In my previous column, I talked about the limitations (and they are many) of the polls. In the Iowa primary, pollsters dramatically underestimated the number of young voters (those under 30), who voted heavily for Barack Obama. In New Hampshire, the pollsters over-compensated and overestimated the potential number of young voters.
If you watched CNN (and other networks) last Tuesday, you saw that they kept waiting for the Obama votes to come in from Hanover (Dartmouth College), Durham (the University of New Hampshire), and other college locations (including tiny Franklin Pierce College). Presumably, they're still waiting. Mrs. Clinton held a good lead throughout the night, college students voted in disappointing (for Obama) numbers, and female students who did vote often went for the female candidate.
One reason the polls messed up lies with the concept of "likely voters," a concept invented by Gallup many years ago. Generally, likely voters are those who've voted with some regularity in past elections. If you've voted before, you're "likely" to vote this time -- right? Well, not exactly.
The pollsters have had a terrible time this year with young voters, especially those who may -- or may not -- vote for the first time. If a pollster has no evidence of past voting practices, it's impossible to tell if a voter is actually going to show up at the polling place. In New Hampshire, the pollsters apparently guessed what might happen, and they guessed wrong.
The media, which has significant influence on pollsters, assumed Obama's victory in Iowa would give him a big "bounce" in New Hampshire. It didn't. Poll evidence (?) suggests Mrs. Clinton generated some votes, not a whole lot, from her tearing up episode. Overall, there was a very high turnout in the Democratic Primary (280,000 voters various 220,000 for Republicans), and that apparently helped Mrs. Clinton, something the pollsters should have picked up before the vote.
In a typical election, voters identified as "likely" tend to vote at a percentage between 70% and 75%. In other words, as many as 30% of likely voters end up not voting. They're sick, or they're out of town, or it snows heavily -- or perhaps they're just not turned on by the current election.
Registered Democrats are more likely to vote than the much-heralded "Independents." Registered Republicans are more likely to vote than either Indies or Democrats. Many of the much-discussed "Independents" are not the dispassionate, reflective souls we sometimes visualize. In fact, many of them have little interest in voting. If they see a snowflake, they're likely to stay home.
Gallup is the gold-standard of polls. It skews its likely voter’s concept slightly toward the Republicans. It does so for reasons stated above -- that Republicans are more likely to vote. Apparently, the Harris Poll does something similar. Traditionally, that approach has made Gallup and Harris the most accurate polls.
However, in 2004 Gallup's Polls through the autumn consistently showed George W. Bush doing well, perhaps winning nationally by millions of votes. Many Democrats and many in the media (generally Democrats) didn't like that and suggested Gallup was shilling for the GOP.
Gallup got nervous. It changed its likely-voter template to include more Democrats. Soon, it showed Bush running neck-and-neck with John Kerry. Also, Gallup indicated Kerry probably would win key states like Ohio and Florida. On the other hand, it also suggested Bush had a good chance of winning Pennsylvania.
On Election Night, Gallup (and many in the media) had a huge quantity of egg on their face. Bush won Ohio and Florida by fairly substantial margins. He lost in Pennsylvania, as most Pennsylvanians -- including this one -- had predicted he would.
What about the pollsters' legendary margin-of-error? As both Iowa and New Hampshire exist, the term is largely mythical. If pollsters really knew with precision what inaccuracy there may be in their polls, they'd presumably correct it. The margin-of-error is mainly a way for them to explain why their polls failed to predict an election accurately. They can always say, "Well, I was within the margin of error." I presume Fortune Tellers could make a similar claim.
Actually, I like pollsters, much as I like, say, polar bears. But I don't want to get overly close to either.
May the best man -- or best woman -- win.
Tuesday, January 15, 2008
THE PRIMARIES: MYSTERIES & ENIGMAS
Winston Churchill famously said about the old Soviet Union that it was "a mystery wrapped in a riddle inside an enigma." Winston should have seen the Republican primaries.
I'LL BE WRITING A LOT IN THE COMING DAYS ABOUT THE TRENDS IN THE REPUBLICAN PRIMARIES. If McCain can win both Michigan and South Carolina, he presumably win end up winning the nomination. However, if Romney wins, it will make a confusing situation even more perplexing. If the race continues to be uncertain, then Florida should be critical. Stay tuned. I'll add more as the day (Tuesday) goes on and will have a new column tonight, after the MI results are clear.
If you have no idea who the Republican nominee will be, you're not alone.
I'LL BE WRITING A LOT IN THE COMING DAYS ABOUT THE TRENDS IN THE REPUBLICAN PRIMARIES. If McCain can win both Michigan and South Carolina, he presumably win end up winning the nomination. However, if Romney wins, it will make a confusing situation even more perplexing. If the race continues to be uncertain, then Florida should be critical. Stay tuned. I'll add more as the day (Tuesday) goes on and will have a new column tonight, after the MI results are clear.
If you have no idea who the Republican nominee will be, you're not alone.
Monday, January 14, 2008
WHY THE POLLSTERS BLEW IT
WHY THE POLLSTERS BLEW IT
As you may have noticed, the political polls change with about the same regularity as the weather. However, let's admit it: you believe they tell you something of value, and so do I. For the most part, we should discard that belief.
Right now (Monday night), I'm hearing "from Michigan" that the polls (which ones?) are telling us that John McCain and Mitt Romney are running "neck-and-neck" (is there any other way for politicians to run?).
Does that mean we'll have to stay up late tomorrow (Tuesday) to see if Mitt Romney elects to take "early retirement" from the race? Maybe.I think McCain will finish first, perhaps well ahead of Romney. Mike Huckabee will finish third.
But the Michigan primary, like the previous one in New Hampshire, is impossible to predict. For one thing, Independents can vote in the primary -- Democratic or Republican. No one knows how the "Independents" (a much smaller percentage in MI than NH) will vote -- or even if they'll vote.
Also, Michigan is a fully open primary, and Democrats apparently can vote in the Republican primary. The Daily Kos, an extreme leftist blog, is telling Michigan Democrats to vote for Mitt Romney -- the better to screw up the Republican results.
What about the Democratic candidates? Well, for arcane reasons the national Democrat Party has told the candidates not to campaign in Michigan. So, there are only three candidates on the ballot. One is Hillary Clinton, and the other two are the ever-popular Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel. What about Barack and John? They're not on the ballot.
What is on the Democratic ballot is an heretofore unknown candidate known as "Uncommitted." In other words, if you don't feel like voting for Hillary, Dennis, and Mike, you don't have to vote for anyone. If Mr. (or Ms.?) Uncommitted gets a lot of support, I'm sure the pundits will tell us what that means.
Given all these factors, don't ask me exactly what's going to happen in Michigan. Anyone who claims to know -- even if their name is Gallup, Zogby, or Rassmussen -- qualifies as an idiot.In yesterday's (Sunday's) Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, there was an article about failures of the pollsters in New Hampshire. Writer Daniel Malloy says, "Pollsters argued that the polls weren't wrong [perish the thought!] -- there was just a change in the thinking of voters, especially women, who suddenly became eager to support an underdog, emotional Mrs. Clinton."
Of course, that's all bulldoodoo. When someone presents us with a poll that has a certain "margin of error" and the results far exceed the margin, then we need a new pollster. After all, polls aren't supposed to be a crap shoot, are they?
I'll let you in on a secret. I know precisely -- right down to the percentage points -- what's going to happen in Michigan. But since you don't believe me, I'm not going to tell you now. I will tell you tomorrow night.
Tomorrow, I'll write some more about the polls -- including Gallup's classic blunders in 2004, when they had Bush winning PA (he lost) and losing Ohio (he won).
As you may have noticed, the political polls change with about the same regularity as the weather. However, let's admit it: you believe they tell you something of value, and so do I. For the most part, we should discard that belief.
Right now (Monday night), I'm hearing "from Michigan" that the polls (which ones?) are telling us that John McCain and Mitt Romney are running "neck-and-neck" (is there any other way for politicians to run?).
Does that mean we'll have to stay up late tomorrow (Tuesday) to see if Mitt Romney elects to take "early retirement" from the race? Maybe.I think McCain will finish first, perhaps well ahead of Romney. Mike Huckabee will finish third.
But the Michigan primary, like the previous one in New Hampshire, is impossible to predict. For one thing, Independents can vote in the primary -- Democratic or Republican. No one knows how the "Independents" (a much smaller percentage in MI than NH) will vote -- or even if they'll vote.
Also, Michigan is a fully open primary, and Democrats apparently can vote in the Republican primary. The Daily Kos, an extreme leftist blog, is telling Michigan Democrats to vote for Mitt Romney -- the better to screw up the Republican results.
What about the Democratic candidates? Well, for arcane reasons the national Democrat Party has told the candidates not to campaign in Michigan. So, there are only three candidates on the ballot. One is Hillary Clinton, and the other two are the ever-popular Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel. What about Barack and John? They're not on the ballot.
What is on the Democratic ballot is an heretofore unknown candidate known as "Uncommitted." In other words, if you don't feel like voting for Hillary, Dennis, and Mike, you don't have to vote for anyone. If Mr. (or Ms.?) Uncommitted gets a lot of support, I'm sure the pundits will tell us what that means.
Given all these factors, don't ask me exactly what's going to happen in Michigan. Anyone who claims to know -- even if their name is Gallup, Zogby, or Rassmussen -- qualifies as an idiot.In yesterday's (Sunday's) Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, there was an article about failures of the pollsters in New Hampshire. Writer Daniel Malloy says, "Pollsters argued that the polls weren't wrong [perish the thought!] -- there was just a change in the thinking of voters, especially women, who suddenly became eager to support an underdog, emotional Mrs. Clinton."
Of course, that's all bulldoodoo. When someone presents us with a poll that has a certain "margin of error" and the results far exceed the margin, then we need a new pollster. After all, polls aren't supposed to be a crap shoot, are they?
I'll let you in on a secret. I know precisely -- right down to the percentage points -- what's going to happen in Michigan. But since you don't believe me, I'm not going to tell you now. I will tell you tomorrow night.
Tomorrow, I'll write some more about the polls -- including Gallup's classic blunders in 2004, when they had Bush winning PA (he lost) and losing Ohio (he won).
Sunday, January 13, 2008
FRED THOMPSON: GOP'S "GREAT PUMPKIN"
By popular demand (well, my wife and stepdaughter), I'm reprinting my notorious column about former Senator (and apparent (?) presidential candidate) Fred Thompson.
Fred Thompson: The Republicans' "Great Pumpkin"
Wednesday, June 27, 2007 11:04 AM
Because of the terrible loss suffered by Republicans in 2006 and the current "massacre of the conservatives" (people like John Kyl, Lindsay Graham, Trent Lott, and many others), I've had to do a lot of rethinking about politics. I find the present situation as distressing as anything I've ever encountered. It appears to me that the Party is hell-bent on becoming a permanent minority. The scary thing is that people who differ greatly with me on certain issues (especially immigration) don't dissent from my assessment of the Party's bleak future.
I've been resisting the temptation to write a column critical of Fred Thompson and his "Townhall Essay Campaign." That's where he writes one pedestrian piece after another to delight the easily amused "base." Some people for whom I have genuine affection support Fred -- or at least they support some mirage they assume must be him.
Honestly, I'm not really in the business of intentionally offending people, so I've stayed away from Fred. However . . . I've asked people to read the Wikipedia article (go to http://wikipedia.com and then fill in the name "Fred Thompson"). I realize "Wik" is not the last word on anything. Also, some readers have challenged the objectivity of the piece (as "Wik" notes).
However, the basic facts of the piece are not in dispute. They suggest that Thompson has more political baggage than the U.S. Airways warehouse containing "lost luggage."
Someone recently asked Thompson what he regarded as his major accomplishments during his eight years in the Senate. His response was what journalists call "a long, pregnant pause." He didn't mention the Campaign Finance Reform Bill, which he strongly supported and which has been used in attempts to derail the campaign of John McCain.
When I look at the Thompson campaign, I don't see him as the Republicans' "White Knight." I certainly don't see him as the Second Coming of the Gipper.Instead, I see someone more akin to the Great Pumpkin in "Charlie Brown." As you'll recall, each Halloween Charlie and his friends would wait with great anticipation the arrival of said Pumpkin. However, each year they waited in vain. Fred is the Republican version of the Great Pumpkin. I see Fred Thompson as an old guy who looks and acts his age. He's John McCain without the history of heroism, the commitment to principle, and the feistiness.
Is Thompson truly ready to be the frontrunner in the campaign for the Republican nomination? Townhall.com, citing the dubious Rasmussen Poll, says Thompson is now [remember, this was last June] the leader in a national survey (27% to 23% over Giuliani). Of course, frequent visitors to Townhall recognize the site chooses its polls carefuly so as to reflect its own prejudices.
Townhall used to be a full-time shill for the semi-pathetic Romney campaign, but some people there appear to be switching to Fred.However, as I'm preparing this column, which may have something to offend nearly everyone, I'm listening to the latest Opinion Research Poll.
Since you won't hear anything about it on Townhall, I'll fill you in.Opinion Research shows Giuliani with roughly 29% of the national support from Republicans. Thompson has about 19%, followed by McCain at 18%. Romney is in fourth place at about 14%.
Of course, Townhall will be singing a different story. It will be telling you (less frequently than in the past, perhaps) that "Team Romney" is vigorously enhancing its leadership in the meaningless "Ames Straw Poll." It will be telling you that Romney is doing well -- although not all that well -- in his neighboring state of New Hampshire. On the other hand, it will not be telling you that the New Hampshire primary is looking less and less important to serious candidates [oops, I was wrong there]. It will not be letting you in on the fact that Mitt Romney has spent $21 million on his campaign -- and has almost nothing to show for it.
Also, Townhall will be telling you -- wrongly -- that the McCain campaign is cratering, that he's essentially through as a presidential candidate. What Townhall won't be telling you about its corporate views is that they reflect the triumph of hope over reality. McCain continues, against all odds, to do well in national polls, which show him running neck-and-neck with Thompson -- and far ahead of Th's beloved "Romney."
Apparently, tens of thousands of people visit Townhall on an average day. What I'm suggesting here -- modestly, of course -- that they'd be much better informed if they visited Campaign2008VictoryA.
TH will seek to propagandize you. I won't. It's just that simple.
Fred Thompson: The Republicans' "Great Pumpkin"
Wednesday, June 27, 2007 11:04 AM
Because of the terrible loss suffered by Republicans in 2006 and the current "massacre of the conservatives" (people like John Kyl, Lindsay Graham, Trent Lott, and many others), I've had to do a lot of rethinking about politics. I find the present situation as distressing as anything I've ever encountered. It appears to me that the Party is hell-bent on becoming a permanent minority. The scary thing is that people who differ greatly with me on certain issues (especially immigration) don't dissent from my assessment of the Party's bleak future.
I've been resisting the temptation to write a column critical of Fred Thompson and his "Townhall Essay Campaign." That's where he writes one pedestrian piece after another to delight the easily amused "base." Some people for whom I have genuine affection support Fred -- or at least they support some mirage they assume must be him.
Honestly, I'm not really in the business of intentionally offending people, so I've stayed away from Fred. However . . . I've asked people to read the Wikipedia article (go to http://wikipedia.com and then fill in the name "Fred Thompson"). I realize "Wik" is not the last word on anything. Also, some readers have challenged the objectivity of the piece (as "Wik" notes).
However, the basic facts of the piece are not in dispute. They suggest that Thompson has more political baggage than the U.S. Airways warehouse containing "lost luggage."
Someone recently asked Thompson what he regarded as his major accomplishments during his eight years in the Senate. His response was what journalists call "a long, pregnant pause." He didn't mention the Campaign Finance Reform Bill, which he strongly supported and which has been used in attempts to derail the campaign of John McCain.
When I look at the Thompson campaign, I don't see him as the Republicans' "White Knight." I certainly don't see him as the Second Coming of the Gipper.Instead, I see someone more akin to the Great Pumpkin in "Charlie Brown." As you'll recall, each Halloween Charlie and his friends would wait with great anticipation the arrival of said Pumpkin. However, each year they waited in vain. Fred is the Republican version of the Great Pumpkin. I see Fred Thompson as an old guy who looks and acts his age. He's John McCain without the history of heroism, the commitment to principle, and the feistiness.
Is Thompson truly ready to be the frontrunner in the campaign for the Republican nomination? Townhall.com, citing the dubious Rasmussen Poll, says Thompson is now [remember, this was last June] the leader in a national survey (27% to 23% over Giuliani). Of course, frequent visitors to Townhall recognize the site chooses its polls carefuly so as to reflect its own prejudices.
Townhall used to be a full-time shill for the semi-pathetic Romney campaign, but some people there appear to be switching to Fred.However, as I'm preparing this column, which may have something to offend nearly everyone, I'm listening to the latest Opinion Research Poll.
Since you won't hear anything about it on Townhall, I'll fill you in.Opinion Research shows Giuliani with roughly 29% of the national support from Republicans. Thompson has about 19%, followed by McCain at 18%. Romney is in fourth place at about 14%.
Of course, Townhall will be singing a different story. It will be telling you (less frequently than in the past, perhaps) that "Team Romney" is vigorously enhancing its leadership in the meaningless "Ames Straw Poll." It will be telling you that Romney is doing well -- although not all that well -- in his neighboring state of New Hampshire. On the other hand, it will not be telling you that the New Hampshire primary is looking less and less important to serious candidates [oops, I was wrong there]. It will not be letting you in on the fact that Mitt Romney has spent $21 million on his campaign -- and has almost nothing to show for it.
Also, Townhall will be telling you -- wrongly -- that the McCain campaign is cratering, that he's essentially through as a presidential candidate. What Townhall won't be telling you about its corporate views is that they reflect the triumph of hope over reality. McCain continues, against all odds, to do well in national polls, which show him running neck-and-neck with Thompson -- and far ahead of Th's beloved "Romney."
Apparently, tens of thousands of people visit Townhall on an average day. What I'm suggesting here -- modestly, of course -- that they'd be much better informed if they visited Campaign2008VictoryA.
TH will seek to propagandize you. I won't. It's just that simple.
FRED THOMPSON; HISTORY'S WORST CAMPAIGN
I wrote the following in response to a Yahoo "conservative" group where one member was asking where Fred Thompson's headquarters were in states like MI, MN, SD, and ND. You'll note that I'm not a big fan of Fred Thompson.
When the book is written on this campaign, there will be a fascinating chapter on Fred Thompson and his Incredible Disappearing Act. Asking where Fred's "headquarters" are in MI & MN is like asking where Ron Paul's HQ is in Harlem.
Apparently, Fred's "trophy wife," Jeri, is the head of his campaign. One step he should make immediately is to fire her. If his campaign isn't the worst in recorded history, I shudder to think which one was more inept (Dennis Kucinich? Mike Gravel?).
When Fred was in on the Senate on 9/11, he said of his own situation, "Now is not the time [for me] to leave . . ." Shortly thereafter, he left to go to an important position in Hollywood on a TV show that was regularly anti-military and anti-conservative.
In Thompson's career, he often had to choose between serving the nation and making a lot of money. In every cash, the appeal of the big bucks won. I can't imagine what the appeal is that Fred holds for some conservatives.
What on earth has the man ever done in his career as an elected official? Exactly what did he accomplish as a Senator? In his lucrative role as a lobbyist, he had as clients one unsavory individual or group after another, including the dictator of Haiti.
Fred is now 67 -- and looks and acts his age. At the same time, he's been building on his reputation as the laziest man in Washington. He has an active campaign in only one state, South Carolina, and when he loses there I'm sure he will return to Hollywood and live happily ever afterwards.
As a candidate, Fred is not in the same league as John McCain, Rudy Giuliani, Mike Huckabee, or Mitt Romney. Those conservative individuals have been running full-speed for a year. In contrast, Fred has been meandering along, giving one pedestrian speech after another.
Good riddance, Fred.
When the book is written on this campaign, there will be a fascinating chapter on Fred Thompson and his Incredible Disappearing Act. Asking where Fred's "headquarters" are in MI & MN is like asking where Ron Paul's HQ is in Harlem.
Apparently, Fred's "trophy wife," Jeri, is the head of his campaign. One step he should make immediately is to fire her. If his campaign isn't the worst in recorded history, I shudder to think which one was more inept (Dennis Kucinich? Mike Gravel?).
When Fred was in on the Senate on 9/11, he said of his own situation, "Now is not the time [for me] to leave . . ." Shortly thereafter, he left to go to an important position in Hollywood on a TV show that was regularly anti-military and anti-conservative.
In Thompson's career, he often had to choose between serving the nation and making a lot of money. In every cash, the appeal of the big bucks won. I can't imagine what the appeal is that Fred holds for some conservatives.
What on earth has the man ever done in his career as an elected official? Exactly what did he accomplish as a Senator? In his lucrative role as a lobbyist, he had as clients one unsavory individual or group after another, including the dictator of Haiti.
Fred is now 67 -- and looks and acts his age. At the same time, he's been building on his reputation as the laziest man in Washington. He has an active campaign in only one state, South Carolina, and when he loses there I'm sure he will return to Hollywood and live happily ever afterwards.
As a candidate, Fred is not in the same league as John McCain, Rudy Giuliani, Mike Huckabee, or Mitt Romney. Those conservative individuals have been running full-speed for a year. In contrast, Fred has been meandering along, giving one pedestrian speech after another.
Good riddance, Fred.
Saturday, January 12, 2008
John McCain: Call Sarah Palin
I haven't written a lot in recent times about Alaska Gov. Sarah Heath Palin, but that doesn't mean I'm not thinking about her. Since she visits this site from time to time, I want to reassure her that I continue to support her for the vice-presidential nod on the Republican ticket. She's exactly the kind of young, dynamic, highly electable individual that the GOP desperately needs.
I've said before that Sarah reminds me of two Pennsylvania politicos: Diana Lynn Irey, who ran so heroically against John Murtha in 2006 and Melissa Hart, who lost her congressional narrowly in 2006 -- and is determined to regain it this year. I've contributed $200 to Melissa's campaign, and I intend to donate more. She and Diana are highly intelligent people who truly care about the people they represent, and we need individuals like them in high office. They're Christians not only in faith but also in actions. They love their neighbors. And I love them.
I feel the same way about Sarah. She didn't grow up with any silver spoons around. Her parents were teachers in Alaska, and they taught their daughter well. She's the most popular governor in the country, mainly because the Alaskan people can see that she truly cares about them and their future.
The Alaska Constitution, which Sarah reveres, says that the resources of the state exist for the benefit of the people, and she is perhaps the first governor there to take that fact into account.The oil services firms that historically have bribed (sometimes in the form of "contributions," sometime just handing over envelopes full of cash) know that Sarah is untouchable. She's not for sale.
I was one of the first people to join the "Draft Palin for VP" movement, one started by a 20-year-old political genius from Colorado, Adam Brickley. You can find him here. A staunch Sarah-supporter in Alaska is Trish Houser, who worked on Sarah's campaign for governor.
It now appears probable -- although by no means certain -- that the Republican nominee for President will be John McCain. I urge John to give serious consider to Sarah as his vice-presidential running mate. She's the kind of charismatic young person who would add real strength to the ticket. The mother of an American solider, the wife of a working man, Sarah is someone with whom the people of this country can identify.
McCain-Palin: it sounds like a winning combination to me!
I've said before that Sarah reminds me of two Pennsylvania politicos: Diana Lynn Irey, who ran so heroically against John Murtha in 2006 and Melissa Hart, who lost her congressional narrowly in 2006 -- and is determined to regain it this year. I've contributed $200 to Melissa's campaign, and I intend to donate more. She and Diana are highly intelligent people who truly care about the people they represent, and we need individuals like them in high office. They're Christians not only in faith but also in actions. They love their neighbors. And I love them.
I feel the same way about Sarah. She didn't grow up with any silver spoons around. Her parents were teachers in Alaska, and they taught their daughter well. She's the most popular governor in the country, mainly because the Alaskan people can see that she truly cares about them and their future.
The Alaska Constitution, which Sarah reveres, says that the resources of the state exist for the benefit of the people, and she is perhaps the first governor there to take that fact into account.The oil services firms that historically have bribed (sometimes in the form of "contributions," sometime just handing over envelopes full of cash) know that Sarah is untouchable. She's not for sale.
I was one of the first people to join the "Draft Palin for VP" movement, one started by a 20-year-old political genius from Colorado, Adam Brickley. You can find him here. A staunch Sarah-supporter in Alaska is Trish Houser, who worked on Sarah's campaign for governor.
It now appears probable -- although by no means certain -- that the Republican nominee for President will be John McCain. I urge John to give serious consider to Sarah as his vice-presidential running mate. She's the kind of charismatic young person who would add real strength to the ticket. The mother of an American solider, the wife of a working man, Sarah is someone with whom the people of this country can identify.
McCain-Palin: it sounds like a winning combination to me!
Friday, January 11, 2008
THE PRESIDENTIAL NOMINEES WILL BE . . .
This weekend I'll have a column on Saturday and one on Sunday. I'd love to hear from readers on their "guesses" -- and that's all they can be at this point -- on which candidates they (i.e., you) think the eventual nominees will be.
There don't appear to be any clear frontrunners right now. Super Tuesday (February 5) is looming as the definitive moment, but we may not know for certain even then who the winners will be. It could be that close a race.What are my guesses? So far, I'm said on different occasions that I believe the Democratic nominee will be Barack Obama (rather than Hillary Clinton), but I can't make that claim with certainty.
Unlike many of my fellow conservatives, I never understimate the political skills of anyone named "Clinton." On Eric Dondero's radio show the day before the New Hampshire primary, I said that Mrs. Clinton's "tearing-up" episode would help hur rather than hurt, and I turned out to be one of the few conservatives that got that right.
On the Republican side, I don't believe the nominee will be either Fred Thompson (the most disappointing of the candidates) or Mitt Romney. I started out many months ago by endorsing Rudy Giuliani, whom I still think would be a fine nominee. But for various reasons, I switched last week to John McCain. In other words, I've been all over the lot on my predictions.
What are your own thoughts?
If I had to bet the farm today, my guesses would be: Barack Obama and John McCain.
The following are my additional comments to "GenXDad" on his praise for Cindy's piece on McCain-haters and Reagan-haters being one and the same:
I give Cindy at The Pink Flamingo (http://thepinkflamingo.blogharbor.com/blog) a lot of credit for doing some great research on this subject. It's hard to remember, but Reagan got criticized all the time for being "too liberal," which was ridiculous. He did what he believed had to be done, including the grant of "amnesty" to many immigrants, mostly Mexicans. Reagan was not a militant pro-lifer, because he believed (correctly) it was impossible to pass any sort of constitutiononal amendment on the subject. Go to wikipedia and read about "The Human Life Amendment," and you'll see why he thought as he did. He ended up as one of the few truly GREAT Presidents. There have not been any perfect Presidents.
It's fine for people to disagree with John McCain on immigration, campaign reform, or other issues. But they have an obligation to show that they understand his arguments and then they have to duty to show why they disagree. Mere sloganeering is not enough by any means. An issue like immigration is really a tough one. How does one take a sound position without sounding anti-Mexican and thereby losing (forever) most of the critical Hispanic vote? McCain wrestles with such issues -- but most of his opponents have done little thinking on the subjects.
There don't appear to be any clear frontrunners right now. Super Tuesday (February 5) is looming as the definitive moment, but we may not know for certain even then who the winners will be. It could be that close a race.What are my guesses? So far, I'm said on different occasions that I believe the Democratic nominee will be Barack Obama (rather than Hillary Clinton), but I can't make that claim with certainty.
Unlike many of my fellow conservatives, I never understimate the political skills of anyone named "Clinton." On Eric Dondero's radio show the day before the New Hampshire primary, I said that Mrs. Clinton's "tearing-up" episode would help hur rather than hurt, and I turned out to be one of the few conservatives that got that right.
On the Republican side, I don't believe the nominee will be either Fred Thompson (the most disappointing of the candidates) or Mitt Romney. I started out many months ago by endorsing Rudy Giuliani, whom I still think would be a fine nominee. But for various reasons, I switched last week to John McCain. In other words, I've been all over the lot on my predictions.
What are your own thoughts?
If I had to bet the farm today, my guesses would be: Barack Obama and John McCain.
The following are my additional comments to "GenXDad" on his praise for Cindy's piece on McCain-haters and Reagan-haters being one and the same:
I give Cindy at The Pink Flamingo (http://thepinkflamingo.blogharbor.com/blog) a lot of credit for doing some great research on this subject. It's hard to remember, but Reagan got criticized all the time for being "too liberal," which was ridiculous. He did what he believed had to be done, including the grant of "amnesty" to many immigrants, mostly Mexicans. Reagan was not a militant pro-lifer, because he believed (correctly) it was impossible to pass any sort of constitutiononal amendment on the subject. Go to wikipedia and read about "The Human Life Amendment," and you'll see why he thought as he did. He ended up as one of the few truly GREAT Presidents. There have not been any perfect Presidents.
It's fine for people to disagree with John McCain on immigration, campaign reform, or other issues. But they have an obligation to show that they understand his arguments and then they have to duty to show why they disagree. Mere sloganeering is not enough by any means. An issue like immigration is really a tough one. How does one take a sound position without sounding anti-Mexican and thereby losing (forever) most of the critical Hispanic vote? McCain wrestles with such issues -- but most of his opponents have done little thinking on the subjects.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
