08 Presidential Candidates, Political Analysis

Perhaps the biggest surprise of this cycle's batch of Republican Presidential candidates is that there are a significant number that the base is complaining are too liberal, particularly several of the leaders.  While Giuliani has been criticized because he is openly pro-choice, pro-gun control, and in favor of same-sex marriage, Romney has been criticized for his past positions on abortion, as has McCain.  Gilmore, a former unpopular governor of Virginia, though describing himself Pro-Life, recently said he believes in abortion for the first eight weeks, a position that neither side of the debate seems to respect.  Former Wisonsin Governor Thompson has supported embryonic stem cell research.  How have GOP candidates with similar values on these issues fared in recent elections?

Taking a look at the 2006 Senate and Congressional races may provide an insight into their "electability."  According to http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/writeup/2006_senate_realclearpolitics_poll_averages-63.html, a site which averages polls and shows the actual election results of Senate candidates across the countries in "swing states", we can see which candidates were successful, and a pattern seems to emerge.  In Washington state, Pro-Choice (R) Mike McGavick, once hailed as the "perfect candidate" to win a seat in a liberal leaning state, was slaughtered by incumbent Democrat Maria Cantwell by 19%, a huge margin.  In New Jersey, another Pro-Choice Republican, Thomas Kean Jr. lost by a wide margin of 8% to Democrat Robert Menendez, also Pro-Choice.  In Pennsylvania, Pro-Life GOP candidate Rick Santorum lost his seat to a Pro-Life Democrat candidate, Bob Casey by 17 points.  In Rhode Island, both candidates were again of the same position on abortion - pro-choice as incumbent (R) LIncoln Chafee lost by 6% to (D) Sheldon Whitehouse. 

Many news articles appeared arguing the Democrats were reaching for a majority by using a "northeast strategy" where the "liberal" or "moderate" Republicans in "blue states" were overwhelmingly defeated in Congressional races during the Democratic takeover of Congress.  Other GOP Senate losses include Dewine's seat in Ohio, another moderate.  Three of the Senate losses, however, Allen in Virginia, Burns in Montana, and Talent in Missouri, were GOP Pro-Life candidates losing to Democratics Pro-Choice candidates.  Burns and Allen however, were both close races, within a single percentage point, and both campaigns were plagued by scandals.  Talent's loss in Missouri was also close, and was considered a toss-up down to the wire.  He lost by a couple of points, and the lead in the race had switched hands many times over the course of the campaign.  Senator Corker, a Pro-Life (R) managed to defeat Pro-Choce Ford (D) in Tennessee, and Pro-Life (R) Michael Steele made an unusually close race out of the generally liberal state of Maryland race against a Pro-Choice (D) Cardin, though ultimately coming up short.

Indeed, Giuliani once had a Senate race with Senator Clinton of New York, likely the next Democratic nominee for President, where he bowed out of the race after polls showed he would not be able to defeat her.  It would seem extraordinarily unlikely that he could do much better against her in a national race where her national network far exceeds his own, where she beat him on his only turf in New York already, and where his social views are likely to alienate much of the GOP base.  I find it particularly surprising, therefore, that he continues to be plugged as the "electable candidate" where it would seem, in addition to drawbacks on his conservative credentials so distasteful to the GOP base, he is also quite unelectable.

Part of the reason for the success of liberal GOP candidates such as Giuliani, or in 2000 McCain, is that several states GOP primaries have allowed Democrats and Independents to vote in the primaries.  While this ploy is designed to create a "big tent" in which more liberal voters are drawn into the GOP fold, most liberals who vote in the GOP primary vote for the most liberal GOP candidate and then vote for a Democrat in the general election anyways.  More conservative voters tend to find the "big tent" too big - that is, their values are no longer represented, and so they don't vote.  This losing strategy seems to be a growing trend within the GOP as California recently added its name to the list of states that will employ the "big tent" primary voting scheme.

The Democratic nomination would seem to be a two horse race between Senators Clinton and Obama.  It would seem given this article http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/22/us/politics/22hillary.html?_r=2&ref=politics&oref=slogin&oref=slogin, that Clinton has a friend in the New York Times.  While not providing a link to the YouTube video site that is the very subject of the article, the NYT wants people to know that Obama has gone negative on Clinton. 

While early polls are important, the first major test of whether a candidate is going to be taken seriously is their fundraising capability.  See http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070321/pl_nm/usa_politics_money_dc for another insightful look into the role money plays in the process.  With the 3/31 donation deadline approaching, candidates will get a "report card" on 3 counts - total money collected weighed against expectations, number of big donors making maximum contributions ($2300) and number of small "grassroots" donors, showing a wide base of support.  This site will keep an eye out for the report and analyses of this important benchmark.

Check out http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/070318/26money.htm for an interesting look at the role money plays in determining who has a chance to become President of the United States.

A few days ago, I posted an article on the Christian social conservative vote and mentioned Janet Folger as one of the voices speaking out on the candidates.  She recently conducted her own poll of GOP candidates and found the following:

1. Tancredo – 96 votes, 24.4 percent
2. Paul – 95 votes, 24.2 percent (not bad for someone who wasn't even listed)
3. Brownback – 70 votes, 17.8 percent
4. Hunter – 52 votes, 13.2 percent
5. Huckabee – 41 votes, 10.4 percent
6. Gingrich – 17 votes, 4.3 percent
7. Keyes – 5 votes, 1.3 percent
8. Thompson – 3 votes, 0.8 percent
9. Romney – 3 votes, 0.8 percent (see above)
10. Santorum – 2 votes, 0.5 percent

While not representative of the public in general, this poll shows the leaders among a particular constituency.  The only ones on this list garnering more than 1% in most polls and more than 1% here would be Brownback and Gingrich.  It is likely, therefore, that 1 of those 2 has the best chance of becoming the standard bearer for this constituency.  Surprising absences include potential Presidential hopeful Senator Hagel of Nebraska and to a lesser extent John McCain, who despite bucking the base on occasion, generally does vote with it.  Both receive lots of media attention and yet no love from this poll.  Hagel's similarity of beliefs and positions to Brownback make his absence particularly noteworthy in constrast with Brownback's 70 votes.  Perhaps this is due to Hagel not having declared himself a candidate.

I came across this questionairre recently which asks about 20 questions on a range of important current issues in politics.  It will ask how important the issue is to you and give you one of three options to indicate which position you are most likely to agree with.  It then compiles your answers and gives a percentage score as to each of the presidential candidates from both parties in terms of how much they support your positions.  This may be helpful in finding the candidate, or handful of candidates, you like best.  It then gives you the opportunity to access several links explaining the positions, statements, etc. of any of the candidates you find interesting based on how they score on your list.

See http://selectsmart.com/plus/select.php?url=08frontrunners. 

A new poll taken in South Carolina for GOP Presidential candidates shows McCain leading with 29%, Giuliani in second with 20%, and Gingrich 3rd with 14%.  Romney garnered 6%, Brownback only 2%.  Tancredo, Hunter and Huckabee all also garnered 1-2%.  There was an increase in the number of undecided voters to 23%.

This shows that for the state of SC, McCain continues to be the frontrunner, but his support has decreased from the 35% he garnered in the last SC poll.   At the same time, Giuliani also did significantly worse.  Gingrich's numbers are virtually identical to the 15% he garnered last time in a SC poll, and he is not even running yet.  While all three can be considered "winners" in this poll, I am most surprised at Gingrich continuing to poll so highly despite not having yet declared his candidacy.  Romney went up 1 point, but at 6%, this poll is bad news for him.  Of course, he still was the winner of the CPAC national poll, so his camp can just say that though they are unlikely to win SC, they have a slight improvement there and remain the national frontrunner.  Brownback's 2% was one of the biggest surprises.  Given recent polls and his past performance in SC, this is bad news for him.  The biggest loser of this poll was Duncan Hunter, who in December, was virtually neck and neck with McCain and Giuliani in a SC poll, now down to 2%. 

The huge leap in undecideds show that more people are having trouble finding someone they like.  Usually over a campaign season, the number of undecideds will generally go down.  The opposite holds here and there are two possible reasons.  One, the first theory is that the first SC poll was taken of a group more politically informed, of delegates.  In that case that poll might be more representative if everyone had equal name recognition, which they don't.  This would account for the greater disparities between the leaders in this poll, who, with the exception of Romney who was in single digits, were also the leaders in way of name recognition.  The second theory is that people are hearing some things they don't like about candidates they previously liked.  This would move more people into the undecided camp and would account for McCain and Giuliani's slight drops in particular.

The undecided 23% may be the biggest untold story.  Who and what those 23% are looking for is unclear from these numbers, but the answer to that question is the most important piece of the puzzle.

Recently, three New Hampshire individuals were found guilty of jamming phone lines in 2002 prompting Hilary Clinton to resurrect an old phrase from the 1990s - the "vast right wing conspiracy."  The last time she used this phrase it was to defend her husband and President Bill Clinton from the Monica Lewinsky allegations.  The phrase was oft-used and oft-criticized, and its resurrection can be calculated to generate more discussion.

This may be an indication that she plans to defend her husband's indiscretions from the 1990s and try to involve him more in her race for the Democratic nomination.   Speculation has abounded as to whether and to what extent she would define former President Clinton as involved in her own candidacy.  It is not clear what the connection between the Lewinsky scandal and the New Hampshire phone jammers may be, but comments are welcome if anyone has any insight on this story.  See http://online.wsj.com/public/page/8_0006.html?bcpid=86195573&bclid=212338097&bctid=643351230 for the Wall Street Journal analysis of the story.

The first article, http://www.lifenews.com/nat2985.html, involves Janet Folger, a leading Pro-Life activist, and her analysis that many of the top tier candidates, including Giuliani, Romney, Clinton, McCain, and Obama, are unacceptable to Pro-Lifers.  While McCain is Pro-Life, he has been criticized for campaign finance reform that disproportionately adversely affected Pro-Life groups more than Pro-Choice groups.  Although the article does not mention it, McCain has also been criticized in the past for sponsoring Pro-Choice GOP candidates and for dealing harsh words to Christians involved in politics.  Romney, though a self-proclaimed Pro-Life convert, is questioned over the timing of his "conversion" and his lack of a strong and consistent Pro-Life record.  Brownback is endorsed as a quality and trustworthy candidate.  The second article, written by Jim Anderson, see http://www.lifenews.com/bio2023.html, criticizes Romney as an otherwise fine candidate who has staked a poor position on the Terri Schiavo controversy.  Anderson is a national voice on Christian radio stations. 

The net effect of these two articles show a growing unrest among Christian social conservatives with some of the less socially conservative GOP candidates and typify a growing uneasiness and criticism toward some of the ones with "question marks" around them.  Although the Christian social conservatives are only a fraction of the vote, they remain the most powerful voting bloc in the GOP coalition.

With Senator Brownback - http://time-blog.com/real_clear_politics/2007/03/the_brownback_interview.html