Presidential Politics for America

Nevada Caucus Preview; More Polls

2012-02-03T10:30:00.004-05:00

What a difference a primary makes. Ahead of tomorrow's Nevada Caucus, the latest polls are out. Romney's repossession of the Republican Primary's momentum is evident in each of them. Whereas Gingrich had all the mojo after South Carolina, Romney's win in Florida has forced Mr. Momentum to change teams.

In the last 24 hours, new published polls came out from Nevada, Arizona, and Michigan. Yesterday, I relayed what was then the latest polls, which I warned were outdated. Let's contrast each of those with the very latest polling to see just how much momentum the Romney Campaign has seized.

In Nevada, a December poll ranked the candidates as follows:
1. Romney--33% (up 4 on Gingrich)
2. Gingrich--29%
3. Paul--13%
4. Santorum--3%

But then, the same polling team--the Las Vegas Review-Journal--conducted a poll from January 27 to January 31, which yielded the following (next to each I will write the difference from the December poll):
1. Romney--45% (+12 from last poll)
2. Gingrich--25% (-4)
3. Santorum--11% (+8)
4. Paul--9% (-9)

Romney gain + Gingrich loss: 16

We'll return to Nevada in a bit, but it should be known that PPP released a poll today that had Romney up to 50 percent (+17 from December) with Gingrich holding at 25, Paul up to 15, and Santorum down to 9.
----------
Now let's take a look at Arizona, a February 28 primary. A November poll gave us:
1. Gingrich--28 (up 5 on Romney)
2. Romney--23
3. Paul--8
4. Santorum--3

Then, yesterday, a Rasmussen poll conducted on February 1 yielded the following:
1. Romney--48 (+25!)
2. Gingrich--24 (-4)
3. Santorum--13 (+10)
4. Paul--6 (-2)

Romney gain + Gingrich loss: 29
----------
And the third published poll was out of Michigan, which also has a February 28 primary. Yesterday, I listed the following percentage points from a late January poll (1/25-1/30):
1. Romney--31 (up 5 on Gingrich)
2. Gingrich--26
3. Paul--14
4. Santorum--10

But now, another Rasmussen poll conducted on February 1:
1. Romney--38 (+7)
2. Gingrich--23 (-3)
3. Santorum--17 (+7)
4. Paul--14 (even)

Romney gain + Gingrich loss: 10
----------
The trend is clear, and it's also the reason the Romney Campaign isn't as worried as most of the media wants them to be. With wins comes money. With money comes ads. With ads comes a rise in poll numbers. With a rise in poll numbers comes wins. With wins comes money. The cycle perpetuates itself.

The goal for Team Romney, therefore, is to just keep winning. That might seem obvious, but remember that his competitors, especially Gingrich, argue that even if Romney wins a plurality in most of the states, he will not get over 50 percent of the total delegates. The point, though, is that eventually, if Romney keeps winning, based on the cycle above, their winning percentages will crack 50 percent. With enough of those, they'll win a majority before the end of the primary season, and well before the Republican National Convention.

We might see that first 50 percent victory as soon as tomorrow. Tomorrow's Nevada Caucus has pre-caucus polls which show that huge Romney surge (see above). Since a big part of Gingrich & company's criticism of Romney is that he can never put together a coalition of a majority of voters, that argument could fall through as early as Nevada, the fifth contest of the Republican Primary. Then, as shown in the last two paragraphs, that could very well lead to winning 50 percent of the vote in a lot more states.

For now, our eyes turn to Nevada. The number to watch for: 50. Will Romney break it, or won't he? Gingrich would rather finish 25 points back of Romney's 45 than 20 points back of Romney's 55. (I swear that makes sense in my head.)

Until next time.

Republican Primary Standings, February Polling

2012-02-02T07:05:00.001-05:00

Yesterday, I relayed the competing estimates of each candidate's delegates in the GOP Primary. The CNN Standings, MSNBC Standings, and Real Clear Politics Standings can't seem to agree on their projections. I wrote about why here.

Factoring in each of their projections gives us the following general GOP Primary Standings (represented in ranges):
1. Romney: 65-84
2. Gingrich: 23-27
3/4. Santorum: 6-11
3/4. Paul: 3-10

And I said yesterday, important numbers to keep in mind:
Total possible delegates: 2286
Number needed for majority: 1144

Where do they go from here? I'm glad you asked.

Below are the February contests and their delegate totals. (I'll number them in chronological order. So, Iowa was 1, New Hampshire was 2, South Carolina was 3, and Florida was 4.) It's worth noting that there are 128 total delegates up for grabs in February. The total doled out in January? Only 115. Just like the three NonRoms keep reminding us, there's a long way to go.

I looked for polls in each of these states, but they were all too outdated. All of them were run before Florida, and some before Iowa. (I have to believe polls are in the field as I write this, though, so stay tuned.) Still, this schedule will help set the stage for the next few weeks, and I'll be sure to reference it in the posts still to come. Therefore, I'll simply post the date of the last unreliable poll underneath each one; just don't take much stock in them. I'll also add a thought or two on each of the contests, though they'll get more attention as they draw closer.

Saturday, February 4
5. Nevada Caucus--28 delegates
Last poll: Las Vegas Review-Journal, 12/12-12/20
1. Romney--33 (up 4)
2. Gingrich--29
3. Paul--13
4. Santorum--3

Note on Nevada Caucus: More on this tomorrow in the Nevada Caucus Preview.

Saturday, February 4 to Saturday, February 11
6. Maine Caucus--24 delegates
Last poll: Public Policy Polling, 10/28-10/31
1. Romney--24 (up 6)
2. Gingrich--18
3. Paul--4
4. Santorum--2

Note on Maine Caucus: Why the range of dates? Maine leaves it up to their municipalities to determine when they'll hold their caucus between February 4 and February 11. Kind of cool. Also, this might be Ron Paul's best chance to win a state, so that's always exciting.

Tuesday, February 7
T7. Colorado Caucus--36 delegates
Last poll: PPP, 12/1-12/4
1. Gingrich--37 (up 19)
2. Romney--18
3. Paul--6
4. Santorum--4

Note on Colorado Caucus: Rick Santorum is counting on Colorado to restore his campaign's legitimacy. Yesterday, he drove home his points against Gingrich in his attempt to become the anti-Romney candidate. The poll above--where Santorum is far back with 4 points--means nothing. Santorum barely registered anywhere before his meteoric rise at the turn of the year before Iowa. If Paul wins Maine and Santorum shows well in Colorado (and Gingrich also looks to have some natural popularity in the state), we'll see the Romney campaign lose some steam.

T7. Minnesota Caucus--40 delegates
Last poll: PPP, 1/21-1/22
1. Gingrich--36 (up 18)
2. Romney--18
3. Santorum--17
4. Paul--13

Note on Minnesota Caucus: The weightiest of the February contests, Gingrich had an enormous lead two weeks ago. But that was during his peak--South Carolina weekend. It'll be interesting to see where these numbers end up. If Gingrich maintains his lead, Minnesota could deliver him a nice win. Now I'm starting to think that if Paul, Santorum, and Gingrich could get on the same page between now and Tuesday, and each spend all their time in one state (Paul in Maine, Santorum on Colorado, Gingrich in Minnesota), Romney's delegate count would certainly be curtailed. None of them can actually win a majority of the delegates. Their only hope is ensuring Romney can't, either.

T7. Missouri Primary--0 delegates
Note on Missouri Primary: The February 7 primary will not determine delegates. That will be settled by the March 17 caucuses, when 52 delegates will be awarded.

Saturday, February 18
10. Guam! (Caucus)--9 delegates
I got nothing here.

Tuesday, February 28
T11. Arizona Primary--29 delegates
Last poll
PPP, 11/17-11/20
Gingrich--28 (up 5)
Romney--23
Paul--8
Santorum--3

Note on Arizona Primary: Arizona's delegation of 29 is after a 50 percent penalty for holding it too early halved their original total of 58. Its November poll above is meaningles. It's worth noting that this is a winner-take-all state. We might see the candidates cede it to Romney.

T11. Michigan Primary--30
Last poll
EPIC-MRA, 1/25-1/30
Romney--31 (up 5)
Gingrich--26
Paul--14
Santorum--10

Note on Michigan Primary: It's one of several home states for Romney (Michigan, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Utah), but his debate comments about allowing GM to fail might not play well. Still, he should be able to win the state. It's a loooong away, though.

Of the six February states:
Gingrich leads 3 (Colorado, Minnesota, Arizona)
Romney leads 3 (Nevada, Maine, Michigan)
---
GOP National polls:
Gallup Tracking 1/27 - 1/31
1. Romney--31 (up 5)
2. Gingrich--26
3. Santorum--16
4. Paul--11

NBC News/Wall St. Jrnl, 1/22 - 1/24
1. Gingrich--37 (up 9)
2. Romney--28
3. Santorum--18
4. Paul--12

Rasmussen Reports, 1/23 - 1/23
1. Gingrich--35 (up 7)
2. Romney--28
3. Santorum--16
4. Paul--10

CBS News/NY Times
1. Romney--28 (up 7)
2. Gingrich--21
3. Santoroum--16
4. Paul--15

Real Clear Politics Average of the four:
1. Gingrich--29.8 (up 1)
2. Romney--28.8
3. Santorum--16.5
4. Paul--12.0

Florida Primary Analysis

2012-02-01T10:35:00.000-05:00

With Mitt Romney's massive win last night, the politics of the 2012 Republican Primary have experienced a paradigm shift. As January turns to February and Romney's lead extends (more on this in a bit), Romney's rivals will no longer look to directly compete with and defeat Romney in primaries and caucuses. Instead, from here on out, they'll simply looking to slow Romney down, keep him under 50 percent of possible delegates, and then hope that with the right breaks and momentum shifts, support comes to them by, or at, the Republican National Convention.

Of course, there's some irony here. The fact that all three other candidates are counting on this long-game strategy ensures that all three other candidates continue to split the anti-Romney vote. Both Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum, for example, remain in the race, hoping to ultimately be the clear NonRom. By doing so, however, the conservative base cannot rally around one of them to actually be it.

Still, the math supports that the candidates are not crazy in their rational. The Republican Primary Delegate Standings vary depending on your source, but they all remind us that the young primary is really, really young. After the Florida results, here's what we have for the GOP Primary Standings across a few media outlets. Each shows their estimations of the Republican delegates for the 2012 Republican Primary.

CNN Standings:
1. Romney--84
2. Gingrich--27
3. Paul--10
4. Santorum--8

MSNBC Standings:
1. Romney--70
2. Gingrich--23
3. Santorum--11
4. Paul--6

Real Clear Politics Standings:
1. Romney--65
2. Gingrich--25
3. Santorum--6
4. Paul--3

While you keep those numbers in mind, here are two more:
Total possible delegates: 2286
Number needed for majority: 1144

Thus, if we take Romney's largest delegate estimation--84--he is a scant 7.3 percent of the way to the 1144 necessary. With numbers like that, can you blame the GOP candidates for remaining in the race, especially with so much uncertainty with Romney?

Here's a quick look at the statuses of the candidacies, in reverse order of their finish last night, after Florida and heading into the February contests.

4. Ron Paul--7% of the Florida vote
Florida analysis: Ron Paul punted Florida weeks ago. Why? It's a winner-take-all state! And Ron Paul has no shot at winning any relevant state (sorry, Maine). His constituency might be a minority so cacophonous that it sounds like a majority, but it certainly is not one. Therefore, it was wise not to use resources in a state where he has no chance at winning any delegates.
Moving forward: Caucus states!

February 4: Nevada (caucus)--28 delegates
February 4–11: Maine (caucus)--24 delegates
February 7: Colorado (caucus)--36, Minnesota (caucus)--40, Missouri (Straw Poll, won't count)

Caucuses are where that loud, organized minority can do well. They're made for Ron Paul, and he knows it. Look for Paul to score delegates in all of these states, especially kooky Maine. (Yes, that was two Maine digs in one section. Apologies to Uncle Ralph and Aunt Sandy.)

3. Rick Santorum--13%
Florida analysis: Like Paul, Santorum put relatively little time into Florida. He left the state early to get a jump on the caucus states (and also to nurse a sick but thankfully improving daughter).
Moving forward: Rick Santorum's speech and tactics have zeroed in on a two-step strategy.

Step 1: Go after Gingrich. Romney will continue to truck along around 40 percent--give or take, depending on the geography--and the way to beat him is to consolidate the remaining 60 percent. For Santorum, that means removing Newt Gingrich from the equation.

Step 2: Emerge as the final and strongest anti-Romney candidate, there for every Republican who was nervous about a Romney nomination and yet was terrified of a Gingrich candidacy. Santorum even pointed out that Gingrich, after his South Carolina triumph, had his shot, but then he "became the issue," which sank his Florida chances. Republicans wouldn't want that repeated in the general election.

Santorum's speech last night tried to appeal to that base. He chided the Romney/Gingrich mudslinging, saying "Republicans can do better." He wants to be the defender of the Republican Party. And, of course, he continues to stay on message: he has been a true conservative across the board during his entire career, and his rivals can't say the same. I'd argue his strategy here is as much to compete for the nomination as it is to be the clear-cut choice for the VP nod from Romney.

Look for Santorum to focus on Nevada, Colorado, and Missouri over the next month.

2. Newt Gingrich--32%
Florida analysis: After his trounce in South Carolina, the 14-point loss in Florida is a major disappointment. His mojo was stymied, leading many to say that money is more powerful than momentum. Indeed, Romney outspent Gingrich by a wide margin. The commonly relayed 5 to 1 ratio was ultimately archaic; it was reported on January 27. I saw a graphic on CNN last night that showed Romney ultimately outspent Gingrich by an 8 to 1 margin ($5.7 million to $700,000), and if you factor in their Super PACs, Romney's number cranks up to $13.3 million to Gingrich's 2.4. (Santorum and Paul? Zero and zero, respectively.) A Wesleyan University professor called the spending a "one-sided domination." The ads from both sides, of course, were overwhelmingly venemous. It's believed that of all the Florida ads, 92 percent were negative. The Romney SuperPAC "Restore Our Future," ran $10.7 million worth of ads, and $9.9 million of them attacked the former Speaker. Yikes. It's understandable why Gingrich's numbers collapsed down the stretch, much like they did in December when Romney employed the same tactic in Iowa.
Moving forward: Look no further than the Gingrich signs at his speech last night: "46 States to Go."

Gingrich, last night, characterized the primary as, now, a two-person race: the "conservative leader against the Massachusetts Moderate." In other words, give up on Santorum--his lowly 13 percent, after all, was only six points higher than Ron Paul--shows that he's out of it. Don't throw away your vote, Gingrich would have you believe.

Gingrich's plan, clearly, is to be the last man standing with Romney. He wants to lead a conservative coalition majority against the man who can't seem to reach 50 percent support anywhere, despite his outstanding organization across the country, his unparalleled war chest, and the fact that he's been running since 2007.

To get the conservative Republicans across the country salivating, Gingrich ran off a list of specifics--what he would do on his first day in office. These pieces of steak included repealing "Obamacare," abolishing the Presidents czars, repealing the Presidents anti-religious acts, and signing the Keystone Pipeline contract. All of those are wildly unpopular with the conservative ranks, and Gingrich made a direct appeal to the dissatisfied Republican masses. Gingrich prides himself on being the candidate of specifics and ideas. These were it, and they'd contrast deeply to Romney's speech (more on that below).

Moving forward, Gingrich has his eyes on lengthening this process. He feels he can win most southern states--with good reason, too, after his major South Carolina victory and his success in Florida's panhandle last night. If Romney is limited by proportional delegation allocations and Gingrich southern victories, to say nothing of Santorum's conservative crusaded and Ron Paul's fanatical minority each earning delegates, there's a very real chance that Romney does not eclipse 50 percent for a few months. Indeed, he predicts the Republican Primary will probably last six months!

Now, will Gingrich have the money to sustain his desperate strategy? He probably won't. But who will have the money to sustain him? Super PACS! The exact kind of organization repudiated by Gingrich for months. Oh, the irony.

1. Mitt Romney--46%
Florida analysis: Big win. Huge win. Gargantuan win. With one primary, Romney went from on the ropes to, once again, the prohibitive favorite. He did it by excelling at last week's debates, where Gingrich finally floundered.
Moving forward: He's obviously in the driver's seat. He has the delegate lead and a boatload of money. Moreover, the money will come in more than ever now. Gingrich says his numbers are still strong nationally--and they are--but that won't last. People love supporting a winner. Romney's poll numbers will rise across the nation, paralleling his mounting campaign coffer. Things are looking up for the Romney Campaign.

That being said, his speech last night was disappointing, to say the least. I'm in the midst of writing a thesis on the Election of 1948, and Romney's speech last night was eerily reminiscent of Thomas Dewey's failed election. Both were the huge favorite, and both said nothing of any substance that could potentially damage their chances. Romney delivered platitude after platitude ("We want to restore America"?), and only attacked Obama policies, rather than substitute them with his own. ("We believe in the America that challenges each of us to be better and bigger than ourselves." Does that even make sense?). It was the exact opposite of the Gingrich speech. Rather than ever saying what he was going to do (other than build the strongest military in the history of the world, which the US already has and is not relinquishing any time soon), he's telling his party to trust that he will do something. Truly lame, and, for all the Republican attacks on President Obama's "Hope and Change" speeches of four years ago, seriously hypocritical.

More on the upcoming races over the next few days! See you then.

-IC

Florida Primary Preview

2012-01-30T06:45:00.003-05:00

Here is your Florida Primary Primer--seven questions that interest me heading into the Florida Primary:

1. How will Florida's political geography break down? Florida, politically, is a fascinating state. So often we look at states and see a rather monolithic structure (Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, Massachusetts, most states in the Midwest), but just as often we see a two-stone makeup (Pennsylvania, Ohio, Colorado, and others with a couple deep blue cities surrounded by a massive red countryside). Rare is the state, however, that can be broken into three demographic areas; Florida can.

The Sunshine State has three relatively neat divisions. Up in the panhandle, we see a Southern conservatism, one that more closely resembles South Carolinian ideologies than they do the beliefs of their South Floridian statemates. It's evangelical country, and we can expect Santorum and Gingrich to do well there. How much better Gingrich does than Santorum might determine Gingrich's overall chances at the state. Perhaps Gingrich will benefit the most here, as his Georgian blood was bred next door.

Moving south to the central part of Florida, we move into Transplant Country. These are Seniors from northern areas and cities throughout the country who moved down for their near- and/or full-fledged retirement years. Here we can obviously expect Mitt Romney to do well, especially since a strong fiscal manager seems to be their best bet to ensure those social security checks keep coming in.

Third and most southern we have diversity. There are whites and Latinos, Christian and Jewish voters, native Floridians and elderly transplants. This will be where the state is won, and of all the demographics in this area, it's the Latinos that are most politically volatile. Which transitions to...

2. Who will win the Latino vote? The Washington Post writes that the Latino voting bloc is up for grabs. While historically the Floridian Latino community was comprised mostly of conservative Cubans--usually anti-Castro refuges--recently cities like Miami have welcomed a wider diversity of Hispanics, and the second generation Cubans aren't as conservative as their parents were. Indeed, a sizeable 13.1 percent of Florida is Latino, says the Pew Hispanic Center, and a majority of them are now registered Democrats, a contrast from six years earlier when they largely sided with the GOP. Thus, what would presumably have been a Gingrich/Santorum vote may edge toward Romney.

With the other two sections of Florida seemingly split between Gingrich and Romney, the candidate who consolidates the Latino vote is likely to be the overall winner of Florida and would earn all 50 of the state's winner-take-all delegates. Can Romney hold onto their moderating opinions, though? The LA Times is skeptical, citing Romney's extraordinarily wealth as a turn-off to working Latino families. His father might have been a Mexican immigrant, but his aggressive stance toward immigration could hurt him.

Still, if Latinos are moderating in Florida, I see Romney winning close to 40 percent of them, with Gingrich about 10 points behind, and Santorum and Paul splitting the remaining third. Watch for these numbers in the Exit Polling. They might make the difference.

3. Does Romney win convincingly enough to wrap up the nomination? A double-digit win might make his nomination a formality, and recent Florida polls seem to make this a probability. A narrow win, however--even with a winner-take-all state--will keep his challengers very much viable. What he doesn't want is a close second place finish from Gingrich with Santorum way back of the two. If Santorum subsequently drops out, Gingrich would finally consolidate all the conservative vote, and he'd do it early enough where it could make a difference in the month leading up to Super Tuesday. Romney either needs to be the presumptive nominee by Super Tuesday, or he needs the conservative base to stay divided through the March 6 contest.

4. Can Gingrich stay alive with a distant second place? He says he will take his candidacy all the way to the Republican Convention. He says that the delegate math plain isn't there for Romney. "There’s no evidence anywhere that Romney’s getting anywhere near 50 percent. Gradually, conservatives are consolidating." It's actually a great point, one worth taking a closer look at if Romney wins and Gingrich and/or Santorum press on. If Romney doesn't win 50 percent of the delegates by the last primary (June 26 in Utah), they must settle the nomination at the convention.

Now, conventional wisdom (see what I did there?) is that once a nominee does well enough in the early states, his competitors fall by the wayside and support the leader. But if Gingrich takes his Melvillian vengeance to the extreme--and plucky Ron Paul remains to shape the debate for as long as possible--Romney's push for 50 percent of the delegates could be limited, and we could find ourselves not knowing the nominee heading into Tampa convention at the end of August.

It's worth noting that this isn't totally far-fetched. Gingrich, after all, still leads national polls. He says as long as Romney isn't able to focus on a state and "carpet bomb" the airwaves with negative attacks, he's the preferred Republican on the real issues. We'll see.

5. Can Santorum do well enough to be a viable "Anti-RomNewt"? Is it me, or does it seem like more than half the party can't stand Romney and the other half can't stand Gingrich? It goes without saying that about 10 percent of the party loves Ron Paul, but the other 90 percent would rank him fourth of the four. Is it possible, then, that the entire party can agree on Rick Santorum as their second favorite and, more importantly, dub him the "I could live with him" candidate? It's possible.

I think Rick Santorum is banking on the party ultimately coming to that realization. He's hoping that they'll eventually say, "There's no way we can nominate a Massachusetts moderate Mormon or a hothead former Speaker who has twice as many enemies as friends." And if they do, Santorum is waiting there with open arms. That's why I think Santorum stays in this race, even after finishing a distant third in Florida.

6. What can we expect from Ron Paul? The most passionate eight percent of the vote you've ever seen.

7. What's next? Caucuses! Specifically, Nevada on February 4th, Maine starting on the 4th and going to the 11th (weird), and Colorado and Minnesota on the 7th. That's 128 delegates between them, which is more than the first four caucuses combined (thanks to Florida's 50 percent penalty). Starting on Saturday, it'll be a fun week if Romney hasn't sewn it up. And you know what caucuses means... Ron Paul supporters!

But let's not get ahead of ourselves. Happy Florida!

-IC

Cain Endorses Gingrich, Sausage Grinders

2012-01-29T08:14:00.001-05:00

Citing bold ideas and the former Speaker's patriotism, Herman Cain endorsed Newt Gingrich yesterday. It was an interesting endorsement, to say the least. When explaining his reasoning, Cain waxed poetic on Gingrich's commitment to country and a certain household appliance.

"There are many reasons, but one of the biggest reasons is that I know that Speaker Gingrich is a patriot," Cain reasoned. "Speaker Gingrich is not afraid of bold ideas and I also know that Speaker Gingrich is running for president and going through this sausage grinder. I know what this sausage grinder is all about. I know that he is going through this sausage grinder because he cares about the future of the United States of America."

The sausage grinder could not be reached for comment.

I'm skeptical of Cain's impact at this point. Though he did win the Florida Straw Poll back in September, the former Godfather Pizza CEO saw his numbers collapse across the board by the end of December, when he became the first of the Final Eight Republicans to withdraw.

Still, Gingrich could use all the help he can get. The latest Florida polls now show that Mitt Romney has solidified and maintained about an 8-point lead across the board in the polls. Of the last six polls taken in the last four days, Romney holds between a 7- and 9-point lead in all of them. One can't help but think that their consistency reveals their accuracy. Barring a major shake up in the next two days, we can fully expect that Romney wins by 7 to 10 points on Tuesday. And remember, only six days ago, Gingrich was sporting a lead after his South Carolina triumph.

Thus, with his Thursday debate a miserable failure, yesterday we saw Gingrich return to the only reason Romney never had the nomination wrapped up in the first place. Gingrich insisted he was the true conservative who can defeat President Obama in November: "We have to have a conservative," he explained, "Otherwise we're going to be as frustrated with the Republican as we were with the Democrat." In other words, according to Gingrich, nominating Romney will hover dangerously close to four more years of the Presisident.

Will the reminder work? Or is the conservative base resigned to a Romney nomination? I'll have a Florida Primary Preview tomorrow. We'll look at the latest developments of these two candidacies, and see what, if anything, Rick Santorum has left in the tank.

Florida Weekend: Romney Reasserts

2012-01-28T08:00:00.002-05:00

What a turn of events. I'm still stunned. Of the myriad candidates who aggressively attempted to make themselves palatable to the GOP, it's Mr. Vanilla who looks to be the last to raise Republican taste buds. Mitt Romney's combative, confident, and crafty debate performance on Thursday night sewed up Florida, and it sewed up the Republican nomination. Others might characterize this prediction as premature. I do not.

Many factors make this development astonishing. First, consider that Republicans had seemingly been searching for an anti-Romney candidate that could compete with him for close to a year and finally found one, only to lose him in a matter of days.

Second and similarly, Newt Gingrich had all the momentum heading into this week. But of all the candidates' surges over the past six months, has any candidate's momentum so quickly and visibly been squashed? I think not.

Third, and perhaps most surprising of all, debates are considered by many pundits, me included, as the former Speaker's finest strength. Indeed, it was his debate performances--and the numerous debates--that allowed his campaign, for so long, to survive on a shoestring budget and pathetic national organization. While Romney poured millions into ads and a metropolitan infrastructure, Gingrich used the free debates as opportunities to engage and court the Republican voter, and he did it better than any Republican candidate since Ronald Reagan.

But then there was Thursday night. When writing Gingrich's post-mortem, we will point to January 25 as the end of his campaign. So outclassed was he by Mitt Romney that I have altered the left sidebar's odds of the three major candidates without seeing any new polling data (I'm allowing 36 hours for polls to reliably gauge debate effects), to say nothing of not needing to see the Florida Primary's ensuing shake up.

And how did he do it? By taking the gloves off and being proud of it. In past debates, he'd either attempt to focus on President Obama, or he would admonish his competitors while sporting an uncomfortable smile. Early in Thursday's debate, however, Romney confidently chided Gingrich's evaluation of Romney's immigration stance ("The idea that I'm anti-immigrant is repulsive."). Boot placed squarely on Gingrich's neck, Romney never let Gingrich breath all night. In response to an abrasive--and ultimately withdrawn--Gingrich ad, Romney charged "I think you should apologize for it, and I think you should recognize that having differences of opinions on issues does not justify labeling people with highly charged epithets."

Gingrich squirmed. Countless times he tried to win the crowd--something that in the past had come so easy to him--but it just wasn't happening on Thursday. At one point, like a football team waiting to use a trick play, Gingrich attacked moderator Wolf Blitzer for his "nonsense question," hoping to rally the crowd as he did against Blitzer's colleague, John King, in the final South Carolina debate. But his trick play was snuffed out behind the line of scrimmage. While the crowd did momentarily rally to Gingrich's Antimedia Crusade, deus ultimately did not vult. First, Blizter stood his ground. Then Romney helped the moderator fight back ("Wouldn’t it be nice if people didn’t make accusations somewhere else that they weren’t willing to defend here?"). It came to nothing for the Speaker, and Romney capitalized. Gingrich, it grew increasingly clear, was stuck on the treadmill for the night, which is probably the only time anyone has ever written that down.

Romney wasn't perfect ("you're fired" and his forgetful nature about the ads he approved come to mind), but he didn't have to be. He just had to be better than Gingrich. Moreover, he was able to win the crowd. In fact, so popular was Romney with Thursday's audience that some began to wonder if the GOP stacked the crowd with Romney supporters, just so the party could more quickly arrive at the inevitable nominee before the party's centrifugal forces tore it apart.

If you're wondering about Rick Santorum and Ron Paul's roles in this ostensible dichotomy, I'll get to them soon. Truth be told, IC is awfully busy. While writing here about the Election of 2012, I'm also writing a Master's Thesis on the Election of 1948. Perhaps I can cap a PhD off with a comparison between the two!

Anyway, for Santorum and Paul analysis, and more Mitt v. Newt, check back in again as we close in on Tuesday's Florida Primary. As always, thanks for reading.

-IC

GOP Florida Debate LIVE BLOG

2012-01-26T19:45:00.104-05:00

7:45--Good evening, and welcome to Presidential Politics for America's first live blog of the 2012 presidential election. I'm joined by fellow writer, Stephen Kurczy. The two of us host the "Wing Nuts" section of Construction Lit Magazine, posting Mondays and Fridays. For the next 90 minutes, we'll make live updates throughout the second Republican Debate in Florida, aired on CNN. To follow along, refresh the page every so often and see us update the night away.

Without further ado, Stephen Kurczy everyone!

SK (7:49): Hey there gang. It's an honor for me to share the blog-o-stage with PPFA's Dear Leader for the 19th GOP debate of the 2012 presidential race and the final debate before the Florida primary on Tuesday. The GOP field has dwindled to four, after about eight other candidates "oops-ed" themselves out of the race. Why the live blog? Cause this is like "American Idol" for me and Ian! But also because debates DO matter. In the debate one week ago, Newt Gingrich's first comments were enough to win the night and the South Carolina primary two days later. Can Newt do it again? Or will Mitt Romney come out swinging? Can Rick Santorum turn this into a three-man race? Or will he be relegated to the Never Land of Ron Paul? Stay tuned!

IC (7:52): Great questions, Steve. Big picture, we're looking for similar things. I was taking a look at the current Florida polls from RCP. It looks like Romney re-established a lead, even if it's a lot slimmer than it was two weeks ago. After peaking with a lead in the mid-20s, his lead over Gingrich evaporated by the end of last weekend. Then, Gingrich took the lead in three different polls while a fourth showed a tie. Since, however, Romney re-gained the lead and has built it up to 7-8 points. Gingrich, tonight, MUST stop that growing gap. If Gingrich wins Florida, we're in for a month of havoc. If Romney wins and take a large delegate lead (remember that Florida is winner-take-all) heading into a national campaign (where his massive war chest can seal the deal), the primary might effectively be over.

IC (7:58): Filling in for Steve as he works on technical problems... How does Santorum edge back into this race? I don't see it. His Florida numbers fell and flatlined after Iowa, and this is with three other candidates--two of which were his main conservative competitors--dropping out. If he finishes a distant 3rd, he'll likely drop out. And the question remains: to whom, if anyone, does he throw his support?

IC (8:00): Here we go! Cue the CNN movie trailer music.

IC (8:01): Answering our first commenter: CNN!

IC (8:03): Wolf! Does he bring anything to these debates?

SK (8:03): Wolf Blitzer is such a blow-hard! Guy drives me crazy.

SK (8:04): The ties worn tonight: Mitt’s is aqua blue. Newt’s is navy with red stripes. Santorum’s is blush red. Paul’s is striped red and maroon. Mitt is the only candidate wearing an American flag pin.

SK (8:05): I love watching these guys walk onto the stage. Ron Paul, quick steps and hurried. Romney, slow and assured. Gingrich, waddling. Santorum, like a nice guy walking into your back yard for a bar-q-que!

IC (8:06): Romney and Santorum singing the anthem. Typical. Ron Paul: "Hey, Mitt, you know why they sing this song? So you don't have to. PS. The Fed sucks."

SK (8:06): Check out whose singing the national anthem, Santorum and Romney. Meanwhile, Paul and Gingrich stare at the flag, their eyes moving around the crowd.

SK (8:08): What are these guys writing on their notepads? I think Mitt is playing hangman against his alter-ego. Not that he just has one.

IC (8:09): ZING!

IC (8:09): Starting with immigration. Santorum to kick things off? Weird.

SK (8:10): Ron Paul is the only person whose intro actually addresses some policy issues, aside from just saying that his mom and kids are in audience. Leave it to Paul to be TOO sincere.

IC (8:11) Tonight, I'm looking for how many times Santorum agrees/pulls his punches with Romney. I really think he's shifting into VP mode. For Exhibit A, I bring you his very first response.

IC (8:13): How well does turning one's self in work with, well, I don't know, everyone else who breaks the law and gets away with it?

IC (8:15): If you guessed "15 Minutes In" in your "When does Ron Paul get his first question?" office pool, congratulations!

SK (8:17): Santorum says "we need immigration." Going for those Latino votes. Gingrich takes harder stance, says "self-deportation will occur" if the proper penalties are put in place, except with the old Latino grandma's. So... ? Romney's answer is way too complicated. Paul says "you can't deal with immigration unless you deal with the economy. ... Businesses need workers. ... I think we spend too much time worrying about the border on Afghanistan and Pakistan and we need to worry about our own borders." [applause]

SK (8:19): Romney goes for jugular. Says to Gingrich, "The idea that I'm anti-immigrant is repulsive! It's the kind of over the top rhetoric that has characterized American politics for too long!"

SK (8:20): Hey, lay off the Grandmas!

IC (8:21): Do we have a pro-Romney crowd? How will Gingrich respond? He has had every Republican crowd wrapped around his pudgy little finger. I'm betting a pro-Romney crowd brings out Newt's best.

IC (8:22): Okay, I'll say it. Mitt might have just taken his campaign back.

IC (8:25): If you had 8:25 in your "When will they talk about Honduras?" office pool... congratulations!

SK (8:27): Little action on Cuba now. Paul says, “I think it’s time we had friendship with Cuba.” Which is true, this ain't the Cold War, people! Santorum disagrees, says Obama sided with Chavez and Castro when he didn’t support the Honduran coup. Pleeease.

IC (8:28): Commenters, keep the comments coming! But we do ask for your first name or initials so we can respond specifically or maybe share your thoughts on here.

IC (8:29): Whoa! Great, rare debate moment. Romney gets caught on an add he approved that he earlier claimed to have no clue about. They fact checked MID-DEBATE! How does this not happening more often?!

IC (8:30): Was Romney wearing the same suit in the previous debate footage as he is in the current one? This might explain why he has no friends.

SK (8:31): I agree! CNN should have a team of fact-checkers analyzing every word these guys say.

IC (8:32): Same with FoxNews and MSNBC... assuming they have fact-checking departments.

IC (8:33): Romney going hard after Gingrich's investments! I think he's doing serious damage. This is NOT what Newt had in mind in his last Florida debate.

SK (8:34): That's right Ian, Gingrich is on the losing on almost every question. He wants to know how many home foreclosures enriched Romney. Romney replies that all his investments are “blind,” accuses Gingrich of investing in Fanny and Freddy, AND of lobbying for the two US home lenders. Gut-punch. (Luckily Gingrich has a big gut)

IC (8:35): Ron Paul bails out the leaders, marking the only time Ron Paul has ever been in favor of a bailout.

IC (8:36): Rick Santorum reaching for the "stop with the petty, personal bickering" vote, which I have to assume is sizeable these days.

---Commercial Break #1---

SK (8:37): Santorum took a swing at Romney before the first commercial break. But he'll need to swing harder if he's gunna break out of his rut.

IC (8:37): Agreed. It takes a lot more to cut the Russian.

Comment from Anonymous (8:38): This is beautiful. Beautiful. One guy accuses another of doing something bad. The guy says he didn't do it, then accuses the other of not doing it, too.

IC (8:39): Good one. Again, guys, please use the "Name/URL" option, one spot above the Anonymous bubble.

---End of Commerical #1---

IC (8:42): These two are just getting awkward.

SK (8:44): Gotta say though, Mitt is doing a better job this time at addressing Newt's criticisms. Newt is looking petty.

IC (8:44): I couldn't agree more. We're coupling Newt's worst debate with Romney's best debate since Iowa.

IC (8:46): Rick Santorum: Vote for me, I only make hundreds of thousands of dollars a year.

SK (8:47): Little tax talk now. Santorum says, “What’s good enough for Reagan is good enough for me.” Wolf asks Paul if he agrees. Paul says Reagan’s taxes are still too high!

IC (8:48): Nice history lesson by Paul there. Historically, a transfer of wealth from the poor to the elite does precede a social collapse.

IC (8:49): Steve, you know you want Ron Paul as your grandfather.

SK (8:51): Yeah, both my grandpa's are dead. Thanks, Ian.

*Chirp chirp. Chirp chirp.*

IC (8:53): I like the idea of reviving space competition in a non-nationalistic way. If we get to Mars or beyond, I don't want it tied to a country, but rather the entire race. Generally a good job by Newt there, until he closes with a chest thumping, "I want an American to get there before the Chinese."

IC (8:54): Santorum's idea to scale down the NASA budget is much more congruous to the conservative ideology. Romney and Gingrich are too busy out-promising each other to notice.

SK (8:56): Newt says Lindbergh flew to Paris for a $25,000 prize, so let’s have a moon prize. All disagree with the spacey idea. Romney says "I’m not looking for a colony on the moon." Santorum says saving $$ is more important. Ron Paul makes the most sense: “I don’t think we should go to the moon. I think we should send some politicians up there.”

IC (8:56): Ron Paul breaking out the Old Man Zingers!

SK (8:57): Did Newt really just compare himself to JFK? That could haunt him.

IC (8:58): Speaking of haunting, does Mitt really want to say, "You're fired" in a debate?

IC (9:00): Ron Paul calls out Gingrich on his "I balanced the budget" mantra. That's unusual for Ron Paul to pick out one candidate. He usually prefers to lambaste the field. Gingrich is hurting tonight. I think Romney's thinking about how to seat his delegates in August.

IC (9:02): Ron Paul at his most vulnerable: when a voter says, "I need help."

SK (9:02): Wow, what is this woman questioner wearing? Leopard-print dress and a fo-mynx scarf? No wonder she's unemployed. I'd fire myself for wearing that.

IC (9:02): Dude.

SK (9:03): Dude, wear's my leopard-print jumpsuit?

IC (9:04): The Republicans are rallying! And their battle cry? "President Obama ruined the country in two years."

IC (9:06): Santorum keeping Michelle Bachman's "Obamacare" and Rick Perry's "Romneycare" spirits alive. I'm waiting for "trust deficit" and "9-9-9" so Santorum can consolidate all the failed candidacies into one.

IC (9:07): Santorum at his best is always when he reminds everyone that he actually is, historically, the truest Republican in the pack, and it's a true Republican that should go up against President Obama.

IC (9:08): Romney once again defends his popular Massachusetts health care plan. Take a drink.
SK (9:10): OK, I'm getting bored. Bring back Herman Cain.

IC (9:11): Okay, I temporarily take back Santorum's run for Romney's #2. He is relentlessly attacking Romney's health care plan.

IC (9:12): Romney to Santorum: "First of all, it's not worth getting upset about." Yikes.

IC (9:13): Paul: "I think they're all wrong." That's more like it! (Re: 9:00 post)

SK (9:15): "Let's move on," Wolf says. Santorum objects, "Mitt, your health care mandate is the same mandate as Obama’s mandate." Wolf asks Ron Paul, "Who’s right?" Paul answers, "I think they’re all wrong." Paul recalls the olden days when nobody was sick or needed government health care. Ah, grandpa. He lives in a Jimmy Stewart film.

IC (9:16): "Paul recalls the olden days when nobody was sick or needed government health care." Classic.

---Commercial Break #2---

SK (9:18): Questioner wants to know about Marco Rubio’s prospects for the White House. All the candidates say they LOVE the Florida senator. All are hush-hush about Rubio’s drug-ties laid out in a recent New Yorker article.

IC (9:19): I, for one, can't wait for vice-presidential politics. Maybe you should make a blog. vicepresidentialpolitics.blogspot.com. Vice-Presidential Politics for America has a great ring to it.

SK (9:20): Ian, what question would you ask the candidates?

IC (9:21): "What do you think of Barack Obama's effectiveness as President?"

---End Commercial Break #2---

IC (9:23): I would have given a paycheck if Romney answered, "Why would your wife make a good First Lady?" with "Which wife?"

IC (9:26): Santorum bringing the emotion.

SK (9:30): Q: Why would your wife be a good First Wife? Paul says cause she’s been his life for 53 years and wrote a cookbook. Romney says cause his wife can relate to cancer survivors and victims. Santorum says cause his wife knows the pain of a miscarriage. Gingrich says they all would be great first ladies, and Calista would be no better. On the couch tonight, Newt!

IC (9:32): I continue to question if "Reign of Terror" is an accurate characterization of Cuba. Do they know anything about the real Reign of Terror?

IC (9:33): Q: "What would you say to Raul Castro if he called the White House?" Ron Paul: "I would ask what he called about." Classic Paul.

SK (9:35): Ron Paul on relations with Cuba: “The Cold War is over.” Didn’t I just say that?

IC (9:36): That you did, Kurz! And here I was still ducking under my desk.

IC (9:38): Tough Palestinian question from a Palestinian-American. Courageous question. My hat's off. Candidates extend their standard wrapping of arms around Israel.

SK (9:41): You can read between the lines on the answers to the Palestinian-American's question: A Jewish vote is more important than an Arab vote in Florida.

IC (9:42): Rick Santorum is not qualified to say "give a shout out."

IC (9:48): Santorum says that the US is the only country whose government is tied to its religion. Apparently he's overlooked every Muslim country.

SK (9:48): Oh boy, aside from Ron Paul, all the candidates say they'd consult "God" as president. I feel uncomfortable. What if God told Santorum to kill his son? Or if God told Romney to dig for the golden plates?!

IC (9:49): Or raise taxes on the wealthy.

---Commercial Break #3---

IC (9:52): And the last question is... "I want you to tell voters . . . why you are the ONE PERSON, on this stage, that is more likely to beat Barack Obama."

IC (9:53): Ron Paul points to polling. Oh, now he likes polling.

SK (9:54): Gotta love Andy Borowitz's tweets on the debate: Paul: "My only religious belief is that Ben Bernanke is Satan, and so I would kill him with my bare hands." @BorowitzReport

IC (9:55): Romney caps a strong debate performance with a confident closer. He's my prediction to win Florida right now (he wasn't when I woke up today), and I think he can do it by 5-10 points.

IC (9:57): Gingrich did not get it done. He came with a 7-8 point deficit, and he leaves without making his mark, and this is even with a noisy crowd. There are no more debates for the Debate King. All that's left is ads and commercials. Advantage Romney.

IC (9:59): Santorum returns to his bread and butter: I'm the only conservative mainstream Republican up here, and that's what it takes to beat President Obama.

IC (9:59): And that's it! Back with closing thoughts in a minute.

---Debate over---

SK: No question about it, Ian: Newt simply did not get it done tonight. The great debater, the supposed only candidate who can challenge Obama in a one-on-one, was thrown off balance by Mitt’s persistent attacks. Mitt wins, while Santorum remains the conservative alternative and Paul remains irrelevant.

Again, I think Andy Borowitz says it best. "Debate Winners/Losers WINNER: Barack Obama LOSER: Anyone who watched. ... If the Chinese were watching they must wonder what kind of country they've bought." @BorowitzReport

IC: As a fan of dramatic presidential politics, I loved Romney's long-awaited assertiveness with Gingrich, and Gingrich at times seeming speechless as a crowd went against him for the first time. However, as a fan of dramatic presidential politics, I think Romney just won Florida and built what might amount to an insurmountable delegate lead heading into a national campaign for which his campaign is built.

I disagree with Borowitz. Tonight's winner was, without question, Mitt Romney, and Gingrich was its loser. Santorum did very well as the conservative alternative, but it's too little too late. His only shot now lies with Gingrich withdrawing after Florida and throwing his full-throated support behind the former Pennsylvania Senator. Paul was tonight's entertainment; what else is new?

And now it's time for Florida Primary Weekend! Check back in over the next few days to keep yourself abreast of the latest developments. Thanks for reading!

-IC (10:10 PM)

Live Blog TONIGHT

2012-01-26T07:00:00.000-05:00

See you here at 8:00, as Stephen Kurczy and I try to bring you a live blog during Florida Debate #2. No guarantee it'll work, but we'll try!

Republican Primary Schedule

2012-01-25T07:20:00.001-05:00

I'm eager to look forward to Florida and beyond, but let's set things up first. The Republican Primary schedule below and tomorrow's LIVE BLOG for Florida Debate #2 should set the stage for the analysis in the days to come. I'm calling Friday through Sunday "Florida Weekend." It deserves its own title. You thought the South Carolina Primary was important, but the 2012 Florida Republican Primary could very well be the moment where A) Mitt Romney wins the nomination, B) Newt Gingrich wins the nomination, or C) The Republican Party collapses in on itself like a dying Red Giant gasping for its last bits of helium.

Here is the GOP Primary Schedule through "Super Tuesday":
January 3: Iowa (caucus)--WINNER: Santoroum
January 10: New Hampshire (primary)--WINNER: Romney
January 21: South Carolina (primary)--WINNER: Gingrich
**Note: three different winners in the first three states for the first time in history**
-----
January 31: Florida (primary)--99 delegates (50 after 50% penalty)
February 4: Nevada (caucus)--28 delegates
February 4–11: Maine (caucus)--24 delegates
February 7: Colorado (caucus)--36, Minnesota (caucus)--40, Missouri (primary, won't count)
February 28: Arizona (primary)--58 (29 with 50% penalty), Michigan (primary)--59 (30 with 50% penalty)
March 3: Washington (caucus)--43
March 6: (Super Tuesday) Alaska (caucus), Georgia (primary), Idaho (caucus), Massachusetts (primary), North Dakota (caucus), Ohio (primary), Oklahoma (primary), Tennessee (primary), Vermont (primary), Virginia (primary)--437 combined

In theory, if the nominee isn't clear by Florida's conclusion, the nominee should be known by Super Tuesday, so I won't post what lies beyond. If you're curious, though, click on the link at the top of this entry. Also, it's notable that with the exception of upcoming Florida, all of these states give "proportional" allocations. It's not until the primaries held on April 3 and later where we'll see allocations that are "winner-take-all."

So what does it all mean? How does this schedule affect the candidates and the 2012 Republican Primary? What role can and will Florida play? Can Mitt Romney hold on? Can Newt take the delegate lead? How might the Republican Party react to a Romney-Gingrich showdown? Is there any remaining path to for Rick Santorum? To what extent is Ron Paul a factor?

Those are the types of questions we'll look to answer during Florida Weekend.

Before then, I hope to see you back here tomorrow night for the Florida Debate #2 (with, hopefully, Stephen Kurczy as my co-host!).

Florida Debate #1

2012-01-24T10:33:00.000-05:00

With ten days between the South Carolina Primary and the extremely important Florida Primary, I'm surprised that there are only two debates in between them. If you take a look at the Republican debate schedule, however, you'll see that there's a huge gap between this Thursday's CNN debate (Florida Debate #2) and the next GOP debate, scheduled for February 22. That makes me think that more can hastily be scheduled, and perhaps we'll be treated to one on Monday. The GOP debate schedule, after being so dense for so long, is surprisingly light for the next month. I expect them to fix that.

Now, with my LIVE BLOG* coming up for Thursday night's CNN debate, I thought I'd attempt a trial run last night for the NBC debate. Here were my running thoughts from my seat in the IC Coliseum:

9:00: Brian Williams is our anchor. He's always good for one or two smarmy lines. Is it the eyebrows? It think it's the eyebrows.
9:01: Man-of-the-hour Newt Gingrich gets the first question. Brian Williams recites Romney's attacks of the day and questions Gingrich's electability against President Obama. Gingrich reminds voters of Ronald Reagan's (take a drink) immense 30-point deficit at the outset of 1980 before dominating Jimmy Carter in that year's election. Not one pause, stutter, "um," uncomfortable smile, or grammatical mistake. Classic Gingrich.
9:04: Mitt Romney hits on Gingrich's record as Speaker of the House. He says "resigned in disgrace" twice, bringing his day's total to roughly 572,827.
9:06: Either out of rage or awe/envy, Gingrich notices Romney lied five times in one rant.
9:08: Romney cites Gingrich's history with Freddie Mac. (Take a drink.)
9:09: Williams presses Romney on the justification for his attacks after earlier saying he'd focus on the incumbent President. It is notable that Romney was not singing this tune during the December destruction of Gingrich in Iowa, and only after he thought Gingrich's doomed campaign was coming after him hard in revenge.
9:10: Gingrich: Romney "may have been a good financier but he's a terrible historian." Ladies and gentlemen, the winner of the award for best back-handed compliment of the night!
9:11: Wait, Santorum's on the stage?
9:12: Santorum characterizes the media as always saying this was a two-man race between Romney and Gingrich. Actually, Senator, the theme has been all of the different contenders who competed with Romney for the top spot, and you were one of them. Then you blew it by going to New Hampshire against my explicit instructions.
9:13: Williams questions Santorum about losing his home state in his last Senate race. Santorum makes excellent points in response. In 2006, LOTS of GOP senators lost. Moreover, President Bush had a 35% approval rating, and Santorum stuck by him. Defending conservative values in a year where the conservative party was getting demolished, Santorum was swept out, while others moved to the middle. Santorum characterizes himself as choosing conviction over politics. Very nice job.
9:14: Wait, Ron Paul's in the race?
9:15: Asked about his electability, Paul cite his enormous popularity with the under 30 crowd. Yeah, Congressman, I don't that's enough. Middle-aged and old people vote, and they're terrified of your limited benefits. Additionally, Paul is yet again asked about running third party (take a drink), and yet again says he has "no plans" but does not live in "absolutes" (take another).
9:17: Gingrich goes after Paul's supporters on the Fed, gold, and monetary policy. That was a sweet moment for the two grey-hairs. It's too bad there's a canyon in between them on foreign policy.
9:18: Romney asked about his tax returns, which he released today. He does a nice job pivoting into his larger tax plan of reshaping tax code, looking for Herman Cain solid Floridian support. He did everything but recite "9-9-9."
9:21: Gingrich brings up Romney's father as someone who released tax records. Eh. I wouldn't have brought up someone's father.
9:23: Romney asked if he's been surprised about his income becoming an issue. Nice answer: No, but I expected it from the Democrats.
9:24: Santorum was careful to note he did not attack Romney for Bain. Positioning for VP?
9:25: Gingrich defends Freddie Mac some more. And defends his "lobbying," if we can even call it that, very nicely, including the mention of an expert who would testify saying he and his businesses never lobbied.
9:27: Romney once again challenges Gingrich on lobbying and Freddie Mac. (Take a drink.) Romney hasn't directly attacked this much since Rick Perry joined in.
9:29-9:32: Gingrich and Romney with the first back and forth of the night. I'm not qualified enough to say who is right, but you know what I like? That was a real debate! Back and forth, exchanging ideas--not canned stump speeches for 60 seconds with a canned 30 second rebuttal.
--Commercial break #1--
9:36-9:39: Williams throws out token questions to Santorum and Paul. Apparently the break extends beyond the commercial.
9:39-9:40: Classic Ron Paul rant against the Federal Reserve. (Take a drink.)
9:43: Romney would thank God if Castro dies? Seems tasteless. And decidedly un-Christian.
9:44: Then Gingrich hints that Castro would go to Hell? Really?? We can say this stuff publicly?
9:45: Ron Paul: "I would pretty much do the opposite." Well, that about sums it up, doesn't it? Makes great points about talking to people instead of fighting. Nice appeal to Cubans there. Could earn a few thousand votes.
9:47: Santorum says that the doctrine of the US is to ensure Western Hemisphere countries are "folks we can deal with." Hear that? That's James Monroe rolling in his grave. Santorum also implies that not only can Iran have nuclear weapons, but that they can and will ship them to Central or Caribbean America without the US knowing about it. I find that unlikely.
9:50: The foreign policy portion of the debate could be called "Three Hawks and a Dove" and get its own Broadway show. Gingrich says that we had no interest in going to war when the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor. Whaaat? Surely he misspoke.
9:51: Paul argues the people don't want a war with Iran. I tend to agree with that assessment. Yet, other Republican candidates seem so willing to quickly go over there. What an interesting disconnect between the Republican Party and Independents/Democrats. Why is this tied to political ideology?
--Commercial break #2--
9:59: Santorum supports Iran bombing. Says they're a threat. Says Iran is like having Al Qaeda in charge. An exaggeration.
10:02: The candidates want English as an official language, but Gingrich and Romney are courting Floridians in Spanish. Good one. Acceptable answers, though, especially once it's validated by small-government Ron Paul.
10:07: On his stance on illegal immigrants, Romney tries to clarify the difference between "Rounding up and deporting" and "sending them home to the back of the line." That was fun.
10:11: Romney back to attacking Obama. Remember when all of his answers had to do with that? Or, as the Romney Campaign calls them, "The good old days."
--Commercial break #3--
10:17: Medical issues. End of life. Santorum asked about his decision to use government intervention in the Terry Schiavo case. This question is probably part of larger government intervention issue also regarding abortion and gay marriage. In other words, is he for small government or isn't he; Is he for small government unless he disagrees with what a state wants?
10:20: Dr. Ron Paul recommends a living will for everyone. (Especially if he becomes president.)
10:21: Should Space exploration be a priority? Romney says yes! Wow, that's an expensive commitment for someone who claims to want to shrink government.
10:23: Gingrich suggests free enterprise is the way to kick-start American space program. Hmmmm... I think I like that!
10:24: Gingrich defends Bush tax cuts saved the economy, which Democrats say is nonsense. Interesting, though when Democrats make similar claims about President Obama's strategy, Republicans bristle. Man I'm sick of these two parties
--Commercial break #4--
10:30: Question: What have you done to further the cause of conservatism??
Romney: Raised a family, worked in private sector to create jobs, worked as a governor in a Democratic state, accomplished a lot. Romney is excellent when reading off talking points.
Gingrich: Went to a Goldwater session, worked on supply-side economics, helped Reagan win election, built a majority in the House for the first time in 40 years. Great answer.
Santorum: Tries to separate himself from both others. Says there are differences between himself and them. Points to bailout. Said they rejected conservatism when it was hard to stand. Picks up his passion! Says on key issues there "no difference between Obama and these two men."
10:34: I've descended into sentence fragments. Tired. School tomorrow.
10:35: Paul asked if his competitors are sufficiently conservative. He says no. They'll cut food stamps but not overseas spending. If you're conservative, you reduce government and you protect liberty. Says follow Constitution and everything will be okay. (Take a drink, almost time to pass out.)
10:37: Romney once again has to defend his Massachusetts health care plan. For the record, I always thought he had a good answer here. It's state's rights. It's what Massachusetts wanted. He was their governor. And he never said it should be used for the entire country. What's wrong with that?
10:38-10:40: To close, candidates get to summarize their talking points. That's always good television, right?
Debate over.

General thoughts:
Gingrich rather calm. No huge swings. Wants to show he can be cool, collected, and presidential.
Gingrich's momentum was NOT broken.
Romney made no headway, nor did the others.
Another debate like this and Gingrich should hold onto his recent Florida lead. If Gingrich wins Florida and the party rises against him and Romney... what then? Smoke-filled room! Smoke-filled room!

And with that, I'm done. I'll take a look at Florida tomorrow. And don't forget...

*For the LIVE BLOG on Thursday, I'm hoping to be joined by my Wing Nuts co-writer Steve Kurczy, with whom I share our Construction Lit Magazine column. We need to get the technology worked out, and if we can, expect updates from both of us during Thursday's debates. I (we) hope to see you then.

Updated GOP Primary Standings

2012-01-23T07:10:00.000-05:00

Below are the ever-confusing Republican Primary standings. To understand how delegates are allocated to states and awarded to candidates, read my posts here and here. Those posts will explain why the standings below show ranges of pledged primary delegates, instead of a clear number.

1. Mitt Romney: 30-36 (14-20 pledged delegates, 16 superdelegates)
2. Newt Gingrich: 24-28 (23-27 pledged delegates if you include Perry's Iowa delegates, 1 superdelegate)
3. Rick Santorum: 7-12 (6-11 pledged delegates, 1 superdelegate)
4. Ron Paul: 3-10 (all pledged delegates)

Thoughts on each candidate's standing:
4. Ron Paul--Expect him to finish last among all active candidates until he's mathematically eliminated. And he's fine with that. He knows Santorum is the next to drop, and then he'll share the podium with only two others. He'll win some delegates here and there and hold onto the national microphone for as long as possible. Everyone but the most rabid Paul supporters knew he never had a shot at the nomination. The best they can hope for is to shape the debate... and maybe the Zombie Apocalypse.

(Honestly, I'm beginning to feel like a broken record with the Paul analysis.)

3. Rick Santorum--It was a good run. Quixotic even. He traveled to every coffee shop in Iowa. He stood up for conservative values. He stuck with a campaign that had him stuck on the end of every debate stage. It was a good run.

But it wasn't enough. He simply didn't have the legs to make a deep run into the primary. Every resource was spent in Iowa, and when he didn't win it--even though he did--the bounce just wasn't there. The train he took out of Iowa stalled in New Hampshire and never got going again.

Moving forward, he seems to be most relevant because his endorsement--if he drops out--could tip the balance. Many wonder if he'll even drop out at all, or if he'll push forward, as he indicated Saturday night. (He might also stay in until two days before the Florida Primary then drop out, a la Rick Perry last Thursday.) The implications for this decision are clear: if he drops out, conventional wisdom says that Gingrich picks up even more momentum as the "Nom"mey candidate, and he perhaps would sew up 51 percent plus of Republican delegates the rest of the way. If Santorum stays in, however, the sizeable anti-Romney faction remains split. With Florida as a winner-take-all primary, a lot hinges on Santorum's decision.

(Still, let me make known that I'm not convinced Santorum, if he does drop out, endorses Gingrich. They have their differences, too. Moreover, a Romney-Santorum ticket makes a lot of sense and could be Santorum's best route to the Oval Office; if Santorum agrees, he'll avoid picking a horse before the race's result is clear.)

2. Newt Gingrich--The man of the hour. His ground-shaking 13-point win in South Carolina changed the face of the Republican Primary. When Mitt Romney won New Hampshire, he was 2-0 and had a solid lead in South Carolinian polling. But here's what I wrote on January 11, the day after the New Hampshire Primary:

Think about it--there are ten days until January 21st's South Carolina Primary. Ten days. After Romney was hammered over the weekend and lost five points on his home turf, I wonder what ten days in the South can do to a Massachusetts Mormon with a moderate past. His South Carolina poll lead might not last until the 21st, and Gingrich might be the reason why.

Well, there you have it.

1. Mitt Romney--Romney started the week at 2-0 looking for a third straight win, which many said would have clinched the nomination as the other candidates deferred to his inevitability. Instead, his Iowa win over Rick Santorum was overturned, and then he suffered a 13-point loss to Newt Gingrich in South Carolina. In other words: that was a rough week for Mitt Romney.

Can he rebound? If so, how? Can Gingrich continue his momentum? What is Rick Santorum's plan?

For answers, check back here throughout the week. A reminder that there's a debate tonight, and I'll try to share some thoughts about it tomorrow.

Speaking of debates, I'd like to make my first announcement of a scheduled LIVE BLOG for Thursday night's CNN debate. I hope you'll join me. For now, I apologize in advance for the constant reminders I will post before then.

-IC

Gingrich Wins South Carolina Primary

2012-01-22T08:55:00.003-05:00

"He's cut! The Russian's cut! And it's a BAD cut!" -American blow-by-blow announcer in Rocky IV

In Rocky IV, Ivan Drago was considered unbeatable. He was a giant. He used steroids. His punch packed 2000 pounds psi. He killed Apollo Creed in an exhibition match. His subsequent Christmas Day match against veteran Rocky Balboa wasn't even sanctioned by US professional boxing, thus the bout's a placement in Moscow. Everyone was sure Rocky was over the hill, his career behind him and one step from retirement. The Russian boxer was too big, too strong, too good. He was the future of boxing. Rocky was the past.

Rocky Balboa, however, had other plans. Still, come Christmas, Rocky seemed outgunned; after two brutal early knockdowns from the Soviet belligerent, everything was unfolding as it should. But then, late in the second round, when Rocky was backed into a corner, he came out with a vicious right hook, slicing a cut above Drago's eye, stunning the Russian goliath. And then the world realized: Rocky can win this thing. The giant is vulnerable.

Mitt Romney was also considered invincible. He outraised and outspent all other Republican candidates. He had essentially campaigned for six years in Iowa and had a house in New Hampshire. In the debates, he had all the tools of a calm frontrunner. He killed Rick Perry. Meanwhile, everyone was rather certain that Newt Gingrich's long career was behind him. Mitt Romney, it became increasingly clear, was the future of the Republican Party. Newt Gingrich was the past.

Gingrich, however, had other plans. Still, after taking a beating in Iowa and New Hampshire, Gingrich looked outmatched. Romney was winning, just as he was supposed to. The script unfolded as we expected.

But then, last night in South Carolina, Newt Gingrich, backed into a corner by Romney's enormous spending ability and unrelenting Pro-Romney SuperPACs, landed a right hook. His primary win was the moment Mitt Romney finally looked vulnerable. And now every pundit and insider is looking around and regaining our bearings. And we can't believe what we're saying as we're saying it: Mitt Romney is cut, and he could lose.

And in fact, there's a case to be made that he WILL lose. There's a case to be made--incredibly and against most odds--that Newt Gingrich is the favorite to be the Republican nominee. I'm not saying he is; I'm just saying there's a case to be made. In the coming days, I'm going to see if I can make it and believe it at the same time.

What most interests me, moving forward, is not what Rick Santorum will do or how Florida Latinos will vote--though both are mildly intriguing--but how Gingrich will be portrayed by the Republicans who don't want him as their nominee. More specifically, remember that we've all been looking to see which Republican would emerge as the "anti-Romney." Now that it looks to be Gingrich, I'm eager to see if there's an equally large faction and interest in nominating an "anti-Gingrich." Remember, such a storyline was irrelevant as the party scrambled to find someone with a consistent conservative background to replace the heavy favorite, Mitt Romney. But with a new co-favorite, will we see a quiet faction of Republicans who fear a Gingrich candidacy just as much as so many feared a Romney nomination, only they've had little reason to make themselves known because Gingrich hasn't been a factor in voting until now?

We have nine days to see if this faction makes itself known. The Florida Primary is not until January 31. Until then, the bell just rang for the next round. Sit back and enjoy the fight.

On the left sidebar, I've moved Gingrich from 4:1 to 2:1 to win the primary, and Romney has been moved from 2:5 to 4:5. Yes, Romney is still the favorite. He'll scramble to find his bearings in the ten days before the Florida primary, and between his head-start in advertising, Florida's left of Carolina tendencies, Gingrich's long history in politics, and Romney's massive campaign war chest, I do expect for him to slow the bleeding from above his left eye.

Certainly more on these developments as the week continues.

(Editor's note: If you didn't earlier, I do recommend watching the youtube excerpt from Rocky IV to see exactly how well the American commentator seems to characterize and foreshadow Gingrich vs. Romney. It's some nice unintentional comedy to replace two buff boxers with two aged Republicans.)

Has Newt Caught his White Whale?

2012-01-20T09:33:00.001-05:00

On January 11, I wrote the following about Newt Gingrich's obsession with taking down Mitt Romney:

Gingrich might be on his last breath, but with hate's sake, he'll spit his last breath at Romney. Mitt Romney, my friends, is rapidly becoming Newt Gingrich's white whale. . . . He [will] pile upon the Romney's white hump the sum of all the rage and hate felt by his whole race from Adam down. If his chest was a cannon, he would shoot his heart upon it.

Nearly every phrase was taken from Herman Melville's "Moby Dick," the classic American tale of a ship captain obsessed with catching the sperm whale that had taken his leg. The analogy, here, is clear. Pro-Romney SuperPACs dismantled the Gingrich candidacy toward the end of December. Gingrich, once flying on top of national, Iowa, South Carolina, and Florida polls, was decimated by the attacks. Like Ahab lost his leg to the whale, Gingrich lost his lead to the Romney.

Since then, of course, Gingrich has seemed to be on a single-minded focus in the 2012 Republican Primary. Sure, he wants to win; but if his ship is going down, he wants Romney to go down with him. Ahab's rage thrust him across the seas as the crazed Captain was willing to sacrifice himself to gain his revenge. Similarly, an irate Gingrich has been on a nearly suicidal mission in South Carolina.

Ultimately, Ahab found his whale, but it cost him his life and ship. Is Gingrich, however, re-writing the end? Don't look now, but Newt Gingrich has taken the lead in three South Carolina polls. That link refers you to the Real Clear Politics polls. Take a look at this trend:

On 1/16, Rasmussen reported a 14-point lead for Romney.
On 1/17, NBCNews/Marist reported a 10-point lead for Romney.
On 1/18, Politico/Tarrance reported a 7-point lead for Romney.
But that last poll was taken across 1/17 and 1/18. The following polls began on 1/18:
On 1/18, PPP reported a 6-point lead for GINGRICH. Insider had it as a 3-point lead. Rasmussen had it at a 2-point lead. Today PPP reaffirmed its 6-point lead for Gingrich.

The Rasmussen polls most interest me. Rasmussen reported a 14-point lead for Romney on 1/16, but that same polling service reports a 2-point lead for Gingrich just two days later. That's a 16-point swing by the same polling company. That is an incredible turnaround.

It's also a clear pattern across the polls. An enormous lead for Romney--one he had four days ago--has completely evaporated.

In its place is a lead for Captain Ahab.

Rick Perry Drops Out!

2012-01-19T10:03:00.000-05:00

Wow! Two days before the South Carolina primary, Rick Perry is dropping out of the Republican Primary, and probably endorsing Newt Gingrich.

This development is just the latest in the former Speaker's growing momentum. He's gaining in the polls and is even leading in one of them, and now both Sarah Palin and Perry have come out in support of his candidacy. Has the "Non"mey finally been identified?

South Carolina will tell us. Perhaps, of my six "Path to Victory" hypothetical scenarios, it was Gingrich's that was most accurate!

Unfortunately, this afternoon, I'm leaving for a four-day conference at Yale and will likely not be able to post updates. (Before you get too impressed, I'm simply leading a Model United Nations delegation.) But never say never. A Gingrich run might be too juicy to pass up.

My goodness that's a gross sentence.

-IC

PS. Now I'm reading on CNN.com that Santorum actually won Iowa by 34 votes! Uh oh, Romney!

Mitt Romney's Path to Victory

2012-01-19T09:55:00.000-05:00

(Editor's note: This post is the last in a six-part series between now and Saturday's South Carolina Primary. Each part will examine how each candidate might pull off a nomination.
For Rick Perry's, which can be found at my Construction Lit Mag column, click here.
For Jon Huntsman's (awkward), click here.
For Rick Santorum's, click here.
For Ron Paul's zombie apocalypse, click here.)
For Newt Gingrich's, click here.)

On August 27, you something something.

After all the build up to the Republican Primary, after all the lead changes and debates, after all the anti-Romney candidates rose and fell, not only did Mitt Romney win the Republican nomination, but he won it by winning 50 states.

Despite a late surge from Newt Gingrich in South Carolina, Romney held onto his lead there. After three primaries, he was 3-0. Each of the other candidates--the "Non"mey candidate still not yet identified--stayed in the race to try and win the "winner-take-all" Florida Primary. Such a win would make them the clear conservative alternative to Romney and perhaps build momentum for the month of February.

But it didn't work. Romney already had leads in the Florida polls before his win in South Carolina. His win there simply bolstered his Florida and national leads. His win in Florida decimated any chance for any other candidate. Ron Paul stayed in until he was mathematically eliminated, then threw his support behind the presumptive nominee, Mitt Romney.

After all that. No drama.

And that's how Mitt Romney became the Republican nominee for President.

(Editor's note: This was the last in a six-part series on each candidate before the South Carolina Primary. See previous posts for the first five.)

Newt Gingrich's Path to Victory

2012-01-18T08:30:00.008-05:00

(Editor's note: This post is the fifth in a six-part series between now and Saturday's South Carolina Primary. Each part will examine how each candidate might pull off a nomination.
For Rick Perry's, which can be found at my Construction Lit Mag column, click here.
For Jon Huntsman's (awkward), click here.
For Rick Santorum's, click here.
For Ron Paul's zombie apocalypse, click here.)

On August 27, you return from something that's kept you gone a long time. You make a joke about nurses and then turn on some random news station that's covering the beginning of the Republican National Convention. You make a joke about the commentators. You think that a blog will give you better information and visit Presidential Politics for America, though you see that despite becoming the most popular website in the history of the Internet, IC has grown weak, tired, and lazy from writing one post a day along with holding down a time-consuming job and writing a thesis all at once. Anyway, here's what IC had to say.

Newt Gingrich's South Carolina debate performances saved his flailing candidacy. That's not to say he had discernibly stronger South Carolina debates than his opponents. It is to say that the raucous crowd swayed heavily in the favor of the articulate, feisty Georgia conservative. The Gingrich Campaign knew how the standing ovation into the commercial break looked. It looked great. It looked like South Carolina--and perhaps conservatives in general--anointed a leader. Team Gingrich played the commercial over and over in South Carolina, calling it "The Moment." Supportive crowds do not ensure a strong candidate, but they do influence voters watching at home. This crowd and this standing ovation did just that.

Gingrich seized upon the opportunity given to him. He called for Perry and Santorum to drop out and rally support around a true conservative--himself--explaining, "I am respectful that Rick has every right to run as long as he feels that's what he should do, but from the stand point of the conservative movement, consolidating into a Gingrich candidacy would in fact virtually guarantee a victory on Saturday."

Virtually guarantee a victory on Saturday. They didn't drop out, but this kind of leadership--albeit selfish--was enough to put him over the top of not only his fellow conservatives, but Mitt Romney, as well. Enough Santorum and Perry supporters saw in Gingrich the aggressive nature necessary to make a run at Romney. Even Sarah Palin came out in support of a Gingrich win in the Palmetto State.

The South Carolina win thrust him into the clear lead among the conservative pack (though even a top two should have made him the clear "Non"mey). Perry, in a third straight disappointing finish, dropped out and endorsed Gingrich. The Santorum Campaign held off on a decision for a few days, taking stock of their financial situation and national polling figures, but they ultimately realized he could not continue to compete. However, he fell short of a Gingrich endorsement. Rather, it's Romney's VP position on which he had his eye, and a Gingrich endorsement would have hurt that opportunity. Still, endorsing Romney before Gingrich would have been highly questionable after the campaign he ran, so he waited to see who gained the upper hand in the primary.

Gingrich's momentum converted into a Florida win. Both candidates split states throughout February and March, including Super Tuesday. They and Ron Paul put on numerous debates across the country, and with each one, Gingrich looked better and better. He finished the primary season with the delegate lead. The Convention itself will determine the nominee, but every pundit agrees that Gingrich has all the momentum and is the guy.

And that's how Newt Gingrich became the Republican nominee for President.

(Editor's note: This was the fifth in a six-part series on each candidate before the South Carolina Primary. See you back here for the series conclusion, Part VI.)

Ron Paul's Path to Victory

2012-01-17T06:30:00.003-05:00

(Editor's note: This post is the fourth in a six-part series between now and Saturday's South Carolina Primary. Each part will examine how each candidate might pull off a nomination.
For Rick Perry's, which can be found at my Construction Lit Mag column, click here.
For Jon Huntsman's (awkward), click here.
For Rick Santorum's, click here.)

On September 1, you return from your secret 30-week solo mission to collect Martian mineral specimens. You've always loved geology, and you learned to love Martianology just as much. Still, living in isolation for more than half a year has left you yearning for human connection. You fondly recall the pre-departure memories with your three neighbors. It's been a long six months.

But perhaps your more pressing concern was the abrupt termination in communication with Mission Control. Everything seemed fine heading into August 28 but for the last three days, you haven't heard anything.

When you're a few hours away from your planned re-entry into the Earth's atmosphere, you put down your Martian mineral samples and take out your space-laptop. Now in range of Earth satellites, you tap onto your WiFi Network, "MarsRocks," to see if you can find an explanation. What you find shakes you to your very core.

On the evening of August 27, the Republican National Convention began with earnest in the Tampa Bay Times Forum. The party was ready to nominate Mitt Romney, the runaway winner of the Republican Primary contests, and then forge ahead in the general election against President Obama. It seemed as if nothing could stop them. That is, except,

THE ZOMBIE APOCALYPSE!

What an event! Nearly every news outlet stopped reporting by August 30. The very last news reporting out there--the August 31 post of Presidential Politics for America--relayed the following timeline.

August 27, 6:00 PM--Commotion during opening ceremonies.
August 27, 6:09 PM--First video of zombie in delegate crowd.
August 27, 6:22 PM--Rick Santorum, playing dead, lies down with other men who are doing the same (18:22 military time--Leviticus joke!)
August 27, 6:31 PM--Military sends attack troops into the Tampa Bay Times Forum.
August 27, 6:48 PM--Attack troops are zombies.
August 27, 6:52 PM--Rick Perry ripped apart by three zombie delegates--one from Ohio, one from Georgia, and the third one could not be identified.
August 27, 7:02 PM--Rick Santorum goes from playing dead to being dead to being undead.
August 27, 7:11 PM--Ron Paul and a delegate from Texas barricade themselves in kitchen's walk-in fridge.August 28, midnight--Newt Gingrich turns from a pumpkin into a zombie.
August 28, 2:00 AM--Zombies break through surrounding military quarantine.
August 28, 2:13 AM--Mitt Romney, surrounded by nearing zombies, asks what views he should adopt to win their vote. He offers single-payer, universal brains supply.
August 28, 2:14 AM--Mitt Romney turns into a zombie.
August 28, 12:00 PM--Everyone at the Republican National Convention is presumed dead by remaining military and national media.
August 28, 1:00 PM--Paul and Texas delegate emerge from walk-in fridge. They see the carnage around them, though the arena has fallen silent and still. They walk outside.
August 28, 1:14 PM--Sole remaining CNN news crew finds Paul and Texas delegate.
August 28, 1:35 PM--Texas delegate votes for Ron Paul to be the Republican nominee.
August 28, 1:36 PM--Ron Paul becomes the Republican nominee for President.
August 28, 1:51 PM--Nominee Paul killed by zombies.
August 28, 2:07 PM--Zombie virus reaches White House lawn. President Obama begins a speech to try to get them to stop.
August 28, 2:09 PM--President Obama's teleprompter breaks.
August 28, 2:10 PM--President Obama becomes Zombie Obama.
August 28, 2:20 PM--Zombie Obama heads to the US Capitol.
August 28, 2:50 PM--Speaker Boehner killed by Zombie Obama.
August 29, midnight--Zombie virus in every major American city.
August 30, midnight--Zombie virus spreads throughout Americas, with the exception of the condo of PPFA author, IC, who continues to post this timeline.
August 31, midnight--Zombie virus consumes planet. (Last post of IC)

And that's how Ron Paul became the Republican nominee for President.

(Editor's note: This was the fourth in a six-part series on each candidate before the South Carolina Primary. See you back here for Part V.)

Rick Santorum's Path to Victory

2012-01-16T09:41:00.002-05:00

(Editor's note: This post is the third in a six-part series between now and next Saturday's South Carolina Primary. Each part will examine how each candidate might pull off a nomination.
For Rick Perry's, click here.
For Jon Huntsman's (awkward), click here.)

On August 27, you remove the enormous rock from over your hole for the first time in 30 weeks. Living under it has been a difficult experience, but with the impending 2012 apocalypse, you were sure it was the safest place to be. However, with dwindling supplies and a huge craving for Taco Bell, you surface. You're fortunate that despite malnourishment, you know you can go across the street for medical and other kinds of "attention." After receiving said attention, you have two goals in your handful of days above ground. First, chalupas. Second, catch up on the Republican Presidential Primary at Presidential Politics for America.

You go to your living room and turn on Fox News and its coverage of Day One of the Republican National Convention. You listen as Sean Hannity guarantees the Republican nominee will win fifty states in the general election, because everyone in the country see the United States in exactly the same way as Sean Hannity does. He knows this must be true because everyone at his network agrees on everything.

You wonder who the nominee ended up being. "Surely it was Mitt Romney," you tell yourself. But then Hannity reveals who it actually is. Beaming like a proud papa, Hannity reports that the presumptive nominee for the Republican Party is Rick Santorum.

"Whaaaaaat?" you skeptically exclaim to Hannity's punchable face. You lean in as the panel of the fair and balanced network proudly recounts how Santorum took down the Massachusetts favorite.

New Hampshire was an aberration. Rick Santorum's success in Iowa was much more indicative of what was to come. Rick Santorum never played well away from conservative areas, but not too many states' Republicans are as moderate as New Hampshire's.

Santorum's comeback began in receptive South Carolina. On the January 21 primary, he finished in second--behind Romney but ahead of everyone else. Jon Huntsman had withdrawn days earlier and Newt Gingrich's "All or Nothing" strategy failed. Rick Perry finished out of the top 3 and dropped out. Three candidates remained after South Carolina: Romney, Santorum, and no-chance Ron Paul.

Of course, this was exactly what Romney had always feared: all but one conservative candidate drops out, and a massive anti-Romney movement finally coalesces around one candidate. With Santorum's 2nd in South Carolina, Romney's worst fears were realized. Santorum took his far right social conservatism to the south. After South Carolina, there was a huge influx of money for Santorum. He and Romney were in a dead heat in Florida and most other states. Pretty soon, Republicans and political pundits began asking the question, "Why hasn't Romney won yet?" This question fed into Santorum's momentum. Heavyweight conservatives--including evangelical clerics and major southern governors and senators--rally in support of Santorum. Romney conceded by May.

Of course, Romney, at the end of his political career, positioned himself to be the VP choice. When asked who would be his vice-presidential nominee, however, Santorum remarked that, "I've had many conversations with God about this difficult question. I simply cannot find it in my heart to forgive Mitt for his past views on abortion and gay rights. I'm going with Marco Rubio."

And that's how Rick Santorum became the Republican nominee for President.

"Wow," you react upon hearing the story. "I better get back into that hole!" But not before you print out every article of the now overwhelmingly huge Presidential Politics for America blog. After all, you'll need to do some reading as you ride out the apocalypse underneath your rock.

(Editor's note: This was the third in a six-part series on each candidate before the South Carolina Primary. See you back here for Part IV.)

Jon Huntsman Drops Out

2012-01-15T22:30:00.001-05:00

In a surprising move--more surprising because of its timing than its occurrence--Jon Huntsman will drop out of the Republican Primary tomorrow, CNN reports.

The timing surprises me for two reasons.
1) Why now and not at any time in the five days since his less-than-necessary New Hampshire finish?
2) Moreover, this withdrawal comes shortly after South Carolina's largest newspaper, "The State," endorsed him.

That's a weird combination, isn't it? My best guess is that he wasn't receiving the influx of money on which he was counting after New Hampshire. Perhaps his wealthy father finally asserted he would not extend financial support.

Of course, that's not the way it will be spun by Huntsman tomorrow. He'll endorse Mitt Romney. Do not be surprised if Huntsman cites Republican unanimity as his main reason to drop out and support Romney. It's a convenient justification and perhaps even true, but it will still smell of disingenuousness after Huntsman's vocal criticisms of Romney not one week ago.

If I had to conjur some backroom deal between the two, it would make sense insofar as Romney's fear that potential Huntsman momentum (The top 3 in New Hampshire and the endorsement from "The State") could divide Romney's moderate support in the Republican Party. Said backroom deal, however, would certainly not involve a vice-presidential promise. You will never see two Mormons on one ticket, barring the re-discovery of the Golden Tablets. However, do not be surprised if a Romney Administration has Jon Huntsman in a nice cabinet position, including Secretary of State. In fact, it's a good bet.

Of course, the worst part about all of this was that earlier today I hypothesized about a Huntsman path to victory. Oh well. Let me see if it'll work for Rick Santorum tomorrow.

-IC

Jon Huntsman's Path to Victory

2012-01-15T10:23:00.007-05:00

(Editor's note: This post is the second in a six-part series between now and next Saturday's South Carolina Primary. Each part will examine how each candidate might pull off a nomination.
For Rick Perry's, click here.)

On August 27, you return from your 30-week hike across the Himalayan Mountains. It was an eye-opening experience. You spent months in India, Bhutan, and Nepal, hiking trails and scaling peaks. You were granted an audience with the Dali Lama, who taught you about compassion, enlightenment, and the Buddha. You breathed the freshest air, had the most surreal time, and grew the biggest beard of your life.

Upon your return home, there are scores of voicemails and emails from your closest family and friends who want to see you. You also see the three nurses from across the street looking at you through your windows, their longing eyes pleading that you invite them over like you did that night before you left for southern Asia.

But you have your priorities in order. You need to catch up on the Republican race. Today, August 27, is the first day of the Republican National Convention. You want to see by just how much Mitt Romney won and his selection as his vice-presidential nominee. You turn on MSNBC to see Rachel Maddow's dramatic declaration to liberal America that the Republicans don't care about the American middle class as her monolithic co-hosts vociferously nod in agreement. Twenty minutes later, they relay the Republican nominee.

Jon Huntsman.

"Jon Huntsman?!" you incredulously bark. "How in Gautama's name did that happen?" To get the answers, you go to what has become the most popular presidential politics blog on the internet--Presidential Politics for America. Here's what you learn:

There was one more Republican surge left. Jon Huntsman's 17 percent, third place finish in New Hampshire was the beginning of that surge. A majority of Republicans were still dissatisfied with Mitt Romney, but their first-choice conservative alternatives never really showed a complete package. Voters wanted Rick Perry's executive experience, Rick Santorum's social conservatism, and Newt Gingrich's intellectual ferocity and articulation. But Perry was also terrible in debates, Santorum was too polarizing and lost his home state in his last senate campaign, and Gingrich was, well, Newt Gingrich. Each had a meteoric rise and moment in the sun, but each found themselves back in the shade just as quickly.

But Huntsman had just enough of everything to make his surge last. As the enormously popular former Governor of Utah, he had executive experience, like Perry. He's historically a much more consistent conservative than Romney, thus appealing to the Santorum constituency. He is articulate and bright in debates and stump speeches, much like Gingrich. Moreover, he had foreign policy experience in an essential area--Cino-American relations--and he could match Romney's "electability" argument as Huntsman, too, appealed to Independent voters. All he needed was some money and viability for the Republican Party to take him seriously.

After a better-than-expected showing in South Carolina--not top 3 but ahead of expectations--Huntsman's father, billionaire Jon Huntsman Sr., gave his son's SuperPAC a generous donation of five million dollars. This sudden influx of primary oxygen allowed Huntsman to stay breathing while Perry dropped out. Huntsman's presence in the race increasingly limited Romney's overwhelming success with Republican moderates, meaning Romney did not run away with the primary as many pundits expected he would after South Carolina. Eventually, without the kind of money Huntsman could spend, Gingrich and Santorum fell off the pace. With less attention on them, Huntsman coalesced the sizeable anti-Romney/Paul majority of the Republican Party.

Huntsman gave Romney a run in Florida, which also helped Huntsman's legitimacy. Just as Huntsman polled poorly in conservative Iowa but well in moderate New Hampshire, so, too, did similar circumstances allow him a strong showing in moderate Florida after a finish out of the top 3 in conservative South Carolina.

Throughout February, Huntsman continued giving passionate speeches concerning troop withdrawal from Afghanistan, Congressional term limits, and Romney's not-so-conservative history.

"But wait a minute," you said to yourself, "There's no way that Huntsman could compete nationally with Romney. One state at a time is one thing, but Super Tuesday should have knocked Huntsman out!" But then you went on to read about the most important endorsement of the Republican Primary.

Ultimately, the turning point occurred right before Super Tuesday. Plucky Ron Paul--who, by March, is the only other candidate still in the race--acknowledged he had little chance to win the nomination and that he had shaped the debate as far as he could. Moreover, he saw two distinct, viable options for the Republican nomination: Huntsman's fervent plea to withdraw troops, versus Romney's hawkish "military so powerful that no one would think of challenging it." Consequently, Paul dropped out, urging his passionate, networked, coast-to-coast supporters to back Huntsman on Super Tuesday. They did, and Huntsman was Super Tuesday's big winner.

For the balance of March, Huntsman performed well in state after state, competing in all, winning many. The race was as close as Obama-Clinton was four years ago, and it dragged on throughout the spring. In fact, the primary scrutiny continued through the last state of the primary season, which was held on June 26. The state?

Utah.

In what pundits call the Mormon Showdown, Huntsman, its former governor with an 80 to 90 approval rating, won the state easily and clinched the nomination. Of course, Romney, at the end of his political career, positioned himself to be the VP choice. When asked who would be his vice-presidential nominee, however, Huntsman combined two of his hallmark phrases from the campaign: "There is a trust deficit in this country, and it's because of candidates like that." He went with Rubio.

And that's how Jon Huntsman became the Republican nominee for President.

"Wow," you remark, stroking your gargantuan beard. "That almost seems like an impossible story. Seriously impossible. Like, there's no way that could actually happen impossible."

Yeah, probably.

(Editor's note: This was the second in a six-part series on each candidate before the South Carolina Primary. See you back here for Part III.)

Rick Perry's Path to Victory

2012-01-14T09:43:00.007-05:00

(Editor's note: This post will be the first in a six-part series between now and next Saturday's South Carolina Primary. Each part will examine how each candidate might pull off a nomination.)

On August 27, you wake up out of a 30-week coma. Incredibly, you've retained all of your faculties. You put CNN on your hospital room's television to see what you've missed. You see its hosts at the Republican National Convention, getting ready for Day One. You see Anderson Cooper, the silver fox, staring at you with his miraculous blue eyes, and you don't quite believe the last four words out his mouth, spoken so confidently and without surprise. It's not until gnomish Wolf Blitzer confirms Cooper's matter-of-fact revelation that you believe it could actually be true. Somewhere, in the 30 weeks since January 14, the Governor of Texas became . . .

" . . . presumptive nominee, Rick Perry."

"How did this happen?!" you yell at your gorgeous brunette nurse during your subsequent bath.

"Well, I'll tell you," she seductively replies. "It all started when..."

Mitt Romney didn't have the Republican nomination in the bag after his narrow Iowa victory. He was out-raising everybody. He had a national lead in the polls. His SuperPAC was relentlessly negative against his chief rival, Newt Gingrich. He was airing ads in future states as nearly every other candidate was forced to live off the land. It seemed inevitable.

When he won the New Hampshire Primary on January 10, he moved to 2-0 after the first two primaries. But was the Republican Party satisfied? Not at all. They continued to be skeptical. They wanted their conservative alternative. In search for one, they had gone through the cycle of Michelle Bachmann, Rick Perry, Herman Cain, Gingrich, and most recently, Rick Santorum. Some even thought Jon Huntsman was on deck, but that never really took. Santorum's surge in Iowa was supposed to make him the one, but he never quite had the staying power. Romney's nominated seemed inevitable. Even the now enormously popular Presidential Politics for America thought Romney might even win all fifty states of the Republican Primary.

But he didn't. In South Carolina and beyond, the conservative base turned to the only candidate that they felt could compete with Mitt Romney across the nation. That candidate was Rick Perry.

You cough and hack the bath water after your attempted self-drowning was thwarted by the nurse and her buxom blonde colleague whom she called for help. "Rick Perry?! 'OOPS' Rick Perry? 'Kim Jong The Second' Rick Perry? 'I don't know anything about one-third of the US government's branches' RICK PERRY?! Blub blub blub."

Once again they pull your head out of the bath, pick up their sponges, and explain.

He just seemed to be this perfect candidate for the Republicans. He was this chief executive of a huge state that added jobs during a recession. He believed in conservative values. He talked tough. He hunted. He wore such relaxed clothing in his commercials. This guy was in their conservative wheel house.

But most importantly, he had campaign funds. Romney had raised the most amount of money, but Perry raise the second most. He even outraised Ron Paul and his fanatical base by millions of dollars. He far outpaced conservative alternatives Gingrich and Santorum. The conservative base simply realized that if anyone was going to take down Mitt Romney, it had to be the guy with money. It had to be Governor Rick Perry.

So in South Carolina, he placed third. In Florida, he placed second. One by one, the underfunded Gingrich, Santorum, and Jon Huntsman dropped out. No more mainstream conservatives left.

Except Rick Perry.

In the month after Florida, a conservative axis steadily coalesced around the Texas Governor. By Super Tuesday, Perry and Romney were not only neck and neck in the national polls, but they were neck and neck in fundraising. Romney continued to lose momentum throughout the month of March. By the end of April, it was over. He conceded. Rick Perry was the presumptive nominee.

Of course, Romney, at the end of his political career, positioned himself to be the VP choice. When asked who would be his vice-presidential nominee, however, Perry responded with, "Well, I have three people in mind. There's Marco Rubio, Jon Huntsman, and, um, who was that guy that was leading most of the time? I can't remember. Oops."

And that's how Rick Perry became the Republican nominee for President.

At this point, the two nurses help you back into bed. You ask for a computer. They buzz a colleague, and a beautiful redhead walks into the room with a laptop. "Ladies, can you get out of my hair please? I need to catch up on presidential politics." They walk out. You turn off Anderson Cooper and you google "Presidential Politics for America."

"Much better."

(Editor's note: This was the first in a six-part series on each candidate before the South Carolina Primary. Also, don't forget, I've been picked up by Construction online magazine and will write once a week for them with my friend and colleague, Stephen Kurczy. My first column ran yesterday. I hope to see you over there.)

Republican Primary Standings

2012-01-13T10:48:00.003-05:00

Don't read this post without reading yesterday's. It explained how delegates are allocated to each US state and territory for the Republican National Convention. I do, however, need to amend something I said.

Yesterday, I erroneously said that it's only the relatively few "district delegates" that are chosen by the voters. My exact quote: Voting caucuses and primaries which we follow on TV only make up the district delegates, not the total delegates, of a state. At times—particularly in the lowest population states—the delegates awarded through voting are fewer than the other delegates the state awards. I went on to discuss the additional presence of At Large delegates, Party Leaders, and a variety of Bonus Delegates, each of which I thought were not beholden at all to the voters. I then went on to use Iowa and New Hampshire as examplars of the people having little say in the process in the smaller states, as their few district delegates are outweighed by all the other ones.

Here's what I've learned since then. (And again, this won't make much sense if you didn't read yesterday's blog, which I still recommend because I was right at least three out of every five sentences.) The caucuses and primaries determine much more than just the district delegates. They determine where all those At Large and Bonus Delegates go, as well.

Maybe.

I wish I was kidding.

Counting the delegates of this fledgling primary is not as easy as you'd think. Take a look at Wikipedia's Iowa results, which tracked what AP, CNN, and MSNBC projected to each of the candidates after January 3's Iowa Caucuses.

AP projects that Mitt Romney's eight-vote victory earned him 13 delegates, while CNN gives him only 7 and MSNBC gives him 11.

AP gave Santorum 12 for his near second, but CNN and MSNBC each projected the same total they projected for Romney, 7 and 11, respectively.

AP doesn't give Ron Paul any delegates for his close third place showing in Iowa, but CNN gave him 7 and MSNBC projected him 3.

The only consistency was that 25 of Iowa's 28 delegates were projected from all three outlets, with three unpledged delegates remaining. However, the fact that these three enormous sects of the media don't agree on delegate projections shows you that the process is not as straight-forward as one would hope. It gets more frustrating if one looks at an explanation from one of them. Here's an excerpt from the Associated Press article that projected those allocations. The underlining is mine.

Iowa's delegates to the national convention are not bound by the results of the caucuses. But an Associated Press analysis showed Romney would win 13 and Santorum would win 12, if there were no changes in their support as the campaign wears on.

Twenty-five delegates were at stake in the caucuses. Rep. Ron Paul of Texas came in third in the voting but was shut out of delegates because he didn't win any of Iowa's four congressional districts.

Thus, according to the AP's analysis, the voting is not "binding" at all. Delegates can change their minds later, ahead of August's Republican National Convention. In other words, suppose Newt Gingrich pulls off a miracle comeback. All of Iowa's delegates could vote for him this summer.

Paul's bagel of a score from the AP is also curious. Remember: both CNN and MSNBC gave Ron Paul delegates! So was Paul "shut out of delegates" or wasn't he? How do these three massive outlets not agree on such a straight-forward circumstance of someone finishing in a close third despite not winning any single district?

I don't have answers. Before too long, though, I hope to unearth evidence from the deepest bowels of the RNC. Until then, here are the tentative Republican Primary Standings, with ranges of potential scores included.

1. Mitt Romney: 14-20 (7-13 from range explained above; 7 from New Hampshire), +13*
2. Rick Santorum: 8-13 (range explained above), +1*
3. Ron Paul: 3-10 (0-7 from range explained above; 3 from New Hampshire)
4. Jon Huntsman: 2 (New Hampshire Primary)
5. Rick Perry: 0-2 (from range explained above), +3*
6. Newt Gingrich: 0-2 (from range explained above)

*And there's yet one more wrinkle. Remember the maddening superdelegates from four years ago? They're baaack. And Rick Perry, somehow, already has three of them. Romney has 13 and Santorum has 1. Thus, perhaps more accurate standings are:

1. Mitt Romney: 17-33 (including his 13 superdelegates)
2. Rick Santorum: 9-14 (including his 1 superdelegate)
3. Ron Paul: 3-10
4. Rick Perry: 3-5 (including his 3 superdelegates)
5. Jon Huntsman: 2
6. Newt Gingrich: 0-2
---
Editor's note: Today marks my debut on the online magazine "Construction." I'll have a presidential politics column there about once a week, rotating with writer Stephen Kurczy. I hope you find your way over there.

Republican Primary Delegates

2012-01-12T09:20:00.006-05:00

In the upcoming eight days before the January 21 South Carolina Primary, we'll surely take a close look at the state of the six remaining candidacies for the Republican nomination. Before we do that, however, let's first take a look at some quantitative factors that will determine the fates of those candidacies. The following are important reference points to which we can refer between now and South Carolina, probably through a self-referential link, if you’re not getting sick of those. (Apologies in advance if today's post comes across as too didactic, but I think there a lot of questions out there about how the delegation sizes work.)

Here is the Republican Primary Schedule through "Super Tuesday":
January 3: Iowa (caucus)
January 10: New Hampshire (primary)
----
January 21: South Carolina (primary)
January 31: Florida (primary)
February 4: Nevada (caucus)
February 4–11: Maine (caucus)
February 7: Colorado (caucus), Minnesota (caucus), Missouri (primary, won't count),
February 28: Arizona (primary), Michigan (primary) March 3: Washington (caucus)
March 6: (Super Tuesday) Alaska (caucus), Georgia (primary), Idaho (caucus), Massachusetts (primary), North Dakota (caucus), Ohio (primary), Oklahoma (primary), Tennessee (primary), Vermont (primary), Virginia (primary)

It's notable that with the exception of Florida, all of these states give “proportional” allocations. It's not until the primaries held on April 3 and later where we'll see allocations that are “winner-take-all.” This means two things for the unfolding primary:
--1) Florida, even with a 50 percent penalty on its 99 delegates (more about which later), is a huge wildcard if Romney doesn't wrap this up on the 21st.
--2) Ron Paul is a factor until April 3, but only until April 3. Thus, we can ask: to what extent is he a factor at all? More on that before South Carolina.

In addition to the primary schedule, another relevant factor for this primary process is the exact number of delegates that each state awards to the Republican National Convention. For that, I find this website, "thegreenpapers.com," particularly helpful. If you scroll down to "Republican Detailed Delegate Allocation - 2012," you'll see a terrific breakdown. You'll notice that each state accounts for more than just pledged, "district" delegates, which are delegates directly awarded for performances in primaries. In other words, in these primaries and caucuses, it's the district delegates for which the candidates are competing when they stump for votes. This number is determined by the state’s House delegation multiplied by three. (Connecticut, for example, has five members in the US House of Representatives; therefore, they get 15 district delegates awarded by their primary.)

As thegreenpapers shows us, however, there are also "At Large" delegates for each state. These are determined by total number of US Senators for each state, multiplied by five. Thus, every state has 10 At Large delegates. (US territories like Washington DC, Puerto Rico, Guam, and others also have At Large delegates, these determined by their population.)

Additionally, each state (and territory) is awarded three "Party Leader" delegates (the national committeeman, the national committee woman, and the chairman of the state Republican Party).

There are, furthermore, a variety of "Bonus Delegates" awarded. One is for voting Republican in the 2008 presidential election (McCain-Palin), one for currently hosting a Republican governor, and one for each (if any) of its Republican US Senators. Moreover, if 50 percent or more of its US House delegation is Republican, that’s another Bonus Delegate. Finally, having a majority in a chamber of the state legislature counts as a Bonus Delegate (one for each chamber, if any). For details on the specific breakdowns in each state, I strongly recommend the greenpapers site.

But again, the voting caucuses and primaries which we follow on TV only make up the district delegates, not the total delegates, of a state. At times—particularly in the lowest population states—the delegates awarded through voting are fewer than the other delegates the state awards. To clarify this convolution, let’s take a look at familiar Iowa and New Hampshire.

Iowa awards a total of 28 delegates, but of those 28, only 12 of them are district delegates awarded by the famed caucuses. The difference comes from Iowa’s 10 At Large delegates (10), 3 Party Leaders (3), and the fact that it has a Republican governor (1), a Republican US Senator (1), and one of its chambers is majority Republican (1); combined, that makes up the extra 16. In sum (literally): 12 from the voters + 16 from the rest = 28 total delegates from the state of Iowa.

New Hampshire awards 23 delegates (though it’ll ultimately be only 12 for reasons I’ll explain at the end of this paragraph). Of those 23, only 6 come from the actual New Hampshire Primary! Of the remaining 17, 10 are at large, 3 are Party Leaders, 1 is from having a Republican US Senator, 1 for having Republicans as a majority of its US House delegation, and 2 for having each chamber of its state legislature as majority Republican. However, since New Hampshire moved up its primary against the Republican National Committee’s wishes, the RNC placed a 50 percent penalty on the New Hampshire Republican delegation. Thus, New Hampshire, instead of sending 23 delegates to the National Convention, will only send 12.

The RNC, in fact, placed similar penalties on Florida, Michigan, Arizona, and South Carolina. Therefore, the aforementioned “winner take all” Florida Primary on January 31, which was originally scheduled for 99 total delegates (81 District, 10 At Large, 3 Party Leaders, one governor, one US Senator, one for its House delegation, and one for each of its Republican-dominated chambers of its state legislature), will actually only count for 50.

Fun, right?

Tomorrow, I’ll take a look at the Republican Primary standings, including the delegate count so far and the delegates up for grabs in the coming weeks. See you then.

-IC

New Hampshire Primary Analysis

2012-01-11T09:51:00.009-05:00

That, PPFA readers, was a bust of a night.

That is, unless you're a fan of Mitt Romney. With about 40 percent of the vote (with 3 percent of precincts still to finalize, his current 39 percent could rise or fall a point in the next day or so), Romney met the, albeit adjusted, expectations. Moreover, the clear-cut second place finisher, Ron Paul, is not at all considered a threat to win the nomination, and the clear-cut third place finisher, Jon Huntsman, is not considered one of Romney's top rivals. Far back were the candidates that most pundits perceive as the only threat to Romney. Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum, also-rans fighting for scraps of the New Hampshire table--fourth place. Simply put, last night was a win for the Romney Campaign on several levels.

If you're a fan of any of the other candidates, however, or of a long, drawn out, complicated six months of primary pandemonium, you went to bed awfully disappointed. This race might be over in ten days. This race might be over now.

There is, however, some good news. My predictions were perfect. Every candidate placed in the order I predicted, including Gingrich edging out Santorum in an unpredictable squeaker, and all percentages were between their best and worst realistic case scenarios.

Now, the bad news. There's not much more New Hampshire analysis to do. There was nothing at all surprising from last night's primary.

What's more relevant, probably, are the primary's preceding days and their effects on the days to come. Romney's New Hampshire numbers certainly dipped over the last few days, and much of the field levied a counterintuitive, anti-capitalistic charge against Romney's overplayed sound byte concerning firing people who do a bad job and his history with Bain. I'll be interested to see if, moving forward, this settling of his polling numbers continues, or if his New Hampshire win will ensure that those numbers bottomed out on January 9 and now steadily rise as he saturates the airwaves in South Carolina and Florida.

As always, the most important aspect of a primary is how it shapes the next primary and beyond. Incredibly--though, considering the results, not surprisingly--no candidate dropped out. Camp Romney must be thrilled that six candidates remain heading into South Carolina, and many of them continue to split the conservative base.

Here's the breakdown for each candidate. As I did with Iowa, I'll discuss them in reverse order of finish.

6. Rick Perry--Less than 1% of New Hampshire vote
What New Hampshire represented: Nothing. Perry did not compete.
How New Hampshire results affect candidacy: Not at all.
What candidate must do moving forward: Drop out with anything less than third place in South Carolina.

5. Rick Santorum--10%
What New Hampshire represented: Rick Santorum doesn't play well away from conservative areas. New Hampshire might be the most conservative state in New England, but compared to the Midwest and Deep South, the Granite State is downright Bolshevik.
How New Hampshire results affect candidacy: No real effect on his own campaign, other than Romney pulling away after their Iowa virtual tie. Since nothing was gained by spending time in New Hampshire, perhaps he now realizes that my plan (found here before Iowa and here after it) for him to spend this past week in South Carolina in an effort to win the state--thusly getting the best head start in becoming the conservative alternative to Romney--was the better strategy than his failed attempt at campaigning in moderate New Hampshire.
What candidate must do moving forward: Pull an Iowa in South Carolina. Take his far right social conservatism to the south and deny Romney a third win. After South Carolina, not one of the subsequent nine states in the Republican primary schedule are in his wheelhouse. (Florida, Nevada, Maine, Colorado, Minnesota, Missouri, Arizona, Michigan, Washington.) Anything out of the South Carolina top three and he's likely finished. With Perry facing similar circumstances, rest assured one or both of these two candidates will not make it to Florida.

If Santorum wins South Carolina, we won't hear that Romney has two wins and one loss in three states. We'll hear that Romney and Santorum each have one win, one loss, and one tie. And it'd be all square with two candidates left, one of them--Santorum--the conservative survivor.

4. Newt Gingrich--10%
What New Hampshire represented: His candidacy is on its last breath.
How New Hampshire results affect candidacy: Gingrich might be on his last breath, but with hate's sake, he'll spit his last breath at Romney. Mitt Romney, my friends, is rapidly becoming Newt Gingrich's white whale.
What candidate must do moving forward: He must pile upon the Romney's white hump the sum of all the rage and hate felt by his whole race from Adam down. If his chest is a cannon, he would shoot his heart upon it. (I hope that was as fun to read as it was to write. Any time you can squeeze in "pile upon the Romney's white hump" in a sentence, you just have to do it. Just call me Ishmael.)

Newt's anti-Romney ads are going to peak in South Carolina. Gingrich might lose the nomination, but he'll do everything to take Romney down with him.

And think about it--there are ten days until January 21st's South Carolina Primary. Ten days. After Romney was hammered over the weekend and lost five points on his home turf, I wonder what ten days in the South can do to a Massachusetts Mormon with a moderate past. His South Carolina poll lead might not last until the 21st, and Gingrich might be the reason why. It won't be pretty.

3. Jon Huntsman--17%
What New Hampshire represented: A week ago, 17 percent looked great for the Huntsman Campaign, but after the surge in expectations by primary day, he has to be a little disappointed he couldn't break 20.
How New Hampshire results affect candidacy: A second place finish might have led to the seventh national surge of a Republican candidate, but with a third place finish, that won't happen. But it was still a top 3 result, which kept his candidacy alive.
What candidate must do moving forward: Two options.
--1) Get a five million dollar check from his billionaire father who now sees his son has a chance if the voters get to know him. Through this strategy, he competes in South Carolina, probably limiting Romney's Carolinian numbers (which would only be fair as Gingrich, Perry, and Santorum split the conservative voters).
--2) Go directly to Florida. Florida is not a proportional primary; rather, it's a winner take all state. Could Huntsman repeat his Iowa-New Hampshire strategy and skip a conservative state (South Carolina) to compete in a moderate one (Florida)? It's an option. He has three weeks until the Florida Primary. He has a small surge. He can be there as the others fight in South Carolina. He seems to be hitting his stride on the campaign trail and debates. If Romney is limited in South Carolina by the conservative base and Huntsman steals Florida, then Huntsman will earn the 40 post-penalty delegates (50% penalty on their 80 due to holding their primary earlier than the RNC directed). Those forty delegates would be enough to thrust Huntsman into the delegate lead. And then, the last Republican candidate would surge, and the party might have their final anti-Romney. Food for thought.

Interesting note: Huntsman's recent speeches, including his speech last night, focused on immediate withdrawal from Afghanistan and appealed to the youth vote. Could he be courting Ron Paul voters? Probably yes, but Ron Paul voters are a tough group off of which to siphon. I don't think it'll work.

2. Ron Paul--23%
What New Hampshire represented: Nothing we didn't already know.
How New Hampshire results affect candidacy: Not at all. Chalk up another top 3 for the most passionate political minority constituency in recent history.
What candidate must do moving forward: Keep doing his Ron Paul thing. Last night he characterized himself as the true Romney alternative, but I don't think mainstream Republicans are biting at that bit.

Interesting note: Two of the top three spots in New Hampshire were won last night by anti-war Republicans. That is not the Republican Party of the last decade. Might it be the GOP of the next?

1. Mitt Romney--39%
What New Hampshire represented: It confirmed what we already knew. Homefield advantage is huge in politics.
How New Hampshire results affect candidacy: As mentioned earlier, not only did he meet his 40 percent goal, but the other candidates came in a perfect order for him. His win in New Hampshire also sets up South Carolina as High Noon for Romney and his rivals, and we can expect Romney to go for the kill shot on the 21st. Not only does he have a lead in the polls there, but he has a nice little moderate base on the coast that thinks differently than its rural, inland, more conservative cousin. Still, if someone else wins South Carolina, Romney would be vulnerable.
What candidate must do moving forward: Spend his time on South Carolina, but saturate the airwaves of Florida. I heard Florida referred to as Romney's "firewall," and that term works splendidly here. If a conservative candidate breaks through in South Carolina, Romney needs to make sure that this candidate's momentum is terminated in Florida before the primary process goes national.

A holistic look at the Romney candidacy reveals that he's run a brilliant campaign. Consider that no Republican candidate has won Iowa and New Hampshire if he wasn't a sitting president. Ever. Consider that from the outset he's been running a campaign against President Obama and letting his SuperPAC do all the attacks on his fellow Republicans. Brilliant. Consider that he's raised more money than any other Republican candidate and is always airing adds in future states, softening the ground for his later arrival, while campaigning in current ones. Genius.

Then, last night, note the hawkishness of his speech. He clearly considers Paul and Huntsman non-factors, so he has no reason to court their voters. Romney said that he would create "a military so powerful that no one would think of challenging it." Make no mistake, that saber-rattling rhetoric was his appeal to the Republican base in the south.

Like I said on Monday, he could win fifty states. And this would be as a Mormon from Massachusetts who once supported Roe v. Wade, gay rights, and universal health care for his state. And he's running for the Republican nomination.

Incredible.

Stay tuned in the coming days for the evolution of the primary as we head toward South Carolina.

New Hampshire Primary Preview and Predictions

2012-01-09T18:00:00.002-05:00

How's that for alliteration?

Here are five of my biggest questions and curiosities for tomorrow's New Hampshire Primary. Below I have my prediction for their performance and include each candidate's best and worst realistic scenario.

1. Who will place second?
All the candidates are making their final push, but we know Mitt Romney has the New Hampshire Primary in the bag. Still, we wonder who will place second.

Most New Hampshire polls point to a Ron Paul as runner up. The Real Clear Politics polling average, which averages the last handful of relevant polls together, shows Romney with a solid 38.5 percentage points to Paul's 19.8. Jon Huntsman and Rick Santorum sit tied for the important final top 3 spot at 11.5, and Gingrich has fallen to fifth place at 9.5. Rick Perry, spending his time in South Carolina this week, barely registers.

The reason this question tops the list is because a strong second place showing from Paul likely marginalizes Romney's real rivals for the nomination, namely Gingrich and Santorum. A Huntsman third place would reinforce this marginalization for the Speaker and former Pennsylvania senator. If you're a fan of an elongated primary process with the outcome in doubt, you are rooting against Ron Paul tomorrow. You want either Gingrich, Santorum, or both to succeed.

2. Can the candidates make Romney's win look like a loss?
If Romney and Paul do finish 1-2, the remaining candidates have one hope remaining in the New Hampshire Primary. They have to hope that all their attacks, like the ones that cite his tenure with Bain Capital, limit Romney's win margin. If Romney wins with a percentage in the low 30s--this in a state where Romney has a home, where he ran the state next door, and where he once registered around 50 percent--Romney will seem as vulnerable as ever moving to South Carolina.

Recent New Hampshire poll numbers suggest this downward turn isn't completely out of the questioned. The aforementioned RCP average that cited Romney at 38.5 took into consideration the latest six New Hampshire polls. These were done, in chronological order, by the Washington Times/JZ Analytics, NBC News/Marist, Rasmussen, WMUR/UNH, Public Policy Polling, and Suffolk/7 News across the last five days. However, if we examine the trend across these five days, we'll see that Romney has not only leveled off in the polls, but is sinking a bit. The first four of those polls, whose polling began on January 4 and 5, registered Romney at 38, 42, 42, and 41. The final two polls, each of which took place on January 7 and 8, registered Romney at a considerably weaker 35 and 33.

In sum, Romney's lead, though safe, is slipping. Perhaps the balance of power has worked. Hope remains for the "Non"meys.

3. Did the Jon Huntsman strategy work?
As I've written before, this strategy fascinates me. Is there something to be said for ignoring Iowa while all other candidates scramble for it while putting all your own resources into New Hampshire? We might find out. If Huntsman steals second place from Paul, I would say it did work. Still, perhaps he picked the wrong year to do it! This strategy, perhaps, would best work in a year where the New Hampshire winner is not decided, like it will be tomorrow.

Another wrinkle to this is that Huntsman's moderate conservative base seems to resemble Romney's. If Huntsman does well--and he has benefitted from recent attacks against Romney--that likely means he limited Romney's votes. If Huntsman disappoints, that could mean a big day for his fellow Mormon.

4. Will the New Hampshire results make clear around which anti-Romney candidate the conservative base can rally? Will any candidate of Santorum, Gingrich, or Huntsman soundly beat expectations and ride that momentum into South Carolina and Florida as the last, best hope to keep Romney from the Republican nomination? There are too many possible finishes for the three candidates to truly break down, but if any two of these candidates have a rough final day in New Hampshire, the third could be the biggest benefactor, and he could leapfrog Ron Paul into a strong second place. If any of them can get into the mid-to-upper 20s, and if they can all as a group limit Romney to the low 30s, then the viable, conservative alternative would finally be identified.

5. Are we about to see Romney clinch 50 states?
If the answers to 2, 3, and 4 are No, the answer to 5 might be Yes. If Romney wins with, say, 40 percent of the vote, and if Jon Huntsman's similar base of support did not support their candidate enough and limit Romney, and if no clear Republican alternative emerges, then not only does Romney soundly win New Hampshire, but all the remaining candidates--none of which are eliminated by finishing too far behind their "Non"mey rivals--will push forth to South Carolina and continue to split the vote with each other. With Romney already in the lead in South Carolina, having Gingrich, Perry, and Santorum split the anti-Romney vote there will clinch the state for the former Massachusetts governor.

Then, with three primary wins and zero losses, he'll ride that momentum into Florida, where he's already running ads before any other candidate and already leading in Florida Primary polls. It then seems perfectly plausible that he runs the table, especially considering his solid national lead. Perry will be gone by Texas, Huntsman by Utah, and Gingrich by Georgia. Ron Paul will stay--and will finish with the second most delegates--but he can't carry any single state. Thus, we could, indeed, have Romney win 50 states.

After all the political fighting and drama of 2011, who saw that coming? If it does happen, hats off to the Romney campaign for playing it perfectly.
---
But it might NOT happen. For possible results tomorrow, see below. Here is a brief preview and prediction for each candidate tomorrow, in order of predicted finish.

1. Mitt Romney
Overview: I've said enough.
Best realistic case: Somewhere in the 40s.
Worst realistic case: 30. (I already know my first line to Wednesday's blog if he finishes in the low 30s. Hint: it'll be a quote from a boxing movie sequel.)

2. Ron Paul
Overview: Rock solid floor, as always. Just looking to continue to finish near the top of all contests, but not win enough to garner the nomination.
Best realistic case: High 20s (wouldn't matter for himself, but would benefit Romney)
Worst realistic case: Mid teens (wouldn't matter for himself, but could hurt Romney)

3. Jon Huntsman
Overview: He has the momentum. His numbers were climbing even before his great debate performance on Sunday, including the line of the debate talking about Romney's divisiveness. He registered at 8 or 9 in last week's polls, but this week, PPP and Suffolk have him at 16 and 13, respectively.
Best realistic case: Second place, maybe the low 20s, and a heartbeat.
Worst realistic case: Single digits and the end of his campaign.

4. Newt Gingrich
Overview: I feel pretty good about the above #'s 1-3 and #6 below, but I can't put my finger on who will finish 4th and 5th. I think Gingrich's crusade against Romney has resonated more with New Hampshire voters than Santorum's far right conservatism (including his spat with some New Hampshire youth, who might turn out to vote for a rival just to vote against Santorum.) I'm leaning Gingrich. Leaning.
Best realistic case: See Huntsman.
Worst realistic case: See Huntsman.

5. Rick Santorum--See Gingrich

6. Rick Perry
Overview: We only know two finishes for certain. Romney will win, and Perry will finish in last.
Best realistic case: 3%
Worst realistic case: 1%

Only one day until the first primary of the season! Stay tuned.

-IC

New Hampshire Debate: Grades (Debate #2)

2012-01-08T11:30:00.008-05:00

Was it enough? Was enough damage done to Mitt Romney? Was his inevitability at all stunted?

Probably not.

It was a great start for the "Non"meys. Their greatest advocate, it seems, was moderator David Gregory. When he set up Romney's rivals:

Newt Gingrich reminded voters that Romney, as the governor of Massachusetts, was fourth from the bottom in job creation. (Huntsman said the same thing last night, pointing out that Romney was 47th in the category.) He argued that Romney's national economic plan was timid and Obamalike. And he once again characterized Romney as a "Massachusetts Moderate."

Rick Santorum joined in, explaining to the American people that Romney's record as governor was so bad and unpopular that he didn't run for reelection. Romney responded by saying that he doesn't run for reelection for private gain, but for the people. Gingrich wisely leapt on that explanation, citing how often Romney loses elections as the reason he hasn't been in politics for a lot longer. Santorum also brought up Romney's moderate platform in his 1994 campaign, arguing that Romney "ran to the left of Ted Kennedy." Ouch.

Ron Paul got the next opportunity from Gregory. Asked about Romney's inconsistency, Paul agrees and adds that it'd be lunacy to nominate a governor that once supported single-payer health care who has friends on Wall Street to run against President Obama.

To get his dig on Romney, Jon Huntsman pointed to a moment from last night's debate. Last night, Romney was critical of Huntsman's role in an Obama administration. Huntsman argued that he put his country first. Romney, in potentially his worst moment of the debates, posited that putting the country first means espousing conservative values and opposing President Obama. Huntsman immediately and brilliantly seized on this divisive response, citing that, "This nation is divided because of responses like that." In other words, his President asked for his help so he served overseas. Romney, now, will certainly ease up on criticism of such an act.

Rick Perry never had his anti-Romney moment, probably still neutered from his disastrous confrontations from last year.

Like last night, however, cooler heads prevailed for the second act. Once moderator Gregory stopped directly asking about Romney's record, the candidates, surprisingly, did not find a way to incorporate anti-Romney remarks in their responses.

Herein lies the point and the "Non"meys' lack of success today. They should never have let up on Romney. Throughout the debate, their collective boot should have stayed squarely pressed on Romney's neck. Only then would Romney's numbers truly depress.

But they let up, and only Gingrich came back at Romney later in the debate, citing Romney's lack of honesty in his campaigning. No other candidate supported the Speaker, however, and Romney escaped relatively healthy.

Still, Romney was not strong and had questionable defenses. I don't see him getting less than 35 percent of the New Hampshire vote, but he survived to win the state by 10+ points. Romney grade: C+

Other thoughts and debate grades from New Hampshire Debate #2:

--I don't drink, but if there's a debate drinking game you're looking for, try taking a drink every time a candidate is asked a question and he responds with, “Well, let me first address” and answers something else. You’ll be passed out by the third round. (Note: if you play this game during a morning debate, expect little productivity for the rest of the day, and perhaps an intervention.)

--For the second day in a row, Rick Perry hammered home his "outsider" background. Perhaps he decided this was the only way to separate himself from the field. He continues to reach out to the Tea Party. South Carolina will be a good barometer for how effective these strategies were. They aren't bad strategies, but he should have started with that back when he first declared his candidacy. I also enjoyed his joke about wanting to get rid of the departments of commerce, education, and whatever the other one was. Perry grade: B

--Ron Paul: same old, same old. There is no more consistent candidate. Republicans love the first half of all his responses, nodding in agreement. Then he finishes the responses by offering money-saving foreign policy ideas, and Republicans run for the exits. Paul grade: B+

--Newt Gingrich drastically improved upon last night's debate performance, and he was the only one who consistently hammered away at the frontrunner to give everyone else a chance for the nomination. In addition to the attacks mentioned above, he chided Romney for ignoring the red light and his "pious baloney." Unfortunately for the Speaker, I don't see any way he solidified a top 3 showing. It's still possible, but his desire to limit Romney trumped his desire to limit New Hampshire top 3 rivals Huntsman, Santorum, and Paul. The other candidates owe Gingrich a debt of gratitude. Gingrich grade: B+

--Jon Huntsman was much better tonight in his desperate attempt for a top 3 in New Hampshire. In perhaps his last moment on a national stage, he effectively attacked Romney, boasted about his own experience with foreign policy and as governor, reminded voters that he has spent more time in the Granite State than anyone else, and even point out his conservative record. It was gusty to go after senior entitlements--seniors are the most likely voters out there--but I think he still earned a top 3 New Hampshire finish. Huntsman grade: A-

--Rick Santorum had the most disappointing performance. He came out strong against Romney, but then let up. As Romney's greatest challenger, he should have consistently drawn contrasts all night. Moreover, Santorum has picked up this Gingrichian habit of acting incredulous to too many questions from the moderators. It's as if he can't believe that someone has to ask about gay marriage or contraception. Senator, some people aren't as conservative as you, and they do want clarification on your far conservative social beliefs. Santorum now risks a 4th place New Hampshire finish and a plateau in his national numbers. Santorum grade: C-

Don't forget to check in tomorrow for my New Hampshire Primary Preview!

-IC

New Hampshire Debate #1: Review and Grades

2012-01-07T23:15:00.008-05:00

I'll make this short. I have to get to bed and so do you. We need to be up for New Hampshire Debate #2--which is only ten hours from now--on Meet the Press (9:00 AM on MSNBC). Here were some thoughts from tonight's debate:

1. If we were to plot the attacks on Mitt Romney onto a graph, it'd look like an inverted bell curve. The other candidates came out with three quick attacks.

Rick Santorum criticizes Romney as simply a "manager" rather than a commander-in-chief or leader. Romney sidesteps the attack, claiming business leaders and entrepreneurs around the country serve as marvelous leaders.

Newt Gingrich lambastes Romney's record as a CEO with charges of bankrupting companies, laying off employees, and looking for a quick profit, flip, and departure. Romney parries the thrust, arguing that free enterprise necessarily leads to some failures among the many successes.

Jon Huntsman urged everyone to look at Romney's record as governor and compared his own as favorable. Romney doesn't respond. His attacker was, after all, John Huntsman.

But then they laid off Romney for nearly an hour. It wasn't until Huntsman reopened the attacks in the last round of the debate with a great line about Romney having the 47th best record on jobs during his term as governor. How was that stat not seized upon? How can Romney boast about his ability to "turn this economy around" with that kind of ranking? If jobs and the economy are the top issues, shouldn't the candidates remind the American people of such a record in every debate?

I do wonder why they stayed away from anything too aggressive. My guess is that they're waiting for tomorrow and don't want to give Romney a chance to defend himself in a full debate tomorrow. They want the last impression to linger. But I do wonder if they think his nomination is inevitable and don't want to wound him too badly for the general. (Nahhhh...)

Overall, Romney did exactly what he had to do. He held off all attacks, didn't make any big mistakes, and gave few any ammunition moving forward. Grade for Romney: A-

2. Ron Paul laid off Mitt Romney in favor of attacking Rick Santorum. Paul attacked Santorum as corrupt, a proponent of big government, and for working as a lobbyist. At one point, actually, Perry attacked Paul, and Paul retorted with an attack on Santorum! This strategy could mean that Paul is simply in it for the long haul, hoping to perpetually place in the top 3 and shape the debate, rather than take risks and go for the win. (This is not a new theory by any means.) Grade for Paul: C

3. Rick Santorum stayed on message. He did not throw any haymakers at Romney. He clearly wants to survive or, rather, outlast the other candidates, so it's just him and Romney down the stretch. I'm curious if he's been given advice from the outside about this. Are conservative heavyweights whispering to the Santorum camp, "Just be there after South Carolina, and we'll be there for you"? Grade for Santorum: B-

4. I was really looking forward to an enraged Newt Gingrich with nothing to lose. I was sorely disappointed. I can only hope he was saving all his ammunition for tomorrow morning. Pump that man full of coffee and push him out on stage. Grade for Gingrich: C-

5. Rick Perry had his best debate of the campaign, and it wasn't even that good. He was able to tout experience with the military, governership and his record as a job-creator. It's too bad it was too little too late. His flubs, as always, were noteworthy. I don't think anyone in the country wants to hear about his plan to send troops into Iraq for a third time less than one month after they just got out from a second. Plus, I'm sorry, Governor, but we cannot move our military at "literally the speed of light." Grade for Santorum: C

6. Jon Huntsman, a man in need of a miracle, was surprisingly tame all night, though he closed brilliantly. I think he found his message too late. His message for most of the campaign was this nebulous "trust deficit" that we have in Washington. It sounds great, but probably goes over the heads of most voters. However, when he pointed out that the US-Chinese relationship was the defining international relationship of the 21st Century, I'm sure many found themselves nodding in agreement. Such a relationship has huge effects on not only American foreign policy, but the American economy as well. Without question, he is the candidate most experienced with that relationship. (But as impressive as his Mandarin was... he did kind of show off. I liked it, though. Nothing wrong with a president that can show off intellectual skills. Since when did we believe shooting a gun or baskets was impressive qualities to have in the White House?) It was a great moment, but I'm afraid it came far too late. I'll have more on his New Hampshire strategy on Monday in the New Hampshire Primary Preview. I still wonder if it could ever work. Grade for Huntsman: B

But for now... bed. Set those alarms! If the gloves come off tomorrow, we don't want to miss it.

-IC

South Carolina Polls

2012-01-07T10:30:00.008-05:00

South Carolina polls, released yesterday, crystallized what we already knew. Mitt Romney is the heavy favorite for the nomination, Rick Santorum is experiencing a massive surge, and Newt Gingrich is pulling his best Humpty Dumpty impression, which, if you've ever seen the rotund Gingrich wobble around, is unsurprising.

The polls--conducted by CNN/Time, Rassmusen, and the American Research Group--basically agree with each other on these developments (interestingly, Rasmussen has a 3-point bump for Gingrich). I've averaged them for you. In those three polls, one conducted late November/early December and the next conducted on January 4/5:

Romney rose from 21.67 percent to 31.67.
Santorum surged from a meager 2 percent of support to 22.
Gingrich, the once solid leader of the state, sank from 30 to 20.

Therefore, the current South Carolina Standings are:
1. Romney--32
2. Santorum--22
3. Gingrich--20
4. Ron Paul--11 (Up from 6)
5. Rick Perry--4 (Down from 8)
6. Jon Huntsman--2 (which doubled his support)

What this tells us for each candidate:
Romney--Though the 8-vote Iowa margin should be rather trivial, he still won the state, and that plays well. We know he'll win Tuesday's New Hampshire Primary, and it could be with as much as 45 percent of the vote. It's unlikely that a New Hampshire win will decrease his momentum heading into January 21's South Carolina Primary. Therefore, it is likely Romney holds his lead and wins South Carolina. He will have then won the first three primaries. Thus, he's trying to hold off Santorum for two more states. If he does: game over.

Everyone else--Because of this clear path to victory, they need to take Romney down. Like I said yesterday, they must enact the "balance of power." If they can make Romney's win in New Hampshire look like a loss, Santorum and Gingrich remain alive. They need Romney to place down in the low 30s in New Hampshire. Anything under 30 (unlikely but possible) would be an enormous victory for the anti-Romney crusade, the success of which Newt Gingrich guarantees. That's why you see the Gingrich camp considering re-airing McCain's attack ads against Romney from 2008, and that's why you can expect Santorum to hammer Romney tonight on his past pro-choice stances. And you can bet Huntsman, Perry, and Paul will all get their licks in, too. Tonight, it's Romney against the world.

All the more reason why tonight's New Hampshire debate (9:00 on ABC) is must-see TV.

A Preview of New Hampshire Weekend

2012-01-06T10:50:00.001-05:00

One of my favorite facets of European history is the "balance of power." In this practical concept, if any one nation grew too strong, other countries allied in an effort to check the growing Goliath. European countries used the balance of the power against leaders like Louis XIV, Napoleon Bonaparte, and, most recently, Adolf Hitler. Simply, when one man or country grew too powerful, everyone around them looked at each other and said, "Something must be done before it's too late." (Anyone with the most basic experiences with the game of Risk is silently nodding their head right now.)

You see where I'm going with this.

Mitt Romney has a massive lead in New Hampshire. In the national polls, Gallup has him with 27 polling points to Newt Gingrich's 19, Ron Paul's 13, and Rick Santorum's 11. Rasmussen give him 29 with a quickly rising Santorum at 21, Gingrich at 16, and Paul at 12. Romney boasts the strongest national network of staff. Establishment Republicans continue to endorse him, like John McCain did this week (a head-scratcher, as I explained yesterday). In sum, there's a general consensus that he's the heavy favorite to be the Republican nominee. He has grown powerful. If anyone else wants to survive, his power has to be checked. This weekend, if Romney is Napoleon, the other five remaining candidates for the Republican nomination are the Eighth Coalition.

Of course, that doesn't mean they aren't lobbing grenades at each other, as well.

Take Ron Paul and Jon Huntsman. Both have their eye on a second place finish in New Hampshire. Huntsman, the most desperate candidate for a strong New Hampshire showing, went on the attack first with an anti-Paul ad. Paul (or one of his younger staffers who understand Twitter) came back with a taunting tweet, explaining he found Huntsman's "voter" in Iowa (note the lack of the s). Paul explained it was a staffer that Tweeted without the candidate's permission. Huntsman jabbed yesterday that Paul should have learned to stop letting others write under his name, a reference to Paul's controversial material from the early 1990s.

I wonder how worth their time these attacks are. Either candidate running ahead of the other in New Hampshire is not the ticket to the nomination. Though it might bring Huntsman a slight bump, and it would mean Paul yet again showing a "low ceiling but solid floor," Romney would continue to perform as expected.

To stay alive, both should join Newt Gingrich, Rick Perry, and Rick Santorum in their attacks on the favorite. (Gingrich and Santorum seem to understand they're competing for the anti-Romney crown.) If any one of the other candidates wants to take down Napoleon, they must work together; they must act as a coalition. This subplot--Romney against everyone--trumps all others this weekend as we tune in for the debates on Saturday night and Sunday morning. It's more than a subplot actually; it's a full-fledged plot.

As for subplots, here's one for each candidate:

Jon Huntsman: I'm interested to see how his "ignore Iowa" strategy will play out. The Washington Post is asking if he can be the "Rick Santorum of Iowa." Will New Hampshire reward his dedication to their state like Iowa did Santorum? If he finishes in the top 2, it might be a model for future candidates. Then again, even a top 2 finish won't ultimately save his candidacy, which explains his attacks on Romney so that Huntsman might potentially pull off the great upset in primary history.
What to look for at the debates: Goes after Romney and Paul. Huntsman needs top 2, and they're in the way. He might also point out that he's not as extreme to the right as Rick Santorum, which should play well in New Hampshire and also identify him as someone who defeat President Obama in November.

Rick Perry: Weird week for him. He finishes fifth in Iowa, but at a not terrible 10% of the vote. At first he hints that he was dropping out, but then he ultimately stayed in. It's been suggested that his decision to remain in the race developed from a clamor from national conservatives who still thought he was the man who could compete with Romney coast to coast. The week will end, unfortunately for Perry, with debates. New Hampshire, however, means nothing. He'll finish in sixth place but his chips are in South Carolina.
What to look for at the debates: 1) Hilarity. 2) He'll consistently hit on two themes, both aimed at South Carolina: 1) He has the conservatism of Rick Santorum, and 2) He is the most capable candidate to engage in a long campaign against Mitt Romney, hinting that Santorum cannot.

Ron Paul: Will he run top 3 again? Romney is locked in at #1. Huntsman has spent months there. Santorum is thriving off his Iowa bump. Gingrich has Saturday and Sunday debates to make a run on Tuesday. It's a fascinating top 5. If Paul finishes in the top 3, it's yet more evidence of his diehard following.
What to look for at the debates: Who does he attack? Does he try to limit Romney's win? Does he continue his feud with Jon Huntsman? Does he try to hold off Santorum and his hawkish platform? If I know Ron Paul, the answer is "Yes to all of the above."

Newt Gingrich: Wisely, Gingrich has his crosshairs focused squarely on Mitt Romney. He's adopted a similar strategy to Romney, actually. While Romney seems to go out of his way to only run against President Obama--note how Romney has rarely attacked another candidate on stage since Rick Perry was dueling with him at the top of the polls--Gingrich wants to be THE anti-Romney option. And if he stands up to him more than anyone else, if he criticizes him more than anyone else, if he paints the primary as Romney vs. Gingrich, than Gingrich can steadily coalesce the anti-Romney votes, especially among voters who are skeptical of a Santorum candidacy. Any kind of success in New Hampshire will help him maintain his December leads in South Carolina and Florida, where improved finishes in each state could catapult this into a two-man race with Romney (discussed here and here).
What to look for at the debates: An angry Gingrich on a mission will be a joy to watch. Romney better wear extra make-up.

Rick Santorum: The man of the hour. I question his decision to spend too much time in New Hampshire this week. Of course he should compete in the New Hampshire debates, but no matter what, he'll finish well behind Romney. Romney will then ride that momentum (and more endorsements) into South Carolina as Newt Gingrich tries to hold onto what's probably a flailing lead. Romney could then steadily pull away and it'd be nearly impossible to catch him.

Rather, Santorum should have been stumping in South Carolina this week. Thanks to his Iowan success, he'll get many conservative votes in New Hampshire, but let's not forget that this man completely ignored the Granite State during his famed tour of Iowa. He'll get a natural bump in the polls, but many other New Hampshire voters won't be convinced to vote for him simply because he spent an extra couple of days there this week. Therefore, he should have gone straight to South Carolina and competed for a victory there. Spending two weeks there to everyone else's one would have gone a long way to not just competing in the conservative state, but winning it.

And what would happen if he won South Carolina? He'd certainly end the candidacy of Rick Perry and take most of his future voters in the process. Moreover, unless Gingrich finished second in the Palmetto State (a difficult task if Santorum wins it, as Romney and Paul will obviously compete), he'll be gone, too. Remaining will be Romney, Paul, and Santorum. Few Republicans are interested in voting for Paul if they haven't already declared their desire to do so, which leaves Romney vs. Santorum, and the conservative base finally has their clear cut anti-Romney.

But alas, to New Hampshire he went.
What to look for at the debates: Manufacturing (Jobs) and social conservative message (Romney alternative). Repeat.

Mitt Romney: See intro to this post.
What to look for at the debates: That man will have no friends on stage this weekend, which will be a fun scene for 70 to 75 percent of Republicans.

Enjoy New Hampshire weekend! I'll be back on Monday (with small updates before then, potentially) with a New Hampshire Primary preview. See you then.

Boston Globe Endorses Huntsman

2012-01-05T21:17:00.002-05:00

The Boston Globe has endorsed Jon Huntsman in the 2012 Republican Primary.

It's an interesting move to endorse the last place candidate, though not unsurprising that a moderate to liberal newspaper endorsed the most moderate candidate in the race. It probably shows how the Globe and the Republican field aren't too cozy. Huntsman might benefit with a few percentage points in New Hampshire and place in the top 3--the bare minimum to continue his campaign, if not top 2--but I'm not sure it'll translate to anything down the road. A Massachusetts newspaper endorsing the most moderate candidate in the race is not exactly what Republican voters are looking for.

Most fascinating about this move has to be that the Boston newspaper didn't endorse their own former Governor, Mitt Romney. Romney's enemies will surely use this point against him, but unlike Huntsman, who's desperate for any kind of attention, I'm not sure a Globe endorsement is what Romney wants these days. I'm, frankly, surprised he accepted John McCain's endorsement so early. Isn't Romney trying to shed his moderate image? John McCain isn't exactly a darling of the conservative base.

A couple of head scratchers before a fascinating weekend of primary politics. A preview of New Hampshire Weekend coming tomorrow.

Perry Stays

2012-01-04T13:26:00.000-05:00

Rick Perry, contrary to his tone last night, is staying in the race at least through South Carolina. Earlier today, I explained why I thought he should.

And Newt Gingrich breathes a sigh of relief.

Perry is staying in the race for three obvious reasons.
1) He has a strong national network.
2) South Carolina voters are right in his wheel house.
3) Ummmm, uhhhh, welll. I can't think of the third one. Oops.

Bachmann Out

2012-01-04T11:36:00.004-05:00

Michelle Bachmann has suspended her presidential campaign. No surprise there. See earlier post for Iowa analysis.

Iowa Fallout

2012-01-04T09:52:00.004-05:00

Wow! Let's jump right into the breakdown. Starting with Iowa's last place finisher:

(But first, the Republican Primary Schedule)
January 3--Iowa Caucuses
January 10--New Hampshire Primary
January 21--South Carolina Primary
January 31--Florida Primary
February 4 to March 3--Nevada, Maine, Colorado, Minnesota, Missouri (doesn't count), Arizona, Michigan, Washington.
March 6--Super Tuesday (10 states)

Jon Huntsman--1% (generous) of the Iowa vote
What Iowa represented: Nothing. Ignoring it was not a tactical mistake. Yes, putting all his chips into New Hampshire is a Hail Mary pass on 4th and long, but exhausting funds by competing in conservative Iowa would have been running the ball up the middle.
How Iowa results affect candidacy: No single candidate emerged to knock Huntsman out of the New Hampshire top 3 with Romney and Paul. Santorum won't play as well in New Hampshire and Gingrich came off a little sour after falling well behind the top 3.
What candidate must do: Keep doing what he's doing and hope to run second to Romney in New Hampshire. Then maybe, just maybe, he emerges as the last candidate to pop in the polls.

Michelle Bachmann--5%
What Iowa represented: Ames was a long time ago. Staying in the race (so far) is a surprising move. Stay tuned--news conference scheduled for 11 AM.
How Iowa results affect candidacy: Turn over the piggy bank. When nothing comes out, pack it up and go back to the House.
What candidate must do: Don't endorse anyone unless a true Romney rival emerges. No need to lose twice in one primary (poor momentum for her House reelection bid in November).

Rick Perry--10%
What Iowa represented: He has a heartbeat, however faint. It's certainly stronger than Michelle Bachmann's.
How Iowa affects candidacy: Apparently, despite being stronger and better prepared for a long campaign, he also more quickly delineated (read: is lazier) than Bachmann. While a double digit showing should have been good enough to survive until South Carolina, Perry looks to be packing it in. Surely he had no idea what he was getting into when the party clamored for his entry into the race. Running for president is hard.
What candidate must do: It looks like he's dropping out. If, however, he stays in: Punt New Hampshire. The other five candidates are all going to the Granite State this week. Perry can be all alone in South Carolina and try to build on that 10% in a southern, conservative state. But alas, the Governor is tired and he wants to go home.

Newt Gingrich--13%
What Iowa represented: Just when you counted him out...
How Iowa affects candidacy: Fourth place is the bottom floor from which he must climb the staircase. This path was laid out here on Monday. If he can crack the top 3 in New Hampshire (bumping out either Huntsman or Paul), that could translate to a top 2 in South Carolina, which could lead to a win in Florida, where he's still leading in the polls. However, Iowa's other effects on the Gingrich Campaign is that Perry and Bachmann are likely finished, and Gingrich, as explained earlier, did not want that.
What candidate must do: With New Hampshire debates scheduled for Saturday evening and Sunday morning (morning?!), Gingrich has a puncher's chance to place in the top 3 in New Hampshire and start to play up the "Rising Newt/Comeback" plotline. To limit Romney's momentum of Iowa and New Hampshire wins, Gingrich will go on the offensive.

Ron Paul--21.5061%, rounded, for some reason, to 21
What Iowa represented: He's twice as popular in Iowa as he was four years ago.
How Iowa affects candidacy: It's the first of many top 3 finishes for the Texas Congressman. This finish was completely expected.
What candidate must do: Keep racking up top 3s and shape the debate down the stretch. As I said Monday: low ceiling, rock solid floor.

Rick Santorum--24.6132%, rounded to 25
What Iowa represented: He really did peak at the perfect time.
How Iowa affects candidacy: His superb showing coupled with the imminent terminations of the Bachmann and Perry campaigns was as good of a scenario he could have hoped for without winning the state. He's become the clear cut, true conservative alternative to Mitt Romney. Will the conservative base rally around him? Have both Bachmann and Perry received conservative pressure to get out of Santorum's way? Kudos to Santorum on a surprisingly strong speech last night. It was clear, humble, and, most impressively, even and controlled. He acted the part of a winner, not the part of a pumped up underdog.
What candidate must do: Ignore New Hampshire! A top 3 is not happening there. Go win South Carolina--very winnable for the strongest conservative in the race--and then sit back and let all of Perry and Bachmann's money and support come in. Getting their funding and ground troops are crucial, as Santorum has very little groundwork outside of Iowa. A Santorum win in South Carolina makes it a two-man race, which is exactly what Santorum needs and Mitt Romney dreads. If, however, he wastes time trying to compete in New Hampshire, he blows an opportunity to get a head start in South Carolina.

Mitt Romney--24.6198%, rounded to 25
What Iowa represented: Mr. 25 Percent lives up to his not-so-lofty name.
How Iowa affects candidacy: Some effect. People keep saying Romney’s inability to get over 25 percent in Iowa's polls, and now caucuses, shows that he has difficulty winning popular support among national Republicans. That’s not at all what it means. All his 25% in Iowa means is that he showed an inability to win over 25% of Iowa. And guess what. Neither did anyone else! There were seven candidates in the race, and four of them were contenders over the last month. It is unlikely that a candidate could win over 25 percent of voters in such conditions, especially a Mormon in Iowa. This result, ultimately, is not an accurate barometer of Romney's national strength. However, the withdrawal of Perry and Bachmann will be extremely worrisome to the Romney Campaign, for reasons explained in the Santorum section.
What candidate must do: Not panic! He'll win New Hampshire big and extend his delegate lead, earning momentum into South Carolina and Florida. Gingrich should take votes away from Santorum in South Carolina and Florida, but even if he doesn't, Romney's national money and infrastructure is built for the long haul and Super Tuesday, unlike every other viable candidate (Sorry, Ron Paul). Santorum is simply not ready to run a national campaign. Romney is still the favorite to win the Republican nomination, but I'd say he's moved from 2:5 odds to 3:5 (see left sidebar).

Holistic analysis:
Just like Mike Huckabee's victory in 2008, winning Iowa will ultimately be irrelevant. In fact, in this epic close caucus, each of the top three candidates will probably clear 7 pledged delegates from Iowa (with Gingrich and Perry each earning two). What’s most relevant about Iowa is not the winner, but how it shakes up the field, and how that shakeup affects the favorite for the nomination. Every relevant analysis of the Republican primaries must deal with this question, "How did this affect Mitt Romney?" I've attempted answers. Feel free to answer it any way you'd like, just make sure you're asking the question.

Percent Chance to Win the Republican Nomination

2012-01-02T10:48:00.008-05:00

With one day before Iowa, below are the chances for each candidate to win the Republican nomination. Accompanying each are the most likely scenarios to affect their chances in either direction. For explanations, see previous post. (For odds, see the left side bar.)

1) Romney: 75% (Rises if a majority of the field remains in the race through the first three primaries; falls if Bachmann and Perry withdraw early.)

2) Gingrich: 10% (Rises with Perry surviving; collapses with Perry's early elimination.)

2) Santorum: 10% (Rises with Bachmann and Perry withdrawing early; falls if he doesn't finish top 2 in Iowa AND South Carolina. He MUST ignore New Hampshire and spend two weeks in South Carolina.)

4) Perry: 3% (Rises with a top 3 in Iowa; falls with anything worse.)

5) Huntsman: 1% (Rises with top 2 in New Hampshire; falls and he withdraws with 4th or worse.)

6) Paul: 0.5% (Basically no shot, but if he can go 1-2 in Iowa and New Hampshire, he might be able to string enough second and third places the rest of the way to make the process last until the Republican Convention. My personal favorite scenario. Also note from the last post, that his poor showing on this list doesn't mean he'll show poorly overall. Definitely top 3.)

6) Bachmann: 0.5% (Needs to follow Santorum's path, but much less likely to do so.)

I'll be back on Wednesday to identify what each candidate must do moving forward. (Why they haven't hired me, I have no idea.)

Iowa and the Republican Nomination

2012-01-02T10:06:00.011-05:00

The Iowa Caucuses have arrived. Finally. What can we expect in the Hawkeye State, and how will those results affect the rest of the Republican Nomination process? Let's break it down by candidate.

First, the Primary Schedule is helpful:
January 3--Iowa Caucus
January 10--New Hampshire Primary
January 21--South Carolina Primary
January 31--Florida Primary
February 4 to March 3--Nevada, Maine, Colorado, Minnesota, Missouri (doesn't count), Arizona, Michigan, Washington.
March 6--Super Tuesday (10 states)

The story of the weekend was clearly the rise of Rick Santorum. The first candidate to travel to all 99 Iowa counties, Santorum, sometime today, is becoming the seventh candidate to be the favorite in Iowa. At some point in the last year, each of Michelle Bachmann, Rick Perry, Herman Cain, Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, and Ron Paul have had their turn atop Iowa's polls. If one were given today, it'd surely be Santorum on top. Popular theory is that he peaked at the right time. But will his excellent timing translate to success down the road?

As is the answer to every question asked about the effects of Iowa's results: maybe. We know Santorum won't play in New Hampshire. After he finishes top two in Iowa, he needs to go straight to South Carolina to work for a top 2 finish there. By then, other variables will determine the viability of a Santorum nomination.

Romney is not one of them. Ironically, the man most charged with hemming and hawing, flipping and flopping, is the most predictable finisher of the pack. He will finish top 3 in Iowa. He will win New Hampshire. He will finish top 3 in South Carolina. He will finish top 3 in Florida. He is the heavy favorite to win the nomination.

Who, if anyone, can stop him? To answer, we return to the Iowa Caucus and Rick Santorum's uncontrollable variables.

It won't be Michelle Bachmann. After finishing out of the top 3, she'll drop out. Where her support goes is crucial. If Perry also finishes out of the top 3, he, too, might drop out. (He's less likely to drop out, as his national support, structure, and money is much stronger than Bachmann's. Indeed, it might be as strong as anyone's but those of Romney and Paul.)

Then, Rick Santorum, the only irrefutably conservative candidate remaining, will get nearly all their votes, which makes him a contender for the nomination. (Astonishing if you think about where he was two weeks ago.) However, if Perry remains after Iowa (or if Bachmann does, for that matter), he'll keep conservative votes away from Santorum, splitting the far right of the party in their quest to avoid a Romney nomination. This development is more likely, keeping Santorum a longshot even with an Iowa victory (think Mike Huckabee in 2008).

While Romney has the least variables, Newt Gingrich has the most. He could finish anywhere from 3rd to 6th in Iowa. (I foresee 5th or 6th.) He can finish anywhere from 2nd to 4th in New Hampshire. (I foresee 3rd or 4th.) Then he can finish anywhere from 1st to 4th in South Carolina. (I foresee 2nd or 3rd.) Note, however, that among the variables is a pattern--a steady rise for the former Speaker.

Thus, we're right back to where we were before his collapse--Gingrich is the best chance to keep Romney from the nomination. He still clings to leads in South Carolina and Florida, and is with Romney atop the polls nationally. After finishing out of the top 3 in Iowa, his numbers will fall, of course, in those two states, but that doesn't mean it's over for him.

Like Santorum, Gingrich depends on a certain scenario developing. He need to finish top 5 in Iowa and top 4 in New Hampshire. At the same time, he also must hope that Perry is still in the race in South Carolina and Florida so he splits the conservative vote with Santorum. It's important for Gingrich that a clear, anti-Romney conservative does not manifest during the first four contests. Under this not implausible scenario, Gingrich will benefit from "Steady Rise/Rebound for Gingrich" headlines, the story being that he finished 5th in Iowa, 4th in New Hampshire, then 2nd/3rd in South Carolina will catapult him to 1st/2nd in Florida, and away we go. If, best case for him, he maintains his South Carolina and Florida leads to win each state, and consequently has the delegate lead after the first four contests, he'll get all the anti-Romney money and be able to match the former Massachusetts governor down the stretch.

Finally, the favorite: Mitt Romney. If Romney is winning in delegate count after the first four states, the nomination is his. He has by far the most money nationally (especially after everyone else exhausts their funds to survive the first four contests), and naturally plays well in the remaining states, the biggest of which are moderate (California, New York, Illinois (Perry will be out before Texas, and Florida is already done)). Plus, come Super Tuesday, he is best equipped to fund a blitzkrieg of national ads.

And if you're wondering why I haven't discussed Ron Paul, it's because everyone knows about his chances. His ceiling lies at about 15 percent of the vote. He's the most likely to finish in the top 3 for the nomination, but the least likely (save Bachmann) to win the nomination itself. Low ceiling, but rock solid floor.

In sum, there are three realistic scenarios for three realistic potential nominees:

1) Romney has a solid delegate lead after the first four states. Runs away with the nomination. Percent likelihood: 75.

2) If Perry and Bachman are gone by South Carolina, Santorum gets all the conservative support he can handle, and he can then compete with Romney down the stretch. (And Gingrich is done in this scenario.) Percent likelihood: 10.

3) Gingrich finishes 5 in Iowa, 4 in New Hampshire, 2/3 in South Carolina, and 1/2 in Florida, maybe even winning the last two, and he can then compete with Romney down the stretch. Percent likelihood: 10.

Shortly I will post the percentages for each candidate to win the nomination. See left side bar for odds.

-IC

Iowa and Nomination Predictions

2011-12-29T23:49:00.002-05:00

Coming Monday!

PPFA Update

2008-09-08T16:37:00.005-04:00

Well, the blog is still blocked at work, so I can't write and post in the morning. Moreover, I'm extremely busy with teaching a new course and taking classes. Not to worry, I have a plan.

I hope to return to blogging by Monday the 15th, though only with weekly or bi-weekly posts until the end of October, when I'll return to daily as we count down the last few days until the election.

See you then.

Hurricane Gustav Helpful to the RNC

2008-08-31T13:41:00.005-04:00

To ensure that the title of this post does not offend anyone, let me be clear: No one in their right mind, Democrat, Republican, or other, wants Hurricane Gustav to take lives, cause damage, or hurt the economy. No one is cheering for Hurricane Gustav. No one is thankful for the timing. We all hope for the safety and stability of New Orleans and the rest of the Gulf Coast. They've been through enough.

However, objectively and unemotionally, the timing of Hurricane Gustav is helpful to the Republican Party for three reasons.

1. The Republican National Convention can now serve a purpose other than pageantry. The Republican Convention should turn their four day appeal to the American people into a bi-partisan telethon. Have Republican after Republican get on stage and appeal to their local and national constituents to donate money and goods to the afflicted areas of the Gulf Coast and surrounding regions. In addition, they should publicly invite Democrats to show up to the Convention and pitch in with the effort. If the Democrats show up, it'll give unprecedented legitimacy to a convention and it'll portray the Republicans as leaders and the Democrats as followers. If the Democrats decline the invitation, you can imagine how that might be spun by Republican strategists.

This can also be spun by some (read: scum) that the Democrats, at their convention, only cared for canned speeches, glitz, and idolatry while the Republicans cared for the American people. One can only hope that the average voter is aware that either party would do this. Democrats would have been just as shrewdly political, but they'd also be just as willing to help the afflicted region. It just so happens that Gustav occurs during the Republican Convention.

2. George W. Bush and Dick Cheney will not be present at the Convention and it won't seem conspicuous. Their individual and joint unpopularity is a huge albatross for McCain/Palin '08. Under normal circumstances, however, their presence, especially President Bush's, is expected, as all outgoing incumbents attend their party's convention during their final year. It was a tough spot for the RNC.

Not anymore. They have government business to take care of. The American people need them and they will answer the call. Yes, it's a convenient reason to be absent, but it's also legitimate.

3. Here's the Bush Administration's chance to almost make up for 2005's Hurricane Katrina, which is an indelible black eye on the President's legacy and, considering the Democrats' "McBush" strategy, unfairly ties McCain to the irrefutable failure. If the federal government does an admirable job taking care of the evacuees and the post-hurricane clean up, it could go a long way to helping McCain and the Republican Party regain a point or two in the approval polls.

So, there are the implications in presidential politics. Now, let us all hope for the safety of those in the path of the storm.

Breaking Down the Sarah Palin Pick

2008-08-30T08:00:00.001-04:00

Last May, I assessed Alaska Governor Sarah Palin as one of John McCain's top ten VP possibilities. Here's what I had to say about her potential to round out the Republican ticket:

Working under the assumption that Barack Obama is the Democratic nominee, there is undoubtedly going to be a lot of disappointed female voters who are up for grabs across the country. Sarah Palin would be an excellent olive branch to a gender that consistently leans Democratic. She not only brings executive experience to balance McCain's legislative work, but she might be the most popular executive in the country. Indeed, in a poll taken in 2007, she had an astounding approval rating of 84% with only 5% disapproval. Other strengths include her strong pro-life stance and she's voiced an opinion against gay marriage, two core conservative tenants that will be welcome to Republicans who are skeptical of a McCain nomination.

Of course, there are nine people ranked higher on this list for a reason. First, the 44-year-old was elected governor in 2006, and with less than a year-and-a-half of statewide experience, she could be considered too green for the ticket (even if the average age of her and McCain is a perfect 58). Second, she has very little name recognition across the country, and even though that isn't her fault, it is something McCain and the Republican brain trust could be concerned with when selecting the #2. Finally, she brings nothing to the table geographically, as Alaska's three electoral votes consistently go red, and the state will not attract any region of the country, unless the Yukon Territory is somehow annexed and incorporated by November.

Three months later, most of that analysis holds and has become relevant. Yesterday, John McCain and the GOP selected Sarah Palin to be the Republican nominee for Vice-President of the United States.

Re-read the first paragraph from my May posting to understand some reasons why Palin could be considered a strong choice. She's a social conservative (better than Lieberman), she's a fiscal conservative (better than Huckabee), she's pro-life (better than Ridge), and she's Presbyterian (better than Romney). She is the perfect Republican. Moreover, she's a woman, while McCain's rival is coming off a primary where many thought the Obama campaign and/or the media was unfair to a woman because of her gender. Potentially, there are a lot of disenfranchised Hillary Clinton supporters out there to be won. Unlikely, as I'll discuss in the near future, but potentially.

The biggest mark against her, obviously, is her lack of experience. Many say that, since McCain is 72-years-old, he has an above average likelihood to die in office. Therefore, the person who is one heartbeat away from the presidency has rarely been more paramount. This is not an inaccurate assessment. However, that is of little concern to McCain and the Republicans. Not only does McCain have loads of experience, but the Democrats would not be wise to attack Palin's lack of it.

Never forget that the primary objective of both parties is not to put the country first, but rather to either gain or hold onto power first, then push through an agenda second, after the candidate(s) has been elected. The choice of Palin is no different, like numerous vice-presidential choices of both parties over the years. McCain and the GOP want to win the election. If the Democrats try to attack the Palin selection on the basis of her youth and inexperience, the McCain campaign can easily remind the electorate that Obama is nearly as youthful and inexperienced as Palin.

Simply, despite the Palin pick, the Democrats cannot make this a campaign about experience. McCain has over two decades on Obama and it goes without saying that the top of the ticket is a lot more important than the bottom. If the Democrats criticize Palin because, if McCain wins, she could possibly have to take over, the Republicans can hit back by saying that, if the Democrats win, Obama is definitely taking over.

Therefore, both parties will wait on the inexperience issue. If McCain brings up Obama's inexperience, Obama will cite Palin as being one heartbeat away and therefore a terrible choice for VP, while his own VP is as well equipped as any politician to run the country. If Obama brings up Palin's experience, McCain will blow him out of the water.

Ultimately, since it appears Palin will be attack-proof in this regard, she's actually a strong choice. A down-the-line conservative with executive experience who might siphon female votes away from the Democratic Party.

Addendum: To my loyal readers: my work has blocked blogspot. That is why you didn't see of my usual morning posts this past week. I'm looking into circumventing the system, but if no solution is found, I might be going to weekly posts.

Previewing a Busy Week in Presidential Politics

2008-08-25T07:40:00.002-04:00

Ten weeks out.
Democrats fresh off a VP pick.
Republicans less than a week from theirs.
Democratic Convention for four days.
GOP Convention build up.

It's starting to get pretty real.

Dems' VP Update: It's Joe Biden. Early stories about the Biden selection will revolve around two factors, both of which I addressed on Saturday, and both negative for the party. The first, which has already occurred, is the reminder that Biden had some now infamous choice words about an Obama Administration being inexperienced and unready. These comments will eventually disappear into the static noise of Campaign '08.

Secondly, and this will happen soon, the choice will be spun by Republicans as an example of Obama not feeling ready for the task and running away from his "outsider" approach to his primary campaign. "See? He's not ready. He needs Biden. And whatever happened to 'change', anyway?"

This, too, will dissipate. What the Democrats are, and should be, most concerned about is not the short- and intermediate-term effect, but the long-term effect. How will people feel about Biden on November 4? Literally. November 4th. Not the week before, not the day before. What will the undecided voter, the one who likes what Barack Obama has to say but thinks we might just be a bit safer with McCain in office, think about when they're in line to vote?

The undecided voter will be comforted that the experience of Joe Biden is on the Democratic ticket. That's why Obama & Co. took Biden and that will be the ultimate story on the Dems' VP pick in 2008.

GOP VP Update: It's Tim Pawlenty or Mitt Romney, which, remarkably, I've consistently said since February. More on the GOP VP race as the week progresses.

Democratic Convention update: Today's Democratic Convention schedule (from Demconvention.com):

Barack Obama’s story is an American story that reflects a life of struggle, opportunity and responsibility like those faced by Americans everyday. The opening night of the Convention will highlight Barack’s life story, his commitment to change, and the voices of Americans who are calling for a new direction for this country.

Monday’s headline prime-time speaker will be Michelle Obama.

Other Monday night speakers include: Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi; Senator Claire McCaskill of Missouri; Barack Obama’s sister Maya Soetero-Ng and Craig Robinson, Michelle Obama’s older brother; Jerry Kellman, mentor and long-time friend of Barack Obama; Representative Jesse Jackson, Jr.; former Indiana Representative Lee Hamilton; Tom Balanoff, President of Illinois SEIU; Nancy Keenan, President of NARAL Pro-Choice America; NEA President Reg Weaver; AFT President Randi Weingarten; Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan; State Comptroller Dan Hynes; Illinois State Treasurer Alexi Giannoulis; Chicago City Clerk Miguel del Valle; and Denver Mayor John Hickenlooper.

Monday night will also feature a tribute to Senator Edward M. Kennedy.

Republican Convention update: Too soon to say too much, but a recent interesting story about the GOP Convention is that former Democrat Joe Lieberman will be speaking at the Republican Convention on its opening night (a week from today). Does this mean Lieberman is being considered, as many speculate, for McCain's #2 position? Don't count on it. Imagine Lieberman in the VP debate, going against the Republicans (and agreeing with Biden!) on nearly every social, financial, and domestic issue?

McCain has worked too hard to win conservatives over the last few months. He finally caught Obama with near virtual ties in most polls. Is he really going to roll the dice and pick a social liberal as his VP? Not a chance. Both parties can relax. Joe Lieberman will never be on a national ballot ever again.

Now if only, Connecticut Democrats wish, he would stay off the Connecticut ballot...

Check back for updates on these four developments tomorrow and throughout the week!

Obama Picks Biden

2008-08-23T11:15:00.004-04:00

It turns out Joe Biden threw the final VP curveball, telling reporters on Tuesday that he wasn't "the guy," when it turns out he is. Today, the Obama campaign announced the Obama/Biden '08 ticket. As any choice, there are strengths and weaknesses.

The strengths are obvious: Experience. Biden, with Republican senator John Warner, is the Senate's foremost expert on national security, foreign policy, and military matters. Biden has the capability to go on the offense in a campaign. Biden is guaranteed to know more about foreign and domestic policy than his VP counterpart. Biden is great on TV. Biden is a consistent liberal, someone Obama can hand the baton to in 8 years (when Biden is a ripe 74 years of age), if all goes well for the Democrats.

The weaknesses, however, are nearly as pronounced. Barack Obama, after running the "politics of change" and the Washington outsider platform, has chosen the ultimate insider. Biden has been in the Senate for over 35 years. He's the sixth longest tenured Senator in the chamber. Moreover, Biden, while running in the Democratic Primary, publicly questioned Obama's readiness for the presidency, and in separate comments, Biden hailed John McCain as a strong choice for the office.

Another problem with this selection has been highlighted by this blog on numerous occasions when the idea of Biden or Wesley Clark was put forth. This selection, while at face value seemingly shores up the lack of a foreign policy heavyweight, also implies that Obama himself is not quite ready for the job on his own. Biden looks like the chaperone on the ticket. His selection might not compliment Obama's weakness, it might underscore it. This is crucial and it shows Obama's mindset. Rather than moving forward with someone who accentuates his strengths of the candidate of change, Obama hedged his bets and brought along the establishment. We'll see how it plays out.

Overall, I think, it's a solid selection for the Democrats. Biden should make a lot of people more comfortable with the inexperienced Democrat on top of the ticket. Obama will get some undecided voters over the next few days, and combined with the Democratic Convention, Obama will get get a 5-7 point bump by the end of the week.

Of course, shortly after, the GOP will counter with their own VP selection and convention, which will bring the two campaigns close to even again, though Obama should see himself regain about a 3 point lead rather than the virtual ties seen in most polls. Simply, the Republicans don't have a pick that can excite their base like Biden can excite the Democratic base. It still comes down to Tim Pawlenty or Mitt Romney, both unsexy picks.

While the GOP has the advantage of going second in selecting a VP and having their convention, they have the disadvantage of no one talking about their VP process in the upcoming week while the Democratic Convention is held from Monday to Thursday this week. I'll be sure to look at both.

Parsing Obama's VP Statement

2008-08-22T12:30:00.000-04:00

Yesterday, Barack Obama announced that he had decided on his VP nominee, but he wasn't quite ready to reveal who he had chosen. Last night, he called the runners up on the short list to break the news, but did not tell us who he called. One such runner up, apparently, was the recent dark horse pick Texas Rep. Chet Edwards, who is said to be a finalist, though I can't imagine Obama will so blatantly ignore the lack of a foreign policy heavyweight on his ticket.

Obama gave some vague clues about who he had chosen. Here are his words:

"Obviously, the most important question is: Is this person ready to be president?" Obama told "The Early Show" on CBS. Second, he said, was: "Can this person help me govern? Are they going to be an effective partner in creating the kind of economic opportunity here at home and guiding us through some dangerous waters internationally?"
And, he added: "I want somebody who is going to be able to challenge my thinking and not simply be a 'yes person' when it comes to policymaking.

So, does these criteria reveal who the selection is? Yes.

Tim Kaine is not ready to be president. He's in his first term as Virginia Governor. A Kaine selection would reek of politics and electoral math, rather than the well-being of the country. If it was Kaine, Obama would not have made this statement. Same with the Chet Edwards selection.

Joe Biden has never been vocal about disagreeing with Obama. Biden has been as vehement as anyone for Iraqi withdrawal, and he endorsed Obama shortly after his dropout after the Iowa Caucus. Same with Richardson, though he waited a bit longer on his Obama endorsement.

That leaves three contenders: Evan Bayh, Wesley Clark, and Hillary Clinton.

Of the three, Clark and Clinton are probably most ready to lead the country.
Of the three, Bayh and Clinton have the most experience handling domestic issues and could help Obama govern.
Of the three, all three were supportive of Clinton in the Democratic Primary until the bitter end.

These clues, believe it or not, point to Hillary Clinton as the most likely VP nominee. However, based one everything else we know, it seems unlikely that he'll turn to her.

Which leaves Bayh and Clark, which was exactly where we were two days ago. And considering there has been minimal contact between Obama and Clark, and no one in the media has been perceptive of any leak that Clark could be the guy, all signs still point to Evan Bayh, as stated earlier this week on PPFA.

We're in the last hours of not knowing... Check back after the announcement.

Why Wesley Clark Would Win

2008-08-21T09:30:00.000-04:00

It's been Democratic VP week here at Presidential Politics for America. Monday was used to narrow down the field to four. Tuesday was used to examine the four. Wednesday was used to narrow down the four to two. Wednesday was also used to predict the eventual Democratic VP nominee: Senator Evan Bayh of Indiana.

The general media's consensus is that the VP choice will be Bayh, Delaware Senator Joe Biden, Virginia Governor Tim Kaine, or New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson. However, though Bayh is a safe choice, I think there's still a realistic Democrat out there that no one in the mainstream media seems to consider a finalist, despite being perfect for the job: former General Wesley Clark.

Where do we begin with the strengths Clark brings to a campaign? Considering that Obama's biggest weakness is a lack of experience dealing with foreign and military matters, here is a list of credentials that Clark brings to the table to offset those perceived weaknesses:

He was a four-star general.
He was the Supreme Commander of the NATO Allied Forces from 1997-2000.
That rank is the highest ranking of any living, retired military officer in the country.
That position required that he used not only military skills, but diplomatic skills, both of which he exercised successfully.

These types of experiences are even more crucial after the recent events in Georgia propelled McCain's recent pop in the polls. Recent polled voters have favored McCain at about 2 to 1 over Obama when asked which candidate was better suited to deal with Russia's aggression. Such a supermajority of voters is one of the scariest statistics the Obama campaign can see right now. If this election becomes about national security and foreign policy, Obama will lose. The Iraq War won't matter. Afghanistan won't matter. Iran won't matter. Republicans win national security elections, especially when the Republican is a John McCain. It's that simple.

That is, unless, Obama has someone with the military bonafides of a Wesley Clark. This guy makes John Kerry look like a Private First Class. With these experiences, Clark would be the perfect attack dog on Senator McCain. Obama cannot come with a "been there, done that" attitude when it comes to the military. On many points, he must defer to McCain.

Clark will do no such deferring.

What else does Clark bring to the table? Clinton supporters love him, so he strengthens the unity of the party after the acrimonious primary. He is well respected by both parties, though the GOP will undoubtedly find reasons to dislike and discredit him if he does become the VP nominee. His ideology has fit neatly into the Democratic Party after he joined it, albeit recently (2003). His academic experience has been nothing less than stellar. He graduated first in his class from West Point. He was awarded a Rhodes Scholarship from Oxford University, and graduated with a Masters in Politics, Philosophy, and Economics.

So I'd say the resume is there, as is the desire. Unlike Bayh, who has hemmed and hawed at the possibility of running for president, Clark made a late bid for the 2004 presidential nomination, too late to make a real run. Many believe he could have won the nomination had he announced a few months earlier.

If you're a Democrat, Wesley Clark should be a guy you want on the top of a ticket. Since this is clearly Barack Obama's turn, Democrats should be happy to have Clark on the ticket at all, and could look forward for a run from him as an incumbent vice-president in 8 years (when he'll be 72... the exact age McCain is now).

Tomorrow, I believe, is the day we find out who the Democratic Party has chosen. I'll be sure to make a short post when I can with my thoughts.

Final Democratic VP Speculations

2008-08-20T09:25:00.001-04:00

Barack Obama and the Democratic Party are 48-72 hours away from finally revealing their choice for the bottom half of their 2008 ticket. Yesterday it was announced that Obama and the VP nominee will appear together in Springfield, Illinois, this Saturday.

Yesterday's developments also included one of my Veepstakes Finalists stating that he was not chosen as VP nominee. Delaware Senator Joe Biden curtly told a group of reporters that, "I'm not the guy."

This is similar to Tim Kaine's comments last week that he was awarded the silver medal of the Veepstakes, though the Washington Post's claim that Kaine was scheduled to speak on Tuesday was incorrect. It appears that Kaine does not have a speaking slot yet, which means he still might be the guy. Still, after it was revealed that Mark Warner was awarded the keynote address for Tuesday, it seemed quite unlikely that Wednesday's vice-presidential nomination speech come from a fellow Virginian. Moreover, seeing as Wednesday's theme will be foreign policy, Governor Kaine is an unlikely selection to top off the night, though he deserved to be a Finalist yesterday.

Which left my Final Four, until Biden's revelation that it's not him, which leaves three.

Two of them, with Kaine and Biden, have been speculated to be the final four accorinding to the media. They are Senator Evan Bayh (Indiana) and Governor Bill Richardson (New Mexico), each of whom are slated to speak on Wednesday, fueling speculation that one of them is probably the nominee. Fair enough.

But it's not who I would choose.

Barack Obama, with all his rhetoric and speeches, has had a campaign that is, at its core, about two issues. There are two reasons he won the primary. He was vociferously against the Iraq War from the beginning and he's attacked the insider politics of the last few decades (change).

Furthermore, moving forward in the election, his major weakness is lack of foreign policy and military experience. So, the question for VP comes down to who fits the strengths while complimenting the weakness?

Let's take a look:

The last two to be eliminated after hearing their comments, Tim Kaine and Joe Biden, did not fit the mold. Tim Kaine has no foreign policy experience while Joe Biden has been in Washington for 30 years.

Evan Bayh has foreign policy experience, serving on the Armed Services Committee and Select Committee on Intelligence. However, he originally supported President Bush in the Iraq invasion, and was slower than most Democratic Senators to become critical. Moreover, he was a huge supporter of another politician many Democrats think was too slow to recognize the 2003 mistake, Hillary Clinton, in her quest against Obama's campaign of "change." Furthermore, Bayh, in his 9th year in the Senate, cannot be considered a Washington outsider.

Bill Richardson fits. He's a Washington outsider with foreign policy experience and whose primary platform included an immediate withdrawal from Iraq. Yet, does anyone realistically think the Democrats will run two minorities on the same ticket? It just won't happen, right?

And that's the Big Four that the media dubs as finalists. Kaine, Biden, Bayh, and Richardson, each with an Achilles Heal. Holistically, evidence points to Evan Bayh as having the least undesirable characteristics of the four candidates, so Evan Bayh will probably be the vice-presidential nominee.

Yet there's one other name which, though it's not getting any media attention, makes a lot of sense.

Short blog on that tomorrow.

Democrats' VP Possibilities: The Final Four

2008-08-19T09:25:00.000-04:00

On Monday, I used the Democratic Convention speaker schedule to eliminate all but three scheduled speakers (Evan Bayh, Joe Biden, Bill Richardson) from VP contention. I then added one unscheduled speaker (Wesley Clark) to the list to come up with the final four VP candidates for the Democratic ticket.

So which of the Final Four will it be? As the speculation continues with the convention a week away, here's a quick look at the pros and cons of each:

Senator Evan Bayh (Indiana)
Pros: Centrist enough for moderate Republicans; Is popular among remaining disenfranchised Clinton supporters; Is a Democrat in a largely Republican state; Serves on Armed Services Committee;
Cons: Too centrist for Democrats?; The least gravitas of the Final Four; Would be spun as a great pick by the pundits, but otherwise won't cause a buzz among the average voter like the others.

Senator Joe Biden (Delaware)
Pros: The expert of the party on foreign policy and international; One of the biggest critics of an unpopular President; Compliments Obama's inexperience; Would perform very well in the VP debate; Has proven presidential aspirations.
Cons: Is vocal enough to turn off a lot of voters; Useless geographically; His selection could be perceived as Obama being too inexperienced, making Biden look like the chaperone of the ticket.

Former General Wesley Clark
Pros: Supreme Commander NATO Allied Forces from 1997-2000; Gravitas like Biden, but much more respected amongst Republicans; Highly decorated officer; Perfect attack dog on McCain for all things military; Assuages fears that Obama is too green.
Cons: No political experience; A beginning Democrat; Like Biden, his VP nomination might imply that Obama is inexperienced.

Governor Bill Richardson (New Mexico)
Pros: Wins over Latino's, crucial in New Mexico and Florida; Executive experience as governor; Helpful knowledge as former Secretary of Energy; Foreign policy experience as U.S. ambassador to the U.N; Congressional experience as former House member.
Cons: Had a stagnant presidential campaign; Lacks a presence in public forums; Unexpected support of Obama over former ally Clinton would look fishy if Richardson is appointed #2; Two minorities on the ticket is playing with fire.

Tomorrow I will reveal who I would pick and who I think it will be. Until then...

Clues to the Democratic VP Nominee

2008-08-18T10:00:00.002-04:00

As the Democratic National Convention (August 25-28) draws near, now only one week out, we must finally admit that the Democrats know exactly who their Vice-Presidential nominee will be, they just haven't told us yet. Simply put, two months of vetting will not be coming down to a last minute decision. Barack Obama and campaign insiders know who will be raising Obama's hand in Denver on the fourth and final night of the convention.

Who will it be? Admittedly, my prognostication skills in this matter have been lacking. Dating back to December, my leading predictions for Obama's VP partner has rotated from Wesley Clark and Joe Biden (December 20), to Sherrod Brown and Jim Webb (June 12), and most recently to John Edwards and Tim Kaine (July 29).

Well, the final clues are rolling in and I'm about to go full circle on the predictions. With the steady crystallization of the convention speaker schedule, not only can we eliminate many VP candidates, we can synthesize the new information with previous knowledge to make an informed prediction.

First, let's eliminate some names. The Vice-Presidential nominee will give his or her speech on Wednesday night. Therefore, everyone scheduled to give speeches on Monday or Tuesday will not be speaking Wednesday. This is a standard conclusion, consistent with every national convention in modern history. These Monday and Tuesday speakers are:

Monday - Michelle Obama (probably not a VP candidate) and her older brother Craig Robinson (ditto) will speak, as the theme of the night will be to discuss Senator Obama's life story. Also speaking will be Denver Mayor John Hickenlooper, what with it being his city and all. The heavyweight politicians of the night are Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and Senator Claire McCaskill of Missouri. While Pelosi was never a contender for the #2 spot, she has been the leader of the party since the Democrats took back the House in the 2006 midterm elections. Senator McCaskill, as a charismatic fresh face who could hold onto women voters, was considered by many to be on Obama's long list for the VP nod, but her appearance on Monday excludes her from consideration.

Tuesday - This is the day that eliminates nearly the entire speculated list. Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius, Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano, Ohio Governor Ted Strickland, Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell, Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick, Montana Governor Brian Schweitzer, Virginia Governor Tim Kaine, and Pennsylvania Senator Bob Casey will all speak on Tuesday. Tuesday night's theme will be the economy and the environment.

The two most notable speakers of the night are enormous heavyweights, one modern and one future. Former Virginia Governor and current Senate hopeful Mark Warner has been given the honor of the Democratic Convention keynote address, which, in long-term presidential politics, means we have our first contender for the 2016 Democratic nomination (don't forget Obama making his leap at the 2004 convention). The other speaker Tuesday evening will be someone who needs no introduction - Hillary Clinton. Lately, she has drawn some attention away from her party's nominee, but her insistence and Obama's acceptance on a convention roll-call doesn't signal anything other than Obama placating his vanquished foe in return for the support of her and her primary voters. Translation: She has not been offered the VP spot.

Wednesday - Here's where it gets interesting. The night's theme will be foreign policy and international affairs. Among the speakers are many who are not being considered for the Veep spot (West Virginia Senator Jay Rockefeller, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Colorado Senator Ken Salazar, House Majority Whip James Clyburn, Pennsylvania Democratic Representative Patrick Murphy, and Iraq War veteran Tammy Duckworth).

Four other names remain on the queue, possibly five. Also speaking Wednesday night is former President Bill Clinton, but he's constitutionally ineligible (22nd Amendment) to be on the ticket. The remaining three (possibly four) are:

Indiana Senator Evan Bayh
Delaware Senator Joe Biden
New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson
(no one else scheduled except for "VP nominee").

If the Obama campaign is thinking clearly, meaning it has no plans on bringing back a Monday/Tuesday speaker, then the VP candidate is one of those three men, OR it's someone whose name isn't even on the convention docket, and since the theme of Wednesday night will be foreign policy, Wesley Clark definitely fits into the possible myster slot.

So, Bayh, Biden, Clark, Richardson. Who will the VP nominee be? I'll address this with my next post this week.

Thursday - Barack Obama will speak to the largest crowd in convention history. It is not as impressive as it sounds, and it might not even be sound strategy. More on this at the end of the week! See you soon.

One Day

2008-08-17T09:28:00.001-04:00

See you tomorrow.

Two Days

2008-08-16T08:42:00.002-04:00

Back on Monday.

The Return of PPFA

2008-08-15T14:43:00.000-04:00

Okay, I'm going to give this another shot. I'll be back Monday for multiple posts a week for as long as I can balance the blog, the job, grad school, and teaching a new course.

Three days until the return! Thanks for your encouraging emails.

IC

Who's Left?

2008-07-29T21:50:00.005-04:00

I haven't been in the mood to write in quite a while, so let's ease back into this slowly, if at all.

Despite my evaporating desire to have my voice lost in a growing sea of echoes (I began writing in December 2006 when the Iowa Caucus was still 13 months away and relatively few websites were dedicated to the subject of presidential politics), I still have interest in the content about which I have written hundreds of thousands of words. I still do daily research and reading on the presidential campaign. Vice-presidential speculation has grown in recent days, and I suspect that one VP selection (Democrats) will be made by the 2nd week of August, and the GOP will subsequently counter with their own vice-presidential announcement several days after.

Through recent articles and quotes, and while weighing all the appropriate factors, I am confident that one of these four men will be the next Vice-President of the United States. The accompanying links are previous predictions of the chances for these VP hopefuls.

Republicans:
Mitt Romney (#1 prediction in February, #3 prediction in May)
Tim Pawlenty (#2 prediction in February, #1 prediction in May)

Democrats:
John Edwards (considered but dismissed in May)
Tim Kaine (considered but dismissed in May)

Dark horse for John McCain: Joe Lieberman
Dark horse for Obama: Sherrod Brown.

Vacation

2008-06-26T11:13:00.000-04:00

There will be no posts next week as today I am leaving to go on another "fact-finding mission," this time to Spain and the Canary Islands (you may recall my "fact-finding mission" to the U.K. last April).

I'll be back on the week of July 7th, when I'll evaluate the young general election, and I'll return to the Presidential Campaign History series, which reached the election of 1800 yesterday.

Part 1: Election of 1789, Election of 1792
Part 2: Election of 1796
Part 3: Election of 1800

I hope you're all enjoying your summer.

Vice-President Sherrod Brown

2008-06-12T07:09:00.001-04:00

Yesterday, I completed my Barack Obama Veepstakes. Here's a list:

Part 1
10. Wesley Clark
9. Russ Feinfold
8. Joe Biden
7. Kathleen Sebelius
6. Michael Easley

Part 2
5. Bill Richardson
4. Brian Schweitzer

Part 3
3. Hillary Clinton
2. Jim Webb

Part 4
1. Sherrod Brown

Perhaps, for some of you, including the first commenter from yesterday's blog, the revelation of Brown was met with a, "Who?!" Allow me to explain my reasoning. It'd help if you read the entirety of yesterday's blog.

1. Sherrod Brown (Senator, Ohio)
With Governor Ted Strickland's recent emphatic reassertion that he had no interest in the vice-presidential nomination, one state-wide elected Democrat in the most important state in the general election remains.

Senator Sherrod Brown of Ohio would be Barack Obama's best pick for his vice-presidential nominee for the following reasons, in reasons of increasing importance.

1. Brown is an unquestioned progressive politically, socially, and fiscally. This fits in with the Obama message.
2. Brown, as an economic populist, could attract a lot of votes in an election where economy will play a huge role.
3. Brown's popularity with Ohio voters (only a 15% disapproval in Ohio), specifically the white, working middle class, can extend to other Clintonian states.
4. Brown was against the War in Iraq from the beginning. Obama and Brown could ride that message all the way home.
5. Detailed in the conclusion:

It's important for the Democrats to not get too close to the trees and lose sight of the forest. This is their election to lose. John McCain is embracing many issues of an unpopular President, inheriting the failed economic message in the process, and has been a proponent of one of the most unpopular issues in the country - the war in Iraq. Once the Democratic Party heals, Obama's numbers will climb as McCain's numbers will plateau. The Democrats are in the driver's seat.

There is simply no chance that, without a major blunder, any blue state from the 2004 election map will flip to the GOP side. No blue state has been convinced red is the way to go. Obama only needs to hold those states (a mortal lock) and pick up 18 electoral votes. Ohio is 20.

So Obama shouldn't mess with Webb and his potential to upset women. He shouldn't mess with Clinton and her ability to make Republicans go nuts. He shouldn't try the first Black/Latino ticket with Richardson. He shouldn't go with Schweitzer and Montana's three electoral votes.

Barack Obama should go with Senator Sherrod Brown of Ohio, take the state, and become the next President.

I'm off until next week.

Barack Obama Veepstakes (Conclusion)

2008-06-11T07:06:00.001-04:00

Finally, we get to the conclusion of the Barack Obama Veepstakes.

Part 1
10. Wesley Clark
9. Russ Feingold
8. Joe Biden
7. Kathleen Sebelius
6. Mike Easley

Part 2
5. Bill Richardson
4. Brian Schweitzer

Part 3
3. Hillary Clinton
2. Jim Webb

And now, onto Barack Obama's best choice for Vice-President.

Ultimately, this was not a complicated decision. Throughout the entire Barack Obama Veepstakes series, I identified candidates' qualities and analyzed which candidates add complimentary assets to Obama's campaign. For example, Joe Biden and Wesley Clark offset Obama's lack of foreign policy experience and Brian Schweitzer and Mike Easley compliment Obama's northern geography. Other candidates offer Obama a chance to target demographics. Bill Richardson and Hillary Clinton attract Latinos, while Claire McCaskill and Kathleen Sebelius are appealing to women. With Jim Webb, I made a case that his appeal can stretch across a wide swath of voter demographics.

However, as the list has clearly shown, there is no perfect candidate for Obama. As my buddy Dave (a Clinton supporter) recently wrote to me:

"Obama has now alienated so many demographic groups that he needs to pick some sort of three-headed monster. Hispanics have never supported him. White men turned against him after Jeremiah Wright. White women have now emerged as the most bitterly anti-Obama group of all: only 43% of white women view him favorably now, and it is white women who elect democrats. You can’t win with negatives that high. Also, Jews hate him. In other words, he needs to pick a half-breed, half-white, half-hispanic, hermaphrodite Jew, just to mend fences with all the people that despise him."

Needless to say, this perfect vice-presidential nominee doesn't exist, or at least doesn't have any foreign policy experience.

Therefore, since there is no candidate who meets all the qualities of an endless list, it's time to simplify the situation. What are the 3-4 most important traits that are desirable for Obama's running mate? After much thought, I've settled on the following (you may disagree, of course, which could explain why your VP nominee list looks different):

1. Against the Iraq War from the beginning - It's the issue that kick-started Obama's candidacy and it's the issue that will carry him across the finish line. Yes, the economy is important, as are energy and health care. However, being one of the only politicians in the country with the guts to publicly come out against the war before the vote, and to outline why the war was a bad idea - and to do so presciently - is the main reason Obama was able to become a national phenomenon. He cannot ignore this fact by picking a politician who supported the war at any time.

2. Is not an established Washington Senator - The other theme of the Obama campaign has been change, and that theme does not stick if he takes a long-time Senator as on his ticket. Besides, the last thing he needs is a running mate that looks more like a chaperone than a second-in-command (think Santos/McGarry).

3. Geographically, there's potential to have a direct impact on the Electoral College - Recently, there has been a growing contrarian opinion that discounts the geographical importance of a vice-presidential nominee. They cite the failed attempts of Al Gore and John Edwards to carry their own states in 2000 and 2004, respectively. Of course, they dismiss John Kerry and Joe Lieberman carrying their respective states of Massachusetts and Connecticut because those two states stay Democratic regardless.

However, these contrarians have forgotten that locked up states also work against candidates. Can anyone really expect John Edwards, on the bottom of a ticket, to carry North Carolina when it hasn't gone Democratic since Jimmy Carter - the southern Governor - carried it in 1976, eight elections ago? Of course not. Edwards was taken for reasons other than geography, just like Lieberman (wait, what was the reason for him?) and Dick Cheney.

Make no mistake, though a VP nominee might not be able to affect an entire region, a popular VP nominee can affect his own state if it's winnable. For anyone who's been part of a Congressional or statewide election, you know what a strong infrustructure can do for a candidate. If Obama takes someone from a winnable state, there would already be that infrustructure in place, and that infrastructure would work for Obama/??? for months leading up to the election. That would win the state. Again, this isn't Edwards in a red state. It's a state that can go either way. To take a state-wide official should be enough to push a swing state in that direction.

An undoubtedly geographic situation occurred in 1960, when VP nominee Lyndon Johnson carried the swing-state of Texas for John Kennedy, which was the difference in Kennedy's narrow victory over Vice-President Richard Nixon. Is there a similar scenario coming up in November?

This finally gets us to Obama's number one choice for his running mate.
Who was against the war from the beginning?
Who is a rather fresh face on the national political scene?
And who has a chance to win a sizeable state to swing the election?

With Governor Ted Strickland's recent emphatic reassertion that he had no interest in the vice-presidential nomination, one state-wide elected Democrat in the most important state in the general election remains.

The winner of the Barack Obama Veepstakes is...

1. Sherrod Brown (Senator, Ohio)
A quick defense of Brown coming tomorrow.

Barack Obama Veepstakes (Part 3)

2008-06-10T07:00:00.002-04:00

Time for Part 3 of the Barack Obama Veepstakes.

Part 1, which ranked the candidates 10-6, can be found here.
10. Wesley Clark
9. Russ Feingold
8. Joe Biden
7. Kathleen Sebelius
6. Michael Easley

Part 2, which ranked the candidates 5-4, can be found here.
5. Bill Richardson
4. Brian Schweitzer

And now, onto the Final Three. Have your predictions ready?

Here we go...

3. Hillary Clinton (Senator, New York/Democratic rival)
Clinton's chances of being the Vice-Presidential nominee to Obama nomination has gone from 1 in 50 in February to about 1 in 4 now. Obviously, no one gives Obama a better chance to win back Clinton supporters than Hillary Clinton. Moreover, if the top qualification for Vice-President is the ability to assume the office of President upon the drop of a hat, Hillary Clinton has shown that she is the Democrat that most Democrats want in that seat.

However, despite the conclusion that Clinton gives him the best chance to win back Clinton supports, that is not saying he cannot win back those Clinton supporters without her. It's likely that, in time, the bitter divisiveness from the Democratic Primary will be healed, especially when Obama's platform is compared with John McCain's. Wounded Clinton supporters, if they consider themselves good Democrats, cannot possibly prefer a McCain presidency to Obama's. They can wine and cry and talk about Michigan, but the fact remains that the final decision to pick a President still remains and there are sides to choose.

There's also the classic VP nominee issues. Northeast liberals have never been helpful on a ticket. Her region is not in danger of flipping. Most importantly, even only as a VP nominee, she still attracts otherwise apathetic Republicans out to the polls to grit their teeth as they pull the McCain lever.

Onto number 2 in the Barack Obama Veepstakes...

2. Jim Webb (Senator, Virginia)
Senator Webb is close to tailor-made as Obama's running mate.

Webb's geography: Webb, the junior-soon-to-be-senior Senator from Virginia gives the Democrats a great chance to swing the state. Moreover, as a borderline southern state, attempting to win Virginia could double as making a run at the entire South. While some states might be untouchable, a successful Virginian Senator could do a lot to either turn out Democratic votes down south or at least temper the already tepid excitement for John McCain.

Webb's military background: With John McCain's Vietnam experience serving as a stark contrast to Obama's life of civility, the issue of serving ones country could be a major one in the general election, as it was recently with the GI Bill. It will be more difficult, however, to take swipes at Obama's lack of military service if Jim Webb is stumping for Obama across the country. Webb graduated from the Naval Academy, became a decorated combat veteran during Vietnam, served in a sub-cabinet defense position in the Reagan Administration before serving President Reagan as Secretary of the Navy. Simply, Jim Webb knows the military, and gives credibility to Obama.

Webb's ideology: Webb is sees eye to eye on Obama with his most important issues - a responsible withdrawal from Iraq and repealing the tax cuts of the Bush Administration - but Webb finds common ground with the Deep South and Midwest on one of the most important issues to those regions: Gun control.

Webb's appeal: In 2006, Jim Webb defeated incumbent George Allen for his senate seat in a huge upset. Allen was the future of the GOP and Webb took him down.

It is perhaps Webb's broad based appeal that makes him the ideal vice-presidential candidate for Obama. Much has been made of Obama's impending difficulty to win back Clinton's core supporters, like women and the elderly. However, rather than pigeon-holing these demographics, rather than narrowing the scope on specific targets, Obama would do well to widen and blend those target demos.

Webb is very popular among the white, middle class mainstream voter that Clinton seemed to be dominating down the stretch of the Democratic Primary, especially in states like West Virginia, Kentucky, and South Dakota. An Obama/Webb ticket has the potential to attract the working middle class and every demographic into which it splits.

There are only two strikes against Webb's probability, the former of which is nearly negligible and the latter of which is significant. First, Webb has even less experience in the Senate than Obama with 1.5 years to Obama's 3.5. As a team, they have about one-fifth of the federal lawmaking experience of John McCain. Moreover, both Democratic Senators, if their ticket was victorious in November, would leave their seat vacant for a chunk of their first 100 days in the executive office, which could hurt when it comes time to whip some votes to pass early legislation.

Second, with potentially disastrous results, is Webb's disposition, which is often said to be tempestuous and, at times, misogynistic. With winning back Clinton's female and elderly supporters a priority, a short-tempered sexist might not be the way to go. The thing is, it's likely that most of the rumors concerning Jim Webb are untrue, or, at the very least, archaic, but rumors could be enough to sink the Democratic chances in the fall.

Which brings us to the #1 Vice-Presidential nominee for Barack Obama...

And for that, you'll have to check back in tomorrow.

McCain vs. Obama

2008-06-09T07:00:00.001-04:00

(Editor's Note: Due to the electrical storms in Connecticut, I was completely without Internet for the weekend, and could therefore not complete my Barack Obama Veepstakes on schedule. With too much work for me this morning, the Veepstakes will have to wait another day. [Here are parts one and two.] Today, instead of the Veepstakes conclusion, I've decided to re-run a column from April 16, 2007, previewing a John McCain-Barack Obama general election. Please note that I have not necessarily maintained my conclusion at the bottom.

Enjoy.)

Battle #3: The Old Man vs. The Kid
Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) vs. Sen. Barack Obama (D-Il)

A John McCain vs. Barack Obama Presidential election will be a battle for the soul of America.

A John McCain victory will tell us that Americans are happy with the way things are going. They don't want things to change. They don't want to be introduced to anything new. They want a conservative, tough-talking old man whose record is clear, time-tested and consistent. America would know what it's getting.

A Barack Obama victory will tell us that America is ready for change. They are ready for the first racial minority in the Oval Office. They are ready for new, progressive ideas. They are ready for a change in direction in Iraq. They may not know as much about Obama as they do McCain, but four more years of a conservative hawk would simply be unacceptable.

VP Candidates: McCain takes Romney. Obama's top priority for a Vice-President would be experience. The chief weakness of Obama is not the color of his skin but his inexperience dealing with national and international issues. After considering uber-experienced Senators like Chris Dodd and Joe Biden, Obama decides he'll need his VP to not be in the Senate (nor the Northeast) if he really wants to campaign with the "Washington Outsider" approach. Two Senators on a ticket would be inconsistent with such a message. Obama ultimately decides on New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson, who on top of being in the governor's mansion, has experience in Congress, was a former cabinet member (Energy), and a former UN ambassador. Of course, it would also be an African-American and a Hispanic on one ticket. The audacity of hope indeed...

This campaign will come down to Iraq. If the corner has been turned in the Iraq War, that probably puts McCain over the top. What we can't forget about Senator McCain is that if he's running in the general election, it means he won the Republican Primary. And if he won the Republican Primary, he did it because his campaign finally gained traction and he began re-connecting with the voters. This makes him a dangerous weapon in a general election, especially if he can once again reach out to moderates.

If, however, support for the war is still anemic, Senator Obama has a chance. In fact, it's his only chance in an election against someone as seasoned as Senator McCain. Iraq needs to be a mess for an Obama victory. Any improvement whatsoever and McCain could win this more easily than most expect.

Frankly, I think John McCain with momentum is too much for a newcomer like Barack Obama to overcome. Obama and the Dems will have little problem mobilizing their base to vote, but McCain will have his base and probably the inside track on Independent voters. With an Obama/Richardson ticket unable to perform well in Red States, McCain has a shot at 300 electoral votes.

In a McCain vs. Obama race, John McCain is your next President of the United States.

Barack Obama Veepstakes (Part 2)

2008-06-06T07:32:00.001-04:00

With Barack Obama now officially the presumptive Democratic nominee, it's time to continue the Barack Obama Veepstakes, despite Obama's specific request for no one to ask him about it. Part 1 from a few weeks ago can be found here.

5. Bill Richardson (Governor, New Mexico)
In any typical year (read: white, male nominee from the northeast), Bill Richardson would have been the perfect running mate.

Obviously, with New Mexico and Florida as key swing states, a Latino VP nominee probably gives the Democrats their best chance to bring those states to the blue column. He also makes the Dems competitive in the Southwest, where Colorado and Nevada then become poachable. Richardson, however, was on every Democrat's short list for many more reasons than geography.

Richardson brings diverse experience and a myriad of political and governing skills. Richardson is a second term governor. He has been ambassador to the U.N., Energy Secretary (how important is that, these days?), and served in Congress. Perhaps most importantly, Richardson's wealth of experience and skills, but relatively lackluster personality in public, is perfect for a vice-presidential nominee who should make people at ease about voting for the pair, but will not steal the spotlight from the top of the ticket. This also gives Richardson time to grow a personality before he takes another stab at the presidency in eight years.

However, the elephant in the room is a killer. There will undoubtedly be a lot of Americans who will come out to vote against a Black/Latino ticket. Polls that say 5% of the country isn't ready for an African-American President and 12% isn't ready for a Latino President are representatives of the bare minimum number. I can't imagine the gall it takes for someone to tell a stranger on the phone or with a clipboard that they are allowing race to negatively play a role in their vote. Those numbers - that 5 and 12 percent - is higher. The argument that "these are people who wouldn't vote for Democrats anyway," falls apart when one considers the amount of people who wouldn't have bothered to vote until this ticket was nominated. Five percent of a presidential election is six million voters. How many of those would be voting anyway, and how many are coming to the polls because an African-American and Latino are running for positions that whites have cornered in the last 54 elections?

The unfortunate truth is that it would be too much change for too many Americans, despite change being the theme of Campaign 2008. The Democrats feel they are in the driver's seat and will not play with fire.

4. Brian Schweitzer (Governor, Montana)
Obama has publicly stated that he is looking to be competitive in many states usually punted by Democrats. It's these low-electoral "fly-over" states (Midwest, Mountain West) that campaigns often ignore in favor of coast-hopping and big-city-stumping. Obama specifically asserts that he will target those states.

The reason? Obama will have a lot more cash than McCain. Obama has smashed all fund-raising records in political history, having more cash on hand than any political figure who isn't a part of a monarchy. Meanwhile, McCain is still having trouble uniting the Republican base, which means there are some typical GOP donors that might not be contributing. If Obama, who has shown crossover appeal throughout the primary cycle, forces John McCain to spend money in places McCain would otherwise not have to, that increases Obama's chances in swinging some 2004 red states, most notably Ohio, Florida, Virginia, New Mexico, and Colorado.

Governor Schweitzer would go a long way in competing in these fly-over states. He brings many positive factors that Obama will be looking for in a vice-presidential nominee. He's a popular governor, meaning he has executive experience and has the qualities to siphon off McCain votes in the Mountain West and Midwest. Schweitzer, a staunch defender of the Second Amendment, would give Republicans who like Obama but are looking for a tangible reason to vote for a pair that could potentially be in power for sixteen years. Another quality held by Schweitzer is that he has the classic plain spoken, folksy, down to Earth charm, which contrasts strongly with Obama's elitist, fill the stadium, blow off the doors charm.

Indeed, many of these qualities make him an excellent compliment to Obama. While they agree on the huge issues facing this country - withdrawal from Iraq and energy independence - Schweitzer offers enough geographical, ethnic, and political differences that an Obama-Schweitzer ticket could be appealing to the entire country.

That leaves three to go. Check in this weekend for the Final Three and the conclusion of the Barack Obama Veepstakes!

Clinton to Suspend Campaign

2008-06-05T07:11:00.001-04:00

Hardly breaking news, Hillary Clinton has announced she will suspend her campaign for the Democratic nomination and support Barack Obama in the general election. The difference between suspension and concession? With suspension, you do not formally withdraw from the race. You keep all your delegates, and you can pick up where you left off at any time. No one ever does, mind you, but they could.

Scour the political websites and blogs if you want analysis on her decision. Click here if you want to see my post from yesterday, where I saw the Democratic Odyssey as a 16-month historical journey.

With the nomination sewn up for Obama, tomorrow will be a good time to continue the Barack Obama Veepstakes. I can then address the Clinton as VP situation. Here was part 1, where I counted down #10 to #6.

It's Over

2008-06-04T07:58:00.009-04:00

No, she hasn't conceded yet. Nor has she suspended. She hasn't dropped out and she hasn't given up.

But it is over. History has been made. Barack Obama is the presumptive nominee of the Democratic Party.

Yet, with all of the stories that slowly trickled in during the last couple days - the seventeen senate superdelegates, Clyburn, Carter, Clinton ready to concede, Clinton letting go staff, Clinton not conceding, Clinton wanting to meet face to face with Obama, Clinton interested in VP, Obama only interested in offering the VP if Clinton declines - it was easy to forget the big picture.

This was an historic event on several levels.

First, the magnitude of this upset is unparalleled in modern primary politics. Hillary Clinton, a lion in the Senate, with a 25-point lead in 2007 for the Democratic nomination, and with her spouse as the most popular member of the party and perhaps the most popular politician in the country, was beaten by a dark-skinned, mixed-race, first-term U.S. Senator with a Muslim sounding name who was just over two years removed from state politics when he declared for the United States presidency. Read that sentence again.

Second, the story everyone is talking about. For the first time in this country's history, a non-white has been nominated for President by a major political party. As an extension, if Obama wins on November 4th, he will be the first person with at least 50% African heritage to be the President of any country in western civilization.

Third, finally, and most important to me, I have to turn to a Hillary Clinton line from last night. Who would have thought that it would be Hillary Clinton, not Barack Obama, who could put forth the quote of the contest? Nothing sums up the ground breaking experience of the 2008 Democratic Primary better than a snippet of her simple prose. I know it's not Shakespeare, Jefferson, Glenn Cheney, or Dylan. I know it's clichéd. I know it seems obvious looking back on it. But she said it, and she's absolutely right.

"...we saw millions of Americans registering to vote for the first time, raising money for the first time, knocking on doors, making calls, talking to their friends and neighbors, mothers and fathers lifting their little girls and their little boys on to their shoulders and whispering,

"'See, you can be anything you want to be.'"

The crowd erupted, as it should have. Young minorities and young girls who saw the Democratic Primary come down to a woman and a black man must have been inspired. Our society isn't perfect. We haven't torn down all the barriers. We haven't convinced all the racists and misogynists of their archaic and misguided thoughts, and through aesthetic affirmative action, we've even gone too far in the opposite direction at times...

But those young girls and minorities haven't experienced any of that yet. They're new and innocent and untouched by the evils of prejudice and thoughtless malevolence. The most publicized and talked about news event of their young lives had a black man and white woman vying for the nomination of the Democratic Party. I don't think we can yet accurately predict the far-reaching effect this one political event will have on the next generation, but we can hope that the very best was taken from it.

And as we wave good-bye to the last few pre-19th Amendment seniors, as the generation that grew up in pre-Civil Rights slowly fades away, as the memory of the George Wallace south diminishes, and as my generation of Rodney King, OJ Simpson, and affirmative action begins its exit in a few decades, the generation who watched Clinton-Obama with wide eyes and big dreams will take our place. It was Dr. King's dream and it's becoming a reality.

So yes, the Democratic Primary is over, but it might not be the only thing that is. Over is the time where we walk into an election cycle with full confidence that we will see a white man vying against a white man to lead a country that is half female and steadily growing less white. Over is the time where we discount a candidate's viability because of the way they look. Over is the time where a girl or a black child gives up on their dream to hold the highest office in the land because of what they see when they look in the mirror.

It's over.

So I apologize if you checked into Presidential Politics for America this morning and wanted to see me break down numbers (unnecessary) or finish off my Barack Obama Veepstakes (Friday) or preview Obama-McCain (all summer). I just had to take a minute with a wide-angle lens and appreciate what we've experienced. I urge you to do the same.

Montana and South Dakota Polls

2008-06-03T07:24:00.002-04:00

Although there are signs that Hillary Clinton might be suspending her campaign any day now, why not take a look at polling data for the last two primaries, just for old time's sake? The polling data, like the respective state populations, are sparse.

South Dakota (15 pledged delegates)
American Research Group (5/31-6/1)
Clinton: 60
Obama: 34
Difference: Obama +26

Dakota Wesleyan University (4/3)
Obama: 46
Clinton: 34
Difference: Obama +12

Montana (16 pledged delegates)
American Research Group (5/31-6/1)
Obama: 48
Clinton: 44
Difference: Obama +4

Mason-Dixon (5/19-5/21)
Obama: 52
Clinton: 35
Difference: Obama +17

PPFA Analysis: Obama, who is 45 delegates short of the 2,118 majority, is on the doorstep of the nomination. As evidenced by the polls, Obama is expected to win both states today. Assuming a modest 17-14 split in his favor, that leaves Obama 28 short of the majority. When the seventeen remaining undecided superdelegates in the United States Senate, and now the Democratic House whip, declare their support for him, that will leave him only 10 short. It's almost over. With still undecided superdelegates expected to make a decision after these final two primaries, Obama could be pushed over the top by the beginning of next week, if not the end of this one.

This inevitability explains why there are stories floating around that we could be days or hours away from a Hillary Clinton concession. Stay tuned.

I'll be back by tomorrow morning, concession or not.

Hillary Clinton Conceding?

2008-06-02T16:18:00.002-04:00

Will Hillary Clinton's speech following tomorrow's Montana and South Dakota primaries be a concession (slash suspension) speech?

There are signs, writes Thomas Edsall of the Huffington Post, that she is indeed winding down that campaign. Edsall cites the following:

-She has asked top donors and backers to attend her speech.

-She will be making the speech from New York.

-Clinton and Barack Obama spoke yesterday concerning "post primary activities," according to what Edsall dubs "a reliable source."

-Marc Ambinder from The Atlantic explains that the Clinton campaign is getting their financial affairs in order.

-Clinton staffers are being told that their roles on the campaign are ending Tuesday night. In addition, Bill Clinton may have dropped a hint earlier today, when he said that tomorrow's primary day is probably "the last time I'm ever involved in a campaign of this kind."

These hints come on the same day that rumors swirled about 17 U.S. Senators, who were previously undecided on their superdelegate vote, would come out together for Obama following tomorrow's primaries. Depending on his success in Montana and South Dakota, it might be enough to put him over the top of the majority, and probably within a handful.

This might be over soon. If she does concede on Tuesday/Wednesday, as I have predicted she would numerous times over the last month, be sure that she'll stress that she simply wanted all the states to vote before conceding.

However, it is Hillary Clinton. She might have one more curveball for us. A Clinton concession? We'll believe it when we see it.

Seventeen Senate Supers to Announce for Obama

2008-06-02T15:55:00.002-04:00

There is a significant development today regarding undecided superdelegates. The seventeen remaining undecided superdelegates in the United States Senate are rumored to be ready to endorse Barack Obama en masse after the last two primaries, which are being held tomorrow.

Obama, who is 45 delegates short of the 2,118 majority, is on the doorstep of the nomination. With Montana and South Dakota scheduled to award 31 pledged delegates to Obama and Senator Hillary Clinton, Obama will have his hand on the door handle. Obama is expected to narrowly win both states. Assuming a 19-12 split in his favor tomorrow, that leaves Obama 26 short of the majority. With the seventeen Senators, that leaves him only 9 short. With still undecided superdelegates expected to make a decision after these final two primaries, Obama could be pushed over the top by the beginning of next week.

Stay tuned.

Puerto Rico; Updated Primary Standings

2008-06-02T07:35:00.003-04:00

Hillary Clinton's victory in Puerto Rico yesterday was convincing and it was expected.

But was it negligible?

One could make an argument both ways. On the one hand, you if you average the delegate count estimates of CNN, Goobergunch, FoxNews, ABCNews, Real Clear Politics, and Wikipedia, Barack Obama still has an insurmountable lead in pledged delegates and a clear lead in overall delegates.

Average pledged delegate spread:
1740-1625 (Obama +115)
Remaining pledged delegates: 31

Average overall delegate spread:
2070-1915 (Obama +155)
Remaining overall delegates: 234

Assuming no Obama superdelegates change their minds:
Total of 234 remaining overall delegates that Hillary Clinton must win to win by one delegate: 195
Percentage of remaining overall delegates Clinton needs to win by one delegate: 84.

Since, ultimately, the Democratic nominee will be determined by overall delegates, one can see how unlikely it is that Hillary Clinton can come back to win.

Yet Clinton has been hammering away at two arguments for months now, ever since the writing was on the wall after Pennsylvania. She claims that she is the better candidate to face McCain(subjective, debatable) and she claims that she is the true popular vote winner.

The popular vote argument is starting to hold water.

First, one should keep in mind that the remaining publicly undecided superdelegates that have yet to endorse Obama have probably been leaning towards Clinton. Why else would they reserve their vote?

Therefore, one can assume that the publicly undecided superdelegate has simply been waiting for a legitimate reason to support her, one that is not grounded in an argument both sides can easily make (eg. the better general election candidate).

Furthermore, remember that a potentially huge outcry that would come from a superdelegate veto and overturn of pledged delegates would stem from the will of the people being ignored. But if the unannounced Clintonian superdelegates can make the case that, if Clinton wins the popular vote, they actually are following the will of the people, than the outcry would be at least partially deflected.

So where does that popular vote stand? Well, it depends on who you ask. I will take a close look at those numbers later in the week, after Tuesday's Montana and South Dakota primaries finish off the voting process.

I'll be back tomorrow with Montana and South Dakota polls (if they even exist out there) and predictions. See you then.

Florida & Michigan Decision; Puerto Rico Polls

2008-06-01T10:36:00.002-04:00

Hillary Clinton can win Puerto Rico. She can win Montana. She can win South Dakota.

And by Tuesday night, she will still have lost the Democratic Primary.

Yesterday's decision from the Democratic National Committee rules and bylaws committee reinstated all of the delegates from Michigan and Florida, but awarded them only half their weight at the convention. This decision yielded 87 extra delegate votes for Senator Clinton and 63 extra delegate votes for Senator Obama. Significantly, both Michigan and Florida now get to send their entire delegation to the Democratic National Convention in Denver this August.

The compromise seemed reasonable, though, predictably, Clinton backers seemed to want nothing less than 100% of Michigan delegates fully awarded to their candidate, despite Michigan ignoring the rules laid down by the national committee and despite all major Democratic candidates withdrawing their names from the Michigan ballot except Hillary Clinton.

Rather than analyzing the merit of the decision made by the rules and bylaws committee (a decision which I predicted with nearly perfect accuracy yesterday), I'd like to look at the ruling's impact on the Democratic Primary.

Which is nothing.

Time for some numbers:

Clinton's 24 delegate dent in Obama's lead is negligible. His 161 pledged delegate lead was cut to 137, with 86 pledged delegates remaining. His overall delegate lead was cut from about 200 to approximately 175. With 291 remaining pledged and superdelegates, she would need to win about 80% of them. If she wins each of the remaining states with 60% of their delegates, she would need to convince 88% of the remaining undecided superdelegates (181 out of 205) to overturn the pledged delegate results in order to win the nomination by one delegate.

A tall order. Some would say impossible. Include me in that some.

Simply, Clinton cannot come back. I still fully expect her to withdraw from the race on June 4th, with some version of, "I just wanted all of the states to have a chance to vote" as the crux of her argument concerning her late withdrawal.

------------------
Here are some polls for today's El Primario de Puerto Rico. There is not much polling data coming out of the principality island, but here it is. (Note that the third one was taken back in the first week of April.)

Vocero/Univision Puerto Rico (5/8-5/20)
Clinton 59
Obama 40
Clinton +19

El Vocero/Univision/Greenberg, Quinlan, Rosner (5/8-5/20)
Clinton 51
Obama 38
Clinton + 13

Research & Research (3/31-4/5)
Clinton 50
Obama 37
Clinton +13

Look for Clinton to still win big (58-42ish) and put an 8-10 delegate dent in Obama's insurmountable lead. However, do not expect the Clinton camp to care about the delegate spread. She will hammer home the idea that the Puerto Rican votes should count in the overall popular vote (they do not, only votes from the states do), and should thusly strengthen her popular vote case. She can then continue to declare that more people have voted for her in this primary than have voted for any candidate in any primary in our country's history (when one counts Florida, Michigan, and Puerto Rico). In this regard, she would be correct.

It will be a great line during her concession speech.

I'll take a look at the Puerto Rico results tomorrow as we amp up for (finally) the South Dakota and Montana primaries on Tuesday. At the end of the week, I'll finish the Barack Obama VP nomination countdown.

Fixing Florida and Michigan

2008-05-30T06:58:00.003-04:00

(Editor's note: With the much anticipated Rules and Bylaws Committee meeting tomorrow afternoon, this would be a good time to re-run part of my March 7 article on the Florida and Michigan dilemma. In the last three months, no arguments have changed, despite the networks still claiming that Hillary Clinton's change of the metrics is news. Look for Clinton to get about a 60-40 split of halved delegates from the two felonious states, which will actually make a Clinton comeback less likely, as the percentage of pledged delegates and superdelegates that she'll need to win for the balance of the process will increase. Also, prepare for the famous 2,025 delegates majority mark to be pushed back to close to 2,200, though Obama will still be in position to clear that majority with the conclusion of the primary process. Long story short: Obama is the nominee within a few days of the June 3rd primaries.)

So Florida and Michigan want their votes counted. What a shock. They are upset that their influence has been stripped, but they seem confused as to whom they should focus their ire. It is not Howard Dean and the Democratic National Committee's fault. Florida and Michigan have only one place to point their finger, and that is at their own state parties.

Both parties of both states were forbidden to push their primary in front of February 5th. If they proceeded, sanctions would be imposed. The motivations behind the national committees imposing such strict laws were clear and simple. If any state was allowed to push up their primary in order to gain more influence in the primary process, then eventually all states would leapfrog each other until the primary season began months earlier than usual. Order and civility were necessary and penalizing rule-breakers was the only way to maintain them.

So, Florida and Michigan were warned, but their state parties insisted on pushing up their primaries to January. The Republican National Committee penalized the two states half of their delegates to the Republican Convention. The DNC stripped all of the Florida and Michigan delegates from the Democratic Convention.

The Republican candidates continued to campaign in the states, as even half of Michigan and Florida's delegates were still greater than smaller states at full value. The Democratic candidates, however, were instructed not to campaign in the penalized states. Some even went as far as to take their names off the ballot in Michigan (though Hillary Clinton did not do so). Mike Gravel was the only candidate to campaign in Florida, while Dennis Kucinich was the only one to campaign on Michigan.

Thus Michigan and Florida were ignored by Democrats, a long-term implication addressed in yesterday's post. As promised, their delegates were stripped. And now the governors of the two states, Republican Charlie Crist of Florida and Democrat Jennifer Granholm of Michigan, are predictably demanding that their delegates be seated. It is important to note that they did not fight the move into January. In fact, they championed the idea. The two governors are partly responsible for their states' predicaments.

Yet, once the promised consequences were delivered, they complained about the consequences. Simply, they called a bluff and lost and then complained about it.

But did they lose? Now, it seems, it behooves the Democratic National Committee to somehow count votes from the two states, so as to not alienate the Michigan and Florida voters. Since counting the unsanctioned January primaries is out of the question, despite Hillary Clinton's pleas, there is a chance that the states will revote either in primary or caucus form. If they do this, they would have more influence on the election than they possibly could have dreamed of when they moved up. Ironically, in this election, it is now the later primaries that are holding the most influence of all, and Florida and Michigan are going to get the best of both worlds.

All for breaking the rules.

The General Election Looms

2008-05-23T07:26:00.005-04:00

Work is too busy and I have no time to write, but a cnn.com article today, written on a singular issue, exemplified how the entire general election will be framed. Who will you choose? Barack Obama vs. John McCain. John McCain vs. Barack Obama.

A) Will you choose the inexperienced first-term Senator with zero military experience, who has made his money from a fawning media and a passionate but youthfully naive, activist base and has drawn support from 90% of a racial demographic that makes 20% of the rest of the country nervous?

B) Or will you choose the aging, feeble Senator with no executive experience, who supports an unpopular war, and has steadily changed his economic policies to fall in line behind an unpopular and financially unsuccessful President?

Of course, you could also choose from either:

A) The fresh face on the political scene who inspires the future of America, who would make the world much more at ease when dealing with the United States, especially Europe and moderate-but-potentially-radical Muslims, and who could, along with an undoubtedly Democratic Congress, categorically reject, and often times reverse, the policies of the unpopular and unsuccessful President.

or

B) The military hero who has earned the right to talk about issues like veteran's benefits and foreign policy, who 35 years ago returned from an unpopular war and has since served his country in the House and Senate, knows how unpopular wars work, and can do what's best for the country regarding the unpopular war, even if it's unpopular.

It's completely up to you.

Enjoy the long weekend. I'll be taking a break next week as I try to manage my life. Send money, food, and extra red pens.

See you for Puerto Rico (June 1),

IC

Oregon and Kentucky Key Numbers

2008-05-21T08:25:00.003-04:00

Last night, as expected, Hillary Clinton won the Kentucky Primary and Barack Obama won the Oregon primary. Get ready, because you are about to get a lot of numbers thrown at you.
---------------
100
Percentage chance that Clinton won Kentucky convincingly.

60
Percentage of Kentucky exit pollers who said the (fill in your own adjective) Gas Tax Holiday was a "Good idea."

100
Percentage chance that Obama won Oregon convincingly.

26
Percentage of Oregon exit pollers who said the (fill in your own adjective) Gas Tax Holiday was a "Good idea."
---------------
85
Percentage of white voters in Oregon.

57
Percentage of white voters who voted for Obama.
---------------
58-45
The expected delegated split from last night, in favor of Clinton.

150
Approximate lead for Obama in pledged delegates in the Democratic Primary, when all estimations are averaged.

86
Number of pledged delegates remaining in the Democratic Primary.

-.08
Percentage change in Obama's pledged delegate lead after last night. (Note: That's not 8%... that's .08%.)
---------------
182
Overall delegate lead for Obama, according to Real Clear Politics.

297
Overall remaining delegates (86 pledged, 211 supers) in Democratic Primary.

80.8
Percentage of overall remaining delegates Hillary Clinton needs to tie Barack Obama in delegate race.

89.1
Percentage of 211 remaining superdelegates that Clinton would need to win, assuming she wins sixty percent of delegates in the final three primaries (Puerto Rico, Montana, South Dakota).

100
Percentage chance that, by the rules of the Democratic Party, the nominee is decided by the total delegate count.
---------------
440,000; 1.3
Official popular vote lead and percentage lead of Barack Obama in Democratic Primary. (Excludes Florida, Michigan, Iowa, Nevada, Maine, and Washington.)

146,000; .4
Numbers above if Florida is no longer excluded.

255,000; .7
Numbers above if all states are counted except Michigan, where Obama was not on the ballot.

72,000; .2
Numbers above if Michigan is counted as well. (Note, now it is Clinton's lead.)
---------------
2.2
Average percentage national lead of Clinton over McCain, according to Real Clear Politics.

3.8
Average percentage national lead of Obama over McCain, according to Real Clear Politics.
---------------

Draw your own conclusions.

I'll be back on Friday.

Oregon and Kentucky Polls and Predictions

2008-05-20T07:09:00.002-04:00

"This is nowhere near over." - Hillary Clinton.

Analysis to come. First, some Oregon and Kentucky polls. Thanks to Real Clear Politics for the numbers.

Oregon (52 electoral votes)
Suffolk 5/17 - 5/18
BO: 45
HC: 41
Obama +4

PPP (D) 5/17 - 5/18
BO: 56
HC: 38
Obama +18

SurveyUSA 5/16 - 5/18
BO: 55
HC: 42
Obama +13

American Res. Group 5/14 - 5/16
BO: 50
HC: 45
Obama +5

Portland Tribune 5/8 - 5/10
BO: 55
HC: 35
Obama +20

Oregon Average (5/18-5/18)
Barack Obama - 52
Hillary Clinton - 40
Difference: Obama +12
----------------------------------
Kentucky (51 electoral votes)
Suffolk 5/17 - 5/18
HC: 51
BO: 25
Clinton +26

American Res. Group 5/14 - 5/15
HC: 65
BO: 29
Clinton +36

SurveyUSA 5/9 - 5/11
HC: 62
BO: 30
Clinton +32

Research 2000 5/7 - 5/9
HC: 58
BO: 31
Clinton +27

Rasmussen 5/5 - 5/5
HC: 56
BO: 31
Clinton +25

Kentucky Average (5/5 - 5/18)
Hillary Clinton - 58
Barack Obama - 29
Difference: Clinton +29

PPFA Analysis: "This is nowhere near over." - Hillary Clinton.

Come on! Why drag this on? It was one thing to let the remaining states vote, but it's quite another to steal money from donors by convincing them this is still a contest with potentially damaging statements like, "Think of this as a hiring decision."

I don't get it anymore. Yes, it's her right to continue. Yes, she's still wildly more popular than Obama in West Virginia in Kentucky. But we've had the process. The Democrats have spoken. It was close, but Obama has won more delegates, he's won the popular vote, he long ago clinched states/contests won, and he's now winning superdelegates, who have appropriately followed the will of voting Democrats.

This is objective. He has won every category. They don't have an entire primary process across the country only to count the big states. The big states weigh more already. That's factored in! You don't arbitrarily make the decision to count those and not the smaller states or the caucus states, just to make the delegate math work for a particular candidate. That's called alienation. A process was in place. Obama won it. They're just playing out the string.

Tonight, he'll clinch the pledged delegate lead. He's up by 170, and after tonight, where Clinton isn't expected to trim more than 5-10 delegates, there will be only 111 pledged delegates left, while he's still leading by no fewer than 160. Therefore, there is no way that Clinton could come back in the pledged delegate category in the last three remaining primaries (Puerto Rico, Montana, South Dakota), nor will she even bring the deficit within 150.

The significance: Either two things happen.
A) 95% probability - She eventually concedes, after dragging out the Democratic Primary too long, hurting her party's chances in the fall.
B) The only way she wins the nomination is if the superdelegates go against their recent trend and overturn the decision made by the people. And if the superdelegates overturn the will of the people, the Democratic Party is toast in the November elections. Once again, the party's chances will be hurt in the fall. And they'll have Hillary Clinton to thank, because she stuck it out far too long. This is not resilience. It is stubbornness and it is selfishness.

Back tomorrow with results and anaylsis.

Barack Obama Veepstakes

2008-05-16T07:40:00.005-04:00

Fresh off a two-part John McCain Veepstakes column (Part 1 and Part 2), it's now time to address the potential Vice-President spot for the likely Democratic nominee, Barack Obama.

Quick thoughts on the VP possibilities and traits: Picking a VP for Obama is difficult, as he would like a Washington outsider with executive experience, which almost always means a Governor. However, as Obama is someone with limited foreign policy experience, he would like someone with foreign policy or military experience, which almost always means a Senator. He wants someone that appeals to his supporters and Clinton supporters. He wants someone who pushes the issue of change and diversity, but he also doesn't want anyone but a white male, as it could be too much aesthetic change for the electorate to handle. Geography isn't as much of a priority as it used to be (Gore and Edwards didn't carry their own states, Lieberman was from predictably blue Connecticut), but should still be considered so the south and midwest is not alienated from down ticket races. Basically, Obama wants someone that doesn't exist.

So the task will be... who comes closest?

Considerations that did not make the list: Ted Strickland (would not accept), Phil Breseden (too old), Tim Kaine (pro-life), Ed Rendell (age, probably done with running for office), John Edwards (been there, done that), Claire McCaskill (green, vacant Senate seat), Evan Bayh (too close to Clinton, Presidential aspirations in 2012 or 2016), Mark Warner (wants John Warner's Senate seat).

10. Wesley Clark (Former Supreme Commander NATO Allied Forces, Illinois)
Both parties love him, he would be an incredibly capable advisor in military policy for the green Obama, he is practically attack proof from the Republican propaganda machine, and he’s fluent in four languages (which is about four more than our current President). He also has roots in the Midwest, making an Obama-Clark ticket as competitive across the country as the Democrats have had since the Clinton elections. It would be an added delight for Democrats to see Clark run circles around the Republican Vice-Presidential nominee on foreign policy, especially if it's a governor like most people expect.

Of course, he's not a perfect candidate. Clark simply has no realistic experiences in running for office. His late and short run in 2004 was a blip on the radar. You'd have to go back to Eisenhower in '52 to find a candidate with less political experience on a major ticket (apologies to the late Admiral Stockdale).

9. Russ Feingold (Senator, Wisconsin)
No candidate has a better voting track record in the Democratic Party. Senator Feingold is the only Senator to have voted against the USA Patriot Act. (When he cast that vote, some thought his career was over. This is the epitome of a Feingold stance; sticking up for what he thinks is right instead of what is best for his politics.) He was one of 23 Senators to vote against giving President Bush permission to use force in Iraq. Now, of course, many Senators who supported it are wishing they could retroactively change their vote.

The problem is, his greatest strengths as a Democrat would really hurt his chances on a general election ticket. He is probably the most liberal and progressive Senator in the chamber. He is liberal on campaign finance reform, fair trade policies, allowing gays to marry, health care reform, conservation and environmental protection, a multilateral foreign policy, Social Security, abolishing the death penalty, and eliminating wasteful spending. He could scare the heck out of moderates, who will be fought over more than ever in a McCain vs. Obama election. Because of this, the Dems probably don't risk putting up Feingold.

8. Jeremiah Wright (Pastor, Illinois)
Just kidding.

8. Joe Biden (Senator, Delaware)
Joe Biden could be a very valuable Vice-President. I can see a President making Biden the point-man on Iraq. No Democrat is more knowledgeable on the situation and equipped to deal with it. Biden should accept an offer from Obama if propositioned, as this election is Biden's last whiff of the White House.

Senator Biden has been a harsh critic of the Bush Administration’s foreign policy. Biden chairs the Senate Foreign Relations committee and is one of the longest tenured Senators, serving in the upper chamber since he was 30 years old. Of course, that might be his biggest weakness, as well. Obama has spoken so much about leaving behind the politics of the last generation and looking towards the future. Biden is an insider and Biden is a dinosaur in the Senate. It doesn't mold too well with Obama's rhetoric. Regardless, I consider Biden and Bill Richardson as the leading candidates for Secretary of State.

7. Kathleen Sebelius (Governor, Kansas)
There are three realistic women that Obama could take if he wants to attempt to hold support of women after he officially defeats Clinton. Missouri junior Senator Claire McCaskill is one, but her lack of experience (elected to Senate in the last midterm) in foreign policy or military affairs would really worry the country that there are two newbies on the ballot together. Plus, McCaskill, in a victory, would have to vacate her Senate seat, just like Obama, meaning two Democratic Senators are lost in the opening months of Obama's first term. Therefore, Sebelius is a wiser choice.

Like McCaskill, Sebelius is a popular female figure from a red 2004 state. Democrats think highly enough of Sebelius that they allowed her to give the response to President Bush's final State of the Union last January. If she's on the ticket, the country would see that Obama is indeed reaching out to 50 states, rather than the "Hold the 2004 states and win one more (Ohio/Florida)."

But will the Democrats really risk running a black man and white woman in the same election unless forced into it? Methinks not.

6. Michael Easley (Governor, North Carolina)
Easley brings to the table much of what is desired for Obama's Vice-President. He balances Obama's geography, he has executive experience, and it's an unofficial olive branch to Clinton's supporters, as Governor Easley was firmly in her camp. Additionally, between Obama's African-American support and Easley's governorship, these two could do what John Kerry and John Edwards couldn't do in 2004... win North Carolina.

Then again, Obama didn't mold himself into a progressive candidate just to bring a centrist along as his #2. That is not the direction to which the Democratic Party wants to go after an Obama Administration. Additionally, it remains to be seen if Clinton's supporters (Easley, Bayh, etc.) can passionately and persuasively campaign for the man who vanquished her. Finally, Easley's complete lack of national or foreign policy experience (he's been a Governor and state Attorney General) would bring little gravitas to the ticket.

Part 2 next week some time. Five names left. Feel free to leave your predictions.

John McCain Veepstakes (Part 2)

2008-05-15T07:02:00.000-04:00

Here is the conclusion to the John McCain Veepstakes. If you missed it, Part 1 was yesterday.

5. Charlie Crist (Governor, Florida)
When looking at electoral math, this guy jumps out. Like his predecessor, Jeb Bush, he's extraordinarily popular in Florida, and if Republicans want to hold onto the White House, they must hold onto Florida. His endorsement of McCain before the Florida Primary might have been the difference when McCain delivered the late round knockdown blow to Mitt Romney. However, Crist's executive experience is limited, as he's been governor for only two years. Moreover, while he would keep Florida red, his popularity will not extend to any other state or region.

4. John Thune (Senator, South Dakota)
He's young (47), extremely conservative (100% in 2006), and is a quasi-hero in the party after knocking off Democratic Senate leader Tom Daschle in 2004. Moreover, he's fervently supporting the McCain campaign, which will help with skeptical conservatives. Unfortunately, two senators on a ticket have no executive experience, and fiscal management experience is crucial in this election. Moreover, South Dakota is hardly an advantageous state for a Republican ticket, as its three electoral votes are not in danger, nor is South Dakota a bellwether state for its surrounding region.

3. Mitt Romney (Former Governor, Massachusetts)
Back in early February, Romney dropped out of the race for the same reason Huckabee stayed in it. They both want to be considered for the VP nomination by the guy who beat them. Huckabee's strategy was that if he won enough states, McCain would just want to end the primary as soon as possible by offering the #2 spot to Huckabee. However, McCain's easy disposal of Huckabee means that McCain has no reason to invite Huckabee, aside from a couple reasons mentioned in yesterday's Part 1.

This leaves Romney, whose breathtakingly conservative withdrawal speech was a verbal audition for the VP nod. He said everyone needed to get out of the way for McCain (while Huckabee and Paul were still in the race, by the way). He talked about the importance of the war on terror, implying McCain was the right guy for the job. He also mentioned the importance of the future of the Republican Party remaining the conservative party.

In the closing weeks of Romney's campaign, the conservative base, media included, was pushing his campaign. It was probably more anti-McCain than pro-Romney, but regardless, if the two joined up, it could galvanize the Republican Party. Romney brings a geographical balance, executive experience, a handsome family, personal and public economic success, and millions of his own dollars into the campaign war chest.

2. Mark Sanford (Governor, South Carolina)
He's similar to DeMint (see yesterday), except as a governor, there is executive experience. Sanford could very well be the future of the party. He's young (turns 48 this month), good-looking (so I'm told by women), has an excellent conservative fiscal record, and the Republican base loves him. A McCain-Sanford victory in November could very well mean 12-16 years of Mark Sanford on the ballot. He's almost tailor made for the #2 spot. However, South Carolina and its geographical region are in no danger of being flipped to the blue column.

1. Tim Pawlenty (Governor, Minnesota)
Pawlenty has a check next to his name in all categories, and must be on McCain's short list. He's young and has a future in the party. He has executive experience. He's as conservative of a northern governor that you'll ever find. He was strongly behind the McCain campaign for President. He's a popular governor of the only state to vote Democratic in every election since McGovern's disastrous 1972 bid against President Nixon. He flips Minnesota's 9 electoral votes and could even do some stumping in nearby Michigan, which is now in play thanks to the DNC fracas.

If you have to wager on McCain's VP, go with Tim Pawlenty to win, Mark Sanford to place, and Mitt Romney to show. Take John Thune in your superfecta and you'll go home rich. If you want a long shot that could pay out big, I suggest Sarah Palin.

I'm back tomorrow with some Democratic Primary news and some VP possibilities for Barack Obama. See you then.

John McCain Veepstakes

2008-05-14T06:58:00.005-04:00

The as-expected West Virginia victory does not change the race at all, despite a well executed, if not unoriginal speech from Senator Hillary Clinton. She is still facing the most difficult of mathematics. She is still facing a nearly impossible road to the nomination. She still either a) doesn't seem to realize she has no realistic chance or b) she doesn't care about the possible collateral damage her extended campaign is having on the Democratic Party's chances in November.

Since there was no change in the primary's narration last night, and it's been over a month since I've directly addressed the Republican Party due to obvious reasons, let's look ahead a bit. It will soon be time to gear up for the general election, an election to which I have been patiently looking forward.

So while we await Oregon and Kentucky numbers for the rest of the week, I'll try to project the competing tickets for the general election. Today I'll begin a two-day look at the top 10 VP candidates for John McCain and on Friday I'll do the same for Barack Obama. I'll return to the Democratic Primary on Monday.

Here's my take on McCain's top 10 VP list, ranked by whom I think he'll choose.

Considerations that did not make the list: Sam Brownback (Doesn't mesh with McCain), JC Watts, Michael Steele, (African-American vote not up for grabs), Condoleezza Rice (No AA's, no politics, and too close to the President), Fred Thompson (too old), Newt Gingrich (too overshadowing), Jeb Bush (too Bush).

10. Sarah Palin (Governor, Alaska)
Working under the assumption that Barack Obama is the Democratic nominee, there is undoubtedly going to be a lot of disappointed female voters who are up for grabs across the country. Sarah Palin would be an excellent olive branch to a gender that consistently leans Democratic. She not only brings executive experience to balance McCain's legislative work, but she might be the most popular executive in the country. Indeed, in a poll taken in 2007, she had an astounding approval rating of 84% with only 5% disapproval. Other strengths include her strong pro-life stance and she's voiced an opinion against gay marriage, two core conservative tenants that will be welcome to Republicans who are skeptical of a McCain nomination.

Of course, there are nine people ranked higher on this list for a reason. First, the 44-year-old governor was elected governor in 2006, and with less than a year-and-a-half of statewide experience, she could be considered too green for the ticket (even if the average age of her and McCain is a perfect 58). Second, she has very little name recognition across the country, and even though that isn't her fault, it is something McCain and the Republican brain trust could be concerned with when selecting the #2. Finally, she brings nothing to the table geographically, as Alaska's three electoral votes consistently go red, and the state will not attract any region of the country, unless the Yukon Territory is somehow annexed and incorporated by November.

9. Joe Lieberman (Senator, Connecticut)
I had to include him, if for no other reason than to once again bring up the Dream Election (2007 article), one of my first political articles. Of course, the Dream Election was only feasible if the conservative base screwed over McCain after he patiently waited for eight years after losing to then-Governor Bush. (McCain would run third party for his last hurrah, and he'd run on the platform of bipartisanship, targeting the moderate and Independent third of the country. To secure the middle ground, he would run with former Democrat Joe Lieberman, with whom McCain is famously friends. This would split the country in three parts, Democrat, Republican, and In-between.)

Alas, McCain has won the nomination, and a look at his struggle with the conservative base reveals that to select a former Democrat as his VP would be general election suicide. Still, if McCain wants to run on an aggressive foreign policy and an end to partisan politics, his buddy Joe Lieberman would be the perfect running mate.

8. Mike Huckabee (Former Governor, Arkansas)
Would there be a more fun and amiable #2 to see in debates and campaigning across the country? Huckabee brings executive experience, the southern geography, experience in a national campaign, and nearly unrivaled charisma and genuineness for a politician.

Of course, ultimately, thanks to questionable fiscal conservative credentials, Huckabee was the third least preferred candidate of the conservative media and the far right (after Paul and McCain), and probably does not help McCain's desire to consolidate the Republican base.

7. Jim DeMint (Senator, South Carolina)
He's a southerner with a 100% conservative rating in 2006. That is crucial considering some conservative's dislike for John McCain. He is the perfect balance for McCain... but he's a Senator with no executive experience from a state that is not in play.

6. Kay Bailey Hutchison (Senator, Texas)
See Sarah Palin for the obvious reason. Additionally, Hutchison, in her third term, is the female Republican Senator with the most seniority, so inexperience is not a factor. She is from a southern state, which holds the geographical base of the party. She has a consistent conservative record.

Of course, Texas is in no danger of going to the Democrats, especially with Obama's nomination. Furthermore, she has no executive experience. Perhaps most importantly, she has said she does not want the VP nomination.

I'll see you for the top 5 in Part 2 of the McCain Veepstakes tomorrow.

Clinton Wins West Virginia; Reads Talking Points

2008-05-13T21:32:00.000-04:00

As predicted by everyone, Hillary Clinton is projected to win West Virginia by a large margin.

Hillary Clinton is currently giving a speech that is simply all of her talking points onto one piece of paper. She reminds us the popular vote is close. She wants to marginalize the importance and binding effect of pledged delegates. She wants to count Florida and Michigan now that she needs the states, a 180 on her pre-February 5th position, despite Barack Obama not even being on the ballot in Michigan. She wants superdelegates to make up their own minds. She is up in key battle ground polls. She does not give up.

Nothing new. So, in the spirit of Clinton, I will offer nothing new in this post. Nothing has changed. Refer to today's post to see where she goes from here.

West Virginia Polls and Predictions

2008-05-13T06:59:00.003-04:00

What exactly is Hillary Clinton hoping will happen? Let's dispense with the "It's her right to stay in" talk. Though it is inarguably her right, it has also been the right of every candidate who has ever vied for the nomination of their party for any office, but a tipping point always comes when they realize they are not going to win, and no one expects a comeback except the most ardent of illogical supporters. Almost always, these candidates do indeed drop out of the race.

They drop out when it becomes clear there is no realistic way back into the contest. They do this for several reasons, not the least of which is that it makes no sense to compete against a fellow member of the party when they have a general election around the corner. They drop out for the good of the party because there is nothing left to gain.

So what exactly is Hillary Clinton hoping will happen?

There are two scenarios remaining, neither realistic.

1. Something HUGE happens to Obama. Perhaps Satan rides to Illinois with the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse and they drape their arm around Jeremiah Wright while attending Obama's monthly flag burning party with Osama Bin Laden.

2. The following things happen:
a. Today: Despite Obama's momentum, Clinton wins West Virginia by 40+ points, netting her 12+ delegates.
b. Next seven days: With Clinton's resounding win, superdelegates pause for a week.
c. May 20: Clinton uses the 40-point West Virginia win and great Kentucky poll numbers to take Oregon by a narrow margin (highly unlikely) and Kentucky by 40-points (doable), netting 25+ delegates.
d. May 21-June 1: Superdelegates trickle towards Clinton, as she and her husband call in all favors, convincing supers that she has recaptured the momentum and it's now or never. Bill pops over to Puerto Rico while Hillary and Chelsea spend a week in South Dakota and Montana.
e. June 1: Clinton wins Puerto Rico's 55 delegate primary, netting 10+ delegates.
f. June 3: Clinton wins Montana and South Dakota's tiny primaries of 16 and 15 delegates, respectively, netting 5-10 delegates total, ending the primary season with six straight wins.
g. Somewhere between a and f, Clinton takes back the popular vote, Florida and Michigan included.
h. Summer: Superdelegates see that she has won the last six primaries in a row and eight of the last nine. They see she has a weak but existent argument as the popular vote winner. Most significantly, they see that she polls better than McCain in big battleground states. They get intimidated by the former leader of the party, President Clinton. While few to zero superdelegates leave Obama, over a hundred superdelegates hold their vote until August (awaiting cabinet secretary or undersecretary positions), and at the Democratic Convention, a floor fight decides the nominee.
i. August 28: The floor fight results in a Clinton/Obama ticket, in that order.

See? Of course she's staying in the race. She just needs a nine-step process where every last factor breaks in Clinton's direction. Easy.

Don't forget, though, before she can get to b-i, she has to start with a, a huge win in West Virginia. Here are the latest West Virginia polls. As always, most polls are found with the help of Real Clear Politics.

Suffolk 5/10 - 05/11
HC: 60
BO: 24
Clinton +36.0

ARG* 5/7 - 5/8
HC: 66
BO: 23
Clinton +43.0

Rasmussen 5/4 - 5/4
HC: 56
BO: 27
Clinton +29.0

TSG Consulting (D) 5/3 - 5/3
HC: 63
BO: 23
Clinton +40.0

West Virginia Average 5/3-5/11
HC: 61
BO: 24
Clinton +37

PPFA Analysis: Today's primary is not exactly a white-knuckler. Clinton will win and she will win big. Still, there are two factors working in Obama's favor, one heading into the vote, the other coming out.

First, any undecideds or soft Clinton voters will probably go over to Obama for the sake of expediency. Even some soft-to-moderate Clinton supporters, the ones that value the Democratic Party over their allegiance to the junior Senator from New York, might realize that a vote for Clinton is a vote for an extension, and despite telling pollsters that they prefer Clinton, they end up voting with their head instead of heart.

Second, the number "40" has been used to describe West Virginia for the past week. If Clinton wins by literally only 39, it will be looked on as worse-than-expected. Anything less than 35 and it will be disheartening for the Clinton campaign. Long story short: It will be difficult for her to get back in the race because of West Virginia.

The first factor will produce the second. Expect Clinton to win by only 30-35, which will be an underperformance, but it certainly won't make Clinton think twice about her decision to stay in the race. Then we wait for the unlikely Oregon bounce.

Hillary Clinton's Denial, Anger, etc.

2008-05-12T06:59:00.002-04:00

Elisabeth Kübler-Ross' famous "Five Stages of Grief," detailing the process by which people deal with grief, loss, and tragedy, has become increasingly appropriate when analyzing Hillary Clinton and her campaign. To wit:

Denial: As written here and across the print media, this contest is all but over and there is no plausible road to victory for Hillary Clinton. Her last stronghold, superdelegates, has fallen. John Edwards, former third banana of the 2008 Democratic Primary, has described Barack Obama as the likely nominee because it is "difficult to make the math work" for Senator Clinton. George McGovern, the 1972 nominee of the Democratic Party, has switched from Clinton to Obama, explaining that the "battle is about over." Significantly, Rahm Emanuel, House Democratic Caucus Chairman, has now called Obama the "presumptive nominee." These are just three of dozens of important, influential names in the Democratic Party who acknowledge not only that Obama is going to get the nomination, but additionally, they imply or emphatically state that to extend the primary when it should be at its conclusion is detrimental to the party's chances in November.

Yet Senator Clinton pushes forward.

Ms. Kubler-Ross, when she proposed her Five Stages thesis, acknowledged that the wounded or grieved do not always follow the five steps in order. Indeed, there are exceptions. The stages can come in any order, and sometimes they can be skipped on the way to acceptance. It seems to me that Senator Clinton's situations is one such exception. For example,

Anger: This was supposed to be Hillary Clinton's year. She had dreamt of this moment since she was a girl in grade school. She involved herself in her husband's politics. She stayed with him through family troubles. Women loved her. African-Americans loved her husband. She ran for Senate of a big state in 2000. She got on influential Senate committees. She earned a reputation as a tough, smart, hardworking Senator. The Republican President became a lame-duck after a 2004 victory. She completed her first Senate term in 2006. Then it was time to run for the open presidential seat in 2008. She was expected to amass a campaign war chest never before seen in politics. She was overwhelmingly going to win the female vote in a primary with eight men. In 2007, she had a twenty-point lead in nearly every national poll. She was going to walk to the nomination and then throw down in a general against a candidate whose party leader had become overwhelmingly unpopular. She was going to be the first female President in United States history.

She had dreamt of this moment since she was a girl in grade school.

And then along comes Barack Obama, with his speeches, with his hope, with his activists, with his 90% of the black vote digging into her base, with his caucus victories, with his small state victories, with his bottom up campaign strategy, with the youth vote, with his even bigger war chest, with his even larger donor list, with the media in his hip pocket, and with his skin color as much of a novelty has her gender...

You better believe she's angry. If you don't believe me, go talk to a hardcore Clinton supporter. Then duck.

Bargaining: This stage has recently kicked in. Bargaining, when it comes to personal tragedy, perhaps a terminal illness, deals with pleas like, "Just let me live to see my daughter get married." In political terms, Clinton is just looking to buy herself more time, just in case a one-in-a-thousand event occurs. She pushes onto West Virginia tomorrow, where she enjoys a 40-point lead, though the state only has 25 delegates. She hopes that enough momentum will build from that (which it won't) to push her in to dominating 40-point victories the rest of the way (Which she won't get), giving superdelegates a lot to think about (which they won't do).

As I will write tomorrow, this scenario is completely unrealistic, and she's just trying to convince everyone there's a reason she's staying in besides to hurt Barack Obama. Bargaining.

Depression: This and the next stage are still to come. When she finally concedes, or when Barack Obama eclipses the 2,025 delegate mark, she will start to see that her girlhood dream was a mirage, and probably the only person who could have beat her in a primary decided to run the same year she did. This thought will depress her greatly, and this depression will soon yield to...

Acceptance: This summer, when she publicly accepts the decision made by the voters and superdelegates, she will appear with Barack Obama, raise his hand, and tell her supporters to line up behind the Democratic nominee. Ironically, it is this act, above all others in the last year, which will most endear her to the Democratic electorate, as she puts the party and country before her personal feelings. It is that decision that will allow her presidential aspirations to not die with her 2008 campaign, but rather just be put on hold for 4-8 years.

When she accepts that, she will have finally completed the five stages of grief, and she'll feel a whole lot better.

Maybe.

Back tomorrow for a West Virginia preview. See you then.