-
sponsorship
The decision to let the candidates ask each other questions—risky, by cable-network standards—was probably the best part of the debate.
For one, it led to some of the most substantive exchanges of the night: Edwards asked Obama about lobbyist money. Obama asked Edwards about the question of residual troops in Iraq. And Hillary asked Obama whether he would co-sponsor legislation to require congressional approval for pacts with the Iraqi government.
The format also reveals a lot about the candidates. They’re judged for not just their answers, but their questions, too. It brings out the subtlety in their thinking, exposes when their thinking lacks subtlety, and shows how they perceive their opponents’ weaknesses. Plus, that’s a president’s job—to ask questions of people who know more than they do. So sometimes it's more useful to know what questions your president will ask than what answers he or she will pretend to have.
-
sponsorship
Barack Obama had a great pivot when asked why blacks disproportionately drop out of the education system. Within the first sentence, Obama had made his answer not just about blacks but about Latinos, too. All of a sudden, Obama is talking about all minorities, not just his minority.
On the line is whether Obama can use his own status as a nonwhite man to court nonwhite voters, rather than using his African-American background to court black voters.
-
sponsorship
Obama gets the first (and probably the last) sincere laugh of the the night.
A moderator asks: Is there a history of Hispanics not voting for black candidates?
"Not in Illinois," says Obama. "They voted for me."
It gets laughs, but it also serves a purpose: Reminding Latino voters that it's OK to vote for him.
-
sponsorship
John Edwards answers each question as if he'd been asked, Sen. Edwards, can you please recite a few of your talking points on Subject X for us?
Brian Williams asks, "What’s the problem with English as an official language?" Edwards takes a few minutes to weave in and out of immigration reform specifics—penalties, pathway to citizenship, education—and finally, after Williams reminds him what the question was, manages to squeeze out this answer: "I think that [learning English] should be a requirement for being an American citizen."
Now that wasn't so hard, was it?
-
sponsorship
All three candidates agree to enforce the law that cuts off federal funding for schools that don't offer ROTC programs. In their answers, Obama and Clinton take a few minutes to praise soldiers serving in Iraq. Edwards turns his answer toward veterans' benefits. Seeing a missed opportunity, Obama and Clinton both butt in and follow up with 30 seconds on veterans.
A friend points out: Watch Russert bring this back in two years when the candidates realize they would be forcing schools to violate their own nondiscrimination policies. (The subtext to the whole question is that many schools oppose Don't Ask, Don't Tell.) If so, he has just introduced a brilliant new questioning tactic: the future gotcha!
-
sponsorship
A look inside CNN's exit polls:
GOP
- Of the 13 percent of voters who were 18 to 24 years old, Ron Paul pulled in 21 percent support, third-highest. Probably a testament to how low youth turnout was and how Paul supporters will turn out no matter the weather or stakes.
- Very religious voters (visit church more than once a week) went for Huckabee, the regular churchgoers went for Romney, and those who never go to church went for McCain.
- Romney did not dominate the economic pessimists as expected. Those who thought the national economy was good went overwhelmingly toward Romney. But among those who thought it was "not good" or "poor" McCain and Romney were tied for support.
Democrats
- Young voters (18-39) favored "Uncommitted" over Clinton. But that age subset made up only 32 percent of the vote. Older voters liked Hillary better, so she was the overall winner. This doesn't bode well for Hillary's youth-outreach efforts, although Michigan hasn't seen Clinton firsthand.
- The more years of education people had, the more likely they were to vote Uncommitted. That may say more about Uncommitted-outreach efforts than anything else. Similarly, the margin between Clinton and Uncommitted narrowed among richer voters, although she still won in every income bracket.
- White women: 70 percent of support for Clinton. Nonwhite women: 65 percent support for Uncommitted.
Also of note, the gender breakdown in the two parties is inverse: 56 percent of Democratic voters were female, 44 percent male. For the GOP: 56 percent male, 44 percent female.
-
sponsorship
Here comes the good part. (Fingers crossed.)
NBC has decided to let the candidates ask each other two questions--wait, says Brian Williams, make that one question. (So this is why they didn't let Kucinich in—it would have taken too long.) Sounds like a gotcha opportunity. A better idea: Let each candidate ask the moderators a question!
John Edwards asks Obama whether he thinks lobbyists expect favors in return for their money. Obama starts by clarifying that he doesn't take money from special interests, then elaborates on how he's committed to reducing lobbyists' influence in Washington.
Hillary asks Obama if he'll co-sponsor legislation to say that any action with the Iraqi government has to be ratified by Congress. (Kind of like this bill.) He says yes! Or at least he sounds vaguely positive about the idea. Finally, something we can all agree on.
Obama uses his question to ask Edwards about the details of pulling troops out of Iraq. This format is refreshing, no?
-
sponsorship
We've moved on from the Awkward, Useless Questions segment to the Economy segment.
All the candidates talk about how they'd cut down on foreign ownership. Edwards points to how this trend hurts the middle class more than the wealthiest. Hillary says she'd cut down on home foreclosures by freezing interest rates. Obama ties our dependence on foreign ownership to energy policy.
Only Hillary tailors her answer to the audience. She talks about how home foreclosures and bankruptcy laws are "black and brown issues" that affect minorities disproportionately. In Las Vegas, which is one of the home-foreclosure capitals of the United States, these answers resonate.
-
sponsorship
A number hidden at the bottom of the returns: Fred Thompson is beating Rudy Giuliani in Michigan by nearly 3,000 votes. This matters not because Thompson is beating Giuliani, but because Giuliani is losing to Thompson.
Rudy Giuliani used to be a peculiar kind of national frontrunner—a guy who performed poorly in the early-primary states but who did well nationally because of name recognition. Part of Giuliani's problem was that the more he campaigned and advertised in states, the less that people wanted to vote for him. For a while, Rudy was better off staying in the national headlines but off the campaign trail.
Well, it's clear that that's not possible any more. Giuliani stayed as far away from Michigan as possible, and he's paying the price. (Due to his own strategy, his headlines have been insulated inside of Florida.) But that's not Giuliani's problem. The real issue is that Thompson has done the same, and he's still beating Giuliani.
Even if Giuliani comes back to recapture momentum after a win in Florida, the Michigan result calls into question the strength of his candidacy. Without momentum, he's worse than Fred Thompson. With momentum, can he be much better?
-
sponsorship
John Edwards: "For 54 years, I’ve been fighting with every fiber of my
body."
-
sponsorship
The shallowness—it just don't stop. The first 20 minutes are consumed entirely with crappy questions.
- Sen. Obama, you won the women's vote in Iowa; Hillary won it in N.H. Is that because you said, "You're likable enough, Hillary"?
- Obama, do you believe race is an issue when people go into the privacy of a voting booth?
- Sen. Edwards, what is a white male to do running against these historic candidacies?
Edwards does his best to not answer this question, so they ask it again.
Even someone in the audience agrees: "You two are only asking race-based questions!" he shouts. Everyone pauses awkwardly. Was that Dennis Kucinich??
-
sponsorship
Kudos to Mitt Romney, who started his victory speech at the same time John McCain was giving his second-place speech. Fox decided to switch over to Mitt, effectively muting McCain.
-
sponsorship
And we're off!
Brian Williams cites a bunch of recent comments about Martin Luther King Jr. and Obama's unmentionable teenage activities. "How did we get here?" he asks. He might as well have asked, Who can give me the biggest platitude?
Hillary: Neither race nor gender should be part of this campaign. (But notice: Hillary's wearing pink; Obama's wearing blue. Gender politics live!)
Obama: John and Hillary have been committed to racial equality. We need to come together.
Edwards: I grew up in the South during segregation.
Segue to Tim Russert pulling out a satchel full of documents. For all the time candidates spent the past day trying to "move on" and set race and gender aside, the moderators seem determined to drag everyone back. Which is, of course, sort of their job.
-
sponsorship
It seems home is where the votes are. Mitt Romney has won in Michigan, and we owe him at least a moment so he can bask in his gold-medal glory ...
Now, with that out of the way, let's begin the dissection. A lot of the story line coming out of Romney's win will be determined by the demographics of his support. If a bunch of senior-citizens braved the snow to vote for him, then they probably voted for him because of George Romney's gubernatorial stint. But, if young and middle class voters went for Romney, then he can position himself as the recession-friendly candidate as the country goes the way of Michigan down a dark economic rabbit hole.
The other issue at play for Romney: Can he rightfully call himself the front-runner? He's got more delegates than anybody else and looks strong going into Nevada, where he'll compete while everybody else is gallivanting around South Carolina. From there, he'll be one of two or three challengers to Giuliani in Florida (Romney, McCain, and Huckabee if he wins South Carolina).
The impact on McCain will be muted if the exit polls hold true and independents decided to stay home. McCain is counting on independents to power him through the primaries and the general election, and it's a reasonable expectation given all of the "unification" rhetoric flying around the electoral cycle right now. So, if independents didn't come out to mark the ballot, McCain's camp can't be that shocked by the results. It doesn't look good from the outside-looking-in, but the actual, hard data probably won't show any surprises for McCain.
Huckabee? Fox is trying to spin it as a damaging blow, pre-South Carolina, but we're skeptical. He'll reboot his news cycle with the first Huckism he utters on the trail in South Carolina, and off we'll go again—chasing a new narrative. He's already tried to change the subject by saying he was outspent "50 to one" in Michigan. Sounds like he's taking a page out of John Edwards' book.
-
sponsorship
As results trickle in, the early precincts suggest Hillary Clinton is holding off the great, shadowy threat that goes by "Uncommitted." But does it even matter? Regardless of what happened tonight, Clinton is immune from bad or good press. If she obliterated the uncommitted vote, opponents can say she won on name-recognition alone. If she lost to uncommitted, she can rebut that it's because she pledged not to campaign in the state.
Plus, all of the soundbites coming out of the debate are going to drown out any story lines coming out of Michigan for the Democrats.
-
sponsorship
Of the many story lines to pay attention to this evening: Who gets more votes, Mike Gravel or Duncan Hunter? As of now, Bill Kristol and company on Fox News tell me that Gravel has seven more votes (51 to 44) with 2 percent of precincts reporting.
Can Hunter stun the Alaskan and roar from behind? Remember, he's already got a delegate. Gravel better watch out.
UPDATE 8:41 p.m.: Hunter pulls ahead!!! By 11 votes!!! He has 10 percentage points more than Gravel. Three percent of precincts reporting. Stay tuned for regular updates.
UPDATE 8:45 p.m.: They're tied!!! But Gravel has one more percentage point's worth of precincts reporting, so Hunter actually has the edge.
UPDATE 9:18 p.m.: Hunter is up by over 100 events. I'm going out on a limb and calling this race. Hunter will win (more votes than Gravel). You heard it here first.
-
sponsorship
Michigan exit polls are just beginning to trickle out, so there are a lot of reasons to take this Fox News report with a grain of salt. But it does contain one potentially meaningful tidbit. Among African-Americans, Hillary won an estimated 25 percent of the vote. Uncommitted: 69 percent.
Hillary will of course end up taking the cake. But it's not quite as tasty when you slice it like that. Going into Nevada and especially South Carolina, the fact that the majority of blacks preferred "Uncommitted"—if that turns out to be the case in the final tally—doesn't bode well.
-
sponsorship
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.
-
sponsorship
Here's a sentence that affirms our continued fascination with the New York Sun, particularly its style guide:
A number of opinion surveys put Messrs. McCain and Romney in a dead heat, with Michael Huckabee trailing in third place.
Indeed, he seems to be having some trouble in this state against Willard Romney. Freddie Thompson, meanwhile, is nowhere to be found. At least he can beat Ronald Paul.
-
sponsorship
Listen to Barack Obama's new Spanish-language video (short version here; longer version here). Seriously, just listen. The church bells, the drums, the cheesy mid-'90s synth track. Something tells me this style wouldn't quite fly in a New Hampshire spot.
The ad, which airs in Nevada before Saturday's caucus, tweaks Obama's message slightly for an increased Hispanic demographic. (Nevada is about 24 percent Latino, according to the 2006 U.S. Census.) In it, Obama emphasizes his mixed background and international upbringing. He is, after all, a migrant, if not an immigrant.
Then there's the coda, which sounds slightly less goofy than if Newt Gingrich said it: "Soy Barack Obama, y apruebo este mensaje."
-
sponsorship
So the Nevada Supreme Court has ordered a hearing for 1:30 p.m. local time (4:30 p.m. ET) to address NBC's appeal. It will last 30 minutes, after which we'll know whether or not Dennis Kucinich will have his chance to speak truth to Brian Williams. (See the court's oral argument order here.)
If he doesn't get to participate, Kucinich will find a way to broadcast his answers to the debate questions live to his Web site. “That’s his Plan B,” said spokeswoman Sharon Manitta.
-
sponsorship
Back in November, as the Democratic presidential candidates assembled for their first Vegas debate, we imagined which candidates would be which hotels along the Strip. Now, as they return to Sin City for tonight's debate, the comparisons are more useful than ever, if slightly outdated:
Hillary Clinton—Wynn Las Vegas. Polished, buffed to a shine, extremely well-financed.
Barack Obama—Luxor. Massive, covered in lights, hugely popular ... but still just another hotel.
Mitt Romney—Planet Hollywood. Used to be called Aladdin, changed its name and theme in 2007.
Rudy Giuliani—New York-New York. Uh, New York.
John Edwards—Excalibur. Family-friendly, a little cheesy, looks like something out of King Arthur.
John McCain—Plaza Hotel and Casino. Old, broke (rooms go for $34).
Mike Huckabee—Hard Rock Hotel. Relatively new, musical, surprisingly fun.
Mike Gravel—Treasure Island. Loud, silly, largely ignored.
Joe Biden—The Flamingo. Showy, colorful, still around somehow.
Sam Brownback—Frontier Hotel. Recently imploded.
Dennis Kucinich—Tropicana: One of the smaller hotels, stands next to Hooters ...
-
sponsorship
Finally, Dennis Kucinich's What about me? debate theatrics are paying off.
Initially, NBC said it would include him in tonight’s Las Vegas debate. Last week the network disinvited him, saying it was “redoing” the inclusion criteria. Kucinich promptly sued NBC (read the complaint here), and a Nevada judge ruled yesterday that NBC must include Kucinich or the debate would be called off.
NBC is now appealing the decision to the Nevada Supreme Court (read the petition here). “We disagree with the judge’s ruling, and we’re appealing,” NBC spokesman Jeremy Gaines said. There is currently no hearing scheduled, but hey, they’ve still got what, seven hours?
The question is, does Kunichich have a legal right to participate in debates? If so, what law requires a TV network to include him? In his complaint, Kucinich argues that his exclusion
undermines the purpose of the Federal Communications Act and is a blatant violation of the Act because of the media’s obligation to … ‘operate in the public interest and to afford reasonable opportunity for the discussion of conflicting views of issues of public importance.’ NBC revised its criteria to specifically exclude the diverse and anti-war voice of Kucinich and his grass-roots supporters. This specific exclusion is further highlighted by the fact that NBC has not provided Kucinich with any revised criteria.
But are networks even required to give inclusion criteria? If anything, it seems like more of a courtesy. Even when the Democratic National Committee sponsors a debate—it has held six so far this cycle—it lets the networks decide which candidates to include.
Here was the district judge's rationale for siding with Kucinich, as reported by the AP:
Thompson called it a matter of fairness and said Nevada voters will benefit by hearing from more than just top contenders Hillary Rodham Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards.
Pretty nebulous, no? That sounds more like a personal judgment than a legal basis.
Eric Easton, a professor at the University of Baltimore School of Law, told me he was skeptical about the FCA “public interest” clause Kucinich invoked: “That clause in the FCA is so huge and so unfocused that it’s a justification for anything.”
But unless NBC's appeal goes through today, Kucinich will have to be included. The congressman has already flown out to Las Vegas, according to a spokeswoman.
UPDATE 6:20 p.m.: Fraysters rightly point out that Kucinich also claims NBC breached its contract with him when they rescinded his invitation. NBC's response, in its filing today: "If such an unprecedented theory is adopted here, it would mean that
news organizations would be forbidden from making timely decisions
about who or what to feature in their programming based on daily
developments in news for fear that a previously invited guest could
assert a breach of contract claim." We'll leave the specifics of Nevada contact law to the experts--or to the court, which should have a ruling soon.
-
sponsorship
After offering an unconvincing explanation for his remarks about Barack Obama's cocaine use, BET founder Bob Johnson must have decided that a bit more damage control was in order. He sat down with the Washington Post and explained what he meant when he compared Obama to Sidney Poitier's character in Guess Who's Coming to Dinner:
"What has happened, in my opinion, is that what we have created is the quote-unquote 'perfect candidate' that's like in the movies, that has absolutely no blemishes," a vision that is unrealistic, said Johnson, who started Black Entertainment Television and has been a friend of the Clintons for two decades.
He said Obama has avoided talking about race, a tactic that Johnson said made him acceptable to the largely white electorate of Iowa. Obama won the state's Democratic caucuses on Jan. 3. "White America is saying, 'He's safe for us, he should be safe for you guys,' " Johnson said, referring to blacks. "We're letting other people pick our leaders."
It's quotes like this that illuminate the thin line Obama is walking. On the one hand, by not addressing race, he gets accused by Johnson of being too "safe," of selling out to secure the white vote. On the other, if he did talk more about race, he would be accused of playing the "race card" in order to attract black voters. It would come off as pandering. And that's when Clinton's black supporters—Johnson, Andrew Young, Charlie Rangel—would really pile on. (In fact, Rangel just did, calling Obama's remarks about Martin Luther King Jr. "absolutely stupid.") He's damned if he does, damned if he doesn't, and especially damned if he tries to do both.