Is a Clinton Candidacy a recipe for defeat?

I cannot escape the feeling that the Democrats are about to pull steaming defeat from the jaws of victory again. Consider for a moment the republican race has chrystalized down into a two horse race --- John McCain and Mitt Romney. Neither candidate interests the evangelical segment of the republican party, in fact both are generally disliked by the this groups, McCain for undercutting blessed Bush and Romney for daring to be Mormon. There is only one name that will mobilize those people to vote for either candidate --- Hillary Clinton.

Additionally both Republican front-runners do well with moderates, while Hillary Clinton only polls well with the long-time Dem faithful and has the highest negative rating in the race.

This seems a recipe for disaster. Obama on the otherhand is the darling of independents and the disenfranchised. If he beats Hillary, the democratcic base falls in line behind him to give him the Dems 30% and a large portion of the independent vote ---say 20%. Now figuring that the evangelicals (say 10%) stay home or run their own candidate, the Republicans are at best going to get 25-30% republican + 15% Indy. That seems to be the only winning strategy vs. the republicans.

I have spent the last 24 hours considering the possibilities for my own vote. I am a regular voting, anti-Iraq war moderate with a strong liberal lean. I cannot envision a scenario that has me voting for Hillary Clinton as I find her the most morally questionable of the 4 likely finalists based on the cheap shots she has taken at Obama and the fact that she has not shown any leadership in this campaign when there were tons of opportunities for her to do so in this election. She has invariably taken the safe route to protect her candidacy from potential pitfalls and has shown herself to be the standard Democratic candidate. As of today I am thinking I will vote republican if Hillary is the Democratic candidate.

Clinton, Romney run away with nevada

The results at the moment suggest Romney will destroy the feild, capturing 53% of the repulbican vote with the next candidates, RON PAUL (!!!) and John McCain, capturing a mere 13% of the vote. Landslide victories generate real momentum. If SC was next week for the republicans instead of today, Romney might run the table.

Clinton winning Nevada is damaging to Obama as Clinton has now won 3 states in a row and Obama is in danger of becoming a one-state wonder like Huckabee. Obama had prior to the election tried to downplay the Nevada election stating that Hillary's lead might be too much to overcome. On a promising note for Obama, Edwards got smoked, netting only 4% of the vote. That strongly suggests that Edwards is becoming irrelevant and will carry huge negative momentum into South Carolina. If Edwards doesn't win SC, he will drop out or become totally irrelevant and Obama will be the receipent of the Anti-Hillary vote en masse in the Democratic party and among the independents. My gut feeling is that Obama will win SC even though he is carrying negative momentum, due to his Oprah numbers in SC and because his back is to the wall there. I think Obama will win black votes for much the same reason Hilalry won NH --- because the black voters in SC won't want to kill his candidacy --- and will win the women voters becuase of the Oprah effect.

Considering this deeper, I think there is so much pressure on the Clinton and Obama camps, that Edwards will have an extremely difficult time winning more than 12% of the SC vote. He will be politically irrelevant in terms of being e legit candidate entering florida, with his only potential impact being a guy who can swing 4-5% of the vote in Florida against Obama. Will he deal? Hard to say. Obama and Edwards seem to legitimately not like each other. Edwards might think he has a little more pull with the Clinton camp, but IMO that would be incorrect. Clinton is a political opportunist trying to claim the title of change candidate and Edwards is yesterday's news. She may give him something, but it won't be high profile or important. My gut feeling is that is a lot more than Obama is personally willing to offer.

What does the Romney victory in Michigan mean?

It could go either way. If Romney capitalizes on this and wins Nevada and finishes second or even a close third in SC, he could run away with the nomination. Romney's resume perfectly positions him to run as the economic "fix it" candidate. That's what he ran as in Michigan and frankly if that had been the focus of his campaign he'd probably have already secured the nomination. One would hope for his sake that he recognizes the message worked for him. He also got a healthy bounce by people loyal to his dad.

This could put John McCain nearing the rocks again. He will probably win SC. so he will be in top 3 entering SuperDuper Tuesday, but he cannot be considered the favorite anymore. In Michigan, McCain was unable to land much of the independent vote at all. It strongly suggests that his New Hampshire victory was more of an isolated phonomenon and that indys are tuning him out. That would make a McCain overall victory only possible if the vote is splt so much that the winners of most states are getting in the low 20's and the insiders push McCain. The problem for McCain is that the powerbrokers like Romney too.

Two other things to consider. Turnout in Michigan was extremely low. The indications are that only republicans voted, and at that in very small numbers. That suggests that independents are leaning againsts voting for a republican (not that they will vote democrat en masse -- they may not vote --- but if the economy continues to tank it certainly doesn't bode well for the republicans.) Secondly, There was a public call from the fringes of the democratic party for Michigan residents to vote for Romney to futher cloud the republican's choice of candidate. It is unclear that this did not give romney a little bump. It is possible that those independents that did vote were not as forcefully McCain voters as last time for that reason. I think the michigan results in themseleves mean almost nothing, but theyy do mean a ton in terms of neutralizing McCain's momentum and galvanizing Romney and his supporters into thinking they can win.

On the democratic side, do not be so quick to write off michigan. Since Hillary was the only candidate officially on the ballot, she won almost 2/3rds of the vote. Now the idea is that the Dems won't allow those votes to be cast since Obama and Edwards were not on the ballot, but do not be suprised if Hillary loses a narrow nationwide vote, if her people challenge the party's right to block those votes. If this election is close, IMO Hillary has the tie breaker in Michigan.

Romney should buck conventional wisdom and fight on

Pundits have said that Romney is on his last legs. "If he loses Iowa and New Hampshire he is done." I was part of that group, but now I am convinced that is exactly the wrong advise. Under the radar, Romney quietly won Wyoming going away. Most candidates simply didn't have the money to campaign there and weren't all that interested in their small delegate count (12). Romney went in and took 8/12. Add in the fact that romney has had two disappointing finishes in Iowa and New Hampshire and now Romney has 19 delegates out of the 61 decided delegates, second only to Huckabee's 31 on the republican side. McCain has 7, Thompson 3, and Paul and Guiliani have none.

Romney has apparently taken this quite hard as he spent a ton of money trying to convince Iowa he was a freshly converted true conservative. I think that ended up hurting him in the more liberal Northeast, where voters really knew his history and he seemed especially disingenuous.

But Wyoming... Romney stepped in and media blitzed them to victory. They met him and then it was time to vote. No time for second thoughts. No time to meet the other candidates. And no other candidate had the money to advertise against him.

Why is that relevant? It is relevant because that is going to be the exact dynamic of Superduper tuesday. No candidate besides Romney on the republican side can affort to advertise in all 22 (or whatever states). His cheif rivals, Huckabee and McCain are financial peasants. Guiliani has had no positive momementum for the last 45 days and in politics as in sports you can't turn it on. His opponents will be focusing on the large states. Romney could easily win all of the smaller states with media blitzes and stay with the pack in the large states.

In the last few days Romney quietly pulled the plug on his future campaign spending. He clearly is feeling very rejected. He spent more time and money in Iowa than anyone and they tossed him away for a sexier suitor. He lost in his own back yard where people really knew him. It must feel like he was betrayed by family. And now it looks like he may lose the state in which he was born and where his dad served. This must be crushing to him.

That said, He really needs to rethink giving up, even if he comes in second in Michigan. If I were advising him, I'd try to get the vote out, but I would change the message being spread in Michigan to be one that states a firm belief that he will win. He should back that message with delegate numbers. He should state that in his post primary speech. He should say a win would have been ideal, but the goal was to get alone into second place at this point leading into SUper Duper Tuesday where our message will resonate with a national audience.

Consider what happens if he loses a close battle with McCain. If he loses a close battle to McCain say 27 to 29% with Huckabee getting 14%. I would think McCain would get 9 delegates, Romney 8, and Huckabee 4. That would give Huckabee 35, Romney 27, McCain 16 delegates. That is in GREAT shape considering his financial advantages and the compressed timeframe for super duper tuesday.

When you think about it is shows what an acceptable candidate he is to finish no lower than 2nd in any of the primaries. That should be part of the message. Romney is no Hillary Clintonesque lightning rod. His finishes strongly suggest the Mormon thing is not a campaign killer.

I think Romney and his advisors have wrongly evalutaed him as a candidate. By rejecting everything he stood for in the past, he actually does worse as people get to know him (which I am sure is not how he would like to think of himself.) In this compressed election, with these opponents, he is the kind of candidate who can steal victory.

I think he can start softening the social aspects of his platforms and focusing on the financial message and he will have a ton of growth potential.

But he has to stay in the race. He has to spead the delegate numbers message tomorrow and he has to start advertising in all of the smaller super tuesday states in the next week.

Wyoming GOP Primary results

I didn't even know the Wyoming Republican primary happened. It is downright criminal for the media not be reporting this more.


http://abcnews.go.com/politics/elections/

Republican Primary ResultsSaturday, January 5
Real-time Race Results: Updated January 5, 2008 - 7:37 PM (all times Eastern Standard)
Precincts Reporting 100%
Candidate Votes Vote % Delegates Projected Winner
Romney 8 67% 8 Winner
Thompson 3 25% 3
Hunter 1 8% 1
McCain 0 0% 0
Paul 0 0% 0
Uncommitted 0 0% 0
Giuliani 0 0% 0
Huckabee 0 0% 0

First Letter to the Denton Chronicle editor

"Bill Richardson finally dropped out of the Presidential race. Long overdue, IMO. His campaign had only lost momentum in the last 4 months. I wish fringe candidates like Duncan Hunter, Mike Gravel, Dennis Kucinich, and Alan Keyes would get out too and stop wasting government supplied matching funds.

I applaud candidates like Tom Tancredo and Joe Biden who got their issues out there and then dropped out of the race as soon as it became obvious they were not seen as viable candidates. (Tancredo wanted immigration discussed as a major issue. Once that came to pass, Tancredo left the race.)

Pollsters saw a chance for foreign relations expert Biden to have a very strong finish in Iowa that he could then use to become a legitimate player in New Hampshire. When it didn't happen in Iowa, Biden immediately got out. (I am personally sad to see Biden out, inspite of his non-candidate status. His analytical mind and sharp tongue made him the rare fringe candidate who could impact front runners. When Biden said “there’s only three things he [Guiliani] mentions in a sentence: a noun and a verb and 9/11.” he took the only oar from the Guiliani Campaign canoe. Since then, "Mayor 9/11" has not been able to mention 9/11 without media ridicule and has slid from soft front runner to fringe candidate).

IMO, the fringe candidates I listed have nothing to contribute to this race. They should quit wasting our time and taxpayer matching funds feeding their egos."

New Hampshire Primary Results

http://abcnews.go.com/politics/elections

"Estimated Delegates: 30Democratic Primary ResultsTuesday, January 8
Real-time Race Results: Updated January 10, 2008 - 1:30 PM (all times Eastern Standard)
Precincts Reporting 100%
Candidate Votes Vote % Delegates Projected Winner
Clinton 112,251 39% 11 Winner
Obama 104,772 37% 12
Edwards 48,681 17% 4
Richardson 13,249 5% 0
Kucinich 3,919 1% 0
Biden 628 0% 0
Gravel 402 0% 0
Dodd 202 0% 0
.
Estimated Delegates: 12Republican Primary ResultsTuesday, January 8
Real-time Race Results: Updated January 10, 2008 - 1:30 PM (all times Eastern Standard)
Precincts Reporting 100%
Candidate Votes Vote % Delegates Projected Winner
McCain 88,466 37% 7 Winner
Romney 75,343 32% 4
Huckabee 26,768 11% 1
Giuliani 20,395 9% 0
Paul 18,303 8% 0
Thompson 2,886 1% 0
Hunter 1,220 0% 0"

I made it into the times article.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/08/us/politics/08bloomberg.htm

"Obama’s Surge Deflates Forum and Talk of a Bloomberg Run

By RAYMOND HERNANDEZ and NICHOLAS CONFESSORE (NY TIMES)
Published: January 8, 2008

NORMAN, Okla. — He arrived here for what seemed like it could be a big moment. Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, eyeing a third-party presidential bid, joined Republican and Democratic elders at a forum to denounce the extreme partisanship of Washington and plot how to influence the campaign.

But even as the mayor gathered on Monday with the seasoned Washington hands on the campus of the University of Oklahoma, the surging presidential campaign of Senator Barack Obama seemed to steal energy from the event and set off worry elsewhere among Mr. Bloomberg’s supporters.

Mr. Obama has stressed that he wants to move beyond gridlocked politics and usher in an era of national unity. A key organizer of the effort to draft Mr. Bloomberg for a presidential run acknowledged in an interview on Monday that that Mr. Obama’s rise could be problematic.

“Obama is trying to reach out to independent voters, and that clearly would be the constituency that Mike Bloomberg would go after,” said Andrew MacRae, who heads the Washington chapter of Draft Mike Bloomberg for President 2008. “An Obama victory does not make it impossible, but it certainly makes it more difficult.”

The event was organized by former Senator Sam Nunn, Democrat of Georgia, with former Senator David L. Boren, Democrat of Oklahoma. In the days leading up the event here, just outside Oklahoma City, Mr. Boren suggested that he would encourage Mr. Bloomberg to run if the major party nominees failed to heed the call for bipartisanship.

But several leading participants took pains to say that they had no intention of abandoning their own parties in the election. Some even cast Mr. Obama’s success as evidence that the nation was yearning for the type of leadership they were offering.

“I believe he is demonstrating, in the support he is getting, that the American people share this concern about excessive partisanship,” said Bob Graham, a Democratic former senator from Florida, who said he would support a Democrat for president.

Gary Hart, a Democrat from Colorado who also served in the Senate, said he intended to endorse one of the Democratic presidential candidates in the next 48 hours, though he declined to identify the candidate.

“I am a Democrat, and I will endorse a Democratic president,” he said. “There are no independent candidates. I won’t endorse a Republican.”

The forum attracted students, faculty members and some who said they were intrigued by a third party approach. Still, they were also taking notice of the momentum Mr. Obama has been gaining since his victory in the Iowa caucuses last week.

“I wonder about all this,” said [Politico] who drove to the event from Texas. [Politico] said he believed the eventual nominees would be Mr. Obama and Senator John McCain, and “that sort of steals a lot of thunder, since they’re the two more moderate candidates.”

Despite public denials that he plans to run, aides close to Mr. Bloomberg have been laying the groundwork for a candidacy, should he declare one.

Mr. Bloomberg kept a low profile at the forum. In response to a question during the panel discussion about the Iowa caucuses, Mr. Bloomberg did not talk about Mr. Obama or the Republican winner, Mike Huckabee, the former governor of Arkansas, but said that perhaps the discussion the group was looking for had already begun.

“I hope that all the candidates say to themselves that the public is tired of the partisanship and the special interests, and if I’m going to get elected, I’ve got to stand up and say what I believe, face the big issues, hold myself accountable, and maybe you are seeing that.”

As he usually has in recent weeks, Mr. Bloomberg played down the notion that he would be a candidate himself, saying during the forum that the goal he shared with others at the conference was to be a “catalyst” for a discussion of the nation’s problems.

But even Mr. Bloomberg’s effort to influence the debate in the presidential campaign has hit challenges. The mayor recently paid out of his own pocket for ads in Iowa and New Hampshire newspapers demanding, on behalf of mayors concerned about gun violence, that candidates complete a questionnaire detailing their positions on gun issues.

The candidates were given until Jan. 2 to respond, but none of the campaigns complied, and Mr. Bloomberg and his colleagues have now pushed back the deadline.

People close to the mayor say that he will probably decide in March whether he will run, assuming that Democrats and Republicans have settled on their presumptive nominees. His aides have been researching the cumbersome process for starting an independent campaign, and a crucial date is March 5, when third-party candidates can begin circulating petitions to get a spot on the ballot in Texas.

Mr. Bloomberg would have to decide, among other things, whether there was an opening for a self-styled progressive centrist like him. Aides have said that he would be prepared to spend $1 billion.

Other participants at the forum included John Danforth, a Republican former senator from Missouri; Senator Chuck Hagel, Republican from Nebraska; William Cohen, former secretary of defense; and Christie Whitman, former governor of New Jersey and a Republican.

Like other participants, Mrs. Whitman has been seeking to distance herself from any third-party bid by Mr. Bloomberg. In a recent blog post on the Web site of the Republican Leadership Council, a centrist group of which she is co-chairwoman, Mrs. Whitman wrote, “While other attendees may assert their personal interest in a third party, I am a Republican and will remain one.”

Asked Monday whether she would support an independent presidential bid by Mr. Bloomberg or anyone else, Mrs. Whitman echoed those comments, saying, “I’m focused on the Republican Leadership Council.” "

Bloomberg Bipartisan Forum, January 7th at OU

I went to the Bi-partisan Forum at OU today. It was a little anti-climactic. The expectation was that Bloomberg would declare as a candidate, but he did not.

My impression was that he wants to see who the candidates will be first and that that is still very much in question. IMO, it looks like Obama and McCain although neither are stable front-runners. Obama says politically nieve things at in opportune times and McCain adopted the Iraq War. (Headline announces Obama says if he wins New Hampshire the race is over. A VERY stupid comment for a cnadidate who is reliant upon non-voters voting.)

I think McCain and Obama are consensus building moderates. That pulls the teeth from a Bloomberg candidacy.

That said, I had fun, the speakers were interesting and insighful, I was interviewed by a reporter from the NY times, and got to shake hands with a politician who's career accomplishments I admire--- Bob Graham, former Governor of Florida.

Iowa Primary results

http://abcnews.go.com/politics/elections/

"Estimated Delegates: 57Democratic Primary ResultsThursday, January 3
Real-time Race Results: Updated January 5, 2008 - 2:35 PM (all times Eastern Standard)
Precincts Reporting 100%
Candidate Votes Vote % Delegates Projected Winner
Obama 940 38% 18 Winner
Edwards 744 30% 16
Clinton 737 29% 16
Richardson 53 2% 0
Biden 23 1% 0
Uncommitted 3 0% 0
Dodd 1 0% 0
Gravel 0 0% 0
Kucinich 0 0% 0
.
Estimated Delegates: 40Republican Primary ResultsThursday, January 3
Real-time Race Results: Updated January 5, 2008 - 2:35 PM (all times Eastern Standard)
Precincts Reporting 98%
Candidate Votes Vote % Delegates Projected Winner
Huckabee 40,841 34% 30 Winner
Romney 29,949 25% 7
Thompson 15,904 13% 0
McCain 15,559 13% 0
Paul 11,817 10% 0
Giuliani 4,097 4% 0
Hunter 524 1% 0 "

You're Invited to a Bipartisan Forum, January 7th at OU

http://www.ou.edu/web/landing/Articles/bipartisan_forum_january.html

Information provided by the Office of the President.
UPDATED on January 4, 2008.


OU students, faculty and staff as well as members of the general public are cordially invited to attend a bipartisan forum of national political leaders at OU on Monday, January 7, 2008 from 11:00 a.m. to noon at the Catlett Music Center. Ticketing or advance reservations are not required. Seating will be on a first come, first serve basis and no advance ticketing or reservation is required.


As you know, the university has extended an open invitation to all presidential candidates in both parties and to those actively involved in the presidential election process to speak to our students, faculty and staff as well as members of the community. Thus far, one candidate, Governor Mitt Romney, has accepted our invitation and spoke at the university earlier this year. Other invitations remain outstanding, and we hope that candidates will continue to accept our invitation. Last spring, the university welcomed former President George H.W. Bush to campus for a discussion on the history of the American presidency with presidential historian David McCullough as well as Ken Duberstein, chief of staff for President Ronald Reagan, and Jack Valenti, chief of staff to President Lyndon B. Johnson. Another renowned presidential historian and leading author, Michael Beschloss, spoke to the OU family this fall on the qualities which have been important to successful presidencies. Through these events, the university advances its goal of educating our students about the presidency as an institution and national issues that they are likely to face as the future leaders of our nation as well as encouraging their civic involvement.


In furthering this goal, the university is pleased to announce that we will be host to a panel of leaders who will be potentially influential in producing increased national discussion of fundamental issues in the upcoming presidential election. The panel’s discussion will include ways in which our nation can end divisive partisan polarization, create bipartisanship, and bring the country together after conclusion of the 2008 election.


Those national leaders who are expected to participate in the panel include:


David Abshire, President of the Center for the Study of the Presidency

Michael Bloomberg, Mayor of New York City and founder of Bloomberg News

David Boren, Former U.S. Senator

Bill Brock, Former U.S. Senator

Bill Cohen, Former Secretary of Defense and U.S. Senator

Jack Danforth, Former U.S. Senator

Susan Eisenhower, Chairman Emeritus, The Eisenhower Institute

Bob Graham, Former U.S. Senator

Chuck Hagel, U.S. Senator

Gary Hart, Former U.S. Senator

Jim Leach, Former Member of the U.S. House of Representatives

Sam Nunn, Former U.S. Senator

Edward Perkins, Former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations

Chuck Robb, Former U.S. Senator

Christine Todd Whitman, Former New Jersey Governor

For more information about the bipartisan forum, please contact the Office of the President at (405) 325-3916 during normal business hours. Members of the media who plan to cover the forum should contact Catherine Bishop at (405) 620-1544 or cbishop@ou.edu to receive advance credentialing.

Biden and Dodd are out; Jesus and Oprah deliver; What else do the results mean?

So lets look back at my predictions and what actually happened.

predictions
REP
Romney to edge Huckabee who has been revealed to be a bit of a jerk.
Guiliani & Thompson to do very poorly.
Ron Paul to do suprisingly well. Say 10 %.

Dems
Obama to edge hillary or Edwards.
Biden to suprise and finish 3rd based on his foreign policy experience and the situation in Pakistan.

Actual

http://abcnews.go.com/politics/elections/

"Estimated Delegates: 57Democratic Primary ResultsThursday, January 3
Real-time Race Results: Updated January 5, 2008 - 2:35 PM (all times Eastern Standard)
Precincts Reporting 100%
Candidate Votes Vote % Delegates Projected Winner
Obama 940 38% 18 Winner
Edwards 744 30% 16
Clinton 737 29% 16
Richardson 53 2% 0
Biden 23 1% 0
Uncommitted 3 0% 0
Dodd 1 0% 0
Gravel 0 0% 0
Kucinich 0 0% 0
.
Estimated Delegates: 40Republican Primary ResultsThursday, January 3
Real-time Race Results: Updated January 5, 2008 - 2:35 PM (all times Eastern Standard)
Precincts Reporting 98%
Candidate Votes Vote % Delegates Projected Winner
Huckabee 40,841 34% 30 Winner
Romney 29,949 25% 7
Thompson 15,904 13% 0
McCain 15,559 13% 0
Paul 11,817 10% 0
Giuliani 4,097 4% 0
Hunter 524 1% 0 "


Huckabee joins Pat Robertson as a religious nutjob who swept through Iowa with hurricane force. Huckabee has a slim chance that he may not implode like Robertson. He is a very personable guy who spouts crazy in his free time and the next primaries will have very little time between each one, so someone who makes a good first impression can gain a lot of momentum quickly. That said, his political and religious views won't sell in New Hampshire (Primary #2). He could be seen as possibly irrelevant entering the Michigan Primary (Primary #3), which may really blunt any momentum he could have in South Carolina (Primary #4). On the positive side, having Ed Rollins on board guarantees he will meet his potential.

Romney started setting expectations that he would not win Iowa last week (I didn't know that) and that second was fine. That was IMO a political mistake. His people should have gotten agressive with Huckabee's past and his general cruel remarks to others. Romney easily could have cut the margin of victory in half or won if he hadn't written off Iowa. He also could have had Huckabee emerging as victorious, but permanently dogged by the Arkansas rape/murder scandal and not viable nationally, but he let him off the hook. Lesson to be learned, Mr. Romney, just because you might lose a race, doesn't mean you can't gain something of value by fighting. It is well known how much time and money Romney put into Iowa. A soft finish was not acceptable considering that. Now Romney has negative momentum entering a New Hampshire race that McCain is poised to win. It was fine for Romney to finish second in Iowa, but not by almost 10 percent. Romney could very well implode.

Thompson and McCain did suprisingly well drawing 13% of the vote each . Thompson lives for another week and McCain has momemtum going into New Hampshire where he is a strong second to the faltering Romney.

The radical Ron Paul has shown enough support to actually be entering VP consideration. Weird how the world works.

Guliani did much worse than I thought. He was expecting to get his 10-15% and fight another day. 4% when you were expecting 15% is to carry negative momentum into the next primary. He is in real trouble. He could implode with an unexpectedly bad showing in New Hampshire. He isn't likeable, and if he starts faltering, people will pile on.

Duncan Hunter should drop out of the race. He is done and unlike Ron Paul or Tom Tancredo he has no "issue to push".

On the Democratic side, WOW, what a night. The fact that Dem voter turnout for the primary (230K) was almost DOUBLE last election (124K)is hugely telling. For a long time now, Democratic analysts have smugly said that the Dems like their feild of candidates. I have long though that was overstated and that when push came to shove, one of the anti-hillary candidates would implode. Push came to shove last night and all 3 candidates drew record numbers. Hillary clinton's "disappointing" 29% third place finish would have netted her 54% of the vote in 2004. That is a landslide win!

The facts are Hillary drew her votes for who she is and should take pride in that. The troubling part of this is that her negative numbers made her vulnerable in this primary and would again do so in the national election --- especially against a likeable religious nutjob like Huckabee. This primary basically underscored "the problem with Hillary" for the Dem insiders. Hillary may deliver record numbers to the polls for her, but the more successful she is, ther more motivated the anti-Hillary voters will be to keep her out.

It looks VERY dark for Hillary. A big loss to Obama was possible and probably there was a contingency plan. Losing to Edwards as well changes the equation. The idea of Hillary as the inevitable candidate is gone forever. Hillary will have a dogfight from here on out and she does poorly in those, allowing her abrasive and evasive sides out, which reinforce the negative views people have of her. Additionally, she has already squandered all of her Obama "mud". I think she may be done.

Edwards ran a brilliant campaign on class struggle and being the anti-Hillary. Both campaign groups should look at that. Forget Obama for a second and look at the race as Hillary vs. Anti-Hillary (Edwards). Anti-hillary won like 69K vs. 67K. That should tell you all you need to know about edwards and clinton. That would be a high turnout in Iowa for normal but a heated race. These two candidates scooped up all of the established Dem Vote. And the anti-Hillary won.

Obama may not like him, but Edwards makes a world of sense as his VP today. He has really come into his own, is from the right region/background to compliment Obama, and as proven last election, he can handle a debate and attack a presidential candidate. All that said, Edwards is not done yet. He has 2-3 Primaries to make his case before he runs out of money. If the politically nieve Obama trips up in New Hampshire and Hillary continues to struggle, the door could open up again for Edwards and he could get some real traction.

Both candidates scraped up every vote they could, but the numbers don't lie, Double the turnout? Obama wins with women by 5%? This was the Goddess of Harpo gently touching Iowa on the map and the Obama phone support crew diligently recording every touch. Oprah is a political dynamo. Obama should have 2 people on his VP want list. Oprah, then Edwards.

Which finally leads me to the rest of the Democratic feild. Biden and Dodds rightly bailed. Dodds has been dead for months, but getting less than 1% finally opened his eyes. Biden (and a lot of prognosticators including myself) felt he would have a strong shouwing in Iowa ---probably in the teens. A lot of his strategy was based on proving himself viable in Iowa and making a move in New Hampshire. Without the first, the second became impossible. I am sad to see him get out this early because I think he was the one democrat capable of crushing a Republican candidate with criticism. (He did it to Guiliani earlier in the race. When he publically stated that Guiliani was running on 9/11 he cut off the Mayor's only means of positive momentum. This is the only time I have ever seen a fringe candidate take down an opponent's front runner.) I think Biden ultimately did little to show a domestic agenda and that killed him.

Gravel is in it to the bitter end. He has a message, but is not sending it clearly. Kucinich will probably get out in a few more races as he realizes that you can't get a race to adopt your platforms, at best you can hope that the race seizes on one issue you treasure like Tancredo was able to accomplish with his presidency. Richardson is in a similar boat to Kucinich and Biden. He hasn't seen what Biden did, that the big 3 have choked out all the sunlight.

"Iowa By the Numbers" by Tim Dickinson

http://www.rollingstone.com/nationalaffairs/index.php/2008/01/04/iowa-by-the-numbers/

"Four statistics blew me away tonight:

1) Obama beat Hillary among women voters 35 to 30 percent.
2)Amid record Democratic turnout, as many people under 30 showed up to caucus as those over 65.
3) Sixty percent of the GOP electorate in Iowa were born-again Christians.
4) Rudy Giuliani finished with a mere 4,013 votes, in sixth place, with less than half of the support of Ron Paul.

Taking them in order:

One:
Hillary lost tonight to Barack Obama by 8 points — a margin just as wide as Mitt Romney catastrophic shortfall against Mike Huckabee.

And Obama beat her eight ways to Sunday. He edged her out among Democrats 32/31, and cleaned her clock among independents (44/17) and wayward Republicans (41/10). He beat her among people making less than $15,000 (37/30) and more than $100,000 (41/19). He beat her among health-care voters (34/30) and suburban voters (30/25).

Most astounding however, he beat her among her core supporters, women, by five points. What more can I say than — in a night of mind boggling statistics — that that’s the stat of the night.

A black man did this. In a state that’s 96 percent white. This is truly a historic night in America.

Two:
The turnout on the Democratic side was unreal. It soared from 124,000 in 2004 to 230,000 in 2008. And that’s all about the man who won.

Obama’s been drawing record crowds from San Francisco to Des Moines — but there was always the question of whether he could produce a similar effect among real live voters.

He did so in a way that no one predicted. 57 percent of the caucus goers tonight had never caucused before. Most impressive: As many people under thirty showed up as senior citizens.

That’s fucking nuts is what that is. That’s the Rock the Vote political wet dream that never ever comes true… actually coming true.

What this portends for Obama as a national candidate is something truly special. He’s not only proven that he can draw the support of independents and open-minded Republicans. He’s the one guy who can make the Democratic pie higher, bringing new, unlikely voters into the fold. If he could replicate this kind of support among young people in a general election, it’s game over.

Three:
The Religious Right has found their candidate. The evangelical vote in the Republican caucus is usually 40 percent. Tonight it was 60 percent.

I give Mike Huckabee a lot of credit. He’s run the kind of grassroots campaign that’s not supposed to be possible in this era. Outspent 15:1, his earthy, inclusive plain-spoken authenticity won hearts and minds — and his faith-based network of supporters turned out in droves, beating back the best organization money can buy.

With Romney effectively out of the way, I’m not sure anybody else can stop this guy. Certainly not in South Carolina, where, if the churched vote behaves the way they did tonight, he’ll clobber a John McCain, no matter what happens in New Hampshire.

Four:
Rudy Giluliani is done. His slot — the maverick warmonger — is going to be filled by John McCain by the time Florida comes around. He’s executing the most amazingly misguided electoral strategy I can remember. Bravo and good riddance.

Closing thoughts
Obama scored two huge victories tonight. He not only popped Clinton’s aura of inevitability, he also beat Edwards roundly enough to establish himself as the only true anti-Clinton. So not only is Clinton wounded heading into New Hampshire, but the ABC (anyone but Clinton) vote has found its standard bearer — and his name isn’t John Edwards.

Which is all to say that even if Clinton makes a miraculous recovery in the next five days, I think enough of Edwards’ vote is going to migrate to Obama that it’s not going to make a difference. New Hampshire is his to lose.

And fond goodbyes…
Part of me, here, is going to miss the grand patrician stylings of Chris Dodd, here.

And Joe Biden, I think I’ll miss you most of all. "

Biden and Dodd Leave the Race By Shailagh Murray

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/01/04/biden_and_dodd_leave_the_race.html?hpid=topnews

"DES MOINES -- The two veteran lawmakers of the Democratic race, Sens. Joseph Biden (Del) and Christopher Dodd (Conn.), abandoned their candidacies after poor showings in last night's Iowa caucuses.

Biden, who was elected to the Senate in 1972 and serves as chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, had hoped large crowds in recent weeks would help earn at least a fourth-place showing. But that support failed to materialize, and Biden netted only about 2 percent of delegates, about half what recent polls had predicted.

"There is nothing sad about tonight. We are so incredibly proud of you all," Biden told his supporters. "So many of you have sacrificed for me and I am so indebted to you. I feel no regret."

Dodd, who chairs the Senate Banking Committee and is serving his fifth term, posted a worse showing, registering just .02 percent of Democratic support.

"Let me assure you, we are not ending this race with our heads hanging but our heads held high," he told about 100 supporters at a rally in Des Moines. "I am not going anywhere."

Dodd moved his wife and two young daughters to Des Moines and built a sizable state-wide organization, including 13 offices and a large payroll of campaign professionals. Biden also blitzed the state, scooping up endorsements from state and local officials, and offering crowds intricate discourses on foreign policy.

But in a year when voters said they were seeking change, both veteran senators struck Iowans as a little too familiar, fixtures of a Washington establishment that had grown stale from years of gridlock and partisan infighting.

Biden's presidential bid was his second, having dropped out of the 1988 race before the Iowa caucuses."

"Iowa results shake establishment of both parties" By Patrick Healy

http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/01/04/america/assess.php

"DES MOINES, Iowa: The Democratic and Republican establishments and their presidential candidates, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton and former Governor Mitt Romney, were brought low in Iowa, shaken seriously by two national newcomers who won decisively on messages of insurgency and change.

The victors in Iowa, Senator Barack Obama for the Democrats and former Governor Mike Huckabee for the Republicans, are as far from the status quo as possible. One is the son of a Kenyan father and a white Kansan mother who entered the United States Senate just three years ago. The other is a former Baptist minister who was best known until recently for losing more than 100 pounds, or 45 kilograms, and taking on the issue of childhood obesity.

The two winners Thursday night burst the aura of strength and confidence that Clinton and Romney had tried to cultivate for months and left both parties suddenly without a clear path to their nominating conventions, let alone November.

Clinton's loss was especially glaring: her central strategy for much of 2007 was to appear as the inevitable nominee, but Iowans shredded that notion. She tried in recent weeks to convince voters that another Clinton administration could be an agent of change, but Iowans clearly did not buy it.

Without question, Clinton and Romney have the money, the campaign apparatus and the legions of supporters to stay in the hunt for the nomination and to right their campaigns. But Clinton's lackluster finish raises anew questions about her electability, and whether independent voters - who flocked to Obama - will ever come around to her.

And Romney, who outspent Huckabee 6-to-1 in television advertising in Iowa, now faces a far more crowded field of rivals in the New Hampshire primary who are eager to tear into his wounded candidacy.

All the candidates now move to that primary on Tuesday, which Clinton had tried to make a fire wall for her campaign, as it was for her husband's presidential candidacy in 1992, when he finished strongly in second place.

"If Hillary doesn't stop Obama in New Hampshire, Obama is going to be the Democratic nominee," said Robert Shrum, a Democratic consultant who was John Kerry's senior strategist in 2004.

Clinton advisers declined to say on Thursday night whether she would now pursue a different strategy against Obama. But a shift seems likely now that Clinton's multilayered, sometimes contradictory message - offering an experienced hand but also an agent of change - fell flat in this first contest.

"We built a campaign for the long haul - we feel very good about our operation in New Hampshire, and polling has us up," said Howard Wolfson, a Clinton spokesman. The danger for Clinton, of course, is that those polls may not hold after the outcome in Iowa.

Further undercutting Clinton, Obama peeled away broad swaths of women from her base of support, and the political potency of baby boomers fell apart in Iowa. Half of the Democrats under 45 said their first choice was Obama, according to a poll by Edison/Mitofsky of voters entering caucus sites.

At the same time, the fact that so many Iowa Democrats voted for an African-American man and a white woman was historic as well. For Obama, especially, the ratification of his candidacy by Democrats and independents in a predominantly white and rural state suggests that he may be able to build a broad and multiracial coalition in his bid for the White House.

The nomination fights will only intensify from now, though the steel that Huckabee will deploy in the battle is unclear. He seemed to come out of nowhere - an ex-governor who was so little known among Republicans that many of them could not even name the state he once led (Arkansas) - and turned from asterisk-status to giant-slayer here in spite of a paltry political organization, slim dollars and a final week marked by gaffes.

As when Pat Robertson made a surprise second-place showing in the Iowa caucuses in 1988, Huckabee enjoyed substantial political support from evangelical Christians and took advantage of a muddled Republican presidential field to drive toward an 11th-hour victory over Romney, of Massachusetts.

For Romney, his loss here will register as a deep blow to his candidacy - a failure bound to worry establishment Republicans and wealthy donors who have viewed him as their man. It will also energize and inspire Republicans who are backing Senator John McCain in the New Hampshire primary.

Romney's drive to the Republican nomination was supposed to begin with him looking formidable and confident coming out of Iowa. Romney, his wife and his sons planted themselves here for months and poured in money, including millions of his own; he now heads to New Hampshire clearly wounded and a target for even more rivals, like Rudolph Giuliani, former Senator Fred Thompson and McCain.

Huckabee, a folksy and fairly plain-speaking politician with a sense of humor that many Iowans enjoyed, appealed to Republican caucusgoers who put a premium on a candidate's Christian faith - and who were deeply wary about seeing a Mormon, Romney, become president.

But Huckabee also struck many populist themes that have deep appeal to middle-class Iowans and farmers, promising to tailor his economic priorities to their needs and taking tough stands on a key issue here, immigration.

But Iowa voters are not New Hampshire voters, as Huckabee and his advisers are well aware. Devoutly religious voters do not exist in nearly the same numbers in the Granite State. And the fervent anti-tax sentiment among Republicans there is likely to clash with Huckabee's record of raising taxes in Arkansas.

"If Huckabee scares the Republican establishment and makes the party fear losing, you could see a rapid rallying around a second candidate," said Nelson Warfield, a Republican consultant not working for any candidate.

Indeed, Robertson's Iowa performance in 1988 - when he came in second to Bob Dole and edged out the ultimate nominee, the elder George Bush - gave him little bounce in New Hampshire, given the lack of a fervent evangelical base.

"I'm going to be the nominee," Robertson said right after his victory, crediting God in particular with his success, which faded after a drubbing soon after in New Hampshire.

Huckabee talked about God on the Iowa campaign trail, as well, but on Thursday night there was one other word that he - as well as Obama, Romney, Clinton and former Senator John Edwards - discussed especially and emphatically: "change."

As Edwards put it, "the status quo lost, and change won" in the caucuses. Obama and Huckabee repeated the words incessantly in their victory speeches, brandishing the word as a talisman that overcame Clinton's decades of experience and Romney's leadership bona fides.

Yet change was not only the political message; change was the two men themselves.

Marjorie Connelly contributed reporting from Des Moines."

"What do the Iowa results mean?" by the BBC

"http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7171057.stm

It was celebrations for Mike Huckabee and Barack Obama, who won the Republican and Democratic nominations respectively, as voters in Iowa turned out in force to make their selection.

The Iowa caucuses can give big boosts to candidates' campaigns in the long haul to reach the White House.

Which factors contributed to the success of Mr Obama and Mr Huckabee?

The key message for both, despite their very different political stances, was the promise of change.

The word cropped up regularly in Mr Obama's campaign speeches. And about half of the people attending the Democratic caucuses said a candidate's ability to bring change was the most important factor.

For Mr Huckabee, another key word was "values", with many Republican caucus-goers saying the former Baptist minister was someone "who shares my values".

His win was built on the support he got from evangelical voters. More than half of Republicans interviewed as they attended the caucuses said they were either born-again or evangelical Christians, the Associated Press news agency reported.

What about the turnout?

This was also another important factor.

The Republican turnout was about 115,000, up on the 2000 figure of 87,666. For the Democrats it was even higher, with some 239,000 turning out to register their choice, up from 124,000 four years ago.

This seems to reflect Mr Obama's success in reaching out to first-time caucus-goers and independents.

Many voters under 25 turned to him and he also outpolled his main rival Hillary Clinton among women.

Who were the biggest losers?

Without doubt the most glaring loss was for Senator Clinton, long considered the Democratic frontrunner and who once enjoyed a significant lead in the Iowa polls.

On the Republican side, former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney saw the many millions of dollars he spent campaigning in Iowa translate only into second place.

In recent weeks he saw his advantage whittled down and shortly before the contest, his camp dampened down expectations, saying second place would be fine.

What about the other candidates?

John Edwards, who also campaigned on a theme of a break with the status quo, will be hoping his strong finish to secure second place in Iowa, ahead of Mrs Clinton, will boost his campaign.

Republican Senator John McCain, who came fourth behind Mr Huckabee, Mr Romney and Fred Thompson, spent little time in Iowa and has been much more focused on the next election stop of New Hampshire.

Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani did not mount a major campaign in Iowa and his showing of 3.5%, behind outsider Ron Paul who scored 10%, will be no surprise. His strategy is to target the larger states that hold their contests later in the electoral calendar.

"We're ahead in maybe 16, 18 of the 29 states that are coming up," was his reaction to the Iowa result.

Are any campaign changes likely?

Mrs Clinton and Mr Romney have the funds, the organisational backing and plenty of supporters. But it is clear they have both been wounded politically and need to regroup fast.


Mrs Clinton has tried to present herself as the candidate of change and experience, a feat it seems she was unable to pull off in Iowa.

But her campaign appeared to pursuing this line as they headed on to the next election stop of New Hampshire.

"This is an election that is really going to be about the choice that people have between an experienced leader for change versus leadership with less experience that talks about change," Mrs Clinton's chief strategist said.

What happens next?

The nomination battle is set to intensify further, with only a few days for the respective campaigns to gear up for New Hampshire's primary on Tuesday.

Polling data from there has indicated that Mrs Clinton's once-secure lead has been dented and it is virtually neck-and-neck between her and Mr Obama. Although Mrs Clinton has consistently led in the national polls, a defeat in New Hampshire would be a bitter blow to her campaign.

The polls for the Republicans show a much more open contest. Mr McCain, who has devoted much more time to campaigning in New Hampshire than Iowa, is doing well, surveys suggest.

New Hampshire polls put Mr Romney and Mr McCain about level.

Mr Huckabee will face a tougher test in this state where issues like taxation and national security are set to figure more prominently than in Iowa, where social and religious issues came to the fore.

He will be aiming to use his Iowa victory to boost his chances in New Hampshire, where he cannot count on the same level of Christian conservative support.

Are there any lessons from history?

Very often it is not so much about winning in Iowa but doing better or at least as well as expected.

Democrat Howard Dean was leading his party's polls in 2004 but after his third place in Iowa his campaign stuttered and never recovered.

But an Iowa victory, while important, is no guarantee of national success. The 1992 winner for the Democrats was Tom Harkin. Trailing way behind him was Bill Clinton, who went on to capture the presidency."

Iowa predictions

I forgot to do this before work, but it is my lunch break now.

My predictions for Iowa:

REP
Romney to edge Huckabee who has been revealed to be a bit of a jerk.
Guiliani & Thompson to do very poorly.
Ron Paul to do suprisingly well. Say 10 %.

Dems
Obama to edge hillary or Edwards.
Biden to suprise and finish 3rd based on his foreign policy experience and the situation in Pakistan.

Let the games begin!

Bipartisan group to explore independent presidential bid at OU meeting

"

http://www.kten.com/Global/story.asp?S=7558188

OKLAHOMA CITY (AP) - University of Oklahoma President David Boren is leading a bipartisan group of former U.S. senators, governors and party leaders who share concerns about "partisan polarization" in the presidential campaign.

Boren says the group will gather at OU on January 7th to urge an end to party squabbling and consider a possible independent candidate.

Boren -- a former Democratic U.S. senator from Oklahoma says the meeting will serve as a form of "shock therapy" to the major-party candidates to "stop the bickering" and provide Americans with a blueprint for bipartisanship in Washington.

Boren says New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, a potential independent presidential candidate, is among a dozen political leaders who are likely to attend the meeting."

Bloomberg running regardless of the candidate.

I am a McLaughlin Group junkie. Elanor Clift on that show has some contact with Bloomberg as do some of the other hosts. It has been stated repeatedly that Bloomberg might not run if certain candidates were selected by the Republican and Democratic parties. The jist is the guy is a career Dem. He has presidential aspirations, but doesn't want to throw the election to the republicans. The presumption has been if two widely disliked candidates like Guliani and Clinton were nominated, that would open the door for a "safe" bloomberg run. Both candaidates have very high negative approval ratings. That matchup would create 20-30+% of the populace who would be looking for a third option. And he doesn't like Guliani, so it makes a world of sense.

He would pull heavily from the same Guliani crowd and the people who dislike both candidates. Guiliani would get a no-show from the conservative crowd and either bloomberg or Hillary would win. But the pundits have said repeatedly that bloomberg would not be interested in challenging if his run might throw the election to the republicans.

This article is very interesting as it seems to strongly suggest that bloomberg has been seduced by the possiblity of being president and is running regardless of the opposition, by it's choice of candidates Bloomberg has mentioned. Obama has one of the lowest negative ratings in the race and that is only likely to be controversial at all if Bloomberg runs as a white man vs. Obama's black man. In that instance, Bloomberg is clearly running against the Democrats.

December 31, 2007
Bloomberg Moves Closer to Running for President
By SAM ROBERTS
Buoyed by the still unsettled field, Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg is growing increasingly enchanted with the idea of an independent presidential bid, and his aides are aggressively laying the groundwork for him to run.

On Sunday, the mayor will join Democratic and Republican elder statesmen at the University of Oklahoma in what the conveners are billing as an effort to pressure the major party candidates to renounce partisan gridlock.

Former Senator David L. Boren of Oklahoma, who organized the session with former Senator Sam Nunn, a Democrat of Georgia, suggested in an interview that if the prospective major party nominees failed within two months to formally embrace bipartisanship and address the fundamental challenges facing the nation, “I would be among those who would urge Mr. Bloomberg to very seriously consider running for president as an independent.”

Next week’s meeting, reported on Sunday in The Washington Post, comes as the mayor’s advisers have been quietly canvassing potential campaign consultants about their availability in the coming months.

And Mr. Bloomberg himself has become more candid in conversations with friends and associates about his interest in running, according to participants in those talks. Despite public denials, the mayor has privately suggested scenarios in which he might be a viable candidate: for instance, if the opposing major party candidates are poles apart, like Mike Huckabee, a Republican, versus Barack Obama or John Edwards as the Democratic nominee.

A final decision by Mr. Bloomberg about whether to run is unlikely before February. Still, he and his closest advisers are positioning themselves so that if the mayor declares his candidacy, a turnkey campaign infrastructure will virtually be in place.

Bloomberg aides have studied the process for starting independent campaigns, which formally begins March 5, when third-party candidates can begin circulating nominating petitions in Texas. If Democrats and Republicans have settled on their presumptive nominees at that point, Mr. Bloomberg will have to decide whether he believes those candidates are vulnerable to a challenge from a pragmatic, progressive centrist, which is how he would promote himself.

The filing deadline for the petitions, which must be signed by approximately 74,000 Texas voters who did not participate in the state’s Democratic or Republican primaries, is May 12.

Among the other participants invited to the session next Sunday and Monday is Senator Chuck Hagel, a Nebraska Republican, who has said he would consider being Mr. Bloomberg’s running mate on an independent ticket.

Mr. Boren declined to say which candidate would be strongest, but suggested “some kind of combination of those three: Bloomberg-Hagel, Bloomberg-Nunn.” He said Mr. Bloomberg would “not have to spend a lot of time raising money and he would not have to make deals with special interest groups to raise money.”

“Normally I don’t think an independent candidacy would have a chance” said Mr. Boren, who is the University of Oklahoma’s president. “I don’t think these are normal times.”

Mr. Bloomberg, who has tried to seize a national platform on gun control, the environment and other issues, has been regularly briefed in recent months on foreign policy by, among others, Henry A. Kissinger, his friend and the former secretary of state, and Nancy Soderberg, an ambassador to the United Nations in the Clinton administration.

Advisers have said Mr. Bloomberg, a billionaire many times over, might invest as much as $1 billion of his own fortune (he spent about $160 million on his two mayoral races) on a presidential campaign.

But they warned that while they were confident of getting on the ballot in every state, the process was complicated and fraught with legal challenges, and that Mr. Bloomberg would begin with an organizational disadvantage, competing against rivals who have been campaigning full time for years.

Still, the mayor said this month at a news conference, “Last I looked — and I’m not a candidate — but last time I checked reading about the Constitution, the Electoral College has nothing to do with parties, has absolutely nothing to do with parties. It’s most states are winners take all. The popular vote assigns electoral votes to the candidate, and I don’t think it says in there that you have to be a member of one party or another.”

The key players — virtually the only players — in Mr. Bloomberg’s embryonic campaign are three of his deputy mayors, Kevin Sheekey, Edward Skyler and Patricia E. Harris. Another aide, Patrick Brennan, who was the political director of Mr. Bloomberg’s 2005 re-election campaign, resigned as commissioner of the city’s Community Assistance Unit earlier this year to spend more time exploring the mayor’s possible national campaign.

One concern among Mr. Bloomberg’s inner circle is whether a loss would label him a spoiler — “a rich Ralph Nader” — who cost a more viable candidate the presidency in a watershed political year. One person close to the mayor, who spoke on condition of anonymity so as not to be seen discussing internal strategy, stressed that Mr. Bloomberg would run only if he believed he could win.

“He’s not going to do it to influence the debate,” the person said.

The mayor was asked last week at a news conference whether a Bloomberg campaign would cost the Democratic or Republican nominee more votes.

“You know,” he replied, “if it’s a three-way race, the public has more choice than if it’s a two-way race, and has more choice in a two-way race than a one-way race. Why shouldn’t you have lots of people running, and what’s magical about people who happen to be a member of a party?”

Sam Waterston, the actor whose former co-star on “Law and Order,” Fred D. Thompson, is a Republican presidential candidate, is a founder of Unity08. That group also hopes to advance a nonpartisan ticket, and Mr. Waterston says the mayor is often mentioned on the group’s Web site as a prospective nominee.

“If he formally embraced Unity08’s principal goals of a bipartisan, nonpartisan, postpartisan ticket — which he’s almost in a position to do all by himself, having been a Democrat, a Republican, and now an independent — and of an administration dedicated to ending partisanship within itself and in Washington, then it’s hard to think of anyone better placed to win Unity08’s support if he sought it,” Mr. Waterston said. “And, of course, there’s nothing that says Unity08 couldn’t draft him.”

Some associates said that after six years as mayor, Mr. Bloomberg was itching for a new challenge — much like he was in 2000 when, as chief executive of Bloomberg L.P., he was flirting with running for mayor.

But Mr. Bloomberg will also have to weigh several intangibles: Can he run for president and serve as mayor of a combustible metropolis simultaneously for eight months? (He believes he can, and would not resign as mayor to run.) Does he want to be president badly enough to sacrifice his zealously guarded personal privacy? (He’s not completely convinced.)

Meanwhile, he thoroughly enjoys the attention, and despite the public denials, suggests that he is poised to run if the political stars align themselves for a long-shot, but credible, independent campaign. During a private reception this month, Mr. Bloomberg playfully presided over a personal variation of bingo, in which guests could win by correctly guessing the significance of the numbers on a printed card.

“Two hundred seventy-one?” Mr. Bloomberg asked.

One guest guessed correctly: It was George W. Bush’s bare electoral-vote majority in 2000."