Feeds: 
symbol identifies content for paid subscribers only.
LIGHTNING ROUND: THINGS HAPPENED AND WILL CONTINUE TO HAPPEN.
- So, um, Hillary Clinton and John McCain won. It'll take a while before the political gurus parse the polls and figure out what changed (Steve Benen and Marc Ambinder round up some possibilities) and I'm certainly not going to try. Clinton won, that's what I'm confident of.
- The polls were very wrong about her numbers (but not Obama's), most likely because the movement toward her came late (after all, the polls pretty much nailed the Republican side so they're not all bad). And about 18 percent of Democratic voters decided on the day of the election (Josh Marshall defends them convincingly). At this point, I wouldn't be surprised if this goes around again a couple more times. Obama has a decent shot at Nevada. A win for him there would flip narrative again and that might give her a win in South Carolina.
- Also note that the lack of movement in Obama's numbers suggests that the dreaded Bradley/Wilder effect, in which more people say they'll vote for a black person than actually do, didn't play a role.
- John Edwards can't be too happy today. He tried to become the alternative to Obama by attacking Clinton but that doesn't seem to have gotten him too far. Also, Clinton's victory speech kinda impinges on his anti-corporate populist turf (not that there's anything wrong with that). Edwards has been impressive, but I just don't see how he wins unless Obama collapses. Then again, the way this primary has been going he could certainly pull off an upset. See Ezra also.
- Also I'm glad culinary workers endorsed Obama, not because it'd help him, but because it proved this snide tool wrong. Really though, the whole premise of the argument that the union is somehow dishonest if its endorsement is affected by petty concerns like who is likely to win is deeply ludicrous. Obama had already picked up the Nevada SEIU endorsement. It remains to be seen how useful these endorsements turn out to be since this caucus is a first for Nevada.
- In other Obama news, a lot of people have been treating the Obama "yes we can" slogan as some clever new idea. It actually dates back to his 2004 senate race.
- Wondering how he can? Here's his leaked strategy.
- On the Republican side all eyes are on Michigan where the conventional wisdom is that the race is between Romney, son of a former governor, and the energized McCain who won the state in 2000. But we shouldn't count out Huckabee who was actually doing pretty well there last time someone polled it (but that was approximately five billion years ago at the rate this election is changing).
- Fred Thompson can't be around for much longer after barely beating Duncan Hunter in New Hampshire.
- McCain's new strategy seems to be to play the Rocky theme song a lot. I guess we'll know whether this is Rocky I or Rocky II after a couple more primaries. Between this, his 100 years of occupation in Iraq comment, and sub-Fred-Thompson level of his New Hampshire victory speech I wonder how much farther he'll get.
- Finally, my favorite moment last night was Rudy Giuliani's claim that "maybe we've lulled our opponents into a false sense of confidence." True, except for the "false" part.
--Sam Boyd
COMMENTS (6)
Given the shift in black support for Obama in the South Carolina primary, it seems unlikely Clinton has much of a chance there whether or not Obama wins Nevada. South Carolina probably doesn't have the same "we're unpredictable!" thing as New Hampshire does.
Posted by: Steven | January 9, 2008 4:14 PM
I'm not sure why you are calling a memo that the Obama campaign sent to all of its supporters and posted on its website a "leaked" strategy report.
Posted by: Stax | January 9, 2008 4:44 PM
Everything is true except for the false part!
Sorry, couldn't resist.
Posted by: Greg | January 9, 2008 5:33 PM
I wonder if McCain knows Rocky didn't win (in Rocky I).
Posted by: Ron | January 10, 2008 10:16 AM
This may be the first time that the Nevada caucuses are politically significant, but it's hardly the first time the caucuses have been held, and definitely not the first time that the Culinary Union's endorsement can play a role. I grew up in Las Vegas and remember how Culinary's endorsement basically determined the result. In 1992, for example, Jerry Brown won Nevada over Bill Clinton, largely because Brown had participated in one of Culinary's strikes.
Posted by: JB Lawton | January 10, 2008 3:20 PM
Just to add a third correction to things said in this item:
Also note that the lack of movement in Obama's numbers suggests that the dreaded Bradley/Wilder effect, in which more people say they'll vote for a black person than actually do, didn't play a role.
That description of the Bradley/Wilder effect is not correct. The B/W effect in fact rarely involves the black candidate doing much worse than polled; the pattern consistently focuses on the white opponent doing much better than expected. See this handy table from pollster.com: http://www.pollster.com/blogs/nhmark0109large.png
So in that respect, the NH actually fits perfectly in the pattern.
On another point, I wasnt really listening to McCain's speech, but my girlfriend was, and remarked, in surprise, that "that's actually a beautiful speech he is making there". And she's to the left of Edwards.
Posted by: nimh | January 11, 2008 3:04 PM