OnPrincipleBlog

Most of you reading this blog post will do so tomorrow morning via your various “feed” subscription services. Meaning, by the time you read this, the media will already be spinning their thoughts about tonight’s results.

Don’t be dazzled by all the rhetoric, reams of exit poll data, conflicting claims if victory and the sheer magnitude of election results. There are only a few states and a few points that matter:

Democrats:

The Democratic primaries and caucuses don’t use a winner takes all system. The methods by which they proportionally distribute delegates between candidates is unique to each state and beyond those of us who are not full-time professionals to understand. As a result, the news media will probably tend to focus on who won and who lost particular states, instead of detailing the quantity of delegates won by each candidates. Similarly, if the candidates count is close, keep searching until you find vote counts. In some states, equal quantities of delegates are awarded to candidates receiving 40% and 60% respectively. - yes, further complicating your lay analysis and further boggling the mind.

In summary:

1. Don’t fascinate over just about who won what states. Who got what quantity of delegates in each state? That’s what will determine the nomination.

2. If deleagate counts are close – then pay attention to actual vote totals in each state. Where does each candidate show strong support?

Republicans:

In the GOP race, only a few states really matter. Here they are:

Georgia:

Georgia is polling as a tight 3-way race. Why is Georgia important? What will it tell us?

1. Huckabee campaigned VERY hard here. In fact, Huckabee left Florida before the primary to hold rallys in GA when no one else was there. GA is a southern state in the Bible belt. It SHOULD be a win for Huckabee. Right now, he’s polling 3^rd. If he comes in 3^rd, it proves he just isn’t widely electable.

2. McCain just won the very public endorsement of GA’s Senators. GA is also a state heavily loaded with military populations. McCain hasn’t won a majority of Republicans in ANY state thus far, but he does very well in “open” primaries, where Independants can vote. GA is such a primary. With his endoresements, military support and Independent voters, McCain should win – he’s currently polling in first or tied for first (depending upon the poll). If he comes in 2^nd place, it will be a clear loss.

3. Romney has focused advertising dollars in GA, but hasn’t spent much time in the state. Although he has positioned himself as “the conservative choice”, conventional wisdom says Huckabee should take this portion of the vote. Half the GA population resides in the metro Atlanta area – which is booming economically. Thus, he doesn’t have a large pool of worried workers to leverage his business experience – as in Michigan. All told, Romney should come in 3^rd as he has been consistently polling VERY poorly in the South. His current polling is in 2^nd or tied for 1^st place. If Romney wins, it proves he is more widely electable than one may think. If he comes in 2^nd, it proves he can mobilize conservative voters after Super Tuesday should Huckabee then drop out – which is FAR from certain.

California:

I wanted to post thoughts on CA’s role in this race a few weeks back, but was not able to make time for it in light of my new business ventures. CA is of interest due to it’s HUGE delegate count AND due to it’s way of proportioning those delegates. Each congressional district will give 3 delegates to the popular vote winner.

1. McCain has gained endorsements from Rudy (who formerly polled well in CA) and the “Governator”. Simply put, he should win CA hands down. If he doesn’t it is a sign that he MUST turn toward the base (CA COP is educated and conservative) and assuage their concerns.

2. Romney won’t win many winner take all states – those are largely McCain’s to win (Mainly New England and AZ). Thus, while Romney polls closely to McCain in CA and can claim a moral victory, that won’t do much to increase his delegate count against McCain. I think Romney wisely invested in this state early. Look at the travel calendar posted on his website. He invested his time here just after his victory in the Ames Iowa straw poll. That early investment may produce his largest returns. . .

3. The story in CA will be the distribution of the popular vote vs. congressional districts. In terms of this analysis, think in terms of Gore’s popular vote victory of Bush in 2000 (no matter what you think of the outcome in FL) through huge concentrations of votes in urban areas and thus losing the Electoral College’s spread of votes across the heartland. I think CA could tell the same story. McCain may accumulate huge numbers popular votes in dense urban areas like LA and San Fran. Romney may well win smaller majorities in more Congressional districts. Thus, Romney could lose CA in terms of the Popular vote, but come out ahead by as many as 100 delegates in CA.

4. Also of interest to watch is the spin. CA results won’t be in by the time East Coast centered coverage closes down their telecasts. McCain will win more delegates earlier in the night. He will get the spin. If Romney wins the state in Popular vote or by a convincing Delegate lead (say 50 or more) then he may pick up spin the next day. If not, his surprisingly strong showing will likely be swept under the rug of the Clinton/Obama death match.

Massachusetts:

Conventional wisdom, polls and common sense all say that Romney should win convincingly here tonight.

1. McCain campaigned here over the weekend while Romney was pushing a sudden and impressive surge of support in CA. Tonight’s vote will show if McCain is crazy like a fox or just crazy like a man left marooned at see (think Tom Hanks and his buddy, “Wilson”).

2. If Romney doesn’t win convincingly here, it is hard to imagine a case for his continued support. This is his home state, he has mobilization networks and knows the politics. He was pretty popular as Governor and the primary is closed against Independents. If he loses, McCain is crazy like a prophet!

Arizona:

Much like I predicted CA would be a huge state in this race several weeks ago, I predict that AZ, starting Wednesday COULD change the dynamics in this race.

1. Simply put, many in the AZ GOP simply don’t like John McCain. They have lived with him as their Senator and he’s burned many bridges with much of the base. Just as he has “stuck his thumb” in the collective Conservative eye on some high profile issues in the past, I’m told that many GOP activists may take today/tonight to do the same back to McCain.

2. McCain boasted in the CNN/Politico debate held at the Reagan Presidential Library that he would not lose endorsement in his home state – unlike Romney in MA. That may be his set up. If McCain were to lose AZ, Romney will play that line against the vote total mercilessly. Plus, AZ is a winner takes all state with 53 delegates – a meaty sum.

3. I assume McCain will win AZ tonight, but if Romney comes in a close second, there is a real story to be told about McCain’s inability to please his base constituency – which will forecast real weakness in the General election.

4. There’s another items you analysts should look at: by what percentage spread does Romney win his home state vs. McCain win his? Since McCain campaigned in MA and Romney didn’t campaign in AZ, Romney should win by the lesser spread. If McCain is the one squeaking out a narrow victory – it should educate the Senator to change tactics and speak to the base.

On Principle,

CBass

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

Any reading of the “Entrance Polls” (**see below for definition) for the Iowa GOP Caucuses uncovers a glaring, blaring, disturbingly adolescent quality to the vote reminiscent of the vote for High School Homecoming Queen. No matter what you may think of Mike Huckabee, the insights these poll numbers provide into the GOP electorate of Iowa are down right frightening in an age of terror, balance of power on the Supreme Court and a teetering economy.

As can be seen from the chart above, courtesy of CNN, Huckabee was ushered into his commanding victory by folks who thought he spoke honestly and thinks like they do. In other words, they voted for the guy they like. Unfortunately, the numbers in the left-hand column demonstrate that 78% of the Iowa GOP caucus goers felt that liking the candidate was the most important qualification for being President.

Excuse me, but WHAT?!?!?!

This isn’t a vote for Miss Congeniality. This is the vote for the individual with the qualities necessary to protect the American populace, build coalitions of international allies, maintain vigorous economic growth, shrink government spending, move tough legislation through a hostile and gridlocked Congress and select Judges who will shape culture for the next 40 years - especially through an aging Supreme Court.

I’m not so Pollyannaish as to believe that likability isn’t an important factor in a presidential race. It absolutely is. We have to live with the face and droning speeches in our living rooms, from whomever is elected, for the next 4 - 8 years. But, here’s what I find interesting in the poll numbers:

1. GOP Caucus goers didn’t think that Romney, McCain, Thompson or Giuliani were unlikeable to the point of not being electable. In fact, these Caucus goers all found these candidates to be more electable than Huckabee - so it is not a matter of these candidates having high likability negatives (like Hillary). It is simply that they found Mike Huckabee to be the coolest guy at the party.

2. Disturbingly, 78% of the Iowa GOP voters stated that being cool was the “TOP QUALITY”, in other words the most important quality, in selecting a candidate for the Office of President of the United States. This is a fine quality in voting for Homecoming Queen, but the simplicity of “coolness” has always bothered me even in votes as unimportant as “Student Body President” (which I won, so don’t read into this).

3. What is perhaps more shocking is that Huckabee outperforms the other candidates in the two likability categories, but he doesn’t run away with either of these categories. On the other hand, Romney and McCain are 25% points ahead of ALL other candidates in terms of Experience. Romney alone is 35% points ahead of ALL other candidates in terms of Electability.

Translation: Huck doesn’t stand a chance of winning an election against Obama or Clinton, but he’s a little bit cooler than everyone else.

Answer: Fine. Let’s elect him as Homecoming Queen, but not as our nominee for President of the United States, Commander in Chief and Leader of a Super Power in an age of global, violent Jihad.

On Principle, Who knows, maybe Mike looks good in a dress - we’ve all seen how Rudy sports one!

CBass

**

Entrance polls are a survey of selected voters taken soon before they enter their voting place. Pollsters use this sample information, collected from a small percentage of voters, to track and project how all voters or a specific segments of the voters sided on a particular race or ballot measure. Because of the nature of the Iowa caucuses, these polls are conducted as voters enter a caucus venue and are known as entrance polls. For more on how to read entrance or exit polls, click here

I wrote in my post on Iowa predictions that “I look forward to seeing how my prognostications stand up to the harsh glare of reality.”

The base assumption stated in my prediction was that Mitt’s ability to mobilize voters through organization would roughly equate to Huck’s ability to mobilize supporters via zeal. I stand by my analysis if this assumption had held.

But we now know that Huck’s ability to mobilize zeal in Iowa simply blew away everything else.

Huck deserves congratulations and credit for understanding the mood of Iowa, rallying zealous converts, standing firm through multi-front assaults, and for winning a commanding victory.

I’ll write more later on my analysis of this vote and my thoughts on Huckabee’s continued electability.

On Principle,

CBass

I’ve been busy with multiple clients and holiday travels, but you’ll start to see my posts returning with regularity forthwith.

Because it is what “pundits” do, I feel I must place a prediction for the GOP Iowa caucuses prior to the announcement of winners and losers. So, here I go:

Romney will win. But not for the reason most people cite.

Romney’s campaign structure in Iowa is organized, professional, high tech and efficient. This was proven and tested in August for the Straw Poll and has had 5 months and millions of dollars to further gel. No other candidate on the GOP side has as organized a structure to identify and “turn out” voters to the Caucuses. Yet, I don’t think Romney will win because of this “get out the vote” effort. He would lose without it, but he won’t win just because of it.

While Romney yields the best organization, Huckabee has zeal on the side of his converts. An organized campaign structure alone does not motivate someone to participate in a Caucus - and football - on a cold January night in Iowa. Caucuses are great for the zealous because it requires their engagement. Caucuses are terrible for the majority of voters as it negates the relative ease and anonymity of the polling booth. While Romney can identify and mobilize caucus goers, his issues don’t stir zeal. Huckabee, for all his weaknesses on foreign policy, stands on the “side of the angels” on many social issues. His backers are likely to be more zealous, and being church goers, more accustomed to community discussion.

Lacking any sort of actual quantitative data on this side of the vote, I will lazily predict that these two dynamics (Romney’s organization and Huckabee’s zealous supporters) will cancel each other out.

Why Will Romney Win?

Romney will win because of another aspect of his organization.

1. Romney supports tend to be more politically experienced and are being professionally educated on HOW to caucus. Caucusing is not a sport for the novice or weak willed. It is a sport which can be dominated by the well trained.

Thus:

2. In a caucus environment, the trained supporters of Romney will know how to persuade and will have command of “talking points” at their finger tips. By nature and experience, they will be seeking to dissuade Huckabee supporters from their often unfounded zeal. This won’t work for all (in fact it will offend many Huckabee diehards), but it will work on some. By stark contract, I don’t think Huck supporters will voters leaning toward Romney. Romney supporters aren’t such due to zeal. They have reached this decisions through some form of decisive judgment. Thus, in a close election, Romney stands to gain some support from the Huckabee camp - and that could make ALL the difference.

And:

3. What few “undecided voters” turn out in the winter cold (and who deny themselves Orange Bowl viewing) are waiting to be swayed by the caucus discussion. This is intrinsic to their nature as being “undecided” voters. In this context, experienced or trained operators will probably carry more weight of influence than the merely zealous - notice, undecided voters haven’t yet caught onto the Huckabee band wagon, so a bit of zeal probably won’t be enough to do so. But voters well trained, educated and informed by Romney’s campaign will likely carry more weight.

And:

4. The GOP caucuses in Iowa feature a single vote, so there is less dealing for “secondary” support as in the Democratic caucuses. However, it is possible that some supporters of “lower tier” candidates (Thompson, McCain, Paul, Hunter) may opt to vote for one of the two candidates battling it out for 1st place. If so, Thompson, Hunter and McCain supporters are VERY unlikely to vote for Huckabee due to his widely published animus toward the Bush Administration’s foreign policy. This leave Huck only a few Ron Paul supporters - another VERY zealous group. They are unlickly to vote for anyone, but if they do, they will likely vote for Huck BECAUSE of his animus toward Bush’s foreign policy. The bleeding of support from these other candidates won’t be much, but bleeding from 3 candidates (for Romney) is better than bleeding from 1 (for Huckabee). In a close race, this slight swing in support may make all the difference.

Close elections are like golf, slight swings in votes - due to a slightly more masterful execution of strategy - can make the entire difference. It normally isn’t due to one candidate being LEAGUES better than another.

I must caveat with all the rest of the political community that no one can predict Iowa tonight. But since the only fun is in trying, I look forward to seeing how my prognostications stand up to the harsh glare of reality.

On Principle,

CBass

One of the defining decisions of the first Bush term was the President’s Executive Order ending the Federal funding of Stem Cell research. This executive decision provides a perfect highlight of Principle #1: People Are the Prime Movers.

Stem Cell research has been and will probably continue to be the new lightening rod of Pro-Life / Pro-Choice debate. The President’s decisive action established a clear line of leadership on this issue. Despite the false hopes, exaggerated claims and shoddy science, this one man - in the right position at the right time - stemmed a tide that may have led to countless thousands of destroyed embryos and a larger desensitizing ripple through human society.

Low and behold, during the intervening years since that decision, the smart money has invested in extracting stem cells from adults - negating the need to destroy embryos. In one recent study, scientists discovered that male testes are a veritable farmyard of stem cells. Apparently, the female ovaries look to provide a similarly fertile field (pun intended).

Adult stem cells taken from testicles could be a source for everything from blood vessels and heart tissue to new brain cells, report Howard Hughes Medical Institute researchers.

Unsurprisingly, the combination (stem cells + testes!) caught the attention of journalists. Australia’s ABC News did a nice job of pointing out that the findings, made in mice, have a long way to go before helping people, and that women’s ovaries might provide equally adaptable adult stem cells. Scientific American noted that similar findings were made earlier in the year, so at least this isn’t a one-off.

The BBC hinted that men would be reluctant because extracting the cells would be “very painful,” but didn’t say how it’s done; apparently it’s like getting a biopsy, which I’d imagine is rather less painful than, say, heart disease or dementia. The New York Post covered it briefly — mostly, I suspect, to let their headline writers have some fun. (The result: “New Ballgame for Stem Cells”.)

On Principle,
CBass

Many thanks to Stephanie (Taffy) Johnson and the Pima County Republican Women’s Club for hosting me as the main speaker at their meeting on 11/18. This is an excited, motivated, positive and effective club of activists.

I spoke on the reasons I am optimistic over the GOP’s chances in 2008. What follows is a short handout I left with the club which somewhat covers many of the topics we discussed.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.

Factors For:

1. The Democratic Line-up: The GOP’s greatest strength in the general election will be the Democratic opposition. No matter whom the Dem’s select, they will be no match in terms of experience for the Republican selection.

Key: To leverage this advantage, the GOP MUST clearly and consistently ask for and demand the qualifications of the Dem nominee.

2. The Republican Line-up: By any standard, the Republican field is impressive. Especially when compared to the utter lack of experience of the Democratic field. The Republicans all have high Executive or Legislative experience and none of them carry any baggage from the current Administration.

Key: To leverage this advantage, the GOP MUST clearly and consistently contrast themselves with both the Dem nominee and the current administration.

3. Mobilizing a Wider Base: In a tight election cycle, there are two keys to winning: 1) Draw in moderate centrist voters and 2) mobilize the base. Two of the GOP front runners (Mitt Romney and Giuliani) are very well positioned to draw in moderates. Fred Thompson is riding a wave of Base excitement and has high name recognition among moderates. When compared to the likely Dem nominee (Hillary), all 3 should be able to excite the base and capitalize on the displeasure of moderates with the Dem congress.

Key: To leverage this advantage, the nominee must remind the base of the critical issues at stake this year and must positively motivate moderates – especially past Republicans.

4. It’s the Economy: By all measures, this economy is fantastic. It is hitting some hiccups now, but some action from the current Administration and the Fed will likely keep it on the growth track. Even moderate growth over the next 12 months will result in a reduced deficit, high wages, an enlarged GDP, record highs in stocks, historic lows in unemployment and interest rates and a stabilized housing sector. Additionally, tax cuts are set to expire in 2010 – making for an easy and precise measure of EXACLY how much a Dem President and Congress will cost voters.

Key: To leverage this advantage, the facts must be told in terms of timeless conservative principles, not a continuation of Bush policies.

5. The War on Terrorism: It’s hard to say which direction this war will go, but Iraq is clearly on the right military track and we know the Surge will be drawing down next Spring. Thus, the GOP candidate can probably point to some positive signs in Iraq, praise the draw down in troops and constantly focus on the real threats of China, Russia, Iran, Syria, North Korea, Pakistan, etc. If the electorate sees some success in Iraq and understands the threat from other quarters, the GOP should do well.

Key: To leverage this advantage, the GOP must call Americans to set priorities without playing the “fear” card.

Factors Against:

1. Immigration Reform: Security mustbe first, but terms must be tight. If the GOP uses blanket terms (Immigrant, Hispanics, Illegals, etc), they will be quickly painted as racist. A party can’t win elections without votes from voters. Hispanics are a growing voting bloc. To electability influence the GOP must get wise in terms, policies and coalition building with Hispanics.

2. Ethic Scandals: Real and perceived moral fecklessness shipwrecked the GOP in 2006. Value votes won’t stand for it in 2008 either. Real failings must be disciplined. Perceived ethical lapses must be challenged.

3. Housing, Stock and Oil Turmoil: The economy is a great campaign platform for the GOP, but a still stagnant housing market, stock slumps and increasingly high oil prices, could rot this support. There is no magical inoculation against market volatility. The GOP must figure out how to trumpet financial conservatism without hanging its hat on every micro-indicator.

4. Health Care: The Dems will march with full force to the tune of Universal Healthcare. While the left-leaning media trumpets along with the handpicked results of selective polling. The facts and history are on the side of conservative principles, but this will be an uphill fight the entire way.

5. GOP Civil War: A debate between wings of the GOP is healthy and appropriate for the Primary process. But the wings must decide to unite behind the eventual nominee if the candidate has any chance at success.

Irresponsible Editorials

From Fox News. I leave this to stand on its own merits. . .

Good News Is No news

When the government announced last week that the federal budget deficit had fallen to its lowest level in five years — it was big news. But apparently not big enough to make a big splash in The New York Times or Washington Post. The New York Times ran a wire story in the back of the “A” section Friday. The Post put a wire story on its Web site Thursday afternoon and nothing in the paper.

But in an editorial Friday — The New York Times wrote the concept that lower tax rates generate more tax revenues is “nonsense.” “That theory has been tested and failed, leading to enormous deficits during the administrations of Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush.”

But in both those administrations, tax revenues grew after tax rates were cut. Indeed, in fiscal year 2007 tax revenues grew 6.7 percent — to a record of more than $2.5 trillion — and the deficit has declined each of the past three years.

Emphasis mine

On Principle,

CBass