A first(?) thread on 2008: McCain,Giuliani & the Republicans

nimh, I agree with your analysis. Giuliani was vulnerable because he was a one issue candidate, almost totally built upon his record as mayor following 911, and now with terror and national defense policy becoming less important in the minds of the voters, so between that factor, the corruption issues, and his uninspiring debate performances, I believe he may be toast.

I agree McCain has made a bit of a comeback, but his overall potential still may be limited. As the vacuums are created when an opponent falters or drops out, who will be able to gather that support to them, that is the question.

Thompson was a flash in the pan, and he just looks too old and tired in my opinion. He waited to enter the race late, but it also made him look indecisive and un-energetic.

Huckabee is soaring now, but I think it is too early to tell how solid that instant support will be. Anyone going up that fast could also sink fast. It depends upon his performance, and I think he goofed up to criticize Bush as severely as he did. He definitely has his vulnerabilities that await further scrutiny and exposure, which I think the Democrats recognize and would love to run against him in the general. If one liners could win elections, he is a shoo-in, but I think it will be more complicated than that.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

nimh, I like your graphs. Has it suddenly become a race between Huckabee and Romney, with all the other guys sinking?

OK, but I didnt actually answer your question, got a little carried away there. Sorry bout that. :wink: So let's assume Giuliani is out.

Fred Thompson might putter on a for a while still. Depends on Huckabee. Say that a third place in Iowa keeps Fred's candidacy alive. People ignore his already expected ignonimous result in New Hampshire. Then he stands a good chance of attracting Christian conservative voters in South Carolina who cant stomach an ex-liberal Mormon - but only in the off-chance that Huckabee crashes and burns for some reason. And even then his current lack of institutional support and campaign apparatus, not to mention his lacking drive, makes it unlikely that he'd make it much beyond that.

So you're left with Romney, Huckabee.. and McCain. If McCain does indeed manage a second place finish in NH, he will get the "comeback kid" coverage of a newly sympathetic press corps, and soldiers on to SC and Feb 5.

Again, everything depends on Huckabee.

He has practically no campaign apparatus whatsoever, his programme is a grab bag of random and contradictory ideas he picked up almost on the fly, the Republican party elites hate him and so do even the evangelical leaders, and his talk of uniting the country and respecting your opponents will go over badly with conservative partisans like, I'm guessing, you. Now that he's finally made the limelight there's a lot of stuff that is and will be hitting the headlines, from the serial rapist he got free as governor to the various wingbat religious nut stuff he's said in the past to his tax and immigration record that plays badly with more ideological-minded conservatives. In short, it's easy to imagine a million and one different ways in which his campaign could crash and burn, especially in the notoriously ruthless South Carolina primary.

But he also seems to have the gift, the gift that can carry politicians up past a seemingly endless number of obstacles that would do anyone else in for good. Clinton had it, Reagan had it. Darn it, people just like him; and the press just likes him, in the same way (even in the face of the current mini-backlash); he seems the type that can get away with any number of things just because people believe in him on a gut level.

Take the evangelical base already. The religious right-affiliated part of them is normally very sensitive to authority, and suspicious of any kind of insurgent appeal. And yet they've pretty much shown the various institutional leaders of the religious right, who almost without exception steered well clear of Huckabee, the finger and massed behind him after all.

So in short, Huckabee could easily crash-and-burn, but he could also keep surging and prove himself the phenomenon the polls now make him seem to be. And all the rest of the field depends on which of the two it will be.

If Huckabee crashes, Romney's ready to take over. And if that happens before or during the South Carolina campaign, McCain in turn will be the only recourse conservatives have who are suspicious of Mitt.

If Huckabee holds up into the Feb 5 states and only then crashes, McCain will be in no position to challenge Romney anymore and Romney gets the nomination.

And if Huckabee doesnt crash and manages to beef up his operation and expertise on the fly as he goes along, then, well, he wins.

There, thats my prediction and I'm going to stick with it... until at least, oh, three weeks from now Razz

0 Replies

Your assessment of Huckabee is good. He is a funny guy, I like him, but I am far from sure that he is presidential material. His criticism of Bush was amateurish, especially that part about uniting, and in my opinion he was at that very moment dividing people by the way he was talking about Bush and about uniting. Comparing him to Reagan, I seriously doubt that one. Reagan was Reagan, there will never be another one, just as there will never be another Winston Churchill.

Huckabee will not fly as high in places like New Hampshire, so he has a long way to go. I agree his numbers could go either way. I think all of this proves the polls represent a block of voters that are only beginning to evaluate the candidates in a serious way. Where numbers have previously represented not much more than name recognition, the numbers are now beginning to represent more substantial evaluations.

I am going to stick my neck out and predict Huckabee crashes, at least somewhat, probably enough to not make it all the way. I just think he is prone to saying the wrong thing and I think further scrutiny of his record will also hurt. I just doubt he is presidential material, but then again, stranger things have happened.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

Giuliani was vulnerable because he was a one issue candidate, almost totally built upon his record as mayor following 911, and now with terror and national defense policy becoming less important in the minds of the voters, so between that factor, the corruption issues, and his uninspiring debate performances, I believe he may be toast.

Yep, good points. In my post I focused wholly on, you know, the racing aspect of it, who scores where, and what effect will that have on the next contest. But you're right on here when it comes to the underlying backgrounds.

The corruption stuff, candidates have gotten away with worse before, but it certainly doesnt help - it's a double slam, hits his image both on morals and on electability (what scandals will all come out during the campaign?). But like you say, the main thing is that he was a one-issue 9/11, terror, war, security candidate -- a fearmongering candidate is how I'd put it :wink: -- and now that the voters are more and more focusing on the economy and domestic issues, he's sort of out of the loop.

Also, there was this article I posted yesterday - made me think. About how Giuliani, as the anti-Hillary candidate, is actually, ironically, suffering from Hillary's own setbacks...

okie wrote:

Huckabee will not fly as high in places like New Hampshire, so he has a long way to go. I agree his numbers could go either way. I think all of this proves the polls represent a block of voters that are only beginning to evaluate the candidates in a serious way. Where numbers have previously represented not much more than name recognition, the numbers are now beginning to represent more substantial evaluations.

Yep, absolutely.

What do you think of Romney? Do you think he's a good candidate? Do you like / trust him? How do you assess his chances in the primaries and, if he wins, the general elections?

0 Replies

I like Romney, but this is wholly based upon my assessment of what he says in the debates and how he carries himself in those affairs. Also, he has successfully governed a liberal state, which in some minds is a negative, but I think it may be a positive because he has proven he can be supported by liberals as well.

So I admit I do not know much about the details of his past policies, so when I read of his supposed flip-flops, I don't know. He has been accused of being a liberal just now converted to more conservative. I will take one issue, abortion. I have listened to his explanation, and changing ones mind is not a flip flop in my opinion. A flip flop is a case of saying one thing this morning and another this afternoon. So I am not inclined to classify Romney as a flipflopper unless I learn of more specific information. I will continue to watch the proceedings as they progress.

He is married to the same woman and seems to have a relatively decent family, which is a breath of fresh air.

In the debates, he comes across as honest, intelligent, energetic, and capable, and he appears to have balanced character, someone that could make reasoned, unimpulsive, and balanced decisions. He more often answers the question posed than others seem to more often go off on tangents. He seems to more accurately grasp the problem and offer the most accurate solutions. I am sure there are some negatives, but overall I think he seems a good candidate so far. I don't understand the Mormon religion, however that is his family background and I do not think that will enter into or hinder his ability to govern. That should not be a problem in my opinion, but whether it fades or remains a hindrance to some voters as an issue will largely determine his success.

If he wins the primary, I think he could beat Hillary or Obama, most definitely. But there is a long way to go, so I am like you, very hesitant to make predictions. But right now, I can't see many of the other Republicans winning the primary. I think he has a great shot at the primary. It kind of depends upon which way Huckabees star goes.

0 Replies

The money interests in the Republican party don't want Huckabee and they are now trying to gut him. Noonan in the WSJ, Norquist, the Weekly Standard...the counter-effort is growing as Huckabee's evangelical star rises. As with Clinton, we'll see and hear folks from Arkansas who have terrible tales to tell.

We'll remember that Bush has identified two groups as his base...the evangelicals and the business community. It's a serious error to think of Bush (or Rove or the Bush circle of people from Texas) as evangelicals (even less so, Cheney, Rumsfeld and that crowd). Most of Bush's apparent membership in the religious community was PR coloring for electoral purposes. But his membership within the monied oligarchy and Republican power structure was deep, sincere and never wavered. Libertarians came to see him as a false prophet as did the evangelical community but Wall Street knew he was their boy. Huckabee isn't. And they'll get him. They'll want to get him soon.

The same crowd does not want McCain and for similar reasons. Too uncontrollable (even in his modern incarnation as degraded panderer). They'll work to cut him out of the picture too.

How they regard Romney, I'm uncertain because no one in the money crowd has really yet gone after him yet. I suspect he's second choice. Clearly, Rudy is their boy. He's perfect...he's authoritarian and he's corrupt. Hurting Huckabee soon and McCain as the need arises will be the almost certain strategy. If circumstances through the primaries rule Rudy out, then I think they'll push Romney as they figure out how to get what they want through or around him.

As this process works itself out, more of the evangelicals will understand that they've been used. This will cause the deepest division in the party and movement as it now exists.

And the economy is apparently heading for the tank. These two big factors, along with Iraq, along with the independent/libertarian shift we've seen in the polls over towards Dem candidates, along with the shift in Latino voters all look near certain to do enormous electoral damage to Republicans and damage to the movement. My sympthathy doesn't exist.

0 Replies

Bush's base was almost the entire country, see the map.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/vote2004/countymap.htm

And if I had money, I would also like to put it on somebody that could win the general election, blatham. That is not unreasonable or anything new to politics.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

Bush's base was almost the entire country, see the map.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/vote2004/countymap.htm

Wasn't.

It's deceptive to only look at a map colored according to counties that went to a specific candidate:

http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mejn/election/countymapredblue.png

It's a diagram, and it doesn't take into account population density or the percentages of people voting for a candidate. In leaving out that data, it's giving you a skewed image.

Looking at percentages of people voting for the respective candidates by county, the map would look like this:

http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mejn/election/countymaplinear.png

However, that still doesn't account for population density. Now, there are ways of integrating that data into a visualisation, too. Here's one:

(displaying population density as heights proportional to votes per area)

And here's another one, called a cartogram:

http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mejn/election/countycartlinear.png

(rescaling the sizes of the counties according to their population)

(more stuff here and here)

0 Replies

In Illinois, Giuliani in lead for GOP

0 Replies

I'll make another point on top of what I've written above re pissed off evangelicals.

Huckabee's rise comes mainly from the serious ideological deficiencies, for evangelicals/social conservatives, of the other candidates, particularly Giuliani, Romney and McCain. Huckabee is 'the real thing' and the others are not. Evangelicals/social conservatives understand this clearly.

So, when Hucabee goes down, not only will they feel thwarted and pandered to and used - again - they will also see whoever is nominated in a starkly contrasting light which wouldn't have been so had Huckabee not risen up in their hopes.

0 Replies

Two policy essays, one by McCain, one by Hillary...
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/current/

0 Replies

For what it is worth: The Des Moines Register and the Boston Globe (read in NH) have both endorsed McCain. The former also endorsed Clinton and the later Obama.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

I like Romney, but this is wholly based upon my assessment of what he says in the debates and how he carries himself in those affairs. Also, he has successfully governed a liberal state, which in some minds is a negative, but I think it may be a positive because he has proven he can be supported by liberals as well.

So I admit I do not know much about the details of his past policies, so when I read of his supposed flip-flops, I don't know. He has been accused of being a liberal just now converted to more conservative. I will take one issue, abortion. I have listened to his explanation, and changing ones mind is not a flip flop in my opinion. A flip flop is a case of saying one thing this morning and another this afternoon. So I am not inclined to classify Romney as a flipflopper unless I learn of more specific information. I will continue to watch the proceedings as they progress.

He is married to the same woman and seems to have a relatively decent family, which is a breath of fresh air.

In the debates, he comes across as honest, intelligent, energetic, and capable, and he appears to have balanced character, someone that could make reasoned, unimpulsive, and balanced decisions. He more often answers the question posed than others seem to more often go off on tangents. He seems to more accurately grasp the problem and offer the most accurate solutions. I am sure there are some negatives, but overall I think he seems a good candidate so far. I don't understand the Mormon religion, however that is his family background and I do not think that will enter into or hinder his ability to govern. That should not be a problem in my opinion, but whether it fades or remains a hindrance to some voters as an issue will largely determine his success.

If he wins the primary, I think he could beat Hillary or Obama, most definitely. But there is a long way to go, so I am like you, very hesitant to make predictions. But right now, I can't see many of the other Republicans winning the primary. I think he has a great shot at the primary. It kind of depends upon which way Huckabees star goes.

Thanks, Okie, for a a very articulate, persuasive take. Very informative.

0 Replies

It was, indeed very good Okie - I wish I wrote it.

0 Replies

Quote:

Who needs fiscal sanity?
Quick quiz: what's going to cost the U.S. more over the next decade: the exploding costs of entitlements like Social Security and Medicare or Bush's tax cuts? Despite all the talk we hear about the prior, it's not even close -- the tax cuts are poised to cost the treasury far, far, more.

And yet, every Republican presidential candidate in the field, to a man, vows to make each of Bush's cut permanent, beyond their scheduled expiration in 2010. As the NYT's Tom Redburn notes today, over the next 10 years, it will cost "roughly $2.5 trillion in revenues now expected under current law. And that's just the beginning."

Even without taking on any additional tasks, merely meeting the government's existing obligations -- mostly to pay for the military and to keep up with the health care and retirement needs of the elderly -- would send the budget deficit soaring, pushing overall federal debt held by the public from under 50 percent of the size of the nation's economy today to over 300 percent by 2050.

"The combination of roughly constant revenues and significantly rising expenditures would quickly create an unstable fiscal situation," the [Congressional Budget Office] report notes alarmingly, but in its characteristically dry and understated manner.

How would the Republican candidates deal with this problem? Most say they would try to hold down spending -- and cut taxes even more.

Keep in mind, most of the GOP field, including Rudy Giuliani and John McCain, are on record believing in the Tax Fairy -- tax cuts can pay for themselves with increased revenue. It's transparent nonsense, but it helps explain why the Republican field doesn't even pretend to care about fiscal sanity.

Lots of internal links...
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/

0 Replies

Tax cuts do not increase tax revenue; it has more to do with our over-all economy. At the moment, we're trying to deal with the subprime mortgage loan debacle that'll affect both property and sales taxes - and more than likely income taxes.

More tax cuts ain't gonna cure this problem.

0 Replies

The truth is that at some level of taxation, some tax cuts do indeed stimulate economic activity, yielding an increase in the resulting tax revenues. This, however, is not a proposition that is true for all tax cuts and at all levels of taxation.

Similarly the alternative proposition that no tax cut is capable of stimulating (or merely unleashing) enough new economic activity as to "pay" for the reduced tax rate - is equally false.

The real truth of this matter is lost in the exaggerations and cant of the contending parties.

There is ample evidence that lower marginal tax rates do indeed stimulate capital accumulation, investment and new economic activity, and that excessive rates can suppress it to the detriment of the public at large. Europe has been discovering these efor the past two decades.

The unsopken issue here - on the part of both political parties - is wasteful government spending. We certainly don't need the huge subsidies we provide for agricultural commodiities. Our Defense spending is arguably too high. Federal spending on elementary education is too easily manipulated by the unions and vested educational establishment that is at the core of our problems there and should be dtrastically reduced in favor of local government taxation and spending. Federal subsidies for University education have diminished the price sensitivity of well-endowed colleges in setting their tuition, yielding an out-of-control increase in tuition rates (and wasteful spending by universities) that will eventually harm us all. New proposals for Federal support for health care will create yet another unaccountable mouth for taxpayers to feed. These issues are the real problem.

0 Replies

georgeob, Bush's tax cuts have not produced the economic gains promised; most middle-class families have lost purchasing power since 2000, and increased borrowing while saving less. Where's the benefit?

All one needs to do is look at the US Census Bureau's stats.

0 Replies

Real Income Fails to Rise for most of the 2000s
Tuesday, August 21, 2007 | 07:03 AM
in Data Analysis | Economy | Employment | Psychology/Sentiment | Wages & Income
I've been talking about this for years, but I am glad to see quantifiable proof has now been adduced. According to IRS data:

"Americans earned a smaller average income in 2005 than in 2000, the fifth consecutive year that they had to make ends meet with less money than at the peak of the last economic expansion, new government data shows.

While incomes have been on the rise since 2002, the average income in 2005 was $55,238, still nearly 1 percent less than the $55,714 in 2000, after adjusting for inflation, analysis of new tax statistics show.

The combined income of all Americans in 2005 was slightly larger than it was in 2000, but because more people were dividing up the national income pie, the average remained smaller. Total adjusted gross income in 2005 was $7.43 trillion, up 3.1 percent from 2000 and 5.8 percent from 2004. . ."

Incidentally, the lack of real income growth was calculated using BLS data measures of CPI. It's even worse than this in reality, as we have long demonstrated that CPI does not accurately measure inflation. So the true, after inflation, "Real Income," is actually far, far worse.

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

The truth is that at some level of taxation, some tax cuts do indeed stimulate economic activity, yielding an increase in the resulting tax revenues. This, however, is not a proposition that is true for all tax cuts and at all levels of taxation.

Moreover, that level of taxation for which the theory would hold true isnt remotely like anywhere near the level of taxation the US had.

There's this oddly detached quality about the suggestion of some kind of balance and equivalence of arguments that crops up in your posts. The fact is that contrary to the ideologized contentions otherwise of the Republican presidential candidates, the overhwelming consensus among economists is that tax cuts to the level of taxation the US actually has now or had five years ago do not create increased revenues over time, and in fact are extremely costly. Now sure, in the world of alternative possible realities, some levels of taxation exist where tax cuts would have that effect - but none of those resemble current-day America. And yet reading your post one would come away with the impression of some he-said-she-said reasonable balance of opinions, each of reasonable merit in equivalent ways.

The question at hand is concrete enough. The assertion is that the tax cuts that were implemented in the US in these last years did not yield increased revenues, but will in fact be costing a great deal of money - even exceeding the costs of the more expensive government programs. Now either you accept that, or you disagree and propose a counter-argument. But instead, what you do is neither accept nor reject the argument at hand, but instead expound on how the theory of tax cuts yielding increased revenues does work at some levels of taxations - hypothetical levels perhaps, or levels as exist elsewhere. Still without having addressed the question of the effect the actual tax cuts had as they were implemented in the US, but having created the impression that it's all very nuanced and balanced, you then pivot the argument away to the topic of wasteful government spending instead. Also bad, for sure, but a red herring here as it has little relevance to the subject of the costs the tax cuts have had.

It all sounds very high-minded and wise, but its effect is purely apologetic; serving merely to obfuscate the fact-check at hand and quickly change the topic.

0 Replies

A first(?) thread on 2008: McCain,Giuliani & the Republicans

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know