What is the point of having a blog, really, if you are not allowed from time to time to vent a personal grievance? No point, you say? I quite agree.

I am a born-again Apple devotee and recidivist iPhone-fondler. However, I am disturbed by a couple of recent developments in the Apple product line, and want to see these errors corrected. I believe I am not alone.

(more…)

Obama won big. Last week I pointed to an interesting article by Jay Cost which argued against the idea that Obama had already built unstoppable momentum, and showed that demographics could account for his recent run of successes, leaving Texas and Ohio as likely wins for Hillary. Jay’s update on Wisconsin is worth reading. If it is right, the news is bad for Hillary.

Hillary Clinton suffered a stinging blow last night, losing Wisconsin by 15 points. What is worrisome for her is that Obama seems to have broken into several of her core voting groups. This is the first real evidence of momentum we have seen on the Democratic side.

After the Potomac Primary last week, some argued that Obama had already begun to build momentum because of his large victories in Maryland, Virginia, and the District of Columbia. I thought this talk was hasty. Given the large number of African American voters in each contest, and given that white voters in all three primaries were quite wealthy - Obama’s sizeable victories did not come as a surprise. In particular, 39% of all Maryland Democrats and 39% of all Virginia Democrats claimed to make $100,000 or more per year. So, it is hard to argue that Obama’s success among whites was due to him peeling off portions of the Clinton coalition. What seems more likely is that he won handily because his best voting blocs were in good supply that day.

The same cannot be said for Wisconsin. Just 20% of Wisconsin Democratic voters claimed to make $100,000 or more per year. So, there is strong evidence that, at least last night, Obama expanded his voting coalition. Consider the following chart, which uses the exit polls to review Obama’s margin of victory with key groups in the non-southern states in comparison to his performance with those same groups in Wisconsin last night.

So, for instance, Obama won white males in the non-South by 8 points prior to the Potomac Primary. Last night, he won them by 26 points, yielding a net increase of 18 points.

March 4th could settle it.

May I digress? Yesterday, as I jogged along on the treadmill, I listened to Lou Dobbs (he helps the adrenaline, I find). He used the word "coronate"–as in, McCain wants the Republican party to coronate him. Whatever next, I thought? So now the great bloviator is making up his own words. Or perhaps it was a slip of the tongue. Anyway, I laughed and moved on–or not, you understand, since I was on a treadmill.

Just now I was reading Margaret Carlson on Bloomberg, and I saw this:

[Clinton’s] Lazarus-like win [in New Hampshire] kept her from looking any further into why she lost so badly in Iowa. It put off any move to change her insular staff and validated her original strategy in which the primaries were a mere formality. Voters would coronate her partly because she had been first lady, because she was a Clinton, and because it was her turn after all she had been through.

Maybe I owe Lou an apology. Is this recognised American usage? Is there something wrong with "crown"–an objection, I mean, that does not apply to the idea of a coronation? The American Oxford Dictionary does not offer a definition of coronate; it helpfully (in its Mac version) asks whether I meant "coronet". But the Columbia Guide to Standard American Usage has anticipated Dobbspeak. It says:

A nonstandard back-formation from the noun coronation, perhaps coined first as a jocular nonce word. The Standard verb is to crown or to be crowned, and the usual idiom is to have a coronation.

Nonce? "Made up for one occasion and not likely to be encountered again." Deep waters. But let’s not make a habit of coronate. If crown won’t work, there’s always anoint. "Smear or rub with oil, typically as part of a religious ceremony."

To judge by his victory speech after the Potomac primaries, John McCain expects to be fighting Obama in November.

Hope, my friends, is a powerful thing. I can attest to that better than many, for I have seen men’s hopes tested in hard and cruel ways that few will ever experience. And I stood astonished at the resilience of their hope in the darkest of hours because it did not reside in an exaggerated belief in their individual strength, but in the support of their comrades, and their faith in their country. My hope for our country resides in my faith in the American character, the character which proudly defends the right to think and do for ourselves, but perceives self-interest in accord with a kinship of ideals, which, when called upon, Americans will defend with their very lives.

To encourage a country with only rhetoric rather than sound and proven ideas that trust in the strength and courage of free people is not a promise of hope. It is a platitude.

A well crafted line, aimed precisely at Obama’s weakest spot. Note that McCain does not disdain hope and inspiration: he celebrates them, yet still turns the line against Obama. I wonder if Obama is ready for the possibility that McCain will be harder to squash than Hillary.

Obama’s impressive sweep of the latest primaries and caucuses renews and strengthens the momentum he had in the days before Super Tuesday. His support seems to be be deepening and broadening; and Hillary’s lead among women and lower-income households (two of her three most loyal constituencies: the third is Hispanics) seems to be wavering. But in case you’re thinking that Hillary is finished–as I am inclined to–see this interesting corrective from Jay Cost at RealClearPolitics.  Demographics rather than momentum can explain the new results, according to this analysis. The race might still go all the way to the convention.

And though he would say this, wouldn’t he, Mark Penn, Hillary’s chief strategist, thinks that she still has a path to the nomination.

Plainly Hillary needs to win, and win big, in delegate-laden Texas and Ohio on March 4th. Even if she succeeds there, her campaign will need to lean on the party’s "superdelegates" (party officials and other grandees, whose votes are worth thousands of the ordinary kind) to support her. Would they be willing to do that, if she was behind both in the popular vote within the party and in the share of pledged delegates? If I were a superdelegate, and even if I were convinced that Hillary was the better choice, I would not be willing: it is just too blatantly undemocratic.

And what about the delegates from Michigan and Florida, which the party disqualified when the states defied the ruling over the timing of their primaries? Both voted for Hillary, but nobody campaigned in either place and in Michigan Obama wasn’t even on the ballot. Asked on CNN whether the Clinton campaign would call for some kind of rerun of those elections, one of Hillary’s helpers blandly said that there was no need: those results were in, and it was just a question of un-disenfranchising the voters. If Hillary did get the nomination thanks to the party’s uber-voters and to some kind of legal stunt involving Michigan and Florida, I would expect to hear fewer complaints from Democrats in future about Bush-Gore 2000. But I cannot see the Democratic party electorate standing for this–and, in any case, what would such squalid manoeuvrings do for the candidate’s chances in the general election?

If Hillary’s campaign collapses with defeat in Texas or Ohio, that will be the moment to concede gracefully. She could move on from this defeat with something of her reputation intact. I bet her truest friends are starting to wish for this outcome. But if those states leave her with a meaningful chance of the nomination–so long as she bends every rule  and exerts every kind of pressure to get the result–we will find out just how much of her own reputation and her party’s prospects she is prepared to stake on this venture.   

Surging expectations made Obama’s results on Super Tuesday seem a little disappointing, which is a measure of how far he’s come. I’d be concerned about lost momentum–except for the money. My take from this morning’s FT:

As recently as the morning after his big win in the South Carolina primary of January 26, if you had offered Barack Obama the slew of victories he achieved on Super Tuesday he would surely have been delighted to accept.
From that distance, winning the vote in 13 states to Hillary Clinton’s eight would have looked like a great success.

But the count of delegates is what matters, and that will be closer. Indeed, thanks to Mrs Clinton’s wins in big states such as New York, New Jersey and, especially, California, and thanks also to the complex rules Democrats use to apportion delegates, she will probably come out slightly ahead on that measure.

Even so, a week ago Mr Obama would have been thrilled with his performance. But on the eve of Super Tuesday , Mr Obama hoped to do even better. His poll numbers had surged; big endorsements were piling up; and the Clintons’ aggressive campaign in South Carolina was getting a lot of criticism from other Democrats.

Nobody dared say it, but there seemed a chance he might sensationally win the whole contest and seize the nomination this week. California was crucial, but he lost there thanks to Mrs Clinton’s strong support among women and Latinos.

The Clinton campaign breathed again, and Mr Obama had to steady himself to celebrate his wins and fight on.

You can read the rest of the column here.

I just looked at Intrade: Obama at 56.9. Feels about right. (He was a good buy on Tuesday night at 37 after all.) 

John McCain has scored impressive early successes, and is piling on the votes that matter with actual or projected wins in delegate-heavy New York, New Jersey, Illinois, Arizona, Oklahoma, Delaware and Connecticut. Mike Huckabee has done pretty well too, for somebody thought to be about to withdraw; he has wins in Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia and West Virginia (this last a clear case of tactical voting by McCain supporters). Partly because Huckabee has not collapsed, Mitt Romney is struggling. He has four wins so far. If he loses California and its haul of delegates to McCain–and with the polls just closed it seems to be going that way–it is hard to see how he stays in. On Intrade right now you can buy a Romney nomination for less than 5, down five during the course of the evening. McCain will cost you 90.

For the Democrats, it is all about managing expectations. It looks as though both sides are going to be able to claim success. Obama and Clinton are for the most part winning the states they expected to–with the edge to Clinton. She has won in Massachusetts: the polls consistently said she would, though the recent endorsements of the state’s governor, Deval Patrick, and a clutch of Kennedys had given Obama hope. Her winning margin in New Jersey looks to be wider than expected too–at least, if one’s expectations were based on the Obamania of the past several days. The polls have only just closed in California, but the signs are she is winning there too, thanks to strong support from Latino voters. Obama has done well across the South, and has won Connecticut (against the polls) and Delaware. Offered this a month ago, he would have accepted with gratitude. But a lot changed in that month.

To repeat, the delegate arithmetic for the Democrats is complicated, and way beyond me. Where that count will end up is anybody’s guess. (Intrade prices Clinton at 63 right now, up 9 on the night; Obama is down 9 at 37. If if I were free to, I might still buy Obama at that price.) Regardless, at least for now, I’d say the Obama momentum has been checked.

John McCain is hoping to sew the nomination up, and seems increasingly likely to do it. The Republicans rely on "winner takes all" for translating primary votes into delegates. This ought to speed the process. The polls show no sign yet of a Romney recovery.

The Democratic race is different, of course. It looks extremely close, and the party’s rules apportion delegates using a formula that rewards votes cast, district by district, regardless of who wins the state-wide vote. The likely question for the Democrats is not who "wins"–barring an astonishing upset, neither Hillary Clinton nor Barack Obama will triumph outright–but which of them leads going into the final lap. If Barack Obama emerges tomorrow even neck and neck with Hillary, that is a victory of sorts in itself. And the odds would tilt his way going forward, since the schedule for the remaining primaries levels out. The more time he spends with voters, the more they seem to like him: the Super Tuesday frenzy worked to his disadvantage. And money to support another spell of hard-fought campaigning for the nomination is not a problem for him: the cash continues to pour in.

In the past two or three days, many commentators have been extrapolating Obama’s recent strong surge and, though mostly not daring to say it in print, guessing he would win big today. It could still happen–though Gallup’s tracking poll suggests that Obama’s national momentum might have peaked just too soon. Then again, it’s votes in the states that count, and the state polls have been very unreliable up to now. California, for instance,  is a crucial battle: one new poll there puts Obama well ahead; another says Clinton is leading.

The waiting is the hardest part…

The country may be ready for a woman or a black man as president–but can it deal with something more radical? I mean cooperation between Republicans and Democrats. The reception of last week’s fiscal stimulus agreement between the Bush administration and the House leadership makes you wonder whether America is ready for bipartisanship. Everybody says they want it. Finally we get some, and everybody hates it.

Harvard professor and economics blogger Greg Mankiw recently posted a set of links under the heading, "The Coalition Against Fiscal Stimulus": 14 commentaries [latest count: 19] attacking the new plan. That is not counting Mankiw’s own posts questioning the need for action, or pieces opposed to this fiscal stimulus, although not to fiscal stimulus in general. The New York Times’s Paul Krugman, no part of Mankiw’s coalition, attacked the plan as a cop-out. With critics right and left and up and down, the new spirit of cooperation looked exhausted within days.

You can read the rest of this column for National Journal here (the link expires in a week).

John McCain’s recovery is astonishing in so many ways it is hard to know where to begin. He was written off by everybody just months ago, a staff meltdown on his hands and no money to buy his way back up the polls. Money is everything in American politics, right? Romney had it all and McCain was flat broke. He was no textbook conservative, and the Republicans were obviously going to insist on that. He had little or no appeal to the evangelicals, either, yet another disqualifier. And get ready for this: he formed an alliance with Ted Kennedy - Ted Kennedy! - and sponsored an amnesty for illegal immigrants. That measure provoked a national outcry and was killed stone dead in Congress. And this man was running for the Republican nomination? Who was he kidding?

Well, he is not quite there yet. Giuliani is gone but Mitt Romney and his checkbook are not giving up. Super-Tuesday is the real test. Nonetheless, winning Florida makes McCain the front-runner, and whatever happens now, that is remarkable in its own right.

How on earth to account for it? It was crucial of course that none of the Republican contenders struck the party as an ideal choice. McCain had his drawbacks, all right - but so did all the others. Fred Thompson was the best the party could come up with for the textbook-conservative heir-to-Reagan slot, and he turned out to be a terrible campaigner who barely even seemed to want the job. I am still puzzled, I have to say, by the stunning failure of the Giuliani campaign. (Maybe one of the clichés of US horse-race politics was correct, after all: momentum acquired in the early primaries, which Giuliani downgraded in his planning, really counts.) At any rate, McCain appeared to command respect in way that Giuliani does not. And nobody could accuse him of being inauthentic, a charge that Romney cannot get away from.

So for all the things they dislike about McCain, Republicans seem to like his character. And above all, of course, they like his electability. They may be a divided party, but they are united on the need to stop the Democrats - and above all, of course, Hillary Clinton - from gaining the White House. McCain could give Hillary a run for her money, and that seems good enough for the conservatives, evangelicals and immigration hard-liners who would find so much to dislike in President McCain. That is something for Democrats to ponder as they weigh the choice between Hillary and Obama.