Sunday, January 06, 2008
|
|
For IA & NH, Don't Listen to the Experts ...
|
|
Posted by:
Matt Lewis at
2:30 PM
|
... National Review endorses Mitt Romney. Ann Coulter , Rush Limbaugh, and George Will rip Mike Huckabee for his fiscally liberal ways. ... Brit Hume follows suite by attacking John McCain's debate performance.
All of these positions reflect legitimate arguments about policy and "the way things ought to be." But as we look to New Hampshire, and begin making predictions about how Granite Staters will vote, it's important to note that what matters most is what they care about -- not what we care about. And believe me when I tell you that voters in Iowa -- and New Hampshire -- often are quite different from voters in other states (let alone from opinion leaders in big cities).
Case in point: When I was in New Hampshire this Spring, I interviewed at least a dozen Granite Staters who attended a John McCain Town Hall meeting. I also heard McCain answer dozens of questions from various Town Hall audiences. Not a single person asked John McCain about campaign finance reform. To me, that says something. The issue if vitally important to me -- but not to the people who matter the most on Tuesday.
Too often, political writers and observers confuse what they want to happen with what will happen. When I write about whether or not you should vote for John McCain, I will mention his position on that issue as a negative. But when I write an analysis about whether or not McCain will win New Hampshire, I won't be mentioning that issue. This should not be construed as an endorsement of his position -- but as a realization that my opinion shouldn't factor into an analysis of who will win or lose ...
With some exceptions, of course, Mitt Romney has become the candidate of the conservative panjandrum. These conservative opinion leaders too often look for ways to prove Mitt Romney will win, because they really hope he will win. They must think Iowans were naive or uninformed for voting for Mike Huckabee. But they had the power on Thursday night -- not you or me.
So how did this disconnect happen?
Once the media was so dominated by liberals that, by definition, conservative writers were anti-establishment. Today, that's not the case. Conservative pundits who live in New York, Washington, DC, or, for that matter, California, will make vastly different conclusions than will voters living in places like Iowa and New Hampshire.
It used to be that the liberals were the ones disconnected from the voters. For years, liberals were always surprised when Republicans like George W. Bush won the presidency. "I don't know a single person who voted for Bush," they would honestly say. They were right; few of their friends who attend cocktail parties in Georgetown or Chelsea voted for George W. Bush. And if what we see is what we believe, it was only logical that they assumed John Kerry would win in a landslide -- after all, all their friends voted for him.
Sadly, the same sort of thing has happened to the conservative movement. Mind you, this insular nature is fine for someone who wants to write policy posltion papers -- but it's deadly for anyone in the political prognostication business. As Dick Morris once wisely said, "the hardest thing in politics is to be an insider, but think like an outsider." He was right; the best analysts will be thinking like a Granite Stater -- not like a conservative bon vivant.
And while many conservative writers seem to like Mitt Romney, my guess is that Granite Staters will like John McCain's style more. Maybe I will be wrong, but that's my bet today ...
|
|
#1 Lewis is right on. It is what the voters think, not Rush Limbaugh and Hugh Hewitt. Sometimes the ones they support do win and its disasterous for Republicans - can you say Arnold Schwarzenegger, Arlen Spector and Greg Ganske?
The most irrational aspect of this whole debate about Iowa has been the idea that Iowans are a bunch of robots who are in trance in following Huckabee.
It ain't so. We care about gun control, abolishing the IRS, catching OBL, abortion, getting out of the oil business with the Mideast (and that includes drilling in ANWR and the Gulf. |
|
PC, are you serious? Come on. Let's not start talking about electability. This is a trap and a fearmongering tactic that those in power use to control our votes. Vote on principle, otherwise your vote means nothing except to those who are controlling you with their message of fear.
Matt - I agree wholeheartedly with you. This was a very astute observation. I also used to listen to those people. On occasion, I still do, but not with the frequency. They are right on many issues, but they do not know me. I suppose I fall into the "evangelical" category but I am not voting for Huck. You can not put people in a box. For all our similarities (as humans) we are all different in our approaches to solving problems based on our experiences. The candidate that best speaks to peoples pain (in a real way) will win the day. And make no mistake - the past record matters to most people. |
|
And I think Rush's analysis is spot on. He does know what the base is thinking. He was exactly right about why Huck won Iowa - religion. Before the Iowa Caucus he said that Huck voters don't care about anything but religion. (Not Huck's record, statements, lack of conservative ideas, commutations, etc.) The entrance polls showed exactly that. He is also right that McCain enjoys little support from the base. Time will show this is true.
Real conservatives who watched the debate last night understand that the only viable alternatives for us are Romney, Rudy and Fred.
Huck, McCain and Paul are simply not electable. |
|
|
The once outsider Republican broadcasters were in tune with the average voter, today they have joined the rank and file of the GOP Elite. Rush, Hannity,& Coulter once had my ear, today I ignore them! They refuse to look at what the base GOP voter is doing and they use their voices to trumpet their own! I just thank God for the Internet where i can gather the information then decide for myself. I love this site were the average person still has a voice!! |
|
The slingshot strategy may have served it's purpose. It got Romney a lot of press all year and has gotten him to the point where he is one of two or three finalists.
Huckabee has gotten no bounce in NH from IA. McCain is well known and has a lot of resistance in states where Independents can't vote. I doubt if he will get much of a bounce out of NH. Further, his fund raising will still have problems.
If Romney wins NH he may get some bounce but it will be a collective effect of running second in IA winning WY and then NH. Two of the best pollsters, Zogby and Rasmussen have this tied at the moment. The right attack ad can sink McCain.
We are moving to a new phase in the campaign. Rudy has already lost IA WY and NH. McCain has limited appeal in most states and cuts into Rudy's vote badly. That leaves Romney and Huck. Huck has to have massive numbers of Evangelicals who will vote on religion only. It is down hill from here in most states.
That leaves Romney to work around his negatives. Hence the vicious attacks by all other candidates. They know he has staying power and he has the ability move from the slingshot to a selective national campaign and make it work. He can exploit the weaknesses of McCain, Rudy and Huck. He will have to do it with negative ads but it is a viable strategy for him.
This is like a Baton Death March. Romney has as good, if not better chance of surviving, than the rest given their negatives. |
|
|
|