Wednesday, January 9, 2008

Quick Post-New Hampshire Thoughts

Just a quick post without even an external editor. My predictions for Iowa were pretty accurate, with Huckabee doing even better than I had hoped: I predicted 30% and he got 34%. Ron Paul also got 10% when I had predicted 8%. Especially in the case of Paul, I had predicted that he would exceed his polling, based on the entirely on the uncommon intensity among his supporters. As it happened, Huckabee also drew new voters to the caucuses. He wasn't the overwhelming favorite of the seasoned political observers.

For the same considerations of intensity, I predicted that Paul would reach the low teens and Huckabee 15 to 18 percent in New Hampshire, and he pulled 11: still third. There was much talk over the last month of a possible surprise showing by Paul. And, I predicted that evangelicals (20% or less of the NH Republican electorate) and Fair Taxers would show up in above average numbers.

So, what happened? Well, they did say that the turnout was large. Maybe the media clamor over the Cain-Romney match drew a crowd that overwhelmed what otherwise would have been larger percentages for Huckabee and Paul.

Anyway, if New Hampshire wasn't dictated to bu Iowa, I doubt South Carolina will be dictated to by New Hampshire. In the last Gallup national poll, Huckabee lead Giuliani 25% to 20%, with McCain a little behind Giuliani. If McCain got a bump, OK. But, Giuliani sure didn't: he was behind Huckabee and closer to Paul. Huckabee lead in South Carolina lat week, by DOUBLE DIGITS! He's lead or been a close second to Giuliani in the last few Florida polls.

Between now and those primaries, here is Michigan: which most people see as a must-win for the dogged and moneyed Romney, who grew up there and his father was governor.. He might be a sure favorite in a one-on-one match-up. But against McCain AND Huckabee, who both have natural constituencies, it doesn't loo, pollk quite so promising. And Huckabee and McCain can take any result in Michigan. Romney probably can't. He's lost where he spent ten million dollars in marketing and in his next-door state where he has a summer home. If he can't win in his childhod home where his father was governor, where will he win: not in SC and Florida, where he's just pulled his ads. He has to plan for February 5th and hope spending another 25 million will have a different result" Good luck, but most of us hate to watch those millions flushed that we could put to good use.

4 comments:

Stephen R. Maloney said...

Mike Devine, who posts under the name "Gamecock" sent me an article that's critical of Mike Huckabee, John McCain, Rudy Giuliani, and just about everybody other than Fred Thompson. It centers on the SC primary, and you can see it by clicking on: http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp?Page=/Politics/archive/200801/POL20080109d.html

I think all the criticisms, including those of Mike, are somewhere between petty and totally unfair. For Huck fans, the accusations are mostly "inside baseball" stuff about the conservative wing of the So. Baptist Church and the VERY conservative wing. I like Mike Devine (Gamecock) a lot, but his support of Thompson, like the Fred Campaign itself, is embarrassing. "Yes, we have no bananas," when bananas is an analogue to perfect candidates. I criticize Mike Huckabee myself, but anyone with sense will see that he, like some other candidates, is a good one and a man with some remarkable political achievements. As for John McCain, he is a "maverick," that is, someone who thinks for himself -- wow, how exotic. He has been pro-life and pro-military for his entire life. He is a Christian, which is a term that does not and should not have a narrow meaning. He has tackled issues where others have relied on pandering. In many ways, he's a lot like Mike Huckabee, although without the Southern accent. My point is that we need to recognize that candidates who disagree with us on one or more issues are not therefore beyond the pale. Heck, in my case, I'm not always right. May the best man win.

Larry said...

"May the best man win." I'll certainly go along with that!

As for the rest of the comment...Steve...is that you? If "Steve Maloney" has actually represented one man, it seems to have been one with multiple personalities.

I'm just messing with you. Welcome back to the domain of reasonable fairness and comity. Many still think that Giuliani wil rise from the dead in the end, which I grant is possible, especially if no one has significant momentum by Feb. 5th.

But 1) e still won't be without competition. I have no confidence in McCain's thinking, but I would be whooping that he must defeat Giuliani if McCain were still standing, for the sake of The Republican Party. And 2) I'm still certain that Giuliani would be a sure defeat in the general election.

Except for social conservatives, no party would overtly offend a core constituency: even a small one of ten percent of the population. But, the notoriously "stupid" Republican Party establishmemt will fly directly into the face of THE LARGEST IDENTIFIABLE CONSTITUENCY IN THE COUNTRY, in either party.

They will DO this because, now over a dozen years into the Internet age, the old dog has not learned new tricks. They are stil tuned to the "mainstream media" as a tuning fork for striking a "moderate" pitch. If Democrats did this, would they favor gay marriage, for example, which even "liberal" states have uniform;y rejected at the ballot box. Of course they wouldn't: they are loyal to one of their constituencies that holds together their coalition.

But the Republicans?: stupid. Having watched these people support the party through over 30 years despite little progress in the culture in their terms, they now are so bold as to put forward the equivalent of a racist in the Democratic Party. Why"" a "mainstream media" mondset. "Mainstream" only describes a pop-culture establishment: not at all a reflection of the public. It isn't a reflection OF, but a projection ON the population.

By the way, the link was expired. But obviously, a Thompson supporter is going to focus on South Carolina. If he wins, he breathes another day. If he doesn't, it's over. There will have been no rise and fall of Fred Thompson. Any "rise" would have been all before his announcement, after which has been all fall.

Stephen R. Maloney said...

Your readers might enjoy SJ Reidhead's (http://thepinkflamingo.blogharbor.com/blog) piece on the piling on that occurs whenever anyone wins a primary. She points out that the same thing occurred with Ronald Reagan, with some of the same suspects doing the piling on. Here's an excerpt (I reprinted the piece):

THE TRUTH HURTS!
This harping back and forth, declaring John McCain and Mike Huckabee impure, is nothing new for conservatives. I know it appears as though they are looking for something special, a 2nd coming of Reagan, but the problem was, when they had Reagan, they wanted to get rid of him. The problem is the fact that the same people absolutely detested Reagan when he was POTUS, but are now lying about it. I was going to wax poetic about the way the usual sources of Limbaugh, Malkin, Ingraham, Hewett, Hannity, etc. were slamming McCain, Huckabee, and to a lesser extent Giuliani, but then I realized they are doing nothing new. When Reagan was President, the same hard line mindset hated him. He wasn’t conservative enough for them, pure enough for them, and pandering enough for them. A few of the names have changed, but the vitriol remains the same. Only now, these people have turned a great man into a false god, creating a cult around him, one where they can sacrifice any one who doesn’t live up to their tainted and fantastical idea of what Ronald Reagan was.

And so, our dear media darling multi-millionaire conservative talk show far out conservatives with their endearing little PMS (President McCain Syndrome) are getting their silk undies in a wad over the prospect of a McCain Presidency.

Larry said...

Well, as I'm about to post, I have problems with McCain, too. But, dishonesty isn't one of them. Talk-show host Hugh Hewitt for example, has been slandering McCain just like he did.has Huckabee. As you should have seen, my question is, if the charges about Huckabee are untrue, what is the real motivation? And, I have offered possible answers.