Well, Mitt Romney came close to coming close to winning, but not quite close and certainly not close enough to win. As it turns out, only those states (Indiana and North Carolina) in 2008 where the President received less than half the vote ended up flipping to Mitt Romney. Every other state, including the all-important Ohio, Florida, and Virginia ended up tipping to Obama. But even if Romney had carried these states his losing percentages in those Remainder states (Iowa, New Hampshire, and Colorado) which I mentioned in my last post, would have re-elected President Obama anyway. He won them all. So.... it really wasn't close.
Election 2012 clearly broke some, "rules," of American politics. In almost every successful re-election campaign of the past half-century, the President's party usually picks up a few seats in the House and loses two in the Senate. It happened with Nixon in 1972, with Reagan in 1984, and even with Bill Clinton in 1996, the voters clearly voting the status quo but cutting out the excesses of both parties. In 2012, the Democrats did make some gains in the House, perhaps as many as 8 seats, but contrary to historical precedent, the Democrats actually gained 2 seats in the Senate putting them in a much stronger position to retain control in 2014 and beyond. With their new 55 seat majority compared with 45 Republicans the GOP is guaranteed nothing, whereas if they had managed to achieve the historic average gain of 2 seats (Dems 51 and GOP 49) the next 2 years would have been shadowed by the reasonable assumption that the Democrats (defending 20 seats, many in vulnerable territory) were destined to lose in 2014, no matter what events transpired in Washington, D.C. or around the world.
So the Democrats really did defy the historical trend.
Another rule that seemed to be cast in considerable doubt in 2012 was that undecided voters always break for the challenger at the end of the campaign. The result this time was mixed. In states where Romney was ahead, almost all the late deciders DID break for Romney. The President gained no more than half of 1 percent of the undecideds in these states. Where the President led before the election, however, the result was the exact opposite. Even in the swing states, almost all the undecided votes broke for Obama. So it may be that, in the future, these voters do break all one way or the other in each state, but not necessarily nation-wide. The challenger can no longer be assumed to have the advantage.
It's also important, I think, at this juncture to point out that not all polls are alike. The media's willingness to accept a weighted average of ALL the polls as an accurate predictor is a sham. And what is more, THEY KNOW IT. Not all polls are equal. Some have a better predictive value than others, and the only way to get an accurate reading is to compare polls by the same pollster to each other and watch to see if the percent change from day to day, week to week, month to month, between one pollster and another, is the same and in the same direction. Americans have got to understand (and I think a great many of them DO) that the Press bias our political system by telling voters some interesting things that are almost certainly not true. That in order to maintain the interest of their readership they have become lax in their commitment to the facts and the truth. You can almost hear them argue: "Well, who can say really, what the truth is?" and so they'll report anything to get people's attention. Americans need to keep in mind the press is part of the system and they bias their reports with sensationalism and controversy.
Still, outside of the Senate result, this really was a status-quo election very similar to the others I cited. Despite how typical party-line voting has become in the last decade or so, Republicans retained control of the U.S. House of Representatives by a higher margin than any they achieved in the 1990's or during the Bush Presidency. Considering that Democrats believed the President's coattails might actually bring back their majority in the House and actually did achieve significant gains in California, Illinois, and New York, only underscores this achievement by Republicans.
The chief difference is the President's party clearly made just about all the gains in this election. Gains in the Senate. Gains in the House. Victories for legalizing gay-marriage narrowly won in 3 states (Maryland, Maine, breaking the perfect winning streak for gay-marriage opponents) and a Minnesota initiative to place traditional marriage in that state's Constitution was defeated by 1 percentage point. But the only gains made by Republicans were in the South where the GOP finally took control of the legislature in Arkansas, the last of the 11 states of the Old Confederacy where Democrats were still in the majority. But even there Democrats made gains since 2010 in states like Texas, Florida, and Arizona where Republican majorities were paired back a bit.
But the most startling fact the election of 2012 is fewer Americans actually voted in 2012 than did so in 2008. Considering how contentious this election campaign has been that is remarkable and it says to me that Americans really are looking for something new.
I am a firm believer that something has been missing from our politics in the last 20 years. Ever since the end of the Cold War, it's as if America has lost it's way. It's political institutions have not kept up with the needs of its voters. We may really be trending towards an end to competitive elections in America. I still think there are opportunities for change but the Republican leadership is particularly ill-suited to taking advantage of them and I suspect they will learn all the wrong lessons from these election results. We need a competitive two-party system, not a system where 2 parties advocate the same things.
It's time to think Big.
Sunday, November 11, 2012
Friday, October 26, 2012
Part II: The Electoral College
Now we come to the interactive portion of our analysis. Thanks to the folks
at 270-to-win, we begin our assessment of who wins the Electoral College
and the Election.
Here's the link we'll be using: http://www.270towin.com/
Be sure to hold down your control button before clicking.
If it doesn't work for you, typing, '270,' into your browser
should.
The most defining elections in recent memory, I believe, are the Presidential
election in 2008 and the mid-term elections in 2010 which saw the biggest shift
of power in one election since, "Dewey beat Truman," in 1948. The outcome of
2012 will almost certainly be a mash-up of the two telling us where the balance
of power lies between them.
The map you see colored here reflects what the polls say is the starting point for
each candidate with Obama almost certain to win the Blue states, Romney the Red
states, and the rest being within the realm of possibility for either. It also puts both
candidates at roughly the same starting point, Obama at 201 vs. Romney at 191.
While I do believe the science of polling has improved in the last 20 years, knowing
what I know of past election results in that time we need to make some changes:
Michigan (MI), Pennsylvania (PA), and Wisconsin (WI) should be moved to Blue.
Both Indiana (IN) and New Mexico (NM) should, for the movement be moved to
undecided (Tan).
This is my starting place. Every state in Blue you see here voted for the Democrat in
EVERY election of the last 20 years going back at least to Bill Clinton's first election
in 1992. That means none of them, not one, voted for George W. Bush in either 2000
or 2004. He came close in a few, but never prevailed, and though it isn't impossible
that Romney will win one of them (Michigan, Pennsylvania, or Wisconsin) he only
ever led in Wisconsin this summer shortly after he selected Paul Ryan as his running
mate. Polls currently show the President not just leading but with a majority of the vote
in each of them. What's more, the President won them in 2008 by margins far higher
than even Bill Clinton ever won them let alone Al Gore or John Kerry. Sometimes by
twice as much.
Again holding down the your control key on your keyboard, you can check the
percentage results for 2008 here: http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/
Just move the arrow over each state with your mouse to see.
The Red states are those Senator John McCain carried in 2008. My assessment is that
with the possible exception of Arizona, none of these states is competitive for the
President. Given the politics of electing the first black President in our history, voting
against that choice required of the voter a fairly conservative point of view. If self-
identified moderates voted for McCain they certainly didn't do so AS moderates. And
not all of these have a consistent history of voting Republican. SIX of them (Arkansas,
Tennessee, Louisiana, Kentucky,West Virginia, and Missouri) voted twice for Bill
Clinton and with the exception of Kentucky and Missouri they actually gave McCain
a larger share of the vote than they gave to George Bush. And, it means they actually
gave fewer votes to Senator Obama who won, than Senator Kerry, who lost.
Obviously, this map would seem to give the President a huge head start, fewer than 30
electoral votes from 270, while Romney needs 90 more to win. Consistent with the 48%
or so every Democrat won from Clinton to Gore to Kerry these 18 Democratic states
comprise about 90% of what is necessary to elect a President and they would seem to
start each election with probably that much.
In my last post I said that the President was favored to win the popular vote in 2012, but
that no President had ever been re-elected when the economy was in recession as it is now.
It is these facts that cause me to believe that if re-elected, Obama would likely be the first
to do so with a smaller percentage of the vote than when he first took office.
It also brings us to our next changes: North Carolina (NC) and Indiana (IN) back to Red.
One of the most interesting and frankly, helpful dynamics in American politics is that among
those states which are the most highly contested between the parties a consistent ranking can
be made between them. That is, the states can be ranked from most Republican to most
Democratic and with the exception of the most partisan, the states line up in about the same
order in every election. So as the national popular vote moves from one party to the other it's
not difficult to predict which states will flip to the other party first.
Both Ohio and Virgina gave the President a margin of victory matching his national popular
vote. A fact more than coincidental as we'll see later. But Florida, Indiana, and North Carolina
gave the President smaller margins. In fact, four states denied a majority to either candidate.
Indiana and North Carolina went to the President. Missouri and Montana to Sen. McCain.
If the President were running for re-election in a good economy, it is likely his national popular
vote would about what it was in 2008; probably even a little bigger, in which case it would be these 4 states and maybe Florida being fought over, none of which the President needs to be re-elected. He'd be a shoo-in for re-election. Instead, as the President's national support has narrowed, it's these states that fall first into Romney's camp. Polls in all 4 show Romney with a majority of the vote.
And so we move Indiana (IN) back to Red and North Carolina (NC) as well.
Almost immediately, however Romney must confront a basic reality: Moving Florida (FL) to
Blue puts Obama at 271, which means Obama would win and Romney can't afford to lose it.
If Obama wins Florida it will not just be due to the support of its older population, but almost certainly because of the substantial Cuban population which is trending Democratic especially
among the younger generation. The President's support among Hispanics generally in 2008 was
2-to-1 over McCain. He shows the same support among them today. As we consider the Southwest where the substantial Mexican vote is even more Democratic than the Cubans in Florida, this fact must be taken into consideration. Polls have shown the President consistently ahead in both though Romney almost caught up to him in Nevada right after the conventions. Given Romney's decision not to go with an Hispanic Governor or Senator as his candidate for President I suspect Romney was prepared to concede both to the President early despite the substantial Mormon vote that's also in Nevada.
Thus, we now move both Nevada (NV) and New Mexico (NM) to Blue.
Polls in Florida, though, have been pretty good for Romney. In fact, before the 1st debate in Denver, when it looked as if it might all be over for him, he was still competitive in Florida, Colorado, and New Hampshire as the rest looked like they'd decided on Obama before a single debate. After the first debate Romney overtook the President in Florida and now consistently surpasses the President
there.
So we move Florida (FL) Red. The President is still closer to winning but Romney is closing
only 35 electoral votes away from victory and the President at 17 away from winning.
Shifting Ohio (OH) to Blue again shows just how little margin for error Romney really has, as
Obama again moves to 271. Even if Romney won all the remaining undecided states, he'd still lose. Ohio is dead center politically and worse for Romney it's unlikely he could win another midwestern state (Wisconsin, Michigan, or Pennsylvania) without Ohio as it has voted consistently to the right of these states for well over half-a-century. Stipulating that this state could go either way, let's move Ohio (OH) Red for the moment.
The race is now tied at 253 a-piece and we begin to see the real balance of power emerge. Before 2008 states like Virginia and Indiana voted consistently Republican. Arizona and Colorado also leaned that way, and so it became fashionable after 1996 to say that of Ohio, Florida, and Pennsylvania, whoever won 2 out 3 would win the election.
As we can see our map now, that is no longer enough for Romney HOWEVER moving Virginia (VA) either Blue or Red shows again why Ohio and Virginia matched the nation's popular vote.
Assuming Romney can win Ohio, Virginia becomes almost certainly decisive. At this point the President has to either win Ohio or carry ALL of the remaining 3 (Colorado, Iowa, and New Hampshire) in order to win without Virginia. Romney would have to do both. So the same edge
given by the, "keys to the Presidency," would seem to be born out in the Electoral College.
at 270-to-win, we begin our assessment of who wins the Electoral College
and the Election.
Here's the link we'll be using: http://www.270towin.com/
Be sure to hold down your control button before clicking.
If it doesn't work for you, typing, '270,' into your browser
should.
The most defining elections in recent memory, I believe, are the Presidential
election in 2008 and the mid-term elections in 2010 which saw the biggest shift
of power in one election since, "Dewey beat Truman," in 1948. The outcome of
2012 will almost certainly be a mash-up of the two telling us where the balance
of power lies between them.
The map you see colored here reflects what the polls say is the starting point for
each candidate with Obama almost certain to win the Blue states, Romney the Red
states, and the rest being within the realm of possibility for either. It also puts both
candidates at roughly the same starting point, Obama at 201 vs. Romney at 191.
While I do believe the science of polling has improved in the last 20 years, knowing
what I know of past election results in that time we need to make some changes:
Michigan (MI), Pennsylvania (PA), and Wisconsin (WI) should be moved to Blue.
Both Indiana (IN) and New Mexico (NM) should, for the movement be moved to
undecided (Tan).
This is my starting place. Every state in Blue you see here voted for the Democrat in
EVERY election of the last 20 years going back at least to Bill Clinton's first election
in 1992. That means none of them, not one, voted for George W. Bush in either 2000
or 2004. He came close in a few, but never prevailed, and though it isn't impossible
that Romney will win one of them (Michigan, Pennsylvania, or Wisconsin) he only
ever led in Wisconsin this summer shortly after he selected Paul Ryan as his running
mate. Polls currently show the President not just leading but with a majority of the vote
in each of them. What's more, the President won them in 2008 by margins far higher
than even Bill Clinton ever won them let alone Al Gore or John Kerry. Sometimes by
twice as much.
Again holding down the your control key on your keyboard, you can check the
percentage results for 2008 here: http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/
Just move the arrow over each state with your mouse to see.
The Red states are those Senator John McCain carried in 2008. My assessment is that
with the possible exception of Arizona, none of these states is competitive for the
President. Given the politics of electing the first black President in our history, voting
against that choice required of the voter a fairly conservative point of view. If self-
identified moderates voted for McCain they certainly didn't do so AS moderates. And
not all of these have a consistent history of voting Republican. SIX of them (Arkansas,
Tennessee, Louisiana, Kentucky,West Virginia, and Missouri) voted twice for Bill
Clinton and with the exception of Kentucky and Missouri they actually gave McCain
a larger share of the vote than they gave to George Bush. And, it means they actually
gave fewer votes to Senator Obama who won, than Senator Kerry, who lost.
Obviously, this map would seem to give the President a huge head start, fewer than 30
electoral votes from 270, while Romney needs 90 more to win. Consistent with the 48%
or so every Democrat won from Clinton to Gore to Kerry these 18 Democratic states
comprise about 90% of what is necessary to elect a President and they would seem to
start each election with probably that much.
In my last post I said that the President was favored to win the popular vote in 2012, but
that no President had ever been re-elected when the economy was in recession as it is now.
It is these facts that cause me to believe that if re-elected, Obama would likely be the first
to do so with a smaller percentage of the vote than when he first took office.
It also brings us to our next changes: North Carolina (NC) and Indiana (IN) back to Red.
One of the most interesting and frankly, helpful dynamics in American politics is that among
those states which are the most highly contested between the parties a consistent ranking can
be made between them. That is, the states can be ranked from most Republican to most
Democratic and with the exception of the most partisan, the states line up in about the same
order in every election. So as the national popular vote moves from one party to the other it's
not difficult to predict which states will flip to the other party first.
Both Ohio and Virgina gave the President a margin of victory matching his national popular
vote. A fact more than coincidental as we'll see later. But Florida, Indiana, and North Carolina
gave the President smaller margins. In fact, four states denied a majority to either candidate.
Indiana and North Carolina went to the President. Missouri and Montana to Sen. McCain.
If the President were running for re-election in a good economy, it is likely his national popular
vote would about what it was in 2008; probably even a little bigger, in which case it would be these 4 states and maybe Florida being fought over, none of which the President needs to be re-elected. He'd be a shoo-in for re-election. Instead, as the President's national support has narrowed, it's these states that fall first into Romney's camp. Polls in all 4 show Romney with a majority of the vote.
And so we move Indiana (IN) back to Red and North Carolina (NC) as well.
Almost immediately, however Romney must confront a basic reality: Moving Florida (FL) to
Blue puts Obama at 271, which means Obama would win and Romney can't afford to lose it.
If Obama wins Florida it will not just be due to the support of its older population, but almost certainly because of the substantial Cuban population which is trending Democratic especially
among the younger generation. The President's support among Hispanics generally in 2008 was
2-to-1 over McCain. He shows the same support among them today. As we consider the Southwest where the substantial Mexican vote is even more Democratic than the Cubans in Florida, this fact must be taken into consideration. Polls have shown the President consistently ahead in both though Romney almost caught up to him in Nevada right after the conventions. Given Romney's decision not to go with an Hispanic Governor or Senator as his candidate for President I suspect Romney was prepared to concede both to the President early despite the substantial Mormon vote that's also in Nevada.
Thus, we now move both Nevada (NV) and New Mexico (NM) to Blue.
Polls in Florida, though, have been pretty good for Romney. In fact, before the 1st debate in Denver, when it looked as if it might all be over for him, he was still competitive in Florida, Colorado, and New Hampshire as the rest looked like they'd decided on Obama before a single debate. After the first debate Romney overtook the President in Florida and now consistently surpasses the President
there.
So we move Florida (FL) Red. The President is still closer to winning but Romney is closing
only 35 electoral votes away from victory and the President at 17 away from winning.
Shifting Ohio (OH) to Blue again shows just how little margin for error Romney really has, as
Obama again moves to 271. Even if Romney won all the remaining undecided states, he'd still lose. Ohio is dead center politically and worse for Romney it's unlikely he could win another midwestern state (Wisconsin, Michigan, or Pennsylvania) without Ohio as it has voted consistently to the right of these states for well over half-a-century. Stipulating that this state could go either way, let's move Ohio (OH) Red for the moment.
The race is now tied at 253 a-piece and we begin to see the real balance of power emerge. Before 2008 states like Virginia and Indiana voted consistently Republican. Arizona and Colorado also leaned that way, and so it became fashionable after 1996 to say that of Ohio, Florida, and Pennsylvania, whoever won 2 out 3 would win the election.
As we can see our map now, that is no longer enough for Romney HOWEVER moving Virginia (VA) either Blue or Red shows again why Ohio and Virginia matched the nation's popular vote.
Assuming Romney can win Ohio, Virginia becomes almost certainly decisive. At this point the President has to either win Ohio or carry ALL of the remaining 3 (Colorado, Iowa, and New Hampshire) in order to win without Virginia. Romney would have to do both. So the same edge
given by the, "keys to the Presidency," would seem to be born out in the Electoral College.
Saturday, October 20, 2012
Obama vs Romney 2012: O.k., who wins? Part I cont.
With only 5 keys left to decide the outcome, we start into more questionable territory. The first 4 keys, entirely political and very specific in nature, plus Mandate key #7 are easy to determine. The 2 economic indicators are also pretty straightforward. Key #8 (social unrest) is admittedly vague, but even though it is difficult to assess when the key is turned, it is relatively easy to assess when it's not. Perhaps that gets us closer to an accurate call, and clearly it's not something America has had to deal with during the Obama Presidency.
With remaining keys, however, we get into making judgement calls. Calls that many political analysts believe discredits this model. This may be a case of an imperfect design that has significant potential but could be made more exact. Would it's accuracy survive such scrutiny? Because of the ideal that underpins it, I believe it's potential is worth the attempt.
I believe metrics like these are useful, because when looking through the eyes of the average voter (disparaged by both parties as they may be) this metric seems to have accurately predicted the winner of the popular vote in every election since Lincoln was elected in 1860. A more partisan observer may have trouble with the vagueness of each statistic, but when an impartial assessment is made, I believe it's predictive value is persuasive.
We continue:
9) Scandal: The Administration is untainted by major scandal. Assuming Republicans were willing to concede the value of this method, they would cite this key as a definite strike against the President. There have been a number of accusations made against the Administration about malfeasance and misuse of office. A number of these concern the President's handling of the Border with Mexico, starting with a program known as Fast and Furious where the U.S. covertly allowed firearms to be sold to agents of Mexican drug-cartels hoping to be able to trace them to those running the cartels and shut them down. In the process however, these weapons were used in the murder of both innocent civilians as well as a member of the U.S Border Patrol.
Other accusations include, Federal spending on Green energy technology companies which have been found to be major contributors to the President's re-election including Solyndra, which spent a half-Billion dollars but went bankrupt. And more recently, you have questions into how seriously the President considers the attacks on our Consulate in Libya to be acts of terrorism by Muslim extremists which resulted in the death of our ambassador there.
Were the author here to make the call, he would likely say the 9th key holds for Obama. This one is harder for me as I find the President's liberal agenda wreckless and unrepresentative of American ideals.
Key 9? What do you think?
10) Foreign/Military Failure: Whether the Administration suffers no major failure in Foreign or Military Affairs. Again many accusations can be made with regards to whether the President's foreign policy represents the true ideals of the country. I don't believe they do, however, as a metric the keys are meant to be a report card on what the Administration has set out to do. For the purposes of this excercise the question is whether America has suffered a setback in it's foreign policy. If there had been another terrorist attack like 9-11 on U.S. soil this would obviously have been a major hit on President Obama. Do the events in Libya comprise a major defeat in our political position in the world. While the President's response to these event seem to be a manipulation of the truth it's questionable as to whether this amounts to a failure in foreign policy.
Key 10? What do you think?
11) Foreign/Military Success: The Administration achieves a major success in Foreign or Military Affairs. While many contest whether the President should be given the credit for an operation that has been years in development, there can be doubt that Presidents receive the blame as well as the credit for most of what occurs during their term of office. The capture and death of Osama Bin Laden occured as a result of his order to proceed even as we've learned there was at least one major advisor
(Valerie Jarrett) who opposed the operation. Result: The President holds at -3 with only 4 keys left undecided.
12) Incumbent Charisma: Whether the incumbent party's candidate is a charismatic figure or National Hero. Is Barack Obama charismatic? Many who claimed he was in 2008 now say that he is no longer or never really was. I will admit that without a speech in front of him the President seems less eloquent on the stump, but one of the reasons I believe he was successful in being nominated for President and elected in 2008 was his disarming approach when he speaks. I can remember thinking when he was interviewed before his keynote address to the Democrats in 2004 that this really stood out.
Whether President Obama is charismatic is a judgement call. He is not the equal of candidates like Roosevelt, Kennedy, Reagan, or Clinton. As the first black man elected President Barack Obama definitely speaks to the aspirations of many Americans even if his lineage could suggest that link is only skin deep in some respects.
Key 11? What do you think?
13) Challenger Charisma: Whether the opposition party candidate is a charismatic figure or National Hero. This last indicator is the only key that does not concern the incumbent President. The only lever the opposition has to increase it's chances of winning the election.
Although I did not support Mitt Romney during the Republican primaries, he does have my vote in the November 6th General Election. Having said this, even his supporters should admit that he's not a charismatic figure. Therefore the final key fails to fall against the President, who still remains at only -3 keys with only 3 keys left potentially undecided.
Obviously, there is room for interpretation. A Republican party analysis, would rightly address the President's weakness in foreign policy, which could yet emerge as a problem for him before election day. But they'd also need to make personal assessments about the level of corruption in his Administration, and whether he is charismatic. Under this system the President could still be held accountable for Fast & Furious, Solyndra, and the Libya debacle (he still might), and fall 1 key short of the 6 needed to elect Romney. To get the 6th key they'd have to challenge Obam's claims to be a charismatic figure.
Given that Mitt Romney is not a charismatic figure and that Barack Obama was clearly responsible for the order that led to the elimination of Osama Bin Laden, the margin of error for determining an Obama loss is zero. Scandal, a major failure in foreign policy, and Obama's lack of Charisma would all have to be satisfied in order to predict it.
So, while you can see the weaknesses of this interesting thesis, it is clear that, to the extent it is predictive, it would tend to suggest President Obama's re-election.
There are 2 important caveats, however, that must now be stated:
First, in explaining how he came up with these keys, Prof. Lichtman broke down the success and failure rates of each of the individual keys in predicting the final result on their own. It is therefore important to mention that Short-Term Economy #5 currently has a 100% success rate in predicting a loss of the Presidency. That is, no President running for re-election when the country is in recession has been re-elected. Not One. Presidents have lost when the economy was good, but that is not the case this year and hence is one of the 3 keys that has been toppled in my analysis. Which means, either the predictive value of key #5 will finally lose it's perfect score or Prof. Lichtman's 13 Keys will be undone.
Second. as I mentioned before, the Keys only successfully predict the winner of the Popular vote, so the possibility this whole analysis could be turned on its head by a repeat of the 2000 election is real,
and either one of them, Obama or Romney, could be the beneficiary.
And so it is to this, the most fascinating part of the election, that I turn to next in Part II: The Electoral College.
With remaining keys, however, we get into making judgement calls. Calls that many political analysts believe discredits this model. This may be a case of an imperfect design that has significant potential but could be made more exact. Would it's accuracy survive such scrutiny? Because of the ideal that underpins it, I believe it's potential is worth the attempt.
I believe metrics like these are useful, because when looking through the eyes of the average voter (disparaged by both parties as they may be) this metric seems to have accurately predicted the winner of the popular vote in every election since Lincoln was elected in 1860. A more partisan observer may have trouble with the vagueness of each statistic, but when an impartial assessment is made, I believe it's predictive value is persuasive.
We continue:
9) Scandal: The Administration is untainted by major scandal. Assuming Republicans were willing to concede the value of this method, they would cite this key as a definite strike against the President. There have been a number of accusations made against the Administration about malfeasance and misuse of office. A number of these concern the President's handling of the Border with Mexico, starting with a program known as Fast and Furious where the U.S. covertly allowed firearms to be sold to agents of Mexican drug-cartels hoping to be able to trace them to those running the cartels and shut them down. In the process however, these weapons were used in the murder of both innocent civilians as well as a member of the U.S Border Patrol.
Other accusations include, Federal spending on Green energy technology companies which have been found to be major contributors to the President's re-election including Solyndra, which spent a half-Billion dollars but went bankrupt. And more recently, you have questions into how seriously the President considers the attacks on our Consulate in Libya to be acts of terrorism by Muslim extremists which resulted in the death of our ambassador there.
Were the author here to make the call, he would likely say the 9th key holds for Obama. This one is harder for me as I find the President's liberal agenda wreckless and unrepresentative of American ideals.
Key 9? What do you think?
10) Foreign/Military Failure: Whether the Administration suffers no major failure in Foreign or Military Affairs. Again many accusations can be made with regards to whether the President's foreign policy represents the true ideals of the country. I don't believe they do, however, as a metric the keys are meant to be a report card on what the Administration has set out to do. For the purposes of this excercise the question is whether America has suffered a setback in it's foreign policy. If there had been another terrorist attack like 9-11 on U.S. soil this would obviously have been a major hit on President Obama. Do the events in Libya comprise a major defeat in our political position in the world. While the President's response to these event seem to be a manipulation of the truth it's questionable as to whether this amounts to a failure in foreign policy.
Key 10? What do you think?
11) Foreign/Military Success: The Administration achieves a major success in Foreign or Military Affairs. While many contest whether the President should be given the credit for an operation that has been years in development, there can be doubt that Presidents receive the blame as well as the credit for most of what occurs during their term of office. The capture and death of Osama Bin Laden occured as a result of his order to proceed even as we've learned there was at least one major advisor
(Valerie Jarrett) who opposed the operation. Result: The President holds at -3 with only 4 keys left undecided.
12) Incumbent Charisma: Whether the incumbent party's candidate is a charismatic figure or National Hero. Is Barack Obama charismatic? Many who claimed he was in 2008 now say that he is no longer or never really was. I will admit that without a speech in front of him the President seems less eloquent on the stump, but one of the reasons I believe he was successful in being nominated for President and elected in 2008 was his disarming approach when he speaks. I can remember thinking when he was interviewed before his keynote address to the Democrats in 2004 that this really stood out.
Whether President Obama is charismatic is a judgement call. He is not the equal of candidates like Roosevelt, Kennedy, Reagan, or Clinton. As the first black man elected President Barack Obama definitely speaks to the aspirations of many Americans even if his lineage could suggest that link is only skin deep in some respects.
Key 11? What do you think?
13) Challenger Charisma: Whether the opposition party candidate is a charismatic figure or National Hero. This last indicator is the only key that does not concern the incumbent President. The only lever the opposition has to increase it's chances of winning the election.
Although I did not support Mitt Romney during the Republican primaries, he does have my vote in the November 6th General Election. Having said this, even his supporters should admit that he's not a charismatic figure. Therefore the final key fails to fall against the President, who still remains at only -3 keys with only 3 keys left potentially undecided.
Obviously, there is room for interpretation. A Republican party analysis, would rightly address the President's weakness in foreign policy, which could yet emerge as a problem for him before election day. But they'd also need to make personal assessments about the level of corruption in his Administration, and whether he is charismatic. Under this system the President could still be held accountable for Fast & Furious, Solyndra, and the Libya debacle (he still might), and fall 1 key short of the 6 needed to elect Romney. To get the 6th key they'd have to challenge Obam's claims to be a charismatic figure.
Given that Mitt Romney is not a charismatic figure and that Barack Obama was clearly responsible for the order that led to the elimination of Osama Bin Laden, the margin of error for determining an Obama loss is zero. Scandal, a major failure in foreign policy, and Obama's lack of Charisma would all have to be satisfied in order to predict it.
So, while you can see the weaknesses of this interesting thesis, it is clear that, to the extent it is predictive, it would tend to suggest President Obama's re-election.
There are 2 important caveats, however, that must now be stated:
First, in explaining how he came up with these keys, Prof. Lichtman broke down the success and failure rates of each of the individual keys in predicting the final result on their own. It is therefore important to mention that Short-Term Economy #5 currently has a 100% success rate in predicting a loss of the Presidency. That is, no President running for re-election when the country is in recession has been re-elected. Not One. Presidents have lost when the economy was good, but that is not the case this year and hence is one of the 3 keys that has been toppled in my analysis. Which means, either the predictive value of key #5 will finally lose it's perfect score or Prof. Lichtman's 13 Keys will be undone.
Second. as I mentioned before, the Keys only successfully predict the winner of the Popular vote, so the possibility this whole analysis could be turned on its head by a repeat of the 2000 election is real,
and either one of them, Obama or Romney, could be the beneficiary.
And so it is to this, the most fascinating part of the election, that I turn to next in Part II: The Electoral College.
Thursday, October 18, 2012
Obama vs Romney 2012: O.k. Who Wins? Part 1
So now the pertinent question at hand: Who wins the Presidential election of 2012? Well, of course we all know that it is the Electoral College according to the Constitution that elects our Presidents. Still only one man in over a century has been elected President without the greatest share of the popular vote. In fact, not a single election in the 20th Century was determined contrary to the popular vote. So the first part of my analysis will address who I believe will win the popular vote
and the 2nd part will address the all-important college and the possibility that it may in fact split from the popular vote as it did in 2000.
According to a statistical analysis, the best way to determine the results of Presidential elections is to use those statistics with the highest degree of predictive accuracy. Those who make their living predicting election results have used a multitude of different statistics to determine who will prevail. Some use an economic anlysis by reviewing charts of America's GDP or the national unemployment rate during the current President's term. Others study polls of the President's popularity or America's opinion of his job performance. Rather amusingly, some will even study the outcome of sporting events in comparison with the terms of previous Presidents. In each case, an attempt is made to predict the outcome of a Presidential election by comparing statistics that have a high level of consistency with respect to past results in relation to each of these indicators.
When conducting my analysis, I begin with an admittedly controvsersial method devised almost 20 years ago by Prof. Alan Lichtman of American University in Washington D.C., called, "TheThirteen Keys to the Presidency."
In it, he asserts that regardless of the strengths of the candidates campaigns; how much money they raise, how many campaign stops they make across the country, how well the candidates do in debates, or who gets picked to be the Vice Presidential running mate, the outcome of the election is determined by 13 questions primarily regarding the current President's performance in office. If any 6 of these are answered in the negative, the President's party loses the popular vote and most likely, the election. If 5 or fewer are answered negatively, the President's party wins the Popular vote.
These are the Keys (from the book):
Key 1: Party Mandate: After the midterm elections, the incumbent party holds more seats in the U.S. House of Representatives than it did after the previous mid-term.
Key 2: Contest: There is no serious contest for the incumbent-party nomination.
Key 3: Incumbency: The incumbent-party candidate is the sitting President.
Key 4: Third Party: There is no significant third-party or independent campaign.
Key 5: Short-Term Economy: The economy is not in recession during the election campaign.
Key 6: Long-Term Economy: Real per-capita economic growth during the term equals or exceeds mean growth during the previous 2 terms.
Key 7: Policy Change: The Incumbent Administration effects major changes in national policy.
Key 8: Social Unrest: There is no sustained social unrest during the term.
Key 9: Scandal: The incumbent adminsitration is untainted by major scandal.
Key 10: Foreign/Military Failure: The incumbent administration suffers no major failure in foreign or military affairs.
Key 11: Foreign/Military Success: The incumbent administration achieves a mahor success in foreign or military affairs.
Key 12: Incumbent Charisma: The incumbent-party candidate is charismatic or a national hero.
Key 13: Challenger Charisma: The challenging-party candidate is not charismatic or a national hero.
The reason I find this method of analysis so provocative is because it's fundamental focus on accountability and how it potentially puts the lie to the idea that time we as Americans spend on politics int his country is fundamentally unnecessary.
The first four of these are entirely political: 1) The Mandate: Does the President's party retain numbers in the House of Representatives after the mid-term election in excess of what they held before the last Presidential election. In our case we'd be comparing the current House controlled by Speaker John Boehner and the Republicans with that run by Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats at the end of George Bush's last term, after 2006, but before Obama was elected. Clearly, with change in party control the Democrats' legislative mandate was overturned. RESULT: Obama takes a hit, losing one key to Romney.
Remember, if Romney takes six keys from the President he wins the popular vote. Otherwise, he loses it. Can the Electoral College still go the other way? Yes, and perhaps we're in a period of history where the odds of this are higher, but they still aren't favorable. And the impact of the popular vote on the outcome in Congress will be the same regardless. More on this at the end.
2) Party primary: Is the President subject to a challenge from within his own party? There was serious concern immediately after the Democrat's major mid-term losses in the 2010 elections would result in a primary challenge to the President, however except for brief mentions of Hillary Clinton, most of those who were asked and considered the possibility were on the Far Left, eg. Dennis Kucinich and the Socialist from Vermont, Bernie Sanders. In combination with a bad economy a primary challenge, even when it fails, can be fatal to a Presidency. In fact, the last successful primary challenge to a sitting President was in 1852 for the Whig Party nomination and resulted in the party's demise and the emergence of the Republicans.
In this case no challenge emerged. RESULT: Obama holds at -1 key.
3) Incumbency: Is the incumbent running for re-election? This one is a gimme.
RESULT: Obama holds at -1 key.
4) Third Party: Third party or Independent challenge. The final political key is also considered by Prof. Lichtman to be a given. If such a challenge had emerged, pundits would be analyzing which of the major parties would lose the most votes. For instance, if Ron Paul had decided to run again for the Libertarian nomination or an independent campaign, would his fiscal conservatism have hurt Romney more, or would his opposition to intervention abroad have taken votes from Obama?
Lichtman says ALL original 3rd parties or independents ARE a strike against the incumbent. Candidates of existing 3rd parties, taking less than a percentage point nationally don't count. Perhaps that's a judgement call, but if the candidate isn't thought to be able to effect the popular vote outcome, it's safe to hold this key for the Democrats. RESULT: Obama holds 3 of the 4 political keys and is still down only -1 key.
The next 2 keys concern the economy.
5) Short-Term Economy: Whether the economy is in recession DURING the Fall election campaign.
Of any of the 13 keys, #5 would easily be considered the President's greatest weakness. As Labor Day passed it seems unlikely they win this one. And this could be decisive, as you will see. Result: Obama at -2.
6) Long-Term Economy: Whether economic growth during the current Presidential term equals or exceeds the average growth during the two just prior (in this case, the 8 years of President Bush.) According to Wikipedia growth during the Bush years averaged 2.5 even accounting for the recession that began at the very end of his 2nd term and the attacks on 9-11. By comparison, though the economy did emerge from economic contraction of late 2008 and early 2009, growth estimates during 2012 had to be adjusted downwards by the Administration with economic growth during the Obama term over all averaging 1.5%. RESULT: Obama now at -3, due primarily to the state of the economy.
At this point it would seem the President is halfway to losing his job, however...
7) Policy Change: Whether the incumbent Administration effects major change in National policy.
This one is a no-brainer. In a word: Obamacare. I could go into all the other pieces of legislation the Democrats enacted when they were in the Supermajority, but for the purposes of this excercise it's unnecessary. Result: The President holds at -3.
8) Social Unrest: This one is a little harder to define. As the Author says, "as the criteria for social unrest are less specific than for the other keys, " defining social unrest, "is the most difficult to call retroactively." In fact, the author elaborates on a number of events in U.S. history, a few of which I knew (John Brown's raid on Harper's Ferry helped start the Civil War, and the Bonus March on Washington where WWI veterans were attacked by Gen. Pershing's troops was a major strike against Herbert Hoover anticipating the election of FDR), but also a few I'd never even heard of. According to the author all but 3 of the incidents that counted against a President occured during the 19th Century. He gave a number of unsatisfying reasons for what should count and what should not. But in looking over his choices a possible answer is that to turn this key against a President the violence involved in the unrest must be viewed by the voters as the harbinger of something unresolved.
I don't see anything like that today. Protests by the Tea Party have been peaceful and those of the Occupy Wall Street movement, if a bit unsanitary at times, were also ended in an orderly fashion once authorities requested them to leave. RESULT: The President continues to hold: -3
At this point, the balance has clearly shifted. The President is still half way to defeat, however, with 5 keys still left to decide, 3 of the 5 (a majority) would have to fall in order for that to happen. The odds are now even.
A good time to take break.
and the 2nd part will address the all-important college and the possibility that it may in fact split from the popular vote as it did in 2000.
According to a statistical analysis, the best way to determine the results of Presidential elections is to use those statistics with the highest degree of predictive accuracy. Those who make their living predicting election results have used a multitude of different statistics to determine who will prevail. Some use an economic anlysis by reviewing charts of America's GDP or the national unemployment rate during the current President's term. Others study polls of the President's popularity or America's opinion of his job performance. Rather amusingly, some will even study the outcome of sporting events in comparison with the terms of previous Presidents. In each case, an attempt is made to predict the outcome of a Presidential election by comparing statistics that have a high level of consistency with respect to past results in relation to each of these indicators.
When conducting my analysis, I begin with an admittedly controvsersial method devised almost 20 years ago by Prof. Alan Lichtman of American University in Washington D.C., called, "TheThirteen Keys to the Presidency."
In it, he asserts that regardless of the strengths of the candidates campaigns; how much money they raise, how many campaign stops they make across the country, how well the candidates do in debates, or who gets picked to be the Vice Presidential running mate, the outcome of the election is determined by 13 questions primarily regarding the current President's performance in office. If any 6 of these are answered in the negative, the President's party loses the popular vote and most likely, the election. If 5 or fewer are answered negatively, the President's party wins the Popular vote.
These are the Keys (from the book):
Key 1: Party Mandate: After the midterm elections, the incumbent party holds more seats in the U.S. House of Representatives than it did after the previous mid-term.
Key 2: Contest: There is no serious contest for the incumbent-party nomination.
Key 3: Incumbency: The incumbent-party candidate is the sitting President.
Key 4: Third Party: There is no significant third-party or independent campaign.
Key 5: Short-Term Economy: The economy is not in recession during the election campaign.
Key 6: Long-Term Economy: Real per-capita economic growth during the term equals or exceeds mean growth during the previous 2 terms.
Key 7: Policy Change: The Incumbent Administration effects major changes in national policy.
Key 8: Social Unrest: There is no sustained social unrest during the term.
Key 9: Scandal: The incumbent adminsitration is untainted by major scandal.
Key 10: Foreign/Military Failure: The incumbent administration suffers no major failure in foreign or military affairs.
Key 11: Foreign/Military Success: The incumbent administration achieves a mahor success in foreign or military affairs.
Key 12: Incumbent Charisma: The incumbent-party candidate is charismatic or a national hero.
Key 13: Challenger Charisma: The challenging-party candidate is not charismatic or a national hero.
The reason I find this method of analysis so provocative is because it's fundamental focus on accountability and how it potentially puts the lie to the idea that time we as Americans spend on politics int his country is fundamentally unnecessary.
The first four of these are entirely political: 1) The Mandate: Does the President's party retain numbers in the House of Representatives after the mid-term election in excess of what they held before the last Presidential election. In our case we'd be comparing the current House controlled by Speaker John Boehner and the Republicans with that run by Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats at the end of George Bush's last term, after 2006, but before Obama was elected. Clearly, with change in party control the Democrats' legislative mandate was overturned. RESULT: Obama takes a hit, losing one key to Romney.
Remember, if Romney takes six keys from the President he wins the popular vote. Otherwise, he loses it. Can the Electoral College still go the other way? Yes, and perhaps we're in a period of history where the odds of this are higher, but they still aren't favorable. And the impact of the popular vote on the outcome in Congress will be the same regardless. More on this at the end.
2) Party primary: Is the President subject to a challenge from within his own party? There was serious concern immediately after the Democrat's major mid-term losses in the 2010 elections would result in a primary challenge to the President, however except for brief mentions of Hillary Clinton, most of those who were asked and considered the possibility were on the Far Left, eg. Dennis Kucinich and the Socialist from Vermont, Bernie Sanders. In combination with a bad economy a primary challenge, even when it fails, can be fatal to a Presidency. In fact, the last successful primary challenge to a sitting President was in 1852 for the Whig Party nomination and resulted in the party's demise and the emergence of the Republicans.
In this case no challenge emerged. RESULT: Obama holds at -1 key.
3) Incumbency: Is the incumbent running for re-election? This one is a gimme.
RESULT: Obama holds at -1 key.
4) Third Party: Third party or Independent challenge. The final political key is also considered by Prof. Lichtman to be a given. If such a challenge had emerged, pundits would be analyzing which of the major parties would lose the most votes. For instance, if Ron Paul had decided to run again for the Libertarian nomination or an independent campaign, would his fiscal conservatism have hurt Romney more, or would his opposition to intervention abroad have taken votes from Obama?
Lichtman says ALL original 3rd parties or independents ARE a strike against the incumbent. Candidates of existing 3rd parties, taking less than a percentage point nationally don't count. Perhaps that's a judgement call, but if the candidate isn't thought to be able to effect the popular vote outcome, it's safe to hold this key for the Democrats. RESULT: Obama holds 3 of the 4 political keys and is still down only -1 key.
The next 2 keys concern the economy.
5) Short-Term Economy: Whether the economy is in recession DURING the Fall election campaign.
Of any of the 13 keys, #5 would easily be considered the President's greatest weakness. As Labor Day passed it seems unlikely they win this one. And this could be decisive, as you will see. Result: Obama at -2.
6) Long-Term Economy: Whether economic growth during the current Presidential term equals or exceeds the average growth during the two just prior (in this case, the 8 years of President Bush.) According to Wikipedia growth during the Bush years averaged 2.5 even accounting for the recession that began at the very end of his 2nd term and the attacks on 9-11. By comparison, though the economy did emerge from economic contraction of late 2008 and early 2009, growth estimates during 2012 had to be adjusted downwards by the Administration with economic growth during the Obama term over all averaging 1.5%. RESULT: Obama now at -3, due primarily to the state of the economy.
At this point it would seem the President is halfway to losing his job, however...
7) Policy Change: Whether the incumbent Administration effects major change in National policy.
This one is a no-brainer. In a word: Obamacare. I could go into all the other pieces of legislation the Democrats enacted when they were in the Supermajority, but for the purposes of this excercise it's unnecessary. Result: The President holds at -3.
8) Social Unrest: This one is a little harder to define. As the Author says, "as the criteria for social unrest are less specific than for the other keys, " defining social unrest, "is the most difficult to call retroactively." In fact, the author elaborates on a number of events in U.S. history, a few of which I knew (John Brown's raid on Harper's Ferry helped start the Civil War, and the Bonus March on Washington where WWI veterans were attacked by Gen. Pershing's troops was a major strike against Herbert Hoover anticipating the election of FDR), but also a few I'd never even heard of. According to the author all but 3 of the incidents that counted against a President occured during the 19th Century. He gave a number of unsatisfying reasons for what should count and what should not. But in looking over his choices a possible answer is that to turn this key against a President the violence involved in the unrest must be viewed by the voters as the harbinger of something unresolved.
I don't see anything like that today. Protests by the Tea Party have been peaceful and those of the Occupy Wall Street movement, if a bit unsanitary at times, were also ended in an orderly fashion once authorities requested them to leave. RESULT: The President continues to hold: -3
At this point, the balance has clearly shifted. The President is still half way to defeat, however, with 5 keys still left to decide, 3 of the 5 (a majority) would have to fall in order for that to happen. The odds are now even.
A good time to take break.
Saturday, October 6, 2012
Battle of the Polls
One of the ways in which the state of the Presidential race is often gauged is by analyzing the number and population of the states in which they're competitive. Often, an election will seem to have been decided even before the votes are counted because one of the candidates (usually the challenger) appeared to have a much narrower path to winning the Presidency. That is, the number of states in which they were competitive simply shrank to where they could not afford to lose ANY the remainder and still hope to win.
Before the first presidential debate, Wednesday, it was beginning to look like this was happening to Mitt Romney. But oh how things can change over night!
At the beginning of the race over a year ago (I have a serious issue with that) the Republican primary race was already under way. Pollsters don't really poll the individual states so far in advance before the nominee is chosen because the choice of opposition candidate can make a difference. By the time pollsters really began to poll the candidates strengths against Obama, it seemed the President was a shoo-in for re-election.
Once Romney had secured the nomination, however, the focus shifted to the President and Romney quickly became competitive, even taking the lead in the national popular vote, though not in the battleground states. As you'll find out in later posts here, I am often suspicious of polls, as not all of them are of equal quality (you have to look at who is doing the polling) and many can be deceiving when it comes to predicting the final election results. A fact that is not surprising because the results of different polls seem to contradict each other, though interestingly enough, they do so in consistent ways. What this means with regard to the reliability of polls is that even though you can't really trust them to predict, they do give one a sense of the momentum of the race; in what direction the race is going.
If we start at the beginning of Summer we find that about 11 states were competitive between Obama and Romney, including Pennsylvania and Michigan which haven't voted Republican in 20 years, as well as North Carolina which the Democrats were so intent on winning they held their Convention there. The complete list was Nevada, Colorado, North Carolina, Florida, Virginia, Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Iowa, and New Hampshire. There were polls early on that indicated Missouri could be as well, however those didn't last, which means this traditional swing state is tilting to the right. (In fact, until McCain won it by a fraction of 1 percent over Obama it voted for the November winner in every election for half a Century.)
Polls began to stabilize during the Summer with the President holding consistent leads in Ohio and Virginia both of which came closest to mirroring the final winning percentage for Obama in 2008. This despite polls that showed Romney highly competitive in the national popular vote; even winning it ins some cases. It's important to add however, that in none of these 11 was either candidate over 50%, not even Ohio and Virginia. So the sense began to develop that the race was essentially tied.
Romney led in Florida probably about as often as the President which, given the tendency of undecided voters to break late for the challenger probably gives Romney the advantage. In some cases Romney performed better in Michigan and Pennsylvania than he did in Ohio, though I always found this highly suspect given Ohio has always been more Republican going back more than half a century. Romney moved briefly into the lead in Wisconsin after he chose Paul Ryan as his running mate and then settled into competitive territory with Obama ahead but with less than 50 %.
In conformity with the 2008 results Obama maintained a lead in Colorado and even seemed to nearly put Nevada away by holding there at 49%. In stark contrast, and in a surprising development both Iowa and New Hampshire gave Romney polling leads as often as Florida. North Carolina seemed to move out of range for Obama once Romney had secured his nomination, but re-emerged as competitive during and after their convention. A win there would ensure the President's election.
Just before the conventions, Michigan and Pennsylvania passed 50% for Presdient Obama, concerning Republicans who worried that Romney's path was narrowing, though oddly enough several polls had Romney taking the lead in Colorado and Nevada at the same time.
The Conventions were a turning point, with the Republican gathering seen as somewhat of a dud and the Democratic convo with Bill Clinton a major boost to Obama. By the end of September the election seemed nearly over as Ohio went to 50% for Obama. In fact, just before the debate, Obama appeared to pass 50% in every swing state except Florida, Colorado, and New Hampshire; North Carolina, again giving Romney a strong lead at nearly 50%.
What a difference a couple days make! In fact, this happened so quickly, it makes me wonder if the President's lead wouldn't have diminished even without Romney's debate performance. The night of the debate Romney was even in Florida and Virginia. As of Friday, Rasmussen came out with polls showing Romney leading in both and essentially tied at 49-50% in Ohio. Haven't seen any polls in Wisconsin or Iowa yet, however did see TWO that showed Romney at 50% in Colorado.
It's just amazing how these polls can swing so drastically, which only reinforces my belief that polls don't really accurately predict the final result until voters are fully re-engaged with the views of the political parties. How else to explain the return of what looks like the Bush maps of 2000 and 2004, with Ohio in the dead center, both candidates fighting over less than a fraction of 1 percent, tied at 50?
Simply amazing.
Before the first presidential debate, Wednesday, it was beginning to look like this was happening to Mitt Romney. But oh how things can change over night!
At the beginning of the race over a year ago (I have a serious issue with that) the Republican primary race was already under way. Pollsters don't really poll the individual states so far in advance before the nominee is chosen because the choice of opposition candidate can make a difference. By the time pollsters really began to poll the candidates strengths against Obama, it seemed the President was a shoo-in for re-election.
Once Romney had secured the nomination, however, the focus shifted to the President and Romney quickly became competitive, even taking the lead in the national popular vote, though not in the battleground states. As you'll find out in later posts here, I am often suspicious of polls, as not all of them are of equal quality (you have to look at who is doing the polling) and many can be deceiving when it comes to predicting the final election results. A fact that is not surprising because the results of different polls seem to contradict each other, though interestingly enough, they do so in consistent ways. What this means with regard to the reliability of polls is that even though you can't really trust them to predict, they do give one a sense of the momentum of the race; in what direction the race is going.
If we start at the beginning of Summer we find that about 11 states were competitive between Obama and Romney, including Pennsylvania and Michigan which haven't voted Republican in 20 years, as well as North Carolina which the Democrats were so intent on winning they held their Convention there. The complete list was Nevada, Colorado, North Carolina, Florida, Virginia, Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Iowa, and New Hampshire. There were polls early on that indicated Missouri could be as well, however those didn't last, which means this traditional swing state is tilting to the right. (In fact, until McCain won it by a fraction of 1 percent over Obama it voted for the November winner in every election for half a Century.)
Polls began to stabilize during the Summer with the President holding consistent leads in Ohio and Virginia both of which came closest to mirroring the final winning percentage for Obama in 2008. This despite polls that showed Romney highly competitive in the national popular vote; even winning it ins some cases. It's important to add however, that in none of these 11 was either candidate over 50%, not even Ohio and Virginia. So the sense began to develop that the race was essentially tied.
Romney led in Florida probably about as often as the President which, given the tendency of undecided voters to break late for the challenger probably gives Romney the advantage. In some cases Romney performed better in Michigan and Pennsylvania than he did in Ohio, though I always found this highly suspect given Ohio has always been more Republican going back more than half a century. Romney moved briefly into the lead in Wisconsin after he chose Paul Ryan as his running mate and then settled into competitive territory with Obama ahead but with less than 50 %.
In conformity with the 2008 results Obama maintained a lead in Colorado and even seemed to nearly put Nevada away by holding there at 49%. In stark contrast, and in a surprising development both Iowa and New Hampshire gave Romney polling leads as often as Florida. North Carolina seemed to move out of range for Obama once Romney had secured his nomination, but re-emerged as competitive during and after their convention. A win there would ensure the President's election.
Just before the conventions, Michigan and Pennsylvania passed 50% for Presdient Obama, concerning Republicans who worried that Romney's path was narrowing, though oddly enough several polls had Romney taking the lead in Colorado and Nevada at the same time.
The Conventions were a turning point, with the Republican gathering seen as somewhat of a dud and the Democratic convo with Bill Clinton a major boost to Obama. By the end of September the election seemed nearly over as Ohio went to 50% for Obama. In fact, just before the debate, Obama appeared to pass 50% in every swing state except Florida, Colorado, and New Hampshire; North Carolina, again giving Romney a strong lead at nearly 50%.
What a difference a couple days make! In fact, this happened so quickly, it makes me wonder if the President's lead wouldn't have diminished even without Romney's debate performance. The night of the debate Romney was even in Florida and Virginia. As of Friday, Rasmussen came out with polls showing Romney leading in both and essentially tied at 49-50% in Ohio. Haven't seen any polls in Wisconsin or Iowa yet, however did see TWO that showed Romney at 50% in Colorado.
It's just amazing how these polls can swing so drastically, which only reinforces my belief that polls don't really accurately predict the final result until voters are fully re-engaged with the views of the political parties. How else to explain the return of what looks like the Bush maps of 2000 and 2004, with Ohio in the dead center, both candidates fighting over less than a fraction of 1 percent, tied at 50?
Simply amazing.
Thursday, October 4, 2012
The First Debate
The first debate is now over and both sides seem to agree that Mitt Romney
won out over President Obama. That he was tenacious and direct, while the
President seemed like he didn't want to be there. The Right are baying at the
moon over Mitt's performace tonight, and the Left seem angry that President
Obama didn't do more. Quick polls on the debate last night have already
come out saying that 56% of Americans have a more positive opinion of
Romney after tonight's debate.
Given the pre-debate debate, it was clear what the President was trying to do:
not appear snarky or arrogant. In fact both candidates spent much of the first
15 minutes being very agreeable to each other with Obama nodding his
head and making extra effort to smile at Romney's responses. This was part
of the plan, I believe, for Obama to, "do no harm," to his current polling lead.
An assessment with which even Charles Krauthammer of Fox News agrees:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/10/03/krauthammer_romney_won_big_he_won_by_two_touchdowns.html
I'll be very interested in seeing what effect this debate has on the polls in the
coming days, whether Obama's recent gains are reversed. Certainly if there
were any Republicans who were not voting before the debate, they are now.
I'm not sure there was enough in what each of the candidates actually said
that would change many votes, but if presentation matters Romney could make
this race competitive again with only a month to go.
I said in my last post that Romney needed to be more revealing about what he
plans to do if elected. I think Romney was very clear about his platform and
now that's more widely known. I'm still not sure however, that he has put to
rest fears that he can be trusted to tell people what they don't want to hear.
And so I think Romney still has work to do seal the deal, but it's clear that
Romney really wants to be President (unlike McCain 4 years ago) and that
his supporters are now activated for the remainder of the campaign.
won out over President Obama. That he was tenacious and direct, while the
President seemed like he didn't want to be there. The Right are baying at the
moon over Mitt's performace tonight, and the Left seem angry that President
Obama didn't do more. Quick polls on the debate last night have already
come out saying that 56% of Americans have a more positive opinion of
Romney after tonight's debate.
Given the pre-debate debate, it was clear what the President was trying to do:
not appear snarky or arrogant. In fact both candidates spent much of the first
15 minutes being very agreeable to each other with Obama nodding his
head and making extra effort to smile at Romney's responses. This was part
of the plan, I believe, for Obama to, "do no harm," to his current polling lead.
An assessment with which even Charles Krauthammer of Fox News agrees:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/10/03/krauthammer_romney_won_big_he_won_by_two_touchdowns.html
I'll be very interested in seeing what effect this debate has on the polls in the
coming days, whether Obama's recent gains are reversed. Certainly if there
were any Republicans who were not voting before the debate, they are now.
I'm not sure there was enough in what each of the candidates actually said
that would change many votes, but if presentation matters Romney could make
this race competitive again with only a month to go.
I said in my last post that Romney needed to be more revealing about what he
plans to do if elected. I think Romney was very clear about his platform and
now that's more widely known. I'm still not sure however, that he has put to
rest fears that he can be trusted to tell people what they don't want to hear.
And so I think Romney still has work to do seal the deal, but it's clear that
Romney really wants to be President (unlike McCain 4 years ago) and that
his supporters are now activated for the remainder of the campaign.
Wednesday, October 3, 2012
What Romney has to do.
I have to admit I've been pretty upset lately, about the state of the current campaign. After a really mediocre Convention showing conservatives exactly what had been forced down their throats and a truly masterful performance by Bill Clinton at their convention we find ourselves in a situation where not only is the President ahead in the race for 2012, some say he could actually win by the same margin as he did in 2008?! As if the country hadn't learned anything from the last 4 years. That no one had changed their mind?! (One exception being Larry Sabato of the University of VA, who has correctly predicted 99% of the Federal elections in this country since 2002. He said such a thing was unlikely.)
So today I am going to cover what Romney need to do tonight in his debate performance and from here on out to win the election. To be frank, he's got to come clean, stop pandering like a liberal (or Republican for that matter) and give the American people a flesh and blood plan for what he's going to do when elected. The REAL plan, with answers to at least some of what he's going to have to cut. He's got to take a chance that the American people are in fact in desperate shape looking for somebody new to help. But they want somebody who is going to be honest with them.
Pundits on the Sunday shows this week were all debating what Romney has to do to, "get back in the game." Their answers were all about how Romney needs to, "Redefine himself," for the millionth time. The real answer is that he's got to do what he really, REALLY does not want to do. And that's tell the TRUTH! Do you think Romney beat around the bush like this when he was at Bain Capital? Did he tell the companies he was working to turn-around what they wanted to hear? Or did he tell them the unvarnished truth about their condition? Why is behaving like a politician from Massachusetts and not the CEO from Bain Capital? At this point, I think he really has no choice. He got to be honest about the Pain and the Gain.
That's the only way he's going to get around his really INSULTING 47% comments. I have to say, Republicans can be really arrogant some times and it shows how really out of touch they are with the American electorate that they simply assumed the entire 47% were Obama supporters. That NO Republican would ever be on government assistance. Even though 25% these govermnent outlays consist of Social Security and Medicare recipients. Older folks who are heavily Republican. Do they think that NO Republican is out of work?! Dumb, dumb, DUMB! It shows why the Republican party will never be a majority party: Their elitist view of the very voters they're supposed to be getting the support of.
The assumption is that because nearly half the American people don't pay Federal Income taxes that means the same number are on government assistance. However, according to a recent Christian Science Monitor article (October 1, p.12) only 37 percent are on government assistance. The difference accounted for by those who pay no income tax but are self-sufficient. On top of which the reason so many Americans don't pay income tax is because of a policy known as the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), an idea created by Republicans to have the poor refunded all their income tax payments instead of receiving government assistance.
Mitt can still get himself elected President of the United States but to do that he'll have to stop being a politician and start telling Americans the good and bad of what it is he plans to do if elected. And if he can't be honest about that, maybe even I won't want to him to win.
So today I am going to cover what Romney need to do tonight in his debate performance and from here on out to win the election. To be frank, he's got to come clean, stop pandering like a liberal (or Republican for that matter) and give the American people a flesh and blood plan for what he's going to do when elected. The REAL plan, with answers to at least some of what he's going to have to cut. He's got to take a chance that the American people are in fact in desperate shape looking for somebody new to help. But they want somebody who is going to be honest with them.
Pundits on the Sunday shows this week were all debating what Romney has to do to, "get back in the game." Their answers were all about how Romney needs to, "Redefine himself," for the millionth time. The real answer is that he's got to do what he really, REALLY does not want to do. And that's tell the TRUTH! Do you think Romney beat around the bush like this when he was at Bain Capital? Did he tell the companies he was working to turn-around what they wanted to hear? Or did he tell them the unvarnished truth about their condition? Why is behaving like a politician from Massachusetts and not the CEO from Bain Capital? At this point, I think he really has no choice. He got to be honest about the Pain and the Gain.
That's the only way he's going to get around his really INSULTING 47% comments. I have to say, Republicans can be really arrogant some times and it shows how really out of touch they are with the American electorate that they simply assumed the entire 47% were Obama supporters. That NO Republican would ever be on government assistance. Even though 25% these govermnent outlays consist of Social Security and Medicare recipients. Older folks who are heavily Republican. Do they think that NO Republican is out of work?! Dumb, dumb, DUMB! It shows why the Republican party will never be a majority party: Their elitist view of the very voters they're supposed to be getting the support of.
The assumption is that because nearly half the American people don't pay Federal Income taxes that means the same number are on government assistance. However, according to a recent Christian Science Monitor article (October 1, p.12) only 37 percent are on government assistance. The difference accounted for by those who pay no income tax but are self-sufficient. On top of which the reason so many Americans don't pay income tax is because of a policy known as the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), an idea created by Republicans to have the poor refunded all their income tax payments instead of receiving government assistance.
Mitt can still get himself elected President of the United States but to do that he'll have to stop being a politician and start telling Americans the good and bad of what it is he plans to do if elected. And if he can't be honest about that, maybe even I won't want to him to win.
Tuesday, April 3, 2012
What happened? And is it "over," again?
I will admit today that I should have been covering the blow by blow of this very interestingPresidential race but the fact that I haven't isn't an indication that I lost interest, rather that things have changed on almost a weekly basis and I have, indeed, found it hard to keep up in a manner that most professional journalists certainly have. And I'm sorry for that.
It's been awhile since I last posted and events have not exactly gone as I predicted they would, an occupational hazard to be sure, but I'm certainly not alone in that. When last I wrote I tried to explain how I believed the very complex process of nominating an American President would progress and what the important dates were to keep an eye on.
Here's what went wrong. It has been known for some time, based on the ideological split within the GOP (about 40% - 60%, moderate to conservative), that the winner of the Republican nomination would be either Mitt Romney or someone else who could finally manage to unite the conservative opposition to the Massachusestts Governor. At the time of my last post, it appeared almost certain that whether Romney won Florida or not, Gingrich would be that alternative. I also underestimated the degree to which both religious affinity and Romney's savvy at pursuading voters that he's somehow conservative, would allow him to prevail in those Western caucus states that Gingrich desperately needed to rebound from losing Florida, force Santorum out, unite the conservative majority and go on to upset Romney in Michigan and take the lead.
Then a couple of things changed. First, a recount in Iowa, 18 days after the vote, moved Rick Santorum from 8 votes down to over 25 ahead of Romney, which meant he had prevailed there after all. This meant that for those dissatisfied with Newt, Santorum now qualified as a contender. Second, Gingrich and his team undersestimated what this meant (as did I) believing they already had Romney all to themselves, that they could skip the whole month of February (of which I was, however, VERY skeptical) and pursue a Southern strategy in March to retake the initiative. This breaks a cardinal rule of the old primary politics, in that, to win, you have to not only dominate your own region, but move as quickly as possible to compete in your opponents' backyard. Romney had already done this by besting Gingrich in Florida and now, by conceding the West, Gingrich was giving Santorum the opportunity to edge Romney in Colorado, which he did, and was surpassed as a result. And to add insult to injury, Santorum was poised to compete on Gingrich's Southern turf as well.
What continues to help Romney is that even though Santorum has emerged as his leading opponent, Gingrich is still taking votes he desperately needs to overtake the front-runner, with the result that where a single alternative could have snatched Michigan, Romney instead edges Santorum by 3 points and again in Ohio by less than a fraction of 1 percent. And although Gingrich has failed to win any more than his own state, by dividing the Southern vote with Santorum, he's helped Romney take a share of the delegates there too, where they can least afford to lose.
Presidential primaries are very unusual in that there are no real rules for how to win, only precedents for how candidates have succeeded in the past. The "rules,"for success are ENTIRELY subjective. Every pundit has their own analysis. Right now the assumption is that Romney has the nomination locked up because his opposition remains divided. But if either one drops out, the other could benefit immensely and there are even signs that Gingrich is contemplating how he can have the biggest impact now that he's been routed in his own backyard. But the uncertainty of this dynamic is why news outlets are always hyping the significance of the next state only to have the process continue on for what seems like FOREVER.
A word you'll often hear in discussions of primary politics is, 'momentum.' The idea being that candidates who beat the conventional wisdom of how they are supposed to do benefit from this publicity in ways far greater than the handful of delegates at stake in Iowa or New Hampshire. Based on comparisons with previous campaigns, candidates who, "beat the expectations," obtain a huge windfall in both campaign cash and press coverage. What's more they go from being the primary equivalent of the, "also ran," the Libertarian, Green, or other fringe candidate, to being a contender.
And in effect, the opposite is true as well. Failure to meet expectations tends to dampen cash, press covereage, and voter turnout. Tomorrow is Wisconsin and based on Romney's victories in Michigan and Ohio he's expected to win again. Certainly there is little evidence to the contrary. The calendar is also not Santorum's friend. If he does lose there tomorrow, that will mean three weeks of unfavorable analysis until the next primaries in New York. Pennsylvania, etc. and indications are that Santorum is even struggling there as well. And if Newt's losing in states neighboring his native Georgia disqualify him, Santorum losing his native Pennsylvania would be the kiss of death.
So is it really over? Maybe. As long as this remains a three-way race, the odds of Romney winning are insurmountable. But, as the primary results imply, a majority of Republicans still oppose Romney so if anything could cause one of them to get out, Romney might, all of a sudden, start to lose primaries. And there are quite a few still left. Anyone remember Obama vs. Clinton? It's only the assumption this won't happen that encourages the press to assume the race is already over. But one-on-one either Gingrich or Santorum would probably defeat Romney decsively. And if one or the other won a majority of the vote in Texas (May 29th) Romney just wouldn't have enough delegates to be nominated on his own at the convention, and all bets would be off.
And either one could do it. If Newt's declining vote share were to result in Santorum winning Wisconsin, Santorum winning the, "expectations game," would put increased pressure by conservatives on Newt to cede the field. Or Santorum could lose his own Pennsylvania shaming him out of the race and Newt comes back to life. It's still possible.
And I'll even go out on a limb and say it's likely. This is the kind of thing that happens when campaigns declare victory too early. And there simply is no modern precedent for what has transpired so far in this Republican race.
Anything could still happen. Nothing..... All hell breaking loose..... Or, more likely, something indecisive in between.
It's not over yet.
It's been awhile since I last posted and events have not exactly gone as I predicted they would, an occupational hazard to be sure, but I'm certainly not alone in that. When last I wrote I tried to explain how I believed the very complex process of nominating an American President would progress and what the important dates were to keep an eye on.
Here's what went wrong. It has been known for some time, based on the ideological split within the GOP (about 40% - 60%, moderate to conservative), that the winner of the Republican nomination would be either Mitt Romney or someone else who could finally manage to unite the conservative opposition to the Massachusestts Governor. At the time of my last post, it appeared almost certain that whether Romney won Florida or not, Gingrich would be that alternative. I also underestimated the degree to which both religious affinity and Romney's savvy at pursuading voters that he's somehow conservative, would allow him to prevail in those Western caucus states that Gingrich desperately needed to rebound from losing Florida, force Santorum out, unite the conservative majority and go on to upset Romney in Michigan and take the lead.
Then a couple of things changed. First, a recount in Iowa, 18 days after the vote, moved Rick Santorum from 8 votes down to over 25 ahead of Romney, which meant he had prevailed there after all. This meant that for those dissatisfied with Newt, Santorum now qualified as a contender. Second, Gingrich and his team undersestimated what this meant (as did I) believing they already had Romney all to themselves, that they could skip the whole month of February (of which I was, however, VERY skeptical) and pursue a Southern strategy in March to retake the initiative. This breaks a cardinal rule of the old primary politics, in that, to win, you have to not only dominate your own region, but move as quickly as possible to compete in your opponents' backyard. Romney had already done this by besting Gingrich in Florida and now, by conceding the West, Gingrich was giving Santorum the opportunity to edge Romney in Colorado, which he did, and was surpassed as a result. And to add insult to injury, Santorum was poised to compete on Gingrich's Southern turf as well.
What continues to help Romney is that even though Santorum has emerged as his leading opponent, Gingrich is still taking votes he desperately needs to overtake the front-runner, with the result that where a single alternative could have snatched Michigan, Romney instead edges Santorum by 3 points and again in Ohio by less than a fraction of 1 percent. And although Gingrich has failed to win any more than his own state, by dividing the Southern vote with Santorum, he's helped Romney take a share of the delegates there too, where they can least afford to lose.
Presidential primaries are very unusual in that there are no real rules for how to win, only precedents for how candidates have succeeded in the past. The "rules,"for success are ENTIRELY subjective. Every pundit has their own analysis. Right now the assumption is that Romney has the nomination locked up because his opposition remains divided. But if either one drops out, the other could benefit immensely and there are even signs that Gingrich is contemplating how he can have the biggest impact now that he's been routed in his own backyard. But the uncertainty of this dynamic is why news outlets are always hyping the significance of the next state only to have the process continue on for what seems like FOREVER.
A word you'll often hear in discussions of primary politics is, 'momentum.' The idea being that candidates who beat the conventional wisdom of how they are supposed to do benefit from this publicity in ways far greater than the handful of delegates at stake in Iowa or New Hampshire. Based on comparisons with previous campaigns, candidates who, "beat the expectations," obtain a huge windfall in both campaign cash and press coverage. What's more they go from being the primary equivalent of the, "also ran," the Libertarian, Green, or other fringe candidate, to being a contender.
And in effect, the opposite is true as well. Failure to meet expectations tends to dampen cash, press covereage, and voter turnout. Tomorrow is Wisconsin and based on Romney's victories in Michigan and Ohio he's expected to win again. Certainly there is little evidence to the contrary. The calendar is also not Santorum's friend. If he does lose there tomorrow, that will mean three weeks of unfavorable analysis until the next primaries in New York. Pennsylvania, etc. and indications are that Santorum is even struggling there as well. And if Newt's losing in states neighboring his native Georgia disqualify him, Santorum losing his native Pennsylvania would be the kiss of death.
So is it really over? Maybe. As long as this remains a three-way race, the odds of Romney winning are insurmountable. But, as the primary results imply, a majority of Republicans still oppose Romney so if anything could cause one of them to get out, Romney might, all of a sudden, start to lose primaries. And there are quite a few still left. Anyone remember Obama vs. Clinton? It's only the assumption this won't happen that encourages the press to assume the race is already over. But one-on-one either Gingrich or Santorum would probably defeat Romney decsively. And if one or the other won a majority of the vote in Texas (May 29th) Romney just wouldn't have enough delegates to be nominated on his own at the convention, and all bets would be off.
And either one could do it. If Newt's declining vote share were to result in Santorum winning Wisconsin, Santorum winning the, "expectations game," would put increased pressure by conservatives on Newt to cede the field. Or Santorum could lose his own Pennsylvania shaming him out of the race and Newt comes back to life. It's still possible.
And I'll even go out on a limb and say it's likely. This is the kind of thing that happens when campaigns declare victory too early. And there simply is no modern precedent for what has transpired so far in this Republican race.
Anything could still happen. Nothing..... All hell breaking loose..... Or, more likely, something indecisive in between.
It's not over yet.
Monday, January 30, 2012
Is Florida end of the line for Newt? Don't bet on it.
Well, yet another primary day is upon us and once again hyperbole abounds as to what the results will mean for the Republicans. A week ago the Republican establishment began to hyperventilate at the prospect of a Gingrich juggernaut sweeping from South Carolina to Florida and on to the nomination. Of course, a week before that, his candidacy was, "dead."
Now the blogosphere has declared that if Romney wins Florida as polls suggest he will: "THE RACE IS OVER!!!" Leave it to the partisans of the establishment to go to extremes once again. It's o.k. Romneyites, we understand. If the establishment loses it's hold on the GOP to it's conservative base
all heck will break lose. Can't let that happen, now can we?
But let's apply a little perspective to what is turning out to be quite an extraordinary campaign. First of all, as Newt has said, he's in the race to the convention. He's not going away. Having won South Carolina by 12 points, Gingrich is now a contender. If Rick Santorum drops out his voters may not be so inclined to vote for Romney. In fact, many of them fit the same profile as those who supported Mike Huckabee 4 years ago and the two of them never quite reconciled. Ron Paul will probably stay in, fighting for more delegates, hoping for a brokered convention between Newt and Romney. But of course, his supporters aren't voting for anyone else. No one articulates the Libertarian viewpoint quite like Congressman Paul does.
Second, if Romney wins, his margin of victory will be scrutinized. In current polls Romney has about 40-41 percent of the vote, while Newt has between 31 and 33 percent. The vote is still close. That leaves about 9 to 10 percent undecided which almost certainly consists of voters still hesitant to vote for Romney, but have spent the last week being deluged by anti-Newt ads desparately trying to convince them that Newt isn't conservative. If Newt gets those 9 percent the result will be close. If not, they'll probably break evenly to Gingrich, Romney, and Santorum. After this week, if they haven't settled on Romney, they probably never will.
Third, there are still 46 other states that haven't voted. February starts with a flurry of caucuses and ends with primaries in Michigan and Arizona. Because caucus participants must actually drive some distance to a voting site and spend the evening there engaged in political organization and debate, they tend to be both more partisan and more ideological. In this case, conservative. Is Romney more conservative than Newt? I'm not sure the Florida results will be determined on that basis, but the caucus results almost certainly will be.
The Michigan GOP is also more conservative than the party is in other parts of the Industrial Midwest and East where Romney must do well to be nominated. If Newt wins Michigan, it would be considered a coup. In fact, except for Arizona, Romney won every state four years ago, that is slated to vote in February. A veritable minefield of opportunities for Gingrich to deal a psychologlical blow to his opponent. Immigration, of course, will be the center-piece of the battle for Arizona and on this issue Romney may have the advantage of articulating the most conservative viewpoint.
So, just how far will this nomination battle go? If Newt can take some states out of Romney's column in February he'll have the momentum to continue to Super Tuesday in March where most of the states are either in Gingrich's backyard in the South or Caucus states filled with conservative activists, mostly in the west. Massachusetts also votes that day and should easily go to Romney, as should Ohio on the same day. In fact both Ohio and Illinois, which votes a couple weeks after, have more liberal party organizations and are must wins for Romney. If he doesn't, he's in trouble.
Two dates are of the utmost importance: Feb 28th and April 3rd. In 2008, more than half the states voted on Super Tuesday. California, New York, Illinois, Missouri, and just about every state in the Rocky Mountain West voted that day, but not in 2012. Now, they all vote later. So unless Newt is reversed in the South the race won't end on that day, as it has n every competitve pimary season for Republicans since 1988. Florida, Michigan, and Texas will determine if the race goes all the way to June. Texas votes on April 3rd. If either candidate wins all 3, the race will effectively be over that day. Newt needs Michigan on Feb 28th to prove, both that he's the more conservative candidate and that Romney's Mid-Western base isn't a lock for him. If not, he's in trouble.
If Romney wins Florida on Tuesday, Texas becomes all important for Gingrich. As the nation's 2nd largest state and the home of the last Republican President, Texas will prove if the establishment, represented by no one better than Mr. Bush, can take hold of the GOP's rank and file and end the contest early for Romney. Should Gingrich add Texas to his Southern base of support despite losing Florida, the race will go all the way to California in June and Newt will be in the driver's seat. From that point on it's all about delegates, fighting for every single state, and controlling the Convention in August.
At that point, a number of vulnerabilities will present themselves with Romney defending his base in New York, Pennsylvania, Connecticutt, Rhode Island, and Delaware. Any losses here would further diminish him down the final stretch. Wisconsin and Indiana could also prove difficult for Romney if Gingrich has managed to make it this far.
Is Florida the end of the line for Newt Gingrich? It could prove once again to be pivotal in determining who becomes the next President of the United States. But don't bet your life on it.
Now the blogosphere has declared that if Romney wins Florida as polls suggest he will: "THE RACE IS OVER!!!" Leave it to the partisans of the establishment to go to extremes once again. It's o.k. Romneyites, we understand. If the establishment loses it's hold on the GOP to it's conservative base
all heck will break lose. Can't let that happen, now can we?
But let's apply a little perspective to what is turning out to be quite an extraordinary campaign. First of all, as Newt has said, he's in the race to the convention. He's not going away. Having won South Carolina by 12 points, Gingrich is now a contender. If Rick Santorum drops out his voters may not be so inclined to vote for Romney. In fact, many of them fit the same profile as those who supported Mike Huckabee 4 years ago and the two of them never quite reconciled. Ron Paul will probably stay in, fighting for more delegates, hoping for a brokered convention between Newt and Romney. But of course, his supporters aren't voting for anyone else. No one articulates the Libertarian viewpoint quite like Congressman Paul does.
Second, if Romney wins, his margin of victory will be scrutinized. In current polls Romney has about 40-41 percent of the vote, while Newt has between 31 and 33 percent. The vote is still close. That leaves about 9 to 10 percent undecided which almost certainly consists of voters still hesitant to vote for Romney, but have spent the last week being deluged by anti-Newt ads desparately trying to convince them that Newt isn't conservative. If Newt gets those 9 percent the result will be close. If not, they'll probably break evenly to Gingrich, Romney, and Santorum. After this week, if they haven't settled on Romney, they probably never will.
Third, there are still 46 other states that haven't voted. February starts with a flurry of caucuses and ends with primaries in Michigan and Arizona. Because caucus participants must actually drive some distance to a voting site and spend the evening there engaged in political organization and debate, they tend to be both more partisan and more ideological. In this case, conservative. Is Romney more conservative than Newt? I'm not sure the Florida results will be determined on that basis, but the caucus results almost certainly will be.
The Michigan GOP is also more conservative than the party is in other parts of the Industrial Midwest and East where Romney must do well to be nominated. If Newt wins Michigan, it would be considered a coup. In fact, except for Arizona, Romney won every state four years ago, that is slated to vote in February. A veritable minefield of opportunities for Gingrich to deal a psychologlical blow to his opponent. Immigration, of course, will be the center-piece of the battle for Arizona and on this issue Romney may have the advantage of articulating the most conservative viewpoint.
So, just how far will this nomination battle go? If Newt can take some states out of Romney's column in February he'll have the momentum to continue to Super Tuesday in March where most of the states are either in Gingrich's backyard in the South or Caucus states filled with conservative activists, mostly in the west. Massachusetts also votes that day and should easily go to Romney, as should Ohio on the same day. In fact both Ohio and Illinois, which votes a couple weeks after, have more liberal party organizations and are must wins for Romney. If he doesn't, he's in trouble.
Two dates are of the utmost importance: Feb 28th and April 3rd. In 2008, more than half the states voted on Super Tuesday. California, New York, Illinois, Missouri, and just about every state in the Rocky Mountain West voted that day, but not in 2012. Now, they all vote later. So unless Newt is reversed in the South the race won't end on that day, as it has n every competitve pimary season for Republicans since 1988. Florida, Michigan, and Texas will determine if the race goes all the way to June. Texas votes on April 3rd. If either candidate wins all 3, the race will effectively be over that day. Newt needs Michigan on Feb 28th to prove, both that he's the more conservative candidate and that Romney's Mid-Western base isn't a lock for him. If not, he's in trouble.
If Romney wins Florida on Tuesday, Texas becomes all important for Gingrich. As the nation's 2nd largest state and the home of the last Republican President, Texas will prove if the establishment, represented by no one better than Mr. Bush, can take hold of the GOP's rank and file and end the contest early for Romney. Should Gingrich add Texas to his Southern base of support despite losing Florida, the race will go all the way to California in June and Newt will be in the driver's seat. From that point on it's all about delegates, fighting for every single state, and controlling the Convention in August.
At that point, a number of vulnerabilities will present themselves with Romney defending his base in New York, Pennsylvania, Connecticutt, Rhode Island, and Delaware. Any losses here would further diminish him down the final stretch. Wisconsin and Indiana could also prove difficult for Romney if Gingrich has managed to make it this far.
Is Florida the end of the line for Newt Gingrich? It could prove once again to be pivotal in determining who becomes the next President of the United States. But don't bet your life on it.
Tuesday, January 17, 2012
The Two Amendments
I have had a project in the back of my mind which I hope to hatch before too long. I still consider myself a conservative despite the troubles I've faced in the Obama economy. I strongly believe that only a growing economy brought on by limited taxation and fiscal discipline can tame our massive deficit and restore the kind of prosperity Americans are used to. I voted for McCain in 2008 and despite my continued frustration with the Republican party, can not imagine a scenario in which I wouldn't vote out the President to ensure these policies were returned to in 2013.
Still, this outcome is not assured. And after having seen one candidate after another rise and then fall
in the polls it occurs to me that a top-down solution, i.e. finding the perfect presidential candidate, may not ever be possible within the Republican circles. I have my favorite, of course, but results from the first two primaries, Iowa and New Hampshire, don't inspire much confidence, that a compelling alternative will emerge to Gov. Romney.
Which is why I have been considering for awhile now an idea for a grassroots, bottom-up campaign, centered around the Tea Party, or a portion of the Tea Party, to reform America's politics and give Americans a greater and more direct say in government policy.
Specifically, I advocate the passage of two Amendments to United States Constitution that will turn our nation's current predicament around. The first is a Reform of Congress. This will include a life-time four term-limit for members of the House and giving states (and their consituents) the power to Recall U.S. Senators. In addition, the Amendment would cap the pay of members of Congress' at $80,000 and Senators at $90,000. Congressional pensions would be terminated. After leaving Congress, members would be constitutionally required to forfeit all pay to the Treasury in excess of this standard congressional salary for any lobbying they do of the Federal Government and to pay the going rate for all gifts received. And Congress' Administrative costs (the amount they spend on themselves) would be capped as well at about 2/3rds what they are allowed today. As a Constitutional Amendment this will go a long way towards giving us the citizen Congress we deserve.
The second amendment proposed would be a 10% cap on all income taxes levied by the Federal Government. The cap could only be waved in war time, and even then in favor of a higher flat rate.
Congress would be required to pay the costs of all unfunded liabilities mandated by them so as to establish a genuine transparency in the total liabilities created by the Federal Government and allow states the right to spend their own taxes raised. Congress would be granted the power to give the President, for a specified time and subject to review periodically, the authority to veto line-items in the Federal budget.
These two amendments would go a long way towards restoring the kind of balance in government policy long absent from our discourse. But how to get Congress to propose them? It doesn't get mentioned in our history books, however, there were several attempts made to amend the Constitution in response to excesses of the Federal Govermnent. In each case, amendments proposed by the States for consideration by a Constitutional Convention came within a single state of becoming a reality. Each time, however, fears that a New Convention could not be controlled caused the effort to fail.
In my next post, I will describe how this issue can be addressed and assure the amendments suggested get sent to the states for ratification.
Still, this outcome is not assured. And after having seen one candidate after another rise and then fall
in the polls it occurs to me that a top-down solution, i.e. finding the perfect presidential candidate, may not ever be possible within the Republican circles. I have my favorite, of course, but results from the first two primaries, Iowa and New Hampshire, don't inspire much confidence, that a compelling alternative will emerge to Gov. Romney.
Which is why I have been considering for awhile now an idea for a grassroots, bottom-up campaign, centered around the Tea Party, or a portion of the Tea Party, to reform America's politics and give Americans a greater and more direct say in government policy.
Specifically, I advocate the passage of two Amendments to United States Constitution that will turn our nation's current predicament around. The first is a Reform of Congress. This will include a life-time four term-limit for members of the House and giving states (and their consituents) the power to Recall U.S. Senators. In addition, the Amendment would cap the pay of members of Congress' at $80,000 and Senators at $90,000. Congressional pensions would be terminated. After leaving Congress, members would be constitutionally required to forfeit all pay to the Treasury in excess of this standard congressional salary for any lobbying they do of the Federal Government and to pay the going rate for all gifts received. And Congress' Administrative costs (the amount they spend on themselves) would be capped as well at about 2/3rds what they are allowed today. As a Constitutional Amendment this will go a long way towards giving us the citizen Congress we deserve.
The second amendment proposed would be a 10% cap on all income taxes levied by the Federal Government. The cap could only be waved in war time, and even then in favor of a higher flat rate.
Congress would be required to pay the costs of all unfunded liabilities mandated by them so as to establish a genuine transparency in the total liabilities created by the Federal Government and allow states the right to spend their own taxes raised. Congress would be granted the power to give the President, for a specified time and subject to review periodically, the authority to veto line-items in the Federal budget.
These two amendments would go a long way towards restoring the kind of balance in government policy long absent from our discourse. But how to get Congress to propose them? It doesn't get mentioned in our history books, however, there were several attempts made to amend the Constitution in response to excesses of the Federal Govermnent. In each case, amendments proposed by the States for consideration by a Constitutional Convention came within a single state of becoming a reality. Each time, however, fears that a New Convention could not be controlled caused the effort to fail.
In my next post, I will describe how this issue can be addressed and assure the amendments suggested get sent to the states for ratification.
Tuesday, January 3, 2012
The Iowa Impact.
The New Year is finally upon us, and that means, finally, that it is time for Iowa to vote. When we last visited the Iowa polls, Newt Gingrich had replaced Herman Cain as the leading contender for the top spot in that state's caucuses. Since then an unrelenting barrage of negative advertizing has knocked the former Speaker of the House out of first place and into a life-or-death struggle for 3rd with Rick Santorum and Rick Perry. Some polls even have the former Senator from Pennsylvania pulling away and fighting for the win himself.
Despite all the protestations to the contrary ahead of voting Tuesday, several candidates will be eliminated after Iowa. Historically, there are only 3 tickets out of that state: Win (1), Place (2), and Show (3). In the Republican Party, a Win gets you into the final two, Placing gives you a shot at the final two, and 3rd, historically, has only been worth one week of favorable press coverage that goes nowhere. (See Lamar Alexander and Fred Thompson). This year, however, there may be evidence that the process is about to unfold differently and that 3rd spot may hold the key to victory.
If Ron Paul wins the caucuses, the establishment of the GOP will run scared trying to stop him. The question will then be whether such a win results in Mr. Paul moving into the top two in New Hampshire and South Carolina. Doing so would likely unite the party behind Mr. Romney. In New Hampshire, Paul is already there, despite being about 20 points behind the governor. But in South Carolina he's never gotten above single digits. Unless Paul becomes a serious threat to win there by climbing into second, the opening should still remain for an alternative to emerge in the Palmetto State. And given past nomination fights there is every reason to believe that honor would go to the 3rd candidate in Iowa.
If Romney wins the caucuses, the media will attempt to coronate him assuming a follow-up win in New Hampshire will seal the nomination for the Governor. In the Republican party, however, South Carolina has always been a more consistent predictor of who the eventual nominee ends up being, than either Iowa or New Hampshire. To think Romney closes out the contest within the next week or so would be to assume South Carolina Republicans had conceded the race to Romney. The problem with this scenario is that South Carolina polls show that Romney hasn't been very popular in that state either. Governor Romney has consistently held a weak second place there and often fallen to 3rd. That's a worse condition than he's faced nationally, where he's always been a consistent second to a series of alternatives and as I said in my last post, Romney came in 4th South Carolina in 2008.
So unless Mr. Paul scares voters into the arms of Romney, whoever takes the 3rd spot in Iowa, regardless of rank, will have a unique opportunity to consolidate the opposition to Romney and go on to win the nomination. And if this happens despite failing to win either Iowa or New Hampshire, the process will have fundamentally changed in the Republican party for years to come.
Despite all the protestations to the contrary ahead of voting Tuesday, several candidates will be eliminated after Iowa. Historically, there are only 3 tickets out of that state: Win (1), Place (2), and Show (3). In the Republican Party, a Win gets you into the final two, Placing gives you a shot at the final two, and 3rd, historically, has only been worth one week of favorable press coverage that goes nowhere. (See Lamar Alexander and Fred Thompson). This year, however, there may be evidence that the process is about to unfold differently and that 3rd spot may hold the key to victory.
If Ron Paul wins the caucuses, the establishment of the GOP will run scared trying to stop him. The question will then be whether such a win results in Mr. Paul moving into the top two in New Hampshire and South Carolina. Doing so would likely unite the party behind Mr. Romney. In New Hampshire, Paul is already there, despite being about 20 points behind the governor. But in South Carolina he's never gotten above single digits. Unless Paul becomes a serious threat to win there by climbing into second, the opening should still remain for an alternative to emerge in the Palmetto State. And given past nomination fights there is every reason to believe that honor would go to the 3rd candidate in Iowa.
If Romney wins the caucuses, the media will attempt to coronate him assuming a follow-up win in New Hampshire will seal the nomination for the Governor. In the Republican party, however, South Carolina has always been a more consistent predictor of who the eventual nominee ends up being, than either Iowa or New Hampshire. To think Romney closes out the contest within the next week or so would be to assume South Carolina Republicans had conceded the race to Romney. The problem with this scenario is that South Carolina polls show that Romney hasn't been very popular in that state either. Governor Romney has consistently held a weak second place there and often fallen to 3rd. That's a worse condition than he's faced nationally, where he's always been a consistent second to a series of alternatives and as I said in my last post, Romney came in 4th South Carolina in 2008.
So unless Mr. Paul scares voters into the arms of Romney, whoever takes the 3rd spot in Iowa, regardless of rank, will have a unique opportunity to consolidate the opposition to Romney and go on to win the nomination. And if this happens despite failing to win either Iowa or New Hampshire, the process will have fundamentally changed in the Republican party for years to come.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)