I think the Democrats are on to something--or at least some of them anyway. Before you move onto another site, hear me out.
My last post I talked a bit about the jumping primary schedule. Both the DNC and the RNC have been trying very hard to keep states from jumping ahead, mainly by threatening to take away a state's half or full (as in the case of Florida and the DNC) convention delegates. It doesn't appear to have done much yet as Michigan appears to have jumped to Jan 15th, and Wyoming to January 5th
So why not use the candidates themselves to keep the schedule as set by the national committees? You may have heard that the chairs of the Iowa, New Hampshire,Nevada, and South Carolina Democrat Parties sent letters to the Democrat presidential candidates asking them to pledge to keep the primary schedule as set by the DNC. Pretty much all of them, including Clinton, Obama, and Edwards, have taken the pledge. Bill Richardson this weekend even proclaimed that God wanted Iowa to be first in the nation.
My question is why are Republicans not doing the same thing?
John McCain probably came the closest of any of the Republican hopefuls this weekend when he said that the traditional spot for Iowa and New Hampshire should remain the way it has been, and said he would consider skipping any state that moves to disrupt the calendar. In his stop at Jewell on Sunday night, he said that Iowa and New Hampshire were the best at determining character in candidates, and by not having us and NH up front means that candidates will not have that one-on-one vetting and political campaigns will be run almost only as advertisements on TV and the internet.
Why shouldn't Ray Hoffman and his counterparts in New Hampshire and South Carolina send out letters asking candidates to pledge to not campaign in states to move ahead in the schedule? RPI wasn't shy about expressing its feelings on McCain, Giuliani and Thompson skipping the Iowa Straw Poll. Why should it be shy now?
This would probably be the most effective way to stop the calendar shuffling, and it will mean more if all of the candidates in both parties pledge to not campaign in the jumping states. One would think that a state wouldn't choose to jump ahead if they know it won't bring any more candidate face time than they currently have. But it needs to be done ASAP, before Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm signs the bill that would move their primary up, and before any other states decide to jump ahead as well.
------------------------------------
Stay Awake
Pay Attention
Always Vote
Tuesday, September 4, 2007
Sunday, September 2, 2007
Iowa's Influence in the Primary Cycle
Ross Kaminsky as an interesting piece at Real Clear Politics on the influence of Iowa and New Hampshire. Kaminsky argues that Iowa and New Hampshire is loosing it's influence in the primary schedule. Romney is leading by between 10 and 15 points in both Iowa and New Hampshire, while Giuliani is leading in a number of the February 5th states, as well as in the national polls.
Kaminsky argues that while focusing on Iowa and New Hampshire is probably the best strategy for Romney, in the end it won't help him with the nomination because the compact schedule will prevent him from gaining on any momentum in the later states (particularly the February 5th states) where Giuliani has a good hold.
While I think that Kaminsky is on to something, and indeed I pretty much agree that the nomination will come down to a question of strategy, I still wonder.
If you look at the polls and the poll averages at Real Clear Politics, you'll see that the one in the lead only has, at most, a support in the low thirties. There is also about 20% or so, maybe more or maybe less, of the respondents who didn't have an opinion. Combine this with the well known statistic that an overwhelming majority of caucus/primary goers do not choose who they vote for until the week or even the day before the voting.
So, in theory, Romney could win several of the lead off states and gain the support of those late deciders in later states. Of course this would depend greatly on how the media spins the early state results as well as how the other top candidates perform. For instance, with Giuliani's positions that are in conflict with voters in Iowa, New Hampshire, etc, he would still look strong coming in 2nd or 3rd in the early states, and maintain his positioning in the later states.
Another question is where will supporters go when their candidate drops out? It might lead the number 2 or 3 man to look more competitive in the state, but they could also pad the leader's numbers and make him look even better.
So Iowa and New Hampshire could still have some kind of influence on the later states.
In the end, it's not over yet and the big questions--how will the new calendar affect who is the nominee and how it effects Iowa's and New Hampshire's influence--has a while before it's answered.
UPDATE: Mathew Continetti at The Weekly Standard is thinking along the same lines in an article where he looks at Giuliani's chances at winning the nomination.
-------------------------------------------------
Stay Awake
Pay Attention
Always Vote
Kaminsky argues that while focusing on Iowa and New Hampshire is probably the best strategy for Romney, in the end it won't help him with the nomination because the compact schedule will prevent him from gaining on any momentum in the later states (particularly the February 5th states) where Giuliani has a good hold.
While I think that Kaminsky is on to something, and indeed I pretty much agree that the nomination will come down to a question of strategy, I still wonder.
If you look at the polls and the poll averages at Real Clear Politics, you'll see that the one in the lead only has, at most, a support in the low thirties. There is also about 20% or so, maybe more or maybe less, of the respondents who didn't have an opinion. Combine this with the well known statistic that an overwhelming majority of caucus/primary goers do not choose who they vote for until the week or even the day before the voting.
So, in theory, Romney could win several of the lead off states and gain the support of those late deciders in later states. Of course this would depend greatly on how the media spins the early state results as well as how the other top candidates perform. For instance, with Giuliani's positions that are in conflict with voters in Iowa, New Hampshire, etc, he would still look strong coming in 2nd or 3rd in the early states, and maintain his positioning in the later states.
Another question is where will supporters go when their candidate drops out? It might lead the number 2 or 3 man to look more competitive in the state, but they could also pad the leader's numbers and make him look even better.
So Iowa and New Hampshire could still have some kind of influence on the later states.
In the end, it's not over yet and the big questions--how will the new calendar affect who is the nominee and how it effects Iowa's and New Hampshire's influence--has a while before it's answered.
UPDATE: Mathew Continetti at The Weekly Standard is thinking along the same lines in an article where he looks at Giuliani's chances at winning the nomination.
-------------------------------------------------
Stay Awake
Pay Attention
Always Vote
Friday, August 31, 2007
On the Recent Unpleasantness
As you've probably heard by now, District Judge Robert Hanson down in Polk County single handedly decided that Iowa would recognize gay marriage. The actual ruling is here, thanks to Stanley Kurtz at National Review Online today (see below). A stay was issued today, but not before 21 licenses were handed out, with one couple from Ames actually getting married before the stay was put in place. Jonathan Martin has a piece up on his blog at The Politico.com about this, and has a map depicting what states allow same-sex marriage, civil unions or partnerships. Notice that the highlighted states are on the coasts, except for Iowa, right in the middle.
Kudos to Mitt Romney for sending this message out fairly soon after the announcement: "The ruling in Iowa today is another example of an activist court and unelected judges trying to redefine marriage and disregard the will of the people as expressed through Iowa's Defense of Marriage Act. This once again highlights the need for a Federal Marriage Amendment to protect the traditional definition of marriage as between one man and one woman."
According to Jonathan Martin at the above link, John McCain issued a press release saying that "the decision "a loss for the traditional family,' and noting that he supports 'the traditional definition of marriage as between one man and one woman."
Chris Rants issued this release:
“Judge Hanson’s shocking action today has reversed the will of the people of Iowa, the will of the Legislature,” said Rants. “Democrats, in trying to appease special interest groups, allowed this to happen with their opposition to a marriage amendment. If Gov. Culver and Legislative Democrats proceed with a special session regarding the date of the Iowa caucus, Democrats need to step up and put this issue to rest by introducing a marriage amendment to Iowa’s Constitution.”
Rants added that House Republicans would support a Constitutional amendment which would ban gay marriage in the state of Iowa. “The over-stepping and stunning action taken by this court today proves that work on a Constitutional marriage amendment must begin immediately.”
And Governor Culver, a little surprising I might say, issued this release: “While some Iowans may disagree on this issue, I personally believe marriage is between a man and a woman.
“I also believe in the rule of law and respect for the judicial process. I have not had the opportunity to review today's opinion from the Polk County District Court. I understand this ruling is one step that is subject to appeal, up to and including the Supreme Court. I will continue to follow this matter closely as it continues through the judicial system before determining whether any additional legislative actions are appropriate or necessary."
This ruling should outrage everyone. There are several different aspects of this case that can be discussed.
The first obvious issue is gay marriage. Is marriage to remain as one man and one woman, or can/could/should the definition of marriage be changed to same sex or anything else? Stanley Kurtz at National Review Online today brought this up. He opened his post with this: I’ve only glanced at the Iowa decision, so this is nothing like a final or fully considered analysis. Still, I was struck by one particular phrase in the decision: "In addition, their [i.e. same-sex couples’] exclusion [from marriage] defeats the state’s admitted interest in the welfare of all [emphasis original] of its children, regardless of whether they are parented by different-sex couples, same-sex couples or any other family unit [p. 58, my emphasis]. Its a good post that I recommend you read, as well as the "Beyond Same Sex Marriage" manifesto he links to. He brings up an important point. Opponents of same sex marriage have argued almost from day one about the slippery slope---same sex marriage leading to polygamy, or something else. It appears that the slope is more real that some would have you believe.
Second, and I would argue more important, is what is the role of judges in our government? Are judges there to interpret law, or make law? The constitution, both federal and state, says that the legislature makes law, while the judicial interprets that law. They don't read into the law what they want, they don't make things up and say its in there with some creative wording (Justice Douglas' "specific guarantees in the Bill of Rights have penumbras, formed by emanations from those guarantees that help give them life and substance" in Roe v. Wade). Is Iowa going to stand by and allow law to be made from the bench, or will we, the electorate as well as our elected officials stand up and keep the right to make law only with the legislative branch?
Third is the option of constitutional amendments. It's fairly obvious that there will be a huge push for a change in the Iowa constitution. The question though is how many states will likewise see a push for constitutional amendments (currently there are twenty-six states with the amendment), and will there be a new push for a federal amendment? It will be interesting to see how this issue plays out with the presidential candidates. Mitt Romney supports a federal amendment, while John McCain and Fred Thompson have voiced their support for individual state amendments instead. I'm not sure where the other candidates stand on the issue, but I'm sure we'll find out soon enough.
Finally, this is an issue that is going to energize Republicans across the state. In Iowa, a constitutional amendment needs to be read in the legislature during two consecutive sessions before being passed onto a state wide referendum. So while an actual amendment won't be on the ballot in 2008 (unless a special session would count as one session, then the 2008 session as number two), Republicans will come out in force to vote against anyone who doesn't support an amendment. Everybody running for office this cycle, from presidential candidates all the way down to the local level, is going to be asked repeatedly what his or her stance is on this and if they will support a constitutional amendment banning same sex marriage. Their responses need to be recorded and distributed so everyone knows. Even those not facing reelection this cycle need to be repeatedly asked about this.
The effects of Robert Hanson's actions won't only be seen here in Iowa however. It's going to be felt across the county. Before, the only states anyone saw this happening was in California, Massachusetts, and other bastions of liberalism along the coasts. Again, see the map posted in the first paragraph. Nobody expected this to happen in Iowa. Iowa was probably the last place, outside of the south, where someone might expect this. But it happened. And if it can happen in Iowa, it can happen anywhere.
-------------------------------------------------
Stay Awake
Pay Attention
Always Vote
Kudos to Mitt Romney for sending this message out fairly soon after the announcement: "The ruling in Iowa today is another example of an activist court and unelected judges trying to redefine marriage and disregard the will of the people as expressed through Iowa's Defense of Marriage Act. This once again highlights the need for a Federal Marriage Amendment to protect the traditional definition of marriage as between one man and one woman."
According to Jonathan Martin at the above link, John McCain issued a press release saying that "the decision "a loss for the traditional family,' and noting that he supports 'the traditional definition of marriage as between one man and one woman."
Chris Rants issued this release:
“Judge Hanson’s shocking action today has reversed the will of the people of Iowa, the will of the Legislature,” said Rants. “Democrats, in trying to appease special interest groups, allowed this to happen with their opposition to a marriage amendment. If Gov. Culver and Legislative Democrats proceed with a special session regarding the date of the Iowa caucus, Democrats need to step up and put this issue to rest by introducing a marriage amendment to Iowa’s Constitution.”
Rants added that House Republicans would support a Constitutional amendment which would ban gay marriage in the state of Iowa. “The over-stepping and stunning action taken by this court today proves that work on a Constitutional marriage amendment must begin immediately.”
And Governor Culver, a little surprising I might say, issued this release: “While some Iowans may disagree on this issue, I personally believe marriage is between a man and a woman.
“I also believe in the rule of law and respect for the judicial process. I have not had the opportunity to review today's opinion from the Polk County District Court. I understand this ruling is one step that is subject to appeal, up to and including the Supreme Court. I will continue to follow this matter closely as it continues through the judicial system before determining whether any additional legislative actions are appropriate or necessary."
This ruling should outrage everyone. There are several different aspects of this case that can be discussed.
The first obvious issue is gay marriage. Is marriage to remain as one man and one woman, or can/could/should the definition of marriage be changed to same sex or anything else? Stanley Kurtz at National Review Online today brought this up. He opened his post with this: I’ve only glanced at the Iowa decision, so this is nothing like a final or fully considered analysis. Still, I was struck by one particular phrase in the decision: "In addition, their [i.e. same-sex couples’] exclusion [from marriage] defeats the state’s admitted interest in the welfare of all [emphasis original] of its children, regardless of whether they are parented by different-sex couples, same-sex couples or any other family unit [p. 58, my emphasis]. Its a good post that I recommend you read, as well as the "Beyond Same Sex Marriage" manifesto he links to. He brings up an important point. Opponents of same sex marriage have argued almost from day one about the slippery slope---same sex marriage leading to polygamy, or something else. It appears that the slope is more real that some would have you believe.
Second, and I would argue more important, is what is the role of judges in our government? Are judges there to interpret law, or make law? The constitution, both federal and state, says that the legislature makes law, while the judicial interprets that law. They don't read into the law what they want, they don't make things up and say its in there with some creative wording (Justice Douglas' "specific guarantees in the Bill of Rights have penumbras, formed by emanations from those guarantees that help give them life and substance" in Roe v. Wade). Is Iowa going to stand by and allow law to be made from the bench, or will we, the electorate as well as our elected officials stand up and keep the right to make law only with the legislative branch?
Third is the option of constitutional amendments. It's fairly obvious that there will be a huge push for a change in the Iowa constitution. The question though is how many states will likewise see a push for constitutional amendments (currently there are twenty-six states with the amendment), and will there be a new push for a federal amendment? It will be interesting to see how this issue plays out with the presidential candidates. Mitt Romney supports a federal amendment, while John McCain and Fred Thompson have voiced their support for individual state amendments instead. I'm not sure where the other candidates stand on the issue, but I'm sure we'll find out soon enough.
Finally, this is an issue that is going to energize Republicans across the state. In Iowa, a constitutional amendment needs to be read in the legislature during two consecutive sessions before being passed onto a state wide referendum. So while an actual amendment won't be on the ballot in 2008 (unless a special session would count as one session, then the 2008 session as number two), Republicans will come out in force to vote against anyone who doesn't support an amendment. Everybody running for office this cycle, from presidential candidates all the way down to the local level, is going to be asked repeatedly what his or her stance is on this and if they will support a constitutional amendment banning same sex marriage. Their responses need to be recorded and distributed so everyone knows. Even those not facing reelection this cycle need to be repeatedly asked about this.
The effects of Robert Hanson's actions won't only be seen here in Iowa however. It's going to be felt across the county. Before, the only states anyone saw this happening was in California, Massachusetts, and other bastions of liberalism along the coasts. Again, see the map posted in the first paragraph. Nobody expected this to happen in Iowa. Iowa was probably the last place, outside of the south, where someone might expect this. But it happened. And if it can happen in Iowa, it can happen anywhere.
-------------------------------------------------
Stay Awake
Pay Attention
Always Vote
Wednesday, August 29, 2007
A Few Things After a Long Break
Sorry for such a delay in posting. I've been a little busy lately, but now it looks like I might be able to post a little bit more. For now, a few odds and ends that have come up in the past few weeks.
---The last post was about the Fair Tax rally in Fort Dodge on August 4th. The rain put a little damper on the event, but it was moved to the canopy at the library entrance, and still there was a pretty good crowd for the weather. Many of them seemed to walk away if not enthused about the Fair Tax, at least with a peaked interest. The organization gave away free hats, t-shirts, and tickets and transportation to the Iowa Straw Poll. There was also a video booth where the participant could make a short video about their tax experiences, what they hate about the IRS, etc, with the best video winning $500. I saw two or three people go in, but I'm not sure who the winner was.
---The Iowa Straw Poll, in my opinion as well as the opinion of those who went, was a success. The media was filled with stories about how the numbers were way down, it was anti-climatic as Romney, as expected, won and Giuliani, McCain and Fred Thompson did not participate; it only weeded one candidate from the the field (Tommy Thompson); yadda yadda yadda. First off, everyone was comparing this year's straw poll with the 1999 one, which itself was an anomaly. The number of attendees in 1999 vastly exceeded what was planned for, which was why there were problems with voting and such. It was a pretty hot day in Ames, which very likely kept many at home, especially those with any health problems. RPI did a very good job with planning and logistics. The event itself, except for the minor recount at the end, went off almost without a hitch. Everything was orderly, and everyone seemed to be having a good time and enjoying themselves. The size of the tents and crowds at the Brownback and Romney tent was impressive. Romney actually had two tents--a "kitchen" where you picked up your food, and a "mess hall" where you could sit down and eat-- as well as a stage with a giant video screen that aired Romney's speech live. The Fair Tax tent was also impressive. It was air conditioned which served pretty good tenderloins, and had a faris wheel and several other games outside.
---Finally, the primary schedule. To put it bluntly, this is getting ridiculous. All eyes have been on Florida lately, with it wanting to move up to January 29th, and the DNC and RNC in turn threating to take away half or all of their convention delegates if they actually did so. Today comes news that Wyoming has moved their date to JANUARY 5TH. This will push New Hampshire and Iowa into December. That means we'll be heading to caucuses in about three and a half months. That means that on that drive, we'll be listening to Christmas music on the radio, and pass Christmas lights on the way. Some might even go Christmas shopping afterwards if all goes speedy.
The dates and methods of choosing convention delegates and how electoral votes will be apportioned has always been up to the states. If you've ever read Sean Wilentz's The Rise of American Democracy, or some other work about the political history before the Civil War, you'll see examples of this, and how things changed over the years. But the days of the states deciding for themselves when they hold their caucus or primary are almost over. In the next congress, there will be some bill creating a national primary day or days, thus stripping another power away from the states. My guess is that the states will divided into 3-4 groups, with fairly even numbers of large and small states, that will rotate among set primary dates every four years. Iowa and New Hampshire will be in no place to do anything about it as their delegations are small, and it won't help Iowa's case with the likely possibility of us losing a congressional seat next redistricting. This also means that the days of retail politics, where the candidate has to greet people and pass the one-on-one test, are pretty much done as well. If the next primary cycle features a large number of states grouped on the same day, the campaigns will organize the larger, less personable events than what we are used to now. Enjoy it while it lasts folks, and you know what states you can thank.
---------------------------------------------
Stay Awake
Pay Attention
Always Vote
---The last post was about the Fair Tax rally in Fort Dodge on August 4th. The rain put a little damper on the event, but it was moved to the canopy at the library entrance, and still there was a pretty good crowd for the weather. Many of them seemed to walk away if not enthused about the Fair Tax, at least with a peaked interest. The organization gave away free hats, t-shirts, and tickets and transportation to the Iowa Straw Poll. There was also a video booth where the participant could make a short video about their tax experiences, what they hate about the IRS, etc, with the best video winning $500. I saw two or three people go in, but I'm not sure who the winner was.
---The Iowa Straw Poll, in my opinion as well as the opinion of those who went, was a success. The media was filled with stories about how the numbers were way down, it was anti-climatic as Romney, as expected, won and Giuliani, McCain and Fred Thompson did not participate; it only weeded one candidate from the the field (Tommy Thompson); yadda yadda yadda. First off, everyone was comparing this year's straw poll with the 1999 one, which itself was an anomaly. The number of attendees in 1999 vastly exceeded what was planned for, which was why there were problems with voting and such. It was a pretty hot day in Ames, which very likely kept many at home, especially those with any health problems. RPI did a very good job with planning and logistics. The event itself, except for the minor recount at the end, went off almost without a hitch. Everything was orderly, and everyone seemed to be having a good time and enjoying themselves. The size of the tents and crowds at the Brownback and Romney tent was impressive. Romney actually had two tents--a "kitchen" where you picked up your food, and a "mess hall" where you could sit down and eat-- as well as a stage with a giant video screen that aired Romney's speech live. The Fair Tax tent was also impressive. It was air conditioned which served pretty good tenderloins, and had a faris wheel and several other games outside.
---Finally, the primary schedule. To put it bluntly, this is getting ridiculous. All eyes have been on Florida lately, with it wanting to move up to January 29th, and the DNC and RNC in turn threating to take away half or all of their convention delegates if they actually did so. Today comes news that Wyoming has moved their date to JANUARY 5TH. This will push New Hampshire and Iowa into December. That means we'll be heading to caucuses in about three and a half months. That means that on that drive, we'll be listening to Christmas music on the radio, and pass Christmas lights on the way. Some might even go Christmas shopping afterwards if all goes speedy.
The dates and methods of choosing convention delegates and how electoral votes will be apportioned has always been up to the states. If you've ever read Sean Wilentz's The Rise of American Democracy, or some other work about the political history before the Civil War, you'll see examples of this, and how things changed over the years. But the days of the states deciding for themselves when they hold their caucus or primary are almost over. In the next congress, there will be some bill creating a national primary day or days, thus stripping another power away from the states. My guess is that the states will divided into 3-4 groups, with fairly even numbers of large and small states, that will rotate among set primary dates every four years. Iowa and New Hampshire will be in no place to do anything about it as their delegations are small, and it won't help Iowa's case with the likely possibility of us losing a congressional seat next redistricting. This also means that the days of retail politics, where the candidate has to greet people and pass the one-on-one test, are pretty much done as well. If the next primary cycle features a large number of states grouped on the same day, the campaigns will organize the larger, less personable events than what we are used to now. Enjoy it while it lasts folks, and you know what states you can thank.
---------------------------------------------
Stay Awake
Pay Attention
Always Vote
Thursday, August 2, 2007
Fair Tax Rally
The Fair Tax organization will have a rally in front of the Fort Dodge Rally on SATURDAY, AUGUST 4TH FROM 11:30-1:30. There will be a free catered lunch, free hats, t-shirts, Iowa Straw Poll tickets and transportation, as well as a contest where you can win $500 if you make a 30-60 second video about what you don't like about the IRS. This is part of the giant bus tour the Fair Tax organization is conduction across Iowa before the Iowa Straw Poll.
In case you don't know what Fair Tax is, it is a national sales tax that would replace the federal income tax and the IRS. Presidential candidates Tom Tancredo and Duncan Hunter, along with Iowa's very own Steve King are co-sponsors of the House bill; Mike Huckabee has made Fair Tax one of his main issues in his campaign; and John McCain and Tommy Thompson have said they will sign it if it comes across their desk. You can find the co-sponsors of HF25 and S1025 here, and where other US House and Senate members stand on Fair Tax here. The Fair Tax is also an official plank of the Republican Party of Iowa platform (13.6 under the "Taxes and Spending" section).
There will be a giant Fair Tax rally at the Iowa Straw Poll on August 11th that the organization would love to get everyone involved with.
So whether you are a supporter, or aren't quite sure yet, come on out and hear more about the Fair Tax on Saturday. It'll be worth your time.
---------------------------------
Stay Awake
Pay Attention
Always Vote
In case you don't know what Fair Tax is, it is a national sales tax that would replace the federal income tax and the IRS. Presidential candidates Tom Tancredo and Duncan Hunter, along with Iowa's very own Steve King are co-sponsors of the House bill; Mike Huckabee has made Fair Tax one of his main issues in his campaign; and John McCain and Tommy Thompson have said they will sign it if it comes across their desk. You can find the co-sponsors of HF25 and S1025 here, and where other US House and Senate members stand on Fair Tax here. The Fair Tax is also an official plank of the Republican Party of Iowa platform (13.6 under the "Taxes and Spending" section).
There will be a giant Fair Tax rally at the Iowa Straw Poll on August 11th that the organization would love to get everyone involved with.
So whether you are a supporter, or aren't quite sure yet, come on out and hear more about the Fair Tax on Saturday. It'll be worth your time.
---------------------------------
Stay Awake
Pay Attention
Always Vote
Sunday, July 22, 2007
Straw Poll Analysis
While a few day late, Chris Cillizza at the Washington Post has a piece up about the Ames Straw Poll and looks at each candidate and what must happen for them. It's a good analysis.
First, the straw poll is a showing of organization on who can get the most supporters there. This requires at the very least several weeks, but more like several months, to find supporters, organize transportation all across the state, organizing all of the tent activities, and so on. If you read the Des Moines Register story on Sara Taylor this morning, you read about how she went around to biker bars signing up people to ride their Harley's to the straw poll for George W Bush. While it recently came out that he is scaling back his straw poll organization, Romney's campaign has been doing quite a bit of phone calling in the last month or so finding supporters. Other campaigns are starting to tour the state, and enlisting the help of supporters who attend their events.
With Mitt Romney the only one of the "front runners" participating, it'll be a contest of the second-tier candidates. I'm looking at the straw poll as creating a wild card entry into the top tier, particularly if the candidate is not to well known. The candidate will have quite a bit of free media to broadcast his message, and voters across the state and country will probably check him out more. Of course, it'll be up to the candidate to take full advantage of this.
The big questions I have:
--Which candidate will beat expectations? A candidate won't necessarily need to win the poll if they can do better than expected (yes, I know, that pretty much covers every candidate). For example, if say John Cox or Tommy Thompson, two candidates who receive scant media coverage, can finish a strong second or third, it will benefit their campaign immensely. A similar question is will any candidate fail to meet expectations? Mitt Romney is the odds on favorite to win, and it appears that Brownback is starting to catch on with a lot of people. If Romney fails to win or doesn't win by a sizable amount, or if Brownback doesn't finish well, it won't be good for them and they'll have their work cut out for them till January.
--How will Fred Thompson do? He's on the ballot, and it appears he won't be contesting the poll as he probably won't announce until after Labor Day. If he doesn't do well, it won't matter much because he didn't contest it. If he does do well though, it'll add more to his developing campaign.
--What candidates will drop out if they have a poor showing? Huckabee and Tommy Thompson have laid it all on the line; Huckabee says he needs to finish third or better, Thompson says second or better. Tancredo, it appears, will probably drop his bid if he doesn't finish at least fifth. In the back of my mind, 5th place was the cut off point, but it will ultimately depend on the candidate and how they feel they need to do. Elizabeth Dole finished 3rd in 2000, about 1,500 votes behind Steve Forbes and a good 1,300 votes ahead of Gary Bauer, and still dropped out. Pat Buchanan and Lamar Alexander finished 5th and 6th, respectively, and dropped out, however, Alan Keys and Orin Hatch, finishing 7th and 9th, respectively, stayed on till the caucus.
--How will Ron Paul finish. This might strike some people as an odd question, but if you pay attention to the political internet world, you'll know why I ask. He's been getting a lot of media coverage lately, his followers patrol the internet forums, blogs and comment sections for any opportunity to get Paul's message out there. Then, Patrick Ruffini last week predicted that Paul will finish second, based a lot on the fact he had 1,400 people attend his rally after the ICA candidate forum on June 30th. The only thing is that you must be an Iowa resident to vote at the straw poll, and I have no idea on what Paul's grassroots strength is in the state. That's why I'm interested.
--And finally, How many people will turn out for the event, and what kinds of, if any, problems will show up? Originally, the Republican Party of Iowa was estimating up to 50,000 people before Giuliani and McCain dropped out. Now the guesstimates are between 30,000 and 40,000. This is a big fund raiser for the party, and the more tickets sold, the better for the party's bank account. As for the problems, no event goes off without a hitch, especially one of this size. A major complaint at the 2000 straw poll was that because more people showed up than expected, the voting process left a lot of people in line for quite a while. It sounds like RPI has fixed this, and if the event can go off with few and little problems, it will be a great boost for the state party.
--------------------------
Stay Awake
Pay Attention
Always Vote
First, the straw poll is a showing of organization on who can get the most supporters there. This requires at the very least several weeks, but more like several months, to find supporters, organize transportation all across the state, organizing all of the tent activities, and so on. If you read the Des Moines Register story on Sara Taylor this morning, you read about how she went around to biker bars signing up people to ride their Harley's to the straw poll for George W Bush. While it recently came out that he is scaling back his straw poll organization, Romney's campaign has been doing quite a bit of phone calling in the last month or so finding supporters. Other campaigns are starting to tour the state, and enlisting the help of supporters who attend their events.
With Mitt Romney the only one of the "front runners" participating, it'll be a contest of the second-tier candidates. I'm looking at the straw poll as creating a wild card entry into the top tier, particularly if the candidate is not to well known. The candidate will have quite a bit of free media to broadcast his message, and voters across the state and country will probably check him out more. Of course, it'll be up to the candidate to take full advantage of this.
The big questions I have:
--Which candidate will beat expectations? A candidate won't necessarily need to win the poll if they can do better than expected (yes, I know, that pretty much covers every candidate). For example, if say John Cox or Tommy Thompson, two candidates who receive scant media coverage, can finish a strong second or third, it will benefit their campaign immensely. A similar question is will any candidate fail to meet expectations? Mitt Romney is the odds on favorite to win, and it appears that Brownback is starting to catch on with a lot of people. If Romney fails to win or doesn't win by a sizable amount, or if Brownback doesn't finish well, it won't be good for them and they'll have their work cut out for them till January.
--How will Fred Thompson do? He's on the ballot, and it appears he won't be contesting the poll as he probably won't announce until after Labor Day. If he doesn't do well, it won't matter much because he didn't contest it. If he does do well though, it'll add more to his developing campaign.
--What candidates will drop out if they have a poor showing? Huckabee and Tommy Thompson have laid it all on the line; Huckabee says he needs to finish third or better, Thompson says second or better. Tancredo, it appears, will probably drop his bid if he doesn't finish at least fifth. In the back of my mind, 5th place was the cut off point, but it will ultimately depend on the candidate and how they feel they need to do. Elizabeth Dole finished 3rd in 2000, about 1,500 votes behind Steve Forbes and a good 1,300 votes ahead of Gary Bauer, and still dropped out. Pat Buchanan and Lamar Alexander finished 5th and 6th, respectively, and dropped out, however, Alan Keys and Orin Hatch, finishing 7th and 9th, respectively, stayed on till the caucus.
--How will Ron Paul finish. This might strike some people as an odd question, but if you pay attention to the political internet world, you'll know why I ask. He's been getting a lot of media coverage lately, his followers patrol the internet forums, blogs and comment sections for any opportunity to get Paul's message out there. Then, Patrick Ruffini last week predicted that Paul will finish second, based a lot on the fact he had 1,400 people attend his rally after the ICA candidate forum on June 30th. The only thing is that you must be an Iowa resident to vote at the straw poll, and I have no idea on what Paul's grassroots strength is in the state. That's why I'm interested.
--And finally, How many people will turn out for the event, and what kinds of, if any, problems will show up? Originally, the Republican Party of Iowa was estimating up to 50,000 people before Giuliani and McCain dropped out. Now the guesstimates are between 30,000 and 40,000. This is a big fund raiser for the party, and the more tickets sold, the better for the party's bank account. As for the problems, no event goes off without a hitch, especially one of this size. A major complaint at the 2000 straw poll was that because more people showed up than expected, the voting process left a lot of people in line for quite a while. It sounds like RPI has fixed this, and if the event can go off with few and little problems, it will be a great boost for the state party.
--------------------------
Stay Awake
Pay Attention
Always Vote
Thursday, July 19, 2007
Outright Disgusting
You probably remember the case of the "Flying Imams" in Minneapolis in November. Six Imams, during the boarding of a US Airways flight, passengers observed them making suspecious movements, including asking for seatbelt extenders when they obviously didn't need them, changing seats, and making anti-American statements. The Imams were removed from the flight, and proceeded to sue the "John Does"--the passengers who reported the movements to flight authorities.
This led Rep. Peter King (R-NY) to bring forth a legislation in the House that would prevent passengers from being sued for reporting suspicious activities. In effect, it would be a Good Samaritan law, like those which protect people from trying to render aid to another person. King rightly saw that the threat of suing those who speak up would be used to quiet the public and thus put transportation passengers in much greater risk.
The amendment passed the House overwhelmingly--by a vote of 304-21. Case closed, right?
Wrong. Today, House Democrats left out the amendment in the Homeland Security Bill. The Democrat Congress voted for legislation that protects US citizens from litigation for alerting authorities to suspicious activity, and then found a convenient technicality to throw it out. It's exactly as John Hinderaker at Powerline Blog says, Democrats can go home and say they voted for this and be technically correct. However, if there is no outrage from those who voted for this, then the voters need to be reminded of it. This move does nothing to increase our national security. In effect, it diminishes it. If American citizens are too worried about being sued to report suspicious activity, that gives terrorist a free hand to do what they please.
This is pathetic and outright disgusting. Democrats are trying to portray themselves as strong on defense, but you can't take them seriously after this stunt.
The Washington Times story reports that Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) has said she will try to insert a similiar amendment to an education bill pending in the Senate, and that Rep. King is in talks with Sen. Joe Lieberman to get the amendment slipped into the conference bill. Keep your fingers crossed.
More commentary and/or links at The Corner, and Captain's Quarters, and Powerline.
UPDATE: Michelle Malkin reports that Sen. Collins move tonight just failed, 57-39, missing cloture by 3 votes thanks to some last minute Democrat arm twisting. The link includes a lot of coverage on the topic, including the roll call of tonights vote. Grassley voted for it , HARKIN VOTED AGAINST IT. As for the presidential candidates--voting "Yes" was Clinton and McCain. Voting "No" was Dodd and Biden. Those who did not vote were Brownback and Obama.
As Malkin points out, we still have the conference report.
UPDATE #2: Andy McCarthy at The Corner has more coverage on the event. He makes a good point with this: "If the state subpoenas you for information, you are compelled to provide it to the authorities whether you want to or not; but if you want to provide it voluntarily in order to protect your community, the Democrats say, 'prepare to be sued.'"
Debra Berlingame has an opinion piece up at DailyNews.net on the story.
Also, Audrey Hudson at the Washington Times, who first reported this story, is now reporting that a parliamentarian ruled that the amendment can be added to the legislation as it fits into the scope of it. Democrats are only allowing 3-4 amendments to be added, so it remains to be seen if King's amendment will be one of those.
-----------------------------------------
Stay Awake
Pay Attention
Always Vote
This led Rep. Peter King (R-NY) to bring forth a legislation in the House that would prevent passengers from being sued for reporting suspicious activities. In effect, it would be a Good Samaritan law, like those which protect people from trying to render aid to another person. King rightly saw that the threat of suing those who speak up would be used to quiet the public and thus put transportation passengers in much greater risk.
The amendment passed the House overwhelmingly--by a vote of 304-21. Case closed, right?
Wrong. Today, House Democrats left out the amendment in the Homeland Security Bill. The Democrat Congress voted for legislation that protects US citizens from litigation for alerting authorities to suspicious activity, and then found a convenient technicality to throw it out. It's exactly as John Hinderaker at Powerline Blog says, Democrats can go home and say they voted for this and be technically correct. However, if there is no outrage from those who voted for this, then the voters need to be reminded of it. This move does nothing to increase our national security. In effect, it diminishes it. If American citizens are too worried about being sued to report suspicious activity, that gives terrorist a free hand to do what they please.
This is pathetic and outright disgusting. Democrats are trying to portray themselves as strong on defense, but you can't take them seriously after this stunt.
The Washington Times story reports that Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) has said she will try to insert a similiar amendment to an education bill pending in the Senate, and that Rep. King is in talks with Sen. Joe Lieberman to get the amendment slipped into the conference bill. Keep your fingers crossed.
More commentary and/or links at The Corner, and Captain's Quarters, and Powerline.
UPDATE: Michelle Malkin reports that Sen. Collins move tonight just failed, 57-39, missing cloture by 3 votes thanks to some last minute Democrat arm twisting. The link includes a lot of coverage on the topic, including the roll call of tonights vote. Grassley voted for it , HARKIN VOTED AGAINST IT. As for the presidential candidates--voting "Yes" was Clinton and McCain. Voting "No" was Dodd and Biden. Those who did not vote were Brownback and Obama.
As Malkin points out, we still have the conference report.
UPDATE #2: Andy McCarthy at The Corner has more coverage on the event. He makes a good point with this: "If the state subpoenas you for information, you are compelled to provide it to the authorities whether you want to or not; but if you want to provide it voluntarily in order to protect your community, the Democrats say, 'prepare to be sued.'"
Debra Berlingame has an opinion piece up at DailyNews.net on the story.
Also, Audrey Hudson at the Washington Times, who first reported this story, is now reporting that a parliamentarian ruled that the amendment can be added to the legislation as it fits into the scope of it. Democrats are only allowing 3-4 amendments to be added, so it remains to be seen if King's amendment will be one of those.
-----------------------------------------
Stay Awake
Pay Attention
Always Vote
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)