Western Standard

The Shotgun Blog

« Over/Under-reported 2007 | Main | John Edwards' Love Child? »

Wednesday, December 19, 2007

The State of Play (Part Two)

This continues to be the closest and most interesting Presidential race in living memory.

What's the state of play today?  Well, looking at the reports, we see the following trends.

1) Huckabee's Support is Peaking.

Rasmussen has him in the lead nationally - at 22%.  These numbers are likely to be reflected elsewhere.  This may well place him in first, nationally, but it doesn't seem likely that he's going to pick up much more support beyond that.  Indeed, most reports show his negatives going up.

Huckabee is a charming guy and a brilliant campaigner - but, the more Republicans learn about his economic and foreign policies, the less traction he's going to get.  I just don't see a path for Huckabee to win the nomination.

2) Mitt Romney is in Trouble.

Romney's path to the nomination depended heavily upon the well-trod path of previous years.  Win Iowa, win New Hampshire, and then take the nomination from there.  But, as of today, he's behind in Iowa and bleeding in New Hampshire.  Romney's biggest problem is that his appeal, really, is as a choice acceptable to pretty much all factions in the Republican Party without any real downside and with a clear path to the nomination, but...

3) John McCain Has a Clear Path to the Nomination:

It would seem that John McCain is pretty much everyone's second or third choice - and perhaps more (in the interest of full disclosure, as my Facebook friends already know, I've endorsed McCain).  With Rasmussen showing him - without organization or ads - in a strong third in Iowa, that path is becoming all-the-more-clear.

McCain overperforms in Iowa, while Huckabee wins.  McCain wins New Hampshire.  That knocks Romney out of the race.  Thompson drops and endorses McCain.  That leaves, heading into February 5th, McCain, Huckabee, and Giuliani still standing - of those three, there's only one who doesn't threaten to tear the GOP coalition apart.

4) Giuliani is in Trouble:

As Rich Lowry said the other day - he needs a miracle.  In retrospect, the problem of the Giuliani candidacy is that it asks too much of supporters - it asks that not only they have faith that a social liberal can win the GOP nomination, but that they sit and wait for a month while that same liberal loses primaries, keeping faith that they'll win the big Republican primaries.

Indeed, that's not even all that solid an arguement.  How liberal is the GOP Primary electorate in, say, California?  After all, they prefered Bill Simon to Dick Riordan for Governor in 2002.

5) Hillary Clinton's Chances are Fading:

The problem may well be that, in all reality, the Clintons haven't had to face a tough campaign since 1992.  After all - with Dole in 1996, the Republicans pretty much gave the election away.  The media has been absolutely on their side throughout the years.  All she's faced since then are two Senate races - in New York - one of which was a gimmie anyways.

The problem with Clinton is, as I've said before, that for all of the money and organization and marketing - in the end, the Dogs just don't like the food.  People don't like her - and they don't want her to be Presdent.  Further, it seems that the inner circle of Clinton advisors is as thoroughly dysfunctional as the Clinton marriage.

6) Obama is George McGovern:

Let's get real, folks - the American people aren't going to elect a black ultra-liberal named Barak Hussein Obama as the President of the United States.  This is a truth so obvious that it will seem self-evident even to the left, in retrospect.  Indeed, for many liberals it's probably a secret source of psychological comfort - when they lose, they can blame it on racism rather than liberalism.

Obama is a candidate without experience.  He has an ultra-liberal record.  He has an interesting past - including his youthful Islamic education and possible faith - which will be fully explored during a general election campaign.  He won't win - and I'm sure that the Democratic brass knows it.  But, as in 1972, they might be forced into a disasterous choice by the unhinged faithful.

Posted by Adam T. Yoshida on December 19, 2007 in International Politics | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b5d69e200e54faaf0078833

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference The State of Play (Part Two):

Comments

"I've endorsed McCain"

Adam, "endorsing" a candidate is what people who actually have some measure of influence do. The term also typically implies some direct knowledge of the candidate, thus being in a position to make a judgement that the general public cannot. Other people merely "support" a candidate. People who merely support a candidate but claim to endorse them look like egotistical fools. You wouldn't want that, would you?

"Let's get real, folks - the American people aren't going to elect a black ultra-liberal named Barak Hussein Obama as the President of the United States. This is a truth so obvious that it will seem self-evident even to the left, in retrospect. Indeed, for many liberals it's probably a secret source of psychological comfort - when they lose, they can blame it on racism rather than liberalism."

If his liberalism is enough on its own to guarantee he won't win, why do you mention his blackness and his name? The only reason to mention them is if you actually think those also will be factors in his inability to win. And if that is the case, then those who would blame his loss on racism would be right.

Posted by: Fact Check | 2007-12-19 2:38:29 PM


Fact Check -

I'm glad you clarified Obama's defect being his ultra Liberalism.

Whereas, if Thomas Sowell, the conservative commentator ran, I think he would be elected with 110% of the vote (I would vote at least four times, once as Conrad, then again as Jose, then Hose-B, then Hose-C).

Posted by: Conrad-USA | 2007-12-19 3:45:54 PM



The comments to this entry are closed.