GOP Shouldn't Be Eager to Play Debt Limit Chicken

Many Republicans are consoling themselves over the fiscal cliff fiasco by tricking themselves into believing they can make up lost ground in the upcoming debt ceiling negotiations. After all, they argue, the GOP has the hostages leverage. If the White House doesn't give into their demands, they can crash the economy.

The problem with this thinking is that the debt ceiling fight -- as was the fiscal cliff fight -- was not a hostage negotiation so much as it was a game of chicken. That is, if Republicans could crash the economy if they didn't get what they wanted, so could the President for the same reason. The question then, was who would climb out of the twisted wreckage and who would wind up on life support. Polling showed that Republicans would be the ones taking the damage, so it was Republicans who made the biggest concessions. Any hostages held -- and there were hostages -- didn't mean crap.

An old hand at political brinksmanship (and over-the-brinksmanship, for that matter) is warning the GOP that the debt ceiling fight is not going to be the big chance at a political comeback Republicans seem to think it will be.

CONTINUE TO POST>>

Romney Can't Buy Love

Politico has the story of Mitt Romney triumphant five-state sweep of primary elections last night:

Mitt Romney swept all five Republican primary elections Tuesday night, putting an end once and for all to any hopes for a comeback by his beleaguered GOP primary opponents.

The last state to be called was New York, where voting ended at 9 p.m.; Romney was previously projected the winner in Connecticut, Rhode Island, Delaware and Pennsylvania.

There was little suspense in tonight’s elections. Only in Delaware, where Newt Gingrich camped out in recent days and collected endorsements from top local officials, was Romney at any risk of losing. Even a Gingrich victory there would have been unlikely to complicate Romney’s glide to the Republican convention in Tampa.

Yes, nothing but smooth sailing from here on out. Just a non-stop express train to the Oval Office. There's only one hitch: Mitt's actual showing was more than a little weak.

CONTINUE TO POST>>

GOP Unable to Retreat from Disastrous War on Women

A new Economist/YouGov poll [pdf] shows Barack Obama defeating Mitt Romney in a head to head match-up. At 47% to 41%, it's a pretty convincing win. Undecideds can't make up the gap for Romney here. While not a slamdunk by any means, it still looks like a good bet.

But the big news out of this poll is that the suggestion that the numbers could've been a better bet for Romney, had his party not decided to launch a war against half of the American voting population. In the Republican War on Women -- an aggressive war of choice, by the way -- Republicans are the ones taking a beating.

Among women, President Barack Obama leads Republican frontrunner Mitt Romney by 55%-38% in the Economist/YouGov poll (Week of 3/17/2012). That 17-point deficit among women right now is too much for Romney to overcome, as Romney leads Obama among men by 45%-43%.

Right now, it is Newt Gingrich and even Rick Santorum (not so much Romney) who are the real lightning rods for women angry at Republicans in general.  For example, among women, Romney is viewed favorably by 36% and unfavorably by 46% of women.  By comparison among women, Santorum’s standing is 30% favorable rating and 50% unfavorable, and Newt Gingrich’s standing among women is 22% favorable-60% unfavorable.  (Obama is 50% favorable-42% unfavorable among women.)

The Republican Party is losing women at a pretty good clip. And the state parties aren't helping things much. Even as Republicans at the national level recognize that they simply must stop talking about women, those at the state level aren't getting the message. Ultrasound laws and attacks on Planned Parenthood are rampant. People who think this is all about contraception and Rush Limbaugh talking about sluts are missing the bigger picture.

CONTINUE TO POST>>

Illinois Primary Turnout May Have Been the Lowest in History

"Romney Is Victor by Wide Margin in Illinois Vote," announces the New York Times. According to the Times, it was a blowout. Mitt takes away "about three times as many delegates as Mr. Santorum, which aides hoped would increase his lead enough to tamp down talk of a contested convention and build an unassailable advantage in the race for the nomination." A big win, a landslide victory, a total rout.

Pretty impressive -- until you learn that it's not.

Associated Press:

Illinois voters, at least the ones who bothered to show up, did the math and wound up backing Mitt Romney, a candidate they see as less than thrilling but still the Republican Party's best chance of capturing the White House this fall.

Turnout seems likely to be among the lowest in decades — perhaps the lowest, period. The record low in state records dating back to 1960 is 23 percent, which happened two years ago. Officials in several election districts said Tuesday's turnout was hovering around 20 percent.

Romney easily bested Rick Santorum in the popular vote and captured at least 41 of the 54 delegates at stake, pushing him closer to his party's nomination.

CONTINUE TO POST>>

On Super Tuesday, Mitt Fails to Lock It Down

The janitors are sweeping up the confetti after the Super Tuesday celebrations last night (at Gingrich 2012 HQ, those janitors are fifth graders) and looking back, "Super" seems a little hyperbolic. By the numbers, Mitt Romney's the big winner, but the battle actually left him looking weak. In his least contested and most decisive win -- Massachusetts -- turnout was positively anemic. You could argue that this was because Mitt was a shoe-in, so people didn't bother voting. But that doesn't explainb Ohio, a hotly contested race with likewise light voter turnout. "Turnout has been low... modest, you can insert the term you want," says Secretary of State Jon Husted.

In that state, Romney outspent Santorum 3:1 and it was a nailbiter all the way to the wire. As a result, it looks more like an election bought than an election won. And momentum? It's just not there.

Politico:

Romney, as we’ve written before, is likely heading into another bounce-free news cycle. The former Massachusetts governor’s campaign and its backers had hoped to use a strong night to start making the case that it’s time to wind this down, and his election night speech, delivered from Boston, was supposed to convey the aura of a nominee-in-waiting.

But in the end, he underperformed. He does not head into Wednesday with the spin on his side, and his campaign has done little to finesse expectations throughout this race. The muddled results Tuesday — Romney’s cache of victories, Newt Gingrich’s win in Georgia and Santorum’s surprisingly strong clinch in Tennessee accompanied by wins in Oklahoma and North Dakota — are going to do little to bring an immediate end to the primary.

CONTINUE TO POST>>

Santorum Contracepts Logic

We start the day's festivities off with a chorus of boos. At last night's GOP debate in Arizona, moderator John King read a question, submitted online, to the candidates. "Since birth control is the latest hot topic, which candidate believes in birth control, and if not, why?" King asked, to a round of boos.

It seems like an obvious question. The GOP has been working overtime to make headlines with it, so why would the audience boo? Were they booing contraception? Or was it that someone would bring it up? John Aravosis has what's the best explanation I've read so far:

So then why did the GOP debate audience last night boo CNN for asking a question about birth control? The reaction suggested the crowd felt it was a "gotcha" topic. But how could it be? It's the GOP that made this a huge topic of debate the past few weeks. Or is the audience embarrassed by the issue, because they're losing badly on it in recent polls (even Catholics agree with President Obama over their own bishops)?

Well, if you're too embarrassed to be asked about social issues, then don't put them at the top of your agenda. I'd have liked to have seen John King fight back a little on that one.  He should have asked the candidates if they think it's fair to ask about birth control, then tripped them up with their own statements over the past two weeks about President Obama's contraceptive insurance plan.

I think he's right -- the whole thing has turned into a PR fiasco and Republican voters would rather forget it ever happened.

CONTINUE TO POST>>

Super PACs and the Power of Negative Thinking

It's a glimpse into most of our futures. There's a big old crapstorm rolling through America and the front has only passed on for a handful of states. Stick the kids in the basement, stock up on food, and board up your TV, radio, and mailbox. It's going to be bad.

Washington Post:

Negative ads were so prevalent in the final week before the Florida primary that they accounted for 92 percent of all campaign commercials that ran.

And the most heavily broadcast commercial this past weekend was not one featuring Mitt Romney or Newt Gingrich but Tom Brokaw, the former NBC News anchor whose image the Romney campaign co-opted for an ad that used a 25-second clip from an old newscast on Mr. Gingrich’s political troubles.

These figures, compiled by the Kantar Media Campaign Media Analysis Group, attest to the bitter turn the race took after the South Carolina primary when Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich and the “super PACs” working to elect them unleashed a barrage of attacks.

Before we go any further, I want to say I'm not against negative ads. In fact, I'm for them. Pro-candidate ads are generally useless information about how the candidate will "fight to protect" things that offend no focus group. We learn, for example, that candidate X is for a good education for our children, a strong economy, and getting Washington back to work -- as if there's any candidate out there who's against all that. In short, positive ads tell us nothing. They're useless information. In them, candidates boldly stake a claim to those things guaranteed to appeal to everyone.

CONTINUE TO POST>>

How Many Rounds Can the GOP Primary Fight Last?

The big day in Florida is tomorrow and polling is all over the place. While pretty much all of it shows Mitt Romney winning, the question is by how much -- and in that, polls are in wild disagreement. Of three of the most recent polls, two show the race tightening drastically, while one shows Mittens maintaining a big lead. Already, Gingrich is lowering expectations, talking about a strong showing, rather than a win.

There's a reason why polling results are all over the place in Florida -- it's a blood-soaked battlefield. "Estimates vary on exactly how much more Romney has spent in Florida, but the enormous gap is hard to miss," writes Steve Benen. "TPM's figures say pro-Romney spending outpaced pro-Gingrich spending, $15.3 million to $3.4 million. NBC News totals put it closer to $16.9 million to $4 million. As of Friday, the New York Times pointed to a $15 million to $2.5 million gap."

So Mitt has the financial advantage and that's pretty much the only thing that turned it back around for him. But deep pockets can only take you so far. "In a general election against a well-financed incumbent president," Benen says, "this financial edge will largely disappear."

CONTINUE TO POST>>

Big Labor for Newt

In Florida at least, the strategy of labor is clear -- nominate Newt Gingrich. Labor giant AFSCME has made what Greg Sargent calls a "major ad buy in the state," drawing parallels between a past Bain Medicare scandal and a crime committed by Florida Gov. Rick Scott's former company.

The ad doesn't specifically endorse Gingrich, but at this point it looks like a two man race -- if Mitt loses voters, the lion's share run to Newt.

And it's not like Romney needs much of a push to send him over the edge. "Before South Carolina, Mitt Romney was some 20 points ahead in Florida," notes Josh Marshall. "Two new polls have come out in the last twelve hours. Both have Gingrich up by 9 points." Newt's post Carolina bounce is stratospheric. And Rick Scott isn't very popular in his own state. In all, only 38% approve of the job he's doing as governor and even one in five Republicans disapprove. Even among Scott supporters, accusations of Medicare fraud aren't likely to be a plus for a candidate. You have to believe they support Scott despite it, not because of it. It's something they're willing to overlook.

CONTINUE TO POST>>

And the Presidential Campaign Goes Straight to Stupid...

I watched Newt Gingrich's movie on Mitt Romney last night. When Mitt Romney Came to Town may be a stinging indictment of Romney's slash-and-burn style of capitalism, but it's not a very good movie. It's more of an attack ad than a documentary, filled with clichéd negative ad tropes -- slow motion clips, ominous and growly square wave tones, etc. No Oscar buzz here.

Still, the message is pretty clear and pretty accurate; when Romney claims to be a "job creator," he's not being 100% honest. But this is Newt Gingrich, which means there has to be at least one completely insane note in the movie. When I saw that Steve Benen wrote about "oblique xenophobic slights" in the movie, I'd expected to see jobs moving to China or undocumented workers stealing American jobs.

What I saw instead was Mittens speaking French.

And apparently Team Newt thinks that speaking French is a horrible, horrible thing. Because I woke up this morning, turned on the news, and saw this:

CONTINUE TO POST>>

GOP Voters Find Romney as Exciting as a Saltine

The New Hampshire primaries are today and, if polling is to be believed, Mitt Romney may be looking at a landslide. This is probably fortunate for Team Romney, since it may wipe the taste of a humiliating Iowa squeaker from their mouths. Then again, Mitt's trajectory has been downward in the Granite State in recent days, so it's possible that he may not get his monstrous win. Still, barring a miracle, Romney will win.

While the media have been talking about Romney's "inevitability" as the GOP nominee, the other narrative has been the Republican voters' inability to get behind him. While polls show him winning in New Hampshire, I haven't seen one that has him cracking 50%. If this primary battle is what the media has portrayed it to be -- Romney vs. Not-Romney -- then Not-Romney still has the numbers, if not the candidate. As a result, Mitt Romney's rise seems to be accompanied by a consequence; waning GOP enthusiasm.

Part of the reason for the Iowa squeaker was that evaporating enthusiasm. Where turnout for the caucuses was expected to reach 140,000, 122,000 showed up. Romney won by eight votes, making it the tightest win in caucus history. And the number of registered Iowa Republicans has declined from 21.1 percent in 2008 to 19.9 percent now.

CONTINUE TO POST>>

Sweeping Up After Iowa

I'm tempted to say that the big winner in last night's Iowa caucuses was not-Romney. Newt Gingrich -- the old not-Romney -- got 16,251 votes. Rick Santorum -- the new not-Romney -- pulled in 30,007. Mitt Romney barely won, with 30,015 (we won't include Ron Paul as a not-Romney, because Paul voters were almost certainly voting for Paul, not against Romney). It's probably too simplistic to say that, had there been a single not-Romney, he would've won with by 16,000 or better, but I don't think Mittens would've won. I doubt anyone on Team Romney is feeling extremely triumphant today. The phrase of the day is probably "a win is a win." They're probably right. The Iowa caucuses aren't even representative of Iowa.

A few other observations from around the web:

Michael Li: Wow. Paid media $/vote so far: Santorum $1.65, Bachmann $8, Romney $113.07, Gingrich $139 Paul $227, Perry $817. [Numbers calculated last night with about 80% of the vote in]


Associated Press: Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney has won most of the delegates in the Iowa Republican caucuses, edging former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum. Romney won a projected 13 delegates and Santorum won 12. Texas Rep. Ron Paul was shut out.


Paul Begala: The Romney-inevitability stories will now be tempered by chin-stroking about the candidate's weakness. He is basically tied with a guy who supports banning contraception and another guy who attacks the 1964 Civil Rights Act. If Mitt Romney can't beat them, he ought to find another party to run in.

CONTINUE TO POST>>

The Church of the 'Free Market'

Jeb Bush has released a religious tract. It's disguised as an op-ed on economics in the Wall Street Journal, but it's a religious tract.

Congressman Paul Ryan recently coined a smart phrase to describe the core concept of economic freedom: "The right to rise."

Think about it. We talk about the right to free speech, the right to bear arms, the right to assembly. The right to rise doesn't seem like something we should have to protect.

But we do. We have to make it easier for people to do the things that allow them to rise. We have to let them compete. We need to let people fight for business. We need to let people take risks. We need to let people fail. We need to let people suffer the consequences of bad decisions. And we need to let people enjoy the fruits of good decisions, even good luck.

In what way is this a religious tract? Because the argument is backed up only by the strength of Bush's belief. It's a nearly fact-free piece -- the only number he brings up is the population of the United States. He proves nothing, his conclusions are apparently drawn from thin air, his arguments are tired.

CONTINUE TO POST>>

GOP Candidates Unified in Their Love for Failed Economic Policies

A National Review editorial is making some news today, mostly because it pleads with GOP voters to not to support Newt Gingrich. The magazine is still seen as representing the intellectual arm of the Republican Party -- despite the fact that it now features dim bulbs like Jonah Goldberg, Kathryn Jean Lopez, and Rich Lowry -- so there's some news value here. But the same now-undeserved reputation for braininess is why most conservatives won't pay any attention to it. After years of attacking "ivory tower intellectuals," they've managed to get the base to stop listening to them. Nice work, guys. Congrats on your success.

But it's not the anti-endorsement of Newt Gingrich that caught my eye. It was the concise description (in the form of praise) of just about everything that's wrong with the Republican candidates and the party in general.

A hard-fought presidential primary campaign is obscuring the uncharacteristic degree of unity within the Republican party. It has reached a conservative consensus on most of the pressing issues of the day. All of the leading candidates, and almost all of the lagging ones, support the right to life. All of them favor the repeal of Obamacare. Most of them support reforms to restrain the growth of entitlement spending. All of them favor reducing the corporate tax rate to levels that will make the U.S. a competitive location for investment. Almost all of them seem to understand the dangers of a precipitate withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan, and of a defense policy driven by the need to protect social spending rather than the national interest. Conservatives may disagree among themselves about which candidate most deserves support, but all of us should take heart in this development -- and none of us should exaggerate the programmatic differences within the field.

I especially like the part about "a defense policy driven by the need to protect social spending rather than the national interest," as if social needs aren't in the national interest -- at least, not like the buying super-important fighter jets we never use. Blowing people up on the other side of the world -- that's in the national interest. Making sure kids at home have enough to eat? That's waste.

CONTINUE TO POST>>

DNC to Tea Party; 'Please Vote for Newt!'

After the last GOP debate, the Democratic National Committee released this web ad calling Newt Gingrich "the original Tea Partier." In it, he says a lot of things that would concern liberals, but not much that would bother conservatives. In fact, many in the rightwing blogosphere took the ad as a pathetic attempt to smear Gingrich for being correct. "[T]he fact that anyone would want to limit government spending horrifies democrats," wrote the perpetually-wrong Jim Hoft.

That Gingrich is an awful person is not something lefties need to be convinced of. A Gingrich presidency would make George W. Bush's terms look like a smashing success story, as an imperious egomaniac formed policy based on perceived personal slights and formed positions that respond to petty grievances. He would be a disaster and every liberal and Democrat knows it. The ad is clearly not aimed at the Democratic base.

And it's not aimed at the general electorate, either. For the most part, people do have a poor opinion of the Tea Party. But I don't think it's poor enough to be a handicap at the ballot box.

No, the ad is -- in my opinion -- a thinly disguised pro-Gingrich ad aimed at the 'baggers.

CONTINUE TO POST>>

Fox Unable to Fathom How GOP Screwed Themselves

Thursday, a Fox News poll showed that the public believes -- by an extremely wide margin -- that Pres. Barack Obama would probably be reelected. The video above is the reaction from the hosts of Fox's morning lobotomy patient show, Fox & Friends. As you can see, they're not taking it well. You expect Gretchen Carlson to look at the camera and ask, "We've been telling you Obama is pure evil! Haven't you people been listening to us?!?"

To be fair, the results aren't anything approaching reality, numbers-wise. The same poll shows the president winning, but that "Obama edges Romney by only 1 point and Gingrich by 5 points." So not by a comfortable margin by any means. In fact, you could call it a statistical dead heat in the Obama/Romney matchup. Still, in a non-numerical sense, the perception of that 44% who say that Obama will win is accurate within the poll, which does in fact show that Obama would win. Fox and Friends were freaking out that the largest percentage agreed with the findings of their poll.

What we see here again is what I've come to call the "clown show effect." While an endless series of GOP debates has amounted to free advertising for Republican candidates, that advertising hasn't been extremely positive. And, of course, Herman Cain's flameout didn't help any.

CONTINUE TO POST>>

GOP Enthusiasm and The Clown Show Effect

When I look at polling, I tend to use myself as a model. I look at the question and think about how I'd answer it. Maybe that's not the best way to go about it. I suppose I'm not always the average voter.

For example, take voter enthusiasm polls. For myself, enthusiasm is pretty much irrelevant. I go out and vote regardless of how stoked I am about it in any particular cycle. Using myself as a model, voter enthusiasm would be a meaningless stat. But other people apparently react differently to their own enthusiasm. The polls really do seem to reflect the final turnout.

Which is why a new Gallup poll must have Republicans feeling a little uneasy. When respondents were asked, "Thinking ahead to the election for president next year, compared to previous elections, are you more enthusiastic than usual, or less enthusiastic?" 49% of "Republicans and independents who lean Republican" reported being more enthusiastic. This compares well with the 44% of Democrats and dem leaners who say the same.

And it's at this point that the good news ends for the GOP. Their enthusiasm has dropped nearly 10% from September, when it was at 58%. Call it the "clown show effect."

CONTINUE TO POST>>

GOP Insiders Panic Over Gingrich

Please excuse the above ante-meridian idiocy. I normally don't have a lot of use for talking heads and the worst are morning talking heads. Apparently, when you first get up, you're five years old. While MSNBC's Morning Joe never quite plums the depths that Fox and Friends reaches, it's clearly not for a lack of trying. Joe Scarborough and his merry band don't seem to have it in them to pretend to be quite so stupid as Fox's AM freak show, but that doesn't stop them from giving it the old college try.

The clip is brought to our attention by Taylor Marsh, who has this to say about it:

The Republican establishment has seen what their base is about to do and they’re in a panic and rightly so. The tipping point coming when Donald Trump reentered the fray with his Apprentice Debate, the optics and audio of which boiled down the Republican farce we’ve been watching all year.

This segment is delicious... really, watch it. At one point at then end of the opening segment of “Morning Joe,” Scarborough even served up that Republicans are talking about how to “broker a convention.” The Hill has a further report along the same lines, though it’s not just the “kingmakers” in a meltdown over the very real possibility of Newt Gingrich winning the nomination. It’s everybody in the entire conservative echelon.

If you can't bring yourself to watch the video, I can hardly blame you. Suffice it to say that Scarborough -- who served with Newt and knows him personally -- sees the possibility of a Gingrich nomination as a looming disaster. It's a meteor on a collision course with the GOP and would cause the party to lose bigger than Goldwater did in '64.

CONTINUE TO POST>>

Obama Swamping GOP Fundraising

It's a point I make often -- in fact, regular readers may think I try to pound it into the ground -- that people generally don't vote for things, but against things. I suppose the same goes for fundraising. It's a lot easier to get people to open their wallets to stop something than to start something. This is why negative campaigning works; it's all about being against something. Candidate X voted for a bill I don't like and candidate X must be stopped.

There isn't anything wrong with this in and of itself. Progress is impossible without preventing backsliding. And, although it might appear to the contrary, it seems to make progress possible. Progress is always opposed and whether something moves forward or not seems to depend on the weakness of the opposition (in most cases), rather than the strength of the support.

Anyway, this whole theory of mine goes a long way toward explaining this:

Talking Points Memo:

The latest fundraising numbers from President Obama's reelection effort are jaw-dropping and represent the kind of haul Republicans have been warning their supporters about for months.

In a video sent to reporters and supporters Wednesday morning, Obama campaign manager Jim Messina announced $86 million in total fundraising between April and June of this year. Messina said $47 million went to the Obama campaign itself, while $38 million went to the DNC.

CONTINUE TO POST>>

Polling Suggests Tea Party is Loud, But Not Numerous

The 2012 presidential campaign begins today, about as officially as it ever will. A presidential debate in New Hampshire tonight features Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, Michele Bachmann, Herman Cain, Ron Paul, and Tim Pawlenty. This is by no means the full field. Missing will be John Huntsman -- absent by choice -- and former New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson, a Ron Paul clone that event organizers decided "was not viable as a candidate." At this point, neither are Gingrich or Paul, but I guess name recognition earns you some slack.

Going into this, Romney is definitely the candidate to beat. A new CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll puts Romney at the head of the pack by a fairly respectable margin, beating his closest competitor -- the as yet unannounced Sarah Palin -- 24% to 20%. After that, it's Giuliani with 12% and it just gets sad after that.

Gallup likewise has a poll out and the news for the non-Romneys there is worse. While Mitt's percentage is identical to CNN's findings -- 24% -- everyone else is worse off. Palin only scores 16%.

CONTINUE TO POST>>