Wednesday, December 26, 2007
|
|
McCain in NH: Qui Bono?
|
|
Posted by:
Patrick Ruffini at
11:08 PM
|
|
I’ve been pretty harsh towards Rudy’s rope-a-dope strategy lately. Does McCain’s surge in New Hampshire and the possibility of Romney losing both early contests cause me to revisit? Yes and no. The prospect of a Huckabee-McCain victory in the first two contests scrambles the field, opening things up slightly for the Mayor. But ultimately I expect that McCain becomes the de-facto national frontrunner the morning after a New Hampshire win, and the race will be on to find the “Stop McCain” alternative. Chuck Todd outlined the beginnings of this scenario on Hardball tonight. If McCain finishes third in Iowa, the media will slingshot him to a win in New Hampshire. After New Hampshire, it’s a short hop to Michigan, where Democrats can freely participate in the GOP primary (Obama and Edwards won’t appear on MI’s beauty contest ballot). Let’s recall McCain’s 2000 percentages in contested primaries using 2008’s calendar (via the US Election Atlas): NH 1/8 - 48.45% (won)
MI 1/15 - 49.15% (won)
SC 1/19 - 41.96% (lost)
CA 2/5 - 42.87% (lost) McCain has a track record of getting at least 40% of the vote in key nominating states where 30% will probably be enough for a win in 2008. He has legs in Michigan and South Carolina, and potentially in Florida, where I would expect Gov. Charlie Crist to make good on his long-delayed endorsement (which basically fell by the wayside when McCain ran aground earlier in 2007). On February 5th, he would be in a strong position in California — a position amplified by the state’s by-Congressional District delegate allocation in which a win in a heavily Latino district with a few thousand GOP voters counts as much for a win in John Campbell’s Orange County district (so, McCain’s immigration stance could net him lots of delegates). This path to the nomination would not have worked as the full-frontal assault planned by John Weaver, but in a scrambled field with the media manufacturing momentum on McCain’s behalf, it should be taken seriously. That doesn’t mean I expect McCain to win. A “Stop McCain” alternative will rise. Perhaps Rudy is banking on this being him. I tend to think it will be Mitt Romney, as there will be a premium placed on a safer, more well-financed alternative who can capture the right. Provided he can avoid elimination in Iowa and New Hampshire (in other words, a devastating double-digit loss in both states). The media would have the race it expected back in January. Allowing McCain to win New Hampshire would probably be more dangerous to Rudy than a narrow Romney win. The ideal scenario for him would be Huckabee by 5 in Iowa, Romney by 5 in New Hampshire. No real momentum is generated. The field is still scrambled. And McCain fails to accomplish the central mission of his campaign and is walking wounded. Over the past few weeks, I’ve received more-than-sporadic emails from early and serious Rudy supporters ready to jump ship to McCain, largely to stop Romney. McCain is dangerous to Rudy because Rudy’s votes are directly transferable to McCain in a way they aren’t to any other candidate. If momentum shifts to one, the other one suffers. On the other hand, this bloc of secular, center-right GOP voters is somewhat immune to Romney and Huckabee momentum and in fact could be galvanized by it.
|
|
Previous post addressed to ExposeMitt.
http://www.blogusablog.com |
|
I agree and find *nothing wrong* with everything you just said with one exception: the part about a "theocratic Mormon" government. That is absurd. Mormons do NOT believe that a theocracy will be founded by the Church. Like every other Christian denomination, however, there IS a believe in the Second Coming of Christ, and the "theocracy" Christ will lead. Interestingly enough, Mormons believe that even during the millennial reign other religious denominations will exist PEACEFULLY. How's that for progressive tolerance?
So what if Mormons believe their church will save the US government? What's the harm in that? Last time I checked patriotism was a good thing. :)
By the way you talk, it sounds like you think Mormons have horns on their head...oh wait, you probably do. |
|
Mitt Romney is part of a Mormon plot to take over the United States government, claims the spokesman for Freedom Defense Advocates, a political action committee which has recently initiated a massive campaign exposing the bizarre beliefs of Mitt Romney’s Mormonism.
In its mailing, Dr. John M. Boyd, a nationally-recognized expert on cults, says the Mormon Church has a longstanding prophecy that in “the last days” the church elders will rescue the United States from certain destruction. And that 1843 prediction by Mormon founder Joseph Smith is about to come true in the election of Romney as President, they believe.
“As a nation, we’re being led down the path of destruction by the national media and even by many deceived Christian leaders,” says Dr. Boyd. “And unless we wake up to the facts, our God-given freedoms will be lost.”
Boyd knows what he’s talking about. As the host of the nationally-syndicated radio show Essential Christianity, he carries on the work of the late Dr. Walter Martin - long noted as the world’s foremost expert on the cults - with whom he worked for 12 years. He has also authored and produced 28 television documentaries, including a 14-part exposé of Mormonism now available on DVD.
According to Boyd, the “White Horse Prophecy” of the Mormon Church teaches that when the United States faces a constitutional crisis during a great war, the church’s elders will be the heroes who rescue the nation. Many Mormons see Romney’s candidacy as the catalyst for the prophecy’s fulfillment.
Could the great war the Mormons believe will lead to the constitutional crisis be precipitated by a terrorist attack by radical Muslims? And would a “President Romney” use that war to institute a theocratic Mormon dictatorship? Boyd certainly believes it’s possible.
[rest at http://www.ExposeMittRomney.com]
|
|
actually HC just gave a reall winning statement that tied her to Bhutto. She sounded like a winner.
McCain made a solid statement too. Overnight we may be down to RG and JM.
This may be death knell for BO, JE, MR and MH in Iowa and NH. They will not be able to get Pakistan off the front page.
|
|
By any measurement, the situation in Pakistan was dangerours yesterday and today is extremely extremely dangerous.
Our little election world has just changed. Certainly Iowa, NH short term and maybe the election.
Probable losers
MR
BO
MH
JE
Probable winners
JM
RG
HC - by process of elimination
|
|
Listening to the pundits is silly. They just need something to write about; they talk to each other and then babble.
Post Iowa, they will babble more ... whatever happens.
I would posture that that MR and the Mittens are very unnerved by events and perceptions e.g. MR
lies become a conversation staple plus the attacks on the NE and NH media. MR has done some fairly dumb things in last 7 days.
Look at InTrade
Nationally - MR now 5% spread behind RG
NH - dead even between MR and JM
Iowa - MH 33% spread between him and MR
Mich - MR ahead by double digits
SC - toss up
all other states RG with substantial lead
|
|
Will this help John McCain in NH?
WATCH VIDEO
http://controlcongress.com/uncategorized/john-mccain-new-ad
|
|
McCain has the lowest level of opposition of any of the major candidates. He may be distrusted among the inner core of the conservative core, but to most GOP voters he's still a more than comfortable option. McCain (or Fred) as a frontrunner would not spark the same sort of "anti-" movement that Huck, Rudy, or Mitt would.
"McCain is dangerous to Rudy because Rudy’s votes are directly transferable to McCain in a way they aren’t to any other candidate."
True, Patrick. However, so are the corrollaries: (1) McCain's recent rebound has disproportionately hurt Rudy; (2) if McCain does start getting hit hard and fading again, it will be Rudy who stands to gain the most. |
|
Mitt's behavior, from a quiet sense of honor, is important--Very Important.
Boomshak: Your lips to God's Ears, Lad! |
|
win!
Um, yeah, right.
If Romney wins Iowa (he will - the best ground game ALWAYS wins Iowa - period), he will stomp McCain in NH. After that, Romney runs the table on the first 6 contests.
You know, you McCainiacs always start your argument with the basic assumption that McCain is unstoppable in NH.
No, he loses NH and badly.
Why? Conservatives HATE McCain. Not just hate, DESPISE. He will forever be the poster boy for RINO-ism.
Also, the MSM LOVES McCain. The MSM HATES Conservates. Whoever the MSM loves is automatically disqualified as a contender for the Republican Nomination. |
|
"...there will be a premium placed on a safer, more well-financed alternative who can capture the right."
What premium? Romney's not a safer vote, he's a risky vote. Who cares if he is more well-financed? What good has that done for him? Romney is capturing the pundits vote and some RINO's and Country Club Republicans with his campaign for politics as usual. The rest of America is pretty fed up with the status quo though.
The "Right" in America has not been captured at all, but a good chunk of them are fueling the Huckaboom of their own free accord.
http://www.mikehuckabee.com/?FuseAction=Blogs.View&Blog_id= 962
Hewitt & Romney's whole campaign strategy is based on picking up the anti-Giuliani vote. Giuliani is no longer the front runner, so there's no need for anti-Giuliani voters to join with Romney.
|
|
|
Daniel, that's very misleading. What the hell kind of a shill are you. |
|
http://www.newsmax.com/kessler/romney/2007/12/26/59790.html |
|
As far as changing his mind and positions McCain has done that on a very regular basis and no one calls him on it.
As far as a McCain surge that is more wishful thinking by the media and a function of how pollsters weight for independents.
As far as McCain's 2000 numbers, that was a very different race with a very different McCain.
There is a direct teeter totter effect between Rudy and McCain. They take votes from each other and in the long run only one of them will be left.
The best case for Romney and Huckabee is for McCain and Rudy to split the moderate vote. |
|
The truth is Romney has character flaws. He changes his mind whenever it suits him. And it continues with the I Saw My Father Walk with MLK Jr to his he didn't raise taxes it was fees. See this video for his fee versus tax answer http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JhG7xiVsOws
Romney, of course, also opposed the 2003 Bush tax cuts at the time too. It came as such a surprise to Barney Frank that the Boston Globe quoted him as saying:
“I was very pleased. Here you have a freshman governor refusing to endorse a tax cut presented by a Republican president at the height of his wartime popularity.”
In addition, as Governor of Massachusetts, Romney announced that he was open to imposing new taxes on gasoline and SUVs, pushed through an additional $300 tax increase on small businesses, not to mention that his signature achievement while Governor, MassHealth, has turned into a massive boondoggle. It has not only to failed to cover all of the uninsured in Massachusetts (despite including an individual mandate that strips away consumer choice), but it’s also cost $150 million more than Romney said it would.
Not only that, but Romney isn’t necessarily the best spokesman to discuss the virtues of “Reagan 101? given that he explicitly repudiated Reagan’s leadership during his 1994 Senate run.
“Look, I was an independent during Reagan-Bush. I don’t want to return to Reagan-Bush.”
This is the true Mitt Romney. The sometimes conservative, sometimes liberal politician who thinks he can buy everyone. Finally, he will be crushed by Hillary in the general election. Just go over to Real Clear Politics and look at the poll numbers. |
|
3. McCain-Feingold
Need I remind you that McCain-Feingold has TWICE been upheld as CONSTITUTIONAL by the Supreme Court? But furthermore, let me ask you -- please tell me how, exactly, McCain-Feingold has limited your freedom of speech, or that of anyone else for that matter. How has it stifled your ability to speak on the issues? I sure see you speaking freely here ...
4. The Media
New Hampshire liberal media? Surely you jest. The Manchester Union Leader is as conservative as it gets. And they believe that John McCain is the true option for true conservatives.
5. "Playing the Jesus card"
Please tell me how, exactly, McCain is doing there. Furthermore, even if he is, why is a little bit of faith or religion in public life a bad thing? Are you one of those secular progressives?
6. "I'm a POW"
Yes, John McCain served his country with great courage and bravery. That is to be commended. Last I checked, as conservatives, we are to honor and praise those who have sacrificed for our country. It doesn't mean that those who did not serve (re: Romney) are necessarily inferior, but yes, McCain's courageous service and self-sacrifice do give him a certain level of authority and street cred when he speaks on military matters.
7. Final point on electability --
"Unite the GOP?" Mitt Romney will lose to Hillary Clinton. Badly. Very, very badly. I don't understand how that will unite the GOP. Every poll shows Romney getting crushed by Hillary. McCain, in contrast, BEATS Hillary in every poll - by fairly substantial margins as well. It will do the conservative movement no good to lose the presidency. It is in our interest to back a guy who has been a consistent conservative, and has championed conservative causes while Mitt Romney was still supporting abortion, high taxes, gun control, and gay marriage. |
|
I have read much diatribe about Mitt Romneys seemingly unquenchable double speak, and that somehow this habit of his makes it impossible for us trust him. Of course, most of what political types say has never been trustworthy, regardless of what side of the aisle one sits upon.
It is behavior, far more than word, that tells me what is really in the heart of person.Show me the money. Talk is cheap! With a search for behaviors in mind, this is what I found when I went looking for Mitt Romneys actions, more than words
I found a man who has pledged to forego his salary as President of the United States and who refused the same as Mass. Governor. Imagine, the president as a true public servant..I find it supremely refreshing.
I found a man who recently spent a free Saturday morning in October helping San Diego fire victims, without so much as a word to the press? Chopping down trees and cleaning up the neighbor property. That sure makes him hard to trust.
I find a man who once shut down his private business, and paid his staff to search for the missing daughter of one of his employees? No questions or expectations, just lets go find her! No one was watching and no one was listening. What does this say about the man?
I found a man who has been loyal, faithful and true to his one wife and love for 38 years. Do we not realize what this says about a persons character, to have been so devoted and perfectly faithful in this most sacred of all relationships. And yet, some say he cant be trusted!
Finally, I find a candidate who routinely turns organizations fiscal mismanagement into economic victory for the company and its employees and interests. And far more importantly, there is no one suggesting that he ever broke any laws or violated ethics in doing so! No Blackwater, no Whitewater, no Halliburton.
Romney would problay beat McCain in Arizona, right now |
|
I'll try to address your points in order ...
1. Was McCain a real Republican with the Gang of 14?
You bet. McCain's efforts with the Gang of 14 directly led to the confirmations of John Roberts and Samuel Alito. If not for the Gang of 14, those two nominations go kaput. McCain had the skill to work across party lines to get things done both for the good of the country and the good of the GOP (NO Republican judicial nominees have gone down as a result of the Gang of 14. None). Also, McCain had the prescience to realize that the threat of a filibuster is one that the Republicans should and must have to counter the threat of extremist leftist judges in the future. He looks at the whole picture, and is not just a knuckleheaded reactionary.
The Gang of 14 = extremely positive for the GOP.
2. "McCain-Kennedy"
Will you please explain to me how you propose that we deport 20 million people?? That is not amnesty. McCain favors enforcing our borders, but realizes that dealing with people ALREADY HERE is a separate issue -- how on earth are we going to deport 20 million people? What Hugh Hewitt, Mitt Romney and others are the TRUE supporters of amnesty. They support "silent amnesty" -- just turning a blind eye to the problem and not doing ANYTHING. "McCain-Kennedy" would have at least taken positive steps in the right direction to assimilate these people and demand that they make contributions to this country.
And even if you do want to call it "amnesty" -- none other than Ronald Wilson Reagan proposed -- and saw come to fruition -- the largest granting of amnesty to illegal aliens in history. Do you oppose Ronald Reagan as well?
(space limited ... more to come) ... |
|
Dittos John Adams. McCain simply won't win the Republican primary. If he was going to, he wouldn't have cratered in the first place. Republicans simply don't want to vote for him and they don't want him to lead their party.
The only thing that can stop Rudy now is Romney pulling off an upset in Iowa. Here's why:
1. Thompson's going nowhere and getting there fast. I've considered him dead to the campaign for weeks now, and the more time passes, the more sure I am. Not that I don't like him, btw, he's probably the best out there on the issues.
2. McCain can't win, see above. Even with a NH win, McCain is the real "momentum-proof" candidate- by which I mean he can't get any of it. He's just New Hampshire's favorite, and they feel like they owe such a respectable man.
3. Huckabee has topped out. He's very polarizing amongst Republicans, and there aren't enough people who love him to outweigh those (like myself) who can't stand him. He's the true wolf in sheep's clothing of the race. He's a pro-amnesty Jimmy-Carter-as-a-Republican.
4. Romney is a loser. He couldn't better positioning for an early-state strategy. NH is practically his backyard, MI had his very popular father for governor, and Nevada has a relatively large Mormon population. Yet it looks like he'll lose every single one of these states, despite outspending every other candidate. Unless he wins Iowa, he'll lose in NH and everywhere else.
5. This leaves Giuliani. He's the only one who can win. I suspect he'll take MI and every following state except maybe SC. |
|
So Dan tell us who is a real republican. Can't be one if they aren't for McCain? It's no secret the power of PR, has helped McCain and Huck. Their campaigns were both on the skids, McCain is still running on fumes and may have to get matching funds. And both won't have the $$ to compete in the general. Plus you have McCain who is polarizing for the party, (as well as the Huckster). Was he a real Republican in the Gang of 14? Kennedy-McCain immigration thrown down America's throat...did that make him a real Republican? Or need I remind many of McCain-Feingold? He's getting a bump from the liberals people, the Des Moines Register endorses him even though he's ignored the state as a whole, didn't participate in the Straw Poll, gave it up for dead? The NH liberal press endorses him, because he's close to them and he likes to give soundbites to the media and because he's had to make himself available to the media...because he had no money for ads. Even worse...he's almost as bad as Huck playing the Jesus card, that no one can be as patriotic or American as me because I'm Mr. POW. You have to ask yourself, what makes the media viable or relevant? Stories or news that are "newsworthy." If Romney wins Iowa or NH as expected where's the news?
For what it's worth both Huck and McCain are good men, but have ridden the back of the media and voila...they're the flavor of the month. Maybe that's smart...I do give them credit for sticking with it. But the credit is hardly due to being "real" Republicans. They've simply escaped the limelight and scrutiny in the process. Good timing no doubt, but these men are severely flawed, and are the worst candidates to unite the GOP. And if the GOP is going to win...they do need to unite. |
|
The more I think about this post, I think this is Hugh & Patrick's first attempt to start laying the foundation for the spin once Romney loses New Hampshire to McCain.
Mitt's campaign is in a severe downward spiral while McCain is surging. The possibility of McCain taking New Hampshire increases with each and every passing minute.
Romney's ENTIRE strategy was to win Iowa and New Hampshire. He had an early state strategy. He banked out outspending the other candidates in and winning Iowa and New Hampshire, and using that momentum to propel him through the rest of the primaries.
Now, Romney is in SEVERE trouble in both states. Huckabee continues to lead Iowa, and McCain's New Hampshire magic is back in full force. So how will Hugh and the rest of the Romney hacks spin Mitt's embarassing failure to win the early states?
"Mitt is the alternative to McCain."
When I read that sentence from Patrick, I figured that this will be Hugh & Co's new theme (and new spin).
Too bad for them, because it will be a loser.
|
|
Come on Patrick, you are starting to be a joke. You could have actually made a decent post, but you add insulting comments like McCain's momentum is manufactured by the media only. That's wrong and you know it. It is flawed analysis like this that helped the GOP become big losers in 2006 while under your direction at the RNC.
McCain will have a strong showing in IA and then win NH. At that point you should figure out who will drop out (Fred?) and if McCain continues to win in MI then who is left in the field? If it does come down to Rudy and McCain, who do you think will pick up the conservative voters? Who do you think Fred will endorse (McCain). How about in CA? Don't you think with solid showings in IA, wins in NH and MI that Arnold then backs McCain? Of course this never factors into your weak analysis.
At this point, what matters is who wins and who drops out and when. You know that, but you are only too busy trying to be Hugh Jr.
|
|
Does anyone know where I can get tickets to the GOP debate in Simi Valley?
Richard
http://www.blogusablog.com |
|
|
I think Chuck Todd's wife works for Jim Webb. |
|
as Huckabee.
PLEASE GOD, let the GOP primary voters not be so stupid as to nominate a guaranteed loser in November 2008. |
|
Who received $$ from this PAC?
Mooney, Brian C., Stephanie Ebbert, and Scott Helman. 30 June 2007. "The Making of Mitt Romney
Ambitious goals; shifting stances" _The Boston Globe_
http://www.boston.com/news/politics/2008/specials/romney/ar ticles/part7_main?mode=PF
They conceived the Commonwealth PAC, a political
action committee that enabled Romney to travel the
country with a checkbook, currying favor with
Republican leaders by contributing to their
campaigns and causes.
Romney's advisers organized the PAC in an
innovative way, setting up affiliates in six key states
- including some states with no limits on
contributions, which allowed Romney's wealthy
associates to give five- and six-figure sums. In all,
the PAC raised $8.8 million and doled out $1.3
million, much of it in key presidential-primary states.
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Romney on Campaign Finance Reform: cap spending levels in campaigns, abolish PACs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MM0x8WnI4to&feature=related
Romney's flip-flops on immigration, minimum wage, abortion, homosexual agenda, campaign finance reform,
gun control, LDS theology
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=8458206d-7aa4-4800-9a4 9-948df8f8035a%40p1g2000hsb.googlegroups.com
|
|
|
There is a posting on MSNBC's blog that says Chuck Todd's wife works for McCain. If true, shame on MSNBC. Todd is clearly downing Romney and pushing McCain. |
|
|
Look it, the majority of pundits are pretty dumb people. They get paid to react, not look at the big picture. The only reason why the first 3 state's are "so important" according to the pundits is because it's all they're focusing on right now. In a month they will move on and probably change their opinions 35 times in the meantime. Rudy is gonna win the nomination! Mark my words! McCain is a one trick pony. He's good on the war and that's it. |
|
|
|
Patrick - I notice how you slyly try to plant the idea that McCain's surge is due to media manufacturing. Not so. McCain is surging because real Republicans realize that he is the strongest candidate to put up against Hill-Dawg.
Give credit where credit is due. |
|
Mooney, Brian C., Stephanie Ebbert, and Scott Helman. 30 June 2007. "The Making of Mitt Romney
Ambitious goals; shifting stances" _The Boston Globe_
http://www.boston.com/news/politics/2008/specials/romney/ar ticles/part7_main?mode=PF
After his failure to elect more Republican legislators
in the 2004 campaign, Mitt Romney met with the
Globe's editorial board and made a surprising
declaration: No longer could he put so much time
into promoting his party.
''From now on, it's me-me-me,'' he said.
==
''For four years, Governor Romney has been right
there beside us, providing leadership on key issues
- whether it was politically expedient to do so or
not,'' Kris Mineau, president of the Massachusetts
Family Institute, wrote in a letter to conservatives
early this year.
But where conservatives saw leadership [how much
$$$ did this Massachusetts Family Institute get from
Romney?], skeptics - even some Republicans - saw
opportunism, believing Romney's political agenda
contributed to the further decline of the GOP in
Massachusetts, which saw its numbers dwindle to
historic lows of 19 House members and five
senators, out of the 200-member Legislature.
''It's almost as though he had his eye on higher
office very early into his governorship. I think it
ended up hurting his performance as governor, and
the fortunes of the party in general,'' said Senate
minority leader Richard R. Tisei, of Wakefield, a
supporter of Rudy Giuliani in the presidential race
and one of four Republican state legislators who are
not backing Romney.
|
|
You still writing here, associating your name with this place? I thought you'd moved onto something more respectable than Romneymania 2008.
+ + + |
|
|
|