General Election Thread (no partisan sniping allowed!)

[Channing]

Regardless of whether certain individuals are or are not subject to this new "tax", the Obama administration went out of its way back in 2009 to emphatically claim that it was not a tax. For the DOJ to subsequently argue that angle seems disingenuous, like the administration was pulling a fast one. Had the administration referred to the mandate as a tax back when the legislation was being passed, I have my doubts as to whether it would have gone through. Roberts made clear, in no uncertain terms, the mandate could not stand on the commerce clause.

[throatybeard]

Silver's 538 site has Obama's odds of winning up to 65% with a "nowcast" of 72.7%. That represents a slight uptick in the forecast and a substantial uptick in the nowcast over the last week (note: I have no idea what the difference between the Forecast and nowcast is).

The nowcast is more now. Like Tiger was over LeBron in 2007.

[JasonEvans]

We're still a long way out, for sure. But if President Obama goes on to win re-election, we may look back on this as the moment of his Presidency in which Jimmy Chitwood stood before the town meeting and said he was ready to start playing ball again.

What an awesome analogy. I just wanted to point this out in case others had missed it.

-Jason "I gave Tom B some much deserved rep for this too!" Evans

[El_Diablo]

Yeah, there might be a kernel of something there. Since that was Sarah Palin's immediate response, I agree that this will likely be a talking point.

Okay, well since the rest of my post was redacted, I will just say that I don't see this particular talking point having much impact among independents and think that Romney will move in another direction. I guess I won't say why I think the former governor will move in another direction...but I think the tone and content of his speech earlier today is a good indication that he will try to steer the campaign towards other issues going forward. There are people on the Republican side who can stand to get more mileage out of the issue (e.g., those running for Congress), so it obviously won't go away and will require a balancing act by Romney, but I think a lot of the media commentary today--saying that Romney is "doubling down" on the issue--is extremely premature.

If a mod removes this post, please just delete my entire previous post too, because that line is taken out of context by itself and is kind of the opposite of what I was saying: that I think Romney's campaign will NOT make this a talking point in the future.

[hurleyfor3]

First two opinion polls are out. One in a swing state and one in a hard-left state. I'm guessing they'll release more state polls over the next day or so.

[hurleyfor3]

Or maybe sooner. Here's one from Kansas.

[AtlBluRew]

Regardless of whether certain individuals are or are not subject to this new "tax", the Obama administration went out of its way back in 2009 to emphatically claim that it was not a tax. For the DOJ to subsequently argue that angle seems disingenuous, like the administration was pulling a fast one. Had the administration referred to the mandate as a tax back when the legislation was being passed, I have my doubts as to whether it would have gone through. Roberts made clear, in no uncertain terms, the mandate could not stand on the commerce clause.

Winning on the basis of the mandate being a tax had to leave Obama just a little chagrined. I guess that sometimes, in order to win in court, you have to let your lawyers make arguments that are otherwise against your interest. This reminded me of the law suit filed a few years ago against Duke by Louisville, after Duke backed out of the final 3 football games of a 4-game contract, leaving Louisville to scramble to find other schools to fill the slots. Louisville sought $450,000 in damages from Duke. The contract called for damages of $150,000 per game if Louisville couldn't find another "team of similar stature." Duke's lawyers argued ... successfully ... that there could hardly be a lower threshold than a "team of similar stature" as Duke.

You have to think that at some point, the lawyers went to their principals and said, "listen, we can achieve the desired result in this case, but the way we get there might upset you a bit." And you have to think that both Obama and Duke said, "Just get me that result ... a win is a win .. and we'll deal with the route you take to get there later."

[g_olaf]

First two opinion polls are out. One in a swing state and one in a hard-left state. I'm guessing they'll release more state polls over the next day or so.

The poll results are for all three states are pretty consistent: A general sense of scepticism that the law will improve peoples health insurance, which falls upon party lines. Most interesting though is the near universal belief that insurance companies should not be allowed to deny coverage based on pre-existing conditions. It is curious that after 3 years, the administration has not been able to convince large segments of the population that you can't require insurance companies to provide coverage to anyone unless you also have an individual mandate.

[OldPhiKap]

Winning on the basis of the mandate being a tax had to leave Obama just a little chagrined. I guess that sometimes, in order to win in court, you have to let your lawyers make arguments that are otherwise against your interest. This reminded me of the law suit filed a few years ago against Duke by Louisville, after Duke backed out of the final 3 football games of a 4-game contract, leaving Louisville to scramble to find other schools to fill the slots. Louisville sought $450,000 in damages from Duke. The contract called for damages of $150,000 per game if Louisville couldn't find another "team of similar stature." Duke's lawyers argued ... successfully ... that there could hardly be a lower threshold than a "team of similar stature" as Duke.

You have to think that at some point, the lawyers went to their principals and said, "listen, we can achieve the desired result in this case, but the way we get there might upset you a bit." And you have to think that both Obama and Duke said, "Just get me that result ... a win is a win .. and we'll deal with the route you take to get there later."

I have only skimmed the opinion, but it seems to me that Roberts ruled it a tax while the other eight justices disagreed. Unless I am wrong no one joined Roberts in that part of the opinion.

[g_olaf]

I have only skimmed the opinion, but it seems to me that Roberts ruled it a tax while the other eight justices disagreed. Unless I am wrong no one joined Roberts in that part of the opinion.

Sotomayor, Kegan, Ginsburg and Breyer argued that the ACA is constitutional under either (both) the commerce clause or by congresses authority to tax. Roberts rejected the commerce clause argument but accepted the tax argument. The other 4 rejected both arguments.

[OldPhiKap]

Sotomayor, Kegan, Ginsburg and Breyer argued that the ACA is constitutional under either (both) the commerce clause or by congresses authority to tax. Roberts rejected the commerce clause argument but accepted the tax argument. The other 4 rejected both arguments.

Good to know. Thanks.

[Olympic Fan]

I don't want to get into a debate about who deserves credit for this ( think that would be treading on forbidden PPP territory), only to wonder who will be rewarded at the voting booth if gasoline is going for less than $3 a gallon on Election Day -- as experts are now forecasting?

http://www.inquisitr.com/260999/gas-...-by-halloween/

Gas prices have dropped nine straight weeks ... the average price in South Carolina is already under $3

[JasonEvans]

I don't want to get into a debate about who deserves credit for this ( think that would be treading on forbidden PPP territory), only to wonder who will be rewarded at the voting booth if gasoline is going for less than $3 a gallon on Election Day -- as experts are now forecasting?

http://www.inquisitr.com/260999/gas-...-by-halloween/

Gas prices have dropped nine straight weeks ... the average price in South Carolina is already under $3

How can there even be a debate about who would be rewarded for it? I can see no way Romney would benefit from it, aside from having to pay a bit less to fill up his campaign cars

The question really is, would cheaper gas influence swing voters to vote for Obama? I can certainly see Obama saying in speeches and debates, "our policies have brought the price of gas down to the lowest level we have seen in several years. That puts more money in the pocket of every American..."

I dunno how many people will believe him and give him credit for the decline, but you can bet it would be a point he would try to make. He's gotta cling to anything he can that speaks to how he is helping people's wallets.

-Jason "it is shaping up as a close election -- I think the debates will be key" Evans

[throatybeard]

How can there even be a debate about who would be rewarded for it? I can see no way Romney would benefit from it, aside from having to pay a bit less to fill up his campaign cars

The question really is, would cheaper gas influence swing voters to vote for Obama? I can certainly see Obama saying in speeches and debates, "our policies have brought the price of gas down to the lowest level we have seen in several years. That puts more money in the pocket of every American..."

I dunno how many people will believe him and give him credit for the decline, but you can bet it would be a point he would try to make. He's gotta cling to anything he can that speaks to how he is helping people's wallets.

-Jason "it is shaping up as a close election -- I think the debates will be key" Evans

I think Obama is too smart to try to take credit for it, because he knows the next time some unforseen craziness erupts in an OPEC nation, it could spike again. Indeed, falling energy prices could be a real problem for him, insofar as they could indicate a global slowdown.

[sagegrouse]

The question really is, would cheaper gas influence swing voters to vote for Obama? I can certainly see Obama saying in speeches and debates, "our policies have brought the price of gas down to the lowest level we have seen in several years. That puts more money in the pocket of every American..."

Since the Republicans were so eager to bludgeon Obama for $4.50 gasoline, having gasoline prices 25 percent lower is certainly an aid to the President. And it is a nice lead-in to Obama's message on increased oil and gas production in the US, even though there is little short-term connection between domestic productiona nd what is a world price.

sagegrouse

[Reilly]

http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/

[Olympic Fan]

http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/

Wow ... that's an amazing breakdown of North Carolina. Every part of the state -- Charlotte, Triad and the "rest" has exactly the same 48-52 Democratic/Republican breakdown (at least in 2008) ... except the Triangle (where I live) which is wildly Democratic (58-42).

The question is why is the Triangle so much out of line with the rest of the state? I don't think it's racial -- Charlotte and the Triad have similar racial breakdowns.

Why is the Triangle a Democratic stronghold in a Republican state?

[OldPhiKap]

Why is the Triangle a Democratic stronghold in a Republican state?

Damn Yankees. (In that, "Yankees" are people from the North, and "Damn Yankees" are people from the North who stay. And I say this as a guy born and raised in CT).

[Wander]

Why is the Triangle a Democratic stronghold in a Republican state?

Well, university towns are typically more blue than otherwise similar cities, and the Triangle is basically a big university city, right?

Since the Republicans were so eager to bludgeon Obama for $4.50 gasoline, having gasoline prices 25 percent lower is certainly an aid to the President.

I think this is astute. It's sort of like one political aspect of the Osama killing. Maybe more important that Obama being able to brag about it is the fact that it takes a huge weapon out of the Republican arsenal - being able to complain that the current administration is too soft on terrorism (and maybe even foreign policy in general). Maybe the gas prices don't help directly, but expensive costs are now less attack he'll have to refute.

[wncgrad]

Having universities and colleges is significant. In Western NC Obama carried only three counties last election--the ones where Western Carolina University, UNC Asheville and Appalachian State University are!
In Durham political ogranization is significant. The Durham Committee for the Affairs of Black People was organized in the 1930s. They have a long, long tradition of strength and delivering the votes from School Board to President.
Raleigh, as the seat of state government, was a Democratic stronghold until the influx of new residents from outside the state who were and are attracted in large part because of the research and entreprenural base of research in the area. Now that the Republicans have controlled the legislature for the first time in a century and have a demonstrated voting record and somewhat quite visible chaotic means of operation, it will be very interesting to see how local votes go in the next election. Will there be a backlash? Another indication of local change is reflected in a recent article in the NYTimes about "the Research Triangle which consists of Raleigh, Durham, Chapel Hill and Cary"! What kind of triangle is that? Also the oft used census statistical area consists of five counties I believe.
It all adds up.