Fineman, Matthews mind meld: cite Dem satisfaction with candidates as harbinger of future Dem dissatisfaction
SUMMARY: On Hardball, Newsweek's Howard Fineman suggested that a recent poll finding that 77 percent of Democrats and "Democrat Leaners" are satisfied with their party's choice of presidential nominees, while 52 percent of Republicans and "Republican Leaners" said the same, meant that "both parties are going to nominate somebody that they're sort of not wildly enthusiastic about, and then there is going to be seven months ... for everybody to have buyer's remorse big time." Chris Matthews asserted that the supposed dissatisfaction could lead to a "third party" bid.
On the May 7 edition of MSNBC's Hardball, while discussing a recent Newsweek poll, which found that 77 percent of registered Democrats and "Democrat Leaners" are "satisfied" with the Democratic presidential candidates in contrast with 52 percent of Republicans and "Republican Leaners" who said they were satisfied with the Republican field, Newsweek magazine chief political correspondent Howard Fineman concluded: "We may have a situation here where both parties are going to nominate somebody that they're sort of not wildly enthusiastic about, and then there is going to be seven months -- February, March, April, May, June, July, August, until after the Olympics in China -- for everybody to have buyer's remorse big time." Fineman did not explain why he thought that -- notwithstanding the 77 percent who said they were satisfied with their choices -- Democrats might be dissatisfied with the eventual nominee.
Host Chris Matthews appeared to agree with Fineman's logic, saying, "[Y]ou know what it says to me, again leaping beyond to where you're really thinking? ... It says third party ... because after two or three months of a continental-wide subway series between Rudy and Hillary, people might be dissatisfied with the options, as we've been saying about the party picks." Matthews suggested that people "may be looking to a Bloomberg or a Hagel or someone else to jump in then as an anti-war or some alternative," referring to New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg (R) and Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE). Fineman replied: "I absolutely agree. ... [Y]ou read my mind. That's where I was headed."
Earlier in the program, Matthews had noted the Newsweek poll's finding that more Democrats were satisfied "with the choice of candidates running for [their] party's nomination" than Republicans and asked Fineman if he was surprised by that fact. Fineman replied: "Not really, given what I've seen out on the campaign trail." Fineman went on to assert that "the Republicans are unhappy and they may be unhappy because ... they need a superhero," adding, "They need Spiderman to get out of the situation that they're in." Fineman also claimed that "[t]he problem the Republicans have with that 38 percent unhappy number is really interesting," referring to the poll's finding that 38 percent of Republicans and "Republican Leaners" are dissatisfied with their party's choice of nominees. Neither Matthews nor Fineman pointed out that the poll found that only 14 percent of Democrats and "Democrat Leaners" were dissatisfied with the Democratic field.
From the May 7 edition of MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews:
MATTHEWS: Howard, let's take a look at the question of whether Democrats or the Republicans are satisfied with who's running for 2008. Seventy-seven percent of Democrats are satisfied with their presidential choices, but only 52 percent, just about half, of the Republicans. Does that surprise you?
FINEMAN: Not really, given what I've seen out on the campaign trail. There have been bursts of enthusiasm for some of the candidates occasionally, like Rudy Giuliani sometimes, McCain sometimes, Mitt Romney sometimes, a straw poll here and there, but, basically, the Republicans are unhappy and they may be unhappy because it's -- they need a superhero. They need Spiderman to get out of the situation that they're in.
MATTHEWS: Well, after the Rockettes the other night, I guess that didn't help things any more, when we had 10 of those guys across the stage raising their arms. We should have said raise your legs for different things. But, I guess that -- maybe that wasn't the kind of show -- it helped Romney apparently marginally, and it may have hurt Rudy marginally.
But, what do you think? In the long run, is it too early? Is the long run too long for any one of these debates to have much impact?
FINEMAN: Well, I think they do have impact. And I thought the one you moderated did have impact, because it did help Romney. It was the first time he was on a national stage with the others. He was articulate. He was the CEO type --
MATTHEWS: Are we allowed to use that word "articulate"?
FINEMAN: Yes, I think we are. I think we are, especially when it's a matter of comparison. The problem the Republicans have with that 38 percent unhappy number is really interesting.
The other thing that's going to happen, Chris, Florida is moving up its primary it looks like to January. We may have a situation here where both parties are going to nominate somebody that they're sort of not wildly enthusiastic about, and then there is going to be seven months -- February, March, April, May, June, July, August, until after the Olympics in China -- for everybody to have buyer's remorse big time.
It's really a remarkable situation and a potentially dangerous one.
MATTHEWS: Let me take a leap beyond what you suggest to maybe where you're thinking, which is that Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton -- you can't beat Hill -- Bill Clinton's -- the former president's -- popularity in California. You've been out there. You know it. I mean, they -- he's a movie star out there. And Hillary is as well. And you go down to Florida with all of those, you know, retired New Yorkers down there and they automatically have a connection with Hillary -- a lot of them liberals, some of them not -- but a lot of connection with her.
She could roll it up in that -- on those corners of the country, California and Florida -- maybe New York will have a primary early. You're suggesting maybe she rolls it up. Even Rudy Giuliani, with whatever questions about him there are, because the first tests are in those big states, which are polyglots, which are more liberal, if you will, he could win early too.
FINEMAN: I agree. And that's what the numbers in our poll tend to show at this point right now. Both Hillary Clinton and Rudy Giuliani -- despite some surges from Barack Obama on the Democratic side and a lot of interest in some other Republican candidates -- still are in pretty strong shape. And yes, if the schedule for the primaries ends up with California, Florida, and New York that early in the process, right on top of Iowa and New Hampshire, it could be over by January -- by February 1st.
MATTHEWS: Well, you know what it says to me, again leaping beyond to where you're really thinking?
FINEMAN: Yes.
MATTHEWS: It says third party --
FINEMAN: Yes, it does.
MATTHEWS: -- because after two or three months of a continental-wide subway series between Rudy and Hillary, people might be dissatisfied with the options, as we've been saying about the party picks, and they may be looking to a Bloomberg or a Hagel or someone else to jump in then as an anti-war or some alternative, right?
FINEMAN: I absolutely agree. And that's -- you read my mind. That's where I was headed. I think that's what this is set up for. So, we're going to have a three-act play, at least, maybe a five-act play, and so -- then that's partly because it's starting as early as it did last week.
MATTHEWS: And that guy got 19 percent back in 1992, right?
FINEMAN: Yes, in a matter of fact, there was a time when Ross Perot in 1992 --
MATTHEWS: Imagine a real sane third party candidate, what he could do. Anyway, thank you very much, Howard Fineman. As always, you're thinking beyond your words, sir.
















How They Roll
This is how the assumption machine rolls. A creation in process. The actual point in which news crosses the line from reporting the news to trying to create it. A very nice catch by MMFA.
For the most part, the creation of news has "killed" the Democrats, who are working for the will of the people. There has been as up surge in attributing everything horrible in Iraq to Al Quiada. This is being done in honnor of President's Bush's reason for being in Iraq. Al Quiada is now the leading problem in Iraq. Yes, from seven percent to "head of the class." The whole claim is aimed getting permission, by assumption, to kill many Iraqis. I keep looking for a headline along the lines of: Military makes huge gains in their fight against Al Quiada. This is the secret plan to control the civil war. By killing one side, you have no more civil war.
I have posted many pieces pointing to the problem of the media. They have become too powerful, and their power is in service to the right-winged political ideology.
Assumption in the news distorts the reality concerning very important issues. When you look at the assumption being made about why the gas prices are so high, you can see how the oil companies see no need to lower the cost of gas. Its the fires that brought the price of oil up, and their profit. I know half of the former statement don't sound right. It makes no sense to gain profits from a refinery fire. Look into why oil companies continue to make record profits. Don't just buy the creations made by the media, and the right-winged political machine.
Joseph
So, these guys are really saying "Vote republican?"
I think this is just another example of media making up a story before it happens, reporting on a hypothetical in order to fill space between ads. The idea that Democrats would somehow be disillusioned if Obama, Clinton, or Edwards were nominated against any of the Republican bore-festers seems like nonsense.
I think these guys are jonesing for a Ross Perot fix.
There's nothing either party would like more than a third-party scapegoat to blame their own inadequacies on.
I believe they're referencing Ron Paul, whose online survey rankings have soared after the last "debate", but is still trailing in polls that were taken prior to the debate. Should he run on a Libertarian ticket, he's sure to split both major parties as he's more American than the GOP, and more anti-war, pro-civil liberties than the DNC.
Also, let me bring your attention to this: When Feinman described Romney as "articulate," Matthews interrupts him by asking "Are we allowed to use that word?"
Uh, allowed? By whom? There's more to this piece than they'd, or many, would be willing to admit.
Bloomberg? Is Matthews so enamored of the lack of pee-smell in the subways?
Spider-Man is NOT a Republican.
He's a Spido-crat.
Randy
Wasn't he in that movie, The Arachnocrats?
Chris Matthews and Howard Fineman 's comments about the need for third party candidates smells of a shared script. Matthews would put his own mother up against Hillary if it would cut into her share of votes . He can't stand the odds that Hillary can win. Poor Giuliani gets punched in the gut by his former groupie Matthews to molify the hard right, which seems to be the viewer base he craves.Giuliani will never get that vote from wingers, but will get a lot of pro choice votes among Republicans.
I really couldn't care less what any of these old school blowhards have to offer. I personally haven't watched any political tv (except c-span of course) for over two years. And the only time I pickup a copy of the useless rag Fineman writes for is when I'm stuck in the doctor/dentists office.
Matthews, Fineman, Broder, Klein, Dowd, etc, etc...
ALL useless and irrelevent.
I'll stick with Conason, Greenwald, Marshall, DailyKos, Atrios and the rest of the new politcal voices. At least they make sense and aren't more interested in getting invited to the right parties than getting it right........
You got DAT right!
I understand what this is doing here: because it is not news but pure speculation, and not terribly creative or educated speculation at that. But conservative misinformation, I don't see . It isn't necessarily creating conventional wisdom, or self-fullfilling prophesy, because it is perfectly plausible. Is everyone here thrilled with the prospect of Hillary having the nomination sewn up? Moreover, a Hagel or Bloomberg third party candidacy would probably hurt the Republicans more than the Democrats. Hagel, in particular, would split them right along the cultural vs. economic fault line, where it hurts, with the anti-abortionists going for Hagel and the Iraq hawks for Guiliani.
I still think MMFA is overly-defensive of Hillary because of Brock's involvement in the orchestrated and dishonest effort to smear her before his epiphany.
Good post. I think "stability" in terms of candidates has swung waay in the favor of the Dems, from starting in favor of the Repub candidates, I think. That debate for the Repub candidates hurt them all...and I don't think Mitt beats Obama or Clinton now or ever.
If anyone gets hurt by lack of enthusiasm for candidates, it'll be the Repubs.
Bloomberg supported by a full slate of Independents running for Congress would shake things up. Despite his wealth, he is no less a potential "people's" candidate than any Dem as suggested by joseph_b26.
BTW, in which galaxy do you consider the Dems a party for the people... HC $26 million; BO $25 million; Mike Gravel - attempts being made to exclude him from the debates... Yours is a party of exclusion. If not the case, then ask them to commit to debating any of the third party nominees now.
See the Bloomberg campaign soar at www.DraftMichael.com