- Home
- About Us
- Contributors
- Departments
- Topics
- Back Issues
- Weekly Archives
- AmSpecBlog
- Subscribe
- Newsletter
- Advertise
- Donate
- Contact Us
- Daily Digest
- Templeton Essays
- Jan 6–12 13–19 20–26 27–31
- Feb 1–2 3–9 10–16 17–23 24–29
- Mar 1 2–8 9–15 16–22 23–29 30–31
- Apr 1–5 6–12 13–19 20–26 27–30
- May 1–3 4–10 11–17 18–24 25–31
- Jun 1–7 8–14 15–21 22–28 29–30
- Jul 1–5 6–12 13–19 20–26 27–31
- Aug 1–2 3–9 10–16 17–23 24–30 31
- Sep 1–6 7–13 14–20 21–27 28–30
- Oct 1–4 5–11 12–18 19–25 26–31
- Nov 1 2–8 9–15 16–22 23–29 30
- Dec 1–6 7–13 14–20 21–27 28–31
Saturday, January 12, 2008
Re: Michigan Heats Up
Posted by on 1.12.08 @ 6:19PM
Michigan Heats Up
Posted by on 1.12.08 @ 4:47PM
McCain Gets A Boost in SC
Posted by on 1.12.08 @ 4:17PM
McCain picked up a key newspaper endorsement is SC- The State. I would expect to see their high praise in his SC ads, just as he has used editorial endorsements in NH and Michigan to rebut rivals' criticisms and boost his own credentials.
Re: Promises. Etc.
Posted by on 1.12.08 @ 4:05PM
John, I'm Jennifer, not Phil but I agree with James on this.
Writing people in and out of the movement disturbs me for several reasons. I have a substantial article in a print magazine on the subject coming out in February so I don't want to give away the ending but I'll give a couple of thoughts here. First, there are people who are clearly more or less conservative but to say McCain is "not conservative" I think is poppycock and will result in a very, very small conservative movement that can fit in a phone booth. Reagan in 1980 or after the 1986 amnesty bill wouldn't measure up to the definition some folks are constructing. Second, I think it is very unhelpful in evaluating what the candidates are actually saying and where they stand on issues. Is Romney "not conservative"? Is Huckabee "not conservative" I think it is more accurate and instructive to say "Mittcare is not conservative and here is why" and "Huckabee is socially conservative but doesn't espouse free market, low tax economic principles." (Yeah, it doesn't fit on a bumper sticker but I think precision does count for something.) Moreover, since the argument phrased as "so and so is not conservative" is so vague and imprecise a reasonably adept opponent can usually rebut the argument rather easily.
Promises, Etc.
Posted by on 1.12.08 @ 1:46PM
John: There's nothing illegitimate about the quote itself. It just bears an unfortunate resemblance to the approach many people think Romney has taken to campaigning in Massachusetts and for the Republican presidential nomination -- take whatever positions and make whatever promises you have to. It causes people to doubt whether there's any core there. Like "turnaround," the connotations of some words have flip-flopped against Romney.
Jennifer: It's unbecoming to question someone's conservative credentials? Oh come on. At some point in this whole process, ideas, philosophy, and policy have to play some role rather than just electability, authenticity, personality, and the other buzzwords of the moment. Otherwise the whole process is irrelevant. And if the ideological exercise is illegitimate, why keep bringing up such Romney transgressions as the fee increases and the Massachusetts health plan? We can't keep changing the terms of the debate just to favor the candidates we personally support.
I'll grant you that litmus tests and more-conservative-than-thou pronouncements shouldn't be the only consideration. Character, experience, and even the country's political climate are all worthwhile concerns. But the past records and philosophical inclinations of a candidate are among the best predictors we have as to how they will govern. Nobody should have been surprised by what we got under George H.W. Bush. Frankly, nobody should have been surprised by the big government conservatism of the current president.
Re: Romney: Make All the Promises You Have To
Posted by on 1.12.08 @ 1:06PM
Jennifer: What exactly is so damning about that quote? Are you seriously suggesting that other candidates don't tell their phone-bankers to make promises?
Ron Paul's Newsletters, Continued
Posted by on 1.12.08 @ 10:29AM
I spent much of yesterday attempting to track down anyone who might know anything about the authorship of those "bigot-grams" in the Ron Paul newsletters. I haven't learned anything all that earth-shattering. Some people seem to think that Lew Rockwell was a lot more involved than he lets on. Jeffrey Tucker's name keeps coming up, too (which isn't news). Reason and The New Republic both have stories forthcoming that may shed more light.
Friday, January 11, 2008
Much Will Be Clear A Week From Tomorrow
Posted by on 1.11.08 @ 10:35PM
Romney: Make All The Promises You Have To
Posted by on 1.11.08 @ 6:17PM
A damning quote on RedState.
Pinkerton Joins Huckabee's Campaign
Posted by on 1.11.08 @ 4:06PM
Jim Pinkerton confirmed to me via email that he would be joining Mike Huckabee's campaign. A nice pickup.
Re: Recount in The Granite State
Posted by on 1.11.08 @ 4:02PM
This should provide a much-needed boost to Alan Keyes.
Bush Betrays Israel
Posted by on 1.11.08 @ 3:49PM
Since nobody else here is saying it, I will: President Bush's remarks yesterday on Israel were utterly outrageous. They went so far beyond any of Bill Clinton's woolly-headed concessions to the Palestinians that he may as well have been channeling his father's secretary of state, James Baker, infamous for reportedly saying something like "Jews don't vote Republican anyway, so f*** 'em."
Here is what our incredibly shrinking president said: First, he
called Israeli settlement lands seized as a result of Israel's
DEFENSIVE war in 1967 an "occupation." In diplomatic speak, this is
the a stink bomb of massive proportions. For Israel to give up its
holdings on the West Bank would be akin to asking South Korea to
let the North militarize the DMV. It is an outrage.
Even worse, he said that Palestinian refugees should receive
compensation for homes they feld during the establishment of
Israel. Ahem, Mr. President, that was 60 years ago. How, pray tell,
are such claims to be adjudicated? And who forced them to flee? In
most cases, they had an option to stay, in a democratic state no
less, but chose not to remain.
So the same president who abandoned New Orleans (yes, ABANDONED), who long ago abandoned fiscal responsibility, and who abandoned his own veto power, now is abandoning Israel.
By Bush's (il)logic, the United States ought to give Texas back to Mexico. Think about it. And see how he likes those tamales.
The Ms. Magazine Editorial Staff...
Posted by on 1.11.08 @ 3:43PM
...is apparently enlightened enough to know which women's accomplishment are worth hiding.
Recount In The Granite State
Posted by on 1.11.08 @ 3:41PM
Hot off the presses:
Secretary of State William M. Gardner announced today that Albert Howard, a candidate for nomination for the office of President of the United States in the Republican Party Primary has requested a recount of all ballots cast statewide. Mr. Howard has satisfied the requirements for initiating a statewide recount of the Republican Primary.
Secretary of State William M. Gardner will estimate the cost of the recount, which must be paid by the candidate for the recount to proceed.
Secretary of State Gardner announced that the recount will start Wednesday, January 16, 2008. The time and location for the start of the recount process will be announced after the estimate has been completed and payment of the estimated cost has been received...
Secretary of State Gardner reports that the last time New Hampshire did a statewide recount of the results of the Presidential Primary was in 1980.
Amen!
Posted by on 1.11.08 @ 3:37PM
Lord, does Jay Nordlinger nail Huckabee on his silly, "People are looking for a presidential candidate who reminds them more of the guy they work with rather than the guy that laid them off" line:
It seems we're now campaigning on the basis of what the other guy looks like. What do we say about how Huckabee looks? Frankly, I think I would have liked him better when he was fat - he might have been humbler.
And there's much more where that came from.
Trouble for McCain?
Posted by on 1.11.08 @ 3:25PM
Tim Carney has a heck of a column at the Examiner today that in effect says that McCain is NOT holier than everybody else when it comes to campaign contributions. Which also leads me to ask, whatever happened to that New York Times expose that was supposed to come out right around New Year's? McCain reportedly sicced a high-powered attorney on the Times.... and then, nothing. Now when is the last time the Times was scared off by a lawyer from a negative story on a GOP politician? Only the sainted McCain could get away with this. Of course, the minute Saint Mac secures the nomination (if he does), all the holds will be off and the Times will lower the boom. Better to prick McCain's facade now than to have the whole thing blow up in conservatives' face once it is too late.
Re: Romney's Must
Posted by on 1.11.08 @ 3:24PM
Michelle Oddis, one of Human Event's most clear-eyed and astute politics parsers, takes a step back from the conventional wisdom political obituary writing on Mitt Romney--which, no doubt, has a very good chance of being accurate--to look at the potential of a "slow and steady" candidate in a Republican race "with no front-runner, no loser suffering fatal damage and no real momentum behind any of the candidates."
In a race that is still wide open, Romney--after two "losses"--has the most delegates to send to the Republican National Convention in September. Although Romney could lose momentum by not pulling in the "big win," by remaining a national constant he becomes more of a threat than Huckabee, or McCain who have single wins and less delegates
Romney's Must ... Maybe Not Win
Posted by on 1.11.08 @ 3:10PM
The G-Man and Ann
Posted by on 1.11.08 @ 2:04PM
Ann Coulter has penned a surprisingly moving tribute to her father, John Vincent Coulter, who died last Friday. She writes, "Besides being very funny, Father had an absolutely straight moral compass without ever being preachy or judgmental or even telling us in words. He just was good." R.I.P.
Teflon Pastor
Posted by on 1.11.08 @ 1:32PM
For months, Quin was writing on this blog that we should all watch out for Mike Huckabee, because Quin witnessed the slick politician working his magic up close in Arkansas for years. I was always dismissive, because I never thought Huckabee would take off, and figured even if he had a surge, it would be short-lived once people found out about his atrocious fiscal record, shallow understanding of foreign policy, ethical violations, clemency record, and overall big government impulses.
Yet no matter how many reality checks there are about how disengenous he is about his time as governor, nothing seems to stick. He won in Iowa, had a strong showing in New Hampshire, and is poised to do well in Michigan and perhaps even win South Carolina. At this point, I feel like a video tape could emerge of Huckabee chopping a child's head off with a machete, he'd go on TV and say that the media is just attacking him because he's a true Christian leader, and it wouldn't have any impact on his poll numbers. Heck, he'd probably get a post-beheading bounce out of it.
McCain's Loan
Posted by on 1.11.08 @ 1:18PM
For a long time, it's been a mystery what "campaign assets" John McCain used to secure a $3 million loan to rescue his candidacy, but now the Politico is reporting that the campaign used its fundraising list as collateral, and that the move could violate donor privacy.
Rudy Reports $7 Million Cash On Hand
Posted by on 1.11.08 @ 11:26AM
That's for the primary, as of Dec. 31. Including the general election, it's $12.7 million. No doubt, this is aimed at stifling the "Is Rudy Broke?" stories likely to emerge from reports that he's cutting salaries and asking some top staffers to work without pay in an effort to plough all resources into Florida.
UPDATE: I just went back and saw that Giuliani had $11.6 million cash on hand through the third quarter, which means that he bled $4.6 million in Q4. His head fake in NH was costly and unnecessary in the end.
WOOF
Posted by on 1.11.08 @ 11:01AM
Let It Snow
Posted by on 1.11.08 @ 10:51AM
It is snowing in Iraq. Does this make the Green Zone white? What are the global warming implications? And if democracy in the Middle East has a snowball's chance in hell, is this a positive development?
Re: The Aftermath
Posted by on 1.11.08 @ 10:35AM
I wonder if these endorsements are too late to do much good. Ideally, conservatives would have coalesced around a candidate while voters were still forming impressions and making up their minds. National Review didn't endorse Mitt Romney until his early leads were already fading. Human Events came out for Fred Thompson at a do-or-die moment rather than when he needed the boost coming out of the gate. Of course, this reflects the actual divisions among conservatives over the past year. And these campaigns would surely rather have the endorsements than not.
The Aftermath
Posted by on 1.11.08 @ 6:21AM
The reviews roll in --most agree Thompson was excellent as was McCain who is well positioned for Michigan. Human Events endorsed Thompson this morning (disclosure: I am a regular contributor; the endorsement is by The Editors) which will give him some conservative mojo. Whether it will be enought to grab South Carolina or just to take down Huckabee remains to be seen. I think it is safe to say both camps are VERY happy today. UPDATE: My take is here. If this is correct, Romney's latest "must win" state lasted less than three days. So much for optimism.
Re: Real Winner of the GOP Debate
Posted by on 1.11.08 @ 2:49AM
The people's choice: Forget the presidency and embrace the King of Beers. Or better yet, Sam Adams -- brewer, patriot, American.
Lions' Din
Posted by on 1.11.08 @ 1:01AM
"Cry me a lake -- then jump in it!" There's one response, from today's Reader Mail, to Sean Higgins's latest Redskins lamentation. You'd think the taunter would be a Philly fan, but no. It comes from a Detroit Lions booster. Roaring on to the Spectator main page, we see that Doug Bandow has the scoop on the latest bit of UN-Christian internationalism, Phil Klein has the goods on H.R. Clinton, Esq., and pro-lifers have Rudy Giuliani right where they want him.
Real Winner of GOP Debate
Posted by on 1.11.08 @ 12:29AM
It was W. James Antle III, hands down. Or should I say, bottoms up?
Thursday, January 10, 2008
Thompson
Posted by on 1.10.08 @ 11:43PM
The conventional post-debate wisdom seems to be that Thompson did great but that it is "too late." What in heaven's name are they talking about? The campaign is barely two weeks old! He had no chance in Iowa or New Hampshire anyway.
Now, if he tanks in South Carolina, that's a different story.
Wrap
Posted by on 1.10.08 @ 11:16PM
I think Luntz' groups are nonsense so I won't quote them when they stumble into the truth. A broken clock is right twice a day. Big winners: Thompson and McCain. Thompson gave himself an opening in South Carolina and gave conservatives a place to jump from the Romney leaking ship. He may have scuffed up Huckabee sufficiently to allow either himself or McCain to win SC. If the latter he ironically would have done his old friend the greatest of favors. (Perhaps one he might remember when it comes to filling VP slots should he get that far.) McCain is of course the other big winner because he suffered no nicks, no cuts, no bruises. He was calm, once again remarkably avoided serious injury on immigration and defended fiscal restraint but also tax cuts like he meant it. Romney was mostly ignored, the most painful indication as to where he is in the race. He improved his chances in the Michigan primary, his last shot perhaps, not one iota. Huckabee appealed to his core followers. He will now however face a reinvigorated Thompson and an emboldened McCain. Rudy? He was just fine and perhaps the most convincing on taxes but will face ever stronger opponents in Florida. Quite an impressive showing all around actually.
Conservatives
Posted by on 1.10.08 @ 10:49PM
I agree that Fred won and if that's true, then maybe Conservatism won as well.
I don't trust these Luntz focus groups. If they are on the up and up, why do nearly all the folks in the room always agree?
WOW!!!
Posted by on 1.10.08 @ 10:44PM
Frank Luntz' focus group is just GUSHING over Thompson. They loved him. Where WAS this man from June through November? This was the Fred Thompson who people enthused about last spring.
Final Count
Posted by on 1.10.08 @ 10:40PM
Final face time numbers:
McCain: 10
Rudy: 7
Mitt: 7
Paul: 8
Fred: 8
Huck: 9
Quick Summary
Posted by on 1.10.08 @ 10:40PM
Fred Thompson won this debate, BIG.
Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney both were quite strong as well.
McCain was good, but not as good as those other three.
Huck was good, in terms of how well he performed.
Immigration
Posted by on 1.10.08 @ 10:39PM
McCain gets asked a good, fair question. Starts off well by saying the American people did not trust Washington to solve the problem. Now he tries to sound tough about guardng the border. He does sound tough. The record doesn't even come close to supporting how he sounds, but he SOUNDS good.
WOW. Wendell Goler hits McCain effectively while asking same question of Romney. First time ANYBODY in these debates (in terms of media) has effectively upbraided McCain. Goler is now my hero. (Oh... and Romney gives good answer.)
Thompson: High fences and wide gates and we get to decide when to open the gates and when to close them. Good rhetoric. (If FRED had participated in that New Hampshire debate instead of announcing on Leno, and had done as well as he is doing tonight, he would have the nomination absolutely wrapped up already.) Another commanding answer.
Huck: (asked about outreach to Hispanics). Huck starts very well by saying Hispanics are NOT soft on immigration.
Rudy: (Goler asks tough question about police not asking immigration status.) Rudy gives good start to his answer. Giuliani goes on to give brave defense of his record. Makes the best of what could be a vulnerability for him.
Face Time
Posted by on 1.10.08 @ 10:38PM
Quin, why do you think Fox is limiting Rudy's exposure? McCain-ism?
Immigration
Posted by on 1.10.08 @ 10:34PM
He says American people lost trust and confidence. He will he says secure the borders. The remaining 12 million? Deport the 2 million criminals and address the rest "humanely." He ran out the clock. Romney says "I didn't hear the answer" (aout what to do with 12 million). He says the others should stand in line with everyone else and must go home. (It is a measure of how poorly this night went that Romney coould not manage to score a point off McCain.) Thompson says " a nation of high fences and wide gates." He argues for attrition by enforcement and disagrees with McCain's bill and Huckabee's policies.
RE: Ron Paul
Posted by on 1.10.08 @ 10:33PM
I think Fox wants him there so the others can bounce their answers off of him. Or for entertainment purposes!
Fred going after 'sanctuary cities'. Mayor Giuliani?
Constitutionalist Republicans?
Posted by on 1.10.08 @ 10:32PM
Now it's Paul's time to school. There's simply no ground for argument against his claim that the Republican party has deliberately and progressively abandoned its core policy commitments. As I've said elsewhere, the strength and vigor in Paul's candidacy, disorganized as it has been, came from his constitutionalism more than his libertarianism. But there's no doubt that a major dent has been put in Paul's campaign. There are few high-profile constitutionalists writing -- and few people who mention Taft -- but more libertarians, both cultural and political. Their despond over Paul's newsletters probably will suck all the wind from his sails. It's clear that Thompson's making a play -- despite what he's implied to bloggers today -- for Paul's votes and Huckabee's votes. As he should. Rudy continues to be limp by comparison. Thompson still, still has the unbelievable chance to make himself a real player. I'd encourage him, in the same way I encouraged him to declare in the first place, to get hopping.
Ron Paul
Posted by on 1.10.08 @ 10:26PM
Why is he here? Was not there some FOX executive smart enough to craft a rule to remove him?
Lisa is Right About Face Time
Posted by on 1.10.08 @ 10:25PM
Again and again, McCain gets more air time than anybody on stage. And this is the second straight debate in which Rudy seems to be getting less than the rest of the people (Fred also gets less, but tonight he is making the most of it.)
Ephesians
Posted by on 1.10.08 @ 10:24PM
Huck turns a negative into a positive by quoting St. Paul. Big response from the audience there.
Paul claims that he is the most conservative candidate in the race...a Constitutionalist!
Huckabee
Posted by on 1.10.08 @ 10:23PM
Smartly says religion supposedly is off base but he gets religious questions. He defends his wife and explains the passage, making an equality argument. That was a winner for him with his people. He explains and defends marriage to boot. Wow. That was good.
Woman Submit to Husband?
Posted by on 1.10.08 @ 10:23PM
Huck is asked about old ad he signed about that question. Easy pickings for Huck to do his thing. Makes it yet ANOTHER perfect opportunity for him to play up to his Evangelical base. A softball question if there ever were one. Huck hits a home run here, of course. Why do these questioners give him such easy opportunities?
Rudy
Posted by on 1.10.08 @ 10:21PM
Rudy makes a good point about the differences between being a legislator and an executive. By my count, Rudy has gotten the least face time and McCain the most.
Giuliani vs McCain?
Posted by on 1.10.08 @ 10:21PM
Carl Cameron tees up a question for Rudy to compare himself to McCain on being able to be commander in chief. Rudy takes a while to get to the question. FINALLY starts touting his own record. When he does, he does so pretty well. But STILL doesn't mention McCain. Odd.
"I have led the largest squadron in the United States Navy. Not for profit, but for patriotism." Mccain, of course. The line is getting old.
McCain Is Not Going To Fight With Rudy
Posted by on 1.10.08 @ 10:21PM
He compliments Rudy and says he is just more qualified. That's what frontrunners do.
Change
Posted by on 1.10.08 @ 10:18PM
Romney gives a polished spiel about fixing Washington. McCain essentially hits it out of the park talking about changing Iraq and changing spending practices in Washington. He then does something new which seems to work: imagine what I can do as president he essentially argues. Very well done. Huckabee talks about specific programs in his state. Thompson points out that Huckabee earlier criticized the tax pledge and later signed it when pressure built. He talks about accomplishments when he was in Senate and 100% pro-life record. He gives a forceful defense of rule of law and conservative principles. He and McCain are just excellent. Huckabee argues he made welfare reform work and created jobs. Everyone was solid on that round.
Big Gov't Republican (Huck)?
Posted by on 1.10.08 @ 10:18PM
Wallace asks Huck if he is a big government Republican. Huck gives his standard answer. This is almost an exact repeat of an exchange between Wallace and Huck in the last debate. Huck is making a good case (whether accurate or not, which it partly is and partly isn't) for his performance as governor.
Wallace tees up Thompson to go after Huck. Easy pickings. Thompson cites FACT about Huck on Russert NOT supporting an anti-tax pledge. Then turns subject to his OWN record. Deftly done. Seems like a fair shot at Huck, but doesn't overdo it. Shows appropriate humility for just being PART of successful GOP Congress. He is doing great tonight.
Huck: Says it was "up to governors" to make welfare reform work. Sounds good. But truth is, it wasn't hard for governors to make welfare reform work after 1996.
RE: Burkhas?
Posted by on 1.10.08 @ 10:15PM
Yes, I thought McCain's 'burkha' comment was flat.
Huck riffing on his stump speech now. What was the question?
Change or Experience?
Posted by on 1.10.08 @ 10:13PM
Romney says people do NOT want "Washington experience" more than change. Gives a good litany of complaints against Washington. Also gives the best, most concise and effective summary of his own experience that I have heard yet from him in this campaign. Good answer.
Wallace again tees up a question for McCain. Says Romney in the past hasn't been "polite" to him. I am sick of Wallace helping McCain. But this time McCain's answer sounds a bit stale. We've heard it all before. His tone is also getting a little too low, sort of tired.
Burkhas?
Posted by on 1.10.08 @ 10:11PM
McCain's needless interjection about trading with al Qaeda and one-way tickets was bizarre and awkward. Thompson, who's radiant tonight, has made no such errors.
Break Two
Posted by on 1.10.08 @ 10:09PM
McCain is thrilled- no one is touching him and he's flashed his foreign policy credentials without being off putting. Thompson is thrilled-- the Romney supporters are thinking "Hmm... he seems even better" and he's taken a chunk out of Huckabee. Romney is not thrilled. Only Ron Paul to argue with. Rudy is very solid tonight on foreign policy, Reagan experience,etc. but McCain's success may make Florida that much tougher. Huckabee hasn't been bad but has been overshadowed by Thompson and others.
More on Israel
Posted by on 1.10.08 @ 10:07PM
Rudy makes his own pitch for being strong supporter of Israel. Now says we should put more pressure on him to capture bin Laden.
Thompson hits Huck again, this time on Pakistan. Very well done. Makes Huck sound far less than knowledgeable.
Break #2
Posted by on 1.10.08 @ 10:07PM
Quin, you're right. Paul is more goofy than usual tonight but I'm starting to feel sorry for him. As per some Hillary apologists, does this translate into my supporting him? Not.
FYI: Here's my unofficial count of responses/rebuttals for each candidate at the second break:
McCain: VII
Rudy: V
Mitt: V
Paul: VI
Fred: VI
Huck: V
Support Musharaf?
Posted by on 1.10.08 @ 10:04PM
Thompson: GREAT swipe at New York Times!!!! Just awesome. Now starts on Pakistan... is taking too long to get to his answer. He is building to a good point about the importance of stability in a Muslim country with nukes. But a little too ramble-y. Making good points, though.
Romney: Good analogy: "Now foreign policy is like three-dimensional chess." He is putting his good answer UP FRONT, as in a good news article, putting the lead, yes, in the lead (unlike Thompson). Sounding very good. My wife responds VERY well to this answer, by the way.
I'll tell you, McCain, Romney, Thompson and Giuliani are ALL doing well tonight.
Huck's answer is okay, but a little halting. Now he takes on Ron Paul in a strong way, in defense of Israel. Very effective.
Romney
Posted by on 1.10.08 @ 10:01PM
Gives a long wonky answer beginning with a checkers/chess analogy. He's fine but suffers from comparison to Thompson and McCain.
Pakistan
Posted by on 1.10.08 @ 9:58PM
Thompson says "go against a poll!?" on Patistan and then makes a NY Times joke. Clearly he and McCain are the center of energy in this debate. Both are excellent.
McCain
Posted by on 1.10.08 @ 9:57PM
Says not interested in trading or traveling with terrorists. Paul is on a rant. McCain gets another chance to explain it is not the length of time but the casualities which count and which have been reduced. Great answer. Even if it was against Ron Paul.
Question on Iraq
Posted by on 1.10.08 @ 9:56PM
McCain, again, is in his absolute comfort zone. Hits Dems hard. Hits Hillary hard. But he lies in claiming he was the only one who supported the surge. Thompson and Giuliani did, too... and Romney more or less did so. But in terms of the effectiveness of his answer, at least an A-minus.
Rudy is asked about Palestinians and terrorists. His answer seems well thought out. He's in command of himself tonight. Giuliani hits back at McCain's claim to have been the only one who supported the surge. Rudy is right. He cites the exact time and place where he announced his support. McCain's response looks weak. A small point to Rudy on effectiveness -- a BIG demerit for McCain for making a claim and then trying to pretend that he made a different claim when he was called on his lie on the first claim.
A side note on that: IT's high time somebody called out McCain for his "I'm the only one who is ever right and always right" self-aggrandizement. Good for Rudy.
Somebody needs to get Ron Paul off the stage. He's a nut. Sorry, but he just is an absolute nut.
Iran
Posted by on 1.10.08 @ 9:53PM
Paul got schooled, more fairly than unfairly. He had the right answer to the wrong question. Romney's assessment is not incorrect. But Rudy's assessment, that speedboat brinkmanship means bomb Iran before they get a nuke, relies on poor logic. Lost entirely in this debate is the fact that Iran is riddled with internal power fissures itself. This is not quite a black-box, billiard-ball state we're dealing with. Doesn't mean it's not dangerous. Does mean it's not the devil. Let's all remember we can, and should, shoot aggressive little vessels out of the water without starting a war. American military force should be decisive but nimble, not an on/off switch -- not, Bond fans, a blunt instrument.
McCain Goes After Dems
Posted by on 1.10.08 @ 9:51PM
He gets to turn the tables on Dems and ask if they can continue to argue the Surge isn't working. (Somebody around here has a piece on this today on the main page, btw.) He reminds us again he turned the Iraq policy around. A homerun.
Iranian Challenge on the Seas?
Posted by on 1.10.08 @ 9:49PM
Huck gives a perfectly wonderful answer to play to the crowd. Very well done. He sounds believably tough. I don't believe him, personally,but I think 99.9% of the people would believe him. Again, well done.
Thompson gets off GREAT line about "the virgins" the jihadists want to see (i.e., they'll be dead).
Giuliani makes a good point about the National Intelligence Estimate, sort of... but may not have done it skilfully enough. Good answer from then on, on substance, but not as good stylistically as Huck and Thompson.
McCain makes a sober, strong, right-on-target defense of the American commander. This subject plays into his greatest strengths.
Paul: "I would certainly urge a lot more caution than I'm hearing here tonight." Then blasts Gulf of Tonkin response that started Vietnam War. Then goes on, finally, to make it sound like he would never defend the US ever. He's the "please kick sand in our face" candidate.
Romney takes a hard shot at Paul; Well deserved, but it just sounded a little too mean. The rest of Romney's answer is right on target.
Romney Trying To Get In The Mix
Posted by on 1.10.08 @ 9:49PM
He is reduced to insulting Ron Paul. Nothing like two losses to take you out of the line of fire. He does argue for a comprehensive policy toward Iran.
McCain
Posted by on 1.10.08 @ 9:46PM
Sticks up for the commanding officers. Warns the Iranians about freedom of the seas. He didn't have to say he's the only one with military experience --we all know it by now.
Iranian Ships
Posted by on 1.10.08 @ 9:42PM
Huckabee makes a "gates of hell" boast and gets applause. Thompson agrees with judgment of Huckabee and makes his own joke. No fight there.
Outfoxed
Posted by on 1.10.08 @ 9:40PM
Okay, so let me get this straight. Thompson has to instruct the Fox moderator team to let him actually participate substantively in the debate; Huckabee then has to instruct the Fox moderator team to let him actually respond substantively to Thompson's participation in the debate; and then Paul has to instruct the Fox moderator team to let him actually engage substantively in the same debate? Boo hiss, I say. May we have our politics back, please?
Lisa Said It
Posted by on 1.10.08 @ 9:37PM
Lisa's summary of the Thompson-Huck exchange is right on target. Thompson drew blood.
At The Break
Posted by on 1.10.08 @ 9:37PM
Everyone is good; Thompson was great. So far Romney is in trouble --no one is much bothering with him and he's gotten no points off McCain.
Rudy
Posted by on 1.10.08 @ 9:35PM
Talks about an inclusive Reagan Coalition but I'm still stunned by Thompson's dissection of Huckabee. Imagine if he'd been this good all along. McCain by the way is likely thrilled that his major opponent in Michigan and SC got clobbered.
Reagan Coalition Gone?
Posted by on 1.10.08 @ 9:34PM
Huck's answer is Huckish.
McCain segues from Reagan to TR. How appropriate, since McCain is a heavy regulator, just like Teddy Roosevelt was. Weird answer.
Now Romney gets a tough question on abortion. He starts out with a really really strong answer. Now he segues back to Reagan. He ably defends "the principles that Ronald Reagan espoused." Good answer.
Thompson hits Huck very well by blasting Ed Rollins for saying the Reagan coalition is dead. Says Huck "would bring about liberal economic policies and liberal foreign policies." Hits him on Guantanamo. Hits him on NEA support because of Huck's opposition to vouchers. Gets a HUGE ovation!!! Great answer.
Huck says he cut taxes and cut spending. Lies that "everywhere I went I had people protesting me... becase I cut government." Absolute lie. And overall not an effective aswer to Thompson.
Giuliani starts out well. Good answer about Reagan. and "I worked for Ronald Reagan." "Ronald Reagan's principles would apply now, but they have to apply to different circumstances." Then explains, well, HOW. And so on. Great answer. Makes a good case for his electability, too.
Thompson On Fire
Posted by on 1.10.08 @ 9:31PM
Thompson fires away at Huck and draws huge response from the audience. Wow. That's the most animated he's been to date.
Huck's response is a canned answer having virtually nothing to do with Fred's accusations.
Romney Challenged On Abortion
Posted by on 1.10.08 @ 9:31PM
Says subsidized abortions were required by a court order in MittCare. [ Me: Not exactly. Only medically necessary abortions.]He then defends Reagan's principles. Again, everyone is doing fine and no one is being aggressive with their opponents. Thompson jumps in -- a bit forcefully. He says Huckabee's campaign is claiming the Reagan Coalition is over and directly says Huckabee stands for liberal economic and foreign policy and reels through the list. (Throws in the NEA endorsement for good measure.) WOW. "That's the model of the Democratic party." Gets round of applause. Huckabee makes a joke and gets a laugh and then goes back to his record. (Do you get the sense Romney is no longer the center of the action?)
Huckabee and McCain On Reagan Coalition
Posted by on 1.10.08 @ 9:27PM
Asked about the Reagan Coalition says the middle class doesn't feel part of this and then recites core Republican themes -- Second Amendment, pro-life values, marriage, spending restraint, etc. Says need to make "just as sure we're helping people like single moms working two jobs." McCain says GOP abandoned principles -- spending, environmnetalism ( those Independents vote in Michigan!), etc. The debate has a staid quality without many follow ups or challenges so there is not much excitement.
Live Blogging -- Starting Out
Posted by on 1.10.08 @ 9:23PM
Not a play by play tonight. More of an impressions-on-the-fly report....
Romney was asked about a possible recession. He said we are going to "stop the housing crisis." HOW??? The rest of what he said was nothng but platitudes, too. On substance, not a good start.
McCain's answer is community colleges. SOunds really good. But on substance, a very weak answer. And it is not a federal responsibility. Oh, well, that's the wonk in me talking. Again, his answer SOUNDED good.
McCain is making me mad already. He talks about stopping dependence on foreign oil, but says NOTHING about new domestic production. He pretends it can all happen by developing alternative energy sources. Bogus answer, at least in the short run.
Oh, gosh, here comes Huck. Says we must end enslavement to foreign oil. Again, HOW???? No substance to the man, whatsoever. (My wife is sitting here saying: "He hasn't said a thing!") Now he does the Fair Tax thing. Pitiful answer.
Giuliani is hitting a question out of the park on tax cuts. He is the most convincingly supply-siderish candidate in the race, or tied for that honor with Thompson. But he explains it all SO well. Good for him.
McCain gives a good answer, too, emphasizing spending cuts.
Ron Paul actually is making a bit of sense on the causes of recession. Good for him. Let him teach free market economics at a university.
Thompson: Starts off well in defending tax cuts. He's making good points, but rambling a little. Now he gets into speeding up depreciation schedules, etc.... but it's all the sort of small-bore stuff for which I criticized Bush in my column this morning. Then rescues is answer, partly, but saying that extending the Bush tax cuts WOULD help now. He's right. But his overall answer on style and substance combined is just a B-minus.
Thompson
Posted by on 1.10.08 @ 9:22PM
He defends Rudy's tax plan -- "a lot like my plan a few months ago." He also argues that cuts don't lose revenue like the experts expect. He looks better and is speaking more forcefully than in the past. He doesn't seem bored tonight.
Huckabee, Rudy and McCain
Posted by on 1.10.08 @ 9:19PM
Huckabee gets to make a speech with no follow up or challenge and sounds very reasoned. Rudy gets to tout his Club for Growth approved tax plan and argues for cutting corporate rates. McCain says tax cuts stimulate the economy and we should make Bush tax cuts permanent. He gets a chance to make his "Reagan Foot Soldier" and coupling tax cuts with spending restraint pitch. So far no one is laying a glove on him. That's what frontrunners like.
RE: Starting With The Anthem
Posted by on 1.10.08 @ 9:14PM
The Anthem! What a concept.
I'm a little disappointed that Fox is using this format again instead of the one Gibson used last week. This one lends itself to stump speeches rather than legitimate answers.
Recession ?
Posted by on 1.10.08 @ 9:13PM
Romney asked about his record and says he added jobs. Gets his shot at McCain for saying some jobs not coming back. McCain says he won in NH because he "told the truth" about certain jobs not coming back and he'll design retraining programs. Also says he believes the fundamentals of the economy are strong. On the question of short term stimulus he goes back to his mainstay --stopping excess spending. He pivots and argues for energy independence and new technology development in Michigan. A very solid answer ephasizing his spending hawk credentials.
Mideast Legacy Watch
Posted by on 1.10.08 @ 7:56PM
Visiting Israel on the first part of his Middle East tour, President Bush is hitting all of the right notes. In his joint press conference with Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert in Jerusalem yesterday, Dubya took pains to stress that he still considers Iran a threat that must be confronted, and leaned hard on the need for Palestinians to play a more constructive role in guaranteeing Israel's security. Not surprisingly, though, there were not many specifics about exactly how he plans to deliver on both counts.
Debate Tips
Posted by on 1.10.08 @ 7:27PM
Kirchick: Rockwell Denies Being Paul's Ghostwriter
Posted by on 1.10.08 @ 5:28PM
Responding to the speculation about Lew Rockwell writing the Ron Paul newsletters, Jamie Kirchick writes that he interviewed Rockwell for the story and he denied it:
He said that he was "involved in the promotion" of the newsletters, as well as, "writing the subscription letters" (maybe he wrote this ditty [PDF]?) and "writing mailing lists." Rockwell told me that there were "seven or eight freelancers involved at various stages" of the newsletter's history.Related: Timothy Virkkala wrote the other day:When I asked him who was in charge of the editing and publishing of the newsletters, Rockwell got cryptic. "The person who was in charge is now long gone ... He left in unfortunate circumstances." Ultimately, however, Rockwell says his role was "just to bring the money in."
Oh, so who wrote Ron Paul's newsletter? I have only hearsay and memory to go on. But really, most of us in the libertarian "industry" just "knew" who. I have four names in mind, I think all contributed at one point or another. But maybe it was only a subset of those names, maybe it was just one or two. One of the names is pretty damn obvious. And one of the names is not obvious at all; the style was abandoned for better things, later on.I'm guessing Rockwell's name is the "pretty damn obvious" one, seeing as I was able to come up with it. And now I'm wondering if the "not obvious at all" name belongs to the "now long gone" person that Rockwell mentions. I do have a thought, but I'll keep it to myself; I don't think it would be appropriate to accuse a dead man of slinging bigotry based on pure speculation. (Speaking of dead men, Virkkala suggests in a footnote that Bill Bradford would happily clear this all up if he were still alive. One more reason to miss him.)
Campaign Spot Gets Fred
Posted by on 1.10.08 @ 3:45PM
The Campaign Spot has a petty darn good blow by blow of the
Thompson blogger call.
To which I add these two (approximate) quotes I took down:
Its like a homecoming in many respects. I have had
a lot of people volunteer
just within the last several days. I feel good
about what is happening here.
We're drawing the line in south carolina. It's my
neck of the woods.
and
It's not about my techniques. I either work, or I
don't.
Reality wins out. My guess may be wrong. But I stand or fall based
on who I
am and what I believe.
Re: Thompson Blogger Call
Posted by on 1.10.08 @ 3:26PM
Thompson in one of the pre-NH debates (Saturday or Sunday-- they run together to the extent I still remember them) did strongly criticize immigration reform and define amnesty as letting illegals stay here, which is an implicit criticism of McCain. However, he has not done so in a personal way and he and McCain agree on most other issues so the differences there are not stark. Aside from their friendship I think there are practical reason to aim his fire elsewhere. He's got to knock off Huckabee to grab social conservatives in SC and scoop up what's left of the Romney ones (Romney may be pulling out there according to this). But time is running out for him and it does not sound like he is dramatically changing the tenor of his approach.
Even Reagan Needed Deaver
Posted by on 1.10.08 @ 3:09PM
Just got off a bloggers' interview with Fred Thompson. Others, I am sure, will provide a blow by blow. What struck me was the palpable desire of many questioners for Fred Thompson to do SOMETHING to change the narrative of his campaign. In other words, propose something dramatic, announce a dramatic endorsement, provide a dramatic visual image -- just about ANYTHING to garner attention (in his case, a second look) from the voters so they don't write him off as somebody who already has lost. And what struck me in response was Thompson's absolute and repeated refusal to do any such thing, as if the very thought of ginning up attention amounts to pandering.
Now there IS something noble, in an odd way, about his refusal to be anybody other than who he is. But it is also true, whether he wants to believe it or not, that drama and visuals can be used to REFLECT and ACCURATELY PORTRAY who one is -- that they can show the authentic person to better effect. In other words, not to "fake authenticity," but to reveal it.
Even Ronald Reagan, as substantive as he was and as "real" and "authentic" as he was, desperately needed Mike Deaver at times. And he was smart enough to welcome Deaver's help. Thompson's back is to the wall. Maybe it's time for him to stop fighting the notion of being "handled" and instead find a Deaver (or listen to a Deaver he already has, because odds are that somebody within his existing organization already has the skill set) who will "handle" him in an authentic, but MUCH MORE EFFECTIVE, way.
Thompson Blogger Call
Posted by on 1.10.08 @ 3:07PM
Fred Thomson on a just completed conference call with bloggers said he plans to use tonight's debate as an opportunity to draw contrast between himself and his opponents, making the case that he's the only consistent, comprehensive, conservative in the race.
Given the volatile nature of the race, Thompson said
He said one of the things that has surprised people about his candidacy is that, though he has an acting background, he's not "slick" or "scripted."
"That's not me, never has been," Thompson said. "I have to be myself."
The media has developed its stereotypes about his candidacy, he said, but insisted, "I'm just doing my thing."
In past debates, Thompson has gone after Romney, Huckabee, and Giuliani, but he hasn't touched his old friend McCain. I wonder if that dynamic will change tonight.
You Don't Need A Poll To Tell Who's Ahead
Posted by on 1.10.08 @ 2:39PM
Fred Expecting "Big, Big" Conservative Endorsement
Posted by on 1.10.08 @ 2:37PM
Before starting a conference call with bloggers that is in progress, the Thompson campaign said it was expecting a "big, big, conservative endorsement" tomorrow.
Why Kemp Chose McCain
Posted by on 1.10.08 @ 1:53PM
Donald Lambro says it was because of his immigration views, which got him in trouble with other Republicans, rather than any newfound commitment to tax-cutting. I don't know if Lambro is right, but it makes more sense than proclaiming McCain the leading supply-sider in the race.
Paleface On Paleface
Posted by on 1.10.08 @ 1:11PM
Not that it was any great insight, but in my post-primary column I suggested the first response of chastened Obama supporters might be to cry racism. Listening to a steady stream of observers and "community activists" on NPR yesterday during the drive home and seeing this transcript of Chris Matthews on Joe Scarborough--"You remember the Lone Ranger and Tonto? I think paleface speak with forked tongue. You hear me? Forked tongue..."--it looks like everyone is playing to type.
You would think hardcore racists might find a better vessal for their race war than Hillary Clinton, but, then again, I'm too busy trying to figure out my side's cult of victimhood to spend much time worrying about theirs right now.
Judging by Chris Matthews' anger over not knowing the election results in advance, however, I'm assuming paleface refers to secret racist white liberals who lied to enlightened friends of progress like Chris Matthews. Which, I suppose, means in his own mind Chris Matthews sees himself as the Lone Ranger.
Now that's the Politics of Hope.
Global Warming Strikes Iran
Posted by on 1.10.08 @ 12:45PM
Drought? Commotion. Fires? Pandemonium. Freak blizzards in the Middle East? Crickets.
Thanks for the link, David J.
Re: Horse Races and Polls
Posted by on 1.10.08 @ 12:22PM
Point taken Quin. I should have said "most male pundits" -- kudos to you for anticipating the elctoral bonanza Hillary's choked up recitation of her campaign talking points would result in.
Horse Races and Poll Analysis
Posted by on 1.10.08 @ 11:56AM
First note: One of my favorite readers, Jay Swiatek, is quite the horse racing aficionado. He teased me for writing (http://www.spectator.org/blogger.asp?BlogID=10523) , in my rant against people choosing polls over logic, that "I am SO sick of the horse-race stuff." He said Kentucky Derby fans just WON'T understand that attitude!
Mr. Swiatek is right: I must admit to having been a little
careless with the language. What I SHOULD have written is this:
"It's just that I am SO sick of this tendency to
treat politics like a horse race. It's an insult to the
horses."
That said, I must take issue
with Philip's remark, in his defense of polls
(http://www.spectator.org/blogger.asp?BlogID=10536) that "The
surprise was compounded because male pundits--and I suppose even
female Republican pundits--underestimated the effect that Clinton's
emotional incident would have on older Democratic women." Well, I
am a male pundit, and I did not underestimate it. As soon as I saw
the clip for a second time, I thought, "wow, what perfect tone.
Women voters are gonna eat it up!" And so I wrote in my blog post
predicting a much-stronger-than-expected Hillary showing in New
Hampshire. All the news reports falsely made it sound like Hillary
had wept. The truth is that her voice broke and here eyes MAY have
moistened slightly, but not a siingle teardrop actually escaped her
eyes. And this all happened while she was talking not about herself
directly, but about what she wanted to do for her COUNTRY that she
holds dear. It was masterful. I was truly baffled when others
missed how masterful it was, especially when combined with her
husband's "bad cop" routine to rile up their faithful.
Another problem with polls in presidential primaries (especially ones that allow crossover voting) is that there are too many variables. Pollsters must make guesses abut how to construct their models, because there just isn't enough consistent data from contest to contest every four years. In other words, the polls are subjective. Highly subjective. They are at least as much art as science. And thus unreliable.
Picking the ponies is more scientific, in fact, considering that
avid horse-racing enthusiasts can rely on speed ratings, recent
workout times, and all sorts of other real data. Which brings me
back to Mr. Swiatek: You, sir, are a very wise man!
:)
Poor Obama
Posted by on 1.10.08 @ 11:01AM
Kerry endorsed him today. If Gore does, we know it's curtains. (By the way along with greater skepticism on polling-- I entirely agree with Phil's take -- we should take with a giant grain of salt the so-called importance of any "huge" --they are always "huge"--editorial, organizational or personal endorsement. So far as I can tell the only one that mattered on either side so far was the Union Leader.)
Romney Ad
Posted by on 1.10.08 @ 10:55AM
Will Florida Try To Make Its Mark?
Posted by on 1.10.08 @ 10:10AM
Yesterday, a business owner in Manchester joked to me, "I hope Rudy slips on a banana peel or something." This wasn't based on any personal animus toward Giuliani. It was because he felt that if Giuliani were to win the nomination with his late-state strategy, then the New Hampshire primary will no longer matter, and it would hurt his business. In the wake of the reults on Tuesday, native New Hamshire-ites were proud that their state had made its mark on the presidential race once again--that they had declared their independence from pollsters and pundits. I wonder, will a similar sentiment prevail in Florida, only this time, to Giuliani's benefit?
Florida moved its primary up to Jan. 29, because it wanted to have influence on the presidential race. If Floridians simply rubber stamp the results of the early states, they will prove themselves irrelevant in future contests, and assuming McCain wins, New Hampshire will retain its influence. However, if Florida goes for Rudy and he ends up winning the nomination after a string of lousy performances in the smaller early states, then the Sunshine State will suddenly become a hotly contested primary state from then on out. I'm sure candidates would rather be in Florida in January than in Iowa and New Hampshire anyway.
Re: Polls
Posted by on 1.10.08 @ 9:51AM
While I agree, especially after the New Hampshire debacle, that polls shouldn't quite be taken as gospel, it is only fair to point out that overall, polls have been pretty reliable so far. They correctly predicted Huckabee and Obama would win Iowa. In New Hampshire, they were pretty dead on on the Republican side as far as predicting McCain's margin of victory.
It's pretty clear to me that what happened on the Democratic side is that they simply couldn't take into account late-breaking developments the day before the primary. The surprise was compounded because male pundits--and I suppose even female Republican pundits--underestimated the effect that Clinton's emotional incident would have on older Democratic women.
So, I'll still watch polls closely because they are the best we've got and they have been pretty reliable most of the time, but I also know now to be a bit more careful, especially if big news breaks right before voting starts that wasn't reflected in the polls.
Rudy Still in the Hunt
Posted by on 1.10.08 @ 8:57AM
Changing Again
Posted by on 1.10.08 @ 7:54AM
This Sounds Rational
Posted by on 1.10.08 @ 6:49AM
This is as sober an assessment as I've seen about the NH polling. Once again media interpreted a final event( in Iowa the Huckabee presser, in NH the "cry") incorrectly. Ultimately voters(especially women) flocked based on real events -- well maybe on staged event -- to Hillary. I think this type of thing is more like to occur in a small state with fewer voters to persuade and where voters forge a more personal connection to the candidate voters but we'll see if it is duplicated as we move to larger states more dependent on paid media rather than retail politics. There also is much to be said for voters stampeding one way or another becasue of the speed of the news cycle -- which may occur regardless of the size of the electorate. It doesn't mean, I think ,that polls are useless (indeed candidates make decisions based on them which greatly impact the outcome of races, thereby multiplying the impact of polling). It does mean what others have articulated: they are only a snapshot in time. UPDATE: Kurtz sounds a harsher but perhaps well deserved verdict while Karl Rove explains what's going on with Hillary. (The WSJ opinon page is now fully accessible online thank goodness.)
Delegate Count
Posted by on 1.10.08 @ 6:07AM
What's the delegate count? I depends on the meaning of "count."
Love at First Down
Posted by on 1.10.08 @ 3:57AM
Over on the Spectator main page, Sean Higgins writes that he had his heart broken for the first time on November 11. Goodness. What was her name? (I keed, I keed.) In Reader Mail, we have an avalanche of letters responding to George Neumayr's saucy polemic, "Standing Athwart Huckabee, Yelling Stop." And Jennifer Rubin takes a brief break from blogging to explain why Republicans just might surge back into the White House come November.
Wednesday, January 9, 2008
Re: Michigan
Posted by on 1.9.08 @ 11:07PM
Poll dance
Posted by on 1.9.08 @ 10:13PM
Quin, I disagree with you on McCain's weaknesses vs. Hillary, but I entirely agree about polling. I find it absolutely fascinating that some nationally known experts on American politics are completely baffled by Clinton's New Hampshire comeback solely because the polls said she was going to lose.
Forget her stellar organization, forget her last-day surge, forget that New Hampshire Democratic voters are savvy enough to demand more from a candidate than "fired up, ready to lead!" and forget that New Hampshire voters famously don't make up their minds until the last minute. It's the election results that must be wrong because THE POLLS told us what was going to happen!
We assume that because the polls say something, it must be so. But polls truly are only a snapshot in time. And they often are wrong. A respected reporter I know joked with me at a campaign event last year, "the biggest lie we tell is that the margin of error is four percent." He's right. A "scientific" poll is scientific, but it is not an exact science.
Just before the primary, the polls had Obama anywhere from 12 points ahead to only one point ahead. That should have been a sign that something wasn't right in pollster land.
I'm tired of the assumption that the polls are the reality and that a different result on Election Day must be explained in terms of why the voters didn't behave correctly. Voters are allowed to change their minds. And of course even to think that they are changing their minds is to assume that the polls correctly recorded their opinions in the first place.
Michigan
Posted by on 1.9.08 @ 8:46PM
Romney flew home and is baring his Michigan soul. (Remember when conservatives were grumps and only Democrats cried? Ah, the good ole days.) His father ran for the presidency in 1968. If voters are 50 or younger they likely have few first hand memories of George Romney, but the family name still resonates. Meanwhile this poll shows McCain, pre-NH, already with a nine point lead over Romney and Huckabee nipping at his heels. This may explain canceling the SC and Florida media buys. As a Bain executive, he certainly learned not to throw money away. His campaign did announce the result of their call day which garnered $5M but only $1.5M for the primary. It was not clear whether these were pledges or real money received. UPDATE: Spokesman Kevin Madden said that the amounts were a mix of pledges and contributions but said an exact breakdown would not be available until tomorrow. He also said that other than the halt on media buys in SC and FL there are no other budget/cost saving measures being taken.
Bill Richardson Update
Posted by on 1.9.08 @ 8:17PM
In further bad news for his many admirers and choniclers like our Phil Klein, Gov. Richardson is giving up his presidential run. How quickly his star fell. One day he was our home page's cover boy. The next he's history.
Who Was Ron Paul's Racist Ghost-Writer?
Posted by on 1.9.08 @ 7:11PM
The excellent anarcho-capitalist commentator Wendy McElroy writes that everyone in her circle knows who wrote that bigoted crap in the Ron Paul newsletters. My circle touched McElroy's a few years back, albeit only slightly (I was an intern at Liberty, where McElroy is a contributing editor), and based on every hint in her post -- it's someone who's still prominent and close to Paul, someone who has been uncivil to ex-friends who've criticized Paul, someone who McElroy is sad to severe her relationship with -- my guess (which could be wrong) is that we're talking about Lew Rockwell.
UPDATE: I see that Virginia Postrel has the same guess.
RE: Sharpen Your Political Vocab...
Posted by on 1.9.08 @ 6:59PM
A question. In handicapping Obama's chances in South Carolina, it's often pointed out that nearly half of the state's population is African American, and that he therefore stands a good chance of winning there.
Is this not a racist assumption?
No More POLLS!
Posted by on 1.9.08 @ 6:41PM
Jennifer, Last night's results should prove once and for all that "polls" and "facts" are almost mutually exclusive things. Especially during presidential primary season, polls about the fall horse race are virtually meaningless. At about this time in 1980, for instance, Jimmy Carter held a nearly two-to-one (!!!!) lead over Ronald Reagan, even as Reagan led the national horse race polls within the GOP. Another thing that is overrated is money. In 1976, Reagan was dead broke and had lost five straight contests and was in terrible shape in the polls. Then Jesse Helms helped him beat Ford in North Carolina, and everything changed. Therefore, what is more important in analyzing who can beat whom in the fall isn't current polls, it is logic combined with past performance and with more generic, NON-PERSONALITY based surveys.
Item: John McCain fares best in current polls vs. HIllary. But item: McCain has NEVER had a strongly negative mainstream media against him. Indeed, the MSM has been described over and over, incuding by the mSM himself, as his "base." Further Item: The MSM is desperate for a Demo president. Further item: The MSM has ALWAYS rallied around the Clintons when it is election time, (and then blitzed them right after election or right after they take office, when it does not much good.)
Item: When the MSM turns on McCain, as it surely will if and once he gets the nomination, where will he go for a "base"? Somebody who has succeeded despite the MSM, as other GOPers have, is in far better shape to beat Hillary than somebody who has succeeded BECAUSE of an MSM that will turn on him (assuming I am right that the MSM will indeed turn on McCain).
Item: Polling 11 months ago showed that the single biggest turn-off for voters choosing a president would be elevated age -- far bigger than Mormonism, gender, or race. Item: McCain has infuriated so many conservatives that he may have an incredibly hard time pulling together his whole party behind him. Put all this together, and combine it with his expected problems with fund-raising, his loony-tunes temper, other pecadilloes, and a NYT investigation that will surely be dumped on him only AFTER the nomination appears in the bag, and what you have is a too old, too angry candidate with no base and no money and too many enemies. He is not the strongest candidate against Hillary, but the second weakest.
Likewise, polls five months ago showed that Huckabee had no chance. Now he is the national front-runner, at least in some polls. What changed? Nothing that logic could not predict. Logic saw a tremendously gifted communicator with very strong political skills and canniness, filling a spot in the campaign with a built-in network of the party's single most fervent constituency, combined with advocacy of a tax plan with a large and organized cult following, and in the person of somebody with a proven capacity for demagoguery and effective class warfare. His rise was therefore eminently predictable, even though the polls said otherwise.
Polls said Hillary was dead. Experience very much suggested otherwise.
Polls, schmolls. Can we PLEASE tak about something other than polls? (Sorry to be grumpy, and do not take this, Jennifer, as a criticism of you. It's just that I am SO sick of the horse-race stuff. I wrote an editorial on just this topic for the Examiner for tomorrow.)
Alan Keyes Update
Posted by on 1.9.08 @ 6:33PM
Alan Keyes finished eighth in the New Hampshire primary, receiving just 220 votes -- exactly 1,000 less than Duncan Hunter. He did manage to beat former candidate Tom Tancredo, who was still on the ballot to collect 68 votes despite having dropped out, and all of the lesser-known minor candidates.
For example, Keyes managed to crush Hugh Cort, who got 43 votes. John Cox took 40 votes, finishing three behind Cort and 1 vote behind Vermin Supreme. I'd say Cox had an even worse night than Keyes. He received fewer votes in the New Hampshire primary (40) than he did at the Ames straw poll (41).
Ron Paul Ruminations
Posted by on 1.9.08 @ 5:55PM
Dave Weigel has an interesting piece examining why Paul didn't perform to his supporters' expectations in New Hampshire. David Freddoso reacts to the newsletter articles uncovered by the New Republic. Ross Douthat and Richard Brookhiser put the newsletter issue in the context of the liabilities and temptations faced by those on the paleo right. Some thoughts of my own later.
Obama's No Moderate
Posted by on 1.9.08 @ 5:18PM
Although Hillary came back last night to win the New Hampshire primary, conservatives ought to start thinking about pushing back against this notion that Barack Obama isn't all that liberal. Terry Jeffrey starts by looking at the Illinois senator's record on abortion.
Yeah... Right
Posted by on 1.9.08 @ 5:02PM
Re: Rudy Tax Plan
Posted by on 1.9.08 @ 5:00PM
Jennifer, it sounds like a solid pro-growth tax plan on the merits, but I wonder if parts of it will prove politically popular beyond the Republican base. Aside from keeping the bottom tax rate at 10 percent, it is fairly easy to caricature as skewed to the wealthy. I'm also interested in how he proposes paying for AMT repeal, even over the long haul.
Republicans find themselves in a bit of a bind. They can cut tax rates that will have big revenue reflows, like the capital gains tax cut, and be attacked for their fealty to the rich (or worse, ignored by a large number of voters who won't see their taxes cut). Or they can pass broader tax cuts and lose revenue for government programs they would rather not cut. Traditionally, Republicans have offered across-the-board tax cuts. Aside from preventing an across-the-board tax increase if the Bush tax cuts were to expire, this doesn't seem to offer one. But the GOP is starting to bump up against the limits of how much across-the-board tax-cutting they can do without cutting government too.
I'm not against any of the provisions of the Giuliani tax plan. They all sound good to me. But I'm not sure they offer us a way out of that bind.
ARG Pollster: Things Just Moved Too Quickly
Posted by on 1.9.08 @ 4:13PM
Dick Bennett of American Research Group:
The slap at other pollsters is gratuitous -- and particularly unfair in the case of UNH, which didn't do any polling on Monday (that is, they stopped polling before Hillary cried). The argument that the election was swung late does make sense, though.Girls Rule
Did Scott Spradling's question to Hillary Clinton about likability in the Democratic debate on Saturday night and her "emotional" response to a question in Portsmouth on Monday help her rebound from a drop in support among women following the Iowa Democratic caucus and propel her to victory in the New Hampshire primary?
While we missed the final number that Clinton would make in New Hampshire, our polling was one of only two daily polls that showed Clinton regaining support following her drop in New Hampshire the day after the Iowa Democratic caucus. Clinton was moving up in the final days and hours before the primary, and our polls and the Rasmussen polls were the only daily polls to catch Clinton's rebound. The Suffolk University, UNH, and Zogby polls all had Clinton trending down as primary day approached.
Our polling showed Clinton at 35% on January 1-3 (before Iowa), 26% on January 4-5, 28% on January 5-6, and 31% on January 6. Clinton stopped her slide in New Hampshire when women age 45 to 64 started to return following the Saturday debate.
Spradling's likability question and Clinton's emotional moment received repeated coverage in New Hampshire...
John Edward's piled on by saying: "I think what we need in a commander-in-chief is strength and resolve, and presidential campaigns are tough business, but being president of the United States is also tough business." Edwards paid the biggest price in lost support as married men 50 and older left him to vote for Clinton with their wives (I would love to have heard those discussions).
On primary day, Clinton's support snapped back to her mid-December levels among women (44% in our December 16-19 survey, 46% in the NH exit poll) after dropping as low as 31% among women in our New Hampshire survey the day after Iowa.
Hillary Clinton won back women in New Hampshire because Spradling's question and Clinton's emotional response were so heavily reported. Our polls missed the final Clinton number, but we did not miss the strong swing back among women reacting favorably to Clinton that started after the debate and continued with her comments in Portsmouth. We did not have a polling problem, we just ran out of time.
Rudy Tax Plan
Posted by on 1.9.08 @ 3:14PM
Perhaps emboldened that all the pundit look dumb today and his Florida strategy is not any more far fetched than any other( ideed counting delegates is all the rage) Rudy made some news today with his tax plan. Club for Growth -- which isn't thrilled to say the least with a couple of the alternatives -- gives Rudy's plan high praise . Indeed there's hardly a tax(individual, corporate, AMT, death, etc.) he doesn't take a bite out of. Meanwhile Rudy advisor Steve Forbes does some comparing between Massachusetts and New York here. Everyone's economic records will get a thorough going over no doubt as the race turns to beleaguered Michigan. (Proposal number one for them: stop voting for Democrats who raise their taxes.)
Romney Layoffs: Not Just Guatemalans?
Posted by on 1.9.08 @ 2:51PM
Joe Carter writes, "Whether he should be criticized for doing so is debatable, of course, but Romney has definitely been responsible for layoff when he worked for Bain Capital" and sends along this link to a New York Times story linking to a Huffington Post page with Ted Kennedy commercials starring disgruntled employees fired from a company owned by a company Romney's Bain Capital bought. Romney, according to the Times, denies he had anything to do with the firings, but adds:
"Sometimes the medicine is a little bitter but it is necessary to save the life of the patient," he said. "My job was to try and make the enterprise successful, and in my view the best security a family can have is that the business they work for is strong."
I don't know exactly what that means except, as Carter notes, it might've been more than the Guatemalans. Still, it all seems pretty murky and my research and interviews the past couple years nevertheless overhwhelmingly suggest Romney to be the guy who hired people, not the guy who laid them off.
UPDATE: MEA CULPA: I'm getting a lot of email over this post. It's funny, it's always the bits you never imagine will cause any trouble that do. The nature of Bain Capital's business--including acquiring and turning around companies--very likely ended with layoffs somewhere along the line. If I had put "overwhelmingly" here in the right place, it would have made clear I was attempting to suggest Romney helped launch many national chains that have employed many, many people, not that there were never any layoffs. So...I apologize, dear readers! If I had thought out the implications of my initial laugh line out a little better there wouldn't have been all this commotion. Who knows? Maybe for some people Romney does look like a guy who laid them off.
Exit Poll Data
Posted by on 1.9.08 @ 1:47PM
McCain Blogger Call
Posted by on 1.9.08 @ 12:54PM
Kudos for "Humpty-Hope Monger"
Posted by on 1.9.08 @ 12:06PM
Shawn, that was one of the best political columns I've read this year. Well done, my friend.
You incidentally reinforced my not-at-all-facetious post yesterday, "Sunshine," wherein I said the GOP was engaged in creative destruction.
More from me on this next week.
Now You Tell us
Posted by on 1.9.08 @ 11:03AM
Re: Pass me Some Authenticity
Posted by on 1.9.08 @ 10:54AM
Shawn, I did not say I thought him more credible or that his platform was well rounded. But the reality, as we saw in Iowa, is that Romney has lost the social conservative/religious right voting block to Huckabee who on abortion, gay marriage, etc. they find more credible than Romney. They seem to prefer Huckabee on those issues they find most important. Without them his slice of the electorate gets narrower. That was my only point.
What Are The Chances?
Posted by on 1.9.08 @ 10:38AM
Who would have bet last night that the biggest staff shake up today might not be on the Hillary team but on the Romney team? It would seem wise to throw some bodies under the bus, contend (sans tears) that he "has found his own voice" and will now be the real Mitt to save his campaign. Hey, if it works for her...
UPDATE: In response to reports of a team shake up Spokesman Kevin Madden replied: "No truth to that angle whatsoever. Our focus is on Michigan and doing well there. We have won more votes and more delegates than anyone in the race. This is just getting started and we're full-steam ahead." He would not directly respond to a follow up asking whether any additional staff would be brought and would only answer: "Our team is intact, working hard and ready to go." On the subject of whether there would be any message adjustment or new ad approach, especially since exit polling revealed that voters considered the Romney ad campaign to be the most "unfair," he responded: "The governor's message will be one of bringing change to Washington and focusing on his experience as a problem-solver who understands the economy who can help turnaround a state like Michigan." As for the call day today he said that 550 people participated but that no fundraising goal had been set. This is a departure from Romney's and other campaigns' prior efforts which generally have set a goal that they can then surpass with flying colors.
Pass Me Some Authenticity and a Box of Kleenex
Posted by on 1.9.08 @ 10:10AM
That kind of "belief" gives a new meaning to the term, People of faith.
I like to laugh at the three-legged stool bit as much as the next, but every Huckabee speech is 80 percent jokes and bass guitar, five percent one line non-specific policy proposals, five percent Fair Tax boosting and ten percent bashing of economic conservatives. Of course, when those he slaps strike back, Huckabee and his supporters invariably start howling about their martyrdom at the hands of nefarious, once again non-specific "elites." I'm no good at predictions, but I still believe in an America where the thin-skinned crybaby candidate who can dish it out--show me the people Mitt Romney, the guy who believes Jesus and Satan are brothers, has laid off, aside from those poor Guatemalan lawn care workers who became political props--but can't take it, whose class war demagoguery is incessant, will simply not be the candidate once significant numbers of people voting.
Hey Warden...I Mean, Uh, Elizabeth
Posted by on 1.9.08 @ 9:49AM
A couple days ago at I was buttonholed at an Elizabeth Edwards event by a volunteer I happened to have been arrested with back in 2004. He'd been a great help to me during that ordeal, standing amongst a small coterie shouting at my arresting officers, "You don't know who you're f-king with! That guy is friends with Bill Kristol!" Some relevant facts: Much as I'd like to, I don't know Bill Kristol. It was also fairly clear my arresting officer didn't know who Bill Kristol was, either, although from my treatment afterwards, I am left to assume he felt I was getting a little too big for my britches, relying on my not-actually-my-pal pal Bill Kristol. Ah, the beginning of a stellar evening.
Such is the power and legend of neocons in some minds. I'll admit it is fun to picture the world through their eyes: Imagine, if you can, Bill Kristol shouting at a phalanx of cops trying to subdue him, "Do you know who you're f--king with? I'm Bill f--king Kristol!"
At any rate, my former Pier 57 cellmate was very kind to me, chatting it up jovially even if he was sure to tell every Edwards staffer in sight a Class A Member of the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy was in their midst. He nevertheless felt compelled to tell me he had been disappointed in my articles detailing our arrest. "It was like being thrown in jail didn't change your perspective at all," he lamented. Fair enough, even if working for Edwards hardly seems like throwing your lot in with the vanguard of the revolution.
Anyway...small world.
A Third Wheel
Posted by on 1.9.08 @ 9:44AM
I'm going to go out on a limb and assume Mike Huckabee didn't meet his wife Janet at a Public Speaking 101 class. Her speech at the Huck and Chuck event I attended was longer than both of the event's namesakes and never approached anything resembling even an amateur coherence. Granted, it was kind of fun to watch in a So this is what it was like for Alice when she reached the end of that rabbit hole way and she seems like a sweet enough lady. Beginning with a self-posed question ("What makes her even think she can serve as First Lady?"), however, her twenty minute answer as to why she was "fixin'" to fill Laura Bush's shoes--something along the lines of…well, apparently the military let her do really cool things while she was Arkansas First Lady like jump out of planes and watch them blow things up at night (What the devil is going on in that state?)--left the crowd unresponsive at its best moments, confused at its worst. Suffice to say Chuck Norris got a better response with his dead rat mouth story.
"When ladies started running for governor, it messed up the whole First Lady thing," Janet Huckabee declared during a tangent on the new term "First Spouse." It can be said with some certainty we'll never have to worry about anything like that from the Huckabees. There will be no Elizabeth Kucinich/Janet Huckabee race in 2012.
Re: Shorter Hugh Hewitt
Posted by on 1.9.08 @ 9:37AM
For those back on planet earth, this is a sober analysis of Romney's difficulties, but also his real strengths in Michigan. I do agree with the McCain camp that Huckabee's presence in Michigan makes it hard for Romney to find his niche. Social conservatives who make up a significant slice of the GOP primary electorate now have a more authentic champion on their issues who, they now believe, can actually win. McCain gets the moderate GOP voters and a very big chunk of the Independents. Not that many people left. Thursday's debate, although in SC, will give him a chance to talk to Michigan voters and give us a hint as to what the latest Romney tactic will be ( I'm betting on "businessman fixer" but it could be "three legged stool," or then again maybe "McCain is the Washington insider.").
Shorter Hugh Hewitt
Posted by on 1.9.08 @ 9:00AM
Mitt has his opponents right where he wants them.
UPDATE: Okay, so I couldn't resist quoting Hewitt: "Romney's argument blows past the chattering classes working on old models. When Romney had to beat a dominant Rudy Giuliani, he had to win one or both of Iowa and New Hampshire. The fall of Rudy leaves a wide open field, and Romney's two second palace showings in Iowa and New Hampshire along with a win in Wyoming means he's in the thick of race."
Silly me. I guess I just don't understand the genius of losing two states you had spent tens of millions of dollars on with initial hopes of using them to vault to the nomination. It must be the Bain way.
Re: Onward
Posted by on 1.9.08 @ 8:56AM
So Much For Change
Posted by on 1.9.08 @ 6:38AM
Onward
Posted by on 1.9.08 @ 6:34AM
When Sisterhood Was In Power
Posted by on 1.9.08 @ 3:23AM
Over on the Spectator main page, Phil Klein tries to account for Senator Obama's loss by pointing to the massive, unexpected swing toward Hillary among female voters. For a cause, he fingers the tear that launched a thousand cable segments (from the face that, well... never mind). That's one plausible explanation, but I think Obama's goose was really cooked when his prissy press officer denied press credentials to New Hampshire's own Shawn Macomber.
Right From the Beginning
Posted by on 1.9.08 @ 1:57AM
By the way, while I'm no Huckabee fan myself, George Neumayr is right as usual. It's hard to stop the Arkansas tax-hiker when he has critics who only want Republicans to be a few millimeters to the right of Barack Obama.
Some Observations That Will Later Be Disproved
Posted by on 1.9.08 @ 1:51AM
The only unequivocal winners tonight were Hillary Clinton and John McCain. Mitt Romney got his silver, Mike Huckabee a distant third. Rudy Giualini's Super Tuesday hopes are still alive since nobody can now run the table in the early states -- but wasn't it also predicated on the idea that Giuliani might break into double digits in the first contests? Ron Paul had the worst day of his campaign so far, between TNR and narrowly finishing behind Giuliani. New Hampshire was supposed to be one of his best states, and you can't keep finishing third in the race for third. And there isn't much reason for the rest to continue. I wonder if Alan Keyes's votes will be reported this time.
John Edwards did just well enough to continue doingwhatever he thinks he's been doing. But won't Bill Richardson drop out soon? Or does he want to finish behind Dennis Kucinich first?
I Knew I Saw SOMETHING Around Her Neck
Posted by on 1.9.08 @ 1:41AM
Drew Cline has his take on Clinton's victory up now. Here's the kicker:
Democrats heard Obama and said, "Where's the beef?" And Clinton was standing there with a big ole rump steak tied around her neck.
Kill the Umpire
Posted by on 1.9.08 @ 12:38AM
Reid Collins's piece on boorish sports crowds managed to get Spectator readers all riled up. In today's Reader Mail, one writer calls Collins's point of view "totalitarian" and another advises, "Someone tell Mr. Collins that the little girls' room is just down the hall." A more polite correspondent tries to put things in historical perspective by reminding that sports fans have rarely been angels. One thing missing from the conversation is local knowledge. Collins wrote that the current Seattle football stadium was designed to funnel noise down to the field, making it extra loud. But if this structure is louder than the old Kingdome, I would be shocked.
Tuesday, January 8, 2008
Talk on dKos of a Stolen Election in Five...
Posted by on 1.8.08 @ 11:24PM
...four, three, two, one.
Wow
Posted by on 1.8.08 @ 11:11PM
Obama gave a magnificent speech "Yes we can" being the chant and theme. I think GOP voters who want to win in November will be thankful he didn't win tonight.
Meanwhile the Rudy folks send around showing that he leads in Flordia by 5 points in the later Insider Advantage poll. After tonight I wouldn't be writing anyone out, at least for awhile. The voters not the pollsters or pundits are going to decide this one and we should sit back and enjoy the ride.
Always Classy
Posted by on 1.8.08 @ 11:04PM
MANCHESTER--The energized crowd here at Clintonville is watching Barack Obama's speech. When he said, "When I am President of the United States," they booed at him loudly.
McCauliffe Says Hillary's Tears Helped
Posted by on 1.8.08 @ 10:53PM
MANCHESTER--Hillary Clinton campaign chairman Terry McAuliffe called the victory in New Hampshire a "big, big win" speaking to reporters here at the rally, and said Clinton's emotional moment yesterday provided a late boost to her campaign.
Asked whether her teary episode made a difference, McAuliffe said, "Sure it did. You bet. Because people saw how passionate she was about the issues."
Look for this to be a theme of the campaign going forward. "People got to see Hillary Clinton," he said, the person he's known for 27 years. "She is a woman who feels deeply about the issues."
He also said these results narrow it down to a two person race.
"John Edwards came in a distant third," he said. "It's now Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama as we go forward."
Silver Lining
Posted by on 1.8.08 @ 10:53PM
So. If Hillary wins tonight [pause...swallowing more wine...], it'll be impossible for her to dedicate the next fortnight to personally destroying Obama. She'll have to play fair. And then she's back to square one. Right? Edwards is totally young enough to run AGAIN in eight years, and an impartial observer might consider that potential position a big net win for him, given the alternatives.
Irony
Posted by on 1.8.08 @ 10:47PM
Did McCain's strong appeal with Independent deprive Obama of the votes he needed? It was supposed to be the other way around.
Maybe....
Posted by on 1.8.08 @ 10:44PM
...the Friday the 13th films are a better analogy.
Phil Klein is at Ground Zero for this. Amazing.
Was It The Cry
Posted by on 1.8.08 @ 10:43PM
It did monopolize the last day of coverage and women came out in droves. Expect more tears, more "getting Hillary to show the real her." Well, we may not have to worry about Obama-mania. UPDATE: Bill Kristol just agreed and said "she pretended to cry" and melted older women voters. Such cynics we Republicans.
Watching the CNN Returns Tonight...
Posted by on 1.8.08 @ 10:40PM
...is like watching the last ten minutes of Rocky. If Rocky planned to give us government programs for Christmas.
Things Are So Much Worse than in 2004
Posted by on 1.8.08 @ 10:39PM
Last time John Edwards gave a primary victory speech it was just a little girl with no jacket. Now it's dead bodies, cleft palates and terminally ill volunteers.
AP Calls for Hillary
Posted by on 1.8.08 @ 10:39PM
But Michael Barone is on Fox saying he's not ready to pull that trigger.
UPDATE: She won. Fox called within 20 minutes of this post.
No Guts, No GLory
Posted by on 1.8.08 @ 10:38PM
Clearly I read the tea leaves right this morning that Hillary would do far better than expected. But I hedged my bets by still having her fall short. I should have had the FULL courage of my perceptions. I still think I was the only one to get the basic thrust of the report right -- an outcome proclaimed by the Clintons as a victory, led by a strong win among women voters -- but if Hillary holds on for victory tonight, I will fall just short of psychic perfection. Darn. (As if it is all about me! Sorry about being so self-absorbed, but darn it, I had the storyline right. I shoulda gone all the way!)
Edwards is SO Annoying
Posted by on 1.8.08 @ 10:28PM
The only chance to beat Hillary, if she wins tonight, is for Edwards to strongly endorse Obama. I wish he would. Instead, he prattles on with the same stories and the same rage that have not helped him one bit so far....
Re: Sharpen You Political Vocab
Posted by on 1.8.08 @ 10:13PM
I think you're right about the Bradley effect talk. It is almost certain, since Obama is at the very least going to underperform his poll numbers.
Live From Clintonistan
Posted by on 1.8.08 @ 10:06PM
MANCHESTER--Here at the Clinton primary night event the mood has improved dramatically over the course of the evening. When I first got here, there was nervous applause, but now each time her lead holds with another batch of precincts coming in, another wave of cheers errupts and chants of "Hill-a-ry!" and "Let's Go Clinton!"
I just spoke to Clinton spokesman Phil Singer, who is speaking about the results with trepidation, awaiting the returns from the college counties of Hanover and Durham.
Ghost in the Machine
Posted by on 1.8.08 @ 10:00PM
The Clinton machine, obviously, remains well-oiled. Organization on the ground is supposed to matter much more in caucuses than primaries -- and I'm not saying it doesn't. But the Obama camp, in building up its Iowa operation to match Hillary's, may have forgotten that the get-out-the-vote machine matters in New Hampshire, too.
Sharpen Your Political Vocab...
Posted by on 1.8.08 @ 9:51PM
Especially if Hillary pulls it out, you'll be hearing the words "Bradley Effect" a lot in the next few days.
P.S. This PoliPundit post on a possible "Reverse Bradley Effect" in Iowa might have really been onto something.
RE: Tooting My Own Horn
Posted by on 1.8.08 @ 9:43PM
Quin, Good prognostication!
What fascinates me is watching the cable net guys falling all over themselves to predict who's "finished" and/or "dropping out."
Tooting My Own Horn
Posted by on 1.8.08 @ 9:30PM
Excuse me while I clear my throat, but, well, I DID call it. I mean, it is too early to know if Hillary actually won the primary -- in which case I was a little off, but a lot closer than anybody else in the pundit world -- but I continue to believe that when the results are all tallied, they will show that my numbers were almost exactly on target for both parties. The only apparent thing I missed is that Huckabee does not look like he fell just short of Giuliani, but instead probably will edge the Mayor. But as I write this, my percentages for McCain and Romney were absolutely dead on, 38-30. And on the Demo side, my predictions were Obama 39,5 and Clinton 36.5. Right now, as I write, it is Clinton 39 to 36, with Obama starting to close the gap.
We'll see....
Re: Stunned
Posted by on 1.8.08 @ 9:27PM
Thanks, John. I learn something new every (election) day. As we reweight our expectations, one can detect a silver lining: surely John McCain will find it easier to defeat Hillary than he would Obama.
This Explains A Lot
Posted by on 1.8.08 @ 9:26PM
Comeback Kiddos
Posted by on 1.8.08 @ 9:18PM
We may be seeing a couple tonight. Predictions are indeed a perilous thing.
Re: Stunned
Posted by on 1.8.08 @ 9:12PM
James Pindell (via Jim Geraghty) points out that Manchester results come in first, and that's Hillary's stronghold. That doesn't mean that the expected Obama blowout is still going to happen, though. Michael Barone is saying that, with a quarter of precincts in, there's a real possibility that Hillary could win. And regarding those exit polls, Wlady: A media source tells Geraghty they're being re-weighted and showing a Clinton victory. This is important to remember: Until they're weighted to the real returns, the exit polls are just polls -- they have a margin of error. Add in the response-bias issues that exit pollsters are vulnerable to, and you can see that the "prior estimate" numbers are only a rough guide to what's going to happen.
Huckabee
Posted by on 1.8.08 @ 9:08PM
Gives a sincere, "can't believe we did this well" thank you to his supporters. Talking to folks in SC (more on Monday), he's going to be hard to beat there. (If Thompson is going to make his move it's now or never and SC is ground zero.) By the way, the contrast to Romney in delivery and connection with the crowd could not be more different. He's not making a policy speech he's reaching out to his folks. That's how politics is played.
Hillary
Posted by on 1.8.08 @ 9:03PM
Yes, I'm stunned. If she comes back to win she's in. Obama will never duplicate this moment and opportunity. Even a close finish will be spun as the Comeback Gal. Never, never count the Clintons out.
Stunned
Posted by on 1.8.08 @ 9:01PM
Checking our site I see no one reacting yet to Hillary's apparently widening lead tonight -- is it shellshock? Please explain. If the only hope is that exit polls have Obama winning (albeit by a small margin), we know how useful they were on election day 2004.
Romney Concedes
Posted by on 1.8.08 @ 9:00PM
He gives an eerily cheery concession speech. I wonder if seeing him mroe humble and showing a little emotion( not crying, just some steely determination) would have been better than the "Fine, everything is just fine" silver metal routine. He's obviously invested in the Washington outisder theme. At least this week.
Never Trust Frank Luntz
Posted by on 1.8.08 @ 8:54PM
Luntz's focus group Sunday night swooned over Mitt Romney and helped establish the CW that Romney was the winner. But 40% of late-deciders went for McCain, versus 29% for Romney. It's obvious that Luntz's focus group methodology -- intentionally using repeat participants, the opposite standard practice -- is utter garbage.
Wow
Posted by on 1.8.08 @ 8:46PM
They've called it for McCain, but the Dem race is still too close to call. Is there anyone who foresaw this? It's basically the opposite of the Obama blowout and McCain-Romney dogfight that we were all expecting. Maybe the fluidity of this election season just makes it impossible for pollsters to keep up.
How McCain Did It
Posted by on 1.8.08 @ 8:37PM
Re: McCain Wins
Posted by on 1.8.08 @ 8:36PM
Though he may not be technically exiting the race, this has to be considered lights out for Mitt Romney. In Michigan polls taken before his losses in Iowa and New Hampshire, he was clinging to a one point lead in his birth state. His supporters argued passionately that in places that got to know him best, he was popular. His entire strategy was based on winning in Iowa and New Hampsire--but now he has been blown out in both sates. Put a fork in his campaign.
As for Rudy, all he has to hope for is that he clings to a narrow fourth place finish over Ron Paul to avoid utter embarassment (though losing to Huckabee in NH and not making it into the double digits would be quite pathetic by itself). The only reason that he gets a pass out of NH is that from the get go, he's been focusing on Florida. But things are looking pretty grim right now.
If Thompson doesn't do something in SC, that leaves a Huckabee vs. McCain race, and oddly, McCain reemerges as the establishment frontrunner.
Was 2007 even necessary?
Car Trouble
Posted by on 1.8.08 @ 8:25PM
MANCHESTER--Just in time for the night of the New Hampshire primary, I locked my keys in my rental car with the motor running. Luckily, the crack team at AAA was able to save the day, and I made it to Southern New Hampshire University, where Hillary Clinton is set to appear. More to come.
Delegate Scorecard
Posted by on 1.8.08 @ 8:09PM
According to CNN's count, Mitt Romney actually leads the pre-New Hampshire delegate race. He's at 26 to Huckabee's 20, Thompson's 6, McCain's 3, Paul's 2, and Hunter's 1. These totals will look different after tonight.
Re: The Mitt That Won't Quit
Posted by on 1.8.08 @ 8:09PM
I think both the margin of victory and whether there is some credible reed he can hold onto-- such as winning among registered Independents-- will determine how effective he can be going forward. Sure he could spend the rest of his $250M but for what purpose? One item jumped out at me from the TV run through on exit polling -- NH voters apparently found his campaign the most "unfair." ( I believe that was the phrasing.) If the ton of negative ads dropped on Huckabee and on McCain didn't work and indeed turned voters off does he need to rethink that approach? More importantly at some point if he is making no further progress does this just become fodder for the Democrats' November ads? No one is suggesting he or anyone not fight hard if they think they have a shot but supporters will begin to wonder: 1) to what end is he fighting and 2) is their money being wisely spent? If McKinsey were called in to evaluate what would they say?
Early Returns
Posted by on 1.8.08 @ 7:57PM
Some polls close at 7pm and others at 8pm. McCain is up over nine points and Hillary and Obama are nip and tuck. Early returns as we know are early returns.
The Mitt That Won't Quit
Posted by on 1.8.08 @ 6:47PM
Ross Douthat argues that even if Mitt Romney loses tonight, he may be able to complete a long march toward the nomination. I'm skeptical -- I think if Romney continued too long after a couple major defeats, he'd only seem more Mo Udall-like. But in this crazy Republican race, anything is possible.
Re: Ron Paul and Racism, Continued
Posted by on 1.8.08 @ 6:27PM
Ron Paul has written many things over the years under his own byline, and it strikes me that these differ greatly in tone and content from the un-bylined newsletter articles. Some of the items Kirchick quotes directly contradict things Paul has said on the public record. Others, like the references to "pervert prostitutes," seem contrary to the spirit of his longstanding support for decriminalizing drugs, prostitution, and most adult consensual sex, his personal social conservatism aside. And Paul has not run a race-baiting campaign for president, even including his controversial (among his own supporters) immigration ad. All these things ought to be taken into consideration before concluding, as Kirchick does, that the only alternatives can be that Paul "really is a straight talker" from a racist perspective or a "man filled with hate."
I personally don't believe Paul wrote the odious stuff that Kirchick has uncovered. But as I've written elsewhere, the tendency to attract racists and anti-Semites is itself a moral and political liability for the paleo right. Racists and anti-Semites should not be writing these types of newsletters. I agree with Jesse Walker and Nick Gillespie that the Paul campaign should be transparent and out the writers of these tracts and assure us their connection to Paul has ended.
MORE: I should add that I don't think the flavor of this piece is that of a dispassionate attempt to get to the bottom of Paul's views. It tastes more like this: Take "Unpatriotic Conservatives," add a pinch of Max Blumenthal's articles archive, sprinkle some Southern Poverty Law Center press releases, and hit frappe.
Exit Trickles
Posted by on 1.8.08 @ 5:40PM
Marc Ambinder has some tidbits. If 30% of GOP voters are Independents( vs. the estimate of 25% or 60,000 of 240,000) and the economy and Iraq not immigration are the top two issues plus McCain is considered more electable is this a good night for McCain? For now, the Romney folks are doing a masterful job of keeping tightlipped and chins up and are going forward with their national call day tomorrow. Obviously all the caveats about President Kerry apply.
UPDATE: There is plenty of rumor circulating on the margin in exit polling but if it is correct that the Independents did not overwhelm the vote, then Obama's victory, if he gets it, may be tighter and a McCain win, if he gets it, may a traditional mix of GOP and Independents. Will he crow that he held Independents even in the face of Obama-mania? Will Romney be claiming victory among registered GOP voters ( a slim reed but a reed nevertheless)? In a couple hours we'll know for sure. But again, call President Kerry for details.
Ron Paul and Racism, Continued
Posted by on 1.8.08 @ 5:28PM
Jamie Kirchick's TNR piece that I mentioned yesterday, picking through the old chock-full-o'-bigotry Ron Paul newsletters, is posted, as is Paul's response:
"The quotations in The New Republic article are not mine and do not represent what I believe or have ever believed. I have never uttered such words and denounce such small-minded thoughts.(Note to the Paulites: You might want to spell-check your press releases.)"In fact, I have always agreed with Martin Luther King, Jr. that we should only be concerned with the content of a person's character, not the color of their skin. As I stated on the floor of the U.S. House on April 20, 1999: 'I rise in great respect for the courage and high ideals of Rosa Parks who stood steadfastly for the rights of individuals against unjust laws and oppressive governmental policies.'
"This story is old news and has been rehashed for over a decade. It's once again being resurrected for obvious political reasons on the day of the New Hampshire primary.
"When I was out of Congress and practicing medicine full-time, a newsletter was published under my name that I did not edit. Several writers contributed to the product. For over a decade, I have publically [sic] taken moral responsibility for not paying closer attention to what went out under my name."
MORE: Dave Weigel interviews Paul and comes away unimpressed: "Paul's position is basically that he wrote the newsletters he stands by and someone else wrote the stuff he has disowned." (That press release came after Paul talked to Dave, though, and the last line of it actually can be read as disowning all the newsletters. Whether that total-disowning is plausible is another question.) Nick Gillespie is aghast, and wants to know who wrote this stuff and whether they still have any connection to Paul.
Great, But When Can We Expect...
Posted by on 1.8.08 @ 3:23PM
...an apology from the Garden State for outlawing self-service gas stations?
TRENTON, N.J. (AP) - New Jersey became the first Northern state to apologize for slavery, as legislators approved a resolution Monday expressing "profound regret" for the state's role in the practice....
The resolution offers an apology "for the wrongs inflicted by slavery and its aftereffects in the United States of America." It states that in New Jersey, "the vestiges of slavery are ever before African-American citizens, from the overt racism of hate groups to the subtle racism encountered when requesting health care, transacting business, buying a home, seeking quality public education and college admission, and enduring pretextual traffic stops and other indignities."
Seriously, though, I congratulate New Jersey's slave community and this long-awaited victory and New Jersey Democrats for embracing such forward-looking policy.
Dead Rat Mouth
Posted by on 1.8.08 @ 2:49PM
It appears leading conservatives are simply all wrong about The Huck. Last night I attended one of the fabled Huck and Chuck rallies starring Chuck Norris in my hometown of
“Whoa!” Parker said. “Whoa! We’re talking about a man whose website says Faith. Family. Freedom."
Is that all it takes? Maybe he should skip the poll visits today and just oversee a new Mike Huckabee Is President website, so long as that is what now conjures reality.
Parker had come out to campaign at Huckabee’s request. He called her one night to chat it up and…she wasn’t sure who he was. “I’m a single woman, I just got home from vacation, I’m thinking, ‘Mike who?’” she explained. Lord, sounds like a pretty hot vacation. Alas, the man on the line was a certain former Baptist minister. Nevertheless, his voice filled Parker with joy because she learned there was finally a God-fearing outsider was running for president. (Are there any declared atheist insiders currently seeking the nomination.) This was a good and necessary thing, she argued, because, “A lot of people in
Pshaw. Honest Abe didn’t even have Chuck Norris campaigning for him.
By the by, for those who are interested and remember the scene in Missing in Action wherein Chuck Norris’ captors put a burlap sack with a rat in it over his head, Yes, it was a real rat, but it was already dead when they put it in the sack. Chuck Norris didn’t bite the rat to death. It was already dead when he put it in his mouth.
Um...go Huckabee?!
I Get It
Posted by on 1.8.08 @ 2:23PM
Sunshine
Posted by on 1.8.08 @ 2:19PM
Hey, y'all, I just had a thought. I haven't felt the least bit grumpy abouit the election lately. Maybe the GOP is engaged in creative destruction. Why mourn for the old Reagan coalition? That was 25 years ago. I think we have an incredibly fertile mix of candidates this year, and I think we're going to come out of the primaries with the party re-defined and strengthened.
Quin, the problem with the carriage returns happened to me, too, a few days back. For some reason, the blog portal came up in HTML mode, without the menu bar across the top that allows you to toggle back and forth between formatted text and HTML.
It's back now. But if you find yourself in that situation again, type <p> when you want a paragraph break.
The Mo Udall of 2008
Posted by on 1.8.08 @ 1:24PM
Now I'm going to end up with the Thomas Boswell problem if Mitt Romney pulls out a win tonight, but he's starting to look like the Mo Udall of this election cycle. In 1976, there were those who thought Udall would win the Democratic presidential nomination running as a liberal, non-Southern alternative to Jimmy Carter. The trouble was he kept running second in primaries and caucuses he needed to win, including New Hampshire, Massachusetts, New York, Ohio, and Michigan. Udall suffered a particularly heartbreaking loss to Carter in Wisconisn, where newspapers proclaimed him the winner based on early returns, leading him to exclaim, "How sweet it is."
Romney famously finished second to Mike Huckabee in the Iowa caucuses. If the polls are to be believed, he may finish second to John McCain in New Hampshire and then -- if tonight's results don't move the polls -- second again to Huckabee in South Carolina. If he's lucky, he might get to stick around for a Udall-like run.
Udall was also a Mormon and he had the anti-Mormon card played against him more directly than we've seen in this race. In Michigan, the Carter campaign trotted out Detroit Mayor Coleman Young to accuse Udall of racism for belonging to the LDS church, which still banned blacks from the priesthood at the time (the ban wasn't lifted until 1978). Udall was in fact an opponent of his church's policy in this area.
Re: Wyoming Alternates
Posted by on 1.8.08 @ 12:32PM
I sure hope the GOP brass don't cave on this one. The mad dash to move all the contests earlier in the year -- to make politicians more aggressively pander for votes -- is one of the big reasons that the presidential campaign began, basically, right after the midterm elections. The states that helped force an even longer campaign on us should pay.
Wyoming Alternates
Posted by on 1.8.08 @ 12:01PM
An interesting question is what will happen to states (GOP side) that have had their national convention delegations cut in half as a penalty for choosing them too early, if, at the convention, rules-makers relent and allow the states their full complement of delegates. Do the alternates chosen first then become delegates also, or does a "shadow slate" then get credentials? Because that question is open, it becomes important to keep track not just of who the delegates are, but who the alternates are. In Wyoming, everybody reported that the delegate breakdown for now is Romney 8, Thompson 3, and Hunter 1. But I did some more digging. Here is the breakdown of the ALTERNATE delegates selected last Saturday in Wyoming: Romney 5, Uncommitted 4, Thompson 2, and McCain 1. (Just in case anybody is really keeping score.)
He Won't Stay Skinny Long This Way
Posted by on 1.8.08 @ 12:01PM
Out on the New Hampshire trail, my pal Dan Tuohy samples the newly minted Huckaburger.
Yes, the anti-obesity candidate's burger comes with a fried pickle.
Things to Keep in Mind
Posted by on 1.8.08 @ 11:43AM
Mark Blumenthal explains what to make of the exit polls, and why they won't be leaked until very close to the time the polls close (which will be at 8 PM Eastern).
James Pindell, the Boston Globe's campaign blogger, offers some things to watch for:
1. How Mitt Romney performs in his base of the hard core Republican towns on the "golden triangle" from, but not including, Nashua to Manchester to Salem.And apropos of the last question, Jim Geraghty has a useful primer on NH indies.2. If Manchester trends to Obama it is all over for Clinton
3. How well Edwards plays in the Seacoast and Upper Valley.
4. As always, where do independent voters go?
The Perils of Prediction
Posted by on 1.8.08 @ 11:21AM
Washington Post website headline from 9:40 a.m. this morning: "Joe Gibbs Resigns as Redskins Head Coach."
Thomas Boswell, in today's Washington Post paper edition: "Before the week is out, Gibbs and [Redskins owner Dan] Snyder will probably share a big hug and announce that Gibbs will be in town longer than fans ever hoped. That, at least, is the most likely culmination for the machinations at Redskins Park at the moment.
Bam: Our First Woman President?
Posted by on 1.8.08 @ 11:05AM
By the way, did you all know that, if elected, Barack Obama--and not Hillary Clinton--would be our first woman president?
It seems that:
Women are gravitating to Obama out of a different urge - the desire to invite him to our book club, join him for coffee or have him coach our child's soccer team. He embodies many of the positive characteristics we tend to regard as feminine: sensitive and empathetic, seeking to find common ground and minimize conflict, not taking power for granted. We've yet to catch Obama beating up an opponent.
I'm sure he'll be just as sensitive and empathetic to our enemies. You go girl!
"Fairy Tale" Barack
Posted by on 1.8.08 @ 10:58AM
The Clinton's look more and more desperate each day.
Re: New Hampshire Predictions
Posted by on 1.8.08 @ 10:42AM
Hillary will lose by more than 10. She won't cry but Bill will. Mark Penn will lose his job.
McCain will win by 5-7 pts including a narrow win among registered Republicans. Romney will say he never said NH or Iowa were must wins. Rudy will edge Huckabee (if enough people watched the debate on Sunday) and will point out that his Florida strategy envisioned no one running the table early on.
A Quality Arkansas Education
Posted by on 1.8.08 @ 10:29AM
At Inside Higher Ed, Andy Guess takes a peak at Mike Huckabee and his love for the college days:
- "...Under the governor, the Academic Challenge Scholarship - the target of criticism during the campaign because of the lack of an immigration test - expanded from 2,500 students in 1997 to 5,700 in 2000 thanks mostly to a concerted awareness campaign."
- "...Eighty-eight percent of students from the state who scored 32 or above on the ACT attended Arkansas colleges in 2002, compared with 38 percent five years earlier. Huckabee added some $15 million of funding to cover that expansion as well as the Academic Challenge Scholarships."
- "...Even when it wasn't possible, Huckabee sought [higher education funding] increases in his yearly budgets. In his last years in office, he sought funding increases of $54 million for fiscal year 2006 and $49 million for fiscal year 2007."
In other words, rather than spend what revenues were available on improving secondary schools, the Man From Hope, The Sequel just raised taxes. And rather than support vouchers as a w