Feb/080
McCain Loses Maine – Win for Romney
February 2nd is not only Groundhog Day, it is also the date of Maine’s caucuses for the republicans. These caucuses are completely overshadowed by Super Tuesday but still very important. There are still a few municipalities that will hold caucuses tomorrow and even later but right now it looks as if Romney will win all 18 caucus delegates (of course, how they actually will be divided up won’t be decided until May). That gives him 92 delegates to McCain’s 97 going in to Super Tuesday. It’s a virtually tied race right now. Romney’s overwhelming support in Maine (>50% to McCain’s 20%) shows that many people see through McCain’s self-applied label as a “true conservative.” He’s not a true conservative, he’s a moderate; his recent disingenuous ad shows him with Reagan and other conservative leaders. McCain is the only one who’s been flip-flopping. Romney flipped a couple times but McCain goes back and forth in his views. He says one thing while his hands do something else. At one point McCain stood for something but now he comes across as a bitter old man looking for his handout.
Why is McCain the front-runner? The media generally supports him (what the main papers have said about McCain {and the Democratic candidates} simply shows their heavy liberal bias. The NYT editors said that they really like the Democrats and reluctantly supported McCain as the least offensive (i.e., most liberal) Republican candidate. The LA Times also endorsed him – “McCain opposes abortion and rejects the right of gays and lesbians to marry — two positions we reject. He supports the war in Iraq, whereas we see this nation’s interests better served by a prompt and orderly withdrawal of U.S. forces.” Source.), so he receives mass exposure for virtually no cost. He also ran against Pres. Bush in the 2000 primaries and with Pres. Bush’s less-than-ideal approval rating (which, incidentally is largely driven by media), McCain looks like a Republican who is not like Pres. Bush; after all, they were opponents 8 years ago. Again, the main reason that John McCain is the Republican front-runner is because the media declare him so. Huckabee being the race also hurts Romney. Huckabee has substantial support but it is from a very limited slice of the Republican party (in Maine he only received 6% of the vote). Bigotry against Mormonism also hurts Romney.
Feb/080
Why Anti-Hillary or Anti-Obama Votes Won’t be Enough for John McCain
John McCain has emerged as the front-runner of the GOP race for the presidency and by all accounts has gained the momentum to take the nomination. Conservatives are not happy and even pundits such as Hannity, who have vowed to not endorse a candidate, have come out in open opposition to McCain and endorsed Mitt Romney. Their opposition is not without valid concerns; most notably McCain’s willingness to compromise conservative positions and unwillingness to champion the conservative cause. The goal of conservatism is not to find a middle ground with liberals; No, it is to fight for our positions. McCain is not a conservative he is a compromiser. And, being a compromiser is worse than being a liberal, in the eyes of many conservatives. If McCain is elected he will be more able to compromise conservative principles than Hillary or Obama and better able to get liberal leaning republicans to vote liberally. While Hillary will have to overcome conservative and party opposition, McCain will be able to act as the conservative working with the liberals to get things done.
McCain’s supporters have taken the view that he has the best chance of winning in the general election. This assumption, however, relies entirely on the anti-democrat vote. McCain will find that this assumption is invalid because there are two types of conservative voter styles. First, there are the “vote for the most conservative candidate” types; and second, there are the “vote against the most liberal candidate” types. I wish I know how many conservative are the “vote against” vs. “vote for” types, but my guess is that there are far more like myself that are the ‘vote for’ types. I recently met a social conservative who switched his party affiliation from Republican to Democrat so he could vote against Hillary in the closed Florida Primary. This decision was driven by fear and not conviction. He will now change his affiliation back to Republican to vote against Hillary again in November even though his has missed the chance to add his voice with other conservatives to nominate the strongest conservative GOP candidate. In large numbers this strategy, what I believe is a strategy driven by fear, will be detrimental for the GOP because all conservative votes are needed in the party to ensure that the strongest conservative gains the nomination. Undeniably McCain can rely on the ‘vote against the most liberal candidate’ conservatives in November. McCain will rally their fears of what the world will look like given Hillary or Obama becoming president.
But what of the ‘vote for the most conservative candidate’ voters, such as myself? The ‘vote against’ voters are happy with even a candidate that is only slightly less liberal than another, while a ‘vote for’ voter is only satisfied with someone who represents their cause and will not compromise our positions as our so-called representative. We are not driven by fear but conviction in our principles which we do not want to see compromised by someone claiming to be one of our own. ‘Vote for’ types are no more happy with the less liberal candidate than the more liberal one. I say, the lesser of two evils is still evil and the lesser of two liberals is still liberal. I am not interested in voting against the more liberal if the alternative is also a liberal
At the end of the day those who vote for McCain have voted against conservatism by voting for a compromiser. I refuse to vote for a compromiser such as McCain, regardless what the liberal alternative is. Frankly, those who embrace the “vote for” mentality will not be motivated to support someone we do not support nor to vote for someone that does not represent our positions. I will be one of many conservatives that will stay at home and prays for the country on election day given the choice of “the lesser of two evil” because a prayer may help while a vote for either cannot.
Jan/080
California Republican Debate Reactions
Mitt Romney completely outshone the other candidates during the debate. McCain only came across as vindictive and disingenuous. McCain kept saying that Romney supported a set withdrawal date for getting out of Iraq. Romney never said that. McCain kept going after Romney and in so doing kept shooting himself in the foot. McCain, I thought, did the most poorly of any of the candidates in the debate. Ron Paul was his normal self. He makes a lot of good points but just doesn’t have the support to get the candidacy. Huckabee kept up his quips and sounded good but he again showed his platform shallowness (he also kept saying, “Look at me! I need some attention.”).
McCain kept attacking Romney for changing positions – which he did on abortion (and he recognizes that and apologized for it) – but he has not changed on other positions. Romney is by and large the most representative of Republican Party ideals. Romney is the most like Reagan (except Romney would cut back government and Reagan did not). I used to like McCain a lot more than I do now; I’m originally from Arizona and always respected him. However, I get really sick of his, “I’ve been in Washington for 25 years. I’m a war hero. I know foreign policy. I’m a straight talker. [I'm not a politician]. I’m entitled to the Presidency.” He not only is part of the Establishment, he is part of the Entitlement. McCain tries to portray himself as someone who is above petty politics when that is what he does. He’s the one who attacked Romney’s character when Romney only attacked McCain’s policies. Mitt Romney has his faults but none of them are what McCain has been attacking him over. The only two really honest people on that stage were Romney and Paul. Huckabee is likable but he, like McCain, tries to say that he is above politicking when that is what he’s very good at.
Overall, I think Romney earned an A- for his performance tonight. Ron Paul earned a B. Mike Huckabee earned a B-. John McCain earned a C+.
Jan/080
Prejudice in the Primaries
Orson Scott Card, one of the best contemporary writers, frequently writes articles about his views on politics and other issues. On January 13, 2008 he published an article called Prejudice in the Primaries. He outlines how religious and racial prejudices are affecting the primaries. People vote against Romney because he is LDS (polls in early January showed 25% of people saying outright that they would not vote for a Mormon) and conversely some people vote for McCain because he’s not openly religious. People also vote against Obama because he’s black. I agree with him that racial and religious bigotry is likely affecting the primaries more than we care to think.
Amy Sullivan’s old but still very salient article Mitt Romney’s Evangelical Problem is a wonderful exposé on the problem that Mitt Romney faces. Just as there is no room for racism in our country there is no room for religism.
Jan/080
Reaction to Florida’s Primaries
Well, Giuliani’s big gamble did not work. He spent all his efforts in Florida and some of the Super Tuesday states only to have his early poll lead chiseled away by McCain and Romney. I’d be highly surprised if he did not drop out of the race by the end of the week. While I previously posted about how I didn’t feel that I could trust him, after researching his stances on issues, I learned to at least respect him more. I still disagree with him on issues but I think that he had good ideas for economic policies and would have done well in the international scene.
Huckabee did not do well in Florida. He got some of the evangelical vote but overall did poorly. I’m glad that members of the Republican Party see through him (well, a lot of us do). His one-liners and quips revealed that there is not a lot of substance to his platform. I heard him make a comment after the Florida results were in that his supporters should make sure they all go out and vote and that they should keep people who are not going to vote for him in their driveways. I know it was said tongue-in-cheek but that was not one of the more brilliant things that he’s said. He plans on staying in the race for some unknown reason. He’ll do fairly well in the South but nowhere else. He certainly would not compete well against any of the Democratic candidates in a general election. It’s time for him to drop out of the race. Maybe he thinks he’ll have a come-back but the cynical part of me also thinks that he might just stay in the race because he takes votes away from Mitt Romney. That is probably not true but I can’t deny the possibility that anti-Mormon bigotry is playing such a large role. Anyone who thinks that the LDS Church would suddenly control Washington should Romney win does not know LDS theology. Anyway, Huckabee also could be staying in to try and be in a position to be chosen as a running mate.
McCain had a big win in Florida. He jumped into 1st place in the delegate count; he’s ahead of Romney by about 20 delegates now, which is not a lot but he is polling ahead of Romney in California. Also, with Giuliani’s endorsement, he will take up a majority of Giuliani supporters. I have a lot of respect for McCain and for his even-mindedness and “gut.” I think he’ll do well against any of the Democratic candidates should he receive the Republican nomination. I do not like the personal attacks he made against Romney though. Romney started the negative campaigning but it was always negative about candidates’ actual past performance and their stances on issues. McCain started the personal attacks on Romney though (Huckabee was involved as well). McCain was the first to use language that questioned Romney’s character or his integrity (for example, “if you wrestle with a pig you only get dirty” referring to Romney as the pig. That statement was way below the belt. Romney is by far the most squeaky-clean of the candidates). He was also the main candidate who called Romney a “flip-flopper,” which is completely untrue. Romney has changed stances on issues (although they were mostly when he was still governor or even before then) but to “flip-flop” you have to repeatedly change back and forth. Romney has “flipped” on some issues but that’s it. McCain has done the same and should not be pointing fingers. Of course, many people involved in the mainstream media also can’t resist trying to paint Romney as a “flip-flopper.” It’s disingenuous at best and slander or libel at worst. Campaigns tend to be ugly, unfortunately, but there’s no room for outright lies. Granted, Romney shouldn’t be calling McCain’s policies “the liberal Democrat way” but that certainly is more accurate (McCain is moderate and thus has a lot of policies that are “liberal”) than calling Romney a flip-flopper.
Now to Mitt Romney. He’s still in the race. He had strong support in Florida – not as good as would have liked – but he came in a solid second. He also solidly won the conservative vote. McCain won the majority of liberal and moderate Republican votes but Romney won the conservative majority. Romney will do well in a number of states on Super Tuesday. He has Utah in the bag. I think he’ll do well in the other Rocky Mountain states, the Midwest, and in the Northeast. It looks like McCain will win California and Arizona, although this win in Florida will certainly give him momentum. McCain will be tough to beat. Whats hard to understand though is why the conservatives in the Republican Party (who are a majority) aren’t widely supporting the one candidate who espouses the range of conservative values – Mitt Romney. I also don’t get why so many more people think that McCain is more likable than Romney. McCain is likable but I don’t think he’s any where near as likable as Romney. Of course, I’m biased but I also try not to be swayed by media’s portrayal of candidates, which in Romney’s case is generally negative.
The Democratic contest was just for show. Clinton was the overwhelming winner but her win was symbolic. Hopefully Democrats see through her and stop voting for her. She has had too many scandals in the past and has been involved in too many underhanded maneuvers to be completely trusted. I think that people support her in part because they are nostalgic for her husband. I don’t think that that many people are really all that nostalgic for Bill Clinton as they are for the 90s. The 90s was relatively peaceful and prosperous. People associate that with Pres. Clinton and Hillary gets to bask in the reflected glory. Bill Clinton gets all this credit for the prosperity of the 90s when it really was not his doing. If people give him credit for the prosperity of the 90s they also have to give him credit for the recession that started in 2000 and continued for a couple years into Pres. Bush’s presidency. Economic forces are bigger than the Presidency. So, I think that people like Hillary because they think that she would be another Bill Clinton. It’s a misguided nostalgia. I think that Obama has so much more to offer than Clinton does. Democratic voters need to see that. Of course, part of me wants to see Clinton nominated because I think she’d be easy to beat. That’s not what I really feel though because I think the best candidate should be nominated and for me that’s Barack Obama.
Jan/080
Barack Obama’s Big Win in South Carolina
Sen. Obama had a major win today in the South Carolina Democratic Primary. His win there shows a number of things. First, that he overwhelmingly has the African-American vote in the country. Second, he overwhelmingly has the young vote in the Democratic Party. Third, there are many Americans who want someone who is not part of “the establishment” (even though he is a Senator). His wide support I believe is an important step in American politics. I don’t think that anyone should or should not be supported based on skin color but Obama represents minorities of all skin color in a lot of ways and shows how important they are becoming in politics.
Some people have started comparing Obama to the Kennedys – John F. and Bobby. He is in a lot of ways. He is young, energetic, and a rousing speaker. I have significant differences of opinion with a lot of his politics but he is a candidate that I feel that I can trust. I wrote a previous post stating that he is the Democratic candidate I would like to see receive the nomination largely because he is genuine and trustworthy. Again, I disagree with him on a lot of issues but he does represent change and he seems like an honest person (unlike another prominent Democratic candidate).
Jan/080
Updated Nevada Caucus Results
Mitt Romney overwhelmingly won in Nevada, with 52% of the vote. LDS Church members apparently made up 25% of the Republican caucus goers and 94% of them voted for Romney, according to CNN. Take away all of the LDS voters and Romney still would have received 28% of the vote, far more than the next closest – Ron Paul – with 13% of the vote. Even though LDS church members make up a lot of the vote in Nevada, Romney’s vote transcends them, as was also seen in Michigan and Wyoming (and the other states). Romney received 18 delegates, Paul and McCain both received 4, Huckabee and Thompson both had 2, and Giuliani received 1.
What is a bit surprising is Ron Paul’s second place finish. He has received about 10% of the vote in every state so far and managed to pull off 13% in Nevada.
Sen. Clinton won the Democratic majority in Nevada, with 51%. Obama was close behind with 45% (there are still a few precincts that need to report). Hispanic voters overwhelmingly supported Clinton. A majority of women also supported Clinton. Looking at delegate counts is important too. Clinton received 13 to Obama’s 12.
Jan/080
Nevada Caucus Results
Mitt Romney will win the Nevada caucuses today. With 19% of precincts reporting, he has over 50% of the vote. John McCain, Mike Huckabee, Ron Paul, and Sen. Thompson are in a close contest for second with roughly 10% support each. The large LDS population in Nevada certainly helped Romney but his support goes far beyond that population. With these results I think that Thompson, Giuliani, Hunter, and Tancredo should drop out of the race. It’s true that Thompson and Giuliani will do better in other states; however, the Republican party needs to focus on the three to four front-runners. I would even like to see Ron Paul and Mike Huckabee drop out of the race. I think that they are both decent candidates – Paul is too extreme for most people though – but they will not win the candidacy. Neither could win the national election either. The Republican race is turning into a race between McCain and Romney, regardless of how the candidates do in South Carolina.
It’s too early to comment on the Democratic race. Even though Clinton is ahead in polls I think that Obama will certainly give her a run for her money. I think that John Edwards will be out of the race after Nevada’s caucuses. He’ll still campaign but he will drop out of the serious contender category.
What the campaigns have shown so far is that while Democrats tout themselves as upholders of diversity, the Republican contest shows that the Republican party has a much greater diversity of ideas than the Democratic party does. Clinton and Obama are essentially identical ideologically, although Obama is more liberal. Edwards is very similar to both. It is among the Republican candidates that you can see diversity – libertarianism, social conservatism, economic conservatism, social liberalism (relatively), economic liberalism, and so forth. It does not mean that the Republican party is splintering, it just means that there is a great diversity of ideas and beliefs within the Republican party.
Earlier I mentioned how the strong LDS population in Nevada helped Romney’s win. I don’t think that Mormons are block voting for Romney just because he is LDS – although there is certainly some of that going on. His political beliefs just coincide with a lot of other LDS church members’ beliefs. I’m not shy about criticizing Evangelicals for voting for Huckabee just because he is Evangelical. I’m also not shy about criticizing LDS members for voting for Romney just because he is LDS. I think you should vote based on political ideologies not religion. That is my biggest problem with so many Evangelical (and other people) voters; I don’t care as much about them voting for a certain person because of his or her religious beliefs. I care more about them voting against someone because of their religious beliefs. Women shouldn’t vote for Clinton just because she is a woman; African-Americans shouldn’t vote for Obama just because he is African-America. People shouldn’t vote against any of the candidates because of their skin color, gender, or any other characteristic like those. Vote based on political beliefs, not demographic characteristics.
Jan/080
The GOP Race: The Game of Political Risk
By Daniel Kay
With a new primary calendar this year, which includes contests that are moved up and more condensed, the road to the White House is much more complex. Some have compared the race to a chess match that is taking place across the country. The analogy is poor because in chess there are only two players while the GOP race has 6 active players. The contest is more comparable to Risk than chess. Every player claims territories and countries and each takes turns to choose their battles and form alliances in an attempt to win and gain the reinforcements that follow a victory. Each candidate has their own strategy, some better than the others:
Giuliani: The Hide in Australia (Florida) Strategy
Giuliani realized that he was going to lose in Iowa, Wyoming, New Hampshire, Michigan, Nevada and South Carolina pulled out and moved all his resources to Florida. This is comparable to a strategy I had when a child where I would hide in Australia while the other players wiped each other off the board; I had all my resources stockpiled ready to strike Asia when the others were to weak to stop me. I would then go on to win the game. Of course when you are playing others that are good at the game this never works because the other players don’t forget about you and keep the pressure on to make sure you do not get too strong. This has been the case for Giuliani. He has had to spend all his resources simply to stay tied with Romney and McCain in Florida.
Huckabee/McCain: The Unspoken Alliance of North America (Iowa) and Europe (New Hampshire)
Before Iowa, Romney was the guy with the huge armies that everyone else ganged up on because if they didn’t the game will not last much longer. Huckabee and McCain did a tag team, defeating Romney in Iowa and New Hampshire, respectively. This is like the duo who make an unspoken alliance to secure North America and Europe, respectively. The problem is that strategically they still have to fortify against each other and neither is a strategic launch pad to make a mass invasion. Likewise, they will have to take each other out of the game before they can effectively set themselves up for a strategic position to win Super Tuesday. Currently the game is at the point where McCain and Huckabee have to fight it out in South Carolina (Greenland) to stay in the game. South Carolina is the end of an alliance and the end of the holder of either North America or Europe from the game.
Romney: South America (Michigan) and Most Territories Strategy (Wyoming, Nevada)
I was once bet in a game of Risk by my brother-in-law who was able move around the board in such a way that when his run came around again he still had the most territories and invariably received more reinforcements early in the game. He was later able to conquer more countries and win the game over my strategy which was to go after countries first.
Romney has won Wyoming and Michigan. Wyoming can be seen as winning the territory of North Africa before moving into to take South America (Michigan). Now he has moved his armies back to the West to take Nevada (another chunk of Africa).
Thompson: Take Potshots on Everyone Until You Get a Trade-in Strategy
Thompson is really only a fifth wheel at this stage. He is like my friend Jack who liked to mettle with whoever he could get the most riled-up. That was usually me. While he should be playing the game to help the person he would like to win, it seemed that he just took his anger out on everyone. Thompson is stuck in Asia somewhere where he is able to use his army’s on everyone.
Romney’s Power Play
Romney has the most control over who wins South Carolina. He made a big move in the game by skipping the contest; if Huckabee wins, it will be a decisive strategic victory. Here is why:
If McCain wins in SC, that will make for a close race in Florida and Super Tuesday between Romney, Giuliani, and McCain because Huckabee will be out of the game. If Huckabee is removed from the game they will vote for whoever is competing with Romney, in Florida that will be either McCain or Giuliani. If the frontrunner against Romney is McCain, McCain’s support will come form foreign policy conservatives and the anti-Mormon vote but if that frontrunner should become Giuliani, Giuliani’s support will come from fiscal Conservatives, plus the anti-Mormon vote.
If Huckabee wins, that will be a good thing for Romney. Romney has probably asked like I have, “why not have the anti-Mormon voting bloc tied to the candidate whose base is the anti-Mormon voting bloc: Huckabee?” So in Florida if Huckabee is in play, after slowing the McCain train, the anti-Mormon vote will go with Huckabee regardless of how close he is to the frontrunners in the polls and give Romney a clear advantage in Florida and on Super Tuesday. Effectively, a Huckabee win in SC will tie-up the anti-Mormon vote to a candidate that is not viable nationally.
The person who benefited the most from a Romney pullout in SC was Huckabee; it was probably enough to hand him the gold tomorrow. The Romney ads that will run through tomorrow in SC are nothing more than an attempt to stay ahead of Thompson and ensure that he is forced out of the game. Skipping SC was a power play for Romney, especially if Huckabee wins, and he will be in good position to take Florida and Super Tuesday should this play out.
Jan/080
John Edwards’ Media Coverage
John Edwards’ campaign recently produced a video demonstrating how little attention Edwards is receiving from the media. While this might come across as whiny (“Hey, look at me! No one ever pays attention to me.”) he has a point.
John Edwards is running for the Presidency. He has spent countless dollars and hours to make his dream a reality. While never really considered the front-runner, he has held his own in the elections so far and performed respectably. However, all you really hear about any of the Democratic candidates is: “Clinton” this and “Obama” that. Edwards certainly does not seem to earn his equal share of the sun.
On the other hand, not every candidate or potential candidate can or should receive equal media spotlight. Is it fair to the people partaking of mainstream media’s offerings to be subjected to news stories about minor candidates who have no real chance at winning (I’m not saying they shouldn’t win, I’m just taking a realistic perspective here). I’m also not saying that Edwards is a minor candidate but the line at mass coverage needs to be drawn somewhere. From the media’s perspectives (forgive the anthropomorphism), there are two major candidates – Clinton and Obama, with Edwards a close or not-so-close third. They are going to provide coverage for the most viable candidates (i.e., who “sells the most stories”).
This shows how influential the media is. It can be frustrating when you are not covered or are only negatively covered, so Edwards’ position is understandable. However, he isn’t the front-runner and so the media aren’t talking about him as much as the two leading candidates. Maybe the chicken came before the egg and they only became the leading candidates because the media covered them more than they covered Edwards. Who knows? In any case, the media has a responsibility to be as benign as possible. That’s a stretch, but in the ideal world it could be reality.
