Further Maunderings
Written while putting my Canary to bed.
I sure look forward to the next poll. I expect a very slight uptick for Romney nationally, a percentage point, but possibly a continuing decline in Iowa, decline as defined against his previous numbers of about 25%, not decline in reference to the Newsweek poll.
The very slight uptick would be because the conversation has been positive, but it would be very slight because it was just one guy giving a campaign add. There was no issue he addressed, there was no issue Vs a Vs the other candidates, so there was no triumph. In as much as nationally there would have been any sense of issue it would have been in reference to his Mormon faith, and in that respect all he did is say "stick it". I just don't think that is going to raise his poll numbers. There's no virtue in declaring yourself "a man of faith" if the issue is your faith and you don't explain it.
In Iowa, where people were paying more attention, I expect he will have lost support simply because of his "stick it" stance. He certainly gained no Evangelicals, and possibly people who were supporting him because they were indifferent to his faith were indifferent either because they presumed that he didn't take it seriously, or that it was something that could be easily boringly explained if he cared to go into the details. But he said "stick it", which is going to offend those who thought he was as indifferent as they; and to those who thought "It can easily be explained" there may now be doubt: "Is he hiding something?" So he will have lost support. I have no idea what the numbers would be but I see that as the dynamic.
Anyway, I'm expecting a separation between the pundacracy who loved the speech and the people who will use it to judge their vote. That's because I think the pundits are incestuously deformed, they have no idea what thought exists outside of their own agreement. They've got a job no matter what. Normal people care how their country is governed, their thought has less information but more force. It will be fun to see. I certainly have been wrong in the past in presuming a lot of people were like me, but this time it's Republicans, and the issue is faith and trustworthiness. I'll betcha I'm an awfully lot like those people in Iowa who are going to caucus.
Now a brief lecture to the neophyte. Romney has won one election in his life, one term as Massachusetts Governor. That's not a lot of political experience. I would say this: Nationally, he has no stature except in competition with others. No others, no stature. He has nothing to define himself other than in his success in competition. Only Guiliani and McCain have reputation nationally apart from competition. Romney, without that give-and-take of battle, is just a guy in a suit. This is another reason his speech would have meant little. Even if he did splendidly, it would still just be one guy blowing air.
Politically (my opinion) he's a box of bricks.
Bottom line: I don't want to see him slingshot to the nomination just because he gamed the first two states. I want him to lose at least one, and then have to fight for the rest.
But I don't think even two victories would give him much momentum. That's because he has spent a year defining himself nationally as a guy who wanted to win two states. If he wins two states that will be his achievment, he won two states. It will mean nothing for the rest, because he didn't come out of the blue, as somebody suddenly exciting, and he didn't win because it was assumed he would win nationally. He won because that's what he wanted and worked at and with two states under his belt that would be the bounce, flat, the bottom. Bust. He would have to start over. A fortune and a year to win two states. That's as exciting as selling pots.
I see the possibility he could come in third.
Now I will post and finally read the days news. I will see if my speculations have already been disproved.
I sure look forward to the next poll. I expect a very slight uptick for Romney nationally, a percentage point, but possibly a continuing decline in Iowa, decline as defined against his previous numbers of about 25%, not decline in reference to the Newsweek poll.
The very slight uptick would be because the conversation has been positive, but it would be very slight because it was just one guy giving a campaign add. There was no issue he addressed, there was no issue Vs a Vs the other candidates, so there was no triumph. In as much as nationally there would have been any sense of issue it would have been in reference to his Mormon faith, and in that respect all he did is say "stick it". I just don't think that is going to raise his poll numbers. There's no virtue in declaring yourself "a man of faith" if the issue is your faith and you don't explain it.
In Iowa, where people were paying more attention, I expect he will have lost support simply because of his "stick it" stance. He certainly gained no Evangelicals, and possibly people who were supporting him because they were indifferent to his faith were indifferent either because they presumed that he didn't take it seriously, or that it was something that could be easily boringly explained if he cared to go into the details. But he said "stick it", which is going to offend those who thought he was as indifferent as they; and to those who thought "It can easily be explained" there may now be doubt: "Is he hiding something?" So he will have lost support. I have no idea what the numbers would be but I see that as the dynamic.
Anyway, I'm expecting a separation between the pundacracy who loved the speech and the people who will use it to judge their vote. That's because I think the pundits are incestuously deformed, they have no idea what thought exists outside of their own agreement. They've got a job no matter what. Normal people care how their country is governed, their thought has less information but more force. It will be fun to see. I certainly have been wrong in the past in presuming a lot of people were like me, but this time it's Republicans, and the issue is faith and trustworthiness. I'll betcha I'm an awfully lot like those people in Iowa who are going to caucus.
Now a brief lecture to the neophyte. Romney has won one election in his life, one term as Massachusetts Governor. That's not a lot of political experience. I would say this: Nationally, he has no stature except in competition with others. No others, no stature. He has nothing to define himself other than in his success in competition. Only Guiliani and McCain have reputation nationally apart from competition. Romney, without that give-and-take of battle, is just a guy in a suit. This is another reason his speech would have meant little. Even if he did splendidly, it would still just be one guy blowing air.
Politically (my opinion) he's a box of bricks.
Bottom line: I don't want to see him slingshot to the nomination just because he gamed the first two states. I want him to lose at least one, and then have to fight for the rest.
But I don't think even two victories would give him much momentum. That's because he has spent a year defining himself nationally as a guy who wanted to win two states. If he wins two states that will be his achievment, he won two states. It will mean nothing for the rest, because he didn't come out of the blue, as somebody suddenly exciting, and he didn't win because it was assumed he would win nationally. He won because that's what he wanted and worked at and with two states under his belt that would be the bounce, flat, the bottom. Bust. He would have to start over. A fortune and a year to win two states. That's as exciting as selling pots.
I see the possibility he could come in third.
Now I will post and finally read the days news. I will see if my speculations have already been disproved.
posted by mouse at 9:46 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home