Welcome to Larry Becker's 270 Electoral Votes

Santorum, Joe the Plumber, and Ned Flanders

2012-02-15T08:11:00.000-08:00

No, not THE Joe the Plumber. I mean Joe, "a metaphorical" plumber.

We've seen a number of polls out of Michigan that have Santorum ahead of Romney (for now) by anywhere from 2 points to 15 points. This morning, a Quinnipiac poll has Santorum ahead of Romney in Ohio (a Super Tuesday state) by 7. One thing these states have in common is there are a lot of blue-collar men willing to vote in the Republican Primary who are increasingly unhappy with Romney and who are easy pickings for Santorum's message on reviving manufacturing. Nate Silver gets at this in his thoughtful article today suggesting that Santorum may not be all that less electable than Romney. Jonathan Chait makes a similar argument pointing out that

I don’t think it’s sunk in quite how poisoned Romney’s image has become among downscale voters. Coverage of Romney’s wealth, corporate history, and partially released tax situation coincided with, and almost certainly caused, a collapse in his support with white voters with income under $50,000.

Then there's geography. Look at the states Romney has won: New Hampshire, Florida, Nevada, and Maine (sort of). Look at the states Santorum has won: Iowa, Missouri, Minnesota, Colorado. Put these on a map and you can see that Michigan and Ohio sure seem like Santorum country.

The bottom line is that Romney is winning "around the edges" and Santorum is winning in what Ned Flanders likes to call "the real America." We don't know yet if Santorum's surge will last. But one thing that suggests the Santorum surge can be more lasting than the previous surges is that Santorum's persona and message actually match the electorate he's winning over right now. Rick Perry was never a good match with voters in the midwest. Gingrich's appeal to evangelicals was always tempered by his, ya know, two mistresses and two divorces. Having never held office, Herman Cain was just not a credible national candidate. But Santorum lives the family story values voters talk about. He has the manufacturing message that voters in the Midwest like. He knows how to debate and he speaks the language of downscale voters. Mitt Romney does not.

I really think the only thing holding Santorum back right now is Gingrich. If Gingrich were to leave the race (not likely to happen soon), I think Romney would have a good chance of losing the nomination. As it is, Romney is going to have to muddy himself further by doing to Santorum what he did to Gingrich ... spend millions on negative ads tearing him down.

Romney Flip Flop After a Sentence

2012-02-14T08:02:00.000-08:00

Mitt Romney has achieved something I didn't think possible. He changed his position after a sentence. He said one thing. And then changed his mind in the sentence after. I don't know if he took a breath in between but I doubt it. Let's take a look:

This week, President Obama will release a budget that won't take any meaningful steps toward solving our entitlement crisis. The president has failed to offer a single serious idea to save Social Security and is the only president in modern history to cut Medicare benefits for seniors.

Let it settle in for a moment.

He criticized the President for failing to take any meaningful steps toward solving our entitlement crisis ... and then criticized him for cutting Medicare benefits for seniors. The Medicare cuts were about $500 billion over 10 years for those scoring at home. Not meaningful? Maybe Romney should ask the other Romney who is running around beating the President over the head for cutting Medicare.

Hey Michigan, Gingrich is Awful

2012-02-13T18:28:00.000-08:00

That's the message Mitt Romney is sending loud and clear with his new tv ad buy. It is a curious move since Santorum seems to be the one surging. I assume the meeting at Romney SuperPAC HQ went something like this:

Political Consultant #1: It appears from the polls we are no longer winning in Michigan.
Political Consultant #2: What have we done in the past when we found we were not winning somewhere?
Political Consultant #3: When we found ourselves down in Iowa and Florida, we ran a ton of negative ads about how awful Newt Gingrich is.
Political Consultant #1: It is agreed then. Let's spend half a million on negative ads targeted at Newt Gingrich.

That's Team Romney ... Rinse, Lather with napalm, Repeat.

Nate Silver is Wrong

2012-02-12T21:18:00.000-08:00

Bet you didn't think you'd hear me say that.

Last night, Nate said that Romney's victory in Maine does help him. He said this on the basis that it will affect the media narrative (which is all about how Romney is in trouble) and engender momentum. He explains:

Yes, Mr. Romney’s margin of victory — 196 votes — was not overwhelming. But the fact is that Mr. Romney can very much use some favorable news of any kind, given how poorly he did last Tuesday.

Consider the alternative: if Mr. Romney had lost the state by 196 votes, the narrative might have been that Mr. Romney’s campaign was falling apart. That might or might not have been fair to Mr. Romney, but I think it’s possible that’s how it would have been perceived. People like to see patterns in the data, and the pattern would have looked like a bad one for his campaign.

Let's put aside the fact that not all of Maine has yet participated (Nate followed up with a post looking at whether Paul could conceivably win) (and let's put aside that Romney won by 194 votes, not 196). Does Romney's 194-vote victory generate favorable news and create momentum?

Sorry, no. First, the results were announced on a Saturday night which helps bury the story of this runaway victory. Second, the story was easily overshadowed by Whitney Houston's death and the Grammy Awards this weekend. Third, if you think the lead political story in the morning will be Romney's 3-point victory in Maine, try this tweet from PPP on for size:

Barring some big shift in tonight's calls Santorum will be up by 10-15 on the Michigan poll

PPP will be releasing their full MI poll in the morning. Or try this tweet from PPP:

Gingrich dropping out would be worth 7 pts on the margin to Santorum, Mitt better hope he stays in:

That's nationally folks. I'll take either of those as newsworthy over Willard's romp through Maine.

Yes Nate, losing Maine would have been worse for Romney but when we get to the point that the lack of a disaster is "helping" Romney, he's got problems that the state of Maine just can't fix. Romney needs the narrative to change and Maine won't do it. If he has a great debate or if he wins in Arizona and Michigan in the lead-up to Super Tuesday, that could work. Michigan is starting to look dicey for him. I wonder if anyone will remember how Romney opposed the auto bailout???

UPDATE: PPP has Santorum up by 15 in Michigan, very similar to results nationally. ARG (though I don't trust their polls much) has a poll out this morning that has Santorum ahead by 6. In this case, I'd tend to believe the real numbers are closer to ARG's but it is clear that, at least temporarily, Romney is behind in one of his 43 "home states."

Enthusiasm

2012-02-11T20:44:00.000-08:00

The lack of enthusiasm for Romney is what hurt him in Colorado. Some very interesting graphs from Seth Masket on this point.

The summmary is that Republicans voters who are "okay with" Romney are not turning out for him in very good numbers. So even the numbers he's getting in polls are a bit soft.

Romney Tumbling

2012-02-11T08:23:00.000-08:00

PPP's new national poll is out this morning and it is a big scoop of bad news for Romney plus some bad news sauce and a bad news cherry on top. One minor caveat is that PPP does not use cell phones so that might understate Romney's numbers but only by a couple of points if at all. The topline numbers:

Santorum 38
Romney 23
Gingrich 17
Paul 13

Both Paul and Gingrich are closer to Romney than Santorum.

More bad news:

- Romney's favorability is 44/43. Translation: As I said yesterday, a lot of people dislike Mitt Romney. In December, he was at 55/31. Those unfavorable numbers are hard to bring down ... and remember, this is among Republican Primary voters. There are a lot of Democrats who dislike Romney too!

- Santorum is now winning 53-20 among those describing themselves as "very conservative" ... over Gingrich. Romney is down at 15%.

- Santorum is ahead among Tea Party voters 51-24 ... over Gingrich. Romney is at 12%.

- Santorum is ahead among Evangelicals 45-21 ... over Gingrich. Romney is at 18%.

- Among all Gingrich voters, 58% say they would go to Santorum and just 22% would go to Romney while 17% would go to Paul.

Just 48% of voters say their choice is solid so Romney can do his usual routine of getting his checkbook to hold Santorum while his credit cards pound Santorum in the stomach and his Cayman Islands stock portfolio asks Santorum why he's hitting himself.

But the key news item here is that Republican voters are really disliking Romney and it is really quite late for this kind of fluidity. There is something very wrong in the relationship between Romney and the Republican base.

Nate Silver described yesterday why Mitt's delegate lead is NOT like Obama's delegate lead in 2008:

Mr. Romney’s lead is more like the one held by a driver leading the Indianapolis 500 — after six laps have been completed. It might be argued that he is the better driver or has the better car. But the physical lead itself is not worth very much. All sorts of crazy things happen when there are 33 cars on the track, and one poorly timed pit stop would be enough for him to relinquish his advantage.

Further,

More broadly, Republicans have so far declined several opportunities to coalesce around Mr. Romney. They did not do so after he announced his candidacy, nor after Mr. Perry sunk in the polls, nor when Mr. Cain withdrew, nor after Mr. Romney’s apparent win in Iowa and actual win in New Hampshire. And after big wins in Florida and Nevada, he is struggling yet again.

While it remains hard to see anyone else winning the nomination, it is becoming easier every day to see how Romney could fail to win the nomination. What a glorious mess.

Romney Ebbing ...

2012-02-10T20:57:00.000-08:00

... not Santorum surging.

PPP and others have polls in the field that show Santorum either tied or moving to the lead nationally. To quote PPP's twitter account:

We're going to have our new national GOP poll, showing a pretty healthy Santorum lead, out tomorrow morning

Meanwhile, PPP also reports:

Santorum topping Romney on the first night of our Michigan poll. This may be the biggest surge yet.

And a new Rosetta Stone/Landmark Communications Poll (yeah, I never heard of it either) has Georgia at:

Gingrich 35
Santorum 26
Romney 16

Obviously, Santorum's surge has very little to do with Santorum. I could be a Republican candidate for President right now and, so long as I was enough of an empty vessel for voters to pour their hatred of Obama and dislike of Romney into, I'd be beating Romney too.

The problem for Romney, as I've been saying for a few days now is getting worse because his viable options are narrowing. He can pour tons of money into smashing Santorum with negative ads. But this will hurt Romney as well as Santorum. He can take increasingly conservative positions on issues but that not only harms his general election chances, it also reinforces his image as a man who will say anything to win and who has no core.

We're now at a very weird point in the Republican nomination fight. I don't see how anyone else can win the nomination. But it is becoming increasingly easy to see how Romney might not win. Paging Mitch Daniels.

Technically Accurate, Politically Untrue

2012-02-09T00:51:00.000-08:00

Paul Begala says Tuesday night mattered:

The lesson from Missouri, as Santorum’s talented admaker, John Brabender, told The New York Times’s John Harwood: “in a clean one-on-one with Romney, we beat him.”

Team Romney might say, "Au contraire." They would surely note that Missouri didn’t count. Technically accurate, politically untrue. Romney losing a nonbinding primary to Santorum is like the New York Yankees losing an exhibition game to a church-league softball team.

We're Number 1 ... or Number 2!!!

2012-02-07T21:01:00.000-08:00

Mitt Romney got absolutely shellacked in Missouri, is getting shellacked in Minnesota, and he may even lose Colorado. From TPM:

Romney thanked all his supporters, including those who have gone out caucusing tonight in Colorado. "The race is too close to call in Colorado at this point, but I'm pretty confident we'll come in Number 1 or Number 2."

That's right ... he's "pretty confident" that he'll come in "Number 1 or Number 2." As Andrew Sullivan pointed out tonight, it appears that if he doesn't have a week and millions of dollars of negative ads to pound his opponent with negative ads, he can't seem to win.

We've now had 7 contests (IA, NH, SC, FL, NV, MN, MO) with one more pending. Romney has won 3 with CO pending. Santorum has won 3 ... with CO pending. Rick Santorum is pushing Mitt Romney. Really.

UPDATE: Yeah, Romney lost Colorado too. Something really bad has happened with Mitt Romney tonight. The bottom really dropped out. In talking about the low turnout in Florida, I had said Michael McDonald was actually understating what a major potential problem this was for Romney. Nate Silver points out that this pattern has finally cost Romney ... big-time:

We have repeatedly noted the pattern in which Mr. Romney's stronger states and counties have been associated with lower Republican turnout.

So far, it was not clear that this had lost Mr. Romney a state -- save perhaps Iowa, when virtually anything might have altered the result.

But in Colorado, where the demographics were reasonably favorable to Mr. Romney -- he won 60 percent of the vote there in 2008 -- it may have made the difference. Mr. Romney's stronger areas in the state were associated with turnout declines of about 20 percent. But turnout was steady or slightly up in places where Rick Santorum did well.

Among other problems for Mr. Romney, this suggests that suggests that the caucus states could be problematic rather than advantageous to Mr. Romney, with his superior organization being outmatched by very conservative voters who have low levels of enthusiasm for him.

So, we've now had 8 contests, Santorum has won 4 and Romney has won just 3. That's a pretty poor resume for Mr. Inevitable.

Minnesota, Missouri, Colorado

2012-02-07T10:35:00.000-08:00

Well, I got one thing right last week when I said Santorum is the biggest threat to Romney. Santorum has a really good shot to win two of tonight's contests (Minnesota and Missouri) and he is even in good position to come in second in Colorado.

My reasoning was only slightly off. I had said that Santorum dropping out would boost Gingrich. It seems Santorum is a threat to beat Romney in key places. But the reasoning is not as far off as you might think. Santorum doesn't just have a chance to win in Missouri ... he could get close to 50%. This matters because my logic had been that there are some states where Santorum + Gingrich > Romney. Missouri provides a real test of this proposition because Gingrich is not on the ballot. Even with Paul on the ballot, Santorum is inching towards 50% (he got 45% in the PPP poll).

Meanwhile, Romney is downplaying the importance of tonight's contests. Like Iowa and South Carolina, they don't really matter apparently. My favorite part of this memo is their invoking the fact that John McCain lost 19 contests in 2008 so we're really doing just fine. What ever happened with that President McCain anyway?

Del Boca Vista Turnout Low

2012-02-03T22:22:00.000-08:00

As I mentioned the other day, turnout was quite low in Florida compared with 2008. So reports Michael McDonald and he plots turnout by county compared with 2008 against Gingrich's share of the vote. What he finds is that turnout was particularly low in the places where Romney did well and particularly high where Gingrich did well.

What do these data mean? McDonald says:

What will happen in the general election if Romney is the nominee is anyone's guess. I suspect that Republican conservatives will line up behind Romney, but they will not do so enthusiastically. And while Romney does well among moderate, urban and suburban voters, the lack of enthusiasm exhibited by these voters should caution Romney that he may not continue to do as well among these voters when his opponent is Barack Obama. This would not matter in deep red states, but could matter in some battlegrounds like Florida, North Carolina, and Virginia -- states where the Obama campaign appears to be targeting and where he can rely on enthusiastic African-American voters.

I think McDonald is understating the importance of what we're seeing here. Independent voters are not liking what they are seeing from Romney so far. Today's jobs report is not going to sour them on Obama further ... at least not right now.

Romney will get conservative voters to turn out for him. We've known that. What has been unclear is what price he'll pay among independents for getting them to show up. If Newt Gingrich can hold on to conservative support until Super Tuesday, he can do some damage there and force Romney to do some more pandering to the right. It is already a good bet that Romney will have to pick a running mate who is Palin-esque. DeMint anyone?

It seems to me the low turnout in Del Boca Vista and the surrounding communities is a bad sign for Mitt and his hair. Getting on stage with the Donald isn't helping any.

The Very Poor

2012-02-02T08:41:00.000-08:00

I guess Romney's definitive statement that he's not concerned about the very poor was enough to bring Trump on board!

The Romney camp responded to the brouhaha about Romney's comments by saying that his comments need to be taken in context. Here's the more full clip.

It's actually not any better. First Read correctly points out that the problem with the gaffe (and this is when a gaffe is actually dangerous) is that it reinforces an existing narrative about Romney. It only matters because people already think Romney doesn't care about the poor. In Romney's defense, he does come back to say "There's no question. It's not good being poor." I can just imagine Romney's advisors popping antacids and tugging at their shirt collars watching that.

But there's another more subtle but long-term problem here. Look at the reasoning Romney uses. He literally says, "You can choose where to focus. You can focus on the rich. That's not my focus. You can focus on the very poor. That's not my focus. My focus is on middle income Americans ..." So, here's what happened ... and I really believe this: Romney was in a meeting with his advisors and they said to him, you've already got the support of the rich and there's no votes to be had in doing something for the poor. We're focusing on the middle class. Remember Mitt, you're focused on the middle class. So he goes out and does an interview and says, "You can choose where to focus."

Keep repeating that line. "You can choose where to focus." It is the essence of Mitt Romney. He is absolutely telling you, "I have no core. But my advisors say there are votes to be had in the middle class. So I'm going to focus there."

Just as a post-script, a new poll is out by PPP in Ohio. Obama 49, Romney 42. Obviously, a full lifetime to go in this race but ... Middle income. Middle America. Not digging Romney today.

Some Initial Thoughts on Florida

2012-01-31T22:30:00.000-08:00

1) Too many old people. Also, that affected the primary. I over-estimated Ron Paul's numbers (by 2) and the lack of anyone who eats dinner after 4:30 PM really hurt Paul in Florida. Just 21% of voters were under the age of 45 and just 6% were under the age of 30.

2) Santorum under-performed among White Evangelicals. He got just 19%. I over-estimated Santorum's tally by 3.5 points and this would do it. Hey Rick, if you're getting 19% among White Evangelicals, the game is caught. Go home. Interestingly, this is where Gingrich and Santorum split the anti-Romney vote. Romney won a plurality among White Evangelicals with 38% to Gingrich's 37%.

3) To the moon Newton! I nailed Newt's share of the vote in my prediction. 32%. The media will call this a rout. I think that 1) when $16M is spent to make you look like a bad person and 2) you are, in fact, a bad person ... 32% really is kind of impressive. Gingrich did lose among conservatives overall (by 4) but, among the "very conservative," he won by 11. The "very conservative" made up a third of voters. They will be more in places like Georgia, Alabama, and Mississippi. Are victories in those states the path to the nomination? Probably not. But Gingrich does have a constituency.

4) My biggest error was on Romney's share of the vote. I under-estimated his share by 5.5 points. Most of this was the result of Romney's strong showing among "somewhat conservative" voters.

5) Turnout was quite low. This is what happens when 92% of ads are negative in a primary. More on this tomorrow.

Florida Prediction

2012-01-31T08:00:00.000-08:00

I'm going to go out on a limb (a little) and predict that Gingrich only loses by 9. Most media outlets expect Romney to win by 12-15. Nate Silver's final projection has Romney winning by 15.

My prediction:

Romney 41
Gingrich 32
Santorum 17
Paul 9

If my prediction is roughly correct with regard to the overall margin, then the really close race tonight is whether Romney or Gingrich will win among "conservatives." As I've noted, PPP shows Gingrich leading among those who identify themselves as "very conservative." Romney has a similar lead among those who describe themselves as "somewhat conservative." And Romney crushes Gingrich among moderates and liberals.

So does Romney win among conservatives? I'm going to say he pulls it out by a very small margin but it is close.

And that is his big problem going forward.

Santorum is the Biggest Threat to Romney

2012-01-29T23:18:00.000-08:00

Are you very conservative? If you are, you don't like Mitt Romney. In Florida, where Romney has outspent Gingrich by a 5 to 1 margin, Willard is still losing to Gingrich by 7 among the "very conservative" and Romney is losing by 7 among "tea partiers." Indeed, it is only among moderates that Romney beats Gingrich. Among everyone who self-identifies as a conservative, Gingrich is effectively tied with Romney.

These numbers come from the latest PPP poll. Among the "very conservative," it is Gingrich 36, Romney 29, and Santorum 24. And this is the key to Romney's big vulnerability going forward. Romney can continue to outspend Gingrich and win states. But that's not bringing very conservative voters to his side. So here's the nightmare scenario for Romney: What happens if Santorum drops out? Where do those voters go? Let me posit this. If you're supporting Rick Santorum, you're really committed to some crazy. You like some crazy. Not just the run-of-the-mill "I want to build a border fence with 3 moats" kind of crazy. I'm talking "Let's outlaw contraceptives" crazy. If that's your brand of crazy, you're not getting on board the yacht with Thurston Howell just yet. You're getting on board a space rocket and headed to that moon base Newton Leroy is planning.

The media seems very focused on the storyline that Romney's winning Florida and pulling away and oh boy, this is going to be a blowout, etc.! Let's say all that happens. Mitt may face a nightmare at that moment. Santorum could leave the race. And then we'll see whether Mitt can get his party's base behind him. I'm not so sure.

Post-Florida

2012-01-29T11:41:00.000-08:00

Nobody really ever comes back from Florida, do they?

Gingrich will lose in Florida, the question is by how much? It is a bad sign that the most recent poll to include cell phones in their sample (NBC/WSJ) has Romney up by 15. I still think it won't be quite that bad and Gingrich will lose by 9 points or so.

Gingrich has life after Florida. He seems to lead in national polls (I still don't trust Gallup very much) and he seems to be tied or leading in other states like Arizona, Michigan, and Minnesota. A win in one or more of those states could help him get to Super Tuesday when some southern states vote that Gingrich could win. So what explains the disparity between Florida and the rest of the country? I've never quite bought into the "debates" argument. Everyone thinks the debates made Gingrich in South Carolina and broke him in Florida. But his movement was underway before those debates in both cases. And, if the debates were driving this, why wouldn't his numbers be moving similarly in other states?

I think it is the negative ads pounding Newton in Florida (and previously in Iowa) that are causing the movement there. Mitt can replicate this elsewhere. But it becomes harder to do on Super Tuesday.

All this is not to say that I think Gingrich can beat Romney in the long run. He can't. But he can make it last ... at least until baseball starts.

Newt(ron) Bomb

2012-01-27T09:03:00.000-08:00

Well ... we've reached the limits of Newt puns which is one indicator his righteous campaign to become President of the United States of South Carolina (Colbert had it right after all) has run its course. But wait ... there's more.

The polls were looking bad for Gingrich before last night's debate in Florida and last night's debate is not going to help Newton any. So, if we had to bet now, I'd say Newt loses Florida by about 9 or 10. Newt is about that far behind in the polls and I don't think he's going to drop much further. If that's what happens though, I'm not sure this (Fig) Newton is fully cooked (Hey, there's another pun!!!).

Gingrich will still have a rationale for going forward. It is not a reasonable rationale ... ya know, one where he could reasonably still be the nominee. But this is a guy who applied to be President of his College as a second-year Assistant Professor. He's not one to need a "reasonable" rationale. Any rationale will do.

So, then we start to look beyond Florida. Romney has more money, better organization, and lots more establishment support. Also, there's fewer debates going forward for Gingrich to change the game so how can he make this a race? Here's a few (unreasonable) ideas.

1) Gingrich does still lead the national head-to-head against Romney. That is a bit of a lagging indicator and he will likely drop again but he's not going to drop as far as he did the first time. There is some anti-Romney sentiment that has coalesced around Gingrich that won't go away easily.

2) Gingrich does lead in some particular states between now and Super Tuesday. He apparently leads by a lot in Minnesota don't ya know. It is conceivable he could win a state and get some momentum back.

3) Romney is still Romney. He's really quite an awful candidate. He's stumbled since just before Iowa as he has received more media attention. There's always the possiblity that he really says stupid things or does stupid things like hiding his money in a Swiss bank account. Gingrich will keep going because, if Romney really falls apart (not likely but possible), Gingrich would be best positioned to pick up the pieces of the nomination. So why not hang around a while?

Bottom line, the fun is not over even though Romney seems to have re-gained his balance by solving the riddle of Newtonian (hey!!!) politics.

Feel Your Anger, Newt

2012-01-26T11:36:00.000-08:00

This is basically what we need to happen tonight:

Feel your hatred, Newt. You hate Mitt Romney. You know you hate him. You know he hates you as much as the rake who bent his croquet mallet at the club in 1986. Stop trying to contain it, Newton Leroy. Let it out tonight. Let it ALL out.

Newt-ered

2012-01-25T23:22:00.000-08:00

The polling data suggests that Newt has not only peaked but he is almost certainly behind in Florida. Nate Silver compiles the data here.

This is not hard to explain. Newt was leading for a few days and took his foot off the pedal. He scaled back the attacks on Romney, he tried to Bruce Banner it at the debate, and he unveiled a ridiculous policy proposal to build a permanent lunar base. He got Newt-ered.

Thursday, Newt has a shot to get back to the red meat attacks on Romney (and, more importantly, the media) that helped him win South Carolina. If he plays it cool Thursday, he's going to lose Florida. Simple as that.

Get angry Newt. Get very angry.

Why Are Obama's Critics So Dumb?

2012-01-25T12:15:00.000-08:00

If you haven't read the piece, it is worth reading for its criticism of BOTH the right and the left.

Andrew Sullivan (a real conservative) defending Obama against Stephen Colbert (a fake conservative). Enjoy ...

The Colbert Report
Get More: Colbert Report Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,Video Archive

The State of the "Response"

2012-01-25T09:08:00.000-08:00

President Obama’s State of the Union speech was well written and well delivered. It was also carefully poll-tested, sprinkled with carefully couched political boasts and challenges to his critics. Because presidents get this grand stage with no time limit and plenty of “production value,” it has long been a perfect venue for campaigning. As a liberal, I enjoyed the speech, both for its policy content and its political effectiveness.

As a political scientist, I couldn’t help wonder why opposition parties don’t pass on their opportunity to deliver a partisan “response.” Speaking late at night from some location chosen for symbolic purpose, a bright light of the opposition party has maybe 10 minutes to try to dent the force of a president’s “close up.” Unlike the president, the person responding for the opposition party delivers an explicitly partisan political response. So, even though the president’s speech is always partisan and political, he has the advantage of doing it in a constitutionally designated way in the House Chamber with lots of official pomp and circumstance. Like most president’s, Obama never attacked his Republican opponents by name and delivered his sharp political blows just subtly enough to deny his opponents any useful campaign video. The person delivering the “response,” however, has none of these advantages.

As usual, last night’s effort by Governor Daniels was small, explicitly partisan and political, and inescapably bitter. Daniels is neither small nor bitter, but he had a mission that simply cannot be accomplished gracefully or thoughtfully by anyone. Forced to ignore the bulk of a president’s speech, the opposition party response must rely on what amounts to a “liar, liar” defense. Unable to take enough time to attack his target subtly or tactfully, Daniels was forced to make his charges too bluntly and without any substantiation.

I wonder when the parties will realize that this type of response is not useful to them. I also wonder why anyone with personal political ambition would agree to do it.

You Won’t Like Me When I’m Angry, Mitt

2012-01-24T00:07:00.000-08:00

Newt’s object in the South Carolina debates was to be the Hulk. No, not that green thing Ed Norton tried not to turn into in that ridiculous movie. Obviously I’m talking Lou Ferigno. Pure anger expressing itself, bursting out of the same plaid shirt every week, on behalf of the little guy.

His object in last night’s debate, however, was to be Dr. Bruce Banner. Quiet, reasonable and bright, yes -- but most importantly, the key for him was not to get hyper, to keep his pulse rate under 200. In fact, you could almost see Newt repeating this mantra in his head, over and over again, as his blood pressure began to rise -- do not explode, Newton Leroy, do not explode. Channel your hatred. Smile. No, not that obviously evil smile, the real-looking fake one. Ok, forget it. Just take a deep breath, and go into morally outraged that anyone has the audacity to question your character during a political campaign mode.

I’m happy to say, mission mostly accomplished. The worst it got to was about here, when Romney was basically poking Newt in the chest, over and over again (like a 10 year-old kid in the schoolyard): “Hey Plutarch, how’s that 25 grand a month now?”

Bottom line, Newt held it in, folks. He held it in.

Spoiler Alert

2012-01-23T08:21:00.000-08:00

Newt's victory in South Carolina was good for the news media and good for Democrats who enjoy seeing intra-Republican squabbling, but not a sign that Gingrich will become the 2012 Republican nominee for president.

There are only two realistic possibilities going forward for the Republicans. Either they will nominate Romney, or they will nominate a moderate to be named later in a brokered national convention. The Republican Party is presently embroiled in a battle for control between its ideologues and its political establishment. Thanks to the new "wild west" campaign finance regime created by Citizens United the nomination process has become the battle field for this intra-party struggle. The key advantage of establishment partisans in nomination battles past was that their candidates could outlast the ideologues by using electability as an increasingly useful way to sap ideological candidates of momentum and resources.

In 2012, the ideological right can afford to push a candidate all the way to the convention. However, I don't think they can prevent the establishment from beating them, one way or another, at the convention. Nonetheless, Newt or Santorum will likely go all the way in hopes of forcing the nominee to give them something meaningful, like a Vice Presidential nominee.

Romney in a Box

2012-01-23T08:07:00.000-08:00

The initial Florida polling is perhaps not too surprising but also not good for Mitt Romney. Insider Advantage (a fairly unreliable pollster) has Gingrich ahead by 8 points. PPP (a great pollster) says Romney and Gingrich are "neck and neck" in their first night of polling. Rasmussen (consistent pollster but usually oversamples more conservative voters) has Gingrich ahead by 9 in Florida. Gingrich is most definitely ahead in Florida now, probably by 5-7 points. That’s more than enough to overcome Romney’s early voting advantage and it obviously means that the million dollars Romney has already spent in Florida is effectively wasted.

Romney is really in a box in my view. If you’re an adviser to Romney, you’ve got three problems: 1) The things you would normally do to compete with Gingrich’s surge are generally not going to work. Endorsements? You just make yourself look like more of an establishment politician. Negative attacks? Gingrich will deride them as typical slash-and-burn politics and a product of the liberal media. 2) The other problem is you’re an advisor to Romney. You’ve already demonstrated you’re an utter moron. The failure to release tax returns earlier, the use of “envy” as an argument, the lack of preparation for debates that allows your candidate to say “maybe” and so on. Romney's brain trust seems guided neither by brains nor trust. 3) Now you've got Romney's 2010 tax return being released on Tuesday. Why Tuesday? Because the President's State of the Union will drown out the news ... for a day or so. But the attention will come back to Romney's returns if there is something interesting in there and Romney will still be asked to release more years of returns ... drip, drip, drip.

So what does Romney do if I were advising him? 1) Release 10 years of tax returns immediately. Get it all out there, hope some of the bad stuff in there is lost amidst some of the other bad stuff in there, take your lumps, and let it die down (as it will) in a week or so. 2) Do less, not more. Mitt Romney's best weapon in his fight against Gingrich is ... Gingrich. Gingrich WILL say and do self-destructive things. Give him the stage to do it. Give him the scrutiny that comes with frontrunner status. Stay away from major interviews, run your paid media, and make it mostly positive. Gingrich is a walking negative advertisement for himself. 3) Stop the "envy" and "attack on free enterprise" argument. It is NOT working. Instead, use the release of your tax returns and the criticism that comes with it to make an argument for tax reform. Romney's response to the tax return criticism should be that he did nothing illegal, took advantage of legal tax provisions, and if we don't like those provisions, we should change them. Conservative voters like tax reform. All voters like tax reform.

Most of all, Romney needs to change gears. Throw out the textbooks you're reading about how a frontrunner nails down the nomination. You're in a different kind of race, a different context, ... and you're not really the frontrunner anymore.

Reviewing South Carolina and Previewing Florida

2012-01-22T11:26:00.000-08:00

One way to look at the signficance of what happened in South Carolina last night is to look at my predictions for South Carolina, where they were off, and what that tells us about where the race is headed.

I pegged Gingrich at 37% and he got 40% of the vote. It seems those polls that were showing Gingrich still surging on Friday night and Saturday were correct. But to really understand the depth and meaning of this defeat for Romney, you have to consider that BOTH Gingrich and Santorum overperformed my prediction (and Nate Silver's for that matter). In other words, what I suggested might happen ("some Santorum voters may defect to Gingrich") to drive Gingrich to a bigger victory is NOT what caused the blowout. Instead, some conservative voters, tea party voters, etc., defected from Romney to both Gingrich and Santorum. I have seen many analyses suggest this morning that Gingrich won because conservative voters were "coalescing" behind Gingrich. That's not quite true. It is more accurate to say that conservative voters are coalescing "against Romney." Many are moving to Gingrich. But some moved to Santorum, who received 17% (I had predicted 15%, Silver had him at 14%).

In sum, South Carolina was more a rejection of Romney by conservatives than an endorsement of Gingrich. Among the 36% of South Carolina Primary voters who described themselves as "very conservative," Gingrich got 48% and Romney got 19%. But just imagine if these "very conservative" voters had, in fact, "coalesced" around Gingrich as some have suggested. What I didn't mention was that Santorum got 23% of these "very conservative" voters. Assuming those voters break out on a 2.5 to 1 Gingrich to Romney ratio as they were distributed if it were a head-to-head matchup, and Gingrich's lead is 62% to 26%. And guess what? Romney didn't do well among the 32% who described themselves as "somewhat conservative" either (Gingrich won 41% to 30% there).

Now take that math to Florida. Yes, Romney has more money and yes, some 200,000 voters have already cast ballots in Florida and that is an advantage for Romney. But Florida is a closed primary (unlike South Carolina) and, in 2008, 61% of Florida Republican Primary voters described themselves as "conservative." This is not too short of the 68% of South Carolina voters who described themselves as either "very conservative" or "somewhat conservative." The turf is a little better for Romney but not enough to make up for a deficit of the size we saw in South Carolina. Romney needs the deck to be shuffled. So what does he do?

This morning, Romney announced he will be releasing his 2010 tax returns on Tuesday. This is not going to be good for Romney but he doesn't have good options at this point on his tax returns. The right move for Romney would have been to release 10 years worth of his returns a year ago. He can't go back and fix that mistake now. The best thing now is to get everything out there that he can and take his lumps as soon as possible so that he can get past it as soon as possible. Why he's only releasing one year of returns is beyond me though. Better to get everything out there right away and deal with it. Also, releasing a flood of material will allow at least some of the bad details to get buried under the really bad details. A drip, drip, drip of releases only extends and highlights the narrative.

I had said a few days ago that Mitt Romney's campaign team was guilty of campaign malpractice. Last night, on MSNBC, one commentator suggested that Romney's team should have had a discussion and an answer on the tax returns question a year ago. Steve Schmidt, McCain's campaign manager from 2008, chimed in that it was a discussion they should have had "FIVE years ago!" He's right.

Republicans are really in between a rock and a hard place right now. Mitt is the rock ... stiff, inflexible, sinking, and apparently unable to adjust. Newt is the hard place ... the nominee the very conservative wing of the Party seems to want and the nominee that would SURELY lose in the Fall and probably in a big landslide.

At a minimum, Romney is going to expend a lot of resources and has to find a way to win conservatives over. That will mean tacking more to the right and alienating independents at least temporarily. At worst, a Romney loss in Florida will lead to unmitigated panic in the GOP to find an electable alternative to Gingrich.

One Quick Thought on SC Results

2012-01-21T17:11:00.000-08:00

I am listening to Mitt Romney's concession speech ... and I am absolutely convinced he's learned NOTHING from the last two weeks while his campaign has melted down. On the night of the New Hampshire Primary, I focused in on Romney's use of this "attack on free enterprise" and "envy" argument and said it was a mistake. Romney seems to be doubling down on it by attacking Gingrich along the same lines. Romney said he knew Barack Obama would criticize success and free enterprise but he didn't know members of the Republican Party (Gingrich, et al.) would join him.

Romney and his campaign team are utterly tone deaf ... and they are really melting right now.

Steve Schmidt (ya know, the last guy to beat the tar out of Romney) was just asked on MSNBC if the Romney campaign meeting on taxes should have happened a year ago. Schmidt said, "it should have happened 5 years ago!"

UPDATE: Glad to see Sullivan was writing along very similar lines as I was at the same moment watching Romney speak ...

8.07 pm. Romney's speech is a little hackneyed, but focuses in the end on Gingrich, someone "who hasn't run a business or run a government." He attacks Gingrich for "picking up the weapons of the left" today. He is sticking to his defense of Bain Capital as indistinguishable from capitalism itself. That argument didn't work in South Carolina, and it remains weak, weak, weak.

More later ...

Predicting South Carolina ... and Beyond

2012-01-21T09:45:00.000-08:00

Before the Iowa Caucus I pointed out that predicting primary and caucus outcomes is usually a fool's errand but I'll do it again anyway. My prediction is ...

Gingrich - 37
Romney - 30
Paul - 15
Santorum - 15
Cain - 3

Let's start at the bottom. I think a few people will come out to vote for Stephen Colbert (Herman Cain). That means that, in percentage terms, Colbert will have had the biggest surge in South Carolina.

On to the serious stuff. The latest PPP polling showed Gingrich's momentum continuing to build, not slowing down. They had him up by 9 overall but up by 14 in the last night of polling. So why do I think Gingrich's win will be a little smaller than that? 1) PPP does not do live interviewing and I think that means they under-poll cell-phone only households ... and those are not Gingrich voters. 2) Gingrich does not have much of a ground game so Romney will gain on him a bit there as well. 3) There is rain in South Carolina and that will make things worse for a candidate who does not have a ground game. I do think there is much potential for Gingrich to outperform my prediction as well, particularly if the sizable number of Santorum voters move to their second choice (Gingrich for half of them) knowing Santorum can't win. But 37 seems about right to me.

Romney is really a mess right now. PPP has him at 28 and I'll give him a 2-point boost for turnout operation and perhaps a gag reflex among some voters who liked Gingrich's debate performance but just can't pull the trigger for the former Speaker.

The battle for third place between Santorum and Paul should be close. I give Paul the edge on the basis of voter enthusiasm and the fact that some Santorum voters may defect to Gingrich.

The interesting question about Santorum is whether he'll stay in the race after tonight. He shouldn't. He can't win. His small bank account will dry up after this Gingrich surge and there is just no path to victory for him ... unless Gingrich's support collapses. That could never happen, right? Right. So, Santorum will probably stay in.

So, let's say I'm right. What happens next? The polls have Romney well ahead in Florida and most in the media seem to think Romney will hold steady there. In addition, the demographics of Florida are different than South Carolina (fewer evangelicals, lower unemployment rate) and Romney has more money to compete in the expensive media markets of Florida. I think there's three big problems with that line of thinking: 1) Gingrich will get a huge free media boost out of South Carolina if he wins as I predict. 2) Gingrich will raise more money as a result of a South Carolina victory and his SuperPAC supporters will likely double down if he wins South Carolina. 3) Romney is now planning to debate in Florida and that means he'll either have to release his tax returns (disaster), not release his tax returns (disaster), or continue to say "maybe" on releasing his tax returns (disaster). Put all that together and it seems possible Gingrich could win Florida. I don't know that it is likely as Gingrich has his own problems that Romney will bring into sharper focus but it is possible.

So what happens if Gingrich wins South Carolina AND Florida? Panic in the GOP. The establishment is not going to be okay with Gingrich as the nominee. And the establishment is going to be uncomfortable with the guy who can't beat Gingrich. Messy, messy. Here's hoping for a mess.

Maybe

2012-01-19T20:41:00.000-08:00

Has one word ever summed up a candidate better?

Romney is sliding in South Carolina, his campaign is having trouble, he's had his first poor debate performances, and he's been asked questions about his tax returns over and over. It isn't like they couldn't see this question coming in the debate. And the prepared answer is ... maybe? MAYBE?!?

Mitt Romney needs to get a lawyer and sue his campaign team for malpractice. There is simply no way he can still not have a clear answer to the tax return question. And yet he really doesn't. He answers with maybe and then some vague nonsense about "multiple years" but he's not willing to say how many. And he still doesn't provide a clear answer as to when he will release them. How is there no clear answer here???

We all know there is stuff in the tax returns that will make Romney look bad. He pays a lower rate than too many people. He earns a lot and people might feel like he's out of touch. And he probably has used some tax dodges that are legal but look bad. But whatever the bad stuff is ... get it out there. This is PR 101.

How does he get asked about his taxes and say ... "maybe???"

By the way, a little bonus on this video clip is Rick Santorum. Watch Santorum's reaction as he stands next to Romney flailing. He's having a ball.

Independents Not Digging Romney

2012-01-17T17:29:00.000-08:00

PPP has a poll out today with Obama beating Romney nationally 49-44. It is not a massive lead but it is an improvement on where things had been.

Of particular note is Romney's slippage among moderates and independents:

It's not as if Obama's suddenly become popular. He remains under water with 47% of voters approving of him to 50% who disapprove. But Romney's even less popular, with only 35% rating him favorably while 53% have a negative opinion of him. Over the last month Romney's seen his negatives with independents rise from 46% to 54%, suggesting that the things he has to say and do to win the Republican nomination aren't necessarily helping him for the general. Obama's turned what was a 45-36 deficit with independents a month ago into a 51-41 advantage.

One thing that really stands out in this poll is the extent to which Obama has claimed the middle. He's up 68-27 on Romney with moderates. He also leads by 20 points with voters under 45, a group there's been some concern about slippage with, and he has a 66-30 advantage with Hispanics.

Maybe Mitt should have one of those discussions about envy that we're allowed to have in "quiet rooms" sooner rather than later.

Colbert = Genius

2012-01-16T22:54:00.000-08:00

Not only is this ad brilliant from the over-sized salmon he pretends to have caught to the slow-developing smile Colbert promised he could do better than Cain ... but is it me or is Colbert trying to hijack Cain's actual spot on the ballot?

The ad is called ... "Not Abel." So Colbert is effectively on the ballot and now I have a reason to watch the returns on Saturday.

Obama's Long Game

2012-01-16T10:41:00.000-08:00

Andrew Sullivan (a conservative in case anyone has forgotten) says what I think about Obama better than I can. He rips the right for being what they are: a band of un-thinking ideologues who care only about amassing power, not policy. But he also rips the left, as I regularly do, for totally misunderstanding Obama: for failing, over and over, to recognize the touchdowns Obama has put on the board just because he doesn't do a dance in the endzone.

Sullivan's piece is a must-read.

Warm, Genuine, and Does Not Enjoy Firing People ...

2012-01-15T15:07:00.001-08:00

... That's Mitt Romney!

Colbert SuperPAC

2012-01-15T09:18:00.000-08:00

Their first ad in South Carolina accuses Mitt Romney of being a serial killer. Pure gold ...

The Colbert Report
Get More: Colbert Report Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,Video Archive

2012-01-13T16:19:00.000-08:00

John Sides asks "Does Mitt Romney Have a Wealth Problem?" The answer? Yes. This graph sums it up:

Envy Redux

2012-01-13T00:52:00.000-08:00

I said it the other night and I'm saying it again ... this counterargument from Romney about "envy" is a big, big mistake and his speech on New Hampshire Primary Night was a big mistake. Andrew Sullivan agrees.

And his response to the people in this documentary - white working class heartland Americans, the GOP base - is that they are merely envious of his achievements. ... I simply cannot imagine a worse narrative for a candidate in this climate; or a politician whose skills are singularly incapable of responding to the story in any persuasive way.

The problem is that the mood out there is not "an attack on capitalism" as Romney puts it. It is a revulsion about a certain type of economic parasite - the Wall Street money manipulators. The folks who got us into this mess were and are an abhorrent lot to those on Main Street because they produce nothing, at least that is the perception. They simply suck money out of the system.

And when Romney says that people who find what Bain Capital did to be distasteful are "envious," he is offering the worst kind of response. "Aw, you're just jealous." He is rubbing salt in the wound. Nate Silver points out the attack on Romney cuts to the core of his brand. I think Romney's response is making it worse.

Mitt-Mentum

2012-01-12T08:42:00.000-08:00

As I posted on Tuesday night, it is being a bit over-stated. Philip Klein of the Washington Examiner does some math:

When you eliminate independents and Democrats from the 2008 equation, actual registered Republicans made up 61 percent of the roughly 239,000 votes cast in the GOP primary, putting the turnout among Republicans at around 145,790. But last night, actual Republicans only comprised 49 percent of the electorate, according to exits. Even if we round up the final 2012 turnout number to 250,000, which would be slightly higher than current projections, that would only leave actual Republican turnout at 122,500, which would represent a 16 percent drop.

Now obviously, there are a number of caveats involved. More and more voters are identifying as independent, especially in New Hampshire, even though they typically behave in a partisan matter. And perhaps disaffection with Obama also led to a spike in turnout among Democrats and true independents. But either way, this is worth keeping in mind when you hear reports of the "record" turnout. From my observations, Republican events have been generally low energy both in Iowa and New Hampshire, especially when compared with what we saw on the Democratic side in 2008.

So, Romney did well in New Hampshire, yeah. But it is (one of) his home state(s) and it is a primary in which just 28% of the electorate was evangelical. 60% of caucus-goers in Iowa were evangelicals and in South Carolina? Probably about 60%.

I'm not saying Romney is going to lose the nomination. He's not. He will be the nominee. But there are still two things at stake: 1) Will Romney be forced to work for the nomination, expend resources, and take fire? 2) Are Republicans going to be enthusiastic about their nominee?

These numbers from New Hampshire tell me (and I'm having trouble convincing people of this) that Romney is still going to face some bumps in the road and that Republicans are not feeling "Mitt-Mentum" just yet.

UPDATE: 3 polls are showing a very close race in South Carolina. 2 of them are from pollsters I don't trust (ARG and Insider Advantage) at all. But PPP is a VERY good pollster and they've got the race tight. So, Mitt is in for a bumpier ride than the really poor analysis done on New Hampshire Primary Night suggested. Again, Mitt is going to be the nominee. But he's going to have to take some more lumps before it is over.

Envy

2012-01-11T10:51:00.000-08:00

Mitt Romney has been attacking Obama for employing "the rhetoric of envy."

I really think this is a mistake for Romney. In short, I think it does not look good to be a rich guy telling America that "Obama is just trying to make everyone envious of me." That is not the language Romney uses but I think that is the message that is received.

It is as if two kids are arguing and one accuses the other of being a child of privilege and the privileged child says, "you're just jealous." Well, that line not only acknowledges the wealth, it tells the person who is not wealthy their lot in life is their fault.

To put it in more strategic terms, last night, Romney received 48% of the vote in New Hampshire from Republican Primary voters with over $100,000 in income but just 33% of those under $100,000 in income. But just 37% of Republican Primary voters had income over $100,000. He just stuck out his tongue at people who don't like him already. Now imagine the demographics in low-income South Carolina compared with New Hampshire (lower income in South Carolina). Now imagine the demographics among the broader electorate (much lower income than the Republican Primary electorate).

Mitt Romney appears to be embracing his public persona as a candidate for wealthy people.

Initial Thoughts on Romney's "Win"

2012-01-10T18:16:00.000-08:00

Yeah. The airquotes are intended to be sarcastic.

Comparing the initial results from tonight with my pre-primary night post on expectations for Romney, we can see that Romney failed on at least one key measure and I think it really is an ominous sign for Romney. I had said that it would be bad if Romney failed to match his vote total from 2008 but that I thought this was not likely to happen. It appears it is happening:

Although the polls made pretty good predictions of the election outcome tonight, forecasting turnout is harder. So far it looks like rumors of a record Republican turnout in New Hampshire were greatly exaggerated.

With 85 of 301 precincts reporting, 52,191 voters have cast a ballot in the Republican primary so far. That projects to about 185,000 votes statewide, as compared with about 240,000 votes in the Republican primary in 2008.

The drop-off in turnout looks worse for Republicans since a higher fraction of voters - about half this year, compared to 37 percent in 2008 - are independents. That means that turnout among registered Republicans could alone be off by nearly 40 percent from 2008.

- Nate Silver

So, if this is true, what does it mean? Romney appears headed for about 35% to 36% of the vote tonight. That's sort of in the middle between what he was hoping for (40%+) and what I thought would be a disaster for Romney (<32%). It does appear he'll have beaten Ron Paul by more than 10 points ... but not by much more. But the low voter turnout is pretty awful and, if Romney does get fewer votes in 2012 than in 2008, I think that's a real danger sign for him.

Remember that there is no competitive Democratic Primary this year so independents are not being drawn in big numbers away from the GOP Primary as they were in 2008. Turnout should have been higher. It appears to be a lot lower.

Let's put this another way. In 2008, Romney lost the nomination ... but he couldn't even get all of those voters in New Hampshire that voted for him last time to vote for him this time. In effect, his win tonight was simply the result of the failure of the anti-Romney vote to coalesce around anyone in particular. Had they done so, there was plenty of room for Romney to actually lose tonight.

There are two bad things that can happen to a frontrunner on primary night. One is they can lose. Romney avoided that. But the other bad thing that can happen is they can win but misinterpret the result as a sign that they're on the right track. Romney does not seem to be seeing the danger signs here. He has underperformed his polls in Iowa and in New Hampshire. He has received fewer votes in Iowa AND in New Hampshire compared with 2008. But he seems to think voters like him more this time. That's not it Willard. They just like your opposition less.

UPDATE: My initial read of the early numbers is not quite as bad for Romney. It does appear he will get a few more votes than in 2008 (roughly 10,000 more by current projections) but the argument still stands I think. Maybe just not as emphatically.

Mitt Romney's Very, Very Bad, No Good, Horrible Day ...

2012-01-09T13:47:00.000-08:00

... and then there's this:

Romney is having a bad day and some (not all) polling shows his numbers eroding a bit in New Hampshire. Will it be enough for Romney to lose in New Hampshire? No. Will it be enough for Romney to "lose" New Hampshire? Possibly.

Romney can "lose" New Hampshire by having a significantly worse-than-expected showing. What is worse than expected? How about ...

1) ... failing to match one's percentage of the vote from 2008? Romney got 31.56% in 2008. It seems unlikely he'll go below that this time ... but it is possible.

2) ... failing to reach his vote total from 2008? There was a lot of energy on the Democratic side sucking up votes that will be there in 2012. So this is very unlikely.

3) ... failing to finish more than 10% ahead of all his rivals. Expectations for Romney's dominance in New Hampshire have been so high that failing to win in a walk would be bad. Paul and Huntsman have both been gaining steam in New Hampshire. Again possible but unlikely.

So, the best-case scenario for Romney in New Hampshire right now is that he meets expectations and wins with say, 40% - 45%. There will be very little bump in the polls from that. There are some bad scenarios for Tuesday night to be watched. Those aren't likely but they are more likely than they were 24 hours ago.

Romney ...

2012-01-09T08:53:00.000-08:00

... is simply not a very good candidate. I've said it before. He has this reputation as someone who is very disciplined but he's actually quite the opposite. He's so wooden and on script that he's plastic and makes big mistakes. The reason people seem to think otherwise is he has been in some kind of weird campaign where his opponents declined to attack the frontrunner until about the last 24 hours. Here's a new example of how undisciplined Romney can be:

Now, the point Romney was making was a fair one. He was talking about health care and why it is necessary to have choice among plans. By the way Mitt, Obamacare allows for choice among plans ... so Mitt also happens to be perpetuating a lie about Obamacare here. But let's put that aside for a moment.

There are certain phrases a candidate for president should not say when the sole rationale for their campaign and the central theme of the Election Year is "job creation." One of those phrases is "I like being able to fire people." It is an especially bad phrase to utter when you worked for a corporate "chop shop" in Bain Capital where you had a history of buying companies and ... ya know, firing people.

Breaking News!

2012-01-06T15:58:00.000-08:00

Romney's tax plan amounts to a massive tax cut for rich people! Can you believe it?

The full explanation can be found here.

Beyond the fact that it is bad public policy, it is really bad politics. Mitt Romney, a man who is a walking caricature of an out-of-touch rich guy is just cementing the caricature.

It is irrelevant but ...

2012-01-06T09:05:00.001-08:00

... this video put together by a Ron Paul supporter is coasting to victory as the most offensive ad of the 2012 campaign. I cannot imagine anyone else even coming close:

Iowa and Its Aftermath

2012-01-05T15:04:00.000-08:00

Some initial thoughts:

1) My predictions were pretty darn good. I over-estimated what Romney would get which leads right into some of my other thoughts ...

2) Mitt Romney is still exceedingly likely to win the Republican nomination but he's a very, very bad candidate. It is widely known that he doesn't connect well with voters but he's actually worse at it than that phrase sounds. For more on this general line of argument, I highly recommend reading Dana Milbank's column on the post-Iowa victory tour for Romney. Better yet, see Stephen Colbert's coverage of Romney's awful post-Iowa "victory speech."

The Colbert Report
Get More: Colbert Report Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,Video Archive

In Andrew Sullivan's words, "he makes plastic look real."

Some metrics on the shallow nature of Romney's victory:

He got a slightly smaller percentage of the vote compared with 2008
He got 6 fewer votes than 2008
75% of Iowa voters said "no" to Romney. It isn't like they don't know him. They just don't like him.

3) What of the rest of the field? Santorum is just too far out of the mainstream but he'll get a nice bump from Iowa and hang on for a while. Paul represents a totally different constituency and will stay in to the end I think. Gingrich will use his money to tear Romney down. This will hurt Romney ... and Gingrich to a lesser extent. Perry said he would suspend his campaign and then he immediately re-started it. This is the kind of crack thinking that led him to spend more than anyone in Iowa and only get 10% of the vote. Bachmann is done. Huntsman will be done after a disappointing finish in New Hampshire.

So there is nobody who can credibly stop Romney. But they can all collectively make Romney spend a bit more money, tack a little more to the right, and waste more of his time on the nomination fight than he wanted to. All that is for the good.

In the end, the Republican base will rally around Romney. But the problem in all this is not the base. The problem is how does Romney compete for independent voters and how much does he energize the Democratic base? What happened in Iowa hurts Romney in both those efforts.

My Iowa Predictions

2012-01-03T15:27:00.000-08:00

Romney - 26%
Santorum - 24%
Paul - 20%

So there. No point in even watching the coverage this evening.

Actually, the coverage is the whole story because the numbers are meaningless except to the extent they inform the spin. So, what will the spin be if these are the numbers?

Romney: His camp will tout the win in Iowa and begin the mantra of New Hampshire is next and it is an "important test" and so on. The problem for Romney is that he will have won Iowa with just 26%. 74% are for somebody else and those somebody elses are similar enough to one another that it is kind of an embarrassment that so few people support Romney. Tea Party people will make a big deal about this, they will eventually be ignored, and the quality of life will improve.

Santorum: This is a strong enough showing that he will raise a little money from this and get some momentum heading into New Hampshire. A second place showing there is possible. Lost in the shuffle of the Iowa Santorum Surge is the fact that Santorum has a decent organization in New Hampshire as well. But Santorum will not get enough money or enough of a bump to really threaten Romney. The national media will try to make it so, they will be ignored, and the quality of life will improve.

Paul: Just a few points behind Romney, this is still a slight disappointment for Paul. He'll certainly remain in the race for the long haul but, at a certain point, he will start to be ignored again, and the quality of life will improve.

Gingrich: He likely comes in fourth tonight. He will say he's going to fight in New Hampshire and make his stand in South Carolina. He won't place in the top two in either one, then he too will be ignored, and the quality of life will be awesome!

Perry: Fifth place is likely for Perry tonight. He will probably skip New Hampshire and try to make a stand in South Carolina. There is no rationale for Perry going on. Combined with his PAC, he's spent more than anyone and has only slid backwards. He will remain in the race for now though for no good reason other than he's from Texas and "this is like the Alamo." It will not dawn on him that everyone who fought to the death in the Alamo died.

Bachmann: Sixth place is probably assured for Bachmann and she will probably leave the race in the next 24 hours. Nobody will be affected by this.

Huntsman: He's been staked out in New Hampshire hoping that having the state to himself for several weeks will help him. It will not. He will be leaving the race in the 24 hours after the New Hampshire Primary. As Huntsman said the other day, "In Iowa they pick corn. In New Hampshire, they pick presidents." Neither place is picking Huntsman.

Lack of Hotel Space in Des Moines in 1972 Boosts Santorum

2012-01-03T12:29:00.000-08:00

If Rick Santorum pulls off an upset in Iowa tonight and then becomes the conservative alternative to Mitt Romney, he'll have the general lack of hotel space in Des Moines in the early 1970s to thank for his good fortune.

You heard me right.

It turns out that the reason Iowa is the first to "vote" (they aren't really voting as it is a caucus and there are no delegates at stake tonight but that's a different matter) can be traced back to the 1972 decision to move the Iowa Caucuses earlier because of an anticipated lack of hotel space in Des Moines in June 1972. David Redlawsk outlines the story here and the way in which the Carter campaign took advantage of this in 1976 and the rest is history.

In any case, this quirk of history means Iowa goes first and that means candidates with Santorum's profile have a good chance to emerge from the pack.

We'll see if he cashes in on poor planning by Iowa hotel developers from 40 years ago later tonight!

The PPP Poll

2012-01-01T20:57:00.000-08:00

PPP is a very good pollster and their poll out tonight has Paul at 20%, Romney at 19%, and Santorum at 18%.

This poll is even more good news for Santorum and it is fairly good news for Paul and it is fairly bad news for Romney.

Romney: The topline of 19% is bad, bad, bad. The internals of the poll suggest that if there is a lot of seniors coming out (which normally happens), then Romney will do better than 19% and probably win. But they are not predicting the usual turnout and Romney is not the type of candidate likely to finish "strong." He's basically trying to win by tearing down the others.

Paul: It does seem Paul's decline has leveled off. He's not going up from here (at least not by much). But he doesn't seem to be dropping much below 20% at this point either.

Santorum: My post on the Des Moines Register poll applies here and seems mildly confirmed by this poll. Santorum has the most room for growth. And, if you take this poll seriously, Santorum has room to grow and is statistically tied with Romney and Paul. Santorum is probably a better than a 12% bet (Nate Silver's latest number) to win Iowa at this point. I'm gonna say he's as good as a 25% bet to win. UPDATE: Nate Silver's model updated with the PPP poll numbers has Santorum as a 24% bet to win.

Des Moines Register Poll

2011-12-31T19:13:00.000-08:00

The Des Moines Register Poll came out Saturday night and it shows Mitt Romney as the nominal leader at 24%. Ron Paul is second in the poll at 22% but the more recent two nights of polling (the poll was conducted over four nights) shows Rick Santorum still surging garnering 21% and Paul fading a bit.

So what are we to make of all this?

First, as Nate Silver points out, even with the best polls, there are a variety of reasons to be cautious in treating a polling result as a prediction. The most important reason in this case is that the poll was taken over four days with the most recent interviews conducted a full four days before the caucus. This is a particularly volatile electorate as 41% of caucus-goers said they could still change their minds.

But there are some things we can probably draw from this poll:

1) Romney's ceiling: Romney attracted 24% in the poll on the first two nights ... and on the second two nights. We can expect everyone's numbers to go up just a little bit as the undecideds find a home but it is clear that Romney is not going to go significantly higher. A really good guess for Romney's topline on Tuesday night is 28 - 30. I'd guess 28.

2) Paul's ceiling: This poll is particularly good for a lot of reasons. One of them is that it includes cell-phone only voters. Paul did a bit worse in the second two nights of polling as his crazy newsletters got more coverage and as Santorum's surge got more coverage. Paul is not likely to go away as his supporters are somewhat unique but he probably won't move much higher either. Moving lower is possible. A really good guess for Paul is probably right around what he got in the poll here ... 20 - 24 is my guess. UPDATE - Paul actually did a lot worse the second two nights. I'd revise my estimate for him down to 17 - 21. The attacks on him are taking a bigger toll that I had thought.

3) Santorum's surge: Santorum is the only one with real upside. He got just 15% in the four-night sample but did A LOT better on the last two nights. I have a good theory on what is happening. Conservatives who don't like Romney had gone from Bachmann to Perry to Cain to Gingrich and a few went to Paul when he surged. Now they are moving to Santorum. Bachmann, Gingrich, and Perry are not doing very well in this poll but there is still a combined 30% slice of likely caucus-goers supporting these three also-rans. The shift of some of their supporters moving to Santorum is what has fueled his surge in recent days. As more of those 30% see that Santorum is the conservative with the best shot (the Des Moines Register poll will get lots of coverage, especially in Iowa), I think some of those supporting these voters will move to Santorum. Will it be enough for Santorum to catch Romney? I doubt it ... but it is possible.

4) Partly for the reasons in #3, Gingrich, Perry, and Bachmann are done. Gingrich is the most likely to keep going as polls in South Carolina still show him in the lead. That will change quickly with a 4th or 5th place finish in Iowa though. Perry could keep going as he has money. It is hard to see what his path to the nomination would be but remember, logical reasoning is not his strong suit. Bachmann will likely pack it in.

5) Huntsman is still running for President. Seriously.

Perry

2011-12-28T14:37:00.000-08:00

With brilliance like this, how can he be losing???

“Every barrel of oil that comes out of those sands in Canada is a barrel of oil that we don’t have to buy from a foreign source,”

Pure genius!

Why Paul is Likely to Win Iowa ... And Why Democrats Should Hope I'm Wrong

2011-12-27T17:37:00.001-08:00

Mark Blumenthal has a piece on the latest Iowa polling and argues that the polling doesn't provide very certain answers about the outcome. The crux of his argument is here:

But be wary of placing too much faith in Iowa's current polling snapshot. The coming week will bring another round of surveys that may once again reveal changes in the standings. Equally important, the state's Republican caucuses will attract a very narrow slice of the potential electorate, historically about 3 to 5 percent of Iowa's adult population -- a group that pollsters cannot identify with precision beforehand. Most of the recent surveys depend on automated methodologies, most are missing voters who don't have landline telephones, and all will face the challenge of reaching Iowa voters between Christmas and New Year's, a time when many Americans are traveling away from home.

All this is true. However, if Blumenthal is right about all this, and if you think about the people these polls are missing, it would seem a lot of Paul voters are getting left out. For instance, "most are missing voters who don't have landline telephones." Who doesn't have landline phones? The young voters Paul attracts. Pollsters are not reaching voters who are traveling over the holidays? I'll tell ya who is not traveling: older voters. In short, these latest polls have Paul with a slight lead and yet they seem to be oversampling voters who are not inclined to vote for him and undersampling voters who are likely to vote for him. Finally, everyone has made a big deal about the lack of organizing in this year's Iowa Caucuses. Maybe it won't matter. But the polls will not necessarily reflect the advantage a well-organized campaign has and, if anyone has that advantage in Iowa, it is Ron Paul.

If you're a Democrat and you're excited that Paul may knock off Romney in Iowa, don't be. This actually works more to Romney's benefit than anyone else's. We all know the race will boil down to Romney and someone else. If that someone else is Ron Paul, Romney wins easily. So, to the extent that Paul gets a boost from Iowa or (more importantly) Gingrich and the rest of the alternatives to Romney under-perform and fail to get a boost out of Iowa, Romney is better off for the long haul.

Fundamentally Newt

2011-12-02T10:17:00.001-08:00

Newt Gingrich is fundamentally full of s**t.

Memo to Mitt ... You're Losing

2011-12-01T04:54:00.001-08:00

Each time someone (Trump, Bachmann, Perry, Cain, etc.) has risen to challenge Mitt Romney for the GOP nomination, they have fallen apart as fast as they rose. So Mitt might think this is what is going to happen with Newt.

I don't think so. If I had to bet who is going to win the nomination, I'd bet on Newt right now, not Mitt. Several reasons why:

1) Newt is ahead of Mitt in several national polls by statistically significant margins. I do not recall seeing that from any of the others. Perry was the closest to achieving this but he was such an awful candidate, he couldn't possibly remain up there.

2) The polling numbers out of some of the early states are particularly alarming for Mitt Romney. Gingrich has a solid lead in Iowa and in South Carolina. He has a massive lead in Florida. But Mitt does not even have a solid firewall in New Hampshire if the latest numbers are to be believed. If Mitt loses Iowa and New Hampshire to Newt, the game is over. And Newt is already close enough in New Hampshire that an Iowa win could push him over the top.

3) Much has been made of Newt's lack of a ground game. I think the ground game is important in Iowa but not as important as it used to be. In addition, Newt does still have time to build his ground game up a little. Right now, Iowa is probably Newt's to lose.

What's striking about Newt's rise in the polls is that national media, etc. are sticking with the view that Mitt is still the front-runner. But, we've always known that if the anti-Mitt folks coalesce around a non-Mitt candidate, Mitt would lose. Conservatives appear to be doing that.

If I were a betting man, I'd give Newt the better shot at the nomination right now.

Super Fail is Really Super Good ...

2011-11-22T07:53:00.000-08:00

... and liberals typically can't figure it out.

If you saw my posts around the time the debt limit increase deal was adopted, you know that I felt then that Obama had done great. He's looking like even more of a genius now.

If you're a liberal, pay attention to these realities:

1) The first round of cuts included just $21 billion in cuts between now and the middle of 2013. Not very much.

2) The "automatic" cuts that are now triggered because of the super-committee failure are also back-loaded and are half in defense. It is not a mix of cuts Democrats should fear.

3) The Bush tax cuts will all expire at the end of 2012 unless something is done. In other words, Obama has leverage. We will not be making massive cuts without Obama getting his pound of flesh on that.

4) The public is angry at both parties but they also tell pollsters that they believe Republicans have been more intransigent. Obama has set up the argument for 2012 in exactly the right way. He's the reasonable guy who was willing to make a deal (he offered 3:1 spending cuts for tax increases remember). They were the ones who would make any deal that included any tax increases, even on only the very wealthy. At a Republican debate a couple of months ago, all the Republican presidential candidates were asked if they would accept a deal that was 10:1 spending cuts to tax increases. Not a single one raised their hand. Obama will cue up that video for his ads I'm sure.

The bottom line is that if you think Obama has given up the farm, you need to look more carefully at what has been done. Universal healthcare, largest stimulus in history, auto industry bailout re-paid in full. TARP mostly re-paid. Credit card companies regulated. Student loans made more affordable. Don't Ask Don't Tell Repealed. I could go on.

2011-11-14T22:41:00.000-08:00

Herman Cain had some trouble figuring out whether he agreed to the President's approach on Libya:

The good news is that it was only the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel. The only way anyone will end up seeing it is if there was some way to spread the video virally through some kind of worldwide web of computers.

Putin

2011-11-10T17:20:00.000-08:00

This is really Vladimir Putin's latest ad in his campaign for President. The campaign slogan is "Let's do it together." Can't tell if this ad is Leninist or Trotskyite:

This is What Perry Looks Like on Impact

2011-11-09T23:57:00.001-08:00

3 words: Game. Ov. Er.

Meet Joe Walsh

2011-11-09T12:48:00.000-08:00

An angry Rep. Joe Walsh (R-IL) screaming at his constituents that the banks are not to blame for the economic mess. Not the right message for the GOP or the right messenger ...

Cain Ad

2011-10-25T08:09:00.000-07:00

It isn't often you see the narrator in a presidential ad go out of his way to take a long drag on a cigarette. Herman Cain's campaign goes there. Oh, and then there's that creepy smile from Cain himself ...

Of course, Colbert's take on the ad is much better ...

The Colbert Report
Get More: Colbert Report Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,Video Archive

999

2011-10-24T02:01:00.000-07:00

Here's a nifty chart to show you how you'd likely fare (hint: not good) under Herman Cain's 999 plan.

Why Romney Isn't Pulling Away

2011-10-14T22:08:00.000-07:00

Lots of people are speculating why Mitt Romney has failed to pull away from his Republican rivals in the race for the GOP nomination. Some say it is because his Mormonism is a non-starter for some fundamentalist Christians, some say it is because of his flip-flops, some say it is his links to Obamacare. The correct answer in a word ... God.

It turns out God has been working the phones encouraging many of the other candidates but there is no indication God has encouraged Romney. Chris Christie is a great endorsement to help with Republican voters in the northeast but God really has crossover appeal.

"It's Math"

2011-09-19T08:28:00.001-07:00

The Obama campaign should make t-shirts, bumper stickers, lawn signs, and posters with this simple slogan. Here's what the President said this morning:

"Either we have to ask the wealthy to pay their fair share, or we have to ask seniors to pay more for medicare, or gut education. This is not class warfare. It's Math."

The Texas Miracle

2011-09-19T08:17:00.000-07:00

It seems that Rick Perry's credentials as a "job creator" just took a bit of a hit. Some of the jobs in Texas were public sector jobs and, as there are less of those, Texas's unemployment rate is reverting towards the national average.

As the President said this morning ... "it's math."

Stuff That Makes You Say "Really?"

2011-09-12T15:11:00.000-07:00

George W. Bush says the most nerve-wracking moment of his entire presidency was throwing out the first pitch in Game 3 of the 2001 World Series.

This explains a lot about his presidency actually.

I happened to be at the game and I can honestly tell you that wasn't even in the top 10 list of nerve-wracking things that day.

Obama's Rope-A-Dope

2011-09-09T08:41:00.000-07:00

I have long said that Obama employs a rope-a-dope strategy with his opponents. He's done it over and over beginning with his primary campaign against Hillary Clinton in 2007 and 2008.

For months and months, he has allowed the Republicans to punch and scream and yell and generally make asses of themselves. Many on the left have been disappointed and even angry with Obama for not punching back. But Obama knew two things:

1) Punching back was not going to work. He cannot beat public opinion into submission.

2) By not punching back, he allowed the Republicans to have center stage ... which is the absolute worst thing that could happen to them. It turns out their ideas and plans are simply crazy and nihilistic.

This first phase is now over and Obama is now Ali coming out of the crouch and punching back. Like Foreman, Republicans are now unsure what to do and are caught a little bit flat-footed.

If you've missed the 2008 Obama, he's coming to a television near you soon.

What the F*** Has Obama Done So Far?

2011-08-12T08:42:00.000-07:00

My new favorite website

The Criticism of Obama

2011-08-08T12:59:00.000-07:00

Maureen Dowd has a moronic op-ed out today. Drew Westen's is even dumber. I would link to them but the quota of ignorance in society has been reached. Check back tomorrow.

Regardless, Andrew Sprung and Jonathan Chait have dismembered Westen's stupidity well enough.

The important point in all of this is that liberals need to stop fantasizing about how they think the political system ought to work but never, never, ever has. Hey Krugman, you think the stimulus bill wasn't big enough and relied too much on tax cuts? Me too. When we play fantasy politics, maybe we can invent a political system run by liberal economists. In the real world, Obama got what he could get. Hey Moulistas, you think Obama sold us out on the public option? Show me the 60 votes you rounded up in the Senate in support of it.

Barack Obama is President in the real world where Republicans control the floor of the House of Representatives and have a veto over legislation on the floor of the U.S. Senate. For all his rhetorical gifts, Obama cannot move these unmovable objects. Neither could Reagan. Neither did FDR. Those are myths and fantasies.

What S&P Did Wrong

2011-08-06T09:22:00.000-07:00

S&P downgraded US debt and argued it did so because the debt ceiling was not raised in a timely manner and because the US Congress and the administration are not working together well to resolve the long-term debt issues.

Now the blame game begins. Republicans will blame Obama and Obama will blame Republicans. That's how most Americans will see it anyway. Ezra Klein argues S&P was right to downgrade US debt, even arguing it was overdue. As a purely economic matter, S&P probably is right. But what Klein fails to point out and what the media will ignore (because of their "norm of objectivity" which is not actually objective) is this: S&P is to blame for the downgrade ... because they did not blame congressional Republicans. Had S&P and the larger Wall Street community stepped in and asked Republicans to be more reasonable and to stop playing around with the nation's debt ceiling, none of this would have happened. Because S&P tried to stay out of politics even when they knew who was right and who was wrong in this dispute, the Republicans pushed ahead with this outrageous and destructive political strategy. And worse, they now feel empowered to do it all over again and again and again. Even in the downgrade, S&P could have said that Republicans need to compromise on taxes. Instead, S&P said Republican intrangisence on taxes is equivalent to Democratic intrangisence on entitlements. That's just not true. It is untrue. It is wrong. S&P is lying ... in order to appear objective.

In essence, S&P is causing the downgrade

GOP Opposition to Obama's Birthday

2011-08-04T11:05:00.000-07:00

No agreement had been reached so Obama was forced to act unilaterally.

The Deal

2011-07-31T10:25:00.000-07:00

The New Deal it is not.

Sad that it has come to this and surely liberals will be outraged and will scream and holler that Obama has betrayed them and given in too much.

I am disappointed in the deal to be sure. But this is the kind of "deal" you get when you are negotiating with a group of terrorists and that's what the Republican Party has become. Those who think that Obama could have done better in these negotiations really need to picture him staked out outside of a bank with group of hostage takers making demands. The "deal" you make in that situation is going to be something like this. You're going to give them some money, a car to get out of town, and someone gets released from jail. The hope is that you will still nab these criminals once they've released the hostages. That part of the game is still to be caught.

My point is liberals should watch how Obama seeks to "catch" these criminals now. What is being enacted into law now is $1 trillion in cuts over 10 years. Another set of cuts will be coming. But all these cuts are down the road. All that stuff can still be revised any time Congress decides to do so. All that is guaranteed is what happens in the short term: 1) An increase in the debt ceiling through the next election and 2) some much smaller amount of cuts that will happen immediately.

Oh, and by the way, if you're upset about taxes not being a part of this deal ... remember that Obama still is holding that "hostage" too. The Bush tax cuts expire after 2012 ... all of them. So, if nothing else happens, taxes ARE going up. Some of those will be going up in ways we liberals don't like (the earned income tax credit expansion for instance). But taxes on the wealthy ARE going up unless some other change in law happens.

What matters most now is how this gets spun politically in the context of the coming election.

Not a Governing Party

2011-07-28T19:34:00.001-07:00

I've been saying it all along here but Boehner's latest delay on a vote means he doesn't have the votes and the fact that he doesn't have the votes on something as pathetic as raising the debt ceiling for a few months to go with $915 billion in cuts is proof that the Republicans are not a party interested in governing. They just want to win elections.

Boehner now needs to:

1) Come to terms with the ideas above
2) Work with Democrats on coming up with legislation that can attract votes from members of both parties (a clean bill might do it actually or something like the Reid bill might do it)
3) Start sorting through how much of his stuff he wants to keep when he moves out of the Speaker's office

Watch the House

2011-07-26T13:58:00.001-07:00

Making predictions in politics is pretty much a fool's errand. It is far more a fool's errand in the case of the debt ceiling debate. But, if I had to guess, here's what I think will happen and why ...

I mentioned this yesterday but it does not seem to me that Boehner has the votes to pass his plan. He certainly does not have enough votes "among Republicans." There are probably some House Democrats who would be willing to vote for it but there are not many. There are only 25 "Blue Dog" Democrats left in the House after the 2010 election. Even if all of them were to vote for the Boehner plan (I don't think that would be the case), it would not be easy to pass his plan.

If Boehner's plan does pass the House, Reid has already said it is "dead on arrival" in the Senate. That's only partially true because Reid will absolutely bring Boehner's bill to the floor. He'll do this because, procedurally, it allows Reid to move the legislative vehicle through the Senate faster. At that point, Reid would amend Boehner's bill by subsituting his plan and kick it back to the House. The House would have a shot at passing this bill because it would get a majority, if not almost all, of the Democratic votes and it might get some Republican votes.

If Boehner's plan does not pass, he's got to pass something else. Remember that the House has not passed ANY bill to raise the debt ceiling. The so-called "cut, cap, and balance" nonsense did not raise the debt ceiling. If Boehner can't pass ANY bill to raise the debt ceiling, he looks pretty bad (and, by the way, we then face economic armageddon ... but that's a side point). At that point, he will likely have to negotiate with Reid and come up with something that can pass and it seems to me that would have to be something a lot like Reid's plan (perhaps with some face-saving concession to Boehner).

So the bottom line is that Boehner and House generally are the place to watch in the next 24 hours because he's got to take one of the paths above and that will then dictate what happens in the Senate. But Boehner's bill will not become law. Obama has said he would veto it. Reid has said it can't pass the Senate. The only question now is what is Boehner's Plan B?

Boehner

2011-07-26T00:35:00.000-07:00

Until tonight, I thought Boehner was the adult among Republicans. But the guy has been painting himself further and further into the corner ... and he just keeps painting!

I don't know how he passes any piece of legislation that raises the debt ceiling through the House. To get lots of Republican votes, you need to have massive Medicare cuts. And then you won't even get all of them (see Bachmann, Michele and all other nutjobs). To get the extra Democratic votes you need, you'd need to drop the Medicare nonsense and that means you'll hardly get any Republican votes.

And Boehner just keeps on painting. His speech tonight made matters worse.

Leadership

2011-07-22T19:14:00.000-07:00

This is what Obama looks like when he's angry. It would be nice if there was a little more pep. But at least he states the obvious: "If you wanna be a leader, then ya gotta lead."

... Or Like Reagan Said ...

2011-07-19T13:56:00.001-07:00

... I wonder if the party of Reagan is listening:

House Democrats now share Ronald Reagan's position. And House Republicans are truly living in another world.

Like I Said ...

2011-07-16T10:01:00.001-07:00

Republican Voters Support Obama's Position on Debt Ceiling

2011-07-13T17:03:00.000-07:00

They probably wouldn't support his position if they were told that they were supporting his position but they probably don't realize his position is the same as theirs. Got that?

A Gallup poll released today shows that only 20% of Americans prefer to cut the deficit "only with spending cuts." But just among Republicans, the number is not much higher. Just 26% of Republicans support cutting the deficit "only with spending cuts" while 41% of Republicans support "mostly with spending cuts." President Obama's proposal has been to cut the deficit with $3 of spending cuts for every $1 of tax increases while Eric Cantor's proposal has been $4 of spending cuts for every $0 (not a typo) of tax increases. I mention Eric Cantor here because John Boehner seems to agree with President Obama's proposal even if he can't quite verbalize it publicly. While just 26% of Republican voters agree with Cantor's position and 41% of Republican voters agree with President Obama's position, another 27% of Republican voters believe the deficit should be cut with an equal amount of tax increases and spending cuts or "mostly with tax increases" or "only with tax increases."

That's right ... more Republican voters are to the left of President Obama on this issue than to his right. Not bad for an anti-colonial socialist.

We No Longer Have Two Parties

2011-07-11T22:05:00.000-07:00

The GOP really cannot be called a political party anymore. A classical political science definition of a party goes something like this: a coalition of political actors who organize to contest elections and who organize to govern once in office. And that latter part is where the GOP falls short. They just don't have a plan to govern, any interest in governing, or any plan to make a plan to govern.

This has been clear to me for some time but today's statements from Republican congressional leaders really brought it all home. Today, John Boehner and company jumped the shark (for information on the meaning of this phrase, see here) by saying that they have sacrificed in the debt limit increase negotiations by just agreeing to consider raising the debt limit in the first place. House Majority Leader, Eric Cantor (R-VA), said "A vote to increase the debt limit in this country is an existential question for a fiscal conservative."

If it is so "existential" for Cantor, why did he vote to increase the debt limit in June 2002 ... and again in May 2003 ... and again in November 2004 ... and again in March 2006 ... and again in September 2007? Perhaps he misspoke. He meant to say, "A SIXTH vote to increase the debt limit is an existential question."

Having dismissed Cantor as completely disingenuous (the debt ceiling has been raised 10 times in the last 10 years), let's consider a few points about the current situation:

1) Raising the debt ceiling is a made up issue. It is not necessary to be doing this. Democrats (Dick Gephardt to be exact) solved this a long time ago when they created a rule to effectively raise the debt ceiling when a budget resolution is agreed to. Republicans brought the debt ceiling votes back ... just to create pressure and crises like this one.

2) The President has met the Republicans more than halfway. He's met them about 75% of the way towards their position to be exact. He's proposed a package that is 75% spending cuts including deep cuts to entitlements sacred to Democrats and just 25% increases in revenues by eliminating many of the Bush tax cuts ... a year and a half from now. That's right. None of the revenue increases Obama is talking about would even kick in until 2013. I could go on. But the point here is that the Republicans are not a negotiating partner. They are seeking to accept a surrender. They are not willing to give in on anything at all.

3) Some Republicans have openly questioned whether the failure to increase the debt limit would be so bad. The Republican leadership has not gone quite that batshit crazy (it is a technical term) but they DO say they will not vote for a debt limit increase that has ANY tax increases on ANYONE and they will not vote for a debt limit increase without massive cuts to entitlements. This position is not so different. I call it "batshit crazy light." They accuse Obama of wanting to increase taxes on average Americans (not true) and of engaging in a spending binge (not true). They also argue the deficit can be tackled by simply cutting spending. This is technically true but would require such deep cuts that Americans have already overwhelmingly rejected the approach. Most importantly, the Republicans claim the American people do not support ANY tax increase. This is just not true. Americans do support "ending the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy."

So, in sum, we have an entire political party that has made up a fake issue to provoke a crisis (point #1), that has no sense of reality or facts (point #3) and, now that the crisis is here, will not agree to anything other than 100% of what they want (point #2).

This is not a political party. It is an electoral organization at best. At worst, they are a group of economic terrorists. This was the label Andrew Sullivan used a couple of weeks ago to describe John Boehner and his gang. At the time I thought it was a funny label and provocative. Now I think it is just plain correct. Terroists do things like strap explosives to themselves, threaten everyone around them, have only the haziest sense of reality, facts, and rationality, and it is, of course, impossible to negotiate with them. Aside from the physical explosives, what is different about what John Boehner and Eric Cantor are doing? They're threating to wreck the economy (including lots of damage to the powerful interests supporting the Republicans), they have no sense of facts or reality, and they are simply not a negotiating partner.

The only silver lining in all this is that Republicans are still an electoral organization. What I haven't been able to figure out in all this is why Wall Street and other powerful financial interests have allowed Republicans to take their game of chicken this far. Smart people I've posed this question to respond by saying these powerful interests have already hedged their bets and have come up with ways to make money if the government defaults. I don't quite buy that argument. It is not clear to me how that works financially for any but a very small number of people.

Maybe I'm just not cynical enough yet.

UPDATE: Making a similar argument to the one I've laid out above, Jonathan Rauch posted a short piece today declaring "these people are dangerous" and "Republicans ought to remember that nothing would whisk them back to long-term minority status faster than being perceived by the broad middle as unfit to govern."

Independent Voters are Not Actually Independent or Voters ... Discuss

2011-07-07T09:37:00.001-07:00

Alan Abramowitz points out that the vast majority of people who identify as "independents" are actually closet partisans and they have lower rates of voter turnout anyway. The takeaway point is that independents will not likely determine the outcome of the election. Instead the election will likely be determined by turnout among partisans.

Happy 4th of July

2011-07-04T15:08:00.000-07:00

This would be as good a time as any to make fun of the British:

Mark Halperin is a Bad Word

2011-07-01T00:25:00.000-07:00

In case you missed it, in his appearance on Morning Joe on Thursday morning, Halperin said Obama was acting like "a dick." He has been suspended indefinitely ... and the quality of life improves.

Alex Pareene absolutely nails what a total (insert bad word here) Halperin is.

Mom, Please Pick Up ...

2011-06-24T17:17:00.000-07:00

Same-Sex Marriage Soon Legal in NY

2011-06-24T15:04:00.000-07:00

This is a great civil rights victory and I suspect California is not going to be far behind in getting this done (through the courts and at the ballot box). And, of course, the substantive policy change is what really matters most.

But, since this is a site focused on politics, let's take a moment to think about the politics of the NY vote. Andrew Cuomo is a big, big winner in all of this. This happened because of his dogged determination to get it done and he made it happen by working with the handful of Republican state senators he needed to get on board. In a previous post, I commented on Cuomo's very high approval rating despite the fact that most governors (from either party) are not very popular right now. Cuomo is going to be discussed as a 2016 presidential contender and this is going to accelerate that kind of talk.

Want to identify a loser in all this? How about Mitt Romney? New York is not a bellweather state nationally so you might think this does not tell us much that is useful about the policy issue nationally or about where the nation is headed nationally. But this bill doesn't pass in NY without the support of some Republican legislators from Republican districts. Those Republicans that vote for this legislation are looking at where the independent voters in their districts are headed and they know that it is not just right to be for the bill but it is good politics. Now, cut to a picture of Mitt Romney. Whatever Romney's real, private thoughts on same-sex marriage, Romney knows he cannot win the Republican nomination without being opposed to same-sex marriage. So, he will tow the party line on this issue. When the general election rolls around, taking that position will help Romney in the key swing states of Oklahoma, Kansas, Nebraska, and Utah. But it will not help him in Colorado or in Virginia or in Wisconsin or in Minnesota. All of these are states Obama won in 2008 but Colorado and Virginia in particular are states the Republicans need to win back to defeat Obama in 2012. As independents rapidly move towards approving of same-sex marriage, absolutist positions like the one Romney is going to have to take are not going to be winning positions.

UPDATE: And now it is done. Here is Andrew Cuomo's speech after the vote. Skip to the 2:50 minute mark and you can see the presidential campaign roll out before your eyes.

Redistricting and the 2012 House Elections

2011-06-21T14:45:00.000-07:00

After the 2010 elections, the conventional wisdom was that Democrats had virtually no chance to take the House back in 2012 both because of the toxic political atmosphere for Democrats and because the Republicans had won control of a lot of state legislatures so they would stand to gain another cushion through the redistricting process.

Since then, both variables have changed in the Democrats favor. The Democratic brand is doing better (though it is probably more accurate to say the Republican brand is really hurting again) and Democrats appear to be doing much better in the redistricting processes around the country than most analysts first thought. Stu Rothenberg argues that Democrats will likely gain a handful of seats through redistricting alone and, as a result, Democrats will only need to pick up a net of another 20 seats from the 60+ districts Republicans won in 2010 but that Obama won in 2008. That is still a very tall order (see incumbency effect) but it is not impossible.

The bottom line is that the House is in play in 2012.

Republican NY State Senator Roy McDonald

2011-06-21T00:49:00.000-07:00

I like this guy. A Republican state senator in New York who came out in favor of gay marriage, he was asked to explain why he was a "yes" vote. Andrew Sullivan posted his response:

"You get to the point where you evolve in your life where everything isn't black and white, good and bad, and you try to do the right thing. You might not like that. You might be very cynical about that. Well, fuck it, I don't care what you think. I'm trying to do the right thing. I'm tired of Republican-Democrat politics. They can take the job and shove it. I come from a blue-collar background. I'm trying to do the right thing, and that's where I'm going with this."

Demographics and the 2012 Election

2011-06-15T07:56:00.000-07:00

It is true that some states Obama won in 2008 (like Indiana) are not likely to be blue states in 2012. But it is also true that there are some states that Obama did not win in 2008 that are going to be in play in 2012.

I came across this fascinating interactive map from the Economist that provides demographic, economic, and political data by state. If you look at some of the demographic data, you can see why Obama's people think some states like Arizona and even Texas can be in play in 2012. Obama lost Arizona by just 8.5 points in 2008 despite it being McCain's home state. The large numbers of Hispanic voters in Arizona can flip the state in 2012 just as they have flipped states like New Mexico, Nevada, and Colorado. Texas is 37% Hispanic and 12% Black. Assuming Rick Perry is not the GOP nominee, Obama's people believe Texas will be in play in 2012. And if Perry is the GOP nominee, the GOP will likely win Texas (though even that is no sure thing as this new poll has Obama's approval rating in Texas at 51% and not far behind Perry) but will have a whole bunch of other problems.

Another interesting data category in this map is age. Pennsylvania's population is one of the older populations in the country and that tells you a lot about why Obama had a little more trouble nailing down this blue state. But old people are not happy about the Ryan Medicare plan and that means Obama is gaining among older voters in states like Florida and ... Arizona.

Anthony Weiner

2011-06-13T11:47:00.000-07:00

Just wanted to post that name to improve the traffic on the blog. Nobody will read what's here otherwise.

And, on the topic of Weiner, I like this piece by Peter Beinart. Weiner should not resign.

Rudy, Rudy, Rudy, Rudy

2011-06-09T00:55:00.000-07:00

Somebody needs to start the slow clap because Rudy Giuliani is looking like he's going to run again.

But here's the really stupid part. Bill Kristol says:

"Rudy's theory of the race: In the fall of 2007, he decided he couldn't compete with both Mitt Romney and John McCain in New Hampshire, and disastrously decided to try to pull back there and pitch his tent in Florida. This year, he'll commit everything to New Hampshire, where he thinks he has a good shot at beating Romney -- whom he criticized there earlier this week. He then thinks he can beat whichever more socially conservative candidate(s) is left by winning what are still likely to be winner-take-all primaries in big states like California, New York, and New Jersey."

That's arguably the most idiotic "theory of the race" I've heard yet. How many poor assumptions can you count here?

1) "Committing everything to New Hampshire." Who has that ever worked for? McCain tried it in 2000 and eviscerated Bush there ... and then got his clock cleaned the rest of the way. Lieberman tried it in 2004. Romney tried it in 2008. Do I need to go on?

2) New Hampshire ... "where he thinks he has a good shot at beating Romney." Yeah, because New Hampshire loves people who ignored them for years and certainly has no ties to Romney. Romney may or may not win New Hampshire. But he WON'T lose it to Giuliani.

3) "He thinks he can beat whichever more socially conservative candidate is left" by winning big states like CA, NJ, and NY. Right. Because McCain had no trouble beating Bush in liberal CA in 2000. Oh, wait ...

Bottom line ... Rudy has as much of a chance of winning the Republican nomination as I do.

Run Sarah Run

2011-05-27T14:23:00.000-07:00

As Andrew Sullivan noted today, does this look like she's not running?

Palin's looking more and more like a (really bad) candidate.

Hochul Wins NY-26

2011-05-25T00:35:00.001-07:00

That's really, really good news for Democrats from Obama to Pelosi and really, really bad news for Republicans. This is a district Democrats lost in 2006 (Democratic wave year) and that Obama lost to McCain in 2008.

What it suggests is that, on a national level, the House is now in play. Republicans are saying that the Tea Party candidate in this race drew votes away from the Republican (Corwin) and cost her the election. That's not true. Some of Davis's votes would have gone to Corwin but not all of them. More importantly, even if you give Corwin all of Davis's votes, she still only wins by about the same margin as the Republican who won this district in 2006 ... which was a really, really good year for Democrats and a really, really bad year for Republicans.

The House is back in play for 2012.

Daniels Not Running

2011-05-22T00:11:00.000-07:00

Mitch Daniels, Governor of Indiana, has just announced he's not running for president.

This is good news for Obama in two ways:

1) Daniels would have been the strongest general election candidate so far in a field of fairly weak general election candidates on the GOP side.
2) Daniels says the main reason he's not running is family considerations and that's probably mostly true. But he probably also figured that that putting his family through all the troubles of a presidential campaign would be less defensible if you don't have a strong chance of winning in November 2012. Daniels would have had a shot against Obama but it is not currently a 50% shot.

Obama's Re-Election Campaign

2011-03-06T09:16:00.000-08:00

The Washington Post has a good article this morning about the Obama re-election campaign getting started sooner rather than later. The most notable aspect of the article is just the top line. Republican candidates all seem to be getting started very late this cycle. Obama announced his candidacy (officially) on February 10, 2007. Several other candidates had done so as well by this point. The Republicans in 2011 have no major officially declared candidates and very few who have formed exploratory committees. It is true that the primaries are likely to get started a little later in 2012 than they did in 2008 and there is more oxygen in the room since there is no competitive primary on the Democratic side. But I think the Republicans are moving too slowly. Undeclared candidates like Huckabee and Palin continue to brand the party and suck up all the oxygen out there.

Republican candidates would be wise to remember that running a primary campaign is not just about winning the primary. It is also about laying the foundation for a strong general election campaign. The state of Indiana in 2008 is the lesson. Obama was the first Democrat to win the state since 1964. That shift was not just the result of a good year for Democrats. It was also the result of a fierce competition to win Indiana between then Sens. Clinton and Obama (Hillary won it very narrowly) in the primary. Obama built a strong organization in the state and McCain did not.

Romney et. al. need to be building up volunteer and activist bases in key early states as well as other states at this point, not to mention raising money. And they are not doing it yet. I suspect they will pay a price for this in November 2012.

Welcome back!

2011-02-22T20:56:00.001-08:00

I am getting ready to re-launch this blog for the 2012 campaign.

In the meantime, just to wet your appetite, here's an article I'm actually dumber for having read. The author argues that this Gallup poll has "bad news" for Dems and Obama for 2012 because there is a drop in the number of voters self-identifying as Dems in many states. Among the most dramatic drops are Tennessee, Virginia, and Missouri. Newsflash: Tennessee wasn't competitive anyway and Missouri is a state Obama barely lost in 2008 and he's likely to lose in 2012 even if Dems weren't doing badly there.

The more important problem with this piece is that, even after the "bad news," Dems still outnumber Republicans in virtually all the key states Obama needs to win. Indeed, the only states where Republicans outnumber Dems have pretty low population (and few electoral votes). Most telling is the fact that the ONLY state Obama won among the states where Republicans outnumber Democrats is New Hampshire ... and Obama will be competitive there in 2012 anyway.

Is this poll good news? No. But it is a bit of a classic media hype story to think Obama is biting his nails over this poll.

I am dumber for having read this ... so you should read it too.

Just In Case ...

2008-12-25T09:40:00.000-08:00

... you were starting to think Nate Silver can't predict EVERYTHING, you are wrong.

He correctly predicted I would be eating Chinese food on Christmas.

Merry Christmas all!

Is Schwarzenegger truly insane?!

2008-12-18T22:34:00.000-08:00

Schwarzenegger just announced that he is going to veto the budget passed by the California legislature. If you don't follow California politics, let's just say that this is very bad news for the state. Thank goodness I'm an Oregonian now.

The Democrats' move of passing the budget by imposing "fees" rather than "taxes" in order to get around the two-thirds majority requirement was admittedly sketchy. But then again, when you have a totally dysfunctional system, you have to get creative. California has the sixth or seventh largest economy in the world (and dropping rapidly), but I can't think of another country in the world that requires a two-thirds majority to pass a budget. It is simply unworkable. Now the Governator is pushing the state over the cliff. Perhaps the silver lining will be some fundamental institutional reform. But that will be cold comfort to people who are going to hurt, and hurt bad, by whatever emerges from this debacle.

Obama Logos

2008-12-13T14:03:00.001-08:00

Really interesting to see the logos the Obama campaign thought about using. Some good, some not. But it is pretty clear they made the right choice in the end.

This is the logo that didn't make the cut that I like the best:

Blago Goes Where Even McCain Wouldn't ...

2008-12-09T11:11:00.000-08:00

... He calls Obama a "motherf***er."

Actually, we never did tap John McCain's private phone calls so it is probably even money McCain did go there at some point!

I suppose this is the point at which someone should page Shortell to give us all the ins and outs of the Illinois state Constitution so we can understand what is likely to happen to that Senate seat now.

Shinseki to Head Veterans Affairs

2008-12-07T00:09:00.000-08:00

I LOVE this selection. Interesting that he is announcing the appointment of America's first Japanese-American four-star general to the post on the anniversary of the attack on Pearl Harbor. THAT's "change you can believe in."

"Beware a 12-division strategy with a 10-division Army." That was an outstanding rebuke of Rumsfeld and, as Obama pointed out this morning, "He was right."

Top 5 Remaining Positions for Obama to Fill

2008-12-04T23:12:00.001-08:00

Politico has an article out today listing the five best jobs Obama has yet to fill. It is definitely worth checking out to see the names that are being tossed around. The positions mentioned in the article are Secretary of Energy, CIA Director, Director of National Intelligence, Secretary of Labor, and Chief Technology Officer.

Secretary of Labor is particularly interesting, not only because of the role of unions in supporting Obama, but because one of the top candidates for the position, Mary Beth Maxwell, would be the first openly gay cabinet member. In the wake of the passage of Prop. 8, that might be a smart move for Obama to make. There are a number of people in the LGBT community who are feeling left out of "the change" and appointing Maxwell may help signal a recognition of the important role of gays and lesbians in the Democratic coalition. Most importantly, she seems very well-qualified for the job with the support of both the AFL-CIO and SEIU's Change to Win unions.

Prop 8 - The Musical

2008-12-04T16:39:00.001-08:00

Jesus makes a cool cameo in this one:

See more Jack Black videos at Funny or Die

Obama's Paternal Grandfather

2008-12-03T09:49:00.002-08:00

According to an article in the Times of London, Obama's paternal grandfather was apparently imprisoned and tortured by the British who accused him of being an informant for the Kenyan independence movement. While Obama mentioned his grandfather's imprisonment in Dreams From My Father, it appears he did not know that his grandfather had been imprisoned for as long as he was (2 years) or that he had been tortured while in prison. Interesting stuff.

Saxby Chambliss Won

2008-12-03T09:49:00.001-08:00

And this breaking news just in: Georgia remains a pretty backwards state.