Polls at this point in time are absolutely worthless in terms of their predictive value. At this time last year, if you had believed the polling, Edwards or Hillary would have won Iowa. Or nationally, Rudy Giuliani would be the Republican nominee! See what I'm saying?
Intrade is no better, pace Michael Brendan Dougherty. Buying Obama and McCain futures this time last year would have netted you a small fortune (more so with McCain, but also with Obama).
CBS Horserace writes:
In those blue states being talked about by Republicans as possible targets, Obama is doing more than holding his own. In Pennsylvania, the RCP average has Obama up by 7 points. In Michigan, it’s a 7.2 point lead, 11.2 points In Wisconsin and 12 points in Minnesota. When it comes to those states Obama is looking to flip into the Democratic column, the race is much closer. McCain holds an average lead of just 0.7 points in Virginia and just 3.8 points in North Carolina. Obama meanwhile leads by 3.6 points in Colorado and holds a slight 0.5 lead in Indiana. And in Nevada, it’s a dead heat. Meanwhile, some of the more traditional swing states look to be tilting slightly towards the Democrat. Obama holds the lead in poll averages in places Republicans have won in recent cycle. He’s up 4.5 points in Ohio and 2.5 in Missouri. Obama is holding strong in Iowa, with an average 7.4 point lead. McCain clings to a 2.2 point average lead in must-have Florida and New Hampshire is a toss-up. In other words, Obama is looking much stronger in the states Democrats have relied on in the past two close elections while appearing to make real inroads in traditional Republican states and competing very well in big swing states like Ohio.
Stuart Rothenberg says the bellweather states will be Colorado, Virginia, Ohio, Nevada and Michigan. Obama has small leads in all of these, except in Michigan where he's up by 7+.
Obama is doing the right things right now; moving to the center during the summer when nobody's paying attention; grabbing all the headlines (for those who are) by going overseas. The trip is looking like it will be a masterstroke; Barack looks presidential, McCain is diminished by comparison.
Could Obama slip up and harm his candidacy? Of course, but that can happen with anything. He's dominating the airwaves so far and will continue to with his overseas venture. The more people just get used to the idea of Obama being their president, representing them to foreign leaders, etc., the better off he is.
He's got four months to do this, yet the drawn-out primary campaign helped immensely. Obama was not dropped on us from heaven; he had to earn it gradually over a grueling schedule of primary after primary. All these voters seeing his name on the ballot, hearing about him on the local news. And the campaigning sharpening his presidential campaigning skills. I will repeat until doomsday comes that a plethora of democracy only helps a party (and the US as a whole) and the people who only see the divisiveness have no imagination and miss the big picture entirely.
So to pose the question put by CBS Horserace (not excerpted) why isn't Obama up by more? I think the answer is that the heat has not yet been put on John McCain. McCain is benefiting from the surge's short-term success, and the fact that the economy dominates the headlines distracting people from Iraq. People are not thinking about the election. When they do the poll numbers will move around. No doubt McCain will have a lead at some point in time. But there is plenty of ways for Obama to go after McCain, and not a whole lot of ways for McCain to go after Obama, except alterization, the impact of which is/will be blunted by the fact that Obama has/has had time for people to get used to him. The media fawning all over him doesn't hurt, along with the fact that McCain has finally met his match in the media-darling category; now he's standing in the way of what the progressive media elites most desire, which is new for him.
Showing posts with label Michigan. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Michigan. Show all posts
6/29/08
Crist as veep if McCain needs Florida
Race 4 2008 has a good post up today pushing for Charlie Crist as McCain's running mate, on the thinking that it takes Florida out of play, limiting the possibilities for Obama to flip Republican states.
He writes: By taking Florida out of play, McCain limits possible red state defections to seven states: Missouri, Virginia, Iowa, Ohio, Colorado, Nevada, and New Mexico. The geographical concentration of these states into two distinct regions would make multi-state campaigning easier on the part of a cash-strapped Team McCain, and would force Obama to make inroads into the very sorts of voters who are most suspicious of him in order to win. In this scenario, McCain could simply spend the entirely of the fall campaign jumping back and forth between Missouri, Virginia, Ohio, Michigan, and Pennsylvania, knowing that whoever wins the majority of those five states probably wins the election. And we all saw how far Obama’s millions went in places like Ohio and Pennsylvania during primary season.
The swing states can be seen at the bottom of this blog, with the margins from '04. If Obama wins Pennsylvania (and at this point seems like he probably will) and Michigan, he can win without Missouri, Virginia, and Ohio only by batting 75% in Iowa, New Mexico, Nevada, and Colorado. That's difficult, but not impossible. As Chris Bowers has posted, Obama has had a lead in Iowa in every poll since January 2007, is ahead in every Colorado poll, currently leads by over 5 points in New Mexico, and is down over 2 points in Nevada.
So Obama is likely to win today. But oh how the polls can change!
He writes: By taking Florida out of play, McCain limits possible red state defections to seven states: Missouri, Virginia, Iowa, Ohio, Colorado, Nevada, and New Mexico. The geographical concentration of these states into two distinct regions would make multi-state campaigning easier on the part of a cash-strapped Team McCain, and would force Obama to make inroads into the very sorts of voters who are most suspicious of him in order to win. In this scenario, McCain could simply spend the entirely of the fall campaign jumping back and forth between Missouri, Virginia, Ohio, Michigan, and Pennsylvania, knowing that whoever wins the majority of those five states probably wins the election. And we all saw how far Obama’s millions went in places like Ohio and Pennsylvania during primary season.
The swing states can be seen at the bottom of this blog, with the margins from '04. If Obama wins Pennsylvania (and at this point seems like he probably will) and Michigan, he can win without Missouri, Virginia, and Ohio only by batting 75% in Iowa, New Mexico, Nevada, and Colorado. That's difficult, but not impossible. As Chris Bowers has posted, Obama has had a lead in Iowa in every poll since January 2007, is ahead in every Colorado poll, currently leads by over 5 points in New Mexico, and is down over 2 points in Nevada.
So Obama is likely to win today. But oh how the polls can change!
6/28/08
The Battleground States
The video posted below shows David Plouffe (the genius for the Obama campaign who saw early on that the primary could come down to delegates, and urged aiming for delegate-rich contests) mapping out Obama's strategy in the general. That strategy is, hold on to the Kerry states, and go on offense against some Bush '04 states.
He claims that Obama is doing well in the Kerry states, so that McCain doesn't have many opportunities to go on offense. He's right. The WSJ poll above of Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan show Obama with leads right now beyond the margin of error. Of course that could change. But as of right now it looks good for Obama to hold onto the Kerry states.
Kerry got 251 electoral votes, 19 shy of winning. Where can Obama get these 19 votes? I've posted my analysis of swing states at the bottom of this blog for easy reference. Of course Ohio or Florida would do it. A combination of Iowa, New Mexico, and Colorado would do it as well.
I'm going to be doing a series on this blog on the political situations for the campaigns in the states, starting with the battleground states. It's a fun way to pass a lazy summer. [I am no longer planning on doing this. Jay Cost is doing a great job of this over at http://www.realclearpolitics.com/horseraceblog/]
2/7/08
Making Sense of Super Duper Tuesday
First a word on the primary process. I've speculated here about the effect that frontloading would have on the presidential races, and was convinced that Super Duper Tuesday would be too big to matter. It turned out to be the opposite from what I thought--it didn't pick a nominee, not because the early states would have already decided it, but because they hadn't, and there wasn't enough time yet to sort things out. So the later states get to choose the nominee. Here's Marc Ambinder:
Had Michigan remained on Feb. 9 and Florida on March 4, their influence would have been considerable. Instead, their haste to go first wound up lessening their influence, rather than giving them a louder voice. Now, an array of new states and their tens of millions of voters will find their interests well represented in this campaign: Maryland, Virginia, Wisconsin, Texas, Ohio and maybe even Pennsylvania, whose voters go to the polls on April 22.
Now, what the heck happened on Super Duper Tuesday? Well first of all, Obama won 13 states, Clinton 8. (New Mexico's still up in the air.) Obama won 845 delegates, Clinton 836. Clinton has an overall delegate lead of 79, but this is due to her 83 delegate lead in superdelegates. The political markets thought it was a win for Obama.
Adam Nagourney parses the exit polls:
[O]ne of the most intriguing finding in the surveys of voters leaving the polls across the nation on Tuesday was when they arrived at their final decision. Throughout a week when Mr. Obama was campaigning with members of the Kennedy family, when there was a sense that he was creating a movement that cut across racial and generational lines, there was a steady movement of Democrats toward Mr. Obama, the survey suggested. But those who reported making their decision on the last day bucked the trend, tending to vote for Mrs. Clinton, of New York.
The Obama Democratic Party is made up of younger voters (under 44), blacks, white men (to a more limited extent) and independents whose show of support accounted for his victories in states like Missouri. Their level of enthusiasm for Mr. Obama — their excitement about the possibility of an Obama White House — is palpable in their response to him, or in any conversation.
The Clinton Democratic Party is the party of women, older voters, Hispanics and also some white men. A Clinton rally may not have the energy of a rock concert the way an Obama rally does. Yet the older women who have embraced Mrs. Clinton as the culmination of years of hope and other core supporters are no less passionate in their intensity and devotion.The Hillary voters mentioned, in other words, are more solidly reliable. They turn out to vote in greater numbers, except Hispanics. But the reason why I've consistently favored Hillary to win is because of her voting base, and why I was in for a huge shock with the Iowa results. I underestimated the enthusiasm on the ground for Obama with young voters generating actual caucus-goers. But I'm not surprised by the decision-timing statistic, at least in the abstract. I always thought the Clinton machine would be able to stage a comeback if needed in the states after Iowa and NH. But it was surprising given the recent press Obama was getting.
But there's other factors Nagourney doesn't mention at all: Obama does better with wealthier and better-educated voters, and they turnout in greater numbers. Clinton's voters have less income and less education, and these voters have lower turnout. Obama and Clinton split college grads in CA, but Obama beat her 2-to-1 with college-or-more voters in Missouri, and that's why he narrowly won. Similar story in New Mexico.
Nagourney continues:
Mr. Obama split the white male vote nationally with Mrs. Clinton, but there was an important geographical disparity there: White men in California voted for Mr. Obama but white men in Southern states like Alabama did not. The question is what white men in Ohio will do next month, during what is shaping up as a critical showdown for Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton.
Ohio becomes crucial! When's the last time that happened? I'm sick and tired of the constant refrain of "the primary process is broken." A nationwide primary would be a disaster, and the current system is far preferable. As for rotating the early states, I think it's cool that Iowa and NH have a great tradition going, and that they are used to seeing presidential candidates every four years. What's wrong with having experienced voters decide? They don't decide anything, they just winnow the field of the terrible candidates. If you want your voice to be heard, then move there.
Had Michigan remained on Feb. 9 and Florida on March 4, their influence would have been considerable. Instead, their haste to go first wound up lessening their influence, rather than giving them a louder voice. Now, an array of new states and their tens of millions of voters will find their interests well represented in this campaign: Maryland, Virginia, Wisconsin, Texas, Ohio and maybe even Pennsylvania, whose voters go to the polls on April 22.
Now, what the heck happened on Super Duper Tuesday? Well first of all, Obama won 13 states, Clinton 8. (New Mexico's still up in the air.) Obama won 845 delegates, Clinton 836. Clinton has an overall delegate lead of 79, but this is due to her 83 delegate lead in superdelegates. The political markets thought it was a win for Obama.
Adam Nagourney parses the exit polls:
[O]ne of the most intriguing finding in the surveys of voters leaving the polls across the nation on Tuesday was when they arrived at their final decision. Throughout a week when Mr. Obama was campaigning with members of the Kennedy family, when there was a sense that he was creating a movement that cut across racial and generational lines, there was a steady movement of Democrats toward Mr. Obama, the survey suggested. But those who reported making their decision on the last day bucked the trend, tending to vote for Mrs. Clinton, of New York.
The Obama Democratic Party is made up of younger voters (under 44), blacks, white men (to a more limited extent) and independents whose show of support accounted for his victories in states like Missouri. Their level of enthusiasm for Mr. Obama — their excitement about the possibility of an Obama White House — is palpable in their response to him, or in any conversation.
The Clinton Democratic Party is the party of women, older voters, Hispanics and also some white men. A Clinton rally may not have the energy of a rock concert the way an Obama rally does. Yet the older women who have embraced Mrs. Clinton as the culmination of years of hope and other core supporters are no less passionate in their intensity and devotion.The Hillary voters mentioned, in other words, are more solidly reliable. They turn out to vote in greater numbers, except Hispanics. But the reason why I've consistently favored Hillary to win is because of her voting base, and why I was in for a huge shock with the Iowa results. I underestimated the enthusiasm on the ground for Obama with young voters generating actual caucus-goers. But I'm not surprised by the decision-timing statistic, at least in the abstract. I always thought the Clinton machine would be able to stage a comeback if needed in the states after Iowa and NH. But it was surprising given the recent press Obama was getting.
But there's other factors Nagourney doesn't mention at all: Obama does better with wealthier and better-educated voters, and they turnout in greater numbers. Clinton's voters have less income and less education, and these voters have lower turnout. Obama and Clinton split college grads in CA, but Obama beat her 2-to-1 with college-or-more voters in Missouri, and that's why he narrowly won. Similar story in New Mexico.
Nagourney continues:
Mr. Obama split the white male vote nationally with Mrs. Clinton, but there was an important geographical disparity there: White men in California voted for Mr. Obama but white men in Southern states like Alabama did not. The question is what white men in Ohio will do next month, during what is shaping up as a critical showdown for Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton.
Ohio becomes crucial! When's the last time that happened? I'm sick and tired of the constant refrain of "the primary process is broken." A nationwide primary would be a disaster, and the current system is far preferable. As for rotating the early states, I think it's cool that Iowa and NH have a great tradition going, and that they are used to seeing presidential candidates every four years. What's wrong with having experienced voters decide? They don't decide anything, they just winnow the field of the terrible candidates. If you want your voice to be heard, then move there.
1/16/08
Romney in the driver's seat
We are now in an unprecedented situation, with three different Republican candidates winning the first presidential contests.
New Hampshire was good to Romney. His Michigan numbers rocketed up in the aftermath, from 20% to the final tally of 39%. Huckabee's numbers dipped, from 19% to the final result of 16%.
Romney is now in a great spot thanks to Michigan. His money (thanks to personal wealth) is doing better than the other candidates. (We'll find out everyone's cash-on-hand numbers after Jan. 31.) His support is centered in the Republican base--the voters who can carry a candidate through to the finish.
McCain has the same problem he had in 2000, of not attracting these voters. Here's Chris Bowers:
In all three states, McCain has done better with voters who say they are either "dissatisfied" or "angry" with the Bush administration. He has lost those who are "satisfied" or "enthusiastic" with the Bush administration in all three states. If McCain has really made his comeback on the surge, then why are his voters so unhappy with Bush? Also, he has also virtually swept newspaper endorsements. Would McCain have any chance at all without the established media?
McCain won the Democrats and Independents in Michigan. That was a third of the total electorate. It's not enough to win; you need the Republican base.
Meanwhile the Huckster is not expanding on his base. He used the phrase "God's standards" when talking about gay marriage and the constitution. Another gaffe, on top of others. It makes you wonder if he really wants to be president. That is a real consideration--he might just be positioning himself as a public leader of evangelicals, and pushing up his speaking fee in the process. (He currently is listed in the $20,000-$40,000 range.) It's a much nicer life than being president.
Mitt Romney wants it. He's willing to do or say (and spend) whatever it takes to win. Giuliani doesn't. McCain does. You have to be an ego-maniac of Brobdingnagian proportions to really think you can be president.
Huckabee should consider giving a major speech on church and state. It worked for Romney.
Romney and McCain cleaned Huckabee's clock on senior citizens in Michigan. The gap was even wider in NH. These are the people with the highest turnout, so it should be a focus for his campaign. (Over 65 was 15% of the electorate in NH, and 16% in Michigan.)
McCain and Huckabee were in a tight contest in SC before Michigan. McCain's loss helps Huckabee in the short term, by weakening him in SC, but not in the long term. Romney's his real competitor, and now Romney is in the driver's seat, SC or no SC.
New Hampshire was good to Romney. His Michigan numbers rocketed up in the aftermath, from 20% to the final tally of 39%. Huckabee's numbers dipped, from 19% to the final result of 16%.
Romney is now in a great spot thanks to Michigan. His money (thanks to personal wealth) is doing better than the other candidates. (We'll find out everyone's cash-on-hand numbers after Jan. 31.) His support is centered in the Republican base--the voters who can carry a candidate through to the finish.
McCain has the same problem he had in 2000, of not attracting these voters. Here's Chris Bowers:
In all three states, McCain has done better with voters who say they are either "dissatisfied" or "angry" with the Bush administration. He has lost those who are "satisfied" or "enthusiastic" with the Bush administration in all three states. If McCain has really made his comeback on the surge, then why are his voters so unhappy with Bush? Also, he has also virtually swept newspaper endorsements. Would McCain have any chance at all without the established media?
McCain won the Democrats and Independents in Michigan. That was a third of the total electorate. It's not enough to win; you need the Republican base.
Meanwhile the Huckster is not expanding on his base. He used the phrase "God's standards" when talking about gay marriage and the constitution. Another gaffe, on top of others. It makes you wonder if he really wants to be president. That is a real consideration--he might just be positioning himself as a public leader of evangelicals, and pushing up his speaking fee in the process. (He currently is listed in the $20,000-$40,000 range.) It's a much nicer life than being president.
Mitt Romney wants it. He's willing to do or say (and spend) whatever it takes to win. Giuliani doesn't. McCain does. You have to be an ego-maniac of Brobdingnagian proportions to really think you can be president.
Huckabee should consider giving a major speech on church and state. It worked for Romney.
Romney and McCain cleaned Huckabee's clock on senior citizens in Michigan. The gap was even wider in NH. These are the people with the highest turnout, so it should be a focus for his campaign. (Over 65 was 15% of the electorate in NH, and 16% in Michigan.)
McCain and Huckabee were in a tight contest in SC before Michigan. McCain's loss helps Huckabee in the short term, by weakening him in SC, but not in the long term. Romney's his real competitor, and now Romney is in the driver's seat, SC or no SC.
1/15/08
Romney needs this one
Michigan's voting is today, and the conventional wisdom is that Romney disparately needs a win. I'm going to go ahead and echo the conventional wisdom. If Romney finishes second, that really, objectively, shouldn't be the end of his campaign. He'll have finished second in three contests back to back, and have won Wyoming. He should still be in it with a strong chance to win. The problem is the media pundits will all be sounding his death knell, and this is going to impact South Carolina and Florida. Romney says he'll continue in SC. Perhaps he'll just want to spite the Huckabee campaign, and campaign against him in SC. But there's no way he'll win in SC if he loses Michigan. He's 3rd at 16% right now. He needs Michigan badly. The problem is, he's running as the authentic conservative candidate in an open-primary state that doesn't have a Democratic contest. Advantage: McCain. The polls are too close to call between the two.
An interesting sidenote: Democrats in Michigan might be trying to sabotage the Republican race by voting for the weakest candidate. Who would they choose? Probably Huckabee.
From the Miami Herald:
An interesting sidenote: Democrats in Michigan might be trying to sabotage the Republican race by voting for the weakest candidate. Who would they choose? Probably Huckabee.
From the Miami Herald:
''In 2000 when McCain won Michigan, the pundits didn't give it that much credibility because it was an open primary, and this one is even more open,'' Johnson said, noting that Hillary Clinton is the only leading Democrat on the ballot. That's because Michigan, like Florida, was stripped of its delegates for moving up its primary, and most of the Democrats pulled their names off the ballot there.
Rival camps, however, suggest that Romney's political obituary will be written if he loses Michigan, the state where he was born and his father was governor.
1/7/08
Can McCain win NH and the nomination?
McCain's campaign was hovering around 25% in NH until the second week of June when it started a 3-month decline. This was just when the immigration bill was being considered by Congress. Immigration is, as I've posted on before, a hot topic in NH despite the state not having many illegal immigrants. But as that issue came out of the spotlight, McCain's polls in NH gradually improved to above where he was at the beginning of the summer. He's now in a statistical tie with Romney.
If John McCain does not win in NH tomorrow, his campaign will be over. But if he does win, could he win the Republican nomination?
The Republican race breaks down like this. There are three viable conservative candidates (Huckabee, Romney, Thompson) and two more liberal candidates (McCain, Giuliani). I've already posted on the impossibility of Giuliani winning the nomination. His poll numbers all along have been artificially high; since he hasn't challenged anyone for votes yet, no one has stepped up to attack him. Once (or if) that happens, Giuliani's numbers will fall even more precipitously than they already have. There is so much material for negative ads in Giuliani's background, he's almost smart in waiting out Iowa and NH rather than delving in the trenches and ending his campaign early.
On the conservative side, Thompson can't win due to an unattractive candidate. This leaves Huckabee and Romney.
And McCain. Could he go all the way?
In 2000, McCain won the following states before his campaign ended March 9: NH, Arizona, Michigan, Connecticut, Massachusetts, RI, Vermont. NH was an open primary, Arizona was semi-closed but of course was McCain's home state. The battleground of Michigan was an open primary, and McCain won it on the votes of independents despite losing 3-1 amongst Republicans. The rest of the states McCain won were: Connecticut and Rhode Island were closed, Massachusetts and Vermont were open. The only closed primaries McCain won were from the liberal Northeast.
This previous experience causes me to think that it's an inside-the-beltway fantasy that McCain could get the Republican nomination. Right now the conservative vote is being split three ways, and even four, adding in Ron Paul. Those four candidates got 82% in Iowa. They currently get a majority of the vote in NH. The point is, that there are more candidates running as conservatives and two as more liberal, which means that, though the conservative vote is a greater percentage, it is being split by more candidates who get less a share of the pie each. In NH in 2000, the candidates running as conservatives (Bush, Steve Forbes, Alan Keyes) got more votes combined than McCain.
Iowa and NH do not pick presidents. Rather, they just narrow the field for the other states to make their selection from. That's what's happening right now on the Republican side. Once the winnowing process takes place, it'll be a two or three way contest (Huckabee, Romney/McCain, Giuliani). At that point the more liberal candidate(s) will take a hit, just as happened to McCain in 2000. When conservatives are united behind one candidate, no matter how much they prefer him or would rather have a different conservative candidate, then the opposing candidate like McCain or Giuliani don't stand a chance.
Right now it is a Romney--Huckabee race. A Giuliani win in NH knocks Romney out, and he can't come back unless he wins a (currently narrowly contested) Michigan primary. The marriage of convenience between Huckabee and McCain favors both candidates, but ultimately it's Huckabee who would prevail if they were the last two candidates standing.
If John McCain does not win in NH tomorrow, his campaign will be over. But if he does win, could he win the Republican nomination?
The Republican race breaks down like this. There are three viable conservative candidates (Huckabee, Romney, Thompson) and two more liberal candidates (McCain, Giuliani). I've already posted on the impossibility of Giuliani winning the nomination. His poll numbers all along have been artificially high; since he hasn't challenged anyone for votes yet, no one has stepped up to attack him. Once (or if) that happens, Giuliani's numbers will fall even more precipitously than they already have. There is so much material for negative ads in Giuliani's background, he's almost smart in waiting out Iowa and NH rather than delving in the trenches and ending his campaign early.
On the conservative side, Thompson can't win due to an unattractive candidate. This leaves Huckabee and Romney.
And McCain. Could he go all the way?
In 2000, McCain won the following states before his campaign ended March 9: NH, Arizona, Michigan, Connecticut, Massachusetts, RI, Vermont. NH was an open primary, Arizona was semi-closed but of course was McCain's home state. The battleground of Michigan was an open primary, and McCain won it on the votes of independents despite losing 3-1 amongst Republicans. The rest of the states McCain won were: Connecticut and Rhode Island were closed, Massachusetts and Vermont were open. The only closed primaries McCain won were from the liberal Northeast.
This previous experience causes me to think that it's an inside-the-beltway fantasy that McCain could get the Republican nomination. Right now the conservative vote is being split three ways, and even four, adding in Ron Paul. Those four candidates got 82% in Iowa. They currently get a majority of the vote in NH. The point is, that there are more candidates running as conservatives and two as more liberal, which means that, though the conservative vote is a greater percentage, it is being split by more candidates who get less a share of the pie each. In NH in 2000, the candidates running as conservatives (Bush, Steve Forbes, Alan Keyes) got more votes combined than McCain.
Iowa and NH do not pick presidents. Rather, they just narrow the field for the other states to make their selection from. That's what's happening right now on the Republican side. Once the winnowing process takes place, it'll be a two or three way contest (Huckabee, Romney/McCain, Giuliani). At that point the more liberal candidate(s) will take a hit, just as happened to McCain in 2000. When conservatives are united behind one candidate, no matter how much they prefer him or would rather have a different conservative candidate, then the opposing candidate like McCain or Giuliani don't stand a chance.
Right now it is a Romney--Huckabee race. A Giuliani win in NH knocks Romney out, and he can't come back unless he wins a (currently narrowly contested) Michigan primary. The marriage of convenience between Huckabee and McCain favors both candidates, but ultimately it's Huckabee who would prevail if they were the last two candidates standing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
