Matthew Dowd

Matthew Dowd has been a campaign strategist in races throughout the country. In 30 years, Dowd has worked for Democrats and Republicans, most recently serving as chief strategist for President George W. Bush in 2004.

October 2008
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30 31

« Previous | Main | Next »

Which Way Do We Go, Which Way Do We Go?

January 16, 2008 9:19 AM

Opinion by Matthew Dowd, ABC News Political Contributor

An interesting race just got even more interesting.

From one native son of Michigan (I was born in Detroit and was one of 11 kids who grew up there and were children of an auto industry father) to another native son, Mitt Romney, congrats on a great comeback.

So with the Michigan Republican primary just over and with Iowa and New Hampshire (and let's not forget the Wyoming votes) already put to bed, let's pause and figure out what lessons we have learned thus far.

1. It is much better right now to be the underdog and not the front runner.

In nearly every contest, the perceived frontrunner has lost, and the underdog has won. Voters are rewarding the candidate who is behind and who seems to be fighting to win more.

2. Mitt Romney seems to have recently found his voice, and he won. McCain found his independent voice in New Hampshire, and won. Obama found his voice in Iowa, won. Huckabee found his voice as well in Iowa, won. And Hillary found her voice, as she said herself, in New Hampshire, and she claimed victory. And many of the other second tier candidates just seem to be hearing voices.

Candidates ought to pay attention to the fact that when they are seen as authentic and speaking from their heart, they succeed. 

3. Every candidate right now that has faced a must win situation, has won.

Obama needed to win Iowa to show he was for real and damage Clinton's inevitability. He did.  Huckabee had to win Iowa to prove his momentum was true, and he did. Hillary had to win New Hampshire to slow Obama's momentum, and she did. McCain had to prove he had staying power in New Hampshire and that his comeback was for real, and he did.  And Mitt Romney faced a crucial test in Michigan after finishing second twice in a row, and he won.   

All the major candidates right now are proving when their back is against the wall, they gather their strength and do what is necessary. A great quality in a presidential candidate.

4. Delegate math, especially in the Republican nomination battle, is becoming increasingly important. 

As the field is very divided, with no true frontrunner, the math of number of delegates grows paramount. So not only does it matter who wins a state, but where they finish grows in import. And winner-take-all states will be a priority.

As we approach the Nevada caucuses for both parties, and the South Carolina Republican primary on Saturday, it is terribly difficult to make predictions. Other than this one: so far an unresolved race will continue to be unclear after Saturday's voting, and no one candidate will run the table any time soon. 

Look for inconsistent results and second tier candidates to finally leave the race.

January 16, 2008 | Permalink | User Comments (18)

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/433071/25176514

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Which Way Do We Go, Which Way Do We Go?:

User Comments

Great win my Mitt Romney in Michigan where John McCain won in 2000 with 56% of the vote.

Mitt....aka "Mr. Fixer" will go on to win the GOP nomination and be elected the 44th President of the USA because "it''s the economy stupid" and America is the largest enterprise in the world.

Who do you want running the largest enterprise Mitt Romney or candidates who are "lawyers"?

The choice is clear and Washington DC is broken. Hillary, Obama, McCain are all from Washington DC.

It time we elect Mitt Romney to "finally" take care of the domestic problems this nation faces.

No one else running is even qualified....

GO MITT !

Posted by: Allen Ridge | Jan 16, 2008 10:39:08 AM

Terrific win for Hilliary in Michigan. The "spin doctors" are actively attempted to discredit the win; however, it is not working.

You GO GIRL!!!

Posted by: Harrison | Jan 16, 2008 11:32:44 AM

We as a nation are "GOING" DOWN THE TUBES as we speak. You MEDIA TYPES should know this already.

Posted by: ithinkurstupid | Jan 16, 2008 12:11:34 PM

The media can't stand it that Hillary won. She would have even if the other two were in it. It was disrespectful to the voters not to be in it. She showed them the respect that they deserved. GO HILLARY!

Posted by: charles risner | Jan 16, 2008 1:49:41 PM

The Democratic party could stay with a candidate they know, of whom they are comfortable and familiar. Or they could
embrace a new generation of leadership with a new understanding of a new age and new policies and ideas.

Obama's endorsements show that people who best understand the urgency for a new direction within the party have the
courage to change. The public outside Iowa, so far, not so much.

Arizona governor Janet Napolitano, and U.S. Sens. Ben Nelson of Nebraska, Claire McCaskill of Missouri, and Tim Johnson of South Dakota among others understand that a new generation of leaders - unbound by old policies, old commitments and arrangements, old
deals and old friendships - can move America beyond the gridlock which is destroying our country.

This is a time when America must leave old politics behind. This election is about transition not power.

Posted by: Jack | Jan 16, 2008 2:29:59 PM

Well, it's officially black vs. white now.

Despite protests to the contrary, Saint Obama the Uniter has actively sought an opportunity to inject race into the 2008 campaign leading into the South Carolina primaries. He couldn't find it, so they first went with "fairy tale" being racist to describe one of Obama's positions. Hardly racist. Then his campaign picked up on Clinton’s MLK comment and misinterpreted it. He needed to trick and incite African Americans, while distancing himself enough personally so as not to be obvious to whites, Hispanics and others.

What a con man.

Obama needs to keep in mind, however, that if the race is held out as a reason to vote FOR someone, it must also be a valid reason to vote AGAINST someone. He can't have it both ways. I hope his disgusting race games ultimately crash his campaign.

Posted by: Derrick | Jan 16, 2008 2:56:30 PM

From the debate last night, the country saw the Dems get back on issue.

I believe the Clintons will scrap their campaign strategy out of the Karl Rove playbook where tearing people down, mischaracterization of statements, and sneaky tricks like her crying, are to subtract the issues from the discussion, to run a campaign on the issues. The stakes are too high to alienate not only Independent voters but the AA's in their own base.

Posted by: Edna | Jan 16, 2008 3:27:03 PM

THE SOUTH WILL RISE UP- AND VOTE THEIR TRUE CONSERVITIVE, BORN AND BRED SOUTHERN LEADER...FRED THOMPSON

Posted by: rj | Jan 16, 2008 5:19:53 PM

When is KKKarl Rove,alias pillsbury Doughboy going to bail out the GOP? Never.Even this scumbag can't help the GOP. The GOP is history. Faux News fans and Republican hate radio fans can shove it.

Posted by: AJ | Jan 16, 2008 6:45:41 PM

Mitt Romney give a break.

It was the Kos Kids and their mischief that sealed the deal for old multiple choice Mitt in Michigan.

Posted by: The Commander Guy | Jan 16, 2008 7:11:15 PM

Question: Why is it that nearly every time a Hillary supporter posts a comment giving their support for her, it is in ALL CAPS WITH EXCLAMATION POINTS FOLLOWING IT!!!! ?

Is your unabashed love for her something that has to be yelled at us?

With a few exceptions, Obama supporters seem to be calm and unofficious, by simply posting a calm "Obama '08!"

I believe most people don't appreciate a brash, forceful, and beligerent approach to politics that Hillary supporters trumpet.

I believe most voters, on both sides, appreciate the rational, collected, and fair approach that Obama supporters (again, for the most part) use when discussing the election.

Posted by: rnc001 | Jan 16, 2008 10:40:14 PM

Has everyone forgotten that Bush ran on his so-called CEO credentials! He was going to manage gov't from the steely eyed perspective of a business man. Well, look want we got from Mr CEO: a huge surplus that was erased almost overnight on his ascent to the White House, a debtor nation, we are in the hole for trillions to China and elsewhere, a looming recession, a real drop in in real wages for the middle class,a busted housing market...shall I go on? The fact that Romney is CEO and business man bodes well only for the already wealthy. The rest of us need to wake and stop acting like sheep and front our own candidates. A third party is desperately needed.

Posted by: April Campbell | Jan 17, 2008 12:06:12 AM

Obama has IRISH roots!

Yes you heard right. Obama is Irish. Boston and Ireland are rooting for him. Don't believe me? Google it. You see there are some things the media in the USA don't tell you. It's the talk of Ireland right now. I just came back from one of my jam sessions and that was the talk. My jaw dropped. Muslim my foot! Well his Father was from Kenya but he's protestant.

Barack Obama’s Irish Family Roots Confirmed in Offaly County


ObamaBarack.jpgU.S. Presidential Hopeful’s Family Origins Traced to Moneygall; Records Found in Local Parishioner’s Cellar


PROVO, UTAH – May 3, 2007 — Ancestry.com, the world’s largest online resource for family history, is now able to confirm that U.S. presidential hopeful Barack Obama’s Irish ancestors originated in Moneygall and neighboring Shinrone in County Offaly, Ireland.


In celebration of St. Patrick’s Day, Ancestry.com revealed on March 12th that Sen. Obama has Irish branches in his family tree. Following the news and in response to several inquiries, Ancestry.com continued its search of Obama’s Irish ancestors.


Baptism and probate records linking the family line back to Moneygall have been unearthed with the assistance of Canon Stephen Neill in the Templeharry Rectory records, which until recently were stored in a parishioner’s home.


“This research will once and for all put to rest any perceptions that Barack Obama is a first generation American, said Megan Smolenyak, Chief Family Historian for Ancestry.com. “Like most of us he has an interesting mix of ancestry, including some impressively early all-American roots.”


Researchers initially thought that Obama’s third great-grandfather, Falmouth Kearney, who sailed from Ireland to New York in 1850 at 19-years-old, was the only member of the family to emigrate. However, records reveal that other Kearney family members had in fact been in America since the 1790s.


One ancestor, Falmouth’s paternal uncle, Francis, had in fact bequeathed land to his brother, Falmouth’s father Joseph, with the condition that he emigrate in order to inherit. He did so along with his wife Phebe and four children, including Falmouth, although at various times in the mid-19th Century.


If interested, images of the Irish records are available upon request:


* Baptism records – Falmouth Kearney siblings

* 1825 marriage index – Falmouth Kearney parents

* 1850 U.S. passenger list records – Falmouth Kearney

* 1860 U.S. Federal Census – Falmouth Kearney

* Tombstones – Falmouth Kearney’s siblings and parents


Posted by: T. | Jan 17, 2008 12:28:29 AM

Look up Obama's racist home church in Chicago. It is called Trinity Church of Christ. Check it out - it is all you need to know about him. Unelectable.

Posted by: Average Joe | Jan 17, 2008 11:09:11 PM

Great Dowd, "Mitt Romney found his voice, and he won. McCain found his voice and won. Obama found his voice won. Huckabee found his voice and won. And Hillary found her voice and claimed victory". Couldn't even acknowledge her win could you?

Posted by: JR | Feb 3, 2008 3:35:01 PM

I know which way to go.. I'm voting for the person that has more experience, and is much smarter then the rest of the Pack.. That Person is Hillary Clinton.. She will make a Great Leader, and get America back to being #1 in the World.. All you Republican fools are in for a rude awaking.. GO HILLARY !!!!!!!! DA WINNER IN !!!!!!! ..

Posted by: J.Murphy, CA. | Feb 3, 2008 3:35:35 PM

I want all of the Obamathon supporters to realize that I was impressed with his appearance, his calm, his great style. I will vote for him if he wins, no doubt about that.

I just believe that if you strip away the desire to apply even more golden clothes to the emperor, you cannot possibly compare ‘beliefs, hopes, dreams’ to fact, figures, dates, bills, and actual events.

But Obama is getting it both ways when he says ‘I would have never . . . ‘ or ‘I would have done that differently . . . ‘.

How does he know what he would have done? He is able to say what he would have done, without facing the consequences of his actionsand that's weak at best.

In hindsight, and it seems in his general view of himself, he can remain 100% correct on all issues, in all discussions, involving anyone that steps up to the challenge, any place, any time, any how.

The point here is that he wasn’t elected to high office at the time of these momentous decisions, and when faced with supposed facts, from sources one would think could be trusted, he did not have to face the wrath of his choices.
And as a result he more than likely would have voted Present, anyway.

And as for experience, just what incredible levels of experience has Barrack obtained, and how did he come to this Rosetta stone of knowledge?

Ambassador somewhere? No. Secretary of anything? No. Department of Labor, Education, Defense, Environment . . . . No.

He has a whole 2.5 years in high office, as a Junior Senator who started running for President after the first year.

He was in the state senate for 8 years, and that has its involvements, not on a national scale of course, but still, there are decisions to be made. Unless you vote Present a hundred plus times. Then you don't have to make ANY decisions now, do you?

But let us remember that to this day, Illinois is not some bastion of escape for the ills of America. It has problems. Vast, unaltered problems.

Chicago (check that ABC headline - I wrote this in another blog 4 hours earlier), Chicago is still run-down, old, polluted, filled with crime, poverty, traffic, drugs, guns, pornography (if you care about it, me, its your right to have it), prostitution, low wages, slum housing, communicable diseases, homelessness, lack of medical insurance, child abuse, rape, arson, and hunger.

I do not see any difference whatsoever in Chicago or Illinois in general, having had Obama in the state house for 8 years. The above problems were there before him. And they didn’t evaporate because of him.

The conditions that Mr. Obama found when he entered the state house, were the same conditions he left behind. But higher callings were, uh, calling.

So what, you say. So everything, I reply.

I do not believe that someone who hasn’t been in high office, let alone only lower state legislatures, has the fight, the experience, the know-how, or the qualifications, to be President Of The United States. They just simply cannot prove their abilities through actions.

If one has little to point to when presenting their evidence, they do not win the case. Unless your OJ Simpson.

But when the state that was left behind, for ego and ambition, is no better off today than it was before your arrival, that may be all the evidence that is required. It speaks volumes. And its speaks truthfully.

It is the deeds that you do not the words that you say.

He is a nice man, a well presented man.
He is very articulate. He is successful and professional. But he is vague, non-descript, imprecise, and deliberately convuluted.

He takes the high road because he can avoid contentious details that way. He votes ‘present’ on bills that require his decisions, even in the US Senate and explains them away with incorrect, if not misleading, excuses.

He doesn't take a positionhimself but derides those who were brave enough to try and decide. Up or Down. Not 'Maybe'.

But he is well versed and attractive. Savvy and inspiring.

But he is not prepared to lead because his habit of jumping positions before he has adequately completed the job he was elected to do in the first place shows weakness, ego, and pride.

And he cannot make a tough decision that might have consequences as evidenced by 'Present', 'Present', 'Present' . . . 130 times.

Ambition and a sense of right, like a royal mandate from God, though long dispensed with by Reason, drives the ego to reach for what one hasn't yet proven their capacity to deal with.

One does not reward ambition with position, unless results prove the merits behind doing so.

There are no 'merits' found in Illinois that one can point to as a reason to entrust the defense and governance of the United States, to the purple prose and poetic rhetoric of a junior politician.

Google Illinois and take a peek: Crime rates, health rates, public housing conditions, wages, guns, disease, traffic, pollution, job rates, foreclosures, unemployment, literacy rates, homelessness rates, business failures, bankruptcies . . . there is nothing in Illinois very different than a lot of US states.

I know that momentous change is not accomplished by one's self. It takes a village. And it can't be done in just 8 years. But it can be started. It can be seen as a beginning. Unless of course, there is no start, and thus no beginning.

And when you promise the heavens and promise the earth, one can reasonably expect miracles from the miracle worker. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

But there are no miracles to be found; no proof of real recovery. No example of corrected troubles that would cause the Nation to burst through Illinois' borders, desperate to experience this new promised land.

It was promised, yes.
It just wasn't delivered.


And who is going to be able to tolerate an OJ Simpson Supporter style Presidency, where you have the facts ignored for the fairy tale? Can you imagine what this will be like?

You challenge him on substance, he and his supporters cry race. It will be Al Sharpton and Jessie J, All The Time, Every Time.

You challenge him on his truthfulness - you are a racist.

You bring up a mistake he made - you are trying to tear down the black man.

You show the public some misleading statements - you are working for The Man, racism is your game.

You are jealous. You are hateful. You are mean spirited. You are negative and closed minded.

If this isn't a Johnny Cochran nightmare waiting to happen, I don't know what is.

Someone please say no to the OJ Simpson Administration.

Posted by: 2009 Where Are You? | Feb 3, 2008 3:39:04 PM

Just a follow up thought, as proof there is a definite bias against all things Hill.

The first Iowa primary to be won by an african-american was the talk and rage of all media outlets for 5 days. You would have thought Mary & Joseph had popped in from the Inn with a new born baby brother for Jesus. It was non-stop. It was covered until you could memorize the chanting and the ‘dream and hope’ speech. It was a beauty, that speech. Such words. He is famous for words.

Then, 5 days later, we have a big reversal of fortunes, according to the polls and it’s All-Obama-All-The-Time anyway, despite losing. How could we have been so wrong. If he just would have gotten more turnout in the college towns. Where did his message go astray? Or did it? Was there a white racial backlash once in the booth? Are there too few black folks in New Hampshire to help over come the racism that has shown itself here tonight? Well, Obama only lost by 2 pts and he was down some 20pts (before he had even announced he was running - go figure). He almost pulled it off. Obama is on an upswing nonetheless. Obama. Obama. Obama. Obama, O—-

Folks, how about the fact, that for the first time in our 232 year history, a woman has won a state primary!

How about the fact that this woman, the first First Lady to ever run for office, win, and then get re-elected, has now won the first State Primary, seeking the nomination, to become the first female president in the history of the nation?

What about THAT momumental story, from an historical standpoint?

Not one damn story. Not one damn headline. No one on any MSM channel stood back, despite their disgust with Clinton, to admire the fact that the nation had just made history and we were all around to see it. We can now remember and say, I was there. We can look our daughters right in the eyes and mean it when we say to them, YES, YOU CAN.

But instead its ‘YES, WE CAN’ instead of 'YES SHE DID'

ALL-OBAMA-ALL-THE-TIME.

Posted by: 2009 Where Are You? | Feb 3, 2008 4:07:21 PM

Post a comment