My partner in all things Romney, Justin Harts made this cool chart. I think it’s helpful to assess where each campaign is currently. Now you may not agree with some of the rankings (hey Justin is a Mitthead) so tell me ones you would change. There are a couple I would do perhaps differently myself, such as I would give Fred Thompson a higher name recognition score, and add a category for “Most Mormon,” so I am interested in your thoughts. I could think of some other funny categories, but I digress…
What this does illustrate is the fact that the strength of candidate and his respective campaign should be judged according to mutiple factors- it’s not a one piece puzzle.
March 28th, 2007 at 11:42 pm
[...] post by Jason and software by Elliott [...]
March 28th, 2007 at 11:56 pm
You mentioned off the cuff “Most Mormon” but a possible category could include a measurement of inherent negatives the candidates face. Romney, fairly or not (in my opinion, not) has a big hurdle to jump within segments of the party, namely his religion. McCain, on the other hand, has a credentials issue among the conservatives, even though he has voted mostly conservative throughout his career. Giuliani is seen as a liberal by some, a conservative by others. Some of the negatives can be attributed to past experiences, but a lot is out of the control of the candidates – more of a perception problem than reality. This is not to say it’s unique to the GOP or to this election, but perception is a huge part of political campaigns (remember Bush 41 and the wimp factor, Dukakis and the unpatriotic flag waiving rhetoric, etc). I’m not sure how to rate it, but it’s an issue as important in politics as fundraising and endorsements.
March 28th, 2007 at 11:57 pm
Oh by the way. . .I love the chart idea. Forgot to preface my post with that.
March 29th, 2007 at 12:00 am
Rudy is polling at close to DOUBLE McCain nationally, yet they have the same score?
RCP avg 33.4 > 17.6
March 29th, 2007 at 12:01 am
Also, how about weighting the categories? They surely aren’t anywhere near equivalent.
March 29th, 2007 at 1:48 am
If you start refining the scores in each column, and then weighting the different columns, pretty soon you end up with the fully complex model, with so many variables to argue about, that you completely lose the illusion of simplicity that is the only thing the graph really offers.
March 29th, 2007 at 2:43 am
Where is Tancredo and Paul? And if the Thompson listed here is, in fact, Fred, then where is Tommy? And Gilmore? And by the way is Pataki even still in this? Has he even been seen in public recently? Just wondering. Clearly I’m quite bored sitting here at work at 345 am.
March 29th, 2007 at 3:16 am
This might cause a few defections from the guy at the top of your chart, if true:
Democrats say McCain nearly abandoned GOP
I mean, look, the GOP is certainly no Utopian representation of conservatism, but are you gonna tell me that a guy claiming to be the “true conservative candidate” is someone who nearly switched to the party of the Kung Pao Congress? Sure, it was six years ago, but I think this is one of those crimes that has a very, very long statute of limitations.
I’m not saying the other guys don’t have issues where there should be some serious concern about how conservatively they would govern, but that doesn’t mean we should ignore what anyone who is not in complete denial should know, irrespective of this story, based on past events: we can’t be sure of exactly how to define McCain, the politician, but calling him a conservative really stretches the farthest bounds of credibility.
Even though Hugh Hewitt is supporting Romney, he seems to be trying to stay objective, and I think his description of McCain is the best one out there: “Great American, Lousy Republican, Horrible Senator.” I am eternally grateful for his steadfast support on the war. But, that doesnt make him a great Republican Senator, and I will no more vote for him in the primaries than I would for Lieberman in the general (unless he were matched up against Hagel). They’ve both got the big issue of our day right, but so does every other GOP candidate running. So, tell me again, why would I pick McCain over any other credible candidate?
March 29th, 2007 at 3:25 am
Let’s keep in mind that everyone in this story claiming McCain was ready to bolt the GOP is a Democrat, including Tom Daschle and John Edwards, all of whom have no reason to be completely objective here. McCain and his supporters including Lindsay Graham naturally take the opposing side of this story. The truth probably lies somewhere in the middle, as usual. I like McCain and even after this article I have no problem voting for him should he win the nomination. However I hope someone on this site more knowledgeable of McCain’s positions than I am can explain how McCain is still a conservative (pro-life, pro-war, anti-spending) despite a couple significant votes to the contrary (McCain-Feingold, which by the way I still say is a horrendous law with great intentions).
March 29th, 2007 at 3:53 am
In my sea of anti-McCain ranting, I can understand how this phrase could have been overlooked:
However, my gut tells me that it’s likely that the truth lies much closer to the Dem version than McCain’s. The Cap’n and Allahpundit posit some very compelling reasons to think so:
http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/009531.php
http://hotair.com/archives/2007/03/28/the-hill-multiple-democrats-say-mccain-almost-left-gop-in-2001/
Sure, it could all be a bunch of hooey. But, like I said in my earlier comment, knowing what we know about McCain, to say that I wouldn’t be shocked is an understatement.
Also, sure, McCain is pro-war, but so is Lieberman, and further, like I said earlier, so are all the other GOP candidates. So, while being strong on defense is a necessary condition, it is not sufficient for being a “real” conservative.
He is anti-spending, but not a supply-sider. A conservative on ecomonics (Reagan being the model, I think we can agree, for a true economic conservative) needs both. All or nothing, baby.
Pro-life, I grant you, he is the best of the credible candidates. But, there is another example of necessary but not sufficient. Great, he’ll give a prominent face to the pro-life movement…lots of good thatll do when he nominates Souters and Kennedys to SCOTUS. (Don’t see how he can nominate Justices who would overturn Roe and also keep his pet, BCRA; not to mention that he said said pretty harsh things about extremists during the ’05/Gang14 episode – everyone recollects his harsh words about “conservatives” and “the religious right,” but he was equally harsh in referring to conservative judges at different times, as well…had to keep Chris Matthews happy, right?) I accept that the reverse of that is not “pro-life” either, and that those who don’t buy the “Rudy is good for the the pro-life cause even if he will nominate legal conservatives to SCOTUS” have a legit point. But, tearing down your opponent does not on its own elevate your guy.
So, in the end, it comes down to being a pro-life hawk who is amenable to raising taxes to offset spending cuts means youre a solid conservative? Sorry, but for what I think is the body of thought generally regarded to as Conservatism, his “pluses” are necessary, but very, very far from sufficient requirements, while his “minus” on amenability to tax raising alone dqs him.
March 29th, 2007 at 5:53 am
I think what is being overlooked here is the indebtedness to Giuliani that
many Republicans in office across the country have incurred over the past 5 years.
You ask any Republican politician anywhere, “What fundraiser of yours over the past
5 years has bagged you the most money?” and from Ralph Reed on on they’ll tell you,
“The Giuliani event.” I think what is also being overlooked is the enormous – absolutely
enormous – network Giuliani has. Giuliani has played everything very close to the
vest so far. Not true of everyone else. Let’s wait and see.
March 29th, 2007 at 6:47 am
Peter – that’s an excellent point. I wasn’t familiar of that fermenting support. I don’t doubt it
David B – I thought about weighting it but I figured that would lead to a huge argument.
To that end, I would argue (as I argued elsewhere on these pages) that the ground game is ALL important when it comes to the primaries.
March 29th, 2007 at 8:30 am
David B,
In regards to weighting it, I think it’s good idea, but even that would change as time goes on. Polls are a less important today than they will be net January, Ground game will be very important in different states.
I do think perhaps instead of 1-3 Justin could use a 1-5 score, thus polling could reflect the differences between McCAin and Giuliani and Thompson and Romney in Key state polling.
March 29th, 2007 at 9:11 am
I am not sure if I am underdstanding this chart. The higher the total score, the lower the standing?
March 29th, 2007 at 9:49 am
Think of “score” as ranking. The lower “the score” the higher the rank.
March 29th, 2007 at 9:55 am
thanks justin
March 29th, 2007 at 1:53 pm
I love this site! I’ve got it bookmarked, and check it daily…
Two (prickly) points:
1) For the love of all that is holy, please fix the title of this post. “You’re lucky day” means “you are Lucky Day,” which sounds like a line from a bad Bond movie. (“Why yes, Miss Day, I’d love to join you for a nightcap…”). I know, I know, I’m a grammar nerd, but this is like nails on a chalk board for people like me…
2) This may be explained elsewhere on the site, but why haven’t the rankings been updated? McCain is clearly no longer tied w/ Rudy, and Newt leads Mitt in every poll I’ve seen. What gives
March 29th, 2007 at 2:38 pm
KGW,
In the course of your keeping up with this blog, you will notice that Jason’s strongest suit is NOT his spelling and grammar. However, his brilliance and deep insight of Romney’s ultra-superior qualities, is second to none!
March 29th, 2007 at 3:43 pm
I do like the chart, and I agree that it’s better to consider all the factors instead of only looking at fundraising and early polling, for example. Granted, accurately determining how candidates rank is almost impossible, but it’s worth a shot!
I was actually thinking of a semi-serious category like unto the one that Jake mentioned in the beginning of this section. I would call mine “sinkability,” or “floatability,” if you want to stay positive. It would encompass those factors (or a lack of those factors) that could ruin a candidate’s chances, those that could damage a candidate’s reputation or might become insurmountable hurdles.
On the McCain story — I think it definitely has the potential to hurt him, unless it is quickly disproven. The thing I can’t understand is how Daschle says he doesn’t think this story would hurt McCain at all, that republicans would essentially dismiss it without a thought. Is he naive or is he trying to hurt McCain?
On an unrelated note: Jason, I see your name all over the web. Mitt’s not my first choice, but I can’t help but admire someone so dedicated to their candidate. I hope Mitt is thankful for what you and Justin are doing for him.
March 29th, 2007 at 4:14 pm
KGW,
Wow, sorry about that.
KT,
I humble admit you r right about mi speling (that’s a joke)
March 29th, 2007 at 4:34 pm
[...] post by Jason and software by Elliott [...]