-
sponsorship
Our last
death watch paid tribute to two fallen Democrats, and we’ve seen one more
leave the political landscape since. Soon they’ll have a Republican to keep
them company in the political afterlife. Here’s our concession-rankings as Nevadans
and South Carolina’s
Republicans go to the polls Saturday:
Dead on arrival
Fred Thompson –
After a disastrous campaign, it will be sad to see him go. Thompson is like the
sleepy uncle at Thanksgiving who doesn’t say much, but it doesn’t matter
because everybody likes talking about his personality quirks anyway. Thompson
is an unwavering fourth-placer in South
Carolina, and anything but a close second or a win
there means he’s done. Fred, I channel Sarah McLaughlin’s classic when I say, I will remember you—Doo
be dah dum dum.
Walking
dead:
John Edwards – He’s gearing up for another third-place finish in Nevada, a
state where his pro-union rhetoric could have done him some good if he had more
momentum coming out of the early primary states. Instead, Obama has the union
momentum and Clinton
leads in the polls. But Edwards’
denial will not waver. There’s an embarrassment waiting in South Carolina—and it’s
at the polls, not the mills.
The enigmas
Ron Paul – He’s campaigned hard in Nevada,
where his campaign thinks his libertarian message might finally resonate with
voters for a strong third-place finish, with support in the mid-teens. But the
longer this race draws on and the more often Paul finishes with 8-9 percent of
support, the more likely he’ll stay for the long haul and hope the other candidates’
withdrawals will somehow send him support. A fine idea in principle—he’s got
the money—but none of the other Republicans’ message mesh with his, so it’s
unlikely GOP voters will jump on the bandwagon.
Dennis Kucinich – Since our last death watch he’s
asked for a recount in New Hampshire, was beaten by a
nameless, faceless aggregation of candidates in Michigan, filed a lawsuit
that ended
up in the Nevada supreme court. Yet, the peace warrior soldiers on.
Mike Gravel – Mike, we miss the days of Rock.
Duncan Hunter – Somehow, there’s always at least one
more piece of Hunter news for every death watch.
Healthy.
For now.
John McCain and Mike Huckabee – Conventional wisdom says both of these
candidates could be wounded by a poor showing. But they pull their support from
such different bases that a vote against one isn’t necessarily a vote for the
other. That’s why even when one of these guys falls, the
other is likely to pick him up. It’s like a GOP buddy cop movie, without the
homoerotic tension.
Not going anywhere
Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama – At this point, it seems likely that
Clinton and Obama are in the race past Feb. 5, when most votes will have
voted. With Edwards sticking around, neither candidate will probably be able to
grab the overwhelming majority of delegates that will force the other out.
Rudy Giuliani – The question for Rudy: Has the press become bored by his Florida and Feb. 5
theatrics? Or will they flock to the mayor once they’re in the same state as
him again? We think the latter, but it won’t mean much if Florida residents don’t reward Giuliani for
his loyalty and non-stop campaigning in the state.
Mitt Romney – A win in Nevada would make
him the Delegate King going into Florida.
But kings risk uprisings unless they hammer down on their rivals, something
Romney (and every other former-frontrunner in the party) hasn’t figured out how
to do yet.
-
sponsorship
In the same way that Hillary's waterworks dominated the last news cycle before the New Hampshire primary, it looks like Obama's comments about Ronald Reagan are dominating the pre-Nevada airwaves.
Both Hillary and Bill went all out today criticizing Obama for his suggestion that Reagan "changed the
trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not and in a way
that Bill Clinton did not" during an interview with the Reno Journal-Gazette Monday. Obama also recently called the Republican party the "party of ideas" for the past fifteen years.
"I don't think it's a better idea to privatize Social Security," Hillary told an audience in Las Vegas. "I don't
think it's a better idea to try to eliminate the minimum wage. I don't
think it's a better idea to undercut health benefits and to give drug
companies the right to make billions of dollars by providing
prescription drugs to Medicare recipients. I don't think it's a better
idea to shut down the government, to drive us into debt."
For Bill Clinton, of course, the attack was more personal. Not only did Obama call him out by name -- he basically said Bill was a lesser leader than Reagan. The former president's reply was blunt: "I can't imagine any Democrat seeking the presidency would say they
were the party of new ideas for the last 15 years. But it sounded good
in Reno I guess."
Obama's defenders say he wasn't praising Reagan's policies, but rather Reagan's crossover appeal. "What Reagan did is he created Reagan Democrats," said Rep. Robert Wexler during a campaign conference call today. "What Obama is creating is Obama Republicans and Obama independents."
Whatever Obama's intentions, he should have seen this coming. For Dems, praising Ronald Reagan is as anathema as insulting Him is for Republicans. You just don't do it. Unless, of course, you're campaigning on a message of bipartisan cooperation and long-view political landscape shifting. In that case, you just might take the risk of praising Reagan. Sure, it could hurt you in the short term, but down the road it might help Democrats appropriate Reagan's legacy in the same way both parties have tried to appropriate Lincoln's. In the end, that could be a much more devastating blow to Republicans than shying away from Reagan. Maybe that's what he was thinking. Or maybe he just wanted to make Bill mad.
-
sponsorship
As the prospect of more presidential dropouts looms, there’s been a lot of discussion about how the delegate count works. And with both primary races exceptionally close, a candidate's delegate count will soon start to matter more than his or her "momentum." A peek into Slate’s “Explainer” archives reveals quite a few useful, if slightly outdated, morsels:
And for people just tuning in:
Over the coming weeks, we'll be parsing through more delegate math, primary logistics, and other sexy topics. Feel free to send questions!
-
sponsorship
You know what they say: If you can’t beat them, steal their taglines.
A new Web ad from John McCain, “Trust Huckabee,” takes its name from a third-party campaign that for the past month has been blanketing early states with push-polls praising Huckabee and slamming his rivals.
But instead of hitting back, McCain twists the meaning of “Trust Huckabee” to reflect well on himself—and, interestingly, on Huckabee. The spot features clips of Huckabee praising McCain (which he does often): “Sen. McCain, no matter what anyone may say, is a genuine conservative. … John McCain is a hero in this country, he’s a hero to me. … [He’s] pro-life … strong for our country’s defense and security.”
It’s a bizarre tactic, but it’s effective for several reasons. First, it fits with McCain’s current martyr complex. He claims he’s being attacked from all sides, but he’s of course determined to stay positive. Second, it uses Huckabee’s words. How can the “Trust Huckabee” folks complain about McCain when their own candidate likes him so much? Third, it makes McCain look like the front-runner. As South Carolina approaches, polls put him neck-and-neck with Huckabee. But by refusing to go negative, McCain comes off as confident. At the same time, it makes Huckabee look rather magnanimous as well. (In this way, it’s reminiscent of Biden’s “Joe Is Right” ad, which collected examples of his rivals praising him.)
And lastly, the ad doesn’t just not burn a bridge—it fortifies one. For McCain, Huckabee is an obvious vice presidential choice. Where McCain lacks conservative cred—on gay marriage, for instance—Huckabee would add some needed orthodoxy. Among Southerners to whom McCain's immigration stance is repellent, Huckabee's fence-building vision might have some appeal. Plus, a McCain-Huckabee ticket could practically charm its way into the White House.
An alternative explanation for McCain's pacifism is that he doesn't see Huckabee as a threat. Under this rationale, McCain would ramp up the attacks if Huckabee took South Carolina and surged in the national polls. But seeing as both men have essentially renounced negative campaigning, a tactical change like that would reek of hypocrisy. Chances are they'll extend the love-in as long as possible.
Join the Fray: our reader discussion forum
What did you think of this article?