I figure now is as good a time as any to update my report on the Presidential election down south. I'm going to avoid the tedium of going through all the candidates and stick to the ones who have a chance in Hades of winning. With my luck, I'll leave out the winner. Here we go:
Democrats:
In order of current position:
Hillary Rodham Clinton: Okay, I know you've heard it all before when it comes to Hillary. I don't think I can say anything new. Here's the snapshot. She's the frontrunner except that she beginning to look like the New York Mets when they collapsed. In other words, she has a huge lead but she's hemorrhaging and fast. The question is whether or not she can hang on long enough to win Iowa and New Hampshire. Her positives include a great organization, name recognition and a strong appeal to women. Her negatives include her name recognition and the presence of a whole bunch of Americans that will never vote for Hillary.
Barack Obama: One of the most devoted Christians in the Democratic field has had some odd things thrown at him. To attempt to slur someone by calling them something that is a) false and b) only an insult if you are a racist is a) evil, b) moronic or c) both. Having said that, Obama is the candidate that appears to be gaining fast on the Clinton machine. He's not half as divisive as she is. He also hasn't articulated his vision as clearly although that is starting to come out. Outsiders usually do well in Presidential elections. However, it is difficult to call a US Senator an outsider. Obama may in the end just be too young and inexperienced.
John Edwards: If Clinton falls like Perdita Felicien and Barack trips like Barbaro out of the gate, look out for John Edwards. He did this four years ago and has a strong local organization all over the place. He's charming and enthusiastic. His rhetoric has always struck me as anachronistically socialist.
Republicans:
A much more open field. This order is going to be alphabetical.
Rudy Giuliani: I have never understood why the socially liberal mayor from New York thinks he can win the Republican nomination. However, if terror is the issue, Giuliani wins. I can't see it. I just can't. Not even with the support of the 700 Club.
Mike Huckabee: If I were to bet on someone at this point in the race, it would be this guy. Why? Because he is the only one who legitimately speaks to the base and actually wants the job (more on that later). The former Arkansas Governor is catching up fast to the early race frontrunners. The only question is does he have enough time and local organization in early states to close the gap.
John McCain: It is odd that John McCain, the great rabble rouser from 2000, has become the safe choice in this race. However, McCain is the known quantity here. If the Republicans get scared (of the other candidates, not terror), they might go McCain. He also has a good organization in New Hampshire where he won eight years ago.
Mitt Romney: I believe the national polls place the former Governor in the lead in this race. I don't see it. A Mormon is not good enough social conservative credentials for many in the base of the Republican party. It may be as baseless in reason as saying that Obama being a Muslim would disqualify him. The fact that Romney is actually a Mormon is a key difference. Romney also has Giuliani's problem of having some questionable (in the eyes of social conservatives) views on certain key subjects. The combination I think will leave him dead in the water in South Carolina and other Southern and Western states.
Fred Thompson: We will never know if Fred Thompson had a chance at this. He doesn't seem to like campaigning. The retail politics inherent in the primary process seems beyond him. On the other hand, with the whole host of question marks that plague the front runners. The faux reincarnation of Reagan could be a choice, who knows?
Do you support a candidate that a) wants to eliminate most of the US government or b) believes in UFO's? Sorry, it ain't happening. Although I have a certain respect for Ron Paul and his campaign.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
"Whether she can hang on long enough" now there's some simplistic commentary. At 42% in the polls, with rock solid support of about 90%, that's not really an estute comment.
Here's another thought for you. About 3% of Clinton's recent drop in numbers has gone to Edwards not Obama. So add that back to her total when he drops out of the race and she's up to 45%, not exactly tanking. Also where will Edwards support go. Even if all, every single one of Edwards votes goes to Obama, he still hasn't caught up to Clinton. She only needs to draw another 5% from him and she is over the 50% threshold. Edwards support will go to her in enough numbers to put her over the top easily. All this chatter about holding on, or tanking or collapsing is utter nonsense.
I suggest you check out Rasmussen's most recent poll.
Post a Comment