87 Comments | leave a comment | RSS 2.0 for this post | trackback |
Here’s an interesting take from Dean Barnett:
|
Being a native Michigander who lived in Massachusetts for decades has made Romney the ultimate Mormon candidate. He just won his home state. In New Hampshire (next door to Massachusetts) he was competitive and picked up some delegates. I think Romney may have purchased a lake house in New Hampshire essentially to ingratiate him self to Granite Staters. So Romney is in the lead now and we haven’t even touched the west, where Mormons are influential. Three states with sizable Mormon populations vote on Super-Duper Tuesday: Utah, Arizona, and California. Romney is of course a slam-dunk for first place in Utah, and it’s a winner-take-all state, meaning McCain can’t get any delegates out of Utah even if he has some fans there. California, where Romney might not be first despite getting lots of votes, is NOT a winner-take-all state, meaning that Romney will likely pick up a boatload of Calif. delegates no matter what. Arizona is winner-take-all, but with ~300,000 Mormons in AZ, Romney has a shot at getting first place. Oh, and don’t forget that 100,000 Mormons live in Las Vegas. I think Nevada splits up its delegates, so Romney will pick up some Silver State delegates no matter what. |
Yeah, Romney definitely benefits from having (essentially) three home states. Is Arizona an open primary? If it’s closed, then I think Romney should have it in the bag (which would be a serious blow to McCain), but if it’s open, it could be pretty close. I think he has a good chance of winning here in Florida, especially if he manages to get second in South Carolina to either McCain or Huckabee. |
A lot of Mormons in Arizona. Go, Romney. I think we’re being premature about placing him winning the nomination, though. Still got what, oh, 999 votes to go??? |
Romney is not doing well in the southern states where Huckabee appears to be doing quite well. The real test is Florida. If he can place at least second there he’ll do well. The problem with Romney is that (like Kerry) he has an appearance issue of being a flip flopper and opportunist. Part of that is unfair but a large part of it Romney brought on himself. One wishes he would have the character that Obama has. I prefer the stated politics of Romney but truly wonder that if he wins the GOP nomination if he has a hope in hell of beating Obama or Clinton. McCain, who I dislike for a wide variety of reasons, probably is more electable. At this stage the GOP election is between Romney and McCain. |
I think Momons are delusional if they count out Huckabee |
@Clark (5) I think every politician is an opportunist to an extent. That’s why Hillary Clinton voted for the Iraq War. She thought it was a prudent tactical move in her life-long quest for the presidency. I think Romney would do well in the general election against either Clinton or Obama. Romney has far more executive experience than either one of them. Romney also has far more ability than either one of them. This could become evident during a long general election. |
CC: |
a spectator – Huckabee is a lightweight with weak financial backing. He can’t outlast the other candidates in what could be a primary season of attrition. I still think Romney’s an underdog, but let me through this out for discussion: is Romney the worst Republican candidate in terms of electability? That seems to be the consensus from Democrats. DailyKos was telling Democrats in Michigan to vote for Romney in Michigan’s open primary because of the way the Democrats mucked things up so badly. Most of the head-to-head polls (of questionable relevance this early) do show Romney getting killed no matter who the Democrats put up. Even though I think he’d be a fine president, so far, I’ve thought Romney’s a horrible candidate. He doesn’t come across well, for whatever reason. |
I’m loving it. Keep up the fractured party, boys, and let the Democrats take over and clean up this terrible mess. |
Nick, Surely she wrote a “I want to be president” when she was in the sixth grade. Why else would she be jealous of Barack Obama having written that back then and he gets all the publicity. |
Whether or not it was a lifelong quest, I’m pretty sure she didn’t decide to run on New Year’s Day 2007, like she said the other day. |
His I-will-fight-for-every-job tack was compelling Bill Clinton needs to dust off his “fairy tale” line for all those Michigan auto workers who believe Mitt will bring their jobs back. |
Greg, while I question Romney’s electability against Clinton or Obama what the Daily Kos said made me doubt my own analysis. They aren’t exactly accurate that often. The big problem with Romney is that he’s a poor communicator. Surprising, all things considered. His campaign has been horribly handled with, as I said, most of the blame resting on Romney and his flip flops, exaggerations, and coming across as opportunistic. As much as anything the Republicans need a good communicator to get the conservative message out. Bush wasn’t much of a communicator (arguably the worst in the post war era) and wasn’t much of a conservative either. |
Condor, I agree that every politician is to some degree an opportunist. Some just are good at it. Romney comes off like someone trying to be Bill Clinton but failing miserably due to zero charisma. Bill Clinton was the master. You could know completely he was full of it on some issue and still come away nearly convinced after listening to him. I’ve talked to people who dealt with him in person and he was even more amazing one on one. |
DKL, Unless Detroit establishes a leadership role in the areas of fuel efficiency and alternative fuels they will continue to lose jobs to companies that see the value of innovation. You can hate Carter all you want but if American cars are undesirable I don’t see why the blame shouldn’t fall on the companies that make the cars. Engineering policy to support otherwise non-competitive firms doesn’t do them any favors in the global marketplace. It also doesn’t help in the areas of energy independence and environmental impact of automobiles. You can hate those issues all you want, but smart firms are looking at ways of making money while solving those problems. Recalcitrant fools want the government to prop up failing ideas. The funny thing is that I think Mitt is very smart and knows all of this and would act appropriately as president. His rhetoric at this point however is disturbing. |
I have a feeling we’re going to be hearing, “Washington is broken” for a long time. I really do hate the cute, do-nothing soundbites. |
Race, gender, religion … There are just too many untested variables. As much as I read all the pundits and experts, I have to conclude that all bets are off. We are treading on unfamiliar ground and anyone who thinks they can call it has fooled only themselves. |
FYI- My uncle is a wealthy lawyer, Romney donor, and a hobbyist airplane pilot. My uncle met Romney and Romney told my uncle that he would let him see Air Force One if elected president. I want to see if I can get in on that action. |
Good call DKL. I think Romney might have found his sweet spot with this CEO-President positioning. That is, if he can really drive home the notion that he is the best qualified candidate to keep America out of recession and even to bring a new era of economic prosperity to the people he could not only win the GOP bid but give Hillary/Obama a serious run in November. If people believed he was the most likely candidate to help to pay them continue to pay the mortgage/rent (as well as come up with some leisure spending money) he will have a lot of draw. All this BS about immigration won’t get him elected in a million years. His real credibility is as a highly successful businessman who knows all about economic prosperity and could lead America there. (Isn’t that what got Clinton elected? People believed his “It’s the economy, stupid” tagline and cared more about that than foreign policy.) |
Make that “to help them continue to pay the mortgage/rent” |
Anybody know how many people companies that Romney turned around hired? Fired? While I think the idea of a CEO President would be great (especially after the last 8 years) I’m not sure if that should be the theme. Maybe something more abstract such as “competence” that contains many of the same concepts without the negative connotations that “CEO” currently has. |
Out of the blue question: |
Well I doubt they would actually call it “CEO-President”. Rather, I think they would present a strong case that Romney was the uniquely-qualified candidate to turn a flagging economy around. As he discovered in Michigan, touting a message of hope works wonders with people and when you have a track record of great financial success and financial turn-arounds like he does it is a very good fit for a US economy that appears to be on the brink of a recession following the mortgage crisis. |
Looks like the Romney camp is all in on this new strategy. The headline in Yahoo News this afternoon reads “Romney pledge to save southern economy“ |
#9) “is Romney the worst Republican candidate in terms of electability? That seems to be the consensus from Democrats.” Worst for the Democrats, maybe. The idea that independents and moderates will be the deciding factor in ’08 (currently being spewed by many a national pundit) will be proven wrong. Again. And the talking heads should know better. Independents in ’08 will overwhelmingly break for the Democratic nominee–just as they did 4 years ago. Bush won in ’04 by motivating the Republican base. Republican turnout in ’04 was record breaking. The more our country divides itself along party lines, the more important it will be for candidates to motivate their base. The traditional political dance to the left or right in order to get the party nomination and then moving back to the middle for the general is not going to be the pathway to success this year. So to answer your question, I think a Romney/Thompson would fare better in the general than a Huckabee/Guiliani/McCain because they are more likely to excite the base and turn out the vote. #14) “The big problem with Romney is that he’s a poor communicator.” Huh? Romney is a great communicator. Did you happen to hear about his press conference explaining the “Big Dig” fiasco while he was Governor of Mass? His Faith in America speech wasn’t great communication? I suspect you just said that and didn’t really think about what you were saying. But if you really don’t see it–I might suggest finding and watching his Power Point presentation on Mass. Health care (available somewhere on the net) and then see if you would still describe him as a “poor communicator”. Now, maybe you are talking about how he just doesn’t touch your heart and cause you to get a little misty eyed when he talks about real life issues that Americans and Mormons can relate to–kind of like a George W. Bush or a Thomas S. Monson. Everybody loves a President they can relate to, right? A guy they might want to have beer (or Sprite) with. Well, you might have something there. Personally, I find the Romney approach refreshing. |
I would love to see Romney put his money where his mouth is and go run for governor of Michigan and turn the state around. Then I’ll vote for him as president. He’s young–he has time. |
He’s 60; he’s no spring chicken. |
Oh, and don’t forget that 100,000 Mormons live in Las Vegas. I think Nevada splits up its delegates, so Romney will pick up some Silver State delegates no matter what. Why would we ever assume that Mormons have a religious test for the president? |
“Can I guarantee that we’ll be able to protect every industry and every job and be successful keeping every job?” Romney said to reporters. “I don’t think any person can make that guarantee. But I can guarantee that I’ll fight and do my best.” This is from the Yahoo article linked above. I’m a little surprised by this. I would think Romney-the-CEO would be more open about “hey, if you want to compete in this global economy, we will have to find new areas of competition”, not spout what sounds like a protectionist strategy. Is he now pandering to the Lou Dobbs crowd? |
Speaking of pieces about Romney in the top stories of Yahoo News. Anybody else see this column? I don’t know very much about this woman (other than she is famous for being mean or something), but there are some pretty good snarks in it:
|
Dan Elsworth #1, I wonder why you didn’t include Dean Barnett’s earlier paragraphs in his NY Times editorial that you quote from. I believe he put his finger on Romney’s Achilles Heel. Said Barnett earlier: “…I often marvel at how the public perception of Mr. Romney differs so radically from the man I know. The blame for this lies in the campaign he has run. “Early in the presidential race, Mr. Romney perceived a tactical advantage in becoming the campaign’s social conservative. Religious conservatives and other Republicans with socially conservative views found the two early front-runners, John McCain and Rudy Giuliani, unacceptable. As someone who shares the beliefs of social conservatives, Mr. Romney saw an opportunity that he could exploit. He made social issues the heart of his candidacy. “This tack rang false with the public because it was false. The problem wasn’t so much the perception of widespread “flip-flopping†on issues like abortion. The public allows its politicians a measure of flexibility. But the public correctly sensed something disingenuous about Mr. Romney’s campaign. “Voters perceived the cynicism of a campaign that tried to exploit wedge issues rather than focus on the issues that in truth most interested the candidate. They sensed phoniness. As a consequence, many have grown to feel that Mitt Romney can’t be trusted. This lack of trust is now the dominant and perhaps insurmountable obstacle that the Romney campaign faces. “I know few voters will believe this, but Mitt Romney wants to be president out of a sense of duty. He feels our government needs someone with his managerial skills. He also feels that to fight the long war facing us, we need an intellectually curious president who’s willing to learn about an unfamiliar foe and who will fight resolutely to defeat that foe… ” I suppose one might be tempted to add, “With friends like this Romney doesn’t need enemies.” |
‘Romney’s appeal in Michigan, beyond being a “native son, ’ Whoa, there, I think that this factor is being underestimated in any discussion that focusses on his performance. Exit polls found that this was a factor in about 4 out of 10 Michigan voters. BTW, I have family in Michigan, and it was fascinating how many of their friends assumed that Mitt was an LDS convert, but that his father could not have been a Mormon while serving as governor, because no way could a Mormon be elected as governor of Michigan three times. I remember those elections (my father was state commander of a veteran’s organization and was very involved in the campaign) and it just didn’t come up. I think that Michigan was just a blip based on family affiliation, and the Romney campaign will have faded by the second week in February. |
re # 33, see http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/15/michigan.gop.issues/index.html: “A majority of the voters — 57 percent — said Romney’s ties to Michigan were not important in their decision.” |
I think they either lied or they didn’t know their own selves well enough, john, because of course his ties were important to their decision. |
Naismith: The Mormon question for George Romney was nullified for two reasons: (1) George showed he was independent of church control by standing against church leaders by supporting civil rights, and (2) George’s opponent, Governor Swainson, was RLDS. So, there were actually two Mormons in the race. |
DKL: Mitt Romney is the Republican frontrunner between now and Saturday, it’s true. However, despite his attempt and yours to lower expectations about the South Carolina primary, if Romney only “wins the bronze” there he will lose that frontrunner status. That’s not devastating for him, but it does mean that he won’t have frontrunner momentum going into Florida, which looks like it could be a real showdown state on the GOP side. I think you are really reading way too much into the Michigan results. Michigan didn’t show that Romney or his message had any draw or appeal. Michigan showed that Romney can win an election if: (1) he carpet-bombs the airwaves with TV ads, (2) none of his opponents put up any competing ads, and (3) no voters show up at the polls. The last is actually the most crucial point. Why did Romney win the Republican primary in Michigan? Because nobody showed up to vote. Romney got all of 337,847 votes this week in Michigan. Guess how many McCain got in the famous 2000 Michigan primary where he beat George W. Bush? 626,244. That’s right, almost twice as many votes. The 2nd place winner in 2000 (Bush) got 200,000 more votes than Romney got this year. Why did nobody show up, despite the unsettled nature of the Republican field? Because there effectively wasn’t a Democratic primary in Michigan and the real story of these Republican primaries this year is that no one is showing up. In terms of total votes cast, Huckabee came in 4th in Iowa: behind Obama, Edwards and Clinton. By the same measure, McCain came in 3rd and Romney 4th in New Hampshire, both well behind Clinton and Obama. And when there is no contest on the Democratic side, as in Wyoming and Michigan, overall voter participation tanks. So you can definitely thank Michigan for keeping Romney in the race, but I certainly wouldn’t assume that his new-found message of economic populism — which sounds more like John Edwards than the gipper to me — has caught fire with voters. |
Dan Ellsworth, that’s a pretty good assessment of what Romney had at stake in the Michigan primary — basically the legitimization of his campaign. For all the talk of delegate counts, the electoral system is still a winner-take-all contest in each state. If there are three candidates, and one of them comes in second in every state, he’ll fail to get a single electoral vote. You’ve got to win somewhere, or you’ll never win the prize. California Condor, I think that’s a pretty good case for the optimistic assessment. I’m not quite that optimistic. I’m happy to see Romney win wherever he wins, but I remain unconvinced that he’ll actually get the nomination. Rob Taber, I think that Romney will have a hard time getting second in South Carolina, so I’m not convinced we’ll ever see whether he might have done well in Florida as a result. annegh, I don’t mean to suggest that Romney will get the nomination, because I agree with you that it’s premature. Clark, I find it odd that you see a character gap between Obama and Romney. Obama has flip-flopped on more issues than any candidate. Ironically, the least flip-flopping candidate is actually Hillary Clinton, who has struck out a shrewdly center-left, but consistent road from the get-go (the dust-up over licenses for illegal immigrants notwithstanding. And don’t bother with Daily Kos. Kos is nutcase, the Democrat counterpart of the whack-job Christian conservatives. a spectator, it’s not just Mormons who are counting Huckabee out. It’s the received wisdom. I think that liberals are fooling themselves if they think that he’s going to be their opponent in November. Nick, I think that “life-long quest for the presidency” was a throw away remark. But, taken literally, it’s false. Hillary has the requisite amount of vanity, ego, and ambition to run for president, but no more or less so than anyone else. |
BTD Greg, I agree with you about Huckabee and Romney. Huckabee’s a loser and Romney still faces an uphill battle. But be careful about national polling numbers to match up candidates. Once the primary cycle ends and the general election process begins it’s a brand new ball game. This is why I emphatically disagree with the conventional wisdom among Republicans that Hillary will be easy to beat because of her high negatives. Once she’s given the nomination, she’ll have an opportunity to define herself like never before. As first lady and as a primary candidate, she’s largely at the mercy of how other people define her. Dan, that’s what people said in 1976, when there was a knock-down, drag-out fight between Gerald Ford and Ronald Reagan. Sure Ford lost, but we did get Reagan. Ultimately, heated primary battles produce strong candidates with good organizations and great name recognition. And politics ain’t just about the next election. For example, if Hillary Clinton were to be elected president, it is quite likely that Republicans would win at least one house of Congress during mid-term elections. Bill, I agree that she didn’t decide to run for president Jan 1, 2007. I’m embarrassed for her for having actually said that. Last Lemming, if you think that Michiganian auto-supremacy cannot be regained, then you underestimate the negative impact of government regulation on the auto industry. |
a random John, I disagree fundamentally with your analysis. Gasoline isn’t that expensive when adjusted for inflation, and it still costs less than bottled water. Even so, gas prices are kept artificially high by several factors, including the following:
Add to this CAFE standards, which have no impact at all on emissions and cannot be considered any part of the “environmental impact of automobiles.” CAFE standards are the ultimate gesture-over-substance policy, and they’ve never been shown to decrease overall fuel consumption — that’s why they’re always pegged for years that are way out in the future; nobody wants improved milage now, because nobody really wants improved milage. (And you could improve overall auto-milage this afternoon simply by forcing car-companies to drop their 2 least efficient cars. Does anyone have the balls to propose that?) Add to this the reformulated gasoline requirements pushed through congress by president GHW Bush (#41) as part of the 1990 Clean Air Act, which requires 2+% oxygen to be added to gas, requiring expensive additives (and actually cause cars to get lower mileage). And since it ends up requiring different, non-interchangeable formulas of gasoline to be distributed to different areas, it complicates the logistics of gasoline refinement and distribution, creating artificial shortages and intermittent price spikes. Mitt Romney is very smart, and he knows all this, and he will act appropriately as president, because engineering policy that harms an industry doesn’t do it any favors in the marketplace. The recalcitrant fools are the members of Congress (including McCain), and the failing ideas that they’re propping up are the invasive public policies. |
Margaret Young, that’s a pretty good summary of the state of politics in our nation. It makes for a fun horse-race, but whoever gets elected, there will be two schools of thought about whether it leads to good policy. That’s an interesting question about disciplinary councils. Chances are, he presided over the excommunication of some adulterer. That could be a big factor. MAC, I agree that this election cycle is unprecedented in too many ways to enumerate. Geoff J, I love Ann Coulter. She has a way of stating things clearly, so that they hit the dead center of the issue, and the proof is that she makes liberal hopping mad. More mad than Rush Limbaugh. I’m hoping that her endorsement of Romney will have an impact. Nate C, as usual I agree with you. queuno, I don’t think it’s protectionist. See my response to arj above for clarification. Eugene Kovalenko, Dan probably didn’t include the entire thing because he linked to it, but thanks for posting the additional part. Naismith, you may very well be right. I don’t expect Romney to get the nomination either. |
John Hamer, that’s fascinating that George Romney’s opponent was RLDS. Thanks for pointing that out. Incidentally, Mitt Romney’s mormonism seldom came up in his campaign for Massachusetts governor. I believe that this is because his opponent, Shannon O’Brien, took the high road. Just kidding. Actually, the Catholic church was in the thick of the priest-pedophile scandal; since O’Brien was Catholic, nobody in either campaign wanted to touch religion with a 10-foot pole. I do disagree with you about whether Romney is spouting populism. Romney’s not blaming rich, corporate executives for exploiting auto-workers, he’s blaming the government. That’s not populism. Perhaps you’re reading too much into my blog post in terms of the Romney’s prospects. My first sentance is, “Mitt Romney is, for the moment, the closest thing that the Republican party has to a frontrunner.” I then go on to talk about the impact that the win has on his campaign, and about what worked for him in Michigan that didn’t work in earlier states besides the obvious (in hindsight) “native son” factor. Naismith tends to believe that there was little beside this, and I think that’s a credible point of view. But if Romney’s going to have prospects, then he’s got to find some formula for connecting to voters, and Michigan is the only model he has for that. |
Nate C. is right. Everyone should see the documentary “So Goes the Nation” which chronicles the 2004 presidential election in the battleground state of Ohio. Republicans foresook the “Swing” voters and instead focused on motivating likely Bush voters to simply act. As long as the voters’ attention turns from the war to the economy, I think Romney is the front-runner. |
DKL: You’re right, I was reading too much triumphalism into your initial post, and also I should have said economic demagoguery, since I don’t mean to argue that he’s engaging in class warfare. |
re # 36 — that is a fascinating detail about George Romney’s opponent being RLDS. Was Governor Swainson really RLDS? Two people from the Mormon tradition facing off against each other for the governership of Michigan is extremely interesting. We know that George Romney was an orthodox (i.e. faithful, believing) Mormon; was Swainson an orthodox, believing member of the RLDS Church? I am thinking that he must not have been, since I have never heard of this fact, although that is not saying much except that I am interested in that kind of detail. |
#45 NNDB -www.nndb.com- has him listed as Protestant, United Church of Christ which was formed in the ’50s. Also he was born in Canada which makes it less likely that he was RLDS. But maybe he was and change religions at some stage. |
John F: Governor John B. Swainson was born RLDS, but he was not an active member of the church. I think it’s still an interesting Mormon face-off, regardless of activity. According to Newell Bringhurst in his soon-to-be released book, The Mormon Quest for the Presidency:
|
Here is a Time Magazine article from 1962 addressing George Romney’s “Mormon Issue” that also clarifies the denominational status of Governor Swainson. (He was Lutheran, having left the RLDS church during WWII.) http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,939876,00.html?iid=chix-sphere |
I think it’s still an interesting Mormon face-off, regardless of activity. I definitely agree with this — I was just trying to figure out why I hadn’t read about that already, given my interest in such details. |
if you think that Michiganian auto-supremacy cannot be regained, then you underestimate the negative impact of government regulation on the auto industry. I’m trying to think of a government regulation that applies to the domestic auto industry but not to imported autos or to other domestic industries that have remained competitive. The two most obvious burdens on the industry (CAFE standards, which apply to imports) and ERISA (which applies to all domestic industry) don’t qualify. Help me out here. |
re # 48, thanks for the link. It’s interesting to see the perspective of that time, for example:
I’m not sure this was a very astute observation by the reporter in this instance, but I could easily be wrong. |
John Hamer, It should be noted that comparing the caucuses (and stating that Huckabee came in 4th) in Iowa is a bit of an apples to oranges thing as the rules for the two parties differ. Especially significant is the 2nd choice voting for Dems. That said, there is clearly more enthusiasm on the Democratic side at this point in the process. |
DKL, None of what you said engaged my comment in the least. All the regulations you cite apply to import manufacturers as well. Detroit’s inability to compete and innovate is not due to anything you listed. |
Last Lemming: Think bigger. Our Government has failed the auto industry, primarily, by giving Japan unfair access to American markets. Yes, American auto makers have helped to dig their own grave and have provided the UAW with plenty of shovels throughout the years. However, our government must insist on a “level playing field” when negotiating trade agreements with other manufacturing countries. Japan, China, Europe–they need us. They need our tremendous buying power. The best time to re-negotiate was in the nineties and every year that goes by, we lose more and more leverage. I actually deal with (and profit from) this trade imbalance on a daily basis–so maybe I’m shooting myself in the foot here. I own a company that imports high quality, skilled-labor-required, low cost (read high profit margin) products from China (and other Asian countries). I see first hand that the trade imbalance is very real and can only be solved at the Government to Government level. |
ARJ: True, however, the raw numbers make my point just as well. Over 227,000 people participated on the Democratic side of the Iowa caucuses and less than 119,000 participated on the Republican side. That result is unprecedented for what had been a red-leaning state. According to Pat Buchanan:
|
arj, I think you miss the point. My comment hits your issues head-on. Think of it this way: You have a domestic auto-industry that specializes in large, comfortable cars, and a foreign auto-industry that specializes in smaller, lighter cars. Why do we adopt a regulatory strategy that makes it nearly impossible to compete with large, comfortable cars? The American auto-industry pushes out home-run after home-run when it comes to making big, comfortable, usable cars and trucks. US automakers still dominate the truck, SUV, and minvan market. Why? It isn’t hamstrung by the same regulations. Chrysler came up with the minivan (actually an idea that Iacocca came up with at Ford that got shelved) and it took the imports nearly 20 years to catch up. The Chrysler 300 is another home run as a large, comfortable car, though it’s not a truck. When it comes to smaller cars, American car companies have done their best work when they partnered with Japanese companies to re-label their cars (or by just purchasing the company, like Ford did with Mazda). And not everything is rosy on the Japanese-side, either. There’s been talk of Mitsubishi pulling out of the US market. And the latest Toyota Camry (the V6 model), once the gold-standard for reliability, is no longer no even recommended by Consumer Reports. Why? Because of it’s below average repair record. You want to fault Detroit for failing to make the next Honda Civic or Toyota Corrolla. That’s a fair criticism, but it’s a mistake to characterize the industry as a failure on those grounds. |
DKL, The other component that is dragging down the US auto industry is the massive cost of pensions and medical insurance for its retirees. This is due to making the same idiotic assumptions that the Social Security system makes. US cars would be cost competitive if not for poor planning. |
also, while Chrysler continues to dominate the minivan segment in terms of sales, I would guess that Honda does very well in terms of revenue, as does Toyota. Finally, has anybody ever even met the current CAFE standards? Has anybody been fined for missing them? My understanding (a few years old) is that they are pretty much ignored by automakers and the government. |
I agree with John. One big (but not the biggest) problem the big 3 auto makers have is their stupid unions and the agreements they negotiated in the 70′s and 80′s. The figure I hear bandied around is that it adds over a thousand dollars to each car’s price. I also think that they haven’t exactly been making cars people like. They’ve done tons better in the truck/SUV market. (Although even there I prefer Toyota and Nissan) Regarding Romney as communicator – I’ve watched a few of the debates. Sorry. He’s no Reagan. I’ll say this, he had an interview yesterday on NPR I listened to about the auto industry and he really did a fantastic job. It was good enough to almost make me get over my leeriness of him. He basically called for a 20 billion dollar manhattan project on technology. So I think he’s figuring out this is a winning issue for him. The implicit comparing of McCain to Carter is very interesting. I wonder how many people will actually pick up on it. |
Clark, thanks for noticing. I was wondering who would get that. I agree that Romney is no Reagan. Romney is a good, capable communicator, and he can have flashes of eloquence on some issues (the auto industry is on), but on too many other issues he tends to come across as though he’s trying too hard to convince you of what he’s saying — and this is true even of those issues where it’s highly unlikely that he’s pandering, like national security (in those areas, perhaps he should keep his points short and to the point). He’s reasonably likable (but nowhere near as likable as Reagan), but not charming or funny — his jokes, even when funny, seem scripted and forced. But Romney (like Reagan) is resilient, and he’s able to come across as an optimist — of the other candidates, only Giuliani is able to do that. And my personal disclaimer concerning automobiles: My family drives two second-hand Toyotas, both of which have 100,000+ miles on them. We haven’t owned an American-made car in about 10 years. I’ve been driving my current car for 8 years, so I’ve been thinking about replacing it. My next car will definitely be second-hand, and it will likely be another Toyota. |
Also worth noting: Past CAFE standards have not applied to trucks and SUVs. Trucks are basically subsidized by the government as you can deduct $25k of the cost of a vehicle with a GVWR of 6,000 pounds. The minivan I recently purchased (a Honda) is just short of this. The great majority of vehicles that qualify for this are from US brands. If anything Detroit has the playing field tilted their way by the government and they’ve managed to screw things up on their own. |
arj, It sure is worth noting. That’s why I in my original response to you, I was careful to point out that trucks, SUVs, and minivans are exempt from many of the regulations that hamstring the auto industry in other areas. That’s the area in which they’ve excelled, and that’s the reason I site that fact. |
DKL, Has anybody ever complied with CAFE standards? |
There has been numerous court cases surrounding CAFE standards and the different thresholds that they establish, so companies are either complying or paying the fines. |
I was pondering the strange love that has sprung up between McCain and Huckabee, the fact that neither ever takes a shot at the other. They clearly were double-teaming Romney in NH. Romney’s wise to get out of the crossfire in SC given and make them duke it out finally, but even now, McCain’s mostly letting Thompson do his dirty work. Seems there has to be a reason. My husband, who is not normally paranoid, suggested that perhaps McCain convinced/encouraged Huckabee to run to peel off the evangelicals from Romney (e.g. by promising him veep?), allowing himself to get front-runner status when Romney was clearly the most formidable threat. Certainly McCain has nothing to lose from Huckabee because evangelicals would not generally choose McCain, and in the absence of Huckabee, most would have gone to Romney as “lesser of evils.” |
I could see a McCain and Huckabee ticket. That would really balance McCain’s weaknesses in terms of base. Neither are really that conservative, which would be a big negative. But Huckabee would definitely bring an Evangelical and social conservative base. |
McCain/Huckabee might actually have a better shot of winning against Hillary or Obama than a ticket featuring Romney or Guiliani. |
Queuno, you’re thinking like most pundits. McCain/Huckabee would have very little chance for the reasons I stated in #26. |
“McCain convinced/encouraged Huckabee to run to peel off the evangelicals from Romney” This would be interesting since Huckabee announced his candidacy a full month before McCain. Here’s a good article discussing this irrational hatred some Republicans have for McCain: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/gerard_baker/article3207017.ece |
Bill – good point, although they could have still struck a deal after the fact… Plus, McCain may not have announced as early but might have known he was going to run. They choose their entry points strategically, not whimsically (or I like to think so anyway). Anyway, it’s neither here nor there. I just thought it was an interesting idea. McCain’s pretty shrewd and not to be underestimated. Romney might be smarter to ally with Guiliani anyway, since he’s already doing his ads for him. |
Yes, McCain, having run in 2000, has been planning his 2008 run ever since, but Huckabee was thought by just about everyone as recently as last fall, to be going absolutely nowhere. The next few days may show that thanks to the predictably intolerant confederate flag-wavers of SC, Huckabee might damage McCain more than he helps him. |
Bill – that’s confederate flag-waving, gun-toting, squirrel-eating, Wal-Mart shopping, gay-bashing, Creation-believing, gastric-bypass denying, yada yada… Sorry, just went on a short rant there. Almost sounded like INXS for a second. |
Great article: http://www.theconservativevoice.com/article/30292.html |
Thanks for the link, Nate. I like how they refer to the “pander-bear Huck”. |
With 38% of precincts reporting in Nevada, Romney has 55.2% of the votes. http://politics.nytimes.com/election-guide/2008/results/states/NV.html It appears Mitt will handily take Nevada. Of course, no one will pay any attention to Nevada, for some reason, and what happens in South Carolina will determine the media’s frontrunner, I have no doubt. |
Well, it looks like Romney is no longer the frontrunner; McCain has become the candidate to beat. Romney is now tied with Huckabee for 2nd place in a 3-man race for the Republican nomination. Indeed, McCain’s biggest problem is that he doesn’t appeal to self-identified Republicans. |
Wishful thinking? The charge was certainly true when it was made, and has been an issue that dogged him since his losing 2000 bid for the Republican nomination. While McCain’s victory has toppled Romney’s delicate frontrunner position, Romney still has the most delegates, by a factor of 2: 72 for Romney and 38 for McCain. We’re back to a race without a frontrunner. Even so, the win in South Carolina is, as you mention, a compelling win for McCain among other Republicans. The good news is that Huckabee now through; if he can’t win a primary in South Carolina, the it’s doubtful he’ll win anywhere besides Arkansas. The race is now everybody vs. McCain, where the credible members of “everybody” are now Romney and Giuliani. If Huckabee and Thompson support goes overwhelmingly for McCain, then Giuliani will stay afloat. If he’s competing for #2, then he’s competing to be within striking distance of McCain. But if Thompson and Huckabee support split between McCain and Romney or favor Romney, then Guiliani will drop to a distant 3rd, and then he sinks altogether. All told, I’ve heard arguments on both sides: that a McCain win is better for Romney, because it kills Huckabee; and that a Huckabee win for McCain is better for Romney, because it hurts McCain going into Florida. I agree with the argument that it would have been better for Romney if Huckabee had one, but there are worse things for Romney than having Huckabee knocked out of the field. But even though Huckabee’s fate is sealed, he won’t be leaving the race anytime soon. As much as it makes me cringe to think of him anywhere near the White House, he’s likely just going to go after a #2 position on the ticket. |
DKL: Instead of “wishful thinking,” we might say “out-dated conventional wisdom that you had been wishing wasn’t out-of-date.” Anyway, I agree that the GOP race is now everybody vs. McCain and that McCain is the GOP frontrunner. However, I think your prophecy about Huckabee being “gone” is more wishful thinking. The guy has already proven he can win a race besides Arkansas: Iowa. Huckabee was only narrowly edged out by McCain in SC because he had to split the social conservative vote with “bronze medal” winning Thompson. If Thompson drops out, the entire social conservative core of the party goes to Huckabee. The McCain win definitely hurts Romney. The two are slugging it out for the party’s non-Evangelical, non-Southern minority. To the extent that Guiliani is even in this race anymore, he pulls from the same beleaguered group of dead-enders. Unless we’re going all the way to the convention, I’m predicting this ultimately will end up as a 2 person race between the GOP elite (represented by either Romney or McCain) and the rank-and-file (represented by Huckabee, given Thompson’s demise). I’d prefer it to be Romney vs. Huckabee, because I think McCain is the strongest GOP candidate. I very much doubt it will end up a two person race Romney vs. McCain. To my thinking, it’s most likely to be McCain vs. Huckabee. |
I said that Huckabee can’t win a primary outside of Arkansas. A caucus is a different beast altogether. McCain is Bob Dole 2.0 — boring, not compelling, snide, and intemperate; i.e., a Senator’s Senator. If he wins the nomination, look for a reply of 1996. Hillary will eat him for lunch while he drones on and on about his latest hobby-horse and his much vaunted support among independents evaporates when even his “base” lacks the stomach to support him whole-heartedly. |
Also, I added a paragraph to my comment that you may not have seen when you were writing your reply, namely:
|
Re: #80. You know there’s a frontrunner. You’ve already said “it’s everybody vs. McCain,” which is the definition of a frontrunner. The delegate count is still worthless. Sure, Romney has the capacity to spin it and say the delegates and Wyoming and Nevada’s caucuses matter (although the Nevada delegates aren’t binding). That capacity is why Romney is not out, despite coming in 4th place in what has traditionally been the most important GOP primary. Re: #79. I hope you’re right and I think you’re right, but that still makes him your strongest potential candidate. |
Unless we’re going all the way to the convention, I’m predicting this ultimately will end up as a 2 person race between the GOP elite (represented by either Romney or McCain) and the rank-and-file (represented by Huckabee, given Thompson’s demise). The rank-and-file will fall behind Romney or McCain. Huckabee is done. |
John Hamer, “out-dated conventional wisdom that you had been wishing wasn’t out-of-date” is not really accurate either. McCain’s problem has been, and continues to be moving beyond independents. South Carolina demonstrates that it’s possible for him to overcome this, because McCain actually moved into conservative circles on a limited scale in South Carolina — McCain still got smeared among people identifying themselves as “very conservative”, though he finally did well among folks identifying themselves as “somewhat conservative.” McCain’s win among South Carolina Republicans is an important milestone for McCain. But what’s wishful thinking is supposing that a single primary in South Carolina can solve, in one fell swoop, the political problem that has dogged McCain his entire national political career. At best, the jury is still out. George Will came out tonight against McCain in no uncertain terms. Is this a backlash? It’s just too early to say that Republicans are willing to accept McCain. I just re-read my earlier comment, and I wasn’t clear enough: The Everybody vs. McCain dynamic holds for Florida. It’s not a function of him being a frontrunner. It’s a function of the fact that Giuliani won’t convert many Romney voters due to his perceived liberalism, and Romney won’t convert many Giuliani voters because of his perceived conservativism. From the point of view of both Romney and Giuliani, the McCain voters are the largest swing block. If McCain holds Florida, then he’ll be a front-runner. Otherwise, we end up with more candidate-soup until Super Tuesday. |
DKL – I agree. FL is very pivotal, although it is probably unlikely anyone will drop between 1/29 and 2/5 just because something could happen (a candidate could be felled by some major Chappaquiddick-level scandal), so the need to exit is low, the possible gain is high. Among the big 3, the possible outcomes for FL are: 1. McCain, Guiliani, Romney – Worst case for Romney. This would make 2/5 more of a 2-person race between Mac and Rudy. Obviously, if someone else unexplicably broke the “Top 3″ barrier in FL that would change everything (Huck could, rendering those “throwaway votes” since he can’t possibly show on 2/5; Thompson hasn’t officially backed out yet; I don’t see Paul being big in FL). For any GOP to be electable will depend totally on veep choice and relevance over time (as national and world events unfold between now and election day) since this whole thing is taking place so early. |
6. Romney, McCain, Guiliani – Again, this would make it a 2-person race on 2/5 between Romney & McCain. The media would spin this to indicate that FL voters were duped again by the flashy Romney . . . Heh…can we say “LDS persecution complex?” ;-) |
Nick, I’ll take that. Although I should clarify that I don’t believe that the media Romney-bashing is LDS-based. IMHO, most of the media could care less that he’s a Mormon. I think they bash him because he’s handsome & rich, represents the establishment and is trying to represent the entire conservative base (unlike all other GOP candidates) in some cases overreaching his actual positions, resulting in the view that he’s a phony. His Mormonism is just icing on the cupcake. |
Fair enough, hawkgrrrl. |