Blog @ MoreWhat.com

The funniest thing about the New Hampshire primary was Bill Clinton whining about the media. With signature Clinton audacity, Bill had the stones to complain that the media has not provided the needed scrutiny of Barack Obama. Then Hillary Rodham Clinton tries the tears angle. And considering the many reports indicating a substantial number of voters did not make up their mind more than a few days or even hours before the polls opened, it is not unreasonable to think the polls were not wrong but that NH voters changed their minds in the hours before the vote.

If the polls were right on Obama leading by at least 5 points in NH after a victory in Iowa and he takes second place in NH behind by 3%, again, it is reasonable to conclude with the women’s numbers in NH that the ‘tiny tears’ or mix and match Barbie routine of HRC turned the vote for a narrow Clinton victory. And as for the slick Willie media scrutiny complaint, where are those First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton docs Bill?

The questions and scrutiny of Obama or any other candidate pale in comparison to the scrutiny required of the Clinton scandals, from Whitewater and Vince Foster through TravelGate, the impeachment of the former President, Lewinsky and Norman Hsu as well as the locked up First Lady documents . The Clinton transgressions are getting a walk in another Presidential election. But commenting earlier this month on this blog that Karl Rove was right and HIllary Rodham Clinton is the GOP’s easiest target in a general election gets a boost in NH this week.

With the possible exception of Biden and Dodd dropping out of the race, nothing has really been decided yet. On the Dems side it’s one for Obama and one for Clinton with Edwards edging 2nd in Iowa and third in NH. For the GOP it’s one for Huckabee, one for McCain and one for Romney. That’s right, Romney won the GOP caucus in WY. In the big picture NH may be a psychological and traditional statistical measure for candidates but WY’s 3 electoral votes are nearly as important as NH’s 4 at this point in the campaign. Besides the one quiet state victory for Romney is the 2nd place finish in Iowa and NH although it should be noted that fact alone makes the nomination a tougher objective.

What will make this even more interesting on the GOP side is if Romney takes Michigan, Thompson takes SC and Giuliani takes Florida with his big electoral state strategy. The funny part for the Dems is Clinton has to win Michigan since Obama and Edwards are not on the ballot with the controversy over moving up the date. It is fair to say that for this blog’s candidate, Mitt Romney, the Michigan primary is serious. Here’s a little review from USA Today on the Michigan story.

Next stop on primary schedule: Michigan
By Erin Kelly, Gannett News Service
WASHINGTON — For the presidential candidates who survive New Hampshire, the next stop of the grueling primary season is Jan. 15 in Michigan.

The national committees of both parties are not happy with Michigan’s decision to move the voting date. While rules and regs are important it may illuminate a concern about how much control party politics has over elections that should be decided by citizens, one vote at a time. But then we all know that is not exactly how it works. For all the outrage expressed over questionable elections in other countries there appears to be little effective scrutiny over the way we do such business in this country. But that’s another story for another time.

………………….
………………….

The statistical tie in Iowa among Clinton, Obama and Edwards finds Obama on top with Edwards edging out Clinton for second. The statistical tie between Romney and Huckabee has Huckabee taking first in Iowa with an 8 point lead. New Hampshire is just days away which is probably good for the winners and not so good for the rest of the pack.

Some reports have Thompson bowing out if he did not have a minimum of 15% for third place. Oops. Other reports figure Romney can’t recover by NH with McCain moving up. But if Clinton doesn’t strike gold in NH her campaign may be in for a rough (short) ride. But for those who do not favor a Clinton candidate that would be a little too much optimism this early in the voting. Or is it?

Some said that if Huckabee could win Iowa, make a decent showing in the next couple of states he could be a contender when the votes move to the South. But they said that is where Thompson would do well. And Giuliani apparently is getting what he planned for in states with few electoral votes….. nothing. Coming out of Iowa, Thompson and Ciuliani are not as strong as there national poll numbers were and Romney had a disappointing finish based on money spent but the negative campaign constant commentary in the media may have hurt his chances in Iowa.

Other reports suggest Edwards may not get much further than Iowa if he did not take first. Well, second is in the middle. Not too hot, not to cold, maybe it is just right. If 2nd is not good enough for Edwards to continue what does that say about Clinton’s chances? Her campaign is viewed as doing better in Iowa than whom? Obama may get a momentum win in NH and if Edwards could take another second…..hmmm.

If Huckabee takes NH he would be in the driver’s seat probably until Super Tuesday. After reviewing Iowa and considering what it may mean to each candidate and what it says, if anything about the rest of the race really shows we don’t know much more than we did yesterday. The people with Excedrin headaches tonite are Clinton and Romney. There surprises were the most noticeable. McCain is keeping a steady strength while on the other side Obama and Edwards are chipping away at the experience and inevitability factors. Basically, still even across the board.

According to the Rasmussen report Giuliani and Thompson lead the national polls for the GOP at 23 and 25% respectively near the beginning of October 2007 while McCain and Romney essentially shared second at 10 and 13% and Huckabee was not a factor in mid-single digits. For the Democrats, Clinton held a whopping 44 or 45% with Obama trailing in the 20’s and Edwards in the teens.

What a difference a couple of months can make. Currently, at Rasmussen Reports, Huckabee has nearly the first place numbers held by Giuliani and Thompson earlier at 22%. Giuliani and Romney are in second with mid teens as McCain and Thompson follow in third in the lower teens. While McCain has been mentioned in news reports as gaining some strength of late, for example, the Peter King endorsement, his 13% is representative of the last months. Giuliani and Thompson have slipped while Huckabee and Romney have gained. The Dems, nationally have not changed, but Clinton is faltering in the early state polls while Obama continues to climb and Edwards appears the same and steady. For the GOP, Huckabee and Romney lead Iowa.

With the religious questions still lingering in the campaign a recent poll indicated eight out of ten likely Republican voters said religion was not a factor in their vote. Of those voters the support for each candidate may be reflected in the other polls. For the twenty percent who say religion is a factor most suggest support for Huckabee. A related story suggest Romney has much ’silent’ support in addition to what the other poll numbers show in Iowa. Huckabee is thought to have much support in Iowa but that has not translated to strength in other early states. A first for Huckabee in Iowa may give him competing strength in subsequent early state contests while less than second may see his recent surge fade. For the Dems, less than first in Iowa may signal the beginning of the end for Clinton while a first for Obama could build a breakout leading into the New Hampshire and other states.

At USA Election Polls one could say Iowa is a statistical tie for each party. As most people know, Huckabee and Romney are a tie as well as Clinton and Obama are tied. Several delegate count listings have what one would expect based on national polls through the campaign to date. But when averages or proportional distribution of state delegates are considered the game changes dramatically.

In New Hampshire it is Romney and McCain or Romney, McCain and Giuliani for the GOP. At one time Giuliani was stronger but his strategy of focus on the ‘big’ states has seen the numbers change. Clinton and Obama for the Dems mirrors Iowa. With the NY connections for Giuliani and a NY Senate seat for Clinton, they were much stronger in the Northeast early on but things are changing.

But all this is just a snapshot in time and too much should not be read into it. Just like Huckabee’s recent rise, two months ago, who’d a thunk it? The view from this blog sees Giuliani conceding early states. The Huckabee surge is only a factor in one state thus far. Clinton continues to decline. Obama continues to climb. Edwards in holding steady and leads in at least one poll in Iowa for the Dems. Thompson has slid some while McCain and Romney have maintained or increased strength, the exception has been the tie for Romney and Huckabee in Iowa.

If forced to pick only from the Democratic party offerings this blog would recommend Obama or Edwards. Only because they are not Clinton and are the only other Dems candidates with a chance to win. But then Biden, Dodd or Kucinich would not be selected here, under the conditions mentioned, or under any other circumstance. That would be why this blog would not vote for a Democrat in 2008. Oh, did Richardson get overlooked? Yes.

On the GOP side, this blog has always supported Mitt Romney for President and will continue to do so. Based on some of the positions of Giuliani and Huckabee, this blog could only support them if they were the last ones standing. While some concerns remain about an outstanding American named Senator John McCain, primarily due to his support of amnesty last summer, if he was nominated he would get this blog’s full support. Nearly the same can be said for Fred Thompson. While some of the early criticism appears to have been a lame attempt to discredit him, since entering the campaign, his performance is a bit puzzling and an aura of almost hesitation causes some questions. But again, if he was the nominee for the GOP he would get this blog’s support.

That brings it back to Mitt Romney. Romney possesses the attributes required to be successful. The criticism voiced about Romney may be more a matter of political gamesmanship and the strategy of rivals. Questions about his faith are a distraction. Questions about his positions may reflect a willingness to respond to the will of the electorate or the strength to do what is right on behalf of them. People do change their minds for good reason although it is popular in politics to highlight that fact as a flaw.

On the practical side, Mitt Romney is credited even by some of his critics for successfully correcting a massive budget shortfall in Massachusetts. He successfully repaired a failing Olympic organization. He has successfully rebuilt million or billion dollar companies. He can do the same for a debt ridden nation. He has the knowledge to surround himself with a team to produce results and strengthen this country. With the economy taking over first place as the most important issue for the 2008 election, Mitt Romney is the one superior choice for President. Not only can he deliver leadership to our economic troubles but the remainder of policy matters are well within his grasp. His faith and family values can also restore some of the traditional concepts that have made this country great. These are not campaign tricks. The man has demonstrated throughout his life that intelligence, discipline, hard work and values have driven his success. He can apply those attributes and principles to leading this nation and getting it done.

Trackposted to Outside the Beltway, third world county, Faultline USA, Pirate’s Cove, Blue Star Chronicles, The Pink Flamingo, Leaning Straight Up, Big Dog’s Weblog, Cao’s Blog, Wolf Pangloss, Conservative Cat, and Right Voices, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

The ad campaign criticizing Mitt Romney on abortion by what is described as a GOP group favoring abortion rights proves two things.  The group may favor abortion but to claim they are Republican runs counter to the pro-life position of conservatives.  The second thing it proves is pro-choice advocates are convinced that Romney is firmly opposed to abortion or they would not waste the money on the ad.

So for those of you who may be undecided on Mitt Romney for President due to the abortion issue, this should clear things up for you.  Although Mitt Romney may not enjoy 100% support from all who claim to be pro-life, for months now many pro-life and religious groups have accepted the fact that Mitt Romney is opposed to abortion.  The ad referred to above is simply more evidence that those who support abortion oppose Mitt Romney.  And the rumor that the group has an association with liberal Republican candidate Rudy Giuliani does not hurt Romney’s case either.

A Republican group that favors abortion rights plans to hit Mitt Romney in Iowa and New Hampshire with a TV spot and newspaper ads over his change of position on abortion.

“Governor Romney will not back down from his pro-life position, despite this group’s attempts to weaken the party platform and promote Mayor Giuliani’s pro-choice candidacy,” Romney spokesman Kevin Madden said.

For those readers not aware and to borrow the phrase ‘in the interest of full disclosure’ this blog fully supports Mitt Romney for President.  But facts are facts and if a pro-choice attacks a candidate with a pro-life position it serves as evidence the candidate’s pro-life position is valid.  The strange thing is having a group claim to be Republican or conservative and holding a pro-choice stand.  It is hard to believe they are associated with the GOP but easy to believe they are pro-choice and again only serves as evidence that Mitt Romney opposes abortion.

If you haven’t already, throw your support behind Mitt Romney.  You won’t be disappointed.

If being the front runner of a campaign includes being the primary target of every other candidate then while the national polls do not suggest Romney as a front runner his opponents in the campaign do. In early states, the LA Times only mentions Iowa and New Hampshire. Depending on the poll you read, Romney is essentially sharing the top with Fred Thompson in South Carolina. A state the pundits said earlier was one where he would not do well. In Florida, Romney is in 2nd or 3rd depending on the poll you read. And other states like Nevada and California also depict a strong showing for Mitt Romney.

As the debate continued over two hours, the most frequent target was former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, who has been a leader in the two states that loom largest in the early voting — Iowa and New Hampshire.

Romney was attacked from all sides, on multiple issues. Former New York Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani accused him of employing illegal immigrants, while former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee suggested that he was heartless for opposing college scholarships for immigrants. Sen. John McCain of Arizona faulted Romney for refusing to concede that an interrogation practice called waterboarding amounts to torture. And former Sen. Fred Thompson of Tennessee — via a campaign video — chided the former governor for changing his position on abortion.

The most liberal GOP candidate, Giuliani, unable to defend his ’sanctuary city’ position selects illegal immigration as a topic to challenge Romney. Besides Tom Tancredo, Romney may be the only other candidate focusing on solving illegal immigration. Since John McCain sided with the amnesty bill last summer until it became obvious to him he needed to change his position, his choice for harassing a fellow Republican was what constitutes torture. With the trend in the media and elsewhere to discuss way too much about national security matters publicly, Romney’s suggestion that it should not be a topic for candidates was refreshing. Huckabee just tipped his hand that reinforces his leaning toward amnesty and spending public funds on illegals. A recent surge in the polls for him only reflects the evangelicals. Apparently they’re okay with amnesty. Slow on the trigger the Thompson overused the abortion card as most religious and pro-life groups have accepted Romney’s stand on abortion.

One last note on the sanctuary city label that Giulianis failed to defend. Even the notorious NYT, that’s right, the New York Times, conceded the sanctuary city status of New York.

The Congressional Research Service, a nonpartisan agency that provides support to members of Congress, issued a report in 2005 that described localities with sanctuary policies as those that have adopted “don’t ask, don’t tell” policies in which city employees, including the police, are not required to report illegal immigrants to the federal authorities.

It listed 32 cities or counties with sanctuary policies, including New York.

Mr. Giuliani had inherited an executive order from previous mayoral administrations that protected illegal immigrants from being reported to federal immigration authorities when using city services. During the presidential campaign, he has repeatedly insisted that the policy was necessary for public health and safety.

The only question that remains is why Giuliani did not reverse the previous executive order claimed to be the beginning of New York City’s official sanctuary city status?

This particular topic shows the other candidates targeting Romney view him as the leader he is for not taking the obvious opportunity to hammer Giuliani on his position which is obviously leaning toward amnesty like Huckabee. If illegal immigration is an important to you, the candidate, Mitt Romney, places a high priority on eliminating illegal immigration. That cannot be said for Giuliani, Huckabee or McCain for sure. Thompson remains a question mark on this issue. And Tancredo is not likely to move to the top tier nor is Ron Paul. Reasons that continue to reinforce this blog’s support for Mitt Romney for President in 2008. There are many more reasons for maintaining that support.

It would be fair to say that Barack Obama has stage presence. He is stronger at making prepared statements and speeches than he is at competing in public debates. While Hillary Rodham Clinton is probably the leader on closet skeletons, it is likely that Obama and Edwards have some as well. Don’t we all? But we all don’t have Hillary Rodham Clinton claiming she has a career ender for us in her arsenal. Obama does. The question is does she really have something on him or not? But that’s another matter for another time.

Frequently the voting base subset of ‘women’ is touted to be owned by Clinton. That may be more true for her husband than her. It is also reported from time to time that HRC’s campaign has focused on shoring up the women’s vote. Just by virtue of gender you might think that shouldn’t be necessary. But one report today indicates another voter subset, ‘blue collar’ women are for Hillary Clinton. Yet another features this:

Michelle Obama urges black women to support her husband

Does that mean Michelle does not want other women to vote for her husband or that other women will but she is concerned about black women voting for her husband? If you would think that women voters would vote for Hillary Clinton on a gender match, would you think that black voters would vote for Barack Obama on a racial match? It is interesting that politically motivated rhetoric renders support of amnesty for illegal aliens as an American ideal and not supporting the troops in pursuit of victory as an equally pro-American position. For liberal candidates who often speak of America with patriotic overtones and the need to ‘come together’ like a rerun of a Beatle’s song, slicing up the electorate may be good campaign strategy but what does it really tell you about the candidates?

`It would be logical for a white voter to expect that Barack Obama may spend more time pursuing legislation and policy that favors black Americans than other racial or ethnic groups. It may not be true and it may not even be fair. But when you see a report that Michelle Obama is urging black women to vote for her husband it has to make you wonder about what candidates are doing. Maybe this is the true equalizer about race and ethnicity in our nation. The fact that when it comes to politics all men (and women) are created equal. They are all equally the target of candidates and after the vote the concerns about voters are returned to the back burner. A fate executed by all candidates after election whether they be Democrat, Republican or any other.

Specifically for Obama, while the criticism from Clinton that he is naive and irresponsible in foreign affairs or elsewhere, his headline below does no better than to play into Clinton’s earlier criticism.

Obama foreign policy views based on family experience

Just living somewhere and experiencing culture and the daily life among locals in another country does not qualify as foreign affairs experience any more than Clinton residing in the White House as First Lady. It can be argued that one person who has foreign affairs experience has the last name Rice or Powell. And even the relatively brief time that both people have held the Office of Secretary of State, their experience could be viewed as far exceeding that of either Clinton or Obama. Foreign affairs experience is gathered in few places outside the White House or the State Department. Perhaps all Presidential candidates should concede they are extremely limited in that capacity and move on to matters they can speak to.

McCain and Thompson dwarf the experience of Clinton, Obama and Edwards as Senators. Romney and Giuliani dwarf the three Dems on leadership and administrative experience. The three leading Democratic contenders for the 2008 race have something in common. Essentially they are all rookies doing well in the early stages of a Presidential campaign. Perhaps the only reason they are doing that well is that within the Democratic party ranks they are the best they had to offer and no others are available with adequate experience.

Sometimes a candidate’s failed attempt to get elected serves as the seed to combine with more experience years later and a subsequent successful run for the same office. We should be viewing the Democratic candidates in that light. But then, that is all the Democratic party has to offer and one of them will be their nominee. Predicting the outcome whether you lean left or right is probably a fool’s mission. Sure, one of the candidates in the 2008 race, barring some unlikely turn of events, will be our next President. Whether they are Republican or Democrat, one of them will win.

Obama’s recent advance on Clinton’s lead and Huckabee’s mirrored experience in Iowa within the GOP ranks tell you one thing. This race is a long way from over. We are nearing the first real votes and the polling trends are shifting. That may only indicate that more people are starting to pay attention. If the first, second and third among both Dems and the GOP are close together after Iowa and New Hampshire this will get interesting. Here are two possible outcomes in Iowa you may want to consider. Either Edwards and Romney or Obama and Huckabee would really stir things up.

For all the criticism laid on Fred Thompson for being a lobbyist, grandstanding by proxy with delays in his official campaign announcement and Mitt Romney being subjected to attacks about religious faith and position statements, Rudy Giuliani might be the candidate with whom you really don’t know what you get.

Is his statement on doing what is best for New York minus partisanship a genuine reason for a cozy relationship with Bill Clinton and supporting the ‘other’ party’s candidate for goernor of New York? With or without Giuliani’s stand on social issues like immigration and same sex marriage, his speech to a group of Louisiana Sheriffs brings out the Clinton connection, not some opponent’s campaign shot.

So how does one judge where Rudy will be facing the issues of 2008 and beyond? Add to that his positions on gun control, immigration, abortion, same sex marriage plus renewed analysis of his role in governing New York City and attending to matters related to 9/11 and Giuliani raises more questions than he answers. Even removing 9/11 from the equation leaves Rudy Giuliani’s resume’ with Mayor of a large American city and being a former US Attorney. With the other candidates you have senators, congressmen and governors.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

GIULIANI: THERE’S ONE CLINTON WHO LIKES ME
By CARL CAMPANILE“I have a letter - I keep it at home,” Giuliani told members of the Louisiana Sheriff’s Association in Baton Rouge.

“It’s a letter from President Clinton, congratulating me for all of my efforts and saying something like the crime bill couldn’t have been passed if it weren’t for me.”

If one believes the main stream media has a liberal bias that may help explain the dominant focus on national polls for the 2008 Presidential election. This is the primary/caucus season that finds surprisingly little attention being given to state polls. Perhaps that is due to the media’s alleged liberal leaning and the strength among Democratic party candidates of Hillary Rodham Clinton in the national polls.

In Iowa, according to an AP report, polling data shows Hillary Rodham Clinton’s lead over John Edwards shrinks from the double digit distance in the national polls to five points. With a five point margin of error in the poll, Clinton and Edwards are in a dead heat.

In similar fashion the GOP results show Mitt Romney leading in Iowa at 28% with his nearest rival, Rudy Giuliani, at 16%. Thompson’s effective headline grabbing strategy of dragging out announcing his candidacy has not translated to higher than tied for 2nd place in Iowa just above the 2nd tier players. This poll shows Giuliani and Thompson tied at 16% and with a five point margin of error, 8% Mike Huckabee is still doing better than expected.

With Edwards and Clinton in a virtual tie in Iowa, what does that say about the national polls. Is it simply a matter of most voters not being focused on the election this early? Is it a case of campaign effectiveness in the early states or the fact that primary/caucus schedules may change? In this case, Iowa, are voters not giving Clinton the easy pass on her history that Democrats do nationally? Could the Democratic party faithful be so obsessed with winning the White House that no matter what Hillary does they are willing to overlook it? As the early states draw closer perhaps their collective conscience will cause the majority of Dems to reject Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Clinton Leads Democrats, Romney Atop GOP
13 hours ago
THE RACE: The presidential primary in Iowa for Democrats and Republicans.
___

THE NUMBERS — DEMOCRATS

Hillary Rodham Clinton, 28 percent

John Edwards, 23 percent

Barack Obama, 19 percent

Bill Richardson, 10 percent

(all other candidates below 5 percent)

___

THE NUMBERS — REPUBLICANS

Mitt Romney, 28 percent

Rudy Giuliani, 16 percent

Fred Thompson, 16 percent

Mike Huckabee, 8 percent

John McCain, 7 percent

(all other candidates below 5 percent)
___

OF INTEREST:
Asked if they might vote for a candidate other than the person they now support, 59 percent of Democrats and 72 percent of Republicans said they might switch.

The telephone poll for the Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg was conducted Sept. 6-10. The margin of sampling error for both the 462 Democratic caucus voters and 350 Republican caucus voters was plus or minus 5 percentage points.

One could draw the conclusion that Mitt Romney’s business acumen and disciplined approach to problem solving is at work even when appraising his rivals. Speaking to the chances of nomination for Fred Thompson and Mike Huckabee, Romney began his response in an interview assessing the need for campaign ‘ground support’ and funding. Remarks given on the late start by Thompson and late up tick in the Huckabee campaign gave heavy weighting to raising funds early when they are more plentiful and developing strong support, presumably in early voting states.

Thompson remarked that his words and ideas were what would be the ultimate test and were something money can’t buy. That assumes, not unlike many current and past candidates, the money does not drive the message. Since Thompson is late to the game by necessity or design, it would also be reasonable to conclude he prepared a message like that since he is late and does not have everything in place, which probably includes the campaign warchest.

Other candidates, like John McCain, draw attention to the importance of momentum closer to the elections. If polling is any indication, nationally it has been Giuliani and Thompson followed by McCain and Romney. There is a large margin between the top two and number three and four. Momentum has certainly worked for Romney. He was in single digits early on and still is in some states but nationally he hovers in the mid-teens ahead of McCain in many states and the front runner in half or more of the early states. His large lead in Iowa and New Hampshire could trigger much momentum with back to back wins.

It is certainly too early to determine much with Thompson entering the race only this week. The daily tracking polls have had as much or more movement on the Dems side just after Thompson’s announcement. Caucus and primary elections are drawing closer yet there is still much to observe. A campaign strategist offered this assessment. Every campaign must experience a devastating event some time during a campaign. If he is right, that may be what has to happen before any noticeable difference is reflected in the polls. Maybe it won’t happen before the first election.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Romney Ups Stakes for Volatile GOP Field
By RON FOURNIER – 7 hours ago

BERLIN, N.H. (AP) — Mitt Romney said Friday that presidential rivals Fred Thompson and Mike Huckabee need to raise a jaw-dropping $20 million in the next few months to join him in the top tier of the Republican GOP field, raising the stakes in a nomination fight altered by a tumultuous week.

Feeling the heat of his rivals, the former Massachusetts governor dismissed the notion that a late-entering Thompson and an up-and-coming Huckabee were poised to squeeze into the GOP top tier now occupied by Romney and former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani.

Gotta give some credit to Dan Balz at WaPo. Someone has revived a sensible discussion on the power of what we don’t know about the 2008 Presidential campaign. With plenty of pundits filling newsprint and broadcasts with opinions carefully dodging the risk of early predictions but at the same time crafted as political wisdom, Balz offers a down to earth article suggesting we really don’t know. That is, of course, the truth or there would be no point to all the campaigning not to mention the election process. Currently, what most do know is that Hillary Rodham Clinton is the Democratic front runner and Giuliani and Romney are running point for the GOP. Everything else is at best, a guess.

How much damage would losing Iowa cause for Clinton? Everyone has an opinion. Certainly any loss is bad, but if Clinton would lose Iowa her campaign may start suffering more setbacks. Can Obama gain ground on Clinton? You might be safe saying ‘no’ since there is little evidence to suggest that possibility. One could say Obama does better on the stump than in debates.

Then there is the most popular GOP question. What effect will Thompson entering the race have on Giuliani and Romney? Again, certainly it should have an effect. The effect some suggest is he has waited too long or the expectations are too high and Giuliani and Romney will not suffer from his latest plans to announce.

Some say Thompson is the only candidate who can beat a Democratic opponent while others say they want Clinton to be nominated because she is the only candidate the GOP can beat. It seems those are the suggestions that go furthest out on a limb. And pundits don’t suffer much from missed predictions. By the next election cycle we start everything all over again. But the article from Dan Balz is appreciated. There are also some good quotes included.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

7 Questions as the Race for the White House Accelerates
By Dan Balz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, September 2, 2007; Page A02

Is the Clinton campaign a true juggernaut — or is that just what she wants everyone to believe?

Not a juggernaut, but it is the best campaign on the block right now. That’s a view widely shared among Democratic strategists and emphatically asserted by some veteran Republicans sizing up the race.

Mitt Romney has been leading polls in early states like Iowa and New Hampshire but trailing in South Carolina and Florida. A report about one of the typical Super Tuesday states, California, displays a trend developing in field polls where Romney is gaining strength in a rich electoral location.

Among likely Republican voters, Romney’s numbers have doubled since March from 7 to 14% and it is nearly six months until the primary. Thus far it appears that the current poll leader, Giuliani, is not being hurt by his liberal stand on key social issues. But then, after all, this IS California yet there is plenty of time for those positions to lower Giuliani’s lead.

The more interesting part of the field polling according to its director is even though Giuliani has an unusual polling of over 30% in every subgroup the numbers are much different among those saying they are paying close attention to the race. This is said to indicate a likelihood of significant shifts in that group as the campaign continues. Giuliani is at 34%, similar to his ranking in other groups, but Romney is at 21%. That’s another large jump in the numbers.

The increase in Romney’s popularity from 7% in March to 14% in the middle of August may mean drawing voters from other candidates since the undecided category grew from 15 to 20% in the same time period. With only a third of voters paying close attention to the race there is plenty of room for Romney to advance. His style is sometimes described as slow and methodical. It seems to be working.

Two noteworthy variables in this campaign season so far are the tentative schedules of primary election or caucus dates and the current Labor Day weekend plans for the Fred Thompson announcement. Regardless of the order of election dates, the handful of elections before Super Tuesday, providing it stays the same, will begin to validate who the leaders are. Whether the assumed official announcement from Thompson significantly changes the race is anyone’s guess. Some say his strategy is nothing short of genius. Others say it will create expectations Thompson cannot be expected to fulfill. Yet others say he waited too long and any advantage he had initially will have evaporated by the time he officially announces. Any way you slice it there will be a difference. Whether it launches his campaign to higher polling numbers or falls flat with Giuliani and Romney reaping the polling boosts remains to be seen.

But this post is really about the Romney campaign. His slow, steady progress has lifted his campaign dramatically during 2007. While election dates may continue to change right up until the end of the year, Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire, Florida and South Carolina are currently in the early hunt. The Romney campaign is leading in Iowa, Nevada and New Hampshire. Whether campaigning can raise his numbers in Florida and SC by 2008 or wins in the first three can change the current outlook is of course unknown.

If you compare Rasmussen’s daily tracking poll numbers from the end of this week with the five week average, Giuliani and Romney are holding steady, Thompson dropped about a point and McCain gained two. While Clinton dropped a couple of points, Obama and Edwards each received a slight bump. Perhaps the recent attack mode of Clinton’s rivals is beginning to pay off. With Thompson’s latest announcement plans barely a week away, many voters may be taking a wait and see approach.

One polling annoyance noticed on this blog was it would have been nice to see numbers without inclusion of potential candidates. This is not picking on Thompson since Gingrich and Gore were among those listed in polls that may have unfairly represented the strength or weakness of various candidates. The psychology of voting may suggest people have more of an incentive to vote to avoid something bad rather than something good. This also tries to explain why mud slinging works and why the perceived notions about a candidate are important. Others have suggested that some people choose a candidate based on who they think will win because they wish to vote for a winner. It may seem absurd as a method for selection, but that is one reason for being critical of polling data. Which brings to mind the common practice of campaigns to market test which messages will appeal to voters. So much for the idea of candidates presenting ideas they honestly view as important. No matter who wins, what we get after the inauguration may have little in common with what was offered before election day.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Obama stuck in a narrative not his own
August 18, 2007

Hillary Rodham Clinton is rigid, cautious and steely. Barack Obama is dangerously inexperienced. John Edwards is a narcissistic hypocrite. Joseph R. Biden Jr. can’t express a thought in less than 25 minutes. Christopher J. Dodd is making sense but nobody’s paying attention.

But, then again, Rudolph W. Giuliani is hot-tempered and not particularly solicitous of civil liberties. Mitt Romney is a flip-flopping opportunist. John McCain is a doomed defender of the Iraq war. Sam Brownback is a hopeless religious conservative. Mike Huckabee is too, except that he’s lost a lot of weight, has a wicked sense of humor and, because of his second-place finish in last week’s (utterly meaningless) Iowa straw poll, might not be the dead-man-walking everyone thought he was.

David Shribman is executive editor of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.

David Shribman has it all figured out. All the candidates are worthless. At first glance it may appear that way. But his initial observations, while entertaining, have a tendency to lean one way…..left.

The first candidate described by Shribman is Hillary Rodham Clinton, the Democratic poll leader who receives his least critical if not highest praise of all the candidates listed. Rigid, cautious and steely may be somewhat vague but not critical. Obama is dangerous, Edwards a hypocrite with Biden and Dodd shown as generally inept. Any guess on who Shribman favors but is concealing in ambiguous adjectives? Nice try on an attempt to appear objective….NOT.

Every description of the GOP field is derogatory with the possible exception of Huckabee. He is called a hopeless religious conservative and given a backhanded compliment on his performance in the Iowa Straw Poll. Less that 2nd place finish in a contest panned by many, Shribman calls him a ‘dead-man-walking.’

Shribman tries to be stealthy with his appraisal of Clinton to hide the favoritism. He bashes the remainder of the Democratic field and the entire GOP field focusing the remainder of the piece on what Barack Obama should do. All that from the Executive Editor of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette showing a left-leaning bias and not so cleverly hidden endorsement of Hillary Rodham Clinton. Who says the press is biased?

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

By Michael Bowman
Washington
15 August 2007

Bowman report (mp3) - Download 776k audio clip
Listen to Bowman report (mp3) audio clip

A new poll of likely U.S. voters shows New York Senator Hillary Clinton maintaining her frontrunner status among Democratic voters in next year’s presidential race, with former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani leading the Republican field. VOA’s Michael Bowman reports from Washington.

The Quinnipiac University poll shows Senator Clinton with 36 percent backing among Democrats, up one percent from a survey in June, with strong support among women and working class voters. Illinois Senator Barack Obama is holding steady in second place, at 21 percent, and is favored among Democrats with college degrees.

Former Vice President Al Gore, who has stated he has no intention of running for office, polled third with 15 percent support, ahead of former North Carolina Senator John Edwards at nine percent.

Mrs. Clinton may lead the Democratic field, but the news is not all positive for the one-time first lady, according to the head of the Quinnipiac Polling Institute, Maurice Carroll.

“Trailing her is a big ‘Hillary hostility’ factor which does raise questions, feeds those doubts about [whether she] can win in November [in next year’s election],” he said. “Forty-eight to 43 percent, Americans tell the poll they have a favorable impression of her. But 43 is a big number, the negative side, and that is the highest of any of the candidates.”

Months ago, some analysts predicted that Senator Obama, whose father was Kenyan, would eventually receive overwhelming backing from black and other minority voters. But the Quinnipiac poll shows no such trend to date, with Senator Clinton doing well among all racial and ethnic groups within the Democratic Party.

Among Republicans, Rudy Giuliani leads with 28 percent support, up one percent from June. Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney comes in second with 15 percent, followed by actor and former Tennessee Senator Fred Thompson with 12 percent and Arizona Senator John McCain with 11 percent. Mr. Thompson has yet to formally announce his candidacy.

Carroll notes that Giuliani is pro-choice on abortion and favors legal rights for homosexual couples - positions that do not endear him with the socially-conservative base of the Republican Party. But he says the former mayor has one great strength that propels him to the top of the Republican field:

“It’s 9/11. Rudy Giuliani was mayor of New York City when the terrorists attacked and destroyed the World Trade Center. His performance then in rallying the city, reassuring the city - and to an extent the nation, earned him all sorts of plaudits and that is his big pitch. Of those who are for him, more than a third cited his performance after 9/11, his anti-terrorist credentials,” he said.

How would top Democratic and Republican contenders fare if the presidential election were held today? The Quinnipiac poll shows Hillary Clinton edging Rudy Giuliani 46 to 43 percent, and a draw between Giuliani and Barack Obama at 42 percent each. The poll did not pose a hypothetical match-up of Mitt Romney against a Democratic challenger.

Such polls provide only a snapshot of public opinion at the time they are conducted. The first contest of the presidential primary season is still months away, in January, and the general election is more than a year off.

crossposted at:
Maggie’s Notebook | Conservative Blog

FaultlineUSA

Conservative Thoughts

.
Rasmussen Reports for August 14th has the Dems with Clinton 40%, Obama 24%, Edwards 16% and Richardson at 4%. The GOP side is Giuliani 25%, Thompson 21%, Romney 15%, McCain 10% and Huckabee 4%.

With the GOP it was not that long ago that Fred Thompson’s numbers were several points higher, McCain was in third and Giuliani was about the same as now. While Huckabee has received a boost at the Iowa Straw Poll, Romney has been in double digits nationally for some time and has settled in the mid-teens even before Iowa. It looks like Giuliani is holding, Thompson and McCain have lost some strength and Romney plus Huckabee have enjoyed the most improvement from their work. You can still look at polls and scratch your head due to the occasional crazy variations between pollsters or inexplicable changes over short periods of time.

The Dems have the Queen of Cringe not ready to give up much of her lead. Over the past month with the three events attended by Democratic party candidates, Hillary Rodham Clinton received more criticism than one would expect from a liberal leader. Her fondness of lobbyist money and characterizing the practice as acceptable when challenged at the last YearlyKos drew a negative vocal response from the crowd. Locking up her White House docs this week until after the 2008 contest was met with suspicion as well. The upside to a long campaign season is voters may have enough time to view all the baggage she would bring to America’s top job. Her numbers may in fact be slightly lower than in the past.

Obama has fallen in recent weeks while peacenik, poverty tour, let my wife do the work, multimillionaire Edwards seems to be enjoying a bit of an upward bump. He may in fact be taking numbers from Clinton and Obama. The only noticeable change is less John and more Elizabeth. But these are only poll numbers with limited value in analyzing the 2008 race.

The left side of the spectrum appears to have been quiet or at least not as vocal on items related to Iraq. With the exception of the heat Obama took over his foreign policy statements, the surrender strategy has subsided somewhat. Another indication of improved conditions related to the war effort. No conclusions are being drawn here, it is just an observation.

Giuliani’s lead with Republicans has not been negatively affected by his stand on social issues. That may be explained by his ability thus far to avoid any significant discussion on the subjects. Leaning pro-choice, gay marriage and anti-gun has been softened by his campaign but may be seriously challenged later this fall. Thompson’s current plan to announce is for Nashville on or after Labor Day. Which direction his numbers will go when he actually does something is anyone’s guess. You might think Romney was leading the pack as one of his staffers suggested earlier with all the interrogations to which he has been subjected. It may be better to wear out the media on their assaults before the campaigns get serious. If Thompson actually enters the race in September the media focus will at least for a time be on him. That may be a benefit for the others since he will be under the microscope if and when he announces. The bet here is their will be one more delay and more reports that Gingrich is still thinking about it.

With Congress on vacation, candidates currently holding office are free to do more campaigning. Not like voting in the Senate has interfered with their plans before with all the ‘not voting’ tallies they generated. After the Iowa Straw Poll, those attending have stepped up work on the trail also. Interested voters can take a dog days of summer break until things heat up this fall or some candidates make headlines before then. Most likely any headlines would only reflect reports not flattering to any campaign.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Trackposted to Perri Nelson’s Website, Rosemary’s Thoughts, third world county, DeMediacratic Nation, Right Truth, The Pink Flamingo, The Bullwinkle Blog, The Amboy Times, and Pursuing Holiness, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

By Richard Cohen
Tuesday, August 14, 2007; A13

In this already dismal presidential campaign, where nary an original idea has been broached, Rudy Giuliani said something remarkable the other day. When asked if he is a “traditional, practicing, Roman Catholic,” the former mayor of New York essentially told the questioner to shove off. His religion, he said, was his own private affair.

Whether Giuliani knew it or not, he was echoing something John F. Kennedy said back in 1960. Kennedy, only the second Roman Catholic presidential nominee -

The title of the piece above is enough to remind anyone of Lloyd Bentsen’s reply to Dan Quayle that he was no Jack Kennedy. That aside, the reference about the content of Giuliani’s reply to an inquiry about his religious faith was reasonable. But if questions on one’s faith are presented not for political strategy or tactics and express an honest concern about religious influence in the public sector, the real point is missed. Every single detail of an individual will influence their decisions. Even if a person considers their own bias and does their best to avoid errors in judgment, the influence is still there. Rather than be assured we have done everything to draw an objective conclusion, we should accept the fact that our judgments on other matters will be carried with us and used again in some way.

Further in the piece above the author subsequently analyzes the Romney religion question and is not so kind. But the real disturbing analysis from the author concerns gay marriage or civil unions or gay rights, whatever terms are preferred to describe it. That’s not the problem. The problem is suggesting policy on those matters should not include a religious element which is fine. But we are then told such public policy should be determined based on what is fair or not fair to homosexuals. Could the author please explain why the rest of us are being excluded from the decision by him?

The up or down decision on whether something is supported or opposed is not decided strictly on how it affects only one person or one group. The entire country and all the people in it as well as the likely ramifications on society need to be examined. No wonder we have problems finding solutions on this planet.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com