In a style reminiscent of Joe Namath's "guarantee" that his New York Jets would defeat the heavily favored Baltimore Colts in Super Bowl III, John McCain says he will win the New Hampshire primary, according to a report in The Hill.
McCain is quoted as saying “A lot of people haven’t made up their minds,” and polls indicate he's right about that. Recent polls show Mitt Romney with support around the 32% level. Rudy Giuliani is polling second with about 20% in several recent polls, and McCain is running third with support ranging from 14% to 17%.
But polls also indicate that perhaps one-fifth of New Hampshire's Republican voters are undecided and a healthy share of those who currently claim to support a candidate can be switched without too much persuading.
So McCain is right when he asserts that New Hampshire could still vote for anyone. But it's a big jump from suggesting that a lot of voters haven't made up their minds to asserting that “I can tell you right now I will win New Hampshire," as McCain appears to do in virtually the same breath in the article.
Of course, if you want to make a bet on McCain's prospects in New Hampshire, I think the spread between what his support level is today and what it needs to be by primary day remains quite wide.
The morning read for Tuesday, Nov. 5
1 hour ago
2 comments:
David, I enjoy your comments on the election. I keep telling my friends and colleagues that the race hasn't even begun, and your points on the volatility of the polls point that out.
Media always annoint frontrunners based on huge bank accounts, precisely because media benefit the most from the large accounts as candidates by tv/radio/magazine/newspaper ads, print pamphlets, posters, placards, etc. They want the candidates who will spend the most money with them to win. But that is not always the case: Remember 1988 and TX Sen. Phil Gramm? "The Turtle" had a huge war chest and was declared the frontrunner before any caucuses or primaries; voters saw him differently, and he dropped out of the race shortly after New Hampshire.
So, really, it is anyone's game right now -- even McCain's. At the top, the GOP is a tight knit family, and McCain is the only one that comes close (even though to the leadership, he is an outsider as well -- BUT the closest one they think they can control). As John Connally's wife pointed out after John switched from DEM to REP: "We quickly found out you had to be BORN into the Republican Party." More evidence: Since 1952, there has only been one election (1964) without a Nixon, Dole or Bush on the GOP ticket. Five years ago, I was convinced that Jeb would run and get the nomination this year, but his brother's disaster of a presidency led him to stay out. Look for Jeb in 2012.
As for the Dems, it is still too early; it could be any of the big three. It is hard to imagine Richardson, who is the only other viable candidate, to come out of the pack.
All this to say, don't be surprised with a McCain-Edwards race (boring, I know).
Kyle, thanks for reading! And thanks for your post.
And I hadn't thought about it, but you're quite right. In more than half a century, we've had only one presidential election that didn't have the name Nixon, Dole or Bush on the Republican ticket. (Of course, for the first half of the 20th century, Republicans could make a similar -- although not quite as lopsided -- complaint about the number of Democratic tickets that did not have William Jennings Bryan, Woodrow Wilson or Franklin Roosevelt!)
Polls and endorsements are merely measuring sticks. They are not the same as binding elections that result in committed delegates. Right now, no one is leading because no one has a single delegate.
Post a Comment