I've Got Soul, But I'm... Not A Souldier

Romney Will Win the GOP Nomination

2012-01-11T23:14:00.000-08:00

This is my first blog post after a 3-year hiatus. I took some time off for personal reasons, but now, in the midst of another election season, I feel like getting back into it, albeit on a limited basis.

I feel like I need to follow up on posts I made prior to my hiatus about who will win the GOP presidential nomination. As you may recall, I predicted, based on historical precedent, that if Mike Huckabee ran for the nomination, he would win, and if he didn't run and Palin did, she would win. Of course, neither of them ended up running. It would appear, at first glance, that no one in the GOP's monarchical hierarchy was running. However, even before Huckabee announced he wasn't running, the media treated Mitt Romney as though he was 2008's 2nd place finisher (this wasn't the case). I would argue that this treatment made Romney the de facto 2nd place finisher, similar to the way George W. Bush was a de facto incumbent in 2000. This would make Romney the only 2012 candidate with a spot in the hierarchy, and therefore the inevitable nominee.

Assuming Romney loses the general election, the 2nd place finisher this time around will be in the best position to get the GOP nomination in 2016. But what if that person is Ron Paul? He has a dedicated following of a sizable minority of the party and has conveyed a desire to stay in the race to the bitter end to rack up as many delegates as possible. But Ron Paul is 76 years old, and would be 80 in 2016; no one expects him to run again. Ron Paul's son, Rand, is a U.S. senator, however, and could very well run in 2016. I suspect that Rand could very well benefit from his father's run this time around and become the de facto 2012 2nd place finisher for 2016 (similar to the way Romney is the de facto 2nd place finisher now and George W. Bush was the de facto incumbent in 2000) and achieve the highest spot on the hierarchy. Some will claim that the party establishment won't get behind Rand, and therefore he won't win. But looking at the chart above, Barry Goldwater, an anti-establishment Republican, won the nomination in 1964. If Goldwater did it before, Paul could do it again.

Aside from a lone example of historical precedent, there are other reasons to believe Rand could pull off getting the nomination despite establishment opposition. An important one is changing demographics. The population of the Republican party is aging, and four years from now that many more people from the (post) Cold War-era big-government George W. Bush Republicans will have died off. Meanwhile, Ron Paul is currently the only candidate bringing new voters into the party and energizing the youth vote. So while the neocons are dying, a whole new generation of libertarians will be flooding the Republican Party. Many of the new, younger voters in 2016 will be people who never knew the Cold War and whose only experience with Republicanism is the disasters of the Bush presidency and the current Congress. These voters will want to move away from George W. Bush's neoconservative Republican Party and toward a more libertarian Republican Party that could finally do away with the military-industrial complex. As Alex Massie notes, Paul is "the purest rejection of Bushian conservatism available".

And as Ryan Lizza and Erick Erickson note, the reason for all this is because George W. Bush failed to provide Republicans with an heir to the throne. Erickson, in fact, all but admits that there is a Republican monarchical hierarchy!

The reason this Republican primary season is so chaotic is because George W. Bush failed to have a successor. Had President Bush had a Vice President to run for President, Bush would have undoubtedly made different policy decisions, but even aside from that there would have been an ascertainable front runner coming from the Bush administration to win or lose.
Because there was not such a thing and because the GOP likes orderly processes, we had to go back to 2000 and dredge up John McCain.
The Republican field was unable to reboot because we had no logical successor coming out of the White House to either win or lose. We went back to McCain and have had to work our way back through unresolved issues from 2000. And now, when the field should be rebooted, we’re having to deal with Mitt Romney who should have been displaced by an heir in 2008 and instead, because the 2008 season did not reboot the crop of candidates, is now the guy three quarters of the GOP does not want who is about to be the nominee.

Bush didn't produce a Vice-presidential heir, so the Republicans had to go back to the next person in their hierarchy, John McCain, a person they didn't trust. McCain lost, and given the Huckabee and Palin declined to run, Romney, another candidate they don't trust, became the de facto next-in-line. If Romney loses, by 2016 a new generation of anti-neoconservative Republicans could be waiting to take down the party establishment.

One final thought, again from Erickson:

Our process is chaotic because Bush left us no heir to win or to be rejected through a cathartic process of locking in gains or moving on from Bush. Yes, this one is Bush’s fault. On the bright side, the Democrats will have the same problem in 2016 unless Obama ditches Biden now for Hillary.

Erickson would be right about the Democrats in 2016, except for a couple faulty assumptions. One is that Biden won't run in 2016. I wouldn't completely rule that out yet. He will be old, but he doesn't have Dick Cheney's health problems, and he's run for president twice before, so he clearly has the ambition. Biden's problem is that he doesn't have an enthusiastic base of support to draw from. He would have to start out with the support of the party establishment. But if there appears to be more enthusiasm for an Andrew Cuomo or a Brian Schweitzer candidacy, the party establishment might quietly tell Biden to step aside and not embarrass himself.

The other faulty assumption Erickson makes is that Democrats are monarchical in their thinking like Republicans: that we need an established order or hierarchy in order to pick our nominee. History hasn't shown that to be the case. True, Democrats, like Republicans, tend to nominate incumbent VP's when they run for the presidency, but that's about as deep as the hierarchy goes. Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, John Kerry, and Barack Obama all never made an impact on the presidential circuit before becoming their party's nominees. In fact, one could argue that being next in line hurts you in a Democratic party primary more than it helps, aside from the incumbents.

2012: The Contenders - Part II

2009-02-27T13:32:00.000-08:00

The state of the "race" at this point is pretty much the same as it was back in November when I wrote the first part of this series. The biggest change is the introduction of Utah Governor Jon Huntsman Jr. as a potential top-tier contender.

Jon Huntsman Jr.:
He is very popular in his home state (arguably the most popular governor in the country), and made headlines recently by coming out in favor of civil unions. He will probably occupy the same political space as Mitt Romney. He will appeal to the Mormons and the fiscal conservatives. His stance on civil unions will probably put him at odds with cultural conservatives outside his Mormon base. Romney similarly has no credibility with non-Mormon cultural conservatives for once being pro-gay marriage. Romney, of course, has since switched his position, but cultural conservatives can see through his insincerity on this issue. Anyway, I think Huntsman will likely end up gaining little traction, as he will end up competing for the same voters as Romney. If anything, I think he may only work to decrease Romney's chances.

Mitt Romney:
Most of what I have to say about Romney I've already said. His flip-flopping combined with the apparent introduction of Jon Huntsman Jr. will do him in. Romney appears to be going for the Hillary Clinton inevitability strategy. He has been donating a lot of money to vulnerable Republican politicians and conservative causes, no doubt hoping to get a lot of key early endorsements to make it seem as though he is the front runner early on and the inevitable nominee. Of course, as we've seen before, the inevitability strategy quickly fails as soon as the "inevitable" candidate suffers a loss.

Mike Huckabee:
I maintain that he's the true inevitable candidate. While Huntsman appears to be betting that the key to victory in the Republican primary in 2012 is securing the cultural moderates and the fiscal conservatives, Huckabee appears to be going the opposite route. True, the cultural conservatives are dying off, but I don't think they're dying off as quickly as Huntsman thinks, and they're likely to be the ones most motivated to vote in the primaries (especially the closed primaries). The bigots who think the Republican party isn't conservative enough will likely be the dominant voting block in 2012. And by 2012 the economy will likely have started to turn around, and the economic stimulus will be judged a success. Because of the success of the stimulus, Huckabee's apparent moderation on fiscal issues will be appealing.

Bobby Jindal:
I don't think he'll run this time around, and instead focus on re-election in Louisianna. If he does run in 2012, I think he'll be competing for the Palin votes.

Sarah Palin:
She's been slowly fading from the national dialogue. The only positive headline she's made lately is the formation of SarahPAC. Other than that, the few headlines about her have been negative, e.g. paying back taxes and Bristol's opposition to abstinence-only sex ed. She almost needs to challenge and beat Lisa Murkowski in a primary for U.S. Senate to regain the national spotlight and give herself the opportunity to try to be taken seriously.

Rudy Giuliani:
Nothing has changed from last time. He needs to win higher elected office (either governor or senator of New York) to be taken seriously again and fill the gap in his resume.

Newt Gingrich:
Again, not much has changed for him. He opted not to run for RNC chair, so my guess is that he'll probably run for president. The challenge for him is still to campaign on different ideas and perhaps even different issues.

Charlie Crist:
Took the ballsy step of siding with the president on the economic stimulus. I'm not sure if that helps or hurts him with regards to his 2012 chances yet. If he chooses to run for senate, he's probably not running in 2012.

Mark Sanford:
Has taken the opposite view of Charlie Crist, and has (like Bobby Jindal) refused to accept part of the stimulus money for his state. Aside from that, howerver, he has failed to stand out.

Tim Pawlenty:
Has failed to stand out at all. Has taken a decidedly non-interventionist approach to the U.S. Senate election contest in his state, choosing to not issue a certificate to the winner until Norm Coleman finally concedes. Maybe this plays well with conservatives in Minnesota, but I doubt it will mean anything to anybody outside of the land of 10,000 lakes.

Huckabee vs. Palin

2008-12-10T13:33:00.000-08:00

This is the latest in my series on the 2012 Republican Presidential Nomination.

As you may recall, Marc Ambinder believes Sarah Palin is the heir to the Republican throne, while I argued that it will be Mike Huckabee based on historical precedent.

As you can see from my previous chart, the breakdown of Republican presidential nominees in the television age is as follows:

Incumbent President: 6
Son of a Former President: 1
Sitting Vice President: 2
2nd place finisher from the previous contest: 3
Former presidential nominee: 1
Former vice presidential nominee: 1

Over half of the nominees came from sitting administrations. Nine of the past 14 presidential nominations produced nominees who had all advantages of incumbency. Of the remaining five elections without an "incumbent" running, three of them were won by the second-place finisher from the previous contest. Only one was won by a former presidential nominee and, once again, only one was won by a former vice presidential nominee.

Two of the three elections which produced former-2nd-place finishers as nominees featured a showdown between said former-2nd-place finisher (the Huckabee equivalent) and the previous vice presidential nominee (the Palin equivalent):

1964 Barry Goldwater vs. Henry Cabot Lodge
1980 Ronald Reagan vs. Bob Dole

John McCain obviously didn't face off against Dick Cheney. At any rate, in both of the above cases, the former-2nd-place finishers beat out the former veep nominees. This will be the case again in 2012, when Huckabee beats out Palin.

2012: The Contenders

2008-11-18T13:12:00.001-08:00

Mike Huckabee:
If history provides any precedent, he is the one who will win. He is also probably the biggest threat to the Democrats. Many Democrats foolishly underestimate Huckabee, the way the Republicans underestimated Bill Clinton in 1992. Democrats tend to put Huckabee in the Palin corner of the Republican party, but he's no Palin. Sure, he holds many of the same political positions as she does and he doesn't believe in evolution, but he isn't dumb. Unlike Palin, Huckabee is quite intelligent and knowledgable on national issues and it would be a mistake to assume that just because he speaks with a folksy charm, he isn't smart. He will, of course, lead the revolt of the theocrats.

Sarah Palin:
She will be the choice of the National Review, the Weekly Standard, and the neocons. They will continue to push for her and try to keep her in the conversation long after it has been apparent that the actual voters have no interest in her. There will be a very low threshold for mistakes from her. One gaffe and it will remind the voters of why she can't win a general election, and she will be out the door, the same way John Kerry could not run for president again after he made "the botched joke".

Mitt Romney:
The choice of the corporate cons. They are as apathetic about Romney's position on social issues as Romney himself apparently is. They just know he'll give them the money. My guess is that he will be the best funded candidate, with Palin a close second. He'll ultimately lose for the same reasons he lost in 2008: the charge of flip-flopping.

Newt Gingrich:
He wants to be back in office again and if he doesn't get the position as RNC chair, he'll probably run. I think that if he gets elected to the RNC, though, he'll probably stay there. And to his credit, he would probably make a good RNC chair. With the theocons going to Huckabee, the neocons going to Palin, and the corporate cons going to Romney, there really isn't going to be any room left for Gingrich. If Gingrich wants to have a fighting chance, he will have to actually campaign on his much-vaunted "ideas". He can't campaign on the same Republican issues and the same Republican positions and expect to get very far. He has to fundamentally change what the debate is about. I would suggest campaigning on election reform.

Rudy Giuliani:
Everyone knows he aspires to higher office. Unfortunately for him, his last attempt at the presidency was an abysmal failure, and by the time the next election comes up, his claim to fame (his leadership on 9/11) will have happened more than a decade ago. If Giuliani wants to get anywhere, he will have to make himself relevant again, which means running for another office. The most likely choice is Governor of New York (although a Senate seat might be soon available as well). Of course, if he loses his bid for Governor, his chances at the presidency are over. So it's a risk, but right now he has nothing to lose.

Bobby Jindal:
He is the true rising star of his party. I bet he'll gain a lot of attention and have a decent showing...somewhere. In one of those early states. And that's really all Jindal is looking to accomplish this time around. He's gonna be trying to make a name for himself for 2016. I bet Huckabee will offer to make him him running-mate. Whether or not Jindal accepts, I don't know.

The Others:
Charlie Crist, Mark Sanford, and Tim Pawlenty. They will be the also-rans of the 2012 cycle: the Tommy Thompsons, Jim Gilmores, and Sam Brownbacks, if you will. They are serious politicians (in contrast with Tom Tancredo, who was not a serious politician) who nonetheless will not present a compelling message for their respective candidacies.

Ideal Administration

2008-10-31T23:52:00.000-07:00

Sec. of State: John Kerry

Sec. of Treasury: Warren Buffett

Sec. of Defense: Chuck Hagel

Attorney General: Jim Doyle

Sec. of Interior: John McCain

Sec. of Agriculture: Chuck Grassley

Sec. of Commerce: Olympia Snowe

Sec. of Labor: Andrew Stern

Sec. of HHS: Elizabeth Edwards

Sec. of HUD: Valerie Jarrett

Sec. of Transportation: Jim Oberstar

Sec. of Energy: Arnold Schwarzenegger

Sec. of Education: Chet Culver

Sec. of Veterans Affairs: Max Cleland

Sec. of Homeland Security: Susan Collins

Press Secretary: Robert Gibbs

Chief of Staff: Tom Daschle

Director of Intelligence: John Brennan

EPA Administrator: Lincoln Chafee

Faith-based Initiatives: Sam Brownback

Supreme Court: Arlen Specter

We Need Better Polls!

2008-10-14T21:20:00.001-07:00

I don't mean that necessarily in terms of methodology. I mean that we need pollsters to focus on polling states that are actually in play.

Why is there a poll out today from Delaware? Or Minnesota? Or Wisconsin? Or Michigan?

As I've said time and again, certain states that are traditional swing states or used to be swing states are swing states no longer. Minnesota? Gone. Wisconsin? Gone. Iowa? Gone. Michigan? Gone. Pennsylvania? Gone. New Hampshire? Gone. New Mexico? Gone. Colorado? Gone. Virginia? Gone. Florida? Gone. These states are all out of play. Obama is comfortably ahead enough in each of these states that he can afford to let the race slip back down to a near-tie and he would still win them.

We have a new set of swing states now. Nevada, Missouri, Ohio, Indiana, and North Carolina have all leaned towards Obama recently, but are still close enough to deserve further scrutiny by pollsters. But instead of focusing on the former swing states, pollsters and the news media should be focused on the up-and-coming swing states. The sparse polling out of West Virginia and North Dakota has been favorable towards Obama. Indeed, Joe Biden today predicted his campaign would win West Virginia! And North Dakota had looked promising before the Sarah Palin was picked; maybe now that Palin isn't as popular, maybe he has a shot at winning that state again. Same with Montana. Much has been talked about the huge amount of early voting in Georgia, and the huge African American turnout; Georgia should be polled more often. Nebraska needs more polling, as Obama tries to win the 2nd Congressional District. Chuck Todd and Kos (and myself) have mentioned Arkansas as a possible up-and-coming swing state that needs to be polled more. Finally, Mississippi and Louisianna need to be polled more to get a full grasp of how deeply Obamania is sweeping the country.

Here's the full list of states that need to be polled in bulleted form:

Nevada
Missouri
Ohio
Indiana
North Carolina
West Virginia
Montana
North Dakota
Georgia
Nebraska
Arkansas
Louisianna
Mississippi

If I may...

2008-10-14T18:53:00.000-07:00

Biden/Sebelius '16?

Barack Obama is almost certain to win the White House in 2008. Barring an assassination or other catastrophe, he is almost certain to run for re-election in 2012. Considering the potential field of candidates on the other side (with Mike Huckabee assuredly going to be the victor), re-election is more than likely, but I would venture that even if Obama wasn't re-elected, Joe Biden would still be the nominee in 2016. He has run for president twice now and he wants his turn. Unfortunately, he'll be 73 in 2016 (older than McCain is currently), but that's another topic for another day. I'm assuming Biden will be the nominee in 2016.

The 2008 election has changed things. With a black man on one ticket, and a white woman on the other, minority groups are now going to expect to be represented on the presidential ballot. Biden, as an old white guy, will need to appoint a minority as his running mate to shore up support with that constituent group. Women, especially, will want to be targeted. Sebelius is a rising star in the Democratic Party, and for that reason is probably Biden's likely choice for a running mate. This, of course, also depends on what kinds of gains the Democrats make in the House, Senate, and Governorships in the years to come. Someone else could show up and become the new Sebelius.

The Waves: Part II

2008-10-14T13:38:00.000-07:00

Andrew Sullivan points to a WaPo report on something I predicted would happen in June. In Sullivan's words, "the swing states appear to have swung". This was an idea I referred to as "The Waves". The Obama campaign starts by consolidating support in the states Kerry won, then ripples out into states states that Gore won (Iowa and New Mexico), then into states Kerry and Gore were competitive in (Ohio, Florida, Colorado, and Nevada), then into newly competitive territory (Missouri and Virginia), then further into territory nobody thought would be competitive (Indiana and North Carolina), and perhaps even into mind-blowing territory (West Virginia, Montana, North Dakota, and Georgia).

Of course, when I first introduced The Waves, I had the wrong states in the wrong order, but the campaign seems to have more-or-less followed my general concept. They're playing a little more defense than I probably would advise, but I think the order in which they began nailing down states makes a lot more sense than my order did.

I don't have access to the Obama campaign's internal polling or financial info to know for certain how wise their spending decisions were, but I probably would've pushed harder in Louisianna and South Carolina. With a different running mate, Kansas could have been in play, but with Joe Biden it became a lost cause.

But I digress. The idea of The Waves seems to be slowly catching on, as the news media starts to realize that the old battleground states are battleground states no more and starts looking for new ones. A recent poll showed Obama ahead in North Dakota. Another one showed him ahead in West Virginia, and yet another showed him trailing within single digits in Georgia. I heard Chuck Todd on Hardball the other day say he wants to see more polling out of Arkansas to see if that state might be turning blue as well (something that I've been advocating for a couple of weeks). With a lot of the media's focus still turned to former battleground states like Pennsylvania, Iowa, and Michigan, I think the chance that we get to November 4th and Obama wins states many in the media consider to be safe McCain states is higher than most people think.

The Upside of Biden

2008-08-22T22:27:00.000-07:00

Biden is certainly a disappointment. He voted for the Iraq war, he accentuates Obama's supposed vulnerabilities, he's not from Virginia, etc. But let's look at this from a glass-half-full perspective.

Biden, unlike Obama, is a fighter. Obama doesn't like going on offense; Biden seems to relish it. Even when he wasn't attacking, Biden always seemed like he wanted to be attacking. The "noun, verb, and 9/11" debate line was classic, and Biden always excelled at the debates (especially on national security questions). Being the "attack dog" is the traditional campaign role of the VP, and Biden will excel at that. Let's hope Biden will tear McCain a new one at the convention.

Obama the Overestimated?

2008-07-31T01:49:00.000-07:00

I've criticized the press (and Obama's opponents) for frequently underestimating Barack Obama and his campaign, but now I think some may be overestimating him. I simply don't buy the conspiracy theory that Kaine has been hyping himself as a veep choice as a decoy for Obama to pick Kathleen Sebelius. I think the Obama campaign is smart, but not that smart. That's too clever even for them.

Do I have an explanation for all of Kaine's talking? No. My guess would be that either Obama is close to making his pick or Kaine just isn't playing his veep cards very well. If all this Kaine is buzz really is just a decoy, the Obama people are much smarter than even I give them credit for.

Obama is greedy

2008-07-17T17:14:00.000-07:00

I have to disagree with Nate Silver's assertion that North Carolina is not a good "investment target for Obama" because "Obama won't win it without having won Virginia, and that if he's won Virginia, he won't need it". This assumes that Obama, like every presidential candidate of the past, wants to get to 270 and call it quits. This assumption, however, would be inaccurate. Consider that Obama had this to say about campaigning in North Carolina:

“I think that we’ve got a good shot at winning, and I want to be greedy. I want to win as many states as possible. Not only is that the best, not only does that give us the best chance of winning in November, but it also gives us the best chance at bringing the country together so I can deliver on the promises that have been made.”

Obama doesn't just want to get to 270. He wants to aim for a landslide victory. George Bush aimed for 270 and barely got there. As a result, he became the most divisive president in decades. Obama doesn't want to be a divisive figure; he wants to be a unifying figure and wants to use this status to implement the policies he's been advocating on the campaign trail.

By campaigning in more states than it will take him to win, he also can potentially help to expand congressional majorities and help add democratic seats in other down-ballot races.

Obama also said this:

``For a bunch of election cycles we have had such a narrow path to victory that one thing went wrong we were going to lose. The `Solid South' with the Republicans is part of that shrinkage of the map. I want to expand it.''

Obama wants to break through the "solid South", not only for an electoral victory, but also for a symbolic victory for civil rights. Just imagine if the first black president won former slave states like Virginia, North Carolina, and Georgia? It would be huge news everywhere, and further help establish Obama as a unifying figure. And Obama's desire to win in the South will be supported by his choice of Tim Kaine as VP.

2012: If Huckabee runs, he wins

2008-07-02T12:37:00.000-07:00

Back in December of '06, Kos wrote that if Barack Obama ran for the nomination, he would win.

I'm gonna see if I can do one better.

I predict that if Mike Huckabee runs for the Republican nomination in 2012 (assuming, of course, that Barack Obama wins the presidency in 2008), Huckabee will win.

The Republicans have a sort-of hierarchy to the method in which they choose a nominee for their party. Logically, if one can figure out their hierarchy, then one can fairly easily determine who their nominee will be. Well, I have solved the riddle of their hierarchy! And here it is:

Incumbent/son of former president
Vice President
2nd place finisher
Former nominee
Former VP nominee

To the Republicans, an incumbent president and the son of a former president are one and the same. This is why George W. Bush was the instant front-runner for the nomination in 2000. When there is no Republican incumbent president running, then obviously, the current Republican vice president will win the nomination. If there is no incumbent president or vice president, then the 2nd place finisher from the previous contest will secure the nomination. Since George W. Bush can't run for another term, and Dick Cheney chose not to run, then John McCain won the nomination by being the 2nd place finisher in 2000 (the last contest they had). If even the 2nd place finisher isn't running, then a former presidential nominee gets the spot, as when Nixon secured the nomination in 1968 after previously having been the nominee in 1960. And when even a former presidential nominee isn't available, the Republicans resort to a former vice presidential nominee. This would explain Bob Dole securing the nomination in 1996, after having been on the ticket in 1976 with Gerald Ford.

A table of all GOP nominees dating back to 1952, with their qualification, is shown here:

Candidate	Claim to fame	Notes	Year
John McCain	2000 2^nd place finisher		2008
George W. Bush	Incumbent		2004
George W. Bush	Son of former president		2000
Bob Dole	1976 VP nominee	Senate Majority leader	1996
George HW Bush	Incumbent		1992
George HW Bush	Vice President		1988
Ronald Reagan	Incumbent		1984
Ronald Reagan	1976 2^nd place finisher		1980
Gerald Ford	Incumbent		1976
Richard Nixon	Incumbent		1972
Richard Nixon	1960 nominee	VP 1952 & 56	1968
Barry Goldwater	1960 2^nd place finisher		1964
Richard Nixon	Vice President		1960
Dwight Eisenhower	Incumbent		1956
Dwight Eisenhower	General		1952

There is no election which doesn't fit this formula, except for Eisenhower in 1952, who ran after 2 terms of Truman and 4 terms of FDR. At that point, the GOP didn't have anyone else. For the same reason, elections before 1952 don't apply.

So let's go through the hierarchy for 2012, shall we?

1. Incumbent/son of former president

If Jeb Bush wanted to run, he'd probably get the nomination, but I doubt he'd run because his brother messed up so badly. Likewise, if George H.W. Bush decided to run again (most likely beyond the realm of possibility), he would probably fit into this category (although there isn't any modern precedent for a Former President category).

2. Vice President

There's talk of Obama picking Chuck Hagel to be his running mate, but I don't think Hagel would then go and run against his boss four years later. This category doesn't seem to be a possiblility.

3. 2nd place finisher

This is where Mike Huckabee comes in. As the 2nd place finisher in the Republican primaries, he seems set to be in the highest ranking category of the hierarchy.

4. Former nominee

The only former nominee left is Bob Dole. I don't see him running again. This is also potentially a category that George H.W. Bush would fall into.

5. Former VP nominee

This is where things could potentially get interesting. If Huckabee decides not to run in 2012, then whoever John McCain chooses as his running mate will win the nomination in 2012. This is yet another consideration McCain will have to factor in in picking a running mate. Does he want to potentially give Mitt Romney a boost for 2012? Or would he rather use this power on someone he likes better personally? Also of note, Dan Quayle would probably fit in this category.

So, bottom line: If John McCain loses, Mike Huckabee is the front-runner for the GOP nomination in 2012, and, since he is likely to hold the highest spot on the hierarchy, if he runs, he will win.

The Waves

2008-06-26T16:05:00.000-07:00

This a sort-of response to this post at 538.

According to Obama's campaign, they have 18 battleground states in which they will be heavily investing resources. I think all of the decisions they've made are wise, based on the evidence I've seen. I'm still a little skeptical on Alaska and Indiana, but I think there could be something behind those numbers.

Anyway, I think these first 18 states are really just the beginning of building a series of waves of new battleground states. Some of these states are going to be easier to win than others. Despite having a large cash advantage, Obama still has limited resources, and is unable to campaign everywhere at once, so he must pick and choose which states he wants to compete in at this moment in time. I think Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Iowa, and New Hampshire will be the first wave of states to swing blue. After those states look safe, Obama can start investing in Louisiana and South Carolina (states that aren't on on the list). The second wave will be Colorado, New Mexico, Michigan, and Ohio. Then Obama can start investing in West Virginia and Mississippi. The third wave will be Nevada and Virginia. He'll start investing in South Dakota and Kansas. The fourth wave will be Florida, Indiana, and Missouri. Then he can start investing in Nebraska. The fifth and final wave will be North Carolina, North Dakota, Montana, and Alaska. After this, he can start investing in Texas.

So, in short, if all goes well, the current Obama swing states will all (or mostly) eventually become blue states and the new swing states will become LA, SC, WV, MS, SD, KS, NE, and TX. Obama won't win all of these states, but by competing in them, he will be able to help expand majorities in Congress, as well as expand opportunities for Democrats at state and local levels.

The New Meet The Press

2008-06-17T20:36:00.000-07:00

Speculation has started about who will fill Tim Russert's shoes as permanent moderator of Meet The Press. Here is my list of who I believe are likely possibilities:

David Gregory
PROS: Is almost universally considered the front-runner for the gig (and I agree). Has guest-hosted MTP before. As chief White House correspondent, he clearly knows his stuff. Has shown a willingness to ask tough questions without backing down.
CONS: Is already the host of a show on MSNBC (Race for the White House), although that can be dealt with, since the show hasn't been on the air very long. Has a terrible on-screen personality. Where Tim Russert seemed genuine, David Gregory seems fake.

Andrea Mitchell
PROS: As chief foreign affairs correspondent, she is an NBC News staple. Has also guest-hosted MTP before. As a woman, would be a historic choice.
CONS: Suffers a terrible personality deficit.

Chuck Todd
PROS: NBC News political director. Is a rising star at NBC News and is gaining a cult following for his smart, ahead-of-the-curve analysis. Known for being unbiased. Very likable on-screen personality, much like Russert.
CONS: No experience interviewing others. He would be a risky choice in an industry that doesn't like to take risks. He'll more likely take over Race for the White House after Gregory leaves to host MTP. Then perhaps they can (finally) give that show a new name. Does anyone seriously think a show called "Race for the White House" sounds like a show that's going to be on the air for more than a year or two? What will they cover when it's not a presidential election year? Will they start speculating about the next election four years in advance? Maybe they'll rename it First View (a take off of First Read) or Todd's Take. I think a show that centered on elections (not just presidential, but also senate and congressional elections) would be amazing.

Chris Matthews
PROS: Well-known figure at NBC News. More centrist, politically, than most pundits.
CONS: Too vocally opinionated and full of himself. He would need to dramatically tone it down for MTP. At MSNBC he has had a penchant for putting his foot in his mouth.

Gwen Ifill
PROS: Used to work for NBC News. Now is the host and managing editor of PBS' Washington Week. Can be a tough interviewer like Russert.
CONS: No longer works at NBC News.

Who it won't be:

Joe Scarborough/Keith Olbermann
PROS: Both well-known figures at NBC News. Both very good on-screen personalities.
CONS: Both have well-known and well-cataloged biases.

Tom Brokaw
PROS: Obviously he has the experience, resume, gravitas, and unbiased image.
CONS: Is semi-retired, and likes it that way. There's a chance (maybe even a good chance) that he'll end up as an interim host, but there's no way he'll take a permanent position.

Brian Williams
PROS: The same as Brokaw, but less so.
CONS: Already has a full-time job as anchor of NBC Nightly News.

Why Hillary Won't Be on the Ballot

2008-05-17T16:13:00.001-07:00

With regards to Bob Beckel's article, Obama can easily avoid making the super delegates force him to choose Clinton as his running mate. If he makes public who he wants his running mate to be before the super delegates can vote on it, the super delegates won't go against him. The last thing Democrats want is a nasty fight at the convention over who will be on the ticket. If Obama makes his choice public, the super delegates will be forced to get behind it.

BTW: Didn't Bob Beckel manage Walter "One State" Mondale's campaign in '84? So what does he know about campaigns?

What the hell?!

2008-04-23T15:16:00.000-07:00

I hate disingenuous news reports. So every time I hear someone report on Bill Ayers, Jeremiah Wright, "Bittergate", or "flag pin-gate", I cringe. Seriously, let's think of what the reporters are implying when they report about this:

Bill Ayers (former member of domestic terrorist group Weather Underground) - Obama is in favor of terrorism.

Jeremiah Wright - Obama hates The US, Israel, and will enslave the white race.

Bitter - Obama hates working-class people, will enact policies that will harm working-class people (kinda like Bush?), and will take steps to destroy religion and take away guns.

Flag Pin - Obama hates his country.

Do any news reporters seriously believe any of this? Do any Republican politicians seriously believe this? Do they believe Obama hates his country, supports terrorism, hates Israel, and will enact terrible Bush-like economic policies as president? Obviously, the answer is no. Reporters report bullshit like this because it creates drama, and drama brings in viewers. They know all of this is completely irrelevant and untrue. Republicans obviously talk about this shit because they believe it's politically effective. Once again, none of them personally believe this.

That's why this all annoys me so much. Everyone knows none of these things are true, but all of the people supposedly "in the know" talk about these things as though there is even a faint possibility these things could be true.

100 Years

2008-03-23T15:51:00.000-07:00

Q: President Bush has talked about our staying in Iraq for 50 years — (cut off by McCain)

McCain: Make it a hundred.

That's gonna be the statement that does McCain in. It's gonna be to him what "I voted for it before I voted against it" was to John Kerry. This statement is going to be played endlessly in advertisements from all of the liberal 527s and, no doubt, the DNC. McCain will easily be portrayed in the media as a warmonger who wants to keep the Iraq occupation going ad infinitum.

On the issue of immigration, there is no substantial difference between him and Obama. The differences between McCain and Obama on the environment will be minimal (although Obama could make the war into an environmental issue). McCain will not want to talk about health care because he has no solution for the health care crisis. He will not want to talk about the economy because economics isn't his strong suit and he knows that he looks uncomfortable talking about it. He's a national security candidate, and the war in Iraq is the top national security issue. The war is the one issue he'll want to keep talking about.

Unfortunately for him, that is also an issue Obama feels very comfortable talking about. And the more Obama beats McCain over the head with his "100 years" statement, the more people are going to side with Obama. Despite the perceived success of "the surge", most Americans still want American troops out of Iraq, and the idea that McCain wants to keep our soldiers in Iraq for 100 years is going to turn a lot of voters away from McCain and toward Obama.

To put it another way - this election is basically gonna come down to two choices: 1. Permanent military presence in Iraq, or 2. Gradual withdrawal from Iraq. It's obvious that the vast majority of the country prefers the second option, which obviously will be Obama.

And even if McCain suddenly wants to turn the discussion to a new topic, such as the economy or fiscal responsibility, Obama can always flip that back to a discussion of Iraq, and once again bring up his "100 years" statement.

Since the Democratic nomination process is still going on, Obama and McCain haven't had the chance yet to really duke it out, mono a mono. When they do finally have a chance to go head to head, it will be a battle of issues, unlike the Democratic nomination, which has been a battle of personalities. And on the issues, Obama has a clear, and significant, edge. This edge on the issues, combined with his financial edge, will make the general election ultimately not as close as polls currently suggest. As the race progresses, a gap will slowly emerge in Obama's favor, giving him a victory which will be anything but narrow.

For your viewing pleasure:

Update: Apparently I'm ahead of the curve.

Delaying...

2008-03-05T16:13:00.000-08:00

The Clinton team did well in the March 4 elections. I think that point is hard to dispute. She had late momentum that pushed her to a big win in Ohio, and a smaller victory in the Texas primary. The punditry will certainly be smitten with this "comeback" story. However, we can't forget the cold, hard reality of the delegate math. According to the Obama campaign's estimates (which I have no reason to believe will be far from the actual totals), Clinton will receive a net gain of 4 delegates when all is said and done from yesterday's contests. The Obama campaign estimates it still has a lead of about 156 pledged delegates. And:

Per the campaign's math, there are 611 delegates left to win in the Democratic race, and Clinton needs to win 60% of them to erase Obama's lead.

So the Obama campaign estimates that Clinton would need to win approximately 367 of the next 611 delegates to overtake his lead. That simply will not happen. Of the few states remaining, only Pennsylvania appears favorable to her, and that state "only" has 151 delegates. It is the most of any state remaining, but she won't win all 151 and it still won't put her over the top.

Right now, Clinton has 3 possible (although not plausible) routes to the nomination:

She somehow convinces an ass-load of superdelegates to overturn the will of the voters. Despite any clout the Clintons still have, that's an impossibly hard sell to make. Superdelegates are politicians, and they don't want to be on the voters' bad side. Plus, as a party that remembers all to well Al Gore's Florida debacle, Democrats will become deeply disenchanted if they feel the voters' voices are not heard and an election is stolen. Nothing would do more to even the playing field with Republicans in the general election than to overturn the choice of the voters (the winner of pledged delegates). This leads right into the next possiblility...
Clinton somehow gets a majority of the DNC credentials committee to seat the Florida and Michigan delegations as-is. Once again, nothing would do more to demoralize the Democratic party than to have the nominee of the party decided in an unfair manner. Florida and Michigan broke the DNC's rules by moving their primary dates too far forward. As a result, nobody campaigned in either state. Barack Obama's name wasn't even on the ballot in Michigan! If the Florida and Michigan delegations are seated as-is, Clinton's victory will look like a coup.
Florida and Michigan decide to hold some sort of legitimate contest in June after Puerto Rico. This would be expensive, and would be difficult to implement with regards to having rules that all parties can agree upon. This seems to be Clinton's most likely of impossible scenarios. Even if Clinton, Obama, Florida, Michigan, and the DNC could agree on all the details of holding future contests in June, Obama would still likely hold a significant delegate advantage going into said contests. And while Clinton would likely win any future contest held in Florida or Michigan, it is doubtful she would be able to erase Obama's delegate lead. This would bring her back to option #1, which, as I pointed out, won't work, and if it did work, would be disastrous for the Democratic party.

So Clinton's victories yesterday were victories and were well-earned. But, in the long run, she will still eventually lose.

Obama the Underestimated

2008-02-27T19:11:00.000-08:00

Come November, Obama is going to be competitive in states that people won't expect. He's going to surprise people. Because Obama is young and new to the national political scene, he is consistently underestimated. Some of my friends have said that there is no way Obama can win in a landslide. I beg to differ. In fact, so does Eugene Robinson and Newsweek. The friends of mine are the same friends who thought Obama wouldn't win the nomination and Bloomberg would run against Hillary. Not to toot my own horn, but I think I have the better track record.

The reason Obama, come November, will be competitive in states people don't expect is that he is the Democratic version of Ronald Reagan. He is optimistic and inspiring. McCain, on the other hand, is gloomy, pessimistic, and depressing. Obama has Reagan's "teflon" quality - no attacks against him seem to stick. Obama is youthful, energetic, new, and exciting. McCain is old (would probably die in office) and on the issues that matter most to Americans, he simply offers more of the same. Obama and/or the DNC has more money than McCain and will continue to outspend him. Democratic turn-out in the primaries has been significantly higher than that in the Republican primaries.

The issues work to Obama's advantage as well. McCain has said he knows little about the economy, and it shows. Therefore, McCain will have to consistently come back to the war in Iraq. At this point, Obama can beat McCain over the head about how McCain wants to keep us there for 100 years, we're diverting resources from fighting al Qaeda, and hindering our abilities to solve problems here at home. The vast majority of Americans will hear this argument and turn towards Obama. America doesn't want a 100-year war. So whether it be the economy or the war, Obama has a leg up.

McCain will make the same tired arguments against Obama that Clinton has been making for over a year and still haven't worked. Having more "experience" and being "ready to lead on day one" aren't going to work any better in the general election.

States that don't matter

2008-02-18T15:58:00.000-08:00

Here's a compilation (a Greatest Hits, if you will) of recent Clinton campaign arguments for why states that Obama won don't matter:

A co-chairman of Hillary's Michigan campaign and has a line that's sure to drive a whole bunch of red state governor's up the wall:

"Superdelegates are not second-class delegates," says Joel Ferguson, who will be a superdelegate if Michigan is seated. "The real second-class delegates are the delegates that are picked in red-state caucuses that are never going to vote Democratic."

"Could we possibly have a nominee who hasn't won any of the significant states -- outside of Illinois? That raises some serious questions about Sen. Obama." - Mark Penn

Of his wife's recent travails, [Bill Clinton] said, "the caucuses aren't good for her. They disproportionately favor upper-income voters who, who, don't really need a president but feel like they need a change."

So, according to the Clinton campaign, red states don't matter, all 20 states that Obama has won which aren't Illinois don't matter, and people who vote in caucuses don't need a president. Talk like this seems counter-productive to the Democrats who do, believe it or not, live in those states. And, in fact, it appears that this talk is being counter-productive to Clinton as well: she's tied with Obama in Texas, a red state which has caucuses.

Obama Stats

2008-02-10T21:00:00.000-08:00

Here's some interesting stats:

In terms of pledged delegates:
Jan. 3 - Obama won
Jan. 8 - Obama and Clinton tied
Jan. 19 - Obama won
Jan. 26 - Obama won
Feb. 5 - Obama won
Feb. 9 - Obama won
Feb. 10 - Obama won

At no point during this race, has Obama lost amongst pledged delegates. I'm guessing this streak will change March 4th, however. Also, at no point in this race has Obama been behind in pledged delegates.

In terms of the (meaningless) popular vote:
Obama has won 19 states; Clinton has won 10.

Obama has won 10 states by more than 30%; Clinton has won one state by more than 30%. In other words, Obama has won more than half of his states by more than 30%; Clinton has won one-tenth of her states by more than 30%. In other words, Obama has won as many states by more than 30% of the vote as Clinton has won total.

Obama has won 3 states by more than 40%; Clinton has won one state by more than 40%.

Huckabee's strategy

2008-02-10T20:40:00.000-08:00

Huckabee's strategy, as evidenced by his remarks on Meet The Press this morning, seems to be that he wants to try to get enough delegates to deny McCain the 1191 needed for nomination. It is mathematically impossible for Huckabee to win at this point, but if he can deny McCain his 1191, he can force McCain into choosing him as a running mate. As the nominee for VP, Huckabee would be a shoe-in for the Republican nomination in 2012 (providing they lose this time around) or 2016 (if they win).

Other realistic possibilities for McCain's VP include:

Florida Gov. Charlie Crist (in my opinion, the most likely choice)
Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice (to offset the historic nature of a Clinton or Obama candidacy)
South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford (a staunch conservative)
Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty (a conservative from a geographically desirable state)
Kansas Senator Sam Brownback (I haven't heard this one thrown out there, but I think it's a very remote possibility. He's a staunch conservative who is much younger than McCain and endorsed him at a crucial time.)

UPDATE: I retract Sen. Brownback as a realistic possibility. After he failed to deliver Kansas to McCain (after McCain had pretty much been crowned the nominee, no less), he is simply not an option.

Obama's Electability

2008-01-31T20:46:00.000-08:00

I'm unabashedly an Obama supporter, but I also think I'm level-headed enough to see where he is strong and where he is weak. When it comes to electability, however, I think the evidence strongly favors Obama.

First of all, look at where he's come from. Four years ago he was nothing in the national consciousness. Now he's competitive for the presidential nomination with someone who has been in the national spotlight for more than a decade. Senator Clinton claims she has more experience (a claim I dispute, but for the sake of argument...), so what does it say about her campaign that she hasn't been able to beat somebody with what she claims to be substantively less experience. Senator Clinton came into this race very well known; in fact, I'd venture to guess that she was one of the best known contenders in presidential history upon entering this race. Her husband is a former president and as a result she had at her disposal an unprecedented number of connections and an unparalleled organization that she could have turned to her advantage. Instead, she's in a dead-heat race with a guy who is new to the national scene and basically built a national organization overnight.

Second, let's look at the results so far. As the general election will be about winning electoral votes, the primary race is about winning delegates, and so far Obama is ahead in pledged delegates. In fact, out of the four contested races so far, Obama has won three (Iowa, Nevada, and South Carolina) and tied with Clinton in one (New Hampshire). That's right, Clinton has yet to actually win a single contested election. Clinton even won the vote in Nevada by 5% and still lost the race for delegates. She can't even win the states that she wins. I would also like to point out that these states each come from a major region of the country: the midwest, the northeast, the west, and the south. Clinton has "won" in Michigan and Florida, two states that were stripped of all of their delegates for disobeying DNC rules, meaning her "victories" there were meaningless.

Clinton still has an overwhelming lead among superdelegates (party insiders), but 60% of superdelegates are still uncommitted and most are likely to remain that way until it looks like there is a clear nominee. If there is any movement before there is a clear nominee, I imagine it will be a net gain for Obama, as it has been pretty clear that Clinton (the establishment candidate) has been running or intent on running for at least about three years now, which is plenty of time for party insiders to get behind her. The only reason they haven't gotten behind her, one imagines, is that they are apprehensive about her candidacy, or they don't want to upset whoever the eventual nominee is by endorsing early on. This is not to mention the fact that Obama has been endorsed recently by John Kerry and Ted Kennedy, two very respected party insiders who will no doubt have great effect in steering superdelegates Obama's way.

Obama has talked much about rewriting the map in the general election, and I spoke with a Clinton-supporting friend about this recently who had doubts. My friend did not think this was likely because in the general election he believes that racist white voters (especially in the South) will say that they will vote for Obama but actually vote for the white opponent. He cites recent votes on anti-gay marriage amendments as examples. I don't think, however, the two issues are quite the same. Racism, even in the South, isn't the issue it once was, and gay marriage now is far closer to the issue that racism was 20, 30, 40 years ago. Still, racism is a big issue and I don't doubt that something of a Bradley-effect will occur. However, I don't think racism is the issue it once was and I don't think it is likely to drive voters to the polls. Republican voters are pretty disheartened and apathetic right now. In the past month, Barack Obama has raised more money than Republican front-runner John McCain has in his entire campaign. Barack Obama received more votes in South Carolina than John McCain and second-place finisher Mike Huckabee combined (this, by the way, is not something that I believe Jesse Jackson did in '84 or '88). In South Carolina. A state where they still want to hang the Confederate flag on government buildings! If the Republicans can't turn out more supporters than the Democrats in an ultra-Right Wing state with a very heated and contested primary election, they will have a hard time competing with the Democrats' turn-out operation in November, weakening the Bradley-effect.

Given where he's come from and where he's going, I think it's hard to argue that Obama is unelectable. And I think he's gonna surprise people come Super Tuesday.