A Confession

I have a confession to make.

I have not voted in an election, of any kind, since 1998.

I fell out of the habit on voting when I lived in Washington, DC. Voting in DC is a pointless prospect (for everyone) as there are no competitive elections there, and, besides, the local pols are hopelessly corrupt. After I left DC I lived in five different places in three years. Not a situation that encourages civil engagement to any great degree.

In the meantime, I continued to think about and, once I started this blog, write about politics. However, I found I was content to leave things in the realm of opinion. Sure, I had a rooting interest, but not at a level that required my participation.

I began this election cycle with no intention of that changing. Romney was always the most likely to emerge from a decidedly lackluster group of Republican candidates and, for me, there was nothing all that appealing about the prospect. It must be said, in all honesty, my feelings concerning Romney really haven't changed over time. I will never think, "Wow! I get to vote for Mitt!"

So what happened to get me motivated to register and vote? In a word, Benghazi.

I have not written much of anything about the attack and its aftermath, mostly because it would have been a string of invective fit to make a longshoreman blush. The initial responses of the Obama administration (to blame a YouTube video, and to attack Romney in a bid to gain a temporary political advantage) were bad enough, but as September wore on I was still content to criticize and stay on the sidelines. However, by the dying days of September, as the ineptitude and duplicity of the Obama administration became increasingly apparent, my disgust level reached an intolerable level. Writing out my opinions and standing on the sidelines was not going to cut it anymore.

In a sense Obama will accomplish the impossible on election day; he will make it possible for me to vote for Mitt Romney with enthusiasm.

A Tale Of Two Polls

I mentioned last time out that the more Obama friendly polling assumes Democrats will enjoy similar advantages in enthusiasm compared to Republicans that they did in 2008. You can see this assumption built into some of the polling. For example, this recently released Time magazine poll which shows Obama up 5 points in Ohio and which many lefties are convinced means the election is over.

If you look at he internals of the poll you discover the pollsters have broken down the Ohio electorate as follows:

Democrat: 37%
Republican: 28%
Independent: 29%

(The numbers don't add up to 100% in the above because 40 something respondents answered something else.)

Now, lets compare this to the Suffolk University poll which found the race a dead heat.

Democrat: 39%
Republican: 35%
Independent: 27%

Very, very different samples, you will agree. So different, in fact, that the Time sample seems to be measuring an "Ohio" in a alternate universe (presumably one in which the sky is always fuchsia.) Indeed, no other poll listed by Real Clear Politics is claiming Independents outnumber Republicans in Ohio. However, that is the sample Time is using. When you look at the exit polling from 2008, when everything, and I mean everything was breaking in Obama's favor the partisan split between Democrat and Republican was only +8D. That's right, Time is telling us this election will break even more favorably for Obama than 2008 at +9D.

The way they achieve this "result" is by skewing the gender numbers. In the Time sample a full 65% of Democratic respondents are women, in the Republican sample its a 50/50 split (exactly.) The only way they make the whole thing not look ridiculous is by making the Independent sample skew male heavy at 57%.  As males as a group break heavily for Romney this gender imbalance has the effect of depressing Romney's vote total among Republicans and pumping up Obama's score among Democrats. Time has Romney winning among Republicans by 84% to 11%, while McCain won 92% to 8%.  Meanwhile they have Obama winning amongst Democrats 92% to 6%, while in 2008 those numbers were 89% to 11%.

Among Independents Romney is ahead 53% to 38%. In 2008 Independents went for Obama by a 52% to 44% margin.

Any way you want to slice it, it don't add up.

What A Difference A Month Makes

I put together a little chart looking at ten prominent "battleground states" to see what the last month or so has meant for the poll numbers. (Positive numbers = Obama lead; negative numbers = Romney lead).

It certainly looks like there has been a lot of erosion of support for Obama, doesn't it?

(Note: There has been no recent data released for North Carolina as Obama is no longer viewed as being competitive in the state. I used the latest available data, October 18th, for the later North Carolina average. All data gleaned from Real Clear Politics.)

As a point of comparison, here are the current poll numbers compared with the actual results of 2008.

Many of the "predictive models" have been assuming 2008 levels of enthusiasm for Obama in the tailoring of their samples. However, its difficult to see that enthusiasm when you look at the numbers.

They Got Nothing

You know things are getting bad in Democrat-land when their only response to people who are worried about getting a job or holding onto the the multiple jobs they are taking just to make ends meet is to say "Romney said 'Binders of Women'!"

Wow. They must really disdain the American people to believe they would be swayed by such crapola.

On the other hand, it isn't like they have any ideas to offer.

Life At Ground Zero

For one day at least Wisconsin has become the political centerpiece for the country.

Oh goody.

You may have noticed I've had precious little to say about the electoral doings in my adopted home state. The thing is I'm essentially a contrarian at heart. Stuff that people generally don't care about (philosophy, power pop music, good whole grain mustard) I invest a lot into. Now politics is usually something I could add to that list. Most of the time most people keep only a casual watch upon the political scene. Oh, they will have their opinions on the questions of the day, but most of their energy is directed towards their own business (work, family, etc.).

Up in Wisconsin these days this isn't the case. Far too many people are far too emotionally involved in this election for my liking. I have an instinctual dislike for passion in politics. As a result the more emotional energy people put into a political campaign the more likely I am to tune it all out. And, if there was ever a contest that deserved to be tuned out it is this one. It was simple petulance which generated the abusive recall efforts in the first place. (I'm sorry folks, but this is an abuse of the recall mechanism. There is no way to spin it otherwise.) Losing an election has consequences, including ceding legislative initiative to the winning side. They might even (the horror) enact legislation you really dislike! The thing is there is a sure fire way to undo these sorts of things; win the next damn election which is only two years off anyway.

That being said I've found Walker's "all or nothing" governance to be almost entirely short-sighted. Walker's approach has made it almost inevitable that as soon as the pendulum swings back to the Democrats at the state level everything Walker did will be undone. Indeed the "all or nothing" attitude Walker exudes smacks of zealotry and not measured conservatism, and as such he appeals to my sensibilities very little.

So where does that leave me? Mostly as a spectator. I'm watching what is going on, but I am in no way invested in it. For today at least, I'm happier this way.

Our Tax Future

Almost an actual proposal: Romney Specifies Deductions He'd Cut

Mitt Romney, speaking at a private fundraising event on Sunday, offered the first details of deductions he would eliminate or limit in order to offset the income tax cut he has proposed for all taxpayers.

Mr. Romney, the presumptive Republican nominee for president, said he would eliminate or limit for high-earners the mortgage interest deduction for second homes, and likely would do the same for the state income tax deduction and state property tax deduction.



He also said he would look to the Department of Education and the Department of Housing and Urban Development for budget cuts.

Mr. Romney discussed his plans while speaking to high-dollar donors at a private estate. During the backyard event, which could be heard by reporters outside on a public sidewalk, Mr. Romney offered policy specifics he has yet to unveil on the campaign trail.



Mr. Romney has pledged a 20% cut to income tax rates for taxpayers in all income brackets but has offered few details for how he would pay for the proposal. Mr. Romney also has vowed to bring federal spending under control, while offering few details on which programs he would cut.

The problem with all of these sorts of things is it is difficult to know what the impact will be at the level of the individual. Like most Americans I don't hold a mortgage on a second home, so there is no personal impact on my family there. However, I do itemize deductions including state income and property taxes. So I hear this proposal and I immediately think "Crap. I'll have to take the standard deduction."

But, what would the overall impact be?

It's hard to know exactly how the "20% cut to income tax rates for taxpayers in all income brackets" will be implemented, but right now my taxes came to 13% of taxable income. A 20% reduction in that rate would result in a 10.4% rate. However, using the standard deduction (sans the state income and property tax deductions) would raise my taxable income 3.5%.

The net result? Under Romney's plan my family would owe $1100 less in taxes.

I could live with that.

Q: How Do We Know Republicans Are Radically Right?

A: Their last two Presidential nominees will have been John McCain and Mitt Romney.

Wait.... what?

Never mind.

A Post-Mortem On The 2012 General Election

I recently got this message from the future concerning our upcoming elections in November:

Worst. Election. Cycle. Ever.

You heard it here first.

Romney's Time

RedState has it right:

It is a mathematical improbability that Rick Santorum will get to the magic number of 1,144 — the number of delegates needed to be the Republican Presidential nominee. It is a political improbability that Rick Santorum will stop Mitt Romney from getting to 1,144.

Last night in Illinois, Mitt Romney won his first victory without caveats.

Even in Florida, a big win, there were plenty — counties that saw increased turnout rejected him. The northern part of the state rejected him. It required an amalgamation of voters not quite typical of the base to get Romney the nod in Florida.

In Illinois, Romney won. Period. The Santorum campaign stumbled badly in Puerto Rico, gave up a lead in Illinois, and the candidate proved horribly undisciplined. Like Dug the dog in Up getting distracted by every random squirrel, Rick Santorum loses all ability to focus when social issues come up....

Theoretically, Rick Santorum could keep Romney from getting to 1,144. But as Romney piles up more and more wins and neither the Gingrich nor Paul campaigns remain factors, let alone have pulses, the inevitable will set in. Conservatives may not really like Mitt Romney, but they do not want a fractured party too divided to beat Barack Obama. There will be no white knight, no dark horse, and no brokered convention. We have our nominee.

I've already stated my apathy towards the current crop of candidates, though I haven't had the energy to outline exactly the reasons behind my apathy. (When you are apathetic, that's often the way it goes.)

Of the four still standing in the GOP race, Romney is probably the easiest for me to put up with, and that will have to be enough. I'm certainly not interested in looking at the others and pretending they are someone they are not. There exists a smart and intellectually rigorous form of conservatism, but it isn't represented in this race. Instead we have a choice between a wonkish bureaucrat, an economic ideologue, a 1950's style moralizing church lady, and a consummate creature of Washington.

I ain't excited about it, but I'll put up with the wonkish bureaucrat.

It's Decided: I'm Sitting Out 2012

Pawlenty Drops Out of Republican Race

Tim Pawlenty, the former governor of Minnesota, dropped his bid for the Republican nomination for president on Sunday morning, saying his disappointing performance in Iowa’s straw poll convinced him that his campaign had run its course.

Just hours after his third-place finish in Iowa, Mr. Pawlenty said on ABC’s “This Week” program that his message “didn’t get the kind of traction we needed and hoped for” in order to continue.

“There are a lot of other choices in the race,” he said. “The audience, so to speak, was looking for something different.”

This is too bad as Pawlenty was the only one worth looking at in this field. I've vetted the rest and came to the obvious conclusion: none of them is my cup o' tea.

I've no idea what I'll be blogging about next year, but it won't be the election.

Wisconsin Results = No Speed Bump

Well, it's all over but the shouting:

Wisconsin Democrats knocked off two GOP state senators on Tuesday night, exacting a hard-fought political price on Republican lawmakers for restricting collective bargaining rights of state and local employees. National advocacy groups funneled tens of millions of dollars into nine races, seven of which have now been decided, turning a parochial skirmish into an all-out proxy war between Tea Partying conservatives and labor-backed liberals. But the historic recall effort, launched in the wake of intense union protests in February and March, ultimately fell one seat shy of reestablishing Democratic control of the state senate.

On an usual day of high energy and high turnout, Republican state senators Robert Cowles and Sheila Harsdorf cruised to wide-margin victories over their Democratic challengers, as fellow incumbent Luther Olsen managed to squeak by on a few thousand votes. Not all their colleagues were so lucky; Democrat Jessica King narrowly beat out Randy Hopper, while senator Dan Kapanke was easily felled by Democratic assemblywoman Jennifer Shilling. At the end of the night, the fate of the senate majority rested on Alberta Darling, the highest ranking Republican under threat of recall and one of the architects of the controversial collective bargaining legislation. She prevailed in the most bitterly contested and heavily funded recall fight, declaring victory near midnight as both parties scrapped over the final ballots.

The six districts that voted on Tuesday were ground zero in Wisconsin’s labor fight; each delivered substantial support to Walker’s gubernatorial bid last November, despite being carried by Obama in 2008.

It should also be remembered that all of the GOP seats at issue last night were last contested in 2008, which means Republicans won them during an election cycle that favored Democrats substantially. It was always going to be an uphill fight for the Dems, and they came up short.

To see how much of an uphill struggle it was one need only look at where I live, the 10th District. Here the GOP incumbent, Shelia Harsdorf, easily defeated her Democratic opponent, Shelley Moore. When I say easily I mean it. Not even close. This was despite the fact that copious resources were pumped into the Moore campaign. Indeed, Moore had a vigorous ground game here, which was far more visible than the Harsdorf campaign. It mattered for nothing. Moore still got crushed. In fact, Harsdorf won by a larger margin last night then she did in 2008.

It should also be noted, for all the talk I heard about high turnout rates rivalling presidential election years, it really didn't materialize that way. Oh, more people voted than usually do in these "off-season" elections, just not at presidential election levels. A little over 64 thousand votes were cast last night. However, in 2008 almost 99 thousand ballots were cast. That's a huge difference.

In the end, the Dems statewide got close. However, as the saying goes, close only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades. It really doesn't count here.

On The Ground In Wisconsin's 10th Senate District

Turnout seemed noticeably heavy at the polls today.

I have no idea who that would favor. As usual in this election, the Democratic get-out-the-vote operation has been the more visible of the two. (My house was visited twice more yesterday.)

It's now, for me at least, wait and see time.

Expectations

From Politico: Wis. Dem memo: Victory predictions "dangerous"

Democrats on the ground here are increasingly confident they will pick-up two state Senate seats, but are warning that winning the third necessary for a takeover is a tenuous prospect.

Despite hype from some in the party apparatus about a "six for six" sweep Tuesday, the more realistic scenario is winning two or three seats, according to those involved in the ground game.

The most stark word of caution is included in a private memo obtained by POLITICO from the Democratic-leaning We Are Wisconsin group to its donors.

"In our final days, we remain cautiously optimistic about our chances to take back the Senate. But predictions of victory at this point are beyond premature – they’re dangerous," wrote We Are Wisconsin field director Kristen Crowell in an Aug. 3 memo obviously designed to lower expectations.

"While we have solid research suggesting there are races where we might secure a second and third potential pick-up, none of these of these races except 32 should be considered safe pick-ups (and even there we face challenges to get the ball over the goal line), and we are dealing with an unprecedented electorate that is very difficult to forecast," she continues.

After outlining the odds Democrats face in going up against the "unlimited resources" of "corporate interests, she warns the the predictions of three wins in bank are overblown.

I have no idea what will happen tomorrow, but I do know this: If the Dems don't win at least three senate seats they have lost... and lost big.

"But," one might ask, "why is that? Even if the Democrats do not take control of the Wisconsin state senate just getting close might force the Republicans to work with them a little bit."

No it won't. The things is, none of the seats tomorrow were last won by the Republicans in 2010 when conditions were just right for the GOP nationwide. They were all last contested in 2008, an election that was a mighty good one for Democrats nationwide. Wisconsin Democrats are attempting to make the case that Gov. Walker's term to date has been so unpopular the effect in the state will be greater than the positive effect the Obama candidacy had for Democratic candidates in 2008. Any way you slice it it is a ballsy argument.

However, because it is so ballsy "close but no cigar" won't cut it. Walker and Co. are much more likely to shrug their shoulders and say "That's all you got?" and continue on their desired course. Only putting an actual speed bump in the state senate will actually slow them down.

As for "the odds Democrats face in going up against the 'unlimited resources' of 'corporate interests'", all I can say is that isn't how it looks on the ground here in the Moore v. Harsdorf race. The Moore campaign has been much, much more visible in television advertising, direct mailings, and canvassing. Moore forces have knocked on our door five times in the last three weeks, while I've not seen any Harsdorf people. Moore mailings have outnumbered Harsdorf 10 or 12 to one. If the Harsdorf campaign has access to "unlimited resources" they have a funny way of showing it.

In any event, the political scientist in me is looking forward to seeing what happens tomorrow.

[irony]Oh, Thank Goodness [/irony]

Conspiracy theorists of the world unite! You have nothing to lose but MY sanity! Prosser's huge gain comes after Waukesha County flub is caught

David Prosser gained 7,582 votes in Waukesha County, after a major counting error of Brookfield results was detected, County Clerk Kathy Nickolaus announced in a stunning development this afternoon. Nickolaus says the reason for the big change is that data transmitted from the City of Brookfield was imported but that she failed to save those results to the database. Brookfield cast 14,315 votes on April 5 -- 10,859 of those votes went to Prosser and 3,456 went to JoAnne Kloppenburg.

Great. What could be better than a never ending round of "stolen election!" crapola. But then again, Democrats always tell us election fraud isn't a problem. Maybe this will be accepted without a peep, right?

A Political Scientist! A Political Scientist! My Kingdom For A Political Scientist!

Given we are basically a dime-a-dozen breed you would think folks would make use of us (or our work) a bit more often. Whoever Wins, WI Supreme Court Election Shows Big Labor Less Formidible [sic] Than Expected

Last night, the movement to save America and the states from corruption and insolvency may have suffered a setback in Wisconsin. Prosser has a razor-thin lead, but almost all the outstanding votes are in Kloppenburg counties, and for whatever reason, Democrats seem to usually benefit from recounts.... On paper, the reformers were severely disadvantaged. Both candidates agreed to run on only $300,000 in public financing, meaning they could not directly operate on the scale this election required. The unions’ well-established political organizations, compounded by likely-stronger recall petition teams that they were able to re-purpose, looked to be an enormous advantage... Big labor should have been far more excited and mobilized than the reformers. Non-public-safety public employee unions’ ability to function in Wisconsin is at stake if the Budget Repair Bill sticks. Special interests with tangible benefits at stake are generally far more motivated to act than taxpayers as a whole, whose losses are less direct and less apparent. In national elections, when every political machine is firing on all cylinders, there are many competing sources of excitement, but in special elections, concentrated interests usually have an advantage. In retrospect, Wisconsin, with its recall provisions and upcoming key judicial election, was an especially tough venue for a battle between the interests of the many and the interests of the few. Despite all these disadvantages, and regardless of who ultimately prevails in this election, the reformers fought big labor to a virtual draw.

This is all well and good, however, it ignores a basic component of reality. Prosser was an incumbent. Even in such unfashionable areas of modern politics as state supreme court elections incumbents have built in advantages. Indeed, state supreme court justices enjoy more of a boost from incumbency than governors (85% rate of reelection for supremes, 81% for governors.) Add that to the fact pro-Prosser forces substantially outspent pro-Kloppenburg forces on media buys (who only managed to spend 62% of what the pro-Prosser groups did), and I think it would be foolish of anyone to think this shows weakness on the part of the Democrats. Indeed, that is a big part of my problem with Walker and Company. They are acting as if the win they enjoyed in November means the Wisconsin electorate has fundamentally transformed itself. There is no indication this is the case. None. Actually, Walker is acting exactly like Obama did after the 2008 election. It was a stupid thing to do when a Democrat did it, and its still a stupid thing when a Republican does it.

IMW Report Card

OK, lets check the old election predictions from your friendly neighborhood blogger:

House: Republicans 227 Democrats 208 (Dems lose 48 seats)

Hmm. I didn't do so well here. Oh, I didn't miss the Republicans taking the House (like most Political Scientists did back in 1994), but I missed the margin of victory rather badly. There is still some final counting to do, but it looks like the Dems will lose 64-65 seats. I am shocked at how Democratic support simply collapsed in the Midwest. The implications of that could be huge down the road, and I'm sure there are plenty of Democratic analysts trying to figure out how to reverse fortunes there.

Senate: Democrats 53 Republicans 47 (Dems lose 5 seats)

As of right now it looks like I nailed this one. (We are still waiting for Washington state's numbers, like we wait every election. They really ought to update their systems up there. A team of five blind Capuchin monks could do the job quicker; five Capuchin monkeys quicker still.)

So, prediction wise, the night wasn't a total loss. I give myself a B-.

More On Election Predictions

For those watching the poll numbers (particularly the last Gallup generic ballot with had the GOP up 15 points - yikes - on the Democrats) my predictions seem relatively positive for the Democrats. (Heavy on the relativity.)

Why is that? Well, simply put, I do not believe the poll numbers are going to translate into the kinds of losses I see being forecast. (Some are saying an 80 seat GOP gain is possible!) I really think it is more likely that we will see an election akin to the 1958 or 1974 elections; elections where the party of the sitting President (i.e. Republicans during the Eisenhower and Ford admins) lost big. However, they only lost 48 seats in each election, even though in 1958 unemployment had risen over 50% in two years, and the 1974 election was less than three months after the Nixon resignation. I have a hard time believing we will see a repudiation of the Democrats on a vastly larger scale. (And, yes, the lost of over 58 seats would be an outright repudiation.)

The reactions from the Democratic faithful runs the gamut from uneducated anger to resignation, but denial is noticeably absent.

Still, there are those that try to see the glass as half-full, like Marc Ambinder:

So let's stipulate that the Democrats will be heartbroken come Tuesday. But can we set a baseline level of expectations as to what would constitute the LEAST worst night they could have? Here's what I'd suggest:

-If Democrats prevent Republicans from picking up MORE than 50 House seats...

-If Democrats retain their Senate majority WITHOUT Joe Biden having to trek down to the Hill and cast the tie-breaking vote...

-If Democrats pick up/keep at least three of the following four governors' mansions--Colorado, Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania--or two of the preceding states AND if Bill White comes within 8 points of beating incumbent Gov. Rick Perry in Texas ...

-If austerity ballot measures in Colorado fail to pass and pot legalization does pass in California ...

Well, at least on the national politics side, *I* think the Democrats can reach some of that.

Election Predictions

I'm getting this out of the way early.

House: Republicans 227 Democrats 208 (Dems lose 48 seats)
Senate: Democrats 53 Republicans 47 (Dems lose 5 seats - and, yes, I'm not pretending the "independents" are actually independent.

Please. I Beg You. Don't Make Me Sympathize With Rand Paul

This blog has never been a friend of Ron Paul. We like it that way.

In one of the rare instances where visiting the sins of the father upon the son made sense, I could cheerfully dismiss the Rand Paul senate race. In fact, I was happy that I did not live in Kentucky so I could be far removed from the Paulian nonsense.

But what did the Democrat in the race do? He launched an attack on Paul so despicable that even I had to say "This is simply vicious and wrong." Hell, even Democrat Claire McCaskill called it "very dangerous." I'd like to think she didn't just mean in the sense that it risks backfiring badly. This year what I'd like to have happen pretty much never will.

I Really Thought Russ Feingold Was Better Than This

Unfortunately, its tin-foil hat time again: Feingold decries 'systematic' effort to 'destroy' Obama

Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.) decried what he said was a "systematic, conscious" effort by groups to "destroy" President Obama.

Feingold, who's facing a tough reelection effort this fall, blamed coordinated opposition to Obama and the Democratic agenda in Congress for some of the political and electoral woes facing his party this fall.

"A conscious decision was made by certain groups to destroy this presidency the minute it started," Feingold said in a question-and-answer session with The New York Times published Tuesday evening.

That's right. You can never trust groups, particularly certain groups.

"People say it was the healthcare bill — no, it wasn’t. I go to every county every year and hold a town meeting," he added. "Within days of the president being sworn in, I had people showing up at my town meeting with hats on, with tea bags coming out, saying this is going to be socialism."

OMG! People with tea bags on their head!! How is the President of the United States of America to compete with people with tea bags on their heads!!! Its just so unfair and brutal. *sniff*

And while Feingold did not blame Republicans, he did single out "groups" for having looked to take down Obama, and with him, Democrats in Congress.

"I started coming back and telling my staff and my friends -– way back in spring of '09 -– that something is going on out there that is pretty deadly and pretty harsh even before we had any idea what the healthcare bill was going to be," he said. "There appears to be a systematic, conscious attempt to dismantle this president, so I’m less surprised than other people.”

That's right. Feingold losing his seat in the Senate would be the equivalent of murder perpetrated by those "harsh" and "deadly" groups.

How, oh how, can we protect our Democrats from the perils of groups?