It is strange for me to feel so detached the day before an election. I don’t have a dog in this fight anymore. I see advantages and disadvantages to both Clinton and Obama as candidates and as presidents. I could live with either and would be enthusiastic about neither.

Super Tuesday, which looked a couple of weeks ago like it would be a blowout for Clinton, is up for grabs now with Obama surging in some key states. Put your predictions in this thread.

1. How many of the 22 states will Clinton win, how many will Obama win, and how many will be split decisions (with one candidate winning the popular vote and the other winning a majority of the delegates)?

2. Who will have the bigger winning margin: Obama in Illinois, or Clinton in New York?

3. Who will win each of the following states tomorrow?

Alabama

Alaska

Arizona

Arkansas

California

Colorado

Connecticut

Delaware

Georgia

Idaho

Illinois

Kansas

Massachusetts

Minnesota

Missouri

New Jersey

New Mexico

New York

North Dakota

Oklahoma

Tennessee

Utah

Check out MyDD and Open Left for recent polling data in these states, but keep in mind that there haven’t been any polls in some of them.

UPDATE: Obama supporter poblano has his predictions here:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/…

It’s based on delegates, not popular vote, so he thinks several states will be a tie.

I forgot to add Americans abroad and American Samoa to the list of entities voting today. I predict Obama will win both of those groups.

I think Clinton will win these 11 states today: AZ, AR, CA, DE, MA, NJ, NM, NY, ND, OK, TN

Although Obama has all the momentum in CA, I pick Clinton to hang on (barely) there. I was persuaded by silver spring’s diary that most of the polls understate the percentage of women voters:

http://www.dailykos.com/storyo…

I think Obama will win these 11 states today: AL, AK, CO, CT, GA, ID, IL, KS, MN, MO, UT

I think that Obama’s winning margin in IL will be bigger than Clinton’s winning margin in NY.

As we all knew would be the case, Leonard Boswell is going to have plenty of money for this campaign. According to Federal Election Commission records, Boswell has more than $730,000 in the bank:

he raised about $131,000 during the last quarter of 2007, with $101,000 coming from political action committees.

Through 2007, he has raised about $730,000, of which $540,000 came from PACs, or close to 74 percent of his contributions.

I’m surprised that such a large proportion of the money came from PACs. I’m sure there will be much more where that came from in Q1 and Q2 of this year.

The Fallon for Congress website is still under construction, but you can donate to his campaign through ActBlue if you are so inclined.

I read on the front page of Wednesday’s Des Moines Register that this week, Representative Leonard Boswell introduced legislation directing the U.S. Postal Service to create a unique zip code for my suburb of Windsor Heights.

As we’ve discussed here at Bleeding Heartland, a recent survey of Windsor Heights residents showed that 99 percent are satisfied with the quality of life in Windsor Heights, and 89 percent described the city services and quality of life as “above average.”

Apparently the most frequent complaint city officials hear from residents is the lack of a unique zip code. Windsor Heights has three different zip codes; two mostly cover neighborhoods in Des Moines, and one mostly covers parts of Urbandale.

According to the Register on Wednesday,

Confusion between the ZIP codes and city boundaries has caused mail to be undelivered or returned to senders, has caused difficulty in tracking sex offenders, and has created problems for businesses.

Despite pleas from Windsor Heights city officials, U.S. postal officials have remained adamant that the suburb will not get its own ZIP code. Postal officials say the town has too few residents and doesn’t have a stand-alone post office. The city receives its mail from three post offices in Des Moines and Urbandale.

The article goes on to note that more than 100 Iowa cities and towns with smaller populations than Windsor Heights have unique zip codes, but that’s not the point of this post.

I personally know Windsor Heights residents who asked Boswell’s office years ago to help us get a zip code.

He just introduced a bill on the subject this week.

It’s too early to know whether Boswell’s proposed legislation has any chance of passing, or even getting out of the House Government Oversight and Reform subcommittee.

“We hope it will go forward, and the congressman will work hard with his colleagues in the House to get it moving,” Boswell spokeswoman McAvoy said.

Looks to me like this is another reason to thank Ed Fallon for challenging Boswell in the primary to represent Iowa’s third Congressional district.  

I am not watching and may not even bother with the rerun later.

If you watched, what did you think?

As Simon Stevenson noted here last week, the Iowa Republican Party’s fundraising lags well behind what Iowa Democrats have raised for the upcoming elections.

Now the Des Moines Register reports that Tom Harkin has $3.4 million in the bank going into his re-election campaign. Prominent Republicans are taking a pass on this race, and Harkin’s only declared opponent

is Steve Rathje, a Cedar Rapids businessman. Rathje as of Sept. 30 had raised about $49,000 for his campaign and had $259 cash on hand.

Finally, Harkin gets to take it easy. He had to fight hard against Greg Ganske in 2002, although he ended up winning by a comfortable margin.

Meanwhile, Ray Hoffman stepped down as chairman of the Iowa Republican Party halfway through his term and has been replaced by Stewart Iverson, who used to be the top Republican in the Iowa Senate but was blamed by some for the erosion of the GOP’s majority in that body.

Hoffman has said he is stepping down to focus more time on his growing restaurant business in Sioux City, but I suspect that the GOP’s woeful election prospects weighed on his mind as well.

As the Des Moines Register reported on Sunday, Iowa Republicans are taking a pass on the big races this year. So far Congressman Leonard Boswell (IA-03) does not even have a declared Republican opponent. This passage from that article was revealing:

Iowa Republicans’ apparent hesitation to mount strong challenges in these two races [against Harkin and Boswell] represents what top GOP activists and strategists say is a low point for the party that might not begin to rebound until after legislative and congressional districts are redrawn in 2012.

“We’ll be lucky with anything we get this year,” said Steve Roberts, a Republican National Committee member from Des Moines. “I don’t think there are a lot of people with high expectations this year. It’s a long road back for us this time.”

Danny Carroll, a former state legislator from Grinnell, considered running against Boswell, but told the Register,

Boswell has won against credible GOP candidates in more competitive political environments and 2008 does not look good.

“I’ve watched the pendulum swing for us,” said Carroll, who went from second in command of the Iowa House majority to one of his party’s highest-ranking casualties in 2006. “I think it’s a time of re-evaluation and reorganizing. I think we’re all just trying to figure it out for ourselves.”

Carroll’s decision was based in part on his belief that the district’s most Democrat-leaning counties, where Republican candidates have done well without winning in recent elections, had become less competitive.

Now, some people in the Democratic establishment are going to warn us that we better not support Ed Fallon in the primary against Boswell, because if we do, we might lose the seat.

But let’s be realistic. Boswell has no Republican opponent. If he wins a tough primary, it’s not going to matter.

If Fallon wins the primary, will some Republican come out of the woodwork to challenge him? If so, that candidate will be starting to build a fundraising and outreach effort six months after Fallon started working the district hard:

Craig Robinson, political director of the Republican Party of Iowa, said a Fallon victory might convince an established candidate to enter the race. He also cautioned against such a strategy, which would keep a Republican from getting organized until after the June 3 primary.

“If the Democrats are going to have a contested primary, my advice is to get out there now and start raising money and building a campaign organization,” said Robinson.

In any event, the Register’s article from Sunday makes clear that Iowa’s third Congressional district leans even more Democratic following the presidential caucuses:

For instance, more than 8,600 Polk County voters changed their registration to Democrat in January, the vast majority to participate in the Jan. 3 presidential caucuses, according to a preliminary monthly report by the Polk County auditor. The changes represented an increase in Democratic membership of 8.7 percent compared to December 2007.

By contrast, roughly 3,100 Polk County voters changed their registration to Republican, an increase of 4.2 percent.

In Jasper County, 707 voters changed their registration to Democrat, an increase of 7.5 percent, compared to 284 who changed to Republican, an increase of 4.3 percent.

Some of those new Democrats may change their registration back to independent or Republican, but count on many to remain in the Democratic fold. Fallon already had a strong base in Polk County, where he got about 40 percent of the vote in the 2006 gubernatorial primary, and Polk County contributes at least 75 percent of the votes in the third Congressional district.

Democratic turnout for the general election is usually higher in presidential election years as well, which further improves our prospects of holding the district.

Republicans’ pessimism is great news for Iowa Democrats, and makes this an ideal year for us to build on our state legislative majorities while getting a stronger progressive to represent central Iowans in Congress.

The one good piece of news for Iowa Republicans is that Congressman Tom Latham (IA-04)

has been named the top Republican on a subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee.

Latham, of Ames, is the only member of the U.S. House from Iowa on the influential committee, which controls government spending.

Latham’s district was always going to be an uphill battle for Democrats, and this will make it that much tougher.

But overall, it doesn’t look like Iowa Republicans will have much to celebrate this November.

I don't have the stomach for it, but if you watched the four remaining Republican candidates debate this evening, let us know what you thought.

Just last week I wrote a front-page post for MyDD called Ten arguments for sticking with John Edwards. I was getting ready to post the revised version on Daily Kos today or tomorrow, when I saw the news this morning that Edwards had decided to leave the race.

I was hoping Edwards would stay in to keep his message out there. I hope that he decided to quit for political reasons, or because he ran out of money, rather than because of a change in Elizabeth’s condition.

I feel lucky to have caucused for Edwards already. I have no idea how I would vote now. For most of the past year I strongly preferred Obama to Clinton, but in the past few months I’ve grown disenchanted with Obama’s campaign and skeptical about his ability to win. Maybe I would write in Edwards or Al Gore rather than vote for either of the candidates left in the race–I don’t know.

As for how this affects the race, I also have no idea. In some states, Clinton clearly benefits, while in others, Obama may benefit. My own siblings who supported Edwards are split, with my brothers breaking for Obama and my sister strongly leaning to Clinton.

Since most Bleeding Heartland readers seem to be Obama supporters, I recommend this diary by the wonderful JedReport called Some tips for Obama supporters, from an Edwards partisan.

UPDATE: Here is a link to the text and video of Edwards’ farewell address:

http://www.dailykos.com/storyo…

Sigh. McCain pulled this one out and is the clear front-runner, especially since Rudy Giuliani is going to endorse him. I was hoping Rudy wouldn’t finish in the top three in a single state.

On the bright side, Romney has more money, and conservative groups are starting to target McCain, with ads such as this one comparing McCain to Hillary Clinton:

http://link.brightcove.com/ser…

Results with 77 percent of precincts reporting:

McCain 615,203 (36%)

Romney 531,139 (31%)

Giuliani 252,925 (15%)

Huckabee 228,687 (14%)

Paul 55,070 (3%)

Thompson 20,231 (1%)

—

Clinton 753,543 (50%)

Obama 497,341 (33%)

Edwards 218,899 (14%)

Put your guesses in this thread. Remember, you can't win if you don't play!

My best guess for the Democratic side:

Clinton 52
Obama 40
Edwards 8

For the Republicans:

McCain 37
Romney 32
Huckabee 15
Giuliani 12
Paul 4 

As DrinksGreenTea wrote in the diaries, Massachusetts Senator Ted Kennedy is the latest big name to get behind Barack Obama’s presidential bid.

Clearly a significant chunk of the Democratic establishment does not want to see the Clintons back in charge. Also, Obama now has the backing of Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick as well as both U.S. senators from the state.

Rumors continue to circulate about Al Gore endorsing Obama, but I’ve seen no confirmation of that.

Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton secured the backing of Florida Senator Bill Nelson shortly before that state’s primary. Her campaign is already calling on the DNC to seat Florida’s delegates despite the state’s flagrant violation of the rules.

Perhaps more significantly for Hillary, the American Nurses’ Association just endorsed her. That group represents the 2.9 million registered nurses across the country, and the endorsement will bolster Clinton’s argument that she has the superior health care plan.

My money is still on Clinton to win the nomination, but Obama’s convincing victory in South Carolina suggests that he is not out of the running either.

I don’t think anyone predicted the magnitude of Obama’s win in South Carolina, with 55 percent of the vote to 27 percent for Clinton and 18 percent for Edwards. Not only did Obama nearly double Clinton’s percentage of the total vote, the youth turnout tripled, and two-thirds of young voters chose Obama.

The total turnout exceeded 500,000, and Obama alone got more votes than the total turnout in the 2004 Democratic primary in South Carolina.

An estimated 155,000 more black voters turned out yesterday than in the 2004 primary.

Also, someone pointed out in the comments at MyDD that Obama got more votes yesterday in South Carolina than John McCain and Mike Huckabee’s combined total in the GOP primary last weekend.

I am shocked that the total turnout in the Democratic primary exceeded the turnout in the GOP primary in a state as conservative as South Carolina.  

Last weekend a friend and fellow Edwards precinct captain left a message for me saying he'd been polled on the Boswell-Fallon race. On Wednesday evening, as I was cooking dinner, I got the same call. About an hour after that, the Obama precinct captain in my neighborhood called to let me know that she wants to volunteer for Fallon. She had just gotten the same survey call, which jogged her memory that she'd been meaning to call me about volunteering.

It was a long survey. I took notes for about half the call, but I had to put down my pencil from time to time, because my kids were jumping and trying to climb all over me, and I was afraid one of them would grab the pencil and get hurt. After the call I jotted down notes on other questions I could remember. If you've gotten this call, please leave a comment with any questions I have forgotten.

I'm putting as much as I can remember about the poll after the jump. I figured that Boswell's campaign was paying for the survey, based on the type of questions asked, and the fact that there were more questions asked about Boswell than about Fallon.

Just to make sure, I called Ed Fallon, and he confirmed that his campaign did not commission this survey and does not have any poll in the field right now.

If you don't care to read the whole extended entry, here's the summary. The poll asks a lot of questions about how Boswell is doing and what the respondent thinks about Boswell on various issues. All of the votes Fallon has criticized are mentioned in the survey, and respondents are asked whether they agree with Boswell's or Fallon's position. At various points during the survey, respondents are asked if they would vote for Fallon or Boswell if the primary election were held today.

The poll tests both positive and negative messages about Boswell, asking if the respondent agrees or if the statement would affect their likelihood of voting for Boswell. Interestingly, the survey did not test negative messages about Fallon. I kept waiting for questions about whether it bothered me that Fallon supported Nader in 2000, or was too liberal to win a general election, or whatever, but they were not in this survey. This was not a persuasion call against Fallon.

As far as I can tell, the Boswell campaign is trying to figure out which of Fallon's criticisms have the potential to hurt the incumbent, and which can be safely ignored.  

Follow me after the jump for more details.

I was way off on my Nevada predictions, but I didn't do too badly on the GOP results in South Carolina.

Please put your predictions for the Democratic South Carolina primary in the comments.

This week's polls have shown Edwards gaining, especially among whites. The big question mark is, will the Obama campaign be able to produce record black turnout, giving him a double-digit victory?

I'm guessing they will. My prediction: Obama 45, Clinton 33, Edwards 22. 

I doubt I'll even bother to watch the repeat, but if you caught the Republicans debating, use this thread to “document the atrocities,” as Atrios would say.

In case you don’t normally read the Des Moines Register, Marc Hansen’s column on Ed Fallon in Tuesday’s edition was pretty good.

My only gripe relates to this passage:

Fallon hasn’t had many so-called “real jobs.” Like optometrist or truck driver, as opposed to “field canvasser” or “inner-city community organizer.”

I like Hansen, but this is a cheap shot. Why is engaging the public on political issues any less of a “real job” than driving a truck?

I’m sick of journalists denigrating political work and citizen empowerment.

I'll be watching the rerun later. Judging from the comments at MyDD, this turned out to be quite the rumble.

What did you think?

UPDATE: noneed4thneed’s take is here:

http://commoniowan.blogspot.co…

The hand recount in New Hampshire is about a third of the way to completion, and if you want to know what’s been uncovered so far, I recommend this informative diary at Daily Kos or this informative diary at Blue Hampshire.

I applaud Dennis Kucinich for asking for this recount. If it helps restore confidence in the election machinery (in New Hampshire, at least), it will have been $60,000 very well spent.  

Unfortunately, Mike Huckabee was not able to take this one. Fred Thompson won just enough evangelical voes to give John McCain the victory.

Yet again, Rudy finished behind Ron Paul, as he has in every contest so far.

From TPM, with 93 percent of precincts reporting:

McCain 33

Huckabee 30

Thompson 16

Romney 15

Paul 4

Giuliani 2

Hunter 0

Hunter is dropping out of the race. Thompson will probably follow soon and endorse McCain.

UPDATE: Jonathan Singer observes at MyDD that SC Republicans seemed less enthusiastic about voting this time than they did eight years ago:

Another way of looking at it, this is kind of an underwhelming win for McCain. Well, perhaps even a really unimpressive win. In 2000, McCain received 237,888 votes in coming in second place to George W. Bush. This time? A mere 134,474 votes, or more than 100,000 votes short of what he received eight years ago.

Link: http://www.mydd.com/story/2008…

I will update later when more results are available. For now, I am taking these Nevada results from TPM:

Clinton 51 percent

Obama 45

Edwards 4

Romney 52 percent

Paul 13

McCain 13

Huckabee 8

Thompson 8

Giuliani 4

Hunter 2

Time for Edwards and Obama supporters to face some hard truths.

Even if he had won Iowa and gotten the unions to jump off the fence, it looks like Edwards would not have been able to take Nevada from Hillary.

If Obama couldn’t win this state despite getting favorable media coverage, more than 80 percent of the black vote (according to entrance polling), and the key union endorsements in Nevada, then it seems that no one could have beaten Clinton here.

Hillary won at least 6 of the 9 at-large precincts on the Las Vegas strip, and one of them was a tie. Those precincts supposedly were going to be dominated by the Culinary Union, which backed Obama. That’s why Clinton supporters went to court (unsuccessfully) to try to block the at-large precincts. But Culinary was not able to deliver for Obama in most of those precincts.

I haven’t seen any data yet on what percentage of Democratic caucus-goers were independents or Republicans who switched party affiliation. Total turnout shattered predictions and exceeded 114,000.

Many of the February 5 states will hold closed primaries, which means Obama will not benefit from strong support among independents and Republicans.

Entrance polling in Nevada suggests that Clinton led Obama 51-38 among women (who made up 59 percent of caucus-goers) and crushed Obama 64-26 among Latinos. That suggests a steep uphill climb for Obama in some of the larger February 5 states.

Obama supporters have been calling for Edwards to drop out, but I am not convinced that doing so would benefit Obama. In South Carolina, Edwards is  taking more away from Hillary.

Whichever candidate you favor, it’s obvious that Clinton is in the driver’s seat. She will have to make some big mistakes to lose the nomination now.

Obama was not able to put her away in New Hampshire, and it’s going to cost him big.

I just learned about the blog 2008 Democratic Convention Watch. It looks like a good place for political junkies to bookmark and check from time to time. The focus is “News and views about the 2008 Democratic National Convention and the race for the nomination.”

There’s a delegate counter and archive of past blog posts on the left-hand side of the page.

Recent posts include this one listing all of the “superdelegates” who have endorsed each of the Democratic candidates. If you click through, there is a link to a list of all the superdelegates who have not yet committed to a candidate.

You can also learn about the DNC’s standing committees on credentials, platform and rules, including who will co-chair each of those committees.

Some of you may be interested in this post about how to apply to be one of the DNC’s official state bloggers. Apparently one blogger from each state will be credentialed at the convention in Denver.  

The Nevada caucuses and the GOP primary in South Carolina take place tomorrow. How do you think the candidates will do? Here is my stab in the dark:

Nevada

Clinton 42

Obama 38

Edwards 20

Romney 35

McCain 30

Huckabee 15

Paul 5

Thompson 3

Giuliani 2

South Carolina

McCain 32

Huckabee 28

Thompson 20

Romney 12

Giuliani 5

Paul 3

Hillary Clinton’s surprise win in the New Hampshire primary put her campaign back on track, and most observers would agree that she is slightly favored to win the nomination now.

However, Barack Obama seems set to win South Carolina, and if he can win Nevada as well (which seems likely, given his union endorsements), then he would have more momentum going into the February 5 primaries. More than 20 states will vote that day. So far Clinton leads Obama in most of them, but momentum can change a lot.

The Obama campaign has rolled out a lot of endorsements since New Hampshire, including:

Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska

Governor Janet Napolitano of Arizona

Senator Claire McCaskill of Missouri

Senator Tim Johnson of South Dakota

Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts

Congressmembers George Miller and Zoe Lofgren of California

Ned Lamont of the Connecticut Democratic Party

UPDATE: noneed4thneed points out that I forgot Senator Patrick Leahy of Vermont and former Senator Gary Hart of Colorado. And speaking of Hart, wouldn’t he have been a great president? Just bad luck to be running the cycle that the media decided an affair disqualified someone from contention.

Those people represent a mixture of red, purple and blue states. I am still not convinced that Obama is more electable than Clinton, but these people seem to disagree.

Obama’s campaign in Nevada is putting a lot of emphasis on urging Republicans and independents to vote for him. Listen to these radio ads he is running, which do not mention the Democratic Party and inform independents and Republicans that they can caucus for him:

I’ve got a post in my head in response to Obama’s recent comments about Ronald Reagan. Actually, this post has been in my head for some time, as Obama is both too much like Reagan for my comfort level, yet not enough like Reagan to realign American politics in the Democrats’ favor. I will save that post for another day, when I have more time to write.

As Chase Martyn reported for Iowa Independent, Ed Fallon officially announced on Wednesday that he will challenge Leonard Boswell for the Democratic nomination in Iowa’s third Congressional district.

Populista put up a diary here urging people to vote for Ed as Democracy for America’s “All-Star” candidate. I have already done so, and I hope you will too.

I’ll be writing more about this race in the coming months. For now, I want to briefly lay out the case for supporting Fallon’s challenge.

Leonard Boswell is a good person. I have voted for him every time and have contributed to his Congressional campaigns. However, he has been too willing to go along with the Bush administration on too many issues. He has voted to repeal the estate tax based on specious arguments from the Grover Norquist crowd. He voted for Bush’s horrible energy bill. He has voted to enable the Bush administration’s policies on Iraq and torture.

We have a chance to get a rock-solid progressive in this seat, and we should take it. While in the legislature, Ed Fallon had a 100 percent voting record on choice and labor issues, and was very strong on the environment and many other areas of importance.

Boswell sits on the Transportation Committee and has done nothing to help bring our national transportation policy back into balance. Fallon is talking about the need to get a handle on urban sprawl and invest in alternative forms of transportation as well as new road construction.

We are going to hear a lot from the Democratic Party establishment about Fallon supposedly being unelectable. I want those people to explain to me why Boswell’s winning margin in 2006 was so much less than Chet Culver’s winning margin in the counties that make up the third district.

Many Democrats, particularly progressives, simply do not feel that Boswell is representing our interests well enough.

Fallon has the potential to draw cross-over votes from independents and Republicans. He did it in the 2006 gubernatorial primary, and he can do it again. But just as important, he is a candidate Democrats can enthusiastically vote for.

Those who say that we can’t take a risk on replacing Boswell also need to explain their game plan for holding on to Iowa’s third district after the 2010 census. Iowa is going to lose a Congressional seat when the districts are redrawn. The most likely scenario I can see is that Boswell would retire in 2012, leaving us with no incumbent to run against Tom Latham or Steve King in the newly-drawn third district.

We are better off getting a new incumbent in place before that happens.

Finally, I believe that Fallon’s challenge will benefit Democrats even if he does not win the primary. As Chris Bowers reported last month at Open Left, Boswell voted against an Iraq funding bill for the first time ever after rumors about Fallon’s challenge started circulating.

I have also heard that Boswell recently signed onto a global-warming pledge that he refused to sign months earlier, when Congressmen Bruce Braley and Dave Loebsack backed it.

We’ve seen the voting records of other Democratic incumbents improve after progressives challenged them in primaries. Jane Harman and Ellen Tauscher of California come to mind. If Boswell does win the primary, I expect that his Congressional votes will better represent the will of his constituents.

If Fallon wins the primary, we will be favored to elect a strong progressive to this seat, given his base in Polk County and the expected high turnout for Democrats in a presidential election year.

I respect the views of Bleeding Heartland readers who are sticking with Boswell, but I urge you to consider the case for Fallon. If you already support Fallon, please consider donating to or volunteering for his campaign. They will need all hands on deck, since the party establishment will line up behind Boswell.

I watched the rerun of the debate last night and thought all three candidates did well enough. Apparently Frank Luntz’s focus group favored Edwards, but supporters of all three candidates had plenty to cheer on.

If you want to read why Clinton “rocked,” click on alegre’s diary with video clips:

http://www.dailykos.com/storyo…

If you want the pro-Obama version, Steven R has clips and analysis for you here:

http://www.dailykos.com/storyo…

Edwards fans will enjoy NCDemAmy’s diary, also with video clips:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/…

Check out the Nevada progressive community blog My Silver State and the MyDD posts by Las Vegas resident and precinct chair desmoulins.

If you ever want to look up which states are voting on which dates this year, click on this page at the Project Vote Smart site.  

I urge all of you to click on this diary by MyDD user Silver Spring, who analyzed the county-level results from Iowa and New Hampshire.

I am not convinced by all of the arguments in this diary, but it is a great piece of work. I have asked Silver Spring to cross-post here, so I can promote it to the front page. In the meantime, you all should head over to MyDD and read it for yourself.

I haven’t yet had a chance to dig into the county-level results from Iowa, so I greatly appreciate this effort.

This kind of in-depth analysis sets the blogs apart from superficial mainstream media coverage.

Dennis Kucinich and some Republican I’ve never heard of demanded full hand recounts of the results from the New Hampshire primary, and they will get their wish.

I welcome this news. I doubt there were any serious irregularities in how votes were counted, but anything that restores people’s faith in the election process is good in my view.

In case you haven’t been following this story on other blogs, some Obama supporters have alleged that voting machines were rigged to hand victory to Hillary Clinton in New Hampshire.

Oh, my. Watch this ad Mike Huckabee is currently running in Michigan (hat tip to noneed4thneed).

Key line:

I believe most Americans want their next President to remind them of they guy they work with, not the guy who laid them off.

Michigan is must-win for Mitt Romney, whose father used to be governor of the state. That line should be devastating for him.

Huckabee has long been despised by the Club for Growth set. He wisely decided that as a presidential candidate, he would do better to advocate for middle-class interests rather than pandering to the business wing of the GOP. Noneed4thneed put up this amazing clip of Huckabee on Hardball a few months ago. It’s worth watching. I still can’t believe a Republican presidential candidate is willing to say his party should stop being “a wholly-owned subsidiary of Wall Street and the corporations.”

If you missed this a few weeks ago, take Politico’s “populist pop quiz” and try to guess which quotations are from Huckabee and which are from John Edwards.

I do worry about the prospect of running against Huckabee. He is a strong communicator, and he could pull Reagan Democrats his way.

On the other hand, a lot of moderate Republicans would probably vote Democrat if he were the nominee. Also, it shouldn’t be hard for our candidate to make the public understand what a truly awful idea the “fair tax” is.

I'm not watching, but if you are, please share your impressions of that crowd.

While I still think Edwards would be our best candidate against the Republicans, lately I've been thinking that if we only could choose among the front-runners, Obama would do better against Huckabee, while Hillary might do better against McCain. Either of them would crush Romney. What do you think?

UPDATE: I caught most of the rerun on Fox. Apparently the focus group liked Thompson, which amazes me. Huckabee is clearly the superior communicator in my mind. He has a talent for keeping your attention without overdoing it.

MyDD user desmoulins, who has been trained as a temporary precinct chair for the upcoming Nevada caucuses, posted this useful diary on the differences between the Nevada caucus rules and the ones drafted by the Iowa Democratic Party.

I encourage you all to click the link and read his diary, along with the discussion thread. We would benefit from incorporating some of the changes Nevada Democrats have made.

One key difference is that in Nevada, only supporters of non-viable candidates will be able to switch to a different corner during the realignment period. That will cut down on the gamesmanship whereby precinct captains of viable candidates direct a small number of people to a rival corner in order to change the delegate count.

UPDATE: desmoulins put up this interesting post about the campaign on the ground in Nevada:

http://www.mydd.com/story/2008…

It’s one of those rare days when I largely agree with David Yepsen’s latest column: Parties must probe caucus complaints, make fixes. He points out that any problems with the way the caucuses were run will be fodder for those who will try to deprive Iowa of first-in-the-nation status for the next campaign.

Already the Republican Party will be looking to ditch Iowa, because the GOP establishment can’t stand Mike Huckabee. If Hillary Clinton becomes the Democratic nominee and wins, or if Barack Obama becomes the Democratic nominee and loses, the Democratic Party establishment will also have the knives out for Iowa.

Yepsen suggests moving the caucuses to Saturday at 5 pm, a time when fewer shift workers are on duty and young families may find it easier to get a baby-sitter. I would support that change.

Yepsen lists some of the alleged problems with the caucuses, but he left out some very disturbing problems I’ve heard about. One of the most troubling reports, written by observers in a precinct on Des Moines’ south side, maintained that counting was rushed to prevent second-tier candidates from becoming viable.

I was also sorry to hear some accounts of bullying the supporters of non-viable candidates. Daily Kos user neia was disturbed by what happened at the caucus in Strawberry Point (northeast Iowa). While I am sure this is the exception, not the rule, the Iowa Democratic Party should train precinct chairs to prevent anyone from exerting undue pressure on caucus-goers during the realignment period.

UPDATE: This Daily Kos diary includes more allegations about irregularities:

http://www.dailykos.com/storyo…

Several people have asked me what happened at my precinct caucus. I told part of the story last week, but in case anyone is interested, the longer version is after the jump.

Use this as an open thread to tell the story of your precinct caucus, whether or not there were problems with the way it operated.

Congratulations to Hillary Clinton for winning New Hampshire. But there is much more at stake to this horse race than the skim surface of the campaign mechanics the mainstream media tells.

Though Hillary Clinton won New Hampshire, her back door dealings have already seem to have secured her a position in the White House, barely trying.

Just like the general election where the electoral college is the only vote that matters, the primaries have a similar system that parallels the electoral college in process. It’s call the delegates and superdelegates.

Here’s an explanation of what they are and how they’re selected. They aren’t voted for at all.

And here is the list of delegates who have already committed to a candidate even BEFORE the primaries.

Clinton’s campaign co-chair is Terri McAuliffe, who works and is very influential in the DNC. He was able to lock all of the DNC for Hillary anyways. What is your opinion on it?

Well, the results coming in have been surprising so far, at least on the Democratic side of things.  Clinton up with a quarter of the vote in.  Was there anyone predicting that?

You can track live results here from CNN.com.  Jerome Armstrong’s got an interesting discussion going here saying that with Clinton making the contest this close in NH that we’ve still got a tough race going on to February 5th…and even beyond.

So, what’re your thoughts?  How fluid are things?  What’s next?

So it’s the day before the important New Hampshire primary. What is the political press obsessing about? Whether Hillary Clinton teared up and what the other candidates had to say about it.

It goes back to what CBS correspondent Chip Reid revealed not long ago:

Let’s face it – a lot of what political reporters report on is mistakes.

Please, journalists, stop insulting our intelligence. I don’t care if you think getting emotional is a mistake. It’s ridiculous for you to ask other candidates to comment on Hillary’s emotion. The only purpose of a question like that is to trick them into committing a gaffe.

None of this trivia has anything to do with who would be the best president. Try reporting on some issues for once.

Cross-posted at Political Forecast.

Maybe I’ve missed something in my absences from blogging over the past few months, but has the Register ever really done a serious news or feature piece on Iowa’s bloggers and citizen journalists?  I mean, I know we threaten their credibility and their readership by getting scoops, insight, and news out faster sometimes–not to mention that our commentary is sometimes more consistent and better written than their columnists’–but it almost seems like there is an intent to ignore the contributions that bloggers in Iowa have had both before the caucuses and in previous elections or issues.  Today, in their features section, they profile one citizen journalist who has been vlogging for PurpleStates.tv (she had to audition to get the gig) and one guy who has been doing it for MTV.  Don’t get me wrong, their efforts are valuable…but what about the folks who do this on their own time and don’t necessarily live off of it?

The folks at Iowa Independent have been doing regular news and political reporting since May, and other bloggers on both sides of the aisle have been part of the debate and policy discussion in Iowa politics for a few years now.  Other papers across the state, as well as national papers and news magazines, have highlighted our growth and commented on our contributions.

Simply put, why can’t Iowa’s paper of record recognize or examine the Iowa online community for what it is and report back to the people of Iowa on it?  I don’t want the media attention, the scrutiny, the interviews, the publicity; I just think that some of us deserve the recognition for the contributions we make.  Two of my former colleagues at Iowa Independent have already talked a bit about this subject (see Chase Martyn’s initial post here and read Ben Weyl’s abbreviated response here) and I think it is one worth further discussion as we continue to build Iowa’s blogosphere.

Chris Dodd and Joe Biden have both decided to leave the presidential race and will be going back to the Senate.  I wish them the best of luck.  In the extended entry, you can read Dodd’s remarks to supporters and you can read the release from Biden’s campaign.

On behalf of Iowa Democrats and the Bleeding Heartland community, let me say thank you to both Senators for their remarkable fight and effort they put into the caucuses.  Without Biden, we wouldn’t be able to have the serious debate about the future of Iraq like we’ve been able to have.  Without Dodd, things like FISA and restoring the Constitution would have been tossed aside.  These men have extraordinary experience and are good leaders for the Democratic party.

We Iowans are interesting people.  Of all the Senators and former Senators in the race, we picked the one with the least experience in that institution.  Maybe it is because of his message of hope, of unity, of change.  But we also looked past a combined 50+ years of experience in the Senate.  Is that a bad thing?  I don’t know.  I hope not.

However, these two men can now head back to the Senate and keep working hard for our majorities in Congress.  And pressing this reckless President for change.  Dodd can keep fighting and filibustering.  And who knows, maybe we’ll see one of these men later on as a vice president.

Or maybe as the new Senate Democratic leader.

One more time, thank you!

I have a lot of questions about the deal struck between the Obama and Richardson campaigns, and I would be grateful to Bleeding Heartland readers who can shed light on any of them.

1. How much initial support did Richardson have last night? The Iowa Democratic Party does not report this information. I would like to hear from as many people as possible about how many people were in Richardson’s corner after the first division into preference groups. In my precinct he had 28 out of 293 people, or about 9.6 percent.

2. Was this a one-way deal, or did the Obama campaign promise to instruct its captains to help Richardson become viable where he was close to the threshold?

Obama volunteers out there, did you get any encouragement to help Richardson out at the caucus?

I’m assuming that either this wasn’t part of the deal, or Obama volunteers did not follow through, because Richardson only ended up with 2.1 percent of the state delegates. Clearly he fell below the threshold in many, many places.

3. Did the Richardson supporters predominantly go to Obama during the realignment? In my precinct a lot came to Edwards–perhaps even more than the number who went to Obama, though I can’t be sure of that. However, a friend who’s an Obama precinct captain near Hoover High School told me that in her precinct the Richardson captain brought pretty much the whole group over. Marc Ambinder observed something similar.

If Richardson had 8-10 percent support in a lot of precincts, and this deal really did transfer his supporters overwhelmingly to Obama, that alone accounts for Obama’s winning margin.

I would like to hear from as many Iowans as possible about how the Richardson supporters moved during realignment at your caucus. If you don’t want to post a comment, please e-mail me at desmoinesdem AT yahoo.com.

4. Was there some kind of falling out recently between Richardson and Clinton? For most of the year people assumed that if Richardson struck any kind of deal, it would be with Hillary. Bill Clinton elevated him from Congress to UN ambassador and later to secretary of energy, and Richardson and the Clintons have a similar outlook on trade and other economic issues.

If any Bleeding Heartland readers were involved in the Clinton or Richardson campaigns and can shed light on this question, please let us know or e-mail me confidentially.

UPDATE: I am hearing more stories from friends all the time. In one neighboring precinct, the Clinton people sent enough supporters to make Richardson viable so that Edwards would not get an extra delegate. In another precinct, the Dodd, Richardson and Biden groups combined were 19 short of viability. Obama’s group had more than enough people to send over 19 without losing any of their delegates, but they refused, so most of the Dodd, Richardson and Biden group went over to Edwards.

Cross-posted at Daily Kos and MyDD. Please take the poll and comment. Now’s a good time to discuss the merits of the system we experienced last night.

When I publish a diary criticizing the caucus system, I usually hear from at least one person defending the caucuses.

This diary lists the arguments I’ve heard in favor of the caucus system, along with my responses.

More is after the jump.

I was skeptical, but clearly the strategy of focusing on first-time caucus-goers paid off in a big way for Barack Obama.

Turnout in my precinct went from 175 in 2004 to 293 tonight. That was way more than I ever imagined possible.

We had first-timers in our Edwards group, and so did Hillary, and for all I know Richardson and Biden did too. But there’s no question that the Obama group had the most first-time caucus-goers.

After the first division into preference groups, we had Obama 86, Edwards 83, Clinton 63, Richardson 28, Biden 24 and Dodd 9. To be viable, candidates needed 44 supporters.

After the second division into preference groups, Edwards had 115, Obama had 103, and Clinton had 72, but unfortunately, the math worked out to 2 delegates for each candidate.

In retrospect, the Edwards and Obama groups would have been better off helping Richardson to be viable. Then the delegates would have been split 2 Edwards, 2 Obama, 1 Clinton and 1 Richardson. But there was no way to know that, and during the realignment of course the Edwards and Obama groups were focused on attracting enough supporters to win that third delegate.

It’s very similar to what happened in my precinct in 1988. The delegates split 2-2-2 despite a fairly large difference in size between the largest and the smallest. That’s the caucus system for you.

By the way, the Richardson precinct captain confirmed that the campaign was advising people to go to Obama. However, a lot of them came over to Edwards anyway. The Biden precinct captain told me he did not receive any similar instruction from that campaign.