With the Election of 2012 Over, Obama Should Take the Initiative and Push for Common Sense Policies

Well, we should be happy that the retarded conservative party and its designee didn't win the presidential election. My biggest surprise was that the Republicans expressed shock that not only Romney would win but win in a landslide! Apparently "bullshit mountain" [Jon Stewart's description of Faux News] and the conservative pundits--who've been wrong about everything--sold the gullible snake oil.

Not to brag, but I wrote here Obama would win very comfortably the electoral law plus the popular one. Also, that the Senate would remain Democratic. I hoped the Dems would win more seats than what they actually won, though I thought it would still be under Repub control. Interestingly, the Dem vote was higher, but redistricting and other quirks give the Repubs the majority.

These maps below show the outcome of the 2012 presidential election.

State by state, winner-take-all, view.

Population matters.

State by state, WTA, but adjusted for population. The blue states have a lot more people.

Looks may be deceiving:

Outcome by counties, regardless of population.

How Americans voted by county:

County by county adjusted for population.

This country still remains very divided and I don't know if the gap is shrinking. The leadership of the GOP doesn't seem to want to move its political base closer to the center, and modernity. By divided, I don't just mean the Dem-Repub division, but also a whole host of issues, from the economy to social matters. For example, use of marijuana, same-sex marriage, homosexuals in the military, notions of social safety net (including health care), role of US in the world, science (including climate change), etc. 

In the first few days after his reelection, Obama came out swinging. This is good, very good. He has to use his political capital right away otherwise it will evaporate. In addition, a more forceful president can set the tone for the next four years. Let's get some reform in the US Senate so a handful of obstructionist can't stop the country from doing its business. 

Post-Hurricane Blues But With High Hopes for the Blue Team on Election Day!

I'm writing this a week after losing power at home and within a brief window of semi-normalcy that a generator can provide. It's also two days before the election; at least on this end, things look good. One of the most duplicitous, fake, and dishonest presidential candidates ever will go down in defeat, though not by a landslide--which says something about our electorate.

FEMA and other governmental agencies are absolutely necessary in times of emergency; why Romney and the Republicans argue differently it's a reflection of their crusty ideology. By keep demonizing the role of government, they have been doing a disservice to our country. I'd say, if you don't have a positive proposal for government, then you shouldn't be elected to any important position!

The northeastern US has been hit hard by Sandy and this will have some impact on the election, hopefully not too serious that too many Dems won't be able (or care) to vote. We must turn back this GOP to the Dark Ages where it belongs.

I'm surprised that the Repubs don't complain that Obama should have fixed this by now! Or, that Romney was able to prevent all superstorms as governor and as president he could fix the weather too! Oyvey...

Again, the Dems will hold the Senate, unknown is the fate of the House, but Obama will get over 300 EVs and win the popular vote! 

See you on the other side of the election.
 

 

Choices Are Clear But the Polls Remain Muddy. Fortunately, the Fundamentals of this Election Haven't Changed

In a couple weeks, we'll know the master of the universe, well, not really, because there's this pesky thingy--the filibuster.

However, the presidential race has tighten as many polls indicate. I won't tire in saying it's all about turnout, and I feel confident that the Democratic base is energized enough--or at least as much as the Republican one--to make the difference on Nov. 6th. In the critical state of Ohio, the Dems have a 3-1 advantage on field operations.

I've been engaged in all sorts of discussions, from the academia to the street, and I've heard almost every argument. Basically it mostly comes down to people's wishful thinking and their rationalizing of that view. Very few are conflicted about their choice and may change their minds based on last-minute impressions, or, most likely, not vote at all. 

It's easy to get lost in one meandering argument, but the fundamentals are rather simple: what creates jobs, wealth distribution, social safety net, personal choice, quality of life. Both candidates aren't willing to shake the system too much, but the direction matters, because even if it's a few degrees of difference now, the destination will be very different years from now. Meanwhile we're dealing with human lives, from hungry children and poverty, to the uninsured and health care, to environment, and education. We should help safeguard and create new opportunitiesies that allow people to engage in their own pursuit of happiness.

Both candidates are specializing in generalities, especially Romney who has a ..plan to fix everything without offering any specifics or when he does, the math does not add up. Meanwhile the president could have been more forceful in attacking Romney, but what's new?  My analogy would be the smashed up car, courtesy of conservative economics--the type Romney and his party advocate. The process of repairing the mess is slower and every time the mechanic (the prez) asks for a tool, the Congressional Repubs say "no".... I wish Obama would keep saying that their aim was to destroy his presidency not to help the country, and that's why BO should be asking for a Democratic Congress too!

Extremism of the Dark Ages, Today's GOP

These times offer a good opportunity to debate the role of government, and a host of other social issues. When I asked my students to read the platforms of the two parties as approved by the conventions, it was an eye opener! Even Republicans were surprised to see such extreme views there. Yeap, that's the medieval GOP still competing in the 21st century!

 Potential Romney Treasury Secretary: “the Rich Are Taxed Enough”

Fortunately, there are several Repubs running for public office who express those anachronistic views, like pregnancy from rape is a gift from God! But, still the American public is not aware of GOP extremism.

Inequality Doesn’t Matter Because Poor People Have Appliances?

Top adviser to Mitt Romney’s presidential campaign denied the nation’s income inequality gap in a Wall Street Journal editorial on Thursday, brushing off the growing concentration of wealth in the hands of the very wealthy by arguing that lower-income Americans are buying more consumer goods.

In the debates Romney became a reasonable centrist, notwithstanding changing his views dramatically since the Republican primaries. Even if I were a Repub (brrrr), I'd be wondering where is this guy going to land if he wins the election. Would my dislike for Obama suffice to vote for a liar? I guess it would if I believed what Bullshit Mountain (Fox News) has been spewing.

 Who are the "irresponsible takers"?

I was disappointed that nobody brought up the neoconservative view during the last debate. Romney's rhetoric of a "more forceful" US policy, and "restoring America's superiority abroad" is a big red flag for me. Where is he going to draw his policy advisers and policy staff from? Likely from the last bunch of neoconservative chicken hawks adventurers who like to engage in bloody conflicts to prove that the US can act unilaterally in the effort to shape the world according to some backward worldview. Tsk.

Anyway, I know there are lots of polls showing everything anyone would like to hear. My take is that Ohio, Virginia, NH, Colorodo, Nevada and the other 2008 blue states will remain so. Romney will pick up Indiana and North Carolina for sure. Florida I think it's tied and go either way. Yet, even with FL (29 EV) on the GOP column, BO would win 303 Electoral Votes of the 270 needed. If FL goes Dem, it'll be a landlslide. 

Another drubbing at the polls may make the Republican party reevaluate its extremism and love affair with the tea party. The Dems, by the way, should thank the tea partiers for keeping the US Senate in Dem hands in 2010 and this year!

Obama Scores With the Independents and the so-called Undecideds in the Second Debate.

The prize for the most-improved candidate went to president Obama in the second debate. I think Romney did well enough for his own political base. But, the polls indicate that the "undecided voters" and "independents" also gave Obama the nod.

 

Now some polls already showing a bump for Obama and I'm wondering why? Seriously, if we are to believe that there are many undecideds out there, is this how they make up their minds?! Don't they know the big differences between these two guys? Is the delivery of the message that counts more in shifting the poll numbers? That's not very encouraging for our democracy.

A political education is a long process, it doesn't happen in a couple weeks, that is, assuming someone has a clue of what the issues are and what are some of the general views of the political parties. Yes, both support elements of the status quo, but, yes, there are important differences. My ideal candidate is not running though--I doubt he/she ever does. Yet, I do know that a Romney presidency (as a GW Bush one) will be different than a second Obama term. The Supreme Court, deficits [Republicans create bigger ones], health care, tax rates, public goods & services, reproductive choice, education, science, military spending, and a host of all other aspects will be different depending on who wins in November.

 

It's very important to watch the two candidates and the political parties over a long period, because that's the proper way to learn about their ideas and policy proposals, not during a "debate" where a candidate can say whatever to appeal to the broadest bloc of voters as possible. Romney did very well, and established himself as a credible presidential candidate because he moved to the center during the first (and second) debate! He lied of course, and moved far from the positions he had taken during the Republican primary earlier this year. He flipped a couple days later on Faux News and other conservative media.

Link: Romney's 31 Lies in 41 Minutes

Does this matter? Do the swing voters follow up the post-debate news analyses? Or, the debate impressions stick? I have my doubts whether this group of voters pays much attention to the ..details. The polls do show bumps after big media moments--like conventions, debates, and other political events. Such movements most likely indicate levels of excitement, and the oscillation of the "floaters." The floaters are very low information voters, highly impressionable, and unpredictable. Most don't vote but are counted in the polls.

Some national polls look very good for Romney. Indeed he has really huge advantage in the very red states, much bigger than what Obama has in the blue states. But, the Electoral Vote count is still heavily in Obama's favor. I'm keeping my prediction that BO will be reelected very comfortably in the EC.



 

Joe Biden Takes the Fight to the Republicans and Delivers!

Are you serious congressman? Stop lying.. (Mr. Prez are you watching this?)

The first and only VP debate of 2012 is over and Biden did what Obama should have done last week, so I chalk this one for the Dems. Ryan did well enough too. But, let me explain how I see this election shaping up.

The two campaigns are not trying to convince the "undecideds" or convert new followers. Instead, they're trying to appeal to their political base and excite it to come out and vote. Yes, it's about turnout and the more energized base usually wins the election. The so-called independents that are already registered to vote [note that the "likely voters" are not necessarily actual voters] have already picked their pony. Only something major event, really big, will make them change their minds, and even so, many will simply not vote instead of voting for the other ticket.

We like to believe that voters are acting on good information and rational choices, but this is not the case. If someone is undecided at this stage, they are either very uninformed about the candidates or seriously confused. 

What these debates actually do is to motivate the troops, and in this regard I thought both candidates delivered. As a general impression, I thought Biden clearly won the match by not conceding any points, appearing in command of the facts, and as one who could step into the presidency if need be. Ryan didn't come across like that, but it hardly matters.

About Polls and Polling

All of us have been aware of the narrative after the first presidential debate, that is, how the polls showed a big Romney surge and how some key states became more competitive for the red team, while national polls showed Romney either ahead or tying Obama. I have had my doubts about how this new narrative is being dished out. Even though no one can claim to be a total agnostic without a shred of bias, I'm trying not to rely on wishful thinking in order to feel good.

It's been very, very rare that a candidate wins the electoral vote and loses the national. Even in 2000, Gore should have won Florida easily. He would have if the recount had continued or some other voting problems had been remedied before the election. The battleground states barely moved [well, depends who's doing the polling. Russmussen polls are especially biased], and that's why I'm suspicious of the national numbers. Levels of excitement or disappointment affect the polls. After all, not everyone answers their phone!

Polling is as much as art as science. There are a lot of assumptions, and corrective measures, and techniques, and, yes, insufficient data upon which to design a poll. Many (it's a dirty secret) pollsters buy into the consensus narrative and tweak their numbers to reflect that.

Again, performances during the debates help motivate the two parties' political base and may create the sense of inevitability--that's why Obama's failure to close the curtain on Romney pissed most of us off.  At any rate, the second presidential debate is next Tuesday. We'll be watching. Hopefully Obama will be much better and regain the narrative.

The best we can hope for is that the majority (as it did before the debates) thinks Obama is going to be reelected, this way turnout will be higher among his political base and maybe this will help win back the House. The Senate seems safe for the Dems, but the president needs to make the case for a Democratic Congress since the Republican House, and the minority in the Senate, have been obstructionists and nothing more.

You've got to love Joe. He took the fight to Ryan and not only. Maybe he can coach his boss, we only hope...

Obama Loses First Presidential Debate of 2012, But Hold Your Parties or Funerals. Most People Have Already Picked Their Ponies

The first presidential debate of 2012 is in the history book, though it'll probably go into the pages no one reads in the future. The general consensus is that Romney beat Obama by a big margin and that the latter missed a dozen opportunities to deliver. So, is this a game-changer?

Not so fast. Obama disappointed many of his supporters. He showed that he is not a forceful leader by nature, that he becomes professorial and almost "above the fray" when he needs to show strong commitment and when he's expected to clearly demonstrate that he's in the fight to win it. As in many games, playing it safe against an inferior team often leads to defeat.

As I've already said, 2012 looks much like 2004 in the reverse. Kerry won all debates against president Bush but he lost the general election. Romney won last night but not convincingly. He earned a few points among Independents, but I hardly think that this will turn the tide. Let's see how the polls move in the next few days. If the gap, especially in the swing states remains in Obama's favor, this election will be already decided.

What debates like that one do is to energize the base of the candidate that does well, and this, indeed, has an effect. Much of the result in all elections depends on turnout when the margin of popular support is within a few points. Again, if the post-debate polls maintain the 4-5 point difference (in battleground states), there's no path to victory for Romney. I do not see this Obama advantage melting away in the next 4 weeks. However a more energized Romney base may make a big difference in Senate and House races because of turnout. This, however, is still to be decided. We're just entered fourth quarter. If the losing team begins to believe the game is lost, it gives up and the ultimate gap becomes bigger as the "players" (voters) don't show up on election day.

Both candidates tried to send specific messages to their political bases. They know turnout is crucial. I'm not sure if they believe that there are many undecided voters up for grabs; the polls show that there aren't many, and of those it's a big question whether they'll actually show up on November 6th.

The debates measure what exactly? How the two candidates deliver, communicate their message, their temperament and quick wit. Most people who tune in are doing so to crystallize their views, confirm their decision. In my view, very few actually tune it with a totally available mind to be convinced one way or another. We know this. We know that most of those who say the candidate they preferred before the debate but lost is also the candidate they'll end up voting for! I know my horse hobbles horribly, but will I change my pony?....

When I raised this point during my interview with WABC radio, someone observed that politics is not like sports, because it's not the emotional side but other needs that take precedent. Well, yes and no. Choosing positions--philosophical or political--is a long term process. It's also emotional, more so that people are willing to admit. Politics like religion runs in families. The environment plays a role, but it's not during a few autumnal weeks prior to an election. Investing in a team, an idea, an identity is logical and emotional. The longer a person does this the harder to change his/her views. Then it's picking ponies of similar colors. Occasionally some people may confuse a mule for a pony, but in their minds they're picking a pony.

 

Predictions is a risky business, but, what the heck, I'm making an educated guess that Obama will win at least 320 Electoral Votes, possibly 332, while Romney around 200, a little more or less. I cannot see how Ohio, Florida can go Romney's way. The states he can win is Indiana, for sure, possibly North Carolina, and maybe, at best, one or two smaller states. Not enough to land in or surpass the 270 box.

Are We Better Off Today Than Four Years Ago?

Are we better off four years into Obama's presidency? Well, it depends how you look at it. I say, yes, we are! The previous chief and his crew started the fire that began to consume our house. This chief and his crew put out the fire and have began the rebuilding process. Is our house better since 2008? Probably yes. Is it better since we arrived? Probably not. However, the previous regime that created the whole mess now wants the keys back because the present regime hasn't completely fixed the mess!

Oh, and when the current chief asks for tools, programs, jobs, the Republicans in Congress say, NO! Under our system, the president can't raise or spend money unless Congress agrees. Further, we should never elect to high office persons and political parties that do not have a positive view regarding government. If they don't think our government can be a positive force for our commonwealth, they should stay away. No, government is not the answer to all problems, but it is the agent that reduces obstacles to freedom, to enhance access to opportunity, and to push for legal equality.

The numbers

Clinton was right, the Dems have created almost twice as many jobs despite controlling the White House for fewer years! The Repubs have created more deficits and increased the gap between the 1% and the rest. How about the market? Without including the Great Depression [guess who was mainly responsible for it?], had you invested in the market, under a Dem president you'd have gotten an annual return twice as big, 8.9% to 4.7%; including Hoover's term, then it drops to 0.4%! [Here's the link to those numbers]

Obama gets an "D" (barely passes) when it comes to political communication. He cut taxes for 95% of the middle class taxpayers and nobody knows it. The benefits of the health care law are not known to those not immediately affected by it, so many people think it's another big government program costing billions more, when it's not and it actually reduces medical expenses. One third of the stimulus went to tax breaks for working people!

There's been a huge investment in green jobs and the CBO reports that 2.5 millions jobs are a direct effect. Likewise for the automobile industry and the many private business connected to it. The stimulus package was mainly a jobs bill in essence, but Obama hasn't communicated that!

Banks got a bailout--private banks with very highly-paid execs--but that saved the financial system. It wasn't done in a way most of us would have liked, but it was necessary.

Where's G. W. Bush?

In 2008, the US had lost millions of jobs, and was losing hundred of thousands every month until the summer of 2009 when Obama's policies began to take effect. The conservatives started labeling the Great Recession as Obama's recession a week after the November election in 2008!

If the GOP really believes Obama is responsible not for the pace of the recovery but for the roots of the problem why don't they take G.W. Bush and his crew out of mothballs and parade them around today until the election? Did you hear Dubya's name at the GOP convention? I didn't either!

In 2008, the economy was shrinking 9% a year; it was like the entire economy of Canada disappearing! Deregulation and lack of oversight of Wall Street created many of the financial scandals. This is the philosophy and policies of the conservatives at play. Yes, many Democratic leaders also cater to Wall Street and big banks, but there are a few, like Elizabeth Warren, who want to change that... to the benefit of everyone, including the big financial institutions. 

Why? Because capitalism needs referees, needs oversight, needs to be saved from itself. The more successful, stable, happy, safest, healthiest countries are the ones who have strong regulations and a good oversight. The more "pure capitalist" countries are on the opposite side of this spectrum. Check it out.

It's truly amazing that the US conservatives' policies attract so much support. Why Romney and his party are still competitive in this election... They are not saying anything different nor are proposing new policies but the ones that got us into a deep recession and worsened the position of the middle class.  Are we suffering from Alzheimer's as a nation? I hope that enough people will turn out and stop this insanity on November 6th, 2012.

...

My next post, soon, will be on the electoral calculations. I'm looking into the post-convention bounce and into the numbers from the battleground states. As of now, it looks very promising for the blue team.




 

Robert Reich Explains the Bad Economics & Priorities of the Romney-Ryan Ticket

I received this video from MoveOn.org with my favorite Robert Reich explaining the five reasons the Romney-Ryan plan would further damage the middle class and worsen the US economy. 

My response with five reasons:

1. My friends believe they know everything so this video isn't necessary.
2. You wrongly assume that most people are motivated by reason, inquiry, evidence, and are willing to change their minds. Most people seek to confirm their biases.
3. Isn't Move On part of the liberal media? That fella seemed like he knew what he was talking about until the end.... if he works for Move On then he's biased. I want ..both sides. One the Earth is flat and the other it’s round. The truth maybe is in the middle…
4. Conservatives won't vote for Romney because they care or know much about Ryan; they'll vote against the black Muslim Kenyan and the unpatriotic Dems. USA # 1
5. The 5 ways R & R's plan would destroy the middle class can be interpreted that the people in the MC will move up to the rich class! We don't need a MC. I guess the poor will always be screwed, but we all know it's their fault

Seriously, there are very few people who will be moved by reason this election. Most of us already know how we'll vote. The people who will swing one way or another are either low-information voters or true independents. The latter, however, are likely to be leaners, that is, they hold specific and rather concrete views on many issues, thus it's a matter of a campaign making connections between the candidate and those voters. This, by the way, is one strategy of a campaign. Educating the voters means making those connections not changing minds--there's no time for that.

This is another reason why the extreme positions of this Republican party should be advertised as much as possible. It's not where most people are and not where they're headed. For example, Romney-Ryan view on birth control and abortion, tax policies, the environment, health care, etc. The Akin fiasco shows the true nature of the GOP. Once the real "mind" and will of the GOP is revealed people know it's crazy.

Take a look at the speakers appearing in the GOP national convention and what they've said and what they stand for. Appalling. From questioning Obama's birth certificate to conspiracy theories of the bizarre. 

The Romney-Ryan Party Needs to be Defeated for its Own Sake and for the US

It is said the the choice for VP is the first major decision impacting the administration-to-be a presidential candidate makes. Well, there are political calculations, like balancing the ticket, or getting extra votes in certain states, etc. Most times, it's do-no-harm. McCain's blunder was that he was old, had several bouts with cancer (couldn't change that obviously) but he chose a totally inadequate VP in Sarah Palin--who, by the way, was recently told to stay away from the GOP convention this summer. 

To pay for whatever we decide we need to, I'm happy to be taxed at a rate twice as high as Romney! It's fair, no?... Ryan thinks so!

Anyway, a tea party congressman from Wisconsin, Paul Ryan, was chosen by Romney. This made conservatives (not the moderate ones) happy; it also made Dems and progressives happier. What many conservatives don't see is that their core policy platforms are not popular, nor will they be.


Those who say Romney will be a centrist--as he probably is on social issues, but not economic ones--and therefore will be a consensus president are absolutely wrong. He can't and he won't because he needs the nuts that have control of the GOP, in and outside Congress. He chose an extremist for his VP. Why wouldn't he choose the same for the Supreme Court? No, the Dems may block one nominee, but the president can nominate another equally conservative and extremist. Scalia, Alito, and Thomas are already on the high court! The Supreme Court is always on the ballot during a presidential election. [I think it's been only J. Carter who didn't appoint a justice to SCOTUS.]

Romney demonstrates that he has to cater to the conservative base. He has already changed his moderate positions from when he was governor of MA. Now he says wants to overturn a health care law he signed in MA. His new positions are more in line with those of Ryan today. I doubt there will be another flip anytime soon after (if) he takes office. Besides, he will have to run 4 years later and he won't be able to go against a party emboldened by the 2012 victory. 

Fortunately, this won't happen. I think it'll be a blowout in the Electoral College, at least. If the GOP can't win at least one of Ohio, Penn, and Florida, it won't win the presidency. Yes, Obama's win will be smaller than in 2008, but he has plenty of room this year. For Romney-Ryan to win they have to have an unbelievably straight streak, winning all the toss-up states, and reverse the trends in the three mentioned above. 

Strangely, I believe another trouncing at the polls may be the best medicine for the GOP. The tea partiers, and the extremists need to be cut loose and lose big while they're controlling the agenda of the party. Yes, there are distinct visions for the future, policies, and approach to politics that have turned this GOP into a regressive party unfit for a modern country. Just look at the British or other modern conservative parties today. We progressives may not agree with them on many issues, but at least they are far more pragmatic! They accept science and the scientific way for goodness sake!

Summer Politics Worth of Staycation Laze [with an update!]

 Update, 8/11. What Delightful News!

Two days after I posted (below), Romney announced his VP pick, Paul Ryan! This is an unforced error by him. Perhaps it isn't in the order of Mac's Sarah Palin four years ago, but I think this will make it easier for the Dems to draw the distinction between sanity and the extremist elements in the GOP.

Ryan has drawn up a budget that gives tax breaks to the super-rich while cutting essential services to the poor & middle class. Every time the public is made aware of the Ryan plan's priorities it is greatly opposed, even by many Republicans! This is crucial, because he's a star in the GOP. He is of the ideological camp of the tea party conservatives that seem to control the party. This camp--with their ideas, policies, and personalities--is not popular on the national level. This is not where the country is nor where it's moving into!

The principle do-no-harm in picking a VP has been violated by Mitt. He will allow (hopefully) the Dems to draw a clear distinction and bring much national attention to the Congressional leadership of the conservatives. Ryan and other tea party leaders in Congress can do crazy stuff because they come from safe districts, but their nuttery is not good for national politics. Ryan, as R's # 2 heighten this contrast and brings forth what the Congressional Repubs actually want to do--which is not popular!

I do not think the wave of 2010--which was very bad for Dems--will occur again this year. Actually, I'm betting on the opposite, thinking that once the country will settle on re-electing Obama, that Romney's negative net [I don't remember if the GOP had a candidate whose negatives were higher than his positives, ever] will persist, and that turnout will be more suppressed on the Republican side, the Dems can hold the Senate and challenge the GOP for control of the House. Yes, I think now the House is in play.


No one can safely predict electoral outcomes, but I'm willing to say that this election will be a blowout, in the Electoral College at least!  I said the same thing earlier in the summer of 2008, and repeated it while the GOP and Sarah Palin were riding high around their convention time. I argued why the country was ready to move in a new direction and that McCain was the old guard, more of the same Bush-like crap.  As for Palin, I argued she'd be a dead weight and a negative the more the public got to actually know her. I'm repeating the same argument for Ryan now.

See you later; enjoy this fast-moving summer.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Let's talk politics before this summer is over and the dynamic changes after Labor Day and the two parties' nominating conventions. So, here are a few things: the nominating show, the economy, the problem with the base of the GOP, and looking into the magic bowl while chewing coca leaves... (or, something like that).

Invite or not Sarah Palin to speak at the GOP convention?

The Repubs are having their show in a couple weeks and Romney has vowed to pick his VP before then. The first rule is do-no-harm. The VP choice rarely adds anything to the ticket but it can be a drag as Sarah Palin demonstrated. At best, in an evenly matched prez field the VP can add a slight margin in his state (if it's competitive; Alaska wasn't in 2008, which was another mistake by McCain), and may add a very few more votes in a couple other states.


Here's the problem with Romney and the GOP: They are out of the mainstream. Most of their main policy proposals--as articulated on the state level, in Congress, and their affiliated tea parties--are not in line with the vast majority of Americans. Worse, if these policies and social issues stands are further explained to the public, their approval drops even lower. Worst, is that the country is moving away from them.

Romney was/is (?) a moderate, or someone who's a businessman and cares little about the social issues that don't affect his wealthy class. Yet, he wants to be president but unfortunately for him (and many other centrist Repubs) he has to go through a very conservative activist base. So, he flips-flops. He was for gun control, same-sex rights, choice, mandated health coverage, etc. He now had to denounce those views to be viable in today's GOP. 

The Chick-fil-A gay bashing issue is indicative of Romney's impossible conundrum. He avoided taking a position (as he has on many other social issues), because he can't have it both ways--he can't alienate the American public nor he can afford to turn away his activist but very conservative base. However, that inane leader of the Catholic League Donohue--who reflects the views of may social conservatives regardless of their particular denomination--has said that they're pondering sitting this election out, because they fear is confirmed they cannot trust Romney to be a social conservative!

Elections are decided on turnout to a great extend and it doesn't look good for Romney right now. Even as a known quality, even after having a Dem prez in office, Mittens was receiving fewer votes in the competitive primaries earlier this year than 4 years ago when he was losing to Mac! One might have expected a higher mobilization wave against the "Muslim Kenyan" in the Oval Office, but it's either because Anti-Christ's hold of the executive doesn't seem as too threatening or that Obama's centrist style is acceptable to most voters. Barry Hussein seems to have a much higher "likeability" index than Mittens!

As for the economy, people are pessimistic--they've been hurting since 2008--but not quite blaming Obama for the entirety of the misery. They don't see a good alternative in Mittens either. So, I suppose O's positives will hover around 50%, good enough for reelection, barring any major disaster before November.

It's often said that Americans don't really pay attention to politics in the summer. Maybe the don't follow the details {do they other times?} but impressions still are being formed about the major candidates. Two issues that aren't going away is how R made money at Bain Capital and his tax returns. The latter creates the impression that he's out of touch, that he's hiding something by not releasing older tax records. I think this is a case of double damnation--releasing the records or not.   

Even if Harry Reid--who claimed that a former Mitt associate said R didn't pay any taxes for 10 years--is wrong, I assume that most Americans wouldn't like it that a multi-millionaire pays half the rate most of us do. Yes, it's an issue with me as well. I'm in the so-called middle class and my tax rates are twice as Romney's 12.99% of his last tax return! I don't care how he gets his income. Well, actually I work hard while he collects dividends and interest from his vast fortunes. There's something seriously wrong with this picture.

And, the Repubs want to keep the Bush tax cuts for the very wealthy, which is another point the Dems must keep reminding everyone. Even billionaire Warren Buffet [clearly a ..traitor to his class] said that the rich always ask for more money so they can spend more and thus create more jobs! Obviously a ridiculous claim but one adopted by the GOP that wants to convince us the trickle down effect is rain and not the wealthy pissing on us.

Newt Gingrich is A Big Fat Idiot... and, a Socialist Revolutionary!

As of now, it seems that the Republicans are still not convinced about Romney, but they may prove me wrong and pick him as the eventual nominee. I had argued that the former Massachusetts governor would not appeal to the majority of the very conservative, religious activist base. Well, he still isn't all that popular, since the majority of primary/caucus participants have voted for someone else. If you remove his supposed "electability" then his core support falls below Ron Paul's! The latter is a marginal candidate who doesn't have any chance of success.

There's a scenario whereas Grinch further implodes and Santorum becomes the one to capture all the anti-Romney conservative votes. This scenario will be tested when the race moves to the Midwest. In 2008, the Dems went through a similar phase, pitting the favorite, Hilary Clinton, and the rest. Once Obama became the only one standing he became also stronger as he captured the anti-Clinton votes.  However, there's a huge difference between those contests in the Dem race and today in the GOP race. The Dems had proportional allocation of delegates, whereas the loser(s) still got something out of a state contest.

The winner-takes-all system, many state Republican parties have, gives a huge amount to the candidate who crosses the line first. There's no majority principle here, just a plurality one. Romney is polling ahead of Newt right now and that may just be enough.  I assumed that the GOP would come up with a strong traditional conservative in which case Mittens would lose despite his organization and tons of money. Well, we've seen that the party wanted this to happen. Any announced candidate, an "anti-Romney"  candidate who appeared remotely competitive had his/her poll numbers spike well above Romney's initially. Every single one of them--Bachmann, Santorum, Grinch, Caine, Perry, Paul--were beating Romney at some point before the process began and even afterward. This is significant, because Mittens was a well-known candidate as the second runner up 4 years ago. The GOP usually selects "the next in line" to hold its flag. Yearning for the anti-Romney may just remain an unfulfilled urge in conservative politics.

All the non-Romney candidates self-imploded for various reasons. This field is looney because the Republican base that's active in the selection process has lots of loons--people who are way out of the country's mainstream.

Newt Gingrich is a Big Fat Idiot

If he can slander others by misrepresenting the truth, promote ignorance, and employ the politics of fear, I think I can safely use the big fat idiot term to describe his "intellectual" abyss. Actually I had (I still do) endorsed Grinch for the GOP nomination!  Why, you ask?

It's time that this Republican party becomes a modern, rational, pragmatic party--as much a conservative party is able, and we all know the limitations of this. With Grinch as the one holding the party banner, the GOP would suffer major defeats. Through this experience, perhaps, some reasonable Republicans would try to wrest control from the loons and turn the party around from heading back to the Dark Ages. Maybe after serious defeats, the GOP would realize that what it represents today, what its leaders pronounce, what the stated policy is,  it has left mainstream America.

Bill Moyers Essay: Newt's Obesession with Saul Alinsky from BillMoyers.com on Vimeo.

I have frequent discussions with Republicans and I ask them if they think whether the core principles beliefs and public policy of this GOP reflect the majority of Americans...  And, if not so, whether the country is moving toward or away from those... I think the answer is clear. Any reasonable Republican (endangered species) know it.

It's time we had this discussion. Let's hope that Obama can point out the gap between the GOP and the public. Leadership matters, especially when people take things on faith or they look to leadership for clues. Most of the public, especially the conservatives don't know what social democracy is, yet they hate anything about it because they're told so by their leaders. Who the hell knows or has heard the name Alinski ?! But, Grinch tells his followers to hate Alinski and his "radicalism."  They're supposed to love Ronnie, though if he was alive today and insisted upon some of his policies, he would find himself outside this GOP!

 The president has the loudest megaphone, so let's hope he uses it not only for re-election but also for destroys the politics of fear, prejudice, and ignorance.  You know, like FDR did. Is this too much to ask from the president nowadays?...

Obama Delivers a SOTU Speech Outlining His Campaign Themes. [But, will he revert back to a soft, compromising, and ineffectual style?]

Good speech by the president in the SOTU address, which revealed the main themes of his re-election campaign. Obama is a centrist and will play to the so-called independents and the "floaters"--which, for now, have left but many can be convinced to return, especially given the Republican challengers this year.

There are many reasons why we progressives can't stand the conservatives and this loony, extremist Republican party. Yes, that party whose ideology and public policy proposals go against the vast majority of Americans, in spirit and as public policy.

Obama talked about those American values that unite us. Well, let's see, what are those values, besides nationalism, patriotism, American exceptionalism-center of the universe, "support the troops," motherhood and apple pie?

I'll take them in order as Obama mentioned them, without the president being blunt and drawing his highlight pen to expose the Republicans as the ones against those American values.

1. Tuition assistance and generally the cost of education. Access to opportunity, and, of course, having an educated population is good for the US. The Republicans are against grants, tuition assistance, and want the ..marketplace to price education.

2. Immigration. Well, need I say more? OK, I will. The GOP is hostage to a shrinking but still xenophobic base that is more concerned with "border security" and arresting and expelling anyone who lacks documentation (heck, anyone who can't produce papers on demand). Giving amnesty to all those who have benefited from a hard-working, low-paid labor pool is fine with the Republicans, but giving a path to citizenship to those who have been here more many years, are productive, have paid taxes, and have stayed out of trouble, well, this is a no-no for the Republicans.

3. Public funds for scientific research. What is science anyway? It's just some theories who have gaps and the ..liberal scientists are conjuring up hoaxes on the American people... according to many Republicans. We have no money for science, we must balance the budget... unless we have to pay for another war against Iran. The Republicans are against funding for science and exploration, and research for alternative energy, etc.

4. Public projects. We built them even during the Great Depression and under sensible Republicans like Eisenhower. Not any more according to Republicans today. Infrastructure, communications, the internet, national parks, and even electrification were some of the deeds the GOP has opposed.

5. Regulations about consumer protection, conservation, environment, reckless Wall Street practices, etc, are all opposed by the Republicans.


6. Extending the payroll tax breaks to the middle class workers is opposed by the Republicans. Yet the GOP is in favor of keeping the Bush tax cuts for the millionaires!

7. The super rich like Romney pay a lower percentage of taxes than the middle class. I don't see why the millionaires (and anyone who earns over that amount) couldn't pay more. The Republicans oppose that, even when the country was about to default in paying its bills (many expenses a Repub prez and a Repub Congress authorized), because the GOP wanted to shove it to anyone (98% of Americans) but the rich.

What I find fascinating is that a major political party can advocate for policies that go against the interests of the vast majority of Americans, and even against what the public wants right now [ie, spend to create jobs as opposed to balancing the budget], and yet this party is allowed to have so mach political power. The Republicans should not be allowed to govern, because they don't believe the government can do anything well or any good--unless it's about fighting the evil doers. Oh, and tell us how not to fuck.

It's going to be an interesting campaign season. Have I mentioned that I endorsed Newt for the Repub nomination?  I could go with Mittens but I think the campaign for the general election might be too much about style and personalities. However, with Newt being the GOPer, we may finally have the debate about the kind of conservatism inappropriate for in America of the 21st century and beyond. It's about time the conservative vision and policy proposals are clearly defeated and dismissed for good. Maybe then a more modern Republican party can emerge. That would be good for the country.