New Iowashire I Miss You Already

January 8, 2008

Big day tomorrow but before you vote (or watch the networks predict someone else’s vote) check out these resourceful links:

Electoral-Vote.Com: Back for another election to provide more than you need to know about the state by state races and polling and en ethos for every blogger should aspire to (thanks, CM).

The Technology Voter’s Guide From CNet News: Interviews with candidates on issues of technology policy like net neutrality, Government Wire Tapping, and Digital Copyright - McCain, Paul, Edwards, Clinton, Obama and Dodd are there (though the latter’s no longer a candidate).

The interviews are interesting - despite the fact that they are questionnaire-based and overly-crafted, you still get candidates who sometimes by their own admission don’t know jack about the Interwebs and others who show a keen understanding of the issues. John Edwards is particulalry good - particularly compared to Ron Paul whose web-policy knowledge does not seem to match his massive web-based support.


A Re-Airing of Grievances

January 7, 2008

Thanks to CNN for re-airing Saturday’s debates - these are fun, but not 4 hours of my Saturday night fun. Good times too, with Charlie Gibson doing a great job, some actual contrast emerging, and some really interesting strategic and perhaps not so strategic fencing. The latter refers to the Republicans ganging up on Mitt Romney. I suppose everything is strategic, but this felt personal. It wasn’t the typical ‘going after a high-profile candidate’ (remember, he’s no longer leading in New Hampshire) and the body language (by all) and laughs (by McCain) bordered on fiendish, particularly at the end when Romney wondered around behind the tables while the other candidates shook hands and embraced. Also, I recall a few commentators saying things like “the other candidates simply don’t like Romney.”

On the Democrats’ side, I thought things were more restrained and there was some nice back-and-forth on issues and some of the candidates even managed to differentiate themselves: Richardson on his experience (finally), Richardson on Iraq, Obama/Edwards on Health Care, and Hillary on the rhetoric of the other candidates. That last move by Clinton was bold and seemed emotional and unscripted - I know, probably impossible in these debates, but check it out again (for the third time) from the transcript:

Clinton: Now we’re all out on the campaign trail talking about taking the tax subsidies away from the oil companies, some of which were in that 2005 energy bill.

So, you know, words are not actions. And as beautifully presented and passionately felt as they are, they are not action.

You know, what we’ve got to do is translate talk into action and feeling into reality. I have a long record of doing that, of taking on the very interests that you have just rightly excoriated because of the over-due influence that they have in our government.

That was directed at Edwards and there was another on “change” directed at Obama.

For his part, Obama did a good job of not getting into it too much with the other candidates and I thought he did a great job of speaking to New Hampshire independents, here’s the culmination:

Obama: But the larger point is that we have to get back to a notion that opportunity and bottom-up economic growth is what the president should be fighting for.

And what we’ve had is a top-down agenda that is skewed toward the wealthiest Americans. It is making worse some of the trends of globalization that are already out there.

And one of the benefits of this campaign has been to listen and talk to the folks all throughout New Hampshire who are tired of it and want to see something change.

Now it probably had a lot more to do with Iowa than how he was received by independents on Saturday, but lo and behold Obama just got a big bump in the polls - now with a double-digit lead.


Predictable?

December 18, 2007

Not so much. Check this out:

electability-poll.png

And more growing uncertainty from the latest USA Today Poll:

Among Republicans, five candidates are in competitive positions — four of them effectively tied for second place. Former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani continues to lead, supported by 27% of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents.

Former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee was second among Republicans, at 16%. Tied at 14% were Arizona Sen. John McCain, former Tennessee senator Fred Thompson and former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney.

I’ll stick by my prediction that the Huckabee bashing will continue, but beyond that, crystal balls are getting murkier and murkier on both sides of the ticket.


She Can Win The White House, but She’s Not Electable

December 12, 2007

Today’s Chris Cilliza Fix at Washingtonpost.com is fascinating. It focuses on the contradiction that is voter’s perceptions of Hillary Clinton. On one hand, 63% of Democrats think she has the best chance of “taking back the White House,” while on the other hand her penchant for negative ratings and lack of electibility in the mind of many a Dem is well documented. Predictably, Barack Obama is playing up these latter negatives while Hillary most recently highlights the 63% with a clever conference call:

n a hastily-organized conference call this afternoon, which just happened to be scheduled at the same time that Rep. Carol Shea Porter (D-N.H.) was formally endorsing Obama, a group of Clinton surrogates praised Clinton as the lone candidate in the field who can win the White House back for Democrats. And, while they initially avoided any direct shots at Obama, by the end of the call those came too.

“I don’t understand a candidate who seems to think he can offer one position in the early stages of his career and then when he reaches a position of national election he can change a position,” said Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (Texas).

Asked later to expand on that sentiment, Jackson Lee cited Obama’s stance on gun control. “If you are a Senator or state senator who talked about banning all guns…and then all of a sudden you are altering that position or seemingly altering that position….that is inconsistent,” she said.

The other Clinton surrogates were far more circumspect about naming names when it came to electability. Sen. Evan Bayh (Ind.) dodged a question on whether or not Obama was qualified to be commander in chief and Rep. Stephanie Tubbs Jones said that her support of Clinton had little to do with Obama.

So, which is it? Next President or un-electable. Check out the first comment on the post:

Hillary Clinton is the least electable candidate. No person with any love for this country, with any degree of self respect, with any concern for morality or right and wrong, will even consider voting for her. Not just that, there is spreading movement called “The Pledge” amoungst past Democratic voters. I’ve taken it. If Hillary Clinton is the nominee, I swear not to vote for one Democratic candidate. Not one. The whole party can go to straight to h*ll. Every other Democrat running is a better choice, with better ideas, and more concern for us and for this country.


Mid-Week Polls

December 5, 2007

Graph

The latest from Pew confirms the ground Huckabee has gained in Iowa while Romney has an almost comfortable lead in New Hampshire.

Meanwhile, Romney’s much-anticipated speech on Mormonism is expected tomorrow on the heels of another Pew survey that concludes:

 Overall, one-in-four respondents to a recent nationwide Pew survey said that they would be less likely to vote for a Mormon candidate for president, and those who take this point of view express substantially more negative views of Romney, compared with those who express no such reservations about voting for a Mormon.

Which makes me question the Romney strategy on this front for two reasons:

1. What can this possibly accomplish for the candidate if the folks he’s trying to bring-along have such a negative view of him anyway?

2. What can this possibly accomplish for Romney if Iowa Republicans are religious enough that they can’t be brought along and New Hampshire voters aren’t religious enough that this may actually remind them of some facts that they had been trying to ignore?

Also, some data on the Democratic side that’s a bit older (December 3) but contains some interesting results regarding “strength of support:”

Figure

 Based on what the experts say, I would have guessed that New Hampshire voters would have had higher marks in the ’strength’ category for 2007. I had been thinking that Hillary had a good hold on NH, but these numbers make me think that there’s enough space in the Granite State that performances in Iowa could have a big impact on NH Democrats.


Edwards’ Chances in New Hampshire

November 13, 2007

Just saw Edwards on CSPAN speaking at Politics and Eggs in New Hampshire. A solid speech with a good overview of his objectives and policy plans, particularly strong on his core domestic issues, solutions to poverty and health care. But during the question and answer segment he was pressed on what he would do about curbing government spending and a key challenge for Edwards, particularly in the Live Free or Die state, presented itself.

Edwards, as best he could in New Hampshire, made it clear that reducing the deficit was no a priority for him and an Edwards presidency would involve quite a bit of spending (how else can a populist Democrat tackle poverty and health care?). This is when you realize how difficult the primary system makes an Edwards run, particularly one in which a state like New Hampshire that is almost militantly against big government. Edwards has practically established residency in Iowa and has made inroads there, but his answer to the spending question makes it clear that he’ll be hard-pressed to crack the top-two in New Hampshire -he’s currently trailing Clinton by 23 points and is 10 behind Obama.



“A Noun, a Verb, and 9/11″

November 3, 2007

Completely sunk in work this week, I missed the debate and a lot of the coverage. Trying to catch up today and most of what’s worth reading is coming out of London. The Financial Times [might need a subscription...] provides excellent commentary and is sure to throw in the above Biden gem:

…it is historically the case that candidates run to their party’s activist extremes to secure a nomination and then run back to the middle to win a general election, so the GOP establishment may be taking the long view that Mr Romney will come to his senses eventually, if he can find them.

Mr Giuliani’s affinity with the neocons makes more transparent sense. They talk the sort of tough game that is the basis of the candidacy of the man saved from political oblivion, the fate of most New York mayors, before the events of September 11 2001 transformed him into a national figure. As Mr Biden neatly put it in the Democratic debate this week, a Giuliani stump speech consists of three elements – a noun, a verb and 9/11.

I’ll post a longer chunck of that article below - an excellent look at how choosing advisers during the primaries is a lot like choosing a jacket for the debate. But first, more from Britain - The Economist has some numbers and says it will continue to poll thoughout the campaign [click to enlarge]:

economist-you-gov-poll.gif…and the commentary does well to pick-up on the real story from the Republican side:

This makes the race for the Republican nomination extremely hard to predict. As the primaries draw near, will voters learn more about Mr Giuliani and reject him?

And The Guardian delivers a nice scare for Democrats on Halloween:

The Christian right has shown that there is sufficient democratic space for movements to play a role in shaping the political narrative, regardless of who the electoral protagonists are, so long as those movements can prove their clout and exercise their independence.

“Some might compare the religious right to a snake,” a Wichita evangelist, Terry Fox, told the New York Times. “We may be in our hole right now, but we can come out and bite you at any time.” It’s time for progressives to get out of their hole and find some teeth.

As I type, an infomercial for Open the Eyes of My Heart blasts in the background…

Ok, with Halloween over, here’s hoping value voters won’t be scaring me again any time soon - and more from that great FT article:

On economic policy, Mr Giuliani is listening to the siren voices of another group whose time seemed to have passed. They are led by Steve Forbes, unable to parlay his advocacy of flat taxes into the Republican nomination back in 1996, and the like-minded Bill Simon, who lost a California governor’s race to an unpopular incumbent in 1998. At least he is more of a born populist than them.

Comfortably the best assessment of the old Giuliani was provided by Calvin Trillin in his wickedly funny novel, Tepper Isn’t Going Out, about a New Yorker whose avocation is to sit in his car in scarce legal parking spaces, thus driving the city bananas. This was due to be released in the autumn of 2001 but publication was delayed for a year because it was considered too irreverent for those traumatic times.

In it, the mayor of New York has an Italian name (Ducatelli) and very authoritarian tendencies. He wants to be known as Duke (after John Wayne) but the local media insists on christening him Il Duce (after Mussolini). I think the Trillin book should be reissued now as a political tract.

Other pretenders have also attracted some high-profile advisers. Zbigniew Brzezinski, who ran Jimmy Carter’s national security council and has been an effective critic of neo-conservatism, is in the Obama corner, though he is probably a bit long in the tooth to get back into government. An adviser of longer standing, the very smart Samantha Power, now at Harvard, would surely feature prominently in an Obama administration.

John McCain, by no means out of the Republican race, still marches mostly to his own drum, which serves him best. Mike Huckabee does not appear to have anybody notable on board but if he continues to move up in the field he will not lack for foreign policy tutors.

In ancient times, once a nominee was chosen the respective parties would impose policy advisers on him, squeezing out the primary gurus. But the parties themselves are now so sundered that it is up to the candidate to pick a team. Dick Holbrooke knows that better than anyone.


Pull of the Polls

September 24, 2007

Theoretically, the issue of electability should matter equally to both parties, if it should matter at all. But in reality, electability seems to be much more of a topic of conversation among Democrats and is arguably the issue that matters for many of that party’s voters. At the outset of the campaigns, I thought this would be a huge advantage for John Edwards who many cited as the most ‘electable’ candidate in the early race for 2004. And perhaps Edwards figured he had the electability issue locked-up, because he has tacked left over the course of this summer and his rhetoric has taken on a decidedly populist tone that risks alienating the center. His defense of his electability leads me to believe in this analysis (that Edwards may misunderstand the entire concept of electability) and the Washington Post fact checker supports the alienation hypothesis.


Links of the Week

September 21, 2007

It says something when the media struggles to even consistently frame their debate coverage. Listen to this discombobulated report on last night’s AARP debate from NPR.

Obama missed that debate and this vote - yes, the vote was a bit ridiculous (so was the ad), but why not just show up? Seems like this will be difficult to rationalize if other candidates really start pressing Barack on it.

We haven’t been able to report on anything regarding Giuliani outside of his over-hyping the terrorist threat in about 6 weeks.

Apparently Mitt’s willing to follow Rudy’s lead when it comes to such hyperbole. They also do a nice job of writing another page in the playbook that continues to confuse America about who was responsible for Sept. 11th.

And Fred Thompson just can’t seem to get his off-screen life as a consultant in order. It’s amazing that Fred is doing better than just surviving in the polls, because he seems to be stumbling all over the stage since he drew the curtain on his candidacy. The polls are nice, but the Republican base that has so much riding on Thompson’s candidacy can’t be too enthused.


Front-Runners

July 30, 2007

A major take-away from last week was that Hillary Clinton is still the clear front-runner among the Dems and that if that nomination were based purely on debate-performances alone, she would have it.

The Republican picture isn’t so clear, but I think today’s Boston Globe cover is good evidence of who will be rising to the top in the near future:

Romney has steadily pushed to the head of the Republican pack in New Hampshire, while his major rivals have lost ground. A mid-July poll had him opening up a 15-point lead.

Romney has benefitted from larger forces shaping the race, notably, McCain’s difficulties. But he has also run a campaign that might have been lifted straight out of “The Official Guide to Winning the New Hampshire Primary,” if there were such a guide to the conventional wisdom. The formula: win over influential activists, advertise early, and lavish New Hampshire with attention.

“It’s really no secret what Romney’s been doing,” said Fergus Cullen, chairman of the New Hampshire Republican State Committee, who is neutral in the race. “They have run the most traditional campaign in New Hampshire, characterized by the most visits here and the best grass-roots organization and by running a campaign aimed directly at likely Republican primary voters.”

I always wonder why other candidates don’t pick up on these “no secret” campaign strategies. Here’s a hint from politico.com:

After months of tough press and a corresponding drop in his once-soaring poll numbers, Rudy Giuliani’s campaign has put a new strategy in place, nurturing relationships with reporters and trying to drive coverage with its own messaging.

Mastering some of the basic fundamentals of the modern presidential campaign simply hasn’t come easily for Giuliani, who started his quest much later than his GOP peers and has sometimes seemed to have difficulty adjusting to the umatched scrutiny of a run for the White House.

The article goes on to become a ‘Giuliani is righting the ship’ piece, but I don’t buy it. I simply can’t picture Giuliani running a campaign of the quality Romney’s capable of. Granted, Labor Day will welcome a full-fledged Fred Thompson and that could shake everybody up. Until then, Romney looks great. Of course he doesn’t poll great against any of the Democrats, and the Sunday Globe couldn’t leave him with just the cover story:

Jokes about Massachusetts may receive some half-hearted laughter on the national campaign trail, but few working men and women in Massachusetts should see anything funny about the state’s lackluster economic performance during the Romney years.