2012 Electoral Map; My Prediction

I've looked at the polls and I've decided that I'm going to go with my gut on a few picks. First I think that that Florida, North Carolina, and Virginia go red. Florida is the state that Romney really needs, and he'll get it earlier in the night than most people think. North Carolina is red. 2008 was sooooo 2008. It's red again this year, along with Virginia.

New Hampshire goes red because Romney is in solid shape there. I wouldn't have expected this a month ago, but I'm cautiously optimistic for New Hampshire. Colorado goes red, because it's razor thin in the polling, and it's been moving Romney's way in the last month.

So, to count electoral votes at this point, I've got Romney 261, Obama 223. The remaining states are Iowa, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Wisconsin. Since Romney needs 9, Iowa becomes irrelevant.

Romney wins one of the remaining three, or Obama wins all three, and it's game over. I know that lots of really optimistic GOP folks are saying Pennsylvania is going red this year, but I'm not buying. PA is blue. Just to go for the unexpected, I'm going to say that Obama gets Ohio and Romney pulls a surprise and takes the Badger state to go over the top.

Final Score: Romney 271; Obama 267.

Here's my map. Am I crazy? Or crazy like a fox?

Post Debate Thoughts

Don't worry, unlike some celebrities, there are no curse words here. (I used all mine up last Saturday anyway.) The debates were pretty interesting when viewed in the context of each other. The final debate was most interesting as to what the candidates thought about the state of the race.

First a little recap. In the first debate, Romney came out hard, attacking, playing the prosecutor. At the same time, Obama thought he could just show up, recite his stump speech and win. Alas, it was not to be.

The first debate showed two things. One, Romney wasn't the evil guy that all the attack ads made him out to be. He actually had a plan for the future, and he could explain it. Two, Obama just didn't have the fire that he did four years ago. He was just "checking the box" of the debate, and his plan is to continue with "investing" in roads, bridges, and the same stuff he's been saying for four years. Romney ate his lunch, and everyone knew it. Well, almost everyone.

I think that Obama was playing a prevent defense too early. He knew he had a good lead in some important swing states, and he was simply going to show up, recite his stump speech, not make any major errors, and keep the election on it's current trajectory. As John Madden once said, "All a prevent defense does is prevent you from winning." That's exactly what happened. Romney scored touchdowns, and Obama wasn't even trying to play offense.

The second debate was what everyone thought the first debate was going to be. Both candidates came out of the gate hard, challenged each other, and at one point, I actually thought they were going to start hitting each other with the cordless microphones. Obama to his credit, responded well, showing that he still wanted the job. The energy debate centered on who was more in favor of drilling, which must have driven the environmentalists insane. In any event, basically a tie. However, the damage had been done in the first debate. The people who tuned in for the first debate had formed their impression. Relevant quote for this debate: "You never get a second chance to make a first impression."

The final debate was on foreign policy. Or at least it was supposed to be. At a few points in the debate, both candidates decided that they were just going to talk about domestic policy. Bob Sheiffer decided that he wasn't going to interrupt and get them back on the topic of foreign policy (or maybe he fell asleep) and the candidates talked about domestic policy for at least 10 minutes each in a 90 minute debate. Oh well, when the economy and domestic policy is as important as it is this election cycle, there aren't many votes to be had going into detail about foreign policy. Just kill the bad guys, which both candidates are in favor of.

Very differently than before, though, Romney came across as not the prosecutor, but the calm guy who was reasonable. He wasn't going to be the "Cowboy" President, unlike that last Republican in the White House. Romney agreed with Obama more in 90 minutes than he did in the entire campaign. Romney didn't attack Obama when given chances. On the contrary, Obama attacked Romney. All I can take away from this is that Obama thought he was behind (which he is) and Romney thought he was ahead (which he is). It was just the flip side of the first debate. The question is, does Romney's prevent defense work at this point, or does the Romney momentum fade too soon?

Ultimately: Most people voted for Obama last time. Why? Remember where we were four years ago? The outgoing Republican incumbent was toxic, and Obama was such a great story. It was a great combination that created a tidal wave of support. The landscape today couldn't be more different. The economy has been mired in the doldrums for four years, and the inspirational candidate from four years ago isn't here. This version of Obama is petty and condescending.

People desperately want the economy to get better, and they have a binary choice: Government continues to try and solve the problem, or government gets out of the way. We'll know in a few weeks. It's going to get more intense before then, so brace yourself - especially if you live in a swing state.

Obama Thought He Won the First Debate

If you watched the first presidential debate between President Obama and Mr. Romney (and you weren't totally in denial) it was clear that Mr. Romney got the better of President Obama. And when I say "clear", I mean, 72% to 20%. That's a Clemson vs. West Virginia in the Orange Bowl kind of win. Which leads into this: When Obama walked off the stage after the debate, he thought he had won.

Here's my take: If the President didn't prepare for the debate, slacked off playing golf because he thought he was going to win, that's one thing. It's overconfidence, and it can be forgiven. It's easy to see why he thought he was going to win. Everyone around him for the last four years has been telling him how great he is, how awesome he is, how he's the smartest guy around. So it's understandable that this happened:

'President Obama made it clear he wanted to be doing anything else - anything - but debate prep,' the Democrat said. 'He kept breaking off whenever he got the opportunity and never really focused on the event.

 But here's the thing that is more problematic than laziness/overconfidence:

 Obama believed he had actually won.

It's one thing to not study for the test because you think you're going to ace it. It's one thing not to practice hard before a big football game because you're playing a school from a lower division. However, if you flunk the test and lose the football game, you have a much bigger problem than laziness/overconfidence - you're out of touch with reality and/or you're so incompetent that you don't even recognize what competence looks like.

I don't want a lazy president, but hey, it happens. What I really don't want is a president who can't tell when he's just gotten his butt kicked.

Facts Matter

Here's an e-mail exchange I had with a dear friend of mine today. He lives up North, but he can tie a bow tie.

Friend: Oh, Mitt,why are you sinking yourself with your stupid comments?

Me: It’s the facts – not the daily news cycles that determine elections.

Friend: HAHA, do you really believe that?

I thought about that. Do I really believe that? Am I being naive? There has been so much about "fact-checking" in this election. I really hadn't even heard of a "fact check" style of article until this election season. Now, fact-checkers are ubiquitous. After every major debate, speech, or campaign commercial, there are legions of fact checkers out there to tell us what is a fact and what is not. There are even fact-checkers for the fact checkers. But, Quis custodiet ipsos custodes, right?

So...do facts even matter? Is all this fact-checking an exercise in futility? Do I really believe that people will look at "Facts" when they vote this year? I guess the answer is: I hope so.

Here's what I think...

Obama...Bless His Heart

Mitt Romney just dropped a big ol' Southern-style "Bless his heart" on Obama. Honestly, I'm not sure that the rules of procedure allow someone from Michigan to use such a Southern expression. However, until I find a definitive case on point, I'll allow it.

In any event, I believe the appropriate responsive pleading to "Bless your heart" is: "He hasn't got the sense God gave a goose".

I would pay good money to hear Obama say that.

Robin Hood Explained

If you've been following politics lately, you may have noticed that the political campaign for the President of the United States of America has devolved into name-calling. The current President has called his opponent "Romney Hood", and the response has been that this is "Obamaloney".

Leaving that aside, there's a huge error here, and I want to take a moment to correct the record on Robin Hood.

The presidential race is a dirty, negative affair, and I don't want to see a celebrated figure like Robin Hood tarnished. For some background on this, Obama said that Romeny's policy was to raise taxes on lower income earners to offset the lowering of taxes on higher income earners. This taking from the poor and giving to the rich, Obama said, was "Robin Hood in reverse" ergo, "Romeny Hood". Let's leave the politics out of it and focus on Robin Hood.

Robin Hood didn't take money from the rich people and give the money to the poor people. That's not what happened at all.

Does anyone remember who Robin Hood's enemy was? It wasn't rich landowners, or nobles, it was The Sheriff of Nottingham. The Sheriff, as the official agent of the government, was levying extreme taxes on the people of Nottingham in order to enrich himself and expand his power. Robin Hood repeatedly fought the Sheriff's men (i.e. government tax collectors) and he stole the tax money, then gave it back to the people who were taxed so highly to begin with.

Robin Hood didn't steal private property from the rich landowners to give to the poor; he stole tax money from the government and gave it back the poor people who couldn't afford to be taxed that much.

I just wanted to clear that up for our President, since he appears to be a little fuzzy on the whole Robin Hood story.

Early General Election Thoughts

As a starting point, Obama's approval is still slightly below 50% (around 47.3% when you average out all the polls). That's not going to be easy to overcome. Over half of the people are not happy with the job he's doing. That's not a good thing for any incumbent.

The real fight in this election is going to be the competition to "define" what kind of economy we are going to have going forward. Obama is going to make the "don't go back to Bush" pitch, and Romney will hammer away at the fact that the last three years has been a huge spending spree with little to show for it.

On the actual issue of who can get to 270, I think Obama has a tough climb this November. Looking at the map that he won in 2008, I'm struck by a couple of things:

1. I don't see Obama taking North Carolina or Virginia in 2012. He rode a huge wave of voters in 2008 and flipped these two states which normally go red. I think both NC and VA go red this time.
2. Same thing with Indiana and Iowa. Obama carried them in 2008, but he won't have them this time. Flip those two states back to red.
3. Assuming that all the other states stay the same as in 2008, the race comes down to the usual suspects of Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. If Florida breaks red, then Obama HAS to take both Ohio and PA.
4. Finally, the real interesting question (for me anyway) is: Can Romney expand the red to the Northeast? He's got a very strong supporter in NJ in Christie, he could possibly pull NH, and there's rumblings that CT could possibly be in play. If Romney starts making Obama play defense in the Northeast, it's going to be a very long election night for Team Obama. Pulling NJ's electoral votes red makes it hard for Obama to get to 270. And if you assume that NJ goes red, you're probably assuming that OH and PA are either red or very close.

Ultimately, I think this is going to be a very close race. I don't see the same type of voter turnout as 2008, when there was a huge anti-Bush wave that came together with the ability to vote for the first black president. Regardless of what happens between now and November, you won't have that same amount of excitement on the Democrat side. Romney has gone through one of the toughest primary fights ever, and he's going to be a disciplined candidate.

The economy isn't going to "turn" between now and November. It is what it is...GDP is just barely limping along, unemployment is still a problem, and there is an ocean of debt. None of that is going to change between now and November. It can't. The economy just can't change that quickly, and the debt is only going to get worse.

And if the Supreme Court strikes down Obamacare, it's going to be a black eye for Obama. Basically, he's done two things in office: (1) The Stimulus - it didn't work as promised. (2) Obamacare - ruled unconstitutional.

I'm not a campaign consultant, but hell...I could make a bumper-sticker for that. "Obama has done two things in office. One didn't work and the other was unconstitutional."

Ouch.

Emergency Action Message to GOP

Did Gingrich really just say he would subpoena SCOTUS Justices to have them "explain themselves" to Congress, and that the President and Congress get a "veto" of opinions they don't agree with? It sounds like the "historian" needs to read the Federalist Papers:

Whoever attentively considers the different departments of power must perceive, that, in a government in which they are separated from each other, the judiciary, from the nature of its functions, will always be the least dangerous to the political rights of the Constitution; because it will be least in a capacity to annoy or injure them. The Executive not only dispenses the honors, but holds the sword of the community. The legislature not only commands the purse, but prescribes the rules by which the duties and rights of every citizen are to be regulated. The judiciary, on the contrary, has no influence over either the sword or the purse; no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the society; and can take no active resolution whatever. It may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of its judgments.

As far as Jackson ignoring the Supreme Court is concerned: He was wrong to do so, and he later changed his mind on the issue when the politics suited him. Lincoln ignoring Ex parte Merryman  was also wrong in hindsight. Gingrich is saying really stupid sounding things, and the only think I can guess is that he's hoping to win over the "I hate the lawyers" vote. Great.

And Romney is just the guy who says anything he needs to get elected. (Sound familiar?)

Hey GOP, the Iowa caucuses are just around the corner, and you still have some things need to be taken care of.

Don't make me force you to come in to work on a Saturday.

Nikki Haley Endorses Romney

Nikki Haley puts herself on Team Romney. I'm only mildly surprised at this. I didn't see her supporting Perry, and Bachmann, who I think is the natural inclination is too far out of the race. It always helps to support the eventual winner.