Republicans on 08

I wondered about whether Brownback was showing signs of traction in the Republican '08 nomination contest a few days ago. Soren Dayton follows up on it at Eye on 08 by taking a look at the prospect, but then shooting it down.

Still, Brownback was reported saying the other day on Kansas PR that, "he'll use the internet to spread his message and raise campaign funds. He compared his position to that of Howard Dean and Jimmy Carter -- candidates who overcame a lack of name recognition to eventually win broader support."

And Markos notes the compacted Republican nominating calendar:

You thought the Democrats front-loaded in 2004?

Take a look at this calendar:

January 21: Iowa
January 28: New Hampshire
February 5: Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Michigan, Missouri, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Utah, and West Virginia.

That's 16 states in the first two weeks of the race, including delegate-rich New Jersey, Florida, Missouri and Michigan, giving the guy with the most media buzz and money an advantage. At this early point of the race, that person is McCain.

Feb 5th could benefit McCain, provided that he goes into the state with momentum; but let's say that McCain loses both Iowa (I'd say this is probable) and New Hampshire (less probable), then Feb 5th is not a deal closer.

It seems entirely possible that McCain fades over the next year, both with a conservative or two rising, and the becoming-more-likely possibility that Rudy gets into the contest.

Tags: Eye on 08, John McCain, Mitt Romney, Sam Brownback (all tags)



Guiliani, likely?

Granted, I'm a NYer, so my perceptions are warped, but I really think that the rest of the country hasn't seen enough of him to really feel comfortable voting for him, and once they have, they won't.

Besides being a  NYer, and Catholic, and divorced, pro-gay, and pro-choice, he's also somewhat short, somewhat funny looking (not truly telegenic), and has a lisp. I think that all of those, in combination, are going to doom him as a candidate once he starts appearing regularly on people's TV screens.

Then there's the Ray Kelly issue, his bout with prostate cancer, etc.

I never hated Guiliani as much as many because I didn't live in the city for much of his, ah, reign. But I was here on 9/11 and, yes, he got props from me for urging people to not react out of hate and fear because "hate did this." And yes, he was much more articulate than Bush. But then, who isn't?

I find it baffling that he's considered a  candidate with an actual shot at winning the nomination.

(To clarify, I don't really care that he's a NYer, or that he's Catholic, or that he's divorced. And hooray for moderate Republicans that stick to their "liberal" positions. It's just that, the way this country has been trending, I can't not see his stances, combined with his, ah... attributes?... as not being problematic, cumulatively, long-term.)

by renska 2006-12-14 04:25AM | 0 recs
Re: Republicans on 08

The GOP field sucks eggs. It really does. McCain's not a really good candidate in the primaries, but I can't see any of the others grabbing the mantle. Brownback's too out there, Romney's already having huge problems, Giuliani is too socially liberal and makes the Bush corruption look normal, Huckabee's just got a huge hole to climb out of and can't line up the big-money donors necessary for him to have a chance ...

Really, it seems strange to say, but Newt actually would have a decent shot at coming out of this, if the GOP primary season was in any way democratic. But it's not, so McCain will probably line up all the money support now that Romney is having troubles, and he'll stumble across the finish line propped up by the Rangers and Pioneers of the GOP.

The GOP primary is probably going to be extremely uninspiring.

by BriVT 2006-12-14 04:50AM | 0 recs
Re: Republicans on 08

The key contests (assuming no one else moves up) will be Florida, Michigan, and South Carolina. McCain has an inside track in Michigan (w/ possible Romney challenge), Giuliani would win Florida, and South Carolina up for grabs.

Unlike the CW, I think Giuliani can win (not necessarily predicting that he will win) the GOP nomination for two reasons: (1)money, and (2)his celebrity status has consistently absolved him from having to meet the same ideological litmus tests as other candidates.

by blueflorida 2006-12-14 04:51AM | 0 recs
Re: Republicans on 08

But, a celebrity liberal Republican cross-dresser from New York is an invitation for the first political assassination in years.

If Guiliani becomes the standard-bearer for the GOP, the whole party has to make decisions about who they are.

A Guiliani nomination could be a Dixiecrat-type crisis for the GOP.

by jcjcjc 2006-12-14 05:05AM | 0 recs
Re: Republicans on 08

Please let it be.

by robliberal 2006-12-14 06:11AM | 0 recs
Let's not forget the Wise Men of Washington

While the Wise Men of Washington who frequently bludgeon us poor Democrats with slop like Joe Lieberman, we should remember these abusive "centrist" jerks have a similar pull to annoy the Republicans.

If the Wise Men get their say, the GOP will try to suck on it and push through with Guiliani.

The problem ultimately for the GOP is gluing their coalition together in a stable fashion.

If it weren't for the Dixiecrats, I'd think the GOP might stand a chance.

While NE business elites are skipping to the Dems, in large thanks to the efforts of Schumer and Rangel, those elites would gladly skip back to the GOP given fair conditions.

The Rockefeller Republicans have to know the song is done playing.  If they didn't before Chaffee fell, they know now.  Those Republicans will be lost to the party for at least half a century at the soonest.

The Reagan Democrats are flocking back to the Dems fast, thanks mostly to Bush ruining the GOP on the national security issue.

And fiscal hawks have to be looking for the hemlock when they consider the Dems their best hope.

The only core of the GOP that's going to stay in place are the conservative wing of the Wise Men.  This means the "Great Nation" Teddy Roosevelt-wannabe Republicans who slobber all over McCain.  The problem is that Teddy's policy was perpetual international war without end.  Not exactly a winning strategy in 2008.

In truth, the Dems only fear is there is a dark horse we are missing, kind of the way the Republicans never saw Clinton coming in 1992.

Given the GOP's penchant to telegraph their winners years in advance, I don't see that happening.

In the end, I think they'll nominate St. McCain for lack of anyone better.  And they'll pay the price as McCain will make Bush's views on Iraq look downright pacifist.

by jcjcjc 2006-12-14 09:08AM | 0 recs
Don't underestimate the symbol of McCain

John McCain is probably the most successfully oversold brand in politics.

The only advantage Dems are gaining on McCain now is that Obama is now sucking some of McCain's oxygen out of the media's adoring elite.

by jcjcjc 2006-12-14 05:03AM | 0 recs
Re: Republicans on 08

I would imagine that North Carolina actually has more delegates than New Jersey and Missouri.  Making it the 3rd largest state on Feb 5.

NC is the 11th largest state.

by KickinIt 2006-12-14 05:09AM | 0 recs
Re: Republicans on 08

NC has the same number of electoral votes as NJ, 15 a piece.  NC may get extra votes because it has two Republican Senators (no Governor).  Jersey, of course, has Democrats in as Gov and Senator.

by David Kowalski 2006-12-14 06:00AM | 0 recs
Re: Republicans on 08

On related news, an NBC/WSJ poll finds that at this very early stage McCain leads Hillary and Obama, but McCain trails Edwards:

In some head-to-head match ups, McCain leads Clinton by four points (47 to 43 percent) and Obama by five points (43 percent to 38 percent). But — in an interesting twist — the Arizona senator trails Edwards by two points (43 percent to 41 percent).

Edwards, at this very early stage, also leads in Iowa:

Edwards, a former senator from North Carolina and the winner of the 2004 caucuses, was picked as the early preference of 36 percent of likely caucusgoers in the survey.

Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York came in second with 16 percent.

Third was Sen. Barack Obama with 13 percent, and Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack trailed in fourth place at 9 percent.

Again, it's very early, which is why the article notes the following:

Some elements of the race have changed since the poll was completed. Vilsack has formally announced his entry, Clinton has begun reaching out to Iowans, and Obama last weekend traveled to New Hampshire.

by bedobe 2006-12-14 05:15AM | 0 recs

is going to surprise a lot of pundits.  He has been working assiduously in all the early states and he will do very well in all of them.  If Obama runs, which seems likely, it will quickly become a two-person race: Obama and Edwards, with the loser ending up as the VP nominee for the winner, a good north-south combination punch.  That combo will beat any Republican nominee.

Just my speculation....

by Arthurkc 2006-12-14 05:26AM | 0 recs
Re: Republicans on 08

The key contest, IMO, comes on August 11, 2007.  The Iowa Straw Poll annoints the Republican front-runner based on money, money, more money and connections.  It cost $25 to cast a vote (paid by the campaigns) and these days campaigns also pay for busses, meals, and other goodies.  In 2000, only two candidates could actually compete there: W and Steve Forbes.  W got 50% and that made him the front-runner.  The other pols got out of Iowa and even though W limped home with 41% in the caucuses, he was set.

W spent the spring and early summer lining up money and making nice to corporate types particularly in areas like oil and chemicals.  This is now the approved route with a little courting of the fundies.

Since the wingers outdrew Bush decisively in the actually caucuses (Forbes 30%, Keyes 14%, Bauer 9% for a total of 53%), somebody like Brownback can easily win the caucusses.  But unless they have 5 or 10 million floating around they have no chance in the more important straw poll.

Rudy can get the money and so, perhaps, can Romney or Pataki.  I don't see two New Yorkers really competing so it should be a New Yorker, Romney, and McCain.  Arnold would have this sewn up but the US Constitution keeps him out.  I don't see McCain pulling it off.

by David Kowalski 2006-12-14 05:58AM | 0 recs
Re: Republicans on 08

Keyes and Bauer got 23% in the Iowa caucus?!  Oy.  That's really interesting.

Will Huckabee and Brownback please report to the office?

by texas dem 2006-12-14 12:44PM | 0 recs

I actually like his chances to be at least a "player" in the '08 race.  The crazies are going to rally around someone.  I dont think that "someone" will be Romney because of his social-liberal past.  The only other option apparent now is Huckabee.  I think that Brownback's strong identification with the Christian right, and the geographic proximity between Kansas and Iowa, gives him the best  chance of winning the "Christian Right" caucus in Iowa.  

If he wins Iowa outright, he will be well positioned for February 5th.  Several states will have a large vote from Christian conservatives, e.g. Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Missouri, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Utah, and West Virginia.  An Iowa win, which will generate a lot of cash, will make Brownback very competitive in these states; competitive enough that the race will be far from over at that point.

Can he win the nomination?  I doubt it.  I say this not because of his positions on social issues; those wont be what kills him.  Rather, he seems to be setting himself up as a "dove" on Iraq.  As the war is still relatively popular among conservatives, this position will allow McCain to eat away at his conservative support.  Also, Brownback will lose some support among conservatives to an "anti-inmigration" candidate as he is pretty moderate on this issue.  

by Andy Katz 2006-12-14 06:01AM | 0 recs
Re: Brownback

Brownback loses because he's too far left.  I love it!  God, the GOP dug their own grave when they started cultivating these voters.  Years of Limbaugh and Dobson have left them with a really wacked-out base.

by texas dem 2006-12-14 12:46PM | 0 recs


Advertise Blogads