Veepstakes: My final take

My final thoughts on the Veepstakes

For the Republicans I am going to stick with McCain choosing Lieberman. Call me idealistic, call me presumptuous but McCain clearly wants to choose Lieberman and if there is a story about this contest it is about McCain choosing Lieberman. From McCain’s reference to John Lewis (which was a reference to Lieberman’s Civil Rights record) and Lieberman’s confession that he made a mistake about Alito (though if it wasn’t for him and the Gange of Fourteen there wouldn’t be an Alito), they are preparing to run. However, life is not an episode of West Wing, and even then Vinnick lost, so if while I’m sticking to Lieberman it might well be Pawlentry. McCain is not going to choose youth (Jindal, Palin, Cantor etc), money (Fiorina, Whitman) nor is the pick going to some pro-choice governor (Ridge, Lingle, Rell). Romney would be a bit too humiliating and Thompson, Rice and Huckabee don’t particularly want it (though it would be nice to see how long the NRO crowd maintained their pro-life position in the face of a Huckabee or a Graham pick). So it is going to be either Lieberman, Pawlentry or Giuliani. Kasich or Hutchinson might be a long-shot.

The Democrat pick is irrelevant since the public clearly don’t want Obama but they want a Democrat. My guess is that he will choose Biden, Hillary or Richardson. Richardson would nail down Colorado, New Mexico and Nevada and make McCain’s life difficult so I bet Richardson will be considered. However, unless Obama chooses someone who is pro-life, the pick will not be that important. My choice (if I supported Obama, though I don’t) would be Ken Salazar. Salazar supported the War in Iraq and is a moderate but if Obama had listened to me he wouldn’t have adopted the positions or the strategy that he did. If it is going to be a ‘headfake’ it will be Warner. Gilmore is so inept that Warner could bow out without endangering the Democrats’ chance of creating two Virginia Senators.

Sell Romney & Sell Pawlentry

A contrarian take on the McCain veepstakes

Adding the intrade prices of Mitt Romney (32-37.9) and Tim Pawlentry (30-35) together allows one to see that the market is pricing the rest of the field at 2/1 (or 3.00). I believe that Romney and Pawlentry and the constant, ‘McCain will choose Romney tomorrow’ or ‘McCain will select Pawlentry later today’, speculation are only smokescreens for someone like Lieberman, Giuliani, Bloomberg or even Rice. If McCain has any sense it would be one of those four and would be announced at the convention to force people to tune in. While the McCain campaign has as unfortunate capacity to shoot itself in the foot, betting against Pawlentry and Romney is a very good idea.

More veepstakes madness

McCain Mitt-flops around on his VP selection

The VP speculation seems be all over the place, since people are saying; that Romney is being tapped, McCain has ‘narrowed’ his choices (whatever that means) and that McCain may not announce his pick before the Olympics. My view is that the closer it is to the convention the more likely it is to be radical, since if he announced Lieberman (or any controversial choice – including Romney or Huckabee) now there would be a concerted effort to dissuade him from that course of action. On the other hand, the emotions engendered by conventions might make a challenge more likely. After all, there were attempts to get Dan Quayle off the ticket in 1988, to say nothing of the chaotic attempts to find a running mate for Ronald Reagan at 1980 Republican conventions, as recounted in the American Spectator.

Is Romney off the ticket?

McCain/Romney seems (thankfully) unlikely.

If there was one ticket that could have undermined McCain’s chances, it was picking Mitt Romney. Not only would he have annoyed social conservatives (without the upside that Lieberman or Giuliani could bring to the ticket) it should also be clear that picking someone associated, fairly or unfairly, with the worst excesses of economic conservatism would not help McCain in either the Midwest or the North East. Indeed, even picking a run of the mill libertarian like Sarah Palin would be preferable, since a former CEO’s views are more likely to carry more weight than those of a former beauty queen. Of course this could be a bluff, but it is time to bet against Romney being on the Republican ticket. However, if the article from the American Spectator is correct, a McCain/Romney ticket is off the menu.

A Man in the Arena

Why McCain needs to invoke the spirit of Theodore Roosevelt

As I have said elsewhere, it is obvious from the polls that that McCain’s attempt to run on a hard right tax cutting agenda isn’t working, and more importantly is something that McCain doesn’t believe in. In reality McCain is a right of centre populist who believes in free trade, school vouchers and attacking wasteful spending but also believes in regulatory reform, global warming, expanding access to health care and is worried about inequality. He also supports issues such immigration reform, energy independence and balanced budgets which are neither right nor left. Just as his best moment on foreign policy came when he directly confronted Ron Paul, his best two domestic policy moments came when he attacked Romney (and implicitly Giuliani) over the ‘profit not patriotism’ line and Huckabee over his regressive tax plan.

The Democratic lead on economic issues and their lead in the generic ballot means that there is simply no popular appetite for further economic conservatism. Obviously, Dick Morris is the last person who should be giving policy advice and his stuff about oil speculators and companies is simply demagogic nonsense. However, his contention in a recent interview that, ‘McCain can win by entering the democratic primary. He has to be a democratic opponent to to Obama. He should be a populist, and win over (working-class) Hillary voters’, is correct. It is also self-evident that the Mitt Romney and Fred Thompson wing of the Republican Party, who seem to have hi-jacked the McCain campaign, seem hell-bent on blaming everyone else, including the very people that McCain needs to win over, for his predicament. For instance, even the normally reasonable Irwin Seltzer seems to have gotten into his head that the one person to blame for Bush’s failures in the past two years is not Bush himself but Joe Lieberman.

So what should McCain do? I think the first thing McCain needs to do is to stop trying to be a third rate Barry Goldwater. Even though Obama has tried to give the illusion of moving to the centre there is plenty of room for McCain to come up with a tax plan that is a bit more progressive and which closes more loopholes, while still keeping economic conservatives on board. McCain should also stop hedging, instead of talking about building a few more nuclear power plants in the next twenty years he should talk about building a whole generation by 2012, a goal that is achievable if foreign technology is allowed to be imported into the US and Yucca Mountain is opened up. As I have said before McCain also needs to make overtures to those on the DLC wing of the Democratic Party. Although this may seem radical, it would be no different from the Republican recruitment of hawkish Democrats, such as Richard Perle and Paul Wolfovitz in the mid to late 70s. I am not suggesting that McCain should go overboard or do anything silly, but moving the Republican party to the centre, by enabling conservative Democrats to vote for McCain, would do more to help protect the idea of free trade and market solutions than anything the NRO wing of the GOP have come up with so far.

Obama’s lead returns to 5.90%

Obama’s bounce persists

My new national projections are:

Barack Obama 48.95
John McCain 43.05

Unlike my previous projections, there is no way that these results can be spun. Although, in time McCain’s ratings might start to catch up with those of Obama this is completely unecessary risk. McCain’s campaign has been poorly run with it increasingly reminding one of the dog in James Thurber’s short story, afraid to attack Obama because of a perceived backlash, afraid to move to the centre because that would offend the ‘base’ and most importantly afraid of mentioning the war in Iraq, even though McCain actually leads on this issue in the polls. Indeed, in terms of economic policy you could be forgiven for questioning where the imprint of Thompson and Romney ends, even though McCain has had a distinguished record fighting for the interests of hard working Americans. On domestic issues McCain desperately needs a declaration of independance.

NOTE: My methodology for my detailed polling projections involves collating all the available polls of likely voters and then filtering them through Samplemiser, a Kalman filter. I only used polls of likely voters and I get my data from pollster.com.

Why McCain shouldn’t take the pledge

Why a one-term pledge would be a bad idea

According to this article Mark Salter, McCain’s speechwriter and confident, has claimed that the idea of McCain pledging to serve only one term, if elected, was discussed last year. The idea of a one-term pledge has been applauded by various people who have stated that, ‘it would be a brilliant thing for him to announce he means to be a one-term president’ and ‘I think he should do something dramatic: Renounce ambition for a second term’. I have to say that I think such a pledge would be a mistake. Although it would get a lot of short-term publicity, this would merely concede one of the Democrats’ main talking points, that McCain is too old to be an effective president, and it would enable Obama to run as the candidate with a vision.. More importantly, it would also seem as if McCain is not going to accomplish anything too significant or too controversial during his presidency, lest he be accused of not being around to face the consequences of his decision, which why both libertarians and many on the Republican right favour the idea.

Indeed, the reason why Bush’s personal ratings have been so dismal is that, with the exception of the surge, which was more down to pressure from John McCain and Joe Lieberman, he has refused to push any sort of agenda. Indeed, Mike Huckabee was correct in asserting that Bush has adopted, what Huckabee characterised as a ‘a bunker mentality’, though this is in the sense of refusing to defend his policies, rather than the point Huckabee was trying to make about his foreign policy. On the contrary McCain needs to rule out any sort of pledge and map out an ambitious domestic and foreign policy agenda. The only upside of such a pledge would be that it would make it extremely unlikely that Romney or Huckabee would be on the ticket, since social and economic conservatives would simply not tolerate Romney and Huckabee respectively being given such a leg up in 2012.

Because of the speculation these revelations will produce McCain needs to formally rule such a pledge out and state that he will consider two term. However, it could be that that McCain’s staff are trying to give such a pledge informally without having to spell it out. In this case McCain’s would still need to formally rule out such a pledge, but the leak would be used to ‘wink’ at supporters of the defeated candidates, including Hillary supporters that they can vote for him safe in the knowledge that their candidate can have another shot at Pennsylvania Avenue in four year time. At the expense of banging a drum that is pretty damaged, for this dual strategy to work McCain would also need to select a Vice-President who would not be a serious contender for the Presidency in 2012, which by implication excludes; Palin, Jindal and others. In this case, I wonder if a pro-choice, liberal hawk from Connecticut, who proved in 2000 and 2004 that he is a bad a presidential campaigner as he is a good running mate, might fit the bill?

Why Romney shouldn’t (and won’t) be McCain’s running mate

Why you should bet against Mitt Romney

According to the betting markets at intrade.com, the price on Mitt Romney becoming McCain’s running mate is 19.2-20.1. Now, in fairness, the arguments behind Mitt Romney do seem logical as he would unite economic conservatives behind McCain and Romney’s support would help him in the Mountain West. However, this would be a mistake for three reasons. The first reason is that Romney is hated by social conservatives. Romney’s supporters like to put this down to bigotry with Novak claiming that, ‘Social conservatives are less enthusiastic about him, and many evangelicals still oppose Romney because of his Mormon religion’. However, Romney’s cynical conversion to social conservatism just before he announced his candidacy genuinely upset many people, as did his belief that his flip floppery entitled him to be the standard bearer of the religious right. Although, to put it crudely, most people of faith would be happy to forgive the local lady of the night if she truly repented, they would feel uncomfortable about her leading the choir the very same night (and even more so about her running Sunday School).

The second reason is that this is unnecessary. If Jeremiah Wright’s anti-American ranting and ravings and Obama’s liberal voting record have not nailed down the Republican base then nothing will. Even die-hard Romney supporters such as Michelle Malkin and Ann Coulter have now changed their tone and are focusing their fire on Obama. It might be brutal, but there is nowhere that people on the hard right can go, unless they really want to throw away the election by voting for a former ACLU lawyer. From my experience following British politics, pandering to ones base, when one does not need to do so, will only inflate their self-importance and reignite a sense of entitlement. In any case, given the Republican deficit in the polls, and the fact that it is Independents and conservative Democrats who will decide this election, McCain should be more worried about those voters, rather than constantly focusing on those who will probably hold their noses and vote for him.

However, the most important reason is that selecting Romney will send a signal to voters that McCain is still following not leading the Republican party. Just as Bush’s popularity ebbed away and his immigration package imploded when he took to the bunker in the White House, McCain cannot send a signal to voters that he is weak. After all, if he picks Romney, many voters will think themselves justified in believing that a McCain administration will be constantly looking over its shoulder. The truth is that, contrary to the convention wisdom, McCain’s anger and ability to forge a course, regardless of whether it antagonises people or not, is a strength. After all, the next American president will need to deal with at least two nations that are hell bent on destroying Israel and defeating democracy in Iraq, as well as a Congress that is more interested in pandering to antiwar bloggers that solving domestic and global problems. Maybe my suggestion of Lieberman is a bit too radical (though it shouldn’t be) but he has to pick someone who is genuinely his choice, not that of Bush or Rove.

In terms of betting, I think that McCain realises this, even if some on the right do not. I believe that McCain is merely showing an interest in Romney in an attempt to make sure social conservatives and evangelicals stay on board, just as his support for Huckabee is an attempt to do something similar for evangelicals. After all, if McCain was going to pick Romney there is no way he would be seen to do so at the behest of Rove and Bush. I am still going to stick with the idea that the chancce of Mitt Romney are no more than 10% at best, making it good value to bet against Romney.

Has Romney given up all hope of a VP spot?

Does his decision to go on a cruise indicate that he doesn’t believe that he will be chosen?

While I was browsing National Review Online I noticed that they were advertising a cruise for November 8-15. Although, I have no interest in such an event I did notice that one of their principal speakers was Mitt Romney. Although, this could be a case of mis-direction, and Romney would obviously not hesitate to cancel if he was asked to be McCain’s running mate, it does indicate that he is not exactly confident of being chosen as McCain’s running mate. Indeed, it rather brings to mind Huckabee’s decision to abandon the campaign trail for a motivation speaking engagement while he was still nominally campaigning for the Republican nomination. Given that Romney’s intrade price for the VP spot is 16.5-19.2, it might be worth betting against him.

Why Romney would be a disastrous choice for McCain

Why a McCain-Romney ticket would be bad for the GOP

1. He is hated by the religious right – To win the election McCain needs to avoid ailenating religious voters. Although it is is fashionable to dismiss these voters as having a waning influence on the GOP they enabled Bush to be re-elected in 2004. According to the exit polls 17.6% of the entire electorate (over a third of Bush’s vote) voted Republican because of ‘moral values’ – second only to the 20.24% who voted Republican because Iraq and the War on Terror. Any support that Romney gets from the few voters who voted Republican because of economic issues will be massively outweighed by votes lost from the former group due to Romney’s cynical attempt to position himself as a pro-life candidate.

2. Romney is not a particularly good politician – Let’s remember that Romney, despite outspending every other candidate, lost Iowa, New Hampshire and Florida and came fourth in South Carolina. Despite a few victories on Super Tuesday and a ‘legacy’ victory in Michigan, Romney performed extremely poorly. It also should be remembered that he left office in 2006 with a low approval rating. What could someone with such a mediocre record add to the Republican ticket?

3. McCain needs to send a clear message – McCain needs to send a clear message that he will be able to be ‘his own man’. Selecting Romney, or any generic Republican for that matter, will make him look weak and unable to stand up for what he believes in. Given the low popularity of the Republican party, McCain needs to avoid the appearance of caving to the ‘base’.

4. McCain needs to appeal to disillusioned Democrats – The trends in party identification state unequivocally that McCain needs to appeal to at least a significant segment of those who identify themselves as Democrats. Putting someone who pandered to every Republican interest group and wallowed in anti-immgrant sentiment would be a disaster.

5. There are better candidates – Condi Rice would be groundbreaking, Joe Lieberman would re-align the electorate and Charlie Crist is a popular govenor. Jon Huntsman would have all the plusses of Romney (money, appeal to the Mountain West, excutive and business experience) without any of the drawbacks (wobbling on the surge, flip-flopping on abortion etc).

Road to the Naval Observatory: GOP Veepstakes

The Runners and Riders in the GOP Veepstakes

Here is my form book for the GOP Veepstakes:

The favourite

1. Joe Lieberman – Lieberman is popular with independents, conservative democrats, liberal republicans and certain sections of the religious right. He would guarantee at least 2-3% nationally and steal several news cycles. His role in registering voters in Mississippi in the 60s gives him the credibility to attack Obama on the issues without racist dog-whistling or challenging anybody to a duel. He also wins over many of the national security voters who disagree with McCain in issues like immigration. However, it is uncertain as to whether the Republican party is ready for a pro-choice former Democrat, although neither the Republican party nor the electorate at large got the message in 1980 and 84. Chances are about 40% (2.50).

Runners-up

2-3. Tom Ridge – Popular moderate former governor of an important swing state. Would add to McCain’s national security credentials. Endorsed McCain during the primaries. However, his pro-choice views might cause some problems. Chances are about 10% (10).

2-3. Tim Pawlentry – Early ally of John McCain and touted as possible running mate for a long time. Governor of winnable state (Minnesota) while respected by the right. However, his support wasn’t able to win the day in the Minnesota primary. Chances are about 10% (10).

Still in with a shout

4-5. John Huntsman Jr – Business experience and experience as US trade representative helps McCain in economic matters while support for expanded health care coverage helps McCain on this issue. Win LDS support in MO and NV without alienating Evangelicals. Has access to vast personal wealth. The look on Mitt Romney’s face alone would make Huntsman’s selection worthwhile. Chances are about 7.5% (12.5).

4-5. Condi Rice – Apart from Lieberman (and possibly) Giuliani, Condi is the only person who can re-frame Wrightgate around the issue of national security. Her candidacy would also be groundbreaking, and open up the African-American vote if Hilary Clinton manages to somehow win the nomination. She is relatively young and so would be an ideal compliment to McCain. Could also help McCain in California. However, her coldness and her association with Bush reduce her chances considerably. Chances are about 7.5% (12.5)

Real long-shots

6-10. Rudolph Giuliani – Giuliani would help McCain in the North-East and the two are obviously friendly. Wrightgate plays into Giuliani’s hands, although having the campaign picketed by firefighters would be a double edged sword. Evangelical voters might not accept this ticket and Giuliani Partners remains a huge skeleton in the closet, potentially on a par with ‘Wrightgate’. Chances are about 4% (25)

6-10. Mike Huckabee – Would help McCain with social conservatives and values voters. McCain obviously prefers him to Romney. However, he failed to win over any blue collar voters in Michigan and his extreme social conservatism would ailenate independants. Does McCain really want to run with someone who wrapped himself in the Confederate Flag? Chances are about 4% (25)

6-10. Charlie Crist – Crist is a very popular governor of an important swing state (Florida). He is also moderate and personable and he endorsed McCain before Florida voted. He also prosecuted telecoms companies as Florida’s Attorney General. However, rumours about his private life might prove a distraction. Good relations with the African-American community will be a bonus if Hillary is the Democratic nominee. He also spent less than five years in major state government posts (although he served in various posts four another four years). There are also questions about his involvement in fraud investigation. Chances are about 4% (25).

6-10. Mitt Romney – He is the chosen candidate of the fiscal right and adds business experience to the ticket. If the convention were settled in the back room he would be odds on to be the candidate. However, he performed poorly in his home turf, losing to McCain in New Hampshire, New York, New Jersey, Connecticut….need I say more? Seriously, McCain doesn’t need someone who ailenates both the religious right and moderates. Meghan McCain interview suggested rift between McCain and Romney camps hasn’t really healed. Also what can a one term governor with a negative approval rating really bring to the ticket? Chances are about 4% (25).

6-10. Rob Portman – The man behind the famous ‘experience of telecommunications’ statement. According to Bob Novak Portman is on McCain’s shortlist. Chances are about 4% (25).

Others: There is always the possibility of a complete unknown or a non-politician (such as Carly Fiorina or David Petraeus). There is also the possibility of another Democrat crossing party lines.

Should McCain call National Review’s bluff?

Is their threat of a floor fight credible?

As shown in the article above there is considerable pressure on John McCain to pick a staunchly conservative running mate. However, the editors of National Review Online have gone even further, threating a floor fight if they disagree with his choice. Indeed they cite three specific litmus tests: strong on national defence, pro-life and an economic conservaitive. They also, rather ominously, talk about ‘the names of unacceptable candidates being bandied about as possible picks’. electoral poison while Fred Thompson showed that he didn’t want to be President. I am not a conservative nor am I American, but I would like to think my beliefs are not too far from the average American voter. In this respect a litmus test that eliminates not only Conservative Democrats like Joe Lieberman but moderate Republicans like Crist or Ridge is not one that McCain should accept. Bush did not choose a moderate to balance out his ticket so the Republican right should not expect, let alone demand, that McCain will choose a strong running mate from their wing.

If the NRO cannot rally around a candidate who Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity and their former editor endorsed, McCain should not pander to them. Just as Reagan was able to win with a pro-choice running mate, McCain should be able to win without the editorial staff of the NRO. However, McCain would be wise to re-affirm his pro-life credentials – especially if he picks a pro-choice running mate. After all, Ronald Reagan was able to pick another socially moderate politican from the Nutmeg State and still run a pro-family value campaign. The NRO staff should also realise that a Lieberman vice-presidency might be better for the right than someone like Pawlentry because Lieberman is not going to run for the Republican Presidential nomination in 2012 or 16. Of course, this doesn’t mean that McCain should pick someone who antagonises the base for the heck of it, he has rightly rejected talk of Michael Bloomberg because of his aggresive rhetoric on abortion and Giuliani probably wouldn’t be the best move.

What is the impact of Romney’s endorsement of McCain?

Why you should not read too much into Romney’s endorsement of McCain

The decision of Mitt Romney to endorse John McCain and to urge his delegates to support the Arizona Senator has led to speculation as to why someone who was so critical of John McCain during the primaries was willing to patch things up with him in such a public way, especially when there was the possibility that a brokered convention might still give him a chance at the nomination. This has ignited a fresh round of speculation that McCain might choose Romney as his vice-president, with the aims of both uniting the Republican Party and shoring up his credentials on economic issues.

However, Romney is only releasing his delegates and there are doubts that he can force them to choose McCain. This is more to do with a Romney being in the ‘on-circle’ for 2012 (or 2016) than him wanting to be in the Naval Observatory. In any case Romney wouldn’t add much to the ticket and his selection as Vice-President would alienate the Evangelical Right. The differences in foreign policy and economic policy will make McCain war of putting Romney next in line to the Presidency. Essentially Romney’s endorsement doesn’t change a thing, except that a brokered convention will probably result in a McCain/Romney ticket rather than one with McCain and Huckabee. John McCain still needs to win an absolute majority of delegates in his own right if he wants to select the Vice President of his choosing and take the Republican Party towards the centre.

Will today caucuses push Huckabee out of the contest?

Will voters in Lousiana, Kansas and Washington put the final nail in Huckabee’s coffin?

Tonight there are Republican caucuses in Kansas and Washington and a primary in Louisiana. Only 77 delegates are up for grabs these contests will signal whether Huckabee has any hope of mounting an effective last ditch challenge to McCain. My guess is that McCain’s decision not to campaign in any of those states will hurt him. He has always done best in contests when he can do a lot of retail hand-to-hand campaigning and less so when he hasn’t campaigned. On Super Tuesday he beat Romney convincingly in California and even ran Romney close in his home state. However, he failed to win Minnesota and was destroyed earlier in Nevada and Maine. However, my prediction is that Huckabee will win Lousiana and come close in Kansas, but that McCain will win convincingly in Washington. This will probably be just enough to keep him in the contest until he is swept in Maryland and Virginia on the 12th. I predict that Huckabee will be forced out by the end of next week, which is what Romney intended when he withdrew.

Some final thoughts on Super Tuesday

TPT looks back at last night

1. This is a good night for Hillary. She carried the big states that Obama had been expected to win, such as California and Massachusetts, and managed to come out ahead on delegates. However, the margin of her victory wasn’t so great that it runs the risks of inducing complacency among her or her supporters. She is clearly the frontrunner, but the possibility of Barack Obama pulling an upset and winning the nomination is great enough, to keep her and her supporters honest.

2. I’m tempting fate but McCain must surely be the nominee. Neither Huckabee and Romney are strong enough to stop him on his own and the chances of them combining are virtually nil. The remaining primaries suit McCain’s strength as a strong campaigner. As the results demonstrated tonight, McCain is only weak when he has to rely on surrogates.

3. The chances of a McCain-Pawlentry ticket just took a big blow. Although McCain would have done better had he campaigned there, the size of Romney’s victory in Minnesota showed that, even among Republicans, Pawlentry is not the electoral asset that many think he is.

4. McCain needs to avoid making any promises to the right. His performance last night was a clear demonstration that he doesn’t need to be making any concessions to them.