Due to the sudden passing of a close family friend, I was unable to cast a vote in the presidential election. I guess that's only fitting as it ended up serving as my long promised "none of the above" choice after all.
But I made the right prediction.
And, given the choice, I think America made the right call too.
Showing posts with label Prez Election. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Prez Election. Show all posts
Saturday, November 8, 2008
Thursday, October 30, 2008
Next Wednesday Morning's Headline: Barack Obama Wins
I missed an opportunity to see Barack Obama speak this morning in nearby Sarasota, FL at Ed Smith Stadium, spring training home of the Cincinnati Reds. With the two little kids home with me, it just proved too difficult to get everything ready and make the 75 mile trek before gates opened at 9:00am. And it's too bad. Because I watched the speech on tv and it was well delivered. I would've liked to have felt the energy of that crowd even if I did not agree with it on all issues.
However, there's one thing I would agree on: Barack Obama has quite simply run a damn good campaign. I think 2008 will be one of those "watershed" years and Obama has changed presidential campaigns forever. His steady approach to controversy, dynamic communication to audiences of 1 or 100,000, energizing of formerly jaded voters, slick warming up to the media, and business savvy in fund raising and expenditures will re-define running for president forever.
This does not prove he will automatically be a great president, but having these skills doesn't exactly hurt either. However, I have come to the conclusion that these factors do prove to me that Barack Obama will be elected President of the United States of America next Tuesday.
In summary, I start with the famous 2004 Bush-Kerry red-blue map. Then I'm giving Obama the Western states of Nevada, Colorado, and New Mexico. I say he also picks up Iowa on the momentum of his primary win there. And finally, on the strength of some powerful campaigning in the final days, I'm giving the traditional GOP states of Florida and Virginia to Barack as well. All this is more than enough to give Obama the victory as long as he can defend the blue states.
As for McCain, with his lackluster campaign and the wave of anti-GOP sentiment, I just don't see him picking up enough of the blue states he needs. I do think he holds on to many of the swing states. I'll say he keeps Ohio, Indiana, Montana, North Carolina, and Missouri in the GOP column. New Hampshire seems to like McCain but with a likely Democratic Senate pickup, I can't give him that one. However, based on Obama's poor showing in the PA primary and the "bitter people" comment, I'll say Mac surprisingly wins Pennsylvania. But that many of these red states are even in play indicates what an uphill battle McCain is fighting. And I just don't think he's doing nearly as well as Obama is doing with a strong wind at his back.
Dems will make big gains in Congress, but I say the presidential popular vote is close. Probably 2% points or so for Obama. But the only numbers that matters: Obama/Biden: 297 -- McCain/Palin: 241.
However, there's one thing I would agree on: Barack Obama has quite simply run a damn good campaign. I think 2008 will be one of those "watershed" years and Obama has changed presidential campaigns forever. His steady approach to controversy, dynamic communication to audiences of 1 or 100,000, energizing of formerly jaded voters, slick warming up to the media, and business savvy in fund raising and expenditures will re-define running for president forever.
This does not prove he will automatically be a great president, but having these skills doesn't exactly hurt either. However, I have come to the conclusion that these factors do prove to me that Barack Obama will be elected President of the United States of America next Tuesday.
In summary, I start with the famous 2004 Bush-Kerry red-blue map. Then I'm giving Obama the Western states of Nevada, Colorado, and New Mexico. I say he also picks up Iowa on the momentum of his primary win there. And finally, on the strength of some powerful campaigning in the final days, I'm giving the traditional GOP states of Florida and Virginia to Barack as well. All this is more than enough to give Obama the victory as long as he can defend the blue states.
As for McCain, with his lackluster campaign and the wave of anti-GOP sentiment, I just don't see him picking up enough of the blue states he needs. I do think he holds on to many of the swing states. I'll say he keeps Ohio, Indiana, Montana, North Carolina, and Missouri in the GOP column. New Hampshire seems to like McCain but with a likely Democratic Senate pickup, I can't give him that one. However, based on Obama's poor showing in the PA primary and the "bitter people" comment, I'll say Mac surprisingly wins Pennsylvania. But that many of these red states are even in play indicates what an uphill battle McCain is fighting. And I just don't think he's doing nearly as well as Obama is doing with a strong wind at his back.
Dems will make big gains in Congress, but I say the presidential popular vote is close. Probably 2% points or so for Obama. But the only numbers that matters: Obama/Biden: 297 -- McCain/Palin: 241.
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
My Presidential Vote
At age 31, this will be the 4th presidential election in which I have voted. As I reminisce, I'm even more interested in looking at the manner and nature in which I have voted than for whom the actual votes have been cast.
1996:
I voted in Yonkers, New York while a college student at nearby Fordham University. The precinct was in an old city library that had been converted into a senior citizens center. Voter turnout appeared underwhelming and less than enthusiastic. I voted in the late afternoon, in what should have been a busy time. However, my wait was only minutes as the senior citizen poll workers located my voting record.
In this election, I voted in an antiquated "lever-style" machine that offered the privacy of a curtain surrounding me on all sides. Talk about weird! Were the Tammany Hall bosses trying to look over my shoulder or something? Voting through this system in theory seemed easy. But I also think it was easy to cast an errant ballot by pulling the wrong lever. The system provided no peace of mind that my vote was properly cast or would be properly counted.
As to my vote, I was very much an anti-Clinton Republican here. I voted for the Bob Dole - Jack Kemp ticket and harbored delusions of another Republican win coming off the Congressional election of 1994.
2000:
In this election I voted in McDonough, Georgia in the gymnasium of Henry County Middle School. For a precinct, this was a bigger facility and had plenty of room to accommodate the process. I was out of work at the time and made voting in the middle of the afternoon the highlight of my day. The overall wait to cast my vote was about 30 minutes, if my memory serves correctly. Poll workers were helpful and enthusiasm in the metro south Atlanta for this election appeared to be high.
This time I cast my vote through the same notorious "punch-card" system that led to hanging chads in Florida. I did find the method of voting to be confusing. I believe I even asked for help to make sure I was lining the punch-card up correctly compared to the actual slate of candidates. I did not enjoy voting in this manner. However, I did feel a greater sense of confidence that my vote was properly cast in the end because of the control over the process I felt.
Though I ardently supported the candidacy of George W. Bush, I cast my vote for the independent candidacy of Patrick J. Buchanan. This was an easy decision. I knew Bush would win Georgia and it felt good to give my vote to someone I greatly respect and have admired as a political mentor throughout the years.
2004:
Though I was still a resident of the same county, by this time I had moved to a different town. Living in Hampton, GA, I voted at Hampton Elementary School and this ended up being my worst experience to date. Enthusiasm for the Bush-Kerry election was extremely high as Republican supporters were motivated to vote in full force. This was also a Senate election year in Georgia which helped turnout as well.
My wife and I voted in the late afternoon and experienced a 2 hour wait to cast our votes. Many things made this so unbearable. Firstly, we had our two year old child with us and no accommodations were made for that. As a result, our neighbors in line just had to deal with the cryings of a hungry and confused boy. I felt for them. Secondly, the parking lot was so full, we had a 15 minute walk just to get to the location. Finally, the precinct only had two of the brand new "computer voting machines" and they were placed in the entrance way of the school. Thus the line to get to them snaked around the entire building in a tight elementary school hallway.
That said, I enjoyed voting on these digital touchscreen computers best of all. I only wish this very busy precinct had more than two of them. It was easy to see the candidates, even easier to touch the screen to indicate your selection, and also this form of voting best allows for the reading of wordy state Constitutional amendments that are often on the ballot. As I reviewed all my selections and submitted them, I did feel confident that my vote was in order and would be counted. For the record, I did vote for George W. Bush this time and was happy when he won.
2008:
I'm now a resident of Lehigh Acres, FL and my local precinct is inside of the Lehigh Christian Church. This was not completely foreign to me as I voted in 2006 in another church here in Florida as well. As I cast these votes, however, I will admit it feels a little odd to do so inside a church otherwise covered with Christian symbols. I mean, I probably would be somewhat uncomfortable voting inside a Muslim mosque afterall?
However, I don't think this is unconstitutional. I don't even think it's wrong. In many cases churches are the best local venues to keep precincts as small as possible. And that is particularly important to me. We now have 3 young children. As much as I value my vote, I will not go though another 2004 type burden to cast my vote. It's not worth it. More power to you if you think it is. And if my life were different, I might too. But I value my family even above our democracy.
Another issue of concern is that Florida resident will now be voting by filling out "optical-scan" ballots. What a step backwards! Our computers were taken away because seniors couldn't deal with the lack of a piece of paper. This system is only slightly better than the punch cards I used back in 2000. It will definitely slow down the process and lead to longer lines unnecessarily.
I hope that's the lesson of this recount. We need to find a way to streamline voting. I'm a populist. I believe in the importance of voting. But I don't think it's fair to make it so burdensome that people decide it's not worth the trouble. A fair solution would be to go 100% computerized voting in smaller precincts with printouts so people have certainty in their vote. I also do support requiring some form of common-sense identification to prevent fraud. It's 2008. Can't we get our act together already?
As for whom I voting this time around, I still haven't decided. I suppose I'm one of the dreaded 8% undecided in the polls. Given the choices this time around, I'll wear that as a badge of honor!
1996:
I voted in Yonkers, New York while a college student at nearby Fordham University. The precinct was in an old city library that had been converted into a senior citizens center. Voter turnout appeared underwhelming and less than enthusiastic. I voted in the late afternoon, in what should have been a busy time. However, my wait was only minutes as the senior citizen poll workers located my voting record.
In this election, I voted in an antiquated "lever-style" machine that offered the privacy of a curtain surrounding me on all sides. Talk about weird! Were the Tammany Hall bosses trying to look over my shoulder or something? Voting through this system in theory seemed easy. But I also think it was easy to cast an errant ballot by pulling the wrong lever. The system provided no peace of mind that my vote was properly cast or would be properly counted.
As to my vote, I was very much an anti-Clinton Republican here. I voted for the Bob Dole - Jack Kemp ticket and harbored delusions of another Republican win coming off the Congressional election of 1994.
2000:
In this election I voted in McDonough, Georgia in the gymnasium of Henry County Middle School. For a precinct, this was a bigger facility and had plenty of room to accommodate the process. I was out of work at the time and made voting in the middle of the afternoon the highlight of my day. The overall wait to cast my vote was about 30 minutes, if my memory serves correctly. Poll workers were helpful and enthusiasm in the metro south Atlanta for this election appeared to be high.
This time I cast my vote through the same notorious "punch-card" system that led to hanging chads in Florida. I did find the method of voting to be confusing. I believe I even asked for help to make sure I was lining the punch-card up correctly compared to the actual slate of candidates. I did not enjoy voting in this manner. However, I did feel a greater sense of confidence that my vote was properly cast in the end because of the control over the process I felt.
Though I ardently supported the candidacy of George W. Bush, I cast my vote for the independent candidacy of Patrick J. Buchanan. This was an easy decision. I knew Bush would win Georgia and it felt good to give my vote to someone I greatly respect and have admired as a political mentor throughout the years.
2004:
Though I was still a resident of the same county, by this time I had moved to a different town. Living in Hampton, GA, I voted at Hampton Elementary School and this ended up being my worst experience to date. Enthusiasm for the Bush-Kerry election was extremely high as Republican supporters were motivated to vote in full force. This was also a Senate election year in Georgia which helped turnout as well.
My wife and I voted in the late afternoon and experienced a 2 hour wait to cast our votes. Many things made this so unbearable. Firstly, we had our two year old child with us and no accommodations were made for that. As a result, our neighbors in line just had to deal with the cryings of a hungry and confused boy. I felt for them. Secondly, the parking lot was so full, we had a 15 minute walk just to get to the location. Finally, the precinct only had two of the brand new "computer voting machines" and they were placed in the entrance way of the school. Thus the line to get to them snaked around the entire building in a tight elementary school hallway.
That said, I enjoyed voting on these digital touchscreen computers best of all. I only wish this very busy precinct had more than two of them. It was easy to see the candidates, even easier to touch the screen to indicate your selection, and also this form of voting best allows for the reading of wordy state Constitutional amendments that are often on the ballot. As I reviewed all my selections and submitted them, I did feel confident that my vote was in order and would be counted. For the record, I did vote for George W. Bush this time and was happy when he won.
2008:
I'm now a resident of Lehigh Acres, FL and my local precinct is inside of the Lehigh Christian Church. This was not completely foreign to me as I voted in 2006 in another church here in Florida as well. As I cast these votes, however, I will admit it feels a little odd to do so inside a church otherwise covered with Christian symbols. I mean, I probably would be somewhat uncomfortable voting inside a Muslim mosque afterall?
However, I don't think this is unconstitutional. I don't even think it's wrong. In many cases churches are the best local venues to keep precincts as small as possible. And that is particularly important to me. We now have 3 young children. As much as I value my vote, I will not go though another 2004 type burden to cast my vote. It's not worth it. More power to you if you think it is. And if my life were different, I might too. But I value my family even above our democracy.
Another issue of concern is that Florida resident will now be voting by filling out "optical-scan" ballots. What a step backwards! Our computers were taken away because seniors couldn't deal with the lack of a piece of paper. This system is only slightly better than the punch cards I used back in 2000. It will definitely slow down the process and lead to longer lines unnecessarily.
I hope that's the lesson of this recount. We need to find a way to streamline voting. I'm a populist. I believe in the importance of voting. But I don't think it's fair to make it so burdensome that people decide it's not worth the trouble. A fair solution would be to go 100% computerized voting in smaller precincts with printouts so people have certainty in their vote. I also do support requiring some form of common-sense identification to prevent fraud. It's 2008. Can't we get our act together already?
As for whom I voting this time around, I still haven't decided. I suppose I'm one of the dreaded 8% undecided in the polls. Given the choices this time around, I'll wear that as a badge of honor!
Sunday, October 26, 2008
This Says It All...
Yesterday there were two political rallies held in the critical swing state of New Mexico. In fact, they were only separated by a few miles and a few hours. Here's the breakdown:
John McCain's afternoon rally in Albuquerque on 10/25/08 drew an estimated 7,000 people.
Barack Obama's evening rally in Albuquerque on 10/25/08 drew an estimated 25,000 people.
I will be posting my final electoral map prediction here on Tuesday, one week before the election. But unless something changes in a hurry, I think the above breakdown already says it all.
John McCain's afternoon rally in Albuquerque on 10/25/08 drew an estimated 7,000 people.
Barack Obama's evening rally in Albuquerque on 10/25/08 drew an estimated 25,000 people.
I will be posting my final electoral map prediction here on Tuesday, one week before the election. But unless something changes in a hurry, I think the above breakdown already says it all.
Saturday, October 25, 2008
10 More Days
Has the country ever anticipated an election as we all do this one? Probably. I'm sure the Abe Lincoln / Stephen Douglass or the John Kennedy / Richard Nixon contests stirred up some pretty good interest as well. However, there wasn't the same 24 hours a day news cycle we have in 2008 back in 1860 or even 1960. Indeed, one can still follow the election by talking to neighbors at the town square or reading the newspaper. However, now we can also follow every aspect of the race on the internet, on cable news, on talk radio, even on your cell phone. It's our modern life at its best. But we still haven't figured out a way to make waiting more tolerable!
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
John McCain and College Football
John McCain has not yet sounded better to me than he did in an interview with ESPN reporter Bob Ley for SportsCenter this past weekend.
First of all, McCain granted the sit-down at a NASCAR race at which he attended to pander for votes. He gets immediate kudos for doing that from the gear head in me.
However, in general I haven't hidden my dislike of John McCain and intention not to vote for him. In fact, in this very interview Bob Ley brought up one of my biggest problems with the Republican nominee:
Just 3 years ago, the well-known Las Vegas gambler Senator McCain introduced legislation that would make wagering on college football games illegal.
That's right. McCain is free to regularly drop $20,000 of his wife's money at the craps tables. He's free to attend all the big boxing matches in Vegas that are literally fueled by gambling. However, he wants all legal forms of betting on college football off-limits to averages Joes.
More political hypocrisy, IMHO.
College football is my passion. I enjoy wagering on it. In fact, I even relish merely following the odds, since I seldom put my own meager funds at stake because they are indeed so limited.
But in this interview, when questioned, John McCain adopted the same attitude he has taken on both illegal immigration and offshore drilling. He basically admitted he's heard the voice of the American people and that he was wrong. And now he intends to be on the right side of things.
I've been chided for doing just that so often myself. Call me a waffler, but I think that's pretty cool. McCain explained the issue well in the context of this below-the-radar issue of sports gambling. And unlike many, I never see a problem with admitting a mistake or adapting with the times and thus changing a position. I have done the same thing with the war in Iraq -- several times over!
Granting some historical exceptions, only a fool sticks his head in the sand and refuses to get out of the way of a rising tide. The smarter man joins the rising tide and hopes to lead it in the right direction.
The question is will the tide change McCain or does McCain hope to change the tide?
Prior to this interview, I thought the latter was most likely true. And for now, I think I still do. But this stupid little 5 minute segment made me wonder for the first time if it might the former.
Time will tell. Maybe Fox Sports or CBS Sports could host a presidential debate this year. Do we really need to keep seeing Jim Lehrer? Jill Arrington or Jillian Barberiesound look much better to me!
First of all, McCain granted the sit-down at a NASCAR race at which he attended to pander for votes. He gets immediate kudos for doing that from the gear head in me.
However, in general I haven't hidden my dislike of John McCain and intention not to vote for him. In fact, in this very interview Bob Ley brought up one of my biggest problems with the Republican nominee:
Just 3 years ago, the well-known Las Vegas gambler Senator McCain introduced legislation that would make wagering on college football games illegal.
That's right. McCain is free to regularly drop $20,000 of his wife's money at the craps tables. He's free to attend all the big boxing matches in Vegas that are literally fueled by gambling. However, he wants all legal forms of betting on college football off-limits to averages Joes.
More political hypocrisy, IMHO.
College football is my passion. I enjoy wagering on it. In fact, I even relish merely following the odds, since I seldom put my own meager funds at stake because they are indeed so limited.
But in this interview, when questioned, John McCain adopted the same attitude he has taken on both illegal immigration and offshore drilling. He basically admitted he's heard the voice of the American people and that he was wrong. And now he intends to be on the right side of things.
I've been chided for doing just that so often myself. Call me a waffler, but I think that's pretty cool. McCain explained the issue well in the context of this below-the-radar issue of sports gambling. And unlike many, I never see a problem with admitting a mistake or adapting with the times and thus changing a position. I have done the same thing with the war in Iraq -- several times over!
Granting some historical exceptions, only a fool sticks his head in the sand and refuses to get out of the way of a rising tide. The smarter man joins the rising tide and hopes to lead it in the right direction.
The question is will the tide change McCain or does McCain hope to change the tide?
Prior to this interview, I thought the latter was most likely true. And for now, I think I still do. But this stupid little 5 minute segment made me wonder for the first time if it might the former.
Time will tell. Maybe Fox Sports or CBS Sports could host a presidential debate this year. Do we really need to keep seeing Jim Lehrer? Jill Arrington or Jillian Barberie
Saturday, September 13, 2008
More Palin - Back and Forth
Bid Daddy Jeff:
Concerning Sarah Palin, I disagree strongly with her critics' concerns about her experience. On this I can't help but think about the entry a few months ago called "Mayor of Topeka for President." I like Palin's relative inexperience in government and her different kind of experience as a candidate. In fairness, this is the same quality that I also like in Barack Obama. So I believe this criticism is a losing issue Democrats.
Palin has been a governor. Obama's been a senator. They both care about their country and take the issues of the day seriously. In my humble mind, that's enough. All the experience of the John McCains and Joe Bidens hasn't gotten us anywhere. Let's have new faces please!
While I reject the under-qualified argument, I feel it is fair game to attack Palin on whether or not her positions on issues are right for the job. That's what Democrats should go after. There is no doubt that Sarah Palin is hard right and she has a track record to prove it. Afterall, this is what has energized the Rush Limbaughs of the world.
Therefore, it's obvious to me that this is where Democrats should attack. You can make the case that the general electorate in swing states is not ready to elect openly someone from the hard right. McCain knows this. Democrats should forget experience and instead attack by linking Palin to Bush/Cheney, fundamentalist religion, overturning Roe v. Wade, seeing Iraq as mission from God, etc.
That said, I still think the Dems best chance is to ignore Sarah Palin other doing the above through selective and targeted advertising in swing states. Palin is the bait on the GOP's fishing poles and so far the Dems are taking it. McCain is running! He is the 72 year old DC insider with corruption in his past that even Republicans like me can't stand. Palin is a big distraction and the Obama campaign has been falling for it.
Mark Quincy Adams:
I do tip my hat to the "Mayor of Topeka" post. This may be the wave of the future and you sensed that.
I also think your right as far as Palin being bait that the left is taking.
We disagree on a the rest though. To me, if one thinks as I do, that the VP pick would be a catastrophic President for the nation and the world, as a concerned citizen I cannot help but vocalize that. The Republicans may be setting a trap by nominating her, but I guess I would rather lose an election than lose this country. This country will be lost if "McPalin" wins by the tactics they are currently using.
I like your "Mayor of Topeka" idea in theory. I have always thought, for instance, that police departments should be made up of citizens more or less "drafted" for a year or two so that regular folks would know the streets and the streets would know regular folks. City councils and state governments provide ample opportunity for the "everyman" to have his voice heard. Same with the US Congress, the closer to the people those reps are the better.
But Prez and VP? No way!!! Those positions are uniquely difficult and important. If the presidency of George W. Bush hasn't taught us the dangers of having a simple man with a simple plan in there - I don't know what will. The job is too serious to throw an almost random person up there. It's a very good thought and has applications in many areas of our society, but not in the White House.
Concerning Sarah Palin, I disagree strongly with her critics' concerns about her experience. On this I can't help but think about the entry a few months ago called "Mayor of Topeka for President." I like Palin's relative inexperience in government and her different kind of experience as a candidate. In fairness, this is the same quality that I also like in Barack Obama. So I believe this criticism is a losing issue Democrats.
Palin has been a governor. Obama's been a senator. They both care about their country and take the issues of the day seriously. In my humble mind, that's enough. All the experience of the John McCains and Joe Bidens hasn't gotten us anywhere. Let's have new faces please!
While I reject the under-qualified argument, I feel it is fair game to attack Palin on whether or not her positions on issues are right for the job. That's what Democrats should go after. There is no doubt that Sarah Palin is hard right and she has a track record to prove it. Afterall, this is what has energized the Rush Limbaughs of the world.
Therefore, it's obvious to me that this is where Democrats should attack. You can make the case that the general electorate in swing states is not ready to elect openly someone from the hard right. McCain knows this. Democrats should forget experience and instead attack by linking Palin to Bush/Cheney, fundamentalist religion, overturning Roe v. Wade, seeing Iraq as mission from God, etc.
That said, I still think the Dems best chance is to ignore Sarah Palin other doing the above through selective and targeted advertising in swing states. Palin is the bait on the GOP's fishing poles and so far the Dems are taking it. McCain is running! He is the 72 year old DC insider with corruption in his past that even Republicans like me can't stand. Palin is a big distraction and the Obama campaign has been falling for it.
Mark Quincy Adams:
I do tip my hat to the "Mayor of Topeka" post. This may be the wave of the future and you sensed that.
I also think your right as far as Palin being bait that the left is taking.
We disagree on a the rest though. To me, if one thinks as I do, that the VP pick would be a catastrophic President for the nation and the world, as a concerned citizen I cannot help but vocalize that. The Republicans may be setting a trap by nominating her, but I guess I would rather lose an election than lose this country. This country will be lost if "McPalin" wins by the tactics they are currently using.
I like your "Mayor of Topeka" idea in theory. I have always thought, for instance, that police departments should be made up of citizens more or less "drafted" for a year or two so that regular folks would know the streets and the streets would know regular folks. City councils and state governments provide ample opportunity for the "everyman" to have his voice heard. Same with the US Congress, the closer to the people those reps are the better.
But Prez and VP? No way!!! Those positions are uniquely difficult and important. If the presidency of George W. Bush hasn't taught us the dangers of having a simple man with a simple plan in there - I don't know what will. The job is too serious to throw an almost random person up there. It's a very good thought and has applications in many areas of our society, but not in the White House.
Saturday, August 30, 2008
Sarah Palin
My gut reaction is that while McCain's choice of Sarah Palin is a good pick, like most vice-presidential selections, it isn't a game changer. Ironically, most of my praise for Palin comes from the numerous ways I would compare her to Barack Obama.
The Positives:
One of the messages from Obama that I really like is the idea that Washington is broken. Even if liberal, Obama has a solidly "populist" tone that appeals to some conservatives like me. Washington is broken. And the way we're doing things isn't working. He's so right about that.
I also respect Obama because of his outside experience. I actually admire his education, that he found Christ on his own, and that he worked as a community organizer. These are all qualities that appeal to me. So too do I like that he's new to Washington. I admire his quick rise -- good politicians do that, unlike McCain who has acts like he's been waiting all his 72 years to get this chance.
Afterall, I'm the guy who has been arguing for the "Mayor of Topeka" for president. We need outsiders like Obama and yes, Sarah Palin, who know from recent experience what American life is like outside the Beltway.
For all these same reasons, I like Sarah Palin. I like that she's not experienced in the ways of Washington. I like that she had a rapid rise from PTA to City Council to Mayor to Governor to Vice Presidential nominee. I like the image she portrays as a working mom who is proud to show off her family and not act like they're tokens in the background of her life.
Palin is a strong conservative with limited executive experience. I think it's great that she comes from a small state and that just a few years ago she was nobody special. Corny notions like that affirm my idea of the American dream. Furthermore, if Palin actually took on the corrupt interests of Big Oil, I really like that in her. Also I particularly like her strong support of gun rights, oil drilling, and fiscal responsiblity.
The Negatives:
I must concede there are negatives and risks too. John McCain did this to cater to his conservative base. In return, the right has universally praised this selection. However, except for stubborn fools like me, McCain's conservative base was going to vote for him anyway. For two years they have talked tough, but in the end they couldn't wait to jump on the bandwagon. Just as we saw with the Clinton-Obama campaign, this is what believers in the big parties do.
So for this group, Palin does little for him. She gets votes that McCain already had. Now the right can feel a little better about their November vote. True, in the interim she may help raise money from this same now-enthused block. But McCain has accepted public financing so raising money is far less important than getting votes.
Can she get votes? We'll see. My best guess would be no. You see, that's still up to McCain himself. Even though I personally like Palin and would vote for her if the ticket were reversed, she's still just the vice president nominee. Let's remember: she won't be advocating her own record. In both her convention speech and in the veep debate, she'll have to defend McCain's record. Yikes!!
Will Palin get the Hillary voters? I doubt it. Can the same person who so appeals to the Pat Robertson crowd also appeal to the Hillary crowd? I just don't think so. In fact, her ardent opposition to abortion may turn off some who otherwise might have considered the moderate McCain. But if John McCain really wanted this group, perhaps he would have selected a pro-choicer like Tom Ridge or Joe Lieberman.
Finally, there are rumors of minor skeletons in her closet. All politicians have them so I'm sure she may too. And since Palin is so unknown (especially as compared to Joe Biden), the press will be out there looking for anything. And if they do find something, it will become a big deal. Also, I think her inexperience makes it more likely she'll put her foot in her mouth. But, in fairness, Joe Biden has plenty of experience and he'll do that too.
Conclusion:
Let's face it -- this is the Governor of Alaska. I don't know much about her. You don't know much about her. Nobody knows anything about her, apparently not even John McCain himself as yesterday was only their 2nd meeting ever! We will have to judge how strong of a candidate she makes at the convention, on the trail, and in the veep debate.
So on balance, I like Sarah Palin very much. I think I would vote for HER. But I don't think the pick changes the overall equation very much. It may work. It may not. But more than likely it will be neutral in the final outcome. Because let's remember: John McCain and Barack Obama are still the ones running for president!
The Positives:
One of the messages from Obama that I really like is the idea that Washington is broken. Even if liberal, Obama has a solidly "populist" tone that appeals to some conservatives like me. Washington is broken. And the way we're doing things isn't working. He's so right about that.
I also respect Obama because of his outside experience. I actually admire his education, that he found Christ on his own, and that he worked as a community organizer. These are all qualities that appeal to me. So too do I like that he's new to Washington. I admire his quick rise -- good politicians do that, unlike McCain who has acts like he's been waiting all his 72 years to get this chance.
Afterall, I'm the guy who has been arguing for the "Mayor of Topeka" for president. We need outsiders like Obama and yes, Sarah Palin, who know from recent experience what American life is like outside the Beltway.
For all these same reasons, I like Sarah Palin. I like that she's not experienced in the ways of Washington. I like that she had a rapid rise from PTA to City Council to Mayor to Governor to Vice Presidential nominee. I like the image she portrays as a working mom who is proud to show off her family and not act like they're tokens in the background of her life.
Palin is a strong conservative with limited executive experience. I think it's great that she comes from a small state and that just a few years ago she was nobody special. Corny notions like that affirm my idea of the American dream. Furthermore, if Palin actually took on the corrupt interests of Big Oil, I really like that in her. Also I particularly like her strong support of gun rights, oil drilling, and fiscal responsiblity.
The Negatives:
I must concede there are negatives and risks too. John McCain did this to cater to his conservative base. In return, the right has universally praised this selection. However, except for stubborn fools like me, McCain's conservative base was going to vote for him anyway. For two years they have talked tough, but in the end they couldn't wait to jump on the bandwagon. Just as we saw with the Clinton-Obama campaign, this is what believers in the big parties do.
So for this group, Palin does little for him. She gets votes that McCain already had. Now the right can feel a little better about their November vote. True, in the interim she may help raise money from this same now-enthused block. But McCain has accepted public financing so raising money is far less important than getting votes.
Can she get votes? We'll see. My best guess would be no. You see, that's still up to McCain himself. Even though I personally like Palin and would vote for her if the ticket were reversed, she's still just the vice president nominee. Let's remember: she won't be advocating her own record. In both her convention speech and in the veep debate, she'll have to defend McCain's record. Yikes!!
Will Palin get the Hillary voters? I doubt it. Can the same person who so appeals to the Pat Robertson crowd also appeal to the Hillary crowd? I just don't think so. In fact, her ardent opposition to abortion may turn off some who otherwise might have considered the moderate McCain. But if John McCain really wanted this group, perhaps he would have selected a pro-choicer like Tom Ridge or Joe Lieberman.
Finally, there are rumors of minor skeletons in her closet. All politicians have them so I'm sure she may too. And since Palin is so unknown (especially as compared to Joe Biden), the press will be out there looking for anything. And if they do find something, it will become a big deal. Also, I think her inexperience makes it more likely she'll put her foot in her mouth. But, in fairness, Joe Biden has plenty of experience and he'll do that too.
Conclusion:
Let's face it -- this is the Governor of Alaska. I don't know much about her. You don't know much about her. Nobody knows anything about her, apparently not even John McCain himself as yesterday was only their 2nd meeting ever! We will have to judge how strong of a candidate she makes at the convention, on the trail, and in the veep debate.
So on balance, I like Sarah Palin very much. I think I would vote for HER. But I don't think the pick changes the overall equation very much. It may work. It may not. But more than likely it will be neutral in the final outcome. Because let's remember: John McCain and Barack Obama are still the ones running for president!
Sunday, February 3, 2008
Six Reasons Why John McCain is OK with me
As I write this, Super Tuesday is just hours away. As an Obama supporter, I will naturally be looking to see just how much his recent momentum can push back on the Clinton political machine. Additionally though, I will be looking closely at the Republican results. At this juncture, it looks like John McCain will be the big winner - maybe even enough to lock up the GOP nomination. In the interest of "reaching across the aisle" I will present a list of reasons (in no particular order) why I would be OK with that. 1. He's better than the other GOP candidates. With the exception of Mike Huckabee, John McCain is less crazy, less of an ideologue and has more real life experience than anyone else in the GOP field. Although I disagree with much of what he wants to do - I think he will actually change his policies and ideas if the result are disappointing. How good would that have been in a President that last 8 years?
2. He would be an improvement, as far as Republican Presidents go. I have been around to really see and understand Republican Presidents Reagan, Bush1 and Bush2. I feel John McCain would be so much better than any of those three. First of all, he is not wed to an ideology like Reagan and Bush2 were. He is a conservative for sure, but he does not try to deny reality in order to make his ideas fit. Many times in his career when logic, experience and circumstances called for a diversion from text book conservatism, Mcain has shown a willingness to change paths. That alone would put him head and shoulders above any recent GOP President.
3. He might pick Huckabee for VP. I am one of those folks who like Barack Obama and Mike Huckabee. Huckabee, has been doing very well with a group of voters that give Mccain a bit of trouble. He also has been helping McCain win primaries by syphoning votes away from Mitt Romney. Because of loyalty and the electoral necessity of getting evangelicals to the polls in November, McCain would be smart to choose Mike Huckabee as his #2.
4. Radio talk show hosts hate John McCain. The Rush Limbaugh's of the airwaves have caused so much damage to this country. They have poisoned the minds of so many good people and lowered the political discourse in a way that lead to the disaster of the George W. Bush presidency and the embrace of long discredited policies. If these forces can be neutralized in any way - it can only be a good thing for the United States.
5. He is willing to reach across the aisle. John McCain is hated so much by people who believe that compromise is a weakness. He knows it is not only a sign of strength but an absolute necessity to have a successful democratic government. So, while those who clearly are working for a one-party state oppose him, as a co-founder of this website I have to applaud anyone willing to work with people of different political beliefs.
6. He would probably lose the general election. I think that only Mike Huckabee has a chance of beating the Democrats this year. If McCain chooses Huck as his VP it will help to become more competitive but it probably won't be enough to put him over the top. Looking at it today, I would predict that John McCain would suffer the similar fate of Bob Dole - a beloved war veteran seen as too old by voters to take over the reigns of power. So while I have great respect for the man, as a Democrat his probable loss is appealing. (Got to be honest)
Wednesday, January 23, 2008
My Dilemma
So I think last week's post about race and the Democratic primary might have been just a little ahead of its time. Wow. What a crazy campaign! I continue to hope Barack resists the trap of getting in the mud with the Clintons. The temptation is understandable. But he has to realize that nobody can beat them there. Think about it -- Bill Clinton was impeached and still survived. You have to beat them on issues and character. You will never win with dirty politics.
Now a quick look at the GOP side. McCain has got the momentum and this time it is Florida taking center stage to see who has the edge going into Super Tuesday. Thompson is gone and Huckabee is strangely on life-support. How quickly things change. I have a feeling we will not see this kind of primary system ever again. It must bother the powers-that-be to deal with such uncertaintly.
Anyway here's my dilemma. There are 3 main groups of conservatives these days. There's the social conservatives, the fiscal conservatives, and the security conservatives. Of course many individuals and all the candidates claim an identity within each category. But ultimately, I believe at some point you have a main concern that takes priority. I have long felt mine to be in the social conservative side. That's not to say the others don't matter to me, but even after the disaster of the Bush presidency, I continue to believe our best shot at real leadership will come from within this group. In fact, this may still hold true were a Democrat like Edwards or Obama (who does not run from his faith) to become the president.
So back to the question. The top choices of social conservatives have been (in no particular order): Huckabee, Tancredo, Thompson, Brownback, and Hunter. As of today, they are all gone with the exception of Huckabee who's in real trouble after running out of money. It's not surprising because social cons will always lack the natural fund raising machines that those whom Wall Street favors enjoy (i.e. Romney, Giuliani). And money sure does talk. So I simply don't know what to do with my Florida vote. Strangely enough I am led in the direction of Ron Paul who is anything but a social con. However, unlike the trio of McCain, Giuliani, and Romney, at least I can rest assured that Paul actually believes in the principles on which he campaigns. But I also know voting for Paul is a throw-away vote. Then again, perhaps so too is Huckabee at this point. So I really don't know what to do.
I think I'll watch the Florida debate tomorrow night on MSNBC and deal with it later. Analysts say all guns will be aimed directly at new frontrunner McCain. Should be fun!
Now a quick look at the GOP side. McCain has got the momentum and this time it is Florida taking center stage to see who has the edge going into Super Tuesday. Thompson is gone and Huckabee is strangely on life-support. How quickly things change. I have a feeling we will not see this kind of primary system ever again. It must bother the powers-that-be to deal with such uncertaintly.
Anyway here's my dilemma. There are 3 main groups of conservatives these days. There's the social conservatives, the fiscal conservatives, and the security conservatives. Of course many individuals and all the candidates claim an identity within each category. But ultimately, I believe at some point you have a main concern that takes priority. I have long felt mine to be in the social conservative side. That's not to say the others don't matter to me, but even after the disaster of the Bush presidency, I continue to believe our best shot at real leadership will come from within this group. In fact, this may still hold true were a Democrat like Edwards or Obama (who does not run from his faith) to become the president.
So back to the question. The top choices of social conservatives have been (in no particular order): Huckabee, Tancredo, Thompson, Brownback, and Hunter. As of today, they are all gone with the exception of Huckabee who's in real trouble after running out of money. It's not surprising because social cons will always lack the natural fund raising machines that those whom Wall Street favors enjoy (i.e. Romney, Giuliani). And money sure does talk. So I simply don't know what to do with my Florida vote. Strangely enough I am led in the direction of Ron Paul who is anything but a social con. However, unlike the trio of McCain, Giuliani, and Romney, at least I can rest assured that Paul actually believes in the principles on which he campaigns. But I also know voting for Paul is a throw-away vote. Then again, perhaps so too is Huckabee at this point. So I really don't know what to do.
I think I'll watch the Florida debate tomorrow night on MSNBC and deal with it later. Analysts say all guns will be aimed directly at new frontrunner McCain. Should be fun!
Monday, January 14, 2008
Race: Never an easy subject to calculate politically
As someone who rejects both overt bigotry and the more subtle forms including affirmative action, I think it would be truly nice if one's race was irrelevant to an election. However, since race is obviously still a vibrant issue in American culture, I guess we shouldn't be surprised that it has surfaced in the presidential election. But I wish it hadn't.
Obama supporters: be very careful. I understand you were upset by the tone and the use of some words by the Clintons referring to your candidate. Specifically the "fairy tale" description. I really do. But trust me -- you're not going to beat them at this game. In fact, your're falling into a trap.
Race has been deliberately injected into this campaign by the Clintons and it will indeed only help the Clintons. African-Americans, who otherwise might want to support Obama for reasons other than the color of his skin, are reminded of Bill Clinton's strong history of reaching out to the black community. And once again all the status-quo leaders of an important block of the Democratic party are thrust into the forefront and will be on their side (i.e. Bob Johnson, founder of BET). Simultaneously, in a way only the politically brilliant Clinton machine can achieve, a subtle message is sent to blue collar white Democrats who may always feel uneasy about race due to collective guilt for past injustices. And this too will push otherwise potential Obama voters into making the safe and easy choice of sticking with Clinton so that we don't resurrect any old wounds.
I don't know if I'm hitting on something big here or not. Probably not. But yet again -- here's another issue where I can't stand the Clintons but I sure do respect their ability to win. Here's hoping Obama steers clear of the trap and sticks to what he does best. If he stays true to his campaign thus far, he can still win in South Carolina. And that's what really matters now.
Obama supporters: be very careful. I understand you were upset by the tone and the use of some words by the Clintons referring to your candidate. Specifically the "fairy tale" description. I really do. But trust me -- you're not going to beat them at this game. In fact, your're falling into a trap.
Race has been deliberately injected into this campaign by the Clintons and it will indeed only help the Clintons. African-Americans, who otherwise might want to support Obama for reasons other than the color of his skin, are reminded of Bill Clinton's strong history of reaching out to the black community. And once again all the status-quo leaders of an important block of the Democratic party are thrust into the forefront and will be on their side (i.e. Bob Johnson, founder of BET). Simultaneously, in a way only the politically brilliant Clinton machine can achieve, a subtle message is sent to blue collar white Democrats who may always feel uneasy about race due to collective guilt for past injustices. And this too will push otherwise potential Obama voters into making the safe and easy choice of sticking with Clinton so that we don't resurrect any old wounds.
I don't know if I'm hitting on something big here or not. Probably not. But yet again -- here's another issue where I can't stand the Clintons but I sure do respect their ability to win. Here's hoping Obama steers clear of the trap and sticks to what he does best. If he stays true to his campaign thus far, he can still win in South Carolina. And that's what really matters now.
Friday, January 11, 2008
Reaching Across the Ballot Box
In an effort to reach across the aisle, I'm going to spend a little time talking about the Democratic field and what I like about it. Sadly, I must begin at the top by stating what I don't like about it: Hillary Clinton.
I'm probably the exact type of Republican voter that Democrats may want to consider as they go through the process of making their primary decisions. I despise the Clintons and will always do so. Back in 1992 Bill proudly said, "If you elect me, you get Hillary." Well, the same is true in reverse order some 16 years later.
I can now look back at the 1990s and admit the Clinton adminstration was far from all bad. In fact, I admire the social moderation and fiscal responsibility that Clinton displayed during his time in office. George W. Bush could definitely take a lesson. I think Bill Clinton became a new president in January 1995 when he had to deal with a Republican Congress. And while it literally almost broke him, in the end it enabled him to leave office with a fairly decent legacy. However, I can never overlook the personal shame he brought upon his office. That Hillary Clinton could do so only reflects poorly on her too, in my opinion.
Now back to the spirit of reaching across the aisle. Aside from Hillary, I have been greatly impressed by the Democratic field. Now only Barack Obama and John Edwards remain. Yet I think each could make a good president. They both bring communication skills and the potential for leadership that the office of the American president has not seen since the days of Ronald Reagan. Almost sounds superficial to ignore the specifics of issues but we all know just how much of politics is compromise. I laugh when I see all these candidates brag about "their plan." As if there has been a Congress in our nation's entire history who wouldn't shred a president's specific plan in a heartbeat in favor of leaving their own pork-friendly imprint upon the final details. The executive's best chance is and has always been effective communication.
I also like the youth, Washington inexperience, legal education, and work experience that Obama and Edwards would bring to the job. In other words, they are both relative DC outsiders when compared to Ms. Clinton. Beyond these two, Bill Richardson and Joe Biden each impressed me in numerous aspects, aside from their ability to run a popular campaign, of course.
If Edwards dropped out of the race now in promise of another shot at the vice-presidency, I think Barack Obama would be a lock for the Democratic nomination. Conversely, if Obama wasn't in the race, I think John Edwards would be the leading contender. But sadly neither scenario if the case. And that's why I think the road is still very tough for Senator Obama. Clinton has the old-school status-quo base firmly on her side. And that's a tough crowd to fight. I saw it on the other side of the aisle in past campaigns such as the one that nominated Bob Dole.
So I go back to my original consideration. Hey Democrats, I voted for my first ever Democratic candidate in 2006 by supporting Florida's incumbent Senator Bill Nelson. That was largely due to the fact that the Republicans nominated a candidate I could not vote for in good conscience. Now this same description also applies for me to about half of the remaining Republican field. Here's hoping the Democrats offer someone like me a legitimate alternative in the fall. I just may be tempted to give that person a shot. Just for kicks, if nothing else. But if it's another Clinton....well, my 2nd ever Democratic vote will just have to wait!
I'm probably the exact type of Republican voter that Democrats may want to consider as they go through the process of making their primary decisions. I despise the Clintons and will always do so. Back in 1992 Bill proudly said, "If you elect me, you get Hillary." Well, the same is true in reverse order some 16 years later.
I can now look back at the 1990s and admit the Clinton adminstration was far from all bad. In fact, I admire the social moderation and fiscal responsibility that Clinton displayed during his time in office. George W. Bush could definitely take a lesson. I think Bill Clinton became a new president in January 1995 when he had to deal with a Republican Congress. And while it literally almost broke him, in the end it enabled him to leave office with a fairly decent legacy. However, I can never overlook the personal shame he brought upon his office. That Hillary Clinton could do so only reflects poorly on her too, in my opinion.
Now back to the spirit of reaching across the aisle. Aside from Hillary, I have been greatly impressed by the Democratic field. Now only Barack Obama and John Edwards remain. Yet I think each could make a good president. They both bring communication skills and the potential for leadership that the office of the American president has not seen since the days of Ronald Reagan. Almost sounds superficial to ignore the specifics of issues but we all know just how much of politics is compromise. I laugh when I see all these candidates brag about "their plan." As if there has been a Congress in our nation's entire history who wouldn't shred a president's specific plan in a heartbeat in favor of leaving their own pork-friendly imprint upon the final details. The executive's best chance is and has always been effective communication.
I also like the youth, Washington inexperience, legal education, and work experience that Obama and Edwards would bring to the job. In other words, they are both relative DC outsiders when compared to Ms. Clinton. Beyond these two, Bill Richardson and Joe Biden each impressed me in numerous aspects, aside from their ability to run a popular campaign, of course.
If Edwards dropped out of the race now in promise of another shot at the vice-presidency, I think Barack Obama would be a lock for the Democratic nomination. Conversely, if Obama wasn't in the race, I think John Edwards would be the leading contender. But sadly neither scenario if the case. And that's why I think the road is still very tough for Senator Obama. Clinton has the old-school status-quo base firmly on her side. And that's a tough crowd to fight. I saw it on the other side of the aisle in past campaigns such as the one that nominated Bob Dole.
So I go back to my original consideration. Hey Democrats, I voted for my first ever Democratic candidate in 2006 by supporting Florida's incumbent Senator Bill Nelson. That was largely due to the fact that the Republicans nominated a candidate I could not vote for in good conscience. Now this same description also applies for me to about half of the remaining Republican field. Here's hoping the Democrats offer someone like me a legitimate alternative in the fall. I just may be tempted to give that person a shot. Just for kicks, if nothing else. But if it's another Clinton....well, my 2nd ever Democratic vote will just have to wait!
Tuesday, January 8, 2008
Inevitability?
Since politics is really starting to become fun for me once again, I've decided that I need a forum for my thoughts. Even if only read by me or maybe MQA, there is an intrinsic worth in examining the issues and the candidates with word and seeing where one falls within that picture. Iowa and New Hampshire have now spoken. In less than 1 month we'll know the two individuals who will be the choices for our next president. With that said, let us begin.
The Democrats -- The lesson to re-learn from tonight is a familiar one: don't ever count out the Clintons. We should have known the writing was now on the wall for a Hillary victory when reports surfaced last night of Clinton dropping out of the campaign. Please. The Clintons and their familiar and trusted inner circle (James Carville, Lanny Davis, Ann Lewis, etc) don't like losing and, frankly, they simply don't do it much.
I think Hillary's surprise win in the New Hampshire primary means EVERYTHING. Obama had so much momentum beginning about a month ago with the great success of his campaigning with Oprah Winfrey. Almost nothing hadn't gone his way since then. And with Hillary still leading considerably in national polls, momentum was Obama's only ticket to an upset. He needed to use the dominoes of this new primary system where a series of small wins could make possible a large shakeup on Super Tuesday. But this is a real setback. Last spring I wrote that I thought he was essentially running for the ve-ep spot on a Hillary ticket. The past 6 weeks has proved me wrong about his motivations. But in the end, it still may be exactly the way it turns out.
How did the polls get it so wrong in such a small state with a limited voting population? My best guess is the power of the Clintons. They got the vote out. They worked the system. They did what they do best. Otherwise, there's the race theory. Did people talk themselves out of voting for Obama at the last minute to fall back on the status quo of another Clinton? Hope not. But I don't doubt it played at least a tiny factor. Also the presence of John Edwards in the race is killing Obama.
The Republicans -- Conversely, I don't read too much into McCain's victory. I do think it's possible he will emerge as the GOP's nomination. I've thought that all along because I still think the Republican party is self-destructive. The primogeniture theory has always played a part in the GOP's nominating process and it still may do so again. McCain can win in an attrition strategy. He needs the field to stay large and needs candidates to cancel each other out. In other words, he simply needs the most delegates.
Tonight's results pretty much end Fred Thompson's hopes. I look for him to drop out prior to Super Tuesday and immediatley endorse McCain. Romney's money will help him remain competitive, as will Huckabee's natural evangelical base. And Giuliani is still the strongest national GOP candidate. He's playing a dangerous game ignoring these early state contests but a win in Florida could lead to wins in the big states of Super Tuesday. And Ron Paul won't win, but he represents a cause and I'd expect him to continue to draw his 5%-10% of the vote wherever he goes.
After tonight, I concede both races are far from over. But I sure do fear Hillary Clinton FAR more than I did 24 hours ago. And that's a shame. Because she is the one candidate in the bunch I could never support. I greatly respect Obama and Edwards. And each of the GOP contenders have their own positives and negatives. But I still hate the Clintons!
There's nothing brilliant or ground-breaking from me here but I thought it was a good time to put down my thoughts. I think it's safe to narrow the combined field to 7 legitimate candidates. And I'll close with my odds following New Hampshire.
Clinton 3-1, Obama 6-1, Edwards 25-1. (Richardson - eliminated)
Giuliani 4-1, McCain 6-1, Huckabee 10-1, Romney 15-1. (Thompson - eliminated)
The Democrats -- The lesson to re-learn from tonight is a familiar one: don't ever count out the Clintons. We should have known the writing was now on the wall for a Hillary victory when reports surfaced last night of Clinton dropping out of the campaign. Please. The Clintons and their familiar and trusted inner circle (James Carville, Lanny Davis, Ann Lewis, etc) don't like losing and, frankly, they simply don't do it much.
I think Hillary's surprise win in the New Hampshire primary means EVERYTHING. Obama had so much momentum beginning about a month ago with the great success of his campaigning with Oprah Winfrey. Almost nothing hadn't gone his way since then. And with Hillary still leading considerably in national polls, momentum was Obama's only ticket to an upset. He needed to use the dominoes of this new primary system where a series of small wins could make possible a large shakeup on Super Tuesday. But this is a real setback. Last spring I wrote that I thought he was essentially running for the ve-ep spot on a Hillary ticket. The past 6 weeks has proved me wrong about his motivations. But in the end, it still may be exactly the way it turns out.
How did the polls get it so wrong in such a small state with a limited voting population? My best guess is the power of the Clintons. They got the vote out. They worked the system. They did what they do best. Otherwise, there's the race theory. Did people talk themselves out of voting for Obama at the last minute to fall back on the status quo of another Clinton? Hope not. But I don't doubt it played at least a tiny factor. Also the presence of John Edwards in the race is killing Obama.
The Republicans -- Conversely, I don't read too much into McCain's victory. I do think it's possible he will emerge as the GOP's nomination. I've thought that all along because I still think the Republican party is self-destructive. The primogeniture theory has always played a part in the GOP's nominating process and it still may do so again. McCain can win in an attrition strategy. He needs the field to stay large and needs candidates to cancel each other out. In other words, he simply needs the most delegates.
Tonight's results pretty much end Fred Thompson's hopes. I look for him to drop out prior to Super Tuesday and immediatley endorse McCain. Romney's money will help him remain competitive, as will Huckabee's natural evangelical base. And Giuliani is still the strongest national GOP candidate. He's playing a dangerous game ignoring these early state contests but a win in Florida could lead to wins in the big states of Super Tuesday. And Ron Paul won't win, but he represents a cause and I'd expect him to continue to draw his 5%-10% of the vote wherever he goes.
After tonight, I concede both races are far from over. But I sure do fear Hillary Clinton FAR more than I did 24 hours ago. And that's a shame. Because she is the one candidate in the bunch I could never support. I greatly respect Obama and Edwards. And each of the GOP contenders have their own positives and negatives. But I still hate the Clintons!
There's nothing brilliant or ground-breaking from me here but I thought it was a good time to put down my thoughts. I think it's safe to narrow the combined field to 7 legitimate candidates. And I'll close with my odds following New Hampshire.
Clinton 3-1, Obama 6-1, Edwards 25-1. (Richardson - eliminated)
Giuliani 4-1, McCain 6-1, Huckabee 10-1, Romney 15-1. (Thompson - eliminated)
Anti - Inevitability?
The Democrats I was really surprised that Hillary Clinton won the New Hampshire primary. Seems that voters may have an anti-inevitability thing going on. When Hillary seemed a sure thing - Obama surged. When in the past few days (which may go down in history as temporary "Obamamania") when Barack looked to be rolling toward the nomination, Clinton got a surge of her own. Maybe Democratic voters want to keep the candidates from getting too comfortable in their front runner status?? Fairly or unfairly, Obama was seen to be acting like he had NH in the bag, I think that hurt him with voters who waited to decide until the last minute. Also, I think that jealousy between Iowa and NH was a factor in some voters not choosing Obama. NH wants to be different than Iowa. This could have been their way of showing it. I don't think race played a factor in the difference between the pre-election polls and the result in NH. At any rate - we do have a race here folks and it could be one of the most interesting in years.
The Republicans Same level of excitement now on the GOP side. McCain won NH as expected and now seems to be their front runner. Romney, by placing second again, must win Michigan to remain viable. Mike Huckabee got 11% - about what expected and a very respectable third place. He's still in a very strong position for the upcoming contests and I think he should be considered a co-front runner with McCain. Giuliani barely beat Ron Paul and seems to be placing all his hope on Florida. Personally, I think he is through. Fred Thompson got only 1% - disappointing even by the low expectations he went into NH. Unless he gets a victory before Super Tuesday (2/5) he will probably exit the race he so reluctantly entered in the first place.
Since Jeff is giving odds - I'll try my hand at it too.
Obama 4-1, Clinton 5-1, , Edwards 50-1. Richardson 500-1
Huckabee 5-1, McCain 7-1, Romney 25-1, Giuliani 75-1, Thompson 75-1
The Republicans Same level of excitement now on the GOP side. McCain won NH as expected and now seems to be their front runner. Romney, by placing second again, must win Michigan to remain viable. Mike Huckabee got 11% - about what expected and a very respectable third place. He's still in a very strong position for the upcoming contests and I think he should be considered a co-front runner with McCain. Giuliani barely beat Ron Paul and seems to be placing all his hope on Florida. Personally, I think he is through. Fred Thompson got only 1% - disappointing even by the low expectations he went into NH. Unless he gets a victory before Super Tuesday (2/5) he will probably exit the race he so reluctantly entered in the first place.
Since Jeff is giving odds - I'll try my hand at it too.
Obama 4-1, Clinton 5-1, , Edwards 50-1. Richardson 500-1
Huckabee 5-1, McCain 7-1, Romney 25-1, Giuliani 75-1, Thompson 75-1
Thursday, August 16, 2007
Mike Huckabee: Reaching Across The Aisle
I have been reading and occasionally submitting to the liberal (and now famous) blog DailyKos for quite a while. It's a very diverse, very crowded website where just about anyone can write just about anything. Most of it is pretty thoughtful and it all leans, to various degrees, to the left. Someone wrote an opinion piece about conservative Republican Mike Huckabee on Tuesday that really caught my eye. It started out as a warning to Democrats about Huckabee's politics but ended almost convincing the writer and many commenter's that Mike Huckabee might actually make a pretty good President. I have been saying this for quite a while now. While none of us has become a "Democrat for Huckabee", I think we've all opened up to the possibility that he is a Republican candidate that could actually lead this country in the right direction. Read the story for sure and then check out a cross section of the comments. Read a couple, scroll down a while and read a couple more. You can almost see some light bulbs going off. Mike Huckabee may or may not become President, but he may have found a message that can be used as a guide to reaching across the aisle.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
