This week's predictions

Monday in Alberta:

• Ed Stemach's Progressive Conservatives: 47 (majority)


• Kevin Taft's Alberta Liberals: 26


• Paul Hinman's Wildrose Alliance: 5


• Brian Mason's NDP: 4


• Others: 1

Tuesday in America:

• Texas: Clinton may win the popular vote in the primary but not necessarily the delegates; Obama will win the most votes and most delegates in the caucus. Confused? It's complicated.


• Ohio: Obama will win narrowly.


• Rhode Island: Clinton will win by single digits.


• Vermont: Obama will win by double digits.

If Clinton manages to win both Ohio and Texas (I doubt she can win Texas outright, but it could be enough of a moral victory for her to move on if she wins the primary), Clinton should beware the Ides of March(ish) as she is sure to lose BIG in both Mississippi and Wyonming on March 11. I am not sure how she holds on for the six week campaign in Pennsylvania if she has lost 14 out of 17 contests in a row, fought one to a draw and won only two (this would assume a win in Ohio and Rhode Island and a win in the Texas primary but loss in the caucus and delegate total). As I wrote a couple of weeks ago, it is all over for Clinton, it is just a matter of when. If she is smart, she will go gracefully and politely after Tuesday, which will still allow her to either a) have a good shot at the nomination in 2012; or b) become Senate Majority Leader, which has always seemed to be her "plan B". If she sticks in much longer, I think she loses both of those fall back options.

John S. McCain the Third Veepstakes

It is often said that the vice president serves two purposes: 1) to balance the ticket, 2) DO NO HARM! (to win more votes than he or she would lose).

For balancing purposes, McCain needs to do two things: a) choose another conservative who hasn't irked the Republican base as he has - so as to unite the party, b) someone with stronger credentials on the economy.

The Democrats will use, to some success, the infamous 2005 quote where McCain said he didn't know much about the economy. He could use his vice presidential candidate to help fight this.

I will start by, irrespective of the requirements, naming two pet possibilities:

Sen. Elizabeth Dole (R-NC)
Fmr. Gov. Jeb Bush (R-FL)

Why? Because every Republican ticket since 1952, save one, has had a Nixon, Dole or Bush on it and I am amused by such historical oddities.

Dole would probably satisfy all of the requirements I set out. She is a solid conservative (ACU rating of 96) and, as a former labor secretary, has knowledge of the economy. She is also a classy lady who would warm voters hearts and certainly not lose votes. Her main disadvantage is that she is the same age as McCain and he'll probably want to balance the ticket with age as well. Moreover, she is running for re-election this year (and will be nominated in May) so that could make her an awkward veep candidate, though didn't stop Gore from choosing Lieberman in 2000.

Bush satisfies the conservative and economic qualifiers but, by virtue of his surname would probably cost McCain votes especially in that he would aid the Democrats in painting the Arizonan as Bush III.

Now on to others, (in alphabetical order):

Sen. Sam Brownback (R-KS)
Brownback is certainly a conservative (ACU rating of 87), and even more especially a social conservative. After abandoning his ill-fated bid for the presidency he endorsed McCain which might be viewed as a plus. However, his support of McCain's immigration reform doesn't make him a very good candidate for bringing in the base. Moreover, he doesn't have much economic experience.

Sen. Richard Burr (R-NC)
An early supporter of McCain, Burr is a strong conservative (ACU rating of 92). He is young and has some experience but little focused on the economy. He voted on both sides of the immigration bill but unlike McCain and Brownback was not an unabashed supporter of it.

Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK)
Though he is certainly a solid conservative (ACU rating of 100!), this former physician has been to the far, hard right on a number of issues which would likely turn off McCain. Moreover, he lacks experience on the economy.

Gov. Charlie Crist (R-FL)
Crist's endorsement of McCain on the eve of the Florida primary may have pushed the Arizonan over the top and that win in Florida is what sealed the nomination, thus some favours are certainly owed here! However, Crist doesn't have a strong record as a conservative and Florida is likely to vote Republican with or without him on the ticket.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC)
A fairly solid conservative (ACU rating of 83), Graham was a strong backer of immigration reform and doesn't have a lot of depth on economic issues. He doesn't balance the ticket.

Fmr. Gov. Mike Huckabee (R-AR)
Huckabee was for a long time considered a favourite for a VP candidate, however, McCain is distrusted by some economic conservatives as is Huckabee. He would not be a good fit for McCain.
Gov. Jon Huntsman (R-UT)
Huntsman, a Mormon and governor of Utah, bucked many of his fellow members of the LDS church and fellow Utahans by packing John McCain over fellow Mormon Mitt Romney. He has foreign policy experience (a former ambassador) and economic experience (a former deputy U.S. trade representative and a successful governor overseeing a booming economy). He is young and conservative and could be a surprise choice by McCain.

Gov. Bobby Jindal (R-LA)
A former congressman and freshly elected governor, Jindal is a solid conservative (ACU rating of 92) and particularly a strong social conservative. He is only 36 and thus barely eligible for the vice-presidency (one must by 35) but has a remarkable amount of experience for his age. He was in the Louisiana cabinet at 25, ran a
national commission on medicare at 27, was named president of the University of Louisiana at 28 and was appointed as an Assistant Secretary in the federal health department at 30. He has had tremendous success in health care issues and the Democrats will be trying to make that a major issue in the election. Moreover, his multiculturalism could be the Republican answer to Barack Obama. Like Huntsman, he is another darkhorse.

Gov. Tim Pawlenty (R-MN)
This fellow seems to be the darling choice of the media. Pawlenty was the strongest and steadiest supporter of McCain through the dark period of 2007 when the latter's campaign seemed to be over. However, he is not a strong conservative and therefore would be a poor choice for ticket balance.

Fmr Rep., Int'l Trade Amb. and White House Budget guy Rob Portman (R-OH)
Portman isn't a household name, but he has lots of experience. He was a congressman for 8 years (getting an ACU rating of 88 in his last year) and served for 2 years as a junior member of the Bush cabinet (first as International Trade Representative [essentially the U.S. trade minister] and then as White House budget director [eseentially a finance minister in a minority government, with less leaway]). He is highly regarded among Washington insiders and is attractive and charismatic. Moreover, Ohio will be a key state (as it was in 2004) and he could help keep it in the Republican column.

Gov. Sonny Purdue (R-GA)
Purdue is only 10 years younger than McCain, has no national profile, no international experience and no tremendous economic record to present. Why he has appeared on some lists as a potential pick escapes me.

Fmr. Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge (R-PA)
A former congressman from and governor of Pennsylvania, the current Democratic governor of the swing state (which went Democratic by small margins in 2000 and 2004) said Ridge would push the state into the Republican column. Though he is not a solid conservative (he got a 61 rating from the ACU his last year in congress), he is well regarded for his stewardship of the terror file by conservatives and is a key Bush ally. He has supported McCain since day one and seems close to the Senator and delivering Pennsylvania would almost guarantee a victory for the Republicans. (See "UPDATE" below)

Gov. Mike Sanford (R-SC)
A solid conservative (ACU rating of 92) and a compatriot of McCain in the anti-pork spending crusade, Sanford could be a good way to balance the ticket and to please McCain.

Fmr. Sen. Fred Thompson (R-TN)
Thompson is a solid conservative and an old friend of McCain's from the Senate and from the latter's 2000 presidential run. Had he not run for president, or run and done better, I would imagine him as a frontrunner for the McCain VP nod. However, owing to his disappointing performance when he was running to be at the top of the ticket, I dought he would be tapped to run at the bottom.

Fmr. Rep. J.C. Watts (R-OK)
Watts, one of view Black Republicans ever elected to national office, is a strong conservative (ACU rating of 96) and was always considered a rising star before he opted to honour his committment to only serve three terms. Still relatively young, he could be a good fit for McCain.

No way Jose: The following names have been mentioned but would never be pick

First, McCain is on the record saying that he doesn't expect that the
party would nominate a pro-choice VP candidate. That rules out the
following who are sometimes mentioned:

Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME)
Fmr. Mayor Rudy Giuliani (R-NY)
Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT)
Fmr. Gov. Mitt Romney (R-MA)*
Fmr. Secretary of State Colin Powell (R-NY)
Sen. Olympia Snowne (R-ME)
Fmr. Gov. Christie Todd-Whitman (R-NJ)

Secretary of State Condi Rice (R-CA) may or may not be pro-choice, but her closeness to the Bush administration and unknown performance is true political arena would prevent her from being chosen.

*- Although Romney is now pro-life his previous positions on this and
many other issues would violate the "do no harm" principle

The likely picks, in order of likelihood in my view:

1. Portman


2. Huntsman


3. Sanford


4. Dole


5. Watts


6. Jindal


NOTES: ACU ratings for the most recent year of service have been used; the list contains all names I have been able to find on veep lists + some of my own (Thompson, Dole and Watts).

UPDATE: An earlier version of this post included Tom Ridge as the #4 most likely pick, however I have since learned he is pro-choice and thus not so likely. (h/t Jonathan Martin)

Pre-debate predictions

March 4th is still aways away and there could be a knock-out punch or two thrown in one of the two Democratic debates to come (including one tonight), but here are my predictions for next week.

Clinton wins Texas and Rhode Island
Obama wins Ohio and Vermont

Clinton drops out.

ALSO: More on that McCain thing, I wrote a pretty bold headline last night after watching this on CNN:

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

DOBBS: Folks, we can talk about a lot of things here tonight but with this story breaking, and the accusations against Senator McCain suggesting, intimating, a relationship with this woman going back eight years ...

GOODWIN: Well --

DOBBS: I just don't see how we can go beyond this. I think we've got to focus on this and try to understand this as best we can.

GOODWIN: Also, Lou, if the allegations are correct it's an affair but it also involves she's a lobbyist and according to "The Times" and involves doing favors for her clients. So there's not just a personal life issue. There's a governmental issue, particularly for McCain and the sense of rectitude that he conveys.

DOBBS: The instinct here is to say this is the man's personal life, why deal with it, but in this instance, the suggestions are quite a bit stronger and broader.

HALPERIN: Well, I think there's a couple of things and I think Michael hit two of them very smartly. One is McCain's greatest strength is this public image of rectitude, that he's a man of honor. And this is a potential problem for him in that respect.

And then the other is, not the personal, but the fact that because she is a lobbyist, because she has clients with business before the committee that there's a potential for reporters to look more than "The Times" has into the question of whether her clients ever got special favors from Senator McCain. The story suggests that, talks about it. It's denied in the story but that does present a potential problem for him.

SHEINKOPF: And the campaign gifts or the other gifts that may or may not be illegal of private flights with someone who is not supposed to be there necessarily, how often did it occur, what else did they give him, all of the stuff will start to percolate.

DOBBS: And the journalism involved here coming out as it has before the paper is printed on the Web site, with the suggestion again that this has been in the works for awhile. Is the "New York Times" endorsing Democratic candidates and having done so for decades, is that timing suspect on the part of the journalistic organization in your mind?

SHEINKOPF: Not suspect in that way. Look, these are good reporters at "The New York Times." Some of them are terrific reporters. Jim Reutenberg is a very good reporter, someone I've known probably for most of the last 20, 25 years.

DOBBS: Me too.

SHEINKOPF: He's a good reporter, honorable and did his job.

Having seen the McCain story reported today, can you believe they were reading the same thing as us? Way over the top.

BREAKING NEWS: McCain scandal?

This NY Times story for tomorrow's print just broke on CNN. I am reading it myself now, but the allegation is McCain is having an affair with a lobbyist, and has been for years, and has done favours for her clients.

This would be the antithesis to McCain's whole political persona and might be the "miracle" Huckabee was looking for. More after I've read...

UPDATE: Much ado about nothing? Hearing Lou Dobbs and friends talk about this at the top of the hour, I thought that this was a huge deal. Reading the article makes it appear it is a regurgation of allegations made back in 2000. No prove of any affair and not really a direct allegation, some allegations about favouritism but nothing over the top. False alarm.

I'll go back to working on my McCain veepstakes piece.

Long time, no write

Sorry for the delay folks, I have been a bit busy.

A hat tip to NB Taxpayer who won TTTT and is accorded the top link to the right. NBT - if you want that link pointing elsewhere, let me know.

Its been an interesting few weeks. Obama's essentially even showing on Tsunami Tuesday followed by 10 straight wins is making him all but inevitable. I had been holding out some hope for Clinton, but the loss in Wisconsin last night was large and went deep into her core areas of support - some of which she lost and others she "won" by the margin of error.

I would now expect her to lose one of Ohio and Texas (if not both) and drop out shortly after March 4.

This all but guarantees President McCain will be sworn-in in January 2009. Clinton would likely have lost to McCain as well but would have made it more of a race. I have always said, and maintain, that Obama is far more susceptable to attack than John Kerry was in 2004 and will likely be totally obliterated by attacks. I did a quick state-by-state gut projection of a McCain-Obama race last week and the electoral college was 397-141.

McCain's allies will be able to use Obama's own words from "Dreams from My Father" (the non-politically correct book pre-politics Obama wrote in the 90s), the recent statement of his wife that she only became proud of America in this election year, and may other instances where Obama has spoken in an idealistic and not pragmatic way.

Calgary Grit made an apt comparison between the McCain-Obama race and the fictional Vinick-Santos race of The West Wing a while back. But remember, in that alternate reality, Vinick was looking to win all 50 states until his campaign was derailed by an "October surprise".

This fall could turn out similar. Indeed, I would think McCain takes Florida totally out of play and his immigration stand would lock up New Mexico for the Republicans and could even put California in play (though I am not sure if he would win it, the Democrats can't win without California and would be forced to campaign there big time, thus losing ground in countless other states).

States like Maine, New Jersey, etc which have been Democratic locks for several elections would certainly be likely McCain pick ups. Even if McCain lost the economic big three (Michigan, Pennsyvania and Ohio), which I suspect he will, he could still win by a large margin.

My prediction now is that McCain wins the electoral vote by at least 100, likely much more.

I love predicting things, so I will move on to the veepstakes for these two candidates shortly. Let me know your ideas.

Tsunami watching guide

Before I start to point to what I see as the races to watch on Tuesday, here are a few other tidbits I thought I would share with you:

• In all of the hub-bub over the voting on Tuesday, the poor Maine Republican caucuses have been left in the dust. They are not being held simultaneously but over the course of the weekend. I link to the CNN results page which I assume/hope will start showing some results today (virtually all of the caucuses were today but some were Thursday and Friday and some will be Sunday and later in the month).


• I compiled my estimates for delegates by state based on my predictions, you can find thim in this shared Google spreadsheet.

Now, on to the main event:

Here are some things to watch on Tuesday to see how the race is breaking...

Among Democrats there are no real winner-take-all states and most delegates are awarded proportionally by district, with a relatively smaller number awarded proportionally at the state-wide level. Each state and district has a 15% threshold to be eligble for delegates. Some districts have only 2 or 4 delegates and others have 6 or more. There is a huge disparity in terms of voting power in districts with an even number of delegates as opposed to an odd number. For instance, in a district with 3 delegates, a candidate getting 15% of the vote would get one delegate, even if another candidate got 85% of the vote - giving him or her 2 delegates (or twice as many for almost 6 times as many votes). Similarly, a district with four delegates could award 2 to a candidate getting 38% of the vote even if another candidate got 62%. The LA Times has a great piece explaining this (h/t Ben Smith). The moral of the story? There will be no run-away winner in the Democratic primary. If one of the two candidates were to get 60% of the delegates that would be a dramatic landslide, it is more likely that there will be no more than 10 points between Clinton and Obama (55%-45% or closer).

Two key states to watch are the big ones: New York and California. Clinton should do very well in both, if she wins New York by less than 10% she is probably in trouble. If Obama manages to win California, same story. If both happen then that is bad news. Other states to watch to see if Obama is faltering are those holding traditional caucuses: Alaska, Colorado, Idaho, Kansas, Minnesota and Montana. Obama should win all or most of these, if he doesn't, he may be having a bad day.

Finally, another key state on the Democratic side to watch with be Oklahoma. This was Edwards' strongest state and Obama consistently ran third in polls here. If Obama manages to hold Clinton to 10 points or less or even wins here that means he is picking up more than his fair share of former Edwards supporters which could push him over the top in a lot of sates.

In terms of the Republicans, there are a number of pure winner-take-all states, but most are hybrids with about half of the delegates winner-take-all and then each district's delegates winner-take-all as well. A few states are done by proportional representation. Key states to watch are Missouri and Georgia. In Missouri, McCain may well place third, but Romney, who will face a challenge from Huckabee, needs to win here if he has any chance fo moving forward. In Georgia, McCain could win if Romney gets enough votes to split the conservatives with Huckabee and allow McCain up the middle, if this happens, then it could be a near sweep for McCain. Another state to watch is Massachusettes. Romney was elected governor of the state just over 5 years ago, it will be a tight race with McCain and if McCain wins it will damage Romney in terms of the media's eye even if he has an otherwise good night.

Tsunami predictions galore

I predict that next Tuesday Clinton and Obama will roughly split the delegates with a slight edge to Clinton and that the race will continue until at least March 4 if not to the Pennsylvania primay on April 22 or beyond.

I predict that next Tuesday John McCain will win over half of the delegates at stake and all but wrap up the nomination, Mike Huckabee and Mitt Romney will split the remaining delegates about evenly with a slight edge to Huckabee. Romney will withdraw and Mike Huckabee may or may not continue, briefly, to compete in the southern states to follow.

With respect to my TTTT contest, I will not actually be competing but, for the sake of interest, here are my guesses for each category and, therefore, my broader predictions for next week:

EASY [order of national finishers in number of delegates]
Republicans: McCain, Huckabee, Romney, Paul, Thompson, Giuliani
Democrats: Obama, Clinton, Kucinich, Edwards, Gravel

MEDIUM [order of national finishers in percentage of of delegates]
Republicans: McCain 53%, Huckabee 24%, Romney 22%, Paul 1%, Thompson 0%, Giuliani 0%
Democrats: Clinton 53%, Obama 47%, Kucinich 0%, Edwards 0%, Gravel 0%

HARD [top three in each state] / REALLY, REALLY HARD [percentages of all candidates in each state]

Alabama:

> Democrats:
Obama 48%
Clinton 44%
Edwards 7%
Kucinich 0%
Gravel 0%

> Republicans:
Huckabee 44%
McCain 26%
Romney 19%
Thompson 5%
Paul 5%
Giuliani 1%

Alaska:

> Democrats:
Clinton 55%
Obama 41%
Gravel 4%
Edwards 0%
Kucinich 0%

> Republicans:
Romney 29%
McCain 27%
Paul 22%
Huckabee 15%
Thompson 5%
Giuliani 1%

Arizona:

> Democrats:
Clinton 56%
Obama 31%
Edwards 9%
Kucinich 1%
Gravel 1%

> Republicans:
McCain 67%
Romney 14%
Huckabee 11%
Paul 8%
Thompson 0%
Giuliani 0%

Arkansas:

> Democrats:
Clinton 62%
Obama 28%
Edwards 9%
Kucinich 0%
Gravel 0%

> Republicans:
Huckabee 51%
McCain 32%
Romney 14%
Thompson 2%
Paul 1%
Giuliani 0%

California:

> Democrats:
Clinton 48%
Obama 41%
Edwards 6%
Kucinich 4%
Gravel 1%

> Republicans:
McCain 45%
Romney 22%
Huckabee 18%
Paul 7%
Thompson 5%
Giuliani 3%

Colorado:

> Democrats:
Clinton 49%
Obama 47%
Edwards 4%
Kucinich 0%
Gravel 0%

> Republicans:
McCain 38%
Romney 34%
Huckabee 21%
Paul 5%
Giuliani 1%
Thompson 0%

Connecticut:

> Democrats:
Clinton 59%
Obama 40%
Gravel 0%
Edwards 0%
Kucinich 0%

> Republicans:
McCain 58%
Romney 29%
Huckabee 6%
Paul 4%
Giuliani 3%
Thompson 0%

Delaware:

> Democrats:
Clinton 49%
Obama 48%
Edwards 2%
Gravel 0%
Kucinich 0%

> Republicans:
McCain 65%
Romney 15%
Huckabee 15%
Giuliani 3%
Paul 2%
Thompson 0%

Georgia:

> Democrats:
Obama 54%
Clinton 40%
Edwards 5%
Gravel 0%
Kucinich 0%

> Republicans:

Huckabee 39%
Romney 30%
McCain 26%
Thompson 3%
Paul 2%
Giuliani 0%

Idaho:

> Democrats:
Clinton 61%
Obama 37%
Edwards 2%
Gravel 0%
Kucinich 0%

Illinois:

> Democrats:
Obama 61%
Clinton 37%
Edwards 2%
Gravel 0%
Kucinich 0%

> Republicans:

McCain 44%
Romney 38%
Huckabee 9%
Paul 7%
Giuliani 1%
Thompson 0%

Kansas:

> Democrats:
Obama 66%
Clinton 28%
Edwards 6%
Gravel 0%
Kucinich 0%

Massachusetts:

> Democrats:
Obama 55%
Clinton 42%
Edwards 2%
Gravel 0%
Kucinich 0%

> Republicans:

McCain 44%
Romney 38%
Huckabee 9%
Giuliani 4%
Paul 3%
Thompson 0%

Minnesota:

> Democrats:
Clinton 47%
Obama 40%
Edwards 9%
Kucinich 2%
Gravel 1%

> Republicans:

McCain 47%
Romney 31%
Huckabee 13%
Paul 6%
Giuliani 2%
Thompson 0%

Missouri:

> Democrats:
Obama 49%
Clinton 42%
Edwards 9%
Kucinich 0%
Gravel 0%

> Republicans:

Romney 39%
Huckabee 33%
McCain 24%
Thompson 2%
Paul 2%
Giuliani 0%

Montana:

> Republicans:

Huckabee 41%
Romney 39%
McCain 20%
Thompson 0%
Paul 0%
Giuliani 0%

New Jersey:

> Democrats:
Clinton 49%
Obama 47%
Edwards 3%
Kucinich 0%
Gravel 0%

> Republicans:

McCain 71%
Giuliani 10%
Romney 8%
Huckabee 8%
Paul 2%
Thompson 0%

New Mexico:

> Democrats:
Clinton 62%
Obama 33%
Edwards 4%
Kucinich 0%
Gravel 0%

New York:

> Democrats:
Clinton 58%
Obama 40%
Edwards 2%
Kucinich 0%
Gravel 0%

> Republicans:

McCain 61%
Huckabee 20%
Giuliani 9%
Romney 6%
Paul 3%
Thompson 0%

North Dakota:

> Democrats:
Clinton 62%
Obama 35%
Edwards 2%
Kucinich 0%
Gravel 0%

> Republicans:

McCain 41%
Romney 33%
Huckabee 23%
Paul 2%
Thompson 0%
Giuliani 0%

Oklahoma:

> Democrats:
Clinton 46%
Obama 40%
Edwards 13%
Kucinich 0%
Gravel 0%

> Republicans:

Huckabee 36%
McCain 30%
Romney 29%
Paul 4%
Thompson 1%
Giuliani 0%

Tennessee:

> Democrats:
Obama 49%
Clinton 48%
Edwards 3%
Kucinich 0%
Gravel 0%

> Republicans:

Huckabee 40%
Romney 29%
McCain 22%
Thompson 8%
Paul 1%
Giuliani 0%

Utah:

> Democrats:
Clinton 51%
Obama 48%
Edwards 0%
Kucinich 0%
Gravel 0%

> Republicans:

Romney 67%
Huckabee 17%
McCain 12%
Paul 4%
Thompson 0%
Giuliani 0%

West Virginia:

> Republicans:

McCain 51%
Huckabee 32%
Romney 17%
Paul 0%
Thompson 0%
Giuliani 0%

A busy day in U.S. politics

Today Rudy Giuliani (once considered by some shortsighted folk to be the Republican frontrunner) and John Edwards (the 2004 presidential primary runner-up and vice-presidential nominee) are dropping out of the race.

I was very pleased that my predictions for Florida were essentially on the mark (a rare day for me!) but owing to the fact that Edwards and Giuliani (and Thompson and Kucinich) have all dropped out, I am going to extend the deadline for TTTT until Friday, February 1 at 5 p.m. This will allow folks to digest the final two pre-Tsunami debates as well as the changes in the dynamics of the race.

Please make sure to get your entries in by e-mail or by commenting including your email address, choice of difficulty level and predictions by that time.

Hit me with your best shot

As you are using your federal child tax credit to pick up some beer and popcorn for tonight's Florida primary, make sure that you don't forget to take a shot at TTTT. For those who are new or missed it, it is my contest in which you can predict the winners for Feb. 5.

Check out all of the details right here. The deadline is noon tomorrow (January 30).

Florida!

When I made my last post on the race in Flordia six days ago, I predicted McCain would win by 10 points but made it clear that that was not my final prediction. I was expecting the race to narrow and even saw the potential of Romney pulling into first place. I think that the endorsement of Governor Charlie Crist (UPDATE: And Sen. Mel Martinez, a Cuban-American who will move a lot of voters among that active Republican voting bloc) for McCain will hold him in the lead and by a fairly comfortable margin.

My final prediction:
McCain 34
Romney 27
Giuliani 19
Huckabee 15
Paul 5

In terms of the South Carolina race over the weekend, it seems to me that I had the essence of it right in predicting a clear win for Obama. I was correct to predict a lot of strength for Edwards, however, I underestimated his weaknesses. Indeed, the exit polls reveal that Edwards won non-Black voters over the age of 29 by a margin of 41 to Clinton's 38 with Obama trailing with only 20. Among the full age spectrum of non-Blacks, Edwards still won with 39-37-24. I had routed my prediction in the assumption that Edwards would take 40% of the non-Black vote so I had that right. The shocking figure was the Edwards received only 3% of the Black vote which is what pulled his numbers way down. Talk about a racial divide!

UPDATE: I read a very interesting factoid which could change everything in terms of how things turn out tonight. Apparently, about a third of Florida Republicans have already voted by means of absentee ballots or advanced polls. Until a few weeks ago McCain had zero (paid) organization in Florida. Thirty-plus percent of voters don't vote early on their own; those numbers were driven by organization. I think it would be fair to imagine that the results of the advanced voting could be, roughly, 35 Giuliani, 35 Romney, 15 Thompson (who had a strong organization in the state) and about 5 each for McCain and Huckabee. I am not going to cop out in the middle of the day and attempt to revise a prediction, but, assuming my numbers above (in my original prediction) are correct of the two-thirds of people voting today and that my rough estimate of advanced voters is also correct, today's results would actually be as follows:

Romney 30
Giuliani 25
McCain 25
Huckabee 12
Thompson 5
Paul 3

Very interesting. If the results do turn out to be about as above, it will just go to show how important organization can be in politics. Today, a plurality of voters may well prefer McCain but, because a few weeks ago that was not true and some folks did some good organizing to get the vote out then, he could place third.

Florida?

On Monday, I predicted that Mike Huckabee could win the Florida primary, especially if Fred Thompson were to drop out of the race.

Two days is a long time in politics.

Since then, though Thompson has dropped out, Huckabee has decided to all but take a pass on Florida. I think that that is a fatal mistake. As I mentioned in my post Monday, a whomping 58% of Florida Republican primary voters are conservatives. In Iowa and South Carolina, this group of voters almost wholly voted for Huckabee and Thompson.

Huckabee's campaign, however, doesn't have a lot of cash so they are going to try to skip Florida (more or less) due to its expensive media market and focus on smaller conservative states on February 5. Unfortunately for Huckabee, that doesn't work. It is the Giuliani strategy (skip hard states to focus on easier ones later) and it has proved to be fatal. Giuliani has 1 delegate to 6 for Ron Paul and is running second or third in all "must win" Florida polls.

So, I am revising my prediction to this (still non-final) view of the Florida Republican race:

McCain 36
Romney 26
Giuliani 19
Huckabee 19

As the Demcorats are not campaigning in Florida and no delegates will be awarded, I am not going to bother to guess at that one.

Post-Nevada Democratic analysis

Well I really missed the boat on Nevada, having placed Edwards in second when, in fact, he barely registered. I suspect his support was fairly more substantial than the 4% of county delegates he received and that he was a victim of the viability threshold as was the case in Iowa for Richardson and Biden.

Indeed if you look at the entrace polls from Iowa, Richardson walked in with 7% of the vote and Biden with about 5%. However, as I explained, 14% in any precinct is worth 0% of the county delegates which is what is reported as analogous to "popular vote". Exit (or in this case entrance) polls are not an exact measure of real support by certainly these gentleman likely received closer to 7% and 5% of popular vote as opposed to the 2% and 1% of county delegates they registered.

In Nevada, though he only got 4% of county delegates, the entrance polls show he actually had popular support of 8%. Either way though, that is pretty low. Mea culpa.

Moving on to South Carolina, some interesting things to consider:

• Hillary Clinton is essentially abandoning the state to focus on February 5. Bill Clinton will state in the state to focus on the Black vote.


• Barack Obama won an amazing 83% of Black voters in Nevada, Bill's efforts will chink away at that but I expect Obama will still rack up massive numbers in that demographic.


• Bill Schneider, who in my view is the smartest pundit in U.S. politics, says Edwards won the South Carolina/Congression Black Caucus debate last night.


• Edwards won 52% of the white vote in the 2004 S.C. primary. Obama and Bill Clinton are focussing on the opposite demographic, leaving Edwards lots of room to focus on his base.

Thusly, my prediction:

Obama 41
Edwards 30
Clinton 27

This could be somewhat hopeful thinking because it would make February 5 soooo interesting.

Te-te-te-tah!

A reminder of The Tsunami Tuesday Test. Deadline for your entry to this guessing game is January 30 at noon Atlantic time.

For those that didn't notice this when it was announced, it is a contest to guess the winners on the big U.S. primary day of February 5th.

Post-S.C. Republican analysis

The race on the Republican side went about as I predicted in both Nevada and South Carolina on Saturday. The McCain-Huckabee margin was a bit closer for first and the Romney-Thompson margin was a bit closer for third, but the ranking was right and the margins were about right. In Nevada, similarly I was correct in predicting a wide margin win for Romney but I under-estimated how wide and rather than placing a clear second, McCain was lumped together with the others at 10% (+/- 3). Giuliani again amazed me in showing how soft his previous support had been (though his 4% of the vote was enough to win him his FIRST delegate to the convention).

The Nevada numbers are largely meaningless due to the blow out by Romney there. In South Carolina though, the exit polls tell an interesting story and paint us an interesting picture as we move on to Florida in the GOP race.

I predicted a margin of 37% for McCain (he won 33%), because I thought we would dominate among veterans and that there number would be, at least, as high as in the 2000 primary. However, veterans made up only 25% of the electorate (compared to 27% in 2000) and McCain got only 36% of the vote from them (compared with 48% in 2000, though it was only a two-way race then). His margin among veterans over Huckabee was only 36-29, a +4 improvement over his general score, a far cry from the +18 he had over Romney among veterans in Michigan.

Moreover, as in New Hampshire and Michigan, McCain's strength came from indpendents. Among registered Republicans, Huckabee won 32% to 31%. Among Indpendents, McCain won 42% to 25%. In Florida, the primary is closed and only Republicans will be allowed to vote.

My prelimary prediction therefore is that Huckabee will win the Florida primary. Why? Because there, unlike in other states, no only with McCain not be able to count on the support of independents, he will also have to compete with Giuliani for moderate Republicans.

Looking back to the Florida primary exit poll from 2000, we find that 58% of voters considered themselves either "somewhat conservative" or "very conservative". Among that group in South Carolina, McCain lost 35% to 26%. Moreover, Thompson is likely to drop out and (even though he may endorse McCain) his supporters are conservatives which will most likely go to Huckabee. Indeed, among the "very conservative" metric, Thompson placed second, ahead of both McCain and Romney.

In Florida, McCain will not only be battling Giuliani for moderates. Despite positioning himself as a "conservative" in contrast to his moderate-to-liberal record, Mitt Romney has done best among moderates in the previous contests.

If we assume that voting patterns by ideology hold up and that 60% of Thompson supporters go to Huckabee, 25% to McCain, 10% to Romney and 5% to Giuliani and assume that the ideological make up of the Florida primary will be the same as 2000, Huckabee would get 27% of the total vote in Florida will out gettting one vote from a moderate.

In 2000, Flordia Republicans broke down this way:
Very Liberal (VL) 2
Somewhat Liberal (SL) 6
Moderate (M) 34
Somewhat Conservative (SC) 38
Very Conservative (VC) 20

So Huckabee has essentially 58% of the voters to himself (more or less) while McCain, Giuliani and Romney will have to fight for the remaining 42% of voters.

This does not look promsing for anyone but Huckabee, especially if Thompson withdraws from the race.

Assuming Thompson is out, and omitting Paul, here is how I would paint Florida (subject to change):

Huckabee 33 (0VL + 0SL + 3M + 18SC + 12VC)
McCain 33 (0VL + 1SL + 15M + 12SC + 5VC)
Giuliani 18 (2VL + 5SL + 10M + 1SC + 0VC)
Romney 16 (0VL + 0SL + 6M + 7SC + 3VC)

Happy Praucus (or Caumary) Day

Today is the first day that more than one state will vote (only for Republicans though) so what we've got is all kinds of chance for extra spin and excitement. I posted my predictions Wednesday and Thursday. I'll round them up here for your benefit.

Nevada:

Obama 35
Edwards 32
Clinton 30

Romney 41
McCain 20
Giuliani 10
Thompson 10
Huckabee 10
Paul 9

South Carolina:

McCain 37
Huckabee 24
Romney 19
Thompson 12
Paul 4
Giuliani 4

Have fun watching day!

And the winner is...

I haven't done a post on this subject as far as I recall, but I have likely mentioned or alluded to it in the comments and have said it to many people out here in the real world, but I felt, before it becomes the conventional wisdom, I should put it in writing. I've held this view on the Republican side all along but it has just now occurred to me on the Democratic side.

Barack Obama will win the Democratic nomination and, if it is not him by some fluke, it will be Edwards, not Clinton.

John McCain will win the Republican nomination.

Why? History told us so.

Since the advent of conventions driven by primaries in 1972, there has been a common thread in non-incumbent elections; one for each party.

The Republicans have an establishment-backed frontrunner well in advance, he falters, then comes back and wins. The Demcorats have an establishment-backed frontrunner well in advance and, with the exception of Mondale, he or she falters and loses the nomination.

Let's take a walk back through memory lane of the contested nominations since 1972.

Republicans: Ford (1976 won, though many thought Reagan would over take him); Reagan (1980 won, but after Bush won the Iowa caucus it was over, besides, he was too old to win); Bush (1988 won, but after winning Iowa in 1980, he was thought to be toast for coming third there in 1988); Dole (1996 won, but after winning Iowa in 1988, he was thought to be toast there for coming third in 1996, plus he was too old to win); Bush (2000 won, but after losing New Hampshire by nearly 20 points, there was no hope to recover); McCain (2008 ?, but after blowing all of his money early and losing his staff, he was a done cause, plus he was too old to win)

Democrats: Muskie (1972 lost, to McGovern the left-winger); Jackson (1976 lost, to the unknown populist Carter); Mondale (1984 won, but almost was swept under by Hart); Hart (1988 lost, dropped out before the race even began which was won by Dukakis); Tsongas (1992 lost, Clinton came second in New Hampshire after slipping from second to eleventh in national polls and stole the momentum); Dean (2004 lost, after raising the most money and getting the endorsements of 2000 contenders Gore and Bradley and leading in all national polls by 20+ points over Wesley Clark with all others in single digits, lost Iowa to Kerry and the rest was history); Clinton (2008 ?, came third in Iowa and barely won New Hampshire, if she loses Nevada she almost certainly loses South Carolina putting her 1-3 on Tsunami Tuesday...)

Nevada?

Never in my life have I been more resistant to make a prediction in an election. And as you've seen from some of my predictions, it is often difficult for them to have been more wrong, so why would it ever be hard for me?

Well Nevada is an interesting creature. They had their first ever caucus in 2004. Only the Democrats had a contest and they modelled their system after that of Iowa with viability thresholds and non-reportage of popular vote totals. In 2004, the caucus was relatively early but it was swamped by John M. Kerry (immediately after the Iowa caucus, Kerry briefly changed his middle name from "Forbes" to "Momentum"), who took 67% of the vote and 90% of the delegates. The are no figures for turnout, but estimates put it at 9000 people. There were about 366,700 registered Democrats, so that puts the turn out at 2% of eligible voters.

Unlike the Iowa caucus, where one must be a registered Democrat but can change their registration at the caucus site, in Nevada the only people who can registered on site are unregistered voters, changing the registration, unless done weeks in advance, is not an option.

The moral of the story? Polls are largely meaningless. Who will participate? No one knows. Only registered Democrats can participate, but 98% of them of never participated in a presidential preference caucus before and will be totally unfamiliar with the concept of, rather than taking five minutes to go in a booth and vote, taking an hour or two and go into a room in a local school or fire hall and stand with a group of people they may or may not know supporting their candidate while getting the evil eye from people they may or may not know supporting another candidate.

Obama and Clinton have been campaigning the hardest here, while Edwards has focussed on South Carolina. However, Edwards has now returned to the state and is doing a non-stop push until Saturday. Polls, which are meaningless, show a three-way race.

Each candidate has pros:

• Obama has been endorsed by the important Culinary Workers Union which represents most of the workers on the Las Vegas strip and whose members have the unique right of being able to caucus outside of their home precincts due to special caucus sites being set up at nine casinos on the strip. The importance of this union cannot be overrated. First, they will have the majority of their members at work and able to caucus at work. Second, in August, when their endorsement was expected to be for either Clinton or Edwards and Obama wasn't thought to be in the running, his campaign said: "Whoever gets the endorsement of the Culinary Workers Union, more than likely, is going to win Nevada."


• Clinton may have lost her lead among Blacks, but her lead among Hispanics remains very strong. Nevada is over 22% Hispanic. Bill Clinton carried this state twice, despite the fact that it regularly went Republican both before and after.


• Edwards surprised a lot of people by surging in the polls that have been done out here since Iowa vs. his pre-Iowa numbers. I think I have the explanation. No one in Nevada really knows how to work a caucus and be successful because they've never done it before. That is no one, except for John Edwards' campaign team. Back in August, Edwards moved a number of his Nevada staff to Iowa, now, these folks familiar with Nevada, have just been on the frontlines in Iowa and have returned to Nevada with lessons learned. This may explain his uptick in polls and may give him a secret weapon on caucus day.

My prediction is essentially Iowa, all over again, but a little closer:
Obama 35
Edwards 32
Clinton 30

---

And that was just the confusion surrounding the Democratic caucus! The Republican caucus is both more and less confusing. More confusing in that, though the Democrats have only done this once before and only 2% of their voters particpated, the Republicans have never done it. Less confusing in that the Republican contest in South Carolina is the same day and the Republicans are focussing 99.9% of their efforts there.

That said, Mitt Romney has, like in Wyoming but to a lesser extent, put more resources in here than the other candidates. Moreover, his fellow Mormons make up 12% of voters here and that will likely be a boost to him. He was also endorsed by the Las Vegas Review-Journal, the largest paper in the state, this morning. Therefore it is hard to imagine him not taking a win. For Mike Huckabee, this could be the first state where he doesn't place third or better; I can't imagine that his strong religious creds and opposition to gambling would play well in and around Sin City. Moreover, unlike Iowa, New Hampshire and Michigan, he hasn't campaigned here.

As I mentioned in my Democratic analysis, I don't think the polls are very helpful and, indeed, while the two new polls on the Democratic side do at least agree with each other, on the Republican side they are totally inconsistent.

One poll has McCain up by 4 over Giuliani with Romney in fourth, while the other has Romney in the lead up by 7 over McCain! The variations are insane: Romney (28 vs 15), McCain (21 vs 22), Giuliani (11 vs 18), Huckabee (8 vs 16), Thompson (13 vs 11), Paul (9 vs 6).

These polls were both conducted after New Hampshire but before Michigan so, one might assume, they overstate McCain's strength and understate Romney's. One might also assume that McCain and Thompson have more consistent support because they didn't fluctuate much between polls. One might assume.

So, I am going to go way out on a limb here and predict the following:

Romney 41
McCain 20
Giuliani 10
Thompson 10
Huckabee 10
Paul 9

Notice the cop out with three way tie for third!

Get Out The Vote!

I was a bit suprised to learn that this blog, Politics from a New Brunswick Perspective, has been nominated in the Canadian Blog Awards, as best political blog. I wouldn't even have known if I hadn't noticed the name when I went to vote for Calgary Grit!

I doubt I will be even close to being a contender, but if you like the blog, take a second to go vote so I am not totally embarrased!

Looking to South Carolina

As one tries to predict the race in South Carolina, one which could go any of 3 ways on either side in my view, it is helpful to look at the exit polls from previous races.

Here is the exit poll from the 2004 Democratic primary.
Here is the exit poll from the 2000 Republican primary.

As I wrote the other day, I think it is premature to write John Edwards off. After looking at the exit poll from 2004, I think that that is moreso the case.

In 2004, Edwards won the primary by 45% to 30%. I had assumed that his lead was fairly consistent among both White and Black voters and that he would take a big hit as virtually 100% of the Black vote seems destined to split between Obama and Clinton. However, that's not the case. Though he won the state by 15% in 2004, he actually won among Whites by 25% and among Blacks by only 3%. Indeed, he lost among Black men (Kerry won by 4%) while doing alright among Black women (he won by 9%). The primary was 51% White and 47% Black.

If Edwards lost every single Black vote he won in 2004, but held the White vote, he would still get 23%. In the meantime, Edwards has been in South Carolina virtually full time since the New Hampshire primary on Jan. 8 and will continue to focus there until the S.C. Democratic primary on Jan. 26. Polls suggest, despite his being largely absent from the action there, that he will do well in Nevada. It is possible he could pull off a second place finish there which would give him some much needed momentum. It is far too early to make a Democratic prediction in South Carolina in this dynamic race, but it is easy to see a scenario where the votes are split three ways and any of the big three could sneak up the middle.

Now, on to the Republican race which is THIS SATURDAY, Jan. 19.

There was no measure of how many veterans participated in Iowa, but McCain, despite finishing fourth overall, placed a strong second among those who thought Iraq was the most important issue (8% behind the winner, a +13 improvement) and essentially a three-way tie for first on terrorism (4% behind the winner and 2% behind the runner-up, a +17 and +10 improvement respectively), his relative standings in general: 21% behind the winner, 12% behind second. All issue categories were carried by overall winner, Huckabee. (CNN Entrance Poll)

Like in Iowa, there was no veterans measure in NH, but McCain placed stronger in the Iraq (won by 18%, +13 improvement over his general margin) and terrorism (won by 16%, +11 improvement) issue measures again. (CNN Exit Poll)

In Michigan, McCain won among veterans by 9% despite losing the primary by 9% (a +18 improvement). Again, looking at the issues, he won Iraq by 10% and tied on terrorism: a +19 and +9 improvement respectively. (CNN Exit Poll)

As we head to South Carolina, both Huckabee and Romney suffer big deficits on the major issues that play in that state. Back in 2000, when McCain's campaign was neutered by a loss in the primary there, Bush beat McCain by 11%. However, McCain won among veterans by 1% (a +12 improvement) after suffering massive personal attacks that he is not seeing this time around. Veterans made up 27% of voters in the 2000 primary. (Exit Poll from 2000)

The most recent polls show McCain and Huckabee duking it out for first place and Romney and Thompson duking it out for third place. There has been some movement to Thompson in recent polls, at Huckabee's expense while Romney, despite his loses in Iowa and New Hampsire and his going off of the air in South Carolina, has held relatively steady.

The current poll average has McCain 26, Huckabee 23, Romney 15, Thompson 11. Romney will get some boost out of his Michigan win and return to the airwaves here. It will come largely from Huckabee; however I think Huckabee will make up that loss as I think Thompson will fade in his favour. Despite having the state all to himself since Iowa, Thompson's standing in the most recent Rasmusen tracking poll is 16%, up only four points from their poll before the Iowa caucus. On momentum, over the same period, McCain is up 16 and will now be putting in a final massive campaign push over the next four days. In 2000, the whole of the South Carolina establishment was against him, today, McCain houses the vast majority of elected Republicans in his campaign. In New Hampshire and Michigan, McCain did not enjoy nearly as much establishment support as he will in South Carolina.

I predict a fairly substantial McCain win in South Carolina, with a respectable third place for Romney. Thompson will be very embarrassed and drop out.

McCain 37*
Huckabee 24
Romney 19
Thompson 12
Paul 4
Giuliani 4

*this may sound high, but it assumes a 55% support from veterans and a 30% support from non-veterans based on their turnout in 2000, which I think may actually be a low ball

Now what?

Well the most confusing possible result happened tonight: Mitt Romney won Michigan. It looks like the result will be quite similar to NH for the two leads with their roles reversed.

It looks now like a battle royale between Huckabee and McCain in South Carolina and a likely Romney win in Nevada going into Florida.

But again, as I've stressed over and over, I think the big story is just how far Giuliani has fallen. It is incredible how much support he has left on the table.

In Iowa he always ran in the low teens and ended up with 4%. In New Hampshire he often ran near 20 and got around 10. In Michigan, he often led polls and what is happening right now? He is fighting for sixth place with UNCOMMITTED. In fact the closest race tonight is between Giuliani and uncommitted. Unbeliveable I think.

If Giuliani gets essentially single digits in Iowa, Wyoming, New Hampshire, Michigan, South Carolina and Nevada and never does better than fourth and regularly does worse than Ron Paul will it be possible for him to be taken seriously?

I can understand skipping Iowa, though he never formally skipped it. But he could have easily held third in NH and he could have fought in Michigan for a strong third or possible second. And he could have won Nevada. I think that this was a ludicrously weak strategy.