The Candidates
Featured Archives
As a McCainiac unless and until Rudy is able to rise from the dead, I am encouraged by the Arizonan’s healthy lead in South Carolina and consistent lead in Florida despite Romney’s win in the Wolverine State. The Palmetto State is set to vote in less than three days, and the anti-McCain vote is split three ways, meaning that the senator will probably take the state. That will give McCain the momentum to expand his lead in Florida and win there too, jumping way ahead in the delegate count. McCain now leads nationally — the RCP national average pegs him at 30 percent of the GOP vote — and that’s likely the percentage he’ll receive in states like New York and California if he goes into Super Tuesday with momentum. In fact, McCain will probably win a series of plurality victories on February 5th, nearly running the table with the “McCain 30,” and amassing a significant delegate lead.
But I can’t shake the feeling that McCain’s lead may be a Potemkin one. If McCain wins South Carolina on Saturday, he could be in store for a very good couple of weeks followed by a very bad month or two. A triumphant McCain on Super Tuesday could see his luck change on February 6th. That’s the day that Thompson and Huckabee, after dividing the culturally southern vote into irrelevance and sending most of the Southern Super Tuesday states McCain’s way, run out of money and drop out of the race. That’s also the day that Rudy, bested by McCain in Florida, Illinois, and possibly even New York, also goes back into private life. And at that point, the race consists of two entities: John McCain and Mitt Romney’s checkbook.
McCain’s problem is that while 30 percent of the vote can quite handily win the gold in a five-man race, it’s not enough to triumph in a two-man race. But most of the time, plurality victories are still victories, and a series of them will make losers out of the rest of the field, and losers don’t get the big donors or free media. But none of that applies to a candidate who can self-finance, as can Romney. I’ve spent the past eight days wondering why Mitt Romney is spending his kids’ inheritance on a fool’s errand. I now realize that spending your way to a two-man race with John McCain among Republicans may not be so foolish, at least not in today’s Republican Party. Especially supportive of this theory is the breakdown of Michigan’s results. Pat Ruffini has the goods:
Other highlights of Romney’s impressive, broad-based win:
* Romney won conservatives 41-23%, with 20% for Huckabee.
* Romney won Republicans 41-27%.
* Romney won Evangelicals 34-29% for Huckabee. McCain took just 23%.
* Romney won with those satisfied with President Bush 45-24%…
…* McCain won Democrats 41-33%.
* McCain won pro-choice voters 39-35%.
* He won among those who never attend church by 11 points – 39-28.
* The “architect of the surge” won with Iraq war disapprovers 36-29.
…In Michigan, Romney’s vote pattern closely matched that of President Bush throughout the 2000 primary season.
And therein lies McCain’s problem. Just as Huckabee is flailing because he was unable to expand his base beyond evangelicals, McCain will soon hit a ceiling if he is unable to expand his base beyond some combination of secular Republicans, culturally blue Republicans, and moderate Republicans. Now, don’t get me wrong. I’m a secular Republican. I’m a culturally blue Republican. And one of the reasons that I like McCain is that he seems to be an individual who is more fact-based and less faith-based. But just as Huck can’t win if his support starts and ends with evangelicals, McCain can’t win if his support doesn’t at some point reach into the realm of red Republicans.
And that’s why I fear that Michigan, which, as a big, diverse, purple state is a good test-case for this sort of thing, may be a primer of things to come if Romney gets enough “silvers” on February 5th so that it’s not mathematically implausible for Mitt to garner a majority of delegates down the road. In Michigan, the GOP race was essentially a two-man gig. Everybody else pretty much pulled out of the state, and everyone sort of knew that the winner of Michigan would either be McCain, as the guy who won last time, or Romney, as the son of the former governor. Considering that voters were voting strategically for either McCain or Romney, viewing a vote for anyone else (except maybe Huckabee) as a wasted vote, it’s telling that McCain wasn’t able to break 30 percent among either conservatives or Republicans, while Romney broke 40 percent among both. That seems to suggest that in a McCain/Romney race, Romney, not McCain, gets those Thompson and Giuliani voters who are left without a candidate.
The path for Romney, then, involves winning enough delegates to mathematically stay in the game through February 5th, and then going one-on-one with McCain in post-Super Tuesday states like Virginia and Maryland. If, as Michigan suggests, Romney gets to 50 percent first in a race with only McCain among Republicans and conservatives, Mitt could begin to very aggressively amass delegates, the icing on the cake being the original Super Tuesday in March, where red states like Texas will weigh in. If McCain can’t expand beyond the McCain 30, we could be talking about the Romney 70 sometime in early March.
Again, a lot of this depends on how things shake out on Super Tuesday. Rudy could win New York, New Jersey, and enough California districts to make a comeback, preventing a two-man race between McCain and Romney. Huck could sweep the South and find new life breathed into his campaign as well. McCain’s third of Republicans could deliver all of the big blue states and place McCain so close to the nomination that even Romney would see no reason to continue to press on. And who knows, perhaps McCain would best Romney, even in a two-man race. But the big danger for McCain is a win on Super Tuesday just big enough to dry up the fundraising of Rudy, Huck, and Fred, but just small enough to convince Mitt to write another check. If past is prelude, Michigan is an enormous red flag.
January 16th, 2008 at 11:56 pm
Just curious, DaveG, from your first paragraph: You mention McCain’s lead “despite Romney’s win in the Wolverine State.” Have there been any polls out since Michigan proving that to be true? Just wondering since I haven’t seen any.
January 16th, 2008 at 11:58 pm
The problem, of course, is that Romney is a general election loser. He always has been and would be a 40-state-loser for Republicans. Not only would he lose every blue state by 10-20 points, lose Ohio and Iowa by 10 points, he would have a hard time holding onto many of the red states too. Just today a poll showed him losing by THIRTY to Obama. THIRTY. Just embarassing.
Romney has no natural electoral base and is not a national candidate like McCain or Rudy, which can make up for that.
Those folks supporting Romney over Fred are making a huge blunder. Romney would get destroyed in a general election.
If you want a conservative who can win in November — you have one choice — Fred Thompson. If you want an easy win, go with McCain.
January 16th, 2008 at 11:58 pm
He’s not spending his kid’s inheritance. Mitt’s got an estimated 350mil or something BEFORE the 200mil he’s set aside for his kid’s and grandkids.
January 17th, 2008 at 12:00 am
The one thing you arent mentioning is that if it does come down to Mitt vs Jmac, McCain will have Huck, Rudy and Fred all pushing for him as well…which may expand his base.
January 17th, 2008 at 12:04 am
MikeKS. . . Since Romney has never competed in a general election, it’s tough for me to buy your argument that “he always has been” a general election loser. If your basing that on national polls, well all I can say is you’re using highly flawed logic, which I’ve explained in other posts many times. As for your main point, I think you missed what DaveG was saying. Romney’s ability isn’t that he has no national base, it’s that he seems to be the only one who can and has expanded his base into non-McCain opposition. McCain has yet to expand beyond moderate, secular Republicans, and Thompson hasn’t done well anywhere yet.
January 17th, 2008 at 12:05 am
DaveG,
Perhaps you should word that first paragraph a little better so it can reflect reality. No polls have come out measuring the MI win in the south so that first sentence is just a bit misleading.
The bulk of your analysis seems reasonable although Romney would probably still win if it were a McCain, Giuliani, and Romney matchup.
January 17th, 2008 at 12:06 am
#4. . . Based on what? Huck, maybe, but why do you say Rudy and Fred supporters would automatically switch to McCain? They didn’t in Michigan, as DaveG points out.
January 17th, 2008 at 12:06 am
#4. . . In fact, even evangelicals went for Romney in Michigan.
January 17th, 2008 at 12:07 am
i dont think the money mitt spends in this race will affect his or his kid’s lifestyle. it seems to be slur around this site “mitt is blowing his kids inheritance on this race” Mitt and his kids will still have hundreds of millions after this race. Plus, he clearly doesn’t care to be a billionaire, or he would have kept the Bain money, instead of spreading it around to his employees. His kids are all hard workers too, and have their own careers. one is in med school at harvard with my brother.
January 17th, 2008 at 12:07 am
DaveG,
I don’t know how you can say Mitt is spending his kids inheritance when he hasn’t even touched half the interest he will earn this year on his investments. Seems like you are more interested in spinning that one.
January 17th, 2008 at 12:08 am
Good analysis. I think that you pegged it in terms of what may happen post Super-Tuesday. McCain may win just enough to whittle this down to a 2 man race. That is where Romney’s ability to self-finance is a king-maker for Romney.
January 17th, 2008 at 12:08 am
I understand that Mitt didn’t receive any of his dad’s money. Has anyone ever read anything on Mitt’s ideas about giving his sons inheritance?
January 17th, 2008 at 12:09 am
#12 – Mitt has already set up a trust fund in the amount of $100 million for his kids and grandkids.
January 17th, 2008 at 12:10 am
#12 – That is above and beyond the $200 million that he is worth personally.
January 17th, 2008 at 12:10 am
#13 man i wish i had someone do that for me
January 17th, 2008 at 12:16 am
#15 – I know. Even at a modest 5% interest on that money, that trust fund earns approximately $5 million per year. That would provide $1 million per year for life for each of his 5 sons, without even touching the initial principal. That is why I laugh at all the “spending his kids inheritance money talk on this site.
On that note, people freak out about how much he has spent on the campaign, let’s look at how much of his own money he really has spent. Let’s say he has spent $40 million of his own money. If he is worth $200 million, and that money is earning a modest 8% (which is a VERY conservative estimate), he earned $16 million in interest last year. So reports of his spending $40 million are not really indicative of how much of his principal he spent. Probably only spent about $20-$25 million. (Jeesh, and I say ONLY)
The guy could spen another $100 million, and would be just fine.
January 17th, 2008 at 12:22 am
One could say that Romney becoming president will do more for his kids and the rest of America’s children that any inheritance. In fact, I assume that’s exactly what Romney is thinking during this whole process, and it would be selfish, in his eyes, of him not to pursue this. Finally, why is it wrong to spend your own hard-earned money on yourself or a worthy cause rather than sock it away for your kids to spend? I don’t get the reasoning.
January 17th, 2008 at 12:23 am
Mitt ran the olympics as a volunteer. He also took no salary as Gov. of Mass. He stated that IF he took the salary as POTUS he would donate it to charity. Mitt doesn’t need the job of President we need him.
January 17th, 2008 at 12:26 am
Lots of good points here. Recent events have made me consider some of these things as well. I think we should to be somewhat concerned that this could start happening before February 5th or, at least, on February 5th, if for no other reason than the sheer amount of money and organization that Romney has. McCain will have to find a way to organize effectively in all these states.
A few other factors. Turnout. I think the low turnout really hurt McCain. That’s not just because fewer independents were voting. Fewer republicans voting seemed to hurt him, too. In a situation of low turnout, the more organized candidate would presumably have the advantage. Also, certain people among the talk radio/blogging world seemed to have declared war against McCain. Huckabee, too, to a lesser degree. To what extent people will follow the advice of these people may influence the race as well.
One more factor. John McCain is a daring campaigner. He goes to Michigan and tells a hurting state that some of their jobs are not coming back. Now, this is true, but it isn’t what people want to hear. John McCain’s hope, I think, is in people wanting to get something real more than they want something easy, and being willing to judge that for themselves what that is – not letting the power brokers define it for them. It also probably hinges on them willing to accept a few differences if it means getting a quality candidate you can trust. And of course electability helps, too. I am a religious, culturally red republican who formerly supported Sam Brownback. And one reason I cannot support Mitt is that I quite simply don’t believe what he says. But voters will have to have a way to evaluate candidates on that level. The number of states competing on Feb. 5th will make it difficult.
January 17th, 2008 at 12:31 am
Good article DaveG! I still haven’t seen any polls post Romney. Hopefully Thursday we will. I appreciate your objectivity as well.
January 17th, 2008 at 12:31 am
#19. . . Just curious, with the exception of abortion (where he eventually came over to our side), what is it that he has said or done that makes you not believe Romney? And what is it about McCain that made you switch to him after Brownback, when they are so different from each other with respect to social conservatism?
January 17th, 2008 at 12:39 am
One on one Romney would beat McCain in a post 2/5 world due to $$$ and all the “conservative opinion makers” going to work against McCain. It’s hard to win the Repub nom on global warming and amnesty.
January 17th, 2008 at 12:48 am
#21 – The trust issue is not always rational like that. The huge comment section on the Wayne Dumond thing today shows that. I plain don’t trust mike huckabee, and i dont believe a word he says about DuMond. i trust mitt to do the things he says he does, based on what I’ve seen him do. I’m afraid to say it, but I agree with Obama on one thing. Judgement is the most important thing in this race. Although I think mitt has a tendency to pander, or over emphasize things, I trust his judgement. I dont trust huckabees judgement, evident in all the pardons he ordered. i dont trust the judgement of mccain (or anyone else who voted for the iraq war) because i believe they voted for the war without having any measure of success, and fully understanding the consequences. I trust rudy’s judgement, and freds, so that is why they are my 2nd and 3rd choice.
January 17th, 2008 at 12:48 am
One should not forget that combining money with the managerial smarts of running an effective campaign and it magnifies. He lost Iowa and NH due to the wave of evangelicals in Iowa and the President of New Hampshire in New Hampshire, but his base continues to grow. Ground game does make a difference. His base is expanding and money cannot do that alone. I have been impressed by the amount of people stepping forward for him and the sheer numbers of voters for Mitt so far.
January 17th, 2008 at 12:52 am
I just think McCain cannot compete well for republican voters. People try to say he is the front runner, but I’ve seen this story before with McCain. He got leveled handily in Michigan by Romney among the republican voters. His reaching out to indies and dems at the expense of the core of the GOP is a terrible strategy. It might be all he has, but a house divided will not stand in the process. I mean, the polls are meaningless these days – they swithc so much. McCain had a double digit lead in Michigan one week ago, and he lost by 9%+ last night. When voters get doen to it and start to actually look at the candidates, they are seeing that McCain is not a real republican. I really do not think he is anything more than just name recognition. As soon as voters see anything better, they jump on board. That’s McCain’s past, present and future. Please tell me where I’m wrong.
January 17th, 2008 at 12:54 am
DaveG,
While, for arguments sake, I will allow that Huck Rudy and Fred will all endorse McCain should they drop out (I don’t believe that, but we’ll let that go for now), many of their supporters will not just blindly follow instructions. Most supporters aren’t as rabid as the sort of folks who post here and, while many of us wouldn’t switch to certain other candidates the same can’t be said of the general populace. Fred’s followers, for example, would generally feel much more closely aligned to Romney than any of the others. Other comparisons hold true as well.
McCain has two problems. I’ll take them in reverse order. If he were to become the nominee, in order to be elected he would have to appeal to the Indies and Dems that have, for years, migrated to the Democratic candidate. In order to appeal to them, he would have to become more liberal than he is already. However, if voters are going to vote for a liberal, they’ll have a more genuine one in the Democratic candidate. So, McCain has a problem winning the General. The first problem he has is to become the Republican nominee. As he has shown in two separate campaigns, the only way he can win a primary is to attract crossover votes. That boat sailed with Michigan. He has yet to win anything (outside AZ) where he has to appeal solely to Republicans. He has thumbed his nose too many times at the party. Elephants never forget, or so the children’s stories go.
January 17th, 2008 at 12:59 am
I don’t discount McCain’s ability to attract Indies and Dems to our side. It’s an important and significant benefit to any GOP candidate. My problem is that too often that seems to be the only reason in McCain’s favor. If that was just one characteristic I’d be on board for the long haul. But his negatives – McCain Feingold and amnesty in particular, are so opposite of GOP principles that they outweigh the electability factor for many Republicans. If he was bringing Indies and Dems to our side while remaining true to the conservative base (like Reagan did) that would be wonderful. But he seems to be attracting them simply by moving away from the base and closer to their side. That’s what distances him from me.
January 17th, 2008 at 1:09 am
Yet now the Republican field is exactly where Rudy’s people believed (hoped, prayed) it would be at this point: in utter disarray. If he wins in Florida, where he’s essentially been living, basking in the warm sunshine and building up his firewall, while his rivals have frozen their asses off in Iowa and New Hampshire, he will be in the catbird seat. Indeed, you could even argue that, despite having won nothing thus far, Giuliani is now the GOP front-runner again, albeit by default. Bizarre? Incomprehensible? Perverse? No doubt. But what better words to describe the man himself and the party he seeks to lead? —John Heilemann
http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2008/01/heilemann_on_michigans_republi.html
January 17th, 2008 at 1:11 am
DaveG,
I was under the impression that many of the Feb 5 states are winner take all. If so, Mitt’s silvers would be meaningless in many places. As for McCain, I believe your assumptions are true, but a few wins could change that. South Carolina and Florida should go a long ways towards telling us the Feb 5 outcome.
January 17th, 2008 at 1:13 am
Tom:
Giuliani will not win Florida. He has been camped there and cannot seprate himself from the crowd. The other candidates have 10 days to go nuts down there. The polls do not even factor in his 3% finish in Michigan. Wait until he gets killed in SC and Nevada. He is already faltering, and it’s going to get uglier. I oike him better than Huckabee and McCain, but, frankly, he needed a win before Florida.
January 17th, 2008 at 1:18 am
#28 Tom: Yes, I think the lack of a front-runner does play into Rudy’s longtime strategy. However, I don’t think that he was anticipating coming in behind Ron Paul in most the early states and falling so far behind in the national polls…
January 17th, 2008 at 1:22 am
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rSrBrefcrUY
January 17th, 2008 at 1:26 am
Greg: I live down in Flordia & Floridians have been voting here since this past Monday on top of already sending in numerous absentee ballots. Florida is a unique place at this juncture of the campaign because it is comprised of many different groups: many New Yorkers and those from the surrounding NE who overwhelmingly support Rudy – these Flordians live all along the east coast of FL including some in Tampa, Naples & Orlando; we also have many Floridians from Illinois located along the west coast of FL who support Rudy; we have a military and or former military presence in Northern FL who support Rudy & last but not least a very large Cuban Republican presence in Southern FL who overwhelmingly support Rudy. I am very optimistic about FL going to Rudy & we all know Yogi – http://www.yogiberra.com/yogi-isms.html
January 17th, 2008 at 1:38 am
There is ample evidence that McCain peaked before Michigan voted.
I expect McCain’s vote in SC on Saturday to be lower than polls are showing.
January 17th, 2008 at 1:39 am
Tom, I certainly admire your support, but I think the polls tell a story. Rudy dropped from 25% to 18% and is in a four-way race with guys who have not yet campaigned there. Rudy’s campaign money problems are surfacing, and the Bernie Kerik trial starts soon. If Rudy wins, I’ll be the first to say I was worng. I just see things going against him right now.
January 17th, 2008 at 1:40 am
econ grad stud, I actually agre with you on this one. The more that the economy becomes an important issue, the more it hurts McCain. The worsening economy, combined with the imrovements in Iraq, are hurting McCain’s platform.
January 17th, 2008 at 1:50 am
Greg there’s also an element that the more voters see McCain the more his age and temperament hurt him.
McCain has simply lost a lot of his personal appeal since 2000.
January 17th, 2008 at 1:50 am
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080117/pl_nm/usa_politics_poll_dc
New Zogby poll, only movement for Thompson (Up 2). Buzz on the ground is that a backlash is brewing over Trusthuck 1 million phone calls.
January 17th, 2008 at 2:00 am
Here’s another nail in the coffin for “Romney is spending his kid’s inheritence”: Despite the post-NH comments, if Romney eventually loses, he isn’t dead. He can head back into business and make another couple hundred million before retiring.
DaveG could be a very interesting commentator if he could get over his ridiculous anti-Romney bias.
January 17th, 2008 at 2:00 am
#26 Well, Maybe McCain would have to tack more liberal to get that vote. But I’m honestly not convinced of that. He almost seems to operate in his own universe on this point. Independents and liberals care a lot about process stuff and they have a sort of respect for how McCain operates (which may not help him against Obama, but against Clinton it might) How to explain McCain winning the anti-Iraq war vote in MI. It makes no sense, and yet it happens. Also, I’m not convinced that he would change his principles. Does he ever, really? He hasn’t done it in the primaries, despite his campaign being almost destroyed because of it.
#21 No, not just abortion. I could understand that, if it weren’t for all the other changes of position…I tried to give him the benefit of the doubt, but after a point, it just became too much. Really, there are too many issues to list. Taxes, immigration, gay rights, gun rights, etc, etc, etc. If nothing else, his nomination would be an absolute field day for the dems. Even the reinventions of last few weeks. It’s just hard to trust someone if you think he is just saying what the people he is campaigning to at the time want to hear.
McCain has a solid pro-life record. And he supports traditional marriage and other socially conservative causes. Now, he is not the leader on these issues like Senator Brownback was. Am I closer to Sen. Brownback’s positions on socially conservative issues? Yes, of course, he was a perfect match as a candidate. And am I closer to Huckabee on those issues? Yes, almost definitely. But, considering the other very important issues – national security, integrity, responsible governance, experience, I think McCain is the best overall choice.
January 17th, 2008 at 2:09 am
I think Huckabee will take South Carolina, though FDT is making it interesting. I think Huckabee is organizing the evangelical vote like he did in Iowa, and it will be difficult to predict just how big the turnout will be.
January 17th, 2008 at 2:18 am
Greg: Important things to take account of so far:
1. Huck sought out and received the support of the Evangicals within Iowa;
2. McCain sought out and received the support of liberals within New Hamp;
3. Romney sought out to obtain support from Michigan voters in promising to bring jobs back to Detroit:
Rudy has not sought out the support from the above & has sought out the support of Floridians. State voters are responding to the candidates who are actively campaigning within those respected states and FL will respond to Rudy in a positive fashion as a result of his very active campaign within the state.
January 17th, 2008 at 2:22 am
Btw, Zogby’s 3-day tracking poll (which now includes today, i.e. 1 day post Michigan) shows essentially no change in South Carolina. Obviously one can’t conclude there will be no effect from MI, but it’s a good sign for McCain fans like myself.
Link: http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1424
Also, any bounce Romney would have gotten from MI, will probably be eliminated by
1. his aides saying he can’t win
2. him campaigning in Nevada for 2 days
It’ll be interesting to see if Romney’s support shifts to Fred/Huck. Could be that Romney is planning to downplay SC as a way of gently pushing his supporters to Huck or Fred so that McCain is derailed.
January 17th, 2008 at 2:31 am
Rofl on the last point. I otherwise wouldn’t understand spending two days in NV – but if your last point is correct, that would mean pretty much every candidate has strategically undermined every other in a similar manner at some point so far.
January 17th, 2008 at 4:57 am
“Could be that Romney is planning to downplay SC as a way of gently pushing his supporters to Huck or Fred so that McCain is derailed.”
If he is then he is being foolish. Media is going to play up SC as a “First in the South” contest. Also, he’s being too subtle. He’s advertising. He’s going to have a showing – a least in the teens once the polls close. So it’s only going to cement him as not being able to connect in the South.
January 17th, 2008 at 8:13 am
Mitt’s Nevada strategy is risky, but wise. It is better to have a win in one rather than a 2nd in two states. It is a tough call, but I think Mitt made the right one. I blogged about it today, here is the link: http://mydryfly.wordpress.com/2008/01/17/nevada-v-south-carolina-a-gutsy-strategy/
January 17th, 2008 at 8:35 am
#45, ajay,
You know, it’s a funny thing. Y’all have hammered on we Rombots for 6 months now about the expectations game. Now, when we play it the way y’all said we should be, you jump on us. You really can’t have it both ways.
January 17th, 2008 at 8:49 am
That’s funny. I was always more impressed with how Mitt and the Romboosters have played the expectations game than anything else in his long list of accomplishments.
January 17th, 2008 at 9:12 am
The only way Mitt’s Nevada strategy could backfire would be if he lost Nevada. I don’t see that happening, and am glad that Mitt is working hard to seal the deal there. The Las Vegas Review Journal’s editorial endorsing Mitt is well worth the read, BTW. When Mitt was asked why he was campaigning in Nevada instead of South Carolina, he responded by saying that Nevada has more delegates than South Carolina. What a concept!! Mitt’s ability to ferret out little details like that is the reason so many of us support him. He always determines the rules of the game before he starts playing.
January 17th, 2008 at 10:07 am
Diane,
“He goes to Michigan and tells a hurting state that some of their jobs are not coming back. Now, this is true, but it isn’t what people want to hear.”
I don’t buy this at all. What keeps America competitive in manufacturing sector the world? Is it a big supply of cheap labor, like China has? Certainly not. It is just what Mitt has been saying from the very start of the campaign: technology. We are doing “something right” in that we are advancing our technology faster than any other country and that is the only thing keeping our manufacturing sector even alive. Mitt understands this, that we can’t compete on labor alone, but with technology and innovation we can compete and keep great jobs here. It may even ultimately create better jobs.
Take for example battery technology. Companies in America (and around Detroit) are working on new battery technology that could fuel a new wave of hybrid vehicles and electric-only vehicles. If we could double current battery capacity, we could certainly make cars today that are completely electric that could effectively compete with gasoline engines. That kind of advantage would give Detroit car manufacturers a new boost.
McCain doesn’t seem to know that much about the economy. Who are you going to trust when it comes to the economy? A man who has spent his career saving companies (and thus saving jobs) or one that has worked writing bills and compromising for years without any real executive contribution to the real-world economy? Clearly, Mitt is lots more credible on this issue. And I don’t buy that these jobs are “gone”. With a renewed effort as a nation, we can remain competitive, and it’s going to take someone like Mitt Romney who understands what business needs to do it.
January 17th, 2008 at 10:11 am
I don’t understand about everyone harping on Mitt’s personal money in the race. Have you forgotten that not including his personal money he has practically raised more money than any other Republican candidate? That means individuals out there have believed in Mitt enough to give him A LOT more money than other candidates. And to add to that that he has his own money.
I think it would be a totally different story if he was completely self-funding like others in past races have tried.
January 17th, 2008 at 11:29 am
DaveG,
I am as big a Rudy supporter as you are, for the exact same reasons you have articulated in the past. Which leaves me wondering: McCain is your second choice? Even among such a problematic field of Republicans, I can’t see throwing my support behind him at this point, even though you may think he is the most electable of the bunch. (Though I’m not sure I would even concede that.)
Consider:
*His strong suit, the war, is not so strong except for his Iraq War early call; his general support and vision for the GWOT is no different than Rudy, Rommey, or Thompson. He wants to close Guantanamo; he wants waterboarding to be a no-go, in all circusmtances; he is against wire-tapping and is for an expansive FISA role. He uses a quasi-chickenhawk-cum-populist line of argument by saying he has “served for patriotism, not profit” — a bit of demagoguery that is mildly nauseating.
*He picks fights with the base on nearly every other issue, included immigration, judges, taxes, etc. He is domgatic, he is obstinate, he is arrogant, he is holier-than-thou. He constantly spouts about how he needs to brush up on his econ — after 24+ years in the Senate and over 70 years old!!! He likes the adulation of the liberal MSM.
*He is wrong on judges. I’m no socon, but SCOTUS conservatives are very very important for the country regardless, as I know you agree. McCain professes pro-life values (and probably has them), but is exactly the kind of Senator (as we have seen during G of 14) who is easily cowed by liberal and Dem dogma about judges and has demonstrated that he lacks the understanding or effort to “get” what judges are about. If you actually believe what you say about Giuliani appointing legally conservatives judges, and if that really is important to you, I don’t see how McCain is acceptable.
*He is wrong on the economy. Giuliani gets the economy. We know he does b/c he has shown it in N.York and by what he has been saying for the last year plus on the campaign trail. Your second choice is one of our weakest (aside from Huck) on the economy, while your first is one of our strongest. Maybe economic issues aren’t your bread and butter issues, I guess.
*Giuliani gets the war; McCain gets it, but feels the need to be accepted by the media, plus all the other views of his illustrated above that seriously undermine his judgment on the foreign policy. Aside from the war, McCain seriously seems to lack the depth of understanding of the global stage to run foreign policy in general. Giuliani clearly has a deep, firm grasp of all foreign policy issues, including but not limited to national security. Maybe McCain is not the anti-Giuliani on this one, but he sure is mushy.
I’ll vote for him if he is the nominee, while holding my nose tightly, but I really hope he is not and am clueless as to how he could be your second choice right now, when Fred or Romney are available. Electability is very important, but not at ALL costs — McCain, except for the war, is pretty close to costing too much. Again, just don’t see how you could go to McCain so easily and with such alacrity — too early, there are others who MAY also be electable and with much more positives than McCain.
January 17th, 2008 at 1:04 pm
Actions speak louder than words ye Romney sceptics. Mitt led the fight over a period of years against gay marriage (and he never supported it, by the way). He took a whole series of very clever actions to keep it from happening in Mass. Some real research into his career would save some of you a lot of agony.Strategically Romney has played this thing almost perfectly. I say almost because Huckachuck and McVain flew into the ointment. (Something was bound to). But Romney got Fred and Rudy and McCain for a while out of the race by virtue of his bludgeoning them over the head on immigration, taxes and abortion (in various combinations). Now he’s the last real Rubublican standing – the most conservative — the real conservatives are lining up behind him now … just as he’s about to do the inevitable to go big time – countrywide – and take on the economy and save the country as the Rockefeller/George Romney Republican every in the mainstream media always say he really is — and guess what? that’s right….they LOVE Rockefeller?Romney Republicans!!!! And they’ll also be lokking to the guy to save their stock market accounts! Romney will actually get these old-time media dinosaurs (secretly) on his side. Romny’s a very good student of presidential history – he knows what the big picture looks like in this country. He knows what he’s doing…and he’s going to do it! Republican n