The US election is part of British politics too.
What can Gordon Brown learn from Hillary Clinton? Does David Cameron think he can create Obamamania in Britain - or is he really Mitt Romney? I have a West Wing comes to Westminster piece on Comment is Free.
Showing posts with label Mitt Romney. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Mitt Romney. Show all posts
Friday, January 11, 2008
Friday, January 4, 2008
After Iowa: Hillary's challenge
Both races are more open this morning than they were last night - but that also means it was a much, much better night for the Democrats than the Republicans.
It was difficult to see how the Republican race could prove decisive. The impact has been to make it more confused, though with one clear casualty. The Mitt Romney campaign looks fatally wounded. (John Ellis has a brilliant robust dissection of what went wrong with the most 'politics as usual' campaign offered to Iowans; while Michael Tomasky points out that his $6.5 million Iowa campaign comes out at $300 a vote).
I very much doubt Mike Huckabee will make the nomination in the end - nor how there could be a winning electoral coalition for Huckabee in November, as his economic approach is unacceptable to a large part of the Republican party, while his social agenda will scare off key groups of swing voters. This is good news for the absent Rudy Giuliani and for John McCain, though McCain did not do particularly well. But there is no Republican unity candidate - and that is going to affect their ability to mobilise in November.
Obama won big - by a striking seven point margin, exceeding expectations. The concentrated burst of primaries make timing matter more in 2008 than ever before. They may not pull it off, but right now, the Obama campaign have got everything right.
John Edwards edged Clinton for second place: a strong showing in such a competitive race. But it may prove the high point of his campaign, and may not be enough to keep his candidacy going into the Southern primaries after New Hampshire. Clinton-Obama will become a compelling media frame and Edwards will struggle to stay visible. What happens to Edwards fairly strong base of support in the South is an important unknown factor.
It is far, far too early to write Hillary Clinton off. This morning, she is probably still the favourite and frontrunner for the nomination. But for how long? I can see three strategic problems for the Clinton pitch, going into the next round of contests.
(1) Both results strengthen the sense that this is a 'change' election. The famous right track/wrong track indicator is at record levels, showing 7 out of 10 Americans believe the country is going in the wrong direction.
Hillary presented two main 'closing' arguments on the eve of the poll and returned to these in her post-caucus concession speech.
- First, that she can win in November; she has been tested and presents less electoral risk;
- Second, that she is the President who will be 'ready of day one'.
So Hillary wants to stand for 'the experience to deliver change'. But the contrast with Obama risks making her 'the Establishment' against the risk of 'Change', in a race with no other status quo candidate.
(2) The high turnout and Obama's crossover appeal to independents may strengthen his core 'uniter, not a divider' argument. The risk of Obama is reduced if he demonstrates the ability to deliver. Over the next week, a sense of what these results and New Hampshire mean on 'electability' will emerge, from detailed number crunching and how that then turns into a new common sense among the commentators, bloggers and activists. That is a primary consideration for many Democrats this year, and will be the substance at stake in the post-match spin and counter-spin.
(3) If the momentum of Iowa and the media focus propel Obama to victory in New Hampshire, Obama would become the favourite. The Hillary Clinton campaign has been a 'safety first' campaign of the frontrunner. Could she emulate her husband's 'comeback kid' reputation? They are very different politicians.
Time magazine is already this morning reporting talk of a change of strategy but I doubt she could change her argument significantly without it looking like panic, and costing her in authenticity. If, as Time's report suggests, this means 'going negative' it would backfire and play to Obama's strengths.
The Obama campaign is still an unlikely insurgency - yet that is precisely its appeal if it can be shown to be a viable one. Hillary Clinton will have to hold her nerve, but she may find that she is in the campaign race on the terms that her opponent wanted to define.
It was difficult to see how the Republican race could prove decisive. The impact has been to make it more confused, though with one clear casualty. The Mitt Romney campaign looks fatally wounded. (John Ellis has a brilliant robust dissection of what went wrong with the most 'politics as usual' campaign offered to Iowans; while Michael Tomasky points out that his $6.5 million Iowa campaign comes out at $300 a vote).
I very much doubt Mike Huckabee will make the nomination in the end - nor how there could be a winning electoral coalition for Huckabee in November, as his economic approach is unacceptable to a large part of the Republican party, while his social agenda will scare off key groups of swing voters. This is good news for the absent Rudy Giuliani and for John McCain, though McCain did not do particularly well. But there is no Republican unity candidate - and that is going to affect their ability to mobilise in November.
Obama won big - by a striking seven point margin, exceeding expectations. The concentrated burst of primaries make timing matter more in 2008 than ever before. They may not pull it off, but right now, the Obama campaign have got everything right.
John Edwards edged Clinton for second place: a strong showing in such a competitive race. But it may prove the high point of his campaign, and may not be enough to keep his candidacy going into the Southern primaries after New Hampshire. Clinton-Obama will become a compelling media frame and Edwards will struggle to stay visible. What happens to Edwards fairly strong base of support in the South is an important unknown factor.
It is far, far too early to write Hillary Clinton off. This morning, she is probably still the favourite and frontrunner for the nomination. But for how long? I can see three strategic problems for the Clinton pitch, going into the next round of contests.
(1) Both results strengthen the sense that this is a 'change' election. The famous right track/wrong track indicator is at record levels, showing 7 out of 10 Americans believe the country is going in the wrong direction.
Hillary presented two main 'closing' arguments on the eve of the poll and returned to these in her post-caucus concession speech.
- First, that she can win in November; she has been tested and presents less electoral risk;
- Second, that she is the President who will be 'ready of day one'.
So Hillary wants to stand for 'the experience to deliver change'. But the contrast with Obama risks making her 'the Establishment' against the risk of 'Change', in a race with no other status quo candidate.
(2) The high turnout and Obama's crossover appeal to independents may strengthen his core 'uniter, not a divider' argument. The risk of Obama is reduced if he demonstrates the ability to deliver. Over the next week, a sense of what these results and New Hampshire mean on 'electability' will emerge, from detailed number crunching and how that then turns into a new common sense among the commentators, bloggers and activists. That is a primary consideration for many Democrats this year, and will be the substance at stake in the post-match spin and counter-spin.
(3) If the momentum of Iowa and the media focus propel Obama to victory in New Hampshire, Obama would become the favourite. The Hillary Clinton campaign has been a 'safety first' campaign of the frontrunner. Could she emulate her husband's 'comeback kid' reputation? They are very different politicians.
Time magazine is already this morning reporting talk of a change of strategy but I doubt she could change her argument significantly without it looking like panic, and costing her in authenticity. If, as Time's report suggests, this means 'going negative' it would backfire and play to Obama's strengths.
The Obama campaign is still an unlikely insurgency - yet that is precisely its appeal if it can be shown to be a viable one. Hillary Clinton will have to hold her nerve, but she may find that she is in the campaign race on the terms that her opponent wanted to define.
Thursday, January 3, 2008
The Republican race
I want the Democrats to win in November. But there is widespread dissatisfaction among Republicans at the choices they have, and how the race has failed to crystallise.
It is difficult to know what to make of tonight's Republican contest in Iowa. The Mitt Romney - Mike Huckabee contest for first place may best be seen as a potential eliminator from which the right-wing contender for the nomination will emerge.
Somehow, the Mike Huckabee campaign is giving the impression of having turned into a serious Presidential bid. It shouldn't be. Huckabee has some charm, some startlingly absolutist right-wing views and no Presidential credentials at all, especially on foreign policy. Picking the low point of his campaign to date is difficult.
Was it attributing his poll surge to divine intervention?
Not having heard of the Iran intelligence report the day after it had dominated the news agenda was worrying.
But he topped that this week as his spat with Mitt Romney got nastier. Huckabee's decision to defend John McCain from negative Romney attacks - John McCain is a hero - was a smart move. Somewhat, less smart was declaring that he was resisting the temptation to go negative himself in retaliation - before showing the negative attack ad he had decided not to air at his press conference. Huckabee is putting himself beyond satire.
Mitt Romney is deeply unimpressive. Apart from the high profile issue of his being a Mormon, he stirkes me as a something of an identikit Republican, running a nasty, negative campaign from the Lee Atwater-Karl Rove textbook. ( Joe Klein's Tale of Two Romneys nails this). His credentials to be President don't seem to stretch that far beyond running the Winter Olympics. He has already struggled with his various campaign misstatements.
I haven't been able to work out what Fred Thompson is for. Neither, I think, has the candidate.
For a long time, Rudy Giuliani seemed the Republican most likely to threaten the Democrats in November. He is a worrying prospect as President. Nuance would not be the watchword of his foreign policy. But the Democrats have not yet worked out how to counter their vulnerability on national security in the General Election - and a single issue 9/11 Giuliani campaign could exploit that. Giuliani's problem has always been the strategy to secure the nomination, given that he is beyond the pale for a significant part of the Republican base. He is rewriting the rules of the primary contest. It will be another month before we know whether his unconventional gameplan of marginalising the early contests has paid off, or has cost him his frontrunner status.
My Republican pick is John McCain. He has the credibility and experience to be President, as the (London) Times set out in a well argued editorial this week. I don't agree with his views on foreign policy - and he has done much to bolster President Bush - but he is a candidate who commands respect. McCain has problems with the Republican base but perhaps also, by trying to reposition towards them, with the independent voters he appealed to in 2000. He has struggled for momentum, but seems to be picking up as the voters think seriously about the Presidency.
I suspect Huckabee or Romney would be easier for the Democrats to defeat in November. But Clinton, Obama or Edwards are capable of winning against any of the Republican nominees. And, given that the US Presidency is at stake, it might be a good idea for both parties to put up somebody who could do the job.
It is difficult to know what to make of tonight's Republican contest in Iowa. The Mitt Romney - Mike Huckabee contest for first place may best be seen as a potential eliminator from which the right-wing contender for the nomination will emerge.
Somehow, the Mike Huckabee campaign is giving the impression of having turned into a serious Presidential bid. It shouldn't be. Huckabee has some charm, some startlingly absolutist right-wing views and no Presidential credentials at all, especially on foreign policy. Picking the low point of his campaign to date is difficult.
Was it attributing his poll surge to divine intervention?
There's only one explanation for it, and it's not a human one. It's the same power that helped a little boy with two fish and five loaves feed a crowd of 5,000 people.
Not having heard of the Iran intelligence report the day after it had dominated the news agenda was worrying.
But he topped that this week as his spat with Mitt Romney got nastier. Huckabee's decision to defend John McCain from negative Romney attacks - John McCain is a hero - was a smart move. Somewhat, less smart was declaring that he was resisting the temptation to go negative himself in retaliation - before showing the negative attack ad he had decided not to air at his press conference. Huckabee is putting himself beyond satire.
Mitt Romney is deeply unimpressive. Apart from the high profile issue of his being a Mormon, he stirkes me as a something of an identikit Republican, running a nasty, negative campaign from the Lee Atwater-Karl Rove textbook. ( Joe Klein's Tale of Two Romneys nails this). His credentials to be President don't seem to stretch that far beyond running the Winter Olympics. He has already struggled with his various campaign misstatements.
I haven't been able to work out what Fred Thompson is for. Neither, I think, has the candidate.
For a long time, Rudy Giuliani seemed the Republican most likely to threaten the Democrats in November. He is a worrying prospect as President. Nuance would not be the watchword of his foreign policy. But the Democrats have not yet worked out how to counter their vulnerability on national security in the General Election - and a single issue 9/11 Giuliani campaign could exploit that. Giuliani's problem has always been the strategy to secure the nomination, given that he is beyond the pale for a significant part of the Republican base. He is rewriting the rules of the primary contest. It will be another month before we know whether his unconventional gameplan of marginalising the early contests has paid off, or has cost him his frontrunner status.
My Republican pick is John McCain. He has the credibility and experience to be President, as the (London) Times set out in a well argued editorial this week. I don't agree with his views on foreign policy - and he has done much to bolster President Bush - but he is a candidate who commands respect. McCain has problems with the Republican base but perhaps also, by trying to reposition towards them, with the independent voters he appealed to in 2000. He has struggled for momentum, but seems to be picking up as the voters think seriously about the Presidency.
I suspect Huckabee or Romney would be easier for the Democrats to defeat in November. But Clinton, Obama or Edwards are capable of winning against any of the Republican nominees. And, given that the US Presidency is at stake, it might be a good idea for both parties to put up somebody who could do the job.
Friday, December 28, 2007
Does Rawalpindi matter in Iowa?
The parochial concern on the 2008 campaign trail was the need to appear Presidential in responding to news from Pakistan.
Despite the Bhutto assassination throwing US policy into deep flux, most candidates realised that their immediate responses should simply mirror the statements of President Bush and other world leaders - expressing shock and sympathy at the tragic news and pledging to redouble efforts for democracy and against terrorism.
Still, Mike Huckabee messed it up, bizarrely apologising for the assassination, before correcting his remarks later.
Fred Thompson was particularly concerned to make sure that people around the world didn't get the wrong idea from the apology.
With more time to consider, Huckabee put up a policy argument. The Bhutto assassination showed why the US needed to build a border fence with Mexico to keep out Pakistanis.
Further clarifications defending these remarks did not seem to clarify much.
Mitt Romney had picked a bad day to argue that foreign policy experience doesn't matter all that much, though stressing the Reagan rather than the Dubya precedent to make his case:
Rudy Giuliani and John McCain stressed the opposite message to highlight their own experience.
On the Democrat side, the issue played to Hillary Clinton's experience on the international stage. Her personal relationship with Bhutto allowed her to stress that she will be ready on "day one" for the international demands of the Presidency. Perhaps for that reason, the Obama camp took an aggressive approach, bringing the issue back to the question of judgment over Iraq, sparking controversy about comments by Obama's strategist David Axelrod, who seemed to imply that Clinton's support of the Iraq war had contributed to the causes of the assassination.
Meanwhile, John Edwards placed a personal call to President Musharraf himself to press the case for democratic reform.
UPDATE: CNN quotes Huckabee campaign staff, explaining that his immigration comments were intended to distract attention from the fact that he has "no foreign policy credentials". Let's hope Iowa and New Hampshire care more about foreign policy experience than that.
Despite the Bhutto assassination throwing US policy into deep flux, most candidates realised that their immediate responses should simply mirror the statements of President Bush and other world leaders - expressing shock and sympathy at the tragic news and pledging to redouble efforts for democracy and against terrorism.
Still, Mike Huckabee messed it up, bizarrely apologising for the assassination, before correcting his remarks later.
Fred Thompson was particularly concerned to make sure that people around the world didn't get the wrong idea from the apology.
With more time to consider, Huckabee put up a policy argument. The Bhutto assassination showed why the US needed to build a border fence with Mexico to keep out Pakistanis.
“We ought to have an immediate, very clear monitoring of our borders and particularly to make sure if there’s any unusual activity of Pakistanis coming into the country", he said.
Further clarifications defending these remarks did not seem to clarify much.
Mitt Romney had picked a bad day to argue that foreign policy experience doesn't matter all that much, though stressing the Reagan rather than the Dubya precedent to make his case:
“If the answer for leading this country is someone that has a lot of foreign policy experience, we can just go down to the State Department and pick up any one of the tens of thousands of people who’ve spent all their life in foreign policy.
Rudy Giuliani and John McCain stressed the opposite message to highlight their own experience.
On the Democrat side, the issue played to Hillary Clinton's experience on the international stage. Her personal relationship with Bhutto allowed her to stress that she will be ready on "day one" for the international demands of the Presidency. Perhaps for that reason, the Obama camp took an aggressive approach, bringing the issue back to the question of judgment over Iraq, sparking controversy about comments by Obama's strategist David Axelrod, who seemed to imply that Clinton's support of the Iraq war had contributed to the causes of the assassination.
Meanwhile, John Edwards placed a personal call to President Musharraf himself to press the case for democratic reform.
UPDATE: CNN quotes Huckabee campaign staff, explaining that his immigration comments were intended to distract attention from the fact that he has "no foreign policy credentials". Let's hope Iowa and New Hampshire care more about foreign policy experience than that.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
