Main | January 2008 »

Somebody's Gotta Win

December 27, 2007 11:19 AM

Opinion by Matthew Dowd, ABC News Political Contributor

I hope everyone's Christmas and holiday was joy filled and peaceful, and you were able to connect with your loved ones.

As we head into the final week of the primary season before the Iowa Caucus, it is an interesting moment to touch on some conclusions by various people speculating on the state of the field.

It seems there is a consensus by most pundits that this is a field of candidates in both political parties that are flawed and can't win.

Below is a summary of much of these conclusions about the dominant candidates on the Democratic and Republican sides. (Before you blog me to death with responses, I am just rehashing what is being stated by many.)

Hillary Clinton can't win because she is too polarizing, doesn't come across as warm (unlike her husband), and overall perceptions of her are much too negative.

Barack Obama can't win because he is way too inexperienced and America isn't ready for an African-American president.

John Edwards is "old news" from 2004, and for many comes across as overly marketed and too "political".

John McCain can't win because he is too old, and has damaged his brand of independence by siding too closely with President Bush on the War in Iraq.

Mitt Romney has flip flopped too much on important issues, so folks question his authenticity. And the country isn't ready for a Mormon president.

Rudy Giuliani can't win because his personal story is too "complicated" for mainstream America, and questions concerning his post-mayor professional career are a vulnerability.

And Mike Huckabee is unelectable because of many "outrageous" positions and statements in his past, and he may come across as too much of a fringe conservative.

This is a pretty pointed summary of what many are saying.  (Again, for continued clarification, not necessarily my views.)

The really interesting and somewhat ironic thing is that even though all these candidates are described as "unelectable", one of them is more than likely going to be our next President. Though each "can’t win", one will win!

And one very important aspect of how voters view candidates is that once a candidate gets the nomination of their major party, the public automatically assumes they are qualified and can be president.

The nomination process on its own gives enhanced credibility and status to the nominee -- just teaches us about politics (and life), where snap judgements are often misguided, and shows the importance of not judging facts solely on their own, but the importance of putting things in context.

December 27, 2007 | Permalink | User Comments (17) | TrackBack (0)

Hearts and Souls Party

December 19, 2007 11:10 AM

Opinion by Matthew Dowd, ABC News Political Contributor

So, what should this week's column be on as we head into Christmas?

Should I write about the various attacks each campaign has launched against their opponents? Should I speculate on whether the Des Moines Register endorsement of Hillary Clinton will help her regain momentum against Barack Obama? Or the Boston Globe's endorsement of John McCain and will that revive his campaign?

Hmmm, what are most people thinking about this week? And then I realized it was the same thing in a way I was thinking about this past weekend.

This past Saturday morning I woke up with my five-year-old daughter Josephine (nickname: JoJo), had oatmeal, and then we decided to send a care package to her brother Daniel who is stationed in Iraq this holiday.

We made a Christmas card out of construction paper and JoJo dictated what she wanted to tell her brother. "Daddy, please tell Daniel I miss him and he is my bestest friend, and to come home soon."

We finished it up with drawings and we each signed it.

On the way to the Wimberley, Texas, post office, we had to stop at the local grocery store to pick up a few things for the package. Daniel had emailed me and said the only thing he needed was deodorant that he liked (simple guy).

In the store, JoJo picked up a stuffed snowman and said Daniel would want that, and that we had to get M&Ms because they were his favorite. With package complete, we went into the post office and stood in line. JoJo kept asking me how we were going to get box to Daniel and where was he. I told her for the twentieth time he was in Iraq, she finally asked, "Why is he in Iraq?" (Great question – wisdom from the mouth of babes.)

I was going to say he was serving his country or that he was there to fight in a war. I finally settled on, "Because he loves you, babydoll."

Seemed to satisfy her in that moment.

We filled out the forms at the desk and gave the box to the clerk. As we were leaving, a lady, who had overheard JoJo and I, gently touched my shoulder and whispered, "Thank you."

My eyes welled with tears and all I could do was smile and say, "Merry Christmas."

I walked outside of the post office as a cold breeze hit my face and I held JoJo's little hand even tighter, and wondered where those tears came from. And realized tears usually always come from many different places.

Were they for the fact Daniel was going to be alone in Iraq? Were they because JoJo wasn't going to have her brother here this Christmas? Were they because my oldest son is now serving in a war that I no longer agreed with and that I would miss him deeply? Were they tears for life's broken road? Probably all that and more.

I have a favor to ask. Even if you disagree with the war and don't like President Bush, be gentle and compassionate to those families who are directly involved.

At this time of year think of the people whose loved ones are not home and can't be there for the holidays. Whether they are at war or elsewhere. Think of the families whose parent may be sick in the hospital and can't come home. Think of the person who has to work the second shift at a convenience store because the extra income is needed. Think of our police and fireman who will be away from home on Christmas Day. Or think of the loved ones who are separated by reasons they just can't control at this time.

For a moment take a respite from the polarized politics, the debates over issues, or the speculation on who is up or down in the presidential campaign.

Touch someone's hand or shoulder and tell them you care, or call someone you know whose loved one is away and tell them you were thinking of them. Regardless of your partisan leanings, as human beings we all belong to the party of hearts and souls.

December 19, 2007 | Permalink | User Comments (14) | TrackBack (0)

Apollo 13: Behind the Moon

December 11, 2007 10:41 PM

Opinion by Matthew Dowd, ABC News Political Contributor

Hmmm, where on Earth is Dowd headed with that headline?  Stick with me for a moment.

As you will recall from having read about or actually watched the events surrounding Apollo 13 (or if you saw the wonderful Tom Hanks movie), this mission had troubles from the start. 

But one chapter of the Apollo 13 journey relates to the presidential campaign chapter we are about to enter.

During Apollo 13, the astronauts had to go around the moon in order to get back to Earth in a badly damaged space capsule.  In the time traveling around the moon, NASA and the families lost contact for a number of minutes, and all had to wait and see what was going to happen when radio contact was restored.

That is exactly the political period we are coming to . . . because Christmas and the New Year's holidays are approaching, the candidates and their campaigns will have to stand down a bit.  Advertising, travel, and voter contact will likely need to be scaled back.

And it is going to be very difficult to accurately determine voter sentiments in this period.  Both from a standpoint of an inability to reach likely voters, and from the voters' reluctance to engage in political discourse at this time.  So good voter data will be "lost" for awhile.

Starting sometime soon, the state of the race in both parties is going to go "behind the moon".  We will not be able to get a true picture until the actual caucus voting in Iowa occurs on January 3rd -- which takes place 48 hours after New Years Day.

And in a contest which is wide open and close on both sides, it is an interesting dilemma for those covering and watching the races as well as for those in the race.  Without objective data, everyone is going to rely on anecdotal evidence -- not always the best indicator of the truth. 

What info can we trust? 

Who can we believe? 

Did a big rally signify true momentum?

My advice is to watch for many signs and gather as much information as possible, and see what looks like a trend from the anecdotes and not just from a one time event or data point.  Try to screen out the noise, and listen for the frequency. 

For example, if poll numbers do show up, pay attention to the trend and not the particular numbers of that day.  Also, be very leery of info put out by campaigns at this time, especially if it runs counter to trends over the last few weeks.

And keep your seatbelt fastened cause this is going to be a wild ride, until the radio contact is restored on the night of the Iowa caucus in less than three weeks.

December 11, 2007 | Permalink | User Comments (9) | TrackBack (0)

Faith: Finding An Authentic Place to Call Home

December 07, 2007 7:22 AM

Opinion by Matthew Dowd, ABC News Political Contributor

It seems appropriate that the jumping off point of my exciting new gig is on the topic of faith, since it takes a lot of faith on ABC News' part to give me a platform to say what's on my mind.  Oh well, they will come to understand that I am a believer in asking forgiveness, not permission.

Before you read much further, here's the bottom line: as one looks ahead to the primaries and the general election, the candidate who best understands the importance of faith in households across America and ultimately demonstrates authenticity will likely be the one taking the oath of office in January of 2009.

Though timing for this post was Mitt Romney's speech Thursday morning on faith in America (who by the way gave a wonderful speech on diversity of religion, but whose fall in the polls has nothing to do with fact he is a Mormon, and has more to do with questions of authenticity and I don't know if one speech can fix that), I think it's a good idea to step back and examine faith in the context of the American electorate and how voters make decisions.

Faith and religion in politics has been misunderstood by many observers.  When faith is discussed in politics, the discussion often defaults to an examination of the Religious Right or evangelicalism.   However, this focus misses the bigger picture, as those much-discussed groups represent only a fraction of faith in America –- and successful candidates understand this.

More than 90 percent of American voters believe in God.  This 90 percent includes Catholics, Protestants, Jews, Muslims, and Buddhists or whatever the church or community of choice is for that person.   People rely on their spiritual foundation in decisions they make every day –- decisions ranging from whether they should change jobs, to the right medicine for their parents, to whether they should stay in a relationship, or to how one should treat the environment.  In truth, for the average voter, Faith is often a more important factor than any economic calculus.   And the high importance that voters place on authenticity when choosing candidate has its roots in an individual voter’s spiritual underpinnings.

For most Americans, especially those attending Megachurches (one of the fastest growing Faith segments), faith and religious decisions are driven by a desire for community and fellowship.  Their choice of a church is based less on theological principles and more on where they can find a community they trust and are accepted in and a place they can call home.  This is why Megachurches today are one of the most diverse gatherings of people across the land. 

Megachurches often include as many Democrats and Independents as Republicans, and their members and attendees cover the ideological and policy spectrum –- from socially liberal or moderate to conservative, from supporting of the war in Iraq to opposing it, etc.  This fact has been miscalculated by many recent candidates, especially on the Democratic side, and as a result of it, they have suffered at the polls.

However, successful politicians on both sides intuitively understand this diverse faith dynamic, and it is why Mitt Romney felt a necessity to address it in his speech in Texas (though as noted above his vulnerability has more to do with authenticity than being a Mormon).  President Clinton and Bush understood this throughout their careers.  Democratic Governor Tim Kaine of Virginia understood it and spoke to it very well in his race in Virginia (his understanding was a major reason a Democrat opposed to the death penalty could win a Red State in the South).  One of the best speeches on faith in politics I have read was a speech Barack Obama gave in the summer of 2006. 

Mike Huckabee's successful rise in the polls was certainly not based on money or staff or resources, but rather, I believe, on his understanding of the importance of Faith in America.  And not an understanding that says people of faith are conservative, but one that recognizes that the faith community is representative of the diversity of America.   As mentioned, it seems authenticity is derived from a place of faith in most voters’ examination of candidates.

Looking forward to a continued conversation on many topics, and to paraphrase a line from the movie Casablanca, "Here's to the beginning of a beautiful Internet relationship."

December 7, 2007 | Permalink | User Comments (87) | TrackBack (0)