Recently in Mitt Romney Category

By now you've read that Clinton "out-polled" Obama 51-45 in Nevada; but would it surprise you to discover that Obama won more delegates to the convention than Clinton?

Chris Bowers:

I've learned two things today. First, the Democratic presidential nomination system is not particularly democratic, since the system of delegate selection is different than the concept of one person one vote.

Second, I have learned that the national media is not actually covering the Democratic presidential nomination campaign. If the media was covering the Democratic presidential nomination campaign, then they would have projected Barack Obama as the winner of the Nevada caucuses, projected New Hampshire as a tie between Clinton and Obama, and declared that Clinton finished second in Iowa.

That is, after all, what actually happened in the Democratic presidential nomination campaign, which is based on delegates, not popular votes from states.

Instead of covering the Democratic presidential nomination campaign, the media is instead covering who wins the popular vote of individual states. While what the media is covering is interesting and closer to the concept of one person, one vote, it isn't the Democratic presidential nomination campaign.

In fact, the 51-45 outcome doesn't represent the percentage of the actual vote; not sure that anyone knows what that is.

P.S. Oh yeah: Romney's win in Nevada is "less significant" than McCain's win in South Carolina, even though Romney won more delegates yesterday than McCain.

"There is no greater voice against Republican candidates than Republican Mitt Romney. If he loses Michigan, he may be done. So, Michigan Democrats, you can keep this circular firing squad of jerkos alive. Vote for Romney. They may call it underhanded, but it's time for Michigan's mitten to take off the gloves."

P.S. Just can't see voting Romney in '08? Pick a different Romney. For example, Romney from 1994: "I will preserve and protect a woman's right to choose."

Or Romney in 2002: "We do have tough gun laws in Massachusetts and I support them."

Or Romney in 2006: "It is my pleasure to introduce my collaborator and friend, Senator Edward Kennedy."

Catch this guy on the right day and he's Che-frickin-Guevara.

Dang.

This is why I try so hard (yet fail so often) to not predict the outcome of political campaigns.

So, let's recap. Hillary Clinton wins this year's "Comeback Kid Award," doing something the original Comeback Kid never did: win the New Hampshire primary. Barack Obama gets the culinary workers union endorsement in Nevada, which I'm told "ensures his victory" in the caucuses there. In Michigan, Hillary is looking pretty smart now for leaving her name -- virtually unopposed -- on the ballot, so she'll get some positive press after her win there --and they'll count those delegates even if the DNC doesn't. And South Carolina? Wait and see. Same for Florida. And as for Super-duper Tuesday, it might as well take place in a galaxy far, far away.

[UPDATE: Cynics will point out that this is two elections in a row where the Clinton team was shocked by the results -- not exactly inspiring confidence in whoever is running that campaign.]

In other news:

John Edwards, who slammed Hillary for crying (and then blew off the question as to whether he himself had ever cried in a campaign setting) must feel kind of ... silly this morning. He'll be reading stories about how women voted for Hillary out of sympathy and solidarity, as evidenced by numbers showing that one-third of voters had not decided on their choice until the final three days of the campaign.

In other words, look for plenty of stories about how Edwards got trumped by the gender card ... again. Paging Rick Lazio!

[Actually, and in all fairness to Edwards, Clinton's win may have owed much more to the wave of Independent voters who voted for McCain and not Obama. Similarly, how'd the youth vote do -- did they turn out for Obama this time? I haven't seen any final results on that.]

Would it have killed John McCain to read his victory speech off a teleprompter? I got tired of looking at the top of his head while he read his dreadful victory speech word-for-word in that inconguous sing-song voice last night.

Mitt Romney: If you get a chance, watch any video of Romney's speech last night. Actually, watch Ann Romney, who was standing behind and to Mitt's left. When he says, "Well, we won another silver medal," Ann Romney briefly touches the side of her nose. In poker parlance, this is called "the tell." In other words, she's tired of hearing about the damn silver medals already and probably told him that when all the volunteers and campaign officials finally left them alone. Bet you a nickel!

Mike Huckabee: Anything is possible for him at this point.

Rudy Ghouliani: The traditional media has dubbed him the "real winner" last night, apparently because all his opponents are in disarray. That might be, but at some point the dude has to put some points on the board. That said, he did beat Ron Paul.

UPDATE: Fred Thompson: Yes, he got smoked by Dennis Kucinich AND Ron Paul.

by shep

Hi Mark,

On the News Hour New Hampshire Extravaganza, I thought your answer on Hillary’s "comeback" was brilliant (also a nice point on the "is blowing 20-point lead a great victory" question). At least, I agreed with it: roughly, female sympathy and backlash at the treatment Hillary has received from the press and her rivals over that last few days (why it wasn’t reflected even in late polling) turned the female vote out for her big time.

Wish I could say the same for your answer on McCain: “the anti-Bush”. Other than finally turning on Rumsfeld, and an all-too-tepid resistance to US sanctioned torture, he’s barely been off his knees before Bush since 2000.

I think the real Republican story is that rank-and-file Republicans, particularly Evangelicals, simply reject Romney (the Mormon) and Gulianni (the philandering New Yorker) and are choosing one of their own in Huckabee. Regardless of their automaton-like fealty to the Republican Party, they have been trained to despise (any) government (pretty shrewd of Huck to play the populist) and to do (and believe) what their preachers tell them.

Oh, and the (conspicuously unspoken) story with Edwards is that the corporate media ignored, marginalized or outright ridiculed him – because, obviously, they hate his anti-corporate, populist rhetoric – so his message never reached the voters who would be energized by it. Others simply bought into the media-framed “no chance against the frontrunners” status (breathtaking chutzpa considering that he came in second in Iowa).

IMHO, for what it's worth.

Best,
[shep]

[Cross-posted at Dispassionate Liberal]

The intrade.com prediction market has pegged the outcome of the Iowa caucuses for the Republicans (click the image for a larger view):

...and the Democrats (click the image for a larger view):

Intrade contracts trade between 0 and 100 so you can think of the price at any time to be the percentage probability of that event occurring. If the Obama Iowa caucus contract is trading at 61, it means that traders gave him a 61% chance of winning the caucus. Holders of those contracts will make a 39 cent profit per share if that happens.

On the other hand, if Edwards' Iowa caucus contract is trading at 16, it means that traders gave him a 16% chance of winning the caucus. And/But holders of those contracts will make a 84 cent profit per share if that happens.

UPDATE: First it was Kucinich throwing his support behind Obama in Iowa; now there are rumors that Richardson and Biden want their supporters to do the same if they cannot reach the magic 15% threshhold of viability.

(Cross posted at Daily Kos, with poll)

"Those who live by the crystal ball eat broken glass."

---- Michael Swanson, Wells Fargo Bank economist, 2004.

I'm not much of one to make predictions, but I do like looking at every possible angle. So with that in mind, I thought I'd collect a couple of the better pieces of electoral analysis for you today. They're pretty brief, but they take a look at the field the same way I might.

For the Democrats:

You don't need me to tell you that Iowa is close. It could be taken by any of the top tier Dems. Blitz boy, in an excellent diary that I'm summarizing here, has the Democratic race looking like this:

• IF Edwards wins Iowa AND IF Clinton comes in second, Obama is wounded. Clinton probably takes NH, MI and NV. Super Tuesday spells the end of the race: Clinton wins.
• IF Edwards wins Iowa, AND IF Hillary comes in third, then NH is a three-way race.

  Here's where it gets complicated:

  • IF Hillary then wins in NH, THEN she's the nominee.
  • However, IF Edwards is the NH winner AND IF Clinton is second, THEN Obama is toast. Clinton probably wins NV, SC and the nomination.
  • Lastly, IF Obama wins in NH AND IF Clinton is second, THEN she will still win MI and recover in NV. She's looking good on Super Tuesday.
  • Regardless, IF Clinton is third in NH, THEN she's toast and the race is between Edwards and Obama. Advantage: Obama.
• IF Obama wins Iowa AND NH, THEN he wins the nomination.


• IF Clinton wins Iowa, THEN it's over. She wins the nomination.

On the Republican side, Pat Buchanan has it this way:

• First off, IF Romney wins Iowa, THEN he'll win NH and MI and will probably be the nominee.
• However, IF Huckabee wins Iowa AND IF McCain's recent progress in NH is for real and he wins there, THEN Romney is on life-support. At that point, McCain has a real chance at the nomination by becoming the anti-Huckabee, especially if Thompson drops out and endorses him before SC. However, IF Huckabee wins SC, THEN Huckabee has the inside track.
• In fact, IF Huck wins Iowa AND IF Romney wins NH, THEN its curtains for everyone else and it will be a two man sprint to the finish: Mitt vs. Huck.

Summary observations on the rest of the field:

• Giuliani is close to toast. He'll lose Iowa and NH, then MI and SC. Even now, his firewall in Florida is crumbling. By Super Tuesday, IF he is 0-5, THEN it's over for him.
• Same for Thompson. He might have a good showing in Iowa (IF Romney and Huckabee rip each other apart), but he probably won't win there. He will also not win NH (where he is polling behind Ron Paul). Nor will he win in MI. After all that, he may not even make it to SC (where he is polling #3 behind Romney and Huckabee), let alone win it. In fact, IF he flops in Iowa, THEN he'll drop out and endorse McCain (see above).

So, two weeks out from Iowa, here are the odds, according to Pat Buchanan:

• Giuliani: 20-1
• Thompson: 20-1
• McCain: 6-1
• Romney: 3-2
• Huckabee: ?? Buchanan isn't taking bets on Huck, although he does see him likely finishing in the top two.

What do you think?

Mike Huckabee's support is soaring ... and why not? He's not a corrupt, cross-dressing sex addict from pushy New York City. No! Mike is not 178 years old and didn't sponsor a bill to send millions of Mexicans into Iowa to steal your job and do the Lambada with your daughter. No! Mike isn't made of plastic; he doesn't have the soul of a gameshow host from the 1970s and there's nothing magic about Mike Huckabees underwear.

If I was having more fun, I'd have to be twins.

Fun:
Huck: “Don’t Mormons believe that Jesus and Satan were brothers?”

Funner:
Christopher Hitchens on Huck: “[He’s a] moon-faced true believer and anti-Darwin pulpit-puncher from Arkansas who doesn’t seem to know the difference between being born again and born yesterday.”

Funnest:
The thought bubble above Benito Giuliani’s head: “w00t! I’m the moderate in this race!”

If I was having more fun, I'd have to be twins.

Fun:
Huck: “Don’t Mormons believe that Jesus and Satan were brothers?”

Funner:
Christopher Hitchens on Huck: “[He’s a] moon-faced true believer and anti-Darwin pulpit-puncher from Arkansas who doesn’t seem to know the difference between being born again and born yesterday.”

Funnest:
The thought bubble above Benito Giuliani’s head: “w00t! I’m the moderate in this race!”

Willard Milton Romney has a pretty steep hill to climb when he makes that address Thursday on his Mormon religion at the Bush Presidential Library in Texas. Bottom line for Romney: he has to put the Romeny brand on Mormonism and he has to get southern evangelicals to be OK with that.

Highlights from an interview with John Geer, professor of political science at Vanderbilt University and co-author of a survey assessing bias against Mormonism:

ON THE BIAS AGAINST MORMONISM

• Surveys show that only about half the population knows someone who is a Mormon.
  This is not surprising; only about 2-3% of the population is Mormon. This is a similar concentration to that of Jews. But a far greater percentage of the population knows a Jewish person. The difference is that, whereas Jews are concentrated on the east and west coasts, Mormons are largely concentrated in a few sparsely populated states. And this doesn't even begin to address the cultural crossover that is a result of the high profile Jewish people have traditionally had in the entertainment industry.
  
• Mormons are isolated
  A certain caricature of Mormonism has become ingrained: funny underwear, polygamy, a Bible-knockoff, etc.
  
• As a result, there is a strong bias against Mormonism.
  For example, among southern evangelicals (the key Republican constituency), bias against Mormoms rivals the bias against atheists.

ROMNEY'S CHALLENGE

• Romney needs to first address peoples' caricatures of Mormons.
  Surveys show that people who know Mitt Romney is a Mormon show far less bias [against Mormonism] than those who don't know he's a Mormon. By just being who he is, he's a kind of a role model, a spokesperson in some sense, for the Mormon religion. In other words, he needs to brand Mormonism with the Romney image.

COMPARING KENNEDY AND ROMNEY ON RELIGION

• Kennedy faced a lesser challenge.
  When Kennedy addressed his Catholicism and the biases against that, it was less of a hurdle because almost everybody knew Catholics.
  
• Romney needs to accomplish much more than Kennedy.
  Not everyone knows Mormons; therefore, Romney has to execute a delicate maneuver. He has to first let people know that he is a Mormon -- because people who know is one, have a higher opinion of Mormanism.

  Simultaneously, he he needs to illuminate key tenets of the Mormon religion is some way, e.g., polygamy is illegal, beliefs and policies towards blacks have changed, etc.

  Only by connecting his personal image with that of (a "benign") Mormonism can he then ask for people to be tolerant of a "religious" candidate.

COMPARING KENNEDY AND ROMNEY ON THE POLITICS OF RELIGION

• Kennedy's target audience.
  Kennedy's address to the Baptist ministers was really addressed to Democratic insiders. He knew that by going into the lion's den and addressing a body of Protestant clergymen on the issue of religious tolerance, he was demonstrating (to those with the real power) that he could be a mainstream candidate. Remember: Baptist ministers did not have the political power they have today.
  
• Romney's target audience.
  Flash forward 47 years: Protestant clergy (and lay people) have tremendous power within the Republican party. Romney is appealing to an audience that is powerful, and also very much biased against him.

Of course, this doesn't even begin to address the impact that Mike Huckabee, an ordained Baptist clergyman, is having on an extremely fluid Republican primary campaign.