Weak Debate Performance and Romney's Money Overwhelms Santorum, Why $5 Gas is Good and Bad

Santorum Fading Fast in Arizona and Michigan
Rick Santorum missed a golden opportunity at this week's debate with probably his weakest performance to date.  No candidate hit a home run at what could be the final GOP debate of the year (there are none scheduled as of this writing), but Mitt Romney did what he came to do - dislodge the narrative that Rick Santorum is a principled conservative versus the more opportune Romney.

Santorum's defense of earmarks, No Child Left Behind and other votes in the Senate that are less than appealing to an increasingly conservative GOP primary and caucus base was strained to say the least.  I have often said that Senators in general make less appealing Presidential candidates than Governors for the simple reason that Senators cast votes for people to parse apart whereas Governors accomplish things.  Santorum's voting record clearly compromised his voice as an economic conservative and he did a poor job preparing to defend that record.

Aside from the structural differences of being a Senator, the fact is, Rick Santorum is not a purist economic conservative.  He has always voted and spoken of the need for government to intervene in things - he just wants the government to intervene in a different way than Democrats do.

And let's not forget Mitt Romney's flooding of the airwaves, the same tactic he used to wrestle the Florida primary away from Newt Gingrich.  The money matters, especially in a race where the electorate is so fluid and especially in primary states where people outside of the hardcore base of the GOP votes - people who do not follow every position and twist and turn of the race.

So, a week after he was trailing in Michigan and basically breakeven in Arizona, Mitt Romney appears reasonably comfortably poised to win both.  The latest polls have him up by 10% or more in the winner-take-all Arizona primary and up by an average of about 4% in the proportionally-awarded state of Michigan.

Neither of these losses will be utterly lethal to Santorum's campaign, as Super Tuesday, with a far more favorable map to him, is coming just a week behind.  But momentum matters.  It matters in terms of where the "Not Romney" voters go in places like Georgia and Oklahoma - do they all break for Santorum or do some go to Gingrich?  Where does the money, so crucial to compete in that many contests on the same day, flow?

Romney is, just like every other writing, the favorite to win.  A dual-win next Tuesday helps that case.  The key number to watch is the percentage of delegates that Romney has after Super Tuesday.  He will almost certainly be in the lead, but whether he crosses the 50% threshold of delegates awarded is the key to winning the nomination outright.

Of the likely delegates awarded in the 8 nominating contests to date, Mitt Romney has won 45% of the delegates - by far the most (Santorum and Gingrich each have 19% with Paul at 15% and the now-exited Perry and Huntsman carrying a combined 2%) but not an outright majority.  Arizona's winner-take-all delegates will help that.

But we will have to take stock in 9 days of where things stand.

Rising Oil Prices is a Mixed Blessing and Curse
2011 saw the highest average gas prices at the pump in history, even in inflation-adjusted terms, just edging out the 1981 gas crisis price (which, on an inflation adjusted basis averaged $3.31/gal) at $3.51/gal.   2012 is on pace thus far to break that record.

Higher gas prices are bad for the economy in many ways.  Petroleum represents 38% of all United States energy consumption and rises in gas prices permeate through costs to consumers in a number of ways including both the direct costs that they pay at the pump and in prices of all kinds of consumer goods, whose transportation is directly impacted by diesel prices.

Additionally, high gas prices (more specifically higher crude oil prices which drive gas prices) means more money going to exporters in unfriendly places like the Middle East and Venezuela which means a growing US trade imbalance and money flowing to governments that could use it to fund terrorism at worst and fund anti-American principles at best.

But high gas prices also drive economic incentives - mainly the economic incentive to reduce our dependency on oil altogether.

Virtually all of our other sources of energy are preferable to oil in most ways.  Let's examine the 5 major sources of energy in this country.

Oil
As I said above, oil leads the way with 38% of our energy consumption.  It has many problems.  60% of our oil need is sourced from foreign sources.  Proven US oil reserves would cover less than 3 years of national energy needs if foreign supply where cut off.  Oil is one of the highest carbon-producing forms of energy as well, second only to coal in greenhouse gas emissions.  In virtually every way except one, oil is an unappealing energy source.  That one reason is the reason it is still 38% of our energy consumption - it is very easy to build equipment that converts it to energy on a small scale.

70% of all oil consumption is used in transportation - primarily passenger automobiles and trucking.  There has simply been no cheaper design for portable transportation than the internal combustion engine and no cheaper engine design than one that runs on gasoline.

Natural Gas
Natural Gas is now 24% of our nation's energy consumption and that number is growing.  Natural gas is used in many ways - from home heating to industrial use (think big natural gas boilers and HVAC systems) to electrical generation.  It's advantages are that it is very cheap, thanks to shale extraction and rising proven reserves in the US.  It is easily burned to produce energy and natural gas power plants are far cheaper to build than any other kind.  It is more environmentally friendly than oil, giving off less carbon emissions per BTU.  And, as a net exporter of natural gas, it is an energy source that is entirely domestically sourced.  And we have enough proven reserves of natural gas to cover 100 years of energy consumption.

Natural gas has some barriers as well though.  While it is very cheap to supply and convert in stationary locations like homes, power plants and industrial uses, it is far more difficult to use as a fuel source in mobile vehicles like cars.  While the technology exists on a fairly economical scale to compress natural gas, those engines and systems are still more expensive than gasoline engines and the infrastructure to refuel is limited at this point.  In fact, natural gas only represents 2% of the energy for transportation and that is primarily where large municipalities have consciously put in the infrastructure, such as city buses or intra-airport transportation at hubs.

Finally, while the burning of natural gas is clearly less bad for the environment than gasoline, the extraction process that has enabled the natural gas boom - shale extraction - has questionable environmental consequences where it is extracted.

Coal
Coal now represents 22% of national energy use, a number that has been declining for a number of years.  Coal is abundant and cheap (with over 250 years of proven reserves), but has a number of drawbacks.  It is impractical for residential or transportation use (outside of trains) and poses environmental problems that not only including high carbon emissions per BTU but also lots of nasty particulate and sulfur emissions that lead to acid rain, lung cancer and a whole bunch of other unpleasant things.

Coal plants have been so heavily regulated since George Herbert Walker Bush signed the Clear Air Act in 1991.  Essentially, existing coal plants were "grandfathered" in and allowed to continue to operate, but new plants had to comply with emission controls so costly that no one has attempted to build a coal plant since.

Promise of "clean coal" technology has been out there for years, but no one has yet been able to figure out an economically viable way to convert coal into energy in a way that is environmentally friendly.

Nuclear
Nuclear power represents 8% of our national energy use.  It has many advantages - since it requires only atoms as an input, we have an essentially infinite supply of nuclear power.  But nuclear power is incredibly costly, which is one of the reasons that no new nuclear plants have been built in decades.  A new nuclear plant costs upwards of $1 billion to build and will therefore never be built without significant government subsidy.  Southern Company plans to build a new one, but only because of significant government loan guarantees.

Environmentally, nuclear produces zero carbon emissions, a welcome thing to those who dislike greenhouse gases.  The main drawback is that radioactive waste, that we have yet to establish a national strategy for disposal of, leaving nuclear power plants to continually store more and more waste on site, with no place to send it.

Renewables
Renewables as a whole represent 7% of our national energy use and cover a broad range of technologies, from hydroelectric dams such as the Hoover Dam that convert water flow to electricity to wind turbines in the Northeast and rural California to solar panels across the sunny parts of the country.

Renewables possess all the advantages environmentally - zero emissions and unlimited supply.  They also possess the same key drawback as nuclear, on a capital cost basis they are not economically viable without government subsidies.  Costs, especially for wind and solar are coming down as scale builds, but at this stage, no one would invest on a large scale without tax credits or other subsidies.

So why are higher gas prices good for all of this?  As you can see, oil is the one source of energy that we cannot source our needs domestically and higher prices push the economics in favor of alternate energy technologies, which can be sourced domestically and are largely cleaner environmentally.  The free market is starting to take care of what the government has not solved.

So what could the government be doing?  There are a surprising number of things that we could do from a national energy policy standpoint that wouldn't cost much.  If you've read this space for a while, you've seen a number of these before:

(1) The Revenue-Neutral Gas Tax
An originally Republican idea, I simply can't understand why this great idea hasn't gained traction.  The concept is simple - you raise per gallon taxes on gasoline and reduce payroll taxes by an offsetting amount.  The net cost to the government is zero, but it creates an incentive that rewards consumers that reduce gas consumption and punishes ones who do not.

(2) Tax Imports, Seed Local Infrastructure
You could tax imported sources of energy and use the money to subsidize building the infrastructure to support alternatives - the building of natural gas filling stations, electrical plug-in stations for vehicles, etc.  This could be done at a net zero impact on the deficit.

(3) Set Renewable Targets for Electricity
Require an ever-increasing percentage of electrical generation come from renewable sources.  This leaves the market-place decisions about technology to the free market and forces power companies to examine the best strategy to push us to more renewable and ultimately builds scale that makes those technologies more economically viable.  California is blazing that trail, but we need to get on board nationally.

Energy policy is important both environmentally and from a national security standpoint.  You'd think that would be something that left-wing environmentalists and right-wing national security conservatives could find some common ground on.  I mean, does anybody WANT to be importing oil from Libya?

If you like this site, tell your friends.

No Surprises in the Top 3

The doors have just closed at the Iowa Caucuses.  Early entrance poll data indicate that the top 3 (in some order) are Rick Santorum, Ron Paul and Mitt Romney, in no particular order.  This confirms the possible scenarios that I discussed earlier - it certainly doesn't appear we will have a dramatic upset.

Let's see how the actual results roll in.

Can Mitt Romney Deliver the One-Two Punch?

In a nomination fight that thus far has been appropriately centered around the debates, tonight's debate is the highest-stakes contest yet, for a number of reasons.  First, it is the last time that all of the candidates will be on stage together before the first-in-the-nation caucuses in Iowa on January 3rd (there are two additional debates between the Iowa Caucuses and the New Hampshire primary.)  Second, being a weekday evening debate on Fox News, it is highly likely to get amongst the highest viewership of any of the recent debates.  Third, support is still very soft among the Republican electorate for all of the candidates and so significant shifts in the polling are still not only possible but highly probable.  The question is in what direction.

Mitt Romney has been quietly making headway over the course of the past week.  He hasn't scored any big knockdowns against Newt Gingrich, but Gingrich's support has slowly started to soften as potential voters begin to evaluate him on his own merits rather than as simply the latest "not Romney" choice.  Also, both Romney and Rick Perry have considerably stronger ground organizations and greater financial resources and are spending like crazy to unseat Newt.

We could see an epic moment that moves the polls.  But if we don't, what will happen over the course of the next couple of weeks?

First, let's understand that while history doesn't indicate that either Iowa or New Hampshire individually is particularly predictive of outcomes, it is almost impossible to win the nomination without winning one of the two.  Looking back at competitive GOP nomination fights starting in 1972 (when Iowa's caucus moved up to its current position), here is how the eventual nominees fared in the contests (I've excluded re-election campaigns where there wasn't meaningful competition - in those cases, the nominees obviously won both contests.)


1976 - Gerald Ford - won Iowa and New Hampshire
1980 - Ronald Reagan - lost Iowa, won New Hampshire
1984 - Not Competitive
1988 - George H.W. Bush - lost Iowa, won New Hampshire
1992 - George H.W. Bush - won Iowa and New Hampshire
1996 - Bob Dole - won Iowa, lost New Hampshire
2000 - George W. Bush - won Iowa, lost New Hampshire
2004 - Not Competitive
2008 - John McCain - lost Iowa, won New Hampshire

So of the 7 nominees in competitive races, 2 won both races and the other 5 won at least one of the two.  4 of the 7 won Iowa and 5 of the 7 won New Hampshire.

Clearly, you can afford to lose one of the two and still get the nod, but winning without at least one of the two hasn't been done in recent history.

Mitt Romney, for all of his soft support, is still a huge favorite to win in New Hampshire.  He has a geographical advantage, being Governor of a neighboring state, he is popular with moderates and independents that have a huge influence on the primary race in New Hampshire's open primary system and he has an average of about a 10 point lead in the polls there.

So Mitt can clear his long-uncertain path to the nomination if he finds a way to land a knock-out punch in Iowa.  But Iowa is very unpredictable at this point.  Newt Gingrich still leads on paper in 2 out of the 3 polls published this week, although Romney leads the third.  But Newt's ground game being week could be very damaging in notoriously hard-to-poll-for caucuses, given that getting a caucus vote involves getting someone to a meeting place and having them stay for hours at a time to be publicly counted, not simply getting them to show up to a poll to vote.  And Ron Paul, darling of the Tea Party and libertarians everywhere, is lurking in the wings with his rabid supporters, consistently only a few points out of the lead.  And rest assured, his supporters WILL show up.  Mitt Romney, though his supporters are soft, has a fantastic ground organization to turn out the would-be supporters.

It's actually close to a pick 'em race in Iowa given all these factors.  A Romney win in Iowa would probably come close to ending the race after New Hampshire, since his one-two punch would be almost impossible to overcome, even if he lost South Carolina.  A Ron Paul win would make for an entertaining showdown between Romney and Paul down the road, as Paul is almost certainly in it for the distance, but few take Paul's chances at winning the actual nomination seriously, and it would likely be a complete disaster for the GOP if it happened.  A Newt win in Iowa sets up a pick 'em horse race for the nod.  So the outcome of Iowa is critical to the whole thing.

Can Romney deliver the one-two punch and sew up the nomination?  Tonight may be our first indicator.

Romney Needs Some Offense, Cain Exits Stage Left, A Republican President and Democratic Congress?

Defense Doesn't Work When You Are Behind
Playing it safe in a Presidential primary is a great strategy when you are sitting on a big lead and simply waiting out the clock until the actual voting begins.  Mitt Romney has been doing it basically since the start of the primaries.  Sure, he took on Rick Perry during Perry's momentary surge on immigration.  He definitely fired away at Herman Cain's 9-9-9 plan when it briefly looked like Cain might be a contender.  But he never really got down and dirty, stretching Reagan's 11th Commandment to Republicans (to not attack other members of your party), because, well, up until now he didn't have to.

From the very early contenders, one-by-one, anyone approaching being able to challenge Romney has done a good job of disqualifying himself or herself.  Trump didn't run.  Bachmann flubbed very basic facts.  Perry talked and acted downright stupidly.  Herman Cain...well, more on that later, but let's just say he made a few errors.  But the wily old former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich?  He's made virtually no errors so far.

Sure, he consulted for Fannie Mae.  Yes, he's been twice divorced, at least once under very ugly circumstances.  But he's been teflon so far.  Conservatives like Romney because he is one of them, his views on immigration notwithstanding.  Party elites are starting to take him seriously, because he's played the game in Washington before and presumably knows how to run a campaign.  And Newt stayed above the fray in all the debates, refusing to say a negative thing about the other contenders, largely because they allowed him to get away with that and never challenged him directly.  The debates, which have been probably more critical this year than in any prior election cycle, are his home field.

Romney is still the betting favorite.  Intrade odds peg Romney's chances at the nomination at 49%, Newt's at 35% (Huntsman and Paul are at 6%, Perry at just under 3%.)  This is largely because Romney has been a steady-Eddie, always near the top of the polls, while other candidates rise and fall.  And he's been my favorite for the nomination from the get-go.

Not anymore.  For the first time, I have serious doubts about Romney's ability to win the nomination.  Before you think I'm one of those commentators that jump their predictions based on the latest polls, go back and read my writing when Bachmann, Perry and Cain had their surges.  In all 3 cases, I stated that I strongly believed that they would fade quickly and that Romney would be back on top.  But Newt is different.

First of all, we've had two debates since he surged to the lead in the national polls and, rather than start to fade, as the other short-lived leaders of the race did, Newt is actually strengthening.

Secondly,  Newt is strong in all the key early states except New Hampshire (Romney still comfortable owns that one) and could very well sweep Iowa, South Carolina and Florida by decisive margins, which would make overcoming his momentum extremely difficult.  At this writing, his poll averages in the 4 early states are +14% in Iowa, -18% in New Hampshire, +23% in South Carolina and +24% in Florida.

Third, time isn't on Romney's side this time.  We are 31 days from the Iowa Caucuses.

Romney has to do SOMETHING to go on offense and change the trajectory of the race.  And right now, he's doing all the wrong things.  He turned down a chance to debate Gingrich one-on-one this month, allowing Huntsman to steal the thunder of an event that will now undoubtedly erode Romney's support, regardless of the outcome (if Gingrich performs well, he will solidify his support, if Huntsman outperforms him, he will steal moderate votes from Romney.)  He was an absolute train wreck this past week in a one-on-one interview with Fox News anchor Bret Baier, one of the few he has given.

There is a full-field debate tonight and Romney really needs to push hard on offense to change the trajectory of the race.  If Iowa were today, Romney would be on a path to lose.

Herman Cain, We Hardly Knew You
Comedy writers everywhere shed a tear today when it was learned that Cain would likely announce today in Atlanta that he was dropping out of the Presidential race.

It will soon be forgotten that for a brief period, Cain actually led in the national polls for the nomination.

The guy who gave us 9-9-9, comically uninformed answers to questions about foreign policy and a sordid set of allegations around his dealings with women will likely soon be gone from the race, a month before the voting even started.

As I said a few weeks ago, is there any doubt left that Tim Pawlenty is kicking himself for dropping out of this race?

Throw Out All Them Bums
President Obama's approval has dropped into the low 40s and we appear to be set up for a very competitive race for President only because of an exceptionally weak GOP field.  He has some hope in the form of a slightly improving economy and the likelihood that he will face either a polarizing figure (Newt Gingrich) or a wish-washy flip-flopper (Mitt Romney) in the general.  And he will have lots of money.  He's still a very slight betting favorite to win re-election, but at this point the outcome of the Presidential race is anyone's guess.

The story that isn't making any headlines, but could loom large in the 2012 races is the anti-incumbent and therefore largely pro-Democratic sentiment with regards to House races.  Generic polling favors Democrats (by a point or two) for the first time since 2008.  The GOP has tough turf to defend, holding virtually all the swing districts.  I'm not ready to say that the Democrats have a good chance to take back the House - redistricting puts them at a disadvantage, as does the large majority the GOP currently holds, but the possibility for significant gains by the Dems next November is looking like a real possibility for the first time. 

The Senate still looks bleak for the Democrats, with a very tough map to defend.  If they could eek out holding onto a narrow majority, it would be a huge victory for them, but that would basically mean winning almost all of the swing races.

If you like this site, tell your friends.

Fireworks in the Desert -- Does It Matter That Only Romney is Credible?, Another Dictator Dead

The GOP Clash Demonstrates One Thing: There Are Very Few Serious Candidates
The saying in political circles these days is that Herman Cain peaked one hour before the start of the CNN Republican debate this past weekend.  Clearly, Cain did not give a great account of himself.  He managed to make, what is ostensibly a very simple tax plan (9% income tax, 9% corporate tax, 9% national sales tax) into a very confusing topic for the viewer and drew fire from all sides at the start of the debate.  Some of the criticism was, frankly, odd for a Republican forum.  Michele Bachmann criticized the plan as being to regressive: she is right, but this is the first time that I've heard the Tea Party advocate argue the virtues of a progressive tax system.  Romney criticized it as double taxation, pointing out that Nevada residents would have to pay their own state sales tax in addition to the national tax.  He is also right, but his point is sort of beside the point.  We pay multiple taxes at almost every level now.  Income is taxed with SSI taxes and income taxes at both the federal and state level.  We already have federal taxes on things like gasoline, alcohol, tobacco and firearms that are in addition to state-level sales taxes.

I was on one level very surprised to see the GOP candidates so roundly dismiss what is a pretty GOP idea -- a flatter tax code and a shift away from income-based taxes to consumption-based taxes.  I guess everyone shoots for the front-runner of the week.

Cain did himself absolutely no favors in the debate, mumbling on about Apples and Oranges, rather than focusing the debate on the simplicity of his plan and the complexity of the existing plan.  He also was completely backed into a corner, trying to continue to argue that this plan won't make taxes go up on lower-income Americans, when it is obvious on face that it will (a point Rick Santorum and Rick Perry made at great length.)  Of course, Rick Perry is now turning around and promotion a flat income tax designed to "broaden the tax base", which is exactly the same thing, but never we mind that.

Just when it looked like Cain was going to be completely cooked and roasted, Romney and Perry turned on each other in a series of exchanges that, in a less civil day, might have ended in a fist fight.  Perry accused Romney of hiring illegal immigrants (he hired a landscaping company which employed illegals, hardly a first) and Romney fumbled completely by stating that of course he asked the lawn company to fire them since he was running for public office, seemingly implying that he wouldn't have cared otherwise.  Perry kept pointing his finger at Romney.  Romney kept chiding Perry for interrupting him, even begging moderator Anderson Cooper to intervene at one point. 

In total, it was the worst showing for the GOP field as they looked like a bunch of bickering school children.  Romney clearly had his worst performance, losing his cool in a way I had not seen in previous debates.  Cain looked like an utterly unserious front-runner.  Perry looked like a guy who has lost all momentum and is just trying to gin up controversy to keep himself relevant.  If there was a winner, it was Newt Gingrich, whose professorial, intelligent responses played a lot better against this backdrop than they had in previous debates.

In spite of Romney's poor performance, it is abundantly clear to me that he is the only credible candidate in the field.

Cain?  If the anchor to your campaign is a tax plan and you can't explain it, you are in big trouble.  People might forgive some of the downright ignorant things Cain has said on foreign policy, his utterly confusing responses to questions about social issues and his borderline racist comments about Muslims if he was rock solid on economic policy.  But Cain would be a train wreck in a general election campaign.

Perry?  The more that even Republican hear him speak, the less they like him.  Does anyone really think this is the guy to bring down Barack Obama?

Gingrich?  He WOULD be credible -- if he didn't carry so much baggage.  He's a smart guy and a great debater.  He explains his positions in a clear, well thought out manner.  But if he ever became a serious threat in the polls, his sketchy personal past and long history in Washington would be a club over the head of his poll numbers.

Bachmann?  Please.  Crazy doesn't win general elections.

Santorum?  If the lynchpin of your campaign is that you've won in a swing state and the reason you aren't in office is that you lost re-election in that swing state by 18%, you aren't starting in a great place.  Besides, he comes off horribly bitter.  Nobody takes him seriously.

Paul?  His loyalists love him, but the day the GOP nominates an anti-war, pro-drug and prostitution legalization, pro-gay marriage (sort of) libertarian, I'm investing in snow plow dealerships in hell.

Huntsman?  Is he still running?  Regrettably, Jon Huntsman is a very serious and well qualified candidate.  He just can't get the GOP to pay attention to him.

All of which leaves Romney as the guy with the most credibility.

The key question is whether that will matter to the GOP in this nomination cycle.  It didn't matter when they nominated Christine O'Donnell in Delaware, Joe Miller in Alaska and Sharon Angle in Nevada in 2010.  Do they want to win or do they want a Tea Party loyalist?  We shall see.

Qaddafi Dead
The death of Libyan Dictator Muammar Qaddafi (or Gaddafi if you like that spelling) is good news to the world.  Qaddafi was an awful dictator, hated by his people and well known for making crazy and offensive UN speeches that delegates would walk out of.

You can criticize President Obama at great length on many domestic topics, but to the surprise of many, he has been a rock-solid leader on foreign policy.

The GOP can say all they want that he bows too much or isn't strong enough, but the facts tell a different story.

Osama Bin Laden is dead.  So are scores of Taliban and Al Qaeda leadership.
Muammar Qaddafi is dead.
The Iraq War is essentially over with the last US troops leaving in the next couple of months.
Our position in Afghanistan is strengthened (albeit we still need an exit strategy.)
We have a new, comprehensive, nuclear weapons reduction treaty.
We have new free trade deals spanning the globe.

Did President Bush have 1/10th this amount of accomplishment in 8 years?

If you like this site, tell your friends.

Debate-O-Rama, A Curious Case of Jewish Politics

All Debates, All the Time
The first caucuses and primaries are still almost five months away, but the full-time debate circuit is in full swing.  It started with an early May debate that was sparsely attended and almost as sparsely watched on Fox News (Mitt Romney didn't even bother to show up.)  The first "real" debate happened in Mid-June on CNN and included all of the present field minus Rick Perry but plus Tim Pawlenty.  Then the August debate in Iowa that featured largely the same field on Fox News.  Then...things really got rolling.  With Perry now in the race, we had the MSNBC debate on September 7th.  Now, we've had the CNN / Tea Party Express debate this week in Tampa.  Everyone is back in Florida next week for a Fox News debate in Orlando.  Then at least 2 more debates in November on CNN and Fox News.

Suffice it to say, we should all have had the chance to become very informed by the time the actual voting begins.

This week's debate was a fascinating affair.  Commentary from much of the media painted the debate as contentious but without a lot of clear winners and losers.  I couldn't disagree more.  In the MSNBC debate, I praised Rick Perry for earning his spot on the stage despite his prior reputation as an intellectual lightweight.  In the CNN debate this week, I thought he got absolutely creamed.  He was the clear loser in the back and forth with Mitt Romney, who successfully demonstrated Perry evading a clear question about whether Social Security should be discontinued as a program, a position that everyone knows would be toxic in a general election.  Perry also took a much more serious assault for his "default in, opt out" vaccination program, issued by executive order, against an STD that causes cervical cancer, a completely defensible position, but one that Perry was running scared from in a conservative forum.  Perry looked absolutely punch-drunk by the end of the discussion and Mitt Romney still looked Presidential.  Michelle Bachmann turned in probably her best performance, although I still don't see a path to victory for her unless Perry completely implodes.

I'm sure Perry will continue to lead the polls, at least for the time being, but I think Romney will slowly, but steadily, chip away at his lead.  Pre-Debate, Perry was leading in most national polls by 12 or 13%.  If Romney can make a little headway, and win decisively in New Hampshire (he is still well ahead there), I think he has a strong path to the nomination.

Of course, just because I think Perry is a weak general election candidate and a lightweight doesn't mean he can't get the nod or that it isn't possible that he could topple an unpopular Barack Obama in the general election.  And Perry may well get a lot better at debating with all the practice he's getting.  But Romney is still the guy to beat.

New York - 9, All National Politics Are Local?
The 9th district in New York doesn't generally elect Republicans.  It is more Democratic than the national average, having voted for Barack Obama by 4% more than the national average (Obama +11% in 2008.)  Anthony Weiner represented the district for 12 years before resigning in disgrace (the reason for the special election.)  It last had a Republican representative in the 1920s.  Before today, that is.

In an odd campaign that was part a referendum on an unpopular President in general and partly a specific referendum on our relationship with Israel, Bob Turner pulled an impressive upset, winning the seat for the GOP by about 6%. 

The district is a little unique in its heavy Orthodox Jewish population and Middle East politics were front and center in the race.  President Obama's positions on Israeli-Palestine peace talks, and specifically his view that the starting point for discussions should be the return of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip to Arab control were front and center.

This result demonstrates the odd political divide that many religious Jews face.  It's dangerous to generalize, but that's a bit of what demographic politics are about.  Jewish people, in general, tend towards liberal positions on social and economic issues but conservative positions on foreign policy, especially as it pertains to the Middle East and Israel specifically.  The GOP has, for a long time, been a staunch ally to Israel.  In the case of Orthodox Jews, some of the social policies lean a little further right as well.

So is there a national message in this vote?  One could certainly be that President Obama is in trouble with the Jewish vote.  He certainly is not at risk, at least at this point, of losing New York (it would take an absolute national thumping to put that state in play), but the Jewish vote is also a critical swing constituency in Florida, a state very much in play in 2012.

It's also one more data point, albeit a murky one, that the national mood continues to be anti-Democrat. 

This result isn't the be all and end all of predicting a 2012 outcome, but, on balance, it certainly isn't good for Democrats.

If you like this site, tell your friends.