Obama "gifts" - what Romney nonsense

Image courtesy of wookmark.com

Turns out Mitt Romney's 47% comments he made a few months ago are really what he thinks. On Thursday Romney decided that the reason Barack Obama won the election was because he gave "gifts" to certain parts of the electorate and compelled them to vote for him. 

As per the New York Times:
With regards to the young people, for instance, a forgiveness of college loan interest was a big gift,” Mr. Romney said. “Free contraceptives were very big with young, college-aged women. And then, finally, Obamacare also made a difference for them, because as you know, anybody now 26 years of age and younger was now going to be part of their parents’ plan, and that was a big gift to young people. They turned out in large numbers, a larger share in this election even than in 2008.

And as per ABC:
"[Obama] gave [Hispanics] a big gift on immigration with the DREAM Act amnesty program, which was obviously very, very popular with Hispanic voters, and then number two was Obamacare," Romney said. 

 Romney said that "Obamacare was massive" for "any lower-income Hispanic family … For the Hispanic household, my guess is [median income] is lower than that, maybe it's forty thousand a year. For a home earning let's say thirty thousand a year, free health care, which is worth about ten thousand dollars a year, I mean is massive, it's huge.

Let's take a run through:

College loans: In March 2010 Obama signed legislation which halved the interest rates payable on student loans. In mid-term elections in the November following that legislation, Democrats were shellshacked - absolutely hammered. In fact Republicans won their greatest ever portion of the House of Representatives, and reduced Democrats' majority in the Senate. Elections at the state-level all swung towards Republicans, and what happened to the youth vote after this magical gift they receives from the Muslo-communist president? They just didn't even bother coming out to vote: young voters (ages 18-25) made up 18% of the electorate in 2008 and only 9% in 2010. If you want to compare midterms to midterms, the youth vote turnout was 13% down in 2010 when compared to 2006. So this "gift" didn't get the socialism-seeking youth to the polls in 2010. It is unlikely this would have changed in two years.

Obamacare: Same story. This "gift" of Obamacare? Well it was largely the reason Democrats were so pummeled in 2010. Remember how this was going to be hung around the president's neck? It is also worth differentiating between policy and bribery. The USA has a massive problem in that a fat percentage of its population has no health insurance, which means in a best case scenario injuries or sickness plunge them into debt, and in a worst-case scenario they are prevented from seeing a doctor. Voting to maintain such a policy is not at all the same thing as getting a freebie. Many people who can affordd healthcare voted Democrat. Romney admits poor families would have to spend a third of their income on healthcare - but fails to explain that Obamacare isn't just a freebie - one would need to fulfill many criteria to receive government-backed healthcare. Also, if this was such a massive vote-getting gift, then why did Romney, who blueprinted Obamacare with a state-wide plan for Massachusetts when he was governor, leave office after only one term with upside-down favourability numbers? (39% approve, 59% disapprove, according to SurveyUSA). Was it because the idea of the vote-bribing gift of "free healthcare" is hokum? Yes.

Free contraceptives: This is a made up idea. Obama's push is for contraceptives and other birth control measures to be covered under healthcare plans. Healthcare plans you PAY for.

Dream Act Amnesty Programme: Romney actually has a point with this one. Obama pinched momentum which was being led by Republican Senator Marco Rubio (FL) who was pushing for a DREAM Act (Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors Act) to pass through the Senate. Basically, this said the children of illegal immigrants who were brought to the USA through no fault of their own have a path to US citizenship. It was likely Rubio's attempt at passing an updated piece of legislation (which was originally authored by Senators Dick Durbin (D-IL) and Orrin Hatch (R-UT)) would have failed, but nonetheless Obama authorised a policy directive (note: this was NOT an exrcutive order) which gave some minors a path to citizenship. Now, would it have been a gift if Rubio had done it? Or only if Obama did? I don't think Romney was really clear on that point.

Not only are Romney's grape sour, they are incorrect. 

No one is talking about Virginia or Florida

For the last few weeks the media has banged on about Ohio non-stop, as both campaigns have pretty much based themselves there. 

But let me be quite clear: if Mitt Romney loses Florida he has lost the election. Obama can virtually bank on 247 electoral college votes. Florida's 28 votes will put him above the electoral victory margin of 270. And it Florida will be one of the first states to close its polls and begin to announce results. If Obama wins it, you can switch off and go to bed. 

Virginia's 13 electoral college votes have also bene overlooked. Polling in the state, much like in Ohio, has been tight but with Obama up in most polls. Should Virginia vote for Romney, according to my predictions, Romney will be within 22 electoral college votes of 270 - meaning he would only need to flip a minimum of two states to win: Ohio and New Hampshire could do it. 

So yes, the focus on Ohio is warranted. But overlooking the states which will publish preliminary results early, Florida and Virginia, is total folly. 

Incidentally, this is what I think will happen:

News roundup 7 March

Spain may close its embassy in Syria and fly its ambassador home, according to foreign minister Jose Manuel Garcia-Margallo on Tuesday. Whether the Spanish government can afford the flights from Damascus to Madrid should be established by the finance ministry within the coming days, once it obtains permission from German Chancellor Angela Merkel.

Two journalists at the British newspaper The Sun have apparently attempted suicide as the pressure of a wholly legal investigation into dodgy dealings at the paper increases. Luckily the investigation isn’t taking place dictated by The Sun’s ethical standards, or we’d already know what was in their garbage, how they looked with out a shirt on while on the beach, would see their name in capital letters on the page next to a naked woman with huge tits, would be declared guilty while an investigation was going on, would have “friends” declaring that they always were a bit dodgy, and would have an encampment of photographers outside their houses.  Sometimes the shoe doesn’t fit on the other foot.

Scientists have a new explanation for how the Titanic may have sunk back nearly 100 years ago. Although we all know that the unsinkable vessel hit an iceberg and then sank, braniacs believe the moon was responsible for an increase in iceberg obstacles on that particular sea highway. Coincidentally, our sources inform us that the man in the moon will also be responsible for coughing up the R300-billion for Transnet infrastructure upgrades announced by President Jacob Zuma in February.

Three of the four American Republican presidential candidates competed to be the most forceful aggressor on Iran, and its suspected nuclear weapons facilities. To be clear, there is as much proof of an Iranian nuclear weapons programme as there was evidence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. That’s zero. Zilch. Nil. Our sources within the Republican Party claim that Mitt Romney wants to attack Iran because its trees are a similar height to Israel’s and he wants to protect Prime Minister Beebee Netanyahu’s timber industry. Rick Santorum advises a pre-emptive strike before Iranians possibly become illegal immigrants, and Newt Gingrich would attack Iran until it began limping, then Syria until its economy got sick, and then something young and hot like South Sudan or East Timor.

The USA will take action against India at the World Trade Organization over a ban of poultry and egg imports which India claims are necessary to prevent avian flu. US trade representative Ron Kirk said, “The United States is the world's leader in agricultural safety and we are confident that the WTO will confirm that India's ban is unjustified.” Our sources tell us that the Indian government is already in touch with Oprah Winfrey. 

Stop worrying about Ohio

Mitt Romney, having been dragged through the washers over Michigan, is now being told he needs to win Ohio or else the world will end. Santorum is supposed to be the big dangerman because he is from neighbouring Pennsylvania and is all about the blue collar works in the “rust belt”.

Ohio seems important because it is a swing state in the general election. It is vitally important in the general because, as I have mentioned before, only about 12 states are contested in a general election. Some states tend to always vote one way or another. Republicans will not win Massachusetts or California. Democrats will not win Mississippi or Oklahoma. That’s just how it goes. Ohio is one of the states that changes its mind every so often, so you’ll see a huge effort in this state by both parties leading into November.

However, claiming Romney needs to win it in the primary to secure it in the general election is untrue. Although Ohio is an open primary (anyone can vote in it, as opposed to having to register with the party in some other states) it will be a small amount of Republicans who vote on the day. The amount of voters in a primary is always smaller than the number of voters in an election. Now, believe you me, the voters who vote Republican on primary day will almost certainly be voting Republican on election day, in spite of who wins the nomination. In other words, if Rick Santorum wins Ohio, but Mitt Romney wins the Republican nomination, the probability of Ohio falling Democrat or Republican remains pretty much the same.

Let’s look at an example: In the 2008 Democrat primaries, Barack Obama lost the nomination race in five major swing states and still went on to win them in the general election. Michigan, Florida, New Mexico, Pennsylvania and ---> *OHIO*<--- all preferred Hillary Clinton over Obama. But all five states were carried by Democrats.

Also, it’s not as though Romney hasn’t beaten the rest in a major swing state before during this nomination process. He won Florida – remember the state that was so important in handing George Bush 43 the election in 2000? Florida will have 29 electoral votes in the 2012 election, ten more than Ohio. It is a VITAL state to win in a general, and by current media analysis it should factor into the same “need to win” as Ohio. Florida has voted for the winner of the general election in every vote since 1964, with the exception of 1992. Ohio has voted along with the winning party in every election since 1964. So outside one election result, Florida is as determinative as Ohio.

An aside from my point of view, Romney’s biggest danger on Super Tuesday is not Rick Santorum. It is Newt Gringrich who is polling very competitively in southern states: Georgia (Gingrich’s home state), Oklahoma and Tennessee all go a-voting on Tuesday 6 March, with those three boasting 177 delegates between them. Getting drilled in all of the southern states, which is quite plausible, would hurt Romney far more than dropping Ohio. 

Explained: The confusion over Tuesday's delegates

Image lovingly borrowed from AP, via Salon.

Although Rick Santorum won three out of three ballots last night in Colorado, Minnesota and Missouri, you'll see this morning that the delegate counts remain the same, in spite of Colorado being worth 36 delegates, Minnesota being worth 40 and Missouri offering 52. 

Let's deal with Missouri first. The whole primary on Tuesday evening was unofficial, and means very little other than Santorum can brag that he won it. Missouri's official delegates will be awarded at a caucus beginning on 17 March. It's probably also worth pointing out that Santorum may have benefited from low turnout, as people will reluctantly go out and vote in an election which doesn't have a binding or definitive outcome. We'll actually only know the final delegate count for Missouri on 2 June. 

Colorado's caucus results are also non-binding, but are at least an official count. The actual delegates will be distributed at district conventions beginning from 13 March, and will be confirmed at a state convention on 14 March. 

In Minnesota, much the same applies. Delegates will be decided upon as district conventions and confirmed at a state convention on 5 May. 

So why do states do this? 

Well, if you remember Florida lost half of its delegates to award when it moved its primary forward to 31 January, breaking Republican National Convention rules which barred it from holding a primary before 6 March. It's not the only state to attempt this. What states really crave, however, is attention, and the ability to dictate the electoral race. On Super Tuesday on 6 March, when more than ten states go to pick their preferred Republican presidential candidate, it is unlikely that any singular result will have an impact on the race in the way that Iowa or New Hampshire do right at the beginning of the calendar. 

Because Colorado (which ran on Super Tuesday as recently as 2008) and Minnesota award their delegates at conventions later in the year, they did not face penalties for moving the beginning of their decision-making process to before 6 March. Yet they have managed to thrust Rick Santorum forward, hopefully projecting their state's choice into the national spotlight. Had Super Tuesday resulted in these three wins for Santorum, but eight for Mitt Romney, it would have lessened their impact considerably. 

If last night was anything to go by, these strategies are largely successful. And have thrown a spoke in the wheels of the Romney machine, which they most likely would not have done otherwise. 

So now you know. 

Huntsman's mistake to leave out Iowa

 Image from http://whitehouse2012.wordpress.com

I found an interesting little piece on Politico, a piece of it is below, about how ex-Utah governor Jon Huntsman may have played his strategies really badly coming up to the Republican presidential nomination vote in New Hampshire. New Hampshire is a state which should favour the middle-of-the-road Republicans which are pretty limited to ex-Massachusetts governor, and favourite for the nomination Mitt Romney (who boasts a storming poll lead) and Huntsman.

Huntsman centered his campaign around doing well in New Hampshire, and totally dismissed his own chances in Iowa, where social conservatives run the roost. Now, while no one could really have expected social conservatives to unite behind ex-Pennsylvania senator Rick Santorum, had Huntsman thrown his lot into Iowa, it would have pinched votes solely from Romney, weakening his entry into New Hampshire.

Artur Davis, a former Democrat congressman for Alamaba spells it out nicely here in Politico:

The decision to bypass Iowa looms largest: it’s likely that Huntsman’s active presence there would have pulled enough votes from Mitt Romney to leave him wounded in third place. Crippling Romney was always Huntsman’s pathway in New Hampshire, and Huntsman seemed not to recognize that Iowa was the place to do it.

Read the full writ here. 

Something to ponder when Huntsman shuts shop after he takes a pasting at the opening primary on Tuesday (10 January).

Crunching some primary numbers, Gingrich leading

I am currently coming to terms with the intricacies of the Republican primary, the process which will determine which candidate will take on President Barack Obama in the November 2012 elections.

Now, one of the first things worth noting is that the first four primaries/caucuses (I am just going to use primaries from now on to mean both) in Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Florida don't on their own mean an immense amount. Florida, the most important of those four contains 50 delegate votes. California, for example, contains 172 delegate votes. What these primaries do mean, however, is momentum. The press is likely to go nuts with the results of the first four primaries, and so focus its attention on those who are leading. This is not a precise science: often early leaders in the race, such as Mike Huckabee in 2008, fall out to stronger candidates who perform in more important states. However, a strategy of concentrating solely on the big states can also be a banana skin, as ex-NYC mayor Rudy Giuliani discovered in 2008.

However, this year, former House speaker Newt Gingrich is leading in the Iowa, South Carolina and Florida polls, while Mitt Romney leads in New Hampshire. At the end of January, when these four polls are done, I predict a massive amount of attention on Gingrich because of the way things will look. Remember, perspective is important, but often thrown out the window.

The first three states which hold primaries (Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina), award their delegate votes proportionally. Florida, however, is a winner-takes-all deal. If current polling, which I nipped from Real Clear Politics remains the same as it does now (which it won't, as polling still includes Herman Cain who only dropped out on Saturday), Newt will be far ahead of former Massachusetts governor come the end of January.

In Iowa (28 delegate votes), Gingrich is polling at 26%, Romney at 16% and Texas congressman Ron Paul at 14%. Roughly, this would mean that Gingrich would snag seven votes, Romney four and Paul three.

In New Hampshire (12 delegate votes), Romney leads at 37%, Gingrich 21% and Paul 14%. This translates to five votes for Romney, two for Gingrich and one for Paul.

In South Carolina (25 delegate votes), Gingrich polls at 27%, Romney at 18% and ex-candidate Herman Cain at 18%. This translates to eight votes for Gingrich, five for Romney and four for Cain.

In Florida (50 delegate votes), Gingrich leads with 36% of the poll compared to 20% for Romney, his closest challenger. This means Gingrich will scoop 50 delegate votes (winner takes all, remember?).

In total, after the first four primaries, Gingrich will have 67 delegate votes, Romney 14, and Paul and Cain will have four each.

So don't be surprised to see the media follow Gingrich around post-Florida, and for the ex-House speaker to maximise the attention on him.

To put it in perspective though, one requires around 1,200-odd delegate votes to win.