General Election Thread (no partisan sniping allowed!)

[OldPhiKap]

I'm assuming (yes, yes, you and me, etc.) that the reason Romney hasn't gone specific is twofold:

a) either his plan would be more-or-less identical to Bush's and widen the deficit, which would probably not fly with the electorate at large
b) either his plan would be like Bush's, except with enumerated and specific cuts to deductions/programs in order to lower the deficit, which would create a sizable lump of protest in the electorate at large

What can Romney do? It's a bit of a quandary. I'm not concern-trolling here, I'm finding it a difficult situation for any politician to get out of. And the above illustrates a reason why dealing with the deficit is such a challenge in the first place.

Walter Mondales' dreams of the White House died the day he admitted -- as he had to -- that taxes would have to be raised to get out of the early '80's funk. (Indeed, Reagan subsequently raised taxes). So it is political death to suggest that revenue has to go up, broadly. Similarly, when you talk about expenditure cuts, you're talking about taking money out of someone's wheelhouse whether it be defense, entitlements, etc. As A-Tex says, it may be a removal of the mortgage deduction. So it is political death to get too specific on this issue either.

Problem is, that's the only two levers you have for this deficit machine -- increased revenue or decreased spending. As a result, NO politician wants to speak in specifics. If Romney tries to argue a middle ground -- lower taxes increases economic activity, therefore lifting all boats -- as best I can tell that's what he has been saying and it hasn't budged him past Obama in the "who is better for the economy" polls.

[tommy]

Here is a helpful explanation of how the pollsters actually work, and how they "sample." At least the good ones, anyway. "Turnout models" are not used, because they're not needed. Interesting and worth a read.

And this one is good too. It explains the variations in voter-ID in polling results, and the impact (or lack thereof) on it.

[A-Tex Devil]

Walter Mondales' dreams of the White House died the day he admitted -- as he had to -- that taxes would have to be raised to get out of the early '80's funk. (Indeed, Reagan subsequently raised taxes). So it is political death to suggest that revenue has to go up, broadly. Similarly, when you talk about expenditure cuts, you're talking about taking money out of someone's wheelhouse whether it be defense, entitlements, etc. As A-Tex says, it may be a removal of the mortgage deduction. So it is political death to get too specific on this issue either.

Problem is, that's the only two levers you have for this deficit machine -- increased revenue or decreased spending. As a result, NO politician wants to speak in specifics. If Romney tries to argue a middle ground -- lower taxes increases economic activity, therefore lifting all boats -- as best I can tell that's what he has been saying and it hasn't budged him past Obama in the "who is better for the economy" polls.

I think the fear regarding the removal of the mortgage interest deduction, charitable giving, etc. is that the 'Pubs can increase revenue this way without, technically, violating the pledge so many of them have made to Grover Norquist - that's how they can increase revenue without raising tax rates. But removal of deductions clearly increases the net tax bill and effective tax rate of the middle class homeowner (rather significantly). So, like you say, admitting this now would play into Obama campaign's hands. The Obama campaign needs to hammer on this missing step. I have to believe Mitt's prep will have an answer for this. To keep things interesting, I'd love to see specifics, because it will either be a gamec hanger, or it will have the Mondale effect mentioned above. I'm afraid the answer will still be as vague as it has been, though.

[Mike Corey]

An interesting article from Politico:

Slowly and reluctantly, Republicans who love and work for Romney are concluding that for all his gifts as a leader, businessman and role model, he’s just not a good political candidate in this era.

It kills his admirers to say it because they know him to be a far more generous and approachable man than people realize — far from the caricature of him being awkward or distant — and they feel certain he would be a very good president.

“Lousy candidate; highly qualified to be president,” said a top Romney official. “The candidate suit fits him unnaturally. He is naturally an executive.”

It might be too late for this, but I think this could work. It's self-deprecating, it's genuine, but it acknowledges that Romney is a great executive. It helps break through the fact that Romney may be a politician, but he's not a political animal. Will it resonate? Who knows. But I like this.

[OldPhiKap]

An interesting article from Politico:



It might be too late for this, but I think this could work. It's self-deprecating, it's genuine, but it acknowledges that Romney is a great executive. It helps break through the fact that Romney may be a politician, but he's not a political animal. Will it resonate? Who knows. But I like this.

Bob Dole was apparently the same way. Funny and engaging in a small room; didn't translate well to television and a big stage.

The comment above "Just be you. You is enough" is spot on. BUT way to late. Another reinvention by Romney just underscores the narrative that he is a political chameleon. If you didn't mean those things, why did you say them? Etc.

There are politicians on both sides of the aisle who "are who they are" and are respected. McCain was generally viewed this way prior to his last presidential race, for example. Both Bushs were very much their own men when it came to public persona. I'd throw out Dollar Bill Bradley on the left as the same thing. It's a wonderful thing in my opinion, whether I agree or disagree with them. But it's a reputation that is built over years, not 40 days.

[Lord Ash]

I remember an interview Dole did, after losing the election (can't remember where) and I found him to be charming and funny and a touch self-deprecating... I was left wondering where that guy was during the entire run up to the election itself!

[OldPhiKap]

I remember an interview Dole did, after losing the election (can't remember where) and I found him to be charming and funny and a touch self-deprecating... I was left wondering where that guy was during the entire run up to the election itself!

McCain going on SNL a few weeks before the election, as well (Tina Fey "going all rogue" with the "Palin 2012" shirts certainly showed that McCain could stand a laugh at his own expense).

[Duvall]

It is early and there is scant evidence, but we may have a case of "what goes up must come down" going on in some of the state polls.

A few new polls today seem to present some better news -- though not yet good news -- for Romney.

ARG has Obama up 2 in Virginia and 5 in New Hampshire. Those are closer margins than other recent polls. (RCP has Obama's average lead in Virginia at 3.9, and
New Hampshire at 3.0, but NBC had Obama + 7 recently).

But, much more significantly, Gravis Marketing and Morning Call have new polls in Michigan and Pennsylvania that find both those races as competitive. Gravis has Obama up just 4 points in Michigan (RCP has the Michigan average as Obama + 8.8) and MC puts Obama's Pennsylvania lead at 7 (RCP has the average lead there at Obama +8, but CBS had Obama up 12 a couple days ago). If the Obama camp is forced to expend money and time in those two states, it would be a major help to Romney.

Like I said, it is early and these are just a few small polls, but results like these may serve to stem some of the "Romney is dead in the water" talk and keep the GOP money from abandoning him, as many have speculated could happen after the first debate.

This may not mean as much as you think - both ARG and Gravis have shown small but consistent pro-Romney house effects. These could just be the polls that make up the lower end of the range we are already seeing.

[tommy]

I remember an interview Dole did, after losing the election (can't remember where) and I found him to be charming and funny and a touch self-deprecating... I was left wondering where that guy was during the entire run up to the election itself!

I remember the same thing with regards to Al Gore. During the campaign he was totally wooden. No personality at all. He did that weird thing during one of the debates where he purposefully invaded GWB's personal space and almost tried to physically intimidate him, Bush responded with a funny crack about it, and Gore came off looking like a guy you just would not want to have around.

And then later, after the election, I saw Gore a number of times in other settings, where he was relaxed, funny, and self-deprecating, and a guy you definitely would want to have around.

I guess some guys can handle the stress of a national campaign and find a way to be their natural selves, at least somewhat, and some can't, and end up trying to follow somebody else's script that dictates how they're supposed to act. Tough to fool the voters though.

[Olympic Fan]

I have been told by my Republican friends (yes, I do have Republican friends!) that Obama is vulnerble with Jewish voters because he is unwilling to advocate military action against Iran for pursuing nucleur weapons -- thereby putting Israel at risk.

I haven't seem evidence to support this and now there's evidence the other way -- a poll this month by the AJC (that's the American Jewish Committee, not the Atlanta Journal-Constitution) that shows that Obama is winning the Jewish vote 64.9 to 24.1 margin.

http://www.ajc.org/site/apps/nlnet/c...41&ct=12208961

[OldPhiKap]

I have been told by my Republican friends (yes, I do have Republican friends!) that Obama is vulnerble with Jewish voters because he is unwilling to advocate military action against Iran for pursuing nucleur weapons -- thereby putting Israel at risk.

I haven't seem evidence to support this and now there's evidence the other way -- a poll this month by the AJC (that's the American Jewish Committee, not the Atlanta Journal-Constitution) that shows that Obama is winning the Jewish vote 64.9 to 24.1 margin.

http://www.ajc.org/site/apps/nlnet/c...41&ct=12208961

I have wondered about this as well. Far from an expert, but I am not sure that Bibi N. speaks for tha majority view of Americans of Jewish faith. These things are hard to tell though -- I know plenty of (fellow) Catholics who don't like Paul Ryan for PPB reasons.

[Lord Ash]

I am sorry, I know this is off topic, but I restrained myself as long as I could... but this bit...

Anyway. I will be cleaning some stuff up in the next few hours or tomorrow morning. For now, a lot of you need to look at what you posted and hang your head. You'll be hearing from me and I am not happy. You have taken something I worked at very, very hard and pooped on it. Shame on you.

... is the single greatest moderator paragraph in history. I literally feel like Jason would be getting a rolled up newspaper to swat me, except he is simply too disappointed in me to even do that, because I have let him down. Even though I didn't do anything wrong, after reading this I feel like this inside:

GuiltyDog.jpg

Remember; he is not happy.

Sorry, just couldn't let this one slip by.

[tommy]

I have been told by my Republican friends (yes, I do have Republican friends!) that Obama is vulnerble with Jewish voters because he is unwilling to advocate military action against Iran for pursuing nucleur weapons -- thereby putting Israel at risk.

I haven't seem evidence to support this and now there's evidence the other way -- a poll this month by the AJC (that's the American Jewish Committee, not the Atlanta Journal-Constitution) that shows that Obama is winning the Jewish vote 64.9 to 24.1 margin.

http://www.ajc.org/site/apps/nlnet/c...41&ct=12208961

There were a number of interesting findings in that AJC poll.

Obama leads by large margins among Conservative and Reform Jews, but Romney leads 54-40 among the Orthodox. Unfortunately for Romney, the latter group constitutes only about 8% of Jewish voters.

64% of Jewish voters do not think that diplomacy and sanctions are likely to stop the Iranian nuclear weapons program. And 65% would support U.S. military action against Iran. So if a strong majority of Jewish voters don't believe that Obama's policies vis-a-vis Iran are likely to be effective, but they're going to vote to re-elect the President anyway, it seems to me that -- contrary to the assumptions of some -- Israel policy is not at the top of the list of priorities of a lot of Jewish voters. The poll confirms this, as 61% of respondents listed the economy as the most important issue, while only 4.5% listed US-Israel relations first on their list -- coming in far behind health care and even behind abortion.

[JasonEvans]

The fact that Obama is still overwhelmingly winning the Jewish vote looks fine in a vacuum, but when compared to past Jewish vote percentages, it gains some useful context.

In 2008, Obama won 78% of the Jewish vote. This surprised many pundits who thought Obama would struggle with the Jewish vote (that middle name and potential sympathy for Muslims was supposed to really hurt him). But, his 78% was exactly in line with how Jews voted in 1992, 1996, 2000, and 2004 (average Jewish vote for Democrats -- 79%).

So, for Obama now to be polling in the mid-60s, that is a fairly large drop off from recent years. Jews have been as reliably Democratic as African-Americans over the years. So, the 65% that Obama is currently pulling is quite low by historical standards. I believe you have to go all the way back to 1980, when Reagan got 39% of the Jewish vote, to find a Republican doing as well among the Jews as Romney currently is.

-Jason "my source for much of this is right here" Evans

[throatybeard]

The fact that Obama is still overwhelmingly winning the Jewish vote looks fine in a vacuum, but when compared to past Jewish vote percentages, it gains some useful context.

In 2008, Obama won 78% of the Jewish vote. This surprised many pundits who thought Obama would struggle with the Jewish vote (that middle name and potential sympathy for Muslims was supposed to really hurt him). But, his 78% was exactly in line with how Jews voted in 1992, 1996, 2000, and 2004 (average Jewish vote for Democrats -- 79%).

So, for Obama now to be polling in the mid-60s, that is a fairly large drop off from recent years. Jews have been as reliably Democratic as African-Americans over the years. So, the 65% that Obama is currently pulling is quite low by historical standards. I believe you have to go all the way back to 1980, when Reagan got 39% of the Jewish vote, to find a Republican doing as well among the Jews as Romney currently is.

-Jason "my source for much of this is right here" Evans

OK, so let's say O loses 10% of the Jewish vote. Wiki puts US Jewish pop at 5.3M. That was surprising to me. I thought it was more like 8M or 9M. I had a number of US 3%, not 2%, in my noggin. Let's assume that percentage is mirrored in the electorate.

So we're talking about a bit past a half million, minus minors. And given that so much of this country is hostile to Jews (not partisan, I've lived here--It's a fact), Jews tend to live in areas that are less hostile. That is, mainly urban ones. I went to the Museum of the Southern Jewish Experience in Utica MS. It was, um, mainly historical, dealing with rural communities that are nothing like Memphis or Atlanta or Charleston.

Point being, how many of these hypothesized half million already live in Blue states where them swinging on some supposed Israel-based vote would not matter? If 100K Jews in NY or CA or IL or another high population blue state say, hell with you, O, well, those states are still blue. So what changes in the electoral math?

[NovaScotian]

Point being, how many of these hypothesized half million already live in Blue states where them swinging on some supposed Israel-based vote would not matter? If 100K Jews in NY or CA or IL or another high population blue state say, hell with you, O, well, those states are still blue. So what changes in the electoral math?

I think the one state they might have in mind in Florida, but the more likely explanation is that they see the pro-Israel lobby as a good fundraising resource. (see Adelson, Sheldon).

[Olympic Fan]

OK, so let's say O loses 10% of the Jewish vote. Wiki puts US Jewish pop at 5.3M. That was surprising to me. I thought it was more like 8M or 9M. I had a number of US 3%, not 2%, in my noggin. Let's assume that percentage is mirrored in the electorate.

So we're talking about a bit past a half million, minus minors. And given that so much of this country is hostile to Jews (not partisan, I've lived here--It's a fact), Jews tend to live in areas that are less hostile. That is, mainly urban ones. I went to the Museum of the Southern Jewish Experience in Utica MS. It was, um, mainly historical, dealing with rural communities that are nothing like Memphis or Atlanta or Charleston.

Point being, how many of these hypothesized half million already live in Blue states where them swinging on some supposed Israel-based vote would not matter? If 100K Jews in NY or CA or IL or another high population blue state say, hell with you, O, well, those states are still blue. So what changes in the electoral math?

There is a slight fallacy in your translation of 10 percent of the Jewish population into raw votes. No everybody in the population votes -- many are underage and while I'm not sure of the percentage of Jews that vote, I'm sure it's less than 100 percent. So instead of suggesting that Obama loses 500,000-plus votes (10 percent of the Jewish population), it's more likely 250,000 to 300,000 (10 percent of the voting population).

As noted before, many of these voters live in deep blue states that won't be impacted by a small downturn in votes. And the Jewishpopulation in the swing states is usually very small -- barely over 30,000 in North Carolina ... as many as 148,000 in Ohio. Again, cut those numbers in half you get 15,000 Jewish voters in NC, 74,000 in Ohio. 10 percent of those numbers COULD make a difference in a close election, but it would have to be awfully close.

The one exception is Florida, where 638,635 Jews should produce almost 400,000 voters (don't want to apply stereotypes, but I think a larger percentage of Jews in Florida are elderly retirees ... and they do vote). Ten percent of that vote would be close to 40,000 and that could be significant in that state.

But I'm not as sure the numbers show that Obama gets 10 percent less of the Jewish vote or that Romney gets 10 percent more. Remember, this is a poll that includes (unusually, in this election) a large number of undecided. Romney's current 24 percent is not far out of line with the 22 percent that McCain got. Do the undecideds slpit? Do they stay home on election day because they don't like either candidate? Do they mostly break for Obama or for Romney?

I think Obama will end up getting more than 65 percent of the Jewish vote, but less than the 78 percent he got in 2008. The difference could impact Florida -- which would be huge -- but I doubt it makes a significant difference in any other state.

[tommy]

Not that the debates historically have had much of an impact on the outcome of the Presidential election -- at least not in terms of helping a trailing candidate come back to win -- but still they are a high point of the campaign for many. So what do you guys think we're going to see in the first debate on Wednesday night, which is on domestic policy, and keeping in mind the rules of this thread, what would you like to see?

One issue which I'm hoping to see discussed is the Supreme Court. I haven't heard a single mention of it this entire campaign, but for me, it is a critical issue in every presidential election. We currently have four justices in their 70's, including Justice Ginsburg, who is 79 years old.

It is a set piece in every presidential debate that when the issue of Supreme Court appointments comes up, the Republican candidate says something to the effect of "I would appoint justices who understand their limited role, who are not judicial activists, who would strictly adhere to the Constitution, and who would not 'legislate from the bench.'" And the Democratic candidate says something like, "I would appoint justices who have the intellectual ability and the professional experience to handle the job, and who understand that interpretation of the Constitution has to remain relevant to our nation as it is today, not to the nation as it was in the 1700's, and ones who understand the struggles faced by so many of our citizens today." That kind of thing.

But I'd like to see the moderator ask something like this:

I'm going to ask you about the Supreme Court. I'm not going to let you get away by just saying you don't want a justice who legislates from the bench, or you want one who understands the everyday problems of people today. Instead, consider this: traditionally, it has been Republicans and their supporters who have been outspoken in protesting the decisions of judges and justices that they thought were "activist" or were "legislating from the bench." But in the minds of many legal observers, the tables have turned, and it is now the majority of the Roberts Court, primarily appointed by Republicans, which has been criticized as itself being judicial activists and of legislating from the bench. Critics point to the overturning of legislation on gun control for instance, in Chicago and Washington, D.C. They point to the invalidation of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law in the Citizens United case, which cleared the way for the incredible, unprecedented amounts of money poured into this campaign. And the invalidation of other legislation that had seemed to many to be within the purview of Congress to pass.

But then health care happened. It was widely expected that this conservative Court would invalidate that law as well, but it didn't. And the deciding vote to uphold the individual mandate which was the centerpiece of the legislation, was cast not by a liberal on the court, but by Chief Justice Roberts himself, siding with the liberals, although for different reasons.

So the question is: You're both lawyers. What do you think about what's going on at the Supreme Court? What do you think of the Roberts Court? If, in the context of responding to this question, you want to discuss the types of appointees you would consider, you may do so, but I'm not going to let you just offer up the same old platitudes on this issue that we hear every four years from the candidates. I'll cut you off if you try to do that. Go.

[blazindw]

Not that the debates historically have had much of an impact on the outcome of the Presidential election -- at least not in terms of helping a trailing candidate come back to win -- but still they are a high point of the campaign for many. So what do you guys think we're going to see in the first debate on Wednesday night, which is on domestic policy, and keeping in mind the rules of this thread, what would you like to see?

One issue which I'm hoping to see discussed is the Supreme Court. I haven't heard a single mention of it this entire campaign, but for me, it is a critical issue in every presidential election. We currently have four justices in their 70's, including Justice Ginsburg, who is 79 years old.

It is a set piece in every presidential debate that when the issue of Supreme Court appointments comes up, the Republican candidate says something to the effect of "I would appoint justices who understand their limited role, who are not judicial activists, who would strictly adhere to the Constitution, and who would not 'legislate from the bench.'" And the Democratic candidate says something like, "I would appoint justices who have the intellectual ability and the professional experience to handle the job, and who understand that interpretation of the Constitution has to remain relevant to our nation as it is today, not to the nation as it was in the 1700's, and ones who understand the struggles faced by so many of our citizens today." That kind of thing.

But I'd like to see the moderator ask something like this:

I'm going to ask you about the Supreme Court. I'm not going to let you get away by just saying you don't want a justice who legislates from the bench, or you want one who understands the everyday problems of people today. Instead, consider this: traditionally, it has been Republicans and their supporters who have been outspoken in protesting the decisions of judges and justices that they thought were "activist" or were "legislating from the bench." But in the minds of many legal observers, the tables have turned, and it is now the majority of the Roberts Court, primarily appointed by Republicans, which has been criticized as itself being judicial activists and of legislating from the bench. Critics point to the overturning of legislation on gun control for instance, in Chicago and Washington, D.C. They point to the invalidation of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law in the Citizens United case, which cleared the way for the incredible, unprecedented amounts of money poured into this campaign. And the invalidation of other legislation that had seemed to many to be within the purview of Congress to pass.

But then health care happened. It was widely expected that this conservative Court would invalidate that law as well, but it didn't. And the deciding vote to uphold the individual mandate which was the centerpiece of the legislation, was cast not by a liberal on the court, but by Chief Justice Roberts himself, siding with the liberals, although for different reasons.

So the question is: You're both lawyers. What do you think about what's going on at the Supreme Court? What do you think of the Roberts Court? If, in the context of responding to this question, you want to discuss the types of appointees you would consider, you may do so, but I'm not going to let you just offer up the same old platitudes on this issue that we hear every four years from the candidates. I'll cut you off if you try to do that. Go.

You'd probably love a Will McAvoy-moderated debate then:

[Duvall]

That is what Clinton has been out on the circuit saying. The Romney/Ryan plan, as currently espoused, has an Underpants Gnomes problem. Step 1: "Cut Taxes and Spending!", Step 2: "???", Step 3: "Profit!"

Clinton is framing this as the 'Pubs won't say what Step 2 is until AFTER you elect them -- so what is so problematic about "Step 2" that they don't want to tell us? No more mortgage interest deduction or something like that? Or are they not sure yet?

If Romney can give specifics on how the initial increase in the deficit will eventually be reduced, that could go a long way, I think. Just not sure whether that will happen or not, or if it's too late.

Well, I hope it's a better answer than this.