Romney Bets the (White) House on Ryan

Nate Silver, the justly celebrated meta-pollster, thinks Romney picked Ryan because to stay the course he has been on was to lose. Ryan is a risky bet. When the details — the lack of which Romney had been hammered with– get known, how popular will the Ryan choice be? When it’s YOUR parent’s social security, YOUR school districts decrease in funding, YOUR communities loss of a safety net — will Mr. Ryan still bring in the needed votes?  As the Times lead editorial says: Voters will now be able to see with painful clarity just what the Republican Party has in store for them. 

A Risky Rationale Behind Romney’s Choice of Ryan

When a prudent candidate like Mitt Romney picks someone like Representative Paul D. Ryan of Wisconsin as his running mate, it suggests that he felt he held a losing position against President Obama.

Vice-presidential choices are inherently risky to a degree, but the risks are asymmetric, and weighted toward the downside: it’s far easier to name choices who undermined campaigns than those who helped them. The best way to mitigate that downside risk is to select someone who has been tested on a national stage before, ideally by having run for president themselves — or failing that, by having been elected multiple times from a large and diverse state.

Mr. Ryan is a national figure of some repute — before Saturday morning, hisnational name recognition was about 50 percent — but he has never been elected to anything larger than his Congressional district of about 700,000 people. Members of the House of Representatives have only occasionally been selected as running mates. The last one on a winning ticket was John Nance Garner, the speaker of the House, in 1932.

Silver is good, so read it all.

The New Yorker is awash with articles on this choice, here, here and here.  My  favorite is by Jane Mayer: Ayn Rand Joins the Ticket  Rand is a declared hero to Ryan; her atheism should be a big hit to Romney supporters….

And, to couple to this, are two articles about the recent polls — as Silver also reports.

Charles Blow:

 …a series of recent polls paints a worrisome picture for Mitt Romney in the run-up to his party’s national convention. Three polls — from CNN/ORC, Fox News and Reuters/Ipsos — were released this week. President Obama’s lead over Romney ranged from 7 points to 9 points.

The Fox News poll showed Obama with his highest level of support this year.

So what gives? Is this real? Is it a fluke?

It’s hard to say, but there are some theories.

Romney spends so much time hiding, dodging and trying to say nothing specific that when he does show up — and speak up — he bungles it.

The Washington Post has it’s own report:

A bumpy overseas trip and a month of pummeling by Democratic ads depicting Mitt Romney as an out-of-touch plutocrat and possible tax evader appear to have taken a toll.

Three polls released in the last few days show President Obama widening his lead over the former Massachusetts governor to as much as nine points.

In California…

Election day results and interesting face-offs in November:

In the closely watched race to run for retiring Lynne Woolsey’s seat in Congress this November, Jared Huffman, current California Assemblyman, won handily.

Jared Huffman [48,001; 37.3 %], with Republican Daniel Roberts [19,363; 15.3%] edging out  Democrat Norman Soloman [18,257; 14.2%] for second place. Huffman and Roberts will be the candidates in November.  Stacy Lawson [12,919; 10.1%], who had some very big donors behind her  beat Susan Adams [10,184; 8.4%] coming in 4th and 5th repectively

Marin County Votes and state wide totals.

Richard Halstead, Marin IJ, reports.

Don’t have the cost per vote for each of these candidates. To be analyzed…. –>> see below the fold.]

To replace Huffman in the State Assembly (Marin is now in District 10, no longer in 6 after redistricting) it looks like Michael Allen (D) with 24,076 votes (30.3%) will face off against Marc Levine (D), 19, 217 (24.2%). No Republican will appear on the ballot.  Peter Mancus for the Rs got 17,044 (21.4%) and Connie Wong, (D) got 8,933 (11.2%)

Around the state are other match-ups courtesy of the Washington Post:

As expected, Reps. Brad Sherman (D-Calif.) andHoward Berman (D-Calif.) are headed for a November matchup. Sherman led Berman 42 percent to 32 percent in Tuesday’s vote, with mostly Republicans splitting up the rest of the vote.

Rep. Janice Hahn (D-Calif.) appears to be the clear favorite in her incumbent-versus-incumbent matchup, leading Rep. Laura Richardson (D-Calif.) 60 percent to 40 percent on Tuesday.

Rep. Jerry McNerney (D-Calif.) was under 50 percent and faces 25-year-old Ricky Gill, who has been one of the GOP’s fundraising stars so far this cycle. McNerney led Gill 48 percent to 40 percent, with another Republican earning the other 12 percent.

Rep. Brian Bilbray (R-Calif.) took just 41 percent of the vote in his new district, while the top two Democrats in the race outpolled him. It’s not yet clear whether he’ll face former San Diego City Councilman Scott Peters or former state Assemblywoman Lori Saldana, who were locked in a close race for second place.

Rep. Pete Stark (D-Calif.) took just 42 percent of the vote in his contest with prosecutor Eric Swalwell(D) and an independent candidate, meaning Stark could face a tough one-on-one matchup with Swalwell in the fall.

Rep. Jim Costa (D-Calif.) and another Democrat combined for slightly more than half the vote, but Costa got just 41 percent of it, suggesting he’s got work to do. He faces attorney Brian Whelan (R), who took 26 percent, in the fall.

  Read more of this post

On Wisconsin…

The votes are in; the recallers are unhappy — and with reason.  Despite Walker’s call for civility and listening to each other now that he’s won, it’s pretty clear that won’t happen.  For starters, Walker now owes billionaires big time: the Koch brothers, Sheldon Adelson, the bitter union hater in his Las Vegas casinos… and more.

Why did the recall fail?  For starters, 900,000 signatures on the re-call petition are not the same as 1, 331, 000 votes at election time.  It’s pretty easy to sign a petition; it’s more difficult to get the body to vote, especially when, because of the  attack ads, it seems more like a flame-war than an exercise in democracy.

Being outspent 10 to 1 is not a promising sign.

Walker spent $30,505, 082 for 1,331,076 votes making it $22.92 per vote
Barrett spent $3,938,574 for 1,158,337 votes coming in at  $3.40 per vote

The sheer magnitude of money spent, and un-free speech delivered, surely had an impact:

More than $63.5 million has been spent by candidates and independent groups, the overwhelming majority underwritten by out-of-state sources.

The record spending total was made possible thanks to the Citizens UnitedU.S. Supreme Court decision — which had the effect of invalidating Wisconsin’s century-old ban on independent expenditures by corporations and unions — and a state law that allows unlimited contributions to the incumbent in recall elections.

The amount spent since November 2011 trounces the state’s previous record of $37.4 million, set during the 2010 gubernatorial campaign.

Being the second, and a not  very good, choice, as Barrett was,  to run against Walker, who had already defeated Barrett, was not a good idea, as many on the recall team knew at the time.

 To hear those who worked in the trenches of the recall tell it, the fact that Democrats had a contested primary between Barrett and former Dane County Executive Kathleen Falk bears considerable responsibility for Walker’s victory.

Not only did the primary take place less than a month before the general recall election but organized labor spent millions in support of Falk (and against Barrett), spending that many Democrats believe weakened the eventual nominee. [Duh…d’you think?]

More analysis

In November, 2010, Walker and Kleefisch took 1,128,941 votes; 52.29% while Barrett and Nelson took 1,004,303; 46.52%

At the June 5, 2012 recall Walker got 1,331,076 or 53% while Barrett got 1,158,337, 46%

While this shows that more people voted in the recall than in the intial election, by 356, 169 folks, an increase of 16.7%, the Walker backers did better than the Barrett backers in increasing their numbers  — 17.9% increase  vs 15.34%  Not good for those who wanted the re-match.

*

So what is to be done, for those of us discouraged by the seemingly impossible odds of getting our underfunded voices heard in the Niagra like roar of the super funded voices?

Elections are a better alternative to wars with maiming weapons, but they are none-the-less wars.   The Republicans, allied to big big money are like the heavy Roman legions, almost unstoppable if fought in the same manner.  Those who beat back the Legions did it with novel tactics, hit-and-run, spies, taking out the leadership, taking away food and water. We have to figure out the equivalent in electoral terms. We’ll never be able to win in capital intensive match-ups.

Our job is to change the way people see things, not in the weeks before an election but by changing the culture in which those elections take place.  Despite decades of proof otherwise, many many non-millionaires still align themselves with millionaire’s values.  With all sorts of counter-proof, too many believe that free markets exist, and that they will solve most problems.  Too many don’t examine the results of the policies, on their own lives, which they have voted for.

Elections are the end-game.  The serious work goes on all the time, making the arguments, busting the myths, asking for proof of outrageous claims.  Recognizing our own natural allies.  Using laughter and mockery to strip the robes of royalty and claims of allegiance-owed from the plutocrats and corporacrats until the water run clear and millions of dollars no longer buy millions of voters ears.

The Superrich Sugar Daddies Who Want to Bury You

I miss Frank Rich in the Sunday NY Times, but he continues good work at New York Magazine, here showing that the infamous Citizens United decision enabled the superrich to control elections much more than the corporation.

If you want to appreciate what Barack Obama is up against in 2012, forget about the front man who is his nominal opponent and look instead at the Republican billionaires buying the ammunition for the battles ahead. A representative example is Harold Simmons, an 80-year-old Texan who dumped some $15 million into the campaign before primary season had ended. Reminiscing about 2008, when he bankrolled an ad blitz to tar the Democrats with the former radical Bill Ayers, Simmons told The Wall Street Journal, “If we had run more ads, we could have killed Obama.” It is not a mistake he intends to make a second time. The $15 million Simmons had spent by late February dwarfs the $2.8 million he allotted to the Ayers takedown and the $3 million he contributed to the Swift Boat Veterans demolition of John Kerry four years before that.

Rich: New York Magazine