C plus 13 - post-Michigan and pre-South Carolina and Nevada

Well, I was correct about Romney winning here, but wrong about the margin. He eventually won with 39% versus 30% for McCain and 16% for Huckabee. Hardly a squeaker of a victory! Hillary also won on the Democratic side, but the news for her was not very good. Nobody of any substance other than her (i.e. neither Obama not Edwards) was on the ballot, and she only got 55% of the vote - uncommitted got about 40%. Not good enough. To make it even worse, it looks like she has severely upset the African American part of the electorate - more than 70% of them voted uncommitted last night, and exit polls suggest that they would have voted for Obama if that had been an option. This is grim news for Clinton in two ways. First, if this trend of support is nationwide, it will make winning the nomination difficult at best for Hillary. Second, if she does win, she will somehow have to reconcile with the African American community or they will not come out and vote for her, and without those votes, she is toast in the national election. It may just be me, but I do not think that reconciliation is Hillary's strong suit!
So, what now? Well, the divergence between the party processes continues, with the Democrats having caucuses in Nevada on Saturday and a primary in South Carolina the following Saturday, while the Republicans have both Nevada and South Carolina this Saturday. My guesses? On the Democratic side, Obama wins in Nevada and in South Carolina, the latter with a bigger margin. Edwards fades further into irrelevance, and likely drops out after Florida. However, bear in mind what happened in New Hampshire! On the Republican side, Fred must be first or a close second in South Carolina, and I think he can do it (in fact, I think he will win). Nevada does not seem to have figured much in the Republican psyche, but Romney should win there. That would leave only Rudy Giuliani without a win and he is gearing up to try and take Florida (Tuesday January 29). If he doesn't he will be in trouble.
All in all, it is getting pretty exciting!

C plus 6 - more thoughts on my predictive powers!

Well, wrong again, but this time on the Democratic side, not the Republican, which I nailed, thank you very much (well, apart from thinking that Giuliani would beat Huckabee, but there you go)! However, I do not feel at all bad about getting the Democratic side wrong, since everyone else (including the Clinton camp) did too. This raises the question of how all of us could all have been so very wrong (my prediction was very much the conventional wisdom, by the way).
Clearly, polling ain't what it used to be, if indeed it ever was. Issues with caller ID (we do not answer calls from unknown numbers, for example, nor from political campaigns), people not having land lines, and the like will make polling much more difficult this time around than it was four years ago.
So, what's next? Michigan, at least on the GOP side. Likely Romney in a squeaker over McCain, I suspect (that is not yet a prediction though - that will come next week). Richardson has dropped out on the Democratic side, and I think Edwards may be close to doing the same thing. New Hampshire had him as basically irrelevant, but given the surprise result there he may continue in the hope that something equally surprising happens to his benefit. On the Republican side, the revelations about Ron Paul's newsletter and its racist comments means, I hope, that he is no longer a serious candidate (if indeed he ever was). And Thompson has drawn a line in the metaphorical sands of South Carolina, and, to mix my metaphors horribly, has said that he is going "all in" there. Quite what that means I am not sure, but I would guess that if he does not win or place a close second, he will likely drop out. A shame, since his ideas are excellent.

C plus 6 - more thoughts on my predictive powers!

Well, wrong again, but this time on the Democratic side, not the Republican, which I nailed, thank you very much (well, apart from thinking that Giuliani would beat Huckabee, but there you go)! However, I do not feel at all bad about getting the Democratic side wrong, since everyone else (including the Clinton camp) did too. This raises the question of how all of us could all have been so very wrong (my prediction was very much the conventional wisdom, by the way).
Clearly, polling ain't what it used to be, if indeed it ever was. Issues with caller ID (we do not answer calls from unknown numbers, for example, nor from political campaigns), people not having land lines, and the like will make polling much more difficult this time around than it was four years ago.
So, what's next? Michigan, at least on the GOP side. Likely Romney in a squeaker over McCain, I suspect (that is not yet a prediction though - that will come next week). Richardson has dropped out on the Democratic side, and I think Edwards may be close to doing the same thing. New Hampshire had him as basically irrelevant, but given the surprise result there he may continue in the hope that something equally surprising happens to his benefit. On the Republican side, the revelations about Ron Paul's newsletter and its racist comments means, I hope, that he is no longer a serious candidate (if indeed he ever was). And Thompson has drawn a line in the metaphorical sands of South Carolina, and, to mix my metaphors horribly, has said that he is going "all in" there. Quite what that means I am not sure, but I would guess that if he does not win or place a close second, he will likely drop out. A shame, since his ideas are excellent.

C plus 4 - predicting New Hampshire

Well, Romney, Thompson and Hunter all got something from Wyoming, which is more than any other Republican candidate got. Whether it means anything is another matter...
So, given my sterling reputation for prediction who do I think will win in New Hampshire? On the Democrat side, Obama will win, Hillary second, Edwards third. If Hillary is less than 5% behind Obama she can justifiably claim some sort of comeback, but I doubt that will happen. If Obama breaks 40% it is all over bar the voting. If Edwards does not get at least 15% he needs to drop out.
The Republican side is a bit more complex. First, I do not think Thompson will make any sort of showing in the race. If he gets 5% (which he might on the basis of his performance over the weekend) he has got way more than he bargained for in NH. I think McCain will win, by about 5% over Romney, with Giuliani just edging out Huckabee for third. This will stop any Huckabee bounce from Iowa dead in its tracks, and show that he was just a one state wonder. McCain plays well here but that is not the issue for him. He needs to carry that forward, and I do not think he can - immigration and McCain-Feingold are two big anchors that will drag him down. As for Romney, he will not be stopped by this result (although if he loses by 10% or more, or if the third place finisher is within 5% of him, he is in big trouble).
Anyway, there you have it. Rumors of Duncan Hunter dropping out are apparently not true, but that is simply a shame. He needs to go. If Ron Paul gets more than 10%, expect to hear a lot of media noise about it. Any less than that, and he too becomes mostly marginal.

C plus 2 - the aftermath

Well, I was 100% correct in my predictions for the Democratic results here in Iowa, and 100% wrong for the Republican results! For those who do not remember, I chose on the Republican side Thompson, Romney, and either Giuliani or Huckabee in third. Instead, Huckabee won it - so my thoughts about his support draining away were clearly wrong.
In terms of post-mortem, clearly many smarter folks than I will be having their say, and of course with the Wyoming Republican caucus today, and New Hampshire primary on Tuesday we will soon have more results to ponder. Nonetheless, I will share my thoughts on what it all means, just so I can be wrong again!
I think the situation on the Democratic side is the clearer of the two. Edwards is toast - he needed to win Iowa, and did not do that. I do not see anything coming down the pike where he will win, and without a win soon (before February 5) he will be seen as irrelevant. That leaves Hillary and Obama. I could be wrong here, but I think Hillary is toast too. Too few people find her demeanor attractive. What I mean by that is she seems incapable of making enough people feel good about her and about her leadership to make the sale. Her claims that her time as first lady gives her an edge in experience over Obama and Edwards is frankly laughable, and even the MSM are not going for it. In short, I do not think she will win anything between now and February 5, and if I am right, she will be so badly wounded by then that she will end up losing on that day big time. I will say right now that I think Obama has this in the bag. What that means for the general election is very difficult to say at this point in time, because Obama is actually very much a liberal and strongly on the left wing of the democratic party, but it will be interesting.
The Republican side is very murky. If Huckabee gets a top two finish in New Hampshire, I think he will go on to win the nomination, but I do not expect that to happen. His first place in Iowa was clearly due to strong evangelical support, but looking at the numbers shows an interesting story. He got 37% of the vote, yet between 50 and 60% of the Republican caucus goers were evangelicals according to various entrance and exit polls. In other words, Huckabee did not get all of the evangelical vote (although he did very well in it - perhaps as much as 75% of it) and nowhere else will he find such strong evangelical support (South Carolina will be strongly for Fred rather than Huckabee). In short, this is Huckabee's flash in the pan, and I do not think he will carry this win forward in any meaningful way.
What about Romney? Well, he was hurt by not finishing first, but the strong evangelical presence no doubt contributed to that. He needs to finish first or second everywhere between now and February 5 to be in a commanding position. Otherwise, he is fighting for his life. Money is not an issue for him right now, but eventually he will have to decide if spending all his own money is worth it in a possibly losing fight.
Thompson lives to fight another day (yippee!) but needs to start doing better than third place. If he does not get one or two second places before February 5, he's done. He may get a second or first place finish today in Wyoming.
McCain did less well than some had indicated in Iowa, but clearly has rebounded from his low point. If he wins New Hampshire (seems likely) he is back in the thick of it, but he still has to get through South Carolina, which was his nemesis in 2000. Still, he is in good shape right now.
Giuliani has to show well in New Hampshire and South Carolina (no lower than third) and then has to win in Florida.
Ron Paul may have hit his high point with 9% in Iowa. From here on out, he fades in importance.

But, please be aware how wrong I was about the Republican caucus results, and take all of this with a large grain of salt!

C minus 2 days

And a very Happy New Year to all my readers (all three of you!). A truly cold day here in Iowa - air temperature is about 10 F, and a nice wind of 20 mph (gusting to 33 mph) creates a wind chill of about -8F. Kath and I walked to the store this morning, and experienced it first hand - our verdict? It is COLD!
We are very definitely in the final furlong now. Clearly, the excitement is growing, and as a result I found myself on the front page of our local paper, the Cedar Rapids Gazette, this morning. Oh, the fame!
Some interesting stuff in the past couple of days on Fred Thompson. I should add that I have been told by a commenter on the blog that I should "stop being baised.. its pointless to promote fred.." but I do not agree. Of the candidates, I have now decided that I will support Fred. One summative reason was the video clip he put together to explain why he is running. It is some 17 minutes long, and has been viewed by more than 114,000 people on You Tube as of now. It has generated some interesting commentary from pundits, some generally positive, with others, not surprisingly, tending the other way. There was also some fuss in the last few days coming, yet again, from a journalist who selectively quoted Thompson's answer to a question about whether or not he desired the Presidency. The person who asked the question explains why, and what he thought about it all, at this location.
So, we are close to the end, and it is by all accounts coming down to the wire. I stick by my earlier predictions, but as noted at that time, these are likely wrong! However, nothing in the current polls serves as a definitive indicator of me being wrong! Bear in mind that my predictions were made 17 days ago - I feel quite proud that they are not totally out to lunch at this point in time!

C minus 5 - a snowball's chance?

... in hell seem to be what many pundits are giving Fred Thompson, to win the nomination. However, Fred, in his own inimitable style, seems to have taken that snowball thing to heart, and be using it to hit back at the media! Way to go Fred! I got a tip, via the comments, for folk to try out a web site called Theelectionproject. I do not know if it is any good, but FYI there it is. There is another site that will be of value once the caucus/primary process gets started called Election 2008. It will track who has how many delegates.
And, to ensure that she stays on track with her tone deaf campaign management, it now appears that Hillary's campaign is using sock-puppetry to try and generate support and interest on the Internet. Wow - talk about dumb!

C minus 6 - and it's snowing again

Would you believe it - snow, in Iowa, in late December - wow! Of course, the only people who will get excited about that are exactly the same folks as will get excited about the latest polls from the LA Times (be warned - it is in Adobe pdf format). However, as noted by Captain Ed, the numbers are less than compelling. A grand total of 174 likely Republican caucus goers were sampled, of whom 37 supported Huckabee, 23 supported Romney, and 11 supported Thompson. In other words, Huckabee has three times the support (or a little more) than Thompson - or NOT! The sample size is so small as to be meaningless. With so few people polled, there is almost no way of being certain that the sample is representative. While the standard measure of error for such things (root n over n) suggests an error of plus or minus 7.5% the reality is that a much higher degree of error is likely as a result of how the interviewees were selected. In short, the race remains as wide open as ever, and the only polls that count now are the results.
Hillary continues her tone deaf campaign by not taking any questions at her campaign stops in Iowa. Does the woman not get it, or is she simply believing her own press releases? The whole point of the early caucus in Iowa and the early primary in New Hampshire is that the candidates make themselves accessible to the public in ways that they cannot do later in the campaign. Accessibility means answering questions not brushing people off. And given how seriously folks here in Iowa (and, I have heard, in New Hampshire too!) take their responsibility in the caucuses, brushing them off like this will only result in pissing them off. Stupid, stupid, stupid. It is no wonder that Theo Caldwell of the National Post in Canada (h/t Captain Ed) states quite bluntly that the only possible choice for President is a Republican - in fact, almost any of the current crop of Republican candidates:

An obvious choice can be unnerving. When the apparent perfection of one option or the unspeakable awfulness of another makes a decision seem too easy, it is human nature to become suspicious.

This instinct intensifies as the stakes of the given choice are raised. American voters know no greater responsibility to their country and to the world than to select their president wisely. While we do not yet know who the Democrat and Republican nominees will be, any combination of the leading candidates from either party will make for the most obvious choice put to American voters in a generation. To wit, none of the Democrats has any business being president.

And that's from Canada, eh! Will it hold true in Iowa? Who knows...

C minus 10 - the Christmas Eve Special

A Merry Christmas to everyone, and if you are reading this instead of spending quality Christmas time with your family, then step away from the computer, get yourself some egg nog (fortified or not) or another beverage of choice, and dive in there. If you are really stuck, do what we have just done - sit down with them all and watch National Lampoon's Christmas Vacation (a tradition for us on Christmas Eve!).
While driving around on errands today, which I was glad to do since it got me out of the house, and Kath was glad for me to do for exactly the same reason, I heard adverts for Hillary a number of times. All were the same, and the theme was how marvelous she was because the Des Moines Register endorsed her. Frankly, that is lame in a major way. Fine, if you let the Register do all your thinking for you, then this endorsement means something. But most folks here in Iowa don't. The Register serves primarily as a paper for people to complain about. The advert will have done nothing to encourage undecided voters to support Hillary, and at this stage, she needs those folks pretty seriously.
And that was not the only error of hers that I learned of today. Apparently, the campaign has been handing out supporter cards with a caucus date of January 14th on them - major oops! That is an act of supreme incompetence for a campaign. If it were the only such act, that would be one thing, but the campaign has made a number of these errors of late. Why? Well, perhaps they believed their own press releases that Hillary was the inevitable candidate, and forgot to actual work at making that happen. Contributing to that may have been the media tendency to give those they favor a pass when it comes to the hard questions. That means the media favorites are not battle tested, and so in the real fight, they come up short. A similar thing may be happening to Mike Huckabee, as we get from his campaign a daily dose of bad news. The latest bad news for him, and this is I think fatal in terms of his candidacy, is that he has received significant speaking fees ($35K) from Novo Nordisk "one of the world's largest embryonic stem cell researchers." As noted in the link, the MSM seem to be burying this one, which in the long run will only serve to weaken Huckabee (just as Kerry was weakened because the press did not ask him more detailed questions about his experiences in Vietnam - had they done so, and had his campaign responded appropriately, there would have been nothing for the Swift Boat Veterans to say. But, they didn't and the rest is history).
Given all of which, a further reminder that the polls are basically rubbish for things like caucuses is served up here. The only polls that matter are the numbers that come out of the caucuses, not those going in!

C minus 12 - polls and stuff

A couple of interesting results from on-line polls on right leaning web sites. The first, on Michelle Malkin's site, has Thompson leading with 37% of the vote, more even than Ron Paul (who normally manages to dominate such on-line polls). The second poll, still active, on Captain's Quarters, also has Thompson leading, although to be fair this one is about which candidate you would like to have an egg nog with, rather than which you would vote for!
So, what do these on-line polls mean? Traditionally, the answer has been not very much, and indeed that may well be the case today, but...
Maybe on-line polls are not much less accurate than traditional phone polls. The phone polls today face a number of challenges (e.g. people not having land lines, multiple candidates and small sample sizes, etc.) and we know that the folks who take the on-line polls are likely reading about issues relating to the race on the blogs where they vote. Of course, the on-line polls can be deliberately skewed if a single candidate's campaign gets a bunch of people to go to the blog and do Chicago style voting (early and often) and there is some evidence that the Paul campaign has done this in the past. However, I think in this case the on-line polling may be hooking into a strong phenomenon of growing support for Thompson. I think he will get a very pleasant surprise come early January!

C minus 13 - miscellany

The Inestimable Iowahawk explains here, as only he can, why it is that Iowa has the first in the Nation caucuses. Eat your heart out, those of you on the left and right coasts - the heartland is where it's at!
Bob Krumm explains who he has endorsed, and why, at this post. He uses an excellent system of analysis for this, but I have to admit to skepticism, if only because of this quote of his:

Depending on how you look at it, I am either blessed or cursed with an analytical mind. So when making big decisions I’ve long attempted to quantify the relative merits of the choices available to me. One simple tool I have found useful is the decision matrix. Even my wife has become a convert to its utility. We’ve used decision matrices to buy three different cars, select a dog breed, and choose our vacation destinations. And so, I have again turned to a decision matrix to help determine who I support for President.

I have bolded the sentence I find particularly troublesome. If, indeed, he has persuaded his wife to use decision matrices, he owes it to all other males on the planet to share his methods for doing so!
Tancredo has dropped out and endorsed Romney, which is a little bit surprising. Tancredo's main concern is, and has been consistently for a number of years, illegal immigration. I am not sure that Romney is the one I would choose as being the strongest on illegal immigration, but then again, the endorsement is Tancredo's to give, not mine!
And I am thankful to learn that I am not the only one who was deeply troubled by the Hillary Christmas Ad. Ann Althouse has put it splendidly (ht: Instapundit):

Isn't this like when you get presents from family members and you know they charged it on your credit card?

Exactly! After all, it IS our money that is paying for all those gifts Hillary is wrapping - not hers...

C minus 14 - discovery of media bias

I am shocked, shocked I tell you to hear that there is gambling going on in Rick's Casino there is clear evidence of media bias against Fred Thompson (great roundup of it all here with suitable links), but it would appear that there is! A report about his bus tour on Tuesday covered a trip to a fire station, and seemed to show a grumpy old man who could not relate to his audience. The video of the event was rather different. When will mainstream media folk learn that the world in which they and they alone controlled the content is no longer with us? (sorry - a rhetorical question).
Anyway, I went to the Thompson event in Coralville yesterday, a Town Hall type meeting on one of the local radio stations (KCJJ) and was suitably impressed. Thompson gave very thoughtful and complete answers to his questioners, but most impressive of all was when he was asked a question by a member of the Meskwaki tribe about relations between Native American Tribes and the Federal Government. Thompson said he did not know enough about the particular issue to respond, but he would find out so that he could act appropriately. In other words, he was willing to say that he did not know - a huge and potentially dangerous admission for a politician to make, but also absolutely the right thing to do. This is I think part of what makes him a very impressive candidate, plus, as others have noted, his wife is indeed extremely cute (not, of course, that that should make any difference :)). Oh, and I do know the photo is not exactly the best in the world. Getting a clear shot was almost impossible - the traditional media photographers were like piranhas with a crippled cow for lunch.

C minus 16 - the endgame begins

I think that we are starting to see the final shape of the caucuses begin to take form. Now, all that is highly speculative, so what makes me think that? Well, time is an issue - only about two weeks left for folks to make decisions. Also, we are beginning to see some movement in various ways. A lot of endorsements are coming out. Some (e.g. Congressman King for Thompson) are your political endorsements, others are the old media (e.g. the Des Moines Register for McCain) and still others are the new media (e.g. Redstate for Thompson). Do these matter? In one sense, no. Most voters will not be swayed by what a single politician or a newspaper thinks. However, it does create a sense of time running out, which is appropriate!
Given that, it begins to look like Fred Thompson may be surging at the right time. He began his bus tour of Iowa yesterday in Dubuque, and tomorrow will be in this neck of the woods, so I will try to hear him. There is a little bit of a buzz that he might well be on the rise, but is it real? Time will tell.
This ties in with a sense that the momentum for Huckabee may be stalling (but as noted in the link all it shows is that his support is not increasing, rather than that it is decreasing). I remain confident in my predictions, but given my track record on such things, I would strongly suggest that nobody puts any money on said predictions!

C minus 19 - snowing again

And looking mighty pretty while it does it, I might add! However, this does mean that the drive will have to be shoveled - chances that the children will do it (those living at home)? Close to zero - ah well, such is life as a parent!
We are now less than three weeks until caucus night, and the race seems as interesting as ever. Right now, it looks like Huckabee is leading, Romney is second, Thompson and Guiliani are pretty close for third place, with McCain running in fifth, at least in part because he, commendably, insists on telling us here in Iowa that subsidies for ethanol are a bad idea. Good policy, but probably less good for his chances in the caucuses!
However, I do not expect the race to finish this way. I think that Huckabee will begin to fade fairly rapidly from here on in. His conservative credentials are lacking in some important areas and the scrutiny he is receiving is beginning to demonstrate these. What I think we will see happening, and I am not alone, is Thompson beginning to get a lot of interest and support. In part this will come from his bus tour across Iowa, but I think it will also come as support drains away from Huckabee to Thompson. Obviously, a lot can change in this time, but I will stick my neck out and predict Thompson wins Iowa, with Romney second, and Guiliani and Huckabee pretty close together in third place. Likely I am totally wrong, but remember, you saw it here first!

C minus 21 - ice storm recovery, and a narrowing of the field

Having been without power part of the last two days because of the ice storm, it is a great pleasure to be back on the grid. However the two days were not without value. In the gloom and dark of a house without lights, I was able to think about the five candidates and consider which of them I should drop (to help me narrow my choice to four, now that the caucuses are only three weeks away.
I think that at this time, if one of my five potential choices is to be dropped, it should be Mike Huckabee. While he has the executive experience of running the State of Arkansas as governor, the record would suggest that from the point of view of fiscal policy, he was not particularly conservative. I am also concerned that he seems overly committed to a "nanny state." So, given that, I am now down to four candidates, and I shall see how my thinking develops on them over the next three weeks.

C minus 24 - the ice storm cometh

After struggling yesterday to try and set down my thoughts on leadership, I came across a piece today that typifies the obverse, or what might be called anti-leadership. The piece discusses concerns raised by hard core democratic voters about Hillary Clinton. Here are some typical quotes:

The concerns about Clinton, 60, a New York senator, are that she is devious, calculating and, fairly or not, a divisive figure in American politics.

Those are a lot tougher to overcome.

It was revealing, too, when Hart pushed them to envision these senators as leaders of the country or, as he put it, their ``boss.'' Obama, they say, would be inspirational, motivating, charismatic and compassionate. After praising Clinton's experience and intelligence, they say she would be demanding, difficult, maybe even a little scary.

Now in some ways, this is unfair. A scary leader may not be a bad leader, but there is unfortunately more bade news for Senator Clinton:

Candor and authenticity were repeatedly cited. ``I don't feel like I look at her and see someone who's telling me the whole truth,'' says Allison Lowrey, a 30-year-old human- resources consultant. ``I'd like to see her approach a problem without the polls'' helping her make her decision, says Andrew Alebergo, a 39-year-old tanning-salon operator.

Even strong Hillary supporters acknowledge the electorate's deep-seated concerns. ``She is walking a fine tightrope now, because she is such a divisive personality,'' says Lynda Connelly, a thoughtful 58-year-old Red Cross manager. She plans to vote for Clinton while fearing that, if elected, ``the right- wing noise machine is going to do everything it can to derail her.''

This isn't an anti-Hillary crowd. She gets high marks for her experience, intelligence and toughness; these qualities, they suspect, are what voters demand.

Their hopes and dreams, though, are with Obama, 46. If he can dispel misgivings about his electability or experience, the formidable Clinton forces may be powerless.

This is one reason why I was so impressed by Obama speaking out about social security. That was the mark of a leader - someone willing to tackle difficult issues even if they know that what they say will not be popular. If you are poll driven, then you will never have the courage to speak out like that.

In the long run, I think that leadership is what counts. There is a lot of discussion, for example, on right wing blogs about the stance that Bush took on embryonic stem cell research. Some agreed with him, and some did not, but as far as I could tell everyone thought that he did well to speak about it.

So, which of the Republican five have the most leadership quality in this regard. I think Fred Thompson has shown a willingness to tackle awkward topics well and has demonstrated leadership by doing so. I think Rudy has shown this by his forthright manner of addressing the differences he has with some on topics of abortion. McCain has shown leadership by the stance he has taken on immigration and campaign finance reform (although I think he is wrong on both counts). McCain may well be the one who shows the limitations on such leadership. People will follow a leader up to the point when that leader's views on critical issues diverge from their own too much. How much is too much? A very personal issue that each one of us has to decide! Sorry, but on that score there are no easy answers.

My apologies too for the rather cryptic title to this post. A major ice storm is forecast to start in about three hours, and will likely close down much of eastern Iowa, including Iowa City. I may or may not get to blog tomorrow - I know, the suspense is killing you!

C minus 25 - the leadership conundrum

It is quite possible for an aspiring presidential candidate to have excellent policy ideas, and yet fail utterly to capture the imagination of the voters sufficiently to persuade them to vote for said candidate. Obviously, a certain sort of personality is needed to encourage people to give you their vote, but on top of this, especially with the Presidency, a candidate must persuade voters that she or he is a leader.
Leadership is one of those things that are difficult to define, but obvious when seen. It is sometimes confused with good management, yet the two are fundamentally different. In a discussion over Thanksgiving (and a good malt whisky) a good friend of mine and I decided that leadership is to management as vision is to strategy. This, while no doubt very profound (as such deep thoughts, spawned in a good malt, so often are) is still less than illuminating.
So, given this tricky issue, what sort of leadership do I see in the five Republican candidates that I am considering? Clearly Huckabee, Romney, and Guiliani all have governmental executive experience, having been either governor or mayor themselves. This is no small thing. In the last 40 years, only President George H. W. Bush (Bush the elder) has been elected President without having been a governor, and he had executive experience running the CIA. The fact that Guiliani has only been a mayor rather than a governor is irrelevant, given that he was mayor of New York, which has significantly more residents than either Arkansas or Massachusetts.
However, not having been a governor (or big city mayor) need not be a barrier to the Presidency (in spite of recent history). Clearly, the Democrats do not think so, since their last two Presidential nominees have not been governors, nor do any of their current front runners have gubernatorial experience. And certainly, John McCain's experience in the Hanoi Hilton was clear evidence of significant leadership under the most appalling conditions. Whether Fred Thompson has that leadership experience is less clear.
And yet, in these words I am making the same confusion between managerial skill and leadership as I warned against above. Leadership is something more than running a large organization, whether that be a state, one of the world's great cities, a major government bureaucracy, or a corporation. It is the ability to inspire people under the worst possible conditions. And that is why both McCain and Guiliani are such formidable candidates, because both have shown that ability to lead. McCain's demonstration was in the darkest of days, and was conducted under almost invisible conditions. Guiliani's leadership took place on the world stage, under the spotlight, and was singularly effective. Those who are now trying to attack Guiliani for his role as mayor in the aftermath of 9/11 are doing so because they recognize, whether explicitly or not, just how important and appealing the leadership he showed then is to the presidential race.
Clearly leadership is not the only desirable quality in a presidential candidate, nor do I wish to diminish the possible leadership qualities of Huckabee, Romney, and Thompson, but McCain and Guiliani are both very clearly leaders. Next November, that could be critical.

C minus 26 - has Huckabee peaked?

The big, and good, news for Mike Huckabee over the last week or so is his meteoric rise in the polls. A Newsweek poll now has him at about twice the support of his next closest rival (Romney) in Iowa, although some think the poll (of only 275 people) is a bit suspect. Nonetheless, it must feel good to go from nowhere to everywhere in nothing flat!
Of course, what goes up, must come down, both in gravitational fields and in politics. And with more than three weeks to go before caucus night it maybe that this rise is too soon. With good numbers come increased scrutiny, and the scrutiny has not been kind so far. News has come out that he supported an AIDS quarantine, in 1992, and is also on record as saying that homosexuality is sinful (again, in 1992 - by which I mean that he said it in 1992, not that homosexuality was sinful, according to Huckabee, only in 1992 - clearly my grammar needs work!). Various other issues are being raised, such as his role in paroling a rapist who subsequently raped and killed someone, his fiscal actions while governor of Arkansas, and his tendency toward "Nanny Statism" with regard to health care. None of these may hurt him with his base here in Iowa, but they may limit his ability to grow beyond his base.
A ripple effect of the surge of Huckabee is that it may make life a little easier for Romney. Romney did very well with his speech on Thursday (see here for some quotes) and will likely see a bump in the polls as a result. The Sunday morning news shows tomorrow will likely focus on this a lot, along with another recent development, which is...
That Fred Thompson has decided to roll the dice in Iowa in a major way (hat tip to the Corner). He will be in the State, traveling around by bus, every day between now and the caucuses except for Christmas day. I, and others, have been waiting, with increasing impatience, for Fred to get moving. His policy statements are great, his ideas are excellent and exciting, but he needs to close the deal. Perhaps, by bus, he can do it! His Senatorial campaign succeeded on the basis of a state tour in a red pickup - maybe the bus will do the same for him.
So, lots of excitement in the coming weeks here in Iowa. And on the home front, I got a visit this evening from a couple who are the precinct captains for Obama. Very friendly and pleasant, and if this is indicative of the level of organization of the Obama team, a good sign for him. It should be noted that while I am a registered Republican, my daughter, who is living at home at present, is a registered Democrat, and it was her they were coming to see!

C minus 39 - the end of the long weekend

Hugh Hewitt is of the opinion that the Republican nomination is now a two horse race, specifically between Rudy and Mitt. It should be noted that Hugh has been a supporter of Mitt Romney since the word go in this campaign, but his arguments make interesting reading, not least because he poses them in terms of a debunking of the political pundits. His piece suggests that the spin machine which worked so well for politicians in the past is now a broken and outdated thing, and its influence on this election will be minimal. We shall see! The Money quote from Hugh:

Republican voters believe Hillary will be the nominee and that she will be extraordinarily tough to beat.
They also know it will require an enormous amount of money and energy to beat her.
The vast majority of them know this political context limits their choices to one of two candidates: Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney.
There isn't going to a stampede to Huckabee or a Fred Revival, period. If Romney can deliver three or four early wins and back it up with the cash he has amassed plus much of his own on February 5, he will be the nominee.
If he can't, Rudy will be the nominee.

So, track and see whether or not he is correct...

Fred Thompson has been making a bit of a splash today, first of all with the release of his plan for income taxes, which is pretty interesting. It offers a simple option, with very limited deductions (for example, no deduction for mortgage interest payments) and only two rates (10% up to $100,000 for couples filing jointly, and 25% above that). The personal deductions and those for children are such that a family of four would pay no tax at all on earnings up to $39,000. Feasible? Who knows, but it is a plan, and serves as a good point of discussion. As might be expected, some folk are already saying that the country cannot afford it (see the comments on this site). This is a legitimate area for discussion, but it should be remembered that Fred has given us something concrete to discuss, and that should be considered good.

Another issue with Fred Thompson has been the charge that he is lazy when campaigning. It would appear that this is not the case. I wonder who might spread such tales, and why? In addition to that, Fred was on Fox News Sunday today. Some said he did well, others thought he did poorly. I think he is playing the game a different way, and that carries both risks and rewards. For Fred, he has to make it to South Carolina, win there, and still have enough momentum (or cash - the two may be effectively equivalent) to do well in the Southern States on February 5. Watch this space...

The pace will pick up relentlessly between now and Christmas, so I will leave tomorrow for Europe, to see what they are saying about the race over there (if anything!). With luck, and a certain degree of electronic cooperation, I shall be able to post while over there.

C Minus 40 - Post-Thanksgiving Turkey Hunt

Now that Thanksgiving has come and gone, and everyone is asking who exactly it is that gets up at ungodly hours the day after large dinners to go to the mall (or at least, everyone I know is asking that!), we are entering into the final stretch of the campaign here in Iowa. It remains wide open, at least as far as I can tell. An informal review of yard signs indicate approximately equal (albeit very sparse) support for Hillary, Obama, and Edwards, with one sign for Dodd spotted, and no other signs for candidates (that's right - there are no Republican signs out anyway, because this is Iowa City, a nuclear free zone, if you did not know!). If anyone is leading in terms of signs it is Obama, but the margin is very small! What is interesting is that there are a number of yards with "troops out now" signs and the like, but without any sign for a specific candidate. There are a LOT of undecided voters here in Iowa, and that should be borne in mind whenever you read a poll.

According to some, the focus for the Democrats is now going to be all Iowa, all the time, until January 3. I think that may overstate things, but it does seem as if the Iowa Caucuses will be far more important for the Dems than for the Republicans. Whichever of the big three Dems gets a win here will be given a big boost, whereas there seems to be much less likelihood of a bounce on the Republican side. If Romney wins, well he should, given all the money he has spent here. If he loses, he will be hurt for that same reason, but it is unlikely to be a deadly blow. McCain has not put much effort into the state, apparently because his stance on things like corn subsidies make it a very hard win for him (see this Washington Post article, which includes a quote from one of my colleagues - I do love to bask in reflected fame!). Huckabee needs a win or a second place in Iowa or he will wither on the vine, but he is a long shot at present anyway. Rudy is fighting here, but seems more invested in New Hampshire. And Fred is also here, but not much, and is more invested in South Carolina. So, much less fireworks likely on January 3 on the GOP side than on the Dems.

The uneasiness about Hillary in some quarters continues. The sense that she is trying to manage the press and avoid any embarrassing (or, perhaps more accurately, any worthwhile and pointed) questions is captured here. She has also put together an advert that, according to Howard Kurtz is meant to protect her, or as the "Divine Ms. Althouse" puts it: "How dare you questions her!" A more direct approach against Hillary is taken by Grover Norquist, who is promoting an anti-nepotism amendment to the constitution, specifically to neuter political dynasties.

Of interest in all this is an excellent report in the Telegraph (based in England). Two reporters crossed the USA from Portland Maine to San Diego, and then again from Seattle to Florida, doing a lot of listening on the way, and spending a lot of time in flyover country. Their findings are interesting. Of Hillary, they note:

While we found many people who hated Mrs Clinton, those who loved her were few and far between. Certainly, many said they would vote for her, but the reasons cited tended to be her status as the top Democrat, the fact that she was battle-tested against Republicans and - for some women - the fact that she would be the first female president.

Such support might register in the opinion polls, but could melt away should the former First Lady lose in Iowa. And the frequently expressed nightmare for Democrats is that she will win their party's nomination but lose to a Republican next November when most Americans decide they don't much like her.

"I'm always amazed how we can screw things up," said Steve Ayers, a coffee-shop owner in Hannibal. "Maybe the way we screw it up this time is by nominating Hillary - across the Midwest that would be the only way of unifying Republicans."

The interesting thing here is that this report is probably about as objective as you can get at this point in time. These folks do not have a horse in this race, yet they seem to be indicating that the story in the media is seriously incorrect. They also seem to be saying that this year, as perhaps never before, the field is wide open. That is a continuing theme, and will likely have a great deal more importance than any other factor at this time. Here in Iowa, a lot of folk will be going to the caucuses without their final decisions having been made.

And just to further confound conventional wisdom, there is now a report out that the Democrats, and not the GOP, are the party of the rich. What impact, if any, this will have is unknown...