Can you hear me now?

Something to chew on: most polls of early voting states gauge a wide sample of landline phone owners for a number of reasons, which means they leave out an estimated 7-9% of the general phone-possessing populace that relies solely on cell phones for telecommunication. This cell-only population that is excluded from polls isn't very substantial and most likely is composed of people with a variegated spectrum of political opinions, but it could change the final results of voting in states like Iowa where sheer voter turnout will usually carry the day. Cell-only users are disproportionately younger and more likely to be liberal and white; many are college kids. This is a demographic that Barack Obama polls stunningly well with. Thus, early polling data could be minutely under representing Obama's final support come voting day. Of course, this is assuming that voters in that age demographic will reliably turn out on January 3rd, something that the Obama camp should cross their fingers for but should not bank on.

Handicapping the Iowa Caucus

With two weeks and two days remaining before thousands of Iowans descend on their local caucuses, it seems as good a time as any to peer into the "Le Tas & Me" crystal ball and take a whack at the pivotal upcoming primary.

The past few weeks have been predictably turbulent for the front-runners. Hillary Clinton, heretofore undeterred by the increasingly vehement (if not always high-minded) assaults by the struggling John Edwards, has fallen in the Iowa polls, mostly to the benefit of her underspoken rival, Barack Obama. While the Des Moines Register endorsement surely can't hurt Clinton in the next sixteen days, she's unlikely to able to recover her once-secure front-runner status unless and until she wins on January 3rd. Perhaps less expectedly, Mitt Romney has taken a serious beating from Mike Huckabee, whose stellar debate performances have wowed a Republican base with unusually low expectations of the candidate field. The last four polls of Iowa Republicans all show Huckabee in the lead, by an average of 10.7%--and this excluding the December 7th Newsweek poll that put Huckabee at a startling 22 point advantage.

But the real story isn't even that of these newfangled front-runners; the open secret of the Iowa caucus is that it will be decided, in any close race, by the second-place preferences of those "marginal voters" who initially select a candidate who can't crack 15% statewide. In the Republican camp, according to the aforementioned composite of recent polls, some 30.8% of the electorate is scattered between Rudy Giuliani, Fred Thompson, John McCain, and Ron Paul, none of whom is likely to meet the 15% threshold. (We can expect the level of support for these second-tier candidates to drop as the caucuses approach, but it wouldn't be unusual to find a fifth or a quarter of all voters ultimately casting their primary ballots for candidates who each fall short of 15%.) In these cases, the supporters of a "non-viable" (sub-15%) candidate can switch their support to a "viable" candidate, or to another non-viable candidate they hope to make viable.

But while there is a striking degree of dissension in the Republican field, and so many second-choice votes to be courted by top-tier candidates, there is no obvious substitute for any of the candidates currently polling below 15%. John McCain's supporters, assuming they support the President's Iraq strategy, may gravitate more naturally to Romney than to Huckbee, while Thompson supporters, who may chafe at Huckabee's support for social programs, may chafe much more at the thought of voting for a Mormon. And although the residual supporters of Paul and Giuliani are less likely to hold religious affiliation against their second-choice pick, Paul supporters are likely too critical of the war to vote for Romney, while Giuliani supporters might be put off by the free-spending, "compassionate" accommodationalism associated with the former Governor of Arkansas. If all this is right--and it's quite the "if"--we can imagine the supporters of non-viable candidates dispersing fairly evenly between the two front-runners, leaving Huckabee victorious. An uphill battle he then will have to climb.

On the Democratic side, however, it's almost certain three candidates will clear the 15% bar, with all the rest falling considerably short. In recent surveys, only Richardson (with an average of 7%) and Biden (with an average of 4.3%) ever surpass the polls' margins of error. Two months ago, it might have seemed obvious that Richardson, who has most vocally defended Senator Clinton in the debates (perhaps in search of the vice presidency), would send his supporters to Hillary's camp; by the same token, we might suppose that Biden's supporters are sticking with him because of his experience and foreign-policy expertise--two categories in which Clinton enjoys a perceived advantage over Edwards and Obama, often cast as greenhorns on the big issues of war and terrorism. But despite these compelling reasons, and even in light of the Register's disappointingly bland endorsement of Senator Clinton, we would venture the proposition that these few residual Democratic ballots are in fact Senator Obama's to lose.

For one thing, Obama has been on a two-week-long media cruise, which has effectively eliminated from public view the unseemly comparison Senator Clinton's campaign was working to draw between the two candidates' health care plans. More than this, though, it seems fair to say at this point that most supporters of "establishment" candidates like Dodd or Biden who have not already shifted their allegiance to Hillary Clinton are unlikely to do so on January 3rd: they appreciate experience, preparedness, toughness, and other putatively Clintonesque traits, but find themselves in that well-populated category of voters who (for one reason or another) can't stand her, don't trust her, or both. The same analysis holds a fortiori for supporters of Bill Richardson, who has rendered himself practically indistinguishable from Senator Clinton on all major policy positions except Iraq, where he advocates a complete, unconditional, and swift withdrawal--hardly friendly territory for Hillary Clinton. And if Iowans have seen all they need to see from Senator Clinton, they must have an acute sense of over-saturation when it comes to John Edwards, who has hardly left the state since declaring his candidacy for President in 2003, and who has spent more money and flexed more organizational muscle in Iowa than any candidate in this election cycle, Republican or Democrat. His persistent attacks on Hillary Clinton have lured a significant swath of voters away from her, to be sure, but they have yet to bring his poll numbers up at all.

It may be, of course, that the Register endorsement puts an end to Obama's December-long surge, nudging undecided voters toward the insider candidacy, to the safe-bet conventionalism, the foregone conclusion of a nominee that is Hillary Rodham Clinton. Indeed, in the last presidential election, as Democrats ran scared, the allure of unprincipled compromise was too great to resist. Here's to hoping they learned their lesson.

Clinton as woman

Hillary Clinton's numbers have been slipping in early state polls recently, her campaign hitting somewhat of a rough patch since her initial stumble fielding a question about drivers licenses for illegal immigrants at a Philidelphia debate. There are many reasons for this fallout and it by no means diminishes her likelihood of nabbing the nomination; she still is in command of national polls and is locked in dead heats in the early states. But her flagging support has been partially attributed to a growing unease of voters with the "negative turn" her campaign has taken. It plays into the narrative that she is cold and politically calculating and puts off kind-hearted Iowans who eschew dirty politics. But could the reaction to Clinton's "attacks" be harsher because she is a woman?

There's really no arguing that her attacks have been a mismanaged blunder--she brought up kindergarten essays and one of her prominent staffers made some awful insinuations regarding Obama's past drug use--but there's a sense in which any way she went about critiquing Obama would rebound negatively on her. To put it more bluntly--when a male Presidential candidate (Mitt Romney, for example) lobbies a complaint against another, it's considered part of the game; when Hillary does it, she's a bitch. One could even make the argument that when Mitt Romney releases negative ads about Mike Huckabee, it reflects negatively on his campaign, not on him, whereas Hillary's attacks have the result of tarnishing her personal image. It's the same dilemma women face as bosses in the workplace.

That being said, her attacks have been ridiculous and overtly contrived. And she's a bitch.

The Obama Defense

One of Barack Obama's most underrated assets as a politician is his crafty responses. Over the past few weeks, as Hillary Clinton has sought to elaborate on distinctions between her and the junior senator from Illinois, he has responded not with long-winded refutations of her answers but rather shrewd but light-hearted one-liners: Clinton tries to hit him for his lack of Washington experience by trumpeting her own fiscal credentials as first lady, Obama retorts "My understanding was she wasn't Treasury secretary in the Clinton administration." (peep it) Clinton launches a somewhat absurd attack on his kindergarten presidential aspirations and after being hounded by the press for a response, Obama quips, "It's silly season. I understand she's even quoting my kindergarten teacher in Indonesia." And in the most recent Iowa debate, when Clinton tried to humanize herself with boisterous robotic laughter following a question about Obama's ability to bring change if he is relying on ex-Clinton officials for foreign policy advice, Obama shot back "Well Hillary, I'm looking forward to you advising me as well."

It's almost like that street ball tactic where your opponent is trying to trash-talk you and you merely chime back with one word: "Scoreboard...." Infuriatingly effective.

Why Mitt Romney won't win

A hypothetical: at the next Republican debate, the moderators--in an attempt to really spark up some distinctions between candidates--decide to ask some provocative questions. The subject of religion comes around and Mitt Romney is faced with the following: "Governor Romney, in the 1820's, a young man named Joseph Smith, claiming to have been visited by a resurrected prophet named Moroni, was said to have unearthed a series of gold plates which contained record of God's dealings with ancient Israelites. Over the next two years, Smith translated these plates into English in what is now known as The Book of Mormon. Said Smith, 'the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion, and a man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts, than by any other book.' Do you agree with this statement?"

What would his response be? Probably something on the order of "My faith informs my values and sustains me, but it does not speak for me and I do not speak for it, etc." But it wouldn't really matter what his response is because the response is almost irrelevant. The question is what is important. Romney is in a precarious position: he needs the support of the Evangelical community to buttress his run for the Presidency. He (and all the other candidates for that matter) can talk tough on national security and give rhetorical assent to tax cuts, but Giuliani pretty much has that side of the market cornered and in order to seem like a legitimate opposition, Romney has been forced to paint himself as a more "well-rounded" conservative by adding morality and family values into the picture. BUT, in order to assuage anxieties about is pro-choice past and in order to compete against Huckabee in the Evangelical market, Romney has to invoke his religion and talk about it with specific and focused zeal.

And this is a tightrope. Mitt Romney can talk about the role of religion in civic life and how it shapes his conservative beliefs, but there is nothing he can do in a few months time to change the overwhelming public opinion about Mormonism. Americans to begin with don't know much about Mormonism, so a few negative sensationalist statements on the issue will easily sway their opinion of it. And moreover, 31% of Americans flat out don't believe Mormons are Christians. Finally, 25% of Americans are less likely to vote for a Mormon candidate (versus only 5% who are more likely, see all data here). So Mitt Romney has a Catch-22: he can let his faith sit like an elephant in the room while his opponents proclaim their Christian credentials or he can start to openly discuss it and invite a discussion on the theological merits of Mormonism which is sure to faze more voters than it converts.

Evangelicals and the conservative community aren't just looking for someone with a pro-life record. And when they say they want a candidate that shares their values, they don't just mean that they want someone who agrees with them on the issues. What they mean is that they want someone who not only falls in line with their priorities, but also someone who fundamentally adheres to the specific religious tenets which shape their lives. And if the founder of your religion prioritizes a different book than the Old Testament, for example, then you'll have a hard time getting the votes you want.

Surging and the Media

Although it really shouldn’t be, the public’s perception of an electoral race these days is partially and arguably strongly dependent on the narrative played out in the media. As the traditional news cycle has been replaced by an ongoing stream of soundbites and stories, actual policy positions can many times be trumped by a good one-liner, an pronounced bickering or schism between two candidates or an extraneous poll. The media, in other words, will opt to cover a more compelling “story” rather than give an evenhanded play-by-play of the facts. This, in some ways, is good news for Barack Obama. Here’s why:

The most exciting story for a news outlet to cover is a close race for the primaries. Coupled with that, another compelling storyline is that of a political outsider making a last minute surge against the predicted political Goliath. Thus, if a poll comes out saying that Hillary Clinton has retained a lead in Iowa or New Hampshire then it won’t get much news play; it’s not exciting because it’s a predictable old story. But if a poll is released that shows Barack Obama taking a lead in Iowa or narrowing a gap in New Hampshire it gets tremendously more media coverage and reaches a much broader audience. In other words, the “Clinton is inevitable” storyline is passé and the “Obama is strengthening” narrative is in.

This has a huge effect on the race, in our humble opinion. Part of the reason Clinton has appeared unbeatable until now was because the news media anointed her to be so. People outside the early primary states didn’t give other candidates a close look because, according to the media, it was more than likely that Hillary Clinton would be the nominee. But now that this isn’t such popular rhetoric anymore, any piece of good news for Obama mushrooms into a huge news story and feeds the notion that the insurgent has all the power over the declining and suddenly less popular Clinton. This may be completely detached from the substance of the campaign, but superficiality as dictated by the media can play a profound role in swaying voters in a given direction.

The Holy Trinity

If you're looking for something to do on a Sunday evening and really feel like going balls out, here's what we recommend. Buy a 30-pack of Natty Light and rent the following three movies: The Rock, Con Air and Face/Off. Then watch all three in a row, drinking every time Nicholas Cage inspires you.

Also, be on the lookout for subtle differences in Nick Cage's performances. In one, he plays a good guy; in another, he plays a good bad guy; and in the final one, he plays a bad guy. Most critics like to reduce his artistry to sensationalist Hollywood performance, claiming that he acts similarly outlandish in every role. But for those of us who appreciate nuance, watching Nicholas Cage is like Christmas...on ecstasy.

Robert Reich's thoughts

This is pretty interesting. He is Bill Clinton's former Secretary of Labor and refers to Hillary Clinton as "my old friend." We're pretty much in agreement with his sentiments. Clinton is taking an absurdly large risk in trying to attack Obama's character 1) because she just decried mudslinging, 2) because Iowans notoriously abhor negative campaigning, 3) because it makes her appear even more desperate and poll-driven and 4) because, well, he's Barack Obama; he's a certifiable baller.

The Edwards-Obama Alliance

As the initial caucuses approach, inter-party attacks have begun to intensify. Giuliani and Romney have been sparring over who was less liberal in the past, Clinton and Obama have been dueling over health care and experience and Fred Thompson has been screaming in the corner like a petulant 5th grader in the hopes that someone in the media will realize that he still has a heartbeat. But for all the back-and-forth accusations between candidates across the board, one candidate-to-candidate exchange has been moderately demure, if not downright congratulatory—that between John Edwards and Barack Obama. Both men, whether they like it or not, are campaigning for the spot of the anti-Hillary in the Democratic field; whoever finishes behind the other in Iowa will most likely be out of the race for all intents and purposes. And yet, they seem to have surprisingly little to say to each other and instead have honed their attacks almost exclusively on Senator Clinton. Edwards has even gone so far as to praise Obama, occasionally on the stump and recently at a small debate in Iowa.

This certain is far from what would be expected from Edwards, the populist pitbull, particularly when he has such a glaring difference with Obama regarding a mandate for universal health care. And it raises the inevitable question of an Edwards bid for Vice President. An Obama/Edwards ticket would be one premised upon change to the extreme, prioritizing vitality and a necessary renovation of Washington politics. Edwards, moreover, could be a significant asset in Southern states. This all seems rather unlikely, though. Whoever lands the Democratic nomination will most likely pick someone who was not associated with the 2004 election. If Obama, in particular, is the nominee, you can expect he’ll pair himself with someone with considerable “experience” (read: an old white dude). Still, it’s nice to see a bit of camaraderie in the race and it certainly works to undercut Clinton’s new aggressive stance.