Posts with the tag 'Primaries'
The media is calling it a symbolic victory. What do you think? Looks like Camp Hillary sees things differently.
Clinton’s aides contended that her strength with blue-collar voters—already demonstrated in primaries in Ohio, Pennsylvania and Indiana—makes her the more electable candidate in the fall.
“After tonight, we will have one more proof point, if you will, that Hillary Clinton is the strongest candidate Democrats can nominate,” said Ann Lewis, an aide to the former first lady. “We’re going to go back starting tomorrow and talk to those superdelegates who are still uncommitted and say, ‘You know what? She is the candidate who expands the electoral map.’ You look at West Virginia, you look at Kentucky, you look at Arkansas, you look at Tennessee. You look at what’s at stake and that’s a very powerful argument.”
Clinton arranged a meeting with superdelegates for Wednesday.
And so it goes.
UPDATE, by Mark Noonan: In my view, Democrats are very scared. All over TV and radio and even here on the blog, the endlessly repeated talking point is that if we GOPers want to win, we have to stop talking about Obama’s questionable past and associations…meaning that the Democrats have done polling and focus groups and found out that Obama’s past and associations are radioactive when brought up against McCain. Democrats have to get Obama’s past off the table - one might think this would turn them towards Hillary, but she’s got her own radioactive past and failure to nominate Obama would probably mean a collapse in the number of black voters in November, with incalcuable consequences down ballot for the Democrats.
UPDATE, by Mark Noonan: From Patrick Ruffini via NRO’s The Corner:
Wow. Obama only wins 53% of WV DEM PRIMARY VOTERS in a matchup with McCain
This means that Obama can’t win West Virginia…and likely means that he won’t be able to win a single Southern State, all else being equal and nothing massive changes between now and November (which is a loooong way off). Bad news for Obama - and for the Dems, who may have picked a loser.
Tags: Hillary Clinton, Primaries, Superdelegates, West Virginia
May 13th, 2008
Not much, as David Freddoso points out over at NRO’s The Corner:
In the open election of 1988, 23 million Democrats voted in primaries, as did 12 million Republicans. Yes, you’re reading that correctly. Nearly twice as many Democrats voted. That was a precursor to President Michael Dukakis’s election.
In 1980, Democrats actually had an incumbent president, who was challenged by Ted Kennedy. Republicans, meanwhile, had a competitive primary between Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush. Democrats cast 16.1 million votes in their primaries that year, compared to just (corrected) 12.7 million for Republicans. We all know what happened in Jimmy Carter’s second term, don’t we?
The only times Republicans have outnumbered Democrats in primaries in the last 35 years were 2000 and 1996 — both years when Republicans were sick of being out of power. Even in those years, Republican turnout was only slightly higher than Democratic turnout.
That’s where the Democrats are now — they are sick of being out of power. Plus, they’ll probably still be choosing their nominee in July, so expect their advantage to climb. Their turnout is higher, just as it always has been, it shouldn’t come as any surprise.
I thought there was something funny in all that talk of record turnout, especially as I saw several contests where, yes, Democrat turnout was higher than ever, but so was GOP turnout (even if still a lower number than the Democrats’). Certainly, Democrats are far more engaged right now and the political stars are aligned right for them to have a very good shot at winning in November - but any Democrat who extrapolates from primary turnout to November victory is engaging in wishful thinking. There has to be an actual contest - the battle has to be joined, and the votes cast. For more information on this sort of necessity, you might ask a player for the New England Patriots.
Tags: Primaries, voter turnout
February 12th, 2008
Gary Gross has a great post on the unfortunate defeat of Fred Thompson during the primary process, and there isn’t one sentence of his screed with which I do not agree. Gary, also citing Andrew Ferguson’s piece in the Weekly Standard, suggests that a low-key candidate of Fred’s calibre, while possibly a whirlygig in years gone by, is unfortunately unelectable in today’s American-Idol brand of politics. While I agree in part, I think the bigger problem lies with the current Primary system in general. The following is the comment I left on his post:
IMO, the whole primary system is a sham, and needs to be re-worked on a national basis.
With the ability of both parties to gerry-rig the others’ primary elections, the outcomes have absolutely nothing to do with the will of the rank and file of the respective parties.
I heard yesterday that McCain was counting on the support of democrats and independents. He knows he can’t win via the rank and file of the Republican party.
The rank and file, via the primary process, is effectively disenfranchised.
IMO, we need to go back to state nominating conventions, with the Party faithful made up of locally-elected delegates determining who they will support. The result will be an election untainted by agents provacateurs on both sides, and will be a move toward more ideologically pure candidates.
Tags: Fred Thompson, Primaries
January 30th, 2008
I honestly didn’t see this coming.
Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts, the 2004 Democratic presidential nominee, endorsed Sen. Barack Obama for the White House Thursday in a timely slap at Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton as well as his own vice presidential running mate.
Quoting a black American hero in endorsing the man who hopes to be the first black president, Kerry declared, “Martin Luther King Jr. said the time is always right to do what is right. And I’m here in South Carolina because this is the right time to share with you, to make sure that we know that I have the confidence … and that Barack Obama can be, will be and should be the next president of the United States.”
Kerry delivered his endorsement in South Carolina at a time, two weeks before that state’s primary, when Clinton is riding a wave of enthusiasm following her victory over Obama in the New Hampshire primary.
The obvious question to ask is “Why?” Why would Kerry endorse Obama over Hillary Clinton, whose husband helped him significantly in 2004; and John Edwards, who was his running mate in 2004.
After Al Gore’s embarrassing pre-implosion endorsement of Howard Dean, it’s obvious that politicians now are going to look before they leap when it comes to making an endorsement. So, one has to ask why Kerry endorsed Obama now, instead of after Iowa. Endorsing Obama immediately following Iowa could have helped him secure victory in New Hampshire — a state Kerry won in 2004. But he didn’t.
Here’s how I see it. Barack Obama, despite the enthusiasm for his campaign, is unelectable in the general election. John Kerry, who didn’t seek the presidency this time despite wanting to, is sure to want one more go at it. Endorsing Barack Obama helps him on a couple fronts… First, he can conceivably give Obama enough of a boost in the primaries to help him win and secure the nomination, and second, he gets to align himself with Obama’s anti-Iraq war position, which he might see as vital for a potential run in 2012. Would Kerry have endorsed Obama if he won New Hampshire? Probably not, it wouldn’t have been necessary. Had Obama won New Hampshire, he’d most certainly have been a shoo-in for the nomination. But now, Kerry sees he needs to do what he can to ensure Obama gets the nomination … if deep in his heart, he really wants to run for president again in 2012.
Tags: Al Gore, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Iraq, John Edwards, John Kerry, New Hampshire, Primaries
January 10th, 2008
Interesting flash from Drudge.
Democrat party officials are avoiding any and all criticism of Republican presidential contender Mike Huckabee, insiders reveal.
The Democratic National Committee has told staffers to hold all fire, until he secures the party’s nomination.
The directive has come down from the highest levels within the party, according to a top source.
Within the DNC, Huckabee is known as the “glass jaw — and they’re just waiting to break it.”
So, is this true, or is it reverse psychology? While I don’t doubt that the Democrats are prepared for an all out smear campaign against whomever the Republican nominee is, I am curious about their confidence, though the report makes a good point:
In fact, as the story broke over the weekend that Huckabee said he wanted to isolate AIDS patients back in 1992, the DNC ignored the opportunity to slam the candidate from the left.
“He’ll easily be their McGovern, an easy kill,” mocked one senior Democrat operative Tuesday morning from Washington.
“His letting out murderers because they shout ‘Jesus’, his wanting to put 300,000 AIDS patients and Magic Johnson into isolation, ain’t even scratching the surface of what we’ve got on him.”
Of course, one could make the argument that any of the top three contenders for the Democratic nomination will be easy to defeat because of one thing or another. But, if I were the Democrats, I’d be more concerned with Huckabee’s potential to lock the Southern vote. His recent issue with his pardons and the old comment about AIDS patients will matter a lot more in the primary than in the general election — but it will likely hurt a lot in the primaries. I would have pegged Huckabee a shoo-in for the VP slot two weeks ago… Now I’m not so sure.
Still, with the baggage Hillary has and the experience Obama doesn’t have I don’t think Democrats are positioned very well for a smear campaign. Oh, and then there’s Edwards, who couldn’t even help Kerry win his home state in 2004.
Tags: Democratic Nomination, Mike Huckabee, Primaries, Republican Nomination, smear campaigns
December 11th, 2007
I’ve long thought that it might come out that way, and now Michael Barone raises the possibility, at least as far as the GOP contest goes:
As for Republicans, the number of combinations of plausible results in the early contests rises into the dozens. Mike Huckabee is coming on strong in Iowa, threatening Mitt Romney’s lead; John McCain is roughly tied with Rudy Giuliani for second place in New Hampshire; Giuliani and Romney are leading in Michigan; Fred Thompson seems to be narrowly behind Romney and Giuliani in South Carolina. These five candidates all have scenarios of varying plausibility showing them winning the nomination. The key question is whether the winners of Iowa and New Hampshire will get a bounce in the next contests. Bounces have been common, but not universal (Edwards 2004 and George W. Bush 2000 in New Hampshire). Will voters in Michigan and Florida be willing to subcontract their judgment to the voters in Iowa and New Hampshire who have seen more of the candidates? No one knows for sure.
Some Republican insiders are talking about the possibility that none of the candidates gets a majority of delegates. Presumably the nomination will be brokered, probably long before the convention, but not before the party goes through considerable turmoil. I think that’s possible; unlikely things can happen (Florida 2000).
Remember, when delegates are selected through the primary process, they are only committed to vote for their candidate on the first ballot. Certainly, someone who goes to the convention for, say, Romney will likely keep voting for Romney…unless and until it becomes clear that their guy won’t make it…then it becomes time to say, “ok, I’ll back your guy, instead, provided that…”; he gets to be VP, or SecState, or what have you. A lot of political dealmaking will go on behind closed doors if no candidate gets a first ballot majority. This sort of thing hasn’t happened at all for more than 50 years - and we have to go back nearly a century to find genuinely contested major party conventions. The modern primary system was designed to take decision making on nominees out of the hands of party bosses and place it in the hands of the people - and it worked, except that it has now turned our nominating process into a political circus where money becomes ever more powerful…and it just might be breaking down as a large number of candidates are able to raise sufficient funds to be competitive for an extended period of time in the nominating process.
Barone doesn’t get into the prospect of the Democrats having a brokered convention - the conventional wisdom being that if Hillary wins IA and NH, she’ll then roll irresistibly on to the nomination. Of couse, I’m not so sure Hillary will win IA - in fact, I’m becoming just a little bit convinced that she’s going to lose there, and perhaps lose rather badly (coming in third, or worse). After such an event, even a win in NH (unless by a clear majority over the other candidates, combined) might not be convincing enough to the party bosses to rally ’round her…and certainly wouldn’t be convincing enough for the leftwing ‘netroots (who don’t really like her all that much) to surrender their fight for a purely leftwing candidacy in 2008. And even if Hillary does win in both places, I’m still not 100% convinced that this will sew it up for her - might sew it up as far as the party bosses are concerned, but won’t sew it up as far as the kook left base of the party is concerned.
In short, there are strong prospects of both parties failing to secure a first-ballot nominee in the primary/caucus process. This can get really rather messy - several times in the past, when a convention was contested, part of the party bolted and formed a third party (Democrats in 1860, Republicans in 1912, eg). Given the poisoned political atmosphere, the stong passions on both sides, it may become impossible for the United States to get a President in 2008 elected by a majority of the people…depending on which way the political cookie crumbles, 40% might be sufficient to elect the next President. All I can say is: keep yourself braced for a wild political ride next year.
Tags: Iowa, New Hampshire, Party Conventions, Primaries
November 26th, 2007
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.
Tags: Primaries
November 23rd, 2007
