The NFL season hits the midway point, and usually I'd do a retrospective on the preseason picks, tout what I was right on, explain away what I was not so right on, but this year we have an election next Tuesday. And, I think I speak for everyone when I say: THANK GOD the endless barrage of campaign commercials, emails and news releases is about to be over. Republican, Democrat, or anywhere in between I don't know how anyone can feel anything but disgusted with this process after this year.
That said, this week I'll strive to intertwine my football picks with some insight about the presidential election, and then a straightforward pick. First, let's look at how I'm doing through 8 weeks with my picks:
Last week against the spread: 9-5
Last week straight up: 13-1
Season against the spread: 66-49-3
Season straight up: 79-39
In short, I continue to have my best year both against the spread and straight up. You'd expect to do better straight up than against the spread, if only because Vegas would be losing big if it was as easy (or easier) to pick winners against the spread as straight up. That said, the lines have seemed much easier to pick this year than in years past. On to this week's picks:
Thursday Night Game:
Chiefs (+7.5) over San Diego (Chargers straight up)
Okay, we already know that I split on this one because the game happened. Have I mentioned that Thursday night football absolutely, positively sucks yet? Seriously, can we get rid of the NFL "braintrust" who thought this was a good idea yet? My logic behind the (failed) decision to take KC plus the points? As bad as KC is, Norv Turner has a tendency to keep games closer than they should be. He is an awful coach, and I don't even feel a little bit bad about losing the pick against the spread. I can't ever take the Norv Turners as more than a TD favorite.
As far as the Presidential Election goes, Missouri, the "Bell-weather" state, is no longer a swing state. I was there earlier this year, and let me tell you, that state is as reliably Republican as California is Democrat. It's so conservative that there is an outside chance that Akin wins the Senate election after having an honest conversation about how he believes a woman's body can reject semen when being raped if it's "true rape." Yeah, that happened this year, and believe it or not, thanks to a moron hailing from my state it wasn't even the most ridiculous rape comment of the election by a Republican Candidate.
Sunday Early Games
Denver (-4) over Cincinnati
Now here's two states that are actual swing states. Before I discuss Colorado and Ohio, let's look at these teams. On the one hand we have a Bengals team that has been hot then cold. They have appeared easy to score on, but intermittently able to score with the best of them. On the other side of the field we have a Broncos team that has lost to the Falcons, the Texans and the Patriots. You know, three of the best teams in the NFL (we think).
As for the states of Colorado and Ohio, both states are heavily in play right now. Romney and Obama are both directing major resources to both states, and Ohio is likely to be the state that keeps us up the longest waiting for the votes to trickle in. If Romney doesn't take Colorado Obama will be on his way to a big victory. The odds on pick here is that Romney takes Colorado by a slim margin, but that Obama takes Ohio by 2-3%. If Obama does take Ohio the road becomes very difficult for Romney, and as such you'll see major hail mary attempts in that state (more on that to come)
Baltimore (-4) over Cleveland
I have a hunch that this will be a bounce back game for the beat up Ravens, although it should be mentioned that Weeden has been better than expected. Continuing with Ohio, I find it interesting that Romney is running ads about Chrysler taking jobs overseas, which Chrysler execs are quick to discount. That's the type of Hail Mary ads you should be happy to be avoiding if you live in a non-swing state that's being (comparatively) ignored. Don't get me wrong, we are getting plenty of ads here in Hoosier land, but nothing compared with what's blasting Ohio.
Green Bay (-10) over Arizona
Wisconsin is supposedly a swing state. It's not. The dirty secret is that Paul Ryan isn't nearly as popular across the state as Romney would like you to believe. He's a Congressman; therefore, he needs to be popular in a small part of the state. He's not a Senator or Governor. Expect Obama to take Wisconsin by 4-5% and Romney to take Arizona going away. Oh, the game? I see a fifth straight loss for the Cardinals, and the Pack continuing to come on.
Chicago (-3.5) over Tennessee
I can't believe this spread is this low. But, again, after doing everything they could to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory last week and falling just short, the Bears may be who we have known them to be through the Lovie era: a maddeningly inconsistent team on offense buttressed by a all world defense and special teams. I hope that Cutler isn't hurt, but I suspect he is. Winning this game is essential given the remaining 8 games on the schedule, none of which could be considered a gimmy. As for the election, Illinois is solid blue, Tennessee solid red.
Indianapolis (+3) over Miami
The winner of this game is solidly in the drivers seat for a playoff appearance. While Miami has the far superior defense, I'll take Luck at home getting points. As for the election, the state of Indiana inexplicably went blue in 2008, which was pretty much the only shock of the night for me. Let's just say that I won't be shocked again: the state is back to being it's crazy conservative self. When you look at the stretch of blue you'll see on election night from the north east, through Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Illinois and Wisconsin, Indiana will stand out.
Florida? The bane of the 2000 election will be less exciting this time. Due to a continued jobs and housing crisis you can put this state in Romney's ledger pretty easy. If Florida doesn't swing to Romney by 4-5% you can expect a long night for him. If, however, Florida does go to the GOP candidate quickly and decisively it might be an indicator that state polls have been off for the last few months. Florida should go to Romney, but how easily and quickly it does will go a long way to telling us what kind of night it will be.
Washington (-3) over Carolina
Remember last year when Cam Newton was the next big thing? Now the only reason you hear about him in the news is to debate if it's racist to compare him to Vince Young. Reality is RGIII is the hot new thing, and I think Washington takes this game going away. Obama's biggest win of the night will almost certainly be in the District of Columbia. North Carolina, much like Indiana, will go back to the right after a brief flirtation with the left in the last election.
Detroit (-5) over Jacksonville
This game should be an easy win for Detroit, who needs to find some offensive rhythm and maintain it for a few weeks. We've already covered Florida in the election, so a quick look at Michigan. Will the prodigal son, Romney, come back to take the state? In a word, no.
Houston (-10) over Buffalo
I don't like any lines that are in the double digits this year, but I also think Houston is good and Buffalo is not. I can only hope for a huge game from CJ Spiller for my fantasy team. In the election TX is dead red and NY all blue, so I'll simply say that all those on the East coast are in my prayers.
Sunday Late Games
Oakland (-1) over Tampa
Florida, as we've covered, is for Romney. For the purposes of this game, consider only that the loss of Nicks at guard for the Bucs will hurt the running game quite a bit. This line seems too low, so I'll go with the home team. I do feel like I'm taking too many favorites.
Minnesota (+4) over Seattle
Seattle is 3-0 at home and 1-4 on the road. Minnesota is 4-1 at home and 1-2 on the road. This game is in Seattle. I'll take the Vikings to cover and a final score of Seattle 27 Minnesota 24. As for the election, both these states will go blue, in spite of Romney's campaign suddenly talking about Minnesota being in play.
Pittsburgh (+3) over NY Giants
I'd feel better about this if it wasn't for the emotion of the Giants playing in the Meadowlands. But I think that this is the game where Pittsburgh either announces itself as the contender they've been for years, or starts to quietly fade away. Big Ben is playing great and they need a signature win. As mentioned before, PA will go blue, don't listen to what Romney/Ryan are saying.
Sunday Night Game
Atlanta (+4) over Dallas
As I speak, Notre Dame is trying an improbable comeback. For this game, let me say that Atlanta will lose, and probably more than once. Picking the game they'll drop is the big challenge. This spread reflects too much money on Dallas. I like Atlanta to cover going away. Just like Romney wins going away in Georgia and Dallas.
Monday Night Game
Philadelphia (+3) over New Orleans
As much as I hate to admit it, this is the game Philly needs and New Orleans is cursed as can be this year. The penultimate game of the Michael Vick era, and it happens in New Orleans on the Monday night after Hurricane Sandy decimates the East coast. I like the points, and this gives me four dogs in a row to end. Also, Louisiana goes to Romney easy.
The Presidential Election
Obama 281 to Romney 257
That's my prediction for the final score. How did I get there? Well, here's how the election will break down friends:
Alabama - Romney - 9
Alaska - Romney - 3
Arizona - Romney - 11
Arkansas - Romney - 6
California - Obama - 55
Colorado - Romney - 9
Connecticut - Obama - 7
Delaware - Obama - 3
D.C. - Obama - 3
Florida - Romney - 29
Georgia - Romney - 16
Hawaii - Obama - 4
Idaho - Romney - 4
Illinois - Obama - 20
Indiana - Romney - 11
Iowa - Obama - 6
Kansas - Romney - 6
Kentucky - Romney - 8
Louisiana - Romney - 8
Maine - Obama - 4
Maryland - Obama - 10
Massachusetts - Obama - 11
Michigan - Obama - 16
Minnesota - Obama - 10
Mississippi - Romney - 6
Missouri - Romney - 10
Montana - Romney - 3
Nebraska - Romney - 5
Nevada - Obama - 6
New Hampshire - Obama - 4
New Jersey - Obama - 14
New Mexico - Obama - 5
New York - Obama - 29
North Carolina - Romney - 15
North Dakota - Romney - 3
Ohio - Obama - 18
Oklahoma - Romney - 7
Oregon - Obama - 7
Pennsylvania - Obama - 20
Rhode Island - Obama - 4
South Carolina - Romney - 9
South Dakota - Romney - 3
Tennessee - Romney -11
Texas - Romney - 38
Utah - Romney - 6
Vermont - Obama - 3
Virginia - Romney - 13
Washington - Obama - 12
West Virginia - Romney - 5
Wisconsin - Obama - 10
Wyoming - Romney - 3
Even if Romney takes Florida, Colorado and Virginia Obama will win the election. I want to stress that I think Florida will go to Romney, but Colorado and Virginia are both toss ups in the definition of the word. Other "swing states" are much more leaning towards Obama. In other words, Obama is the odds on favorites. Enjoy your election drinking games. I'll break it down the night of if I'm so inspired. If not, at least when I make my picks next week there will be no more adds to annoy us.
Showing posts with label 2012 Presidential Election. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 2012 Presidential Election. Show all posts
Saturday, November 3, 2012
Wednesday, October 3, 2012
The First Presidential Debate: A Running Diary
Well, with an interesting presidential election looming (see my previous picks column for a break down of why it's interesting), how could I not do a live blog with my blow by blow reaction? After watching some pre-debate coverage on Fox News and MSNBC I finally settled on CNN to watch the debate, largely due to Wolf Blitzer's awesome beard. Man do I miss Tim Russert.
As always, I write the time stamp and what my thoughts are. Tonight's debate was supposed to focus on domestic politics, and we'll see how well Jim Lehr does holding to that. The general consensus seems to be that Romney needs to do a great job and win this debate going away to get the momentum he's been searching for. The Democrats seem to be saying that they believe the race is too close to call in spite of polling momentum going their way. Not bad to play dead and hope that increases your chance to see voter turnout up. Personally, I think that this debate hinges on if Romney can attack Obama without seeming like he's attacking Obama. Romney is the superior debater historically, but he can be knocked off kilter when his opponent manages to counter his rebuttals and attack lines while moving the point of conversation. Without further delay, here we go:
8:57pm - Little mentioned but potentially huge fact: Obama hasn't debated since 2008, whereas Romney debated somewhere north of 20 times in the Republican Primary alone. At least it felt that way. Fact check...Wikipedia says twenty on the head.
9:01pm - I feel like there should be A) Gambling odds for inane things like "over under 45.5 times the phrase 'middle class' is mentioned tonight" and B) a drinking game where you drink every time something like that is said. Wolf Blitzer tells me that Obama won the coin toss to go first, and Romney gets to go last. Doesn't it feel like Obama should have deferred to the last response? Is that even allowed? Actually, who am I kidding: as a Bears fan Obama probably is going to wait to get to the podium, look around confused, then call a time out.
9:04pm - Obama in the blue tie, Romney in red. I feel like if I was in this debate I'd wear the other guy's color just to screw with them. Economy starts with a question on jobs... and we're off. Romney is writing notes on Obama wishing Michele a happy 20th anniversary. One minute in and Obama is still setting up his answer. He ended up settling on setting up the paradigm that Romney thinks it's all about tax cuts, and whereas he described a diversified approach centered on education.
9:07pm - Romney hit well with joke about Obama spending his anniversary with him, then goes right into multiple stories from American people. Strong start by Romney, quickly describing a dichotomy between not only he and Obama, but quickly countering Obama's claim that his approach is top down. Still, after two minutes he didn't really get into any policy specifics. He did, however, hit Obama by claiming his approach is "trickle down" government. Did he just hit Reagan's legacy?
9:10pm - Obama counters by talking more about education. Seems dangerously close to pandering to the hall (at a University) rather than going for the viewers at home. He then transitions into talking about tax code, then energy. Obama's attempt seems to be to go after Romney on the tax issue while saying "I'm the authority on education and energy." First mention of the deficit tonight. First hit on Romney's tax plan from Obama.
9:12pm - Romney gives a rebuttal that says that high income people will not get a break under him... then uses Biden's terminology that the middle class is "crushed" twice. Anyone want to be that there will be a commercial showing Romney and Biden back to back saying the middle class is being "crushed" soon?
9:15pm - So Romney was asked to ask the president a question, then went on a multi-minute rant. He did say "by the way, I like coal." I want Obama to say "I love lamp" pretty bad here. At any rate, Romney went way long and didn't ask a question. It sounds to me like Romney is describing a tax plan that does little but shuffle the chips around at best: cut taxes, eliminate exemptions, deficit gone? Doesn't add up. Obama counters by saying that he did what he said he would: cut taxes for the middle class. Obama's going intellectual with his response, which makes him sound like Kerry/Gore ... not the contrast he wants.
9:18pm - Romney says that Obama is misrepresenting ... but doesn't explain how. Then he calls Obama a liar without saying it directly. Romney promises he will not under any circumstances raise taxes on middle income families. Obama comes right back at Romney saying he ran on a tax plan for eighteen months, and now is saying his "big bold idea is never mind." He then comes back with "it's math. It's arithmetic." I really get the feel, only eighteen minutes in, that these guys don't really like each other. Obama brings up Clinton first, and tells the American people he wants to go back to the tax rates that encouraged Clinton era growth.
9:22pm - Obama goes for a Trump joke that seems to miss. At the present time Romney doesn't look nearly as comfortable as Obama. Jim Lehr tries to get things back on track and Romney talks over him quite a bit. Romney hits Obama on his tax plan hurting small businesses more; he also mentions Bowls-Simpson first. Obama goes right back at the tax issue, speaking right to the American people.
9:25pm - Obama ties Romney's approach to Bush directly for the first time. He then directly ties his approach to Clinton. So there you have it: A third Bush term, or a fourth Clinton term. I'm glad we could simplify this. Lehr still has not gotten them off the first subject, he tries again, and Romney talks over it again. Romney keeps saying "that's not my plan" and then says his plan is not like anything that's been done before.
9:27pm - we finally move to the second segment, this one on the deficit. Romney articulates three options to cut the deficit. Romney than says that he likes Big Bird, but will stop the subsidy for PBS. Basically, he'll cut taxes to grow the economy, then cut programs. Obama's responds by going back to Bush and illustrating the state of the deficit and how it got here. A major strength here, and Obama gets on his wheel horse. I'm not sure how he can own an issue that he's struggled so much with, but he does. Obama does great explaining his balanced approach and then contrasting Romney as unbalanced.
9:32pm - Finally we get some back and forth ... might see the gloves come off a bit. Romney says that he has his own plan and it's not Simpson-Bowls, but that Obama should have grabbed on to Simpson Bowls. If I remember correctly the House shot that plan down. Romney slams taxes again "you raise taxes, you kill jobs." Obama looks annoyed, not a great thing for him. Romney states emphatically that he has ruled out increasing revenue entirely. Romney keeps talking over Lehr.
9:35pm - Obama now goes after the oil industry tax rates. I'm confused: what happened to the talk about the deficit. Use of Exon Mobile as a straw man by Obama here. Obama says he wants to do the same thing with closing loopholes that Romney says he wants to do, only he can actually say what he wants to do, not just that he will do it. Obama's first use of an "everyday American" story to four by Romney.
9:37pm - Twix break... mmmm..... Twix ....
9:39pm - Romney confronts Obama for lying a second time (again, without saying it directly). Obama is the first person to mention Reagan. We've moved on to Social Security. Obama goes to his grandmother to set up his argument. I'm shocked that Obama says "you don't need a major structural change to make sure social security is there for the future." Absolutely shocked.
9:43pm - Romney goes right after Obama on the Medicare cuts, saying he'd put the money right back in. Well, not exactly right after: he was on different chain of thinking then suddenly remembered he was supposed to be against "Obamacare" and switched course. Obama tries to get some footing by going after Romney's voucher program, but he stumbles out of the corner trying to establish this point. Obama then embraces the "Obamacare" term and illustrates why a repeal would increase cost on seniors.
9:48pm - Neither candidate has had an "ah ha" moment yet. I'd be inclined to say Romney is winning on logic, but Obama is winning in terms of presentation. Romney seems edgy and aggressive. In terms of speaking time Obama has opened a small lead over Romney. In other news, I kinda wish this was a foreign policy debate. I'm starting to think that I should start work on my NFL picks this week.
9:53pm - "Does anybody out there think that the problem we've had was due to too much regulation on wall street?" Obama scores there. Romney comes swinging back. I'm on to salt water taffy.
9:58pm - Moving to health care. First time we've heard the term Affordable Care Act. Romney opens up by talking about the cost of health care, then says that "Obamacare" is adding to cost. For the record, "Obamacare" hasn't had a negative impact on my company's bottom line. Interesting the Romney never smiles with his teeth. He just looks tight and uncomfortable.
10:00pm - Obama goes in to the positives of the ACA. Lehr is trying to hold the line, but failing. Can we send him out to pasture? I miss Tim Russert. Text in from my mother noting that Romney's been too aggressive. Obama looks much more comfortable on stage than Romney.
10:07pm - Romney blatantly lies about his "plan" by stating his plan covers pre-existing conditions and kids up to 26. He says these were already staples of the private market. If he thinks that he's out to lunch. He's also all but saying "death panel" repeatedly.
10:10pm - Obama goes through a number of things that Romney has promised tonight but outlines how he hasn't said anything about how he's going to do it. Romney barrels over Jim Lehr to get a response he didn't have the right to according to debate rules.
10:14pm - Jim Lehr has been pretty much worthless tonight. Now we are on to the role of government. Obama's first response is to keep American's safe and to create frameworks to help people to succeed. He then illustrates how past instances of the government investing have led to dividends.
10:17pm - Romney goes back to the constitution, thereby not answering the question. Obama continues to stretch out his time advantage. Now talking about student loans.
10:22pm - And here comes the blow on Romney's statement that people should just borrow from their parents to go to school. Obama's not scoring well on this topic, and Romney AGAIN calls Obama a liar without doing so directly. The lack of political acumen shocks me. Romney goes after the green energy campaigns again. It's amazing to me that he could be so short sighted on energy.
10:25pm - Getting close to the wrap up point, and Lehr did such a poor job that they missed an entire topic. He finishes up on partisan gridlock. Romney gives a pretty nondescript answer. Obama has a tougher standard with this question to hit. He responds that he will meet with anyone as long as the goal is helping further the opportunities of the American people. Obama manages to get a Bin Laden references in as well. He finishes up with nearly a minute advantage in speaking time, but it felt like Romney was the person refusing to stop talking most of the time tonight. Good job by Obama in that regard.
10:28pm - Obama stumbles out of the gate on his closing statement. He has had a hard time with transitions tonight. He didn't really go anwhere, but Romney goes right to the core and hits his talking points without any issue. A strong finish by Romney, who wanted to go last exactly for this reason.
Final Verdict: Romney did a great job staying on topic and Obama never took him out of his comfort zone. From a standpoint of actual academic topics the debate was nearly a draw, with perhaps a slight edge to Romney. Obama didn't really go after Romney much at all, nothing about any of the major attack points. Obama clearly looked more comfortable however, and if JFK v Nixon tells us anything, its that the person who looks more presidential sometimes takes a big advantage.
As always, I write the time stamp and what my thoughts are. Tonight's debate was supposed to focus on domestic politics, and we'll see how well Jim Lehr does holding to that. The general consensus seems to be that Romney needs to do a great job and win this debate going away to get the momentum he's been searching for. The Democrats seem to be saying that they believe the race is too close to call in spite of polling momentum going their way. Not bad to play dead and hope that increases your chance to see voter turnout up. Personally, I think that this debate hinges on if Romney can attack Obama without seeming like he's attacking Obama. Romney is the superior debater historically, but he can be knocked off kilter when his opponent manages to counter his rebuttals and attack lines while moving the point of conversation. Without further delay, here we go:
8:57pm - Little mentioned but potentially huge fact: Obama hasn't debated since 2008, whereas Romney debated somewhere north of 20 times in the Republican Primary alone. At least it felt that way. Fact check...Wikipedia says twenty on the head.
9:01pm - I feel like there should be A) Gambling odds for inane things like "over under 45.5 times the phrase 'middle class' is mentioned tonight" and B) a drinking game where you drink every time something like that is said. Wolf Blitzer tells me that Obama won the coin toss to go first, and Romney gets to go last. Doesn't it feel like Obama should have deferred to the last response? Is that even allowed? Actually, who am I kidding: as a Bears fan Obama probably is going to wait to get to the podium, look around confused, then call a time out.
9:04pm - Obama in the blue tie, Romney in red. I feel like if I was in this debate I'd wear the other guy's color just to screw with them. Economy starts with a question on jobs... and we're off. Romney is writing notes on Obama wishing Michele a happy 20th anniversary. One minute in and Obama is still setting up his answer. He ended up settling on setting up the paradigm that Romney thinks it's all about tax cuts, and whereas he described a diversified approach centered on education.
9:07pm - Romney hit well with joke about Obama spending his anniversary with him, then goes right into multiple stories from American people. Strong start by Romney, quickly describing a dichotomy between not only he and Obama, but quickly countering Obama's claim that his approach is top down. Still, after two minutes he didn't really get into any policy specifics. He did, however, hit Obama by claiming his approach is "trickle down" government. Did he just hit Reagan's legacy?
9:10pm - Obama counters by talking more about education. Seems dangerously close to pandering to the hall (at a University) rather than going for the viewers at home. He then transitions into talking about tax code, then energy. Obama's attempt seems to be to go after Romney on the tax issue while saying "I'm the authority on education and energy." First mention of the deficit tonight. First hit on Romney's tax plan from Obama.
9:12pm - Romney gives a rebuttal that says that high income people will not get a break under him... then uses Biden's terminology that the middle class is "crushed" twice. Anyone want to be that there will be a commercial showing Romney and Biden back to back saying the middle class is being "crushed" soon?
9:15pm - So Romney was asked to ask the president a question, then went on a multi-minute rant. He did say "by the way, I like coal." I want Obama to say "I love lamp" pretty bad here. At any rate, Romney went way long and didn't ask a question. It sounds to me like Romney is describing a tax plan that does little but shuffle the chips around at best: cut taxes, eliminate exemptions, deficit gone? Doesn't add up. Obama counters by saying that he did what he said he would: cut taxes for the middle class. Obama's going intellectual with his response, which makes him sound like Kerry/Gore ... not the contrast he wants.
9:18pm - Romney says that Obama is misrepresenting ... but doesn't explain how. Then he calls Obama a liar without saying it directly. Romney promises he will not under any circumstances raise taxes on middle income families. Obama comes right back at Romney saying he ran on a tax plan for eighteen months, and now is saying his "big bold idea is never mind." He then comes back with "it's math. It's arithmetic." I really get the feel, only eighteen minutes in, that these guys don't really like each other. Obama brings up Clinton first, and tells the American people he wants to go back to the tax rates that encouraged Clinton era growth.
9:22pm - Obama goes for a Trump joke that seems to miss. At the present time Romney doesn't look nearly as comfortable as Obama. Jim Lehr tries to get things back on track and Romney talks over him quite a bit. Romney hits Obama on his tax plan hurting small businesses more; he also mentions Bowls-Simpson first. Obama goes right back at the tax issue, speaking right to the American people.
9:25pm - Obama ties Romney's approach to Bush directly for the first time. He then directly ties his approach to Clinton. So there you have it: A third Bush term, or a fourth Clinton term. I'm glad we could simplify this. Lehr still has not gotten them off the first subject, he tries again, and Romney talks over it again. Romney keeps saying "that's not my plan" and then says his plan is not like anything that's been done before.
9:27pm - we finally move to the second segment, this one on the deficit. Romney articulates three options to cut the deficit. Romney than says that he likes Big Bird, but will stop the subsidy for PBS. Basically, he'll cut taxes to grow the economy, then cut programs. Obama's responds by going back to Bush and illustrating the state of the deficit and how it got here. A major strength here, and Obama gets on his wheel horse. I'm not sure how he can own an issue that he's struggled so much with, but he does. Obama does great explaining his balanced approach and then contrasting Romney as unbalanced.
9:32pm - Finally we get some back and forth ... might see the gloves come off a bit. Romney says that he has his own plan and it's not Simpson-Bowls, but that Obama should have grabbed on to Simpson Bowls. If I remember correctly the House shot that plan down. Romney slams taxes again "you raise taxes, you kill jobs." Obama looks annoyed, not a great thing for him. Romney states emphatically that he has ruled out increasing revenue entirely. Romney keeps talking over Lehr.
9:35pm - Obama now goes after the oil industry tax rates. I'm confused: what happened to the talk about the deficit. Use of Exon Mobile as a straw man by Obama here. Obama says he wants to do the same thing with closing loopholes that Romney says he wants to do, only he can actually say what he wants to do, not just that he will do it. Obama's first use of an "everyday American" story to four by Romney.
9:37pm - Twix break... mmmm..... Twix ....
9:39pm - Romney confronts Obama for lying a second time (again, without saying it directly). Obama is the first person to mention Reagan. We've moved on to Social Security. Obama goes to his grandmother to set up his argument. I'm shocked that Obama says "you don't need a major structural change to make sure social security is there for the future." Absolutely shocked.
9:43pm - Romney goes right after Obama on the Medicare cuts, saying he'd put the money right back in. Well, not exactly right after: he was on different chain of thinking then suddenly remembered he was supposed to be against "Obamacare" and switched course. Obama tries to get some footing by going after Romney's voucher program, but he stumbles out of the corner trying to establish this point. Obama then embraces the "Obamacare" term and illustrates why a repeal would increase cost on seniors.
9:48pm - Neither candidate has had an "ah ha" moment yet. I'd be inclined to say Romney is winning on logic, but Obama is winning in terms of presentation. Romney seems edgy and aggressive. In terms of speaking time Obama has opened a small lead over Romney. In other news, I kinda wish this was a foreign policy debate. I'm starting to think that I should start work on my NFL picks this week.
9:53pm - "Does anybody out there think that the problem we've had was due to too much regulation on wall street?" Obama scores there. Romney comes swinging back. I'm on to salt water taffy.
9:58pm - Moving to health care. First time we've heard the term Affordable Care Act. Romney opens up by talking about the cost of health care, then says that "Obamacare" is adding to cost. For the record, "Obamacare" hasn't had a negative impact on my company's bottom line. Interesting the Romney never smiles with his teeth. He just looks tight and uncomfortable.
10:00pm - Obama goes in to the positives of the ACA. Lehr is trying to hold the line, but failing. Can we send him out to pasture? I miss Tim Russert. Text in from my mother noting that Romney's been too aggressive. Obama looks much more comfortable on stage than Romney.
10:07pm - Romney blatantly lies about his "plan" by stating his plan covers pre-existing conditions and kids up to 26. He says these were already staples of the private market. If he thinks that he's out to lunch. He's also all but saying "death panel" repeatedly.
10:10pm - Obama goes through a number of things that Romney has promised tonight but outlines how he hasn't said anything about how he's going to do it. Romney barrels over Jim Lehr to get a response he didn't have the right to according to debate rules.
10:14pm - Jim Lehr has been pretty much worthless tonight. Now we are on to the role of government. Obama's first response is to keep American's safe and to create frameworks to help people to succeed. He then illustrates how past instances of the government investing have led to dividends.
10:17pm - Romney goes back to the constitution, thereby not answering the question. Obama continues to stretch out his time advantage. Now talking about student loans.
10:22pm - And here comes the blow on Romney's statement that people should just borrow from their parents to go to school. Obama's not scoring well on this topic, and Romney AGAIN calls Obama a liar without doing so directly. The lack of political acumen shocks me. Romney goes after the green energy campaigns again. It's amazing to me that he could be so short sighted on energy.
10:25pm - Getting close to the wrap up point, and Lehr did such a poor job that they missed an entire topic. He finishes up on partisan gridlock. Romney gives a pretty nondescript answer. Obama has a tougher standard with this question to hit. He responds that he will meet with anyone as long as the goal is helping further the opportunities of the American people. Obama manages to get a Bin Laden references in as well. He finishes up with nearly a minute advantage in speaking time, but it felt like Romney was the person refusing to stop talking most of the time tonight. Good job by Obama in that regard.
10:28pm - Obama stumbles out of the gate on his closing statement. He has had a hard time with transitions tonight. He didn't really go anwhere, but Romney goes right to the core and hits his talking points without any issue. A strong finish by Romney, who wanted to go last exactly for this reason.
Final Verdict: Romney did a great job staying on topic and Obama never took him out of his comfort zone. From a standpoint of actual academic topics the debate was nearly a draw, with perhaps a slight edge to Romney. Obama didn't really go after Romney much at all, nothing about any of the major attack points. Obama clearly looked more comfortable however, and if JFK v Nixon tells us anything, its that the person who looks more presidential sometimes takes a big advantage.
Wednesday, September 26, 2012
2012 NFL Picks Week 4 ***Plus Presidential Polls***
Well, the combination of a poor performance by the Bears offense (albeit with another great defensive/special teams performance), plus my fantasy team continuing to crap the bed from a team that looked great on paper to one that can't function (thanks to my boss, a life long Bills fan for jinxing CJ Spiller for me), plus the awful officiating culminating in the officials blowing the Sunday and Monday night games ... yeah, I'm borderline out on the NFL until the real officials are back. Which, incidentally, looks like it might be soon. Or not. Really, who the hell knows? (If you didn't take the time to follow those links, ESPN right now says "Deal between NFL, Refs very close" while Sports Illustrated says "NFL, Referees still not close to a deal." I LOVE headlines and the 24 hour a day news cycle.)
So, with that said, I thought I'd take a look at the shocking reality that is becoming this presidential election cycle. If you've read my political breakdowns here before, you know that I looked at the Republican Primary season from a "who is most likely to win" schema. I will view the general election the same way. That said, some general pointers from history indicate that:
- Presidents with economies in recession don't win re-election.
- A President with an economy this poor hasn't won re-election since FDR
- Barack Obama is the President.
Pretty simple, right? The economy has continued an uber slow recovery, barely creeping along at times. The housing market continues to be in shambles. The Congress hasn't accomplished a thing since the midterm elections split the House and the Senate in 2010. Historically, this election would look like 1976, 1980, or 1992. In each of those elections a weak incumbent, hamstrung by issues, faded quickly and ended up being defeated. 1980 (Reagan over Carter) and 1992 (Clinton over H.W. Bush) are particularly pertinent examples. To wit:
- With Carter, the nation's unemployment rate sat at 7.5% when he took office in 1977. It went steadily down, getting under 6% through much of 1979, but in 1980, an election year, the rate went back up into the 7.2-7.8% rate. Carter also faced a major crisis in the Middle East (the Iranian Hostage situation) and high energy (read: GAS) costs. Keep in mind: unemployment actually exploded under Reagan's first term , eventually going over 10% for ten concurrent months between September 1982 and June of 1983. It started declining at that point, however, and by November of 1984 (election time) the rate was at a much more comfortable 7.4%. You know, .1% less than it was when high unemployment helped to undo Carter in 1980. The message, as always? Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Whereas unemployment was heading in the wrong direction for Carter, Reagan could argue that things were headed in the right direction. Incidentally, they were proven "right" as unemployment continued to plummet during Ronnie's 2nd term, down to sub 6% his entire last year.
- With Bush, he took over a stable economy that held under 6% unemployment his entire first year. But then those evil economic forces started to creep in and the unemployment rate slowly started creeping up. By 1992 the rate climbed back over 7% (October 1991 to be exact) and stayed over 7% throughout 1992. Although H.W.'s foreign policy was generally (and honestly still is) something to be commended, the economic difficulty brought in Clinton, who saw unemployment rates that Reagan could only dream of, seeing 42 straight months under 5% (and even some months under 4%) to end out his term. During the "Dubya" administration rates held fairly steady, until the end where rates made it to 7% by the time he left office.
Now, if rates over 7% indicate a candidate's doom, Obama's rates above 8% (after three years sitting between 9-10%) should spell certain doom. Of course, if it were that easy, Mitt Romney should be celebrating right now. Right? After all, both Reagan and Clinton were able to breath pretty easy. However, look at the polls right now, and you find a different reality. Every set of polling data that comes out looks better and better for Obama, worse and worse for Romney. Today's Quinnipiac poll shockingly shows Obama up by DOUBLE DIGITS in three major swing states: Pennsylvania, Ohio and Florida. And while this poll shows the largest margins of all polls, it continues the absolute trend among polls moving towards Obama. I won't take the time to break them all down here, but this link gives you a break down of each and every reputable poll. The question, simply put, isn't IF Obama is in the lead, but HOW MUCH is Obama in the lead. Honestly, the more this continues trend this way the more the question becomes: does Romney even have a punchers chance?
So, why is Obama bucking history? I'm not sure I have the answer, but I do know this: Romney needs an unbelievable debate performance, starting next Wednesday, to have even a wing and a prayer of salvaging this thing. Needless to say, I'll try to clear out my schedule to live blog the debate next week. It sure as hell interests me more than the NFL's crappy replacement officials and my awful fantasy football team.
On to the picks:
Last week against the spread: 9-6-1
Last week straight up:8-8
Season against the spread: 25-21-2
Season straight up: 25-23
Thursday Night Game
Baltimore (-13) over Cleveland - Moral of the story: I fully believe Baltimore can blow this line and win by one or two ... but I still can't bet on Cleveland.
Sunday Early Games
Atlanta (-8) over Carolina - Moral of the story: after last week's game against San Diego, is this line high enough?
New England (-5) over Buffalo - no (good) RBs healthy in Buffalo, New England can't lose three in a row... can they?
Minnesota (+5) over Detroit - Moral of the story: I just have a hunch, particularly if Stafford is out.
San Diego (-1) over Kansas City - Moral of the story: I still don't believe in Romeo.
St. Louis (+3) over Seattle - Moral of the story: Bad karma for last week's replacement ref job over Green Bay.
San Francisco (-5) over NY Jets - Moral of the story: Revis out for the year is a huge blow. No offense, struggling defense, and I bet San Fran comes to play.
Tennessee (+13) over Houston - Moral of the story: Houston continues to play like a Super Bowl contender, but this line just feels to high. I'll take Houston to win the game, however.
Sunday Late Games
Denver (-7) over Oakland - Moral of the story: Oakland is confusing me, but I think Peyton is due for a semi-Peyton game.
Arizona (-6) over Miami - Moral of the story: Fool me once, shame on Arizona. Fool me three times (and counting) ...
Cincinnati (-3) over Jacksonville - Moral of the story: I am not glad I ended up with Chris Johnson instead of MJD on my fantasy roster.
Green Bay (-8) over New Orleans - Moral of the story: Good karma for the game on Monday.
Washington (+3) over Tampa Bay - Moral of the story: RGIII can move the pocket; Josh Freeman can't seem to get things done. That said, I need to watch this closely because with all the injuries in Washington I might be missing the bus here.
Sunday Night Game
NY Giants (+1) over Philadelphia - Moral of the story: I'm getting close to out on Philly
Monday Night Game
Chicago (+4) over Dallas - Moral of the story: Both offensive lines are ... offensive. I think the extra time off helps Chicago, and I want this very badly for my Uncle.
Until next time, Thursday night football sucks. Replacement refs suck more!
So, with that said, I thought I'd take a look at the shocking reality that is becoming this presidential election cycle. If you've read my political breakdowns here before, you know that I looked at the Republican Primary season from a "who is most likely to win" schema. I will view the general election the same way. That said, some general pointers from history indicate that:
- Presidents with economies in recession don't win re-election.
- A President with an economy this poor hasn't won re-election since FDR
- Barack Obama is the President.
Pretty simple, right? The economy has continued an uber slow recovery, barely creeping along at times. The housing market continues to be in shambles. The Congress hasn't accomplished a thing since the midterm elections split the House and the Senate in 2010. Historically, this election would look like 1976, 1980, or 1992. In each of those elections a weak incumbent, hamstrung by issues, faded quickly and ended up being defeated. 1980 (Reagan over Carter) and 1992 (Clinton over H.W. Bush) are particularly pertinent examples. To wit:
- With Carter, the nation's unemployment rate sat at 7.5% when he took office in 1977. It went steadily down, getting under 6% through much of 1979, but in 1980, an election year, the rate went back up into the 7.2-7.8% rate. Carter also faced a major crisis in the Middle East (the Iranian Hostage situation) and high energy (read: GAS) costs. Keep in mind: unemployment actually exploded under Reagan's first term , eventually going over 10% for ten concurrent months between September 1982 and June of 1983. It started declining at that point, however, and by November of 1984 (election time) the rate was at a much more comfortable 7.4%. You know, .1% less than it was when high unemployment helped to undo Carter in 1980. The message, as always? Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Whereas unemployment was heading in the wrong direction for Carter, Reagan could argue that things were headed in the right direction. Incidentally, they were proven "right" as unemployment continued to plummet during Ronnie's 2nd term, down to sub 6% his entire last year.
- With Bush, he took over a stable economy that held under 6% unemployment his entire first year. But then those evil economic forces started to creep in and the unemployment rate slowly started creeping up. By 1992 the rate climbed back over 7% (October 1991 to be exact) and stayed over 7% throughout 1992. Although H.W.'s foreign policy was generally (and honestly still is) something to be commended, the economic difficulty brought in Clinton, who saw unemployment rates that Reagan could only dream of, seeing 42 straight months under 5% (and even some months under 4%) to end out his term. During the "Dubya" administration rates held fairly steady, until the end where rates made it to 7% by the time he left office.
Now, if rates over 7% indicate a candidate's doom, Obama's rates above 8% (after three years sitting between 9-10%) should spell certain doom. Of course, if it were that easy, Mitt Romney should be celebrating right now. Right? After all, both Reagan and Clinton were able to breath pretty easy. However, look at the polls right now, and you find a different reality. Every set of polling data that comes out looks better and better for Obama, worse and worse for Romney. Today's Quinnipiac poll shockingly shows Obama up by DOUBLE DIGITS in three major swing states: Pennsylvania, Ohio and Florida. And while this poll shows the largest margins of all polls, it continues the absolute trend among polls moving towards Obama. I won't take the time to break them all down here, but this link gives you a break down of each and every reputable poll. The question, simply put, isn't IF Obama is in the lead, but HOW MUCH is Obama in the lead. Honestly, the more this continues trend this way the more the question becomes: does Romney even have a punchers chance?
So, why is Obama bucking history? I'm not sure I have the answer, but I do know this: Romney needs an unbelievable debate performance, starting next Wednesday, to have even a wing and a prayer of salvaging this thing. Needless to say, I'll try to clear out my schedule to live blog the debate next week. It sure as hell interests me more than the NFL's crappy replacement officials and my awful fantasy football team.
On to the picks:
Last week against the spread: 9-6-1
Last week straight up:8-8
Season against the spread: 25-21-2
Season straight up: 25-23
Thursday Night Game
Baltimore (-13) over Cleveland - Moral of the story: I fully believe Baltimore can blow this line and win by one or two ... but I still can't bet on Cleveland.
Sunday Early Games
Atlanta (-8) over Carolina - Moral of the story: after last week's game against San Diego, is this line high enough?
New England (-5) over Buffalo - no (good) RBs healthy in Buffalo, New England can't lose three in a row... can they?
Minnesota (+5) over Detroit - Moral of the story: I just have a hunch, particularly if Stafford is out.
San Diego (-1) over Kansas City - Moral of the story: I still don't believe in Romeo.
St. Louis (+3) over Seattle - Moral of the story: Bad karma for last week's replacement ref job over Green Bay.
San Francisco (-5) over NY Jets - Moral of the story: Revis out for the year is a huge blow. No offense, struggling defense, and I bet San Fran comes to play.
Tennessee (+13) over Houston - Moral of the story: Houston continues to play like a Super Bowl contender, but this line just feels to high. I'll take Houston to win the game, however.
Sunday Late Games
Denver (-7) over Oakland - Moral of the story: Oakland is confusing me, but I think Peyton is due for a semi-Peyton game.
Arizona (-6) over Miami - Moral of the story: Fool me once, shame on Arizona. Fool me three times (and counting) ...
Cincinnati (-3) over Jacksonville - Moral of the story: I am not glad I ended up with Chris Johnson instead of MJD on my fantasy roster.
Green Bay (-8) over New Orleans - Moral of the story: Good karma for the game on Monday.
Washington (+3) over Tampa Bay - Moral of the story: RGIII can move the pocket; Josh Freeman can't seem to get things done. That said, I need to watch this closely because with all the injuries in Washington I might be missing the bus here.
Sunday Night Game
NY Giants (+1) over Philadelphia - Moral of the story: I'm getting close to out on Philly
Monday Night Game
Chicago (+4) over Dallas - Moral of the story: Both offensive lines are ... offensive. I think the extra time off helps Chicago, and I want this very badly for my Uncle.
Until next time, Thursday night football sucks. Replacement refs suck more!
Sunday, May 13, 2012
Presidential Campaigning 101 - Polarize and Conquer
A few years ago I wrote this post, breaking down how the Republican Party had gone from a seemingly insurmountable advantage to trailing Democrats everywhere. It's hard to believe it's been three years since I wrote that post, but we've learned a few things since that point. We've seen more and more rapid turnover in Washington, a natural product of an environment that is so negative and divisive. The great mystery of the US congress has always been clearly articulated in approval ratings. If you ask the general American citizen if they approve of the job congress is doing, they will say "no" (well, at least 80% of them). If, however, you ask them if they approve of the job their representative is doing, they typically say yes. Recently, this has shifted a bit more, and we are seeing larger swaths of incumbents losing primaries, and being forced out of office.
I could go on forever about the advantages of term limits in Congress, as well as the need to have fresh blood, but the problem with the current environment is that what we are seeing, time and again in these elections, is not the American people voting to stop the gridlock. On the contrary, every time they vote out at Dick Lugar (a good man who was, admittedly, a relic who probably needed to retire gracefully anyway) the voters are replacing one person with a more extreme version of that person. As the saying goes, you get what you pay for, and in this case the American people are paying for extremist blowhards, and will get more intense gridlock as a result.
And that takes me back to my original point, about my post on the GOP three years ago. In it, I said this regarding the strategy of George W Bush's "brain," Karl Rove:
"Rove's political strategies, detailed well in many places, basically came down to one thing: polarize the electorate. For team Bush this meant using as many red herrings as possible. Rove believed that if they made the election about the right issues they could mobilize the Religious Right, boosting the number of guaranteed Republican voters. To that end, Rove used any issue the Right would fall in behind, most successfully gay marriage and abortion. The 2004 election showed the success of this strategy, as eleven states passed amendments codifying marriage as being between a man and a woman. The conservative turn out in these states helped Bush out, particularly in Ohio, a state thought to be 2004's version of Florida."
Does any of this sound familiar? It should: in this primary season we've already seen Roe V Wade continue to come under fire, courtesy of Rick Santorum, and now we see the gay marriage topic rear its' head yet again. Couple this with Mitt Romney's recent push to convince the American people that he is actually running against Jimmy Carter, and you'll see what the strategy is: set up a straw man, knock it down, and hope the American people buy it. McCain failed to effectively run a polarizing campaign, and in the minds of many GOP big shots this was his fatal error. The Democrats are by no means innocent in this, but the GOP does have a history of taking issues on, making them the issue, then not doing anything with them after winning office. Bush won re-election in 2004 vowing to overturn Roe V Wade and to pass a Gay Marriage Amendment to the Constitution. Setting aside whether these issues are truly worth being the issue the government is focusing on (you know, along side world peace, global warming, and infrastructural investments), I'm sure you've noticed that Roe V Wade is still in place, and a Gay Marriage Amendment isn't.
The GOP is the best at polarizing the base, getting the religious right to turn out in droves to vote against the godless liberals, and then not following through with their promises. At the present time it appears that Mitt Romney is going to try to run a campaign closer to those that Rove oversaw and further from the campaign McCain ran. That makes sense from a win at all costs standpoint, but it will serve to only further polarize Washington, which continues to dig this country into a hole we can only hope to get out of. Until the electorate decides they won't reward politicians for polarizing issues they have no intention, or logical way, to deal with, this isn't going to get any better. It really is our fault: we complain about the gridlock and say that nobody in Washington knows how to lead, but then we reward the candidate that takes the more extreme positions. At the end of the day both Romney and Obama will scramble back to the middle in an attempt sway moderate voters. Whichever candidate can appease the base most without alienating the middle of the country will be President a year from now. Think about that, and tell me that this is a logical way to govern a country.
I could go on forever about the advantages of term limits in Congress, as well as the need to have fresh blood, but the problem with the current environment is that what we are seeing, time and again in these elections, is not the American people voting to stop the gridlock. On the contrary, every time they vote out at Dick Lugar (a good man who was, admittedly, a relic who probably needed to retire gracefully anyway) the voters are replacing one person with a more extreme version of that person. As the saying goes, you get what you pay for, and in this case the American people are paying for extremist blowhards, and will get more intense gridlock as a result.
And that takes me back to my original point, about my post on the GOP three years ago. In it, I said this regarding the strategy of George W Bush's "brain," Karl Rove:
"Rove's political strategies, detailed well in many places, basically came down to one thing: polarize the electorate. For team Bush this meant using as many red herrings as possible. Rove believed that if they made the election about the right issues they could mobilize the Religious Right, boosting the number of guaranteed Republican voters. To that end, Rove used any issue the Right would fall in behind, most successfully gay marriage and abortion. The 2004 election showed the success of this strategy, as eleven states passed amendments codifying marriage as being between a man and a woman. The conservative turn out in these states helped Bush out, particularly in Ohio, a state thought to be 2004's version of Florida."
Does any of this sound familiar? It should: in this primary season we've already seen Roe V Wade continue to come under fire, courtesy of Rick Santorum, and now we see the gay marriage topic rear its' head yet again. Couple this with Mitt Romney's recent push to convince the American people that he is actually running against Jimmy Carter, and you'll see what the strategy is: set up a straw man, knock it down, and hope the American people buy it. McCain failed to effectively run a polarizing campaign, and in the minds of many GOP big shots this was his fatal error. The Democrats are by no means innocent in this, but the GOP does have a history of taking issues on, making them the issue, then not doing anything with them after winning office. Bush won re-election in 2004 vowing to overturn Roe V Wade and to pass a Gay Marriage Amendment to the Constitution. Setting aside whether these issues are truly worth being the issue the government is focusing on (you know, along side world peace, global warming, and infrastructural investments), I'm sure you've noticed that Roe V Wade is still in place, and a Gay Marriage Amendment isn't.
The GOP is the best at polarizing the base, getting the religious right to turn out in droves to vote against the godless liberals, and then not following through with their promises. At the present time it appears that Mitt Romney is going to try to run a campaign closer to those that Rove oversaw and further from the campaign McCain ran. That makes sense from a win at all costs standpoint, but it will serve to only further polarize Washington, which continues to dig this country into a hole we can only hope to get out of. Until the electorate decides they won't reward politicians for polarizing issues they have no intention, or logical way, to deal with, this isn't going to get any better. It really is our fault: we complain about the gridlock and say that nobody in Washington knows how to lead, but then we reward the candidate that takes the more extreme positions. At the end of the day both Romney and Obama will scramble back to the middle in an attempt sway moderate voters. Whichever candidate can appease the base most without alienating the middle of the country will be President a year from now. Think about that, and tell me that this is a logical way to govern a country.
Wednesday, January 4, 2012
Iowa: What It Told Us
The Iowa Caucus crowd is always elated to tell you that they, first among all other Americans, get to begin the process of determining a presidential nominee. Heading into yesterday all signs indicated that Ron Paul had a chance, Romney was sitting virtually identical to where he was in 2008, and that Rick Santorum had somehow become the candidate du jour for hardline conservatives everywhere.
Flash forward to the end of a long night, and you'll see that this assessment was pretty accurate:
- Ron Paul took 21.4% of the vote, a marked improvement over the 9.93% he took in Iowa in 2008
- Mitt Romney was a narrow winner of the caucus, even after not really trying here at all this year. The kicker is that Romney took 25.19% of the vote in 2008 ... and 24.6% of the vote in 2012. For all intents and purposes Mitt Romney just so happened to lose percentage votes, but his holding steady was good enough to win (albeit by eight votes apparently)
- Santorum ... I'm still not sure how this happened, but in the past six months the Republican field has anointed the following people (in order) their savior from the evil Mitt: Bachmann, Perry, Christie (never even in the race), Herman freaking Cain, Newt, and now Santorum. I actually might be missing some people in there, but the point remains the same: Santorum had the great advantage of being the last of all the gloves tried on before the game. Inevitably the voters would have to settle on one to play the game with, and Santorum happened to be the one they picked up when the umpire yelled "play ball."
The final take away for me is the incredible division in the Iowa field. Now, this is hardly unprecedented. The caucus process lends itself to this division of candidates. Look at the 2008 Republican field and you see a similar division:
- Huckabee 34.36%
- Romney 25.19%
- Thompson 13.39%
- McCain 13.03%
- Paul 9.93%
Five candidates essentially getting 1/10th of the vote or more. If you compare that with the 2008 Democratic field you'll see the following:
- Obama 37.6%
- Edwards 29.7%
- Clinton 29.4%
A three person race, but another indicator of the way that Iowa likes to split their delegates. A final look, at the 2000 Republican field, shows this:
- George W. Bush - 40.99%
- Steve Forbes - 30.5%
- Alan Keyes - 14.24%
What do you take away from that? Money matters in Iowa, as does organization. McCain, who finished somewhere around 4% that year, had neither.
So for this year's Republican field, the division shouldn't have been unexpected, but the variance between 1st and 5th wasn't much more than the variance between Bush and Forbes:
- Romney - 24.6%
- Santorum - 24.5%
- Paul - 21.4%
- Gingrich - 13.3% (isn't it nice that Newt now owns the distinction of killing his own campaign twice before Iowa?)
- Perry - 10.3%
Only 14 points separate first from fifth. Needless to say, this has the potential to be a divisive year in the Republican field, but the odd thing is that it might not be. Even with this division, the nomination is now, more firmly than ever, Romney's to lose. If he takes care of business in New Hampshire (which, barring a stunning piece of organization from Jon Huntsman, he will), he can claim victory in the first two contests, something which almost never happens in a truly contested nomination process. He then moves to South Carolina, and hopes that Santorum, Perry, and Gingrich (with some help from Ron Paul) split the vote as well as they did in Iowa (Perry may, in fact, drop out after Iowa, which would be the culmination of a precipitous, and entertaining, decline). If that happens, there is a very real chance that Mitt finishes strongly enough in South Carolina that he can be the defacto candidate already (at which point the far right's head explodes). If Huntsman somehow spoils New Hampshire, and if Newt and Perry directly or indirectly throw support to Santorum in South Carolina, however, we could be in for a long, drawn out nomination process. Either way, it appears that the Republican base is going to be awarded a nominee they don't really believe in. Yet another break for Obama.
Flash forward to the end of a long night, and you'll see that this assessment was pretty accurate:
- Ron Paul took 21.4% of the vote, a marked improvement over the 9.93% he took in Iowa in 2008
- Mitt Romney was a narrow winner of the caucus, even after not really trying here at all this year. The kicker is that Romney took 25.19% of the vote in 2008 ... and 24.6% of the vote in 2012. For all intents and purposes Mitt Romney just so happened to lose percentage votes, but his holding steady was good enough to win (albeit by eight votes apparently)
- Santorum ... I'm still not sure how this happened, but in the past six months the Republican field has anointed the following people (in order) their savior from the evil Mitt: Bachmann, Perry, Christie (never even in the race), Herman freaking Cain, Newt, and now Santorum. I actually might be missing some people in there, but the point remains the same: Santorum had the great advantage of being the last of all the gloves tried on before the game. Inevitably the voters would have to settle on one to play the game with, and Santorum happened to be the one they picked up when the umpire yelled "play ball."
The final take away for me is the incredible division in the Iowa field. Now, this is hardly unprecedented. The caucus process lends itself to this division of candidates. Look at the 2008 Republican field and you see a similar division:
- Huckabee 34.36%
- Romney 25.19%
- Thompson 13.39%
- McCain 13.03%
- Paul 9.93%
Five candidates essentially getting 1/10th of the vote or more. If you compare that with the 2008 Democratic field you'll see the following:
- Obama 37.6%
- Edwards 29.7%
- Clinton 29.4%
A three person race, but another indicator of the way that Iowa likes to split their delegates. A final look, at the 2000 Republican field, shows this:
- George W. Bush - 40.99%
- Steve Forbes - 30.5%
- Alan Keyes - 14.24%
What do you take away from that? Money matters in Iowa, as does organization. McCain, who finished somewhere around 4% that year, had neither.
So for this year's Republican field, the division shouldn't have been unexpected, but the variance between 1st and 5th wasn't much more than the variance between Bush and Forbes:
- Romney - 24.6%
- Santorum - 24.5%
- Paul - 21.4%
- Gingrich - 13.3% (isn't it nice that Newt now owns the distinction of killing his own campaign twice before Iowa?)
- Perry - 10.3%
Only 14 points separate first from fifth. Needless to say, this has the potential to be a divisive year in the Republican field, but the odd thing is that it might not be. Even with this division, the nomination is now, more firmly than ever, Romney's to lose. If he takes care of business in New Hampshire (which, barring a stunning piece of organization from Jon Huntsman, he will), he can claim victory in the first two contests, something which almost never happens in a truly contested nomination process. He then moves to South Carolina, and hopes that Santorum, Perry, and Gingrich (with some help from Ron Paul) split the vote as well as they did in Iowa (Perry may, in fact, drop out after Iowa, which would be the culmination of a precipitous, and entertaining, decline). If that happens, there is a very real chance that Mitt finishes strongly enough in South Carolina that he can be the defacto candidate already (at which point the far right's head explodes). If Huntsman somehow spoils New Hampshire, and if Newt and Perry directly or indirectly throw support to Santorum in South Carolina, however, we could be in for a long, drawn out nomination process. Either way, it appears that the Republican base is going to be awarded a nominee they don't really believe in. Yet another break for Obama.
Thursday, September 15, 2011
The Long Hard Road
As the days go by, and as we steadily move towards the official start of the 2012 election cycle, the numbers keep coming in. One thing you realize studying political science is that the numbers are the constant, unending aspect of domestic politics. We always want the latest, greatest poll, and we want to know exactly right now how people are feeling about candidate x. So we poll people on this, we poll them on that, we give them hypothetical matchups to decide from, and somewhere in the midst of all the numbers we find trends that we try to extrapolate into bigger picture meaning. And so the numbers keep coming in, and in this case they keep confounding me.
I've been saying for quite some time now that there is almost no chance that this country will have anyone besides Barack Obama in office after the next election. I still believe that my statement, and the logic behind it, is mostly true. But the evidence keeps coming in, and it is starting, ever so slightly, to push this situation into more of a coin flip, a horse race if you will. For those of you unfamiliar with poker terms, a horse race is a situation where you get your money in with almost even odds. Pocket 8s against Ace-King, for example. Until recently it appeared to me that unless something drastically bad happened Obama would be much safer than 50/50. That was quite the statement, given the historical nature of the struggling economy, which typically drags incumbents down.
I felt that this was true do to the fact that the Republican Primary field was generally uninspiring or even downright scary. None of that has changed. The Republican field is perhaps even more uninspiring today than it was three months ago, and every day that we move closer to the election their is less of a chance that the mysterious "candidate x" will rush into the race, make the Republican ladies swoon and the men well with pride. As I've said: there isn't anyone out there. And that has made Obama much safer than he should have been, given all the other complicating factors.
Still, a few things have shifted that are making this road look less and less certain. First, every issue has become a knock down, drag out political fight. It seems that nothing gets done in Washington these days with bi-partisan support, and it has begun to seem like there aren't even fundamental principles that these sides can agree on. The debt deal is a great example of this: Republicans rushed to politicize the issue, not because they were against it, but because they could and they felt it would help them in the next election cycle. And the sad thing is, were the roles reversed, I have complete faith the Democrats would have done the same thing. But, unlike an issue like abortion or gay marriage, issues we are used to being highly politicized, this was our nation's credit ... and default. The brazen nature with which the full faith and credit of the United States became a political toy appalled me.
But should it have? This is the same nation in which the greatest national tragedy of our time, September 11th, became the penultimate political toy of our time. Bush used it to define who loved America and who didn't, and then used that differentiation to win elections for he and his like minded colleagues, and then used their combined political capital to push through a wide variety of economic legislation that deregulated everything to the point that our fiscal system has been on the brink of collapse for half a decade now. And, because you have to play by the rules of the game, Obama was able to use 9/11 in a different way to defeat Hillary in the primaries, and to run an extremely effective campaign against George W. Bush ... thereby defeating John McCain ... who tried, but failed, to implement Bush's playbook ... which was based on 9/11. If our nation being at war ... our nation being attacked ... could be turned into a political issue, why should it shock me that the debt crisis was played the same. The rules of the game, right?
And so this brings me back to Barack. What to make of him? It's possible that he is just a dreamer with big ideas and soaring rhetoric, but without the necessary gusto to make things happen. It's possible that he's a centrist at heart who (operating under the rules of the game) ran to the left to beat Hillary, and now is being criticized for not pursuing a truly liberal agenda. It's possible that he just doesn't have the requisite experience to be President, but truthfully who does, and when was the last time someone seemed to have it in their first term? Maybe Nixon, who was corrupt but an effective politician well before winning the Presidency? Or maybe before that. Truman? Who knows?
But no matter the reason, Obama seems to be slipping in the one area he cannot afford to struggle with: his base. Politico reports that all signs indicate that the President's approval ratings are slipping from coast to coast in the bluest of blue states. Polls are just that, but it seems highly unlikely that he could be slipping across all these states and not have it be an indicator of some real issues in his brand and within his base. The article rightly asserts that the President need not worry about losing these Democratic strongholds ... I think New York and California will be safe ... but it questions what these numbers will mean for Obama in swing states. It's a valid question, and it deserves some analysis.
The good news for Obama is that the far left differs from the religious right in one major aspect, and it is the basis of Karl Rove's theory on winning elections (and, seeing as how he was two for two with Dubya, you can't really knock it or disprove it). Rove speculated, and polls and interviews have backed up, that the religious right is the most solidly Republican part of the country. He also postulated that there was almost no way for a Democrat to win their votes, which has also proven true. He furthermore acknowledged that there was not really a third party likely to split their votes off, like the Green Party had for the far left. They don't identify with the Libertarians too much, and last time I checked there wasn't much of a fascist party in the USA. But the real secret to Rove's theory (keep in mind this was pre-Tea Party) was that the religious right felt it had two options to choose from, even if it only had one party. They would vote Republican ... or they would stay home. While it's possible that this equation has changed some with the onset of the Tea Party (although I still don't believe they are a factor), Rove put it simply: fight for the religious right, win their votes, and win the Presidency. You cannot lose if you win the religious right. H.W. Bush didn't listen, refused to capitulate to the theory ... and lost to Clinton. Dubya bought it hook, line and sinker ... and won twice.
But for a candidate such as McCain, not readily identified with the religious right's values and aims, it was much more difficult to win, and he didn't. The good news in the polls for Obama is that the far left is much less likely to stay home, and the memory of Ralph Nader being blamed for Al Gore losing in 2000 is fresh enough that the party base is unlikely to stray too far. So if the fear isn't that he will lose the votes, what is the fear? Simply put, Obama has a tougher road to travel the more upset his base gets because he will have to spend more time appeasing them. And, by extension, less time running to the middle. Obama's ticket to reelection was always playing to the middle, and trying to convince independents that he was the good guy who was hamstrung by a liberal congress, then a non-negotiable conservative congress. "It's them, not me" if you will. And he can do that ... could have done that... so long as his own base was able to buy the argument.
Now, as we see subtle signs that his own base is saying "I'm not so sure anymore," Obama will be forced to run back to the left. As we established earlier, he doesn't have to do this so much to ensure their votes. He has to do this, instead, to ensure their money. No matter who he runs against, unless it's Michele Bachmann, Barack Obama will have to raise more money than ever before. Romney has strong business ties and will raise a ton. Perry has the good old boy network, and will raise a ton. Obama will need every penny to compete with the onslaught of ads he will be running against. He will need it so that he can level the playing field, and try to control the message.
The good news is that the liberal base hasn't decided it wants a primary fight yet, and as long as they avoid that colossal mistake they have the upper hand. But that grasp is fading, and based on the numbers we are seeing it is fading fast. Rick Perry's entrance into the race has actually been to the detriment of Obama as it has done two things team Obama did not want to see happen: it has marginalized Bachmann and solidified support around Romney. Perry is a powder keg waiting to explode, and when it does it will spew molten crazy all over. If that happens early enough then Bachmann can get back into the race; too late, and it will scare people right to Mitt. That's why you see Bachmann and Paul going after Perry as aggressively as they have been: they know it's now or never. Bachmann seemed incredibly strong in Iowa only a few weeks ago, but now it seems like the state is Perry's to lose. Iowa likes to buck the front runner, but it also likes to pick someone it thinks can be a winner. Bachmann was the obvious choice on the former point, but Perry fits both qualifications better. Unless Perry melts down, or we get concrete evidence that he is, in fact, stupid (as a number of articles have hinted at), he continues to make a three team race into a two team race. And it sets Romney up in the same position Obama was in 2008: he has to pander to his base just enough to split it, but can run to the middle in the Primary season as the moderate who can win, and he can build an independent base in doing so. I've said all along that Romney was the Republican with the best chance of taking down Obama ... and just when Barack is at his weakest point yet, things are turning in a positive way for Mitt. Needless to say, the long road to reelection continues to get harder for Mr. Obama.
I've been saying for quite some time now that there is almost no chance that this country will have anyone besides Barack Obama in office after the next election. I still believe that my statement, and the logic behind it, is mostly true. But the evidence keeps coming in, and it is starting, ever so slightly, to push this situation into more of a coin flip, a horse race if you will. For those of you unfamiliar with poker terms, a horse race is a situation where you get your money in with almost even odds. Pocket 8s against Ace-King, for example. Until recently it appeared to me that unless something drastically bad happened Obama would be much safer than 50/50. That was quite the statement, given the historical nature of the struggling economy, which typically drags incumbents down.
I felt that this was true do to the fact that the Republican Primary field was generally uninspiring or even downright scary. None of that has changed. The Republican field is perhaps even more uninspiring today than it was three months ago, and every day that we move closer to the election their is less of a chance that the mysterious "candidate x" will rush into the race, make the Republican ladies swoon and the men well with pride. As I've said: there isn't anyone out there. And that has made Obama much safer than he should have been, given all the other complicating factors.
Still, a few things have shifted that are making this road look less and less certain. First, every issue has become a knock down, drag out political fight. It seems that nothing gets done in Washington these days with bi-partisan support, and it has begun to seem like there aren't even fundamental principles that these sides can agree on. The debt deal is a great example of this: Republicans rushed to politicize the issue, not because they were against it, but because they could and they felt it would help them in the next election cycle. And the sad thing is, were the roles reversed, I have complete faith the Democrats would have done the same thing. But, unlike an issue like abortion or gay marriage, issues we are used to being highly politicized, this was our nation's credit ... and default. The brazen nature with which the full faith and credit of the United States became a political toy appalled me.
But should it have? This is the same nation in which the greatest national tragedy of our time, September 11th, became the penultimate political toy of our time. Bush used it to define who loved America and who didn't, and then used that differentiation to win elections for he and his like minded colleagues, and then used their combined political capital to push through a wide variety of economic legislation that deregulated everything to the point that our fiscal system has been on the brink of collapse for half a decade now. And, because you have to play by the rules of the game, Obama was able to use 9/11 in a different way to defeat Hillary in the primaries, and to run an extremely effective campaign against George W. Bush ... thereby defeating John McCain ... who tried, but failed, to implement Bush's playbook ... which was based on 9/11. If our nation being at war ... our nation being attacked ... could be turned into a political issue, why should it shock me that the debt crisis was played the same. The rules of the game, right?
And so this brings me back to Barack. What to make of him? It's possible that he is just a dreamer with big ideas and soaring rhetoric, but without the necessary gusto to make things happen. It's possible that he's a centrist at heart who (operating under the rules of the game) ran to the left to beat Hillary, and now is being criticized for not pursuing a truly liberal agenda. It's possible that he just doesn't have the requisite experience to be President, but truthfully who does, and when was the last time someone seemed to have it in their first term? Maybe Nixon, who was corrupt but an effective politician well before winning the Presidency? Or maybe before that. Truman? Who knows?
But no matter the reason, Obama seems to be slipping in the one area he cannot afford to struggle with: his base. Politico reports that all signs indicate that the President's approval ratings are slipping from coast to coast in the bluest of blue states. Polls are just that, but it seems highly unlikely that he could be slipping across all these states and not have it be an indicator of some real issues in his brand and within his base. The article rightly asserts that the President need not worry about losing these Democratic strongholds ... I think New York and California will be safe ... but it questions what these numbers will mean for Obama in swing states. It's a valid question, and it deserves some analysis.
The good news for Obama is that the far left differs from the religious right in one major aspect, and it is the basis of Karl Rove's theory on winning elections (and, seeing as how he was two for two with Dubya, you can't really knock it or disprove it). Rove speculated, and polls and interviews have backed up, that the religious right is the most solidly Republican part of the country. He also postulated that there was almost no way for a Democrat to win their votes, which has also proven true. He furthermore acknowledged that there was not really a third party likely to split their votes off, like the Green Party had for the far left. They don't identify with the Libertarians too much, and last time I checked there wasn't much of a fascist party in the USA. But the real secret to Rove's theory (keep in mind this was pre-Tea Party) was that the religious right felt it had two options to choose from, even if it only had one party. They would vote Republican ... or they would stay home. While it's possible that this equation has changed some with the onset of the Tea Party (although I still don't believe they are a factor), Rove put it simply: fight for the religious right, win their votes, and win the Presidency. You cannot lose if you win the religious right. H.W. Bush didn't listen, refused to capitulate to the theory ... and lost to Clinton. Dubya bought it hook, line and sinker ... and won twice.
But for a candidate such as McCain, not readily identified with the religious right's values and aims, it was much more difficult to win, and he didn't. The good news in the polls for Obama is that the far left is much less likely to stay home, and the memory of Ralph Nader being blamed for Al Gore losing in 2000 is fresh enough that the party base is unlikely to stray too far. So if the fear isn't that he will lose the votes, what is the fear? Simply put, Obama has a tougher road to travel the more upset his base gets because he will have to spend more time appeasing them. And, by extension, less time running to the middle. Obama's ticket to reelection was always playing to the middle, and trying to convince independents that he was the good guy who was hamstrung by a liberal congress, then a non-negotiable conservative congress. "It's them, not me" if you will. And he can do that ... could have done that... so long as his own base was able to buy the argument.
Now, as we see subtle signs that his own base is saying "I'm not so sure anymore," Obama will be forced to run back to the left. As we established earlier, he doesn't have to do this so much to ensure their votes. He has to do this, instead, to ensure their money. No matter who he runs against, unless it's Michele Bachmann, Barack Obama will have to raise more money than ever before. Romney has strong business ties and will raise a ton. Perry has the good old boy network, and will raise a ton. Obama will need every penny to compete with the onslaught of ads he will be running against. He will need it so that he can level the playing field, and try to control the message.
The good news is that the liberal base hasn't decided it wants a primary fight yet, and as long as they avoid that colossal mistake they have the upper hand. But that grasp is fading, and based on the numbers we are seeing it is fading fast. Rick Perry's entrance into the race has actually been to the detriment of Obama as it has done two things team Obama did not want to see happen: it has marginalized Bachmann and solidified support around Romney. Perry is a powder keg waiting to explode, and when it does it will spew molten crazy all over. If that happens early enough then Bachmann can get back into the race; too late, and it will scare people right to Mitt. That's why you see Bachmann and Paul going after Perry as aggressively as they have been: they know it's now or never. Bachmann seemed incredibly strong in Iowa only a few weeks ago, but now it seems like the state is Perry's to lose. Iowa likes to buck the front runner, but it also likes to pick someone it thinks can be a winner. Bachmann was the obvious choice on the former point, but Perry fits both qualifications better. Unless Perry melts down, or we get concrete evidence that he is, in fact, stupid (as a number of articles have hinted at), he continues to make a three team race into a two team race. And it sets Romney up in the same position Obama was in 2008: he has to pander to his base just enough to split it, but can run to the middle in the Primary season as the moderate who can win, and he can build an independent base in doing so. I've said all along that Romney was the Republican with the best chance of taking down Obama ... and just when Barack is at his weakest point yet, things are turning in a positive way for Mitt. Needless to say, the long road to reelection continues to get harder for Mr. Obama.
Sunday, August 14, 2011
2012 - The Handicapping Just Got Easier
In this post I referred to Tim Pawlenty as the "bland sacrificial lamb," who would only get the nomination if the GOP was certain they could not beat Obama. In this earlier post I wrote that Pawlenty was "a dry shite." It finds out that the GOP is not interested in having a dry shite as its' nominee, nor is Pawlenty interested in being the bland sacrificial lamb. And, so, after finishing "a disappointing" (but totally predictable) third in the Iowa straw poll (which Michelle Bachmann unsurprisingly won), Tim Paw announced today that he was withdrawing from the race.
I, admittedly, put more stock in Pawlenty's chances because he looked presidential. He looked youthful. And he had the opportunity to trick people into thinking that he had led a state successfully for two terms. But Pawlenty had quite a bit going against him as well:
-he was not going to stir up the masses (a la Bachmann)
-he was not going to have millions to spend ... er, waste (a la Romney)
-he did not have the name recognition (a la Gingrich, Giuliani)
No, the problem with Tim Pawlenty was just that: he was Tim Pawlenty, he came from Minnesota, and nobody really cared about him. He just doesn't register with the general public, and he never was going to. Give the man credit for stepping aside this early in the process, and not wasting any more money, although I'm sure that the straw poll had less to do with it than Rick Perry's announcement did. Perry is like a Pawlenty doppelganger, only slightly more dynamic on the mic.
As for now, anyone who says that they are shocked by Bachmann looking strong in Iowa needs to have their political acumen examined. Iowa is all about organization and extremism, on both sides of the political isle. Obama was able to take the caucus because he was that much more organized than Hillary, and he was not "mainstream" at that point. Iowa relishes "being first," and they equally relish telling the rest of the nation "you'll take this candidate and you'll love them!"
Still, it is interesting the Pawlenty decided to drop now, when the two candidates ahead of him were the crazy Michelle Bachmann and the equally crazy, but somehow more stable Ron Paul. Neither of these candidates are going to win the White House. Romney, smartly, decided not to contest the straw poll. Maybe that was Tim Paw's big error: he should have just kept his ball and stayed home. But the reality of the field is this: Romney will be strong, and the number one contender to go against him will probably need to win Iowa to have a shot. Rick Perry will kick his campaign into high gear in Iowa because he understands this fact. Romney has done well, thus far, to stay out of the fray. It behooves him to do so, because he can allow all his opponents to tear at each other, if they are dumb enough to ignore him. Obama was able to do this, to a point, in the early primary process in 2008. He allowed all the "also-rans" (most notably John Edwards) to take on Hillary, and he just looked better as a result. Romney would be smart to attempt the same once over on the Republican field, which is undoubtedly one of the reasons he's not trying hard for Iowa.
And so, unless something shocking occurs, the likely early game for the nomination will go something like this:
- Bachmann (or Perry) will take Iowa
- Romney will take New Hampshire
- South Carolina becomes a blood bath
If I was Mitt Romney I'd be trying to put my resources, as quietly as possible, into South Carolina. Rick Perry has, by default with Pawlenty's exit, become the "hey, that guy seems presidential" candidate. At this point, in August of 2011, it appears the race has solidified around three candidates: Rick Perry, Michele Bachmann, and Mitt Romney. There are a number of other candidates that could make some noise, but none who seem dynamic enough at this point to stop the wheels that are in motion. Somehow, even as Obama seems weaker by the day, his position becomes stronger by the moment.
I, admittedly, put more stock in Pawlenty's chances because he looked presidential. He looked youthful. And he had the opportunity to trick people into thinking that he had led a state successfully for two terms. But Pawlenty had quite a bit going against him as well:
-he was not going to stir up the masses (a la Bachmann)
-he was not going to have millions to spend ... er, waste (a la Romney)
-he did not have the name recognition (a la Gingrich, Giuliani)
No, the problem with Tim Pawlenty was just that: he was Tim Pawlenty, he came from Minnesota, and nobody really cared about him. He just doesn't register with the general public, and he never was going to. Give the man credit for stepping aside this early in the process, and not wasting any more money, although I'm sure that the straw poll had less to do with it than Rick Perry's announcement did. Perry is like a Pawlenty doppelganger, only slightly more dynamic on the mic.
As for now, anyone who says that they are shocked by Bachmann looking strong in Iowa needs to have their political acumen examined. Iowa is all about organization and extremism, on both sides of the political isle. Obama was able to take the caucus because he was that much more organized than Hillary, and he was not "mainstream" at that point. Iowa relishes "being first," and they equally relish telling the rest of the nation "you'll take this candidate and you'll love them!"
Still, it is interesting the Pawlenty decided to drop now, when the two candidates ahead of him were the crazy Michelle Bachmann and the equally crazy, but somehow more stable Ron Paul. Neither of these candidates are going to win the White House. Romney, smartly, decided not to contest the straw poll. Maybe that was Tim Paw's big error: he should have just kept his ball and stayed home. But the reality of the field is this: Romney will be strong, and the number one contender to go against him will probably need to win Iowa to have a shot. Rick Perry will kick his campaign into high gear in Iowa because he understands this fact. Romney has done well, thus far, to stay out of the fray. It behooves him to do so, because he can allow all his opponents to tear at each other, if they are dumb enough to ignore him. Obama was able to do this, to a point, in the early primary process in 2008. He allowed all the "also-rans" (most notably John Edwards) to take on Hillary, and he just looked better as a result. Romney would be smart to attempt the same once over on the Republican field, which is undoubtedly one of the reasons he's not trying hard for Iowa.
And so, unless something shocking occurs, the likely early game for the nomination will go something like this:
- Bachmann (or Perry) will take Iowa
- Romney will take New Hampshire
- South Carolina becomes a blood bath
If I was Mitt Romney I'd be trying to put my resources, as quietly as possible, into South Carolina. Rick Perry has, by default with Pawlenty's exit, become the "hey, that guy seems presidential" candidate. At this point, in August of 2011, it appears the race has solidified around three candidates: Rick Perry, Michele Bachmann, and Mitt Romney. There are a number of other candidates that could make some noise, but none who seem dynamic enough at this point to stop the wheels that are in motion. Somehow, even as Obama seems weaker by the day, his position becomes stronger by the moment.
Thursday, June 30, 2011
Uninspiring: An Updated Presidential Handicapping
A month ago I wrote this, labeling the favorites in the Republican field, and breaking down the "legit" candidates a bit. Well, quite a bit has happened since then. So we'll look at it again, both in terms of likelihood to win the nomination, and also to topple a weak El Presidente. Without any further delay, so you can get your bets in with the best information available (all candidates, again, listed by politico:
The "I Don't Have a Prayer, But I Sure Hope This Raises My Street Cred" Group
This group all comes in at less than 1% of a chance to win the nomination, as well as to take down B.H. Obama. What do they have in common? Obama would be tap dancing if they got the nod. In order from least likely to most likely:
- Buddy Roemer (still ... uh, who?) - 10,000 to 1 for the nomination; 50,000 to 1 to beat Obama
- Gary Johnson (not looking promising in Johnson world) - 10,000 to 1 for the nomination; 50,000 to 1 to beat Obama
-Ron Paul (say what you will, but at least this man has principles he stands on) - 9,000 to 1 to win the nomination; 60,000 to 1 to beat Obama
- Chris Christie (Still not looking good in his own backyard) - 9,000 to 1 for the nomination; 45,000 to 1 to beat Obama; 3 to 1 to be a one term governor
- Herman Cain (mmmm.... pizza) 8,000 to 1 for the nomination; 60,000 to 1 to beat Obama; 1 to 1 to make a killer pizza I wish I was eating right now.
"It's a Long Shot, But, Really, Who Truly Wants This Nomination?"
This group has the distinction of one former real player, plus some others who have distinguished themselves from the "also-ran" group a month ago.
- Newt Gingrich (Mr. "Honesty doesn't always pay") - 1,000 to 1 for the nomination; 10,000 to 1 to beat Obama; 1 to 2 to not even carry one state
- Rick Santorum (Saw him on MTP ... he's crazy) - 500 to 1 for the nomination; 1,000 to 1 to beat Obama; 2 to 1 to be involved in some Christian Terrorism event.
- Rick Perry (not even in the race yet, by the way) - 250 to 1 for the nomination; 1,000 to 1 to beat Obama; 3 to 1 to call Dubya for advice
- Sarah Palin (also not in the race yet) - 250 to 1 for the nomination; 10,000 to 1 to beat Obama; 4 to 1 to have a new reality show by 2012
- Others Not Yet Named (A.K.A. "the field") - 125 to 1 for the nomination; 500 to 1 to beat Obama; smart bet is to hedge this bet with the Romney-Bachmann super team
"Wait, WHO IS SURGING?" or "It's The End of The World as We Know It"
- Jon Huntsman (the dark horse Mormon) - 100 to 1 for the nomination; 250 to 1 to beat Obama; 10 to 1 to win the nomination, select Romney as his VeeP, and thus create a Mormon super team
- Rudi Guliani (Not in the race, but polling well) - 100 to 1 for the nomination; 250 to 1 to beat Obama; 10 to 1 to not declare until California this time, and wonder why he lost again
- Michele Bachmann (no ... seriously) - 50 to 1 for the nomination; 5,000 to 1 to beat Obama; even money to make people realize she's the more dangerous, charismatic Sarah Palin
"The Favorites"
- Mitt Romney (the leading Mormon) - 25 to 1 for the nomination; 50 to 1 to beat Obama; 3 to 1 to flip flop on universal healthcare more than 10,000 times during this election cycle
- Tim Pawlenty (the bland sacrificial lamb) - 20 to 1 for the nomination; 75 to 1 to beat Obama; 4 to 1 to be undone sometime in the future by a sex scandal (no information, just a hunch based on the way things seem to be going. Is it sad that we are more likely to lose a politician to sending pictures of his Weiner than we are for embezzling money? I vote yes).
- Barack Obama (El Presidente) - 1 to 500 for the Democratic nomination; 10 to 1 to beat himself; 1 to 10 to be giggling that, as the most vulnerable incumbent since Carter (if not before) he is running in a year when the Republicans, thus far, have only been able to drum up the aforementioned people.
So there you have it folks. Bet wisely.
The "I Don't Have a Prayer, But I Sure Hope This Raises My Street Cred" Group
This group all comes in at less than 1% of a chance to win the nomination, as well as to take down B.H. Obama. What do they have in common? Obama would be tap dancing if they got the nod. In order from least likely to most likely:
- Buddy Roemer (still ... uh, who?) - 10,000 to 1 for the nomination; 50,000 to 1 to beat Obama
- Gary Johnson (not looking promising in Johnson world) - 10,000 to 1 for the nomination; 50,000 to 1 to beat Obama
-Ron Paul (say what you will, but at least this man has principles he stands on) - 9,000 to 1 to win the nomination; 60,000 to 1 to beat Obama
- Chris Christie (Still not looking good in his own backyard) - 9,000 to 1 for the nomination; 45,000 to 1 to beat Obama; 3 to 1 to be a one term governor
- Herman Cain (mmmm.... pizza) 8,000 to 1 for the nomination; 60,000 to 1 to beat Obama; 1 to 1 to make a killer pizza I wish I was eating right now.
"It's a Long Shot, But, Really, Who Truly Wants This Nomination?"
This group has the distinction of one former real player, plus some others who have distinguished themselves from the "also-ran" group a month ago.
- Newt Gingrich (Mr. "Honesty doesn't always pay") - 1,000 to 1 for the nomination; 10,000 to 1 to beat Obama; 1 to 2 to not even carry one state
- Rick Santorum (Saw him on MTP ... he's crazy) - 500 to 1 for the nomination; 1,000 to 1 to beat Obama; 2 to 1 to be involved in some Christian Terrorism event.
- Rick Perry (not even in the race yet, by the way) - 250 to 1 for the nomination; 1,000 to 1 to beat Obama; 3 to 1 to call Dubya for advice
- Sarah Palin (also not in the race yet) - 250 to 1 for the nomination; 10,000 to 1 to beat Obama; 4 to 1 to have a new reality show by 2012
- Others Not Yet Named (A.K.A. "the field") - 125 to 1 for the nomination; 500 to 1 to beat Obama; smart bet is to hedge this bet with the Romney-Bachmann super team
"Wait, WHO IS SURGING?" or "It's The End of The World as We Know It"
- Jon Huntsman (the dark horse Mormon) - 100 to 1 for the nomination; 250 to 1 to beat Obama; 10 to 1 to win the nomination, select Romney as his VeeP, and thus create a Mormon super team
- Rudi Guliani (Not in the race, but polling well) - 100 to 1 for the nomination; 250 to 1 to beat Obama; 10 to 1 to not declare until California this time, and wonder why he lost again
- Michele Bachmann (no ... seriously) - 50 to 1 for the nomination; 5,000 to 1 to beat Obama; even money to make people realize she's the more dangerous, charismatic Sarah Palin
"The Favorites"
- Mitt Romney (the leading Mormon) - 25 to 1 for the nomination; 50 to 1 to beat Obama; 3 to 1 to flip flop on universal healthcare more than 10,000 times during this election cycle
- Tim Pawlenty (the bland sacrificial lamb) - 20 to 1 for the nomination; 75 to 1 to beat Obama; 4 to 1 to be undone sometime in the future by a sex scandal (no information, just a hunch based on the way things seem to be going. Is it sad that we are more likely to lose a politician to sending pictures of his Weiner than we are for embezzling money? I vote yes).
- Barack Obama (El Presidente) - 1 to 500 for the Democratic nomination; 10 to 1 to beat himself; 1 to 10 to be giggling that, as the most vulnerable incumbent since Carter (if not before) he is running in a year when the Republicans, thus far, have only been able to drum up the aforementioned people.
So there you have it folks. Bet wisely.
Thursday, June 2, 2011
Political Cannibalism
This Politico article has a basic premise that I've been espousing since the "Tea Party" became a "movement" during the last election cycle: that the Republican base was unwittingly setting itself up for that rare form of political cannibalism which will enable it's "movement" to be remembered historically for all the wrong reasons. Basically, former Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty (a "moderate" only when compared to the next person) and current Minnesota Congress Woman Michele "the crazies are coming" Bachmann (a "fascist" only when compared with 99.9% of other elected officials in this country) are both playing nice about the race being big enough for both of them, even though they will be competing for A) the same donor dollars, B) the same votes in states like Iowa and South Carolina, and C) the same votes in a potentially splintered, multi-candidate general election.
Wait, what? Multi-candidate general election. Of course there are always more than two candidates (and, yes, I know that even two candidates is multi-candidate, but it's not even six AM yet, stick with me), but this year could be wackier than normal. And, strangely enough, Bachmann might be the key to that wackiness. First, a history lesson. The year was 1901, and the United States was in the prime of one of our most beloved traditions: killing our leaders. The most recent victim was a fairly popular Commander in Chief: William McKinley. But out of that tragedy came one of our great triumphs: Teddy Roosevelt, who, at 43, became our youngest president, and also our most likely president to ride into the battle field, atop a horse, no matter what else was going on (well ... at least since George Washington ... or Andrew Jackson ... Jackson was a bad ass). Roosevelt finished out that term, then won reelection, then decided he'd had enough and essentially bequeathed the presidency to William Howard Taft, also known as the only President to be so fat that he got stuck in a bathtub.
Taft, by all accounts, was a serviceable politician, and he would later gain distinction as the only person to ever serve as President of the United States and on the Supreme Court of the United States. But he ultimately let Roosevelt down, which led to a contested nomination in the year 1912 for the Republican party (note to Democrats: this is one reason you don't want to fight Obama; also see Carter, Jimmy). Roosevelt came swooping back in to save the day, only the Republican base (largely consisting of back room, cigar smoking men in top hats if my mind's eye serves correct) didn't want to be saved. Roosevelt was too progressive, and too much his own man. Taft was easily controllable, especially when stuck in a bath tub. Taft was their man, and he won the nomination.
But Roosevelt never went down without a fight. He instead started his own party, the Progressive party, the Bull-Moose Party (please note: if I ever run for political office I will do my best to do it under the Bull-Moose Party), and he ran for President too. This was a more common concept in 1912 than it is today, but it is also the only time in the last century that a third party candidate factored into the general election (apologies to Ralph Nader).*
*at this point I should also apologize to the "fourth candidate" of 1912, Eugene Debs, who ran as the Socialist candidate. Not socialist like "Obama's a socialist." A real socialist. Contrary to our Republican conspiracy theorists, they do exist, and back then we did let them run for POTUS.
So the stage was set. The incumbent, William Taft. The previous incumbent, Mr. Popular, and all around American, Teddy Roosevelt. The boring intellectual Democrat (an Al Gore before his time, if you will), Woodrow Wilson (who, to this day, is our only President to have his PhD). What a fight! The Republicans hadn't lost to the Democrats in quite some time (I don't know if you've heard of this thing called The Civil War, but in most places it needs to be called The American Civil War. It happened in the first half of the 1860s, and the North had a Republican President, and the North, aka "the Union," won. Henceforth, a run of Republican Presidents that makes Karl Rove froth at the mouth).
The results looked a little something like this:
- Taft: 23.2% of the vote, 8 electoral votes
- Teddy Roosevelt: 27.4% of the vote, 88 electoral votes
- Woodrow Wilson: 41.8% of the vote, 435 electoral votes
Look at that Electoral College vote total! Woodrow Wilson annihilated the competition! Now look at the percentage of the vote. If Taft had run unopposed, or, more likely, if Taft had bowed out for Roosevelt, they would have had 50.6% of the vote. And would have taken a lot more states. And, you know, would have won. The Republican party split into two factions: a progressive faction and a conservative faction. The result was one of the greatest electoral whoopings of all time. Political Cannibalism.
I'd like to think that nobody in this country, even "Tea Party" people, are dumb enough politically to allow this to happen again. But this discussion serves a purpose, brought back to our initial discussion of Bachmann and Pawlenty. The party is as split as it has been since that 1912 election. In the aftermath, the "Bull-Moose" party faded into the annuls of history; the Republican brand outlived it. I've got news for all the "Tea Party" people out there: a Bull-Moose like level is the best that you can hope for. I've been saying since you started climbing out from underneath rocks that this was the best you could hope for: being one paragraph in a history text sixty years from now for my grandchildren to read. But the key is not just to have a movement; anybody can do that. The key is to have a candidate who has the hubris to push the envelope against all odds, and against all logic. Teddy Roosevelt was one of our greatest presidents, but he either: A) refused to consider that his candidacy would indirectly support Wilson, B) considered this, but didn't care, or C) knew this, and determined that Wilson met closer with his ideals than Taft. He's not here, so I don't know which it is, but I do know this:
1. The "Republican Base" is about 45% of all people who vote
2. The "Tea Party" could pull 10% of that vote if they had a candidate crazy enough to stir them up
3. If that happens, it makes it impossible, and no longer just unlikely, for a Republican to win this year.
Bachmann has been put in the drivers seat in Iowa with Huckabee leaving the race. If she wins Iowa she gets credence in the race. If she does that she gets more money donated. If that happens she sticks around longer, and gets even closer to pulling the trigger on her own run, regardless of the party nomination. If the nomination is someone like Pawlenty I don't see this being viable, but if the party nominates the "Massachusetts liberal" Romney? I could very easily see a backlash from "Tea Party" people who think they are doing what's right for their country. And from what I've seen, heard and read, most of those people are dumb enough not to realize that their support of Bachmann/Palin as the "Tea Party" candidate is actually every bit as potent as voting for Obama.
So, in short, all Democrat boosters should work hard to build up Bachmann's candidacy. Not that Obama will need it, but it's always good to have insurance. It is, after all, the 100 year anniversary of Teddy Roosevelt throwing an election to the Democrats. I'm sure he'd be proud to have Michele Bachmann pick up his mantle.
Wait, what? Multi-candidate general election. Of course there are always more than two candidates (and, yes, I know that even two candidates is multi-candidate, but it's not even six AM yet, stick with me), but this year could be wackier than normal. And, strangely enough, Bachmann might be the key to that wackiness. First, a history lesson. The year was 1901, and the United States was in the prime of one of our most beloved traditions: killing our leaders. The most recent victim was a fairly popular Commander in Chief: William McKinley. But out of that tragedy came one of our great triumphs: Teddy Roosevelt, who, at 43, became our youngest president, and also our most likely president to ride into the battle field, atop a horse, no matter what else was going on (well ... at least since George Washington ... or Andrew Jackson ... Jackson was a bad ass). Roosevelt finished out that term, then won reelection, then decided he'd had enough and essentially bequeathed the presidency to William Howard Taft, also known as the only President to be so fat that he got stuck in a bathtub.
Taft, by all accounts, was a serviceable politician, and he would later gain distinction as the only person to ever serve as President of the United States and on the Supreme Court of the United States. But he ultimately let Roosevelt down, which led to a contested nomination in the year 1912 for the Republican party (note to Democrats: this is one reason you don't want to fight Obama; also see Carter, Jimmy). Roosevelt came swooping back in to save the day, only the Republican base (largely consisting of back room, cigar smoking men in top hats if my mind's eye serves correct) didn't want to be saved. Roosevelt was too progressive, and too much his own man. Taft was easily controllable, especially when stuck in a bath tub. Taft was their man, and he won the nomination.
But Roosevelt never went down without a fight. He instead started his own party, the Progressive party, the Bull-Moose Party (please note: if I ever run for political office I will do my best to do it under the Bull-Moose Party), and he ran for President too. This was a more common concept in 1912 than it is today, but it is also the only time in the last century that a third party candidate factored into the general election (apologies to Ralph Nader).*
*at this point I should also apologize to the "fourth candidate" of 1912, Eugene Debs, who ran as the Socialist candidate. Not socialist like "Obama's a socialist." A real socialist. Contrary to our Republican conspiracy theorists, they do exist, and back then we did let them run for POTUS.
So the stage was set. The incumbent, William Taft. The previous incumbent, Mr. Popular, and all around American, Teddy Roosevelt. The boring intellectual Democrat (an Al Gore before his time, if you will), Woodrow Wilson (who, to this day, is our only President to have his PhD). What a fight! The Republicans hadn't lost to the Democrats in quite some time (I don't know if you've heard of this thing called The Civil War, but in most places it needs to be called The American Civil War. It happened in the first half of the 1860s, and the North had a Republican President, and the North, aka "the Union," won. Henceforth, a run of Republican Presidents that makes Karl Rove froth at the mouth).
The results looked a little something like this:
- Taft: 23.2% of the vote, 8 electoral votes
- Teddy Roosevelt: 27.4% of the vote, 88 electoral votes
- Woodrow Wilson: 41.8% of the vote, 435 electoral votes
Look at that Electoral College vote total! Woodrow Wilson annihilated the competition! Now look at the percentage of the vote. If Taft had run unopposed, or, more likely, if Taft had bowed out for Roosevelt, they would have had 50.6% of the vote. And would have taken a lot more states. And, you know, would have won. The Republican party split into two factions: a progressive faction and a conservative faction. The result was one of the greatest electoral whoopings of all time. Political Cannibalism.
I'd like to think that nobody in this country, even "Tea Party" people, are dumb enough politically to allow this to happen again. But this discussion serves a purpose, brought back to our initial discussion of Bachmann and Pawlenty. The party is as split as it has been since that 1912 election. In the aftermath, the "Bull-Moose" party faded into the annuls of history; the Republican brand outlived it. I've got news for all the "Tea Party" people out there: a Bull-Moose like level is the best that you can hope for. I've been saying since you started climbing out from underneath rocks that this was the best you could hope for: being one paragraph in a history text sixty years from now for my grandchildren to read. But the key is not just to have a movement; anybody can do that. The key is to have a candidate who has the hubris to push the envelope against all odds, and against all logic. Teddy Roosevelt was one of our greatest presidents, but he either: A) refused to consider that his candidacy would indirectly support Wilson, B) considered this, but didn't care, or C) knew this, and determined that Wilson met closer with his ideals than Taft. He's not here, so I don't know which it is, but I do know this:
1. The "Republican Base" is about 45% of all people who vote
2. The "Tea Party" could pull 10% of that vote if they had a candidate crazy enough to stir them up
3. If that happens, it makes it impossible, and no longer just unlikely, for a Republican to win this year.
Bachmann has been put in the drivers seat in Iowa with Huckabee leaving the race. If she wins Iowa she gets credence in the race. If she does that she gets more money donated. If that happens she sticks around longer, and gets even closer to pulling the trigger on her own run, regardless of the party nomination. If the nomination is someone like Pawlenty I don't see this being viable, but if the party nominates the "Massachusetts liberal" Romney? I could very easily see a backlash from "Tea Party" people who think they are doing what's right for their country. And from what I've seen, heard and read, most of those people are dumb enough not to realize that their support of Bachmann/Palin as the "Tea Party" candidate is actually every bit as potent as voting for Obama.
So, in short, all Democrat boosters should work hard to build up Bachmann's candidacy. Not that Obama will need it, but it's always good to have insurance. It is, after all, the 100 year anniversary of Teddy Roosevelt throwing an election to the Democrats. I'm sure he'd be proud to have Michele Bachmann pick up his mantle.
Thursday, May 26, 2011
AAAAHHHHH!
Crazy people are coming to Iowa! Look out!
(click on the link to find out more. I'm curious what everyone's thoughts are on this, so feel free to chime in.)
(click on the link to find out more. I'm curious what everyone's thoughts are on this, so feel free to chime in.)
Wednesday, May 25, 2011
2012: An Early Handicapping
"We've been sitting on the fence for far too long..."
Okay, so this is a lyric from the legendary musical "Jesus Christ Superstar," but it also has relevance when connected with my shocking silence on the 2012 presidential race. Do you realize it's only seventeen months before the election? I haven't told you what's going to happen yet! You won't know who to vote for if you want to vote for a winner! Ah!!!!!
...
....
............. don't worry friends. I'm here to help you. In fact, let's break down the candidates, as they stand right now. You can thank me later.
Democrats
Barack Obama (incumbent ... in case you've been in a coma since election night 2008)
The Pros: he's the incumbent, although as Jimmy Carter famously showed us in 1980, that doesn't stop your own party from trying to off you. So the fact that Obama looks strong enough to avoid the ghost of Ted Kennedy trying to usurp him is a good start. Beyond that, the economy appears to be slowly, but steadily improving. We won in Iraq (kind of). We are winning in Afghanistan (I think). We finally put Osama bin Laden in check mate (unless you believe the same people who believe Obama isn't an American citizen ... in which case I can't help you). The biggest advantage our current president has is that he is, well, presidential. That only matters when you look at the field of people who will be challenging him ... but trust me, it will matter in this race. His last poll numbers indicated that 30% of Americans will absolutely vote for him, 38% will absolutely not vote for him, and the rest are up in the air. While it is always true that a good number of these "undecided" folks just like to pretend they are undecided, and in fact already know they will or won't vote for Barack (cut to my father silently nodding), it still is interesting information.
The Cons: Where to start? How about with the fact that his economic policy is virtually identical to Dubya's in every way. Don't believe me? Look at this list:
My head hurts...
Anyway, couple Obama's less than impressive economic policy with a foreign policy that I would argue has been solid, but which will be distorted by the right on the following points:
Republicans
Straight from Politico.com's "Candidate Hub"
Tim Pawlenty - former governor of Minnesota
The Pros: He looks young, which will help him when he is contrasted to el presidente. Just tell John McCain this doesn't matter. Today he was in Washington, DC, at the Cato Institute giving a speech entitled "What Washington can learn from Minnesota." I bet he thinks that Washington can learn paw-lenty from Minnesota. Sorry, couldn't resist. Anyway, he also "tweeted" that we should remember that the 10th amendment still works, and that he would "block grant" medicaid funds to the states for their dispersal. Interestingly enough, I don't disagree with this statement. As for actual pros beyond his youthful look, he just released a book, which always helps, and he ran the state of Minnesota competently (from what I can tell) for two terms. Still, his big promise was to balance the budget, a task which he will tell you he accomplished
The Cons: ... and I regret to inform you he did not. Well, he did, in the short term. But he left the state $4.4 billion short for the next two years by rearranging things so that he could say he balanced the budget. Man, that changed from a pro to a con quick. He better hope Obama doesn't have anyone on his staff who can type his name into a google search. Also, he better hope Obama decides not to debate him. Because this man is, in the word's of a good Irishman I know, "a dry shite" That said, he's the odds on favorite to take the nomination because the two most likely nominees (Mike Huckabee and Mitch Daniels) decided that they would rather A) keep making half a million dollars from Fox (Huckabee) or B) not get divorced for a second time from the same lady (Daniels). What, too soon for the divorce jokes? Well, maybe if Daniels hadn't been such a train wreck for the state of Indiana I'd reconsider.
Sarah Palin - Former Governor of Alaska (briefly); Bristol's mother (famously); Alaskan Bear Hunter (I think ... Palin's Alaska, right?)
The Pros: As Jon Stewart can tell you, it's been a long few years since Dubya departed. Comedy works best when we have a fearless leader who specializes in unintentional comedy. Dubya did. Obama doesn't. Palin? Oh. My. Gawd. If somehow she decides to declare I will be forced to vote in the primaries this year, just on the wing and a prayer she gets the nomination. Then I will have to TIVO every comedy show every night. Sarah Palin is the very definition of unintentional comedy.
The Cons: Let's see ... train wreck as a VP candidate? Check. Left only term as Governor early for no clear reason, but we think it was to hawk a book and make money at Fox News? Check. Has a reality TV show? Check. Can't name one Supreme Court decision, even though she's a far right conservative who you'd think would be screaming out "ROE V WADE" in her sleep? Check. Let's just say that if Vegas was laying odds, I'd slam the line on "stays at Fox News, a la Huckabee." Although if the Republican primary produces someone semi-liberal, it's possible the "tea party" would beg her to run on their ticket. So we might win either way. Oh, her twitter account? "Tumultuous world gotcha' flummoxed? Divert w/tuning 2 unifying, sweet competition; Dancing w/the Stars TEAM BALLAS competes in finals tonite" That's an exact quote. She writes like she speaks.
- John Huntsman (former Ambassador to China for Obama)
- Ron Paul (last real libertarian left in the country; congressman from Tejas)
- John Bolton (crazy person ... that's his official title, right?)
- Rick Santorum (I got really excited for the 3.7 seconds I thought this was former CNN anchor Rick Sanchez ... the got sad. He's a former senator from Pennsylvania)
- Herman Cain (owner of Godfather's Pizza)
- Buddy Roemer (um... who?)
- Gary Johnson (Willie Nelson dropped his endorsement ... not a good sign)
- Chris Christie (Governor of New Jersey who probably couldn't even carry his own state)
I've lumped this group together because none of them are real candidates. But many of them will be entertaining between now and when they all fall out of the race. Which will be anywhere from next week to the South Carolina Primary. Except for Herman Cain and Ron Paul. I could totally see those two running it out to the very end, then sitting down for pizza and a beer.
Mitt Romney - Former Governor of Massachusetts; 2008 Republican Primary Candidate; Mormon
The Pros: the one candidate in this crowded, underwhelming field who could do what you have to do to win the election: run to the middle and win the independent vote. He has knowledge on business, on health care, and the experience of running a campaign before. He also has really, really awesome hair. Mitch Daniels might have pulled out of the race because he was intimidated by Romney's hair.
The Cons: Um ... he's a Mormon. Which I have absolutely no problem with, but unfortunately for Mitt, the vast majority of Republican Primary voters are hard core evangelical Christians. Which means they do have a problem with it. He's also just a tad bit on the slimy side, and he has the stink of getting dominated last time around by McCain to wear off. Let me paint you a picture: somehow the primary voters get it right, want to give Obama the biggest run for his money possible, and they nominate Mitt. The "Tea Party," up in arms over a "Massachusetts Liberal" who is a "no good Mormon" being the party nominee, convinces Sarah Palin to run for president, with our next "candidate" as her vice presidential nominee ... leading to the following vote break down: Obama 47% - Romney 44% - Palin 8% - Mickey Mouse .0043% - Nader .0000001%
Seem far fetched? It's not. Especially when you get that extra strong dose of crazy to be the VP nominee. America? Are you ready for some....
Michele Bachmann - Congresswoman from Minnesota; succubus; sane compared with anyone
The Pros: There are none. Just google search this nut job and be terrified that anyone would vote her into office. Adolph Hitler would look center left when compared with the "Bach-Man." Not even unintentionally funny; rather, I believe she is intentionally scary. Very scary. But the "Tea Party" followers adore her. Which makes me terrified of them.
The Cons: Again, just google search her. Just don't let your kids. They might never sleep again.
Newt Gingrich - hypocrite extraordinaire; last person to successfully shut down the government
The Pros: He's a household name which means it would be very easy for him to get the vote of the 80% of Americans who don't actually pay attention to who the candidates are. He also helped Clinton (eventually) to balance the budget. And his name is "Newt," which has to count for something, right?
The Cons: Besides his awful performance on Meet the Press last week, there is the fact that he is an intsy bit racist (calling Obama a "food stamp president,"), and the fact that he's a complete hypocrite. You know, pushing for the US government to spend millions upon millions of dollars trying to convict Clinton of, essentially, infidelity, when he was actively cheating on his wife at the same time ... then blaming it on how much he loves his country. Look out world: patriotism leads to adultery. Just ask Newt.
Rudy Giuliani - Former New York Mayor; 2008 front runner who blew his nomination
The Pros: a "liberal" republican who has name recognition due to 9/11. Also, I'm not sure you know this, but the ten year anniversary is coming up. Which has got to help him rebuild his brand. Also, he can't possibly allow himself to be a non-factor for the first month like he did last time, right?
The Cons: anyone who runs as bad of a campaign as he did in 2008 shouldn't be allowed to run again. Not competing until Florida essentially lost him the race before he began running. It was comical.
So friends, there you have it. The list. As I touched on above, only Romney stands a chance against Obama, because he'd be able to compete with him for the independent votes, hold his own in the debates, and has the best track record of all the republican candidates. That said, it's tough to imagine the republican electorate being smart enough to nominate him. Anyone else will get slammed, and even if they pick Romney the Palin/Bachmann "Tea Party" counter isn't far fetched. All things told, then, here are my handicapping for the Republican Nomination, as well as the general election at this time:
Republican Nomination:
- Pawlenty - 30%
- Romney - 20%
- Christie - 5%
- Huntsman - 5%
- Gingrich - 3%
- Guliani - 3%
- Santorum -3%
- Palin - 1.5%
- Paul - 1.25%
- Bachman -.25%
- Other's named above - 1%
- Dark Horse not yet named - 27%
That's right ... only Pawlenty has a better chance than the group that hasn't even decided to run yet. That's how bad this field is. I should also note that I put Christie third, after not even talking about him earlier, based entirely on my mother's prediction. There you go mom. I'll give your insight some validation.
As for the general election, my crystal ball tells me there are three possibilities:
Obama 52% - Pawlenty 46%
Obama 47% - Romney 44% - Tea Party 8%
Obama 54% - Random Republican Scrub 44%
I suppose that a Jeb Bush (the good Bush) or someone of that ilk could change things up. But at this point I've not read, seen, or heard any indication that Obama won't do this year what Clinton did in 1996: wipe the floor with his opponent.
Okay, so this is a lyric from the legendary musical "Jesus Christ Superstar," but it also has relevance when connected with my shocking silence on the 2012 presidential race. Do you realize it's only seventeen months before the election? I haven't told you what's going to happen yet! You won't know who to vote for if you want to vote for a winner! Ah!!!!!
...
....
............. don't worry friends. I'm here to help you. In fact, let's break down the candidates, as they stand right now. You can thank me later.
Democrats
Barack Obama (incumbent ... in case you've been in a coma since election night 2008)
The Pros: he's the incumbent, although as Jimmy Carter famously showed us in 1980, that doesn't stop your own party from trying to off you. So the fact that Obama looks strong enough to avoid the ghost of Ted Kennedy trying to usurp him is a good start. Beyond that, the economy appears to be slowly, but steadily improving. We won in Iraq (kind of). We are winning in Afghanistan (I think). We finally put Osama bin Laden in check mate (unless you believe the same people who believe Obama isn't an American citizen ... in which case I can't help you). The biggest advantage our current president has is that he is, well, presidential. That only matters when you look at the field of people who will be challenging him ... but trust me, it will matter in this race. His last poll numbers indicated that 30% of Americans will absolutely vote for him, 38% will absolutely not vote for him, and the rest are up in the air. While it is always true that a good number of these "undecided" folks just like to pretend they are undecided, and in fact already know they will or won't vote for Barack (cut to my father silently nodding), it still is interesting information.
The Cons: Where to start? How about with the fact that his economic policy is virtually identical to Dubya's in every way. Don't believe me? Look at this list:
- Keep taxes down in a way which helps the rich disproportionally - CHECK
- Bail out any and every corrupt or poorly run business which is going under - CHECK
- Pass massive healthcare legislation without cutting elsewhere (Bush's prescription drug benefit, Obama's Obamacare, which would have been better if it was actually Obamacare and not so much the Pelosicare that it turned out to be) - BIG **** CHECK
- Look the other way while our national debt skyrockets - CHECK
- Ignore the fact that our welfare system is broken - CHECK
My head hurts...
Anyway, couple Obama's less than impressive economic policy with a foreign policy that I would argue has been solid, but which will be distorted by the right on the following points:
- Not releasing Bin Laden's photo
- Not handling Iraq, Iran, Libya, Afghanistan, and the rest of the Middle East right
- Israeli lobby. Need I say more?
- Europe's deterioration as an ally
- The border (just wait; it'll be an issue again)
- The Russians
- The Chinese
- Damn near everybody short of the Canadians and Australians
Republicans
Straight from Politico.com's "Candidate Hub"
Tim Pawlenty - former governor of Minnesota
The Pros: He looks young, which will help him when he is contrasted to el presidente. Just tell John McCain this doesn't matter. Today he was in Washington, DC, at the Cato Institute giving a speech entitled "What Washington can learn from Minnesota." I bet he thinks that Washington can learn paw-lenty from Minnesota. Sorry, couldn't resist. Anyway, he also "tweeted" that we should remember that the 10th amendment still works, and that he would "block grant" medicaid funds to the states for their dispersal. Interestingly enough, I don't disagree with this statement. As for actual pros beyond his youthful look, he just released a book, which always helps, and he ran the state of Minnesota competently (from what I can tell) for two terms. Still, his big promise was to balance the budget, a task which he will tell you he accomplished
The Cons: ... and I regret to inform you he did not. Well, he did, in the short term. But he left the state $4.4 billion short for the next two years by rearranging things so that he could say he balanced the budget. Man, that changed from a pro to a con quick. He better hope Obama doesn't have anyone on his staff who can type his name into a google search. Also, he better hope Obama decides not to debate him. Because this man is, in the word's of a good Irishman I know, "a dry shite" That said, he's the odds on favorite to take the nomination because the two most likely nominees (Mike Huckabee and Mitch Daniels) decided that they would rather A) keep making half a million dollars from Fox (Huckabee) or B) not get divorced for a second time from the same lady (Daniels). What, too soon for the divorce jokes? Well, maybe if Daniels hadn't been such a train wreck for the state of Indiana I'd reconsider.
Sarah Palin - Former Governor of Alaska (briefly); Bristol's mother (famously); Alaskan Bear Hunter (I think ... Palin's Alaska, right?)
The Pros: As Jon Stewart can tell you, it's been a long few years since Dubya departed. Comedy works best when we have a fearless leader who specializes in unintentional comedy. Dubya did. Obama doesn't. Palin? Oh. My. Gawd. If somehow she decides to declare I will be forced to vote in the primaries this year, just on the wing and a prayer she gets the nomination. Then I will have to TIVO every comedy show every night. Sarah Palin is the very definition of unintentional comedy.
The Cons: Let's see ... train wreck as a VP candidate? Check. Left only term as Governor early for no clear reason, but we think it was to hawk a book and make money at Fox News? Check. Has a reality TV show? Check. Can't name one Supreme Court decision, even though she's a far right conservative who you'd think would be screaming out "ROE V WADE" in her sleep? Check. Let's just say that if Vegas was laying odds, I'd slam the line on "stays at Fox News, a la Huckabee." Although if the Republican primary produces someone semi-liberal, it's possible the "tea party" would beg her to run on their ticket. So we might win either way. Oh, her twitter account? "Tumultuous world gotcha' flummoxed? Divert w/tuning 2 unifying, sweet competition; Dancing w/the Stars TEAM BALLAS competes in finals tonite" That's an exact quote. She writes like she speaks.
- John Huntsman (former Ambassador to China for Obama)
- Ron Paul (last real libertarian left in the country; congressman from Tejas)
- John Bolton (crazy person ... that's his official title, right?)
- Rick Santorum (I got really excited for the 3.7 seconds I thought this was former CNN anchor Rick Sanchez ... the got sad. He's a former senator from Pennsylvania)
- Herman Cain (owner of Godfather's Pizza)
- Buddy Roemer (um... who?)
- Gary Johnson (Willie Nelson dropped his endorsement ... not a good sign)
- Chris Christie (Governor of New Jersey who probably couldn't even carry his own state)
I've lumped this group together because none of them are real candidates. But many of them will be entertaining between now and when they all fall out of the race. Which will be anywhere from next week to the South Carolina Primary. Except for Herman Cain and Ron Paul. I could totally see those two running it out to the very end, then sitting down for pizza and a beer.
Mitt Romney - Former Governor of Massachusetts; 2008 Republican Primary Candidate; Mormon
The Pros: the one candidate in this crowded, underwhelming field who could do what you have to do to win the election: run to the middle and win the independent vote. He has knowledge on business, on health care, and the experience of running a campaign before. He also has really, really awesome hair. Mitch Daniels might have pulled out of the race because he was intimidated by Romney's hair.
The Cons: Um ... he's a Mormon. Which I have absolutely no problem with, but unfortunately for Mitt, the vast majority of Republican Primary voters are hard core evangelical Christians. Which means they do have a problem with it. He's also just a tad bit on the slimy side, and he has the stink of getting dominated last time around by McCain to wear off. Let me paint you a picture: somehow the primary voters get it right, want to give Obama the biggest run for his money possible, and they nominate Mitt. The "Tea Party," up in arms over a "Massachusetts Liberal" who is a "no good Mormon" being the party nominee, convinces Sarah Palin to run for president, with our next "candidate" as her vice presidential nominee ... leading to the following vote break down: Obama 47% - Romney 44% - Palin 8% - Mickey Mouse .0043% - Nader .0000001%
Seem far fetched? It's not. Especially when you get that extra strong dose of crazy to be the VP nominee. America? Are you ready for some....
Michele Bachmann - Congresswoman from Minnesota; succubus; sane compared with anyone
The Pros: There are none. Just google search this nut job and be terrified that anyone would vote her into office. Adolph Hitler would look center left when compared with the "Bach-Man." Not even unintentionally funny; rather, I believe she is intentionally scary. Very scary. But the "Tea Party" followers adore her. Which makes me terrified of them.
The Cons: Again, just google search her. Just don't let your kids. They might never sleep again.
Newt Gingrich - hypocrite extraordinaire; last person to successfully shut down the government
The Pros: He's a household name which means it would be very easy for him to get the vote of the 80% of Americans who don't actually pay attention to who the candidates are. He also helped Clinton (eventually) to balance the budget. And his name is "Newt," which has to count for something, right?
The Cons: Besides his awful performance on Meet the Press last week, there is the fact that he is an intsy bit racist (calling Obama a "food stamp president,"), and the fact that he's a complete hypocrite. You know, pushing for the US government to spend millions upon millions of dollars trying to convict Clinton of, essentially, infidelity, when he was actively cheating on his wife at the same time ... then blaming it on how much he loves his country. Look out world: patriotism leads to adultery. Just ask Newt.
Rudy Giuliani - Former New York Mayor; 2008 front runner who blew his nomination
The Pros: a "liberal" republican who has name recognition due to 9/11. Also, I'm not sure you know this, but the ten year anniversary is coming up. Which has got to help him rebuild his brand. Also, he can't possibly allow himself to be a non-factor for the first month like he did last time, right?
The Cons: anyone who runs as bad of a campaign as he did in 2008 shouldn't be allowed to run again. Not competing until Florida essentially lost him the race before he began running. It was comical.
So friends, there you have it. The list. As I touched on above, only Romney stands a chance against Obama, because he'd be able to compete with him for the independent votes, hold his own in the debates, and has the best track record of all the republican candidates. That said, it's tough to imagine the republican electorate being smart enough to nominate him. Anyone else will get slammed, and even if they pick Romney the Palin/Bachmann "Tea Party" counter isn't far fetched. All things told, then, here are my handicapping for the Republican Nomination, as well as the general election at this time:
Republican Nomination:
- Pawlenty - 30%
- Romney - 20%
- Christie - 5%
- Huntsman - 5%
- Gingrich - 3%
- Guliani - 3%
- Santorum -3%
- Palin - 1.5%
- Paul - 1.25%
- Bachman -.25%
- Other's named above - 1%
- Dark Horse not yet named - 27%
That's right ... only Pawlenty has a better chance than the group that hasn't even decided to run yet. That's how bad this field is. I should also note that I put Christie third, after not even talking about him earlier, based entirely on my mother's prediction. There you go mom. I'll give your insight some validation.
As for the general election, my crystal ball tells me there are three possibilities:
Obama 52% - Pawlenty 46%
Obama 47% - Romney 44% - Tea Party 8%
Obama 54% - Random Republican Scrub 44%
I suppose that a Jeb Bush (the good Bush) or someone of that ilk could change things up. But at this point I've not read, seen, or heard any indication that Obama won't do this year what Clinton did in 1996: wipe the floor with his opponent.
Saturday, July 4, 2009
The GOP: A Comedy of Errors
Even before everyone's favorite Governor of Alaska decided to abruptly call it quits yesterday I was wanting to write on the current state of the GOP. I am a big believer that this country needs a unified, articulate, successful opposition to help the party in power govern. That President Clinton's most successful years came while working with a Republican controlled House is not a fluke, in my opinion. But here we are, well into the first year of the Obama Presidency, and the Democrats are being forced to have a dialogue with themselves. The Republicans are running out Cheney, Gingrich, McCain and Romney to spit out talking points, which is an awful lot like the San Diego Chargers running Johnny Unitas out in the 1973 season: past success doesn't change the fact that they are washed up and, generally speaking, useless. But to fully understand how we got here, and then to appreciate the awful situation which the GOP finds itself in, we need to take into consideration the past nine years. Only then can one begin to truly grasp how badly the Republicans screwed themselves, and how lacking they are in national political talent.Think back to early 2001. Following the divided election of George W. Bush the country was split, and the GOP had seemingly won little to nothing; while they held the Presidency they also were on uneven ground. Bush and his team worked to pick off a conservative Democrat here and there in an attempt to move forward a pretty uninspiring domestic agenda. His team still came out firing, primarily on education. The Democrats, on the whole, seemed willing to work with Bush on issues which were mutually beneficial, while being more than willing to hold their ground and wait four years to take back the White House.
September 11, 2001 changed everything. It unified the country behind Bush, and it gave his Presidency a sense of purpose it had been lacking up to that point. The Democrats could no longer afford to stone wall Bush on issues they disagreed with him on (not that many of them wanted to any longer) for fear of being branded as "unpatriotic." The President's approval ratings shot to record highs, and he ended up with the political capital he was left without following his controversial election victory. Everyone fell in line behind him, and an entire legislative agenda was pushed through with little to no opposition.
By the midterm elections of 2002 the country was still more or less behind the President, and, by extension, his agenda. His approval rating, while down considerably from the 90% average he enjoyed following 9-11, still sat in the 60% range. Bush ... ok, Karl Rove ... used this popularity to do two things. First, he singled out those Democrats who had not fallen in line (and even some who had), those who were from more conservative districts, and began to paint a picture of them as "weak on terror" and, yes, "unpatriotic" for not supporting our troops. Second, Bush began canvassing the nation to campaign for any and every Republican candidate for office. I saw this in person when, in 2002, Bush came to South Bend Regional Airport to stump for Chris Chocola, an exceptionally weak candidate who's credentials were 1) being rich, and 2) being conservative. Running in a moderate to moderate liberal district, Chocola was given the upper hand by a lack of a viable Democratic candidate (Jill Long Thompson, the same joke the Democrats ran against Mitch Daniels in 2008), and by the President's popularity in Indiana. Bush pulled in $650,000 in one fundraiser alone for Chocola, and Chocola ended up winning the race.
George Washington University, in their 2002 midterm election review, noted that the President had "put his political capital on the line ... to an unprecedented degree." Historically, midterm elections are a bad time for the party of the sitting president, as they almost always lose seats (see Gingrich, Newt and "Contract With America," circa 1994 midterm election). Bush and his team bucked this trend in 2002, gaining seats in the House, taking back the senate, and even making gains in Governor's races and state legislatures across the country. Going forward having consolidated power and influence in the House and the Senate, Bush pushed onward with his biggest 1st term blunder: the 2003 invasion of Iraq. (Although I am admittedly biased, I will always maintain that his response to Hurricane Katrina was his biggest sin ... but that's another post for another day).
By 2004 Bush had seen his approval rating drop below 50%, and the war in Iraq had gone from an initial hit to a succubus which would eventually drain his Presidency of its capability to accomplish ... well, anything. Still, the Democrats were more than happy to help Bush out, nominating John F. Kerry, the unimpressive Junior Senator from Massachusetts, to run against him. In 2000 Bush had feasted on Al Gore's mind-numbing droning on during debates. In 2004 he got all the dryness of Gore with the unique Kerry style of not really standing for anything. That Bush would win re-election, given the circumstances, was not shocking; he was a wartime President running against a bland candidate who could not really be described as a better option. What was shocking on election night 2004 (and also a tribute to Rove's Machiavellian approach to elections) was that the GOP gained again in the House and the Senate.
With an unpopular President and an unpopular war, how was it that the Republicans continued to consolidate their power? Rove's political strategies, detailed well in many places, basically came down to one thing: polarize the electorate. For team Bush this meant using as many red herrings as possible. Rove believed that if they made the election about the right issues they could mobilize the Religious Right, boosting the number of guaranteed Republican voters. To that end, Rove used any issue the Right would fall in behind, most successfully gay marriage and abortion. The 2004 election showed the success of this strategy, as eleven states passed amendments codifying marriage as being between a man and a woman. The conservative turn out in these states helped Bush out, particularly in Ohio, a state thought to be 2004's version of Florida.
To Rove, and to much of the GOP, it seemed that team Bush had walked into an unbeatable electoral strategy: polarize everyone, excite the base, make the election about issues which you know you'll never be able follow through on, and, above all else, make sure the Democrats can be blamed when you fail to follow through. The GOP had gone from winning the Presidency on the shakiest of grounds in 2000, to unlikely midterm gains in 2002, and finally even more gains in 2004. Darrell M. West, a Professor at Brown University, articulated what many GOP strategists felt following the 2004 election. The election, West noted, offered "tantalizing hints how cultural and security issues are reshaping the national political landscape." On the whole, it did seem that the 2004 election was the validation for Rove's cut throat strategies.
Professor West, among many other political minds, correctly identified the biggest risk facing the Republican party: misinterpreting what their electoral triumph really meant, and being overconfident in their governing. "The risk for any party in control of government is that it misunderstands its mandate and over-reaches its own political support" West said. Bush came out talking about his increased political capital, about a mandate for all his policies. He chose to ignore the fact that his victory was, relatively speaking, razor thin (of course, compared to 2000, it probably felt huge to him). West's prophetic claim that there was "a distinct possibility that Republicans" would actually "misinterpret their party victory as a policy victory" ended up playing out exactly that way, and his warning that "Republicans should not conclude Americans have endorsed their agenda" went largely unheeded by the party leadership. Out of their unlikely string of political victories, the GOP comedy of errors began.
If you follow Bush's approval ratings from 2004 through 2008 the story really tells itself: the briefest of brief honeymoon bumps got him back into the 50% range, from which point he trended downward to under 30% for much of his last year in office. The Republicans went back to the well one too many times in 2006, and suffered an epic, if much more historically consistent, midterm defeat, as the Democrats gained 32 seats in the House and seven in the Senate. Rove's Republican Era was over before it truly began, and in 2008, while the nation was captivated with the Hillary - Barack showdown, the Republican's quietly tried to find a candidate who would have a prayer of making things interesting. The front runners, including Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani, made a series of huge mistakes, none more so than Giuliani's decision not to even give it a try until Florida. Honestly, look at the following chart of top Republican Contenders, courtesy of Pollster.com:
Giuliani, the purple line, totally screwed himself out of this one. Romney (green), considered to be a contender due to his personal wealth, made a small run at it, but was eclipsed even by MIKE HUCKABEE!!! (brown), who really came out of nowhere. Much has been made about the McCain (orange) campaign's death and subsequent rebirth, but when you look at the competition he had is it really that shocking? At the end of the day the Republicans made the most logical choice, and supported the candidate they should have supported in 2000. Unfortunately for them, this was not 2000, it was 2008, and McCain was stuck between a rock and a hard place. McCain may not have fully been in Unitas circa San Diego 1973 mode, but he was at the very least in Brett Favre in a Jets uniform mode: he could carry the team for an all too brief moment which only served to remind you of what he once was, and make you wonder why he was still putting the pads on. It was McCain's dream to be Commander in Chief, and in his prime he might have even made a good one. Still, one can't help but wonder why he was willing to take the blows for a party which was clearly a sinking ship.The GOP didn't help McCain at all, of course. He is a smart enough politician to realize he was
running against the tide, and that he needed a game changer. He sought that game changer in the form of the Independent Senator from Connecticut, Joe Lieberman (who, everyone should be aware, looks eerily similar to the Dark Lord of the Sith, Chancellor Palpatine ... seriously, look at those two and tell me they are not the same person.) Lieberman, who was Gore's VP pick in 2000, had been challenged in a Democratic Primary over his support for the War in Iraq. The Democrats stupidly pushed the issue, and he lost the primary, leading to the inevitable outcome of Lieberman running as an independent and winning. Lieberman, by all accounts, would have gladly run with his old friend John McCain. He would have been a moderating force, which would have increased the appeal of the McCain campaign to the large percentage of voters in this country who are independent or moderate Democrat. Playing from behind the 8-ball at the start of the campaign, this was the game changer McCain needed to be competitive with Obama. The Republican party heads vetoed the idea, outwardly because of "legal issues" in a handful of states. In addition to these legal hurdles, the reality was that many influential members of the Republican National Convention promised a floor fight over Lieberman should McCain choose him.Left with a ton of bland candidates with little to no chance of making a difference, McCain did what "Mavericks" do: he gambled. Rather than sticking with the status-quo and picking someone uninspiring (see Pawlenty, Tim), or choosing someone who could bring some money but would be a guaranteed bad fit with McCain (see Romney, Mitt), McCain dug into the batters box and swung for the fences ...
... and America let out with a unified "who's she?" Sarah Palin, the 1st term Governor of the State of Alaska was certainly an unconventional pick, but she also had the potential to help McCain in a number of areas. First, she was a woman, so the GOP believed that she had a chance to skim away some Hillary supporters who were still jaded that the primary was "stolen" from her (check out this site for a good example of the junk people were saying at the time). Second, she was so far out of left field that she couldn't be tied to Bush, Cheney, Rove, or Iraq, enabling the McCain campaign to play up its "Maverick" credentials while claiming to be the real reformist option. Finally, Palin gave McCain someone from another generation who could be used to attempt to steal back some of the youth vote which had so solidly shifted to Obama.
Palin gave McCain a bump, and she electrified the party at its national convention. It seemed quite possible that she would actually help to make the race close, and for a moment it appeared
that McCain's gamble had paid off. But, like a high fly ball fighting to leave the park when the wind is blowing in, the Palin pick ended up not even having warning track power, let alone enough juice to leave the yard. Culminating with her epic train wreck of an interview with Katie Couric, as well as her uninspiring debate performance (she would have made W. look like an intellectual) Palin sputtered out and all McCain had left to show for his gamble was a fresh feeling that if he made this poor of a choice for his second in command then all bets were off regarding his ability to make good choices for the country.Obama's resounding election night victory was hardly a surprise given the circumstances; even a conservative gambling man could have seen the signs and made some money on it. Obama won by an astounding 192 electoral college votes, and the Democrats ended up netting 9 additional Senate seats and another 24 seats in the House. The decimation of the Roveian GOP era was complete, and the country seemed poised to allow the Democrats to run the ship for quite some time.
But if the GOP's meteoric rise and fall have taught us anything, it is that political capital is much easier to lose than to gain. The fear among some Democrats is that as the House pushes Obama's policies further and further to the left, the electorate will respond in the same way it did to Bush and the Republicans in 2006: a stinging rebuke of their overstepping their means. I feel that there is a chance you'll see some of this play out in 2010; in fact, as mentioned before, history almost assures us that the Republicans will see some gains in the midterm elections. But, to bring this full circle, what about 2012? Who will the Republicans run that could have even a shot of taking down Obama? All we've seen thus far on the national circuit are retread options almost assured of failing, or with no shot of actually being considered. Gingrich, Cheney, Romney ... the Republicans have no voice. And in the time since Obama was sworn in three Republicans considered to be legitimate contenders have hit major road blocks:
- The Governor of Louisiana, Bobby Jindal, who was viewed in some circles as the "Republican Obama," bombed in his response to President Obama's address to Congress February 24th.
- The Governor of South Carolina, Mark Sanford, went AWOL, then later admitted to an affair with a woman from Argentina. He had been the chair of the Republican Governor's Association.
- And the heart throb of the far right, Alaska Governor and 2008 GOP VP candidate Sarah Palin abruptly quit mid-term this week, causing as much confusion and division within the party ranks as her selection in the first place.
It is foolish to predict who will be a party's candidate this far out; in 2005 very few people truly had Barack Obama even on the radar, and even as late as December 2007 Hillary Clinton was the forgone conclusion in most circles. Still, when you look at the GOP, take into account the epic collapse the party has found itself in since 2004, and consider how rapidly the "leading candidates" are falling off the ledge, one can't help but wonder who they will find to challenge Obama. If the economy improves even a little in the next year it is even more likely that Obama will be close to bulletproof heading into 2012. Perhaps the signals are in actions of another hopeful, Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty, who has announced he will not run for re-election in 2010. There are certainly plenty of Republicans positioning themselves for a run, but the real question is who would want to run when a defeat is, at this point, a near certainty.
The best strategy for the GOP is one of unifying and moderating themselves. The party needs people like Colin Powell more now than ever, and they need blowhards like Rush Limbaugh even less. They need Dick Cheney to just go away. They need someone with Gingrich's charisma, but they don't need Gingrich, a man with too much bagage and history to do much good. They need someone more genuine than Romney, more intellectual than Huckabee, and with more grace under pressure than Jindal. They need someone who says "we're moving forward," rather than someone who screams "we're staying in the past." They need to be the party who actually follows through on balanced budgets, rather than saying one thing and doing another. But above all else they need to put the politics of Rove behind them, and the neocon policies of the Bush administration in the past.
I don't know where the next dynamic Republican leader is, but I'm sure that person is out there. James Carville, one of my favorite political commentators (due to his outrageous style), has proudly proclaimed that the Democrats will rule the next 40 years. James is wrong; American's love their two party system, and history indicates that his 40 year prediction might be a little long even if everything breaks the Democrat's way and this is a perfect storm of liberalism. Even the New Deal era saw a strong Republican interlude (in the form of Eisenhower) in the midst of it, and that era was the most consolidated power has probably ever been in this country's history. The Republican era we are just now leaving had a blip with Carter, as well as the more solidified Clinton era, and it was only in 1994 that the full Congress came around. A 40 year domination is highly unlikely, but, so long as Obama can control the fringes of his party who are now in control of the House, the Democrats do have a chance to do what the GOP couldn't do: embrace the trend and consolidate power for a few decades. And if they manage to do that the GOP has nobody to blame but itself, because they had a golden opportunity ... and blew it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)