« "I will beat these people, just like I've been beating them for my whole life" | Main | The "trophy wife" in action »
Wednesday, January 09, 2008
The fat lady has barely begun her warm-ups
Most of the mainstream media, and large chunks of the blogosphere, are behaving like children — more specifically, like children who have not yet completed third-grade arithmetic.
Network anchors, national columnists, and prominent bloggers (left and right) have pronounced both the Fred Thompson and Rudy Giuliani campaigns either dead outright or else on life-support (with Do Not Resuscitate toe-tags).
But only three of fifty states have determined their delegates — three very small states, at least two of which (the ones everyone has paid attention to) are arguably pretty unrepresentative of the Republican Party nationally.
There will be 2380 delegates at the 2008 Republican National Convention. So far, only 71 delegates — less than 3% — have been awarded. At least 1191 are needed for the nomination, and Mitt Romney, the current delegate leader (with 30), so far has less than 3% of the number he'd need for the nomination. And yet some pundits are writing him off (even though he's the only GOP candidate with an effectively unlimited bankroll).
Last night, John McCain won a grand total of seven delegates in New Hampshire. That's slightly more than twice as many as Fred Thompson won (3) by coming in second in Wyoming, but compare the volume of media coverage for the New Hampshire result. Note that based on those seven delegates, half the press is ready to declare McCain the "new GOP front-runner"! Yet McCain's win last night in New Hampshire only secured for him just under one third of one percent of the total number of GOP delegates!
If you're drawing firm conclusions now about how the race is going to turn out, you're letting yourself be suckered. The pollsters — and the network anchors, national columnists, and prominent bloggers (left and right) who are relying on them — were not only wrong in their prediction about who would win the Democratic primary in New Hampshire, they were wrong by huge margins, and now they can't even explain or agree upon why they were so wrong. The obvious conclusion: They are not reliable.
It's too soon to even rule out John Edwards on the Democratic side. And on the Republican side, five different candidates — including Thompson and Giuliani — still have realistic chances of winning. Anyone who insists otherwise needs a refresher in basic grade-school arithmetic.
After the huge wave of primaries on February 25th, the shape of one or both races may suddenly become crystal clear. My own guess, however, is that when the dust settles by the next morning, there will still be three potentially viable GOP candidates (Romney, Giuliani, and Thompson, since I personally don't believe that either McCain or Huckabee will win another primary, nor place higher than third in any important one), and two Democratic ones (Clinton and Obama). Now, that's just a guess; there's no science involved. But it's as good a guess, I respectfully submit, as what anyone can peddle or promote as of January 8, 2008.
What is relatively certain, however, is that for the rest of the primary season, no candidate has time to sway many voters through "retail politics" (i.e., personal appearances). Television advertising is going to be hugely important, so if you want to see your political contributions go a long way, right now is the time to give. And if you have ever been inclined to volunteer your time for a campaign, now would be a time when you might help make a real difference.
Posted by Beldar at 06:09 PM in 2008 Election, Politics (2008) | Permalink
TrackBacks
Other weblog posts, if any, whose authors have linked to The fat lady has barely begun her warm-ups and sent a trackback ping are listed here:
Comments
(1) Antimedia made the following comment | Jan 9, 2008 7:48:40 PM | Permalink
As you, obviously, I have been amazed by the hyperbole attached to these two, very small, primaries and the completely unsupportable conclusions that some have drawn from them. Even the chatter about who has the most money (and can therefore sustain a campaign) is wrong. In today's connected world, all a candidate has to be able to do is sustain supportable funding not accumulate large treasuries and then spend them down. That's the old way of politics. The pundits and so-called experts don't seem to have a clue what's going on. They are clearly stuck in the old world.
(2) Semanticleo made the following comment | Jan 9, 2008 8:10:47 PM | Permalink
Has Thompson (aka 'Deputy Dawg')
been sighted in the last 12 hours? Ron Paul wants to ask him to be VP.
(3) Friend #1 made the following comment | Jan 9, 2008 8:43:48 PM | Permalink
"Network anchors, national columnists, and prominent bloggers (left and right) have pronounced both the Fred Thompson and Rudy Giuliani campaigns either dead outright or else on life-support (with Do Not Resuscitate toe-tags)."
Actually, no. The pundits aren't lumping Rudy Giuliani together with Fred Thompson and neither should we. Giuliani has a campaign strategy (crazy though it may be), while Thompson seems to be leisurely strolling from state to state. Giuliani recently made the most of his brief New Hampshire detour, campaigning hard and gutting out a fourth-place finish. Thompson reportedly spent a crucial day in New Hampshire last weekend making zero - yes, zero! - public appearances and finished with fewer popular votes than New Hampshire's write-in candidates.
To put things in perspective, Thompson got more popular votes in New Hampshire than Mike Gravel but fewer than Dennis Kucinich.
"[O]n the Republican side, five different candidates — including Thompson and Giuliani — still have realistic chances of winning. Anyone who insists otherwise needs a refresher in basic grade-school arithmetic."
Perhaps Beldar can explain why Thompson is a more viable candidate than fellow southerner Ron Paul, who probably has more available cash than Thompson, certainly has more enthusiastic supporters than Thompson, works a heckuva lot harder than Thompson and has trounced Thompson thus far in popular votes.
I suppose anything's possible (including a brokered GOP convention) but Thompson is an extreme longshot.
Yes, it's still early, but the Republican field is in chaos. Every major GOP presidential candidate is unacceptable to GOP king-makers for one reason or another. That could spell electoral disaster in November.
(4) Michael J. Myers made the following comment | Jan 10, 2008 1:05:26 AM | Permalink
If every major GOP candidate is unacceptable for one reason or another to one group or another (I haven't figured out who the purported GOP "king-makers" are) then you are going to have McCain, Romney, Thompson, and Giuliani all showing up at the convention with not enough votes to make it over the top. That's when things will start to get really interesting. In the meantime, let's sit back and enjoy the show(s) in both parties.
(5) Greg D made the following comment | Jan 10, 2008 2:45:57 AM | Permalink
McCain has a good shot of winning in Michigan, since "independents" can vote in the primary, and Hilary is the only real candidate on the Democrat ballot.
(6) kimsch made the following comment | Jan 10, 2008 11:43:17 AM | Permalink
Greg,
It doesn't matter if Hilary wins Michigan or not, the DNC has stripped Michigan and Florida of all their delegates because they moved their primaries to January. The RNC stripped Michigan and Florida of half their delegates.
(7) Stephen made the following comment | Jan 10, 2008 12:12:17 PM | Permalink
Kimsch,
The strpping of Dem delegates gives them even more incentive to wreck havoc by crossing over and vote Huckabee or Paul.
It's yet another area where the legacy media has not yet gotten used to the new order. One of the few positive contributions the Clintons made to politics was ignoring the media trying to force him from the race back in '92 (as documented "a clef" by Klein in Primary Colors).
One hopes the legacy media will experience a period of adjustment and begin to actually cover the news rather try to pre-emptively proclaim it.
As for myself, I cannot help but think that if it came to a by-God nominating convention, Thompson would be the logical pick since he offends the least number among the party's base.
Does anyone else feel that Bloomburg has the potential to be this year's Perot? Seems to me, barring Huckabee winning the GOP nod, that's about the only way that any of the Dems could win.
(8) Friend #1 made the following comment | Jan 10, 2008 1:49:16 PM | Permalink
"... I cannot help but think that if it came to a by-God nominating convention, Thompson would be the logical pick since he offends the least number among the party's base."
Is that really how you want to pick the GOP nominee? Whomever is least offensive to the right-wing base??
Let me say a couple of things. First, I know more than a few Dems who are secretly rooting for a Thompson win in S.C. A Thompson win would further fracture an already fractured GOP field by creating another viable candidate.
Second thing is that Republicans need to stop worrying about which of their admittedly mediocre candidates is least offensive to the base and start concentrating on which candidate has the widest appeal amongst normal, rational, mainstream American voters. Basically - and I say this with affection for my friends on the other side - Republicans need to target Democrats and Independents if the GOP wants to avoid an electoral wipeout in '08.
My advice to the GOP is to quickly coalesce around John McCain and eventually stick Huckabee or Bill Frist on the bottom of the ticket. Don't exhaust McCain's dwindling resources or you might get stuck with a northeastern, elitist flip-flopper as your nominee. (Trust me from experience, you don't want to go there.)
McCain is an honest guy who offers several attractive positions for mainstream, rational Americans: votes against some of the extreme Bush tax cuts, a fairly reasonable position on immigration and a courageous sponsorship of McCain-Feingold.
Republicans can nominate a candidate with at least a shot at winning and/or not losing too much ground in Congress in November. That ought to be the goal. Right-wingers just need to make a few small compromises.
"Does anyone else feel that Bloomburg has the potential to be this year's Perot? Seems to me, barring Huckabee winning the GOP nod, that's about the only way that any of the Dems could win."
I can't tell if you're serious ...
If Bloomberg gets in, it would probably hurt the Dems. If he stays out, the Dems have three viable candidates who could handily beat their GOP counterparts. Just look at the voter turnouts and you will quickly discern which way the nation is trending.
There is palpable enthusiasm on the Democratic side. On the Republican side ... well, you've got your work cut out for you.
(9) Moneyrunner made the following comment | Jan 11, 2008 6:15:26 AM | Permalink
Ah, my Friend (and you are my friend), we humble Republicans are awed by that mighty and indomitable Democrat field. Headed by the wife of an impeached former President, the likeable, sultry and smart (can you turn $1000 into $100,000 in cattle futures?) Hillary! Or perhaps Mr. Obama, the second coming of Christ on earth with that wealth of governing experience? Or perhaps Mr. Edwards, able to channel dead babies; the American people are aching, aching, to elevate a trial lawyer who is somewhat to the Left of Hugo Chavez to the Presidency.
We have no chance and are unworthy. Let’s just skip the next election and go with the one who the Democrats anoint.
(10) ech made the following comment | Jan 11, 2008 10:15:22 AM | Permalink
Perhaps Beldar can explain why Thompson is a more viable candidate than fellow southerner Ron Paul, ...
Because Ron Paul published racist, nutball essays under his own name to make money? Because he has 1/3 the delegates of Thompson? Because Rep. Paul has an undistinguished track record in the House? Because he has welcomed a lot of characters into his campaign that repel most Americans? (i.e. 9/11 truthers, Christian Reconstructionists, neo-Nazis, and other conspiracits)
It looks more and more like barring a major scandal, the GOP nomination will be difficult for anyone to sew up before the convention. By all accounts, Thompson won the debate last night, so that might gin up some support in SC. I expect that we'll see a deal cut for a ticket with some combination of Giuliani, Thompson, and Romney. Note that senators with substantial records are bad bets to win the Presidency: because the Senate is run by consensus and compromise, anyone there for a while ends up cutting deals that P.O. the base and the opposition. POing the base can be fatal. McCain sure has POed the base, by and large. Thompson has some problems in that regard, though not as many.
One of Obama's strengths is that he hasn't done much legislatively, so he's hard to attack.
(11) DRJ made the following comment | Jan 11, 2008 11:40:39 PM | Permalink
Friend #1,
When it comes to the GOP, with friends like you who needs enemies?
(12) Nom de Blog made the following comment | Jan 11, 2008 11:44:56 PM | Permalink
I always love it when political liberals like Mrs. Semanti Cleo or Friend (of whom?) #1 give political conservatives advice about politics. It's refreshing in its naivety.
Or perhaps they believe the caricature of conservatives as drooling imbeciles.
Either way it's just play funny.
(13) michael made the following comment | Jan 12, 2008 1:40:56 AM | Permalink
This contest reminds me of the 1960 Democratic contest, the last one that didn't seem to break to a winner pretty much right away. Regardless of how it breaks it seems an impressive display of the devolution of power in a democracy. It involves the states almost in a military strategy of holding ground and having potential repurcussions based on forces committed; Pyrrhic silver medals anyone? It is also giving a good self portrait of the Republican electorate which is perhaps not as handsomely free market or Whiggish as it seems to have remembered itself. I think going to SC to volunteer for Fred would be great. I'd probably do it if I could afford the time (though I'm afraid I might remind some SC folks why they wanted to vote for Huck).
(14) hunter made the following comment | Jan 13, 2008 10:28:49 AM | Permalink
Beldar,
If you have a way to communicate to the guys over at big lizards blog, let them know they have been high jacked off the internet by a pet supply website. They have never posted good contact info to the great unwashed, but perhaps they have given you a good way to contact them.
(15) Carol Herman made the following comment | Jan 13, 2008 11:34:05 PM | Permalink
Well, for primaries, it's a good thing the republicans have a large enough field, that it actually looks like a contest!
Though, having to cater to the right wing, has damaged Guiliani. Because? I don't think voters who favor democrats ... and it's something like 50% of voters who identify with the domocrats. While the number for the GOP sits at 36%. Are in the mood to see the supreme court taken over by conservative judges.
And, why is there silence about Bush? The war in Iraq doesn't feel successful. Because we don't have returning soldiers who are all that enthused. It seems Bush has gone out of his way to back the Saud's. And, they're the terrorists!
I'm sure, in 1932, when FDR was running for his first term, there was a similar anger out there for republicans.
A dog and pony show isn't going to fix this.
I think I've been getting "surprised" since the 2006 election.
(16) alphie made the following comment | Jan 19, 2008 5:12:28 AM | Permalink
Not surprising to see a Texan proud of his mastery of 3rd grade math.
The same guys who brought us 6+ years of war in Afghanistan and saddled our kids with trillions of dollars worth of debt ought to look at the New Hampshire polling numbers a little closer before saying they were wrong by "huge margins:"
Candidate Poll Actual
McCain 34.2 % 37%
Romney 27.5% 32%
Huckabee 12.0% 11%
Giuliani 8.3% 9%
Paul 7.9% 8%
Thompson 2.3% 1%
Clinton 30.4% 39%
Obama 36.4% 37%
Edwards 18.4% 17%
Richardson 5.6% 5%
Biden 2.5 % 0%
(17) Beldar made the following comment | Jan 19, 2008 3:21:31 PM | Permalink
alphie, I am a less tolerant host than Patterico. Regional bigotry -- which your crack about Texans is, and it's the second time you've leveled such an insult in a mere four comments here -- is not tolerated here, no more than would be a post from someone making racial or sexual slurs. If you'd like your commenting privileges here restored, email me with a persuasive reason why they should be. But don't hold your breath.
Disagreeing views are welcome here, when civilly expressed. Yours isn't.
Factual arguments, especially with links, are also welcome. Your post, again, fails that test. Many of the New Hampshire polls had Obama winning by double digits. Per the WaPo, which was absolutely typical of all MSM organizations who recognized that their own polling, and the other polls upon which they had relied, got it badly, horribly wrong (emphasis mine):
While pre-election polls in New Hampshire got Sen. John McCain's margin of victory about right on the Republican side, late polls fundamentally mischaracterized the status of the Democratic race.
....
Polls released in the two days before the election had Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) with a five- to 13-percentage-point lead over Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) in the Granite State, but Clinton defeated Obama, 39 percent to 36 percent.
I don't know where your numbers came from, but for the Democratic race, they aren't representative of what the polls were actually saying, much less how they were being spun and the "trends" that they were being used to predict.
The comments to this entry are closed.