Democrats’ Debate Bad News for the GOP

The best hope Republicans have of keeping the White House is a divided Democratic Party. And if this were a typical election year, they’d probably get their wish. Democrats have elevated snatching defeat from the jaws of victory to an art form and their preferred method is the circular firing squad. That’s why Thursday night’s debate between Senator Hillary Clinton and Senator Barack Obama was such bad news for the GOP. It proved that this time, the Democrats desire to win is overcoming their tendency to self-destruct.  

The Clinton and Obama debate was striking in its civility and cordiality. It was the political version of a 1960’s vintage Love-in, with the illegal substances and absent the Jefferson Airplane soundtrack. Contrast this with Wednesday night’s Republican debate. The two leading candidates there, Senator John McCain and former Governor Mitt Romney, seemed to be auditioning for the WWF. The debate should have been held in a cage.

This is not to say all is sweetness and light on the Democratic campaign trails. Leading up to the debate, Senators Clinton and Obama threw several sharp jabs at one another. They’ll no doubt resume this sport as Godzilla Tuesday, February 5th, draws near. Yes, President Bill Clinton has stepped back from his role as Attack Dog in Chief, but the two campaigns continue to “draw distinctions” in sometimes harsh and pointed ways.

But both realized such behavior was ill-suited for Thursday’s debate. It was too historic an occasion — the Democratic nominee will be either a woman or an African American. It was too intimate a setting — they sat side-by-side with no other candidates on stage to distract the eye. And they both had other agendas.

For reasons I discussed in an earlier post, Senator Clinton needed to show she was capable of bringing people together. You don’t do that by attacking your opponent. Senator Obama needed to bring forward his inner policy wonk. Tearing down your opponent distracts from building up your own substantive credentials. They were each on a mission and both succeeded.

The result was a debate marked by humor, compliments and a meaningful discussion of important issues like health care, immigration and the war in Iraq. Most significant, both candidates went out of their way to assure voters they would work together in the general election regardless of which one of them was the nominee. And they appeared sincere.

Meanwhile, the distaste Senator John McCain and former Governor Mitt Romney have for each other was palpable in their debate. There they were at the Reagan Library violating the former president’s 11th Amendment “Thou shalt not speak ill of a fellow Republican.” It was downright blasphemous.

The Republicans can’t afford a divided party. They will start the general election already deep in a hole. Their party leader, the sitting president, is immensely unpopular. The economy is turbulent, and probably will remain so through the rest of 2008. And then there’s that unpopular war they support. To hold onto the White House they need to catch a few breaks.

Given the several months left between now and election day in November, there’s plenty of opportunities for the Democrats to oblige. Yet, based on the attitude and behavior on display during the debate, any such gifts are likely to be few and far between, and only grudgingly made.

Then There Were Two: Clinton versus Obama

It’s hard to believe that less than a month ago there were eight candidates for the Democratic presidential nomination.  But Senators Joseph Biden and Chris Dodd dropped out after Iowa. Governor Bill Richardson withdrew after New Hampshire and Representative Dennis Kucinich accepted reality shortly after the South Carolina primary. Today Senator John Edwards suspended his campaign. That leaves only Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. Oh, and former Senator Mike Gravel, too. However, he’s failed to raise either money or support, failing to get even one percent of the vote in any caucus or primary to date. So although he deserves better, he’s not really a factor.

So it’s now down to Senators Clinton and Obama. Democrats have a clear choice — not based on the issues, but on character, vision, experience and their approach to politics.

On most policy matters the Senators positions are very close. In tonight’s debate they’ll make the most of what little differences they have, but for the most part these nuances don’t mean a lot.

On the other hand, when it comes to how they approach politics and how they’re likely to govern there are real differences. Senator Clinton’s political career has been marked by constant attacks from her opponents. The right wing really were out to get her and her husband, President Bill Clinton, during their years in the White House. Listen to any conservative talk show and the vitriol leveled against her is harsh, cruel and vicious.

The result is a politician with an understandable bunker mentality. Listening to Senator Clinton one gets the feeling she sees the world as those who are with her and those who are against her. Us versus them. Within the Clinton camp the inevitability of her election was an article of faith and Senator Obama’s threat to reaching the promised land (apparently 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue is the promised land in the Clinton gospels) is nothing short of blasphemy.

In this regard, her political style is similar to that of President George Bush. In the current Administration, loyalty is highly prized, seemingly more than competence. Opponents are more than, well, opponents. They’re at best misguided and at worse unpatriotic enemies of all that’s right.

Senator Clinton’s bunker is, thankfully, more porous than President Bush’s. He’s the extreme case. She’s more open to working with opponents. She demonizes the enemy less, is capable of admitting mistakes and of evolving her position in a sincere effort to find the right solution. Yet, even though it’s a less virulent form, her world view is remarkably similar.  As is her husband’s, which could explain the anger he’s flashed on more than one occasion when reporters ask obvious, but to him, unfair, questions.

If she’s to wrap up the nomination quickly, Senator Clinton needs to vacate the bunker — or at least lower its walls a bit. She needs to emphasize the times in her career when she’s reached out to those who disagreed with her to accomplish a greater good. She needs to show the ability to break away from the harsh partisanship that pervades Washington. And she needs to do so soon.

Senator Obama’s political career has been different. He learned the art in the rough context of Chicago politics, but he quickly established himself as a bridge builder. He worked with Republicans in Illinois on tough issues like expanding health care and confronting the state’s approach to the death penalty. He seems to have lived out his constant phrase of “disagreeing without being disagreeable.”

This ability — and desire — to seek compromises that incorporates the views of his opponents stands in stark contrast to how Washington has operated for the past 15 years. Senator Obama seems more interested in co-opting the other side than demonizing them.

The other side of this coin, however, is that it makes understanding what he stands for difficult to define. Senator Clinton has more five-point plans on more issues than a herd of policy wonks. Senator Obama has … some. Senator Clinton plays on this dynamic by proclaiming herself ready to lead on Day One. Senator Obama’s response is that he’ll be right on day one, but that pithy rejoinder does little to bolster his credentials as being ready to lead the free world starting January 20, 2009.

Does this mean Senator Obama should whip together a few more five-point plans? Well, yes, it does. He can still emphasize his current theme, that this is an election between yesterday and tomorrow. But if he’s to deflect the attacks from the Clinton campaign, he needs to find his inner wonk. He needs to explain in more detail what tomorrow looks like. And he needs to do so soon.

Why the need for speed? First, because half the delegates to the Democratic Convention up for grabs this coming Tuesday. Second, because in a two person race (sorry Senator Gravel) the odds are one of the candidates will begin to be perceived as wrapping things up. The media, needs something to fill up time between commercials, A horse race makes for an easy story, but someone needs to pull away. That creates the tension — can anyone stop her?  will he stumble before the finish line? — that grabs viewers.

This tendency to simplify things also means, in a two person race, only one can be considered “winning.” And being labeled as the one who is “losing” is often a self-fulfilling prophecy. To avoid being on the wrong side of this equation, both candidates need to break out of their comfort zone. Whether either can, however, remains to be seen.

Pre-Super Tuesday Unscientific Presidential Survey

With former Senator John Edwards and former Mayor Rudy Giuliani dropping out of the race, the choices voters face heading into Super Tuesday’s coast-to-coast primaries is a lot clearer. So let’s see where readers of these blogs are at.

The third unscientific survey is here and will remain open until 5:00 on February 5th, before the first states report their results (I hope). This round, instead of just stating your preference for your party’s nominee, you’ll get to consider possible general election match-ups, too.

Your votes are anonymous and it only takes a minute to complete the survey (literally a minute). I hope you’ll participate. After all, the more the merrier.

Please click here to take the survey.

John Edwards and the Importance of Having a Story

Former Senator John Edwards suspended his presidential campaign today. There were lots of reasons for his failure to generate the support needed to keep him in the race for the Democratic nomination. But much of it comes down to having a less compelling story than the others.

When he ran for the nomination in 2004, Senator Edwards had a great tale to tell. The son of a mill worker he lifted himself up to wealth and political success through hard work and a willness to take on the big corporations on behalf of the little guys. He spoke eloquently of the two Americas: the one of the powerful and the one of the powerless. He was a product of the latter, but had proven his ability to succeed in the former. And he would put those skills to work to bring all Americans together.

In this first campaign, Senator Edwards was viewed as one of the more moderate candidates. He was passionate, but didn’t demonize his opponents.  In 2008, this changed. His positions grew more liberal and his rhetoric more harsh. He didn’t just condemn corporate greed, he pronounced them evil.  His new message was that he was a fighter for the poor and middle-class. He was the one willing to take on the enemy and he had the toughness to win.

This might have been a winning message in previous years, but it came up against the stories embodied by Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. She was the tough former first lady, experienced and a proven leader who offered voters a chance to make history: electing the first woman president. He was the young, charismatic change agent with a history of coalition building, inspiring rhetoric who offered voters a chance to make history: electing the first president of color.  Their stories were simple. Their candidacies historic. Senator Edwards, on the other hand, was another angry candidate who promised new policies, but old politics.

Senator Edwards often complained, accurately, that he was too often marginalized by the media. That’s because the media sells stories and his wasn’t nearly as compelling as those of Senators Clinton and Obama.

Now the question is, of the two remaining candidate’s, whose story is the most compelling? And who can bring together the resources, organizational skill and political savvy to successfully use their story?

McCain Proves He Can Win A GOP Primary; Giuliani Proves He Can’t

Sure, Senator John McCain won the New Hampshire and South Carolina Republican primaries. To purists in the party, however, these victories required a Barry Bonds size asterisk: they were open to non-Republicans. In fact, but for the margins he built up among independents, exit polls show Senator McCain would have lost to former Governor Mitt Romney in New Hampshire and to former Governor Mike Huckabee in South Carolina, in both cases by one percent.

Which makes Senator McCain’s five point victory over Governor Romney in Florida’s Republican-only primary today all the more significant. Not only does Senator McCain win all the state’s delegates, he erases the asterisk.

 Ironically for a candidate who is considered an outsider by many Republicans, Senator McCain’s candidacy in the Sunshine State was bolstered by two major establishment endorsements: that of Florida’s Governor Charlie Crist and its Republican U.S. Senator, Mel Martinez.

Florida was fiercely contested by all the Republican candidates and not just as the boost it will promised leading up to next Tuesday, when 19 states will select delegates to the Republican convention. It was also the state in which former Mayor Rudy Giuliani chose to make his stand. After claiming to have sat out of the earlier primaries and caucuses, Mayor Giuliani staked his candidacy on a strong showing in Florida. He failed. Senator McCain received 36 percent of the vote while Governor Romney’s pulled in 31 percent.  while Mayor Giuliani is barely holding on to third place with 15 percent of the vote; just ahead of Governor Huckabee’s 14 percent.

As expected, Governor Huckabee has already pledged to continue campaigning through Super Tuesday. After all, Alabama, Georgia and other conservative states, including his home base of Arkansas, are scheduled to vote on February 5th. Even with little cash left Governor Huckabee is likely to pick up a significant number of delegates.

I had thought Mayor Giuliani would stick around another week, too. I figured he should do well in New York and New Jersey at the very least. Yet polls show him trailing Senator McCain in both states — and things are likely to get worse for him. New Yorkers remember that on September 10, 2001, Mayor Giuliani was extremely unpopular. With his poor showing in Florida they also know he won’t be president any time soon. Embarrassing him on his home turf might appeal to some GOP voters while others will simply prefer to cast their vote on a candidate with a real chance.

Losing New York would not only harm his political standing, but, perhaps worse, it would bruise his ego. Someone even mentioned it would be bad for his consulting business, too. The rumor is that he’ll drop out of the race while in California on Wednesday and endorse Senator McCain. 

The Republican nomination is rapidly becoming a two person race. While Governor Huckabee will continue to be a factor in some states, in most he’ll finish a distant third. Given his campaign’s financial straits, I’d be surprised if he stays in the race for long after February 5th.

Which means the big question is whether Senator McCain’s asterisk-free momentum can overcome Governor Romney’s bottomless war chest. It will be interesting to watch the answer emerge.

Statistical Ties Abound in Reader Presidential Survey

As before, the results were extremely close in the second Alan Katz Politics Blog Unscientific Presidential Survey. (Here’s a link to the results of the first survey).

Democrats: On the Democratic side, Senator Barack Obama finished first, but Senator Hillary Clinton was right behind him. In the first survey, they tied with identical vote totals. This time, it was a statistical tie, with Senator Obama slightly ahead in the raw vote. Former Senator John Edwards finished a distant third. When asked if they would be willing to support a GOP candidate in the general election, Democrats split with half the respondents mentioning Senator McCain and half claiming they wouldn’t vote for a Republican.

Republicans: There was quite a reshuffling of the results among Republican respondents. In the first survey, former Mayor Rudy Giuliani finished first, just ahead of Senator McCain who was followed closely by former Governor Mitt Romney. Former Governor Mike Huckabee was a distant fourth.

This time, Governor Romney finished first, but in a statistical tie with Senator McCain. Mayor Guiliania finished way back in third and Governor Huckabee trailed even further behind. When asked if they could support a Democrat in the general election, half the respondents answered no, but half said they could support Senator Obama.

Independents: Last time there was a fair number of independent voters participating in the survey and Senator Obama took first place. Not this time, and those that did vote must not realize that Mayor Giuliani is headed for the exit. He came in first, followed by Governor Romney. Go figure.

The Issues:Not surprisingly, when asked what were the two most important issues they would consider in supporting a candidate, the Economy was the runaway top response. And given the nature of the primary blog, Health Care Reform’s second place finished was to be expected as well.

Thanks to all who participated. I’ll wait for the dust to settle from Florida and then we’ll launch our third survey before Super Tuesday. Stay tuned.

The Second Alan Katz Politics Blog Unscientific Presidential Survey

The results are in from South Carolina and Florida votes on Tuesday. Looks like a  good time for another unscientific presidential survey.

The first poll (linked to the health care reform blog as this one hadn’t been created yet) wound up with Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama tied among Democrats; former Mayor Rudy Giuliani just edging out Senator John McCain on the Republican side and Senator Obama easily winning with Independents. Since then we’ve seen winners and losers and several candidates withdraw. So, let’s see what’s changed.

This second survey will remain open until 5:00 on January 29th – just before results from Florida start coming in. It only takes a minute (literally) to complete. I hope you’ll join in. Please click here to start the survey.

Obama’s Candidacy Gets a Boost and a Problem from South Carolina

Senator Barack Obama scored a resounding victory in South Carolina’s Democratic primary. Earning 55 percent of the votes, he doubled Senator Hillary Clinton’s total of 27 percent and three-times the 18 percent Senator John Edwards received. It was a primary he had to win to stay competitive going into Super Tuesday on February 5th. He did more than win, he achieved a picture-perfect landslide. So why should he be worried?

Because before South Carolina and the Nevada caucuses last week, Senator Obama was a candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination. After South Carolina he is in tottering on becoming an African American candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination, and that’s quite a different thing.

This isn’t his strategy nor is it his intent. Senator Obama embraces the historic nature of his candidacy, but he has carefully crafted a strategy that puts his calls for change and a new kind of politics front-and-center. His intent is clearly to run a broadband campaign. Being perceived as narrowcasting undermines this effort.

Yet the Clinton campaign, and the response Senator Obama needed to make, moved race to the forefront. The media incessantly focused on race during the past two weeks . (Is there anyone who doesn’t know blacks were expected to make up 50 percent of the vote in South Carolina?) And in their analysis of the results, it was the number one topic of discussion.

Senator Obama is aware of the danger and is already working hard to escape it. In his victory speech he returned repeatedly to his desire to be a president for all Americans. “The choice in this election is not about regions or religions or genders. It’s not about rich versus poor, young versus old and it’s not about black versus white. It’s about the past versus the future,” he said at one point in the speech. 

He also emphasized the support he received from South Carolina’s Latino population (never mind that represented less than two percent of the vote). And his staff was no doubt busy reminding reporters that he received 24 percent of the votes cast by white South Carolinians (Senator Edwards received 40 percent of their votes and Senator Clinton 36 percent according to the MSNBC exit poll). But the mere fact he had to make the effort — the mere fact I’m writing this post — underscores the bind he’s in.

If Senator Obama lets himself get pigeon holed he diminishes his electability. Americans don’t tend to elect presidents who are too identified with a single constituency. Former Governor Mike Huckabee is finding this out. He’s perceived as the candidate of the religious right, making it difficult for him to reach out to the broader electorate. He’s fallen from a statistical tie for the lead in Tuesday’s Florida primary to a more distant third.

Senator Obama has proven himself a savvy political pro. He had a restrained response to attacks from the Clinton campaign. This made clear who was going negative.  Then in the debate he pushed back hard. He demonstrated a resolve and toughness that, to many at the time, seemed to indicate the Clintons were “getting inside his head.” In reality, it was a reminder that he learned the art of politics in Chicago and was more than ready to play in the big leagues. While the bickering gave Senator Edwards, the “grown up” in the debate, a boost, it clearly didn’t hurt him with South Carolina voters.

Now the challenge for Senator Obama is to get the media talking about something other than race. His most potent strategy would be to deliver a couple of heavy duty policy statements between now and February 5th. The topics aren’t important, but the detail and substance will be. The benefits of this approach are two-fold.

First, it counters the “where’s the beef” charges Senators Clinton and Edwards are and will be challenging him on. They will claim he’s high on charisma, but lacking in substance. A boring, six point plan to solve an issue of the day blunts their attacks. Second, each policy speech forces the media to focus on what he’s saying for a news cycle. It makes them pay attention to Senator Obama the candidate – without any preceding modifier other than “one of the front runners.”

And leading up to February 5th, that would be a very good thing for his campaign. At least as good as a landslide in South Carolina.

Obama Needs to Reframe Health Care Reform Debate

In the Democratic presidential debate held in South Carolina on January 21st, Senator Barack Obama was put on the defensive over his health care reform package. Both Senator Hillary Clinton and former Senator John Edwards blasted Senator Obama for putting forward a proposal that fails to cover all Americans. Universal coverage, they claimed, is the Holy Grail of health care reform, at least in the Democratic Party.

And they’re right. Polls consistently show health care is one of the highest priority issues Democratic voters consider when selecting a candidate. Being perceived as the candidate who doesn’t care about universal coverage is not a recipe for success in Democratic primaries. By allowing Senators Clinton and Edwards to frame the debate as their universal coverage packages versus Senator Obama’s plan “that leaves 15 million Americans uninsured,” the Illinois Senator is at a severe disadvantage.

What’s surprising is that Senator Obama is on record as favoring universal coverage. Last year I wrote on my health care reform blog a post concerning a speech Senator Obama made to Families USA. In his talk, Senator Obama lamented the politics-as-usual approach to health care reform all too common in the nation’s capitol. “While plans are offered in every campaign season with ‘much fanfare and promise,’ they collapse under the weight of Washington politics, leaving citizens to struggle with the skyrocketing costs.”

Senator Obama told his audience that his goal would be to find a way to make universal coverage a reality, but warned it would probably take him four years to do it. As I wrote then, “By being agnostic about the means, a president could actually achieve the desired end. On the other hand, a president could take a ‘my way or the highway’ approach like the Clinton Administration did in the 1990s. The result from that effort: nothing much.”

Here it is, a full 12 months later. Senator Obama’s health care reform plan focuses on controlling costs. It does not require every American to purchase coverage, but instead tries to make the cost of coverage affordable for more Americans. There’s nothing wrong with that as a goal, especially if you’re plan is defined as part of a journey, not the ultimate destination.

There’s also nothing wrong with tying a mandate to buy coverage with a mandate for carriers to sell coverage to all applicants. Recent polls in California, where a health care reform package including these twin mandates is being considered by the State Senate, shows a majority of Democratic and Independent voters supporting this approach. Perhaps surprisingly, nearly four-in-ten Republicans back these requirements. This is also the road to universal coverage proposed by Senators Clinton and Edwards. 

The California reform debate suggests a way for Senator Obama to reframe the debate. Liberal and union opponents of the mandate to require individuals to buy insurance condemn the provision for forcing consumers to purchase something that may be beyond their means. Supporters argue there are safeguards and hardship exemptions that will prevent this.

Senator Obama needs to seize on the legitimate concern voters have that government safeguards don’t always work. He should say something along the lines of, “Senators Clinton and Edwards want to force you to buy health insurance and to trust them that it will be affordable. That’s putting the cart before the horse; trust before the proof. I’m saying ‘let’s prove we can make coverage affordable,’ then we’ll see if mandates are required. They’re forcing you to buy before you see the price tag. I’m going to show you the price tag first. Then we’ll continue to the march to universal coverage.”

This is consistent with his past statements. The key is to focus on his long term vision (which, I assume, includes universal coverage) while positioning his opponents as typical politicians who promise everything and ask voters to trust them to deliver. It’s a more complicated, nuanced message than the others have, but it’s better than simply accepting the charge that his health care reform plan is out of step with Democratic voters.

Florida Results Unlikely to Narrow GOP Field Before February 5th

If you like horse races you’ve gotta love Florida. The polls are showing three candidates jockeying for the lead in the January 29th primary with another within striking distance. Of course, if we’ve learned one thing this election season it’s that the polls are so fluid they can only be taken as a snap shots of possibilities. It’s the political equivalent of the uncertainty principal: the mere observation of an event alters it.

So, even though the polls don’t mean much: the latest survey (conducted on January 20th) from Rasmussen Reports shows former Governor Mitt Romney (25 percent) with a slight lead over Seantor John McCain (20 percent) and former Mayor Rudy Giuliani (19 percent). Former Governor Mike Huckabee (13 percent) is not far behind.  With a week to go, anything can happen, but things are looking up for Governor Mitt Romney. Only a week ago, he, Senator McCain, Governor Huckabee and Mayor Giuliani were in a statistical tie in the Rasmussen Reports telephone survey.

Other surveys have slightly different rankings. For example, the SurveyUSA poll, also conducted January 20th,  places Senator McCain in front (25 percent) followed by Mayor Giuliani (20 percent), Governor Romney (19 percent) and Governor Huckabee (14 percent). 

What to take from these differing results? It’s a close race. And with Senator Fred Thompson withdrawing from the field today, the roughly 12 percent of GOP voters supporting him are up for grabs. The polls are likely to scramble a lot more between now and Florida’s election day.

But on January 29th, one candidate will win, the others won’t. (That’s why election days are often referred to as the only poll that counts). The impact on the presidential campaign will be enormous, but I don’t expect it will drive any of the four major candidates from the race.

Mayor Giuliani
No one has more at stake in Florida than the former mayor of New York. His campaign strategy of “ignoring” the early events resulted in him being all but ignored over the past few weeks. His poor showing in the initial contests was  een more devastating because he didn’t really ignore all of them. He invested considerable time and money in New Hampshire for example, yet finished a distant fourth there with just nine percent. All these early defeats will be (mostly) forgotten if he wins in Florida and he’ll be a legitimate contender come Super Duper Tuesday on February 5th.

If he loses, however, Mayor Giuliani’s campaign will be low on funds and pretty much futile. With New York and New Jersey, his home base, holding primaries on February 5th, however, he’ll no doubt stick around for at least one more week, hoping he can earn enough delegates to be a factor at the convention — and have something to show for the roughly $50 million he will have spent.

Governor Hucklebee
Senator Thompson pulled 15 percent of the evangelical Christian voter in South Carolina. Governor Huckabee earned the support of over 40 percent of this constituency. He’ll be spending considerable effort in securing more than his fair share of those who had been supporting the former Tennessee Senator. Governor Huckabee will also benefit from this being a Republican only primary — independents can’t participate in the Florida GOP election. Exit polls show Governor Huckabee would have won South Carolina but for independents who showed up to support Senator McCain. Without their participation in the Florida election, Governor Hucklebee’s chances of winning or coming in a strong second significantly improve.

He needs, however, to come in first. The results from Iowa are receding into distant memory — they were, after all nearly four weeks ago. If he’s to replenish his war chest and compete seriously in the nearly-national primary on February 5th, Florida is where he needs to shine.

If he loses, the odds of his gaining the nomination drop to near zero.  Losing South Carolina was bad news for the former Arkansas Governor. Anything less than a second place showing in Florida and his chances at the nomination go from slim to none. He too, however, may want to stick around one more week to see if he can add to his delegate total. He should, for example, do well in states like Alabama and Arkansas. Whether he’ll have the funds to campaign in many of the states voting on February 5th, is another question.

Governor Romney
His win in Michigan meaningful, but Governor Romney’s fourth place finish in South Carolina didn’t help much. A win in Florida, however, could well turn the remainder of the campaign into a two-man battle against Senator McCain. Pitted one-on-one, the Governor’s massive war chest and strong organization will be most potent. And his conservative positions, although relatively recent, may do well against the more maverick policies of the Arizona Senator.

A loss here, however, sucks a lot of wind out of the Romney campaign. Anything less than second place marks his candidacy as erratic, unable to consistently pull from any constituencies long enough to seize a winner’s momentum. Of course, with his money and resources, even a poor showing in Florida won’t drive him out of the race. He’ll remain a factor until the convention or someone earns more than half the delegates needed to win.

Senator McCain
New Hampshire and South Carolina were sweet victories, personally and politically. A win in Florida would establish Senator McCain as the clear front-runner heading into the February 5th, especially since it would be a victory “untainted” by independent voters — proof he’s appealing to party stalwarts. The result should be the money and momentum he needs to succeed come Super Tuesday.

A loss, however, would muddle the picture sufficiently to put the Senator back into the pack. If he comes close, even if he finishes third, Senator McCain will remain a top tier candidate. Raising sufficient funds to stay there, however, will become much more challenging.

Clearly, the Florida GOP primary will be critical in determining the party’s eventual nominee. The winner will receive a significant boost. The chances of those candidates finishing third or lower will be greatly diminished. However, with hundreds of delegates up for grabs one week later no candidate is likely to drop from the campaign. The chance of stumbling forwarding and harvesting a few more delegates to the convention will be too strong.

Continuing beyond February 6th? For some of these candidates, that wil be a wholly different matter.