The Occasional Observer

9 comments:

SheaHeyKid said...

Interesting, although I'm unclear what to make of the following results, if we compare the Rasmussen 1/20 survey (pre-Fred) to new IA (post-Fred):

McCain/Mitt/Rudy/Huck/Paul/Fred
IA 18/24/19/12/7/--
Ras 20/25/19/13/5/12

It looks like the numbers are the same both pre- and post-Fred, as though Fred's supporters simply went undeclared (I can't access the original IA poll to see if their undeclareds are higher than for Rasmussen).

In any case I like that both polls give Mitt a +5 advantage, although if Fred's supporters are still on the sidelines that could swing things. But, it seems likely that Mitt pulls his fair share of Fred guys, so even if McCain picks up a bunch I think Mitt might still have FL in the bag.

1/23/2008 3:20 PM

SheaHeyKid said...

BTW, one other story-within-a-story point to follow. If Mitt ends up winning the nomination, I think it speaks volumes about one of the main reasons why I want him to be president: his ability to react quickly to navigate complex, dynamic situations, and put together a winning plan.

Specifically, Mitt's original plan was to win in IA and NH, and use those early wins to propel him to victory in the other states despite less campaigning there. He also did not count on Huck (or any true SoCon candidate) as an opponent. Clearly neither of these two elements of his plan materialized, causing him to re-tool his strategy on the fly to change course and stay on top. So far he has done remarkably well in this regard. Contrast that with Rudy, whose initial plan doesn't seem to be working out (since he is now trailing in FL, NY, NJ, and CA), and he doesn't seem to be capable of turning the momentum around.

1/23/2008 3:26 PM

Fredo said...

Mitt's got the skillz (that's "skillz" with a "z"). No question.

Question is, can a flip-flopping Mormon who's a one-term governor and "corporate raider" (as he'll be painted) win an election against the Clinton-Nasty-Machine which will have him outfunded by a significant margin (assuming MItt's not planning on spending his entire $250 Mil net worth on the race).

1/23/2008 3:37 PM

Fredo said...

Unfortunately, right now the polls say no. I'm hoping the polls are wrong, b/c I think Mitt's in the driver's seat right now.

1/23/2008 4:00 PM

SheaHeyKid said...

I have to believe that a lot of the general election polls somehow primarily hit Dem voters, since in many cases they show Hill or Obama winning by 6-8+ points over rival Repub (except McCain who wins). Barring a 3rd party candidate running, I seriously doubt that any of the current Repub or Dem candidates wins the race by more than 3-4 points, and probably no more than 1-2 points. Now, of course, Mitt losing to Hill by 1 point is no better than him losing by 10 points, so if they are correct on the outcome but just wrong on the spread, we're screwed.

If Mitt wins the nomination he will have to balance a tricky line in picking a VP. On the one hand, a solid SoCon would shore up any of the base who are on the fence of just staying home b/c they don't want to vote for a Mormon. On the other hand, a more centrist person viewed as independent and honest ("McCain-like") would help pull in independent votes. Not sure which is more important in '08: to shore up the base and get every one of their votes, or to steal votes from the other side. Also comes down to whether Hillary brings out more voters for or against her.

Any thoughts? Has anyone published any analysis of this for '08?

1/23/2008 4:22 PM

Fredo said...

I disagree with you. I think it would not be unlikely, given the right set of circumstances, to see a Democratic candidate win the election with 50+% of the vote and a margin >5%.

Consider the incumbent President's dismal approval ratings. They are some of the worst on record, in the Nixon territory (Congressional approval ratings are not, IMO, very telling, b/c everyone always hates congress).

Consider the extreme unusualness of a 2 term-incumbent's party retaining the W.H., when the incumbent isn't running himself. You have G.H.W. Bush who managed to do it, on the shoulders of the most popular President of the modern era (I know Clinton's approval ratings are similar, but Reagan was popular despite being much more idelogical in a much more challenging period). Other than Bush 41, you would have to go back to Hoover in '28, and before him to the Reconstruction era Republicans.

Now we're going to get an economic downturn on top of the housing collapse. The President takes the heat on this stuff, regardless of whether that makes sense.

Point is, given the headwinds, we could lose this election decisively. Particularly if the candidate is Obama.

Against Billary, we at least can not-so-subtlely remind folks about Web Hubbell, Vince Foster, Rose Law Firm Docs, Travelgate, Whitewater, Amazing Future Trades!, etc. Plus the two-headed Presidency is not going to sit well with some folks.

We will need a truly outstanding candidate to win. Mitt's an outstanding executive. I can't say he's an outstanding candidate yet. His IA/NH strategy absolutely blew up. The reason he's surviving it is b/c he's out- bankrolling everyone, and is the most idelogically acceptable to the most people. He won't have the funding advantage in the general. The Mormon thing isn't a killer but it doesn't help. And people just don't seem to like Mitt. Mrs. Fredo tells me she feels like he's so slick, she's worried he's the figure in the Book of Revelations who seduces a good nation in order to undermine the world. Now that sounds a little nuts to me, but he just don't sit right with a lot of people.

McCain sits very well with the independent voter. He doesn't sit well with certain party insiders, but let's face it: they'll vote against Hill no matter what. McCain is solidly pro-life so I think the diehards will still come out, unlike for Rudy.

My main unease with McCain the candidate vs. Mitt the candidate from an electability standpoint is that I worry about whether McCain is up to task intellectually. Not saying he's unintelligent, he just projects a simplistic understanding of certain issues (like saying he wants to offset the temporary economic stimulus package with spending cuts- defeats the whole purpose). I worry he could be baited into making some bad statements that could come back to haunt him (Carville was licking his chops at running ads repeating McCain's statement from yesterday that the economy is fine).

I don't worry about that with Mitt. He's careful and savvy. I just worry with Mitt that he's seen as such a panderer (and lets face it, is a panderer) and that with all his other built in weaknesses, he's done before he starts. No matter how smart or good a campaign he runs.

1/23/2008 5:07 PM

SheaHeyKid said...

You raise some good points. Your complaint about McCain, an appearance (and perhaps a reality on certain issues) of being too simplistic is my main beef with Huck as well. I haven't seen anything from him to convince me that he has the intellectual chops to tackle the really tough challenges awaiting whoever wins in '08. Contrast that with say, Newt, who has the same ideology as Huck but clearly the intelligence as well.

As to Mitt, he will have to battle the "too smooth/slick" appearance, but this is obviously not as much of an issue if the opponent is Shrillary. I think he needs to turn his negative (appearance of pandering) into a positive. He needs to cast it that as an executive leader, in order to make the best decision for the most people it is important that he not only weigh his own beliefs but also the opinions of others. Thus, he needs to gather as much info as possible before taking a position on certain complicated issues.

Mitt's greatest strength is going to be if we are in a recession in late summer/early fall, positioning himself as the best person to steer the ship. He needs to play up his economic background, especially as this becomes the #1 issue in most voter polls. And most importantly he needs to make this message resonate with Main St, more than Wall St (who will already be on his side anyway). I am hopeful that he can go beyond the specifics of the auto industry in MI to have as much success on the national level with the average American as he did there.

1/23/2008 8:19 PM

SheaHeyKid said...

BTW, the longer and more bitter the Obama-Hillary feud is, the better for us. I doubt we can steal more than 1-2% of those voters, but the more acrimony they feel for the other candidate, the better chance we have with a Mitt or McCain to have at least some of them give us a look in Nov.

1/23/2008 8:22 PM

Fredo said...

This mortgagian contagian is undoubtedly the best thing to ever happen to the Romney campaign, and would be a big boon into the fall. Of course, another 75 bps out of the Fed and the problem could solve itself...

1/23/2008 9:34 PM