Rick Perry vs. The World
06 May 2008
Drop out? I'd be shocked
As we wait to find out whether Hillary did in fact pull out Indiana, I'm seeing some speculation that Hillary might drop out.*
If so, that'd be utterly inexplicable. Why stay in this long only to drop out before you're going to win West Virginia by 30% in 7 days and crystallize your argument that Obama can't connect with white working class voters? Follow that up with a win in KY and a close loss in Oregon (I assume, haven't checked the demographics), and Hillary can reasonably continue to claim momentum.
Nothing has changed in the race for nomination. Everything has happened exactly how it was foreseen to happen back in early to mid February. Clinton and Obama are tied, in every sense of the word. But Hillary has momentum now. Or seems to have momentum because she now has demographically-friendly primaries, not caucuses. In truth, there was never really ever a time in which Hillary or Obama had any sort of significant bandwagon effect/momentum. Barack and Hillary have fought to a draw; except that Obama is a prohibitive favorite to win the nomination because Democrats know they can't compete in the long-term if they lose their near monopoloy on black votes. Obama and Axelrod made the correct strategic decision to invest resources in caucus states, whereas Hillary and Bill (her primary strategist all along; don't be fooled) hubristically thought the delegate count wouldn't matter. So now, we're at the end, and it's a draw. Hillary can only hope that she can suade superdelegates with the appearance of momentum. Though it's false momentum, people are easily fooled -- superdelegrates and media types included -- and they'll look at Hillary's string of mostly victories and probably be impressed. Will it be enough? Probably not, but the writing was on the wall the day after Super Tuesday (Feb 6, if i recall correctly).
Or at least, that's what Clinton's campaign has to be hoping. Because otherwise, why would she have stayed in this long?
Stranger things have happened. But if HRC drops out for BHO now, it would defy logic.
*This is probably worth a separate post -- but I don't put too much time into blogging these days (including this post, obviously) -- most of the speculation is overblown on the deleterious effects on the Democratic nominee's chances to win in November (and further it helps them in downballot races). Yes, it has increased McCain's chances, but, among other things, politicos tend to forget that McCain must re-introduce himself and he can't do that right now. That will make the convention very important for McCain, as he MUST cement himself as completely different from George W Bush to have a chance at victory. Further, ceterus paribus, McCain is a significantly better candidate than Obama or Hillary. If this weren't such a drastically Democrat-friendly political environment, McCain would win hands-down. As it is, it will be very close.
Posted by Evan @ 05/06/08 11:59 PM | Comments (0)
04 May 2008
Make this man president
Posted by Evan @ 05/04/08 02:48 AM | Comments (0)
02 May 2008
The missing element in the media coverage of Joe Andrews' defection to Obama from Hillary seems to be that clearly Andrews has realized that Obama is starting to look weak, and since it is too late to deny him the nomination, thus he must switch to Obama.
As the USNews Daily Bulletin put it:
There is an odd dichotomy emerging in the media coverage of the Democratic presidential race emerging this morning. On one hand, the media is seeing former Democratic National Committee Chairman Joe Andrew's defection to Barack Obama's camp as a sign that superdelegates are beginning to move towards his candidacy, and give the move extensive coverage. On the other, there are a number of items of good news for Hillary Clinton – polls showing her in a dead heat in Indiana and one showing her competitive in North Carolina, which was expected to be an Obama stronghold.
It is ironic that Obama's weakness may spur quite a few of the superdelegates to make their decision.
Posted by Evan @ 05/02/08 01:32 PM | Comments (0)
25 April 2008
Charlie Cook thinks Hillary Clinton is winning the battles but has already lost the war.
Many of us think so, but Hillary may be in a better position to determine what will persuade the superdelegates. But then, that assumes that the Clintons are rational actors, rather than just self-aggrandizing pols. There are plenty of Dems who think that they are just aggrandizers these days.
Posted by Evan @ 04/25/08 02:53 AM | Comments (0)
12 March 2008
At first I figured he must be joking.
Congratulations to EJ Dionne for the most epistomologically arrogant sentence I've read today:
In truth, Bush's victory rested both on 9/11 and on enthusiasm from religious voters. But what's most important is that 2004, like 1928, is destined to be the last in a long line of contests in which culture and religion proved central to the outcome.This shift is already obvious from the results of the 2008 primaries. Focusing relentlessly on national security, Sen. John McCain has clinched the Republican nomination despite robust opposition from the party's cultural and religious conservatives. (bolding mine)
Seriously? Based only on results of the 2008 primaries (which could have VERY VERY VERY VERY easily been different if you'd changed the primary calendar or had candidates drop out at different times or a million other things) you have forecasted what will be the proximal factor in general elections of the future? I know the man is paid to opine in an interesting fashion, but has he no semblance of the limits of knowledge? Wow.
I stopped reading after this. Wow.
Posted by Evan @ 03/12/08 05:12 AM | Comments (2)
Kay Bailey Hutchison had an op-ed in the WSJ yesterday about our foreign policy towards Pakistan as we hope it segues to a stable, legitimate democratic government.
What to do with Musharraf is one of the interesting questions of current foreign policy, with the long-term implications of diplomacy in the region looming large. Incidentally, one of my favorite things about Secretary of State Rice is that she gets herself on a plane and travels. While Ron Paul might object, this is an important criterion for a leader at Foggy Bottom, and one Secretary Powell did not fulfill.
Posted by Evan @ 03/12/08 05:04 AM | Comments (1)
11 March 2008
I'm curious
I know Indiana privatized their toll roads for $4 or 5 billion in the last 5 years or so. Was it controversial? How is it similar/different to the Trans-Texas Corridor?
Maybe one of you enterprising journalists can get on that.
Posted by Evan @ 03/11/08 06:34 PM | Comments (3)
07 March 2008
The Wire series finale in one word
Conventional.
Posted by Evan @ 03/07/08 06:21 PM | Comments (1)
05 March 2008
"this better be good"
I'm about to watch the series finale of The Wire [hurray for advance copies]. At 90 minutes long, it better be good. The show has definitely flagged a bit in recent seasons, but they've got even more loose ends to tie up the The Sopranos, so it'll be interesting to see how it goes.
Posted by Evan @ 03/05/08 09:21 PM | Comments (0)
04 March 2008
Today's prediction
Hillary squeaks out victories in Texas and Ohio. Considering that Obama had closed the gap, she says this is proof of momentum.
Posted by Evan @ 03/04/08 06:18 AM | Comments (0)
13 February 2008
Policy changes do not occur in vacuums
I suppose the question is whether this is transition cost or a long-term effect. Still, well worth thinking about, because second-order effects often dwarf legislative intent. Link via Marginal Revolution.A rigorous statistical examination [in the Journal of Public Economics] has found that smoking bans increase drunken-driving fatalities. One might expect that a ban on smoking in bars would deter some people from showing up, thereby reducing the number of people driving home drunk. But jurisdictions with smoking bans often border jurisdictions without bans, and some bars may skirt the ban, so that smokers can bypass the ban with extra driving. There is also a large overlap between the smoker and alcoholic populations, which would exacerbate the danger from extra driving. The authors estimate that smoking bans increase fatal drunken-driving accidents by about 13 percent, or about 2.5 such accidents per year for a typical county.
Posted by Evan @ 02/13/08 12:33 PM | Comments (0)
08 February 2008
He makes a good terminal
Peter Brown (not the very liberal Houston City Councilman) analyzes why a Mike Bloomberg run looks less likely. I've posted on Bloomberg frequently here, for many reasons: a) a Bloomberg candidacy completely reshapes the race when he decides to drop $1 billion on his candidacy, b) I think a Bloomberg candidacy is likely -- though not guaranteed -- to cripple the GOP candidate, a la Perot, and c) I'm fascinated by the arrogance by which many politicians think they can win, even when they can't.
Anyway, Brown's points are well taken:
1. The enduring Democratic race makes it more difficult for
2. Bloomberg's stated rationale has been that he'd run if the parties nominated polarizing candidates. McCain isn't that, and isn't seen that why right now (though that perception could change).
3. Polls haven't been particularly kind to Bloomberg's idea of himself as non-partisan wunderkind.
4. I agree with this:
Yet Bloomberg is apparently confident that the logistical obstacles to an independent White House effort - getting on the ballot, creating campaign operations in all states, hiring staff, etc. - can be surmounted.When you're willing to blow a billion on the race, all logistical things are possible. Doesn't mean you'll get votes though.
I've occasionally gotten the sense that Bloomberg really wants to run and is looking for an excuse. If he really only wants to run if he can win and he is rational, then he definitely won't run. But then, I wouldn't bet on billionaires being rational in self-assessments of their capabilities. And trust me, any political consultant who gets near Bloomberg is telling him that he can win, because if Bloomberg gets in the race, political consultants see dollar signs.
Posted by Evan @ 02/08/08 02:34 PM | Comments (0)
Using others' words to write my own post-mortem
Jay Cost notes in a Romney campaign post-mortem:
It is fair to say that Romney was a polarizing candidate. Few candidates rouse such strongly divergent feelings among his fellow partisans. All campaign cycle, my email inbox has been full of people telling me Romney was the GOP's best hope and people telling me he would ruin the party.
Cost posits:
How might these negative attacks have hurt Romney? My sense is that it likely kept him from winning over those who supported McCain or Huckabee. That is, at its most basic level, it backfired; not only did it fail to convince Huckabee or McCain voters to back Romney, it alienated those voters from him. Pew found that Romney's net favorability rating among McCain voters was just +7 in January and +1 in February; among Huckabee voters it was -9 in January and -4 in February. The only candidate who had so much trouble with another candidate's voters is Giuliani, who was not liked by Huckabee voters. This is different - Rudy's divergence on social issues and his scandal-plagued autumn can explain most of that disregard.I think the fact that Romney was viewed so poorly by McCain and Huckabee voters, but not Giuliani voters is a consequence of his attacks on McCain and Huckabee.
I think Cost is onto something. Romney attacked frequently -- and sometimes spuriously -- on issues, even though he had flip-flopped on the issue. That's the sort of thing that will reduce your chance of winning over an opponent's supporters.
Campaigns are about introducing yourself to the public and why you're the best choice for the office. Which is why individual tactics -- however advisable on a micro-level some tactics are -- must fit an overall strategy. Frequently Romney seemed to be sending the message that he would do anything to win, or that he was too weak to stand up to his advisers suggestions. Voters don't tend to like either possibility.
Posted by Evan @ 02/08/08 02:23 PM | Comments (0)
07 February 2008
Evan Smith interviews Mark McKinnon
Interview here with McCain adman Mark McKinnon, formerly the Democrat whose ads helped put W in the White House and re-elect him. Timely topic, with McCain the nominee. Some of the questions are a little dated, as the interview was before Super Tuesday, so you can see why Smith wanted to get it out.
Posted by Evan @ 02/07/08 03:24 PM | Comments (0)
05 February 2008
Willie Nelson is crazy
Willie jumps off the deep end -- and not just by supporting Dennis Kucinich. KVUE:
[Willie] Nelson said the collapse of the World Trade Center towers reminded him of a hotel implosion in Las Vegas.
"The day it happened, I saw one fall and it was just so symmetrical," Nelson said on Alex Jones' talk show. "I said, 'Wait a minute, I just saw that last week at the casino in Las Vegas', and you see these implosions all the time, and the next one fell and I said, 'Hell, there’s another one.' They're trying to tell me that an airplane did it and I can't go along with that."
Posted by Evan @ 02/05/08 10:33 AM | Comments (1)
Texas Southern Law to lose accreditation?
Bad news for Houston's embattled Texas Southern University: under proposed ABA standards which are likely to be adopted, Texas Southern's law school would lose accreditation for a low bar passage rate.
That'd be a real shame. One more reason not to be a fan of the ABA.
Hat tip: Paul Caron.
Posted by Evan @ 02/05/08 10:26 AM | Comments (0)
The earliest post-election spin I've ever heard
Clay Robison prints Mark White spinning why Obama and Hillary lost, before the Democrats have even settled on a nominee.
White, the former governor, said Democrats in recent years have "gone out of their way" to lose elections, and he fears they are following that path now.
He said Clinton and Obama are both "talented beyond belief, but I'm worried about their electability."
America may be ready for a female president, but nominating Clinton, with her history (fair or not) of political controversy, will give Republicans the opportunity to activate their "built-in hatred line," White said.
And, he predicted, Republicans will let their dirty tricksters unleash racial attacks against Obama if he becomes the first black presidential nominee, much as they did against Harold Ford, a black Democrat who lost a highly watched U.S. Senate race in Tennessee in 2006.
White and Robison clearly subscribe to the "if Democrats lost, then it must've been Republican dirty tricks" school of excuses. If you've read Robison -- chief of the Chronicle's Austin bureau as well -- and his column, you won't be terribly surprised.
It couldn't be that an Obama loss is because he'd be the most liberal nominee since McGovern (though he's campaigned honorably and impressively) and lacks experience on the world stage. It couldn't be that Hillary might lose because she was a stridely liberal voice in the 1990s turned calculating politican who will do anything to put the Clinton dynasty back in the White House. [Side note: perhaps the Kennedy dynasty doesn't like the idea of being supplanted by the Clinton dynasty?]
I've never quite understood why both sides like to claim that the other fights dirtier. On the presidential level, the American people do a pretty good job of filtering information and picking presidents.
Posted by Evan @ 02/05/08 12:11 AM | Comments (2)
04 February 2008
This profile of Borris Miles in the Chron is pretty interesting, but I don't really feel like I know anymore about what's happening in the rematch with Al Edwards than I did before.
Posted by Evan @ 02/04/08 11:50 PM | Comments (1)
Caller on Watts
The Corpus Christi Caller-Times caught up with Mikal Watts, publishing a long profile of the quit-before-he-could-be-defated Democratic Senate candidate.
Watts campaigned for five months, raising money and pledging $10 million of his own to the race. He had a staff of 17. Then, in September, he says, he started to doubt his decision. His youngest daughter cried that she never saw him. He prayed with his wife. He nearly bowed out that month, he says.
But what pushed him to actually do it was a trip to Washington, D.C., in early October, Watts said.
"I was pretty specifically aware that running for Senate would take me out of commission for the year, year and a half I was running," he said. "Myself and my family were ready to make that commitment. I went to Washington in October and really got a firsthand look at how senators live their lives and how little personal time they have. I reached the conclusion I wasn't sacrificing 16 months with my kids. I was in fact sacrificing the relationship for the duration."
So Watts made the announcement Oct. 22 that he was leaving the race, a move that surprised even some of his closest friends. He now says he plans to stay involved in politics through fundraising and contributing and to run for Senate again after his youngest graduates from high school in 10 years.
Clearly, it was just incidental to his decision to quit that he wasn't going to beat Rick Noriega.
Posted by Evan @ 02/04/08 11:43 PM | Comments (0)
Vote on the next Texas license plate
In January 2009, Texas gets a new license plate. You can vote on which you like best at TXDot.
Posted by Evan @ 02/04/08 11:20 PM | Comments (1)
[Previous 20 Entries]
SITE MENU
+ Rick Perry vs World
+ About Me
+ Archives
+ Contact
+ PDA Friendly
ADVERTISING
SEARCH
THE CANDIDATES '06
Republicans
+ Rick Perry
Democrats
+ Chris Bell
+ Bob Gammage
+ Rashad Jafer
Independents
+ Kinky Friedman
+ Carole Keeton Strayhorn
Italics indicates a failed primary bid.
SYNDICATION
DISCLAIMER
All content © 2005, Perry vs. World and the respective authors.
Perry vs. World is powered by Nucleus.
Site design and Nucleus customization by Kevin Whited. Graphic design by Chris Elam