What could have been (and could still be?)

Doesn’t the above make one feel more secure than McCain/Palin ?

I should probably give up about the whole idea of Palin being booted from the ticket (but then again many people felt the same about McCain this time last year) but I feel the circumstances are so strange and the sense of crisis (although overhyped) is so pervasive that McCain could actually help his campaign by selecting Lieberman, Giuliani, Condi Rice or anyone whose last name is not Palin. My prediction is that McCain wins the debate tonight; he is definitely the better debater (as Saddleback proved) and he is on firm territory (foreign policy). In any case expectations are so low that he could not fail to get better press coverage than he has got in the last twenty-four hours.

Could McCain choose Rudy?

Probably not, but here’s why he might.

There has been speculation that the whole Tom Ridge trial balloon is to with Rudolph Giuliani rather than Joe Lieberman. Rudolph Giuliani has a strong regional appeal in the North-East and New England. His selection would potentially put New York, and its thirty-five Electoral College votes, into play. As Mayor of a city larger than many states, Giuliani spent pushed through policies that promoted the idea that anyone, including immigrants, could succeed as long as they worked hard and obeyed the law. This would be especially welcome in a Republican Party where some demonise immigrants in a manner little different from Jeremiah Wright’s anti-American rants. As drug dealers, corrupt cops and Michael Milken found out, Giuliani is a strong leader who is unafraid of confrontation, either on the campaign trail, or in office.

If selected, Giuliani would need to open his activities as a security consultant out to public scrutiny and he will need to emphasise his willingness to select pro-life judges. He also runs the risk of his private life and questions over his planning for terrorist attacks overshadowing the campaign. Personally, I think the fact that he is being given a keynote spot at the convention means he won’t be the running mate. However, I could well imagine a scenario where he is the nominee and Lieberman claims the vacant keynote speaking spot. McCain has gone out so far on a limb that Lieberman is still the only person he should select. However, were he to select Giuliani (or Graham) as his running mate and give Lieberman the keynote spot, then he could at least claim that to have reached out beyond the base.

McCain leads by 0.87

Finally, I can show a McCain lead on my chart

My latest projections are:

John McCain 46.7
Barack Obama 45.83

McCain having his first definite lead in my projections since May 31st (likely voters only, filtered through Samplemiser) I am breathing a little more freely. However, even I have to admit that one swallow doesn’t make a summer. With the exception of a few poll readings during Wrightgate, McCain has failed to break 50%, while Obama has never got a majority of voters to back him.

Although it might be the beginning of the end for Obama, it is definitely not ‘mission accomplished’ for McCain. Against my expectations, Schmidt has managed to cauterise the wound. However, now is the time to do something radical, like picking Lieberman or Giuliani, to seal the deal.

Why most polls on Iraq are misleading

The ‘Frank Sinatra’ theory of issues

The conventional wisdom is that the Republicans should downplay the War in Iraq. It has been suggested that even the success of the surge has only meant that this issue will become less of a drag on the Republicans. However, I believe that many polls, especially polls where people are invited to select the issue that they believe is most important, as well has their stance on the issue, give a misleading impression about the war.

My theory is while those who oppose the War In Iraq cite Iraq as one of their main reasons for voting for Obama, those who support the war will cite ‘National Security’ (or even ‘Moral Values’) as their most important issue.

As one can see from the 2004 exit poll, Kerry led Bush on the War in Iraq, but Bush crushed Kerry on the issue of Terrorism. Of course, poltical operatives will argue that this means that the Republicans should focus on National Security, as opposed to the War. It also has to be conceeded that the awful events of September 11 meant that Bush would have had a lead on National Security in any case (though the example of his father in the 1992 election demonstrates that such leads prove transitory.However, as Giuliani’s campaign proved, like the old Frank Sinatra song, ‘love and marriage goes together like a horse and carriage/you can’t have one without the other’. National security is important, but to talk of national security without talking about the War in Iraq or the Middle East is like talking about crime without suggesting how to solve such crime. Indeed, to paraphrase Tony Blair, you cannot claim to be tough on terror without outlining how you are going to be tough on the causes of terror. Also, While there were strong strategic reasons for going into Iraq America (and Britain) did so for moral reasons that were as, and perhaps more important. McCain, who was one of the key supporters of the intervention in Kosovo, should emphasise this because it not only emphasises his achievements in the Senate, but is someone he passionately believes in.

This poll also points to another important issue. Although Bush’s tax cutting gave the Republicans a lead on the issue of taxes, those who thought that his tax cuts were irresponsible and regressive simply gave Kerry a lead on the economy and healthcare. If you aggregate National Security/Iraq and Healthcare/Economy/Eduucation and Taxes you get a Democratic lead on the Economy and a Republican lead on foreign policy. Now McCain is more moderate than Bush on the economy and September 11th was nearly seven years ago but I’d suggest that McCain would do well to move to the centre on the economy and keep talking about Iraq, especially in terms of the consequences a preciptous withdrawl would provoke. The National Review Online has a very good article on the subject.

Could this be McCain’s running mate?

Would Giuliani be a good choice for McCain?

One of the more interesting choices McCain could make is to choose Giuliani as his running mate. There are some obvious upsides to such a choice. Giuliani would boost McCain in the North-East and would definitely help him win New York State, which would be a crushing blow to Obama. Giuliani would also have the credentials to take Obama on over national security, especially given Jeremiah Wright’s comments. He would also help with Rockerfeller Republicans and possibly even Hillary voters. Giuliani is also a good debater and would effective engage whomever Obama selected as his running mate. Even Giuliani’s problems with cancer and his disastrous perfromance during the primaries ironically make him less of a threat to those Republicans who would like to succeed McCain. Given that Giuliani has kept an extremely low profile since January it could be argued that his selection would be somewhat of a surprise and would generate some buzz for the ticket. There is also the sense that Giuliani, especially at the height of his campaign had a sense of optimism that its lacking from the GOP and could bolster McCain on domestic issues. All of these factors make the former Mayor of New York good value at a price of 2.7-4.7 on Intrade.com.

However, there are three main problems. The first problem is that putting him onto the ticket will reopen the whole IAFF business. The second problem is that selecting Giuliani would really hurt McCain along with Evangelical voters, and it might put some of the Appalachian states into play. Finally, and most seriously there is the whole question of Giuliani’s business connections since September 11, especially his links with various Arab governments and shady figures. It should be assumed that the Democrats have a lot of opposition research material on Giuliani that they are just waiting to unleash. If (or maybe when) the Democrats do so, Giuliani (unlike Clinton) could not count on the backlash against ”the right-wing (or in Giuliani’s case left-wing) conspiracy. My view is that Giuliani’s chances of being McCain’s running mate are still around 10%, or at most 15%.

Returning to National Greatness: How the GOP can reinvent itself

TPT offers some advice to the elephant

The Republican party seems to be in turmoil with a combination of poor congressional ratings and a shocking results in Mississippi producing a crisis of confidence that has seen the ravings of Ron Paul climb to the top of the bookseller charts. Given that every person with access to a computer has written about the direction the Republican party should be taking, I am going to outline my suggestions on what the Republican party should do. It might seem strange that a left-of-centre Brit, who is definitely not any sort of conservative, is giving advice to the GOP, but I would contend that the amount of money that I have staked on Obama not being president, and the small amount that I have on the Republicans retaking Congress makes my motivations more straightforward that those of other commentators. In any case distance from the subject has never stopped me before so it is not going to stop me now.

The first thing that the Republican party needs to do is to move to the centre on economic issues. The Democrats, even though they have been dominated by the left, have managed to gain a huge advantage on the economy, healthcare and taxation. Indeed, had September 11th not increased the importance of national security, and unleashed the forces that would move the Democrats sharply to the left, the Republican party would have lost badly in 2002 and a Democrat would now be occupying the White House. Even the Republican magazines were disgusted with the ‘no-government anarchism’ of Mitt Romney, Fred Thompson and Ron Paul when it dominated the Republican debates in the fall of 2004. Economic conservatism might have got some traction in the 70s and 80s when taxes were sky high, but they now seem like an anachronism in an age of increasing inequality. By all means the Republican party should remain an opponent of wasteful spending and a supporter of free trade, since these are good for society whatever philosophy you support, but it should recognise that the government needs to play a more active role in healthcare and education.

The Republican party also needs to stop treating people like Newt Gingrich with reverence. Although he occasionally has a few good ideas, such as his support for a McCain/Lieberman ticket, he is extremely unpopular in the country at large. Indeed, the latest poll gave Newt Gingrich a net approval rating of -27%. Similarly, although it may break the heart of Andrew Sullivan, Barry Goldwater should not be a model for the modern Republican party, unless they want to experience a repeat of 1964. Although many people believe that Bush was unpopular because he departed from ‘conservative’ (or more accurately paleo-libertarian) principles, the inconvenient truth is that it was precisely those departures (Iraq, No Child Left Behind) that have made him a middle-ranking president, as opposed to one of the worst. Even if one ignores the fact that the policies of the libertarian and conservative philosopher kings of the Republican Party are both unpopular and unworkable, their ‘leave us alone’ philosophy on guns directly runs against their distaste for immigrants and their love for limited government and the market runs against their support for attempts to find loopholes to the antitrust laws.

In essence the Republicans need to re-read David Brook’s 1997 essay, ‘A Return to National Greatness: A Manifesto for a Lost Creed’. In this David Brooks argues for a several key principles, ‘limited but energetic government, full-bore Americanism, active foreign policy, big national projects (such as the Panama Canal and the national parks), and efforts to smash cozy arrangements (like the trusts) that retarded dynamic meritocracy’. In essence this means a more socially conservative version of the Blairite/DLC agenda. Of course, you could argue that it has been Bush’s pursuit of this agenda that has got the GOP in these straits. However, it is not Bush’s foreign policy that is the reason that he is at twenty eight percent in the pollster.com polling averages, it has been his departure from it. This was illustrated in the 2004 exit polls where Bush beat Kerry by nearly twenty points (59.5 vs 40.2) among voters who were concerned about foreign policy (National Security and Iraq) but lost by a whopping 33% with those who focused more on domestic issues (Healthcare, Education and Taxes).

Indeed, the triumph of the anti-war and anti-everything wing of the Democratic party has opened an opportunity for the Republicans to capture the centre ground, as has the emergence, in Barack Obama, of a Democratic candidate who not only seems determined to drive a wedge between the generations but is more likely to nod his head to Jeremiah Wright’s rantings than view his country as a force for good. When even someone like Hillary Clinton is held to be too right-wing and too wedded to middle America for the Democratic party, you know that something is wrong. Of course, it is important to remember that there are potential flaws. This strategy should not be an imitation of David Cameron or Boris Johnson’s peculiar amalgam or elitism, isolationist (and in Boris Johnson’s case) racism. It also should be noted that ‘full-bore Americanism’ in this context means a celebration of a ‘shinning city on a hill’ and positive action to welcome immigrants out of the shadows of the underground economy into the American family, rather than a xenophobic immigration policy or the unwholesome dog whistling that Hillary Clinton and the North Carolina GOP have been engaged in. In essence this means combining the populism and honour of John McCain, combined with Giuliani’s optimism and Lieberman’s principled stance on foriegn policy and family values.

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.

Is this an opportunity for Rudy or Hillary?

Could Giuliani or Clinton run for New York’s Highest Office in 2010?

 

Now that Republicans are threatening impeachment, and there is even talk of Spitzer facing criminal charges, it is almost certain that Elliott Spitzer will be forced to step down as Governor of New York. Although, the Lieutenant Governor David Paterson will step into his place, Paterson allegedly has his own ethics problems. This will mean that to all intents and purposes the governor’s mansion will be an open contest. This leaves the field open for Rudolph Giuliani on the Republican side and Hillary Clinton, if she is unsuccessful this November, on the Democratic side. The governor’s mansion would be an ideal stepping stone for the Presidency, allowing the occupation two years to showcase their executive abilities on a larger scale. Of course Hillary could be criticised for only spending two years before running for the White House again (and so would Giuliani). However, they could sidestep this by selecting a strong running mate, possibly Donald Trump on the Republican side and Andrew Cuomo for the Democrats. Of course Hillary could still win the Democratic nomination and Giuliani could be McCain’s running mate. However, this does reduce the likelihood of Hillary accepting the bottom place on a ticket with Obama, if nothing else.

Betting Journal: Partially closing my Giuliani short

I bought 15 contracts on Giuliani winning the Republican nomination at 1.5, reducing my open exposure to -10 of Rudy and -10 on Ron Paul. Although I think 1.5 is a steep price to pay, people evidently believe that something will happen to McCain between now and the convention and I’ve got a lot of ideas for where my funds can go next.

Final Projection: McCain leads by 0.30%

The Florida contest is simply too close to call

 

Taking all the published polls together, my final projections are: John McCain 32.13, Mitt Romney 31.83, Rudolph Giuliani 13.24, Mike Huckabee 12.58 and Ron Paul 3.43. The election is truly too close to call and don’t let the betting markets, or anyone else tell you otherwise. Remember that the exit polls were confortably predicting a Huckabee victory in South Carolina (and lets not pass over the New Hampshire debacle). 6.73% of voters are still undecided.

Romney leads by 1.54%

Good news for Romney supporters and Democrat hacks

 

Taking all the published polls together, my current projections are: Mitt Romney 30.82, John McCain 29.28, Rudolph Giuliani 14.45, Mike Huckabee 12.52 and Ron Paul 4.02. It’s pretty obvious that tomorrow’s contest will be decided by the tactical voting decisions of Huckabee and Giuliani supporters. In any case Giuliani will not see February 5th.

Romney leads by 2.02%

Good news for ‘Slick Willard’

Including all of today’s polls, I’ve come up with the following projections: Mitt Romney 30.28, John McCain 28.26, Rudolph Giuliani 15.06, Mike Huckabee 13.44 and Ron Paul 2.76. In contrast to my earlier predictions, Giuliani’s support seems to be declining at a lower rate than that of Huckabee, which is bad news for McCain.

McCain leads by 2.62%

Giuliani and Huckabee fall further behind the two frontrunners as their supporters move to the undecided column

Adding the Survey USA polls to the collection my projections are as follows: John McCain 28.01, Mitt Romney 25.39, Rudolph Giuliani 15.58, Mike Huckabee 12.59 and Ron Paul 5.91. Giuliani’s figures have been declining from around ever since the South Carolina primary, but Huckabee’s numbers had previously been solid, with the blip mainly the result of a Zogby poll that put him at 10%.

Do you agree with this analysis? Leave your comments here.

McCain leads by 0.51% in Florida

Momentum seems to be going John McCain’s way.

Adding the Survey USA polls to the collection my projections are as follows: John McCain 27.65, Mitt Romney 27.14, Rudolph Giuliani 18.26, Mike Huckabee 14.37 and Ron Paul 5.69. McCain seems to be putting quite a lot of distance between himself and Giuliani, and if this continues we could very well see Giuliani’s vote drifting to the Senator from Arizona, as Giuliani’s supporters vote tactically against Romney. Either way Giuliani seems on the way out.

Do you agree with this analysis? Leave your comments here.

Romney leads by 1.92% in Florida

Romney is slightly ahead of McCain with Giuliani in third place.

My current projection is: Mitt Romney 25.71 John McCain 23.79 Rudolph Giuliani 18.82 Mike Huckabee 15.31 and Ron Paul 4.04. It seems that most of Thompson’s voters have gone over to Romney. McCain really needs to get in Romney’s face and find some way of winning the economic argument, possibly by taking the radical step of opposing both the tax cuts and the short term spending of the ‘stimulus’ package. He also need to talk about finding long term solutions to America’s problems, rather than engaging in a return to the Keynesian nightmare of the late 1960s and 70s.