HRC went after (Dem) public opinion and won it nationwide. Obama went after caucus voters in Montana and Texas and won them.

HRC took the old-fashioned route of winning public opinion via the MSM. Obama took the really old-fashioned route – he counted votes and got them, one-by-one.

My point? If you have the money (and Schiff does), then getting the 15% at convention is potentially doable. But Schiff’s team will need to be smart to make it happen.

Linda should be a slam dunk for 15%. If she doesn’t get it, then no one on her political team should ever get hired in politics again… barring some sort of public meltdown on her part which creates an insurmountable hurdle for her political team.

Delegate selection occurs between March 23rd and the 30th.

How many town committees can be visited in that amount of time?

The more classic method of gaining delegates is to spend the previous fall lending whatever help the next year’s candidate can, to that year’s local candidates.

Then whether those people win or lose, they’ll tend to elbow others out of the way in a mad dash for the sign-up sheet once the local party chair asks, “Who wants to be a delegate this year?”

Those candidates that have failed to fulfill this norm, generally realize no one owes them anything, too late.

Having said the above, I am aware of the anti-incumbancy mood among the general public and it might be that quite a few icon’s of both partys get caught in the undertow.

So yes, I support Schiff as long as he’s in it. But I don’t expect him to be in it very long, unfortunately.

A couple of things: We should make a distinction between the popularity of persons (non-transferable) and the popularity of positions and programs (transferable, sometimes).

President Barack Obama personality continues to resonate with many people, though there has been some slippage lately. His programs, largely radical, are iffier. Obama’s luster is not likely to rub off on Dodd; the disparities are too great. But there is no question that Dodd has attached his fate to the fate of the Obama agenda: a highly regulated economy and the nationalization of heath care, to mention but two points.

Dodd’s fate is also attached to what might be called the wellness of his state; and, here again, the programs to which he has attached his political kite are doubtable, if not doubtful. He has also shifted to the center in foreign policy, which is very odd in his case. Dodd is not a pro war candidate – never has been. In economic policy, he has in the past remained somewhat moderate. In the last few months, we have seen a paradigm shift in both these areas. Obama is now pursuing a Bush policy in Afghanistan, an area of the world that very well could be a quagmire for American troops. All these things are arguable, and the fate of Afghanistan will depend upon the facts on the ground, which have yet to emerge. What is not arguable is the paradigm shift on Dodd’s part. Generally, voters react negatively to sharp shifts and late conversions in politicians who have been in office a long time. In a politician of long standing, shifts of this kind are looked upon by the general public with a baleful eye, and they leave politicians open to damaging criticism from political opponents.

That is why Dodd is in trouble. He would be in more trouble if Republicans were in a position to criticize him for his silence on Afghanistan. He was outspoken on the first Persian War, which he thought would be a quagmire resembling Vietnam. He was wrong. His position was muted during Bush’s war in Iraq, until Bush stumbled badly, at which point he once again found his tongue. President Obama very nearly won election on a promise to bring the troops out of Iraq shortly after he became president. Bush found his Grant in Petraeus, and the general’s strategy made the current withdrawals possible. But the war goes on in Afghanistan, and every argument used by progressives in their opposition to the war in Iraq applies as well in Afghanistan. Now that Obama is president, the opposition is less fulsome.

The terrorist trials in New York – or some other venue – are upcoming. Those trials may be viewed as a practical example of Dodd’s previous positions on how terrorists should be treated. Dodd has long pressed for a Nuremberg stage upon which terrorists may be tried. The trials in New York are even now shaping up as show trials. Such was Nuremburg – with this difference: The German army had been defeated before the Nuremberg trial commenced. The terrorists are still active, and the trials in a civilian court, during which a terrorist who arranged the bombing of the Twin Towers in New York will be invested with all the rights of a citizen of the United States, will be an invaluable recruiting tool. All this is yet to play out.

And how it will play out will be one of the determinants in the upcoming elections.

Not electable; it’s amazing he holds his congressional seat.
A century ago, before media he might have done fine – but he has no delivery and suffers from a dour personality.

Gary Johnson on the other hand could maybe go somewhere.
http://www.garyjohnson2012.com/