As a Green Bay native all I have to say is...Go Pack GO!!!!
Saturday, January 12, 2008
Friday, January 11, 2008
How Michigan Democrats can best use their votes
When Michigan's Supreme Court decided it was alright for the state to hold its primaries on Jan. 15, the move was against party rules and the state paid for its sins. In response to the state's early primary, Republicans lost half their delegates, reducing their number to 30. While state Democrats lost all of their 157 delegates.
As a result, the only candidates on the ballot for the Democrats are: Hillary Clinton, Chris Dodd, Mike Gravel, Dennis Kucinich, uncommitted and write-in, an overwhelmingly unimpressive collection. Because of this, Michigan Democrats face some interesting questions. Should they stay home if their Democratic candidate is not on the ballot? Vote for another Democratic candidate? Or use their vote to help try and sway the Republican results in way favorable to Democrats?
Many speculate that Michigan's delegates will eventually be seated. But because of the uncertainty, the Michigan Democratic Party is encouraging state Democrats to vote uncommitted. An uncommitted vote sends delegates to the national convention which are not bound to support a specific candidate. Rep. John Conyers, an Obama supporter, has begun running radio ads telling Obama supporters to vote undecided. Both pro-Edwards and pro-Obama groups have been hitting the ground going door-to-door and promoting the undecided cause. Reminiscent of Richard Pryor in Brewster's Million..."Vote none of the above."
The two campaigns are gitty about uncommitted, because according to Michigan law if over 15 percent of voters statewide, or in any district, vote uncommitted, the corresponding percentage of delegates can back any candidate. Both campaigns are hoping that Michigan's delegates will be re-seated, thus giving them a chance to get Michigan delegates without spending anytime, or money, there.
The Michigan Democratic Party is also behind the uncommitted push.
But, is that's what is best for Democratic voters in Michigan? There is no assurance that an uncommitted delegate will vote for who you support. Would it not be better to cast your ballot for who you think is second best, Democrat or Republican (remember, its an open primary), and have some influence over the impact of your vote? Rather, Democrats in Michigan are asked to vote uncommitted, potentially creating a delegate that is in no way bound to the voters will, in essence, creating another super delegate. It actually seems like Edwards, Obama and MDP are advocating an option that is contrary to voter interest.
Another angle may also lurk here. If enough voters vote for uncommitted, rather than for Hillary, it could be seen as a victory for the Obama and Edwards campaigns. Voters throwing their vote away in place of voting for Clinton, yeah that's a win.
I can not tell anyone what to do with their vote, that is for them to decide. But one thing I would recommend is do not cast your vote based on what Obama, Edwards or MDP says, look at the ballot decide who you think is next best and control your vote. Or just vote uncommitted, whatever.
An informative, yet boring, explanation of Michigan's Democratic Primary by Democratic Committee Chair Mark Brewer:
As a result, the only candidates on the ballot for the Democrats are: Hillary Clinton, Chris Dodd, Mike Gravel, Dennis Kucinich, uncommitted and write-in, an overwhelmingly unimpressive collection. Because of this, Michigan Democrats face some interesting questions. Should they stay home if their Democratic candidate is not on the ballot? Vote for another Democratic candidate? Or use their vote to help try and sway the Republican results in way favorable to Democrats?
Many speculate that Michigan's delegates will eventually be seated. But because of the uncertainty, the Michigan Democratic Party is encouraging state Democrats to vote uncommitted. An uncommitted vote sends delegates to the national convention which are not bound to support a specific candidate. Rep. John Conyers, an Obama supporter, has begun running radio ads telling Obama supporters to vote undecided. Both pro-Edwards and pro-Obama groups have been hitting the ground going door-to-door and promoting the undecided cause. Reminiscent of Richard Pryor in Brewster's Million..."Vote none of the above."
The two campaigns are gitty about uncommitted, because according to Michigan law if over 15 percent of voters statewide, or in any district, vote uncommitted, the corresponding percentage of delegates can back any candidate. Both campaigns are hoping that Michigan's delegates will be re-seated, thus giving them a chance to get Michigan delegates without spending anytime, or money, there.
The Michigan Democratic Party is also behind the uncommitted push.
But, is that's what is best for Democratic voters in Michigan? There is no assurance that an uncommitted delegate will vote for who you support. Would it not be better to cast your ballot for who you think is second best, Democrat or Republican (remember, its an open primary), and have some influence over the impact of your vote? Rather, Democrats in Michigan are asked to vote uncommitted, potentially creating a delegate that is in no way bound to the voters will, in essence, creating another super delegate. It actually seems like Edwards, Obama and MDP are advocating an option that is contrary to voter interest.
Another angle may also lurk here. If enough voters vote for uncommitted, rather than for Hillary, it could be seen as a victory for the Obama and Edwards campaigns. Voters throwing their vote away in place of voting for Clinton, yeah that's a win.
I can not tell anyone what to do with their vote, that is for them to decide. But one thing I would recommend is do not cast your vote based on what Obama, Edwards or MDP says, look at the ballot decide who you think is next best and control your vote. Or just vote uncommitted, whatever.
An informative, yet boring, explanation of Michigan's Democratic Primary by Democratic Committee Chair Mark Brewer:
Ron Paul's suit fails to contain his crazy
In a twitchy, irritated interview yesterday with Wolf Blitzer on the Situation Room, Ron Paul's suit had a difficult time containing his crazy.
Responding to racist, anti-gay and anti-Israel newsletters, published in his name, Paul admitted that he was not human. "Libertarians are incapable of being a racist because racism is a collectivist idea," proclaimed Paul in a stuttering, hyper-active style that has become all his own.
I am not writing to implicate Paul as a racist, I don’t know him, he may be a racist and he may not. What caught my eye is the response to the accusations, one that can only be classified as Paul-esque.
Paul goes on to explain that racism is a collective idea and as a Libertarian he sees everyone as an important individual, thus he is above any racist thoughts. This seems to imply that Libertarians, including himself, are not human. Are those who he refers to as Libertarians immune to the feelings the rest of us sometimes have? Now, I am sure that many Libertarians (like non-Libertarians) are pure of racist thought, but for Paul to make a blanket statement proclaiming their incompatibility with any racist notion is, well, crazy.
If the Texan were to get the nomination, Stephen Colbert would seem to be a perfect fit for VP. Colbert is fond of saying that he does not see color, he knows he is white, but only because people tell him. That sentiment would seem to meld nicely with Paul's belief that, "I am the most anti-racist because I don't see people in collective groups." A Paul/Colbert ticket could have the makings of one of the most open minded in our nation’s history (Read, sarcasm).
But in Paul's defense, he does cite Martin Luther King and Rosa Parks as two of his heroes, as if dropping the name of two civil rights icons sufficiently answers question regarding passages that describe car jacking as, "the hip-hop thing to do on the urban youth who play unsuspecting whites like pianos."
While the content of Paul' statements are crazy in their own right, the way he articulated them was, lets just say, less than presidential. Paul has carved out a niche as the candidate who does not have to appear stoic, poised or presidential. His grassroots supporters respond well to his non-presidential approach that Paul has adopted in interviews and debates. But generally, this disjointed style has come across as maverick and populist, rather than crazy and crazy--as it did in the Blitzer interview.
Paul's campaign has been given lots of press because of his die hard supporters and his ability to organize fund raising days in which his supporters flood his campaign with contributions via the internet. In November, Paul received $4.3 million in one day and in December he surpassed that mark collecting $6 million. All told Paul raised $19 million in the fourth quarter, only Mitt Romney first quarter totals are better.
But despite being awash in funds, Paul has been unable to make his campaign legitimate. He finished fifth in all three early contests (Iowa, New Hampshire and Wyoming) and is polling sixth in Michigan and South Carolina, in both cases trailing the sleepy Fred Thompson.
Paul's over zealous, pro-constitution message has never truly caught on with anyone beside his die hard 'Paulies'. The surfacing of these racist newsletters and Paul's crazed rebuttal to them, seem to be the final nails in the Paul '08 coffin.
Take a gander.
Responding to racist, anti-gay and anti-Israel newsletters, published in his name, Paul admitted that he was not human. "Libertarians are incapable of being a racist because racism is a collectivist idea," proclaimed Paul in a stuttering, hyper-active style that has become all his own.
I am not writing to implicate Paul as a racist, I don’t know him, he may be a racist and he may not. What caught my eye is the response to the accusations, one that can only be classified as Paul-esque.
Paul goes on to explain that racism is a collective idea and as a Libertarian he sees everyone as an important individual, thus he is above any racist thoughts. This seems to imply that Libertarians, including himself, are not human. Are those who he refers to as Libertarians immune to the feelings the rest of us sometimes have? Now, I am sure that many Libertarians (like non-Libertarians) are pure of racist thought, but for Paul to make a blanket statement proclaiming their incompatibility with any racist notion is, well, crazy.
If the Texan were to get the nomination, Stephen Colbert would seem to be a perfect fit for VP. Colbert is fond of saying that he does not see color, he knows he is white, but only because people tell him. That sentiment would seem to meld nicely with Paul's belief that, "I am the most anti-racist because I don't see people in collective groups." A Paul/Colbert ticket could have the makings of one of the most open minded in our nation’s history (Read, sarcasm).
But in Paul's defense, he does cite Martin Luther King and Rosa Parks as two of his heroes, as if dropping the name of two civil rights icons sufficiently answers question regarding passages that describe car jacking as, "the hip-hop thing to do on the urban youth who play unsuspecting whites like pianos."
While the content of Paul' statements are crazy in their own right, the way he articulated them was, lets just say, less than presidential. Paul has carved out a niche as the candidate who does not have to appear stoic, poised or presidential. His grassroots supporters respond well to his non-presidential approach that Paul has adopted in interviews and debates. But generally, this disjointed style has come across as maverick and populist, rather than crazy and crazy--as it did in the Blitzer interview.
Paul's campaign has been given lots of press because of his die hard supporters and his ability to organize fund raising days in which his supporters flood his campaign with contributions via the internet. In November, Paul received $4.3 million in one day and in December he surpassed that mark collecting $6 million. All told Paul raised $19 million in the fourth quarter, only Mitt Romney first quarter totals are better.
But despite being awash in funds, Paul has been unable to make his campaign legitimate. He finished fifth in all three early contests (Iowa, New Hampshire and Wyoming) and is polling sixth in Michigan and South Carolina, in both cases trailing the sleepy Fred Thompson.
Paul's over zealous, pro-constitution message has never truly caught on with anyone beside his die hard 'Paulies'. The surfacing of these racist newsletters and Paul's crazed rebuttal to them, seem to be the final nails in the Paul '08 coffin.
Take a gander.
Thursday, January 10, 2008
The Democratic Party's Board of Directors
Politically powerful, working in relative anonymity and pulling the strings that make the Democratic party dance like Pinocchio, pre-flesh, they are the Democratic Party's Board of Directors.
As you may have guessed, the Democrat's board is populated by Governors, Senators and Party Chairman, all have varying degrees of influence within the Democratic party. These influential people, called super delegates, play an imperative role in the Democratic Party’s nominating process. Supers are uncommitted, meaning they are free to pledge their support for any of the Democratic candidates; they are independent of the will of the voters.
But that is not what I would like to discuss here. Instead I would like to ask who the super delegates are? And what impact will they have on the '08 election?
Under the system, if an underdog candidate begins winning primaries and looks like they may win the nomination, but would ultimately fair poorly in the general election, the super delegates can swoop in and rescue the party from its own self-defeating spontaneity-- at least that’s how they envision the system. Currently, Clinton is dominating the super delegates, her 159 vastly out number Barack Obama's 53 and John Edward's 34. There are 217 supers yet to make their allegiances known.
With that in mind, what does Hillary Clinton's hoarding of the supers mean for the Democratic Party? Are there apprehensions about giving the nomination to a black candidate? Are the supers jittery about Obama’s inexperience? Or is it simply an indication that experience and Capital Hill connections still matter?
I would hope it is not an issue of race and I do not. It is theoretically a factor and I wanted to at least present the idea.
As Obama gains momentum some in the party might be uneasy about handing over the reins to a candidate with such limited heavy-lifting experience. It is a time of great international turmoil, if the Democrats regain the presidency after eight years and it turns out that Obama was not ready, it would be a disaster for the party. Clinton’s connections and experience also appear to be paying off, among their Senate colleagues with super delegate status, Clinton leads Obama 11 to 4.
Whatever the reasons, it seems undeniable that the movers-and-shakers in the Democratic Party are thus far behind Clinton. It will be interesting to see if she maintains her overwhelming super support as the remaining 200+ members of America’s Board pick their horses.
A list of the super delegates and who they support
As you may have guessed, the Democrat's board is populated by Governors, Senators and Party Chairman, all have varying degrees of influence within the Democratic party. These influential people, called super delegates, play an imperative role in the Democratic Party’s nominating process. Supers are uncommitted, meaning they are free to pledge their support for any of the Democratic candidates; they are independent of the will of the voters.
But that is not what I would like to discuss here. Instead I would like to ask who the super delegates are? And what impact will they have on the '08 election?
Under the system, if an underdog candidate begins winning primaries and looks like they may win the nomination, but would ultimately fair poorly in the general election, the super delegates can swoop in and rescue the party from its own self-defeating spontaneity-- at least that’s how they envision the system. Currently, Clinton is dominating the super delegates, her 159 vastly out number Barack Obama's 53 and John Edward's 34. There are 217 supers yet to make their allegiances known.
With that in mind, what does Hillary Clinton's hoarding of the supers mean for the Democratic Party? Are there apprehensions about giving the nomination to a black candidate? Are the supers jittery about Obama’s inexperience? Or is it simply an indication that experience and Capital Hill connections still matter?
I would hope it is not an issue of race and I do not. It is theoretically a factor and I wanted to at least present the idea.
As Obama gains momentum some in the party might be uneasy about handing over the reins to a candidate with such limited heavy-lifting experience. It is a time of great international turmoil, if the Democrats regain the presidency after eight years and it turns out that Obama was not ready, it would be a disaster for the party. Clinton’s connections and experience also appear to be paying off, among their Senate colleagues with super delegate status, Clinton leads Obama 11 to 4.
Whatever the reasons, it seems undeniable that the movers-and-shakers in the Democratic Party are thus far behind Clinton. It will be interesting to see if she maintains her overwhelming super support as the remaining 200+ members of America’s Board pick their horses.
A list of the super delegates and who they support
Maine: 21 delegates, no respect
Resembling more a political afterthought than an important election year state, Maine has caucuses fast approaching. Although, I will concede that practically Maine holds very little significance in the nomination process and it is weird for a Milwaukee resident, with no ties to Maine, to care about the little state. But awash in talks of Super Tuesday I wanted to take a look.
Maine holds its Republican caucus on February 1 and its Democratic caucus on February 10. Politically the state assumes a shade of blue, in 2004 Kerry won by a sizeable margin. Environmental issues are of particular importance because its vast natural resources prop up the state's economy. Voters are an independent group who vote their minds. Despite the Blue reputation of the state, both of its Senators hail from the GOP, and until recently the state had an independent governor.
First the Republicans. Two factors make Maine particularly insignificant on the Republican side. First, is its proximity to Super Tuesday. It appears as if Maine will experience a sort of Wyoming-affect. Wedged between Iowa and New Hampshire, Wyoming was the campaign season’s first forgettable caucus. A similar fate is most likely in store for Maine's Republicans. Second, Maine's Republican caucus is non-binding, meaning that the Feb. 1 vote is simply to take the state's temperature; Republicans do not choose who gets their state's 21 delegates until their May convention.
There is not a lot of polling data, whatever that means, but so far Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani have set up teams in Maine. John McCain appears to have the inside track, 23 state law makers endorse him along with the Maine Sunday Telegram (editorial boards love Mac).
The state is struggling to evolve its economy from its manufacturing roots and is struggling with ways to adapt. Candidates touting green technologies could make inroads with voters, because they are seen as both a way to help re-vitalize the state's economy and play to the strong sentiment of environmentalism in the state.
Although, there is no recent polling data, the last one conducted by Critical Insights (10/24) showed Mitt Romney with a four-point lead over Rudy Giuliani. These numbers are most likely different now, but Romney would seem a good fit. His experience, familiarity in the Northeast and his perception as the Republican front-runner best equipped to handle the economy bodes well for him in Maine.
Now the Democrats, who despite having their caucus only days after Super Tuesday, may carry some significance. If New Hampshire is any indication, the Democratic race is going to be hotly contested for the foreseeable future, meaning things may not be decided on Feb. 5. If that is the case, Maine's 24 delegates become a hot commodity amoungst Democratic front-runners.
Hillary Clinton has the endorsement of Gov. John E. Baldacci, former Gov. Governor Kenneth M. Curtis and Emmett Beliveau, son of veteran Maine Democrat Severin Beliveau. While Barack Obama gained the endorsement of the Sunday Evening Telegram, as well as House Speaker Glen Cummings. John Edwards has gained a myriad of endorsements, but it appears that after New Hampshire he wont play much of a factor.
With little polling data, it is tough to predict which Democratic front-runner will win in Maine. Because their is little practical difference between Obama and Clinton, the one who carries momentum coming out of Super Tuesday will most likely have an advantage in Maine.
So there it is, with all the talk of Super Tuesday, California and Florida, a look at the small habitually overlooked state of Maine. Tough to pick the winners (Romney and Obama, perhaps?), but I felt bad for little ole Maine and their afterthought status.
Maine holds its Republican caucus on February 1 and its Democratic caucus on February 10. Politically the state assumes a shade of blue, in 2004 Kerry won by a sizeable margin. Environmental issues are of particular importance because its vast natural resources prop up the state's economy. Voters are an independent group who vote their minds. Despite the Blue reputation of the state, both of its Senators hail from the GOP, and until recently the state had an independent governor.
First the Republicans. Two factors make Maine particularly insignificant on the Republican side. First, is its proximity to Super Tuesday. It appears as if Maine will experience a sort of Wyoming-affect. Wedged between Iowa and New Hampshire, Wyoming was the campaign season’s first forgettable caucus. A similar fate is most likely in store for Maine's Republicans. Second, Maine's Republican caucus is non-binding, meaning that the Feb. 1 vote is simply to take the state's temperature; Republicans do not choose who gets their state's 21 delegates until their May convention.
There is not a lot of polling data, whatever that means, but so far Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani have set up teams in Maine. John McCain appears to have the inside track, 23 state law makers endorse him along with the Maine Sunday Telegram (editorial boards love Mac).
The state is struggling to evolve its economy from its manufacturing roots and is struggling with ways to adapt. Candidates touting green technologies could make inroads with voters, because they are seen as both a way to help re-vitalize the state's economy and play to the strong sentiment of environmentalism in the state.
Although, there is no recent polling data, the last one conducted by Critical Insights (10/24) showed Mitt Romney with a four-point lead over Rudy Giuliani. These numbers are most likely different now, but Romney would seem a good fit. His experience, familiarity in the Northeast and his perception as the Republican front-runner best equipped to handle the economy bodes well for him in Maine.
Now the Democrats, who despite having their caucus only days after Super Tuesday, may carry some significance. If New Hampshire is any indication, the Democratic race is going to be hotly contested for the foreseeable future, meaning things may not be decided on Feb. 5. If that is the case, Maine's 24 delegates become a hot commodity amoungst Democratic front-runners.
Hillary Clinton has the endorsement of Gov. John E. Baldacci, former Gov. Governor Kenneth M. Curtis and Emmett Beliveau, son of veteran Maine Democrat Severin Beliveau. While Barack Obama gained the endorsement of the Sunday Evening Telegram, as well as House Speaker Glen Cummings. John Edwards has gained a myriad of endorsements, but it appears that after New Hampshire he wont play much of a factor.
With little polling data, it is tough to predict which Democratic front-runner will win in Maine. Because their is little practical difference between Obama and Clinton, the one who carries momentum coming out of Super Tuesday will most likely have an advantage in Maine.
So there it is, with all the talk of Super Tuesday, California and Florida, a look at the small habitually overlooked state of Maine. Tough to pick the winners (Romney and Obama, perhaps?), but I felt bad for little ole Maine and their afterthought status.
Wednesday, January 9, 2008
Do Independent Voters Matter?
It has oft been stated that the Independent voter is the one who is to ultimately decide who our next president will be. Democrats and Republicans increasingly vie for the independent vote, now having to appeal both to their party's followers and to some ambiguous mass, collectively headlined the independent voter.
But as candidates from the big two continue to court independent votes, the independence of these independents is being usurped. Registering as an independent is supposed to be an indictment on the big two parties, it is the culmination of years of disenchantment with the partisan news speak disseminating from both directions, well, sort of.
The system itself works against the independence of independents. Twenty-six primaries are considered closed. In closed primaries participants must register as a Democrat or Republican and are then are bound to vote for one of that party's nominees. These primaries exclude independent voters altogether.
Florida, Nevada, New York, Pennsylvania and Massachusetts are among the states that close their primaries to Independents.
Most of the remaining primaries are considered open. These allow participant to vote for any candidate, regardless of who they are registered with. Open primaries allow Independents to vote, but exclude Independent candidates from getting their names on the ballot. In other words, Independent voters are welcomed, provided they vote for a Democrat or Republican.
For example, when New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg dropped his party affiliation, it was widely anticipated that he was planning a run for the oval office. Bloomberg denies the speculation, but if he were to run, his independent status would exclude him from many primaries, including New Hampshire.
Independent candidates are also excluded from debates. It becomes difficult for an Independent candidate to enter into the same sentence with sustainability if they are not allowed to be heard. This is one of the reasons Ron Paul cites when explaining his reluctance to run as an Independent.
Touting the importance of the independent vote is one thing, but allowing those voters to assert their independence is quite another. Until the system becomes more accommodating to the Independent voter, it appears their importance will continue to be linked solely to an ability to get other mainstream candidates elected.
And as warm and fuzzy as it makes everyone feel to proclaim the importance of the Independent, until they are given the independence to vote for who the y see fit, their true importance is cursory at best.
But as candidates from the big two continue to court independent votes, the independence of these independents is being usurped. Registering as an independent is supposed to be an indictment on the big two parties, it is the culmination of years of disenchantment with the partisan news speak disseminating from both directions, well, sort of.
The system itself works against the independence of independents. Twenty-six primaries are considered closed. In closed primaries participants must register as a Democrat or Republican and are then are bound to vote for one of that party's nominees. These primaries exclude independent voters altogether.
Florida, Nevada, New York, Pennsylvania and Massachusetts are among the states that close their primaries to Independents.
Most of the remaining primaries are considered open. These allow participant to vote for any candidate, regardless of who they are registered with. Open primaries allow Independents to vote, but exclude Independent candidates from getting their names on the ballot. In other words, Independent voters are welcomed, provided they vote for a Democrat or Republican.
For example, when New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg dropped his party affiliation, it was widely anticipated that he was planning a run for the oval office. Bloomberg denies the speculation, but if he were to run, his independent status would exclude him from many primaries, including New Hampshire.
Independent candidates are also excluded from debates. It becomes difficult for an Independent candidate to enter into the same sentence with sustainability if they are not allowed to be heard. This is one of the reasons Ron Paul cites when explaining his reluctance to run as an Independent.
Touting the importance of the independent vote is one thing, but allowing those voters to assert their independence is quite another. Until the system becomes more accommodating to the Independent voter, it appears their importance will continue to be linked solely to an ability to get other mainstream candidates elected.
And as warm and fuzzy as it makes everyone feel to proclaim the importance of the Independent, until they are given the independence to vote for who the y see fit, their true importance is cursory at best.
Tuesday, January 8, 2008
The Other 24
Hillary Clinton won the New Hampshire primary, so what?
It was a surprise and no doubt a shot in the butt for a campaign that was struggling to hit singles. Winning New Hampshire could ensure a tight race throughout, rather than domination on the part of Obama. The vote was close, Clinton received 39 percent compared to Obama's 37, but what is of vivid intrigue is the 24 percent unaccounted for here.
Clinton played the role of Appalachian State, and won. Evidently emotion is in. What’s next? Bill Richardson on the Today Show, clasped fist held against a quivering chin, holding back tears as he describes his love for freedom. It might help him sniff double didgets.
By personalizing, Hillary did soften her image and dulled her ornery reputation, but enough to dig into the other 24 percent once lower tier candidates begin to drop out?
Numbers are going to change from primary to primary and, of course, the “other 24” will inevitably turn into another number. But just for fun, let's assume that tonight’s numbers will remain static.
That means if Edward's drops out, 17 percent of the vote would be up for grabs. Because she has established herself as the experienced candidate, the one who can hit the ground running, Hillary's persona does not fit the campaign's current buzz word, change. Juxtaposed against Obama's charming and confident change ethos, it seems likely that a majority of Edward's voters would support Obama rather than Clinton.
The icy exchange between Clinton and Edward's supporters this morning, while Clinton was visiting polling stations, also seems a good indication that Clinton and Edwards’s supporters are as compatible as oil and water. When Clinton went to shake the hands of a group of Edward's supporters, they refused, the entire time chanting, "The status quo has got to go!" Congenial? I think not.
Clinton can grab voters from Biden, Dodd and Richardson. But Edwards’s supporters, dazzled by great smiles and a populous message, will leap to Obama without giving it much of a second thought. In fact, the transition may be so smooth that some may not even know that their allegiances had switched. After all, the only person who conveys a better populist message than Edwards is Obama.
It is these voters, undecided in a sense, that will ultimately decide who gets the Democratic nomination. There is already a ticket of sorts formed on the Democratic side, Obama/Edwards ’08. Edwards could informally be included into the Obama campaign, his 17 percent share of the other 24 is Obama’s to lose. And it is this unofficial affiliation, Obama’s inroad into the other 24, which will ultimately win him the nomination.
It was a surprise and no doubt a shot in the butt for a campaign that was struggling to hit singles. Winning New Hampshire could ensure a tight race throughout, rather than domination on the part of Obama. The vote was close, Clinton received 39 percent compared to Obama's 37, but what is of vivid intrigue is the 24 percent unaccounted for here.
Clinton played the role of Appalachian State, and won. Evidently emotion is in. What’s next? Bill Richardson on the Today Show, clasped fist held against a quivering chin, holding back tears as he describes his love for freedom. It might help him sniff double didgets.
By personalizing, Hillary did soften her image and dulled her ornery reputation, but enough to dig into the other 24 percent once lower tier candidates begin to drop out?
Numbers are going to change from primary to primary and, of course, the “other 24” will inevitably turn into another number. But just for fun, let's assume that tonight’s numbers will remain static.
That means if Edward's drops out, 17 percent of the vote would be up for grabs. Because she has established herself as the experienced candidate, the one who can hit the ground running, Hillary's persona does not fit the campaign's current buzz word, change. Juxtaposed against Obama's charming and confident change ethos, it seems likely that a majority of Edward's voters would support Obama rather than Clinton.
The icy exchange between Clinton and Edward's supporters this morning, while Clinton was visiting polling stations, also seems a good indication that Clinton and Edwards’s supporters are as compatible as oil and water. When Clinton went to shake the hands of a group of Edward's supporters, they refused, the entire time chanting, "The status quo has got to go!" Congenial? I think not.
Clinton can grab voters from Biden, Dodd and Richardson. But Edwards’s supporters, dazzled by great smiles and a populous message, will leap to Obama without giving it much of a second thought. In fact, the transition may be so smooth that some may not even know that their allegiances had switched. After all, the only person who conveys a better populist message than Edwards is Obama.
It is these voters, undecided in a sense, that will ultimately decide who gets the Democratic nomination. There is already a ticket of sorts formed on the Democratic side, Obama/Edwards ’08. Edwards could informally be included into the Obama campaign, his 17 percent share of the other 24 is Obama’s to lose. And it is this unofficial affiliation, Obama’s inroad into the other 24, which will ultimately win him the nomination.
Mc-Mentum
It seemed as if a once mighty, likeable, centrist politician was now failing. His maverick image buried under an affinity for the troop surge and surrounded by a sentiment that said his presidential aspirations were now caput - things were looking bleak.
A GQ piece entitled "The Unmaking of a President" chronicled how a man who was seen as an obvious front runner for his parties '08 nomination had floundered. "The most sudden political collapses of our time," about as cheery as a Dick Cheney Christmas, but exactly how GQ writer Robert Draper described a descent into mediocrity.
For all intents and purposes, John McCain was done. His poll numbers languished in the scant teens, some 15 points behind then front-runner Rudy Guliani. Still facing flack for his support of the troop surge, his image as a maverick, poof, was gone.
Since then, things have changed for the Arizona Senator. An acceptable third in Iowa and a likely win in New Hampshire could give McCain good momentum headed into Michigan.
Mitt Romney, a Michigan native, currently leads Mike Huckabee by 1 point in Michigan - McCain sits six points back in third. But consider this, in 2000 McCain beat George Bush in the Michigan primary by a convincing margin, 51 percent to 43 percent. This despite the fact that Bush had both the endorsement and promises of then Governor John Engler, who assured Bush that his state would act as a buffer for the Bush campaign.
Like in 2000, this year McCain won the endorsement of the Detroit Free Press, adding to a collection of newspaper endorsements already including the Des Moines Register and Boston Globe. These endorsements, combined with one from Joe Liebermann, are what gave McCain the spark his campaign needed to reenergize.
Additionally, helping McCain’s chances in Michigan are the fact that many Democratic front runners are not on the ballot. This helps McCain because blue-collar Democrats are much more likely to cross battle lines for McCain than Romney.
If McCain wins New Hampshire and is able to steal Michigan from Romeny, he becomes not only legitimate, but the Republican front-runner. This McCain as front-runner is the worst case scenario for Democrats. As Obama emerges as the head-and-shoulders candidate for the Democrats, the Republicans are struggling to present a strong unifying candidate.
If McCain could re-gain his status as a rock star politician, trade-in his wrinkled frown for the Maverick image that once served him so well, not only could he win the Republican nomination, but he could also serve as a real contender to Obama, or whom ever the Democrats put forward.
The experience and battle-testedness of McCain makes him the only real threat to Democrats in the general election. He can play the experience card on a plethora of issue, but what will make or break McCain's chances is his ability to reassume his once Paul-esque image as a Maverick. Every candidate has jumped on the change express, but only a few are believable. For the Democrats, the candidate with this credibility appears to be Obama. McCain needs to assume that role for Republicans.
People once believed he was a great change agent, a tough no nonsense politician who would stand up to the president and, well, change things. If McCain can again morph into this unifying figure he has a real shot.
A GQ piece entitled "The Unmaking of a President" chronicled how a man who was seen as an obvious front runner for his parties '08 nomination had floundered. "The most sudden political collapses of our time," about as cheery as a Dick Cheney Christmas, but exactly how GQ writer Robert Draper described a descent into mediocrity.
For all intents and purposes, John McCain was done. His poll numbers languished in the scant teens, some 15 points behind then front-runner Rudy Guliani. Still facing flack for his support of the troop surge, his image as a maverick, poof, was gone.
Since then, things have changed for the Arizona Senator. An acceptable third in Iowa and a likely win in New Hampshire could give McCain good momentum headed into Michigan.
Mitt Romney, a Michigan native, currently leads Mike Huckabee by 1 point in Michigan - McCain sits six points back in third. But consider this, in 2000 McCain beat George Bush in the Michigan primary by a convincing margin, 51 percent to 43 percent. This despite the fact that Bush had both the endorsement and promises of then Governor John Engler, who assured Bush that his state would act as a buffer for the Bush campaign.
Like in 2000, this year McCain won the endorsement of the Detroit Free Press, adding to a collection of newspaper endorsements already including the Des Moines Register and Boston Globe. These endorsements, combined with one from Joe Liebermann, are what gave McCain the spark his campaign needed to reenergize.
Additionally, helping McCain’s chances in Michigan are the fact that many Democratic front runners are not on the ballot. This helps McCain because blue-collar Democrats are much more likely to cross battle lines for McCain than Romney.
If McCain wins New Hampshire and is able to steal Michigan from Romeny, he becomes not only legitimate, but the Republican front-runner. This McCain as front-runner is the worst case scenario for Democrats. As Obama emerges as the head-and-shoulders candidate for the Democrats, the Republicans are struggling to present a strong unifying candidate.
If McCain could re-gain his status as a rock star politician, trade-in his wrinkled frown for the Maverick image that once served him so well, not only could he win the Republican nomination, but he could also serve as a real contender to Obama, or whom ever the Democrats put forward.
The experience and battle-testedness of McCain makes him the only real threat to Democrats in the general election. He can play the experience card on a plethora of issue, but what will make or break McCain's chances is his ability to reassume his once Paul-esque image as a Maverick. Every candidate has jumped on the change express, but only a few are believable. For the Democrats, the candidate with this credibility appears to be Obama. McCain needs to assume that role for Republicans.
People once believed he was a great change agent, a tough no nonsense politician who would stand up to the president and, well, change things. If McCain can again morph into this unifying figure he has a real shot.
Monday, January 7, 2008
Pulling the plug on Clinton
"Whatever happens tomorrow, we're going on." Huh? Not exactly the sentiment of a strong, healthy campaign.
But it is exactly how Hillary Clinton greeted news Monday that she now trails Barack Obama in New Hampshire. He not only has wrestled New Hampshire away from the once Mrs. Inevitable, but he blew past her. Obama gained 11 points on Clinton and now holds a ten point lead, one day before the state's primary.
This surge should not come as a surprise to anyone, it is an indication of both what Obama did and what Clinton didn't do. Obama did win Iowa, and by default collected the momentum that accompanies a Hawkeye state win. But also, Clinton failed to realize that as her momentum faded in Iowa, efforts to save her chances in the state were useless.
Instead of bolstering her efforts in Iowa, Clinton should have shifted her focus to New Hampshire, a state she once led by 20 points. Not only could a shifted focus have helped her save New Hampshire, but it would have had the equally important affect of saving us all from the joke that was the Hill-a-copter.
I realize that many consider it a campaigning taboo to neglect Iowa, after all it is, well, Iowa. But what did Clinton's increased time and resources get her, an opportunity to give a very nice team player concession speech? It appears as if she may get the opportunity to give several more of those.
What Clinton should have realized is that she could sustain a loss in Iowa and still get the nomination, but she could not sustain a loss in both Iowa and New Hampshire. The former is a tough break, but something that a candidate as resourced as Clinton can overcome. But the latter is something that has only been done once. In her defense, the once was by hubby Bill in 1992-so if anyone can do it it may be her.
But, unlike Bill, an unlikeability factor accompanies the princess of pantsuits, something difficult to overcome. It is widely reported that half the country said they would refuse to vote for Hillary, but even beyond the numbers, there is something about her that just makes her hard to like for everyone but established supporters. Maybe the months of front runner attacks have worked, maybe not. But what ever it is, Clinton seems unable to attract new voters at a time when she needs them most.
From the candidate who could not lose, to defending her campaigns ability to continue in the wake of a New Hampshire defeat, Clinton's campaign is on life support. And it now appears that Granite state residents are poised to pull the plug.
But it is exactly how Hillary Clinton greeted news Monday that she now trails Barack Obama in New Hampshire. He not only has wrestled New Hampshire away from the once Mrs. Inevitable, but he blew past her. Obama gained 11 points on Clinton and now holds a ten point lead, one day before the state's primary.
This surge should not come as a surprise to anyone, it is an indication of both what Obama did and what Clinton didn't do. Obama did win Iowa, and by default collected the momentum that accompanies a Hawkeye state win. But also, Clinton failed to realize that as her momentum faded in Iowa, efforts to save her chances in the state were useless.
Instead of bolstering her efforts in Iowa, Clinton should have shifted her focus to New Hampshire, a state she once led by 20 points. Not only could a shifted focus have helped her save New Hampshire, but it would have had the equally important affect of saving us all from the joke that was the Hill-a-copter.
I realize that many consider it a campaigning taboo to neglect Iowa, after all it is, well, Iowa. But what did Clinton's increased time and resources get her, an opportunity to give a very nice team player concession speech? It appears as if she may get the opportunity to give several more of those.
What Clinton should have realized is that she could sustain a loss in Iowa and still get the nomination, but she could not sustain a loss in both Iowa and New Hampshire. The former is a tough break, but something that a candidate as resourced as Clinton can overcome. But the latter is something that has only been done once. In her defense, the once was by hubby Bill in 1992-so if anyone can do it it may be her.
But, unlike Bill, an unlikeability factor accompanies the princess of pantsuits, something difficult to overcome. It is widely reported that half the country said they would refuse to vote for Hillary, but even beyond the numbers, there is something about her that just makes her hard to like for everyone but established supporters. Maybe the months of front runner attacks have worked, maybe not. But what ever it is, Clinton seems unable to attract new voters at a time when she needs them most.
From the candidate who could not lose, to defending her campaigns ability to continue in the wake of a New Hampshire defeat, Clinton's campaign is on life support. And it now appears that Granite state residents are poised to pull the plug.
Sunday, January 6, 2008
Huckabee: a one hit wonder
Well, Mike Huckabee won Iowa. This will provide him the momentum he needs to propel ahead and become more than just a one hit wonder, right? Finally, we have the little guy who will stick it to the political machine, the blueprint is written.
Well, not so fast.
In a state where some polls have him in fourth place, New Hampshire is being less kind to Huckabee than the more religiously minded Iowaegans. An Alan Keyes-like finish in New Hampshire could be the proverbial nail that pops the Huckabee balloon, his Howard Dean falling from grace moment.
True, Huckabee is fairing well in some of the primaries following New Hampshire--he is second in Michigan, Florida, California and leads in South Carolina.
However, Huckabee is likely to not only lose in New Hampshire, but get beat bad. He is over 20 points behind McCain and over 15 to Romney, New Hampshire residents have given him only $33,350, fifth among republican candidates. And in Hillsborough County, New Hampshire’s largest, the FEC lists only 14 total Huckabee contributors. Indications are that things aren’t going to be pretty.
And if the unprecedented does occur and a candidate finishes first in Iowa and fourth in New Hampshire, the media would be paying closer attention than Dennis Kucinich at a UFO convention. And with limited resources to combat the negative attention, the fallout from a New Hampshire drubbing would have a palpable impact on Huckabee.
Considering no eventual winner of the Republican nomination has ever finished worse than second in the Granite State, it is tough to buy an argument suggesting that Huckabee’s campaign could be the first. Fergus Cullen, New Hampshire's Republican Party Chairman, says that in his state Mitt Romney's organization is well orchestrated and doubts that Huckabee can win New Hampshire based on winning Iowa alone.
Even in South Carolina, Huckabee's cushion state, things are not as rosy as the poll numbers indicate. State party chairman, Katon Dawson, says it will be hard for Huckabee to win his state without money, something the Hucksters lack.
And with the Mitt machine beginning to churn out attack ads, Huckabee does not have the resources to mount any legitimate television counterattack. The momentum meter was pegged for Huckabee before Iowa, he won, but his poll numbers dipped leading up to the caucuses.
Huckabee does have the urban legend that is Chuck Norris in his corner, which could be good, after all his chief export is pain. But only time can tell if the flannel clad, blue jean wearing Norris will be able to help save the Huckabee campaign if his bubble bursts.
Well, not so fast.
In a state where some polls have him in fourth place, New Hampshire is being less kind to Huckabee than the more religiously minded Iowaegans. An Alan Keyes-like finish in New Hampshire could be the proverbial nail that pops the Huckabee balloon, his Howard Dean falling from grace moment.
True, Huckabee is fairing well in some of the primaries following New Hampshire--he is second in Michigan, Florida, California and leads in South Carolina.
However, Huckabee is likely to not only lose in New Hampshire, but get beat bad. He is over 20 points behind McCain and over 15 to Romney, New Hampshire residents have given him only $33,350, fifth among republican candidates. And in Hillsborough County, New Hampshire’s largest, the FEC lists only 14 total Huckabee contributors. Indications are that things aren’t going to be pretty.
And if the unprecedented does occur and a candidate finishes first in Iowa and fourth in New Hampshire, the media would be paying closer attention than Dennis Kucinich at a UFO convention. And with limited resources to combat the negative attention, the fallout from a New Hampshire drubbing would have a palpable impact on Huckabee.
Considering no eventual winner of the Republican nomination has ever finished worse than second in the Granite State, it is tough to buy an argument suggesting that Huckabee’s campaign could be the first. Fergus Cullen, New Hampshire's Republican Party Chairman, says that in his state Mitt Romney's organization is well orchestrated and doubts that Huckabee can win New Hampshire based on winning Iowa alone.
Even in South Carolina, Huckabee's cushion state, things are not as rosy as the poll numbers indicate. State party chairman, Katon Dawson, says it will be hard for Huckabee to win his state without money, something the Hucksters lack.
And with the Mitt machine beginning to churn out attack ads, Huckabee does not have the resources to mount any legitimate television counterattack. The momentum meter was pegged for Huckabee before Iowa, he won, but his poll numbers dipped leading up to the caucuses.
Huckabee does have the urban legend that is Chuck Norris in his corner, which could be good, after all his chief export is pain. But only time can tell if the flannel clad, blue jean wearing Norris will be able to help save the Huckabee campaign if his bubble bursts.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)