My precinct in the People’s Republic of Ann Arbor is crazily Democratic–almost 80% Dem performance. When I went to vote at around 3:45, I was around the 279th person to vote, counting absentee ballots. And from the looks of things, about two thirds of those people cast a vote in the Democratic primary. Now, the fact that we had so many people turn out, two-thirds of whom voted in a meaningless election; that’s not a surprise (high Dem performance high turnout, that’s us!). It suggests there might be a chunk of "uncommitteds" after all–or even a surge for Kooch, who broke the rules and did a rally at UM yesterday (though it looks like other heavily Democratic parts of the state, and even some Republican ones, have very low turnout today). The number also suggests that roughly 10% of my precinct’s voters crossed over to vote in the Republican primary, or almost a third of those who voted Republican in my little corner of the Clusterfuck.

Meanwhile, from other little corners of the Clusterfuck that is MI’s primary, Michigan Messenger reported that McCain was a little bit shaky when greeting voters this morning, only to have McCain staffers freak out when they realized McCain’s health might become a campaign issue.

John McCain’s hands were shaking this morning as he greeted people (including this reporter) during a campaign stop at the Great Lakes Maritime Academy in Traverse City, raising questions as to whether the candidate is in good health.

[snip]

Campaign spokesman Brian Rogers, asked whether McCain is experiencing any health problems, said that the candidate is in fine health and "looking forward to a strong finish in Michigan today."

But moments later, another campaign worker called this reporter to follow up on the inquiry and asked repeatedly if Michigan Messenger was going to publish a story saying that McCain has health problems. The woman caller quickly became aggressive, asking to talk to an MM editor, suggesting McCain was shaking because he had come in from the cold (not the case) and saying she could send medical records to prove McCain’s clean bill of health. When asked for her name, she refused to give it.

Now, I frankly don’t put too much weight on one shaky campaign appearance–I mean, I’d be shaky if I had to keep the schedule these guys are keeping, and I’m not 71. That said, I have been wondering whether McCain might exhibit health issues–he has looked like shit for most of the last eight months and he has as much as said he would only serve one term if elected.

MI’s righty blogosphere seems more concerned about getting petition signatures to make Michigan–MICHIGAN–a right to work state than they do about their presidential candidates, which I find telling.

And that’s it–this Clusterfuck may make or break the Republican’s chance to have a long drawn out primary … and no one seems to care.

Update: I forgot to mention the most, um, interesting thing that happened in today’s Clusterfuck fun.

"I have opponents in this race who do not want to change the Constitution," Huckabee told a Michigan audience on Monday. "But I believe it’s a lot easier to change the Constitution than it would be to change the word of the living god. And that’s what we need to do — to amend the Constitution so it’s in God’s standards rather than try to change God’s standards so it lines up with some contemporary view."

See, no one may care about our Clusterfuck. But while no one is looking, Huck is working under the radar to change America into a theocracy.

I can tell you, it’ll sure be hard to sleep tonight as I ponder the possibilities of tomorrow’s MI Clusterfuck Primary. Polls show that Romney might just pull this out–and surprisingly, at least one of those polls says he’ll do so with Republican support.

“As the undecided voters make up their minds, more are turning to Mitt Romney than to John McCain. We have also seen the participation among Republicans increase from 62% last night to 75% at the end of phoning tonight. That means that 75% of the voters taking part in the GOP Primary identify themselves as Republicans,” Steve Mitchell, president of Mitchell Interactive said.

Rasmussen has a similar projection for the number of Republican primary voters who will be Republican. And the Free Press claims that 0% of Democrats polled said they’d vote a Republican ballot–a laughable number, IMO. If those numbers are correct, it may mean "Uncommitted" will have a come from behind victory on the Democratic side as more Democrats listen to party leadership and decide to vote in the meaningless Democratic primary. I’d actually be thrilled with an "Uncommitted" victory in MI–it describes how I’m feeling right now perfectly. But like said, the 0% is a laughable number.

But what I’m really looking forward to is for Joe Lieberman and John McCain to stop spamming me (or rather, some Republican named Margaret) with robocalls and junk mail. McCain is even doing an event in Washtenaw County, a sure-fire sign he thinks Democrats might put him over the edge again. Though why he believes Lieberman is going to help make that case, I don’t know.

I still have gotten a robocall from Huck yet, which was the only reason I would cross-over to vote for Mitt. There’s still time yet, but for now, I’m hoping our clusterfuck ends in the only logical fashion: uncommitted.

This is something I’ve been meaning to raise, what with all the discussion of the Tweety effect.

One of the reasons Tweety is being such a blowhard this campaign season (aside from the fact that it prominently features someone named Clinton), one of the reasons he’s saying such godforsakenly stupid things is that he’s crying for attention. Watch Tweety’s body language during the next primary night coverage: particularly as Olbermann plays ringmaster to MSNBC’s circus. From time to time you’ll see Tweety wince, and that’s usually right before he opens his mouth and a bunch of crap starts bubbling out, just as Olbermann is trying to cut away to someone who has actual news to report.

This election appears to be the moment when Olbermann takes on the position of lead within the NBC news staff: ahead of Brokaw, ahead of Russert (whose credibility has taken some hits of late), and ahead of Tweety. He’s the anchorman of the campaign news coverage. And that appears to be driving Tweety nuts.

Which is why this tidbit makes so much sense to me (h/t TP):

[Olbermann] seems to be doing well for himself in the office now. Tullis cites a senior executive at MSNBC, who says, "Keith runs MSNBC. It’s been an amazing turnaround, because two years ago they were going to cancel him. Because of his success, he’s in charge. Chris Matthews is infuriated by it."

I can’t decide who threatens Tweety’s sense of his own self-worth more: Keith Olbermann or Hillary Clinton. But the combination of the two of them together in election coverage is driving the man absolutely nuts.

Yesterday I said there were no MI polls. Well, now there are two, which still support my clusterfuck analysis, but also suggest that the Mitten might finish off Mitt. Here are the two polls:

Rossman Group/MIRS/Denno-Noor
January 6 and 7, MOE 5.8%

Huck 23%
Mitt 22%
McCain 18%
Rudy 8%
Frederick of Hollywood 4%
Paul 3%
Hunter 1%
Uncommitted 13%
Unsure 7%

Hillary 48%
Kooch 3%
Gravel 1%
Uncommitted 28%
Unsure 11%
Other 10%

Strategic Vision
January 4-6, MOE 4%

John McCain 29%
Mitt Romney 20%
Mike Huckabee 18%
Rudy Giuliani 13%
Fred Thompson 5%
Ron Paul 5%
Duncan Hunter 1%
Undecided 9%

So let’s start with the Democrats (only MIRS polled Dems). The poll was pre-NH, so you might assume that Hillary would pick up a bit for her NH victory, which might put her over 50%. However, state pols have really just started their campaigns to get Dems to vote uncommitted, including the rather amusingly named, Detroiters for Uncommitted Voters and radio ads from Congressman Conyers. As more people realize what "uncommitted" means, Hillary may well lose some points to … no one. What I’m most interested in with the MIRS is the 10% who voted "other," which is what I’d answer if I were given a Democratic ballot and asked who I planned to vote for if I planned to cross-over and add to the Republican clusterfuck. In other words, I take this poll to suggest, very very very roughly, that the Republicans might be hosting at least 10% of self-identified Democrats. Though of course, who they’ll vote for is anyone’s guess.

Onto the Republican clusterfuck. After Iowa but before NH, Strategic Vision has McCain winning, Romney and Huck tied, and Rudy getting more votes than he got anywhere else. That pretty much reflects one real change since mid-December (in a different poll), McCain gaining 20 points over Christmas, yet before his NH win. The poll included "700 Republican primary voters," but it doesn’t say whether that means 700 Republicans who plan to vote in the primary, or 700 people who say they plan to vote in the Republican primary. If it’s the latter, it might explain the huge McCain surge…

But then MIRS shows Huckabee ahead, perhaps a delayed surge resulting form his Iowa win (I guess it takes Republicans two or three days to actually read the leading news). In the MIRS poll, Huckabee is winning MI, with the two people who (until yesterday) were the only two contestants coming a very close second and third, but with McCain solidly third. MIRS appears to have separated people by party before asking them who they’d vote for, so presumably this may reflect an absence of any Democratic cross-overs.

Now, presumably, McCain has picked up some support from his win the other night (though, as a potential front-runner, will he lose cross-over voters trying to mess with the Republicans??). So if I had to guess, I’d favor him to win this primary, though either of the other two still have a shot.

But that doesn’t change the most important detail from this polling:

If Huck exceeds expectations–even marginally–then he can probably knock Mitt out of the race. Huck has a real possibility of bumping Mitt to third place in his Daddy’s state, which I gotta believe would chase him from the race.

And then we’d be left with Huck versus McCain. A Baptist preacher who will chase away the corporatists versus a war-monger who will chase away the nativists and evangelicals. While I think either Huck or McCain may do well in the General election (I’d rather be running against Mitt), I think a two-way contest between Huck and McCain has the real potential to cause the GOP a while lot of angst between now and whenever they do get to the General.

I gotta believe that Huck looked at this polling and realized he had the ability to hit Mitt with a real body blow, taking out the one other guy who can appeal to the values voters. Which makes this very interesting indeed.

I’m not the only one calling MI’s primary next week a clusterfuck–one of the state’s top Dem consultants, Mark Grebner, thinks so too, though he doesn’t use the word clusterfuck:

Of course, we may get lucky, but that’s not really "a plan". With Clinton bouncing back tonight in NH, it’s plausible that she and Obama will go round after round, with neither scoring a knockout.

Imagine next that Michigan’s "primary" results in a Clinton landslide on January 15, caused mainly because the opposition will be confused and splintered by the available options. I don’t know whether that will happen, but it may.

The consequence might be that Michigan’s would-be delegation would prove critical to forming a majority. Not at the Convention, most likely, but during the wheeling and dealing phase that leads up to it, as the two sides struggle to assemble a majority.

If this comes to pass, the fight will be between Clinton’s effort to seat Michigan, and Obama’s struggle to uphold the DNC sanctions. One side extending pseudo-grace and forgiveness to our transgressions, while the other side asks in pseudo-good-faith, why he should be punished for complying with the DNC’s rules and following their instructions.

[snip]

My question is: is there some reason this can’t happen?

I’m marginally less worried than Grebner is about the Democratic side (though trust me–he’s a lot smarter about MI politics), mostly because I’m taking naive solace in the fact that "uncommitted" will appear on ballots, meaning Edwards and Obama supporters won’t have to navigate what would be effectively a write-in vote, but with a legally significant word, to support their candidate. That doesn’t mean Democratic voters won’t choose to vote in the Republican primary, doesn’t mean that those cross-over voters won’t be decisive as they were in 2000 for McCain, and doesn’t mean either party will get a real read of the support for its various candidates from the clusterfuck. It just means that Hillary will win by a smaller landslide (hey–with both Edwards and Obama supporters voting on the same line, who knows?), which will make the clusterfuck imagined by Grebner slightly less severe, though still a real possibility.

Me, I’m more intrigued by the way that Michigan’s clusterfuck may begin to set off a larger clusterfuck for Republicans. There has been no polling in Michigan since mid-December, and in that poll Huck scored remarkably well. I can imagine that a wingnut populist might appeal to Michigan’s depressed Reagan Democrats, to say nothing of the Dutch Reform Christians who run the Republican party in the western part of the state. In any case, Huck just announced he will send some bodies here before South Carolina, in which he promises to do very well.

So we won’t just get the Romney (son of a former popular MI governor) and McCain (beat Bush here in 2000) head-to-head I had imagined. Though in that presumed contest we are already seeing some sour grapes that have been rotting since 2000, with the spokesman for former Governor Engler (whose failure to deliver the state in 2000 lost him an opportunity to serve in Bush’s cabinet) predicting demise for McCain.

"I think McCain will have a good showing, but if he doesn’t win, this could almost be it for him," said John Truscott, a Republican consultant and spokesman for former Michigan Gov. John Engler.

Rather, we’ll have all three reasonably viable Republican candidates, competing in a very very weird vote that will be even less predictable than last night’s Democratic primary in NH.

Which is why I find this statement from Ricky "Man on Dog" Santorum so remarkable.

Former Senator Rick Santorum said the results were the latest indication that Republicans were in for an epic battle among a field of imperfect candidates for the party’s conservative base.

“It comes back to, O.K., Romney can’t win, Huckabee can’t win, McCain can’t win, Giuliani can’t win — the dynamic is you have a bunch of candidates who can’t win,” Mr. Santorum said. “I don’t see how we don’t come down to a convention that is going to decide this thing.”

Here’s the thing–I think Romney, McCain, and Huck are all viable in MI; it’ll be the first state (and the only one before Florida) where it’ll be a three-way race among all these candidates "who can’t win." But it’s going to be a very weird vote, with one week, no polling, high costs, and the whole cross-over thing, to confuse the issue. I suspect McCain will win, but I also suspect this primary may end up stumping the pundits even more than Hillary’s win last night did, even as it takes on unexpected importance.

Which makes it very possible it will elicit more comments like Man on Dog Santorum, with people already–after just the second or third state–predicting a brokered convention and hoping (presumably) for some nationally viable candidate to save the poor GOP from the clusterfuck it’s heading towards.

Or maybe Man on Dog Santorum is just seeding that possibility, believing he would be any more of a savior for his party than any of these nutcases are.

Jack Balkin gets at something I was trying to address the other day: the collapse of Reagan’s three-legged stool and its benefits for the Democratic party.

Bush’s failed presidency has left the Republicans scrambling to reconstitute the Reagan coalition. The wide range of different candidates– from Giuliani to Romney to McCain to Huckabee to Paul– offer different solutions. We don’t yet know how the coalition will be reassembled, and under whose leadership. However, as of the day of the New Hampshire primary, it looks like putting it back together will be a tall order. And although the eventual nominee will try to assume the mantle of Ronald Reagan– and, equally important, not the mantle of George W. Bush– the Republican party will have been changed forever by the events of the last eight years.

[snip]

And that is why, if, like many Americans, you think that change is coming, and you think that this is a good thing, you should tip your hat to George W. Bush and his eventful presidency. For if Ronald Reagan was the Great Communicator, George W. Bush is the Great Destroyer of Coalitions.

We don’t know for sure how this is going to turn out–but the sheer unpredictability of the Republican side of this primary is testament that something new is afoot. (Though why do people keep pretending that neither Michigan nor Nevada have primaries coming up on the same day or before the South Carolina primary?) If I had to bet, I’d bet either that Romney gets the nod but that the Republican bigots stay home, or that Huck gets the nomination which results in a lot of what I called the "competence corporatists" heavily supporting Dems. In either case, resulting in low Republican turnout and, barring Cheney pulling OBL out of a hole or something similar, a comfortable Dem win.

What makes Balkin’s post worth reading, though, is the way he ties this into Bush the failure.

If 2008 turns out to be a pivotal election, defining a new political era, it is important to give credit where credit is due. Two key reasons for the change will be the crackup of the coalition of the dominant party of the era, the Republicans, and the almost complete political failure of George W. Bush and his chief political adviser, Karl Rove. Let me begin with the second reason, and then move to the first.

The Bush/Rove strategy of accentuating divisions along partisan lines was a bold gamble that ultimately failed, because it depended on the Bush presidency being successful. Think of it this way: If Bush does well at his task, then people at the margins gravitate toward the winning side and the Republican coalition slowly expands over time, rejuvenating the party and producing a post-Reagan vision (organized, for example, around the War on Terror and the opportunity society) that extends well into the future. But if Bush does badly, or as it turned out, very badly, the same strategy that encourages increased partisanship and divisiveness will tend to make Americans believe that these features of political life are also the cause of political failure. They will seek both change and a sense of unity. This is precisely what Obama has tapped into, which is why he has been successful so far. Obama, if you will, is what Bush’s strategy has produced.

That is, Bush and Rove’s strategy to implement the permanent Republican majority would only work if it could get results. And because it was such a resounding failure (and more importantly, will lead to the US’ most ignominious defeat), it will discredit the Republican party for some time.

But I’d go one step further. This was bound to happen. That’s not only because the Republican coalition had irresolvable conflicts that were bound to come into conflict when, for example, all the jobs went overseas or when, for example, the Reagan Democrats’ children started dying in large numbers in a pointless war. But that’s also because the Republican ideology requires the government to be a failure (well, and because contracting out government will inevitably lead to the same kind of corruption that does in all single-party states). Bush had to fail at the Katrina recovery, both because his crony capitalist friends had no interest in rebuilding African-American homes in NOLA, and also because if Katrina recovery had succeeded, it would have undermined the Republican ideological truism that government is never the best entity to get something done, not even (it appears the Republicans now believe) in waging war.

Maybe I’m overly optimistic about the larger tea leaves for this election. But it sure seems like the opposition to Bush has resulted in more than just an anti-war movement that will help Dems win larger majorities in Congress. It may well bring about a serious realignment by finally knocking Reagan’s stool out from under those who have been balancing precariously on top of it for the last twenty years.

Let me start this post by throwing out some assertions.

• The most interesting question about New Hampshire, IMO, is not whether Obama beats Hillary or whether Mitt survives against McCain. It’s whether Obama has a greater draw over Independents than McCain, which thereby deprives McCain of any victory there.
• In her very gracious concession speech the other night, Hillary seemed genuinely thrilled by the huge Democratic/female/youth turnout (even after bitching about Obama’s direct appeal to "out-of-state" students for several weeks beforehand), even as she seemed to be recognizing how failed her strategy in Iowa had been.
• Mitt Romney won handful of delegates today, and regardless of what happens in NH, will go onto MI, a state where several buildings in Lansing bear his Daddy’s name, to compete against a guy who had a huge victory here in 2000.

All of which is my preface to saying that the pundits are (for the most part) dealing with a much too flat conception of what this primary is going to look like, seeing only the intra-party competition, and they’re not seeing that we’re already thick into a competition between the two parties that may well have real ramifications for the outcome.

That said, let me go back to the beginning and explain what I mean. The press has largely assumed that McCain, the "maverick" who won in NH in 2000, stands to be the non-Mitt there this year. That assumes, of course, that the Independents (and even the Republicans) who turned out for McCain in 2000 will turn out for him again and it assumes that McCain’s prime contestant is Mitt. Now, ignore the fact that NH is a pretty solidly anti-war state and McCain is up there threatening a hundred year presence in Iraq. The bulk of the press still seems to be ignoring an unstated contest between Obama and McCain for Independents. Chris Bowers reads it right, IMO, when he suggests,

No momentum for McCain and Huckabee whatsoever. Obama is sucking up all the air right now, and probably the New Hampshire independents that McCain needed.

If Bowers is right, it suggests another dynamic that Iowa, at least seems to suggest and these poll results seem to support. The entire makeup of parties has changed this year, created by two factors. First, there’s Obama’s ability to attract both voters whom conventional wisdom has written off (youth and women) and cross-over voters in large numbers. His ability to draw cross-over voters means you can’t look at NH without wondering how Obama and McCain will compete, and only against that backdrop do you get to the competition between Mitt and McCain.

As for Hillary’s concession speech–I thought it was more fascinating than Obama’s truly awesome speech. That’s partly because Hillary was so damn gracious; as I’ve said elsewhere, it was one of the first times that I felt Hillary was a member of the same Democratic party I am, and that she cares about the party more than Hillary.

I suspect that message came from the realization–as she saw the returns come in–that Obama’s success at bringing out voters (both the traditionally low turnout youth and women, and Independents and some Republicans) has completely changed all the assumptions about this race. Hillary would have nearly tied Obama had her assumptions about politics held true (32 to 31 percent of the vote). But the difference was enough to give Obama a commanding lead–eight points–in one of the purportedly tight swing states that will determine the Presidential election. And huge huge numbers. I suspect Hillary may recognize that she doesn’t have the time to recalibrate to factor for this completely redefined conventional wisdom, but I also suspect that she has grudgingly recognized that Obama may well be able to deliver a resounding victory for the Democrats in a way that will make a difference for the good part of a generation.

But Obama’s success is not the only thing that has completely overturned conventional wisdom. The splitting of the three-legged stool that has, in conventional wisdom, made up the Republican party, has also utterly overturned conventional wisdom. Digby explains,

What we are seeing is the three legs of the conservative stool fighting for supremacy: Romney from the money wing, McCain (or Rudy) from the hawk wing and Huck from the God wing. The first two are part of the political establishment and rely on it for guidance. Up until now, the God wing did too. But now they have one of their own and they really don’t need the permission of the money boyz or the hawks to vote for him. And they sure don’t care what the pointy headed TV gasbags think about it.

Huckabee won big last night with no money and no organization. Maybe he can’t replicate it anywhere else. But I think he might. The religious right is the biggest single voting bloc in the GOP — the people they cultivated and trained to vote en masse for the Republicans. They have a very specific agenda of social issues that they care about and understand very well. They are true believers. And they are the only constituency in the party who actually likes their candidate and feels inspired by him. He’s one of them. I think he can win it and win it in spite of the many unforced errors he’s bound to make. His followers just don’t care about stuff like that. Unless he suddenly goes soft on abortion or gay rights or one of their signature issues, he’s got them.

I’d add a few more points to that. First, depending on how you classify Ron Paul, arguably 45% of Iowa’s Republicans rejected the kind of corporate cronyism that has become the hallmark of the Republican party. In fact, I’m not really sure the corporatists are even still in the Republican party. Add in the fact that 60% of Huckabee’s voters were Evangelicals, and I think it’s possible that the remaining legs of the Republican party have either gone elsewhere (many of them–probably the corporatists–to Obama) or stayed home. While I’m sure Bush’s remaining supporters will vote for a hawk like Giuliani or McCain, there really don’t appear to be that many of them left–or at least, they don’t appear energetic enough to haul their ass to a caucus to vote. And I sincerely wonder how many of the party’s corporatists will remain loyal if and when Huckabee wins a few more primaries.

Understand. I think the Republicans may have lost the corporatists for two reasons. I see corporatists as divided into two kinds of people. The vast majority are simply in favor of the kind of brutal efficacy and competence that capitalism supposedly requires. And those corporatists are increasingly dismayed and disgusted with the rank incompetence of the Republican party. They’re going to vote, but they’re going to vote for someone who looks competent, and if they have a choice between Obama and Mitt, I’m not sure they won’t pick Obama. (The same is largely true if they had to pick between Hillary and Mitt.)

In addition to the efficacy and competence corporatists, there are the cronyists–the people who love love love the fact that Bush has sole-sourced contracts out to corporate cronies and gotten rank incompetence in return for emptying the nation’s treasury. I think Giuliani, to some degree Mitt, and Huckabee have something to offer these people, at least so long as Huckabee’s nationally-televised speeches are as devoid of populist ideology as his victory speech was on Thursday night. But the thing is–there simply aren’t that many of these people; they’re the business owners who have managed to suck the teat of Republican generosity without yet being tainted by scandal. And if the media and the horrified Republicans continue to paint Huckabee as a populist, I’m not sure the crony corporatists won’t stay home, particularly if the near-fascist Giuliani continues to crash and burn.

Digby is right on (big surprise, I know) in her depiction of the revolt of the Christian Conservatives. But I would add that they party seems to be hemorrhaging a significant number of its corporatists as well. Perhaps just for this election, perhaps for a longer prior, that three-legged stool no longer exists, and all the pundits working with that as their base assumption are likely to be off in their predictions.

Meanwhile, the coverage is virtually ignoring the role of Wyoming and Michigan in affecting the dynamics of the GOP race. How many of you have been watching today as Wyoming assigns fourteen delegates to Republicans, four so far to Romney and one to Duncan Hunter? [Updpate: Last count, Romney took 8 delegates.] Romney looks set to pick up as many delegates in Wyoming as are available in New Hampshire. And even assuming McCain wins New Hampshire (which I’m not assuming), I couldn’t begin to tell you what will happen in Michigan’s primary the following week. Like Wyoming, Michigan has lost half its Republican delegates, but that still leaves it with 30 and still makes it the biggest state to vote thus far. From what I’ve heard, the party has been pushing Mitt for some time–and that might work in this state, where lots of public buildings bear daddy Romney’s name. But it’s also a state in which McCain scored a big victory in 2000. And who knows what Michigan’s own brand of wingnut Christian Conservatives will do? Huck might bring Chuck Norris around and score a chunk of delegates to recoup the lead heading into South Carolina. Finally, I can’t even predict what Michigan’s Democrats will do. Hillary is the only viable candidate on the ballot; so will Dems vote for her, take the initiative to vote "uncommitted," or cross over a wreak havoc like we did in 2000? All of these complexities (and the 42 delegates no one seems to be talking about) come before South Carolina and another forgotten GOP primary–the heavily Mormon Nevada.

All of which is to say that I think the assumptions of many, if not most, of those doing the punditing are questionable if not already proven wrong. I don’t think Mitt is out if he loses NH, because he’s got two winnable states with a lot more delegates even assuming Huckabee romps in SC. At the same time, aside from some heavily Mormon states, I’m not sure how many corporatists are still going to vote for the GOP this time around. So it may well be that Huckabee wins big in a party that only commands the support of a small fraction of the country.

Many of you no doubt disagree. But I’m not crying about an Obama victory (then again, I wouldn’t have been crying about an Edwards or Clinton win, either).

But here are the details that I think are most important.

Crazy, record turnout–reportedly well over 200,000. And reportedly, perhaps two-to-one for Dems, compared to the Republicans.

Crazy, record turnout among youth.

Crazy, record turnout among women (MSNBC just announced that Obama actually beat Hillary among women).

I don’t care who you support–this crazy record turnout is nothing but a huge win for Democrats.

(Four years later and I still sound like goddamned Howard Dean, bless his soul.)

And among Republicans? Some 45% voted against corporatist America. Add that to Edwards’ turnout, and you’ve got a solid majority sick of government by the corporation, for the corporation…

Update: One more point. It’s been decades since I took a math class. But by my calculations, 29% of 220,000 (Hillary’s results) is significantly more than 34% of 120,000 (Huck’s results), right? If my math is correct, we just elected three Presidents to one for the Republicans.

There’s been some hand-wringing among Democrats about the New Year’s Eve Des Moines Register poll, which showed Obama polling 32% of the vote with strong support from a surprising (and arguably unrealistic) number of Independents participating in the caucus. The WaPo did an entire article suggesting Obama may win the caucus because he’s got cross-over appeal.

The senator from Illinois received a jolt of momentum late New Year’s Eve, when the Des Moines Register’s final Iowa poll showed him leading Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) by 32 percent to 25 percent, with former senator John Edwards (N.C.) at 24 percent. But just as striking were two findings that suggest Obama may be succeeding at one of the riskiest gambits of his Iowa campaign, an aggressive push to persuade non-Democrats to participate.

The survey found that more newcomers than regular participants could turn out on Thursday: Overall, 40 percent of likely Democratic caucusgoers identified themselves as independents, the poll said, double the percentage from 2004, and 60 percent said they would be attending a caucus for the first time. Both groups preferred Obama.

[snip]

Chief Clinton strategist Mark Penn disputed the poll, calling the Register’s turnout model "unprecedented" and "out of sync with other polling done in the race," including several recent surveys that showed a statistical dead heat. Edwards spokesman Eric Schultz called the Register model "at odds with history."

And folks in left blogtopia (h/t Skippy) now wonder whether, if Obama succeeds, it will constitute a sabotage of the Democratic process.

Perhaps it’s because I live in Michigan, where in 2000 a bunch of Democrats voted in the Republican primary to keep McCain in the Republican primary for another couple of days, and where the NRA played a significant role in giving John Dingell the win over Lynn Rivers in a heated 2002 might-as-well-be-the-General-election primary battle. But I’m not so bugged about Independents and even Republicans crossing over to vote in Iowa’s Democratic caucuses. In the case of Iowa, if they’re willing to give up what would be more significant input into the Republican nomination to vote for Obama, so be it.

I think there’s fairly compelling evidence that whatever Independents and Republicans caucus for Obama tomorrow night are casting a vote for Obama and not necessarily for chaos in the Democratic nomination. Recall, for example, the July-August poll that showed Obama polling third among Republicans.

In late July and early August, Iowa Republican voters were asked to name their choice for president in a University of Iowa poll. Mitt Romney, who leads most Iowa surveys, got 22 percent of the total. Rudy Giuliani came in second with 10 percent. But third place went to a Democrat, Barack Obama, who got nearly 7 percent — more than Mike Huckabee, John McCain and Sam Brownback combined.

Not to worry: The Obama campaign isn’t likely to join the Grand Old Party, and pollsters are convinced that Obama has exactly zero chance of winning the Republican caucus in Iowa. But something is going on. "I don’t want to make too much of it," says David Redlawsk, the professor who commissioned the poll. "But I do think that the message Obama is putting out right now is the most likely to reach across party lines."

The numbers from the Des Moines Register poll (showing 5% of likely Democratic caucus-goers to be Republicans) seem fairly realistic when matched against Obama’s 7% support among Republicans in August. And when you consider that, during the same time frame when Obama was polling third among Republicans, the leading GOP candidate was "none of the above." This is going to be a weird primary season, because there simply isn’t a GOP candidate who can carry off what Bush did in 2000, uniting (in however cosmetic a fashion) all the disparate ideologies among Republicans. Every single GOP candidate will, for some reason, offend an important Republican constituency. Which means  Republicans probably still largely prefer "none of the above" to anyone they’ve currently got running.  

That said, I’m not sure Obama’s efforts to go for Independents will succeed.  Penn and Schultz are right in saying the DMR poll defies all recent history. Obama’s depending on turning out youth, first-timers, and Independents to vote for him, which people often try to do in Iowa but few succeed, particularly not when caucus night looks like it’ll feature sub-zero wind chills.

But the whole Democratic primary (which may well go on for several weeks, given the three-way tie we’ve apparently got now) is going to be significantly impacted by the fact that a lot of people hate Republicans and even those who like Republicans in theory don’t like these Republicans.  

A number of people have pointed to Charlie Savage’s great article on the responses of Presidential candidates to a bunch of questions about executive power. I’m really glad Savage asked these questions, as I’ve presented forms of these questions (specifically as it related to the underpinnings of Bush’s illegal wiretap program, which was put into place under Bill Clinton) to Hillary’s campaign and gotten no response.

That said, most of the questions either explicitly or implicitly ask candidates whether they repudiate certain of Bush’s acts, so I’m not sure they help Democratic voters distinguish between primary candidates. The exception is the question on Executive Privilege. Here are the Democrats’ answers on the the question addressing executive privilege.

Does executive privilege cover testimony or documents about decision-making within the executive branch not involving confidential advice communicated to the president himself?

Obama

With respect to the “core” of executive privilege, the Supreme Court has not resolved this question, and reasonable people have debated it. My view is that executive privilege generally depends on the involvement of the President and the White House.

Hillary

I fundamentally believe that our constitutional system depends upon each branch striving to accommodate the interests of the other, and the President should seek to accommodate legitimate congressional requests for information. I also believe in an open transparent government that fulfills its obligation to share as much information as possible with the public. But it is settled law that certain limited "communications made by presidential advisors in the course of preparing advice for the President, come under the presidential communications privilege, even when these communications are not made directly to the President."

Edwards

I support the constitutional separation of powers and the doctrine of executive privilege, as guided by judicial review. Unlike the current president, however, I will not invoke executive privilege merely to advance partisan ends.

Richardson

Privilege may extend to the Senior Staff in rare cases where frank and open discussion happens prior to advising the President. Other than that-no.

Dodd

No.

Biden

No. The Executive Privilege only covers communications between the President and his advisors. Even when the privilege does apply, it is not absolute; it may be outweighed by the public’s interest in the fair administration of justice.

Kudos to Dodd for his brevity.

I find this question really telling because it gets candidates on the record on an issue that speaks not only to Presidential privilege, but to openness more generally. To some degree, Hillary is bound by the positions adopted by her husband while he was President–and I suspect that’s one of the reasons Hillary holds that "it is settled law that … communications made by presidential advisors … come under the presidential communications privilege, even when these communications are not made directly to the President." Compare that to Obama’s statement, which argues that SCOTUS "has not resolved this question." Or the more exact statements of Biden and Richardson, which reflect the pre-Bush reality of a limited executive privilege that was being pushed to include senior advisors.

In any case, I think the answers delineate a clear distinction among the top three candidates. Edwards makes what I believe to be a dangerous argument, that the President
can choose to invoke Executive Privilege for partisan ends; if he were elected, we’d basically be relying on his judgment to determine what constituted a partisan end of executive privilege and what did not. Hillary claims to support openness, but at the same time makes a firm stand in favor of the legal authority to exercise broad privilege. Whereas Obama admits a legal dispute, but chooses to go on the record in favor of a more narrow definition than legal debates might allow.