Rasmussen Mkts on UNP States

Rasmussen opened up trading this week on a whole bunch of new states involved in the Unofficial National Primary on Feb. 5. Up until then, they only had California and, for some reason, New Jersey (thought to be competitive?)

This week they added 15 more states and trading on who will win those--for some reason not NY (and I'm assuming it's not because it's too one-sided--they have IL).

New Ones

A few showed big momentum after Obama's win in SC yesterday. In most he moved up. CO actually had a poll out today showing Obama in a slight (statistically insignificant) lead, which threw that state's trading into turmoil. He also rose a lot, or Clinton dropped a lot (but not necessarily both) in some of the Southern states: AL (both), AR (Clinton drop), TN (Clinton drop).

When the races are contested, the sum of the trading values (considered to be like probabilities) can add up to a lot more or less than 100--which should be a temporary condition driven by a few traders with strong ideas. The contracts are traded independently, though no doubt many traders work both sides for both candidates.

Obama clearly leading: AL 70-26, GA 82.6-35, IL 95-5.

Contested:

• CO 60-65 (!),
• KS 75-45 (Obama way up to day--perhaps it was discovered his mother was from there),
• MA 36-85 (Obama down 14 today; state in flux with Kennedy about to announce his endorsement),
• MN 75-40 (big movement up for Obama and down for Clinton today),
• MO 67-70 (Obama up 22, Clinton down 15 today, which still adds up to over 130%),
• NM 50-70 (very unstable),
• TN 47-55 (very interesting; Clinton down 27 today).

Clinton still with convincing leads:
AZ 30-75, AR 17-67, CT 7-87, OK 21-65, NJ 25-82 (despite some firming for Obama today),
UT 42-70 (with 25 for "Field"--an Edwards stronghold? Or Mitt-mania spilling over to the Dems?)

Summary: Despite some interesting movement, HRC is still deemed likely to win a plurality of the 16 states above. By my count, 7 to 3 with four races' markets (NM, MO, MN, and KS) in chaos and two (TN and CO) judged to be very close.

The Main Event

Clinton to win CA is now at 80(%), Obama at 22. Last night Obama closed at 30, and today it traded between 18 and 25 for the most part.

This is a big disconnect with the probability for Obama to win the nomination, which is at 37.6 (Clinton at 62), up quite a bit from yesterday's average trade of around 31, and up a little less from the opening trading today at 35.

As I've suggested before, either that number is too high (and I'm not believing it is anymore) or the CA number for Obama is too low/Clinton's too high, or I'm completely wrong and a Democrat can actually win the nomination without winning CA. I'm betting on the middle case, not taking much risk on the nomination itself yet. Looking at the Order Book, there is some support for selling Obama in CA if he gets up to 40%, which makes sense to me.

The Non-Event

Trading in the Republican states, particularly the ones just added to the list of markets available, has been light so far, and most states have way over 100%--which means to me that a few partisan traders have entered their opinions, but most have no clue what's going on. Include me among those: I have no knowledge about state party races for the Republicans.

I think trading on these new markets will be very light until after the Florida vote on Tuesday. Then, perhaps, some ideas will clarify about whether McCain or Romney is winning the overall race (FL trading is spirited for both right now, with Romney leading on the basis of the most recent polls with him ahead), and whether Giuliani is still around, and whether Huckabee is still a serious factor in the Southern states.

Overall, the McCain for President number has gone up a bit too much (at 22, vs. Clinton at 38 and Obama at 20; I bought some of him at 15 a week ago), and I think I'm going to short him a bit. He hasn't proven he can win a closed Republican primary yet, and he will need to in order to get the nomination. After Florida, if he wins I'll reduce my risk on the best terms available; if he loses his price will plummet and I will take my profit.

Note that the penalty the Republicans imposed on early unauthorized states (of 1/2 their delegates) doesn't seem to have prevented competition in those states, whereas the Democrats' unyielding (but untenable) position in FL and MI has worked (except for HRC wanting to change the rules at this late date).

New York Times, feh!

I hear the NYT has endorsed Hillary while dissing Obama; endorsed McCain while dissing Giuliani.
Rather than a link to such a pernicious screed, I refer the wise reader to my memorably titled posting, "Democratic Prez Endorsement Pt. 2" (subtitled, "Tactical Endorsement". Lame!)

The reasoning is all the more validated, though, by the evident decision, forced by the Iowa primary results, that Mark Penn and the Clintons made to employ tag-team mud-wrestling as their tactic of choice. So, that gives my "tactical endorsement" more clarity--I don't like their tactics, I do like his!

http://chinshihtang.blogspot.com/2007/11/democratic-prez-endorsement-pt-2.html

Michigan/Florida Delegates Don't Matter

...and I can prove it.


HRC has said she will back the Michigan delegates (and presumably those coming out of the Florida primary as well) and TPM tHead Josh Marshall has blown his stack. He should chill.

Obama and Edwards should register their objection to the delegates coming out of the Michigan and Florida primaries, and that should be that. The only way they'd be seated is if Hillary gets a majority of the 4045 remaining delegates (excluding those two).

If Obama has a majority of the 4045, he would logically be generous and allow the Clintonites of the two states (the notable ones like Ben Nelson, Debbie Stabenow) a fair share of the actual seats in the final delegations. A fair share would not be the same as the allocation coming out of the (illegal) primary and would be such that it could not possibly upset the majority he would bring to Denver. So, if his margin is shaky, he would be less generous to Clinton (and more generous to, say, Edwards).

If it doesn't get to the convention, then it didn't matter anyway. If it does, its resolution could be a proxy for the real thing, and in that sense could be decisive, but it could never change the allocation of forces from what it is without Michigan and Florida represented.

I actually consider this something of a bizaree Win/Win for the DNC and the states themselves (as long as they are smart enough to make up at the end, and I assume they will be). The DNC did not want to let renegade states create future chaos in the primary schedule, and these two states are indeed punished. As I say, their delegates can not change the outcome, no matter what their fate. The two states seem desperate for attention, and they got some. Not much, though. The state leaders who pushed it are appropriately chastised.

Of course, it could end up being a Lose/Lose, fitting into the improbable theme now developing: How the Democrats Blew a Sure Thing!

As the Bushites to Swiftboating....

...the Clintons are to "Whitewater Rafting"!

That's the phrase I suggest we can use to refer informally to their mud tag-team wrestling tactics.

It gets them in a tender spot, and it conveys such a great visual image of HRC and Hubby going down the river, going wherever the stream best floats their boat.

More Advice for Brother Barack

Obviously, I think the key to Obama winning is an effective media barrage in California, and I'd add especially in Northern California.

In the meantime, I'd like to suggest an unorthodox idea--a photo op scheduling visit to former President Jimmy Carter. Not to get his endorsement (though of course if it's forthcoming that would be great); more to get him to say something to the effect of, "It's unseemly for a former President to take such an active partisan role, even on behalf of his wife, but particularly to engage in negative attacks."

Carter's well-deserved reputation as "a great Ex-President" would give whatever statement he might give some resonance. I think Barack and Michelle on the lawn with Jimmy and Rosalynn would be a superb video bit.

While he's there, Barack Obama should talk to Jimmy about his experiences as President. Could save us all a lot of trouble down the road.

I think there is huge affinity between Obama's experience and Carter's. While there is no precedent for much of what is happening this year, I think references to 1976 are more relevant than those of 1992, Clinton's year. Nineteen seventy-six was the last time when the national Republicans' prestige was so low, and the Democrats produced a candidate of relatively short political experience who gained national attention through a hopeful message for change and retail politicking.

Cali Dreaming

These are the poll results so far this year in the key state of the Unofficial National Primary (-Democratic):

• Jan 22 EMC
  Clinton 39%, Obama 28%, Edwards 12% ...
• Jan 22 Field Poll
  Clinton 39%, Obama 27%, Edwards 10% ...
• Jan 17 Rasmussen
  Clinton 38%, Obama 33%, Edwards 12% ...
• Jan 14 SurveyUSA
  Clinton 50%, Obama 35%, Edwards 10% ...
• Jan 14 CNN
  Clinton 47%, Obama 31%, Edwards 10% ...

(from TPM's Poll Tracker--http://tpmelectioncentral.com/polltracker/capres_d/)
Some of it is methodology--how far to go in tabulating preferences, rather than firmly declared intention--but it seems to me that there is an unusually large undecided vote.

It seems quite possible that there is a large segment of "potential Edwards" voters; their intentions to vote for him have softened due to his primary results so far. South Carolina's result may influence how many of them end up forcing themselves to choose between Clinton and Obama (or sticking with "a protest vote" for Edwards, for Kucinich, or simply not voting--which would effectively be a vote for Clinton, as it's clear that high turnout should favor Obama).

Now that Obama's been slimed by the Clinton tag-team, it would seem that Obama's best chance is to take the high road once again, rising beyond the unfurled feral instincts of HRC and Hubby, and try to claim these change-seeking, vaguely anti-Clinton young and middle-aged white progressives. They will certainly be turned off by what they have seen and be looking for something better. Obama can still bring it to them.

The Big Ticket--Repunched

The debate now about Obama's gradual consolidation of African-American votes, and about state-by-state strategies of the leading candidates, reminds me of my post in March, 2007: The Big Ticket. I still feel that Obama has a better chance for a 40-40-20 (popular vote percentage) win than a 50-50 one (with Edwards out).

I stick by most of what I said ten months ago--for the nomination, Clinton 50% probability (to have it mostly assured on Feb. 5), Obama 40% (if he beats Clinton in CA), 10% all other possibilities (including a long battle in the primaries after the Unofficial National Primary). I had the winners of Iowa and NH backwards (though we tend to forget that the much bally-hooed NH win by Clinton was by 2%), but most of the dynamics correct.

Permutations 01/20/08

At the end of today's "Meet the Press", Tim Russert threw out a challenge to the panel: who would predict the name of the person to be inaugurated on Jan. 20, 2009--exactly one year from today?

It was a bit of a red herring (there were only seconds left in the telecast), and of course no one dared to put out a name, proving Russert's implication that predicting the winner today would be impossible.

Of course, it was a challenge we dared take up.

To do our analysis, we relied on one BTH factoid--that Mike Bloomberg's best scenario, according to one, would be the Clinton-Huckabee matchup. This confirmed my hypothesis that Bloomberg's analysis of his chances looks at 1) a perception of managerial competence, and 2) ability to appeal to independents--these are the things he would bring to the table, and he will run only if he feels they are lacking among the major party nominees. I decided that a nomination for Obama (appeals to independents), Romney (also managerially competent), or McCain (possibly both?) would each tend to reduce the likelihood he would win, and thus that he would run.

I came up with this matrix of "Bloomberg In" probabilities:
Clinton-McCain 20%
Clinton-Huckabee 75%
Clinton-Romney 40%
Obama-McCain 5%
Obama-Huckabee 40%
Obama-Romney 20%


I focused on the 12 "canonical variations" of Clinton or Obama, vs. McCain, Huckabee, or Romney, and whether Bloomberg would run in each case. Then I factored in a subjective (but carefully considered) estimate of the probabilities of victory for each candidate in each of the matchup scenarios. The probabilities I assigned to nomination outcomes were as follows:
-- 50% Clinton, 40% Obama, 10% no decision indicated from the UNP outcomes;
--40% McCain, 30% Huckabee, 20% Romney, 5% Giuliani, and 5% "X"--someone else. (Here I'm still sticking with my age-old calculation of 40% McCain, 35% anti-Bushite Right-Winger, 25% "GPR"--Giuliani/Pataki/Romney.)
In the case of the first, I completed the probabilities recursively, i.e., the 10% remaining probability were divided up 50% Clinton* (late victory), 40% Obama late victory, and 10% Edwards or someone else (combined probability of 1%). In the case of the Republicans, I made no assumption as to when the decision would become clear. I reduced the probability of the Democrat winning if they didn't win decisively, and I also increased the probability of Bloomberg running for those outcomes.

I assumed that Bloomberg's decision was after the Democrats' and Republicans' nomination decisions, and that it would be informed by his chances of winning, consideration of whether his running would improve the chances of a "suitable" President winning, and a guess as to how much he valued the two outcomes (vs. the cost of his participation). His participation probability would rise sharply as the chances of winning increased, as long as his running didn't hurt the chances of a "suitable" outcome (I actually fixed the probabilities so they were never hurt by his running).

Finally, I looked at most variations of the two 10% extreme cases, going down to cases that had as low as 0.1% likelihood (e.g., Edwards, or some other Democrat vs. Giuliani or X)

Bottom line: I came up with about a 64% probability for two outcomes:

1. That a Democrat would win; and
   
2. That someone "suitable to Bloomberg" would win (i.e., Bloomberg himself, Obama, McCain, or Romney).

The probabilities for individual candidates being elected (covering 98.15% ; let's say the other 1.85% is of a Bushite coup preventing someone being nominated, or some other unlikely event such as a nominee assassination, accidental death, or Bloomberg defying his calculations and not running or something) were, in order, as follows:

• Obama 33.58%;
• Clinton 28.32% (Bloomberg took more of her chances away than he did from Obama, plus I like Obama's chances better in a straight-up race against McCain);
• McCain 15.00%;
• Bloomberg 10.39%;
• Huckabee 6.45%;
• Romney 3.17%;
• Giuliani 0.65%;
• X (some other Republican) 0.34%; and
  
• Edwards (or some other Democrat) 0.26%.

You can take this to the bank--I'm going to take it to the Rasmussen Markets trading floor.

UNP Preview--continued

Looking at the states besides California that are voting on Feb. 5, one is hard-pressed to name the second-most important. New York and Illinois are big, but each should be a big win for the favorite son/daughter. New Jersey would be significant if Obama managed to make it competitive, but I don't expect that. I come up with candidates for secondary focus on the state level on the key general election swing states Missouri and Colorado, followed by Minnesota, Massachusetts, and New Mexico.

Missouri and Colorado are critical states that the Democrats have a real chance of picking up (along with Ohio, which votes later), . Minnesota being a "Blue State" that is in some danger, it deserves special attentions from the candidates, and in the analysis the day after. I think Massachusetts--though a lock for the Democrats regardless--has a sizable delegate block and will be indicative of the overall national Democratic results.

Finally, New Mexico, which is the most probable 2004 "Red" state for the Democrats to pick up, will be a test of whether Obamania can overcome Clinton's entrenched advantages in this frantic early primary season. I do believe that Richardson will avoid direct endorsement before the misnamed caucuses, but the state machine seems to be lining up for Hillary. It matters, big time, here. Yet there is widespread support for Obama, too. I intend to be as involved as I can be on that day.

Fun & Games This Weekend

I'm not much of an NFL fan, but I do get interested when it comes time for the playoffs, particularly the second and third weekends (this is the third). The Super Bowl is hard to take, unless one times the day in order to turn the TV on for the opening kickoff (don't miss the first quarter, or it may be over!) This weekend was supposed to have the key game of the season, Colts-Patriots III (after last season's AFC Championship and this year's regular season game). Now that's off. Similarly with the NFC Championship, where the expected Cowboys-Packers showdown failed to materialize.

The Chargers look to be an extreme longshot, particularly with key players injured. Which is not to say that they have no chance, because the running-featured gameplan they figure to employ is the best shot available against the Patriots. I think the Giants, who timed their surge just right, are a serious threat to disrupt the last big story line, that of the Super Bowl matching the unbeaten Patriots and the Packers on Bret Favre's last run. They'd be a good upset pick.

I didn't realize Nevada had its caucuses early--seems like a good way to keep down turnout. Hillary's narrow win looks like a win to me, even if it's not the rout she expected on HRC's coronation tour. Obama should be examining how he can close the deal with black women and Hispanics before Feb. 5, or it's going to be hard to prevent a Clinton Perceived Victory. The Nevada test results suggest there's a long way to go.

South Carolina tonight should boil the Republican race down to McCain, Huckabee, and Romney (with Giuliani fading from sight and Thompson converting his campaign back to its prevailing comatose state). A McCain-Huckabee ticket looks more likely all the time and is probably their best bet, too.

That still doesn't mean I agree with Daily Kos' tactical support for Romney in Michigan: that was the US' chance to get him out of the race, and the Michigander Republicans (with their handful of benighted Democratic netroots voters) failed to accomplish that. A tactical vote for Paul would've been much more reasonable, in that it would create some havoc and help none of the leaders.

Let's Get This Straightened Out

I really like this Popular Vote/Delegate Count thing in the party nomination process, and the way it is working out this year (except for being too early in the year, of course); I really despise its equivalent (Electoral College/House of Representative, etc.) in the general election.

Here's the way it should really work, Larry Sabato: Parties would have to pay event-specific costs for primary elections or caucuses, if they have them. By Federal law, state legislatures would be prohibited for paying the expenses for national Presidential nomination-related party voting (actually makes sense under the constitution). To make up for that new restriction, government resources may be used for counting the votes (if you dare!), and local authorities are encouraged to make facilities available at reasonable costs or no costs, as they do for general elections.

To set the stage for each election cycle, the national party announces its preferred date for the Unofficial National Primary for its party (Dems same as Repubs, if they can work it out--that saves cost). National Dems will pay the costs for primary or caucus to any state party organizations that does its primary on that date or later. Presumably, a few states will decide it's worth their while to pay for the presumed extra attention. I'm really hoping the national parties will decide to put their UNP together, and in May or June, but I guess that's their choice.

The Other Shoe

The Presidential election process should be radically modified and simplified through Constitutional amendment. I would argue that the general election of the Leader of the Free World (21st- Century Edition) must be decided by popular vote plurality, adding only the caveat that the winner needs 40% or more of valid votes. Failing that, the top three (not two) should compete in a runoff three weeks afterward, with the same 40% minimum criterion, and then three weeks after that with the final two if necessary. The second runoff under that approach would be around Dec. 15, which is not too late to get ready for January 20. There's time to get it right, and a double runoff would be an extraordinarily rare event.

Nomination for the national ballot requires one million signatures of registered voters (of any party). Anyone on the ballot participates in all debates (regardless of sponsorship) and receives X$ for advertising. No other candidate-related advertising is permitted.

To abolish the Electoral College, we need to get over our fear of amending the Constitution and recognize that the President is not executive of the state governments, but of the Federal government, and more importantly, leader of the people, not of the states. The problems with the original formulation of electing the President from state delegates has been present since 1800 and has not been improved much. Periodically (1820, 1876, 1888, 1960, 2000) it produces jaw-dropping disconnects with the will of voters and a confusing mess. It's an outdated failure; scrap it.

UNP (-D) Victory Defined for Feb. 5, 2008

Continuing on the theme of Edwards and Obama, if we anticipate the coverage for the UNP(-D), it will focus on three areas:

1) total delegates won or pledged;
2) California popular vote, and the complex battle for the state's "rich harvest" (of delegates); and
3) the total popular vote across the 22 states (call it the "Apples and Oranges 22-state Sampler").

Winged Victory would be 50%+1 of Democratic delegates won or pledged coming out of Feb. 5. Perceived Victory would be pluralities, but not majorities, in 1), 2), and 3. Pluralistic Victory would be anything else.

Obama must seek to deny! (as Clyde Frazier would put it) victory to Hillary on Feb. 5 in order to be able to claim a win at the end of the night. I would argue that Edwards helps Obama's cause in the first two elements (note: those are the ones that matter, ultimately). In the third, the UNP Popular Vote, Edwards' alternative to Obama for anti-Hillary voters might be needed to keep HRC from reaching 50% in the third.

You will hear the opposite from the pundits: that Edwards' presence is preventing Obama from achieving a majority. I don't believe the majority for Obama is there yet; what he must do is keep punishing HRC in contested primaries and prevent her from attaining a delegate majority through the states where he has little to no organization formed.

Edwards on the Rack

or Jon(athan) Edwards: Do-Gooder in the Arms of an Angry God (in the person of Barack Obama)

I don't think John Edwards has a chance to win the nomination itself as the candidates and the races stand today, but where they will stand later is subject to shifts from seismic events, which have occurred with great frequency this time around. He does well to plan to run intensively in the short run (to maintain legitimacy), toward selected states on Feb. 5, and then presumably beyond if there is any race still in progress.

I do feel that Edwards is closer to Obama than Clinton, but I don't think it would help Obama all that much if Edwards left the race now, even to endorse Obama. Many Obamites--like me--would have had Edwards as second choice, but that does not mean that most who support Edwards or are considering doing so would go to Obama if he dropped out, especially at this weird early-but-late stage of the primary season.

I don't believe much in the idea that a candidate can "throw" his delegates to another in this day and age. The notion that seems most plausible and effective in delivering the maximum number of Edwards delegates for Obama would be an agreement and announcement that Edwards would run for VP at some point, though that is a long, long way off and could require that Edwards hold his bloc of delegates through a long period of time. For the present, Obama would want to keep his options open, and later it would depend on whether he would be in a winning position with or without such an agreement.

Bill Out, Edwards In

I endorse the post-NH decisions of Bill Richardson to abandon his Presidential bid and John Edwards to stay with his.

On the merits, I think they were the right choices: Richardson's 5% in NH underperformed low expectations, and Edwards has earned the right to stay in for the Unofficial National Primary on Feb. 5. J.E. has put in the mileage and contributed to the debates--though Biden, Dodd, Richardson, and Kucinich might all say the same--but also has earned his spot from the results to date and those we could anticipate: Edwards' weaker states still put him in position to earn delegates, and his stronger efforts will truly contend.

I will go into Edwards and strategic thinking about his predicament in subsequent posts, but now I want to address Bill's.

Richardson should have bowed out and taken the Senate seat (for life, usually) that had his name engraved upon it. When I advised him to do it, I thought he could even take it from Pete Domenici, which would have made him a national hero to the party. Now, if he decided to run for it, he'd be close to a traitor: it now belongs (in every sense except that of having been elected for it) to Tom Udall, his friend, ally, and recent supporter for President. So that must be out.

He's spoken of his dislike of the Vice President's job, but I think it's a good one for him , and I think further he should be on the short list of both Clinton and Obama. His big ideas (all troops out of Iraq, in order to end The Occupation; ending aid to Musharraf if he fails to allow clean elections) are ones that sound good, deserve close examination, but don't necessarily comprise the best policy--just the kind of thing a VP should suggest in a Cabinet meeting.

Of course, the main thing a VP should do is help the ticket, and does Bill Richardson ever do that! The Democrats might think the Hispanic vote is theirs for the taking after the various Republican immigration xenophobia colloquies (a/k/a "debates"), but they would be only half-right: they still need to take the vote somehow. Nominating Bill for VP would be a better campaign strategy to do that, rather than antagonizing white and African-American men by pandering to pro-immigration Hispanics. It would also do a lot to wrap up New Mexico for the Democrats and give the Congressional delegation a gain in both the Senate and House.

Explanations

The pollsters came up with a rational excuse for the consensus mistake on the New Hampshire Democratic primary (a mistake of 8-10%, which is more than the 3-5% range of error--at a 95% percent level of certainty--which the polls typically would accept). Fact is that the pollsters stopped polling the last two days, during which--it appears--Clinton picked up about 15% of women voters. Her "weepy moment" (Gwen Ifill) played well with those voters, according to the rationale.

The search for blame has now shifted to the thousands of media hounds, the pack which descended on the state ostensibly to cover what was happening, who failed to detect any sign of the mini-quake in HRC's favor over the last two days. Some are blaming white voters for saying they would vote for Obama, then not doing so (is that some sort of crime--like perjury, or a hate crime?)

I have another explanation, which goes to the heart of the problem with these opinion polls. David Brooks on the Lehrer Report pointed to the problem, though he provided no solution. Fact is that the exit polls asked voters when they had decided for whom they would vote, and those that said they decided in the last two days split evenly between Obama and Clinton.

My hypothesis--for which I have no proof and which would be very difficult to prove in any case--is that the shift did occur, but the women voters were somewhat inaccurate about when they decided for whom they would vote. They'd been thinking about Clinton vs. Obama (or Clinton vs. Edwards, especially, I'd say) or Clinton vs. Romney or whatever. The "weemo" pushed them over the edge in their decision, but they didn't acknowledge it as such in the polls (the rationale following after the action).

There's no deceit involved because they were different people taking the polls before and afterward. If they had been the same people, they might have recognized what answer they had given before and acknowledged the change in their view. The conclusions are:
1) Exit polling on the post hoc rationale for actions is likely to come up with self-deceiving answers. There's no way to check on this, and it is simply a product of human nature to invent a rationale afterward which does not accurately portray their semi-rational choice of a candidate in the voting booth.
2) New Hampshire voters insist on defying expectations--we've seen it time and again. It's the "live free or die" thing; in this case they gave Hillary the opportunity to live free and they "died"--sacrificed their interest.

But no harm done, really; Hillary was always going to stay in the race (contrary to what John Edwards dreamed after Iowa), and I would have expected her to rally herself at some point; Obama had to taste defeat somewhere along the way, and better to get it out of the way early.

It's still down to California, as I've always thought. A highly unpredictable result--I've been watching the odds move dramatically on Rasmussen, though so far it has attracted little betting interest.

In some ways, and on a smaller scale, but with more media candlepower per square voter, Nevada might provide some preview of its big neighbor. South Carolina will be the acid test of whether Obama can reach the desired level of Afro-American support, so both the states--which look to be likely Obama wins--will help set the stage for the big drama. I'm trying to say that the two Dem primaries in the intervening weeks are sideshows, not meaningless, but not worth the attention they will get from the media, who are desperate to redeem themselves and hoping for more good story.

On the Republican side, Michigan does indeed look to be the Romney-McCain showdown in which Cmdr. John will get his knockout punch. Giuliani will eagerly scoop up Romney's leavings.
As I've said before, I love the way this informal UNP system is working--I just think it should be happening in June!

Half-Wrong

I have to say I relied too much on the "snapshots" which the polls provided for my forecast, as I just built my view of the consensus of the polls. then used my judgement to apply the remaining percentages (8% on the Dem side, 5% on the Rep side) to get the numbers to 100. It turned out that the correct answer would've come from giving all 8% of the Dem undecideds to Hillary; far was I from imagining that one; I misread the situation as being one in which Obama continued to have the momentum in the state.

I got a few of the numbers right: Kucinich 1% (too easy), Dem others 1%, McCain 37%, Romney 32%, Thompson 1%. For some reason, there's still only 96% of precincts reporting--the day after.

Here are the combined quantities of votes, in thousands, at present:
HRC 111, Obama 103, McCain 87, Romney 74, Edwards 48, Huck 26, Giuliani 20, Paul 18, Richardson 13, Kucinich 4, Thompson 3, Hunter 1.

I would say the biggest disappointment of the night was Richardson's--behind Giuliani and Paul--and the question is whether he wants to hang in until the Nevada caucuses or whether to admit the hopeless state he finds himself in. I do see he has 17 delegates committed to him at this point (CNN).

Obama got the turnout once again, so I don't find his result disappointing. He's now got a fully mobilized and motivated opponent.

I don't think the S.C. and Nevada results will be that significant for the two leaders--more for Edwards, who needs to justify his continuing role (or give it up for Barack!). On the Republican side, there will be much sound and fury signifying nothing.

The Unofficial National Primary on Feb. 5 is now revealed to be truly the main event. Strategic use of resources will be crucial to winning the most delegates that night, which should translate into the respective nominations.

Evening of Today predictions--NH

Obama 40, Clinton 30, Edwards 20, Richardson 9, Others 1. (Popular vote)

McCain 37, Romney 32, Huckabee 15, Paul 11, Thompson, Hunter 1% (each), Giuliani 2%, Others 1%.
(I particularly like the juxtaposition of names to produce the reference to our dear departed RS National Affairs columnist.)


I want to be accountable, but I will not accept accountability for rounding error, though--I'm right, for example, if Obama has anywhere between 39.01% and 40.99%. And Fred between 0.01 and 1.99%.

I am earnestly hoping for this kind of result because it will end any doubt about the relative positions in the pecking order. It won't kill Rudy or Fred (or Duncan, last heard bragging about his delegate), though.

Arbitrage Concept

If one were to look at the probabilities for the Democratic nomination, they should correspond very closely to the probabilities for the winner of the California Democratic primary on Feb. 5. I should look into this further. Basically, the reality would seem to me that whoever of Clinton or Obama wins statewide in CA should end up getting the nod.

But what if there are gaps--e.g., if the trading-based probability for Clinton winning in CA are much higher than for her winning the nomination--what should one do? I'll have to talk to my horse trader friends on this one, but I would think that the information on the overall race would be more inclusive of all the information, let's say of the impact on its outcome of the upcoming NH and SC races, than the CA odds itself would show. So, when the two diverge, one should bet on the CA race odds moving in the direction the overall outcome has taken.

Following my motto, "Putting my Money Where My Blog Is--Not", I was able to register with Rasmussen Markets. I made the following offers: bid 50.1% on Obama winning CA (vs. a current trade value of 55% on Obama winning the nomination!--last trade on CA was at 70%, but the next highest bid was at 49.9%, so I'm trying to get it cheap, below 55%), bid 2.3% on Hillary being nominated as VP (a sneaking suspicion I have), bid 24.2% on Ron Paul running as an independent (a buy up to about 40%, I'd say), bid 57% on the Dems winning NM's Senate contest, and finally, a bid at 88.5% on the Dems holding the Senate (now trading at 92; so if the price goes down for any reason I'll go in). It's just for fun.

I'm with HRC: Time for a "Reality Break"

Review of Yet Another Debate

I saw Obama's win in Iowa from (damn near freezing) South Florida--it warmed the heart, especially the speech afterward. The massive turnout of young people shocked us all; even me, believer as I am in Barack's message but forever doubtful as to whether events will permit it to develop into realization.

The results were dramatic and the networks were nowhere near being able to explain them. They had alluded to the dynamics of second-choice movement extensively in the previews, but in the actual occurrence, they had no inclination to even hazard guesses about what was/had been going on, let alone factual information about caucus-goer movements (a few coordinated movements of a couple of thousand one way or another would've been important in the final results) or any hints of negotiations around such movements.

Coverage apart, though, something happened in the speech afterward, and the entire Main Stream Media was suddenly and collectively charmed. Obama brought together his skills as a storyteller, a preacher, and a political organizer; beyond the stylistic beauty and the smooth oratory, he had a theme, a synthesis of the moment, that killed.

Even right-wingers raved (and, to some extent, continue to rave). Bill Bennett, of all people, had it right: Obama's persistent refusal to play the race card was symbolic, and substantial proof in itself, of his ability to bring off his new politics: a regime based on a consensus of all "well-intentioned anti-Bushites" (my coinage).

Gloria Bolger called him "post-partisan"; hers a better coinage, and one that escaped my humble past efforts totally: I don't feel enough distance to label anything that happens today "post-". It's all "post-", and it's all "pre-", and of the two, I'm more interested in the "pre-". The notion is right, though I'd say the word is slightly inaccurate: Obama's appeal aims at the desire to get past a certain set of unresolved partisan intrigues; it's not promising an end to all partisan struggle.

The debate tonight was a matter entirely different. Edwards wasted no time in lining himself up as part of Obama's movement for change, "and we finished first and second in Iowa". It was a phony line, really--his win over Clinton for second was millimeters wide and served no purpose except for such an argument--but it set the tone: "Everybody's Jumpin' Everybody Else's Train", I think the '80's song (The Cure) was named which expressed this concept so well.

Obama was put off by the posturing and play-acting: Hillary, "whose feelings were hurt" when she wasn't voted Most Likable; Edwards with his new-found buddy (and I would say Obama will definitely need him if he is to win, and, by the way, John, feel like running for VP again?) ; Richardson and Hillary trotting out "experience" (which they have more of, in a quantitative sense, but not qualitatively superior in any real measure). He kept his cool for the most part, didn't commit major errors, acknowledged his leadership position (which, funnily enough, Hillary didn't challenge).

I don't think Obama enjoyed it, though, and he would be well advised to avoid further debates with his Democratic rivals. His policies don't stand out (none of them do), and it isn't one of his better formats. His analysis is too dry (in contrast to Edwards', whose presentation is spectacular though less successful strategically) and abstruse.

Probably the worst aspect for Obama is that he demonstrated the same quality that everyone criticized Her Royal Colossus for before she got rocked in Iowa: no, not the one of the vague answers, but of playing to the general Electorate before the nomination is won. This may help him tactically in New Hampshire (and the race is, once again, so close that tactics will be vital), but will hurt him in the longer slog to the Unofficial National Primary.

He sticks, even if it pains him, to the strategy, which pivoted on a dime that night in Iowa City: Must Win New Hampshire! He's going for the independents and crossover Republicans, who in New Hampshire are free to vote for him. This will not be the case in South Carolina--the Democratic and Republican primaries are a week apart--so Obama will need to win that one on the strength of the case he can make to wavering fellow African-Americans for Hillary that he's proved he can get the white vote in Iowa and New Hampshire. So he was willing to absorb some arrows tonight.

A word for our Governor Bill Richardson, who was fighting to keep his seat on the podium tonight. It was not his sharpest performance, in terms of accuracy, but he had the zinger of the night. "I've been present at hostage negotiations that were more civil than this." It may have been prepared, but it's a line that plays to his benefit in all regards, and he delivered it with a comic's timing.

Richardson's presence forces the others to give clear answers on the parameters of their plans for Iraq. It probably serves no one's interest except President Bush, and unfortunately he's not going to be smart enough to take advantage of his leverage--the looming threat of Democrats--with the Iraqis. Richardson will need to break into double figures in New Hampshire or Nevada on the 19th to stay in for UNP (and a potential Favorite Son win in NM) on Feb. 5. I think he will fall a little short in NH but can still make it in NV if he makes an effective pitch to his fellow Hispanics.

Finally, I'm disappointed that no one is picking up on the idea that this strange Unofficial National Primary approach (i.e., one with a few outliers) is actually working properly (though in the wrong month) . The "regional rotation" thing reformers suggest is much too logical to fit into the untidy American Presidential election political process.

Secondly, this absurd focus on who "wins", or finishes second, or third. Obama's victory was of such significance because it was a "significant" victory of several percent, not a technical edge of a few in the count (as was Edwards' over Clinton, of Thompson over McCain). I'm of the opinion that a New Hampshire win, whether for McCain or Romney, or for Hillary or for Obama, is not important unless it is significant.

Short Term Outlook

After New Hampshire's photo finishes, everyone stays alive for February Five. And we will move on, to the chaotic segment of the race.

On the Republican side, everybody also has a good reason to stay in, regardless of New Hampshire's results (I'm excluding Duncan Hunter, who I heard tonight has now won his one delegate, in the Wyoming caucuses, and should now get out, without discharging his delegate):

McCain--the vendetta in S.C. he's planning is worth any result in the meantime;
Romney--should finish no worse than a "disappointing second", once again;
Giuliani--the good stuff is coming, and Romney's fading;
Thompson--in 'til S.C., at least;
Huckabee--at least they're not all like New Hampshire! and
Paul--"they gave me this money to run, and I'm going to stay in until it's spent, if it takes me until November!"

Benazir's Assassination

The tragedy of Benazir Bhutto's assassination was all too predictable. I see some are already comparing her assassination to JFK's in 1963: key member of dynastic political family killed after heedless (even reckless) exposure to gunmen opponents; conspiracy indicated but unsolved, etc.

I would suggest also that one consider the parallels to a fictional assassination, in the classic movie "Z", by Costa-Gavras. Charismatic figure challenging reactionary rule killed in rally (in the movie, by a cosh to the head--a head injury, instead of the bomb or the bullets, being one of the many strange turns in the aftermath of Bhutto's killing), bureaucratic cover-ups, political party in chaos.

Benazir was certainly no saint (like JFK), but her loss was most untimely and is ultimately irreplaceable.

In the follow-up, I'm looking for the U.S. to take an active role in trying to mediate, permanently, between India and Pakistan in order to bring their 50+ years of conflict to an end. This is achievable, believe it or not, and is a precondition for a serious effort to bring the terrorists' refuge in Pakistan to an end.


I would suggest that the bomb was part of an elaborate plan, to make sure the shooter (who's currently considered to have delivered the fatal injury) didn't survive. He (the shooter) probably didn't even know he was due to get blasted. CNN's counterterrorism expert Peter Begley (sp?) seems to have penetrated the fog and obfuscation and correctly identified the assassination as a Qaeda/Taliban operation.