Romney-Obama: Handicapping the Race

[New England and The Maritimes]

One thing different about Florida is that its population doesn't age, per se. It collects the aging population from other states. As such, it's elderly population tends to be more predictably representative of the stereotype for elderly populations. Where you might see an aging population in California that are all "hippies", i.e., democrats, you generally see an elderly population in Florida that is what you'd expect, conservative relative to modern ideals. By the very nature of being elderly, people who are come from a time where things were different, and, in America, different usually means less accepting of social freedoms.

I can see urban populations and school populations outnumbering other populations in other states, but that just isn't going to happen in Florida.

Florida had, as of a year ago, 17.3% of its population over 65. At the same time, 21.9% of Floridians were under 18. So I don't think you can say that Florida voters are a bunch of hidebound sticks-in-the mud (that's twice I've used "hidebound" today, weird). The Cuban emigré population is aging, too, and the young people may not see a hard line on Castro as all that important, certainly not after he kicks off, which he will do one of these days. If what you say were true, the Democrats would have no chance in Florida, nor would Obama have taken the state by 3% in 2008.

Though it's also true that some half of all residents over 35 are also over 65, IIRC. There's a baby boom and an elderly population to deal with.

[Alien Space Bats]

In the Presidential campaign debate thread, the question arose as to what would happen if neither candidate won an absolute majority of votes cast by the Electoral College. I promised that I would explain the process; here is that explanation.

First, because there are a total of 538 Electoral Votes cast by the Electoral College, an absolute majority of those votes would be 270; thus it takes a minimum of 270 Electoral Votes to become President-Elect. In the aforementioned thread there was some confusion on this point, with some people getting the number of votes neede to tie or win wrong in their posts. Getting 269 EV's would not be enough to win, but it would be enough to guarantee that nobody else could win, because 269 is exactly half of 538; to get an absolute majority, you would need one more; thus, as the name of the web site 270toWin.com indicates, 270 is the magic, winning number.

With only two major candidates running, it is almost certain that someone will win. Indeed, if all Electoral Votes are cast and accepted by Congress as valid (see below), the only possible way for that not to happen is if both candidates end up with 269 EV's. Thus, a 269-269 finish is considerd an electoral tie. Such a thing has never happened, although there have been races which ended with no winner (all of which ended that way because three or more candidates recieved Electoral Votes).

By law, the Electoral College "convenes" on the first Monday after the second Tuesday in December following a Presidential election (this year, that will be December 17th, 2012). Note that the word "convenes" is used only in the loosest possible sense here: Each State's Electors meet in their respective State capitols at noon on the day in question and cast their votes; the votes for both President and Vice President (which are cast separately) are tallied by State officials and six certified copies of the results (called "Certificates of Vote") are drawn up for transmission to:

• The President of the U.S. Senate (i.e., the outgoing Vice President); this copy must be sent by registered mail to the Archivist of the United States, and must be recieved by no later than the fourth Wednesday in December (this year, that will be December 26th, 2012)
  
  
• The Secretary of State of the State in question, who gets two copies. One of these two copies must be displayed among the public records of the State in question for at least one year (after which it may be destroyed); the other is held by the local Secretary of State pending possible instructions for its use by the President of the U.S. Senate (eg., in case the copy transmitted to the Archivist fails to arrive).
  
  
• The Presiding Judge of the Federal District within with the vote is conducted, who gets three copies. These are held as further backups against the loss of a certified copy of the Electoral Collge results from each State.

Each certified copy is attached to a copy of what is called a "Certficate of Ascertainment" - a document listing the names of that State's Electors and the number of votes each recieved, as well as the names of all persons who failed to be chosen as Electors and the number of votes they receieved, all prepared and certified by that State's Governor - and the pair of certficates are sealed before delivery to the individuals named above.

The copies sent to the President of the U.S. Senate are unsealed and opened before both Houses of Congress, jointly assembled for the sole and express purpose of certifying the results of the Presidential Election. By law, this joint session is convened precisely at 1:00 PM on January 6th; the President of the U.S. Senate is charged with the task of presiding over the meeting.

The President of the U.S. Senate (who, again, is also the outgoing Vice President of the United States [or, in his absence, that member of the U.S. Senate with the greatest seniority among those who are present - known under law as the President Pro Tempore of the U.S. Senate]) opens each of the sealed documents from each of the States, in alphabetical order, and passes them to four persons know as tellers, who are chosen in advance for this purpose (two each by the House and the Senate). These individuals read and tally the votes listed on the "Certficates of Vote"; they pass along the results to the President of the Senate (or his replacement), who announces them to the entire assembly.

Objections can be raised to the results as they are announced. All objections must be submitted in writing, and must be signed by at least one member of each chamber of Congress (IOW, one or more Senators and one or more Representatives). Where objections are raised to a State's tally, both chambers must concur to overturn the announced result; votes are taken by each chamber separately; the House and Senate retire to their own designated rooms to conduct these votes, and debate is subject to a strict time limit under law (ergo, there is no filibuster).

Once all objections are handled and all certifications read, the final result is announced. If there is no winner in either contest (for President or for Vice President), then it is up to Congress to choose the winner among the top three candidates among those recieving Electoral Votes.

The Senate elects the Vice President, and does so through a simple majority vote. At least two-thirds of the whole number (currently 100) must be present (IOW, 67 or more), and more than half of the whole number (again, 100) must vote for the ultimate winner (IOW, 51 or more). Until a Vice President is selected, no other business may be conducted.

The House elects the President, and uses a a more complex procedure. Representatives from at least two-third of the whole number of the States (currently 50) must be present (IOW, 34 or more); voting is by State, with each State casting one vote. The delegations of each State are polled to determine that State's vote, with a majority of the number present being required to speak for that State; more than half of the whole number of the States (again, 50) must vote for the ultimate winner (IOW, 26 or more). Until a President is selected, no other business may be conducted.

---

The question then arises: If such a vote were taken, who would win?

In the Senate, the answer is clear: Democrats currently hold 52 seats in the Senate, while Republicans hold 45. There are three independents, 2 of whom (Sanders of Vermont and Lieberman of Connecticut) caucus with the Democrats and 1 of whom (Murkowski of Alaska) caucuses with the Republicans; therefore, under the current arrangement, the Democratic candidate would win the Vice-Presidency (assuming Party loyalty holds).

Of course, it will not be the current Senate who would make this decision, but the next Senate; thus, control of the U.S. Senate could theoretically determine whether Joe Biden or Paul Ryan becomes the next Vice President of the United States.

In the House, the answer is murkier: Republicans current hold a majority of House seats within 33 States; Democrats hold a majority within 16; and 1 (Minnesota) has a 4-4 split within its delegation. Therefore, were the current Congress to make the choice, then Mitt Romney would become the next President of the United States - irrespective of the election results (Congressmen are not obliged to cast their votes in accordance with popular will; thus, Michigan, which has a Congressional delegation whose members are mostly Republican, would likely cast its vote for Mitt Romney, even if Michigan voters went for Barack Obama by a landslide).

Again, of course, it will not be this House that would make the selection, but rather the next. What's interesting is that even if Democrats retake the House, it is unlikely that they will end up with control of enough State delegations to elect a Democratic President under these rules; the new President would almost certainly be a Republican, whatever the popular will might be.

[Ashmoria]

In the Presidential campaign debate thread, the question arose as to what would happen if neither candidate won an absolute majority of votes cast by the Electoral College. I promised that I would explain the process; here is that explanation.

First, because there are a total of 538 Electoral Votes cast by the Electoral College, an absolute majority of those votes would be 270; thus it takes a minimum of 270 Electoral Votes to become President-Elect. In the aforementioned thread there was some confusion on this point, with some people getting the number of votes neede to tie or win wrong in their posts. Getting 269 EV's would not be enough to win, but it would be enough to guarantee that nobody else could win, because 269 is exactly half of 538; to get an absolute majority, you would need one more; thus, as the name of the web site 270toWin.com indicates, 270 is the magic, winning number.

With only two major candidates running, it is almost certain that someone will win. Indeed, if all Electoral Votes are cast and accepted by Congress as valid (see below), the only possible way for that not to happen is if both candidates end up with 269 EV's. Thus, a 269-269 finish is considerd an electoral tie. Such a thing has never happened, although there have been races which ended with no winner (all of which ended that way because three or more candidates recieved Electoral Votes).

By law, the Electoral College "convenes" on the first Monday after the second Tuesday in December following a Presidential election (this year, that will be December 17th, 2012). Note that the word "convenes" is used only in the loosest possible sense here: Each State's Electors meet in their respective State capitols at noon on the day in question and cast their votes; the votes for both President and Vice President (which are cast separately) are tallied by State officials and six certified copies of the results (called "Certificates of Vote") are drawn up for transmission to:

• The President of the U.S. Senate (i.e., the outgoing Vice President); this copy must be sent by registered mail to the Archivist of the United States, and must be recieved by no later than the fourth Wednesday in December (this year, that will be December 26th, 2012)
  
  
• The Secretary of State of the State in question, who gets two copies. One of these two copies must be displayed among the public records of the State in question for at least one year (after which it may be destroyed); the other is held by the local Secretary of State pending possible instructions for its use by the President of the U.S. Senate (eg., in case the copy transmitted to the Archivist fails to arrive).
  
  
• The Presiding Judge of the Federal District within with the vote is conducted, who gets three copies. These are held as further backups against the loss of a certified copy of the Electoral Collge results from each State.

Each certified copy is attached to a copy of what is called a "Certficate of Ascertainment" - a document listing the names of that State's Electors and the number of votes each recieved, as well as the names of all persons who failed to be chosen as Electors and the number of votes they receieved, all prepared and certified by that State's Governor - and the pair of certficates are sealed before delivery to the individuals named above.

The copies sent to the President of the U.S. Senate are unsealed and opened before both Houses of Congress, jointly assembled for the sole and express purpose of certifying the results of the Presidential Election. By law, this joint session is convened precisely at 1:00 PM on January 6th; the President of the U.S. Senate is charged with the task of presiding over the meeting.

The President of the U.S. Senate (who, again, is also the outgoing Vice President of the United States [or, in his absence, that member of the U.S. Senate with the greatest seniority among those who are present - known under law as the President Pro Tempore of the U.S. Senate]) opens each of the sealed documents from each of the States, in alphabetical order, and passes them to four persons know as tellers, who are chosen in advance for this purpose (two each by the House and the Senate). These individuals read and tally the votes listed on the "Certficates of Vote"; they pass along the results to the President of the Senate (or his replacement), who announces them to the entire assembly.

Objections can be raised to the results as they are announced. All objections must be submitted in writing, and must be signed by at least one member of each chamber of Congress (IOW, one or more Senators and one or more Representatives). Where objections are raised to a State's tally, both chambers must concur to overturn the announced result; votes are taken by each chamber separately; the House and Senate retire to their own designated rooms to conduct these votes, and debate is subject to a strict time limit under law (ergo, there is no filibuster).

Once all objections are handled and all certifications read, the final result is announced. If there is no winner in either contest (for President or for Vice President), then it is up to Congress to choose the winner among the top three candidates among those recieving Electoral Votes.

The Senate elects the Vice President, and does so through a simple majority vote. At least two-thirds of the whole number (currently 100) must be present (IOW, 67 or more), and more than half of the whole number (again, 100) must vote for the ultimate winner (IOW, 51 or more). Until a Vice President is selected, no other business may be conducted.

The House elects the President, and uses a a more complex procedure. Representatives from at least two-third of the whole number of the States (currently 50) must be present (IOW, 34 or more); voting is by State, with each State casting one vote. The delegations of each State are polled to determine that State's vote, with a majority of the number present being required to speak for that State; more than half of the whole number of the States (again, 50) must vote for the ultimate winner (IOW, 26 or more). Until a President is selected, no other business may be conducted.

---

The question then arises: If such a vote were taken, who would win?

In the Senate, the answer is clear: Democrats currently hold 52 seats in the Senate, while Republicans hold 45. There are three independents, 2 of whom (Sanders of Vermont and Lieberman of Connecticut) caucus with the Democrats and 1 of whom (Murkowski of Alaska) caucuses with the Republicans; therefore, under the current arrangement, the Democratic candidate would win the Vice-Presidency (assuming Party loyalty holds).

Of course, it will not be the current Senate who would make this decision, but the next Senate; thus, control of the U.S. Senate could theoretically determine whether Joe Biden or Paul Ryan becomes the next Vice President of the United States.

In the House, the answer is murkier: Republicans current hold a majority of House seats within 33 States; Democrats hold a majority within 16; and 1 (Minnesota) has a 4-4 split within its delegation. Therefore, were the current Congress to make the choice, then Mitt Romney would become the next President of the United States - irrespective of the election results (Congressmen are not obliged to cast their votes in accordance with popular will; thus, Michigan, which has a Congressional delegation whose members are mostly Republican, would likely cast its vote for Mitt Romney, even if Michigan voters went for Barack Obama by a landslide).

Again, of course, it will not be this House that would make the selection, but rather the next. What's interesting is that even if Democrats retake the House, it is unlikely that they will end up with control of enough State delegations to elect a Democratic President under these rules; the new President would almost certainly be a Republican, whatever the popular will might be

.

what i couldnt figure out from looking at the constitution is whether the various state delegations were to vote their own consciences with the majority ruling for each delegation or if the various states could order the delegation to vote a certain way for the state. or if they were somehow bound to follow the popular vote in their states. or if that issue were decided long ago for each state in its constitution and thus varied from state to state.

[Alien Space Bats]

what i couldnt figure out from looking at the constitution is whether the various state delegations were to vote their own consciences with the majority ruling for each delegation or if the various states could order the delegation to vote a certain way for the state. or if they were somehow bound to follow the popular vote in their states. or if that issue were decided long ago for each state in its constitution and thus varied from state to state.

Constitutionally, I can't imagine States having any legal power to tell their Congressmen how to vote. Federalism, etc..

IOW, the members are free to vote however they want.

[Jocabia]

One thing different about Florida is that its population doesn't age, per se. It collects the aging population from other states. As such, it's elderly population tends to be more predictably representative of the stereotype for elderly populations. Where you might see an aging population in California that are all "hippies", i.e., democrats, you generally see an elderly population in Florida that is what you'd expect, conservative relative to modern ideals. By the very nature of being elderly, people who are come from a time where things were different, and, in America, different usually means less accepting of social freedoms.

I can see urban populations and school populations outnumbering other populations in other states, but that just isn't going to happen in Florida.

Florida had, as of a year ago, 17.3% of its population over 65. At the same time, 21.9% of Floridians were under 18. So I don't think you can say that Florida voters are a bunch of hidebound sticks-in-the mud (that's twice I've used "hidebound" today, weird). The Cuban emigré population is aging, too, and the young people may not see a hard line on Castro as all that important, certainly not after he kicks off, which he will do one of these days. If what you say were true, the Democrats would have no chance in Florida, nor would Obama have taken the state by 3% in 2008.

Let me reword that for you "if what you think I said is true, the Democrats would have no chance in Florida."

The question as posed was whether or not we would see a shift in Florida from what CURRENTLY is. And what I said was that even though we're seeing the increase in populations in many states result in the unbanization of those states, which usually helps dems and, particularly, social liberalism, you're not as likely to see that happen in Florida, because of it's status as a state that takes the elderly population of other states.

It's not an argument for Florida going Red, it's an argument for why Florida tends to stay the same while we see other states shift around. The elderly population is just one factor in Florida, but it is, I believe, responsible for why the state tends to remain a clear swing state in every election. And probably tends to lean Republican. Even a 2.8% difference in an election where Obama crushed McCain supports that assertion. The national difference 7.2%. Bush won it by 5% in 2004, which also leaned more Republican the national difference of 1.9%. In 2000, it depends on who you believe, but it again had results that leaned more Republican than the national difference of .5% (for Gore). In 1996, the state went for Clinton by 5.7% as compared to 8.5% nationally. In 1992, Bush won Florida by 1.9% and Clinton won nationally by 5.5%.

All of this points to 20 years of being a state that trends toward being just a little bit more Republican than the populace of the United States and there is no evidence that is changing or has changed significantly. That was the point brought up and the point I was addressing with the explanation that it's a retirement state.

[Jocabia]

what i couldnt figure out from looking at the constitution is whether the various state delegations were to vote their own consciences with the majority ruling for each delegation or if the various states could order the delegation to vote a certain way for the state. or if they were somehow bound to follow the popular vote in their states. or if that issue were decided long ago for each state in its constitution and thus varied from state to state.

Constitutionally, I can't imagine States having any legal power to tell their Congressmen how to vote. Federalism, etc..

IOW, the members are free to vote however they want.

I can see them having something in their Constitution about it, just like some do with electors. I'm not aware of any that do, however. As of yet, there does not seem to have been the opportunity to challenge if such a law does exist. In 1952, the laws about faithless electors came up to SCOTUS and they said such laws are Constitutional only because the electors are bound to the state. Unlike electors, Representatives are members of the federal government, so based on that ruling, I think you're right that such a law would be unconstitutional.

EDIT: I went and looked at the only time it's ever happened since the 12th amendment was passed and it doesn't mention anything about any of the reps being obligated to follow the state vote.

In fact, it's not that hard to believe that electoral votes for a state might end up going to a candidate who is ineligible for the voting (because they got the fourth most votes as Clay did in 1824).

[Farnhamia]

Constitutionally, I can't imagine States having any legal power to tell their Congressmen how to vote. Federalism, etc..

IOW, the members are free to vote however they want.

I can see them having something in their Constitution about it, just like some do with electors. I'm not aware of any that do, however.

I'm not sure state constitutions apply to Federal elected officials. In fact, I'm pretty sure they don't, except in so far as they affect the official's life and conduct within the state. Seems to me some states tried to term limit their Congressfolk and were shot down.

[Jocabia]

I can see them having something in their Constitution about it, just like some do with electors. I'm not aware of any that do, however.

I'm not sure state constitutions apply to Federal elected officials. In fact, I'm pretty sure they don't, except in so far as they affect the official's life and conduct within the state. Seems to me some states tried to term limit their Congressfolk and were shot down.

Yeah, I actually edited my post to include that. My point was that I could see State's trying it. It's not as if there has been opportunity to challenge it, since it hasn't come up for 178 years.

Ray v. Blair agrees with you (and ASB), as I think the most comparable standard would faithless electors. The ruling specifically brings up that binding electors is only legal because they aren't members of the federal government.

[Ardchoille]

Re my earlier post, all three posters flamed but, in view of the amazingly pristine post-histories you all have, given that the fuss arose because of confusion over TomKirk/Tmutarakhan, and given that you all actually did cut it out, I'm leaving it at that (unless you goof again).

BTW, re confusions: this election has a hazard the 2008 one didn't -- more posts from phones with auto-correct. I'm guessing, for example, that this

<snip> But the youth-vote and the retired left put you up 5 points for all Congregational and 10 points in presidential raise agents the GOP.

probably meant something like this

<snip> But the youth-vote and the retired left put you up 5 points for all Congressional and 10 points in presidential race against the GOP.

So please take a deep breath before you post excoriating someone for not making sense.

[Farnhamia]

I'm not sure state constitutions apply to Federal elected officials. In fact, I'm pretty sure they don't, except in so far as they affect the official's life and conduct within the state. Seems to me some states tried to term limit their Congressfolk and were shot down.

Yeah, I actually edited my post to include that. My point was that I could see State's trying it. It's not as if there has been opportunity to challenge it, since it hasn't come up for 178 years.

Ray v. Blair agrees with you (and ASB), as I think the most comparable standard would faithless electors. The ruling specifically brings up that binding electors is only legal because they aren't members of the federal government.

Faithless electors are a different matter. Some but not all states have laws punishing them. There have not been very many in US history. Most of them became "faithless" when their candidate died between the election and the certification of the vote.

[Serrland]

Yeah, I actually edited my post to include that. My point was that I could see State's trying it. It's not as if there has been opportunity to challenge it, since it hasn't come up for 178 years.

Ray v. Blair agrees with you (and ASB), as I think the most comparable standard would faithless electors. The ruling specifically brings up that binding electors is only legal because they aren't members of the federal government.

Faithless electors are a different matter. Some but not all states have laws punishing them. There have not been very many in US history. Most of them became "faithless" when their candidate died between the election and the certification of the vote.

Faithless electors seem to be more of a boogeyman conjured up by opponents of the EC than an actual threat to an election. Including 1968, when shit started to get real, there have been 6 faithless electors. That is 6 in 11 elections - or 6 out of a total of 5,918 electoral votes cast. If I'm doing my math right (and there's a decent chance I'm making a mistake somewhere along the line) that's 0.1% of EVs since '68.

If we consider that one was because someone spelled "Ewards" instead of "Edwards," one was an abstention in protest (DC statehood activist Elector), one was someone presumably accidentally putting Dukakis as the VP candidate, that comes down to really only 3 faithless electors "going rogue" since 1968, bringing the percentage of actually rogue rather than accidental faithless electors down to a measly 0.05% of electoral votes cast.

[Jocabia]

Yeah, I actually edited my post to include that. My point was that I could see State's trying it. It's not as if there has been opportunity to challenge it, since it hasn't come up for 178 years.

Ray v. Blair agrees with you (and ASB), as I think the most comparable standard would faithless electors. The ruling specifically brings up that binding electors is only legal because they aren't members of the federal government.

Faithless electors are a different matter. Some but not all states have laws punishing them. There have not been very many in US history. Most of them became "faithless" when their candidate died between the election and the certification of the vote.

I would have to say these are both highly unlikely scenarios. As pointed out, one has happened .1% of the time and the other hasn't happened for 188 years.

Faithless electors are useful to the in that laws binding them have been challenged and, in the rule by the SCOTUS, we got insight into what would happen if they tried to similarly bind Senators or Representatives. That is that we found out that if they tried to bind members of the federal government, i.e., Representatives and Senators, the same way that it would be unconstitutional.

[New Chalcedon]

Yeah, I actually edited my post to include that. My point was that I could see State's trying it. It's not as if there has been opportunity to challenge it, since it hasn't come up for 178 years.

Ray v. Blair agrees with you (and ASB), as I think the most comparable standard would faithless electors. The ruling specifically brings up that binding electors is only legal because they aren't members of the federal government.

Faithless electors are a different matter. Some but not all states have laws punishing them. There have not been very many in US history. Most of them became "faithless" when their candidate died between the election and the certification of the vote.

I daresay any punishment levied would be insufficient counterweight to the inducements either campaign would offer in the event of a 269-269 Electoral College tie - Obama's campaign would do it to keep the White House, and Romney's would do it to assure their victory. There are so many ways to give rewards, after all, that can slip even the tightest judicial net....and proving bribery's chancy at the best of times, especially when no actual money changes hands.

[Alien Space Bats]

Electoral-vote.com Map (as of August 21st, 2012)



Obama 284, Romney 241 (13 Undecided)

---

Only one new poll has been added in the last few days (the calm before the storm)?

• In Oklahoma (6 EV's), a new Sooner Poll dated August 14th shows Romney leading by 29%. The Sooner State remains "Strongly Republican".

---

Up until a day or two ago, I was wondering what to talk about while waiting for polling to cover the three impending (potential) opinion shifts in this race: The reaction to Mitt Romney's selection of Paul Ryan as his running mate, the inevitable public opinion "bump" Mitt Romney would get from his acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention in Tampa, FL (just 8 days from now), and the equally inevitable public opinion "bump" President Obama would get from his acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention in Charlotte (just 15 days from now).

Then Todd Aiken, the GOP's nominee for the U.S. Senate in Missouri currently held by Claire McCaskill decided to douse himself with verbal gasoline and set his political career on fire.

The potential downside for Republicans is huge: In order to unify the Party (necessary for what is essentially a "base election" - one in which turnout levels matter more than a candidate's ability to swing votes over to his side in the race), Romney has essentially allowed social conservatives to write the Party platform without interference. Consequently, when Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan stand on that stage in Tampa to formally receive the GOP nomination, they will be formally campaigning on a platform of enacting a Human Life Amendment (HLA) that would not only ban abortion nationwide, but would ban it without exception - including rape, incest, or potential loss of life through medical complications (to be sure, an HLA - if written to recognize "fetal personhood" [as MItt Romney himself has called for] - will do much, much more than that; but for now, these are the only effects we need consider in looking at the current Presidential race).

Even then, things wouldn't be so bad for the GOP if Paul Ryan hadn't co-sponsored the "No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act", which sought to redefine rape in such a way as to block the use of Medicaid as a means to pay for the abortions of certain rape victims:

Under H.R. 3, the only victims of “forcible rape" would qualify for federally funded abortions. Victims of statutory rape—say, a 13-year-old girl impregnated by a 30-year-old man—would be on their own. So would victims of incest if they’re over 18. And while “forcible rape” isn’t defined in the criminal code, the addition of the adjective seems certain to exclude acts of rape that don’t involve overt violence—say, cases where a woman is drugged or has a limited mental capacity. “It’s basically putting more restrictions on what was defined historically as rape,” says [Nancy] Keenan [President of NARAL Pro-Choice America].

It's a common (and indeed, a very strongly held) view among pro-life forces - who dominate Republican politics - that abortion should be banned this completely. The real question here is whether the GOP is prepared to fight and win a General Election campaign in which banning abortion becomes a central issue.

On the one hand, recent Gallup polling on the issue (as of May, 2012 - which is pretty recent) - suggests that sympathy is growing for the "pro-life" cause:

Since 2009, Americans have been closely divided in their identification with the labels most commonly used by each side of the abortion debate, although twice in that time period, including today, the percentage identifying as pro-life has been significantly higher than the pro-choice percentage. This represents a clear shift from 2001 to 2008, when Gallup most often found pro-choice adherents in the plurality.

On the other, Americans' attitudes on the morality and legality of abortion have not changed:

Whether any of these controversies is related to the shift in Americans' identification as pro-choice or pro-life is not clear. However, it is notable that while Americans' labeling of their position has changed, their fundamental views on the issue have not. If the advantage for the "pro-life" position persists in future Gallup updates on abortion, these would seem to be important factors to look at to help explain the shift in labeling.

The Gallup survey helps further clarify why this has erupted into an issue in the 2012 election, and why it's not likely to go away. Attitudes among "independents" haven't changed much; here's Gallup's graph of "independent" attitudes going back to 2001:



The trend line appears towards the "pro-life" side - until you stop and consider the chronic problem of self-identified "independents" actually being "crypto-partisans". IOW, if anywhere from 75-85% of all self-identified "independents" are actually RIABN's or DIABN's ("Republicans In All But Name" or "Democrats In All But Name"), then the "independent" graph will essentially track as a composite of the two Party graphs.

Looking first at the GOP graph, we see a marked tendency towards the adoption of the "pro-life" position as a kind of "litmus test":



With nearly three-quarters of Republicans self-identifying as "pro-life" - and with that number rising steadily for most of the last decade - we should expect that "independents" would (at least in part) show a similar (if only partial) tendency as well.

Looking next to Democrats, we see the opposing trend, although not to any where near the same degree; the "pro-choice" position remains the majority position within the Democratic Party:



"Pro-choice" forces dominate the Democratic Party, and their advantage has been growing over most of the last decade - but not to anywhere near the same degree as "pro-life" forces do among Republicans. Thus, as the opinions of "independents" are strongly "contaminated" by both Republican and Democratic attitudes (to a more or less equal degree), we can see that the apparent slight shift of "independents" towards the "pro-life" side is probably only an artifact of increasing Republican movement in that direction, rather than proof of any endogenous shift among "pure independents" themselves.

That said, Gallup made a second set of measurements that may be even more important. First, they asked respondents how they felt about the morality of abortion:



Notice that while Americans believe abortion to be "immoral" by a sizable margin (51-38), that margin is not quite as large as the margin that call themselves "pro-life" as opposed to "pro-choice" (50-41):



Which is where this graph comes in - the position of Americans vis-à-vis the legality of abortion:



Here is the crux of the matter: Americans may dislike abortion from a "moral" perspective, and may consider themselves to be "pro-life" more often than they call themselves "pro-choice", but an overwhelming majority believe that abortion should be legal under certain circumstances. This is a problem for the GOP, which in embracing the absolutist "pro-life" position has identified itself with the least popular policy choice out there ("Abortion should be illegal in all circumstances" - a position held by only 20% of the population).

Thus, the danger for the GOP - and the corresponding opening for Democrats. By stressing that any Human Life Amendment that recognizes "fetal personhood" - as supported by both Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan, as well as the vast majority of Republican candidates up and down the ticket - necessarily criminalizes not only "ordinary" abortions, but all abortions - including those allowed to victims of rape or incest, as well as those needed by women who face life-threatening medical complications in a pregnancy gone bad - Democrats have the opportunity to depict the whole GOP from end-to-end as a bunch of cold-hearted, unfeeling, misogynistic bastards.

And its not like Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan can wriggle out of this attack: Romney has openly endorsed "fetal personhood", as has Ryan; and Ryan worked with Aiken in a failed effort to deny certain rape victims access to Medicaid-funded abortions. There's a pattern of behavior that will be very, very hard for the Romney-Ryan ticket to deny.

Worse, denying it will cost them support with their base. Conservatives are extremely touchy about making sure that Mitt Romney walks the straight-and-narrow path; any deviation from that path undermines his credibility among them, while also opening him up to attacks on his overall credibility, which only now survives because the press won't question it too strongly.

This last point is the final part of the trap: The press has refused to call Mitt Romney on his repeated lies and distortions (with the recent "welfare reform" attack being the latest and most outrageous example yet of the former Massachusetts Governors' willingness to play fast and loose with the truth). I suspect that the Romney team decided long ago to employ a "chutzpah strategy" of just lying outrageously and denying contradictions, on the grounds that the press will never call them on it, while Democratic accusations of lying can be dismissed as lies themselves (the old "I know I am, but what are you?" trick). The problem with that strategy is that - realistically - there is (probably) a limit on how far the press is actually willing to go in their complicity. Keeping your job and not rocking the boat is all very well and good, but reporters fancy themselves as more than useless flacks who just stupidly repeat everything they're told. Those who mourn the sale of their souls for a paycheck will certainly yearn for a chance to win those souls back; should Romney slip even once in a way that cannot be explained or excused, the knives will come out as those reporters still possessed of at least a shred of guilty conscience seek to redeem themselves, all at the candidate's gory expense.

Knowing this, the Obama team should therefore seek to heighten the cognitive dissonance at every turn; to expand and telescope the contradictions until they become unbearable. Romney's Big Lie strategy will only work until the bubble bursts; expanding that bubble to its maximum possible limits stresses it to the point where its odds of popping approach infinity.

---

On the GOP side - once more - there appears to be no easy counter-strategy. The standard response to any Democratic effort to revive their "War on Women" narrative has been to accuse the Obama Administration of being anti-Christian; for now, that's probably the only card they have, even if they're going to have to invent a controversy that they can exploit. Maybe they'll take the next logical step - in light of recent polls showing that Mormonism isn't so unpopular as to deny Mitt Romney a chance to win the Presidency - and risk openly accusing Obama of being a "secret Muslim" or some other such nonsense.

At this stage, I'd put nothing past them.

[Sane Outcasts]

Electoral-vote.com Map (as of August 21st, 2012)

(Image)

Obama 284, Romney 241 (13 Undecided)

---

Only one new poll has been added in the last few days (the calm before the storm)?

• In Oklahoma (6 EV's), a new Sooner Poll dated August 14th shows Romney leading by 29%. The Sooner State remains "Strongly Republican".

---

Up until a day or two ago, I was wondering what to talk about while waiting for polling to cover the three impending (potential) opinion shifts in this race: The reaction to Mitt Romney's selection of Paul Ryan as his running mate, the inevitable public opinion "bump" Mitt Romney would get from his acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention in Tampa, FL (just 8 days from now), and the equally inevitable public opinion "bump" President Obama would get from his acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention in Charlotte (just 15 days from now).

Then Todd Aiken, the GOP's nominee for the U.S. Senate in Missouri currently held by Claire McCaskill decided to douse himself with verbal gasoline and set his political career on fire.

The potential downside for Republicans is huge: In order to unify the Party (necessary for what is essentially a "base election" - one in which turnout levels matter more than a candidate's ability to swing votes over to his side in the race), Romney has essentially allowed social conservatives to write the Party platform without interference. Consequently, when Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan stand on that stage in Tampa to formally receive the GOP nomination, they will be formally campaigning on a platform of enacting a Human Life Amendment (HLA) that would not only ban abortion nationwide, but would ban it without exception - including rape, incest, or potential loss of life through medical complications (to be sure, an HLA - if written to recognize "fetal personhood" [as MItt Romney himself has called for] - will do much, much more than that; but for now, these are the only effects we need consider in looking at the current Presidential race).

Even then, things wouldn't be so bad for the GOP if Paul Ryan hadn't co-sponsored the "No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act", which sought to redefine rape in such a way as to block the use of Medicaid as a means to pay for the abortions of certain rape victims:

Under H.R. 3, the only victims of “forcible rape" would qualify for federally funded abortions. Victims of statutory rape—say, a 13-year-old girl impregnated by a 30-year-old man—would be on their own. So would victims of incest if they’re over 18. And while “forcible rape” isn’t defined in the criminal code, the addition of the adjective seems certain to exclude acts of rape that don’t involve overt violence—say, cases where a woman is drugged or has a limited mental capacity. “It’s basically putting more restrictions on what was defined historically as rape,” says [Nancy] Keenan [President of NARAL Pro-Choice America].

It's a common (and indeed, a very strongly held) view among pro-life forces - who dominate Republican politics - that abortion should be banned this completely. The real question here is whether the GOP is prepared to fight and win a General Election campaign in which banning abortion becomes a central issue.

On the one hand, recent Gallup polling on the issue (as of May, 2012 - which is pretty recent) - suggests that sympathy is growing for the "pro-life" cause:

Since 2009, Americans have been closely divided in their identification with the labels most commonly used by each side of the abortion debate, although twice in that time period, including today, the percentage identifying as pro-life has been significantly higher than the pro-choice percentage. This represents a clear shift from 2001 to 2008, when Gallup most often found pro-choice adherents in the plurality.

On the other, Americans' attitudes on the morality and legality of abortion have not changed:

Whether any of these controversies is related to the shift in Americans' identification as pro-choice or pro-life is not clear. However, it is notable that while Americans' labeling of their position has changed, their fundamental views on the issue have not. If the advantage for the "pro-life" position persists in future Gallup updates on abortion, these would seem to be important factors to look at to help explain the shift in labeling.

The Gallup survey helps further clarify why this has erupted into an issue in the 2012 election, and why it's not likely to go away. Attitudes among "independents" haven't changed much; here's Gallup's graph of "independent" attitudes going back to 2001:

(Image)

The trend line appears towards the "pro-life" side - until you stop and consider the chronic problem of self-identified "independents" actually being "crypto-partisans". IOW, if anywhere from 75-85% of all self-identified "independents" are actually RIABN's or DIABN's ("Republicans In All But Name" or "Democrats In All But Name"), then the "independent" graph will essentially track as a composite of the two Party graphs.

Looking first at the GOP graph, we see a marked tendency towards the adoption of the "pro-life" position as a kind of "litmus test":

(Image)

With nearly three-quarters of Republicans self-identifying as "pro-life" - and with that number rising steadily for most of the last decade - we should expect that "independents" would (at least in part) show a similar (if only partial) tendency as well.

Looking next to Democrats, we see the opposing trend, although not to any where near the same degree; the "pro-choice" position remains the majority position within the Democratic Party:

(Image)

"Pro-choice" forces dominate the Democratic Party, and their advantage has been growing over most of the last decade - but not to anywhere near the same degree as "pro-life" forces do among Republicans. Thus, as the opinions of "independents" are strongly "contaminated" by both Republican and Democratic attitudes (to a more or less equal degree), we can see that the apparent slight shift of "independents" towards the "pro-life" side is probably only an artifact of increasing Republican movement in that direction, rather than proof of any endogenous shift among "pure independents" themselves.

That said, Gallup made a second set of measurements that may be even more important. First, they asked respondents how they felt about the morality of abortion:

(Image)

Notice that while Americans believe abortion to be "immoral" by a sizable margin (51-38), that margin is not quite as large as the margin that call themselves "pro-life" as opposed to "pro-choice" (50-41):

(Image)

Which is where this graph comes in - the position of Americans vis-à-vis the legality of abortion:

(Image)

Here is the crux of the matter: Americans may dislike abortion from a "moral" perspective, and may consider themselves to be "pro-life" more often than they call themselves "pro-choice", but an overwhelming majority believe that abortion should be legal under certain circumstances. This is a problem for the GOP, which in embracing the absolutist "pro-life" position has identified itself with the least popular policy choice out there ("Abortion should be illegal in all circumstances" - a position held by only 20% of the population).

Thus, the danger for the GOP - and the corresponding opening for Democrats. By stressing that any Human Life Amendment that recognizes "fetal personhood" - as supported by both Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan, as well as the vast majority of Republican candidates up and down the ticket - necessarily criminalizes not only "ordinary" abortions, but all abortions - including those allowed to victims of rape or incest, as well as those needed by women who face life-threatening medical complications in a pregnancy gone bad - Democrats have the opportunity to depict the whole GOP from end-to-end as a bunch of cold-hearted, unfeeling, misogynistic bastards.

And its not like Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan can wriggle out of this attack: Romney has openly endorsed "fetal personhood", as has Ryan; and Ryan worked with Aiken in a failed effort to deny certain rape victims access to Medicaid-funded abortions. There's a pattern of behavior that will be very, very hard for the Romney-Ryan ticket to deny.

Worse, denying it will cost them support with their base. Conservatives are extremely touchy about making sure that Mitt Romney walks the straight-and-narrow path; any deviation from that path undermines his credibility among them, while also opening him up to attacks on his overall credibility, which only now survives because the press won't question it too strongly.

This last point is the final part of the trap: The press has refused to call Mitt Romney on his repeated lies and distortions (with the recent "welfare reform" attack being the latest and most outrageous example yet of the former Massachusetts Governors' willingness to play fast and loose with the truth). I suspect that the Romney team decided long ago to employ a "chutzpah strategy" of just lying outrageously and denying contradictions, on the grounds that the press will never call them on it, while Democratic accusations of lying can be dismissed as lies themselves (the old "I know I am, but what are you?" trick). The problem with that strategy is that - realistically - there is (probably) a limit on how far the press is actually willing to go in their complicity. Keeping your job and not rocking the boat is all very well and good, but reporters fancy themselves as more than useless flacks who just stupidly repeat everything they're told. Those who mourn the sale of their souls for a paycheck will certainly yearn for a chance to win those souls back; should Romney slip even once in a way that cannot be explained or excused, the knives will come out as those reporters still possessed of at least a shred of guilty conscience seek to redeem themselves, all at the candidate's gory expense.

Knowing this, the Obama team should therefore seek to heighten the cognitive dissonance at every turn; to expand and telescope the contradictions until they become unbearable. Romney's Big Lie strategy will only work until the bubble bursts; expanding that bubble to its maximum possible limits stresses it to the point where its odds of popping approach infinity.

---

On the GOP side - once more - there appears to be no easy counter-strategy. The standard response to any Democratic effort to revive their "War on Women" narrative has been to accuse the Obama Administration of being anti-Christian; for now, that's probably the only card they have, even if they're going to have to invent a controversy that they can exploit. Maybe they'll take the next logical step - in light of recent polls showing that Mormonism isn't so unpopular as to deny Mitt Romney a chance to win the Presidency - and risk openly accusing Obama of being a "secret Muslim" or some other such nonsense.

At this stage, I'd put nothing past them.

My mind has boggled at how easily the campaign narrative is steered away from the economy to side issues like Romney's personal finances and history, or into social quagmires like abortion. Granted, no one thought Akins would put his foot in his mouth like that until he had already swallowed it up to the knee, but I think Romney and the Republicans are being hurt by losing focus on the key issue and letting Obama's team set the tone of the election. Do you think they can turn that trend around and regain control of the conversation during the GOP convention to kill the sidetrack into social issues?

[Wamitoria]

Electoral-vote.com Map (as of August 21st, 2012)

(Image)

Obama 284, Romney 241 (13 Undecided)

---

Only one new poll has been added in the last few days (the calm before the storm)?

• In Oklahoma (6 EV's), a new Sooner Poll dated August 14th shows Romney leading by 29%. The Sooner State remains "Strongly Republican".

---

Up until a day or two ago, I was wondering what to talk about while waiting for polling to cover the three impending (potential) opinion shifts in this race: The reaction to Mitt Romney's selection of Paul Ryan as his running mate, the inevitable public opinion "bump" Mitt Romney would get from his acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention in Tampa, FL (just 8 days from now), and the equally inevitable public opinion "bump" President Obama would get from his acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention in Charlotte (just 15 days from now).

Then Todd Aiken, the GOP's nominee for the U.S. Senate in Missouri currently held by Claire McCaskill decided to douse himself with verbal gasoline and set his political career on fire.

The potential downside for Republicans is huge: In order to unify the Party (necessary for what is essentially a "base election" - one in which turnout levels matter more than a candidate's ability to swing votes over to his side in the race), Romney has essentially allowed social conservatives to write the Party platform without interference. Consequently, when Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan stand on that stage in Tampa to formally receive the GOP nomination, they will be formally campaigning on a platform of enacting a Human Life Amendment (HLA) that would not only ban abortion nationwide, but would ban it without exception - including rape, incest, or potential loss of life through medical complications (to be sure, an HLA - if written to recognize "fetal personhood" [as MItt Romney himself has called for] - will do much, much more than that; but for now, these are the only effects we need consider in looking at the current Presidential race).

Even then, things wouldn't be so bad for the GOP if Paul Ryan hadn't co-sponsored the "No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act", which sought to redefine rape in such a way as to block the use of Medicaid as a means to pay for the abortions of certain rape victims:

Under H.R. 3, the only victims of “forcible rape" would qualify for federally funded abortions. Victims of statutory rape—say, a 13-year-old girl impregnated by a 30-year-old man—would be on their own. So would victims of incest if they’re over 18. And while “forcible rape” isn’t defined in the criminal code, the addition of the adjective seems certain to exclude acts of rape that don’t involve overt violence—say, cases where a woman is drugged or has a limited mental capacity. “It’s basically putting more restrictions on what was defined historically as rape,” says [Nancy] Keenan [President of NARAL Pro-Choice America].

It's a common (and indeed, a very strongly held) view among pro-life forces - who dominate Republican politics - that abortion should be banned this completely. The real question here is whether the GOP is prepared to fight and win a General Election campaign in which banning abortion becomes a central issue.

On the one hand, recent Gallup polling on the issue (as of May, 2012 - which is pretty recent) - suggests that sympathy is growing for the "pro-life" cause:

Since 2009, Americans have been closely divided in their identification with the labels most commonly used by each side of the abortion debate, although twice in that time period, including today, the percentage identifying as pro-life has been significantly higher than the pro-choice percentage. This represents a clear shift from 2001 to 2008, when Gallup most often found pro-choice adherents in the plurality.

On the other, Americans' attitudes on the morality and legality of abortion have not changed:

Whether any of these controversies is related to the shift in Americans' identification as pro-choice or pro-life is not clear. However, it is notable that while Americans' labeling of their position has changed, their fundamental views on the issue have not. If the advantage for the "pro-life" position persists in future Gallup updates on abortion, these would seem to be important factors to look at to help explain the shift in labeling.

The Gallup survey helps further clarify why this has erupted into an issue in the 2012 election, and why it's not likely to go away. Attitudes among "independents" haven't changed much; here's Gallup's graph of "independent" attitudes going back to 2001:

(Image)

The trend line appears towards the "pro-life" side - until you stop and consider the chronic problem of self-identified "independents" actually being "crypto-partisans". IOW, if anywhere from 75-85% of all self-identified "independents" are actually RIABN's or DIABN's ("Republicans In All But Name" or "Democrats In All But Name"), then the "independent" graph will essentially track as a composite of the two Party graphs.

Looking first at the GOP graph, we see a marked tendency towards the adoption of the "pro-life" position as a kind of "litmus test":

(Image)

With nearly three-quarters of Republicans self-identifying as "pro-life" - and with that number rising steadily for most of the last decade - we should expect that "independents" would (at least in part) show a similar (if only partial) tendency as well.

Looking next to Democrats, we see the opposing trend, although not to any where near the same degree; the "pro-choice" position remains the majority position within the Democratic Party:

(Image)

"Pro-choice" forces dominate the Democratic Party, and their advantage has been growing over most of the last decade - but not to anywhere near the same degree as "pro-life" forces do among Republicans. Thus, as the opinions of "independents" are strongly "contaminated" by both Republican and Democratic attitudes (to a more or less equal degree), we can see that the apparent slight shift of "independents" towards the "pro-life" side is probably only an artifact of increasing Republican movement in that direction, rather than proof of any endogenous shift among "pure independents" themselves.

That said, Gallup made a second set of measurements that may be even more important. First, they asked respondents how they felt about the morality of abortion:

(Image)

Notice that while Americans believe abortion to be "immoral" by a sizable margin (51-38), that margin is not quite as large as the margin that call themselves "pro-life" as opposed to "pro-choice" (50-41):

(Image)

Which is where this graph comes in - the position of Americans vis-à-vis the legality of abortion:

(Image)

Here is the crux of the matter: Americans may dislike abortion from a "moral" perspective, and may consider themselves to be "pro-life" more often than they call themselves "pro-choice", but an overwhelming majority believe that abortion should be legal under certain circumstances. This is a problem for the GOP, which in embracing the absolutist "pro-life" position has identified itself with the least popular policy choice out there ("Abortion should be illegal in all circumstances" - a position held by only 20% of the population).

Thus, the danger for the GOP - and the corresponding opening for Democrats. By stressing that any Human Life Amendment that recognizes "fetal personhood" - as supported by both Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan, as well as the vast majority of Republican candidates up and down the ticket - necessarily criminalizes not only "ordinary" abortions, but all abortions - including those allowed to victims of rape or incest, as well as those needed by women who face life-threatening medical complications in a pregnancy gone bad - Democrats have the opportunity to depict the whole GOP from end-to-end as a bunch of cold-hearted, unfeeling, misogynistic bastards.

And its not like Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan can wriggle out of this attack: Romney has openly endorsed "fetal personhood", as has Ryan; and Ryan worked with Aiken in a failed effort to deny certain rape victims access to Medicaid-funded abortions. There's a pattern of behavior that will be very, very hard for the Romney-Ryan ticket to deny.

Worse, denying it will cost them support with their base. Conservatives are extremely touchy about making sure that Mitt Romney walks the straight-and-narrow path; any deviation from that path undermines his credibility among them, while also opening him up to attacks on his overall credibility, which only now survives because the press won't question it too strongly.

This last point is the final part of the trap: The press has refused to call Mitt Romney on his repeated lies and distortions (with the recent "welfare reform" attack being the latest and most outrageous example yet of the former Massachusetts Governors' willingness to play fast and loose with the truth). I suspect that the Romney team decided long ago to employ a "chutzpah strategy" of just lying outrageously and denying contradictions, on the grounds that the press will never call them on it, while Democratic accusations of lying can be dismissed as lies themselves (the old "I know I am, but what are you?" trick). The problem with that strategy is that - realistically - there is (probably) a limit on how far the press is actually willing to go in their complicity. Keeping your job and not rocking the boat is all very well and good, but reporters fancy themselves as more than useless flacks who just stupidly repeat everything they're told. Those who mourn the sale of their souls for a paycheck will certainly yearn for a chance to win those souls back; should Romney slip even once in a way that cannot be explained or excused, the knives will come out as those reporters still possessed of at least a shred of guilty conscience seek to redeem themselves, all at the candidate's gory expense.

Knowing this, the Obama team should therefore seek to heighten the cognitive dissonance at every turn; to expand and telescope the contradictions until they become unbearable. Romney's Big Lie strategy will only work until the bubble bursts; expanding that bubble to its maximum possible limits stresses it to the point where its odds of popping approach infinity.

---

On the GOP side - once more - there appears to be no easy counter-strategy. The standard response to any Democratic effort to revive their "War on Women" narrative has been to accuse the Obama Administration of being anti-Christian; for now, that's probably the only card they have, even if they're going to have to invent a controversy that they can exploit. Maybe they'll take the next logical step - in light of recent polls showing that Mormonism isn't so unpopular as to deny Mitt Romney a chance to win the Presidency - and risk openly accusing Obama of being a "secret Muslim" or some other such nonsense.

At this stage, I'd put nothing past them.

My mind has boggled at how easily the campaign narrative is steered away from the economy to side issues like Romney's personal finances and history, or into social quagmires like abortion. Granted, no one thought Akins would put his foot in his mouth like that until he had already swallowed it up to the knee, but I think Romney and the Republicans are being hurt by losing focus on the key issue and letting Obama's team set the tone of the election. Do you think they can turn that trend around and regain control of the conversation during the GOP convention to kill the sidetrack into social issues?

I have a feeling that someone will be saying something Buchanan-esque as the convention. I may be wrong, but then again, if there was any time for it to happen, it would be now.

[The Mongol Ilkhanate]

They just need to bring out Medicare. Hammer it, and hammer it, and hammer it, and hammer it. Neither side is going to get any voters from each other, it's all about turnout, and Seniors with nothing to do turn out the most. The Medicare actuary reports that because of Obama's cuts, 15% of Healthcare providers that cover medicare will be unprofitable in 2019.

[The Steel Magnolia]

They just need to bring out Medicare. Hammer it, and hammer it, and hammer it, and hammer it. Neither side is going to get any voters from each other, it's all about turnout, and Seniors with nothing to do turn out the most. The Medicare actuary reports that because of Obama's cuts, 15% of Healthcare providers that cover medicare will be unprofitable in 2019.

Uh-huh. So I'm sure you'll be willing to cite this report?


E: Actually, no, don't. This should be taken to the Megathread, not here.

[Silent Majority]

They just need to bring out Medicare. Hammer it, and hammer it, and hammer it, and hammer it. Neither side is going to get any voters from each other, it's all about turnout, and Seniors with nothing to do turn out the most. The Medicare actuary reports that because of Obama's cuts, 15% of Healthcare providers that cover medicare will be unprofitable in 2019.

You're saying the guy who picked Paul Ryan as his running mate should run on protecting medicare?



Romney is already a flip-flopper, and this would just reinforce that image.

[Alien Space Bats]

They just need to bring out Medicare. Hammer it, and hammer it, and hammer it, and hammer it. Neither side is going to get any voters from each other, it's all about turnout, and Seniors with nothing to do turn out the most. The Medicare actuary reports that because of Obama's cuts, 15% of Healthcare providers that cover medicare will be unprofitable in 2019.

Uh-huh. So I'm sure you'll be willing to cite this report?


E: Actually, no, don't. This should be taken to the Megathread, not here.

No, it's all right here. TLI is saying that's a tactic that the Romney team can use, and claims like that properly belong in this thread, not the other.

That said, political strategists have generally been reluctant to take the sort of tack you're suggesting, TLI. Yes, a policy argument can be made that attempts to lower provider reimbursement for Medicare - including even illegal reimbursement - will lead to providers dropping Medicare. This, in fact, is one of the biggest reasons for the ongoing "doc fix" that has become a standard part of each year's budget debate.

Yet it's not clear to me that the Ryan voucher plan - or any Republican alternative to the current Medicare system - offers a clear advantage over the current system, in so far as it forces Medicare recipients to make up the lost ground that taxpayers have to cover with every year's adjustment to Medicare now. Given that the likely result of doing so will be for increasing numbers of seniors (not to mention persons with disabilities) to be priced out of health care, I don't see how this is likely to result in a clear Republican win: On the one hand, wealthier seniors may lose access to their favorite doctors; on the other hand, poorer seniors (and the disabled) lose access to health care. Politically, that is what might be thought of as an "unclear situation".

And more to the point, these sorts of economic arguments are simply hard to make, especially to a populace that has deliberately refused to listen to the arguments of economists on any other issue; consequently, I'm just not certain that such an argument can be successfully made in the present political environment.

[Wikkiwallana]

Electoral-vote.com Map (as of August 21st, 2012)

(Image)

Obama 284, Romney 241 (13 Undecided)

---

Only one new poll has been added in the last few days (the calm before the storm)?

• In Oklahoma (6 EV's), a new Sooner Poll dated August 14th shows Romney leading by 29%. The Sooner State remains "Strongly Republican".

---

Up until a day or two ago, I was wondering what to talk about while waiting for polling to cover the three impending (potential) opinion shifts in this race: The reaction to Mitt Romney's selection of Paul Ryan as his running mate, the inevitable public opinion "bump" Mitt Romney would get from his acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention in Tampa, FL (just 8 days from now), and the equally inevitable public opinion "bump" President Obama would get from his acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention in Charlotte (just 15 days from now).

Then Todd Aiken, the GOP's nominee for the U.S. Senate in Missouri currently held by Claire McCaskill decided to douse himself with verbal gasoline and set his political career on fire.

The potential downside for Republicans is huge: In order to unify the Party (necessary for what is essentially a "base election" - one in which turnout levels matter more than a candidate's ability to swing votes over to his side in the race), Romney has essentially allowed social conservatives to write the Party platform without interference. Consequently, when Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan stand on that stage in Tampa to formally receive the GOP nomination, they will be formally campaigning on a platform of enacting a Human Life Amendment (HLA) that would not only ban abortion nationwide, but would ban it without exception - including rape, incest, or potential loss of life through medical complications (to be sure, an HLA - if written to recognize "fetal personhood" [as MItt Romney himself has called for] - will do much, much more than that; but for now, these are the only effects we need consider in looking at the current Presidential race).

Even then, things wouldn't be so bad for the GOP if Paul Ryan hadn't co-sponsored the "No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act", which sought to redefine rape in such a way as to block the use of Medicaid as a means to pay for the abortions of certain rape victims:

Under H.R. 3, the only victims of “forcible rape" would qualify for federally funded abortions. Victims of statutory rape—say, a 13-year-old girl impregnated by a 30-year-old man—would be on their own. So would victims of incest if they’re over 18. And while “forcible rape” isn’t defined in the criminal code, the addition of the adjective seems certain to exclude acts of rape that don’t involve overt violence—say, cases where a woman is drugged or has a limited mental capacity. “It’s basically putting more restrictions on what was defined historically as rape,” says [Nancy] Keenan [President of NARAL Pro-Choice America].

It's a common (and indeed, a very strongly held) view among pro-life forces - who dominate Republican politics - that abortion should be banned this completely. The real question here is whether the GOP is prepared to fight and win a General Election campaign in which banning abortion becomes a central issue.

On the one hand, recent Gallup polling on the issue (as of May, 2012 - which is pretty recent) - suggests that sympathy is growing for the "pro-life" cause:

Since 2009, Americans have been closely divided in their identification with the labels most commonly used by each side of the abortion debate, although twice in that time period, including today, the percentage identifying as pro-life has been significantly higher than the pro-choice percentage. This represents a clear shift from 2001 to 2008, when Gallup most often found pro-choice adherents in the plurality.

On the other, Americans' attitudes on the morality and legality of abortion have not changed:

Whether any of these controversies is related to the shift in Americans' identification as pro-choice or pro-life is not clear. However, it is notable that while Americans' labeling of their position has changed, their fundamental views on the issue have not. If the advantage for the "pro-life" position persists in future Gallup updates on abortion, these would seem to be important factors to look at to help explain the shift in labeling.

The Gallup survey helps further clarify why this has erupted into an issue in the 2012 election, and why it's not likely to go away. Attitudes among "independents" haven't changed much; here's Gallup's graph of "independent" attitudes going back to 2001:

(Image)

The trend line appears towards the "pro-life" side - until you stop and consider the chronic problem of self-identified "independents" actually being "crypto-partisans". IOW, if anywhere from 75-85% of all self-identified "independents" are actually RIABN's or DIABN's ("Republicans In All But Name" or "Democrats In All But Name"), then the "independent" graph will essentially track as a composite of the two Party graphs.

Looking first at the GOP graph, we see a marked tendency towards the adoption of the "pro-life" position as a kind of "litmus test":

(Image)

With nearly three-quarters of Republicans self-identifying as "pro-life" - and with that number rising steadily for most of the last decade - we should expect that "independents" would (at least in part) show a similar (if only partial) tendency as well.

Looking next to Democrats, we see the opposing trend, although not to any where near the same degree; the "pro-choice" position remains the majority position within the Democratic Party:

(Image)

"Pro-choice" forces dominate the Democratic Party, and their advantage has been growing over most of the last decade - but not to anywhere near the same degree as "pro-life" forces do among Republicans. Thus, as the opinions of "independents" are strongly "contaminated" by both Republican and Democratic attitudes (to a more or less equal degree), we can see that the apparent slight shift of "independents" towards the "pro-life" side is probably only an artifact of increasing Republican movement in that direction, rather than proof of any endogenous shift among "pure independents" themselves.

That said, Gallup made a second set of measurements that may be even more important. First, they asked respondents how they felt about the morality of abortion:

(Image)

Notice that while Americans believe abortion to be "immoral" by a sizable margin (51-38), that margin is not quite as large as the margin that call themselves "pro-life" as opposed to "pro-choice" (50-41):

(Image)

Which is where this graph comes in - the position of Americans vis-à-vis the legality of abortion:

(Image)

Here is the crux of the matter: Americans may dislike abortion from a "moral" perspective, and may consider themselves to be "pro-life" more often than they call themselves "pro-choice", but an overwhelming majority believe that abortion should be legal under certain circumstances. This is a problem for the GOP, which in embracing the absolutist "pro-life" position has identified itself with the least popular policy choice out there ("Abortion should be illegal in all circumstances" - a position held by only 20% of the population).

Thus, the danger for the GOP - and the corresponding opening for Democrats. By stressing that any Human Life Amendment that recognizes "fetal personhood" - as supported by both Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan, as well as the vast majority of Republican candidates up and down the ticket - necessarily criminalizes not only "ordinary" abortions, but all abortions - including those allowed to victims of rape or incest, as well as those needed by women who face life-threatening medical complications in a pregnancy gone bad - Democrats have the opportunity to depict the whole GOP from end-to-end as a bunch of cold-hearted, unfeeling, misogynistic bastards.

And its not like Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan can wriggle out of this attack: Romney has openly endorsed "fetal personhood", as has Ryan; and Ryan worked with Aiken in a failed effort to deny certain rape victims access to Medicaid-funded abortions. There's a pattern of behavior that will be very, very hard for the Romney-Ryan ticket to deny.

Worse, denying it will cost them support with their base. Conservatives are extremely touchy about making sure that Mitt Romney walks the straight-and-narrow path; any deviation from that path undermines his credibility among them, while also opening him up to attacks on his overall credibility, which only now survives because the press won't question it too strongly.

This last point is the final part of the trap: The press has refused to call Mitt Romney on his repeated lies and distortions (with the recent "welfare reform" attack being the latest and most outrageous example yet of the former Massachusetts Governors' willingness to play fast and loose with the truth). I suspect that the Romney team decided long ago to employ a "chutzpah strategy" of just lying outrageously and denying contradictions, on the grounds that the press will never call them on it, while Democratic accusations of lying can be dismissed as lies themselves (the old "I know I am, but what are you?" trick). The problem with that strategy is that - realistically - there is (probably) a limit on how far the press is actually willing to go in their complicity. Keeping your job and not rocking the boat is all very well and good, but reporters fancy themselves as more than useless flacks who just stupidly repeat everything they're told. Those who mourn the sale of their souls for a paycheck will certainly yearn for a chance to win those souls back; should Romney slip even once in a way that cannot be explained or excused, the knives will come out as those reporters still possessed of at least a shred of guilty conscience seek to redeem themselves, all at the candidate's gory expense.

Knowing this, the Obama team should therefore seek to heighten the cognitive dissonance at every turn; to expand and telescope the contradictions until they become unbearable. Romney's Big Lie strategy will only work until the bubble bursts; expanding that bubble to its maximum possible limits stresses it to the point where its odds of popping approach infinity.

---

On the GOP side - once more - there appears to be no easy counter-strategy. The standard response to any Democratic effort to revive their "War on Women" narrative has been to accuse the Obama Administration of being anti-Christian; for now, that's probably the only card they have, even if they're going to have to invent a controversy that they can exploit. Maybe they'll take the next logical step - in light of recent polls showing that Mormonism isn't so unpopular as to deny Mitt Romney a chance to win the Presidency - and risk openly accusing Obama of being a "secret Muslim" or some other such nonsense.

At this stage, I'd put nothing past them.

My mind has boggled at how easily the campaign narrative is steered away from the economy to side issues like Romney's personal finances and history, or into social quagmires like abortion. Granted, no one thought Akins would put his foot in his mouth like that until he had already swallowed it up to the knee, but I think Romney and the Republicans are being hurt by losing focus on the key issue and letting Obama's team set the tone of the election. Do you think they can turn that trend around and regain control of the conversation during the GOP convention to kill the sidetrack into social issues?

Social issues are not a sidetrack.

[Farnhamia]

My mind has boggled at how easily the campaign narrative is steered away from the economy to side issues like Romney's personal finances and history, or into social quagmires like abortion. Granted, no one thought Akins would put his foot in his mouth like that until he had already swallowed it up to the knee, but I think Romney and the Republicans are being hurt by losing focus on the key issue and letting Obama's team set the tone of the election. Do you think they can turn that trend around and regain control of the conversation during the GOP convention to kill the sidetrack into social issues?

Social issues are not a sidetrack.

They absolutely are not, not when the GOP platform calls for not only an amendment defining marriage as one man and one woman, but another amendment that defines life as beginning at conception.

[Sane Outcasts]

Social issues are not a sidetrack.

They absolutely are not, not when the GOP platform calls for not only an amendment defining marriage as one man and one woman, but another amendment that defines life as beginning at conception.

I'm talking purely in terms of political strategy. The Republicans want this election to be about the economy, jobs, and the budget because they think they can nail Obama on the nation's poor performance in those areas over the last four years. That's why Romney talked about experience at Bain and not his deep religious convictions or principled moral stands on social issues. It's why the VP candidate also happens to be the author and greatest advocate of the GOP's proposed budget, not a leader in community outreach. They never wanted the focus of the election to be on abortion or gay marriage or any of the other social issues that get people passionate to vote because that strategy could easily bite them back by getting the other side passionate about voting (and let's face it, Obama is a hell of a lot better at motivating a passionate base than Romney).

My question is whether the party still has it in their power to change the narrative at their convention to their advantage or if they've lost that control entirely already.

[Wikkiwallana]

They absolutely are not, not when the GOP platform calls for not only an amendment defining marriage as one man and one woman, but another amendment that defines life as beginning at conception.

I'm talking purely in terms of political strategy.

So was I.

[Revolutopia]

That's why Romney talked about experience at Bain and not his deep religious convictions or principled moral stands on social issues.

More likely as how even Fox News couldn't go through an entire news broadcast talking up Romney's deep religious convictions or principled moral stands without breaking into laughter.