Sunday, December 2, 2012
Friday, November 23, 2012
The GOP sent the wrong man
Nearly 3 weeks ago, GOP Presidential nominee and former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney was soundly defeated by President Obama and has left the GOP reeling.
The margin of the victory for President Obama was surprising given that the unemployment rate for Mr. Obama's election was at it's highest rate ever for a sitting president to be elected.
It is the belief of this author that the GOP might (note: the emphasis on might is strong) have defeated President Obama, had they nominated Ron Paul instead. Below is a series of anecdotal and concrete theories on why - starting with the former first.
Anecodotal Theory #1: The Beer Theory
This idea is based on the idea that in the vast majority of Presidential elections, the more charismatic candidate wins - and that's all you need - charisma and likeability.
Check out recent presidential results. This theory has substantial support by it - in every race, the winner was decisively the person that most people would 'rather have a beer with'.
A survey taken in the middle of the primary gave Paul the highest 'likeability' rating amongst all Republicans amongst the general public. While this doesn't guarantee Paul a victory in the 'who would I rather have a beer with' segment, it certainly suggests he would have stood a better chance among Americans than Romney. In the General election, this may have given Mr. Paul incremental votes that Mr. Romney was unable to obtain.
Anecdotal Theory #2: My Parents
In order to win Presidential Elections, candidates must win over voters in the center - that is voters who do not have a strong tie to either party - voters who have shown a firm willingness to switch parties to vote for the best candidate. My Dad fits this description to a T - he has voted for the winner of the last 6 Presidential elections, while my Mom has voted for the winner of 5 of the last 6 Presidential elections (the only exception there being Clinton in '96). Both voted for Ron Paul in the primary and while neither would say that they would have definitely voted for Paul in the General election, neither would say that they would have definitely voted for Obama.
Implication: Paul fares superior to Romney amongst independents - which is the purpose of the two anecdotal theories. The rest of this post will address concrete reasons why I feel Ron Paul may have won, and which states I think he might have carried, with the underlying theme that Paul would have fared substantially better amongst Independent voters.
Romney Blowouts
In states that Romney carried, Obama only took home 45% of the vote in 1 of them - North Carolina.
For now, let's take the 15 electoral votes that NC brings to the table off of Paul's tally but give him Romney's other 191 electoral votes. This is based on the assumption that individuals who voted for Romney do not despise Paul so much that enough of them would have voted for Obama to sway the vote.
Projected Running Total: 191
Gary Johnson and Libertarians
It is largely common knowledge that Ron Paul represented the libertarian wing of the Republican party. This argument is based on speculation that Paul would have brought along someone who shared most of his views and as Gary Johnson was the libertarian nominee, it makes sense that Johnson would have been a strong candidate for VP in a Paul Administration. This line of argument also assumes that Paul would have captured virtually all Libertarian votes.
Being from New Mexico, the idea is that Johnson would have successfully brought New Mexico and it's 5 electoral votes to the table.
If we look at states where 3rd party votes (the Libertarian Party is the largest 3rd party by far) are added to Romney's existing vote total and generate a virtual tie with Obama, we will give those states to Paul - based on the idea that Paul does better with independents - particularly young voters. It's Paul's superior likeability and ability to persuade independents (vs Romney) combined with the assumption that Paul would take the vast majority of the 3rd party vote that this is banking on.
The two states that we will give Paul the edge in due to the Libertarian vote and superiority amongst independents are Florida and Ohio.
Projected Running Total: 238
The Pot Vote
A bill to de-criminalize mariujana was recently introduced in Congress, and it's lead, to no one's surprise, is Mr. Paul.
In the two states that just voted to legalize marijuana for recreational use, Colorado and Washington, pot did better than Obama - although both states voted for Obama. If pot is more popular than Obama, pitching the man who introduced a bill to decriminalize it shouldn't be a hard sell.
Projected Running Total: 259
Remaining Battleground
There are several articles citing that Paul voters would not vote for Obama or where GOP members were actively trying to court Ron Paul voters. The GOP was not struggling to court Gingrich, Perry or Santorum voters...because they were pretty much in the bag. If we look at states where Paul won the primary, let's project these states as battleground states. Here are the assumptions necessary to call these 'battlegrounds':
1) A heavy number of Ron Paul voters chose not to vote at all (at least 1.5% of the population).
2) The number of Romney voters Paul would have lost is trivial.
3) Paul does well enough with independents to create a toss-up proposition.
This puts Iowa, Minnesota and Maine in 'battleground' territory - and per our discussion at the beginning - North Carolina would now become a battleground state.
In order to clinch the nomination, Paul would have only had to win North Carolina OR Minnesota; Iowa and Maine are nice-to-haves, but are now irrelevant to the discussion since Paul would not be able to lose North Carolina AND Minnesota and take the nomination.
Each event described here in and of itself has a reasonably high chance of happening; all of them put together? Admittedly, a low probability. However, the GOP status quo of capturing the caucasian vote - and nothing else - is not sustainable - and Mr. Paul offers a substantial deviation from that change that hits against several key Democrat demographics like:
-the legalize marijuana crowd
-the young vote
-the anti-war wing of the democrat party
-the anti pro-big business wing of the democrat party (Paul has repeatedly supported anti-subsidy initiatives).
This would have put the Obama campaign on the defensive - and because Mr. Paul represents a unique voting proposition, Obama would have had to deploy resources in a very different way - diluting his strength in some of the states that we gave to Paul and the 'new' battleground states.
If the GOP movement is to revitalize itself and be a major player in future elections, the status quo will not get it done - and a Paul type candidate could be a game changer.
Sadly, Ron Paul is voluntarily leaving Congress after over two decades of service - constantly defending liberty and supporting financial responsibility.
A great man has been lost and we are worse for it.
The margin of the victory for President Obama was surprising given that the unemployment rate for Mr. Obama's election was at it's highest rate ever for a sitting president to be elected.
It is the belief of this author that the GOP might (note: the emphasis on might is strong) have defeated President Obama, had they nominated Ron Paul instead. Below is a series of anecdotal and concrete theories on why - starting with the former first.
Anecodotal Theory #1: The Beer Theory
This idea is based on the idea that in the vast majority of Presidential elections, the more charismatic candidate wins - and that's all you need - charisma and likeability.
Check out recent presidential results. This theory has substantial support by it - in every race, the winner was decisively the person that most people would 'rather have a beer with'.
A survey taken in the middle of the primary gave Paul the highest 'likeability' rating amongst all Republicans amongst the general public. While this doesn't guarantee Paul a victory in the 'who would I rather have a beer with' segment, it certainly suggests he would have stood a better chance among Americans than Romney. In the General election, this may have given Mr. Paul incremental votes that Mr. Romney was unable to obtain.
Anecdotal Theory #2: My Parents
In order to win Presidential Elections, candidates must win over voters in the center - that is voters who do not have a strong tie to either party - voters who have shown a firm willingness to switch parties to vote for the best candidate. My Dad fits this description to a T - he has voted for the winner of the last 6 Presidential elections, while my Mom has voted for the winner of 5 of the last 6 Presidential elections (the only exception there being Clinton in '96). Both voted for Ron Paul in the primary and while neither would say that they would have definitely voted for Paul in the General election, neither would say that they would have definitely voted for Obama.
Implication: Paul fares superior to Romney amongst independents - which is the purpose of the two anecdotal theories. The rest of this post will address concrete reasons why I feel Ron Paul may have won, and which states I think he might have carried, with the underlying theme that Paul would have fared substantially better amongst Independent voters.
Romney Blowouts
In states that Romney carried, Obama only took home 45% of the vote in 1 of them - North Carolina.
For now, let's take the 15 electoral votes that NC brings to the table off of Paul's tally but give him Romney's other 191 electoral votes. This is based on the assumption that individuals who voted for Romney do not despise Paul so much that enough of them would have voted for Obama to sway the vote.
Projected Running Total: 191
Gary Johnson and Libertarians
It is largely common knowledge that Ron Paul represented the libertarian wing of the Republican party. This argument is based on speculation that Paul would have brought along someone who shared most of his views and as Gary Johnson was the libertarian nominee, it makes sense that Johnson would have been a strong candidate for VP in a Paul Administration. This line of argument also assumes that Paul would have captured virtually all Libertarian votes.
Being from New Mexico, the idea is that Johnson would have successfully brought New Mexico and it's 5 electoral votes to the table.
If we look at states where 3rd party votes (the Libertarian Party is the largest 3rd party by far) are added to Romney's existing vote total and generate a virtual tie with Obama, we will give those states to Paul - based on the idea that Paul does better with independents - particularly young voters. It's Paul's superior likeability and ability to persuade independents (vs Romney) combined with the assumption that Paul would take the vast majority of the 3rd party vote that this is banking on.
The two states that we will give Paul the edge in due to the Libertarian vote and superiority amongst independents are Florida and Ohio.
Projected Running Total: 238
The Pot Vote
A bill to de-criminalize mariujana was recently introduced in Congress, and it's lead, to no one's surprise, is Mr. Paul.
In the two states that just voted to legalize marijuana for recreational use, Colorado and Washington, pot did better than Obama - although both states voted for Obama. If pot is more popular than Obama, pitching the man who introduced a bill to decriminalize it shouldn't be a hard sell.
Projected Running Total: 259
Remaining Battleground
There are several articles citing that Paul voters would not vote for Obama or where GOP members were actively trying to court Ron Paul voters. The GOP was not struggling to court Gingrich, Perry or Santorum voters...because they were pretty much in the bag. If we look at states where Paul won the primary, let's project these states as battleground states. Here are the assumptions necessary to call these 'battlegrounds':
1) A heavy number of Ron Paul voters chose not to vote at all (at least 1.5% of the population).
2) The number of Romney voters Paul would have lost is trivial.
3) Paul does well enough with independents to create a toss-up proposition.
This puts Iowa, Minnesota and Maine in 'battleground' territory - and per our discussion at the beginning - North Carolina would now become a battleground state.
In order to clinch the nomination, Paul would have only had to win North Carolina OR Minnesota; Iowa and Maine are nice-to-haves, but are now irrelevant to the discussion since Paul would not be able to lose North Carolina AND Minnesota and take the nomination.
Each event described here in and of itself has a reasonably high chance of happening; all of them put together? Admittedly, a low probability. However, the GOP status quo of capturing the caucasian vote - and nothing else - is not sustainable - and Mr. Paul offers a substantial deviation from that change that hits against several key Democrat demographics like:
-the legalize marijuana crowd
-the young vote
-the anti-war wing of the democrat party
-the anti pro-big business wing of the democrat party (Paul has repeatedly supported anti-subsidy initiatives).
This would have put the Obama campaign on the defensive - and because Mr. Paul represents a unique voting proposition, Obama would have had to deploy resources in a very different way - diluting his strength in some of the states that we gave to Paul and the 'new' battleground states.
If the GOP movement is to revitalize itself and be a major player in future elections, the status quo will not get it done - and a Paul type candidate could be a game changer.
Sadly, Ron Paul is voluntarily leaving Congress after over two decades of service - constantly defending liberty and supporting financial responsibility.
A great man has been lost and we are worse for it.
Thursday, November 15, 2012
The Republican Party isn't serious about reducing the deficit
In the wake of the 2012 Presidential Election, President Obama has (belatedly) decided to tackle the national deficit - or at least find a more politically palatable way to avoid the fiscal deficit.
House Leader John Boehner has decided to oppose President Obama's proposals to raise taxes on the 'rich' and most Americans now consider a deal on the Fiscal Cliff unlikely.
This begs two questions:
1) Are taxes too high?
At present, the United States federal tax (this stat excludes Social Security payments for all countries) is 5th lowest in the world and 2nd lowest amongst developed nations.
If we compare the country to it's total history, tax revenue is now at it's lowest level since 1950.
Moreover, federal Revenue as a % of GDP could increase by about 10%, and still be lower than about 90% of years since 1950 (and still keep the U.S. in the top 10 lowest taxed countries - lower than Canada and all of Europe).
When this is compounded with the CBO's finding that the top marginal tax rate has neglible impact on the economy, there is no reason to think that taxes are too high.
With that being said, this blog does not advocate any more than a 10% tax increase; a number that would reduce the deficit by about 15% - a sizeable bite to be sure - but nowhere near the amount needed to reduce the deficit on it's own.
2) What would it take to wipe out the deficit without raising revenue?
Short answer: An act of God.
Long answer: Defense spending would have to be reduced by just over 40%, Discretionary spending would have to be reduced by another 20% (on top of already proposed slashes in spending), Social Security would have to be modified to an approach proposed by this blog in May and Medicare would have to be slashed by another 35-40%. (Sources at bottom).
In short, it's virtually impossible to balance the budget through spending cuts alone.
That being said, this blog is not endorsing the current administration either. An administration that has racked up trillion dollar deficits + for the last 4 years cannot be taken seriously on the issue of deficit reduction. If however, the President and Senate Democrats were willing to reduce federal spending by $4-$10 for every new dollar in federal revenue, this blog would be willing to reconsider it's position.
Ultimately, this blog would like to see Republicans be willing to compromise on very modest tax increases if it would lead to long term sustainability - the current Republican party has shown no willingness to do that.
http://motorgasm.wordpress.com/category/u-s-government/page/7/
http://useconomy.about.com/od/usfederalbudget/p/Discretionary.htm
http://pmacpginsights.blogspot.com/2012/05/mission-protect-future-of-us-part-3.html
House Leader John Boehner has decided to oppose President Obama's proposals to raise taxes on the 'rich' and most Americans now consider a deal on the Fiscal Cliff unlikely.
This begs two questions:
1) Are taxes too high?
At present, the United States federal tax (this stat excludes Social Security payments for all countries) is 5th lowest in the world and 2nd lowest amongst developed nations.
If we compare the country to it's total history, tax revenue is now at it's lowest level since 1950.
Moreover, federal Revenue as a % of GDP could increase by about 10%, and still be lower than about 90% of years since 1950 (and still keep the U.S. in the top 10 lowest taxed countries - lower than Canada and all of Europe).
When this is compounded with the CBO's finding that the top marginal tax rate has neglible impact on the economy, there is no reason to think that taxes are too high.
With that being said, this blog does not advocate any more than a 10% tax increase; a number that would reduce the deficit by about 15% - a sizeable bite to be sure - but nowhere near the amount needed to reduce the deficit on it's own.
2) What would it take to wipe out the deficit without raising revenue?
Short answer: An act of God.
Long answer: Defense spending would have to be reduced by just over 40%, Discretionary spending would have to be reduced by another 20% (on top of already proposed slashes in spending), Social Security would have to be modified to an approach proposed by this blog in May and Medicare would have to be slashed by another 35-40%. (Sources at bottom).
In short, it's virtually impossible to balance the budget through spending cuts alone.
That being said, this blog is not endorsing the current administration either. An administration that has racked up trillion dollar deficits + for the last 4 years cannot be taken seriously on the issue of deficit reduction. If however, the President and Senate Democrats were willing to reduce federal spending by $4-$10 for every new dollar in federal revenue, this blog would be willing to reconsider it's position.
Ultimately, this blog would like to see Republicans be willing to compromise on very modest tax increases if it would lead to long term sustainability - the current Republican party has shown no willingness to do that.
http://motorgasm.wordpress.com/category/u-s-government/page/7/
http://useconomy.about.com/od/usfederalbudget/p/Discretionary.htm
http://pmacpginsights.blogspot.com/2012/05/mission-protect-future-of-us-part-3.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)