Say Yes To Mittchigan
After many pseudo-experts cavalierly dismissed his candidacy (some even after Iowa!), Mitt Romney handily took Michigan, increasing his lead (yes, lead) in delegates. The trouble with these experts is they didn't see the big picture--they're still looking at years past, where you had incumbents and two-man races, and if someone seriously faltered he could be through like that. (Watching these crestfallen pundits receive the news that the guy they'd counted out just KOed McCain, I noticed some tried to dismiss Giuliani because, dammit, they've got to dismiss someone.)
Look, we've got five Repubs who regularly poll between 10% and 30% nationally. They all appeal to certain groups and regions, and they all have significant flaws. There's simply no clear, obvious winner in the field. The truth is, as long as they have the will and the money (not even a lot of money), they can keep going, at least until February 5th. Mitt, who has all the money he needs, could have finished second in Michigan, in fact, and he'd still be in the running. He may yet lose in South Carolina and Nevada, but the point is until the Super Tuesday shakeout, we really don't know where we stand.
And that's the way I like it.
posted by LAGuy @ 12:21 AM
6 Comments:
I think what this year's primary season demonstrates is that it hardly matters which candidate wins each party's nomination. With the exception of true outliers, like Kucinich or Ron Paul, the candidates vying for the nominations are overwhelmingly the same in their positions, and each would lead in pretty much the same manner if elected. This election is demonstrating more clearly than ever that we elect parties, not people.
The real race is to determine who has the best chance of winning for each party against the other party, because the ultimate nominee will bring with him or her the coalition that is formed out of sight of the electorate. And that coalition will have its concerns addressed, whatever the personal opinions of the President are. The President, after all, isn't king (or queeen). He can only accomplish goals through Congressional negotiations.
When you say it hardly matters, you mean regarding how they'll run things, not how they'll do in the general election. I don't think I agree, denver guy.
While the Dems are bunched together pretty closely, there are vast gulfs among the Repubs. McCain has made his career going against the conservative mainstream (to name but a few issues: immigration, the climate and campaign finance). Huckabee, meanwhile, with his Carteresque personal approach, regularly uses economic populism and anti-war on terror phrases that make him sound like a Democrat, not to mention his support for nanny state solutions and his opposition to vouchers. Then there's Fred Thompson, who goes further than the rest of the pack on almost everything, and is the only hardliner on immigration. Or Giuliani, who is pretty soft (by Republican standards) on gay marriage and abortion.
Can a President accomplish much without the full support of Congress? Yes, for better or worse. He'll still get to pick a lot of judges, propose laws, veto laws, set the tone for the war on terror and preside over a ton of administrative agencies.
Who knew Romney would change his tune on corporate welfare and emission standards- he's getting better at this pandering business. He's still dead by the way
Also the Salt Lake Olympics sucked
Interesting that you don't mention the one maverick stance McCain has taken that is most likely to cost him the nomination: his rejection of the evangelicals. I believe he called a couple of their big names "forces of intolerance" back in the 2000 campaign, and they've certainly not since turned the other cheek (ahem).
It's pretty easy to say Mitt is finished, NEGuy, since no Repub candidate has a better than even chance of getting the nomination (much less become President). The point is, SOMEONE has to win, and it could be any of them.
But just to seem smart, I will now note that Romney, McCain, Huckabee, Thompson and Giuliani are all finished. Now I'm guaranteed to be 80% correct, a much higher success rate than the average pundit.
Even on the Republican side, i believe the party has a large influence on moderating the extremes any president may go to. McCain may personally oppose building a fence along the Mexican border, but if he were to become President, and the party pressured him, he would support the move.
Look at Bush now - there have to be economists in the White House that are saying "No, you can't buy your way out of the recession we are facing, at least not if you are going to increase debt and sink the dollar even lower in value." Butthe party, I'm convinced, is saying its an election year, and for political purposes, we have to appear to be doing something to head off the inevitable pain (and the Democrats will feel the same pressure to do something, so the "economic stimulus package" will probably pass.
Also look at Bush's attempt to nominate Harriet Meyers to the S.Ct. His own party, ultimately, shot that down. The party would regulate McCain's vagueries as well.
Post a Comment
<< Home