All of the buzz today has been how Mitt Romney is one and done and how Rudy Giuliani's strategy now looks like the best one. Someone must do a reality check here:
Argument 1: Rudy's strategy was based upon his national lead in the polls. Watching the field take each other out early on plays to his strategy.
Reality Check 1: Rudy's national lead is a thing of the past. There is no longer a national front-runner! As of 1/3/08 at Rasmussen, Rudy was tied for fifth, and on 1/4/08, he was in fourth place, ahead of only Thompson by one point. Rudy's support will continue to diminish as he loses badly in early states. We do see the media attempting to resurrect Rudy with all the talk of his "winning" after a sixth place finish in Iowa. How does placing behind everyone, including Ron Paul (no offense to those who support him), amount to winning? This is getting crazy.
Argument 2: Rudy can now pull this off because he has the money to play this out nationally.
Reality Check: He may have money, but so does Romney.
Argument 3: Romney's campaign is on life support because his early state strategy now appears to not be working.
Reality check: Rasmussen on 1/3/08 had Romney in the lead NATIONALLY. On 1/4/08, he is one point behind McCain for second place NATIONALLY. Romney no longer needs the early state momentum strategy - his early leads in the early states already put him in play nationally. Romney's second place finish in a state whose strong evangelical turnout guaranteed a Huckabee win is much stronger than McCain's (4th) or Rudy's (6th).
Argument 4: A loss in New Hampshire would doom Romney's campaign.
Reality check: Going into February 5th, it is conceivable that the score card reads as follows (using the 3, 2, 1 point scoring system for gold, silver, and bronze finishes in states):
Iowa - Huckabee (3), Romney (2), Thompson (1)
Wyoming* - Romney (3), McCain (2), Huckabee (1)
New Hampshire - McCain (3), Romney (2), Huckabee (1)
Michigan - Romney (3), Huckabee(2), McCain (1)
Nevada - Romney (3), Giuliani (2), Huckabee (1)
South Carolina - Huckabee (3), Romney (2), Thompson (1)
Florida - Giuliani (3), Huckabee (2), Romney (1)
*I had to make up Wyoming numbers since nobody is polling in Wyoming. I believe Romney will carry the state, however.
This would leave scores as follows:
Romney (16)
Huckabee (13)
McCain (6)
Giuliani (5)
Thompson (2)
Who then would have a national lead - (after several states vote, not just one or two), money, and delegate counts in their favor? I'm a little tired with the media trying to control the entire process with their spin and their take on everything. I don't see why Guiliani gets good press today and Romney gets bad press - other than the expectations game. Well, it's high time we reset expectations and get a reality check! Romney can be in as strong a position come February 5th as anyone.
Friday, January 4, 2008
Where do Romney-ites turn now?
To whom do Romney supporters turn in the event Iowa was a fatal blow to his campaign?
To Huckabee? Not if you dislike taxes, and the Fair Tax is not the answer (do your homework if you think it is). Nor do you turn to him if you worry about the damage future ethics investigations would do the the Republican party (as if the past few years haven't been bad enough). He is the choice only if we want is a man who is socially strong on traditional values but nothing else.
To McCain? Only if you're prepared to be seething mad at least 4-5 times in the next four years and mildly mad about 10-12 times. He's a roll of the dice when it comes to immigration reform and taxation. If he is elected, the one good thing is that I don't see him getting re-elected at age 76 in 2012. He could be the choice if we look not only at what we want but for the most centrist candidate - the times he makes conservatives hopping mad, he will at least please the other side.
To Rudy? Not if you want someone with morals in the White House. (Would his wife be the First Lady or the Third Lady?) This is still a tempting place to go when you look at how he actually led while mayor of New York - he may be a mess himself, but he did do positive things and promises to do the same as president.
To Fred? Let's be honest. No matter how much we like his policies, but he hasn't got a chance at this thing at all.
To Ron Paul? It's tempting if nothing else than to abolish the federal reserve, put us back on the gold standard, and live by the Constitution. But no matter how much you like him, reality again is that he will not win.
To a Democrat? I fear too much for the Supreme Court and my pocket book to want this for our country. I have nothing against Obama (except he is rated the most liberal of all democratic candidates, and he had some drug issues in the past - not what I want to hold up as the gold standard for my children, thanks). Edwards is done. Clinton will break the country with all the programs she wants to implement (From her own mouth: "America can't afford all the ideas I have"). No other democrat has a chance.
To Michael Bloomberg? I don't know enough about him yet, but at this juncture, I really have to hope that he ends up being more like Mitt than the rest of the field.
What's a guy to do at this juncture?
To Huckabee? Not if you dislike taxes, and the Fair Tax is not the answer (do your homework if you think it is). Nor do you turn to him if you worry about the damage future ethics investigations would do the the Republican party (as if the past few years haven't been bad enough). He is the choice only if we want is a man who is socially strong on traditional values but nothing else.
To McCain? Only if you're prepared to be seething mad at least 4-5 times in the next four years and mildly mad about 10-12 times. He's a roll of the dice when it comes to immigration reform and taxation. If he is elected, the one good thing is that I don't see him getting re-elected at age 76 in 2012. He could be the choice if we look not only at what we want but for the most centrist candidate - the times he makes conservatives hopping mad, he will at least please the other side.
To Rudy? Not if you want someone with morals in the White House. (Would his wife be the First Lady or the Third Lady?) This is still a tempting place to go when you look at how he actually led while mayor of New York - he may be a mess himself, but he did do positive things and promises to do the same as president.
To Fred? Let's be honest. No matter how much we like his policies, but he hasn't got a chance at this thing at all.
To Ron Paul? It's tempting if nothing else than to abolish the federal reserve, put us back on the gold standard, and live by the Constitution. But no matter how much you like him, reality again is that he will not win.
To a Democrat? I fear too much for the Supreme Court and my pocket book to want this for our country. I have nothing against Obama (except he is rated the most liberal of all democratic candidates, and he had some drug issues in the past - not what I want to hold up as the gold standard for my children, thanks). Edwards is done. Clinton will break the country with all the programs she wants to implement (From her own mouth: "America can't afford all the ideas I have"). No other democrat has a chance.
To Michael Bloomberg? I don't know enough about him yet, but at this juncture, I really have to hope that he ends up being more like Mitt than the rest of the field.
What's a guy to do at this juncture?
Post-Iowa Observations
As a Romney supporter, I am obviously disheartened by the results in Iowa last night. I congratulate Mr. Huckabee on his victory. Here are some observations as we move forward:
1) Mitt was able to build leads in early states where he had time to introduce himself to people who were paying attention early - people where he could define himself to them and what he stood for instead of being defined by the media. My assertion is that those leads were built early on by people who pay close attention to politics. I would further argue that these people also multi-issue voters who most thoroughly scrutinize everything about a candidate. That this group gave Mitt the lead speaks volumes about what a great candidate he is.
2) Mitt's early leads evaporated late in the game as the "average person" - someone not obsessed with politics - started to pay attention to the race. These are also good, hard-working Americans who just don't have or take as much time to scrutinize a candidate thoroughly. It seems the media is able to create political movements mostly because of this group: "Huckabee surging in Iowa" headlines yield a Huckabee surge. "McCain surges in New Hampshire" yields a New Hampshire surge. I don't want to call apolitical people sheep, but they grab headlines instead of diving into the meat of what's happening. Why else is "spin" so important? To get you the proper headline. Recent reports on the ground in Iowa with Huckabee supporters, for example, found that they didn't know about his recent Pakistan gaffes, his negative "I'm not going negative" news conference, or other missteps by him. They know what the headlines read: "Huckabee surges in Iowa."
3) Romney has not done a good job at combatting the flip-flop accusations or the assertions that he will say anything to win. He has too easily allowed the media to define him to this large group of people who begin to pay attention late in the gaem. These accusations are the negatives anyone can find about him, but if people look close at any candidate, they will find similar statements and policy changes (even from straight talking McCain who argues for amnesty by name and then says he never did want amnesty for illegals). Another related question: Do we really want a candidate that is so sure they are 100% right from square one that they are unwilling to change positions when new information presents itself or an when an internal epiphany occurs which brings a candidate around to a more correct view of old information?
4) It will be interesting to see how Huckabee and McCain's mutual admiration party breaks down now that they are going head to head. It was pretty clear to see that they needed each other to take out Romney. I suspect Huckabee will now begin to dig at McCain somewhat (if not in New Hampshire, undoubtedly in South Caroliina). That's the thanks McCain will get from Huckabee. I may be wrong if they are hoping to become the combined ticket, however.
5) I give Romney about a 10% chance of winning in New Hampshire, 89% to McCain, 1% to someone else (just in case something crazy happens). McCain was leading in polls prior to Iowa, and I doubt Romney can stop the bleeding now. The only way he wins is if Obama's win ciphers enough independents over to the Democratic primary to harm McCain. I'm not sure this will happen in large enough numbers.
6) If Romney loses in New Hampshire, I don't like his chances in Michigan either which went to McCain in 2000. If Romney is 0-3 in the first big contests (would a Wyoming win will overshadow an Iowa loss? Um, no.) I think he's done. It will take nothing short of a miracle in my opinion to right Mitt's ship at this point, and it pains me to write that.
1) Mitt was able to build leads in early states where he had time to introduce himself to people who were paying attention early - people where he could define himself to them and what he stood for instead of being defined by the media. My assertion is that those leads were built early on by people who pay close attention to politics. I would further argue that these people also multi-issue voters who most thoroughly scrutinize everything about a candidate. That this group gave Mitt the lead speaks volumes about what a great candidate he is.
2) Mitt's early leads evaporated late in the game as the "average person" - someone not obsessed with politics - started to pay attention to the race. These are also good, hard-working Americans who just don't have or take as much time to scrutinize a candidate thoroughly. It seems the media is able to create political movements mostly because of this group: "Huckabee surging in Iowa" headlines yield a Huckabee surge. "McCain surges in New Hampshire" yields a New Hampshire surge. I don't want to call apolitical people sheep, but they grab headlines instead of diving into the meat of what's happening. Why else is "spin" so important? To get you the proper headline. Recent reports on the ground in Iowa with Huckabee supporters, for example, found that they didn't know about his recent Pakistan gaffes, his negative "I'm not going negative" news conference, or other missteps by him. They know what the headlines read: "Huckabee surges in Iowa."
3) Romney has not done a good job at combatting the flip-flop accusations or the assertions that he will say anything to win. He has too easily allowed the media to define him to this large group of people who begin to pay attention late in the gaem. These accusations are the negatives anyone can find about him, but if people look close at any candidate, they will find similar statements and policy changes (even from straight talking McCain who argues for amnesty by name and then says he never did want amnesty for illegals). Another related question: Do we really want a candidate that is so sure they are 100% right from square one that they are unwilling to change positions when new information presents itself or an when an internal epiphany occurs which brings a candidate around to a more correct view of old information?
4) It will be interesting to see how Huckabee and McCain's mutual admiration party breaks down now that they are going head to head. It was pretty clear to see that they needed each other to take out Romney. I suspect Huckabee will now begin to dig at McCain somewhat (if not in New Hampshire, undoubtedly in South Caroliina). That's the thanks McCain will get from Huckabee. I may be wrong if they are hoping to become the combined ticket, however.
5) I give Romney about a 10% chance of winning in New Hampshire, 89% to McCain, 1% to someone else (just in case something crazy happens). McCain was leading in polls prior to Iowa, and I doubt Romney can stop the bleeding now. The only way he wins is if Obama's win ciphers enough independents over to the Democratic primary to harm McCain. I'm not sure this will happen in large enough numbers.
6) If Romney loses in New Hampshire, I don't like his chances in Michigan either which went to McCain in 2000. If Romney is 0-3 in the first big contests (would a Wyoming win will overshadow an Iowa loss? Um, no.) I think he's done. It will take nothing short of a miracle in my opinion to right Mitt's ship at this point, and it pains me to write that.
Friday, December 21, 2007
Who do the Democrats fear the most in November...?
From an article posted on Real Clear Politics about Huckabee's ethics problems (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/12/mike_huckabee_little_rock_ethi.html), here is a telling paragraph about who the Democrats want and don't as the Republicans' choice. Just reading between the lines:
"Democrats know it [referring to Huckabee's past ethics problems]. Here's an interesting statistic: Since the beginning of 2007, the Democratic National Committee has released 102 direct attacks on Mitt Romney. Rudy Giuliani has warranted 78; John McCain 68; Fred Thompson 21. Mike Huckabee? Four. The most recent of these landed back in March. GOP voters may not have examined Mr. Huckabee's record, but the left has--and they love what they see."
Attack the most the one you fear the most? Hmmm... This is indeed an interesting statistic!
"Democrats know it [referring to Huckabee's past ethics problems]. Here's an interesting statistic: Since the beginning of 2007, the Democratic National Committee has released 102 direct attacks on Mitt Romney. Rudy Giuliani has warranted 78; John McCain 68; Fred Thompson 21. Mike Huckabee? Four. The most recent of these landed back in March. GOP voters may not have examined Mr. Huckabee's record, but the left has--and they love what they see."
Attack the most the one you fear the most? Hmmm... This is indeed an interesting statistic!
Tuesday, December 18, 2007
A Christmas Carol For Iowa (& other early voting states)
With the fickleness of voters this year and the twists and turns the 2008 presidential election has already taken, I thought it would be appropriate to post a Christmas Carol for early voting states to enjoy. It's not every year that campaigning gets pushed up into the Christmas season and that you have a candidate by the name of Rudolph. Enjoy!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)