Author Archives: Michael Froomkin

Booman Tribune is having some fun daydreaming about the GOP convention:

If John McCain does not emerge as the Republican nominee, there's a good likelihood that the GOP is going to be in for a long, strange ride. Let's walk though this.

…

[If there is] a Huckabee win in Iowa, then Romney will likely prevail in the Granite State. We could easily see McCain, Thompson, and Duncan Hunter drop out after New Hampshire or South Carolina. We could see Giuliani drop out after Florida. And we'll be left with Huckabee, Romney, and Ron Paul. And Ron Paul will have enough money to compete everywhere on Super Duper Tuesday, while Huckabee will not, and Romney will have to spend his own fortune.

Even in this scenario, I do not expect Ron Paul to win the nomination, or even any states (although he could win a couple). But he could easily rack up a fifth of the available delegates in a three-way race. Imagine the Republican convention if Ron Paul has the third biggest block of delegates.

Let's go even further here. Assuming that Romney's delegates are more Mormon than his overall universe of support and that Huckabee's delegates are more Southern Baptist than his overall universe of support, and that Ron Paul's delegates are…well…the most enthusiastic and dedicated of Ron Paul's supporters…the Minneapolis conventions is going to be a assembly of the cultural fringe.

Just imagine the platform fights!

John Edwards's holiday ad has a bit of a sting to it:

I like it. But then I'm probably biased: although I think there are several Democrats who'd make a good President, I think that on the issues I'm probably most in agreement with Edwards. I just wish I had more faith in the quality of his organization — who you come into power with has proved to matter almost as much as who you are. (From that point of view, Obama may have a small edge; Clinton has the most carefully tuned machine — but is it tuned to the right pitch?)

I used to say that I had a lot of trouble swallowing Edwards's views on trade. I'm still dubious of his protectionist instincts, but I think that the trade deals — especially some of the bilaterals — we've entered into in the past few years are on balance not good for us or for our counter parties. They seem designed to lock in certain ideas of industrial structure, labor relations, and other (anti)social policies in order to put them outside the reach of democratic processes. So while I may not agree with Edwards's philosophy here, many of his specific criticisms seem more on target now than they did four years ago.