Super Tuesday shenanigans?

So John McCain Mike Huckabee won West Virginia. Sounds like Mitt Romney is accusing John McCain and Mike Huckabee of a back-room deal to push support to Huckabee if McCain became not-viable at the convention.

So now Romney is upset at being victimized by the political game:

“Unfortunately, this is what Sen. McCain’s inside Washington ways look like: He cut a backroom deal with the tax-and-spend candidate he thought could best stop Gov. Romney’s campaign of conservative change.”

Huckabee’s response? Humorous:

“I thought he was saying yesterday, ‘No whining.’ So is it no whining or whining? He can’t even keep a straight answer on the ‘whining or no whining’ question.”

I’ve determined that Mitt Romney is a shinier version of Doug Neidermeyer of Animal House and Twisted Sister fame. I’m waiting for Romney to pull a Doug Neidermeyer-esque outburst to cement his status as an idiot. On the heels of all his flip-flops, most recently his stoopid comments about Bob Dole, Mitt Romney continues to not understand national politics or the gravity of the statements he makes. He uses attack ads, yet complains of the same old Washington political process. He is acting like a petulant child, and if he doesn’t start to play the game better, he’ll have to go home and figure out to do with all his money. Boo-hoo.

John McCain: the Berkshire Hathaway of the Republican Party?

John McCain has always been a bit of an iconoclast. The one with “heretical views”. Much like the investing philosophy of Warren Buffet, John McCain’s success in the race for the Republican Presidential Nomination is predicated on his ability to prosper in spite of a down market.

The current administration is the biggest drag on the Republican Party, yet McCain manages to appeal to people in spite of his clear support of the war in Iraq. His similarly clear stance on the ridiculous economic policy of the current administration is a key part of this appeal. His draw also comes from his ability to speak to people in unambiguous language. He favors tax cuts (for more than just the rich), repeal of Roe v. Wade, and other core party perspectives. He leaves other key issues such as gay marriage and some civil rights and education questions to the states.

Mostly standard stuff. Then there are some of his other views. He’s on the record about the global warming problem…and he acknowledges that it is a problem that needs to be addressed. His past perspective on immigration (guest workers!) isn’t doing him any favors with his colleagues, but he is recently saying “I hear you”, or something to that effect. Not sure where he really stands economically, other than he won’t stand for pork-barrel spending, which is a good start. But further research here is required.

I am curious how he plans to cut taxes and decrease federal spending while continuing to support the war in Iraq with our money and our (and his) children? Huge expenditure funded by diminishing tax dollars. In the past, we’ve funded things like this by borrowing money from our children by way of China.

But, as my friend and colleague points out, he did just win the conservative stronghold of South Carolina. And I do agree that he has a better shot in the general election against anyone from the Democratic Party. As long as he keeps up the straight talk, avoids Rudy 9-11iani in Florida, he’s going to get that shot. And given the stellar job old dubya has done pooping on the Republican Party name, I never would have thought a republican had a shot at the white house in 2008. Warren Buffet should be proud of such success in such adverse times.

Did the Independent vote really help John McCain?

Pundit thought has indicated that it was the Independent vote that carried Senator John McCain to victory in the New Hampshire primary. Let’s look at the numbers to see what we can see:

• New Hampshire has around 850,000 registered voters
  • 26% of those are registered Democrats – 221,000 or so
  • 30% of those are registered Republicans, which is about 255,000
  • 44% of those are Indepentent voters – about 374,000

• According to final results, 517,226 voters turned out on primary day in New Hampshire. This represents almost a 61% voter turnout. Not sure if this includes absentee ballots, but i suspect not.
  • Nearly 55% of those voting participated in the Democratic primary – 284,050
  • That leaves 45% voting for the Republican slate – 233,176

• Since I’m not a statistician, I can’t really do this “properly”, I’m sure. But let’s take this one or two steps further based on simple math. Based on a nearly 61% turnout, I would expect:
  • 134,478 Democrats
  • 155,168 Republicans
  • 227,579 Independents

  It’s unrealistic to expect that 61% turnout to apply equally to all three groups, but without pouring through exit poll data, we can’t be sure. And even with exit poll data, do we really trust that information? Polls have proven unreliable, so let’s ignore them for the moment.

• Continuing this simple analysis: (note: here is where I am unsure how correct this can be without reliable poll data – more on that below)
  • 149,571 Independents turned out for the Democratic slate of candidates
  • 78,008 Independents chose to vote on the Republican side

  But I’m certain this isn’t really accurate. NPR has some good analysis of exit poll data that indicates something else. This is interesting – according to exit poll data:

  • 119,301 Independents voted Democratic – about 30,000 fewer than my simple math
  • 79,280 Independents voted Republican – only off by 1,280 here

  OK then. So what? A little more math.

• Of the remaining “true party” voters, the Democrats came out in slightly larger numbers compared to their Republican neighbors – 51.7% to 48.3%. Assuming these voters would vote for the candidate of their party, it looks a lot like a general election number. And probably “statistically insignificant”.

So back to the original question – Did the Independent vote really help John McCain? Most certainly, yes. But it helped someone (or someones) equally or more in the Democratic primary given the exit poll data and voter turnout. I haven’t seen this angle reported on for the Democrats with the same level of interest as it has been for McCain and the Republicans.

Based on one primary with a very small sample size, it would seem that both parties have the ability to draw the middle. This will place increased importance on the vice-presidential choices for the eventual candidate. Many pundits see the candidates from both parties as either too far left or too far right for a true appeal to the moderate voter. Each will need to look for that moderate candidate to solidify their appeal to the middle for ultimate success in the general election. But if this Democratic support by the New Hampshire Independents is any indicator, the Republicans will be in more need of a moderate vice-president in order to make it back to the White House.

Common sense words from the New Hampshire debates

Some of the best material coming out of the Republican and Democrat debates in New Hampshire came from the candidates with little or nothing to lose. Not a surprise, but it is unfortunate that the front runners cannot exhibit the same candor, the same degree of common sense.

Beginning with his comments on the Bush doctrine, Ron Paul said this:

“Well, I certainly agreed with his foreign policy that he ran on and that we as Republicans won in the year 2000 — you know, the humble foreign policy, no nation-building, don’t be the policeman of the world. And we were strongly critical of the policy of the Clinton administration, that did the opposite. And we fell short. Of course, the excuse is that 9/11 changed everything, but the Bush doctrine of preemptive war is not a minor change. This is huge. This is the first time we as a nation accept as our policy that we start the wars. I don’t understand this. And that all options are on the table to go after Iran? This — this is not — this is not necessary. These are third-world nations. They’re not capable.

“But I think it’s the misunderstanding or the disagreements that we’ve had in this debate along the campaign trail is the — the nature of the threat. I’m as concerned about the nature of the threat of terrorism as anybody, if not more so. But they don’t attack us because we’re free and prosperous. And there are radicals in all elements on — in — in all religions that will result to violence. But if we don’t understand that the reaction is — is because we invade their countries, we — and occupy their countries, we have bases in their country, and that we haven’t done it just since 9/11, but we have done that a long time.

“I mean, it was the Air Force base in Saudi Arabia before 9/11 that was given as the excuse. If we don’t understand that, we can’t win this war against terrorism.”

And this is among the reasons he is not invited to the Republican debate on Fox News. He couldn’t care less about Republican ideology. Largely due to the fact that he hasn’t always been a Republican, I suppose. As a friend of mine points out – “Why doesn’t he just say we should legalize marijuana? He could totally get away with it!”

Charlie later brought up the question of how can we afford a trillion-dollar war and not afford to provide healthcare for everyone, and Ron Paul once again spoke with logic and reason:

“Charlie, you really answered the question — you answered it in your question, because you said how can we afford a trillion-dollar war and we can’t afford health care? Well, that’s the reason. The resources are going overseas. We’re fighting a trillion- dollar war, and we shouldn’t be doing it. Those resources should be spent back here at home.”

He went on to criticize economic and monetary policy:

“We run up the deficits. We tax. We borrow. We borrow from the Chinese. We can’t borrow enough. Then what do we do? We print the money, and then you wonder where the inflation comes? The value of the dollar goes down and prices go up where the government gets involved in certain things, like housing or medical care or education. Prices are skyrocketing. So you have to deal with the monetary issue to solve the problem of the medical issue.”

He may lack the poise, polish, youth, or looks of his peers, but he speaks from his heart and his head without letting ideological spew get in the way. He won’t win, so what does he have to lose?

On Charlie’s question on the rising price of oil, and whether anyone wanted to simply state the truth about the future price of oil, and that it isn’t going to get any better:

“I’ll be glad to answer that question because it’s something I talk about all the time and it’s a very important question. The Wall Street Journal yesterday had a very good chart that explains this. If you look at the price of oil in the last 10 years, if you look at it in terms of dollars, it went up 350 percent. If you look at it in Euros, it went up about 200 percent. If you look at it in the price of gold, it stayed flat. It’s the inflation, it’s the printing of money, it’s the destruction of the value of the dollar.

“Added onto this, the notion that we go to protect our oil — oil was $27 when we went over there to get the oil and protect the oil and take the oil from Iraq. There’s less than — there’s less than about half the production now in Iraq right now and we’re threatening Iran, and that pushes prices up. It pushes up the concept of supply and demand.

“But you can’t deal with the price of oil without dealing with the supply and demand of dollars. When you devalue the dollar — and the dollar is going down every day, and the further the dollar goes down, the higher the prices of oil going up. We have to understand that. “

Again attacking the fiscal policy of the current administration. What I’d like to hear is how he proposes to solve this problem. Unfortunately, Ron Paul doesn’t get enough mic time to outline his “policy for change”. Since change is the watchword for the next month or so. He has some additional commentary on the importance of understanding monetary policy on his site.

More thoughts on this, and other common sense coming out of the debates.