New School Politics

If you're a first time visitor, you may want to subscribe to our RSS feed, which will keep you up to date with all the latest New School Politics posts. Thanks for visiting!

Well there is somewhat of a bright spot for Romney today, he won the Wyoming Primary with 97% of precincts reporting. Of course Wyoming is a tiny state and the primary has received almost no attention (Wyoming moved its primary up but ran into a tough spot when afterwards NH moved up its primary and the state found itself in the middle of the two media events).While it is not anything that will swing the nominating process, it will give Romney a bit of a boost if there is still no clear candidate after NH. If the nominating process does go all the way to the convention, Romney may need the 8 delegates he just garnered from the Wyoming Primary.This pales in comparison to the amount of delegates from Iowa or New Hampshire, but if the election comes down to the convention and Romney has a substantial number of delegates from each state then he could still win this nomination.

Popularity: 11% [?]

The events that occurred in Iowa last night are sure to be the topic of discussion in the national media until the New Hampshire primary on Tuesday. It is important, however, to examine the real meaning behind Iowa and how it will effect the election. Those who support the winners (Huckabee and Obama) claim that it will ensure their candidates victory; voters and pundits who are allied with the under performing candidates (Romney and Hillary) observe that Iowa often has little impact on their respective parties eventual nominees. 2008 is different than past elections-many of us are tempted to note that out of the last four US presidents, three of them did not win the Iowa caucuses. Despite this, there are circumstances in this election that dramatically redefine what winning-and perhaps more importantly what loosing Iowa means for the candidates.

The mainstream media often loves to talk about the “big mo” which refers to the momentum candidates’ garner after winning the caucuses. My friend Zach pointed out in his post that Iowa is in no way the end of the campaigns, indeed he is right in perceiving that in many ways it is just the beginning. Yet while that is the case, with a tighter primary schedule, Iowa will have a bigger impact on the nominating process, not a smaller one. The first thing to note is that in previous elections the New Hampshire primary took place almost a month after Iowa, now there is less than a week between the two events. The attention and fame candidates gain for winning Iowa will inspire their supporters to show up and vote for them in the polls, and may even attract the vast percentage of undecided independents in New Hampshire to their side.

The biggest news of last night was without question Obama’s stunning victory. Zach can attest that the day before I had predicted that Obama would win in Iowa-although I went against my own gut feeling and posted on the blog that Hillary’s organization would put her over the top. Indeed, I was correct in estimating that the Clinton machine had a massive and far superior organizational structure on the ground in Iowa, yet that organization did not help her escape a crushing defeat. Obama won in Iowa because of enthusiasm from voters; he was able to energize nearly 100,000 people who had never attended a caucus before to go and support him. Many of the campaigns’ had earlier predicted that if more than 200,000 people arrived to vote in the Democratic caucus, Obama would win. Despite Hillary’s army of 5,000 drivers, millions spent on advertising and paid volunteers, Obama’s message of change is what resonated for the voters in Iowa. Perhaps it is the realization that if Hillary Clinton is elected it will have been 20 years since a non Bush or Clinton was in the white house, or that there are over 100,000,000 million Americans’ who have never seen an executive branch not led by one of the two political dynasties. There may be many reasons behind Obama’s rise to the top of the polls, but one thing is certain-his momentum is real, it is massive, and if it continues through New Hampshire it will make him the most probable forty forth president of the United States.

In the Wall Street Journal today, there is an article about Hillary Clinton’s strong support in New Hampshire and the strength of her organization. Is our memory that short? Just yesterday the pundits were saying the same thing about her organization in Iowa (indeed, I was one of them) but in New Hampshire that will not be able to overcome Obama’s “big mo.” Voters now know that the hue of invincibility and inevitability around Hillary Clinton was a falsity. If Obama can turn out 100,000 supporters for the dark and cold caucus precincts in Iowa, then he can certainly motivate many times that number in the ballot casting state of New Hampshire. There is no question that Obama’s win will attract the thousands of independents in New Hampshire and that their support could put him over the top there. Already he leads the polls in New Hampshire outside of the margin of error and I expect new polling conducted over the weekend to show an even wider gap between the two leading Democratic candidates. With Iowa under his belt and New Hampshire likely to follow, I can safely say that Obama will be in a comfortable position to grab the Democratic primary.

I do not like to bring up the issue of race, but last night the senator from Illinois became the first African-American to win a major national primary, he did it in a state with a black population less than two percent. If Obama can pull off a win there you can bet that he will devastate the Clinton’s in South Carolina where the African-American population is near thirty percent.

There is an interesting dynamic in South Carolina; many of the older leaders of the black community are staunch Clinton supporters, they were the ones who called Bill Clinton was the first “black” president. At the same time the younger African American demographic in the state are strong backers of Obama who they perceive as the first African American with a real shot at the white house. Now that Obama has proven his electability in Iowa, he will surely lock up those young black votes in South Carolina. More importantly, if he can hinder Hillary’s efforts in New Hampshire and win by even a slim margin, many of the old guard in the African American elite who previously supported the Clinton’s will listen to their hearts and cast their ballots for the young Illinois Senator. So once again I predict that if Obama’s momentum holds and he wins New Hampshire (as I am predicting he will) then he will win South Carolina, if that happens I do not believe that Senator Clinton will be able to regroup her campaign in time to hold onto the nomination. If Obama wins in New Hampshire and South Carolina I predict he will win the Democratic nomination and if that occurs he will most certainly become the next president of the United States. Senator Obama has much broader electability than his two Democratic rivals and while the Republican I have endorsed, Governor Romney could defeat Hillary Clinton-I do not believe neither he nor any other Republican has the ability to defeat Senator Obama in a general election.

For the Republicans, the results of Iowa will have very different ramifications. Unlike the Democrats where Iowa created a new front-runner for their nomination, Iowa has made the Republican primary process even more difficult. It will now be a couple months before the Republican Party even begins to rally around a single candidate. While Mike Huckabee did win the primary due to a significant outpouring of evangelical support, he simply does not have the money, organization, or support of the Republican establishment needed to secure the nomination. Mitt Romney is the only Republican candidate who could at least appease the evangelicals in their wishes for the protection of traditional “moral values” while also securing the support of the economic and national security conservatives. Huckabee’s victory in Iowa has however thrown Romney’s campaign into a serious tough spot, for the past several weeks he has been fighting a two front war (see Germany circa 1944) in Iowa and New Hampshire and he has had to split his admittedly vast resources between the two. In fact, this past week John McCain has had New Hampshire almost to himself as both the Democratic and Republican front-runners spent their time in Iowa.

The newest polls do show McCain slightly up in New Hampshire, a state that has always been kind to his “maverick” status. Despite reviving his campaign, he has been unable to reignite that “maverick” image. Now that status belongs to his much better financed opponent Ron Paul. Both men need to do well in New Hampshire, as it is the only state where either has a chance for an early victory. Unfortunately for the legendary Arizona Senator, Ron Paul has much stronger support among independents and is likely to attract many more of them to the polls than he is. There is another problem for McCain’s heavily independent reliant strategy- the Illinois Senator who sits across the aisle. Despite Obama and McCain belonging to two different party nominating processes, the fact that New Hampshire allows independents to register for either party for the primary process means that many independents will register with the party where they believe they can have the most impact. For many independents and undecided voters, Obama’s recent victory in Iowa will make them believe that if he wins in New Hampshire he can win the nomination. A large percentage of them will register of Democrats with the belief that Obama is a viable alternative to Clinton.

The events in the Democratic primary will have an effect on the Republican primary in New Hampshire, but John McCain also has problems on his own side of the aisle. For starters he has his archrival Governor Romney who has a very strong organization there and was the governor of the neighboring state. Although McCain leads in a couple of polls, for the most part the race is perceived in a dead heat with both candidates within the margin of error of one another. Despite the battle wagging between McCain and Romney there are still other candidates in New Hampshire’s primary. While Romney’s second place win was good news for McCain, Thompson’s surprising bronze medal was not. If Thompson had underperformed and dropped out and subsequently endorsed McCain, it may have given him the edge he needed to win in New Hampshire. Thompson’s results mean that he is still in the race through South Carolina and thus it makes it even more difficult to predict what will occur in the live free or die state. It is important to note that McCain’s rise in New Hampshire has not been taken from Romney votes-McCain has gained votes from undecided voters who were not attracted to Giuliani or Thompson. After Iowa it is apparent that Thompson still does have a pulse and now some voters in New Hampshire who would have supported McCain will go back to Thompson. As in 2000, McCain has a strategy of relying on independent and undecided voters- but many of them will go to the Democratic primary in order to stop Hillary Clinton and support Obama. Additionally, the 1988 libertarian candidate Ron Paul has stolen McCain’s maverick and tax killing image. It will be a close race in New Hampshire, but I would be very hesitant in saying that Iowa spelled the end of the Romney campaign, in fact I believe its results were a mixed bag for both Romney and McCain. Romney’s silver medal benefits McCain, but the strong showing by Ron Paul and Thompson may split much of his support in New Hampshire.

Governor Romney is in an interesting place right now. His campaign is by no means dead, and in fact many of the other Republican campaigns would kill for his position. There were however high expectations for the Governor and he was outdone by a much less experienced and under funded candidate. Romney’s chances of winning New Hampshire have been diminished because of his second place finish last night, however it does not mean he is out of contention for the nomination. Quite the contrary; if he places second in New Hampshire and then goes on to either first or second in Michigan, Nevada, South Carolina, and Florida he will have a serious case for the nomination. If chaos theory does ensue with a Huckabee win in Iowa, a McCain win in NH, a Romney win in Michigan, a Thompson win in South Carolina, and a Giuliani win in Florida none of the candidates will be in prime position. But currently Romney is positioned as the only candidate projected to finish in the top two in all of those early states and is also the only viable alternative to Giuliani in the Tsunami Tuesday primaries. On the other hand, if Romney does squeak out a win in New Hampshire I believe he will quickly recover and win in Michigan and then Nevada. I still contend that Romney is the most viable option for the Republican’s and has excellent economic and foreign policy proposals. That said, if he wins New Hampshire I believe he will land the nomination sooner and if he looses but does well in all of the other primary states he will still be just as well seated as any of the other candidates to win the nomination closer to the convention.

I also believe that Governor Romney is the only person who could beat the Clinton machine if she receives the nomination. Yet, if Obama does continue to gain momentum and spreads his “message of hope” across the nation I do not believe there is any other candidate from either side of the aisle who could defeat him. On the topic of Bloomberg, I believe that Obama’s gaining momentum and calls for a single united electorate are just what the current New York Mayor is looking for and that it will dissuade him from making his on presidential bid. The race will become much more clear by next Wednesday; the results in New Hampshire will either mean an unstoppable democratic front runner or create a very tight race between two well financed candidates. On the Republican side it will either mean the reviving of Mitt Romney’s campaign and his propulsion back into front-runner status or it will lead to the much feared chaos theory scenario. Additionally, the WSJ did report that on Monday, Mayor Bloomberg will meet with six major Republicans and six major Democrats to discuss the need for a change in the direction of America. Whether this is an imminent prelude to Bloomberg’s run or if it is a call for campaigning in line with Obama’s message of unity is yet to be seen, but what can be certain is that Mayor Bloomberg has the ability to influence this election whether he runs or not.

Popularity: 18% [?]

I thought I would just jot down a few of my thoughts on Iowa. At this point it is very close to call but I am predicting a Romney and Hillary victory.There are a couple brief reasons as to why I think Romney and Hillary will win tonight; for one, both of them have outstanding organizations that are ready to pour in well advised caucus goers to the precincts. It is thought that Hillary has 5,000 volunteer drivers (compared to Kerry’s 2004 300) and that Romney expects over 22,000 Mormons to support him at the caucuses. Given that the winners will likely win by slim margins, I predict that these outstanding organizations will give them the edge they need for a 3-4 point victory.There are many ways this event could play out.-If Romney does not win tonight he will not come in first in NH especially if Fred drop’s out and endorses him.-If Romney does win and Ron Paul does better than expected in Iowa (such as 3rd or 4th) expect him to attract votes away from both McCain and Obama that could lock up NH for both Romney and Hillary on their respective sides.-A Huckabee win will re-energize Giuliani’s campaign.-If Obama does not win I cannot see him making a recovery in any primary state except for South Carolina, but even there he is having trouble securing a vote he should have locked up-the African American vote.-Edwards may come in second, if he does it will not help him win in the other states as the press will leave his name out of the headlines.I will be online later to cover the event.

Popularity: 9% [?]

Today is a good day to be a Romney supporter. Governor Romney gave what was without a doubt the most important and the most impressive speech by any candidate of the presidential campaign. With the national press listening, he spoke about not only his Mormon faith, but the role of religion and its importance in America.

I will not go into specifics of the speech because-well quite frankly I would not be able to say it as well as Governor Romney.

You can find the speech here on the Governor’s presidential website. It is also available on MSNBC’s homepage.

As for early reactions from the pundits, here are a few quotes from MSNBC’s post speech coverage.

Pat buchanan, “Beautiful, almost perfect.”

Chris Mathews, “After almost a year of this presidential campaign I have finally heard the most impressive speech in this race.”

Joe Scarborough, “A landmark speech on American religious identity, he did everything he had to and just hit it right out of the ballpark.”

Popularity: 37% [?]

For those who have heard of Presidential Candidate Mitt Romney, one of the first things they utter is, “Oh yea, isn’t that the Mormon guy?” Indeed, there was a major perception in the main stream media that Governor Romney would face serious obstacles in his quest for the Oval Office because of his religious beliefs. One of the reasons behind this is that polls show that more Americans’ would be willing to vote for a woman or an African-American than a Mormon. American’s should not vote for Hillary Clinton if she says that her gender will effect her decision making and policy, they should not support Obama if he claims that the color of his skin will alter his approach on issues, and they should not vote for Mitt Romney if he claims that the Church of Latter Day Saints will be driving his decision making. Yet, none of these candidates should be penalized for their personal characteristics as long as they will not influence their policies in the White House. If we do as Ryan proposes and analyze the faith of our candidates even more than we do now, then what is to stop us from lambasting public officials based on their race or gender?
Most people who are opposed to a Mormon politician claim that the religion is simply too odd or too strange, others’, such as Ryan observe the Church’s former policies of sexual and racial discrimination. It is true that blacks’ were not allowed to become members of the Mormon church until 1978 and it is also true that even today there is not a single woman that holds a high position within the LDS. Despite past policies of the Church, Ryan forgets to look at political history.

Michigan Governor George Romney, was one of first Governors in the country to support civil rights legislation. In 1962, Governor George Romney wrote the provision for the nation’s only constitutionally established Civil Rights Commission. There is no question that the Romney’s do believe in their faith and follow the teachings of their Church, but George Romney’s actions as a civil rights pioneer nearly two decades before his Church endorsed civil rights shows that true politicians put their oath of office above anything else. Like the majority of politicians in America, faith did not drive the policy’s of George Romney. Ryan was correct when he wrote, “the politics of Gov. Romney are not determined by the Mormonism of Mitt Romney,” yet he seemed to take this as an exception, when he should note that like Romney’s father, most American politicians limit the influence (if any) their faith will have during their tenure in office.

It is imperative that religion does not heavily influence the political actions of our leaders. At the same time dismissing those beliefs is not only unlikely, but unadvisable. Ryan may want to examine Romney’s faith to ensure it does not poison society, but what is to stop evangelicals from examining the Catholic faith Ryan was born with? It is apparent what a slippery slope this could become, if we as a society begin to dismiss politicians based on their faith even if it will not influence their policy, then we will endanger the very foundations of American politics. For example, could one not question an Objectivist on his ability to remove Ayn Rand’s philosophy from his thought process if ever elected into office? Politicians should be judged on the policies that they have proposed. American’s should not weigh a candidates religion unless that person admits that it is or will be a significant influence upon their policy. The only candidate who has done so as of yet in this Presidential race is Mike Huckabee. Unless Senator Obama, or Governor Romney, or Senator Clinton says that their race, religion, or gender will influence them in office, then it is only fair that we solely examine their political record’s.

Popularity: 44% [?]

“Not long ago, the satirical newspaper The Onion ran a fake news story that began like this:
‘At a well-attended rally in front of his new ground zero headquarters Monday, former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani officially announced his plan to run for president of 9/11. ‘My fellow citizens of 9/11, today I will make you a promise,’ said Giuliani during his 18-minute announcement speech in front of a charred and torn American flag. ‘As president of 9/11, I will usher in a bold new 9/11 for all.’ If elected, Giuliani would inherit the duties of current 9/11 President George W. Bush, including making grim facial expressions, seeing the world’s conflicts in terms of good and evil, and carrying a bullhorn at all state functions.’
Like all good satire, the story made me both laugh and cry, because it reflected something so true — how much, since 9/11, we’ve become “The United States of Fighting Terrorism.” Times columnists are not allowed to endorse candidates, but there’s no rule against saying who will not get my vote: I will not vote for any candidate running on 9/11. We don’t need another president of 9/11. We need a president for 9/12. I will only vote for the 9/12 candidate.

Here is the link to the rest of the column.

Popularity: 44% [?]

“By now you may have heard of the economic questions regarding using corn for ethanol production, but less attention has been paid to the environmental impact of using ethanol as an alternative to gasoline. Is ethanol more of a pollutant than gasoline? Surprisingly, the science says yes.”

Here is the link to the article

Popularity: 57% [?]

Richard Nixon is one of America’s most infamous presidents, people find it hard to forget Checkers, trade with China, Vietnam, and of course Watergate. Yet, not many recall that Richard Nixon was the first Republican candidate to successfully exploit the southern Christian vote. Nearly forty years after Nixon it seems that the powerful Southern and general Christian Conservative voting block is loosing strength in the Republican Party.

Southerners joined the Democratic Party after the civil war in order to oppose Lincoln’s new dominant Republican party. Yet, a dramatic shift occurred in the 1960s and 1970s. There are two key reasons why there was a dramatic demographic shift between the two parties; both of which were linked to a common cause. During the two decades of the Vietnam War and Civil Rights movement one group of people stood on the front of the protest lines; white, upper-middle class, college students. Yet the most important characteristic of these people of change was their political denomination, they were self-declared liberal democrats. While non college educated southerners fought in Vietnam, northern white college students protested the war, demeaned the soldiers, and then told the citizens of the south that they had to change their ways and let the black man have equal rights.

Of course I am not suggesting that only southerners fought in the war, and I know many men who went to northern colleges and patriotically volunteered for the war as officers. In addition, we should be blessed at the steadfast nature of those college kids who fought intolerance and violence in places like Montgomery so that people they did not even know could have access to the rights they deserved. What I am trying to convey is that white liberals were opposing the fundamentals of the lives of many southerners during the 60s and 70s. It would not be possible for these two ideologies to coexist in one party, and Nixon exploited those fundamental differences.

As Kevin Phillips, Nixon’s Republican strategist put it, “The more Negroes who register as Democrats in the South, the sooner the Negrophobe whites will quit the Democrats and become Republicans. That’s where the votes are. Without that prodding from the blacks, the whites will backslide into their old comfortable arrangement with the local Democrats.” While Phillips did not create this southern strategy, it was not until his work for Nixon that the Republicans began to carry the south. After forty years of Republican dominance in the South, is it possible that the 2008 election will mark the beginning of the end of the Southern and overall Christian Vote?

The Southern vote has been a bastion of Republican support for years, and along with the southern vote came the massive nationwide voter block of Christian conservatives. They rally to cries of the right to life and outlawing Gay marriage, and while presidents from Reagan to Bush have relied on this voter block for support, it is becoming apparent that they are beginning to loose faith in the people they have elected. Perhaps they are beginning to realize that the Bush clan and other political elites use them to garner votes and do not actually share their values, perhaps they are just tired of spending time in caucus; whatever the reason, the traditional base of the Republican party is decreasing in size and reliability.

Will this decade mark the first major shift in voting demographics for the last forty years?

More than nine thousand people voted for president George W. Bush in the Iowa straw poll in 2000, yet seven years later the first, second, and third place candidates had barely ten thousand votes between them.

Every true Democrats’ piñata, Karl Rove recently retired from the Bush administration to spend “more time with his family.” Yet, despite Rove’s brilliant utilization of the Christian vote to keep Bush in office, his boss may cause a major backlash from the base as he failed to follow through on many of his promises. The Christian conservative and southern base is furious at their former poster child. The man they once all wanted to have a beer with is now the man they feel stole a beer from them.

Bush failed to stop illegal immigration which his Evangelical and southern (different groups) base both thought he would do, he did not keep “liberal” states from legalizing gay marriage or adopting civil union laws, and he failed to change the status quo regarding Rowe v. Wade. To add insult to injury, many of the sons, husbands, and fathers from these two voter blocks are fighting an unpopular war and spending longer tours away from their families.

Many of these once diehard Republican voters are now asking themselves an important question, “why should we keep voting for members of this party if they are never going to serve our interests?”

While some of the new Republican candidates seem to represent the middle classes’, “traditional” values voters on certain issues, they falter at others. Rudy Giuliani appeals to their patriotic instinct, yet he like Mitt Romney has been ousted for his liberal stances on abortion, gay marriage, and gun control. To make matters worse, Giuliani has been torn apart recently regarding the level of illegal immigration he permitted in New York City while he was mayor. Even John McCain, once thought to be the Messiah of the conservative movement betrayed his base by co-authoring an atrocious illegal immigration bill.

While many on the right are hoping that Hillary receives the Democratic nomination in the hope that it will energize the base, I have to raise the question, will they care? I believe that 2008 could indeed turn out to be a year of unprecedented voter apathy from the “family values” voters of the Republican Party. Many of them may be asking themselves what the Republican nominee can offer them over the Democratic challenger. More importantly, perhaps many of the people in this demographic feel that none of the candidates in 2008 will serve their interests once elected.

They raise a valid question, because even I am starting to wonder what the differences between the parties’ front-runners are.

Popularity: 76% [?]

This was an interesting article from the NewYork observer. In a strange way, it appears that it is not Rudy’s past social choices that are stirring up resentment among conservatives, but it is his past policy choices on immigration. Remember, John McCain’s campaign was shattered on the imigration issue after a massive backlash by his longtime supporters for his attempt to pass his awful immigration bill.

Here is an exerpt with a link.

After months of watching him wriggle out of tight spots on issues like abortion and gun control, opponents of the front-running former mayor say that his reversal on immigration policy has finally brought down the mayor’s impenetrable defenses and opened him up to attacks on everything from the consistency of his record, to his personal life, to the veracity of his remarks about Ground Zero.

Popularity: 40% [?]

I read this fantastic article by Governor Romney a few weeks ago and while I am sure that many of you have already seen it, I thought it still merited a post. The article covers many of the different aspects of foreign policy, and while it is brief, it does an excellent job of outlining where the former governor stands on the issues. In fact, I believe this is the best foreign policy outline released by any politician running for office in this election.

The article starts out with a lot of the usual Washington politics need change lines that the candidates love to throw around these days, but the subsequent pages are quite substantial.

Here is a link along with an excerpt-

WASHINGTON DIVIDED

Less than six years after 9/11, Washington is as divided and conflicted over foreign policy as it has been at any point in the last 50 years. Senator Arthur Vandenberg once famously declared that “politics stops at the water’s edge”; today, the chair of the House Foreign Affairs Committee declares that our major political parties should carry out two separate foreign policies. The Senate unanimously confirmed General David Petraeus, who pledged to implement a new strategy, as the commander of U.S. forces in Iraq. Yet just weeks later, the Senate began crafting legislation specifically designed to stop that new strategy. More broadly, lines have been drawn between those labeled “realists” and those labeled “neoconservatives.” Yet these terms mean little when even the most committed neoconservative recognizes that any successful policy must be grounded in reality and even the most hardened realist admits that much of the United States’ power and influence stems from its values and ideals.

In the midst of these divisions, the American people — and many others around the world — have increasing doubts about the United States’ direction and role in the world. Indeed, it seems that concern about Washington’s divisiveness and capability to meet today’s challenges is the one thing that unites us all. We need new thinking on foreign policy and an overarching strategy that can unite the United States and its allies — not around a particular political camp or foreign policy school but around a shared understanding of how to meet a new generation of challenges.

Popularity: 40% [?]