What an Election!

Okay, the election results are pretty amazing. I am relived that President Obama was reelected (which should cement the Affordable Care Act among other good things). But I am excited about the other developments.

The following Democrats won their US Senate races: Jon Tester won in Montana; Heidi Heitkamp won in North Dakota. Tammy Baldwin will be the first openly gay or lesbian member of the US Senate and just as importantly another progressive Democrat; Tim Kaine won in Virginia - beating George Allen hopefully for the last time; Christopher Murphy beat Linda McMahon hopefully for the last time; and Elizabeth Warren won in Massachusetts.

I will admit that I am really happy about Warren - I think she will be great, loud, proud liberal voice. And I am really happy about Jon Tester. A good friend of mine works for him and says he is great - moderate but strong and principled. By the way - yesterday I wondered whether I would accept a trade of liberal Democrats and conservative Republicans for moderates. Instead, we got liberal Democrats and moderate Democrats. Pretty great.

And maybe best of all, two states - Maine and Maryland passed marriage equality referendums and in Washington is still being tallied but supporters are in the lead. Amazing. Now nine states support same sex marriage rights: New York, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Connecticut, Vermont, plus the District of Columbia, and now Maryland and Maine. Washington state would make it 11.

The Republicans retained control of the House, so it wasn't all good news. Although in my hometown news, Democrat Sean Patrick Maloney defeated Republican Nan Hayworth.

In New York State news, the state senate might actually revert to the Democrats, which means the state would have a Democratic governor, assembly and senate. Which means progressive legislation would be much easier to pass.

So all in all, a pretty great night.

Update: 
I forgot to mention that Joe Walsh lost, Alan West is losing but hasn't conceded, and Michelle Bachmann almost lost in a pretty conservative district. 

All Election Prospects

So according to Nate Silver, not only should we expect Obama to win a second term (apparently the first time we've had three 2-term presidencies in a row since Jefferson, Madison, Monroe), but the Senate is expected to be controlled by the Democrats.

In fact, Silver probabilities suggest that Elizabeth Warren will win in Massachusetts, Linda McMahon will lose in Connecticut, and Tim Kaine will win in Virginia. These are all good things. Unfortunately, Nate Silver's model shows that Jon Tester is likely to lose in Montana and Heidi Heitkamp is expected to lose in North Dakota. That is really too bad. I've heard great things about both candidates.

Where the Democrats are winning and where they are losing shows more extreme candidates beating more moderate ones. Take Massachusetts. I actually kind of like Scott Brown. We need moderates. In a perfect world, he would be the Republican Senator from one of the really red states.

I realize though that I am being a bit hypocritical. I say we need moderates, like Jon Tester, but then I support Warren over Brown. I haven't fully resolved this. In Massachusetts, I think we need a liberal Democrat more than we need a moderate Republican. But if we were to have more moderates overall, we'd need to trade some liberal democrats for moderate Republicans (ie trade Warren for Tester) and vice versa. I don't know whether I would take that trade.

But instead of that hypothetical, we have a real world where moderates are losing and more extreme candidates are winning. That suggests we'll have more partisanship and gridlock ahead. The former isn't necessarily a bad thing. The later is.

As for the House, there was one model that suggested that Democrats can retake the majority. But other models that show a Republican-controlled House are more convincing. So I think that is the situation we'll be facing. We should expect a GOP House, a Democratic Senate, and President Obama with a second term.

Election Day 2012

So today is election day. I had planned to write a post about how to watch the coverage and which states to pay attention to. But really, it is all about Ohio. Granted, if Obama loses Pennsylvania, that is a really bad sign. Same goes for if Romney loses Florida. But absent those scenarios, just pay attention to Ohio. And right now, Nate Silver's blog says Ohio and therefore the election are likely to go to Obama with 90.0% probability.

Instead though, I am going to reflect on this year versus four years ago. Four years ago, I was a relatively early Obama supporter. I started off favoring Bill Richardson but went to Obama once I realized he wasn't viable. And I became a really strong Obama supporter - so much so that I donated and volunteered for Obama.

Mitt Romney was right though, the best feeling I had about Obama was the day after the election. This post is kind of embarassing in retrospect (and I guess it is no surprise that I am now reading a lot of history again). When I am trying to be fair, I think that Obama has done a good enough job. He passed major health care reform, a big stimulus, prevented the recession from continuing, took major stands in favor of same sex couples, and passed a banking reform bill.

But he has also been disappointing on foreign policy, specifically on drone strikes (more in a future post), and he was weak on the economy and caved on budget issues. He has let Republicans set the agenda by focusing on a medium term issue - the budget - instead of the immediate issue of job. And then let them attack him for not doing enough on jobs.

In light of all of this, I did not donate nor did I volunteer this time. Maybe part of my lack of volunteering is due to my young son. But much more so, it is because I am not as inspired. Sure, we need to avoid a Romney presidency. But that isn't enough to get me out volunteering.

So here's hoping for an Obama win tonight. But I won't be filled with as much hope. Just much less dread.

Tuesday's Forecast: Phew - Obama a Favorite

All is right with the world of politics again. After the post-debate scare when Romney made up a lot of ground, Obama is back to being a solid favorite in Nate Silver's forecast. I admit, I was worried for a while there. (Not that I am overconfident now, it is still close enough for Romney to win, but much less likely.)

Having said that, I am really disappointed that one debate can move the polls so much, especially when relatively few people watched it, and even more so because the polls moved based on voters understanding of who won not what anyone said. That is depressing.

To be clear, that is the cynical interpretation of why Romney gained ground - that people changed their minds based not on what someone said, but how they said it - or actually how the press said they said it. But there are better and more plausible reasons why the polls shifted.

The polls movement many have been reversion to the mean - in other words the polls might have been moving back in line with the fundamentals. This makes sense if you think Romney was underperforming - maybe by scaring voters away with is 47 percent comments, and flawed convention including a crazy Clint Eastwood speech. So the debate might have shown some voters that would want to vote for Romney that he isn't that crazy or that incompetent.

Now that Obama is looking good again, I will say that there was a time when I was actually kind of curious about how Romney would be as a president. Mitt Romney is running a campaign that promises a lot with no specifics and avoids anything controversial: tax cuts, increased military spending, and general (but huge) cuts to discretionary spending.

But once he governs, he would have to figure out those details. For example, what discretionary spending would he gut to make his budget numbers add up? I think cuts of the magnitude he is proposing would be deeply unpopular. But if he doesn't do it, the GOP would be furious with him. It all just comes back to whether he would be extreme or moderate. Would he fight his party or be subservient to it? I think the later - and articles like this confirm my fear.

But the point is that someone who has so much avoided making any decisions and making anyone angry would have to finally do so. And I wonder how he wound handle that. Though I am not so curious that I want to see him win just to see what he would do.

The 47 Percent

We are all very familiar with Romney's taped comments about how 47 percent of the country didn't pay income taxes and are therefore dependent on the system and don't take responsibility for their lives and think they are entitled to benefits. There has been a lot of discussion about this, some of it very good and smart. I want to add my thoughts here.

The first thing I should mention is how dishonest this comment is. A lot of others have pointed this out, but it bears repeating. First of all, that number is abnormally high due to the recession. It is usually 40% that don't pay income taxes. But of that 47 percent, 60 percent are working and paying taxes for social security and Medicare. Another 22 percent are retirees. About 8 percent are not paying any federal taxes because they are unemployed, students, or on disability.

So the 47 percent are not all unemployed people on welfare. Most are working or retired. But let's pretend that Romney had the right number - let's say he made the same comments about that 8 percent that are not paying any taxes and are not working. Or even better, let's say he had a number that included only those unemployed and ignored the students and people on disability. Romney's claim was that this small number of people can never be convinced to take responsibility for their lives.

If there is one thing that seems to be consistent for Romney over the years, it is disdain for the welfare. He claims he ran against Kennedy because he wanted to tell the world that Kennedy's policies created a permanent underclass - that by helping people with food stamps and cash assistance, we were actually hurting them.

There are so many things wrong with the statement and that outlook. Ezra Klein has a great post on how the poor actually are taking responsibility but are in fact drowning in responsibility. I completely agree with that post and couldn't have written it better. But I don't expect someone with Romney's history to know what Klein points out. But I do expect him to know how he lived his life.

Mitt Romney did not live his life, nor treat his children, in a way that suggests responsibility and success only comes through hardship and self-reliance. We know that Mitt Romney used his inheritance from his Dad to support himself through school. And good for him. He used free money to better himself and become self sufficient - free money that was way more than what people on welfare get.

Also, Mitt Romney isn't forcing his kids to become poor to teach them how to make it on their own. Instead, he has set up a family trust that has $100 million in it, and he made sure to avoid taxes as best he could. As David Brooks says in his great take down, middle - and upper I would add - class parents don't deny their kids to teach responsibility, they shower them with everything they can. The best schools, the best programs. They give them a comfortable life so that they are most likely to achieve success.

The point here is that there is a huge disconnect between how Romney found success and then how he treats his children, and how he thinks poor people should be treated to find success. He believes his kids will find success if they are showered with supports and provided with lots of money, and his Dad felt the same way. But he believes that the poor will only find success if they are starved of supports and money.

I don't think this disconnect is racism. I think it is forced on him by his conservative worldview. In order to believe that you care about people's success but also to believe that government is too generous, you need to believe that people need less support in order to succeed. And you believe this despite your own experience and behavior. In fact, this is the greatest trick conservatives play on the world: that the best way to help someone is to not help them at all. Then you can perceive yourself as generous and kind, but also feel like you should keep more of your money.

Unfortunately, it is wrong. The best way to help someone is to help them. Just like the best way to help your family is to help them. And you do that by providing them with lots of money.

Polling - I Only Read Nate

Because of Nate Silver, I never read news articles about the latest polls. Instead, I check his blog (at least twice a day) for the overall projection and read his posts about the different polls and what they mean.

And Nate Silver’s blog at the NY Times is telling us President Obama has a really good chance (77.5%) of being re-elected. If this is accurate, then it looks like I was wrong. I thought he wouldn’t be re-elected because he hasn’t done enough or even tried hard enough on the economy. I wasn’t prepared for how bad Romney’s campaign would be (see birth certificate joke, consulate attack comments, Clint Eastwood, 47%, etc). And I hadn’t realized how strong the incumbent position is - which is probably the biggest reason Obama is so strong*.

And if Obama wins, I will be very relieved. Though I don’t think the Republicans can do much long-term damage, Romney has a radical agenda and will make it a really rough 4 years for the low income and unemployed and will really affect America's ability to compete and grow businesses (ie cuts to education, infrastructure, research, etc).


*By the way, I've been meaning to comment on this. The political science blogs I have been reading (really just Monkey Cage and 538) talk about the fundamentals, including incumbency and the economy. But really the incumbency factor is very strong.

I find it a little sad though because it says that voters aren't really evaluating the candidates very much and more often making quick and simple decisions. It's not as much about politics and policy. Instead, if the economy is getting better, might as well leave the incumbent in for another 4 years. This will likely give us Obama again, which is good, but this factor also gave us Bush again in 2004. It is hard to say though whether overall it is better. Is the country better with four more years of Bush and eight years of Obama than it would have been with 4 years of Kerry and 8 years of a Republican (or 8 years of Kerry)?

On Paul Ryan

So Mitt Romney has chosen Paul Ryan as his running mate. I will discuss two aspects of this: what this means for the race, and what I think of the person of Paul Ryan.

First, I don't share the same glee that many Democrats do - though it doesn't make me nervous either. Instead, I feel this does nothing great and nothing bad for the election. Although I do think Ryan is extreme, I think that is hard to show to the average voter. Ryan seems reasonable enough, and the things he says, though disingenusous, also seem reasonable. He says he is for equality of opportunity. He wants to preserve Medicare while Obama will let it die. He wants to balance the budget.

Of course, any smart person can look at his actual plans and see something very different - that he is actually for large tax cuts for the rich, can't possibly balance the budget, and wants to save Medicare by making seniors pay more. But reaching and convincing large numbers of voters of this is difficult. It is much more difficult than showing them that Michele Bachmann, Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich, Herman Cain, Sarah Palin, for some examples, are extreme and dangerous (which is why none of them were likely VP picks).

Having said all of that, I still think Democrats should try to convince voters that Ryan is extreme, because he is. But I don't think it will be easy and I don't think it will make the election. It might help turnout among informed liberals, but won't make much difference among independents.

On the flip side, I don't think it does a lot for Romney on the electoral college front. I generally trust / believe Nate Silver, who says that there were better picks from an electoral college perspective. But Ryan will help Romney with conservatives, help he needs, just like John McCain needed help. And like I said, I don't think it will hurt him much with independents.

Now, what do I think of Paul Ryan as a politician? I think he is more brave and more policy focused than many others, but less so than the press gives him credit for. And though he does propose policy, he is very often political and very often disingenuous.

Take his most recent budget for example. He says he can balance the budget and cut taxes (popular) without being specific at all about where the cuts (unpopular) will come from and he makes it sound like the cuts will be easy and painless instead of acknowledging honestly how large the cuts will have to be in order to meet his targets. 

Mitt Romney's plan, which Ryan has now signed onto, is even worse on this front and specifically so on tax breaks. It proposes cutting taxes while also cutting deductions, in theory leaving the overall share of taxes across incomes the same. However, it doesn't say which deductions will be cut. Nor does the math add up.

So overall, Ryan isn't adding much substance or honesty to Romney. They both are making budget claims that are extreme, vague, and hard to believe. 

On the political side, he is willing to give a speech accusing Obama of believing in equality of outcome, which is completely untrue. A man as smart and unpolitical as the press thinks he is would not say such a thing.

To conclude, Romney added someone to the ticket that will help him turnout conservatives and might also help turnout some liberals, but otherwise doesn't change much. And it is a person that I find far less wonkish and honest than many in the press - someone with an extreme and unpopular vision who is vague on all the unpopular parts of his plans.

Romney and Bain: More Thoughts

This is a post I drafted a month or so ago. Ezra Klein has written much better posts on this topic, but I still want to post my thoughts for posterity. 

The debate around Mitt Romney's time at Bain and how it qualifies him for president continues and I have some more thoughts.

First, his time at Bain is definitely fair game since that seems to be the only thing he talks about that qualifies him for president. Romney is saying that because of his time at Bain Capital, he knows how businesses work and he knows what it will take to get the economy going again.

To be clear, I don't actually think that is true. The economy is a huge complicated system and especially during a major recession the focus should be on macroeconomics instead of microeconomics. So if we wanted the best person for the economy, we would elect a macro-economist instead of a businessman.

I understand many people might not agree with that though. So let's think about what knowing about businesses would help Romney do? I agree with President Obama that by knowing only about businesses, Romney will miss all of the other important constituencies that a president needs to think about.

For example, Romney might have learned that regulations get in the way of business. In fact, that does seem to be something he believes strongly. But by only seeing things from the business's perspective means he wouldn't understand why the regulations are necessary. Lots of businesses would rather there weren't anti-pollution regulations or safe workplace regulations, but they protect lots of people and compensate for major and known negative externalities.

Also, Romney might have learned that taxes are bad for businesses. Again, this is something Romney has said. But only thinking about the business would mean he doesn't understand why taxes are necessary - he might be blind to all of the necessary services that tax revenues support from education and transportation to health and security.

My point is that Romney's experience at Bain isn't particularly helpful for a president because of how limiting it is. Better experience would be if Romney had been a state governor. If he had been, he might have seen how important things like healthcare are and might have proposed legislation that could extend coverage and might be a national model. And if he had done that, he could talk about it and show how he cares about helping everyone.

But based on the way Romney is campaigning, it seems like he hasn't done that and it seems that his only experience is at Bain Capital.

They Have Chosen

Mitt Romney will be the GOP nominee. I think we all assumed this would be the case, but there were moment when it was unclear and it was possible that someone as crazy as Santorum, Perry, or Gingirch might have won (Bachmann and Cain even had their moments).

So what does this mean? I like this quote from Peggy Nonnan, a moderate conservative columnist for the Wall Street Journal, describing Romney:

We learned Mitt Romney is not a greatly improved candidate from four years ago. He has endurance and discipline: He wants this thing. The reason why is still not fully clear. His political instincts and sense of subject matter are not much better than they were in 2008. The awkwardness continues.

I think this is all true. More than other politicians, his views seem to move to whatever will get him elected. The question is if he wins, will we get the current far-right Romney, or the Massachusetts moderate Romney. My guess is that we'll get the far-right version; the base will always be watching him and so he will always have to show if loyalty.

As for the campaign though, I have to say I am not worried about him as a candidate. That he couldn't dispose of such a weak field is meaningful, despite his huge advantages in money, endorsements, and staff support. This doesn't mean he cannot win, it just means that it would take very favorable circumstances to do so (like a stalled or double-dip recession).

I will say though he has a very interesting strategy as a candidate to deal with one of his weaknesses - low favorability ratings.  He has a kind of jiu-jitsu strategy where he accuses his opponents of the things they are accusing him of. And it does seem to throw them off-stride.

He managed in a debate to accuse Santorum of not being sufficiently conservative - attacking him for his vote on No Child Left Behind. That Santorum fell for it and made some lame excuse showed that it worked. He is doing the same thing to Obama - accusing him of being a Harvard elite, despite that Romney has two degrees from the university. And in light of anti-woman legislation like the transvaginal ultrasound, Romney is trotting out disingenuous numbers about job losses for women in the Obama presidency to accuse him of being anti-woman.

The fact is that this probably works. It brings the candidates down to his level. He is basically saying, "if you think I am ________, my opponent is just as bad." It worked well enough in the primary. We'll see if the voters get tired or if Obama is a better candidate and able to avoid it.

The final thing I will say, is that I just really don't like Romney. I can't find a moment when he is being genuine, in his attacks or in talking about his vision. His attacks on Obama are false - especially on foreign policy (where Obama is pretty conservative) and the economy. And when he talks about his vision, it is vague or noncommittal.

I know that most politicians are like this to some extent. Obama has said and will say some ridiculous things - and his surrogates will be even worse. And maybe I am not objective, though I do try to be. I just can't help but feel though that Romney is worse in this respect than anyone else.

Romney is not principled, like McCain tried to be. And he will try to bring everyone down with him.  After all, if people don't like him, the only thing to do is make the people not like his opponent as well. 

I have a feeling that I am going to find this campaign to be painful to watch. Maybe Obama can take more of the high ground, but I doubt it. I will probably long for the days of the somewhat reasonable McCain v. Obama. I can handle painful though, so long as Obama still wins.

Update on 2012 Election

I just want to give my latest thoughts on the upcoming presidential elections. First, I want to say that I actually think President Obama will get a second term. There are two reasons I have changed my mind.

First, the economy seems to be on the mend. And if you'll remember, one of the main reasons I thought he would lose was because the economy wasn't doing well and there was nothing he could say he wanted to do but was prevented. With the economy improving, that goes away and he can instead take credit for it.

But second, the potential GOP challengers are a mess. It looks like Romney will probably get the nomination, though this is no sure thing. Santorum is doing surprisingly well and Gingrich is holding on. If Romney wins, he will do so not by articulating a better vision, but by making his opponents look even worse.

It is clear that Romney is using quite a bit of negative advertising when his opponents start to do well. I'm not saying I oppose this - I don't love it - but my point is more that it shows the weakness of a candidate that has to rely on negative advertising so much.

Romney is also spending quite a bit of money and not raising quite so much. At this time during the elections in 2008, Obama and Hillary were beating each other up, but they were also raising a ton of money and building strong ground operations for the general. None of the GOP candidates are doing this. All, including Romney, are spending on advertising and not on organization.

But I also want to note the possibility that Romney does not win the nomination. If it is Santorum or Gingrich, the party will be sending far right candidates to the general election (though you can call the current version of Romney far right as well). Santorum holds some really crazy positions, not the least of which that a man and a woman should not have sex unless married and trying to conceive. And therefore contraception is wrong. Gingrich is now far right, but also just a lose cannon.

I don't think either of them could win a general election - though it is scary to consider it and to know that it is possible if unlikely.

There is the potential, though also unlikely, for a new GOP candidate to come in through the convention. Whoever that would be would start with a huge disadvantage in money and organizing. Although I will say, I might prefer someone like Jeb Bush if it would lead to a good debate about issues.

Lastly, I just want to express real frustration over GOP attempts, including by Romney (who never ceases to amaze me in his ability to say things that are not true and that I don't think he believes), to paint Obama as a far left liberal. But I am even more frustrated over Obama letting them do that.

The GOP has been attacking Obama's foreign policy, though it is not markedly different from Bush and Cheney (I wish it was). Romney said Obama wants to talk about the poor instead of the middle class even though he doesn't seem to (I wish he did). His attempts to balance the budget are center-right. And his State of the Union seemed to talk only about tax cuts.

I wish we had a president that was liberal and defended liberal values. But at the least, he should really defend his moderation and attack Republicans for lying.

Iowa Prediction

Just a fun prediction for today's Iowa caucus. I predict that Rick Santorum will win the caucus (25%), with Mitt Romney a close second (24%) and Ron Paul not too far behind in third (21%). Gingrich will finish around 12% in fourth and Perry and Bachaman will be in single digits.

I used real numbers, but what I see happening is Santorum and Romney overperforming the polls - picking up some extra votes - Ron Paul getting about what we expect (thanks to Santorum's surge and some bad press) and the rest losing support as voters either move to Romney or Santorum.

I say this because I have been convinced by what Nate Silver has said about conservative candidates overperforming the polls in Iowa. And Santorum seems in a good position to do that (and not enough time to bring him down with negative adds). In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if Santorum is closer to 30% and maybe Romney loses a bit (closer to 20%).

Republican Surges

I had a few posts in draft on each of the recent GOP candidates that were surging. Instead, I'll just give more concise thoughts here in one post.

Rick Perry: I was worried about him for a while. But his poor debate performances seem to have sunk his campaign (though I felt some sympathy - I think the "oops" moment was less about a lack of intelligence and more about stage pressure). And now he is flailing and looking worse. His crazy anti-DADT commercial, among other things have shown his desperation.

Newt Gingrich: First, let me say that while I do think he is pretty smart and creative, he is erratic. I would prefer a more calm, careful, and thoughtful president (also a more modest one). On domestic policy, I am a little torn. He is less anti-government than the Tea Party-type candidates like Perry, Cain and Bachmann. However, his understanding of why people are poor is stupid and scary. On foreign policy, he is downright terrifying. He believes in the culture clash nonsense (the West versus Islam) and seems way too eager to bomb Iran. His call for Bolton to be his Secretary of State is horrifying - Bolton being probably the worst member of the Bush team.

Ron Paul: I agree with Andrew Sullivan that Paul seems like a decent person - at least in the political sense. He is not prone to changing his views just to get elected (unlike Romney and Gingrich, for example) and less likely to sell out to become a lobbyist (unlike Gingrich). And I like his opposition to the war on drugs, though we come at it from very different angles. I like that he isn't a hawk on foreign policy, but I hate his isolationism. And I really hate his view about the optimal size of government (I'll have another post libertarianism someday soon).

His two most troubling positions though are around economics and race. On economics, he is to the right of Milton Friedman - and not for political reasons (like Boehner and company) but for ideological reasons. Whereas under a Republican president I am sure the GOP would support more monetary expansion, Paul still would not. In fact, he wants to eliminate the Federal Reserve and go back to the gold standard. Pure craziness and very dangerous for the economy.

On race issues, a lot has been written about the racist articles in the newsletter that went out under this name. Maybe he didn't know about it and didn't agree with it, but whoever was editing thought it would be something Paul would support. And that is troubling. More troubling though is his view that civil rights legislation should have not been used against private businesses. This shows either a gross indifference to racism or an extreme naivete around how effectively the free market would get rid of segregation on its own. Or both.

Rick Santorum: I don't understand why he is a candidate. I certainly don't understand why he is having his moment. Actually, on a certain level I get it. In this anyone-but-Romney campaign, I guess everyone has their moment. And Santorum seems to be working hard in Iowa. And for the evangelicals, he might be the best bet at the moment. But to my mind, he is about one thing, and one thing only: opposing LGBT rights.

And with the economy and the size of government being the biggest issues right now, why elect someone who merely wants to restart the culture wars. Especially since views are moving steadily away from his position. Not to mention, this is someone who was voted out of office six years ago. I find his whole campaign baffling. He is getting some momentum now in Iowa, but I really hope it falls flat. At least I can console myself that his chances outside of Iowa are very slim (since he has spent so much time in Iowa).

Bottom Line: Everyone's surge has faltered. Santorum though might be surging at the right moment - in other words, me might be able to win Iowa before crashing. Nate Silver has Romney with a 62 percent chance of winning Iowa, though recognizing how unpredictable the caucus can be. I have a feeling Santorum will win. But from there on, it will be smooth sailing for Romney. And thank goodness for that.

Gingrich v. Romney

Dear Conservative, 

I see that in the latest, and probably last, iteration of the your anyone-but-Romney fickleness, Newt Gingrich has surged in the polls. In the past, I have avoided writing on the newest surge because I assumed the person would crash. There are a lot of reasons why Gingrich might (money, staff, erratic behavior, skeletons), but the right is desperate, and he might actually stick around.

Since I think I am pretty good at thinking like a conservative, I am going to talk through with you the decision you might face: Romney versus Gingrich.

First, I want to acknowledge that you face a difficult task. Between the two, there is only one similarity I can think of: Both candidates have a history of supporting positions that are now unsupportable - namely carbon cap and trade and health care individual mandate.

Other than that, the candidates are pretty different. Romney is perceived as a moderate that has flipped to win the primary - which makes him untrustworthy. However, he is also seen as competent and probably a good manager; his business successes and time as governor support that perception. And though he seems slippery, maybe robotic, he doesn't have any baggage around family issues that Gingrich has.

Gingrich has conservative credentials. So his flipping is perceived as erratic - or better, excused because others in the party have flipped (ie Heritage Foundation). He is seen as an ideas man, though maybe too wildly seeking new ideas and not grounded enough to manage an administration well. And though he is smart, some of his ideas and theories are not well thought-out. Also, his history with his wives shows a major lack of compassion, loyalty and moral decency - and his timing with the impeachment reeks of hypocrisy (though you probably don't care about that - better to go after a liberal like Clinton hypocritically than to be consistent and therefore not impeach a Democratic president). 

Finally, and perhaps the worst unless he can continue to disingenuously sweet talk his way out of it, is his lobbying. I don't think people will continue to buy that Gingrich was only providing history lessons for millions of dollars. And, if you are getting paid to support an idea, even if you would like the idea anyway, it is still lobbying.

In looking at the two options, I think you, dear conservative, have a difficult choice. A robotic but competent former governor whose core positions and values seem open for change with the winds or an erratic but full of ideas former legislator and lobbyist who lacks compassion and loyalty. I would probably go with the one more likely to be a good manager. But then again, maybe having loyalty to conservative principles is more important. And despite his erraticness sometimes, Gingrich is better on that front.

My Predicament

In November of 2012, I will face a difficult decision. I will need to vote for a candidate for president. Here is where the predicament is. Ideologically, I will be more closely aligned with the Democrat - Barack Obama. However, I don't think President Obama has been very effective, especially on the policy that is and has been most urgent: the economy and jobs.

In fact, I think our president hasn't even been good at articulating what needs to happen to improve the economy. He passed a stimulus that he knew at the time was too small but pretended it was big enough. And then he changed the conversation to budget deficits (going along with Republicans) way too soon when job growth was non-existent. And now he is pushing for a jobs plan that is decent, but has no chance of passing.

Having said all that, his Republican challenger, whoever that may be (but hopefully Romney), will have much worse ideas. The GOP candidate will probably talk about decreasing regulation and cutting taxes for the rich - two solutions to a problem that doesn't exist.

So what am I to do? Clearly, I will vote Democrat and so vote for Obama. His policies are at least better than his opponents will be. Unfortunately though this means returning someone to a job he probably doesn't deserve. But when your choice for a job is between only two candidates, you have to choose the better of the two - the perfect doesn't exist.

Having said all that, my decision still isn't complete. In 2008, I volunteered a good amount of my time for candidate Obama's campaign. I know many other people did this as well. I have decided now that I won't do that this time around. I volunteered because I believed in Obama. I believed in his message - of moving past the baby boomers' arguments and divisiveness; of accomplishing real change.

I realize now that I was naive to do that. And while, part of the fault lies with me, part of the fault also lies with him. You see, debates are necessary. Sometimes being disagreeable is necessary. But more than that, change comes through leadership and strength. And I haven't seen that in our president. He seems to lead from behind.

So I won't volunteer. And I know many others feel the same way. Which might doom President Obama's campaign. That is too bad. But if you campaign on change, you need to achieve it. Or at least look like you are really fighting for it.

Intelligence in Politics

I am sure I have written about this in the past, I want to add some new thoughts. With Michelle Bachman and Rick Perry in the running for the Republican presidential nomination, there is talk again about whether those two are smart enough to be president. Republicans often bristle at this and I think often misunderstand what is meant.

First, let me say that I agree that a president needs to be smart as a minimum qualification. But that isn't at all based on education. And the best way to illustrate this is to look at some examples. George W. Bush was educated at private high school and ivy league undergrad and business school (Exeter, Yale, and Harvard, respectively). But I would not consider him smart and often felt that he wasn't up to the job intelligence-wise.

Compare that to someone like Karl Rove, whom I do not like at all, but I would consider pretty smart. But Rove does not have a college degree. As you can see, that doesn't matter to me in terms of assessing his intelligence.

Much was made of Sarah Palin's peripatetic college history. Someone with her history could still be very smart. However it was used as another piece of evidence of her lack of intelligence - something people could tell based on how she answered questions.

The point is that many Republicans are very smart: John McCain (last in his class at Naval Academy but I don't hold that against him), John Boehner, New Gingrich (though he is accused of having an undisciplined mind), Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee, John Huntsman, Tim Pawlenty, Bobby Jindal, Mitch McConnell. The problem many liberals have is with the few that squeak by that don't seem to be very smart. George W. Bush, Rick Perry (maybe less so), Michelle Bachmann, and Sarah Palin are the ones that come to mind that I would consider not up to the task.

To be clear, intelligence should be necessary, but not sufficient. John Kerry went to Harvard and is very smart. But I would say he might not have made the best president. And as smart as Obama is, he is not doing as well as many had hoped.

One last thing: I am realizing how Sarah Palin has set the bar lower in terms of intelligence. With her at one point considered a very strong contender for the nomination had she entered, I think we witnessed a new low (even Ann Coulter seems to admit that Palin isn't smart enough). And since she hasn't run, I feel so relived and am now more inclined to view Bachmann, Perry, and even Bush as smart enough since they are smarter than Palin. I don't think that is a good thing.

Republican Primary Prediction

Rick Perry's entrance to the field has shaken things up a bit. He is now in front in most polls. This has shaken up my prediction a bit.

Before Perry joined the race, I was convinced Romney would win the nomination and then beat Obama. After all, with the economy as bad as it is, and Obama unable to blame Republicans for it because he has gotten everything he asked for, I was convinced voters would not give him another 4 years.

I am now unsure who will win the nomination. Part of me thinks that Perry will win - he is conservative enough to please the base but he isn't too crazy to completely scare the establishment. The big question will be whether he can hold it together.

This matters for the primary and the general. I think if Perry wins the nomination, he might be able to beat Obama. But he might also implode. Comments like the following might turn off moderates:

If this guy prints more money between now and the election, I dunno what y'all would do to him in Iowa, but we would treat him pretty ugly down in Texas. Printing more money to play politics at this particular time in American history is almost treasonous in my opinion.

He is referring to Ben Bernake. Now that comment enrages me - Perry is trying to scare Bernake away from improving the economy because that would help Obama. Of course we know this is what the Republican party wants - they want the economy to stay bad so they can win the election. But to see it out there so flagrantly is appalling.

But I hope and mostly believe that it also scares away moderate voters. It even seems to scare Peggy Noonan.

So my new prediction is this. I think Romney will still win the nomination, although I am much less sure of that. If he wins, he'll be our next president. If he loses to Perry, Obama has more of a chance. But there is also a good chance that Perry's staff could reign him in a bit. In which case, he may be our next president.

I will say that as much as Bush was a disaster for the world, his domestic policy wasn't terrible. I very much fear domestic policy under a president Perry.


One more quick note, I just wanted to include this quote from Peggy Noonan's piece:

And the nation is roiling and restive. After Mr. Obama was elected, the right became angry, feisty, and created a new and needed party, the tea party. The right was on fire. The next time a Republican wins, and that could be next year, it will be the left that shows real anger, with unemployment high and no jobs available and government spending and services likely to be cut. The left will be on fire. The only thing leashing them now is the fact of Mr. Obama.

I don't agree that Obama is leashing the left, but I do agree that the left is very close to being on fire. And I think that both parties are overreaching and believing too much in their "mandates". Maybe the left went too far with health care reform - we certainly didn't sell it very well. But if the right really enacts massive program cuts, I am sure they will face a backlash. Because the public does not want that. As much as they want less taxes and more freedom, they still like their services.

Early 2012 Forecasting

My favorite site now by far for election forecasting is the NY Times 538 blog, which looks at politics through polling and statistics. They have had some good posts recently about the 2012 elections, so let's have a look. They are handicapping the Republican field in an interesting way and looking at Obama's chances given our economic situation.

First, the Republicans. The 538 blog feels that early polling can be a pretty good predictor of who will win the nomination. But in this case, they combine polling with name recognition to get an adjusted score. The theory here is that if a candidate polls well among the people who know him or her, then they have a good chance of winning. Looking back, this method fits the outcomes pretty well. So what do we see?

When the post was written, the two front-runners were Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee - who has since declined to run. Depending on the exact model, Tim Pawlenty looks good, too. After that, Palin, Trump (also not running - big surprise), Bachmann, etc don't look as good. In future posts, the blog says that Herman Cain actually looks pretty good - good support among people who know him but also little election experience - so something to keep an eye on.

Now for Obama. The blog tells us that there is no clear relationship between unemployment and presidential election outcomes. However, the overall state of the economy will be a factor. Obama's current ratings are better than the state of the economy would suggest but this tends to change as we get closer to the election.

Of course it is going to come down to whether the economy is seen as improving slightly and whether voters blame Republicans for the economy or think Obama has had enough time to make improvements and therefore is responsible. My personal feeling is that Obama has a tough case to make. He asked for one stimulus and said that would be enough. It clearly wasn't. He didn't ask for another one, even though good economic analysis clearly showed the need for it.

He probably could not have gotten it, but because he didn't ask, he can't blame the anemic growth and lack of improvement in jobs on obstructionist Republicans. Instead, it looks like fiscal stimulus failed. He went weak and he might pay for it. In some situations, it doesn't pay to be moderate.

All might not be lost, since his foreign policy looks pretty strong. Things are improving in Afghanistan and troops are coming home from Iraq. Also, Bin Laden has been killed, and he looks pretty good on Egypt and Libya.

The 538 blog (and Intrade) thinks Obama is still the favorite. I feel that the Republican field is pretty weak - Romney is a hypocrite, Pawlenty is both boring and his plans are laughable*, and the rest of the field is crazy. That being said, the economy is not looking good and I feel that if he loses because of the economy, it's Obama's own fault.

*In the original version of this post, I called Pawlenty a liar. That isn't what I meant, but was tired and left it in there. I was meaning to refer to his laughable prediction that he could get 5 percent growth over 10 years. It isn't exactly lying, but he is a fool or purposely exaggerating what he can achieve.