This is getting too predictable to ignore. However, the media in general pretty much has. See if you can follow me on this.
In 2000, we were definitely changing presidents. It was a neck and neck race with two very politically diverse candidates running. One was a staunch conservative Republican and the other was a wide eyed radical liberal Democrat. The market had been kinda shaky as the dotcom bubble was bursting. People were kinda iffy about the housing market. A crash had been predicted for years, but hadn’t materialized.
In September, the race was really heating up. At that point, CNN had the race looking like this:
CNN Tracking poll
The liberal Democrat was ahead.
From that point on, the Dow gave up 11% of its value in a constant downslide that many people contributed to everything from lousy lending practices to speculative start-ups, to of course, the failed economic policies of the outgoing lame duck president. At the end of the race, the conservative Republican made a sudden lurch to pull ahead in the polls, and the Dow went up suddenly. The economy didn’t get any better, but the Dow did.
In 2004, we may or may not have switched a president. However, the incumbent pretty well held his own all the way through the race. Things were close tho. As the challenger, a wild eyed liberal Democrat led at times, the Dow gave up 4%. When it became evident the conservative Republican was going to win, once again a week or so before the race was over, the Dow recovered.
Fast forward to 2008. We’ve got a moderate to conservative Republican running against a wild eyed flaming liberal. The market was cruising pretty well going into the final three months. However, there has been a huge anti-Republican sentiment mostly in the media. The assumption of course, is that the Republican could not overcome this media/Hollywood revolt of all things Republican. The polls pretty well sort of reflect this monumental anti-Republican sentiment by having the liberal Democrat ahead going into the final three months. The Dow since that point has given up 25% of its value since 9/2/08. As the polled numbers got worse for the Republican, the slide has been incredible to watch, dropping nearly 700 points at a time.
So, what do I see from Zogby today, almost on cue?
|
Three Day Tracking Poll |
10-7 |
10-6 |
| Obama |
47.1% |
47.7% |
| McCain |
45.2% |
45.3% |
The race is tightening again.
Expect a recovery on the Dow tomorrow.
A recurring theme I’ve heard pretty much this entire primary is being repeated today during Super Tuesday:
I just don’t see how the South could vote for McCain (though we have before).
Now, I have never bought into that logic for several very simple reasons. First of all:
He obviously knows how to handle a gun. That’s important down here. While the other candidates might talk about handling guns, or the lack thereof, John’s played with some pretty big ones. He even got to shoot at other people. That scores as much or more with the NASCAR crowd than anything John Kerry ever hoped for. It’s not so much that John got to play with big guns, he was taken captive by the enemy and lived to talk about it. John therefore has one thing going for him that money can’t buy down here, the badass factor. Now, without intending to stigmatize the South, of which I am a part of, a LOT of people don’t dig too deep into the votes and history of the candidates. That’s true all over the country. What they do that, they look for the comfort factor. The blacks are going to lean towards Obama, the women will lean towards Hillary, the very religious will lean to Huckabee, the Mormons will lean to Romney, the uber-liberals with Paul. And, naturally, the self-perceived badasses will lean towards the guy that took one during a war. What that percentage of the vote is I don’t have a clue.
Secondly, after taking a hit from a big gun and being taken prisoner by the enemy and then living to talk about it, John came back home and did what any badass would do:
He nailed a smokin hot babe. To beef up that badass factor a little more, he was apparently doing it while he was married, to someone else.
And finally, he didn’t seek the endorsement of other politicians and or preachers, he got the consummate badass, Rambo et al:
5
Feb
It’s finally here. If you listen to media pundits, Obama’s got this in a landslide. If you look at the polls, Clinton’s got this in a landslide. I can’t wait to see how the media/polls difference is explained off again. ( Stolen election? Bad exit poll data? ) Bottom line, I think the media LOVES Obama a little too much. He’s a rising star, but I just don’t think he’s quite there yet. If he doesn’t pull it off in 2008, I think he could become formidable in 2012, regardless of who the incumbant president is. Of course, Alan Keyes was the media darling a few years ago as well…….
On the Republican side, both the pundits and the polls say it’s all once-dead-McCain now with Romney making a little noise in a couple of states. There is no difference between what the polls are saying and what the media are saying. So, there’s not much for me to watch apparently. Huckabee’s making a lot of noise, but media’s not listening. I doubt the people taking the polls are either. He peaked WAY too early and people apparently didn’t see enough there to hang on to.
On the Green side, I’m still anxiously waiting for the Cynthia McKinney/Ralph Nader debates. That is probably the most fun I’ll have outside of taking bets on how many times Clinton breaks down on camera to show she’s a caring human.
1
Feb
I went off a while back on Jesse Jackson. He seemed to think Barack Obama wasn’t black enough. Then of course, Hillary’s had some issues garnering every single female vote because she’s not womanly enough. Once Barack was declared the most liberal senator in the United States, Hillary also got the dubious label of not liberal enough. On the Republican side, Mike Huckabee soared to the top of the charts pre-New Hampshire based on his label as being the only one conservative enough. Once people checked him out and figured out he wasn’t conservative enough, he floundered in South Carolina. Which was kind of odd in a way, since he lost profoundly to the man that never was conservative enough.
So, the way things are looking right now, it seems the man that is liberal enough, primarily because he doesn’t vote very often, would face off against the man that’s considered not conservative enough, because he votes too much. I’m sure if McCain had skipped most of the votes in the last few years he could argue he’s conservative enough, even though he’s not.
And, the bigger point, I don’t want him to be. The media, in my opinion, have the entire political arena of the United States so screwed up it will take them a generation to figure it out.
A very simple clue here, when the perceived not-conservative-enough Republican front-runner of a month ago fell apart, he was almost immediately replaced by the perceived not-conservative-enough candidate who was considered dead in the water when the other not-conservative-enough candidate was in the race.
Is that simple enough?
30
Jan
In 1996, Ralph Nader electrified the disenchanted and ran as a third-party Green candidate for President. When it was all said and done, he came in fourth with .71% of the popular vote, not carrying enough votes to win one single small state. However, he did edge out Harry Browne ( remember him? ). This so motivated Nader that he decided to run again in 2000. In a highly polarized race, Nader garnered over 2.8 million votes, coming a distant third with 2.73% of the popular vote. In essence, he became the Ross Perot of 2000. It can easily be argued he cost Al Gore the election. Catapaulting on that dizzying feat, he ran again in 2004. He once again held third place, but this time with fewer votes than he got in 1996, nailing only .38% of the popular vote. Based on that twelve year span of losing profoundly badly, Ralph Nader is pondering a run this year as well. He doesn’t cite any popular support for his Green run. What he does cite perplexes me:
Nader, who ran as an independent candidate in each of the past three presidential elections, told ABCNews.com that he will run in 2008 if he is convinced over the next month that he would be able to raise $10 million over the course of the campaign — and attract enough lawyers willing to work free of charge to get his name on state ballots.
For someone who’s railed against corporate greed for forty years, he sure sounds like a corporate man to me.
I will give him this much tho. The Green Party debates would definitely be the ones to watch!
30
Jan
Given Rudy’s flop in Florida, I fully expected him to give up. However, given Edwards’ usual tenacity in the face of obvious defeat, I fully expected him to ride the entire race out, even if he didn’t do so well in the polls. The reason being I never thought he had a chance to win this one given the dynamics of facing two unique candidates. So, I will admit I am surprised he is bowing out this early. I figured his game was to garner a certain amount of delegates in order to have a carrot come nomination day for a major position within the next administration. As close as the race between Obama and Clinton is shaping up to be, possibly, he could have had a major impact on the nomination itself. Apparently I was wrong. He’s out as of today. I’m not sure why, and I’m sure his resignation speeches won’t say exactly why as no one ever does. I’ll be a lot more interested in who he endorses than Rudy’s endorsement, only because I fully expected Rudy to endorse McCain and he did. I really have no clue who, if anyone, Edwards might back. Although he couldn’t win the primaries, his 10% to 15% constituency could swing this thing. I gotta admit, this one does surprise me.
30
Jan
Could someone PLEASE explain to me again what the issue is and why it matters? We don’t elect a Pope or head of the church. We elect an administrator to safe-guard our military and fiscal spending. That’s all. What difference does it make what church that administrator is a member of? Are people afraid that if Mitt’s elected all their children will become Mormons? When Kennedy was elected did all the Southern Baptist or Jewish children rush to become Catholics? When Reagan was elected did the children rush to be whatever Reagan was? Once in office, the church of the President has been an almost non-issue. Even with Dubya, who’s as overtly religious as any President I’ve experienced, how many people can quickly name the church he belongs to?
Mitt’s a successful businessman. He obviously knows how to manage large groups of people and large sums of money. That is really all that is truly expected of a President. The fact he attends a minority church to me is just a little more attractive than giving Bill the opportunity to bang fat pages in the White House again.
So, once again, what’s the big deal about Mitt’s religion?
30
Jan
After putting all his eggs in one basket, Rudy did dismally in Florida. He’s out.
I had hopes for Rudy being a viable candidate, he just either chose, or was advised some really awful strategy. By ignoring all the previous primaries, he ignored all the free publicity that comes with it. Even if he hadn’t won in the other states, the news would have been talking about him and giving him the opportunity to rally the troops in Florida. As it was, they pretty much had to sit around for a month while everyone else grabbed the spotlight. Additionally, he had no momentum going into Florida.
Bad plan.
The good plan is immediately endorsing another candidate and keeping his name in the mix. I’m sure a lot of people cringe at the suggestion of a McCain/Giuliani ticket, but I kind of like the mix. Both conservative but neither too much so.
First, she lost this one:
Now, a lot’s being said about that one, but I think it’s over-rated as far as the average voter goes. He’s popular in Boston, but that’s about it. The only thing it does show is a crack in the Clinton “establishment”. Bill & Ted
However, the endorsement Hillary seems to be losing that DOES matter comes in the form of this pic from Collegehumor.com.
Namely, she got trounced in South Carolina leading right into Super Tuesday. Now, without going into a ton of research into exit polls and the like, my basic assumption that makes South Carolina different than, say, Nevada, is the minority population. Namely, the minority population that identifies with the guy that beat her. Some people were implying Obama wasn’t “black enough” to appeal en masse with the African-American voter, but I think Hillary’s a little too white to offset the implied whiteness of Barack. Where this gets touchy for Hillary is next Tuesday. Namely, 1,059 delegates are at stake in states that have more than 10% African-American voters. I use this as the criteria because otherwise, most serious candidates will garner somewhere in the neighborhood of 40% of the vote regardless of anything else. A 10% block of votes will swing that election. In South Carolina, that block came in at about 30%. Obama won with about 47% of the delegates. Needless to say, the math sure looks obvious. Using that same math for 2/5, it looks tough for Hillary. It’s not enough votes to seal up the primary, since Hillary’s leading at the moment, but it sure swings the momentum to Barack in a major way going into the last few remaining big delegate states the following couple of weeks. A few of those have very large African-American blocks as well. So, that pic of Hillary and the little girl just sort of struck me as being totally iconic to the situation Hillary’s in. The bigger problem for Hillary that I can see is I don’t have a clue what she can do to overcome the unfair advantage that familiarity with a candidate based on purely non-political issues presents. Maybe I’m wrong, and I hope I am, but I really don’t expect this race to become anything more than a one issue race that Hillary and Edwards will not be allowed to debate.
22
Jan
Fred Thompson has pretty much declared it’s over.
I honestly never saw any indication he was in it.
