Saturday, June 30, 2007

National polls from June and what they suggest.

I have pulled information from 4 polls from the poll compilation site, www.presidentpolls2008.com: 1)USA Today/Gallup 6/13, 2)American research group 6/11, 3)NBC News/Wall St. Journal, and 4) ABC News/Washington Post

These four were the most recently updated and represent some of the alarger news organizations out there, so I thought they were pretty useful in looking at trends.

Some basic things about these results. Some of the polls do not have numbers on some of the finge candidates. I supsect it is because the candidates were not included int he poll questions. That will skew the information somewhat, but we are looking for general trends so we should be alright.

First the Dems.

candidates 1 2 3 4
Hillary Clinton 39% 39% 39% 42%
Barack Obama 26% 19% 25% 27%
John Edwards 13% 13% 15% 11%
Bill Richardson 5% 5% 4% 2%
Joe Biden 3% 3% 4% 2%
Mike Gravel 1% 1% - -
Dennis Kucinich 1% 1% 3% 2%
Chris Dodd - - - 1%
Unsure 8% 16% 5%
Other 1% - 2% -
Wesley Clark* - 1% - -
None of the above- - 2% 4%

I think it is clear that NATIONALLY Clinton does in fact have about a 14% lead on Obama. Hillary is clearly relaxed and able to focus on just looking presidential. The odds of her losing the Democratic nomination are long as long as she has a double digit lead. She can make misleading proclamations without any of them being binding and just slowly add to her lead.

Obama is piling up the money and presumeably will be engaging in a media blitz at some point. I think Obama is running the wrong kind of campaign against Clinton. It may be that Obama is thinking that he wants the VP nomination if he can't get the presidential nod so he doesn't want to upset Hillary by going negative. I think that is a huge mistake. Bill Clinton can deliver the black vote. Richardson would be a much better VP candidate in terms of what he gives Clinton.

Edwards seems to be failing. He seems likely down to 13%. Now that isn't to say he is dead. Edwards is strong in many of the early primary states because he is campaigning smartly, but I still think Edwards' problem is he has the right message, but is the wrong messenger. He still could be a power broker if the choice falls between Obama and Clinton, but it could be an odd marriage as Obama clearly has a good bit of disdain towards Edwards.

Richardson seems to be faltering a bit, at least nationally. A few months ago he seemed to be moving towards Edwards. Looking at the polls, that momentum may be stalling a bit. He has a great resume and people like him when they meet him in person, but he absolutely stinks in the debates. He really needs to be coached better by his handlers.

Biden seems to have gained some traction, but not enough. He really needs to grab some share in the early primary states. He needs to take advantage of national news by making the best commentaries on it. He needs to displace Edwards as the #3 if he is going to have a shot at the Presidency.


Now the Dems with the spoiler Al Gore figured in...

Candidates 1 4
Hillary Clinton 33% 35%
Barack Obama 21% 23%
Al Gore 18% 17%
John Edwards 11% 8%
Bill Richardson 5% 2%
Chris Dodd 1%
Joe Biden 3% 2%
Mike Gravel 1%
Dennis Kucinich 1% 1%
Unsure 7%
Other 1% 4%

The Democratic frontrunners SHOULD be a little scared of Gore. Gore at 17-18% with no stated desire to run is actually polling much better than Fred Thomspson did (before more or less letting it be known he would be running). (Thompson was about half that). It is very conceivable he would enter the race around 25% and as such immediately displace Obama as the #2 candidate --- forcing Obama to totally change his campaign stategy --- as well as pulling Hillary down to the low 30's where she would be very uncomfortable and history suggests might misstep. Additionally Gore is a southern stater, which could help him win Florida this time around as none of the republican candidates have the ties there that Bush has.

Essentially, I think the election's Gore's if he wants it...but does he want it? My gut says no. Gore cares about the environment and as a retired politician non-beholden to either party he can sway more people. Plus if he were interested, now would be the time to declare. I see no urgency there.


On to the Republicans.

For the republicans the data is limited because of Thomson joining the race limits the usefulness of the polls.

Candidates 1 3
Rudy Giuliani 29% 29%
Fred Thompson 21% 20%
John McCain 20% 14%
Mitt Romney 8% 14%
Mike Huckabee 3% 3%
Tommy Thompson 2% 0%
Duncan Hunter 2% 1%
Sam Brownback 2% 1%
Ron Paul 2% 2%
Tom Tancredo 1% 1%
Jim Gilmore 1% 1%
Chuck Hagel 1% 0%
Unsure 8% 10%
Others 1%
None of the above 2%

Guiliani is the national front runner, but could be in real trouble as much of his support is in NY and California. The momentum in the election seems to be rushing quickly towards Fred Thompson. By time NYers and Californians vote, his popularity may be irrelevant. Additionally, I f he gets the nomination, Guilliani may also be really screwed if Bloomberg enters the race as an independent.

Fred Thompson seems the man to beat frankly, but I think his watergate connection may really hurt him --- as I hear the story he apparently spied for Nixon. Additionally, how much do the Republicans really know about Thompson. The reviews I have read of him indicate he shared a very similar voting record to John McCain who the conservatives really hate. But he seems to say the kinds of things Republicans like to hear.

McCain has to hope for a Thomson flameout. He was struggling to stay in second without Thompson and now is struggling to stay relevant with Thompson in it. You have to wonder how McCain feels about his friend --- and a guy who was endorsing McCain a few months ago --- basically stealing his nomination. Thompson seems to be killing McCain's remaing shot at the Presidency. Still, McCain has no one to blame but himself. When he adopted the Iraqi war as his, he lost the support of moderates that would have made him a viable candidate.

Romney has an outside shot to make a real move. He is pumping money into the early states and has a very good chance to have a good showing in the early states. That could dramatically change his national perception. If Romney wins some early states, it could quickly turn into a 3 horse race between Romney, Thompson, and Guiliani.

I am pleased to see Mike Huckabee up to 3 percent. I think he is actually the most substantial of the above candidates. He is a man of principle. He is a former priest and his religious knowledge does permeate his actions, but he isn't a devisive religious or party hack like Bush. He respects others in his words and his actions. He seems a consensus maker like McCain and Clinton. You can't help but like him, the more you see him. If he got the nomination he could do very well in the battleground states. He would do quite well against Hillary, IMO.

I think there really is only one more serious candidate among the rest of the feild---Tom Tancredo. Tancredo has a clear vision on what America should be and isn't a dick. He is a conservative who beleives strongly in border control and might actually get a jumpstart from the immigration battle.

Tommy Thompson, Gilmore, and Hunter seem like good conservatives, but they don't have the connections or the money, and the feild seems too crowded for just being conservative to get them any traction. Hunter seems like kind of a dick --- which can work in the Republican Party (Dick Chaney), but frankly his dickishness pales besides the intimidating Chaneyesque ballbreaker act Fred Thompson can oose. Brownback hits me as the guy who spouts toothless, inane, canned crap in response to every question. He seems weaselly. Paul is an internet freakshow. I'll certainly give it to him that he stands up for what he beleives, but there is a certain amount of tailoring of your arguements that you have to do to be a serious candidate and he is unwilling to compromise for anything. He reminds me of Pat Buchanan or Ralph Nader --- useless time wasters who put too high of an opinion of their opinions instead of showing an ability to compromise from time to time to acheive bigger goals.

Now with spoiler Newt Gingrich entering the race...

1 2
Rudy Giuliani 28% 24%
Fred Thompson 19% 15%
John McCain 18% 20%
Mitt Romney 7% 10%
Newt Gingrich 7% 12%
Mike Huckabee 3% 1%
Tommy Thompson 2% 1%
Duncan Hunter 2% 1%
Sam Brownback 2% 1%
Ron Paul 2% 1%
Tom Tancredo 1% 1%
Jim Gilmore 1% 1%
Chuck Hagel 1% 1%
Unsure 8% 11%
None of the above

The best hope for McCain would be Gingrich entering the race. If Gingrich were in, it appears he would split the support for Thompson and Romney and pull Guiliani back to the pack a little more. McCain could get right back into the race at that point.

I do not think Gingrich would win the race though. He seems too devisive and would be easily beaten by most of the Democratic candidates. I also do not think he will run. He has a real opportunity to be someone's VP (and a very effective one at that) if he stays out of the nomination process.

Sunday, June 24, 2007

Bush approval rating drops below Carter's low; Democratic Congress still less popular though.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19352087/site/newsweek/

"How Low Can He Go? President Bush registers the lowest approval rating of his presidency—making him the least popular president since Nixon—in the new NEWSWEEK Poll.

WEB EXCLUSIVEBy Marcus Mabry
Newsweek
Updated: 10:49 a.m. CT June 21, 2007

June 21, 2007 - In 19 months, George W. Bush will leave the White House for the last time. The latest NEWSWEEK Poll suggests that he faces a steep climb if he hopes to coax the country back to his side before he goes. In the new poll, conducted Monday and Tuesday nights, President Bush’s approval rating has reached a record low. Only 26 percent of Americans, just over one in four, approve of the job the 43rd president is doing; while, a record 65 percent disapprove, including nearly a third of Republicans.
The new numbers—a 2 point drop from the last NEWSWEEK Poll at the beginning of May—are statistically unchanged, given the poll’s 4 point margin of error. But the 26 percent rating puts Bush lower than Jimmy Carter, who sunk to his nadir of 28 percent in a Gallup poll in June 1979. In fact, the only president in the last 35 years to score lower than Bush is Richard Nixon. Nixon’s approval rating tumbled to 23 percent in January 1974, seven months before his resignation over the botched Watergate break-in.
The war in Iraq continues to drag Bush down. A record 73 percent of Americans disapprove of the job Bush has done handling Iraq. Despite “the surge” in U.S. forces into Baghdad and Iraq’s western Anbar province, a record-low 23 percent of Americans approve of the president’s actions in Iraq, down 5 points since the end of March.
But the White House cannot pin his rating on the war alone. Bush scores record or near record lows on every major issue: from the economy (34 percent approve, 60 percent disapprove) to health care (28 percent approve, 61 percent disapprove) to immigration (23 percent approve, 63 percent disapprove). And—in the worst news, perhaps, for the crowded field of Republicans hoping to succeed Bush in 2008—50 percent of Americans disapprove of the president’s handling of terrorism and homeland security. Only 43 percent approve, on an issue that has been the GOP’s trump card in national elections since 9/11.
If there is any good news for Bush and the Republicans in the latest NEWSWEEK Poll, it’s that the Democratic-led Congress fares even worse than the president. Only 25 percent of Americans approve of the job Congress is doing.
In the scariest news for the Democratic candidates seeking their party’s nomination in 2008, even rank-and-file Democrats are unhappy with Congress, which is narrowly controlled by their party. Only 27 percent of Democrats approve of the job Congress is doing, a statistically insignificant difference from the 25 percent of Republicans and 25 percent of independents who approve of Congress.
Overall, 63 percent of Americans disapprove of the job Congress is doing, including 60 percent of Democrats, 67 percent of Republicans and 64 percent of Independents. Apparently, voters aren’t happy with anyone in Washington these days."


================================================================

My Take:

I woke up yesterday to the news that President Bush's approval rating dropped below Jimmy Carter's all time low. I cannot begin to tell you how happy this makes me. Not simply because I lean democrat; Much moreso because I am an American who hates how evil the country has acted under Bush. He has made me party to things like torture and the violation of human rights. (Although, maybe not so much as people who actually voted for him.)

When Bush was floating at a 28-29% approval rate, his legacy was that he would be looked at as a good president (he was, afterall, re-elected) who hit the doldrums during his presidency. Remember Reagan. Reagan went through a breif period of unpopularity during his two terms, but is now looked back on through love goggles as the greatest president of the last 50 years (not to say that he may not have been!). I worried that when Bush left office, Americans would, as we are want to do, forget all the bad and remember only the good and elevate him to a similar, if slightly lesser, level --- thereby opening the door for candidates of a similar lack of moral fiber.

(No one really focuses on bush Sr's all-time approval rating low point. And Bush Jr.'s I think would have also been forgotten.)

This approval rating GURANTEES his legacy is shit. It gurantees that many of his policies will be discredited long term--- like Jimmy Carter's were. Even if Bush is golden for the last few months, the news (CNN, MSNBC, Newsweek, etc. Everyone but Fox.) in future years will dig up the fact that he had a lower approval rating than a presidency that the media considers failed (Carter). Carter's approval rating had been the measuring stick of a failed presidency over the last 30 years. I would argue that is no longer the case.

Bush has dropped below the "incompetency" threshold, and is now nearing Nixon's "corrupt Presidential criminal activity" threshold (23%).

It makes me happy because at 28%, Bush HAD leveled out. The Republican Tools (a term I created for people who vote republican against their self-interests) had long since abandoned him. The 28% represented his base: the unholy trio of the religious right, rich tax evaders, and corporate theives sucking from the teats of American tax payers. These people have a deathgrip on Bush that they used to seize control of the American government. For him to drop below 28% percent, he would have to break his base.

I think he has broken it. With the discrediting of his ideas that this will bring long term, it would be extremely difficult for a Bush-like candidate to build the type of alliance Bush had.

Understand, I am not crowing over a preceived death of the Republican Party; I am celebrating the likely restoral of sense to that Party. I am celebrating the idea that much of the corruption inherent in the party might go away, or that the party might nominate a less devisive candidate, or that religion might become less of an issue with the republicans, or that if these things stay an issue --- the republicans just won't win.

I don't know what the end result of this will be, but it seems clear to me that this news will bring about positive change in one way or another. Either we will see better Republican PEOPLE who an independent like myself might vote for --- or they will lose elections --- either one works for me.

This is great news for people who hate polarized government.

I love that Bush's legacy will be of failure.

-For polarizing this country along religious lines,
-For letting Bin Ladin go --- to instead put our troops in Iraq --- thereby not getting justice for the families of 9-11 victims,
-For dumping BILLIONS of American dollars into Iraq and forcing us to BORROW THE FINANCING FOR THAT WAR FROM CHINA,
-For allowing his father's company and other big corporations to syphon that money --- tax dollars of the American public (and our children and GRANDCHILDREN -- who will have to pay china back) in essence profiteering off that conflict through the rubber stamp of the "Iraq war",
-For getting over 3000 American troops and 75,000+ innocent Iraqis killed in a war that didn't have to happen,
-For cutting backroom deals with the Mexican government and, apparently, Mexican DRUG DEALERS (for christsake!) that have two of our border agents sitting in jail for doing their jobs --- their wifes and kids having to go on without them --- and the rest of our border agents scared to enforce our borders for fear of political repraisals...

For all these reasons and more --- Bush deserves this legacy.

Saturday, June 16, 2007

I vote "No confidence in the Democratic Congress" and I usually vote Democrat.

A friend who happens to be a Republican shill advised me after the election that America would suffer under the "leadership" of Nancy Pelosi. He was also very down on Harry Reid.

I did not know much about either, but I thought, "they cannot be worse that the Republicans".

I was wrong.

The Republicans rubber stamped any bill that gave government money to big corporations under the broad umbrella of national security. I hate that. They use scare tactics to stay in power and lack the political will and/or integrity to insist the government's primary military issue be capturing Bin Ladin and stamping out Al-Quida. Over the last 8 years, they have proven to be, with few exceptions, lying opportunistic garbage picking at the bones of the people killed in 9/11.

IMO.

But, at least they were competent at it.

Pelosi has done next to nothing beyond getting herself involved in a PR "scandal" going to visit one of our "enemies". Why would you do something like that? Don't you have to look at benefits vs. potential negative responses on everything you do at that level? As far as I can tell, she did it to basically announce there was a new sheriff in town. What did it accomplish on the international stage? Nothing much. What damage did it do in the US? It established that the only thing that Pelosi has done of note for the vast majority of Americans who just discovered her since she took power is to have possibly done something that is "fuzzy illegal" to spite Bush.

Pelosi DOES appear to be in over her head.

And Harry Reid...WTF!?!? I never thought I would meet a man who George Bush could consistently out maneuver. Reid seems like a nice guy, but he is really screwing the pooch here. America wants a politician who doesn't speak in platitudes or riddles, in the Senate more than anywhere else. Instead Reid talks about reading his child Dr. Seuss and quotes the books. Dude, you run the Senate. Make the only words that ever come out of your mouth to be along the lines of, "This bill was voted on and failed. 45 Democrats and 3 republicans voted for it." PERIOD. You have a real problem with Public perception, bottom lining stuff would really help you in that your image to the public would not be you being another stupid time waster.

The current immigration reform really kills me though. They put this bill forward knowing that Bush desperately wants his legacy not to just be iraq and that Bush will bite on anything that helps legalize all the backroom dealings he has had with Mexican officials and corporations to open our borders.

Why even trot this bill out? Bush has been called a lame duck president, but his veto has stopped almost every piece of legislation the Dems have put out. The Dems want to take down the Attorney General, but Bush laughs at their efforts. This Attorney General isn't even popular with the Republicans! Most political insiders thought the guy would be out in 2 weeks and here it is 3 months later and The Dems still haven't even accomplished that!!!! Bush publicly ridiculed their efforts and said he would not replace Gonzales earlier today. If this political balance stays in place, the Dems will have to throw Gonzales in jail to get Bush to replace him --- and frankly, even then replacement does not appear to be a certainty. Bush might just pardon Gonzales and keep him on.

The fact is, Bush is kicking the Democrats' asses, even as a "lame duck".

If Bush is a lame duck from here on out, why do they give him a chance to get out of that bed by putting this stupid immigration law out there? Why do this, when you can wait a little over a year and work with a more reasonable president and a larger democratic majority to pass a law that actually satisfies your constituency?

I take this as Pelosi and Reid deciding that they need to accomplish SOMETHING, even if it is something that paints Bush in a favorable light (as far as not being a lame duck). The thought is probably that Bush is on his way out and the Republicans can't possibly capitalize on this, because this splits their party and puts politicians against their constituency. That is just stupid logic.

If this bill passes, the Republicans will be able to say, "I was against all of the facets of the bill you don't like, but my President asked for my support. I refused, but he asked again and I grudgingly agreed, but only after insisting on these changes." It allows Republican Senators to appear loyal to the party and the president (voters love that about the republicans) and willing to work with the Democrats (independents hate gridlock brought about by party line voting) while protecting Republican core values.

This is not even a bone bone thrown to the Republicans and Bush. This is a fat leg of lamb. If this bill passes Republicans will profit from it far greater than Democrats. Republicans will be able to point at this crappy piece of heavily negotiated bi-partisan legislation and say if you vote for Democrats, this is the kind of bills you can expect. What do Democrats get out of this?

Then Harry Reid pulls it off the agenda stating the votes are not there to pass it. What are you thinking, Harry Reid?!?!?! Send it to a vote and watch it burn. Let the image of lame duck Bush stew in American minds for the next 6 months. Underscore the fact that his party has abandoned him. Let the America know that they ONLY way they are going to get immigration reform is with a better majority in Senate and a Democratic President.

Instead wet noodle Reid limply pulls it off the table letting the Republicans off the hook. Now if it passes, this was another triumph of embattled War President George Bush, saving legislation that the Democrats could not pass. George Bush, the tough president who could unite parties when the time came.

Dude this just makes me sick.

Harry Reid just turned over all credit for any good that bill might bring about to George Bush.

For that, he has to go.

------------------------------------------------------------------

I do not mean to imply that immigration reform is a bad thing, but I think the Democratic strategists are being very stupid about it.

No other Republican but Bush would ever vote to give amnesty to 12 million illegal aliens. In other words, if Bush doesn't pass this law, a Democrat will. So if the choice is to make those mostly Mexican illegals Democrats or Republicans, why are Reid and Pelosi trying to make them Republicans? Politically, you are talking about the future of California, New Mexico, Arizona, and Nevada. Are you willing for California to become soft Democrat and New Mexico, Arizona, and Nevada to go hard Republican?

If you want to accomplish things, there are better ways to do so --- even on the policy of illegals.

1) Cater to Republican congressmen and congresswomen, not Bush. Republicans want their "War on Terror". Give it to them. Give them a simple law that ramps up US/Mexico border security by protecting border agents from political reprisals, giving the border patrol AND the national guard freedom to engage attacking Mexicans, AND build that damned fence. That is what most of America wants. America wants to feel secure. Republican senators will vote for any legislation that only deals with securing the border. Bush will vote against anything that appears anti-Mexican. If you can dig up enough Democratic votes, you can pass a secure mexican border bill into law OVER a Bush veto. That would be a crushing defeat for the Bush administration.

And it would make the Democrats seem like the party that is really tough on security. Democrats will need that in the presidential election.

You could actually use that process to build relationships with the Republican rank and file and maybe even secure promises to support future legislation to transition illegal immigrants to legalized migrant workers.

Illegals should have a way to become legal migrant workers, but there should be no way they should be allowed to stay here permanently. That is rewarding illegal activity and most Americans hate that on principle. Create a system that brings illegals in-line with legal aliens--- who are required to leave the country when their stay is up. Make deportation of illegals a every day reality. Everything will sort itself out from there. To do more than that is to take an unneccessary political black eye.

If you kill Bush by breaking his veto a couple of times, you liberate like minded Republicans to vote their conscience rather than the party line. You might even be able to get traction on Iraq and Gonzales, but that won't happen until the party gets their act together and learns how to lead.

------------------------------------------------------------------

If this mismanagement continues, there will be no Democratic majority in the senate and the odds of a Democratic president are greatly reduced.

For the good of the party, Reid and Pelosi need to step down and let more forceful and media savvy democrats take their place.

Tuesday, June 5, 2007

Still optimistic about Joe Biden

Along with the top 3, he did very well in the debate by the account of the media reveiwers. I am more and more impressed with Biden the more I see him.

He says things I beleive in.

He looks presidential.

I think the moving of most states dates to February 5th really helps smaller candidates and might bite the poll leaders in the butt.


Follow me for a second and I'll show you how Biden might win this thing. Every candidate has strengths and weaknesses.

Jan 14th.
Iowa.
Hillary struggles in the midwest where she is seen as a "feminazi" and a self absorbed harpy. Now expectation are that Obama takes Iowa. But what if Obama turns out to be suprisingly weak in the midwest? What if his strength in Illinois is just that? What if he continues to be somewhat uninspiring? This could turn into a 3 way heat between Obama the favorite, Edwards the challenger, and Biden, the campaign veteran. What if Iowa is up for grabs and Biden wins it collecting a good chunk of their delegates?

Biden gets media coverage from his unexpected upset leading up to Jan 19th.
Jan 19th.
Nevada.
Hillary should do better here, but this is not a blue state, so Hillary and Obama will be vulnerable here as well. There are a number of hispanics, so Governer Richardson could finish 3rd or even second. But again, Hillary and Biden know these primaries. A win or second would be huge in terms of momentum. I think these votes are going to be darned near split 4 ways anyway, although Hillary or the governor could suprise and run away with it. A second place finish would have the entire media rethinking the 2 horse race for the next 3 days.

Jan 22nd.
New Hampshire.
Word of mouth after the debate suggests New Hampshire saw it as 3 tiers: Hillary and Obama; Edwards and The Governor; and then Biden and the rest. The critics saw Biden as having a very strong debate, but the attendees were more taken with Hillary, Obama, and Richardson. Biden seems intent on working NH very hard and is well known in the area from previous campaigns. His efforts campaigning the state combined with momentum from the previous 2 primaries could deflate Edwards and even richardson a bit and have him displacing them as the alternate candidate and running a strong 3rd (say 20%) in NH. If New Hampsire turned to biden over Edwards and Richardson, both candidates might be willing to be brokered into a deal.

That would give a week of "wow, maybe Biden is legit talk" for the week leading up to Jan 29th. Now that would be a ton of free publicity for the public, and it could give rise to the kind of momentum that displaced Howard Dean. Biden is a well liked guy in the Democratic ranks. Hillary is respected, but liked? Maybe not so much. Obama suffers from the same problem as Dean did in 2004 as an outsider to the national party, but to a lesser degree. You won't see a thousand knives stabbing either in the back to help Biden like you did in 2004 helping Kerry, but you could see a couple people helping out. Chris Dodd, I could definitely see turning his people over to help Biden campaign. They seem to get along and are both small state guys trying to make the jump to higher political office. It works in Dodd's favor to try it. Perhaps a deal might be brokered with John Edwards at that point. "Deliver me a win in South Carolina and help me come in the top 3 in Florida and you will be my VP." At that point if things were not going well for edwards he might bite at that. Some money might come in on Biden as a flier. Knowing Biden, he would probably spend most of it immediately on advertising in Florida and South Carolina. I don't think Biden could talk Richardson out at that point as I expect Richardson to do well in Nevada and New Hampshire and be quite optimistic about Florida, but what would an offer of the Secretary of State job do for Richardson? I think that would be better than he'd get from Obama, but I think Richardson might hold out hope of a VP bid from Hillary.

Jan 29th.
The moment of truth.
South Carolina and Florida.
Can Edwards deliver South Carolina? I don't know if he could do it for him, let alone do it for someone else. I don't know if he could deliver 3rd in florida either as Richardson should do well with the hispanic vote, but after two weeks of watching Obama and Hillary struggle, the top tier support would be soft. I could see Hillary in the 25-30% range and Obama in the 15-20% range (it is the south afterall). With Dodd's and Edward's people on board I think they could be anywhere from 20-40% in South Carolina. If Richardson doesn't do as well as I anticipate in Nevada, he might bite on joining the Biden team. If so, that would put Biden as the #3 guy in Florida by process of elimination. If that happens, I could see Obama and Hillary splitting florida with Biden.

That would give Biden essentially the lion's share of Iowa (actual win+ Edward's), Nevada or a share of (his share and richardsons), 20% of New Hampshire (3rd), 40% of South Carolina (win), and 25% of Florida (3rd). That would probably give him say 12 + 10 + 6 + 20 + 47 = 95 of the 5 states' combined 297 delegates to clinton's say 4 + 10 +8 +15 + 49 = 86 and obama's say 6+3+ 8 +10 + 47 = 74 in those first 5 states and more importantly all of the momentum.

I'd say at that point the nomination would be decided if they corked my boy Biden's mouth. :)

Obama and Hillary are both running their campaigns based on where they are today. Hillary wants to be the front runner. Obama wants to stay close and be the only legitimate alternative. Both campaigns would collapse if faced with this scenario entering the week before the new Super Duper Tuesday. Hillary cannot manufacture instant momentum and Obama needs to remain distant and presidential looking--- getting down and dirty and practicing negative campaining won't work for him against a white candidate. (It is what it is, don't hate.)

Additionally, you have to understand Super Tuesday was designed to get a more moderate (and electable candidate). It hasn't really worked out. Super Duper Tuesday (what they are calling Super Tuesday with all the new states who have moved up their primaries) is going to severely curtail the east's ability to foist another guaranteed loser on the rest of the US. I think you'll see the rest of the US chosing a viable alternative to the candidate favored by the northeast a lot more frequently with the new system.

Clinton will win New York, but it isn't winner take all. Obama, IMO the california favorite, may still win California in this scenario, but that rest of those states could either be had or broken even on.

Super Duper Tuesday
5 February, 2008
Alabama (60)Alaska (18)Arizona (67)Arkansas(47)California(441)Colorado (71)Delaware (23)Georgia(104)Idaho (23)Illinois (185)Missouri (88)New Jersey (127)New Mexico (38)New York(280)North Carolina (110)North Dakota (21)Oklahoma (47)Tennessee (85)Utah (29)

Leaning Hillary = Arkansas(47)New Jersey (127)New York(280)

Leaning Obama = Arizona (67)California(441)Colorado (71)Illinois (185)Missouri (88)North Dakota (21)

Potentially leaning Biden = Alabama (60)Alaska (18)Delaware (23)Georgia(104)Idaho (23)New Mexico (38)North Carolina (110)Oklahoma (47)Tennessee (85)Utah (29)

When you consider the primaries are not "winner take all", there is a real opportunity for Biden if he can get some traction and work his way into the second tier in the early primaries.

Monday, June 4, 2007

Which candidate will flame out?

It is early in the election season and so far it looks like Hillary or Obama (although Edwards may be making inroads even if the stats don't reflect it) vs. Guliani or Thompson (with a chance of a McCain resurgence still floating out there).


But hold on. People forget about the flameout factor. In almost every Presidental election, one candidate flames out famously after seemingly wrapping things up. Think about it. Dean in 2004. McCain in 2000. Perot in 1992. Hart in 1988.

Let's review.

Dean was an outsider who was running away with the Democratic nomination with his narrow focus demolition of George Bush. His attacks in large part helped Bush's public support crumble to below 50% --- a historically guaranteed benchmark that foretold certain Republican failure. Then Dean made a weird noise that was recorded on tape. The Democratic establishment saw their opportunity to replace Dean with one of their own. The Democratic establishment rolled Dean up like old carpet and laid down John Kerry. Kerry, in spite of (because of?) his war hero past, simply couldn't deliver the biting Bush critism that Dean provided and his choice of a relative unknown who delivered no tangible benefits for vice president lead the Democrats to snatch defeat from the jaws of certain victory.*

But...I digress. Dean is the story here. He was too inexperienced to hold the crest. When he encountered a bad patch he and his advisors were unable to turn the tide.

John McCain seemed likely to wrap up the Republican nomination in 2000, then Karl Rove and his hatchet men spread stories of McCain having a half black child out of wedlock. (I think it turned out to be an adopted child or something totally innocent like that.) The story was not addressed immediately and properly by McCain and his staff. It festered. McCain fell behind Bush. To this day, he still doesn't seem to have recovered from the experience, seeming every bit as shellshocked as the day he lost to Bush.

Ross Perot was well on his way to winning the election of 1992 over the unpopular incumbent George Bush and unknown democratic candidate Bill Clinton when if Perot is to be believed --- and I don't see why not --- someone on the Republican side threatened to kill his family members if he stayed in the race. Apparently Perot felt this individual/group had the means to do it. He quit the race. Then he thought better of it and rejoined the race. At that point a good part of his support decided he wasn't just eccentric --- he was also flaky. He came in a distant third. (Perhaps he could take some solice that the candidate of the people who allegedly threatened him did not win.)

Gary Hart was the overwhelming favorite to capture the democratic nomination when he was caught with his girlfriend Donna Rice. It was just stupid, but some political collapses are like that.


So that leads us to today's feild. Who will suffer the horrendous flameout? Here are my odds.

Hillary - 10%
Obama - 10%
Edwards - 30%
Guliani - 60%
Thompson - 50%
McCain - 25%

I think in terms of flameouts this feild is promising, but not at the top of the Democratic feild. I think Hillary's camp wants to play from the frontrunner position allowing her to spend her time acting presidential and practically benevolent to her competitors. She will not allow any candidate to seem more hawkish than her when discussing combat, but on the same token her benevolence towards her fellow Democrats is helping the onetime "harpy" look almost grandmotherly. If she is constantly in the public presence and constantly putting out that tea and cookies vibe, eventually the hope is the public's high negative rating of her will enventually diminish. It isn't a bad plan at all.

Obama is a veteran politician with polished handlers too. I am frustrated by Obama's slow play, but I understand it. The Clinton handlers are the Democratic versions of Karl Rove. When Obama pushed close to Hillary a few months ago, Hillary and her handlers panicked and attcked pretty hard. It came back to bite Hillary, but next time it might not. Obama's handlers are pretty smart to let hillary have a comfortable (but not insurmountable) lead now, 6 months before the elections. That keeps the dirty tricks put away. I think the plan is probably to slowly chip away at the clock. As the election grows nearer, the smaller candidates will drop out or become so marginalized that their voters will abandon them. Obama's handlers are right to think that those voters are probably (with Hilary's 40 % negative approval rating) picking their favorite non-Hillary flavor and Obama will be their second choice. I think the plan is to pick up those votes and put on a feirce charge in the last 45 days, hoping Hillary and her handlers panic and make another mistake that may prove catestrophic. Again, not that bad of a plan, just pretty unsatisfying to me personally.


I rate Edwards at a 30% to meltdown, but that is misleading. Edwards isn't a frontrunner, so can he actually meltdown? I think Edwards has a handful of things working in his favor and a handful of things working against him. He has the legitimacy of and the experience from being a VP candidate. People know him and he has a better feel for what people want. He has good messages even if they are slightly too complex for his target audience. He has more than a little simpathy due to his wife's regrettable condition. On the negative side, he ooses pansy. I am sure I am not the only one who wonders if he is closeted. He is a bit of a fancy lad. As W proved in the last election, if you can't do anything else right, be predictable, dim, and painfully and consistently unrefined. Americans do not like to think and interpret candidates like W as "honest". I think that is maybe ingrained in us, since Hoover ruined being smart. Edwards is trying to make it a 3 person race so he can essentially decide the democratic nomination and use that to become VP. If he can consistently finish a strong third and maybe win some southern states, (Hillary and Obama are Yankees afterall) he could essentially demand the VP job with his delegates' votes. I find his campaign to be one of the more interesting stories on the democratic side as I think Obama REALLY doesn't like him and Hillary might be wise to grab New Mexico Governor Richardson as her running mate --- something I am sure her advisors have considered. It is in both candidate's interest to marginalize Edwards.


Guliani is the Howard Dean of this election. He has probably the greatest positive rating of any candidate among the entire voting electorate, but he is a green presidential candidate and simply is not conservative enough for his base. Like Dean, the Republican Party will do their damnedest to replace him with someone they like (Thompson). He is a very soft front runner.

Like the Dems with Kerry, the Republicans should be careful what they wish for in Thompson. He is a tough badger of a man ala Dick Cheney, but has that great mix of being unknown enough not to have gobs of enemies, but known enough to be seen as the savior of the party. Not so fast though. More than one account by people who know him well question whether he has the heart to go through the race. The very way he is holding off entering the race until essentially the last second possible (rumored to declare July 4th) could indicate that while he may want to be president he is not in a hurry to have to go through all the abuse to get there. Make no mistake about it, Guliani's may be a weak front runner but every politician at that level (ok, not named John McCain) knows how to go negative. And I totally see Mitt Romney brutalizing both front runners with his fat election cash. Thompson's people seem capable and the hard core conservative republicans are begging him to get into the race probably promising that it will be fairly easy, but if Thompson's heart really isn't in it and it turns out to be too much of a fight, I could see Thompson bailing before the primaries are over and throwing his support behind his friend McCain. The aftermath of that would really be something to see.

Like Edwards a true meltdown doesn't seem likely for McCain at this point --- although you could argue it already happened when he adopted the Iraq war and gave it a matching comb over at the start of his campaign. (I still think that approach will not end up burning him quite as badly as most thought at the time, because one of the only real constants in life is that people change their minds. What was hideously unpopular today might be marginally acceptable tomorrow. Look at bell bottoms and Bill Clinton.) At this point it seems like McCain will either peter along and maybe land enough support to become someone's VP or will be the veteran campaigner who capitalizes on someone else's mistakes or collapses to win the nomination in some bizzare finish.

I think Romney is done, so there is no meltdown rating on him. Like Edwards he sets off gaydar with his soft hand gestures. On the Republican side of the house voters are MUCH more sensitive to that, and I think that has a LOT more to do with his lack of traction than his Mormon faith. I don't think the republicans have put it together beyond "there's something I don't like about that guy". (The funny thing about it is that if he had run as a democrat he might have been the favorite right now. Now mind you jumping parties and running for office is not a simple thing, but think about it. He is Gary Hart without the girlfriend. He is tall and polished. He is financially conservative, but has always been socially progressive up to now. He could have run as what he (probably) is and has been, instead of what the voters want him to be. He isn't black or female which makes him an easier candidate for the American public to accept than Hillary or Obama. He would have been a stronger, more accomplished, more impressive version of John Edwards.)



* "And who would have been better vice presidential candiates than South Carolina's John Edwards?" Well, Howard Dean for one. When you really get down to it, Edwards did a fair job of holding his own in a debate against VP Dick Cheney and did a decent job being the ticket's attack dog --- allowing Kerry to look somewhat presidential staying above the frey for the most part, but Edwards at that point in his life just wasn't a pit bull. Dean would have been relentless in wrecking bush. Other candidates who a halfway decent manager and presidential candidate similar to Kerry (without the rocks in his head) might have selected would include former NATO commander and four star general Wesley Clark or former Florida Governor and Senator Bob Graham. Clark would have turned the election into a choice of two military heroes vs. two chicken hawks to run the war in Iraq. His presence on the ticket would have, in essence, validated Kerry's military resume. Clark's platforms also were much more substative than Kerry's and frankly Clark with his experience in world affairs probably would have at least broken even with Cheney in the VP debate. With Clark on the ticket, the military vote would have gone to Kerry --- that would have been enough. Graham also probably would have delivered the presidency. Graham had been governer and a senator in Florida and in his time in politics had NEVER LOST a florida election. It doesn't seem a big stretch that he could have delivered enough additional voters to capture Florida's 27 electoral votes.