Why Didn’t I Write It When I Said It?

Several months ago, standing among a group of friends discussing politics and the ‘08 Presidential campaign I interjected, “Mike Huckabee will be the nominee and he is the one candidate who will cause us, as a party, much consternation.”  I was met with dismissal and a rebuttal that Sam Brownback was a far more likely candidate than Huckabee simply because he was the perceived as – or rather anointed – the”Christian Conservative” candidate.

As the days pass and the Iowa contest approaches, my “suggestion” doesn’t seem quite so outrageous.  In fact, Jay Cost at RealClearPolitics compiled some raw (though unsubstantiated) data from last night’s CNN YouTube Debate and it shows that the top two candidates and several of the second tier candidates (remember, the Republican field is far more volatile than its counterpart and is therefore more susceptible to sudden change) are fearful of Gov. Mike Huckabee.  And, in all honesty, they should be.

In Iowa, like in the Democratic primary, the result will shape the entire Republican landscape going forward.  It is the one place that could generate enough inertia for a particular candidate to dethrone or disrupt Giuliani’s alleged “Super Tuesday” mentality.  Probably to the shock of many, Huckabee stands second in every poll, and in fact leads in a recent Rasmussen poll.

It is, quite simply, responses like this that explain Huckabee’s meteoric rise:

Rasmussen even considers a possible Huckabee win in Iowa and what it potentially means.  In short, they posit that a Huckabee win would (1) extend the primary season, which is correct, and (2) add further confusion to an already complex primary, while potentially opening the door for a resurgence for either Thompson or McCain.  I agree with the first postulation and disagree with the second.  A Huckabee win in Iowa would most certainly generate momentum in New Hampshire, which I believe, at this point, considering his present standing of about 6.7% (putting him 5th – behind Ron Paul!), would vault him into second (can anyone else envision a second “Comeback Kid” from Hope?), thus setting the stage for a Romney/Huckabee /Giuliani showdown over the next several weeks leading up to February 5.

Now, what does this mean for the Democrats, you ask?  In my opinion, Huckabee poses the most difficulty for any of the likely Democratic candidates because he can marshal the power of the Christian right and he’s incredibly likable.  According to a recent Washington Post/ABC poll, Huckabee ranks as the highest candidate to “best understand your problems” and “most honest and trustworthy”.  He also ranks incredibly high in issue-association questions.

Now, you argue that my references are isolated to Iowa and are not representative of anything.  Oh, to the contrary…

A recent Suffolk/WHDH poll has some very interesting finding embedded deep within.  According to many, Romney is seen as a “flip-flopper” and one-third of those polled indicated that Giuliani is “too liberal” to win the nomination.  Even more telling, almost 50% of those polled indicated that they are “likely” or “somewhat likely” to switch their vote prior to the January primary.  You might respond that a relatively high number of participants indicated that they have an “unfavorable” opinion of him (26% – 2% higher than McCain and 1% lower than Giuliani), but I submit that 50% of people have either not heard of him or do not posses enough knowledge to develop an opinion.  Accordingly, there is great potential for upward movement.

Huckabee also posses problems in that he represents the feared “crossover candidate”.  Though he is conservative on many social issues, most notably abortion, he is somewhat supportive of gay and lesbian rights (though not gay marriage).  Most problematic, he is fiscally conservative; supports the abolition of the Internal Revenue Service, the institution of a flat tax, and has promised to not increase taxes if elected President.  He also sounds extraordinarily presidential.

I recognize that it seems ridiculous that this post is dedicated to a Republican, but I think it’s necessary that we, as a Party, acknowledge what we could potentially be up against and begin to prepare accordingly.

What Makes A Good President?

The willingness to be innovative, daring and the fortitude to – on occasion - subtly undercut your opponents.

Here’s an example:

The text:

Hi, I’m Chris Dodd.  I’m from East Haddam, Connecticut and my family and I are spending a little time in Iowa these days.

I have a question about the Constitution. Many Americans are concerned that the Administration seems to be making a false choice. That is to be safer we have to give up rights. I don’t believe that, I wonder if you do. And if you believe we aught not to give up our rights, what would you do in order to protect our Constitution?

Brain Food

Our heartfelt condolences go out to the family of Jonathan Knybel, who recently passed away following a valiant battle with leukemia.  His mother, Stephanie, is making preparations for the creation of a foundation in his honor to help provide future cancer patients and families in need of support.  In the interim donations can be made in his name to the  UConn Health Center Development Office, Attn: Oncology Six, 10 Talcott Notch Road, Farmington, CT 06032.

——–

The DeLuca controversy is over.  However, the question still remains:  Should the General Assembly have a permanent standing Ethics committee to handle sensitive claims of office abuse?  The New York Timesthinks we should, and also compliments the diligence of the Bi-Partisan committee, which was needlessly lambasted by the Hartford Courant and other media personalities, established to investigate DeLuca.

The committee members deserve credit for carrying out the thankless and unprecedented task of disciplining a fellow senator. But Mr. DeLuca’s resignation is not proof that no permanent ethics committee is needed. The opposite is true.

——–

State Representative William Tong “gives thanks” to a Republican President.

——–

Genghis Conn at CT Local Politics has an insightful analysis of the brilliant and humble Bill O’Neill, the last Democratic Governor, who sadly passed away this past weekend, and the difficulties of the party to field a viable, competative candidate since.

——–

The Judiciary committee will be having a public hearing tomorrow on criminal justice reform, which follows in the wake of the senseless murders in Cheshire this past summer.  You can read the various proposals here.  The hearing starts at 1 P.M. in Room 2E of the Legislative Office Building (LOB).  You may register to testify starting at 9 A.M. in Room 2600 of the LOB; the order will be deteremined by lottery.

Same Time, 2003

I consider myself a student of history, especially political campaign history.  So, from time to time I like to compare Presidential data from 2003 to present day polling information.  Understanding that I’ve spent some time dismissing the relevance and truth of polling “results”, I need to acknowledge that the data is still representative of something — we just don’t know what that “something” is.

Using information gathered from the American Research Group, it’s surprising to see the results of a November 20, 2003 New Hampshire poll.  At that time, 21% of expected primary voters were undecided (for more than today), Gov. Howard Dean had the support of 38%, trailed by Sen. John Kerry at 17%.  Sen. John Edwards was holding remarkably static at 4%, as was our very own Sen. Joe Lieberman, and then-Congressman Dick Gephart was fading quickly.

Five months later, following a decisive victory in Iowa, Kerry won the New Hampshire primary with 39% of the vote.  Dean followed with 26% after this precious moment after the Iowa Caucus:

General Wesley Clark held third with 13% and Edwards with 12%. 

February 3 was the decisive blow by the Kerry campaign, winning five of the 7 primary contests, finishing third in Oklahoma to Clark and Edwards and second to Edwards in South Carolina.  Edwards followed by doing extremely well in Virginia and the remainder of the southern states and solidified his position as the preferred Vice-Presidential candidate on March 2, finishing second to Kerry practically everywhere (excluding Vermont, which Dean won handily).

So, what does this tell us about present day Democratic Presidential campaigning? Virtually nothing except that the race is still very much wide open (least among the top four candidates) and – considering the political diversity of same - that the running mate of the eventual nominee will most likely come from the list of present Democratic candidates.

He’s Baaaacccckkkkk!

The name alone sends shivers down the backs of those who occasionally follow Democratic politics.  Karl Rove, the thorn permanently embedded in the side of Democratic loyalists, is back. 

I could give you a simple debriefing, but it’s far too good (and insightful) for that.  In fact, it requires several reads before its true impact can be fully felt.  The best part?  It’s the last paragraph (emphasis mine) - and it demonstrates why he’s a political mastermind.

While the prospective Republican nominee is talking about her now, the time will come soon when he must spend more time telling his story. By explaining to voters why he deserves to be our next president, he will also make clear why that job should not go to another person named Clinton.

The Fuzzy Data – What Does It Mean?

Every cable news outlet has spent a great part of the day emphasizing the recent Washington Post – ABC News Democratic Presidential poll released today.  It ostensibly shows that the race in Iowa is a dead-heat between Obama, Clinton and Edwards.  And, for all intensive purposes, with less than 60 days until the Nation’s first presidential contest, the results are somewhat meaningful in that it is the first poll that articulates diminishing support for Clinton.  However, Jay Cost at Real Clear Politics reminds us that we must review polling data with a critical, and somewhat skeptical eye due to information asymmetry.

Cost does have some invaluable insight regards the top three candidate’s reliance on new voters, which could very well influence the caucus result (depending on the overall turnout):

Most of Edwards’ supporters are reliable caucus goers. This might give us some clues about what to expect on caucus night. If attendance at the caucus is greater than what it has been in years past, that might bode well for Clinton and Obama. If it is equal to or less than what it has been, that might bode well for Edwards.

Of note, the findings regarding the top two most important issues is illuminating.  According to 600 likely caucus attendees, Iraq is the most important issue (33%) and Health care is second (24%).  Now, there is still a significant divide, but it is telling in that the candidate that makes health care a greater focus (though the poll reads that 1/3 of the subject universe feels Clinton is the best equipped to address the issue) in their campaign may have a decided advantage.

Equally as interesting is the table that shows Obama as the most trustworthy candidate and the most understanding of the problems facing regular people.  Discounting or down-playing of the latter could prove disastrous for the other campaigns, assuming Obama is capable of harnessing (read: campable of equalizing the deficit between he and Clinton regarding who has campaigned harder) that energy. 

The most upsetting information in the poll:  Chris Dodd has yet to make any significant or noteworthy gains.

Not Surprising

The Hartford Courant is reporting that a grand jury has been empaneled to hear testimony regarding the many alleged improper dealings of Mayor Eddie Perez in Hartford.

From the article:

Although it was not clear Monday precisely what the grand jury will investigate, state criminal investigators have been probing Perez at least since February, when revelations surfaced that the city — at the direction of the mayor’s office — gave a lucrative, no-bid deal to a political supporter to operate a city-owned parking lot downtown.

Not surprisingly, his attorney, the renowned Hubie Santos, said he “welcomes the investigation” and “looks forward to total vindication.”  Awkwardly, though for obvious reasons, he commends the state’s attorney office for their “deliberate and measured approach in investigating these allegations.”

Hartford is already a city on the ropes, but it has great promise and is primed for progress – it simply requires a committed, focused, no-nonsense leader.  At one time that may have been Eddie Perez, and it still might be, but this newly erected barrier makes that increasingly unlikely.

Come On In, Look Around

We’re moving on up…

As you can see, we’ve changed hosts and are now using Word-Press.  The reasons for this are many, but suffice it to say, Word-Press is far more user-friendly and less prone to crashes and endless frustration.  We have also chosen to do so because the CTYD’s have updated their server, so it provides an opportune moment to improve our communications strategy.

I’ll be dedicating the next few days to updating the page and integrating much of the information we have contained on our Blogger page.  So, welcome to our new home, feel free to share your suggestions and thoughts with us as we continue to promote our progressive message with the world.