Sunday, December 17, 2006

Line Change!

With all that's been going on in the Presidential race we figured it was time to update the Cooler line. As always your thoughts, criticisms, and smart-aleck comments are encouraged.
Onto the line changes:
  • The biggest move comes from Tommy Thomson. Tommy has regional advantages when it comes to the Iowa caucus and he's shown that he's serious about a run. He also hired seasoned caucus advisor Steve Grubbs. With that Tommy goes from the also rans, to tier two and hops from 75-1 to 40-1.
  • The next two moves come at the top. Rudy Giuliani has shown he's serious about putting together an organization. He did so by hiring one of the best organization guys in the GOP, Mike Duhaime. Meanwhile, John McCain keeps building his Iowa team. From Nelson and Larson to Popma and Roederer and many more- McCain has continuously built a plethora of heavy hitters. He's also hired a field and organizational staff with Iowa experience. Romney had the advantage on the organizational side during the fall months, but the staffing race has evened up- with possibly a slight edge to McCain. So with that Rudy goes from 7-1 to 6-1 and McCain from 9-2 to 4-1.
All for now...


Blogger winin08 said...

Given the terrible two months Romney has had, with the full scope of his hypocrisy on issues ranging from taxes and minimum wage to his views on President Reagan and President George H.W. Bush to abortion, the gay and lesbian agenda, etc...he's still a slight favorite?

Brownback finally has stepped into the race and is the only guy capable of getting to McCain's right without committing fraud while doing so. Go Sam go!

5:14 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

How could Romney not drop after the last few days/weeks/months?

Novak said his candidacy could end.

National conservative leaders questioned whether they could support him.

Michigan legislators jumped from his team.

Dobson was 'disturbed'.

Romney has fallen.

5:30 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

McCain won't win over the religious right - he's not conservative enough for them.

I'm interested in Duncan Hunter.

6:53 PM  
Blogger Caucus Cooler said...

We understand the sentiment that Romney might not be the favorite in Iowa any longer. The problem lies with who is there to fill the void. Between ethanol, skipping Iowa in 2000, and the Rush Limbaugh and Co. noise machine, McCain has a lot of challenges to overcome in this state.

Nobody else has anywhere near the money or organization to compete.

So at this stage we have the Romney/McCain race as essentially a dead-heat, Romney's edge is very slight.

We also think if you talk to the Gang of 50 around Iowa, more often then not they'll agree with that assessment. And it's the purpose of the Cooler Line to reflect the conventional wisdom amongst Iowa insiders.

6:58 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Brownback is the candidate to watch in Iowa.

7:15 PM  
Blogger winin08 said...

Okay CC, you're right...but if Mitt commits more rookie mistakes, has more exposure as a flip flop artist, I hope you'll make the change...

7:51 PM  
Blogger winin08 said...

From today's Chicago Tribune...Expresses my sentiments exactly and why my choices are: Brownback (Huckabee just isn't doing anything), McCain, Hunter, Rudy (at least he's a proud liberal), and then Mittless.

December 17, 2006
Candidates Play Politics with Abortion
By Steve Chapman

You have to feel for Mitt Romney. The Massachusetts governor, who labored for years to convince voters in his state that he would not infringe on abortion rights, is now striving mightily to persuade voters elsewhere that he would do exactly that.

He becomes the latest of many politicians who, in the course of their quest for the White House, have felt an irresistible impulse to re-evaluate this issue. And if that makes you skeptical about the sincerity of presidential candidates, well, shame on you.

When Romney, a Republican, ran unsuccessfully for the U.S. Senate against Ted Kennedy in 1994, he said, "I believe that abortion should be safe and legal" and professed his support for the Supreme Court's 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling. In his winning 2002 campaign for governor, he endorsed public funding of abortions for poor women and promised not to change Massachusetts law.

But so much can happen in four years. He recently said in an interview with the conservative National Review Online that "several years ago," while contemplating embryonic stem-cell research, he was struck by the notion that Roe v. Wade had devalued respect for life.

So he vetoed a bill that would have allowed "therapeutic cloning" of embryos for research purposes. He also told NRO he would like the Supreme Court to overturn Roe, which he has come to understand as "another example of judges making the law instead of interpreting the Constitution."

"I'm in a different place than I was probably in 1994, when I ran against Ted Kennedy, in my own views on that," he said last year in an interview with USA Today. No kidding. In 1994, he wasn't trying to make friends with conservative Republican primary voters in places like New Hampshire and South Carolina, and today he is.

Romney at least admits his shift, while portraying it as an act of conscience. And, says Marie Sturgis, executive director of the anti-abortion Massachusetts Citizens for Life, "He is changing. It's not just rhetoric." Last year, he even vetoed a bill to expand access to the morning-after pill, despite mounting evidence that it is not, in fact, an abortifacient.

This change makes perfect sense if you assume he had a late-developing moral epiphany on the sanctity of fetal life. About the same time, it would seem, the scales fell from his eyes on the entirely separate matter of judicial activism, forcing him to disavow a Supreme Court decision that he once embraced.

More likely, he realized that if he hopes to win the Republican nomination for president, he had better start sounding more conservative -- no matter how many of his own words he has to eat. This hypothesis gains strength when you consider that Romney, who once endorsed a federal measure to outlaw discrimination against gays, now opposes the idea.

It's a little unfair to single out the Massachusetts governor, since he is not the first presidential candidate to outgrow a youthful set of abortion beliefs. Ronald Reagan signed a liberal abortion law in California before reversing himself. George H.W. Bush, once a supporter of abortion rights, took the opposite position as Reagan's running mate in 1980. The current president had a liberal position when he ran for Congress in 1978.

But Democrats have proven equally open-minded. Jesse Jackson, who once denounced legal abortion as "a policy of killing infants," morphed when he ran for president in 1984. Al Gore, who once voted for a measure stipulating that life begins at conception, made an about-face before becoming Bill Clinton's running mate in 1992. As governor of Arkansas, Clinton said, "I am opposed to abortion and to government funding of abortion." As president, not so much.

You will notice the common element: Each of these shifts, however morally sincere, perfectly fit the political needs of the candidate in question at that point in his career.

Does that make you feel you can't trust politicians on this subject? It shouldn't. The record shows clearly that you can trust almost any politician to champion the abortion policy that serves his or her immediate interests, and to sincerely place his own political prospects above anything else.

So, as a pro-lifer, I know Mitt Romney is now firmly on my side of this critical issue. And I have complete confidence that he will be there until he isn't.

7:53 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The Republican Party needs authenticity right now. We cannot afford to nominate a candidate who the American people will view as a Clintonesque flip-flopper.

Giuliani, McCain, and Brownback can all be taken seriously. There are too many comments from Romney and his staff that are 100% opposed to each other.....and it isn't just recent.

He was pro-life when running for Governor of Utah, then pro-choice when running for Governor of Mass, and now pro-life again.

8:06 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

By Raphael Lewis, Globe Staff | June 3, 2005

Governor Mitt Romney's top political strategist has told a prominent conservative magazine that his client has been ''faking" his support of abortion rights in Massachusetts...

When I think of leadership qualities, "faking it" doesn't jump to the top.

8:28 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

If you would like to clear up Romney's position on abortion, goto

8:40 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Let me clear it up....

"Mitt has always been consistent in his pro-choice position," then-Romney spokesman Charles Manning told the Boston Globe in September 1994.

"Gov. Romney has always stood on the side of life," said South Carolina Commonwealth PAC Spokesman Young.

8:46 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"running for Gov of Utah?" I see you really know WTF you are talking about. Sheesh...

9:29 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

No poll or blog that has pro-choice, anti-gun, pro-gay marriage Guiliani at or near the top of a list supposedly based upon the beliefs of "Iowa insiders" can have any credibility whatsoever.

It is utterly preposterous.

9:43 PM  
Blogger Caucus Cooler said...


Polls that use accurate, cogent, scientific processes disavow your suggestion completely.

We agree that rudy will have trouble overcoming those stances- which is why he's placed 3rd. But completely disregarding significant sample sizes of the electorate that say Rudy is ahead at this juncture is silly.

11:46 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Some of the greatest defenders of life - most notably Ronald Reagan - originally started their political careers as pro-abortion. Reagan actually signed one of the most liberal abortion laws in the country as Governor of California.

There is never someone more passionate about a cause than the person who is newly converted!!!

If we do not accept the people we have converted as "for real" then we will be in the losing column forever ... and more babies will die.

Unlike Kerry, Clinton, and the other famous flip floppers you all refer to, Mitt clearly says he has changed his mind due to research and evidence. When you say that you have learned ... and thus changed your mind ... that's NOT flip flopping.

8:15 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The Reagan argument is completely bunk. He appointed 2 pro-Roe judges to the bench. Had he appointed 2 people like Roberts and Alito instead of OConnor and Kennedy- roe would already be overturned.

And the "flip flopped after great thought" argument is also bunk. Consider the source. When Mitt was pro-choice, he told Mass voters that he thought abortion was a deeply personal choice, and he was sicere about it because he had a family member who had experience with an illegal abortion.

He's just a con artist.

8:44 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It's certainly easy to call names like "con artist" when we are all anonymous.

Mitt Romney has a record of success and achievement everywhere he has been. That's the kind of person people want as president.

10:02 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

CC I don't get it. If the Cooler Line is supposed to be only about the Iowa Caucus, how can Giuliani be #3? All indications point to him not competing strongly in Iowa. Do you know of ANY Iowa staff? An Iowa chairman? An issue of his that matches Iowa values?

You should re-evaluate the line, or re-describe it's purpose.

10:26 AM  
Blogger Unknown said...

y'all hoping that Mitt's run is already over have another thing coming.

I would agree with you, IF I based my opinion on what people anonymously comment on political blogs. Alas, as much as we'd like the blogosphere to be the real world, it's not.

And the POTUS race is about real people and real votes, and what a candidate can do over the next 14 months to convince us they're the best man for the job--not about an email smear campaign that's pushed before a guy even declares.

If you've already made up your mind about the guy obviously there's nothing anyone can say to change your mind. But you can't intelligently say that some comments taken out of context (if you research all the facts and look at it objectively) are enough to bump him yet.

10:37 AM  
Blogger Unknown said...

strike that "intelligently" comment. I guess I meant to say credibly or convincingly. I'm just trying to share my opinion w/o putting anyone down . . .

10:47 AM  
Blogger Caucus Cooler said...

Great Question 10:26- we understand that sentiment completely.

At this stage, Rudy doesn't have staff in any state- it's not particular to Iowa. We've heard through the rumor mill that he's spoken with a couple of different people in the state about joining the team- but until they had someone to manage the race they were going to move slowly. Now that they have DuHaime, we expect them to start making some staffing moves after the New Year.

We think that Rudy is going to play in Iowa and if he does that he'll be a force. There are a gazillion polls we could use to back up that assertion.

Also, your point would have more validity if there was a viable 3rd option besides Rudy. Right now we have the generic "field bet" as the next option.

Huckabee, Thompson, and Brownback only have 1 Iowa "advisor" and no real fundraising base.

Newt is in the same boat as Rudy with no staff.

So our question back to you would be- who else could we put 3rd?

11:10 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


I've also heard he courted some Iowa staff before the election, but that follow-up has been minimal.

I agree with your points about Huckabee, Brownback, Thompson, and the lack of a quality third candidate. I have no viable alternative either. However, I don't think it is right to rank Rudy so highly (in Iowa) based purely on speculation that he MIGHT decide to run here while you have people that, despite our opinions of their inabilities, do have at least a minimal campaign starting to form in this state. While there are polls showing Giuliani could be a force, should he decide to play in Iowa, there is no evidence yet that he is going to, and to rank him so highly based on premature polling is wrong, and furthermore, inconsistent. After all, if you are ranking on polls, you couldn't have Romney as the front-runner.

Also, you're right about Newt in the same according to that logic, why rank him way behind the field, Huckabee, Brownback, etc?

I think a fairer way to do it is to admit that McCain and Romney are the clear leaders in the two-man race that is shaping up in Iowa at present time by placing the Field directly behind them, and then as soon as Giuliani announces at least a bare-bones team here in Iowa, bump him back up.

Until then, its all just unwarranted wishful thinking.

11:56 AM  
Blogger Caucus Cooler said...

We understand that point 10:26, but think it would be just wrong to have the guy who is leading all the polls anywhere lower than 3rd.

But it's definately a fair opinion and to be honest you are making us 2nd guess ourselves at least a little bit.

We hope you'll keep participating!

12:16 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Huckabee just raised a little mone ythe other night and from what I can tell it is still coming. Huckabee is the real deal and as he leaves office I think that you will see things begin to pick up in his camp. He has said he is waiting until he leaves office on Jan. 9th and it seems like that is what he is going to do. Plus he has a book coming out on that day as well and I think that will give him some serious traction and name ID as well. You are going to see that Huckabee is not only a player in this game but probably one of the most viable and intelligent ones playing. Romney and McCain are trying to win by hiring everyone in site and keeping others out of the race because the big names are gone, but look at the last election and what the big names won. Keep your eye on Huckabee and you will have the chance to watch a rising star.

4:54 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home

  • Caucus Coolerisms
  • The Cooler Line

    Mike Huckabee 10-9
    Mitt Romney 3-1
    Fred Thompson 9-1
    John McCain 9-1
    Rudy Giuliani 12-1
    Ron Paul 12-1
    Duncan Hunter 98-1
    The Cooler line is an exclusive creation of Caucus Cooler and will be updated as the political environment changes.
    It is an unscientific assessment of the Iowa Caucus (not the Presidential race as a whole) from an insiders view at the given time. The line IS NOW mathematically accurate but is NOT intended for gambling purposes. Information may only be reproduced with credit to the Caucus Cooler.