So at this point in regards to the popular vote there seems to be 2 options:
1. The race is virtually tied.
2. Gallup knows something that nobody else seems to know.
Gallup is a very highly regarded polling agency, and their polling usually isn’t such an outlier.
No matter the state of the popular vote we are dealing with an electoral college that is more likely than note to re-elect President Obama. How do we know? Polls. Of course they aren’t flawless, but they tend to be great predictors, especially this close to the actual vote. So let’s start with some likely voter polls.
National polling seems to be telling an almost universal story about being tied, but of course we’ll have to wait for the real popular vote tally to really know. One of the ways we can pretend to know now though is breaking down segments of the electorate, and we’re going to do that a little bit now.
And of course the gender differential between likely voters.
Now, those were all fun of course, but the real meat and potatoes at this point is the swing states, especially Ohio! So here’s a little more of a breakdown into where this election will really be decided.
There has even been talk that the campaigns have started putting resources back into Michigan because its closer than expected, and maybe “swingable” to a Republican victory (but I think it’s highly unlikely).
Last but not least, I am not a big fan of Karl Rove, but the man knows politics… On Sunday he was on Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace and he broke down the state of the election with some common knowledge charts, and I do love him for that (I love charts). I do think he is part of the problem with our political system (aka: what he did to John McCain in the primaries against Bush, just google it…), but I’m glad to have anything complicated dumbed down for me, so enjoy these final charts.
The Map By State Voting Density
And this picture could actually be important if we run into a tie 269-269 electorate (actually possible…), because in that case the House of Representatives votes on who will be President, and each state gets one vote… The crazy person in me would love to see how this shook up, but the compassionate/pragmatic person within is terrified of this… Not just because the Republicans in the House would be deciding the next President, but with all of the gridlock I think we might have an even less functional government, and less trust in anything it does if this were to happen…
This above graph was on the website for the show Real Time with Bill Maher, but it was taken from Slate.Com. I saw this on the blog for Real Time, and I think that this is pretty interesting, as I’ve been asking this question about what we should cut of my conservative friends, and only sometimes do I get full answers beyond being very upset with welfare.
Not wanting to cut Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, or Defense seems to show a lack of understanding in spending. Although, younger Republicans that I speak with seem to be fine with cutting all of these, except maybe Defense spending. Older Republicans who I speak with however don’t seem to want to make any cuts in any of these things, and they are the absolute most expensive items on our budget. We continue to be more and more polarized, and in my opinion that is partially attributed to us having a very disorganized conversation, where many of us are having entirely different conversations. Do we want to talk about welfare? Ok, that’s fine, but that is not getting at the main drivers of our debt, unless if you are confusing Medicare and Defense for welfare (and I’m sure there are plenty of people who truly believe that they are). Of course I’m merely sharing my experiences, and polling could be useful in breaking down the parties and their demographics beliefs as well. But I just can’t understand what exactly the cuts that many of my Republican friends have in mind are (not to say that I don’t support spending cuts, I do).
I don’t think I could vote for Paul Ryan, but unlike a lot of liberal’s talking points might suggest he is the real deal… What I mean by that is that he is incredibly aware of himself and potential voters, like Clinton and Reagan (and I’m not saying that he is in their league, but he possesses some of those some traits). I personally find him (in political terms) to be the most impressive Republican politician that I’ve seen in a long time… I wish that I agreed with him more so I could vote for him, but I am glad to see a formidable candidate, Sarah Palin really just hurt my confidence in the system…
The Republican Convention is underway, and so far the 2 biggest speeches have been by Ann Romney and Chris Christie.
I still haven’t had the chance to watch both of these, but I did notice on Morning Joe that Ann specifically said that this is all about love, and Governor Christie specifically said that it’s not about love but respect. I find that to be kind of odd considering how planned out this event is. The big question here in the end though is which one of them will have more influence on voters.
These are the latest polls about the parties’ popularities. It shows that the Democratic party is slightly ahead of the Republican Party in popularity. Also, I don’t like say GOP, it just sounds elitist and misguided to me… If your opponents call you the “Grand Ole Party” that means something, but not when you call yourself that… Am I wrong? I don’t know, maybe, but I just find it indicative of where the party is heading in this increasingly diverse world, and there lack of room for that diversity…
I didn’t mean to start ranting, but like when the tea party first got rolling and gay people showed up supporting fiscal conservatism, and they were chided and abused… That happened repeatedly, and it was supposed to be a group of people who were simply wanting to talk economics. Oh, and yes, even though the Republican party is fracturing I still consider the Tea Party to be a fragment of that party, but simply because they’ve behaved that way.
It just a matter of time before they party resurfaces with a younger more tolerant leadership, and we’ll see them take over again like they did in the 90’s and in 2010. Until then though I think we’ll just see these numbers and their role dwindle.
So Rep. Steve King (R-IA), and yes his name is Steven King…, said one of the weirdest things I’ve ever seen in my life. And when he decided to clear the air and correct the missunderstanding he didn’t really help at all… Below is the the quote, and under that his clarification… Enjoy.
“If there is a sexual predator out there who has impregnated a young girl… that sexual predator can pick that girl up off the playground at the middle school and haul her across the state line and force her to get an abortion to eradicate the evidence of his crime and bring her back and drop her off at the swing set and that’s not against the law in the United States of America.”
-Rep. Steve King, on why he was against the federal ban on dog fighting.
This is easily one of the weirdest things I’ve ever seen in my life… I don’t know what he’s talking about.
There was yet another Republican Debate on Saturday, December 10, 2011. Growing up I was quite sure that I was a conservative, and in many ways I still think I am, but my approach to politics and public service has changed a lot since I was a young lad. I am posting this because I think it’s very important for citizens to be informed (not educated necessarily, because we really are just guessing who would be best to serve in office). If somebody decides that they do not want to watch the debates, or they don’t want to talk about politics I totally respect that as they are much like a conscientious objector to this political war that is waged, but I would also ask that person to abstain from voting. I think that an ignorant vote is equivalent to stealing from an educated voter (whether that be Republican or Democrat).
I have plenty of thoughts about each of these debates, but posting the debate itself is really meant to make it easier for people to watch the debate, not simply to hear my opinions about the debate. If you’d like to talk about it feel free to comment on this post below or comment on Facebook. I did decide to post the video with the USA Today Fact Check Article, but that of course isn’t the last word of what is and isn’t true.
USA Today Analysis
False and misleading claims were flying again at the latest Republican presidential candidates’ debate in Iowa.
•Mitt Romney falsely claimed that no president before Obama had cut Medicare, and that Obama favored pre-1967 borders for Israel.
•Newt Gingrich said he opposed cap-and-trade, even though he once spoke favorably of it, if combined with other measures to curtail carbon emissions.
•Rick Perry again falsely accused Romney of writing that the Massachusetts health care law should be a model for the nation, and once again made an apples-to-oranges comparison to make his Texas job-creation record look more impressive.
•And Michele Bachmann recycled a bogus claim about projected job losses under the new federal health care law.
The debate was held Dec. 10 at Drake University in Des Moines and was sponsored by ABC News and Yahoo! News, and by others, including the Iowa Republican Party. Six candidates participated: Rep Michele Bachmann of Minnesota, former House speaker Newt Gingrich, Rep. Ron Paul of Texas, Gov. Rick Perry of Texas, former governor Mitt Romney of Massachusetts and former senator Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania.
Romney Wrong on Obama and Israel
Romney wrongly accused President Obama of saying Israel must “go back” to 1967 borders. But that’s not true. Obama called for Israel to negotiate “mutually agreed swaps” of territory with those borders as the starting point.
Romney: This president decided he was going to try and negotiate for Israel by saying, lets go back to the ’67 borders. That’s not what Israel wanted to hear.
What Obama really said, in remarks at the State Department on May 19, 2011, was this:
Obama, May 19: So while the core issues of the conflict must be negotiated, the basis of those negotiations is clear: a viable Palestine, a secure Israel. . . . We believe the borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states.
So, Obama said the 1967 borders would be a basis for negotiations for new borders to be arrived at by making “swaps” of unspecified size. That’s much different from saying the 1967 borders would be reinstated.
Romney got one part right when he said, “That’s not what Israel wanted to hear.” Israeli leaders reacted strongly to Obama’s statement, which was viewed as a policy shift for the United States. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said in a statement that he “expects to hear a reaffirmation from President Obama of American commitments made to Israel in 2004 which were overwhelmingly supported by both Houses of Congress.” Those commitments “relate to Israel not having to withdraw to the 1967 lines, which are both indefensible and which would leave major Israeli population centers in Judea and Samaria beyond those lines.”
Our fact-checking colleague Glenn Kessler at The Washington Postwrote about Obama’s comment, saying that “until Obama … U.S. presidents generally have steered clear of saying the negotiations should start on the 1967 lines,” even though the Israelis and Palestinians had held negotiations with just the basis Obama mentioned.
On May 22, the president defended his remarks and complained that they had been misreported and misrepresented. He said that what he did was to “say publicly what has long been acknowledged privately.”
Obama, May 22: And since my position has been misrepresented several times, let me reaffirm what “1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps” means.
By definition, it means that the parties themselves — Israelis and Palestinians — will negotiate a border that is different than the one that existed on June 4, 1967. That’s what mutually agreed-upon swaps means. It is a well-known formula to all who have worked on this issue for a generation.
Perry on job creation
Perry once again puffed up the contrast between his job-creation record and that of the nation.
Perry: Over the last 11 years, we’ve created over a million jobs in that state while America lost over 2 million jobs.
It’s true that Texas has added more than 1 million jobs from December 2000, when Perry became governor, through October, the most recent month for which state figures are available from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. But the country has lost 897,000 in the same time frame, less than half the figure Perry used.
He cherry-picks to make the nation’s job loss look worse than it actually has been. He uses January 2009 as his starting point, and there have been nearly 2 million jobs lost since then. But in that time frame, Texas only created 92,300 jobs.
The Texas governor has madethis claim a few times, though he used to say the nation had lost 2.5 million jobs. At this debate, he lowered that number substantially, but it’s still an incorrect comparison.
Gingrich on cap-and-trade
Bachmann lumped Romney and Gingrich together as flip-floppers, saying, “If you look at Newt-Romney, they were for cap-and-trade.” Gingrich said Bachmann’s claim was “not true” and that, “I have never — I opposed cap and trade.” But Gingrich’s rebuke was misleading.
It’s true that Gingrich has never favored the approach taken by Democrats, but he said in 2007 that he would “strongly support” cap-and-trade if combined with “a tax-incentive program for investing in the solutions.”
Furthermore, Gingrich said in House testimony in 2009 that he still might support a cap-and-trade system covering “the 2,000 most polluting places,” if packaged with incentives for nuclear power and “green coal,” among other things.
Perry on ‘Romneycare’
Perry once again falsely accused Romney of writing in his book No Apology that he wanted to impose his state’s health care plan at the federal level.
Perry: I read your first book, and it said in there that your mandate in Massachusetts, which should be the model for the country — and I know it came out of the reprint of the book, but, you know, I’m just saying, you were for individual mandates, my friend.
Romney: You know what, you’ve raised that before, Rick. And you’re simply wrong.
Perry refused an offer from Romney to bet $10,000 as to who was right. In fact, Perry is wrong and Romney is correct. As we have written a couple of times before, the book was revised and this line was removed: “We can accomplish the same thing for everyone in the country.” But the phrase “the same thing” refers to the goals of the state law: “portable, affordable health insurance,” not the controversial individual mandate or the entire law. Romney saw the Massachusetts plan as a potential model for other states, if they so choose, but not as a federal mandate.
Bachmann’s false jobs claim
Bachmann falsely claimed that “the small business agency” said the nation will “lose 1.6 million jobs over five years if we keep Obamacare.” She’s referring to a study by a trade group, not a federal agency. And the study was not of the new health care law at all, but of a “hypothetical” requirement that never became part of the law.
Bachmann: [W]e can cut government bureaucracy which is Obama Care. NFIB tells us, that’s the small business agency, that we will lose 1.6 million jobs over five years if we keep Obama Care.
The NFIB of course is the National Federation of Independent Business, which is not a government “agency” by any stretch. It has for many years adamantly opposed any federal requirement that businesses provide health insurance to their workers.
We have written about this misleading job-loss claim before. Bachmann is referring to areport that the NFIB published on Jan. 26, 2009 — more than a year before the law wasenacted in March 2010. The NFIB estimated potential job loss based on a “hypothetical employer mandate” that would have required all businesses to pay half or more of the insurance premiums for their workers. That’s more onerous than the employer mandate that became enacted into law.
Under the law, companies with fewer than 50 employees wouldn’t face any kind of penalty— instead, they could receive tax credits if they offer health insurance to their employees. Companies with more than 50 workers must pay a penalty if they fail to provide affordable coverage and at least one employee receives a tax credit or subsidy to buy a plan in the insurance exchange. As Elizabeth McGlynn, former associate director of the health unit at RAND Corp., told us once before, the effect of employer mandates on jobs “is likely to be quite minimal” because “most large businesses already offer health insurance. And most small businesses are excluded from the mandate.” And that was before Congress settled on the less stringent requirements and penalties.
FULL DEBATE VIDEOS BELOW
I should probably first say that I don’t always agree with President Obama, but I often do agree with him AND support my president (isn’t funny how that used to be the cool thing to say?…)
Anyway, Wikipedia is not always accurate, but sometimes it really has sites sources/resources, you just have to track them back and see where they get they’re information from. So, if you would really like to learn more about the Republican primary you should click the link above.
Republican Party (United States) presidential primaries, 2012 – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Also, if you would like to learn more about the polling numbers of the Republican candidates so far here is a great link:
Daily Kos: Handicapping the second Republican presidential debate.
Ok, I’ve got opinions about this debate but I am going to keep them very brief. As an Economics major in college I was often told about the beauty of the free market by some, and told that the term “Free Market” is fictitious and there is no such thing as a market with no rules, other than a Black Market. When I heard candidates talking about repealing ObamaCare I wasn’t suprised, but when I heard somebody start talking about getting rid of the Sarbanes Oxley Act that was put into place after the Enron scandal (and nobody on the stage said anything about that being a bad idea) I immediately cringed… I don’t Know what is best for this country in terms of policy, but I try to keep up with it, and I can tell you that some regulation seems incredibly necessary, and when somebody tries to tell me that the corporations in the country are over taxed (35%) and I know that they don’t actually pay that tax rate (GE paid 0% last year, and got a big tax rebate…) I know that they are willing to lie to me.
Probably the most repeated line in this debate seemed to be about how the current administration has simply killed job growth, and the Bureau of Labor Statistics would seem to disagree… I’m not saying everything is ok, but when people say things like that they need to be right in saying so – and they need to back up their claims.
So, I’ll stop talking, but I am very skeptical of Republican leadership these days when I hear them say things that I research and find to be quite misleading. I do believe that happens in both parties, but I simply believe that the misnomers by the Republican leadership will end up being the more expensive ones in the end. If you are confused by that I would love to explain that to you further in conversation, feel free to comment or email me, or whatever you’d like.
Oh, and one last thing, Michele Bachmann’s presidential campaign announcement in my opinion was very untimely, and it was basically a publicity stunt in my opinion… I enjoy a good debate, even if I disagree with the parties involved, and that did not help make that debate better in any way…
(at the end of video 4 and beginning of video 5 there is a weather alert, don’t worry it goes away…)
Please tweet or share this on Facebook if you feel like you know people who would enjoy it. Thanks 🙂