Presidential diary: Kansas swinging, and primaries becoming increasingly heated
- Even Kansas?
- McCain is the only Republican to convincingly crush both Clinton (55% to 38%) and Obama (53% to 37%). Giuliani leads both Democrats, but he struggles and his lead is in the low single-digits: 49% to 43% against Clinton, 47% to 42% against Obama.
- The Democrats lead the four other match-ups tested by SUSA. Clinton is up 48% to 44% against Romney, and 49% to 43% against Huckabee; Obama leads Romney 46% to 43% and Huckabee 47% to 41%.
Of course, Kansas is a small state with 6 electoral votes... but if the GOP candidate has to spend time campaigning in states like Kansas and run ads here, you can be sure the situation must be much worse in states like Missouri or Ohio.
- Primary rhetoric heating up
There is no doubt that Bill Clinton had faith in her and consulted with her on issues, in the same way that I would consult with Michelle, if there were issues. On the other hand, I don't think Michelle would claim that she is the best qualified person to be a U.S. senator by virtue of me talking to her on occasion about the work I've done.
I do believe we had not heard Clinton's experience challenged so directly before. We have clearly entered a new phase of the campaign in which both campaigns know everything is at stake on January 3rd and Clinton's opponents are not going to give her a second to breath. We have to question, however, why Obama is choosing the experience angle to attack. Even if he undermines Clinton's argument, his own pitch is not at all based on experience, but on the need to change the partisan Washington establishment. For Obama to charge on what is supposed to be his weak subject suggests he is confident Clinton is vulnerable on this one. His criticism is also a bit misleading, for Hillary had a policy position in the Clinton White House, something Michelle Obama does not have (as far as we know!) in Obama's Senate office.
Meanwhile, a similar heating up is occurring in the GOP primary. Yesterday, Mike Huckabee upped his attacks on Mitt Romney, pointing out that he is a much more consistent conservative than the former Massachusetts governor:
Mitt has changed his position. He’s been all over the board. But my conservatism has been consistent. When he was pro-abortion, I was still pro-life and always have been. When he was for gun control, I was against it. When he was against the Bush tax cuts, I was for them. When he was against Ronald Reagan's legacy and said he wasn't part of that Bush-Reagan thing, I was a part of that Bush-Reagan thing.
With the Iowa caucuses fast approaching, Huckabee is looking to overtake Romney's lead -- but that will require Huckabee to cement his position as the leading conservative to hold on to his social conservative base and take some of Romney's voters. And other candidates are also looking to bring Romney down, which could certainly help Huckabee's cause.
Rudy Giuliani seems especially intent to switch his focus from Clinton to Romney as the two campaigns fought all week-end. Giuliani also talked to the Politico in an interview that is all about the need to "take the mask off and take a look at what kind of governor was he.” Giuliani said, "He throws stones at people. And then on that issue he usually has a worse record than whoever he’s throwing stones at." He went on to emphasize Romney's poor record and poor ideas on health care, environment and taxes. Romney naturally fought back, hitting on Giuliani's own record: "When he came in there was a budget gap, but when he left, he left a budget gap twice as big as the one he inherited: over three billion dollars."
These are all arguments we have been hearing for months now, but usually voiced by surrogates and never so directly. With 40 more days before Iowa, the campaigns have little time to topple Romney in the early states... and it will become increasingly difficult for Mitt Romney to sustain all this criticism that is concentrating on him. Romney is in a position Howard Dean was in 4 years ago, though with a few key differences that could save him (such as his ability to spend his own money, the fact that his Iowa lead was prior and stronger to his New Hampshire lead).
Labels: KS-Pres
posted by Taniel at
1:09 PM
17 Comments:
This blog's author incessantly gushes with optimism for the Dems by pointing to polls in states like Kansas and Kentucky which obviously suggest difficulties for the GOP there. The only problem is that he's only showing one side of the story and isn't really thinking through what he's talking about.
If Hillary is doing so well in Kentucky and Kansas (supposedly) according to SUSA polls, why are her numbers so lacklustre or downright awful in states like Oregon, Missouri, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida and New Mexico?
If things are really as good as the author suggests, Hillary should be 20 or 30 points ahead in these states if she's in such striking distance in KS and KY! As JFK said, the rising tide lifts all ships, so this blog's argument is weak. The truth is that many voters aren't paying much attention to the races yet. A classic example is Alabama where polls suggest that Hillary is actually competitive, but a closer look at the poll shows that her popularity is extremely low there - and I'm sure it is in Kentucky and Kansas, too.
Yes, Republicans are ticked off but so are Democrats with this joke Congress we have. And don't think that the Dems' extremely low popularity won't have an effect on the elections - it will.
But alas this is typical speak for the lefties - don't forget what Terry McAullife said on Election Night 2002 - he claimed it had been a great night for the Democrats! Honest and clear-thinking reporting would be so much more refreshing!
By
Anonymous, At
26 November, 2007 15:52
Steve, I don't think this Congress is any worse than the Republican Congress we had from 1994 to 2006. At least this Congress didn't try to wreck Social Security and Medicare.
I was wondering if the blog owner knows about Julia Carson retiring in IN-07. With her retiring, Republicans have little chance of picking up that strongly Democratic district(John Kerry won 58% there).
By
Anonymous, At
26 November, 2007 17:44
anonymous,
This Congress doesn't have to try to wreck Social Security and Medicare. They will wreck themselves if they aren't fixed. My concern is that Pelosi, Reid, et al. are doing nothing to address the underlying issue of secure funding. Say what you will about the Republicans (and they certainly aren't my conservatives anymore, not if they leave such a massive budget deficit in their wake), but they were at least attempting a solution to the problem, regardless of what you might think about it.
Speaking of solutions to problems, how is this Congress doing? About as well as the last Congress. As I recall, both have had most of their top-priority initiatives halted by minority opposition in the Senate, and both have blamed the obstreperousness of the minority party for not letting them do whatever they want. That is, of course, the minority party's proper function, something both parties seem to understand when they're on the smaller side of the balance sheet. I always get amused when the Democrats say how little the GOP got done with three branches of the government under their control. Of course, that's because 50 senators does you much less good than 60...as they are finding out. Should the Republicans keep 40 senators, I would be surprised if a Democrat in the White House got much done either.
By
Anonymous, At
26 November, 2007 20:45
Steve,
I actually rarely use polls like Kentucky's to say that the election is in the bag for Democrats. The point I make over and over again is that the 2008 elections appear to be national, and that most polls in most states show a very tight election. Look at this post from November 13th for example that reviews a new poll from Connecticut and from Tennessee as evidence that blue states and red states are very close this time.
By
Taniel, At
26 November, 2007 21:11
"Speaking of solutions to problems, how is this Congress doing? About as well as the last Congress."
Are you kidding me? The Democrats passed a number of important bills. And if you think Bush vetoing some and the Republicans blocking others is going to hurt the Democrats this time around, you're nuts.
By
Anonymous, At
26 November, 2007 21:18
"If Hillary is doing so well in Kentucky and Kansas (supposedly) according to SUSA polls, why are her numbers so lacklustre or downright awful in states like Oregon, Missouri, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida and New Mexico?"
Two points...
1.) Four of those states you mention were won by Bush. So not doing well in them is not a huge sign.
2.) Of those six states, only Florida is outside the margin of error. In fact, Clinton is leading in most polls coming out of Oregon, Missouri, Pennsylvania, and New Mexico.
By
Anonymous, At
26 November, 2007 21:24
c.s. strowbridge,
I would like to hear your assessment of how far Nancy Pelosi has gotten with her "first hundred hours" plan, or how many budget bills Harry Reid has shepherded through the Senate. Much of the congressional calendar to date has been taken up with discussions over Iraq, investigations into the Bush administration, and attempts to push through legislation for which Democrats don't have the votes to either a) stop Senate debate or b) override a presidential veto. I'm not making any value judgments here as to correctness of purpose, by the way. I'm just saying that not a lot is getting done.
And while I think the Republicans in Congress won't come off looking too good for being obstructionist, I don't think the Democrats will emerge looking very well either. The current party in power is acting, at the moment, very much like the last party in power did immediately before they lost power--focusing on a small range of issues which their opponents have the Senate votes to block, while ignoring a much wider array of problems. The Democrats successfully launched a critique of Republicans in 2006 on precisely these grounds. I expect the Republicans to return the favor this coming cycle, albeit with only intermittent success.
As to the Democrats not being hurt, I suggest you rethink your critique. The Democrats have made themselves vulnerable to criticisms both from their own base (who can't understand why reforms aren't speeding through, and who don't want compromise) and from swing moderates (who probably expected to see a more compromise-oriented and less corrupt leadership, and only got one out of two). The Republicans in Congress will hardly stand to benefit from this unless the atmosphere changes radically, but I don't see any grounds for an assertion that the Democrats won't be hurt as well. I think this will probably be an anti-incumbent election, which stands to help the Democrats in the Senate, but might well leave the balance of power in the House about the same as some first-term Democrats get defeated.
By
Anonymous, At
27 November, 2007 01:28
"And while I think the Republicans in Congress won't come off looking too good for being obstructionist, I don't think the Democrats will emerge looking very well either."
http://www.pollingreport.com/cong2008.htm
Check the numbers. Poll after poll shows most people support the Democrats over the Republicans.
"The Republicans in Congress will hardly stand to benefit from this unless the atmosphere changes radically, but I don't see any grounds for an assertion that the Democrats won't be hurt as well."
How can both parties be hurt? Unless there's a third party ready to sweep in and pick up a bunch of seats, and I see no evidence for that.
Most people don't like what is happened in Congress.
Most people blame the Republicans more than the Democrats.
This will hurt the Republicans and help the Democrats.
By
Anonymous, At
27 November, 2007 04:28
First, I don't know how you reach into that data pile and pull out either of the following: "Most people don't like what is happened in Congress" and "Most people blame the Republicans more than the Democrats." None of these polls addresses that question. I know it's a tempting inference to draw when polls show support for one party over the other, but there is not necessarily a logical connection between the two. It might be, for example, Bush fatigue--something most of us can understand. It might be overhang from the number of Republican corruption scandals last cycle. It might be, and probably is, a mixture of these factors with others. My point is that this list doesn't necessarily reflect widespread blame for lack of Congressional activity...something that usually lands on the majority party, by the way, not the minority party.
Second, you do realize that it doesn't matter which party is supported nationwide, but which candidate gains the most support in each of 435 individual races, right? Most people generally favor throwing out most of Congress...but not THEIR congressperson, because they believe he or she is one of the few sane people on the Hill. Many polls still show that trend even today..."we don't like Congress, but our guy's OK." These polls you cited are all among them, by the way, with individual incumbents polling significantly higher than Congress as a whole.
As to how both parties could be hurt, I thought I mentioned in my last post that "this will probably be an anti-incumbent election"--and the only poll you cited that tracks this data over time, from FOX News, shows a downward trend among how people view their member of Congress. People like Conyers, Rangel, and Lucas (OK) won't be hurt by this trend, because they're in safe districts that love them. But swing districts are very likely to switch congressmen in cycles like this, and the Democratic majority in the House is built upon a number of moderate members from red-leaning districts. With a strong Republican at the top of the ticket, those districts come into play--perhaps even enough of them to offset Republican losses elsewhere, which is why I said the balance of power in the House might remain the same. This trend can only help the Democrats in the Senate, however, where Republicans are defending a majority of the competitive seats.
In sum, your analysis is extraordinarily simplistic. You seem to be taking the numbers at face value without accounting for any of the real-world variables underlying them.
By
Anonymous, At
27 November, 2007 09:47
Mr. Rational, I don't know if you realize this, but Congress is supposed to be the branch of government that slows things down. Congress exists to stop things even more so than to get things done.
As for swing districts in the House, most of the Democrats that hold them are heavily entrenched in their districts except for the new members. Many of the freshman don't even have top-tier opposition. Also, most of the Democrats that do have top tier opposition will likely be pulled to reelection by Hillary's coattails as she will win most of these districts, with the probably exception of IN-09, FL-16, TX-22, CA-11, and AZ-05.
By
Anonymous, At
27 November, 2007 15:55
anonymous,
Please refer to one of my above comments where I talk about the proper function of the minority party--which is to stand in the way of the majority party and force compromise...and, I should have added, to stop any legislation which isn't necessary and doesn't have broad support (on the theory that failing to pass a helpful law is preferable to passing a hurtful one). This would entail slowing down the business of Congress, no? So yes, I understand quite well that Congress exists to stop things from getting done.
However--and I don't know if you realize this--that which you describe is not the popular conception. The majority of American citizens apparently believe that Congress is supposed to take more affirmative positions. Harry Truman launched one of the most successful attacks in political history during the 1948 Presidential campaign, when he nicknamed the GOP-controlled body on Capitol Hill the "do-nothing Congress." It is still regarded as a valid criticism. A bit unfair in the current partisan atmosphere in Washington, when compromise of any stripe is not well-regarded by either party's base, but there you are.
Also, did it not occur to you that when I was talking about the Democratic majority being "built upon a number of moderate members from red-leaning districts," it is precisely those new members you indicate as not heavily entrenched to whom I was referring? Were those newly-elected members not the ones who gave their party the numbers for a majority? These are precisely the seats that a strong top-of-the-ticket presence for the GOP can bring into play.
The problem in relying on Clinton's numbers to pull the new moderate members through is that her name recognition is high and her like/dislike numbers are fairly balanced, never a good omen for coattail hopes in red-inclined districts (since more dislikes will be concentrated there). Local Democrats in those areas would do better to run on their own record. And if you believe, as I do, that this cycle will be anti-incumbent and anti-Washington, then you will see why top-tier candidates are not absolutely necessary to win a swing district with a vulnerable incumbent. This helps Democrats as far as the Senate is concerned, as I have said before...but I am still unconvinced that either party will have much of a net gain or loss in the House.
By
Anonymous, At
27 November, 2007 16:53
Mr. Rational, first of all, there are only a few districts that Democrats captured in 2006 that could be considered "red". They are AZ-05, CA-11, FL-16, KS-02, NC-11, IN-02, IN-08, IN-09, OH-18, PA-10, TX-22, WI-08. That is just twelve districts and even if Democrats were to lose every one of those seats, they would still have a 221-214 majority. The rest of the districts they captured are districts that are Democratic in a neutral year.
By
Anonymous, At
27 November, 2007 19:59
"First, I don't know how you reach into that data pile and pull out either of the following: "Most people don't like what is happened in Congress" and "Most people blame the Republicans more than the Democrats." None of these polls addresses that question."
Alright, Mr. Rational, try and live up to your name.
You've already said people don't like what is happening Congress, so I didn't need to post information.
However, the polls on that site showed people support the Democrats more than the Republicans.
Do you see how one could take those numbers and conclude people are blaming the Republicans more than the Democrats?
"Second, you do realize that it doesn't matter which party is supported nationwide, but which candidate gains the most support in each of 435 individual races, right?"
... You do realize there's a correlation between those two, right?
If more people support then nationally, then it suggests that districts that were normally tossups now lean Democratic and districts that normally lean Republican are now tossups.
Unless you have actual evidence to contradict that, then I'm more than willing to look at it.
"Most people generally favor throwing out most of Congress...but not THEIR congressperson,"
And you also said this would be an anti-incumbent election. Which is it?
"As to how both parties could be hurt, I thought I mentioned in my last post that 'this will probably be an anti-incumbent election'"
Are you stupid? (You don't need to answer that question, this is just frustrating.)
Both parties can't be hurt unless there's a third party to pick up the seats.
Elections are a zero sum game. If it hurts the Republicans, it helps the Democrats. It's not like they need a certain number of votes to get in. You can't vote none of the above.
So I ask again, how can both sides be hurt?
"But swing districts are very likely to switch congressmen in cycles like this"
And if more people support Democrats over Republicans, then that will mean more swing seats will currently be Republican than Democratic.
"and the Democratic majority in the House is built upon a number of moderate members from red-leaning districts."
Except these Democrats won in 2006, which means they are not that red-leaning. Now they are the incumbents, which as you have stated gives them an advantage. Their party is in power, they can raise more money, have more visibility, etc.
Unless you have actual evidence that the Democrats are in worse shape than they were going into 2006, there's no reason to believe the Republicans will stage a comeback in even a fraction of the 30+ seats the Democrats won.
"With a strong Republican at the top of the ticket, those districts come into play--"
And a strong Democrat pulls even more Republican held seats into play.
Unless you have some concrete numbers, you are merely talking about theory and not evidence.
"In sum, your analysis is extraordinarily simplistic. You seem to be taking the numbers at face value without accounting for any of the real-world variables underlying them."
I am taking real-world variables into account. I'm just not using your opinions on what might happen over what those numbers say are likely to happen.
Do the research. There are almost no non-partisan analysts that think the Republicans are going to make gains this year. And I doubt there are any who think they will regain power.
By
Anonymous, At
28 November, 2007 02:36
Also, Mr. Rational, if it is so anti-incumbent and anti-Washington, how come the country seems ready to elect Hillary Clinton, someone who has spent the last 15 years entrenched in Washington?
By
Anonymous, At
28 November, 2007 10:15
louis vuitton, prada handbags, kate spade outlet, ray ban sunglasses, nike air max, jordan shoes, nike outlet, michael kors outlet, ray ban sunglasses, longchamp outlet, longchamp outlet, longchamp, tiffany jewelry, cheap oakley sunglasses, replica watches, oakley sunglasses, tory burch outlet, tiffany and co, oakley sunglasses, ugg boots, louis vuitton outlet, ray ban sunglasses, ugg boots, replica watches, louboutin outlet, louboutin shoes, michael kors outlet, nike air max, burberry, nike free, chanel handbags, ugg boots, ugg boots, michael kors outlet, christian louboutin outlet, polo ralph lauren outlet, louis vuitton, polo ralph lauren outlet, michael kors outlet, oakley sunglasses, uggs on sale, michael kors, louis vuitton outlet, louboutin, gucci outlet, oakley sunglasses
By
oakleyses, At
15 November, 2015 20:37
oakley pas cher, nike air max, true religion jeans, tn pas cher, coach outlet, nike blazer, vanessa bruno, north face, coach factory outlet, lacoste pas cher, coach outlet, true religion jeans, hollister, ray ban uk, nike free run uk, abercrombie and fitch, vans pas cher, north face, ralph lauren pas cher, nike air max, burberry, lululemon, air jordan pas cher, michael kors, true religion jeans, kate spade handbags, nike roshe, ralph lauren uk, nike roshe run, nike air max, louboutin pas cher, ray ban pas cher, new balance pas cher, michael kors, converse pas cher, coach purses, air max, hermes, sac longchamp, hogan, nike free, true religion outlet, timberland, air force, sac guess, longchamp pas cher, michael kors, hollister pas cher, mulberry, michael kors
By
oakleyses, At
15 November, 2015 20:41
marc jacobs, doudoune canada goose, ugg,uggs,uggs canada, moncler, canada goose outlet, moncler, vans, converse, ugg,ugg australia,ugg italia, moncler, hollister, ugg boots uk, barbour jackets, gucci, bottes ugg, louis vuitton, michael kors outlet online, michael kors outlet, lancel, canada goose outlet, converse outlet, canada goose, pandora charms, barbour, canada goose, links of london, pandora jewelry, moncler outlet, coach outlet, moncler, pandora charms, replica watches, louis vuitton, canada goose, louis vuitton, nike air max, hollister, moncler, pandora jewelry, michael kors handbags, wedding dresses, ugg pas cher, swarovski, karen millen, juicy couture outlet, doke gabbana outlet, montre pas cher, canada goose uk, moncler, toms shoes, louis vuitton, ray ban
By
oakleyses, At
15 November, 2015 20:54
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home