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.
Friday, August 3, 2007
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)