Romney or Bachman or ? for the Republican Nomination

As the debt ceiling / US budget theatrics continue in Washington (prediction - compromises coming in a few days to avert an S&P downgrade) , the race for the Republican presidential nomination continues in a somewhat lackluster fashion with several potential candidates on the sidelines waiting to see if they can muster enough support to throw their hat into the ring.

However Republicans must be concerned that none of the current crop appear likely to defeat Obama unless the economy suffers significantly greater setbacks in the next year. It's alarming to think that some radical Republicans may have this scenario in mind as they continue to stall on budget compromises and raising the debt ceiling, hoping to harm the economy enough to defeat Obama but not enough to send us into a tailspin. That calculation would not only be unpatriotic, it would be potentially disastrous for the country.

The current best bet appears to be that Mitt Romney will sort of plod into the Republican nomination with Michelle Bachmann pulling in the Tea Party folks, leaving moderate Republicans a choice between Rick Perry and Mitt Romney who are polling about equally in scenarios where Perry's in the ring (he has not announced yet but is very likely to do so if his numbers stay as high as now. RealClearPolitics has Romney at 18%, Perry at 17% in a race where all the strong potential candidates are placed in the ring. With only *announced* candidates, Romney's in a strong lead at 27% with Bachmann second with 18% , Ron Paul third with 11%.

Look for Palin to stay out of the race and hope for a VP spot on the likely Romney or Perry ticket. Look for Bachmann to *get* the VP spot on the Romney or Perry ticket, giving the Republicans a similar strategy to McCain / Palin but with much stronger candidates on the ticket.

In our view Obama's still in the driver's seat with respect to the 2012 election. Barring a serious economic setback, Americans are unlikely to want yet another major "change" in the White House so soon. Obama's kept his core constituency happy with only modest levels of alienation of those on the far left who naively felt Obama as President would act very consistently with Obama as young Chicago organizer. We're likely to see more liberal "progressive" politics from Obama in a second term, but it's clear that President Obama will continue to keep moderate democrats fairly happy while he continues to alienate the far left and right. It's a great political strategy and it won't change for the 2012 election.

Palin 2012 Presidential Bid is a big Win for Obama

As Sarah Palin Bid for the presidency becomes more and more certain, the Obama camp should be happy to see Republicans reeling under the pressures that will come from splitting a ticket between more mainstream candidates and Palin, the darling of the "Tea Party" conservatives who have injected a lot of passion but not a not of reason into the upcoming debates over the future of US policy.

Early prediction: Look for Palin to narrowly loose to the mainstream candidate - our early money is on Romney, and look for that fight to take the wind out of the Republican sails, leading to a fairly easy Obama win in 2012.

UK Guardian: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jul/12/sarah-palin-election-war-chest

The Four Buffoons of the Republican Apocalypse

It's hard to imagine the frustration many smart conservatives must be feeling as Rush Limbaugh, Sarah Palin, Sean Hannity, and Joe the Plumber rise to take the ideological helm of the Republican Party.

The prestigious Party of Lincoln has historically been a bastion of economic sophistication and the principles of the founders of our great American experiment. It has now dissembled into a motley band of knee-jerk economic and social dimwits spewing red baiting nonsense and preying on the new found extreme ideological gullibility of conventional Republicans.

Although I supported Obama for President, I've always shared many of the concerns of American conservatives about the economy, most importantly that massive government spending tends to go wrong and tends to lead to unintended, usually undesirable consequences.

More importantly I very much agree with a cornerstone idea of true conservatives (noting there are few real conservatives left in the USA). We're spending too much now and have been for decades. The founders vision has largely been undermined by both the Democratic and Republican bureaucracy. The founders feared this sort of bureaucratic class would emerge without more citizen involvement and volunteerism than we have.

Ironically the wildly successful American experiment, grounded in the ideas of personal liberty, free speech, and entrepreneurialism created so much wealth that an extremely powerful bureaucratic class developed both in government and especially in the military where we spend more than every other nation combined. Many who call themselves conservatives (but are reckless spenders and therefore no friend of the founders) suggest that big spending is called for in the military, but they haven't done any homework. The founders would not support the massive military and defense spending both parties now tolerate as part of our ongoing reckless fiscal policy.

So, how in the world did conservatism and the Republican party get co-opted by the likes of Limbaugh, Palin, Hannity, and Joe the Plumber? Do people seriously think this parade of fools represents the best America has to offer? These people represent much of the worst in our great nation - hate, opportunism, and hypocrisy to name a few items.

I think much of this lies in the popularity of the "culture wars" where hot button themes like abortion and religion are mixed with politics to incite hatred and divisiveness. Limbaugh and Hannity have made a mint off of of admirers playing on their fears and hate. They are brilliant entertainers and great snake oil salesman, but they are not good representatives of our great country.

It is painful to watch smart conservatives like David Brooks and George Will get relatively little mainstream respect while buffoons like Limbaugh soak up attention, but Republicans are now reaping what they sowed in the last election.

Obama to win in electoral landslide

It's now very clear that Barack Obama will win the US Presidency, probably in an electoral landslide of approximately 353 electoral votes for Obama & Biden to 185 electoral votes for McCain & Palin. Thankfully we won't have the close outcome that means vote counting problems, purging strategies, and lawsuits determine the outcome rather than the intention of voters.

Obama's election is very likely even in the event of a disaster of unprecedented proportions because most now feel that Obama's leadership and intelligence make him the right choice to guide the country forward, because many people have already voted, and because Obama has by far the better "get out the vote" effort. Early voting and better polling makes in increasingly unlikely that we will see any big surprises on Tuesday, as we already have a very good idea about how close to 20% of the electorate has voted and those votes are lining up with the broad polling. All these signs point to Obama as the next president.

President Picker Predicts:
353 electoral votes for Obama & Biden
185 electoral votes for McCain & Palin

Palin Troopergate verdict is in: Abuse of Power.

The "TrooperGate" scandal that has plagued Sarah Palin for the past months now has an official judgement and that is that Palin abused her power but did not break any laws.

Here's the report from Alaska's website

I haven't read it yet but CNN quotes the investigation committee which unanimously approved the report, saying Palin abused power but did not break laws.

Although Palin partisans will suggest this was a political move, it now appears very clear that Palin engaged in seriously questionable activities in this case.
This is especially ironic as Palin has led the charge to suggest that Obama's associations with others bring his character into question. Palin more than any candidate in recent history has tried to make character rather than issues the focus of her campaign. It will be interesting to see if she keeps tossing stones from within a glass house.

Nielsen: 70,000,000 Watched Palin - Biden Debate

70 million people watched the VP Debate last night between Biden and Palin, I think making that debate the most watched event of the current election. Only about 50 million watched Obama and McCain in their first matchup and I have a hunch the next two will be about the same.

Nielsen Story at Yahoo

Palin v. Biden Debate won't change minds

The Palin Biden debate ends pretty much as a tie, with Sarah Palin surprisingly holding her own against a far more experienced politician. Palin's answers seemed well rehearsed, and it appeared her strategy was to have several good rehearsed answers and several good bridges to those topics. When Palin was spontaneous she seemed "off", but when rehearsed she'll be seen as spot on by her supporters.

CNN's trend meter indicated good marks for both, though it seemed to me Biden was pulling better with the Ohio undecided women who they measured moment to moment.

Overall affect on polls? I'm guessing not much. Palin will appeal to those who like her but this won't change many votes.

Palin, Pakistan, and Philly Cheesesteaks

Sara Palin deserves a lot of the media criticism she's getting, both for being largely inaccessible to the media and also for her apparent lifetime lack of interest in the complexity and nuance of international politics - a skill that is important for anybody in top office who will be negotiating with world leaders.

HOWEVER

The media "analysis" of Sara Palin's recent comments to a young Democratic party hack while in a Philly Cheesesteak line are nonsensical, bordering on the drooling stupidity we've come to know as .. TV Journalism.

Palin suggested that the US should pursue terrorists across the Pakistan border if necessary, a policy embraced by Obama but rejected by McCain. It's not clear to me how this is even a gaffe, let alone something indicating she's not qualified to be President. Clearly a President and VP can disagree on some policy issues, and more importantly this "gotcha" approach to journalism leaves key issues undiscussed in favor of mostly irrelevant sound bites. CNN today interviewed the fellow who asked the question - a Democratic party activist - who appeared to seize this Cheesesteak opportunity to make Palin look inconsistent with McCain and then I think lied that he had that agenda.

What is wrong with the media? Bias is not the key problem here, rather *superficiality*.

Palin's first major media interview with Charlie Gibson, ABC News

ABC has posted some small clips from tonight's interview with Sarah Palin here:
http://abcnews.go.com/wn

You may want to wait for the full interview later tonight to avoid watching a 30 second ad to see a one minute clip.

Who is that old guy next to Sarah Palin?

Gov. Sarah Palin and Sen. John McCain
Originally uploaded by buddhakiwi

As the third day of the Republican Convention gets underway it's hard to hear much news about anything but McCain's VP pick Sarah Palin, Alaska's conservative reformist Governor who will speak tonight in Minneapolis - a speech that may attract as much attention as Barack Obama's rockstar-like show in Denver last week.

I'm starting to understand the simple and risky strategy behind McCain's very unusual choice of Palin, and I think it will prove to be a blunder of near Presidential proportions, but this remains to be seen.

One part of the strategy that has worked magnificently is how quickly Palin's VP nod has focused attention away from Obama and the Democratic Convention but Palin was also one of the very few (she may be the only) national polical figures who fit the following bill:

* Conservative. (esp. on pro life, pro guns, pro big military, anti social spending) McCain's lackluster support among many conservatives has been a major thorn in his side. Palin is *more* conservative than most of his conservative critics, and they clearly love this choice and will fight harder for this ticket than become disaffected by a McCain / Lieberman ticket which would have much better suited McCain's personal and political sensibilities.

* Female. McCain felt a woman on the ticket would help keep at least some disaffected Clinton supporters off balance and undecided. Despite the handful of Clinton-turned-Palin women FOX news will parade as an example of this strategy working, it's very unlikely that many of the core Clinton supporters will change party and ideological allegiance so dramatically. How many women will put gender above almost every other key Democratic issue? Very few.

* Young and attractive. McCain, more than anybody, is feeling the pain of going up against a rock star candidate. Palin's personal appeal helps shore up that front.

* Fighter. This last factor may be the single most important in the equation, and it is the one that helps make sense of what many see as a very strange McCain decision. McCain's personal style matches Palin's in several ways, and he sees Palin's unique situation with respect to her own baby Trig and her daughter's teen pregnancy as positive and provocative talking points in their fight for the presidency. Where some would say the Palin children challenges reflect some hypocrisy, McCain Palin will argue that the problems are not caused by teen pregnancy so much as missing dads and unsupportive families, and that right to life issues trump any potential disabilies - even the severe ones faced by Palin's baby son.

My view on this last factor is that it will probably backfire because it will be impossible for Palin to bring these talking points up without sounding like she is exploiting her family challenges for political gain. Only if she is directly challenged can she react dramatically and combatively and retain the sympathy of middle of the road Americans, and you won't see this type of direct attack. Democrats don't need to bring these issues up at all anyway. The media, always hungry for red meat analysis and conflict, will continue to report on them while Palin will struggle to find ways to counter those stories effectively since they won't be coming from a clear enemy.

End game? Palin gives Obama about 5-10 point advantage he would not have had if McCain had continued to focus on the "experience" issue and brought on an experienced VP.

McCain picks Palin as his VP running mate

In a move that seems to have surprised almost everyone, John McCain has picked Alaska Governor Sarah Palin for his Vice Presidential running mate.

The announcement came this morning, strategically undermining a news day that otherwise would have been filled with Democratic Convention imagery making Barack Obama look as much like a rock star as a presidential candidate. The pick also is clearly an attempt to chip away at what appears to be Obama's weakness in appealing to some Hillary Clinton supporters.


Palin is a conservative who is pro-life, favors drilling in Alaska (ironically McCain has opposed this but I think will change his position after the election), and is a strong advocate for gun rights.

The McCain campaign strategy here appears to be an attempt to please the conservative base - many of whom like Palin a lot for her outspoken and conservative ideas about Government - while also appealing to what appears to be a minor backlash among Democrats against Obama for not choosing Hillary Clinton as his running mate.

It's going to be very interesting watching the Biden - Palin debates, though I can't help but think Palin will struggle to show how she can match Biden's foreign policy and military experience. Biden will be hard to swiftboat given his affable nature and non-confrontatational history in the Senate, where Palin's youth, experience, and good looks may hinder her ability to connect with voters.

McCain with Palin as VP?

Still something of a long shot for VP, I would suggest that Alaska Governor Sarah Palin would be an interesting choice for McCain because she'd pull some of the soft Obama support from former Clinton folks. Having a woman on his ticket, especially if Obama does *not* have one on his, would help equalize the advantage the democrats currently enjoy for promoting a form of "affirmative action" lacking in American presidential politics for the past 240 years.

Obama's choice? I'd say he's still getting lobbied by Hillary and the gang for her, but that is only about 20% likely. Biden? Maybe, but he's not the military strategist that, say, Wesley Clark or Colin Powell would be which is why I think they are probably on Obama's "A list" for Veeps.