John Edwards has finally read the writing on the wall and dropped out of the race for President. This leaves Clinton and Obama. It could be interesting to see where the Edwards supporters go since in many races Obama and Edwards have split the vote against Clinton
Wednesday, January 30, 2008
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
McCain Wins Florida and Rudy
John McCain has won the Florida primary defeating Mitt Romney. He has also gotten (or will get) the endorsement of Rudy Guliani.
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
Thompson Drops Out
In a move that many had expected, Fred Thompson has dropped out of the race for President. This could help Mike Huckabee who is likely to gain some of Thompson's conservative voters.
With a close race the upcoming Florida primary this could have an impact. Word had been that Huckabee was cutting his resources in Florida but he now may reverse that decision.
With a close race the upcoming Florida primary this could have an impact. Word had been that Huckabee was cutting his resources in Florida but he now may reverse that decision.
Saturday, January 19, 2008
McCain Wins South Carolina
John McCain has won the South Carolina primary. This gives him a big boost, especially after being declared dead politically.
Based on these results, it does look like Thompson will drop out in the next few days. This could provide a boost for Huckabee as many Thompson voters may go his way.
Florida is the next big GOP race and Rudy Guliani has set his race in Florida, and if he does poorly there he could be out of the race. His only hope at this point may be a deadlock.
It is possible if McCain wins Florida and does fairly well on Feb 5th that he could sew things up. But it is very possible the primaries could go a long time this year.
Based on these results, it does look like Thompson will drop out in the next few days. This could provide a boost for Huckabee as many Thompson voters may go his way.
Florida is the next big GOP race and Rudy Guliani has set his race in Florida, and if he does poorly there he could be out of the race. His only hope at this point may be a deadlock.
It is possible if McCain wins Florida and does fairly well on Feb 5th that he could sew things up. But it is very possible the primaries could go a long time this year.
Election 2008: President (Updated)
Since we are heading into the big primary contests, I thought I'd post a few thoughts on Election 2008.
I will do this in a series of posts over the coming weeks to review the Presidential race and the races for House and Senate. Today's post is an examination of the general history of Presidential races and why the odds heavily favor the Democrats.
If we look at the history of elections from 1789 to present we find that there are eight instances of one party holding the White House for more than two terms in a row, mostly in the 19th century.
By contrast we have fourteen instances where there was either one or two term control. So just from the front, the historical trends favor a switch after 2 terms of one party.
If we then look at the examples of more than two terms of control we find that one or more of three conditions existed.
(1) One party was clearly the nationally dominant party. Examples of this were seen with the Republicans after the Civil War or the Democrats during the FDR era.
(2) The President after 2 terms was very popular. Examples of this were seen under Jackson, both Roosevelts and Reagan.
(3) There was some major national crisis. We saw this under FDR or during the Reconstruction period after the Civil War.
Looking to 2008, none of these conditions exist. The parties are pretty evenly divided, President Bush is not popular and there does not seem to be any 'keep the incumbent in' kind of crisis.
Another way of looking at things from a historical standpoint is to use the 'Keys to the White House'. The keys were developed by Allan Lichtman more than 25 years ago and have been very accurate in predicting nearly every election.
The basic premise is there are 11 key factors at play and when one party controls a majority, they win the White House.
The keys and the party controlling them shape out as follows.
1. Incumbent party mandate: Did the President's party win more seats that in the previous mid term election ?
Since the GOP did worse in 2006 than 2002, this favors the Democrats (1-0)
2. Nomination contest: There is no serious battle for the incumbent party nomination.
Since we have a number of GOP contenders and the race looks to go for a while, this favors the Democrats (2-0)
3. Incumbency: The incumbent is running for re-election.
Bush is not running, so this favors the Democrats (3-0).
4. There is no third party candidate.
We don't know this one yet, so call it a tie. Democrats lead 3-0-1.
5. Short term economy: There is no recession.
Between rising unemployment and the housng crunch this year does not look good and a regardless of where the numbers come in, most voters are likely to consider it a recession. Democrats now lead 4-0-1.
6. Long term economy: The economy during the last 4 years has grown as much or more than the economy during the prior 8 years (IE 2005-2009 versus 1997-2005).
This one is close, but given how 2008 looks and again taking into account public perception it goes against the GOP. They now lead 5-0-1.
7. Policy Change: The incumbent has made major changes in national policy.
This one is debatable, Bush has had some major setbacks in terms of Social Security reform but they did change Medicare significantly, so just to be fair I will give them this one. Democrats lead 5-1-1
8. Social unrest: There is no major social unrest.
This one is close given the harshness of modern politics, but compared to the 1960's we are pretty stable. Another point for the GOP but Democrats lead 5-2-1.
9. Scandal: There is no major scandal
I would argue that compared to some past scandals Bush himself has been largely untouched, but there is a lot of stink around him, so a point for the Democrats who lead 6-2-1.
10. Foreign Policy Failures: There have been no major failures in foreign or military policy.
Iraq obviously comes to mind and while arguably the jury is still out, public perception (which is after all the key to voter views) sides with the Democrats.
They now lead 7-2-1.
11. Foreign Policy Success: The opposite of #10 of course.
While Bush did pretty well in many ways after 9/11, I don't think you can give him this one. Democrats lead 8-2-1
12 and 13 deal with the relative charisma of the Incumbent and Challenger party candidates, which of course we don't know. However no republican looks to meet the Reagan/Clinton/JFK level so #12 goes against GOP. #13 could favor Dems if Obama wins but for now it is a tossup
Final score. Democrats win 9-2-2.
So setting aside completely the issues of Bush/Clinton/etc we find that the major historical trends which have held up for the last couple centuries strongly favor a win by the Democrats in the 2008 Presidential Race.
In my next post I will look at the odds on the Congressional races from a historical viewpoint.
Cross posted to Central Sanity
I will do this in a series of posts over the coming weeks to review the Presidential race and the races for House and Senate. Today's post is an examination of the general history of Presidential races and why the odds heavily favor the Democrats.
If we look at the history of elections from 1789 to present we find that there are eight instances of one party holding the White House for more than two terms in a row, mostly in the 19th century.
By contrast we have fourteen instances where there was either one or two term control. So just from the front, the historical trends favor a switch after 2 terms of one party.
If we then look at the examples of more than two terms of control we find that one or more of three conditions existed.
(1) One party was clearly the nationally dominant party. Examples of this were seen with the Republicans after the Civil War or the Democrats during the FDR era.
(2) The President after 2 terms was very popular. Examples of this were seen under Jackson, both Roosevelts and Reagan.
(3) There was some major national crisis. We saw this under FDR or during the Reconstruction period after the Civil War.
Looking to 2008, none of these conditions exist. The parties are pretty evenly divided, President Bush is not popular and there does not seem to be any 'keep the incumbent in' kind of crisis.
Another way of looking at things from a historical standpoint is to use the 'Keys to the White House'. The keys were developed by Allan Lichtman more than 25 years ago and have been very accurate in predicting nearly every election.
The basic premise is there are 11 key factors at play and when one party controls a majority, they win the White House.
The keys and the party controlling them shape out as follows.
1. Incumbent party mandate: Did the President's party win more seats that in the previous mid term election ?
Since the GOP did worse in 2006 than 2002, this favors the Democrats (1-0)
2. Nomination contest: There is no serious battle for the incumbent party nomination.
Since we have a number of GOP contenders and the race looks to go for a while, this favors the Democrats (2-0)
3. Incumbency: The incumbent is running for re-election.
Bush is not running, so this favors the Democrats (3-0).
4. There is no third party candidate.
We don't know this one yet, so call it a tie. Democrats lead 3-0-1.
5. Short term economy: There is no recession.
Between rising unemployment and the housng crunch this year does not look good and a regardless of where the numbers come in, most voters are likely to consider it a recession. Democrats now lead 4-0-1.
6. Long term economy: The economy during the last 4 years has grown as much or more than the economy during the prior 8 years (IE 2005-2009 versus 1997-2005).
This one is close, but given how 2008 looks and again taking into account public perception it goes against the GOP. They now lead 5-0-1.
7. Policy Change: The incumbent has made major changes in national policy.
This one is debatable, Bush has had some major setbacks in terms of Social Security reform but they did change Medicare significantly, so just to be fair I will give them this one. Democrats lead 5-1-1
8. Social unrest: There is no major social unrest.
This one is close given the harshness of modern politics, but compared to the 1960's we are pretty stable. Another point for the GOP but Democrats lead 5-2-1.
9. Scandal: There is no major scandal
I would argue that compared to some past scandals Bush himself has been largely untouched, but there is a lot of stink around him, so a point for the Democrats who lead 6-2-1.
10. Foreign Policy Failures: There have been no major failures in foreign or military policy.
Iraq obviously comes to mind and while arguably the jury is still out, public perception (which is after all the key to voter views) sides with the Democrats.
They now lead 7-2-1.
11. Foreign Policy Success: The opposite of #10 of course.
While Bush did pretty well in many ways after 9/11, I don't think you can give him this one. Democrats lead 8-2-1
12 and 13 deal with the relative charisma of the Incumbent and Challenger party candidates, which of course we don't know. However no republican looks to meet the Reagan/Clinton/JFK level so #12 goes against GOP. #13 could favor Dems if Obama wins but for now it is a tossup
Final score. Democrats win 9-2-2.
So setting aside completely the issues of Bush/Clinton/etc we find that the major historical trends which have held up for the last couple centuries strongly favor a win by the Democrats in the 2008 Presidential Race.
In my next post I will look at the odds on the Congressional races from a historical viewpoint.
Cross posted to Central Sanity
Clinton and Romney Win Nevada
Today they GOP and Dems held caucuses in Nevada.
According to projections, the winners are Hilary Clinton and Mitt Romney. Senator Clinton has edged Barack Obama by a 51-44 margin with John Edwards at just 4%. Edwards will need to do very will soon if he intends to stay in the race.
Romney won the lightly attended GOP race by a wide margin with Ron Paul and John McCain battling for 2nd.
Ironically, while western Nevada has already reported, the GOP primary in South Carolina will not be called until later tonight.
According to projections, the winners are Hilary Clinton and Mitt Romney. Senator Clinton has edged Barack Obama by a 51-44 margin with John Edwards at just 4%. Edwards will need to do very will soon if he intends to stay in the race.
Romney won the lightly attended GOP race by a wide margin with Ron Paul and John McCain battling for 2nd.
Ironically, while western Nevada has already reported, the GOP primary in South Carolina will not be called until later tonight.
Friday, January 18, 2008
What Is A Moderate To Do: Part II
In my last post I discussed my views of the Republican candidates for President, in this one I will take a look at the Democrats.
As a moderate I have given this considerable thought and have come to some rather depressing conclusions regarding the options available to those of us in the political center.
I’d like to begin this post by apologizing for the delay in the posting of the second part of this essay. I had hoped to have it up last week but my car decided to die and accordingly I have been spending my time dealing with those issues.
Just to review what I wrote in the Part One, whenever I am trying to decide who to vote for in a primary, particularly in a Presidential contest, I consider several factors. The most important of course is ideology, which candidate or candidates best match a centrist viewpoint.
Also important is the character of the candidates. Do they seem reasonably honest and trustworthy? I realize that some people don’t put this as a key factor but if you are basing your vote on what the candidates views are you need to know if they can be trusted to stick with what they say.
A final factor to take into account is viability. While it is most important to look at the views of each candidate, it does little good to back a contender who has no chance of winning. It might feel good for a while but often it can lead to a reasonably good candidate who might be your second choice losing to a really bad one.
So now on to the Democrats
DEMOCRATS
One of the nice things about the delay in my posting is that it has allowed some of the weaker candidates to withdraw. I was actually a bit disappointed to see Bill Richardson drop out as he seemed to offer some pretty compelling factors in terms of experience and moderate viewpoints.
But I can only deal with those contenders still in the race (though expect Bill to be near the top of the VP list for whoever wins the top nod).
I assume it goes without saying that both Kucinich and Gravel are not viable so I won’t waste your time discussing why. If you do think they are viable candidates please feel free to post your thoughts.
Senator Edwards is a former VP nominee with a lot of money and an appealing public image, which in theory should make him a major contender for the nomination. But he is caught between the ‘first woman’ and ‘first minority’ buzz saw and I don’t think he will be able to make it out.
It is possible that either Clinton or Obama will make a mistake and be forced out, and in that case Edwards could emerge as the alternative. But for now I think it is simply a matter of time before he gets out.
Even with Edwards in the race, he’s not really good for the moderate voter. His campaign is divisive, very much set on setting one side against the other. He is very liberal, and I am not sure there is very much between those ears.
So this leaves us with (in alphabetic order): Clinton and Obama
Hilary Clinton
Starting from the beginning HRC was seen as the frontrunner for the Democratic nomination. That aura has faded somewhat over the past few months but with her ‘comeback’ in New Hampshire she remains a top candidate
While I have admittedly had problems with the Senator from New York, she has compiled some moderate points during her tenure in the Senate. She has avoided taking too hard a line on social issues and has proposed some strong positions on national security issues.
Her views on Iraq seem balanced, supporting a change but not doing so without taking into account the realities of the situation.
This is not to say she is a centrist. If you look at the ratings from the various interest groups her record has been in the liberal sphere, but not too far outside of the political mainstream.
According to the Almanac of American Politics, her votes from 2003 through 2006 were as follows: Economic = 75 liberal, 23 conservative; Social = 83 liberal, 6 conservative; Foreign = 66 liberal, 30 conservative. Average = 75 liberal, 20 conservative.
I don’t agree with her on everything but she is not the wild eyed radical some would want you to think
She also seems to be reasonably qualified for the job. While I wouldn’t say that simply being First Lady gave her the job, she has also spent 8 years as a Senator and had a long career in the public and private sector before that.
One issue I do have with Senator Clinton is the same I had with President Clinton, the issue of honesty and trust. While I do not expect my politicians to be as pure as the driven snow, I do like them to be quasi honest.
In Senator Clinton’s case, the fact that she has tried to act the moderate after a lifetime of fairly liberal politics makes me think twice. On the other hand, this duplicity could work to the moderate advantage. She is going to want to get re-elected so she is likely to tack to the center during her first term.
Her viability is an issue to consider as she has strong critics on both the right and the left, which could cause a division in party ranks. Then again, I suspect that whoever the Democrats nominate will win, so that may be a moot point.
On a scale of 1 to 10, she rates on fairly well on ideology but less so on integrity and viability issues. Overall, I would give her a 5-6, making her one of the better options among the Democrats.
Barack Obama
Certainly Obama is a political wonder. He has emerged from being an obscure state legislator to a major Presidential contender in the space of a few years. His campaign is probably the most positive and uplifting since Reagan or Clinton.
I suspect that he is also fairly sincere about his views. He hasn’t been that specific of course, but I don’t think he is the type to say one thing when he means another. His background is not a concern to me (I don’t think he is some deep cover terrorist sneaking in the back door).
But there are some serious flaws from a moderate point of view.
One of the biggest is ideology. As I’ve said, I don’t think he is one to lie about his positions, but at the same time he hasn’t been very specific about his views. His campaign has been largely sound bites about uniting and bringing people together. While this is nice, we need to look deeper.
On domestic policy he comes down as hard liberal, advocating things like nationalized health care, major social programs, expansion of federal role in education and so on.
Obviously most of these issues do require solutions, but I am not sure that I support the idea of everything being resolved by the government. As a moderate I look to a combination of government and the private sector in solving problems.
On national security I am also concerned by Senator Obama. His opposition to the war in Iraq and support of a withdrawal is a good idea, but he simply wants to pull out right away without any consideration of the long term impact.
His suggestion that he would talk to rogue nations like Iran and North Korea with no expectation that they will adopt more reasonable views on things is not encouraging.
Indeed I wonder if he is a bit naïve on things. He hasn’t quite come out and said that if we just talk nice to people they will leave us alone, but I do start to wonder.
Overall I would give Obama high marks for inspiration but fairly low ones after looking a little deeper. Perhaps a 3 or 4 overall, but perhaps with potential for the future.
Looking at both parts 1 and two, we find we have 3 candidates (Clinton, Giuliani and Romney) who are pretty good on the issues but have trust and viability issues. A fourth candidate is pretty good on trust and some issues but has a serious flaw on Iraq (McCain).
Finally we have a fifth who is inspiring on the stump and says some good things but does not have the experience or moderate views we need (Obama).
The rest of the candidates are too far to the left or to the right to even be serious contenders.
As a moderate I find it hard to get excited about any of these candidates and a few of them really scare me.
Cross Posted to The Moderate Voice
As a moderate I have given this considerable thought and have come to some rather depressing conclusions regarding the options available to those of us in the political center.
I’d like to begin this post by apologizing for the delay in the posting of the second part of this essay. I had hoped to have it up last week but my car decided to die and accordingly I have been spending my time dealing with those issues.
Just to review what I wrote in the Part One, whenever I am trying to decide who to vote for in a primary, particularly in a Presidential contest, I consider several factors. The most important of course is ideology, which candidate or candidates best match a centrist viewpoint.
Also important is the character of the candidates. Do they seem reasonably honest and trustworthy? I realize that some people don’t put this as a key factor but if you are basing your vote on what the candidates views are you need to know if they can be trusted to stick with what they say.
A final factor to take into account is viability. While it is most important to look at the views of each candidate, it does little good to back a contender who has no chance of winning. It might feel good for a while but often it can lead to a reasonably good candidate who might be your second choice losing to a really bad one.
So now on to the Democrats
DEMOCRATS
One of the nice things about the delay in my posting is that it has allowed some of the weaker candidates to withdraw. I was actually a bit disappointed to see Bill Richardson drop out as he seemed to offer some pretty compelling factors in terms of experience and moderate viewpoints.
But I can only deal with those contenders still in the race (though expect Bill to be near the top of the VP list for whoever wins the top nod).
I assume it goes without saying that both Kucinich and Gravel are not viable so I won’t waste your time discussing why. If you do think they are viable candidates please feel free to post your thoughts.
Senator Edwards is a former VP nominee with a lot of money and an appealing public image, which in theory should make him a major contender for the nomination. But he is caught between the ‘first woman’ and ‘first minority’ buzz saw and I don’t think he will be able to make it out.
It is possible that either Clinton or Obama will make a mistake and be forced out, and in that case Edwards could emerge as the alternative. But for now I think it is simply a matter of time before he gets out.
Even with Edwards in the race, he’s not really good for the moderate voter. His campaign is divisive, very much set on setting one side against the other. He is very liberal, and I am not sure there is very much between those ears.
So this leaves us with (in alphabetic order): Clinton and Obama
Hilary Clinton
Starting from the beginning HRC was seen as the frontrunner for the Democratic nomination. That aura has faded somewhat over the past few months but with her ‘comeback’ in New Hampshire she remains a top candidate
While I have admittedly had problems with the Senator from New York, she has compiled some moderate points during her tenure in the Senate. She has avoided taking too hard a line on social issues and has proposed some strong positions on national security issues.
Her views on Iraq seem balanced, supporting a change but not doing so without taking into account the realities of the situation.
This is not to say she is a centrist. If you look at the ratings from the various interest groups her record has been in the liberal sphere, but not too far outside of the political mainstream.
According to the Almanac of American Politics, her votes from 2003 through 2006 were as follows: Economic = 75 liberal, 23 conservative; Social = 83 liberal, 6 conservative; Foreign = 66 liberal, 30 conservative. Average = 75 liberal, 20 conservative.
I don’t agree with her on everything but she is not the wild eyed radical some would want you to think
She also seems to be reasonably qualified for the job. While I wouldn’t say that simply being First Lady gave her the job, she has also spent 8 years as a Senator and had a long career in the public and private sector before that.
One issue I do have with Senator Clinton is the same I had with President Clinton, the issue of honesty and trust. While I do not expect my politicians to be as pure as the driven snow, I do like them to be quasi honest.
In Senator Clinton’s case, the fact that she has tried to act the moderate after a lifetime of fairly liberal politics makes me think twice. On the other hand, this duplicity could work to the moderate advantage. She is going to want to get re-elected so she is likely to tack to the center during her first term.
Her viability is an issue to consider as she has strong critics on both the right and the left, which could cause a division in party ranks. Then again, I suspect that whoever the Democrats nominate will win, so that may be a moot point.
On a scale of 1 to 10, she rates on fairly well on ideology but less so on integrity and viability issues. Overall, I would give her a 5-6, making her one of the better options among the Democrats.
Barack Obama
Certainly Obama is a political wonder. He has emerged from being an obscure state legislator to a major Presidential contender in the space of a few years. His campaign is probably the most positive and uplifting since Reagan or Clinton.
I suspect that he is also fairly sincere about his views. He hasn’t been that specific of course, but I don’t think he is the type to say one thing when he means another. His background is not a concern to me (I don’t think he is some deep cover terrorist sneaking in the back door).
But there are some serious flaws from a moderate point of view.
One of the biggest is ideology. As I’ve said, I don’t think he is one to lie about his positions, but at the same time he hasn’t been very specific about his views. His campaign has been largely sound bites about uniting and bringing people together. While this is nice, we need to look deeper.
On domestic policy he comes down as hard liberal, advocating things like nationalized health care, major social programs, expansion of federal role in education and so on.
Obviously most of these issues do require solutions, but I am not sure that I support the idea of everything being resolved by the government. As a moderate I look to a combination of government and the private sector in solving problems.
On national security I am also concerned by Senator Obama. His opposition to the war in Iraq and support of a withdrawal is a good idea, but he simply wants to pull out right away without any consideration of the long term impact.
His suggestion that he would talk to rogue nations like Iran and North Korea with no expectation that they will adopt more reasonable views on things is not encouraging.
Indeed I wonder if he is a bit naïve on things. He hasn’t quite come out and said that if we just talk nice to people they will leave us alone, but I do start to wonder.
Overall I would give Obama high marks for inspiration but fairly low ones after looking a little deeper. Perhaps a 3 or 4 overall, but perhaps with potential for the future.
Looking at both parts 1 and two, we find we have 3 candidates (Clinton, Giuliani and Romney) who are pretty good on the issues but have trust and viability issues. A fourth candidate is pretty good on trust and some issues but has a serious flaw on Iraq (McCain).
Finally we have a fifth who is inspiring on the stump and says some good things but does not have the experience or moderate views we need (Obama).
The rest of the candidates are too far to the left or to the right to even be serious contenders.
As a moderate I find it hard to get excited about any of these candidates and a few of them really scare me.
Cross Posted to The Moderate Voice
Tuesday, January 15, 2008
What Is A Moderate To Do: Part I
As we head into Election 2008 it is time for everyone to start to consider who they will vote for in race for President.
As a moderate I have given this considerable thought and have come to some rather depressing conclusions regarding the options available to those of us in the political center.
I had hoped to finish this post prior to the Iowa caucuses but between work and the holidays things got a little bit away from me, though upon reflection it might have been a good thing as the voters are helping to winnow the field a little bit.
Whenever I am trying to decide who to vote for in a primary, particularly in a Presidential contest, I consider several factors. The most important of course is ideology, which candidate or candidates best match a centrist viewpoint.
Also important is the character of the candidates. Do they seem reasonably honest and trustworthy ? I realize that some people don’t put this as a key factor but if you are basing your vote on what the candidates views are you need to know if they can be trusted to stick with what they say.
A final factor to take into account is viability. While it is most important to look at the views of each candidate, it does little good to back a contender who has no chance of winning. It might feel good for a while but often it can lead to a reasonably good candidate who might be your second choice losing to a really bad one.
In applying this test to the Republican and Democratic contenders I find myself unable to really find a good candidate and the results in Iowa aren’t helping things.
Since I am a registered, if somewhat disenchanted, moderate Republican, I will start my analysis with the GOP field and then move on to the Democrats.
REPUBLICANS
Looking at the current crop of candidates, there are a few who I have to eliminate right off the top as not being realistic contenders.
Duncan Hunter is a nice man and a fellow Californian, but he is not going to win the nomination, and indeed is likely to drop out in the next few days. As to Alan Keyes, not only is he unrealistic as a candidate he is rather radical (some might even say insane) with his political viewpoints.
Ron Paul is an interesting candidate to analyze. He has gained quite a lot of support on the internet and as a result has gained quite a bit of media attention. He may very well be a contender for a third party run for President. But I think even he accepts that he is not going to be a serious contender for the GOP nomination. As I write he is a distant 5th place in Iowa.
Assuming he makes it further in the primaries his positions are far too hard line (interestingly both to the left and the right depending on the topic) for a moderate to support him.
At one point Fred Thompson looked like a real serious contender for the conservative wing of the party and he has managed a third place showing in Iowa. But he had banked his whole campaign on Iowa and is in single digits in New Hampshire. There is only room for one conservative alternative and at this point it looks to be Huckabee.
Thompson is a nice enough guy but he is as conservative as Huckabee and has been just awful on the campaign trail.
So this leaves us with (in alphabetic order): Guliani, Huckabee, McCain and Romney.
Rudy Guliani
Rudy has been a major contender in the Presidential race although in recent weeks his campaign has sagged somewhat (he didn’t participate much in Iowa so we will see where he goes in New Hampshire).
Looking first at his political views, Rudy is actually pretty good from a moderate standpoint. According to the statements on his web site, he is a social moderate, supportive of basic abortion rights and civil unions for gays. At the same time he had a strong record on crime while mayor of NYC and has generally supported a strong national defense.
His positions on fiscal issues are also reasonable, supportive of the basic GOP line on keeping taxes low while recognizing the need to control the debt. On national security he recognizes the problems in Iraq but also opposes a radical departure.
So all things considered his positions on the issues are well within the moderate spectrum. I don’t agree with him on everything but I don’t see any issues where a centrist would find him way out of the mainstream
But Rudy has some serious flaws. His personal life offers some questions for me in terms of his record as a serial divorcer. I don’t care so much about his personal life as such, but looking to the issue of trust, it does become a factor. If you are going to need to trust someone means what they say, how they treat their spouse is a consideration.
In addition, there appear to be some scandals in his record as mayor, as relates to his use of civic funds and his various appointments to public offices.
And there is also the issue of his splitting the party, something that could basically ruin any chance he would have of winning against a united opposition.
So from an ideology standpoint he’s not bad, but there are some real concerns as to whether he can be trusted and also the potential for future scandal harming his viability in a general election.
On a scale of 1 to 10, he rates highly on ideology but less so on viability and integrity, so I’d say overall you could give him a 5-6.
Mike Huckabee
Since he just won the Iowa Caucus, Huckabee has the potential to become the GOP frontrunner. From a moderate point of view this is a very disturbing development.
On the surface he seems like a very nice affable kind of guy. Even those who do not support him politically have said as much. I tend to think he is fairly sincere in what he says and so from a trust standpoint I think we can accept that he means what he says.
Unfortunately, what he says is not very appealing from a moderate standpoint. He is extremely conservative on social issues. His position on abortion for example is about as hard line as you can get, supporting a ban on virtually all abortions with no room for consensus with the pro choice view. He has also opposed any sort of civil unions or support for gay rights and advocates bringing back things like school prayer.
On fiscal issues he supports the same mess that has brought us major debt, large tax cuts with no consideration for impact on the budget. He is very conservative on pretty much all of the issues. In Iraq he supports towing the line, with no policy for withdrawing.
So from an ideological point of view he is not very viable to moderates. In addition, he has a public record that seriously impacts his viability. In 1993 for example he stated that AIDS patients should be put into isolation camps and has recently reaffirmed the viewpoint. These kind of statements are far to easy for campaign attack ads.
While Huckabee does well on honesty, he does poorly on both ideology and viability, rating perhaps a 3-4 at best.
John McCain
At one point McCain looked like a major contender for the nomination but he has run into some problems recently. However you should never eliminate him. From a trust standpoint I would rate him rather highly.
He has had a long record of saying what he thinks without caring how it impacts his success in elections. His background as a decorated veteran also gives points in the trust standpoint.
From an ideology standpoint his record is somewhat mixed. On social issues he is fairly conservative but not stridently so. He supports stem cell research and is open on the issue of civil unions. He has adopted a good record on fiscal issues, opposing major tax cuts and spending increases without considering the impact on the debt.
His record on immigration and crime is also reasonable. One might not agree with every position but he does not seem to ride to either extreme.
The one issue he is too conservative on is Iraq where he has been down the line in support of President Bush, a position I find to be very troubling.
Looking to viability we have a mixed result. Right now he seems to be on the way out of the GOP race but if Romney is forced out then McCain could very well become the new contender for those opposed to Huckabee. Looking to November, he presents a couple of problems. First he could alientate hard line social conservatives and second his strong support of the war in Iraq could hurt with independent voters.
In many ways McCain is well in line for moderate voters in that while he is not perfect he has a reasonably good rating on integrity, ideology and viability. Like Guliani I would give him a 5-6 out of 10.
Mitt Romney
For quite a while Mitt Romney seemed like he was going to sweep through Iowa, but he ended up in second place. We will have to see what happens in New Hampshire, if he loses there this analysis could be moot.
However starting with a look at his trustworthiness he seems to have some serious problems, probably more serious than any other Republican. It’s not simply a matter of him having problems in his personal life, but rather some serious flip flops in his political life. He has gone from pro choice to pro life, from pro civil unions to iffy on them and so on.
The interesting thing here is that if he is being less than honest now, it would actually be a good thing from a moderate voter standpoint. His views as governor of Massachusetts were pretty much down the line for a moderate kind of voter, but he has tacked sharply to the right since then.
This then moves into the issue of viability, which is a problem on a couple of levels. First, he could be a problem with social conservatives who do not trust or like his positions on the issues. Second, he could be charged with flip flopping and that would make for some bad campaign attacks in the fall.
It’s kind of tough for me to rate Romney because I liked his views as governor but am less excited with his views now. I personally suspect that he is being less than honest right now, but that raises the interesting quandary of whether you support a dishonest platform when the dishonesty acts to your favor.
Since I am not sure which way to fall here I will err on the side of caution and assign him a 4-5.
So looking at the GOP field we have several candidates who are not viable, one who is far too conservative, two who are not bad on the issues but have serious trust issues and one who is pretty good on most issues but really bad on one (Iraq).
As a moderate I find it hard to get excited about any of these candidates and a few of them really scare me.
Cross Posted to The Moderate Voice
As a moderate I have given this considerable thought and have come to some rather depressing conclusions regarding the options available to those of us in the political center.
I had hoped to finish this post prior to the Iowa caucuses but between work and the holidays things got a little bit away from me, though upon reflection it might have been a good thing as the voters are helping to winnow the field a little bit.
Whenever I am trying to decide who to vote for in a primary, particularly in a Presidential contest, I consider several factors. The most important of course is ideology, which candidate or candidates best match a centrist viewpoint.
Also important is the character of the candidates. Do they seem reasonably honest and trustworthy ? I realize that some people don’t put this as a key factor but if you are basing your vote on what the candidates views are you need to know if they can be trusted to stick with what they say.
A final factor to take into account is viability. While it is most important to look at the views of each candidate, it does little good to back a contender who has no chance of winning. It might feel good for a while but often it can lead to a reasonably good candidate who might be your second choice losing to a really bad one.
In applying this test to the Republican and Democratic contenders I find myself unable to really find a good candidate and the results in Iowa aren’t helping things.
Since I am a registered, if somewhat disenchanted, moderate Republican, I will start my analysis with the GOP field and then move on to the Democrats.
REPUBLICANS
Looking at the current crop of candidates, there are a few who I have to eliminate right off the top as not being realistic contenders.
Duncan Hunter is a nice man and a fellow Californian, but he is not going to win the nomination, and indeed is likely to drop out in the next few days. As to Alan Keyes, not only is he unrealistic as a candidate he is rather radical (some might even say insane) with his political viewpoints.
Ron Paul is an interesting candidate to analyze. He has gained quite a lot of support on the internet and as a result has gained quite a bit of media attention. He may very well be a contender for a third party run for President. But I think even he accepts that he is not going to be a serious contender for the GOP nomination. As I write he is a distant 5th place in Iowa.
Assuming he makes it further in the primaries his positions are far too hard line (interestingly both to the left and the right depending on the topic) for a moderate to support him.
At one point Fred Thompson looked like a real serious contender for the conservative wing of the party and he has managed a third place showing in Iowa. But he had banked his whole campaign on Iowa and is in single digits in New Hampshire. There is only room for one conservative alternative and at this point it looks to be Huckabee.
Thompson is a nice enough guy but he is as conservative as Huckabee and has been just awful on the campaign trail.
So this leaves us with (in alphabetic order): Guliani, Huckabee, McCain and Romney.
Rudy Guliani
Rudy has been a major contender in the Presidential race although in recent weeks his campaign has sagged somewhat (he didn’t participate much in Iowa so we will see where he goes in New Hampshire).
Looking first at his political views, Rudy is actually pretty good from a moderate standpoint. According to the statements on his web site, he is a social moderate, supportive of basic abortion rights and civil unions for gays. At the same time he had a strong record on crime while mayor of NYC and has generally supported a strong national defense.
His positions on fiscal issues are also reasonable, supportive of the basic GOP line on keeping taxes low while recognizing the need to control the debt. On national security he recognizes the problems in Iraq but also opposes a radical departure.
So all things considered his positions on the issues are well within the moderate spectrum. I don’t agree with him on everything but I don’t see any issues where a centrist would find him way out of the mainstream
But Rudy has some serious flaws. His personal life offers some questions for me in terms of his record as a serial divorcer. I don’t care so much about his personal life as such, but looking to the issue of trust, it does become a factor. If you are going to need to trust someone means what they say, how they treat their spouse is a consideration.
In addition, there appear to be some scandals in his record as mayor, as relates to his use of civic funds and his various appointments to public offices.
And there is also the issue of his splitting the party, something that could basically ruin any chance he would have of winning against a united opposition.
So from an ideology standpoint he’s not bad, but there are some real concerns as to whether he can be trusted and also the potential for future scandal harming his viability in a general election.
On a scale of 1 to 10, he rates highly on ideology but less so on viability and integrity, so I’d say overall you could give him a 5-6.
Mike Huckabee
Since he just won the Iowa Caucus, Huckabee has the potential to become the GOP frontrunner. From a moderate point of view this is a very disturbing development.
On the surface he seems like a very nice affable kind of guy. Even those who do not support him politically have said as much. I tend to think he is fairly sincere in what he says and so from a trust standpoint I think we can accept that he means what he says.
Unfortunately, what he says is not very appealing from a moderate standpoint. He is extremely conservative on social issues. His position on abortion for example is about as hard line as you can get, supporting a ban on virtually all abortions with no room for consensus with the pro choice view. He has also opposed any sort of civil unions or support for gay rights and advocates bringing back things like school prayer.
On fiscal issues he supports the same mess that has brought us major debt, large tax cuts with no consideration for impact on the budget. He is very conservative on pretty much all of the issues. In Iraq he supports towing the line, with no policy for withdrawing.
So from an ideological point of view he is not very viable to moderates. In addition, he has a public record that seriously impacts his viability. In 1993 for example he stated that AIDS patients should be put into isolation camps and has recently reaffirmed the viewpoint. These kind of statements are far to easy for campaign attack ads.
While Huckabee does well on honesty, he does poorly on both ideology and viability, rating perhaps a 3-4 at best.
John McCain
At one point McCain looked like a major contender for the nomination but he has run into some problems recently. However you should never eliminate him. From a trust standpoint I would rate him rather highly.
He has had a long record of saying what he thinks without caring how it impacts his success in elections. His background as a decorated veteran also gives points in the trust standpoint.
From an ideology standpoint his record is somewhat mixed. On social issues he is fairly conservative but not stridently so. He supports stem cell research and is open on the issue of civil unions. He has adopted a good record on fiscal issues, opposing major tax cuts and spending increases without considering the impact on the debt.
His record on immigration and crime is also reasonable. One might not agree with every position but he does not seem to ride to either extreme.
The one issue he is too conservative on is Iraq where he has been down the line in support of President Bush, a position I find to be very troubling.
Looking to viability we have a mixed result. Right now he seems to be on the way out of the GOP race but if Romney is forced out then McCain could very well become the new contender for those opposed to Huckabee. Looking to November, he presents a couple of problems. First he could alientate hard line social conservatives and second his strong support of the war in Iraq could hurt with independent voters.
In many ways McCain is well in line for moderate voters in that while he is not perfect he has a reasonably good rating on integrity, ideology and viability. Like Guliani I would give him a 5-6 out of 10.
Mitt Romney
For quite a while Mitt Romney seemed like he was going to sweep through Iowa, but he ended up in second place. We will have to see what happens in New Hampshire, if he loses there this analysis could be moot.
However starting with a look at his trustworthiness he seems to have some serious problems, probably more serious than any other Republican. It’s not simply a matter of him having problems in his personal life, but rather some serious flip flops in his political life. He has gone from pro choice to pro life, from pro civil unions to iffy on them and so on.
The interesting thing here is that if he is being less than honest now, it would actually be a good thing from a moderate voter standpoint. His views as governor of Massachusetts were pretty much down the line for a moderate kind of voter, but he has tacked sharply to the right since then.
This then moves into the issue of viability, which is a problem on a couple of levels. First, he could be a problem with social conservatives who do not trust or like his positions on the issues. Second, he could be charged with flip flopping and that would make for some bad campaign attacks in the fall.
It’s kind of tough for me to rate Romney because I liked his views as governor but am less excited with his views now. I personally suspect that he is being less than honest right now, but that raises the interesting quandary of whether you support a dishonest platform when the dishonesty acts to your favor.
Since I am not sure which way to fall here I will err on the side of caution and assign him a 4-5.
So looking at the GOP field we have several candidates who are not viable, one who is far too conservative, two who are not bad on the issues but have serious trust issues and one who is pretty good on most issues but really bad on one (Iraq).
As a moderate I find it hard to get excited about any of these candidates and a few of them really scare me.
Cross Posted to The Moderate Voice
Romney Wins Michigan
Mitt Romney has won the GOP primary in Michigan.
This is his second victory, the first coming in Wyoming, but since that race got little national attention the perception is that we have a 3 way tie with Huckabee winning Iowa, McCain winning New Hampshire and Romney winning Michigan.
How this will impact the long term race remains to be seen, but I suspect that when the big primaries come up in early February a front runner will emerge.
This is his second victory, the first coming in Wyoming, but since that race got little national attention the perception is that we have a 3 way tie with Huckabee winning Iowa, McCain winning New Hampshire and Romney winning Michigan.
How this will impact the long term race remains to be seen, but I suspect that when the big primaries come up in early February a front runner will emerge.
Wednesday, January 9, 2008
Richardson To Quit... Doolitle Too ?
Word is that Bill Richardson will abandon his bid for President with an announcement set for Thursday.
Rumors also brewing that California Congresscritter John Doolittle will also retire. We can only hope that this is true, even if it does mean parts of California get a little stinkier.
Rumors also brewing that California Congresscritter John Doolittle will also retire. We can only hope that this is true, even if it does mean parts of California get a little stinkier.
Tuesday, January 8, 2008
Democratic Primary Update
It continues to be a very close race between Clinton and Obama. Edwards seems assured of 3rd place at around 17% and all the others are in single digits.
CLINTON WINS
CNN has still not quite called it but I am ready to do so. Clinton wins by about 3 points.
LATEST UPDATE
MSNBC calls it for Clinton
As of 7:30/10:30pm we have nearly 66% and Clinton leads by about 5,100 votes so its going to be hard for Obama to surge, but it still is not over. Associated Press has called it for Clinton. but no other networks have quite yet.
Clinton: 67,828 (39%)
Obama: 62,736 (36%)
PRIOR UPDATES
As of 6:50pm/9:50pm we have just about 50% of the vote in and Clinton's lead is holding up. Her current advantage is about 3,500 votes. However CNN is reporting that many of the university areas have not yet reported and that could be Obama country.
But for now
Clinton: 53,636 (39%)
Obama: 50,146 (37%)
As of 6:30pm they have counted almost 41% of the Democratic primary vote and Clinton clings to a lead of about 2,600 votes.
Clinton: 38,963 (39%)
Obama: 36,274 (37%)
Clinton continues to lead, more or less steadily since the count began. But it's gonna be a long long night. Her lead is now around 2,750 votes
Clinton: 27,106 (40%)
Obama: 24,369 (36%)
Edwards: 11,305 (17%)
Updated Results (21% counted as of 5:45/8:45)
Clinton: 22,468 (40%)
Obama: 20,193 (36%)
Edwards: 9,494 (17%)
Still a very close race but it has remained fairly steady since returns began to come in. Some Obama supporters suggest that the younger Obama vote will come in later so we will see where the numbers go.
Current Returns are as follows (15% counted at 5:30 PST/8:30 EST)
Clinton: 17,393 (40%)
Obama: 15,574 (36%)
Edwards: 7,304 (17%)
All others are in single digits
So at this point it could go either way. It is not yet clear where the results are coming from so we can't tell if it is broad returns or from a Clinton stronghold.
CLINTON WINS
CNN has still not quite called it but I am ready to do so. Clinton wins by about 3 points.
LATEST UPDATE
MSNBC calls it for Clinton
As of 7:30/10:30pm we have nearly 66% and Clinton leads by about 5,100 votes so its going to be hard for Obama to surge, but it still is not over. Associated Press has called it for Clinton. but no other networks have quite yet.
Clinton: 67,828 (39%)
Obama: 62,736 (36%)
PRIOR UPDATES
As of 6:50pm/9:50pm we have just about 50% of the vote in and Clinton's lead is holding up. Her current advantage is about 3,500 votes. However CNN is reporting that many of the university areas have not yet reported and that could be Obama country.
But for now
Clinton: 53,636 (39%)
Obama: 50,146 (37%)
As of 6:30pm they have counted almost 41% of the Democratic primary vote and Clinton clings to a lead of about 2,600 votes.
Clinton: 38,963 (39%)
Obama: 36,274 (37%)
Clinton continues to lead, more or less steadily since the count began. But it's gonna be a long long night. Her lead is now around 2,750 votes
Clinton: 27,106 (40%)
Obama: 24,369 (36%)
Edwards: 11,305 (17%)
Updated Results (21% counted as of 5:45/8:45)
Clinton: 22,468 (40%)
Obama: 20,193 (36%)
Edwards: 9,494 (17%)
Still a very close race but it has remained fairly steady since returns began to come in. Some Obama supporters suggest that the younger Obama vote will come in later so we will see where the numbers go.
Current Returns are as follows (15% counted at 5:30 PST/8:30 EST)
Clinton: 17,393 (40%)
Obama: 15,574 (36%)
Edwards: 7,304 (17%)
All others are in single digits
So at this point it could go either way. It is not yet clear where the results are coming from so we can't tell if it is broad returns or from a Clinton stronghold.
McCain Wins New Hampshire
The networks have all called it for John McCain with Mitt Romney in second. Romney may be in real trouble now with two losses in a row.
Current numbers are as follows
McCain: 10,127 (37%)
Romney: 7,744 (28%)
Huckabee at 12%
Guliani at 9%
Paul at 8%
Current numbers are as follows
McCain: 10,127 (37%)
Romney: 7,744 (28%)
Huckabee at 12%
Guliani at 9%
Paul at 8%
Thursday, January 3, 2008
Iowa Caucuses
The results from the Iowa Caucuses are coming in.
On the GOP side, Mike Huckabee has come in first at 34%, Romney is second with about 26% and McCain/Thompson are tied for 3rd at around 13%
On the GOP side, Mike Huckabee has come in first at 34%, Romney is second with about 26% and McCain/Thompson are tied for 3rd at around 13%
On the Democratic side it's a close race with Obama at 38% and Clinton/Edwards tied for 2/3 at around 30%, though it looks like Edwards will edge Clinton. The networks have called the race for Obama but the outcome is expected to be very close.
This outcome is going to provide a lot of talk about a shakeup in both races, though it is worth considering that the winners of the Iowa caucuses often do not win the nomination.
Should Obama and Huckabee win the nomination I think a lot of people will be searching for a third choice.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)