Showing posts with label Iowa Caucus. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Iowa Caucus. Show all posts
Saturday, January 05, 2008
Thursday, January 03, 2008
Hating Hill, Resurrecting McCain, and Jumping on the Change Engine
Mainstream Media Patrol: Hating Hill, Resurrecting McCain, and Jumping on the Change Engine
OK—it’s caucus night and things are still “unpredictable,” according to the mainstream media polling whores. On the Republican side, it seems like porn-star named Mitt Romney will battle with “I’m Evangelical, vote-for-me” Huckabee—what a scab! On the Democratic side, it seems like Obama and Edwards are surging and Hill is sliding. What will the outcome be? Who REALLY knows?
WHAT WE do know is that the mainstream media has made the Iowa Caucus the foreground of its frame and thus luxuriates in spinning a meta-narrative that consists of “smaller” narratives taking shape.
Here are some to watch for:
*HATING HILL: It’s obvious that there is a growing, contagious deep-seated dislike of Hillary Clinton among the talking heads; just watch MSNBC’s Tweety Matthews' relentless male castration fear disorder for two minutes. But the contagion is not just limited to mainstream media boyz, as Mean Girl Mo Dowd recently admitted that the Clinton family drama “pulled her back in,” in a Michael Corleone, sort of way. Hey, MO: did you ever leave?
*RESURRECTING McCAIN: There’s yet ANOTHER “love song” for John McCain, whom, I kid YOU NOT, Howard Fineman and his boyz are conveniently grouping with Obama, Huckabee, and Edwards as “buzz” creators; surprise, surprise this week’s guest on Meet the Press: John McCain.
*JUMPING ON THE CHANGE ENGINE: After YEARS of indulging in Bush and Company—including beating war drums and producing fake news here and there and no WMD anywhere, now many of the MSNBCers and CNNers are jumping on the change engine: “we need to change,” “we want change,” and “we ARE change.” "Heartache to heartache, we stand": You can almost hear the catchy lyrics to Benatar’s “Love is a Battlefield.” PLEEZE. And thus, the mainstream media’s latest “change” crush is Barack Obama, whom I DO LIKE—don’t get me wrong. But I just get grossed out with all of Tweety's pining for Obama. Don't you?
What does this all mean? I really don’t know, but with the mainstream media and its meta-narrative spinning all over the place, politics is more than a battlefield, it’s a war.
OK—it’s caucus night and things are still “unpredictable,” according to the mainstream media polling whores. On the Republican side, it seems like porn-star named Mitt Romney will battle with “I’m Evangelical, vote-for-me” Huckabee—what a scab! On the Democratic side, it seems like Obama and Edwards are surging and Hill is sliding. What will the outcome be? Who REALLY knows?
WHAT WE do know is that the mainstream media has made the Iowa Caucus the foreground of its frame and thus luxuriates in spinning a meta-narrative that consists of “smaller” narratives taking shape.
Here are some to watch for:
*HATING HILL: It’s obvious that there is a growing, contagious deep-seated dislike of Hillary Clinton among the talking heads; just watch MSNBC’s Tweety Matthews' relentless male castration fear disorder for two minutes. But the contagion is not just limited to mainstream media boyz, as Mean Girl Mo Dowd recently admitted that the Clinton family drama “pulled her back in,” in a Michael Corleone, sort of way. Hey, MO: did you ever leave?
*RESURRECTING McCAIN: There’s yet ANOTHER “love song” for John McCain, whom, I kid YOU NOT, Howard Fineman and his boyz are conveniently grouping with Obama, Huckabee, and Edwards as “buzz” creators; surprise, surprise this week’s guest on Meet the Press: John McCain.
*JUMPING ON THE CHANGE ENGINE: After YEARS of indulging in Bush and Company—including beating war drums and producing fake news here and there and no WMD anywhere, now many of the MSNBCers and CNNers are jumping on the change engine: “we need to change,” “we want change,” and “we ARE change.” "Heartache to heartache, we stand": You can almost hear the catchy lyrics to Benatar’s “Love is a Battlefield.” PLEEZE. And thus, the mainstream media’s latest “change” crush is Barack Obama, whom I DO LIKE—don’t get me wrong. But I just get grossed out with all of Tweety's pining for Obama. Don't you?
What does this all mean? I really don’t know, but with the mainstream media and its meta-narrative spinning all over the place, politics is more than a battlefield, it’s a war.
Wednesday, December 12, 2007
Iowa Updates
Weekly Presidential Politics - 12/12/07
(Note, over at Presidential Politics for America, I am doing daily updates regarding the upcoming Iowa Caucus)
Here are the two major Iowa polls released this past weekend. This clearly frames the upcoming week into two main stories.
1) Huckabee vs. Romney in an elimination caucus.
2) Clinton vs. Obama, with Iowa as a microcosm.
Republicans
From Mason-Dixon (December 3-6):
Huckabee - 32
Romney - 20
Thompson - 11
McCain - 7
Giuliani - 5 (!!!)*
Undecided - 19
From Newsweek (December 5-6):
Huckabee - 39
Romney - 17
Thompson - 10
Giuliani - 9
Paul - 8
McCain - 6
Undecided - 8
Analysis on Republican polls: Both Romney and Huckabee, as well as the rest of the Republican Party, surely know this - unless Rudy Giuliani completely falls apart in national polling, there is only room for one candidate to be strong enough heading into Super Tuesday to compete on a national scale. Romney and Huckabee also know that both of their hopes rest on Iowa. A second place finish for either one is unacceptable and is a prelude to a death knell in New Hampshire.
Romney needs a victory there because he has outspent the rest of the field combined in Iowa, and to still lose despite the money advantage would be a huge hit to his credibility in the subsequent primaries. Huckabee needs a victory because his recent appeal across the country has been directly related to his surge in Iowa. If he loses Iowa, it would presumably be because Iowa voters became disillusioned with him, and if a guy like Huckabee can't win a state like Iowa, then he is not going to win a country like the United States.
*An explanation of my exclamations. Giuliani is now consistently polling single digits in Iowa, placing fourth and fifth in most polls, and going in the wrong direction to boot. The cause of this, aside from him never having a good shot to win the state anyway, is that he has pulled money, staff, and other resources away from Iowa to deploy them in states (New Hampshire, Michigan, South Carolina) where they would be more useful. Be prepared to hear from the Giuliani campaign that they put very little effort into Iowa, which would serve as the explanation as to why the Giuliani message did not resonate with Iowan voters.
Democrats
From Mason-Dixon (Dec. 3-6):
Clinton - 27
Obama - 25
Edwards - 21
Richardson - 9
Biden - 5
Undecided - 11
From Newsweek (Dec. 5-6):
Obama - 35
Clinton - 29
Edwards - 18
Richardson - 9
Biden - 4
Undecided - 5
Analysis on Democrat polls: Examining the most recent results of the last seven major Iowa polls (Newsweek, Mason-Dixon, Strategic Vision, Zogby, American Research Group, Des Moines Register, Rasmussen) taken in the last two weeks, Obama leads four of them, and Clinton leads three of them. If you average the results of those seven polls, Obama leads by a miniscule 1.6 percentage points, practically meaningless in the world of polling data.
What makes this tightness all the more interesting is that these are becoming two decidedly different types of candidates. Not only do they clearly identify themselves as the candidate of change (Obama) and the candidate with experience (Clinton), but in the past few weeks, they have attacked the other for basically what their opponent is touting about themselves. Obama chides Clinton as partaking in politics as usual (experience), and months ago he famously referred to her as "Bush-Cheney light." Meanwhile, Clinton consistently blasts Obama as being drastically under-experienced (change) to be the President of the United States.
These two platforms are so strikingly different, yet in Iowa, the two candidates are fascinatingly tied in polling. Though Clinton still holds double digit leads nationally, losing to Obama in Iowa when they both are putting so much effort into the state would undoubtedly help Obama and hurt Clinton in votes, momentum, money, legitimacy, and undoubtedly other categories. Of course, it would not ruin her campaign, but in a primary that is shaping up to be the closest in a generation, even a slim Iowa loss would sting a lot more than Clinton would ever let on.
(And don't forget about John Edwards.)
(Note, over at Presidential Politics for America, I am doing daily updates regarding the upcoming Iowa Caucus)
Here are the two major Iowa polls released this past weekend. This clearly frames the upcoming week into two main stories.
1) Huckabee vs. Romney in an elimination caucus.
2) Clinton vs. Obama, with Iowa as a microcosm.
Republicans
From Mason-Dixon (December 3-6):
Huckabee - 32
Romney - 20
Thompson - 11
McCain - 7
Giuliani - 5 (!!!)*
Undecided - 19
From Newsweek (December 5-6):
Huckabee - 39
Romney - 17
Thompson - 10
Giuliani - 9
Paul - 8
McCain - 6
Undecided - 8
Analysis on Republican polls: Both Romney and Huckabee, as well as the rest of the Republican Party, surely know this - unless Rudy Giuliani completely falls apart in national polling, there is only room for one candidate to be strong enough heading into Super Tuesday to compete on a national scale. Romney and Huckabee also know that both of their hopes rest on Iowa. A second place finish for either one is unacceptable and is a prelude to a death knell in New Hampshire.
Romney needs a victory there because he has outspent the rest of the field combined in Iowa, and to still lose despite the money advantage would be a huge hit to his credibility in the subsequent primaries. Huckabee needs a victory because his recent appeal across the country has been directly related to his surge in Iowa. If he loses Iowa, it would presumably be because Iowa voters became disillusioned with him, and if a guy like Huckabee can't win a state like Iowa, then he is not going to win a country like the United States.
*An explanation of my exclamations. Giuliani is now consistently polling single digits in Iowa, placing fourth and fifth in most polls, and going in the wrong direction to boot. The cause of this, aside from him never having a good shot to win the state anyway, is that he has pulled money, staff, and other resources away from Iowa to deploy them in states (New Hampshire, Michigan, South Carolina) where they would be more useful. Be prepared to hear from the Giuliani campaign that they put very little effort into Iowa, which would serve as the explanation as to why the Giuliani message did not resonate with Iowan voters.
Democrats
From Mason-Dixon (Dec. 3-6):
Clinton - 27
Obama - 25
Edwards - 21
Richardson - 9
Biden - 5
Undecided - 11
From Newsweek (Dec. 5-6):
Obama - 35
Clinton - 29
Edwards - 18
Richardson - 9
Biden - 4
Undecided - 5
Analysis on Democrat polls: Examining the most recent results of the last seven major Iowa polls (Newsweek, Mason-Dixon, Strategic Vision, Zogby, American Research Group, Des Moines Register, Rasmussen) taken in the last two weeks, Obama leads four of them, and Clinton leads three of them. If you average the results of those seven polls, Obama leads by a miniscule 1.6 percentage points, practically meaningless in the world of polling data.
What makes this tightness all the more interesting is that these are becoming two decidedly different types of candidates. Not only do they clearly identify themselves as the candidate of change (Obama) and the candidate with experience (Clinton), but in the past few weeks, they have attacked the other for basically what their opponent is touting about themselves. Obama chides Clinton as partaking in politics as usual (experience), and months ago he famously referred to her as "Bush-Cheney light." Meanwhile, Clinton consistently blasts Obama as being drastically under-experienced (change) to be the President of the United States.
These two platforms are so strikingly different, yet in Iowa, the two candidates are fascinatingly tied in polling. Though Clinton still holds double digit leads nationally, losing to Obama in Iowa when they both are putting so much effort into the state would undoubtedly help Obama and hurt Clinton in votes, momentum, money, legitimacy, and undoubtedly other categories. Of course, it would not ruin her campaign, but in a primary that is shaping up to be the closest in a generation, even a slim Iowa loss would sting a lot more than Clinton would ever let on.
(And don't forget about John Edwards.)
Wednesday, December 05, 2007
The Iowa Caucus "Second Choice" Wrinkle
Weekly Presidential Politics - 12/5/07
The recent Des Moines poll still has political America in a tizzy. Obama's roaring, Hillary's vulnerable, and Edwards is fading. Thus spake the masses.
What if I were to tell you that an Obama-Hillary-Edwards finish is just as likely as an Edwards-Hillary-Obama finish? Or an Edwards-Obama-Hillary finish, or a Hillary-Edwards-Obama victory, or, well, you get the point.
See, what's consistently overlooked when it comes to the Democratic Iowa Caucus are the interesting rules attached to the contest. These rules are unlike any other primary of either party, including the Republican Iowa Caucus. The most important of these rules is: if a candidate doesn't reach a particular threshold (percentage of votes), the votes that were going to him go to the voter's "second choice."
Example: The threshold is placed at 15% (It's usually between 15 and 25). Only the three candidates end up exceeding that threshold. Richardson gets 8%, Biden get 6%, etc. The votes intended for Richardson, Biden, et. al get scattered into the top 3, depending on the voter's second choice. (Note: The reason for this is because Iowans want to make sure their votes go their top candidates and a viable candidate, if these two aren't the same person. Not that bad of an idea, especially when you think of the Nader dilemma in 2000.) In the 2004 Iowa Caucus, for example, only John Kerry, John Edwards, and Howard Dean earned national delegates to the convention.
Okay, so, what does this mean for 2008? Well, the Des Moines Register poll revealed:
Barack Obama - 28%
Hillary Clinton - 25%
John Edwards - 23%
No one else above 9%
Say that ends up being the numbers for the Iowa Caucus itself. Those first three numbers mean that 76% of voters have chosen one of the big three, and 24% have not. Therefore, 24% of the vote is still available to be divvied up among the top 3 candidates!
Therefore, second choice is hugely important in the Iowa Caucus. The question is: Who of the Big Three is the most popular second choice of those who are voting for someone not in the top tier? Who of the top 3 has the most support beyond those who are already planning on voting for them?
This will be examined throughout the month, but I think you at least know this: It's not Hillary Clinton.
(Note: You can read more on the Iowa Caucus all month at Presidential Politics for America.)
The recent Des Moines poll still has political America in a tizzy. Obama's roaring, Hillary's vulnerable, and Edwards is fading. Thus spake the masses.
What if I were to tell you that an Obama-Hillary-Edwards finish is just as likely as an Edwards-Hillary-Obama finish? Or an Edwards-Obama-Hillary finish, or a Hillary-Edwards-Obama victory, or, well, you get the point.
See, what's consistently overlooked when it comes to the Democratic Iowa Caucus are the interesting rules attached to the contest. These rules are unlike any other primary of either party, including the Republican Iowa Caucus. The most important of these rules is: if a candidate doesn't reach a particular threshold (percentage of votes), the votes that were going to him go to the voter's "second choice."
Example: The threshold is placed at 15% (It's usually between 15 and 25). Only the three candidates end up exceeding that threshold. Richardson gets 8%, Biden get 6%, etc. The votes intended for Richardson, Biden, et. al get scattered into the top 3, depending on the voter's second choice. (Note: The reason for this is because Iowans want to make sure their votes go their top candidates and a viable candidate, if these two aren't the same person. Not that bad of an idea, especially when you think of the Nader dilemma in 2000.) In the 2004 Iowa Caucus, for example, only John Kerry, John Edwards, and Howard Dean earned national delegates to the convention.
Okay, so, what does this mean for 2008? Well, the Des Moines Register poll revealed:
Barack Obama - 28%
Hillary Clinton - 25%
John Edwards - 23%
No one else above 9%
Say that ends up being the numbers for the Iowa Caucus itself. Those first three numbers mean that 76% of voters have chosen one of the big three, and 24% have not. Therefore, 24% of the vote is still available to be divvied up among the top 3 candidates!
Therefore, second choice is hugely important in the Iowa Caucus. The question is: Who of the Big Three is the most popular second choice of those who are voting for someone not in the top tier? Who of the top 3 has the most support beyond those who are already planning on voting for them?
This will be examined throughout the month, but I think you at least know this: It's not Hillary Clinton.
(Note: You can read more on the Iowa Caucus all month at Presidential Politics for America.)
Wednesday, November 21, 2007
Huckabee Surging in Iowa
Weekly Presidential Politics - 11/21/07
As predicted by my blog after the Ames Iowa Straw Poll, Mike Huckabee is making a run at the Iowa Caucus. This just in from Real Clear Politics:
Republicans (ABCNews/Washington Post poll)
Romney 28 (+2 vs. last poll July 26-31)
Huckabee 24 (+16)
Thompson 15 (+2)
Giuliani 13 (-1)
McCain 6 (-2)
Paul 6 (+4)
Now, pundits across the country, in their classic insta-reactionary tradition, are taking Iowa away from Romney. If these prognosticators end up being right, even a second place Iowa finish effectively ends the Romney campaign.
Which is why it's not going to happen.
Romney will spend every last nickel of his billions of nickels to win the Iowa Caucus. If polls are still close by the end of December, Iowans can expect a blitzkrieg of ad-buys and "paid volunteers" unlike any in political history, and it'll be courtesy of Mitt Romney.
What's most interesting about the latest poll is not that Mitt Romney is losing control of Iowa polls, but rather that a Huckabee bump has meant national Republican frontrunner Rudy Giuliani has slipped to fourth in the country's opening caucus. FOURTH. Fickle voters in New Hampshire and beyond will need to be very sure of their Giuliani vote to support a candidate that showed so poorly in a classic benchmark state, especially when the story on every cable news network will be sinking their claws into (remember - insta-reactionary) is about a reeling Giuliani campaign. Every social conservative who barely convinced themselves to support Giuliani will run to the closest conservative competitor.
Meanwhile, Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee will both be spinning the heck out of their top finishes and can ride the resulting free coverage, momentum, and huge added influx of money into the other primaries.
December will be a fascinating month, which is why I'm doing this.
As predicted by my blog after the Ames Iowa Straw Poll, Mike Huckabee is making a run at the Iowa Caucus. This just in from Real Clear Politics:
Republicans (ABCNews/Washington Post poll)
Romney 28 (+2 vs. last poll July 26-31)
Huckabee 24 (+16)
Thompson 15 (+2)
Giuliani 13 (-1)
McCain 6 (-2)
Paul 6 (+4)
Now, pundits across the country, in their classic insta-reactionary tradition, are taking Iowa away from Romney. If these prognosticators end up being right, even a second place Iowa finish effectively ends the Romney campaign.
Which is why it's not going to happen.
Romney will spend every last nickel of his billions of nickels to win the Iowa Caucus. If polls are still close by the end of December, Iowans can expect a blitzkrieg of ad-buys and "paid volunteers" unlike any in political history, and it'll be courtesy of Mitt Romney.
What's most interesting about the latest poll is not that Mitt Romney is losing control of Iowa polls, but rather that a Huckabee bump has meant national Republican frontrunner Rudy Giuliani has slipped to fourth in the country's opening caucus. FOURTH. Fickle voters in New Hampshire and beyond will need to be very sure of their Giuliani vote to support a candidate that showed so poorly in a classic benchmark state, especially when the story on every cable news network will be sinking their claws into (remember - insta-reactionary) is about a reeling Giuliani campaign. Every social conservative who barely convinced themselves to support Giuliani will run to the closest conservative competitor.
Meanwhile, Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee will both be spinning the heck out of their top finishes and can ride the resulting free coverage, momentum, and huge added influx of money into the other primaries.
December will be a fascinating month, which is why I'm doing this.
Wednesday, March 07, 2007
Weekly Presidential Politics - 3/7/07
Wednesday's guest blogger is IC, a colleague of mine, a fighting liberal, and a fellow blogger. Check out IC's blog, Presidential Politics for America, for more about the contenders for 2008. For those of you interested in sports, be sure to visit his sports blog, Around the blog.
Well, it's my first of hopefully many weekly Wednesday short posts here at 1% More Conscious. In order to get off on the right foot, I'd like to ingratiate myself to you readers by doing you a favor. Please enjoy my inaugural post. (Inaugural...so Presidential-like...possibly foreshadowing the subject matter of my contributions?)
Save the Suspense: Democratic Primary Results Determined
That's it. It's over. I've saved people the trouble of voting.
What do I mean? I mean we can stop worrying ourselves over who will be the next Democratic nominee for President of the United States. The Hillary vs. Barack debate, as ATM did a great job outlining on Monday, is starting to become old hat, and we're still nine months away from the Iowa Caucus!
If you are also getting heavy eyelids from the pendulum of weak volleys between Camp Hillary and Camp Obama, let me recommend that you stop taking the time to think about who's winning. Are you tired of the analyzing, examining, synthesizing, figuring and anatomizing? That's why I'm here. And I've figured it out. I know who's going to win, and almost as important, I know why they're going to win. The best part is, every small development that happens now doesn't even matter.
Our good friends over at Wikipedia have recently updated the 2008 Democratic Primary schedule. Remember when Nevada made a splash by getting the DNC's approval to move up in front of New Hampshire? Unbeknownst to most, that was the single most important occurrence of the last year in this race for the Democratic nomination, even more important than that picture of Obama in his bathing suit. (Sorry ladies, no hyperlink for you!)
The scheduling of the primaries plays an enormous role in determining presidential nominees. Enormous. Three things affect the nomination process more than any other: Money, geography, and the media. And if you can spin any two of those in your direction, the third becomes irrelevant. The most a rival could get is the one remaining.
Thanks to scheduling, one Democratic candidate has two of those in his favor. That's right. His favor.
And it's not Barack Obama.
Next week, I'll reveal how the 2008 Democratic Primary will unfold. See you then.
Well, it's my first of hopefully many weekly Wednesday short posts here at 1% More Conscious. In order to get off on the right foot, I'd like to ingratiate myself to you readers by doing you a favor. Please enjoy my inaugural post. (Inaugural...so Presidential-like...possibly foreshadowing the subject matter of my contributions?)
Save the Suspense: Democratic Primary Results Determined
That's it. It's over. I've saved people the trouble of voting.
What do I mean? I mean we can stop worrying ourselves over who will be the next Democratic nominee for President of the United States. The Hillary vs. Barack debate, as ATM did a great job outlining on Monday, is starting to become old hat, and we're still nine months away from the Iowa Caucus!
If you are also getting heavy eyelids from the pendulum of weak volleys between Camp Hillary and Camp Obama, let me recommend that you stop taking the time to think about who's winning. Are you tired of the analyzing, examining, synthesizing, figuring and anatomizing? That's why I'm here. And I've figured it out. I know who's going to win, and almost as important, I know why they're going to win. The best part is, every small development that happens now doesn't even matter.
Our good friends over at Wikipedia have recently updated the 2008 Democratic Primary schedule. Remember when Nevada made a splash by getting the DNC's approval to move up in front of New Hampshire? Unbeknownst to most, that was the single most important occurrence of the last year in this race for the Democratic nomination, even more important than that picture of Obama in his bathing suit. (Sorry ladies, no hyperlink for you!)
The scheduling of the primaries plays an enormous role in determining presidential nominees. Enormous. Three things affect the nomination process more than any other: Money, geography, and the media. And if you can spin any two of those in your direction, the third becomes irrelevant. The most a rival could get is the one remaining.
Thanks to scheduling, one Democratic candidate has two of those in his favor. That's right. His favor.
And it's not Barack Obama.
Next week, I'll reveal how the 2008 Democratic Primary will unfold. See you then.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
