This morning on CNBC, a political “analyst” told us that Republicans like to “coalesce” behind the front-runner, so McCain will easily win the Republican nominee, and the only interesting stuff is happening in the Democratic primary.
My favorite blogger, Steve Sailer, picked up on this issue yesterday, noting how the NY Times has ignored Romney’s win in Maine. CNN claims that Romney has won all 18 delegates from Maine. The party loyalists in Maine who attended the caucus/straw poll obviously didn’t get the message that they’re supposed to “coalesce” around McCain.
The CNN delegate scorecard now shows McCain leading Romney by the tiny margin of 97 to 92 delegates. How can someone be the front-runner with such a narrow lead in delegates? If Florida were not a winner-take-all state, Romney would be the one in the lead, not McCain.
Some bloggers and blog commenters have alleged that reason the media is doing this is because they see McCain as being unelectable because he’s too old and too supportive of Bush’s Iraq policies, and by supporting him they help put a Democrat into the White House. But I disagree, I believe that liberal journalists innocently and genuinely like McCain more than Romney because they see McCain as “bipartisan,” and as having “enlightened views on immigration reform.” If anything, the media seems to buy into the argument that McCain is the most electable Republican, an argument that I think is overstated--voters would come around to Romney once they get to know him better
***
Also check out these comments by Mike Huckabee, who seems to have an intense dislike of Romney. Huckabee, by staying in the race, is obviously trying to hurt Romney, and maneuver himself into a Vice Presidential nomination. This would be extremely bad for the Republican Party because it would make him the de facto front-runner for the next presidential election cycle.
Half Sigma wonders:
How can someone be the front-runner with such a narrow lead in delegates?
See the definition of frontrunner is someone who is the lead. This doesn't mean you have to be 50% ahead of the other guy. It just means you're in front. Hence the term.
"Some bloggers and blog commenters have alleged that reason the media is doing this is because they see McCain as being unelectable because he’s too old and too supportive of Bush’s Iraq policies, and by supporting him they help put a Democrat into the White House."
Yes because the Mormon businessman from ultra liberal Massachusetts is far more electable in middle America than the Christian POW war hero, right?
Your ability to create boogeymen gets more impressive by the week.
Posted by: DML | February 04, 2008 at 11:37 AM
Personally, I think McCain's likely to bring back the draft. He needs it to support the Iraq war. And, hey, if he spent five years in a POW camp without cracking he's going to think two years from all of us isn't reasonable?
I'm voting for Hillary to keep out of the army.
Posted by: SFG | February 04, 2008 at 11:50 AM
I thought that you were anit-Romney because of the mormonism.
I can't see why you'd go from Giulliani to McCain. Giulliani is the front runner for McCain's VP, most likely.
Posted by: The Engineer | February 04, 2008 at 11:53 AM
It interesting to consider the state of newspapers and network television in relationship to politics. Check Marc Andreessen's latest blog post on the state of the New York Times .
Readership is down, ad revenue is down, classifieds are down. The only source of increasing revenue seems to be political ads.
It was only four years ago that Howard Dean was a name for the ages for having raised $50 million dollars in the primary http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Dean#Fundraising.
Now everybody is required to raise that much, and pretty much quickly transfer it to media buys. What had been an outlier is now the new norm.
Fortunately how that works- Obama is up one week Hillary is up the next, and both need to keep raising spending money. There is a news story about Clinton crying or something and then she sends out a fund raising blast about how she needs to answer "these attacks from our enemies". John Edwards has been relieved of his $43+ Million and sent packing because he has nothing more to offer.
Also fortunate, for the media's view point, is that Romney didnt win Iowa or New Hampshire (after a remarkably intemperate editorial by the Concord Monitor) or the Republican primary would have been over and Fred, Rudy, Huck and McCain would have continued to spend.
I am sure we can look forward to stories how great it would be if Bloomberg entered the race in a self financed campaign.
So its interesting that media feels that what really is a horse race is all wrapped up. Is McCain really all that more moderate or bipartisan than Romney? Romney is hardly Barry Goldwater.
Posted by: | February 04, 2008 at 12:09 PM
Personally, I think McCain's likely to bring back the draft.
SFG, are you over the age of 25? If you are, I wouldn't worry. In contrast, I'm 24 and my brother is about to turn 20. In regards to the possibility of a draft, it's much lower than one would think, and the military isn't interested in using it at an option according to various public statements, and implementing it will certainly increase public support against "the war".
Besides, Canada doesn't want more people. :)
Posted by: David Alexander | February 04, 2008 at 12:45 PM
This is absolutely outrageous.
I put together a pie chart of the delegates from CNN and media reality warp just smacks you in the face. This thing is still WIDE open:
Republican Delegates
-Mercy
Posted by: Mr. Mercy Vetsel | February 04, 2008 at 12:52 PM
Personally, I think McCain's likely to bring back the draft
Even McCain is smart enough(I hope) to realize that the draft would be a massive fucking disaster. The last thing the military wants is a bunch of unmotivated people who would rather be somewhere else doing something else. The draft means lots of stupid/unmotivated/resentful/lax recruits who will get friendlies killed and shit broken. I do not want these types of individuals anywhere near me, especially considering the work we do on a daily basis. If the draft is reinstated, I'm out and I won't be the only one.
Posted by: | February 04, 2008 at 01:36 PM
The last thing the military wants is a bunch of unmotivated people who would rather be somewhere else doing something else.
Plus, IIRC, it's probably cheaper to pay Blackwater than to give out the various lifetime benefits that the military and VA give to veterans.
Posted by: David Alexander | February 04, 2008 at 02:01 PM
"Some bloggers and blog commenters have alleged that reason the media is doing this is because they see McCain as being unelectable because he’s too old and too supportive of Bush’s Iraq policies, and by supporting him they help put a Democrat into the White House."
I also disagree that either McCain or Romney is any more electable than the other.
I don't buy the conspiracy that the media is pushing sub-par Republicans to hand the presidency to Democrats; the Republicans seem to have managed that just fine without needing the media's help.
Posted by: mith | February 04, 2008 at 02:06 PM
The draft is military slavery, something so abhorrent to individual rights it would take a modern liberal (or a RINO) to advocate it. It's also something completely unnecessary for a country that doesn't play empire.
Posted by: hugh go naught | February 04, 2008 at 02:13 PM
We've proven in Iraq that a smaller number of highly trained troops with the most expensive equipment kicks butt against a larger army of poorly trained and equipped conscripts.
Posted by: Half Sigma | February 04, 2008 at 02:31 PM
Ann Coulter says she will vote for Hillary Clinton because she may be more conservative than McCain. The sad part is, she may be right.
I am a conservative who will never vote for John McCain. His completely classless and tacky move to campaign in Massachusetts to embarrass Romney is the last straw.
Posted by: Jack | February 04, 2008 at 03:26 PM
maneuver himself into a Vice Presidential nomination [...] it would make him the de facto front-runner for the next presidential election cycle.
This is in the fantasy world where the Republicans win *this* election, right?
Posted by: bbartlog | February 04, 2008 at 04:10 PM
I don't buy the conspiracy that the media is pushing sub-par Republicans to hand the presidency to Democrats; the Republicans seem to have managed that just fine without needing the media's help.
Ahahahaha.
But dont you find it odd that the there is a need to nurture some campaigns along while getting in the digs on others? McCain was at like 4% before he was resuscitated by the media in time for New Hampshire. And his margin of victory wasnt even Republicans.
When Edwards drops out he gets a nice respectful send off from the Times, but the next day Rudy gets kicks on his way out the door.
A Tale of Two Withdrawals: Respecting Edwards, But Giuliani "Living an Illusion"
Posted by: Turambar | February 04, 2008 at 04:37 PM