Thompson Advisor Insults Iowans' Intelligence

During a rant about how badly he was treated during the Des Moines Register/Iowa Public Television GOP Presidential debate, Senior Thompson Advisor Rich Galen earlier this month wrote in his Mullings Cyber Column:

"It is also possible that there is a law in Iowa forbidding the use of any form of the word 'abysmal.'"

Now, I am from Iowa and find this offensive. This statement implies that Iowans are uneducated and don't know the meaning of "abysmal." In fact, Iowans read more books per capita than the residents of ANY other state in the Union. Iowa high school students also score number one or number two in both the SAT and ACT EVERY YEAR. Hardly the hallmarks of an uneducated populous. Taking potshots at the residents of an entire state (Iowa) simply out of pique directed at one person does not seem smart politics for a senior advisor to a campaign (Thompson) which desperately needs to come in third just to keep alive.

And he wrote this just after a soliloquy of getting into fights with people who buy ink by the barrel.

The Lastest Stupid Conspiracy from Late Night Shots

A member of Late Night Shots, that exclusive networking site, recently posted the most inane political conspiracy theory I have come across in a long time:

Whisper on the street... Hillary strategists consider independent candidacy

Posted By: Karl Drove on 12-14-2007 1:06 pm
Report as shockingly offensive

Heard some amazing speculation today from a credible source that Hillary’s brain-trust is considering a worst case scenario should she drop early primaries in IA, NH, SC. Hillary would declare as an independent. Such a move would clearly fracture the Democratic party, but would major advantages. Hillary is polling 10% higher nationally than in early primaries, but with early loses, she would be forced to campaign all the way through, burning up time, money, and energy. Stepping out early would allow her to save her cash horde for a costly general campaign.

Also, the electoral process would support such a bold move. No candidate in a three way race Hillary/Obama/Republican race would be able to get required 270 votes. So the race would be settled in the house…

“If no candidate receives a majority of electoral votes, the House of Representatives elects the President from the 3 Presidential candidates who received the most electoral votes. Each State delegation has one vote. The Senate would elect the Vice President from the 2 Vice Presidential candidates with the most electoral votes. Each Senator would cast one vote for Vice President. If the House of Representatives fails to elect a President by Inauguration Day, the Vice-President Elect serves as acting President until the deadlock is resolved in the House.”

My measured response to this absurd notion:

This is a really flawed analysis and if people in Hillaryland really believe this, you have to wonder if they're literally smoking crack. If she did this and lost she'd destroy her political career, damage her husband's legacy and harm the Democratic party for years to come. The only upside for the Dems on this is that it would bring a lot more of them to the polls and likely increase their down ballot victories substantially.

This scenario is much less plausible than a brokered GOP convention. It could happen, but it's more of a secret desire for something interesting/cool to happen in politics than it is a likely scenario. Of course I could be wrong and it could be a smart move politically for Hillary, but I doubt the analysis above. And the statement below is absolute crap:

"No candidate in a three way race Hillary/Obama/Republican race would be able to get [the] required 270 votes." Let's look at the last two signficant three candidate races:

20% of voters chose Ross Perot in 1992's 3-man race and he didn't receive a single electoral vote. Instead Clinton won the Presidency with 43% of the vote, which is what would happen to the GOP nominee, though the percentage would vary. George Wallace's electoral votes didn't hurl the election to the House either.

If Hillary did run as an independent, it would come down to Hillary vs. the Republican with Obama the odd man out due to money. Obama likely wouldn't win ANY electoral votes, and if he did they would be in heavily Democratic states that would hurt Hillary; not in states the GOP would win. This scenario also would essentially erase the money gap between Hillary and the GOP nominee since she'd have to fight on two fronts.

As someone who likes divided government, this scenario would almost guarantee a Republican electoral vote landslide for the GOP because the Dem fracturing would be so pronounced and would motivate their base WAY more than anything else could. Winning the Presidency would be the only way for the GOP to have a hold on power.

Also, even though the House has and likely will have a Democratic majority, as it states below the way it works is that EACH STATE DELEGATION gets one vote. It's not even clear that the GOP doesn't/won't control enough state delegations to impose a GOP President despite being in the minority - especially because some Democrat-controlled delegations (i.e., Illinois) would still vote for Obama instead of Hillary since he'd be the official Dem nominee. Also, we basically control all the small state delegations (Alaska, Montana, etc), and those votes count just as much as the one vote each for California and New York.

Plus, the Blue Dogs could throw in with the GOPers in their delegation to get their state to vote for the more conservative, i.e., Republican candidate. It might be hard for the Speaker to retaliate against them for it too because if she did, they could just cut deals with the Republicans to switch parties, and keep their committee slots and seniority when their mass defections make the GOP the Majority.

Also, if Huckabee is the GOP VP nominee, in this scenario he'd likely still end up as VP since too many of the Dem Senators are/would be from states with strong pro-life constituencies which would punish them in the next election. Dems likely to vote for Huckabee:

Nelson (NE) - up in 2012 and sold his soul to Nebraskans United for Life to get their endorsement.
McCaskill (MO) - up in 2010 in a state that is among the most pro-life in the country - most of the significant right to die and abortion cases the Supreme Court has ruled on came from Missouri.
Baucus (MT) - up in 2012 - a pretty pro-life state.
Bayh (IN) if he's not the VP nominee - up in 2010 and won't want to alienate the pro-life voters in his state - he even votes pro-life on some issues. He'll still win re-election though.
Johnson, Tim (SD) -- not up again til 2014, but in a VERY pro-life state.
Lincoln (AR) - it would be hard for her not to go with her home state Governor who has always won more votes than she.
Pryor (AR) -- same reasons, plus he's about as pro-life as Bayh if not more so.

So that's 7 potential Democrat votes for Huckabee as VP and the Dems are really only likely to pick up about 3-5 seats this cycle, giving them 54-56 Senators. By no means are any of these Senators guaranteed to vote for Huckabee, but to varying degrees each would face pressure to vote for him. Their votes, when combined with their Republican colleagues would install Hucabee in the White House VP.

My scenario is equally inane by itself, but it illustrates the abusurd possibilities that could be spawned by a Hillary Clinton independent Presidential Run.