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.
Showing posts with label Herman Cain. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Herman Cain. Show all posts
Saturday, December 3, 2011
Saturday, November 5, 2011
Is Cain Imploding On Purpose?, The Big Map: Electoral College 2012
Could You Have Scripted This?
I don't know if Herman Cain has ever sexually harassed anyone. I'm not even sure exactly what the former head of the National Restaurant Association is accused of. Sexual harassment is a very broad charge that can mean a lot of things to a lot of people. Is Cain accused of distasteful jokes or outright blackmail? Where things he said or did unwise or illegal? Nothing is clear.
Many years later, people still have arguments about Clarence Thomas and the veracity of Anita Hill's allegations. But Anita came forward. She faced the man she was accusing. She was specific in her charges, faced cross-examination and made her case. The Thomas confirmation hearings may not have been any fun to the parties involved, but they had a fundamental sense of fairness.
Herman Cain's accusers have not stepped forward. We know no specifics of the allegations against him. There is no evidence offered, no cross examination. It is a charge that, for lack of some kind of evidence, or at least a live witness or two, probably shouldn't bear on our decision-making in the Presidential election.
Except that we live in the real world. In the real world, in a Republican primary, being charged with sexual harassment could make you look very beatable, especially by a formidable machine like the Obama campaign. And in the real world, you aren't strictly innocent until proven guilty, once a charge has been made, however thin the evidence, you have to respond.
And except for that fact that Herman Cain seems to be doing everything in his power to inflict maximum damage on his campaign from this charge. He has bungled things at every turn. He has not been forthcoming with the facts (that he was accused at one point and that the charges were settled.) He has claimed memory lapses (would you FORGET having settled a law suit about sexual harassment?) He has given contradictory accounts. It is vintage Herman Cain (see abortion, see border fences, etc.), except that none of this is cute or endearing when you are charged with something serious.
It makes me wonder if Cain is looking for a way out. He was supposed to make a few points, land a few speaking gigs and have the ear of the American people for a time. In his wildest dreams, maybe he'd land a gig at Fox News. He wasn't supposed to WIN. I don't think Cain want to be President, perhaps never did. Maybe this is his way out.
Will all of this cause the troops to rally around Romney? Probably not -- the Tea Party just can't stand the guy and some mainstream Republicans are starting to find his constant flip-flopping annoying at best and revealing of a lack of character at worst. But Romney is still what they are going to get. Perry continues to look less and less attractive the more he talks. There has been talk of a "Newt rally" but it is stalled around 12% and he comes with all kinds of baggage and not much likability. Ron Paul is way outside the GOP mainstream. The other candidates are struggling to stay even in the low single digits. It's going to be Mitt. Don't say I didn't tell you so.
The Big Map
If it is Romney, then we have an interesting race on our hands. National polling is close, but the state-by-state battles are fascinating. If it's anyone other than Romney, just color the grey states blue right now. But in Romney vs. Obama, it is a broad battleground, mostly among states that Obama won in 2008.
The map below was created with the help of 270towin.com, which is a great site that has a lot of electoral college information on it.
So, we can see that there are 190 electoral votes at this point that are reasonably firmly in the Obama column and 169 that are reasonably firmly in the Romney column with 179 electoral votes up for grabs. Note that all the swing states listed are states Obama carried in his victory in 2008, except for Arizona, which is looking closer this time since one John McCain is not on the ballot.
Let's examine these swing states one-by-one. Note that my "advantage" is often the current leader in the polls, but not always, as I consider history and trend as well.
Florida - 29 Electoral Votes
Voting History: Last 5 elections - 2 Democratic, 3 GOP (voted for Bush in '92, winners otherwise)
Vote Versus National Vote in 2008: +4.4% Republican
Trending: Republican (slightly)
Current polling: Pick 'Em
Advantage: Romney, but weakly
Pennsylvaina - 20 Electoral Votes
Voting History: Last 5 elections Democratic (voted for Gore, Kerry and 3 winners)
Vote Versus National Vote in 2008: +2.5% Democratic
Trending: Republican (slightly)
Current polling: Obama up by an average of +5%
Advantage: Obama, fairly strongly
Ohio - 18 Electoral Votes
Voting History: Last 5 elections - 3 Democratic, 2 GOP (voted for winner every time)
Vote Versus National Vote in 2008: +2.6% Republican
Trending: Republican (slightly)
Current polling: Obama up by an average of +4%
Michigan - 16 Electoral Votes
Voting History: Last 5 elections Democratic (voted for Gore, Kerry and 3 winners)
Vote Versus National Vote in 2008: +9.3% Democratic
Trending: Democratic (strongly)
Current polling: Obama up by an average of +6%
Advantage: Obama, strongly
North Carolina - 15 Electoral Votes
Voting History: Last 5 elections - 4 Republicans, 1 Democrat (voted for Bush in '92, Dole and 3 winners)
Vote Versus National Vote in 2008: +6.9% Republican
Trending: Democratic (moderately)
Current Polling: Romney up by an average of +1%
Advantage: Romney, but weakly
Virginia - 13 Electoral Votes
Voting History: Last 5 elections - 4 Republicans, 1 Democrat (voted for Bush in '92, Dole and 3 winners)
Vote Versus National Vote in 2008: +0.9% Republican
Trending: Democratic (strongly)
Current Polling: Romney by average of +2%
Advantage: Romney, but weakly
Indiana - 11 Electoral Votes
Voting History: Last 5 elections - 4 Republicans, 1 Democrat (voted for Bush in '92, Dole and 3 winners)
Vote Versus National Vote in 2008: +6.2% Republican
Trending: Democratic (strongly)
Current Polling: None available
Arizona - 11 Electoral Votes
Voting History: Last 5 elections - 4 Republicans, 1 Democrat (voted for Bush in '92, McCain and 3 winners)
Vote Versus National Vote in 2008: +15.7% Republican
Trending: Unclear due to McCain's presence on 2008 ticket
Current Polling: Obama by an average of 5%
Wisconsin - 10 Electoral Votes
Voting History: Last 5 elections - 5 Democrats (voted for Gore, Kerry and 3 winners)
Vote Versus National Vote in 2008: +6.7% Democratic
Trending: Democratic (moderately)
Current Polling: Obama by an average of 6%
Minnesota - 10 Electoral Votes
Voting History: Last 5 elections - 5 Democrats (voted for Gore, Kerry and 3 winners)
Vote Versus National Vote in 2008: +3.0% Democratic
Trending: Republican (moderately)
Current Polling: None available
Colorado - 9 Electoral Votes
Voting History: Last 5 elections - 2 Democrats, 3 Republicans (voted for Dole in '96 and 4 winners)
Vote Versus National Vote in 2008: +1.7% Democratic
Trending: Democratic (moderately)
Current Polling: None available
Iowa - 6 Electoral Votes
Voting History: Last 5 elections - 4 Democrats, 1 Republican (voted for Gore and 4 winners)
Vote Versus National Vote in 2008: +2.3% Democratic
Trending: Flat
Current Polling: Obama by an average of 3%
Nevada - 6 Electoral Votes
Voting History: 3 Democrats, 2 Republicans (voted for winner every time)
Vote Versus National Vote in 2008: +5.3% Democratic
Trending: Democratic (moderately)
Current Polling: Pick 'Em
New Mexico - 5 Electoral Votes
Voting History: 4 Democrats, 1 Republican (voted for Gore and 4 winners)
Vote Versus National Vote in 2008: +7.9% Democratic
Trending: Democratic (moderately)
Current Polling: None available
All of this would give Obama, very hypothetically a win in the electoral college of 290-248.
If you flip all the "weak" Obama states to Romney, Romney wins 293-245.
If you flip all the "weak" Romney states to Obama, Obama wins 358-180.
Bear in mind, it is WAY early...Romney hasn't even competed in his first primary as of yet. And there are signs out there that there may be swing states in New England that I'm not even considering - New Hampshire could be in play as the most moderate state near where Romney is from, so theoretically could be other states in the region. These changes could change the whole composition of the map.
But, very early on, I think we can say that we already have a horse race. Unless the GOP nominates someone else.
If you like this site tell your friends.
I don't know if Herman Cain has ever sexually harassed anyone. I'm not even sure exactly what the former head of the National Restaurant Association is accused of. Sexual harassment is a very broad charge that can mean a lot of things to a lot of people. Is Cain accused of distasteful jokes or outright blackmail? Where things he said or did unwise or illegal? Nothing is clear.
Many years later, people still have arguments about Clarence Thomas and the veracity of Anita Hill's allegations. But Anita came forward. She faced the man she was accusing. She was specific in her charges, faced cross-examination and made her case. The Thomas confirmation hearings may not have been any fun to the parties involved, but they had a fundamental sense of fairness.
Herman Cain's accusers have not stepped forward. We know no specifics of the allegations against him. There is no evidence offered, no cross examination. It is a charge that, for lack of some kind of evidence, or at least a live witness or two, probably shouldn't bear on our decision-making in the Presidential election.
Except that we live in the real world. In the real world, in a Republican primary, being charged with sexual harassment could make you look very beatable, especially by a formidable machine like the Obama campaign. And in the real world, you aren't strictly innocent until proven guilty, once a charge has been made, however thin the evidence, you have to respond.
And except for that fact that Herman Cain seems to be doing everything in his power to inflict maximum damage on his campaign from this charge. He has bungled things at every turn. He has not been forthcoming with the facts (that he was accused at one point and that the charges were settled.) He has claimed memory lapses (would you FORGET having settled a law suit about sexual harassment?) He has given contradictory accounts. It is vintage Herman Cain (see abortion, see border fences, etc.), except that none of this is cute or endearing when you are charged with something serious.
It makes me wonder if Cain is looking for a way out. He was supposed to make a few points, land a few speaking gigs and have the ear of the American people for a time. In his wildest dreams, maybe he'd land a gig at Fox News. He wasn't supposed to WIN. I don't think Cain want to be President, perhaps never did. Maybe this is his way out.
Will all of this cause the troops to rally around Romney? Probably not -- the Tea Party just can't stand the guy and some mainstream Republicans are starting to find his constant flip-flopping annoying at best and revealing of a lack of character at worst. But Romney is still what they are going to get. Perry continues to look less and less attractive the more he talks. There has been talk of a "Newt rally" but it is stalled around 12% and he comes with all kinds of baggage and not much likability. Ron Paul is way outside the GOP mainstream. The other candidates are struggling to stay even in the low single digits. It's going to be Mitt. Don't say I didn't tell you so.
The Big Map
If it is Romney, then we have an interesting race on our hands. National polling is close, but the state-by-state battles are fascinating. If it's anyone other than Romney, just color the grey states blue right now. But in Romney vs. Obama, it is a broad battleground, mostly among states that Obama won in 2008.
The map below was created with the help of 270towin.com, which is a great site that has a lot of electoral college information on it.
Let's examine these swing states one-by-one. Note that my "advantage" is often the current leader in the polls, but not always, as I consider history and trend as well.
Florida - 29 Electoral Votes
Voting History: Last 5 elections - 2 Democratic, 3 GOP (voted for Bush in '92, winners otherwise)
Vote Versus National Vote in 2008: +4.4% Republican
Trending: Republican (slightly)
Current polling: Pick 'Em
Advantage: Romney, but weakly
Pennsylvaina - 20 Electoral Votes
Voting History: Last 5 elections Democratic (voted for Gore, Kerry and 3 winners)
Vote Versus National Vote in 2008: +2.5% Democratic
Trending: Republican (slightly)
Current polling: Obama up by an average of +5%
Advantage: Obama, fairly strongly
Ohio - 18 Electoral Votes
Voting History: Last 5 elections - 3 Democratic, 2 GOP (voted for winner every time)
Vote Versus National Vote in 2008: +2.6% Republican
Trending: Republican (slightly)
Current polling: Obama up by an average of +4%
Advantage: Obama, but weakly
Michigan - 16 Electoral Votes
Voting History: Last 5 elections Democratic (voted for Gore, Kerry and 3 winners)
Vote Versus National Vote in 2008: +9.3% Democratic
Trending: Democratic (strongly)
Current polling: Obama up by an average of +6%
Advantage: Obama, strongly
North Carolina - 15 Electoral Votes
Voting History: Last 5 elections - 4 Republicans, 1 Democrat (voted for Bush in '92, Dole and 3 winners)
Vote Versus National Vote in 2008: +6.9% Republican
Trending: Democratic (moderately)
Current Polling: Romney up by an average of +1%
Advantage: Romney, but weakly
Virginia - 13 Electoral Votes
Voting History: Last 5 elections - 4 Republicans, 1 Democrat (voted for Bush in '92, Dole and 3 winners)
Vote Versus National Vote in 2008: +0.9% Republican
Trending: Democratic (strongly)
Current Polling: Romney by average of +2%
Advantage: Romney, but weakly
Indiana - 11 Electoral Votes
Voting History: Last 5 elections - 4 Republicans, 1 Democrat (voted for Bush in '92, Dole and 3 winners)
Vote Versus National Vote in 2008: +6.2% Republican
Trending: Democratic (strongly)
Current Polling: None available
Advantage: Romney, moderately
Arizona - 11 Electoral Votes
Voting History: Last 5 elections - 4 Republicans, 1 Democrat (voted for Bush in '92, McCain and 3 winners)
Vote Versus National Vote in 2008: +15.7% Republican
Trending: Unclear due to McCain's presence on 2008 ticket
Current Polling: Obama by an average of 5%
Advantage: Romney, but weakly
Wisconsin - 10 Electoral Votes
Voting History: Last 5 elections - 5 Democrats (voted for Gore, Kerry and 3 winners)
Vote Versus National Vote in 2008: +6.7% Democratic
Trending: Democratic (moderately)
Current Polling: Obama by an average of 6%
Advantage: Obama, moderately
Minnesota - 10 Electoral Votes
Voting History: Last 5 elections - 5 Democrats (voted for Gore, Kerry and 3 winners)
Vote Versus National Vote in 2008: +3.0% Democratic
Trending: Republican (moderately)
Current Polling: None available
Advantage: Obama, but weakly
Colorado - 9 Electoral Votes
Voting History: Last 5 elections - 2 Democrats, 3 Republicans (voted for Dole in '96 and 4 winners)
Vote Versus National Vote in 2008: +1.7% Democratic
Trending: Democratic (moderately)
Current Polling: None available
Advantage: Obama, but weakly
Iowa - 6 Electoral Votes
Voting History: Last 5 elections - 4 Democrats, 1 Republican (voted for Gore and 4 winners)
Vote Versus National Vote in 2008: +2.3% Democratic
Trending: Flat
Current Polling: Obama by an average of 3%
Advantage: Obama, but weakly
Nevada - 6 Electoral Votes
Voting History: 3 Democrats, 2 Republicans (voted for winner every time)
Vote Versus National Vote in 2008: +5.3% Democratic
Trending: Democratic (moderately)
Current Polling: Pick 'Em
Advantage: Obama, but weakly
New Mexico - 5 Electoral Votes
Voting History: 4 Democrats, 1 Republican (voted for Gore and 4 winners)
Vote Versus National Vote in 2008: +7.9% Democratic
Trending: Democratic (moderately)
Current Polling: None available
Advantage: Obama, but weakly
All of this would give Obama, very hypothetically a win in the electoral college of 290-248.
If you flip all the "weak" Obama states to Romney, Romney wins 293-245.
If you flip all the "weak" Romney states to Obama, Obama wins 358-180.
Bear in mind, it is WAY early...Romney hasn't even competed in his first primary as of yet. And there are signs out there that there may be swing states in New England that I'm not even considering - New Hampshire could be in play as the most moderate state near where Romney is from, so theoretically could be other states in the region. These changes could change the whole composition of the map.
But, very early on, I think we can say that we already have a horse race. Unless the GOP nominates someone else.
If you like this site tell your friends.
Saturday, October 22, 2011
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.
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.
Sunday, October 16, 2011
Cain Ahead in the Polls but Romney Way Ahead in the Betting, The Meaning of 9-9-9
Who Exactly is the Favorite?
Frequent readers to this space can't exactly be surprised by the Jupiter-gravity speed fall of Texas Governor Rick Perry from frontrunner to near afterthought in the GOP race. After all, I'd been warning you for weeks: Rick Perry is this year's Fred Thompson, Rick Perry is a great concept for the GOP but a horrible candidate, Rick Perry is not ready for prime time. Certainly none of this stopped the talking heads from immediately appointing Perry the guy to beat as soon as he led in the polls. But they stopped talking about him just as fast as his numbers crashed, instead focusing on the new guy at the top in national polling: former Godfather's Pizza CEO Herman Cain.
Cain is ahead in the national polls modestly and leads in several early states. The primary and caucus calendar is a dynamic thing, thanks to Florida's decision to go early, but ultimately it should settle down to the first 5 races still being Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, South Carolina and then Florida. The "early 4" will do whatever it takes to move their debts to preserve their early status and will all therefore set calendar dates earlier than Florida's accelerated January 31st date. South Carolina has already moved its date up to January 21st, Nevada to January 14th. Iowa and New Hampshire have not yet set their dates, but the mostly likely dates are for Iowa to go January 3rd and New Hampshire to go January 7th, although there is some possibility that New Hampshire will attempt to go in December, as they are extremely unhappy with the notion of having only a four-day gap between Iowa and them.
These states all have different dynamics. Iowa and Nevada are caucuses, which require participants to donate money, invest significant time and openly declare their support for candidates - in other words, these are events that only the most devoted party members participate in. New Hampshire, South Carolina and Florida are primaries, which, at a minimum, allow open access to any member of the party that wishes to participate and require only the few minutes it takes to go cast a vote. Add to this the further wrinkle of primary rules - New Hampshire has what is known as a "semi-closed" primary - Republicans and Independents can participate in the GOP primary but Democrats cannot. South Carolina has an "open" primary, meaning anyone of any party can participate in its GOP primary (they cannot participate in both primaries, but that is largely irrelevant this year as President Obama faces no real opposition for the Democratic nod.) Florida has a "closed" primary - only registered members of the GOP can participate.
So, with 4 different kinds of elections in the offing in the first 5 contests, polling gets extremely tough. Caucuses are notoriously hard to poll for and open primaries are generally harder to get a read on than closed primaries. All of that said, let's assess the latest polling numbers both nationally and in the likely first 5 states:
Latest Average of Averages for National Polls:
Romney - 20.5%, Cain - 19.2%, Perry - 13.7%, Paul - 8.6%, Gingrich - 7.6%, Bachmann - 4.8%, Santorum - 1.9%, Huntsman - 1.6%
While Romney still leads marginally over Cain nationally, all the dynamics would seem to favor Cain. Perry has been in decline and his support, almost vote-for-vote, has been going to Cain. Paul has been a relatively constant at that level, with a small, but very loyal demographic backing his libertarian views. Gingrich has been on the rise, mostly at the expense of the other minor candidates. The other candidates don't have enough support to be worth taking, but to the extent that they fade, it is likely that Bachmann and Santorum's supporters would go to Cain, while Huntsman's would go to Romney, based on their ideologies.
So, for now, call it basically a wash between Romney and Cain, with Cain gaining and Romney relatively constant (he's been in the low 20s virtually the whole election cycle.)
Averages by State:
Iowa (only 1 recent polls): Romney 26%, Cain 20%, Paul 12%, Perry 11%, Bachmann 11%, Gingrich 5%, Santorum 5%, Huntsman 1%
New Hampshire (3 recent polls): Romney 40%, Cain 15%, Paul 12%, Huntsman 6%, Perry 5%, Gingrich 4%, Bachmann 3%, Santorum 1%
Nevada (no recent polls)
South Carolina (no recent polls)
Florida (no recent polls)
So, as things stand now, Romney would be poised to take the first two contests, which would give him considerable momentum going into the next 3. Cain is live in Iowa, but Romney appears to be a lock in New Hampshire, which neighbors his home states of Massachusetts.
You would think Nevada is fairly neutral ground (a moderate state but a caucus structure), South Carolina would heavily favor Cain (or anyone else polling well against Romney, being a conservative electorate) and Florida would be a fairly neutral state (classic large-state swing contest.)
So to have the momentum to mount a serious charge, anybody other than Romney (for now, we'll say Cain) needs to win in Iowa. Expect the next couple of months leading up to the caucus to be fast and furious in that regard.
While on face, Romney is the favorite, the betting odds might surprise some. Here are the latest odds from our friends at Intrade:
Romney to win nomination: 68.5%
Perry to win nomination: 12.4%
Cain to win nomination: 8.9%
Someone else to win:10.2%
How can Mitt Romney be such an overwhelming betting favorite when he is only a marginal leader in the polls? And how can Perry be ahead of Cain when all the numbers look like he's sunk?
The answer is pretty simple. One is that nobody buys the Cain phenomenon yet as a lasting trend. Donald Trump led the GOP field in the polls at one time. Then it was Michelle Bachmann. Then Rick Perry. Now Herman Cain is on the verge of it. Through it all, Mitt Romney has plodded along with his 20-25% support. It's starting to look like the GOP is going to date a lot of super models but marry the girl next door (note: this analogy has nothing to do with the good looks of the candidates for those who may not be able to connect the dots.)
I've been predicting Romney to get the nod from the get go. Seems like the smart money is coming around to that.
9-9-9
Since Cain is, at least for the moment, polling strongly in the GOP race, it is worth spending a little bit of time discussing his cornerstone proposal, a fundamental change in the tax code that he has been touting as his "9-9-9 plan".
Before I dissect the plan, let me give Cain credit. I'm not a fan of the 9-9-9 plan in a lot of ways. But at least Cain has proposed something meaningful. Can you tell me the tax plan of Mitt Romney or Rick Perry? That's because they don't have one. So, while I don't agree, I appreciate that Cain is actually contributing to the dialogue rather than just spouting platitudes about not raising taxes.
9-9-9, at its essence, is a replacement of most of our existing taxes: corporate, individual income and payroll with a 9% tax on corporate profits, a 9% tax on individual incomes and a 9% sales tax.
Let me start by providing context to the discussion. There are two important decisions to be made relative to taxation. The first is HOW MUCH the government should collect in taxes. This should (but often isn't) be related to how much you want the government to spend. In other words, how many bills do I need to pay and therefore what do I need to collect in taxes? The second decision in a tax code is WHO should pay the taxes and in what proportion.
Cain has stated that his plan was designed to be initially neutral to what the current tax code collects. I am unable to independently verify that claim, but not able to disprove it either. You see, it's such a fundamental change in the method of collection (the addition of a national sales tax, a major change in the corporate tax structure) that I simply lack adequate data and study at this point to verify whether it is revenue neutral or not. So, for purposes of this debate, let's assume that it is, or, if it isn't that Cain would adjust it to be a 10-10-10 plan or an 8-8-8 plan to compensate.
On the issue of who pays, there is some good but a lot of bad.
In our current tax code, the people that pay are the upper-middle class. The most heavily taxed money is income that is between $85K and $106K. This income is subject to a federal rate of 28% plus an effective payroll tax of about 15% (considering both the employer and employee share, which you have to, since they both, in essence, come out of the employee's pocket), for a combined rate of about 43%. This is higher than the 39.6% effective rate paid on very high incomes (over $383K).
Also paying are US-centered businesses that are in non-capital intensive industries - think software companies and small retailers. They pay an effective rate of 35%.
The people who don't pay much are:
The working and lower middle classes with children - 47% of the population is able to avoid all income tax through exemptions and deductions and therefore pay only an effective payroll tax of around 15%.
Investors and the non-working rich - capital gains and dividend income is taxed at only 15%.
Businesses that have foreign operations, qualify for energy-efficient tax credits or have heavy capital needs that they can leverage accelerated depreciation - GE famously paid no federal taxes last year and they are not alone. By shoveling profits to foreign affiliates, taking advantage of accelerated depreciation laws and getting givebacks from the government for investing in green energy, many companies can reduce their effective tax burden to close to zero.
This doesn't seem like a great system in total. Under Cain's system, the people who would pay most heavily would be:
The working class and the lower-middle class - those who effectively live "paycheck to paycheck" and spend all of their income would be hit fully with both the income and the sales tax and pay an effective rate of 18%.
Who would be hit the least? The investing class and corporations, who would pay a mere 9%.
It doesn't seem like a good system to me. And it isn't because I'm opposed to a less nuanced tax structure.
I'd propose instead, that a better system would be to ditch the sales tax (which is regressive in that it hits the poor a lot harder) and exempt the first $30K per year in individual income from taxation (you shouldn't be taxing people into poverty.) Beyond that, I'd be fine with a flat tax rate with no deductions (no home mortgage deduction, no charitable contribution deduction, etc.) I'd treat all investment income (capital gains, dividends, etc.) the same as any other income and nix the corporate tax. This way, you'd eliminate all the balance sheet and income statement gain playing and tax the money at receipt. In reality, the rates would likely have to be a lot higher than Cain's 9%, under a system such as mine, the likely rate would need to be 20% or so, but that would beat the heck out of having some pay 43% and some pay nothing.
Tax reform is a debate we have been putting off way too long. I thank Herman Cain for getting us started even if I don't like his plan.
If you like this site, tell your friends.
Frequent readers to this space can't exactly be surprised by the Jupiter-gravity speed fall of Texas Governor Rick Perry from frontrunner to near afterthought in the GOP race. After all, I'd been warning you for weeks: Rick Perry is this year's Fred Thompson, Rick Perry is a great concept for the GOP but a horrible candidate, Rick Perry is not ready for prime time. Certainly none of this stopped the talking heads from immediately appointing Perry the guy to beat as soon as he led in the polls. But they stopped talking about him just as fast as his numbers crashed, instead focusing on the new guy at the top in national polling: former Godfather's Pizza CEO Herman Cain.
Cain is ahead in the national polls modestly and leads in several early states. The primary and caucus calendar is a dynamic thing, thanks to Florida's decision to go early, but ultimately it should settle down to the first 5 races still being Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, South Carolina and then Florida. The "early 4" will do whatever it takes to move their debts to preserve their early status and will all therefore set calendar dates earlier than Florida's accelerated January 31st date. South Carolina has already moved its date up to January 21st, Nevada to January 14th. Iowa and New Hampshire have not yet set their dates, but the mostly likely dates are for Iowa to go January 3rd and New Hampshire to go January 7th, although there is some possibility that New Hampshire will attempt to go in December, as they are extremely unhappy with the notion of having only a four-day gap between Iowa and them.
These states all have different dynamics. Iowa and Nevada are caucuses, which require participants to donate money, invest significant time and openly declare their support for candidates - in other words, these are events that only the most devoted party members participate in. New Hampshire, South Carolina and Florida are primaries, which, at a minimum, allow open access to any member of the party that wishes to participate and require only the few minutes it takes to go cast a vote. Add to this the further wrinkle of primary rules - New Hampshire has what is known as a "semi-closed" primary - Republicans and Independents can participate in the GOP primary but Democrats cannot. South Carolina has an "open" primary, meaning anyone of any party can participate in its GOP primary (they cannot participate in both primaries, but that is largely irrelevant this year as President Obama faces no real opposition for the Democratic nod.) Florida has a "closed" primary - only registered members of the GOP can participate.
So, with 4 different kinds of elections in the offing in the first 5 contests, polling gets extremely tough. Caucuses are notoriously hard to poll for and open primaries are generally harder to get a read on than closed primaries. All of that said, let's assess the latest polling numbers both nationally and in the likely first 5 states:
Latest Average of Averages for National Polls:
Romney - 20.5%, Cain - 19.2%, Perry - 13.7%, Paul - 8.6%, Gingrich - 7.6%, Bachmann - 4.8%, Santorum - 1.9%, Huntsman - 1.6%
While Romney still leads marginally over Cain nationally, all the dynamics would seem to favor Cain. Perry has been in decline and his support, almost vote-for-vote, has been going to Cain. Paul has been a relatively constant at that level, with a small, but very loyal demographic backing his libertarian views. Gingrich has been on the rise, mostly at the expense of the other minor candidates. The other candidates don't have enough support to be worth taking, but to the extent that they fade, it is likely that Bachmann and Santorum's supporters would go to Cain, while Huntsman's would go to Romney, based on their ideologies.
So, for now, call it basically a wash between Romney and Cain, with Cain gaining and Romney relatively constant (he's been in the low 20s virtually the whole election cycle.)
Averages by State:
Iowa (only 1 recent polls): Romney 26%, Cain 20%, Paul 12%, Perry 11%, Bachmann 11%, Gingrich 5%, Santorum 5%, Huntsman 1%
New Hampshire (3 recent polls): Romney 40%, Cain 15%, Paul 12%, Huntsman 6%, Perry 5%, Gingrich 4%, Bachmann 3%, Santorum 1%
Nevada (no recent polls)
South Carolina (no recent polls)
Florida (no recent polls)
So, as things stand now, Romney would be poised to take the first two contests, which would give him considerable momentum going into the next 3. Cain is live in Iowa, but Romney appears to be a lock in New Hampshire, which neighbors his home states of Massachusetts.
You would think Nevada is fairly neutral ground (a moderate state but a caucus structure), South Carolina would heavily favor Cain (or anyone else polling well against Romney, being a conservative electorate) and Florida would be a fairly neutral state (classic large-state swing contest.)
So to have the momentum to mount a serious charge, anybody other than Romney (for now, we'll say Cain) needs to win in Iowa. Expect the next couple of months leading up to the caucus to be fast and furious in that regard.
While on face, Romney is the favorite, the betting odds might surprise some. Here are the latest odds from our friends at Intrade:
Romney to win nomination: 68.5%
Perry to win nomination: 12.4%
Cain to win nomination: 8.9%
Someone else to win:10.2%
How can Mitt Romney be such an overwhelming betting favorite when he is only a marginal leader in the polls? And how can Perry be ahead of Cain when all the numbers look like he's sunk?
The answer is pretty simple. One is that nobody buys the Cain phenomenon yet as a lasting trend. Donald Trump led the GOP field in the polls at one time. Then it was Michelle Bachmann. Then Rick Perry. Now Herman Cain is on the verge of it. Through it all, Mitt Romney has plodded along with his 20-25% support. It's starting to look like the GOP is going to date a lot of super models but marry the girl next door (note: this analogy has nothing to do with the good looks of the candidates for those who may not be able to connect the dots.)
I've been predicting Romney to get the nod from the get go. Seems like the smart money is coming around to that.
9-9-9
Since Cain is, at least for the moment, polling strongly in the GOP race, it is worth spending a little bit of time discussing his cornerstone proposal, a fundamental change in the tax code that he has been touting as his "9-9-9 plan".
Before I dissect the plan, let me give Cain credit. I'm not a fan of the 9-9-9 plan in a lot of ways. But at least Cain has proposed something meaningful. Can you tell me the tax plan of Mitt Romney or Rick Perry? That's because they don't have one. So, while I don't agree, I appreciate that Cain is actually contributing to the dialogue rather than just spouting platitudes about not raising taxes.
9-9-9, at its essence, is a replacement of most of our existing taxes: corporate, individual income and payroll with a 9% tax on corporate profits, a 9% tax on individual incomes and a 9% sales tax.
Let me start by providing context to the discussion. There are two important decisions to be made relative to taxation. The first is HOW MUCH the government should collect in taxes. This should (but often isn't) be related to how much you want the government to spend. In other words, how many bills do I need to pay and therefore what do I need to collect in taxes? The second decision in a tax code is WHO should pay the taxes and in what proportion.
Cain has stated that his plan was designed to be initially neutral to what the current tax code collects. I am unable to independently verify that claim, but not able to disprove it either. You see, it's such a fundamental change in the method of collection (the addition of a national sales tax, a major change in the corporate tax structure) that I simply lack adequate data and study at this point to verify whether it is revenue neutral or not. So, for purposes of this debate, let's assume that it is, or, if it isn't that Cain would adjust it to be a 10-10-10 plan or an 8-8-8 plan to compensate.
On the issue of who pays, there is some good but a lot of bad.
In our current tax code, the people that pay are the upper-middle class. The most heavily taxed money is income that is between $85K and $106K. This income is subject to a federal rate of 28% plus an effective payroll tax of about 15% (considering both the employer and employee share, which you have to, since they both, in essence, come out of the employee's pocket), for a combined rate of about 43%. This is higher than the 39.6% effective rate paid on very high incomes (over $383K).
Also paying are US-centered businesses that are in non-capital intensive industries - think software companies and small retailers. They pay an effective rate of 35%.
The people who don't pay much are:
The working and lower middle classes with children - 47% of the population is able to avoid all income tax through exemptions and deductions and therefore pay only an effective payroll tax of around 15%.
Investors and the non-working rich - capital gains and dividend income is taxed at only 15%.
Businesses that have foreign operations, qualify for energy-efficient tax credits or have heavy capital needs that they can leverage accelerated depreciation - GE famously paid no federal taxes last year and they are not alone. By shoveling profits to foreign affiliates, taking advantage of accelerated depreciation laws and getting givebacks from the government for investing in green energy, many companies can reduce their effective tax burden to close to zero.
This doesn't seem like a great system in total. Under Cain's system, the people who would pay most heavily would be:
The working class and the lower-middle class - those who effectively live "paycheck to paycheck" and spend all of their income would be hit fully with both the income and the sales tax and pay an effective rate of 18%.
Who would be hit the least? The investing class and corporations, who would pay a mere 9%.
It doesn't seem like a good system to me. And it isn't because I'm opposed to a less nuanced tax structure.
I'd propose instead, that a better system would be to ditch the sales tax (which is regressive in that it hits the poor a lot harder) and exempt the first $30K per year in individual income from taxation (you shouldn't be taxing people into poverty.) Beyond that, I'd be fine with a flat tax rate with no deductions (no home mortgage deduction, no charitable contribution deduction, etc.) I'd treat all investment income (capital gains, dividends, etc.) the same as any other income and nix the corporate tax. This way, you'd eliminate all the balance sheet and income statement gain playing and tax the money at receipt. In reality, the rates would likely have to be a lot higher than Cain's 9%, under a system such as mine, the likely rate would need to be 20% or so, but that would beat the heck out of having some pay 43% and some pay nothing.
Tax reform is a debate we have been putting off way too long. I thank Herman Cain for getting us started even if I don't like his plan.
If you like this site, tell your friends.
Sunday, October 9, 2011
The Left-Wing Tea Party?, If He's So Unpopular Then Why Is He Winning?
Occupy Wall Street: Populism Abounds
For three weeks now, left-wing protestors, seemingly without a unifying cause other than anger at corporate greed have been demonstrating in New York at Wall Street. Their causes and complaints are varied, but can best be summarized as populist. They complain about the bank bailouts and crony capitalism. They seek higher (much, much higher) minimum wages, free college education for all and other benefits for the working and middle class.
Similar to origins of the Tea Party, this movement is fueled out of anger by people who don't feel like they've gotten a fair shake out of our economic system. But, obviously these protestors have a different cause than the Tea Party. Where the Tea Party has sought to minimize the size and scope of government, these protestors seek to expand it: more regulation of large businesses, more rights for workers. It is a classic populist revolt.
As of yet, very few on the political left have taken up the banner of Occupy Wall Street, although the unions are openly supporting them. But the right has certainly been taking aim. Presidential Candidate Herman Cain criticized the movement and made the incredible statement that if you aren't rich in this country, that it's your own fault for not working harder and achieving more (quite a bold statement in this economy.)
So what does this all mean? It's too early to tell. The movement, like so many other protest movements could become an entertaining but largely irrelevant distraction (I'm reminded somewhat of the protests that follow the G20 around the world.) It could become the "Tea Party of the left", a populist uprising that wreaks havoc on moderate members of the Democratic Party (I still contend that the Tea Party has hampered GOP success, not enhanced it.)
The larger lesson here can be assessed through the intersection of the Tea Party and the Occupy Wall Street protests. These protesters come from different worlds and have very different solutions to what ails the country. But the root of the protests are the same. First, crony capitalism and most specifically, the bank bailouts are a common root of their anger. It's interesting that activists from the right and the left are both energized about the same issue - money flowing from the government to large corporations - and for largely the same reasons. Secondly, the general economic malaise is breeding both movements. They have different solves, but both are mad about persistent unemployment and a lack of opportunity.
The problem for Occupy Wall Street is that unlike the Tea Party, they don't have a national platform next year. The Tea Party can influence, to some degree, the GOP nominee. President Obama has no real challenger for the Democratic nod, so disaffected liberals don't have a real choice unless a third party candidate emerges, and if one did, they would have to realize that supporting him or her would simply play into the hands of a GOP that they are at even greater odds with.
How Can President Obama Still Be Up in the Polls?
It's been a couple months since I've updated the President's polling numbers - I will provide a full update soon, but looking at his tracking numbers, his approve minus disapprove has slid further - into the -8% to -10% range. This would ordinarily imply, as re-election campaigns tend to be about the incumbent, a popular vote percentage in the range of 45-46%, which is similar to the amount that would be projected by current economic statistics.
So why is President Obama polling better than that?
He is basically dead even with Mitt Romney in national heads up match-ups (up in some polls, down in others.) He leads the rest of the field by healthy, but not overwhelming margins (around +5% against Perry, more than that against the rest of the field.)
I think there are a few reasons for it, some that GOP candidates can overcome in the months to come and some that are a bit of an intrinsic advantage to Obama.
(1) People Don't Like the GOP Field
There is a reason that Republicans keep trying to recruit new candidates (see Chris Christie.) They know that the public isn't enamored with the current crop. Romney is certainly the most acceptable general election candidate (as the polls above reflect), but even he tracks behind where he should. This is in part because in a GOP primary, the candidates (except Jon Huntsman) have all taken a hard turn right. If the GOP contest is settled early (and by the calendar, it certainly seems that it will), then they may have an opportunity to track back to the center and gain some traction. This will be most easy if the nominee is Romney.
(2) People Like Obama Personally
Don't underestimate the importance of personality on the race. While Obama's policies have become increasingly unpopular, he is still a popular figure. A good family man who speaks in a way that seems hip and relevant and at times even cool, Obama has the potential to outperform. The GOP can't and probably shouldn't do much to tarnish that image (it would likely backfire), but they can build up the personal bonafides of their own candidates. In this case, Romney is not the best guy, since he's a blue blood private equity guy. Herman Cain's self-made man story sells a whole lot better.
(3) Some of the Anger is from the Left
The Occupy Wall Street protests above highlight an important fact - part of President Obama's unpopularity is derived from the right (see the Tea Party), some from the center (who are just mad we are broke and the economy stinks) but some is clearly from the left. This group isn't going to back a GOP candidate, the best a Republican can hope for is that they are mad enough to stay home.
If you like this site, tell your friends.
For three weeks now, left-wing protestors, seemingly without a unifying cause other than anger at corporate greed have been demonstrating in New York at Wall Street. Their causes and complaints are varied, but can best be summarized as populist. They complain about the bank bailouts and crony capitalism. They seek higher (much, much higher) minimum wages, free college education for all and other benefits for the working and middle class.
Similar to origins of the Tea Party, this movement is fueled out of anger by people who don't feel like they've gotten a fair shake out of our economic system. But, obviously these protestors have a different cause than the Tea Party. Where the Tea Party has sought to minimize the size and scope of government, these protestors seek to expand it: more regulation of large businesses, more rights for workers. It is a classic populist revolt.
As of yet, very few on the political left have taken up the banner of Occupy Wall Street, although the unions are openly supporting them. But the right has certainly been taking aim. Presidential Candidate Herman Cain criticized the movement and made the incredible statement that if you aren't rich in this country, that it's your own fault for not working harder and achieving more (quite a bold statement in this economy.)
So what does this all mean? It's too early to tell. The movement, like so many other protest movements could become an entertaining but largely irrelevant distraction (I'm reminded somewhat of the protests that follow the G20 around the world.) It could become the "Tea Party of the left", a populist uprising that wreaks havoc on moderate members of the Democratic Party (I still contend that the Tea Party has hampered GOP success, not enhanced it.)
The larger lesson here can be assessed through the intersection of the Tea Party and the Occupy Wall Street protests. These protesters come from different worlds and have very different solutions to what ails the country. But the root of the protests are the same. First, crony capitalism and most specifically, the bank bailouts are a common root of their anger. It's interesting that activists from the right and the left are both energized about the same issue - money flowing from the government to large corporations - and for largely the same reasons. Secondly, the general economic malaise is breeding both movements. They have different solves, but both are mad about persistent unemployment and a lack of opportunity.
The problem for Occupy Wall Street is that unlike the Tea Party, they don't have a national platform next year. The Tea Party can influence, to some degree, the GOP nominee. President Obama has no real challenger for the Democratic nod, so disaffected liberals don't have a real choice unless a third party candidate emerges, and if one did, they would have to realize that supporting him or her would simply play into the hands of a GOP that they are at even greater odds with.
How Can President Obama Still Be Up in the Polls?
It's been a couple months since I've updated the President's polling numbers - I will provide a full update soon, but looking at his tracking numbers, his approve minus disapprove has slid further - into the -8% to -10% range. This would ordinarily imply, as re-election campaigns tend to be about the incumbent, a popular vote percentage in the range of 45-46%, which is similar to the amount that would be projected by current economic statistics.
So why is President Obama polling better than that?
He is basically dead even with Mitt Romney in national heads up match-ups (up in some polls, down in others.) He leads the rest of the field by healthy, but not overwhelming margins (around +5% against Perry, more than that against the rest of the field.)
I think there are a few reasons for it, some that GOP candidates can overcome in the months to come and some that are a bit of an intrinsic advantage to Obama.
(1) People Don't Like the GOP Field
There is a reason that Republicans keep trying to recruit new candidates (see Chris Christie.) They know that the public isn't enamored with the current crop. Romney is certainly the most acceptable general election candidate (as the polls above reflect), but even he tracks behind where he should. This is in part because in a GOP primary, the candidates (except Jon Huntsman) have all taken a hard turn right. If the GOP contest is settled early (and by the calendar, it certainly seems that it will), then they may have an opportunity to track back to the center and gain some traction. This will be most easy if the nominee is Romney.
(2) People Like Obama Personally
Don't underestimate the importance of personality on the race. While Obama's policies have become increasingly unpopular, he is still a popular figure. A good family man who speaks in a way that seems hip and relevant and at times even cool, Obama has the potential to outperform. The GOP can't and probably shouldn't do much to tarnish that image (it would likely backfire), but they can build up the personal bonafides of their own candidates. In this case, Romney is not the best guy, since he's a blue blood private equity guy. Herman Cain's self-made man story sells a whole lot better.
(3) Some of the Anger is from the Left
The Occupy Wall Street protests above highlight an important fact - part of President Obama's unpopularity is derived from the right (see the Tea Party), some from the center (who are just mad we are broke and the economy stinks) but some is clearly from the left. This group isn't going to back a GOP candidate, the best a Republican can hope for is that they are mad enough to stay home.
If you like this site, tell your friends.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
