At the risk of continuing my embarassing streak of awful predictions, tonight is Michigan Republican Primary. Many are saying that if Romney loses here, his campaign is finished, but I think he'll be done when he's tired of spending his own money. That said, if Romney doesn't win in Michigan, I don't know where he will win.
McCain is polling very well after winning New Hampshire, and won Michigan in 2000. Romney is leading in Michigan polling, and Kos is urging Democrats to vote for him as a way to prolong the GOP race.
That said, I think McCain will win Michigan narrowly tonight. He's got momentum, and I think his appeal is much greater to independents and Democrats than Romney's, despite Kos' urging. Huckabee comes in third.
What do you think?
He's got momentum, and I think his appeal is much greater to independents and Democrats than Romney's, despite Kos' urging.
The GOP candidate doesn't need to appeal to the Dems. If they vote in the GOP primary, they should vote for the most easily beatable candidate, against a candidate they really hate, or for Romney in order to keep the GOP fight going (as Glock's video pointed out).
This is what bothered me so much about the McCain campaign in 2000. No matter how many Dem votes he got in these open primaries, did he really expect those people to vote for him in the general?
"If they vote in the GOP primary, they should vote for the most easily beatable candidate, against a candidate they really hate, or for Romney in order to keep the GOP fight going (as Glock's video pointed out)."
I don't think many voters are sophisticated enough or cynical enough to vote that way. Some are, but not that many. Especially not independents.
"This is what bothered me so much about the McCain campaign in 2000. No matter how many Dem votes he got in these open primaries, did he really expect those people to vote for him in the general?"
Yes. There will be a significant number of Democrats who will vote for John McCain over Clinton or Obama. Independents, too. Just as there will be a significant number of Republicans who will vote for Barack Obama over McCain. Or Huckabee. Or Rudy.
A candidate needs to gather votes whereever they can find them. And it's unwise to presume that Democrats who vote in today's Primary for McCain or Romney cannot be won in November, IMO.
Rudy, Rudy who is he, that guy getting the pass from the media for ignoring the republicans in Iowa, New Hampshire, Michigan and all those other states he's skipping. I think you shouldn't be allowed in the debate for that state unless you’re actually campaigning in that state. Will the people in those states he skipped be a turned off by his campaign if he gets the GOP nomination?
A "pass from the media?"
Boggle.
A candidate needs to gather votes whereever they can find them.
I don' t disagree with that. I am just bothered by a candidate who's main strategy for gaining the nomination is to appeal to voters from the other party.
And, maybe I am cynical, but I just think it would be all too tempting for Dems to want to vote in the GOP primary just to mess with it, with no intention of voting for that GOP candidate in the general. And can't you see some union boss somewhere instructing his members to do this?
"That said, I think McCain will win Michigan narrowly tonight."
Gah! It's been jinxed! I guess I'll just have to hope you're wrong on the "narrowly" part. :-)
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
Rudy skips the first part the of the race and there is hardly a word from the media and that’s a Boggle, they are harder on Hillary.
They just want Rudy to run against Hillary or Obama because the media knows the conservatives will stay home and then it will be a heads up battle between to liberals and the media knows they will win either way and will probable get the Dem. because they can help them.
There seems to be plenty of coverage by the news media questioning whether or not Rudy is out of his mind for not being more involved with the earlier States and losing visibility while other candidates gained it or if his strategy may end up being brilliant and fooling everybody due to the new primary calendar. With his recent drop in the polls many opined that his strategy was failing. From what I've caught of the election coverage, they haven't been ignoring it, just focusing more on what is actually happening with the other candidates as opposed to what's not happening with the Rudy campaign.
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
"I am just bothered by a candidate who's main strategy for gaining the nomination is to appeal to voters from the other party."
I disagree that it's anyone's "main strategy." There's not nearly enough crossover votes, even in states like NH or MI, to make it feasible as a main strategy.
"Rudy skips the first part the of the race and there is hardly a word from the media and that’s a Boggle, they are harder on Hillary."
Are you getting the same media coverage that I am? Every time someone starts talking about the race they mention that Rudy appears to have screwed himself. And they might be right.
"They just want Rudy to run against Hillary or Obama because the media knows the conservatives will stay home and then it will be a heads up battle between to liberals and the media knows they will win either way and will probable get the Dem. because they can help them."
You've been spending too much time with Ron Paul supporters. Any other conspiracy theories you'd like to share?
Maybe this doesn't say it was his "main" strategy, but it looks to me like McCain knew he couldn't beat Bush with Republican voters only...
From CNN archives, Feb 19, 2000
I tend to agree more with Democratic candidates than Republican, but I vote for the one I think will do the best job in a particular race. This year I will take a Republican ballot in the Illinois primary for two reasons. I think Obama has the Dem race sown up in Illinois, so why waste a vote and I think Julia Reitz can take care of herself. On the other hand, my only opportunity to vote in my Illinois House race is in the Republican primary since there is no Democratic candidate. And since Shane Cultra has never responded to any letter or fax I have sent him since he became my representative, I want this opportunity to vote for Dave Tomlinson. I also want to vote for the Republican that I feel would do the best job if the Dem candidate is not to my liking - or manages to crash and burn. This type of situation is why we need open primaries like we have in Illinois.
"Maybe this doesn't say it was his "main" strategy, but it looks to me like McCain knew he couldn't beat Bush with Republican voters only..."
The situation in 2008 is considerably different than it was in 2000.
And how did that strategy end up working out for McCain, anyway?
And how did that strategy end up working out for McCain, anyway?
It failed, and I am still mad at him for even trying it. He tried to highjack the GOP primary with crossover voters, and it just adds to the list of reasons why I don't really trust him.
That’s funny Hillary tears up and there is days of bad press and you compare that to some comments about whether or not Rudy’s strategy to skip a few states is ok or not. Why haven’t there been questions about whether he had the money to run in those states. He lives in the northeast and he wasn't competitive in New Hampshire a state full of independents if he wasn’t how can he win in the general election. They have been after Romney’s hair, Huckabees religion, McCain’s to Old and Fred has been pretty slow moving until now. Rudy’s getting a pass; I guess the voters see it now so Rudy’s numbers are dropping for now. When Rudy gets past Florida the voters will forget and the media will talk about how great he is just like how great a comeback kid Hillary is for winning by 2 points what a world class win that was, all based on the polls.
"That’s funny Hillary tears up and there is days of bad press and you compare that to some comments about whether or not Rudy’s strategy to skip a few states is ok or not."
All I've seen is nonstop mentions of how he needs to win Florida or his campaign is over. In every media report that talks about the GOP race.
"Why haven’t there been questions about whether he had the money to run in those states."
There have been. Where have you been? There was two days of stories about some of his staff working for free to save resources.
"He lives in the northeast and he wasn't competitive in New Hampshire a state full of independents if he wasn’t how can he win in the general election."
Yes - because winning NH in a Primary is an accurate indication of general election strength. Boggle again.
"They have been after Romney’s hair, Huckabees religion, McCain’s to Old and Fred has been pretty slow moving until now. Rudy’s getting a pass;"
And they went after Rudy's mistress and his ties to Kerik. Again, where have you been?
"I guess the voters see it now so Rudy’s numbers are dropping for now. When Rudy gets past Florida the voters will forget and the media will talk about how great he is just like how great a comeback kid Hillary is for winning by 2 points what a world class win that was, all based on the polls."
Of course - it's the media's fault, because they absolutely love Rudy. Boggle again.
What did Rudy do to piss you off today, anyway? It's been weeks since you wanted to spend an entire thread bashing him.
A third Romney defeat would effectively be the end of Romney.
Of course, when the recession hits, there isn't a force on earth that could elect another Republican.
Of course, when the recession hits, there isn't a force on earth that could elect another Republican.
Not that I necesarily disagree with you, but this line of logic frustrates me. A Dem President will mean a tax increase, and the biggest tax increase will be on those people that create jobs - the rich. I know, I know - Bill Clinton raised taxes and that economy was great. I just can't figure out how raising taxes is supposed to spur the economy out of recession?
I think Rudy's entire strategy hinges on tonight's result. If Romney pulls it out then a Rudy win in Florida may give the Giuliani campaign the momentum. With no candidate able to win back-to-back primaries it will be considered anyone's ballgame and Rudy can waltz in to pick it up. If McCain wins tonight then I think he will carry the Big Mo for now and may even win South Carolina. I think it will be hard for Rudy to stop him at that point.
But what do I know?
Oh, I do know one thing: I don't think conservatives will have that hard of a time falling in behind Giuliani. But that requires a differentiation of conservatives: religious, economic, or neo. Rudy can carry the economic and neo cons, but the religious might be a harder sell. Giuliani/Huckabee ticket might seal up to coalition for one more round?
But Rudy scares me. He is way too trigger happy/Big Brother for my tastes.
Should be a fun night. Cheers!
Whereas a Repub president will mean increased spending without any attempt to pay for it.
maybe, but which is better in fighting a recession?
I think that a lot of what fuels a recession is loss of hope,,,,also some pretty bad econ. numbers,,but that los of hope,,like it or not republicans do not generate much hope. Of course Reagan brought about hope after the VietNam period and Jimmy Carter, who in my opinion was doomed to fail more because of the time he got elected than any great mistakes on his part,,,,,his misfortune to win when the deck was stacked againest him, almost no matter what he did. The dems promise hope. as do the republicans,,,,the main problem for the GOP, is the "perception"/ reality?? is that they promise hope for the JP Morgans of this generation, not the regular working class folks that have to deal with the bs everyday, by all levels of government, There was time when a regualr joe/josiphine could go to an elected official and maybe come away with a chnce at a resolution,,,,,,,now it has become more and more that the person you go to for help, is the one that is causing the problem to begin with. I could never have been for Rudy,,,for the simple reason,,,he looks like something I hung on my front door for Halloween,,,,,I am far fro handsome myself,,,,,but I could never vote for Halloween door decoration,,,cant you just see him with a string across his shoulders hanging fron your door,,,,,close you eyes for a moment and imagine it. Fred,,,,slow talking Fred,,,,,he is good on small talk tough sound bites on a tv show,,,but in reality,,,he could not even make a good Champaign County Board member, and that is saying something. Obama. or Hillary we may as well get used to it,,,,too bad there will not be enough demand for change,,,,to decorate some of those cherry trees the Japanese gave us years ago, with a few reps and senators,,,I can promise you there would be change in a hurry after airing a few of them out.
Of course, when the recession hits, there isn't a force on earth that could elect another Republican.
There isn't a force on earth strong enough to allow Hillary to beat McCain in any circumstance.
McCain has the highest "positives" of all candidates (Dem and Rep) and the lowest negatives. This positive spread is accentuated by the fact that he is the best known of all (save Hillary) who suffers from a pos/neg issue that is 2 points to the negative.
http://www.extremewisdom.com/wp-content/uploads/mccain-graphic.jpg
Guess which 2 have the worst ratios of all? Read the above graphic. Hence my earlier opining a few weeks ago that they are unelectable.
Every thing that makes McCain a tough swallow for Republicans makes him a good bet in the General. If you want to understand why, ponder the massively larger numbers of people who vote in Generals than in primaries.
I wouldn't bank on a recession either. We may be in one now, but we likely won't be in the 3rd quarter, even if it is all funny money.
If Giuliani were a serious candidate he would be doing better than these sixth place finishes. Giuliani was leading the polls in Michigan as recently as November, yet now he's at 3%?
Also, the idea that Giuliani is skipping these early states is being blown out of proportion. If he was really skipping New Hampshire, why did he spend money he doesn't have to run nearly 3,000 TV ads there? Why did he bother visiting Iowa a large number of times?
Rudy didn't decide on a strategy of skipping the early states. He settled on it after his leads in those state evaporated, while his national numbers remained relatively strong. His original strategy was to compete in those states without breaking the bank, while focusing on the 2/5 states.
I don't think his strategy is going to work, although if nobody wins more than one or two of the early states, it may yet work.
"All I've seen is nonstop mentions of how he needs to win Florida or his campaign is over" yeah right man how can he survive with hits like that.
"There was two days of stories about some of his staff working for free" many campaigns have staff that work for free does he have the money as he says he does to have a 50 state campaign, he hasn't proved it so far.
"Yes - because winning NH in a Primary is an accurate indication of general election strength. Boggle again." So how many candidates have won the nomination without winning NH. I guess my point was Rudy shouldn't lost NH he should of been able to pick up an easy early win in NH but no he crashes and burns. It seems he boggles again.
"And they went after Rudy's mistress and his ties to Kerik. Again, where have you been?" That was hard not to go after but it should have been a bigger hit. The media has called Romney a Mormon more then they have said the name Kerik and the last time I checked being a Mormon doesn't require a Grand Jury.
No they love moderates as I said not just Rudy, so your boggles are getting a little weak.
What did Rudy do to piss you off today, anyway? It's been weeks since you wanted to spend an entire thread bashing him.
"Piss you off today" that’s it blame the messenger, rather then address the questions. I think we need someone who can really run for office. McCain, Romney and Huckabee are in the fight is Rudy (in Michigan at 3% behind Paul)?
It hasn't been weeks I have been on vacation
Your hatred for Rudy is pathological at this point.
It's causing you to see conspiracies where there aren't any, to invent facts where you have none, and to disregard evidence you find inconvenient.
I understand you hate everything about the guy - you bring it up in every single thread in which the Presidential race is mentioned. You're not going to convince me to match your level of hatred. You have no facts or evidence or logic for any of your reasons for hating him - it's just hatred for hatred's sake, at this point..
There's nothing to do but agree to disagree.
And my amazing streak of incorrect predictions continues!
:-)
Yes, you know me so well you can now know I hate Rudy, now thats a Boggle LOL
Rudy is the perfect candidate and never question his campaign on your blog.
"Rudy is the perfect candidate and never question his campaign on your blog."
I've never said that.
I'm just not going to engage in this sort of foolishness with you anymore. If you feel the compulsion to make up conspiracies to justify bashing him, go for it.
Permission requested to take weird swipes at Duncan Hunter in every thread. I hardly ever hear MSM tear him a new one.
IP, your election handicapping isn't so hot these days.
If Rudy won Michigan, you would put up a glorious posting, but since Romney won, you don't even put up a posting, like nothing of any significance happened. Michigan is a large, battleground state, certainly more important in an election than small rural states like Iowa and New Hampshire. With a Romney win in Nevada this weekend and a Huckabee win in South Carolina, I bet Romney emerges as the frontrunner.
IP, your election handicapping isn't so hot these days.
If Rudy won Michigan, you would put up a glorious post, but since Romney won, you don't even put up a posting, like nothing of any significance happened.
With a Romney win in Nevada and a Huckabee win in South Carolina, Romney emerges as the frontrunner, knocking off your beloved Rudy in Florida.
"IP, your election handicapping isn't so hot these days. "
As I've written myself, multiple times. I take some small consolation in that my predictions of victory are the kiss of death.
"If Rudy won Michigan, you would put up a glorious posting, but since Romney won, you don't even put up a posting, like nothing of any significance happened. "
Meh. I've just about given up on Rudy, so I doubt I would do anything if he had won, either. (But that won't stop me from rooting against Huckabee and Romney!)
But I do want to alert you to a neat function of this site, which should help you to alleviate any gaps you percieve in our coverage.
First, the link to register.
Second, the link to write a blog entry.
If you don't like that I've ignored Mitt Romney's huge, massive, monumental, earth-shattering, panderific triumph in Michigan, go ahead and write a blog entry yourself. I'll even vote to kick it to the front page.
"With a Romney win in Nevada this weekend and a Huckabee win in South Carolina, I bet Romney emerges as the frontrunner."
Romney is already the frontrunner, with two wins and two seconds and an unlimited bank account. Someone, however, has dubbed this the "momentumless" campaign, so it remains to be seen if he can capitalize on his win in Michigan better than Huckabee and McCain capitalized on their wins.
The best thing for Romney would be a thinning of the herd. Huckabee and (hopefully) Thompson will continue to fight him for many of the same voters in the next few contests. If they don't drop out before Feb 5, it will be very good news for Rudy.
The biggest kink in the Rudy strategy now appears to be McCain. I am not sure anyone was figuring him into the equation 2 months ago. John and Rudy split the "strong America" and non-traditional Republicans. A 3-way race with Rudy, McCain and Romney falls to Romney I think.
At this point my mild preferences are:
Frankly, at this point, I'm just enjoying being a spectator. It's fun to watch all this unfold - unprecedented conditions with an unprecedented calendar. And as foolish as my predictions make me look, I enjoy watching the talking heads attempt to analyze this stuff. They're looking just as foolish as me, if not worse, because they've got so much more credibility than I do.
A big Fred win in SC just throws this thing up for grabs - and would be so fun to watch.
Yes.
I'm rooting for Fred in SC for two reasons.
2. Prevents Huckabee from winning
I'd be interested to know what has turned you off to the Huck. You may have posted it elsewhere but I don't remember. Can you elaborate?
I am in no way a Huckabee supporter so it is just genuine curiosity, not a provocation. :)
Someone on "Morning Joe" this morning, I think it was Tim Russert but I was only listening and could not see, was suggesting that if no one is a clear favorite after South Carolina, there may be new entrants into the race. He mentioned 3 people, including possibly Newt Gingrich or Jeb Bush (resulting in another Clinton-Bush race??) and I don't remember who. Maybe Bloomberg should consider running as a Republican . After all, that is how he was first elected Mayor of New York. He should have all the bases covered since he has officially been a member of the Democratic and Republican parties and is now an official Independent! And I think he has even more money than Mitt!
"I'd be interested to know what has turned you off to the Huck. You may have posted it elsewhere but I don't remember. Can you elaborate?"
His guiding philosophy both social and economic is nanny-statism. He's basically a pro-Life liberal who thinks that capitalism creates more problems than it solves.
"Maybe Bloomberg should consider running as a Republican . After all, that is how he was first elected Mayor of New York. He should have all the bases covered since he has officially been a member of the Democratic and Republican parties and is now an official Independent! "
Bloomberg won't win very many Republican votes. He combines the worst traits of Huckabee and Giuliani - social liberalism, economic liberalism with a healthy-dose of "I know what's best for you" nanny-statism. At least Huckabee and Giuliani have some appeal to parts of the GOP - Bloomberg has no appeal to any of them.
His guiding philosophy both social and economic is nanny-statism. He's basically a pro-Life liberal who thinks that capitalism creates more problems than it solves.
Yeah, I could see that. But what of this "fair tax" stuff he has been spouting? As a pro-life liberal and economic populist I have a hard time backing a tax that I see as shifting the burden even further down onto the middle class. But I would think economic conservatives would like the fair tax. Not because you all believe it would push the burden down, but because it seems to "free up wealth"?
Not going for it, eh?
I don't buy the Fair Tax, and I don't buy Huckabee's support of it, given his record of raising taxes so much in Arkansas.
I'd rather have a smaller national income tax and national flat tax with huge exemptions. Anything to eliminate the IRS and the wasteful tax prep/tax sheltering industry.
Are any of the other Republican candidates advocating elimination of the IRS? I know Ron Paul and Huckabee are, but I don't think your more mainstream Republicans like Rudy, Romney or McCain are going to campaign on the elimination of the IRS.
So ... do you really believe in a flat tax? What did Forbes run on - a 15% flat tax, which would essentially be almost 50% cut on the highest brackets? I have almost no doubt that you really want to help the middle class more than you want to help the wealthiest few (right?). How does a flat tax do that?
You know a couple of months ago you said you'd like to see the Department of Education eliminated. I am having a harder and harder time figuring out why that is a bad idea. :)
"So ... do you really believe in a flat tax? What did Forbes run on - a 15% flat tax, which would essentially be almost 50% cut on the highest brackets? I have almost no doubt that you really want to help the middle class more than you want to help the wealthiest few (right?). How does a flat tax do that?"
I do. I'm not a tax expert, but why not do a flat tax with the first $40,000 of income exempt per adult, with a $15,000 exemption per child? A family of four would have
$105,000$110,000 exempt - plenty to protect the middle class.I'd also couple it with a higher national sales tax, though. I think it's only fair to tax both income and consumption. The sales tax would be more regressive, but the flat tax with high exemptions would be more progressive.
Any thoughts?
"You know a couple of months ago you said you'd like to see the Department of Education eliminated. I am having a harder and harder time figuring out why that is a bad idea. :)"
Heh. I'll turn you into a Federalist yet. ;-)
I just see no Federal role (other than civil rights via DoJ and maybe block grants) in education. Of course, I could probably say that about a number of Federal departments (HUD, Agriculture, etc.). But I'm awfully libertarian - much more so than the vast majority of Republicans.
Any thoughts?
You know, it is appealing. I've noticed that this election cycle the emphasis from fiscal conservatives has been on the middle-class benefits to ideas like the fair or flat tax. It moves people to think that they might pay NO income tax. That is a winner if it can be sold.
The problem, of course, is lower federal revenues. Still have all those entitlements out there, and somebody has to pay that bill. Plus the debt is now what - 9 trillion? I am not sure how we can deal with these serious economic problems on the federal level with less revenue. I know that it is possible to generate more receipts on the short-term with the economic stimulus that a flat tax would create. But long term we have to deal with a growing population, environmental issues, the health care mess, etc.
In short, your flat tax ship may have sailed.
But who knows? It might be just what we need to get the focus on leaner, more efficient government and services. Maybe we could stop trying to remake the world in our image at the cost of $500 billion a year? Maybe we could "socialize" health care and streamline the paperwork with a single-payer? A healthy combination of tax reform and allowing the government to do what it does best might be an interesting future.
But I have little doubt that you and I differ on what the government "does best". :)
Cheers!
"But who knows? It might be just what we need to get the focus on leaner, more efficient government and services."
I'd love to have someone at the Federal level focus on this.
"But I have little doubt that you and I differ on what the government "does best". :)"
Of course. But has been a pleasure discussing it with you. :-)
"Bloomberg won't win very many Republican votes. He combines the worst traits of Huckabee and Giuliani - social liberalism, economic liberalism with a healthy-dose of 'I know what's best for you' nanny-statism. At least Huckabee and Giuliani have some appeal to parts of the GOP - Bloomberg has no appeal to any of them."
And yet the biggest Bloomberg supporter I know is also the biggest Romney supporter I know. Boggle.
On January 16th, 2008 at 07:07 PM, IlliniPundit said: "I'm not a tax expert, but why not do a flat tax with the first $40,000 of income exempt per adult, with a $15,000 exemption per child? A family of four would have $105,000 exempt - plenty to protect the middle class."
Wouldn't that be $110,000 exempt? $40,000 times two adults equals $80,000; $15,000 times two children equals $30,000; $30,000 plus $80,000 is $110,000...right? *scratches head, looks for calculator, debates using fingers and toes* or are you figuring the $5,000 less ($105,000) is due to something else, something i'm missing from reading this thread?
HG
HG - yes.
Sorry!
On January 17th, 2008 at 09:52 AM, IlliniPundit said: "HG - yes. Sorry!"
no worries, i was just making sure I hadn't missed anything