Back on the 25th of September, I thought we were done and going to get our asses kicked across the board like 1996. Not quite the 2008 levels, but bad. I was hearing a few things, and it wasn't good. I posted a blistering comment that asked if Romney was in or out.
From what I have heard, there were some conflicting camps. I know Romney has some campaign staff with strong MI ties. Others were yesmen to the overrated Karl Rove (Crossroads) and wanted to follow the lead of the Superpacs and follow a McCain and coward out. The last thing ANY campaign should do is follow the lead of a republican presidential campaign which lost Indiana at the same time Mitch Daniels won by 17%. When you quit states and don't compete, you have to run the table to win - and the other side plans accordingly.
Personally in the age of Direct TV, Cable, internet, TIVO, new media, cell phones, and high absentee voting, I'd be running campaigns a lot different these days than the old days. Part of it is in some ways going back to the real old small town days, at least in regards to signs.
The site 270 to win lists what their opinion are battle states, red states, and blue states. They list as follows:
Obama - 237, Romney 191, Up for grabs 110
Florida - 29
Ohio - 18
North Carolina - 15
Virginia - 13
Wisconsin - 10
Colorado - 9
Iowa - 6
Nevada - 6
New Hampshire - 4
That leaves little room for error. North Carolina and Florida are musts. Always have been and will be. That makes it 237-235. Obama's going all in for Virginia and Ohio. If he gets both, then Romney needs all of the rest. Good luck with that. Gore nearly did it in 2000, but most candidates don't run the table. If Romney gets both Ohio and Virginia (and NC and Florida), then Obama would have to run the table. Not going to likely happen.
If Obama and Romney split Ohio and Virginia, then those small states will make the difference. Whoever has Ohio has the easier road.
Romney Ohio not Virginia - 253, 17 to go from Wisconsin (10), Colorado (9), Nevada/Iowa (6), and New Hampshire (4). Wisconsin and Colorado are the biggest keys there.
If Michigan, Pennsylvania, Minnesota, or New Mexico becomes up for grabs in the last week (as John Kerry had to campaign in Michigan in the last week), it could make things easier. If Michigan flips, so does Ohio, Florida, and possibly even Pennsylvania. Too many similar demographics. If Romney upsets Obama in Michigan or Pennsylvania, the election will be over.
I don't like the timeline for the move made by the Romney camp with absentees out last week (both my parents and I have ours from Genoa and Green Oak) because 34% of the vote is usually cast before election day. It's cutting it real close. However, I'm glad it's not later than it was. I'm probably turning my in tomorrow. I think Romney's camp started made a big move last week, similar to what I saw two weeks before the election in 04. The differences between 04 and now are this. Bush and Kerry made a bunch of moves in 04 with the big one two weeks out. Romney didn't make many if any moves before the last week. Romney's move was a big one, but he needs another one because he's climbing out of a bigger hole than Bush did in 04. In addition, Bush's opponent was a traitor. Obama's incompetent, arrogant, and the Peter Principle in Chief, but he wasn't with "The New Soldier" and call soldiers war criminals and Genghis Kahn like John Kerry did. The Swift Boat Veterans for Truth won that election for Bush in 04. They won it by their ads and the Kerry senate speech.
It looks like Romney isn't going to coward out like McCain's campaign did. Paul Ryan just visited Oakland University. MIGOP just bought a bunch of signs now and I'm seeing them up at houses, some of which I haven't seen signs before, like in 04. It's a start. We know have a chance, which wasn't the case on September 25th.
That debate was huge. Obama looked like the arrogant, incompetent, smirking nose up in the air, jackass that he is. The Peter Principle in Chief. Romney stopped trying to worry about saying something that could offend people and just started being himself. He ran as a competent businessman. The big issue this year is the economy and jobs. Real jobs, not the fools gold green jobs that rich white progressives on the coasts try and push on real America. Obama's failed there, but of course it's never his fault. He always blames someone else and fails to man up.
The momentum is there. Mitt needs to go out and win this now instead of playing not to lose and prevent (from winning) defense.
My final decisions on the 2012 proposals.
1. Reluctant yes. I don't like either option between the new law and the old law. The new law is less worse than the old law.
2/3/4 - HELL NO.
5 - HELL YES
6 - Reluctant No. I signed the petition (for turnout reasons), and I don't support tax money for a new bridge right now, but it's not something I think that needs to be put in the Constitution. I'm tempted to stick it to Rick Snyder, but don't want to use the Constitution to do that.
For school board:
Howell - Mike Moloney, Deb McCormick, Pat Howle
Brighton - Nick Fiani and Keith Van Hentenryk
Judges:
Supreme Court - Stephen Markman, Brian Zahra, Colleen O'Brien. Big no to Bridget Mary McCormack who has never been a judge at any level.
Probate - I'm keeping this one quiet because I deal with estate planning which is in probate court. It's better for my clients this way unless a candidate which is running would be absolutely terrible and needs to be defeated. Both Miriam Cavanaugh (not the same family/spelling as the Supreme Court Justice) and Lori Marran have their strengths and backgrounds. Cavanaugh is an assistant prosecutor who works mostly in juvenile cases. Juvenile cases are usually handled in probate court in Livingston County. Marran is a referee and works heavily in family law. That's also a probate related area. I think both can do a good job as judge. My choice here is a vote for, and not a vote against. Perform your due diligence, do your research, and make your decision.
The other judicial races here are uncontested. Carol Sue Reader on the District Level and Mike Hatty on the Circuit Level.
Green Oak's getting the blank voting treatment from me outside of the non-incumbent trustee, Tuthill. I'm skipping those races. They are unopposed so it doesn't matter, but I'm tired of all the millages on the ballot here.
Showing posts with label 2012. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 2012. Show all posts
Monday, October 08, 2012
Tuesday, September 25, 2012
It's gutcheck time, Mr. Romney. Are you in or out?
Right now the Romney campaign and their team is at a crossroads. I'm hearing two different rumors conflicting with one another right now. With about a week before the absentees (34% of the vote) and a little less than a month and a half before the November election, it's time for the campaign "experts" and advisors to take a close look at what they are doing, what they aren't doing, and adjust properly.
Now is the time to make a move, and by that, I mean a helluva lot more than just phone calls and lit drop n runs.
I've done a lot of campaign stuff, even after originally planning on doing nothing except my business stuff. Glutton for punishment I guess. I'm not a rookie, and not someone who just armchair quarterbacks after the fact. After 11 years on the inside with politics, I will call out incompetence when I see it. I also do not live in a bubble and come from a family with independents, democrats, republicans, and capital l libertarians. Most of them aren't that political outside of voting and following the issues.
One of the things I refuse to do however are political phone calls. I always thought they hurt us back in the day, and believe more so now. They are a waste of time, money, and resources - ESPECIALLY in a general election campaign. We all know Election Day is in November. People are tired of being called multiple times, from multiple organizations. We have the robocalls, the party calls, the superpac calls, money calls, etc. People don't like to be bothered 7-8 times. It pisses off voters who may very well take actions against that candidate. The insider asks "What are they going to do, vote Obama?" Probably not if it is a base voter (although some have said they will vote for who call them the LEAST), but that voter may very well say "go foxtrot yourself" and stay home, especially for the "electable" candidate that people aren't excited about in the first place. This isn't a race between Romney and Obama (and the 3% of 3rd party votes). This is a 3 way race between Romney, Obama, and staying home. I don't think it is a coincidence that Romney has dropped in all polls after the major Super Saturday phone calls. Some think Paul Scott was recalled partially due to all the phone calls there as well. Romney always had trouble closing the deal. Don't close the deal against him by 7-8 phone calls. Phone calls also have diminishing returns with caller ID. I know the claim about how 7-8 calls help, but even if that was true then (which I doubt) it is certainly untrue for the past few years. I'll mention more on that after the election, win or lose.
The other thing you can't do is insult the base, especially with bad tactics. When you have hundreds of millions of dollars, you need to spend the money wisely. TV ads are only one part of the budget. Some, so they can bray about their large small donor base, are selling their signs (or giving them out to volunteers only). That's the current state of Romney's campaign in Michigan regarding signs. That is possibly the absolute stupidest idea I have ever seen in politics outside of Akin's comments and McCain and the overrated Karl Rove announcing their quitting to the world. Whoever had that idea has his head up his ass and needs to get fired and blacklisted so he is not an adviser on any campaign ever again. Signs belong on yards in front of houses, not right of ways. They belong out starting at this time, not just at polling locations on election day after 35% of the people already voted. Signs in front of houses build momentum which builds on itself transforming light blue states into late swing states forcing opposition to spend money on TV ads where they did not plan to do so before. Sign momentum and hard work with doors takes candidates who supposedly have little shot to win like Joe Hune in 2002 and have them win. You don't refuse to give them out to supporters and then sell signs to people in yet another nagging push to bother people for money - especially when they are used to just picking up signs. You give signs out, and tell people we're running out and need money to get more of these signs that you are seeing everywhere. People don't waste their money on losers. No signs on lawns = loser. Campaigns selling signs and refusing to give them out = loser campaign dragging down the entire ticket and causing insulted members of the base to stay home hurting all of us. Don't complain to the victory center directors. They are just the Indians and follow orders. It's the fault of the advisors and consultants who live in a bubble and have their heads up their asses. When you have hundreds of millions of dollars with fundraising, there is no excuse - none - for not having signs for any supporter that needs one. If county commission and township races can budget for signs properly, so can presidential.
Romney's campaign has to choose whether or not to be a winner or a loser. I'm hearing two different possible scenarios, one I won't say good but not bad. The other scenario is McCain 2008 in its operation. This race will be won or lost likely in the next two weeks. If it is doing the same thing it is doing now, it's game over. I'm hearing conflicting reports in the direction it takes. I've also learned a few things from the past several years.
1. Do not donate to non-local Superpacs or National Organizations. They are run by Washington/Maryland/Virginia and Washington/Maryland/Virginia style consultants in a bubble who don't understand reality. If they can't run things properly, they aren't worthy of our money. We don't work for the party. It's supposed to work for us.
2. LONG TERM - Local parties and organizations needs to be self sufficient and if that steps on a few national toes, TS. Every local and district party should have an active federal FEC and state/local Secretary of State account so we don't let national decisions hurt us down the ticket. Since it has been shown over and over again that National doesn't do things properly, we have to take care of things ourselves and be ready and able adapt to all situations. It's time for our political party money to stay home and not go to Ohio. Those local resources then need to be spent our way and on our terms. Precinct Delegates elect local and (through state convention district caucus) district leadership. We can control our party. It's time we take control in case another national campaign does a McCain and hangs us out to dry.
As far as this goes regarding Romney, I've heard two different scenarios. I don't know if he will do a McCain. He was on a lot of damage control because of the overrated Karl Rove's comments regarding Pennsylvania. Right now regardless of what decision he makes, the momentum is against him. The pundit class has him required to run the table to have a chance to win. That's an unacceptable premis that needs to be changed. It CAN be changed because elections aren't in September. Romney needs to - at worst - make sure Obama has to fight in the light blue states, much as Obama did in Indiana back in 2008, and even Bush in 2000/2004 in a pre Chris Christie New Jersey. If Obama dictates the fight, it's game over.
Romney needs some specific plans that are more than talking points, and needs to create momentum. He needs to put signs up in all those sign locations that requested. ASAP. That encourages supporters. Don't sell them. Don't play games with them. Do your job and let your workers and volunteers get their guy elected.
Are you in or out, Mitt? I'll find out in the next weeks.
Now is the time to make a move, and by that, I mean a helluva lot more than just phone calls and lit drop n runs.
I've done a lot of campaign stuff, even after originally planning on doing nothing except my business stuff. Glutton for punishment I guess. I'm not a rookie, and not someone who just armchair quarterbacks after the fact. After 11 years on the inside with politics, I will call out incompetence when I see it. I also do not live in a bubble and come from a family with independents, democrats, republicans, and capital l libertarians. Most of them aren't that political outside of voting and following the issues.
One of the things I refuse to do however are political phone calls. I always thought they hurt us back in the day, and believe more so now. They are a waste of time, money, and resources - ESPECIALLY in a general election campaign. We all know Election Day is in November. People are tired of being called multiple times, from multiple organizations. We have the robocalls, the party calls, the superpac calls, money calls, etc. People don't like to be bothered 7-8 times. It pisses off voters who may very well take actions against that candidate. The insider asks "What are they going to do, vote Obama?" Probably not if it is a base voter (although some have said they will vote for who call them the LEAST), but that voter may very well say "go foxtrot yourself" and stay home, especially for the "electable" candidate that people aren't excited about in the first place. This isn't a race between Romney and Obama (and the 3% of 3rd party votes). This is a 3 way race between Romney, Obama, and staying home. I don't think it is a coincidence that Romney has dropped in all polls after the major Super Saturday phone calls. Some think Paul Scott was recalled partially due to all the phone calls there as well. Romney always had trouble closing the deal. Don't close the deal against him by 7-8 phone calls. Phone calls also have diminishing returns with caller ID. I know the claim about how 7-8 calls help, but even if that was true then (which I doubt) it is certainly untrue for the past few years. I'll mention more on that after the election, win or lose.
The other thing you can't do is insult the base, especially with bad tactics. When you have hundreds of millions of dollars, you need to spend the money wisely. TV ads are only one part of the budget. Some, so they can bray about their large small donor base, are selling their signs (or giving them out to volunteers only). That's the current state of Romney's campaign in Michigan regarding signs. That is possibly the absolute stupidest idea I have ever seen in politics outside of Akin's comments and McCain and the overrated Karl Rove announcing their quitting to the world. Whoever had that idea has his head up his ass and needs to get fired and blacklisted so he is not an adviser on any campaign ever again. Signs belong on yards in front of houses, not right of ways. They belong out starting at this time, not just at polling locations on election day after 35% of the people already voted. Signs in front of houses build momentum which builds on itself transforming light blue states into late swing states forcing opposition to spend money on TV ads where they did not plan to do so before. Sign momentum and hard work with doors takes candidates who supposedly have little shot to win like Joe Hune in 2002 and have them win. You don't refuse to give them out to supporters and then sell signs to people in yet another nagging push to bother people for money - especially when they are used to just picking up signs. You give signs out, and tell people we're running out and need money to get more of these signs that you are seeing everywhere. People don't waste their money on losers. No signs on lawns = loser. Campaigns selling signs and refusing to give them out = loser campaign dragging down the entire ticket and causing insulted members of the base to stay home hurting all of us. Don't complain to the victory center directors. They are just the Indians and follow orders. It's the fault of the advisors and consultants who live in a bubble and have their heads up their asses. When you have hundreds of millions of dollars with fundraising, there is no excuse - none - for not having signs for any supporter that needs one. If county commission and township races can budget for signs properly, so can presidential.
Romney's campaign has to choose whether or not to be a winner or a loser. I'm hearing two different possible scenarios, one I won't say good but not bad. The other scenario is McCain 2008 in its operation. This race will be won or lost likely in the next two weeks. If it is doing the same thing it is doing now, it's game over. I'm hearing conflicting reports in the direction it takes. I've also learned a few things from the past several years.
1. Do not donate to non-local Superpacs or National Organizations. They are run by Washington/Maryland/Virginia and Washington/Maryland/Virginia style consultants in a bubble who don't understand reality. If they can't run things properly, they aren't worthy of our money. We don't work for the party. It's supposed to work for us.
2. LONG TERM - Local parties and organizations needs to be self sufficient and if that steps on a few national toes, TS. Every local and district party should have an active federal FEC and state/local Secretary of State account so we don't let national decisions hurt us down the ticket. Since it has been shown over and over again that National doesn't do things properly, we have to take care of things ourselves and be ready and able adapt to all situations. It's time for our political party money to stay home and not go to Ohio. Those local resources then need to be spent our way and on our terms. Precinct Delegates elect local and (through state convention district caucus) district leadership. We can control our party. It's time we take control in case another national campaign does a McCain and hangs us out to dry.
As far as this goes regarding Romney, I've heard two different scenarios. I don't know if he will do a McCain. He was on a lot of damage control because of the overrated Karl Rove's comments regarding Pennsylvania. Right now regardless of what decision he makes, the momentum is against him. The pundit class has him required to run the table to have a chance to win. That's an unacceptable premis that needs to be changed. It CAN be changed because elections aren't in September. Romney needs to - at worst - make sure Obama has to fight in the light blue states, much as Obama did in Indiana back in 2008, and even Bush in 2000/2004 in a pre Chris Christie New Jersey. If Obama dictates the fight, it's game over.
Romney needs some specific plans that are more than talking points, and needs to create momentum. He needs to put signs up in all those sign locations that requested. ASAP. That encourages supporters. Don't sell them. Don't play games with them. Do your job and let your workers and volunteers get their guy elected.
Are you in or out, Mitt? I'll find out in the next weeks.
Thursday, February 16, 2012
Michigan's Delegate Process, Preview of race per Congressional District
There's a lot being said about Santorum taking the lead to some degree in most opinion polls. If Santorum wins Michigan, it will be gigantic from a PR, momentum, and fundraising standpoint. From an actual delegate standpoint, it's more complicated than that.
Michigan loses 50% (30) of the delegates for having the election before Super Tuesday. Part of the reason Michigan moved their primary up is because State Party wanted a primary and not a convention. By law in Michigan, elections are held only four days in a year (in response to MEA and school elections)
You can lose the state, and take more of the districts. From what I can find, delegates are apportioned in this fashion.
Two delegates selected at large proportional based on 15% of the vote. I don't know how that would work with two delegates.
Two delegates each, winner take all per NEW 2012 congressional district. These are the new districts, not the current districts. A map of the new districts are here.
Quick rundowns:
Mitchell Poll - Santorum up 17% in Grand Rapids Media Market, 9% in Non Detroit Media Market, 7% Detroit Media Market.
Detroit News poll - Comment - "Oakland County is an island for him"
MRG Poll - Santorum up 3 over Romney in Lansing media market, Santorum up 45 in the UP, Santorum up 18 in Traverse City Market, 16 in Grand Rapids Market, four in Detroit and Flint media markets. Romney up 8 in Oakland County. Tied in Macomb.
PPP Poll by Area Code:
231 - Santorum up 20. 231 is West and Northwest Michigan from around Muskegon north to Petoskey.
248 - Romney up 14. 248 is Oakland County.
269 - Santorum up 14 over Newt. West and Southwest Michigan from around Hastings to Battle Creek to Kalamazoo to St Joe to New Buffalo.
313 - Santorum up 10. 313 is part of Wayne County. Detroit, Redford, Grosse Pointes, Dearborn.
517 - Paul up 3 over Santorum and Romney. 517 is largely Lansing area, Jackson, Western Livingston County, and Hillsdale.
586 - Santorum up 15 over Newt. (Strongly contradicts PPP) 586 is Macomb County.
616 - Santorum up 13. Grand Rapids, Holland, Ionia.
734 - Santorum up 22. Ann Arbor, Monroe, Ypsi, part of Wayne County (Livonia), small part of Southern Livingston County.
810 - Santorum up 13. Brighton, Flint, Lapeer, Port Huron.
906 - Santorum up 22 over Newt. That is the UP.
989 - Santorum up 20. Saginaw, Bay City. Northern Lower Michigan.
M1-01 - North Michigan. As of now, it looks like Santorum's best district. 906, some 989, and some 231 area codes. It's a very blue collar area outside of parts of the Lake Michigan Coastline. The UP is conservative, but more than anything else despises phonies. McCain won most of this area in 2008. Advantage Santorum
M1-02 - West Michigan Coast, from Holland to Ludington. 616 and 231. Ottawa County is the most republican county in the state. It's going to drive this district. Muskegon County could factor in with crossovers and independents, along with the base. The rest of the district is rural populist. The life issue is BIG here. Advantage Santorum.
MI-03 - Most of Kent County, Ionia and Barry Counties, Calhoun County. 616, 231, 269. Ionia and Barry are rural populist. Grand Rapids suburbs will drive the turnout here. Calhoun County could impact things. Advantage Santorum.
MI-04 - Rural North and Central Michigan. From Lansing's Northern border up to Cadillac and Roscommon. From Big Rapids to the Saginaw suburbs. Mostly 989, maybe some 231. Santorum should do well here.
MI-05 - This is a blue district, but just as important for delegates. Mostly 810 and 989. Genesee County, Western Tuscola County (important for GOP), Saginaw area, all of Bay County, Arenac County and Iosco County. White union crossovers and independents may be the key here in the Flint suburbs, some Saginaw suburbs, and especially Bay County and the Standish/Tawas area. There's a small GOP base area near Fenton (Frankenmuth's now in the 4th).
MI-06 - SW Michigan. 269 area code. The new MI-06 now has ALL of Allegan County which is just as republican as Ottawa County (Southern Allegan is competitive reducing the county percentage). All of the counties have significant GOP populations (Kalamazoo County is dem, but not ALL dem) to impact this district. District went big for McCain last time. Polls are showing Santorum up here, but it's tough for me to call. Upton wins here too.
MI-07 - South Central and Eastern Michigan. 517 and 734. This district no longer has Calhoun County and picks up Monroe County. Monroe is quite populist and often hostile to a Romney type Republican. They usually (not 2010) like John Dingell types of democrats and Randy Richardville types of Republicans. Much of the district is populist independent conservative. Romney's best hope here is a good showing by Ron Paul.
MI-08 - 517, 810, some 734, and 248. The 8th district changed some. It keeps Ingham County and Livingston County, but adds more of Oakland while dropping Shiawassee and Clinton Counties. That MAY help Romney. The question is this. Where in Oakland County, is Romney's strength? Is he leading based on across the board strength, or is it concentrated in the Bloomfields and getting drilled in places like Clarkston. The new 8th covers "North Oakland" is a lot different than what people think of when they think of Oakland County. There isn't a lot of difference between North Oakland and Livingston County when it comes to politics, even though Livingston has a much more conservative reputation. Both of those areas are social conservative, BUT also are fiscally conservative as well. I think the 8th is up for grabs. All candidates have strengths and weaknesses for this district.
MI-9 - This is the new 9th, much like the old 12th. 248 and 586. It's now Macomb County based, while also taking in the white parts of SE Oakland County, as well as Bloomfield Township. This may have been Mitt's old home (or it could be the 11th). The question here is which poll is accurate with Macomb County. This is a blue district, but with a couple of significant GOP populations. Bloomfield Township, parts of Sterling Heights, and parts of St Clair Shoes and Clinton Townships. There's much more GOP vote here in Macomb County. If Mitt gets the GOP votes in Oakland all out and his way, he's going a chance at this. I bet he's up BIG in Bloomfield Township and Southfield Township (Bingham Farms). Edge Romney due to that.
MI-10 - 586, 810, maybe 989. This district is the home of Reagan Democrats. Northern Macomb County, and the thumb. Most of the votes here are in Macomb, but the thumb is also very important. Lapeer is a base county. St Clair is competitive. The rest of the thumb is conservative, but not necessarily Republican. I think Santorum will take the 10th.
MI-11 - 248, some 734. This district is a mix of mostly the old 11th and old 9th. Advantage Romney. It's mostly in Oakland County, along with some western Wayne County suburbs. It drops a lot of the union territory to Dingell or Conyers. This district has Troy, Bloomfield Hills, and Birmingham which gives Romney an advantage. Livonia's tougher to read and is a little more Reagan Democrat. Canton's very tough to read. Plymouth, Novi, and Northville areas are on paper more Romney friendly. I think the South Lyon, Highland, and Milford areas will be a little tougher for him. I'll be shocked in Romney loses here through.
MI-12 - 734, some 313. This district stretches across Southern Wayne County from Dearborn and Downriver to Ann Arbor. I was a little shocked to see Santorum win big in 734 territory according to PPP, but I think a lot of the republican vote here will be from West Dearborn and South Downriver. I think crossovers will decide this district. For whom is the question. Ann Arbor will likely cross over for Ron Paul. Downriver for Santorum (stick it to Romney).
MI-13 - 313, 248. This is a VRA district, but has a small and significant GOP base for a primary of this type. The Grosse Pointes. There's significant GOP minorities in Farmington Hills and West Bloomfield as well. I think Romney takes this district unless enough blacks cross over.
MI-14 - 313, 734. This is also a VRA district, but does into the more populist Western Wayne County suburbs. There's significant (for this district) republican minorities in Redford, Dearborn Heights, Westland, and Garden City. I think Santorum has an advantage there.
If things stand as they do today, I'd pick Santorum to win districts 1-7, 10, and 14. I'd have Romney winning 9, 11, and 13. I'd have the 8th and 12th up for grabs.
Michigan loses 50% (30) of the delegates for having the election before Super Tuesday. Part of the reason Michigan moved their primary up is because State Party wanted a primary and not a convention. By law in Michigan, elections are held only four days in a year (in response to MEA and school elections)
You can lose the state, and take more of the districts. From what I can find, delegates are apportioned in this fashion.
Two delegates selected at large proportional based on 15% of the vote. I don't know how that would work with two delegates.
Two delegates each, winner take all per NEW 2012 congressional district. These are the new districts, not the current districts. A map of the new districts are here.
Quick rundowns:
Mitchell Poll - Santorum up 17% in Grand Rapids Media Market, 9% in Non Detroit Media Market, 7% Detroit Media Market.
Detroit News poll - Comment - "Oakland County is an island for him"
MRG Poll - Santorum up 3 over Romney in Lansing media market, Santorum up 45 in the UP, Santorum up 18 in Traverse City Market, 16 in Grand Rapids Market, four in Detroit and Flint media markets. Romney up 8 in Oakland County. Tied in Macomb.
PPP Poll by Area Code:
231 - Santorum up 20. 231 is West and Northwest Michigan from around Muskegon north to Petoskey.
248 - Romney up 14. 248 is Oakland County.
269 - Santorum up 14 over Newt. West and Southwest Michigan from around Hastings to Battle Creek to Kalamazoo to St Joe to New Buffalo.
313 - Santorum up 10. 313 is part of Wayne County. Detroit, Redford, Grosse Pointes, Dearborn.
517 - Paul up 3 over Santorum and Romney. 517 is largely Lansing area, Jackson, Western Livingston County, and Hillsdale.
586 - Santorum up 15 over Newt. (Strongly contradicts PPP) 586 is Macomb County.
616 - Santorum up 13. Grand Rapids, Holland, Ionia.
734 - Santorum up 22. Ann Arbor, Monroe, Ypsi, part of Wayne County (Livonia), small part of Southern Livingston County.
810 - Santorum up 13. Brighton, Flint, Lapeer, Port Huron.
906 - Santorum up 22 over Newt. That is the UP.
989 - Santorum up 20. Saginaw, Bay City. Northern Lower Michigan.
M1-01 - North Michigan. As of now, it looks like Santorum's best district. 906, some 989, and some 231 area codes. It's a very blue collar area outside of parts of the Lake Michigan Coastline. The UP is conservative, but more than anything else despises phonies. McCain won most of this area in 2008. Advantage Santorum
M1-02 - West Michigan Coast, from Holland to Ludington. 616 and 231. Ottawa County is the most republican county in the state. It's going to drive this district. Muskegon County could factor in with crossovers and independents, along with the base. The rest of the district is rural populist. The life issue is BIG here. Advantage Santorum.
MI-03 - Most of Kent County, Ionia and Barry Counties, Calhoun County. 616, 231, 269. Ionia and Barry are rural populist. Grand Rapids suburbs will drive the turnout here. Calhoun County could impact things. Advantage Santorum.
MI-04 - Rural North and Central Michigan. From Lansing's Northern border up to Cadillac and Roscommon. From Big Rapids to the Saginaw suburbs. Mostly 989, maybe some 231. Santorum should do well here.
MI-05 - This is a blue district, but just as important for delegates. Mostly 810 and 989. Genesee County, Western Tuscola County (important for GOP), Saginaw area, all of Bay County, Arenac County and Iosco County. White union crossovers and independents may be the key here in the Flint suburbs, some Saginaw suburbs, and especially Bay County and the Standish/Tawas area. There's a small GOP base area near Fenton (Frankenmuth's now in the 4th).
MI-06 - SW Michigan. 269 area code. The new MI-06 now has ALL of Allegan County which is just as republican as Ottawa County (Southern Allegan is competitive reducing the county percentage). All of the counties have significant GOP populations (Kalamazoo County is dem, but not ALL dem) to impact this district. District went big for McCain last time. Polls are showing Santorum up here, but it's tough for me to call. Upton wins here too.
MI-07 - South Central and Eastern Michigan. 517 and 734. This district no longer has Calhoun County and picks up Monroe County. Monroe is quite populist and often hostile to a Romney type Republican. They usually (not 2010) like John Dingell types of democrats and Randy Richardville types of Republicans. Much of the district is populist independent conservative. Romney's best hope here is a good showing by Ron Paul.
MI-08 - 517, 810, some 734, and 248. The 8th district changed some. It keeps Ingham County and Livingston County, but adds more of Oakland while dropping Shiawassee and Clinton Counties. That MAY help Romney. The question is this. Where in Oakland County, is Romney's strength? Is he leading based on across the board strength, or is it concentrated in the Bloomfields and getting drilled in places like Clarkston. The new 8th covers "North Oakland" is a lot different than what people think of when they think of Oakland County. There isn't a lot of difference between North Oakland and Livingston County when it comes to politics, even though Livingston has a much more conservative reputation. Both of those areas are social conservative, BUT also are fiscally conservative as well. I think the 8th is up for grabs. All candidates have strengths and weaknesses for this district.
MI-9 - This is the new 9th, much like the old 12th. 248 and 586. It's now Macomb County based, while also taking in the white parts of SE Oakland County, as well as Bloomfield Township. This may have been Mitt's old home (or it could be the 11th). The question here is which poll is accurate with Macomb County. This is a blue district, but with a couple of significant GOP populations. Bloomfield Township, parts of Sterling Heights, and parts of St Clair Shoes and Clinton Townships. There's much more GOP vote here in Macomb County. If Mitt gets the GOP votes in Oakland all out and his way, he's going a chance at this. I bet he's up BIG in Bloomfield Township and Southfield Township (Bingham Farms). Edge Romney due to that.
MI-10 - 586, 810, maybe 989. This district is the home of Reagan Democrats. Northern Macomb County, and the thumb. Most of the votes here are in Macomb, but the thumb is also very important. Lapeer is a base county. St Clair is competitive. The rest of the thumb is conservative, but not necessarily Republican. I think Santorum will take the 10th.
MI-11 - 248, some 734. This district is a mix of mostly the old 11th and old 9th. Advantage Romney. It's mostly in Oakland County, along with some western Wayne County suburbs. It drops a lot of the union territory to Dingell or Conyers. This district has Troy, Bloomfield Hills, and Birmingham which gives Romney an advantage. Livonia's tougher to read and is a little more Reagan Democrat. Canton's very tough to read. Plymouth, Novi, and Northville areas are on paper more Romney friendly. I think the South Lyon, Highland, and Milford areas will be a little tougher for him. I'll be shocked in Romney loses here through.
MI-12 - 734, some 313. This district stretches across Southern Wayne County from Dearborn and Downriver to Ann Arbor. I was a little shocked to see Santorum win big in 734 territory according to PPP, but I think a lot of the republican vote here will be from West Dearborn and South Downriver. I think crossovers will decide this district. For whom is the question. Ann Arbor will likely cross over for Ron Paul. Downriver for Santorum (stick it to Romney).
MI-13 - 313, 248. This is a VRA district, but has a small and significant GOP base for a primary of this type. The Grosse Pointes. There's significant GOP minorities in Farmington Hills and West Bloomfield as well. I think Romney takes this district unless enough blacks cross over.
MI-14 - 313, 734. This is also a VRA district, but does into the more populist Western Wayne County suburbs. There's significant (for this district) republican minorities in Redford, Dearborn Heights, Westland, and Garden City. I think Santorum has an advantage there.
If things stand as they do today, I'd pick Santorum to win districts 1-7, 10, and 14. I'd have Romney winning 9, 11, and 13. I'd have the 8th and 12th up for grabs.
Thursday, February 09, 2012
I'm voting for Rick Santorum in the primary
It's down to four people. Nobody will likely drop between now and the 28th. The four left are Newt Gingrich, Mitt Romney, Ron Paul, and Rick Santorum.
Perry's out, and I'm not going to vote for a dropped candidate. That's like voting for uncommitted which is out of the question. Uncommitted means I'm passing my delegate vote off to someone unpledged. An unpledged delegated will support whoever he's asked to support. The only time I'd vote for uncommitted is if I don't care.
It's no secret my views towards Mitt Romney. The more I think about Gingrich, the most I just can't do it - for the same reason as Romney. Newt has a better record, but he's flipped so many times as well. I can't forget him and Pelosi together yapping about global warming. I can't forget about his scandals either. I can't trust him.
And trust is the biggest issue when appealing to all groups of voters. Romney and Newt are only electable if Obama beats himself. That's probably true to a degree for all candidates. A poll nine months out does not show anything about electability IN NOVEMBER. What some Romney defenders and Fox News types say is that he needs to move left to get independents. Bullshit. You don't move left - OR right - for independents or moderates. You move competent. Most independent voters and moderate voters care most about competence issues. The social liberal independent voters will sometimes vote for social conservatives - as long as the person is viewed as a competent individual and doesn't run his mouth too much. The mouth is what sometimes hurts social conservatives. The votes do not. Mike Rogers is not a social liberal. He's won Lansing before. City of. He's won Meridian Township, better known as Okemos. Social conservative and economic populist voters don't like panderers either and also care about competent issues. I throw trust in with competence issues.
Romney's record consists of tax/fee raising, gun bans, flip-flops and Romneycare. No deals. Newt's past I can forgive as a person. That's between him and God. However, that doesn't mean I trust him to keep his word to the voters. He's flipped too many times as well. He's out.
That leaves Ron Paul and Rick Santorum. I personally like both of these guys as people. I voted for Ron Paul in 2008. I like Santorum and I'd love to take about 50% of each of these two or split the difference on some of their issues and combine them into a candidate. I'm not nearly the foreign policy hawk Santorum is, nor the dove Ron Paul is. The last one I agree with more than not on policy was Reagan. For all the talk, there hasn't been a lot of difference on that from Bush 1 down to Clinton, Bush II, and Obama. Santorum would be little different there outside of talk.
I prefer Ron Paul on spending, although Santorum has voted for a balanced budget in the 1990's being part of the class of 94. He also supported Bush's budgets which aren't a good thing. I prefer Santorum on life issues. Ron Paul isn't bad there, but Santorum will go that extra step. Both are pro-2nd Amendment, but Paul will vote against good bills because they aren't perfect. I understand being a stickler of procedure at times, but national reciprocity is a big deal. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. That is where I split with Ron Paul. Pragmatism. Take what you can get with the circumstances, move in the right direction, and get the touchdown on a 2 yard run instead of the 80 yard pass when it isn't there. I don't forget bad votes on things like national reciprocity. All that does is codify full faith and credit.
The other issue is who can beat Romney and Obama. Ron Paul is an 10-25% guy in most states. He has his core following and is who he is. I think he needs to be taken seriously, especially on economic matters. Small "l" libertarians are, have been, and need to be part of the Republican coalition. A little respect - both ways - would go a long way of not blowing this opportunity to grow the party and the movement. However, he has shown so far that he can't beat Romney based on election results this year.
Santorum's weakness is 2006. He was crushed statewide in Pennsylvania. That was and is my major concern with him. However, he also won that same state twice, once in a non-republican year (in PA). 2000. He also won a democrat district (now Mike Doyle's) in the Pittsburgh Penn Hills area. You can make a case either way with electability with multiple wins and a bad loss in a bad year. The thing Santorum is showing now is that he's working his ass off with little money, and still winning some states. He recently got the hat trick. Minnesota, Colorado, and Missouri. He also won Iowa after the fact. Those are four very different states with very different demographics. He gaining, and Romney once again like in 2008 can not close the deal when everything is set up for him.
Next is Arizona and Michigan. Michigan's primary is an open primary despite what some say. You just have to declare a ballot. In 2000 there was about 20% crossover votes from democrats and I expect about the same here. Delegates are won based on the both proportional (statewide) and winner take all by congressional district. I believe the congressional districts for this are the new ones, not the old ones. There's also a second election on Feb 28th in the OLD 51st district. Paul Scott was recalled thanks to the very shady folks known as the MEA-PAC. Joe Graves should make this recall all for nothing outside of a three month vacancy. From what I've heard, he's good people and will do a good job. That election will increase turnout in the 51st district and the 5th Congressional District.
If I'm Santorum, I'd campaign across the entire state. However, I'd pay extra attention in these areas if I'm going to make a run for the delegates.
1. The 1st district. Most of it was neglected and did not vote for Romney in 2008. With independents able to vote, this will be a key area.
2. The 6th District. Another McCain/not Romney district in 2008. There's an opportunity there.
3. Ottawa, Kent, Livingston, Hillsdale, North Oakland, North Macomb, Lapeer, Allegan, and West Oakland Counties. That's the base area. It goes without saying that it will be important primary day. We all know that. I'm being Captain Obvious here.
4. The blue districts. Don't neglect them. Why? Because it's winner take all by congressional district. Even with an estimated 20% crossover vote (based on 2000 numbers) will have less votes and count more for the district delegates. Detroit won't have a lot of votes in the primary, but winning the two Detroit based districts will count more than say the 8th district, even though Livingston County alone will probably have more votes than both of them. Proportional delegates count too, but it's the districts.
The blue districts are as follows.
5th - Open with Dale Kildee retiring. This one is especially important with the increased turnout in the 51st, which includes much of the Republican base in the district. The other key areas are independents and social conservative crossover democrats in Flushing, Davison, Bay County (all of it now), and even Tawas City. There's an opening for a working class guy to appeal to some of these areas that Romney will likely have problems.
9th - Levin. This now is dominant in Macomb County. Romney will clean up Bloomfield Twp as it was his home, but there's some crossover votes and a sizable republican minority in Southern Macomb County. Posthumus won Clinton Township and St Clair Shores. Warren is 60% Dem, but has over 100,000 people. Sterling Heights is competitive.
12th - Now Dingell's district. Santorum will struggle in Ann Arbor for obvious reasons, but Downriver has a sizable Republican minority. Downriver is closer to 40-46% GOP compared to 20-25% in Ann Arbor.
13th - With the switch, John Conyers and a couple of challengers. It's about a 15% Republican district, so it won't take a lot of votes to win. Westland, Garden City, Redford, and Dearborn Heights are exceedingly important here, along with your minority of black republicans. There aren't a lot of them, but they do exist. A lot of them are social conservatives. Santorum is pro-life. The 3-10% here who do sometimes vote Republican can make a big difference in this district.
14th - With the switch, Hansen Clark with Gary Peters and Brenda Lawrence. This is also about a 15% district, but a little different than the 13th. There is a small GOP base here in the Grosse Pointes. Advantage Romney. Advantage Romney in West Bloomfield as well. This is the toughest blue district I think for Santorum to win.
Santorum should do well with pro-lifers. He'll probably split the gun vote with Ron Paul, although that reciprocity vote should damage him. It will be an uphill climb with Romney's top level organization and money. I think it's Romney's to lose, but I don't think he'll take all the congressional districts, and I think it will be much closer than people think.
Santorum didn't raise taxes. Romney raised "fees" as governor. Santorum is pro-2nd Amendment. Romney signed a gun ban. Romney implemented Romneycare. Romney's record on jobs is mixed at best. Romney became supposedly pro-life when he ran for president. Santorum not only votes pro-life, but lives it. He'd also appoint good justices to SCOTUS. Santorum was part of the late 90's growth where Clinton got the credit. Santorum was part of the class of 94 and Contract with America. He was there. Romney was a son of privilege. Santorum was a working class son of immigrants who earned a law degree and worked in private practice.
I don't have a perfect vote in the primary. I don't even have an easy vote. Perry and Pawlenty dropped. Of the four that's left, Santorum's the best we got and the best chance to upset Obama (yes, Obama is the favorite against all of them) this November.
I'll be voting for Rick Santorum on February 28th.
Perry's out, and I'm not going to vote for a dropped candidate. That's like voting for uncommitted which is out of the question. Uncommitted means I'm passing my delegate vote off to someone unpledged. An unpledged delegated will support whoever he's asked to support. The only time I'd vote for uncommitted is if I don't care.
It's no secret my views towards Mitt Romney. The more I think about Gingrich, the most I just can't do it - for the same reason as Romney. Newt has a better record, but he's flipped so many times as well. I can't forget him and Pelosi together yapping about global warming. I can't forget about his scandals either. I can't trust him.
And trust is the biggest issue when appealing to all groups of voters. Romney and Newt are only electable if Obama beats himself. That's probably true to a degree for all candidates. A poll nine months out does not show anything about electability IN NOVEMBER. What some Romney defenders and Fox News types say is that he needs to move left to get independents. Bullshit. You don't move left - OR right - for independents or moderates. You move competent. Most independent voters and moderate voters care most about competence issues. The social liberal independent voters will sometimes vote for social conservatives - as long as the person is viewed as a competent individual and doesn't run his mouth too much. The mouth is what sometimes hurts social conservatives. The votes do not. Mike Rogers is not a social liberal. He's won Lansing before. City of. He's won Meridian Township, better known as Okemos. Social conservative and economic populist voters don't like panderers either and also care about competent issues. I throw trust in with competence issues.
Romney's record consists of tax/fee raising, gun bans, flip-flops and Romneycare. No deals. Newt's past I can forgive as a person. That's between him and God. However, that doesn't mean I trust him to keep his word to the voters. He's flipped too many times as well. He's out.
That leaves Ron Paul and Rick Santorum. I personally like both of these guys as people. I voted for Ron Paul in 2008. I like Santorum and I'd love to take about 50% of each of these two or split the difference on some of their issues and combine them into a candidate. I'm not nearly the foreign policy hawk Santorum is, nor the dove Ron Paul is. The last one I agree with more than not on policy was Reagan. For all the talk, there hasn't been a lot of difference on that from Bush 1 down to Clinton, Bush II, and Obama. Santorum would be little different there outside of talk.
I prefer Ron Paul on spending, although Santorum has voted for a balanced budget in the 1990's being part of the class of 94. He also supported Bush's budgets which aren't a good thing. I prefer Santorum on life issues. Ron Paul isn't bad there, but Santorum will go that extra step. Both are pro-2nd Amendment, but Paul will vote against good bills because they aren't perfect. I understand being a stickler of procedure at times, but national reciprocity is a big deal. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. That is where I split with Ron Paul. Pragmatism. Take what you can get with the circumstances, move in the right direction, and get the touchdown on a 2 yard run instead of the 80 yard pass when it isn't there. I don't forget bad votes on things like national reciprocity. All that does is codify full faith and credit.
The other issue is who can beat Romney and Obama. Ron Paul is an 10-25% guy in most states. He has his core following and is who he is. I think he needs to be taken seriously, especially on economic matters. Small "l" libertarians are, have been, and need to be part of the Republican coalition. A little respect - both ways - would go a long way of not blowing this opportunity to grow the party and the movement. However, he has shown so far that he can't beat Romney based on election results this year.
Santorum's weakness is 2006. He was crushed statewide in Pennsylvania. That was and is my major concern with him. However, he also won that same state twice, once in a non-republican year (in PA). 2000. He also won a democrat district (now Mike Doyle's) in the Pittsburgh Penn Hills area. You can make a case either way with electability with multiple wins and a bad loss in a bad year. The thing Santorum is showing now is that he's working his ass off with little money, and still winning some states. He recently got the hat trick. Minnesota, Colorado, and Missouri. He also won Iowa after the fact. Those are four very different states with very different demographics. He gaining, and Romney once again like in 2008 can not close the deal when everything is set up for him.
Next is Arizona and Michigan. Michigan's primary is an open primary despite what some say. You just have to declare a ballot. In 2000 there was about 20% crossover votes from democrats and I expect about the same here. Delegates are won based on the both proportional (statewide) and winner take all by congressional district. I believe the congressional districts for this are the new ones, not the old ones. There's also a second election on Feb 28th in the OLD 51st district. Paul Scott was recalled thanks to the very shady folks known as the MEA-PAC. Joe Graves should make this recall all for nothing outside of a three month vacancy. From what I've heard, he's good people and will do a good job. That election will increase turnout in the 51st district and the 5th Congressional District.
If I'm Santorum, I'd campaign across the entire state. However, I'd pay extra attention in these areas if I'm going to make a run for the delegates.
1. The 1st district. Most of it was neglected and did not vote for Romney in 2008. With independents able to vote, this will be a key area.
2. The 6th District. Another McCain/not Romney district in 2008. There's an opportunity there.
3. Ottawa, Kent, Livingston, Hillsdale, North Oakland, North Macomb, Lapeer, Allegan, and West Oakland Counties. That's the base area. It goes without saying that it will be important primary day. We all know that. I'm being Captain Obvious here.
4. The blue districts. Don't neglect them. Why? Because it's winner take all by congressional district. Even with an estimated 20% crossover vote (based on 2000 numbers) will have less votes and count more for the district delegates. Detroit won't have a lot of votes in the primary, but winning the two Detroit based districts will count more than say the 8th district, even though Livingston County alone will probably have more votes than both of them. Proportional delegates count too, but it's the districts.
The blue districts are as follows.
5th - Open with Dale Kildee retiring. This one is especially important with the increased turnout in the 51st, which includes much of the Republican base in the district. The other key areas are independents and social conservative crossover democrats in Flushing, Davison, Bay County (all of it now), and even Tawas City. There's an opening for a working class guy to appeal to some of these areas that Romney will likely have problems.
9th - Levin. This now is dominant in Macomb County. Romney will clean up Bloomfield Twp as it was his home, but there's some crossover votes and a sizable republican minority in Southern Macomb County. Posthumus won Clinton Township and St Clair Shores. Warren is 60% Dem, but has over 100,000 people. Sterling Heights is competitive.
12th - Now Dingell's district. Santorum will struggle in Ann Arbor for obvious reasons, but Downriver has a sizable Republican minority. Downriver is closer to 40-46% GOP compared to 20-25% in Ann Arbor.
13th - With the switch, John Conyers and a couple of challengers. It's about a 15% Republican district, so it won't take a lot of votes to win. Westland, Garden City, Redford, and Dearborn Heights are exceedingly important here, along with your minority of black republicans. There aren't a lot of them, but they do exist. A lot of them are social conservatives. Santorum is pro-life. The 3-10% here who do sometimes vote Republican can make a big difference in this district.
14th - With the switch, Hansen Clark with Gary Peters and Brenda Lawrence. This is also about a 15% district, but a little different than the 13th. There is a small GOP base here in the Grosse Pointes. Advantage Romney. Advantage Romney in West Bloomfield as well. This is the toughest blue district I think for Santorum to win.
Santorum should do well with pro-lifers. He'll probably split the gun vote with Ron Paul, although that reciprocity vote should damage him. It will be an uphill climb with Romney's top level organization and money. I think it's Romney's to lose, but I don't think he'll take all the congressional districts, and I think it will be much closer than people think.
Santorum didn't raise taxes. Romney raised "fees" as governor. Santorum is pro-2nd Amendment. Romney signed a gun ban. Romney implemented Romneycare. Romney's record on jobs is mixed at best. Romney became supposedly pro-life when he ran for president. Santorum not only votes pro-life, but lives it. He'd also appoint good justices to SCOTUS. Santorum was part of the late 90's growth where Clinton got the credit. Santorum was part of the class of 94 and Contract with America. He was there. Romney was a son of privilege. Santorum was a working class son of immigrants who earned a law degree and worked in private practice.
I don't have a perfect vote in the primary. I don't even have an easy vote. Perry and Pawlenty dropped. Of the four that's left, Santorum's the best we got and the best chance to upset Obama (yes, Obama is the favorite against all of them) this November.
I'll be voting for Rick Santorum on February 28th.
Wednesday, January 04, 2012
Iowa results and quick analysis
I'm a little surprised at the results coming in. This is the first actual poll that counts. New Hampshire is next January 10th, followed by South Carolina on January 21st and Florida on January 31st.
The Iowa caucuses count. They count more for momentum than anything else, but unlike the phone polls, these are binding and have a larger sample size. These are the actual votes.
There IS no recount. The result with 99% in is a likely very narrow victory for Mitt Romney. I say likely, because who knows what that 1% does.
1st - Mitt Romney - 25% - 30,015
2nd - Rick Santorum - 25% - 30,007
3rd - Ron Paul - 22% - 26,219
4th - Newt Gingrich - 14% - 16,251
5th - Rick Perry - 11% - 12,604
6th - Michele Bachmann - 5% - 6,073
7th - Jon Huntsman - Less than 1% - 745
8th - Herman Cain - Less than 1% - 58
Rick Santorum's results surprised me, and I'll admit a major bias against his chances due to 2006. He had very little money, but he outworked most candidates in Iowa. He's legitimate now in this election. The question is if he can sustain it going into New Hampshire and South Carolina. Mitt Romney is going to go after him. That's what sunk Gingrich and dropped him to 4th. It may have an impact on Ron Paul as well.
Big winners:
1. Santorum - His late surge put him in the picture. He has a chance to be the "anti-Romney" candidate at the time it counts. He did this with almost no money. Eight votes away, and if there was a recount, could have made this even more interesting.
2. Romney - He wasn't contesting Iowa until late. He didn't bomb here. He didn't need to win here. New Hampshire is where he needs to win to stay around. His win here helps.
3. Paul - He's going to be a pain in the arse to the elites. Again. This year.
As for others, that doesn't mean they lost a chance for the nomination, but at best, they are going to have to fight against national momentum from Iowa with the next primary/caucuses. Some like Giuliani (2008) don't recover. At worst, they're done because of this. Those that lost here have added pressure in New Hampshire and South Carolina, as well as Florida.
The question is what happens next? Do the rest of them stay in, and if so, for how long? Perry said he's going to go back to Texas and think about the results and make a further decision.
Once again, Romney can't break that 30% barrier, although neither can anyone else. He wasn't expected to really in Iowa, but he's got nearly all of the establishment in his corner, Foxnews in his corner, the pundits in his corner, and most of all elite level of organization and monetary support. On paper, he should run away with this. This is the "strong" candidate. This is the guy who is supposed to supposedly beat Obama. He's now essentially tied another candidate out of nowhere, and was viewed as dead in the water. Every time a candidate implodes, another one rises in the polls against Romney. This time it is Santorum. Out of nowhere, he almost beats Romney. If your campaign is based on being "the electable" one, you better do what Bush did in 2000 after the early scare and not be John McCain in 2008.
This is going to possibly be a long primary season, especially if it narrows into a three way fight with three different bases. If Santorum can solidify himself as THE one single "anti-Romney" candidate who isn't Ron Paul, it will be an interesting primary, and there will be no "inevitable" nominee, regardless of the wishes of the establishment. Romney will have to at best, earn this. That's good. That's why we have primaries.
On the same note, for all the folks against Romney, nobody there has caught on. I wonder if Pawlenty wishes he did not drop out.
As for Santorum, my concern with him is that he got trounced in 2006 by 18% to Bob Casey Jr. He went too native and Virginia instead of Suburban Pittsburgh and it cost him. That's weakness, and a big one. However, he also won elections he had no business winning on paper. He won a Pittsburgh area district in 1990 which was democrat for 12 years, and survived redistricting. In 1994, his district went democrat by 10% to Mike Doyle (still in Congress) when he won a US Senate seat (easier than his congressional district) in an upset over an incumbent democrat. He won re-election in 2000. He's won tough elections in the past as well as lost. However, he's also an ex-senator, and we know how many US Senators have become presidents. Harding, Obama, Kennedy, Nixon, LBJ, Harrison, and Andrew Johnson are the only ones in the modern political system post 1860.
New Hampshire's next. Romney needs to probably run away with this one in his backyard. If not, he's in big trouble. Santorum needs to at least place here in less friendly territory for him as New Hampshire has a bit of a libertarian and paleo conservative streak. Ron Paul could surprise a lot of people here.
South Carolina is unfriendly to Romney in the primary so there isn't high expectations for him there. Santorum will have to do well there or Romney will probably win the entire thing Snyder style due to split votes. If Romney wins here, I think he's got it.
The actual race has begun. So far the official standings are:
Romney - 13 Delegates
Santorum - 12 Delegates
Rest - 0
The Iowa caucuses count. They count more for momentum than anything else, but unlike the phone polls, these are binding and have a larger sample size. These are the actual votes.
There IS no recount. The result with 99% in is a likely very narrow victory for Mitt Romney. I say likely, because who knows what that 1% does.
1st - Mitt Romney - 25% - 30,015
2nd - Rick Santorum - 25% - 30,007
3rd - Ron Paul - 22% - 26,219
4th - Newt Gingrich - 14% - 16,251
5th - Rick Perry - 11% - 12,604
6th - Michele Bachmann - 5% - 6,073
7th - Jon Huntsman - Less than 1% - 745
8th - Herman Cain - Less than 1% - 58
Rick Santorum's results surprised me, and I'll admit a major bias against his chances due to 2006. He had very little money, but he outworked most candidates in Iowa. He's legitimate now in this election. The question is if he can sustain it going into New Hampshire and South Carolina. Mitt Romney is going to go after him. That's what sunk Gingrich and dropped him to 4th. It may have an impact on Ron Paul as well.
Big winners:
1. Santorum - His late surge put him in the picture. He has a chance to be the "anti-Romney" candidate at the time it counts. He did this with almost no money. Eight votes away, and if there was a recount, could have made this even more interesting.
2. Romney - He wasn't contesting Iowa until late. He didn't bomb here. He didn't need to win here. New Hampshire is where he needs to win to stay around. His win here helps.
3. Paul - He's going to be a pain in the arse to the elites. Again. This year.
As for others, that doesn't mean they lost a chance for the nomination, but at best, they are going to have to fight against national momentum from Iowa with the next primary/caucuses. Some like Giuliani (2008) don't recover. At worst, they're done because of this. Those that lost here have added pressure in New Hampshire and South Carolina, as well as Florida.
The question is what happens next? Do the rest of them stay in, and if so, for how long? Perry said he's going to go back to Texas and think about the results and make a further decision.
Once again, Romney can't break that 30% barrier, although neither can anyone else. He wasn't expected to really in Iowa, but he's got nearly all of the establishment in his corner, Foxnews in his corner, the pundits in his corner, and most of all elite level of organization and monetary support. On paper, he should run away with this. This is the "strong" candidate. This is the guy who is supposed to supposedly beat Obama. He's now essentially tied another candidate out of nowhere, and was viewed as dead in the water. Every time a candidate implodes, another one rises in the polls against Romney. This time it is Santorum. Out of nowhere, he almost beats Romney. If your campaign is based on being "the electable" one, you better do what Bush did in 2000 after the early scare and not be John McCain in 2008.
This is going to possibly be a long primary season, especially if it narrows into a three way fight with three different bases. If Santorum can solidify himself as THE one single "anti-Romney" candidate who isn't Ron Paul, it will be an interesting primary, and there will be no "inevitable" nominee, regardless of the wishes of the establishment. Romney will have to at best, earn this. That's good. That's why we have primaries.
On the same note, for all the folks against Romney, nobody there has caught on. I wonder if Pawlenty wishes he did not drop out.
As for Santorum, my concern with him is that he got trounced in 2006 by 18% to Bob Casey Jr. He went too native and Virginia instead of Suburban Pittsburgh and it cost him. That's weakness, and a big one. However, he also won elections he had no business winning on paper. He won a Pittsburgh area district in 1990 which was democrat for 12 years, and survived redistricting. In 1994, his district went democrat by 10% to Mike Doyle (still in Congress) when he won a US Senate seat (easier than his congressional district) in an upset over an incumbent democrat. He won re-election in 2000. He's won tough elections in the past as well as lost. However, he's also an ex-senator, and we know how many US Senators have become presidents. Harding, Obama, Kennedy, Nixon, LBJ, Harrison, and Andrew Johnson are the only ones in the modern political system post 1860.
New Hampshire's next. Romney needs to probably run away with this one in his backyard. If not, he's in big trouble. Santorum needs to at least place here in less friendly territory for him as New Hampshire has a bit of a libertarian and paleo conservative streak. Ron Paul could surprise a lot of people here.
South Carolina is unfriendly to Romney in the primary so there isn't high expectations for him there. Santorum will have to do well there or Romney will probably win the entire thing Snyder style due to split votes. If Romney wins here, I think he's got it.
The actual race has begun. So far the official standings are:
Romney - 13 Delegates
Santorum - 12 Delegates
Rest - 0
Saturday, December 03, 2011
Cain taps out of the presidential race
I'm not surprised about this. Cain's situation is a mess, regardless of whether it is true or not.
From Yahoo news
I don't know if Cain's guilty or not. I am suspicious of the claims to a degree because every single one of them was from his time at National Restaurant Association. Nothing was from his time at Godfather's or Pillsbury or his talk radio show. Maybe he was guilty. Maybe he was guilty only of pissing off some people. The harassment claims have just as much credence as Larry Sinclair's claim about being in the back seat with Obama snorting coke and doing other things (why doesn't the tabloid 'mainstream' leftist media give as much time to that?). They aren't proven and the credibility is in question. Is it possible? Yes. Likely? I'm skeptical. The affair? I still don't know, although that's more likely to be either proved or disproved if there was a 13 year claim. Politics is a nasty business at times. As the unofficial definition of politics from polysci 101 goes. "Politics is who gets what, when, and how." Politics is about power.
Whatever the case is, Cain is out. If you want to ruin a campaign, get some "friend of the program" to hire 5 or 6 women (or men if it is a woman candidate) at different times who have at least all crossed paths with a candidate to claim harassment or an affair. Have them set up news conferences. It doesn't matter if it is true. It can all be BS. In the court of public opinion, when there is multiple accusers, we are guilty till proven innocent. People believe there can't be a semi-coordinated attack from multiple people. They think "When there smoke, there's fire." If I had $100,000 (maybe less) - chump change in a presidential race, to spend on political black-ops, that I didn't have to report, I could set something like this up with any sort of time if I want to go down that road. It's not hard. All I'd need is a good scouting report to find the right targets. $20,000 each can buy a lot, and it doesn't even have to be a direct payment, or something all at once.
Dirty tricks are nothing new. It's a staple of Chicago style politics. Obama won his senate race by getting Jack Ryan (who had young kids) off the ballot because he didn't want his divorce file unsealed. Certain details sealed he didn't want out there. Neither did his ex-wife for that matter. It was Obama's cronies and his media allies.
It's a dirty business, and all of us involved at any level have to be ready for it.
How does Cain dropping out effect things? I don't know. This election has been crazy so far. I had Newt Gingrich as one of the big losers early on because of the straw poll results in Iowa. He's now the possible frontrunner. For now. That could change. I don't see anything for sure at least until Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina make their decisions.
My wild guess for now.
Advantage
Newt Gingrich. I would not be surprised if Cain backs Newt. They are friends, or at least were until the campaign. If there isn't some falling out that we don't know about, Newt may benefit from this.
Jon Huntsman. If Newt falters when his past comes back, then who?
Could go either way - Romney. At first glance, one could thing this narrows down the "anyone but Mitt" vote. Possible. Another school of thought thinks with Romney avoiding some of the news that it helps him. Some think he's the most electable. I disagree for a lot of reasons, but Cain's dropping could benefit him that way.
As far as the effects regarding Bachmann, Paul, and Perry, I don't see a lot of changes although some may give them a second look. Bachmann and Perry collapsed and have not recovered. Paul will get his share no matter what, but has a problem breaking the 10% ceiling.
We'll see what happens over the next month. I think I'm going to need to take a long shower after primary day (and the general). I had a bad feeling about this really since Mitch Daniels decided he wasn't running, compounded with Pawlenty dropping out after Iowa.
From Yahoo news
Plagued by allegations of sexual harassment and marriage infidelity, businessman Herman Cain announced Saturday that he is officially suspending his campaign for president of the United States.
"As of today, with a lot of prayer and soul searching, I am suspending my presidential campaign," Cain said at what was supposed to be new campaign headquarters in his hometown of Atlanta. "I am disappointed that it came to this point that we had to make this decision."
But he added, "Before you get discouraged, today I want to describe Plan B. ... I am not going away. I will continue to be a voice for the people." With that, he unveiled the headquarters of his new website, TheCainSolutions.com.
Cain, one of the first Republican candidates to launch his campaign for the White House last spring, spent most of his run as an obscure, low-polling candidate that was a hit at tea party rallies. But as the Republican field took shape, and it became clear that high-profile party hopefuls like Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels and New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie would not enter the race, Republicans seemed willing to give any of the candidates a fair shake
I don't know if Cain's guilty or not. I am suspicious of the claims to a degree because every single one of them was from his time at National Restaurant Association. Nothing was from his time at Godfather's or Pillsbury or his talk radio show. Maybe he was guilty. Maybe he was guilty only of pissing off some people. The harassment claims have just as much credence as Larry Sinclair's claim about being in the back seat with Obama snorting coke and doing other things (why doesn't the tabloid 'mainstream' leftist media give as much time to that?). They aren't proven and the credibility is in question. Is it possible? Yes. Likely? I'm skeptical. The affair? I still don't know, although that's more likely to be either proved or disproved if there was a 13 year claim. Politics is a nasty business at times. As the unofficial definition of politics from polysci 101 goes. "Politics is who gets what, when, and how." Politics is about power.
Whatever the case is, Cain is out. If you want to ruin a campaign, get some "friend of the program" to hire 5 or 6 women (or men if it is a woman candidate) at different times who have at least all crossed paths with a candidate to claim harassment or an affair. Have them set up news conferences. It doesn't matter if it is true. It can all be BS. In the court of public opinion, when there is multiple accusers, we are guilty till proven innocent. People believe there can't be a semi-coordinated attack from multiple people. They think "When there smoke, there's fire." If I had $100,000 (maybe less) - chump change in a presidential race, to spend on political black-ops, that I didn't have to report, I could set something like this up with any sort of time if I want to go down that road. It's not hard. All I'd need is a good scouting report to find the right targets. $20,000 each can buy a lot, and it doesn't even have to be a direct payment, or something all at once.
Dirty tricks are nothing new. It's a staple of Chicago style politics. Obama won his senate race by getting Jack Ryan (who had young kids) off the ballot because he didn't want his divorce file unsealed. Certain details sealed he didn't want out there. Neither did his ex-wife for that matter. It was Obama's cronies and his media allies.
It's a dirty business, and all of us involved at any level have to be ready for it.
How does Cain dropping out effect things? I don't know. This election has been crazy so far. I had Newt Gingrich as one of the big losers early on because of the straw poll results in Iowa. He's now the possible frontrunner. For now. That could change. I don't see anything for sure at least until Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina make their decisions.
My wild guess for now.
Advantage
Newt Gingrich. I would not be surprised if Cain backs Newt. They are friends, or at least were until the campaign. If there isn't some falling out that we don't know about, Newt may benefit from this.
Jon Huntsman. If Newt falters when his past comes back, then who?
Could go either way - Romney. At first glance, one could thing this narrows down the "anyone but Mitt" vote. Possible. Another school of thought thinks with Romney avoiding some of the news that it helps him. Some think he's the most electable. I disagree for a lot of reasons, but Cain's dropping could benefit him that way.
As far as the effects regarding Bachmann, Paul, and Perry, I don't see a lot of changes although some may give them a second look. Bachmann and Perry collapsed and have not recovered. Paul will get his share no matter what, but has a problem breaking the 10% ceiling.
We'll see what happens over the next month. I think I'm going to need to take a long shower after primary day (and the general). I had a bad feeling about this really since Mitch Daniels decided he wasn't running, compounded with Pawlenty dropping out after Iowa.
Sunday, October 09, 2011
2012 - Electoral College Math
Some are predicting blowouts for 2012. That probably won't be the case. I expect it to be closer than the wave years of 06, 08, and 10. Both sides will be motivated, and I don't think there won't be as much demoralization among base segments. Republicans were unhappy in 06 and 08, and democrats to an extent were in 10. I think motivation levels could vary on the GOP side depending on the nominee. Things are still fluid, but right now, it looks like Romney, Perry, or Cain with Ron Paul getting his share of support. That could change.
The 2010 census changed the electoral college math. It's still 269 to tie and 270 to win. Republicans get a slight advantage over the 2004 and 2008 results, but not enough where it would have changed the 08 results.
2004 and 2008 actual - Bush 286 (50.73%), Kerry 251 (48.27%). Obama 365 (53.2%), McCain 173 (46.7%)
Under today's electoral college:
Bush 292, Kerry 246
Obama 359, McCain 179
The MAJOR difference with that is that it makes the 04 election less close than it was. Ohio had 20 electoral votes. If that 120,000 was closed, under 08's electoral votes, Kerry would have won the whole thing. Under today's numbers, that would have made it 264 for Kerry, needing another 6 votes. Nevada (21000 votes) or Iowa (11000) were also needed. Florida now has 29 electoral votes. It's even bigger than it was in 04 and 00.
Florida is now king.
What's telling here is that the 3-5% national vote swing is the difference between a so called landslide, and a close election. This is one of the reasons why so many politicians screw up when they crow about mandates. Mandates do not exist. Neither Bush, nor Obama had one.
I'm going to divide these states into five categories. The math is slightly skewed to the democrats' favor, because I'm counting a lot of competitive states as leaning democrat. (Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Pennsylvania have been close in 2000 and 2004)
Safe GOP - Not competitive in any of the last three elections
Lean GOP - Won by GOP last three elections, but can be competitive (5pts or less)
Safe Dem - Not competitive in any of the last three elections
Lean Dem - Won by Dems last three elections, but can be competitive (5pts or less)
Bush/Obama states
If one party lose ANY of the lean or non competitive states in their area, it's likely over before it starts. It's going to be a wipeout. Demographics may make things interesting in Arizona or Georgia, but those are states that need to be kept in the fold. Elections are close at times in Michigan, Wisconsin, Missouri, and Pennsylvania, but those are firewalls for the opposing party. Some of the previous "firewall" states won by Obama were upsets in Indiana, North Carolina, and Nebraska Congressional District 2. Those are all game over immediately losses. Yes, it's mathematically possible to lose these "lean" states and still win, but due to demographics, it's not likely. If a democrat loses Wisconsin, Minnesota, Pennsylvania or Michigan, kiss Florida and Ohio goodbye. Those states have similar demographics and views to a large extent. If a Republican loses Indiana, kiss Ohio and Florida goodbye. If a Republican loses North Carolina, kiss Virginia goodbye. If a democrat loses Oregon, Colorado and Nevada are next. If a Republican loses Montana, Colorado, Nevada, and New Mexico are next.
Safe Republican - 166 votes - Idaho, Utah, Wyoming, both Dakotas, Nebraska outside District 2, Oklahoma, Texas, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Tennessee (exception to 5% rule because Gore's home state), Kentucky, South Carolina, Georgia, West Virginia, and Alaska.
Lean Republican - 13 votes - Montana and Missouri, both won by McCain with 49%
That gives 179 votes for the GOP to start with.
Safe Democrat - 176 Votes - California, Washington, Hawaii, Illinois, New York, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Vermont, New Jersey, Maryland, DC, Delaware, Maine district 1.
Lean Democrat - 66 votes - Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Oregon, Maine overall and district 2. At times they are close, but haven't flipped for presidential races since at least 1988.
That gives the dems 242 votes to start with. Again, if any of these "lean" states flip in 2012 - very likely game over.
States/Districts Bush Won Twice:
Nebraska 2, Nevada, Florida, Colorado, Indiana, Virginia, North Carolina, Ohio
States Bush Won once:
New Hampshire, Iowa, and New Mexico - 15 votes.
If Obama keeps all the states Bush only won once, he'll be up to 257 needing 13 to win. That would make Florida, Ohio, North Carolina, and Virginia must wins for the GOP to survive.
Back to the leans. There is no scenario where if the democrats keep the Gore and Kerry states, the republicans can win without Florida. Florida alone would give the dems 271. Game over. That's why Florida is such a key must win state.
So how to the Republicans get from 179 to 270?
1. Florida. - Adding Florida gives the GOP 208. It's not the easiest state to win, but it is a must win under any scenario.
2. North Carolina, Indiana, Nebraska District 2 - These were 49% Obama states and a normally GOP congressional district. These 26 votes are a must for any realistic chance. That and Florida makes it 235 with 35 votes needed. They normally are lean or even solidly Republican in the case of Indiana.
How can the GOP candidate get the 35 remaining votes?
A. Virginia and Ohio - at least one of the two much be flipped. If both are flipped, the GOP needs any other state to win.
If Ohio (now 18 votes, not 20) only is flipped, 17 votes are needed:
A. Colorado and any two of Iowa/Nevada/New Hampshire/New Mexico
B. Nevada, Iowa, and New Mexico
If Virginia only is flipped (13 votes), 22 votes are needed. Colorado's 9 votes are a must win then, as well as three of Iowa/Nevada/New Hampshire/New Mexico
In short, Priority 1 is Florida, followed by getting back Indiana and North Carolina, Virginia, and Ohio. If that is done, only one other state is needed. Obama knows this. He's out campaigning heavily right now in Virginia. He was recently in Colorado as well.
Here's an electoral college calculator to check your own scenarios.
The 2010 census changed the electoral college math. It's still 269 to tie and 270 to win. Republicans get a slight advantage over the 2004 and 2008 results, but not enough where it would have changed the 08 results.
2004 and 2008 actual - Bush 286 (50.73%), Kerry 251 (48.27%). Obama 365 (53.2%), McCain 173 (46.7%)
Under today's electoral college:
Bush 292, Kerry 246
Obama 359, McCain 179
The MAJOR difference with that is that it makes the 04 election less close than it was. Ohio had 20 electoral votes. If that 120,000 was closed, under 08's electoral votes, Kerry would have won the whole thing. Under today's numbers, that would have made it 264 for Kerry, needing another 6 votes. Nevada (21000 votes) or Iowa (11000) were also needed. Florida now has 29 electoral votes. It's even bigger than it was in 04 and 00.
Florida is now king.
What's telling here is that the 3-5% national vote swing is the difference between a so called landslide, and a close election. This is one of the reasons why so many politicians screw up when they crow about mandates. Mandates do not exist. Neither Bush, nor Obama had one.
I'm going to divide these states into five categories. The math is slightly skewed to the democrats' favor, because I'm counting a lot of competitive states as leaning democrat. (Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Pennsylvania have been close in 2000 and 2004)
Safe GOP - Not competitive in any of the last three elections
Lean GOP - Won by GOP last three elections, but can be competitive (5pts or less)
Safe Dem - Not competitive in any of the last three elections
Lean Dem - Won by Dems last three elections, but can be competitive (5pts or less)
Bush/Obama states
If one party lose ANY of the lean or non competitive states in their area, it's likely over before it starts. It's going to be a wipeout. Demographics may make things interesting in Arizona or Georgia, but those are states that need to be kept in the fold. Elections are close at times in Michigan, Wisconsin, Missouri, and Pennsylvania, but those are firewalls for the opposing party. Some of the previous "firewall" states won by Obama were upsets in Indiana, North Carolina, and Nebraska Congressional District 2. Those are all game over immediately losses. Yes, it's mathematically possible to lose these "lean" states and still win, but due to demographics, it's not likely. If a democrat loses Wisconsin, Minnesota, Pennsylvania or Michigan, kiss Florida and Ohio goodbye. Those states have similar demographics and views to a large extent. If a Republican loses Indiana, kiss Ohio and Florida goodbye. If a Republican loses North Carolina, kiss Virginia goodbye. If a democrat loses Oregon, Colorado and Nevada are next. If a Republican loses Montana, Colorado, Nevada, and New Mexico are next.
Safe Republican - 166 votes - Idaho, Utah, Wyoming, both Dakotas, Nebraska outside District 2, Oklahoma, Texas, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Tennessee (exception to 5% rule because Gore's home state), Kentucky, South Carolina, Georgia, West Virginia, and Alaska.
Lean Republican - 13 votes - Montana and Missouri, both won by McCain with 49%
That gives 179 votes for the GOP to start with.
Safe Democrat - 176 Votes - California, Washington, Hawaii, Illinois, New York, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Vermont, New Jersey, Maryland, DC, Delaware, Maine district 1.
Lean Democrat - 66 votes - Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Oregon, Maine overall and district 2. At times they are close, but haven't flipped for presidential races since at least 1988.
That gives the dems 242 votes to start with. Again, if any of these "lean" states flip in 2012 - very likely game over.
States/Districts Bush Won Twice:
Nebraska 2, Nevada, Florida, Colorado, Indiana, Virginia, North Carolina, Ohio
States Bush Won once:
New Hampshire, Iowa, and New Mexico - 15 votes.
If Obama keeps all the states Bush only won once, he'll be up to 257 needing 13 to win. That would make Florida, Ohio, North Carolina, and Virginia must wins for the GOP to survive.
Back to the leans. There is no scenario where if the democrats keep the Gore and Kerry states, the republicans can win without Florida. Florida alone would give the dems 271. Game over. That's why Florida is such a key must win state.
So how to the Republicans get from 179 to 270?
1. Florida. - Adding Florida gives the GOP 208. It's not the easiest state to win, but it is a must win under any scenario.
2. North Carolina, Indiana, Nebraska District 2 - These were 49% Obama states and a normally GOP congressional district. These 26 votes are a must for any realistic chance. That and Florida makes it 235 with 35 votes needed. They normally are lean or even solidly Republican in the case of Indiana.
How can the GOP candidate get the 35 remaining votes?
A. Virginia and Ohio - at least one of the two much be flipped. If both are flipped, the GOP needs any other state to win.
If Ohio (now 18 votes, not 20) only is flipped, 17 votes are needed:
A. Colorado and any two of Iowa/Nevada/New Hampshire/New Mexico
B. Nevada, Iowa, and New Mexico
If Virginia only is flipped (13 votes), 22 votes are needed. Colorado's 9 votes are a must win then, as well as three of Iowa/Nevada/New Hampshire/New Mexico
In short, Priority 1 is Florida, followed by getting back Indiana and North Carolina, Virginia, and Ohio. If that is done, only one other state is needed. Obama knows this. He's out campaigning heavily right now in Virginia. He was recently in Colorado as well.
Here's an electoral college calculator to check your own scenarios.
Sunday, September 18, 2011
Rick Perry for President
I expect when things to shake out for this to be a three, maybe four way race in the primary. Mitt Romney, Rick Perry, Jon Huntsman, and possibly Michele Bachmann. Ron Paul will likely get his 5-10% with varied support for Herman Cain, Thad McCotter, Newt Gingrich, and Gary Johnson. I don't expect Sarah Palin to jump in, but I don't see her getting the nomination based on a "Can't win" worry.
Romney, Perry, and Huntsman I think are the "frontrunners." I think any of those three could win the nomination. I think of those three, two of them are very electable in the general election. Perry and Huntsman. Romney I think is less electable unless Obama beats himself.
Unless Perry drops out, I will probably not be voting for Bachmann, Cain, Paul, Newt, Johnson, Santorum, or Palin (if she runs) based on chances of winning in the general election. I protest voted in the 08 election because of Rudy McRomneyabee. I don't regret it. There's different dynamics this time.
I don't care for Romney, but he's got money and organizational skills. His organizational skills are elite. Those two things alone give him a chance. He is a former governor for one term, and has a venture capitalist background. He was the establishment favorite in 2008 and is their favorite once again this year. Working against him (I think) this time is that there's no McCain. That's hurting him with conservatives who preferred him to McCain. Huntsman may play a factor in this later on though. Despite polls, I don't think Romney is electable unless Obama beats himself. That's due to his constant shifting in positions over and over again, as well as his pandering. Where does he stand after Romneycare? Social issues, especially his shift on life issues and a consistently anti-gun record, are a factor to a degree, but Romneycare is his biggest issue, followed by the voting against it after voting for it types of shifts. Jobs is the other. His jobs record in Massachusetts isn't that stellar, and it needs to be in order to compete with Obama. His biggest weakness though isn't his views. It's his constant changing of views. There's too much John Kerry in him, although at least Romney isn't a traitor like Kerry was in his 72 senate speech. I'd probably cave if he's the nominee, but I'd really be holding my nose.
Speaking of Huntsman. Why would I support Huntsman over Romney? It's the economy stupid. Utah has been one of the brighter spots with the economy in recent years. Huntsman only had one term as governor, but there was stronger economic growth in Utah than many other places in the country. Was he responsible for all of it? No, but he didn't screw things up, although there is one major issue I have with economic issues of his that is a dealbreaker with me for any primary vote. Cap and trade. He supports it for global warming. As someone with family in the auto industry and supportive of manufacturing, that's a dealbreaker. I'm not sold on man-made global warming because A. Every study I've seen is based on an 150 year study or so, which is a drop in the bucket in earth years unless you are a young earth creationist (I'm not) or B. I'm not sold that global warming is a bad thing. Even if it is bad, how is cap and trade going to fix it? The other thing about Huntsman - good and bad - is that he's a technocrat.
Huntsman has a record of being pro-life as far as I know, but my guard is up a bit. Is he for embryo research? I'd trust him over Romney on this issue though. He is for civil unions. I oppose those and would rather have government get out of marriage altogether. That's not a dealbreak for me, but cap and trade is. However, I do think Huntsman is electable in a general election if he is the nominee. I also think you'll see a lot more from him as it gets closer to New Hampshire and Iowa. What separates Huntsman from Romney is that with Huntsman, you have a good idea what you're going to get. A moderate technocrat. I'd vote for Huntsman over Obama, but not in a primary.
Rick Perry has my support. I commented on his electability here. I think he's a center-right candidate who can win due to his experience, the economy, and the fact that people know what they are going to get from him. Perry is who he is. Do I agree with Perry 100%? No I don't. The vaccine requirement. I don't have a problem with him encouraging it, but I did with requirements. He realized his mistake and backed off. I'm also opposed to the death penalty. However, there's a lot of issues where I do agree with him.
1. Abolishing lifetime tenure for judges. Right now, there's no accountability for federal judicial decisions. There needs to be checks and balances.
2. 16th Amendment income tax. Eliminate it.
3. Balance Budget Amendment.
4. Opposition to Cap and Trade and supports of all the above energy policy which will help our economy
5. Pro-life and pro-2nd Amendment
6. Repeal Obamacare.
7. Turned down stimulus money because of the strings attached.
8. Reduced property taxes and refused to create income tax
9. Vetoes. He used the veto more times than anyone else in Texas history - despite republican control for much of his time in office.
In addition to that, the issue is experience. Obama was a junior league senator with four years of statewide elected experience. Before that, he was a state senator. He is the Peter Principle in Chief. George W Bush I think was inexperienced as well. He was a 1 1/2 term governor and his other major experience was running the Texas Rangers. I think the inexperience caught up with him in the 2nd term of his presidency. Carter was a one term governor and former state senator. He was the Peter Principle in Chief of his time, and then some. Worst president in my lifetime.
Rick Perry has a 10 year record as governor, and 10 years before that as either Lt Governor or Agricultural Commissioner. During the past 20 years, Texas has been one of the leading states in economic growth. Perry didn't do that by himself, but most importantly, he didn't screw things up. A bad governor can do a number on a state. Jennifer Granholm, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Gray Davis, Kathleen Blanco, and Rod Blagojevich prove that. Rick Perry is the most conservative candidate running who can win, and he can win due to the performance of the Texas economy and jobs over the past 10 years.
Jobs is how Perry wins, and jobs is how Obama loses.
Romney, Perry, and Huntsman I think are the "frontrunners." I think any of those three could win the nomination. I think of those three, two of them are very electable in the general election. Perry and Huntsman. Romney I think is less electable unless Obama beats himself.
Unless Perry drops out, I will probably not be voting for Bachmann, Cain, Paul, Newt, Johnson, Santorum, or Palin (if she runs) based on chances of winning in the general election. I protest voted in the 08 election because of Rudy McRomneyabee. I don't regret it. There's different dynamics this time.
I don't care for Romney, but he's got money and organizational skills. His organizational skills are elite. Those two things alone give him a chance. He is a former governor for one term, and has a venture capitalist background. He was the establishment favorite in 2008 and is their favorite once again this year. Working against him (I think) this time is that there's no McCain. That's hurting him with conservatives who preferred him to McCain. Huntsman may play a factor in this later on though. Despite polls, I don't think Romney is electable unless Obama beats himself. That's due to his constant shifting in positions over and over again, as well as his pandering. Where does he stand after Romneycare? Social issues, especially his shift on life issues and a consistently anti-gun record, are a factor to a degree, but Romneycare is his biggest issue, followed by the voting against it after voting for it types of shifts. Jobs is the other. His jobs record in Massachusetts isn't that stellar, and it needs to be in order to compete with Obama. His biggest weakness though isn't his views. It's his constant changing of views. There's too much John Kerry in him, although at least Romney isn't a traitor like Kerry was in his 72 senate speech. I'd probably cave if he's the nominee, but I'd really be holding my nose.
Speaking of Huntsman. Why would I support Huntsman over Romney? It's the economy stupid. Utah has been one of the brighter spots with the economy in recent years. Huntsman only had one term as governor, but there was stronger economic growth in Utah than many other places in the country. Was he responsible for all of it? No, but he didn't screw things up, although there is one major issue I have with economic issues of his that is a dealbreaker with me for any primary vote. Cap and trade. He supports it for global warming. As someone with family in the auto industry and supportive of manufacturing, that's a dealbreaker. I'm not sold on man-made global warming because A. Every study I've seen is based on an 150 year study or so, which is a drop in the bucket in earth years unless you are a young earth creationist (I'm not) or B. I'm not sold that global warming is a bad thing. Even if it is bad, how is cap and trade going to fix it? The other thing about Huntsman - good and bad - is that he's a technocrat.
Huntsman has a record of being pro-life as far as I know, but my guard is up a bit. Is he for embryo research? I'd trust him over Romney on this issue though. He is for civil unions. I oppose those and would rather have government get out of marriage altogether. That's not a dealbreak for me, but cap and trade is. However, I do think Huntsman is electable in a general election if he is the nominee. I also think you'll see a lot more from him as it gets closer to New Hampshire and Iowa. What separates Huntsman from Romney is that with Huntsman, you have a good idea what you're going to get. A moderate technocrat. I'd vote for Huntsman over Obama, but not in a primary.
Rick Perry has my support. I commented on his electability here. I think he's a center-right candidate who can win due to his experience, the economy, and the fact that people know what they are going to get from him. Perry is who he is. Do I agree with Perry 100%? No I don't. The vaccine requirement. I don't have a problem with him encouraging it, but I did with requirements. He realized his mistake and backed off. I'm also opposed to the death penalty. However, there's a lot of issues where I do agree with him.
1. Abolishing lifetime tenure for judges. Right now, there's no accountability for federal judicial decisions. There needs to be checks and balances.
2. 16th Amendment income tax. Eliminate it.
3. Balance Budget Amendment.
4. Opposition to Cap and Trade and supports of all the above energy policy which will help our economy
5. Pro-life and pro-2nd Amendment
6. Repeal Obamacare.
7. Turned down stimulus money because of the strings attached.
8. Reduced property taxes and refused to create income tax
9. Vetoes. He used the veto more times than anyone else in Texas history - despite republican control for much of his time in office.
In addition to that, the issue is experience. Obama was a junior league senator with four years of statewide elected experience. Before that, he was a state senator. He is the Peter Principle in Chief. George W Bush I think was inexperienced as well. He was a 1 1/2 term governor and his other major experience was running the Texas Rangers. I think the inexperience caught up with him in the 2nd term of his presidency. Carter was a one term governor and former state senator. He was the Peter Principle in Chief of his time, and then some. Worst president in my lifetime.
Rick Perry has a 10 year record as governor, and 10 years before that as either Lt Governor or Agricultural Commissioner. During the past 20 years, Texas has been one of the leading states in economic growth. Perry didn't do that by himself, but most importantly, he didn't screw things up. A bad governor can do a number on a state. Jennifer Granholm, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Gray Davis, Kathleen Blanco, and Rod Blagojevich prove that. Rick Perry is the most conservative candidate running who can win, and he can win due to the performance of the Texas economy and jobs over the past 10 years.
Jobs is how Perry wins, and jobs is how Obama loses.
Saturday, August 13, 2011
Michele Bachmann wins straw poll. Ron Paul 2nd
The important thing about the Ames Straw poll isn't just who wins, although it's a big deal for Bachmann who is now looking more as a serious candidate. What's also important is who places, and who craters. From Reuters
How important is winning the straw poll? I don't really like wikipedia as a source, but this looks legit.
1979 - Winner is George HW Bush. 1980 nominee - Ronald Reagan.
1987 - Pat Robertson won. George HW Bush nominee. Bush finished 3rd. Bob Dole finished 2nd.
1995 - Bob Dole and Phil Gramm tied. Dole was nominee. Gramm dropped out early after losing Louisiana to Pat Buchanan.
1999 - George W Bush won. Bush was nominee.
2007 - Mitt Romney won. McCain was nominee. McCain finished 10th, while skipping the event.
In other words, it's historically important to place, if not necessarily win. Here's the results.
According to National Review those competing in the Ames poll are Bachmann, Pawlenty, Paul, Cain, McCotter and Santorum. Romney, Huntsman, and Gingrich wern't competing as hard. Perry just announced. Palin isn't in, and probably got most of those 162 votes. McCotter was not allowed in the debate.
My analysis and two cents on this.
Ames Winners:
Bachmann - She won it. She's on the map. She worked hard in Iowa and finished first. She is Iowa born, and that could have helped.
Paul - He's back. With the fiscal clustermuck, I think more conservatives that are less isolationist than he is will look at him more closely. Historically, there's always been a strong minority of republicans who are isolationist and more who are non-interventionist. I think it'll get stronger again as someone takes Pat Buchanan's old role. Ron Paul is becoming that face.
Rick Perry - He did the best by far of those skipping the race. He beat Mitt, who won this last time. He almost doubled Newt, and dwarfed McCotter and Huntsman. His 6th place finish was based solely on write-in votes. This is a good start for Perry.
Ames Losers
McCotter - I like Thad McCotter He's a good guy. I also think he should have run for senate instead. McCotter was locked out of the debate, so this isn't all his fault. However, 35 votes out of about 17000? He probably met more people than 35 in Iowa.
Huntsman - He can recover because he's a multi-millionaire many times over. This still isn't a good showing, even skipping the race. He'll have to make a big move in New Hampshire, McCain 08 style to have a shot.
Santorum - Santorum did better than I expected finishing 4th. The problem he has is that much of the same group that would vote for him would also vote for Bachmann. You won't out pro-life Santorum, but Bachmann can match Santorum in this area, both in stance and intensity.
Cain - I somewhat hesitate to put Cain here, but he finished behind most of the rest who competed strong in Ames. I think he'll survive this, but he'll have to make a move quick or he'll be just the protest vote candidate of 2012 of those who don't like the rest of the crowd. I think Ron Paul is hurting Cain. I like Cain, but his election history is his weak point. He finished 2nd in his one major statewide primary race in Georgia.
Newt Gingrich - Finished behind Romney and Perry and had probably close to 100% name recognition despite skipping the race.
Too Early to Tell:
Pawlenty. Was 3rd place enough? He got less than 1/2 of the votes of his fellow Minnesotan, but they were aimed at different crowds. I'm not ready to write off this campaign yet, but Pawlenty is going to have to make a move. He's going to have to dent Romney a bit and get a lot of the folks that would otherwise vote for him look at Pawlenty.
Romney - He announced he was skipping early on. He finished 7th, ahead of most who skipped the race, except Perry. Perry's votes were write in.
Fallout:
Who is going to drop? That's the most important fallout that happens due to Ames straw poll results. McCain stayed in despite 10th out of 11th in 07 and won nomination. He was in the same shoes Romney is now with a 2nd place finish in the last primary overall looking for another shot. Tommy Thompson finished 6th and dropped early due to the 07 performance. The field's starting to narrow some. The question is by how much.
AMES, Iowa (Reuters) - Michele Bachmann won the Iowa straw poll on Saturday in the first big test of the 2012 Republican presidential race, as Texas Governor Rick Perry launched a White House bid that could reshape the race.
How important is winning the straw poll? I don't really like wikipedia as a source, but this looks legit.
1979 - Winner is George HW Bush. 1980 nominee - Ronald Reagan.
1987 - Pat Robertson won. George HW Bush nominee. Bush finished 3rd. Bob Dole finished 2nd.
1995 - Bob Dole and Phil Gramm tied. Dole was nominee. Gramm dropped out early after losing Louisiana to Pat Buchanan.
1999 - George W Bush won. Bush was nominee.
2007 - Mitt Romney won. McCain was nominee. McCain finished 10th, while skipping the event.
In other words, it's historically important to place, if not necessarily win. Here's the results.
| Place | Candidate | Votes | Percentage |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Michele Bachmann | 4,823 | 28.5% |
| 2 | Ron Paul | 4,671 | 27.6% |
| 3 | Tim Pawlenty | 2,293 | 13.6% |
| 4 | Rick Santorum | 1,657 | 9.8% |
| 5 | Herman Cain | 1,456 | 8.6% |
| 6 | Rick Perry (write-in) | 718 | 4.3% |
| 7 | Mitt Romney | 567 | 3.4% |
| 8 | Newt Gingrich | 385 | 2.3% |
| 9 | Jon Huntsman | 69 | 0.4% |
| 10 | Thaddeus McCotter | 35 | 0.2% |
| — | Scattering | 162 | 1.0% |
According to National Review those competing in the Ames poll are Bachmann, Pawlenty, Paul, Cain, McCotter and Santorum. Romney, Huntsman, and Gingrich wern't competing as hard. Perry just announced. Palin isn't in, and probably got most of those 162 votes. McCotter was not allowed in the debate.
My analysis and two cents on this.
Ames Winners:
Bachmann - She won it. She's on the map. She worked hard in Iowa and finished first. She is Iowa born, and that could have helped.
Paul - He's back. With the fiscal clustermuck, I think more conservatives that are less isolationist than he is will look at him more closely. Historically, there's always been a strong minority of republicans who are isolationist and more who are non-interventionist. I think it'll get stronger again as someone takes Pat Buchanan's old role. Ron Paul is becoming that face.
Rick Perry - He did the best by far of those skipping the race. He beat Mitt, who won this last time. He almost doubled Newt, and dwarfed McCotter and Huntsman. His 6th place finish was based solely on write-in votes. This is a good start for Perry.
Ames Losers
McCotter - I like Thad McCotter He's a good guy. I also think he should have run for senate instead. McCotter was locked out of the debate, so this isn't all his fault. However, 35 votes out of about 17000? He probably met more people than 35 in Iowa.
Huntsman - He can recover because he's a multi-millionaire many times over. This still isn't a good showing, even skipping the race. He'll have to make a big move in New Hampshire, McCain 08 style to have a shot.
Santorum - Santorum did better than I expected finishing 4th. The problem he has is that much of the same group that would vote for him would also vote for Bachmann. You won't out pro-life Santorum, but Bachmann can match Santorum in this area, both in stance and intensity.
Cain - I somewhat hesitate to put Cain here, but he finished behind most of the rest who competed strong in Ames. I think he'll survive this, but he'll have to make a move quick or he'll be just the protest vote candidate of 2012 of those who don't like the rest of the crowd. I think Ron Paul is hurting Cain. I like Cain, but his election history is his weak point. He finished 2nd in his one major statewide primary race in Georgia.
Newt Gingrich - Finished behind Romney and Perry and had probably close to 100% name recognition despite skipping the race.
Too Early to Tell:
Pawlenty. Was 3rd place enough? He got less than 1/2 of the votes of his fellow Minnesotan, but they were aimed at different crowds. I'm not ready to write off this campaign yet, but Pawlenty is going to have to make a move. He's going to have to dent Romney a bit and get a lot of the folks that would otherwise vote for him look at Pawlenty.
Romney - He announced he was skipping early on. He finished 7th, ahead of most who skipped the race, except Perry. Perry's votes were write in.
Fallout:
Who is going to drop? That's the most important fallout that happens due to Ames straw poll results. McCain stayed in despite 10th out of 11th in 07 and won nomination. He was in the same shoes Romney is now with a 2nd place finish in the last primary overall looking for another shot. Tommy Thompson finished 6th and dropped early due to the 07 performance. The field's starting to narrow some. The question is by how much.
MI GOP State Committee chooses "closed" (actually open) primary
The state committee went with an "closed" primary. I'm not surprised at this. Usually the full committee goes with the policy committee recommendations. My problem with this is as follows. One is that this is in reality an OPEN primary. Anyone can come in, declare themselves to be a republican on the SAME DAY as the election, and vote. I'd be much less opposed to this if there is separate registration 30-60 days before this primary and force voters to make an effort. I think this is going to be a disaster. I think a lot of people support this by its name until they find out that this isn't closed. Most republicans I know support actual closed primaries. Most democrats I know support the same thing on their side. They don't want a Fieger 98 repeat, just as we don't want McCain 2000 repeat.
The problem with a "closed" but really open primary is that it only works if there are actual contested elections the same day. If Obama had a strong challenger, this could work - if the democrats were not using a caucus in 2012, as they did in 2004. Even Kevin Shopshire can vote in the Republican primary if he chose a Republican ballot, which is the only ballot there. I don't blame him if he does do this. He doesn't have a contest on his side. I'm sure there was some cross voting in the past. Geoffrey Fieger in 98, McCain in 2000, and Rick Snyder in 2010 are examples of it.
One of the biggest reasons state party supports this is to get a list. That's nice, but if you have a 20% crossover list like in 2000, that's a lot of money and time going to waste. In 08, the crossovers were estimated at about 7-8%. That's with a contest on both sides.
I'm not opposed to this as a "stop Romney" campaign. In fact, I was told by someone I respect on state committee (who is undecided as I am) that he thinks Romney would win a convention easily. I prefer a caucus, but still would rather have a convention than an open primary, even if Mitt Romney was guaranteed to win it. If he won a convention, he earned it by getting republican votes. My preferences are caucus, a true closed primary, county conventions, state conventions, and open primary in that order. It's the process that's important. Republicans should choose the republican nominee. Democrats should choose their nominee. 3rd parties should choose their nominee. Independents should vote in the general election or better yet, join a party and get active. I was a conservative independent for years. I understand how tough it is to join the party since the "I" label makes you feel good, but there's more than can done within a party structure than outside of the structure.
Lastly, one of the good things about the party system in Michigan, at least among republicans, is that it is a fair system. Precinct delegate is an elected position (open spots are filled). Delegates choose their county executive committee. Delegates choose representatives to state convention where district committee and state committee members are chosen, as well as party chairs and vice chairs. If you want to make a difference in the party, show up at the meetings, talk to people in the party, run for precinct delegate, and be active. Maybe in 2016 or 2020, we can have a caucus ready for implementation.
The problem with a "closed" but really open primary is that it only works if there are actual contested elections the same day. If Obama had a strong challenger, this could work - if the democrats were not using a caucus in 2012, as they did in 2004. Even Kevin Shopshire can vote in the Republican primary if he chose a Republican ballot, which is the only ballot there. I don't blame him if he does do this. He doesn't have a contest on his side. I'm sure there was some cross voting in the past. Geoffrey Fieger in 98, McCain in 2000, and Rick Snyder in 2010 are examples of it.
One of the biggest reasons state party supports this is to get a list. That's nice, but if you have a 20% crossover list like in 2000, that's a lot of money and time going to waste. In 08, the crossovers were estimated at about 7-8%. That's with a contest on both sides.
I'm not opposed to this as a "stop Romney" campaign. In fact, I was told by someone I respect on state committee (who is undecided as I am) that he thinks Romney would win a convention easily. I prefer a caucus, but still would rather have a convention than an open primary, even if Mitt Romney was guaranteed to win it. If he won a convention, he earned it by getting republican votes. My preferences are caucus, a true closed primary, county conventions, state conventions, and open primary in that order. It's the process that's important. Republicans should choose the republican nominee. Democrats should choose their nominee. 3rd parties should choose their nominee. Independents should vote in the general election or better yet, join a party and get active. I was a conservative independent for years. I understand how tough it is to join the party since the "I" label makes you feel good, but there's more than can done within a party structure than outside of the structure.
Lastly, one of the good things about the party system in Michigan, at least among republicans, is that it is a fair system. Precinct delegate is an elected position (open spots are filled). Delegates choose their county executive committee. Delegates choose representatives to state convention where district committee and state committee members are chosen, as well as party chairs and vice chairs. If you want to make a difference in the party, show up at the meetings, talk to people in the party, run for precinct delegate, and be active. Maybe in 2016 or 2020, we can have a caucus ready for implementation.
Monday, August 08, 2011
Peter Principle in Chief "fouls" up the budget problems.
I'm frankly shocked that the US Government credit rating isn't at junk bond status right now. S&P sounded the warning alarm. This is what happens as a result of the combination of the Peter Principle with Obama, the biggest joke in the country with the US Senate led by Harry Reid, and a cowardly Republican house still living in 1995 and 1996 fears. In response to the S&P decision, Obama's yesman "economic advisor" didn't talk about spending less, but accused them of "amateurism". Are you f'ing kidding me? That's coming from the administration which is the embodiment of amateur hour in action. Dumb and Dumber. When 12 trillion isn't enough, there's a problem. Bailous, stimulus, Obamacare, and this.
Just as bad was Congress and the GOP house caving like this. This isn't 1995 or 1996. The same rules don't apply, there's no Okalahoma City bombing, and there is no balanced budget. The internet is bigger today. Obama isn't Bill Clinton and doesn't have the same effect on people as in 2008 now that the "we can elect a black president," "Bush fatigue", and the "stop the war" push is over. I'm no Clinton fan, but one thing I agree with him on is "A few years ago, this guy would be getting us coffee." That was the quote in 2008. Clinton was young when he was elected, but had 11 years of executive experience as governor, interrupted by a statewide defeat and comeback.
Obama on the other hand rose way beyond his level of incompetence. He didn't get to where he was at by what he knew. He only got there because he was a useful tool to influential power brokers. At Harvard Law, he was the president of law review, but had no articles published. None. Why? Anyone that went to law school knows that one of the expectations on law review is to write articles. That goes double for the person in charge. If he didn't write articles, how did he get there? From there, he was ACORN's attorney, and he then ran for state senate in a special election of 96.
The one thing that Obama actually is good at besides sticking his nose in the air and running his mouth is campaigns. Chicago politics. He and Axelrod know what they are doing there. He got his first opponent kept off the ballot. That's Chicago politics. He was unopposed in 98 and 2002. In 2004 he ran for US Senate, and got lucky when there was a major mess on both party sides. The frontrunning dems had scandals on one side. On the GOP side. Maverick Peter Fitzgerald (despised by state GOP leadership for his corruption stances) decided not to run again. This was in the era of George Ryan. Ryan was the GOP version of Rod Blagojevich and went to prison. Typical Chicagoland politics. Jack Ryan won the nomination. Obama's people and media allies were leaking his supposed to be sealed divorce file which had a skeleton, and Ryan dropped out. Marylander Alan Keyes replaced Ryan and Obama won with 70%. He also that same year had a major speech at the 2004 DNC convention which set him up four years later. Friends in high places.
That's a real rapid and lucky rise for someone who until there was nothing more than a two bit state senator and ACORN's attorney. It's also a big jump from a two bit junior league less than one term senator to being the Peter Principle-in-chief. Tony Resko, Bill Ayers, and company taught him well.
Obama can campaign, and he can organize, but he doesn't know anything about budgets. He is showing his incompetence. He has no experience balancing budgets at an executive level. While in Congress, the budget increased every term. He voted for them. He voted for the Bailouts. He enacted the stimulus package. He signed budgets that shattered Bush's records. The Peter Principle in chief then sticks his nose up in the air and has the arrogance to lecture all of us on budgets. Boehner needs to screw civility tell him off in the matter what former Coach Bob Knight did to a media person who didn't get his facts straight. It won't happen.
Knight's quote - "I'll handle this the way I want to handle it now that I'm here. You F@%#ed it up to begin with, now just sit there or leave. I don't give a @%## what you do." This clown needs to be told to sit there or leave.
This deal obviously didn't work. The credit ratings are down. Markets are dropping. What is as bad as the deal is the fact that Boehner bragged about it like it was a good thing. What he should have said is that "We control one branch of government. The democrats control two. This is the least worst option that slowed growth of spending although it didn't make cuts. We wanted to avoid the default as we think this is the worst case scenario. In order to actually balance the budget, we need to get rid of Obama and Reid."
A balanced budget and actual cuts need to be pushed. Not "cuts in growth" over 10 years. Not 2008 levels. Balanced budget.
This is also going to be a big weekend in Iowa. August 13th is the day of the famous Ames Straw poll. This will likely start narrowing the field of declared candidates further. Nobody is running away with the nomination right now. After suffering for four years of the Peter Principle in chief, we need to make sure someone with actual experience and intelligence beyond American Idol Campaign styles and reading a teleprompter gets elected.
The Peter Principle in Chief isn't done fouling things up. Whoever takes over will have a gigantic mess to fix. Boehner needs to limit the damage as much as possible, and the rest of us need to keep pushing our reps that this deal wasn't acceptable, and we need to cut spending. ASAP. Now.
Just as bad was Congress and the GOP house caving like this. This isn't 1995 or 1996. The same rules don't apply, there's no Okalahoma City bombing, and there is no balanced budget. The internet is bigger today. Obama isn't Bill Clinton and doesn't have the same effect on people as in 2008 now that the "we can elect a black president," "Bush fatigue", and the "stop the war" push is over. I'm no Clinton fan, but one thing I agree with him on is "A few years ago, this guy would be getting us coffee." That was the quote in 2008. Clinton was young when he was elected, but had 11 years of executive experience as governor, interrupted by a statewide defeat and comeback.
Obama on the other hand rose way beyond his level of incompetence. He didn't get to where he was at by what he knew. He only got there because he was a useful tool to influential power brokers. At Harvard Law, he was the president of law review, but had no articles published. None. Why? Anyone that went to law school knows that one of the expectations on law review is to write articles. That goes double for the person in charge. If he didn't write articles, how did he get there? From there, he was ACORN's attorney, and he then ran for state senate in a special election of 96.
The one thing that Obama actually is good at besides sticking his nose in the air and running his mouth is campaigns. Chicago politics. He and Axelrod know what they are doing there. He got his first opponent kept off the ballot. That's Chicago politics. He was unopposed in 98 and 2002. In 2004 he ran for US Senate, and got lucky when there was a major mess on both party sides. The frontrunning dems had scandals on one side. On the GOP side. Maverick Peter Fitzgerald (despised by state GOP leadership for his corruption stances) decided not to run again. This was in the era of George Ryan. Ryan was the GOP version of Rod Blagojevich and went to prison. Typical Chicagoland politics. Jack Ryan won the nomination. Obama's people and media allies were leaking his supposed to be sealed divorce file which had a skeleton, and Ryan dropped out. Marylander Alan Keyes replaced Ryan and Obama won with 70%. He also that same year had a major speech at the 2004 DNC convention which set him up four years later. Friends in high places.
That's a real rapid and lucky rise for someone who until there was nothing more than a two bit state senator and ACORN's attorney. It's also a big jump from a two bit junior league less than one term senator to being the Peter Principle-in-chief. Tony Resko, Bill Ayers, and company taught him well.
Obama can campaign, and he can organize, but he doesn't know anything about budgets. He is showing his incompetence. He has no experience balancing budgets at an executive level. While in Congress, the budget increased every term. He voted for them. He voted for the Bailouts. He enacted the stimulus package. He signed budgets that shattered Bush's records. The Peter Principle in chief then sticks his nose up in the air and has the arrogance to lecture all of us on budgets. Boehner needs to screw civility tell him off in the matter what former Coach Bob Knight did to a media person who didn't get his facts straight. It won't happen.
Knight's quote - "I'll handle this the way I want to handle it now that I'm here. You F@%#ed it up to begin with, now just sit there or leave. I don't give a @%## what you do." This clown needs to be told to sit there or leave.
This deal obviously didn't work. The credit ratings are down. Markets are dropping. What is as bad as the deal is the fact that Boehner bragged about it like it was a good thing. What he should have said is that "We control one branch of government. The democrats control two. This is the least worst option that slowed growth of spending although it didn't make cuts. We wanted to avoid the default as we think this is the worst case scenario. In order to actually balance the budget, we need to get rid of Obama and Reid."
A balanced budget and actual cuts need to be pushed. Not "cuts in growth" over 10 years. Not 2008 levels. Balanced budget.
This is also going to be a big weekend in Iowa. August 13th is the day of the famous Ames Straw poll. This will likely start narrowing the field of declared candidates further. Nobody is running away with the nomination right now. After suffering for four years of the Peter Principle in chief, we need to make sure someone with actual experience and intelligence beyond American Idol Campaign styles and reading a teleprompter gets elected.
The Peter Principle in Chief isn't done fouling things up. Whoever takes over will have a gigantic mess to fix. Boehner needs to limit the damage as much as possible, and the rest of us need to keep pushing our reps that this deal wasn't acceptable, and we need to cut spending. ASAP. Now.
Wednesday, July 13, 2011
State Party Policy Committee supports "closed" primary
MIGOP's policy committee endorsed a closed primary. I put "closed" in quotes, because I don't know how closed it can end up being. The last real attempt at a true closed primary was in 1992, and I remember even back then that was an absolute mess, and that was with contests on both sides (Pat Buchanan challenged GHWB.) I have my concerns with this. Party registration was tossed out of court as well, at least as it was implemented at the time. I do like this better than an open primary, but Michigan doesn't have true formal party registration. The problem with this is that 2008 had contests on both sides. Primaries without party registration only work when that is the case. Damage can be limited to an extent, but only so much. With the rise of internet politics, (mostly a good thing) organization is much easier for shenanigans. In 2000, John Conyers lead the way in pushing a McCain vote to embarrass John Engler. It worked. In 1972, George Wallace won for the democrats. In 1988, Jesse Jackson. Yes, Michigan voted for both George Wallace and Jesse Jackson.
I understand the cost concerns based on speculation. Caucus supporters say it won't cost much. Primary supporters think otherwise.
From Saul Anuzis:
The final vote is in August's state committee meeting. I'm not on state committee, so I don't have a vote. If I did, I'd have to look closely at any language dealing with registration, challenges, and alternatives. I'd support this over an open primary. I think conventions are real bad from a PR standpoint and strongly oppose them for presidential nominations. They are good for "smaller" offices.
I support a caucus. It's not perfect and would take a lot of work. A lot of the old timers oppose caucuses based on 1988's fight between Jack Kemp, George HW Bush, and Pat Robertson. I wasn't active then, but have heard plenty of stories. It's a different era, with different people and candidates. Top down stuff backfires a lot more these days in the age of the internet.
Opponents of the caucus have logistic worries, but Michigan has had caucuses for a long time. The last one was in 2004. It was done by the democrats. There was some controversy, but mostly with candidates ignoring Detroit.
I'll take a "closed" primary over a convention (too exclusive) and over a true open primary, but I think caucuses are the cleanest way in a non party registration state to determine that party's nomination for president.
-----------------------------
Edited to add. I'm hearing, but haven't confirmed that the policy committee's decision if enacted, would have voters declaring their ballot at the polling place. If that is true, than this is not a closed primary at all but an open primary. I oppose that 100%. If there is going to be a primary, there needs to be more safeguards than that, and the policy committee's recommendation would need to be amended.
I understand the cost concerns based on speculation. Caucus supporters say it won't cost much. Primary supporters think otherwise.
From Saul Anuzis:
After several months of discussions between state committee members, county chairs and party activists…the State Committee’s Policy Committee unanimously passed a resolution recommending a closed primary to the full State Committee.
The Committee considered the pros and cons of a caucus, convention and closed primary. Every possible factor was considered and there was a significant amount of input from activists around the state. Committee members representing EVERY congressional district solicited advise from their members.
The Committee also recommended using the 2008 Apportionment method to allocate delegates. That is winner take all by congressional district and proportional for the at-large delegates based on the overall statewide vote. A candidate would have to get a minimum of 15% to qualify for any delegates.
The final vote is in August's state committee meeting. I'm not on state committee, so I don't have a vote. If I did, I'd have to look closely at any language dealing with registration, challenges, and alternatives. I'd support this over an open primary. I think conventions are real bad from a PR standpoint and strongly oppose them for presidential nominations. They are good for "smaller" offices.
I support a caucus. It's not perfect and would take a lot of work. A lot of the old timers oppose caucuses based on 1988's fight between Jack Kemp, George HW Bush, and Pat Robertson. I wasn't active then, but have heard plenty of stories. It's a different era, with different people and candidates. Top down stuff backfires a lot more these days in the age of the internet.
Opponents of the caucus have logistic worries, but Michigan has had caucuses for a long time. The last one was in 2004. It was done by the democrats. There was some controversy, but mostly with candidates ignoring Detroit.
I'll take a "closed" primary over a convention (too exclusive) and over a true open primary, but I think caucuses are the cleanest way in a non party registration state to determine that party's nomination for president.
-----------------------------
Edited to add. I'm hearing, but haven't confirmed that the policy committee's decision if enacted, would have voters declaring their ballot at the polling place. If that is true, than this is not a closed primary at all but an open primary. I oppose that 100%. If there is going to be a primary, there needs to be more safeguards than that, and the policy committee's recommendation would need to be amended.
Sunday, July 03, 2011
Why Michigan GOP should have a caucus in 2012 instead of convention or primary
This is gaining some ground over in Washtenaw County, and I'm inclined to agree with it. It's the best plan I've seen so far.
MICaucus 2012
I'd like to say that I thought of this myself, but I'm not part of this group, although I agree with a lot of what they are saying. There's a video, powerpoint, and pdf file there all worth a look.
Most of the talk I'm hearing is closed primary vs modified primary vs convention (and they are confusing caucus with convention). A lot of insiders do not want a convention because 1500 people will likely be making the decision for the nomination. I understand that. I don't think a convention will go anywhere. Bad politics, and policy. While my vote would count more, many friends of mine who are activists would be shut out of a convention. I oppose this as much as I do an open primary, which dilutes votes with democrats. McCain 2000 and Fieger 98 shows pitfalls there.
Open primaries only work when there is a open contest on both sides. In 2012, that's not going to happen. Modified is what we had last time to an extent. It's open, but you have to declare party. I don't think that will work in 2012 for the same reason open primaries don't work. Cross party voting in primaries.
Caucuses are the best way to limit the pool to republicans choosing their own party's nomination, while at the same time not being too exclusive limiting republicans from voting in republican races.
State committee needs to get this one right. They have a reputation (sometimes deserved and sometimes undeserved - the reality is quite complicated) as a top down power broker's club of two conflicting consulting firms favoring certain candidates at any cost (McCain v Romney in 06-08). This can go a long ways towards them improving relationships with the grassroots putting their biggest issue of all in their hands.
This issue is their baby, and will have major ramifications in party leadership decisions at the next convention. Anything viewed as a coronation for a favorite will be bad news for everybody involved, except Obama. We don't need that. A caucus will put the decisions in the hands of activists. Candidates will have to earn our votes, and may the best person win the Republican nomination.
MICaucus 2012
This plan was developed by volunteer Republican and Tea Party activists searching for a way to protect the integrity of the Republican nomination process and position the movement to defeat Barack Obama.
We designed a system that encourages all campaigns to get volunteers involved in precinct leadership, and awards delegates to campaigns as fairly as can be.
A system that could be low-cost, pay for itself, or make a profit.
A system to strengthen the Republican Party and encourage the Tea Party.
A system immune to left-wing tampering, ballot fraud, insider politics—and accusations of any of them!
I'd like to say that I thought of this myself, but I'm not part of this group, although I agree with a lot of what they are saying. There's a video, powerpoint, and pdf file there all worth a look.
Most of the talk I'm hearing is closed primary vs modified primary vs convention (and they are confusing caucus with convention). A lot of insiders do not want a convention because 1500 people will likely be making the decision for the nomination. I understand that. I don't think a convention will go anywhere. Bad politics, and policy. While my vote would count more, many friends of mine who are activists would be shut out of a convention. I oppose this as much as I do an open primary, which dilutes votes with democrats. McCain 2000 and Fieger 98 shows pitfalls there.
Open primaries only work when there is a open contest on both sides. In 2012, that's not going to happen. Modified is what we had last time to an extent. It's open, but you have to declare party. I don't think that will work in 2012 for the same reason open primaries don't work. Cross party voting in primaries.
Caucuses are the best way to limit the pool to republicans choosing their own party's nomination, while at the same time not being too exclusive limiting republicans from voting in republican races.
State committee needs to get this one right. They have a reputation (sometimes deserved and sometimes undeserved - the reality is quite complicated) as a top down power broker's club of two conflicting consulting firms favoring certain candidates at any cost (McCain v Romney in 06-08). This can go a long ways towards them improving relationships with the grassroots putting their biggest issue of all in their hands.
This issue is their baby, and will have major ramifications in party leadership decisions at the next convention. Anything viewed as a coronation for a favorite will be bad news for everybody involved, except Obama. We don't need that. A caucus will put the decisions in the hands of activists. Candidates will have to earn our votes, and may the best person win the Republican nomination.
Thursday, June 16, 2011
2012 Primary - Is is a Primary, Convention, or Caucus?
There's two big issues coming up with State Committee in the next couple of months. It effects all of us. The first issue is when will our presidential primary, caucus, or convention will be? The other, bigger issue, is what will we have.
In 1972, the winner for the democrats in Michigan.....George Wallace. Yeah, that George Wallace. That was during the whole bussing issue.
In 1988, there was a caucus, at least on the Republican side. It was a major battle. I don't know what the democrats have had, but Jesse Jackson won.
In 1992, there was a closed primary. It got tossed out of court after the fact.
In 2000, there was a caucus for the democrats and republican open primary. A lot of the democrats voted for McCain over GW Bush, who won.
In 2004, the democrats had a caucus and there was no primary for the GOP.
In 2008, there was a modified open primary with both parties going on the same day.
With 2012, the democrats are having a caucus. What the republicans are having has not been decided yet. For the same reason the democrats have a caucus in 2004, I don't want an open primary. If I had the chance, I would have voted for Dennis Kucinich in the democrat primary. I don't want a bunch of democrats entering our primary and voting for some Rick Snyder type. Some power brokers WANT democrats voting in our primary because they want a Snyder type to win again. It's good for the consulting fees.
What can we do activists? Not a lot, but there's a little we can do.
1. Lobby the state committee members in your area. They will often be at your district party events. Sometimes they are at your county party events too.
2. Help choose your state committee members. This is long term. It won't effect right now, but could affect things four years from now. Precinct delegates choose delegates for state convention. Those delegates represent the district. The delegates choose the district party committee and its state committee members at the state convention.
3. Precinct delegates are voted in the August primary.
Right now is the time to be active on procedures. We can't let democrats choose our party's nominee. No more Snyders.
In 1972, the winner for the democrats in Michigan.....George Wallace. Yeah, that George Wallace. That was during the whole bussing issue.
In 1988, there was a caucus, at least on the Republican side. It was a major battle. I don't know what the democrats have had, but Jesse Jackson won.
In 1992, there was a closed primary. It got tossed out of court after the fact.
In 2000, there was a caucus for the democrats and republican open primary. A lot of the democrats voted for McCain over GW Bush, who won.
In 2004, the democrats had a caucus and there was no primary for the GOP.
In 2008, there was a modified open primary with both parties going on the same day.
With 2012, the democrats are having a caucus. What the republicans are having has not been decided yet. For the same reason the democrats have a caucus in 2004, I don't want an open primary. If I had the chance, I would have voted for Dennis Kucinich in the democrat primary. I don't want a bunch of democrats entering our primary and voting for some Rick Snyder type. Some power brokers WANT democrats voting in our primary because they want a Snyder type to win again. It's good for the consulting fees.
What can we do activists? Not a lot, but there's a little we can do.
1. Lobby the state committee members in your area. They will often be at your district party events. Sometimes they are at your county party events too.
2. Help choose your state committee members. This is long term. It won't effect right now, but could affect things four years from now. Precinct delegates choose delegates for state convention. Those delegates represent the district. The delegates choose the district party committee and its state committee members at the state convention.
3. Precinct delegates are voted in the August primary.
Right now is the time to be active on procedures. We can't let democrats choose our party's nominee. No more Snyders.
Tuesday, June 14, 2011
Action not words
I didn't watch the debate. I really didn't have any desire to do so. Over the years, I've come to believe that debates are overrated for several reasons.
1. Many people who watch them have made up their mind already.
2. Anybody can say anything. The word of most Politicians isn't worth much and it is worth absolutely nothing when they speak in "political speak" which is nothing but platitudes.
3. Most don't watch them.
Debates do have their uses, but more at the local level. That's because many candidates on the local level have little to no known record and will finally get put on the record with statements. On the local level, they are less apt to be coached up, and less apt to speak in political speak and say nothing.
On the national level, I don't think they are really needed, because debates are talk. Talk is cheap. Money talks, BS walks. I don't want to know what politicians say. I want to know what they have done.
The two biggest issues this campaign are these. The economy. Credibility. The first issue is obvious. When the economy tanks, the people in power are blamed. "Throw the bums out." If the economy is bad in 2012, Obama is done unless the GOP nominee beats himself (or herself). That gets to the other issue credibility. This issue is overlooked often because the political class and media don't care. Grass roots supporters, as well as independents, do care about credibility.
I'm going to ramble a bit here, but the stupidest term I hear from the media and the political class is that "so and so" is the electable candidate. Usually the so called "electable" candidate is called that because of current name recognition, money, next in line turn, supposedly appeals to independents (whether reality is true or not), etc. It's often a US Senator that is tagged with this label, which is irony because few senators win. People just do not like US Senators. They have long voting records, and it usually sucks.
16 Senators became president. 8 Senators were elected after the Civil War. 7 Were elected after the war. Andrew Johnson never was elected. Only three senators elected were sitting senators. Obama, Kennedy, and Harding. The history of senators wanting to be president is usually not kind, and usually they only defeat other senators. Here's the post Civil War election history for senators.
Obama (Senator) defeated McCain (Senator)
Bush (Governor) defeated Kerry (Senator) and Gore (VP, ex-Senator)
Clinton (Governor) defeated Dole (Senator)
Reagan (Governor) defeated Mondale (Ex-VP, ex-Senator)
Nixon (Ex-VP, ex-Senator) defeated McGovern (Senator) and Humphrey (VP, ex-senator).
LBJ (VP, ex-Senator) defeated Goldwater.(Senator)
JFK (Senator) defeated Nixon
Truman (VP,Ex-senator) defeated Dewey (Governor)
Harding (Senator) defeated James Cox (Governor)
Cleveland (Governor) and Harrison (senator) defeated each other.
Cleveland defeated Blaine (Senator)
Grant (Military) defeated Greeley (Senator)
I don't remember who the "electable" candidate was in 1992. The electable candidate in 1996 was Bob Dole. In 2000, Bush and Gore were the "electable" candidates. Gore's an ex-senator. In 2004, John Kerry was the "electable" candidate. In 2008, it was generally viewed as McCain being the most electable in a general election. Now it's supposedly Romney (no way) or Huntsman (I have my issues with Huntsman, but a case could be made there).
The media perceived electable candidate is often viewed as being "presidential" whatever that means, or that he has gravitas. Dole had that. He lost. He was a Henry Clay in some ways, the great compromiser. Sometimes too much was compromised and he couldn't be counted on. Where did he stand. Bush and Gore were both weak candidates IMO. Bush was the "compassionate conservative" and Gore reinvented himself into a faux populist. John Kerry was a joke as a person and as a senator with no credibility and questionable loyalties at best to the U.S. He was the worst "first tier" candidate they ran. He was considered "presidential" in the eyes of the media and political class. McCain couldn't even win Indiana. That's all that needs to be said there.
Credibility is important. When you say something, does it match your record? If it doesn't then I can't trust you. I can't count on you, and you lost any chance of my vote in the primary. In the general, you then better hope that the democrat pissed me off to the point where I'll hold my nose against my better wishes (ie McCain in 2008). With Rick Snyder's tax scheme (and the disappointing reps who followed him just because he's governor), and Bush's spending policies 04-08 leading to Obama, my tolerance is less and less for nose holding. I don't have to necessarily agree with a candidate. Rudy Giuliani and I don't see eye to eye on a lot of issues. I know what I'm going to get from him. Ron Paul is closer to my views than Giuliani, although I don't always agree with him either. I voted for him in 2008. I know where Ron Paul stands. I know where Gary Johnson stands. I know where Michelle Bachman stands. I probably know were Herman Cain stands, although he doesn't have a voting record. I think I know where Rick Santorum and Tim Pawlenty stand. I have no idea where Newt Gingrich or Mitt Romney really stand.
My big fear are these two issues. The first is that a flip-flopper will be the nominee. Romney to be specific. His big weakness is credibility - or lack of it. That's an easy way to lose. In addition if he wins, will he enact RomneycareII and other big government schemes like we'd get with Obama's second term? That's what he was as Massachusetts governor. I haven't even gotten to the social issues yet, either.
In the age of the internet, it takes less than five minutes to find a candidate's past history, including voting records on issues. It is easier than ever to find out the credibility of a candidate when he or she speaks on a particular issue. Money talks and BS walks. We need our candidate, whoever it is, to make sure he or she is credible and has a good record on the economy, credibility, and competence. Else, Obama wins - or more accurately, the republican candidate defeats himself.
1. Many people who watch them have made up their mind already.
2. Anybody can say anything. The word of most Politicians isn't worth much and it is worth absolutely nothing when they speak in "political speak" which is nothing but platitudes.
3. Most don't watch them.
Debates do have their uses, but more at the local level. That's because many candidates on the local level have little to no known record and will finally get put on the record with statements. On the local level, they are less apt to be coached up, and less apt to speak in political speak and say nothing.
On the national level, I don't think they are really needed, because debates are talk. Talk is cheap. Money talks, BS walks. I don't want to know what politicians say. I want to know what they have done.
The two biggest issues this campaign are these. The economy. Credibility. The first issue is obvious. When the economy tanks, the people in power are blamed. "Throw the bums out." If the economy is bad in 2012, Obama is done unless the GOP nominee beats himself (or herself). That gets to the other issue credibility. This issue is overlooked often because the political class and media don't care. Grass roots supporters, as well as independents, do care about credibility.
I'm going to ramble a bit here, but the stupidest term I hear from the media and the political class is that "so and so" is the electable candidate. Usually the so called "electable" candidate is called that because of current name recognition, money, next in line turn, supposedly appeals to independents (whether reality is true or not), etc. It's often a US Senator that is tagged with this label, which is irony because few senators win. People just do not like US Senators. They have long voting records, and it usually sucks.
16 Senators became president. 8 Senators were elected after the Civil War. 7 Were elected after the war. Andrew Johnson never was elected. Only three senators elected were sitting senators. Obama, Kennedy, and Harding. The history of senators wanting to be president is usually not kind, and usually they only defeat other senators. Here's the post Civil War election history for senators.
Obama (Senator) defeated McCain (Senator)
Bush (Governor) defeated Kerry (Senator) and Gore (VP, ex-Senator)
Clinton (Governor) defeated Dole (Senator)
Reagan (Governor) defeated Mondale (Ex-VP, ex-Senator)
Nixon (Ex-VP, ex-Senator) defeated McGovern (Senator) and Humphrey (VP, ex-senator).
LBJ (VP, ex-Senator) defeated Goldwater.(Senator)
JFK (Senator) defeated Nixon
Truman (VP,Ex-senator) defeated Dewey (Governor)
Harding (Senator) defeated James Cox (Governor)
Cleveland (Governor) and Harrison (senator) defeated each other.
Cleveland defeated Blaine (Senator)
Grant (Military) defeated Greeley (Senator)
I don't remember who the "electable" candidate was in 1992. The electable candidate in 1996 was Bob Dole. In 2000, Bush and Gore were the "electable" candidates. Gore's an ex-senator. In 2004, John Kerry was the "electable" candidate. In 2008, it was generally viewed as McCain being the most electable in a general election. Now it's supposedly Romney (no way) or Huntsman (I have my issues with Huntsman, but a case could be made there).
The media perceived electable candidate is often viewed as being "presidential" whatever that means, or that he has gravitas. Dole had that. He lost. He was a Henry Clay in some ways, the great compromiser. Sometimes too much was compromised and he couldn't be counted on. Where did he stand. Bush and Gore were both weak candidates IMO. Bush was the "compassionate conservative" and Gore reinvented himself into a faux populist. John Kerry was a joke as a person and as a senator with no credibility and questionable loyalties at best to the U.S. He was the worst "first tier" candidate they ran. He was considered "presidential" in the eyes of the media and political class. McCain couldn't even win Indiana. That's all that needs to be said there.
Credibility is important. When you say something, does it match your record? If it doesn't then I can't trust you. I can't count on you, and you lost any chance of my vote in the primary. In the general, you then better hope that the democrat pissed me off to the point where I'll hold my nose against my better wishes (ie McCain in 2008). With Rick Snyder's tax scheme (and the disappointing reps who followed him just because he's governor), and Bush's spending policies 04-08 leading to Obama, my tolerance is less and less for nose holding. I don't have to necessarily agree with a candidate. Rudy Giuliani and I don't see eye to eye on a lot of issues. I know what I'm going to get from him. Ron Paul is closer to my views than Giuliani, although I don't always agree with him either. I voted for him in 2008. I know where Ron Paul stands. I know where Gary Johnson stands. I know where Michelle Bachman stands. I probably know were Herman Cain stands, although he doesn't have a voting record. I think I know where Rick Santorum and Tim Pawlenty stand. I have no idea where Newt Gingrich or Mitt Romney really stand.
My big fear are these two issues. The first is that a flip-flopper will be the nominee. Romney to be specific. His big weakness is credibility - or lack of it. That's an easy way to lose. In addition if he wins, will he enact RomneycareII and other big government schemes like we'd get with Obama's second term? That's what he was as Massachusetts governor. I haven't even gotten to the social issues yet, either.
In the age of the internet, it takes less than five minutes to find a candidate's past history, including voting records on issues. It is easier than ever to find out the credibility of a candidate when he or she speaks on a particular issue. Money talks and BS walks. We need our candidate, whoever it is, to make sure he or she is credible and has a good record on the economy, credibility, and competence. Else, Obama wins - or more accurately, the republican candidate defeats himself.
Friday, June 03, 2011
Romney makes it offical. He also won't get my vote
After Rick Snyder's tax increase, my tolerance for corporate liberal republicans is getting less and less. Enter Mitt Romney version 3.0 (or is it 4.0). He couldn't even beat John McCain in 2008, and now he thinks he's the electable guy? The pundits and much of the establishment thinks he's the electable one, and that we should get behind him.
Mark McKinnon. Refused to attack Obama with the McCain campaign because he thought an Obama election "would send a great message to the country and the world." I don't trust him.
That's why we have primaries. That's why we have the Ames straw poll before that. That's why we have the speeches at the Mackinac Conference in the fall. Everybody was waiting on Fred Thompson who was supposed to be the alternative to the so called front runners derisively nicknamed "Rudy McRomney" (and add Huckabee on fiscal) due to their liberal views. Thompson crashed and burned at his speech from what I have heard there, and that ended it.
If I had to choose between Romney and Pawlenty, I'm voting Pawlenty. If others take off, I'll look at them as well. Right now, I'm almost already in the Stop Romney mode. He's unelectable. I repeat. He's unelectable. Why is he unelectable?
A. Social issue problems. Flip-flopped on abortion and many other issues. Neither side trusts him. Is he going to yap about "I'm conservative too. I oppose gay marriage" all the time? I was at that Mackinac speech and it was rather insulting to my intelligence.
B. Fiscal conservatives won't like Obamacare.
C. Gun grabber. That's one of the few issues where his actions are consistent. Consistently bad.
D. He tied his dog to the roof of his car and drove 12 hours. I'm not a animal rights guy, but that's just wrong. You don't do that to your best friend, or any live animal. Even worse, it's an Irish setter. That's often a hunting dog. If you think Sarah Palin's predator control of wolves pissed off a lot of suburban women, this is going to piss off 90% of the dog owners when this makes the rounds.
No 2008 retreads.
"Romney is the guy to beat," said Mark McKinnon, a campaign strategist for former President George W. Bush. "He's been around the track before. He's got money, a focused message on the economy and a well-oiled machine. But his perch is very fragile, and he's vulnerable. He's the establishment guy in an anti-establishment environment."
Mark McKinnon. Refused to attack Obama with the McCain campaign because he thought an Obama election "would send a great message to the country and the world." I don't trust him.
Former GOP Chairman Ed Gillespie says leading Republicans, some of whom have urged more candidates to get in the race, increasingly are ready to choose among those who have already jumped in.
"After the Haley-Huckabee-Daniels' decisions, I think the mentality of most Republican donors and activists is, 'We need to get behind somebody who's out there.' "
That's why we have primaries. That's why we have the Ames straw poll before that. That's why we have the speeches at the Mackinac Conference in the fall. Everybody was waiting on Fred Thompson who was supposed to be the alternative to the so called front runners derisively nicknamed "Rudy McRomney" (and add Huckabee on fiscal) due to their liberal views. Thompson crashed and burned at his speech from what I have heard there, and that ended it.
Former New Hampshire Gov. John Sununu, in some campaigns a kingmaker in the Granite State, was in the crowd but not necessarily as a supporter. He said he hasn't decided between endorsing Romney and former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty.
If I had to choose between Romney and Pawlenty, I'm voting Pawlenty. If others take off, I'll look at them as well. Right now, I'm almost already in the Stop Romney mode. He's unelectable. I repeat. He's unelectable. Why is he unelectable?
A. Social issue problems. Flip-flopped on abortion and many other issues. Neither side trusts him. Is he going to yap about "I'm conservative too. I oppose gay marriage" all the time? I was at that Mackinac speech and it was rather insulting to my intelligence.
B. Fiscal conservatives won't like Obamacare.
C. Gun grabber. That's one of the few issues where his actions are consistent. Consistently bad.
D. He tied his dog to the roof of his car and drove 12 hours. I'm not a animal rights guy, but that's just wrong. You don't do that to your best friend, or any live animal. Even worse, it's an Irish setter. That's often a hunting dog. If you think Sarah Palin's predator control of wolves pissed off a lot of suburban women, this is going to piss off 90% of the dog owners when this makes the rounds.
No 2008 retreads.
Sunday, May 22, 2011
Mitch Daniels is OUT - 2012
Well, that's where I was leaning. I thought Daniels had the best shot as a contrast with the slick substance-less lecturer in chief.
From Hotline
Damn. I understand his decision. Most people don't want the job because of everything that becomes public. The winner? Probably Pawlenty. A lot of people are looking for a fiscal (and social) conservative alternative to Romneycare, but won't consider someone they think is unelectable (and I think Romney is the most UNelectable of the so called frontrunners - he's the Republican John Kerry).
I'd mention a winners/losers analysis of this decision like I did with Huck, but the winners are all the other candidates. The establishment reportedly loved Daniels, and will probably move back to Romney (their pick in 08) or maybe Pawlenty. The grassroots that supported him are going go to support "not Romney." If he runs, I think the biggest winner may be Jon Huntsman, who I think is the 2000 version of George W Bush of 2012 if he had a different last name. I have some major concerns with Huntsman (and some, but to lesser extent Pawlenty) on global warming and the policies used in the name of it. At least Huntsman's been consistent with 2nd Amendment and life issues - so far. The fact that I have to add the last two words shows the hesitation I'd have in supporting him. I have a wait and see view with his campaign.
The 2012 race has changed dramatically.
From Hotline
In a surprise middle-of-the-night announcement that rocks the 2012 Republican presidential field, Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels said Sunday morning he is not running for president.
Daniels, in a statement sent to supporters shortly before 1 a.m., said he won't make a bid for president because of opposition from his family. Hesitance from his wife, Cheri, had long been seen as the primary reason the governor wouldn't enter the race. "In the end, I was able to resolve every competing consideration but one, but that, the interests and wishes of my family, is the most important consideration of all," Daniels said in a statement obtained by National Journal. "If I have disappointed you, I will always be sorry."
Damn. I understand his decision. Most people don't want the job because of everything that becomes public. The winner? Probably Pawlenty. A lot of people are looking for a fiscal (and social) conservative alternative to Romneycare, but won't consider someone they think is unelectable (and I think Romney is the most UNelectable of the so called frontrunners - he's the Republican John Kerry).
I'd mention a winners/losers analysis of this decision like I did with Huck, but the winners are all the other candidates. The establishment reportedly loved Daniels, and will probably move back to Romney (their pick in 08) or maybe Pawlenty. The grassroots that supported him are going go to support "not Romney." If he runs, I think the biggest winner may be Jon Huntsman, who I think is the 2000 version of George W Bush of 2012 if he had a different last name. I have some major concerns with Huntsman (and some, but to lesser extent Pawlenty) on global warming and the policies used in the name of it. At least Huntsman's been consistent with 2nd Amendment and life issues - so far. The fact that I have to add the last two words shows the hesitation I'd have in supporting him. I have a wait and see view with his campaign.
The 2012 race has changed dramatically.
Saturday, May 14, 2011
Mike Huckabee Not Running in 2012
This is significant. Mike Huckabee's not running. I'm not a fan of Huckabee's fiscal liberalism, but he has a very formidable following. Evangelicals, especially in the South, but also to a lesser extent elsewhere, absolutely love the guy. Libertarian leaning voters, as well as business voters don't care for him. Gun rights groups like him, but other candidates as well.
Huckabee had a longshot chance at the nomination. In terms of his chances verses Obama, I'd have them higher than most of the candidates (including Romney, who's IMO one of the least electable), but behind Pawlenty, Daniels, and Huntsman.
Who does this help? Who does this hurt?
Help:
Pawlenty - Pawlenty's a northern Evangelical. He's not as charismatic as Huckabee is, but is the same type of social conservative, although in a much different style. He's also less apt to blunder in his comments. I think he could be the big winner in this group.
Herman Cain - Businessman and former talk show host. Those who don't like the establishment folks or "politicians" and aren't as libertarian as Ron Paul or Gary Johnson may be supporting Cain as the protest vote favorite of 2012. Cain supposedly did very well in the South Carolina debate. He's never held elected office, although has his following.
Palin - If she runs, she doesn't have to fight Huckabee for the right-populist vote.
Hurt:
Romney - The media is claiming Romney is the frontrunner. He's kind of the McCain of 2012 in a way. Romney avoided some of the "RINO" accusations in 2008 because McCain was the guy always in the camera. That's despite McCain, who wasn't my favorite, being slightly more conservative record-wise than Romney (anti-gun as well as Romneycare). Unlike McCain 08, Romney has a lot of establishment backing. Romney's best chance is the same as McCain 08 - Base vote carved up from others.
Mitch Daniels - Daniels has mixed reviews from social conservatives due to his "truce" comments. Personally I think they have been misinterpreted since his actions on issues hasn't been bad. However he's not "one of them" as much as a Huckabee. Daniels is a number's guy. The only thing that Daniels can take advantage of however is the outsider role after 8 years as Indiana Governor.
Huntsman - He's what George W Bush was in 2000 if he was "George Schultz" instead. "Compassionate Conservative" circa 2012. I'm not AS against him as some are, although I do not like his global warming stance at all. Tough issue for me to get past as I'm from an auto industry family of Michiganders.
Little Effect:
Ron Paul - Different base of supporters.
Gary Johnson - Same reasons as Ron Paul.
I didn't include Gingrich, Bachmann, Trump, Santorum, or Roemer because either I don't think they are running (Bachmann), or because I think they will go nowhere in the races for various reasons (Gingrich).
I'm probably not going to make an endorsement until the fall Mackinac Conference. I'm leaning in a direction, but I'm not quite there yet. There's a couple of issues I still need to find out more information first.
Huckabee had a longshot chance at the nomination. In terms of his chances verses Obama, I'd have them higher than most of the candidates (including Romney, who's IMO one of the least electable), but behind Pawlenty, Daniels, and Huntsman.
Who does this help? Who does this hurt?
Help:
Pawlenty - Pawlenty's a northern Evangelical. He's not as charismatic as Huckabee is, but is the same type of social conservative, although in a much different style. He's also less apt to blunder in his comments. I think he could be the big winner in this group.
Herman Cain - Businessman and former talk show host. Those who don't like the establishment folks or "politicians" and aren't as libertarian as Ron Paul or Gary Johnson may be supporting Cain as the protest vote favorite of 2012. Cain supposedly did very well in the South Carolina debate. He's never held elected office, although has his following.
Palin - If she runs, she doesn't have to fight Huckabee for the right-populist vote.
Hurt:
Romney - The media is claiming Romney is the frontrunner. He's kind of the McCain of 2012 in a way. Romney avoided some of the "RINO" accusations in 2008 because McCain was the guy always in the camera. That's despite McCain, who wasn't my favorite, being slightly more conservative record-wise than Romney (anti-gun as well as Romneycare). Unlike McCain 08, Romney has a lot of establishment backing. Romney's best chance is the same as McCain 08 - Base vote carved up from others.
Mitch Daniels - Daniels has mixed reviews from social conservatives due to his "truce" comments. Personally I think they have been misinterpreted since his actions on issues hasn't been bad. However he's not "one of them" as much as a Huckabee. Daniels is a number's guy. The only thing that Daniels can take advantage of however is the outsider role after 8 years as Indiana Governor.
Huntsman - He's what George W Bush was in 2000 if he was "George Schultz" instead. "Compassionate Conservative" circa 2012. I'm not AS against him as some are, although I do not like his global warming stance at all. Tough issue for me to get past as I'm from an auto industry family of Michiganders.
Little Effect:
Ron Paul - Different base of supporters.
Gary Johnson - Same reasons as Ron Paul.
I didn't include Gingrich, Bachmann, Trump, Santorum, or Roemer because either I don't think they are running (Bachmann), or because I think they will go nowhere in the races for various reasons (Gingrich).
I'm probably not going to make an endorsement until the fall Mackinac Conference. I'm leaning in a direction, but I'm not quite there yet. There's a couple of issues I still need to find out more information first.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
