chrisishardcore.com

Atlanta Bloggers

I know Greg Greene was successful in hosting an Atlanta area blogger get together. Does anyone think setting up another one via Meetup would be a good idea?

Democrats United

Some friends and I went to the John Edwards debate party in Greenville, SC yesterday. It was at Meadors' Sandwich Shoppe, which was delicious. I recommend it if you're in the area.

One thing I noticed about the crowd of Edwards supporters (probably 400 people) was that there was plenty of applause for all the candidates debating. No groaning when an opposing candidate said something they didn't like, no booing competitors. The mood was one of unification.

Which is fantastic. I'm supporting Edwards, but as Terry McA. said at the Democratic Party Meetup at Manuel's Tavern last week, once we have a nominee it's time to put down the sign you're holding up and pick up the sign of the winner. So while I'll do my part to make Edwards, who I think is the best candidate, the nominee, once there is a decision I'll do my part to make him (whoever it is) the President. George Bush be warned, I think the great majority of Democrats feel exactly like I do.

From 'The Note'

Looks like Edwards got the Clyburn endorsement -- SC state Rep. Clyburn that is. But here's what really caught my eye. Check out the Joetinerary today:

10:00 am: Lieberman visits Bowlerama's senior bowling league in New Castle, Del.
12:30 pm: Lieberman visits with patrons at Spence's Bazaar in Del.

Looking for votes at the bowling alley and the bazaar. I believe the Joementum has taken a Lieberturn for the Joeworse.

AJC Reporting

I understand I mispelled 'its' in a previous item about the AJC, but my own personal spelling has no bearing on their sloppy reporting and editorial writing. Today the Senate passed a bill to start the process of honoring Zell Miller with a statue on the ground of the state Capitol.

This is the story as reported by the paper of record. Now, the vote was 47-1. Don't you think the most interesting aspect of this non-story would be which state Senator voted against Zell Miller getting a statue? I do. Not in the article though. I'd also be interested in knowing what 3 senators voted against the hunting amendment last week. Also not in the AJC article.

Next Stop Greenville

A few friends and I are about ot depart for Greenville to watch the debate and try and meet John Edwards. I'll report back on whether the hype is for real.

The trifecta

Republicans took over partial control of Georgia's government less than two years ago, but they haven't wasted any time catching us up in the culture wars we had somehow been avoiding under all those years of 'tyrannous' Democratic rule.

Piling on Dean?

I've got mixed feelings about Trippi's firing. But piling on Dean for doing the wrong thing is wrongheaded for a number of reasons. Foremost among them is that it was Trippi, not Dean, who promised a hard count of 50,000 in Iowa and delivered, by some estimates, as low as 17,000 on caucus night.

Had those 50,000 materialized, Dean would have likely won the Iowa caucuses 33%-30 over Kerry and coasted to another close victory in New Hampshire. Trippi had organized a campaign that put all of it's resources (some $35 million out of $40 raised) into winning these two states and then using that momentum to win enough delegates from the rest of the states.

It was a winning idea. The only problem is that Kerry, not Dean, is running with it. Speaking of money, what happened to all but $5 million of the money Dean raised? It is my understanding that the campaign wasn't even running ads in the Feb 3rd states until this week. You can't replace the candidate, and unfortunately for the Joe Trippi's of the world, you can replace the campaign manager.

Final Thoughts: The sooner we never have to hear about Dean's legion of nose-ring dreadlocked whatevers the better. Most of the people working for Georgia for Dean don't fit this description at all. It's mostly dedicated soccer moms and unassuming gay professionals. I saw nary a nosering at the many Meetups and house parties I went to.

Won't Get Fooled Again?

Trippi's out. That's the rumor at least. He promised a revolution and delivered something not quite ready for primetime. Still, it was fun. At least we got that win by losing (ala Goldwater in '64) nonsense out of our system before the primaries even really began.

Why the South Matters

	This is "Red" Georgia's Congressional delegation. As you can see, a red state like ours is pretty blue when you break it down. When you move down to state Senate, it gets bluer, state House, bluer still. When you factor in sherrifs and county commissioners, there is very little red in sight at all. Georgia voters have been splitting their tickets for over 40 years. There are a number of straight D voters and probably more straight R's. But there are a number of dormant Democrats who vote Republican on the federal level and sometimes drift over and give Democrats a look on the state level.
	A 2004 general election strategy by the Democrats which writes off the South could potentially turn Georgia's Congressional delegation into this at the left. If you don't live in Georgia you might be thinking 'big deal', who cares if Georgia loses a Democratic Congressman who isn't a liberal anyway? To that I say how's Dean or Kerry going to get his agenda through a Congress that would be not only more Republican but since the major gains would be coming from the South, more hostile to his agenda?
	Now, this is potentially what Georgia's Congressional delegation would look like with a strong Southern campaign at the top of the ticket. Old line Democrats who have drifted over to the Republican party will vote D all the way down the ticket if they start voting that way at the top. It's something to take into consideration, and I suspect many Southern voters are taking it into consideration, even if they aren't thinking on such a sophisticated level.

So what's it all mean? I'm not sure. Of course, a Democratic candidate can and likely would win the Presidency without needing the South. There's been plenty of literature pointing to the midwest/rust belt as the real battleground for the election, and I for one would love to see Ohio back in the Democratic column. The battle for Congress though will take place disporportionately in the South and if you're going to be making your mind up along electability or strategy considerations this is something to weigh heavily.

Endorsements

Endorsements can be a little problematic. I certainly like Al Gore and Jimmy Carter (who didn't endorse Dean). I wasn't motivated to give Dean an additional look, though. However, I'd imagine that those voters who aren't exactly enamoured with Gore may have begun looking for other options.

Surely some endorsements are more valuable than others. Rep. Clyburn (D - SC) has considerable positive sway among South Carolina's black voters but his word will do little to move white voters into Kerry's column, in fact his endorsement could be a net negative among that demographic.

All things considered, one key endorsement does seem to really help Kerry: former Sen. Max Cleland (D - GA). Cleland has been an early supporter and unlike Gore who stood next to Dean on a stage for a press release, Cleland has been tirelessly campaigning in Iowa and New Hampshire and now Missouri. No one man better exemplifies the rage many Democrats feel towards Bush and his politicizing of national security and Max has been a powerful asset.

On another note, opinion columnists have lately been filling up the void in hard news by speculating on where Dean, Edwards, Gephardt, Lieberman or Clark might end up in a Kerry administration. Clark for SoS? Dean for HHS? Edwards for AG? Unlikely, dumb; just a waste of our time.

For You Atlanta Readers

According to the AJC's Shaunti Feldhahn, an "Investment in families will head off problems" in the future. Unfortunately she doesn't mention what exactly (or even vaguely) this investment is and also how exactly it will head off any problems. She's not a good writer.

This is exactly why I don't subscribe to the AJC, although I do read it online for free. In it's zeal to capture a conservative suburban audience that increasingly doesn't bother reading the paper, they run substanceless columns from hacks like Feldhahn, have not just a conservative but outright Republican operative Jim Wooten headlining the editorial page two days a week and have even pandered to suburban Gwinnett County by creating a separate editorial page just for them.

By comparison, my DeKalb County, which in 2001 had more people than Gwinnett, doesn't even have it's own local bureau - it shares one with Rockdale County.

Surely the number of liberals in Atlanta is greater than the daily circulation of the AJC. Becoming a respectable liberal paper, something local conservatives think they are already (minus respectable) would be a much better business plan than a race to the bottom to capture a right-leaning readership that has abandoned them in droves. But then again, this is why I don't subscribe to the AJC. If they knew anything about running a business I would.

What Will Dean Do?

The New Republic doesn't waste any time ordering Dean to perform the 'patriotic duty' of taking Kerry out. Had they endorsed the credible anti-Dean/anti-Kerry candidate who actually won their own magazine primary I'd take the weekly's advice a little more seriously.

Cheney?

I disagree with Mark Schmitt when he says Cheney never helped Bush electorally. He might not be helping in '04, but Cheney's solid VP debate performance (alongside an equally solid Lieberman) helped convince wishy-washy Bush supporters that "the adults were in charge."

I also disagree with his assessment of Sen. Frist (R - TN) as a possible running mate. These days it seems like the best way to knock someone out of contention for a future Presidential bid is to make them Vice President. Just ask Presidents Mondale, Quayle, Gore and Lieberman.

Kerry and Edwards have to be secretly elated that they lost the VP sweepstakes to Lieberman. Same for Bill Richardson. On the other hand, Roy Barnes probably wishes he was on that ticket.

Just Asking

Can I get paid to make stuff up too?

Poll Rundown

Here's the final comparison of the different pollsters. It's either a blowout or a tight race. Obviously it can't be both.

	Chris is hardcore ARG estimate	ARG 3 Day	Zogby/ Reuters/ MSNBC	Suffolk Univ/ WHDH-TV	Boston Globe/ WBZ-TV	Gallup/CNN/ USA Today	Average
Kerry	32	35	??	38	37	36	36
Dean	28	25	??	17	20	25	23
Edwards	15	15	??	9	12	10	12
Clark	12	13	??	10	8	13	11
Lieberman	7	6	??	5	7	10	7
Other/ Undecided	6	5	??	18	16	4	10

Final 1/26 ARG Daily Estimate

These are the last ARG New Hampshire estimates. In about 2 hours, New Hampshire starts voting.

Final Projection					ARG Daily Poll Estimates
on 1/26	on 1/25	on 1/24	on 1/23		1/26	25	24	23	22	21	20	19	18	17	16	15
32	37	43	46	Kerry	32	34	42	39	32	30	31	21	19	20	19	17
30	26	22	14	Dean	28	25	20	13	15	18	22	27	28	28	28	28
19	20	20	23	Edwards	15	16	17	16	12	10	10	8	8	8	8	8
11	11	11	11	Clark	12	14	14	16	22	20	17	19	19	19	21	20
8	6	4	6	Lieberman	7	6	4	6	6	7	7	7	7	6	7	7
				Other	6	4	3	10	13	15	13	18	19	19	18	20

Analysis: I think today's daily poll showed Kerry's lead shrinking. Looks like ARG was pushing a lot of undecideds all along and tracked a huge amount of fair-weather Deaniacs fleeing to Kerry and now back to Dean. I think Lieberman will do slightly better than ARG does on their 'Best Guess' page, I think Clark will do slightly worse, and I think Kerry might lose some undecideds to Edwards. Let the games begin.

Extra: Here's the file. Check out the numbers for yourself, check out the graphs that shows the daily polling results, and be sure to check out the chart that shows who gained and who lost each day. It's pretty easy to see the Clark -> Edwards trend and also the Dean -> Kerry -> Dean trend.

Legislature Update

It's good to see that with all our problems here in Georgia we're protecting the sanctity of hunting by having it specifically enumerated in the state Constitution. Last time I checked hunting was wasn't threatened in the least. Who knew senate Republicans would learn the art of political pandering so quickly?

What They Want

It's the day before New Hampshire's vaunted first in the nation primary. Every poll shows Kerry in the lead -- some by seemingly unstoppable margins and some like Zogby within the margin of error. But what do the actual candidates want and need out of New Hampshire? This is my take.

John Kerry: He's the front-runner so he needs a convincing win. The fact that Dean led the state in pretty much every poll only a week ago has been forgotten and the new meme is that Kerry is unstoppable. No one outside the pundit class is paying attention to polls that show the race is tightening, so Kerry needs to win by at least 5 points. If he does that, he will clearly be the frontrunner.

Howard Dean: At this point, Dean needs one of two scenarios. He needs to win outright. Even if it is by less than 1%, a win will set Dean back on track. He was expected to win both Iowa and New Hampshire and I really don't see how he can find a route to the nomination if he doesn't win at least one. That said, if he comes in second as is expected, he needs for Edwards to have a weak third place showing or worse. A convincing Kerry win and a strong Edwards third place will create a media vacuum for Dean going into the Feb 3rd primaries.

John Edwards: If Edwards somehow ekes out second place, then it won't matter who comes in first -- Edwards will have won. This seems pretty unlikely, although with CNN predicting an unknown number of independents, possibly quite large, anything can and will happen in New Hampshire. Barring a second place finish, a convincing third place finish could really propel his campaign. Expectations for Edwards seem to be that 4th will be fine -- I'm not sure, but he does have the advantage of the lowest expectations in this race, as he did in Iowa.

Wesley Clark: Clark needs a third place finish, period. He skipped Iowa and has been in New Hampshire for over a month. If Edwards, who didn't roll in until a week ago beats him, the bubbling trend I'm noticing of Southern Democrats shifting support back to Edwards from Clark should only accelerate.

Joe Lieberman: If Lieberman comes in second, I suppose I could technically see how he could eke it out for the nomination. I just can't see this happening. Even if every Republican in the state voted in the Democratic primary, I think Dean would draw more crossover votes than Joe, because they'd be voting their heads, not their hearts. That said, if you have a gut feeling about Lieberman, head over to the Iowa Electronic Markets where you can turn $1 into $76 with a Lieberman nomination.

George Bush: I'm pretty sure he'll win. I suppose if he gets less than 90% of the Republican vote the media might pick up on the brewing "he's in trouble" meme. We'll see.

New look

Kausfiles maligned my old picture and I was fine with it. But when loyal reader and fellow Atlanta area blogger Wes took issue with it, it was time for a change. I wish I could take credit for the hat, but it actually belongs to State Rep. David Lucas (D - Macon).

1/25 ARG Daily

Here are the new numbers for 1/25. I have also updated my projection, based on these numbers, for the final numbers:

Final Projection
on 1/25	on 1/24	on 1/23		1/25	24	23	22	21	20	19	18	17	16	15
37	43	46	Kerry	34	42	39	32	30	31	21	19	20	19	17
26	22	14	Dean	25	20	13	15	18	22	27	28	28	28	28
20	20	23	Edwards	16	17	16	12	10	10	8	8	8	8	8
11	11	11	Clark	14	14	16	22	20	17	19	19	19	21	20
6	4	6	Lieberman	6	4	6	6	7	7	7	7	6	7	7
			Other	4	3	10	13	15	13	18	19	19	18	20

Analysis: This is what ARG says on their webpage about today's numbers...

The daily trends show John Kerry holding, Howard Dean heading to the mid-20's, Wesley Clark and John Edwards trading places, and Joe Lieberman gaining slightly.

If I had to guess, I'd say they are talking about hard support numbers. Kerry's support dropped a little in my estimation, and Dean's gained. Today's undecided/other vote is only 4%. My guess is that Kerry's lead extends when ARG pushes the undecideds to pick a candidate. I still think these wafflers, should they decide to waffle, will go to Edwards.

I think someone on CNN's the Capitol Gang predicted that Lieberman might drop out of the race and endorse another candidate on Monday night. It seems more and more likely that it would be the smart thing to do - though I think it is likely that he could beat Clark. As always, I could be wrong about all of this.

It's not Kosher

Imagine that how you felt about the war is Position A. And how you feel about postwar reconstruction is Position B.

The mainstream media focus relentlessly on Position A and just assumes everyone more or less feels the same about Position B.

But what if the reverse is true. What if an overwhelming majority of Americans supported the war to some degree but have great reservations about postwar reconstruction.

I was talking to an older relative when I first clued in to this possibility. He told me he supported the war, but didn't see any reason why we should be hanging around, risking American lives, to help out our enemies. This opinion is a bit appalling -- humanitarianism is the CW and this kind of xenophobic anti-foreign opinion is seen as either some extremist opinion or relic of days past.

But I'm prepared to believe that it's not. And that candidates who supported the war but voted against the $87 billion price tag for reconstruction will find that there is a silent majority that feels the same way.

It's not as if it hasn't happened before. Before the 2002 governor's election in Georgia, you'd have been laughed out of the offices of the Atlanta Journal/Constitution if you'd said the confederate flag controversy was about to boot Roy Barnes out of office.

But many of my rural Georgia friends were warning that exactly that was going on. Atlanta media elites on both sides of the political spectrum just couldn't believe that controversy over the confederate flag could be the deciding factor in the election. I looked at the raw election data a few months later and pretty easily concluded that the flag had made a huge difference.

So I guess what I'm saying is watch out. The CW may not be wrong, but it may be measuring something totally irrelevent because editors, pundits and bloggers have decided that something else is off the table when really it could be the deciding factor.

TNR

Does anyone else think TNR is kicking itself having endorsed Lieberman before the Iowa surge of Edwards and Kerry. TNR itself admitted on their primary page that Edwards edged Lieberman out 4-3 for monthly victories.

I guess 2 weeks ago when it looked like both Lieberman and Edwards were toast, you might as well go with the candidate you actually like the best when both basically tied for the lead.

TNR not withstanding, I think that Edwards is best suited to pick up Lieberman supporters, Clark supporters and, regionally, Bob Graham and Gephardt supporters. Who knows what Dean supporters will do? If it weren't for the war, Kerry seems likely to pick them up based on his liberal bonafides. But many Dean supporters have a strong dislike for Kerry. So I guess a lot of them will gravitate to Edwards also.

It's been said that all Edwards has to do is come in 4th in New Hampshire. If he does that, I think he's got a good chance of still getting the nomination. If he comes in 3rd or, God forbid, 2nd, he's got a great shot.

Tracking the Polls

Here's a rundown of some of the different pollsters.

	Chris is hardcore ARG estimate	ARG 3 Day	Zogby/ Reuters/ MSNBC	Suffolk Univ/ WHDH-TV	Boston Globe/ WBZ-TV	Gallup/CNN/ USA Today	Average
Kerry	42	38	30	36	38	38	37
Dean	20	16	23	20	15	25	20
Clark	14	17	13	11	14	10	13
Edwards	17	15	9	8	12	9	12
Lieberman	4	5	9	6	7	12	7
Other/ Undecided	3	9	16	19	14	6	11

You make the call. One thing we do know is that there will be no undecideds on election day, unless they stay home. My gut reaction tells me that the undecideds will split between Kerry and Edwards. Dean's got solid support and that shows, Clark as the anti-Dean also has solid support.

At the Democratic Party Meetup in Atlanta this week, Dean had the most tables, Clark had the most vociferous supporters yet most of the curiosity was for Kerry and Edwards. Lieberman also has pretty solid core supporters, but I don't see him getting many of the late-breakers since even Joe's core supporters have to know that after Tuesday he's out of the running.

If you look at the average of all those polls up there, and you redistribute undecided by giving half of it to Kerry and half of it to Edwards, you get:

42 - Kerry
20 - Dean
17 - Edwards
13 - Clark
07 - Lieberman

Fire sale

There's a fire sale today at Chrisishardcore.

Here's the New Hampshire Spreadsheet I've been using. It includes some graphs. Try your own hand, check my math, whatever. Of course, if ARG or Zogby would just release their one day numbers I wouldn't have to do this.

Wyeth Wire has done the same thing to Zogby that I've done to ARG. Check him out -- he's the premiere South Carolina blogger so his site should be heating up Wednesday morning.

Update: Gallup's latest one day numbers look a lot like my ARG-influenced estimates.

Crack for the Weak?

Welcome from Wyeth Wire.
Philip at Poly Sigh has this warning:

Mickey Kaus is touting blogger Chrisishardcore's estimates of the one day ARG tracking poll results. As I mentioned in an earlier post, these one day numbers are meaningless. Furthermore, Chrisishardcore's estimates don't match up with what ARG is reporting. According to ARG "Howard Dean is up 10 percentage points from his low on January 22, but he still trails John Kerry by 17 percentage points in the latest daily numbers. But Chrisishardcore estimates that on 1/24, ARG had Kerry with 42 and Dean with 20, a 22 point difference, not 17. Furthermore, Chrisishardcore estimates that on 1/22, Dean had 15 percent, so if his support increased 10 points, he'd have to be at 25, not 20. Finally, Chrisishardcore has Dean's lowest day as 1/23 when he was at 13 percent, not 1/22.

So to my warning about relying on one day tracking poll results, add a caveat about never ever relying on estimates of one day tracking poll results. If, as some said, the Zogby polls before the Iowa caucuses were "crack for the weak", then these estimates are "crank for wimps."

All I can really say is: welcome home wimps. ARG's numbers are ultimately probably going to be wrong, so are Zogby's and so are everyone's. With two days left until the primary these 3 day tracking polls won't be able to accurately show late surges -- and that's what I'm trying to do.

My numbers may not exactly equal ARG's. So what? My data showed a huge Kerry surge the day after Iowa - at the time ARG said he had a 5 point lead. But now their data show a comfortable double digit lead, neither of us were probably exactly right - but my 9 point lead that day is much closer to the CW now than ARG's 5 point-teaser.

My data has been showing a Clark slide, Edwards rise, comfortable Kerry and a Dean who, like in Iowa, has his Dean base but not much else. I suspect that ARG is pushing independents because their undecided number is down to 3. Compare that to Zogby who's got an undecided of 13! On the one hand, pushing independents may color your poll because they are notoriously fickle. On the other hand, New Hampshire votes in two days -- they've got to make up their minds sometime!

P.S.: These numbers are free! I personally guarantee no buyer's remorse. Zogby can't say the same to the media organizations this year or in '02 when he flubbed a number of races.

1/24 ARG Daily

Here are the new numbers for 1/24. I have also updated my projection, based on these numbers, for the final numbers:

Final Projection
on 1/24	on 1/23		1/24	23	22	21	20	19	18	17	16	15
43	46	Kerry	42	39	32	30	31	21	19	20	19	17
22	14	Dean	20	13	15	18	22	27	28	28	28	28
20	23	Edwards	17	16	12	10	10	8	8	8	8	8
11	11	Clark	14	16	22	20	17	19	19	19	21	20
4	6	Lieberman	4	6	6	7	7	7	7	6	7	7
		Other	3	10	13	15	13	18	19	19	18	20

Analysis: Dean has stopped bleeding support to Kerry. His post-scream "rebound" may be good enough to get him second place, but under no scenario I can imagine will he win. Dean seems to be getting his supporters back from undecided. He's holding close to his post-Iowa numbers (when he landed in second place) but doesn't seem to have convinced any undecideds since then to move back to him.

Today's data seems to have a larger percentage of independents than yesterday or the day before -- that may explain Dean's poor performance from yesterday and his rebound today. Democrats seem to motivated more by an 'Anybody But Bush' drive that has deemed Dean unelectable. Dean's support from his political newcomers probably shows up better when self-declared Democrats make up a smaller portion of the sample size.

However, Edwards and Kerry have also drawn many undecided votes. It seems to me that over the past week Kerry got an overwhelming majority of Dean deserters (who probably once supported Kerry) while Kerry and Edwards split the undecideds.

Edwards seems to get the majority of Clark supporters who are probably motivated in part by a desire to see another Bill Clinton/Southerner head the ticket. Kerry seems to get Clark supporters who were impressed by his military credentials. It seems like slightly more are gravitating to Edwards though, as his rise in the polls corresponds pretty evenly with Clark's fall.

Exclusive!

Welcome from Kaus Files.
This is my own private New Hampshire tracking poll (see below for methodology):

Projected		1/23	22	21	20	19	18	17	16	15
46	Kerry	39	32	30	31	21	19	20	19	17
23	Edwards	16	12	10	10	8	8	8	8	8
11	Clark	16	22	20	17	19	19	19	21	20
14	Dean	13	15	18	22	27	28	28	28	28
6	Lieberman	6	6	7	7	7	7	6	7	7
	Other	10	13	15	13	18	19	19	18	20

Methodology: ARG produces a 3 day average tracking poll every night. For example, they do a nightly poll on Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday. Then they take an average of each candidate's support on those 3 nights, and that is the number for Wednesday. It's a good method, but it delays the results of a bounce or surge, and since there are only 3 days to go until the New Hampshire primary, that surge or bounce is what I'm interested in right now.

So, I set up the 3 day averages in a spreadsheet and doing some equations and educated guesses, I've figured out what their nightly poll was telling them each day. So, tomorrow, when they release the next 3 day tracking number, I already know the previous two days' daily poll numbers and I can simply work backwards from the average to report what each candidate is actually polling that day.

Here's an example of how/why it works: The day after Iowa (Jan 20th), Dean had a 2 point lead against Kerry in the ARG tracking poll. My data, however, shows that on that day Kerry was actually outpolling him by 9 points. That nine point lead didn't show up in the 3 day poll for 2 days, and by that time, my data showed Kerry opening up a 17 point lead, which is now the conventional wisdom.

My 'poll' data accurately showed Kerry's huge surge days before it was the CW, and now it's showing Edwards' sharp climb, Clark's sharp decline, and Dean's bottoming out. Will it be the new CW come Wednesday morning? I think so, but we'll find out. My projection for the final results are based on my own momentum tracking. I'll update these everyday too. Hope you'll be back to check them.

One final note: The "stock chart" in the left column won't be that accurate until states actually start voting and we get some more solid close-to-election polling. It still reflects the pre-Iowa CW, but since most states haven't been polled since then, I don't have much of a choice. But it does show momentum. A candidate needs a "50" to win the nomination. It reflects Dean's early lead in money and his ability to garner 25% or so in many states because of his name ID. Clark's 2nd place showing in the poll reflects his existence as the anti-Dean. As Dean becomes less likely, so does the need for an anti-Dean. Once Kerry or Edwards or anyone else starts actually winning primaries, they'll rise and Dean and Clark will fall. As soon as Lieberman drops out, he'll go down to 0. So stay tuned there too.

Woo!

Finally! Some new numbers from Oklahoma, California and as always New Hampshire. I'm checking The State everyday for South Carolina numbers. I'm excited.

	1/23	1/21	1/19	1/16	1/12	1/09	1/07	1/06	12/21	12/18	12/17
Dean	31	34	34	30	30	29	30	30	30	30	29
Clark	20	23	23	20	19	17	16	16	17	17	18
Kerry	17	12	11	9	9	10	10	10	10	10	12
Lieberman	14	15	15	13	13	15	15	15	15	15	15
Edwards	11	9	8	7	6	6	6	5	6	6	6

Somebody's got "Big Mo". I'll let y'all guess who.

	1/23	1/21	1/19	1/16	1/12	1/09	1/07	1/06
Kerry	59	18	29	34	7	5	-3	-2
Edwards	37	20	37	48	26	15	3	-5
Lieberman	-1	4	15	32	3	5	0	4
Dean	-2	4	19	44	18	3	-2	2
Clark	-6	5	23	59	37	13	-5	-1

The suspense is killing me

Dean announcing that Greenspan should go probably isn't the bombshell that will propel him back into the lead. My only hope is that if Greenspan is fired we don't ask Al Sharpton who should replace him.

My Debate Thoughts

What a terrible debate. I don't think that the candidates performed poorly, but the debate's structure was tedious and didn't really shed light on anything substantial. Peter Jennings' inane questions about the Muslim faith (Edwards) and the Federal Reserve (Sharpton) weren't really that much worse than any of the other questioners' relentless focus on the CW to the exclusion of questions that actually matter.

I've got to give it to Dean. He's resumed the mantle of the kinda-Babbitt candidate of this election year, returned to running on the successful record of a small state governor. He stood up proudly for his signing of the civil unions bill, probably the main thing that garnered him much of his early, pre-war support. He said he'd support whomever got the nomination. The Democratic Party will be the big winner of the Dean campaign, no matter what happens.

Clark had some good lines, especially the one about inviting former AG John Ashcroft back to Congress to testify about the abuses of the Patriot Act. But Clark's in trouble, as I think he's starting to hemorage support to Edwards. Edwards doesn't have the resume of Clark, which is important before people actually start paying attention, but Clark doesn't have the slick style of Edwards, which is important when people do start paying attention. Clark got a lot of easy questions last night and didn't answer them as good as he's capable of. Compare that to Edwards who easily got the night's worst questions and handled them competently.

Kerry got the best questions (he's the frontrunner) and showed strength and forcefulness. He's the frontrunner. Kudos for highlighting Max Cleland's support. If Bush is going to use re-authorization of the Patriot Act as this year's Homeland Security, it's right to bring out a figure like Max who can expose the ruthlessness of the administration in advancing it's partisan goals at the expense of genuine security concerns.

New Hamsphire Predictions

OK so we're 5 days away from New Hampshire. We haven't seen the debate tonight that up to 50% of New Hampshire voters admit may change their mind.

But here is my prediction:
1. Kerry 35%
2. Dean 21%
3. Edwards 20%
4. Clark 19%.

Feel free to make yours known in comments.

Important Thinking

From Eric Alterman:

Yes, I, too, am enormously pissed about the war vote, but I’m over it. As I keep saying over and over, elections aren’t therapy.

Obit

So I guess I'm a little late on this front but I wanted to wish Gephardt well by noting that he truly was the last of his kind. This cuts both ways of course. On a positive note, he's the last great New Dealer. Unions brung him to the dance and he saved the last dance for his union supporters.

On a negative note, Gephardt came from an era of toned down rhetoric and bipartisanship that had the majority valuing the minority, not just using them and discarding them. Gephardt might well have been President in '88 had he the fortune to compete in the later primaries. In fact, he might have been elected any year before '94 but once the landscape changed he was the last of the former power structure to get the message.

It continued right up until last year with the War resolution. Gephardt thought going to war was the right thing to do, or at least the politically correct thing to do. But honestly, does anyone but Gephardt think Bush valued Gep's support or took any of his suggestions seriously when crafting the resolution and strategy in Iraq? To Bush, the war, or at the very least the resolution, was as much about politics as policy or security. And Gephardt, who'd spent a lifetime in politics, didn't realize it.

The highlight of his campaign may have been his coinage of miserable failure as shorthand for Bush. But by that point it was too little too late. Pragmatic supporters of Gephardt were taking a second look at Edwards, Kerry and Clark while youthful idealists were flocking to the younger Kucinich who had a better shot at building a lasting movement for the progressive goals they valued.

Just So Everyone Knows...

My only goal in life is to move up to the top of Greg Greene's blogroll. I need to update mine real soon. I promise.

New Momentum Tracker

Gephardt's exit from the race increased everyone else's porportional share of the remaining 5 way race. Until I get some new polling data from South Carolina, Missouri, etc, my numbers won't really move. That said, check out Edwards and Kerry's gains.

	1/21	1/19	1/16	1/12	1/09	1/07	1/06	12/21	12/18	12/17
Dean	34	34	30	30	29	30	30	30	30	29
Clark	23	23	20	19	17	16	16	17	17	18
Lieberman	15	15	13	13	15	15	15	15	15	15
Kerry	12	11	9	9	10	10	10	10	10	12
Edwards	9	8	7	6	6	6	5	6	6	6

This is my new "momentum" tracker. It's numbers do not add up to 100, it's merely a weighted average of increases from previous days' data. For those of you familiar with stocks, think of these numbers kind of like Forward P/E ratios. Apologies to those who have no idea what I'm talking about.

	1/21	1/19	1/16	1/12	1/09	1/07	1/06
Edwards	20	37	48	26	15	3	-5
Kerry	18	29	34	7	5	-3	-2
Clark	5	23	59	37	13	-5	-1
Dean	4	19	44	18	3	-2	2
Lieberman	4	15	32	3	5	0	4

Not nice

You know, I try to keep it somewhat civil and professional here, but the news that state Senate Republicans will introduce a constitutional amendment banning gay marriages just shows what assholes they are.

Meetup

One of the factors that led to the "inevitability" myth of the Dean campaign was its Meetup numbers. Dean has something like 6 times the Meetup supporters of Kerry and 30+ times as many as Edwards. But then, Insane Clown Posse, the band/musical interest with the largest Meetup numbers, has nearly twice as many signed up as Radiohead and the Dave Matthews Band, combined.

Health Insurance

When the issue is making insurance more affordable for either those who do not have it or those who can barely afford it in the first place, which of the following is a better idea: Medical Savings Accounts or socializing extraordinary risk? To me Medical Savings Accounts seem like tax-credits for purchasing a Mercedes. It's a great idea (and great boon) to those who can already afford the Mercedes, it isn't much help to everyone else who can't.

John Kerry's idea to take catastrophe (claims over $50,000) insurance out of the private market and have the government handle them is a very good idea. I've thought this since I heard about it a couple of months ago even when I (wrongly) didn't think Kerry was a viable candidate at that point.

Those of us with car insurance understand that getting a DUI makes insurance riskier and therefor makes your insurance rates go up. Having to buy catastrophe coverage is kind of similar, only getting a DUI is avoidable by using common sense and good judgement while getting cancer, with the possible exception of lung cancer, isn't. When a Democrat promises big government, it's usually not a winner (not so for Republicans). But Kerry's common sense proposal is: the point of government's safety net isn't to make it easy for those who've chosen a path of laziness and irresponsibility, it's to provide security for the vast majority who live up to their part of the social contract and don't want to see it all go to waste because of a little bad luck.

Of course, someone's got to pay for this. But when you lay it out like that, I think more than 99% of Americans would agree that the top 1% owe at the very least this much back to a society that's been the foundation for their prosperity.

One Final Word

...About my "polling." Obviously the order is not Dean/Clark/Lieberman/Kerry/Edwards. Drop Lieberman out of there and you might have a pretty accurate picture of what's going on now. Although Clark's probably now behind both Kerry and Edwards.

I rely on a number of sources, including Daily Kos and Political Wire, but I don't have anything near an accurate snapshot -- I'm completely missing poll data for Michigan, Washington and Maine, 3 February 7th states. Additionally, my Missouri polling is now probably useless considering Gep's out of the race. Finally, Dean's "lead" in my poll is not unlike his lead in polls right now, it doesn't mean much and even if it did, it still shows that his lead excludes over 80% of the delegates.

Overall, I stand by my polling data and my tracking poll. It will get much more accurate as the days go by and while it would be nice to predict today or a month ago who would win, my numbers should be able to show a pretty accurate road to the nomination, and ultimately since predictions are pretty useless seeing some solid numbers should be fun.

Tracking Numbers

These are going to get real fluid real soon, as soon as I get some new poll data from the early primary states. These numbers include the Iowa results and yesterday's NH tracking poll.

	1/19	1/16	1/12	1/09	1/07	1/06	12/21	12/18	12/17
Dean	30	30	30	29	30	30	30	30	29
Clark	20	20	19	17	16	16	17	17	18
Lieberman	13	13	13	15	15	15	15	15	15
Kerry	10	9	9	10	10	10	10	10	12
Edwards	8	7	6	6	6	5	6	6	6

Iowa Surprise

About a week ago I was privately predicting that Kerry would come out on top in Iowa, but 38%? That's huge. I never would have predicted Edwards' incredible surge, but watching the caucuses on C-SPAN and CNN it was just amazing how Dean and Gephardt, possessors of the mythical field operation had to fight for viability while Kerry's people didn't need to do anything and Edwards' organizers could pretty easily bargain for the undecideds. My own tracking polls won't really show the momentum until later this week as the news filters out, but this race just got really exciting. As for Clark, skipping Iowa seemed like a great idea when it looked like Dean and Gephardt would take the first two slots, now it doesn't seem like such a good idea. We'll see how this all pans out.

My Convention Tracking Poll

So, this isn't really a poll in that I didn't call anyone. But it is made up of updated poll data and, once we start having caucuses and primaries, hard data from the results. It's weighted using my secret methodology (you can find the excel spreadsheet if you look for it) so there are no guarantees. These numbers aren't that fluid right now, but they should really start to move after Iowa and as New Hampshire and the Feb 2nd primaries approach.

	1/16	1/12	1/09	1/07	1/06	12/21	12/18	12/17
Dean	30	30	29	30	30	30	30	29
Clark	20	19	17	16	16	17	17	18
Gephardt	14	15	13	14	14	14	13	15
Lieberman	13	13	15	15	15	15	15	15
Kerry	9	9	10	10	10	10	10	12
Edwards	7	6	6	6	5	6	6	6

These Guys Get It

This is interesting but then again there's the possibility that it's all for show. Either Bush is a strong party leader who is letting a Republican Congress get away with massive increases in discretionary spending (while at the same time calling for massive increases in non-discretionary spending) or he's a weak President who doesn't have the will or power to tame what I would objectively consider the worst Congress in at least 15 years. The perception of most voters is that Republicans will clean up any fiscal mess and Bush and much of the Repubican Congress is using that as a cover to get away with pretty much whatever they want when it comes to the federal budget. This sort of thing cuts the other way with Democrats so you generally have them being extra-cautious about too much spending. Just look at the many Republican governors who've raised taxes in the past year compared to only a handful of Democratic governors who did. Anyway, the only groups that don't buy the perception and actually want to see some results are certain segments of the base, so like I said it will be interesting to see whether they follow through with their threats or if these are just crocodile tears aimed at setting up some fake rally around the President moment down the road.

Lieberman Looking Better

I see Wes, who sadly has no comments, is also warming to Lieberman. Lieberman's got a fairly liberal record on some important issues (taxes, environment) and a fairly conservative record on others (trade, regulation of the mutual fund industry) that's only natural considering he comes from our richest state. His position on the war is probably what a majority of general election voters favor, even though I don't believe a President Lieberman (or Gore) would have gone to war in Iraq, even though he favored the President's plan.

The biggest problem with Lieberman is his Zell Miller-lite style. He could score big points in the debates if he only highlighted his differences with Dean in a different manner. Instead of coming off as the better choice he comes off as the valedictorian (or alter boy) that would rather see things ruined if he doesn't get his way. Additionally, his principled Clintonian stance on free trade is a real loser in the rural South. It's often overlooked that Clinton lost a lot of the South for Democrats in part because of his vigorous support for NAFTA.

In a different era, Lieberman would probably make a good Senate majority leader. He'd probably make a good President too, but his campaign themes are disastrous for the '04 primary. I also suspect that if he won the primary he'd wage a campaign of good faith against Bush even though I don't think that Rove has any intention of eschewing dirty tricks even if the Democrat isn't engaging in any.

Finally, someone with Lieberman's God-fearing bonafides could really bring back religion as a force in liberal politics. But he's long since pissed that away by waging war on Hollywood and junk food. Ultimately, it looks like Joe will be resigned to the same fate as his idol, Scoop Jackson: great potential as a Senator but for whatever reason never ready for prime time.

Deep South

If the NYT thinks New Orleans and Atlanta are the "Deep South" I'd like to know what they think of the rest of Georgia and Louisiana.

Who Needs Science?

That this is even fodder for "news" shows how little the rightwing media and much of the public in general cares about science these days. I wonder what's next? A Drudge Report flash perhaps reporting that people with head colds in fact may run record high fevers?

A Week Before Iowa

As I'm getting more data, all the candidates (except for Lieberman and Kerry) have been rising in my nominee sweepstakes on the left. Gep overtook Joe for 3rd place, as Lieberman's numbers have leveled off from his early name ID advantage in a number of early primary states and because the proximity of the Iowa caucuses, where Gep is expected to get 2nd at worst and come away with a significant number of delegates (Lieberman will get 0) is weighted higher than any state where Lieberman holds any advantage.

I think Clark looks set to take off. If Edwards somehow makes a very strong finish in Iowa he may be able to slow the Clark train, but it's left the station. Should be an exciting week. I predict that Dean will see a non-trivial change in support in Iowa as the caucuses approach, whether it will be people having second thoughts or giving him a second look, we'll see. Also, look for Clark supporters to wage a strong battle in the state. They probably won't qualify for delegates, but their support could be crucial in picking Iowa's anti-Dean.

JobCore

Somebody (ahem) needs a job this legislative session. Just sayin'.

State Senate Outlook, Part 1 of 4

One of the things I talk about quite a bit is the state legislature, particularly the state Senate. For one thing, it interests me quite a bit. Another reason might be that with only 56 districts, it's (relatively) easy to get a hold of. After talking to an out of state friend today, I thought I'd do a pre-session rundown of all 56 races, classifying each district as either (D) - Solid Democratic seat, (d) - Leans Democratic, (T) - Tossup, (r) or (R).

Let's begin.

District 1 - Pres. Pro Tem. Eric Johnson, Republican, Savannah. This district is solidly Republican whether Johnson, who had previously flirted with retirement runs or not. Democrats would like to see Jack Kingston go for higher or statewide office and Johnson move to Congress. He is perhaps the most skillful Republican in the legislature. (R)

District 2 - Sen. Regina Thomas, Democrat, Savannah. The colorful Thomas occupies a safe majority minority district centered in Savannah. Despite ideological differences, Republicans can count on Thomas's vote on a number of issues as long as her regional ally Johnson remains in a position of power. (D).

District 3 - Sen. Rene' Kemp, Democrat, Hinesville. In what I'll refer to as the Democratic doomsday scenario, Kemp and 4 or 5 other Democrats would lose and Republicans wouldn't lose any of the seats they are defending. Barring that, Kemp will probably have another close race, as he did last year. (d).

District 4 - Sen. Jack Hill, Republican, Reidsville. Party switcher Hill inhabits what should be a lean Democrat district. However, as long as Appropriations chairman Hill is running, the race probably leans toward his re-election. I don't believe the Democrats have recruited a challenger yet and don't expect to see one unless Hill draws a primary challenger. (r).

District 5 - Sen. Mary Squires, Democrat, Norcross. Squires may run for US Senate, and may end up running for her current seat. If she does vacate her Senate seat, state Rep. Curt Thompson is ready to step in. I don't see the Democrats losing this seat. (d).

District 6 - Sen. Ginger Collins, Republican, Smyrna. Collin's southwest Cobb district is among the top Democratic target. Barnes won this district in 2002 and Collins only won thanks to an inept challenger. There has already been strong fundraising on both sides in this district. District 6 is similar to multimember House district 34. The two districts share all but 5 precincts and the Democratic nominee in the Senate district will benefit from state Rep. Doug Stoner's help, who is determined to see his Senate district represented by a Democrat. (T).

District 7 - Sen. Peg Blitch, Democrat, Homerville. Blitch is another one of the doomsday senators. But I don't buy it. Blitch was supposed to have close races in both 2000 and 2002 but won by at least 15 points both times. I'm not sure her margin of victory will improve again in '04 but I don't see it deteriorating anytime soon. (D).

District 8 - Sen. Tim Golden, Democrat, Valdosta. Golden didn't draw opposition in 2002 and with news of his retirement I doubt his successor, whoever it will be (likely state Rep. Ron Borders) will either. Valdosta is still strong territory for Democrats. (D).

District 9 - Sen. Don Balfour, Republican, Snellville. Balfour won't see opposition in 2004 but if he did his chairmanship of the powerful Rules committee would be one of many reasons it would be tough to defeat him. (R).

District 10 - Sen. Nadine Thomas, Democrat, Decatur. Thomas is currently flirting with a primary challenge to Congresswoman Denise Majette, but it isn't likely. If Majette does the (seemingly) unlikely and enters the US Senate race, expect Thomas to run for Congress. Otherwise she'll probably continue to bide her time in this safe Senate seat. (D).

District 11 - Sen. John Bulloch, Republican, Ochlocknee. Bulloch's South Georgia district is the most competitive rural district for Democrats. Bulloch eeked out a victory in 2002 by .2% over a weak incumbent. 2002 Democratic primary loser Murray Campbell will be the challenger this year and the word is he's a much stronger general election candidate than Harold Ragan. Very competitive seat. (T).

District 12 - Sen. Michael Meyer von Bremen, Democrat, Albany. The only way minority leader MVB would lose would be in a Democratic primary to an African American challenger. Even that's unlikely. Expect this protege' of Lt. Gov. Mark Taylor to continue representing Taylor's old Senate seat. (D).

District 13 - Sen. Rooney Bowen, Republican, Cordele. Expect party switcher Bowen to face a Republican primary challenge and a strong general election race against a former Democratic legislator, although I'm not sure who it will be yet. (T).

This concludes part 1. Totals so far:
(D) - 5
(d) - 2
(T) - 3
(r) - 1
(R) - 2

Scott Dix

I'm not really sure how to respond to the news that Rep. Scott Dix has switched from the Republican party to the Democratic one. On the one hand, I'll admit that the sense of outrage when it goes the other way isn't really there when your team benefits.

On the other, Dix's district seems pretty (2) massively Republican so he'll have a harder time winning re-election in his existing district than Senate party switchers Rooney Bowen, Dan Lee, Don Cheeks and Jack Hill (in that order). Maybe it's a legitimate matter of conscience and if so I wish him well as it ain't easy being a Democrat in that part of Gwinnett County.

Why Bother?

Why does Andrew Sullivan bother beating up on William Safire's annual prediction column. Sure a lot of it is wrong but the whole point of the column is obviously not to "predict" per se but really just things Safire would like to see and/or thinks would be interesting. Of course a lot of it never pans out. As for Sullivan's own predictions, the correct answer should be that Safire should write more of his language columns.

Back in Action

Happy New Year folks. I'm back from my visit to Chicago and I see the legislature is about to gear up. Partisanship returns!