This is a rough draft, but I think I am on to some ideas that I want to complete, but I want someone else to take a look at it, and see if they want to add anything to it, or offer any suggestions.
There is a big fight going on over at National Review about who is most electable.
KLO says this;
Adler also makes the improbable claim that Romney has been revealed as a very weak candidate, even though the information is right there on The Corner that Romney has garnered more votes so far than anyone else in the race.
(Read more if you want to read a non-spell checked rambling rant on the National Review, and were Romney stands).
I like that. Looking at the total number of votes for a candidate. Of Course Romney leads in the elector count, and from just a practical standpoint that puts him in the lead.
But then do you look at states as wins? Romney and McCain both have two states. Romney has a win in Nevada and Michigan. But people say those were not contested as hard as the other states. Yes, but Romney was very close in New Hampshire were McCain won, and very close in Iowa, were Huckabee won. So you have the contested vs. non contested way of evaluating the "worth" of a "win" but if you look at who came in 2nd it changes things…
But people at the national review are trying to draw lessons from what these different states are telling us, but it could be very easy to draw the wrong conclusion.
I'm not just saying this because Romney is winning in this catigory, but I think it makes sense to look at the total number of votes… What do you think?
I think it is very silly to give McCain an important "win" in SC when there were 4 people with at least 15%, and McCain only got 33%.
Jonathan Adler asks, "Is Romney Viable?". He is a Rudy fan, and so I really don't think he has any room to talk. Jon says; "Romney leads in the delegate count, but .." BUT? BUT? Jon says; "Where Romney has made a major investment (Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina) he has failed."
Really? Is coming in a very close second considered "failing"? Sure, most years it might be. But most years you have a vise president running for president, or a clear front runner. Do we really have to go over this again?
McCain Lost big time in Iowa, Michigan, and Nevada. Huckabee lost big time in Michigan, and New Hampshire, Nevada. But I'm probably not arguing with Jon about Huckabee. So this is were arguments really need to go somewhere. Jon says Romney is week. OK, Jon, so who is strong? You can't just make an empty argument that goes nowhere. How about telling us why someone else is stronger than Romney, if you can? But it is all kind of a waste of time. Does Romney's strong showing in Nevada mean that he is going to do well in California? Who freaking cares! Lets stop wasting our time understanding the votes of people who know very little about the candidates, or trying to predict the future, and start figuring out who IS THE BEST CANDIDATE, who will help our party move forward, win the Senate, House, and White house?
We get so lost in the trees that we can't even see the forest. We try to pretend that we can learn something from the un-educated voter, who knows very little about the candidates, their positions, what they are actually going to do, and what their strengths and weaknesses are. We can't pretend that we can get into the white house, and that is all that matters. If we send a guy in their, based on what un-educated voters think, all these things that people who are paying close attention to, will eventually come out.
You think people make fun of Bush? Just imagine looking at Rudy for 4 years doing that weird bug eyed thing that he does, were he bobs his head and opens his eye lids as far as they can go. I'm not saying this eye thing is important, but at least talk like this is focusing our attention on the candidates. The average voter is not that educated. We should not listen to them. We should re-watch all of the debates, and figure out who is the best candidate, who will help us win in the future, and be proud to be republicans. Because we are going to be stuck with these guys, and the un-educated voters, will find out all the things they wish we would have told them about, instead of us re-telling them, what we think their vote means.
We the voters have a right to be mad at the pundits when they focus on the wrong thing. Like when they focus on what they voters are telling us, when they should be giving us actual info about the candidates. But we have even more of a right to be mad, when they say things that are not accurate. Jon says; "…The blatant pandering to the auto industry in Michigan in a way that suggests some very unconservative views." Is that accurate? You know people listen to Jon, and he is an opinion setter. Perception is reality, and Jon and people like him might affect who becomes president. But we have a right to be angry if he gets us a president because he miss-lead us. But was it accurate of Jon to say that Romney "pandered" to people from Michigan when he said that he would fight for their jobs? Is it wrong for a president to say that he is going to fight for jobs? Is that pandering? Be honest Jon. I know you like Rudy, but don't be a journalistic hack. I know you want Rudy to win, and Romney to loose, but if you have to lie in order to win, you are going to end up with the guy who is not best.
So ANYWAY the case can be made, if you ignore the rest of the picture, and cherry pick information, about any of the candidates. So what is with these people, at National Review, who support a particular guy (like Rudy) being so intellectually dishonest in the pictures they paint? Is Jonathan Adler unaware of the arguments on the other side?
But the war of ideas goes on, and this is a great post:
I am an utter Mark Steyn sycophant, but… [Michael Graham]
…tell me again how McCain is winning?As I predicted here at NRO, John McCain came out on top in South Carolina by getting the same 1/3rd of the vote in the Palmetto State that he got in New Hampshire and Michigan. But did he "win?"
In 2000, running against George W. Bush and the entire Carroll Campbell machine in South Carolina, John McCain got 42% of the vote, and 240,000 votes out of 573,000 or so cast.
Tonight, he got 33% of the vote in a field where his top challengers—Romney and Giuliani—aren't even running, and 135,000 actual votes. If just the same people who voted for McCain in 2000 had voted for him today, he would have won 50+% of the South Carolina vote. That would have been truly impressive.
Instead, John McCain LOST the support of 100,000 people—and he's the winner?
McCain had the same "success" in New Hampshire (McCain, 2000: 48%, 116,000 votes; McCain 2008: 37%, 89,000 votes) and Michigan (2000: 50%, 600,000 votes; 2008: 30%, 257,000 votes).
Yes, overall participation in the GOP primaries is down this year—a fact that should concern Republicans regardless of who they choose as their nominee. But that doesn't mitigate McCain's overall weakness. In fact, as the one person who's run for president before and who is touted as a crossover candidate with broad appeal, his slice of the electoral pie should have MORE impact as the number of challengers rises and the number of voters declines.
McCain is a weak candidate by any measure. Only once in his two presidential races has John McCain ever won a majority of the vote, and that was Michigan in 2000. He has yet to crack 40% of the vote this year, and he's done even worse among self-identified Republicans (as opposed to independents and crossover Democrats).
If you really want to see McCain's weakness, however, try this thought experiment:
It's October, 2008. America's economy is in a recession. People are demanding change and new ideas, someone to give them optimism and hope on domestic issues. On stage, facing off in their final presidential debate to discuss jobs, economic policy and hope for the future are John McCain and Barack Obama.And be sure to imagine how it will look on television, and to people who don't really follow politics (they are, after all, the swing voters who will pick the next president).
Now, tell me again how any Republican won tonight…?
And this all got me thinking about how shallow they can sometimes be over there at the National Review. They are paid to tell us what to think, but they sit around trying to figure out what we should think based on how people vote. Should we really on how people vote to figure out what is the best thing for our party, or who is the best leader? Perhaps we should focus on the record and actions of those running for president, and stand by our principals and beliefs of who would be best for our country, and party.
Jon, and others at the national review keep going on and on about how Romney is not catching on in the South, and maybe we should not support Romney. Well do you think that it might actually be good for the republican party to have evangelicals have to choose between a religious minority and 4 more years of Clintons. There is all this weird calculation over their at NRO but very little talk about the long term future of the party, America, and I am disappointed with their short term focus on figuring out what voters think, who know very little about the candidates, instead of them spending the time to get to know the candidates, and telling us what we should be worried about if we have to look at them for 4 years, and think about what that will do to our party.
