Category Archives: elections

GOP Struggles with Math

Posted on by

Yesterday Politico trotted out a polling analysis that says Romney is winning among middle-class families. They don’t define what they mean by “middle class,” but I notice the analysis makes a careful distinction between middle-class voters and middle-class families. Apparently Romney is losing with middle-class voters but winning with middle-class families; like the kids and dog count, I suppose. Or maybe they define “families” as “related white people who live together in the South somewhere.” The whole thing strikes me as an exercise in reassuring themselves they aren’t really losing.

Righties even have adopted what they are calling “unskewed” polling outcomes that show Romney winning handily. On the other hand, Sam Wang of Princeton Election Consortium is giving President Obama a 90 percent win probability. Nate Silver continues to give the President a comfortable lead in probable electoral votes.

Meanwhile, a small army of conservative number-crunchers are striving mightily to figure out a way to make Mitt Romney’s tax-and-deficit promises mathematically possible. So far, they haven’t been able to do it. See also “Checking Rove’s Math.”

Josh Marshall writes about why the GOP can’t, or won’t, adapt.

As recently as a couple weeks ago, the top generals in the Romney camp were stuck on the idea that Obama cannot win with unemployment this high. Can’t. And if evidence suggests otherwise, just give it time.

I’m reminded of this column which Byron York wrote on September 10th …

Mitt Romney and his top aides are running an essentially faith-based campaign. Whatever the polls say at the moment, whatever the pundits say, whatever some nervous Republicans say, Team Romney simply does not believe President Obama can win re-election in today’s terrible economy. The president may appear to be defying gravity now, but he can’t keep it up through Nov. 6.

Whether Romney could have done anything else if his team thought Plan A might not pan out I don’t know. But I think York was on to something here. Maybe not quite arrogance but a deep faith in an unproven hypothesis — enabled by a contemptuous disrespect for their opponent which blinded them to some of his assets as a candidate.

Perhaps they are blinded by his “blah”-ness.

Seriously, I’ve been saying for years that one symptom of whatever cognitive dysfunction is common to righties is a desperate need to believe that everyone but a small fringe of crazy liberals sees the world the way they do. You see something similar in white supremacists, who devoutly believe all other white people are white supremacists also but that a majority won’t admit it because it’s not “PC.” A rightie can no more admit that wingnuttery is not embraced by almost all Americans than the Pope could convert to Sikhism. That’s why, when they lose elections, the only possible (to them) reason must be voter fraud, or else voters were deceived by the Lamestream Media. So, it’s not surprising they simply cannot accept what is happening now in the campaigns.

The Warren-Brown Debate

Posted on by

I didn’t watch the Elizabeth Warren-Scott Brown debate yesterday, but judging from the comments I’ve read there was no clear-cut “winner.” I suspect people inclined to vote for Warren liked her debate performance, and people inclined to vote for Brown liked his.

The question is, assuming there are a couple of undecided voters in Massachusetts somewhere, what might they have thought? We’ll see if there are any changes in the polls in a couple of days; currently, Warren has a slight lead.

For anyone who really doesn’t pay much attention to politics until elections are at hand, one part of the debate may have seemed downright weird — Scott Brown’s initial shot at Elizabeth Warren was to criticize her claim of being part Native American on her mother’s side. “Professor Warren [he always called her Professor Warren] claimed she was a Native American, a person of color. And as you can see, she’s not,” Brown said.

Warren responded by saying she had always been told by her family her mother was part Cherokee and Delaware, and she had no reason to doubt her mother. I understand no one has been able to confirm or debunk the story. Brown continued to push the issue in order to question Warren’s character, however.

Maybe it’s me, but I see no reason why anyone would give a hoo-haw about this. One, it’s not at all unusual for people who look entirely “white” to find out they had nonwhite ancestors. I suspect it’s true of most of us; we’re all mutts, really.

Second, it’s entirely possible that Elizabeth Warren’s mother has no Native American in her at all, and the Cherokee/Delaware thing is just some romantic family legend. It happens. I once met a guy who believed all his life one of his grandfathers was Irish, but after he retired he researched the family genealogy and found out Grandpa was English, and he had no connection to Ireland at all.

I remember my (fair and blue-eyed) mother telling me that there was a Native American on her family tree, somewhere, but she wasn’t sure who it was. Family legend on my Ma’s side says there were some slave-owning Confederates, also, and I haven’t been able to identify them, either. This could all be somebody’s fanciful notion that somehow was passed on to the young folks.

I also understand that it used to be common for mostly white people with some African-American ancestry to explain their appearance by claiming to be part “Indian.” A lot of family legends of Cherokee ancestors may have started that way. I’m not saying that’s what happened with Elizabeth Warren, but it’s a possibility.

And as long as she’s not trying to claim a portion of casino profits, who the bleep cares? Yes, there is an implication that Warren claimed nonwhite status to get preferential treatment when she was being considered for a teaching position at Harvard in 1995. But Harvard denies this. And if she were unsuited for the position, I suspect someone would have noticed by now. And, y’know, didn’t they get a look at her in an interview?

But if you ever follow the rightie bloggers, you’d know this Native American heritage thing is a BIG DEAL to them. They went ON AND ON AND ON about it for weeks, I swear. You’d think they had found out she was an escaped felon. And this was the very first issue Scott Brown chose to bring up in the debate. It dominated some of the headlines.

Today wingnut bloggers (see, for example, William Jacobson and Little Lulu) are high-fiving because Brown chose to highlight the Native American issue. They think this is a score.

But I’m thinking an uncommitted voter who is not steeped in the Wingnut Worldview would find it puzzling that Brown even brought it up. I’m saying it’s one of those things you’d have to be a wingnut to care about at all. Obviously it’s some sort of dog-whistle to them, but it’s not entirely clear to me what they’re whistling about.

The Right used to be really good at creating a Big Deal out of some innocuous thing and using it to swing elections. (John Kerry windsurfs! Al Gore wears earth tones!), but lately it doesn’t seem to be working for them. I could be wrong, though, especially since I’m watching this from outside Massachusetts. We’ll see if the polls change direction.

Here’s Your Chains, Mitt

Posted on by

Via Annie Laurie —

From the New York Times —

Four days after his announcement as Mitt Romney’s running mate, Representative Paul D. Ryan was not in Florida talking Medicare with elderly voters or in drought-ridden Iowa talking about a farm bill. He traveled to the Venetian hotel here for a meeting hosted by Sheldon Adelson, the billionaire casino mogul who has pledged to spend as much as $100 million this year to defeat President Obama.

Ryan had to get the blessings of The Godfather, who already has spent more than $50 million in this 2012 campaign to defeat President Obama.

In keeping with Mr. Adelson’s penchant for staying below the radar, Romney aides refused to say who attended the meeting with Mr. Ryan, though the location (a private room at one of Mr. Adelson’s hotels) and leaks from the Romney camp left little doubt. And in keeping with laws that prohibit elected officials from explicitly asking donors for super PAC money, aides to Mr. Romney insisted before the event that the meeting was not a fund-raiser.

Yes, I’m sure that in this secret meeting everyone played by the rules. (/snark)

Monte Miller, a longtime Republican donor who planned to attend, described it as an opportunity for major contributors and influential Las Vegas Republicans to size up Mr. Ryan.

“I’ve watched Ryan for the last few years,” Mr. Miller said. “I think I know what he’s going to bring. But I haven’t been in the same room as him. I want to see his charisma and communication skills.”

Annie Laurie: “Dance, little monkey, dance!”

It’s beyond farce that so many people support these clowns in the name of “liberty.”

Moveon Misstep?

Posted on by

Lay off the horse, I say again. Right now every progressive/liberal/Democratic ad buy should be zeroing in on Romney’s tax policies and nothing but Romney’s tax policies, until every American hears about what Mittens has in store for them. Snarking about the expensive horse comes across as petty, IMO, and at this point is just message clutter.

Update: Olympic news — U.S. gymnast Gabby Douglas just won the gold medal in the women’s individual all-around competition. She is the first American woman to win the team and individual all-around in the same year.

Whiplash Mitt and the Swing Voter

Posted on by

Random thoughts that don’t necessarily hang together to make a coherent essay —

Yesterday I read a number of analyses of Mitt’s Gaffapalooza Tour that decided it would have no impact on the fall election. Most voters, especially “independent” ones, care more about domestic issues and aren’t interested in the Middle East or what gets printed about the candidates in the British tabloids, they said.

While there’s some truth to that, it’s not all-the-way true. First, I question how much issues, foreign or domestic, really factor into voters’ decisions on presidential candidates. Those of us who are politics junkies care passionately about where the candidates stand on this or that issue, but we’re a minority. I think at least a large chunk of voters, especially “independent” ones, vote with their guts and not their heads. They vote for the guy who feels right to them. In the event neither candidate really feels right, they vote against the guy who frightens or angers them more.

IMO in an incumbent, cluelessness is a bigger sin than incompetence. An incumbent whose performance hasn’t been all that great, but who seems to understand how the electorate is seeing things, and who can persuade voters that he “gets it,” whatever it is, probably will be re-elected. IMO Jimmy Carter and George H.W. Bush failed to win re-election mostly because the electorate got frustrated with them for not “getting it.” On the other hand, George W. Bush could screw the pooch up one way and down the other and still make a lot of Americans feel he was their guy, like it or not.

IMO Romney can’t sing that song. No way, no how. I don’t care how white he is. Except to the ideologically blinkered, Romney is just too much of a space alien, even to white people. Of course, there are plenty of those who would vote for a white space alien over a black human.

Yesterday there was some muttering that Mitt’s foreign tour probably helped him more than hurt him with the Republican base. That’s no doubt true, although it hardly matters. I read another analysis, somewhere, that said Mitt has a floor of between 40 to 45 percent of voters who will vote for him no matter what. I suspect that’s true. About the only way he could attract fewer than 40 percent of the vote is if someone video-recorded him eating a baby. Maybe not even then. Because to between 40 to 45 percent of voters having a Kenyan Muslim foreign usurper communist n***** in the White House just feels all wrong, and any other (white/right-wing) candidate will get their vote. Baby eater or not.

So, anything that ingratiates him even more with that 40 to 45 percent doesn’t concern me, because it’s not going to get him more votes than he will get anyway. Well, unless baggers and wingnuts get a pass to vote twice.

Nate’s got Mittens at 48 percent right now, and he may hang on to that. But that’s unlikely to win the election, especially since Mittens is losing in many of the “big” electoral college states, like New York and California.

And I sincerely believe that once we get past the conventions and more people begin to pay attention to the campaign, Mitt’s social awkwardness and general cluelessness will be more evident to more people. Right now I suspect that at least a small sliver of that 48 percent only knows what Mittens looks like and that he was a businessman who made a lot of money, and that might appeal to them, but they’re not going to stick with Romney when they get a closer look at him.

The gaffes of Mitt’s foreign trip may not register with tuned-out voters consciously, but I do think a steady drip, drip, drip of bad press about a candidate does sink in to the American collective subconscious and impacts how voters feel. That’s what killed Al Gore in 2000, IMO, and allowed the vote to be close enough so that Bush could steal it in Florida. Regular Fox News/Rush Limbaugh news consumers are inoculated, but there aren’t enough of them to give Mittens a win by themselves.

Also, I think if Mittens’s foreign tour had gotten him some good press, or even better, cheering crowds such as Obama got in 2008, that would have given Mitt a big boost, and swing voters possibly would feel more comfortable with him. That would have been significant. However, he didn’t get that.

So, while the foreign trip may or may not have a direct impact on the election that will show up clearly in polls, I think indirectly it was huge.

When Smart People Are Really Stupid

Posted on by

At the New York Times, Nicholas Confessore writes about the continuing fallout from Citizens United.

… for a growing number of strategists and operatives in both parties, the very nature of what it means to work in politics has shifted. Once wedded to the careers and aims of individual candidates, they are now driven by the agendas of the big donors who finance outside spending. …

…In the insular but fast-growing world of super PACs and other independent outfits, there are no cranky candidates, no scheduling conflicts, no bitter strategy debates with rival advisers. There are only wealthy donors and the consultants vying to oblige them.

Political consultants are stampeding to the Super PACs for jobs, because the bankrollers pay better and there’s no campaign to run. So instead of working for candidates, parties, or even advocacy groups, they work for a small number of billionaires with agendas. Some of the Super PACs do accept small donations from many donors, but some of them are “boutique” PACs “set up on behalf of a few donors — sometimes only one.”

The Super PACs are undermining the authority of parties, because it’s so much easier for a wealthy individual or interest group to dump a lot of money into a PAC that can be directed as the benefactor(s) wish. “Because they can give unlimited amounts to outside groups, they can have substantial influence without the hard work of raising money for a candidate, $2,500 check by $2,500 check, from other donors.”

The old worry was that the Super PACs would secretly be in collusion with the campaigns. The new worry is that the campaigns, and the parties, are being frozen out.

Every time I read something about What CU Hath Wrought, I think of the five Supreme Court justices who made this mess possible. These were Kennedy (who wrote the majority opinion), Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, and Alito.

It’s not unreasonable to assume that these five thought they were helping the Republican Party. But let’s assume that on some level they actually believed what they wrote in their opinions. Justice Kennedy wrote in his opinion,

“The fact that speakers may have influence over or access to elected officials does not mean that these officials are corrupt. … The appearance of influence or access, furthermore, will not cause the electorate to lose faith in our democracy. By definition, an independent expenditure is political speech presented to the electorate that is not coordinated with a candidate. … The fact that a corporation, or any other speaker, is willing to spend money to try to persuade voters presupposes that the people have the ultimate influence over elected officials. This is inconsistent with any suggestion that the electorate will refuse “ ‘to take part in democratic governance’ ” because of additional political speech made by a corporation or any other speaker.”

All kinds of people knew this was hooey at the time of the decision. All kinds of people knew that this decision would have a deeply corrosive influence on campaigns and on American government itself. Is Justice Kennedy really so stupid that he believed what he wrote?