If you’ve been following my blog recently, you know that over the weekend, I got caught up on the little party the RNC held down in Tampa. You can read my after-live blogging of some of the main speeches in parts I, II and III of my RNC Review posts last week. Well, guess what? The Democrats do this convention thing too! And, so accordingly, over the next few days I’ll be blogging my reactions to the party in

To kick it off, Corey Booker, Mayor, I am told. of Newark (and Platform Committee co-chair to boot) warming up the crowd early in the evening Tuesday by introducing the platform:

Wow, “moving America and our economy forward” in like the first line. That’s message discipline! Nice- grow together versus savage disparities. He has a speaking problem democrats often fall victim to- volume as an indicator of passion. Whereas it sounds more to me like shouting. I think maybe it comes from a history of union barnstormers versus business confabs. Significant cuts in federal spending, but making sure everyone pays their fair share as patriotism, not class warfare. Also very nice- ha, even got them chanting USA! Who do they think they are, proud Americans? And a good argument for investment, with a plug for small business. I wonder if Republicans feel the same way listening to this that I did to RNC speeches? I.e., it sounds good, but I don’t believe they mean it. I think so, that’s where we’re at as a nation after the culture wars of the 90s, Clinton impeachment circus, polarizing Bush years and anti-Obama flip-out- increasingly polarized away from any common ground. Nice tie-in of education as the most fundamental investment in economic success. And opportunity for all to go wherever they can imagine, which after all is what the RNC kept pushing too. Well, I don’t disagree with anything he’s saying, even if I wish he hadn’t shouted it at me. And I love him for ending with liberty and justice for all.    

And now, having watched the Bush mini-documentary at the RNC, on the principle of one (or two) Ex-Presidents deserve another, let’s move on to the video address from Jimmy Carter. He won’t shout at me:

36 years ago. Wow. That election is actually my first public affairs memory. And there isn’t a word about his legacy, it’s all about Obama’s integrity and him being on the side of the middle class. Remember when the Democrats used to be totally undisciplined? Well done, DNC, well done. And yet Jimmy still keeps his interest in global development and justice subtly in the mix in this speech. I remember the economic and international chaos of 1979, and I was as excited as anyone, in my 10 year old way, by Reagan coming in. But looking at Carter now always warms my heart. Not a great President, but a big-hearted genuine man.  

And now for the speech that I’ve heard a lot about, San Antonio Mayor Julian Castro‘s keynote:

See, we’ve got Texans too! And now he’s stealing the RNC’s make the 21st Century a new American Century line. Single mothers believing in the American Dream, prayer and menudo cook-offs. Sounds like they love America to me, and believe in opportunity plenty. A human dream calling across oceans and borders, which America makes possible. See RNC, it is possible to be globally open and love your country too. 21st century boys, get on board. Things we can’t do alone, which is why we have to come together and invest for opportunity. You can’t be pro-business unless you’re pro-education. Damn. Say it! Invest today to be competitive tomorrow. Nicely skewering Romney on borrowing money from your parents to start a business not being the reality for most people. Geez, though, how many times have they fit middle class in their speeches so far, though. Nice bit he’s on now with the “Mitt Romney says ‘No’.” When we invest in people, we invest in our shared prosperity. Man, they’ve really figured out their messaging. And now stealing Ryan’s “Get it done”, but applying it to health care. A choice between the middle class pays more so millionaires can pay less, or everybody paying their fair share. That’s about as succinct as it gets. The American dream as a relay, instead of a sprint, very nice. A responsibility to come together to assure opportunity for all going forward.        

If you read last week, you may recall my saying I don’t put a lot of stock in spousal speeches. I don’t! But Michelle Obama‘s speech met with such rave reviews, and since I listened to Ann Romney’s, I feel like what’s good for the red goose is good for the blue gander. Or something like that:

Aww look-there’s Joe, clapping and smiling for her! Damn, that woman knows how to sparkle when she speaks. It’s funny, because in many ways, this reminds me of Ann Romney’s speech. It’s structurally almost identical so far. Except she does the young couple struggling thing more naturally, because they did actually struggle. And putting the “glass ceiling” in a personal context. Even if you don’t start out with much, if you work hard and do what you’re supposed to do, you should be able to build a decent life for yourself and an even better life for your kids. That’s it. She’s doing a great job of testifying to his character, and tying that in to his devotion to get the economy going again. Our kids should be able to see a doctor when they’re sick, and nobody should ever go broke because of an accident or an illness. Increasing student aid and keeping interest rates down. And this being personal, not political. She doesn’t quite know how to not talk over an applause line, but it makes her seem more genuine in a way. And damned if they aren’t backing up their marriage equality plank- every speaker I’ve listened to has mentioned it so far. And listen to her go, stealing back and redefining “success” from the RNC who tried to convince us Democrats hate it. And when you succeed  you help others who come after you to do it too. Together. We’re all in this together. Doesn’t sound like the polarizing divider they love to conjure up. She’s also doing a Bush thing for him (in a good way), reminding everyone he stands up for what he thinks is right even if it’s unpopular. And now she’s tying it all in to the American Dream as being part and parcel of women’s rights, the Civil Rights movement, marriage equality. And her daughters as the future she knows we need to keep fighting for, oh geez now I’m tearing up.            
  
Well, there we are! In the interests of fair play, I have to report that they fudged some facts, as politicians are wont to do. You can and should read up on it here. In terms of general review, I have to say, I have my leanings, so I can’t give a truly unbiased comparison, but I think their first night was better than the RNC’s. Everyone felt really united, whereas you could almost feel the “me next” jockeying from Santorum and Christie at RNC night one. Looking forward to seeing night two!

Well, here we are. The third of three after-live blogs of the major speeches from the just-concluded Republican National Convention, which I was in too much of a work buzz to watch live earlier in the week. You can find parts I and II here and here. Now, if we’re all caught up…

I have certainly heard a lot of buzz about our first selection, the speech by former mayor of Carmel and director of some of my favoritely bleak films, Clint Eastwood. Slate made a case that the Romney campaign was either incompetently out of control of the content of this speech, or else it badly backfired on them. Let’s see:

Ha. Love the backdrop! He already sounds a little rambly and grouchy old man. Oprah was crying, I was crying. Ha. Good one. Addressing the empty chair is weird all right, but I could imagine it working. Instead it’s coming off as full blown senile because, of all things for an actor, of halting delivery and fumbled lines. Like he’s literally forgetting lines and trailing off. Youch. Though “You’re getting as bad as Biden” was pretty good! Time for a businessman, eh? Yes, W. sure did a bang-up job. Oh, and we certainly do own this country, and politicians are employees of ours. Not oil companies, insurance companies, multinational banks. Who are the people behind which party? Well, yes, both of them. But one more than the other, especially these last four years…

Now on to the intro to Romney’s speech by the man most likely to be nominated VP by second-guessers if Ryan doesn’t work out for Romney, the Republican most likely to need a long-form birth certificate, Senator Marco Rubio:

Wow, he’s even more baby-faced than Ryan! Still and all, between the Florida and Hispanic angles, I have to wonder if the votes he could have moved at the margin might be more valuable than the gamble on Ryan’s ability to energize the base. We shall see… He is very personable, and is also doing a fine job of selling Romney, even allowing that Obama is a good person too, just not a good President. And he’s doing a great job of turning around Obama’s “Forward” slogan. He’s upset by divide and conquer, so I assume he was very upset in 2004 with the Bush re-election strategy. God and family as uniquely American values, good, good. I’m heartened to hear he’s worried about those saddled with too much school debt, though. I’ll assume he’s going to embrace Obama’s suggestions on that front, then. Also glad he wants people in poverty to have the chance to have their children lifted out of that and have new opportunities. How many people in that hall had fathers who worked two jobs? As a percentage compared to the same hall in Charlotte. I’d be fascinated to see that. They really are laying out the rhetoric of caring, though. It’s an interesting tack, though. As for Marco, he didn’t set the room on fire, exactly, or even boost Romney as much as one might imagine. But he did a very solid job, and certainly kept his own future looking bright.

Which brings us to the main event, the acceptance speech of one Mitt Romney. I actually haven’t read a whole lot about it, so my reactions will be about as live as if I’d watched it live:

I kind of like this whole glad-handing his way up to stage like he was actually working a crowd. What was that “Don’t touch me!” shout in the crowd about, though? Wow a little strained attempt-excited scary looking on the “I accept” line. I think he has the Al Gore disease- guy so habitually reserved he can only do an impression of someone who’s relaxed, instead of actually relaxing. Nation of immigrants, ironic. It’s certainly true that a majority of Americans thinking that the future won’t be better for the first time is a problem. I’ll be eager to her his solutions. Oh my God, really- pay down the national debt? From that party?!?!? And they’re on the side of people working two $9/hour jobs without benefits. Like, hmmm, let me see- Health Care?!?!? Glad to hear he wished President Obama had succeeded though, unlike the stated number one policy aim of many senior Republicans from even before inauguration day to make sure that Obama was a one term failure. Which they’ve certainly done their best to do. Nice how he’s painting a picture of a small-town Midwestern kind of upbringing. His Mom and Dad story is good though- made me tear up! Now highlighting women in politics, nicely played. Also playing up the hardscrabble origins of Bain as a story of his becoming his own man. Aww, and he made Ann smile by talking about her, which is nice, because she looked awfully tense earlier in his speech. So far, 20 minutes in, it’s been a very broad speech, very Mom and apple pie. That “you know there’s something wrong with the job he’s done if the best feeling you had was the day you voted for him” line is devastating and well-aimed, though. And now he’s charming and engaging talking about Bain as a start-up he built up and the companies it’s helped, which makes you wonder why he didn’t do it months before. We celebrate success, we don’t apologize for it, also well done. Funny how Bain having failures along with successes is okay, but Solyndra as one failure of a very broad stimulus package means the whole thing is rotten. Time to turn the page is also good, as is- what America needs is jobs. Health insurance premiums higher? Really? That’s really what they want to talk about? And the middle class? Who’s policies since the 80s have destroyed the middle class and stalled wages? Hmmm, let’s see. Also, he keeps doing this  plastic debate team captain just scored a point face. Okay, here we go, five-point plan. 1. Energy independent North America by 2020. 2. School choice. 3. Trade agreements. 4. Cut the deficit and put America on track to a balanced budget. 5. Champion small businesses by simplifying regulations, lower taxes, and oh, for fucks sake, reigning in health care costs by repealing Obamacare? The only thing in 40 years that’s done anything to limit health care costs. Oh good-Sanctity of marriage (sorry, Gays). Freedom of religion (unless it’s a mosque at ground zero). That “my promise is to help you and your family” line is good. Trotting out the apology tour line again, which gets the crowd going. Now doing a good bit of Iran, China and Russia-baiting, always a crowd-pleaser. Oh, now they’re worried about our schools lagging. Who lagged them through decades of under-funding? All right, now we’re building to the crescendo. Helping hand to those in need? Now they’re trying to do the kinder gentler, compassionate conservative thing they actually shaft us on once elected. Now we’ve got the families on stage, balloons dropping. I always love that scene. Also appreciate the irony of a Republican convention playing a James Brown song for their closing.

Well, there we have it. I think it was a solid, well-played speech. I don’t know that it was particularly inspirational past the base, which you would need to swing enough of the middle to win. Or even fire breathing enough for the kind of super-base turnout that would be the other most likely path to victory, though you can read a review from a fellow blogger who I admire as a writer and astute political commentator from the other side of the aisle, Erin at Swing State Voter, here.        

I found it to be a little too down the middle to really shake things up plus or minus, which this word balloon put together from the speech might bear out (graphic courtesy of FiveThirtyEight.com):

The consensus of opinion so far would seem to be along these lines as well, initial results from Gallup show it to have been one of the most lukewarmly received acceptance speeches of the last few decades. What did you think of it? Not just in an election year, but every year, I’m very interested in hearing from readers!                          

And here we are with Round II of my review of the doings at the Republican National Convention this past week. If you’re just joining us, having been too work-frenzied during the week to catch the convention, I’m catching up this three day weekend, and after-live blogging my reactions. Part I, with my review of the speeches of Ann Romney, Ricky Santorum and Chris Christie, as well as the Bush 41/43 tribute, can be found here.

All caught up now? Good, let’s go!

We’ll start with John McCain. I think the previous nominee’s speech is always interesting, when you can get it. The Democrats actually abandoned their “losers night” in the 90s, when they got serious about winning again, but fortunately last time they let both Al Gore and John Kerry speak. And I dare anyone to try and stop Johnnie:

Ha! “Highway to the Danger Zone” as the intro. Nice touch, RNC. He actually smiled after calling Mitt Romney his friend. A fairly restrained reference to losing the last election, and then straight into Romney having a sacred charge, and world affairs being as important as domestic issues. Oh, and he mentions how we have led the world under “patriots of both parties.” Reminds me of why we who believe in country over party used to admire him so much. And still do in large part, despite his becoming Bush’s lacky and unleashing Palin on a defenseless country. Now a plug for Israel, how we can’t afford to give China and Russia a veto, government leaks about operations. Probably the only person all weekend who will mention Afghanistan. And possibly he wants us to militarily intervene in Syria? That seems to be what he’s saying. I’d feel more compelled by this argument about supporting freedom worldwide if his party actually meant it. In say, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, even when it’s more inconvenient, as much as places where it suits our geopolitical interests. Because I actually believe in what he’s saying about how we must always be on the side of freedom worldwide.

Correction to an error from yesterday’s blog. They did let a Bush speak! And so, accordingly, we shall hear him, former first-brother Jeb Bush:

Hmmm, this is odd. He’s taking the stage with two other people. Are they going to sing? I so hope they sing! A surprisingly mild cheer for the family when he invokes their history of service to the country. Oh they did like the “stop blaming your predecessor” line. You were dealt a tough hand, but your policies didn’t work, and it’s time to accept responsibility for it. Not a bad line of argument. And now talking about education and schools, and preparing our children for the emerging future world. As with Senator McCain, I agree, despite the thick irony of the argument coming from a side that has pushed policies that underfunded education for decades. Oh, and I see now, its teachers he brought on stage with him! And he’s having them speak now. Poor working conditions and little pay. Yes, yes, I agree. I do like his focus, and clear energy around the issue. We all know why he couldn’t run this year, but here’s hoping to see him again in 2016 or 2020. And, frankly, I think there is more than a point around the issue of teachers unions being a block to some needed reforms. How about we stand up to the teachers unions AND the petroleum lobby? Fair trade, I’ll take it. He wants some states rights around educational choice too. Okay, I’ll take that as well, in exchange for state’s rights around setting their own abortion and gay marriage laws, rather than having federal constitutional bans. Done and done!

All right, I’ve been steeling myself for this one. Yes that’s right, VP Nominee Paul Ryan. I have of course read some of the coverage, so I am expecting some, shall we say, freedoms from truth:

Aww, he’s so cute! He really does have that boyish charm thing going for him. Drama- he accepted the nomination! And was immediately on point re: invoking the phrase “jobs crisis” in his acceptance. Mitt Romney as man for the turnaround, good, good. Really funny that he talks about opponents silent about their record as the running mate of El Silencio about the past incarnate. Nice crack about Obama wasting money in advertising, just as he has with the country. Five minutes in, no lies so far. Nice, allowing that Obama came in under challenging conditions. Ah, here we are, 6:44 with the plant closing. Actually not false, but certainly misleading. Solyndra, their favorite single example of waste to characterize the whole. Yes indeed, cronyism, corporate welfare. From the party of corporate welfare! “Borrowed, spent and wasted” is a great line, though. Now on to jobs crisis- which, interestingly, only really took off once the stimulus he just said was “wasted” ended. Federal government in charge of health care BS, which of course the AHCA doesn’t do. But boy does that get the crowd riled! Now on to the “stealing from Medicare” bit, based on a policy he himself supported in his own plan. Almost surreal to see a Republican VP nominee singing the praises of Medicare! Well, whatever works, right? The little “hmm” thing he does after his phrases is weird, a little off-putting, like a condescending semi-laugh. Nice bit, though, about Obama saying his mistake has been not communicating more, spun into a “talk versus action” point. Also doing the same deal as Jeb about shifting blame to the last administration versus accepting responsibility. Added more debt than any other President before him. Huh? Forgotten Bush much? Just a lie, outright, factual mathematical untruth. And Republicans on offering good faith proposals. Well, if you don’t remember the daily news from the last three years, that might play. Very nice on stop spending money we don’t have, and we need to solve the country’s economic problems, and not having much time. He’s delivering a strong message, and firing up the base, just like a good VP should. Not electrifying the hall nearly as much as Sarah Palin did four years ago, but, well, that would be a tall order. I think if this ticket were reversed it would be a far greater threat to Obama than it is under its current order. Also got to hand it to them for boldness- 12 million jobs over the next 4 years. Ha, unemployed college grads living in their parents’ bedrooms staring up at fading Obama posters. Good one! “A country where everything is free but us.” Also very nice rhetoric. There are no “central planners” that he’s speaking of, but still nice. Pivot now to building up Romney as he moves to the close. Very nice line about his iPod versus Romney’s. And great sell of Romney’s record in Massachusetts too, more than Romney himself has actually done. Also identifying the common ground of their faiths. “We have responsibilities, one to another” neat, since that actually is the Democratic credo, the raison d’etre of social welfare programs. You know, that was pretty good. Not as fiery as the coverage I had read would indicate, nor as chock full of lies. To be sure, they were there and some of them were pretty egregious, you can get a good third party evaluation of it here. But, all in all, he made their case pretty solidly.

And so we will end for today. Tomorrow, Mitt and Clint, with a little Rubio thrown in!  

Hey there, Presidential election watchers!

It’s been a heck of a whirlwind summer, which has somewhat limited my blogging, though I have been doing semi-regular updates on the race (the latest of which can be found here). And then, just as that let up, I dipped into Board meeting preparation frenzy at work, which prevented me watching much of the RNC this past week. Well, that, and listening to election news drives Abbey batty. Not to fear, I have been reading along, and technology provides us a fix. For the next three days, I’m going to be blogging my reactions to the major speeches from this past week’s Republican National Convention. An after-live blog, if you will.

For our first segment, we’ll watch Ann Romney on the opening night of the convention. Normally I wouldn’t be very interested in the spousal speech, but I am interested to see her try to fulfill her mission of humanizing Mitt:

Aw look, she’s wearing a Republican red dress! I like her opening with a reminder that fellow Americans were under peril from a hurricane- a nicely rare moment of we’re all Americans. I’m not sure the parents struggling to make rent and single father’s she’s referencing are there in that hall like she says, but again, nice someone there is talking about them. 7 minutes in now, and it’s been almost all women, and not more than a sentence on Mitt. Whoa- did she just really talk about it’s harder because school services that used to be free are now billed? Excuse me, which party is in favor of fewer public services and more privatization? Ah, here’s Mitt appearing again, literally. Cute picture of high school him. Very nice photo collage thing they’re doing on the screen behind her as she talks about them living in a basement apartment as newlyweds. 5 sons and 18 grandchildren- holy crap! She’s a little goofy, and a little stiff, but is coming across as quite charming, and doing a good job of selling him as someone who’ll be on your side no matter what. Ah, now here we go with some good convention-style questions and chants of “No!” And now she’s slipped in the he wasn’t handed success- he built it. Way to be on theme! Lots of talk now about giving and helping, and the plucky growth of a small company (aka Bain Capital). And Mitt as Mr. Fixit, with the Olympics, with Massachusetts, all through his life. Not bad-even made Condi Rice smile. Awww, and he came up on stage to meet her.    

All right, now on to the speech by Rick Santorum. Always interesting to see how the runner-up does with the required endorsement, and what clues it gives about what’s on his mind for next time. because, if the party follows the experience it’s had of “runner-up next” for every open slot since 1976 except one, this could very well be the Republican nominee in 2016 or 2020. Mind-boggling as that would be…

Hey, I didn’t know he was a first-generation American! Guess you do learn something every day. It’s interesting, he’s giving what is essentially an acceptance speech- who would have guessed the son of immigrants would one day run for President, etc. Nice bit about no government benefits except for one-freedom, when his grandfather came here in the 1920s. Nice bit too about how President Obama borrowing $5 trillion to build things didn’t work because that’s not how America works. I’m sure he was just as upset with Bush for borrowing the trillions of trillions beforehand. A good thorough attack on the culture of dependency and how we have to stop the war on marriage and family. What the hell is he talking about Obama nationalizing curriculum? Somebody gotta fact check that shit. Oh and now he’s worried about President’s Executive Orders, which I’m sure he was equally horrified at under Bush? “The little broken hands of the disabled.” Really? Okay, now he’s talking about his disabled daughter and not listening to the doctor who said she wouldn’t make it, which makes that sentence seem slightly less wonky, although he really was referring to the disabled in general when he made it. Speaking of wonky, it looks like he’s speaking in front of a giant blue lava lamp. I think it’s pretty groovy. Only two mentions of Mitt Romney, including his plug right at the end for voting for him as a protector of the rights of the unborn. It’s interesting, this could have been one of the more fire-breathing speeches of the convention, but was actually pretty restrained and orderly.

Now on the man who probably should be the nominee the next time they have a open slot, but decided this wan’t the year to run a campaign that told the party the truth, Chris Christie giving the keynote address:

Wow, quite a multi-media intro they’re giving him! Blustery, funny start about the unlikelihood of being a New Jersey Republican. This guy absolutely could do it. Whoa, whoa, whoa, mentioning his dad’s start on the GI Bill. Isn’t that one of them there spending inferno government-type programs? He also has the lava lamp behind him. Interesting to see how, 10% of the way into this speech, he’s presented his story. Ah, now transitioning to talking straight and choosing respect over popularity as it applies to the challenges confronting the country. It’s interesting how the “not us, not now” leaders who won’t take action together on the big things and face hard truths definitely include his own party. Which of course he knows, part of the reason he sat this one out. And now on to how he balanced the budget and lowered taxes in New Jersey while protecting retirees and standing up to the teacher’s union. In other words, he’s making a really good case for the candidacy of- Chris Christie! Our ideas are right, their ideas have failed. Here’s what we believe versus what they believe. He of course is leading with biased bullshit about what “they” believe instead of trying to represent a nuanced picture of the opposition and why it’s wrong. but hey, it is a political convention.  Whoa, whoa, whoa- his folks are the ones driving us off the fiscal cliff on the gamble that they’ll be at the wheel of power when we fall! How I wish his side of “they” did actually believe in trusting the American people with the truth and bi-partisan work toward it. But it is an internally  coherent and energetic fiction he’s delivering, which once again leads me to believe he’s an excellent nominee for his party. Oh wait, but he’s not the nominee! Nor, did he mention the actual nominee until 17 minutes in to the speech. Oh for fuck’s sake really- putting federal bureaucrats between Americans and their doctor? The Affordable Health Care Act doesn’t do that. Not anywhere, in any provision, on any page. Still, a very solid “I believe in America” speech. And I can’t say I disagree with him that real leaders change polls instead of following them. That’s exactly what I and many other Progressives have been disappointed about. And I agree with him about the danger of more and more Americans slipping into second-class citizenship. I just disagree about who’s policies have led to that… Ha! Now he’s making the crowd literally stand up. Really well done, and if this guy was the nominee, I think Obama would be in serious trouble.    

All right, wrapping up with this little Bush featurette from Day Three:

That, of course, is as close to the stage as they’re willing to let a Bush get at this point. And that is a big deal- former Presidents are usually convention centerpieces, the Democrats even still trot out Jimmy Carter. Give them another four years, though, and they’ll be back. Darn if that isn’t quite a nicely produced little piece. Oh, and they even ended it with a plug for Romney.

Okay, that’s it for today. Now you have my reactions, and I’d love to have your’s.

Well, here we are, our last chance to check in on the state of the race before the polls start to be affected by honest-to-goodness campaign news, which there’s been a virtual vacuum of the past four months. Starting with this morning’s announcement that Paul Ryan will be Mitt Romney’s running mate, the next ten weeks will see how the polls move in reaction to that, both conventions, three Presidential debates and one, now possibly going-to-be-interesting, Vice Presidential debate. Then we’ll have a two-week breathing space before we actually, you know, get to vote.

So where do we stand on the eve of all of this? The Real Clear Politics “poll of polls” now has six polls from August in its mix, and is showing Obama with a more than four-point lead:

On the electoral college front their “no toss-ups” map averaging all recent state polls shows a commanding lead for Obama:

Of course, there are toss-ups, and the polling lead that’s showing now is quite a bit higher that where it’s been on average (1-3 points) over the last four months. So how it is now may not be totally indicative. What are the people concentrating on the forward-looking odds versus the “where its at now” snapshot saying?

The predictions market at Intrade is currently showing a 58% chance of Obama’s re-election.

Meanwhile, over at FiveThirtyEight.com, 2008 prediction superstar Nate Silver’s multi-variable prediction model is showing a 71.6% chance of Obama’s re-election (see left), with an indicated margin of 2.8% and around 300 electoral votes. Were you to split the odds between FiveThirtyEight and Intrade, you’d get 64% odds for Obama. That feels about right to me. As several commentators have noted, Romney more or less “lost” the summer. His problem has been three-fold:

1. Romney disavowed his Massachusetts record in order to tack far enough right to win the nomination. He’s kept mostly away from talking about his faith, which while risky, would have been his surest was to connect with the “social issues” portion of the Republican base. When Bain started to come under attack, he distanced himself from that portion of his past. Take away Mormonism, Bain and being governor of Massachusetts, and there’s really nothing concrete left he can connect with. There was running the Olympics, of course, but he pretty much managed to blow that up with his criticisms of London and other fallout from his recent foreign tour.

2. He’s kind of a publicly-stiff rich guy with a tendency to put his foot in his mouth. As such, he just comes off as more of, for lack of a better phrase, a goon. And the goon always loses. Understand, I don’t mean this to disparage Romney. Jimmy Carter had a bigger heart than Ronald Reagan by leaps and bounds. But he was also, compared to Reagan, a goon. And lost. Al Gore was a goon who would have been ten times better for the country than Bush. But, compared to the relaxed amiable Texan, he was a super-goon. And lost. Ford-Carter. Carter-Reagan. Mondale-Reagan. Bush Sr. would have been, in any normal election, the goon, except that the democrats managed to nominate the even goonier Dukakis. Bush-Clinton. Dole-Clinton. Gore-Bush. Kerry-Bush. McCain, a great dynmic guy next to most anyone, became, compared to Obama, the goon. Right or wrong, good for the country or disastrous, the goon always loses, and this year, Romney is the goonier of the two.

3. The thing Romney had decided to run on- the economy is not getting better fast enough, and I have the experience and skill to fix it, has been methodically targeted by the Obama campaign. Though marginally out-raised, the Obama campaign is never going to be poor, and they’re very, very smart. As the Bush folks showed in 2004, if your opponent has a viable edge (in Kerry’s case, his status as a war hero) against you, you target it and destroy it. Of course, Romney helped the attack by his own ineptness in the face of it, just as Kerry did in 2004.

The key question, of course, is: can the Ryan pick help to turn this around? It’s certainly interesting. Nate Silver reads it as the act of someone who knows he’s in the losing position and wants to shake things up. I tend to agree. While Obama’s number’s will certainly come down from their current peak, he’s been consistently ahead for the past four months. In fact, he’s generally matching his pace from 2008:

As you can see, Romney has been generally outpacing McCain’s track in June and July, but, unlike McCain, has never had leads or ties with Obama over the four month period. The comparisson with 2004 is equally interesting. Obama has been doing much better than either Bush or Kerry were in the same period in 2004, while Romney has generally been running right between Bush and Kerry’s trendlines (and they, of course, consistently traded the lead throughout the same four months, while Obama, let us again note, has had the lead Every.Single.Day.):

While I wouldn’t totally discount the 332 electoral vote scenario, it is of course likely to come down. But on this front, Obama is still on very solid ground. Of the states he carried in 2008, Indiana has switched back, and North Carolina looks like it has too. But he’s in the lead in all the other swing states, and even if you just restrict the map to states where he has a lead of 3% or more, it looks like this:

So, Romney knew he was losing. In response, he made a bold choice. It has several things going for it: It decreases his gooniness by adding someone young and dynamic. And it brings in a darling of the Tea Party and fiscal conservatives, which should certainly help with turning out the base. It probably doesn’t put Wisconsin in play- most studies show that a VP helps in their home state, but only by 1-2%, and Wisconsin is currently averaging +5.4% Obama. And, while it may signal that Romney is going for an issues-richer campaign than either candidate has been running so far, I’m not sure it puts him on the right side of the issues. As an article in Salon observed yesterday, choosing Ryan means choosing a brand of fiscal conservatism that feeds right into the populist narrative Obama has built against Romney. Only now, having choosen a running mate who actually does want to fundamentally restructure Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security as we know it, Romney can’t say, “he’s exaggerating” in response to Obama’s attacks.

Still, I’m glad we finally have some real news! I look forward to following (and analyzing) the twists and turns from here.

I actually imagine that the White House comes pre-draped, and doesn’t get redone with each incoming President. I could be wrong. Nevertheless, the point stands. While it’s certainly too early for Republicans to be second-guessing Romney, as they started to do last week, his outlook isn’t any better at 4 months than it was at 5 or 6, and Obama still seems like a noticeably better than odds-on bet. Here’s where we are currently with the daily “poll of polls” from Real Clear Politics:

Over at the prediction market site Intrade, the Obama re-election contract is looking like this:

And FiveThirtyEight finally has their prediction model up and running. Which, of course, I am statistic-geek smitten with. It’s currently showing:

On the Electoral College front, if we take all the states where an average of recent polling shows Obama ahead we get (map courtesy of RealClearPolitics):

Now, I don’t really buy this, given that some states have had rather spotty polling and there are months to go. If we took the much more conservative expedient of giving Romney all the states Obama leads in but is projected to have lower (less than around 65%) odds of carrying by 538.com‘s model, the map would look like this (assembled with the “create your own map” function from RCP):

To sum up, several different kinds of predictors all show Obama to be more likely than not to be reelected, with a numerical outlook largely unchanged from a month ago or two months ago. Granted, most of the big political event news (Romney’s VP pick, the conventions, the debates) haven’t happened yet. But consider what has: Obamacare has spent more weeks publicly going through the wringer. Several months of lackluster economic news have come and gone. Romney has been outraising him. But still the dynamic persists.

And as for the argument that early Summer is too early to tell, well, it certainly is. Here’s something interesting to consider, though. Take a quick look at where the race is now compared to where it was over the same period (boxed in black) in 2004 and 2008:

Obama, at this point, has been more consistently ahead than he was in 2008, and much more consistently than Bush was in 2004. In fact, if you refer back to the graph at the very top of this post, you’ll see that over the last year, Romeny has had the lead for a total of less than two weeks, and not at all, for even a single day, since early October. Obama 2008, while usually on top, had much more volatility, and Bush and Kerry traded leads regularly in 2004.

Will it get bumpier for him? Certainly. In fact, he’s probably due for a rough week or two right about now, given that Romney was taking lumps last week. And it will, as I said last time, be close the whole way. In fact, I was pleased to see that Gallup agrees with my observation from last month that 1976 and 2004, two close races that were competitive until the end, are probably our closest parallels for this year. But if I were a betting man, I’d bet that the RCP average, Intrade and 538.com are on to something.

We’re at about five months to go now, and one of the more noteworthy things about the month since our last update is just how little has been noteworthy. The polling average is currently looking like this (courtesy of Real Clear Politics):

The last time Romney had a sustained lead was for a few days in October. The apparent spike a few weeks ago where he nearly overtakes a plunging Obama appears to have been more of a data artifact. There were no major news drivers, and the Intrade odds that put Obama at around 60% didn’t move during that period at all. I suspect what happened is that a window in which there were few current polls out in the field magnified the influence of a Romney-favoring outlier (Hello, Rasmussen!).

The last week or two, though, the Intrade odds have lowered to around 55% (interestingly just as the RCP average has been showing a spike for Obama). This probably reflects an unease in the air about the economy. A little bad job report here, a little Euro anxiety there, will do that. It’s not hard to imagine that a downturn will have a negative effect on Obama’s chances, as Nate Silver points out. If the economy does continue downward, it probably won’t  really matter that Romney has no logical counter-plan. The incumbent usually, quite simply, wins when things are buoyant (1972, 1984, 1996) and losses when they’re bad (1980, 1992).

You’ll see a few recent elections I’ve skipped above that did have an incumbent running- 1976 and 2004. Those, in some ways, are the most interesting cases for where we are now. When an economy is mixed, you usually get: surprise, surprise, a close election (Bush narrowly winning in 2004, Ford narrowly losing in 1976, the lead trading back and forth all along each year).

That, I think, is what we’re likely to be looking at. Obama has maintained a consistent favorability edge over Romney:

His approval has been pretty much flat-lined between approval/disapproval for the past four months:

And his electoral college outlook remains strong. Taking only the states where Obama is polling at least a percent ahead of his consistent national 2 percentish lead, we get:

In other words, even if Obama went down nationally to 50-50ish, he’d still win enough states comfortably enough to win 275-263.

So to add it up:

Strong electoral college position
+
Personal favorability
–
50-50 job approval
–
Lingering economic concerns
=
???????????

Probably about what we’re seeing. A 1-2.5% polling lead, leading to a sufficient, but always going to look at risk, electoral college outcome.

Romney will pick a VP, which will produce some buzz. Which will fade. Romney will get a convention bump. It will fade. Obama will get a convention bump. It will fade. There will be a few debates, and opinions on them will be mixed and numbers will surge and dip temporarily. Mini-brouhahas will erupt over a past revelation here and a mangled phrase there. But, unless the economic situation turns clearly worse or clearly better, I don’t see anything fundamentally changing the picture that points to an ongoing nearly break-even that eventually (and narrowly) breaks for Obama.

It’s the end of April. Month-ends can be good times to take stock. Today also happens to be three weeks since Rick “pro-petting, anti-Planned Parenthood” Santorum suspended his campaign, leaving Mitt Romney as the finally really now inevitable Republican nominee. So, where are we, three weeks in to the general election campaign? A good place to start to answer this question is to look at the Real Clear Politics polling average:

There are three things that immediately strike me:

1) Over a year of being the most likely challenger, even during times when Obama’s popularity rating has been much lower than it is now, Romney has had the lead for a total time of less than three weeks.

2) On the flip side, Obama has never been above 50%.

3) Most minds are already well made up, the undecided share is only about 8.5%.

It is certainly important to keep in mind that, as FiveThirtyEight reminds us, April polls are not a strong indicator of eventual results. Still and all, despite what the constant press cycles might make one think, Obama’s trend thus far has been much smoother, and more consistently in the positive, than Bush’s in 2004:

 In fact, it doesn’t look too different from his path in 2008, despite all the controversies he’s encountered:

So, it actually looks pretty good for Obama thus far. Indeed, over on Intrade, which allows people to make futures trades on all kinds of things, current odds on Obama’s re-election are running around 60%.

On the electoral college front too, all indications are that Romney’s path, while hardly inconceivable, is definitely steeper than Obama’s. Even if you take the relatively pessimistic tack of assuming that Obama only carries the states where his current polling lead is above 5% (compared to a 3% national average), that still gives him 280, 10 more than he needs. You can check out the latest polling for the swing states yourself at RCP by clicking on the states at the map there. The map for the scenario I describe above looks like this (and you can play around with your own at 270towin):

I think it’s worth thinking about 2008 for a second though. Obama ended up winning with 52.9% of the vote, which is actually the highest percentage anyone has had since 1988. But consider: the party in power had been there for eight years, its sitting President was intensely unpopular by the time of the election, the worst economic crisis in decades was blowing up, the Republican nominee ran a lackluster and often bumbling campaign, picked a crazy and crazily unqualified person as his running mate, and was running against the hugely well-funded, highly popular Obama who was running an extremely positive and skillful campaign. And with all that going for him, Obama still got less than 53%. It’s hard not to believe that this election is going to be very close. 

I happen to think both things are true: Obama will most likely win and his margin will seem (and will end up being) thin the whole time. I look forward to analyzing and writing further along the way, and hope you read along!

As you may have heard, Rick Santorum dropped out of the race yesterday (or, technically, suspended his campaign). With Newt Gingrich already having fired his entire staff and outlined a plan of relying on social media going forward, that’s pretty much that. Mitt Romney will be the Republican nominee. (Sorry Ron Paul, but facts is facts.) And so it’s over. But also beginning!

With the general election campaign de facto beginning today (with 208 days, aka 7 months to go, saints preserve us all) I’d like to muse about what kind of shape the primary campaign leaves Romney in vis-a-vis the general election. I think a couple of visual aids are instructive in this regard. First of all, let’s look at Romney’s trajectory getting here versus the previous Republican nominee, John McCain (charts courtesy of RealClear Politics):

What’s immediately visually apparent is that Romney’s had a heck of a harder time getting there than McCain did. McCain lagged until just before voting started in January, and then shot ahead and pretty much never looked back. Romney, in contrast, repeatedly had and then lost a lead, took a month longer to get to presumptive nominee status, and even as of the point of wrapping the whole thing up, has never been above 40% in national polls. Against, it should be noted, a far weaker field than McCain faced.

County-by-county results tell a similar story (maps courtesy of Wikipedia):

What is immediately apparent is that Romney 2012, excepting Virginia, where incompetence kept everyone else off the ballot, only wins certain kinds of counties. Namely, New England and Western (both areas he did well in 2008) and urban. There are many states where he won (like Illinois, Michigan, Ohio & Wisconsin) by virtue of taking the urban centers, while Santorum took almost all of the rural counties. Compare this to McCain, who, aside from some obvious weakness in the South (though he still did better, county by county, than Romney 2012), tended to sweep entire states when he won them. 

Why does this matter? McCain, so far, has been the most weakly supported Republican nominee of the modern era within the party:

While Romney’s total will no doubt climb from here, he’s currently trending much lower than McCain did in 2008, which was itself much lower than any other Republican nominee. In fact, so far Romney’s near the bottom for any nominee from either party. The party, any party, of course, supports their nominee. But enthusiasm matters. The only candidates who have gone in to the general election and won with less than 50% internal support were Jimmy Carter and Barack Obama, who were both heading in to elections a challenger would be heavily favored to win (worsening economy, scandal or discredit of existing administration, outgoing party had been in power for 8 years, etc.).

Now, I’m not predicting a blowout based on this. My gut feeling is that Obama has gone from having a 50/50 chance 6 months ago to being something more like a 60/40 or 70/30 now. In other words, he’s more likely than not to win. But it will never seem assured, it’s going to be close the whole way. In very close elections, as this one has all indications of being, even a marginal comparative lack of enthusiasm can be damaging. And Romney appears to have a pretty major internal lack of enthusiasm heading in.

As you may have heard, this cute little state below is voting today, and all indications are that Romney will win, and win big (graphic from FiveThirtyEight.com):

A major victory in a populous winner-take-all state. Surely a turning point, no? Well… I don’t know if you’ve noticed, but one of the interesting things about “turning points” in this race is how little they’ve actually done to change the underlying dynamics. So far, 44% (or so) of the union, in population terms, has voted (graphic from Wikipedia): 

When Romney took Michigan and Arizona, that was considered a major win. When Santorum then won Colorado, Minnesota and Missouri, there was a lot of talk about Romney’s future being in doubt. Washington and Maine wins shored Romney back up. Then Santorum won Kansas by a huge margin (ah yes, but note that Romney got the majority of the delegates that day, thanks to caucuses in US territories). On Super Tuesday, Romney was on top after winning 6 states, including Ohio. Or was he shaky for losing 4 states and barely squeaking by in Ohio? Whichever, he got half the delegates that day. Then last week, Santorum won convincing victories in Alabama and Mississippi, where Romney placed third. Except that, thanks to Hawaii, and more US territory caucuses, Romney got about as many delegates as Santorum did that night.

Now, coming off of a big win this weekend in Puerto Rico, Romney will likely take Illinois tonight. He’s on his way! Except when Santorum wins Louisiana and Missouri this weekend. And on it will go…

The very earliest I could picture Santorum getting out would be after April 24th, if, say, he lost Wisconsin April 3rd, performed weakly in other contests, and then was embarrassed by losing his home state of Pennsylvania. More likely, he’ll do well enough in enough places that he’ll be encouraged to stay in going in to May. And Gingrich has made clear that he’s not going anywhere, even though all his best chances to break out have already passed.       

The upshot of all of this? Despite Gingrich’s self-justification for staying in, and Santorum’s continuing zeal, as Nate Silver makes clear, Romney’s machine is competing so strongly across the board, pulling in delegates even in places he doesn’t win, and taking winner-take-alls when they come, that he’s almost certain to get to 1,144 before the convention. Barring a candidacy-hobbling scandal (which, come on, a Mormon is not likely to give rise to), Romney will be the nominee.

But not very quickly. As noted above, about 44% of the country has voted, population-wise. And Romney has gotten (sound of computer clicking and whirring), yes that’s right, about 45% of the total he needs:

There’s no reason, given the states remaining, that he should do worse than this. His popular vote total thus far is running at about 40%, but delegation allocation rules, and his campaign’s skillful targeting of opportunities for delegate upside, is giving him more than 50% of delegates on average. But there’s also no reason that he should do markedly better. As you’ll see below, there’s no real trend on his part toward getting above 50% thus far:

Mathematically, Romney will, almost certainly, be the nominee. And mathematically, he will, almost certainly, not get there until nearly the end (probably when California, New Jersey, New Mexico and South Dakota vote on June 5th, maybe not until Utah does on June 26th). Nothing that happens in Illinois tonight will change this.