I have to wonder what this campaign would be like if there were different nominees from the parties. I have to think that Hillary would be up on McCain as least as much as Obama, but would have moved into the lead even earlier. The real difference would be with the Republicans--had Mitt Romney been the nominee, the GOP would have been in much better shape to argue that their candidate is the one who understands the economy and could fix it.
Or would they? Romney lacks the popular touch even more than McCain. However, McCain's age works against him through the comparison with the youthful Obama, which would have been more neutralized with Romney. McCain doesn't exactly connect with voters--support for him in large part stems from unease with Obama. That same unease would've worked for Romney, but other than age I don't think Mitt would've been a much better nominee even given the financial mess.
And then there's the Huckster. The only other viable Republican nominee, Huckabee has what the other two lack, which is the common touch. It would have been a dangerous comparison with Obama from the Democratic perspective. Huckabee could have smeared him on the Rev. Wright stuff, and been able to bring it up again and again without really bringing it up.
I was prompted in the direction of these wild what-if speculations due to McCain's tax cut proposal yesterday. What a disaster. For a campaign that I had so much respect for strategy-wise prior to the Ides of September, their stock has rapidly declined in my mind. McCain should have opposed the bailout. This would have given him what he lacked and what he was vulnerable on--a populist appeal. He could have done it with conservative bona fides, since a lot of the GOP base opposed it.
The whole reason Palin was picked was precisely for an injection of the popular touch. But Palin, like McCain's strategy in the last four weeks, is a gimmick. All McCain's trickery has turned his campaign into a laughing stock. And now this--his response to the financial crisis is a capital gains tax! Unbelievable.
I don't care if it's right. I don't care if it is sound policy. This is not college ECON 202 class. This is a presidential campaign, and a capital gains tax cut does nothing for McCain's campaign. Nothing, but give Obama a gift complete with wrapping and a red bow. It fits the stereotype of McCain being out of touch, flailing around with his proposals, and in the tank with Bush big-business policies. That's a stereotype that McCain needed to work against, not comfortably slide into.
McCain had his chance on the economy to rally disaffected voters, and he chose the safe route. This is why he's down and will probably lose.
Showing posts with label Huckabee. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Huckabee. Show all posts
10/15/08
9/26/08
It's not as bad as you think for McCain
I know it's an overstatement. But John McCain's attempt to shake up the race, which I praised to the skies yesterday, has failed (despite Fox's reporting that McCain's #s are up as a result of the suspension). There's no deal on the bailout. McCain didn't show decisive leadership, a meeting with the pres and the two pres wannabes devolved into a shouting match, and McCain blinked on the debate. So the debate's going to happen. My wife's reaction was to roll her eyes and condemn McCain--I think that's telling.
Axelrod is saying that McCain exploited the economy for political purposes, and the Huckster is saying that McCain's move was a "Big mistake...You can't just say, 'World, stop for a moment. I'm going to cancel everything.'" The Democratic line is that McCain is "injecting presidential politics" into the issue. It's appealing, no matter Rush Limbaugh's rants about Obama's failure at the meeting with Bush, McCain and co.
So McCain is skulking with his tail between his legs to the debate, and Obama has an edge going in. Or does he? I still firmly believe that McCain has to continually shake up the race. There are risks to every move of this type he makes, but he doesn't have a choice.
And the proofs still in the pudding. What's going to happen tonight? Everything is riding on it. The whole presidency. More people will watch this debate than the other two. There's enormous anticipation, and it comes right smack dab in the middle of an economic crisis.
What's the expectations game for McCain? I always thought that McCain would debate, and never considered that he would back out. "He's playing the expectations game," I thought. If he goes unwillingly to the debate, the expectations will be lower. And there's an argument here. If McCain hadn't pulled this stunt, what would everyone be talking about? I'll tell you: they'll be talking about the debate on foreign policy, and how that's McCain's specialty, and how he should blow Obama out of the water, and yet, wow, isn't it kind of irrelevant to what is the pressing concern right now? That's what the chatterheads would say. Instead, the talking points are different. Still not favorable to McCain, but doesn't it take some of the pressure off of him? There is a setup for McCain to do well. He could still lose, or he could still win with the pundits and lose with the people, that's very possible. But at least the setup isn't: an out-of-touch rich Washington insider gets ready to debate foreign policy, ignoring the biggest financial crisis of a generation.
You have to look at the opportunity cost with campaign moves like this.
Axelrod is saying that McCain exploited the economy for political purposes, and the Huckster is saying that McCain's move was a "Big mistake...You can't just say, 'World, stop for a moment. I'm going to cancel everything.'" The Democratic line is that McCain is "injecting presidential politics" into the issue. It's appealing, no matter Rush Limbaugh's rants about Obama's failure at the meeting with Bush, McCain and co.
So McCain is skulking with his tail between his legs to the debate, and Obama has an edge going in. Or does he? I still firmly believe that McCain has to continually shake up the race. There are risks to every move of this type he makes, but he doesn't have a choice.
And the proofs still in the pudding. What's going to happen tonight? Everything is riding on it. The whole presidency. More people will watch this debate than the other two. There's enormous anticipation, and it comes right smack dab in the middle of an economic crisis.
What's the expectations game for McCain? I always thought that McCain would debate, and never considered that he would back out. "He's playing the expectations game," I thought. If he goes unwillingly to the debate, the expectations will be lower. And there's an argument here. If McCain hadn't pulled this stunt, what would everyone be talking about? I'll tell you: they'll be talking about the debate on foreign policy, and how that's McCain's specialty, and how he should blow Obama out of the water, and yet, wow, isn't it kind of irrelevant to what is the pressing concern right now? That's what the chatterheads would say. Instead, the talking points are different. Still not favorable to McCain, but doesn't it take some of the pressure off of him? There is a setup for McCain to do well. He could still lose, or he could still win with the pundits and lose with the people, that's very possible. But at least the setup isn't: an out-of-touch rich Washington insider gets ready to debate foreign policy, ignoring the biggest financial crisis of a generation.
You have to look at the opportunity cost with campaign moves like this.
8/26/08
Astute Suggestion
A politically-informed voter in Western PA recently made a very astute observation regarding McCain's Veep selection.
He said that the housing comment of McCain's and the selection of Biden makes Huckabee a really attractive running-mate right now, "because he is more common." In other words, don't pick Romney, because he won't help you where he's supposed to, viz. economic knowledge, because of his privileged backstory. Huckabee on the other hand has the common touch, and can't be accused of elitism like Romney. Plus you get the contrast with Biden, who's been in the Senate forever. McCain can blunt the out-of-touch elitism charge and recapture more of a "change" mantra than with Romney. Of course, I'm only comparing Huckabee to Romney at this point, and perhaps McCain has already settled on Palin who might do all of these things better. But Huckabee is a tested presidential candidate and Palin is not.
Would Biden destroy Huckabee on foreign policy in the veep debate? Probably. But he'd destroy anyone. And that's only the conventional wisdom anyway. I thought Kerry destroyed Bush in the 04 debates, but the country did not agree with me.
He said that the housing comment of McCain's and the selection of Biden makes Huckabee a really attractive running-mate right now, "because he is more common." In other words, don't pick Romney, because he won't help you where he's supposed to, viz. economic knowledge, because of his privileged backstory. Huckabee on the other hand has the common touch, and can't be accused of elitism like Romney. Plus you get the contrast with Biden, who's been in the Senate forever. McCain can blunt the out-of-touch elitism charge and recapture more of a "change" mantra than with Romney. Of course, I'm only comparing Huckabee to Romney at this point, and perhaps McCain has already settled on Palin who might do all of these things better. But Huckabee is a tested presidential candidate and Palin is not.
Would Biden destroy Huckabee on foreign policy in the veep debate? Probably. But he'd destroy anyone. And that's only the conventional wisdom anyway. I thought Kerry destroyed Bush in the 04 debates, but the country did not agree with me.
7/8/08
The case for a Southerner
John A. Tures from LaGrange College makes the point today that the presidential nominees should pick running-mates from the South. This means Huckabee or Thompson for McCain, and Webb or Edwards for Obama.
He writes:
Webb on the ticket, as I've argued since February, is perfect for Obama. Would Huckabee be the right risk for McCain? I tend to think so, but a comment on a previous post of mine claimed that Alaska Gov Sarah Palin will get the nod. I think that's probably more likely than Huckabee, who's despised by the Republican establishment. As the folks at 2008Central argued in a recent podcast, McCain needs to challenge the perceptions of himself. That's exactly right, because he cannot coast to victory. Obama can, but McCain can't. Kerry tried to coast to victory in 2004 and it almost worked. He had a southerner on the ticket, too. This time around the climate is much more demoralizing for the GOP. This doesn't mean that Obama shouldn't pick a Southerner though...
He writes:
My research shows that when a Southerner is on the ticket, the pair wins 63.7 percent of the time. That winning percentage drops down to a 41.2 percent likelihood of victory if no Southerner is on the ballot for the party.
The findings show improvements for both parties. The Democratic Party has put a Southerner on the ticket 16 times, with 9 victories to show for it. That's more than twice as good as their 12 elections with no Southerner listed on the ballot. Only three won in those cases: FDR in 1940, and Woodrow Wilson in 1912 and 1916. Of course, Wilson was born in Staunton, Virginia, long before he became New Jersey's Governor, further cementing the party's ties to a successful Southern strategy.
The results are also impressive for the Grand Old Party. Since 1896, Republicans won half of their races where a Southerner was not on the ballot (going a dismal 4 for 11 between 1932 and 1976). When a Southerner made the ticket, the GOP prevailed 83.3 percent of the time, taking five of six races. The only GOP ticket to lose involved George Herbert Walker Bush, who was a New England Republican transplanted to Texas.
This is worth thinking about. The choice of running mate really does matter. It solidifies or challenges the image of a candidate. I posted five days ago that "Romney would be perfect for McCain," but I should have added that this is not what I think he needs to do to win. It is a safe choice, a solid choice. Many positives and few negatives. Normally that would cement the deal, but now is not a normal time, but rather a toxic climate for Republicans, not excluding McCain. McCain needs a big-time play. If he's going to win it, it's going to be 1948, not 1972. Only Obama has the possibility of a 1964. So McCain needs to be in risk-taking mode, starting with the running-mate.Webb on the ticket, as I've argued since February, is perfect for Obama. Would Huckabee be the right risk for McCain? I tend to think so, but a comment on a previous post of mine claimed that Alaska Gov Sarah Palin will get the nod. I think that's probably more likely than Huckabee, who's despised by the Republican establishment. As the folks at 2008Central argued in a recent podcast, McCain needs to challenge the perceptions of himself. That's exactly right, because he cannot coast to victory. Obama can, but McCain can't. Kerry tried to coast to victory in 2004 and it almost worked. He had a southerner on the ticket, too. This time around the climate is much more demoralizing for the GOP. This doesn't mean that Obama shouldn't pick a Southerner though...
6/28/08
Huckabee would accept veep spot
This is the first time I've heard him say he would accept McCain's offer to be his running-mate.
5/19/08
McCain's campaign contradictory
Peter Beinhart said this morning on Washington Journal that the Republican brand is tarnished, and that the long campaign, with the generation of excitement and infrastructure in so many states, has helped the Democrats. Mike Huckabee said the same thing about the Republican brand being tarnished on Meet the Press yesterday. NPR reported this morning on how Republicans are running twenty points behind Democrats on every issue ("Who do you want running the economy, etc."). But McCain is running ahead of the Republican brand. Was McCain a really smart choice by Republican primary voters?
Bill Kristol had a column in the NYT praising McCain's "exceptionalism." He's exactly wrong. I called into Washington Journal last week to make just this point. What's happening right now is similar to what was going on back in October of last year, when it looked like Hillary was edging out Obama and starting to become "inevitable." What happened then? Hillary stumbled in a debate over a question about illegal immigration. Her campaign put out a silly press release bashing Obama wanting to be president in Kindergarten. There was an overdone media frenzy over a hostage crisis in one of her campaign offices. Obama was outspending Hillary in Iowa, and she was losing ground, ultimately finishing third there.
All of this was nothing, however, compared to the real reason Hillary is going to lose the nomination. And that is her October 2002 Iraq vote. That is the big contradiction of her campaign, and she could just not overcome it. Obama exploited it to the hilt.
The contradiction is this: Vote for Hillary, she has experience. On the number 1 issue of the day, Hillary had a vote, a chance to weigh in when it counted, and she blew it. But vote for her; she'll be ready to lead; she has experience.
It's internally contradictory. Anytime you are trying to make an argument in politics it has to make sense. You can't paper-over a glaring contradiction on an issue people care about. You can emote, you can ask for forgiveness, you can say you're sorry, and that is really the only way to do it. I believe it was the YouTube debate on the Republican side in which Romney was asked about his position on abortion. He began with this: "I don't know how many times I have to say it, I'm pro-life." What a terrible response. Impatience with the audience, with voters, for not believing him that he's had a super convenient change of heart on an issue that the constituency he's after cares about. That was the time to emote, to show his sincerity, to sell his change of heart. Romney might have lost the nomination with that answer. Huckabee killed him by exploiting this contradiction in Romney's campaign--he was supposed to be the conservative candidate, but his record didn't support that.
It was the same way with Bush's Social Security reform plan. "Social Security is in a crisis; it won't be there for young people. We need to spend huge amounts of money to make private accounts." Well, if it's in crisis, then why spend so much money to change it to something different? And if you're in crisis mode, why not focus on Medicare which is in worse crisis?
McCain's argument for the presidency is internally contradictory. He trumpets his foreign policy experience. But he's been in favor of the war all along, and by any measure the war has been a disaster.
In a a speech in Columbus on May 15, McCain said this:
By January 2013, America has welcomed home most of the servicemen and women who have sacrificed terribly so that America might be secure in her freedom. The Iraq War has been won. Iraq is a functioning democracy, although still suffering from the lingering effects of decades of tyranny and centuries of sectarian tension. Violence still occurs, but it is spasmodic and much reduced. Civil war has been prevented; militias disbanded; the Iraqi Security Force is professional and competent; al Qaeda in Iraq has been defeated; and the Government of Iraq is capable of imposing its authority in every province of Iraq and defending the integrity of its borders. The United States maintains a military presence there, but a much smaller one, and it does not play a direct combat role.
"It's not a timetable; it's victory. It's victory, which I have always predicted," Mr. McCain told reporters. This has to grate on anyone who's payed a modicum of attention to the disaster in Iraq. McCain will lose because his argument for why he should be president doesn't make sense on the most basic level. What if the economy was a bigger issue than Iraq? McCain said last December, "the issue of economics is not something I've understood as well as I should." No, national security is all he's got. And it's internally contradictory. The reason McCain isn't hurting right now is that the attention is off of him, and he's benefiting from that.
In other news, following up on my post on electability in the general election, the Miami Herald has this report:
Bill Kristol had a column in the NYT praising McCain's "exceptionalism." He's exactly wrong. I called into Washington Journal last week to make just this point. What's happening right now is similar to what was going on back in October of last year, when it looked like Hillary was edging out Obama and starting to become "inevitable." What happened then? Hillary stumbled in a debate over a question about illegal immigration. Her campaign put out a silly press release bashing Obama wanting to be president in Kindergarten. There was an overdone media frenzy over a hostage crisis in one of her campaign offices. Obama was outspending Hillary in Iowa, and she was losing ground, ultimately finishing third there.
All of this was nothing, however, compared to the real reason Hillary is going to lose the nomination. And that is her October 2002 Iraq vote. That is the big contradiction of her campaign, and she could just not overcome it. Obama exploited it to the hilt.
The contradiction is this: Vote for Hillary, she has experience. On the number 1 issue of the day, Hillary had a vote, a chance to weigh in when it counted, and she blew it. But vote for her; she'll be ready to lead; she has experience.
It's internally contradictory. Anytime you are trying to make an argument in politics it has to make sense. You can't paper-over a glaring contradiction on an issue people care about. You can emote, you can ask for forgiveness, you can say you're sorry, and that is really the only way to do it. I believe it was the YouTube debate on the Republican side in which Romney was asked about his position on abortion. He began with this: "I don't know how many times I have to say it, I'm pro-life." What a terrible response. Impatience with the audience, with voters, for not believing him that he's had a super convenient change of heart on an issue that the constituency he's after cares about. That was the time to emote, to show his sincerity, to sell his change of heart. Romney might have lost the nomination with that answer. Huckabee killed him by exploiting this contradiction in Romney's campaign--he was supposed to be the conservative candidate, but his record didn't support that.
It was the same way with Bush's Social Security reform plan. "Social Security is in a crisis; it won't be there for young people. We need to spend huge amounts of money to make private accounts." Well, if it's in crisis, then why spend so much money to change it to something different? And if you're in crisis mode, why not focus on Medicare which is in worse crisis?
McCain's argument for the presidency is internally contradictory. He trumpets his foreign policy experience. But he's been in favor of the war all along, and by any measure the war has been a disaster.
In a a speech in Columbus on May 15, McCain said this:
By January 2013, America has welcomed home most of the servicemen and women who have sacrificed terribly so that America might be secure in her freedom. The Iraq War has been won. Iraq is a functioning democracy, although still suffering from the lingering effects of decades of tyranny and centuries of sectarian tension. Violence still occurs, but it is spasmodic and much reduced. Civil war has been prevented; militias disbanded; the Iraqi Security Force is professional and competent; al Qaeda in Iraq has been defeated; and the Government of Iraq is capable of imposing its authority in every province of Iraq and defending the integrity of its borders. The United States maintains a military presence there, but a much smaller one, and it does not play a direct combat role.
"It's not a timetable; it's victory. It's victory, which I have always predicted," Mr. McCain told reporters. This has to grate on anyone who's payed a modicum of attention to the disaster in Iraq. McCain will lose because his argument for why he should be president doesn't make sense on the most basic level. What if the economy was a bigger issue than Iraq? McCain said last December, "the issue of economics is not something I've understood as well as I should." No, national security is all he's got. And it's internally contradictory. The reason McCain isn't hurting right now is that the attention is off of him, and he's benefiting from that.
In other news, following up on my post on electability in the general election, the Miami Herald has this report:
Peter Brown, assistant director of Quinnipiac University's Polling Institute, said Clinton can cite recent polls to bolster her argument as to why she should be the nominee. A Quinnipiac survey earlier this month showed Clinton leading McCain in Florida (49 percent to 41 percent), Ohio (48 percent to 38 percent) and Pennsylvania (51 percent to 37 percent).
The same survey showed Obama leading McCain in Pennsylvania (47 percent to 38 percent), but in a statistical dead heat with him in Ohio and Florida.
Also, The Politico reports on the DNC's new website McCainPedia, which includes opposition research and video footage of the Republican candidate shot by Democratic activists.4/15/08
Obama's Comments Redux
According to a Quinnipiac poll today, Hillary has a 6-point edge on Obama. That's a lot closer than the 20-margin I mentioned yesterday; this one shows that she's slowing his ascent in PA.
A reader commented on yesterday's post about Obama's statement being completely true, and not condescending. All this could be perfectly true, but this blog has been devoted to Henry Adams' quip, "practical politics is the art of ignoring facts." If candidates came out and said what they thought was true, they'd be toast.
Take Huckabee, for instance. His base would rally around him every time he would say something that was aimed at them, but by doing this too much he boxed himself in as a factional candidate lacking broader appeal. So while his base thinks what he says is totally true, it is still a mistake for him to say it.
Obama's statements were very harmful to his candidacy and will haunt him for some time now. The reason is the context.
Obama exudes the air of a smart Harvard-trained thinker. Now that's certainly a liability with a whole lot of voters. It is not a liability at all for the voters Obama has so far attracted, namely well-educated higher-income voters. But for lower-class voters a different style is attractive--President Bush's style. Bush beat Kerry because of voters without college degrees voting for him, and because he did well enough with low-income voters to pull out a narrow victory. Bush's style was mocked, but it was electorally effective.
Taking Obama's demographic appeal and style into account, we can see that he needs to win voters who are naturally more skeptical of him, by appealing to them through his campaign. A friend mentioned to me: "Obama smokes Marlboro Reds, for crying out loud! He should take that back up!" He also said, "Obama's a great basketball player--he should be out there playing basketball with people." I'd endorse both these ideas. Smoking is frowned upon in modern-day America not primarily because it is a health issue, but because it is a class issue. The upper classes frown on the dirty habits of the lower classes. What better way to show you're a regular guy than start smoking again? Obama should do it, the anguished cries of "What an example for our children! Humph!" being an opportunity for a Sister Souljah moment, and perhaps a chance to portray Hillary for the schoolmarm she is. Basketball too--at least, it's better than windsurfing, which nobody can really identify with.
Given that Obama needs to broaden his base to just the type of voter he was speaking about in him comments, his description of them is completely condescending. He's portraying their voting decisions as riddled with bitterness, their issue concerns a result of frustrations of being on the losing end of the market. If you are going to appeal to people by talking about their problems, you'd better make sure they identify with you as one of them. Otherwise it's just somebody coming in from the outside telling you you're all screwed up, and they've got the fix. Not very appealing.
A reader commented on yesterday's post about Obama's statement being completely true, and not condescending. All this could be perfectly true, but this blog has been devoted to Henry Adams' quip, "practical politics is the art of ignoring facts." If candidates came out and said what they thought was true, they'd be toast.
Take Huckabee, for instance. His base would rally around him every time he would say something that was aimed at them, but by doing this too much he boxed himself in as a factional candidate lacking broader appeal. So while his base thinks what he says is totally true, it is still a mistake for him to say it.
Obama's statements were very harmful to his candidacy and will haunt him for some time now. The reason is the context.
Obama exudes the air of a smart Harvard-trained thinker. Now that's certainly a liability with a whole lot of voters. It is not a liability at all for the voters Obama has so far attracted, namely well-educated higher-income voters. But for lower-class voters a different style is attractive--President Bush's style. Bush beat Kerry because of voters without college degrees voting for him, and because he did well enough with low-income voters to pull out a narrow victory. Bush's style was mocked, but it was electorally effective.
Taking Obama's demographic appeal and style into account, we can see that he needs to win voters who are naturally more skeptical of him, by appealing to them through his campaign. A friend mentioned to me: "Obama smokes Marlboro Reds, for crying out loud! He should take that back up!" He also said, "Obama's a great basketball player--he should be out there playing basketball with people." I'd endorse both these ideas. Smoking is frowned upon in modern-day America not primarily because it is a health issue, but because it is a class issue. The upper classes frown on the dirty habits of the lower classes. What better way to show you're a regular guy than start smoking again? Obama should do it, the anguished cries of "What an example for our children! Humph!" being an opportunity for a Sister Souljah moment, and perhaps a chance to portray Hillary for the schoolmarm she is. Basketball too--at least, it's better than windsurfing, which nobody can really identify with.
Given that Obama needs to broaden his base to just the type of voter he was speaking about in him comments, his description of them is completely condescending. He's portraying their voting decisions as riddled with bitterness, their issue concerns a result of frustrations of being on the losing end of the market. If you are going to appeal to people by talking about their problems, you'd better make sure they identify with you as one of them. Otherwise it's just somebody coming in from the outside telling you you're all screwed up, and they've got the fix. Not very appealing.
4/14/08
Barack's gift to Hillary (and the Republicans)
The bloom is off the rose. Barack Obama's seemingly effortless protean political skill to make people read into him their hopes and desires has hit a major roadblock. Obama made this remark at a fundraiser in San Francisco, which was captured on tape by a blogger:
"You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."
The carnage followed instantly. Then came Obama's response while campaigning in Indiana:
"I was in San Francisco talking to a group at a fundraiser and somebody asked how’re you going to get votes in Pennsylvania? What’s going on there? We hear that it's hard for some working class people to get behind you’re campaign. I said, 'Well look, they’re frustrated and for good reason. Because for the last 25 years they’ve seen jobs shipped overseas. They’ve seen their economies collapse. They have lost their jobs. They have lost their pensions. They have lost their healthcare. And for 25, 30 years Democrats and Republicans have come before them and said 'We’re going to make your community better. We’re going to make it right' and nothing ever happens. And of course they’re bitter. Of course they’re frustrated. You would be too. In fact many of you are. Because the same thing has happened here in Indiana. The same thing happened across the border in Decatur. The same thing has happened all across the country. Nobody is looking out for you. Nobody is thinking about you. And so people end up -- they don’t vote on economic issues because they don’t expect anybody’s going to help them. So people end up, you know, voting on issues like guns, and are they going to have the right to bear arms. They vote on issues like gay marriage. And they take refuge in their faith and their community and their families and things they can count on. But they don’t believe they can count on Washington. So I made this statement -- so, here’s what's rich Sen. Clinton says ‘No, I don’t think that people are bitter in Pennsylvania. You know, I think Barack’s being condescending.’ John McCain says, ‘Oh, how could he say that? How could he say people are bitter? You know, he’s obviously out of touch with people.' Out of touch? Out of touch? I mean, John McCain -- it took him three tries to finally figure out that the home foreclosure crisis was a problem and to come up with a plan for it, and he’s saying I’m out of touch? Sen. Clinton voted for a credit card-sponsored bankruptcy bill that made it harder for people to get out of debt after taking money from the financial services companies, and she says I’m out of touch? No, I’m in touch. I know exactly what’s going on. I know what’s going on in Pennsylvania. I know what’s going on in Indiana. I know what’s going on in Illinois. People are fed up. They’re angry and they’re frustrated and they’re bitter. And they want to see a change in Washington and that’s why I’m running for President of the United States of America."
Then to Steelworkers in Pittsburgh:
"Senator Clinton and Senator McCain seem to be singing from the same hymn book, saying I am out of touch and I am an elitist because I said a lot of folks are bitter about their economic circumstances," said Barack Obama. "Now, it may be that I chose my words badly, it is not the first time and will not be the last. But when I hear my opponents, both of whom spent decades in Washington, saying I am out of touch, it is time to cut through the rhetoric and look at the reality."
Yikes. The cure is worse than the disease. When making a major blunder, don't make it worse by accusing other people. Just apologize and be done with it. That's hard to do. It's hard to accept that you're not really a golden boy who never makes mistakes. But this thing would go away a lot more quickly if Obama had issued a short apology, rather than a lengthy, rambling diatribe about how he's in touch. It sounded very condescending, proving Hillary's point rather than rebutting it. The whole "it may be that I chose my words badly" baloney compounds the problem.
When you are misquoted as a politician, you have the right to complain. But when you make a mistake, you should not play it off as someone else's fault. At least, not in the blinding glare of the presidential spotlight.
This is why it is so silly for people to say that Hillary should drop out because she's only got a 5% chance of winning. No one can calculate that. No one can know what can happen tomorrow. One day Obama's tied things up in PA, the next he makes this comment and falls 20 points. And that's exactly what happened. Hillary has been waiting what probably seems like a lifetime for her for this slip. Obama simply hadn't made one to this point. The bloom was still on the rose. Hillary could raise question after question, and insinuate that Obama is a gamble of a candidate (or come right out and say it's a roll of the dice, as Bill did), but nothing seemed to stick. This will stick. It will haunt Obama for the rest of the campaign. It plays right into the hands of Hillary and McCain.
In short, Obama has pulled a Huckabee. Huckabee was never able to break out of his base of voters in states where he didn't have a lot of time to campaign--that is, everywhere but Iowa. It was a vicious cycle--he had to appeal to his base for votes and cash, yet that only boxed him in more as a candidate who lacked broad appeal. He really made no effort to break out of this box, as I comment in this post from mid-January.
Obama has put himself in a box now. It was the box others were trying to put him in, and it's the box he fits into but wants (and needs) to transcend. That's why this is such a huge story. It fits a narrative for Obama, as well as portrays him as a certain kind of person (aloof, arrogant, cerebral).
It is the perfect disaster, really, in that it turns all his positives into negatives. In politics your strong qualities can also be liabilities, and your liabilities can be turned into positives.
In every respect it's a disaster. Hillary's got a greater than 5% chance now. If she wins by over 20 points in PA next week, how could she be denied the nomination?--that'll be her argument.
Obama's statement was worse than a crime; it was a mistake.
"You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."
The carnage followed instantly. Then came Obama's response while campaigning in Indiana:
"I was in San Francisco talking to a group at a fundraiser and somebody asked how’re you going to get votes in Pennsylvania? What’s going on there? We hear that it's hard for some working class people to get behind you’re campaign. I said, 'Well look, they’re frustrated and for good reason. Because for the last 25 years they’ve seen jobs shipped overseas. They’ve seen their economies collapse. They have lost their jobs. They have lost their pensions. They have lost their healthcare. And for 25, 30 years Democrats and Republicans have come before them and said 'We’re going to make your community better. We’re going to make it right' and nothing ever happens. And of course they’re bitter. Of course they’re frustrated. You would be too. In fact many of you are. Because the same thing has happened here in Indiana. The same thing happened across the border in Decatur. The same thing has happened all across the country. Nobody is looking out for you. Nobody is thinking about you. And so people end up -- they don’t vote on economic issues because they don’t expect anybody’s going to help them. So people end up, you know, voting on issues like guns, and are they going to have the right to bear arms. They vote on issues like gay marriage. And they take refuge in their faith and their community and their families and things they can count on. But they don’t believe they can count on Washington. So I made this statement -- so, here’s what's rich Sen. Clinton says ‘No, I don’t think that people are bitter in Pennsylvania. You know, I think Barack’s being condescending.’ John McCain says, ‘Oh, how could he say that? How could he say people are bitter? You know, he’s obviously out of touch with people.' Out of touch? Out of touch? I mean, John McCain -- it took him three tries to finally figure out that the home foreclosure crisis was a problem and to come up with a plan for it, and he’s saying I’m out of touch? Sen. Clinton voted for a credit card-sponsored bankruptcy bill that made it harder for people to get out of debt after taking money from the financial services companies, and she says I’m out of touch? No, I’m in touch. I know exactly what’s going on. I know what’s going on in Pennsylvania. I know what’s going on in Indiana. I know what’s going on in Illinois. People are fed up. They’re angry and they’re frustrated and they’re bitter. And they want to see a change in Washington and that’s why I’m running for President of the United States of America."
Then to Steelworkers in Pittsburgh:
"Senator Clinton and Senator McCain seem to be singing from the same hymn book, saying I am out of touch and I am an elitist because I said a lot of folks are bitter about their economic circumstances," said Barack Obama. "Now, it may be that I chose my words badly, it is not the first time and will not be the last. But when I hear my opponents, both of whom spent decades in Washington, saying I am out of touch, it is time to cut through the rhetoric and look at the reality."
Yikes. The cure is worse than the disease. When making a major blunder, don't make it worse by accusing other people. Just apologize and be done with it. That's hard to do. It's hard to accept that you're not really a golden boy who never makes mistakes. But this thing would go away a lot more quickly if Obama had issued a short apology, rather than a lengthy, rambling diatribe about how he's in touch. It sounded very condescending, proving Hillary's point rather than rebutting it. The whole "it may be that I chose my words badly" baloney compounds the problem.
When you are misquoted as a politician, you have the right to complain. But when you make a mistake, you should not play it off as someone else's fault. At least, not in the blinding glare of the presidential spotlight.
This is why it is so silly for people to say that Hillary should drop out because she's only got a 5% chance of winning. No one can calculate that. No one can know what can happen tomorrow. One day Obama's tied things up in PA, the next he makes this comment and falls 20 points. And that's exactly what happened. Hillary has been waiting what probably seems like a lifetime for her for this slip. Obama simply hadn't made one to this point. The bloom was still on the rose. Hillary could raise question after question, and insinuate that Obama is a gamble of a candidate (or come right out and say it's a roll of the dice, as Bill did), but nothing seemed to stick. This will stick. It will haunt Obama for the rest of the campaign. It plays right into the hands of Hillary and McCain.
In short, Obama has pulled a Huckabee. Huckabee was never able to break out of his base of voters in states where he didn't have a lot of time to campaign--that is, everywhere but Iowa. It was a vicious cycle--he had to appeal to his base for votes and cash, yet that only boxed him in more as a candidate who lacked broad appeal. He really made no effort to break out of this box, as I comment in this post from mid-January.
Obama has put himself in a box now. It was the box others were trying to put him in, and it's the box he fits into but wants (and needs) to transcend. That's why this is such a huge story. It fits a narrative for Obama, as well as portrays him as a certain kind of person (aloof, arrogant, cerebral).
It is the perfect disaster, really, in that it turns all his positives into negatives. In politics your strong qualities can also be liabilities, and your liabilities can be turned into positives.
- Obama is the unity candidate, rising above the petty partisan squabbles. Now he's up there and looking down at us and we realize how disconnected to us he is, uncaring, condescending.
- Obama's a candidate who can inspire people. Well, he can't inspire just the type of voter the Democrats need to win.
- Obama has a broad appeal. Yet now this appeal seems based on the fact that he doesn't believe in anything, and is able to say anything to attract support. If he said what he really believed he would lose support.
- Obama is super-smart. But now he's an elitist who distrusts common folk.
- Obama speaks his mind and doesn't lie and fudge like the Clintons. Not now; he says something way different in private than in public.
In every respect it's a disaster. Hillary's got a greater than 5% chance now. If she wins by over 20 points in PA next week, how could she be denied the nomination?--that'll be her argument.
Obama's statement was worse than a crime; it was a mistake.
2/25/08
The Republican race
Is it a race? McCain has 1016 delegates, and needs 1,191 to win. He proclaimed himself the nominee after Wisconsin. He's leading Huckabee in Texas by 12 points, which would give him 140 more delegates.
Still, there's a report from the LA Times that Romney still might rejoin the race. One of his sons said it was "possible." I always wondered why Romney said he "suspended" his campaign instead of "terminating" it. That is now explained--he thought there was a possibility that conservatives might deny McCain the nomination and there would be a brokered convention, in which he could come out on top as a compromise candidate. He endorsed McCain, which only confirmed what we've known all along which is that Huckabee was his real rival, and would position him to salve conservatives with his positions, and moderates with his endorsement, and straddle him in the middle as a compromise most Republicans could accept.
McCain seems like he's got it solidly in the bag now. His early victories in NH, SC and FL were just crucial, and he pulled off the kindling strategy that Romney was (rightly) attempting. The importance of the early contests have been affirmed and reaffirmed in this election. The two candidates in the final round for each party were the victors in Iowa and NH.
But things can change, and will change if somehow Huckabee started winning. Stranger things have happened. Because everyone thinks it's in the bag for McCain, wins for the Huckster in Texas or Ohio would be huge upsets. Questions would start to be raised about McCain, and fast. McCain would have to then win his 185 delegates from states that include a number of Huckabee-friendly areas like Mississippi and North Carolina. Pennsylvania (74 delegates in a closed primary) would be huge. It would be a close-run thing. A day is a lifetime in politics, and things can turn on a dime. They're not likely to, but they could change.
Then there's the NY Times story about the romance with the lobbyist Vicki Iseman. The paper has got a deserved beating for running the story because it was weak, including criticism by its own public editor. But if it turns out that McCain is not telling the truth about the Iseman matter, his presidential hopes are over, and we could be looking at a brokered convention on the Republican side.
Still, there's a report from the LA Times that Romney still might rejoin the race. One of his sons said it was "possible." I always wondered why Romney said he "suspended" his campaign instead of "terminating" it. That is now explained--he thought there was a possibility that conservatives might deny McCain the nomination and there would be a brokered convention, in which he could come out on top as a compromise candidate. He endorsed McCain, which only confirmed what we've known all along which is that Huckabee was his real rival, and would position him to salve conservatives with his positions, and moderates with his endorsement, and straddle him in the middle as a compromise most Republicans could accept.
McCain seems like he's got it solidly in the bag now. His early victories in NH, SC and FL were just crucial, and he pulled off the kindling strategy that Romney was (rightly) attempting. The importance of the early contests have been affirmed and reaffirmed in this election. The two candidates in the final round for each party were the victors in Iowa and NH.
But things can change, and will change if somehow Huckabee started winning. Stranger things have happened. Because everyone thinks it's in the bag for McCain, wins for the Huckster in Texas or Ohio would be huge upsets. Questions would start to be raised about McCain, and fast. McCain would have to then win his 185 delegates from states that include a number of Huckabee-friendly areas like Mississippi and North Carolina. Pennsylvania (74 delegates in a closed primary) would be huge. It would be a close-run thing. A day is a lifetime in politics, and things can turn on a dime. They're not likely to, but they could change.
Then there's the NY Times story about the romance with the lobbyist Vicki Iseman. The paper has got a deserved beating for running the story because it was weak, including criticism by its own public editor. But if it turns out that McCain is not telling the truth about the Iseman matter, his presidential hopes are over, and we could be looking at a brokered convention on the Republican side.
2/13/08
Romney's campaign--a postmortem
What was wrong with Romney's campaign? I think commentators have been generally right on in assessing what happened to him. Basically, he was vulnerable because of his record in Massachusetts. He tried to switch to more conservative positions, which made sense tactically, but opened up the vulnerability of coming off as a faker. Voters are loathe to trust their votes to a faker. This vulnerability became a festering open wound with Huckabee's rise. Here was a candidate whose strong point was his seeming genuineness--the polar opposite of Romney.
Jay Cost, the best election blogger out there, was right on when he wrote that Romney's negative attacks hurt him:
How might these negative attacks have hurt Romney? My sense is that it likely kept him from winning over those who supported McCain or Huckabee. That is, at its most basic level, it backfired; not only did it fail to convince Huckabee or McCain voters to back Romney, it alienated those voters from him.
That's exactly right. Supporters of the other candidates got angry about Romney digging the dirt on them, when at the same time he was asking them not to believe the dirt on him in his past record.
Cost has also argued that Huckabee was not taking away votes from Romney, enabling McCain to win. His conclusions go against the inside-outside theory I've held all along, about McCain's coalition being too small to win the nomination. Cost writes:
I do not think one can argue that McCain's wins have been dependent on a divided field. Independents, moderates, and Bush disapprovers have certainly formed the core of McCain's voting coalition. However, McCain has done what most winning candidates do: win his base by large margins while stealing plenty of voters from the other guy's base. McCain does not win conservatives or Bush supporters outright - but he has done well enough with them that he could probably win New Hampshire, South Carolina, or Florida in a head-to-head match up.
While it is difficult argue that a narrower field would turn any of McCain's wins into losses, the fact remains that each race would probably have been tight. Under my assumptions, McCain never would have won more than 54% of the vote - and his victory in South Carolina over Huckabee could have shrunk to a little less than one-half of one percent. So, McCain has been building a voting coalition that can trump the coalitions of other candidates - but not by much.
This analysis is true for what it's worth. But what it ignores is the bloodbath between Romney, Huckabee, and Thompson which ground down all those campaigns, leaving them short of cash, damaged from attacks, and abandoned in two cases. If the Huckster hadn't run, things would have been different for Romney and their kindling-strategy might have worked. Had Romney or Thompson not been in the race at all, or dropped out sooner, the situation would be a lot different for Huckabee now. In six contests since Super Duper Tuesday, McCain has won two by large margins, two by tight margins, and lost two. I predicted bumps in the road based on the inside-outside theory, and it has proven correct.
Jay Cost, the best election blogger out there, was right on when he wrote that Romney's negative attacks hurt him:
How might these negative attacks have hurt Romney? My sense is that it likely kept him from winning over those who supported McCain or Huckabee. That is, at its most basic level, it backfired; not only did it fail to convince Huckabee or McCain voters to back Romney, it alienated those voters from him.
That's exactly right. Supporters of the other candidates got angry about Romney digging the dirt on them, when at the same time he was asking them not to believe the dirt on him in his past record.
Cost has also argued that Huckabee was not taking away votes from Romney, enabling McCain to win. His conclusions go against the inside-outside theory I've held all along, about McCain's coalition being too small to win the nomination. Cost writes:
I do not think one can argue that McCain's wins have been dependent on a divided field. Independents, moderates, and Bush disapprovers have certainly formed the core of McCain's voting coalition. However, McCain has done what most winning candidates do: win his base by large margins while stealing plenty of voters from the other guy's base. McCain does not win conservatives or Bush supporters outright - but he has done well enough with them that he could probably win New Hampshire, South Carolina, or Florida in a head-to-head match up.
While it is difficult argue that a narrower field would turn any of McCain's wins into losses, the fact remains that each race would probably have been tight. Under my assumptions, McCain never would have won more than 54% of the vote - and his victory in South Carolina over Huckabee could have shrunk to a little less than one-half of one percent. So, McCain has been building a voting coalition that can trump the coalitions of other candidates - but not by much.
This analysis is true for what it's worth. But what it ignores is the bloodbath between Romney, Huckabee, and Thompson which ground down all those campaigns, leaving them short of cash, damaged from attacks, and abandoned in two cases. If the Huckster hadn't run, things would have been different for Romney and their kindling-strategy might have worked. Had Romney or Thompson not been in the race at all, or dropped out sooner, the situation would be a lot different for Huckabee now. In six contests since Super Duper Tuesday, McCain has won two by large margins, two by tight margins, and lost two. I predicted bumps in the road based on the inside-outside theory, and it has proven correct.
2/11/08
Obama on top
Saturday night was such a big night for Obama; it was the first time I really thought he could win this all. Throughout this process I've been an Obama-skeptic. I was skeptical of his ability to motivate young caucus-goers to turnout. That was proved wrong big-time in Iowa. I was shocked by Iowa, but I wondered whether he wouldn't be a one-hit wonder after Hillary won in NH.
The plan of the Clintons to turn Obama into the black candidate after South Carolina I thought was despicable, but would be effective. It turned out to backfire on them. Obama got 31% of the white vote in New Jersey, 39% in Missouri, 40% in Delaware and Massachusetts, 43% in Georgia, and 48% in Connecticut. This was a lot more than his 25% in South Carolina (albeit in a 3-person race).
Obama has cobbled together a coalition of black voters and upper-class liberals and moderates. The ideological pattern is not as clear as it is in the case of McCain on the Republican side, who attracts moderates and independents. McCain is disliked in his own party because he's not a true-blue conservative. Huckabee has positioned himself as the anti-McCain, but only too late--he lost talk radio in his bloodbath with Romney, and McCain's overwhelming lead in delegates will lead to a nominee the Republican base is none-too excited about. Obama on the other hand has a plain-vanilla liberal voting record, which is brilliant triangulation in my book, because it enables him to run against Hillary on personality. Apparently Hillary showed very little personality in her 60-minutes interview last night. People really don't like her. Obama is the anti-Hillary. But he's also very charismatic himself.
The reason I haven't been impressed by that charisma thus far is that I didn't think sheer charisma could translate into votes when you're relying on a coalition that is smaller and less likely to turn out (black vs. white voters, young vs. older voters, male vs. female voters). But Obama's coalition includes that other element of class--better educated and higher income voters like him. And they are more likely to turn out. That's an angle the media likes to ignore; the reason is, it just sounds bad to talk about Hillary being the candidate of "lower-class voters." They don't want to label her like that. Talk of class is Verboten. This is true beyond presidential politics. We're supposed to be a classless society.
The other reason I haven't been as impressed with Obama up to now is that his entire campaign has one really major substantive difference with Hillary--he opposed the Iraq war and she voted for it, so he offers better judgment compared with her political posturings and hesitations. This has been an effective tool in Obama's arsenal all along. Whenever he's down, he can always bring it up and she doesn't have an answer for it.
I got an email and telephone call from an Obama supporter and reader of this blog making this case yet again. He wrote that Hillary didn't even read the full NIE report on Iraq before casting her vote. The original story on this ran in the Washington Post, and The Hill did some follow-up reporting and concluded the following:
Whether the number of senators who read the document can ever be known is also in dispute. The Washington Post reported in 2004 that only six senators had read the NIE, citing logs that senators were required to sign, but the Intelligence panel now says no such proof exists.
“There is no record, committee or otherwise, of who read the NIE,” said Wendy Morigi, spokeswoman for Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.), now Intelligence Committee chairman, who read the NIE before the pivotal fall vote of 2002.
When Rockefeller referred to the half-dozen number during a 2005 Fox News interview, Morigi added, he was citing the Post’s report. Spokeswomen for Intelligence vice chairman Christopher Bond (R-Mo.) and Carl Levin (D-Mich.) also said that the number of senators who read it is unknowable.
But the former senior congressional intelligence staffer, who asked to comment anonymously due to the sensitivity of the subject, said that knowledgeable aides can estimate the approximate number of senators reading the NIE.
"It’s probably pretty hard to say with 100 percent certainty how many read it,” the senior staffer said. “You can say with 100 percent certainty that it’s less than 10.”
The Hill put Clinton in the "Did Not Read/Could Not Recall" category. More than likely she did not read it. But is this so damning? A whole lot of other congressmen and women didn't either.
The answer is yes. The reader says the media has not picked up on this--I disagree. It's widely known that Hillary supported the war and voted for it, and it has hurt her campaign to death. I don't see Obama's candidacy surging without the prop of Hillary's war stance. It's been covered ad nauseum. The reader objects to the lack of coverage of her reading the full NIE, and fudging the issue with her claim that "the best intelligence available said" x, y, and z. Fair enough, but that's the kind of nuances that don't get widespread reportage because they're more difficult for people to understand. The fact remains that Hillary has been damaged greatly by her war vote, and Obama has benefited.
The plan of the Clintons to turn Obama into the black candidate after South Carolina I thought was despicable, but would be effective. It turned out to backfire on them. Obama got 31% of the white vote in New Jersey, 39% in Missouri, 40% in Delaware and Massachusetts, 43% in Georgia, and 48% in Connecticut. This was a lot more than his 25% in South Carolina (albeit in a 3-person race).
Obama has cobbled together a coalition of black voters and upper-class liberals and moderates. The ideological pattern is not as clear as it is in the case of McCain on the Republican side, who attracts moderates and independents. McCain is disliked in his own party because he's not a true-blue conservative. Huckabee has positioned himself as the anti-McCain, but only too late--he lost talk radio in his bloodbath with Romney, and McCain's overwhelming lead in delegates will lead to a nominee the Republican base is none-too excited about. Obama on the other hand has a plain-vanilla liberal voting record, which is brilliant triangulation in my book, because it enables him to run against Hillary on personality. Apparently Hillary showed very little personality in her 60-minutes interview last night. People really don't like her. Obama is the anti-Hillary. But he's also very charismatic himself.
The reason I haven't been impressed by that charisma thus far is that I didn't think sheer charisma could translate into votes when you're relying on a coalition that is smaller and less likely to turn out (black vs. white voters, young vs. older voters, male vs. female voters). But Obama's coalition includes that other element of class--better educated and higher income voters like him. And they are more likely to turn out. That's an angle the media likes to ignore; the reason is, it just sounds bad to talk about Hillary being the candidate of "lower-class voters." They don't want to label her like that. Talk of class is Verboten. This is true beyond presidential politics. We're supposed to be a classless society.
The other reason I haven't been as impressed with Obama up to now is that his entire campaign has one really major substantive difference with Hillary--he opposed the Iraq war and she voted for it, so he offers better judgment compared with her political posturings and hesitations. This has been an effective tool in Obama's arsenal all along. Whenever he's down, he can always bring it up and she doesn't have an answer for it.
I got an email and telephone call from an Obama supporter and reader of this blog making this case yet again. He wrote that Hillary didn't even read the full NIE report on Iraq before casting her vote. The original story on this ran in the Washington Post, and The Hill did some follow-up reporting and concluded the following:
Whether the number of senators who read the document can ever be known is also in dispute. The Washington Post reported in 2004 that only six senators had read the NIE, citing logs that senators were required to sign, but the Intelligence panel now says no such proof exists.
“There is no record, committee or otherwise, of who read the NIE,” said Wendy Morigi, spokeswoman for Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.), now Intelligence Committee chairman, who read the NIE before the pivotal fall vote of 2002.
When Rockefeller referred to the half-dozen number during a 2005 Fox News interview, Morigi added, he was citing the Post’s report. Spokeswomen for Intelligence vice chairman Christopher Bond (R-Mo.) and Carl Levin (D-Mich.) also said that the number of senators who read it is unknowable.
But the former senior congressional intelligence staffer, who asked to comment anonymously due to the sensitivity of the subject, said that knowledgeable aides can estimate the approximate number of senators reading the NIE.
"It’s probably pretty hard to say with 100 percent certainty how many read it,” the senior staffer said. “You can say with 100 percent certainty that it’s less than 10.”
The Hill put Clinton in the "Did Not Read/Could Not Recall" category. More than likely she did not read it. But is this so damning? A whole lot of other congressmen and women didn't either.
The answer is yes. The reader says the media has not picked up on this--I disagree. It's widely known that Hillary supported the war and voted for it, and it has hurt her campaign to death. I don't see Obama's candidacy surging without the prop of Hillary's war stance. It's been covered ad nauseum. The reader objects to the lack of coverage of her reading the full NIE, and fudging the issue with her claim that "the best intelligence available said" x, y, and z. Fair enough, but that's the kind of nuances that don't get widespread reportage because they're more difficult for people to understand. The fact remains that Hillary has been damaged greatly by her war vote, and Obama has benefited.
2/9/08
Young Republicans at CPAC
This blog had an intrepid reporter peaking over the fence at CPAC, the annual convention of young conservative activists. It's a bunch of 18-24-year-olds who are rabid republicans, so it's a very atypical cross-section, but can be telling for understanding a Republican primary election.
First of all, anti-McCain sentiment ran high. A lot of people did not like McCain at all. Before McCain spoke the audience was warned not to boo. (They still did.) Second, none of the speakers Friday to Saturday were pro-McCain. However, all the speakers beat the common drumbeat of voting for McCain. "This is the real world. You're not going to get the perfect candidate. We have to support McCain. It's too important. Anywhere from one to three Supreme Court Justices will be appointed in the next presidential term." This was the common drumbeat every speaker returned to again and again. (Except for Ann Coulter.)
Thirdly, there was a lot of Romney support. A lot. He won the straw poll taken before he exited the race. The poll was done after he exited, and he only dropped five points. (That's hard-core support.) Those five points went to McCain. Romney supporters spoke of voting for McCain. Not liking it, but voting for McCain. The Romney supporters were the most conservative of the bunch.
Other Notes:
The #1 issue was the War on Terror, which was separate from the Iraq War. #2 was illegal immigration. Abortion didn't even get 2%, and "values" got 7%. 80% of those polled said they wanted to withdraw from the UN.
Every time Ron Paul supporters would ask a question, they'd get shouted down. There was lots of enthusiasm today for Huckabee, the day he spoke.
First of all, anti-McCain sentiment ran high. A lot of people did not like McCain at all. Before McCain spoke the audience was warned not to boo. (They still did.) Second, none of the speakers Friday to Saturday were pro-McCain. However, all the speakers beat the common drumbeat of voting for McCain. "This is the real world. You're not going to get the perfect candidate. We have to support McCain. It's too important. Anywhere from one to three Supreme Court Justices will be appointed in the next presidential term." This was the common drumbeat every speaker returned to again and again. (Except for Ann Coulter.)
Thirdly, there was a lot of Romney support. A lot. He won the straw poll taken before he exited the race. The poll was done after he exited, and he only dropped five points. (That's hard-core support.) Those five points went to McCain. Romney supporters spoke of voting for McCain. Not liking it, but voting for McCain. The Romney supporters were the most conservative of the bunch.
Other Notes:
The #1 issue was the War on Terror, which was separate from the Iraq War. #2 was illegal immigration. Abortion didn't even get 2%, and "values" got 7%. 80% of those polled said they wanted to withdraw from the UN.
Every time Ron Paul supporters would ask a question, they'd get shouted down. There was lots of enthusiasm today for Huckabee, the day he spoke.
2/8/08
Republican Delegate Math
Is the Republican nomination over? All the media reports, at least the ones I saw (NY Times, NPR) say it is. The conventional wisdom is that McCain has it locked up. Huckabee definitely has a steep uphill climb. McCain has 714 delegates, Huckabee 181. There are 1,184 delegates left, and Huckabee needs 1,010 more delegates to win--84.8% of the remaining delegates. That's undoable for a candidate who lacks a broader appeal, particularly in the "upscale demographics" as Michael Barone puts it.
However, Huckabee doesn't have to get 1,191 delegates--he just has to stop McCain from doing it. McCain needs 477 more delegates. The remaining calendar shows that if McCain wins all the rest of the contests this month, he could lock up the nomination officially on March 4 with Texas, Vermont, Ohio, and Rhode Island. McCain still has to campaign hard, in other words. I've long maintained the theory that the anti-McCain vote (conservative Republicans) is larger than the vote for him (liberal Independents) in the primary constituency, and that he would have a problem once Romney or Huckabee (and Thompson) quit. Now it looks like it is too late for this theory to prove good, and McCain will coast to the nomination. But I've always been skeptical of conventional wisdom, and expect some bumps along the way for McCain.
Here's Sound Politics:
Examine the county map results in the states where Huckabee, McCain, and Romney were bunched most closely of any of the primary contests: Georgia, Missouri, and Tennessee. Even while finishing 3rd, Romney ran well and often won in and around populations centers with growing suburbs and exurbs such as Atlanta, Nashville, and Kansas City. Conversely Huckabee lost badly in those same counties yet cleaned house in rural areas, where Romney often fared poorly. And McCain had more distributed support, consistently running first or second in every county, melding his unique coalition of moderates, national security conservatives, and as Patrick Ruffini has described it: older belligerent men. Both Romney and Huckabee supporters can make the claim that their candidate would have benefited from a clearer field at an earlier date. That's possible given the dramatic change it would offer to the overall race dynamic. It's not clear, however, that such a shift would have stopped McCain, even if the stark differences between Huckabee and Romney's bases of support could be bridged.McCain did himself a lot of good with his CPAC speech. Anyone who watched the whole speech (rather than just the news reports that featured only the booing on immigration) will see that he won over the crowd. Of course, most people probably didn't do this, and rely on scattered media headlines only.
However, Huckabee doesn't have to get 1,191 delegates--he just has to stop McCain from doing it. McCain needs 477 more delegates. The remaining calendar shows that if McCain wins all the rest of the contests this month, he could lock up the nomination officially on March 4 with Texas, Vermont, Ohio, and Rhode Island. McCain still has to campaign hard, in other words. I've long maintained the theory that the anti-McCain vote (conservative Republicans) is larger than the vote for him (liberal Independents) in the primary constituency, and that he would have a problem once Romney or Huckabee (and Thompson) quit. Now it looks like it is too late for this theory to prove good, and McCain will coast to the nomination. But I've always been skeptical of conventional wisdom, and expect some bumps along the way for McCain.
Here's Sound Politics:
Examine the county map results in the states where Huckabee, McCain, and Romney were bunched most closely of any of the primary contests: Georgia, Missouri, and Tennessee. Even while finishing 3rd, Romney ran well and often won in and around populations centers with growing suburbs and exurbs such as Atlanta, Nashville, and Kansas City. Conversely Huckabee lost badly in those same counties yet cleaned house in rural areas, where Romney often fared poorly. And McCain had more distributed support, consistently running first or second in every county, melding his unique coalition of moderates, national security conservatives, and as Patrick Ruffini has described it: older belligerent men. Both Romney and Huckabee supporters can make the claim that their candidate would have benefited from a clearer field at an earlier date. That's possible given the dramatic change it would offer to the overall race dynamic. It's not clear, however, that such a shift would have stopped McCain, even if the stark differences between Huckabee and Romney's bases of support could be bridged.McCain did himself a lot of good with his CPAC speech. Anyone who watched the whole speech (rather than just the news reports that featured only the booing on immigration) will see that he won over the crowd. Of course, most people probably didn't do this, and rely on scattered media headlines only.
2/7/08
Romney's a loser
Stephen Stark articulates what I've been thinking for a little while now, and what was strikingly confirmed by the Super Duper Tuesday results:
The problem for conservatives isn't that their vote has been divided (though some of it has been split between Romney and Mike Huckabee). It's that Romney is too unpopular to be the standard bearer of anything. Romney tried to win the nomination the old-fashioned way: by buying it. Yet even though he overwhelmingly outspent all his opponents, he's never showed much vote-getting ability. In complete contrast with Obama, the more voters saw of Romney in Iowa and New Hampshire, the less they liked him. He achieved the singular feat of having failed to receive the endorsement of a single newspaper editorial board in New Hampshire. He pretty much bombed out on Super Tuesday, failing to win as many primaries as Huckabee. In fact, his most noteworthy contribution to politics this year is the way he has united every candidate in the Republican race around their personal dislike of him. Now it comes out that, despite Romney's being the candidate who has been the most supportive of the incumbent, even President Bush is angry with him for his flip-flip on immigration. Romney also faces an awful calendar in the next few weeks, since McCain should run strongly both in the DC-area primaries next week and in the larger states in early March. So while Romney and his allies may not realize it yet, he's never going to win the nomination -- and he's not gaining any friends, either, by continuing to contest the race. Better to join the bandwagon and position himself for a potential place on the McCain ticket. (Yes, that's likelier than it seems today.)The Republican campaign has been dominated by this one single fact: the establishment candidates (Romney, Thompson) are/were lousy. They couldn't convince people to vote for them. Thompson was such a lethargic campaigner, and Romney comes off as fake and just not likable. I did think that Romney would turn things around with Super Duper Tuesday, since Huckabee didn't have the cash or time to effectively campaign (I thought) and Romney was pushing the vote-for-an-electable-conservative argument, which I thought would be effective (it wasn't).
The problem for conservatives isn't that their vote has been divided (though some of it has been split between Romney and Mike Huckabee). It's that Romney is too unpopular to be the standard bearer of anything. Romney tried to win the nomination the old-fashioned way: by buying it. Yet even though he overwhelmingly outspent all his opponents, he's never showed much vote-getting ability. In complete contrast with Obama, the more voters saw of Romney in Iowa and New Hampshire, the less they liked him. He achieved the singular feat of having failed to receive the endorsement of a single newspaper editorial board in New Hampshire. He pretty much bombed out on Super Tuesday, failing to win as many primaries as Huckabee. In fact, his most noteworthy contribution to politics this year is the way he has united every candidate in the Republican race around their personal dislike of him. Now it comes out that, despite Romney's being the candidate who has been the most supportive of the incumbent, even President Bush is angry with him for his flip-flip on immigration. Romney also faces an awful calendar in the next few weeks, since McCain should run strongly both in the DC-area primaries next week and in the larger states in early March. So while Romney and his allies may not realize it yet, he's never going to win the nomination -- and he's not gaining any friends, either, by continuing to contest the race. Better to join the bandwagon and position himself for a potential place on the McCain ticket. (Yes, that's likelier than it seems today.)The Republican campaign has been dominated by this one single fact: the establishment candidates (Romney, Thompson) are/were lousy. They couldn't convince people to vote for them. Thompson was such a lethargic campaigner, and Romney comes off as fake and just not likable. I did think that Romney would turn things around with Super Duper Tuesday, since Huckabee didn't have the cash or time to effectively campaign (I thought) and Romney was pushing the vote-for-an-electable-conservative argument, which I thought would be effective (it wasn't).
2/5/08
Super Duper Tuesday first reactions
This is why I shouldn't make predictions. My dour expectations for Huckabee in the wake of what I thought was an effective argument by Romney have not panned out. In fact its the opposite. Romney has continued his favorite-son pattern, winning Massachusetts and Utah. Loosing the West Virginia convention was very hard for him. The story of the race on the Republican side has been Romney's inability to attract a following. He's just failed as a candidate. Outspending Huckabee 12 to 1 should have made more of a difference. Romney vowed to stay in in his speech: "We're going to take this all the way to the convention and win the White House."
Huckabee's winnings are very striking since he hasn't won since way back in Iowa. In Huckabee's speech tonight he also vowed to stay in until the end: "Until that magic number of 1,191 is won, there will be one guy answering the bell." There's only one more state in the South left to vote, and Huckabee doesn't do as well with evangelicals in the north. However, he could do well in Louisiana and Florida in four days.
The analysis given at this point is that people are voting for personalities, not issues. That seems to be true to some extent on both sides. However, the three-man race perhaps obscures the importance of issues on the Republican side.
On the Democratic side it is a slug-fest right now. Clinton and Obama won their home states. Obama had the momentum going into the contest, in large part because of favorable media reports. Here's Dick Morris:
The USA Today headline on Monday said it all: "Obama Erases Clinton Lead." The press on the day before Super Tuesday has been the best that Obama could hope for. In a race dominated by perception, you could not buy more favorable publicity than the published reports of his closing the gap with Hillary. He will also benefit from the companion articles in most papers showing that McCain enjoys a comfortable lead over Romney. With Independents able to vote in either party primary in half of the Super Tuesday states, this information may induce many anti-Hillary voters to back Obama rather than McCain as the most likely way to beat her. They may figure that McCain no longer needs their votes but that Obama needs them badly as he is now within striking distance of victory.
California is crucial, and the polls have just closed there.
Huckabee's winnings are very striking since he hasn't won since way back in Iowa. In Huckabee's speech tonight he also vowed to stay in until the end: "Until that magic number of 1,191 is won, there will be one guy answering the bell." There's only one more state in the South left to vote, and Huckabee doesn't do as well with evangelicals in the north. However, he could do well in Louisiana and Florida in four days.
The analysis given at this point is that people are voting for personalities, not issues. That seems to be true to some extent on both sides. However, the three-man race perhaps obscures the importance of issues on the Republican side.
On the Democratic side it is a slug-fest right now. Clinton and Obama won their home states. Obama had the momentum going into the contest, in large part because of favorable media reports. Here's Dick Morris:
The USA Today headline on Monday said it all: "Obama Erases Clinton Lead." The press on the day before Super Tuesday has been the best that Obama could hope for. In a race dominated by perception, you could not buy more favorable publicity than the published reports of his closing the gap with Hillary. He will also benefit from the companion articles in most papers showing that McCain enjoys a comfortable lead over Romney. With Independents able to vote in either party primary in half of the Super Tuesday states, this information may induce many anti-Hillary voters to back Obama rather than McCain as the most likely way to beat her. They may figure that McCain no longer needs their votes but that Obama needs them badly as he is now within striking distance of victory.
California is crucial, and the polls have just closed there.
My Super-Duper Tuesday Prediction
The biggest primary day in American history is today. Turnout looks to be huge.
The Democratic race is too tight to predict, but Obama looks like he's surging in CA and nationwide.
Here's Marc Ambinder:
According to campaign sources, polling and stealing off other analysts, Hillary Clinton has an edge in New York, New Jersey, Tennessee, New Mexico, Oklahoma and Arkansas. Obama has an edge in Idaho, Colorado, Minnesota, Kansas, Alabama, Georgia, North Dakota and Illinois. Tossups: California, Connecticut, Democrats Abroad, Arizona, Missouri, Delaware, Utah, American Samoa, Alaska, Massachusetts.
On the Republican side, it will be a bad night for Huckabee I think, perhaps resulting in him dropping out soon thereafter.
The Democratic race is too tight to predict, but Obama looks like he's surging in CA and nationwide.
Here's Marc Ambinder:
According to campaign sources, polling and stealing off other analysts, Hillary Clinton has an edge in New York, New Jersey, Tennessee, New Mexico, Oklahoma and Arkansas. Obama has an edge in Idaho, Colorado, Minnesota, Kansas, Alabama, Georgia, North Dakota and Illinois. Tossups: California, Connecticut, Democrats Abroad, Arizona, Missouri, Delaware, Utah, American Samoa, Alaska, Massachusetts.
On the Republican side, it will be a bad night for Huckabee I think, perhaps resulting in him dropping out soon thereafter.
2/4/08
McCain Gaining
McCain seems to be gaining. He's shot up in the national polls since Florida (from 27% to 43%). National Review has this update:
In the McCain pile, he keeps all of his big winner-take-all states (Arizona, New York, New Jersey, Connecticut) and while I'm taking some out of his previous total in California, he's doing much better in the South (Alabama, Georgia, Tennessee). In this count, the polls hold, and he wins the winner-take-all battleground of Missouri. In addition, he should get the most delegates out of Illinois, Minnesota, and Oklahoma.
Before I put McCain somewhere north of 400 delegates; now I'm calculating out to 500 and change.I'd give Ron Paul a majority of Alaska's 29 delegates, and a few here, a few there in states without the 15 percent threshold. He may break 50 delegates for the day.
That would put things at about McCain at 600+ total delegates, (needing 1,191 to be the nominee), Romney a bit under 400 total delegates, Huckabee at 150 delegates or so.
Under this scenario, the race won't be over, but McCain will have a clear lead, and time will be running low for Romney to close the gap.
Meanwhile Romney and Huckabee are bickering. Huckabee had harsh, harsh criticism of Romney. This is understandable on Huckabee's end. Romney's making the "A Vote For Huckabee is a Vote for McCain" argument, which is very persuasive to conservative voters wanting to vote for a winner. Huckabee knows he has to counter this. But his harsh criticism undercuts his nice-guy image. His venom against Romney and love-fest with McCain underscores just the point Romney's making.
Huckabee is likewise undercut by his continued appeal to evangelicals. His inability to broaden past this base was the strategic mistake of his candidacy starting in December 2007.
A note from Time: The night of the Iowa caucuses McCain called Huckabee to congratulate him, and Huckabee told McCain, according to aides: "Now it's your turn to kick his butt," "his" referring to Romney.
In the McCain pile, he keeps all of his big winner-take-all states (Arizona, New York, New Jersey, Connecticut) and while I'm taking some out of his previous total in California, he's doing much better in the South (Alabama, Georgia, Tennessee). In this count, the polls hold, and he wins the winner-take-all battleground of Missouri. In addition, he should get the most delegates out of Illinois, Minnesota, and Oklahoma.
Before I put McCain somewhere north of 400 delegates; now I'm calculating out to 500 and change.I'd give Ron Paul a majority of Alaska's 29 delegates, and a few here, a few there in states without the 15 percent threshold. He may break 50 delegates for the day.
That would put things at about McCain at 600+ total delegates, (needing 1,191 to be the nominee), Romney a bit under 400 total delegates, Huckabee at 150 delegates or so.
Under this scenario, the race won't be over, but McCain will have a clear lead, and time will be running low for Romney to close the gap.
Meanwhile Romney and Huckabee are bickering. Huckabee had harsh, harsh criticism of Romney. This is understandable on Huckabee's end. Romney's making the "A Vote For Huckabee is a Vote for McCain" argument, which is very persuasive to conservative voters wanting to vote for a winner. Huckabee knows he has to counter this. But his harsh criticism undercuts his nice-guy image. His venom against Romney and love-fest with McCain underscores just the point Romney's making.
Huckabee is likewise undercut by his continued appeal to evangelicals. His inability to broaden past this base was the strategic mistake of his candidacy starting in December 2007.
A note from Time: The night of the Iowa caucuses McCain called Huckabee to congratulate him, and Huckabee told McCain, according to aides: "Now it's your turn to kick his butt," "his" referring to Romney.
2/1/08
Super Duper Tuesday: The Republican Side
At this point, Huckabee is doing serious damage to Romney. Romney needs the Huckster out fast, like yesterday. Huckabee staying in keeps McCain's campaign on top. Here's Romney's top strategist:
The coalitions that John McCain assembled in New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Florida have been strikingly similar—and are strikingly tenuous. Public polling shows McCain ahead in many states, but we are now in a two-man race and a few points’ movement among conservatives is all that’s needed to tip the scales in favor of Gov. Romney. In all three states where he was victorious, McCain’s margin of victory rested on moderates, self identified independents, and voters who disapprove of the Bush administration. None of these groups is a majority of the Republican electorate. In fact, every GOP primary this year has been at least 55% conservative, 61% Republican, and 50% supportive of the Bush administration— explaining why McCain has failed to win more than 36% of the vote in any of them.
Huckabee might be thinking of being chosen McCain's running-mate. I can't believe I haven't thought of this one before; it's so appallingly simple, and I feel incredibly stupid. Huckabee is young (53 in August), so a shot at being Veep is perfect for him. It is the natural endpoint of the Huckster--McCain lovefest/alliance. And since the Republicans are probably going down in the general anyway, Huckabee won't be the loser at the top of the ticket, but he'll have a platform to work from for the rest of the year.
National Review has this:
In the Romney pile, we’ll probably have about five to seven wins, and the delegates most of Massachusetts, all of Utah, all of Montana, most of Colorado, all of Missouri, and if that poll is correct, all of Delaware, and perhaps most of North Dakota's. And he’ll get some of California’s. I put him at about 200 to 250 delegates.
In the Huckabee pile, we’ll have Alabama, Arkansas, Tennessee, Georgia, and maybe he’ll get some of California’s. I put him around 200.
In the McCain pile, we’ll have all of Arizona, all of New York, all of New Jersey, all of Connecticut, probably the largest chunk of California’s, probably most of Minnesota's, probably majorities in Oklahoma and West Virginia.I put him around somewhere north of 400 delegates.
Alaska may go for Ron Paul, and he may get a majority of their 29 delegates.
That would put things at about McCain at 500+ (needing 1,191 to be the nominee), Romney at 325, Huckabee at 230 or so.
The coalitions that John McCain assembled in New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Florida have been strikingly similar—and are strikingly tenuous. Public polling shows McCain ahead in many states, but we are now in a two-man race and a few points’ movement among conservatives is all that’s needed to tip the scales in favor of Gov. Romney. In all three states where he was victorious, McCain’s margin of victory rested on moderates, self identified independents, and voters who disapprove of the Bush administration. None of these groups is a majority of the Republican electorate. In fact, every GOP primary this year has been at least 55% conservative, 61% Republican, and 50% supportive of the Bush administration— explaining why McCain has failed to win more than 36% of the vote in any of them.
Huckabee might be thinking of being chosen McCain's running-mate. I can't believe I haven't thought of this one before; it's so appallingly simple, and I feel incredibly stupid. Huckabee is young (53 in August), so a shot at being Veep is perfect for him. It is the natural endpoint of the Huckster--McCain lovefest/alliance. And since the Republicans are probably going down in the general anyway, Huckabee won't be the loser at the top of the ticket, but he'll have a platform to work from for the rest of the year.
National Review has this:
In the Romney pile, we’ll probably have about five to seven wins, and the delegates most of Massachusetts, all of Utah, all of Montana, most of Colorado, all of Missouri, and if that poll is correct, all of Delaware, and perhaps most of North Dakota's. And he’ll get some of California’s. I put him at about 200 to 250 delegates.
In the Huckabee pile, we’ll have Alabama, Arkansas, Tennessee, Georgia, and maybe he’ll get some of California’s. I put him around 200.
In the McCain pile, we’ll have all of Arizona, all of New York, all of New Jersey, all of Connecticut, probably the largest chunk of California’s, probably most of Minnesota's, probably majorities in Oklahoma and West Virginia.I put him around somewhere north of 400 delegates.
Alaska may go for Ron Paul, and he may get a majority of their 29 delegates.
That would put things at about McCain at 500+ (needing 1,191 to be the nominee), Romney at 325, Huckabee at 230 or so.
Marc Ambinder has this:
[Romney's] strategy eschews big states and concentrates on smaller states where the delegate selection processes favor conservatives. They include Colorado, a caucus state, West Virginia, Alaska (which is why Romney mentioned McCain's support for ANWR drilling last night), and Oklahoma and Georgia, two states where delegates can be extracted from congressional districts.
The goal is to minimize the delegate gulf between McCain and Romney headed out of Feb 5 and give Romney a pretext to continue to campaign if McCain suddenly falters.
1/30/08
Dissecting Florida
OK, here goes. First of all, 34% of the electorate were late deciders, and McCain edged out Romney with them. The momentum he got from SC was definitely a big factor. This is how you win elections--not by skipping primaries (Romney) or avoiding the early calendar altogether (Giuliani), but by contesting for every vote. I've exculpated Romney from skipping SC, but you could argue that in the short-term it might have hurt him--what if he took votes away from McCain by campaigning harder resulting in a Huckabee win? Then could he have won Florida? Perhaps that's not such a stretch, but in the long term he needs to knock out Huckabee first, and then take on McCain. This must be his long-term strategy. That's my story and I'm sticking to it.
So I refuse to abandon my inside-outside paradigm of the Republican race. That is to say, the liberal-moderate vote (38% of Florida's Republican electorate) or the Democrat-Independent vote (20% of Florida's Republican electorate) is not enough to win the nomination, and a candidate like McCain needs to broaden his appeal in order to win in the end. McCain has been doing that, by attacking Romney's flip-flopping on social issues. He's been emphasizing national security, and has done well with people who served in the military (27% of Florida's Republican electorate) which he won heavily in Florida and also won in SC.
So can McCain pull it off? He's just passed two huge tests, SC and FL. In SC he relied on a split Republican field. But Florida included a candidate whose voters track McCain's: Giuliani. Both candidates did better with Hispanics, better with seniors than middle-aged voters, better with secular voters, better with pro-choice voters, and better with liberals and moderates. Giuliani's voters would to a greater degree support McCain rather than other candidates, I'm guessing, even though McCain tied with Romney for Giuliani voters' second-choice.
As a side note, Thompson voters' second choice was heavily for Romney.
Ever since Michigan, McCain's national standing in the polls has dropped, and Romney's have increased. Florida was a closed primary, which McCain had difficulty winning in 2000.
The conclusion is that McCain is the front-runner, having bested the two more conservative candidates in consecutive contests, and eliminated the other two top candidates. But this race is still wide open. If Romney had won, he would be in the drivers' seat, but he didn't.
So I refuse to abandon my inside-outside paradigm of the Republican race. That is to say, the liberal-moderate vote (38% of Florida's Republican electorate) or the Democrat-Independent vote (20% of Florida's Republican electorate) is not enough to win the nomination, and a candidate like McCain needs to broaden his appeal in order to win in the end. McCain has been doing that, by attacking Romney's flip-flopping on social issues. He's been emphasizing national security, and has done well with people who served in the military (27% of Florida's Republican electorate) which he won heavily in Florida and also won in SC.
So can McCain pull it off? He's just passed two huge tests, SC and FL. In SC he relied on a split Republican field. But Florida included a candidate whose voters track McCain's: Giuliani. Both candidates did better with Hispanics, better with seniors than middle-aged voters, better with secular voters, better with pro-choice voters, and better with liberals and moderates. Giuliani's voters would to a greater degree support McCain rather than other candidates, I'm guessing, even though McCain tied with Romney for Giuliani voters' second-choice.
As a side note, Thompson voters' second choice was heavily for Romney.
Ever since Michigan, McCain's national standing in the polls has dropped, and Romney's have increased. Florida was a closed primary, which McCain had difficulty winning in 2000.
The conclusion is that McCain is the front-runner, having bested the two more conservative candidates in consecutive contests, and eliminated the other two top candidates. But this race is still wide open. If Romney had won, he would be in the drivers' seat, but he didn't.
1/29/08
Voting in Florida Today
I have to confess that I believe now that I was wrong to post a week and a half ago dire predictions concerning Romney's skipping of SC right after his Michigan win. They have not come to pass; Romney's gotten away with it. The reason is that McCain won South Carolina. That was perfect for Romney. Instead of momentum for Huckabee, it set up a contest between Romney and McCain in Florida, one that Romney might win, though McCain has the momentum. But as Time points out that national security has receded and the economy come to the forefront, and this benefits Romney. See the video below.
Also Romney's spending the cash. From Marc Ambinder:
Mitt Romney's had an 8 to 1 television ad advantage in Florida... part of the reason why he's made the [race] competitive. Heck, most of the reason he's made the race competitive has been his ads. According to Neilsen, he's run 4,475 ads compared to John McCain's 470 through 1/22. McCain did not run a single ad until January; Romney ran more ads in September than McCain has run to date.
Having been proven wrong concerning the success of a campaign strategy I thought was too cute, I want to go double-or-nothing: if Romney wins Florida big, by 7-points or more, I predict he'll be the nominee. It seems right now like it'll be much tighter. The polls have Romney and McCain are within the margin of error of each other. But the polls were wrong on the Democratic side in Iowa and NH, and they might be wrong here too, though with the smaller, earlier states surprises are more likely perhaps.
A Romney win would be remarkable, beat all expectations, rain down the plaudits of the pundits, and propel him to the nomination, as it would be sustainable in a way a McCain win won't be. He's got more money than McCain and he's got conservative Republican street cred in a way McCain doesn't. If McCain wins, this race is still wide open. If Romney wins, bye bye Huckabee (except for a few Southern states perhaps).
Also Romney's spending the cash. From Marc Ambinder:
Mitt Romney's had an 8 to 1 television ad advantage in Florida... part of the reason why he's made the [race] competitive. Heck, most of the reason he's made the race competitive has been his ads. According to Neilsen, he's run 4,475 ads compared to John McCain's 470 through 1/22. McCain did not run a single ad until January; Romney ran more ads in September than McCain has run to date.
Having been proven wrong concerning the success of a campaign strategy I thought was too cute, I want to go double-or-nothing: if Romney wins Florida big, by 7-points or more, I predict he'll be the nominee. It seems right now like it'll be much tighter. The polls have Romney and McCain are within the margin of error of each other. But the polls were wrong on the Democratic side in Iowa and NH, and they might be wrong here too, though with the smaller, earlier states surprises are more likely perhaps.
A Romney win would be remarkable, beat all expectations, rain down the plaudits of the pundits, and propel him to the nomination, as it would be sustainable in a way a McCain win won't be. He's got more money than McCain and he's got conservative Republican street cred in a way McCain doesn't. If McCain wins, this race is still wide open. If Romney wins, bye bye Huckabee (except for a few Southern states perhaps).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
