Trailhead: A campaign blog.

The Insta-Spin

COLUMBIA, S.C. -- The immediate story, it seems, is Obama’s overwhelming 81 percent take among African-Americans, according to exit polls. Even among whites, he took 24 percent—less than both his opponents, but a big jump from Thursday’s McClatchy poll that put his support among whites at 10 percent. (And which has driven much of the hand-flapping over Obama’s supposed unelectability among whites.)

The narrative coming out of the Obama camp is two-fold: One: This isn’t a fluke. Spokesman David Axelrod, at the center of a press horde, argues that Obama can do well nationwide, even among whites. “Did you go to Iowa?” he asks a reporter. “What did you see?” The implicit answer: white people. “Yesterday, you guys said we weren’t gonna make 10 percent. That was the narrative.” And two: This win was hard-fought. Axelrod points out that Sen. Edwards “was a native son in this state. … This was a real butt-kicking, in the old-fashioned parlance.”

The Clinton camp will no doubt argue that Obama sank everything he had into the state. He spent the whole past week here; she hopped around a few Feb. 5 states. Hillary isn’t even in South Carolina tonight; she’s holding an event in Nashville. And, of course, implicit in everything will be the race factor.

But one exit poll result should hearten Obama fans (and, you know, non-racists):

Three in four voters said the country is ready to elect a black president and about as many said that about a woman. Somewhat more Clinton voters said the country is not ready to elect a black than Obama voters said the country wasn't ready to elect a female president.

Granted, many of the people who said America is ready for a black president had just voted for one. Plus, those numbers are likely to be much different in the white south. But given that much of the anxiety about electing a black president has come from the black community itself, these numbers indicate a change in attitude.

Mr. Nice Guy

News outlets are projecting that John McCain has won the South Carolina primary—a win that once again makes him the front-runner in a still-crowded Republican field. And he has the civility of that crowded field to thank for his second victory.

In 2000, much was made about the dirty tricks played on McCain, but this time nobody messed with the senior nominee. As Jonathan Martin at Politico notes, his rivals didn't mention him by name and decided to attack one another rather than McCain (who has plenty of policy positions worth attacking, including immigration, tax cuts, and executive experience). By most accounts, the dirty tricks also decreased, with tamer windshield fliers and the normal inflammatory calls that were delivered in all states.

McCain's three-percentage-point win could have been stopped by a few attack ads here and there. At first, it seems strange McCain wasn't knocked around on TV. Mitt Romney already aired attack ads in New Hampshire, but his half-hearted efforts in the state over the past week meant Romney didn't want to spend the resources against McCain in a state he wasn't going to win. Fred Thompson had nothing to lose, but he and McCain are friends, and he didn't have the money to air many ads. And Mike Huckabee gave his infamous no-attack-ad press conference in Iowa, which meant he was out of the running. Huckabee even complimented McCain's civility in his concession speech.

Does this mean we'll see an outbreak of niceness on the campaign trail in Florida? Doubtful. Mitt Romney returns at full strength in the Sunshine State and Rudy Giuliani may surface as a desperate candidate as Jan. 29 draws nigh.

Before his campaign crashed over the summer, McCain was the for-sure front-runner, but he bobbled his chance at the nomination without any attack ads to aid his fall. History is unlikely to repeat itself this time.

How Much Does Fred Hate Huck?

According to CNN's fancy map of South Carolina, Fred Thompson is sapping votes away from Mike Huckabee in the socially conservative north. If that's the case, Thompson probably has a smile on his face.

Thompson's distaste for Huckabee has been apparent throughout the campaign. Thompson often pushes back against Huckabee at debates and regularly sends emails critiquing Huckabee's stances on immigration and taxes. Persona-wise, Huckabee is everything Thompson isn't—charming, funny, and self-effacing. Most importantly, Huckabee possesses the star power that many Republicans hoped Thompson would have in the race. Huck is bizarro Fred.

Most importantly, Huckabee has stolen Thompson's base right out from under him. Thompson's from neighboring Tennessee, after all, so he was the guy supposed to be doing well in conservative South Carolina. Thompson was supposed to be the guy who grabbed the evangelical vote. Thompson was the guy people were supposed to coalesce around. Instead, the story became about Thompson's lassitude and Huckabee's quips.

Given all of this, it's not unreasonable to think that Thompson would stay in the race through Florida just to torment Huckabee. Despite a litany of shortcomings, Thompson still pulled in 15 percent in South Carolina tonight (with 72 percent precincts reporting), so he holds some sway. One would think he'd sap some of Huckabee's strength in Florida, as well. It may be Thompson's only chance to stay relevant.

In his speech tonight, Fred Thompson said his presidential campaign was never about him. He's right. Maybe it was always about Huck.

Photograph of Fred Thompson on Slate's home page by Emmanuel Dunand/AFP/Getty Images.

The Exit Polls Arrive

Juicy bits from CNN's exit polls:

• Mike Huckabee and John McCain are in a tight race at the top.
• Young voters lean toward Huckabee, but seniors greatly favor McCain. This isn't surprising but could be a major factor if older voters turned out in greater numbers than the kiddies.
• Mitt Romney won the plurality of votes from Catholics who go to church weekly, which is good news for his campaign after his big Mormon speech a month or two ago. (Unsurprisingly, very religious voters of all denominations preferred Huckabee.)
• Only 9 percent of Catholics, who made up 14 percent of CNN's voter pool, voted for Huckabee. Thirty-nine percent voted for McCain.
• Forty-one percent of South Carolina voters thought McCain had the best chance of winning in November.
• Fifty-eight percent of voters, according to CNN's exit polls, were born-again Christians or evangelicals. They favor Huckabee 41 percent to McCain's 27 percent. Only 11 percent of non-born-agains and evangelicals voted for Huck.
• Huckabee won support among those who care most about immigration, McCain among those who care most about Iraq. Again, this follows the polling we saw before the primary.
• 25 percent of voters were veterans, and that group favored McCain. Huckabee and McCain were essentially tied among non-veterans.

We offer the usual disclaimer that exit polls are just polls, not results.

Edwards Has a PR Problem

Thanks to the caucuses' arcane viability rules, John Edwards appears to have finished with only 4 percent of the vote in Nevada, but that's probably not the case. Edwards actually has 4 percent of the delegates assigned, not 4 percent of the popular vote. Edwards probably ended up with 10-15 percent of the popular vote, but that doesn't matter. The number that gets broadcast all over the country is that nasty and brutish number four. The same thing happened to Bill Richardson and Joe Biden in Iowa.

Edwards' campaign has to figure out how to spin a 4-percent finish into momentum for South Carolina's native son primary. It won't be easy. Edwards doesn't have much traction in the polls, nor much money to counteract dead-man-walking talk. Plus, Obama continues to dominate the anti-lobby, Americans-want-change vote.

Here's what Edwards can try to do: make a last stand in South Carolina's primary on Jan. 26. This sounds like common sense, but Edwards doesn't seem to be paying attention to that these days. He just gave his I-finished-in-third-but-I'm-not-giving-up speech in Georgia, not South Carolina. Georgia votes Feb. 5, which is more than 2 weeks away. Plus, it has a large black population, a demographic in which Obama trounces Edwards. Edwards needs a good-news peg before then, and the only place to get it is South Carolina.

We know Edwards is comfortable talking about mills, his daddy, and that he grew up in the Palmetto State. Plus, he won there in 2004. Just because Obama and Clinton look like they have the black and establishment Democrat vote locked up, respectively, doesn't mean Edwards should stop fighting in South Carolina. After all, he's best at that.

The Bullies of South Carolina

Henry Hewes, a New York Democrat, was also left off the Democratic ballot in South Carolina. Hewes paid the $2,500 filing fee and then waited for his candidacy to be approved by the party's executive council. But Carol Fowler, the chairwoman of the state party, told the New York Times that nobody had heard of him before, so he didn't get on the ballot. Eight mainstream Democrats—including Mike Gravel—did. 

Hewes wasn't going to win the primary. He probably wasn't even going to win a delegate. But if there's anything that American democracy should allow, it's delusions of grandeur. I've talked to quite a few fringe candidates for president, and they all share a common desire: to achieve the American dream. Granted, their American dreams include ridding the world of Zionists, drastically altering the Constitution, and restaging the Scopes trial, but they're American dreams nonetheless. Hewes wants to abolish Social Security, get our troops out of Iraq, and boost the minimum wage. Sounds pretty presidential to me.

I understand the need to have financial barriers in place to sift through the candidates who run on a lark. But New Hampshire charges only $1,000 (which covers all the costs) and runs a pretty impressive operation. If South Carolina wants to charge an extra $1,500, that's their prerogative.  

But on top of that, they add two unnecessary criteria. First, S.C. Dems want their presidential candidates to be nationally viable. Why does a candidate need national appeal? Are the state Democrats worried about becoming a national laughingstock? (The Colbert rejection suggests as much.) Joe Werner, the executive director of the state party, told me that having too many candidates becomes unwieldy. To be blunt, democracy can be a bit unwieldy at times. Deal with it.

Secondly, the candidate needs to have campaigned in South Carolina before they officially get on the Democratic ballot. What's the incentive for a fringe candidate to spend valuable resources on campaigning in the Palmetto State if they aren't even guaranteed a spot on the ballot? The guy has raised only about $10,000, according to Green Papers. A round trip flight from New York City to South Carolina would eat away 2 percent of Hewes' fund-raising.  

South Carolina Democrats' $2,500 filing fee already weeded out all but two fringe candidates—Hewes and Colbert. It prevented 10 of the long-shot Democrats who registered for the New Hampshire primary from registering in South Carolina. So why impose these extra hurdles? The $2,500 fee is enough. (The Democrats have to pay an extra $20,000 to put a candidate on a ballot, but Werner told me that the financial cost didn't factor into the council's decision.)

Henry Hewes is not Stephen Colbert. He was not running for president for publicity or to expose the inane quirks of the American presidential process. He was running for president to follow a dream and because he thought his ideas could fix the country. Unfortunately, South Carolina Democrats won't even let him try.