February 11, 2008
Haven’t been here in a while and don’t have much time today, besides it’s a lot more interesting watching this whole thing play out then listening to people trying to get inside the head of superdelegates [Washingtonpost.com]. I know it’s great to have a real ‘race,’ but it could get pretty disgusting if things stay like this until August and “party loyalists” end up deciding.
And by ‘this’ I mean incredibly intense. Obama’s momentum seems to be perfectly matched right now by Hillary’s…well…Clintonism. She’s shaking up her campaign today [FinancialTimes.com], but somehow it doesn’t feel desperate and I think most people are too focused on the next set of results to care. Things seem to be at a tipping point, but looking at the states left to decide, it’s hard to imagine Clinton being able to overcome Obama’s momentum [politico.com] and gain ground beyond the few big-delegate states that she has been confident in for months [Texas, Ohio, Pennsylvania].
If it comes down to anything, it’ll come down to state’s like Virginia and Obama’s ability to steel some delegates in the liberal pockets of the above ‘Hillary’ states. Or perhaps John Edwards’ endorsement [Fox News] will tip things? Or how about a return to the negative campaigning? [Guardian UK]
And speaking of negative, how about one last link to support my ‘it got personal with Mitt Romney‘ theory [Time Magazine, thanks JDS].
No Comments » | 
Clinton, Democrats, Edwards, Obama, Romney | 
Permalink
Posted by Andrew Bennett
February 3, 2008
After a week of the press drooling over the possibility of an all-out Obama v Clinton brawl, the candidates decided to end the nastiness and debate nice just in time for super Tuesday [NPR]. So now, it’s the Republicans’ turn [Bostonist].
What’s interesting is that you don’t hear anyone among the candidates, their surrogates, or the press calling for McCain and Romney to chill out, end the bitterness and focus on the issues. The Dems got a lot of that, but everyone seems content to watch the Republican front runners duke it out - particularly the Republican front-runners. The LA Times looks at the historical roots of this battle:
On Sept. 19, 2000, John McCain rose in the Senate to rail against what he called the “staggering” sums that the federal government planned to spend to help Salt Lake City stage the 2002 Winter Olympics…
Mitt Romney, who headed the Olympics, counseled calm when reporters from Utah’s Deseret Morning News reached him in Sydney, Australia. Romney challenged McCain’s arithmetic, arguing that taxpayers would provide only $250 million…
The clash over Olympics spending, which dragged on for two years, helps explain some of the acrimony that now characterizes the race between the two front-runners for the Republican presidential nomination. The dispute provided an early preview of the fissures that still divide McCain and Romney as they face what may be decisive contests Tuesday.
“It may be a source of the sniping between the two,” said Quin Monson, assistant director of the Center for Elections and Democracy at Romney’s alma mater, Brigham Young University in Provo, Utah. Kelly Patterson, the center’s director, agreed: “People have long memories in politics.”
This piece is on the right track, though it needs to be a lot longer. The context of the ‘02 Olympic feud only underscores the futility of Romney’s amnuition against McCain - the former Mass. Governor wants America to believe that Washington is the problem in this country, while his opponent represents nothing of the sort [washingtonpost.com, Zachary Goldfarb]:
For his part, Romney belittled McCain’s endorsements, saying, “I know that the political establishment is going to try and pull for John McCain, but I expect that I’m going to get the support of the people.”
As if McCain needed a reason to dislike Romney more.
So let the Democrats touch, feel, and unite - Romney/McCain will continue to get nasty right through Tuesday’s polls. Oh, and don’t forget about the Huckster, he’s making a great fan for the flames and a great surrogate for McCain [Conservative Pulse]:
Huckabee is someone who has been known to hold the occassional grudge and he feels badly burned by the brass knuckles campaign that Mitt Romney ran in Iowa. By staying in the race, Huckabee is drawing votes that might otherwise go to Romney. And if he stays in the race until Wednesday, Huckabee will be able to help tip things to McCain.
Huckabee would like to be Vice-President and all signs suggest McCain would like having him on the ticket. The two men get along well and have a great deal of respect for each other.
No Comments » | 
McCain, Republicans, Romney | 
Permalink
Posted by Andrew Bennett
January 24, 2008
I said it once, and the New York Times will say it again for me: it’s not just politics, the Republican candidates don’t like Romney. Yes, this is, in many ways, a junior high popularity contest:
“The glee the other candidates go after Romney with is really unique…”
“They think he didn’t pay his dues…”
“John McCain and his friends used to beat up Mitt Romney at recess…”
And Romney’s locker-room style defense:
A spokesman for the Romney campaign, Kevin Madden, said, “I think it’s largely driven by the fact that everybody’s taught to tackle the guy on the field with the ball.”
Please. McCain’s venom for Romney was strongest when he had already stripped the ball from the former Massachusetts Governor. Romney has a distinctly different approach to the veteran politician. Mitt knows the rules well, but he’s use to playing in a totally different arena, a totally different sport than McCain, Huckabee and Thompson. I’d bet that even Romney’s staff end up drinking alone while everybody else is joking about them at the bar next-door…
“Never get into a wrestling match with a pig,” Senator John McCain said in New Hampshire this month after reporters asked him about Mr. Romney. “You both get dirty, and the pig likes it.”
1 Comment | 
McCain, Republicans, Romney | 
Permalink
Posted by Andrew Bennett
January 11, 2008
Fox News’ Republican debate in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina just ended. The network’s focus group and talking heads gave Fred Thompson two thumbs up, though I felt he was upstaged throughout by Huckabee who did a great job considering he was on the defensive most of the night. I also caught a glimpse of Romney finally understanding that he may be able to push the other candidates around a bit when it comes to the economy. Romney has to assert himself as the Republican candidate who can help Americans feeling the pinch. I know this sounds a little ridiculous, but none of the other Republicans are any closer to pulling it off either.
As usual, one of the best analyzes of the debate comes from NBC’s Chuck Todd. And while I personally think he should be allowed in every debate as long as he’s polling above 5%, I also agree with Todd’s characterization of Paul as a “distraction.” Ron Paul’s supporters in the audience were even more detached from the real debate than he was and their predictable boos and cheers were never rooted in rational, analytic reactions to that debate - an interesting case of life reflecting virtual life.
No Comments » | Debates, Fred Thompson, Huckabee, Republicans, Romney, Ron Paul | Permalink
Posted by Andrew Bennett
January 11, 2008
More from the Boston Globe: an analysis of all the candidates’ most recent “autobiographies” and “memoirs” (many have co-authors). Some highlights:
Hillary Rodham Clinton
“Living History,”
She concedes her husband is a creep when it comes to predatory sexual behavior. Does she come across as defensive from time to time when trying to rebut her critics? Yes, but even that defensiveness reveals her character so starkly that she seems almost naked on the page.
Barack Obama
“The Audacity of Hope,”
At times, the book is revealing and interesting. At other junctures, it is fair to ask: Where is the “audacity” suggested in the title? Especially in the chapters that are issue-oriented, it seems like Obama decided to write a book that would offend nobody.
Mike Huckabee
“From Hope to Higher Ground: Twelve STOPs to Restoring America’s Greatness,”
Everything about Huckabee’s book, including its weaknesses (periodic artless phrasing and hackneyed thinking), seems authentic.
Mitt Romney
“Turnaround: Crisis, Leadership, and the Olympic Games,”
Whether the US government can be run like a Fortune 500 company seems doubtful, but maybe somebody with Romney’s corporate experience and obvious brainpower can make it work. Whether any politician is driven by altruism seems doubtful, too, but maybe he means what he says in the final paragraph of his book: “There is not one day when I have regretted making a full commitment to public service. The battles, the triumphs, the personal associations are more rewarding than I could have ever imagined. I could have made a good deal more money . . . had I stayed at my investment job. . . . Instead, I have come to know many more people and to help many more people I do not know.”
No Comments » | Clinton, Democrats, Huckabee, Obama, Republicans, Romney | Permalink
Posted by Andrew Bennett
January 9, 2008
I was concerned we were going to see a tv first last night and one of the commentators may actually have to take a breath for a second amidst grandstanding about “the most incredible primary comeback in history!” I heard drivel like this way too much last night, but I think Gideon Rachman presents a much more realistic take with his sobering “Maybe These Things Are Simply Hard To Predict” FT blog post.
So the Democratic race is officially interesting but analysts are already starting to ignore the Republican race, which was interesting from the start and only got more so last night. I can’t understand why anyone thinks Romney was ‘embarrassed’ last night: New Hampshire is its own beast, it may be New England, but it was not home court for Romney.
That’s not to say the former Massachusetts Governor shouldn’t be concerned. Here’s what I glean from the Boston Globe’s handy interactive exit polling tool:
- Most Republican voters in NH who are concerned about the economy voted for McCain - that hurts.
- Voters identify Romney with GW Bush - wonder if that’s probably not a good thing right now (definitely not in NH) but one that might be corrected by inevitable rise of Giuliani.
- McCain won out on electibility - again, Romney should be concerned because McCain isn’t exactly a Republican-establishment candidate, shouldn’t be too hard to convince voters Romney is more electable…
- Which brings us to the promising news for Romney: he won among registered Republicans and those who identified as Conservative (Independents boosted McCain).
The last data-point speaks to the uniqueness of the Granite State (and its process) and should serve as promising for Romney. Of course, if Romney loses Michigan to McCain by more than a couple points, he should probably shift from concerned to panicked.
No Comments » | McCain, Republicans, Romney | Permalink
Posted by Andrew Bennett
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.
1 Comment | Clinton, Debates, Democrats, Edwards, New Iowashire, Obama, Polls, Richardson, Romney | Permalink
Posted by Andrew Bennett
December 12, 2007
Mike Huckabee wonders aloud if Mormons believe that the devil and Jesus are brothers, but the saddest part of the coming saga over these comments will be Romney’s initial response: “That’s been something that’s been leveled at our church over many many years and of course that’s been set straight now.” Are you kidding me?
Advice to Mitt - try this tact:
It’s sad that Mike Huckabee, an apparently experienced Minister, would give creedence to such religious myths. Thinking the devil and Jesus are brothers is ridiculous, almost laughable - Mormons have never believed this, I hope Mike Huckabee does not believe this, and please, someone send a message to the good Minister that I don’t believe this.
Team Mitt can not afford to drop the ball on this - this should only hurt Huckabee if it’s played correctly.
No Comments » | Huckabee, Religion, Romney | Permalink
Posted by Andrew Bennett
December 5, 2007
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:”
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.
No Comments » | Democrats, Huckabee, New Iowashire, Polls, Religion, Republicans, Romney | Permalink
Posted by Andrew Bennett
November 20, 2007
In the interest of completing work beyond blogging, I’m going to go with the ‘half-ass holiday’ approach for a few days, and re-post some candidate profiles that ahumayan and I have been working on over at a sister site, The Fletcher Ledger. Start off with the Mitt, and I’ll be posting more throughout the week.
Mitt Romney
-
Where He Stands Now: The former Governor of Massachusetts (not bad eh?), CEO of Bain (can he get me an interview?) and the Winter Olympics (huh?), and a Harvard Business School grad (yes, you can hold it against him) is struggling in most national polls but has a ten point lead in both Iowa and New Hampshire, two critical early-voting states that could disproportionately determine which candidate a party nominates (hmmm, when you write it down like that it makes you wonder if it may not be the best electoral democracy in the world…nope, still the best).
-
Why He Stands a Chance: Have you seen his jaw? He has an amazing jaw. And his hair hasn’t moved since 1997. He defines “presidential” in Rushmorian terms and yes, these things matter in the most perfect democracy on the planet.
-
Who Stands Up For Him: 86% of Utah; 48% of Idaho; 19% of Wyoming; 11% of Arizona…
-
Lingering Questions: Can the greatest secular democracy in the history of civilization overcome religious bigotry when it comes to electing its leader?
No Comments » | Republicans, Romney | Permalink
Posted by Andrew Bennett
