Based on ample factual evidence, it's safe to say an Obama win is expected today. So come tomorrow morning (if not sooner!), expect Republicans to begin the excuse-fest about why they lost.
And the excuses will be many. Of course, none being about themselves, their stand on issues, or in my mind their biggest problem: forcing presidential candidates to win over the far-right base by adopting extreme positions only to then have to try and tack to the middle to appeal to the more-moderate general electorate, in so doing appearing fractured, duplicitous and lacking consistency and convictions. As long as Republicans force their candidates to do this pretzel-twisting, they will never win the White House.
Anyway, no doubt Sandy will come up as a convenient excuse. They'll say Romney's momentum was cut short by the storm.
Problem is this so-called Romney momentum never existed, a complete myth. Instead for the last several weeks, it's Obama who has enjoyed the rising momentum as he has steadily recovered a large portion of the ground he lost post-first debate.
In fact, I would bet that if they had the choice Republicans would've weeks ago invited and prayed for a storm like Sandy to appear, hoping it did something, anything to halt Obama's steady rise. They'd get down on their knees praying it would become Obama's Katrina.
Well, Sandy came and wrecked, but no Katrina for Obama. Unlike the imbecilic GW, Obama has handled the post-Sandy response very well and if anything he's received a boost in approval ratings for his competent performance during this trying time. And Republicans are pissed.
But I ask: where are the usual folks who say God sent Sandy to punish the sinner blue states in the Northeast? Hmm, to me it looks like God sent Sandy to help insure Obama gets re-elected.
Tuesday, November 06, 2012
Monday, November 05, 2012
I'm Nervous (But Shouldn't Be)
I am nervous about this Tuesday. I know, I know, I fully realize the great Nate Silver has Obama's chances of winning at 80+% (86% to be exact). In fact, I tabulated projections from more than a few electoral map projection web sites. See below (click to enlarge).
Remind me again why I'm nervous? The average of the nine projections that exclude toss-ups gives Obama a solid 303-235 edge (270 needed to win). When you consider just those projections that include toss-ups, Obama's edge dwindles to 256-196 with an average 86 votes up in the air, but still a +60 net lead.
Which way will those 86 toss-up votes likely break? Well, given the fact there are nine projections that force the marginal votes to take a side, resulting in the 303-235 average, it gives you a very good sense which way those votes will break on average. Clearly the marginal (toss up) states tend to on average lean in Obama's favor, and thus the 256-196-86 becomes 303-235, again on average.
What does this mean, other than I shouldn't be so nervous? It means if come Tuesday night Obama wins by a very close call, the Republicans will have a weak case if they chose to become irate and demand recounts. The data above makes the convincing point that polls are swinging in Obama's direction. If anything, it argues that if Romney were to win -- whether by a hair or by blowout -- investigations would then be more justified versus if Obama were to win.
So again, why am I nervous? One reason is I think it's the natural inclination for liberals, to never take anything for granted and always have a healthy amount of skepticism about everything. But let's face it, it's also because we're dealing with an opposition party that has proven time and time again that they will stop at nothing when it comes to winning.
Oddly enough, the one person who has recently helped to allay my fears is NJ Governor Chris Christie. With the devastation of storm Sandy in his home state, Christie spent a fair amount of time touring NJ with Obama. I realize most governors would've likely done the same. However, given we're just days away from an important election and the governor in this case was the keynote speaker at the GOP convention and the president in this case is a Democrat running for re-election, one would've thought that the governor would have limited the time spent with the president and also limited or couched any praise given to said president. But that was not what happened at all. Christie spent an extended period of time with Obama and when it came to publicly expressing his opinions about how the president has been handling the post-Sandy fallout, Christie was extremely effusive in his praise for Obama, lauding him with one gushing compliment after another. It was striking.
I have to believe that if Christie felt Romney had even a remote chance of winning this Tuesday, he would've done things differently, curtailing the time spent with Obama and greatly tempering any kinds words said about him. Yes, New Jersey is a blue state and this obviously isn't lost on Christie, especially since he's up for re-election next November. But the governor is quite popular in his home state, meaning he didn't have to cozy up to Obama to shore up a weak approval rating. Instead, my bet is he did it because he could, he's a strong figure within his party and he has much leeway to do what he wants. That said Christie likely made the decision that it was in his interest -- for both 2013 and 2016 -- to be seen siding with Tuesday's eventual winner as opposed to the near-inevitable loser.
Christie is no dummy and while I don't agree with him on many issues, in this instance we're definitely on the same page.
Remind me again why I'm nervous? The average of the nine projections that exclude toss-ups gives Obama a solid 303-235 edge (270 needed to win). When you consider just those projections that include toss-ups, Obama's edge dwindles to 256-196 with an average 86 votes up in the air, but still a +60 net lead.
Which way will those 86 toss-up votes likely break? Well, given the fact there are nine projections that force the marginal votes to take a side, resulting in the 303-235 average, it gives you a very good sense which way those votes will break on average. Clearly the marginal (toss up) states tend to on average lean in Obama's favor, and thus the 256-196-86 becomes 303-235, again on average.
What does this mean, other than I shouldn't be so nervous? It means if come Tuesday night Obama wins by a very close call, the Republicans will have a weak case if they chose to become irate and demand recounts. The data above makes the convincing point that polls are swinging in Obama's direction. If anything, it argues that if Romney were to win -- whether by a hair or by blowout -- investigations would then be more justified versus if Obama were to win.
So again, why am I nervous? One reason is I think it's the natural inclination for liberals, to never take anything for granted and always have a healthy amount of skepticism about everything. But let's face it, it's also because we're dealing with an opposition party that has proven time and time again that they will stop at nothing when it comes to winning.
Oddly enough, the one person who has recently helped to allay my fears is NJ Governor Chris Christie. With the devastation of storm Sandy in his home state, Christie spent a fair amount of time touring NJ with Obama. I realize most governors would've likely done the same. However, given we're just days away from an important election and the governor in this case was the keynote speaker at the GOP convention and the president in this case is a Democrat running for re-election, one would've thought that the governor would have limited the time spent with the president and also limited or couched any praise given to said president. But that was not what happened at all. Christie spent an extended period of time with Obama and when it came to publicly expressing his opinions about how the president has been handling the post-Sandy fallout, Christie was extremely effusive in his praise for Obama, lauding him with one gushing compliment after another. It was striking.
I have to believe that if Christie felt Romney had even a remote chance of winning this Tuesday, he would've done things differently, curtailing the time spent with Obama and greatly tempering any kinds words said about him. Yes, New Jersey is a blue state and this obviously isn't lost on Christie, especially since he's up for re-election next November. But the governor is quite popular in his home state, meaning he didn't have to cozy up to Obama to shore up a weak approval rating. Instead, my bet is he did it because he could, he's a strong figure within his party and he has much leeway to do what he wants. That said Christie likely made the decision that it was in his interest -- for both 2013 and 2016 -- to be seen siding with Tuesday's eventual winner as opposed to the near-inevitable loser.
Christie is no dummy and while I don't agree with him on many issues, in this instance we're definitely on the same page.
Tuesday, October 23, 2012
Final Debate: No Contest
That was easy. Almost too easy.
Obama won last night's debate without breaking a sweat, it wasn't close. And speaking of sweat, Romney looked as if he had run a marathon through Death Valley just prior to the debate. We haven't seen flop sweat like that in a debate since Nixon faced Kennedy in 1960. Yikes. However, it's understandable when you consider the extent to which Romney was in over his head, with every answer either empty rhetoric hoping to at least sound meaningful or positions that more or less aligned with Obama's existing policy. It was painful to watch.
I can't decide on my favorite moment. It's as if Obama was restraining himself, holding back from being even more snarky or sardonic than he was at times, realizing the hapless challenger was up against the ropes and it was all but over in the first round. The "fewer horses and bayonets" line was priceless, making Romney look as naive and infantile as Ryan often did versus Biden. I also applauded when Obama explained to Romney how a trip to Israel should go (no donors, etc.), another decimating moment.
But perhaps my favorite zing is when Obama recited point for point how Romney has waffled, how he has been a flip-flopper when it comes to foreign policy. Romney is now for diplomatic pressure (sanctions) on Iran whereas before he was against it, he was against a timetable for an Afghanistan exit but is now for it, he wanted to end the war in Iraq but now wants to leave 20K troops, he felt going after Gaddafi was "mission creep" and with regards to Osama Bin Laden, Romney believed "it was not worth moving Heaven and Earth" to get him and if anything we should ask Pakistan for permission (!). It was a breath-taking moment and clearly crystallized just how ill-prepared Romney was for this debate, and is for President.
Which gets back to my opening comment about Obama's win last night being too easy. Indict Mahmoud Ahmadinejad? Tighten the already-effective Iran sanctions -- really?? Romney said things that made no sense, none whatsoever. The fact that this presidential race still appears to be tight and the challenger is saying such idiotic, clueless statements about world affairs -- it's quite concerning, to say the least.
Another area of grave concern that was a blown opportunity, one that Obama should've pounded and reiterated numerous times: how Romney = GW/Cheney. Mitt Romney’s foreign policy team is basically a family reunion of ex-Bush/Cheney personnel, with 15 of 22 members being former policy advisers under the Bush administration. We're talking a neocon PNAC photo album.
It's all the more reason Romney's overly dove-ish, peacenik posture last night was a complete farce. We're to believe Romney has gone all soft on us, wishing peace on Earth and for all mankind...? Right. More like a calculated gambit to win over women, once again insulting their intelligence with a transparent grab for their vote.
Despite Obama's snap-back in winning the final two debates, the question is: will it be enough? Did he squander a growing lead, one that put his Intrade odds close to 80% before plunging after his abysmal first-debate performance, settling at the current 59% probability of winning?
We'll see. It's been reported that the last two debates did not garner nearly the TV audience of the first one and if Obama were to (gulp) lose the election, it would forever change the importance of that first debate. Never again would an incumbent show up and just mail it in or play it too safe, as if the election was his or her's to lose. It will be, and should always have been, knives out from the get go and take no prisoners.
Here's hoping if Obama wins, it will be knives out for four years.
Obama won last night's debate without breaking a sweat, it wasn't close. And speaking of sweat, Romney looked as if he had run a marathon through Death Valley just prior to the debate. We haven't seen flop sweat like that in a debate since Nixon faced Kennedy in 1960. Yikes. However, it's understandable when you consider the extent to which Romney was in over his head, with every answer either empty rhetoric hoping to at least sound meaningful or positions that more or less aligned with Obama's existing policy. It was painful to watch.
I can't decide on my favorite moment. It's as if Obama was restraining himself, holding back from being even more snarky or sardonic than he was at times, realizing the hapless challenger was up against the ropes and it was all but over in the first round. The "fewer horses and bayonets" line was priceless, making Romney look as naive and infantile as Ryan often did versus Biden. I also applauded when Obama explained to Romney how a trip to Israel should go (no donors, etc.), another decimating moment.
But perhaps my favorite zing is when Obama recited point for point how Romney has waffled, how he has been a flip-flopper when it comes to foreign policy. Romney is now for diplomatic pressure (sanctions) on Iran whereas before he was against it, he was against a timetable for an Afghanistan exit but is now for it, he wanted to end the war in Iraq but now wants to leave 20K troops, he felt going after Gaddafi was "mission creep" and with regards to Osama Bin Laden, Romney believed "it was not worth moving Heaven and Earth" to get him and if anything we should ask Pakistan for permission (!). It was a breath-taking moment and clearly crystallized just how ill-prepared Romney was for this debate, and is for President.
Which gets back to my opening comment about Obama's win last night being too easy. Indict Mahmoud Ahmadinejad? Tighten the already-effective Iran sanctions -- really?? Romney said things that made no sense, none whatsoever. The fact that this presidential race still appears to be tight and the challenger is saying such idiotic, clueless statements about world affairs -- it's quite concerning, to say the least.
Another area of grave concern that was a blown opportunity, one that Obama should've pounded and reiterated numerous times: how Romney = GW/Cheney. Mitt Romney’s foreign policy team is basically a family reunion of ex-Bush/Cheney personnel, with 15 of 22 members being former policy advisers under the Bush administration. We're talking a neocon PNAC photo album.
It's all the more reason Romney's overly dove-ish, peacenik posture last night was a complete farce. We're to believe Romney has gone all soft on us, wishing peace on Earth and for all mankind...? Right. More like a calculated gambit to win over women, once again insulting their intelligence with a transparent grab for their vote.
Despite Obama's snap-back in winning the final two debates, the question is: will it be enough? Did he squander a growing lead, one that put his Intrade odds close to 80% before plunging after his abysmal first-debate performance, settling at the current 59% probability of winning?
We'll see. It's been reported that the last two debates did not garner nearly the TV audience of the first one and if Obama were to (gulp) lose the election, it would forever change the importance of that first debate. Never again would an incumbent show up and just mail it in or play it too safe, as if the election was his or her's to lose. It will be, and should always have been, knives out from the get go and take no prisoners.
Here's hoping if Obama wins, it will be knives out for four years.
Wednesday, October 17, 2012
Obama's Rebound
Yes, a basketball analogy is appropriate. After seemingly sleep-walking through the first debate, Obama delivered as promised with this second debate, showing up in full force and knocking Romney back on his heels more than a few times during the evening. It was revenge comeuppance at its best.
To this blogger, it especially warmed the heart to see Obama perform as we knew he could against a classic school-yard bully. I wrote once before how Romney resembled some of the best-known bullies in cinema, with Neidermeyer of Animal House coming to mind. During this second debate, as he did in the first one, Romney interrupted often and attempted to intimidate moderator Crowley and Obama, shifting around the stage as if ice skating and indignantly talking down to Obama as if he was a busboy at a restaurant and not our 44th president. Yet throughout the debate Obama stood firm, smiled and gracefully confronted the bully on numerous occasions, this time around pointing out each time Romney lied. In the end, Romney's thug-ish tactics paid off for Obama as such behavior made Romney look small and petty, in effect magnifying Obama's presence and further confirming which guy on stage was suitable to be President.
As for the lies, it's incredible but Romney actually told more than he did in the first debate. Don't believe me? Click here, here, here, here, here, here and here, for starters. You can also just Google key words: Romney, second debate, lies. To say Romney is a serial, pathological liar at this point is like saying Limburger cheese stinks.
My favorite moment was when Romney attempted to ensnare Obama in a gotcha moment concerning Benghazi, as he slowly tried to draw Obama in, only to see that Obama was two steps ahead of the slow-witted bully, with Obama urging him to proceed and then blammo -- it blew up in Romney's face. It was great, the equivalent of George McFly landing a punch to Biff's face in Back To The Future. KO, lights out.
Ah yes, what a night. It did wonders to return one's faith in the world, that those who were bullies and told lies incessantly would always get what was coming to them. Well, not always since in this case the lying bully was worth over $250 million, but at least there's a very good chance the dolt won't be rewarded with four years in the White House.
The topic for the next and last debate will be foreign policy and based on what we've seen so far, it should be no contest. Romney is utterly clueless when it comes to anything beyond our borders and as for policy he either agrees with Obama or GW Bush -- neither of which will help him.
To this blogger, it especially warmed the heart to see Obama perform as we knew he could against a classic school-yard bully. I wrote once before how Romney resembled some of the best-known bullies in cinema, with Neidermeyer of Animal House coming to mind. During this second debate, as he did in the first one, Romney interrupted often and attempted to intimidate moderator Crowley and Obama, shifting around the stage as if ice skating and indignantly talking down to Obama as if he was a busboy at a restaurant and not our 44th president. Yet throughout the debate Obama stood firm, smiled and gracefully confronted the bully on numerous occasions, this time around pointing out each time Romney lied. In the end, Romney's thug-ish tactics paid off for Obama as such behavior made Romney look small and petty, in effect magnifying Obama's presence and further confirming which guy on stage was suitable to be President.
As for the lies, it's incredible but Romney actually told more than he did in the first debate. Don't believe me? Click here, here, here, here, here, here and here, for starters. You can also just Google key words: Romney, second debate, lies. To say Romney is a serial, pathological liar at this point is like saying Limburger cheese stinks.
My favorite moment was when Romney attempted to ensnare Obama in a gotcha moment concerning Benghazi, as he slowly tried to draw Obama in, only to see that Obama was two steps ahead of the slow-witted bully, with Obama urging him to proceed and then blammo -- it blew up in Romney's face. It was great, the equivalent of George McFly landing a punch to Biff's face in Back To The Future. KO, lights out.
Ah yes, what a night. It did wonders to return one's faith in the world, that those who were bullies and told lies incessantly would always get what was coming to them. Well, not always since in this case the lying bully was worth over $250 million, but at least there's a very good chance the dolt won't be rewarded with four years in the White House.
The topic for the next and last debate will be foreign policy and based on what we've seen so far, it should be no contest. Romney is utterly clueless when it comes to anything beyond our borders and as for policy he either agrees with Obama or GW Bush -- neither of which will help him.
Tuesday, October 09, 2012
Rachel Maddow's Take Down of Romney's Foreign Policy
Must-see viewing. Important stuff (and only 9 minutes long).
Romney's Rise in Polls vs. Electoral College Map
So I guess it pays to lie after all. In the debate, Romney spewed forth one whopper after another and ended up winning the thing going away.
When Bill Clinton was busted for his Monica indiscretion, Republicans at the time couldn't stop repeating, "What will the children think?" Oh, how awful for our kids to observe this behavior in a president. But apparently Republicans have no problem with the example set by a presidential candidate telling a lie every 90 seconds. No, that's a fine virtue, something I suppose Jesus did in a version of the Bible I have yet to read.
As a result of Romney's near-psychopathic performance, more than a few polls have risen in his favor, with some even showing him taking the lead over Obama. What confuses me is when it comes to web sites which track what the Electoral College map looks like, they continue to show Obama with a comfortable lead. For example, Electoral-vote.com currently shows Obama leading Romney by a fairly huge 332-206 margin, and Nate Silver has Obama up by 297-241.
I like to think the more valid and accurate reflection of what will happen come Election Day are these depictions of electoral vote totals, as opposed to more generic national polls. Most of the web sites that tally the electoral votes tend to have a more comprehensive methodology, one that typically starts at the state level, calculating a consensus poll per state based on many polls taken within each state. State results are then aggregated up to the national level to finally derive electoral vote totals.
Assuming as I am that the electoral vote web sites are more reflective of the election's eventual outcome, why is it that the national polls get much more attention by the media? Is it simply because it's easier for the public to understand 49% vs. 47%, as opposed to 300-238?
When Bill Clinton was busted for his Monica indiscretion, Republicans at the time couldn't stop repeating, "What will the children think?" Oh, how awful for our kids to observe this behavior in a president. But apparently Republicans have no problem with the example set by a presidential candidate telling a lie every 90 seconds. No, that's a fine virtue, something I suppose Jesus did in a version of the Bible I have yet to read.
As a result of Romney's near-psychopathic performance, more than a few polls have risen in his favor, with some even showing him taking the lead over Obama. What confuses me is when it comes to web sites which track what the Electoral College map looks like, they continue to show Obama with a comfortable lead. For example, Electoral-vote.com currently shows Obama leading Romney by a fairly huge 332-206 margin, and Nate Silver has Obama up by 297-241.
I like to think the more valid and accurate reflection of what will happen come Election Day are these depictions of electoral vote totals, as opposed to more generic national polls. Most of the web sites that tally the electoral votes tend to have a more comprehensive methodology, one that typically starts at the state level, calculating a consensus poll per state based on many polls taken within each state. State results are then aggregated up to the national level to finally derive electoral vote totals.
Assuming as I am that the electoral vote web sites are more reflective of the election's eventual outcome, why is it that the national polls get much more attention by the media? Is it simply because it's easier for the public to understand 49% vs. 47%, as opposed to 300-238?
Wednesday, October 03, 2012
Huge Disappointment
My thoughts on tonight's debate:
Wow. What happened? Romney clearly won. Obama appeared to be the Invisible President, all but disappearing at times right before our eyes. His demeanor was one as if he was at a garden party, casually mingling with guests. Meanwhile, Romney came out guns a blazing and never let up.
Obama came off as if he was above being there, seemingly just looking to run out the clock. He actually came off too presidential. He never took the gloves off. Look, I understand as president he can't appear overly scrappy, especially since he was the clear front-runner in the race, but Romney was throwing out low-hanging lies, one after another, and Obama should have sternly knocked them down with specifics. Instead Obama too often addressed them with lofty rhetoric and a smile.
Obama did have a few good lines, like when he said we tried this once before and then equated Romney to GW and himself to Clinton. And also when reminding us that Romney stood on a stage and voted against a deficit deal that would have $1 in revenue raising for every $10 in cuts.
Regarding the topic of deficits, Obama should've said now is just not the time to focus on cutting the deficit. It's obviously a very important and concerning topic, but it's Economics 101, you do not cut spending when the economy is hurting. He should've reminded viewers that Romney agrees, and he should've cited Europe and what austerity is doing to that region of the world, with riots breaking out in many countries there. Our economy is still not fully recovered with millions of people still unemployed and the focus should be on job creation and boosting the economy. Cutting the deficit comes later (like Bill Clinton did).
In just cursory fashion, Obama mentioned Romney has not specifically identified tax deductions and loopholes to be eliminated. Obama should have said it more forcefully and he should have repeated it more than once. Many viewers are hearing this stuff for the first time. They all don't read Ezra Klein or watch Rachel Maddow.
Finally, I'm sad to write that this debate was clearly Jim Lehrer's last. He appeared in way over is head, coming off as very frail and weak. Romney in particular basically bullied him, running rough-shod over time limits and the debate format. Lehrer looked as aimless as Clint Eastwood (sans the empty chair) and he lost control of the debate from the get-go and it was the Wild West from then on.
Not that this made much of a difference in the night's outcome as Obama obviously made the decision before the debate started to take the night off.
Not that this made much of a difference in the night's outcome as Obama obviously made the decision before the debate started to take the night off.
Tuesday, October 02, 2012
Several Items
Warren/Brown Debate: Who Won?
Who won the second debate? To me it's an easy call: Warren won. And no, I'm not saying this because I'm rooting for her. It's really more about simple math and campaign reality.
When it comes to debates, if you are the front-runner then it's in your favor when the debate is a snore, when it comes off without a hitch and is just your typical Q&A; with no fireworks or memorable moments. The candidate(s) trailing in the polls has to stir things up and hope for a game-changer occurrence, otherwise the debate becomes a wasted opportunity as the polls will likely remain unchanged.
That said I didn't detect any memorable zinger last night, no "There you go again" or "I knew Jack Kennedy" lines. Instead it was more desperado retread of Native American crap along with lots of eruptions of laughter. Assuming Brown continues to trail in polls (he's plummeted from 65% to 30% at Intrade), expect things to get much uglier in the next debate.
However, I will posit that Brown knows he's up against a woman and that a big positive for him is his good-natured personality. For those reasons, he can't overly risk going all-out after Warren and jeopardize coming off badly, resulting in even worse poll numbers. Quite a pickle.
Needless to say, the same holds true for Romney tomorrow night. He's trailing by a sizable margin so look for him to go for broke with several attempts at zinger lines that he hopes will land and stick. The risk is it all appears nakedly transparent and therefore could backfire as a desperate act from a floundering and soon-to-be loser.
But back to the Warren/Brown race, in the next debate I still think she needs to do more of two things, which I wrote about after the first debate.
When it comes to debates, if you are the front-runner then it's in your favor when the debate is a snore, when it comes off without a hitch and is just your typical Q&A; with no fireworks or memorable moments. The candidate(s) trailing in the polls has to stir things up and hope for a game-changer occurrence, otherwise the debate becomes a wasted opportunity as the polls will likely remain unchanged.
That said I didn't detect any memorable zinger last night, no "There you go again" or "I knew Jack Kennedy" lines. Instead it was more desperado retread of Native American crap along with lots of eruptions of laughter. Assuming Brown continues to trail in polls (he's plummeted from 65% to 30% at Intrade), expect things to get much uglier in the next debate.
However, I will posit that Brown knows he's up against a woman and that a big positive for him is his good-natured personality. For those reasons, he can't overly risk going all-out after Warren and jeopardize coming off badly, resulting in even worse poll numbers. Quite a pickle.
Needless to say, the same holds true for Romney tomorrow night. He's trailing by a sizable margin so look for him to go for broke with several attempts at zinger lines that he hopes will land and stick. The risk is it all appears nakedly transparent and therefore could backfire as a desperate act from a floundering and soon-to-be loser.
But back to the Warren/Brown race, in the next debate I still think she needs to do more of two things, which I wrote about after the first debate.
It was frustrating to see her miss some golden opportunities. For example, she never mentioned that Brown was one of the top receivers of hedge fund and financial services money -- this despite the fact he was elected during the Tea Party furor with many Republican voters expecting him to change the way things are done in DC. Instead he's been accepting big bucks from the Wall Street honchos just like every other politician that's come before him. Just another hack attempting to convince voters he's different.
Also, Warren repeated many of her points several times, but one point she should've made earlier in the debate: tying Brown with the letter "R". And she should've then pounded that point home repeatedly for the rest of the hour.
The fact is Brown is fairly moderate for a modern-day Republican -- which granted is not saying much given how far to the right the GOP has drifted over the last twenty years. But because his record is not right-wing to the extreme, it's more difficult for Warren to lay out black-and-white differences between the two for voters to appreciate.
However, by starkly aligning Brown with the many kooks in his party, and doing so many times, Warren would've inflicted serious and lasting damage, especially when you consider a state like Massachusetts, where even Republican voters tend to favor non-crazy, more moderate candidates. When Warren made the statement, that by voting for Brown could very well tilt the balance of power in the Senate and thus put the likes of Senator Inhofe in charge of key committees, you could almost see Scott Brown wince in pain. He quickly retorted that she was running against him and not Inhofe, but you could tell then that she drew blood and he was running scared. I think she may have repeated this line of attack one more time, but they then moved on and it was already fairly late in the debate. Too bad and lucky for Brown.
In the next debate, she'll do better. "The Professor" will be more at ease, the Native American stuff is played out, and my hope is she'll do more of what I wrote about above. She should repeat the line that Brown = "R" = possible 51+ Republican Senators, and she should repeat it many times and even expand on it. Everything is at stake with this potential power shift in the Senate. If the Republicans gain control, the list is endless as to what will be affected: the environment, future Supreme Court nominees, etc., and this fact will resonate with all voters in Massachusetts.
Yes, Scott Brown is nowhere near as unhinged as the rest in his party, however that's not the point when the balance of power in the Senate is hanging so precariously. Brown wants this election to be about him alone, but it's not. What truly matters is "R" vs. "D" and unfortunately for Brown he is an "R", nuff said.
I do not mean to say that Warren isn't a superior candidate and that we should vote for her strictly by default against her Republican opponent. But again, no matter what you feel about Brown personally or his record, one can't vote for him due to guilt by association. To vote for him is to increase the likelihood of the lunatics running the asylum come the new year.
Thursday, September 27, 2012
Pawlenty Quits On Romney and What It Means for The GOP in 2016
Ever since Tim Pawlenty threw in the towel on his presidential bid, he's been one of Mitt's most outspoken supporters. Whereas other Republican contenders like Perry and Santorum have never really said anything gushingly nice about Romney, offering just tepid endorsements, Pawlenty always went that extra mile and praised as if he really meant it.
So to see T-Paw quit on Mitt to head up a large financial services lobby group says quite a bit about the rapid descent of Mitt's chances in November. One has to think this job opening would've still been available for Pawlenty in about five weeks, making his abrupt resignation all that more befuddling. But Tim likely knew what Nate Silver recently wrote about, that a candidate in Romney's position at this point in the race rarely pulls out a victory come Election Day.
But what I find even more interesting is the fact that Pawlenty took this job at all. Of course, I'm sure it's a cushy gig that pays very well. However, at the start of the primary season, Pawlenty quickly became a favorite pick to be the Republican nominee. He was the presumed reasonable one who would be able to appeal to the widest audience. Eventually he washed out and yet many a pundit doubled-down and put him atop the list for 2016.
Question: when was the last time you saw a presidential front-runner coming from the ranks of a lobbyist organization, much less one that fronts for Wall Street firms? I would have to say never. So what gives?
It's obvious Pawlenty believes Romney has no shot to win. But I also have to think Pawlenty has concluded that his party will remain crazy for the next several years -- or at least for the next four. If he wanted to run again in 2016, it's unlikely he would've accepted such a perception-challenged position, one that would significantly compromise his candidacy. Yet as mentioned, Pawlenty is sensible and not psycho and that's a huge negative in a party that celebrates the likes of Bachmann, Cain and Santorum. We're starting to hear more calls for the Republican Party to change its ways, to quit catering to the lunatic fringe and become more moderate. And yet Pawlenty for one thinks such a transformation is a pipe dream, so he's taking the big $$$$.
What a shame. With Romney fast sinking in the polls, I'm hearing and reading how it's not so much his fault but rather his party is to blame. The modern-day GOP makes it near impossible for any candidate to appeal to the wider electorate, forcing someone like Romney or John McCain to disavow their record and recite the party talking points -- points that drift ever-more to the right with each passing election season. I've been writing about this Republican problem for years, how it forces electable (read: not crazy) candidates to twist and turn and tie themselves up in knots like a pretzel, siding with the positions that are too extreme and often make no sense or even conflict with one another.
It's been clear for some time that as long the GOP continues on this course to seemingly outdo itself in a race to ultimate insanity, it will have less and less of chance to win the White House again (at least fairly, without voter suppression or help from the SCOTUS). While this may be a good thing for Democrats, it's a tragedy for the country, which in the end is all that matters.
So to see T-Paw quit on Mitt to head up a large financial services lobby group says quite a bit about the rapid descent of Mitt's chances in November. One has to think this job opening would've still been available for Pawlenty in about five weeks, making his abrupt resignation all that more befuddling. But Tim likely knew what Nate Silver recently wrote about, that a candidate in Romney's position at this point in the race rarely pulls out a victory come Election Day.
But what I find even more interesting is the fact that Pawlenty took this job at all. Of course, I'm sure it's a cushy gig that pays very well. However, at the start of the primary season, Pawlenty quickly became a favorite pick to be the Republican nominee. He was the presumed reasonable one who would be able to appeal to the widest audience. Eventually he washed out and yet many a pundit doubled-down and put him atop the list for 2016.
Question: when was the last time you saw a presidential front-runner coming from the ranks of a lobbyist organization, much less one that fronts for Wall Street firms? I would have to say never. So what gives?
It's obvious Pawlenty believes Romney has no shot to win. But I also have to think Pawlenty has concluded that his party will remain crazy for the next several years -- or at least for the next four. If he wanted to run again in 2016, it's unlikely he would've accepted such a perception-challenged position, one that would significantly compromise his candidacy. Yet as mentioned, Pawlenty is sensible and not psycho and that's a huge negative in a party that celebrates the likes of Bachmann, Cain and Santorum. We're starting to hear more calls for the Republican Party to change its ways, to quit catering to the lunatic fringe and become more moderate. And yet Pawlenty for one thinks such a transformation is a pipe dream, so he's taking the big $$$$.
What a shame. With Romney fast sinking in the polls, I'm hearing and reading how it's not so much his fault but rather his party is to blame. The modern-day GOP makes it near impossible for any candidate to appeal to the wider electorate, forcing someone like Romney or John McCain to disavow their record and recite the party talking points -- points that drift ever-more to the right with each passing election season. I've been writing about this Republican problem for years, how it forces electable (read: not crazy) candidates to twist and turn and tie themselves up in knots like a pretzel, siding with the positions that are too extreme and often make no sense or even conflict with one another.
It's been clear for some time that as long the GOP continues on this course to seemingly outdo itself in a race to ultimate insanity, it will have less and less of chance to win the White House again (at least fairly, without voter suppression or help from the SCOTUS). While this may be a good thing for Democrats, it's a tragedy for the country, which in the end is all that matters.
Tuesday, September 25, 2012
Oh The Irony: Non-Union Refs Screw Gov. Scott Walker's Team
Anyone watch the NFL game last night? In case you missed it, the Green Bay Packers were screwed by the replacement refs, losing a close game to the Seattle Seahawks due to a blown call with no time left on the clock.
Although I feel for the Green Bay players and fans, I thought it was poetic irony that non-union NFL officials ended up snatching defeat from the jaws of victory for Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker's team. I wonder what he'll say today about the painful and unfortunate loss.
The fact is the last two weeks of NFL football have been a nightmare when it comes to officiating. It has become clear to all those involved -- players, coaches, fans, broadcasters, etc. -- that the replacement personnel are not up to the job. They have either blown one call after another, like last night, or they're not calling penalties when they should, like in the Patriots/Ravens game when it was obviously getting overly amped-up with skirmishes and fights. There's even data indicating these refs are favoring home teams by calling more penalties on the visitors, perhaps due to intimidation by the crowd or even even getting caught up in the home environment euphoria. Oh, and now there's talk the NFL hired some refs who were fired from the Lingerie Football League due to incompetence!
If anything, the start of this year's NFL season is turning into an Exhibit A for what can happen when management decides to go with less experienced, less trained, less professional employees during a labor dispute. Admittedly, I'm not aware of where things stand with current negotiations, but all you have to do is listen to sports radio to realize how out of control things are getting. Calls are mounting to boycott games, to not attend stadiums or refuse to watch the games on TV. It's not only that NFL's "product" has become a laughing-stock and its brand is fast eroding, but more importantly players are increasingly exposed to serious harm and injury. Something horrific is likely to happen, it's just a matter of time.
But again I ask, what will Scott Walker say today? Wisconsin State Senator Jon Erpenbach, a Democrat, already tweeted his feelings. What say you Gov. Walker??
UPDATE: By now you know, Walker responded with a plea for union refs to return. Since hypocrisy is the GOP's middle name, this shouldn't shock you.
Although I feel for the Green Bay players and fans, I thought it was poetic irony that non-union NFL officials ended up snatching defeat from the jaws of victory for Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker's team. I wonder what he'll say today about the painful and unfortunate loss.
The fact is the last two weeks of NFL football have been a nightmare when it comes to officiating. It has become clear to all those involved -- players, coaches, fans, broadcasters, etc. -- that the replacement personnel are not up to the job. They have either blown one call after another, like last night, or they're not calling penalties when they should, like in the Patriots/Ravens game when it was obviously getting overly amped-up with skirmishes and fights. There's even data indicating these refs are favoring home teams by calling more penalties on the visitors, perhaps due to intimidation by the crowd or even even getting caught up in the home environment euphoria. Oh, and now there's talk the NFL hired some refs who were fired from the Lingerie Football League due to incompetence!
If anything, the start of this year's NFL season is turning into an Exhibit A for what can happen when management decides to go with less experienced, less trained, less professional employees during a labor dispute. Admittedly, I'm not aware of where things stand with current negotiations, but all you have to do is listen to sports radio to realize how out of control things are getting. Calls are mounting to boycott games, to not attend stadiums or refuse to watch the games on TV. It's not only that NFL's "product" has become a laughing-stock and its brand is fast eroding, but more importantly players are increasingly exposed to serious harm and injury. Something horrific is likely to happen, it's just a matter of time.
But again I ask, what will Scott Walker say today? Wisconsin State Senator Jon Erpenbach, a Democrat, already tweeted his feelings. What say you Gov. Walker??
UPDATE: By now you know, Walker responded with a plea for union refs to return. Since hypocrisy is the GOP's middle name, this shouldn't shock you.
Sunday, September 23, 2012
Warren vs. Brown Debate
As usual, I apologize for weighing in so late. With that out of the way, I felt the debate was more or less a tie. Brown did better than expected, GW style (he got big points for stringing together complete sentences) and Warren was OK. You could tell she was a bit nervous, that this was new terrain for her, but she did a good job at handling Brown's attack lines (Native American crap, she wants to raise taxes canard, etc.).
However, it was frustrating to see her miss some golden opportunities. For example, she never mentioned that Brown was one of the top receivers of hedge fund and financial services money -- this despite the fact he was elected during the Tea Party furor with many Republican voters expecting him to change the way things are done in DC. Instead he's been accepting big bucks from the Wall Street honchos just like every other politician that's come before him. Just another hack attempting to convince voters he's different.
Also, Warren repeated many of her points several times, but one point she should've made earlier in the debate: tying Brown with the letter "R". And she should've then pounded that point home repeatedly for the rest of the hour.
The fact is Brown is fairly moderate for a modern-day Republican -- which granted is not saying much given how far to the right the GOP has drifted over the last twenty years. But because his record is not right-wing to the extreme, it's more difficult for Warren to lay out black-and-white differences between the two for voters to appreciate.
However, by starkly aligning Brown with the many kooks in his party, and doing so many times, Warren would've inflicted serious and lasting damage, especially when you consider a state like Massachusetts, where even Republican voters tend to favor non-crazy, more moderate candidates. When Warren made the statement, that by voting for Brown could very well tilt the balance of power in the Senate and thus put the likes of Senator Inhofe in charge of key committees, you could almost see Scott Brown wince in pain. He quickly retorted that she was running against him and not Inhofe, but you could tell then that she drew blood and he was running scared. I think she may have repeated this line of attack one more time, but they then moved on and it was already fairly late in the debate. Too bad and lucky for Brown.
In the next debate, she'll do better. "The Professor" will be more at ease, the Native American stuff is played out, and my hope is she'll do more of what I wrote about above. She should repeat the line that Brown = "R" = possible 51+ Republican Senators, and she should repeat it many times and even expand on it. Everything is at stake with this potential power shift in the Senate. If the Republicans gain control, the list is endless as to what will be affected: the environment, future Supreme Court nominees, etc., and this fact will resonate with all voters in Massachusetts.
Yes, Scott Brown is nowhere near as unhinged as the rest in his party, however that's not the point when the balance of power in the Senate is hanging so precariously. Brown wants this election to be about him alone, but it's not. What truly matters is "R" vs. "D" and unfortunately for Brown he is an "R", nuff said.
I do not mean to say that Warren isn't a superior candidate and that we should vote for her strictly by default against her Republican opponent. But again, no matter what you feel about Brown personally or his record, one can't vote for him due to guilt by association. To vote for him is to increase the likelihood of the lunatics running the asylum come the new year.
Like Warren said at one point in the debate, Brown may not like the answer, but it is what it is. Sorry Scott, but it's your bat-sh*t crazy party, embrace it or leave it.
However, it was frustrating to see her miss some golden opportunities. For example, she never mentioned that Brown was one of the top receivers of hedge fund and financial services money -- this despite the fact he was elected during the Tea Party furor with many Republican voters expecting him to change the way things are done in DC. Instead he's been accepting big bucks from the Wall Street honchos just like every other politician that's come before him. Just another hack attempting to convince voters he's different.
Also, Warren repeated many of her points several times, but one point she should've made earlier in the debate: tying Brown with the letter "R". And she should've then pounded that point home repeatedly for the rest of the hour.
The fact is Brown is fairly moderate for a modern-day Republican -- which granted is not saying much given how far to the right the GOP has drifted over the last twenty years. But because his record is not right-wing to the extreme, it's more difficult for Warren to lay out black-and-white differences between the two for voters to appreciate.
However, by starkly aligning Brown with the many kooks in his party, and doing so many times, Warren would've inflicted serious and lasting damage, especially when you consider a state like Massachusetts, where even Republican voters tend to favor non-crazy, more moderate candidates. When Warren made the statement, that by voting for Brown could very well tilt the balance of power in the Senate and thus put the likes of Senator Inhofe in charge of key committees, you could almost see Scott Brown wince in pain. He quickly retorted that she was running against him and not Inhofe, but you could tell then that she drew blood and he was running scared. I think she may have repeated this line of attack one more time, but they then moved on and it was already fairly late in the debate. Too bad and lucky for Brown.
In the next debate, she'll do better. "The Professor" will be more at ease, the Native American stuff is played out, and my hope is she'll do more of what I wrote about above. She should repeat the line that Brown = "R" = possible 51+ Republican Senators, and she should repeat it many times and even expand on it. Everything is at stake with this potential power shift in the Senate. If the Republicans gain control, the list is endless as to what will be affected: the environment, future Supreme Court nominees, etc., and this fact will resonate with all voters in Massachusetts.
Yes, Scott Brown is nowhere near as unhinged as the rest in his party, however that's not the point when the balance of power in the Senate is hanging so precariously. Brown wants this election to be about him alone, but it's not. What truly matters is "R" vs. "D" and unfortunately for Brown he is an "R", nuff said.
I do not mean to say that Warren isn't a superior candidate and that we should vote for her strictly by default against her Republican opponent. But again, no matter what you feel about Brown personally or his record, one can't vote for him due to guilt by association. To vote for him is to increase the likelihood of the lunatics running the asylum come the new year.
Like Warren said at one point in the debate, Brown may not like the answer, but it is what it is. Sorry Scott, but it's your bat-sh*t crazy party, embrace it or leave it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)