OnPrincipleBlog

Well, it’s Super Tuesday and after repeated requests, here’s my VERY SHORT run down on the Republican candidates.

Huckabee:
Summary:
Contrary to some responses to my article comparing Huckabee to a High School Homecoming Queen, I actually quite like Huckabee. In fact, I lament the fact that I could not, in good conscience, cast my vote for him in this election season. I hope he stays on the political stage and grows a bit into the holistic package I demand in the person receiving my vote for the Presidency or as a Presidential nominee.

Pro’s:

1. Huckabee is an unabashed, consistent and determined pro-life candidate. There is really no other issue I consider to serve as quite such an integral nexus of moral and political worlds.
2. He was a successful Governor, reelected two times, in a Democratic state and winning 40% of black voters. This is the sort of record we need more leaders to strive for in the GOP.
3. He is obviously incredibly well spoken. Since Reagan, Republicans have evidenced a peculiar ineptitude at explaining the principles informing their positions. Polls repeatedly demonstrate that most American’s are inclined toward the central pillars of conservative thought (smaller, less intrusive government, lower taxes, individual achievement, family values, military strength, and favoring life). If we could have a few politicians use the bully pulpit of the Presidency to communicate past media distortions, perhaps more American’s would realize that these are not the central themes of the Democratic party.

Con’s:

1. Huckabee is a novice (at best) and dangerous (at worst) in terms of foreign policy. In a highly publicized speech and in an article for Foreign Affairs magazine, Huckabee stated that “all our troubles” with Iran started with Bush’s Axis of Evil speech. Never mind the taking of American hostages from our Embassy. Who cares about those Marines blown up by Iranian agents in Beirut? Hezbollah? No, their now an Iranian front group occupying Lebanon and fomenting civil war for decades. I guess those weren’t really Iranian munitions and gun boats arming the 2 Palestinian intifada’s – against even UN mandates? He also compared our issues with Iran to be similarly handled to relational disagreements one may have with a friend of family member. This comparison only works if your estranged relationship is with a murderous, nuclear armed, religious Zealot who has repeatedly pursued genocide. What is concerning is that Huckabeereally believes this rhetoric and is completely naïve and ill equipped to be Commander in Chief or he doesn’t really believe this anti-Bush charge and is willing to sacrifice American resolve in an age of nuclear terror for the sake of his own campaign. You decide. Neither is exactly inspiring of confidence.
2. Ok, maybe he isn’t a policy wonk on Iran, but surely he would listen to his advisers on these matters if he were elected President. One would certainly hope this to be the case. Yet, early evidence confronts these honest hopes. One need look no further than the Foreign Affairs article written above. Such articles are not dictated off the cuff late one night on the campaign bus. These sorts of major policy pronouncements get vetted through selected advisors. So, yes, Huckabee probably did work with advisors, but not any I want in the White House. Huckabee once mentioned several conservatives as being his advisors on international affairs. Unfortunately, they publicly stated their amazement at this pronouncement – none claiming to have met or corresponded with Huckabee more than one. Once of the aforementioned “advisors” is Michael Ledeen – a widely acknowledged expert on Iran. He stated he has specifically met with Huckabee and strongly explained why dealing with Iran is different, on a life and death level, than a Pastor might counsel an troubled couple. Huckabee chose to not follow advisors of this sort and opted for dangerous, irresponsible and uninformed rhetoric.
3. But is Life is your most important issue, shouldn’t you vote of Huckabee? The answer would be, “yes”, if the only other choice was to vote for candidates favoring abortion. Both McCain and Romney have actual records of standing for pro-life positions and legislation. I do think Huckabee is more principled and solid on pro-life issues, but it’s not as though he’s the only pro-lifer in the race. I see being pro-life as more than anti-abortion. If you can’t clearly stand against theocratic extremist, nuclear armed, consistently active terrorists – then I question your stance for protecting American life.

McCain:
Summary:
Conservative talk radio is all abuzz about McCain’s lack of conservative credentials. My guess is that McCain is a clear favorite for the nomination as of this writing. I have some differences of opinions on specific McCain issues with these radio talkers, but won’t write about those until after tonight’s vote. In the end, my summary of McCain is this. He is clearly erratic in terms of issues importance to the party’s base. Yet, he has a lifetime rating of being a consistently conservative legislator on issues of importance and a brand that may actually attract independent voters.

Pro’s:

1. McCain is obviously very clear on issues of national defense and pro-life issues. McCain, unfortunately did vote to fund embryonic stem cell research. Recent science, however, has nearly rendered this issue moot. Leading scientists, including the one who successfully cloned Dolly the sheep, have stated that recent successes in converting adult skin cells into multi-potent stem cells is cheaper than cloning embryonic stem cells and shows more promise as it limits the carcinogenic and rejection issues inherent in introducing cloned embryonic stem cells into adult hosts.
2. McCain has attracted a top-flight team of advisors on the economy (Jack Kemp, Phil Graham, and Steve Forbes) and on nominating conservative judges (Ted Olson). Say what one likes about McCain’s “dangerous” positions on Imigration, Campaign Finance Reform and Global Warming, but on key issues of government spending, taxation, the Supreme Court and national defense, McCain is strong.
3. The very thing that ticks off most Conservatives about McCain – his gruff demeanor and willingness to “buck” the system – is what makes him attractive to independents. He is the only candidates from either party who can convincingly run on his government experience AND still claim to carry the mantel of change.

Con’s:

1. McCain’s Achilles Heel this same personal demeanor that makes him attractive. The Dem’s will poke and poke and poke at him. They will use every trick in the book. They will make themselves look small, negative and unattractive. All for one purpose – to send McCain into a red-faced rage in front of the cameras. At that point, all punditry becomes focused on the topic of whether America wants an emotionally uncontrolled curmudgeon at the helm of our nuclear arsenal and interfacing and responsible for building international coalitions.
2. If Obama is the Dem nominee, the race may be a repeat of sweaty Nixon debating young, vibrant Kenedy. Further, in such a match-up, both men are poised to gain independent voters. But only Obama also electrifies and mobilizes his base. I seriously doubt McCain bashers will refuse to support or vote for him, but they are less likely to make phone calls, host house meetings, go door-to-door, bus folks to the polls and do all the other things only a committed base will do to win an election.

Romney:
Summary:
Conservatives are seemingly rallying to Romney in great numbers. Today will tell the tale. I think Romney has a real story to tell in terms of his experience and if the economy remains a strong issue in the general election, I think Romney stands a strong chance of doing well. At present, I doubt he can win the GOP nomination, but I do think a strong showing for him today and his continued presence in the race does great things to frame debate within the party and hopefully may cause McCain to take steps further toward the base. (Well, a boy has got to have hope!).

Pro’s:

1. Experience. Romney just oozes credibility in terms of Executive decision making.
2. While many conservatives are dubious of Romney’s “conviction” on issues such as pro-life, gun control, and homosexual marriage, I don’t quite understand the concern. Yes, Romney certainly does seem, on some issue, to be more fluid than one may like. But in terms of the issues listed above, Romney actually governed, unambiguously as a conservative. He tells a compelling and detailed story as to his conversion – exactly what most conservatives claim to want from people. Instead, he’s greeted as a flip-flopped. Only, form my perspective he has never flipped and then flopped. He’s only shown a progression in one direction.
3. Money. Non-one knows how much he has, but it is estimated to be in the Billions. Even McCain’s campaign finance reform can’t stop Romney from spending his own money on his own candidacy. The playing field has changed and Dem’s now raise alarmingly more money than do Republicans. Romney’s wealth will assist in leveling this field until we can get our fundraising gears re-aligned to the new world.

Con’s:

1. Romney’s experience in the business world, while being his strongest suite, is also one of his two greatest weaknesses. The Dem nominee will paint Romney as a mean spirited despoiler of lower and middle class American jobs through downsizing, outsourcing and off-shoring of jobs. If convincingly questioned, Romney will have a hard time making his necessary managerial steps as sounding sufficiently attractive.
2. Romney’s second greatest weakness is his unfortunate lack of ability to motivate anyone. He is eminently competent, but he isn’t exciting. Obama’s excitement is likely to obviate Romney’s competence.

On Principle,
CBass

In keeping with this fascinating Primary marathon, there are some interesting currents blowing across South Caroline which threaten to disrupt the neatly predictable primary trade winds of surfed by the Established media. These winds steadily blow from Iowa to New Hampshire and then down to South Carolina before sweeping the nation with news of an ordained front runner.

Not so this year. And especially not so in South Carolina today. Consider:

Snow in the Upstate

All avid followers of politics know the importance that weather plays in turning out voters. On a good day, voters participate in Primaries in much lower numbers than they do in general election contests. Those who do vote enact this right of citizenship due to some strongly felt conviction about the system, a candidate or an issue.

Snow is not unheard of in Upstate SC, where I went to college, but three inches on the ground and icing up the many bridges is a definite hindrance to the less than zealous. It will be interesting to see how this affects Huckabee’s run. While polling well around the entire state, his base of support is indeed in this growing evangelical expanse. As we saw in Iowa, Huck’s supporters tend more toward the side of zeal. This is good for Huck and should dampen down the negative affect of the weather on him. Verse other candidates in this region, he should fair better. But verse the rest of the state where the weather is merely annoying rain (McCain’s stronghold), not deadly ice, Huck risks the loss of critical numbers in this tied for first race.

My guess. My sad, dejected and weeping guess is that the weather, on total, will help McCain. But there is hope . .

Shifting Support: Thompson or Romney Surprise?

SC may just upset the GOP apple cart in a fashion similar to Hillary’s amazing upset over Obama in New Hampshire. There, the girl wonder somehow wooed record numbers of voters. In SC, the voters are proving to be reluctant dates. Scott Rasmussen - widely regarded to be the most accurate political pollster in the business - reports:

Perhaps the most significant finding of the survey was that, as of Wednesday night, 41% of voters indicated that they might change their mind. That includes 7% who have not decided on anyone, 10% who said there’s a good chance they could change their mind, and another 24% who said they could change their mind. Such uncertainty just three days before an election is extraordinary.

What could these numbers mean:

1. First, keeping with the law of motivation, I suspect the weather will dampen these numbers. If so, perhaps only half of these undecided voters (20% of the statewide turnout) will vote in today’s weather - even though these were all “likely voters”.

2. Second, if they break in a distribution mirroring the current polling - and considering the likely lower turnout for Huck in the Upstate - McCain stands to inch ahead quite convincingly.

• Currently Polling: McCain and Huckabee around 25% / Romney and Thompson around 18%.

• Undecided Voters: 20% of turnout = McCain and Huckabee +5% each / Romney and Thompson +3% each.

• Considering Weather: Inclement weather skews this distribution a bit more toward McCain and:
• McCain +5% (30% total) / Huckabee +2-3% (27-28%) / Romney and Thompson +2 - 3% (around 20%)

3. Third, Thompson has been gaining in the polls consistently for the last 1 - 2 weeks. As such, it is possible, just possible, Thompson could be in the running for 1st or 2nd place suddenly:

• Undecided Voters: 20% turnout due to inclement weather =
• McCain +3 (28%) / Huckabee +2 (27%) / Romney +3 (21%) / Thompson +12 (28%) - an amazingly tight race with McCain.

4. Fourth, McCain, Huckabee and Thompson have all been campaigning hard in SC for weeks. If 41% of likely voters (assuming 20% of actual turnout) still aren’t decided, only a small number are likely to break for them now. Keeping the above numbers, but skewing for Romney and the other candidates and assuming a small “surge” for Romney from Michigan and his recent campaign adds we may see something like:

• McCain +2 (27%) / Huckabee +2 (27%) / Thompson +4 (20%) / Romney +10 (28%) / Others +2 - a close Romney win or convincing 2nd.

Nevada News - Romney’s Ace?

The weather may have brought one more wild card into the race, a card which may just be Romney’s “Trump” card.

Folks are more likely to stay home today. When folks stay home, they watch TV. Romney’s win in NV was called 6 -7 hours before polls closed in SC. This win will get at least some airtime during those 6 - 7 hours.

Some of those undecided voters - or even week supporters for other candidates - may have been influenced by news of Romney’s 3rd state win, his 2 “silver medals” and his commanding lead in the Delegate count.

Frankly, I think this is a VERY, VERY long shot.

I think things look good for McCain today. But, if this NV win factors in on top of the shifting support out outlined above, it could break just enough for Romney or Thompson to squeak out a 2nd place finish. Either way, Romney’s win certainly helps insulate him from losing the expectations game out of SC.

On Principle,

CBass

Yes, really! I contend that Primaries have been vastly under reported. Consider. . .

It is still amazing to me that in a world of 24hr news cycles, 7 days a week, on multiple channels; with 25 million viewers of the 3 legacy news casts; along with declining but still pervasive newspaper distributions, supplemented further by the websites, blogs, RSS feeds, news aggregators and email distributions of “new media” - that the same stories get repeated, ad nauseum (heard enough of Britney and Jamie-Lynne Spears?), while information of real importance is seeming lost in the sea of pabulum.

In this environment, news casters, supposed journalists, pundits and other members of the “chattering class” glom onto the most easily digestible news sound bites. This coalescence forms an informational black hole conveniently known as, “Conventional wisdom”. Important information must fight against the pervasive pull of this media monolith.

Submitted for your approval:

Debate Audience:
Conventional wisdom, repeated nearly nightly for the last year has well anchored an assumed distaste into the collective American mind against the “too-long” primary process. Yet, with a little digging from a obscure tool called “Google”, one can find out all sorts of interesting information whereby to gauge voter distaste for the “too long” primary campaign.

Early Debates generated 2 million viewers each. This is about what Fox News, the leading cable channel by nearly all measures, generates nightly for “Special Report” with Brit Hume.

The most recent debates hosted by ABC and Fox News attracted: 16.7million and 2.6 million viewers respectively. When rebroadcast on CNN, the ABC debates captured 2.4million viewers.

That’s 16.7million on a Saturday night (for Democrat and Republican debates) and 5million on Sunday night for just the Republicans (since Dems are still lurking in the shadows from arch-conservative, Chris Wallace.

Let’s add a bit of perspective to this. The Allstate BCS National Championship Bowl Game generated an audience of 16.2million.

Audience of Primary Debates = National Championship in College Football.

Somehow I’m just not convinced the American electorate is backing down from the responsibility to seriously vet candidates for Commander in Chief.

Wyoming:
Conventional wisdom, myopically obsesses over the entrenched, exalted importance of Iowa and New Hampshire in rocketing candidates into the stratosphere of popularity and inevitable party Nomination. Yet, the citizens of Wyoming dared to hold their GOP caucuses dangerously early. In fact, they had the audacity to actually hold their votes PRIOR to New Hampshire.

Wyoming Republicans voted overwhelmingly for Mitt Romney. How much media time was invested in covering this clear and sizable win? Absent conservative bloggers, this was the victory heard around the Romney home and that’s about as far as it reverberated.

Interestingly, Wyoming could have sourced some interesting facts for further analysis of the Primary process. For instance:

Wyoming’s electorate is 62% Republican. Provides a very different electorate for analysis of the GOP field from the electorates of Iowa (30%) and New Hampshire (30%).

How did voters from this Republican electorate express themselves?
67% Romney, 25% Thompson and 8% Hunter.

Some alternative analysis I would expect to have heard - but didn’t:

1. Mitt Romney: Wins a convincing Majority of the vote 67% - even with a packed field of 6 candidates. This is HUGE in Presidential Primaries, but I heard hardly a peep.
2. Fred Thompson: When being evaluated by a deeply Red electorate, Thompson takes a solid 2nd place.
3. Mike Huckabee: Despite the promised Iowa surge (just 2 days prior), Mike Huckabee’s zeal for political converts doesn’t touch the more secular Republicans of WY.
4. McCain and Giuliani: Both presumed at some time by conventional wisdom to be GOP front-runners, both fail to even register on the vote board in a solid conservative state.

Delegate Counts:
Conventional wisdom equates 2nd place in the early primaries with a loss - unless, of course, one was polling in 4th place or worse. Finish early primaries in a disappointing 2nd or 3rd place and the despairing candidate must withdraw from the race or face certain humiliation and presumed personal ruin (queue music from a Lifetime movie and pass a Kleenex). Missing from this analysis, however, is the fact that party nominees will be selected by delegates won, not states won. In many cases, the two are partially mutually exclusive and delegates votes trump state ballots every day.

Granted, the occult workings of Party delegate rules defy explanation within a 1-minute news segment, but let’s face it, the general concept of a delegate vote rather than a winner takes all system, even without the wonkish nuances, could make for understandable broadcast journalism. I dare propose that our highly literate populace could grasp the general concept. Yet, conventional wisdom continues to harp incessantly about the important of “winning” Iowa and New Hampshire - not the importance of building a coalition of delegates.

Would it be nice to win states? Absolutely! But just look at most other democracies in the world? They all deal with Parliamentary systems where no candidates or parties win a decisive majority. Do they curl up in the corner and lament their loss? No. They build a coalition through the power bestowed upon through their PLURALITY of the vote.

The GOP field officially has 5 assumed “First-Tier” candidates. The notion of particular candidates having to win all early states is moot. In this crowded field, candidates must win enough to keep excitement among supporters and, in a larger context, attract enough votes (2nd and 3rd place finishes) to coble together a decisive coalition of GOP Delegates.

This is how the entire world does elections. Seriously. I dare think that at least one of our media mega-houses could figure out a graphic, jingle and banner scroll to get this point across.

I recently proposed, half jokingly, to a politically savvy friend that purhaps someone like Romney could come in 2nd in more states than he does 1st and yet build the largest coalition of delegates. The folks RedState have done the hard math.

What’s key here is that in terms of the Delegate count, there’s good reason to forecast a Romney victory and a convincing path for the other 4 front-runners. It turns out this is the simple wisdom of Karl Rove as well:

At the end of Super Tuesday, it won’t be just who won the most states, but who has the most delegates.

Absentee Balloting:
Conventional wisdom, in an incredibly tight and turbulent race, explores how the results from one race will affect the next race - one successive race at a time. Missing from this elementary perspective, is the fact that early balloting has begun in states which may vote much later. Absentee ballots in Florida, for instance, equate the totality of voters in Iowa caucuses.

The fact that absentee balloting often predates prior primaries is “pert near” completely missing from most news coverage. This is why possessing an organization and funding prior to the Iowa caucuses was so important this year. Romney’s organization has been mobilizing absentee voting in New Hampshire and Michigan since December. Giuliani has been pursuing absentee, pre-balloting in Florida for all of January. The preferences of these early voters is captured around dynamics when these candidates were ahead in the polls.

How often have you witnessed this fact being clearly explained and intelligently pursued in primary news coverage?

To put the importance of absentee voting in Florida into perspective, consider that the more than 325,000 Democrats and Republicans who have requested ballots comes close to the number of Iowa voters last week who — with hundreds of media outlets recording their every move — trooped to schools, libraries and churches to support their favorite candidates.

Conventional Wisdom is a gapping maw form which little light emerges. I hope these thoughts help shine a bit light into the Twilight Zone of established media.

On Principle,
CBass