Showing posts with label election. Show all posts
Showing posts with label election. Show all posts

Tuesday, May 26, 2015

Who's the Party of Old White People? (Presidental Candidate Version...)


For several year's there's been this notion that the Republican Party is the party of "old white people." This has been based mostly on the voting habits of older white males, to be specific, which skew hard to the right side of most issues.

As the pool of Presidential wannabees begins to form on both sides of the aisle, Reasonable Conversation wanted to see how age was being reflected from both parties announced and presumed/potential candidates. To increase the sample size of this exercise, we'll also include the heads of both Parties National Committees,

First, the Republicans:


Jeb Bush - 62 years old
Marco Rubio - 43 years old
Rand Paul - 52 years old
Ted Cruz - 44 years old
Scott Walker - 47 years old
Mike Huckabee - 59 years old
Chris Christie - 52 years old
Dr. Ben Carson - 63 years old
Carly Fiorina - 60 years old
Bobby Jindal - 43 years old
Rick Perry - 65 years old
Rick Santorum - 57 years old
RNC Chairman Reince Priebus - 42 years old
------------------------------------------------------------------
Average age: 53.0 years old

Next, the Democrats:

Hillary Clinton -67 years old
Bernie Sanders - 73 years old
Martin O'Malley - 52 years old
Jim Webb - 69 years old
Elizabeth Warren - 65 years old
Joe Biden - 72 years old
DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Shultz - 48 years old
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average age: 63.72 years old

Let's limit each group to only the strongest candidates...

Republicans:

Jeb Bush - 62
Scott Walker - 47
Marco Rubio - 43
Mike Huckabee - 59
---------------------------
Average age: 52.8 years old

Democrats:

Hillary Clinton - 67
Bernie Sanders - 73
-----------------------------
Average age: 70.0 years old

Strictly by the numbers, the GOP field is significantly younger than the top two Democratic candidates. Age alone doesn't dictate policy preferences as clearly the two parties seem to cater to different voters.

I'm on record as saying I'm underwhelmed by a Clinton candidacy. I think Senator Sanders is a long shot to say the least. An exercise like this provides very, very limited information beyond the age of the candidates. It also however shows us the differences between the depth of each Paty's bench of national aspirants. The Democrats would be wise to identify and promote some younger high upside members of their party to raise their national profile.







Monday, March 31, 2014

Where does your state stand on the Medicaid Expansion?

The Advisory Board has a pretty sharp interactive graph on how the fifty States stand on expanding Medicaid eligibility, as part of the Affordable Care Act.

Roughly half the States have accepted it, while the other half have not. You can click on the image and enter the interactive mode. Clicking on each State will give you a current status report.


If you're thinking the map and the breakdown of the States who have /have not expanded medicaid eligibility looks a lot like the 2012 General Electoral map results, you wouldn't be alone...




Sources:

http://www.advisory.com/daily-briefing/resources/primers/medicaidmap




Saturday, February 8, 2014

A Word About Mitt Romney...

 A great deal has been written about Mitt Romney over the last few years. Some good, some bad, some fair, some not.

My take on him is that he was a pretty successful moderate Republican Governor of a liberal state in Massachusetts. He was successful because was moderate. Once the presidential campaigns came in 2008 and 2012, Mr. Romney was forced, during the Republican primaries, to abandon his centrist stances and move hard to his right. So far to his right, in fact, that during the 2012 GOP primaries Mr. Romney chose to describe himself as "severely conservative," which most people just laughed about. Romney dropped out of the 2008 campaign and was soundly defeated by President Obama in 2012.

A small scene from the new documentary "Mitt" recently released by Netflix has made a bit of a splash.

"That's what I start with: 'Dad,'" [Mitt] Romney explained. "I always think about dad and about I am standing on his shoulders. I would not be there, there's no way I would be able to be running for president if dad hadn't done what dad did. He's the real deal..."
"You're the real deal," said one of Romney's sons.
Romney didn't pause. "The guy was born in Mexico. He didn't have a college degree. He became head of a car company and became a governor. It would have never entered my mind to be in politics, how can you go from his beginning to think, I can be head of a car company, I can run for governor, I can run for president?"
Romney wasn't finished. "The gap --- for me, I started where he ended up. I started off with money and education, Harvard Business School, Harvard Law School. For me it's moving that far" --- Romney held two fingers close together --- "For him, it's like that," Romney said, holding his arms wide apart.

I interpret these remarks as Mitt paying respect to his father for his accomplishments and enabling the younger Romney to have a life of privilege and a head start in life. I truly don't think he's a bad guy. I think he's severely out of touch. I think that he chosen to expound on this theme, while acknowledging that most people don't start with the advantages he did, he would've come across in a different, less detached, light. This could have served to temper somewhat his "47% comments." In a totally different reality, he would've used the story above, with some modified policies toward the poor and minorities, etc. never saying the 47% thing at all and who knows? Maybe a closer race, maybe a different outcome. 

Tuesday, November 6, 2012

I voted...observations...

My voting experience...

6:45-pulled into the voting location for Precinct #53, Concord South Central in Troy, OH. Parking lot was overflowing, my estimate is that between 75-100 cars were parked in the lot, the grass and curb side...

6:50-walked into polling place. Saw roughly 70-80 voters and poll workers inside the Concord Township building. I checked in at the greeters table and reported promptly to line #3...I was 4th in line at this table.

6:57-gave my name and driver's license to the nice lady behind the table. She authenticated my information and had me sign in, and then told me to slide over to the next station.

6:59-a different nice lady cross-checked me off of her rolls and handed me my electronic voting card.

7:01-got in line behind five others waiting for a voting machine to become available..There were three stations, with eight Diebold voting machines each for a maximum of 24 voters casting their ballots at any given time.

7:09-stepped up to my machine, fed my card in, made my selections, and completed my voting process.

7:12-returned my card to the volunteers, got my voting sticker and left.

7:15-Pulled out of the parking lot, 30 minutes on the dot from when I pulled in.

There were no observers from what I could tell. As far as electioneering, there was a single middle aged man  standing by a flag and offering Republican voting guides. Everyone seemed to be ignoring him.




Monday, November 5, 2012

We're losing our minds, election eve edition...


Well, its almost here...

As I expected social media, facebook, twitter is approaching a critical mass. White hot, polar opposite rhetoric wars raging for most of the evening that in the end, don't mean a damn thing. The far right crowd is having a seizure and the far left crowd is already cooking up voter suppression plot lines. I doubt members of either group will sleep well tonight.

Mathematically, it certainly looks pretty good for Barack Obama to serve another four years in the White House. That's just fine by me. I don't think Mitt Romney is a bad guy, he's just not what I want. If he wins, we'll be ok. I'm worried about healthcare and the cost of possessing an over-sized military, but it'll be dealt with eventually.

I view the electorate as a bell shaped curve. Most people are in the middle, far fewer are on the edges. I want to say a few things to the fringe groups.

To the far left: 

Calm the hell down, you haven't won anything yet. If Obama wins, we're still going to have big problems to deal with and he's going to have to find a way to work with Congress. Yes, it takes two to tango, but he'll need to do more. Those of you who think that anyone who disagrees with your way of thinking is racist should be quiet. Every once in a while, yes, you run across a bigot, but that's not usually the case. Moving forward, you can't refuse to cut any entitlement program ever. Period. The pain has to be spread around, in a smart worthwhile way. If Obama wins, no strutting. We don't strut...

To the far right: 

As a slightly left of center person, I've had many memorable run-ins with the far right folks. Most are fine and just have a different opinion than I do on most things. Then there are the lunatic fringe elements. The kind that are SURE Obama's the worst POTUS ever, a socialist, a Muslim, a Kenyan, etc...You folks need to learn some manners. I've never heard such a stream of hatefilled, bigoted, racist, ignorant bullshit than I have from this loud but hopefully small subset of the conservative population. So many of you nutjobs are so sure Obama won't be re-elected, I'm looking forward to what happens to the "anyone but Obama crowd" types if he does win.Your rejection of most things science or math based is frightening to the rest of us. You're an embarrassment to most of us. Your ability to pivot to different issues when your argument gets shredded is as impressive as it is annoying. Regardless on who wins tomorrow, the rest of us would like to say just one thing to you.

Shut the fuck up, the rest of us are really tired of your crap...

To everyone: 

If you really think your side has all the right answers, well, get a grip, will ya? Neither Party has exclusive rights to good ideas and it will take solid ideas and leadership from both sides to make the progress we need to on our national problems. Politics as a team sport doesn't do much for our country. Cable news channels, talk radio and the book business, perhaps but the average Joe or Jane six pack don't benefit from Sean Hannity or Ed Schultz making some guest or caller look like a baffoon.

Sunday, October 21, 2012

Moving on....

Elections may make you want to scream...

There are sixteen short, precious days left until the world ends...

By about 10:45pm or so on Tuesday, November 6th, we'll know who our next President is going to be. Once the voting results begin to come in from the Eastern and Midwest states, we'll know if Barack Obama gets a second term or if Mitt Romney is going to be our new President.

Too many supporters of the President feel that if Mr. Romney defeats Mr. Obama, that our seniors will be stripped of their health care, corporations will run amok more than already do and the middle class will get slammed with a huge tax increase while the wealthy laugh all the way to the bank.

Too many supporters of Mitt Romney feel that if President Obama gets re-elected, that the United States of America will become the United Socialist States of America, that Christianity will be outlawed and China will call in our debt and all will be lost.

The good news is none of those things are likely to become true.

Despite what many Obama supporters think, Mr. Romney will not take away health care from our nation's seniors, although the next generation of seniors may see a very different form of Medicare. Corporations may see fewer regulations, but they're likely to see fewer regulations under either man. Same for middle class tax cuts. The Social Security Tax Cut is set to expire on December 31st and won't likely be renewed.

Despite what many Romney supporters think, President Obama will not turn this into a Socialist country, nor will he wage let alone win a war on religion. China will not call in its debt to us and last but not least all will certainly NOT be lost.

The hand-wringing, sky-is-falling, psychotic ranting from both sides has been pretty bad for a while, but these next sixteen days should see the "crazy" level shoot through the roof. Social media websites like Facebook and Twitter have clearly seen an uptick in intense, over-heated rhetoric from both sides. The Nazi references are up, which is never a good sign.

In many cases, its like people have in a way, begun to lose their minds. The silly stuff from the far right that the very essence of our Country is at risk if Obama is re-elected is powerful crazy. There are plenty of people...good, decent, hard-working types, who are ABSOLUTELY convinced Obama is out to destroy our way of life. Likewise, the notion that Romney is out to only help the rich folks at the cost of every thing else, is also wrong minded. Guess what? Both men are moderates. Neither man is a severe "anything."

The challenger is a man, like him or not,  who was able to work with a mostly Democratic State Congress in Massachusetts and pass Universal Health care in what was, at the time a landmark piece of legislation. While the nature of his work at Bain Capital seems unseemly, there's virtually no one making the case that Mitt Romney wasn't good at it. Nor is anyone making the case that he wasn't an effective leader with the Salt Lake City Winter Olympics. He seems willing and able to morph himself into whatever he needs to given a particular set of circumstances. The demands of the Presidency, if he wins it, will be a huge step up from his previous stations, but shouldn't be entirely foreign. Tough decisions, conflicting factions of interest and impossible expectations. He is no ideologue, despite his primary season claim of being a "severe conservative." Other than Ambassador Jon Huntsman, Mitt Romney was the Republican candidate that if a Obama supporter had to see his guy go down, they'd most likely want to see take the job. Would you rather see Rick Santorum or Michelle Bachmann in the Oval Office? Jesus Christ, no...

You know what else Mitt Romney seems to be? Mitt Romney seems to be the kind of guy President Obama could've used in his first few years in office. I have to believe that the Governor would've provided a sense of direction during this administrations first 24 months. At times the messaging coming from the White House lacked a clarity and an order that a long time manager would naturally provide. My formal education is in Marketing and I'm hard pressed to recall a worse communication plan to the American people than the Obama team did with the Affordable Care Act. It was an inept, impotent, incompetent disaster that will likely be studied as "how NOT to" in Marketing programs for years to come.

I highly doubt Mr. Romney will take us down the path that George Bush did. His background isn't oil or defense contractors, its big business. I won't like many of the policies of a Romney White House, but if he reverts back to the administrator he was in Massachusetts, I'll be hopeful of some moderate governance. Romney may learn very quickly the sort of headaches Speaker Boehner has been afflicted with from the far right of the GOP, especially in the House of Representatives.

Should Mr. Obama win re-election, I suspect we will continue to see the daily doses of ignorant, racist slop that we've seen for much of the last three years. This man has been accused of everything from going on an apology tour, (which he didn't) ramming a Government takeover of health care, (mostly a massive giveaway to insurance and pharmaceutical companies) and sending the Muslim Brotherhood billion of dollars (the President doesn't send any money to anyone, Congress allocates those funds.) He is accused daily of being un-American, a Communist, a Socialist, a Marxist, a Muslim, a Kenyan, a radical, a liar, a drug user, a homosexual. etc. This level of vitriol is unprecedented in the history of the Presidency and in no way reflects very well on we as a people.

There is a faction of the far right-wing that has distinguished themselves during the last three years or so. The "anyone but Obama" crowd. People have a right to disagree with the President whenever they wish. What they don't have a right to is to mis-represent this President's policies, actions or intentions, especially in the mindless, intellectually dishonest way too many have. The vitriol aimed at the First Lady, Michelle Obama, has also been uncalled for. "Moochella" as some refer to her, has received insults and verbal attacks that I don't recall any other First Lady having to put up with. Again, we embarrass ourselves. After watching this disgusting display I'm left to some pretty unpleasant realities. While some take issues with the President actual policies, which is perfectly acceptable, others have taken a "everything this man and woman do is BAD for the Country and anti-American." Which is an asinine way to look at things. When presented with verifiable facts on various accomplishments by Mr. Obama, this small but noisy group ignores that information and slides over to the next talking point and begins to hammer on that one. Any group that refuses to consider the facts isn't one to be taken seriously. While difficult to prove outright, I believe that the Obama's race is a part of this irrational, paranoid behavior. Some are simply unable to accept that an African American has ascended to the highest office in the land.

A second term for President Obama likely features job bills, tax reform and immigration reform. He may get some cooperation from Congress on the first two items but probably not on the third. The demographics of the Country are changing and the Republican Party has no desire to speed up that process. Not...at...all. A second term goes along way toward ensuring the Affordable Care Act continues to be implemented, a likely Supreme Court date for DOMA, and the ending of active combat troops in Afghanistan.

Regardless of the outcome, the United States will continue to be the United States. The sun will come up and go down. Husbands will kiss their wives, mothers will hug their kids, kids will go to school, people will worship in much the same exact way they did the previous four year, businesses will conduct business, babies will be born and older folks will die. The seasons will change. More than three hundred and eleven million Americans will go about their business regardless of who wins or who loses.

Every Presidential election is billed as "THE MOST IMPORTANT OF ALL TIME" and that is probably true. If you despise either man-you're probably being unfair to them. I strongly prefer Mr. Obama but should Mr. Romney win the election, then I'll move on, as we all will.

We always move on...

Friday, October 19, 2012

FYI: Election Blogs and Prediction...


To those who have asked when will Reasonable Conversation will issue a prediction on the upcoming election, an update.

Sunday October 28th - I'll post my vote and an explanation on how I arrived at this decision.

Sunday November 4 - I'll post my prediction and my rationale behind it.

Its too early for either. We still have one debate to go, there's any number of story lines that could effect the outcome, plus there's an alleged "bombshell" that will be released next Monday before the final debate that could, I suppose, be a factor. I'll be watching the various State polls, especially in Ohio, Florida, Virginia, New Hampshire, and Nevada closely over the next 18 days as well as the aggregate websites like Nate Silver's 528 blog.

Right now, I see the national polls describing a virtual toss-up, with various state polls showing some volatility. In my opinion, it's better to be in Barack Obama's shoes than Mitt Romney's, but not by very much...

Wednesday, October 17, 2012

Fact Checking the 2nd Presidential Debate/Ten Websites to Review...

After every Presidential debate, various fact-checkers get to work immediately to separate fact from fiction from both participants. Reasonable Conversation has compiled a list of ten different factchecks from around the internet to provide a convenient "one-stop" place for your perusal.

The good folks at Politfact.com were hot on the trail of truth after last night's second presidential debate between President Barack Obama and challenger Mitt Romney. They've posted updated evaluations of claims made by both men on several different topics: Jobs, Energy, Taxes/Spending, Healthcare, Immigration, Foreign Policy and Education. Its a mixed bag of results showing that both men took liberties with the truth as they saw fit.

Not to be outdone, Factcheck.org has also posted their version of fact checking last evening's debate, covering many of the same issues. Here's the overview from their piece posted earlier this morning:

The second Obama-Romney debate was heated, confrontational and full of claims that sometimes didn’t match the facts.
  • Obama challenged Romney to “get the transcript” when Romney questioned the president’s claim to have spoken of an “act of terror” the day after the slaying of four Americans in Libya. The president indeed referred to “acts of terror” that day, but then refrained from using such terms for weeks.
  • Obama claimed Romney once called Arizona’s “papers, please” immigration law a “model” for the nation. He didn’t. Romney said that of an earlier Arizona law requiring employers to check the immigration status of employees.
  • Obama falsely claimed Romney once referred to wind-power jobs as “imaginary.” Not true. Romney actually spoke of “an imaginary world” where “windmills and solar panels could power the economy.”
  • Romney said repeatedly he won’t cut taxes for the wealthy, a switch from his position during the GOP primaries, when he said the top 1 percent would be among those to benefit.
  • Romney said “a recent study has shown” that taxes “will” rise on the middle class by $4,000 as a result of federal debt increases since Obama took office. Not true. That’s just one possible way debt service could be financed.
  • Romney claimed 580,000 women have lost jobs under Obama. The true figure is closer to 93,000.
  • Romney claimed the automakers’ bankruptcy that Obama implemented was “precisely what I recommend.” Romney did favor a bankruptcy followed by federal loan guarantees, but not the direct federal aid that Obama insists was essential.
  • Romney said he would keep Pell Grants for low-income college students “growing.” That’s a change. Both Romney and his running mate, Ryan, have previously said they’d limit eligibility.
Both candidates repeated false or misleading claims they have made, and we have rebutted, many times before. Obama repeated his claim that he wouldn’t put tax rates for affluent families higher than they were under Bill Clinton. Actually, he’s already signed two new taxes that will also fall on those same high-income persons. And Romney accused Obama of saying “no” to the Keystone XL pipeline. Actually, no final decision has been made, and the company says it expects to win approval and start construction early next year.
Other publications providing factchecking of the debate include The Washington Post, The New York Times, The Washington Times, Fox News offers a factcheck on President Obama's claim he called the events in Libya "terrorism" in the days following the death of four Americans. The Chicago Tribune, CBS News, Bloomberg and Politico also weigh in.

2nd Presidential Debate Recap...


 Quite a different debate than the last one...

This evening President Barack Obama and challenger Mitt Romney traded punches for ninety minutes at Hofstra University in the second Presidential debate. The passivity that the president displayed during the first debate was replaced with a willingness to engage and push back against the man who wants his job. While Mr. Obama was clearly a different man this evening, I don't think it equated to anything resembling a clear-cut victory.

Supporters of the President are likely to try and transform this evening's renewed vigor for the process into a victory and probable improvement in the polls, but I caution them to do so carefully. Mr. Romney had for the most part, another solid evening. There were a few times where he seemed to get a bit flustered but only mildly so. Romney was able to continually hit the President on the economy, to which Mr. Obama usually pivoted to some different angle or topic he preferred.

There will be some interesting fact checking on the President's remarks about his statements in the Rose Garden following the attacks in Libya and his charge that Romney stood in front of a coal plant and called it a killer. Likewise, Romney's comments on immigration, gun control and workplace inequalities. Look for write-ups on Factcheck.org and Politifact.com.

Good News/Bad News for President Obama: 

The good news is that President Obama woke up and performed much, much better than he did in the first debate earlier this month. It would be hard to say that he hurt his chances in any way this evening. This should give him some momentum heading into the final debate next Monday evening and throughout the last three weeks of the campaign.

The bad news for Obama is that it wasn't that clear of a victory tonight. A CBS snap poll showed Obama as the winner by about 7% over Romney. CNN gave it slightly to Obama, but within the margin of error. This will not produce any dramatic effect on the polls, which means the national polls may be mostly a dead-heat heading into the next debate.

Good News/Bad News for Governor Romney:

The good news for Mr. Romney is that he had another good showing. Its hard for me to see President doing much better than he did tonight, so you could say he's taken Obama's best shot and for the most part, stayed  on his feet. Any pre-debate notion that Romney was out of his league in terms of debating Mr. Obama have been proven baseless.

The bad news for Romney is that Obama is back. Given the fairly small path that exists for him to reach 270 electoral votes. He still needs to swing a group of battleground states into his column and that's still a heavy lift, especially in Ohio, Virginia, Florida, etc.

Bottom line?

A big sigh from the Obama campaign on his renewed intensity, but in the end, tonight's debate was a slight win for Obama or, perhaps a draw. Given that, who won?

It depends, I guess...

The debate was a slight win for the President, the polls are very close nationally and the path for victory is far easier for Mr. Obama than it is for Mr. Romney. The next debate will be on foreign policy which, a few weeks ago would've been considered a slam dunk for the President. Given Libya's ongoing situation, Mr. Obama will need to be on his game next Monday night.

Interesting, huh?

Friday, October 12, 2012

Vice Presidential Debate Recap...

Tonight's debate between  Vice President Joe Biden and Republican nominee Paul Ryan was clearly superior to last week's round one match-up between Messrs. Obama and Romney. The ninety minute seated discussion ranged across a variety of issues including Libya, Iran the economy, taxes, and foreign policy. The event was moderated by veteran reporter, Martha Raddatz, who I thought was very good.

First of all, I should announce that we actually had two people on stage that seemed interested in making their cases to the American people. Joe Biden was clearly locked and loaded and came out of the gate hard, as expected. Paul Ryan was composed, focused and similarly had a lot to say. From an optics perspective, however, Mr. Biden dominated the debate. That's not to say he won the debate, though I do think it was a slight but clear win for the VP.

I felt Biden was more direct with his answers than Ryan was through most of the evening. That said the VP dodged the opening question of the evening about the security issues in Banghazi two weeks ago, opting instead to detail a broader/safer themed response about this Administration pledging to hold those responsible for these attacks and that via an in-house review, whatever mistakes were made, will not be repeated. Ryan also chose not to answer direct questions about the Romney tax plan by (still) not providing any details about what loopholes would be cut, instead preferring to comment on the value of "bi-partisanship," which I thought was pretty brassy.

Demeanor wise, Mr. Ryan was very appropriate, professional and reasonable with his physical self. Mr. Biden was, at times, too animated. The VP laughed and chuckled a lot during the Ryan responses and after a few moments it became uncomfortable and a bit distracting. Was Biden laughing at the younger man? Trying to portray some opinion of his opponents comments? Something else? Whatever the case, he took it too far and will receive some heat for his conduct. Which on one hand I understand, yet for the Republican party, which hasn't exactly behaved like choir boys during President Obama's first term, to cry foul, is pathetic.

Stylistically, to my eyes, Mr. Biden seemed more confident, quick and Presidential. Mr. Ryan certainly didn't embarrass himself and this experience will likely serve as a warm-up act for 2016. I think both men are nice guys, both perhaps warmer and more genuine than the upper halves of their respective tickets. I would've like to seen less chortling from Biden and more details from Ryan.

Biden's job tonight was to steady the ship for his boss, which I'd say he clearly did. Ryan's job was to not say anything severely stupid, which I'd say he also did. Debates between Vice Presidential candidates don't usually make that much of an impact on the election. Remember when Democratic VP nominee Lloyd Bentsen bitch-slapped Dan Quayle with the "you're no Jack Kennedy" line? Bentsen's boss, Mike Dukakis got crushed by George Bush, Sr.

Twitter reported far fewer tweets during this debate than in the presidential debate from last week. Last week, twitter says that 10.3 Million tweets went out during the Obama/Romney debate, versus just 3.5 million for tonight's debate.

Bottom line, Biden comes out ahead because of a high quality set of answers. Ryan didn't really hurt himself or his ticket-mate. I think the polls will begin to reverse back in Mister Obama's direction by the time of the next presidential debate, next Tuesday.

Saturday, August 18, 2012

Does Paul Ryan Increase Mitt Romney's Chance At Winning?


In a word, yes.

Since being selected by Republican Presidential nominee Mitt Romney, Paul Ryan has elevated the general tone and focus of the campaign. We now hear daily sound bites on Medicare, which has not been traditional GOP fare during campaigns for the highest office in the land. That would've been hard to imagine a few months ago.

I have watched and listened to Ryan's performance on the stump over the last few days and I must admit, I'm pretty impressed. I've known for a few years he's a smart man, well versed in the wonky world of congressional budgets and financial forecasts. I've known for a few years he's well regarded as a "serious guy" in Washington D.C. and has a reputation for doing the hard fiscal foundational work that leaves so many politicians running the other way. He has a reputation of not only being good at the numbers, but enjoying that type work. In addition to brains, he possesses a certain charm and likability that will serve both he and Mr. Romney very well over the next few months in the run-up to Election day.

This is the second Republican ticket in a row where the light and energy seems to be coming from the bottom  half of the ticket versus the upper half. In 2008 we saw a relative unknown politician from Alaska named Sarah Palin explode onto the scene and create such an excitement that neither the media, or Mrs. Palin could barely contain themselves. The situation this year isn't quite so flashy or sparkly, but Mr. Romney isn't complaining. The biggest difference between Sarah Palin and Paul Ryan is that Palin wound up needing to be "brought up to speed" on a plethora of basic issues ranging from economics, foreign policy and so on. Simple questions so baffled her that she looked foolish. The campaign wasn't blameless. First off, they picked her with more concern about the splash she might make to help a struggling John McCain than her experience or knowledge. It was a train wreck with both sides pointing fingers at the other one before it was all said and done.

Mr. Ryan hasn't been hiding out in Alaska these last thirteen years. He's been an up and coming legislator representing Wisconsin's 1st District and ascending the ladder in terms of position and power in the House. Now Chairman of the House Budget Committee, Ryan takes a back seat to no one in terms of a high level of understanding on national fiscal matters. Safe to say, comparing Ryan to Palin, Ryan is the hands down stronger more competent addition to the ticket.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Usually a VP candidate will add some constituency to the top half of the ticket's support. Sarah Palin brought along the far right conservatives who weren't enamored with John McCain and the same argument could be (easily) made this time. Romney seems to be in the active process of "converting" to a more conservative stance on many issues, whereas Ryan has already planted his flag well right of the former Governor. At first glance, the far right, conventional wisdom tells us, will flock to Romney because of his more conservative partner. The problem with that line of reasoning is that the far right is already so determined, so energized to replace Barack Obama that I say their votes are mostly unaffected by Ryan joining the ticket. This is not a voting block that was ever up for grabs. Romney already has these votes in his pocket. Ryan doesn't help with this group.

Its not a lock that Ryan will be able to bring the Badger's State ten electoral votes with him in November. Wisconsin swung hard right in the 2010 mid terms, but keep in mind Barack Obama won Wisconsin in '08. Currently, the State is considered a toss-up for November.

Ryan has very little meaningful work or business experience other than his career in D.C. So, there's no big labor block that will follow him to Romney's benefit. He never served in the military, so beyond voting consistently to grow the size of the armed forces, there's no strong connection there to gain from.

There's plenty of reasons why Ryan may have been a risky pick. He's too wonky, his controversial stances on privatizing Social Security. His Medicare/Medicaid plans contained within his budget proposal are viewed as too severe by many. His votes of support for the Medicare Advantage fiasco, which added to the deficit and his votes in support of President Obama's stimulus package turn a lot of conservatives off. His public admiration for Ayn Rand may be offensive to many on the religious right. Ryan is a practicing Catholic and with Romney being a Morman, its been postulated that not having a traditional Protestant Christian on the ticket might hurt them in the General. Neither man has any military experience, which is rare and hasn't happened in 80 years for a national level presidential ticket for either party.

I wouldn't worry however if you're a Romney/Ryan fan. Once again, those constituencies of conservatives
won't let a few small issues like those get in the way of them voting against Obama. They folks aren't staying home in November and there's not a chance in hell they'll cross over and vote Democrat. Again, in spite of any of these shortcomings, they're not big enough to work against the Romney campaign. Remember a vote for Romney is no bigger than a vote against Obama.

Even those who point out some of Romney/Ryan's mis-representations about what President Obama's health care program, the Affordable Care Act, does or doesn't do, especially with regard to Medicare, in the end, I don't think will be a problem. The ACA when broken down into its various components polls well, but when bundled under the "Obamacare" label, support falls. Its not rational, but its a reality. Romney and Ryan both know this and will continue to beat the drum of vagueness for as long as they possibly can. Let Obama try to explain why or how we're misrepresenting his Socialist healthcare program. The ACA is wonky, dense stuff that bores people to tears. Its like cake. The good for you, healthy tastes like crap cake doesn't usually fare well against the cake loaded with fat grams, sugar and binding agents (that may cause anal leakage) but tastes great, does it?

With the national polls too close to call, it won't take much of a swing for one candidate to move ahead of the other. If the undecided independent voters, I say, vote with their hearts and feelings- I think that bodes very, very well for Romney/Ryan. If they are somehow turned off by the R&R campaign, and are willing to seriously dig below the surface and fact check the campaign ads and rhetoric, then I think it bodes well for the incumbent. My faith that the undecideds are likely to do the heavy lifting isn't very high. Other factors like the unemployment rate, pocketbook issues, something terrorist related occurs, then all bets are off.

Bottom line, while Paul Ryan is far more knowledgeable and serious than Palin ever was, he will pick his spots carefully on providing details. The less details he or Romney release, the harder it is for President to attack them. The convention will provide an emotional lift for the ticket and the debates will also be important in how the two sides find themselves heading into November. I suspect Obama will do well against Mr. Romney, but I tend to think Joe Biden will have his hands full with Ryan. Biden knows his way around a debate but he better plan on a more worthy opponent than he faced the last time. Ryan is a gifted public speaker, perhaps even more skilled than his new boss is.

In summary, two weeks ago the Romney campaign was slowly but surely losing ground to Obama. Now, with the addition of Paul Ryan, Romney seems stronger, more confident, more...Presidential perhaps. If he had chosen almost any of the fellow GOP-ers he defeated during the primary season, I would put him at a huge disadvantage heading into the conventions. Can you imagine Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum or Michelle  Bachmann as his running mate? They would've been laughed at. It was reported shortly after the Ryan selection became official that the Democrats were delighted that Paul Ryan was chosen. Most likely that was posturing, predictable posturing at that.

The President has his hands full, and Mitt Romney's chances of sending Mr. Obama back to Chicago have improved greatly with the addition of Paul Ryan to the ticket.


Sources:

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2012/06/25/505526/poll-most-americans-support-obamacare-provisions/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_College_(United_States)

http://www.wispolitics.com/index.iml?Article=277385

http://theincidentaleconomist.com/wordpress/some-campaign-clarifications-on-medicare/

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/

Monday, August 6, 2012

Mitt Romney Will Be the Next President of the United States...

Mitt Romney Will Be the Next President of the United States...


If...


*Unemployment increases over 9.5%

*He is able to navigate the remaining days until the election without providing details on his tax reform plan

*If polls among independent voters swing another 5-7% in his favor

*Only if he improves his performance in the vaunted "Swing States..."

*Lightens his attack message on his opponent

*President Obama performs poorly in the upcoming debates

*He releases at least 3-5 more years of his most recent tax returns

*These newly released tax returns don't reveal anything unappealing to the American public. (Ex. paid no or very little in the way of taxes in those years)

*He avoids any significant campaign scandals, blunders, etc.

*Can redirect the "conversation" back to Obama's first four years

Given the degree of contempt for President Obama, its a bit of a surprise to me that things are as close as they appear between the two men. What's evident to me is that the Republican primary field was weaker than first thought and that Conservatives have over-played their hand thinking that "America" wants what the average "tea party" fan wants. They don't. While that group of Americans may honestly believe that Barack Obama is destroying the United States from within and trying to transform her into a Western European style Democracy, the average Joe or Jane Blow doesn't agree with them.

Romney would be well advised to stop demonizing Mr. Obama as quickly as possible. The voters that find that message to resonate with their voting attitude, weren't going to vote for Obama in the first place. Even if they're luke-warm about Mitt Romney the candidate, the contempt/fear for Obama is quite strong and will come through loud and clear in November. Even if Romney would lighten his portrayal of Obama, those far right votes are in the bank.

If Romney would praise the President as a fully American, success story that tried but sadly, failed in his efforts to revitalize the American economy, I say that's a message that works in the undecided zones across the country. Romney should focus almost singularly on the economy. Obama's economy.

If he doesn't, and continues trying to paint Obama as something not quite as American as the rest of us are in terms of direction, he runs the risk of insulting the voters who have yet to decide who they will vote for in November. I see Romney's upside in the debates as a draw. Obama is more comfortable in that setting and knows very well what questions are coming. He will be prepared. Unless Obama goes crazy during the debates and acts like someone who wants to make us less American (which he won't) the average undecided viewer will see one candidate straining credulity to convince us that yes, Obama's a bad guy. Which won't fly.

Romney makes assumptions about the undecided at his own peril. He needs to move away from the hard line right and back towards the moderates in the middle. If he succeeds at tempering his message in such a way between now and Election Day AND successfully address his personal income tax matters not to mention provide a believable rationale for his proposed tax policies-Barack Obama will be a one term President and Mitt Romney will be sworn into office next January.

Saturday, June 9, 2012

Nate Silver Begins Presidential Forecast Coverage...

Nate Silver of the 538 Blog which concentrates on polling and forecasts, has released the first of his presidential forecasts. You have to begin somewhere, and Silver sees Obama with a slight edge if the election was held right now. He projects the current advantage Obama enjoys to shrink in size and indicates that any number of events could easily flip the edge to challenger Mitt Romney.

Here's a preview, follow the hyperlink below for the full article:

Election Forecast: Obama Begins With Tenuous Advantage

The first look at the 2012 FiveThirtyEight presidential forecast has Barack Obama as a very slight favorite to win re-election. But his advantage equates to only a two-point lead in the national popular vote, and the edge could easily swing to Mitt Romney on the basis of further bad economic news.
Mr. Obama remains slightly ahead of Mr. Romney in most national polls, and he has had a somewhat clearer advantage in polling conducted at the state level. Mr. Obama would be about 80 percent likely to win an election held today, according to the model.
However, the outlook for the Nov. 6 election is much less certain, with Mr. Obama having winning odds of just over 60 percent. The forecast currently calls for Mr. Obama to win roughly 290 electoral votes, but outcomes ranging everywhere from about 160 to 390 electoral votes are plausible, given the long lead time until the election and the amount of news that could occur between now and then. Both polls and economic indicators are a pretty rough guide five months before an election.
The forecast works by running simulations of the Electoral College, which are designed to consider the uncertainty in the outcome at the national level and in individual states. It recognizes that voters in each state could be affected by universal factors — like a rising or falling economic tide — as well as by circumstances particular to each state. Furthermore, it considers the relationships between the states and the ways they might move in tandem with one another. Demographically similar states like Minnesota and Wisconsin, for instance, are more likely to move in the same direction than dissimilar ones like New Hampshire and New Mexico.





Sunday, April 22, 2012

Jon Huntsman Slams Republican Party...


Jon Huntsman Slams Republican Party...


"I don’t know what world these people are living in..."


Many of us moderates found a lot to like in Jon Huntsman. Smart, personable and unwilling in most instances to run away from his education-we saw a Conservative who didn't shun science-he embraced it.  Someone who used less rhetoric than most of his peers. Someone who possessed more actual intellectual substance than most of his rivals on those debate stages. It didn't seem to me that he tried all that hard to really fit in with the Michelle Bachmann's, Herman Cain's and Rick Santorum's of the conservative world. Naturally, the most likely to be an ally of former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney (for reasons/policies not to mention a shared faith), the connection really materialized. Maybe it never could've with the idea of not one but two Mormons on a national ticket being unsettling to too many voters. The ticket usually winds up with complimentary pieces, not similar ones. 


Well, this evening in an interview at the 92nd Street Y Cultural and Community Center in New York City, Mr. Huntsman took no prisoners. He was highly critical of the GOP, his own performance in the debates and even played the Reagan card. 


After Huntsman was un-invited from a Florida fundraiser in March for publicly saying we should have a third party, he commented, "This is what they do in China on party matters if you talk off script." With additional comments on feeling like an "oddball" after he said he believed in science regarding global warming. He also suggested that former President Ronald Reagan would "likely not" win a national GOP nomination at this time/ 


Read the entire article below. I found it a compelling look at what could have been. Yes, there was never any serious ground-game and his finances were pitifully small compared to the war chest of Romney, but still. If America is looking for a more conservative alternative to President Obama, there would have been a lot to like in Jon Hunstman. And, as I've suggested before, if the Republican Party loses to President Obama in the Fall, it will need to look in the mirror and ask itself why it pushed itself so far to the right, especially on social issues in the run up to election day. 


Read the article here...

Source:

http://www.buzzfeed.com/zekejmiller/jon-huntsman-trashes-gop-expresses-campaign-regre

Friday, February 24, 2012

Mitt Romney (finally) hits the mark....


Full disclosure: I will not likely vote for Mitt Romney should he be the Republican nomination. I've not been shy about criticizing the former Massachusetts Governor, so when I saw an opportunity to give some praise, I had to step up.

This evening, after his sparsely attended event at the Ford Field in Detroit, he participated in a town hall in Kalamazoo, MI. Politico reports a few of his comments...

Via POLITICO's Reid Epstein, Mitt Romney had some notable riffs as he talked at a town hall in Kalamazoo tonight:
"We were in Detroit this morning, at the Detroit Economic Club, then through Mt. Clemens, then drove here across the interstate. Drove past Brighton. My parents' grave sites are there. My dad-- trust my dad. My dad (was) a very frugal man. He checked all over for where the best deal was on a grave site. And he found a place in Brighton -- because we didn't live in Brighton. Its like, 'How did you pick Brighton, Dad?' 'Well, best price I could find in the whole state.' So if you're looking for the best deal on a grave site, check Brighton, they got a good spot, you'll be near the former governor and first lady."
         And, on the idea that there's nothing to be done about gas prices:
"I think the American people know that to a certain degree gas prices are driven by what’s happening around the world – supply and demand. The demand in China, Brazil and India and right here is going to drive to a certain degree gas prices. But the American people want to see the President’s trying to do something about it. And he’s not just sending money outside the country to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars, in many cases to people who don’t like us very much. So they’re going to be happy with a President, as I will, on their first day, on the lands that’re already approved for drilling. I’m going to give licenses to people who are approved to drill and finally get our oil and our gas out of the ground!"
And, after a question about NASA and the space program:
"And I know China is headed to the moon. They’re planning on going to the moon, and some people say, oh, we’ve got to get to the moon, we’ve got to get there in a hurry to prove we can get there before China. It’s like, guys, we were there a long time ago, all right? And when you get there would you bring back some of the stuff we left?"
I don't  have a problem with any of these responses. To me, they sound reasonable and fresh. Too often, Romney says something that dis-connects him from his potential voting block. Comments like the ten thousand dollar bet during an early debate:



Or the "I'm running for office, I can't have illegals" comment during another debate about an alleged illegal worker under his employ:



...or his awkward remark "I'm not concerned about the very poor..." (Which WAS taken out of context quite a bit. Nonetheless, its out there...)



 ...and today's earlier remark about his wife driving two Caddy's hurts his effort to connect with the common folks.



Tonight's remarks, while quite a small sample size granted, in Kalamazoo show us that he can find the proper frequency to use when making these kind of comments. These aren't exactly extemporaneous comments, but at times, every politician wanders off script. Sometimes they get an inspiration or an idea and just trust themselves and let it roll. It helps them sound less stuffy, less stiff and less scripted. Teleprompters are handy things but the more gifted politicians can riff for a few bars without any music in front of them. (Its the stuff of legend but President Clinton began one of his State of the Union addresses and realized immediately after beginning that the wrong speech had been loaded. In front of a packed joint session of Congress including the Supreme Court Justices and the Joint Chiefs. He improvised for several minutes until the panicked staffers could get the proper text loaded. No one ever knew. Its hard to say how well some other recent POTUS's might've handled the same problem...)

Romney is attractive to a lot of people. He's easy on the eyes, speaks reasonably well and his preparation and opposition research is top notch. I suspect the Romney campaign will refine their public presentations over the next few months. They'd better. Obama is a skilled public speaker and knows what it takes to become the victor come November. I'd like to see the best of both men as we head to election day. Despite that I wouldn't likely vote for him, the higher the quality of the debate, the better for voters trying to make up their minds. I hope Romney polishes up his game.


Sources:

http://www.politico.com/blogs/burns-haberman/2012/02/riffing-romney-115513.html

Romney gives major economic address, draws crowd...(sort of)

From Think Progress...

Comparing two speeches. The first from Mitt Romney today at a large sports arena/stadium...and the second President Obama during the 2008 campaign. 


The Detroit Economic Club and the Romney campaign wanted to give the event a bigger impact than at the usual location the Economic club usually gathered at. As has happened with President Obama, something had to have gone horribly wrong. I have to think with as sharp as Mr. Romney is, that this kind of thing won't happen again. It just looks terrible and gives the Democrats another free swing at him...

The Hill.com has the story...

Romney speech falls flat in Detroit

By Cameron Joseph 02/24/12 01:07 PM ET
Mitt Romney spoke to several empty seats Friday in Detroit, in a speech that offered Democrats more fodder for their attacks and failed to deliver the major economic address his campaign promised.
Television cameras showed rows of empty chairs as Romney rehashed many of the policies and quips he'd used in previous speeches, made a few jokes that appeared to fall flat with the audience and said that his wife, Ann, drives "a couple of Cadillacs," which will likely give Democrats more ammunition for their depiction of him as rich and out of touch.
Click here to continue reading...

Sources: 


Obama correct to apologize, Gingrich offensive to score cheap political points on the backs of two dead US servicemen...


Obama correct to apologize, Gingrich offensive to score cheap political points on the backs of two dead US servicemen...


You've probably seen the story in the news over the last few days. Some local Afghanistan villages found some incinerated Koran's in a garbage dumpheap outside Bagram Air Force Base. They bring this to the attention of their fellow villagers and soon word spreads all around the region and eventually, the world. The local US Commander on the ground apologized shortly after he was made aware of this. Yesterday, President Obama included this apology within a longer letter covering a variety of issues: 


I wish to express my deep regret for the reported incident,’’ Obama said in a letter to President Hamid Karzai. “I extend to you and the Afghan people my sincere apologies.’’ “The error was inadvertent,’’ Obama said. “I assure you that we will take the appropriate steps to avoid any recurrence, to include holding accountable those responsible.’’


Sometime after this apology was hand delivered to President Karzai, an Afghanistan soldier opened fire on a group of American soldiers, killing two of them. Today marks the fourth day of protests against the United States for the burning, and several Afghan protesters have also been killed, by members of the Afghan Army as a result. President Karzai has called for peaceful demonstrations and to avoid violence. There is concern that the more Conservative Mullahs may call for retribution during Friday's Prayers and the Taliban has posted statements on its website instructing that attacks on US Military bases, US Convoys as well as other occupying forces. 


It is a mess. 


Coming on the heels of video that showed US soldiers urinating on the corpses of dead Taliban fighters, plus the not too distant memories of the treatment at the Abu Ghraib detention facility, the flushing of Korans in to toilets at the Guantanamo Facility in Cuba, as well as American pastor Fred Phelps wanting to hold a "burn the Koran day,"  its easy to understand that nerves are a little raw. Is it difficult to feel their sense of disrespect? It shouldn't be. 


Then yesterday, flailing GOP candidate Newt Gingrich felt the need to capitalize on these events to score some cheap political points. Keep in mind, the two Americans were gunned down after Obama sent the apology. Gingrich said, "There seems to be nothing that radical Islamists can do to get Barack Obama's attention in a negative way and he is consistently apologizing to people who do not deserve the apology of the president of the United States period.


These weren't radical Islamists. They were highly offended and enraged regular Afghanis who once again felt the "occupiers" had defiled their most sacred text. Had we not bungled the handling of such sensitive religious materials, those two US servicemen would likely be alive today. This is not to excuse their murder, not at all, but understand, we set this in motion. 

It offends me on a deep level that a man who is not a political novice would stoop to such a level to score a few cheap political points on the backs of two dead soldiers. This may be red meat to the Conservative base, but its wrong-minded and dangerous in my opinion. Gingrich loves to wrap himself in the flag and the bible when it suits him politically. Too bad he doesn't conduct himself with such rigor when it comes to his professional or private life.

This notion that we shouldn't have apologized is also wrong and frankly, against most American values. As children, we are taught personal responsibility and to accept blame when we have wronged someone else. Traditionally, its always been more about what we do as opposed to what someone else does. "Do the right thing" we're told. Don't make excuses. Don't worry what the other guy does or doesn't do, YOU do the right thing, handle it the RIGHT way and walk away with your head held high with a resolve to not repeat the same mistake again. These ideas are central to many of our upbringings here in America. They are good values. 

I say President Obama was entirely proper to issue an apology as were the unit Commander, Sec. of Defense Leon Pannetta who said, "I apologize to the Afghan people and disapprove of such conduct in the strongest possible terms. These actions do not represent the views of the U.S. military," and General John Allen, International Security Force Commander and Assistant Sec. of  Def. Ashton Carter who also both apologized to President Karzai. 

For too long, the US has strolled smugly around the world sticking its nose in situations, economies and other societies where they should not have. It is refreshing to find a President of the United States who has enough character, enough integrity and enough spine to issue mea culpa's when called for. His opponents call him weak, including his likely challenger in the General Election former Governor Mitt Romney who has said, "he'd never apologize for the United States." 

We all know someone who no matter the circumstances never apologizes, don't we? We've been "that guy" around the world for a long time. Finally, we have a POTUS who has enough balls to reach out and say we're sorry when we screw up. 

To Mr. Gingrich, I'd say sit your flabby fat-ass down somewhere, be quiet and figure out your next career move. 




Sources: 


http://bostonglobe.com/news/world/2012/02/24/president-obama-apologizes-for-burning-korans-afghanistan/vFuxBJmYllg8f3GBpGskKM/story.html

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2012/02/22/quran-burning-protests-continue.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/24/newt-gingrich-quran_n_1298508.html

http://www.thehindu.com/news/international/article2921119.ece

Thursday, February 23, 2012

You'll never guess who's on the GOP's enemies list...

 Rolling Stones' Matt Taibbi's newest column called, "Arizona Debate: Conservative Chickens Come Home to Roost" is a compelling look at the Conservative movement in the United States and specifically the Republican Party. Taibbi says the GOP is so dysfunctional, so manic, so suspicious that they have now turned their hooks into each other.

Enjoy: 


How about that race for the Republican nomination? Was last night's debate crazy, or what?
Throughout this entire process, the spectacle of these clowns thrashing each other and continually seizing and then fumbling frontrunner status has left me with an oddly reassuring feeling, one that I haven't quite been able to put my finger on. In my younger days I would have just assumed it was regular old Schadenfreude at the sight of people like Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich suffering, but this isn’t like that – it's something different than the pleasure of watching A-Rod strike out in the playoffs.
No, it was while watching the debates last night that it finally hit me: This is justice. What we have here are chickens coming home to roost. It's as if all of the American public's bad habits and perverse obsessions are all coming back to haunt Republican voters in this race: The lack of attention span, the constant demand for instant gratification, the abject hunger for negativity, the utter lack of backbone or constancy (we change our loyalties at the drop of a hat, all it takes is a clever TV ad): these things are all major factors in the spiraling Republican disaster.
Most importantly, though, the conservative passion for divisive, partisan, bomb-tossing politics is threatening to permanently cripple the Republican party. They long ago became more about pointing fingers than about ideology, and it's finally ruining them...
Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/arizona-debate-conservative-chickens-come-home-to-roost-20120223#ixzz1nF0Ejc91