Simple Math

Mitt Romney seems intent on making the whole case for his candidacy on the economy's poor performance and on his (Romney's) superior qualifications and background in the private sector actor. Some problems:

1) The Obama campaign has been hammering Romney on his Bain years and it appears to be resonating with voters ... -1

2) People want to know that, even if Romney can fix the economy, he's credible as a foreign policy actor. He just returned from a trip that suggests otherwise ... -1

3) Many have criticized Romney for running strictly on his biography and failing to offer clear ideas for how he would fix the economy. But he has offered a tax plan. Brookings finds that Romney's tax plan would actually increase the tax burden for 95% of Americans while cutting taxes for the wealthiest 5% ... -1

So that's a negative 3. What effect has it had on the race? None, so far. The national polls don't show much movement. If anything, they show Romney closing just by a bit but nothing really. The state polls seem to be moving in favor of Obama if anything. But ... nothing really.

Then none of it matters, right? I wouldn't quite say that. All of this is laying a foundation for the race to come. It is setting the strategic environment. I guess we might say the ingredients for the cake are being gathered. So, while we don't know what the cake will look like, the chef is going to be constrained by what is in the kitchen and what's not.

Nate Silver's forecast has moved around very, very little since it was introduced. But, right now, it is near the high point for Obama's chances of winning - 69%. That sounds about right to me.

Pennsylvania, Michigan, National Poll Results ...

... nothing.

Just nothing, nothing, and nothing happening.

PPP has a poll out this morning with Obama up by 6 in Pennsylvania.

PPP also has a poll out in Michigan showing Obama up by 14 (he's not ahead by 14 but he's surely ahead) and Mitchell Research has Obama up by 1. He's probably up by 7 or so.

Nate Silver calls it "the incredibly steady presidential race." NBC/WSJ sees no change in the national numbers.

In the news, there's Obama's "you didn't build that" comment and Romney's work with Bain and Romney's trip overseas and ... whatever. It is all just nothing. The dynamic is just not changing to this point. Obama is leading by a small amount. Not enough to be comfortable but enough to know you'd rather be holding his cards than Romney's right now.

Simple Thoughts

Every day the story of the campaign is Bain Capital, whether Romney was running the company from 1999-2002, Romney's tax returns, etc., is a bad day for Romney. It is bad not so much because he's losing a lot of ground with it. It is just that he's not making the case to those he wants to turn against the President.

I said some months ago that Romney needed to get a bunch of his tax returns out there and be done with it. He should have listed to me then. But there's still time. It is mid-July. People are on vacation and generally not paying much attention. He should get this stuff out there and be done with it now.

Thankfully, he won't listen.

A Campaign About Nothing

You probably remember this ...



... which seems a lot like this ...



Romney needs to make it a campaign about something. But, so far, ... nothing.

Romney - Mentor of Pretzels

If I were a pretzel and I wanted to learn how to tie myself into a twist, I couldn't do much better than watching Mitt Romney talk ...



He agrees with the dissent which means it is not a tax and it is unconstitutional but the majority said it is a tax and that means it is a tax and it is constitutional but that means Obama broke his pledge and raised taxes ... but don't go thinking that that means Romney also raised taxes when he imposed a tax ... I mean, penalty.

Random Thoughts ...

... I haven't had much time to write lately but I do have some random tidbits to share. Every blog I read seems to have some entry like this (called "remainders" or "outliers" or some such). I don't do that but here's my version of it.

CBS News reports that Roberts was originally on board with the conservatives to strike down the mandate but not the whole law and then he "switched." VERY interesting article and worth a read. Who knows who the sources are and who knows if it is all accurate? But here's the interesting question for the reporter who broke the story. Does this constitute a switch? No! As I pointed out the other day, Roberts did not uphold the mandate. And the CBS News article indicates that he never quite wanted to strike down the whole law. Here's how the article puts it:

In the court's private conference immediately after the arguments, he was aligned with the four conservatives to strike down the mandate. Roberts was less clear on whether that also meant the rest of the law must fall, the source said. The other four conservatives believed that the mandate could not be lopped off from the rest of the law and that, since one key part was unconstitutional, the entire law must be struck down.

So where's the shift here? Roberts never bought the commerce clause argument or the fact that there even was a mandate. And he apparently never wanted to strike down the whole law.

Obama seems to be doing just a tiny bit better of late. Nate Silver had a typically good piece on this the other day and the latest Gallup Poll (which is generally a very, very bad poll) has Obama doing a bit better. Is there any there there? In other words, is Obama actually doing better and, if so, why? It's hard to know for sure on the first question as it is not a big change and so it could well just be statistical noise. If we assume he's doing better, is it related to the healthcare decision? It is possible. We've also seen a little blip up in the number of people who approve of the law and a significant majority now says the Republicans should drop the issue and move on. But these are all pretty small movements so nothing very significant to see yet.

Charlie Cook is a genius but his recent piece dismissing the "obsessive" electoral vote watching is just dead wrong. One of Cook's main arguments is that we've had 56 presidential elections and the Electoral College has only failed to give the popular vote winner the victory 3 times. Sorry Charlie ... but that's a lot of times!!! And it almost happened in 2004 again. And it obviously happens more often when you have a very close election ... ya know, like in 2012. The Electoral College watching matters. Specifically, watching Ohio and Virginia matters.

Dewey Defeats Truman ...

FYI ... Roberts Did NOT Uphold the Individual Mandate

I'll have more to say on the politics of the Supreme Court's ruling on health care later today or tomorrow but one thing that strikes me as worthy of note is how the vast majority of the media's coverage is (predictably) wrong.

I'm not talking about the really, really initial reads of the ruling from CNN and Fox that were really, really wrong.

I'm talking about the general takeaway that most everyone seems to have (like this story from CNBC) that the individual mandate was upheld. I'm sorry but I just don't see Roberts saying that in his opinion ... and his is the one that counts.

Roberts spends many, many pages of his decision outlining why the Congress does not have the ability to impose the individual mandate under its commerce clause power. Then, he turns to the government's alternate argument, that Congress can compel people to buy insurance or face a penalty in the form of a tax. Roberts buys this argument and says that provision of the law passes constitutional muster. But he is careful to point out that it passes constitutional muster precisely because purchasing insurance under the law is a "choice." Let's look at one key passage of Roberts's opinion in detail:

While the individual mandate clearly aims to induce the purchase of health insurance, it need not be read to declare that the failure to do so is unlawful. Neither the Act nor any other law attaches negative legal consequences to not buying health insurance, beyond requiring a payment to the IRS. The Government agrees with that reading, confirming that if someone chooses to pay rather than obtain health insurance, they have fully complied with the law. Brief for United States 60-61; Tr. of Oral Arg. 49-50 (Mar. 26, 2012). Indeed, it is estimated that four million people each year will choose to pay the IRS rather than buy insurance. See Congressional Budget Office, supra, at 71. We would expect Congress to be troubled by that prospect if such conduct were unlawful. That Congress apparently regards such extensive failure to comply with the mandate as tolerable suggests that Congress did not think it was creating four million outlaws. It suggests instead that the shared responsibility payment merely imposes a tax citizens may lawfully choose to pay in lieu of buying health insurance

Roberts goes on to point out that those who wanted the law struck down have misinterpreted the language in the law that says that individuals "shall" obtain insurance as meaning it is criminal not to obtain insurance. But there is no criminal penalty. Indeed, in a key footnote (#11), Roberts makes this distinction even more clear.

Of course, individuals do not have a lawful choice not to pay a tax due, and may sometimes face prosecution for failing to do so (although not for failing to make the shared responsibility payment, see 26 U.S.C. S5000A(g)(2)). But that does not show that the tax restricts the lawful choice whether to undertake or forgo the activity on which the tax is predicated. Those subject to the individual mandate may lawfully forgo health insurance and pay higher taxes, or buy health insurance and pay lower taxes. The only thing they may not lawfully do is not buy health insurance and not pay the resulting tax.

What Roberts is effectively saying here is that there is NO mandate even though the law says individuals "shall" purchase health insurance. He is reading the two provisions (the mandate and the penalty) holistically and saying they pose a choice to individuals. You can do one or the other but you cannot do neither.

Putting all this together, Roberts did NOT uphold the individual mandate. Indeed, he says quite explicitly such a mandate would not be constitutional. Fortunately, Roberts continues, the law doesn't impose a mandate! It provides individuals with a choice. You can buy insurance or you can pay this penalty over here. It is absolutely legal not to buy insurance.

Just to make this a little more confusing, Roberts himself seems to suggest I'm wrong about what he's up to by saying in a few places he is "upholding" the individual mandate. See page 42 of his opinion where he uses this kind of language twice in one paragraph:

Sustaining the mandate as a tax depends only on whether Congress has properly exercised its taxing power to encourage purchasing health insurance, not whether it can. Upholding the individual mandate under the Taxing Clause thus does not recognize any new federal power.

So, it seems the media is saying Roberts "upheld" the individual mandate and it seems Roberts it saying he's "upholding" and "sustaining" the individual mandate ... but he didn't. Pretty tricky!

We Ask America ...

... you just made my list of pollsters that are suspect.

They have Romney ahead by 2 in Michigan in large part because Obama only leads 45-42 among women. No other demographic data was released to the general public but this was a poll of likely voters and they do indicate they weighted for demographics.

Pollsters pretty much have to weight for demographics these days given the poor and biased response rates they are getting but the devil is in HOW you weight for demographics. Mark Blumenthal made this point the other day in explaining why Gallup tends to underestimate the President's support.

I don't know what it is yet but something is wrong with their sample.

More Rasmussen

I picked on Rasmussen a bit the other day. Today, Rasmussen has a Michigan poll out that has Obama up 50-42 among likely voters.

So, you've got Romney up by 3 in Wisconsin and Obama up by 8 in Michigan? An 11-point spread? Sorry, but no. One or both of those is wrong and, as I said the other day, there's some reason to believe that Wisconsin poll is just off.

As I've said before, Michigan is not remotely a tipping state. Nate Silver agrees giving Obama (currently) a 91% chance of winning the state and a 0.2% chance Michigan will be a tipping state.

As I said the other day, Rasmussen is generally a decent pollster but there's something wrong with that Wisconsin survey.