David Yepsen of The Des Moines Register today recites all the indicators of a record Democratic turnout at the January 3 Iowa Caucuses, and guesses it will help Clinton and Obama, perhaps at the expense of Edwards. Meanwhile, signs of a less-than-impressive Republican turnout may help Mike Huckabee, who has the most motivated supporters.

Rich Lowry of National Review, who’s not a big fan of Mike Huckabee, did an interesting brief meditation today on the larger meaning of the Arkansan’s recent rise to relevance in the Republican presidential contest:

Remember how evangelicals had “matured”? Remember how the war on terror had replaced social issues? It shouldn’t be hard, since all those things were being said a couple of weeks ago (heck, still being said maybe even a few days ago). Part of what seems to be going on with the Huckabee surge is evangelicals sticking their thumbs in the eyes of the chattering class—we’re still here, we still matter, and we still care about our signature issues. Remember the lack of excitement in the Republican race, especially among dispirited social conservatives? Well, now there is some excitement, and it isn’t over free market economics or the war on terror, but a candidate who doesn’t speak compellingly about either of those things but instead about social issues. As a friend I was talking to a little earlier points out, the most important moment of the campaign so far came when a social conservative excited a social conservative audience—Huckabee with his “I come from you” speech at the “values summit.” This friend argues that the Huck surge makes it harder, not easier, for Rudy to win the nomination. Now that many evangelicals have a horse in this race, it would be very hard to tell them that not only will their guy not get the nomination, but they’ll have to settle for a pro-choicer. I don’t know about that, but Huck has certainly trashed about nine months-worth of conventional wisdom on the changing nature of social conservative voters.

This is probably a useful reminder of the source of Huckabee’s core vote for those progressives who view him as some sort of economic populist. In Iowa, at least, and probably nationally, Mike Huckabee’s “surge” is primarily a product of his success in remobilizing–and de-marginalizing–the Christian Right.

Tom Bevan of RealClearPolitics has an interesting take on the five biggest mistakes made in the presidential campaign up until now. One was Fred Thompson’s decision not to participate in the first GOP debate in NH, for which Granite State voters appear to be punishing him. A second was Mitt Romney’s failure to do his Big Religion Speech earlier in the cycle, making it now look like an act of desperation. A third was Hillary Clinton’s refusal to consider skipping Iowa, where she’s now in a difficult struggle that could destroy her national lead.
Bevan attributes a fourth and fifth big mistake to a single candidate, John McCain, for his notably unsuccessful “front-runner” strategy early in the race, and for his poor handling of the immigration issue.
20-20 hindsight is often easy, but now that voters are on the brink of finally weighing in, it is interesting to think about how the race might have been reshaped.

A staff post here yesterday mentioned an Iowa State University poll of likely Iowa caucus-goers that showed a relatively big lead for Hillary Clinton, along with a surprisingly poor third-place standing for Barack Obama. We noted that the polling data was a bit stale. But now, via Chris Bowers, we learn that the ISU poll also had a strange sample bias: self-identified independents were excluded. Since these voters are expected to provide about one-fifth of the Democratic Caucus participants, this is a pretty important distortion.
To be clear, no amount of indie love for Obama would enable him to overcome HRC’s 11-point lead in this poll, but it’s a good reminder that all polls are not created equal, even if their headlines get reported that way.

My post on Romney’s impending speech dealing with his Mormonism drew the ire of Ross Douthat at The Atlantic, who judged my suggestion that Mitt stress the successful LDS model of cultural conservatism as “exactly wrong.”
Douthat strongly subscribes to the theory that the most important reason for evangelical Christian hostility towards Mormonism is competitive pressure: Mormons “tend to offer a similar sociological appeal to religious seekers, and thus are in direct competition for converts.” Thus, he concludes, anything that reminds evangelicals of the similarity of that appeal to their own–much less that celebrates Mormon moral values–will horribly backfire.
Gee, I dunno. Douthat’s a lot closer to evangelical opinion than I am these days, but I suspect this competition factor is more prevalent among religious leaders than among the rank-and-file in the pews. But even if your typical Southern Baptists look at your typical Mormons and see zealous members of a rapidly-growing cult that’s stealing souls, they also inevitably see deeply conservative, godly folk who are renowned for clean living, patriotism, an intense devotion to family, and who dislike abortion, homosexuality and booze and drug use to a fault. You’d think that anything Mitt Romney could do to elevate the latter perception as opposed to the former would be helpful to the cause of conservative evangelical tolerance for Mormons, who after all, are comrades-in-arms in the larger fight against liberal Protestants and secularists.
If, on the other hand, I’m “exactly wrong” and Douthat is “exactly right,” then Mitt Romney is truly screwed. What is he supposed to say about his religion? He can’t do the JFK separation-of-church-and-state bit; he’s in the wrong party at the wrong time of history for that approach. He can’t educate evangelicals about the tenets of the LDS church; aside from being a complex endeavor, that would probably alarm listeners even more than their current vague suspicions about the Mormon “cult.” So if he also can’t even appeal to the deep cultural conservative consanguinity of Mormons with evangelicals, he might as well cancel the speech and hope for the best.

The release of a startling new National Intelligence Estimate showing that Iran shut down its nuclear weapons program in 2003 was a timely reminder that real-life events can trump politics. The document has clearly put the kibosh on the administration/neocon campaign to justify, if not execute, a preemptive military strike–perhaps in conjunction with Israel–on Iran. And the extreme irritation being expressed towards the report by such noted saber-rattlers as John Bolton and Norman Podheretz is as good a measure as any of its enormous impact.
The weird thing, of course, is that George W. Bush knew about this intelligence well before his inflammatory “World War III” remarks about Iran in October. This makes today’s spin effort by the White House to cite the report as a validation of the administration’s Iran policy especially laughable. More seriously, Bush’s decision to ignore as long as he could his own government’s best information on Iran is yet another blow to U.S. credibility around the world.
Aside from its impact on the administration, the intelligence estimate should have a salutory effect on the Republican presidential campaign, where discussion of military action against Iran has been (with the obvious exception of Ron Paul) kicked around as a matter of “when,” not “if.” It’s less clear that Iran will subside as an issue on the Democratic side, with the Edwards and Obama campaigns already citing the report as evidence that Hillary Clinton was again misled by Bush in voting for the Kyl-Lieberman resolution.
However it shakes out politically or diplomatically, the intelligence estimate clearly puts up a big roadblock on the path to preemptive war with Iran, and should lessen fears that Bush will be able to double-down on his Iraq disaster before he finally heads home to Crawford.

Gerald F. Seib’s Wall St. Journal column makes the case that the 45 percent of NH voters who are Independents are kingmakers. Nut graphs:

These independents, able under New Hampshire rules to vote for either party in the nation’s first primary on Jan. 8, may represent the most important group of voters in the land. They are likely to determine, among other things, whether John McCain’s candidacy can be revived, whether Barack Obama can sustain whatever momentum he gets out of Iowa’s caucuses, whether Mitt Romney actually is best-positioned to win the Republican nomination and whether Mike Huckabee’s rise in Iowa will turn out to be just a flash in the pan.
…Here’s why: Under New Hampshire’s rules, undeclared voters can show up on primary day and choose a party in which to vote. In essence, they can simply move to whichever primary looks more interesting or important.

Also in the WSJ, Jackie Calmes and Michael M. Phillips have a stats and quotes roundup making a persuasive case that the economy is now a/the top issue of concern to Americans heading into the holidays and the last month before primary mania grips the nation. Calmes and Phillips explain:

Fifty-two percent of Americans say the economy and health care are most important to them in choosing a president, compared with 34% who cite terrorism and social and moral issues, according to the latest Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll. That is the reverse of the percentages recorded just before the 2004 election. The poll also shows that voters see health care eclipsing the Iraq war for the first time as the issue most urgently requiring a new approach.

Edwards followers can take some heart from E. J. Dionne’s WaPo op-ed, limning a victory scenario for the N.C. populist going into his home stretch. Dionne’s key insight on how Edwards can outflank Clinton and Obama:

The Edwards campaign has a theory of how he can beat both of them. As Trippi sees it, Clinton has relied on support from less affluent voters, particularly women, who are especially engaged on economic questions.
Trippi argued in an interview that some of these soft Clinton voters could eventually move to Edwards because his message of economic populism and his background as a mill worker’s son will trump Clinton’s arguments that are based on her experience. Trippi claims to see “lots of potential” among “blue-collar women who are currently leaning her way.”

Dionne also quotes what may be Edwards’ most resonant and defining one-liner. “Standing before a large American flag, the former North Carolina senator insists that the country shouldn’t ‘trade a crowd of corporate Republicans for a crowd of corporate Democrats.'”

Many months after he had been urged to take this step, Mitt Romney is finally going to do his Big Religion Speech on Thursday, addressing his Mormonism in some manner or other.
He’s running the risk that The Speech will be interpreted as a panicky reaction to his Huckabee problem in Iowa, and more fundamentally, that talking about his faith will make exploitation of its more eccentric (to most Americans) features fair game on the campaign trail.
But he’s decided to do it, and has picked an interesting venue: The George H.W. Bush presidential library at Texas A&M, with Bush 41 himself performing the introduction. It’s in the same state where John F. Kennedy delivered his famous Big Religion Speech in 1960, though Romney hasn’t staged the kind of clever inquisitorial trappings JFK chose (a panel of evangelical Protestant ministers).
What’s not clear at this point is how Romney will approach the subject. He could take JFK’s tack of suggesting that his religion is an “accident of birth” that’s not germane to his public persona. He could try to educate voters about Mormonism (though his campaign has said he won’t do “Mormon 101”). Or he could, as he’s more or less done up until now, suggest that having a faith, any faith, is the issue, and stay completely vague about the content of his own faith.
If I were Romney, I’d go right at the conservative evangelical Protestant suspicions about Mormonism by stressing and restressing its culturally conservative teachings and practices, ignoring the Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith and formal theological issues altogether. Theology aside, Mormons could be perceived as evangelicals with a much better track record of worldly accomplishments and moral fidelity. And in many respects, the LDS church has built the sort of conservative commonwealth in Utah that many evangelicals dream of for the whole country. I happen to have a family member, a longtime Southern Baptist Deacon, who’s travelled to almost every corner of the world. The only place I ever heard him wax rhapsodic about was Salt Lake City. “It’s so clean!” he kept saying, reflecting a tanglble envy for what Mormons have wrought in comparison to the messy and hypocritical cultural milieus in which most evangelicals live.
But somehow I doubt that the Mittster, whose own native cultural milieu is the corporate boardroom, is capable of pulling off this sort of visceral appeal to people who think Mormonism is weird, but who wouldn’t have much of an argument with Mormonism’s more practical implications. So I’m guessing he’ll do a very abstract take on the importance of religion generally, suggest that anyone who questions his own faith is in alliance with godless liberal secularists, and then flee the podium, ever after dismissing the subject as something he’s already addressed down at Texas A&M.

Just in time to offset the negative buzz from the new Des Moines Register poll showing Barack Obama narrowly ahead of her in Iowa, two new polls came out today showing Hillary Clinton leading among likely caucus-goers in the state. A Pew/AP poll put her ahead of Obama 31%-26%, with Edwards trailing at 19%, and more strikingly, an Iowa State University poll had her with a comfortable 31%-24% lead over Edwards, with Obama third at 20%. Pew also showed Clinton as having robust leads in NH, SC and nationally.
But these two new polls of IA have to be reported with an asterisk: some of their data is a bit old. The ISU poll was conducted from November 6-18 (as compared with November 25-28 for the Register poll), while the Pew survey (see a discussion of the unusually long field range for this survey at Pollster.com) was run from November 7 until November 25.
On the Republican side, the ISU survey had Romney leading Huckabee 25%-22%, with the same asterisk. I’m sure that both Obama’s and Huckabee’s handlers will say the poll missed their candidates’ most recent surges.

We’re now one month out from the Iowa Caucuses, and it’s no longer possible to say it’s “too early” to get a handle on what may happen on January 3. That’s why yesterday’s new Des Moines Register poll of likely Democratic and Republican caucus-goers is worth a look. (Another reason is that Iowans pay a lot of attention to Caucus coverage by the Register; more than you might think in this post-print-media era. The Register‘s own candidate endorsements, likely to come out on the eve of the Caucuses, could actually matter, as evidenced by the boost the paper gave John Edwards in the Des Moines area in 2004).
The poll confirms Barack Obama (leading Clinton and Edwards 28-25-23) and Mike Huckabee (leading Mitt Romney 29-24) as the “candidates on the move” in Iowa. It also indicates that lower-tier candidates in both parties aren’t in a very good position to make a last-minute surge (among Democrats, Richardson’s stuck at 9% and Biden at 6%, and among Republicans, Giuliani, at 13%, is the only other double-digit candidate), at a time when caucus-goers are likely to begin firming up their preferences.
Typically, the Register isn’t very forthcoming in releasing internal poll findings, though sometimes they publish them later. According to a David Yepsen column, Obama’s now leading Clinton among women, and has apparently moved ahead of Edwards among those most likely to participate in the Caucuses. And another Register article tells us that on the Republican side, Romney’s more dependent than Huckabee on support from the younger voters who are traditionally least likely to show up.
Yepsen makes the obvious point that the unprecedented proximity of the Caucuses to the holidays could have an inhibiting effect on negative advertising. But the more salient fact is probably that a high percentage of Iowans will be spending a lot of time in front of the tube in the period between Christmas and January 3, and many will also be off work and at home to take or ignore campaign robo-calls.
Speaking of television, my favorite question in the Register poll asks likely Caucus-goers if they are “tempted” to stay home and watch the Kansas-Virginia Tech Orange Bowl game on the evening of January 3 instead of bundling up and discharging their civic obligations. Only 5% of Republicans and 4% of Democrats report that they are struggling with this decision, which would be a huge factor if an Iowa team was playing in Miami. Maybe regional solidarity will convince a few Iowans to watch the Jayhawks play, and you have to figure that Gov. Chet Culver, a former Hokie football player, will be casting a few glances at the scoreboard. But overall, it shouldn’t matter much.