The Major Variables

Posted by on . No comments.

Numbers come out and the media tells us what they mean. The numbers come each month, so, each month the talking heads have something to talk about. In some way, the number of jobs created this month, Obama’s job approval numbers and the price of gasoline are intrinsically important. Unfortunately, the media has the habit of looking at two or three months of data and using that micro trend as a premise for analyzing the election. However, as Mary Matalin pointed out last week on “This Week,” those seriously following the election ought not to look to at these monthly numbers as predictive of what will happen in November.

Obviously, the economy will play a very significant role in how the election turns out. But members of Mrs. Matalin’s “reality zone” know that the most americans have no idea what these numbers are or mean. As with all politics, perception is reality, and often times perception is more important than reality altogether. The conventional wisdom is that the perception of the direction and the momentum of the economy is more important than its actual performance. Our economy has seen a brief and minor trend towards the positive end of things. However, I think we are far enough away from November that how the state of the economy will impact the election is still yet to be seen. The fact that no republican or professional journalist wants to admit is the following: the performance of the economy over the summer will (probably) be the single most important factor in the presidential election and no one really knows what is going to happen. This is in part because our own economy’s performance will be heavily influenced by Europe, which is an even bigger question mark than our own economy. Beyond the economy, I think the other major factors that remain are the potential for conflict with Iran and the eventual outcome of the GOP nomination process.

Iran seems to be an issue that gets only cyclical coverage. One week, it is all anyone can talk about. The next, not a single major story develops on the subject. Even when the media is saturated with coverage of Iran, my experience has been that almost no one is considering the potential political implications that Iran could have on the election. Such an event could sky rocket Obama’s approval ratings and put him in a position to demonstrate his capacity for leadership. Such a situation, if not a disaster, could ruin the Republicans’ chances. Unfortunately, the real nature of Iran’s nuclear program and the likelihood of conflict are murky. Some have claimed that a military strike on Iran is a matter of Summer or Fall, while others retain the position that diplomacy may allow the United States to avoid any such conflict altogether. I expect there to be some degree of confrontation and temporary resolution, but in reality this is another situation which has an outcome that is entirely up in the air.

Lastly, the other major factor in how the general election turns out is the eventual result of the Republican nomination. I am hesitant to make any statement about the landscape of the election because of its predictably unpredictable nature. Frankly, I dont even think it matters at this point. The “delegate math” message that Romney’s camp is touting should probably be abandoned for a real issue, but it is more or less correct. A great piece by Sean Trende of Real Clear Politics finds that Romney himself will have a very difficult time securing the number of delegates necessary. In essence, his analysis and the current numbers confirm what we have known all along. While Romney may be weak, the other candidates have no chance of winning, barring some sort of spectacular contested convention showdown. Either potential outcome is so far removed from the other, how it turns out will have a very significant impact on the general election.

A Gloomy GOP

Posted by on . One comment.

Hopefully, tonight we will receive primary results from Michigan and Arizona [moments after posting, Romney was declared the winner of both]. These contests are the newest states to be hailed by the media as exceptionally important and potentially deadly for Romney. It is hard to say if this is truly accurate. The most consistant aspects of this race have been unpredictability and rapid changes of fortune. However, Romney is and has been in trouble since he lost both Iowa (after a recount) and South Carolina in rapid succession. But, his trouble started long before even that, as polling showed huge (but temporary) swings behind virtually every “non-Romney” candidate in the race. More and more, the narrative of this race seems to be the story of how Mitt Romney somehow did not become the GOP nominee. Despite these troubles, the widespread declaration of Romney’s inevitability was not based on flimsy logic. He is, and continues to be, the only reasonable and responsible choice that the republicans have. His inability to secure a victory is the result of trends within the GOP that have come to a head over the last three years.

David Brooks‘ last column was largely a personal lamentation on this subject. My interpretation of his column is that the GOP has retained two destructive trends that have only grown larger and more destructive. Primarily, the republicans have adopted an increasingly pragmatic attitude in their practice of politics, and a willingness justify means with ends. Ironically, this has resulted in the adoption of increasingly impractical rhetoric that they calculate helps them win elections. Those who refuse to adopt this rhetoric are publicly vilified.

That which composes the checklist of positions considered to be part of the new rhetoric or “republican purity test” that Brooks refers to is inconsistant, often archaic, and requires a great deal of cognitive dissonance to accept. The principal origins of conservatism/republicanism have been perverted into slogans and boiled down talking points that no longer represent the application of a once nuanced system of logic and values. The party of principals has transformed into a party that represents little more than a confused tapestry of populism.

In congress, this system can have tremendous results for the GOP. The party is more cohesive and members are less willing to break rank. I suspect this is often because many members see their reelection and potentially permanent incumbency as a near certainty if they remain within the protective enclosure of their party’s rhetoric. But in the presidential primary, as Books said, “It’s a series of heresy trials in which each of the candidates accuse the others of tribal impurity.” The practical results of this are undeniably bad for the Republican’s presidential prospects. The fragments of republican party, which have now been conditioned to never accept compromise, find it impossible to coalesce. This a problem of the GOP’s own design.

When Obama was elected, many of the more mentally maleable pundits suggested that the Republican party had reached a point of such weakness that there was great potential for it to devolve into an impotent regional party. Those statements were asinine and never repeated after the emergence of the Tea Party and the GOPs many congressional victories. That is, until now. While it is extremely unlikely that some sort of regional and neutered GOP will emerge in the near future, its current path is untenable. If Romney fails to be the nominee these trends will only get worse before they get better in the “not democrats” party.

 

 

Love and the War Over Contraception

Posted by on . 10 comments.

A belated happy Valentines day to all our readers. How fitting that the debate over contraception erupted just as we were approaching the week of the holiday of love?

This story first entered the mainstream about two weeks ago, within a week Obama had announced a “compromise.” Some of the smartest talking heads were left confused as to why Obama had chosen to announce the move in the way they did. Republican’s reaction to this story have generally boiled down to claiming that this move was Obama continuing a war on religion.   No matter your opinion on the issue of the federal government respecting a Catholic claim of “conscience clause” violation, some of the rhetoric used has been without shame.

On “This Week” Mitch McConnell did, as expected, an tremendous job at explicitly stating the rhetoric which is generally only implicitly referenced by his like because of how indefensible it is.

He said, “the government dosn’t get to decide what religious people what their religious beliefs are, they get to decide that…this is about the free exercise of religion.” Somehow, for McConnell, a religious organization paying an insurance for contraceptives for its employees is equal to the government dictating religious beliefs. This kind of rhetoric begs the question – what he would say about a theocracy that actually dictates religious beliefs? Mr. McConnell’s willingness to be so loose in his portrayal of this issue is a perfect example of how legitimate discussions often devolve into zealotry and mud slinging. I suspect Mr. McConnell is making this claim because he knows that if the debate is about contraception he will lose, but if it is about religious freedom he can win it.

On the other hand, those lamenting this as what you get when you have a national healthcare system actually have a case to make. Indeed, national standards in health care mean precisely that everyone’s health care coverage will be in some way standardized. This means a base line that not everyone will agree with. Where that baseline should be is definitely up for debate, and whether or not we should even have that baseline is an important budgetary and moral discussion.

However, notion that there exists a widely acknoledged constitutional “conscience clause” principal is patently false. During the Bush administration, laws were passed that specifically allowed for conscience clause like benefits for Catholic institutions. These laws would have been unnecessary if such a right existed in our constitution. But, even the republicans know, there is no constitutional right not to follow federal law because you have a religious or moral objection to it. This kind of provision is only done on a case by case basis because as a potential constitutional principal it is horribly problematic. That, and the small fact that it is simply NOT within the constitution.

 

Obama’s Modest Proposals

Posted by on . 18 comments.

This time last week, President Obama gave his State of the Union. It seems like a lot longer ago than that because the speech basically went unnoticed by the time the weekend came around. Reactions were mixed, but the chief criticism seems to be that the speech amounted to little more than several popular and small proposals. Krauthammer, Brooks and others were unsatisfied by the lack of grandeur that once characterized Obama’s policy oriented rhetoric.

But the reality is that any large scale mandate is out of the question at this point. It would end up being opposed by Republicans out of the spirit of turning Obama into a one term president by making him look legislatively impotent and it would work. Any large enough piece of legislation would have something in that could be labeled as unforgivably objectionable and Republicans would harp on it or they would just lie (death panels! – Politifact’s lie of the year).

Most people are tired of broad rhetoric and want a specific plan of action.

What Obama has done is exactly what he should be doing. Despite what my crush over at ABC (Amy Walter) thinks, this was Clintonian triangulation at its finest. Obama is trying to make it as difficult as possible for the GOP to claim ideological differences to bills as possible. This way, when the Republicans attempt to prevent a entirely agreeable bill (e.g., The Puppies Are Cute 2012 bill) from passing Mitch McConnell will have a hard time claiming that it is socialism or otherwise ideologically objectionable. More than anything, Obama needs to show leadership, action and progress… this comes from congress passing bills. One deal can lead to a second and a third.

So yes, he is starting this new legislative “age” with what should be relatively easy stuff.

The proposals that he has suggested are unquestionably bi-partisan and have genuine support from both sides. In fact, Rep. Jeb Hensarling (a Republican who was on the super committee) said, “Like most of the other speeches, I find myself agreeing with about 80 percent of what he says, but disagreeing with about 80 percent of what he does.” While I’m not sure about the second half of that quote, the first half, at the very least, demonstrates agreement on the broad strokes. Most notable are Obama’s long standing proposals concerning tax reform.

Klein points out in Mitch Daniel’s response he actually flat out agreed with Obama’s proposal to cut tax exemptions from the wealthy. You might be wondering how that does not count as class warfare…I don’t know either. Nonetheless, this is a great first step towards equity in the tax code and such a move would bring in an estimated non-trivial amount of 30 billion dollars a year; that’s to say nothing of what might be gained by closing loopholes for major corporations. In fact, a study concluded that if the government was able to make evasion (/avoidance) impossible top tax rates could be raised over to nearly 83% without impacting the economy. That’s probably not completely accurate (nor possible), but it suggests that the impact Obama’s “Buffett tax” on the economy is not nearly as horrible as many Republicans are suggesting.

But therein lies the slippery slope that the rich and republicans fear. What follows is the real line of thinking that prompts the banal “class warfare” and “soaking the rich” arguments: If we can practically draw the line at 30%, why not 83%? How can government possibly justify TAKING more private property when it is so disagreeably utilized today?

I addressed many these ideas in “Seven Compelling Reasons to Tax the Rich” because they are legitimate and really important questions about personal property and the social contract America wants to have with its most powerful individuals. Indeed, it is dangerous for the government to begin to think that it knows the proper amount of money for people to be earning. The government should not take a tax increase on anyone (even the rich) lightly. We should also recognize that many of the individuals whose income is above 1m do not find themselves in that income group every year. But at the very least, no matter how you earn it, those taking in astonishing sums of money should be paying at least what those taking in significantly less should be paying. We can safely draw the line there. For all 235,413 of you.

 

“Science Fiction” on This Week

Posted by on . No comments.

Former Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors Austan Goolsbee was giving an entirely on-point commentary about Obama’s chances for reelection as a result of the economy. Then, he was about to be interrupted and decided to swing his ideological sword.

“The one thing I’d say is, the argument that its all about the growth of government, the numbers that came out on friday showed that the private sector is growing almost 5% per year. It’s a huge boom. The thing that is dragging down the economy is that the government is shrinking so rapidly that it is pulling down the overall growth rate to 2.8%”

To which Laura Ingraham, duchess of conservative radio, responded “What?! What?! Wait a second…Is this a science fiction show?”

Clearly, she did not agree with the statement Goolsbee was making, George Will’s head shaking and “i know better” smiling suggested he was equally at odds withe the statement. Understandable, the idea that when the government shrinks “the economy” is negatively impacted is jarringly contrary to her Republican populism. Just moments before she was saying how Romney had to stop admitting that the economy was getting better.

But, what Goolsbee was saying is completely accurate. In fact, the report he is referencing said that positive growth in a number of areas “were partly offset by negative contributions from federal government spending and state and local government spending.” This has been widely reported. Even if you don’t ideologically agree with Krugman’s lamentations over austerity, what Goolsbee said was entirely accurate. The implications of that observation are a different argument.

The central problem here is the insurmountable difficulty everyone has in reporting about economics. The practices of journalism and economics are fundamentally opposed to one another. Economics thrives over nuance and detailed debate, whereas journalism relishes breaking issues down to their core and finding the simplest summation possible. GDP, for instance, is often cited as a way of gauging the economic health of a country. (Even worse indicators that is used are the NYSE’s market indicies.) This is accurate, but no one thinks that GDP is the last word on an economy’s health or its long term prospects. You could respect Ingrham’s outburst if it was concerning that, but I suspect it wasn’t. In the long run, austerity will help our government and our economy. We just have to engage in austerity in a measured and gradual way that will not send our economy into a recession.

Newt Gingrich Rap Song: Is you ready for it yet?

Posted by on . No comments.

Hoo! Hoo hoo! Hey everybody vote for Newt!

N to the E to the WT
Newt Gingrich taking over these streets,
Is you ready for it yet?
I don’t think so, where you at?
Obama about to step out the White House,
Gingrich gonna get in the White House
He gon’ have his wife, his spouse,
Yeah, you know without a doubt
Celebrating all day like it’s a parade
Here we got pro-life all up in this thang
Unh, and you know we doing this thang
Shout out to Harrisburg, Pennsylvania man
Yeah, Gingrich do it big,
Get up in the White House, do it big
There is nobody better
2012: end of an era

Audio:

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

I’m going to naturally assume that this is Newt Gingrich’s response to Mitt Romney claiming to have lived on the “real streets” of America, but who knows…

Mitt Comes ROARING Back in Florida CNN Debate

Posted by on . No comments.

“Our problem is not 11 million grandmothers”

“You’re fired”

“That’s simply inexcusable…the idea that I’m anti-immigrant is repulsive. Don’t use a term like that.”

“Wouldn’t it be nice if people didn’t make accusations somewhere else that they weren’t willing to defend here.”

“The idea of getting something for free when they can afford to pay for them self, we decided that was a bad idea.”

“First of all, it’s not worth getting angry about. Secondly, 98% of the people have insurance. So the idea that more people are free riding is impossible…”

Those aren’t Gingrich quotes, those are Romney quotes.

Color me impressed. Romney’s performance in this last debate was very much what it needed to be (for Romney, that is). Romney not only sounded authentic, but his discussions of policy were sound and fluidly delivered. There were no “not a penny more” awkward moments. Romney also went on the offensive, hitting Gingrich with off handed and sometimes genuinely funny remarks. Instead of looking like someone who was spitting back memorized lines he appeared to be genuinely enthusiastic about defending his record. I don’t know where this Mitt came from, but if he can keep it up I think it helps him greatly.

Right now Romney and Gingrich are dueling in Florida for 1st. Its a long road from here, but if Romney’s ability to adjust so hard and effectively is not a fluke his chances are still good.

ICYMI – Pelosi “Knows” Newt

Posted by on . One comment.

In an interview with John King, Nancy Pelosi was asked about the possibility of a Gingrich presidency. Her response was “let me just say this, that will never happen…there is something I know.” Maybe I’m just not used to seeing her speak, but I have to say I was taken aback by the nature of this statement.

Gingrich and Pelosi during happier days

However, the real controversy that has taken off in the last couple of days has targeted her “I know something” statement. Some speculate that this is a reference back to another statement Pelosi made in December. “One of these days we’ll have a conversation about Newt Gingrich. When the time is right…. I know a low about him. I served on the investigative committee that investigated him.”

Does Pelsoi have a campaign shattering piece of information? It is unclear.

In each instance, Pelosi’s chief spokesperson Drew Hammill has walked back her comments and suggested a different interpretation. Unfortunately, the second (most recent) explanation did not ring true. This suggests to me that Pelosi actually does have something on Gingrich, but she is waiting for the general election to release it (if it comes to that).

Newt’s response to all of this is as expected. He essentially calls her demented because she lives in California, denies that there is anything and calls on her to “spit it out.”

I suppose we’ll just have to wait until the General Election to see if Pelosi actually has something.

Edit:  This story continues to develop. Today the Romney camp released an ad that not only reiterates what we’ve gone over here but adds further evidence to this accusation that I have not seen cited anywhere else (the ad cites a 1997 San Francisco Chronicle story). “Now Pelosi says she’ll leak information, so secret, she once asked her own husband leave their bedroom so she could discuss it privately on the phone.”

Click for video

 

There is not nearly enough information available to make a judgement as to whether she actually has some kind of bombshell or if this is being misinterpreted/blown out of proportion.

Edit 2: Okay, so I found the article. It is titled “Pelosi says GOP ‘sandbagged’ Gingrich Ethics Investigation She says House speaker is Unfit.” It is penned by Marc Sandalow. At the very least I can say that the reference is legitimate, but the inference made by the commercial is not. The actual quote says “Pelosi provided an inside look at the controversial investigation into Gingrich — an inquiry so secret that she once had to ask…” There is no reference to some kind of bombshell piece of information, just the general sensitive nature of the inquiry. Furthermore, she did not say this “now”, nor has she made an honest to god threat to leak anything. At the very best, we can say she has been suggestive towards the idea that she has damaging information.

Once again, we are seeing very little regard for ethical politics by the Romney campaign and a willingness to completely misrepresent quotes.

Focused On Things That Do Not Matter

Posted by on . 6 comments.

Tomasky and others are focused on the wrong things when they are doubting Mitt Romney’s general election prospects.

Tomasky is a generally insightful pundit. Unfortunately, too often his judgement is critically clouded by his partisanship. Early december he speculated about Romney out losing the primary, which I suspect was simply out of his wholesale dislike for Romney’s politics. Other recent topics include the typically embarrassingly banal outrage at republicanism in general. He obviously thinks that Obama is strong going into the fall, but the facts don’t match the partisan wishful thinking.

At beginning of this primary season it became clear that Obama’s job approval numbers signaled rough waters ahead for his reelection bid. As noted by Gary Langer, since 1940 four other presidents have gone into their re-election year with approval ratings under 50 percent – Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford and George H.W. Bush. Only Nixon won reelection. The state of the economy, the unpopularity of congress, the media’s portrayal of a broken government, the mounting debt and downgrade left most americans horribly unsatisfied with what was going on in Washington. Despite Obama’s claims that his achievements were superior to all prior presidents save FDR, the narrative in the news simply didn’t reflect that (whether bogus or accurate).

The poor reputation of Obama is somewhat unfounded, but entirely understandable. In real policy terms, I have a great deal of respect for his administration and his presidency. As I expected, his actions as president reflect an ideology of pragmatist with moderately progressive leanings. However, his ability win politically has been hampered by too many factors to count. As a result, every crucial measure indicates Obama is an exceptionally weak incumbent president. There is no getting around it – Obama is vulnerable (and he knows it).

Romney is already in striking distance. Obama will likely remain where he is while Romney will get a bump from being nominated. (The is pre SOTU)

Romney is not the extreme and easy to embarrass candidate the Obama team wants to face. Early on, some pundits speculated that a Romney who was forced to move sharply to the right in the GOP primary would be easy to defeat. But Romney has not had to do that. Instead, he has retained his reputation as a moderate, a label which is reinforced by every other republican he is currently facing.

In November there will be (yet again) a Republican moderate v a Democrat moderate. Last time, Obama won by a slim margin that was heavily influenced by the unpopularity of the former republican, and this time around the vote could easily turn the other way. Even this early on, I can tell you the factors that will ultimately decide how the coin falls in November will not include Romney’s weaknesses as a political ideologue or his personal baggage.

Despite the attention it is getting now, Mitt’s status as a businessman will not hurt as much as some think. Certainly, the narrative of Mitt Romney as a 1%er will be good for energizing Democrats, but Romney does not need to win Democrats. As always, the election will hinge on each candidate’s ability to attract moderates/independents. His involvement with Mass health care and Obama care only makes him seem more moderate, and the big opportunity for that to hurt him (the primary) has since passed without great consequence. His income tax rate, which is a result of his semiretirement and reliance on capital gains, is an overblown non issue (although capital gains tax in general might enter as a liberal talking points). In general, attacks on Romney as a businessman have not and will not land.

It is plain to see that this list of “baggage” amounts to nothing categorically disqualifying in a general election.

As Tomasky rightfully points out, Obama’s best chance in reelection falls entirely outside of his administration. His fortune as a candidate will largely be determined by the state of the economy, which will largely be determined by what happens in Europe. When we get a better picture of the economy in November we will have a better idea what our presidential politics will look like in November. Generally, without a major change in the economy his approval numbers will probably remain between 45% and 55%, riding the middle. The other factor is who becomes the Republican nominee. In every way, his chances for reelection are reduced by a Romney nomination.

Picking Apart The Romney Tax Returns

Posted by on . No comments.

It was with much fanfare and anticipation that Mitt Romney released his federal tax records for 2010 and 2011 yesterday morning. To keep it brief, Romney made $21.7 million in 2010 and paid 13.9 percent ($3 million) of that to the federal government. It hardly has to be mentioned that a rate of 13.9 percent is far below the rate that most middle-class Americans pay. Moreover, the release of his tax returns also let the country in on the fact that Romney keeps some of his money in tax havens such as Luxembourg, Ireland and the Cayman Islands, outside of the United States. So much for believing in our “shining city on the hill”.

Romney’s devilishly low tax rate is going to be a big deal throughout this election. Today, Newt Gingrich, while addressing a question on Romney’s immigration platform, shot off this zinger:

“You have to live in a world of Swiss bank accounts and Cayman Island accounts and making $20 million for no work, to have some fantasy this far from reality,” Gingrich said.

Fantasy, isn’t it? Newt Gingrich has decided to attack Mitt Romney on the concept of receiving income in the form of interest payments and capital gains. The last time I checked, I don’t even think Democrats are against that. This critique goes way past tax code fairness.

As I’ve mentioned previously, the Romney tax returns are really the final straw — the cherry-on-top — that makes any semblance of Romney’s “electability” suddenly vanish into thin air. No longer can Mitt Romney even pretend to be able to relate to “average” Americans, much less the 49 million Americans who now live below the poverty line. The Republicans have done themselves into a corner.