“Remember that a government big enough to give you everything you want is also big enough to take away everything you have.” — Barry Goldwater
Daily Archive for January 11th, 2008
CNN is reporting that John McCain has gained a full 21 points (jumping to 34%) in the first polls taken after the NH primary (”Poll: New Hampshire win rockets McCain to front-runner status“). 21 points. All because he won the primaries in a state that has so few delegates as to have very little control over the Republican convention. Let’s not forget that he won NH in 2000, and then went on to lose the Republican nomination to George W. Bush.
“Only McCain gained support among Republicans nationally. McCain’s now the clear Republican front-runner,” said Bill Schneider, CNN senior political analyst.
Come on people, we’ve got 47 states to go.
But … if this holds true, you would think that Rudy Giuliani, who came in fourth in New Hampshire, would have dropped like a rock, especially given his less-than-stellar showing in Iowa. Nope, he’s only lost 6 points, dropping to 18%.
What about Romney? He had a strong second place showing in New Hampshire. He should have gotten a big boost. Nope … he’s still hanging around at 14%.
On the Democratic side of the spectrum, Hillary Clinton gained nine points to end up at 49%. Wonder why she didn’t get a 21% boost like McCain?
“Clinton has re-established herself as the Democratic front-runner, especially among Democratic women,” Schneider said.
Whatever.
Seriously, has the electability of McCain or Clinton improved over Romney or Obama? Of course not. The problem is that people are switching horses after they’ve barely gotten out of the starting gate. We now have 21% more Republicans who think they are going to vote for McCain just because he won in New Hampshire. Why don’t they just vote for the person they think is the best candidate?
What would you say about a St. Louis Cardinals fan who, after the first game of the season, decided to start cheering for the Braves because the Cardinals lost their first game and the Braves won theirs?
The same principle applies here. People, choose your candidate because they stand with you on the issues, not because they’re winning. We’re never going to get any of the change everybody is promising when we vote based on “electability.”
Good grief. I’m going to go listen to pleasant music and read a book before I pop a vein.
Addendum: Another good point … what about Huckabee’s first-place finish in Iowa? Was that not good enough to gain him a sizeable jump in the polls? After all, Iowa does send more delegates to the convention. If it’s all about how they’ve done so far in the primaries, Huckabee should be far more electable than McCain at this point.
What it boils down to is this … people spend far too much time watching polls and primary votes in deciding who to vote for than they do listening to the candidates and thoughtfully thinking about the issues.
According to reports, he’s asked some of his campaign workers to work without pay for at least the month of January (”Top Giuliani staffers to go without pay“).
Two sources in the campaign, speaking on condition of anonymity, insisted the campaign was not in dire financial straits. A third campaign source, however, said “things are starting to get tight” and that “it was more telling than asking” the senior staff to forgo paychecks beginning the first of the year. Another source disagreed, saying it was a “voluntary” move by senior staff members “so all of our resources could be targeted toward Florida…Our campaign is not living hand to mouth right now…”
It’s an open secret (ok, maybe not even a secret) that I despise Rudy Giuliani. However, I’d hate to see him go. After all, us Ron Paul supporters gauge how well we’re doing in the primaries by whether we beat him or not in votes. 
OK, seriously … I think Rudy brings something to the table, though. I like the fact that he’s basically open about his more liberal social views and his statist leanings. There, I’ve said something nice.
Latest Comments
RSS