I’m blogging from the Polk County Convention Center, where the Results/Media center for the Iowa Caucuses has been established, and am getting used to the pre-chaos. Upon arriving in Des Moines earlier today, there were few if any signs that the whole hep political world was focused on this cold and windy city–other than, of course, the Ron Paul billboards and yard signs that you see across the country in that campaign’s odd tribute to the politics of the pre-electronic age.
Lunching with friends at Palmer’s, a popular near-downtown deli, I saw not a single political bumper sticker in the vast and packed parking lot. But sure enough, a bunch of cameras soon entered, and there amongst us was Ron Paul himself, surrounded by an entourage that appeared largely pre-voting age.
Here at the PCCC, I’ve seen Biden and Richardson wander in, presumably to do interviews, but the crowds are mainly media types warming up for the big event in a few hours. I saw one foreign TV reporter announce that there was a sense of electricity here in the convention center, which gave me a good laugh since I was at that moment searching in vain for a power outlet for my PC.
The few non-campaign-worker Iowans I’ve talked to since arriving have generally suggested that among Democrats, Edwards and Obama have had the Big Mo of late. But the more animated talk was about the ulltra-saturation level of ads and especially calls from all the campaigns. Politically-involved Iowans often approach Caucus Night with a mixed sense of relief and sadness, recognizing that the massive attention the state’s been receiving is about to evaporate for a long time. Today there doesn’t seem to be much sadness that the Circus is about to strike its tents and leave town.
If turnout tonight doesn’t meet the very high expectations most observers have set, I suspect campaign overkill may be to blame.
The closest I’ve come to an inside tip so far was from a local pol who noted that Obama is going to be holding his Caucus Night party at the same Hyvee Hall digs where Howard Dean’s infamous “Scream” took place four years ago. The acoustics, she said, are so atrocious there that Obama might be vulnerable to the same kind of incident if he tries to get heard in the room.
I’ll probably check in next from an actual precinct Caucus, assuming my wireless card cooperates.

Well, after what seems to have been an interminable period of time, the appointed day is finally here, and at least some actual voters will begin to have a say about the 2008 presidential nominations. And according to most expectations, that say will be concluded within about a month (a month and two days, to be exact).
In Iowa today, the weather will be clear, windy, and reasonably mild by that state’s winter standards, with high temperatures reaching 30 degrees this afternoon as the campaigns go through their final paces. The actual Caucuses begin at 7:00 p.m. CST, and results should begin pouring in by 8:00.
I’ll have a later dispatch from Des Moines, but for now, suggest you read Chuck Todd’s summary of what the MSM is going to say tonight based on the most likely scenarios in both parties. The most intriguing issue may turn out to be how a “victory” is defined on the Democratic side, as opposed to a “tie.”

The Des Moines Register poll of Democrats discussed in the staff post earlier today really just confirmed what’s been fairly obvious for a while: if the turnout is large and wide, Barack Obama will probably win. If it’s not, anything could happen. With time pretty much gone for any late trends (and the Register poll certainly confirmed my belief that the Bhutto assassination didn’t change anything), the shape of the playing field will likely determine the victor.
I know the numbers in the Register poll concerning participation by self-identified independents and first-time Caucus-goers are unprecedented, and therefore a bit hard to believe. But throughout 2007, all the signs pointed to exceptional interest in the Democratic as opposed to the Republican competition in Iowa. Given the state’s status as a purple state in general elections, a high turnout would be good news for Democrats regardless of the nominee.
In any event, all the speculation will soon be moot. I’ll be headed to Iowa soon to watch the Caucuses up close, and will make every effort to semi-live-blog from there on Caucus night.

I’m not sure I can remember the last time David Broder of the Washington Post broke a major political story. But it’s certainly appropriate that he was the first out of the gate with the news of a bipartisan cabal of Former Big Names who appear to be coalescing around a third-party presidential run by Michael Bloomberg next year.
In case you missed it, Bloomberg’s attending a meeting next Sunday, hosted by former sorta-Democratic Senator David Boren of Oklahoma, to discuss “bipartisan” options for 2008. Other past or present Democrats billed as part of the cabal include Chuck Robb, Alan Dixon and my old boss Sam Nunn. The two more surprising Democratic names on the attendance list are Gary Hart and Bob Graham. The one sitting elected official on the list is soon-to-retire Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel, with fellow GOPers John Danforth, Bill Brock, Jim Leach and Christine Todd Whitman.
According to Broder, the meeting is intended to send a signal to presidential candidates of both parties to immediately announce support for a National Unity Government or risk a Bloomberg run. So it should be understood as positioning Bloomberg and his wallet to offer the American people a High Broderist bipartisan option next November.
I pretty much agree with Digby’s take on the objective case for High Broderism, most obviously its fatuous assumption that the two parties are equally responsible for polarization and gridlock. I do not, however, share the popular progressive netroots view that big majorities of voters actually like polarization and want a lot more of it, or the corresponding theory that a Broderist option is so politically puny that Democrats should, as Digby puts it, “tune out” and ignore it. The massive and persistent wrong-track numbers represent something beyond a coalition of those who hate Republicans and those who are mad at Democrats for not fighting them enough. There are those who out of conviction, ignorance or simple fatigue might vote for a reasonable-sounding third option, and the billion smackers that Bloomberg is alleged to be willing to spend will buy you a whole lot of credibility.
In the end, a serious Bloomberg run may not materialize. And if it does, history suggests he wouldn’t come close to winning, and would hurt the Republican more than the Democratic ticket (third parties generally get more votes from major parties in decline, such as Democrats in 1968 and Republicans in 1992). But Democrats shouldn’t’ just laugh it all off, even if they justifiably laugh at Broder and his confederates.

Jim Geraghty makes a good if limited point about the Republican presidential Caucuses in Iowa at National Review today: anything other than a sound victory by Mike Huckabee will be heavily spinned by the campaigns and the news media in the effort to influence trends in NH and later states. And in those spin wars, Huckabee doesn’t have many friends. This, indeed, could represent the “revenge of the establishment” against Huckabee that so many observers have been expected.
But will Huckabee lose? He’s not running away with the contest in polls at this late date, and Mitt Romney’s reached near-maniacal levels of paid media in Iowa. But somehow or other, Huckabee’s managed to come up with the jack for a respectable TV campaign of his own, so he could well hang on for a win that would be difficult to spin away.

Yesterday, I briefly wrote about the highly debatable theory that the Bhutto assassination will greatly affect the Democratic presidential race, and J.P. Green briefly touched on it today. But I want to return to it now in a bit more detail, after appearing on the syndicated public radio show To the Point earlier today, where speculation was rampant that the Bhutto Factor will be the ball game for the Iowa Caucuses specifically.
To be clear, it’s all close enough among the Big Three candidates in Iowa that all sorts of factors–the weather, the impact of the final Des Moines Register poll, and most of all candidate “second-preference” deals–could be decisive, And in that respect, heavy news coverage of the Bhutto assassination and its aftermath, along with candidate interaction on the subject, could have a key impact as well. But as for the idea that the assassination has suddenly made foreign policy street cred and experience an overriding factor in Iowa–sorry, I just don’t buy it.
You have to remember that Iowans have been watching and listening to these candidates for about a year, many of them through personal contact, and hearing their pithy views on virtually every topic, foreign and domestic. Most likely caucus goers are not just now “tuning in” (unlike their counterparts in later states). Yes, they will be exposed to relatively heavy news coverage of events in Pakistan and the remarks of the candidate on same, but news coverage in Iowa will be dwarfed by paid campaign media (which has reached unprecedented levels this year), phone calls, door-to-door campaigning and personal lobbying from friends and family. There are also Iowans who will go to the Caucuses undecided, and will pick a candidate based on the dynamics (and campaign pleas) in the room.
In other words, it’s the last place on earth where tangential news-cycle developments are likely to play a really major role. And come to think of it, that’s the first good argument I’ve thought of for Iowa’s primacy in a good long while.

In the confused aftermath of the assassination of Benazir Bhutto, it didn’t take more than about five minutes for political media types to begin speculation about the potential impact of the event on the U.S. presidential contest. The staff of the Politico, unsurprisingly, had the most complete initial guesstimate on the subject, suggesting that Senate Armed Services Committee members Hillary Clinton and John McCain, full-time terrorism opportunist Rudy Giuliani, and maybe Senate Foreign Relations Committee chairman Joe Biden, would get a boost. The Politicos also reported that the “C.W. will say that the candidates most damaged will be Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee (R).”
As I type this, MSNBC has Joe Scarborough on arguing that Giuliani’s whole campaign might be revived by this development, and could fatally hurt Obama in the run-up to Iowa.
Not so fast, folks. We obviously don’t know what’s going to happen next in Pakistan. I understand that if Pakistan melts down in the next few days, at a time when the holidays limit other political news, it could get a lot more attention than would otherwise be the case. And I also understand that instability in the Greater Middle East might reinforce the campaign messages of those Democrats or Republicans who stress their foreign policy experience and/or anti-terrorist credentials.
But who really knows? International instability can reinforce both status quo and “change” sentiments, and the most proximate contest, in Iowa, features a small electorate that is probably more focused on the campaign unfolding right in front of it than on news events. But media interpretations of political trends have a way of becoming self-fulfilling prophecies, so how the candidates react in the next day or two could be very important.
No matter how it plays out, it’s really disgusting to watch the White House’s efforts to spin the Bhutto assassination as a vindication of its own anti-terrorism efforts. As Spencer Ackerman of TalkingPointsMemo reports in a conversation with Pakistan expert Barnett Rubin, the administration’s strategy was to promote a Bhutto/Musharraf “moderate” coalition after the January 8. That strategy is now “in tatters.”

In case it’s not obvious, The Daily Strategist is on a bit of a holiday hiaitus for a day or two, and to tell you the truth, it’s nice to go for an extended period of time without reading polls or pondering the fate that Iowans are planning for the rest of us. I wish everyone a blessed Xmas or holiday season, and a happy New Year.

Credit Matt Stoller of OpenLeft with one of the best one-liners in recent memory, in a post deriding wildly varying media assessments of the competence of various presidential campaigns: “At best, campaigns are garbage moving in the right direction.” Certainly anyone who thinks about it can remember reading assessments of ultimately disastrous nomination campaigns (e.g., Kennedy 1980 and Dean 2004) as brilliant and irresistable, and of successful nomination campaigns (e.g., Reagan 1980 and Kerry 2004) as disorganized and faction-ridden nightmares. (It’s also worth noting that the two Republican presidential campaigns that seem to be doing well right now, those of Huckabee and McCain, were both written off not long ago as completely inept and hopeless). And a lot of the excessively positive talk about specific campaigns is a function of campaign spin and the endless desire of the chattering classes to identify the Next Big Thing and Next Big Gurus in politics. The truth is, as Stoller suggests, that campaigns are a messy business full of guesswork and unintended consequences.
But I would issue one demurral about the current Democratic contest in Iowa. Best I can tell from talking to people with experience there, the Big Three candidates’ ground-level organizations are all exceptionally well-run by historical standards, benefitting from a lot of prior Caucus experience. But even so, guesswork and such accidents as the weather on January 3 may ultimately determine the outcome by confirming or rejecting the turnout models on which campaigns must inevitably rely.

If readers will allow me a moment of home-state parochialism, I want to note the passing of Tom Murphy, the Democratic Speaker of the Georgia House of Representatives for nearly thirty years (1974-2003).
Murphy first emerged as a factor in Georgia politics as House floor leader for the zany segregationist Governor Lester Maddox (whose chief of staff, BTW, was Murphy’s longtime rival Zell Miller), who wound up having a relatively progressive record despite his nutty right-wing rhetoric. As Speaker, Murphy’s career tracked the gradual evolution of the southern Democratic party from its conservative past to its eventual condition as a moderate biracial coalition.
But unlike such former Dixiecrat-types as George Wallace, he never had to apologize for racial demagoguery, and never abandoned the Democratic Party. Indeed, the one great constant of Murphy’s career was an inveterate hostility to the GOP.
Murphy finally lost his power, and his seat, when his once-rural West Georgia district (where most of my mother’s family still lives) became a Republican-trending Atlanta exurb, at about the same time that demographic changes finally flipped Georgia into the Republican column in state as well as national elections.
But Georgia resisted the region-wide GOP trend longer than any other state, electing Democratic governors and controlling the state legislature throughout the post-Civil Rights Act era, right up until 2002. It was no coincidence that this remarkable period in which Georgia Democrats defied the inevitable coincided with the Speakership of Tom Murphy. May he rest in peace.