Iowa & NH
Having followed the horserace for two months now it's time to make a prediction. I want Hillary to lose, I want Romney to lose. I predict Hillary will lose, and that Romney will lose.
There, that's it.
Now, should I have some arguments?
I've got one that's never left my mind and I'm certain it's evident to everybody but it's an argument that's never made, and it's that Romney's numbers never go up nationally. He's had tremendous national exposure, his numbers never go up. He was at 12% for months. In the last month he's sky rocketed to 15%. Meantime Fred and McCain and Huck have been all over the place (and Guiliani too, though I don't include him because he's always been at the top).
There's a reason that Romney's basically frozen at one spot, that's because for all of the exposure, for all of the millions spent, nobody likes him. Nobody with natural human instincts likes him.
He's a boob, an absolutely untrustworthy bloodless android. That's why he can not elicit an enthusiasm. A certain number can "intellectually" convince themselves that he's their man, but if they have enthusiasm rather than mere conviction I've never seen it, and no ordinary, wholesome man can be caught up in any emotion that he might engender. That's because what he engenders is distrust, and the sense of something out there being dead. The living dead can not sweep the emotions of the living breathing, those who believe things, those who have passions and hopes.
I don't like the guy, and that's why I think he's going to lose, because I think that in this basic respect most people are instinctively just like me, and this is a guy that gives them the creeps.
So I presume Huckabee will win. He has his core Evangelical support, and that support isn't going to leave him just because elite conservative opinion mocks him. Christians are used to being mocked, it goes with the faith. And I presume that their being mocked will stimulate them to get out and vote.
So Huckabee has that core, and I speculate there are other decent people out there who also just want to vote for somebody who is decent, and he will have those votes as well.
Some of those people will vote for McCain, and probably more for McCain than Thompson, because they want their vote to count and it looks like Thompson is out after Iowa.
But they're not going to vote for Romney, simply because he's a dead fish, and probably a dangerous one.
In fact I find it hard to believe that Romney will even maintain his 25%, or wherever it is that he stands now in the Iowa polls. I suspect a lot of people, once in the caucus with a lot of other excited people, will suddenly decide to vote for their second choice, not because it's necessitated by the Republican Party process but just because it will be so much more satisfying to vote for somebody who is real rather than fake. (I wonder if Romney's supporters are all androids too?)
Huckabee, McCain, Romney, in that order.
This is an analysis judging nothing but personality. If stated political philosophy mattered it would be between Romney and Thompson. But issues don't matter, because no wholesome person believes Romney, and poor Fred, though he could have been good, just hasn't cut the mustard. He hasn't shown the desire to win. Desire excites desire, and he hasn't excited anything.
Democrats:
I really do not much care about Democrats, but Obama is likeable, and Edwards excites rage. Both orientations can be pleasant, so both will have their supporters.
But Hillary? Again, emotionally, there's nothing there. Her strength is only the presumption that she will be the nominee. She still has the national poll numbers, and that's very powerful, but in Iowa the presumption that suports her may have begun to crack.
It's my speculation that in national polls, in the mind of the respondent, she's running against George Bush. That's because nationally, for Democrats, the bogey man still is George. So when asked: "Whom do you support?" of course it's Hillary because it's Bill and Hillary who lead the fight against the evil that is a Republican. But in Iowa, with George Bush a long way off to the east side, the people she opposes are Barack, or Edwards, real people, no phantasmagorical evil, and these people have some charm, or have some fire. And Hillary? It's just all very thin, and wearing thin. And in fact there never has been anything there, just the posturing that there was something there.
Obama, Edwards, Hillary, in that order.
Now, I don't know if that's going to happen. It depends on if the facade breaks, and that depends on perceptions regarding the raiment of the emperor (not to be visual here), and to what degree that will happen is uncertain. But it's close. If it does happen, since there's nothing there at all, I don't think all of Hillary's organization is going to be able to put her together again.
Summation:
Within the two parties there are presently no significant differences in terms of issues. All the Democrats are Democrats, and all the Republicans... are not Democrats. So on issues they're all pretty much peas in their respective pods. Issues won't matter until the general election... at least they won't matter through the first two votes. Until then it's all matters of personality and perceptions and that's been the entirety of my analysis. (That the Huck is hated is a separate matter, but as yet not germane to the vote).
I haven't said much about organization. That's because this year, at least at first, it might not matter as a differential. In Iowa on the Democrat side all three are equal. On the Republican side all three of the majors may be equal because Romney hasn't been able to buy himself enthusiasms though he has organization, while Huck, though without formal organization does have the churches and he certainly does have enthusiasms. And John? Don't know what he has, maybe magic.
I note now that I've slighted New Hampshire. This year New Hampshire will follow Iowa, that is, if Hillary and Romney are wounded. That's because if that happens there will be a piling on, and to New Hampshire will go the glory of the coup de grace.
There, that's it.
Now, should I have some arguments?
I've got one that's never left my mind and I'm certain it's evident to everybody but it's an argument that's never made, and it's that Romney's numbers never go up nationally. He's had tremendous national exposure, his numbers never go up. He was at 12% for months. In the last month he's sky rocketed to 15%. Meantime Fred and McCain and Huck have been all over the place (and Guiliani too, though I don't include him because he's always been at the top).
There's a reason that Romney's basically frozen at one spot, that's because for all of the exposure, for all of the millions spent, nobody likes him. Nobody with natural human instincts likes him.
He's a boob, an absolutely untrustworthy bloodless android. That's why he can not elicit an enthusiasm. A certain number can "intellectually" convince themselves that he's their man, but if they have enthusiasm rather than mere conviction I've never seen it, and no ordinary, wholesome man can be caught up in any emotion that he might engender. That's because what he engenders is distrust, and the sense of something out there being dead. The living dead can not sweep the emotions of the living breathing, those who believe things, those who have passions and hopes.
I don't like the guy, and that's why I think he's going to lose, because I think that in this basic respect most people are instinctively just like me, and this is a guy that gives them the creeps.
So I presume Huckabee will win. He has his core Evangelical support, and that support isn't going to leave him just because elite conservative opinion mocks him. Christians are used to being mocked, it goes with the faith. And I presume that their being mocked will stimulate them to get out and vote.
So Huckabee has that core, and I speculate there are other decent people out there who also just want to vote for somebody who is decent, and he will have those votes as well.
Some of those people will vote for McCain, and probably more for McCain than Thompson, because they want their vote to count and it looks like Thompson is out after Iowa.
But they're not going to vote for Romney, simply because he's a dead fish, and probably a dangerous one.
In fact I find it hard to believe that Romney will even maintain his 25%, or wherever it is that he stands now in the Iowa polls. I suspect a lot of people, once in the caucus with a lot of other excited people, will suddenly decide to vote for their second choice, not because it's necessitated by the Republican Party process but just because it will be so much more satisfying to vote for somebody who is real rather than fake. (I wonder if Romney's supporters are all androids too?)
Huckabee, McCain, Romney, in that order.
This is an analysis judging nothing but personality. If stated political philosophy mattered it would be between Romney and Thompson. But issues don't matter, because no wholesome person believes Romney, and poor Fred, though he could have been good, just hasn't cut the mustard. He hasn't shown the desire to win. Desire excites desire, and he hasn't excited anything.
Democrats:
I really do not much care about Democrats, but Obama is likeable, and Edwards excites rage. Both orientations can be pleasant, so both will have their supporters.
But Hillary? Again, emotionally, there's nothing there. Her strength is only the presumption that she will be the nominee. She still has the national poll numbers, and that's very powerful, but in Iowa the presumption that suports her may have begun to crack.
It's my speculation that in national polls, in the mind of the respondent, she's running against George Bush. That's because nationally, for Democrats, the bogey man still is George. So when asked: "Whom do you support?" of course it's Hillary because it's Bill and Hillary who lead the fight against the evil that is a Republican. But in Iowa, with George Bush a long way off to the east side, the people she opposes are Barack, or Edwards, real people, no phantasmagorical evil, and these people have some charm, or have some fire. And Hillary? It's just all very thin, and wearing thin. And in fact there never has been anything there, just the posturing that there was something there.
Obama, Edwards, Hillary, in that order.
Now, I don't know if that's going to happen. It depends on if the facade breaks, and that depends on perceptions regarding the raiment of the emperor (not to be visual here), and to what degree that will happen is uncertain. But it's close. If it does happen, since there's nothing there at all, I don't think all of Hillary's organization is going to be able to put her together again.
Summation:
Within the two parties there are presently no significant differences in terms of issues. All the Democrats are Democrats, and all the Republicans... are not Democrats. So on issues they're all pretty much peas in their respective pods. Issues won't matter until the general election... at least they won't matter through the first two votes. Until then it's all matters of personality and perceptions and that's been the entirety of my analysis. (That the Huck is hated is a separate matter, but as yet not germane to the vote).
I haven't said much about organization. That's because this year, at least at first, it might not matter as a differential. In Iowa on the Democrat side all three are equal. On the Republican side all three of the majors may be equal because Romney hasn't been able to buy himself enthusiasms though he has organization, while Huck, though without formal organization does have the churches and he certainly does have enthusiasms. And John? Don't know what he has, maybe magic.
I note now that I've slighted New Hampshire. This year New Hampshire will follow Iowa, that is, if Hillary and Romney are wounded. That's because if that happens there will be a piling on, and to New Hampshire will go the glory of the coup de grace.
posted by mouse at 8:26 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home