One of the most entertaining moments in the (too) many debates was addressed to Ron Paul – “Let’s talk about electability …. do you have any?” (Answer: no) But at this point in the process, both Democrats and Republicans turn to one issue – who can win in November? It’s useless to nominate someone who can’t win; at this point in the primaries one issue usually comes to the front – electability.
For Democrats, Clinton is a Republican fund-raisers dream; her polarizing figure makes her an easier person to defeat and would stimulate the Republican base, while most Republicans believe Obama is a tougher candidate to handle, even though he lacks the machine of the Clintons. It’s close, but give the edge to Obama in the electability department. Clinton’s machine and rabid base can’t make up for all the baggage she’s carrying around.
For Republicans, the situation is clearer – Huckabee and McCain can win, Romney can’t. According to Rasmussen polls in potential match-ups the Rasmussen Poll says McCain leads Clinton by eight, and Obama by six, while a similar poll with Romney has Hillary beating Romney by 5%, and Obama beating Romney by 9%.
You can argue selecting a candidate based on electability isn’t wise, but why put forth a candidate who you know can’t win? If you’re trying to make a statement to change the political system, it’s way too late by the time the primaries come around. You might as well write-in Mickey Mouse – it has the same impact.
If you want to change the political process, you’ve got to be involved before the primary season. It’s too late now to be idealistic – you’ve only got two Democrats and three Republicans to choose from. None of them are perfect (some would say not even good), but the bottom line is one of those five will be the next President. And in potential match-ups between the five, some fare better than others.
On the question of electability, Romney isn’t the answer. Is there a point to nominating someone who can’t win the big race?
With Rudy dropping out, Republicans are down to three – Huckabee, McCain and Romney. But the tide is beginning to turn McCain’s way – not just because he won Florida (and Romney underperformed, despite his vast fortunes), but Republicans are down to one question – which candidate can hold the White House against Clinton/Obama? (Hint: It ain’t Romney). A Rasmussen Poll says McCain leads Clinton by eight, and Obama by six. If the question is electability, Romney isn’t the answer.
Romney’s flip-flopping is going to hurt him down the stretch. Pro-choice to pro-life, avid hunter to not, pro-gay to defense of marriage, and so on. The question for anyone supporting Romney is simple: do you know what he really believes? Not what he says now, but what his convictions are?
We thought not. Flip-flop.
But more interesting (as we wrote a while ago) is the battle over superdelegates. We wrote about superdelegates before, but the mainstream press is beginning to ask a simple question: What if Clinton/Romney both lose the primary vote, but win the nomination? It could happen. All either candidate has to do is be close, and the back-room deals put them over the top.
As the Washington Post Reports:
The high-profile supporters will also play key roles in the backroom battle over superdelegates, also known as unpledged delegates. Mainly members of Congress, governors, party elders and grass-roots activists, they are free to back any candidate they choose. Clinton, former president Bill Clinton (a superdelegate himself) and their allies have been working aggressively for months to court the superdelegates, drawing on old loyalties to open a huge advantage for the senator from New York in total delegates amassed.
“One person, one vote? Forget about it. Some votes are worth more than others. You have to know the rules,” said Donna Brazile, the campaign manager for Al Gore in the 2000 presidential race and a D.C. superdelegate.
What will voters think if the person who wins the primary doesn’t get the nomination? Right now, it’s a real possibility. As the establishment picks, Clinton/Romney have a huge advantage. We’ll see how this plays out, and how voters react if their choices fail to win the nomination.
Communication only occurs if people agree on language; French and Germans can’t talk unless they agree on common language. But problems occur even if both speak the same language like English; language is only possible because we agree on the meanings of words. There’s no reason “table” could not be called “squid”, except for the reason we all agree on which is which. Yet in discussion (especially in politics and religion) not everyone uses words with the same definition – some people use different meanings (not commonly held) of words which prohibit communication and cause confusion.
On the lighter side, most people know Chuck Norris endorses Mike Huckabee for President. But FoxNews reports Sylvester Stallone is supporting McCain, which brings up the eternal question – In Rambo vs. Walker, who wins?
As the primary season is now in full-swing, we’re seeing candidates promise more and more stuff to more and more people; Romney won Michigan in part by claiming he’ll save their jobs, fix the economy and cure cancer (OK, the last one is a joke). McCain, meanwhile, gave the answer some jobs aren’t coming back, but we’ll invest and create new jobs. Guess which message is more popular? Romney’s of course. But we should not elect a president because he tells us what we want to hear, we need to elect a president who tells the truth (That’s why we’ve eliminated Romney from consideration — what exactly does he believe? Do you get pro-choice Romney, or pro-life Romney? And so on. He lacks stability in policy and doesn’t appear to have any conviction to his positions, saying anything for votes. But we digress).
If you’ve followed the auto industry you know they’re in trouble. McCain is likely right — some jobs won’t be back. But through education and new technology different jobs will emerge — it’s not hopeless, but the return to the old days where the big three dominated is unlikely. Yet Romney won because he told people what they wanted to hear (not necessarily the truth).
We expect Democrats to always have the biggest giveaways, and they never disappoint. It’s been the Republicans who have been for fiscal responsibility. But that ship has sailed, never to return.
What we need is a candidate who will tell it like it is, not what’s popular. As Michelle Malkin says:
Rasmussen released their latest presidential poll (Jan 15) showing McCain at 22%, Huckabee at 21%, and nobody else above 13%. Right now, it’s shaping up to be a national battle between McCain and Huckabee. However, as our last article on why change is difficult, Romney has a huge advantage – and it’s not just his vast personal fortune, so stay tuned. Polls are fluid things.
Romney is a must-win in Michigan, so we’ll see what happens after that.
You’ve heard a lot about party elites, the establishment and so on, but is it true? Does Clinton/Romney actually have a secret advantage by being the pick of the elite party establishment? Can the political machines of each party push their pick over the top? You bet (although it’s not a super-secret, just not well-known), and it’s easier than you think – here’s one way the establishment picks can come out on top, even if voters reject them.
Before we reveal the secret about the political party elites, suppose you’ve been studying the candidates and issues, trying to make an informed selection and thinking your vote counts. Au contraire, mon ami – perhaps you’ve never heard of a superdelegate. If not, it’s because the political parties don’t really want you to know this as it’s one way they use their influence to pick the establishment candidate and minimize the voters intent.