Soccer Dad

The wages of lamont

There is a common theme in reporting the Republican race for President this year that there is a weak field with no one capturing the imagination of Republican voters. I am going to be stubborn and insist that this is, for the most part, garbage. As I've written before I believe that the only candidates likely to win the nomination are Romney on the Republican side and Obama and Clinton on the Democratic side. I would modify that prediction to include Giuliani on the Republican side, but the reason for these predictions is the same. The candidates with the most money at the time of the first reporting will win the nomination. All the polling we see is so much noise.

Granted the data that I'm working with is limited, but it shows a clear pattern.

The reason for adopting this stand is that in 2003/2004 polls showed Howard Dean coming out of nowhere and emerging as the favorite candidate for the Iowa caucuses. He finished third in Iowa and his campaign quickly went nowhere. I believe that this early polling is seriously flawed.

The New York Times adds another story to this knowledge with For Republicans, Falling in Love Is Hard to Do

But what is worrying Republicans these days is that this tepid rank-and-file reception to the best the party has to offer suggests that the Republican Party is hitting a wall after dominating American politics for most of the last 35 years. Republican voters are reacting to — or rather, not reacting to — a field of presidential candidates who have defined their candidacies with familiar, even musty, Republican promises, slogans and policies.

Obviously I reject that last part. At least two are running on records of accomplishment as executives. What's reported here is just too dismissive. The Republicans will quickly line up behind Romney or Giuliani. I don't believe that there will be a brokered convention. Every four years similar scenarios are trotted out and never materiailize.

The Times continues

The contrast with Democrats is only accentuating the problem Republicans have. Democrats may be on the brink of making history by nominating either an African-American or woman. Their party’s contenders have been stumbling over one another in promising to change the direction the country is heading in. And the Democratic rank and file likes what it has: in the Times/CBS News survey last week, Mrs. Clinton had the highest favorability rating of all the Democratic candidates with 68 percent. By contrast, just 41 percent of Republicans said they viewed Rudolph W. Giuliani favorably — and he lead the Republicans on that score.

My sense is that this polling is skewed and won't be reflected when parties actually start to vote. But however much Democrats are happy with their potential choices, yesterday's news has to be viewed as a corrective for this enthusiasm. Sen. Lieberman is set to endorse Sen. McCain.

Frankly, I don't see how this changes the equation much. On the Democratic side, primary voters aren't likely to give Sen. Lieberman's pronouncements much weight and they mostly can't cross party lines in the primaries. (One exception as the Politico points out, is the early state of New Hampshire.) My guess is that this isn't going to help McCain either in the primaries. It might boost his status for a slot as Vice President or cabinet position - as it would for Lieberman if a Republican wins - but it won't help him in the primaries.

Where I think it will help is in the general election. Powerline observes

If Senator Lieberman's endorsement opened the possibility that bipartisanship in foreign policy might be restored, his endorsement would affect me. But I think that Senator Lieberman is an island of sanity in a sea of Democratic Party madness. His endorsement nevertheless makes the already extremely interesting Republican race even more interesting.

In part, I expect that Lieberman's crossparty endorsement (not as big a deal since he's technically now an independent) will serve as a reminder of two things.
1) No Democrat can be taken seriously on foreign policy.
2) If bipartisanship is possible it is more likely to exist with a Republican president than with a Democrat.

No doubt part of Lieberman's motivation is that when Ned Lamont beat him in the primary, the Democratic establishment including allies such as Sen. Clinton quickly abandoned him. But he's also served alongside three of the Democratic frontrunners in the Senate. This is a vote of no-confidence in them.

Again this won't much matter in the primaries, but it could be big in the general election. Even if McCain is not the Republican nominee, I'd expect that Lieberman would still more likely support a Republican than a Democrat in the general election. I expect then it will make a bigger difference.

From memeorandum here and here.