Free Markets, Free People

Democrats


Why I don’t believe the polls

It’s rather simple really. And the Washington Post provides the answer today:

In the last three releases of the tracking poll conducted by The Washington Post and ABC News, Obama has trailed former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney among independent voters by between 16 and 20 percentage points.

That’s a striking reversal from 2008, when Obama won independent voters, who made up 29 percent of the electorate, by eight points over Sen. John McCain of Arizona.

And if Romney’s large margin among independents holds, it will be a break not just from 2008 but also from 2000 and 2004. In 2000, Texas Gov. George W. Bush won independents by 47 percent to 45 percent over Vice President Al Gore. Four years later, Bush and Sen. John F. Kerry of Massachusetts essentially split unaffiliated voters, according to exit polls — 48 percent for Bush to 49 percent for Kerry. (Independents made up 27 percent of the vote in 2000 and 26 percent in 2004.)

It is more than a “striking reversal”, it is an indicator of what other major demographics are demonstrating as well. A big shift away from Obama. So one of two things has to be true – the polls showing these big demographic shifts away from Obama are wrong, or the polls showing this to be a tight race with Obama slightly ahead or behind have to be wrong. They can’t both be right.

When you add in the “atmospherics”, it is hard to believe this is a tight race. The enthusiasm for Obama isn’t there (and certainly not at all like it was in 2008), apparently the major demographics aren’t there and finally, even in the polls that do show a close race, the trend continues to be up for Romney.

It still isn’t clear what demographic model the polls are using, but as I said in the podcast last night, if it is skewed with D+ anything, it is likely wrong.  If I had to guess I’d say a poll that isn’t skewing at least R+1 isn’t even in the same galaxy as this election.  The atmospherics, demographics and momentum, whether the left or MSM wants to admit it or not, are on the side of the GOP.  My guess is this doesn’t end up being a close election and that Democrats are not going to be happy with the outcome.

~McQ


Michael Barone: Slow-motion 1980?

Michael Barone is one of the few poll watchers I respect. I’ve watched him in any number of elections and he’s objectively called it the way he saw it, usually spot on, for whomever the facts indicated was in the lead. No spin, just good analysis.

Well, in this season of polling chaos, Barone is out with his look at some of the key indicators that help him analyze election trends and he seems to think we are seeing a preference cascade begin ala 1980 … just slower:

My other alternative scenario was based on the 1980 election, when vast numbers of voters switched from Jimmy Carter to Ronald Reagan after their single debate one week before the election. In that debate, the challenger showed he had presidential stature and the incumbent president seemed petulant and small-minded.

We saw an even more vivid contrast between challenger and incumbent in the Oct. 3 debate. In the next two debates, Obama was definitely more focused and aggressive. But Romney held his own, and post-Oct. 16 polling showed him improving his standing even though many debate watchers thought Obama won on points.

What we may be seeing, as we drink from the firehose of multiple poll results pouring in, is a slow-motion 1980.

That reinforces my point about the first debate and something we’ve been saying since Oct. 3. That is the debate that mattered. And note also that in debates 2 and 3, Obama pulled a Carter. His stature was diminished by his actions. He, as Barone and many others have observed, came across as “petulant and small-minded”. Add arrogant and condescending, and you’ve captured it.  Oh, and by the way, his record, like Carter’s, is dismal.

Romney, on the other hand, came across exactly as he had to come across – competent, presidential, confident and, believe it or not, likable. He did what Ronald Reagan did – unfiltered by the media, he was able to convince Americans who tuned in that he was Presidential material. That he was a more than acceptable alternative to Obama.

All of that said, Barone isn’t claiming that this is a done deal by any stretch (“don’t get cocky kid”):

The usual caveats are in order. Exogenous events could affect opinion (Libya seems to have hurt Obama). The Obama ground game is formidable. Voters who switched to Romney could switch back again.

And if there is a larger reservoir of potentially changeable voters than in 2004, there was an even larger reservoir back in 1980, when Carter attracted white Southerners who now are firmly in Romney’s column.

Mechanical analogies can be misleading. Just because Romney has gained ground since Oct. 3 does not guarantee that he will gain more.

But also keep in mind that Romney gained not just from style but from fundamentals. Most voters dislike Obama’s domestic policies and are dissatisfied with the sluggish economy. And now they seem to believe have an alternative with presidential stature.

So, while we apparently have a preference cascade beginning, is it enough?  And will it peak at the right time.  Will it be a slow steady climb to election day?  Will it plateau?  Will it stop short of the majority Romney needs?  Obviously we won’t know that until election night (or, perhaps, the next day).  But suffice it to say, the upward trend is obvious.

How it will play out, however, remains to be seen.

~McQ


MSM – the traditional Democratic ally?

I’m sure you’re watching the MSM give a huge collective yawn concerning the Obama video that has been surfaced showing an Obama that most of America hasn’t seen.

“Old news” they’re saying.  “We’ve covered it,” they claim.  Funny, I don’t remember it (oh, it was on MSNBC?  No wonder no one has seen it).

Meanwhile the MSM is fixed on 1985 videos of Mitt Romney and his stance on … Vietnam?

Ed Driscoll, via Instapundit, sums up a couple of points that are pretty much true.  First, he quotes Andrew Ferguson at Commentary, who makes a good point using the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle as a basis:

Heisenberg’s principle can be crudely generalized (it’s the best I can do) as follows: An observer can change the nature of a thing or an event merely through the act of observation. Observation all by itself can become an intervention. Heisenberg was describing how reality works at the level of quantum mechanics, where a wave becomes a particle and vice versa depending on how it’s being measured. But it applies, too, at the level of political journalism, where reality is even stranger. There, facts can become interpretations, interpretations can become facts, and events of no significance can achieve an earthshaking importance simply by virtue of being pawed over by a large number of journalists.

A typical journalist, if he’s any good, insists at least theoretically on the iron divide between observer and participant. At its best the press corps sees itself as a squadron of Red Cross workers, wandering among the combatants in a battle zone and ensuring their own safety with a claim of strict neutrality. The Heisenberg Principle of Journalism puts the lie to all that. You see it at work whenever a news anchor announces that “this story just refuses to go away” or a headline writer insists that “questions continue to be raised” about the conduct of one hapless public figure or another.

The story refuses to go away, of course, because the anchor and his colleagues won’t let it; and the questions that continue to be raised are being raised by the headline writer and his editors. Reporters create more news than anybody, just by pretending they’re watching it unfold.

How often have we seen the absolute over-kill by the media on stories most would consider trivial.  It seems to always depend on who is involved, doesn’t it?   But, as Bengazi and Fast and Furious are proving, the inverse is also true.  The MSM can blatantly ignore what most would consider important stories as well.   Driscoll lists the exceptions:

Let’s.  And that’s precisely what the media is doing.  I’d also add to that list a litany of economic failure that is simply being ignored.

Or to put it another way, as the Washington Examiner notes tonight in an editorial, “To believe Obama is to forget the last four years.” That’s what both the Obama Administration and their palace guard are hoping.

It has gotten so obvious that even Howard Fineman has criticized the press for its obvious bias and its selective coverage.  Pat Caudell went off on the media just the other day.

The intent of the media?  To drag their chosen one across the finish line regardless of how poorly he’s done.   There seems to be no attempt to hide it anymore.  Simply peruse the stories of the day, identify what should be the stories of the day (a useful tool is to identify something not being covered and say to one’s self “if that were a Republican president …”), and it becomes clear which side, literally, the press is on.

Tonight is going to be interesting as well.  We’ll see how subtle the “moderators” of the debate are going to be about their bias by the questions they ask.  Will they focus on the economy, the unfulfilled Obama promises, the disaster his foreign policy has become, ObamaCare and its cost, etc.  Or are we going to talk about “lady parts”, what Romney said in 1985 and the evil Bain corporation.

My guess?  Not much economy, not much Obama record, lots about Mitt’s past (with the excuse that we know about Obama, but this is an opportunity to introduce America to Romney).

~McQ
Twitter: @McQandO
Facebook: QandO


“The government is the only thing we belong too …”

A video that claims “the government is the only thing we all belong too” is being disowned by the Obama Campaign, saying it was a video produced by the host city committee and not the DNC.

But, of course, it carries a Democratic National Convention banner in the lower left corner (another case of incompetence or refusing to be held accountable).




However I’m not so much concerned with who did it than I am with the implication of the message. It serves as a reminder of the premise under which most of the left works.

I don’t belong to any government. Government is my employee. It works for me. It is supposed to do my bidding in a democratic system, and not the other way around.

Now I’m sure that there are those who will listen to this and claim that the speaker is talking about a unity of effort or the uniting effect of government. I.e. regardless of party or ideology we all work under the same government.

But that’s not what he said. “Belong” has a very specific meaning. While talking about why the meme “you didn’t build that” isn’t going away, Rachel Larimore tells us why:

Many moons ago, I spent a couple of years in a fiction-writing program at a local university. I never finished the novel I aspired to write, but I did learn some valuable lessons. The most important: “It doesn’t matter what you meant. What matters is what you conveyed.” In the context of class, that meant when we were sharing our work and listening to feedback, we couldn’t butt in and say that we’d meant something else. We needed to take ourselves out of our own head and try to understand what our readers had heard.

What was conveyed was a message that, to me, is anti-liberty. Sorry to blunt about it, but it reflects a belonging that I reject. I’m not an American because of my government. I don’t belong to any group because of my government. My government exits at my forbearance. It exists solely to serve mine and other American’s needs.

And while we might disagree on is what those needs are and how much government is necessary, I don’t “belong” to the government in any sense whatsoever?

None.

But what this short segment highlights is the very large philosophical gulf that exists between those who believe in individualism and those who are statists. The statement is a statement that glorifies the state while attempting to lump all of us as collectively “owned” by it. Whether or not that’s what the speaker meant, it is what he said and conveyed by using the word “belong”.

It might not be such a big deal if it wasn’t so obviously the usually unspoken belief of so many on the left. What we’re going to see in Charlotte is a celebration of big government and that sort of “belonging”.

I want no part of it.

~McQ

Twitter: McQandO

Facebook: QandO


Democrats and Republicans: A pox on both their houses

We’ve talked in the past about why these “wave” elections, as they’re called, are happening with increasing frequency.

Well one of the reasons, I would assert, is people are tiring of the same old promises – promises that are rarely if ever kept – with the same old results – business as usual with vituperative partisan sniping and finger pointing, while we spend ourselves into oblivion.

No matter who is put into power, nothing substantive happens.  So voters keep switching the sides in hope that some group they put in there will “get it”.

So along come this poll, which is quite interesting.  No matter how “popular” Obama is alleged to be, it seems the party he is associated with is now at their popularity nadir.

Today’s Gallup Poll, "GOP Favorability Matches 2008 Pre-Convention Level," shows the pre-convention favorability ratings of the two Parties going back as far as 1992. For the very first time, the favorable/unfavorable ratios are now higher for the Republican Party than for the Democratic Party. For the first time ever, the Democratic favorability ratio, which has always been within the range of 1.20 to 1.56, is now below 1. It is a stunningly low .83, which is 31% lower than the prior Democratic Party low of 1.20, which was reached in 2004.

The Democrats find themselves at John Kerry territory in terms of popularity.  Gee I wonder why (*cough* ignore the voters and pass ObamaCare, unemployment at 8.2%, economy in the crapper, etc., *cough*)?

But  before Republicans celebrate because they’re better than Democrats, they should realize they’re only marginally better. 

By contrast, the Republican ratio is now .88, which compares with the 2008 ratio of .80, which was that Party’s lowest-ever ratio, reached at the end of the Bush Presidency. Prior to 2008, the ratio was 1.16 in 2004, 1.41 in 2000, 1.16 in 1996, and 1.36 in 1992.

Those figures compare with the Democratic ratios of 1.38 in 2008 (compared with the Republican .80), 1.20 in 2004 (vs. 1.16), 1.56 in 2000 (vs. 1.41), 1.50 in 1996 (vs. 1.16), and 1.42 in 1992 (vs. 1.36).

So?  So right now,  Republicans seem to be enjoying a slightly better level of “popularity” than are Democrats.  But both should note that their relative popularity is near the bottom of their historic range.

What does that say?

It says to me that voters are truly considering the lesser of two evils.  That their “popularity” is a function of there being no other choice but these two and there being little if any confidence in either doing what is necessary to turn this mess around.  But, at the moment, they are inclined to give the Republicans a shot, simply because the Democrats have been so lousy.

Another “indicator” poll.  Expect the media’s full court negative press to continue unabated.  We now know more about Mitt Romney than we’ve ever known about the President of the United States (of course that’s partly because Romney has actually run things and done things prior to running and has an actual record to examine).

Meanwhile voters seem inclined toward the Republicans, but not such that anyone in the GOP should get arrogant or cocky by any means.  This is all touch and go at the moment.

But here’s a key which is hard to ignore, speaking of Obama’s “popularity”:

The Democratic brand has thus suffered more (down 39%) under Obama than the Republican brand suffered under either of George W. Bush’s two terms (-16%, then -31%).

Democrats have reason to be worried.

~McQ

Twitter: @McQandO

Facebook: QandO


Tax the rich? Check out these charts

Stephen Moore does yeoman’s work via the Manhattan Institute debunking the left’s class warfare mantra of “tax the rich”.  He does it with thousands of words accompanied by many charts.  I’m just going to concentrate on a few the charts (do read the piece, it’s good) since they tell the story quite succinctly.

Remember it’s about those nasty rich paying their “fair share”:

For instance, we’re constantly told by those who would tax us more that we’re woefully under taxed compared to the rest of the world (like that’s a good reason to raise taxes).  Well that really depends on what income group you’re in, doesn’t it:

Who taxes

So it’s not really true if you’re among the upper 10% in this country is it?

Who is so under taxed then.  Well if you look at the tax rolls you’ll find that almost 40% of those filing tax returns had zero or negative tax liability.

That’s right, they paid nothing or actually got money from the government.  I’m not talking about a tax refund either.  I’m talking about redistributed wealth.

The United States taxes the top 10% of its “richest” people more than anyone else and well above the average tax found in all OECD nations.

That sort of takes the starch out of the “fair share” nonsense that we constantly hear the left prattle on about doesn’t it?

But wait, there’s more as the old Ronco commercial used to say.  What about the share of taxes collected.  It’s about “fair share”.  Surelyshare tax they’re not really paying what any thinking adult would consider their fair share of taxes are they?  Well I don’t know about you, but yes, I think they are.  In fact, the top 1% are paying twice as much in taxes as they were in 1980.   That seems to go against the conventional wisdom, or at least the claims of the left, doesn’t it?

Why yes, it does.  The chart at the right also shows that the  top 20% are paying 84% of all income taxes collected.   I don’t know what you consider a “fair share”, but I’d guess for most we’re way beyond fairness with this structure.

Well wait a minute you say, they have so  big a share of the national income that they should pay more.  Should they?  Who paid

How much more?  And where does fairness enter the question.  Looking at this next chart on the left, why should those on the higher end pay more than they are now given the information available?  If you have the bottom 50% paying 3% and the bottom 40% paying nothing or getting money via redistribution, yet benefiting from the infrastructure that the left likes to use to claim “you didn’t build that”, who really did build it?

Those paying 3% or those paying 40%?  The government has no money and can’t build anything without taxes so who paid to build all thatRecession and rich infrastructure that President Obama likes to claim?  The chart tells that story, doesn’t it.  In fact the top 25% of taxpayers ought to be yelling back at him every time he says that, “well we paid for it”.

There are a ton more examples and charts.  There’s one more I want you to see as the left continues to point to taxes on the rich as some sort of panacea to all the revenue shortfalls that ail us (btw, it’s not about revenue, it’s about spending).

Look at what the recession has done to the “golden goose” of the rich.

Oh, my … they’ve actually seen huge percentage drops.  Note how many there are in the bottom rung ($200k and above).  Sorry folks but that simply isn’t “rich” in the terms I think of rich.  That’s likely to be the guy next door who has a family of 5 and is trying to make ends meet.  Anyone who thinks $200k is rich isn’t living in the same world as I am.  But many of those in that category are going to be the small-business owners and entrepreneurs that help drive the economy.

The plan?  Tax them even more.  In France, since their tax the rich scheme has been unveiled, the “rich” are looking across borders into friendlier countries.  We’ve seen a reduction in all categories of “rich” since 2007.  Do you suppose those in those categories now are going to lay back and just accept more taxation without trying to do something to hold on to their hard earned money?

Anyway, rant ends.  Read the whole thing.  Peruse the graphs.  It is very interesting and telling information. 

~McQ

Twitter: @McQandO

Facebook: QandO


Indicators: WaPo poll says majority thinks government too big

As Dale points out in the podcast, while the election polls have yet to reflect it, the atmospherics of this electiongovtintrusion don’t bode well for Obama.  For instance, you have huge crowds turning out for Romney/Ryan events and you have the Obama campaign trying out “we purposely limit crowd size” on the media to excuse the comparatively paltry turnouts they are experiencing.  And then there’s the Newsweek cover story by Niall Ferguson telling Obama it’s time he hit the road.  It is almost like Newsweek is attempting a return to legitimacy by distancing itself from Obama.

Another indicator, much like the Gallup issues poll in which Obama had a 36% approval rating on the economy, is a Washington Post poll concerning the size and intrusiveness of government.

Call it a mood poll if you wish.  But again, taken with all the other polls, it does indeed begin to outline the “atmospherics” surrounding the election.  In this poll, a good majority of those polled said that government was both too big and too intrusive … not to mention way to expensive.  CNS has the story:

The poll asked: "Would you say you favor a smaller federal government with fewer services, or larger federal government with many services?"

Among all those polled, 55 percent said they wanted a smaller federal government and 40 percent said they wanted a larger federal government.

Among just the registered voters in the poll, 58 percent said they wanted a smaller federal government and 37 percent said they wanted a larger federal government.

The poll also asked: "Do you personally agree or disagree with the following statement. Government controls too much of our daily lives."

Among all those polled, 60 percent said they agreed and 39 percent said they disagreed. Among just the registered voters in the survey, the results were almost identical, with 60 percent saying they agreed and 38 percent saying they disagreed.

CNS points out that the Washington Post analysis says:

“… [T]he results show a deep partisan divide in America. "Partisan polarization presents a potentially insurmountable barrier to governing for whomever wins the White House in November."

Funny how the percentage of those who are for a larger and more intrusive government are at about the same percentage as the Democrats in the poll (35%).  So if it is “partisan polarization”, it would seem that the Democrats are losing the battle.  It would seem that the big middle is headed to the right.

Now we all know it’s easy to say you want smaller government with fewer services when it costs you nothing but an answer on a poll.  And we also understand that most people are fine with real cuts, as long as they effect someone else’s benefits and not theirs.  But that doesn’t change the fact that the mood of the country is inclined toward smaller and less intrusive government.

And that doesn’t bode will for big government Democrats – like Obama.

~McQ

Twitter: @McQandO

Facebook: QandO


Election indicators: voter registration

It’s not a poll, but it certainly is an indicator:

Across Florida on Wednesday, President Obama’s campaign scheduled 53 field events to register voters. Last weekend in Virginia, there were at least 78 such events — typical of drills in the past several months on behalf of the incumbent Democrat in the battleground states that are likely to decide the Nov. 6 election.

But a Globe analysis of voter registration data in swing states reveals scant evidence that the massive undertaking is yielding much fresh support for Obama.

In stark contrast to 2008, when a strong partisan tailwind propelled Democratic voter registration to record levels, this year Republican and independent gains are far outpacing those of Democrats.

Specifics:

In Florida, Iowa, North Carolina, Colorado, and Nevada — tossup states where direct election-year comparisons could be drawn — the numbers are striking. Democratic rolls increased by only 39,580, less than one-tenth the amount at the comparable point in the 2008 election.

At the same time, GOP registration has jumped by 145,085, or more than double for the same time four years ago. Independent registration has shown an even stronger surge, to 229,500, almost three times the number at this point in 2008.

Whistling past the graveyard:

“The fact is, there are currently many more Democrats registered in battleground states now than there were before the 2008 primary campaign began, which means there are fewer eligible voters left to register because of the gains we made in 2008,” campaign spokesman Adam Fetcher said in an e-mail.

“We have largely preserved the huge gains we built in 2007 and 2008 and increased our advantage in some areas, while Republicans have failed to make significant gains despite having the primary to themselves this year,” he said.

Support for “whistling past the graveyard”:

Jan Leighley, an American University professor of political science with a specialty in voter turnout, sees merit in the Obama camp’s explanation. “To say ‘We did a lot in 2008 and we’re not going to repeat those numbers in terms of a percentage increase’ is a legitimate point,” said Leighley. “Registration is not the endgame; the endgame for the campaign is to get people to the polls,” she said.

Reality?  It’s about enthusiasm.  It’s about motivation.  Clearly voter registration enthusiasm (which will likely produce actual voters) is up on the side of Republican efforts. 

Secondly, it seems the Democrats are prepared to totally ignore what happened in 2010.  Guess who made “significant gains” then?  Claiming that 2008 gains have been “preserved” is just that, a claim.  It certainly didn’t prove itself true during the midterms did it?

Add to that the huge crowds turning out to see Romney and Ryan and the large number of Democratic politicians who’ve decided to skip the Democratic convention and you begin to see a picture that the left is desperately trying to paper over.

Indicators.

~McQ

Twitter: @McQandO

Facebook: QandO


Democratic Senator Ron Wyden tries to delink himself from Ryan Medicare plan

To date it’s been an attempt that mostly gets fussy about word usage, but my guess is it will get more pointed:

Gov. Romney is talking nonsense. Bipartisanship requires that you not make up the facts. I did not ‘co-lead a piece of legislation.’ I wrote a policy paper on options for Medicare. Several months after the paper came out I spoke and voted against the Medicare provisions in the Ryan budget. Governor Romney needs to learn you don’t protect seniors by makings things up, and his comments today sure won’t help promote real bipartisanship.

That’s obviously in reaction to a statement by Romney in which he talked about legislation, not a policy paper.

So Wyden is right, the quote is incorrect.

But Wyden is being a bit disingenuous too.  You don’t vote for parts of a budget so claiming you voted “against the Medicare provisions” of a budget are a bit of nonsense as well.  Democrats voted against the entire Ryan budget, the Medicare provisions being only  a part of that.

Even Think Progress has some problems with the attempted delinking driven by the inconvenient politics of having a Democratic Senator’s name on a plan that Democrats have chosen to mischaracterize and demonize:

The plan Sen. Wyden co-authored with Ryan does bear a striking resemblance to the proposed Medicare changes in Ryan’s latest budget for the House GOP. Both keep traditional Medicare as a kind of public option, in an exchange where it would compete with private plans offering insurance to seniors. The government would give seniors support for purchasing these plans, and that support would be benchmarked to the cost of the second-least expensive plan. The plans would also be prohibited from discriminating based on pre-existing conditions.

Where they begin to differ is Paul supports more market based solutions while Wyden wants government based solutions.

But this sort of linkage is inconvenient when you’re claiming the GOP ticket is “trying to end Medicare as we know it” (even though it is ObamaCare which is pulling $700+ billion out of Medicare).  Avik Roy has the “bottom line” on that meme:

The bottom line: if Romney and Ryan leave you the option to remain in the 1965-vintage, fee-for-service, traditional Medicare program, and you claim that Medicare has “ended as we know it,” what you’ve really ended is the English language as we know it.

Pretty much. 

The point?  Ron Wyden did indeed “co-author” a Medicare plan with Paul Ryan.  There’s no question about that.  And it was indeed a bipartisan plan, by definition.  In fact the paper is entitled “Bipartisan Options for the Future” and lists both Wyden and Ryan as the authors.

Finally, their plan contains this paragraph:

We are a Democrat and Republican; a Senator and a Representative; senior members of our respective Budget Committees; and members of the committees that have jurisdiction over Medicare and health care costs. As budgeteers, we understand the difficulty presented by demographic changes over the next several decades. As members with policy oversight, we recognize and encourage the potential for innovation to improve care and hold down costs. And most important, as representatives of hardworking Americans in Oregon and Southern Wisconsin, we realize our absolute responsibility to preserve the Medicare guarantee of affordable, accessible health care for every one of the nation’s seniors for decades to come.

Sounds like a pretty bipartisan effort to me.

Here’s the problem for the Democrats.  They need badly to demonize Paul Ryan as an extremist who is out to push granny over the Medicare cliff and end Medicare as we know it.  That’s because “Medicscaring” seniors is a tried and true method of gaining votes, and Democrats know it.  They’ve deployed it many times in the past.

And bipartisan cooperation?  No way, no how, can’t let that sort of thing become public knowledge when you have an active campaign beginning to label Ryan as an extremist ideologue.

But the facts don’t support that sort of branding campaign.  Not only has Ryan not attempted in any form or fashion to end Medicare, he’s teamed up with a liberal Senator to put forward a plan to actually save it (even while the loudest critic is pulling that $700+ billion from the program via ObamaCare) and make it sustainable.

How inconvenient. 

That is why Wyden is trying his best to delink from Ryan. And you can imagine from whence the pressure to do so is coming.  But it’s a hard sale to make when his name is clearly associated with Ryan’s on a plan he claimed will “preserve the Medicare guarantee of affordable, accessible health care for every one of the nation’s seniors for decades to come”, isn’t it?

Not that it will stop them from trying.

~McQ

Twitter: @McQandO

Facebook: QandO


Paul Ryan and what his nomination means

It means the Democrats are facing a strong ticket with the announcement of Ryan as the VP nominee.  It also finally focuses the ticket where most Americans want it focused – the budget, the size of government, the economy and jobs.

For Mitt Romney the selection of Paul Ryan is about as strong a choice as he could have made.  Ryan has an intricate knowledge of the budget and budget process in Congress.  That will be a critical skill in the next four years for an administration to have.   In effect, Ryan will become the defacto administration budget expert (dare we say “czar”) for the Romney administration and give that administration a level of expertise unknown to most past administrations.

Romney is a “turn around” guy.  He knows how to turn ailing businesses and the like around.  The combination of Ryan and Romney is and should be compelling to most Americans.

For critics of Romney’s “conservatism”, the addition of Ryan should cool their angst and shore up the conservative base.  Ryan is more of a Tea Party conservative (i.e. fixed on fiscal conservatism rather than social conservatism) but that is the sort of conservatism which is going to attract the most non affiliated voters. 

Our fiscal house is broken and in bad need of repair.  This is a team with all the credentials to do that, or at least begin a positive effort to do that (I doubt that it can be fixed in 4 years, but a lot of progress can be made in that time).

And, of course, that means trouble for the Obama administration, whose record is anything but compelling and whose leadership has been anything but inspiring.  Ryan, therefore, must be “destroyed” in a political sense.   So in the name of “vetting” – something that was never really done for our present president  — we will see all sorts of wild stories and opinions flying around concerning the new VP pick.

I’m not sure any of that will matter much though.  Why?

Well, there are indicators seem to be pointing out a momentum shift that  polls aren’t showing yet (we discuss that on the podcast).  A half-full fundraiser for Obama in his home town of Chicago vs an enthusiastic crowd who packed a Romney/Ryan rally at a furniture store in North Carolina.  Or the turnout at this event:

Earlier in the day, Romney and Ryan campaigned at the NASCAR Technical Institute in Mooresville, N.C. The Hickory Daily Record reported that the two were “greeted by thousands.” A Romney campaign official told TheDC that an estimated 4,700 people showed up, with 1,700 people inside the event and 3,000 outside.

If the Obama campaign isn’t worried, then they are even more insulated from reality than I thought.

Fundraising is another indicator that all is not well in Obamaland.  Romney, even without Ryan as the VP pick, has been consistently bringing in more campaign donations.  And not by a little.  He’s been crushing the Obama effort.  That may be the truest indication to this point of how far the Obama brand has fallen. Donors don’t like to back losers.  Indications are that the choice of Ryan will only exacerbate that problem for Obama.

So Paul Ryan means even more trouble for an already troubled Obama campaign.

What should we expect, then?  A full-court press by the left and as dirty a campaign as you’ve ever witnessed.  The Obama campaign and its media surrogates and pundits are going to be in attack mode from now on.  In fact, just peruse some of the stuff already out there today.  Expect it to get worse.  The “Palin treatment” is called for because … because it worked the last time.  I would guess, however, that Ryan may be equal to the task ahead and perhaps turn that treatment back on those who attempt to apply it.

In the meantime, we have the opportunity over the next few months to actually discuss the most important and compelling issues facing us as a nation – if the media will let us.  Unfortunately, they usually focus on the horse race after picking sides.  And we all know whose side they were shamelessly on last go-round.

So I expect stories like this vs. stories about budget, spending and employment.  I expect, given the abysmal Obama record to see continued attempts by media surrogates to distract rather than inform or discuss relevant and important topics.

But then, that seems to be American politics today.  What’s surprising is how the left has managed, since the 2010 election, to pretend they never happened and that they’re back in the happy days of 2008 again.  I see a lot of “whistling past the graveyard” among them.  I see them and the media ignoring some pretty bold indicators that they’re in deep trouble.  And I hope they continue to do so.

Look, an economy that’s banging along the bottom of a recessionary dip and an unemployment rate seemingly stuck at about the 8% mark (or 14% if you’re looking at the U6) are not something any president wants to run on and, they’re certainly not something I’d assume he’d be keen about discussing.  

If Romney/Ryan will focus and force the debate about those issues without letting the Obama campaign successfully distract and divert that debate, I think they win.  And I think Paul Ryan is a strong enough personality to make that happen. 

That is what his nomination means.  And that means big trouble for Obama.

~McQ

Twitter: @McQandO