With the California primary less than a week away, part of Super Tuesday, it's time to unveil our endorsements for the Republican and Democrat races for the presidential nominations. Both candidates epitomize what this blog is all about: an ability to solve the issues faced by the nation, and a willingness to change the putrid culture of national politics. One will get my vote this weekend, when I will cast an early ballot.
There is one person left in this race who has the demonstrated ability to successfully take on challenges, and he's done it time and again in his adult life. That person is Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, and I support his run for the GOP presidential nomination for that reason alone.
I am not impressed with his campaign, in which he seems too-packaged for the moment and the audience, a la Hillary Clinton. His changes of opinion on important issues are too convenient, his campaign rhetoric too contrived. He tried the "change" message after Iowa, has edged toward being the economic savior and is now trying to lead the conservative charge despite never having been a true conservative -- as conservatives themselves would describe it.
However, there will be a lot of issues for the next president to address (note our post on oil prices), from the continuing war on terrorism to the precarious state of the economy to the looming disasters of Social Security and Medicare. We need a problem-solver to take on those problems, not a politician. Arizona Sen. John McCain, who is poised to win many of the Super Tuesday states, is a politician.
Romney has built and turned around businesses and rescued the Salt Lake City Olympics. He's been a pretty good governor in Massachusetts, who has a demonstrated ability to work with a legislature dominated by the other party. McCain is a "my way or the highway" type who will take a confrontational approach with those who disagree with him.
There is a lot of talk that McCain is the better candidate if Republicans want to hold onto the White House. He'll attract independents, and the GOP candidate needs independents to win. I disagree.
His record is a strange one and I think a lot of those independents will be turned off, and could flee to Democrats, when they learn more about him. McCain's two positions that Republicans can accept, his support for the war in Iraq and his pro-life stance, are not favored by independents.
He has also been involved in two things that should disqualify him for the presidency. His McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform bill violates the free speech portion of the 1st amendment of the constitution. It was disgusting to see him take advantage of the provisions of the bill to attack Romney on the last weekend before Florida, when Romney was unable to defend himself because of McCain-Feingold.
Secondly, in putting together his Illegal Immigration Reform package with congressional Democrats and President Bush, he urged his fellow legislators to pass the measure before the public had a chance to digest its contents. That type of lawmaking is what has made Americans so sick of our political leadership.
Romney is not perfect, but unlike his opponent, he has not been part of the problem as a longtime member of the political establishment. With his track record, he could become an effective president who transcends both political party and ideology.
The message of change is enticing when delivered passionately, and no one has done it as effectively in the last 28 years as Illinois Sen. Barack Obama. God knows, things need to be changed in Washington, D.C., and Obama seems committed to bringing that about. That commitment gains my endorsement for the Democrat nomination.
Obama, like everyone else in the race, has his flaws. His voting record is liberal, and we see no need for someone who will land straight onto his ideology every time. Concerns about his experience are legitimate. He's only in his first term of federal office, and before that was a state legislator. Whoopee.
His message and his passion are what makes the difference. He's forward thinking and committed, and we need both. He's well-spoken with an ability to clearly delineate his thoughts. Even though he's doctrinaire liberal, he seems like the type who will be willing to listen to others.
My support for Obama is heightened greatly by the presence of New York Sen. Hillary Clinton. That this blog favors both accomplishment and a change in the way business is conducted in our nation's capital eliminates Clinton from any consideration as our leader. Her shadowy dealings in Arkansas trailed her to the White House, and most of her work within her husband's administration ended in failure -- often in spectacular fashion. The thought of her, and the people she would bring to Washington with her, trying to solve the nation's problems makes me shudder.
And the change we seek isn't just away from the way the Bush administration does things. Bush is governing almost exactly the way Bill Clinton did in the 1990s. Clintonism is what we want to get away from. We here at home want issues to be solved, not to be something used by party officials to outsmart each other. It's been a 15-year problem now, and it has to stop.
While they might try to tell voters that they will bring change to Washington, both Clinton and McCain are longtime political insiders who are chiefly responsible for our troubles. Romney and Obama are our best chances for uprooting the establishment and putting the United States back on the road to success.
---
How is the race shaping up after Florida?
On the Republican side, McCain will put himself in a practically unbeatable position if he wins most of the Super Tuesday states. Polls show him with big leads in the big states. Romney, despite a strong last-week surge in Florida, only appears to be ahead in Massachusetts.
Pundits made big play of Obama getting most of the Tuesday voters in Florida as opposed to Clinton, who got most of the early votes. It's true that some people are upset with her race-baiting. But she still won a huge victory and, like McCain, is ahead in the big Super Tuesday states.
Our endorsees are coming on somewhat, but the establishment candidates are unfortunately in very strong positions. Surges by Romney and Obama could be too little, too late.
Wednesday, January 30, 2008
Monday, January 28, 2008
State of the Union
President Bush's final State of the Union speech won't go down as anything notable, but there were two things that were pretty interesting.
First, you had to love the almost immediate reminder to Congress that their existence was to handle the people's business. The congressmen in attendance certainly didn't enjoy hearing that. They, of course, are too busy with their own agendas and following the marching orders of their financial supporters. Being talked down to by a president with such a low approval rating probably didn't taste so good, either.
Bush was right. Congressional negligence of the people's business is practically criminal in nature and they need to be set straight. If Bush can't do so, then we'll have to in the voting booth.
Second, was it me, or did House Speaker Nancy Pelosi age about thirty years while Bush spoke about progress in Iraq to often thunderous applause. At first, as Bush spoke about the spread of freedom in the Middle East, she wore a smile and appeared to think that maybe things really were working. As Bush went on to talk about Iraq specifically, he had some sort of applause line, got the usual ovation, and when the camera went back to Pelosi -- oh, my God! This is a pretty attractive older woman we're talking about here. I was thinking early in the speech that she was looking pretty well put-together. But when the camera returned from the applause to Bush, with Pelosi in the background, she looked like she was in the depths of depression.
Bush spent a large percentage of his speech on Iraq and the war on terrorism, and as he continued, she looked worse and worse. I started thinking of the stages of depression that people go through and, sure enough, after a while, she wore an expression of denial. Her arms weren't crossed in front of her, but she was hunched over like she wanted to do that.
---
Tuesday brings the Florida primary. Polling shows Hillary Clinton with leads of either just under or just over 20 percent above Barack Obama. On the GOP side, polls are showing John McCain with the slightest of edges over Mitt Romney. Rudy Giuliani, who'd counted on Florida to get back in the race with his "big state" strategy, is mired in third place.
Nationally, however, Rasmussen shows Romney gaining nine points in the past week or so to take the lead for Republicans.
First, you had to love the almost immediate reminder to Congress that their existence was to handle the people's business. The congressmen in attendance certainly didn't enjoy hearing that. They, of course, are too busy with their own agendas and following the marching orders of their financial supporters. Being talked down to by a president with such a low approval rating probably didn't taste so good, either.
Bush was right. Congressional negligence of the people's business is practically criminal in nature and they need to be set straight. If Bush can't do so, then we'll have to in the voting booth.
Second, was it me, or did House Speaker Nancy Pelosi age about thirty years while Bush spoke about progress in Iraq to often thunderous applause. At first, as Bush spoke about the spread of freedom in the Middle East, she wore a smile and appeared to think that maybe things really were working. As Bush went on to talk about Iraq specifically, he had some sort of applause line, got the usual ovation, and when the camera went back to Pelosi -- oh, my God! This is a pretty attractive older woman we're talking about here. I was thinking early in the speech that she was looking pretty well put-together. But when the camera returned from the applause to Bush, with Pelosi in the background, she looked like she was in the depths of depression.
Bush spent a large percentage of his speech on Iraq and the war on terrorism, and as he continued, she looked worse and worse. I started thinking of the stages of depression that people go through and, sure enough, after a while, she wore an expression of denial. Her arms weren't crossed in front of her, but she was hunched over like she wanted to do that.
---
Tuesday brings the Florida primary. Polling shows Hillary Clinton with leads of either just under or just over 20 percent above Barack Obama. On the GOP side, polls are showing John McCain with the slightest of edges over Mitt Romney. Rudy Giuliani, who'd counted on Florida to get back in the race with his "big state" strategy, is mired in third place.
Nationally, however, Rasmussen shows Romney gaining nine points in the past week or so to take the lead for Republicans.
Sunday, January 27, 2008
Oil Prices Will Evaluate the Next President
The way things are going, the next presidential campaign -- for the 2012 election -- will begin this December. There could at that point be an incumbent who wants to return to office.
Here's a way to measure whether that will be deserved. It's all in the price of oil.
As of this writing, it's trading at around $90 per barrel, up some from the under $87 per barrel last week but down from the fairly recent all-time high of more than $100 per barrel. At today's price, or even last week's, it's harmful to our economy. Even more, the high price of a barrel of oil is indicative of some of the world's troubles which, if they spread, could impact whether there will be enough crude to meet world demand.
Therefore, the next president of the United States should aim to push oil prices down to around $60 before his, or her, first term is over. If successful, that term will have been a very good one and will be deserving of re-election. One would think that even lower prices, like the $20 and $30 prices of President Bush's first couple years would be desirable, but we do have a domestic industry that's coming to life and taking their incentive away completely would be unproductive.
Here's what our world would look like with oil prices down by at least a third:
1. The inflated current price stems mostly from the war in Iraq and our disagreements with Iran. They lead to worries of wider conflict in the region which could seriously cut down on oil production and transport. Both issues will have to be resolved successfully for investors to either not worry so much, or use them as an excuse.
2. Our next president will need to take a fresh look at our relations with Saudi Arabia and Russia, and continue our rope-a-dope with Venezuela. President Bush has looked upon the Saudi royal family and Vladimir Putin through rose-colored glasses, the former because of longtime family relations and the second because of simple poor personal judgment. The Saudis are not our friends and have not been helpful, and neither is the Russian government. Neither is Hugo Chavez of Venezuela, but we know that. The new president will have to deal with them and let them know that we disapprove of their existence, and will from now on deal with them realistically. With both sides looking at each other with clear eyes, we should be able to establish both national and business relations that are on firmer footing.
3. Lower oil prices will also require less demand from the United States and Europe to make up for increasing demand from China, India and other developing countries. That will mean we've become more serious about conservation and the development of alternative energy sources. That's nothing but a good thing.
4. Less demand for oil will also mean that Americans are moving away from SUVs and huge pickup trucks and into more economically sensible vehicles, including hybrids. Maybe some fuel cell vehicles will be viable by 2012. We'll be smarter, greener and have more money left in our pockets.
5. Lower oil prices will also mean that development of U.S. domestic fields will also have been successful. While business incentive comes from higher production, the added product on the market and lower transport costs will keep the per barrel prices lower.
Significantly lower prices will also impinge some of the world's troublemakers, like Iran, Putin and Chavez. That means less support for terrorism, a lower probability of a Islamist state acquiring nuclear weapons, less opportunity for Stalinist resurgence in Europe and containment of hard-left gains in Latin America.
So it's all good. Cutting the price of a barrel of oil significantly should be the primary foreign policy goal of the United States in the coming years, and the next president's re-election prospects should be rated on how successful he was in that regard.
Here's a way to measure whether that will be deserved. It's all in the price of oil.
As of this writing, it's trading at around $90 per barrel, up some from the under $87 per barrel last week but down from the fairly recent all-time high of more than $100 per barrel. At today's price, or even last week's, it's harmful to our economy. Even more, the high price of a barrel of oil is indicative of some of the world's troubles which, if they spread, could impact whether there will be enough crude to meet world demand.
Therefore, the next president of the United States should aim to push oil prices down to around $60 before his, or her, first term is over. If successful, that term will have been a very good one and will be deserving of re-election. One would think that even lower prices, like the $20 and $30 prices of President Bush's first couple years would be desirable, but we do have a domestic industry that's coming to life and taking their incentive away completely would be unproductive.
Here's what our world would look like with oil prices down by at least a third:
1. The inflated current price stems mostly from the war in Iraq and our disagreements with Iran. They lead to worries of wider conflict in the region which could seriously cut down on oil production and transport. Both issues will have to be resolved successfully for investors to either not worry so much, or use them as an excuse.
2. Our next president will need to take a fresh look at our relations with Saudi Arabia and Russia, and continue our rope-a-dope with Venezuela. President Bush has looked upon the Saudi royal family and Vladimir Putin through rose-colored glasses, the former because of longtime family relations and the second because of simple poor personal judgment. The Saudis are not our friends and have not been helpful, and neither is the Russian government. Neither is Hugo Chavez of Venezuela, but we know that. The new president will have to deal with them and let them know that we disapprove of their existence, and will from now on deal with them realistically. With both sides looking at each other with clear eyes, we should be able to establish both national and business relations that are on firmer footing.
3. Lower oil prices will also require less demand from the United States and Europe to make up for increasing demand from China, India and other developing countries. That will mean we've become more serious about conservation and the development of alternative energy sources. That's nothing but a good thing.
4. Less demand for oil will also mean that Americans are moving away from SUVs and huge pickup trucks and into more economically sensible vehicles, including hybrids. Maybe some fuel cell vehicles will be viable by 2012. We'll be smarter, greener and have more money left in our pockets.
5. Lower oil prices will also mean that development of U.S. domestic fields will also have been successful. While business incentive comes from higher production, the added product on the market and lower transport costs will keep the per barrel prices lower.
Significantly lower prices will also impinge some of the world's troublemakers, like Iran, Putin and Chavez. That means less support for terrorism, a lower probability of a Islamist state acquiring nuclear weapons, less opportunity for Stalinist resurgence in Europe and containment of hard-left gains in Latin America.
So it's all good. Cutting the price of a barrel of oil significantly should be the primary foreign policy goal of the United States in the coming years, and the next president's re-election prospects should be rated on how successful he was in that regard.
Sunday, January 20, 2008
The Real Race Begins
Time for the real primary campaign to begin.
We're past the one-state-at-a-time stage of intense media attention at every stop and now on to a major state with Florida and Super Tuesday. This will show who has the message that can capture support from voters, who has the organization to spread himself or herself around the country and who has the money remaining to afford some crucial media buys.
On the Republican side, Arizona Sen. John McCain and Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney are the clear front-runners. There are some that say South Carolina might be McCain's last hurrah because of his lack of support among conservatives, and that could be true.
However, polling shows he now leads in polling nationally by almost 10 points, and is ahead in Florida, California and Pennsylvania. If he can somehow convince enough conservatives that he'll get behind the Bush tax cuts and be tougher than before on border security, there may be no stopping him.
Romney has shown the best grasp of economic issues and could have the best chance of upholding the traditional Republican coalition. He's been second in two states, won one and came out ahead in two Western caucuses.
On the other hand, he needs to prove to voters that he's not a marketing campaign on legs, but a real man with tangible positions and values. He can't keep doing what he tried in New Hampshire, where he saw what worked for Barack Obama in Iowa and tried to sell a message of "change." Nor will he be able to continue what worked for him in Michigan, where he sold economic opportunity in a desperate state without explaining how he would accomplish any improvement in a state which missed the recent national boom years -- and a state that will still be controlled by the other party.
While South Carolina was the death knell for the candidacy of Rep. Duncan Hunter, it virtually ended chances of success for both Mike Huckabee and Fred Thompson. Huckabee only looks to be a player in Florida. Thompson, nowhere.
The wildcard is Rudy Giuliani, whose "big state" strategy kicks in now with Florida. Probably too late, but we'll see.
On the Democrat side, New York Sen. Hillary Clinton has gotten over Iowa and has double-digit leads in the upcoming states outside South Carolina, which holds it's Democrat primary a week after the GOP.
Clinton needs to avoid a major gaffe and get away from the racial bickering with the campaign of Illinois Sen. Barack Obama. She could be in a position to cruise to the nomination after Super Tuesday.
The huge Hillary-swamping Obama Wave has not materialized, and by the looks of the polls, it doesn't look like it will happen. Obama won Iowa on the strength of party activists, and we said several times here that the preferences of the activists and extremists would be much different than what we wanted. That turned out to be true. How gullible they were to fall for a message of blind hope and meaningless change! An inspiring speaker, to be sure, but Obama has been unable to shake the image of a young man who has accomplished little in his life. He's trying to bypass middle management and go straight to CEO.
Barack Obama has put a human face on an entire generation's demand for instantaneous gratification. There's nothing he can do to overcome this flaw.
Now, he does get plenty of support, and for good reason. Number one, no one applauds the desire to change the way business is done in Washington, D.C., more than I. He has successfully tapped into a feeling that a large portion of Americans feel. Millions of voters would probably like nothing better than to support Obama, but can't because of his inexperience, unaccomplished record or doctrinaire liberalism. Folks also like that he could be the first black to be nominated for president, and he's not even making his race an issue.
Second, there's a significant anti-Hillary contingent within the Democrat party and the nation as a whole. Much of the way business is done in the nation's capital, and in politics, stems from her and President Clinton.
But wanting to support Obama and actually doing so are apparently two different things. He is said to have a strong nationwide organization and has picked up enough money to stay in the race. But it would be surprising if he's still competitive after Super Tuesday.
We're past the one-state-at-a-time stage of intense media attention at every stop and now on to a major state with Florida and Super Tuesday. This will show who has the message that can capture support from voters, who has the organization to spread himself or herself around the country and who has the money remaining to afford some crucial media buys.
On the Republican side, Arizona Sen. John McCain and Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney are the clear front-runners. There are some that say South Carolina might be McCain's last hurrah because of his lack of support among conservatives, and that could be true.
However, polling shows he now leads in polling nationally by almost 10 points, and is ahead in Florida, California and Pennsylvania. If he can somehow convince enough conservatives that he'll get behind the Bush tax cuts and be tougher than before on border security, there may be no stopping him.
Romney has shown the best grasp of economic issues and could have the best chance of upholding the traditional Republican coalition. He's been second in two states, won one and came out ahead in two Western caucuses.
On the other hand, he needs to prove to voters that he's not a marketing campaign on legs, but a real man with tangible positions and values. He can't keep doing what he tried in New Hampshire, where he saw what worked for Barack Obama in Iowa and tried to sell a message of "change." Nor will he be able to continue what worked for him in Michigan, where he sold economic opportunity in a desperate state without explaining how he would accomplish any improvement in a state which missed the recent national boom years -- and a state that will still be controlled by the other party.
While South Carolina was the death knell for the candidacy of Rep. Duncan Hunter, it virtually ended chances of success for both Mike Huckabee and Fred Thompson. Huckabee only looks to be a player in Florida. Thompson, nowhere.
The wildcard is Rudy Giuliani, whose "big state" strategy kicks in now with Florida. Probably too late, but we'll see.
On the Democrat side, New York Sen. Hillary Clinton has gotten over Iowa and has double-digit leads in the upcoming states outside South Carolina, which holds it's Democrat primary a week after the GOP.
Clinton needs to avoid a major gaffe and get away from the racial bickering with the campaign of Illinois Sen. Barack Obama. She could be in a position to cruise to the nomination after Super Tuesday.
The huge Hillary-swamping Obama Wave has not materialized, and by the looks of the polls, it doesn't look like it will happen. Obama won Iowa on the strength of party activists, and we said several times here that the preferences of the activists and extremists would be much different than what we wanted. That turned out to be true. How gullible they were to fall for a message of blind hope and meaningless change! An inspiring speaker, to be sure, but Obama has been unable to shake the image of a young man who has accomplished little in his life. He's trying to bypass middle management and go straight to CEO.
Barack Obama has put a human face on an entire generation's demand for instantaneous gratification. There's nothing he can do to overcome this flaw.
Now, he does get plenty of support, and for good reason. Number one, no one applauds the desire to change the way business is done in Washington, D.C., more than I. He has successfully tapped into a feeling that a large portion of Americans feel. Millions of voters would probably like nothing better than to support Obama, but can't because of his inexperience, unaccomplished record or doctrinaire liberalism. Folks also like that he could be the first black to be nominated for president, and he's not even making his race an issue.
Second, there's a significant anti-Hillary contingent within the Democrat party and the nation as a whole. Much of the way business is done in the nation's capital, and in politics, stems from her and President Clinton.
But wanting to support Obama and actually doing so are apparently two different things. He is said to have a strong nationwide organization and has picked up enough money to stay in the race. But it would be surprising if he's still competitive after Super Tuesday.
Thursday, January 17, 2008
Economic Stimulation
I'm definitely no Chicken Little when it comes to the health of our economy, but there's no question that the size of my minority is shrinking. Officials of all stripes are now either calling for or weighing different stimulus packages designed to get the U.S. economy back on track.
Some facts: our economy is the largest and most diverse in the world. No economy is even remotely close to being on par with ours. The reason China can post such huge growth rates is because its economy used to pale beside ours. We've taken numerous hits over the years, from the 1970s oil embargoes to a major early 1990s housing slump like the current one to the fallout from 9/11 as it came upon the heels of a mild recession. We bounced back each time, frequently stronger than ever. We will this time, too, if we don't lose our heads.
More facts: the growth of our Gross Domestic Product in the third quarter of 2007 was an astounding 4.9 percent, following a strong 3.8 percent climb the previous quarter. A recession is defined as two straight quarters of GDP declines. There might be some people out there claiming that we're already in a recession, but we ain't close. Income growth has either matched or outpaced inflation.
Cut through the hysteria and you'll find that we have some challenges, but not serious problems.
1. Gasoline prices will probably hit the magic $4 per gallon mark this summer, which will hit the travel and leisure industry quite hard. On the other hand, it could increase the use of public transit and increase demand for fuel efficient vehicles, both things which experts believe are in the public interest.
2. Inflation has reared its ugly head quite separate from gas prices. But high fuel prices will make other prices higher, since it will cost more to transport goods from place to place.
3. While the Federal Reserve wants to cut interest rates to pump more money into the economy, propping up interest rates has been the main defense against inflation.
4. The housing market is in a definite slowdown and while some people expect it to bottom out this year, if it hasn't already, I'm doubtful. There's very little taking place in world events to make one think that people will want to move, and there's no question that fewer people will have the financial resources to buy a house for another couple years.
5. The mortgage meltdown has affected many companies and the stock market, and has been politicized to death.
6. Vast overspending -- in my opinion criminal in scope -- by our state and national legislators has led to terrible imbalances that have driven the value of the dollar to unheard of depths and placed our future in the hands of places like China and Saudi Arabia. California, which dumped former Gov. Gray Davis because he overspent boom money like it would come in that way forever, is back in the same position today under Gov. Schwarzenegger. The legislature never learned from the Internet bust that the housing bubble would burst, also.
Now our wise -- excuse me, cough, cough -- leaders are considering incentives to get the economy back in gear. Schwarzenegger is at least talking about spending cuts, though the government shouldn't have grown as fat as it did while chowing down on temporary income. The stupid stuff is talk about sending each taxpaying household a check for $500 or so. Now I have no problem with a gift 500 bucks, but this has been done before and the impact is very temporary on the economy as a whole. Pure political pandering in an election year.
Maybe an economic stimulus package is a good idea. That's a role of government, after all, to help move something along when a shove is needed. But it has to be smart, something that will work, something that will actually help the economy and all of us here at home. Something that addresses our fundamental problems.
President Bush at least brought up the price of oil when he was in the Middle East. My bet is that his push was too little, too late in his term. Plus, there's not much that can be changed about increasing worldwide demand, both for petroleum and other commodities.
The best thing we can do right now is to stem the tide of red ink flowing out of Washington, D.C., and our state capitals. The federal government has had record revenues slice down the deficits generated in the early 2000s. But we here in California can tell you that with these economic challenges, those revenues won't keep coming in at the same levels. Congress and the Bush administration will have to adjust.
The rest of it, from stocks to the housing market to corporate bottom lines, will improve over time. We'll also find out that things may not have been as bad as we thought.
---
Look, I'm no economist, but I follow politics pretty well, and one thing I see happening in the next couple years is the end of the so-called Bush tax cuts. They're dead. And it may not be such a bad thing. Don't get me wrong, raising taxes during a time of economic uncertainty is not a good idea. And for the most part, increasing rates at any time is a bad idea.
However, I could be convinced that not renewing the tax cuts once they expire, and replacing them with some other mix of cuts and incentives, would be better, or maybe just more appropriate for the current economic situation. Maybe the reductions are jimmied a bit to help some other income groups. Again, I'm not economist, but this is something that could very well happen.
You also have Mike Huckabee's "Fair Tax" that hits consumption. Not a bad idea in that it forces us to save money, a weak point for Americans, and that we theoretically pay our fair share since the "rich" will buy more expensive homes and cars, shop at Nordstrom's instead of Wal-Mart and be more likely to load up on toys like widescreen televisions. And it gets rid of the IRS and it's onerous income tax code.
The downside is that all economic classes purchase housing, transportation and some frivolity, and the rich can afford it more. Fair tax advocates call for a rebate to the poor, but then the whole fairness issue goes out the window and gets government involved again, defeating the entire purpose.
Remember Steve Forbes flat tax idea? The rich could afford 15 percent far more than the poor. Plus, regular folks like us kind of like our mortgage interest deductions.
But that's just academic talk. While the Bush tax cuts are in their golden years, so to speak, there will need to be some sort of replacement whether small, readjusting rate cuts for the various income levels, or major, like the ideas mentioned above.
Some facts: our economy is the largest and most diverse in the world. No economy is even remotely close to being on par with ours. The reason China can post such huge growth rates is because its economy used to pale beside ours. We've taken numerous hits over the years, from the 1970s oil embargoes to a major early 1990s housing slump like the current one to the fallout from 9/11 as it came upon the heels of a mild recession. We bounced back each time, frequently stronger than ever. We will this time, too, if we don't lose our heads.
More facts: the growth of our Gross Domestic Product in the third quarter of 2007 was an astounding 4.9 percent, following a strong 3.8 percent climb the previous quarter. A recession is defined as two straight quarters of GDP declines. There might be some people out there claiming that we're already in a recession, but we ain't close. Income growth has either matched or outpaced inflation.
Cut through the hysteria and you'll find that we have some challenges, but not serious problems.
1. Gasoline prices will probably hit the magic $4 per gallon mark this summer, which will hit the travel and leisure industry quite hard. On the other hand, it could increase the use of public transit and increase demand for fuel efficient vehicles, both things which experts believe are in the public interest.
2. Inflation has reared its ugly head quite separate from gas prices. But high fuel prices will make other prices higher, since it will cost more to transport goods from place to place.
3. While the Federal Reserve wants to cut interest rates to pump more money into the economy, propping up interest rates has been the main defense against inflation.
4. The housing market is in a definite slowdown and while some people expect it to bottom out this year, if it hasn't already, I'm doubtful. There's very little taking place in world events to make one think that people will want to move, and there's no question that fewer people will have the financial resources to buy a house for another couple years.
5. The mortgage meltdown has affected many companies and the stock market, and has been politicized to death.
6. Vast overspending -- in my opinion criminal in scope -- by our state and national legislators has led to terrible imbalances that have driven the value of the dollar to unheard of depths and placed our future in the hands of places like China and Saudi Arabia. California, which dumped former Gov. Gray Davis because he overspent boom money like it would come in that way forever, is back in the same position today under Gov. Schwarzenegger. The legislature never learned from the Internet bust that the housing bubble would burst, also.
Now our wise -- excuse me, cough, cough -- leaders are considering incentives to get the economy back in gear. Schwarzenegger is at least talking about spending cuts, though the government shouldn't have grown as fat as it did while chowing down on temporary income. The stupid stuff is talk about sending each taxpaying household a check for $500 or so. Now I have no problem with a gift 500 bucks, but this has been done before and the impact is very temporary on the economy as a whole. Pure political pandering in an election year.
Maybe an economic stimulus package is a good idea. That's a role of government, after all, to help move something along when a shove is needed. But it has to be smart, something that will work, something that will actually help the economy and all of us here at home. Something that addresses our fundamental problems.
President Bush at least brought up the price of oil when he was in the Middle East. My bet is that his push was too little, too late in his term. Plus, there's not much that can be changed about increasing worldwide demand, both for petroleum and other commodities.
The best thing we can do right now is to stem the tide of red ink flowing out of Washington, D.C., and our state capitals. The federal government has had record revenues slice down the deficits generated in the early 2000s. But we here in California can tell you that with these economic challenges, those revenues won't keep coming in at the same levels. Congress and the Bush administration will have to adjust.
The rest of it, from stocks to the housing market to corporate bottom lines, will improve over time. We'll also find out that things may not have been as bad as we thought.
---
Look, I'm no economist, but I follow politics pretty well, and one thing I see happening in the next couple years is the end of the so-called Bush tax cuts. They're dead. And it may not be such a bad thing. Don't get me wrong, raising taxes during a time of economic uncertainty is not a good idea. And for the most part, increasing rates at any time is a bad idea.
However, I could be convinced that not renewing the tax cuts once they expire, and replacing them with some other mix of cuts and incentives, would be better, or maybe just more appropriate for the current economic situation. Maybe the reductions are jimmied a bit to help some other income groups. Again, I'm not economist, but this is something that could very well happen.
You also have Mike Huckabee's "Fair Tax" that hits consumption. Not a bad idea in that it forces us to save money, a weak point for Americans, and that we theoretically pay our fair share since the "rich" will buy more expensive homes and cars, shop at Nordstrom's instead of Wal-Mart and be more likely to load up on toys like widescreen televisions. And it gets rid of the IRS and it's onerous income tax code.
The downside is that all economic classes purchase housing, transportation and some frivolity, and the rich can afford it more. Fair tax advocates call for a rebate to the poor, but then the whole fairness issue goes out the window and gets government involved again, defeating the entire purpose.
Remember Steve Forbes flat tax idea? The rich could afford 15 percent far more than the poor. Plus, regular folks like us kind of like our mortgage interest deductions.
But that's just academic talk. While the Bush tax cuts are in their golden years, so to speak, there will need to be some sort of replacement whether small, readjusting rate cuts for the various income levels, or major, like the ideas mentioned above.
Tuesday, January 15, 2008
Romney Survives Michigan, Weird Exit Poll Results
Mitt Romney's campaign is back on track and the Republican party is left without a front-runner after the Michigan primary Tuesday night. The Massachusetts governor and son of Michigan defeated John McCain by a sizable 39-30 margin.
As mentioned after New Hampshire last week, little is to be learned here. Romney's campaign obviously was in need of a win in a state that matters, and his win means that three different candidates have taken the first three important states (he won Wyoming earlier, but no one noticed). So Romney remains a player and there's still a bunch of GOP candidates bunched up with varying but generally close levels of support. Heck, to Romney's credit, he gained a win in a state Republicans might need in November.
McCain and Huckabee still lead the national polls. Romney is with them on some days, trailing a bit on some others.
So now they'll run toward South Carolina, where Mike Huckabee and McCain lead but Romney is relatively close in the polls, and Florida, where Rudy Giuliani has given up a 20-point polling advantage and left the race to four candidates within four and a half points of each other with two weeks to go.
The only candidate on the rise in polling in both states is McCain. If he takes both, he'll have a major advantage come Super Tuesday. No one is catching fire with Republican voters, he's as close as it gets right now.
---
Not sure if the exit polls will get blasted after Michigan like the pre-voting polls did in New Hampshire, but some things that came out tonight are downright weird.
First, of those Republican voters who don't like the war in Iraq, they gave a majority of their votes to McCain, a consistent supporter of the Operation Iraqi Freedom.
How about this? Those who believe abortion should be legal gave a 4-point margin to McCain, a consistent opponent of abortion. Romney, who has waffled on the issue, had a 14 percent margin over McCain among those who oppose abortion. Huh?
Romney won all economic groups except the destitute, and even those who felt family finances that were turning sour. He won among the religious of any sort. McCain won overwhelmingly among the non-religious.
Perhaps most important for Romney, he won among self-described Republicans by an even larger spread of 41-27 percent than he did overall. The GOP tally included 7 percent Democrats and 25 percent independents in this crossover state. Both went for McCain, although the spread among the very important independent vote was just six points.
As mentioned after New Hampshire last week, little is to be learned here. Romney's campaign obviously was in need of a win in a state that matters, and his win means that three different candidates have taken the first three important states (he won Wyoming earlier, but no one noticed). So Romney remains a player and there's still a bunch of GOP candidates bunched up with varying but generally close levels of support. Heck, to Romney's credit, he gained a win in a state Republicans might need in November.
McCain and Huckabee still lead the national polls. Romney is with them on some days, trailing a bit on some others.
So now they'll run toward South Carolina, where Mike Huckabee and McCain lead but Romney is relatively close in the polls, and Florida, where Rudy Giuliani has given up a 20-point polling advantage and left the race to four candidates within four and a half points of each other with two weeks to go.
The only candidate on the rise in polling in both states is McCain. If he takes both, he'll have a major advantage come Super Tuesday. No one is catching fire with Republican voters, he's as close as it gets right now.
---
Not sure if the exit polls will get blasted after Michigan like the pre-voting polls did in New Hampshire, but some things that came out tonight are downright weird.
First, of those Republican voters who don't like the war in Iraq, they gave a majority of their votes to McCain, a consistent supporter of the Operation Iraqi Freedom.
How about this? Those who believe abortion should be legal gave a 4-point margin to McCain, a consistent opponent of abortion. Romney, who has waffled on the issue, had a 14 percent margin over McCain among those who oppose abortion. Huh?
Romney won all economic groups except the destitute, and even those who felt family finances that were turning sour. He won among the religious of any sort. McCain won overwhelmingly among the non-religious.
Perhaps most important for Romney, he won among self-described Republicans by an even larger spread of 41-27 percent than he did overall. The GOP tally included 7 percent Democrats and 25 percent independents in this crossover state. Both went for McCain, although the spread among the very important independent vote was just six points.
Monday, January 14, 2008
Too Early For Conclusions
It's been kind of funny reading the conservative media with it's blasts of John McCain coming just weeks on the heels of similar criticisms of Mike Huckabee. The Arizona senator, of course, is being targeted because he won the most recent primary and is now in a strong position in the polls. The former Arkansas governor was the front-runner through the Iowa caucuses.
The common factor is that neither of the GOP presidential candidates hold traditional conservative positions on issues. You know the list if you've been paying attention: both are "soft" on illegal immigration and neither are in the business-friendly pro-growth economic end of the party. However, McCain does score big points on his support of Iraq and the overall war on terrorism, and Huckabee is solid on religious right social issues.
Moreover, both score with voters with their ability to get out and communicate without a script. McCain occasionally shows his age during debates and Huckabee is frequently out of his league in discussing foreign policy, but those weak points have been excused so far.
What the conservatives forget, however, is that IT'S EARLY!
So far, people have gone to the polls in three states: Iowa for a system that favors special interests, New Hampshire in a state that grows bluer every year and Wyoming, which no one cares about. There are still so many states to cast votes that looking for front-runners right now makes no sense. See me after Florida votes.
But their straight talk points the way. For whoever wants the nomination and maybe the presidency itself. People are tired of the political crap and the divisiveness between the parties. McCain's willingness to join his Democratic colleagues on immigration reform and campaign finance reform is seen as a positive, much more so than the negatives of amnesty and first-amendment rights giveaways. Huckabee has a similar record of working across the aisle in Little Rock.
In fact, most of the appeal of a Barack Obama candidacy for young Democrats and independents is a promised change in how business gets done in Washington. While the Republican primary battle is turning ideological in some ways, the Democrat race is becoming one of change vs protecting the old guard.
People are sick of the way the current national leadership is handling things. Obama's quest might not succeed. Hillary has too much organization. Barack has too little experience.
Republicans, though, have to see what's taking place. There's no reason why a conservative can't catch the same wave carrying McCain and Huckabee. Mitt Romney has finished second in two states, leads the delegate count and -- stand up and cheer -- was the Wyoming winner. Rudy Giuliani's big state strategy has yet to kick in, though the train might have left him behind. And Fred Thompson is still hanging around.
There's still a lot of voting to do.
---
Here's something that might make conservatives re-think a McCain candidacy. A new Rasmussen poll has him leading Clinton in a hypothetical match-up 49-38 percent.
--
Not convinced that it's early? The same polling firm has McCain as the GOP national leader at 23 percent on Monday. Some surge. Huckabee is at 20 percent, where he's been for a week. That's why it makes me laugh to hear the right-minded pundits going on and on about those two. No one has been supported by even a quarter of Republicans since Giuliani polled 27 percent on Nov. 30. He's now backed by just 11 percent.
The common factor is that neither of the GOP presidential candidates hold traditional conservative positions on issues. You know the list if you've been paying attention: both are "soft" on illegal immigration and neither are in the business-friendly pro-growth economic end of the party. However, McCain does score big points on his support of Iraq and the overall war on terrorism, and Huckabee is solid on religious right social issues.
Moreover, both score with voters with their ability to get out and communicate without a script. McCain occasionally shows his age during debates and Huckabee is frequently out of his league in discussing foreign policy, but those weak points have been excused so far.
What the conservatives forget, however, is that IT'S EARLY!
So far, people have gone to the polls in three states: Iowa for a system that favors special interests, New Hampshire in a state that grows bluer every year and Wyoming, which no one cares about. There are still so many states to cast votes that looking for front-runners right now makes no sense. See me after Florida votes.
But their straight talk points the way. For whoever wants the nomination and maybe the presidency itself. People are tired of the political crap and the divisiveness between the parties. McCain's willingness to join his Democratic colleagues on immigration reform and campaign finance reform is seen as a positive, much more so than the negatives of amnesty and first-amendment rights giveaways. Huckabee has a similar record of working across the aisle in Little Rock.
In fact, most of the appeal of a Barack Obama candidacy for young Democrats and independents is a promised change in how business gets done in Washington. While the Republican primary battle is turning ideological in some ways, the Democrat race is becoming one of change vs protecting the old guard.
People are sick of the way the current national leadership is handling things. Obama's quest might not succeed. Hillary has too much organization. Barack has too little experience.
Republicans, though, have to see what's taking place. There's no reason why a conservative can't catch the same wave carrying McCain and Huckabee. Mitt Romney has finished second in two states, leads the delegate count and -- stand up and cheer -- was the Wyoming winner. Rudy Giuliani's big state strategy has yet to kick in, though the train might have left him behind. And Fred Thompson is still hanging around.
There's still a lot of voting to do.
---
Here's something that might make conservatives re-think a McCain candidacy. A new Rasmussen poll has him leading Clinton in a hypothetical match-up 49-38 percent.
--
Not convinced that it's early? The same polling firm has McCain as the GOP national leader at 23 percent on Monday. Some surge. Huckabee is at 20 percent, where he's been for a week. That's why it makes me laugh to hear the right-minded pundits going on and on about those two. No one has been supported by even a quarter of Republicans since Giuliani polled 27 percent on Nov. 30. He's now backed by just 11 percent.
Wednesday, January 9, 2008
A Bit of Everything Carried Clinton in New Hampshire
With everyone trying to figure out just what the heck happened in New Hampshire, where predictions of huge victories by Barack Obama and John McCain went awry and partially awry, it now appears that a number of factors played into Tuesday night's results.
First, as I mentioned in last night's post, remember that Hillary Clinton like all the other candidates spent a lot of time campaigning in the Granite State last year and led in the polls just about all the way up to Iowa. The pollsters and pundits may have overestimated Obama mania in the days following Iowa, but the fact was that Hillary had worked up a great deal of support already -- especially among women -- and that wasn't going away overnight.
Second, while the candidates had spent a lot of time in-state and had, or had not, built up their support, a sizable portion of the electorate didn't make up their minds until the last couple of days, according to several polling firms. More of those went for Clinton than Obama. Interesting, if true. A phenomenon which could hurt the Illinois senator in the future if people decide they'd rather have the tried-and-true commodity.
Third, all the talk about the independent vote was whether it would go to Obama, hurting John McCain, or to McCain, hurting Obama. It looks like the independent vote ended up being relatively split, hurting both. Obama didn't get enough to hold off Clinton, and McCain didn't get enough to post a smashing victory.
Among all the gnashing of teeth, I really don't think New Hampshire will end up having a significant impact on the race. Clinton's campaign wasn't crushed. Obama, while coming in second, still did quite well to come within two percentage points of someone who'd led the entire race, and Edwards was never highly regarded there.
For the GOP, McCain's victory was not nearly strong enough to help him break out of the pack. Romney has now lost the two state's he spent millions of his own dollars to win, yet he was a strong second each time. Huckabee's 11 percent, as I mentioned last night, is nothing to celebrate but he'd been a non-factor in the state until just last week.
So all the major players are still in. It's going to come down to who has a strong national organization. There's South Carolina and Florida. Nevada for Democrats and Michigan for Republicans. If someone takes two of the three in either party, it could give them an advantage heading into Super Tuesday.
All the first few states have done is confirm the front-runners and weed out some weaklings like senators Chris Dodd and Joe Biden. Nothing that wasn't expected.
---
Here's something new. A national poll out tonight shows Rudy Giuliani's national support at 9 percent! He's gone for the big-state strategy based around Florida and Super Tuesday, which makes sense at face value. But in virtually ignoring Iowa and New Hampshire, he's taken himself out of the consciousness of voters.
Last night I rated him a winner for getting a bunch of votes in New Hampshire while barely setting foot in the state. Now I'm not so sure.
---
I found a list of states voting on Super Tuesday. Here's the ones that should be watched, the ones that will be battlegrounds in November. The candidates who perform well in those places on Feb. 5 will have a leg up on the nomination.
Those states are Colorado, Minnesota and Missouri. Not tons of delegates among them, but enough to swing a close race. Others will be old standbys like Florida and Ohio.
First, as I mentioned in last night's post, remember that Hillary Clinton like all the other candidates spent a lot of time campaigning in the Granite State last year and led in the polls just about all the way up to Iowa. The pollsters and pundits may have overestimated Obama mania in the days following Iowa, but the fact was that Hillary had worked up a great deal of support already -- especially among women -- and that wasn't going away overnight.
Second, while the candidates had spent a lot of time in-state and had, or had not, built up their support, a sizable portion of the electorate didn't make up their minds until the last couple of days, according to several polling firms. More of those went for Clinton than Obama. Interesting, if true. A phenomenon which could hurt the Illinois senator in the future if people decide they'd rather have the tried-and-true commodity.
Third, all the talk about the independent vote was whether it would go to Obama, hurting John McCain, or to McCain, hurting Obama. It looks like the independent vote ended up being relatively split, hurting both. Obama didn't get enough to hold off Clinton, and McCain didn't get enough to post a smashing victory.
Among all the gnashing of teeth, I really don't think New Hampshire will end up having a significant impact on the race. Clinton's campaign wasn't crushed. Obama, while coming in second, still did quite well to come within two percentage points of someone who'd led the entire race, and Edwards was never highly regarded there.
For the GOP, McCain's victory was not nearly strong enough to help him break out of the pack. Romney has now lost the two state's he spent millions of his own dollars to win, yet he was a strong second each time. Huckabee's 11 percent, as I mentioned last night, is nothing to celebrate but he'd been a non-factor in the state until just last week.
So all the major players are still in. It's going to come down to who has a strong national organization. There's South Carolina and Florida. Nevada for Democrats and Michigan for Republicans. If someone takes two of the three in either party, it could give them an advantage heading into Super Tuesday.
All the first few states have done is confirm the front-runners and weed out some weaklings like senators Chris Dodd and Joe Biden. Nothing that wasn't expected.
---
Here's something new. A national poll out tonight shows Rudy Giuliani's national support at 9 percent! He's gone for the big-state strategy based around Florida and Super Tuesday, which makes sense at face value. But in virtually ignoring Iowa and New Hampshire, he's taken himself out of the consciousness of voters.
Last night I rated him a winner for getting a bunch of votes in New Hampshire while barely setting foot in the state. Now I'm not so sure.
---
I found a list of states voting on Super Tuesday. Here's the ones that should be watched, the ones that will be battlegrounds in November. The candidates who perform well in those places on Feb. 5 will have a leg up on the nomination.
Those states are Colorado, Minnesota and Missouri. Not tons of delegates among them, but enough to swing a close race. Others will be old standbys like Florida and Ohio.
Tuesday, January 8, 2008
Real People Speak in New Hampshire
Hillary Clinton's surprising primary win in New Hampshire Tuesday night is simply proof of what I've written before here: that in Iowa it's the activists who take part in the caucuses, but in the Granite State, it's the first test for presidential candidates before real voters.
The huge turnout brought by unusually mild weather was of regular working folks, not those who live and breathe politics. Those people preferred Hillary Clinton and John McCain. That simple.
There will be much discussion of Hillary as "the Comeback Kid" and dissection of how she managed to pull out her victory after Sen. Barack Obama came in with so much momentum from Iowa. The talk will be wrong. Last minute changes of mind are unlikely in New Hampshire.
Clinton led in polling right up to the beginning of the year. Once Obama won Iowa, the so-called experts began warning of a tidal wave that was going to swamp her by double-digits. And there was some polling to support the theory. As it turned out, though, voters on the Democrat side of the ledger didn't change their minds after all.
Two theories as to why. First, the long campaign has seen all the candidates for both parties in New Hampshire for many months. People made up their minds and, being politically savvy by necessity as residents of the earliest primary state, they were less likely than others to be caught up in some tidal wave.
Second, the one instance where Democrat voters allowed themselves to be caught up in such hysteria, they got burned. Sen. John Kerry posted a surprise victory in Iowa and was suddenly anointed as "the one who could beat President Bush." Maybe with Kerry being in a neighboring state filled with Massachusetts transplants, New Hampshire voters were more likely to fall victim, and they did. Kerry went on to become the worst presidential candidate in my lifetime.
Burned once? It happens. Burned twice? No way. Exit polls pointed to the very solid trait of experience as to why they chose Clinton over Obama. Nothing goofy like she's a woman or he doesn't look presidential.
Not much to say about the Republican side, other than the margin of McCain's victory over Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney was smaller than indicated by polling of the last week. As I've stated a few times, the McCain surge is a bit over-rated, and it proved out in a state he's spent so much time in that he could become liable for income taxes. Romney's been second twice now, but somewhere along the line he's going to need to win something.
Other winners:
-- Mike Huckabee. The former Arkansas governor came in third in New Hampshire, a state in which his polling numbers had been in the low single-digits until recently. Now 11 percent is nothing to write home about, but he could have done much worse. He can say with validity that he kept some momentum out of Iowa.
-- Rudy Giuliani. At first glance, the former New York mayor barely finished above Ron Paul. However, he wrote off New Hampshire long ago in favor of his big-state strategy and in recognition that McCain had practically taken up residence in a state partial to him. If the mediocre showing here is the first sign that the wind is out of the sails of the Arizona senator, it will be Giuliani who benefits.
Losers:
-- Pollsters and Pundits. No doubt they over-estimated the Obama tide. Lots of navel gazing to be done Wednesday.
-- Fred Thompson. As Giuliani actually got a decent amount of votes for someone who didn't bother to show up, the former Tennessee senator did not. His total with 92 percent of the ballots counted was 2,677, just 1 percent. He needs a top-three finish in South Carolina or he's done.
-- Vermin Supreme. A guy who actually has that name run on the GOP ballot on a platform of mandatory teeth brushing and collected 34 votes. Of course, if he'd wanted a ban on using cell phones in crowded places, he'd have won even more votes.
Aside from Hillary Clinton perhaps saving her candidacy, I don't think New Hampshire really told us very much. Both the Democrat and Republican races will still be hot heading into Super Tuesday.
---
Interesting numbers in exit polling on MSNBC.com.
One of the things observers wanted to know was how the vote of independents was going to break, and how the candidates did within their own parties.
Of the people who voted in the Republican race, 34 percent identified themselves as independents and they favored McCain over Romney by 38 to 30 percent. That's not the overwhelming margin of independents McCain received against Bush in 2000. However, he also beat Romney against Republicans 37 to 33 percent.
For Democrats, 42 percent of voters surveyed declared themselves as independents, and 40 percent selected Obama compared to 34 percent for Clinton. Among Democrats only, Clinton won 43 percent to 32 percent.
Those numbers could have an impact later in the race. Eventually, whoever wins the party nominations, they'll have to attract independents if they're going to be the next president.
The huge turnout brought by unusually mild weather was of regular working folks, not those who live and breathe politics. Those people preferred Hillary Clinton and John McCain. That simple.
There will be much discussion of Hillary as "the Comeback Kid" and dissection of how she managed to pull out her victory after Sen. Barack Obama came in with so much momentum from Iowa. The talk will be wrong. Last minute changes of mind are unlikely in New Hampshire.
Clinton led in polling right up to the beginning of the year. Once Obama won Iowa, the so-called experts began warning of a tidal wave that was going to swamp her by double-digits. And there was some polling to support the theory. As it turned out, though, voters on the Democrat side of the ledger didn't change their minds after all.
Two theories as to why. First, the long campaign has seen all the candidates for both parties in New Hampshire for many months. People made up their minds and, being politically savvy by necessity as residents of the earliest primary state, they were less likely than others to be caught up in some tidal wave.
Second, the one instance where Democrat voters allowed themselves to be caught up in such hysteria, they got burned. Sen. John Kerry posted a surprise victory in Iowa and was suddenly anointed as "the one who could beat President Bush." Maybe with Kerry being in a neighboring state filled with Massachusetts transplants, New Hampshire voters were more likely to fall victim, and they did. Kerry went on to become the worst presidential candidate in my lifetime.
Burned once? It happens. Burned twice? No way. Exit polls pointed to the very solid trait of experience as to why they chose Clinton over Obama. Nothing goofy like she's a woman or he doesn't look presidential.
Not much to say about the Republican side, other than the margin of McCain's victory over Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney was smaller than indicated by polling of the last week. As I've stated a few times, the McCain surge is a bit over-rated, and it proved out in a state he's spent so much time in that he could become liable for income taxes. Romney's been second twice now, but somewhere along the line he's going to need to win something.
Other winners:
-- Mike Huckabee. The former Arkansas governor came in third in New Hampshire, a state in which his polling numbers had been in the low single-digits until recently. Now 11 percent is nothing to write home about, but he could have done much worse. He can say with validity that he kept some momentum out of Iowa.
-- Rudy Giuliani. At first glance, the former New York mayor barely finished above Ron Paul. However, he wrote off New Hampshire long ago in favor of his big-state strategy and in recognition that McCain had practically taken up residence in a state partial to him. If the mediocre showing here is the first sign that the wind is out of the sails of the Arizona senator, it will be Giuliani who benefits.
Losers:
-- Pollsters and Pundits. No doubt they over-estimated the Obama tide. Lots of navel gazing to be done Wednesday.
-- Fred Thompson. As Giuliani actually got a decent amount of votes for someone who didn't bother to show up, the former Tennessee senator did not. His total with 92 percent of the ballots counted was 2,677, just 1 percent. He needs a top-three finish in South Carolina or he's done.
-- Vermin Supreme. A guy who actually has that name run on the GOP ballot on a platform of mandatory teeth brushing and collected 34 votes. Of course, if he'd wanted a ban on using cell phones in crowded places, he'd have won even more votes.
Aside from Hillary Clinton perhaps saving her candidacy, I don't think New Hampshire really told us very much. Both the Democrat and Republican races will still be hot heading into Super Tuesday.
---
Interesting numbers in exit polling on MSNBC.com.
One of the things observers wanted to know was how the vote of independents was going to break, and how the candidates did within their own parties.
Of the people who voted in the Republican race, 34 percent identified themselves as independents and they favored McCain over Romney by 38 to 30 percent. That's not the overwhelming margin of independents McCain received against Bush in 2000. However, he also beat Romney against Republicans 37 to 33 percent.
For Democrats, 42 percent of voters surveyed declared themselves as independents, and 40 percent selected Obama compared to 34 percent for Clinton. Among Democrats only, Clinton won 43 percent to 32 percent.
Those numbers could have an impact later in the race. Eventually, whoever wins the party nominations, they'll have to attract independents if they're going to be the next president.
Sunday, January 6, 2008
Length of Dem Primary Battle Will Impact General Election
With expectations among pundits that the Hillary Clinton campaign plans to go strongly negative on Barack Obama in the coming weeks, it's interesting to consider what might be the long-term effects of such a strategy. Namely, weakening Obama if he indeed ends up being the Democratic candidate.
If the destruction of Obama ends at South Carolina or even after Super Tuesday, probably no big deal. However, if Clinton remains a contender after the first week of February, then what could turn out to be an intra-party Armageddon might create long-lasting damage to the party's chances to reclaim the White House. If the public's perception of Obama of an inexperienced drug-user with Muslim roots, instead of a positively inspiring agent of change takes root, he'll have a very difficult time in November.
Clinton herself, if she scores a knockout blow and goes on to become the nominee, will fulfill her worst nightmare. She'll appear to be a shrew. The mother who demanded the children come out of the swimming pool.
Or worse, a racist shrew. The wife of "the first black president" who denies African-Americans a chance at the real first black president will not be greeted warmly by that segment of the U.S. population in the future. Racial politics is simple. Democrats have been able to count on around 85 percent of the black vote in presidential elections, often more. In this era of close races, they need the black vote in such numbers to win. If Clinton becomes the nominee and dashes heightened expectations of a black president, she will mathematically be unable to win in November.
The Republicans, with only Mike Huckabee able to capture a little of the public's imagination, need a break to hold onto the executive branch of government. This could be it.
---
A new batch of weekend polls show Obama with double-digit leads over Clinton now in New Hampshire. The wave is growing both for him and against her.
The only recent national polling I've seen is from Rasmussen. Everyone else seems to be concentrating on Iowa and now New Hampshire. Interesting numbers here, as of Saturday. On the Democrat side, Clinton leads Obama nationally 36 percent to 25 percent, with John Edwards third at 23 percent. The lack of a significant boost for Obama is curious.
Since Iowa, the big ground-gainer has been Edwards. Obama has held steady around 24-25 percent in the Rasmussen national poll since mid-December. Edwards was at 17 percent going into Iowa. Clinton, as you might expect, has sunk 5 points since the caucuses.
For Republicans, that John McCain surge that pundits have been pushing for a month has come about. In early-December, the Arizona senator was mired at 8 percent. Now he's tied for the national lead with Mike Huckabee at 19 percent. Rudy Giuliani is at 17 percent, Mitt Romney at 15 percent and Fred Thompson at 13 percent.
Again, interesting. Giuliani is actually up a couple of points since Iowa. Huckabee's bounce was a couple of points, but his numbers are down from the low-20s in mid-December. Romney's and Thompson's numbers have been about the same since October.
Conclusions?
1. Edwards could be putting himself in position for another run at vice-president is his poll numbers stay reasonable. He's nowhere close to winning another upcoming state, so won't be able to capitalize on his slight rise. But there is a second prize that he was willing to take just four years ago.
2. For all that's gone on, Clinton is still preferred by Democrats nationwide, so even if she loses New Hampshire and South Carolina, she's still a player.
3. Giuliani is still hanging around. For all the "Huckabooms" and "McCain surges," no one on the GOP field has surged past the 25 percent mark since he did so at the end of November.
4. The longer these races go, the better off the Republican electoral chances.
If the destruction of Obama ends at South Carolina or even after Super Tuesday, probably no big deal. However, if Clinton remains a contender after the first week of February, then what could turn out to be an intra-party Armageddon might create long-lasting damage to the party's chances to reclaim the White House. If the public's perception of Obama of an inexperienced drug-user with Muslim roots, instead of a positively inspiring agent of change takes root, he'll have a very difficult time in November.
Clinton herself, if she scores a knockout blow and goes on to become the nominee, will fulfill her worst nightmare. She'll appear to be a shrew. The mother who demanded the children come out of the swimming pool.
Or worse, a racist shrew. The wife of "the first black president" who denies African-Americans a chance at the real first black president will not be greeted warmly by that segment of the U.S. population in the future. Racial politics is simple. Democrats have been able to count on around 85 percent of the black vote in presidential elections, often more. In this era of close races, they need the black vote in such numbers to win. If Clinton becomes the nominee and dashes heightened expectations of a black president, she will mathematically be unable to win in November.
The Republicans, with only Mike Huckabee able to capture a little of the public's imagination, need a break to hold onto the executive branch of government. This could be it.
---
A new batch of weekend polls show Obama with double-digit leads over Clinton now in New Hampshire. The wave is growing both for him and against her.
The only recent national polling I've seen is from Rasmussen. Everyone else seems to be concentrating on Iowa and now New Hampshire. Interesting numbers here, as of Saturday. On the Democrat side, Clinton leads Obama nationally 36 percent to 25 percent, with John Edwards third at 23 percent. The lack of a significant boost for Obama is curious.
Since Iowa, the big ground-gainer has been Edwards. Obama has held steady around 24-25 percent in the Rasmussen national poll since mid-December. Edwards was at 17 percent going into Iowa. Clinton, as you might expect, has sunk 5 points since the caucuses.
For Republicans, that John McCain surge that pundits have been pushing for a month has come about. In early-December, the Arizona senator was mired at 8 percent. Now he's tied for the national lead with Mike Huckabee at 19 percent. Rudy Giuliani is at 17 percent, Mitt Romney at 15 percent and Fred Thompson at 13 percent.
Again, interesting. Giuliani is actually up a couple of points since Iowa. Huckabee's bounce was a couple of points, but his numbers are down from the low-20s in mid-December. Romney's and Thompson's numbers have been about the same since October.
Conclusions?
1. Edwards could be putting himself in position for another run at vice-president is his poll numbers stay reasonable. He's nowhere close to winning another upcoming state, so won't be able to capitalize on his slight rise. But there is a second prize that he was willing to take just four years ago.
2. For all that's gone on, Clinton is still preferred by Democrats nationwide, so even if she loses New Hampshire and South Carolina, she's still a player.
3. Giuliani is still hanging around. For all the "Huckabooms" and "McCain surges," no one on the GOP field has surged past the 25 percent mark since he did so at the end of November.
4. The longer these races go, the better off the Republican electoral chances.
Thursday, January 3, 2008
Iowa Winners and Losers
My thinking going into the Iowa caucuses was that it didn't matter who won so much as how much they won by. Now, with most votes tallied, it is turning out that size does indeed matter because Barack Obama and Mike Huckabee emerged victorious by margins wide enough to make the first-in-the-nation primary significant.
Iowa sometimes can be dismissed. It's unions and cause activists on the Democratic side and Christian evangelicals for Republicans. But this year Iowa could have a major impact on the thinking of voters in future states.
The winners:
-- Obama. His mostly positive message and inspiring manner obviously registered with voters. He's narrowed a big lead by Hillary Clinton in the New Hampshire polls since mid-November to manageable levels. The Iowa win means momentum and probably fresh campaign funds to take his campaign deep into next month.
-- Huckabee. In a campaign in which Republicans have been desperately looking for alternatives to the presumed front-runners, the former Arkansas governor managed to fill the bill, at least here. Pollster Frank Luntz the past couple nights has reported on Fox News that voters in Iowa consistently told him that they were impressed by Huckabee as the person most like them. Like Obama, he's in position to capitalize. While still a non-factor in New Hampshire, he's surged ahead in South Carolina and has closed to narrow margins behind Rudy Giuliani in Michigan and Florida.
-- Fred Thompson. After it appeared for the past month or so that he was fading, the former Tennessee senator came in third in Iowa, barely beating out John McCain. He's a player in South Carolina. If he can hold out until Super Tuesday, he could gain support when the bloom comes off of opposing roses.
-- We the people. The political elite wanted to crown Clinton and certainly want nothing to do with Huckabee, who comes to the campaign with some big ideas -- good and bad -- that would shake up the way things are done in D.C. The candidates with the plain talk and the inspiring message won because we wanted it that way.
The losers:
-- Clinton. Iowa voters knocked her into third place. In a pie sliced three ways, she got by far the smallest piece. In a year when people want the plain unvarnished truth, as mentioned in the last winner entry, Iowans ruled that she's a fish out of water. Now the pressure is on to blunt Obama's momentum by New Hampshire, hopefully, or South Carolina, absolutely, or she's toast.
-- Bill Richardson. The New Mexico governor was running for the vice-presidency all along but barely managed two percent of the vote. Plus, the office he was shooting for was under Hillary, and she's in trouble. So is he.
-- Mitt Romney. The Massachusetts governor put all his marbles in Iowa and New Hampshire. He lost the first by nine percentage points and is now behind John McCain by significant margins in the most recent three polls in the second -- and was tied with the Arizona senator in the two polls prior. Lose one and he still has a pulse. Lose both and he's six feet under. Like Hillary, voters don't think they're getting the straight story from him. Too slick by half.
-- The political elite in D.C. and Manhattan. As mentioned earlier, they didn't get what they wanted, they did get something they didn't want.
-- Hugh Hewitt. The nationally syndicated talk show host, who otherwise has a very informative program from an evangelical Christian perspective, pimped Romney and led the media assault against Huckabee. He lost this round.
Iowa generally is important for intangible things like starting the election year with momentum, credibility and visibility, and the more tangible fundraising reward. The actual award of delegates doesn't mean a lot. Obama and Huckabee get a lot of each after larger-than-expected victories.
---
As much as it's true that Huckabee's "he's like me" appeal to voters made the difference in Iowa, do we really want someone like ourselves in office in these times?
While I'm cautiously optimistic regarding national security and the economy entering this year, we obviously have major challenges in both areas. We need an exceptional leader to carry our nation through the next four or eight years, not someone like us.
Huckabee, for all his good qualities, does not strike me as an exceptional leader. Obama seems to be someone who could be, given time and experience. Clinton, no. Thompson, no. Romney has it, but voters are starting to tell us they think he carries too much baggage. Giuliani, the same on both counts.
Now toward New Hampshire, after which I'll probably write an entry on results diametrically opposed to what we received from Iowa. Welcome to the real election year.
Iowa sometimes can be dismissed. It's unions and cause activists on the Democratic side and Christian evangelicals for Republicans. But this year Iowa could have a major impact on the thinking of voters in future states.
The winners:
-- Obama. His mostly positive message and inspiring manner obviously registered with voters. He's narrowed a big lead by Hillary Clinton in the New Hampshire polls since mid-November to manageable levels. The Iowa win means momentum and probably fresh campaign funds to take his campaign deep into next month.
-- Huckabee. In a campaign in which Republicans have been desperately looking for alternatives to the presumed front-runners, the former Arkansas governor managed to fill the bill, at least here. Pollster Frank Luntz the past couple nights has reported on Fox News that voters in Iowa consistently told him that they were impressed by Huckabee as the person most like them. Like Obama, he's in position to capitalize. While still a non-factor in New Hampshire, he's surged ahead in South Carolina and has closed to narrow margins behind Rudy Giuliani in Michigan and Florida.
-- Fred Thompson. After it appeared for the past month or so that he was fading, the former Tennessee senator came in third in Iowa, barely beating out John McCain. He's a player in South Carolina. If he can hold out until Super Tuesday, he could gain support when the bloom comes off of opposing roses.
-- We the people. The political elite wanted to crown Clinton and certainly want nothing to do with Huckabee, who comes to the campaign with some big ideas -- good and bad -- that would shake up the way things are done in D.C. The candidates with the plain talk and the inspiring message won because we wanted it that way.
The losers:
-- Clinton. Iowa voters knocked her into third place. In a pie sliced three ways, she got by far the smallest piece. In a year when people want the plain unvarnished truth, as mentioned in the last winner entry, Iowans ruled that she's a fish out of water. Now the pressure is on to blunt Obama's momentum by New Hampshire, hopefully, or South Carolina, absolutely, or she's toast.
-- Bill Richardson. The New Mexico governor was running for the vice-presidency all along but barely managed two percent of the vote. Plus, the office he was shooting for was under Hillary, and she's in trouble. So is he.
-- Mitt Romney. The Massachusetts governor put all his marbles in Iowa and New Hampshire. He lost the first by nine percentage points and is now behind John McCain by significant margins in the most recent three polls in the second -- and was tied with the Arizona senator in the two polls prior. Lose one and he still has a pulse. Lose both and he's six feet under. Like Hillary, voters don't think they're getting the straight story from him. Too slick by half.
-- The political elite in D.C. and Manhattan. As mentioned earlier, they didn't get what they wanted, they did get something they didn't want.
-- Hugh Hewitt. The nationally syndicated talk show host, who otherwise has a very informative program from an evangelical Christian perspective, pimped Romney and led the media assault against Huckabee. He lost this round.
Iowa generally is important for intangible things like starting the election year with momentum, credibility and visibility, and the more tangible fundraising reward. The actual award of delegates doesn't mean a lot. Obama and Huckabee get a lot of each after larger-than-expected victories.
---
As much as it's true that Huckabee's "he's like me" appeal to voters made the difference in Iowa, do we really want someone like ourselves in office in these times?
While I'm cautiously optimistic regarding national security and the economy entering this year, we obviously have major challenges in both areas. We need an exceptional leader to carry our nation through the next four or eight years, not someone like us.
Huckabee, for all his good qualities, does not strike me as an exceptional leader. Obama seems to be someone who could be, given time and experience. Clinton, no. Thompson, no. Romney has it, but voters are starting to tell us they think he carries too much baggage. Giuliani, the same on both counts.
Now toward New Hampshire, after which I'll probably write an entry on results diametrically opposed to what we received from Iowa. Welcome to the real election year.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)