The future of Andrew Cuomo

With the appointment of Kirsten Gillibrand to the Senate, all eyes have been on New York. What I am interested in is the future of the state, politically, and some of it’s politicians. Gillibrand was never to favourite. At a time, Caroline Kennedy was the favourite only to be turned down/drop out in the past week. However, she only dropped out after she began to lose in polls that pitted her against state Attorney Gerenal Andrew Cuomo. Cumo, for my mind, was the best pick until I did some research on Gillibrand. Then I decided that they were probably equally qualified.

The state is a traditional Democratic fort. Not in the next 100 years will Republicans carry the state (not unless their party radically changes, as well as the state demographics). It’s a solid 34 electoral college votes for them. Because it’s so Democratic, the Democrats to come out of the state tend to be somewhat more liberal than, say Southern or mid-Western Democrats. One of the most popular politicians to come out of the state though, in the 1980′s and early 1990′s, was a man by the name of Mario Cuomo. He was the 52nd Governor of New York, serving for 11 years. He was a moderate, and extremely popular after cleaning up New York and bringing about institutional changes. However, he came around at the wrong time. He hit his peak of popularity, nationally, under President Ronald Reagan. After President Bush was elected, with a war going on and approval ratings through the roof, Cuomo declined to run in the Democratic primary (as did many other high-profile Democrats at the time), which left room for some unknown Governor of Arkansas Bill Clinton to sneak in and win it. Had Cuomo run, he would have won the primary and most likely the general election. But the economy hadn’t yet faulted, so he had no smoking gun to unseat an incumbent president. Cuomo would stay as Governor until the Republican wave in 1994, where he was defeated by George Pataki.

That’s Andrew Cuomo’s father – the ‘what if’ Democrat. Now, I wrote in a post, some time ago, the following:

Not so much a problem for the Democratic party, but rather the career of David Paterson. He will have to appoint someone to serve in Hillary Clinton’s to-be-vacated New York senate seat. As governor and Democrat, he was the likely choice. But he has said he doesn’t want the job. He now has to contend with the three pressure groups: Women, who think a woman should replace a woman; Hispanics, who think they are due a representative because they make up a large number in the state, and; himself, and whether he should appoint his main rival Andrew Cuomo (former Secretary of Housing and Urban Development under Clinton, current state Attorney-General, son of wildly popular New York governor) to eliminate him from a primary challenge. Personally, because I think Cuomo has a future in the Democratic party, and that a governorship would do him better than a senate seat, I hope that he appoints someone else. If it is someone else, it will be a woman or a Hispanic.

That was all true then, and is true now. And stars are starting to line up for Andrew Cuomo by not getting appointed to the Senate. Cuomo, who has shown moderated interest in stepping up to the governorship, has the perfect scenario now. It will be the opposite of his father – Andrew Cuomo is in the right place at the right time. Governor David Paterson, after his handling of the whole appointment, has made him look weak and ineffective. I didn’t report much on it, but if you kept up with it you would wonder what the heck was going on in Albany. And, the way Caroline Kennedy’s potential appointment was handled (after being instigated by, most likely, Ted Kennedy), he has probably got offside with the most powerful political family in the US.

So if Cuomo wanted to become Governor of New York, 2010 is the best situation for him. He would win a primary battle against David Paterson reasonably easy. He is popular across the state, his father more popular to the point that people still remember him. Then, Cuomowouldn’t have to fight the uphill battle against an incumbent Republican. It is way above helpful that there will be no incumbent if Cuomo defeated Paterson in a primary. It is a right place right time moment.

So, in 2010, Cuomo could easily be the New York governor. Not getting too far ahead, I want to imagine the year 2015. Here you have a Democrat, powerful and popular, who has a recognised name among the base and in the North-East corner of the country. He’s served 4 years as Secretary of Urban Housing and Development under a wildly popular President (Clinton), a 4 year stint as New York’s Attorney General, and then 5 years as Governor of one of the biggest states in the country. When his father had bad timing for his political career, Cuomo seems to be having great timing. 2016 will be the end of President Obama’s second term, with no incumbent VP running (it’s safe to assume Joe Biden won’t run). Cuomo will be 58 in 2015 – a year before the election and enough time to build some momentum for a Democratic primary run. Win that, and he’s looking down the barrel of a general election run. The fact of the matter is that the stars are aligning for Andrew Cuomo to be the Democratic candidate in the 2016 presidential election. Of course, he has to do a good job as Governor, and that’s after the demands of winning it.

If you want some more ‘stars aligning’, it’s these two bits of information. First, the Republican pool of talent in New York is pretty scarce now to challenge for the Governor’s mansion. Cuomo would go into the state election as favourite, and would just need to run a simple campaign. The second bit, the Republican party is in no shape to win a national election. At the very least, they will have to wait to 2016 to even stand a chance. But who will they front? Sarah Palin will long be forgotten (hopefully), Mike Huckabee will be done, Mitt Romney too – these are the ‘future names’ of t he Republican party. And they will all be out of the political circles in 4-6 years tops. They don’t have anyone like Cuomo or Gillibrand (two people who are being floated as rising stars in the Democratic party) to talk about. It will take some serious work by the party to have a serious and credible candidate in 2016. And, if the reputation for ‘change’ in the Republican party is anything to go by, they won’t have anyone.

This is all something just to keep an eye on. There are so many variables, so many hicups that could derail any political career, stars aligned or not. But, like I said, it’s something to keep an eye on – if only to make things even more interesting and exciting.

Thomas.

The road ahead

I want to write a post about where the Republican party should be headed, what they should be doing, and what I forsee as the future of the Grand Old Party. But it has to start at a strange place – with John Edwards and Hillary Clinton. It’s not that I wanted to start it there, rather I started writing about one topic, and then was taken up by my theorising about the future of the Republicans. So here goes. Bear with me – it’s logical and progresses well (I feel), but I just thought I’d put the warning out there.

Also, I wrote this before Clinton’s name was floated for Secretary of State, and certainly before she accepted the position. It was a hypothetical that hasn’t turned out (well, not yet because there’s some avenues that she could still persue). However, what I write about the Republican party still stands true.

A lot of people (myself included) thought former Senator John Edwards would be Attorney-General. That’s off the table now that he’s admitted to an affair. It’s these kinds unfortunate taints that Obama needs to stick clear of through his first term. Sure, it has nothing to do with politics and is of no concern (well, shouldn’t be) to the electorate, but it’s the way things work.

So with that hole opened up, let’s look at a handful of candidates for the job. A very dark horse would be Hillary Clinton – former lawyer, primary opponent, learned in politics and a multi-term senator. She’s a very dark horse because, well, let’s face it, her and Obama probably still aren’t sending each other Christmas cards. Similarly, with her run, and now near-on impossibility of ever getting into the White House in her own right, she needs to look to other offices to build her reputation further. Senate Majority (or if the Democrats lost control after the mid-terms, Minority) Leader would probably be her most covetted position at the moment. It’s a powerful post, especially with Democrat leads in the House and Senate, and control of the White House. Bargaining doesn’t have to cross party lines, just has to fit into factional lines. Leading the Senate means pretty much leading the votes Obama will need to get things passed. However, she needs to gather up and retain the numbers first – at least 10 loyal senators, 15 prefferable.

Then again, she also has to hope the Nevada Senior Senator Harry Reid doesn’t want the job anymore, and neither do the other 56 or so senators that they job might go to. In all seriousness, Clinton isn’t a heavyweight in the Senate – she’s from a traditionally Democratic state, so she can’t claim she needs the position because she can hold a swing seat. She’s a junior senator to boot – even her companion from New York has a claim to the position before her, and neither of them before the likes of ….

So the truth of the matter is, Clinton might want to focus her efforts on Senate Majority Leader before taking up the post of Attorney-General (if she was even offered it). Governor of New York, the state she represents in the Senate but does not originate from, is also on the cards. However, she’d have to wait until Mike Bloomberg, current mayor of New York, made his intentions clear. At the moment, Bloomberg is an independent come Republican. He’s a true centrist, he’s good great economic credentials, and would be a shoe-in for the governor’s house.

What does this have to do with anything? Like I said, Bloomberg is an independent. The Democrats want to keep him that way because he is the sort of guy that could be destined for higher things. He’s well liked across the state, especially in Democratic New York, who knew he was a former Republican and still voted him in. He’s got the power and charisma to challenge for the seat that Clinton would have to step down from should she become governor – which sees the Democrats lose an important, traditional seat from a blue state. Not what they want.

But worse, should Clinton run for the governorship in New York, it’s entirely possible that the Republicans would try and get Bloomberg to challenge. It would be a monster battle between the two, and an epic fight between the party machines, but I expect Bloomberg would win, ensuring that he had a lock on the seat for at least 4 years. What could he do from there? Depending how much of a party man he is, he could reestablish the Republican Party as a force in the state that sees Democrats hold the state House, Senate, and every burrough in New York City. If the Republicans could challenge for a general election win in New York, it cuts off one of the Democrat’s giant advantages in general elections. New York, with 35 electoral college votes, and California, with 55 electoral college votes, give the Democrats a given 90 EV advantage in any election. The Republicans only have Texas, with 34 EVs. Shift New York to the Republicans, and the tables are turned completely.

Now, I’m not saying New York is going red, or that Bloomberg would flip it, or anything of the sort. Wah I’m saying is that if the Republican party are smart about things, now that they are having a big inward-looking reflection before they shake things up and reform their platform, they should think about scenarios like this. Look to who the possible future faces are of the party and build up around them while at the same time, target some of the given Democratic strengths. The Republicans really need to challenge in New England, the Great Lakes, and on the East Coast. Not in all of them, maybe just 5 states total. They nearly did in the past two election – Minnesota and Wisconsin nearly went red in 2004 – but never as effective as they should, and certainly they have never won one of them recently. If the Republicans can challenge for New York or California, Pennsylvania, Washington or Oregon, Michigan or Minnesota or Wisconsin (not the ‘or’s there – it doesn’t have to be all of them, one or two might even suffice) then the Republicans begin to even the playing field.

With Obama fronting for the Democrats, and heading their ticket in 4 years’ time, they will struggle with this, That’s why the next 4 years should be about rebuilding, with the next election about throwing off the dead-weight. Their next candidate needs to run as a true Republican, needs to abandon their moral and ethic crusades (really, stop talking about abortion and gay rights on a national stage and claim they are for states to decide (which is a giant step forward for both issues), campaign for smaller government, for less interference but moderate regulation, economic regularity, and above all national security without a fear-based campaign. They can hold up someone that can afford to lose who also looks the real-deal by Republican, and even political, standards – Gingrich.

His counterpart on the ticket needs to be the right-hook though. The VP spot on the next Republican ticket must, without any doubt, be the true future of the party and the type of Republican that the party needs to be built around. It needs to be someone with experience and political fortitude enough to withstand a defeat as VP, but have a clear and strong enough voice to make the voters believe in a slightly different message to that which the head of the ticket in 2012 speaks. Bobby Jindal is an option. He’s not the only option, but he’s viable. If Governor of Minnesota (note: A Great Lakes state) Tim Pawlenty stays in the game and keeps a good enough profile, he’s another option.

The Republicans can’t go down the Mike Huckabee or Sarah Palin path. If they do, mark my words, the party will be wandering around the forrest for a long, long time. The last election was a judgement not just of Bush but of the state of the Republican party. And by a 7% difference, the American people voted down a party that advocate moral and ethical interference in citizen’s lives (when they should be campaigning for less) and economic deregulation (when they should be campaigning for more). If the Republican party wants to continue to harp on about moral and ethical issues being mandated by the government then they can – and they might also receive a house-warming present from Ralph Nader, the Libertarian, and other third-party groups that never amount to anything.

The Democrats, in placing Obama at the front, changed themselves quite quickly. Partly because of Barack Obama himself (his meteoric rise saw him drag the traditional consituants with him, while with the other hand he redrew political voting lines), another part because of Howard Dean (who implemented the 50 state strategy at the DNC prior to the midterms of 2006 – and it’s come up trumps twice now), and finally because the Republicans are lost themselves. You can’t be the second party in a two-party system without defining yourself against the other mob. The Democrats did it perfectly in 2008 – ‘McCain is a Republican. Bush is also a Republican, and bad. Therefore McCain is Bush and McCain is bad. Democrats aren’t Republicans, therefore Democrats are good. I’m Barack Obama and I approve this message.’ The Democrats are finalising this process, but you can already see the titan the party has become in terms of electability – energy independence through green power and oil; ramp up national security but don’t put any more American lives in harm’s way; fix the world economy but fix it domestically; stop the rot in D.C. through change not more of the same from either the Democrats or the Republicans, it’s time for the next generation.

The Republicans have to watch the Democrats closely now. They need to see what parts of the electorate are being left out with these new boundaries. The Republicans kept re-drawing their lines until they excluded too many people. Now we need to look at who the Democrats are excluding. At the moment, it’s the fringe people from all sides that no one wants – red necks, communists, the KKK, anarchists, the Christian hard-right. Funnily enough three of those groups are Republican faithful now. Anyway, the Democrats have draw such a large circle that it makes it nearly impossible for the Republicans to target a specific group just yet, and work them over for the 2012 election.

But the Republicans need to be patient, as I have said. They need to change their platform slowly. Obama got away with it because his own rise was strong enough to drag the party with him – whether the party wanted it (which some factions ceratinly did not (Clintons)) or not. The Repubicans will have to wait at least 6 years, probably longer, until they have finally found their grove. If it’s longer than 6 years (which is the year of the mid-terms between 2012 and 2016), they will probably lose the 2016 election too. That’s why they need a structured and focused ticket like the one I proposed earlier.

Patience also means something else – eventually the Democrats will have to conceed to some groups, rule out others, to the point where they themselves are put into the position of the the Republicans roughly 3 or 4 years ago. They will have lost certain groups, or certain states, due to their policies that sees those same groups or states look to the Republicans for a change. It won’t happen while Obama is around – but probably the second election after he’s gone. The Republicans will only around that time too be able to fully define their party as an opposite to what the Democrats are and capitalise on their lost groups.

So that’s the future I see for the Republicans. It’s a long and lonely road. It requires patience and effort to walk, and a lot of soul-searching by party-powers and faithful. They might have to make some calls that don’t see right, don’t seem ‘moral’ or ‘ethical’ (at the moment), and maybe even a little regressive, back to the party’s long history. But they need to do all this and more – otherwise, there’s no future for the Republicans at all. They can’t stay the same party that has lost the 2006 mid-terms and the 2008 general. They can’t be the party that continues to lose positioning in the House and the Senate. They have to shape up or ship out. Those are the only options on the table for them.

Thomas.

Getting in for 2012

Newt Gingrich is a viable option for the Republicans in 4 years time. He’s a good option – he’s of the sane wing of the party, he’s a true Republican, not an extreme right Republican, he has Speaker of the House experience, he’s known and popular among the base, and he’s quite relatable to the voters. He has some ‘backstage’ issues to sort out among Republican heads, but nothing I think they couldn’t turn a blind eye to for the time being. It also means that the party doesn’t have to take a wild gamble on someone (Mitt Romney), waste a viable talent (Bobby Jindal – see below), or field a candidate that will surely lose (Palin).

He was also the only Republican this campaign season to look as though he was a guy who could lead the party. He stayed calm, he stayed collected, and he sounded like McCain should have sounded. He’s got a good grip on the party, so we should be hearing his name next year I think. Watch to see how visible he remains now that the election is over. If you see him a lot, start thinking that he is going to run.

Bobby Jindal for the VP spot too. Jindal is top-of-the-ticket material in all honesty, but you don’t want to waste a guy of his calibre against an incumbent. Gives him exposure and experience, putting him in a good position (assuming he finds a political job in the time being) for 2016. Remember, Jindal is 37 years old now. 2016 gives him some much needed age and time to get some notches on the belt.Signs are that he will run in the next Republican primary – he’s visiting Iowa this month to give a speech. Anyone visiting Iowa is really testing the waters for a campaign.

But can the party resolve fielding a candidate who is black (he is Indian American, not the Native American type of Indian)? Part of the campaign this time around made a black president something to be afraid of? Actually, a downside for Obama doing a really good job is that it would open the way for Jindal to become Republican candidate somewhere down the line.

The only other options on the table are some familar faces – Mike Huckabee (who isn’t looking like he will run), Mitt Romney (might just be crazy enough), and Sarah Palin (a guarenteed loss). Romney’s economic strengths might help him if the US is still in recession, but it will be another hard slog for him if Palin or Huckabee is in it too. Similarly, Huckabee and Palin will be scratching for the same voters, so if both of them are in it, both of them will lose, and a third candidate will win it.

Very interesting times ahead though.

Thomas.

Sarah Palin – my judgement

In the debate that has shown more legs (no pun intended) than the Biden pick, the arguments raging over whether Alaska Governor Sarah Palin as John McCain’s running mate are pretty well divided. There’s the side that says it’s a great move, a ‘game changer’, and it’s tactically smart. Then there’s the other side, my side, that says it’s a desperate move, a nothing selection, and stands to hurt more than help. For my initial reactions to the pick, you can check out the comments on this post. Here I’ll flesh them out and, with the benefit of a new context in which the Republicans are in (no, not in terms of the VP selection, rather the threat that hurricane Gustav is posing to South-West states).

Unfortunately, I find it hard to list things that are purely good and positive reasons for picking her. So forgive me if it gets confusing that whenever I say something is a positive reason for having her as VP, I follow up with a deconstruction and disproving of that same statement. So where to begin?

She’s a woman. Socially, and in a non-political sense, the fact that the Republican ticket will have a woman running for as vice president is a step in the right direction. No, she will not be the first woman VP candidate – the Democrats did it first with Geraldine Ferraro (yes, the same one blog about previously here) in 1984. Politically however, it’s less clear cut. It’s an attempt, by McCain and his campaign, to swing over disgruntled Clinton supporters. And it doesn’t take a trained political eye to see that.

Will it work? It will depend on policy (such is my opinion here) more than the symbolism behind the pick. Based on this, on the idea that policy will inform voters more than them being mindless zombies who vote for pictures with name badges, one has to consider how well Palin’spositions will gel withwomen voters. Her super-anti-abortion position (opposed to abortion in cases of rape and incest) is a view that 90% of Americans, per the latest polling, disagree with. Assuming that women make up for than just a 51%, or 46% in the case of 90%, in that poll, Palin begins behind the ball.

It’s safe to assume that Palin’s right-wing stance, in general, is against what a majority of women (because the Democratic party has more women voters than men) are politically aligned with. When I say majority here, it is a close line, certainly not more than 10%. Policy-wise then, the McCain campaign is going to have a hard time of trying to win over a significant proportion of women voters with justa VP pick. They are going to have to sping three different stories at the same time – that Palinis a woman you should vote for because she would become VP (the story for the women) and could get in control; McCain is going to be the man in charge (for the party); McCain might have picked an inexperienced VP, but it won’t matter because he will serve his term in full (a defense to the attacks on his age). Those three narratives just don’t work well together. It’s like oil and water and … something that doesn’t mix with oil and water.

Returning to symbolism, because I know there are people who think this plays more than policy. Let’s accept now that the vast majority of African-American women (who are registered more with Democrats) will not see her as any more appealing than having Barack Obamaas president. Because that’s what the question voters who are being targeted with the Palin pick have to ask themselves – would I rather see Barack Obama be president or Sarah Palin as vice president. That’s the symbolic question. The question of what would non-African American women voters do in terms of this symbolic question is difficult to say. I say that it’s a decision they will make on policy. But, symbolically, what would they do? Women, in the latest polls, are more skepticalof Palin than they are not.

Let’s turn to experience. For months now, years even, Obama has been railed for not having enough experience. Hillary Clinton and John Edwards tried and failed during the Democratic primaries. John McCain has been doing it since he became the presumptive nominee. And now it’s all about to (finally) stop. That’s because Sarah Palin has less political experience than anyone left in this two-party race. But how will this factor in?

It could be good. Obama is campaigning for change, right? Here’s a woman who might have spent a holiday weekend in Washington, D.C., once, and that’s the extent she has been ‘tainted’ by the dirty capital. Less experience generally means less things to be criticised for, less chance of a political scandal, and more chance to paint your own image as is best for the national electorate. She was the mayor of Wasilla for 6 years, and has been governor of Alaska for 1 and a half now. These are roles I expect to be taken into consideration because I include Obama’s state service as something to be considered.

But let’s not just accept the label ‘executive experience’ as something that automatically entitles you to be labeled as a better candidate, a great choice, and a game changer. She was the mayor of a town with a population of less than 6000 by the time she left that office. She is the governor of a state that has the 478thsmallest population with 683,478 in 2007 estimates. I don’t criticise the state of Alaska for not being more ‘productive’, what I do criticise is that people think the experience Palin has gained from these roles accurately reflects the type of executive experience that is required to do a good job as president.

And I won’t make bones about it – Obama and Biden has no executive experience. But neither does McCain. This begs the question: Is Palin, therefore, more experienced or more qualified to be president than McCain? I doubt anyone would answer yes to that. But in terms of political experience, Obama and Biden and McCain all have much more than Palin. The job of the president is a lot of learning while doing. Let’s not pretend that it’s not. There is no other job like it in the word. But having a sound political knowledge base, an understanding of how D.C. works from having been there long enough to figure it out (as if you could ever figure U.S. politics out), will be more beneficial than the ‘executive experience’ that Alaska gave to Palin.

So this begs the (quick) question of does time in D.C. then equate to being a better president? No is my response. I believe you could spend too long in D.C. and get caught up in the whole dirty politics of it. If so, Ted Stevens, the senator from (surprise) Alaska and the longest serving Republican senator, would be running for president as the Republican candidate. But look at his current indictment for bribes and ethical breeches.

That’s getting off track. Bringing it back, Palin has a shorter record of experience than Obama or Biden, regardless of what type of experience it might be. And she will be as close to being president as Biden will be – Biden the extremely experienced senator who polls indicate a majority of people think is qualified to be VP. So the voters will be asked this question: Do I want to vote for a ticket that has a person who has been a governor for 1.5 years as the VP, or do I want a 35 year serving senator in the waiting? That’s the question, not who has more executive experience or who has run what for longer. The competition is not between Palin and Obama on this front, it’s between Palin and Biden.

As a result of her lacking experience, any attack that McCain’s campaign might make about Obama being less experienced than McCain, the Obama team can simply retort that the person in waiting is less experienced than any candidate in the race. It’s a pre-made advert already. So you will see McCain refrain from using any attacks on experience from here on in because he has that weakness on his own ticket if he opens that door. He will keep that door closed and locked.

He really shouldn’t have locked the door, because that was the #1 thing that McCain had on Obama. Now, he has very, very little. And if someone tells me foreign policy is McCain’s advantage, I’ll point out to them that his foreign policy views are disagreed withby more than 60% of American voters. It’s more of the same with McCain – more war, more delusions, more Bush. But how does this relate to Palin?

She has nil, none, no foreign policy experience whatsoever. Literally none. With her in charge if McCain were unable to serve out his term(s), the voters will be asked do you want Palin or Biden to be that person? Biden who is themost respected senator on foreign policy bar none, or Palin? Even Obama has foreign policy experience – a seat on the Foreign Relations, and the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Senate committees, and is chairman of the European Affairs subcommittee. No, this is not as extensive as McCain’s foreign policy experience, but it is some that should be counted and not ignorantly discounted.

Moving on to the next thing – how will the pick be viewed? Will it be seen as a great idea or a blatant attempt to get women voters. I say the latter, and I’ll tell you why. McCain hardly knows Palin, she is the least experienced VP around, and he has put her a heartbeat away from being president. McCain stated that his top priority for his VP would be someone who is qualified to step in and be president. Few will believe he was sincere to that pledge with his pick. And it comes in the light of Hillary Clinton losing to Obama in the primary. It reeks of consolation prize. The question is will women voters ignore this, or will they flock to her? I’ve made my answer clear on this already.

From this, it looks like a desperate move. Why do something desperate if you’re in this ‘close race’ that everyone (nearly) is talking about? Why take a hugegamble and a big risk and pick Palin when picking Romney for economic clout, Huckabee for religious security, Pawlenty for executive experience? It means that the race is not close that it needed a game changer from McCain because the game was against him! This is logic. Simple logic. If you need to bust out a game changer, then that obviously means you have to change the game because it’s not in your advantage.

Reports come out that the mass media discounts, because they don’t sell and require the audience to think, that the McCain internal polling, as well as the Obama internal polling, has data coming out that Obama is in a much better position than national polling suggests. I’ll quote from one of my comments as to why this is the case:

The polls are not tight. You look at it at a national level, much like the media does. You, and the media, have it all wrong. This is a race for state EVs. Remember that next time you look at a national poll that has polled people:

• From states that won’t change hands;
• At proportions from the 2004 election;
• Changing times of days;
• Different times of the week

Each of these will wildly change the results of a poll. Getting a proportion of black respondents relative to 04 levels will be nothing near the levels of African-American turnout this year. Similarly, Democrats have registered more than a million new voters, while the Republicans have lost registered voters.

Obama is winning all of the Kerry states. Bush won against Kerry 286 to 252. So start just on that. Iowa is going to Obama – 259. New Mexico will go to Obama – 264. He’s 5 EVs away from a tie (which he will win) and 6EVs short of an outright win, meaning he needs just one of the following swing states:

• Ohio
• Florida
• Virginia
• North Carolina
• Indiana
• Colorado
• Nevada

Or a combination of the following states that are close between the two:

• Montana
• North Dakota
• South Dakota

Go flip a coin 7 times and see if you get at least 1 heads from 7 tails. Seriously, because McCain *must* win all those 7 swing states. National polling doesn’t tell you this because national polling suggests the race is close – it is not. National polling fuels the media who want to make everything to look like suspense and anger are running the race. It is not.

The internal data that I talk about shows that Obama is very strong in Colorado and Nevada. That’s the race over there. But he is also in a dead heat at the moment for Virginia and Ohio, while Florida, North Carolina, and Indiana is 5% differences. All Obama has to do is pick 3 of the big, expensive swing states, and there is no way McCain can defend the 3 while also ensuring that all the other states don’t fall to Obama.

That’s the game McCain’s pick of Palin was hoping to change. Will it change it? It will change some things, but I doubt it will change the game as much as people think. No VP pick has ever had a large positive impact on increasing voters for the presidential candidate. Well, not since Abe Lincoln. What it will change is how people view McCain. And all of the above, and more that I will get to, compound the issue of confusion about McCain. He used to be the ‘maverick’, but not only has he ran to the right, he has picked someone so far right she might as well be the ‘t’ in  the word. He talks about how his VP should be ready to step into the job, but he’s picked someone who it can be argued is not. It absolutely magnifies the question about his age tenfold, and he has been trying to avoid that for obvious reasons. And he is targeting Clinton voters, but takes a gamble on a move that is likely to push a lot of them away. What is he doing?

Let’s take up one of those points – that she is a hardcore right-wing person. Who is that possibly going to appeal to? It won’t Democratic voters, and it won’t to Independents. It only appeals to the right – which could be a good thing … if McCain was still ‘maverick’, then it would make sense. But he has been suring himself up to the right for months now. His pick was something done obviously to appease the Republican machine. Palin is anti-abortion, she has ties to big oil, wants to teach creationism in the classroom, wants to drill for oil and do it now, she is being endorsed by right-wing pundits everywhere all the way to Rush Limbaugh, and she supported a Nazi-sympathiser for president. You don’t get much more right-wing than that than actually busting out Pat Buchanan – the guy who is the Nazi sympathiser! Who is this pick really going to appeal to?

How is it going to sure up the Jewish vote in Florida? The Latino vote in Nevada? The urban votes in swing states? The new North belt of blue Democrat suburbs forming in Virginia? The blue collar vote in Ohio? These are the swing states that McCain needs to defend. And he has picked someone who really won’t have any policy appeal to the people who are losing houses, can’t afford petrol (her ‘drill now’ stance might, but it can be spun straight away to short term band-aid and not a long term fix, not caring about the future of the environment, and anti-global warming), are losing their jobs, and who hate the war.

And then, if her positions aren’t enough of ‘more of the same’, she’s already caught up in one ethics investigation in Alaska, she’s got another in her closet too. That is more of the same – and she hasn’t even been in Washington! She appointed a man to a government position that should not have - a man accused of sexual harassment. Want some more of the same? She vetoed a bill, her first, that would have enabled health benefits to partners of gay employees.

Oh, and she loves hunting. Dick Cheney 2.0 right here!

How is this pick a game changer? McCain was already losing the game – and now his pick means he is still losing the game. Which of the 10 swing states is this going to lock up and give Obama only 9 paths to walk to the White House? Ok, if she doesn’t do anything voter wise, how does she negate any attacks from Obama on age? On experience? On ethics? On more of the same? On policy?

She just doesn’t. And what’s the worst part is that she needs to be branded. Not re-branded, because the US, for the most part, hasn’t heard of her. She needs her first branding. And because it’s being done in a general election, and not before, Obamais going to have a say as well with the ads and speeches that his campaign comes out with. Expect Hillary Clinton to campaign twice as much now. Expect to hear her talking about real change, and not tokenistic change. And being branded is going to take money and time in the swing states that McCain doesn’t have. Ignoring just one of those 7 states means a loss in the election.

People don’t know her because she hasn’t done anything nationally. How will she fare under the pressure? That’s a gamble in itself. McCain makes enough gaffs for two campaigns. What if Palin starts? Sometimes it takes just one, and it will ruin any slim chance you have. The VP debates, while not election deciders, will be very important and covered extensively. Do we really think she will beat Biden?

The benefit of being a woman here means that the Obama campaign is pushed into a corner to really cover their backs in terms of gaffs. Make one misconstrued comment that comes off as sexist, and the race is suddenly in shambles. It’s the same for McCain and Obama’s race – he can’t say anything at all, because it will be construed negatively whatever it is. It’s the same here, and Obama and Biden both need to be on their best behaviour.

Finally, and this will be the last point, the Palin pick makes Obama look safer. For months now he has had to battle attacks wherein he was cast as the gamble pick and McCain was the safe choice. It didn’t work too well, but it certainly won’t work now. Pick Obama and you have a president who can run the country and you have a VP who can run the country. Pick Obama and you have a president with foreign policy experience and you have a VP with foreign policy experience. Obama has been campaigning for months now, and has been square in the public eye. People are used to him and the sight of him. He isn’t scary anymore. And the thought of having a black president has been out and swirling around for over a year now. And it might not be what everyone wants, but people are desensitised to it. People are not desensitised to having a female Republican VP yet. It will take time – more time and more money.

So judgement? The Palin pick is not a game changer, is not the best pick, and I don’t think a gamble that was necessary or will pay off. Palin as VP, however, is a media grab (and it did, for 2 days), an attention getter (and it did, for 2 days), and something that gets people talking. But now, with the RNC canceled for the most part because of hurricane Gustav, any momentum that the Palin pick would have garnered has been stopped, the media isn’t focused on Republicans, rather the hurricane, and all the talk of her has died already.

Sarah Palin was either the worst best pick that was out there or the best worst pick.

Thomas.

Reevaluating the VPs

The VP lists, as they stand in my mind:

1: Charlie Crist
2: Tim Pawlenty
3: Mike Huckabee
4: Rob Portman
5: Sarah Palin

For the Repulicans, Governor or Texas Rick Perry drops off the list of top 5, Governor of Florida Charlie Crist moves up to #1 spot, Governor of Minnesota Tim Pawlenty makes the #2, Mike Huckabee falls to #3, and Governor of Alaska Sarah Palin moves up to a viable #5. Mitt Romney drops off the list too, and Rob Portman, who came up in the comment discussion, creeps into #4. This is based on some polls, some tactics that I have hypothesised, and some rumours that I’ve been hearing out there.

1: Tim Kaine
2: Bill Richardson
3: Ted Strickland
4: Kathleen Sebelius
5: Jim Webb

For the Democrats, the only change is that Governor of Ohio Ted Strickland moves up to #3. Tim Kaine I still say is #1 because a recent poll came out showing Obama is ahead of McCain in Virginia. If Obama is making grounds in that area of the U.S. – the Appalachia area that Clinton swept – then it would be advantageous to have a candidate from that area to firm up votes. Jim Webb makes the 5 because he is from the same area – though I still consider him to be a bad choice in the light of the 4 ahead of him.

Though saying all that about Kaine, if McCain went with Crist, it would leave Ohio open (because Portman was the only Republican VP option from Ohio), and choosing Strickland would be a better choice to win that state – and an important state it would be. While Crist gets Florida for McCain, Strickland gets Ohio for Obama, and the two cancel each other out. And, with Obama going better in swing states, McCain would really need a state like Ohio to fall to him if he has any chance of winning.

I bumped Ed Rendell from the list because Obama’s numbers in Pennsylvania are firming up there quite well without his support.

Those are the lists I’ll settle on. It will fall like dominoes though, you watch. McCain will settle on a strategy for the election. Then he picks the VP that is best for that – and, from the list, he has many viable options. Then Obama will know what he has to do to win. So he will pick his VP. His top 3 each show a different election tactic to, and each is a viable response to a McCain approach.

It’s going to be very exciting this part.

Thomas.

McCain’s VP – Rice?

Readers here know that ever since the Republican primary race ‘finished up’ (in that John McCain became the presumptive nominee), I focused on the Democratic side of things. Not only because it would prove to be more interesting, but because I genuinely want to see Barack Obama win the primary race, and go on to win the presidential election.

Anyway, when irregularly I’ll rope in some Republican news, but today, this post is all concerned with Republicans. In as much as the same way Al Gore’s name was brought up to create buzz around the impending presidential election, and who would be the running mate of who, another name has been mentioned as to a possible running mate of John McCain. While I still think it’s safe to assume Mike Huckabee is in the first position, and Mitt Romney the 2nd (though this doesn’t mean either are guaranteed the position yet), a new name might have jumped up to the top 5 considerations. The person?  Condoleeza Rice.

For a long time, Rice has been dogged by the question of will she run, especially after she got her promotion to Secretary of State, and when Hillary Clinton became front runner in 2005 for the primary race. The idea of woman vs. woman was such a compelling thought that a few books came out, saying that that would be the November race: Rice vs. Clinton. I thought the idea was ludicrous on two levels – first, that the Republicans would nominate a woman; second (and the biggest of the two), that Republicans would nominate a black person.

That idea floated in the pool for a while, until eventually it drowned. Rice regularly said that she had no intention of running. Over and over again, until the idea just died. Then it was given a breath of life when the primary campaigning kicked to life in November/December of 2007, which just prior to, Rice was rated the most powerful person in Washington (by political polling) due to her position, influence, and ability. And, again, she had to keep denying the idea of her running for office. It died down again, but would pop up every now and then. Like in February:

Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice … made a rare appearance at the State Department’s press briefing room Friday and talked politics. She told the packed room of reporters that she has no interest in running for Vice President on the 2008 Republican ticket. Instead, she says, her next stop will be California.

“I have always said that the one thing that I have not seen myself doing is running for elected office in the United States,” Rice said. “I didn’t even run for high-school President, Rice joked, “It’s not in my genes.”

Rice added that there are “very good people running for the American people to make their choices. I will be making my choice as a voter and that’s going to be fun after a campaign in 2000 in which I was extremely involved.” Rice says she is not involved at all in this campaign.

It was the same sort of answer, though “It’s not in my genes” was a new line. Anyway, I never got caught up in the idea that it could happen as much as others (though I would actually be very interested in the race if it did happen).

Finally, come April, Dan Senor, a Fox News contributor and of various political associations (all Republican), said that Rice has been, in recent weeks, maybe months, positioning herself to be the pick for vice president on McCain’s ticket. Transcript of Senor’s interview here. Basically, here are the arguments in his theory (edited by me for brevity) from Hannity and Colmes:

SENOR: And I think it’s a very difficult job to campaign for or ask for. I think if she were asked to do it, she would do it. I think the challenge for her, which she recognizes, is that there are some concerns among some conservatives about her being on a ticket. So she’s actually been pretty good recently about reassuring conservatives that she would be there for them and her message and narrative are compelling as far as they’re concerned, and she — and I heard from a number of conservative political leaders in the last couple of weeks, who have met with her, who have seen her speak, and that she felt very reassured by her and want her to run.

HANNITY: Well, you’ve got the Americans for Tax Reform, Grover Norquist, that … meet and they are conservatives and she went there.

SENOR: Right. So there’s about 100 or 150 of these conservative political leaders that aren’t — it’s not necessarily foreign policy issues. They deal with economic issues.

HANNITY: Mostly taxes.

SENOR: Mostly taxes, right. Socially political issues, and he organizes meetings every Wednesday. It’s sort of a “who’s who” among some of the political leadership within Washington and they typically have political types come briefed on various policy issues and political issues. She came.

HANNITY: She came. On her own?

SENOR: Well, I.

HANNITY: Was she invited?

SENOR: I presumed they negotiated something. But it’s rare for a secretary of state. You can’t imagine Secretary Baker or Secretary George Schultz or one of these former Republican.

And:

SENOR: There have been a couple of people close to her who have made the case to me in the past that she would be a good vice president. But this is coming — keep on, this is reporting that is coming from conservative political leaders that have met with Secretary Rice, who incidentally think she would be great if she’s on the ticket.

COLMES: Has she told them she wants the job?

SENOR: You would have to ask them.

Also:

SENOR: The McCain campaign as some point is going to have to consider, what is the right profile for the ticket? Right? You can go one route, which is the sort of unknown, fresh face, outsider, someone to balance out McCain, balance out his Washington experience, or someone to reinforce all of his years of experience and security.

Anyone who has watched Hannity and Colmes knows that it’s a left-wing host and a right-wing host, talking about political news, and they have guests on through the show. Colmes is the lefty, Hannity is the righty. Colmes was quick to point out that Rice’s office had said Senor has no connection with Rice, and doesn’t know anything about her future plans, that she had repeatedly denied wanting the job, has said she wants to go back to lecturing, and that (most glaringly obvious) it would be McCain hooking up with a President Bush-confidant. Already Democrats are saying that a vote for McCain is another vote for Bush, but with someone from his administration as responsible for his foreign policy mess-ups as Bush himself, then it will be impossible to create distance between a McCain administration, and the Bush administration.

I, for the record, have believed for some time in what Colmes has to say about picking Rice. It would be a gutsy, but quite possibly suicidal decision.

The fallout from this interview began early. Rice coped it first, and she said:

I very much look forward to watching this campaign and voting as a voter. I have a lot of work to do and then I’ll happily go back to Stanford.

Then McCain got the questions. He said, of the rumours that she was maneuvering for the position, that he must have ‘missed those signals’, and:

I think she’s a great American. I think there’s very little that I can say that isn’t anything but the utmost praise for a great American citizen, who served as a role model to so many millions of people in this country and around the world.

Political pundits weighed in on the decision too. I won’t quote them all, just Gloria Borger, CNN political analyst, as a segway:

Obviously, as an instantly recognizable national figure, Condi Rice would have to appear on any vice-presidential list.

And she certainly would add star power to a ticket. The next day, polling data came out that indicated the McCain/Rice ticket would beat a Clinton/Obama or Obama/Clinton ticket by 3% or 5% respectively in the state of New York! I know it would be presumptive to say this would be the finite outcome, but for any poll to not lean towards the Democrats in New York is quite a shock, especially with Clinton leading the ticket. Witha  +/- 4% error rate, and a sampling size of 576 registered New York voters, it was quite a surprise to read this. Any ideas of the Democrats winning the White House back includes the assumption that New York and California don’t even have to be defended, much less brought into question. If any Republican ticket could challenge one of the bluest of blue states, I think the party and the candidate would have second thoughts about saying no to that prospect straight off the bat. CNN carried the story, and it topped the most read article section for quite a few days. It seemed like a popular hypothetical, much like Al Gore getting in on the race too.

Anyway, Rice was then trotted up to the Hill to give evidence on the use of torture by U.S. officials on detainees and prisoners. The documents of discussions tabled by Rice (discussions and meetings that she herself chaired) indicated that the use of torture by Americans has been so thought out as discussed that there is no way to remove Rice, Bush, or the current administration from the pro-torture argument. The specific methods and amount of times CIA agents could use torture as a method of interrogation was approved by Rice, Vice President Dick Cheney, former National Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, former Secretary of State Colin Powell, former CIA Director George Tenet, and former Attorney General John Ashcroft. These documents pretty much sealed the fate of Rice not getting the V.P. slot with McCain – McCain is one of the few Republican politicians that genuinely oppose and speak-out against torture. Maybe it’s because he was tortured at the hands of the Vietnamese as a P.O.W.?

Anyway, as much as a great hypothetical race as could be thought up when Rice’s name was in the mix, it seems out of reach now. I know that you should never say never in politics, but this is a very, very, very remote possibility. I don’t expect it or think it will happen. I still think Mike Huckabee is heading McCain’s “list of 20″, with Romney coming in next. The problem for McCain is that he doesn’t have as much free-reign in picking his running mate if he wants to win. He is struggling with his party base still, so he needs someone secure with them. If he himself was sound in getting the hard-right’s vote, he could probably run with a woman or a more moderate. But he really has that ‘outsider’ position saved for himself, so he needs to pick an insider. Tim Pawlenty (Governor of Minnesota), and Charlie Crist (Governor of Florida), both from swing states, are probably up the list too. Pawlenty is currently serving as co-chairman of John McCain’s campaign – so he is positioned well for the slot. So too Crist – he endorsed McCain early, and regularly receives praise from McCain. Rounding out the five would be Governor of Texas Rick Perry. He should be very sound with the party base. Just check out his policy positions. While Texas isn’t a swing state by any shot, this is a candidate who is a sure-fire favourite among conservatives and the sort of person to be set-up for in 4/8 years time, should the Republicans stage the impossible and win. A long shot (though maybe not as long as some might think) is Governor of Alaska Sarah Palin. She’s not as conservative as some of the previous names mentioned, but probably more than McCain. Again, not from a swing state, but a woman, a conservative, a record of cutting government spending, good positions (for her party, and for winning independent voters) on some policies, and young and ‘attractive’ all helps her in getting a mention on the list I would think.

Oh the possibilities. I could go on for some time, but I think my list of 6 (Huckabee, Romney, Pawlenty, Crist, Perry, Palin) is something I’m happy to settle on. If it isn’t one of them, then it’s a wildcard.

Thomas.

Mike Huckabee is out (finally!)

Yes, at long last, even after being told it was mathematically impossible to win the Republican nomination, Mike Huckabee has dropped out of the Republican primary race, thus ensuring that John McCain will be the nominee. Yes, I know Ron Paul is still in the race, but I’m getting more and more doubtful that the ‘Ron Paul Revolution’ will actually come to fruition. In fact, I am beginning to wonder if he was ever a serious candidate, or maybe his campaign was a money-making scheme.

Anyway, Mike Huckabee dropped out after accepting that he would lose another round of primaries, including the reasonably big state of Texas. Rhode Island, Ohio, and Vermont he lost as well. If I were a Huckabee supporter, I’d be rather mad at him for seeing these states through. You see, the longer Huckabee stayed in it after Super Tuesday, the worse he was going to look. Sure, there was credit for staying in for some of the February primaries, but when it became literally impossible for him to win the nomination, he quickly became a laughing stock. I mean, when Mitt Romney, who had more delegates than Huckabee and was polling well in some states, pulled out and Huckabee stayed in, it was rather silly. In doing so, he hurt his chances of being a potential Vice President on the McCain ticket, and any future race he may want to run in 4 years time.

Huckabee was always going to find it difficult to back up his win in Iowa with the schedule. New Hampshire was almost always going to go McCain’s way, and Romney had a strong hold over the mid-west and central states. McCain got an enormous boost out of no where, and suddenly it was only ever going to be a two-man race to Super Tuesday (Romney vs. McCain), and the winner of that would be the nominee. It was McCain, as we all know, and he was the nominee. Somehow Huckabee didn’t believe it and continued. He was popular in the south, and with the ‘traditional’ Republicans – two parties that McCain was struggling with. But when Huckabee lost primary after primary through February, it was time to go. Maybe he wanted to prove a point about his popularity in the south and win Texas. He didn’t, and now he looks worse.

Like Romney, Huckabee will now be working to get another red (Republican, not communist) back into the White House:

We’ll be working on doing everything we can to help Senator McCain and to help our party.

That is an example of party unity, and a prime example of what the Democrats should do. In more specific terms: Clinton should concede to Obama, and let the real race begin. She won’t, of course. She will think that today’s results (I’ll report on them later) justifies her staying in and ruining the Democrat’s chances in the general election. They don’t, and she should have pulled out prior to today to save the Democratic party a whole heap of trouble.

Anyway, that’s getting off topic. I was just writing in to report that Mike Huckabee is out of the race, and John McCain is officially all but (I know that doesn’t make a whole lot of sense) the Republican nominee. Unless he dies of old age – something that’s on the cards.

Thomas.

Democrats Abroad Results

This has come up before on this blog. The voting ‘group’ known as the Democrats Abroad held their primary elections from February 5th until the 12th, and gave U.S. voters overseas the chance to vote. I had originally thought that the results would be in when the Democrats Abroad group held their convention in April (12-13), however, it seems that the results were released early.

It’s another win for Barack Obama, winning 65% of the votes. This also makes his 11th straight win in the primary process. With this result, Obama has (so far) won 2.5 of the delegates that the Democrats Abroad send to the Democratic National Convention. He only gets 2.5 because he won 5 of the 9 delegates tied to the vote (out of the 14 total), and those 5 only count for half a vote on the D.N.C. floor. Hillary Clinton won 4 delegate through the vote, and this gives her two.

164 countries participated in the online vote, while 30 countries had polling booths that allowed people to turn out in person. There were roughly 20,000 votes registered. I would be interested to see some more numbers on the voting – where the most people voted, some demographic results, etc. But I doubt any news station will be covering this news in such depth.

The Democrats Abroad global convention will now be used to select the remaining 5 delegates for the D.N.C.. They are superdelegates, so their allegiance (or 2.5 votes) might not matter for much considering the global convention is being held in Vancouver, April 12 through 13.

This was just an update to the post, and the thread of comments that showed that someone was interested in the whole Democrats Abroad process. But it does put Obama a tiny bit closer to the nomination. At the moment, the race stands at this juncture:

Total Delegates:

• Barack Obama: 1365.5
• Hillary Clinton: 1273

Pledged Delegates:

• Barack Obama: 1192.5
• Hillary Clinton: 1035

Superdelegates:

• Barack Obama: 173
• Hillary Clinton: 238

The magic number required for nomination, for the Democrats, is 2025 delegates. Because probably neither candidate will reach this number, and the superdelegates will be left to decide the nominee, I suspect the winner will be the one with the more pledged delegates come the end of the race. Unless, of course, Clinton pulls out when she loses Texas and  Vermont, and splits Ohio and Rhode Island come the 4th of March.

And, maybe because readers might care, here is the count for the Republicans:

Total Delegates:

• John McCain: 975
• Mike Huckabee: 245
• Ron Paul: 14

Unpledged R.N.C.:

• John McCain: 81
• Mike Huckabee: 5
• Ron Paul: 0

It should be noted that, while out of the race, John Edwards still has 26 (all pledged delegates), and Mitt Romney still has 272 (1 unpledged R.N.C.).
Thomas.

Romney is out

In what is probably, to date, the biggest candidate to drop out, Mitt Romney has decided his hopes for winning the Republican nomination this time around are over. He drops out after a disappointing showing in Super Tuesday, and an average lead-up. Much like Hillary Clinton, Romney was pegged as the winner after John McCain’s campaign problems hit mid-2007. From then to Iowa, it was looking as though he would go through unopposed. But then all the issues started up for him. Huckabee won Iowa, and then everyone started questioning his conservativeness. Then when John McCain became the frontrunner, everyone was hesitant to rally around Romney. Which made him look weak and unable to secure the Republican base. This gave Mike Huckabee, a fringe candidate, room enough to squeeze into equal second with Romney, and you could see when that happened, that his campaign was over.

While some people might be surprised at Romney dropping out, I think many people will not. He hasn’t been performing as well as expected, McCain looks like the nominee. Additionally, and this is the most daunting part. Romney would have to win three-quarters of all delegates from here to June to win the nomination. One delegate less, and McCain has it. Now that Romney has dropped out, Huckabee is faced with the same prospect. But seeings as Huckabee is merely showing off to the Republican party in the hopes of getting a V.P. spot to McCain (something very much a possibility), he won’t possibly think himself capable of getting the three-quarters.

It’s interesting to note that in the past week, the conservative pundits and personalities eventually came around to Romney, when faced with the prospect of McCain. They tried to get the conservative base to rally for Romney, but it was too late. Rush Limbaugh, probably the most known conservative radio personality, finally started singing Romney’s praise once McCain looked like winning the nomination. But for a candidate to stand any chance, you need the voices of the party base to be singing your praises before voting starts, not when you’re suddenly the lesser of two evils.

I don’t blame Romney entirely for his failed campaign. I think that the moderate party voters see John McCain as two things – a fresh change and a candidate who stands a chance against the extremely popular Clinton or Barack Obama. While the hard-line Republicans would nominate the most unelectable candidate, the moderates, who still want to see their party in the White House, whether moderate or hard-line, actually see promise in McCain. It should be obvious to people how hard a time Romney or Huckabee would have had winning the presidential race. Romney who struggles to rally the base, loses independent voters, and doesn’t have a consistent stand on any issue. Huckabee who rallies the base, but that’s it.

But probably the worst thing that Romney did to his own campaign was change his targeted voters over and over again. He started not targeting anyone, then said he was targeting progressive, then the base when he became favourite, then he thought he’d target everyone leading up to the first votes, then he had to target the base again when challenged by Huckabee. And each time he had to chance his stance on things. He was a moderate as governor, then had to change his views to the hard-right, then had to defend himself for flip-flopping.
If you’re having that hard a time winning and keeping votes, you have a serious problem. I guess it was that his message wasn’t consistent, or even crafted well. If he has targeted moderates and progressive Republicans from the start, like McCain is doing now, then he probably would be in McCain’s position now. He really needed to capitalise on the McCain campaign’s (American) Summer problems. Instead, he brought into the adage that you can’t win a Republican nomination without the base. You can, but winning the presidential election you cannot. But that’s what the rest of the campaign is for – and that’s what McCain is going to do for the next few months: Sure up the base. It’s what Romney could have done.

Anyway, my pick for the Republican ticket is out.It’s pointless to say I expect McCain to win the nomination now because he effectively has won it. From here on in is a formality. I should state this – while I picked him for the nomination, I still disliked him. There no real Republican candidate I like. McCain’s previous moderate views (which he seems to have abandoned), plus his continued support for the Iraq war (saying it could be a 100 year war) are what really turns me off him. Anyway, my first disdain for Romney came in his concession speech today, where he said:

Frankly, I’d be making it easier for Senator Clinton or Obama to win. I simply cannot let my campaign be a part of aiding a surrender to terror.

If you seriously think that a Democratic win if a ‘surrender to terror’ then good riddance you bum.

Thomas.

Super Tuesday X – The summary, and the next steps

So this will probably be my last post about Super Tuesday. It will would be desperate to blog about it further. But considering I spent most of last night thinking about how the whole day played out, and how it’s going to impact things down the line, for Obama, I thought all that brain power could be put to use in a post.

So here we are, days after the votes were cast. Who is the winner? Who is the loser? Given the shape of the race, who the candidates are, and what the results were, Barack Obama was the winner. Slightly, but he was still the winner. Remember that Hillary Clinton was the presumptive nominee through all of 2007, and then again after she won New Hampshire and nearly won Nevada. Also remember than Hillary is a Clinton, and the political and people weight that that name carries. Keeping all this in mind, for Obama to win the majority of states and lose (in the total vote) by only 0.4%, I’d say Obama did a damn good job of keeping the race close and tight. He won more states, he won some by huge margins, and he pulled off upsets. That’s only possible if you’re a real contender, and not a hanger-on.

Didn’t you hear? The difference between votes was 0.4%:

By midday Wednesday, 14,645,638 votes were reported cast for either Obama or Clinton on Tuesday. Clinton had won 7,350,238 of those votes (50.2 percent) while Obama captured 7,295,400 votes (49.8 percent).

That, my friends, is a very tight race for someone who was supposed to have the nomination stitched up by midday Wednesday. Don’t believe anything that’s being said to the contrary – the Clinton campaign was expecting to have the nomination the bag bag by today. Or, when things started looking tight, at least have Clinton as the obvious frontrunner. By the close of the day though, all she had done was do the minimum that she had to do. She kept her home states and won California. But New York and California weren’t as big wins as the campaign had expected just a few weeks ago. Had she not delivered on these, then she would have taken a step into 2nd place, become the underdog, and would have handed the nomination over to Obama then and there.

Why would Obama have been the clear nominee had Clinton lost, say, New Jersey or California? Because the news cycles would have been covered with Obama’s face, and then all the stories would have been about ‘giant killer’ Obama. The media would have tossed Clinton aside and written her off. Obama would have obtained so much momentum that there would be no stopping him. Now though, what we have is a tight race that is going to go on for months – and that’s what the media is saying now too. Of course, the Obama campaign has known that if he was to stand any chance, he would have to run a very tight Super Tuesday, split the delegates, then continue through the rest of the schedule that really favours him. The schedule favours him because all of Clinton’s fortresses are out of the way. Where is the next state that you can say “Clinton will walk that in”? Now where. New York, New Jersey, California, Arizona, Oklahoma, New Mexico, Arkansas. They were all Clinton locks and supposed to be the ammo she used to throw at Obama and put him out of the race.He’s weathered them all and survived quite well. She couldn’t even get the upper hand with them. So now what does she have? Nothing in the immediate schedule.

The schedule, through February, is as follows:

• 9th – Louisana primary, Nebraska caucus, Washington caucus;
• 10th – Maine caucus;
• 12th – Virginia primary, Washington, D.C. primary, Maryland primary;
• 19th – Hawaii caucus, Wisconsin primary

There’s a very good chance that Obama can win all of those. That’s not based on polling data, it’s based on looks at the state. Louisiana has a huge ‘black’ vote voter block which really favors (75% or higher) Obama, while having and a very small ‘Latino’ vote, which will hurt Clinton’s chances. Nebraska, Washington, and Maine are all caucuses. Obama has done extremely well in caucuses (won the Iowa caucus, won all six on Super Tuesday). D.C. too has a huge ‘black’ vote, while also having a comparatively small ‘Latino’ vote. And again, Maryland also has a big ‘black’ vote. Hawaii, another caucus, is Obama’s birth state. Maybe there will be something there for him along that line of approach? Virginia’s primary will have a lot of voters that have regularly come out in support of Obama – educated, higher income voters. Wisconsin is, really, the only state in the process that could go to either candidate, looking at its demographics.

The Clinton campaign hasn’t even taken a serious look at these states though. While Obama is well organised in all of these states, Clinton’s website doesn’t even have a page devoted to the next states. The campaign has completely ignored them, absolutely reinforcing the fact that they thought they would have the nomination sewn up by then. And it’s when this inevitability is removed that Clinton will really begin to suffer. She polls so high on name recognition. If people recognise her name, but are hearing that not only is she not a lock to win the nomination, but her opponent who you haven’t heard of is beating her, then you’re not likely to turn out for her. Maybe you won’t turn out at all, maybe you will go vote for the other guy. But it’s when Clinton is no longer seen as the presumptive nominee that it starts to hurt her, and hurt her bad.

And with all of those states favouring Obama, can you imagine the momentum he would gain posting victory after victory through an entire month, without letting your opponent eve get a shoe in? The momentum will work two ways as well. It helps the chances in the states, sure, but it also sures up superdelegates who want to get onto the ‘winner’. If tere’s a nominee who is going strength to strength and looks unstoppable, then the superdelegates are going to get behind him. Momentum gets superdelegates, and with a lot of superdelegates out, momentum is coveted. A couple of big wins in the February states too, and the delegate count begins to look overwhelming as well. The Clinton campaign has seen this on the horizon for some time, and done nothing about it. Why? Because they expected to have the nomination by now. But now that they haven’t, well, I expect there is a bit of panic around town.

Creating more panic for the campaign I expect is the latest issues surrounded money. Through January, Clinton raised something around $13 million. That’s a good effort in any normal primary race through the first month of voting. But Obama managed to raise a whopping $32 million! Obama’s grassroots are really thriving, while Clinton’s attempts at raising money are faltering. And money is going to be a big issue moving forward.

Let me explain some contribution rules. A donor can only contribute only $2300 to a campaign. Clinton managed to get many $2300 donors early on. But they are instantly maxed out, so they can’t donate again. Obama, either knowing that his supporters wouldn’t be able to give in $2300 hits, or knowing that going about raising money that way was stupid, actually focused on equaling Clinton’s donation by getting 23 $100 donors. Now, come the crunch, Obama’s donors can still donate. They can all donate another $100 for February. Then again in March. They can continue to donate through to the very end. The Obama campaign has said that only 2-3% of their donors have maxed out the $2300 limit. And one third of donors who gave $200+ (the sorts of people that would continue to give significant amounts) have maxed out. Apparently 10,000 people gave amounts of $5-$10, and 90% of his money came from donations of less than $100. They raised $28 million through internet donation in January – more than Howard Dean managed through his entire 2004 campaign. Over 70% of Clinton’s donors are maxed out. That’s how Obama’s going to win the money wars, and Clinton will lose. She has tapped all her big donors, has no small donors. Obama has many small donors who can continue to fund him. Genius.

What wasn’t genius was to get a heap of money fast, and then not be prepared for what happens after Super Tuesday. Again, this supports the fact that Clinton thought they would have the nomination by the end of Super Tuesday.

With that news coming out in January – that Obama’s campaign was raising record amounts – Clinton had to ‘donate’ $5 million of her own money to her campaign. Last month, in that $13 million, was $5 million of her own money.The Clintons are rich, but they aren’t Mitt Romney rich (who has put in something like $35 million dollars of his own money to his campaign), and at some point they have to stop handing over their own money.

On an ironic note though, the Obama campaign announced that they raised $2.2 million in less than 24 hours! They nearly raised half as much as Clinton had to contributed herself in 24 hours.

Why does money matter? In the ‘big’ states to come (like Texas, Pennsylvania, and Ohio) advertising is very expensive. They both need to get it out there too. Obama will be able to, simply, advertise more. These big states aren’t for a while away, and if she saves her money for them, then she will lose all these ‘middle-to-small’ states in February. And if she does, it won’t matter how much money she has.

Estimates now say she will be ok, at current spending levels, through to early March. But if she doesn’t pick up big bucks soon, she will be broke by then. And everyone is expecting the race to go through April, May, and June. That’s a lot of thin butter. Similarly, there are reports out saying that staffers are now working without pay. The last campaign to try that was Rudy Giuliani’s, and what happened to that? Died, and was ruled a failed campaign. It’s not like the Clinton campaign is about to die tomorrow, but it’s not looking good when your staff is working without pay. It suggests problem.

The Obama campaign, The Clinton campaign, and every pundit knows that the more time Obama spends in a state, the better he goes. It shows in the votes. He won Iowa – a state he spent a lot of time in. Then the gap between Nevada and South Carolina allowed him to spend a heap of time in S.C. and he walked it in there. The same goes for some of these Super Tuesday states. That’s the next factor that comes out of Super Tuesday – there’s no big clusters that doesn’t allow for extended face time. On the 9th, there’s 3 states. Then 1 state, then three states, then two states. With the demographics on his side, face time can be reduced in some areas, extended in others. After the 19th of February, there isn’t one the 4th of March – and that’s the ‘big’ Ohio. He has weeks to show himself to the people of Ohio. And everyone acknowledges that time helps Obama, and hurts Clinton. Then, after March 11, there isn’t another primary until April 22! A huge gap. The schedule is on Obama’s side.

To wrap this up: I said a while ago that Obama just needed to see Super Tuesday out and not let Clinton have established a lead of any serious kind. He did that. That means Super Tuesday is his win. Splitting the delegates was a win, and split them he did. That was the step of Super Tuesday for him. The first step after it is to go very well through the February primaries and caucuses. It’s favourable to him, and the demographics are leaning towards him. The polls will start to come out, the media will get on, and the news cycles will start to propel him further. Can Clinton handle what will become Obamuary? Can she stay in it with money, with states, with votes, and with delegates? Or will her loss at Super Tuesday be the first step towards her dropping off, and eventually dropping out? February will be the biggest month of the primary year I suspect, and not just because of Super Tuesday. It stands as the month that Obama can establish himself as the frontrunner and the Democratic nominee. He just has to play it all right, and work hard at it.

Thomas.