The State of the Race

Okay, now Mike Huckabee is in. Should be formidable. He has the strongest claim on the evangelical right, with growth potential because of his geniality and charisma. Kills Santorum’s chances, though.

Strongest candidates based on my idea that you need a faction behind you:

Jeb Bush has the establishment/party pros behind him.

Rand Paul has the libertarians.

Ted Cruz has the best claim on the Tea Party populists.

Mike Huckabee should pull the religious right.

There is room for one or two more establishment candidates, in case Jeb stumbles: Chris Christie, Mitt Romney if he decides to come in. Romney would have a real shot at it, running to the right of Bush. Paul Ryan or Scott Walker could probably mount a credible challenge in Iowa, and hope to snowball from there.

Carly Fiorina looks like she is going to come in on the strength of being a female, and Ben Carson on the strength of being black. People will bankroll them just to keep this diversity in the race, and there is always the possibility of lightning striking.

Can't see an opening for Rick Perry, Marco Rubio, or Bobby Jindal. Cruz takes Perry's oxygen, Bush and Cruz take Rubio's. Jindal has no natural constituency.

Edge to Jeb Bush, because the Republican establishment almost always gets its way, but there's many a slip.

None of it matters much. Some people follow baseball. I follow US politics.

Perhaps the more interesting race is on the Democratic side. In their hearts, I believe Democrats do not want to vote for Hillary Clinton. It would be just too boring. On the other hand, no plausible and motivating alternative has emerged yet.

Elizabeth Warren? She looks and sounds too much like Hillary to galvanize, even if her politics are different.

My best guess so far is Al Franken. He has some gimmick appeal: he would be the first Jewish president, after all.

The Case for McCain-Huckabee

Assuming McCain is the Republican nominee, he might do well to choose Mike Huckabee as his running mate.

By conventional wisdom, the most a VP nominee can do for the ticket is to deliver his home state. Huckabee can probably do that—and Arkansas might well swing otherwise to Clinton, its former first lady, if she is the Democratic nominee. So Huck is ideal on the conventional measure.

But there is more. Huckabee also ably represents a specific constituency, which is notably loyal to him: the born-again evangelicals. It seems likely he can pull them to the ticket; McCain holds no particular attraction for them otherwise; and they are a crucial voting block.

This article points out why.

First, they actually represent about half the total votes cast in a general election.

Second, they are, perhaps contrary to popular belief, up for grabs between the parties. Here are the stats for recent contests:

Bush I vs. Clinton: 39% to 35%
Dole vs. Clinton: 49% to 43%
Bush II vs. Gore: 57% to 42%
Bush II vs. Kerry 62% to 38%

With the closeness of those last two elections, the evangelical vote was crucial.

Here’s what polls of born-agains say so far this year:

Democrat 40% Republican 29% Undecided 28%

In other words, the Republicans could easily lose this vital group, if they do not actively target it. Huck likely pulls them in.

Huck also presumably helps in the South, which is huge: the Dems have never won without it.

Huckabee may help with another crucial group: Hispanics. He and McCain stand out as “soft on immigration,” bucking the bulk of their party. On this issue, not incidentally, the party is wrong. Allowing immigration is a matter of fundamental human freedoms--freedom of movement and the right to work. But on a purely practical level, Hispanics are the fastest-growing demographic in the US, and are presumably sympathetic to their illegal compatriots. Lose the Hispanics, and you lose the future. Bush and Rove, wisely, worked hard for Hispanic approval. A McCain--Huckabee ticket should further that work, and slap down unfortunate nativist tendencies in the Republican Party.

Huckabee is also young enough to succeed to the presidency after four or eight years. Given that much more time in the public spotlight, that much more national experience, and his talents, I expect him to grow into a truly formidable candidate when that time comes. This is important for the future of the party and the conservative movement.

Huckabee’s executive experience as a governor is a good balance to McCain’s legislative experience; and the geographical balance is there.

Beyond this, all else aside, Huckabee is a formidable political talent, a prodigy. He ought to be harnessed if at all possible. He would be superb as a point man, another traditional role of the Veep-designate. His down-home style would complement McCain’s “straight talk” well, underlining the message that this would be an honest, straightforward administration. I think this would run well against Clinton, who always gives one the sense that she is hiding something, that what she says has been carefully scripted.

Last Thoughts on Iowa

Much of the analysis of what is about to happen in the Iowa caucuses seems to miss an important factor. The voting system for the Democrats is essentially a preferential ballot. In each county meeting, candidates must poll at least 15% of the vote. If they do not, they are eliminated and a second vote is taken. Their supporters move to their second choice.

Nobody seems to notice that this dynamic, not just the straight polls, must be factored in when predicting results. And the dynamic is quite interesting. Second choices matter.

Based on this, and the current polls, shaky as they are, what is likely to happen?

On the Democratic side, a tight race—which we seem to have--almost certainly means Hillary is doomed. Because of her perceived frontrunner status, she already has almost all her likely supporters. Expect her to come in third. Edwards is most popular as a second choice—in a close race, this should put him over the top, unless Obama is well ahead of him on the first ballot.

Because nobody is factoring in the preferential aspect, this will play in the media as a surprise. Making it news, and giving Edwards (or possibly Obama) big momentum. Hillary, by contrast, will look like a loser. The wheels could come off her bandwagon.

On the Republican side, the rules are more straightforward--attendees just vote once, for their favourite.

The Republican Field

The US Republican candidates in snapshot, as they appear to me this December 18, moving up to the Iowa Caucuses:

Ron Paul

I’ve seen him interviewed a couple of times. I find him creepy. I saw a video interview with him in which, to a hostile audience including Whoopi Goldberg, he comes out against Roe v. Wade, and does it very well; so in theory I ought to warm to him. But then he ruins it by immediately trying to make me buy the contention that the US economy has been doing badly, and a stronger economy would solve the problem of illegal immigration. Similarly, lower taxes are going to restore manufacturing to the US that is now going to China. And, elsewhere, ending the war in Iraq is going to allow him to end income tax.

These are not solutions; these are slogans. He’s nothing but a snake-oil salesman.


Mike Huckabee

Huckabee is instantly likeable, and a talented, skilled, speaker; and that is an important qualification. But I cannot forgive him for what seem to have been anti-Mormon cracks against Romney; and for seeming to use his religion for political gain. If I am right in my impressions, that is the behaviour of a Pharisee.

As a Catholic, too, I wonder: if Mormons aren’t good enough for him, what about Catholics?

He also lacks foreign policy experience, which is probably the most vital experience for a president to have. His notion of abolishing the income tax is, again, snake oil, and makes me doubt his honesty.

As a tactical matter, too, I expect, if he were nominated by the Republicans, that he would be an easy target for the Democrats in a general election.


Mitt Romney

Romney radiates competence. He did an exceptional job in business, a fine job with the Salt Lake City Winter Olympics, and a fine job as governor of a non-Republican state. He seems to be doing a fine job with his campaign. So it seems likely he would do a fine job as president. He seems to be a good speaker, and it does not hurt to look presidential.

One thing that troubles me about Romney is that he comes from a political dynasty. We have seen too much of that lately, in the US and Canada, and it tends in an anti-democratic direction. This is a minor quibble, but it is there.

And then there is the issue of his political views changing as required by his ambitions …


Fred Thompson

People complain that he doesn’t seem to really want the presidency. This is entirely in his favour. Not wanting the job is a strong qualification. Wanting it too much is scary. It suggests an abnormal ego.

People complain that he is lazy. The same could have been said of Ronald Reagan, or Winston Churchill. It speaks in his favour that he is not always charged up; he may simply have a healthy sense of priorities. And this may also be the artistic temperament—like Reagan and Churchill, Thompson has genuine artistic talents. Like Reagan and Churchill, he may be the strongest, most effective man in the room when the chips are down.

Being a skilled actor is also, make no mistake, a strong qualification for the presidency. The US Presidency is mostly smoke and mirrors, a bully pulpit; being able to persuade large audiences is its strongest power.

He has been ill-served by his campaign; that may speak to his executive ability.


Rudy Giuliani

Even before 9/11, he performed apparent administrative miracles in New York: fixing the budget, cutting crime. One of the most impressive performances by any CEO anywhere, anywhen. That earns him serious consideration for the presidency; it is an executive position.

And he will be associated forever with 9/11—he has already become a national symbol. This would help him a great deal as president. It almost seems almost morally wrong, after 9/11, to consider anyone else.

There has been a whiff of scandal lately with the NY books—but to my ear, Giuliani’s explanation sounds completely plausible. Anyone who has ever worked for a government or quasi-government agency knows that this kind of shuffling of papers is commonly necessary to get anything done. I don’t think the “scandal” would matter if it did not remind everyone of Giuliani’s rather untidy personal life.

And as to that—I don’t care a flip. It is just not relevant. A public official’s private life is just that, private.


John McCain

McCain was right on Iraq, from the beginning. He stuck to his guns and took the heat when it cost him politically. He deserves to get the credit now. He’s proven himself an honest man, he’s proven himself a brave man, and he’s proven himself to understand foreign and defense policy better than anyone. These are probably the three most important qualifications for being president.

McCain, at the moment, would be my first choice for Republican nominee. Giuliani would be second; Thompson or Romney even up at third. Huckabee fourth; I could not support Paul.