardson, who will either make an endorsement later this week or blow it off completely. That would be a huge boon to Obama--he needs some cred in the Latino community.

Also, adieu to Rudy, whose campaign was spectacular in its anemia. Looks like we're going to get McCain, whom no Dem wanted, but whom I think we can pretty handily beat (more on that later, probably lots more). (Also interesting: the likelihood that the next president will be a senator approaches 100%.) Fun times...

SotU by the Numbers: 2008 Edition

In an annual tradition (see 2003, 2004, 2006, 2007), perhaps the last of its kind, I offer you George W. Bush's 2008 State of the Union speech by the numbers.

Length: 5700 words
Applause lines: 71

Portion devoted to ...

Domestic policy - 42%

Economic problems - 5%
Taxes, tax cuts – 3%
Earmarks and spending – 6%
Health Care – 3%
Education – 5%
Trade policy – 5%
Energy independence – 4%
Science policy – 4%
Immigration – 3%

Iraq - 21%
Terrorism - 14%
Foreign policy initiatives - 7%
Middle East issues - 6%

Times Bush used the following words...

Iraq, Iraqi, Iraqis - 39
Afghan(i) (stan) - 8
Iran - 7
War - 10
Peace - 9
Free, freedom - 22
Victory - 0
Defeat - 5
Hope - 13

Terror, terrorism, terrorists - 23
Osama bin Laden - 1
al Qaida - 10

Tax(es) - 16
Job(s) - 6
Health care - 2
Earmark(s) - 4
Number of times "earmarks" has appeared in six SOTUs prior to Democrats taking control of Congress: 1 (2006)

Full text of the speech here.

Predictions: Where Obama Stands

I have run the numbers, juggled the variables, adjusted for change, and this is what I've come down to. On February 6, this is where the delegates will stand (minus Superdelegates):

2025 - Needed for the nomination
1114 - Hillary Clinton
_971 - Barack Obama
_139 - John Edwards

Okay, obviously this is a wild-ass guess. Bill might end up so alienating people that Obama wins California--who can honestly say at this point? However, I did actually dig into things pretty seriously, and came up with totals based on current polling. You know, the polling that served us so well in NH and SC. But hey, in the absence of anything more accurate, it's all we've got (except in the eight states where's it's not available).


Methodology
I calculated the proportion each candidate would receive based on these totals. (All Democratic primaries are proportional.) In some cases where earlier polling was available and a trend was evident, I adjusted accordingly. Finally, I docked both Barack and Hillary 5% each and gave them to Edwards, who apparently plans to stay in the race through Feb 5. He received 10% of the post-Iowa states, and my hunch is that his voters are about split between Hillary- and Obama-leaners. Unlike the major media outlets, I excluded Superdelegates, which are highly unpredictable (see here) and mutable.

Of course, all of this will change each day as we get closer. Those Massachusetts numbers, for example, may well come down. But, since everyone keeps wondering what will happen on Super Tuesday and where we'll stand and (most pointedly for Obamaniacs like me) what Obama can expect even if he doesn't get a bumb from SC, it's a reasonable place to start.

Thoughts?

Or Maybe Not

What was I saying about Clinton getting the institutional backing?

Neither candidate has the money or time to campaign in all the states, so they'll choose the ones they think they can win and depend on surrogates to do the campaigning for them in states they can't visit/place ads in.... They will have the juice to flip surrogates, in large part because everyone will see the same numbers I do for Feb 5.

Umm, never mind:

Rejecting a personal entreaty from President Bill Clinton, Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) plans to endorse Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) for president in a joint appearance on Monday, Democratic sources said. [link]

and

Gov. Kathleen Sebelius (D-KS) will deliver the Democratic response to the State of the Union on Monday. And then Tuesday or Wednesday, she plans to endorse Barack Obama, numerous Democratic sources said. [link]

and

The disclosure also comes the same weekend that the House's highest-ranking Latino, California Rep. Xavier Becerra, also announced that he is backing Obama. [link]

I will say this: the zaniness of polls does suggest that something bizarre is afoot. People are not behaving like they say they'll behave. They're erratic, volatile, and sentimental. All of that is good news for Obama. If he's got any shot, it has to be an outlier year. Any more of this high-profile endorsing business, and I'll actually start to believe the guy's got a shot. (Then doom befalls us.)