According to realclearpolitics, Mick Huckabee has almost caught up with Rudy Giuliani. The 11/30-12/09 spread gives Giuliani a mere 4.2-point lead, and both CNN and CBS/New York Times have Giuliani's lead at 2 points, well within the statistical margin of error. McCain and Romney are both struggling to keep what they have, and Thompson's support is plummeting.
On top of that, Huckabee is absolutely running away with Iowa right now. Michigan's most recent poll, conducted 12/04/07 by Rasmussen, gives Huckabee a 1-point lead over Romney and 2 points over Giuliani. And in South Carolina, Huckabee is really pulling away from the pack, jumping from a distant 5th place to almost an 8-point lead, all in a matter of 2 weeks. South Carolina is particularly important because it is a key indicator as to how the moral conservative bloc will vote.
To be sure, Huckabee is a flawed candidate, and the skeletons are really coming out of the closet now: his paroled-rapist-turned-killer is now an issue, and his comments about isolating those with AIDS are utterly horrifying to many folks. The rapist problem is actually the bigger liability because it shows he's "soft on crime", although it's also the sort of issue that he can turn to his advantage: "I tried showing mercy to a hardened criminal, now another innocent person's blood is on my hands, and that is something I have to live with every day. It. Will. Never. Happen. Again."
Ironically, the AIDS comment could actually solidify his conservative base: he dared verbalize what a not-insubstantial portion of the moral conservative bloc wishes they could. He sent a message of intolerance and exclusion, but many of the people most outraged by that sentiment wouldn't have voted for him anyway, while many of those who agree silently were still undecided. It won't help him with independents and moderates, but this race isn't about widespread appeal, it's about getting the support of the GOP "core." Widespread appeal comes once he's locked up the nomination.
At this point, I think Huckabee's biggest hurdle is convincing the GOP "core" that he can beat Hillary.
Wednesday, December 12, 2007
Wednesday, December 5, 2007
A candidate to sink your teeth into?
I think I can say rather definitively that the GOP picture is as clear as mud, but it also looks like a previous "minor player" is making serious waves. I must confess, I didn't see Mike Huckabee emerging as a viable candidate, but there you have it. He's got the conservative credentials, he talks the talk, he's got some name recognition and he hasn't been taken seriously for the past 6 months. This means that he's managed to evade the Giuliani-McCain-Romney-Thompson snipe-fest, so his skeletons are still largely buried.
Whereas with the Democrats I think an aggregate national look is appropriate, the GOP race will be determined by momentum from the early primaries and caucuses, and that's where Huckabee is doing well. What's more, it looks to me like he's getting some of the "soft" backers of McCain and Romney in his camp, which is what I had previously said it would take to beat Giuliani (who, incidentally, is suffering from some rather serious ethics difficulties himself.)
So, let's take a look at some of the early states, shall we?
In Iowa, Huckabee and Romney are in a statistical dead heat. Giuliani and Thompson are a distant third and fourth, and McCain is desperately trying to avoid finishing behind Ron Paul(!)
New Hampshire shows Romney with a comfortable lead with McCain and Giuliani fighting for second and third, Huckabee 4th and Paul in 5th, ahead of Thompson.
South Carolina looks like a very competitive 4-horse race, with Romney, Giuliani, Thompson and Huckabee all in the thick of it. That said, it looks like Huckabee is starting to siphon off a lot of Thompson's support.
This is going to be a very interesting next couple of months. The Iowa caucus is January 3, less than a month away. A win by Huckabee and poor showings by Thompson and McCain could give Huckabee the momentum to get the moral conservatives firmly in his corner. Thompson waited too long to make his move, and his candidacy is starting to fall apart at the seams.
Whereas with the Democrats I think an aggregate national look is appropriate, the GOP race will be determined by momentum from the early primaries and caucuses, and that's where Huckabee is doing well. What's more, it looks to me like he's getting some of the "soft" backers of McCain and Romney in his camp, which is what I had previously said it would take to beat Giuliani (who, incidentally, is suffering from some rather serious ethics difficulties himself.)
So, let's take a look at some of the early states, shall we?
In Iowa, Huckabee and Romney are in a statistical dead heat. Giuliani and Thompson are a distant third and fourth, and McCain is desperately trying to avoid finishing behind Ron Paul(!)
New Hampshire shows Romney with a comfortable lead with McCain and Giuliani fighting for second and third, Huckabee 4th and Paul in 5th, ahead of Thompson.
South Carolina looks like a very competitive 4-horse race, with Romney, Giuliani, Thompson and Huckabee all in the thick of it. That said, it looks like Huckabee is starting to siphon off a lot of Thompson's support.
This is going to be a very interesting next couple of months. The Iowa caucus is January 3, less than a month away. A win by Huckabee and poor showings by Thompson and McCain could give Huckabee the momentum to get the moral conservatives firmly in his corner. Thompson waited too long to make his move, and his candidacy is starting to fall apart at the seams.
It's been awhile...
My apologies for not keeping up on this for awhile. The "big picture" stuff has really only started moving in the past couple of weeks, and while there's been a lot of posturing and some surprising developments (mostly pertaining to endorsements), the view from the top down has only recently started changing.
Right now, news headlines are blaring about how nasty this race is getting, and about Barak Obama's surge and the surprise emergence of Mike Huckabee. Then there's that little issue of Michigan not getting any delegates to the Democrat National Convention. I definitely want to take a closer look at these, starting with the Democrats.
On 9/21/07, the realclearpolitics.com poll aggregates had Clinton leading Obama nationally 41.8% to 23.0%. As of December 5, the national numbers are 41.5% to 23.3%. The biggest "hiccup" in there was a Rasmussen poll from 11/30-12/03/07, which gave Clinton a mere 35-23 lead. So the national picture really hasn't changed all that much, except that Clinton's popularity is slipping in some polls. What I'm also seeing is that Obama's overall popularity really isn't gaining much.
The bigger story here, though, is about the early primaries and caucuses, which tend to dictate how national trends will go. In Iowa, Obama holds a very, very slim lead: statistically, it's a dead heat, with different polls showing both Clinton and Obama holding slight leads. I'm giving Obama the edge right now because that's what the most recent polls tend to show. But it's much too close to call. That said, Clinton leads comfortably in New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina. The lesson here is, it looks like media outlets are trying to make this race look closer than it actually is. Still, Clinton can't afford any more weak performances.
Next up: the GOP.
Right now, news headlines are blaring about how nasty this race is getting, and about Barak Obama's surge and the surprise emergence of Mike Huckabee. Then there's that little issue of Michigan not getting any delegates to the Democrat National Convention. I definitely want to take a closer look at these, starting with the Democrats.
On 9/21/07, the realclearpolitics.com poll aggregates had Clinton leading Obama nationally 41.8% to 23.0%. As of December 5, the national numbers are 41.5% to 23.3%. The biggest "hiccup" in there was a Rasmussen poll from 11/30-12/03/07, which gave Clinton a mere 35-23 lead. So the national picture really hasn't changed all that much, except that Clinton's popularity is slipping in some polls. What I'm also seeing is that Obama's overall popularity really isn't gaining much.
The bigger story here, though, is about the early primaries and caucuses, which tend to dictate how national trends will go. In Iowa, Obama holds a very, very slim lead: statistically, it's a dead heat, with different polls showing both Clinton and Obama holding slight leads. I'm giving Obama the edge right now because that's what the most recent polls tend to show. But it's much too close to call. That said, Clinton leads comfortably in New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina. The lesson here is, it looks like media outlets are trying to make this race look closer than it actually is. Still, Clinton can't afford any more weak performances.
Next up: the GOP.
Thursday, October 4, 2007
Money Talks
By law, every Presidential candidate has to submit a quarterly report on fundraising activities, including donations, loans and expenditures. Cash is a critical tool for candidates, as it is needed to pay for staff, advertising and travel, but it is also a barometer for a campaign's health: more donations mean more support.
It should come as a surprise to absolutely nobody that Hillary Clinton generated the most cash. According to her campaign, between July 1 and September 30, she was able to raise about $27 million. This number dwarfs the next-strongest money maker, Barak Obama, and his $19 million. Republican candidates aren't anywhere close. Mitt Romney was able to raise $10M (and added about another $8M of his personal funds to the coffer.) Fred Thompson raised about $8M, and Ron Paul shocked everyone by raising $5M. This is significant because it gives him enough cash to campaign nationally for the early primaries. In contrast, Mike Huckabee has better poll numbers than Paul, but barely reached the $1M mark.
There is a definite correlation between campaign spending and electoral success. The GOP is in big trouble.
It should come as a surprise to absolutely nobody that Hillary Clinton generated the most cash. According to her campaign, between July 1 and September 30, she was able to raise about $27 million. This number dwarfs the next-strongest money maker, Barak Obama, and his $19 million. Republican candidates aren't anywhere close. Mitt Romney was able to raise $10M (and added about another $8M of his personal funds to the coffer.) Fred Thompson raised about $8M, and Ron Paul shocked everyone by raising $5M. This is significant because it gives him enough cash to campaign nationally for the early primaries. In contrast, Mike Huckabee has better poll numbers than Paul, but barely reached the $1M mark.
There is a definite correlation between campaign spending and electoral success. The GOP is in big trouble.
Wednesday, October 3, 2007
Which candidate should I support?
I just love the internet. I've taken a variety of "independent" polls designed to establish my political leaning and which candidate best suits my political beliefs, and the results were utterly unsurprising. These internet polls have informed me that the best match for my political leanings and stances on the issue is:
Rudi Giuliani. Or Ron Paul. Or Dennis Kucinich. Or Al Sharpton. Or Hillary Clinton. Or Mitt Romney.
I kid you not: various quizzes have mentioned each of these candidates as being "ideal" (or at least in the top 3.) How's that for definitive?
Rudi Giuliani. Or Ron Paul. Or Dennis Kucinich. Or Al Sharpton. Or Hillary Clinton. Or Mitt Romney.
I kid you not: various quizzes have mentioned each of these candidates as being "ideal" (or at least in the top 3.) How's that for definitive?
Monday, October 1, 2007
The road to totalitarianism
There's been a fair amount of recent discussion in the blogosphere about how the United States is headed down the path toward a totalitarian, fascist state. Supposedly it all starts with a "common enemy" that is some sort of vague, faceless danger (i.e. "terrorism" or "Jews"), then continues with the suspension of civil rights and an increasingly powerful executive. The warning signs are all there.
Well, not quite.
Some of the warning signs are certainly there. There is absolutely no question that Bush is running roughshod over the Constitution. There is absolutely no question that the administration is using whatever means they can to achieve their goals, ethical, legal or not. And it is essential that we resist unlawful attempts to seize power. At the same time, though, I feel it is incredibly important to point out exactly why it is far too soon to go into panic mode.
1. The Democrat Party is alive, well and healthy. The Bush administration has not silenced the opposition party, and the opposition party is still quite vocal.
2. The AP, Reuters, AFP, New York Times, USA Today, Wall Street Journal and other press are active and independent. They may be biased one way or another, and their reporting may be shoddy, but they have not been silenced.
3. Elections are on pace for 2008. The administration has failed thus far to extend the 2-term limit. Furthermore, none of the candidates has close ties to the current administration. Some candidates have similar views, but this isn't the perpetuating of a small elite. Bush has no heir apparent.
I'm not suggesting things are good. I'm not suggesting we should not be vigilant and allow our rights to be trampled. But I am suggesting that most of the institutions that make this a democratic nation are still in place, and that for better or worse, things will return to normalcy. This isn't Venezuela. Congress still has power. Bush isn't president for life. No Enabling Act has been passed. We, the People, still have the final say. It isn't too late.
Well, not quite.
Some of the warning signs are certainly there. There is absolutely no question that Bush is running roughshod over the Constitution. There is absolutely no question that the administration is using whatever means they can to achieve their goals, ethical, legal or not. And it is essential that we resist unlawful attempts to seize power. At the same time, though, I feel it is incredibly important to point out exactly why it is far too soon to go into panic mode.
1. The Democrat Party is alive, well and healthy. The Bush administration has not silenced the opposition party, and the opposition party is still quite vocal.
2. The AP, Reuters, AFP, New York Times, USA Today, Wall Street Journal and other press are active and independent. They may be biased one way or another, and their reporting may be shoddy, but they have not been silenced.
3. Elections are on pace for 2008. The administration has failed thus far to extend the 2-term limit. Furthermore, none of the candidates has close ties to the current administration. Some candidates have similar views, but this isn't the perpetuating of a small elite. Bush has no heir apparent.
I'm not suggesting things are good. I'm not suggesting we should not be vigilant and allow our rights to be trampled. But I am suggesting that most of the institutions that make this a democratic nation are still in place, and that for better or worse, things will return to normalcy. This isn't Venezuela. Congress still has power. Bush isn't president for life. No Enabling Act has been passed. We, the People, still have the final say. It isn't too late.
Wednesday, September 26, 2007
Bayh, Bayh, Mrs. Clinton!
In an utterly un-shocking turn of events, Senator Evan Bayh (D-IN) endorsed Hillary Clinton's candidacy for President. This is about as earth-shattering as Michael Moore declaring he's not particularly fond of George W. Bush.
What is noteworthy is that people (by which I mean "the media") noticed. This was a full-blown press conference photo-op affair, with Clinton and Bayh standing side by side. Granted, Hillary gets a lot of press, but somehow, this announcement was newsworthy.
Maybe it's because Indiana is a strongly Republican-leaning state. Maybe because it's Bayh is actually good-looking and projects "Hoosier values" (I'm a Hoosier and I still don't know what that means, except for liking corn on the cob and deep-fried pork tenderloin.) But my hunch is that this is a foreshadowing of things to come.
I'd mentioned before that Evan Bayh would be a good VP candidate for Clinton: he's a moderate from a red state with enough popularity that he might actually deliver Indiana; he's a former governor (giving him executive experience) and he's really not a Washington insider - at least, he's not perceived that way. It's tough to convince me that a 2-term Senator isn't on the inside, especially if it's obvious the party is fast-tracking him.
The blogosphere is now rife with predictions of a Clinton-Bayh ticket, and the timing of this would appear to set this in motion: this is the candidates' big fundraising push for the October reporting deadline. The October deadline is key, because it provides a real view of where candidates stand heading into the early primary campaigns, and underperforming candidates will often withdraw here. Politico.com, an influential political blog, is leading the pack in the Clinton-Bayh prediction, although I feel compelled to point out that I had him there about a month ago. I'm just sayin'.
What is noteworthy is that people (by which I mean "the media") noticed. This was a full-blown press conference photo-op affair, with Clinton and Bayh standing side by side. Granted, Hillary gets a lot of press, but somehow, this announcement was newsworthy.
Maybe it's because Indiana is a strongly Republican-leaning state. Maybe because it's Bayh is actually good-looking and projects "Hoosier values" (I'm a Hoosier and I still don't know what that means, except for liking corn on the cob and deep-fried pork tenderloin.) But my hunch is that this is a foreshadowing of things to come.
I'd mentioned before that Evan Bayh would be a good VP candidate for Clinton: he's a moderate from a red state with enough popularity that he might actually deliver Indiana; he's a former governor (giving him executive experience) and he's really not a Washington insider - at least, he's not perceived that way. It's tough to convince me that a 2-term Senator isn't on the inside, especially if it's obvious the party is fast-tracking him.
The blogosphere is now rife with predictions of a Clinton-Bayh ticket, and the timing of this would appear to set this in motion: this is the candidates' big fundraising push for the October reporting deadline. The October deadline is key, because it provides a real view of where candidates stand heading into the early primary campaigns, and underperforming candidates will often withdraw here. Politico.com, an influential political blog, is leading the pack in the Clinton-Bayh prediction, although I feel compelled to point out that I had him there about a month ago. I'm just sayin'.
Friday, September 21, 2007
Not much to report...
It's been awhile since I've done any sort of substantive analysis of what's going on. Really, the biggest things worth noting are that Fred Thompson officially declared his candidacy (and got the corresponding boost in poll numbers), and that John McCain is back on the radar. Both of these appear to be at the expense of Mitt Romney. What's even more interesting is that it appears that Thompson's announcement has had no effect on Giuliani's numbers. This tells me that Giuliani has his core group of supporters, and that's not likely to change significantly in the coming months. It also tells me that Romney, McCain and Thompson are vying for the a different group of supporters, and if one of those three drops out, that support will shift to one of the other two.
Friday, September 7, 2007
Dr. No, or Why Ron Paul Matters
I had a brief conversation with my folks last week, who asked me what the deal with Ron Paul was, and why he's even worthy of discussion. Given that this is intended to be an informative blog rather than a persuasive one, I will attempt to infuse as little personal bias as possible into this analysis.
Ron Paul is a Republican congressman from Texas who has represented the 14th District since 1997. He is a staunch Libertarian (who was the Libertarian Party's Presidential candidate in 1988), with a very strong track record of not following the party line. The reason he's even in the GOP is that in 1996, the incumbent Democrat switched parties because he saw the writing on the wall for Democrats at the time, gaining the support of people like Newt Gingrich and George W. Bush. Paul ran against him in the GOP primary, hoping to affect some change.
Paul's nickname, "Dr. No", is derived from the fact that he is an obstetrician who routinely votes against any legislation he feels violates the intent of the Constitution. Any more, that's most legislation. I don't think he's ever voted in favor of a spending bill. If a bill passes the House with a vote of a whole lot to one, that one "nay" is probably his.
Politically, he's a staunch advocate for a strict interpretation of the Constitution, and the separation of powers. In discussing military action against Iraq, he introduced the legislation that would become a congressional declaration of war, as required by the Constitution, then voted against it because he believed it was Congress's role to declare war and he was opposed. Among Republican presidential candidates, he is the only one who is against the Iraq war, and is openly calling for immediate troop withdrawals. He also supports a much smaller government with far fewer programs, and favors a return to the gold standard. He is on the record as saying the federal government should not have jurisdiction over matters pertaining to abortion and stem cell research, and introduced legislation (which failed) which would have defined life (and Constitutional protections) as beginning at conception. This is a matter he feels strongly about, in no small part due to his background in obstetrics.
So why should you care about a 73-year-old doctor with an agenda that includes undoing most of what Franklin D. Roosevelt established?
The simple fact is that Ron Paul is the second Presidential candidate to draw much of his support from internet followers, and the first to do so with apparently active opposition from the mainstream media outlets. Of the five debates he has participated in, online polls show overwhelmingly people feel he "won" four of them. The sites conducting the polls (usually the networks which aired the debates) routinely accuse his "small" organization of "viral polling" or otherwise "fixing" the results. His organization does not have a lot of funding, and in national polls, he routinely maxes out with about 2% of the popular vote. On the other hand, his web presence and organization is leaps and bounds ahead of everyone else. By this point, I think it's safe to say that most people have heard of him, but they have no idea who he is. That's a much better place to be than people not even having heard of you.
In truth, Ron Paul isn't much of a technology geek. He's very old-fashioned. But he's attracted the attention of the leaders technology subculture (who tend to be staunchly libertarian), and they've thrown their knowledge and expertise behind his campaign. The result is that he is completely dominating the internet's social networking scene: his presence on Facebook, Myspace and Youtube dwarfs his opponents'. He's generating buzz, especially among 20-somethings, that other candidates can only dream of. And he's generated enough interest that he was invited to appear on The Colbert Report.
The Ron Paul campaign is interesting from a political scientist's standpoint because it is the first litmus test of the so-called blogosphere as a news medium. In a previous post I had commented on the media's ability to determine who was and was not a "legitimate" candidate. The Ron Paul campaign is the first serious challenge to this power. It is unlikely Paul will win the nomination, but this internet campaign of his has already had one huge effect. Initially, Paul was intending to run a regional campaign in a few states in order to force debate on certain issues. Due to the power of his volunteer staff, he was able to make his campaign a national one, and has been able to convey his message on a national stage.
That's why he's worth paying attention to. He won't win, but at least he can't be ignored any more.
Ron Paul is a Republican congressman from Texas who has represented the 14th District since 1997. He is a staunch Libertarian (who was the Libertarian Party's Presidential candidate in 1988), with a very strong track record of not following the party line. The reason he's even in the GOP is that in 1996, the incumbent Democrat switched parties because he saw the writing on the wall for Democrats at the time, gaining the support of people like Newt Gingrich and George W. Bush. Paul ran against him in the GOP primary, hoping to affect some change.
Paul's nickname, "Dr. No", is derived from the fact that he is an obstetrician who routinely votes against any legislation he feels violates the intent of the Constitution. Any more, that's most legislation. I don't think he's ever voted in favor of a spending bill. If a bill passes the House with a vote of a whole lot to one, that one "nay" is probably his.
Politically, he's a staunch advocate for a strict interpretation of the Constitution, and the separation of powers. In discussing military action against Iraq, he introduced the legislation that would become a congressional declaration of war, as required by the Constitution, then voted against it because he believed it was Congress's role to declare war and he was opposed. Among Republican presidential candidates, he is the only one who is against the Iraq war, and is openly calling for immediate troop withdrawals. He also supports a much smaller government with far fewer programs, and favors a return to the gold standard. He is on the record as saying the federal government should not have jurisdiction over matters pertaining to abortion and stem cell research, and introduced legislation (which failed) which would have defined life (and Constitutional protections) as beginning at conception. This is a matter he feels strongly about, in no small part due to his background in obstetrics.
So why should you care about a 73-year-old doctor with an agenda that includes undoing most of what Franklin D. Roosevelt established?
The simple fact is that Ron Paul is the second Presidential candidate to draw much of his support from internet followers, and the first to do so with apparently active opposition from the mainstream media outlets. Of the five debates he has participated in, online polls show overwhelmingly people feel he "won" four of them. The sites conducting the polls (usually the networks which aired the debates) routinely accuse his "small" organization of "viral polling" or otherwise "fixing" the results. His organization does not have a lot of funding, and in national polls, he routinely maxes out with about 2% of the popular vote. On the other hand, his web presence and organization is leaps and bounds ahead of everyone else. By this point, I think it's safe to say that most people have heard of him, but they have no idea who he is. That's a much better place to be than people not even having heard of you.
In truth, Ron Paul isn't much of a technology geek. He's very old-fashioned. But he's attracted the attention of the leaders technology subculture (who tend to be staunchly libertarian), and they've thrown their knowledge and expertise behind his campaign. The result is that he is completely dominating the internet's social networking scene: his presence on Facebook, Myspace and Youtube dwarfs his opponents'. He's generating buzz, especially among 20-somethings, that other candidates can only dream of. And he's generated enough interest that he was invited to appear on The Colbert Report.
The Ron Paul campaign is interesting from a political scientist's standpoint because it is the first litmus test of the so-called blogosphere as a news medium. In a previous post I had commented on the media's ability to determine who was and was not a "legitimate" candidate. The Ron Paul campaign is the first serious challenge to this power. It is unlikely Paul will win the nomination, but this internet campaign of his has already had one huge effect. Initially, Paul was intending to run a regional campaign in a few states in order to force debate on certain issues. Due to the power of his volunteer staff, he was able to make his campaign a national one, and has been able to convey his message on a national stage.
That's why he's worth paying attention to. He won't win, but at least he can't be ignored any more.
Tuesday, September 4, 2007
Primary numbers
The whole presidential primary situation is spinning out of control. There are 50 "great" States in these United States, and it seems that most of them want to be the first State to hold the primary or caucus. State legislatures are now openly ignoring both parties' rules establishing the kickoff date as February 5 (the Democrats allow 4 exemptions, the GOP allows none.) Now, numerous States are trying to push their primaries and caucuses into early January.
The order in which primaries happen is very important. Traditionally, it's kicked off with the Iowa Caucus and then the New Hampshire primary. This is changing now. The earlier a State holds its primary, the greater the say it has in who is going to run the country. By contrast, Indiana holds one of the last primaries (sometime in May, if I recall correctly), by which time the primary is really pointless: the candidate already has all the delegates needed to win the nomination.
I like tradition. I like giving Iowa and New Hampshire an early say. It's nice that the little guys can have their moment in the sun. But this madness needs to end. I'm big on the sovereignty of the States and on decentralized government, but this primary horse race is entirely out of hand. And it's become a perversion of what the primary system is supposed to be. Really, the point of the primaries is so that the party organizations in the various states can select delegates to represent that state at the party's national convention, in order that the candidate who best represents the needs of the party in that state will win the nomination. Primaries are really internal party matters, not matters for the public at large.
The reality of the situation dictates otherwise. The Iowa caucus is a closed affair, open only to card-carrying party members. Other States have "open" primaries, in which anyone can vote for a candidate for either party. Indiana merely requires that you declare a party allegiance at the point of voting so they know which ballot to give you, but there's no follow-up or anything. This is a far cry from the days of power brokers with cigars in smoke-filled rooms hashing out deals and doing a lot of closed-door maneuvering so the party can select its desired candidate. In essence, John Q. Public now gets two votes for President.
The system has become completely broken. If the states are going to play so fast and loose with the primary system, I think it's getting close to time for the Federal Electoral Commission to step in and put its foot down: either parties deal with it internally or there will be a national primary day in which ALL primaries and caucuses are held. What we've got now is bloody ridiculous.
The order in which primaries happen is very important. Traditionally, it's kicked off with the Iowa Caucus and then the New Hampshire primary. This is changing now. The earlier a State holds its primary, the greater the say it has in who is going to run the country. By contrast, Indiana holds one of the last primaries (sometime in May, if I recall correctly), by which time the primary is really pointless: the candidate already has all the delegates needed to win the nomination.
I like tradition. I like giving Iowa and New Hampshire an early say. It's nice that the little guys can have their moment in the sun. But this madness needs to end. I'm big on the sovereignty of the States and on decentralized government, but this primary horse race is entirely out of hand. And it's become a perversion of what the primary system is supposed to be. Really, the point of the primaries is so that the party organizations in the various states can select delegates to represent that state at the party's national convention, in order that the candidate who best represents the needs of the party in that state will win the nomination. Primaries are really internal party matters, not matters for the public at large.
The reality of the situation dictates otherwise. The Iowa caucus is a closed affair, open only to card-carrying party members. Other States have "open" primaries, in which anyone can vote for a candidate for either party. Indiana merely requires that you declare a party allegiance at the point of voting so they know which ballot to give you, but there's no follow-up or anything. This is a far cry from the days of power brokers with cigars in smoke-filled rooms hashing out deals and doing a lot of closed-door maneuvering so the party can select its desired candidate. In essence, John Q. Public now gets two votes for President.
The system has become completely broken. If the states are going to play so fast and loose with the primary system, I think it's getting close to time for the Federal Electoral Commission to step in and put its foot down: either parties deal with it internally or there will be a national primary day in which ALL primaries and caucuses are held. What we've got now is bloody ridiculous.
Friday, August 31, 2007
And now a break from our normal political stuff...
Dear college football pundits,
I must hereby inform you that Virginia Tech is NOT America's Team, and respectfully submit that you quit pretending it is.
Yes, the campus shooting was a tragedy. Yes, our hearts go out to those involved, and we sympathize knowing it could have been anyone on any college campus. But last year, Tulane was hardly "America's Team" in spite of Hurricane Katrina. And the schools hit by previous disasters were hardly afforded that honor, either. Heck, it took a movie to remind the rest of us about the Marshall disaster.
I also wish to remind you of the two most famous football players in Hokie history. Here's a hint: both share the same last name as a well-known cold rub. Now, you may argue that the actions of a couple of bad eggs shouldn't reflect poorly on the whole school. I respond that Vick basically put Virginia Tech on the map. I also respond that up until just a few months ago, he was the face of Virginia Tech football success. Maybe it's not fair. But the fact is that the most famous players ever to don the maroon and orange have disgraced themselves and their school. (I should also point out that both brothers left the program early.)
When it comes to college football, America doesn't have a team. Notre Dame arguably has the most widely-distributed fan base, but read any message board and you'll see more haters than followers. If you live in Alabama, your two favorite teams are (Auburn/Bama) and whoever is playing (Bama/Auburn.) You only care about anything else if it affects (Auburn/Bama)'s chances at the SEC title.
That's college football. (And that's why the College Football Hall of Fame was such a ridiculously stupid idea for South Bend's city fathers to try to attract. The Hall of Fame isn't the Mecca of college football: it's $your_school's_campus.)
I must hereby inform you that Virginia Tech is NOT America's Team, and respectfully submit that you quit pretending it is.
Yes, the campus shooting was a tragedy. Yes, our hearts go out to those involved, and we sympathize knowing it could have been anyone on any college campus. But last year, Tulane was hardly "America's Team" in spite of Hurricane Katrina. And the schools hit by previous disasters were hardly afforded that honor, either. Heck, it took a movie to remind the rest of us about the Marshall disaster.
I also wish to remind you of the two most famous football players in Hokie history. Here's a hint: both share the same last name as a well-known cold rub. Now, you may argue that the actions of a couple of bad eggs shouldn't reflect poorly on the whole school. I respond that Vick basically put Virginia Tech on the map. I also respond that up until just a few months ago, he was the face of Virginia Tech football success. Maybe it's not fair. But the fact is that the most famous players ever to don the maroon and orange have disgraced themselves and their school. (I should also point out that both brothers left the program early.)
When it comes to college football, America doesn't have a team. Notre Dame arguably has the most widely-distributed fan base, but read any message board and you'll see more haters than followers. If you live in Alabama, your two favorite teams are (Auburn/Bama) and whoever is playing (Bama/Auburn.) You only care about anything else if it affects (Auburn/Bama)'s chances at the SEC title.
That's college football. (And that's why the College Football Hall of Fame was such a ridiculously stupid idea for South Bend's city fathers to try to attract. The Hall of Fame isn't the Mecca of college football: it's $your_school's_campus.)
Thursday, August 30, 2007
Subtle shifts
I'm going to remain focused on the GOP race for now, since that's where the action is. It looks like Giuliani is fairly steady at just under 30%. Some of the luster has worn off Thompson - so far he's all dressing and no meat. But Romney's campaign is starting to make some headway. He's got the support to carry several states. Historically, the GOP candidate who has won two of the first 3 primaries/caucuses has won the nomination, and he's got the buzz and name recognition such that he just might pull it off.
He's got a lot ground to cover, but he's also got the means to do it. Money isn't a problem. His conservative credentials are, as is the fact that he's a Mormon. He'll have to work hard to win the Bible Belt, but I think that with the right people in the right place and the right campaign message, he could steal it from Giuliani. Of course, the ideal situation for him would be if Thompson decides not to declare and/or McCain drops out. I don't think Giuliani would get more than 25% of voters from those camps, whereas a surging Romney just might win enough support to put him over the top.
He's got a lot ground to cover, but he's also got the means to do it. Money isn't a problem. His conservative credentials are, as is the fact that he's a Mormon. He'll have to work hard to win the Bible Belt, but I think that with the right people in the right place and the right campaign message, he could steal it from Giuliani. Of course, the ideal situation for him would be if Thompson decides not to declare and/or McCain drops out. I don't think Giuliani would get more than 25% of voters from those camps, whereas a surging Romney just might win enough support to put him over the top.
Wednesday, August 15, 2007
If you hold it, they won't come.
Iowa held its traditional Republican straw poll last weekend. As expected, Giuliani, McCain and Thompson sat this one out and as expected, Romney won fairly easily. The absence of three of the four leading candidates pretty much rendered the straw poll pointless. There was one bit of fallout, however: Tommy Thompson is out of the race (not that he had much of a chance anyway.) Unfortunately, there will be very little fallout as a result of this: he had so little support that it's not going to help anyone else's candidacy.
Another interesting development is the Ron Paul conspiracy: he finished 5th in the straw poll with 9% of the vote, something the major media outlets universally failed to mention (along with Tim Tancredo's 4th-place finish.) While one normally wouldn't want to devote much press space to a 5th-place finisher, it is odd in light of the fact that the other 9 candidates on the ballot all got a mention. Furthermore, when Paul's supporters are shown in the media, they tend to be shown in very small numbers and isolated from the goings-on, while homemade video of the same event shows decent numbers and organization. It sort of reminds me of Dick Lugar's abortive Presidential bid back in 1995-96, when pretty much everyone of any import agreed he was arguably the best-qualified GOP candidate, but gave him absolutely no press.
Thinking about it, that's an extremely dangerous and powerful position the media holds. Yes, a candidate can spend millions of dollars getting his name out there, but nobody will give money to someone he or she has never heard of. If the AP and Reuters decide you're not news-worthy, you have no chance of getting elected, even if you have Reagan's vision, Clinton's personality, Lincoln's integrity and Roosevelt's will, all rolled into one. While the news media can't decide who will be the next president, they most certainly can decide who will not.
Another interesting development is the Ron Paul conspiracy: he finished 5th in the straw poll with 9% of the vote, something the major media outlets universally failed to mention (along with Tim Tancredo's 4th-place finish.) While one normally wouldn't want to devote much press space to a 5th-place finisher, it is odd in light of the fact that the other 9 candidates on the ballot all got a mention. Furthermore, when Paul's supporters are shown in the media, they tend to be shown in very small numbers and isolated from the goings-on, while homemade video of the same event shows decent numbers and organization. It sort of reminds me of Dick Lugar's abortive Presidential bid back in 1995-96, when pretty much everyone of any import agreed he was arguably the best-qualified GOP candidate, but gave him absolutely no press.
Thinking about it, that's an extremely dangerous and powerful position the media holds. Yes, a candidate can spend millions of dollars getting his name out there, but nobody will give money to someone he or she has never heard of. If the AP and Reuters decide you're not news-worthy, you have no chance of getting elected, even if you have Reagan's vision, Clinton's personality, Lincoln's integrity and Roosevelt's will, all rolled into one. While the news media can't decide who will be the next president, they most certainly can decide who will not.
Friday, August 10, 2007
Oops...
I didn't realize Jennifer Granholm was a Canadian. So there goes that. The most "natural" match would be Fred Thompson/Elizabeth Dole, but it's geographically not a good idea. And she doesn't pair well with Giuliani.
Wednesday, August 8, 2007
Second Fiddle Part II
Yesterday I took a look at some possible Democrat VP candidates. It was not an exhaustive list by any stretch of the imagination, but it did assume that Clinton gets the Democrat nod. The GOP situation is much, much... well, to say it's murky would rather understate things.
What we do know about the GOP situation is this: Giuliani is currently in control, but not nearly in the same way Clinton is. We also know that he is somewhere between "holding your nose" and "completely and utterly unpalatable" for the religious/moral wing of the Republican party. His popularity derives from the public face he put forward following 9/11 and his "cleaning up" of New York City. His whole deal is national security and tough on crime, and for those who are primarily interested in that, he's extremely popular.
Giuliani's problem is that every Republican candidate knows that you need the moral/religious wing not only behind you, but excited about you if you're going to win the Presidency. And the morality folks are split. None of the other GOP candidates really has that "wow" factor among the so-called "Moral Majority", so VP selection will be that much more crucial.
Unlike the Democrat situation, I wouldn't be surprised to see a number of current candidates also be willing to consider the VP slot. The main ones I think would not would be Giuliani, Thompson and McCain. One other thing: I sincerely doubt that people too closely associated with the current administration will get a second look. With very few exceptions, being associated with the Bush administration would be a death knell to a current candidate. So let's take a look at who we might be dealing with, shall we?
At the top of the list would be Mitt Romney. I sincerely doubt Giuliani would take him (again, that New York-Massachusetts thing), but Thompson-Romney or McCain-Romney would both be viable. Romney's biggest weaknesses are that he's not Protestant and that he's a recent convert to the pro-life movement, raising questions as to whether his conversion was politically motivated or is "genuine." Nevertheless, he's handled himself well and would likely be more of an asset than a liability for a GOP candidate not named "Rudolph".
Elizabeth Dole would have to be the #2 target. Her conservative credentials are well-established, she invokes that vague Reagan Conservatism feeling, she's from the GOP "core" and she's got the administrative and "real world" experience to make her an attractive running mate. In many respects, she's the anti-Hillary.
It is very likely Colin Powell's name will come up, but I have a hard time believing he would give it any serious consideration. For starters, his wife doesn't want him holding elected office. And I imagine his experience as Secretary of State really soured him on the GOP. I'm guessing he'll be approached quietly, but won't want to get involved.
Another interesting possibility would be Michigan governor Jennifer Granholm. She's not the most popular person in the state right now, but she does have a fair amount of political clout there. Putting her on the ticket could make Michigan a red state, which would put a real hurt on Hillary's chances. I do think that women being viewed as potential running mates will get extra attention this time out.
The ideal VP candidate for Giuliani is (unfortunately for him) unable to run due to Constitutional issues. I'm speaking, of course of Arnold Schwarzenegger. It's a pipe dream, but the combination kinda makes sense.
I wouldn't be surprised to see Ron Paul mentioned in association with a couple other candidacies, mostly because he's generated far more buzz than his exceedingly-long-shot campaign has any right to expect. He's become the darling of the internet's libertarians (i.e. frequenters of digg and slashdot.) He's not a likely candidate, but generating too much buzz to ignore. Another outside possibility is Newt Gingrich. He's been trying to orchestrate a 1994-ish return to "conservative family values." The question is whether the public remembers why he left office to begin with. Something in the back of my mind tells me we should also be paying attention to MN governor Tim Pawlenty. Apparently he's a rising star within the GOP.
As for my utterly whacked-out "hey, it could happen!" ultra-long-shot prediction, try this on for size: the Indianapolis Colts go on to have another great year and go on to win the Super Bowl. Head coach Tony Dungy decides to go out on top (he's been mulling retirement and wants to do some real good in the world.) The GOP decides they want to counter Hillary with a high-profile African-American who is well-known, widely respected and will appeal to practicing Christians. Who cares if he's never held public office? Hey, it could happen! (Disclaimer: I have no idea what Dungy's political leanings are, but the idea is just so crazy it might work.)
What we do know about the GOP situation is this: Giuliani is currently in control, but not nearly in the same way Clinton is. We also know that he is somewhere between "holding your nose" and "completely and utterly unpalatable" for the religious/moral wing of the Republican party. His popularity derives from the public face he put forward following 9/11 and his "cleaning up" of New York City. His whole deal is national security and tough on crime, and for those who are primarily interested in that, he's extremely popular.
Giuliani's problem is that every Republican candidate knows that you need the moral/religious wing not only behind you, but excited about you if you're going to win the Presidency. And the morality folks are split. None of the other GOP candidates really has that "wow" factor among the so-called "Moral Majority", so VP selection will be that much more crucial.
Unlike the Democrat situation, I wouldn't be surprised to see a number of current candidates also be willing to consider the VP slot. The main ones I think would not would be Giuliani, Thompson and McCain. One other thing: I sincerely doubt that people too closely associated with the current administration will get a second look. With very few exceptions, being associated with the Bush administration would be a death knell to a current candidate. So let's take a look at who we might be dealing with, shall we?
At the top of the list would be Mitt Romney. I sincerely doubt Giuliani would take him (again, that New York-Massachusetts thing), but Thompson-Romney or McCain-Romney would both be viable. Romney's biggest weaknesses are that he's not Protestant and that he's a recent convert to the pro-life movement, raising questions as to whether his conversion was politically motivated or is "genuine." Nevertheless, he's handled himself well and would likely be more of an asset than a liability for a GOP candidate not named "Rudolph".
Elizabeth Dole would have to be the #2 target. Her conservative credentials are well-established, she invokes that vague Reagan Conservatism feeling, she's from the GOP "core" and she's got the administrative and "real world" experience to make her an attractive running mate. In many respects, she's the anti-Hillary.
It is very likely Colin Powell's name will come up, but I have a hard time believing he would give it any serious consideration. For starters, his wife doesn't want him holding elected office. And I imagine his experience as Secretary of State really soured him on the GOP. I'm guessing he'll be approached quietly, but won't want to get involved.
Another interesting possibility would be Michigan governor Jennifer Granholm. She's not the most popular person in the state right now, but she does have a fair amount of political clout there. Putting her on the ticket could make Michigan a red state, which would put a real hurt on Hillary's chances. I do think that women being viewed as potential running mates will get extra attention this time out.
The ideal VP candidate for Giuliani is (unfortunately for him) unable to run due to Constitutional issues. I'm speaking, of course of Arnold Schwarzenegger. It's a pipe dream, but the combination kinda makes sense.
I wouldn't be surprised to see Ron Paul mentioned in association with a couple other candidacies, mostly because he's generated far more buzz than his exceedingly-long-shot campaign has any right to expect. He's become the darling of the internet's libertarians (i.e. frequenters of digg and slashdot.) He's not a likely candidate, but generating too much buzz to ignore. Another outside possibility is Newt Gingrich. He's been trying to orchestrate a 1994-ish return to "conservative family values." The question is whether the public remembers why he left office to begin with. Something in the back of my mind tells me we should also be paying attention to MN governor Tim Pawlenty. Apparently he's a rising star within the GOP.
As for my utterly whacked-out "hey, it could happen!" ultra-long-shot prediction, try this on for size: the Indianapolis Colts go on to have another great year and go on to win the Super Bowl. Head coach Tony Dungy decides to go out on top (he's been mulling retirement and wants to do some real good in the world.) The GOP decides they want to counter Hillary with a high-profile African-American who is well-known, widely respected and will appeal to practicing Christians. Who cares if he's never held public office? Hey, it could happen! (Disclaimer: I have no idea what Dungy's political leanings are, but the idea is just so crazy it might work.)
Tuesday, August 7, 2007
Who plays second fiddle?
As I've mentioned on numerous prior occasions, I think Hillary all but has the Democrat nomination locked up. The GOP nomination is on far shakier ground: right now it's Giuliani's to lose, but that's less on his own strength and more due to the fact that the other candidates are all siphoning needed support from each other rather than Giuliani. Therefore, I'm going to start speculating on potential vice presidential candidates.
The ticket the GOP fears most is a Clinton-Obama ticket. Up until recently, I would have considered that a legitimate possibility, but given recent barbs the two camps have traded, that's beginning to appear unlikely. It is rare that a party's top two candidates will join forces, and it's becoming increasingly clear that Clinton doesn't respect Obama's political acumen, at least not yet. So here's a completely unscientific look at other potential VP candidates for Hillary, based purely on my own knowledge and intuition.
Al Gore: An intriguing possibility, but not likely. Clinton-Gore has been done once, and I seriously doubt Al would want to play #2 to his former boss's wife. Politically speaking, VP would be a demotion of sorts. Also, it is questionable that Gore could deliver Tennessee, especially if Thompson wins the GOP nomination.
Bill Richardson: He's a well-respected governor who could deliver New Mexico. His name came up in past Presidential elections, although he opted not to run. He won't carry the electoral votes to deliver the White House, but he's a very solid choice. Having a governor or past governor on the ticket is usually a good idea.
John Edwards: I get the impression Edwards is in this to win the Presidency outright. He does have a certain amount of popularity, but the east coast bias could hurt. Edwards also clearly identifies with the liberal wing of the Democrat party, and Clinton is trying to appeal to the centrists.
John Kerry: This one won't happen for a large number of reasons. I think Kerry is bitter from 2004, and he won't want to play #2 man. A New York-Massachusetts ticket would be unwise from a regional point of view, and frankly, Kerry has little appeal beyond not being Bush.
Evan Bayh: He's an intriguing choice: he's so moderate, he's practically a Republican. In fact, he could be Giuliani's running mate. Furthermore, he can possibly deliver Indiana, and possibly have an impact on Ohio, Kentucky or Michigan. Bayh is regarded as an up-and-comer in the Democrat Party, much like Obama, but unlike Obama, he stayed out of the ring because he didn't think the time was right. I have to think Bayh is on Clinton's short list - he hasn't exactly hidden the fact that he's interested.
Nancy Pelosi: I don't think she's seriously under consideration, nor do I think she should be. Right now, she's the most powerful person in Congress, and she likes it that way.
A Yet-to-be-named former member of Bill Clinton's administration: One look at the current administration will tell you the viability of this strategy. There will almost certainly be that comfort zone there with such a selection, but it could also backfire: Cheney isn't exactly popular nowadays. Hillary will also want to keep just enough of Bill's legacy to strengthen her position, but she'll definitely want to establish her own political identity as well. A break from her husband's administration will go a long way toward accomplishing this.
Who do I think is ultimately going to get the nod? I have to go with either Richardson or Bayh right now. The biggest thing working against Bayh is that the Democrats can ill afford to lose a Senator. Indiana will hold gubernatorial elections in 2008 as well, so there is absolutely no guarantee Bayh would be replaced with another Democrat. That said, I think Bayh also greater political upside. If it looks like Indiana governor Mitch Daniels will lose in '08, Bayh will likely be the VP candidate. Otherwise, Richardson should get the offer.
The ticket the GOP fears most is a Clinton-Obama ticket. Up until recently, I would have considered that a legitimate possibility, but given recent barbs the two camps have traded, that's beginning to appear unlikely. It is rare that a party's top two candidates will join forces, and it's becoming increasingly clear that Clinton doesn't respect Obama's political acumen, at least not yet. So here's a completely unscientific look at other potential VP candidates for Hillary, based purely on my own knowledge and intuition.
Al Gore: An intriguing possibility, but not likely. Clinton-Gore has been done once, and I seriously doubt Al would want to play #2 to his former boss's wife. Politically speaking, VP would be a demotion of sorts. Also, it is questionable that Gore could deliver Tennessee, especially if Thompson wins the GOP nomination.
Bill Richardson: He's a well-respected governor who could deliver New Mexico. His name came up in past Presidential elections, although he opted not to run. He won't carry the electoral votes to deliver the White House, but he's a very solid choice. Having a governor or past governor on the ticket is usually a good idea.
John Edwards: I get the impression Edwards is in this to win the Presidency outright. He does have a certain amount of popularity, but the east coast bias could hurt. Edwards also clearly identifies with the liberal wing of the Democrat party, and Clinton is trying to appeal to the centrists.
John Kerry: This one won't happen for a large number of reasons. I think Kerry is bitter from 2004, and he won't want to play #2 man. A New York-Massachusetts ticket would be unwise from a regional point of view, and frankly, Kerry has little appeal beyond not being Bush.
Evan Bayh: He's an intriguing choice: he's so moderate, he's practically a Republican. In fact, he could be Giuliani's running mate. Furthermore, he can possibly deliver Indiana, and possibly have an impact on Ohio, Kentucky or Michigan. Bayh is regarded as an up-and-comer in the Democrat Party, much like Obama, but unlike Obama, he stayed out of the ring because he didn't think the time was right. I have to think Bayh is on Clinton's short list - he hasn't exactly hidden the fact that he's interested.
Nancy Pelosi: I don't think she's seriously under consideration, nor do I think she should be. Right now, she's the most powerful person in Congress, and she likes it that way.
A Yet-to-be-named former member of Bill Clinton's administration: One look at the current administration will tell you the viability of this strategy. There will almost certainly be that comfort zone there with such a selection, but it could also backfire: Cheney isn't exactly popular nowadays. Hillary will also want to keep just enough of Bill's legacy to strengthen her position, but she'll definitely want to establish her own political identity as well. A break from her husband's administration will go a long way toward accomplishing this.
Who do I think is ultimately going to get the nod? I have to go with either Richardson or Bayh right now. The biggest thing working against Bayh is that the Democrats can ill afford to lose a Senator. Indiana will hold gubernatorial elections in 2008 as well, so there is absolutely no guarantee Bayh would be replaced with another Democrat. That said, I think Bayh also greater political upside. If it looks like Indiana governor Mitch Daniels will lose in '08, Bayh will likely be the VP candidate. Otherwise, Richardson should get the offer.
Friday, August 3, 2007
Expert Marksmen - at least where feet are concerned
The GOP is forgetting the first rule of winning an election as the incumbent party: keep what you have. All the GOP needs to do is hold Ohio and Florida, and they win the White House. In fact, there's a ballot initiative in California that would make it so they could even lose one of those two states and be fine: under the proposal, 2 electoral votes would go to the majority winner in the state, and the rest would be divided by Congressional district. Under this scheme (the same as used in Maine and Nebraska), the GOP would stand to gain about 19 electoral votes - which is right about the size of Michigan.
Still, it's looking increasingly like they won't be able to hold even that. I'm going to say it right now: Rudi Giuliani cannot win the Presidency. He has a narrow plurality among GOP voters, but hasn't cracked 30% yet. Clinton, by comparison, is sitting at right around 40% among Democrats. The fundamental problem Giuliani has is that he's a pro-choice candidate in a party with a strong and active - if fractured - pro-life wing. And while this pro-life wing cannot deliver the Presidency, they are certainly strong enough to block someone from getting it.
It's an interesting period for the GOP. They control an incredibly unpopular White House, but are in the minority in both Congressional houses. Most Americans want to see the administration gone. Yet, for all that, their path to the White House is fairly easy - and if the California initiative passes, it would take remarkable ineptitude to lose the White House. Yet that's precisely what appears to be happening. The three leading pro-life candidates (McCain, Romney and Thompson) are essentially siphoning each other's votes, leaving Giuliani with the plurality.
Let's assume for a moment that on February 5th, Giuliani, McCain, Thompson and Romney are all still in the race, and let's assume that Giuliani gets between 27 and 32% of the vote in each state voting. That would give him a huge lead toward winning the GOP nomination, and would likely force at least one, if not two, competitors to step down. If that were to happen, I find it highly likely that someone like Newt Gingrich would declare that the Republicans have "lost their souls" and invoke "grass-roots conservatism" and "family values" as he launches a high-profile third-party candidacy aimed squarely at pro-life conservative Christians. There are enough voters who use abortion as a litmus test that the GOP vote would be split, and Clinton waltzes into the White House. And if that doesn't happen, the pro-life bloc will simply stay away in droves, giving Clinton the margin of victory in the battleground states she so desperately needs.
Make no mistake: a best-case scenario for the GOP involves Clinton as the Democrat candidate. In a national election, they are far more afraid of Obama or Gore. But it looks like Clinton will win the nomination. And it looks like the Republicans have become so dysfunctional and so deluded, they'll be utterly unable to capitalize on it.
Still, it's looking increasingly like they won't be able to hold even that. I'm going to say it right now: Rudi Giuliani cannot win the Presidency. He has a narrow plurality among GOP voters, but hasn't cracked 30% yet. Clinton, by comparison, is sitting at right around 40% among Democrats. The fundamental problem Giuliani has is that he's a pro-choice candidate in a party with a strong and active - if fractured - pro-life wing. And while this pro-life wing cannot deliver the Presidency, they are certainly strong enough to block someone from getting it.
It's an interesting period for the GOP. They control an incredibly unpopular White House, but are in the minority in both Congressional houses. Most Americans want to see the administration gone. Yet, for all that, their path to the White House is fairly easy - and if the California initiative passes, it would take remarkable ineptitude to lose the White House. Yet that's precisely what appears to be happening. The three leading pro-life candidates (McCain, Romney and Thompson) are essentially siphoning each other's votes, leaving Giuliani with the plurality.
Let's assume for a moment that on February 5th, Giuliani, McCain, Thompson and Romney are all still in the race, and let's assume that Giuliani gets between 27 and 32% of the vote in each state voting. That would give him a huge lead toward winning the GOP nomination, and would likely force at least one, if not two, competitors to step down. If that were to happen, I find it highly likely that someone like Newt Gingrich would declare that the Republicans have "lost their souls" and invoke "grass-roots conservatism" and "family values" as he launches a high-profile third-party candidacy aimed squarely at pro-life conservative Christians. There are enough voters who use abortion as a litmus test that the GOP vote would be split, and Clinton waltzes into the White House. And if that doesn't happen, the pro-life bloc will simply stay away in droves, giving Clinton the margin of victory in the battleground states she so desperately needs.
Make no mistake: a best-case scenario for the GOP involves Clinton as the Democrat candidate. In a national election, they are far more afraid of Obama or Gore. But it looks like Clinton will win the nomination. And it looks like the Republicans have become so dysfunctional and so deluded, they'll be utterly unable to capitalize on it.
Tuesday, July 31, 2007
Lessons from the pitch
In case you missed it, a great unifying event transpired for Iraqis this past weekend: they won the Asian Cup, defeating Saudi Arabia 1-0 in the championship game. Along the way, they also beat South Korea. Upon news of their victory, there was dancing and celebrating in the streets. For a shining moment, Iraq was united behind a team that represented the whole nation, regardless as to whether Shiite, Sunni or Kurd. For one brief moment, what mattered was that they were Iraqi, and they were champions.
This is hardly an isolated phenomenon. The Ivory Coast's soccer team effectively ended the nation's civil war when the team captain declared that they were playing for the whole country, going so far as to play one of their key matches in the rebel capitol (and bringing politicians from both sides together in the same place.) There are stories of Syrian Muslims, Lebanese Christians and Israelis huddling around a television set - together - to watch the FIFA World Cup, even knowing that the week prior they were shooting at each other, and when the World Cup was over, they'd go back to shooting at each other.
What is it about sport - and soccer in particular - that unifies? Why is it that the beautiful game can transcend politics, religion, race and rhetoric and bring the direst of enemies together as the closest of friends? It is no accident that many countries have a Ministry of Sport, and that this ministry is closely tied to success on the pitch. It is also no accident that politicians routinely try to politicize soccer, and that they routinely fail.
At its very core, the beautiful game is what politics is not. It is generally a meritocracy: if you are a good player, you may be invited to wear the national colors and to represent the people of your country. Your worth is measured by what you do on the pitch, not by your political leanings or religious beliefs or ethnic heritage. People of your country see the kit in your country's colors and rally behind you because you are one of them. When you score a goal, it counts the same whether you are from Baghdad or Tikrit or Fallujah or the Kurdish north. And the color of your teammate's skin has no bearing on whether you pass him the ball when he is open.
Most days I wonder whether there is any hope for Iraq, a country which is all but in an all-out civil war. They're just waiting for the US to leave so they can start the killing in earnest. Then they go and pull off an unlikely victory like the Asian Cup, and for a brief moment, Iraq is filled with Iraqis and not Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds. And for a brief moment, I have hope.
This is hardly an isolated phenomenon. The Ivory Coast's soccer team effectively ended the nation's civil war when the team captain declared that they were playing for the whole country, going so far as to play one of their key matches in the rebel capitol (and bringing politicians from both sides together in the same place.) There are stories of Syrian Muslims, Lebanese Christians and Israelis huddling around a television set - together - to watch the FIFA World Cup, even knowing that the week prior they were shooting at each other, and when the World Cup was over, they'd go back to shooting at each other.
What is it about sport - and soccer in particular - that unifies? Why is it that the beautiful game can transcend politics, religion, race and rhetoric and bring the direst of enemies together as the closest of friends? It is no accident that many countries have a Ministry of Sport, and that this ministry is closely tied to success on the pitch. It is also no accident that politicians routinely try to politicize soccer, and that they routinely fail.
At its very core, the beautiful game is what politics is not. It is generally a meritocracy: if you are a good player, you may be invited to wear the national colors and to represent the people of your country. Your worth is measured by what you do on the pitch, not by your political leanings or religious beliefs or ethnic heritage. People of your country see the kit in your country's colors and rally behind you because you are one of them. When you score a goal, it counts the same whether you are from Baghdad or Tikrit or Fallujah or the Kurdish north. And the color of your teammate's skin has no bearing on whether you pass him the ball when he is open.
Most days I wonder whether there is any hope for Iraq, a country which is all but in an all-out civil war. They're just waiting for the US to leave so they can start the killing in earnest. Then they go and pull off an unlikely victory like the Asian Cup, and for a brief moment, Iraq is filled with Iraqis and not Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds. And for a brief moment, I have hope.
Monday, July 30, 2007
An open letter to John Edwards
Dear Senator Edwards,
There is more to life than being President of the United States. I realize you fell just a hair short of the Vice Presidency in 2004. I understand you have a lot of ideas and the desire and belief that you can win this thing. But let me be blunt: you have plenty of time to mount another Presidential campaign. Your wife, however, does not have plenty of time to spend with her husband. You know as well as I do that cancer will eventually claim her life. This is a mathematical certainty.
Your candidacy for the White House is not mathematical certainty. In fact, an honest and dispassionate look at the numbers indicates very clearly that your chances of winning the Democrat nomination are very, very slim. Campaigns are tiring, grueling and expensive affairs. And while she is an activist who believes in you, you need to ask yourself if you are being fair to her as her husband. She believes in you and believes you can be President. But it's not going to happen in 2008.
Do the right thing, Senator Edwards. Step down from the campaign and be there for your wife.
There is more to life than being President of the United States. I realize you fell just a hair short of the Vice Presidency in 2004. I understand you have a lot of ideas and the desire and belief that you can win this thing. But let me be blunt: you have plenty of time to mount another Presidential campaign. Your wife, however, does not have plenty of time to spend with her husband. You know as well as I do that cancer will eventually claim her life. This is a mathematical certainty.
Your candidacy for the White House is not mathematical certainty. In fact, an honest and dispassionate look at the numbers indicates very clearly that your chances of winning the Democrat nomination are very, very slim. Campaigns are tiring, grueling and expensive affairs. And while she is an activist who believes in you, you need to ask yourself if you are being fair to her as her husband. She believes in you and believes you can be President. But it's not going to happen in 2008.
Do the right thing, Senator Edwards. Step down from the campaign and be there for your wife.
Thursday, July 26, 2007
It's been a fun week...
First we had Obama promising to meet with leaders of just about every rogue nation within his first year of office, if elected, followed by Hillary essentially calling him "irresponsible and naive." I believe this constitutes the first real broadside of the Democrat election campaign.
Of course, the GOP has its own issues: the House is declaring 2 White House aides to be in Contempt of Congress, and the Justice Department has already said they won't prosecute. Checks and balances, indeed. And to add insult to injury, it looks very much like Attorney General Gonzales just might have perjured himself. Oops.
McCain's election team is continuing to fall apart: he says they're becoming a leaner and meaner machine, but let's call a spade a spade: his campaign is in very serious trouble, and losing good campaign staff can be devastating.
Thompson's campaign is also restructuring, but his looks to be more of a shift from establishing a base infrastructure to getting seasoned political advisers where they need to be. Analysts are guessing he's going to declare his candidacy in September, but he'll need to be careful: opponents have already unearthed a fairly large number of skeletons in his closet. I still think he's got a good chance, but he'll be on the defensive from the get-go.
Of course, the GOP has its own issues: the House is declaring 2 White House aides to be in Contempt of Congress, and the Justice Department has already said they won't prosecute. Checks and balances, indeed. And to add insult to injury, it looks very much like Attorney General Gonzales just might have perjured himself. Oops.
McCain's election team is continuing to fall apart: he says they're becoming a leaner and meaner machine, but let's call a spade a spade: his campaign is in very serious trouble, and losing good campaign staff can be devastating.
Thompson's campaign is also restructuring, but his looks to be more of a shift from establishing a base infrastructure to getting seasoned political advisers where they need to be. Analysts are guessing he's going to declare his candidacy in September, but he'll need to be careful: opponents have already unearthed a fairly large number of skeletons in his closet. I still think he's got a good chance, but he'll be on the defensive from the get-go.
Tuesday, July 24, 2007
Please make it go away
It's starting. In the last week and a half, I've been solicited by 3 political "opinion polls." At least 2 of them were paid for by a campaign or party, but at least one was decent enough to be up front about it. One of my political pet peeves is the use of faux opinion polls to influence voters under the guise of asking their opinions.
How much do you agree with the following statements?
How much do you agree with the following statements?
- Congressional Democrats have not lived up to their promises since taking power in 2006.
- Congressional Democrats have failed to lower taxes, and in fact have raised taxes even higher since taking power.
- Congressional Democrats are out of touch with the American people.
- Congressional Democrats are really communist sympathizers who want nothing more than to turn the U.S. into an Islamist state run by Al Qaeda.
- etc.
Thursday, July 19, 2007
The dust is starting to settle
At this point, I'm becoming increasingly comfortable in stating the race for the White House consists of four serious contenders, two on each side. Clinton is the hands-down favorite among Democrats, with Obama providing the only real challenge at this point. For the Republicans, it's Giuliani and Thompson.
The past 2 weeks have been disastrous for McCain. His campaign leadership is crumbling and his financial state is rapidly approaching dire. Barring a miracle, I'm guessing he'll be forced to withdraw much sooner than he anticipated.
John McCain is another interesting study in things not going the way they're supposed to. His 2000 campaign generated some buzz and a fair amount of name recognition. He established himself as the "moderate" Republican, capable of gathering crossover votes and willing to cooperate with Democrats. While he couldn't win the GOP nomination then, he was clearly the one holding the cards to be Bush's successor. And after the 2004 election, many moderate conservatives who were displeased with Bush saw him as a voice of reason among a runaway party.
At every turn since then, however, McCain has managed to find the path of least popular support. He has been a staunch supporter of the President and administration policies on the least popular issues, and countered the President on his strongest issues. His conservative credentials were already suspect to the point of being nearly irrecoverable, and he didn't help matters by blowing off a major gathering of conservative religious leaders - a gathering attended by Romney and (I believe) Giuliani. 4 years ago, McCain had the momentum, the popularity and the means to win the White House. Today, he's billing himself as George Bush III in a climate that wants precisely not that.
The past 2 weeks have been disastrous for McCain. His campaign leadership is crumbling and his financial state is rapidly approaching dire. Barring a miracle, I'm guessing he'll be forced to withdraw much sooner than he anticipated.
John McCain is another interesting study in things not going the way they're supposed to. His 2000 campaign generated some buzz and a fair amount of name recognition. He established himself as the "moderate" Republican, capable of gathering crossover votes and willing to cooperate with Democrats. While he couldn't win the GOP nomination then, he was clearly the one holding the cards to be Bush's successor. And after the 2004 election, many moderate conservatives who were displeased with Bush saw him as a voice of reason among a runaway party.
At every turn since then, however, McCain has managed to find the path of least popular support. He has been a staunch supporter of the President and administration policies on the least popular issues, and countered the President on his strongest issues. His conservative credentials were already suspect to the point of being nearly irrecoverable, and he didn't help matters by blowing off a major gathering of conservative religious leaders - a gathering attended by Romney and (I believe) Giuliani. 4 years ago, McCain had the momentum, the popularity and the means to win the White House. Today, he's billing himself as George Bush III in a climate that wants precisely not that.
Wednesday, July 11, 2007
It won't be long now...
The writing is on the wall for several candidates from both parties. The Democrat race is pretty much down to Clinton and Obama, and I feel it's only a matter of time before the others drop out. I expect Edwards will stay in the race for quite awhile yet, but I think he'd be better served saving face and dropping out so he can tend to his sick wife.
The Republican race is turning into a 3-horse battle among Giuliani, Thompson and Romney. McCain's numbers are currently OK, but they're sliding. He and Thompson are basically attractive to the same core group, and Thompson is winning that battle. More importantly, McCain's financial situation is becoming increasingly dire. He'll stick it out as long as possible, but as far as I'm concerned, his campaign is essentially over. As for Brownback, Paul et al, their 15 minutes are also up.
The Republican race is turning into a 3-horse battle among Giuliani, Thompson and Romney. McCain's numbers are currently OK, but they're sliding. He and Thompson are basically attractive to the same core group, and Thompson is winning that battle. More importantly, McCain's financial situation is becoming increasingly dire. He'll stick it out as long as possible, but as far as I'm concerned, his campaign is essentially over. As for Brownback, Paul et al, their 15 minutes are also up.
Tuesday, July 3, 2007
Anatomy of a Candidate: Hillary Clinton
As things stand right this minute, Hillary Clinton is the strongest candidate in the field. That doesn't mean she will necessarily win, or that I'm endorsing her, or that things won't change. It simply means that as of right now, she appears to have the best blend of money, strategy, platform, connections and persona. There is an incredible number of factors that make a candidate electable, and Clinton seems to have a very solid blend. On top of that, she's playing her cards extremely well right now.
Let me make it abundantly clear that as a voter, I don't care for Mrs. Clinton, but as a student of politics and the American political process, I find her situation very interesting.
If we turn back the clock to the mid-90s, we'll remember lots of jokes about the Clinton marriage and its troubles (such as the classic joke about Bill and Hillary hating each other because both were seeing the same woman.) Bill was all about Bill: during the 2000 campaign, he was conspicuously uninvolved with Gore's campaign. And we remember Whitewater and the Lewinsky affair. Hillary's first foray into politics on the national stage wasn't one to remember, with her abortive attempts at organizing health care reform. The Clintons were a powerful couple, but their marriage seemed dysfunctional. In fact, many observers thought that the marriage was one of convenience and that it was only a matter of time before the Clintons would divorce.
How times have changed. Hillary has used the ensuing time blazing her own path as a moderate Democrat, politically similar to her husband, but very much with her own take. One gets the impression that she makes her own political decisions and that she is not her husband's proxy. Meanwhile, Bill has assumed the mantle of being an elder statesman with much greater effectiveness than I would have given him credit for: the joint appearances and obvious friendship with former political enemy George Bush the Elder have effectively transformed him into a well-respected statesman in the mold of Jimmy Carter rather than a mere politician who is past his prime.
Furthermore, the Clintons have made their well-publicized marital woes into a sort of strength: while Bill split hairs publicly, everyone knows he had to face Hillary. And Hillary's response was that of a real woman who had suffered real betrayal and had to try to salvage a marriage from a bad situation. In other words, it was not the canned response of political spin doctors and handlers. When asked, she discusses the situation in very short, simple terms, then changes the subject, just as any other person would do. And by all appearances, the Clintons have mended their relationship. In fact, I would venture to say the couple are stronger and closer than ever.
What all this points to is that Hillary is made out to be a real person with real feelings and a real marriage with real issues. There is no fairy tale there. It's no jump at all to associate her also with having to make sure Chelsea did her homework, and changing diapers and dealing with the chicken pox and making out shopping lists and working in her law offices... in other words, living a life like the rest of us.
I don't know if it's true. I don't know what the actual status of her marriage is. I can only judge the product being sold, but whether genuine or planned, it's electoral gold.
Let me make it abundantly clear that as a voter, I don't care for Mrs. Clinton, but as a student of politics and the American political process, I find her situation very interesting.
If we turn back the clock to the mid-90s, we'll remember lots of jokes about the Clinton marriage and its troubles (such as the classic joke about Bill and Hillary hating each other because both were seeing the same woman.) Bill was all about Bill: during the 2000 campaign, he was conspicuously uninvolved with Gore's campaign. And we remember Whitewater and the Lewinsky affair. Hillary's first foray into politics on the national stage wasn't one to remember, with her abortive attempts at organizing health care reform. The Clintons were a powerful couple, but their marriage seemed dysfunctional. In fact, many observers thought that the marriage was one of convenience and that it was only a matter of time before the Clintons would divorce.
How times have changed. Hillary has used the ensuing time blazing her own path as a moderate Democrat, politically similar to her husband, but very much with her own take. One gets the impression that she makes her own political decisions and that she is not her husband's proxy. Meanwhile, Bill has assumed the mantle of being an elder statesman with much greater effectiveness than I would have given him credit for: the joint appearances and obvious friendship with former political enemy George Bush the Elder have effectively transformed him into a well-respected statesman in the mold of Jimmy Carter rather than a mere politician who is past his prime.
Furthermore, the Clintons have made their well-publicized marital woes into a sort of strength: while Bill split hairs publicly, everyone knows he had to face Hillary. And Hillary's response was that of a real woman who had suffered real betrayal and had to try to salvage a marriage from a bad situation. In other words, it was not the canned response of political spin doctors and handlers. When asked, she discusses the situation in very short, simple terms, then changes the subject, just as any other person would do. And by all appearances, the Clintons have mended their relationship. In fact, I would venture to say the couple are stronger and closer than ever.
What all this points to is that Hillary is made out to be a real person with real feelings and a real marriage with real issues. There is no fairy tale there. It's no jump at all to associate her also with having to make sure Chelsea did her homework, and changing diapers and dealing with the chicken pox and making out shopping lists and working in her law offices... in other words, living a life like the rest of us.
I don't know if it's true. I don't know what the actual status of her marriage is. I can only judge the product being sold, but whether genuine or planned, it's electoral gold.
The money trail
I have to admit, I was shocked at how well Obama's fundraising is going. There is a very strong correlation between spending and success in elections, so this bodes well for Obama's campaign. Clinton isn't too far behind, however, so she won't be relinquishing her lead easily. On the other side of the coin, McCain's campaign is in serious financial trouble, with only about $2 million remaining in the coffers. He says he's in it for the long haul, but I'm beginning to wonder if he'll even last past the New Hampshire primary.
McCain's campaign has been in trouble for months. If he were smart, he'd drop out sooner rather than later.
McCain's campaign has been in trouble for months. If he were smart, he'd drop out sooner rather than later.
Friday, June 29, 2007
Revisiting the real issue
Not too long ago, I raised the issue of what the upcoming Presidential election is going to be about. The answer still hasn't been cleared up, but there is one 20-ton gorilla that's making tremendous waves now: the Supreme Court. In its current form, the Supreme Court has demonstrated a remarkable willingness to give the President a lot of leeway on a number of matters (including the handling of "unlawful enemy combatants," although they are revisiting that issue.) Furthermore, there is a clear ideological split, with an abnormally high number of 5-4 decisions (the same 5 outvoting the same 4.)
The Supreme Court gained a lot of support from the pro-life movement with their decision to uphold the ban on the D&X abortion procedure (aka "partial birth"), but in the grand scheme of things, I don't think it's nearly as significant as what has transpired this week. The biggest, of course, was the ruling on the unconstitutionality of affirmative action programs to promote racial diversity in schools. Almost as big was the ruling overturning over 90 years of antitrust law in allowing manufacturers to set "price floors" on goods.
These developments are staggeringly huge, and staggeringly controversial. Depending on your point of view, the affirmative action ruling either set the stage to further equality in race relations, or it set the civil rights movement back 40 years. Only time will tell. What I do know is that it opened a floodgate of righteous indignation and strong condemnation among (primarily Democrat) Presidential candidates. This is the "let's all hold hands and sing Kumbaya" issue politicians love: take a strong stand against an unpopular legal issue, turn it into a near-crusade, make it your rallying cry. You get to turn your attention away from controversial issues like immigration reform and your inability to influence the administration and show leadership and empathy and other similar virtues in a very safe environment. It won't help Clinton over Obama, but it most certainly will help Clinton over Giuliani or Thompson.
The other thing it does is bring sharply into focus just how critical it is that the Supreme Court be taken into account during a Presidential election. Here are a few fun facts for you:
John Paul Stevens is the oldest member of the Supreme Court at 87 years of age. He was appointed by Ford in 1975. Many Supreme Court observers believe he is waiting to retire until a Democrat is elected President, although that's not a sure thing.
Antonin Scalia (who is third-oldest at 71), Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and John Roberts overwhelmingly tend to vote as a bloc. Three of the four were appointed by a President Bush (both H.W. and W.), Scalia was a Reagan appointee. Scalia is considered the strongest jurist of the group, but is also very ideological. He occasionally flashes an independent streak. Alito is the most likely in this group to give a death row appeal a hearing.
Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg (second-oldest at 74), David Souter and Stephen Breyer also tend to vote as a bloc, but not quite as rigidly as the Scalia bloc. Stevens is easily the most independent-minded justice, and I believe is the Court's most consistent dissenter.
Anthony Kennedy is the "odd man out." A Reagan appointee, he has historically been a "soft" member of the conservative wing of the court. While he usually voted with that bloc, he has gone the other way on occasion. Today, as Kennedy goes, so goes the Court: his vote is the swing vote.
All of this matters because it is very likely that Stevens will retire within 5 years, and fairly likely that Scalia, Kennedy and/or Ginsburg will retire within 10, depending on the political climate. The mere fact that so many decisions now are 5-4 decisions means that the Supreme Court will be a very real battleground in the next 2 Presidential elections.
The Supreme Court gained a lot of support from the pro-life movement with their decision to uphold the ban on the D&X abortion procedure (aka "partial birth"), but in the grand scheme of things, I don't think it's nearly as significant as what has transpired this week. The biggest, of course, was the ruling on the unconstitutionality of affirmative action programs to promote racial diversity in schools. Almost as big was the ruling overturning over 90 years of antitrust law in allowing manufacturers to set "price floors" on goods.
These developments are staggeringly huge, and staggeringly controversial. Depending on your point of view, the affirmative action ruling either set the stage to further equality in race relations, or it set the civil rights movement back 40 years. Only time will tell. What I do know is that it opened a floodgate of righteous indignation and strong condemnation among (primarily Democrat) Presidential candidates. This is the "let's all hold hands and sing Kumbaya" issue politicians love: take a strong stand against an unpopular legal issue, turn it into a near-crusade, make it your rallying cry. You get to turn your attention away from controversial issues like immigration reform and your inability to influence the administration and show leadership and empathy and other similar virtues in a very safe environment. It won't help Clinton over Obama, but it most certainly will help Clinton over Giuliani or Thompson.
The other thing it does is bring sharply into focus just how critical it is that the Supreme Court be taken into account during a Presidential election. Here are a few fun facts for you:
John Paul Stevens is the oldest member of the Supreme Court at 87 years of age. He was appointed by Ford in 1975. Many Supreme Court observers believe he is waiting to retire until a Democrat is elected President, although that's not a sure thing.
Antonin Scalia (who is third-oldest at 71), Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and John Roberts overwhelmingly tend to vote as a bloc. Three of the four were appointed by a President Bush (both H.W. and W.), Scalia was a Reagan appointee. Scalia is considered the strongest jurist of the group, but is also very ideological. He occasionally flashes an independent streak. Alito is the most likely in this group to give a death row appeal a hearing.
Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg (second-oldest at 74), David Souter and Stephen Breyer also tend to vote as a bloc, but not quite as rigidly as the Scalia bloc. Stevens is easily the most independent-minded justice, and I believe is the Court's most consistent dissenter.
Anthony Kennedy is the "odd man out." A Reagan appointee, he has historically been a "soft" member of the conservative wing of the court. While he usually voted with that bloc, he has gone the other way on occasion. Today, as Kennedy goes, so goes the Court: his vote is the swing vote.
All of this matters because it is very likely that Stevens will retire within 5 years, and fairly likely that Scalia, Kennedy and/or Ginsburg will retire within 10, depending on the political climate. The mere fact that so many decisions now are 5-4 decisions means that the Supreme Court will be a very real battleground in the next 2 Presidential elections.
Wednesday, June 27, 2007
Rewind to 2000
In the aftermath of the 1996 election in which Bill Clinton handily beat Bob Dole, Republicans immediately started planning for the inevitable 2000 showdown against Al Gore. Gore's candidacy was practically a given, and the GOP knew they'd need to field a strong candidate. Almost immediately, George W. Bush's name rose to the top of the list (this was in very early 1997, I believe, and possibly even earlier.) Bush had his infrastructure and campaign team together very early and was able to hit the campaign trail early and hard. In early 1999, John McCain made things interesting, but the GOP was quietly already married to Bush. I still think McCain could have won a 3-way election among himself, Bush and Gore, but campaign law being what it is, it didn't play out that way.
Fast forward to November, 2004. George Bush wins re-election over John Kerry, and it's already understood that Hillary Clinton is the leading Democrat candidate for the 2008 election. She has her contacts and her husband's contacts, she's been through two presidential campaigns already and she has a lot of resources. Her war chest has been building for a long time - I have to believe it's been building since as early as 2000 or 2001. Barack Obama is making things interesting, but his infrastructure isn't nearly as well-constructed, well-funded or experienced as Hillary's. Sure, there are some parts of the Democrat Party who don't approve of her, but her act is together and she's presenting herself very well as a polished candidate. More importantly, she's being taken seriously as "the" candidate by the mainstream press.
It's pretty much reached the point at which the nomination is Clinton's to lose, rather than to win.
Fast forward to November, 2004. George Bush wins re-election over John Kerry, and it's already understood that Hillary Clinton is the leading Democrat candidate for the 2008 election. She has her contacts and her husband's contacts, she's been through two presidential campaigns already and she has a lot of resources. Her war chest has been building for a long time - I have to believe it's been building since as early as 2000 or 2001. Barack Obama is making things interesting, but his infrastructure isn't nearly as well-constructed, well-funded or experienced as Hillary's. Sure, there are some parts of the Democrat Party who don't approve of her, but her act is together and she's presenting herself very well as a polished candidate. More importantly, she's being taken seriously as "the" candidate by the mainstream press.
It's pretty much reached the point at which the nomination is Clinton's to lose, rather than to win.
Tuesday, June 26, 2007
My kingdom for a viable candidate!
Dick Cheney has decided he's not a member of the Executive Branch of the United States government. George W. Bush has decided he doesn't need to answer to the federal government's watchdog to ensure classified materials are being handled properly. Not only do they think they're above the law, they flaunt it openly. And the Democrats still can't exploit it. Recent opinion polls show that the public is just as disgusted with Congressional Democrats as they are with Republicans across the board.
Up until now, it's almost been a fait accompli that the Democrat candidate would win the White House (at least, if you believe the word on the street, which isn't always the best idea.) At this point, I don't see Hillary not winning the Democrat nomination, but her status as a Senate Democrat (among other things) will come back to haunt her. Meanwhile, Giuliani's campaign has suffered a series of setbacks: his South Carolina campaign chairman's indictment on cocaine charges, his skipping Iraq study group meetings and the defection of successor Michael Bloomberg away from the GOP have all hurt his standing. His relationship with accused molester priest Msgr. Alan Placa doesn't help matters at all, either.
In the national polls, Giuliani still seems to be holding his own, but recent polls in Iowa and South Carolina are sobering: a Mason-Dixon poll from 6/13-6/16 has Romney and Thompson 1 and 2. Even more stunning is that McCain dropped all the way from around 25% at the end of May to 6%. In Mason-Dixon's South Carolina poll (same dates), Thompson leads Giuliani 25-21, with McCain down to 7%. And the Mason-Dixon poll (6/20-6/22) for Nevada shows Thompson and Romney ahead of Giuliani there, as well.
As I mentioned previously, elections are all about numbers: a candidate is less interested in a raw number of votes and more interested in winning states and the attendant voters for the conventions/Electoral College. The way things look right now, both Thompson and Romney are poised to gain early momentum in some high-visibility early states - the sort of momentum which could mobilize supporters and establish one of them as the early favorite.
Giuliani has a difficult battle ahead of him. As for McCain, I think his candidacy is in much more serious trouble than he realizes.
Up until now, it's almost been a fait accompli that the Democrat candidate would win the White House (at least, if you believe the word on the street, which isn't always the best idea.) At this point, I don't see Hillary not winning the Democrat nomination, but her status as a Senate Democrat (among other things) will come back to haunt her. Meanwhile, Giuliani's campaign has suffered a series of setbacks: his South Carolina campaign chairman's indictment on cocaine charges, his skipping Iraq study group meetings and the defection of successor Michael Bloomberg away from the GOP have all hurt his standing. His relationship with accused molester priest Msgr. Alan Placa doesn't help matters at all, either.
In the national polls, Giuliani still seems to be holding his own, but recent polls in Iowa and South Carolina are sobering: a Mason-Dixon poll from 6/13-6/16 has Romney and Thompson 1 and 2. Even more stunning is that McCain dropped all the way from around 25% at the end of May to 6%. In Mason-Dixon's South Carolina poll (same dates), Thompson leads Giuliani 25-21, with McCain down to 7%. And the Mason-Dixon poll (6/20-6/22) for Nevada shows Thompson and Romney ahead of Giuliani there, as well.
As I mentioned previously, elections are all about numbers: a candidate is less interested in a raw number of votes and more interested in winning states and the attendant voters for the conventions/Electoral College. The way things look right now, both Thompson and Romney are poised to gain early momentum in some high-visibility early states - the sort of momentum which could mobilize supporters and establish one of them as the early favorite.
Giuliani has a difficult battle ahead of him. As for McCain, I think his candidacy is in much more serious trouble than he realizes.
Wednesday, June 13, 2007
A Party Divided Part II
The Democrat party is just as fragmented as the Republican party, but as of late, those factions are slightly less at odds with each other - although tensions are very much there.
1. New Deal Democrats. These are the "classic" welfare state Democrats who trace the party's goals and politics back to Franklin D. Roosevelt. They advocate for government-supported social programs to ensure a certain standard of health and living. Programs like Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, WIC and food stamps form a cornerstone for social justice and equality. They feel that ultimately, the measure of a nation is how that nation cares for its least fortunate, its infirm and its elderly. Labor (particularly organized labor) also factors in heavily.
2. Diversity factions. The United States is a melting pot of persons of every race, sex, creed, sexual orientation, ethnicity and culture. The government must work to eradicate prejudice against all other persons, regardless of race, sex, orientation, etc., and must enact and enforce legislation to ensure that minorities are not unfairly discriminated against. If this means quotas must be in place, the benefits of the perceived short-term inequality far outweigh the long-term social benefits.
3. Environmentalists. We have one planet, and we all have to live on it. Once natural resources are gone, they're gone forever. Once a species of animal or plant is extinct, it's gone forever. It is the responsibility of the government to ensure the future survival of not only the human race, but all species on the planet. If the air becomes unbreathable and the water undrinkable, there is no fall-back plan.
4. Civil Libertarians. The rights of the individual are sacrosanct. Your rights end where mine begin. The government has no right to tell me how to raise my children, what to do with my body, how to believe or what to believe. "I may disagree with what you say, but I will die for your right to say it." The poster child for this faction is the ACLU. (It is worth noting that many civil libertarians will also vote Republican, depending on the perceived level of governmental freedom. In the aftermath of 9/11, however, legislation in the name of national security has firmly pushed the civil libertarians to this side of the fence.)
1. New Deal Democrats. These are the "classic" welfare state Democrats who trace the party's goals and politics back to Franklin D. Roosevelt. They advocate for government-supported social programs to ensure a certain standard of health and living. Programs like Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, WIC and food stamps form a cornerstone for social justice and equality. They feel that ultimately, the measure of a nation is how that nation cares for its least fortunate, its infirm and its elderly. Labor (particularly organized labor) also factors in heavily.
2. Diversity factions. The United States is a melting pot of persons of every race, sex, creed, sexual orientation, ethnicity and culture. The government must work to eradicate prejudice against all other persons, regardless of race, sex, orientation, etc., and must enact and enforce legislation to ensure that minorities are not unfairly discriminated against. If this means quotas must be in place, the benefits of the perceived short-term inequality far outweigh the long-term social benefits.
3. Environmentalists. We have one planet, and we all have to live on it. Once natural resources are gone, they're gone forever. Once a species of animal or plant is extinct, it's gone forever. It is the responsibility of the government to ensure the future survival of not only the human race, but all species on the planet. If the air becomes unbreathable and the water undrinkable, there is no fall-back plan.
4. Civil Libertarians. The rights of the individual are sacrosanct. Your rights end where mine begin. The government has no right to tell me how to raise my children, what to do with my body, how to believe or what to believe. "I may disagree with what you say, but I will die for your right to say it." The poster child for this faction is the ACLU. (It is worth noting that many civil libertarians will also vote Republican, depending on the perceived level of governmental freedom. In the aftermath of 9/11, however, legislation in the name of national security has firmly pushed the civil libertarians to this side of the fence.)
A Party Divided
One of the things that always amuses and irks me is the way people make general, sweeping statements about the political parties: all Democrats are "liberal", all Republicans are "conservative", that sort of thing. In reality, one of the biggest failings of the two-party system is that people have to shoehorn their political ideologies into trying to match one of the two parties.
The terms "liberal" and "conservative" are also misnomers, derogatory labels one can slap on someone of a competing ideology. "Liberal" has become a euphamism for "morally relativistic neo-socialist" (which is why the preferred term is now "progressive"), while "conservative" means "closed-minded rich Christian caucasian who confuses the Bible with the Constitution." Interestingly, many "conservatives" wear this badge with pride.
If you look at the actual breakdown of those who tend to vote Republican, however, you'll see several factions, some of whom tend to be at odds with each other. Many people actually belong to multiple factions, where the factions do not overlap.
1. Free-market libertarians. More than anything else, free-market libertarians believe that the market should speak for itself and everything else will fall into place. Government regulation is bad: the marketplace can decide matters for itself. The economy wants to be self-regulating, and economic instability is the result of government intervention.
2. Market protectionists. They share a lot in common with free-market libertarians, except that they feel the government has the obligation to protect national corporate interests. If American corporations are doing well, Americans are doing well. The biggest differences are that market protectionists support corporate welfare and regulation of imports by means of tariffs.
3. Moral authoritarians. More often than not, these are practicing Christians, who feel that it is the role of government to encourage moral behavior among its citizens. While separation of church and state is a vital cornerstone to the American form of government, they feel the nation's Christian heritage cannot be denied. They do welcome all faiths - as long as you believe in a God. This group also tends to be strongly in favor of a strong criminal justice system and the use of the death penalty, where appropriate.
4. Nationalists. In a nutshell, this group is the flag-waving pro-military faction who believe that a citizen's first duty is to his country. Internal dissent as to the nature of how the country should be run is fine, but you do not criticize this country, her soldiers or her leadership. America: love it or leave it.
5. Pro-life/anti-abortion advocates. I'm distinguishing this group from the moral authoritarians for two reasons, although there is a great deal of crossover. First, many members of this group are single-issue voters: there is no way any pro-choice candidate (or, for many, even a "soft" anti-abortion candidate) gets a vote from this group. This is probably the single largest single-issue faction out there. The second is that not all pro-lifers are religious moral authoritarians. There are many anti-abortion atheists out there. There are also many in this group who oppose capital punishment.
As you can see, core Republican voters actually hold a great variety of views and a great variety of points of emphasis, and some of these aspects are at odds with other factions.
The terms "liberal" and "conservative" are also misnomers, derogatory labels one can slap on someone of a competing ideology. "Liberal" has become a euphamism for "morally relativistic neo-socialist" (which is why the preferred term is now "progressive"), while "conservative" means "closed-minded rich Christian caucasian who confuses the Bible with the Constitution." Interestingly, many "conservatives" wear this badge with pride.
If you look at the actual breakdown of those who tend to vote Republican, however, you'll see several factions, some of whom tend to be at odds with each other. Many people actually belong to multiple factions, where the factions do not overlap.
1. Free-market libertarians. More than anything else, free-market libertarians believe that the market should speak for itself and everything else will fall into place. Government regulation is bad: the marketplace can decide matters for itself. The economy wants to be self-regulating, and economic instability is the result of government intervention.
2. Market protectionists. They share a lot in common with free-market libertarians, except that they feel the government has the obligation to protect national corporate interests. If American corporations are doing well, Americans are doing well. The biggest differences are that market protectionists support corporate welfare and regulation of imports by means of tariffs.
3. Moral authoritarians. More often than not, these are practicing Christians, who feel that it is the role of government to encourage moral behavior among its citizens. While separation of church and state is a vital cornerstone to the American form of government, they feel the nation's Christian heritage cannot be denied. They do welcome all faiths - as long as you believe in a God. This group also tends to be strongly in favor of a strong criminal justice system and the use of the death penalty, where appropriate.
4. Nationalists. In a nutshell, this group is the flag-waving pro-military faction who believe that a citizen's first duty is to his country. Internal dissent as to the nature of how the country should be run is fine, but you do not criticize this country, her soldiers or her leadership. America: love it or leave it.
5. Pro-life/anti-abortion advocates. I'm distinguishing this group from the moral authoritarians for two reasons, although there is a great deal of crossover. First, many members of this group are single-issue voters: there is no way any pro-choice candidate (or, for many, even a "soft" anti-abortion candidate) gets a vote from this group. This is probably the single largest single-issue faction out there. The second is that not all pro-lifers are religious moral authoritarians. There are many anti-abortion atheists out there. There are also many in this group who oppose capital punishment.
As you can see, core Republican voters actually hold a great variety of views and a great variety of points of emphasis, and some of these aspects are at odds with other factions.
Tuesday, June 12, 2007
Tommy Gunning
According to an LA Times/Bloomberg poll, Fred Thompson (who has yet to declare) has leapfrogged to second place in the race for the Republican nomination. The poll has Giuliani at 27%, Thompson at 21% and McCain at 12%. When Bloomberg made it a 4-way race, Giuliani and Thompson were statistically tied (32% to 28% with a 5% margin of error.)
I fully expect this will become a two-horse race by November or December.
I fully expect this will become a two-horse race by November or December.
Monday, June 11, 2007
What will the 2008 election be about?
We all know that every candidate has his or her pet issues and ideas that he or she bases his or her campaign on. Sure, there's the laundry list of who stands where on which issue, but most elections are decided on one or two basic ideas, and the winner is the one who represents the right side of the right issue best.
In 1980, Ronald Reagan ultimately campaigned on restoring a sense of direction and a sense of pride to the U.S. He was re-elected in 1984 on the strength of his first-term success.
In 1988, George H.W. Bush campaigned on "staying the course" of the still very popular Reagan.
In 1992, Bill Clinton overcame Bush's (short-lived) 92% approval rating with the simple argument, "it's the economy, stupid!" During Bush's tenure, the Berlin Wall fell, the Soviet Union was dissolved and Operation Desert Storm took place. But that couldn't overcome a soft economy.
In 1996, Clinton was re-elected on the basis of a strong economy against a lame-duck Bob Dole, who campaigned on a vague return to Reagan glory.
In 2000, George W. Bush and Al Gore fought to essentially a dead heat. Bush ultimately campaigned on restoring dignity and morality to the White House (following the Lewinsky affair), while Gore ultimately campaigned on staying the Clinton course.
In 2004, Bush campaigned on national security and beat John Kerry's stance of "I'm not George Bush." The war was unpopular enough that the "I'm not George Bush" gambit almost worked.
So what does this mean for 2008? For starters, Bush has not designated an heir apparent, so "stay the course" is essentially not an option. Now, many candidates share many of Bush's views, but they have to repackage them and re-sell them in order to make it work.
Different candidates are starting to carve out different niches. Themes being raised so far include national security, the war in Iraq, national health care, gas prices and the economy at large. It's too soon to say which is going to win out, but I'm willing to bet that the winner will be focusing either on the economy or on health care than on the Iraq situation.
In 1980, Ronald Reagan ultimately campaigned on restoring a sense of direction and a sense of pride to the U.S. He was re-elected in 1984 on the strength of his first-term success.
In 1988, George H.W. Bush campaigned on "staying the course" of the still very popular Reagan.
In 1992, Bill Clinton overcame Bush's (short-lived) 92% approval rating with the simple argument, "it's the economy, stupid!" During Bush's tenure, the Berlin Wall fell, the Soviet Union was dissolved and Operation Desert Storm took place. But that couldn't overcome a soft economy.
In 1996, Clinton was re-elected on the basis of a strong economy against a lame-duck Bob Dole, who campaigned on a vague return to Reagan glory.
In 2000, George W. Bush and Al Gore fought to essentially a dead heat. Bush ultimately campaigned on restoring dignity and morality to the White House (following the Lewinsky affair), while Gore ultimately campaigned on staying the Clinton course.
In 2004, Bush campaigned on national security and beat John Kerry's stance of "I'm not George Bush." The war was unpopular enough that the "I'm not George Bush" gambit almost worked.
So what does this mean for 2008? For starters, Bush has not designated an heir apparent, so "stay the course" is essentially not an option. Now, many candidates share many of Bush's views, but they have to repackage them and re-sell them in order to make it work.
Different candidates are starting to carve out different niches. Themes being raised so far include national security, the war in Iraq, national health care, gas prices and the economy at large. It's too soon to say which is going to win out, but I'm willing to bet that the winner will be focusing either on the economy or on health care than on the Iraq situation.
Thursday, June 7, 2007
Skipping the straw polls
It looks like Rudi Giuliani and John McCain will both skip the Iowa Republican straw poll this summer. The straw poll has no real meaning, but it does require campaigns to be on the ball. Fiscally speaking, the move makes sense: candidates have to spend a lot of time, money and campaign resources for what is essentially a non-binding "where do we stand right now" sort of poll. Both candidates clearly feel their resources are better spent elsewhere.
I think this is a foolish move on their parts, however. Both claim they are dedicated to winning Iowa in January, but skipping the straw poll sends a different message about how important Iowa is to the candidates. And while the raw number of delegates from Iowa likely isn't going to make the difference in who gets the nomination, winning the Iowa caucus could give another candidate - such as Mitt Romney or Fred Thompson - a lot of momentum heading into New Hampshire and the February Superprimaries. And in elections, momentum is everything.
I think this is a foolish move on their parts, however. Both claim they are dedicated to winning Iowa in January, but skipping the straw poll sends a different message about how important Iowa is to the candidates. And while the raw number of delegates from Iowa likely isn't going to make the difference in who gets the nomination, winning the Iowa caucus could give another candidate - such as Mitt Romney or Fred Thompson - a lot of momentum heading into New Hampshire and the February Superprimaries. And in elections, momentum is everything.
Wednesday, June 6, 2007
Here we go...
The Armchair Election Analyst is open for business! With this blog, I'm attempting to track the upcoming U.S. Presidential primaries and general election as neutrally as possible. I'll be making observations and predictions, and drawing upon historical information in order to try to figure out where we're going.
Methodology
Unlike many observers, I'll only pay fleeting attention to national opinion polls (I'll pay closer attention in the primaries). Presidential elections come down to votes in the electoral college, not to popular vote counts. Each state has a number of electors equal to its total Congressional representation (Representatives plus Senators.) Washington, DC gets 3 electors, for a total of 538. It takes 270 electoral votes to win the Presidency. Thus, my focus will be twofold: who are likely to win the party nominations, and how the electoral votes will likely fall.
Starting Assumptions
All things being equal, one should assume a blank electoral slate. However, all things are not equal, and it is nearly a foregone conclusion that many states are already "red" or "blue", and will not change. Other states do not have sufficient electoral sway to make much difference unless they do so en masse. In 2004, George W. Bush won the election with 286 electoral votes to John Kerry's 251 (one vote went to John Edwards.) This is my starting point: based on the 2004 results, for a non-Republican candidate to win the Presidency, that candidate must find 17 electoral votes. The States of Florida, Ohio, Michigan and Pennsylvania all have 17 or more electoral votes, and are consistently closely contested. In 2004, Florida and Ohio went to Bush, while Michigan and Pennsylvania went to Kerry.
For the Democrats to win, they must win Florida or Ohio without losing Michigan or Pennsylvania. For the Republicans to win, they must simply hold the states they currently have.
Methodology
Unlike many observers, I'll only pay fleeting attention to national opinion polls (I'll pay closer attention in the primaries). Presidential elections come down to votes in the electoral college, not to popular vote counts. Each state has a number of electors equal to its total Congressional representation (Representatives plus Senators.) Washington, DC gets 3 electors, for a total of 538. It takes 270 electoral votes to win the Presidency. Thus, my focus will be twofold: who are likely to win the party nominations, and how the electoral votes will likely fall.
Starting Assumptions
All things being equal, one should assume a blank electoral slate. However, all things are not equal, and it is nearly a foregone conclusion that many states are already "red" or "blue", and will not change. Other states do not have sufficient electoral sway to make much difference unless they do so en masse. In 2004, George W. Bush won the election with 286 electoral votes to John Kerry's 251 (one vote went to John Edwards.) This is my starting point: based on the 2004 results, for a non-Republican candidate to win the Presidency, that candidate must find 17 electoral votes. The States of Florida, Ohio, Michigan and Pennsylvania all have 17 or more electoral votes, and are consistently closely contested. In 2004, Florida and Ohio went to Bush, while Michigan and Pennsylvania went to Kerry.
For the Democrats to win, they must win Florida or Ohio without losing Michigan or Pennsylvania. For the Republicans to win, they must simply hold the states they currently have.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)