The American Spectator : The Spectacle Blog : Blackwell Shouldn't Budge

Text Size

I have a fair amount of experience in these small-group elections, and if I were running the Blackwell campaign, I would NOT drop out, not budge at all. Now is actually the time for him to make his move UP. Here is what the results so far mean: Duncan is toast, because the "status quo" vote isn't going to grow any more. Steele already has rallied all the moderates, but there aren't enough of them for him to win and he'll probably top out at 65 or 70 votes (with 85 needed to win). The race will become Steele vs., eventually, one other person. Whomever emerges as that other person probably wins.

The question then becomes, where do Duncan's 48 votes go? In the end, they probably don't go to Dawson: He ruffled a lot of feathers last fall by so openly running against Duncan before the November elections had even occurred, plus there still are just enough people concerned about the PR of the all-white country club that he has a ceiling he can't breach. So, do they go to Anuzis, or to Blackwell? I'd call it a split for now. But where do Dawson's votes eventually go? Mostly to Blackwell, I imagine, if he stays in. First, Dawson's supporters tend to be more conservative, so ideologically they might lean Blackwell. Second, I think there is bad blood between Dawson and Anuzis -- whereas I think there is appreciation, in the Dawson camp, for Blackwell having publicly defended Dawson on the country club thing.

So, what I see is a celing for Duncan and a ceiling for Dawson. Blackwell eventually gets 24 of Duncan's votes, plus his own 19, plus, say, 24 of Dawson's 29. That puts him up to 67, with Steele about the same number, and with Anuzis at about 35. All of which means it becomes a contest between Steele and Blackwell for the 35 Anuzis votes. And quite a contest it will be: Anuzis himself will probably favor Steele, because of his rivalry with the Yobs (who are backing Blackwell). But Anuzis's folks may A) favor Blackwell's stronger conservatism and B) favor Blackwell's far better record of fundraising and more extensive resume. So I'd say Blackwell still has a real chance, if he plays his cards right. Again, it's all in the way you deal with people in the foyers and aisles of the convention room.

And if Blackwell's people are checking AmSpecBlog, they might want to see how my analysis matches up with theirs.

View all comments (2) | Leave a comment

John Lofton| 1.30.09 @ 9:49PM

Forget "conservatism," please. It has been, operationally, de facto, Godless and therefore irrelevant. Secular conservatism will not defeat secular liberalism because to God both are two atheistic peas-in-a-pod and thus predestined to failure. As Stonewall Jackson's Chief of Staff R.L. Dabney said of such a humanistic belief more than 100 years ago:

"[Secular conservatism] is a party which never conserves anything. Its history has been that it demurs to each aggression of the progressive party, and aims to save its credit by a respectable amount of growling, but always acquiesces at last in the innovation. What was the resisted novelty of yesterday is today .one of the accepted principles of conservatism; it is now conservative only in affecting to resist the next innovation, which will tomorrow be forced upon its timidity and will be succeeded by some third revolution; to be denounced and then adopted in its turn. American conservatism is merely the shadow that follows Radicalism as it moves forward towards perdition. It remains behind it, but never retards it, and always advances near its leader. This pretended salt bath utterly lost its savor: wherewith shall it be salted? Its impotency is not hard, indeed, to explain. It is worthless because it is the conservatism of expediency only, and not of sturdy principle. It intends to risk nothing serious for the sake of the truth."

Our country is collapsing because we have turned our back on God (Psalm 9:17) and refused to kiss His Son (Psalm 2).

John Lofton, Editor, TheAmericanView.com
Recovering Republican
JLof@aol.com