Worthy items for the Saturday election junkie in all of us:
Thompson Derided On First Iowa Visit
With the Iowa caucuses now, quite possibly, only sixteen weeks away, Fred Thompson is already being derided for finally making his first visit to Iowa. For example, he was ripped by Fox News. Also, CQ politics:
Too little and too late is what they're saying in Iowa about Fred Thompson's first trip there today as a possible presidential contender.(…)
Already, his schedule for today in Des Moines is drawing criticism as off the mark. The Des Moines Register notes that Thompson most needs to begin a meaningful dialogue with voters. But after reviewing his planned emphasis on photo-ops and private meetings with GOP leaders, the state's largest newspaper concludes that "he will have hardly begun that task by the time he leaves Iowa this afternoon."
It is starting to seem very unlikely that Fred Thomspon will be able to seriously compete in Iowa, which in turn makes it less likely that he can compete in New Hampshire, which in turn makes it less likely that he can compete in Michigan, which in turn makes it less likely that he can compete in South Carolina, which in turn make sit less likely that he can compete in Florida, etc. At this point, he has the resources to make a stand in only one state. Although for a while the question for Republicans was whether an alternative to "Rudy McRomney" would emerge in the primaries, now the Republican nomination might very well be Romney's to lose. Maybe Gingrich can still be the Republican nominee.
Bloomberg Definitely Out? Dan Rather says that Michael Bloomberg told him on august 9th that he was not going to run for President in 2008 under any circumstances:
Mr. Rather: Michael Bloomberg, mayor of New York, told me that he was not going to run for president. In a direct answer to a direct question, would he run under any circumstances, he danced around a bit and finally said 'No.' Furthermore, he said he wasn't open to even considering running as a vice presidential candidate with anybody, and he wouldn't take a place in anybody's cabinet."
Darn. I kind of hope Rather is wrong here. A Bloomberg run would make an already favorable Democratic electoral scene in 2008 even more favorable, as every poll with Bloomberg in the race shows he draws more support from Republicans than Democrats. Further, it would have the advantage of potentially exposing the DLC as a third-party splinter group, since much of their leadership is behind a Bloomberg run. I also like the idea of seeing billionaire centrist heroes like Bloomberg get waxed in the general election, thus showing LieberDems they have no real national base.
At this point in 2005, Republicans were dealing with nine open seats of an eventual total of twenty. Interestingly, only two of these nine were straight-up retirements, whereas the bulk of these early announcements were made by House members seeking a promotion to a statewide office. While the rumors and speculation are rampant, only five Republicans have announced retirements this year(…)
However, of these five, four are "straight-up" retirements, while the fifth (Duncan Hunter) may as well be, too. Additionally, retirements by Rick Renzi (AZ-01) and Ralph Regula (OH-16) seem all but official, and many are convinced that Dave Hobson (OH-07) will throw in the towel, as well.
To put it one way, in 2006, House Democrats benefited from Republican electoral hubris. Back then, there were more open seats at this point on the Republican side, but that was because so many House Republicans declared for higher office, which they almost all ended up losing. At this point, there are more "straight-up" retirements, and this is a trend we could see continue as more Republicans decide that being in the minority in the House isn't very fun.
One of the early spats (and just you wait -- the GOP race hasn't even begun to get nasty, but it absolutely will) found Mitt Romney attacking Rudy Giuliani, saying that when he was mayor, "New York was the poster child for sanctuary cities." Though Romney was technically incorrect (New York never actually declared itself a sanctuary city, though it was, and is, one in all but name), the attack hit its mark.(…)
[W]hen a party says again and again that you and people like you are the biggest problem facing the country, it's hard to muster up enthusiasm for its candidates. If the GOP keeps this up, Latino Republicans could become like gay Republicans, a tiny, beleaguered group waging a daily battle against cognitive dissonance, scapegoated by their own party and mocked by their friends for associating with people who despise them.
And it is already happening. In 2004, John Kerry won the Latino vote by 58-40 percent, a healthy 18-point margin. Since he lost the overall popular vote by 3 points, this means that Kerry outperformed his national numbers among Latinos by 21 points. In 2006, however, Latinos voted for Democratic congressional candidates by an overwhelming 69-30 percent, or 39 points. With Democrats winning the overall House vote nationally by 52-46 percent, Democrats outperformed among Latinos by 33 points.
It is not just Latinos and the LGBT community. Conservative attacks on numerous minorities are quickly making the Republican party a minority itself. For example, Arab-Americans were long a swing vote in the country, but in the wake of anti-Arab rhetoric and policies from conservatives after 9/11, they now favor Democrats by 30 points. Constantly scapegoating minorities might work for a while, but when the majority of the country becomes non-white and or non-Christian, it is electoral suicide. Check out the Open Left demographics archive for more on this.
As an anti-spam measure, there is a 24-hour waiting period after registering before new users can comment. blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
