Here’s a little pop test, folks. Read over this assessment of the country’s condition, and venture a guess at its provenance:

America is in danger. Our ability to meet and solve the problems that face us is seriously compromised. National surveys reveal that an unprecedented seven out of ten citizens believe that life for our children will not be as good as their own. We are headed in the wrong direction. We share their deep concern and frustration. Our nation is indeed at risk.
–Approval for the United States around the world has dropped to historically low levels, with only one out of four people approving of our country’s actions, even in nations that are our longtime allies.
–We have eroded America’s credibility and capacity to lead on urgent global and foreign policy issues, including terrrorism, nuclear profileration, climate change, and regional instabilities.
–Our budget and trade deficits are out of control. We are squandering our children’s future. The ominous transfer of our national wealth has made our economy vulnerable, and our economic strength and competitiveness are both declining. Middle-income Americans are struggling to keep their homes and jobs and educate their children.
–We are not as secure as we should be. Our military is stretched thin and our nation remains vulnerabvle to catrostrophic terrorism.”
–We are being held economically hostage because we have no energy policy worthy of the name.
–Our educational system is failing to prepare our children to succeed in a globalized and technological world.
–Nearly 50 miillion Americans remain without health insurance, and the cost of medical care continues to spiral.
–The failures of bridges in Minnesota, and levees in New Orleans are harsh metaphors for the reckless neglect of our infrastructure.

Sounds like, say, every Democratic presidential candidate, wouldn’t you say? I certainly haven’t heard many Republicans talk this way. So this “wrong track” preroration would logically lead to a call for a Democratic president and Congress in November, right?
Wrong. Here’s the next passage in this statement:

These critical issues are uniquely interlocked and we must have a national strategy and priotiorization of resources. We are failing to address them because rampant partisanship has paralyzed the ability of our government to act. If we allow polarizing politics to continue, we will remain a nation divided and no matter who is elected this fall, he or she will not have a mandate for governing. Too many in both our parties have sought to energize their bases instead of reaching out to address the issues that concern our nation as a whole. They appeal to extremes and marginalize those in the commonsense center.
In order to break this partisan impasse, we urge the presidential candidates to provide:
–clear descriptions of how they would establish a government of national unity
–specific strategies for reducing polarization and reaching bipartisan consensus
–plans to go beyond tokenism to appoint a truly bipartisan cabinet with critical posts held by the most qualified people available regardless of political affiliation
–proposals for bipartisan executive and legislative policy groups in critical areas such as national security.

If you haven’t guessed it by now, these quotations are from a “bipartisan unity statement” read aloud by my former boss Sam Nunn at the conclusion of a confab in Oklahoma yesterday designed to threaten both parties with an indie presidential run, probably by the leading non-candidate candidate Michael Bloomberg, unless they improbably agree to build some sort of Government of National Salvation upon winning the White House.
Some people might read the Nunn statement and think it sounds like Barack Obama. But whereas Obama pledges to reach across partisan lines, and outside them as well, to build support for a progressive agenda, he’s not talking about abandoning his party and sharing power directly with people who don’t share his (or Nunn’s) assessment of the challenges facing America, and who would oppose any progressive agenda with every political weapon available. Best I can tell, Obama’s offering an extended hand to the GOP that he’s willing to make into a fist. And his argument with some in the Democratic Party, most notably John Edwards, over how to enact progressive policies, mainly reflects differences of opinion on how to marshal public opinion to reverse most of the GOP policies of the Bush era.
I know Nunn well enough to believe he’s sincere in the desire to go back to the days when Democrats and Republicans truly cooperated on matters of urgent national importance, particularly in the defense arena. But Nunn left Congress in 1997, and had limited experience with the savage partisanship, ideological extremism, and money-lust that has come to characterize the party primarily responsible for the conditions he deplores.
The same year Nunn retired, Bob Dole gave up his Senate leadership post to run for president, and delivered a highly emotional speech touting the bipartisan traditions of the Senate (a speech that was broadly panned by conservatives, BTW). Dole was clearly living in the past, and today Sam Nunn and his Bipartisan Junta colleagues are living in the distant past. It’s revealing that the Republicans involved in this effort are, frankly, a bunch of marginal has-beens, plus one heretic (Chuck Hagel). Today’s GOP is totally uninterested in power-sharing unless it’s on their own terms, and there are no alternatives. And no one who agrees with the Bipartisan Junta’s bleak diagnosis of America’s condition should succumb to its prescription, which would, ironically, perpetuate partisan gridlock for the foreseeable future and thwart any genuine movement for change, which now depends on Democrats.

Over the weekend, Dana Goldstein posted a thoughtul piece on the American Prospect site about the disorganized and arguably unfair conduct of the Iowa Caucus site she monitered. Though I didn’t much convey it during my hurried live-blogging of Des Moines Precinct 19 on Caucus night (in part because I was typing with my laptop wedged at a crazy angle in a fire extinguisher alcove at the margins of the room, and was constantly moving to avoid obstructing the actual participants), my own experience paralleled hers.
Precinct 19 shared the site with Precinct 43, but there was virtually no signage indicating who should go where, and the party had not provided maps to indicate precinct lines (fortunately, one Biden and one Obama supporter had maps, if you lucked into encountering them in the midst of the chaotic crowd shuffling into the school). The room set aside for Precinct 19 was totally inadequate, with participants spilling into the corridor and beyond, where some could not have possibly heard the precinct chairman’s explanation of the process. The doors obviously had to remain open throughout the proceedings, and there was no monitoring of comings and goings, or indeed, whether participants had formally registered.
Since there was no space for separating preference groups, at least two (Kucinich and Clinton) were sent out into the adjoining lobby. This seriously handicapped the HRC effort when “realignment” began, since they couldn’t personally persuade supporters of non-viable candidates without luring them out of the room. And the entire preference group process underlined the most obvious difference between Caucuses and primaries: the absence of a secret ballot.
Candidate precinct captains for each campaign were allowed to conduct counts of their supporters without any official verification (at one point, the precinct chairman patiently explained to one captain how to efficiently conduct a hand count). And there were definite disparties in the quality of campaign preparation. I overheard one of the three HRC supporters who appeared to be in charge of her precinct operation ask a bystander at one point: “What happens next?” And the Biden captain convinced about half of his group to refuse to realign behind a second choice, on the dubious theory that this stubborn fidelity would be reflected in the “raw counts.”
Maybe my and Dana’s concerns are irrelevant in terms of the actual outcome, but given the consequences of Edwards’ razor-thin delegate margin over Clinton, a lot of small mistakes and accidents could have easily added up to a big effect on the presidential nominating process. I’m sure that there will be another debate after the nomination is decided about the caucus and primary calendar and Iowa’s iron grip on a highly disproportionate role. But however that turns out, if Iowa is still “first in the nation” in 2012, I hope both parties pay more attention to the need for sufficient space and direction to enable Iowans to know what they are doing for or to the rest of us.

The first poll of NH to be conducted after the results from Iowa were in shows a decent “bounce” for Barack Obama, but not for Mike Huckabee.
The Democratic poll by Rasmussen has Obama up ten points over Clinton–37%-27%–with Edwards at 19%. Clinton led Obama 31%-28%, with Edwards at 18%, in the last Rasmussen poll, conducted before Xmas.
On the Republican side, Rasmussen has McCain moving ahead of Romney 31%-26% in NH, with Huckabee running fourth at 11%, trailing Ron Paul’s 14%. This represents a precise reversal of McCain and Romney’s standing, while Huckabee hasn’t moved at all.
Post-Iowa “bounces” in the past have often increased a few days after the Caucuses, so this is hardly the final word. But right now the CW that Obama and McCain became front-runners after Iowa looks reasonably sound.
UPCATEGORY: Democratic Strategist
Both these polls closely track the Rasmussen findings on the Republican side, with John McCain holding a six-point lead over Romney, and Huckabee mired in the low teens.

With just three days left before the New Hampshire primaries, candidates are clearly scrambling to play the quick transition game. The Washington Post has a good quick summary of the crucial factors in Iowa that might carry over to NH.
On the Democratic side, the initial buzz is that Clinton is going to go after Barack Obama’s Illinois record for being too liberal, while John Edwards continues to go after Obama for failing to sufficiently understand the satanic nature of corporations. It will be interesting to see if these attack lines cancel each other out, or raise doubts about Obama’s rarely discussed ideological background.

Th day after the Iowa Caucuses, there’s obviously a whole lot we don’t know about how the presidential nominating contests, much less the ultimate election, will proceed.
On the Democratic side, in the short term, we obviously don’t know the size of the “bump” Iowa will give Barack Obama going into New Hampshire just four days from now, though my guess is that it will catapult him into a clear lead. We don’t know exactly what Hillary Clinton’s campaign will do to mount a comeback in NH, though the time frame makes any negative tactic that requires voter reflection exceedingly difficult. We don’t know if the supposed populist fire set by Edwards in Iowa can strike sparks in NH, or if he will essentially disappear in the Obama-HRC crossfire. And will also don’t know if the fierce competition among Republicans in NH will deprive Obama of the kind of voter/media buzz and appeal among independents that he would need to replicate his Iowa win.
In the longer term, we also don’t know if this is going to be a two- or three-candidate race after NH, just as we don’t know whether Clinton’s national lead can survive losing in both IA and NH. We don’t know how seriously the media will take the Nevada Caucuses on January 19, or if the state could produce a saving win for Clinton or (less likely) Edwards. We do know that if Obama wins NH, he’s likely to be an overwhelming favorite in SC, where John Edwards’ campaign will probably die (ironically, in his native state) unless the dynamics fundamentally change. And most of all, we don’t know if Clinton is willing or able to pull a Giuliani if she can’t win before February 5, and has enough residual support and money to muddy the waters with a big delegate haul.
On the Republican side, things are even more muddled. A big Iowa Bounce would still probably leave Huckabee running behind McCain and Romney in NH, and he’ll have to get through a probable loss in MI before getting to favorable terrain in SC. But perhaps the biggest imponderable is whether the GOP/Conservative Establishment, panicked by Huckabee’s Iowa win, moves quickly towards former pariah McCain to kill off the Arkansan, or gives Romney another chance.
But here’s what we do know:
1) In terms of participation, the Iowa results were vastly more positive for Democrats than for Republicans. Check out Chris Bowers’ summary of combined Repubican and Democratic data from the Iowa entrance polls. Dems not only attracted about double the number of participants as Republicans in what had been a narrowly divided state. They attracted 75% of independents; 88% of self-identified “moderates”; and roughly three-fourths of voters under 45.
2) For all the talk about the Iowa winners, Obama and Huckabee, as “outsiders” or “upstarts,” they are polar opposites in terms of broader appeal. Obama won Democrats as well as independents, and liberals as well as moderates, and clearly helped produce a vast uptick in first-time Caucus participation in both categories. Huckabee won with disproportionate support from a narrow and controversial category of conservative GOP voters, conservative evangelicals. Even if elbows get sharp in the next couple of weeks, Democrats remain highly unified on most policy issues, and there’s nothing about Obama in particular (who attracts the most liberal voters while constantly reaching out to indies and even Republicans) that is likely to make him a divisive nominee. Republicans appear headed for a very divisive nominating contest that could produce a controversial nominee and resentment among his rivals.
3) As Democracy Corps and others have constantly reminded us, Democratic prospects in 2008 depend heavily on their ability to maintain their 2006 status as the party of change at a time when “wrong track” sentiment is extremely high. Iowa confirmed that 2008 is developing into another “change” election, made most obvious by the fact that the Republican candidate identified most with “change” in the past, John McCain, could well be the establishment candidate in the end. At the end of the George W. Bush era, Democrats will have a structural advantage in a “change” election, particularly if its candidate appears to personify change.
4) The issue landscape also continues to benefit Democrats. Much was made by pundits in recent weeks about declining public interest in Iraq, which was supposed to benefit Republicans by reducing the weight of that millstone around their necks. But aside from the fact that the Iraq War remains highly unpopular, with the two parties completely polarized on how to proceed in a way that favors Democrats, the emerging issues of the economy and health care probably favor Democrats nearly as much.
To sum it all up, the Iowa results provided a lot of good news for Democrats whether or not they support Barack Obama. At this admittedly early point, Democrats are united, change-oriented, highly attractive to independent and first-time voters, and favorably positioned on most key issues (with the arguable exception of immigration).
We’ll see how things shake out, but as a Democrat, I’m feelin’ pretty good at present.

Turns out my microexperience in Des Moines Precinct #19 was pretty representative of the Iowa Democratic Caucuses as a whole, at least in terms of the amazing turnout. The semi-final numbers showed 236,000 Democratic participants, nearly double the levels of 2004 (and about double the levels of Republicans tonight, who also exceeded expected turnout). Going into the Caucuses, people who said turnout might reach 200,000 were considered hallucinatory.
The Entrance Polls for the Democrats were quite interesting. Because they represent first rather than final preferences, they show HRC doing significantly better than Edwards, and Obama a bit below his final levels. Participation by independents was pretty much where it was in 2004 (about 20%), and though Obama won heavily among them, he also narrowly carried self-identified Democrats as well (and–mirable dictu–women). Despite the heavily left-bent nature of Edwards’ closing pitch, and the rapidly spreading stampede of progressive bloggers from Obama to Edwards on grounds that Obama was sounding like one of those damned centrists, Obama won decisively among those calling themselves “very liberal,” and by double digits among those calling themselves “somewhat liberal.” Meanwhile, Edwards romped among the small number of self-identifed conservatives, and his best income category by far was those earning more than $100,000.
The most astonishing entrance poll figure involves age: as high a percentage of Democratic Caucus participants (22%) were under 30 as were over 65. Since Obama won 57% in the former category and HRC won 45% in the latter, the relatively young age distribution was probably the single biggest factor in the outcome.

Returning from my own Caucus Adventure, I discovered that the deal had already gone down statewide, with Obama winning by a healthy seven percent over Clinton and Edwards, who basically tied, and Huckabee croaking Romney by a very surprising nine percent.
Haven’t seen anything about total turnout, but I’m guessing the Democratic turnout must have been very high. Going back to the key question about media spin that Chuck Todd discussed this morning, the gut-wrencher now is whether Clinton and Edwards are deemed as having tied for second, or one is adjudged as beating the other. This might, for example, be the difference between faint hope and extinction for Edwards, and if it goes the other way (as appears likely), the media hype over Clinton finishing last in the Big Three could be damaging if not deadly.
As for Huckabee–well, it will be most interesting to see what kind of post-Iowa bounce he gets in later states. Romney’s now on the ropes, and before long, we could have the strange spectacle of conventional conservatives flocking to John McCain.

The “persuasion period” in Precinct 19 is coming to a close, and since participants are literally scattered out of the room and into the lobby, even Edwards supporters are “lobbying.” There’s lots of cheering as people join the viiable groups. It looks a little like some sort of fraternity or sorority rush.
The final count: 156 for Obama. 78 for Edwards, and 69 for Clinton (a handful of Biden people refused to regroup with another candidate, so virtually nobody left between the first and second vote).
By simple math, Obama gets 4 delegates, Edwards 2 and Clinton 2. Thus, to be clear about how the statewide count works, in this precinct, Obama got 50%, and Edwards and Clinton each got 25%. Nothing else that happened here tonight counted.

Precinct 19 is relatively large, and thus elects eight delegates to the county convention (the actual object of the Caucuses). According to my best informant, another seasoned Iowa pro, projected turnout tonight was 179–based on an assumption of a statewide turnout of 150,000–and the official count is 319! A women near me said it looked like at least three times the number of folks who were here in 2004, which was itself a high turnout Caucus.
According to the arcane rules of the Caucuses, 48 votes will be necessary to establish a candidate as “viable” in the precinct. Supporters of non-viable candidates will regroup with viable candidates in a second preference round.
An initial show of hands seems to indicate that Edwards is close to the viability threshold, with Obama and Clinton well above it and the others well below it. The precinct captain is now trying to figure out how to physically separate the preference groups for the official count. Usually there’s enough space to let them go to different corners of the room. Not tonight.
HRC’s supporters are filing past me, and appear to be 90% female.

Obama won big in the first round with 138. Clinton at 60 and Edwards at 57 met the viability standard. Richardson was at 30, Biden at 23, Kucinich at 4, Dodd at 3, and 4 uncommitted. The precinct will now have thirty minutes for the campaigns of the viable candidates to make their pitches to the supporters of those who didn’t make the cut.

I’ve arrived at the Democratic Caucus for Des Moines Precinct #19, at Monroe Elementary School, in the Beaverdale neighborhood of the city, with my friend Mike Klosterman, a registered voter here. The room is already overpacked, and an adjoining precinct meeting in the same school has 500 people still in line. Everyone seems to be blown away by the attendance.
By total coincidence, this precinct is being worked by Jackie Norris, Obama’s state director (along with her husband, John, who ran Kerry’s 2004 Caucus campaign). But there are plenty of Edwards and HRC staffers here as well.
They’re doing the preliminary announcements right now, but people are still outside the door signing in. It’s pretty cool.