A Quick Nominating Decision in 2008?
November 23rd, 2007 at 12:42am Mark Noonan
Perhaps, says the Los Angeles Times:
After months of suspense, New Hampshire on Wednesday scheduled its presidential primary for Jan. 8 — the state’s earliest date ever — in a move that promises one of the swiftest nominating fights in campaign history.
With Iowa casting the first votes Jan. 3 and more than 20 states holding primaries or caucuses Feb. 5, the nominees for the White House could be decided in a one-month blitz of balloting — and possibly in just a handful of days, if a candidate manages to win both Iowa and New Hampshire.
The Times goes on to note that the candidates are going to campaign through the Holiday season rather than take a break - something which is both unprecdented and annoying. Hey, I’m a political junkie, and I’m sick of these candidates endlessly yammering at me. Shut up. Go home. Talk to us again on January 2nd.
But that isn’t going to happen - we’re in for the marathon of all marathon political campaigns…and it might not be decided in a few short days. In fact, given the fractured nature of American politics with massive crosscurrents in both parties, each major candidate on both sides might find themselves emerging triumphant in an early contest, but no one coming out the clear overall winner. The race, I think, will boil down rather swiftly to Hillary/Obama/Edwards for the Democrats and Giuliani/McCain/Thompson/Romney for the Republicans, but that is seven people…and we can’t count out people like Huckabee for the GOP and Richardson for the Democrats, not to mention the fact that we still might see some late announcing candidates (Gore, Kerry, Bloomberg, eg). Remember how it works - if a candidate wins a first-ballot majority of delegates prior to the convention then he or she is the nominee, just waiting for official confirmation at the pro-forma convention…but if no one gains a first ballot majority, then the delegates in both parties are free to vote for whomever they want on the second and subsequent ballots. Such a thing hasn’t happened in the United States for more than 50 years - and it just might happen in 2008.
I don’t buy the MSM story line that its already between Hillary and Giuliani; its November of 2007, and I still haven’t figured out whom I favor on a first, second, third case basis…I ponder and I wonder and I consider, and I still just don’t know. Back in 1999, at this point, I was already settled on a Forbes, McCain, Bush mindset on first, second, third choice in the primaries…if the vote were held today, I’d almost have to flip a coin.
We shall have to wait and see, but I believe it will be very surprising, this 2008 election.
Entry Filed under: Campaign 2008, Democrats, Republicans
10 Comments
1. Repulicans Presidential E&hellip | November 23rd, 2007 at 1:36 am
[...] Mark Noonan added an interesting post today on A Quick Nominating Decision in 2008?Here’s a small reading [...]
2. Casper | November 23rd, 2007 at 8:18 am
“I don’t buy the MSM story line that its already between Hillary and Giuliani”
I really hope you are right. I would have a very hard time voting for either one.
3. Retired Spook | November 23rd, 2007 at 9:30 am
Regardless of which candidates end up being their respective party’s nominees, this has the potential to be the most interesting and most important election in my lifetime (and I’ve voted in everal general election and all but one primary since 1966).
Casper, I’d have to hold my nose to vote for Giuliani, but choosing between Hillary and Rudy wouldn’t be a hard choice. It’s clearly your prerogative to stay home; just don’t complain if we end up with someone you don’t like.
4. Casper | November 23rd, 2007 at 9:44 am
Retired Spook,
I didn’t say I would stay home. I haven’t missed an election since I was old enough to vote and I’m not going to start now. I might vote for a third party candidate, or I’ll hold my nose and pick between the two (I don’t know who I would vote for at this point).
5. Retired Spook | November 23rd, 2007 at 10:04 am
Casper, I didn’t mean to suggest that you were going to stay home, only that it would be your prerogative, just as voting for a 3rd party candidate would be.
Someone cited a quote (it might have been you, I don’t remember) in a thread a couple weeks ago that if you choose the lesser of two evils, you’re still voting for evil. That begs the question, if you stay home or vote for a 3rd party candidate, resulting in a victory by the greater of two evils, what have you gained?
If the choice came down to 2 candidates that I didn’t like, and a 3rd party candidate that had absolutely zero chance of winning, I’d probably sit down and make a side-by-side list of what each of the major candidates would likely do (or not do) if elected. Sadly, it might boil down to which one you think would do the least damage, but even that choice is a no-brainer.
6. Mark Noonan | November 23rd, 2007 at 11:54 am
The only thing which might make be vote third party (or write in) is if Paul became the GOP nominee…as stated earlier on the blog, I just can’t support him for President.
Other than that, pretty much any of the GOPers would be acceptable to me…and, curiously enough, the least destructive Democrat would be Hillary (of course, that is also a commentary on how lousy the Democrats are these days).
7. Almiranta | November 23rd, 2007 at 7:38 pm
What I find interesting is the Agenda Media reaction to the Huckabee surge. They persist in inserting some negative …”but”… in every story about his growing poll numbers, such as claiming “…BUT he still offends/scares/turns off (insert Republican sub group)…”
I find myself wondering just why the Agenda Media are so determined to downplay his success and gains, and to try to sabotage him by inventing negatives that may not even exist?
Most lately there was a story, I think in the Washington Post, about his gains in Iowa, with the caveat that he is still “not trusted” by the “conservative base”. Huh? He is surging BECAUSE of the “conservative base”.
This has all the earmarks of yet more media propagandizing and trying to affect the election, along the lines of claiming that GOP women are flocking to Hillary.
???????????????????
Politcally savvy conservative women know Hillary’s political history and her passion for hard-core Socialism, and do not trust her new facade of pseudo-semi-moderation. The stereotypical conservative woman, the one who exists only in the fevered minds of the stereotype-dependent radical Left, the stay at home mom who just votes the way Hubby tells her to, can’t stand the hypocrisy of Hillary’s savaging of Bill’s many female accusers while simultaneously playing loving and trusting wife/victim.
But the Agenda Media have invented this strange and bizarre claim and they are probably going to stick to it, somehow (as far as I can tell) trying to explain that Hillary, AS A WOMAN, appeals to women. They appear totally oblivious to the fact that the so-called “women’s issues” pushed so hard by Shrillary are the precise opposite of the issues important to conservative women.
You won’t find many conservative women looking for an excuse, or permission, to kill their unborn babies or turn the rearing of the children they do allow to survive over to the State. Not really conservative “women’s issues”, guys….
8. Almiranta | November 23rd, 2007 at 7:55 pm
Mark, I find Hillary more dangerous because she has a strong and well-defined history of being ardently and stridently Socialist yet is working very hard to hide that history and posture as a moderate Dem. I find this more ominous than the openly stated, though goofball, positions of her opponents.
She is cunning, she is callous, she knows how the system works, and she is clever enough to work very hard to hide her true self—all of which make her, to my way of thinking, far more dangerous than an ineffectual non-leader with delusions of grandeur but no real clue of how to implement his half-cocked ideas.
She also has the backing of very rich radicals who have the power to shove through a lot of her/their radical agendas.
You cannot let yourself forget how she and Bill ran their campaigns as moderate Dems in the model of JFK, only to show their true Liberal colors as soon as the elections were won. If we cannot learn from history, we are doomed to repeat it….
On the other hand, I think she is eminently beatable. She just has too much baggage, too much documented history of being too strident, too radical, too far to the Left, too supportive of distasteful causes, too power hungry, and of being inherently dishonest, untrustworthy,and a very unlikable person. (You think people are curious about why she won’t release any of the White House records which relate to her—let her explain why she threatened a lawsuit if her radical Left college thesis is reprinted. There is just too much she has to work too hard to hide.)
And they are still in the position of running against Bush, and having to either convince more than half of the nation that it makes sense to run against a man who is not running or that there is yet ANOTHER demon, spawn of the devil, evil incarnate, Hitler clone, running on the GOP ticket.
And even ardent Dems will get tired of being told they are so stupid that the candidates can keep pulling the wool over their eyes. They are going to want to be able to vote FOR something instead of just being asked to vote AGAINST whatever.
Don’t like Guiliani? Fine. He is a strong leader who is charming and charismatic with excellent skills, but if his personal history is too off-putting, Romney is an excellent CEO, another likable and charismatic man with leadership skills, a history of major accomplishments, and no personal baggae other than what can be stirred up by blatant appeals to religious bigotry.
Huckabee is all of that without the question mark of a little-known and oft-maligned religion.
I think either of them onstage in a one-on-one debate against her Shrillness will be quite an experience. I can hardly wait.
9. J's Cafe Nette&hellip | November 23rd, 2007 at 8:33 pm
Friday Fly-By
Just a few quick stories I thought you might enjoy.
Someone needs stronger glasses, or at the very least to have his gun taken away!
A man says he shot and killed a neighbor’s cow after mistaking it for a coyote.
Authorities and the owner are ske…
10. Ricorun | November 23rd, 2007 at 9:06 pm
Amiranta: Most lately there was a story, I think in the Washington Post, about his gains in Iowa, with the caveat that he is still “not trusted” by the “conservative base”. Huh? He is surging BECAUSE of the “conservative base”.
Apparently you don’t consider the Club for Growth contingent part of the “conservative base”. Personally, I’m not a big fan of the Club for Growth contingent — they’re too stringent for my tastes sometimes, and yet also too weirdly copescetic with the “borrow and spend” policies of the last seven years other times — but it would be wrong to ignore the clout they have among the “conservative base”. But I suspect that is what the “Agenda Media”, as you call them, is reacting to.
Romney has problems other than his Mormon faith. Personally, I don’t have a problem with his Mormonism. It’s not like he has a history of making decisions based upon the church hierarchy. If anything, it’s exactly the opposite — what he has going against him is his record as governor of MA. Is his about-face on so many issues real? That’s the hard question for me.
And don’t get me started on Thompson. What a disappointment.
In the end I really hope Huckabee breaks into the front ranks. On the Dem side I’d like to see Richardson do the same. There doesn’t appear to be much chance of that, though.