Ruminations on the FINAL Presidential Debate (can I get an amen?)!

I love the body language and presence in this picture!

Here's a little secret for you-

When it comes to foreign policy, I am not a Republican. Nor am I a Democrat.  My personal foreign policies have never found a good political home and probably never will, unless Mother Theresa and General Schwartzkopf ever decide to form a party together.

I'm sure you want to know what my foreign policies are, so I'm going to tell you, in my roundabout sort of way. Have you ever read the book, The Ugly American? Well, to put it mildly, this 1960's novel had a profound effect on my political views. But it wasn't just the novel, it was traveling and volunteering in places like Haiti, Romania, and Cambodia and seeing scenes from the book play out in real life.

My political views on international affairs begin with humanitarian aid, and education. I give just as much weight and importance to issues such as sex trafficking and education in low-income countries as I do to sanctions against Iran. Educate and feed the poverty stricken countries now, and you'll improve the world economy and have more peaceful allies in the future. Putting a higher emphasis on bringing clean water and education to countries like Cambodia, Vietnam, and large portions of Africa, can help prevent regimes like Gaddafi's in the future. 

Want to create more American jobs? Send Americans overseas to work in third world countries!

Now, back to the debates-

One man had a record to prove and defend; the other had an opinion to defend. And the one with the opinion often had no choice but to give his opinion to journalists before he ever had all of the facts. Of course I say this assuming that a sitting president has far more intel and details about world affairs than a former governor who until recently got his information from the media.

In short, the debate could be summed up as such- Governor Mitt Romney wants the U.S. to play a stronger role in international and peacekeeping conflicts, and would spend more money on the military. President Barack Obama believes the U.S. plays a strong role in the world theater, and tried to show that his leadership is working, and that Romney’s ideas would not work. The problem is that the two men want the same outcome, but their plans to get there are barely different from the other’s.

Shh! I can hear all of you Romney supporters screaming at me from here! I know you hate to hear anyone suggest such a thing, but it’s the truth. Romney and Obama are not that different when it comes to foreign policy. I can't believe I'm going to say this, but I kind of missed Ron Paul tonight. He would have at least brought some color and a different opinion to the table.

Both candidates are firmly against Iran getting a nuclear weapon. (But then, is there any candidate, other than Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who wants Iran to have an nuke?) Both favor sanctions against Iran, and want to form better allies in the fight against Iran. Romney tried to set himself apart by saying he would take a harder line than Obama, and would indict Iran’s president for inciting “genocide.” Whether or not that is actually a feasible or possible plan, I do not know. It sounds exciting and strong, but may not actually play out well at the United Nations.

The facts of the matter are that we only have so many options in dealing with Iran- turn a blind eye and hope for the best, or military actions, sanctions, and strategic alliances. To the best of my knowledge only Ron Paul favors the blind eye approach.

On the subject of Libya, President Obama said he has taken a leadership role in the changing Middle East, including the ousting of Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi from power.
"I and Americans took leadership in organizing an international coalition that made sure that we were able to—without putting troops on the ground, at the cost of less than what we spent in two weeks in Iraq—liberate a country that had been under the yoke of dictatorship for 40 years, got rid of a despot who had killed Americans," he said. (And English teachers everywhere cringed.)

For some reason Romney didn’t take that opportunity to attack the President on the Benghazi assassination. He has not been shy about criticizing Obama on the issue in recent weeks. It was surprising that he didn’t do it in this debate. In my opinion, this was a big mistake.

The one place the two candidates differ significantly is on defense spending, and these differences aren’t just their differences, they are deep down to the core party differences. Democrats don’t like to put money into the military, Republicans do. It is that simple.

Here’s some food for thought: Democrats like to “create jobs” within the federal government. Republicans like to create jobs with military spending (the jobs come both within the military and in civilian contracts with the military). There is a well defined line between federal and military jobs. The biggest difference is that federal jobs don’t help the overall economy, they help the government. And it creates a finite number of jobs. Military sector jobs not only help the military, they help foster research, inventions, development, and improvements from the commercial sector, and help the economy. Not all military spending goes to bullets and bombs. Much of it goes to create new technology that starts out as a need for the military, and gets adapted for civilian use. Case in point- the internet (regardless of what Al Gore may have told you), microwaves, cargo pants, and duct tape.

Both men declared their support for Israel when asked what the U.S. should do if Israel were attacked by Iran. Obama said, “I will stand with Israel if Israel is attacked.” Moments later Romney declared, “If Israel is attacked, we have their back.” But again I ask, is there anyone who plans to turn their back on Israel?

Both candidates also oppose U.S. military involvement in Syria. Obama did try and make some points on his leadership efforts in Syria. However, most of these points failed to hit home, and will not resonate with anyone. The U.S. population overall has remained disconnected to the Syrian conflict, with most of the major news outlets (excluding CNN) largely ignoring it.

A CNN poll released right after the debate showed no clear “winner” for the night. An MSNBC poll showed 59% of viewers were more likely to vote for Obama after the debate (no surprise there). The ABC poll showed the candidates in a virtual tie on international affairs. And a CBS poll showed 53% of the people feeling Obama “won” the debate, 23% felt Romney won, and 25% felt it was a tie. As of midnight, there was not a Fox News report on who “won” the night. But I'm pretty sure we can all predict what their poll will inevitably say. 

It is unfortunate that international affairs and foreign policy will continue to stay the American people’s shortcoming. Equal or adequate time is rarely given in classrooms or the media when it comes to the subjects. There are enough domestic issues to fill newspapers and news reports, without needing to invest much in conflicts and stories in faraway lands. And so we are often misinformed and under-informed. We are naively guided by biases, rumors, and third hand ideas, rather than facts and figures. We build opinions on what another country needs having never been to that country, met someone from that country, or listened to the voice of the people in that country. All too often we assume that what they need is a little dose of our American medicine and trample our military in to give it to them. I am happy that both presidential candidates shy away from this approach, and instead lean to negotiations and sanctions first.

All this talk about Iran has me thinking of one of my favorite Saturday Night Live digital shorts- 

Don't miss my new novel, "You Heard It Here First!" on Amazon, Nook, and Kindle!

Republican Platform May Include a Gold Standard Commission

Is it the Ron Paul Effect?
Drafts of the Republican Party platform (which will get voted on and ratified at the convention next week) have included a call for an audit of the Federal Reserve monetary policy and a commission to investigate the feasibility for a return to the gold standard.
Marsha Blackburn, (TN-R), co-chair of the platform committee, said the issues were not adopted to keep Paul and his people happy, but because Republicans at large wanted it. (They did?)
Fact: Richard Nixon broke the link between gold and the dollar during the 1971 oil crisis.
During the Reagan years the party platform included a “restoration of a dependable monetary standard," (1980), and “the gold standard may be a useful mechanism” (1984).  It hasn't been included in any platforms since. Interesting to note that Reagan was not in favor of the gold standard.
Federal Reserve Chairman, Ben "the Beard" Bernanke,  is not a fan of the gold standard either. Why? Bernanke is cited as having said that in the 1800s the U.S. was prone to frequent booms and busts in part because the gold standard left no discretion in the banking system over interest rates or the money supply.
Governor Romney is not a big supporter of the idea. He's also not a big fan of Bernanke..
Romney told CNBC, "I know that in the past when we had a gold standard, the idea that somehow it was detached from or free from any interference by Congress was simply wrong because even with the gold standard someone has to decide what is the conversion rate between the gold and the dollar."
Romney, Bernanke, or Paul fan, now may be a good time to invest in gold!

Feedback

Virginia GOP Chooses State Convention Over a Primary in 2013

The Republican Party of Virginia made some interesting changes over the weekend. The party's state central committee chose to hold a convention in 2013 rather than a primary election- for governor, lieutenant governor and attorney general.

Lt. Governor Bill Bolling

 
It is no secret that the VA GOP has a little feud on its hands, and this primary/convention situation is a major event in that feud. As mentioned before on this blog current Lt. Gov Bill Bolling and Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli are competing for the Republican gubernatorial nomination. (It's just a little awkward inside the party right now.)

Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli

Bolling prefers a primary. Cuccinelli prefers a convention.

What's the difference and why does it matter?

Anyone can vote in a primary. Only party members who attend the convention get to vote at the convention.

A primary means a candidate gets to go out, glad hand, handshake, and stump. (They also cost a whole lot more to campaign.)

A convention means schmoozing the delegates with voting power at the convention.

And guess what happened at the convention over the weekend? The committee voted 47-31 to rescind an October 2011 decision to have a primary and to instead go with the option that gives them the most power.

Funny how that happens.

Bolling issued the following in a statement after the vote, "[a convention] will effectively disenfranchise hundreds of thousands of Virginia Republicans, and all active-duty military personnel, from participating in the nomination of our candidates."

"If we want to grow our party, we have to involve more people in the nomination of our candidates, not fewer; and I believe that we do that through primaries, not party conventions. This decision creates the impression that our party is an exclusive party, as opposed to an inclusive party, and that is not the message we should be sending to the people of Virginia."

Something else interesting happened at the convention. There wasn't a visible feud. I was in attendance for the Friday night proceedings, and asked a few people why I didn't see the Bolling campaign everywhere. (Because heaven knows, I saw plenty of Cuccinelli, and everyone else.) The answer was hush-hush, but people very respectfully explained that the two men do not want to divide the party, and therefore are giving each other some space. Cuccinelli got Friday night, and supposedly Bolling got Saturday. (I was not there Saturday so I did not get to witness it.) Rather than directly compete and the second and third highest ranking GOPers in the state, they politely stay out of each other's ways. I appreciate that.
So why does Cuccinelli prefer a convention over a primary? He says it is because it will allow the Republican nominee to save money for the general election campaign. That is very true. A bloody battle in the primary can be costly. Just ask Romney, Newt, and Santorum.

Supporters of the convention method claim it is a return to “grassroots activism.” For this writer, that is both true and untrue. First, if grassroots want to get more active, it doesn't matter which method of voting is held, they will get active. What really happens is what we see taking place around the country with Ron Paul supporters hijacking wreaking havoc showing up and causing a stir at state conventions around the country. You get a small, but passionate, group of people to show up at your local district convention to carry your torch.

Some call this grassroots activism, I call it not the will of the people, but the will of the loudest people.

Why does this method help Cuccinelli? He's got the Tea Party support.

The downside to this method? It's not unlike what happens in a grand jury indictment. They can indict anyone they want. A group of people get together and all agree the blue chair in the corner is bad, in spite of the evidence. They indict it. Or, in political terms, a bunch of Ron Paul rowdies show up and get their guy on the ballot, in spite of what the majority of people really want.

And for the candidates not running against Cuccinelli and Bolling for governor, (for instance Morgan Griffith running for U.S. House) that can be a scary prospect. One minute you are uncontested and all is well, the next a bunch of rowdies from who-knows-where show up with some buddies, and someone else gets the job!

Ron Paul - it's about time!

Rep. Ron Paul has sort of, finally, stopped annoying real Republicans dropped out of the race.
He announced today, Monday, that he will no longer waste his money fighting a losing battle compete in primaries in states that have not yet voted. Instead he will continue to annoy Republicans by causing problems at state delegate conventions where he will attempt to get his fans delegate spots.
In his exact words, “Moving forward, however, we will no longer spend resources campaigning in primaries in states that have not yet voted. Doing so with any hope of success would take many tens of millions of dollars we simply do not have.”
Well, at least he is realistic on that one point. Too bad most of his supporters are not. He did encourage his supporters to still turn out and vote.

You say you want a revolution?

While nobody was looking, Rep. Ron Paul and his Paulites pulled a fast one.
It's like this. Caucuses are a funny thing. Especially in those early-on states that only wanted attention by holding their caucuses early, and then held second primaries or caucuses to redetermine who they wanted to pick after all of the other states picked. (This is also called being spineless and stupid.)
Despite the fact that former Governor Mitt Romney won Nevada with 50% way back when, and Paul only took 19% of the vote, that isn't what was reflected in the state's second, and more binding, caucus.
The Paulites have quietly been working all around the country to make sure their own people get picked as the actual delegates who get to go to Tampa for the national convention. Not every state binds their delegates to the votes of the public. Tricky, eh?
Nevada delegates are bound by the results on the first convention ballot (the one where Romney got 50%). But, thanks to the disrupt by people like Gingrich and Santorum, who refused to drop out sooner, the Paulites are hoping for a brokered convention. Because if no clear winner emerges after the first convention ballot, and there is a second vote, Nevada's delegates are not bound to their state's previous elections. They are free to vote as they please (well, not all, but most of them are). And being Paulites, they will vote for Ron Paul.
Oh and did I mention this happened in Maine as well? Romney won the Maine caucus with 2,373 votes. Paul took a VERY close second with 2,258 votes. The state has 24 delegates: 21 tied to caucuses, 3 unpledged RNC delegates. And yet, Paul took all 15 of the state's at-large delegates.
Is this a real threat? If you ask the Paulites it is. If you look at the real numbers, Mitt Romney has 792 pledged delegates, and 49 unpledged RNC delegates, (total 841). The other three guys combined have 490. There are 966 delegates unallocated as of right now. Ron Paul, including the surreptitiously gained delegates, has 76. You have to have 1,144 to win. So even if he were to get all of the unallocated delegates available, no, he could not win. There were would have to be a massive coup and abandonment of the party for Paul's delegates to make something happen.
Likelihood of that happening?
Meh. Not likely. But don't tell the Paulites. They think they have started a r-love-ution.

Media Bias and What Happens Next

A look at this evening's "top of the fold" cover on the Huffington Post is a sad look at media bias in politics. From the "Hiel Hitler" pose to the "hostile takeover" headline, there is nothing but bias in this image. And since when was a five year bid a "hostile takeover?"

I stopped watching Fox News years ago because of the hatred and vile on the network. Sure, maybe it is conservative friendly (it isn't fair and balanced, that's for sure), but I don't care to hear hatred for any party. I only read the Huffington Post to get a true liberal slant on stories for something to compare my own beliefs against. I prefer CNN because I think they actually spend more time on looking pretty and sleek graphics and theme music than they do on bias. (And because they are the only American network I can rely on to give me human rights stories.)

But if there is one thing to be learned from this political cycle it is that Mitt Romney has not won over the media. The news stories today have all been about how Romney has failed to win all Republicans. Or how the base is not yet behind him. And if I hear one more story about how the GOP doesn't have a strong candidate and may have to go to a brokered convention, I may pull my hair out.

Let's look at the straight up facts.
Romney now has 429 delegates, compared with 169 for Rick Santorum, 118 for Newt Gingrich and 67 for Ron Paul. Add it up, kids. That is 429 delegates for Romney, 354 for the other three guys combined. That is a majority of Republicans behind Romney. The other three guys put together can't outdo him. Yes, I've seen the stories about not getting enough delegates and a potential brokered convention. And if that happens, so be it. There's no point in saying "Well, historically..." anymore. This campaign cycle hasn't followed any historic patterns, so we can stop pretending it will in the future.

The plain and simple truth is that Gingrich needs to step down. He has 118 delegates, which in theory is impressive. Except 53 of those came from his own home state last night. He only got 79 delegates total last night. He came in third or fourth place in every single state except for his home state! He's not winning. His money is drying up. And he will have no momentum to move forward. He has no chance of suddenly winning at a brokered convention, although I suspect that a brokered convention would be a daydream of his. He loves history. He probably relishes the idea of a shouting match on the convention floor and the thought of being carried on the shoulders of his men through the room to the stage. But the truth is, if he hadn't been absolutely vile to the competition up to this point, if he were to drop out now, he would make a good VP. But he shot himself in the foot when it comes to that.

No one is more surprised than I am that Rick Santorum is a strong contender. And the truth is, I don't actually think he is that strong on his own merits. I think what he is is the poster child for the anti-Romney vote. I don't believe people are behind Santorum as much as they are against Romney. I believe if anything were to happen at a brokered convention that it would be a dark horse who could usurp Santorum support. And if that person were charismatic and surprising enough, he/she could really compete against Romney.

(As for Ron Paul, do I think he should bow out? Yes. But I don't think it would make any difference. I don't think his supporters would then fall behind someone else. I think they would follow him out of the party. However, I do think in the tightest races like Ohio last night, it would make a difference if there had been one less "anti-Romney" option available.)

So really, it all comes down to Romney at this point. He either has to finally, convincingly win over more voters, or we're going to a brokered convention. He's a by the book kind of guy, so I don't think we'll see any surprise moves come out of him. But if it were me, and I wanted to shake things up, I'd buck convention completely at this point and do something crazy like start talking seriously about VP possibilities. If you can't get the voters to love you, get them to love your ticket. (For instance, a Romney- Nikki Haley ticket? Who could argue with that?)

Just a little interesting moment from Twitter last night. Judging by the surprising number of retweets, I'd say I'm not alone. 

Super Tuesday Predictions

Spoiler Alert! If you don't like knowing what to expect on Super Tuesday, you have been warned.
Here's what to expect tomorrow- the polls and my personal predictions. (Note- I am making my predictions without taking the time to see how the states divide up the delegates (winner takes half? by congressional district? truly proportional?) Nonetheless, I feel confident overall.)

Alaska- 27 delegates, proportional (caucus) - There are no available polls for this state, so I'll base my predictions on the national polls- Romney 39%, Santorum 26%, Gingrich 14%, Paul 12%. Except in this case, my gut says Alaska would be a Paul friendly state.
Prediction: Romney 12 delegates, Paul 8, Santorum 5, Gingrich 2.

Georgia- 76 delegates, proportional- Last week's polls (2/26) showed Gingrich 34%, Santorum 25%, Romney 21.5%, Paul 8.8%. But this week Gingrich has actually increased that lead to about 40(ish)%, and Romney has taken second place.
Prediction: Gingrich 36 delegates, Romney 15, Santorum 15, Paul 10.

Idaho- 32 delegates, proportional (caucus)- no available polls. But I'll call it more than 40% for Romney.
Prediction: Romney 20 delegates, Paul 10, Santorum 2, Gingrich 0.

Massachusetts- 41 delegates, proportional- expect Romney to win by a landslide (polls indicate a 40 point lead)
Prediction: Romney 30 delegates, Santorum 5, Paul 5, Gingrich 1.

North Dakota- 28 delegates, proportional- no available polls, so again, I'll go with the national polls, but this time straight across the board (as compared to my Alaska feelings).
Prediction: Romney 12 delegates, Santorum 8, Gingrich 5, Paul 3.

Ohio- 66 delegates, proportional - Santorum and Romney are neck and neck. Most polls have them tied or within a point of each other. But this is a meeting in the middle at the moment. Santorum is sliding down, while Romney is climbing up. Expect it to be close, with a tie for delegate count.
Prediction: Santorum 25 delegates, Romney 25, Gingrich 10, Paul 6.

Oklahoma- 43 delegates, proportional - most recent polls are over 2 weeks old. At that time Santorum had a 20 point lead. I'll call it for Santorum, since no one else has invested any time or resources there.
Prediction: Santorum 25 delegates, Romney 10, Paul 8, Gingrich 0.

Tennessee- 58 delegates, proportional- a last minute poll shows things are almost tied up in a state that had been expected to be Santorum and Gingrich friendly.That poll shows Santorum 35%, Romney 31%, Gingrich 20%, and Paul 9%. And again, this is a Santorum on the downhill, and Romney on the uphill situation. But there has been early voting that gives Santorum the advantage.
Prediction: Santorum 22 delegates, Romney 18, Gingrich 10, Paul 8.

Vermont- 17 delegates, proportional- most recent poll is 2 weeks old, but had Romney with a modest lead.
Prediction: Romney 10 delegates, Santorum 4, Paul 3, Gingrich 0.

Virginia- 49 delegates, proportional - Only Romney and Paul are on the VA ballot, because the other two candidates failed to meet requirements. Romney leads currently with 69%, Paul 26%. Write-in votes are not allowed.
Prediction: Romney 40 delegates, Paul 9. 

My total prediction-

Romney- 192

Santorum- 111

Paul- 70

Gingrich- 64

Yes, I am giving Ron Paul more delegates than Gingrich. Call me crazy. But I really do think tomorrow will be Gingrich's swan song (which will sound a lot like a dying duck). I also predict some serious whining on Santorum's part about how Romney spent SOOO much more money than he did and only BARELY beat him.
Tonight I heard a Santo surrogate talking about how Santorum has won more counties than Romney, which is some of the most ridiculous spin I've ever heard. Winning a sparsely populated county in Iowa is not the same as winning a densely populated county in Detroit.
The math is simple- to date, Romney has won 52% of all delegates so far. My math for tomorrow has him winning 44% of the delegates. And really, if Georgia wasn't so heavily for Gingrich (which it rightfully is voting for the native son), the numbers would skew more in Romney's favor. Even in the states where Romney doesn't win (with the exception of Georgia), he's going to walk away with close to 40-50% of the delegates in that state.
Of course, as I type this, I am watching CNN, where John King has just said that now Oklahoma might be closer than I am giving it.

I watch the CNN debate so you don't have to!

I'm back! With another round of "I watch the debates so you don't have to!"

The first hour recap-

The "table method" of having everyone sit next to each other is definitely blocking a little bit of the physical posturing. 

Romney - I'm going to take programs that are important but that could be better run at state level, and send them back to states. 

Ron Paul calls Santorum a fake conservative issues. 

The most interesting thing I have learned so far is that Santorum is so passionate on abstinence/birth control issues that he wanted to pass legislation to pass federal funding for teaching abstinence to counteract Title 10 Planned Parenthood legislation. Ron Paul, of course, is against spending money period, but he makes the point that Santorum voted for Title 10. Santorum was willing to pay twice for social programs, rather than not vote for the first one (Planned Parenthood) at all. Santorum loses big time on the fiscally conservative count, and backs up Paul's "fake" label.

Second hour-

Heading in to the second hour we're discussing both birth control and apparently Romneycare/Obamacare. 

Santorum still lacks finesse at debating. He's bringing his A-game tonight, but he lacks the ability to regulate his emotions and channel his energy. (something Romney has perfected, and Gingrich exploits). 

Romney says Santorum supporting Arlen Specter led to ObamaCare.  He supported Specter over the Republican Toomey.

Santorum says he supported Specter because he thought Toomey was too conservative to win. Umm...

Apparently Gingrich still doesn't have an angle except for dropping Reagan's name. To which, I'd like to remind everyone what it is Gingrich has said about Reagan.

Ooh, after the commercial the candidate get to define themselves using one word. What word would you pick? I'm sure they are all scrambling to find a synonym for conservative right now. I would pick-

Newt- Grandiose. 

What I think he will pick- Leader

Romney- business leader

What I think he will pick- Leader

Santorum- moral extremist

What I think he will pick- Conservative (he's not creative enough to find a different word)

Ron Paul- crack pot

What I think he will pick- liberty activist (because he won't play by rules)

Their actual answers- Paul: Consistent 

Santorum: Courage 

Romney: Resolute. 

Gingrich: Cheerful.

I spit out my drink when he said cheerful. 

From Twitter, Ralph Reed says "Good, spirited debate. Best by Mitt yet. Santorum folded contraception Q into broader need to strengthen the family. Well done. #CNNDebate"

It absolutely kills me that women in combat is even an issue. I am 100% in favor of women being equal with men in combat. If men have a problem with that, fine, they can quit and let the women take over. 

How out of touch with social media is Rick Santorum? Well, he still has his endorsement of Specter up on youtube -http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=9cXPSyLNgYk.

And we've moved on to Iran.
Santorum's stance- take the opposite view of VP Biden.
Romney- We simply cannot allow Iran to have nuclear weapons. No greater obama failure than this.
Paul- We don't know if they really have a weapon.
UM??? You mean other than them showing the footage this week of Mahmoud looking at the technology???

No Child Left Behind Act Question-
Santorum voted for it. However, his answer explaining why (party politics dictated that he should). But why he doesn't believe in it now was a believable answer. He gets a pass from me (and a flipflop), but the audience boos. The reaction here sets apart anyone who has actually worked in real politics versus the armchair quarterbacks. If you've worked on the Hill, you understand where Santorum is coming from on this one. NCLB passed by a majority because the party leader said so. Before it got passed though nobody liked the final product because both sides put in too many caveats and regulations. It was not the bill the POTUS started with or wanted. But no one could back out by then. Santorum may very well have never believed in it (we'll never know), but had to vote for it, because as he said, "politics is a team sport." Boo if you want, but if you've worked in the real trenches, you know what he means.

The Twitter feedback really looks like people feel Santorum didn't do his best tonight, and that Romney has really made a comeback.
I'm looking forward to the AC360 recap after the debate to see what the "experts" think. 

What to Expect from the GOP Debate Tonight in Arizona

The view from my seat at the SC GOP debate

We've had 3 weeks and 6 beautiful days between GOP debates, but that all changes tonight when John King and Wolf Blitzer take to the CNN stage again.
A lot has changed in the last four weeks. First and foremost, Rick Santorum grew a spine, and Newt Gingrich drifted off into irrelevancy. Mitt Romney has lost his favored status, and Ron Paul continues to be, well, Ron Paul.
Tonight the candidates won't be trying to appeal to just one state, but instead will be trying to appeal to both Arizona and Michigan- two very different states, with very different issues. On top of that, there won't be another debate before the real Super Tuesday next week. So chances are good we won't see pandering to any one state like we did with Gingrich and the moon colony in Florida.
Rick Santorum has the most to lose tonight. He has been running on a social conservative platform since day one. And now, he's finally turned the tide and made everyone else talk about it too. But considering the extremist views he has, the real question is how long can that last?
Santorum has not performed well in any of the debates so far. He hasn't performed badly, he just has failed to connect or make an impact. And because debating hasn't been his strong suit, expect both Romney and Gingrich to capitalize on that.
If it is Santorum that wins, it will be considered Romney that lost. Romney absolutely has to connect with the voters, and he needs to re-establish his Superman-bullet-deflecting-Teflon-armor persona where the attacks just bounce off of him. I predict we will not see Romney engage with Santorum or vice versa. Both will go after Obama instead. Gingrich, as always, will be the wild card. Will he attack Romney and Santorum, or go after Obama? If he goes after Obama, we may be in for one really dull debate where no one is willing to confront each other. But Romney and Santorum would both be wise to take on Gingrich if he's not too much of a loose cannon. Taking on each other is too risky and admits the other is the competition. Shutting Gingrich up just makes people like you more.
Gingrich has everything at stake. If there is anything we have learned in the last 4 weeks it is that he fails to be relevant or interesting if he's not fighting on stage. I expect he will come out swinging, and that we may see the return of Grandiose Newt tonight. Some would suggest that he would be up for an image change right now. Gingrich doesn't do that, he refuses to change. He will definitely be the unknown factor tonight.
Ron Paul- why does he even show up at these things?
Some interesting other notes-
Tonight the debate will be held at a desk and everyone will be sitting. This may put a small damper on Gingrich's literal posturing and strutting.
The debate is being held in Mesa, Arizona, a VERY Mormon friendly town, on a Catholic holy day. It will be interesting to see how religious attitudes effect the proceedings.

Mitt Romney May Lose Maine After All (Is Ron Paul a Hypocrite?)

Ron Paul Refuses to Concede Maine (Photo Source: Info Wars)

As if the debacle in Iowa wasn't bad enough, Maine is now bungling the system too. And Ron Paul supporters are calling for blood!

Here are the facts.

Maine is a non-binding caucus state, and allows the individual caucuses within the state to vote during the course of one week (Feb 4-11). There are roughly 505 municipalities in Maine, and 420 of them caucused. However, there is a catch. Some caucuses, for whatever reason, choose to hold their event outside of that one week. Their votes do not get counted in the early non-binding caucus. So why they hold them at all, is a bit of a mystery.
On February 11, Washington County, one of the largest caucuses, was supposed to hold their meeting. But, due to an unexpected snowstorm it got canceled and rescheduled. (Really? Maine wasn't prepared for a snowstorm? Isn't that the one thing they do in Maine?) As a result, they are now outside of the allowed window, and their caucus won't be counted in the non-binding results!
Mitt Romney won the Maine caucus with 39%, just 3 percent more than Ron Paul's 36%. That was less than 200 votes between them!

Ron Paul’s campaign called the exclusion of Washington County’s results “inexplicable.” Naturally they think that because they believe they have a stronghold in Washington County. Would they be crying foul if Romney had the lead there?
“Paul performed well throughout the state, although his campaign’s stronghold of Washington County did not report today for inexplicable reasons,” according to a statement released by the campaign.
Maybe by "inexplicable reasons," they mean the fact that Maine wasn't prepared for a snow storm??
The campaign released a scathing email to supporters, using typical Paul rhetoric.
“In Washington County – where Ron Paul was incredibly strong – the caucus was delayed until next week just so the votes wouldn’t be reported by the national media today. That’s right. A prediction of 3-4 inches – that turned into nothing more than a dusting – was enough for a local GOP official to postpone the caucuses just so the results wouldn’t be reported tonight.

“Just the votes of Washington County would have been enough to put us over the top. This is an outrage. But our campaign is in this race to win, and will stay in it to the very end."
So let's get this straight, Ron Paul's camp is mad that the county so supposedly heavy in his favor, chose not to vote, citing snow- the one great export of Maine- as their reason, knowing that their votes would not count if they didn't vote that night? Did they not care enough to make the effort to brave the elements to exercise their rights to vote? Mr. Paul, I'd hardly call those "Liberty Activists!"
Here's the thing, Ron Paul didn't do well in the 2008 elections in Washington County, and only 118 votes were cast in that county at all. Even if all 118 people showed up to caucus this time, it still wouldn't be enough for Ron Paul to win! And oh yeah, this was a non-binding caucus!
Is this even a reasonable demand? Or do we even expect Ron Paul to be reasonable anymore? No? I didn't think so.
But, popular news site Politico has obtained an email from a source inside the Maine GOP that suggests there is a recount underway. But it doesn't indicate whether or not Washington County will retroactively get included in last week's results.
Maine will hold its actual state convention where it picks its delegates in early May. The Maine GOP is currently scheduled to meet on March 10 - the Saturday after Super Tuesday - when it plans to revisit the caucus results.
At this point, all of these states holding early, non-binding primaries and caucuses, are just making a mockery out of the system. They want to look important and get the attention of the candidates, so they hold the early votes, forcing the candidates to come visit. But then, by holding the more binding convention several months later, they can be duplicitous about it, and switch their state delegates over to the current front runner and likely nominee, away from who they actually chose at the beginning. Because heaven forbid your state not be in favor with the person who actually wins! That will not help the state party get help from the national party down the road!
The non-binding votes just to curry favor and attention makes a joke out of the primary system, and the republic representation system our country is founded on. And it is shocking, that of all people, Ron Paul isn't the one championing that cause! The "Liberty Activist" that he is, who chooses to live and die by the Constitution without question, should be the one forcing states to stick to their votes and elected and ratified rules and laws! Isn't that what he stands for? Well, maybe, just not when it suits him otherwise.

I read the news so you don't have to

A few highlights from around the political news circuit-
Rick Santorum is in some hot water for saying to CNN's John King, "I want to create every opportunity for women to be able to serve this country . . . but I do have concerns about women in front-line combat.
“I think that could be a very compromising situation, where people naturally may do things that may not be in the interest of the mission because of other types of emotions that are involved. It already happens, of course, with the camaraderie of men in combat, but I think it would be even more unique if women were in combat,” Santorum added. “And I think that’s not in the best interests of men, women or the mission.”
He's now trying to spin it as men are the one's with conflicting emotions about women. A woman next to them could distract them.  He's trying to convince everyone that he wasn't implying women are the ones who have emotions.
Will anyone believe that? Only time will tell.

Callista Gingrich (who we now know goes by Calli Lou at home, thanks to Randi Kay on CNN) will be taking on a more vocal role on her husband's campaign.  This is not surprising at all as the campaigns shift towards more social issues, and Newt is up against two very family-first candidates. Calli Lou took her first big step yesterday by introducing her husband at CPAC. For many people (most?) it was our first time to hear her voice, and really witness her style. She came across as dull, wooden, and not the warm, loving faithful wife the campaign most likely wanted to present. Calli Lou is up against two of the most easy to love women in Ann Romney and Karen Santorum. One has MS and is a breast cancer survivor, while the other is a home-schooling mother with a special needs child. Both look like the mom you wished you had. And Calli Lou, cute name or not, has a long and well-storied past to overcome with her document affair with her now husband, massive credit line at Tiffanys, etc. She would be better off to not position herself as the next First Mother, and instead take a page from Hilary Clinton's campaign playbook. Like Hilary, she has a great deal of professional and political experience of her own. She needs to play to her strengths, and not pretend she is something she is not.

Ron Paul says the US is in 130 countries. True or False?

Copied, edited for length (not content), and shared via "Ron Paul's strange claim about bases and troops overseas" on Washington Post.


“We don't need to pay all this money to keep troops all over the country, 130 countries, 900 bases. But also, just think, bringing all the troops home rather rapidly, they would be spending their money here at home and not in Germany and Japan and South Korea, tremendous boost to the economy.”
— Rep. Ron Paul (R-Tex.), Feb. 7, 2012
 

The Facts

First of all, Paul needs to update his rhetoric. He is still using the same numbers now that he used in September, but since then, the United States pulled out of Iraq, closing scores, if not hundreds, of facilities. So one would have to scratch Iraq off the “occupy” list. (A Paul spokesman did not respond to a query.)
In any case, the Defense Department every year publishes a list of military facilities in the United States and around the world. As of Sept. 30, 2010, the DOD list shows a list of 611 military facilities around the world (not counting war zones), though only 20 are listed as “large sites,” which means a replacement value of more than $1.74 billion.
Most of these — 549 — are small sites, sometimes very, very small.
 In fact, some sites appear to be double-counted. There is Spangdahlem Air Force base in Germany, which houses the 52^nd Fighter Wing and is counted as a large site. But a separate “base” on the list is the sprawling Spangdahlem Waste Annex, all of three acres, with four buildings totaling 6,500 square feet.
 The DOD list does not include war zones, but we know that Iraq has no U.S. troops now, so that would just leave Afghanistan. GlobalSecurity.org, a comprehensive Web site for military information, lists 106 U.S. military facilities in Afghanistan. So, it is hard to see how one gets the list above 750 overseas military facilities, and that’s only if one generously concludes even waste dumps and the like as “military bases.”

Mini Tuesday Outlook

Minnesota Caucus tonight- should Bachmann have endorsed anyone? Would it have mattered?

Today isn't quite a "Super" Tuesday, that term being saved for a much bigger voting day next month, but 70 delegates are up for grabs today. Let's take a look at what is at stake, what might go down, and what to expect.

The States in play today are the Colorado and Minnesota caucuses (and Missouri primary(sort of)). However, neither state will award their delegates until down the road. In other words, they vote, CNN (and all the others) will declare a winner, but the states won't make it official until a more official party meeting is held next month.


Missouri has a nonbinding primary that is, for all intents and purposes, a fashion show and not much more. The state will vote in a primary, but doesn't actually award delegates until a caucus later on. Confused yet? In other words, the people vote, and the state listens, but just in case they change their minds and the guy they picked isn't favored to be the winner down the road, they can change their delegates to go to someone else. Stay classy, Missouri.

Let's not forget, Missouri is also our first chance to remember that Newt Gingrich had time to plan a moon base, but failed to hire someone to pay the $1000 fee, and turn in some paperwork, to get on the Missouri ballot.

What's at Stake
Minnesota has 40 proportional delegates. Pledged delegates follow the caucus results. But unpledged delegates are Republican National Committee delegates and official GOP members who get to attend the convention in August. They can vote for the candidate of their choice.

CNN FL Debate wrap up- I watch these things so you don't have to

CNN Florida GOP Debate (Linked to source CNN)

The real winner of this debate? CNN and Wolf Blitzer. In spite of this being the umpteenth debate and viewers being completely tired of the same old questions, Blitzer managed to bring his A game and keep things lively.
And lively they were.
Newt Gingrich thought he could start off using his well-honed Saul Alinsky tactics, and hack Mitt Romney off at the knees and attack Blitzer at the same time. It took two seconds to see that the tables have turned. Romney came out swinging and didn't back down. And Blitzer didn't back down either. Gingrich was outplayed at his own game, and spent the entire night swinging wildly without connecting. Gingrich insulted and jabbed, then looked to the audience for affirmation. But affirmation didn't come. Instead Blitzer reminded Gingrich that he's tried these attacks before, and  how about trying to say these things to Romney's face.
Turns out Gingrich is all bark and little bite.
The crowd turned on Gingrich. They laughed. They jeered. And stood and cheered for Romney as he put Gingrich back in his place.
But Romney wasn't safe either. Blitzer played fair and launched into a Romney tax question designed to put him in the hot seat. Romney took it, flipped it, and made it about Gingrich.
The nailbiting moment of the night was when Gingrich accused Romney of investing in Fannie and Freddie. (Which begs the question, which is more condemnable- consulting for millions in fees for them? Or investing in them like millions of Americans have done?) 
But! Romney shocked us all by sharing that Gingrich too had invested in them. The look on Gingrich's face was priceless. You could almost see the steam coming from his ears. Bested at his own game.
Rick Santorum and Ron Paul were nearly invisible for the first twenty minutes, with the exception of a very touching moment at the opening when Santorum introduced his "date" for the night- his 90 year old mother in the audience. The crowd didn't hold back in giving her the applause she deserved. Whether or not you plan to vote for him, you have to admit, she has raised a very good man.
Truth is, Santorum had his best night yet. Romney came off the winner, soundly pounding Gingrich into the ground. But my prediction is that we don't see Gingrich fence-sitters run to Romney. It is Santorum that will gain new supporters this week, demobilizing the Gingrich base.
Romney and Gingrich quite frankly sparred and insulted like jilted ex-wives, but Romney didn't lose his cool. The same cannot be said for Gingrich.  Additionally, Romney finally gave a strong answer on his wealth with a testimonial of capitalism and self-made men. And the crowd loved it all.
Santorum did knock Romney down a peg or two on Romneycare. He made excellent points and proved himself to be stronger and knowledgeable than he usually does in debates.
Ron Paul knows he has nothing to gain in Florida. It is a winner take all state, and he's in fourth place. He didn't waste his energy pandering to pork-barrel ideas, or making empty promises. (A colony on the moon, Newt? Really? In this economy, and with all of the problems around the world, and you want to pander to the Space Coast with a moon colony??) Instead he served mostly as the comic relief for the night, which was very welcome between the intense sparring moments. As usual he had a few completely left field moments about foreign policy that failed to connect, but really, he had a good night.
Now we just sit back and wait for the poll numbers to roll in. Can Romney hold on to his lead until the actual vote on Tuesday? Will Santorum be a real threat? Will any one of them suddenly produce new dirt at the last minute that destroys the competition (again)?
There was a lot of discussion and confusion on Twitter regarding Romney's possible blind trust that invested in Fannie and Freddie. During the debate he claimed that any investments he may have made in them were done by a blind trust, and therefore out of his control. However, by the end of the debate Twitter was alight with the news that this may not be true. Look for this to possibly turn into a news story if Romney was wrong. However, is it really that bad? Find just one home-owning American with a mutual fund that hasn't had some involvement with Fannie and Freddie. There's at least one American who made over a million dollars consulting for them!

Romney Wins New Hampshire, Now What?

South Carolina County Map

So Mitt won New Hampshire. Now what? 
Despite winning in nearly every group of voters (including winning across the conservatives) the fight isn't over. The race is going in Romney's favor, but is not yet a done deal. And nor should it be! The democratic and primary system was not set up so that two fairly small states could have more power than the other 48!
We're already seeing a shift in strategies. Newt "High Road" Gingrich has abandoned all pretenses of pretending to play nice with no negative strategies. He has come out both barrels blazing to attack Romney in a self-described 'Armageddon.' (Now who's the flip-flopper?)Asked about the negative ads from the Gingrich camp, Romney told Boston radio station WRKO on Tuesday that they "will not help" his rival.
"All I have got to do is keep my head down, keep talking about my message of getting America back to work, my experience in having led two businesses successfully, the Olympics successfully," Romney said.
Of course, Gingrich isn't alone in the attacks. Everybody and their brother's PAC are "on the hunt." This looks to be the fight of Romney's political life to not just survive South Carolina, but succeed in it. It is shaping up to be a bloodbath.
The absolute most current poll data released (taken yesterday) has Romney only leading Gingrich by 2 points in South Carolina (Insider Advantage). And that is from a poll taken after the NH victory. However, polls taken earlier in the week have him with as much as an 18 point lead. But again the fight for third place will be very significant. Paul and Santorum are neck and neck there, and both absolutely need to be to take third to be considered viable. And if Perry ends up in last place, there will be little reason for him to proceed to Florida. Huntsman can take last place and still go on to Florida because he had a strong enough showing in NH.
The difference between Perry and Huntsman right now comes down to having enough money to go forward, but more importantly delegates. Perry skipped New Hampshire, and Huntsman skipped Iowa. But Perry had a lousy showing in Iowa. So he's 0 for 2 right now. Huntsman is 1 for 2. Huntsman can afford another hit. But Perry really cannot. Florida and South Carolina primaries are close enough together that a candidate could financially stay in. But considering both men are polling with less than 5% in Florida, there wouldn't be much of a reason to proceed.
There will be another poll next Thursday night in South Carolina (hosted by CNN). Considering how well Huntsman performed last Saturday in the New Hampshire debate, and how that really seemed to give him a bump up in the primary, this will be key to his success.
It is also very important to realize that Ron Paul is a serious threat right now. He has the money to keep going on for several more states. And if he continues to come in second or third everywhere, collecting delegates as he goes, he alone could really draw things out. (And there is nothing he or his supporters would love more than to really draw things out.) I've looked back over the polling data before and after the debates. His numbers don't move at all. Debates don't seem to help or hurt him like they do the other candidates. He only has 11% in South Carolina, just 1-2 points behind Santorum, for a consistent 4th place. He has yet to break 10% in Florida. If it were any other candidate, I'd say it is time to start his exit strategy. But considering his coffers, and ability to outstay his welcome, I would say expect him to come out swinging harder than the rest. But he's a wily candidate. Don't expect him to go after Romney- everyone else is doing that already. He will focus his sites on Gingrich or Santorum. He's not shooting for first place. A second or third place slot will be his victory. Again, slowly picking up delegates as he rolls along.

Who you want to win in NH and why!

Let's take one last look at New Hampshire before the fun starts tonight.
Here are the polls that were discussed yesterday-

Click on image to enlarge. Source: Real Clear Politics

It really helps to take a look at the graph and history of changes when looking forward right now. Understanding momentum and bandwagons is important this week. Santorum, who had no following at all in Iowa previously, came in second thanks to a serendipitous bandwagon. But this week it appears to be Huntsman with the loud and rowdy bandwagon. Everybody jump in! Let's see where this will take us! So here's what you need to know depending on who your horse in the race is-

Romney Supporters-
If you support Romney, you can rest easy that he is highly likely to win New Hampshire. But you need to be looking forward to South Carolina and Florida, where he is leading, but not confidently enough. Santorum is gaining in SC, so a Romney fan really wants to see Santorum in third, fourth, or fifth place tonight. (Sixth place is locked up by Perry.) Romney fans really want to see Gingrich in fifth place as well. Why? It will kill any buzz Santorum and Gingrich may have, and dry up their fundraising, if they do poorly in NH. Ron Paul doesn't have much support in SC, so he isn't a real threat there.
The ideal results tonight for a Romney fan would be 1. Romney, 2. Paul, 3. Huntsman, 4/5 Gingrich Santorum.

Paul Supporters-
Only ever want to see Ron Paul win. But looking deeper into it, a Ron Paul path to success tonight would be tthe same as the Romney path. They want to see Huntsman take third, and be able to build on his momentum in SC. That would take the wind out of the Gingrich and Santorum sails. Huntsman has little chance of really gaining too much in SC. But it would open the way for Paul to again make it to second place in SC. (He's currently a distant fourth.)

Gingrich Supporters-
Tonight is all about making it to second place. A third place "victory" isn't going to help or hurt. But in politics if it isn't helping, it is hurting. With Huntsman, Gingrich, and Santorum neck and neck (and neck) right now, third place really is up for grabs. But the momentum (there has got to be another word for this other than momentum) isn't in Gingrich's favor. Fourth place would be a disaster, and fifth place the ultimate disaster. The only good outcome tonight would be second place. Third is okay, but not great.

Santorum Supporters-
Tonight is the real test. Everyone ran like lemmings to vote for Santorum in Iowa, and then actually stopped to hear him speak at the debates this week. I don't think people liked what they heard. They voted and then gave him a chance. It will be really interesting to see if people liked what they heard when they started paying attention. If he doesn't get third place tonight, he will absolutely have to take first or second in South Carolina. (He's currently in second, threatening a weak first place Romney.) But expect the lemmings to jump ship and run to whoever takes second place in New Hampshire tonight. Depending on how much money he has in the war chest (or in his case, what may only be a piggy bank) he should make it on to Florida regardless of how poorly he does in SC. The real question is whether or not he can survive past that. If he performs well tonight, he survives pass Florida. Otherwise? Highly doubtful.

Huntsman Supporters-
All both of you out there have done a great job timing his peak in New Hampshire. Huntsman is the one to watch tonight, no question about it. He is a real threat for third place. But thanks to his great showing in the debates over the weekend, and a lot of extra media attention, he has a real shot of riding this wave to a peak tonight. He could quite possibly take second place. And if he does, that changes everything for everybody. First, all of the Mormon Romney supporters will have to reevaluate which bandwagon they want seats on. Second, it means more money for him, less for everyone else. He's in last place in SC, but only a tiny 1 point behind Perry. If he can take second tonight, and gain in popularity over the next 10 days, (which he likely would) he becomes a serious threat in SC. I don't know why Gingrich and Santorum are out there beating up on Romney this week. They should be attacking Huntsman, because he is the one that they have to beat.

Perry Supporters-
Don't exist.

Ron Paul supporters are their own worst enemies

Ron Paul at the Faith and Freedom Coalition in June 2011, Source: E McBride

Ron Paul supporters are known for two things- excellent social media grassroots mobilization, and being their own worst enemies.
Look at any social networking site and you can find Ron Paul supporters sharing extremist views (which often don't align with the views of their candidate) and a lot of very negative rhetoric. The antics of the supporters make it difficult for less vile people to take Ron Paul very seriously.
Case in point-
Someone has created an absolutely horrible and offensive "ad" attacking Jon Huntsman's adopted daughters. (That is the link to it, but I will not embed it.) Attacking a candidate is one thing. But attacking his daughters? Unacceptable. I wouldn't be mad if someone attacked "Jon's Girls," his older daughters that have made videos themselves. They have chosen to put themselves out there in the public forum, and are of adult age. But his little adopted daughters? It takes a sick and twisted person to go there.
The ad originated with a group called New Hampshire Liberty 4 Ron Paul. They are not an official organization affiliated with the real campaign. But that is what happens when you decide to go the grassroots method for promoting your campaign.
Naturally, the Paulies are screaming and shouting how "they" didn't make this ad, and are calling it a conspiracy by other campaigns and the "liberal media" to shut down Ron Paul. Hello! New Hampshire Liberty 4 Ron Paul has claimed it and owned up to it! How about instead of making Paulies look even stupider you put the pressure on yourselves and your mates to take the high road?
Now sure, maybe some other evil doer wanted to take down both Huntsman and Paul at the same time by making the video and accrediting it to a Paulie. That is somewhat, almost plausible- if you are the kind of person who thinks everything is a conspiracy theory to take down Ron Paul. And the only people who think that way tend to be Paulies.

Polls for the week ending December 27, 2011

2008 Iowa Caucus Results by County

We're a little delayed thanks to the holiday but here's our weekly look at the national polls.
Last week's GOP nomination polls ended on December 17, and we have new data for this week's polls!
Last week we saw Newt Gingrich drop 4%, Mitt Romney holding on with his usual 20ish percent, and it was Michele Bachmann with the surprising gain of 3.2% overtaking Rick Perry. 

This week Gingrich is still in the lead, but that little green line of his is still going down, while the Romney purple line inched up. Ron Paul takes a completely unimpressive third place, a good 10-14 points behind the leaders.
The data for PPP is so far off from the other polls that I looked back at their last set of numbers. The last data from them was in early November, and even then their numbers were completely different (in Gingrich's favor) from the other polls conducted that week. It makes me want to toss their numbers out personally. If we pull out the PPP numbers, Gingrich's national average is 25.75, and Romney at 25.5. And we've got ourselves a horse race!

On to "First in the Nation" Iowa Caucuses-
For the last two weeks we have seen a drastic change in numbers coming out of Iowa. Prior to the Fox News televised debates we had Gingrich 30%, Romney 20%, Paul 11%, Perry 8%, Bachmann 9%, Santorum 5%, Huntsman 2%, and Cain still in the race with 5%.
But then two days later there was news that a new Rasmussen polls had Romney in the lead at 23%.
But then Cain dropped out of the race, and the polls all changed. Gingrich dropped by 13%, Ron Paul jumped ahead 8%, and everyone saw movement all over the place.
But it is Ron Paul that needs to be looked at carefully. Last week he had only 11%, and now he's up to 19.3%.
And then after Cain dropped out, and we had the Iowa debates, we found Gingrich, Paul, and Romney are all within 2 points of each other, and Michele Bachmann started sending out emails saying she was winning Iowa! 

So here we are exactly one week away from the Iowa caucus, and things have changed again!
Ron Paul is in the lead! It isn't a strong lead, but he is definitely in the lead. Romney is hot on his heels, and Gingrich has dropped into no man's land. And Michele Bachmann? 5th place.
Because I'm starting to feel incredibly skeptical about any and all data out of PPP, I'm redoing the numbers, dropping their data. It moves Ron Paul to 22, and Mitt Romney to 21.5. Considering the margin of error on these polls, I'd say we don't really know who is going to win in Iowa! It will be either Ron Paul or Mitt Romney, but I think the numbers have been too volatile to really say that with any confidence.

Now for the Live Free state of New Hampshire-
Last week Romney was in the lead, but he had dropped just a skosh.
Now looking at this week's numbers-

How about we just call it for Romney now?

Let's Talk Debates!

Fox News 2012 GOP Debate, Linked to Source: ABC News

I watch the debates so you don't have to!
Here's what you missed by watching "Bones" last night (Was it good? I haven't seen it yet! No spoilers!)
I could really tell this was hosted by Fox News. The candidates were hit from the right about their conservative positions. For instance, abortion and right to life were made an issue, as was gun control. These haven't been issues in this campaign at all, so it was surprising to hear how much time was spent on those subjects.

"MOM! He keeps interrupting me!" "Am not! "Are too!" (linked to source)

Apparently Michele Bachmann ate her Wheaties yesterday, and came out fighting. At several different points it felt like it was Bachmann v. Everyone Else. She reminded me of an angry Yorkshire Terrier, barking and nipping at Newt Gingrich's heels. She also had a very memorable heated exchange with Ron Paul on foreign policy. She flat out said she had "never heard a more dangerous answer" than Paul's positions on Iran. (Which is to say, he doesn't think they have a nuke.)

"My name is Ron Paul, and until we open free trade with Iran, I won't be able to find a suit that fits." (linked to source)

Ron Paul doesn't back down in a fight, which is amusing considering his pacifist position on other issues. He really spent sometime standing up for his positions on Iran. "Why are we flying a drone over Iran?" He apparently thinks Iran sings kumbaya at night and prays for our peace.
I can finally sum up how he feels about Iran and Israel. "Our neighbor have guns, so we don't need to worry that we'll get attacked." (My words, not his.) His most memorable quote of the night was, "I don't want to run the world. I don't want to police individual activities or people's lifestyle, and I don't want to run the economy." Strange talk for a man running for the most powerful position in the world. It doesn't matter if anyone thinks he won or lost, because his supporters will think it was all rigged anyway.
In other news, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Ali Khamenei endorse Ron Paul. He finally gets some big name, national endorsements!

"My name is Mitt Romney, and I wear better ties than you!" (linked to source)

Mitt Romney was Mitt Romney last night. In many ways it was his night to lose, and I don't think he lost. But I don't think he "won" either. My favorite quote for him last night was, "Timidity and weakness invite aggression on the part of other people. This is a president, the spy drone being brought down, he says 'pretty please'? A foreign policy based on pretty please? You got to be kidding."
When attacked (by the moderators, and then Santorum) about his changing positions, his response essentially sounded like, "I used to favor flip-flopping, but now I'm against it."

Tim Tebow 'tebowing' (linked to source)

Rick Perry- what do I say there? I think he will gain a fan or two. It was definitely his best debate so far. But probably too little, too late. Calling himself the Tim Tebow of politics was pretty funny. Other than that, he wasn't all that notable or quotable. He did suggest that we should limit Supreme Court terms. That was sort of interesting.

Comparing the GOP 2012 Polls for the week ending Dec 12, 2012

Washington Monument, Source: E. McBride

Welcome back to another round of comparing the weekly GOP 2012 polls. Let's quickly recap last week's standings (polls for week ending Dec 5).
Last week I wasn't very impressed with Real Clear Politics and their overall wrap up. They were using the same polls over the same exact dates for the past three weeks, but representing it as new. They tossed in one new poll and mixed it in with the old data to create new numbers. The polls weren't even conducted in the same time period, which really throws off the accuracy of the gauge. Nationally they were showing Newt Gingrich leading by 6.2, and their one new poll (Rasmussen) had Gingrich ahead nationally by 21! So I am looking forward to figuring out today's numbers, and hoping for a lot of new data, especially since this will be our first non-Cain week.

And yet again, RCP is disappointing me by mixing old data with new data, which throws things off by keeping Cain numbers in the older data. Ugh.

Taking out the old data, and only looking at the specific polls, feels different to me. Same frontrunner, and the results don't change much. (Remember, without Cain the totals won't be 100%.) But I'm more comfortable this way. In short, Gingrich is still showing a meteoric rise. Laid out this way you can also really see how very little change the bottom 3 candidates are seeing in the polls. Why won't they just drop out? Are they hoping to be the next Gingrich?
Look at that the Gallup poll for 10/7/11. Gingrich had 7% and was in 5th place (Cain had 18%). He was still behind Perry and Paul! So I guess you can't blame the back of the pack for wanting to be a dark horse. But I really don't see that happening.
Basically it all comes down to Romney and Gingrich at this point. Romney is such a strange number in all of this. He really has managed to hold on to exactly his 20% of registered Republicans for a year now. That tells you something- he has a very solid and loyal group of supporters.
This got me to thinking. There are 312,759,000 people living in the United States according to the 2010 Census. (Source: Wikipedia.) There were 218,054,301 individuals in the "voting eligible population" for the 2010 elections (which takes out illegals, those under 18, overseas, non-citizens, anyone incarcerated, etc) (Source: US Elections Project).
It will be an imperfect number, but here's some food for thought. In 2008 (and in the 2 previous elections) we saw the country split in close to 50/50 numbers in the presidential elections. Obama won over McCain with 53%. There are 55 million registered Republicans (source: AskMe), while Pew Research Center says that 27% of Americans identified as GOP in 2008 (come to think of it, I didn't identify as GOP in 2008, because I didn't like McCain/Palin. I identified and registered as Libertarian. Living at that time in a heavily red state, I knew my third party vote and the electoral system wouldn't help Obama get elected, but would send a message to the GOP that they were losing their base.) So using these numbers, I wanted to see how many people are staying local to Romney nationwide.
We could break down the numbers a few ways-
27% of the 312,759,000? Not good enough, since that number includes the under 18, illegals, and incarcerated.
But first let's see what 27% of the voting eligible population comes out to- 218,054,301 x .27 = 58,874,661.
59 million(ish), which isn't too far off from the 55 million registered Republicans. Don't you just love it when numbers actually come close?
So of 55 million Republicans, we know that roughly 20% have stayed loyal to Romney. That comes out to 11 million loyal Romney fans.
Obama won with roughly 67 million votes in 2008. (Source: CNN)
Assuming the country goes close to 50/50 again (and really, do we have a reason to think it won't?), Romney has 8% of the base. (Erin Math: he has 16% of the 50% which is GOP, therefore 8% of the 100%). Granted, with the electoral college system, that isn't going to really make much of a dent, (especially since Utah only has 5 electoral votes), but if he were to choose 3rd party, he could mess things up for Gingrich.
But since he's never threatened such a thing, and Ron Paul does all the time, let's see what kind of damage Paul could do-
Paul holds steady with 9.5% of the GOP. That gives him roughly 55 million x 9.5 = 5.2 million Ron Paul supporters
5.2 million supporters equals 2% of the voting eligible population.
Sorry, Paulites, but I don't see him doing any significant damage. Or winning. Ever.

I was not compensated for this post. All math is mine and mine alone, and I was BA, not a BS. But I did get a B in Math 110 from a state university.