The most common reason I hear for support of Hillary Clinton's candidacy is her electability in the general election. In a Washington Post/ABC poll conducted from July 26-31st, 500 Iowans were asked who, of the Democratic candidates, had the best chance at being elected in the general election the results went as follows: Clinton (35%), Obama (23%) and Edwards (22%). However, in the same poll, out of the top-three candidates, Clinton least "understands the problems of people like you", is the least "honest and trustworthy", least "closest to you on issues", and least "likeable." (Complete poll results are here) On the plus side for Clinton she is rated the "most experienced to be president" and "strongest leader." When asked whom these Iowa Democrats favor for the nomination 27% said Obama, 26% said both Clinton and Edwards. A statistical dead heat.
What this seems to say to me is that Democrats don't particularly like Clinton, out of the top three candidates, or trust her as a person; however, they trust her to win in November and that is all that matters after eight years of Bush. Competency before likability. However, Democrats, sadly, are not the only people who elect presidents in November. Republicans and independents count for something too. Therefore, it would be prudent to see what the polls tell us in presumed head-to-head match-ups for the general election. (It should be noted that these are national polls and reflect the supposed popular vote not the Electoral College, which is still the means of electing our presidents.)
Real Clear Politics is a good source for head-to-head results. They take the results of five to seven other polls and average them together to get an aggregate result. For simplicity's sake, I am going to just compare Clinton and Obama's results with the Republican field.
Clinton v. Giuliani (45.7% - 44.7% +1 Clinton spread)
Clinton v. Thompson (46.8% - 43% +3.8 Clinton spread)
Clinton v. McCain (46% - 43.8% +2.2 Clinton spread)
Clinton v. Romney (48% - 38.3% +9.7 Clinton spread)
Obama v. Giuliani (46.2% - 43% +3.2 Obama spread)
Obama v. Thompson (49.8% - 36.8% +13 Obama spread)
Obama v. McCain (46.5% - 40.8% +5.7 Obama spread)
Obama v. Romney (49% -36% +13 Obama spread)
In an election versus Giuliani, Obama does 2.2% better than Clinton
Versus Thompson, Obama does 9.2% better than Clinton
Versus McCain, Obama does 3.5% better than Clinton
Versus Romney, Obama does 3.3% better than Clinton
What is the cause of this? The cause is two-fold: 1) Clinton has a virtual 100% name recognition and most Americans have already made their mind-up about her, positive or negative, 2) Obama is still getting his name out there, so most Americans identify his party label, Democrat, as the overriding factor in their decision instead of their opinion about him. Clinton does worse than the "generic Democrat", while Obama does comparable to or better than the "generic Democrat." Every single candidate's unfavorables rise as the election goes on, so Obama's numbers may go down; however, every has their opinion on Clinton, so hers can't get much lower. (Clinton has a 47-49 favorable/unfavorable rating).
A couple of conclusions can be reached by looking at this data and it all depends on your bias. The Clinton bias would say that these are hard numbers, not likely to move because she has spent the last 15 years deflecting the Republican machine. Her favorables can only go up. Obama's numbers are soft because he has yet to be introduced to everyone in the nation, we have no idea what will happen to his numbers if that happens. Like her or not, she is the most capable Democrat to be elected president.
The Obama bias would say that there is very little wiggle room if we nominate Clinton. Obama's numbers, even if they fall, have a longer way to go than Clinton's until they are in the negative. Plus, Iowans who have met the candidates like Obama more than Clinton; we should, hypothetically, expect the same of the nation as a whole. Clinton is a national polarizing figure and America has had enough of polarizing figures. She will invigorate the right and likely increase Republican turn-out in a nominally Democratic year.
However, even Clinton supporters worry about the effect of a Clinton nomination. A recent article from the Associated Press tells of anonymous Democrats (everyone is afraid of the Clinton wrath) who worry that nominating Clinton will hurt down-ballot Democrats in close races. (read the article here) Clinton's polarizing persona will likely incur a groundswell of Republican opposition who turnout on election day just to oppose Clinton. These Republicans may not be able to defeat Clinton, but they could have a large effect on congressional and senatorial candidates.
EDITORIAL ALERT:
It is in my humble opinion, as a member of the Obama bias, that Clinton would surely win in November. I do believe she is electable, but she does not have much of a margin of error. Republicans at this juncture hate their choices for their nomination. They pleaded for Fred Thompson to enter the race, but he has already started to drop in the polls, had a major campaign shake-up, a poor financial showing the in the last quarter, and all this before officially declaring his candidacy. Thompson is a flame-out and it is still doubtful that Gingrich will enter the race. Republicans hate their choices, so why should we give them a reason to turnout on election day? Karl Rove had a successful strategy in 2004: turnout the base by putting hot-button issues on the ballot (abortion and gay-marriage). To conservatives Hillary Clinton IS a hot-button issue. Rove is hoping for the Democrats to put her on the ballot because it effectively fires up their base as much as gay marriage does (mostly because the far right sees her as a lesbian, anyway. A stupid claim). I worry about the effects on the Senate race in Colorado, the Senate race in Louisiana, Minnesota, New Hampshire, etc. if Clinton is on the ballot. Obama still has room to grow, whereas Clinton only has the margin of error. I don't want to give any more reason for conservatives to turnout on November 4th, 2008.
-Wyatt Earp
Sunday, August 12, 2007
Thursday, August 9, 2007
The race for Cabinet
While voters throughout the next year will be electing the Democratic nominee, who they elect will correlate to who is in the cabinet. The behind-the-scenes race for such hot-bed positions as Secretary of State is on. While there are no polls for this sort of thing, who is winning?
According to the whispering class if the election were held today the high-level cabinet would look like such: President Hillary Clinton, Vice-President Bill Richardson and Secretary of State Joe Biden.
Bill Richardson has not laid a hand on any of the other presidential candidates and it has been suggested that the nominee will be more forgiving of the squeaky-clean Richardson, so forgiving so as to appoint him Vice-President. Even in the AFL-CIO debate from this week where it seemed like everyone was taking hits, Richardson's name did not appear in coverage of the event because he avoided all attacks. He merely defines himself by his record as governor of New Mexico, a strong record at that. He is strong pick of VP. The Mountain-west is the linchpin of the Dems' '08 strategy and the governor of NM would have a lot of appeal. He is Hispanic, a large voting bloc that will help shape the race in many swing states (CO, FL, AR, NM). He has a record of experience if that is called in to question for the nominee (Obama, Edwards, even Clinton).
Joe Biden's chief campaign message is that "He is the only one with a plan for Iraq." The debates have been Biden's strongest suit because his blunt, in-your-face style has appealed to voters tired of pontificating and posturing. And at the debates if a question is asked about Iraq, I'm just kidding, when a question is asked about Iraq Biden stands in the face of public opinion and says that we need a plan to stabilize Iraq not just withdrawal. Visit his website www.planforiraq.com for more information about his intended policy. He has been on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee for three decades and his relationship with Richard Lugar (R-IN) defines the moderate internationalism opinion of the Senate. He is a perfect fit for Secretary of State; however, he said in a recent Newsweek article, "I promise you, I don’t want to be secretary of State. I’m going to be taking sharper and sharper exceptions with my colleagues. And it won’t be easy to then turn around and ask to be secretary of State." However, that does not answer the question of: If you were offered Secretary of State, would you accept? Plus, it's simply impolite for presidential candidates to discuss desires for cabinet positions.
It should be noted that Bill Richardson is probably in second place for Secretary of State. However, this post is relatively inane, because the cabinet depends solely on the president-elect and cannot be gaged on the campaigns presently being waged. However, this is the opinion of those currently making noise.
VICE-PRESIDENT
In the past week both former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich and Rudy Guiliani were quoted saying that the Democratic ticket will likely be Clinton- Obama. I am quite sure that this will not happen. I don't take exception with Clinton winning the Democratic nomination, but I disagree that she would ever, in a million years, select Obama as her running mate. There are a few reasons why.
Sheer Bitterness - Clintons are a grudge-holding people and as time goes on Obama will take more specific shots at Clinton. She will certainly not want to reward this behavior by making Obama the presumptuous 2016 Democratic nominee.
Took much voltage at the bottom of the ticket - Clinton's negative persona is perceived as cold, calculating and political. Obama is perceived as young, fresh, electrifying and inspiring. It could be said that they're the perfect foil for the presidential ticket, but that is why Clinton won't take the deal. Obama will be holding a rally for Clinton, yet a crowd of 20,000 could leave being inspired and wondering why the names weren't flipped. Just like her husband, Hillary would be cautious to hold a joint-rally with Obama because his introduction might outshine her speech. Don't let the coin outshine you.
No geographical significance - Obama is the Senator from Illinois. Clinton is going to carry Illinois without a shadow of a doubt. However, Vice Presidents are rarely ever seen to actual sway their own state. Yet geographical disparity is a quality sought after in VP candidates (notably, the 1960 Boston-Austin ticket).
Those are just three reasons why Clinton will not ask Obama to be her Vice-President. So, who should Clinton ask to be her Vice-President, if nominated? In my opinion she should ask Senator Evan Bayh.
Evan Bayh is a first-rate centrist with a long history of public service. He is a member of the Democratic Leadership Council, the Democratic centrist organization founded by Bill Clinton. He has served as Indiana's Secretary of State, two terms as their governor and now is in his second term as their junior Senator. He received over 60% of the vote twice for Senate in a Republican state. While he will not put Indiana into play, especially with Clinton heading the ticket, he can help swing Ohio or Missouri in the Democrat's favor. He is a strong pick and will likely be on every nominee's short list. I see it as likely that she would pick Bayh over Richardson. However, the two will surely be competing for the position. And the race is on.
Opinion makers have to make news if none exist and so the race for cabinet positions is a good way to do so. I thought I would add my opinions on a non-existent race.
-Wyatt Earp
According to the whispering class if the election were held today the high-level cabinet would look like such: President Hillary Clinton, Vice-President Bill Richardson and Secretary of State Joe Biden.
Bill Richardson has not laid a hand on any of the other presidential candidates and it has been suggested that the nominee will be more forgiving of the squeaky-clean Richardson, so forgiving so as to appoint him Vice-President. Even in the AFL-CIO debate from this week where it seemed like everyone was taking hits, Richardson's name did not appear in coverage of the event because he avoided all attacks. He merely defines himself by his record as governor of New Mexico, a strong record at that. He is strong pick of VP. The Mountain-west is the linchpin of the Dems' '08 strategy and the governor of NM would have a lot of appeal. He is Hispanic, a large voting bloc that will help shape the race in many swing states (CO, FL, AR, NM). He has a record of experience if that is called in to question for the nominee (Obama, Edwards, even Clinton).
Joe Biden's chief campaign message is that "He is the only one with a plan for Iraq." The debates have been Biden's strongest suit because his blunt, in-your-face style has appealed to voters tired of pontificating and posturing. And at the debates if a question is asked about Iraq, I'm just kidding, when a question is asked about Iraq Biden stands in the face of public opinion and says that we need a plan to stabilize Iraq not just withdrawal. Visit his website www.planforiraq.com for more information about his intended policy. He has been on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee for three decades and his relationship with Richard Lugar (R-IN) defines the moderate internationalism opinion of the Senate. He is a perfect fit for Secretary of State; however, he said in a recent Newsweek article, "I promise you, I don’t want to be secretary of State. I’m going to be taking sharper and sharper exceptions with my colleagues. And it won’t be easy to then turn around and ask to be secretary of State." However, that does not answer the question of: If you were offered Secretary of State, would you accept? Plus, it's simply impolite for presidential candidates to discuss desires for cabinet positions.
It should be noted that Bill Richardson is probably in second place for Secretary of State. However, this post is relatively inane, because the cabinet depends solely on the president-elect and cannot be gaged on the campaigns presently being waged. However, this is the opinion of those currently making noise.
VICE-PRESIDENT
In the past week both former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich and Rudy Guiliani were quoted saying that the Democratic ticket will likely be Clinton- Obama. I am quite sure that this will not happen. I don't take exception with Clinton winning the Democratic nomination, but I disagree that she would ever, in a million years, select Obama as her running mate. There are a few reasons why.
Sheer Bitterness - Clintons are a grudge-holding people and as time goes on Obama will take more specific shots at Clinton. She will certainly not want to reward this behavior by making Obama the presumptuous 2016 Democratic nominee.
Took much voltage at the bottom of the ticket - Clinton's negative persona is perceived as cold, calculating and political. Obama is perceived as young, fresh, electrifying and inspiring. It could be said that they're the perfect foil for the presidential ticket, but that is why Clinton won't take the deal. Obama will be holding a rally for Clinton, yet a crowd of 20,000 could leave being inspired and wondering why the names weren't flipped. Just like her husband, Hillary would be cautious to hold a joint-rally with Obama because his introduction might outshine her speech. Don't let the coin outshine you.
No geographical significance - Obama is the Senator from Illinois. Clinton is going to carry Illinois without a shadow of a doubt. However, Vice Presidents are rarely ever seen to actual sway their own state. Yet geographical disparity is a quality sought after in VP candidates (notably, the 1960 Boston-Austin ticket).
Those are just three reasons why Clinton will not ask Obama to be her Vice-President. So, who should Clinton ask to be her Vice-President, if nominated? In my opinion she should ask Senator Evan Bayh.
Evan Bayh is a first-rate centrist with a long history of public service. He is a member of the Democratic Leadership Council, the Democratic centrist organization founded by Bill Clinton. He has served as Indiana's Secretary of State, two terms as their governor and now is in his second term as their junior Senator. He received over 60% of the vote twice for Senate in a Republican state. While he will not put Indiana into play, especially with Clinton heading the ticket, he can help swing Ohio or Missouri in the Democrat's favor. He is a strong pick and will likely be on every nominee's short list. I see it as likely that she would pick Bayh over Richardson. However, the two will surely be competing for the position. And the race is on.
Opinion makers have to make news if none exist and so the race for cabinet positions is a good way to do so. I thought I would add my opinions on a non-existent race.
-Wyatt Earp
Monday, August 6, 2007
If they're shooting at you, you must be doing something right
In the past couple of weeks all the presidential candidates, it seems, are shooting criticism at Barack Obama. Obama, at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, gave what has been called a "major foreign policy speech" this past week where he outlined his intended terrorism policy, if elected president. The highlights are as follows:
Obama proposed that we are fighting on the wrong front in our war on terrorism. Instead we need to be focusing our attention on Pakistan and Afghanistan, where terrorism runs deepest. To Pakistan, Obama said: "If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf will not act, we will." Iraq is the wrong war to be fighting if we are to succeed in the war on terrorism, Obama claims. However, in a later question and answer session, Obama claimed that nuclear weapons were "off the table" in dealing with Afghanistan and Pakistan.
Both of these claims: fighting Pakistan and the no-nuclear option have provoked reactions from all sides of the presidential race. Pakistan, naturally, had the strongest reaction. Protests where the American flag was burned raged in the Pakistani capitol, while President Musharraf called Obama's remarks "irresponsible." Hillary Clinton said that, if the U.S. were to attack Pakistan, a president should never take the nuclear option off the table. Edwards agreed with Clinton's assessment.
It has been suggested numerous times that Obama only came out with this speech to rebuke Clinton's suggesting that he was "naive" in foreign affairs. The casual reporter nearly only look at the July/August issue of Foreign Affairs to find out that Obama has been calling for this same foreign policy strategy for some time. Barack Obama, himself, wrote an article for Foreign Affairs, viewable here, where he said that America must "refoucus our efforts on Afghanistan and Pakistan- the central front in our war against al Qaeda- so that we are confronting terrorists where their roots run deepest." While he did not go in to as great detail as in his recent speech, the strategy remains the same: Iraq is a diversion from the war on terror and to see the war to success we must bring justice to all terrorists, even if they lie in ally territory.
What does all of this squabbling and definition ultimately mean? It could mean a lot or it could mean very little. However, on the Democratic side, Obama's policies have become the leading headline, positive or negative. There is an old adage: say what you want about me, just spell my name right. As far as I can tell, everyone is spelling Obama's name right. Clinton, Edwards and even Mitt Romney in the most recent debate have used Obama's policies as the barometer for their candidacy. If Clinton's day is spent deciding how she feels about Obama's foreign policy credentials, then that is a victory for Obama. However, distortions of Obama's main points could go far to hurt his campaign. For instance, Republicans like McCain are saying that it is a bad idea to "announce to the world we're attacking another country." Even though that is a distortion of Obama's central point.
The fact remains that Obama has given two major foreign policy speeches, Edwards has given one and Clinton has given none. Edwards has called the war on terrorism a bumper-sticker war with no true guiding policy while Obama has called for greater focus in the war on terrorism to root out terrorism where it runs deepest. Clinton, in typical incumbent fashion, has let her perception as the "steamroll candidate" continue and is running a reactive campaign. As far as I can tell, Clinton believes that the war on terrorism is not a bumper-sticker; however, disagrees with Obama's plans for conduct of it.
This episode could go a long way to develop Obama's rapid-response team. He will need it, because it will only get worse.
-Wyatt Earp
Obama proposed that we are fighting on the wrong front in our war on terrorism. Instead we need to be focusing our attention on Pakistan and Afghanistan, where terrorism runs deepest. To Pakistan, Obama said: "If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf will not act, we will." Iraq is the wrong war to be fighting if we are to succeed in the war on terrorism, Obama claims. However, in a later question and answer session, Obama claimed that nuclear weapons were "off the table" in dealing with Afghanistan and Pakistan.
Both of these claims: fighting Pakistan and the no-nuclear option have provoked reactions from all sides of the presidential race. Pakistan, naturally, had the strongest reaction. Protests where the American flag was burned raged in the Pakistani capitol, while President Musharraf called Obama's remarks "irresponsible." Hillary Clinton said that, if the U.S. were to attack Pakistan, a president should never take the nuclear option off the table. Edwards agreed with Clinton's assessment.
It has been suggested numerous times that Obama only came out with this speech to rebuke Clinton's suggesting that he was "naive" in foreign affairs. The casual reporter nearly only look at the July/August issue of Foreign Affairs to find out that Obama has been calling for this same foreign policy strategy for some time. Barack Obama, himself, wrote an article for Foreign Affairs, viewable here, where he said that America must "refoucus our efforts on Afghanistan and Pakistan- the central front in our war against al Qaeda- so that we are confronting terrorists where their roots run deepest." While he did not go in to as great detail as in his recent speech, the strategy remains the same: Iraq is a diversion from the war on terror and to see the war to success we must bring justice to all terrorists, even if they lie in ally territory.
What does all of this squabbling and definition ultimately mean? It could mean a lot or it could mean very little. However, on the Democratic side, Obama's policies have become the leading headline, positive or negative. There is an old adage: say what you want about me, just spell my name right. As far as I can tell, everyone is spelling Obama's name right. Clinton, Edwards and even Mitt Romney in the most recent debate have used Obama's policies as the barometer for their candidacy. If Clinton's day is spent deciding how she feels about Obama's foreign policy credentials, then that is a victory for Obama. However, distortions of Obama's main points could go far to hurt his campaign. For instance, Republicans like McCain are saying that it is a bad idea to "announce to the world we're attacking another country." Even though that is a distortion of Obama's central point.
The fact remains that Obama has given two major foreign policy speeches, Edwards has given one and Clinton has given none. Edwards has called the war on terrorism a bumper-sticker war with no true guiding policy while Obama has called for greater focus in the war on terrorism to root out terrorism where it runs deepest. Clinton, in typical incumbent fashion, has let her perception as the "steamroll candidate" continue and is running a reactive campaign. As far as I can tell, Clinton believes that the war on terrorism is not a bumper-sticker; however, disagrees with Obama's plans for conduct of it.
This episode could go a long way to develop Obama's rapid-response team. He will need it, because it will only get worse.
-Wyatt Earp
Thursday, August 2, 2007
PA-03 is a targeted 2008 race
Good news for all progressive minded northwestern Pennsylvanians (there are so many of you): The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) has listed the Pennsylvania's 3rd District as one of its targeted 2008 races to unseat a Republican incumbent. The 3rd District includes Erie County and parts of Armstrong, Butler, Crawford, Mercer, Venango and Warren counties. Including Allegheny College (my alma mater). Hooray.
Representative Chris Van Hollen (MD-08), the head of the DCCC, released a memo, available here, where he expressed confidence in the recruitment of candidates in Republican districts. One of which is the seat currently held by Phil English, PA's 3rd District. English was elected in the Republican wave of 1994 and has not had a serious challenger since 1996. He defeated perennial office-seeker Steve Porter by a margin of 53%-42% in 2006. And it looks like English might have a fight ahead of him in 2008.
At least three Democrats have stepped forward to challenge English. Kyle Foust is the DCCC's hand-picked candidate, it seems. Van Hollen says of Foust, "Foust is an Erie County Councilman with a reputation as a leader who reaches across party lines to get things done for his constituents." Phil English was an Erie Councilman before running for Congress, so this would make for an interesting match-up if Foust were to get the Democratic nod. Both men were born in Erie and will be battling for it's heart and soul. Check out Foust's campaign website here.
Another credible challenger is Erie lawyer, Tom Myers (no known website found). Lastly of the known challengers is Mike Waltner, a religious leader from Erie. You can check out his campaign website here.
It is also assumed that Steve Porter will try again to vacate Mr. English from his seat. I wish he wouldn't, but he will anyway.
The Democratic Party primary will be an exciting one in Pennsylvania's 3rd District. The heightened competition will bring national attention, and money, to the general election race. English will have his hands full and it should prove to be an interesting race to watch. Western PA saw an exciting race in 2006 in the 4th District with Democrat challenger Jason Altmire defeating incumbent Melissa Hart. Altmire ran solely on a campaign of change and that same theme will likely be used to oust English. Phil English was actually Melissa Hart's chief of staff when she was in the State Senate. Let's see if 2008 brings the same treatment to English as 2006 did to his boss.
-Wyatt Earp
Representative Chris Van Hollen (MD-08), the head of the DCCC, released a memo, available here, where he expressed confidence in the recruitment of candidates in Republican districts. One of which is the seat currently held by Phil English, PA's 3rd District. English was elected in the Republican wave of 1994 and has not had a serious challenger since 1996. He defeated perennial office-seeker Steve Porter by a margin of 53%-42% in 2006. And it looks like English might have a fight ahead of him in 2008.
At least three Democrats have stepped forward to challenge English. Kyle Foust is the DCCC's hand-picked candidate, it seems. Van Hollen says of Foust, "Foust is an Erie County Councilman with a reputation as a leader who reaches across party lines to get things done for his constituents." Phil English was an Erie Councilman before running for Congress, so this would make for an interesting match-up if Foust were to get the Democratic nod. Both men were born in Erie and will be battling for it's heart and soul. Check out Foust's campaign website here.
Another credible challenger is Erie lawyer, Tom Myers (no known website found). Lastly of the known challengers is Mike Waltner, a religious leader from Erie. You can check out his campaign website here.
It is also assumed that Steve Porter will try again to vacate Mr. English from his seat. I wish he wouldn't, but he will anyway.
The Democratic Party primary will be an exciting one in Pennsylvania's 3rd District. The heightened competition will bring national attention, and money, to the general election race. English will have his hands full and it should prove to be an interesting race to watch. Western PA saw an exciting race in 2006 in the 4th District with Democrat challenger Jason Altmire defeating incumbent Melissa Hart. Altmire ran solely on a campaign of change and that same theme will likely be used to oust English. Phil English was actually Melissa Hart's chief of staff when she was in the State Senate. Let's see if 2008 brings the same treatment to English as 2006 did to his boss.
-Wyatt Earp
Tuesday, July 31, 2007
YouTube Debate and the Democrats' Opportunity
I, like the 100 other people actually paying attention at this stage in the race, turned in to the CNN/YouTube Democratic presidential debate not entirely sure what to expect. I was fearful that it would be a complete train wreck with poorly filtered questions, canned responses to candid questions and a mass media still unsure how to harness the Internet. After watching the debate I was surprised. It did not suck.
The Questions
The questions used egalitarian terminology and asked questions on America's mind not on the media's mind. The questions directed at Hillary highlighted this best: how can you, as a woman, negotiate with Middle Eastern countries that don't afford women basic rights? and is America really ready to see the history books read Bush/Clinton/Bush/Clinton (Clinton fatigue)? Anderson Cooper would have never asked those questions because they're too direct. YouTube, in its typical see-for-yourself fashion, opened up a window to the presidential race that was at once candid and informative. Only a small portion of us will actually get to meet any of the presidential candidates (a large portion if you live in Iowa, New Hampshire or South Carolina). The YouTube debate allowed us to see questions that we've been wondering and responses spoken to the average YouTube user instead of the quintessential debate watching politico (myself included in the former and later).
The Responses
As already stated the responses seemed more relaxed and less canned. It, in my opinion, had more entertainment value than most debates. Granted there was not much contention in the evening (except for the brief moment of disagreement between Obama and Clinton over negotiation policy). However, Joe Biden took the reigns on entertainment value with his typical blunt answers. In response to a question where a questioner referred to his gun as "his baby", Biden came back by saying "If that's his baby, then he needs help." The candid atmosphere of the night allowed Biden to flourish. Not surprisingly, post-debate polls showed that Biden's favorability increased the most out of all the presidential candidates.
My One Regret
My only regret was that there was only one question about education and it was only allowed to be answered by two candidates. The question asked if you, as president, would overhaul No Child Left Behind or repeal it. Cooper turned 90 degrees and asked Bill Richardson his opinions. Richardson, to much applause (mine included), said that he would repeal NCLB. He argued that "the one-size-fits all doesn't work, it doesn't emphasize teacher training, it doesn't emphasize disabled kids. . ." He also added that we should have a $40,000/year minimum wage for teachers, and we should have a federally funded program that focuses on the arts (music, theater, painting, etc). I was eating it up, and then Joe Biden tried to answer but was over ambiguous with his response that boiled down to "I'll have to look into it more." However, no other candidate was given the opportunity to discuss education. I regret that. It's more important than having two candidates "discuss."
In conclusion, I really enjoyed the debate because it was entertaining (in a good way) and it was informative. The debate structure still leaves something to desire when respondents cannot reply to each other's comments unless called on. This prohibits actual debate, but to allow all eight candidates to speak there mind would only allow for one question to be answered. So, for what we have been seeing, it was a quality debate and I am glad that the DNC sanctioned it. Good one, Dean.
Republican Response
The Republicans are scheduled to have a like debate in September; however, it now seems likely that both Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney will withdrawal from the debate. This is not official, but it will be likely be so soon. This could prove disastrous for the Republicans if they do not bridge the technology gap now in the primary. YouTube is a force to be reckoned with, but only the Democrats (and Ron Paul) are harvesting its outreach power.
Ever since Ray C. Bliss became Chairman of the Republican National Committee in the 1960s, the Republicans have been two steps ahead of the Democrats in every campaign tactic known to man. Direct mail, candidate-training, low-dollar fundraising and image creation. Which is why Jimmy Carter needed Dick Nixon's legacy to win and Bill Clinton had to win by annexing conservative issues. However, the internet has leveled the playing field because the Republicans are not using it as extensively as the Democrats are.
Case in point: Go to Rudy Giuliani's website (www.joinrudy2008.com) and then Mitt Romney's (www.mittromney.com). They are standard websites. Have nice interfaces and are easily navigable. Then go to Hillary Clinton's website (www.hillaryclinton.com). It stands up to Mitt's and Rudy's pretty well, but has an added feature missed on Republican website. You can join or create your own group to help organize events or fundraise for Hillary. A neat feature, but Hillary has not mastered it comparable to her opponents John Edwards and Barack Obama. On Edwards website you can join "One Corps" that features 77 chapters in NC, 79 in Wisconsin and 137 in California. At Barack Obama's website which, in my opinion, is the best of all the candidates because of its social-networking ability. Obama's campaign team is made up of most of the techies that created Howard Dean's 2004 online success (minus Joe Trippi). Obama's website features "My Barack Obama.com" which allows viewers to create their own profile to find other like-minded Obama supports in the hopes of organizing.
When all is said and done it is clear that the Democrats are seeing the power of the internet are seeking to understand it. Obama raised one million dollars off the internet in the last quarter alone. The Republicans are stupid to not try to cultivate this organizing device and the best way to start would be to embrace YouTube and its debate. YouTube is owned by Google now, so its not as free-wielding as it once was, so it can be trusted to some extent. The Republicans must get on board now or they will miss the train completely.
Another case in point: If you type in "Rudy Giuliani" into YouTube the first video to come up is titled "Rudy Giuliani in drag smooching Donald Trump." You never get a second chance to make a first impression, as they say.
-Wyatt Earp
The Questions
The questions used egalitarian terminology and asked questions on America's mind not on the media's mind. The questions directed at Hillary highlighted this best: how can you, as a woman, negotiate with Middle Eastern countries that don't afford women basic rights? and is America really ready to see the history books read Bush/Clinton/Bush/Clinton (Clinton fatigue)? Anderson Cooper would have never asked those questions because they're too direct. YouTube, in its typical see-for-yourself fashion, opened up a window to the presidential race that was at once candid and informative. Only a small portion of us will actually get to meet any of the presidential candidates (a large portion if you live in Iowa, New Hampshire or South Carolina). The YouTube debate allowed us to see questions that we've been wondering and responses spoken to the average YouTube user instead of the quintessential debate watching politico (myself included in the former and later).
The Responses
As already stated the responses seemed more relaxed and less canned. It, in my opinion, had more entertainment value than most debates. Granted there was not much contention in the evening (except for the brief moment of disagreement between Obama and Clinton over negotiation policy). However, Joe Biden took the reigns on entertainment value with his typical blunt answers. In response to a question where a questioner referred to his gun as "his baby", Biden came back by saying "If that's his baby, then he needs help." The candid atmosphere of the night allowed Biden to flourish. Not surprisingly, post-debate polls showed that Biden's favorability increased the most out of all the presidential candidates.
My One Regret
My only regret was that there was only one question about education and it was only allowed to be answered by two candidates. The question asked if you, as president, would overhaul No Child Left Behind or repeal it. Cooper turned 90 degrees and asked Bill Richardson his opinions. Richardson, to much applause (mine included), said that he would repeal NCLB. He argued that "the one-size-fits all doesn't work, it doesn't emphasize teacher training, it doesn't emphasize disabled kids. . ." He also added that we should have a $40,000/year minimum wage for teachers, and we should have a federally funded program that focuses on the arts (music, theater, painting, etc). I was eating it up, and then Joe Biden tried to answer but was over ambiguous with his response that boiled down to "I'll have to look into it more." However, no other candidate was given the opportunity to discuss education. I regret that. It's more important than having two candidates "discuss."
In conclusion, I really enjoyed the debate because it was entertaining (in a good way) and it was informative. The debate structure still leaves something to desire when respondents cannot reply to each other's comments unless called on. This prohibits actual debate, but to allow all eight candidates to speak there mind would only allow for one question to be answered. So, for what we have been seeing, it was a quality debate and I am glad that the DNC sanctioned it. Good one, Dean.
Republican Response
The Republicans are scheduled to have a like debate in September; however, it now seems likely that both Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney will withdrawal from the debate. This is not official, but it will be likely be so soon. This could prove disastrous for the Republicans if they do not bridge the technology gap now in the primary. YouTube is a force to be reckoned with, but only the Democrats (and Ron Paul) are harvesting its outreach power.
Ever since Ray C. Bliss became Chairman of the Republican National Committee in the 1960s, the Republicans have been two steps ahead of the Democrats in every campaign tactic known to man. Direct mail, candidate-training, low-dollar fundraising and image creation. Which is why Jimmy Carter needed Dick Nixon's legacy to win and Bill Clinton had to win by annexing conservative issues. However, the internet has leveled the playing field because the Republicans are not using it as extensively as the Democrats are.
Case in point: Go to Rudy Giuliani's website (www.joinrudy2008.com) and then Mitt Romney's (www.mittromney.com). They are standard websites. Have nice interfaces and are easily navigable. Then go to Hillary Clinton's website (www.hillaryclinton.com). It stands up to Mitt's and Rudy's pretty well, but has an added feature missed on Republican website. You can join or create your own group to help organize events or fundraise for Hillary. A neat feature, but Hillary has not mastered it comparable to her opponents John Edwards and Barack Obama. On Edwards website you can join "One Corps" that features 77 chapters in NC, 79 in Wisconsin and 137 in California. At Barack Obama's website which, in my opinion, is the best of all the candidates because of its social-networking ability. Obama's campaign team is made up of most of the techies that created Howard Dean's 2004 online success (minus Joe Trippi). Obama's website features "My Barack Obama.com" which allows viewers to create their own profile to find other like-minded Obama supports in the hopes of organizing.
When all is said and done it is clear that the Democrats are seeing the power of the internet are seeking to understand it. Obama raised one million dollars off the internet in the last quarter alone. The Republicans are stupid to not try to cultivate this organizing device and the best way to start would be to embrace YouTube and its debate. YouTube is owned by Google now, so its not as free-wielding as it once was, so it can be trusted to some extent. The Republicans must get on board now or they will miss the train completely.
Another case in point: If you type in "Rudy Giuliani" into YouTube the first video to come up is titled "Rudy Giuliani in drag smooching Donald Trump." You never get a second chance to make a first impression, as they say.
-Wyatt Earp
Sunday, July 29, 2007
Colorado Senate 2008: Mark Udall v. Bob Schaffer
I went dark for about two weeks because I was completing a mock campaign for George Washington University's Graduate School of Political Management summer program. We were running the 2008 open-seat Senate race in Colorado. It will be the most competitive Senate race in 2008 and should be looked upon with great interest. Two-term Senator Wayne Allard (Republican) is stepping down from his Colorado seat, giving the Democrats their best opportunity to widened their majority in the Senate. Two people have already declared: Republican Bob Schaffer and Democrat Mark Udall. Quick history:
Bob Schaffer - Schaffer served for nine years in the State Senator before being elected to the U.S. Congress from Colorado's Fourth District in 1996. He served in Congress till Jan, 2003 when he began his failed primary campaign for the U.S. Senate - he lost in the primary to Pete Coors who ended up losing the general election to Ken Salazar in 2004. He was appointed, in 2005, to fulfill a vacancy in the Colorado Board of Education and then ran successfully in 2006 for that seat.
Mark Udall- Udall was the director of Colorado's Outward Bound School for a decade. After serving one term in the Colorado House of Representatives, Udall successfully ran for Congress in Colorado's Second District. He is currently serving his fifth term in Congress. Mark comes from the political Udall family. His father Mo was a Congressman from Colorado for 30 years and his uncle Stewart was the Secretary of the Interior under John F. Kennedy.
The state of Colorado: Colorado is trending blue in a big way. Before 2004, a Democrat had not won a Colorado Senate seat since 1986. But, Ken Salazar defeated Pete Coors with a margin of 5% of the vote. In 2006, Democrat Bill Ritter Jr. won the governorship in a cake-walk, defeating Republican Bob Beauprez by a margin of 17% of the vote. Democrats now hold a majority of U.S. Congress seats (4 to 3) and recently won the majority in the State House and Senate. 2006 became the first time in 50 years that a Democratic governor had a Democratic House of Representatives to work with. However, this can not mean that the Democrats will win without a fight. The majority of registered voters (around 42%) are unaffiliated, and the number of registered Republicans outnumbered the number of registered Democrats. So, the independents or unaffiliated voters decide the election at every turn. Colorado will elect a moderate in 2008, but will it be a moderate Democrat or a moderate Republican?
What issues should each campaign lead with?
Schaffer's Message Box
Strengths - Shaffer has a tremendous record on education and he should run with it. He is considered a national leader on education, favoring local, not federal, control of schools. He is a strong proponent of charter schools (which do not take funding from public schools) and voted against No Child Left Behind. Education is not currently a top line issue, but will become so once NCLB comes up for re-authorization and every school will start asking itself: am I better off now than I was in 2002? This could play to Schaffer's favor as he will argue that local communities should fight against the federal bureaucracy that took away your funding when you needed it the most. And his two years on the Colorado Board of Education will only strengthen this issue.
Education can be used as a "bridge issue" where voters will listen to Schaffer enumerate other issues because they agree with him on education. Schaffer has a strong record of boarder security and will likely use this issue to his favor in a state that has a large immigrant population. This would energize the base, but could backfire in a 20% Hispanic/Latino state.
Weaknesses- Schaffer's Achilles heel to his education policy could be his adamant support of vouchers. He is the President of Parental Alliance for Choice in Education, a non-profit that advocates for more vouchers in Colorado. Udall has a strong anti-vouchers record and has argued to oppose anything that "breaks apart one of the last institutions that hold us together as a society, and that's our public schools." Schaffer should worry about getting branded "anti-public schools and pro-vouchers." Two simplistic arguments that likely could stick.
Schaffer is vice-president of Aspect Energy, LLC, which focuses on energy, mining and other projects. This could prove to be a liability to Schaffer. The environment is a cause championed by many in Colorado and is not a partisan issue there as seen elsewhere. Udall, if deft, will try to brand Schaffer as a pawn of Big Interests, as shown by his seat on the board of a Big Energy firm. The term "Colorado is not for sale" will likely come up at least once. As global warming becomes a larger issue, firms like Schaffer's are being to be seen as the opposition.
Lastly, Schaffer voted for the authorization of the War in Iraq and has not differed greatly from that opinion since.
Possible Messages/Themes: "Returning power to Colorado." "Bob Schaffer, because Colorado deserves the choice." "Bob Schaffer: national leader, local focus." "Putting Colorado first." If challenged in the primary: "The True Conservative choice."
These are possible message or themes that the Schaffer camp could employ. All of them speak to returning the locus of power to Colorado and away from the federal government, which is the value that binds all of Schaffer's positions together. Also, it is a truly conservative value and differs from the Bush brand of conservativism, so Schaffer should stay away, politically and financially, from the lightning rod that is Bush. Schaffer is a true conservative and he should not be afraid to say so.
Mark Udall - Message Box
Strengths- Udall's first strength is his name. Udall is a trusted name out west, and in uncertain times, going to the name you trust is always prevalent. While Schaffer has the edge in education experience the wind is still at Udall's back. Education is a net-plus issue for Democrats (Democrats are seen as the best arbiters of education policy) and Udall has some credentials on the issue. Udall served twenty years on the faculty of the Outward Bound School, the last ten as the executive director of Colorado's Outward Bound system. (Outward Bound teaches environmental education by taking disadvantaged children and giving them an education by combining classroom with the outdoors.) This helps Udall because it bridges perfectly to his strong environmental position.
Udall has served the past ten years as the congressman from Colorado's second district, which includes Broomfield, Boulder, Eagle, Jefferson and Adams counties - all of which are important swing counties, and represent nearly 35% of the entire CO electorate.
Lastly, Udall voted against authorization of the war in Iraq in 2002, but has not voted for a withdrawal. He has developed a position that is moderate and appealing to the independent Colorado voters.
Weaknesses- Udall's greatest weakness is the constituency that he represents. The Udall camp's greatest fear should be being labeled a "Boulder liberal" and not being able to shake the image. Because in the end, campaign are about competing images (one developed by yourself and one developed by your opponent), which one will prevail? Issues support that image. Udall must use every opportunity from here on out to be seen as a moderate with consistent Western values. Udall has been seen recently hanging around Representative Marilyn Musgrave, an ultra-conservative. While being bi-partisan is the image Udall wants to create, hanging around Musgrave will likely alienate his liberal base. Udall has a line to straddle and must never be caught riding side-saddle.
Possible Messages/Themes: "Trust Udall to secure our future." "Leading Colorado forward." "
The image that I think Udall should pursue is one of motion. This is for two reasons: 1) Using words like "future" or "leading" or "forward" allow the listener to picture a world moving away from Bush's legacy and toward a brighter tomorrow. 2) Colorado is trending blue and moving forward should also mean "continuing to move Democrat."
This will be the most hotly contested campaign outside of the presidential race. You know this because the west will be the focus of the Democrat's presidential campaign. The Dems are looking to "whistle past Dixie" and paint the west blue. That is why the Democratic National Convention will be held in Denver, Colorado (prime real-estate for a west campaign and for the Udall campaign). But, these are merely my impressions after studying the two candidates and the actual campaign will likely look nothing like the snap-shot presented above. I'll keep an ear to the ground and let you know as this develops.
-Wyatt Earp
Bob Schaffer - Schaffer served for nine years in the State Senator before being elected to the U.S. Congress from Colorado's Fourth District in 1996. He served in Congress till Jan, 2003 when he began his failed primary campaign for the U.S. Senate - he lost in the primary to Pete Coors who ended up losing the general election to Ken Salazar in 2004. He was appointed, in 2005, to fulfill a vacancy in the Colorado Board of Education and then ran successfully in 2006 for that seat.
Mark Udall- Udall was the director of Colorado's Outward Bound School for a decade. After serving one term in the Colorado House of Representatives, Udall successfully ran for Congress in Colorado's Second District. He is currently serving his fifth term in Congress. Mark comes from the political Udall family. His father Mo was a Congressman from Colorado for 30 years and his uncle Stewart was the Secretary of the Interior under John F. Kennedy.
The state of Colorado: Colorado is trending blue in a big way. Before 2004, a Democrat had not won a Colorado Senate seat since 1986. But, Ken Salazar defeated Pete Coors with a margin of 5% of the vote. In 2006, Democrat Bill Ritter Jr. won the governorship in a cake-walk, defeating Republican Bob Beauprez by a margin of 17% of the vote. Democrats now hold a majority of U.S. Congress seats (4 to 3) and recently won the majority in the State House and Senate. 2006 became the first time in 50 years that a Democratic governor had a Democratic House of Representatives to work with. However, this can not mean that the Democrats will win without a fight. The majority of registered voters (around 42%) are unaffiliated, and the number of registered Republicans outnumbered the number of registered Democrats. So, the independents or unaffiliated voters decide the election at every turn. Colorado will elect a moderate in 2008, but will it be a moderate Democrat or a moderate Republican?
What issues should each campaign lead with?
Schaffer's Message Box
Strengths - Shaffer has a tremendous record on education and he should run with it. He is considered a national leader on education, favoring local, not federal, control of schools. He is a strong proponent of charter schools (which do not take funding from public schools) and voted against No Child Left Behind. Education is not currently a top line issue, but will become so once NCLB comes up for re-authorization and every school will start asking itself: am I better off now than I was in 2002? This could play to Schaffer's favor as he will argue that local communities should fight against the federal bureaucracy that took away your funding when you needed it the most. And his two years on the Colorado Board of Education will only strengthen this issue.
Education can be used as a "bridge issue" where voters will listen to Schaffer enumerate other issues because they agree with him on education. Schaffer has a strong record of boarder security and will likely use this issue to his favor in a state that has a large immigrant population. This would energize the base, but could backfire in a 20% Hispanic/Latino state.
Weaknesses- Schaffer's Achilles heel to his education policy could be his adamant support of vouchers. He is the President of Parental Alliance for Choice in Education, a non-profit that advocates for more vouchers in Colorado. Udall has a strong anti-vouchers record and has argued to oppose anything that "breaks apart one of the last institutions that hold us together as a society, and that's our public schools." Schaffer should worry about getting branded "anti-public schools and pro-vouchers." Two simplistic arguments that likely could stick.
Schaffer is vice-president of Aspect Energy, LLC, which focuses on energy, mining and other projects. This could prove to be a liability to Schaffer. The environment is a cause championed by many in Colorado and is not a partisan issue there as seen elsewhere. Udall, if deft, will try to brand Schaffer as a pawn of Big Interests, as shown by his seat on the board of a Big Energy firm. The term "Colorado is not for sale" will likely come up at least once. As global warming becomes a larger issue, firms like Schaffer's are being to be seen as the opposition.
Lastly, Schaffer voted for the authorization of the War in Iraq and has not differed greatly from that opinion since.
Possible Messages/Themes: "Returning power to Colorado." "Bob Schaffer, because Colorado deserves the choice." "Bob Schaffer: national leader, local focus." "Putting Colorado first." If challenged in the primary: "The True Conservative choice."
These are possible message or themes that the Schaffer camp could employ. All of them speak to returning the locus of power to Colorado and away from the federal government, which is the value that binds all of Schaffer's positions together. Also, it is a truly conservative value and differs from the Bush brand of conservativism, so Schaffer should stay away, politically and financially, from the lightning rod that is Bush. Schaffer is a true conservative and he should not be afraid to say so.
Mark Udall - Message Box
Strengths- Udall's first strength is his name. Udall is a trusted name out west, and in uncertain times, going to the name you trust is always prevalent. While Schaffer has the edge in education experience the wind is still at Udall's back. Education is a net-plus issue for Democrats (Democrats are seen as the best arbiters of education policy) and Udall has some credentials on the issue. Udall served twenty years on the faculty of the Outward Bound School, the last ten as the executive director of Colorado's Outward Bound system. (Outward Bound teaches environmental education by taking disadvantaged children and giving them an education by combining classroom with the outdoors.) This helps Udall because it bridges perfectly to his strong environmental position.
Udall has served the past ten years as the congressman from Colorado's second district, which includes Broomfield, Boulder, Eagle, Jefferson and Adams counties - all of which are important swing counties, and represent nearly 35% of the entire CO electorate.
Lastly, Udall voted against authorization of the war in Iraq in 2002, but has not voted for a withdrawal. He has developed a position that is moderate and appealing to the independent Colorado voters.
Weaknesses- Udall's greatest weakness is the constituency that he represents. The Udall camp's greatest fear should be being labeled a "Boulder liberal" and not being able to shake the image. Because in the end, campaign are about competing images (one developed by yourself and one developed by your opponent), which one will prevail? Issues support that image. Udall must use every opportunity from here on out to be seen as a moderate with consistent Western values. Udall has been seen recently hanging around Representative Marilyn Musgrave, an ultra-conservative. While being bi-partisan is the image Udall wants to create, hanging around Musgrave will likely alienate his liberal base. Udall has a line to straddle and must never be caught riding side-saddle.
Possible Messages/Themes: "Trust Udall to secure our future." "Leading Colorado forward." "
The image that I think Udall should pursue is one of motion. This is for two reasons: 1) Using words like "future" or "leading" or "forward" allow the listener to picture a world moving away from Bush's legacy and toward a brighter tomorrow. 2) Colorado is trending blue and moving forward should also mean "continuing to move Democrat."
This will be the most hotly contested campaign outside of the presidential race. You know this because the west will be the focus of the Democrat's presidential campaign. The Dems are looking to "whistle past Dixie" and paint the west blue. That is why the Democratic National Convention will be held in Denver, Colorado (prime real-estate for a west campaign and for the Udall campaign). But, these are merely my impressions after studying the two candidates and the actual campaign will likely look nothing like the snap-shot presented above. I'll keep an ear to the ground and let you know as this develops.
-Wyatt Earp
Monday, July 16, 2007
"Why Bush Will Be a Winner?" Wait, what!?
President Bush is convinced that history will vindicate him akin to what happened to Harry Truman. Bush has been linked to neo-conservative thought ever since he was first elected in 2000 and one of the neo-con pole-bearers is none other than William Kristol. In the Washington Post today, Kristol wrote an opinion piece titled "Why Bush Will Be a Winner." It is interesting to read . . . and by interesting I mean that more like "I don't like your new hair, but I'm too nice to say so" instead of "You should really check this out." But, seriously, Kristol offers a perspective on Bush's legacy that must be confronted.
Please read it and let me know what you think.
-Wyatt Earp
Please read it and let me know what you think.
-Wyatt Earp
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)