THE REF'S NOTEBOOK
Slate's Trailhead Blog: Down with Mitt, Long Live Huck!
I'm guessing you will hear this sentiment frequently. Huckabee will win several states the rest of the way out, but not nearly enough delegates to stop McCain. Even if Huckabee splits the delegates 50/50 McCain will win the nomination.
The Ref | 2/7/08 | Permalink
McCain Tells Critics to 'Calm Down'
Is this the kind of tone deafness we can expect from McCain in the general election? I continue to believe that McCain's surliness and lack of communication skills render him unelectable. McCain will likely turn out to be the worst Republican candidate since Dewey.
The Ref | 2/6/08 | Permalink
What will Rush, Laura and Sean Say Tomorrow?
They will analyze Super Tuesday in some variation of the following.
Is the race over? Simply asking the question gives you a clue, at least in this instance. NO! Romney currently has half the delegates that McCain has. McCain is only half way to the nomination.
While Huckabee had a good night, he did not have a good enough night to take second place in delegates. Huckabee also does not have the backing of many national figures. Romney has talk radio and many of the conservative columnists.
One repeatedly hears pundits predict that they cannot see a credible path to the nomination for anyone but McCain. Why? If Huckabee and Romney stick it out, McCain is going to have a difficult time getting to 1191 delegates. McCain needs Romney or Huckabee to drop out. Neither one will. The three will continue to split states until they are out of states.
Only two winner take all states remain, Virginia and Texas. Huckabee is probably the favorite in Texas and McCain will probably win Virginia. But Romney will pick off some states here and there and take a large number of delegates from the majority of states that distribute delegates by congressional district.
The pundits are right when they say Romney and Huckabee have no credible path to the nomination, but neither does McCain. It's all about persistence. When they ask the question, is the race over? They know the answer . . . only if Romney drops out.
Expect the conservative talk radio hosts to analyze Super Tuesday in the above fashion.
The Ref | 2/6/08 | Permalink
After Romney wins first ballot convincingly, McCain gives West Virginia to Huckabee
McCain did not figuratively give West Virginia to Huckabee, but actually handed it to him. Any remaining skepticism about a McCain-Huckabee partnership has been answered.
But will it help or hurt Huckabee's mission to trip up Romney in the South? The media has reported the fact that Huckabee won West Virginia because of an apparent deal between McCain and Huckabee. Romney has been arguing throughout the South that Huckabee has no chance to win and is simply a stalking horse candidate for McCain. Voters considering voting for Huckabee may not like what they hear out of West Virginia. They may just vote for Romney.
More . . . Romney camp accuses McCain, Huckabee of shady West Virginia deal
The Ref | 2/5/08 | Permalink
Another McCain election eve dirty trick?
Perhaps in an effort to neutralize criticism of McCain from conservative talk radio, the McCain campaign released to the media the fact the Bob Dole sent a private email to Rush Limbaugh urging him to support John McCain. The media has portrayed the email as Dole scolding Limbaugh, which Dole denied doing Monday night on Hannity and Colmes. See Dole scolds Limbaugh, Politico.
It seems obvious that the McCain campaign released this information in an attempt to persuade those Limbaugh might hold sway with that Limbaugh is not acting in the Republican Party's best interest. Limbaugh will respond tomorrow on his radio show.
One cannot escape the temptation to conclude that McCain's campaign saw this as an opportunity to halt the recent Romney surge driven largely by conservative talk radio. It also seems obvious that McCain has no interest in cultivating a better relationship with Limbaugh for the fall election.
The Ref | 2/5/08 | Permalink
William Kristol's Latest - Dyspepsia on the Right
Mr. Kristol writes, "The conservative movement as a whole appears disgruntled and dyspeptic." He is correct. He also went on to write that if conservatives do not back McCain a Democrat will win the presidency and probably have a Democratic Congress to work with.
He reasons that nothing could be worse for conservatives. When one considers, however, what happened the last time Democrats held the White House and Congress, he or she might doubt Mr. Kristol's disaster scenario for conservatives. Such an alignment of liberalism in Washington D.C. will clear the decks, something the conservative movement might very well need after eight years of a big spending Bush administration.
Mr. Kristol, along with Senator McCain, are betting that conservatives so detest Hillary Clinton that they will hold their noses and vote for McCain. This assumes facts not in evidence. First, it looks like Hillary may just lose to Obama. In a McCain-Obama fight, Obama will likely win because he has his base and the Independents. At least Romney would have the base behind him and would have a chance with Independents, probably a better chance than McCain has getting conservatives. Second, if Hillary is the opponent conservatives might opt for a clearing of the decks because it could lead to another 1994.
The Ref | 2/4/08 | Permalink
One cannot tune into Special Report with Brit Hume or Fox News Sunday without hearing either Fred Barnes, Bill Kristol or Charles Krauthammer declaring Mitt Romney dead. Certainly he is behind, but to repeatedly say "It's too late," or "McCain's lead is insurmountable," indicates a clear McCain bias.
If this year has taught us anything it is that the polls are not always reliable and those who we considered politically dead were not dead at all. Fred Barnes in particular has made his bias for McCain obvious. Even Brit Hume suggests that Romney should simply hang it up after Super Tuesday's certain trouncing. Why don't we just wait and see what happens on Tuesday. Romney very well might win substantially more delegates than Fox News conservatives anticipate. One thing is clear, the conservatives at Fox News, with the exception of Sean Hannity, are backing John McCain.
The Ref | 2/4/08 | Permalink
Huckabee Gives McCain the Advantage
DETAILED ANALYSIS OF SUPER TUESDAY STATES
Huckabee cannot win the nomination because he does not contend against McCain in blue states even without Romney in the race. Romney could win or contend in the blue states absent Huckabee's presence in the race. Unlike in blue states, however, Huckabee polls well in the South and even leads in critical winner take all Georgia. It is in the South and in some states in the Midwest where Huckabee undermines Romney the most and threatens to hand the nomination to McCain.
Upon examining the Super Tuesday state polls one cannot escape the conclusion that absent Huckabee's presence in the race Romney would win the majority of delegates on February 5th. Huckabee bleeds a great deal of conservative support from Romney in all Super Tuesday states. Nine states in particular, where Romney would otherwise win vital winner take all states and a majority of congressional districts, most clearly tell the tale.
Missouri and Georgia represent the two states where Huckabee undermines Romney the most. Without Huckabee in the race these two winner take all states would go to Romney and almost completely offset McCain’s certain wins in New York and New Jersey.
As for Georgia Huckabee leads there but Romney lies only five points back. Romney would win Georgia without Huckabee in the race and take its seventy-two delegates in the winner take all state, largely countering McCain’s New York win.
McCain barely leads Huckabee in Missouri and outpaces Romney by nine points. Huckabee takes 26% of the votes in the polls. Romney would likely eliminate the gap between himself and McCain and win the state's fifty-eight winner take all delegates without Huckabee in the race. One quarreling with this assumption ignores the fact that McCain is coming close to maximizing his vote as demonstrated by exit polls in Florida that showed conservatives overwhelmingly voted for Romney and Huckabee.
Huckabee’s second most significant blow to Romney comes in California. Romney only trails McCain by seven points there while Huckabee polls at 10.5%. Absent Huckabee Romney would inherit most of his votes and likely split the state with McCain, although probably losing the at-large bonus delegates. Despite losing the state Romney would take a large number of delegates from California and put a major dent in McCain’s blue state delegate tally.
In Alabama, Illinois, Minnesota, Tennessee and Oklahoma, Romney would either win the majority of delegates or come in a close second without Huckabee’s presence in the race. All of these states distribute delegates on a somewhat proportional basis, meaning second place matters.
First, in Alabama McCain's support is likely not to rise much above 30%. Huckabee barely trails McCain there and Romney lays ten points back. Without Huckabee Romney would likely split the vote with McCain and maybe win the state taking a majority of the proportional at-large bonus delegates. Even if McCain won the state, Romney would still take substantially more delegates than he will with Huckabee running.
Second, Romney would split Illinois's delegates with McCain absent Huckabee where now he stands to take at best a fourth of the Illinois delegates. Third, in Minnesota where delegates are awarded proportionally, Romney would split the state with McCain. Fourth, Oklahoma continues the trend. Huckabee takes a large portion of the Oklahoma vote, barely trailing McCain. Romney would take more districts and win the at large bonus without Huckabee in the race. Fifth, In Tennessee Romney would take the majority of the proportionally awarded delegates.
Finally, in states where polls are not available, specifically Arkansas, Alaska, Montana, North Dakota and West Virginia, Romney would likely win each state if Huckabee did not run. With Huckabee in the race McCain might win a few or even most of those states.
Huckabee supporters will argue that Romney is stealing the race from Huckabee, but Huckabee shows no or very little strength in blue states and finished poorly in Florida and New Hampshire. This failure to appeal nationally represents the reason why one can fairly label Huckabee, and not Romney, the spoiler for conservatives.
Simply put, Huckabee splits the conservative vote with Romney thus handing McCain a substantial majority of Super Tuesday delegates. All is not lost, however, for Romney. Even with Huckabee in the race Romney may end up with 300 to 400 delegates after Super Tuesday while McCain will probably end up with 700 to 800 total delegates. A contender must earn 1191 delegates to win the nomination.
If Huckabee drops out after Super Tuesday or conservatives unite behind Romney, Romney would still stand a chance of winning the nomination. McCain, at that point, would still need 400 to 500 delegates to secure the nomination. One thing is certain, however, Huckabee represents the only reason McCain has a chance in this nomination race. In a two way race, as demonstrated by McCain’s narrow leads over either Romney or Huckabee in a large number of states and the exit polls showing conservatives mostly splitting their votes between Huckabee and Romney, Romney would win the nomination.
The Ref | 2/1/08 | Permalink
McCain fared poorly in contrast with Romney
Yes, Huckabee and Paul were in the debate but the spoke very little.
McCain got his facts wrong several times tonight, specifically when he attacked Romney. He cited statistics that were incorrectly calculated regarding Romney's record. Romney corrected the record and McCain looked stunned that his facts were wrong.
Viewers were repeatedly reminded that many conservatives oppose him, including Rush Limbaugh's statement that his nomination will destroy the Republican Party.
McCain, when asked if he would vote on his original immigration bill, refused to answer. He said repeatedly, "it won't come up." He clearly believes in his immigration bill even now. Saying it won't be voted on looks like he's trying to get away with something. But if he believes in his bill he could not simply answer the question outright because Republicans hate his bill.
The audience was reminded by a questioner that he said the Bush tax cuts favored the wealthy too much, the same ones he wants to make permanent now.
Finally, when confronted over his distortion of Romney's statement McCain pointed to another statement by Romney where he refused to comment on the surge when he was Governor of Massachusetts. This came after Romney received an obviously sincere ovation from the crowd after he corrected the record. Romney clearly won this point. McCain looked petty.
It is difficult to see why a significant number of Republicans think McCain is more erectable than Romney. Conservatives very likely will not show up to vote for him in great enough numbers to win the general election.
The Ref | 1/30/08 | Permalink
Ref's Call: Romney Needs a Hail Mary Pass
Conservatives have expressed their dissatisfaction with Romney as their standard bearer by not voting in large enough numbers to deliver wins for him. Certainly Romney has the disadvantage of losing votes to Huckabee, but a strong conservative candidate would win in this three way race.
Conservative talk radio expressed its frustration today. Laura Ingraham said that Romney is missing something. She could not put her finger on it but did so indirectly when she stressed that he needs to draw a clearer contrast between himself and McCain ideologically.
Romney is missing more than one thing, more like four. For Romney to win he needs to aggressively draw an ideological contrast in tonight's debate, debunk McCain's argument that he can better beat Hillary Clinton and paint Huckabee strictly as a spoiler. He also needs to show a bit more humanity.
First, conservatives are looking for a leader. He can only fill that role if he embraces their causes with passion, not just by listing his conservative positions. He should make crystal clear statements on the subjects of abortion, taxes and immigration. These statements should be so stark that they create controversy and generate substantial attention. This will create hostility toward Romney but it might win over the conservatives in enough numbers to defeat McCain.
Second, McCain's electability argument ignores major problems for his candidacy. Under close scrutiny McCain will not look so appealing to Independents when they focus on the conservative components of his record. McCain cannot rely on conservatives, however, because they do not trust him. McCain is stuck in between groups which will undermine his electability. Romney needs to clearly make these points.
Third, Romney needs to undermine Huckabee's candidacy. If Huckabee remains a factor to any substantial degree, Romney will lose the nomination to McCain. Romney trails in too many states because of the conservative vote split with Huckabee to not take him on. To do this Romney should again make a very strong and perhaps controversial statement, such as Huckabee is doing McCain's dirty work. Again this will create controversy, but Romney needs to move votes now.
Last, Romney needs to relax a bit and look less scripted. The "he comes from central casting" comment is only a compliment if that's your first impression. If it remains your impression then you believe you are watching a phony.
If Romney delivers his standard CEO like presentation in tonight's debate and over the week to come he will lose. If he speaks with sincerity and passion about the issues conservatives care about and colorfully highlights the parts of McCain's record that conservatives disagree with him on, he will have a chance. Bottom line, Romney needs a Hail Mary pass.
The Ref | 1/30/08 | Permalink
Conservative verses Liberal Media: McCain relies on old allies, but it will probably backfire
As chronicled below, Tim Russert allowed McCain to get away with his dishonest attack on Romney on Meet the Press Sunday. Unfortunately for McCain, Meet the Press airs on Sunday and the Florida primary is on Tuesday. That means Monday separates the two.
As Rich Lowry's article on National Review Online demonstrates, McCain's attack will lead to a heartburn inspiring Monday for McCain as the conservative media attempts to correct the record. Lowry writes, "I have a hard time imagining McCain making this kind of dishonest accusation against a Democrat—it would be uncivil and dishonorable. But making it against a fellow Republican running to his right? No problem." See McCain's Dishonest Attack.
One can only guess at the manner with which Rush Limbaugh attacks McCain on Monday for his false attack on Romney, but one need not guess as to whether or not he will do it along with the rest of the conservative talk radio world.
McCain's allies simply do not possess much credibility with a large portion of the mostly conservative electorate that will vote on Tuesday in Florida. He has two built in advantages, the elderly and veterans both tend to like McCain. McCain's manic Monday to come, however, just may turn some of them off too.
McCain's internal polls must have indicated that he had fallen behind because surely he knew that making this attack on Romney represented a risk. Perhaps the risk will pay off, but one must question whether McCain anticipated the anger the move would cause among conservatives. Certainly some conservatives who were leaning toward Giuliani and Huckabee may just reconsider. We will find out on Tuesday.
The Ref | 1/27/08 | Permalink
McCain Distorts Romney's Words on Meet the Press
McCain has stated that Mitt Romney was in favor of timetables for withdrawal from Iraq over the last two days. He based this statement on a Romney quote from a Good Morning America interview on April 3, 2007. The full quote and video follow.
Question: Do you believe that there should be a timetable in withdrawing the troops?
Romney: There's no question but that the president and prime minister al-Maliki have to have a series of timetables and milestones that they speak about, but those shouldn't be for public pronouncement. You don't want the enemy to understand how long they have to wait in the weeds until you're going to be gone. You want to have a series of things you want to see accomplished in terms of the strength of the Iraqi military and the Iraqi police and the leadership of the Iraqi government.
Question: So private, you wouldn't do it publicly because the president has said flat out that he will veto anything the Congress passes about a timetable for troop withdrawals. As president, would you do the same?
Romney: Well of course, can you imagine the setting where during the second World War we said to the Germans, gee if we haven't reached the Rhine by this date why we'll go home, or if we haven't gotten this accomplished we'll pull up and leave. You don't publish that to your enemy or they just simply lie in wait until that time. So of course you have to work together to create timetables and milestones but you don't do that with the opposition.
Russert allowed McCain to quote only the first part of Romney's comment where he said that the president and prime minister al-Maliki should have their own private timetables and milestones. A fair questioner would have then cited the rest of Romney's comments where he took the same firm position against timetables for withdrawal that President Bush held. The quote follows:
Russert: Governor Romney said he never suggested a specific timetable. You're being dishonest. You should apologize.
McCain: I see, well you flash these on the screen all the time, let me just, let me just see. He was asked, 'Should there be a timetable for withdrawing the troops.' 'Well there's no question but that the president and prime minister al-Maliki have to have a series of timetables and milestones that they speak about, but they shouldn't be for public pronouncement. You don't want the enemy to understand how long they have to wait in the weeds until you're going to be gone."
When Russert asked McCain if Romney was waiving the white flag of surrender and suggesting surrender McCain would not answer the question directly. Instead he mentioned Hillary Clinton's timetable and seemed to try to equate what Romney said with what Hillary said.
Clearly McCain is trying to sell the notion that Romney was for the kind of timetable that Hillary Clinton is for. McCain knows that this is false which is why he hedged when Russert asked him directly if Romney was for surrender.
Russert should have, however, brought out the full quote from the GMA interview. Meet the Press is famous for its quotes. It seems that they did not want the full quote on their show. We will provide the video when it becomes available.
The Ref | 1/27/08 | Permalink
Refs Call: Obama Needed an Edwards Second Place Finish
Winning South Carolina is not enough for Barack Obama to stem the tide of Hillary's momentum toward the nomination. Absent an Edwards second place finish in South Carolina, Hillary's huge leads in the big states will remain.
Although most Democratic primaries and caucuses award delegates proportionally, where the second place finisher collects a percentage of delegates proportional to their percentage of the vote, Obama will need more than second place finishes in coming states to secure the nomination.
Not only will he need more than second place finishes, he also cannot afford to lose by 25 points in Florida, 24 points in New York, 14 points in New Jersey and 15 points in California, the margins by which Hillary leads in those states in the Ref's Averages. Such lopsided defeats will give Hillary the nomination. Although Florida had its delegates taken away by the DNC for scheduling an early primary, by the way, the Committee will likely restore those delegates or a portion of them come convention time.
To shrink those Hillary leads and also to pick off a few big states of for himself, Obama needed the Democratic base to seriously question her candidacy. A loss to John Edwards, a now woefully performing candidate nationwide, would have caused Democrats to question Hillary's electability enough to switch to Obama in the later states. As it turned out South Carolina will represent nothing more than a footnote on the way to the big states that will put Hillary in command on February 5th.
The Ref | 1/27/08 | Permalink
Ref's Call: Who is More Electable, McCain or Romney?
If one looks at the current head to head polls he or she will find that McCain beats Hillary while Romney loses to her by a substantial margin. Four reasons explain why McCain's superior performance in the head to head polls today does not translate into rendering him the superior candidate for the Republicans.
First, name recognition gives McCain an advantage over Romney. While we political junkies like to think that most people pay close attention to politics, most do not. When Romney receives media coverage for a prolonged period of time more people will know him and his poll numbers against Democrats will naturally increase.
Second, voter turnout, as in every election, will determine the winner. While McCain performs well among those called at home by pollsters, he must rely on fickle Independents and conservatives, who do not believe McCain shares their values, to actually turn out and elect him. Turnout represents the trickiest calculation of any pollster and one can reasonably assume that McCain, a man who straddles political groups, will poll better than his actual vote. Hillary will have a strong core of liberals and women. Her opponent must posses a strong core of support and McCain does not have one.
Third, superficial matters make a difference in presidential politics. Americans have not concentrated much on the candidates and when they do McCain might not stand up well to close scrutiny because of his age. When one considers the contrast between McCain and Obama he or she sees that McCain looks old and disconnected from young people. While this fact makes us uncomfortable, it nevertheless moves votes.
Fourth, McCain admits he possesses weaknesses in an economic discussion. Romney will dominate economic debates. Iraq will likely continue to fade in importance in the fall while the economy will dominate the discussion. Romney compares favorably against Clinton and Obama on economic issues while McCain draws even at best.
Romney, although he trails in the head to head polls, likely represents a more electable candidate for Republicans for the above reasons. Republican voters in Florida and around the nation will elevate the electability question above most other issues in the coming days. Whether they consider Romney or McCain more electable will probably determine the winner. Romney, despite the current polls, represents the more electable candidate because of his age and appearance, his strength on the economy and his stronger connection with the Republican base.
The Ref | 1/27/08 | Permalink
____________________________________
WATCH FOR ROMNEY BUMP IN FLORIDA
Two groundbreaking developments Tuesday made Mitt Romney the favorite in the Florida primary. First, Mike Huckabee acknowledged that a money shortage has substantially curtailed his effort in Florida. Huckabee has essentially conceded Florida by not advertising in the state and making only "token" stops at airports for campaign events. Huckabee, Short on Cash, Curtails Effort in Florida - NYT. Second, Fred Thompson withdrew from the race.
Romney stands to benefit from Huckabee's acknowledgment that his efforts are nominal in Florida. Huckabee's Florida supporters now know that he will not win the race. Many of his supporters will look for someone else to support because many voters want to vote for a winner. Huckabee's supporters are largely conservative Evangelicals so it makes sense that they will choose among candidates taking the most conservative policy stands, either Thompson or Romney.
Thompson, however, has dropped out of the race. The majority of Huckabee's Florida supporters will, therefore, vote for Romney. Thompson supporters, furthermore, might have voted for Huckabee. Now that Huckabee has acknowledged his efforts are minimal and that he cannot win there, Thompson supporters will not head for Huckabee's camp, but Romney's.
Watch the Florida polls in the coming days with date ranges beginning on January 23rd. One can expect that Romney will pull ahead in these polls as Thompson is dropped from the list and the Huckabee concession settles in the state's political consciousness. The Ref - Jan. 23, 2008
____________________________________
The Republicans can count on a large number of close elections in the coming days. Whenever a close election occurs, a spoiler usually exists. Ron Paul, although in the single digits in most states, will pull voters away from someone.
So exactly who does Ron Paul hurt? First one must determine the type of voter that gravitates toward Ron Paul. One could fairly argue that most Ron Paul supporters are Republicans who hold ultra-conservative foreign policy views typical of pre-World War II Republicans. In other words, they oppose military intervention absent attack. They combine this older conservative foreign policy view with libertarian social and economic views.
No Republican candidate closely resembles Paul in terms of his positions. McCain, Giuliani and Romney have all taken strong stances in favor of the Iraq war. Huckabee is perceived as a person willing to spend money. Numerous other major differences exist. The political positions taken by the major Republican candidates simply would not compel Paul voters to vote for them.
Not all Ron Paul voters, however, are motivated purely by the issues. Some voters gravitate toward renegade type candidates and Ron Paul is their patron saint. These people like to prod the establishment simply for the joy of doing it. If Ron Paul were not running would any of the remaining candidates stand to inherit these renegade voters? Yes, John McCain.
While the percentage of voters motivated to come out for a renegade for the sake of it may be small, perhaps one to two percent of the overall vote in a primary, that may be enough to swing a close election. John McCain very well might owe any close losses to Ron Paul. The Ref - Jan. 22, 2008
____________________________________
Barack Obama shocked many when he said the following of Ronald Reagan: "He tapped into what people were already feeling, which was, ‘We want clarity, we want optimism, we want, you know, a return to that sense of dynamism and entrepreneurship that had been missing.’”
John Edwards apparently filled with shock upon hearing these words as evidenced by his own words. According to the New York Times Edwards said, "“When you think about what Ronald Reagan did to the American people, to the middle class, to the working people . . . (he) created a tax structure that favored the very wealthiest Americans and caused the middle class and working people to struggle every single day.” Edwards Attacks Obama for View of Reagan, NYT, 1/18/08.
Why did Obama shock people when spoke positively of Reagan? Shock resulted because the far left has linked Reagan to all of the perceived evils of corporate America such as greed, racism, sexism and blind American superiority. The words of Edwards demonstrate this link clearly.
Ostensibly Obama aims to truly change the course of this nation. Edwards responded in reactionary fashion. Obama's words manifest a vision that relies less on class and racial antagonism and more on cultivating a shared American identity. Whether that vision survives the campaign and can win in such a hostile Democratic environment, however, remain major questions.
But if Obama genuinely attempts to bridge the divide in action as well as in rhetoric, he represents a potential force that can genuinely shape America's future. Obama must do more than speak the language of optimism to enact this change, but must face down the race and class demagogues that attempt to dominate the Democratic Party. The Ref - Jan. 18, 2008
____________________________________
HARDBALL ATTEMPTS TO CREATE ITS OWN REALITY
Hardball consistently stretches the truth or deliberately states untruths to push its agenda. Chris Matthews has made no secret of his support for Barack Obama or his disgust with Mitt Romney and the entire Republican field with the exception of McCain.
Tonight Hardball's chief correspondent David Schuster, presumably a reporter, described Romney’s reaction to a question from a reporter as an eruption. Romney's reaction resembled nothing like an eruption, but merely a slightly annoyed but calm response. See the video here.
This instance of media bias represents a perfect example of the kind of distortion that makes many of us skeptical of the media. Chris Matthews is a commentator but David Schuster is not. Hardball regularly masks commentary as reporting. It is this practice to which we object. The Ref - Jan. 17, 2008
Also, Chris Matthews Admits He Went Too Far in Criticizing Hillary: Matthews: I Wronged Clinton With Remark - Newsmax, AP | 1/17/08
____________________________________
Now that Romney has won Michigan we know he will remain a competitor in the race until at least February 5th, Super Tuesday. We cannot say the same of any other Republican hopeful because they all need wins to raise money and remain competitive.
Because Romney represents the one constant we can reach two major conclusions. First, Romney will benefit from the South Carolina primary regardless of who wins. While some believe that Romney's chief competitor is McCain, he actually loses more votes to Huckabee and Thompson. Both Huckabee and Thompson receive primarily votes of conservatives who would likely split more toward Romney than McCain.
If McCain wins South Carolina and Huckabee finishes in second place, Thompson will likely drop out and Huckabee will be substantially weakened. As a result Romney will gain some votes from both Thompson and Huckabee. McCain, however, will gain few votes from other candidates until Giuliani drops out.
The second conclusion we can reach is that McCain must win conservative votes to win the nomination. He is in the same battle for conservatives in which Romney, Huckabee and Thompson are engaged. Conservatives rule the Republican Party and they will decide who takes the nomination. Michigan represented McCain's most favorable remaining state because of its loose voting rules. The remaining calendar features mostly states that allow only Republicans to vote for the Republican nomination. Losing Michigan hurt McCain significantly.
The one major remaining question is who can win the conservative vote? Once a candidate receiving conservative votes drops out, probably Thompson, those voters will go somewhere. McCain must take a sizable portion of them to stop Romney. The next big race, therefore, is South Carolina. Watch where Thompson finishes. If he finishes third or below the race for the newly freed up conservatives begins. McCain has not fared well with conservatives in the past. We will see if he or Romney can win them. For now, watch South Carolina. The Ref - Jan. 15, 2008
____________________________________
The debate over Bill Clinton's comments has gotten out of hand. It seems that the argument will come to an end after the Nevada Democratic debate where Obama and Hillary agreed that they will put it behind them. Hopefully the parties they represent will allow it to die.
The controversy highlights the new political variables that now exist because a black candidate has a legitimate shot at winning a major party's nomination. These new variables present an opportunity to put a great deal of racial tension behind us, but also present the risk of inflaming them as well.
It serves no person or group well when the media or a candidate decides to use the race card. Certainly the media deserves some blame in this case as does Senator Obama's campaign, as Senator Obama acknowledged in Tuesday's debate by agreeing that his campaign had attempted to push the story.
Perhaps this will be the last time during the nomination process when racial tension flares so significantly. If it happens again the Democrats are on their way back to 1968 when the tensions within the party manifested into riots at the national convention. The Ref - Jan. 15, 2008
On Friday Romney said of Michigan, "If we can’t win here, we can’t win anywhere." It seems that Romney listened to the pundits. As I wrote in the last Ref's Call, Romney probably does not need to win Michigan to remain a serious contender for the Republican nomination.
Michigan, like Iowa and New Hampshire, allows Independents to vote. Although in Michigan Democrats are also allowed to vote. Michigan sets up perfectly for McCain, a more middle of the road candidate on the issues.
Unless Romney has made some tortured calculation to the effect that he must make his supporters realize that this is the last stand to properly motivate them, it seems that he simply misunderstands where he is in the race.
Romney's real competition is Fred Thompson. If he can outlast Fred Thompson in this race he stands to win quite a few states where only Republicans can vote. Perhaps Romney knows this and, as mentioned before, is simply trying to convey the notion that this is an important election.
Regardless of the reason, when pundits are foaming at the mouth for your scalp it is never a good idea to give them words to hang you with. The Ref - Jan. 11, 2008
MEDIA NEEDS REALITY CHECK: Romney Not Out if he Loses Michigan
The pundits declared Iowa and New Hampshire must win states for Romney. He won neither state yet he is the delegate leader.
Delegate leader? Yes, delegate leader. In a race for delegates, delegates are what matter, not the number of wins a candidate amasses. One would think many of the pundits do not know this basic fact.
Romney has made it clear that he will not drop out of the race. He will run in all fifty states. He does not need the media to prop him up to raise money because he already has more money than any other candidate has or will have.
Why does the media continue to predict Romney's demise? Perhaps the fact that the conservative establishment supports him represents the reason.
Regardless of the reason the predictions will be premature until February 5th at the earliest no matter what happens in Michigan. Bottom line, if Romney leads in delegates or is somewhere near the top after February 5th he is very much in the game.
Pundits that say candidates are finished after one, two, or even five states this year fail to account for the open nature of the Republican race. News channels' need to fill a great deal of time does not justify the incompetent political analysis we have seen lately. We have seen far too much of it this year. The Ref - Jan. 9, 2008
First Evidence of Faux Support for a Black Candidate in This Race
One of the consistent problems in polling on a black candidate are respondents who say they will vote for a black candidate but fail to when in the privacy of the voting booth. Some strange force seems to grasp some respondents that compels them to voice support for a black candidate when they do not intend to vote for him or her.
Certainly the polls have not been supremely accurate during this election cycle, but no polls have been so uniformly wrong than those that predicted a large Obama victory in New Hampshire.
The force that compels the false response seems to rely on a lurking desire to please the pollster. Perhaps the high profile of polling in US politics is to blame. Even those who shun politics and only hear political conversations secondhand in bars or restaurants have heard the familiar refrain, "I don't know who they're polling. I've never been called."
It is true. Very few potential voters actually receive calls from pollsters. So when one receives a call from a pollster who will report these results nationwide there might be a bit of nervousness that arises built on the desire not to look foolish or backward.
Perhaps this is the reason that so many who said they would vote for Obama apparently did not. Maybe when they entered the voting booth without any desire to please another, but with only a sense of duty to do what they think is right, they voted for Hillary instead of Obama.
These people are not racists but merely human. When so much attention is paid by the media to the wonder of a black man seriously contending for the presidential nomination, it is not surprising that some poll respondents respond in a way that they assume the pollster wants them to.
Certainly other explanations may account for some of the disparity between the polls and the actual result, but some voters who told pollsters they would vote for Obama did not and probably never intended to. The Ref - Jan. 8, 2008
Pundits Show Remarkable Shortsightedness
One cannot tune into a news channel or read a newspaper without finding predictions of Hillary's complete demise if she loses New Hampshire. Unfortunately for Hillary haters, the conventional rules for the early primaries do not apply.
Pundits may very well be more concerned with ratings and circulation than reality, but their conclusion that Obama can finish Hillary off by winning the first three states ignores reality. Here is reality.
The Clinton machine is massive and powerful. In 1992 Bill Clinton did not win until Georgia and they have that built in narrative to fall back on. Clinton leads in every state but the first three by sizable margins. Finally, the first three primaries will have much less impact on the rest of the nation because they take place over a much shorter period of time than ever before.
While pundits rush to declare Obama the victor, Clinton waits for the day when they declare her back from the dead. What better way to redefine yourself than by coming back from the dead? Make no mistake about it, Hillary Clinton, even if she loses New Hampshire and South Carolina, will be very much alive. If you doubt that simply refer to the Ref's National Poll Averages.
Do not misread me. I have no desire for Hillary or any other candidate to win. But to declare her dead after three primaries simply ignores reality, this year at least. The Ref - Jan. 6, 2008
McCain Not Helped by Obama's Victory
McCain will suffer from Obama's big Iowa victory. If Hillary had won McCain would have less competition for the Independent vote from Obama in New Hampshire. Obama, in that case, would have been counted out for the most part.
Now that Obama is the big story coming out of Iowa, McCain can expect to lose a substantial portion of his vote to Obama. Obama bought himself about one-third of the political headlines over the next four days, many of which might have gone to McCain.
If Romney can capture the majority of the conservative vote, McCain may not have enough Independents to fend him off. Thompson's numbers in New Hampshire are paltry so Romney will probably carry the conservative standard there.
Obama's victory forces McCain to get in and fight hard for some of the conservatives Romney will rely on. Certainly New Hampshire is a heavily Independent state, but there are only so many Independents to go around. Obama won a huge chunk of those Independents tonight. McCain will have to fight hard to win some of them back. The Ref - Jan. 4, 2008
No candidate has spent more time in Iowa than John Edwards. If he finishes third place tonight it will hurt him, and probably end his legitimate chances of winning the nomination, even if it is only by a few points.
Simply put, if Edwards loses it will not be for lack of exposure in the state, but because his candidacy has been rejected. Edwards performs better in Iowa polls than in any other state. If he loses in Iowa he cannot win anywhere.
If Edwards realizes that he is finished he may very well drop out. If he does then the anti-Hillary vote will no longer be split. Obama will become the only legitimate alternative. Hillary's double-digit leads in most Super Tuesday states could disappear overnight.
Perhaps Hillary will make it worth Edwards's while to remain in the race. Perhaps she might offer Edwards the VP nomination if he remains in the race to split the anti-Hillary vote, off the record of course.
Tonight, therefore, means a great deal. It could determine whether Hillary has a legitimate challenger in every state in Obama if he is not forced to compete with Edwards or perhaps the identity of our next Vice President.
Of course if Hillary wins, as the Ref's averages suggest that she might, Hillary ends both Obama's and Edwards's legitimate chances for the nomination and effectively becomes the nominee. The Ref - Jan. 3
Huckabee is challenging in Iowa and South Carolina. Huckabee has no chance in New Hampshire. If Huckabee loses Iowa the best Huckabee could hope for is winning one of the first three.
But if Huckabee loses tonight the opposition to his candidacy by the conservative media will probably finish off his hopes in South Carolina too. No other Republican candidate faces such strong opposition by the conservative media.
Huckabee is under siege and simply cannot afford to suffer a chink in his armor. Huckabee must win tonight to keep the train rolling. The Ref - Jan. 3
Obama's Best Allies? Romney Victories
According to the polls in most states but Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina, the Democratic Party has firmly set sail for Clinton country. Obama may pull off the early upsets but the wins may amount to nothing more than a strong headwind that ultimately does not matter.
Whether Obama can turn the ship depends entirely on the degree of impact of the early wins. If he wins only Iowa the Clinton momentum will not be stopped. If he wins Iowa and New Hampshire it gets interesting. If he then takes South Carolina maybe the massive leads Hillary holds in most states will be diminished and the tide will begin to shift.
Like any resistance a ship faces Obama needs the counter wind to be as strong and last as long as possible to shift the course of the Democratic Party. The problem for Obama is that he is facing a strongly entrenched opposition, or to torture the analogy a bit more, a massive ocean liner full of wealthy Hillary supporters, and more importantly, women.
Identity politics has long played an important role in Democratic races. It may be the case that Obama simply cannot persuade enough women that they should vote against their gender.
Considering that the early states are voting in a compressed time period winning those contests may amount to merely a footnote this time around. External factors will play a more significant role in determining Obama's fate, specifically the media and Republican race.
If Romney and Huckabee split the early states the interest those contests engender will likely prevent Obama from creating the perfect media storm he needs. If Romney can win Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina, and Obama can do the same, Obama will be the bigger story and he will get wall to wall coverage. No other Republican candidate can win all three contests.
So if one wants Obama to win the Democratic nomination, he or she might want to root for Romney. The Ref - Jan. 1
Bhutto's Assassination Might Hurt Huckabee and Obama
In American politics the events that occur overseas generally only matter if they dominate the news cycle for at least twenty-four hours. If the story lasts for more than three days because of demand for the story, as opposed to media driven interest, the story will begin to have a major impact for as long as the story lasts. If the story becomes an issue of constant fascination it can change the American political landscape.
The assassination of Benazir Bhutto, while tragic, will likely not prove to impact the American primaries significantly. The story will probably fade by the time Americans go to work on Tuesday morning. The horserace will take over the news cycle on Tuesday and dominate until the caucuses on Thursday.
One can imagine, however, a different scenario where pockets of voters focus on the Bhutto story more than the rest of us and change their vote because of it. Voters who have underestimated the significance of terrorism in the newly elected president’s next term may be reminded of it and reevaluate their options.
In the Democratic race one might imagine that some Iowa voters have strayed from Hillary and to Obama because they are uncomfortable with her less than zealous opposition to the Iraq war. Perhaps some voters on the periphery might defect from Obama in favor of Hillary's somewhat more hawkish approach. Hillary is not hawkish except when compared to Obama. They might do this because the Bhutto story reminds them that we live in a dangerous world.
On the Republican side one might imagine that Huckabee stands to lose the most as a result of the story. He is perceived to be softer on terrorism than Giuliani, McCain and Romney because of his distancing himself from the Bush "bunker mentality." This story reminds Iowa voters that terrorism is a danger we must deal with.
This story might aid Romney is drawing the contrast between his Huckabee's approaches to terrorism. This in conjunction with the attack on Huckabee from conservative talk radio might be enough to swing Iowa to Romney. The Ref - Dec. 28, 2007
Why Huckabee Cannot Last 
| Start the Clock
So now the Huck has bowed to the king of the conservative movement and said please, call me and let me explain. When Huckabee openly asked Limbaugh to call him he accomplished two things, he will probably get the call and he acknowledged that Rush has been hurting him politically.
What has Rush said? He said that Huckabee is too liberal on most issues other than social issues. I am not sure how talking with Rush can ease that condemnation among conservatives.
Huckabee's problem is the opposite of Obama's, his record. Count on the Romney attacks to start scoring big soon because no novelty can survive well supported claims of soft on criminals, illegal immigration and tax raiser charges in the Republican Party.
Romney has done what Huckabee has not, exorcized his demons, or at least attempted to on the issue of abortion. Huckabee still pretends to have never backed liberal policies. A voter will sooner back someone who has "strayed" and admitted their error than someone who simply refuses to admit any error at all. The question, therefore, becomes whether enough Republican primary voters believe Huckabee has made mistakes.
Now that Limbaugh has identified Huckabee as a liberal on too many issues the answer to that question is probably yes. The loudest voice on radio is an enormous voice in the Republican primaries. With Rush out until January 2nd, Huckabee is stuck with Rush's last assessment, and that will probably be enough to keep Huckabee from winning more than one state, if he even pulls off a win in Iowa.
Limbaugh has created an impression that simply will not subside by January 3rd. He will probably reiterate his dislike of Huckabee when he returns. It's hard to see how a Republican wins a narrow vote with Rush against him. If he manages to win Iowa I doubt he will win South Carolina or any other state, unless he can eliminate the perception that he has liberal tendencies. The Ref - Dec. 26
The Question Hillary Didn't Want Asked 
| Safety
It's been said often, Hillary has a strategy of inevitability. But now that Obama has taken the lead in Iowa in the Ref's Poll Averages and in New Hampshire in some polls, that strategy seems to have failed.
Certainly she wanted to ride the veil of inevitability as far as possible, and she's done that. There is no question that she no longer seems inevitable, although she may still be. Her advantage among women in the Democratic Party, a party dominated by women, may yet prove to make her unbeatable.
Regardless of how unbeatable she may be the Clintons have to assume the worst. Because the Clintons are now afraid you can expect the hardnosed campaign to begin drawing a clear contrast. In other words, Obama had better watch out.
Expect the Clinton campaign to drive the experience point home and to be aggressive in doing so. The Clinton campaign will attack Obama in inverse proportion to the size of her lead in the polls. Be watchful because we may witness some of the most memorable ads and attacks of the coming election year over the next seventeen days.
The Clinton campaign will do these things because the question they didn't want asked, is Hillary really inevitable, has been asked everywhere and the answer is no.
The Ron Paul Factor 
| Zeroing in on the Play
Ron Paul's performance in the polls does not suggest that he will contend in any of the primaries. But with one of the most loyal bases in the primaries on either side, Ron Paul can certainly be a factor in the general election if he carries on beyond the primaries.
Ron Paul has said he will not run as an Independent. The Libertarians, however, have said they would accept him as their nominee. See Libertarians Tackle the Ron Paul Dilemma. But I would be surprised if Paul decided to run as a Libertarian.
If Ron Paul were to run with any party he would present a problem for the Republican nominee. One must assume that a substantial portion of Paul's vote will vote Republican if he does not run. It is difficult to say what considerations will weigh in on Paul's decision or if the impact a Paul run will have on the Republicans will be a major factor in his decision.
So the question is not will he win the Republican nomination because the polls suggest that he will not, but will he run on a third party ticket. Paul says no right now. We'll see. With the kind of passionate support he receives from his base he could certainly fund a respectable third party run.
Why the Old Rules Do Not Apply | Start the Clock
Repeatedly one hears the pundits say, if Rudy doesn't win any of the first four states he's finished, he can't win. That is not true.
Typically this would be true but two facts combine to make this year the one that bucks the trend. First, the early primaries take place over a week whereas before they ruminated for at least a month.
Because there will be less time to ponder the implications of New Hampshire, Iowa and South Carolina they will have less air time and less impact.
Second, the overwhelming concern for national security prevalent in the Republican Party makes Rudy a strong candidate in every state that is not dominated by social conservatives. Because blue state delegates carry just as much weight as red state delegates, the early states simply do not have as much impact.
Iowa and New Hampshire are not Bible belt states but enough conservatives exist in the states to make it difficult for Giuliani to win. Romney, and now Huckabee, have successfully drawn that contrast.
But in the rest of the states where not nearly as much attention is paid they have not done that. So Giuliani will have the ability to ignore the early states and ride the national security issue predominance to wins in plenty of later states.
For those pundits who consistently say Rudy can't sit out the first week, you need to buy a calendar and remember what Giuliani repeatedly reminds you of, 9/11 changed everything.
Evidence that Dems are Making a Mistake 
| Timeout
Yesterday I wrote that the Democrats are making a major mistake by making Hillary their standard bearer. Today a poll came out supporting my contention. CNN released a poll of head-to-head matchups and while Hillary leads Giuliani by six, Huckabee by 10 and Romney by 11, she loses to McCain by 2.
John Edwards, however, leads all Republican contenders. He leads McCain by eight, Giuliani by nine, Romney by twelve and Huckabee by twenty-five.
Name identification plays a role in these early polls which drives down less well-known candidates like Romney and Huckabee. Hillary’s lead over Romney and Huckabee is diminished by this fact. Her lead over Giuliani is more legitimate.
Edwards also has high name identification because he ran for vice president. His leads, however, are larger than Hillary’s and may hold up better when the name identification advantage diminishes.
Hillary loses to the one candidate that has comparable name identification to her, John McCain. Edwards beats all Republicans soundly yet the Democrats are making the Democratic nomination into a laugher for Hillary. Republicans are loving it.
Democrats Asleep at the Switch | Timeout
The Republicans have an unpopular president and are fully supportive of an unpopular war. A majority of the media backs the Democratic Party. Party identification with the Democrats is off the charts and the opposite is true for the Republicans. Yet when paired against the Democrats’ leading candidate for the presidency, that candidate either barely squeezes out a lead or loses.
Why do the Democrats continue to back Hillary Clinton? Her unfavorability is at or near fifty percent. She has baggage that even an airline can’t lose. She is headed for at best a narrow victory and at worst a sizable loss in the general election.
One must question the Democratic electorate’s good judgment when one considers all of these political realities. The Republicans stand to win another presidential election when the circumstances do not warrant one.
Regardless of who the Republicans’ nominee is, either Rudy, Huckabee or Romney, the Republican candidate probably stands a better than even shot at winning the White House unless the Democrats reevaluate who they will support in the primaries.
Giuliani Still the Odd Man In | Zeroing in on the Play
Why is Giuliani the odd man? He is the odd man because he is a pro-choice candidate running for the Republican nomination. At this point he holds the best position to win the nomination.
While Huckabee has shrunk Giuliani's national lead to a smaller margin than it has ever been, Giuliani is probably not that upset. Romney's strategy depends on winning the early states. If Romney loses Iowa or South Carolina or both, Giuliani heads into Super Tuesday with a great chance of winning the nomination.
Giuliani will probably win outright or a majority of delegates from the following states on Super Tuesday: New York, Pennsylvania, Florida, New Jersey, Connecticut, Rhode Island, North Carolina, Illinois and California. He will also fare well in Maryland, Vermont, Maine, Washington and Oregon on later dates. He can pick up the rest of his delegates in states that award delegates proportionally according to the vote received.
The greater the splintering of the delegates in the rest of the country, the better is Giuliani's position to win the nomination. The biggest threat to Giuliani comes in the form of a socially conservative candidate sweeping the early states.
Such a sweep would lead to a clear contender for Giuliani and probably cost him the nomination. Huckabee's recent surge makes that unlikely unless Romney's support simply collapses, and that is unlikely because of Romney's money.
Giuliani is banking on a splintered social conservative opposition to his primary candidacy to bring him the nomination. Without a splintered opposition Rudy probably wins.
The pro-life movement simply holds too much sway in the Republican primaries for a pro-choice candidate to win so long as the perfect storm does not come along.
The perfect storm for Giuliani comes in the form of numerous social conservatives battling for the same vote. Huckabee, Romney, McCain, Thompson, Hunter and Tancredo are all splitting the social conservative vote. Giuliani stands alone on the other side almost certainly loving the fight he is seeing.
Huckabee's surge makes Giuliani's nomination much more likely. Considering Huckabee's soft demeanor he does not challenge Rudy on the issue of who is the best warrior. Rudy wins that hands down against everyone but McCain. But McCain, who has also been surging, is fighting it out against other social conservatives.
Giuliani stands quietly on the sidelines with his alliance of war hawks who are either not social conservatives or are willing to put those concerns aside for national security purposes loving the fight he is witnessing. With every Huckabee surge in the polls, Giuliani inches that much closer to the nomination.
If Huckabee manages to topple Romney altogether in the early states, however, Giuliani becomes the odd man out, not the odd man in.
Belief in Natural Law is the Common Bond | Zeroing in on the Play
Apparently many Christians are abandoning Romney in Iowa because Huckabee presents an Evangelical and electable alternative. This is according to the conventional wisdom which is often wrong. If it is true, however, one must wonder why.
In the realm of American policy the particulars of faith never really matter. In America we do not codify the particulars of individual faiths.
The foundations of faith such as the fundamental beliefs in God and the sanctity of human life represent the indispensable cords of commonality that conservatives must not compromise. Romney does not propose such a compromise.
The Ref does not endorse candidates. I write only to propose that those who determine that the specific identity of Romney's faith is relevant miss the point.
In American politics when it comes to God we debate the fundamental issues, not the particular ones. Romney and Huckabee would effectively have the same impact on matters related to faith in American politics.
Romney the Flip Flopper Has Become the One Who Will Not Compromise 
| First Down
Romney has been raked over the coals for his huge flip flop, from pro-choice to pro-life. Now Romney refuses to compromise his own faith.
While one would expect someone running for office to remain true to his or her faith, for Romney the act of remaining true seems like a courageous one to Americans.
Many people do not know a Mormon and many condemn them as a cult. Because of this reality Romney is considered strong for not abandoning his faith.
Certainly Romney did not plan it this way, but what was perceived as his greatest weakness, his Mormon faith, may turn out to be his political salvation.
Democratic Discipline Could Backfire 
| Interference
One can reasonably question the wisdom of stripping the electoral rich states of Michigan and Florida of all their delegates in the Democratic primaries. Michigan will probably be there for the Democrats when the general election rolls around, but Florida will almost certainly be a battle.
I doubt Democratic activists will fail to vote for their candidate because the national party stripped their state of delegates, but soft Independents might. The Republicans might make an issue out of it, although they too are disciplining the early states, but only by taking some of the delegates, not all.
One might imagine a Dems for Disenfranchisement slogan floating around Tallahassee. I suppose it’s possible that the Democrats strip Florida and Michigan of all the hype that comes with an early primary and nobody notices, but it’s unlikely.
It probably will not matter to the party faithful, but when Floridians and Michiganders see all the hype that flows from this year’s early primaries, they might wish they had some of that action.
Axis of Evil Neutralized, Not Nuclearized 
| Touchdown
Tuesday’s National Intelligence Estimate revealed that Iran ceased its nuclear program four years ago. This is a victory for Bush, not a defeat.
It seems that so much focus remains on the prospect for war in Iran that we are ignoring the success that this represents for American foreign policy. Let’s remember that only six years ago the world thought that outlaw regimes were developing weapons of mass destruction capable of killing millions. Now we know all three members of the Axis of Evil have empty nuclear quivers.
While these things are true we also know that President Bush has been too aggressive in his rhetoric toward Iran. Mentioning World War III was not a good idea. The point is simply that while the media is bashing Bush because of the finding that Iran has stopped its nuclear program they should also give him some credit for it.
LEAD CHANGE: Major Shift in Iowa Races
| Touchdown
Mike Huckabee took a modest lead of 0.2% in the Ref's Poll Averages on Sunday. Obama took the lead from Hillary as well by a slightly larger margin of 0.6%. A lead change in an individual poll does not necessarily signify a shift in the race because of variables that impact individual polls.
When a lead change occurs in a reliable poll average, a major shift is generally occurring because averages are not as vulnerable to the variables that cause great shifts in individual polls.
We will see whether the lead changes hold up, but even if they do not both Romney and Clinton are in trouble in Iowa. Clinton can withstand a loss in Iowa but if Obama wins Iowa and Democrats begin to question Hillary's electability and competence, she could be in trouble.
Romney probably cannot withstand a loss in Iowa considering how much he has spent and the high expectations for him in the state. Huckabee's biggest Iowa fan is Giuliani. If Huckabee upsets Romney in Iowa the Romney strategy will likely derail.
One positive exists for Romney in this shift, however, in that it downgrades the expectations of Romney in Iowa. If he wins by a small margin the claim that he underperformed will not carry as much sting. Obama and Huckabee each scored big on Sunday.
| Unnecessary Roughness
CNN's chosen questions at the Democratic YouTube debate were basically sympathetic to the Democratic view on issues. They did not mock the fundamental beliefs of a large portion of Democrats and certainly were not asked by supporters of Republicans. The same cannot be said for the Republican YouTube debate. So far four of the questioners have been discovered to be open supporters of Democratic candidates.
Why would those who support a Democrat want to ask a Republican a question unless it is to make them look bad? CNN could have produced an informative and entertaining debate without giving Democrats a prominent role in a Republican debate, but they chose not to. One must wonder why a network is so willing to abandon even the appearance of objectivity. It was unnecessary and rough.
Is Huckabee's endgame the Giuliani VP slot?
| Holding
Huckabee has targeted Romney for the past few weeks. Interestingly this came at a time when Giuliani has been doing the same. It is widely known that Romney's strategy relies on winning Iowa, New Hampshire and Michigan. If he loses any of the three his strategy is undermined. Huckabee seems to attack Romney with particularly severe ferocity. At the same time Huckabee reserves only timid criticism, if any, for Giuliani.
Huckabee has a strong argument for being selected as a VP nominee for a northeastern moderate like Giuliani. He would potentially bring Arkansas which Republicans may have difficulty winning with Hillary on the ticket. The fact that he is a Baptist minister also helps with Evangelicals who Giuliani may have difficulty swaying to vote for him.
It seems Giuliani and Huckabee have teamed up, if not formally certainly informally. They share a mutual target in Romney. If Huckabee can win Iowa it splinters the anti-Giuliani vote. Huckabee's job, therefore, is to block for Giuliani. The aggressive nature of his blocking deserves a holding call.
Dems Set to Dig In on Iraq War Opposition Despite Progress
| Interference
Congressional Democrats have made clear their intention to push forward with their attempts to end the war. See the article Democrats Say They Won’t Back Down on War.
It seems that Democrats and their allies in the press have invested so much in a Bush defeat in Iraq that they will continue to harshly oppose the war regardless of the progress made in the country.
They never believed in the war effort and seemingly oppose the notion of building a more democratic government so strongly that no facts can exist in their minds to counter their original assumptions about the governing possibilities in Iraq.
At this point Democrats should not abandon their opposition but temper it long enough to find out if this progress will last.
When one blasts the war effort in Iraq despite the facts it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that the individual simply does not care about the facts, but only about narrow political self-interest. Just let it play out for a while and quit interfering.
Obama Out Clintons the Clinton Machine
| First Down
At this stage in the game Obama needs an onside kick and a hail mary just to tie the game and get to overtime. His performance in the CNN debate left much to be desired and amounted to a sack for a substantial loss of yards. Obama's management over the last several days, however, of Bob Novak's amorphous warning that the Clinton machine is coming in for the fatal blow demonstrated some political skill.
Had Obama not called Hillary out on the behind the scenes suggestion that much in Obama's record can harm him, and then reminded the media that he has some history with marijuana and cocaine, that already disclosed information might have taken on a new life.
Obama cannot do much at this point but put his head down and fight for every yard, but his management of the backstage attempt to shut off all oxygen to his campaign might have ended this race before Obama has the chance to throw the hail mary in Iowa. As it stands Obama is gaining in Iowa, and is even ahead in one survey, and has preserved his chance at a major upset.
Remarkable Intolerence for Such Enlightened Individuals
| Personal Foul
The constant mentioning of Mitt Romney's Mormon faith demonstrates the hypocrisy of so much of the liberal establishment press. Simply put, constantly mentioning Romney's faith diminishes his public policy positions to secondary status behind his faith, an important component of his identity. This type of political "analysis" elevates identity politics to ultimate status and is analogous to reading only the headlines. One has a difficult time imagining that some substantial portion of the reason behind mentioning Romney's faith is a desire to hurt his chances at winning the nomination. The political media continues to try to make the news, rather than simply reporting it, to a greater degree than most other parts of the media. The problem is not that they mention his faith, but that they barely mention his name without mentioning it. They are obsessed with Mitt Romney's faith.
SEVENTH PLACE
REPLAY THE DOWN: Rudy did his best on Saturday to mollify restless social conservatives at the Values Voter Summit in Washington on the issue of abortion, but he seemed to make little to no progress. According to an AP article Giuliani said, "My belief in God and reliance on his guidance is at the core of who I am, I can assure you of that . . . But isn't it better for me to tell you what I believe rather than change my positions to fit the prevailing wind?" See the Article, Giuliani Tries to Assure Conservatives, Jim Kuhnhenn, Yahoo News, AP.
Giuliani promised to lower the number of abortions, appoint conservative judges and promote school choice, according to the article.
Despite such promises Giuliani finished seventh place out of eight places in the straw poll taken at the Summit. Mitt Romney finished first place. Perhaps Giuliani believes that peeling off a small minority of socially conservative might be enough to squeak victories in more liberal states. The problem for Giuliani lies in the fact that even in solidly blue states, the majority of primary voters will probably be pro-life.
So far the conservative vote remains splintered in all primary states between Romney, Thompson, McCain and Huckabee. If the conservative vote rallies around a particular candidate, Giuliani stands little to no chance of winning the Republican nomination. If the more conservative candidates continue to split the vote, Giuliani may ride to victory on a plurality. Whether candidates such as McCain and Huckabee remain in the race will likely determine the winner.
$2,100,000 LETTER
Click the Image to Download a Copy
TOUCHDOWN: The letter from Senate Democrats calling for Clear Channel Communications to ask Rush Limbaugh to apologize for his "phony soldiers" comment sold for 2.1 million dollars on EBay Friday. This represents a victory because all proceeds go to a very deserving charity and it highlighted a grossly intrusive action into the area of free political speech by meddling politicians acting in unison and representing the majority that currently controls the US Senate. If a senator condemned Limbaugh's comment in the media as an individual senator, and not under US Senate letterhead, the action would not have offended nearly as much as the official condemnation did.
Most importantly, the money, which Limbaugh will match, will go to the Marine Corps-Law Enforcement Foundation that provides scholarships to the children of Marines and federal law enforcement personnel who die in the line of duty. What better result could one expect to such a misplaced attack on political free speech in America?
In addition to the win for the children of heroic Marines and federal law enforcement officials, free speech also won big. Liberals recently seem to want to resort to their governing power to fight battles that should remain solely in the private sphere. The recent push to bring back the fairness doctrine represents a perfect example of this tendency. This letter stands as a gleaming symbol of this tendency and the record breaking price it brought in a public auction demonstrates the high degree of dislike the public has for this Washington tendency.
Read the story here, Limbaugh Letter Fetches $2.1 Million on eBay, Fox News
New York Times: Missing the Point TIMEOUT: The New York Times editorialized that President Bush should learn a lesson from the Dalai Lama about peace. They miss no chance to ridicule President Bush in clever ways. A bigger lesson should be taken from this meeting. In its effort to advise President Bush the New York Times wrote in an editorial on Thursday, “Through violence, you may solve one problem, but you sow the seeds for another,” is one of his statements that politicians everywhere might meditate upon. Or this: “The world has become so small that no nation can solve its problems alone, in isolation from others.”" Honoring the Dalai Lama, New York Times.
The New York Times ignores the fact that Bush has taken enormous criticism from media in this country and others for bringing the Dalai Lama to the White House when nothing, they say, can be gained from it and it will only anger communist China. Bush is taking a stand for freedom and self-rule, ideals the New York Times presumably would place just below peace at all cost. One hopes that the New York Times does not seriously suggest that in the modern world all problems must be resolved without war. If they believe this they truly possess little understanding of the six billion people who occupy this earth with us.
Nevermind the fact that the Dalai Lama called his meeting with Bush a family reunion, the New York Times simply missed the point of this meeting. The message one should take from this meeting is that freedom represents the pinnacle value for all Americans and President Bush recommends that for China. The New York Times looks at this meeting and sees an opportunity to contrast the philosophies on war and peace of the President of the United States and the Dalai Lama. They do not prefer to highlight the significance of the world's superpower siding with a long besieged minority, a victim of the world's next greatest economic power. Perhaps the New York Times needs a timeout to gain some perspective.
Global Warming?
PERSONAL FOUL: Media Matters, like so many reactionary left wing organizations, assumes that any scientist that questions global warming can never be considered a good meteorologist. They ridiculed MSNBC for labeling William M. Gray a “top meteorologist,” who has called global warming a hoax and stated that the natural cycle accounts for rising temperature. Media Matters wrote that MSNBC should have pointed out that the “overwhelming majority of scientists disagree” with Gray’s assertions.
Media Matters then lists several other meteorologists who criticize Gray on the grounds that he has not published his opinion regarding global warming in any peer reviewed journals, that he is being heard only because of media connections, alleged his ideas “are not taken seriously in scientific circles” and labeled Gray as “increasingly on the fringe.” Finally, in the coup de grace, Media Matters insists that MSNBC should have referred to the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and its disagreement with Gray’s claim that increased temperatures are simply a part of the natural cycle.
Media Matters quarrels with MSNBC’s use of the words “top meteorologist” despite the fact that Gray pioneered the science of forecasting hurricanes, developing the seasonal system of forecasting. Presumably Media Matters prefers that the media include no voices of dissent on matters where a scientific consensus exists. No one can seriously doubt that if Media Matters existed in the early twentieth century it would have lambasted the media for talking to those who questioned the steady state theory of the universe, the long debunked but then a consensus view. Media Matters would criticize as biased anyone who questioned the coming ice age, the consensus scientific view in the 1970s. Simply put, Media Matters favors the tyranny of scientific consensus. Unfortunately for Media Matters, science is not about consensus, but proving, disproving, testing and retesting. No view should be shut out of the debate and a highly accomplished meteorologist like William Gray should not be brow beaten into conforming to the consensus view. All views should be heard. Read the Media Matters article here.