Well, if Obama and Huckabee go all the way, we'll have the most polite general election campaign in a century.
I'm on record as having supported Obama and Huckabee for quite a while. Both face huge obstacles on the road to the nomination, but both have thin paths that might just come to pass:
OBAMA
Wins New Hampshire Jan 8; loses Michigan Jan 15 and Nevada Jan 19. Edwards then drops out. Obama then becomes the anti-Clinton and sweeps South Carolina 1/26, Florida 1/29, and a majority of states in 2/5's mega-primary. Clinton, though winning large states like California and New York, loses the delegate count to Obama, who squeaks through and wins the nomination.
HUCKABEE
Comes in third in New Hampshire Jan 8. Virtually ties McCain in Michigan Jan. 15, with Romney coming in third. Romney drops out. Virtual tie between Huckabee and Guliani in Nevada Jan. 19. Huckabee wins South Carolina Jan. 26, and Thompson drops out. Huckabee wins Florida Jan. 29 hands-down. At that point, the 2/5 mega-primary kicks in: Guliani wins NY and NJ, but McCain (helped by endorsements from the departing Thompson) and Huckabee each earn more delegates than Guliani does on that day, and Guliani drops out. With a bit of luck (especially if he wins CA), Huckabee can stave off McCain long enough to win the nomination.
Very tricky, and a lot of if's.
I still haven't figured out who Romney endorses when he leaves.
By the way, I repudiate what I said about Romney possibly being Huck's VP pick. There may be too much bad blood by now. Maybe McCain himself?
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Friday, January 4, 2008
Tuesday, December 4, 2007
Fascinating presidential poll
Just studied this national poll a bit. Especially outstanding:
1) I posted a while back on Hillary Clinton's negatives. This poll records them: 50% of adults hold an unfavorable opinion of her. How in the world can she get elected president if the general election hasn't even started and her unfavorable rating is already 50%?
2) Huckabee is now #2 nationally among Republicans. Last poll, he was in 5th place. Talk about meteoric--I can't recall the like. Bizarre election.
3) Huckabee has a 17-point spread between his "favorable" and "unfavorable" ratings (33% and 16% respectively).
4) Perhaps most importantly, Huckabee is still unknown by 33% of the electorate. If they, as they learn about him, mirror the electorate who have heard of him, his rise will only continue.
OK, back to teaching . . .
1) I posted a while back on Hillary Clinton's negatives. This poll records them: 50% of adults hold an unfavorable opinion of her. How in the world can she get elected president if the general election hasn't even started and her unfavorable rating is already 50%?
2) Huckabee is now #2 nationally among Republicans. Last poll, he was in 5th place. Talk about meteoric--I can't recall the like. Bizarre election.
3) Huckabee has a 17-point spread between his "favorable" and "unfavorable" ratings (33% and 16% respectively).
4) Perhaps most importantly, Huckabee is still unknown by 33% of the electorate. If they, as they learn about him, mirror the electorate who have heard of him, his rise will only continue.
OK, back to teaching . . .
Tuesday, August 14, 2007
57 Candidates and Nothing On
Never have I seen so many candidates with so few robes. With nearly 20 major declared candidates between the two major parties, and two credible third-party challenges possible (including multi-millionaire Michael Bloomberg), you would think there would be someone to vote for.
Instead, we have 22 candidates I'd be quite willing to vote against in favor of the lesser of two evils. How can there be no lesser of 22 evils? I don't understand it. In fact, out of my quite wide and diverse social circle (40+ adults), I only know four people enthusiastic about a candidate, and two of them favor Ron Paul. Of course, those supporters are a priest and a comic book store owner, so I'm not sure how representative that is of America at large--but I digress.
My mom has an idea for a fix. I didn't like it at first--it seemed downright un-American--but it's really grown on me.
She says that the problem is that Americans get to vote in the primaries. The country was much better off, she says, before the 1960's, when the primary system really began in earnest. Before then, party insiders met in "smoke-filled rooms" and decided what candidate had the best chance of winning the general election. That candidate would then be trotted out at the convention, at which point election season would begin.
The benefits to this system are manifold: we would get candidates closer to the middle of political thought, instead of now, when each side plays to their base so hard that we ended up last time with extreme-left John Kerry and extreme-right George W. Bush, neither of whom represented American thinking at all. That election produced enormous feelings of animosity, as did the one before.
The day after the 2006 congressional election, the presidential election season began. Incredible amounts of money have been raised, destroying the public-financing system. Congress passes no meaningful legislation because (a) so many senators are out campaigning and (b) each candidate wants to complain that their pet bill needs to get passed, so they need to be president, quietly taking steps to make sure that their pet bill does *not* get passed when the rhetoric is still needed.
Everyone's talking about changing the primary calendar, creating a rotating system based on geographical zones, finding a better primary debate format. Instead, let's return to smoke-filled rooms. None of the would-be emperors have anything on.
Instead, we have 22 candidates I'd be quite willing to vote against in favor of the lesser of two evils. How can there be no lesser of 22 evils? I don't understand it. In fact, out of my quite wide and diverse social circle (40+ adults), I only know four people enthusiastic about a candidate, and two of them favor Ron Paul. Of course, those supporters are a priest and a comic book store owner, so I'm not sure how representative that is of America at large--but I digress.
My mom has an idea for a fix. I didn't like it at first--it seemed downright un-American--but it's really grown on me.
She says that the problem is that Americans get to vote in the primaries. The country was much better off, she says, before the 1960's, when the primary system really began in earnest. Before then, party insiders met in "smoke-filled rooms" and decided what candidate had the best chance of winning the general election. That candidate would then be trotted out at the convention, at which point election season would begin.
The benefits to this system are manifold: we would get candidates closer to the middle of political thought, instead of now, when each side plays to their base so hard that we ended up last time with extreme-left John Kerry and extreme-right George W. Bush, neither of whom represented American thinking at all. That election produced enormous feelings of animosity, as did the one before.
The day after the 2006 congressional election, the presidential election season began. Incredible amounts of money have been raised, destroying the public-financing system. Congress passes no meaningful legislation because (a) so many senators are out campaigning and (b) each candidate wants to complain that their pet bill needs to get passed, so they need to be president, quietly taking steps to make sure that their pet bill does *not* get passed when the rhetoric is still needed.
Everyone's talking about changing the primary calendar, creating a rotating system based on geographical zones, finding a better primary debate format. Instead, let's return to smoke-filled rooms. None of the would-be emperors have anything on.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
