There. I've done it again. I've implied a relationship between two ideas that seem peripherally related at best, because I am not talking about Sarah Palin's personal income. But these two topics are related, and have a significant effect on John McCain's campaign.
(1) Let's take Sarah Palin first. She graduated (as Sarah Heath) from the University of Idaho with a B.S. in Journalism a little more than 20 years ago. Those of you who know me also know that I taught at UI from 1970 to 2002, but, no, I didn't know her. Most of that time I was deaning on the graduate level, and she wasn't a student in the few undergraduate courses I asked to teach.
Palin is conservative in most areas, including economics, religion, and gun rights. She will be an asset to the Republican ticket in her appeal to any still-disgruntled Hillary supporters. Whether she will actually win any of them over is to be determined. Like Joe Biden with Delaware, she does not add her home state to her party's electoral votes, since both Delaware and Alaska were expected to go Democratic and Republican respectively anyway.
Republican advisors to McCain must have sized up Hillary's supporters as being very vulnerable to desert the Democratic party despite Obama's courting of them. On that basis, they seem to have decided to do everything possible to convince disaffected HRC supporters to cross over on November 4 to vote for a woman as vice president. And that tactic may work to some extent.
But here's the big question, and it's one the Democrats may have to imply rather than ask directly, depending on how nasty or nice the rest of the campaign gets. Given McCain's increasing emotional and mental debilities, is she ready to become president at a moment's notice? "At 3 a.m.?" as Hillary might ask.
And, yes, I said "debilities." Perhaps he will shed that image at the Republican convention, but right now he fluctuates between appearing almost on top of whatever he's talking about, and appearing borderline bewildered. He is a poor public speaker, so I'm really interested to see how he does with his acceptance speech. His impulsiveness behind the scenes is now pretty well publicized.
On balance, as a female and a conservative, Sarah Palin probably helps the Republican ticket marinally by securing its base a bit more and potentially gaining some women's votes. Younger than Obama, and with McCain's age an issue, however, Palin does not seem to help it in that area, especially given her own lack of governmental experience. I don't know what kind of speaker she is, but the one debate between her and Joe Biden should be fun to watch, the young conservative and the old moderate.
(2) Personal income is a major issue. Heck, the economy is a major issue. Only in part because of the expiration of the stimulus checks, personal income fell in July by the biggest drop in three years, after moving up strongly during the time that the stimulus checks were distributed. It appears (according to AP and CNN reports) that much of the additional income from the stimulus went to pay for gas and food, the two major items whose costs increased greatly during the last year (from Mark Vitner, senior economst at Wachovia).
And now how the two topics in this post are actually related: I think John McCain did well NOT to choose Mitt Romney (for all the reasons I've discussed in previous posts), whose alleged economic savvy would have helped McCain in that area. The economy is in much deeper trouble than the administration, or Republicans in general, are willing to admit, and Barack Obama has the golden opportunity to tap into that unrest among millions of Americans. Whether he will succeed is another matter. Three major battleground states--Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Michigan--will be reflecting the economic problems in the country. Will their voters reflect their unhappiness with eight years of Republican economic mismanagement? Although Obama's speech last night I thought was masterful in its balance of attacks on Republican policies and its proposals of positive change for middle- and lower-economic-class Americans, I am still concerned about latent racism among some number of the electorate. Pennsylvania has already shown some of that latent racism in the exit polls during the Democratic primary; I saw Ohio's sometimes-NOT-so-latent racism when I lived there while in graduate school in the 1960s. Have Ohio's attitudes changed in forty years? I hope so.
-- triton --
Showing posts with label Mitt Romney. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Mitt Romney. Show all posts
Friday, August 29, 2008
Friday, August 8, 2008
#53 The Rust Belt and Romney
Today's forbes.com has the following article about the declining economy in the Rust Belt. The article implicitly coincides with my earlier point about why Mitt Romney's presence on the Republican ticket as VP won't help McCain win the presidency (by winning Michigan's electoral votes): the economy is worst in the industrial midwest, and not likely to improve in the foreseeable future.
Ironically, however, the very problems created during dubya's administration may turn out to be John McCain's salvation in the industrial midwest: the economy is SO bad that people have been moving away from the area, and hence won't be there to vote in November for change that will help their cities.
Here's Jonathan Zumbrun's article, excerpted for this post:
"Where's it worst? Ohio, according to our analysis, which racked up four of the 10 cities on our list: Youngstown, Canton, Dayton and Cleveland. The runner-up is Michigan, with two cities--Detroit and Flint--making the ranking. These, and four other metropolitan statistical areas, as defined by the U.S. Census Bureau, face fleeing populations, painful waves of unemployment and barely growing economies. By our measure, they've struggled the worst of any areas in the nation in the 21st century. And they face even bleaker futures...."
"Another brutal statistic all the cities share is a diminishing population. So far this decade, 115,000 people have left Cleveland, for other climes. Smaller changes in other regions can be just as painful. Nearly 30,000 people have left Youngstown, Ohio, and they aren't being replaced by either new babies or new immigrants...."
"The worst news is, of course, economic. When we looked at the most recent gross domestic product estimates for 155 metropolitan statistical areas estimated to have $10 billion or more GDP in 2005--economies about the size of Asheville, N.C., or Tallahassee, Fla.--the news was predictably terrible for the Rust Belt."
"In the fall of 2007, the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) published its GDP estimates from 2001 to 2005. Nearly every city in the country grew during this period (New Orleans, devastated from Hurricane Katrina, was the notable exception), but the struggling cities on our list grew more sluggishly. None of them grew more than 1.9% a year, versus a nationwide average of 2.7%. Canton, Ohio, managed to grow its economy just 0.7% annually. Flint was worse still at 0.4%."
"None of these cities now face the huge declines in real estate prices seen by Phoenix, Miami or Las Vegas, where the Case-Shiller Home Price Index shows nearly 30% declines from a year ago. Detroit is off only about 15%, Cleveland only 8%. Don't call it a bright spot. Prices never went up in the first place."
-- triton --
Ironically, however, the very problems created during dubya's administration may turn out to be John McCain's salvation in the industrial midwest: the economy is SO bad that people have been moving away from the area, and hence won't be there to vote in November for change that will help their cities.
Here's Jonathan Zumbrun's article, excerpted for this post:
"Where's it worst? Ohio, according to our analysis, which racked up four of the 10 cities on our list: Youngstown, Canton, Dayton and Cleveland. The runner-up is Michigan, with two cities--Detroit and Flint--making the ranking. These, and four other metropolitan statistical areas, as defined by the U.S. Census Bureau, face fleeing populations, painful waves of unemployment and barely growing economies. By our measure, they've struggled the worst of any areas in the nation in the 21st century. And they face even bleaker futures...."
"Another brutal statistic all the cities share is a diminishing population. So far this decade, 115,000 people have left Cleveland, for other climes. Smaller changes in other regions can be just as painful. Nearly 30,000 people have left Youngstown, Ohio, and they aren't being replaced by either new babies or new immigrants...."
"The worst news is, of course, economic. When we looked at the most recent gross domestic product estimates for 155 metropolitan statistical areas estimated to have $10 billion or more GDP in 2005--economies about the size of Asheville, N.C., or Tallahassee, Fla.--the news was predictably terrible for the Rust Belt."
"In the fall of 2007, the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) published its GDP estimates from 2001 to 2005. Nearly every city in the country grew during this period (New Orleans, devastated from Hurricane Katrina, was the notable exception), but the struggling cities on our list grew more sluggishly. None of them grew more than 1.9% a year, versus a nationwide average of 2.7%. Canton, Ohio, managed to grow its economy just 0.7% annually. Flint was worse still at 0.4%."
"None of these cities now face the huge declines in real estate prices seen by Phoenix, Miami or Las Vegas, where the Case-Shiller Home Price Index shows nearly 30% declines from a year ago. Detroit is off only about 15%, Cleveland only 8%. Don't call it a bright spot. Prices never went up in the first place."
-- triton --
Thursday, August 7, 2008
#52 The Second of Two Posts: The Media's Conservative Bias
I know that some folk will argue that the media are liberally biased, and favor Barack Obama by giving him more face time, more complimentary stories. I don't buy that. I see the media as having an increasingly strong conservative bias.
I'm not just talking about Rush Limbaugh or other radical right-wing talkers, though Rush (as those of us who don't know him call him) is of course a prime example. I'm talking about the lack of success of liberal talk shows (Al Franken's, anyone?) whose audience has been sufficiently small that liberal talk radio's number of markets has decreased noticeably in recent months. Of course, that's the result of "market forces," but it doesn't change the nature of the argument. There are more--many more--hosts spouting the conservative mantra in the media than there are liberals, or even moderates.
Glenn Beck appears daily on, of all networks(!), CNN Headline News. I watch his show occasionally. At least, until what he says makes my blood pressure rise to untenable levels. The fact is, I agree with some of the things he says, but I'm very much put off by his frequent nastiness. Tonight, for example, he had an ad on about his now appearing on YOUR cell phone. Well, okay, not on mine. I don't have video, and I don't keep my cell phone on anyway. But he has select ringtones that (I suppose) people can download or buy or whatever one does with ringtones, and one of them (he indicated) says, "I smell a liberal calling!"
That may be his attempt at humor. But even as a joke, it's not funny. It's just silly and sophomoric, though I admit that I had to suppress a smile when I first heard it.
But when you add the Glenn Becks of the media to the ENTIRE fox network, and combine their conservative ranting with the fact that other networks generally do NOT editorialize within alleged news shows (as fox does), then you get a pretty heavy dose of anti-Obama "news" and commentary. Note that I did not say, "pro-McCain." I find it significant that the editorialists, even when parading under the guise of news reporters, have more negative things to say about Obama than positive things to say about McCain.
I am concerned that the weight of such anti-Obama comments will eventually takes its toll, the precise hope of the far-right commentators, and that people on the fence will fall over into the McCain camp, in order to cast a vote against what Obama allegedly stands for (as alleged by the conservative media). Obama cannot afford to be answering his many critics all the time, and so far I think he's found a pretty good balance between answering them and providing the positive information about his own ideas for change in America.
Obama needs to continue doing so.
On another (though always related) topic, I think that Minnesota governor Tim Pawlenty, my favorite choice for the Republican VP slot, has intentionally or unintentionally removed himself from consideration by John McCain. Yesterday Pawlenty said--out loud, in public, for everyone to hear--that in this campaign the Republicans should adopt the more positive tone that Senator Barack Obama has adopted. Pawlenty did not say that McCain was being negative (though McCain's ads, probably under the guidance of the Evil Karl Rove, have been very negative).
With Pawlenty likely out of the running (will McCain surprise everyone and pick him anyway for his legitimate conservative credentials?), Mitt Romney may have the upper hand as the VP choice. I've already discussed why he would be a weak choice for McCain (he won't bring Michigan, but he will bring Idaho and Utah, which have no chance of NOT going Republican anyway). I see only one "positive" to Romney's being selected: that he can adopt McCain's negative campaigning by being the attack dog against Obama; and John McCain can try to elevate himself to a higher level than he has been on so far. I actually don't think McCain is in sufficient control of his own emotions to carry it off.
-- triton --
I'm not just talking about Rush Limbaugh or other radical right-wing talkers, though Rush (as those of us who don't know him call him) is of course a prime example. I'm talking about the lack of success of liberal talk shows (Al Franken's, anyone?) whose audience has been sufficiently small that liberal talk radio's number of markets has decreased noticeably in recent months. Of course, that's the result of "market forces," but it doesn't change the nature of the argument. There are more--many more--hosts spouting the conservative mantra in the media than there are liberals, or even moderates.
Glenn Beck appears daily on, of all networks(!), CNN Headline News. I watch his show occasionally. At least, until what he says makes my blood pressure rise to untenable levels. The fact is, I agree with some of the things he says, but I'm very much put off by his frequent nastiness. Tonight, for example, he had an ad on about his now appearing on YOUR cell phone. Well, okay, not on mine. I don't have video, and I don't keep my cell phone on anyway. But he has select ringtones that (I suppose) people can download or buy or whatever one does with ringtones, and one of them (he indicated) says, "I smell a liberal calling!"
That may be his attempt at humor. But even as a joke, it's not funny. It's just silly and sophomoric, though I admit that I had to suppress a smile when I first heard it.
But when you add the Glenn Becks of the media to the ENTIRE fox network, and combine their conservative ranting with the fact that other networks generally do NOT editorialize within alleged news shows (as fox does), then you get a pretty heavy dose of anti-Obama "news" and commentary. Note that I did not say, "pro-McCain." I find it significant that the editorialists, even when parading under the guise of news reporters, have more negative things to say about Obama than positive things to say about McCain.
I am concerned that the weight of such anti-Obama comments will eventually takes its toll, the precise hope of the far-right commentators, and that people on the fence will fall over into the McCain camp, in order to cast a vote against what Obama allegedly stands for (as alleged by the conservative media). Obama cannot afford to be answering his many critics all the time, and so far I think he's found a pretty good balance between answering them and providing the positive information about his own ideas for change in America.
Obama needs to continue doing so.
On another (though always related) topic, I think that Minnesota governor Tim Pawlenty, my favorite choice for the Republican VP slot, has intentionally or unintentionally removed himself from consideration by John McCain. Yesterday Pawlenty said--out loud, in public, for everyone to hear--that in this campaign the Republicans should adopt the more positive tone that Senator Barack Obama has adopted. Pawlenty did not say that McCain was being negative (though McCain's ads, probably under the guidance of the Evil Karl Rove, have been very negative).
With Pawlenty likely out of the running (will McCain surprise everyone and pick him anyway for his legitimate conservative credentials?), Mitt Romney may have the upper hand as the VP choice. I've already discussed why he would be a weak choice for McCain (he won't bring Michigan, but he will bring Idaho and Utah, which have no chance of NOT going Republican anyway). I see only one "positive" to Romney's being selected: that he can adopt McCain's negative campaigning by being the attack dog against Obama; and John McCain can try to elevate himself to a higher level than he has been on so far. I actually don't think McCain is in sufficient control of his own emotions to carry it off.
-- triton --
Tuesday, July 22, 2008
#43 Everyone's Top Five Lists
John McCain has allowed his list of Top Five potential VP candidates to hit the tube. I still think Romney (the alleged favorite) isn't a good choice, and Pawlenty is. Both are on his list.
Barack Obama has his Top Five contenders as well, and Jim Webb is not on it. Pity. Of course, Webb's indication that he isn't interested may have had something to do with his being omitted. The Democrats need to chat with him about becoming interested.
Interesting that Evan Bayh is on the list. Remember how I discussed Senator Bayh and could NOT let go of him, since he LOOKED so vice-presidential even though one has difficulty determining where he'll stand on an issue. A political problem if Bayh were on the ticket and actually became VP is that the governor of Indiana is a Republican and would appoint a Republican to replace Bayh in the senate. The Democrats may not be able to afford to lose a seat through appointment.
Joe Biden is also on Obama's short list, as is Sam Nunn. They're both good guys, though Biden ran into some "plagiarism" accusations years and years ago.
But the key point in all this is that McCain is trying to take some of the headlines away from Obama's trip abroad. If McCain actually announces before the Democratic convention who his VP choice is, he deserves on that basis alone (not including his positions on the issues) to lose the election: it would be a really not-smart thing to do.
As I said in post #10 on February 26, "If his advisors are thinking ahead, John McCain will not announce his VP candidate until just before or early in the Republican convention; that is, AFTER the Democratic convention. That way, the Republicans can see whom the Democrats nominate for VP, and then adjust their own choice accordingly."
But can the impetuous and impatient McCain hold on...hold on...hold on...and NOT open his mouth to make an announcement within the next month?
-- triton --
Barack Obama has his Top Five contenders as well, and Jim Webb is not on it. Pity. Of course, Webb's indication that he isn't interested may have had something to do with his being omitted. The Democrats need to chat with him about becoming interested.
Interesting that Evan Bayh is on the list. Remember how I discussed Senator Bayh and could NOT let go of him, since he LOOKED so vice-presidential even though one has difficulty determining where he'll stand on an issue. A political problem if Bayh were on the ticket and actually became VP is that the governor of Indiana is a Republican and would appoint a Republican to replace Bayh in the senate. The Democrats may not be able to afford to lose a seat through appointment.
Joe Biden is also on Obama's short list, as is Sam Nunn. They're both good guys, though Biden ran into some "plagiarism" accusations years and years ago.
But the key point in all this is that McCain is trying to take some of the headlines away from Obama's trip abroad. If McCain actually announces before the Democratic convention who his VP choice is, he deserves on that basis alone (not including his positions on the issues) to lose the election: it would be a really not-smart thing to do.
As I said in post #10 on February 26, "If his advisors are thinking ahead, John McCain will not announce his VP candidate until just before or early in the Republican convention; that is, AFTER the Democratic convention. That way, the Republicans can see whom the Democrats nominate for VP, and then adjust their own choice accordingly."
But can the impetuous and impatient McCain hold on...hold on...hold on...and NOT open his mouth to make an announcement within the next month?
-- triton --
Sunday, July 20, 2008
#42 The Mine-Shaft Gap, revisited
But first, a follow-up on Mitt Romney--if John McCain chooses him to be the VP running mate on the Republican ticket--helping to carry Michigan for the Republicans in November: I said previously that Michigan's economy will likely preclude that state going Republican. Here's Adam Wiederman's take on that state's economy in his online column today (July 20) about retirement investments and home equity:
"And home equity? Not a chance. In fact, the job market in Detroit is so soft that the city has been dubbed 'the foreclosure capital of the U.S.' "
Now, today's title. Some of you may have recognized the allusion. During the Cold War, everyone was talking about the "Missile Gap." In "Dr. Strangelove," George C. Scott's character (General Buck Turgidson) was apoplectic about the "Mine-Shaft Gap," the Russians having dug more mine-shafts than the Americans.
Well, an article on July 19 discussed John McCain's preference for town hall meetings (some of which were targeted to undecided voters) to Barack Obama's preference for larger, less informal gatherings. The article's key statement: "In any given period, McCain usually takes more questions from voters than does Obama, either in town halls or other forums."
And so I have to add that this election process has opened up the “questions-from-voters-in-town-hall-meetings gap.”
[triton's note: we have GOT to get something real for the press to write about!]
-- triton --
"And home equity? Not a chance. In fact, the job market in Detroit is so soft that the city has been dubbed 'the foreclosure capital of the U.S.' "
Now, today's title. Some of you may have recognized the allusion. During the Cold War, everyone was talking about the "Missile Gap." In "Dr. Strangelove," George C. Scott's character (General Buck Turgidson) was apoplectic about the "Mine-Shaft Gap," the Russians having dug more mine-shafts than the Americans.
Well, an article on July 19 discussed John McCain's preference for town hall meetings (some of which were targeted to undecided voters) to Barack Obama's preference for larger, less informal gatherings. The article's key statement: "In any given period, McCain usually takes more questions from voters than does Obama, either in town halls or other forums."
And so I have to add that this election process has opened up the “questions-from-voters-in-town-hall-meetings gap.”
[triton's note: we have GOT to get something real for the press to write about!]
-- triton --
Thursday, July 17, 2008
#40 Mitt Romney and a puddle of brown gravy
In post #13, on March 16, I wrote about the Dow Jones Utilities average possibly serving as an indicator of a stock market crash, particularly if it dropped below the 474 level. I was quoting an online technical analyst, but since that time the DJU moved up strongly to above the 520 level. Yet, the rest of the market plummeted, at one point recently to under 11,000 on the Dow Jones Industrial average. Well, now, in the last week or so the DJU has plunged to under 489.
This is NOT to say that it will continue to decline or that it will drop below 474. But IF it does, we can expect a further decline in the broader market, perhaps just in time for, or a short time after, the Democratic convention in late August and the Republican convention in early September. And, indeed, today's financial news indicates strong agreement that today's rally is to be shortlived. Last year I predicted that the Dow would drop below 10,000 in 2008. Unfortunately for all the pain that would cause good folk, I still think it's possible.
Not that the Democrats are hoping for a big stock market drop, but that kind of stock action could bode well for them, since the crash would possibly occur under a dubya administration and just before the election. If the DJUtilities Average closes below about 474, it will have broken down out of its technical pattern, and could test the 471 it hit in late August 2007. If it drops below that level, its next major test areas are in the 450 range, then the 420 range, and, going back to March 2006 and November/December 2005, the 390 range. I’m certainly not saying it will drop that far, just that the Utilities average appears right now to be testing a breakdown and has some serious technical downside risk.
On the other hand, it could just be blowing smoke.
NOT in the realm of blowing smoke, there's been some talk about John McCain choosing Mitt Romney as his VP candidate. On the one hand, Romney looks like a good possible choice. He's handsome; he claims to be a successful businessman who understands economics (a self-confessed weak point for McCain), a claim supported by his being a millionaire who spent a lot of his own money running for the Republican presidential nomination (in the hopes of becoming the VP candidate?); and finally--so the word goes--he could help McCain carry Michigan.
There's one other point: he's Mormon. He will certainly help carry the Mormon vote, and the two states with the heaviest percentage of Mormons, Utah and Idaho. There's just one problem. Well, there are at least five problems.
(1) Utah and Idaho are the two states most likely to vote Republican in November even were John McCain to choose for his vice president--to use a Monty Python line--"a puddle of brown gravy." Utah and Idaho aren't voting any color in November except Republican Red.
(2) Yes, Romney will likely bring the Mormon vote into the Republican camp. Oh...Wait.... Recent presidential elections have shown Mormons voting heavily Republican anyway. Advantage: "puddle of brown gravy," again.
(3) On the other side, Mormons, like Jews and Blacks and Muslims and Polka Dots and any other minority group, invoke a fear factor in some part of the public. There's a number of folk out there who just plain don't like some minority groups, and wouldn't consider voting for them. How large a number? No way really to know, since the folk who fear don't always 'fess up. That's why I've said over and over that polls this year showing Obama ahead of McCain may not be particularly accurate.
(4) Romney would help the GOP carry Michigan. Not so fast, brown gravyites! If the economy continues to stumble, if inflation continues to increase while jobs and income and the stock market and the auto industry decline, Michigan's electorate may not so readily vote Republican, even though Mitt's dad was former three-term Michigan governor George Romney, and Mitt was born in the state.
(5) Note, in fact, that no one is predicting a Mitt on the ticket would bring Massachusetts (where Mitt was governor) into the Republican camp. It won't, and neither would it by itsef likely bring Michigan.
On the surface, then, Mitt Romney may look like a good VP candidate for John McCain. Not so far under the surface, however, he isn't.
If I were a card-carrying Republican, I would still go for Tim Pawlenty, in his second term as governor of Minnesota. From a Republican point of view, he looks like an almost ideal complement to John McCain. His place on the Republican ticket would put Minnesota in play (as I believe Romney would not put Michigan in play); he has economic governing experience as a governor; he's nearly as young as Barack Obama (Pawlenty will be 48 in late November); and he has strongly conservative political and religious credentials.
Next post: the October (or September, or very early November) surprise.
--- triton --
This is NOT to say that it will continue to decline or that it will drop below 474. But IF it does, we can expect a further decline in the broader market, perhaps just in time for, or a short time after, the Democratic convention in late August and the Republican convention in early September. And, indeed, today's financial news indicates strong agreement that today's rally is to be shortlived. Last year I predicted that the Dow would drop below 10,000 in 2008. Unfortunately for all the pain that would cause good folk, I still think it's possible.
Not that the Democrats are hoping for a big stock market drop, but that kind of stock action could bode well for them, since the crash would possibly occur under a dubya administration and just before the election. If the DJUtilities Average closes below about 474, it will have broken down out of its technical pattern, and could test the 471 it hit in late August 2007. If it drops below that level, its next major test areas are in the 450 range, then the 420 range, and, going back to March 2006 and November/December 2005, the 390 range. I’m certainly not saying it will drop that far, just that the Utilities average appears right now to be testing a breakdown and has some serious technical downside risk.
On the other hand, it could just be blowing smoke.
NOT in the realm of blowing smoke, there's been some talk about John McCain choosing Mitt Romney as his VP candidate. On the one hand, Romney looks like a good possible choice. He's handsome; he claims to be a successful businessman who understands economics (a self-confessed weak point for McCain), a claim supported by his being a millionaire who spent a lot of his own money running for the Republican presidential nomination (in the hopes of becoming the VP candidate?); and finally--so the word goes--he could help McCain carry Michigan.
There's one other point: he's Mormon. He will certainly help carry the Mormon vote, and the two states with the heaviest percentage of Mormons, Utah and Idaho. There's just one problem. Well, there are at least five problems.
(1) Utah and Idaho are the two states most likely to vote Republican in November even were John McCain to choose for his vice president--to use a Monty Python line--"a puddle of brown gravy." Utah and Idaho aren't voting any color in November except Republican Red.
(2) Yes, Romney will likely bring the Mormon vote into the Republican camp. Oh...Wait.... Recent presidential elections have shown Mormons voting heavily Republican anyway. Advantage: "puddle of brown gravy," again.
(3) On the other side, Mormons, like Jews and Blacks and Muslims and Polka Dots and any other minority group, invoke a fear factor in some part of the public. There's a number of folk out there who just plain don't like some minority groups, and wouldn't consider voting for them. How large a number? No way really to know, since the folk who fear don't always 'fess up. That's why I've said over and over that polls this year showing Obama ahead of McCain may not be particularly accurate.
(4) Romney would help the GOP carry Michigan. Not so fast, brown gravyites! If the economy continues to stumble, if inflation continues to increase while jobs and income and the stock market and the auto industry decline, Michigan's electorate may not so readily vote Republican, even though Mitt's dad was former three-term Michigan governor George Romney, and Mitt was born in the state.
(5) Note, in fact, that no one is predicting a Mitt on the ticket would bring Massachusetts (where Mitt was governor) into the Republican camp. It won't, and neither would it by itsef likely bring Michigan.
On the surface, then, Mitt Romney may look like a good VP candidate for John McCain. Not so far under the surface, however, he isn't.
If I were a card-carrying Republican, I would still go for Tim Pawlenty, in his second term as governor of Minnesota. From a Republican point of view, he looks like an almost ideal complement to John McCain. His place on the Republican ticket would put Minnesota in play (as I believe Romney would not put Michigan in play); he has economic governing experience as a governor; he's nearly as young as Barack Obama (Pawlenty will be 48 in late November); and he has strongly conservative political and religious credentials.
Next post: the October (or September, or very early November) surprise.
--- triton --
Friday, May 23, 2008
#23 Weirdness is Running for Vice
Well, that title got your attention. And it's true. Weirdness is the word for what's going on with McCain and Obama looking at vice presidential possibilities.
McCain is allegedly interviewing Mitt Romney, Charlie Crist, and Bobby Jindal this long weekend. "We're just going to go hiking and boating, and sit around the campfire and eat beans and talk man talk and do ballsy stuff," McCain was not quoted as saying when asked directly if he was interviewing potential vice presidential candidates.
Romney, a native of Michigan, a former governor of Massachusetts, and a current Mormon, has the business and economic experience that McCain admittedly lacks. He's actually not a bad political choice. He would bring Utah into the Republican column, and probably Idaho (where Mormons dominate the southern desert). The only problem is that Utah and Idaho are so completely committed to voting Republican that were no one to show up on election day they would still vote for McCain. Thus, it isn't necessary to put Romney on the ticket unless he could also bring Michigan to the dark side. I mean, the Red side. Barring something extremely weird, I don't see Massachusetts voting Red even with Romney on the ticket.
Crist is the governor of Florida, and would do wonders to secure that all the Chads in the state would vote Republican. His presence on the ticket would just about sew up Florida as a Red state again and, if the Democrats were to go with Bill Nelson, would likely negate Bill Nelson's influence on the election. If it appears that McCain will go with Crist, the Democrats need to look elsewhere for their VP candidate. (Ohio might be a good choice.) With Crist and Nelson we encounter a strategic choice for McCain: announce his VP candidate before the Democratic convention, and give the Democrats a chance to choose or bypass Nelson? or hold off to see whom the Democrats select for the VP position and then counter their choice?
Jindal is the first-term governor of Louisiana, a state that is likely to vote Republican after so many African Americans and Caribbean Americans have been disenfranchised as a result of not rebuilding their homes after Katrina. Jindal was a two term congressman and, at age 36, is still the nation's youngest current governor, just barely eligible (35 is the eligibility age) to ascend to the presidency should it be necessary.
Jindal is a weird choice to interview. On the one hand, he is the first elected Indian-American governor in our country's history, and he's very popular in Louisiana. But he's very young, very inexperienced, and very unnecessary on the ticket. He wouldn't solidify either Louisiana or the rest of the south for the Republican ticket any more than it already is--and it already is.
More importantly from a political point of view, Jindal's youthful presence on the Republican ticket would emphasize how old McCain is and looks (and looking even older standing next to Jindal) at a time when McCain seems to have been finally overcoming the age concern.
Maybe McCain will interview some others as well, and is including long shots in order to show those individuals how highly he thinks of them even when he doesn't choose them to be his running mate. I am genuinely suprised that Tim Pawlenty's name has not re-surfaced in recent news stories. Pawlenty, governor of Minnesota, is qualified, and could be a serious means of moving MN from Blue state to Red state in November. Besides, the Republican convention is in Minnesota: how better to reward the state than to choose a favorite son to be the vice presedential candidate.
On the Democratic side, Obama seems also to be churning out names for the press, even though he does not yet have quite enough delegates to secure the nomination. By talking VP choices, however, he turns attention away from Hillary's campaigning, and creates the impression of a fait accompli.
Some of the names that Obama's advisors have leaked are just not realistic. As I've said in earlier posts (#7, 8, and 9), Kathleen Sebelius (Kansas) and Jennifer Granholm (Michigan) would be excellent candidates, but having a minority and a woman on the ticket is pushing the envelope a bit too far for voters who are already having trouble with the possibility of Obama heading the ticket. And even to bring up Janet Napolitano, governor of Arizona, has to be a ploy to show her how important she is to the Democratic party. She would add nothing to the ticket, since Arizona is as committed to voting Republican as are Louisiana, Utah, and Idaho.
I still like Ted Strickland or Sherrod Brown from Ohio, Bill Nelson from Florida (but with the warning about Charlie Crist as possible VP behind McCain), and Jim Webb from Virginia. Bill Ritter, newly elected governor of Colorado (taking office in 2006), and Ken Salazar, senator from Colorado, are two favorite-son possibilities with the party having its convention this summer in Denver. Salazar, by the bye, is in the middle of his first term, and is one of three Hispanic memers of the senate.
Colorado has nine electoral votes, four more than Bill Richardson could bring from New Mexico, only one less than Minnesota's ten. Salazar or Ritter might be a way to counteract the potential loss of Minnesota were Pawlenty to be McCain's running mate, and might have the added advantage of putting some other Rocky Mountain states in play. Jim Webb might bring Virginia's thirteen electoral votes to the Blue side. Florida (27 electoral votes) and Ohio (20 electoral votes) are still the large states very much up for grabs, though I expect Michigan (17 electoral votes) and Pennsylvania (21 electoral votes) to be major battlegrounds as well.
Enough to think about for the time being. Have a wonderful long weekend, good people, and remember: when you retire, every day is a wonderful long weekend.
--triton--
McCain is allegedly interviewing Mitt Romney, Charlie Crist, and Bobby Jindal this long weekend. "We're just going to go hiking and boating, and sit around the campfire and eat beans and talk man talk and do ballsy stuff," McCain was not quoted as saying when asked directly if he was interviewing potential vice presidential candidates.
Romney, a native of Michigan, a former governor of Massachusetts, and a current Mormon, has the business and economic experience that McCain admittedly lacks. He's actually not a bad political choice. He would bring Utah into the Republican column, and probably Idaho (where Mormons dominate the southern desert). The only problem is that Utah and Idaho are so completely committed to voting Republican that were no one to show up on election day they would still vote for McCain. Thus, it isn't necessary to put Romney on the ticket unless he could also bring Michigan to the dark side. I mean, the Red side. Barring something extremely weird, I don't see Massachusetts voting Red even with Romney on the ticket.
Crist is the governor of Florida, and would do wonders to secure that all the Chads in the state would vote Republican. His presence on the ticket would just about sew up Florida as a Red state again and, if the Democrats were to go with Bill Nelson, would likely negate Bill Nelson's influence on the election. If it appears that McCain will go with Crist, the Democrats need to look elsewhere for their VP candidate. (Ohio might be a good choice.) With Crist and Nelson we encounter a strategic choice for McCain: announce his VP candidate before the Democratic convention, and give the Democrats a chance to choose or bypass Nelson? or hold off to see whom the Democrats select for the VP position and then counter their choice?
Jindal is the first-term governor of Louisiana, a state that is likely to vote Republican after so many African Americans and Caribbean Americans have been disenfranchised as a result of not rebuilding their homes after Katrina. Jindal was a two term congressman and, at age 36, is still the nation's youngest current governor, just barely eligible (35 is the eligibility age) to ascend to the presidency should it be necessary.
Jindal is a weird choice to interview. On the one hand, he is the first elected Indian-American governor in our country's history, and he's very popular in Louisiana. But he's very young, very inexperienced, and very unnecessary on the ticket. He wouldn't solidify either Louisiana or the rest of the south for the Republican ticket any more than it already is--and it already is.
More importantly from a political point of view, Jindal's youthful presence on the Republican ticket would emphasize how old McCain is and looks (and looking even older standing next to Jindal) at a time when McCain seems to have been finally overcoming the age concern.
Maybe McCain will interview some others as well, and is including long shots in order to show those individuals how highly he thinks of them even when he doesn't choose them to be his running mate. I am genuinely suprised that Tim Pawlenty's name has not re-surfaced in recent news stories. Pawlenty, governor of Minnesota, is qualified, and could be a serious means of moving MN from Blue state to Red state in November. Besides, the Republican convention is in Minnesota: how better to reward the state than to choose a favorite son to be the vice presedential candidate.
On the Democratic side, Obama seems also to be churning out names for the press, even though he does not yet have quite enough delegates to secure the nomination. By talking VP choices, however, he turns attention away from Hillary's campaigning, and creates the impression of a fait accompli.
Some of the names that Obama's advisors have leaked are just not realistic. As I've said in earlier posts (#7, 8, and 9), Kathleen Sebelius (Kansas) and Jennifer Granholm (Michigan) would be excellent candidates, but having a minority and a woman on the ticket is pushing the envelope a bit too far for voters who are already having trouble with the possibility of Obama heading the ticket. And even to bring up Janet Napolitano, governor of Arizona, has to be a ploy to show her how important she is to the Democratic party. She would add nothing to the ticket, since Arizona is as committed to voting Republican as are Louisiana, Utah, and Idaho.
I still like Ted Strickland or Sherrod Brown from Ohio, Bill Nelson from Florida (but with the warning about Charlie Crist as possible VP behind McCain), and Jim Webb from Virginia. Bill Ritter, newly elected governor of Colorado (taking office in 2006), and Ken Salazar, senator from Colorado, are two favorite-son possibilities with the party having its convention this summer in Denver. Salazar, by the bye, is in the middle of his first term, and is one of three Hispanic memers of the senate.
Colorado has nine electoral votes, four more than Bill Richardson could bring from New Mexico, only one less than Minnesota's ten. Salazar or Ritter might be a way to counteract the potential loss of Minnesota were Pawlenty to be McCain's running mate, and might have the added advantage of putting some other Rocky Mountain states in play. Jim Webb might bring Virginia's thirteen electoral votes to the Blue side. Florida (27 electoral votes) and Ohio (20 electoral votes) are still the large states very much up for grabs, though I expect Michigan (17 electoral votes) and Pennsylvania (21 electoral votes) to be major battlegrounds as well.
Enough to think about for the time being. Have a wonderful long weekend, good people, and remember: when you retire, every day is a wonderful long weekend.
--triton--
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)