Category: Elections 2008

(NOTE:  This has nothing to do with our party on Saturday night, for those locals who read the title and panicked.)

Figures.  First time in forevah that the presidential primary/caucus season comes to a state I live in, with the race not already decided, and it turns out I’m not a registered Democrat (or registered Republican, for that matter).  Obviously when I registered in ’96 (at least according to the Secretary of State (of the state)) I decided to be ruggedly Independent.

I’d actually gone to the county Democrats web page, and they pointed me over here to find out my registration details, so I could find out where to caucus.

Heck, I’m not even Independent, I’m a much less rugged-sounding “Unffiliated.”  And if I wasn’t registered by mid-December, I’m ineligible.

And, I discover, so’s Margie.  We are affiliated in our unaffiliation.  We are a consortium of the unaffiliated.  We are — well, you get the idea.

Rats. 

On the plus side, though, it saves us having to find a sitter.

The presidential primary season ought not to be a looked at as a horse race.  What the folks of Iowa want is not necessarily related to what the folks of New Hampshire want, ditto Michigan and South Carolina, etc.  In other words, while I can understand how “Hillary seems to be doing well among group X” and “McCain is drawing support from group Y” or “Biden isn’t doing well and is likely to quit” are somewhat reasonable interpretations of what’s going on, primary/caucus-wise, the whole “momentum” thing strikes me as silly.  I mean, are the folks in South Carolina really going to vote for candidate X because s/he did well in a previous primary?  How stupid is that?

I can sort of understand the funding thing (which is what has an actual effect from the whole “momentum” phenomenon), but this whole “Obama is in the lead!  No, Hillary is catching up!” kind of horse race thing strikes me as extremely silly.

It’s important not to overanalyze and overhype the results from the Iowa caucuses — a oddball system in a relatively small state — save that the results, because they are generally overanalyzed and overhyped, seem to make a difference in the candidate selection process.

The result of which is a lot of interesting outcomes on both sides, as would be expected in a very tightly fought race.

Twice as many Dems caucused this year as in 2004, and Obama was the clear winner on a lot of levels — most importantly by showing that an African freshman Senator would win a clear plurality of the votes vs. the shiny populism of Edwards or the touted-as-inevitable Clinton.  Clinton’s third-place showing is perhaps as big a story, definitely shaking up the previous seeming inevitability of her success. 

On the GOP side, Huckabee’s distinct success over Romney shakes things up a bit there, too. McCain and Thompson, in a virtual dead heat, were back in third place each, but with decent showings.

For all of that, it’s far too early in the process to make any predictions.  The biggest immediate outcome is the shake-out of candidates — Dodd and Biden have already withdrawn, and it will be tough for anyone not in the top three Democratic slots to continue on, for financial reasons if nothing else.  The GOP side is more mixed, with more opportunities in other states for those still in the running, but I expect to hear of some withdrawals there, pretty soon, too. 

Meanwhile, Romney and Clinton will both be going into overdrive mode to shore up support in the very different state of New Hampshire.  On the GOP side, Huckabee is far weaker in the polls there than amongst the high evangelical Christian turn-out in Iowa, and Giuliani, McCain, and Romney will all have some advantages.   A win by Obama there, too, would be highly indicative, but even just a respectable showing will be helpful.  That will let things cascade down to the triangle to the third intro primary, in South Carolina, and the other two dozen contests over the next month..

It’s not over until it’s over, by any means.  But it’s certainly beginning in an interesting fashion.

It’s immensely entertaining to watch the media froth over Iowa — or, at the very least, listen to half the pundits grumble that such a small state and oddball primary (caucus) system has such a large effect on the elections (read: “We can’t proclaim the outcome in advance”), while the other half point fingers at the first half and laugh.

Well, I’m mildly annoyed that Iowa (and New Hampshire, and even South Carolina) will largely decide (one would guess) who ends up running next November. But I’m greatly pleased that it’s still too close a race to call for either party. Perhaps a wake-up call that the electorate is getting tired of politics as usual.

On the Democrat side, Iowa is more or less a dead heat for Clinton, Obama, and Edwards (depending on which poll you read). I have problems with each of the candidates on a meta level — Clinton’s too political, Obama’s too inexperienced, Edwards (who was the “inexperienced” one last time) is too implausibly populist. On the other hand (and the flip side of the above), Clinton has the background and connections, Obama brings a fresh and inspiring outlook, and Edwards has some valuable things to say about the “two Americas.” I’m probably leaning toward Clinton more as the least “challenging” candidate, but I’ll be the first to admit that might not be the best basis for such a selection.

And I’d choose each of them over the flock of remaining GOP competitors — Mitt “I changed my mind about almost everything, please don’t reject me for my good looks” Romney, Mike “Taking the country back for Christ” Huckabee, Rudy “Pay no attention to my personal life, just trust me to be the progressive leader who SAVED NEW YORK ON 9/11” Giuliani, or John “Hey, I mastered brown-nosing the conservative right long before Mitt” McCain. All of them have something good to offer, but are overwelmed by the negatives that (to my eye) they’ve accrued in the primary process.

What will Iowa think? Or New Hampshire? Or even (depending on whether those states don’t decide things for us) South Carolina? Who knows? And that’s makes this all a lot more interesting than it has been for quite some time.

I look forward to seeing it — and seeing the election move into its “real” phase.

I can’t tell you how disappointed I am that Tom Tancredo has given up his quest for the US presidency.  Here I was hoping we’d have him out of our state and distracted from his day job for, oh, at least another six months.

On the other hand, he’s helped me think even less of Mitt Romney by throwing his support to him.

Keen!  The state GOP in Virginia will require folks to sign a loyalty oath before they can cast a vote in the Republican primary.  The oath isn’t loyalty to the US (which would be insulting), but to the party

If you’re planning to vote in Virginia’s February Republican presidential primary, be prepared to sign an oath swearing your Republican loyalty. The State Board of Elections on Monday approved a state Republican Party request to require all who apply for a GOP primary ballot first vow in writing that they’ll vote for the party’s presidential nominee next fall.

At first blush, it looks like they’re afraid that if Rudy gets the nod, the anti-Rudy folks might support an alternative candidate (ditto for any of the other GOP hopefuls). 

But there might be some (shades of Illegal Alien Xenophobia) paranoia at work here, too.

There’s no practical way to enforce the oath. Virginia doesn’t require voters to register by party, and for years the state’s Republicans have fretted that Democrats might meddle in their open primaries.

Egads!  Some of those Democratic bounders might pollute our precious electoral fluids!  I know!  Let’s make them sign an oath!  That’ll put them in their places!

Goofy.

(via Terry)

Watching, from my hotel, the Republican / YouTube debate.

Yeesh.

Not sure if the questions were scarier, or the answers.

And as I watch the candidates lurch off to the Right — with only the most occasional appeal to a more centrist position (from Rudy, natch), I can only conclude that pretty much anyone the Dems are likely to put up — my most or least favorite — would be preferable to this gang of idiots.

I’m just sayin’ …

At Dave N.’s suggestion, I re-ran this “Who’s your ideal candidate?” test, which looks at policy positions both of the candidates and of my own (positions and weighting).

	1.	Theoretical Ideal Candidate   (100%)
	2.	Hillary Clinton   (78%)  Information link
	3.	Joseph Biden   (76%)  Information link
	4.	Bill Richardson   (73%)  Information link
	5.	Barack Obama   (70%)  Information link
	6.	Dennis Kucinich   (70%)  Information link
	7.	Michael Bloomberg (says he will not run)   (69%)  Information link
	8.	Al Gore (not announced)   (68%)  Information link
	9.	John Edwards   (68%)  Information link
	10.	Wesley Clark (not running, endorsed Clinton)   (67%)  Information link
	11.	Christopher Dodd   (64%)  Information link
	12.	Alan Augustson (campaign suspended)   (64%)  Information link
	13.	Mike Gravel   (60%)  Information link
	14.	John McCain   (44%)  Information link
	15.	Ron Paul   (42%)  Information link
	16.	Kent McManigal (campaign suspended)   (41%)  Information link
	17.	Mike Huckabee   (40%)  Information link
	18.	Mitt Romney &n bsp; (38%)  Information link
	19.	Rudolph Giuliani   (38%)  Information link
	20.	Tommy Thompson (withdrawn, endorsed Giuliani)   (35%)  Information link
	21.	Elaine Brown   (32%)  Information link
	22.	Newt Gingrich (says he will not run)   (31%)  Information link
	23.	Alan Keyes   (30%)  Information link
	24.	Chuck Hagel (not running)   (30%)  Information link
	25.	Sam Brownback (withdrawn, endorsed McCain)   (28%)  Information link
	26.	Tom Tancredo   (26%)  Information link
	27.	Fred Thompson   (24%)  Information link
	28.	Duncan Hunter   (19%)  Information link
	29.	Jim Gilmore (withdrawn)   (18%)  Information link
	30.	Stephen Colbert (campaign ended)   (16%)  Information link

The results haven’t changed that much from my original take.  Clinton has bumped Biden as the top runner for me, but both remain are pretty close.

I’m good for about one “This Modern World” strip a month, but BD’s reference to this one will do just fine for the quota.

Colorado, at least, won’t have Tom Tancredo to kick around any more.

Colorado Rep. Tom Tancredo has had enough. Of Congress, that is.

The five-term member of the U.S. House and long-shot presidential candidate has decided he will not run for reelection in 2008, ending his congressional career as he continues to seek the White House.

His staff confirmed the decision, which Tancredo spilled first in an interview with the Rocky Mountain News Monday. “I really believe I have done all I can do in the House,” Tancredo told the paper.

I will give Tancredo one point:  he didn’t truckle to the GOP power structure.  Aside from that, he’s largely a xenophobic nut.  And he is, sadly, my US Representative.

I don’t have any doubt that my conservative suburban district will elect another Republican.  But I’m more than happy to see Tom head off into the think tank sunset. 

My positions (as judged by relatively simplistic questions) most closely align with John Edwards and … Bill Richardson?  With Dennis Kucinich, Barack Obama, and Hillary Clinton tied immediately behind.  (Though I disagree with all of them on a number of things.)

Most different from my positions?  Fred Thomson, Duncan Hunter, Tom Tancredo, and Mike Huckabee.  Okay, I can feel good about that, at least.

(via Mom)

“As an American, I am sickened that the political leadership of America could continue to go on vacation and do nothing,” he said. “Why are the August vacations for the president and the Congress more precious than the lives of young Americans who are being killed because of government incompetence and inaction?”

Biting words from Newt Gingrich.  Unfortunately, he’s not talking about the war in Iraq, but of the Scourge of Swarthies from the South, the “criminal illegal aliens.”

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich said Tuesday he is “sickened” that President Bush and Congress went on vacation “while young Americans in our cities are massacred” by illegal immigrants.

Gingrich, who is considering a run for the White House, was referring to the recent execution-style murders of three college students on a school playground in Newark, N.J.

One man whom police believe was involved in the murders — Jose Lachira Carranza — is an illegal immigrant from Peru who had been released on bail on charges of raping a child when the murders occurred.

Gingrich said that the “war here at home” against illegal immigrants is “even more deadly than the war in Iraq and Afghanistan.”

If Newt Gingrich is still toying with the idea of running for the GOP nomination, he ought to take note that Tom Tancredo’s xenophobic nativism isn’t actually doing much for him in the race.

(via Les)