More Elections!
By Pejman Yousefzadeh Posted in 2008 | Barack Obama | Hillary Clinton | John McCain | Presidential Nomination Contests — Comments (40) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Obama wins in Wisconsin. Texas and Ohio are now super-important firewall states, and given that Hillary Clinton's campaign was not aware of the fact that they could win the popular vote in Texas while at the same time losing the delegates, one has to wonder what kind of firewall she has constructed for herself. Nevertheless, given the mathematical impossibility of either Clinton or Obama reaching 2,025 delegates absent superdelegate help, Clinton will fight on and make this into trench warfare. The debate on Thursday night between the two ought to be a doozy.
Now that more attention is being paid to the possibility of Obama as the nominee, perhaps we could also pay attention to radical proposals that have been part and parcel of his political positions. Proposals like the ones found here. And how about the one found here? Kevin Drum--who, it should be noted, voted for Obama in the California primary--wonders if Obama's bubble is about to burst. Obama gives a great speech and he is plenty smart and charismatic. He has run a great campaign thus far. But if the true nature of his past and present policy positions are made evident to the American people, then he might have some 'splainin to do. I mean, come on--Barack Obama wanted to hold gun owners liable if their guns got stolen and crimes were committed with them. If that isn't a back door evisceration of the Second Amendment--and it isn't even all that back door-ish--I don't know what is. The class warfare bit is par for the course, but that doesn't make it any more acceptable or understandable for anyone whose economic views are based on reason rather than envy.
Oh, and McCain wins in Wisconsin. Can Mike Huckabee leave the race now? I hear the Cayman Islands are lovely this time of year. Perhaps he could go back there and make another paid speech.
« Dueling June Obama fundraising claims? — Comments (2) | Hutchison as McCain's veep pick? — Comments (98) »
More Elections! 40 Comments (0 topical, 40 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
In the wake of her crushing defeat in Wisconsin, and the upcoming do-or-die primaries in Ohio and Texas, look for Hillary to shake up her campaign staff yet again. Maggie Williams will be dumped, and Hillary will appoint Bob Shrum to head her campaign, citing his "perfect record in running presidential elections."
I will say that it is virtually impossible for her to surpass Obama with pledged delegates between now and the convention. I will also say that I don't think she has a good chance at winning Texas, Ohio, and Pennsylvania.
On the flipside, even if Obama wins those states, he will also not have the critical number of delegates, and Mrs. Clinton knows this. She will fight this thing all the way to the convention, and she will start a riot before she gives this thing to Barack. This is her last chance at this, and she is not going to just fade away.
“.....women and minorities hardest hit”
Ok, lay off the insults on Mike Huckabee. He scheduled that speech a year ago, when he needed to make money for him and his wife. You know, the one he's still married to after 35 years, who he nursed to health from spinal cancer they discovered on their honeymoon. He scheduled the speech in the Caymans a year ago, when he was probably polling 0.37% nationwide and 10th in an 11-man field, rather than 37% and running 2nd. He could not cancel that speech, especially in light of the fact that he promised Janet that he would not put his family in debt from this campaign. He's not independently wealthy, so he had more to do in this campaign. He spent less than 24 hours there, and then back in Wisconsin on Sunday, in 5deg. weather, until noon Tuesday, after 3 earlier days of campaigning in the Badger State.
John McCain is going to win the nomination, and will probably clinch it on March 4th, in a combination of winning VT, RI, especially Ohio, and possibly Texas (or a large portion of its delegates). Mike Huckabee will bow out at that point, as he promised, and will fall in line to support McCain, as a loyal conservative (and he is a conservative) Republican.
So, a little more understanding, and a little more class, is in order in reference to Gov. Huckabee. Remember the political fortunes of anyone can change, as Senator McCain can surely attest.
Ciao.
Belisarius of Jerusalem, and of Constantinople
Correct Beli... Of all those running in the race I found agreement most with Huckabee and least with McCain. Here's a guy who's been nothing but decent throughout his campaign, gracious to a fault to McCain, and yet the McCainiacs are so hyper to have this over they slam and slander this guy to death.
Yet again, why would ANYONE vote for McCain given the behavior of his minions? I've said it before and I'll say it again. He has to undo 8 years of hate and spitting in the eye of the cons and he only has 6 months to do it.
Might want to stop slamming on Huckabee now. In a few weeks you'll be begging for his supporters to back you. Maybe when you actually are asking for our vote we can get a little decency out of you?
I didn't think so.
And they wonder why Obama is going to win the whole thing...
Um, if you judge a candidate by their 'minions' on a politically active messageboard AND you make a comment such as "And they wonder why Obama is going to win the whole thing", then you are not much better yourself. The 'minions' don't believe Obama is going to win the whole things. Those who believe that probably are not the same ones who would make rude comments toward Huckabee.
With confidence like that, you are conceding 4-8 years of liberal judges, defeat in Iraq, higher taxes and a weaker nation. This makes you part of the problem.
As for the *previous* comment, I agree. Lay off Huckabee. While I have been a McCain supporter since he was polling at 8% in 1999, I have nothing but the utmost respect for him. He has conducted himself professionally and made me proud of the future of the party. He also keeps the Republicans in the news moreso than if he conceded. Go, speak, earn the money, it's the American way. You have earned the right.
1. I am not a McCainiac, even though I support McCain in the general election against either Hillary or Obama. I supported Thompson in the primaries.
2. I am not attacking Huckabee for making money. My point is that I would rather have him off making money than engaging in a Sisyphean effort to sabotage party unity by remaining in the race.
3. This is the most important point: I will write whatever I want and if that includes a criticism of Huckabee, I will write that as well. Such are the benefits of being a front page Contributor and having been one ever since the first day RedState was launched. I trust that's clear.
"At times one remains faithful to a cause only because its opponents do not cease to be insipid." --Friedrich Nietzsche
not important except that it helps convince McCain that conservatives still vote for other. Hopefully, that will convince him to pick a conservative VP. There is plenty of time to attack the Democrats...
Formally known as Deagle... "Golf is a way of life..."
Despite being behind in the delegate count Hillary was pretty close before today in the popular vote total (I don't know the difference now). If she wins TX, OH, PA by margins that split the delegates like say 57/43 she might actually have more total votes for her.
That's the true nightmare scenario. One candidate wins the popular vote, the other the delegate count, and thus superdelegates can't see a clear winner and all hell breaks loose. In this scenario it will be very interesting to see how Gore votes because I believe he honestly thinks total votes is what really matters.
When these are factored in she's always been behind.
"Time and the bell have buried the day, the black cloud carries the sun away."
T.S Eliot, Four Quartets.
Popular vote has nothing to do with a Democratic caucus. Mob rule and the ability to shout down others is where it's at there.
"No matter how much lipstick you put on the taxation pig, it's still a pig... and it's currently snout-down in your wallet." - Michael Fisk
The names I keep hearing for McCain's VP are:
Rell, CT or Snowe, ME. Both would put the NE into play.
Specter of Pa. Cinches Penn. for McCain?
Palin of AK or Hutchison of TX. A play at the womens' vote.
Ilena Ros-Litenin (spelling?) of FL. A woman, Cuban, and cinches FL.
Hagel of NE. Would attracte independents.
Huckabee. Would help with evangelical vote.
Rice. To blunt the race issue.
Pawlenty of MN. Question though: is he ready for prime time? He's never gotten 50% of vote in two elections.
Deborah Pryce of OH. A woman and from Ohio, a swing state.
Whitman of NJ. Woman; puts NJ and possibly CT into play.
Lieberman of CT. See above.
Ridge of Pa. Puts Penn. into play.
Nelson of FL. Reaching across the aisle gains independents, some Dems, and delivers FL.
What is everyone else hearing?
buy for a second this is McCain's list. This is not far from the haters who mention Teddy Kennedy et al. Specter, Hagel, Snowe, Whitman? you have got to be kidding.
___________________________________________________________
Molon Labe!
and even she would be a difficult sell. But at least she has legitimate qualifications (even though she seems to have "gone native" as Secretary of State).
The rest of the list would send McCain and the Republican Party on a long visit to Davy Jones' Locker.
One thing that's not well known is Obama's far left stance on abortion. He supported partial birth abortion in Illinois, and actually killed a bill that made infanticide illegal! Check out this article.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=51121
-----------
A political party cannot be all things to all people. It must represent certain fundamental beliefs which must not be compromised to political expediency, or simply to swell its numbers.
Ronald Reagan
It's a cheap shot that reflects poorly on you.
J. McCain may be you savior, but he's a RINO to many Conservatives.
Sure John will get my vote in Nov, but if he wants support (time and/or money), its time for him to start acting like a Republican.
====
"Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm." -- James Madison
Step 1, the most key element of acting like a Republican, is supporting Republican candidates.
McCain backed Bush twice for President, and backed Republicans nationwide, including conservaives.
HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater
I really believe it would be easier to beat Hillary than Obama. After looking that the crowds and provided the DNC does not move Hillary to the spot using super delegates, then Obama WILL get the youth vote. I believe they will come out in groves to vote for him unlike in previous times. They hate Bush too much to let this go - bet on it. Hillary was beatable, even from within her own party. Obama is not. Liberals will feel they owe the black community for past sins and owe Bush for getting them into a war they disagree with.
--roxer
HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater
History isn't always a good crystal ball, especially in this case. I realize that Obama will have to stand on his own in the Presidential debates, but his ability to elude an answer to a question while sounding like he answered it is uncanny. This is starting to look like Nixon vs. Kennedy. There's some more history for you.
--roxer
HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater
HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater
if he can sway a lot of hispanics, he wins it. Texas is rapidly becoming a purple state. It Um might er have a little something to do with er ahh
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle
McCain is probably the strongest with Hispanics among the GOP candidates.
“.....women and minorities hardest hit”
HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater
McCain is in a bit of a conundrum in terms of choosing a VP. If he choses one too moderate, he risks alienating more of the conservative base, but attracting independents. Or, if he chooses someone very conservative, he'll attract the base, yet potentially alienate independents.
Full disclosure, I'm a moderately liberal Dem. And from my perspective, I'd fear a McCain/Palin or Hutchinson or a McCain/Crist ticket. Or even a McCain/SomeoneFromOhio ticket.
If McCain chooses a female running mate, and Obama wins and does not choose Clinton (or any female) as his VP, it will make for a very interesting media narrative...which I think would be very beneficial to McCain.
Although my first choice for McCain's VP is Mark Sanford of South Carolina, I confess that I am warming up to the idea of Sarah Palin of Alaska.
Sarah Palin has an excellent social conservative record and, although it is extremely spotty (like Obama's record) she also appears fairly fiscally conservative. In a "normal year," whatever that is, I would argue that Palin does not have the experience and track record. But when you look at it, she probably has just as much experience as Barack Obama.
Plus, another thing is that I think there are a lot of White woman who are absolutely furious at the way they believe Hillary Clinton is being (mis-)treated. Let me say that I disagree with them but I acknowledge that the feeling is there. Picking Sarah Palin could allow McCain to exploit this.
Oh, and a final thing, I also think Sarah Palin is cuter than the Obama girl.
I've been pushing Sarah Palin on other blogs like Townhall.com.
But picking Palin hasn't been well received. Because she's from north of the Mason-Dixon line (AK is as far north as you can get!).
The heart of the GOP these days is the South, and they want a favorite son with solid conservative credentials.
The popular choice among the GOP base seems to be Fred Thompson. They are unmoved by the fact that Fred Thompson wasn't even a big vote-getter in Republican primaries.
Though they probably would take Mark Sanford too.
It's just another example of how McCain is being caught between the need to solidify his GOP base and the need to not alienate the moderate voters who have been one of his strengths till now.
The Good News for McCain and the GOP is this: Obama has never won a hard-fought election against a serious Republican opponent. He has had a string of easy victories, against opponents wrecked by scandal or loons like Alan Keyes. And in this primary season, Obama has been able to build on his huge African-American base, and then appeal mainly to just enough white Democrats to beat Hillary. This entire cohort is moderate-to-ultra-liberal. Obama has never had to reach out to attract pro-gun voters, pro-life voters, or any other type of voter that doesn't typically vote in Democrat primaries. Now he will have to--against McCain, who has proven crossover appeal.
Having said that, here is the Bad News:
The GOP is the incumbent party--it has held the White House for the last two terms. Historically, the incumbent party has never been able to hold the White House solely by going negative on the challenger party. Going negative on the challenger did not work for the Democrats in 1968 and 1980; it did not work for the GOP in 1988.
Indeed, the historical record has been this: In every single election since 1880, whenever the incumbent President was highly unpopular, his party lost the White House in the next election.
For McCain, this means that he must come up with a positive, uplifting, optimistic message to compete for the public's heart with Obama's message. Just denouncing Obama won't convince the public to give the GOP "Four More Years!" Somebody needs to point out to McCain that "Straight Talk" need not be "Grim Talk" all the time. McCain can't constantly preach gloom and doom about terrorism and so on, because Obama will instantly retort that if things are that grim, the GOP is the party that's been responsible for it these last 7 years. Where is McCain's "Morning in America" vision?
And it also means that at some point, McCain has to break with the Bush Administration and show that he is his own man, not a shill to continue Bush policies without "change." One way to do that would be to announce a Cabinet appointment or running mate that the Bushies would hate. Somebody like Chuck Hagel, who has been a staunch critic of Bush's Iraq War policy. Nobody can accuse Hagel of being a shill for Bush.
And it also means that at some point, McCain has to break with the Bush Administration and show that he is his own man, not a shill to continue Bush policies without "change." One way to do that would be to announce a Cabinet appointment or running mate that the Bushies would hate. Somebody like Chuck Hagel, who has been a staunch critic of Bush's Iraq War policy. Nobody can accuse Hagel of being a shill for Bush.
If there is one thing that McCain cannot be pinned as is "a shill to continue Bush policies." For better or worse, John McCain is a maverick!
But he is (hopefully) our maverick!
I have no doubt that Obama will try to pin him as Bush III -- and he already is trying to do that in many of his speeches -- but even I don't think those charges can stick. For better or for worse.
For example, we should be looking at a drastic loss in support among the Latino vote... except that the likely GOP candidate is the one guy in the field most in line with current administration policy on immigration*, and there's a nontrivial chance that the Democratic candidate is going to be the one who did not court them instead of the African-American bloc.
Go figure.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
*In a year where hardline immigration is going to be a key issue in the House and Senate, no less.
Don't you mean 1992? Because I'm pretty sure that we won in 1988, and the Democrats have been going on and on about Willie Horton for twenty years now. :)
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
And it also means that at some point, McCain has to break with the Bush Administration and show that he is his own man, not a shill to continue Bush policies without "change."
Absolutely, it is hard to follow someone of your own party into the White House. It is often particularly hard for a VPOTUS, which is why Bush was wise to select someone who did not want to succeed him as his running mate. The message has to be "everything is going well, and I am the guy to fix it", which is hardly inspiring.
McCain certainly has credibility to break with the administration, but not on Iraq. McCain has been claiming (and he is not wholly unjustified in this) that he was calling for the surge before the president was.
He needs to break with Bush on something else. I think it has to be economics and 'reform'. A strong commitment to cut expenditure, especially corporate welfare and earmarks, would be a powerful message.
Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net
International Editor of
I think McCain can reasonable separate himself from Bush even on Iraq. First of all, he can legitimately say that he was critical of Rumsfeld long before Bush sacked him. Second, he can say (still somewhat legitimately) that he supported and lobbied for the surge long before Bush bought in.
Sanford is actually one of the few Republicans I would *gladly* vote for. And honestly, I'm attracted to his character more than anything. He has an independent streak which leads me to believe he's making well thought-out and well-intentioned decisions rather than simply pandering to a particular group*. I like and respect that. But I'm a bit of an idealist when it comes to politics.
However, choosing a running mate from a state where putting an 'R' next to your name guarantees you 60% of the vote seems like a waste.
I can see McCain choosing a running mate from a swing state or a female running mate to potentially attract Clinton supporters.
But as much as I'd like to see VP Sanford, I don't think it's likely.
*I know I need to tread carefully here. I want to be clear that I'm not accusing any party as a whole of consisting of panderers. And I'll be the first to admit I think Hillary is guilty of shamelessly pandering. I just want to make that clear.
before the convention to avoid a bruising battle there that would render their nominee damaged in the general election. She is already losing her lead in texas and Ohio, the last places she can possibly turn it around. The fact is obama will probably take Texas, and possibly Ohio as well. She will not go all the way through Pennsylvania -- she fielded a slate of delegates there that is 10 short.
In other words the fat lady is tuning up in the wings.
Hillary will pull out making a speech that will be sort of the democrat equivalent of Mitt Romney's withdrawal -- "The most important thing is to guarantee that we lose the war in Iraq, nothing is more important, I don't want my campaign to stand in the way of our total defeat, surrender and retreat from Iraq. Therefore I'm suspending my campaign, etc"