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 Romney. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Romney. Show all posts
10/15/08
7/3/08
McCain will probably pick Romney
So Politico says McCain wants Romney. The reasons are fundraising, already having been vetted, popular in Michigan, and economic expertise.
I always thought that Romney would not be McCain's choice, for one simple reason: he ran a terrible campaign. He spent all this money and time, and yet the more voters saw of him, the less they liked him. He couldn't overcome his fakeness.
Yet I now think that Romney would be a perfect pick for McCain. Romney's weakness on the stump, which I thought canceled him out, is actually a positive, because it contrasts well with McCain. Romney injects youth and vigor into the ticket, but without making McCain look old and tired next to him, and Romney's fakeness makes McCain's sincerity shine out.
Romney's image is that of a competent manager. That is exactly what McCain wants to contrast to Obama's greenness.
Romney has made his peace with social conservatives, and was widely praised for his speech on religion during the campaign. They could live with him.
And of course, if he switches Michigan, then the election is McCain's.
Romney is perfect for McCain.
I always thought that Romney would not be McCain's choice, for one simple reason: he ran a terrible campaign. He spent all this money and time, and yet the more voters saw of him, the less they liked him. He couldn't overcome his fakeness.
Yet I now think that Romney would be a perfect pick for McCain. Romney's weakness on the stump, which I thought canceled him out, is actually a positive, because it contrasts well with McCain. Romney injects youth and vigor into the ticket, but without making McCain look old and tired next to him, and Romney's fakeness makes McCain's sincerity shine out.
Romney's image is that of a competent manager. That is exactly what McCain wants to contrast to Obama's greenness.
Romney has made his peace with social conservatives, and was widely praised for his speech on religion during the campaign. They could live with him.
And of course, if he switches Michigan, then the election is McCain's.
Romney is perfect for McCain.
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.
2/9/08
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
Limbaugh on Romney
I'm listening to Rush Limbaugh right now, and he's endorsing what I said this morning, in order to exculpate himself--that is to say, explain why Romney didn't win if he (Limbaugh) is such a powerful influence and he heavily promoted Romney.
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.
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).
1/26/08
Fredheads confused
I had a conversation yesterday with a Fredhead, and it was very revealing. He said he was now confused as to who to support.
He said he won't vote for Huckabee, because he's weak on immigration and foreign policy. But he doesn't like voting for Romney, because he's weak on the social issues. Romney is more likely to get his vote though.
As confused as the Republican race is, there is not more clarity now that Thompson has dropped out. Things will only get clarified when there's two candidates left standing.
He said he won't vote for Huckabee, because he's weak on immigration and foreign policy. But he doesn't like voting for Romney, because he's weak on the social issues. Romney is more likely to get his vote though.
As confused as the Republican race is, there is not more clarity now that Thompson has dropped out. Things will only get clarified when there's two candidates left standing.
1/25/08
Thompson voters redux
I appreciate this fascinating comment on my last post:
As a long time member of Thompson blogs and sites I can promise you very few 'Fredheads' will be going to Huckabee! And why should they? Huck's made it very clear how he feels about Fred and Rollins has been down right nasty towards Fred. Huckabee's push polling of Fred in SC doesn't help him either.
I can tell you that from the blogs and the postings I have seen that Mitt has the lion's share of support, but it’s a very reluctant support I assure you.
Steve Dinan reports the same thing. Taegan Goddard reports this: "Since Fred Thompson exited the race, McCain is up 5, Romney is up 9, Giuliani is down 2 and Huckabee is flat." Seems like Romney's benefiting, though it's tough to say so early. Jay Cost thinks the impact on Florida might be marginal only.
I can see Thompson's voters going for Mitt, albeit reluctantly. They are both conservatives in the traditional mold. It's also easy to suppose that for a lot of them Mitt is less offensive that the Huckster.
Robert Novak and this blog makes the point that Thompson's exit is bad timing for the Huckster, who could move in and capture some of Thompson's voters, but can't because he's out of cash.
Thompson hasn't endorsed anyone yet. He was an informal adviser to McCain before he ran. He endorsed McCain against W. in 2000 and might do so again.
If Romney wins Florida it will be huge for him and back for the Huckster. Huckabee has to hope that McCain wins instead.
Michael Brendan Dougherty has this on Huckabee:
Even if Huckabee fails to capture the nomination, he may still effect significant change in the GOP coalition. In 2004, Republicans nabbed three out of four white evangelical votes. Karl Rove credited them with Bush’s re-election. But just as these voters demonstrated their power, their leadership was disappearing. James Kennedy and Jerry Falwell have passed away; others like James Dobson are on their way out of public ministry. Carter believes Huckabee can easily fill the void of evangelical leadership, but he warns that Republicans shouldn’t expect another compliant pastor who will shepherd the masses to the polls then otherwise leave them alone. “Because Huckabee doesn’t come from the establishment, he doesn’t owe them any favors. He has the potential to lead a new movement—and not just evangelicals alone.”
If the affable preacher consolidates his influence over the largest bloc of voters in the GOP, he’ll have the whip hand in the Republican coalition. No wonder the establishment is wincing.
As a long time member of Thompson blogs and sites I can promise you very few 'Fredheads' will be going to Huckabee! And why should they? Huck's made it very clear how he feels about Fred and Rollins has been down right nasty towards Fred. Huckabee's push polling of Fred in SC doesn't help him either.
I can tell you that from the blogs and the postings I have seen that Mitt has the lion's share of support, but it’s a very reluctant support I assure you.
Steve Dinan reports the same thing. Taegan Goddard reports this: "Since Fred Thompson exited the race, McCain is up 5, Romney is up 9, Giuliani is down 2 and Huckabee is flat." Seems like Romney's benefiting, though it's tough to say so early. Jay Cost thinks the impact on Florida might be marginal only.
I can see Thompson's voters going for Mitt, albeit reluctantly. They are both conservatives in the traditional mold. It's also easy to suppose that for a lot of them Mitt is less offensive that the Huckster.
Robert Novak and this blog makes the point that Thompson's exit is bad timing for the Huckster, who could move in and capture some of Thompson's voters, but can't because he's out of cash.
Thompson hasn't endorsed anyone yet. He was an informal adviser to McCain before he ran. He endorsed McCain against W. in 2000 and might do so again.
If Romney wins Florida it will be huge for him and back for the Huckster. Huckabee has to hope that McCain wins instead.
Michael Brendan Dougherty has this on Huckabee:
Even if Huckabee fails to capture the nomination, he may still effect significant change in the GOP coalition. In 2004, Republicans nabbed three out of four white evangelical votes. Karl Rove credited them with Bush’s re-election. But just as these voters demonstrated their power, their leadership was disappearing. James Kennedy and Jerry Falwell have passed away; others like James Dobson are on their way out of public ministry. Carter believes Huckabee can easily fill the void of evangelical leadership, but he warns that Republicans shouldn’t expect another compliant pastor who will shepherd the masses to the polls then otherwise leave them alone. “Because Huckabee doesn’t come from the establishment, he doesn’t owe them any favors. He has the potential to lead a new movement—and not just evangelicals alone.”
If the affable preacher consolidates his influence over the largest bloc of voters in the GOP, he’ll have the whip hand in the Republican coalition. No wonder the establishment is wincing.
1/24/08
More on Thompson's voting block
Thompson got 13% in Iowa. A large majority of his voters (nearly 10%) were "very conservative." Romney beat Thompson by 12 points, but it would have been a near-tie between them if only "very conservative" voters counted. He got 1% in NH and 4% in Michigan. In SC he got 16%. Nearly half of that was "very conservative" voters, who are a third of the whole electorate.
The other thing that strikes me is the electability perception. For both Thompson and Huckabee, of the people who voted for them, nearly 9 out of 10 thought that their candidate was the best general-election candidate.
The media goes ga-ga about the Republicans nominating McCain as such a great maneuver for winning in November, but only 7 out of 10 of his own supporters in SC thought so. Do they know something the media doesn't?
When the positions of two opposing candidates are similar, the personalities and experiences they have become more important. McCain is old--he'll be 72 in August. When I saw him on TV touring a factory in SC, I thought he looked like an elderly man. Huckabee has the likability factor, which is a potent general election asset, as long as he can tone-down the religious stuff and triangulate his positions.
All this is interesting, but it doesn't tell us where the Thompson voters are going. I think they'll be split between Romney and Huckabee, with an edge to Huckabee. He's a southern politician like Thompson, his voters think he can win, and he's (slightly) more successfully cultivated the conservative vote than Romney.
This question is so important, it seems to me, because I think it will determine the Republican nominee.
The other thing that strikes me is the electability perception. For both Thompson and Huckabee, of the people who voted for them, nearly 9 out of 10 thought that their candidate was the best general-election candidate.
The media goes ga-ga about the Republicans nominating McCain as such a great maneuver for winning in November, but only 7 out of 10 of his own supporters in SC thought so. Do they know something the media doesn't?
When the positions of two opposing candidates are similar, the personalities and experiences they have become more important. McCain is old--he'll be 72 in August. When I saw him on TV touring a factory in SC, I thought he looked like an elderly man. Huckabee has the likability factor, which is a potent general election asset, as long as he can tone-down the religious stuff and triangulate his positions.
All this is interesting, but it doesn't tell us where the Thompson voters are going. I think they'll be split between Romney and Huckabee, with an edge to Huckabee. He's a southern politician like Thompson, his voters think he can win, and he's (slightly) more successfully cultivated the conservative vote than Romney.
This question is so important, it seems to me, because I think it will determine the Republican nominee.
1/23/08
Thompson out
From the NY Times:
At first blush, his decision would seem potentially to help Mike Huckabee, the former governor of Arkansas, who has competed for many of the same conservative voters that Mr. Thompson sought to appeal to. Mr. Huckabee said Tuesday that he might have come in second in South Carolina precisely because Mr. Thompson had siphoned off much of his support, permitting Senator John McCain of Arizona to win.
“The votes that he took essentially were votes that I would have most likely had, according to the exit polls and every other analysis,” Mr. Huckabee said on MSNBC.
The development could prove unwelcome to Mr. McCain.
Here's analysis from one blogger:
[On TV last night] Kondracke was of the opinion that his votes would mostly go to Mitt Romney, with some going to Huckabee. Until I heard him say that, I assumed that Thompson's votes would go to John McCain, as I see them as essentially political brothers. But Kondracke is probably right, in that the national narrative/impression is that Thompson is an orthodox conservative, while McCain is not. I actually see both Thompson and McCain as unorthodox Republicans in the same general mold of Lindsay Graham. Nevertheless, I think most of the people that were supporting Thompson were supporting him because he fit the bill on the social/fiscal/national security troika in a way that none of the other candidates could convincingly pull off. With Thompson out of the way, Mitt Romney most nearly fulfills the requirements of the troika (albeit, with some fairly severe credibility problems on the social arm).
I think it definitely hurts McCain. Thompson's voters will not vote for McCain. Will it be a boon to Romney? In SC, the bulk of the Thompson vote was self-identified conservatives. That's true for both Romney and Huckabee. It's hard to tell.
At first blush, his decision would seem potentially to help Mike Huckabee, the former governor of Arkansas, who has competed for many of the same conservative voters that Mr. Thompson sought to appeal to. Mr. Huckabee said Tuesday that he might have come in second in South Carolina precisely because Mr. Thompson had siphoned off much of his support, permitting Senator John McCain of Arizona to win.
“The votes that he took essentially were votes that I would have most likely had, according to the exit polls and every other analysis,” Mr. Huckabee said on MSNBC.
The development could prove unwelcome to Mr. McCain.
Here's analysis from one blogger:
[On TV last night] Kondracke was of the opinion that his votes would mostly go to Mitt Romney, with some going to Huckabee. Until I heard him say that, I assumed that Thompson's votes would go to John McCain, as I see them as essentially political brothers. But Kondracke is probably right, in that the national narrative/impression is that Thompson is an orthodox conservative, while McCain is not. I actually see both Thompson and McCain as unorthodox Republicans in the same general mold of Lindsay Graham. Nevertheless, I think most of the people that were supporting Thompson were supporting him because he fit the bill on the social/fiscal/national security troika in a way that none of the other candidates could convincingly pull off. With Thompson out of the way, Mitt Romney most nearly fulfills the requirements of the troika (albeit, with some fairly severe credibility problems on the social arm).
I think it definitely hurts McCain. Thompson's voters will not vote for McCain. Will it be a boon to Romney? In SC, the bulk of the Thompson vote was self-identified conservatives. That's true for both Romney and Huckabee. It's hard to tell.
1/20/08
McCain's momentum
The Prince of Darkness was all McCain last night on Fox News. Is McCain now the front runner for the Republicans? The answer is yes. Can he win the nomination? Anything can happen, but my answer is still negative.
Take a look at the exit polls for SC. McCain won on the backs of people who thought abortion should be legal (28% of the electorate), go to church monthly or less (35% of the electorate), have a negative view of the Bush administration (30% of the electorate), don't think illegal immigrants should be deported (48% of the electorate), self-id as independents (18% of the electorate), and liberal or moderate (31% of the electorate), and who live in cities (8% of the electorate).
McCain's support Saturday was skewed by the fragmented Republican field. This from Smirking Chimp:
In 2000, McCain drew 237,888 votes in South Carolina, 42 percent of the total against 301,050 for Bush, 53 percent. In 2008, McCain drew only 143,224 votes in South Carolina, 33 percent of the total . . . the arithmetic of the divided field was inexorable. This time, he faced six opponents whose combined total beat his by two to one--a much more substantial margin than that of GWBush in 2000--but no one of whom got enough to beat him.
As soon as traditional, conservative Republican voters have a candidate (by default), McCain doesn't stand a chance. He needs the field to remain divided. Likewise, if it came down to the Huckster vs. Romney, the Huckster would be hard pressed to win. Hence the alliance between McCain and Huckabee.
Take a look at the exit polls for SC. McCain won on the backs of people who thought abortion should be legal (28% of the electorate), go to church monthly or less (35% of the electorate), have a negative view of the Bush administration (30% of the electorate), don't think illegal immigrants should be deported (48% of the electorate), self-id as independents (18% of the electorate), and liberal or moderate (31% of the electorate), and who live in cities (8% of the electorate).
McCain's support Saturday was skewed by the fragmented Republican field. This from Smirking Chimp:
In 2000, McCain drew 237,888 votes in South Carolina, 42 percent of the total against 301,050 for Bush, 53 percent. In 2008, McCain drew only 143,224 votes in South Carolina, 33 percent of the total . . . the arithmetic of the divided field was inexorable. This time, he faced six opponents whose combined total beat his by two to one--a much more substantial margin than that of GWBush in 2000--but no one of whom got enough to beat him.
As soon as traditional, conservative Republican voters have a candidate (by default), McCain doesn't stand a chance. He needs the field to remain divided. Likewise, if it came down to the Huckster vs. Romney, the Huckster would be hard pressed to win. Hence the alliance between McCain and Huckabee.
1/18/08
Romney's retreat
I saw the news early yesterday morning on the Politico that Romney was ceding South Carolina and focusing on Nevada. I've been thinking about that decision since then.
My first reaction was that this was a great tactical move. He's playing the expectations game--he can't loose if he doesn't try. Nevada is much more friendly to his candidacy. Finishing fourth in SC would be a huge blow if he was campaigning hard. He can play it off as Nevada having 10 delegates more, so he looks like a business-type who's concerned about the hard results, not media fluff.
But this morning I'm wondering if this won't be looked back upon as the moment in which Romney lost the presidential race.
First of all, the "you can't lose if you don't try" means that I personally am in a great spot to win the presidency. Giuliani's trying it and it's failing. Of course it hasn't failed yet, and I could be proven wrong in my contention that it was a miserable strategic decision to skip all these early states. But you don't win the presidential nomination by shying away from the tough fights. That's what so appealed to me with Romney's kindling strategy. Don't ignore Iowa and NH but get in there, get your hands dirty, mow people's lawns for them if that's what they want, and earn every vote.
The playing with the expectations game would work better if Romney had said all along he wasn't going to contest SC. But of course that would make him look rather weak if he said earlier that he didn't think he could win the primary that's chosen the Republican nominee since 1980. It would work better if the other candidates would play along and try to contest Nevada. The expectations game is always a matter of media perceptions. The media have to play along, in other words. It began in 1988, when before the second presidential debate between Bush and Dukakis ABC News and the Washington Post released a 50-state poll announcing that Bush had an electoral college lock. Dukakis had to blow Bush away in the debate, or he was thought to be finished.
I don't know that the media's going to play along with Romney's show tune. The stories will be the Democrats in Nevada, and the Republicans in South Carolina. Oh yeah, Romney was in Nevada. What was he doing there? He knew he couldn't win in South Carolina. I don't think that this works for the Romney campaign.
What does it say about Romney's willingness to spend his own fortune? As John Ellis noted yesterday, Romney's got a huge advantage in being able to outspend his broke competitors.
I don't think it would be a damaging blow to Romney to campaign hard in SC and not do well. Huckabee did pretty miserably in NH and Michigan, and he's still in this thing.
Perhaps his team is looking at the polls and seeing not much of a possibility of a bump from Michigan, and a downward trend from early December (21%) to now (16%) with the possibility that it could trend lower. If he campaigned hard and lost to Thompson, finishing a distant fourth, that would be brutal.
But after winning Michigan, to abandon a primary everyone has always believed to be important is a strategy that doesn't settle well with me at all. Fight for everything, I say, take your lumps and try to spin the results in the concession speech.
Romney was quoted as saying that he'd be shocked if McCain doesn't win SC, that it's McCain-country. This is also expectations management. He knows McCain'll be hard-pressed to beat Huckabee, and he's trying to knock McCain out of the race. That's not a bad strategy--if it comes down to Romney vs. Huckabee, Romney will more than likely edge him out.
My first reaction was that this was a great tactical move. He's playing the expectations game--he can't loose if he doesn't try. Nevada is much more friendly to his candidacy. Finishing fourth in SC would be a huge blow if he was campaigning hard. He can play it off as Nevada having 10 delegates more, so he looks like a business-type who's concerned about the hard results, not media fluff.
But this morning I'm wondering if this won't be looked back upon as the moment in which Romney lost the presidential race.
First of all, the "you can't lose if you don't try" means that I personally am in a great spot to win the presidency. Giuliani's trying it and it's failing. Of course it hasn't failed yet, and I could be proven wrong in my contention that it was a miserable strategic decision to skip all these early states. But you don't win the presidential nomination by shying away from the tough fights. That's what so appealed to me with Romney's kindling strategy. Don't ignore Iowa and NH but get in there, get your hands dirty, mow people's lawns for them if that's what they want, and earn every vote.
The playing with the expectations game would work better if Romney had said all along he wasn't going to contest SC. But of course that would make him look rather weak if he said earlier that he didn't think he could win the primary that's chosen the Republican nominee since 1980. It would work better if the other candidates would play along and try to contest Nevada. The expectations game is always a matter of media perceptions. The media have to play along, in other words. It began in 1988, when before the second presidential debate between Bush and Dukakis ABC News and the Washington Post released a 50-state poll announcing that Bush had an electoral college lock. Dukakis had to blow Bush away in the debate, or he was thought to be finished.
I don't know that the media's going to play along with Romney's show tune. The stories will be the Democrats in Nevada, and the Republicans in South Carolina. Oh yeah, Romney was in Nevada. What was he doing there? He knew he couldn't win in South Carolina. I don't think that this works for the Romney campaign.
What does it say about Romney's willingness to spend his own fortune? As John Ellis noted yesterday, Romney's got a huge advantage in being able to outspend his broke competitors.
I don't think it would be a damaging blow to Romney to campaign hard in SC and not do well. Huckabee did pretty miserably in NH and Michigan, and he's still in this thing.
Perhaps his team is looking at the polls and seeing not much of a possibility of a bump from Michigan, and a downward trend from early December (21%) to now (16%) with the possibility that it could trend lower. If he campaigned hard and lost to Thompson, finishing a distant fourth, that would be brutal.
But after winning Michigan, to abandon a primary everyone has always believed to be important is a strategy that doesn't settle well with me at all. Fight for everything, I say, take your lumps and try to spin the results in the concession speech.
Romney was quoted as saying that he'd be shocked if McCain doesn't win SC, that it's McCain-country. This is also expectations management. He knows McCain'll be hard-pressed to beat Huckabee, and he's trying to knock McCain out of the race. That's not a bad strategy--if it comes down to Romney vs. Huckabee, Romney will more than likely edge him out.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
