![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
I'm trying to decide what to do about next week's presidential primary. Normally, this wouldn't be an issue - I'd vote for my favorite candidate in the Democratic primary, but things aren't that simple this time.
First, because of Michigan's asinine decision to jump the process, the Democratic primary has become completely irrelevant. The idea was to move up on the calendar and get some attention on the state and our economic woes, but the Democratic Party has stripped the state of its delegates and all the major candidates are boycotting. Edwards and Obama had their names taken off the ballot and, while Clinton didn't do that, she has promised not to campaign here or spend any money.
The other possibility is to vote in the Republican primary. I could vote for the Republican that I think would make the best president, which is probably McCain, but that's an awfully low bar. Or I could vote for Ron Paul, but I have serious issues with some of his past statements on race and sexual preference. Either way, it's mostly a vote against Romney, Giuliani and Huckabee.
A few pundits have been saying that they think Clinton may try to use surrogates to campaign in Michigan to boost her margin and make it look like an impressive victory. If I see any signs of that, I'll vote for "uncommitted" in the Democratic primary and urge everyone I know to do the same. Write-in votes won't be counted, so don't do that. Vote for uncommitted or Kucinich, since he managed to mess up his attempt to get off the ballot.
If Clinton does ignore Michigan, I'll be tempted to vote in the Republican primary to try to stop a Romney victory.
First, because of Michigan's asinine decision to jump the process, the Democratic primary has become completely irrelevant. The idea was to move up on the calendar and get some attention on the state and our economic woes, but the Democratic Party has stripped the state of its delegates and all the major candidates are boycotting. Edwards and Obama had their names taken off the ballot and, while Clinton didn't do that, she has promised not to campaign here or spend any money.
The other possibility is to vote in the Republican primary. I could vote for the Republican that I think would make the best president, which is probably McCain, but that's an awfully low bar. Or I could vote for Ron Paul, but I have serious issues with some of his past statements on race and sexual preference. Either way, it's mostly a vote against Romney, Giuliani and Huckabee.
A few pundits have been saying that they think Clinton may try to use surrogates to campaign in Michigan to boost her margin and make it look like an impressive victory. If I see any signs of that, I'll vote for "uncommitted" in the Democratic primary and urge everyone I know to do the same. Write-in votes won't be counted, so don't do that. Vote for uncommitted or Kucinich, since he managed to mess up his attempt to get off the ballot.
If Clinton does ignore Michigan, I'll be tempted to vote in the Republican primary to try to stop a Romney victory.
- Music:Benny Goodman - Bugle Call Rag
McCain wins New Hampshire comfortably over Romney. Huckabee finishes a distant third.
So now what?
Romney's in massive trouble - he had the lead in Iowa and lost it to Huckabee, then had the lead in New Hampshire and lost it to McCain. He spent millions in these two states, went negative and didn't win either one.
Huckabee and McCain did something really smart - they punted one of the first two races in order to focus on the other - but do they have any chance in states where you don't get a year to make your case? It's a week to Michigan, 11 days to South Carolina, three weeks to Florida and 28 days to the 21-state National Super Tuesday. They don't have the cash to make a nationwide push - they're going to have to keep picking their spots. Romney has more money, but, well, he can't seem to win anything.
Fred Thompson may have already dropped out of the race - I don't think anyone would be able to tell. Rudy Giuliani has an interesting strategy - as far as I can tell, he's going to concede every state before Florida, let Romney, Huckabee and McCain beat each other senseless, then come charging from behind. That might work if he had any popularity at all, but he finished behind Ron Paul in Iowa and might do it again in New Hampshire. He isn't even doing well among voters that say terrorism is the most important issue.
Romney has to win Michigan, doesn't he? He's a native Detroiter - he's a Cranbrook grad - and his dad was governor of Michigan. But the polls have it very close between McCain, Romney and Huckabee, and you can't think tonight's going to give anyone other than McCain any momentum.
Huckabee's probably going to win South Carolina. So you could see Huckabee and McCain with two states each going into Florida, and Giuliani spending millions to try to save himself there.
This is all going to happen very fast, and take some great creativity by the campaigns. Romney's attempt to win everything has been a disaster - it's going to come down to the person who uses his limited ammo in the right spots.
The Democratic campaign, on the other hand, isn't going to be nearly that subtle. Obama and Clinton are going to be going toe-to-toe in every state, and most of them will come down to how many young voters Obama can get to the polls. The key might be Edwards. If he drops out now and endorses Obama, that might be enough to clinch it.
Way-too-early prediction: Obama/Dodd beats McCain/Huckabee in November. I can't see Clinton taking the VP spot and why would Edwards do it a second time? The Republicans wouldn't bother putting Romney as veep - it isn't like they could win Massachusetts - and people would be terrified of a McCain/Giuliani ticket. They might fight each other to see who could push the button.
As a liberal, I do NOT want McCain to be the Republican nominee. Look at the polls - he's the only Republican candidate within 20 points of Obama and Clinton in head-to-head matchups. He's the only one that even seems vaguely presidential. I'll happily take Huckabee, who is too right-wing to win the general election, and I'll happily take Romney, who is too plastic and too Mormon, and I'll really, really happily take Giuliani, who is a slimeball with more skeletons in his closet than Freddy Krueger.
So now what?
Romney's in massive trouble - he had the lead in Iowa and lost it to Huckabee, then had the lead in New Hampshire and lost it to McCain. He spent millions in these two states, went negative and didn't win either one.
Huckabee and McCain did something really smart - they punted one of the first two races in order to focus on the other - but do they have any chance in states where you don't get a year to make your case? It's a week to Michigan, 11 days to South Carolina, three weeks to Florida and 28 days to the 21-state National Super Tuesday. They don't have the cash to make a nationwide push - they're going to have to keep picking their spots. Romney has more money, but, well, he can't seem to win anything.
Fred Thompson may have already dropped out of the race - I don't think anyone would be able to tell. Rudy Giuliani has an interesting strategy - as far as I can tell, he's going to concede every state before Florida, let Romney, Huckabee and McCain beat each other senseless, then come charging from behind. That might work if he had any popularity at all, but he finished behind Ron Paul in Iowa and might do it again in New Hampshire. He isn't even doing well among voters that say terrorism is the most important issue.
Romney has to win Michigan, doesn't he? He's a native Detroiter - he's a Cranbrook grad - and his dad was governor of Michigan. But the polls have it very close between McCain, Romney and Huckabee, and you can't think tonight's going to give anyone other than McCain any momentum.
Huckabee's probably going to win South Carolina. So you could see Huckabee and McCain with two states each going into Florida, and Giuliani spending millions to try to save himself there.
This is all going to happen very fast, and take some great creativity by the campaigns. Romney's attempt to win everything has been a disaster - it's going to come down to the person who uses his limited ammo in the right spots.
The Democratic campaign, on the other hand, isn't going to be nearly that subtle. Obama and Clinton are going to be going toe-to-toe in every state, and most of them will come down to how many young voters Obama can get to the polls. The key might be Edwards. If he drops out now and endorses Obama, that might be enough to clinch it.
Way-too-early prediction: Obama/Dodd beats McCain/Huckabee in November. I can't see Clinton taking the VP spot and why would Edwards do it a second time? The Republicans wouldn't bother putting Romney as veep - it isn't like they could win Massachusetts - and people would be terrified of a McCain/Giuliani ticket. They might fight each other to see who could push the button.
As a liberal, I do NOT want McCain to be the Republican nominee. Look at the polls - he's the only Republican candidate within 20 points of Obama and Clinton in head-to-head matchups. He's the only one that even seems vaguely presidential. I'll happily take Huckabee, who is too right-wing to win the general election, and I'll happily take Romney, who is too plastic and too Mormon, and I'll really, really happily take Giuliani, who is a slimeball with more skeletons in his closet than Freddy Krueger.
There's been a lot of talk in the political blogosphere about Hillary Clinton possibly shaking up her campaign staff. That wouldn't be surprising, but I suspect it won't help. Sen. Clinton is the anti-Reagan. I think she would be a tremendous president - as good as her husband, though with different strengths and weaknesses - but she's a bad candidate. There's nothing she can do about anti-female prejudice, but couldn't someone somewhere have taught her how to appear at least vaguely sincere?
That's the difference between the two Clintons. If Bill had given that speech yesterday and teared up while talking about how personal all of this is, he would have had the crowd in tears with him. Hillary doesn't have that ability - she doesn't have the empathy that a candidate needs.
The candidate that does need to reconsider his campaign strategists is John Edwards. His campaign was so hyper-focused on Clinton that he's got nothing to throw at Obama. You can't attack someone when you have the same campaign: "Change, change, change, change."
Heck, he was so desperate to attack Clinton that he often referred to he and Obama as partners for change against the Washington insiders. Now, he finds himself having to catch Obama, and can't give the voters any important difference to focus on. Fairly or unfairly, at this point, he's basically being seen as Obama Lite, and that's not going to get you the nomination.
That's the difference between the two Clintons. If Bill had given that speech yesterday and teared up while talking about how personal all of this is, he would have had the crowd in tears with him. Hillary doesn't have that ability - she doesn't have the empathy that a candidate needs.
The candidate that does need to reconsider his campaign strategists is John Edwards. His campaign was so hyper-focused on Clinton that he's got nothing to throw at Obama. You can't attack someone when you have the same campaign: "Change, change, change, change."
Heck, he was so desperate to attack Clinton that he often referred to he and Obama as partners for change against the Washington insiders. Now, he finds himself having to catch Obama, and can't give the voters any important difference to focus on. Fairly or unfairly, at this point, he's basically being seen as Obama Lite, and that's not going to get you the nomination.
