Nevada and South Carolina predictions

Good morning. While not exactly political news, it may interest some of you to know that Bobby Fischer passed away last night in an hospital in Reykjavik. Fischer became a chess grand master at age 15, one year after becoming a U.S. champion. In 1972, he played the Soviet Union's Boris Spassky for the world championship. The Cold War atmosphere was heightened by the fact that Fischer was staunchly individualistic, irascible and quirky, whereas Spassky was the emotionless face of the communist empire. Fischer arrived two days late for the match and complained constantly about small and even strange things, turning the event into something like a McEnroe-Borg tennis match. Many have speculated that the antics were a deliberate attempt to get under Spassky's skin and throw the Russian off his game. Fischer's victory was a massive point of pride for the Americans. He kept the championship until 1975. Garry Kasparov, the great Russian chess master and current politician, called Fischer's ascendency in the 1960s "a revolutionary breakthrough" for the game of chess.

If you know anything about Bobby Fischer, though, it probably has little to do with chess. Personally, the first time I saw him televised was a few years ago, when he yelled at reporter Jeremy Schaap, calling him and his father (the legendary sports reporter Dick Schaap, who had just passed away) "dirty Jews." He became a recluse and a paranoiac, living outside the United States. His 1992 rematch against Spassky was hyped and lucrative, and held in Yugoslavia against U.N. sanctions (Fischer won, 10-5). He abandoned chess in 1996, for a randomized variation of the game that never caught on. Despite being half Jewish and raised in Brooklyn, and despite his role as one-time standard-bearer for the USA, Fischer became violently anti-Semitic and anti-American. He praised the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001 and said that America needed to be wiped out. Three years ago, he was detained for nine months in Japan as he attempted to go to Iceland with a US Passport after he had renounced US citizenship. Still grateful for its role in hosting the great match more than 30 years earlier, Iceland offered Fischer citizenship, and Japan let him go. He lived there until his death yesterday. He was 64.

Okay, politics:

If you missed it, Judge James Mahan of the U.S. District Court for Nevada issued a decision yesterday that allows the Nevada caucuses to go on as scheduled, in the casinos tomorrow. You may or may not have heard that this was in response to a lawsuit by the teachers' union, who said that was somehow discriminatory because their teachers might have to drive to a caucus instead of having one in their workplace, where they wouldn't be anyway, since teachers don't work on Saturdays. If this strikes you as stupid, petty and self-serving, I remind you that it is a teachers union (the job of which is to defend its people), and then say that I agree, and this is the dumbest thing ever. To think that it's more discriminatory to make a teacher drive to a caucus (which they would have to do anyway) than it is to prevent legions of largely poor casino workers from voting at all... well, I can't get on board with that thinking. Hillary Clinton could, though, and did, largely because those workers were part of a union that endorsed her opponent, Barack Obama. So yes, she did try to disenfranchise people who might disagree with her, but I'm sure she'd say it's because she cares too much.

I am being simplistic, here, of course. The Hillary camp has officially taken no position on the suit, but the suit wasn't launched until two days after the culinary union endorsed Obama, and most people agree that not having some caucuses in casinos will disenfranchise service and culinary workers. Also, they may not have taken an official position, but look at this video of Bill getting pissed at a reporter for daring to ask him a question about the suit. Listen to the reporting, while you're at it, and you'll hear why Bill's reasoning is, shall we say, flawed. No, the bottom line is that Hillary allies launched this suit, and, instead of doing the right thing and saying that it was a bad deal, Hillary tacitly condoned it because it was good for her. I know it's just politics, but does anyone think that's real leadership?

More videos: Mitt Romney was just giving a little press conf in a Staples, brandishing an Easy button, when AP reporter Glen Johnson started interrupting him and attacking him. Mitt got a little hot (get it? Mitt... hot... okay, let's move on). There are two parts of this debate: One is that Mitt says lobbyists are not running his campaign, and there are a few people with whom he is good friends and who advise him (but do not get paid by the campaign) who are also career lobbyists. You can do with that what you want; I choose not to care that much what a man's friends do for a living.

The second, and more important issue to me, is that AP reporter Glen Johnson is ENTIRELY UNRELIABLE when it comes to Romney now. It's obvious he hates the guy from this clip (and a Google search confirms he does nothing but write negative stuff about Romney), which is fine. Romney is quite possibly a robot who has no guiding principles other than business, and he's certainly changed his mind on issues that matter a lot to some people. I can see why people might not like him. But Glen Johnson is an Associated Press reporter; he is in the position of having to give me information that I can trust, and he can't do that as long as he badgers the candidate and doesn't let him answer questions, as in that clip. This was a great example of how a journalist (in Mr. Johnson's case, a political journalist of 20 years) can let his feelings get the better of him and compromise his integrity. I ran a newspaper for a few minutes, and if one of my reporters had acted like this with a prominent and controversial figure in our community, I would have taken him off of the beat in a moment. The AP should do the same and reassign Mr. Johnson immediately. I wrote them an email at info@ap.org, but somehow I don't think that goes to the Editor-in-Chief's mailbox.

Okay, tomorrow's primaries:

Let's start with the most conventionally important one, South Carolina. The GOP bellweather (remember, the Dems have their SC primary next week) has accurately predicted the nominee for 1.7 million years or something. It may do that this time, but I see no reason it has to. I'll predict a narrow victory for McCain there, but first, let's take a moment to savor the tumbling numbers of a religious nutbag.

Many of you have gleefully pointed out that, weeks ago, I thought Huckabee would win the nomination. I did think that. I also thought that he was not anywhere near as stupid as he turns out to be. Obviously, he's a rightwing fundamentalist born-again, but the mistakes he's made haven't had as much to do with that as they have with an apparent lack of understanding about the Republican electorate. His two most recent ideas: We have to change the Constitution to match the Bible, and allowing marriage between a man and a woman is the same as allowing a man to marry three women or one dog (both actual quotes). Now, obviously he thinks these things; he's a fundamentalist Baptist preacher and his faith is clear on those issues. But to say them, out loud, during a campaign, is as foolish as saying we'll round up 12 million people in 120 days and send them all back to Latin America, or Pakistan, or wherever he thinks they came from. When I thought he had a broad enough appeal to win the nomination in a weak field, I was taking it for granted that his political instincts were good enough not to repeatedly say things that would make it clear how bad a president he would be. Instead, we get Santorum-esque speeches about Commandamendments and eliminating the income tax and shipping all the Pakistanis back to Venezuela. I apologize, readers: I gave him too much credit.

Anyway, the polls consistently have McCain up small in South Carolina (although the latest Ras tracking has him and Huck tied), with Romney and Thompson in a battle for third. I think Mac will win, but even if Huck pulls it out, his run ends there. He gets 11% of the non-evangelical vote in SC; imagine how he'll do in bigger states with fewer religious zealots. In any case, it's not a winner-take-all state, so they'll get a similar number of delegates. Prediction:

McCain: 27
Huck: 24
Thompson: 19
Romney: 16

Thompson then says thanks so much for your support, I'm done, vote for McCain, and you stay classy, South Carolina.

Okay, onto Nevada.

On the GOP side, the latest poll has Romney up double digits. Now, it's by Mason-Dixon, which I take cum grano salis, but I've been saying that Romney was the only one with any sort of operation there. I think it's because the other candidates focus on the traditional value of SC and allocated their resources there. Romney, the businessman, takes a business approach: Nevada has delegates, too, and they're relatively easy for him to win. His Northeast appeal doesn't fly in SC anyway, so all he has to do is show up against the establishment and get some delegates there to maintain momentum. Then he's won three states (WY, NV, and MI), which is more than anyone else, and he's still in the delegate lead. Either he's completely neglecting the psychology of politics and the sentimentality of traditional Republicans, or the other candidates are overvaluing tradition and spending too many resources in a state that doesn't represent much beyond a place where the GOP is king. Either way, Romney takes Nevada big.

Romney: 35
McCain: 21
Huckabee: 10
Rudy: 10

Okay, the Dems. First off, a disclaimer: No one, no one, NO ONE has any idea how the first-ever Nevada caucuses will go, who will vote, whatever. We just have no clue. It's like polling Iowa, but there's no history to teach us anything.

That said, this was always Hillary's best state of the first four, and the Hispanic voters are going to go her way. She's made the efforts, Hispanic voters tend to be more conservative (which means Hillary in the Democatic party; Obama's hardly a safe, establishment figure), and, frankly, Hispanic and black Americans have just never been that wild about each other, politically. I'm not a sociologist, so I can't tell you why that is, but I think anyone who's studied our politics and culture would agree that it is so. The union endorsement is good for Obama, especially because it will help in the actual caucuses as far as guiding people, but those casino caucuses we were talking about represent less than 6% of all delegates from the state. This should really be Hill-dawg's.

Hillary: 41
Obama: 35
Edwards: 15

Seriously, people, send me predictions. I'll say nice things about you if you're right.

And let's end with a column by the ever-condescending Christopher Hitchens. This time, the famed atheist, who sits just to right of really really conservative, thinks that we should move past identity politics. I agree wholeheartedly. He thinks the best way to do that is to pretend that we are all on the same playing field. I disagree, and find that intentionally juvenile. Just because Barack Obama does not come from a heritage of American slavery, and just because Hillary Clinton has received some benefits from being a strong woman leader, that does not mean that they both are immune to the societal biases against them. If it's no big deal to elect a woman or black man, why haven't we done it yet?