GOP Nominee
Former Candidates
This is a surprising result:
The Republican Party of Louisiana today announced that John McCain won the Louisiana Caucus held yesterday, January 22nd. On the heels of his win in South Carolina last weekend, victory in Louisiana is another indication of John McCain’s growing momentum and of the fact that John McCain is the consistent conservative choice capable of winning the GOP stronghold of the South this November.
John McCain’s Louisiana Chair, former Governor Buddy Roemer, issued the following statement regarding the results of the Louisiana Caucus:
“Last night’s results go to show that John McCain is the best hope of conservatives here in Louisiana and across the country. The people of Louisiana know that actions speak louder than words, and that’s why they chose John McCain over Mitt Romney. He is the only candidate with a long-held and consistent record of defending life, of protecting our national security, and of promoting pro-growth economic principles that benefit hard-working American families. John McCain is quickly emerging as the consensus candidate in the Republican race and the only conservative who can win this November.”
Make that three golds for Sen. McCain.
January 23rd, 2008 at 9:16 pm
They still have a primary, though…don’t they? John McCain didn’t issue a statement = doesn’t matter, anyway.
This matters as much as Wyoming, ie, not at all.
January 23rd, 2008 at 9:17 pm
I don’t think thats ENTIRELY true:
Doesn’t that mean that “uncommitted” won?
January 23rd, 2008 at 9:18 pm
Good job for McCain, but why is this a “surprising result”? I was under the impression McCain was the only campaign with an active campaign there and had flooded the state. His campaign supposedly had full representation on every ballot statewide. Am I missing something?
January 23rd, 2008 at 9:20 pm
McCain did not receive a majority of the delegates so how did he win?
January 23rd, 2008 at 9:21 pm
Heh. I was just about to post this. Kavon must be reading my mind again.
Despite an endless bankroll and a superior organization, Romney couldn’t even beat Ron Paul in the Louisiana caucuses, let alone McCain. This marks the second time that Romney has performed abysmally in the South, coming in way behind McCain and behind even a marginal candidate (Thompson, Paul). If Romney can’t beat McCain in the delegate-rich Eastern Bloc on Super Tuesday (NY/NJ/DE/CT), and if the South just won’t vote for Romney come hell or high water, just how is Mitt supposed to win this thing?
Things really are looking up for Sen. McCain, aren’t they?
January 23rd, 2008 at 9:23 pm
nice spin by team McCain - fact is the delegates banded together as a ‘pro-life/pro-family’ tag team to broadside Paul’s delegate support. After all the carnage, they looked at who the members of the ‘pro-life/pro-family’ team individually supported.
And that ‘my friends’ is what amounts to McCain’s claim of a win.
Don’t fret though, McCain’s ‘win’ in LA will be pronounced as further confirmation of McCain’s inevitability and how LA is such an important contest - it being the first caucus in the South and all - even with a popular GOP governor - and further evidence of how McCain really does appeal to traditional conservatives. Please watch the night and day difference in the narrative of LA vs. WY and NV.
For facts regarding the LA event that have not been filtered through the ‘my friends’ machine, please visit: http://www.lagop.com/
January 23rd, 2008 at 9:24 pm
Does anyone even understand how the caucus worked?
January 23rd, 2008 at 9:25 pm
DaveG, Ambinder is stating that Paul finished behind Romney. What info are you looking at?
January 23rd, 2008 at 9:25 pm
DaveG - thank you for proving my point with your post in #5. I see that the Straight Talking Points evening edition arrived safely to your inbox
January 23rd, 2008 at 9:26 pm
LA has a messed up caucus. I tried hard to figure the whole thing out, and I’ve come to the realization that it doesn’t really matter since no clear winner in LA came out of it, as well as uncomitted winning. We probably won’t know anything about LA until after Super Tuesday - what does that mean? It means that after super Tuesday, nothing really matters since Huckabee is probably finished at this point, and it is a Romney-McCain race. Rudy can’t make up ground quick enough - his only hope is a spectacular debate this week.
January 23rd, 2008 at 9:26 pm
4.
With the exception of NV, no candidate has attained a majority in any of the contests (i.e. IA, NH, MI, SC). Have we had no winners thus far, eljefe?
January 23rd, 2008 at 9:26 pm
*Sigh*
See here: http://www.spectator.org/blogger.asp?BlogID=10944
January 23rd, 2008 at 9:28 pm
11, I view the candidate with the most votes or delegates as the winner. I don’t see how McCain can say he is the winner.
January 23rd, 2008 at 9:28 pm
I think that the most amazing thing is the complete lack of support for Huckabee, the govenor of the neighboring state. It certainly does not bode well for Huck.
January 23rd, 2008 at 9:29 pm
I guess I’ll believe it when the final count is done. Either way, McCain lost to uncommitted so that’s fine with me.
January 23rd, 2008 at 9:32 pm
OH MY GOSH! NOBODY WON! All you McCain fans can go screw yourselves for trying to spin this in his favor. Bunch of lying jackasses. Nobody won this.
January 23rd, 2008 at 9:32 pm
If you were really trying to print the truth Kavon, you’d say that no one won.
January 23rd, 2008 at 9:33 pm
All of these delegates are totally uncommitted from this caucus unless a candidate receives 50% of the vote on Feb 9th (doubtful) in which case only 20% of them are.
Think of the LA delegates as the super free agents running around up in Minneapolis. Talk about major clout if we end up in a near brokered situation…
So I suppose McCain can claim that he ‘won’ even though he actually ‘lost’ to the unnamed ‘pro-life/pro-family’ contingent and even though none of these delegates are actually committed to his candidacy.
My my my, if this is the level of desperation coming out of the Straight Talk Express, that really speaks volumes as to where they really see the race and their strength or weakness.
January 23rd, 2008 at 9:34 pm
I forgot to include the reference for my quote about the caucus: http://www.nola.com/news/index.ssf/2008/01/republican_caucus_being_held_t.html
January 23rd, 2008 at 9:34 pm
This is no gold for McCain. LA’s primary is Feb. 9. Calm down.
January 23rd, 2008 at 9:34 pm
It’s pretty convulted, but McCain won if no one wins the majority vote on February 9th.
Thank you John!
January 23rd, 2008 at 9:35 pm
Geaux, Johnny, geaux, Johnny, geaux!
January 23rd, 2008 at 9:35 pm
Should we be concerned that there might be uncommitted delegates at the convention? I don’t want Louisiana to be kingmaker at the convention
January 23rd, 2008 at 9:35 pm
Sorry - its so fun to beat a dead horse here…
http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZDU5YmNlMDVjMTY0ZmFjNzJjYTY5ODc1NjQxMjVkNTU=
January 23rd, 2008 at 9:36 pm
I hope McCain tries to take credit for this tomorrow night so he can be corrected by Mitt or Rudy.
January 23rd, 2008 at 9:37 pm
So nice to see McCain put another GOLD under his belt with this WIN in Louisiana. What a nice WIN this was. Why, he’s now tied with Romney when it comes for GOLDS. They have three each!
January 23rd, 2008 at 9:37 pm
fredo,
Romney won 2/3rds of the vote in Wyoming as well as a majority of the vote in Nevada. The next biggest win so far was Romney’s 39% in Michigan.
January 23rd, 2008 at 9:37 pm
I love it how the McCaniacs go missing on these threads after their candidate is exposed.
January 23rd, 2008 at 9:39 pm
Seriously, I want to see Metro come on this thread and yell at all the McCainites for the untruthfulness. We Rombots get crap all the time for supposed “lies” we tell, and then the official McCainites come out with this sack of crap posted on the site. If that headline doesn’t get changed, my respect for this site goes way down. That’s a flat out lie.
January 23rd, 2008 at 9:40 pm
Three golds.
Well played, Kavon. Well played.
January 23rd, 2008 at 9:40 pm
FCOH,
So, with Fred out of the race, it would seem probable that most of the uncommitted slate could wind up voting for Mitt, to go along with the delegates Mitt won in his own right. Right?
January 23rd, 2008 at 9:41 pm
So, if a majority of the Pro-life pro-family slate was comprised of Thompson supporters and if more Thompson supporters go to Romney over McCain come Feb 9th, I think the result is far from settled at this point.
January 23rd, 2008 at 9:41 pm
Where is Huckabee in all this? He’s still running isn’t he?
January 23rd, 2008 at 9:43 pm
27 Dave,
Fredo won 2/3 of the districts in WY, which is way different from 2/3 of the vote.
Like I said, the only majority win was Mitt’s in NV. He only had a plurality in MI.
And yet somehow, I think most of us believe that someone prevailed in IA, NH, MI, and SC, despite the absence of a “majority” winner.
January 23rd, 2008 at 9:45 pm
34
Obviously, Mitt won 2/3 of the districts. I’m too busy driving for Pop to get involved in elected politics.
January 23rd, 2008 at 9:45 pm
Dave - not exactly - all of these delegates are uncommitted - meaning they are not obligated in their support with the first vote at convention. So basically LA’s caucus was a glorified straw poll made possible so as to not lose delegates to the convention by jumping up in the calendar. Naturally these delegates have their preferences as to who to support and I fully expect to see them fractured come convention time. What will be interesting to see once the LA GOP releases the list of delegates is who each of them individually support as that might be the best indicator about how these 47 delegates will vote at the convention.
A gold for McCain this most certainly was not. I wonder if we’ll see McCain stripped of this gold for failing the ’straight talk truth’ test. I doubt it.
I fully expect this to be glorified and touted to the world as further reason for the GOP to run Bob Dole, err… I mean John McCain because it’s ‘his turn.’
January 23rd, 2008 at 9:47 pm
Does anyone know if Gov. Jindal has endorsed yet or is he not going to?
January 23rd, 2008 at 9:48 pm
mccain lost to uncommitted pro-life
January 23rd, 2008 at 9:50 pm
I can’t wait for ‘uncommitted pro-life’ to show up on the stage tomorrow and smack McCain around just like Fred did to Huckabee last week. Maybe Fred will get fired up enough about McCain’s claim to make an encore appearance. I’d love to see Fred ask McCain about his LA gold. That would be priceless!
January 23rd, 2008 at 9:52 pm
fredo,
Actually, Mitt won more than 2/3rds of the votes cast. There were something like 1200 votes involved, but only certain people were eligible to participate in the process.
January 23rd, 2008 at 10:16 pm
I thought Kavon was a Rudy guy.
January 23rd, 2008 at 10:18 pm
Kavon,
I expected you to at least eat some crow for your blatantly out of line post yesterday saying that Romney had “once again bought” a state caucus. Where’s your inference that McCain bought this caucus? You know you’d have it spun it that way if Romney won. Certainly wouldn’t have said it was “another gold” for Romney, eh? (especially Admit it please.
And I refer you to my post-caucus response to that regrettable post of yours where I document how much more strongly organized McCain was than anyone else.
http://race42008.com/2008/01/22/theres-a-caucus-tonight/#comment-249497
Quoting my opinion of the likely outcome:
Look for McCain to win, or Ron Paul, with Romney coming in third or worse.
January 23rd, 2008 at 10:25 pm
I left out the parenthetical statement that you can’t claim a “gold” for McCain when McCain didn’t win anything . . . the MAJORITY were uncommitted Pro-Life/Pro-Family delegates. Maybe you could make an argument for him getting a “Silver”, but you know dang well that you wouldn’t be spinning this as “another gold” if Romney switched places with McCain.
Let’s see how the MSM spins this . . .
January 23rd, 2008 at 10:28 pm
I’m a little surprised by this blog. Hmmm.
January 23rd, 2008 at 10:29 pm
Call it purple, call it orange, call it a wet steaming pile of dog crap. But don’t call it a gold, because it certainly wasn’t.
Straight Talk Express. Uhhh, whatever.
January 23rd, 2008 at 10:30 pm
Dude. The Louisiana Republican Party begs to differ. From their release (emphases are mine, all mine):
Link: http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MWI2ZjJkOTI2MzBlMTgxNmY2ZDQ3ODlmZTZkOTE5YjY=
And yet the android candidate, Willard Milton Romney, still couldn’t get any love from those ungrateful cajuns with their fine cuisine and their Zydeco rhythms despite his many visits and other acts of intimate affection—or, in Romney’s case, outrageous affectation.
Romney’s singing the blues tonight, New Orleans style!
January 23rd, 2008 at 10:37 pm
Fred Thompson definitely won this one. I wonder how his delegates will vote?
January 23rd, 2008 at 10:41 pm
I have never seen Kavon spin anything this hard. Never. Was it only yesterday that Kavon was saying that a win in LA doesn’t matter, and that Romney only competes where nobody else cares about it or where the results can be bought? Despite all the evidence to the contrary? And now he’s saying that McCain’s 2nd place showing to “uncommitted” is a gold? Amazing.
Congrats to McCain, by the way, for a nice #2 finish. But the spin here is just amazing.
January 23rd, 2008 at 10:42 pm
Sen. McCain “Listen, my friends…This is just another beauty contest like Nevada, it doesn’t mean anything…
wait, what’s that…Oh, we came in second behind uncommitted….Oh…Well, my friends, this just goes to show the American people have finally come to know what’s best for them. They have had a problem with trust for quite some time, but they finally have decided in Louisiana that the right thing for America is to put me in the white house. Listen, my friends, this is big news. We won handsomely. I am practically the nominee now.”
January 23rd, 2008 at 10:45 pm
Here’s the narrative taking hold in the pro-McCain MSM:
CNN: “McCain beats Romney, Paul, but trails ‘uncommitted pro-life’ delegates in La. caucus”
http://cnnwire.blogs.cnn.com/2008/01/23/mccain-beats-romney-paul-but-trails-uncommitted-pro-life-delegates-in-la-caucus/
January 23rd, 2008 at 10:53 pm
LA caucus? Haven’t heard about it before now (been on holiday for a week). It was never talked about in the same breath as Nevada, South Carolina or Florida. Its lack of press coverage makes it even more irrelevant than Wyoming.
So who cares who won?
January 23rd, 2008 at 10:59 pm
Exactly Murphy!
Also #46 Civic Virtue . . . quoting the state party hardly qualifies as an unbiased source. I know the one Romney staffer here in LA, Travis Cummings, says the party insiders have never been friendly to the idea of Romney. They’ve been hostile in fact (according to him).
The LA GOP will play the anti-Romney line all day long. Romney has been to the state TWICE!!! But that’s apparently more than anyone else . . . and they spin it like he’s worked all year long to no avail.
Highly disturbing folks.
January 23rd, 2008 at 11:15 pm
I have really been losing respect for you Rombots. This beign claimed as a win is supposed to be a lie! He bet every candidate - its the candidates that he needs to beat. So he won among the candidates. This may not be the biggest or greatest or most important win, but it is a win. And as far Kavon saying thats this is another gold for McCain, I think thats quite possibly a little toungue in cheeck making fun of you Rombots. Because if Romney won I bet you we would be hearing all through the rest of the primary season how Romney now has 4 golds. You all tried to make a big deal out of a race in Wyoming where a handful of party leaders voted, this is no different
Now, as far as whether it is matters or not. I think it matters very little. I really have heard very little about it. But still its a little something to be happy about.
January 23rd, 2008 at 11:23 pm
John Mark,
What good is it when you beat a candidate when there are a number of uncommitted delegates can easily put someone else on top come February 9th? It ain’t over till it’s over. Sure, call it a win or whatever, but what good is winning the first battle by default when the war could easily end up as a loss?
January 23rd, 2008 at 11:26 pm
this is dumb. if wyoming doesnt count neither does louisiana. ok niether counts, lets just wait till florida.
January 23rd, 2008 at 11:27 pm
54, Its not much good at all. What I’m ticked off about is all the Rombots going on and on about how the McCain campaign making any statement about this was lying! The fact is I don’t know that any statement was made by McCain’s national campaign. And its only polite that they give recognition to the voters in Louisiana who voted for him by playing the win up just a little bit. Its pretty much a straw poll. But Romney would put alot of effort into winning straw polls, and then he would promote the wins and on an on… But if McCain dare do the same for an actual real live caucus than he’s a liar!
January 23rd, 2008 at 11:29 pm
joe c. I suppose you thought WY did count untill this, but now you figure you would be better if you dismissed the little insignificant caucuses.
January 23rd, 2008 at 11:36 pm
John Mark,
This reminds me of the Democratic Nevada Caucus fiasco. Hillary won percantage wise, but because Obama did better statewide, he was awarded one more delegate than her. Both campaigns issued winning press releases using their own spin.
I’m ok if McCain or his camp wants to spin this as a win, even though it may come back and bite them. Mittbots are obviously assuming that the pro-life/un-committed camp is going to break their way. I honestly have no idea at this point, but it will fade from our attention come Super Tuesday. If the states haven’t figured out a candidate by then, perhaps the Louisiana contest will become more influential than it usually is.
January 23rd, 2008 at 11:36 pm
You don’t say.
(How subtle of the Louisiana Republican Party to damn the hapless candidate by praising him.)
January 23rd, 2008 at 11:37 pm
Jeff for crying out loud the Louisianna GOP was complimenting Mitt! Didn’t you read the part: “is an indication that Louisiana Republicans are excited about his candidacy,â€? There spinning that the GOP is excited about Romney’s candidacy, and complimenting him for putting effort into their state. This isn’t about them trying to spin things in a bad way for Romney, its about them trying to spin that their state was of importance since people visited the state. He also had very nice words about Ron Paul and Ron Paul supporters. He was thanking the candidates for participating in their primary. My guess is the party was hoping their primary would be more important and bring more attention - it didn’t, but their going to be grateful to the candidates who gave it a shot.
January 23rd, 2008 at 11:45 pm
58, Yeah well, I just don’t consider the McCain campaign to be lying, and am ticked off that the RomBots are totally jumping on the campaign as big liars for issuing any sort of statement. RomBots really don’t want to be using the most strict standard of being technically accurate - I mean Romney has to explain what he says as being Metaphorical, but if McCain claims a win out this than its: liar liar pants on fire.
As far as the caucus itself I think its pretty insignificant, allthough it may be a sign that McCain has a good shot at doing well in the south, and a sign that Romney will struggle in the South. But the whole thing basically amounts to the AMES stras poll except there’s a possibility that it will decide delagates. McCain shouldn’t make a very big deal out of it, but it doesn’t hurt him to casually mention it.
January 23rd, 2008 at 11:48 pm
I concur, effendi. This is one way that starving local party establishments fund themselves and try to raise their profiles, recruit support etc., through visits by national candidates and national campaigns who in some cases pay to play, or in others participate in local fund raising activities, meet with local leaders and help raise their profiles etc.
The party wants to give credit where credit is due because they want the candidates to want to come back.
It is also embarrassing for them when they can’t attract the attention of national campaigns.
January 23rd, 2008 at 11:59 pm
62, Yeah in a way I kind of feel sorry for them that they weren’t able to do any better.
January 24th, 2008 at 12:16 am
This really reminds me of the Values Voters straw poll held back in September/October. Romney had the most votes, but Huckabee had the most votes cast in person. The organizers released both sets of numbers and let the media determine who had “won.” I’m guessing that people won’t be too anxious to attend the next “Values Voters” event if their votes are cast in doubt by spin. Louisiana obfuscates its results so badly it resigns itself to obscurity.
That’s the way I see it…
January 24th, 2008 at 12:20 am
#57 - no, none of the little ones count. not even iowa. but media coverage has been all weird on all of them . the media decide which ones count, and which don’t, and thats kind of lame.
January 24th, 2008 at 12:29 am
You’re on to something, effendi. I see the values voters summit—and the schism that occurred between the Evangelical elites who were ready to decide for Romney and the Evangelical rank and file who weren’t—as a precursor for this whole sad primary cycle.
The National Review, talk radio right-wing shock-jocks etc., etc.—the “professional” conservatives have cast their lots with Romney. Yet everywhere the hapless candidate struggles despite his massive spending and many, many promises—in other words, just like at the values voters summit, the elites and the actual voters are suddenly at odds.
Will Romney prevail? The decision at the values voters summit was split …
January 24th, 2008 at 12:32 am
Wait - McCain just got a call from Germany - it’s Putin congratulating him on his win in LA. HAW HAW HAW!!! No really, a win is a win. If McCain won fair and square, let Mr. Putin and myself be among the first to congratulate him.
January 24th, 2008 at 12:36 am
66. . . “Yet everywhere the hapless candidate struggles despite his massive spending and many, many promises.”
um, huh?
January 24th, 2008 at 12:44 am
I concur, effendi. Politics is about perceptions. And our perceptions of the race are largely mediated to us—hence, the media.
But what drives a media decision? Answer: factors on the ground, largely empirical, but all requiring interpretation. Funds, votes, breadth and depth of organization, grass roots activity, an analysis of the electorate combined with a theory of change, a record that supports executive and administrative skill, a convincing narrative that accounts for the candidate’s intention to run and intention to rule, a message that resonates across demographic, geographic, or ideological divides etc.—all of these are factors, and which get weighed more heavily and why becomes objects of dispute.
Also, and this is critical: the media grades on a curve—if you spend massively to eke out a narrow win, and another candidate spends almost nothing and gets a close second, the media will give all the attention to the number 2 who did so much with so little yet came in 2nd.
This has been Romney’s problem since last summer.
It is a lesson he has yet to learn.
January 24th, 2008 at 12:51 am
Civic. . . I don’t understand what you’re taking issue with. Romney’s money? The fact that he spends it? The fact that people vote for him? What exactly don’t you like?
Should he not spend money on his campaign? Do you have a dollar figure in mind that no candidate should top in spending? Do you think spending should all be done on a level playing field, and the wealthier candidates should be prohibited from spending more than the candidates with less funds?
Are you accusing Romney of buying actual votes? Or are the voters are just stupid and vote for him because someone told them to?
I’m just curious what your thoughts are, since you obviously have something against Romney’s wealth.
January 24th, 2008 at 1:03 am
I have nothing against Romney’s wealth. I have a problem with self-funders, e.g. Perot, Forbes, Romney. Are you familiar with the concept of a legitimacy? A government or a policy is said to be legitimate to the degree that it enjoys a consensus, or coalition, a plurality or community of interest etc., etc. A candidate is said to be legitimate to the degree that he or she can raise, organize, and develop support etc. Hence a reliable indicator of the fitness of a candidate is the money that he or she can raise because this speaks to that candidate’s legitimacy; it is evidence that groups, individuals, and institutions are willing to invest their labor and substance in the candidate.
Romney’s level of funding, on the other hand, is simply an index of his personal worth, not his political fitness. Hence his outrageously low ROI for his every campaign dollar. He spent more than every other candidate combined for IA and NH and still lost. He outspent everyone in MI and still won, but he had to come from behind to do so. He lost SC in a blowout even though he outspent everyone there too.
So what does that tell you? It tells you that Romney’s spending levels are wildly out of synch with his fitness as a candidate or his skills as a campaigner. It tells you that his candidacy is a delicate greenhouse hybrid that would quickly wither were it released into nature. (Imagine how dismally Romney would perform had he only Huckabee or McCain’s resources.)
This would be my critique, or at least a part of it.
January 24th, 2008 at 1:12 am
Civic #71: A candidate is said to be legitimate to the degree that he or she can raise, organize, and develop support etc. Hence a reliable indicator of the fitness of a candidate is the money that he or she can raise because this speaks to that candidate’s legitimacy
Even if you take away Romney’s self-funding, he raised more than any other candidate. By your reasoning, that makes him more legitimate.
And Rudy supporters are in a fine position to talk about ROI. Rudy has spend well over $30 million last time I checked, to average about 5th place in the states that have voted so far.
January 24th, 2008 at 1:19 am
Civic. . . We’ll see new spending numbers soon, but as of the last release from each campaign, Romney is far from a self-financed candidate. A small portion of his money came from his own fund. He was the least known of the initial candidates (McCain and Rudy being the other two) and injected his own cash to get things started. He has raised from the public, however, much more than most everyone else. (I believe he and Rudy were about tied in raised funds.) So your “self-funded” arguement is out the window.
Your implication, however, concerns me more. You imply that his money buys his votes. Can you show me one case where this is true? Can you show me a single case where Romney used his money in any way to receive his votes in an unethical or illegal or “illegitimate” manner? You say you have nothing against his wealth, but you call his backers “elite” as opposed to “actual” and you say his wins in previous states and the media’s reaction to them constitute a “problem” and a “lesson he has yet to learn.” You even call his campaign visits to the states, which every candidate does, “outrageous affection.”
So I have to wonder, what do you have against a candidate who spends money and makes campaign appearances? I can only assume that it’s a bit of jealousy that your own candidate hasn’t matched Romney’s abilities to campaign so successfully. In fact, I doubt we’d hear word one from you if your candidate did exactly the same.
January 24th, 2008 at 1:26 am
#67…Putin is from Russia, but whatever…
It’s not a gold, people…it was spin, pure and simple, and Kavon loses respect from most of
people here, especially after his lost post of Romney buying the state.
Into obscurity you go…
January 24th, 2008 at 2:11 am
jaaron,
McCain was quoted earlier as stating that Putin was the Prime Minister of Germany. A major lapsus mentus for him there. No doubt a blemish on his foreign policy cred.
January 24th, 2008 at 4:22 am
In all, this is a fairly typical Romney strategy: Compete in places where you have a built-in advantage (MI & NV), or places where a victory can be purchased (WY and straw polls too numerous to mention.)
The LA Caucuses are very easily purchased (considering that not a single other candidate is competing there), so winning it gets you some great free press attention when it is too complicated for the average person to understand that whoever “wins� there tonight really wins nothing. The headline is all that matters.
by Kavon W. Nikrad @ 9:18 pm. Filed under Primary & Caucus Dates, 2008 Misc., Mitt Romney
January 24th, 2008 at 8:37 am
AK Jake:
Romney has used his own money to buy massive media and advertising to “snuff” the reputations of other candidates. This has had a chilling effect on the others who did not have that luxury, as these have had to spend more time than Romney holding closed fund-raising events. Others have held back on going negative on Romney until the last minute because they have recognized that Mitt could launch massive, self-funded counterattacks with or without factual legitimacy. Romney and his deep pockets have made him into a loose cannon, capable of destroying everything on deck.
Mitt’s use of his own personal fortune also puts a damper on the willingness of would-be donors to his rivals to donate money. These folks have to recognize that their donations are only limited support thanks to individual contribution limits that do not apply to Mitt.
What many people will have against such a candidate is that it confirms something most of us have preferred not to believe: that running for the presidency is not something that is open to just anyone, but instead belongs first and foremost to the wealthy.
What difference does it make? If Mitt buys himself the GOP nomination — or more aptly put, leverages his own wealth to unique advantage — it tells us that you really need to be from a heritage of wealth, power, and privilege to have even the remotest shot at running for the White House. The last two presidential cycles have resulted in silver-spoons candidates from wealthy and powerful political dynasties.
We seem to go back and forth from choosing our leaders from the establishment elites and rejecting those in favor of someone new from outside those elite circles.
January 24th, 2008 at 9:09 am
Calm down, guys, it’s just LA and there is no winner. People can spin all they want, but no delegates were given last night, so we can all calm down, right?
Although, I would say, this spin by McCain camp puts Romney’s spinning to shame.
January 24th, 2008 at 9:10 am
#71- civic virtue-
A well-written and articulate critique of self-funded candidacies…
January 24th, 2008 at 9:37 am
Markg & civic v
Mitt has spent more money because he was less known nationally and needed to get known. but the most important reason is THAT HE RAISED MORE MONEY THAN ANY OF THE OTHERS. If McCain had Romney or Giuliani’s money he still wouldn’t get any more conservative republican votes, because he is a liberal.
January 24th, 2008 at 12:50 pm
Kavon -
This headline is absolutely wrong. McCain did not win - the “Pro-Life/Pro-Family” slate swept up over 2/3rds of the delegates to the state convention, and have a controlling majority in every district. Every national convention delegate will be picked by them. McCain’s slate, while picking up a few delegates, will pick none, zero, zip. Let’s see.. 44 vs 0… who’s the winner? For the one district I could find candidate slates for (6th), there was zero overlap between the PL/PF slate and McCain or Romney. In that district, PL/PF won 12 delegates, McCain 3. Tell me how McCain won that? If some of the other quotes here are any indication, it actually seems Thompson won a state hours after he left the race.
Oh, and Ron Paul probably picked up most of the alternates. There were some districts where Paul was the only team to even submit alternate lists.