Trailhead: A campaign blog.

Winners and Losers: Low Michigan Turnout

Perhaps wolverines do hibernate after all. Reports out of Michigan today suggest people didn't feel like plowing through inches of snow to vote in a primary that doesn’t matter for Democrats and sort of matters for Republicans (mainly if Romney loses). So, with two and a half hours to go before the returns come in, it’s worth a quick look at who wins and who loses because of the 20 percent turnout that’s expected. 

WINNERS

Democrats: If the Democratic National Committee is smart, it will harp on the low turnout numbers. They can spin the lack of interest in Michigan and say it proves that the record activity we saw in New Hampshire and Iowa was really due to the excitement around the Democratic race. In reality, the snow was probably just as big of a factor, but you can’t freeze spin.

Mitt Romney: Bear with my series assumptions: If there are fewer voters, that means the exit polls encompass more of the sample. That means the exit polls are probably going to be more accurate. That means that the early pro-Romney reports—heavy Republican presence at the Republican primary, and the economy is most important—are likely to hold true. Also, older voters are usually more reliable than younger voters, which means that low turnout could encompass a lot of seniors who still know Papa Romney, former governor of Michigan.

LOSERS

Carl Levin: Levin’s boneheaded plan to make Michigan matter in the electoral cycle by moving its primary earlier blew up in his face once the Democrats pulled out. Today’s low turnout is only a nasty reminder of how ill-fated his ploy was from the get-go.

Markos Moulitsas: Because he wears an L on his forehead all the time. That, and the Democrats for Romney thing probably fell on its face if nobody went to the polls.

The loser: Whoever loses the primary—Romney or McCain—won’t be able to blame the result on low turnout. Unused ballots mean that all candidates failed to motivate their supporters enough to go out and vote for them come frozen hell or high water. But the winner won’t have to worry about this—a win is a win. Only the loser will have to explain why he couldn’t beat Mother Nature.

Meet the Kamikaze

For weeks Mike Huckabee has avoided Tim Russert while touring the Sunday-morning talk-show circuit. NBC’s Washington bureau chief has lobbied hard to get Huckabee on Meet the Press, but Huckabee has shied away from Russert’s withering Q&A.

Until now. Huckabee is going live on the show this Sunday (as is Barack Obama), four days before the Iowa caucuses. His comments with Russert will likely be his final narrative before Iowans vote, so his appearance is a major gamble. If Russert lands a few blows—which, with Huckabee’s record, is likely—the always-fluid Republican race will be shaken and stirred once again. A preemptive look at who has the most at stake.

WINNERS

Mitt Romney: Romney’s Iowa staffers must be salivating in anticipation. Romney survived Russert’s barrage relatively well (only his Martin Luther King comments have come back to bite him), and it’s likely that Russert will push Huckabee on many of the attack points Romney uses against the Huckster. Russert then becomes the attack dog, which legitimizes Romney's criticism and makes him less of a meanie.

Russert’s research staff: Talk about rich source material. Just some of the juicy topics from Huckabee’s past: the Wayne Dumond case, in-state tuition, questionable promotions, the Club for Growth’s scorn, a pro-Huckabee group's dirty tricks, borderline-morbid Huckabeeisms, and a quarantine for people with AIDS.

Huckabee’s ego:  How many televangelists-in-the-making don’t love a national audience?

LOSERS

Huckabee’s political chances: In the media world, Huckabee has reached the point of diminishing returns. The potential negatives of Sunday’s interview far outweigh the positives. Media sharks are going to be circling their TVs, waiting for the slightest hint of weakness from Huckabee. Once Russert draws blood, every Huckabee story for four days is going to mention his MTP appearance. Will those stories enter the caucus-goer zeitgeist? Romney and Fred Thompson will make sure they do.

Even if Huckabee breezes through the interview, what does that prove? We already know he can hang with the big boys, so he no longer needs street cred among Beltway elites. He needs an organization on the ground, something Russert can’t provide.

John McCain and Rudy Giuliani: Both of them need a weakened Romney to stumble out of Iowa, which means they need Huckabee to hold strong. If Romney wins Iowa, he’ll likely win New Hampshire, therefore dooming McCain. With a win in New Hampshire, he’ll stay strong through Feb. 5, hurting Giuliani.

Winners and Losers of the National Intelligence Estimate

The National Intelligence Estimate reported yesterday that Iran isn't pursuing the nukes the Bush administration once thought they were. Predictably, the candidates quickly blasted out statements celebrating the news. But politically, not all of the candidates should be ecstatic.

LOSERS

Rudy Giuliani: Rudy's foreign-policy platform is based on "staying on offense" against terrorists, a category into which he often lumps Iran's government and military. Giuliani has a stable of neocon foreign-policy advisers, including Norman Podhoretz, who tried to convince President Bush to bomb Iran. As Fred Kaplan noted yesterday, staying on offense against Iran might not be such a great idea if they don't have any bombs.

John McCain: "Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran" isn't going to shoot up the Billboard charts anytime soon.

Hillary Clinton: That vote to declare the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist group isn't looking too good anymore. Having a nuclear bomb has little to do with whether they're terrorists (Iran's assistance to anti-American forces in Iraq is the United States' main grievance), but now Clinton's opponents can say that she was being overly hawkish on Iran despite a lack of evidence. (Cough—Iraq authorization vote—cough.)

Doomsday paranoiacs: Are we still on the precipice of World War III? Not so much.

WINNERS
CNN: Suddenly, the network doesn't look so bad for not taking a single question on Iran in the CNN/YouTube debate last week. Oh, right, they didn't take any questions on global warming, health care, or Iraq, either.

Joe Biden: Before the NIE came out, he had been calling for Bush's impeachment if America bombed Iran. Now that stance seems even sounder.                 

All of us: Let's take a moment to realize that Iran doesn't have any nuclear weapons. This means we can all sleep a little easier at night, breathe a little more freely during the day, and only freak out about the half-dozen other states that have a nuclear bomb.