The Weakness of Romney's Campaign

Its clear that Romney will not win a landslide tonight, he might even lose.  Why? Given the weaknesses in Obama's record.

1. Romney never set forth a clear vision for his planned way ahead.
2. He allowed himself to be defined in a negative way early.

It's that simple and I will waste no more time discussing his weaknesses as a candidate.  I am not monitoring results tonight as the combined pressures of school and work have me fully engaged.

Writing this at 7:00 p.m. election night.  I am not publishing until after polls are closed.

Sunshine On His Face - Romney Wins the Debate

Years ago, before Chris Matthews lost his mind, he was a fairly decent political analyst.  I remember his analysis about why one candidate or another might be favored to win the Presidency.  It was simple, he said, which candidate do you imagine as the one with the sunshine on his face?  That candidate will win.  He was thinking of Ronald Reagan, of course, but the opposite also applied.  Gloomy Guses such as Dukakis, Mondale and Dole were doomed in this analysis.  I didn't watch all of tonight's debate because of work related matters; and some of what I watched, I could only hear the tone and watch the body language of the candidates.  Romney clearly won the sunshine contest and therefore the debate.  Obama's facial expressions appeared abnormal, he seemed a bit hunched over; Romney looked happy and confident, like the lucky and blessed man that he is.  Americans may love an underdog, but they don't love a hangdog.

Obama interrupted, appeared petulant and attacked Romney when serious answer was called for.  He seemed the challenger, and not equal to the task.  I haven't looked at any polls, but I am certain this debate will help Romney in the polls. He severely wrong-footed Obama again, this time with a smooth, non-combative performance that hit Obama in ways he didn't appear to expect.  The President, fighting the last debate, appeared combative and personal when the subject matter and the setting didn't call for it.

Now I'll go check the spin.

A Plescia Campaign Volunteer Stopped by my House

This evening, Justin, a student at Point Loma Nazarene, stopped by my house, to talk to me about George Plescia's campaign for the state senate.  My eldest son answered the door, but immediately called for me to take the visit; since Justin was asking about putting up a yard sign.  I liked that the first thing he did was ask me what my concerns about California state government were.  I responded that the budget was a mess and that out of control state employee pensions were a big factor.  Justin vouched the Plescia felt the same way; that his candidate was in favor of a Proposition B type reform for state pensions as part of the solution.  He also said that if Plescia isn't elected the Democrats will have such a large majority that they will be able to pass any spending they want.  (I didn't think to disagree, he's right, except for the inevitable math problem when they run out of other people's money.)  He also pointed out that Plescia has created jobs in the private sector, much like Mitt Romney.

He also said that Plescia will work to get the "high speed rail to nowhere" put back to the voters for another vote, since it doesn't at all reflect what we voted on previously.  In Justin's opinion, echoing that of his candidate, it is ludicrous to think that a rail line from Los Angeles to the Central Valley will pay for itself and fund an extension to San Francisco.  I wasn't even aware that such an argument was being made.  (A review of the official plan reveals that only two "useable segment" are currently authorized, see below.)

We also talked a little about Bilbray; Justin didn't think he made conservatives happy, but felt that in this district, he was the best we could hope for in a Republican.  I wasn't so sure, but told him I am fully supporting Bilbray this cycle, but would be looking for a conservative to challenge him in the 2014 primary.  Justin mention the recent U-T poll that has Bilbray up 9 points.  I voiced my concern that it seems like a lot of the undecideds are Democrats who might break for Peters.  Justin offered that many of the Democrats who are undecided are environmentalists who were unhappy with the way he beat Saldana, and over something else that I didn't catch.  I hope so, Peters and anyone else involved with the San Diego pension fiascos should never win another election.

Justin said that he leads the San Diego students for Romney organization in addition to his work for George Plescia.  Justin was very impressive and knowledgeable, it was great for have him stop by.  And I signed up for a yard sign, to go with my Carl DeMaio sign.  You can sign up for one here.


"Useable segments" for high speed rail from State Law, California Resolution #HSRA11-22.

• The portion of the Phase 1 corridor (described in Streets and Highways Code 2704.04, subdivision (b)(2)) between and including a San Jose station and a Bakersfield station; and
• The portion of the Phase 1 corridor between and including a Merced station and a San Fernando Valley station.

Closing Remarks in Presidential Debate

Obama seems rambling and incoherent, talking about stories about people that have little to do with his actual policies, in his closing remarks.

Romney concern about direction of America on two different paths, favors his side, because the results so far don't favor Obama and Obama has pushed the country farther to the left than it wanted to go.  

Romney seemed much more confident. 

I am very pleased, indeed. (For the record, I have not looked at any other punditry, except for a bit on Twitter.)

I also liked the civil tone of the debate and the way they shook hands with their families present afterwards.

Romney is Striking the Right Tone

I will not be able to blog much about tonight's debate. From what little I have seen, Mitt Romney is striking the right tone. He is on the attack in a fact-filled and respectful way that is still devastating. 50 years of oil depletion allowance burned down for green energy subsidies to the likes of Solyndra was my favorite fact.

Neither candidate seems especially animated; but I am liking the subject matter as favoring Romney. The contradictions of Obama's policies are coming home to roost.

Calling out Dodd-Frank as supporting too big to fail is a great point that is both conservative, correct and resonates with the middle class. I am so impressed with Romney's critique.

Presidential Debate Prep

The broad outlines of the upcoming Presidential debates are already known, at least on the Democrat side.  That's because they don't really ever change their appeal away from class warfare every four years.  The sameness of invoking "tax cuts for the rich" by Obama should leave Mitt Romney plenty of room to operate in tomorrow night's debate in Colorado.  He knows the President's line of attack and should easily be able to put the notoriously thin skinned Obama on the defensive.

I offer some easy pickings for the Romney campaign, free of charge.

1. Is it better to give businesses tax cuts or funnel those same federal taxes to your campaign donors through so called "green" energy programs.
2. If small businesses create jobs, and it is mostly small business owners that are "the rich," how are we going to create jobs without tax cuts for small businesses?
3. Is it better to use tax dollars to enrich union pensioners in the auto bailout at the expense of Indiana teachers pension fund?

Romney can easily defeat Obama with an aggressive campaign that highlights issues that the media has been complicit in not covering, to help Obama.  Fast and Furious and the debacle in Benghazi come to mind.  I don't know why it appears that Romney has been holding back, but it's time to play hardball; especially against a candidate that looks positively untruthful every time he is caught off guard.  (See Obama's poker tells for a long list of his disagreeable and feigned countenances.)

About that 47% - UPDATE

Mitt Romney is now facing trouble for saying that Obama support is at 47% and that somehow this is correlated to the percent of those who pay no federal income taxes. I watched the hastily arranged press conference where he sought to defend himself on the issue, and I was not that impressed. I want Romney to win the election, because Obama is a super black hole of incompetence; but his response isn't getting it done.

Here is the speech I wanted to hear.

The 47% of Americans who don't pay federal income taxes are suffering under this administration, nonetheless, and they pay other kinds of taxes, as well. Many of them are paying medicare taxes for a system that is going broke under the President's neglect. His tax cheating Treasury Secretary's response to Paul Ryan's plan to save Medicare, was to say exactly nothing, except to say we don't like yours. Mr. Obama's lack of leadership in this area is appalling. These folks often pay social security taxes as well. Again, the President's party has not a single idea to deal with the coming insolvency of this system. They portray our party as curmudgeons, when it is their stonewalling of reform that has these programs on the fast track to bankruptcy. These folks also pay tax on gasoline, and as the price of gas has skyrocketed so has the gasoline sales tax they pay. They are paying for the administrations hostility to drilling for oil and gas as well, denying them the good jobs a broad recovery would bring. They are paying more for food as the administration's policies, in conjunction with the Federal Reserve's, drive up the prices of the necessities of life.

Most importantly, many of those who aren't paying federal income taxes would love the chance to make enough money to be able to do so. But their opportunities to earn more money have been wrecked because this Obama economy has crushed the creation of millions of new jobs. I believe, and our party believes, that those Americans on food stamps, welfare and unemployment would gladly trade all that in for a decent job. It is the tragedy of this administration that they cannot. I hope to convince many of Obama's current supporters that we can do better, that we must do better if the nation is to restore its hope, its confidence and its place in the world. Thank you and God Bless America.

UPDATE

Anonymous adds the following spot on commentary.

Totally agree. Still, something is wrong. Nothing being done on the fiscal cliff, Sebelius is not in jail, we were attacked again on 9/11, employment is still 8+, Obama is partying in Vegas and on Letterman and it's Romney's campaign in trouble? What alternative universe am I in?

Romney's Speech

Romney made the grade tonight, but I am not the type of voter he was trying to impress. I think his speech was tuned to the undecided women voters. CNN had a focus group that seemed to confirm this hypothesis. I was looking for more red meat and more policy specifics, I thought Ryan's speech was actually better. But I sense that Romney has singular focus on winning. He knows what he needs to do to win; he effectively made the case to the voters who can still be persuaded while effectively criticizing the President.

Best line of the night:

President Obama promised to begin to slow the rise of the oceans and heal the planet. MY promise...is to help you and your family.

Not soaring rhetoric, but effectively punctures Obama's pretentiousness and grandiosity. (So did Clint Eastwood, even if he was slightly embarrassing at times.)

By the way, the meme that Paul Ryan's speech needed fact checking has been effectively debunked.

RNC Tonight

I probably can't add much to all of the chattering about the Republican National Convention. Fellow blogger W.C. Varones likes the tone, as do I. He mentioned in an email that the GOP is keeping on the "we built that" theme very well. Even though Christie's speech didn't seem to score well on Twitter, it scored well enough, and set a serious tone for the campaign. Christie continues the theme of giving America a choice, that was set with the Paul Ryan selection. Ann Romney was great, and I say this as a guy watching a speech targeting women; so take that for what it's worth. Nikki Haley seemed start off weak, but she really landed some punches over the NLRB's handling of Boeing's decision to open a plant in South Carolina.

I saw some article about Team O being very confident. I am not sure what to make of this conventional wisdom, as Intrade still has him as the favorite. With the economy in such bad shape, this makes no sense. Hopefully, we will see a tough campaign from Romney; a guy who doesn't want to lose.

The Hour is Late - Nervousness about Romney

I once quoted Peggy Noonan as saying that the tea party knew what time it is, and it was later than most people think:

The second thing is the clock. Here is a great virtue of the tea party: They know what time it is. It's getting late. If we don't get the size and cost of government in line now, we won't be able to. We're teetering on the brink of some vast, dark new world—states and cities on the brink of bankruptcy, the federal government too. The issue isn't "big spending" anymore. It's ruinous spending that they fear will end America as we know it, as they promised it to their children.

Which brings me to the Republican nominee. There is no mistaking him for the tea party candidate, even if many in the tea party support him out of antipathy for Obama. But to date, he has done a poor job of defining who he is, and the Obama campaign has had some modest success defining him in a negative way. I have chaffed at his campaign for not immediately making the case for his candidacy and for not building the narrative of his life as soon as he clinched the nomination.

The good news is that the mountain of negativity has not made much of a dent. People are more sophisticated than to believe Harry Reid's McCarthyesque lies and Romney has been good at counterattacking. The selection of Paul Ryan was helpful as well. But Romney still hasn't made the case. In an environment where his opponent is trying to scare the public, he needs to do so. The hour is late.

Perhaps he has been waiting for the convention, but I am nervous. In 2008, Romney's ultimate failing was the failure to put together a credible narrative and companion policy prescriptions to set himself apart from the other candidates. I worry that he will try to do so now, as well; perhaps thinking that the public is fed up with the economy enough to dump Obama. I am here to say that they won't vote for someone who won't explain himself. They tried that it in 2008 and it didn't go well. Unfairly perhaps, the Republican candidate this year won't get away with some version of hope and change.

I will be looking anxiously to how Romney handles the convention to see where this is going. Right now, its not looking that great. Intrade has Obama at 55.6% to win. That he isn't higher is an indication of the President's weakness. That he is that high in the first place is an indication that Romney isn't making the case.

Mitt Romney Paid A Higher Tax Percentage Than Me

A new "scary" Obama ad vilifies Romney for only paying 14% of his income as income tax to the federal government. My thought, so what? But I thought, what the heck, I will check my own numbers. Turns out I paid about 12% of my adjusted gross income (AGI) in taxes. Further, if you factor in that my 401(k) like retirement plan and my flexible spending plan (for medical) contributions aren't taxable, I paid closer to 10% of my income as federal taxes.

I feel like Romney might need better tax advice, but in my experience his tax percentage is a lot bigger than mine.

More to the point, his tax rate means that he contributed millions in taxes to the federal government. Why the vilification?

So I am asking my readers what percent of your AGI did you pay in federal income taxes?

Faux Outrage over Faux Outrage

So the political blogs and talking heads are up in arms over the negative tone of the campaign. So what? Here is why it won't change. Obama and his surrogates have no record to tout. If they were proud of his accomplishments, they would be trumpeting the signature achievement of the ACA. But even if you are a liberal, you must admit that the President's campaign has made little of the issue. With the economy in bad shape, and Obama unwilling to defend the ACA, the only campaign strategy left is to attack Romney.

For his part, Romney must counter-attack, first, because he can't allow Obama to define him in a negative light. Second, the nasty campaign redounds to Romney's advantage; because Obama loses his "likeability," a key advantage he has retained until now. By ratcheting up the rhetoric, as well as pointing out how nasty the Obama campaign's attack have become, he attacks the President's strength.

Personally, I won't lose a wink of sleep. Some of the scurrilous attacks on Romney get me angry, but ultimately, they have been a boon; because they have been shown to be so false. The demonstrably false accusation that Romney killed that worker's wife has been thoroughly debunked and hurt the President. Mark Halperin is quoted in Politico today:

Based on what happened last night, the president’s team is stunned that the president would be accused of engaging in a campaign of hate. Mitt Romney used the word ‘hate’. I think he meant it. I think the president’s team was very stung by it.

Halperin is a political analyst for Time. Stung? Really? Please grow up, and maybe you shouldn't coordinate attacks like accusing your opponent of killing people. If that's not hateful, what is?

Expect the nastiness to continue, until such time as it looks like a loser for one side or the other. If one side stops and the other side sees the negative attacks stop being effective, the tone might change, but don't count on it.

Virginia Postrel suggests another way in which the tone might change. She recalls Ross Perot's 30 minute informercials on the economy and federal budget from 1992 that drew big audiences. She thinks that Paul Ryan is telegenic and articulate enough to pull off something like that. I agree, and given the grave nature of the threats to our long term economic prospects, people would pay attention. She closes with:

The American public is in the appropriately desperate frame of mind for a serious policy discussion. The Ryan pick suggests that Romney might be willing to offer one. The alternative is three more months of sniping about tax returns and college transcripts (not to mention how dogs are treated) -- attacks on the candidates’ identities rather than their ideas. The times demand better.

Unfortunately, I don't think we can count on it.

Air Of Confidence - The Ryan Pick

Romney's pick of Paul Ryan as his VP, ending months of speculation, has me both nervous and delighted. Nervous, because I am by nature conservative about risk and would have gone with Portman or McDonnell from a pure electoral math perspective. It's probably a good thing I am not a candidate for office. I am delighted because this has the potential to be a game changer in a different way that Palin was a game changer (which I still believe was a great pick at the time.) First, this shows Romney's self confidence, which we need. The polls have made me nervous of late. Second, this will bait the Democrats into an all out class warfare and mediscare attack. But the people, even the elderly, are too smart for that too work. They know that the debt bomb is ticking. A debt ceiling limit might hit before the election, creating a crisis. Romney has positioned himself to be the man with foresight when that hits. I have discussed at length how McCain lost the 2008 election because he came across as erratic on the capital market crisis and ended up agreeing with Obama and Bush on the issue. There will be another crisis between now and November; Romney is positioning himself for the win when it happens.

Ryan is also the voice of the next generation. Brother blogger Dean has voiced his belief that a new battle has been joined in which his generation will have to fight for the future of America. Paul Ryan is a member of that generation and young enough to know that without true reform, the federal deficit will wreck his generation's ability to have any semblance of a retirement. Picking Ryan signals that Romney is ready to take on the serious issues of governing that will face this nation in the next four years.

John Fund has an excellent article on his "The Corner" blog at NRO, that discusses some of Ryan's excellent qualities. Leadership is key. One paragraph from Fund:

Third, Ryan’s ideas aren’t that novel or scary. The idea of “premium support” for Medicare, which would change the program’s one-size-fits-all policy to a private-insurance model with public options, was endorsed by a bipartisan commission appointed by Bill Clinton back in the 1990s. Late last year, Ryan announced a new version of his proposal with a new partner signing on: Democratic senator Ron Wyden of Oregon, who first achieved political prominence as an advocate for seniors.

In the video of Ryan's speech after Romney's announcement, Rya hits it out of the park. At the 8:48 mark, he talks to the generational issue that Dean references when he says this:

President Obama and too many like him in Washington have refused to make difficult decisions because they are more worried about their next election than they are about the next generation.

And there is this gem at 14:16. America is more than just a place, though.

America is an idea. It's the only country founded on an idea. Our rights come from Nature and God, not from government. . . . We promise equal opportunity, not equal outcomes.

He states that this idea is under assault, by implication, from Obama. He later states:

We won't duck the tough issues, we will lead.

We won't blame others, we will take responsbility.

We won't replace our founding principles, we will reapply them.

If you ladies would like to show your support you can purchase some apparel like this:

Defining Romney

The recent spate of bad news for the President is both opportunity and temptation for Mitt Romney. The opportunity is that the President has not been able to effectively "change the conversation" as the news cycle continues to focus on his own blunders and economic jitters. This gives Romney the opening to define himself while Obama is on defense. The danger is that Romney will repeat his mistake from the 2008 primaries, failing to convincingly define himself because he thought his best opportunity was to wait for his opponents to make a mistake. Peggy Noonan reminded me of this with today's column.

Actually, it's amazing that during an existential crisis—a crisis that is economic, cultural and political, and that bears on our role and purpose in the world—both candidates for our highest office have felt free to be so . . . well, insubstantial. Neither Mr. Romney nor Mr. Obama has caught hold of the overall meaning of his candidacy, Mr. Romney because so far he's chosen not to, and Mr. Obama because he's tried and failed.
. . .
Only when he does this will he show that he actually does have a larger purpose, and only then will people really turn toward him. He has to tell Americans why they can believe him, why a nation saturated with politics, chronically disappointed by its leaders, and tired of promises can, actually, put some faith in him.

They want to know how America can come back. Because they're pretty sure, down deep, that America has another comeback in her.

Indeed we do, we just have to see if it's after a crisis that will wilt Obama or one that will allow Romney to rise to the occasion. Believe me, a crisis is coming; we are not immune to the forces that of economics buffeting Greece. Our entitlement crisis, underfunded government pensions, and low economic growth are going to create a crisis. The only question is when, and how will this great republic respond.

After the Supremes Rule on PPACA

Juan Williams is reporting that the Obama administration is prepared for a full scale political assault on the Supreme Court if they lose rulings on PPACA, aka Obamacare. This would be more of the same from a President who refuses to recognize the limits of power in a constitutional government. What is often forgotten is that there are two major issues before the court. The first, of course, is the constitutionality of the individual mandate. The second is the fed's massive expansion of medicaid at the expense of the states. David Oedel of the National Law Journal (H/T Ilya Somin and The Volokh Conspiracy):

The ACA, though, puts an unusually heavy federal clamp on state “partners” in Medicaid. If any rogue state were to fail to extend free health care to large portions of the lower-middle class, as ordered under the ACA, it could lose all its federal funding for Medicaid for the poor. That funding is by far the largest federal outlay to any state, and is critical to states being able to care for the poor.

Justice Stephen Breyer unexpectedly suggested at oral argument that a decision by the secretary of Health and Human Services to strip any noncompliant state of all Medicaid funding would be unreasonable, and just cause for litigation…

[Chief Justice] Roberts… interjected, “[S]o long as the Federal government has that power [to strip all funding], it seems to be a significant intrusion on the sovereign interests of the State,” even if the states may have experienced and accepted such intrusions before.

If the Medicaid mandate is overturned, this will make the law more complex to implement because those who would have gone on to Medicaid will probably have to go on to the exchanges, but may not be able to afford it. Much has been written about the need for an individual mandate to make the system work, but I will succinctly recap. The individual mandate is necessary so that insurers have a healthy population to offset the costs of insuring those with pre-existing conditions.

Williams also points out that the a ruling against the law will put pressure on Republicans to say what their own plan would look like. The ugliness of the status quo will surely provide the pressure. However, I think that Romney, specifically, not Republican in general, will be the one's facing the pressure. Obama has already tipped his hand. He will assault the court and make the case that we need him to pick new justices so that the federal government can build the Hoover Dam of health care (more like Rube Goldberg, but he is prone to rhetorical flights.) Team Romney will be in an awkward position, given their man's previous efforts in Massachusetts.

This is not a time to over-think the problem. What's popular about the Obamacare bill? Covering pre-existing conditions and expanding coverage. What's unpopular? Everything else. Romney should say that the government will provide assistance to help those who have trouble affording health care coverage, but they will have to pay in some themselves to show they are serious; ditto for those with pre-existing conditions. He could throw in as much of John Mackey's plan as he likes as well, but he doesn't need to say much more to have a better plan than Obama's Pelosi's (we need to read the bill) and Reed's. Such a plan wouldn't cost much and would also give the lie to the idea that Romney is some kind of right wing nut.

The nation's health care insurance system is like a carpenter's nail that's going into wood at a bad angle. PPACA is the decision that a sledgehammer is the right tool to remedy the situation. The right answer is to start over; and use the power of the free market.

My concern about Team Romney is that their excellent offensive against Obama is blinding them to opportunities to put forward solid policy proposals in advance of the predictable news cycle. Maybe they are ready, and we just don't know it.

Finally and fervently, I am hoping for the entire law to get the boot, which it deserves. Not doing so will set bad precedents that will take two decades from which to recover.

All That's Wrong With Obama's Policy on Dreamers

The President's back door amnesty plan is is filled pitfalls. I'm glad he rolled it out now, because it gives time for all voters, including Latinos, to see how flawed it is. Here is a brief summary of what I can think of with a few minutes of reflection:

• It violates the statute for granting work permits to aliens, undermining the rule of law.
  
• It can be rescinded by the next President.
  
• It could be a trap that would allow the identification of these aliens for deportation in the future.
• It could be a trap that would allow the identification of the aliens' parents for deportation in the future.
  
• It will increase the reported unemployment rate to the extent that the nonresident undocumented aliens seek work. (Yes, illegal immigrants, but I'm keeping to the legal language.)
  
• It will put more pressure on legal residents looking for work, because of added competition from this group.
• Did I mention that it undermines the rule of law?
• It encourages more illegal immigration, because parents want good for their children most of all. Getting their children eligible for work in the U.S. is a powerful incentive for further law breaking, given the miserable conditions in most of Latin America and especially Mexico; where the majority of illegal immigrants hail from.
  

That's what comes immediately to mind. I am sure my readers can add more. More interestingly, is how Romney should respond. His initial response that the executive order makes it more difficult to achieve lasting reform because it poisoned the discussion struck the right tone. It reminds the Hispanic voters that Obama had the chance to pass whatever he wanted in 2009 and 2010, but chose to ignore the issue. Romney would do well to incorporate some of what Newt Gingrich has said on this subject. Specifically, he should emphasize control of the border as a down payment for solving our immigration problems. Next, he should put forth proposals to create what Newt Gingrich calls a "21st Century visa program" and expanded H-1B visa program. Solving this problem is in the best interest of America, because drawing talented immigrants and even unskilled laborers balances out our demographic and employment deficits. The President, through his extra-legal maneuvering has made the problem harder to solve. That's not leadership, that's demagoguery.

Quote of the Night

I missed the NBA finals tonight, but caught the last few minutes on radio on the drive home. I had watched the first quarter and had seen Miami dominate at times and take a decent lead over the less experienced Thunder. In the post-game interview, Russell Westbrook, of the Oklahoma City Thunder was asked what adjustments they had made after the first quarter to shut down the Heat. His quote: "We played harder." I loved it, it was straightforward and uncomplicated.

Right now the coalition to defeat Obama is behind on points. We just need to keep playing hard. This is what I am really liking about Romney; he seems intent on taking the fight to the President, playing hard. His attacks are not personal, but go to the key issues of the campaign, the President's cronyism and lack of focus on the economy.

Electoral Map Today

In a previous post, I made my bold prediction for a Republican victory in November's presidential election. I did some research today, and used the interactive map at 270towin.com to show what I thought the state of play of today's election might be. The rules for this analysis are to only use the recent (within the last month) polls of likely voters. If that is a tie, then factor prior polls of likely voters, if still tied, then look at registered voter (RV) polls. If there are no likely voter polls, I also used the RV polls. Also, since Maine and Nebraska split their electoral votes, they present a special challenge; for the purposes of this I am assuming Nebraska will go all red and Maine all blue. Here is my result for the 2012 Presidential Election: Electoral Map (you can click the link to change your own results):


Since this shows an Obama victory, it is certainly a bit disheartening. Two things to remember. First, its a long way to November. Second, what if we assume that Romney will capture undecideds by a 2:1 margin, certainly possible, then the map would look like this:


This is a better result from my perspective. The key point is that the election is still very close, but Romney has a lot of work to do. He could easily lose in a close election. If people think that Obama's gaffs of the last week doom his campaign, look at how challenging the electoral map is for the Republicans. Nate Silver still believes Obama the slight favorite, calling it a tenuous advantage, as does Intrade, which has Obama at 53.6% odds to win. (Silver's forecast is a 288-250 electoral win for Obama, slightly more bullish on Obama than my look today. Silver is certainly more qualified.) The Intrade odds didn't really move much on this past week's news, despite all the feel good for Republicans. However, the odds did drop over the weekend before the Wisconsin primary, so maybe that reflected the implications of the Walker recall, because the polls solidified over the weekend.

I post this not discourage our side, but to be realistic, we have to acknowledge reality and plan accordingly to blunt Obama's advantages. Please check out 270towin.com map and let me know your own predictions.

Of Course We're Happy, But

. . . its a long way to November. The wheels seem to be coming off for the left wing of the Democratic party and the mood over Obama's re-election chances seem to be shifting. Some of my fellow tea party bloggers will be celebrating over beers this weekend, appropriate for the occasion. (Beer, as in good ones from California, seems to be the official beverage of San Diego tea partyers.) In addition to the good news from victories I mentioned yesterday, I saw that Michigan and Nevada had moved into the "in play" column on the RealClearPolitics map since I last looked. Further, Bill Clinton and Ed Rendell seem to be detracting from the Obama campaign message.

Here's Rendell:




Peggy Noonan, had this to say about Clinton's quotes.

It just all increasingly looks like a house of cards. Bill Clinton—that ol' hound dog, that gifted pol who truly loves politics, who always loved figuring out exactly where the people were and then going to exactly that spot and claiming it—Bill Clinton is showing all the signs of someone who is, let us say, essentially unimpressed by the incumbent. He defended Mitt Romney as a businessman—"a sterling record"—said he doesn't like personal attacks in politics, then fulsomely supported the president, and then said that the Bush tax cuts should be extended.

But here's the problem. As good as things look now, politicians are in the survival business and have ways of correcting their own mistakes when it threatens their re-election prospects. Team Romney might be tempted to let Obama defeat himself; but sooner or later he has to make the case for why he himself should be the leader of the free world. This is what he failed to do in 2008. I have seen flashes of inspiration in this campaign, but not enough to make the sale. I am urging him to think seriously about two things. First, what few key positions and issues does he emphasize to demonstrate his readiness to govern. Second, what will his response be to another economic shock that might develop from Europe or unexpected quarters.

End Game in Greece and for the Euro

I am normally loathe to link to anything in the Huffington Post, but this article by Simon Johnson brings such clarity to the Greek/Euro situation that I feel compelled to quote the article. (H/T The Grumpy Economist):

. . . the Greek failure mostly demonstrates how wrong a single currency is for Europe. The Greek backlash reflects the enormous pain and difficulty that comes with trying to arrange "internal devaluations" (a euphemism for big wage and spending cuts) in order to restore competitiveness and repay an excessive debt level.

Faced with five years of recession, more than 20 percent unemployment, further cuts to come, and a stream of failed promises from politicians inside and outside the country, a political backlash seems only natural. With IMF leaders, EC officials, and financial journalists floating the idea of a "Greek exit" from the euro, who can now invest in or sign long-term contracts in Greece? Greece's economy can only get worse.
. . .
The ECB has always vehemently denied that it has taken an excessive amount of risk despite its increasingly relaxed lending policies. But between Target2 and direct bond purchases alone, the euro system claims on troubled periphery countries are now approximately 1.1 trillion euros (this is our estimate based on available official data). This amounts to over 200 percent of the (broadly defined) capital of the euro system. No responsible bank would claim these sums are minor risks to its capital or to taxpayers. These claims also amount to 43 percent of German Gross Domestic Product, . . .

For the last three years Europe's politicians have promised to "do whatever it takes" to save the euro. It is now clear that this promise is beyond their capacity to keep -- because it requires steps that are unacceptable to their electorates. No one knows for sure how long they can delay the complete collapse of the euro, perhaps months or even several more years, but we are moving steadily to an ugly end.

Sorry for the extended quotes, that is not normally my style; but it is becoming clearer by the day that this crisis is inevitable. Funny thing about financial crises, once they are seen as inevitable, they arrive sooner than later.

Hopefully Team Romney is studying the situation and is readying a plan. I maintain my long held position (here and here) that McCain could have won the 2008 election if he had proposed a radically different plan than the TARP and stimulus that both Bush and Obama supported. If I know anything about Team Obama, they will triple down on these failed policies if the coming euro crisis hits before the election. They might even be foolish enough to try and pledge U.S. aid to help save the euro. We need to keep an eye on the Fed as well. Romney should be ready with his own plan. If it embraces the free market, he wins in a walk.