Tag Archives: GOP primaries

Why GOPers don’t talk about campaign debt

Posted on by
1

Why Republicans don’t talk about campaign debt

For a while there, back in August 2011, the CEO of Starbucks floated an idea of boycotting campaign contributions to all incumbents. Within days, more than a hundred CEOs of large companies had joined/signed on to the idea. We have heard little about it since, undoubtedly for a combination of reasons. Many corporate donors are indeed holding back even now, closer to the election, but less because of an objection to money in politics than because of a predilection for fence-sitting. They are by no means confident that Mitt Romney can win the 2012 presidential election and are not eager to bail on a popular president to become linked with a ludicrous challenger. Their state and local incumbents will either win the election and thus don’t need money—so far as they know—or will not win and thus are a losing proposition. In any case if they want to donate to politics, they can smoothly and discreetly do so through PACs and super-PACs.

 

Romney

Possibly there is another reason as well. At the time Starbucks’ Howard Schultz floated his proposal, it would have particularly damaged the new GOP members of Congress. As the public generally knows, big money in politics does not rain on the just and the unjust alike; the biggest donations—especially from big pharma, big oil and the finance sector–flow mostly to Republican candidates. And for all the hoopla over those budget-cutting deficit-hawk tightfisted Tea Party-influenced GOP freshmen in Congress, the majority of them finished their campaigns in serious debt—and stayed that way.

 

Rep. Joe Walsh (R-Ill.)

A quick overview of new GOP congress members, in a snapshot of their indebtedness as of Aug. 15, 2011, indicates that at least 45 of them* were still carrying serious debt from their election campaigns a year later. The Republican wave of 2010 did not carry its victorious campaigns to solvency. The situation has altered by now, of course, but there are still some interesting indicators.

Steel belt

A perennial GOP election tactic is to characterize the major industrial states as ‘swing’ states. At best, this characterization is seldom corrected in the national political press. No matter how many times Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin vote for the Democrat for the White House—the last FIVE elections, from 1992 through 2008, for Pennsylvania; the last SIX elections, back to 1988, for Michigan and Wisconsin—they still get pitched as swing states when an election year rolls around. There must be a lot of GOP consultants, or commentators who might as well be, left over from 1988. (There are.) This passive-aggressive media tactic, or sometimes genuine political ignorance, is particularly damaging as newspapers shrink in number and coverage and as the media are blanketed with multi-million-dollar false advertising. (Successfully-not-recalled Gov. Scott Walker’s dubious claim that he has brought about a budget surplus in Wisconsin is only one recent example. Walker’s claim looks likely to be rebutted by events, and a federal investigation is underway.)

The swing-state mentality, or analysis if it’s called that, is inherently pro-GOP. At least eleven new Republicans swept into Congress in the industrial ‘swing’ states in 2010 are on the list below—if they won at all, they ended their campaigns in serious debt, and they stayed in debt for at least another year. A set of hard, expensive campaigns does not look like a groundswell of enthusiasm for the GOP or even for throwing out incumbents.

To do them justice, at least all but one of them eventually voted in Congress to raise what is called the debt ceiling. The lone holdout, Michigan’s Justin Amash, seems to try to be a consistent libertarian conservative on the model of Ron Paul.

Illinois

Four new GOP members on the list below came in from Illinois. Of these, Randy Hultgren (Ill. 14th) still has money problems, relatively speaking—at least if the Dems have the sense to support challenger Dennis Anderson. House speaker John Boehner, leaving nothing to chance in the 14th, is out fundraising for Hultgren, whose district went solidly for Obama in 2008.

 

More ludicrously, Illinois also still has Rep. Joe Walsh in situ. Walsh is the notorious child-support dodger and debt defaulter who ended his 2010 campaign at least $340,000 in debt—and then voted in Congress against raising the debt limit, on grounds of fiscal probity. Walsh’s unsavory finances—besides child support–have been discussed elsewhere, including here and here, but he has drawn big-bucks support, presumably because of his low-rent-style personal attacks on the president. Everything that turns the public off on politics benefits the GOP and its corporate donors. Still, if someone like Joe Walsh could beat someone like Tammy Duckworth, Illinois has a worse literacy problem than yet brought to light. In fact, if the national GOP or its supporting orgs are actually still throwing money Walsh’s direction, there are few stronger indicators that they have money to burn.

Duckworth

In Illinois’ 17th, Bobby Schilling came out of 2010-11 somewhat less in debt and has also pulled in large donations. Schilling has a solid challenger in Democrat Cheri Bustos, but another challenger, Eric Reyes, is trying to get on the ballot as a write-in candidate.

Tennessee, West Virginia

The most-preyed-upon belt produced three loaded-with-debt Republican freshmen in 2010—none from Kentucky, but two from Tennessee and one from West Virginia. New GOP Rep Diane Black (Tenn. 6th) had almost a million in debt a year later, David McKinley over half a million; Charles Fleischmann only $200K-plus. Black is heavily financed this time around, facing Democratic challenger attorney Brett Carter. McKinley of West Virginia is also heavily financed, against Dem challenger Susan Thorn. At least Black and McKinley eventually voted to raise the debt limit. Fleischmann, of Tennessee’s heavily gerrymandered 3rd, supported basket-case brinkmanship to the last, getting Boehner’s support anyway. Primaries still to come, in August, with the Democratic contenders looking a lot more credible than the GOP field.

For the rest

The point of highlighting some of our debt-ridden representatives is that coming in loaded with debt does not tend to make even a raw new congress member ‘independent’. Mouthing about ‘revolution’ or the Tea Party or ‘reining in spending’ or debt, when one is carrying liabilities in excess of one’s campaign’s ability to pay them off, should therefore draw some skeptical attention. In this context it might be noted that Arizona produced three of the new GOP in-the-redders, beating out California (one) and Florida (two). Paul Gosar of Arizona’s 4th and David Schweikert of Arizona’s 6th are a lot better off now, financially speaking—but face opponents in the August primaries in AZ. Schweikert’s opponent is fellow listee Ben Quayle, son of former Vice President Dan Quayle; both are lavishly funded. Presumably Quayle and Schweikert can’t both make hay in the primary over the fact that they both opposed raising the debt ceiling to the last, while in debt themselves.

*List on Aug 15, 2011:

  • Justin Amash,  MI 3: $10K cash on hand, $408K debts            N (unopposed for GOP primary Aug 7)
  • Louis J. Barletta, PA 11: $9K cash, $258K debt
  • Daniel J. Benishek, MI 1: $35K cash, $145K debt
  • Diane Lynn Black, TN 6: $36K cash, $1M debt
  • Francisco Canseco, TX 23: $141K cash, $1.1M debt
  • Steve Chabot, OH 1: $7K cash, $10K debt
  • Jeff Denham, CA 10: $47K cash, $54K debt
  • Robert Dold, IL 10: $81K cash, $144K debt
  • Blake Farenthold, TX 27: $33K cash, $157K debt
  • Michael G. Fitzpatrick, PA 8: $28 cash, $129K debt
  • Charles J. Fleischmann, TN 3: $31K cash, $250K debt            N
  • William Flores, TX 17: $44K cash, $731K debt
  • Cory Gardner, CO 4: $19K cash, $103K debt
  • Chris Gibson, NY 20: $31K cash, $50K debt
  • Paul Gosar, AZ 1: $740 cash, $59K debt
  • Tim Griffin, AR 2: $81K cash, $206K debt
  • Michael Grimm, NY  : $21K cash, $95K debt
  • Frank Guinta, NH 1: $493 cash, $355K debt
  • Richard L. Hanna, NY 24: $39K cash, $537K debt
  • Andy Harris, MD 1: $40K cash, $97K debt
  • Vicky Hartzler, MO 4: $22K cash, $163K debt           N
  • Nan Hayworth, NY 19: $53K cash, $505K debt
  • Jaime Herrerra, WA 3: $23K cash, $41K debt
  • Randy Hultgren, IL 14: $29K cash, $61K debt N
  • Bill Johnson, OH 6: $32K cash, $55K debt
  • Mike Kelly, PA 3: $28K cash, $383K debt
  • Jeffrey M. Landry, LA 3: $930 cash, $323K debt         N
  • David B. McKinley, WV 1: $77K cash, $670K debt
  • John Mick Mulvaney, SC 5: $137K cash, $210K debt N
  • Richard B. Nugent, FL 5: $12K cash, $15K debt
  • Ben Quayle, AZ 3: $8K cash, $27K debt         N
  • Tom Reed, NY 29: $37K cash, $76K debt
  • James B. Renacci, OH 16: $50K cash, $375K debt
  • Reid Ribble, WI 8: $2K cash, $173K debt
  • Scott Rigell, VA 2: $157K cash, $378K debt
  • David Rivera, FL 25: $11K cash, $137K debt
  • Jon Runyan, NJ 3:  $5K cash, $339K debt
  • Bobby Schilling, IL 17: $10K cash, $54K debt
  • David Schweikert, AZ 5: $16K cash, $523K debt        N
  • Austin Scott, GA 8: $11K cash, $99K debt      N
  • Steve Stivers, OH 15: $10K cash, $41K debt
  • Marlin Stutzman, IN 3: $523 cash, $8K debt                N
  • Scott Tipton, CO 3: $22K cash, $159K debt               N
  • Tim Walberg, MI 7: $52K cash, $72K debt
  • Joe Walsh, IL 14: $22K cash, $362K debt                   N

 

Trump, birtherism and the GOP race 2012: The more things don’t change, part 3

Posted on by
Reply

The more things don’t change, part 3

2012 from primary to election

 

The dynamic that shaped the Republican primaries is now shaping the Republican campaign for the White House: Future nominee Mitt Romney is continuing the Rick Santorum strategy of going for the leftovers.

 

Romney supporters in Tennessee

As we know, the GOP primary season from summer 2011 to May 2012 shaped up as a contest dividing the voters from more populous counties, in general, from the voters of less populous counties. The GOP primary race was never between ‘moderate’ and ‘conservative’; all the candidates except in some ways Ron Paul support the same rapacious policies. The primary race was between Romney, Newt Gingrich and Ron Paul on one hand and Santorum on the other, the fault line being metropolitan/suburban appeal versus rural appeal. Santorum took most of the less populated counties, and he took states where rural and small-town counties and congressional districts outweigh metropolitan areas and suburbs. In this metric, as previously written, Santorum had the advantage of a divided field among his opponents and the leftovers to himself. Romney, Gingrich and Paul divided the more populated areas.

 

Romney with Nikki Haley

Now Romney has the Republican electorate all to himself—an electorate dependent on voters in regions where population density is not high, where communications are not good, where newspapers are not strong, and where per capita wealth and computer literacy are most lopsidedly divided between highest and lowest. Meth lab country. ‘Safe states’? The only respectably safe state for Romney is Utah. Romney is inordinately dependent on states that gave Rick Santorum victories—Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, Oklahoma, Tennessee—or that would have boosted Santorum if he could have lasted longer or if he had gotten his electors/delegates on the ballot—Arkansas, Kentucky, Missouri, Texas, West Virginia.

Of the states just mentioned, Texas comes closest to being Romney territory. (Texas also comes closest of these to being Obama territory, but so far the Dems have successfully kept that secret.) As written last week, however, out-of-the-race candidates Michele Bachmann, Rick Santorum and others pulled several thousand votes in the May 29 Texas primary won by Romney. So did “Uncommitted,” on the GOP ballot: More than sixty thousand voters turned out, in an uncontested Republican primary, to vote NOT for their party’s overwhelming favorite and frontrunner, rejecting even the cachet of putting the nominee over the top.

 

Trump

Enter Donald Trump, with his version of support for Romney.

Trump’s support is hardly intended for ‘swing states’. There is no evidence that Trump has wide popular appeal in Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, or Wisconsin. Even in Missouri he looks iffy. Trump’s ‘birth certificate’ ploy is not part of a grand strategy to soften antagonism to Romney among people who work in the automobile industry in Michigan or even in Indiana. No, Trump’s support, his ghastly pitch for birtherism, is a straight-out invitation to the most ignorant counties in the U.S. Grabbing headlines big enough to reach people who don’t read and who distrust the ‘liberal media’ so intensely they refuse to read newspapers or to watch any television news except Fox, Trump is going openly for the voters in the 91 of 95 Tennessee counties won by Santorum.

 

The brighter side of factories closing

Regrettably, automobile workers in Tennessee, Georgia and South Carolina are seldom allowed to know about Romney’s policy positions. If you want another trillion-dollar war and another trillion-dollar tax cut for speculators and hedge fund managers, Romney’s your man—video clips widely available. But the dearth of newspapers in places that need them most seals up policy discussion as though it were national secrets. The result is ongoing harm to U.S. manufacturing and to working families.

 

Back to the birthers—

Theoretically Romney came out of the Texas primary as undisputed top dog and all-round GOP winner, safely in a position to train effective opposition against the Democrats and the president for the next five months. No more press hype boosting minor opponents like Tim Pawlenty (see here and here and here). No more unappealing candidates like Bachmann, Gingrich and Santorum trying ham-handedly to swipe at Romney. Right? No more para-candidates like Rudy Giuliani, Sarah Palin and Trump to distract attention from the nominee. Uh. No more specter-candidates like Chris Christie and Jeb Bush as embarrassing reminders of how many GOPers hoped for more latecomers in the race—at least, not yet this week. No more speculation in the political press as to whether Romney will be downed by a much-hyped ‘Christian right’, Tea Party, and ‘rebellion’ in the ranks. Hm.

Theoretically Romney has massive advantages.

  • He was a primary candidate who did not flunk the one-look-from-across-a-crowded-room test.
  • He presumably has political infrastructure intact at the state level, remaining from a front-loaded primary schedule, copious early money and longstanding organization.
  • He will have unprecedented funding from everyone from Karl Rove to the Koch brothers and the Chamber of Commerce in between.
  • His campaign has five months to benefit from expensive and misleading television ads.
  • He can count on intransigence from Republicans in Congress, to prevent any legislation that would improve the condition of ordinary Americans.

And yet, and yet—he still faces, as previously written, the prospect of some voter sectors not finding a ‘top-tier’ candidate ugly enough for their tastes, and wishing they could have replaced him with someone more transparently unsavory. These are the Manchurian-candidate voters to whom Trump appeals.

If an obvious falsehood triumphs anywhere, it is most liable to triumph in wide-open stretches where mass communications are poor, where former farms produce hay and timber if they’re lucky, and where meth labs start looking like a good way to make a living. Even the most declined neighborhoods in the large industrial states do not tend to be hotbeds of birtherism. Susceptibility to Romney’s claim of being an effective manager is still found more in suburbs than in cities.

Perhaps by now we should all be used to wild claims, and used to the political press reporting wild claims as though they were substantive. Look at the way quintessential Washington insiders and career politicians typically claim to be outsiders, a new start, a fresh face—like Herman Cain, and Santorum with his lobbying career, and Gingrich with his contract with Freddie Mac. To some extent the discrepancies are aired by the national political press, though not as much as they should be and too often as though they are equally endemic to both sides in a national election.

Worse, such factual reporting as survives the filter of the national political press is jeopardized by continuous undertow from the business press. All the major GOP candidates, regardless of stylistic differences, are essentially corporate mouthpieces. Personality differences notwithstanding, the core fiscal trickle-down policy remains intact: it’s rich-get-richer. It’s always there.

They don’t put it that way, of course. The obfuscation is protected by the business press—the same commentators, analysts and journalists who failed to notice the impending mortgage-derivatives crisis and who almost unanimously supported ‘deregulation’. Still do.

It’s the same gang that keeps giving us Orwellianisms about ‘austerity’, ‘debt’, ‘energy’ and ‘jobs’ while doing everything it can to siphon off value from the many and convey it to the few, and a highly unqualified few at that.

Once again, a recent example—U.S. Treasury bills last week sold at a remarkably low rate of interest, yield, meaning that 1) U.S. Treasuries are regarded as rock-solid investment, and 2) their sale saddles the Treasury with little to no debt. But in all the hoopla about ‘the budget’, when was the last time you heard a GOPer in Congress mention the fiscal benefit of issuing U.S. Treasuries at a lower interest rate, to pay off bonds with a higher rate?

Once again, there is an analogy here to refinancing your mortgage. Most people understand the value of refinancing their mortgages if they can get a significantly lower interest rate. It would be illuminating to know which members of Congress have refinanced their houses, just to check on which members understand the same idea. Unfortunately, that information is not publicly available. Residences of congress members are exempted from financial disclosure.

Publicly, in any case, they all go the pro-corporate line of harping on ‘debt’ and ‘deficit’ anyway—except when it comes to discussing corporate debt.

 

More on Trump’s version of birtherism later

The Big Ho-Hum from Louisiana

Posted on by
Reply

From Louisiana, a big ho-hum for the primary fight

SHREVEPORT-BOSSIER  As was predictable,* Rick Santorum won Louisiana’s presidential primary Saturday. Also predictable, the word ‘evangelicals’ has been all over the air waves. Again predictable, almost all of the commentary has come from people who have not lived in Louisiana, not stayed here for any length of time, not come from any place near here.

I say ‘here’, because I happen to be in the western part of Louisiana this week. What I saw, in the lead-up to the GOP primary March 24, was no sign of political activity. None. Virtually no campaign signs/posters, even. No discussion, unless you count a couple of Limbaugh-listening cab drivers. No movement on the street–any street–or indoors, regarding any candidate. Newspaper reporting was decorous to the verge of tepid. Interest, in short? –Scant. Virtually the only sign of life, outside communities who gratefully turned out to give President Obama their endorsement, has been the Etch-a-Sketch. And even that has been touched on from a different angle than that on air, at least in my hearing. Where the news media  reported that stock in the company manufacturing the Etch-a-Sketch went up, in the wake of the breathtakingly candid comment, locals note that sales of Etch-a-Sketches in stores went up.

So much for all those hordes of bible-waving frothing-at-the-mouth evangelicals, running amuck down the main streets in a grand stampede to vote for the man of their choice–the ‘devout’ Santorum.

There is one thing the topics of religion, the South, Christianity, ‘evangelicals’, the ‘Bible Belt’ and kindred terms all have in common, much more strongly than any other objective (actual) common denominator including demographics: These are all topics on which commentators feel it legitimate to speak without knowing anything about them.

Someone who talks about basketball on television knows at least something about basketball. Someone who talks about fashion knows something about clothes. Someone who reports on the economy, health issues, commerce–you name it–usually knows at least something about the topic, in spite of flaming gaffes like overlooking the mortgage-derivatives debacle.

But someone on air who uses the term ‘evangelical’? With rare exceptions, you could safely bet your mortgage balance–if anyone offered to take the bet–that the speaker has never even met an actual evangelical. Ditto most of the speakers who sweepingly characterize the South, etc.

One simple point, kept short: Genuine evangelicals spend a lot of time trying to convert other people to their faith. In these parts, their interest in voting for either Santorum or Newt Gingrich–the two Catholics in the race–or in Mitt Romney has been consistently tepid, and getting more so.

Try to believe me when I say that most true believers, the overwhelming majority of same, are not parading an eagerness to vote for any of the GOP candidates above as a hallmark of faith, nor are they exacting a promise to vote for Santorum as proof of faith in their neighbors.

Media analysts are obsessed with ‘evangelicals’. It may be a form of xenophobia in our major media hubs.

Back to the prevailing commentary–It’s good that media analysts have waked up to the demographics separating Santorum supporters, by and large, from Romney/Gingrich/Ron Paul voters. But the logical step that should come next has not yet come–the question why far-flung unreached voters would be more willing to go for Santorum. This logical step is being blocked by the ‘evangelicals’ dodge, a fig leaf for journalism not informing.

The answer is not religion. There are plenty of devout African-Americans, Latinos, Caucasians and others not lining up to vote for Santorum. The same holds for income level, occupation and industry.

The answer has to do with level of information. The local newspapers try hard, sometimes, but are withering on the vine. USA Today, read more often than the local paper, is beating the drum for the co-called ‘oil pipeline’. Not all three traditional television networks even air a national evening news program in the Shreveport-Bossier City metro area. Bookstores are few and far between, found mostly in large malls–chain stores. Internet access is more limited than in larger, healthier metro areas. Rush Limbaugh dominates the radio, feeding his audience false stories–that Canadians have to wait “four months” for health care, for example.

In regard to the limited topic of the GOP primary race, there is just about no information on Santorum’s lobbying in D.C. over recent years. There is no detailed evaluation of what Santorum’s policies, including the Paul Ryan budget and more global bellicosity, would do to the average Santorum voter. Santorum goes out and feeds his limited audiences the line they want to hear–I’m one of you, and we are under attack. That’s his campaign, in a nutshell. And people who would be unduly influenced by this thin line are people suffering a dearth of information on the issues that affect their lives.

Take this simple question on health care: How many Americans would be able to pay a high-six-figure medical bill? How many, or what proportion of the U.S. population, would be able to foot big hospital bills for themselves, even if they have insurance (or think they have)? Regardless of income level–how many people could count on being able to keep paying their mortgages, keep their kids in college, take care of their older relatives, meet any of the other demands of ordinary middle-class life, if they abruptly faced hospitalization for serious illness or injury?

And yet we have exactly the people who would be very sadly off, in such a situation–among the millions of people, probably the overwhelming majority of the population–reluctant to have single-payer health care. Why? Because they see it as ‘paying for other people’. What would THEY do, themselves, if faced with medical necessity?

Uh.

btw these untapped reservoirs of obliviousness to the basic question on health care–What would you do–also tend to be people resistant to keeping their own health. These are not, by and large, your joggers, your soccer coaches, your non-smokers. Remember the ‘Thank you for smoking’ line being pushed by a youngish rightwing writer? Them. Driving without a seatbelt? Them. Fast-food junkies? Them.

And these are the people we’re all supposed to listen to, as salt-of-the-earth, backbone-of-America types? People who think they’re showing independence and self-reliance by not buckling up?

Back to the topics above: These people are not evangelicals. They are not born-agains. They are not ‘the base’. They are GOP voters, largely staying home from the primaries because they don’t care too much who wins and just don’t want to know too much about the candidates. And the candidates are pandering to them with all their might, with the exception of Paul.

Granted, most of us are not actuaries. But given the proven shortfalls when an insurance policy has to be relied on, the number of people who don’t even have insurance ‘coverage’ in the first place, the likelihood of hospitalization in the ordinary lifespan–you would think that the concept of sharing the risk, or spreading the risk, would be viable.

As to the remaining contests, so far everything looks going by the metric below. I thought Gingrich and Romney might pull more votes out of Louisiana, but the lack of interest is fierce here, far more fierce than the commitment to any candidate. Former Governor Ed Rendell of Pennsylvania has said he thinks Santorum will pull Pennsylvania; he should know. If it’s only the most abjectly ill-informed voters who go to the polls, the outcome is predictable in a low-turnout vote.  

*Run-down of contests by metro-versus-rural metric, re-posted

  • Missouri March 17 Santorum, 52 delegates
  • Puerto Rico March 18 Romney, 23 delegates Winner-take-all statewide
  • Illinois March 20 Romney, 69 delegates
  • Louisiana March 24 Close three-way race, one of Santorum’s better hopes, 46 delegates Proportional
  • DC April 3 Romney, 19 delegates Winner-take-all statewide
  • Maryland April 3 Romney, 37 delegates Winner-take-all combined
  • Wisconsin April 3 Maybe Santorum, 42 delegates Winner-take-all combined
  • Connecticut April 24 Romney, 28 delegates Winner-take-all at 50%+
  • Delaware April 24 Romney, 17 delegates Winner-take-all statewide
  • New York April 24 Romney, 95 delegates Winner-take-all at 50%+
  • Pennsylvania April 24 Romney, 72 delegates
  • Rhode Island April 24 Romney, 19 delegates Proportional
  • Indiana May 8 Santorum, 46 delegates Winner-take-all combined
  • North Carolina May 8 Close three-way, something for Santorum, 55 delegates Proportional
  • West Virginia May 8 Santorum, 31 delegates Proportional
  • Nebraska May 15 Santorum, 35 delegates
  • Oregon May 15 Santorum, 28 delegates Proportional
  • Arkansas May 22 Santorum, 36 delegates Proportional/mixed
  • Kentucky May 22 Santorum, 45 delegates Proportional
  • Texas May 29 Romney/Gingrich, 155 delegates Proportional
  • California June 5 Romney, 172 delegates Winner-take-all combined
  • Montana June 5 Santorum, 26 delegates
  • New Jersey June 5 Romney, 50 delegates Winner-take-all statewide
  • New Mexico June 5 Romney, 23 delegates Proportional
  • South Dakota June 5 Santorum, 28 delegates Proportional
  • Utah June 26 Romney, 40 delegates Winner-take-all statewide

The 2012 GOP primary race; Illinois today

Posted on by
Reply

2012 GOP primary race–today, Illinois

 

Romney in Chicago

Today, the Illinois primary. Puerto Rico went as expected for Mitt Romney, or better—since he won all the delegates there—and Missouri results are held in a murk, not to be clarified until April. The prevalent question surrounding the Illinois primary is how well Romney will do. Illinois has abundant metropolitan and suburban areas, with enough population to allow some division among Romney, Newt Gingrich and Ron Paul without putting Rick Santorum over the top in the state. As to campaign tactics, the primary will reflect whether the Romney team has drafted an appeal sufficient to cut into Santorum’s predictable success among down-staters and non-suburbanites.

Santorum

Actually, Illinois delegates are supposed to be allocated according to a mixed formula, too, so Missouri may not be the last question mark leading to the GOP convention in Tampa.

 

Report on PACs 2012

Reminder from the previous post–this ruling by the U.S. District Court in Northern Illinois last week allows more room to spend for some PACs. The court ruled March 13 that two provisions of the Campaign Disclosure Act do not apply to PACs formed for the sole purpose of making independent contributions.

Recapping, from the Illinois State Board of Elections:

“This ruling has no effect on any political committee other than one formed SOLELY for making independent expenditures.
Contribution limits are still in effect for Candidate Political Committees, Political Party Committees, and Political Action Committees which make coordinated expenditures or direct contributions to candidates or committees. The ruling allows an entity formed for the purpose of making independent expenditures ONLY, to create a Political Action Committee that is not bound by contribution limits . . .”

This ruling allows an entity to have more than one Political Action Committee, provided the second committee is an Independent-Expenditure-Only PAC created only to make independent expenditures . . . The committee created to make independent expenditures only, is not subject to contribution limits . . .”

Disclosure of substantial contributions is still required, but within 30 days. Since that 30 days (since the ruling) have not elapsed, the public does not know at election time which candidates if any have benefited from PAC contributions since the recent ruling.

 

*Run-down of contests by metro-versus-rural metric, re-posted

  • Missouri March 17 Santorum, 52 delegates
  • Puerto Rico March 18 Romney, 23 delegates Winner-take-all statewide
  • Illinois March 20 Romney, 69 delegates
  • Louisiana March 24 Close three-way race, one of Santorum’s better hopes, 46 delegates Proportional
  • DC April 3 Romney, 19 delegates Winner-take-all statewide
  • Maryland April 3 Romney, 37 delegates Winner-take-all combined
  • Wisconsin April 3 Maybe Santorum, 42 delegates Winner-take-all combined
  • Connecticut April 24 Romney, 28 delegates Winner-take-all at 50%+
  • Delaware April 24 Romney, 17 delegates Winner-take-all statewide
  • New York April 24 Romney, 95 delegates Winner-take-all at 50%+
  • Pennsylvania April 24 Romney, 72 delegates
  • Rhode Island April 24 Romney, 19 delegates Proportional
  • Indiana May 8 Santorum, 46 delegates Winner-take-all combined
  • North Carolina May 8 Close three-way, something for Santorum, 55 delegates Proportional
  • West Virginia May 8 Santorum, 31 delegates Proportional
  • Nebraska May 15 Santorum, 35 delegates
  • Oregon May 15 Maybe Santorum, 28 delegates Proportional
  • Arkansas May 22 Santorum, 36 delegates Proportional/mixed
  • Kentucky May 22 Santorum, 45 delegates Proportional
  • Texas May 29 Romney/Gingrich, 155 delegates Proportional
  • California June 5 Romney, 172 delegates Winner-take-all combined
  • Montana June 5 Maybe Santorum, 26 delegates
  • New Jersey June 5 Romney, 50 delegates Winner-take-all statewide
  • New Mexico June 5 Romney, 23 delegates Proportional
  • South Dakota June 5 Maybe Santorum, 28 delegates Proportional
  • Utah June 26 Romney, 40 delegates Winner-take-all statewide

 

more later

Update primary election night:

It was looking awfully good for Mitt Romney for an hour and a half after polls closed in Illinois at 8:00 ET. Romney had a two-to-one lead over Rick Santorum for a while; Fox News called the state for Romney by 8:37. Other networks and channels followed suit soon after. Wisely, Romney came out and gave his victory speech rather early. Good thing for him he did; when he signed off with a farewell wave and another hug to his wife at 9:31, he was down to 50 percent.

The question now is how much below 50 percent Romney will sag in Illinois, as down-state results favoring Santorum continue to come in. At 9:36 he was down to 49 percent.  Santorum entered to begin his speech soon after, in Pennsylvania, where he is campaigning instead of in Louisiana, Newt Gingrich’s current venue.

Another question, of course, is exactly how Illinois’s delegates will be apportioned.

Weekend further shaping the 2012 primaries

Posted on by
Reply

2012, and how the GOP primary race has been shaped

The weekend has brought its partial results. With the vote from Puerto Rico in Sunday, Romney gets the delegates there.* Missouri held caucuses on Saturday, reportedly to a mix of amusement and anger, but results will not be announced until April. The New York Daily News reported Rick Santorum ahead. Ron Paul supporters, au contraire, are claiming that Paul won 48 of 53 delegates at stake.

 

Santorum at podium

Apparently the Show-Me State is not to be shown, at least not if the state GOP maintains its hold over procedure. By all accounts, Paul’s people and Romney’s people shared the field, both having spent serious time and effort organizing rather than on campaigning. What happens to Santorum’s earlier victory in the non-binding primary remains to be seen. (Paul said at the time that it was meaningless.)

 

Ron Paul

The weekend also brought some clarity in the national political press, now not claiming with one voice that the GOP primary race is between a ‘moderate’ and a ‘conservative’. More sensibly, GOP primary voters are defined according to a contest of greater population density versus less. As previously written, the GOP primaries have divided Romney-Santorum-Gingrich-Paul voters so far according to rural appeal versus metropolitan/suburban appeal. Santorum has taken most of the less populated counties, and he has taken states where rural and small-town counties and congressional districts outweigh metropolitan areas and suburbs. In this metric, as said, Santorum has been facing a divided field, because he has the left-overs all to himself. Romney, Gingrich and Paul have been dividing the more populated areas.

 

Illinois countryside

Up next: Illinois.

 

Illinois has its wide-open stretches, but former Pennsylvania governor Ed Rendell has pointed out that Santorum has a track record (this year) of almost winning the large industrial states—Ohio, Michigan. If Santorum maintains the same pattern in Illinois, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, he will continue to pick up delegates but not states won. Tomorrow’s primary will show whether Romney has begun to cut into Santorum’s predictable success among the non-suburbanites in Illinois, whether Santorum is able to generate enough outrage is get out the Romney/Gingrich vote, whether Santorum can convey enough despair to convert more GOPers to Dems, etc.

 

A few of the Illinois suburbs

It is theoretically possible that Santorum might get about a third of Illinois’s 69 delegates. That gets a little harder to see, following this ruling by the U.S. District Court there last week, which helpfully allows more leverage than ever for some PACs. On March 13, the court ruled that two provisions of the Campaign Disclosure Act do not apply to PACs formed for the sole purpose of making independent contributions.

 

I like that word ‘independent’.

From the Illinois State Board of Elections:

“This ruling has no effect on any political committee other than one formed SOLELY for making independent expenditures.

Contribution limits are still in effect for Candidate Political Committees, Political Party Committees, and Political Action Committees which make coordinated expenditures or direct contributions to candidates or committees. The ruling allows an entity formed for the purpose of making independent expenditures ONLY, to create a Political Action Committee that is not bound by contribution limits. That Political Action Committee, which will be designated as an Independent-Expenditure-Only PAC, must still register with the SBE and must file all required disclosure documents when it reaches the $3000 filing threshold. It must report all receipts and expenditures and itemize those in excess of $150 on its quarterly reports. It must file a Schedule A-1 within 5 or 2 business days, (depending on when the contribution is received) whenever it receives a contribution of $1000 or more. It must also file a Schedule B-1 within 5 business days when it makes an aggregate of $1000 in independent expenditures within the 30 days prior to an election.”

This ruling allows an entity to have more than one Political Action Committee, provided the second committee is an Independent-Expenditure-Only PAC created only to make independent expenditures. Such committee may NOT make direct contributions or coordinated expenditures. The committee created to make independent expenditures only, is not subject to contribution limits; the Political Action Committee making direct contributions IS STILL subject to contribution limits. A Political Action Committee making direct contributions may also make independent expenditures without forming a second PAC, but it must still abide by the contribution limits.”

 

So if your political purpose, or strategy, is only to spend money on behalf of [whatever], you are free of two more modest limitations.

Not yet known how many candidates RomneyRomneyRomney have benefited from PACs formed since this ruling, which happens to come just one week before the Illinois primary.

 

Onward

 

Up March 24: Louisiana.

The Louisiana primary will be interesting. We’ll see Saturday whether Romney, Gingrich and Paul have made enough inroads around New Orleans, Baton Rouge, Bossier City, etc., to offset Santorum’s advantage in the places where newspapers don’t get. Santorum’s policies would be devastating to small towns, rural areas and the Gulf Coast in general. But Santorum–whose lobbying clients have not spared those regions—is on the campaign trail blaming everything bad on lack of development, euphemized as ‘jobs’, and on President Obama. It’s dismal to see, but it works, especially in combination with the factor of race.

 

My next post on Louisiana will be from there.

 

 

*Run-down of the remaining contests by metro-versus-rural metric, re-posted

  • Missouri March 17 Santorum, 52 delegates
  • Puerto Rico March 18 Romney, 23 delegates Winner-take-all statewide
  • Illinois March 20 Romney, 69 delegates
  • Louisiana March 24 Close three-way race, one of Santorum’s better hopes, 46 delegates Proportional
  • DC April 3 Romney, 19 delegates Winner-take-all statewide
  • Maryland April 3 Romney, 37 delegates Winner-take-all combined
  • Wisconsin April 3 Maybe Santorum, 42 delegates Winner-take-all combined
  • Connecticut April 24 Romney, 28 delegates Winner-take-all at 50%+
  • Delaware April 24 Romney, 17 delegates Winner-take-all statewide
  • New York April 24 Romney, 95 delegates Winner-take-all at 50%+
  • Pennsylvania April 24 Romney, 72 delegates
  • Rhode Island April 24 Romney, 19 delegates Proportional
  • Indiana May 8 Santorum, 46 delegates Winner-take-all combined
  • North Carolina May 8 Close three-way, something for Santorum, 55 delegates Proportional
  • West Virginia May 8 Santorum, 31 delegates Proportional
  • Nebraska May 15 Santorum, 35 delegates
  • Oregon May 15 Maybe Santorum, 28 delegates Proportional
  • Arkansas May 22 Santorum, 36 delegates Proportional/mixed
  • Kentucky May 22 Santorum, 45 delegates Proportional
  • Texas May 29 Romney/Gingrich, 155 delegates Proportional
  • California June 5 Romney, 172 delegates Winner-take-all combined
  • Montana June 5 Maybe Santorum, 26 delegates
  • New Jersey June 5 Romney, 50 delegates Winner-take-all statewide
  • New Mexico June 5 Romney, 23 delegates Proportional
  • South Dakota June 5 Maybe Santorum, 28 delegates Proportional
  • Utah June 26 Romney, 40 delegates Winner-take-all statewide

Target demographics and the 2012 GOP race

Posted on by
1

Target demographics in 2012–How the GOP primary race has been shaped

Reluctant as I am to post on a beautiful Saturday morning in March Madness (the wearing o’ the green worked its magic a day early this year)–still, a new Gallup poll out yesterday reinforces the previous post.

So, following up–

Recapping, the argument for pushing Newt Gingrich out of the GOP primary race has been that eliminating Gingrich would set up a one-on-one, disregarding Ron Paul, between a ‘moderate’ and a ‘genuine conservative’. Some who voice this think that Rick Santorum would then beat Mitt Romney.

The first part of that rationale—that anyone could seriously represent Romney as moderate–is the more fundamental problem. Romney, Gingrich and Santorum all represent trickle-down. Some slight variation on social issues, if any, affects only their ability to represent their counter-constructive rich-get-richer economic/monetary policy. It does not affect the policy itself.

Trickle-down theory explained

But this post continues to address the second part—the idea that Santorum would beat Romney one-on-one. As previously written, with or without Gingrich, the GOP contest would still be a contest of greater population density versus less population density, for the most part. The GOP primaries have established that the dividing line for the Romney-Santorum-Gingrich-Paul foursome is rural appeal versus metropolitan/suburban appeal. Santorum has taken more of the less populated counties, and he has taken states where rural and small-town counties and congressional districts outweigh metropolitan areas and suburbs, the most prominent example being Alabama and Mississippi.

Thus in this metric it is Santorum, not Romney, who has been contending against a divided field. Romney, Gingrich and Paul have been dividing the more populated areas.

The candidates

Sure enough—and I consider my view vindicated, here—a new Gallup poll of Gingrich voters released Friday shows that Santorum would not get a majority of them. If the poll is accurate, he would not get even a plurality. The poll, reported here and here and here and here among other places, is pretty definitive. In fact, most of the reporting thus far softens the result a bit. If Gingrich left the race, according to this snapshot, a hefty majority of his supporters would not go to Santorum: Santorum 39 percent, anyone else or no opinion 61 percent. Among named candidates, Romney would get according to the same poll 40 percent.  In other words, Santorum would get a minority of Gingrich voters.

Why would anyone be surprised at this?

GOP candidates explained

Back to the primary campaign

As previously written, there are more people in areas of greater population density than in areas of less population density. The race is not equal, and not only because of Romney’s vast financing and organization.

 

Romney's position on the auto industry bailout explained

Here is my previous thumbnail of the remaining contests, re-posted, with top finisher using the metric of population, and delegate allocation:

  • Missouri March 17 Santorum, 52 delegates
  • Puerto Rico March 18 Romney, 23 delegates Winner-take-all statewide
  • Illinois March 20 Romney, 69 delegates
  • Louisiana March 24 Close three-way race, one of Santorum’s better hopes, 46 delegates Proportional
  • DC April 3 Romney, 19 delegates Winner-take-all statewide
  • Maryland April 3 Romney, 37 delegates Winner-take-all combined
  • Wisconsin April 3 Maybe Santorum, 42 delegates Winner-take-all combined
  • Connecticut April 24 Romney, 28 delegates Winner-take-all at 50%+
  • Delaware April 24 Romney, 17 delegates Winner-take-all statewide
  • New York April 24 Romney, 95 delegates Winner-take-all at 50%+
  • Pennsylvania April 24 Romney, 72 delegates
  • Rhode Island April 24 Romney, 19 delegates Proportional
  • Indiana May 8 Santorum, 46 delegates Winner-take-all combined
  • North Carolina May 8 Close three-way, something for Santorum, 55 delegates Proportional
  • West Virginia May 8 Santorum, 31 delegates Proportional
  • Nebraska May 15 Santorum, 35 delegates
  • Oregon May 15 Maybe Santorum, 28 delegates Proportional
  • Arkansas May 22 Santorum, 36 delegates Proportional/mixed
  • Kentucky May 22 Santorum, 45 delegates Proportional
  • Texas May 29 Romney/Gingrich, 155 delegates Proportional
  • California June 5 Romney, 172 delegates Winner-take-all combined
  • Montana June 5 Maybe Santorum, 26 delegates
  • New Jersey June 5 Romney, 50 delegates Winner-take-all statewide
  • New Mexico June 5 Romney, 23 delegates Proportional
  •  South Dakota June 5 Maybe Santorum, 28 delegates Proportional
  • Utah June 26 Romney, 40 delegates Winner-take-all statewide

 

In my view, Santorum’s best shot for the rest of the season comes in today’s Missouri caucuses. Much of Missouri is his kind of population, and Santorum won the non-binding primary there. It remains to be seen whether the organization of the caucuses will produce an outcome different from that of the primary, and if so by how much. His next best shot comes in Louisiana March 24. He is not doing well in Puerto Rico, where he traveled but immediately made English-first comments. The comments may set him up well for a good lobbying/circuit-speaking job after the campaign, in the K Street sector that sees a business opportunity in English-only resentments.

 

Santorum also has a chance, by the metric above, in other states including Indiana, West Virginia, Kentucky and maybe Wisconsin. But those states come later, the pattern dividing the GOP voting population will be more than apparent to the Romney campaign, and there is always some chance that the Romney people could adapt to it. They could try to reach the most scattered and isolated areas more effectively—Santorum’s policies would be at least as devastating to small towns, farms and rural areas as Romney’s, and his lobbying clients have not served those populations. Or they could more effectively turn out people who were going to vote for Romney/Gingrich anyway.

However, barring the unforeseen, at this point it still looks impossible for any candidate to win a majority of Republican delegates—1144—before the GOP national convention, even by effectively adapting to demographics. With proportional representation, all the candidates can pick up more delegates.

 

Note:

The foregoing aims only to assess outcomes, partially, by metrics. It should not be construed as supporting the aim of getting people to vote against their own interest, the basic drive of the GOP ticket in a national election. I oppose policies that harm this country and the world.

That said, I’m only human. It is impossible not to gawk at primaries devolving into a contest between man-on-dog and dog-on-van.

The 2012 GOP primaries–Delegate math and stupid ridicule

Posted on by
Reply

Math wins, numbers of voters still count in elections–open convention coming?

 

GOP candidates 2012

Another cluster of primaries, a new current argument about the GOP primary season. Now the question hovering over the political reporting is whether Newt Gingrich can be pummeled into getting out of the race. His sister suggests not. Candace Gingrich-Jones, in an excellent performance of The Accidental Activist, by Rebecca Gingrich-Jones, suggested that Gingrich is likely to stay in as long as he likes, which would be until Tampa. Q&A following the play did nothing to dispel the suggestion. Gingrich himself repeated yesterday, following the Mississippi and Alabama primaries, that he will stay in until the convention—“trying to make sure we have an open convention.” Gingrich Super PAC advisor Rick Tyler, reprising an appearance on MSNBC’s The Last Word with Lawrence O’Donnell, backed him up. “We’ll just have it out at the convention.”

Candace Gingrich-Jones

Nonetheless, at the moment pushing Newt out of the race seems to be a first objective among the chattering classes, and they make no bones about overt displays of intent. The rationale remains oddly vague. The clearest version of an argument yet presented for muscling Gingrich out by commentary—or by ignoring him, which isn’t happening yet–seems to be that eliminating Gingrich would set up a one-on-one race (Ron Paul disregarded) between a more ‘moderate’ candidate and a ‘genuine conservative’. This line of thought is voiced explicitly by some arch-rightwing strategists on air and in print—who seem to think it follows as the night the day that Santorum will then beat Romney.

 

Santorum, family

There is something nasty about bullying and gang-ridiculing (even) Newt Gingrich, because he came in a close second in two southern states. The same gut response sets up when the same nominally intelligent people ridicule Mitt Romney for coming in a close third after trying out the local food and the local dialect in the South. Ridicule should be used against tyranny, against the powerful—not at the moment when you think you have the upper hand. Furthermore, you should ridicule as an individual, exercising skepticism as part of independent judgment. Lemmings don’t ridicule effectively. Neither do weathervanes. Furthermore again, ridicule should be used as a weapon on behalf of the defenseless. Ridicule candidates when they go along with torture and talk tough about bombing campaigns, not for superficialities.

Speaking of talking tough, does anyone ever ask Santorum about his military service?

But back to that Gingrich question, i.e. whether he can be pushed out of the primary contest by collective pressure from on-air and print commentators and political strategists—

 

And back to that rationale—

First, anyone who calls Romney a moderate, now, must be ignoring everything the candidate has said in the entire 2012 election cycle.* A contest between Romney and Santorum would not be a contest of moderate versus conservative.

With or without Gingrich, the GOP contest would still be a contest of greater population density versus less population density, for the most part. Vermont was an exception, and Utah is likely to be another; this is not an all-or-nothing picture. But the GOP primaries have established that the dividing line for the Romney-Santorum-Gingrich-Paul foursome is rural appeal versus metropolitan/suburban appeal.

As previously written, Santorum has had the less populated counties almost to himself, in most states, while the other candidates have been battling it out for more populated areas. Again, if the pattern holds, then Santorum should have an edge in states where sparsely populated congressional districts outweigh metropolitan districts.

That doesn’t mean an equal race. The number of votes is key in elections, even in these cynical times. Population is key, and—follow me closely here—population is greater in areas of greater population density than in areas of less population density. Let me repeat that, for the benefit of commentators and others (including Santorum) currently ridiculing the word “math”: there are more people in areas of greater population density than in areas of less population density. That comparison knocks out Texas, California and New York for Santorum, while possibly leaving in Missouri, Indiana and Nebraska. Doesn’t seem like an equal race.

Side note:

Why on earth doesn’t the Romney campaign just run a television ad with that clip of Santorum inveighing against birth control? Voice-over: “You really think this guy can beat President Obama?”

 

But back to the remaining 2012 primary season. Admittedly, the comparison of more populous regions to less is softened by proportional representation—which was intended partly to give rural counties and districts more of a say, as in the senate side of our bicameral legislature. In a number of the remaining contests, delegates are awarded according to proportions drawn up by the states. But several of the remaining states where Romney can be expected to win are winner-take-all, including California, New Mexico and New Jersey. Almost all of the states where Santorum can realistically hope to finish ahead are proportional-representation, Indiana being an exception and Wisconsin possibly. Even the New York primary is only modified proportional, though it is hard to see how any anti-birth-control candidate could do well there.

Here again is a run-down of the remaining contests, picking the top finisher using the metric of population, with their delegate allocation defined where feasible:

  • Missouri March 17  Santorum, 52 delegates
  • Puerto Rico March 18  Romney, 23 delegates  Winner-take-all statewide
  • Illinois March 20  Romney, 69 delegates
  • Louisiana March 24  Close three-way race, one of Santorum’s better hopes, 46 delegates  Proportional
  • DC April 3  Romney, 19 delegates  Winner-take-all statewide
  • Maryland April 3  Romney, 37 delegates  Winner-take-all combined
  • Wisconsin April 3  Maybe Santorum, 42 delegates  Winner-take-all combined
  • Connecticut April 24  Romney, 28 delegates  Winner-take-all at 50%+
  • Delaware April 24  Romney, 17 delegates  Winner-take-all statewide
  • New York April 24  Romney, 95 delegates  Winner-take-all at 50%+
  • Pennsylvania April 24  Romney, 72 delegates
  • Rhode Island April 24  Romney, 19 delegates  Proportional
  • Indiana May 8  Santorum, 46 delegates  Winner-take-all combined
  • North Carolina May 8  Close three-way, something for Santorum, 55 delegates  Proportional
  • West Virginia May 8  Santorum, 31 delegates  Proportional
  • Nebraska May 15  Santorum, 35 delegates
  • Oregon May 15  Maybe Santorum, 28 delegates  Proportional
  • Arkansas May 22  Santorum, 36 delegates  Proportional/mixed
  • Kentucky May 22  Santorum, 45 delegates  Proportional
  • Texas May 29  Romney/Gingrich, 155 delegates  Proportional
  • California June 5  Romney, 172 delegates  Winner-take-all combined
  • Montana June 5  Maybe Santorum, 26 delegates
  • New Jersey June 5  Romney, 50 delegates Winner-take-all statewide
  • New Mexico June 5  Romney, 23 delegates  Proportional
  • South Dakota June  5  Maybe Santorum, 28 delegates Proportional
  • Utah June 26  Romney, 40 delegates Winner-take-all statewide

A lucid and simple statement: “It is virtually impossible for a candidate to win a majority of the Republican delegates before June 2012.”

 

Once again: Santorum has shown an advantage in rural areas, Romney/Gingrich in metro areas. Anyone who hypothesizes that Santorum could pick up another 800 to 900 delegates in the remaining states, with Gingrich out, is welcome to demonstrate how.

 

Sometimes it is difficult to understand how any analyst more concerned with ‘narrative’ than with accuracy got on television in the first place. On the other hand, maybe that’s how.

 

But even on their own terms, the narrative guys are being more than a tad inconsistent. There could be few more compelling stories in the GOP primary season than an open convention coming in Tampa—and that’s the one they choose to omit? By ridiculing ‘math’ and ‘delegate count’? What’s next—ridiculing spelling and grammar?

 

Former GOP Chairman Michael Steele, by the way, is  now talking openly about a “contested convention.”

 

 

 

* These are the same people who also assert that Romney will ‘tack to the middle’ in a general election campaign, if he gets the nomination, and that the American people will not listen until then anyway, and that he might well get away with it if he does, etc. They have a vested interest in a ‘close’ election, however contrary to the best interests of the public another close election would be. They tend to have the same vested interest every election. That’s why, throughout the eighties and nineties, we seldom got substantive issues raised in presidential election campaigns—and when they did get raised, the discussion typically conduced to an outcome at variance with the public interest.

The 2012 primaries have finally defined Santorum territory and Romney territory

Posted on by
Reply

The 2012 southern primaries yesterday marked a clear dividing line–finally

Santorum

If the GOP primaries have established a consistent pattern, it is that the dividing line for the Romney-Santorum-Gingrich threesome is rural appeal versus metropolitan/suburban appeal. Santorum has the less populated counties almost all to himself, in most states; Romney and Gingrich battle it out for the more populated areas. This pattern has been partly defined on the helpful late-election-night maps projected on CNN’s wall: in state after state, wide swaths of rural counties have gone to Santorum, often ultimately outnumbered by Romney’s pull in the suburbs of big cities. Mississippi and Alabama went Santorum’s way last night, less because they are ultra-conservative—after all, South Carolina and Georgia are the same–than because they lack the large populous areas that offset the less densely populated districts.

 

Gingrich

If the pattern holds for the upcoming primaries, then Santorum should have an edge in those states where the sparsely populated congressional districts outweigh metropolitan areas.

That knocks out Texas, California and New York.

 

Missouri countryside

But let’s try a quick run-down to guess the remaining 2012 primary season.

  • Missouri March 17. Next comes Missouri, where miles of beautiful green fields line the highways that get you through the state, the cities are not megalopoli, and caucuses take place Saturday. Missouri is Santorum terrain even aside from the fact that Santorum won the non-binding ‘beauty contest’ primary there. (52 delegates)
  • Puerto Rico March 18. The Puerto Rico primary involves large, bustling urban areas. Santorum announced that he is going there, but it still looks Romney. (23 delegates)
  • Illinois March 20. The state has its rural regions, but Chicago is huge, has expansive suburbs, and is not the only sizable city in the state. Illinois, using this thumb-nail look exclusively, should be for Romney. (69 delegates)
  • Louisiana March 24. The state has New Orleans, Shreveport, Bossier City and Baton Rouge, with three out of those four going to Romney or Gingrich, with some for Ron Paul. Bossier City is working hard to revitalize, partly through gaming revenues from casinos on the Red River; Shreveport is Santorum-type territory. Louisiana, another close three-way race, is one of Santorum’s better hopes. (46 delegates)
  • DC, Maryland, Wisconsin April 3. DC (19), Maryland (37), Wisconsin (42). The first two for Romney; the third a good shot for Santorum, but tight, since Wisconsin does have large cities and suburbs. (56 for the mid-Atlantic, 42 possible for Santorum)
  • Connecticut, Delaware, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island April 24. A total 231 delegates—another Super Tuesday, except that traditionally they don’t use that term about April primaries—and the only state that looks conceivable for Santorum is Pennsylvania, where he served as a senator until booted out. Nor does it look likely that Gingrich will tie Romney in any of these.
  • Indiana, North Carolina, West Virginia May 8. Total delegates 132, with a shot for Santorum in Indiana and West Virginia (using the rural-versus-urban metric), and a tight three-way race in North Carolina.
  • Nebraska, Oregon primaries May 15. Both conceivable for Santorum, with their wide swaths of radio-listening counties. (63 delegates)
  • Arkansas, Kentucky May 22. Ditto, and you can add impoverished school systems and some lack of newspapers. (81 delegates)
  • Texas May 29. The Sunbelt cities of Texas are overpowering. If Gingrich and Romney make any good effort there at all, Santorum should be a very poor third at best. Dallas is the exceptional big city that might be Santorum-friendly, but the counties of East Texas are dwindling relative to the metropolitan part of the state. (155)
  • California, Montana, New Jersey, New Mexico and South Dakota June 5. With a whopping 299 delegates, yet another Super Tuesday. They’re going to have to start using Roman numerals for these supers. Of the five, Santorum has a theoretical chance in two—Montana and South Dakota—though his chances might be undercut by his continuing insistence on talking about people’s private lives. The other three states add up to 268 delegates.
  • Utah June 26. Maybe Santorum can get some of Utah’s 40 delegates, but the state tends to be as well organized, politically speaking, as one big suburb.

 

To clarify: The foregoing run-down is done on one basis and one only—the preponderance state by state of rural areas versus metro areas. Santorum has an advantage in rural areas, Romney or Gingrich in metro areas. This rural-metro division is deeper, more consistent and more fundamental (in these primaries) than divisions by region, income, or education—with which it substantially overlaps.

The national political press’s obsession with “The South” and with the ‘narrative’ of the weakened front-runner, etc., apparently prevents its taking these demographics into account.

Setting the horse race aside, the more important point about the 2012 GOP primary contest of Romney, Gingrich and Santorum is that it was never moderate versus conservative. The characterization is false. Romney is not a moderate. On grounds of conscience, a moderate would not be able to bring himself to run as what is now being called ‘conservative’:

—opposed to abortion even in cases of rape, incest and mortality for the mother

–opposed to any regulation whatsoever of the giant financial sector, even after the mortgage-derivatives meltdown, and even to prevent fraud

–opposed to any progressive taxation whatever of Big Oil, even just removing the gratuitous tax subsidies, or of large corporations, even of multinationals.

 

As to what this pattern entails, more later

The 2012 GOP primaries in the South–two today

Posted on by
Reply

2012 southern primaries today

Gingrich in Alabama

The big political ticket today is two southern primaries, in Alabama and Mississippi—Hawaii and American Samoa have caucuses today, too, but that’s a different story, and anyway, the delegates from beautiful places at remote distances are mainly being commandeered by Mitt Romney.

A competent run-down on the probabilities here

 

All the discussion serves as a reminder of how many kinds of political analysis there are, even in the respectable spectrum of public discourse, and even aside from political differences among the analysts.

Questions on several levels:

The open-scandal question in Alabama and Mississippi is how well Newt Gingrich’s race-baiting, politely referred to as ‘dog whistle’ or code, will work for him—will it be enough to pull him ahead of Romney?

The more conventional question is simply who will win in each state primary, and by how much, leading to the delegates question.

The less plumbed question of delegate math is the big one–whether Gingrich and Rick Santorum will pull away enough votes from Romney to siphon off the delegate count significantly. Since each state has its own version of this cycle’s super delegates, softening the proportionality of proportional representation, that question is less easy to figure—even after the results. But the question bears on the GOP convention in Tampa. Any figure less than 1144, as we know, means that Romney will go to the convention without the nomination sewn up, theoretically. It’s a little hard at this point to imagine anyone else the nominee, especially if Romney goes in with around or near 1100 delegates beforehand, but on paper the nomination would still remain to be determined at the national convention.

Nice billboard for Tampa, when the time comes:

Romney in an earlier campaign

That would make it one of the more interesting GOP conventions in decades, since the 1968 Republican National Convention in Miami—written up by Norman Mailer among others—or since the decades when Mississippi Republicans routinely sent two rival delegations to the national convention. The Lily Whites—that was their name for themselves, as was the Black and Tans for the rival delegates—always won.

 

Side note:

I continue to think that Romney is being put through the wringer way too hard over his harmless comments about grits. The commentators are making him look good by comparison, as do Gingrich and Santorum. These are ethical matters. It is ethically flawed to ignore an ethical problem, wrongdoing, when it occurs, such as the fact that the date of Jose Padilla’s arrest in Chicago is still classified information. Our U.S. Marshals could have told the public a lot about torture under the previous administration, if the GOP in Congress had not prevented it. After all, it’s the Marshals who transport prisoners, inmates and ‘detainees’ and who thus have occasion to observe their condition.

Conversely, though, it is also ethically flawed to elevate some little thing into an accusation of wrongdoing when it isn’t one. Eating the local food and saying nice things about it does not qualify as something to rake a candidate over the coals for.

It would be much more substantive to try to get the GOPers to address Wall Street bonuses and other executive compensation after the mortgage-derivatives debacle, or vote suppression, or speculating on oil futures, or the effect of fear-mongering and saber-rattling on the price of oil, or the fact that insurance premiums (rates) go up every year, etc., etc.

more later

[update]

Speaking of GOP Deep-South primaries and other Limbaugh fans–

Think Progress reports that at least 140 sponsors have pulled out of Limbaugh’s show. This from the corporate horse’s mouth itself.

[update]

It’s twilight on a beautiful spring day in the mid-Atlantic. Polls in Alabama and Mississippi will close in less than an hour. That Romney, Gingrich and Santorum have been polling close to each other messes up the narratives. Anyone who wants to talk in terms of ‘narrative’ has to offer a smorgasbord.

A few interesting items gleaned from the coverage, although not necessarily new:

  • Chris Matthews is claiming, as ever, that Mitt Romney is “a moderate”
  • Dan Balz of the Washington Post is intent, as ever, on the thesis that the November general election will be a nail-biter–Balz characterized the 2008 election as “almost ideal conditions” for Obama
  • CBS News is declaring flatly that Alabama and Mississippi are make-or-break for Newt Gingrich. CBS declares that Gingrich has to win there, or he will face immense pressure to drop out; no word about delegates awarded proportionately
  • little word on the major networks about vote suppression efforts
  • the phrase “brokered convention,” re Tampa, has been replaced, possibly temporarily, with the phrase “open convention”

Time will tell.

Polls closed–8:16 p.m.

According to CNN’s exit polls, Romney looks to win in Mississippi–he should, with all the ads–and Santorum in Alabama, where the Republican guv weighed in thoughtfully mentioning that Romney’s Mormonism might be a “subtle” factor there and elsewhere. CNN exit polls also give Romney the edge among large groups such as married women.

Much emphasis also on the president’s apparent drop in opinion polls among women, in the past month. Bound to happen with the cable channels and others touting birth control as a ‘woman’ issue. Birth control is not a women’s issue. It is a population issue, thus a matter of economy as well as of choice.

Back to the results–at least as suggested in exit polls–CNN and MSNBC are joining CBS in talking up big how Newt Gingrich should drop out if he doesn’t win tonight. So there’s your heavy pressure, right there. Presumably Fox News feels the same way. No mention of proportional delegates, mainly, in this context.

One would like to hope that it’s because Gingrich’s ‘southern strategy’ has embarrassed the media outlets. One would like to, but one can’t.

8:49 p.m.

Earliest exit polls trimmed back slightly, at least as regards Romney’s lead.

Could a virtual three-way tie be shaping up? Or will Newt Gingrich please a growing chorus of commentators and come in decisively third in both these Deep South states? No one is talking about Gingrich in Louisiana and Texas, right now.

9:32 p.m.

At the moment, things not going according to plan. With voices on all the channels speculating about how soon Newt Gingrich will/should drop out, Mitt Romney is the man stubbornly clinging to third place in both Mississippi and Alabama. It’s early days yet, and the three-way race in each state is by far too close to call, or even to make an educated guess about. But with 37 percent of the vote back in Mississippi and 6 percent in Alabama, which is moving returns much slower, Romney remains behind both Santorum and Gingrich.

Meanwhile, on CNN panelist Ari Fleischer, aka Mouth of Sauron–who helped us into the Iraq war as GWBush’s press secretary–is insisting that Newt Gingrich will in all probability drop out of the race in two days. That is, if Gingrich does not win tonight. Fleischer sets the bar pretty high for Gingrich. According to him, Gingrich has to carry both states to declare this evening a win, and anything else–he’s out. “You have to win.”

10:04 p.m.

The lineup the same in both Mississippi and Alabama, with 79 percent and 34 percent of the vote in, respectively–Santorum first, Gingrich second, Romney third. NBC has already called Alabama for Santorum, who leads by four or five percent rather than by one or two as in Mississippi. Mississippi is still designated too close to call.

Another guest on MSNBC joins the chorus of voices encouraging Gingrich to get out–former John McCain strategist Steve Schmidt, now extra well known after the HBO movie Game Change. With Gingrich clearly ahead of Romney (the front-runner) in both states, obviously the argument has changed. That is, the rationale for urging Gingrich to get out can no longer be that that’s the only way Romney can be beat.

So, as one might surmise, all those media voices urging other candidates to ‘coalesce’ around an anti-Romney candidate were never about finding the most genuine conservative.

Q.E.D.

10:57 p.m.

Santorum, speaking from Louisiana, blames Louisiana’s difficulties on Obama and on environmentalism. Typical faux populism, targeting rural voters again. Nothing from him about the dredging and drilling that have frayed the Gulf Coast, opening the way for devastation by hurricanes by removing every protection from nature. Nothing about the enormous tax give-aways for Big Oil, just another claim that environmental regulation–like keeping the Gulf of Mexico from becoming one big oil pool–is destroying jobs and raising gas prices. Nothing about speculation on oil futures, of course.

By such means, combined with record low turnout, he did win Mississippi as well as Alabama. Gingrich second in both, Romney third in both.

The contest was not between one moderate and two conservatives, with the two latter splitting the field.

The contest in Mississippi and Alabama was between the rural-area vote and the metro-area vote, with Gingrich and Romney splitting the latter. The latter is disproportionately small in both states.

No wonder Santorum is talking from Louisiana, about heading to Missouri. No wonder the most prominent media figures are feverishly boosting the GOP establishment tonight, calling on Gingrich to step aside before all the precincts are in. The vague argument seems to be that that gives Santorum a clear shot at Romney. I doubt it. As things look now, Santorum would get buried in a one-on-one progression even if he picked up Louisiana and Missouri. Our population centers contain most of our population. A pretty sad prospect of a race, looking to be even uglier without Gingrich than with him. But disappointingly, too many of the journalists, even, seem eager to forestall an open convention in Tampa.

Meanwhile, the three candidates still pretty much split the MS and AL delegates three ways, of course, with Romney to sew up some more in the island caucuses.

The 2012 southern strategy and a GOP pincer movement on Afghanistan

Posted on by
1

2012 southern strategy and the giant pincer movement on Afghanistan

 

In Afghanistan

 

The political equation of winning-and-losing is far from the most important point about Afghanistan. The shooting spree by a U.S. soldier who apparently had a nervous breakdown and shot Afghan civilians, including women and children, is only the most recent dreadful event.

Not one Afghani was on those planes on September 11, 2001. Not one. The only connection between Afghanistan and the paired, parallel attacks of 9/11 was Osama bin Laden, encamped with his wealth in the ruling regime over the hapless Afghanis.

There was also not one political reporter in the national political press in Washington, D.C., who pointed out this fact in the heyday of George W. Bush’s popularity after 9/11.

The Afghan people—much as they undoubtedly hated foreigners on Islamic territory—had about as much say in regard to bin Laden’s presence as television viewers in the U.S. today have in regard to the number of commercials on cable television. Or less, since theoretically our elected officials could brace up the FCC and control paid commercials on air time that subscribers have already paid for.

 

Ron Paul

On the campaign trail, the only Republican candidate who comes close to persuasive sanity on the Middle East is still Ron Paul, whose views have been consistent throughout his years in Congress.

 

Gingrich

A new development looms, however, politically speaking. On yesterday morning’s talk shows, Newt Gingrich began making little noises about pulling out of Afghanistan. Not a clarion call, still a deviation from the usual bellicosity. Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum, as always, continue to call for more bloodshed, and even the concept of an end in sight—some day—continues to be disparaged or ridiculed. So on one side of the argument, as the GOP presidential campaign swings through the South, you have Paul and to some extent Gingrich; on the other you have Romney and Santorum.

 

Santorum

In narrowly political terms, it’s a lose-lose for the president, as always with these guys, in a situation not of Obama’s making. If Obama succeeds in getting us out of Afghanistan—as most decent people hope—it will be too soon for Romney, Santorum and the professional saber rattlers, no matter when it is. If we remain mired in Afghanistan, there will be hints from the Gingrich types that more could be done to get out.

There is always an underlying tension between GOP voters who are primarily evangelicals, on one hand, and GOPers who are primarily fans of militarism. There is also a tension between extreme militarists and genuine fiscal conservatives. Wars cost treasure as well as blood. The uneasy overlap among the three big ‘wings’ of the party—rightwing Christians, rightwing monetarists, and rightwing militarists—also goes largely unreported in a press contingent eager to play up divisions among Latinos or other Democratic voters.

It will be interesting to see whether Gingrich’s most recent comments on Afghanistan affect his results in tomorrow’s southern primaries in Alabama and Mississippi, for better or worse. He has sagged somewhat in polls over the past couple of days.

 

The word was

Meanwhile, in the South, the campaigns are working hard. Voters (including Democratic voters) across the Mississippi Delta are being inundated with robo-calls from the Romney campaign. One asks the householder to stay on the line for a telephone ‘town meeting’ with Rick Santorum, who is heard saying (2008) that Romney is the only choice. Another offers a recorded conversation between Newt Gingrich and Nancy Pelosi, agreeing on something. Another brings the recorded voice of former NBC news anchor Tom Brokaw, announcing that Gingrich has been censured by Congress on ethics charges.

Speaking of the FCC.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, Romney is being castigated for the wrong things. Far too many commentators are harpooning his harmless “grits” comments–about liking grits, about eating the local food while in the South. Far too few are taking him to task for being in favor of apparently every war, everywhere, regardless of the cost to other Americans and to other human beings.

 

But the establishment GOP has been given a free pass on that for years.