They're the front-runners for the GOP's presidential nomination at 13% each, according to a new CNN/ORC poll [hat tip -- Politico, via #sayfie].
What's changed:
- Chris Christie is sinking (he's down to 9%). I predicted this, of course, but it's not like that's a prophetic feat of note. There's only room for one "party establishment" candidate. "BridgeGate" was a chest wound in Christie's presidential aspirations; Bush indicating real interest is the equivalent of La Cosa Nostra sending around a guy to put a .22 in the back of his nascent campaign's head.
- Mike Huckabee, who led the GOP primary polls as recently as a month ago, is fading as the campaigns start to actually crank up -- maybe not officially, but they're burning gasoline and shoe leather and not bothering to keep their intentions secret.
- Paul Ryan is still hanging in there right behind Paul and Bush, but that won't last. No sitting US Representative has been elected to the White House since Garfield, and "I was second fiddle to your last big sacrificial lamb" is not a bankable qualification.
If nothing changes -- and at 2 1/2 years out, all kinds of things can change -- we're probably looking at a Bush/Paul race. If that's the case, it's my considered opinion that Paul's odds are even longer than those his dad faced. The party establishment has had two election cycles to shore up its weak spots against insurgency from the Pauls' direction. State and local party organizations will be locked down tight, the big checkbooks will come out for Bush and the GOP establishment would rather throw the election (if it's not already a lost cause regardless of candidate) than put a loose cannon on the Oval Deck.
Showing posts with label Mike Huckabee. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Mike Huckabee. Show all posts
Wednesday, May 07, 2014
Thursday, April 24, 2014
Election 2016 Handicapping: Miscellany
Jeb Bush says he's "thinking about it." And I doubt he'd publicly say that if he wasn't leaning toward "yes."
How does that affect the race?
Well, Bush leaning toward "yes" and Bridgegate probably combine to doom Chris Christie's prospects. At the very least it closes some big checkbooks until Bush makes up his mind ... and if it is "yes," those checks will be written to him rather than to Christie. There's only room for one "moderate governor" in the field, and the Bush family hasn't put two of its own in the White House already by being weak fundraisers.
The RealClearPolitics polling average has Bush in a pack of 4 at the top, all clustered within two points of each other: Mike Huckabee followed by Rand Paul followed by Bush followed by Christie.
I don't think Huckabee will throw in. I could be wrong, but for the moment I'm going to assume he'd rather just keep on making good money as a talking head than spend another year plus riding around flyover country in a bus that smells like a locker room, kissing hands and shaking babies again.
Could it come down to Bush versus Paul for the GOP nomination? Yes, it could (and I think Bush would win such a two-way contest).
Of course there's a large rear end of the pack from which some other contender might pull away. And someone new and unexpected might show up on the field. I mean, we're two years out here.
But even two years out, there's another polling average that has to have Republican strategists and possible Republican candidates worried: Even with Democrats in the midterm doldrums, even with ObamaCare dragging its namesake administration down, even with congressional Republicans bringing up Benghazi as often as most people sneeze, Hillary Clinton boasts a lead of 9% or so on any of them.
How does that affect the race?
Well, Bush leaning toward "yes" and Bridgegate probably combine to doom Chris Christie's prospects. At the very least it closes some big checkbooks until Bush makes up his mind ... and if it is "yes," those checks will be written to him rather than to Christie. There's only room for one "moderate governor" in the field, and the Bush family hasn't put two of its own in the White House already by being weak fundraisers.
The RealClearPolitics polling average has Bush in a pack of 4 at the top, all clustered within two points of each other: Mike Huckabee followed by Rand Paul followed by Bush followed by Christie.
I don't think Huckabee will throw in. I could be wrong, but for the moment I'm going to assume he'd rather just keep on making good money as a talking head than spend another year plus riding around flyover country in a bus that smells like a locker room, kissing hands and shaking babies again.
Could it come down to Bush versus Paul for the GOP nomination? Yes, it could (and I think Bush would win such a two-way contest).
Of course there's a large rear end of the pack from which some other contender might pull away. And someone new and unexpected might show up on the field. I mean, we're two years out here.
But even two years out, there's another polling average that has to have Republican strategists and possible Republican candidates worried: Even with Democrats in the midterm doldrums, even with ObamaCare dragging its namesake administration down, even with congressional Republicans bringing up Benghazi as often as most people sneeze, Hillary Clinton boasts a lead of 9% or so on any of them.
Monday, October 26, 2009
Pawlenty punts
This, I admit, is surprising.Via Red State, hat tip to The Other McCain:
I didn't think Pawlenty had the stones to risk his modest "moderate/establishment" support base with such an obvious pander to his party's Flying Monkey Caucus, at least this early in the game.
What's his angle here?
Is he trying to stake out some new territory for himself between Romney and Palin -- more willing to buck the establishment than Mitt, but not quite so ... impulsive ... as Sarah? I'm not sure how he thinks that will help him.
Or perhaps he's hoping for a "heads I win, tails they lose" scenario versus Romney and Huckabee, neither of whom have endorsed Hoffman yet. If they do, he beat them to it. If they don't, they're wafflers and fence-sitters while he made the call and took a stand.
Or maybe both. Or maybe he just panicked and took a shot in the dark.
Whether or not he gains anything at all from this remains to be seen. What he's lost on it, though ... shhhhh ... hear that noise? It's the quiet shuffle of GOP establishment mandarins -- the smoke-filled room guys, the heavy fundraising hitters, the "my state for a seat on the Big Court" politicos -- tip-toeing away from Tim and toward Mitt. Or maybe even toward Newt.
We cannot send more politicians to Washington who wear the Republican jersey on the campaign trail, but then vote like Democrats in Congress on issues like card check and taxes. After reviewing the candidates’ positions, I’m endorsing Doug Hoffman in New York’s special election. Doug understands the federal government needs to quit spending so much, will vote against tax increases, and protect key values like the right to vote in private in union elections.
I didn't think Pawlenty had the stones to risk his modest "moderate/establishment" support base with such an obvious pander to his party's Flying Monkey Caucus, at least this early in the game.
What's his angle here?
Is he trying to stake out some new territory for himself between Romney and Palin -- more willing to buck the establishment than Mitt, but not quite so ... impulsive ... as Sarah? I'm not sure how he thinks that will help him.
Or perhaps he's hoping for a "heads I win, tails they lose" scenario versus Romney and Huckabee, neither of whom have endorsed Hoffman yet. If they do, he beat them to it. If they don't, they're wafflers and fence-sitters while he made the call and took a stand.
Or maybe both. Or maybe he just panicked and took a shot in the dark.
Whether or not he gains anything at all from this remains to be seen. What he's lost on it, though ... shhhhh ... hear that noise? It's the quiet shuffle of GOP establishment mandarins -- the smoke-filled room guys, the heavy fundraising hitters, the "my state for a seat on the Big Court" politicos -- tip-toeing away from Tim and toward Mitt. Or maybe even toward Newt.
Sunday, October 25, 2009
Election 2012: GOP Handicapping Update
I'm at least temporarily narrowing the field, which affects the relative odds. It's not that the "also running or maybe running" category isn't interesting, it's just that those in it (Ron Paul, Bobby Jindal, Rick Santorum, Haley Barbour, etc.) aren't showing up on (my, at any rate) radar enough to have an impact.The big GOP crisis of the moment is in New York's 23rd US House District, where Sarah Palin has endorsed Conservative Party candidate Doug Hoffman over GOP nominee Dede Scozzafava in a special election. Newt Gingrich is supporting "GOP unity" behind Scozzafava, while Mike Huckabee and Tim Pawlenty are playing their cards close to their chests. I've not seen anything specific to this race from Mitt Romney; as far as I can tell, he's out doing stump duty for GOP candidates in general, not flirting with the third party angle at all.
The Huckabee/Pawlenty hemming and hawing is natural.
As the GOP 2012 front-runner, Huckabee has the most to lose. His base is conservative, but it's not enough to carry the nomination. If he endorses Hoffman, he may cut himself off from possible inroads toward GOP "establishment" support. Endorsing Scozzafava is right out, of course, but if he can continue to straddle the fence without crushing his own nuts, that's what he'll do.
Pawlenty, on the other hand, has very little to lose ... and desperately wants to not lose it. His buzz is "centrist/moderate." If he endorses Hoffman he's still probably not going to pick up many conservative supporters, but he may drive away the supporters he has now.
Gingrich would probably have been better off keeping his yap shut. He's having a hard enough time getting back into the GOP conservative faction's good graces as it is, and coming out for Scozzafava didn't help him on that. My guess is he was paying off some owed favors to the establishment types, and hopes he can make it up with conservative (probably of the Reaganite) red meat later.
What's dangerous about Palin is that she has nothing at all to lose. She's way back in the field, but her base has proven that it ain't going anywhere, no matter what she does. They've convinced themselves that she's (insert whatever they wanted her to be here -- conservative, libertarian, whatever), and that's that. She's got nowhere to go but up. Or maybe she just has nowhere to go, period. Either way, throwing in with Hoffman doesn't hurt her and just might help her. She's continuing to double down on the "maverick" hand, hoping to draw to a straight flush.
Romney remains inscrutable. The feelers keep going out for a 2012 run, but he seems to be playing the waiting game, hoping for a train wreck to take some of the others out, or at least pull them down. Could NY-23 be that train wreck?
We're now less than three years away from the 2012 GOP nomination, but three years is forever in politics. My gut feeling continues to be that when it comes down to two, one of the two will be Huckabee. If Gingrich can figure out a way to stop stomping on his own testicles, he's got a shot at being the other. Otherwise, I'd say: Watch Romney.
Thursday, October 22, 2009
The possible up side to NY-23
In a previous post, I explained why there's no especially good reason for libertarians (or, especially, partisan Libertarians) to jump on Doug Hoffman's Conservative Party bandwagon in New York's 23rd US House District.
Just because Hoffman's not noticeably more libertarian than his GOP opponent, Dede Scozzafava (and in some ways noticeably less libertarian), though, that doesn't mean we wouldn't benefit from a Hoffman victory, or even a "spoiler" showing. We very well might -- and those benefits might be minor or major.
The "minor benefits" package looks something like this:
To the extent that the race represents a confrontation between the Republican Party's establishment on one hand and its conservative faction on the other, there will be fallout.
If the GOP folds -- plays the "we learned our lesson" card and starts catering to its conservative faction to an even greater degree than it has for the last 30 years (if that's even possible) -- the Libertarian Party stands to pick up some new supporters for whom this is the last straw. The GOP's libertarian faction isn't large, but it's probably larger than the existing LP. Despite its best efforts, the LP hasn't done well at recruiting from that faction ... but a GOP capitulation might change that as "libertarian Republicans" come to the realization that they're once again being ordered to remain quietly seated at the Kids' Table, while the New York temper tantrum has earned the conservatives yet another chair at the Big People's Table. An additional benefit might be that the LP gains third party cred/vote share versus the Constitution Party as CP members decide the GOP really has learned its lesson and return to the Republican fold.
If the GOP decides instead to spank the conservatives and send them to their room without dinner, on the other hand, the "libertarian Republican" faction stands to make some moderate gains within the party. "Libertarian Republican" candidates may get support from the RNC and other party committees in next year's congressional primaries, with petulant conservatives denied that support.
The "major benefits" package is a lot less likely, but while we're dreaming, let's dream:
There's some chance, however, small, that if the GOP stands up to its conservative faction -- spanks it and sends it to its room without dinner, as I put it -- the little bastards will crawl out the window and run away in large numbers. To the Conservative Party in New York, probably; to other conservative third parties (the Constitution Party, Alan Keyes's startup, etc.) elsewhere, or perhaps the Conservative Party itself will go national.
If that happens, the fallout won't all be good. As a matter of fact, it may well be cataclysmic. A substantial split in the GOP -- say, 20% of its support going off to one or more other parties -- means that the US will go, overnight, from de facto one-party state to something an awful lot like a de jure one-party state. Neither a rump GOP nor its defectors, even if unified, are going to be able to pull pluralities or majorities in very many congressional or state legislative districts, and that's assuming (it's never safe to assume) that some "mainstream" Republican pols won't respond to their party's disintegration by crossing the aisle to become Democrats.
If this thing goes all the way, head to head, mainstream GOP versus conservatives, we're looking at the Democrats very likely pulling up into the area of 70-75 seats in the US Senate and 300-350 seats in the US House of Representatives in 2010-2012. That's bad. In the short term, even the occasional gridlock that the two wings of the Uniparty sometimes get into would be much better.
BUT!
There's an up side, too: If the GOP splits in any substantial way, it becomes a "third party." Still a bigger "third party" than the Libertarian Party, but suddenly the playing field gets a lot more level for Libertarians in our attempts to become "the second party." The whole "Republicans are better than Libertarians because we can win" schtick goes flatter than day-old beer.
Winning that battle would be a long shot; and it's an even longer shot that we'll get the chance to fight it at all. If Hoffman wins next month, the GOP will almost certainly grovel and buy its conservative faction off with flattery and power; if he "spoils," which is the most likely outcome, it's 50/50 whether the GOP grovels or gets out the bullwhip, and either way the case against a split will be more persuasive to conservatives.
But hey, we can dream. The conservatives are pulling out all stops to bring this fight to a head of some kind -- The Other McCain reports that Dick Armey is now stumping for Hoffman. With Newt Gingrich on record in support of Scozzafava, at the very least this thing will probably have an impact on the 2012 GOP presidential field. If Hoffman wins and the GOP holds together, Mike Huckabee benefits; if Hoffman "spoils," Gingrich gets an "I told you so" opportunity. Romney and Palin seem to be staying away from the whole thing and I don't blame them.
Update: Eric Sundwall, former chair of the Libertarian Party of New York, has been good enough to weigh in with occasional comments, especially on New York related stuff. Be sure to check out his blog for more good stuff.
-----
Related Memeorandum topics:
Newt Gingrich on "practical choices"
David Frum on "Republican fratricide"
Just because Hoffman's not noticeably more libertarian than his GOP opponent, Dede Scozzafava (and in some ways noticeably less libertarian), though, that doesn't mean we wouldn't benefit from a Hoffman victory, or even a "spoiler" showing. We very well might -- and those benefits might be minor or major.
The "minor benefits" package looks something like this:
To the extent that the race represents a confrontation between the Republican Party's establishment on one hand and its conservative faction on the other, there will be fallout.
If the GOP folds -- plays the "we learned our lesson" card and starts catering to its conservative faction to an even greater degree than it has for the last 30 years (if that's even possible) -- the Libertarian Party stands to pick up some new supporters for whom this is the last straw. The GOP's libertarian faction isn't large, but it's probably larger than the existing LP. Despite its best efforts, the LP hasn't done well at recruiting from that faction ... but a GOP capitulation might change that as "libertarian Republicans" come to the realization that they're once again being ordered to remain quietly seated at the Kids' Table, while the New York temper tantrum has earned the conservatives yet another chair at the Big People's Table. An additional benefit might be that the LP gains third party cred/vote share versus the Constitution Party as CP members decide the GOP really has learned its lesson and return to the Republican fold.
If the GOP decides instead to spank the conservatives and send them to their room without dinner, on the other hand, the "libertarian Republican" faction stands to make some moderate gains within the party. "Libertarian Republican" candidates may get support from the RNC and other party committees in next year's congressional primaries, with petulant conservatives denied that support.
The "major benefits" package is a lot less likely, but while we're dreaming, let's dream:
There's some chance, however, small, that if the GOP stands up to its conservative faction -- spanks it and sends it to its room without dinner, as I put it -- the little bastards will crawl out the window and run away in large numbers. To the Conservative Party in New York, probably; to other conservative third parties (the Constitution Party, Alan Keyes's startup, etc.) elsewhere, or perhaps the Conservative Party itself will go national.
If that happens, the fallout won't all be good. As a matter of fact, it may well be cataclysmic. A substantial split in the GOP -- say, 20% of its support going off to one or more other parties -- means that the US will go, overnight, from de facto one-party state to something an awful lot like a de jure one-party state. Neither a rump GOP nor its defectors, even if unified, are going to be able to pull pluralities or majorities in very many congressional or state legislative districts, and that's assuming (it's never safe to assume) that some "mainstream" Republican pols won't respond to their party's disintegration by crossing the aisle to become Democrats.
If this thing goes all the way, head to head, mainstream GOP versus conservatives, we're looking at the Democrats very likely pulling up into the area of 70-75 seats in the US Senate and 300-350 seats in the US House of Representatives in 2010-2012. That's bad. In the short term, even the occasional gridlock that the two wings of the Uniparty sometimes get into would be much better.
BUT!
There's an up side, too: If the GOP splits in any substantial way, it becomes a "third party." Still a bigger "third party" than the Libertarian Party, but suddenly the playing field gets a lot more level for Libertarians in our attempts to become "the second party." The whole "Republicans are better than Libertarians because we can win" schtick goes flatter than day-old beer.
Winning that battle would be a long shot; and it's an even longer shot that we'll get the chance to fight it at all. If Hoffman wins next month, the GOP will almost certainly grovel and buy its conservative faction off with flattery and power; if he "spoils," which is the most likely outcome, it's 50/50 whether the GOP grovels or gets out the bullwhip, and either way the case against a split will be more persuasive to conservatives.
But hey, we can dream. The conservatives are pulling out all stops to bring this fight to a head of some kind -- The Other McCain reports that Dick Armey is now stumping for Hoffman. With Newt Gingrich on record in support of Scozzafava, at the very least this thing will probably have an impact on the 2012 GOP presidential field. If Hoffman wins and the GOP holds together, Mike Huckabee benefits; if Hoffman "spoils," Gingrich gets an "I told you so" opportunity. Romney and Palin seem to be staying away from the whole thing and I don't blame them.
Update: Eric Sundwall, former chair of the Libertarian Party of New York, has been good enough to weigh in with occasional comments, especially on New York related stuff. Be sure to check out his blog for more good stuff.
-----
Related Memeorandum topics:
Newt Gingrich on "practical choices"
David Frum on "Republican fratricide"
Friday, July 10, 2009
Election 2012: Adjust!
Based in part on some Rasmussen numbers (hat tip -- David Weigel), some significant adjustments to the odds:- I've taken Minnesota governor Tim Pawlenty down from 5% to 1%. As any number of analysists have pointed out -- I think it was Dick Morris talking about Hillary Clinton who first caught my eye with it -- "unfavorables" are at least as important as "favorables" in evaluating a candidate, and a candidate with unfavorables in the 35% or higher range might as well pack it in. Pawlenty's unfavorables are at 34%, his favorables are only at 38% ... and this is before he's really moved into the fight, and a year after the GOP's national convention was held in his state, giving him a chance to showcase himself. I don't see him going anywhere but down from those numbers, and I expect to take him completely off the board soon.
- Newt Gingrich, on the other hand, gets a 5% boost, up to 25%. I was surprised to see his favorable ratings at 65 ... I'd anticipated more in the 50 range. I also expected his unfavorables to be right up against that 35 "doomed, doomed" number, but he came in six points under at 29. He's aggressively promoting himself, and it's working.
- I was surprised to not see Bobby Jindal or Fred Thompson in the Rasmussen field. As much buzz as Jindal's had, I think it was a mistake to exclude him and I haven't adjusted his number. Apparently I over-estimated Thompson's continuing cachet; I've taken him down to 15%, but still think he may throw in and do well.
- I'm now thinking that I got a little prematurely and impulsively bullish on Jeb Bush. Rasmussen didn't bother to include him, and the other McCain usually serves as a pretty good mood barometer for the GOP's Feral Confederate Chihuahua faction. Downgraded from 15% to 10%.
- As has been pointed out, I was probably unfair to Sarah Palin and Mitt Romney by starting them at zero. I still don't think either of them will be viable candidates for the GOP's nomination come 2012, but the numbers say I'm wrong, at least for now. I've redistributed the left-over percentages to them, 5% and 4% respectively, by way of acknowledging that they seem, at least for the moment, to have a shot.
- The Rasmussen numbers confirm my contention that Mike Huckabee is the guy to beat. He has the highest favorable ratings (78%) and the lowest unfavorable ratings (17%) in the field. He's keeping his mug on TV and his voice on radio, and seldom a day goes by that I don't see email promo stuff from him -- stuff which I assume goes to a VERY large list. He stays at 35%, but with a definite bullet.
A lot can change in three years, but as of right now my guess is that we'll end up seeing a Huckabee/Gingrich faceoff for the GOP's 2012 nomination. Huckabee will play it populist and "outside the Beltway;" Gingrich will trot out the latest version of his highbrow/wonky take on Reaganism.
Wednesday, July 08, 2009
Election 2012: Bush, upgraded
Tucker Carlson interviews Jeb Bush, and Bush displays perfect pitch for a 2012 prospect dipping his toe in the 2009 waters.
In response to the "why not run?" bait:
Frankly I don't wake up each day assuming I'm the solution to life's problems. I think there will be emerging people who have a combination of great ideas, a great ability to communicate those ideas in a relevant way to people, and the ambition necessary to run. You need all three. I am content to be part of the larger effort that creates the fertile ground for those candidates to run.
Circumspect, not coquettish. Door's open a crack, but no wink, wink, nudge play.
This is good stuff, and it's candidate stuff:
- He postures the GOP as having a communication problem, not an ideological problem.
- He never lets the audience forget that he has eight years of experience in the executive saddle as governor of a large state.
- He reminds everyone that he's a Republican who can make bank with the growing Hispanic voter demographic.
- He gets some "regular guy" bumps in there, referring to the necessity of providing for his family's financial security and letting Carlson note that he drove himself to the interview. With his last name, that's something he has to work at -- his personal net worth upon leaving the governorship was reportedly "only" $1.3 million, down from a high of $2 million, but he comes from a monied family (Dad's net worth is in the $25 million range).
- When asked about GOP leaders, he name-checks Gingrich and Jindal, but pointedly ignores the three people most likely to be identified as 2012 contenders at the moment: Huckabee, Palin and Romney.
I wouldn't say he's running, but he's definitely not definitely not running. He's being mindful of what to say and what not to say, keeping his options open and building his cred with modest presentation instead of flash. In other words, good early strategy.
Over on the right you'll see my little "contenders" graphic again, this time with my percentage evaluations of each candidate's chance of securing the 2012 GOP nomination. In subsequent iterations, the numbers will shift as my opinion shifts.
[follow this topic at memeorandum]
Monday, July 06, 2009
Election 2012: Early GOP Handicapping
The 2012 GOP nomination field is already starting to come together in peoples' minds. Is it too early to start eyeballing the horses and making tentative predictions? I don't think it is.The graphic to the right features eight faces that fit. No, they haven't declared, and some of them may not do so, but that doesn't mean they're not in contention. They've all got buzz to one degree or another as of right now; no one would be surprised to see any or all of them throw their hats in the ring.
I removed one face from the field before I even got the graphic together: Mississippi governor Haley Barbour's. He's apparently already on the stump, but IMO he's just got too much baggage to make it past the Iowa straw poll. I could be wrong. You may see him in future "field pics."
From the top:
Jeb Bush: He's the first Republican to ever manage election to a second term as governor of Florida. He's popular with conservatives. He's popular with Hispanic voters, and especially with the Cuban community. I don't think he'll run, though. Even four years of Obama is probably not going to be enough to give the Bush name a nice ring to the American ear again. It would be an uphill run, and the Bush boys seem to prefer that "sense of inevitability" in their campaigns.
Newt Gingrich: He futzed around with the idea of running in 2008 -- so much so that by Decision Time, everyone was tired of his futzing and the other candidates had left him behind. I think he's learned his lesson, I think he'll get in the 2012 race early and without reservations, and I think he'll do well. I don't think he'll win the nomination, but he's one of three candidates whom I believe might win it.
Mike Huckabee: This is the man to beat. You don't believe me, do you? Just you wait and see. He's got the executive experience (two terms as governor of Arkansas). He's got the populist chops. He gets "I told you so" credit for staying in longer and fighting John McCain harder than any other Republican in 2008. He's keeping his mug out front, but not so far out front as to get it slapped silly in the off-season. When he comes out ... well, like I said, just you wait and see.
Bobby Jindal: Maybe he'll run, maybe he won't. If he does, he'll be an early cull. Unfortunately, he probably won't have a shot at the VP slot, either, since the nominee will be a southern male and will be looking for a running mate from the north or west.
Sarah Palin: I won't be surprised if she runs. I will be surprised if she makes it past the first turn in the primaries as more than comic relief. Even if she manages to hold on to her weird "rock star" shininess for two more years (highly unlikely -- she passed out of "Las Vegas Comeback Special Elvis" territory some time ago and is headed for "Anyone Seen Big White Jumpsuit Elvis? I Think He's In The Bathroom ..." country at ludicrous speed), she'll be running against opponents who haven't resigned from public office twice without completing their terms, and who will be very keen to mention that at every opportunity. She's toast.
Tim Pawlenty: He's going to run. He's going to lose. But if he can avoid getting caught in bed with a dead girl or a live boy or dropping the f-bomb in debate, he's got a good shot at the veep nomination. The top slot will go to a conservative southerner; a northern/midwest governor who tries to sell himself as "moderate" fills the bill out nicely.
Mitt Romney: Not a chance. I've already explained why.
Fred Thompson: My third "contender" pick -- but see "Gingrich, Newt" above and double the emphasis. If he wants in, he can't afford to dick around until late 2011 before saying so. He needs to announce early, and be out there throwing hands even earlier (like, say, yesterday). Otherwise, Huckabee and Gingrich will steal a march on him and his campaign will, once again, be over before it gets started.
Right now my money's on Huckabee ... but the campaigns won't be in full swing for two more years and a lot can change in two years. If "national security" issues move back to the forefront in a big way, Wonk Hawk from Hell Newt Gingrich or solid, comforting, "Reaganesque" Thompson may get an inside track.
Well, there you have it. That's the way I see it as of today. I'm sure that I'll see it differently as things progress, and that I'll say so ... but I don't memory hole my predictions when I get it wrong. If I've got it way wrong, well, this post will remain here for you to make fun of in perpetuity.
--
Photo Credits:
Jeb Bush -- Government of Florida, public domain
Newt Gingrich -- KyleCassidy, GNU Free Documentation License
Mike Huckabee -- David Ball, used with permission
Bobby Jindal -- Government, public domain
Sarah Palin -- J.delanoy, Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 3.0
Tim Pawlenty -- Office of Governor Tim Pawlenty, used with permission
Mitt Romney -- Mitt Romney Media, Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported
Fred Thompson -- US Senate, public domain
Thursday, January 31, 2008
Super Duper Tuesday GOP primary picks
All right, I've got my mojo ... well, not back, but I've got it: My Florida primary predictions were exact as to the order of outcome, and within 2% for each of the candidates. Let's see if I can turn this into a roll.
For Super Duper Tuesday, there's just no way I can pick percentages, etc. on so many states in anything like a timely manner. For some -- most -- of the Super Duper Tuesday states, I haven't even seen polling data. Here's the basic picture, though:
McCain wins Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Illinois, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Tennessee and West Virginia.
Romney wins Massachusetts (of which he is the former governor), Idaho and Utah (the Mormon vote).
Huckabee wins Arkansas with a combination of evangelical and favorite son votes.
Surprised / Not Surprised
- Surprised if I'm wrong and McCain wins Idaho or Utah. Not surprised if I'm wrong and McCain wins Massachusetts.
- Surprised if I'm wrong and Huckabee wins Georgia. Not surprised if I'm wrong and Huckabee wins Idaho or Kansas, or loses Arkansas. Not surprised if he wins nothing at all.
- Surprised if Paul carries any states. Not surprised if he picks up some delegates, especially in California, or if he places a respectable second in Alaska, New Mexico or Utah.
Bonus pick for tomorrow
Maine is McCain's.
Update policy
I won't change any of these picks between now and the vote (or, it goes without saying, after). They're written in virtual stone and I'll stand or fall with them. However, I may update with percentage predictions and such. I'll either do that down here at the bottom, or in this color if I place them inline in the original post.
For Super Duper Tuesday, there's just no way I can pick percentages, etc. on so many states in anything like a timely manner. For some -- most -- of the Super Duper Tuesday states, I haven't even seen polling data. Here's the basic picture, though:
McCain wins Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Illinois, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Tennessee and West Virginia.
Romney wins Massachusetts (of which he is the former governor), Idaho and Utah (the Mormon vote).
Huckabee wins Arkansas with a combination of evangelical and favorite son votes.
Surprised / Not Surprised
- Surprised if I'm wrong and McCain wins Idaho or Utah. Not surprised if I'm wrong and McCain wins Massachusetts.
- Surprised if I'm wrong and Huckabee wins Georgia. Not surprised if I'm wrong and Huckabee wins Idaho or Kansas, or loses Arkansas. Not surprised if he wins nothing at all.
- Surprised if Paul carries any states. Not surprised if he picks up some delegates, especially in California, or if he places a respectable second in Alaska, New Mexico or Utah.
Bonus pick for tomorrow
Maine is McCain's.
Update policy
I won't change any of these picks between now and the vote (or, it goes without saying, after). They're written in virtual stone and I'll stand or fall with them. However, I may update with percentage predictions and such. I'll either do that down here at the bottom, or in this color if I place them inline in the original post.
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
Florida: GOP primary prediction
Running a little late here (I wanted to give Kubby's State of the Union address as much time up top as possible), but the usual format -- first my unrealistic October prediction, then my final call.
From October, pre-Huckabee-surge, etc.:
1st - McCain (~55%)
2nd - Romney (~30%)
3rd - Ghouliani (~10%)
4th - Paul (~5%)
My final call:
1st - McCain (~38%)
2nd - Romney (~30%)
3rd - Giuliani (~15%)
4th - Huckabee (~12%)
5th - Paul (~5%)
Surprised / Not Surprised
- Surprised if Romney beats 30%.
- Not surprised if Romney nosedives to 25% or less.
- Surprised if McCain garners an absolute majority.
- Not surprised if McCain breaks 40%.
- Surprised if either Giuliani or Huckabee beats 15%.
- Not surprised if they switch places from my prediction -- Hucks small base looks pretty solid, Giuliani's was built on sand and has completely shattered.
- Surprised if Paul hits 10% or falls below 2%.
- Not surprised if Paul gets as much as 8% or as little as 2%.
From here on out, McCain runs the big-state table. Super Tuesday is anti-climax -- Florida is where the deal is sealed.
I originally called Giuliani to win New York and New Jersey, but he's already disintegrating in both those states and after today their walk away from him will become a stampede. His smartest move would have been to drop out and cut a deal before today. After Florida, McCain doesn't need Giuliani and Giuliani doesn't bring anything with him that can save Romney. The GOP nomination fat lady is warming up. Concert's tonight.
From October, pre-Huckabee-surge, etc.:
1st - McCain (~55%)
2nd - Romney (~30%)
3rd - Ghouliani (~10%)
4th - Paul (~5%)
My final call:
1st - McCain (~38%)
2nd - Romney (~30%)
3rd - Giuliani (~15%)
4th - Huckabee (~12%)
5th - Paul (~5%)
Surprised / Not Surprised
- Surprised if Romney beats 30%.
- Not surprised if Romney nosedives to 25% or less.
- Surprised if McCain garners an absolute majority.
- Not surprised if McCain breaks 40%.
- Surprised if either Giuliani or Huckabee beats 15%.
- Not surprised if they switch places from my prediction -- Hucks small base looks pretty solid, Giuliani's was built on sand and has completely shattered.
- Surprised if Paul hits 10% or falls below 2%.
- Not surprised if Paul gets as much as 8% or as little as 2%.
From here on out, McCain runs the big-state table. Super Tuesday is anti-climax -- Florida is where the deal is sealed.
I originally called Giuliani to win New York and New Jersey, but he's already disintegrating in both those states and after today their walk away from him will become a stampede. His smartest move would have been to drop out and cut a deal before today. After Florida, McCain doesn't need Giuliani and Giuliani doesn't bring anything with him that can save Romney. The GOP nomination fat lady is warming up. Concert's tonight.
Friday, January 18, 2008
Nevada, South Carolina predictions
As of last October, I had Ron Paul picked to place second in South Carolina and first in Nevada.
Those picks were messed up for much bigger reasons than "the newsletter affair." If anything, that mini-scandal may help Paul in South Carolina ... but it's mostly a fringe teapot tempest (yes, I admit to being "fringe"). My main screw-ups were assuming that Thompson would not be a factor by this point, and that Huckabee wouldn't be a factor at all.
So, first, my absurd and outdated October predictions:
Nevada
1st - Paul (~40%)
2nd - McCain (~30%)
3rd - Romney (~20%)
4th - Giuliani (~10%)
South Carolina
1st - McCain (~35%)
2nd - Paul (~30%)
3rd - Romney (~25%)
4th - Giuliani (~10%)
Now my revised predictions (and yes, so far I've been about as wrong as it's possible to get -- I had also predicted McCain to win Michigan, and stuck by that one, but didn't blog on it).
Nevada:
1st - McCain (~30%)
2nd - Romney (~26%)
3rd - Paul (~14%)
4th - Huckabee (~12%)
5th - Thompson (~10%)
6th - Giuliani (~8%)
South Carolina:
1st - McCain (~32%)
2nd - Huckabee (~24%)
3rd and 4th - Too close to call, Romney and Thompson both in the 15% range
5th - Paul (~10%)
6th - Giuliani (~4%)
I won't be terribly surprised if Paul does better that I predict in either state, or if Romney upsets McCain in Nevada. I will be surprised if Thompson places better than a distant third in either state, or if Giuliani breaks out of single digits in either state.
I still don't expect Giuliani to make a comeback start in Florida. He'll do better there than he has so far, but he'll be struggling with Romney for a second place finish behind McCain, and almost certainly losing that struggle. Good riddance to bad rubbish. "Super Duper Tuesday" will effectively be a McCain/Romney showdown, advantage McCain. Giuliani might boost Romney a wee bit if he has the brains to cut a deal and do the "drop, endorse" routine, unwisely choosing Romney as his partner. But I'm still convinced that McCain will get the GOP nod.
Those picks were messed up for much bigger reasons than "the newsletter affair." If anything, that mini-scandal may help Paul in South Carolina ... but it's mostly a fringe teapot tempest (yes, I admit to being "fringe"). My main screw-ups were assuming that Thompson would not be a factor by this point, and that Huckabee wouldn't be a factor at all.
So, first, my absurd and outdated October predictions:
Nevada
1st - Paul (~40%)
2nd - McCain (~30%)
3rd - Romney (~20%)
4th - Giuliani (~10%)
South Carolina
1st - McCain (~35%)
2nd - Paul (~30%)
3rd - Romney (~25%)
4th - Giuliani (~10%)
Now my revised predictions (and yes, so far I've been about as wrong as it's possible to get -- I had also predicted McCain to win Michigan, and stuck by that one, but didn't blog on it).
Nevada:
1st - McCain (~30%)
2nd - Romney (~26%)
3rd - Paul (~14%)
4th - Huckabee (~12%)
5th - Thompson (~10%)
6th - Giuliani (~8%)
South Carolina:
1st - McCain (~32%)
2nd - Huckabee (~24%)
3rd and 4th - Too close to call, Romney and Thompson both in the 15% range
5th - Paul (~10%)
6th - Giuliani (~4%)
I won't be terribly surprised if Paul does better that I predict in either state, or if Romney upsets McCain in Nevada. I will be surprised if Thompson places better than a distant third in either state, or if Giuliani breaks out of single digits in either state.
I still don't expect Giuliani to make a comeback start in Florida. He'll do better there than he has so far, but he'll be struggling with Romney for a second place finish behind McCain, and almost certainly losing that struggle. Good riddance to bad rubbish. "Super Duper Tuesday" will effectively be a McCain/Romney showdown, advantage McCain. Giuliani might boost Romney a wee bit if he has the brains to cut a deal and do the "drop, endorse" routine, unwisely choosing Romney as his partner. But I'm still convinced that McCain will get the GOP nod.
Sunday, January 06, 2008
New Hampshire primary picks
Back in October, I had New Hampshire called as follows:
1st - McCain (~35%)
2nd - Paul (~30%)
3rd - Romney (~25%)
4th - Giuliani (~20%)
With the rise of Huckabee, the fall of Giuliani, and the inexplicable staying power of the substanceless Thompson, I'm updating that prediction ... but it's not changing as much as you'd think:
1st - McCain (~30%)
2nd and 3rd - Paul and Romney in a close and unpredictable fight, (average 23% each)
4th - Thompson (~10%)
5th - Huckabee (~8%)
6th - Giuliani (5%)
7th - Hunter (~1%)
I originally had Romney picked in third, but I've got mixed feelings about him now. He wasn't able to buy victory in Iowa as I predicted he would do, and Thompson is cutting into his "let's vote safe and comfortable" market share. On the other hand, he's picking up some of Giuliani's lost "establishment" mojo, and I suspect that there's some Huckabee backlash brewing for Tuesday. Huck was the "real conservative protest vote" darling for a bit, but not many people are shithouse rat crazy enough to actually want him to win.
Democrat side: Clear win for Obama, Edwards in credible second, Clinton back in third and does not manage a "comeback kid" turnaround a la Bill.
Of course I'm 0 for 2 on the GOP side and 0 for 1 on the Democrat side so far, so I wouldn't advise running these picks and a fist full of cash over to your bookie.
Any way you cut it, my October picks are becoming less and less relevant. There's blood on the floor now and it's slippery all around, but I don't see Giuliani pulling anything like my October prediction in Michigan, or Paul doing as badly there as I initially predicted. How Romney does is largely up to how Thompson and Huckabee do in New Hampshire. I certainly won't be pulling for Romney, but I'll be honest: Huck scares me, and Giuliani would scare me if he was still a factor.
On the Democrat side, it's getting more and more interesting. I predict an anti-Obama backlash after New Hampshire, but Edwards rather than Clinton will be the beneficiary.
1st - McCain (~35%)
2nd - Paul (~30%)
3rd - Romney (~25%)
4th - Giuliani (~20%)
With the rise of Huckabee, the fall of Giuliani, and the inexplicable staying power of the substanceless Thompson, I'm updating that prediction ... but it's not changing as much as you'd think:
1st - McCain (~30%)
2nd and 3rd - Paul and Romney in a close and unpredictable fight, (average 23% each)
4th - Thompson (~10%)
5th - Huckabee (~8%)
6th - Giuliani (5%)
7th - Hunter (~1%)
I originally had Romney picked in third, but I've got mixed feelings about him now. He wasn't able to buy victory in Iowa as I predicted he would do, and Thompson is cutting into his "let's vote safe and comfortable" market share. On the other hand, he's picking up some of Giuliani's lost "establishment" mojo, and I suspect that there's some Huckabee backlash brewing for Tuesday. Huck was the "real conservative protest vote" darling for a bit, but not many people are shithouse rat crazy enough to actually want him to win.
Democrat side: Clear win for Obama, Edwards in credible second, Clinton back in third and does not manage a "comeback kid" turnaround a la Bill.
Of course I'm 0 for 2 on the GOP side and 0 for 1 on the Democrat side so far, so I wouldn't advise running these picks and a fist full of cash over to your bookie.
Any way you cut it, my October picks are becoming less and less relevant. There's blood on the floor now and it's slippery all around, but I don't see Giuliani pulling anything like my October prediction in Michigan, or Paul doing as badly there as I initially predicted. How Romney does is largely up to how Thompson and Huckabee do in New Hampshire. I certainly won't be pulling for Romney, but I'll be honest: Huck scares me, and Giuliani would scare me if he was still a factor.
On the Democrat side, it's getting more and more interesting. I predict an anti-Obama backlash after New Hampshire, but Edwards rather than Clinton will be the beneficiary.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)