Romney is More Conservative than Reported

I've spent a fair amount of time deconstructing McCain. It should be obvious that I don't like him very much. But nonetheless I will vote for him over Hillary or Obama. (also over Huckabee and Paul). My objections to McCain are based on both personal (I know him personally quite well) and on conservative positions.

Now I should offer my analysis of Romney. I do not know him and I don't believe any one I know is working for him, though I could be wrong on that account. But I have always regarded him as a conservative. I will come to my reasons shortly, but lets provide some background information.

In the American Thinker online magazine, Amy Goldstein offers a list of points of Why They Hate Romney. Key graph:

Why do the Republican candidates hate him? Because they don't have any answers to his challenges. They seek to undermine him by using personal attacks more worthy of a middle school playground than a presidential contest.

.I encourage you to read the whole piece.

This is a little dated, but Club for Growth gave the following appraisal:

"Governor Romney's economic record contains a mixture of pro-growth accomplishments and some troublesome positions that beg to be explained," said Club for Growth President Pat Toomey. "While his record on taxes, spending, and entitlement reform is flawed, it is, on balance, encouraging, especially given the liberal Massachusetts Legislature. His record on trade, school choice, regulations and tort reform all indicate a strong respect for the power of market solutions. At the same time, Governor Romney's history is marked by statements at odds with his gubernatorial record and his campaign rhetoric."

They also had this commentary on his economic speech before their organization in February 2007:

“Governor Romney outlined today an economic platform that is, generally speaking, very pro-growth despite the surprising limit he suggests for tax-free savings,” Toomey said. “As the governor develops the specifics of his economic policies, we hope he will boldly build upon the limited government, free-market policies he discussed today.”

“The other presidential candidates should follow Governor Romney’s lead and propose similar, if not more extensive, measures to protect American taxpayers and promote continued economic expansion.”

It appears that supporting a flat tax or a transaction tax heavily colors the views of Club For Growth. While I am supportive of a broad reduction of taxes at all levels and to all payers, I am absolutely opposed to a transaction tax.

Side Note: Club For Growth president, Pat Toomey, said this in an interview with CBS News:

Well, the optimal tax system, first of all, would be one with a very low rate and a very broad base. And one in which the government doesn't pick winners and losers by providing all kinds of loopholes and deductions and credits and all kinds of gimmicks, as the current system does. So, a flat tax would be one way to achieve that. A national sales tax would be another way to achieve that.

I strongly disagree with his last two sentences. Romney appears to disagree on the same points that I do. His economic plan emphasizes rate reduction and elimination, but not an overhaul or an implementation of a national sales tax.

Romney's bona fides on economic conservatism are strong and well documented. But the "Flat Tax"ers just can't seem to abide with anyone who does not adopt their agenda. This whole issue is worthy another post.

[Wife says its time to get to bed. I will continue this post later. For the chance reader, go ahead and rip away at me!]

The Battle over McCain; Romney Gains

Fred Barnes makes a reasonable plea for the folks who would have conservatives and the voting republicans at large rally behind McCain in today's Wall Street Journal:

Mr. McCain will have to take the initiative to repair the relationship, and he appears ready to do just that.

His victory speech in South Carolina marked a new step. Rather than dwell on the hardy perennials of his campaign message, national security and patriotism, Mr. McCain spoke more broadly about his conservative goals. "We want government to do its job, not your job," he said, "and to do it with less of your money." He praised "free markets, low taxes and small government."

Moreover, Mr. McCain intends to go beyond conservative boilerplate and actually campaign as a conservative. His congressional voting record is predominantly conservative (ACU rating 82.3%), qualifying him to do so. He's already stepped outside his comfort zone on taxes, endorsing a cut in the corporate tax rate to 25% from 35%.

Dan Riehl counters brilliantly:

At least two characteristics make McCain unacceptable, no matter how much he tries to spin himself into a conservative now. He first opposed issues around the war and Bush's tax cuts because of lingering animosity towards George Bush, resulting from the 2000 campaign. He's proved himself a man unable to stand on principle, especially conservative ones, when his emotions are involved. That makes him politically untrustworthy, at best.

The second big problem is the media image as a maverick McCain cultivated for selfish reasons, because the press, and particularly the electronic media, loved slobbering over an alleged Republican consistently happy to attack the base and even his own Republican President. First and foremost, John McCain is about John McCain - and it shows.

I won't even give David Brooks the courtesy of a link, but he illustrates MSM arguments for McCain in his piece today in the Gray Lady. Rush spent quite a bit of time refuting his arguments for the ill-considered and inconsistent blather that they are. No need to retread the points there.

But now the battle has narrowed with the departure of Fred Thompson. Paul Mirengoff posited that the Fred votes would allocate evenly between "McCain, Giuliani, and (in southern states) Huckabee". I disagree.

I posted my "Vacuum Theory" in a incoherent and rambling fashion but the foundational point remains: The dynamics of a multi-candidate field will reward a single candidate disproportionately when the field is narrowed. The real question is which candidate will benefit the most.

I believe Romney will gain disproportionately because 1) His conservative credentials have the broadest support and accolade of the remaining candidates 2) His conservative credentials have the least amount of target for attack--ie. he contrasts well with all the other candidates on conservative issues 3) Economy is suddenly front and center 4) His organization is the best of all the candidates 4) He can afford to spend the money to "win" the Thompson voters and other as yet uncommitted or undecided or even the fickle.

UPDATE:

Over at Ace of Spades HQ, a online poll of Fredheads gives the following result. Ace sums up:

Early Results... It's a small sample and not scientific but I think it's somewhat representative as it seems to track with the new preferences expressed in the comments.

So far, it looks like Fred's 10% of supporters won't have a major impact on the race. About half will go to Romney, giving him a nice but hardly decisive bump, and a quarter to Giuliani, giving him almost nothing (except perhaps if that tiny bump is enough to put him just barely past McCain in, say, New York).

So Romney gains about half of Fred Thompson voters? That seems about right and the Vacuum Theory now has some evidentiary support!

UPDATE 2:
Patrick Ruffini has a similar poll with more dramatic results. Hmmm, 74% to Romney??!! Now that is disproportionate.

UPDATE 3:
Allah Pundit has a 3-way poll with results more like Ruffini's. My guess is that 60-65% of Thompson supporters move to Mitt. Will this change the dynamic in Florida? I unabashedly say YES!

McCain Can't Win Republicans Yet Again

McCain gets only 31% of the Republican vote losing to Huckabee by 1 point. Mitt and Fred each get 15% and 17% respectively.

As far as the conservative vote, he only gets 26%!! He loses to Huckabee by 9 points. Mitt and Fred get 16% and 19% respectively.

With results like this, one can not say that McCain is winning the party. He is still dependent upon independents. In fact, he is dependent on moderates as well.

He will lose Republicans in Florida and he should split independents and moderates with Giuliani. I think he faces a very uphill battle.

There are two other lines of analysis on what I believe make long odds for him.

One, he is running low on funds. At this stage, the institutional money givers have already given what they will to his primary funds. Any institutional group that hasn't given to him yet, will be either waiting to see Florida results, or they are ideologically opposed to funding his campaign. He can go in search of individual donors via email, direct mail, internet or event fund raisers. Right now event fund raisers are pretty much off the table (the reasons for this are many but trust me on this one). Direct mail is expensive and low yield in such a short time frame. That leaves email solicitations and online donations. Many would would respond to such an outreach have already given and tend to be very ideologically oriented. McCain has a very narrow ideological group to himself and I don't see there being a great swell of new support. He will bring in some money but not as fast nor in the amounts that he needs. So he has a money problem. Pushing his message in Florida will require MSM cooperation and positive polling. He won't be able to buy the air time otherwise.

Two, he is still left of the party and flat out despised by many of the base for issues such as illegal immigration, Gang of 14, etc. Florida loves Jeb Bush and Jeb Bush appears to be in Romney's camp (here and here). With the decline of Fred Thompson, Romney is the last conservative standing. There is a substantial base of voters that will not vote for McCain if given a choice. That vote will split between Giuliani and Romney. I don't believe Huckabee is a factor any further.

My early, early prediction is that either Giuliani and Romney will win and that McCain will finish a close third. The fun will continue past Florida.

Barack Wins Black Vote by 69 Points

Blacks make up 7.9% of the Nevada Population (10.4% in Las Vegas). The CNN Entrance poll have Blacks providing 15% of the vote.

So blacks were over-represented in the Democratic Caucus and Obama got 83% of that vote. Barack can not win on just a black vote. He lost Whites by 8%. and he lost Latino's by 38 points. Clearly he is losing on a racial divide but it is not White Vs Black... it is Brown Vs. Black.

He is also losing the gender vote. Hillary also swept him in many other categories. Her win appears to me to be rather complete. If these ratios hold in South Carolina, he will lose there also despite the heavy percentage of blacks. Winning on gender is going to trump winning a single racial divide.

McCain Finishes Behind Paul in Neighbor State!!??

So McCain can't even beat Ron Paul in his neighboring state. That seems indicative of some problems for McCain.

Remember how the MSM made so much of Romney's inability to win New Hampshire? We heard it from more than a few pundits also. Will we hear any such remarks against McCain now? I bet not.

Does Another McCain Endorsement Help?

From Naked Politics:

A source working with the John McCain campaign says U.S. Sen. Mel Martinez is set to appear with him in Miami-Dade on Monday, swinging crucial Hispanic support to his fellow senator who suffered with him in trying to push an immigration reform bill that was despised and decried by many on the right as "amnesty."

Which leads to hyperbole such as "Oh My God! McCain is Unstoppable" Now I read Dan Riehl daily and I have no argument with him but in this instance I think he is over reacting.

How much weight does an endorsement or list of endorsement really give to a candidate? Not much I think. They tend to mainly reinforce already held convictions but I don't believe they are persuasive.

Do you ever hear someone say, "Well, I was for the other guy but when I heard that Joe Somebody endorsed McPain, why right then and there I dumped Preacher Man and rallied behind the Rigid Talk Express!"?

How about the oft reported comment: "I struggled for days trying to decide who to support, and then like sunshine parting the clouds, Joe Somebody showed me the way and I forgot the hundred reasons that had me confused in the first place (such as those pesky "amnesty" issues and the serial backstabbing of conservatives) and I jumped on the bus. It really was a relief to me to give up the fight against liberal cheer leading from the New York Times and the Miami Herald and just go along with their choices. Thanks Joe for the help."

Lets say for the sake of discussion though that the fears are perfectly on target and that McCain gets the "momentum" and becomes the Nominee. If our commonly held principles of limited government, fiscal restraint, immigration integrity, constructionist judges, sanctity of life, etc. can't win in the marketplace of the campaign, then we are a minority and the fight must go on. Whether McCain wins or Obama wins or... gag.. Hillary wins, we will have been shown to be a minority. A single or even a cornucopia of endorsements isn't going to be the deciding factor. I doubt such endorsement(s) would even be the last straw. If we are a minority, it is an inherent fact and we are just awaiting the proof.

One the other hand, if we are not a minority then there will be a point where we win out. I refuse to believe that republicans will choose McCain in mass. If they do, then Dan is right. Time to form a conservative party.

A Theory for McCain: Nature Abhors a Vacuum

I missed Paul Mirengoff's piece on McCain yesterday. Here's a key quote:

The real question is how McCain is surviving (at least so far) the scrutiny of Republicans in a very conservative state. If McCain couldn't command plurality support from Republicans in Michigan and New Hampshire, how is he commanding it (so far, it appears) in South Carolina. Are Lindsay Graham and company that influential?

Polling is not going to give us an answer to that question but Aristotle had it right when he said "Nature abhors a vacuum". Paul also brought this point indirectly:

Mitt Romney decided that Michigan, not South Carolina, was the place to revive his fortunes. Not only is Romney willing to go after McCain, but he also had the endorsement of South Carolina Senator Jim DeMint. His decision to "go dark" in South Carolina probably helped McCain. Third, Giuliani's decison not to compete in South Carolina means the "moderate" vote won't be split to any meaningful degree. Finally, McCain doesn't need a big number to win the South Carolina primary. He can lose two out of every three ballots cast and still quite possibly come in first.

The Vacuum Theory is that the absence of contestation by a candidate in a multiple candidate field benefits a single candidate disproportionately. Its not that Romney's absence sends his votes to McCain directly. Rather a new equilibrium is sought as the electorate adjusts to that absence. A new candidate is pushed to the top by the reallocation among the remaining candidates via a new subdivision among various groups. Thus with the absence of Romney, the Votes for Huckabee, Thompson, and/or Giuliani reapportion and shift to McCain's favor disproportionately and Romney Votes likewise divide and reallocate with a net benefit to McCain.

To illustrate this better lets assume that there were only two equally appealing (polling at 50% each) candidates. The drop of one, would proportionately benefit the other.

Now imagine 3 equally appealing (polling at 33% each) candidates. Would the dropping of one benefit the remaining 2 such that they would each be at 50%? No. The Vacuum Theory holds that one of the remaining 2 would benefit disproportionately. Unknown, is the individual secondary and tertiary preferences of the voters. Also unknown is larger strategic calculations such as might be represented by perceptions of electability that are not readily manifest or predictable. So it is a logical certainty that one of the two remaining gains disproportionately.

Now make the number of candidates 4 or more and make the divisions uneven at the onset. The permutations grow exponentially. In such a situation it is perhaps impossible to predict who benefits and how they profit from the decline or absence of a single candidate.

It appears also that an artifact of the fractured primary's is that the "perceived" leader benefits from a triangulation among the voters that is not represented had the absent candidate been campaigning more aggressively. It is a strange calculus indeed.

The factor that remains undetermined is what happens with the Undecided vote?

My Prediction for SC

Following my earlier thought that Romney votes could go to Thompson, I make the following prediction for tomorrow:

Fred/Romney 35%
McCain 29%
Huckabee 28%
Paul 5%
Giuliani 3%

Whether Fred or Romney finish 3rd, I don't know.

Lewinsky and The Drudge Report Remembered

Ten years ago I was assembling the data for the year end FEC report for my congressman. It was the 3rd year end for our campaign after the 1994 surprise Republican victory that gained us control of congress. I was tired of going through the reports and verifying contributors information so I perused the websites where I kept on top of things. I had already book marked The Drudge Report as I liked to use it for a jump off location because he had a good set of links to journalism and opinion pages. (I had WSJ Opinion Page--this predated opinionjournal.com, Washington Times, Rush's site, and a few others bookmarked that I read daily but blogs were very few in number).

I was becoming tired with politics. The promise of the 1994 takeover was beginning to sour as it was becoming obvious that the ability to get things passed was very difficult and a new harshness to politics was emerging. Plus a congressional campaign involved non-stop fundraising. One can only go to so many of those events before the very thought of another one makes you want to hurl chunks.

And what a thrill it was to learn there was a Clinton scandal that under any imaginable scenario would get him out of office. It never occurred to me, nor I believe to anyone else charged with protecting the workplace from sexual harassment, that Clinton could lie and sleaze his way out of culpability. That was before the term "triangulate" had gained any traction.

Well the rest is history and I am a wiser and sadder man as a result.

More thoughts on Prediction Markets

I have been carefully following the markets on Inrade.com and the Iowa Electronic Markets. I posited earlier that there was a "gambling" effect that skewed them.

I noticed that the McCain-Win-Contract peaked at 60 in the early voting hours of Jan 15 and then fell to 50 range before plunging as some numbers began coming in. (See 1st Chart)

At 60 the contract was overpriced from the polling expectations. The price should have been around 50 if one were to regard the final polls as accurate. The price only moved to the polling expected level a few hours before results could be reported or ascertained.
Romney-to-Win contract moved in essentially the opposite direction with a slight bias at 55 at the hours just before reports vs. McCain's 50. (See 2nd Chart)

What does this mean (as you think I am an idiot for stating the obvious)? I believe there is a "Gambling" effect that skews the polling favorite higher by at least 10 points on a close field (within margin of error). Also I believe the prediction markets return to polling results at the last moment. If this is the case, then the prediction markets have no more predictive effect than the polls and they are essentially an exaggerated reflection of the polls.

I will test this theory as we go forward.

Woo Hoo... Somebody Read Me!!

Thank you "Anonymous". Even though you disagree with me and even though your comments are completely without merit and laughable on their face, THANK YOU. If you want to comment on any future posts just give a better identity and I will promise to post your comments on the blog so they get the attention that they may or may not warrant.

Though your identity is unknown I will always hold you in a special part of my heart (like my first love in 3rd grade Natalie Favaro, who never knew of my infatuation).

Romney Votes to Thompson in SC

Just a wild thought:

If all of the voters going for Romney in SC switched their vote to Fred it seems highly likely that Fred could win SC. This has obvious advantages to those who dread the thought of McCain or Huckabee as the nominee.

Now how could that be done? Romney or Demint or someone from Romney's camp says: "We like Fred a lot. He is a genuine conservative and would not do damage to our core conservative principles the way that other candidates would. There will be a time to have a battle of positions straight up with Senator Thompson but right now conservative values should triumph."

It would give Romney some improved good will among conservatives and it would cover what could be a embarrassing 3rd or 4th place finish while not really hurting him in the delegate hunt. It seems that stopping McCain and Huckabee now and rallying conservatives to the two best choices is the better strategy.

Alternatively, the idea could be pushed by pundits/bloggers/influential others online. Hugh Hewitt could push it, or even Rush. I believe the idea would appeal to a great number of conservatives in South Carolina who find both Mitt and Fred preferable to Mc/Huck.

Just a wild thought in a wild primary season.

The taste of Crow to round out the evening

My beautiful wife just finished stir frying some fresh crow with some unknown Asian vegetables. I'm going to enjoy a heaping serving.

Prediction Markets go Kablooey!

I am going to get ahead of this by writing tomorrow's story today:

Hundreds of gamblers investors lose thousands on Intrade.com as Huckabee tanks in Iowa Caucuses. Many of these fools traders jumped in late buying Huckabee contracts to win at $55-$65 per contract that now are worth absolutely nothing. Many were seen going to their local churches to enroll in gambling recovery programs.

Whats wrong with Intrade?

I'm watching the GOP Primaries futures on Intrade and scratching my head. Then I realize that the number of contracts and the volume are woefully shallow. Four years ago, I found Tradesports (the predecessor of Intrade) to be highly predictive in the last couple of days. But the volume and number of contracts were 10 times greater.

Prediction whether by polling or by profit/loss inducement require broad and statistically representative participation. The current future contracts represented on Intrade offer neither.

Also I postulate one other aspect is skewing predicative accuracy. On a parimutuel wager in Horse Racing, odds are determined by the wagers themselves. The more money laid down on a horse, the better odds are for that horse. The lesser money bet, the greater the odds against winning. Many wagers are pure gambles hoping to beat the odds. Hence after following a large number of races, the wagered odds don't stack up well to the actual results. This same gambling effect may be skewing the accuracy of the primary future contracts.

How does Frank Luntz gather such nitwits?

Listening to some of the comments from people in Frank Luntz focus group on Hannity & Colmes...

Frank seems to have a special talent for gathering the mentally challenged.

One person applauded Huckabee for his "No Negative Ads" pledge oblivious to the utter hypocrisy of I-won't-be negative-but-here-it-is-anyway. Furthermore, he apparently ran the ad anyway( hat tip HotAir).

Another said that "Iowans" only want someone to tell them what they are going to do and that a contrast ad is wrong under any circumstance. This is like buying a car based only upon pretty pictures and videos of the car driving on a scenic road. Important decisions by default require a comparison and contrast. This idiot would ignore half of the Ben Franklin decision matrix. Idiotic decisions are made when the only input is one-sided.

Exactly why does Iowa get this level of influence?

Additional Note: While I root for my guy when the Luntz Meter goes in his direction, fundamentally this is a flawed and grossly exaggerated view of public opinion. Without a random sampling for the selection process, it has little more than entertainment value.

Update: As a marketing tool the focus group is an indispensable aid. Luntz authored a brief on the Focus Group that makes a great counter point to my argument above. Nonetheless, he still gets the lower end of the IQ field to participate.