Re: AstoTurf

Well said, Easy, an epic blog. The fact that the Democrats publicly support such anti democratic mob intimidation as they do is a stunning development in the political culture. As you note, they've always used such tactics, but always sub rosa, publicly affirming the opposite.

I am still trying to understand what has changed in the culture that makes the Democrats think they will not experience electoral backlash. They just don't seem to fear voters anymore.

But that is a quetion for another day. Much more important at the moment is, are you a Trumpster now, Easy? That would truly be a stunning political development.

AstroTurf

The political silly season continues, in its default mode of high dudgeon. The target is, of course, that human lightning rod, Donald Trump. Apparently, he is fomenting violence against peaceful protesters, dutifully pursuing their All American 1st Amendment rights to free speech. The Donald just will not abide such behavior at his rallies, and has even gone so far as to promise to pay legal fees for any supporter who will take these Norman Rockwell types out.

At the risk of committing a micro-aggression, I say balderdash. It's true that Trump's rhetoric exceeds the bounds of normal political speech, but that's because Trump is not engaging in political speech. He riffs in the common tongue, utilizing the kind of language you chair warriors use every day watching TV news. ''Look at those jerks ... Somebody ought to punch him in the nose ... Get 'em out a here!''  And Trump gets away with it; and the fact that he does is a large part of his attraction.

On this scale, the Trump scale, he is entirely within the bounds of acceptable speech. Because what his supporters hear is a guy mouthing off, blowing off steam, and they like it. But they do not take it literally as a license to assault a protester.

And the proof of this is clear for all to see. Trump has been assembling crowds upwards of 25-30,000 for months and months, and in all that time we have exactly one Trumpster who has actually attacked anyone. One. Per capita, that is a record of non violence that easily exceeds any confab of Democrats, Black Lives Matter, or even the Vatican Council of the Catholic Church.

What's really going on at these Trump rallies is that the Democrats are out of the closet and all in on the tactics of thuggery as a tool to crush political opponents. Democrats have a long history of these tactics, dating back to the KKK and voter suppression of Blacks for 100 years or more, but also more recently (and currently) with the deployment of Union thugs to tidy up voting habits in certain strategic regions of the country. But it was the advent of the radical student left in the McGovern campaign of 1972 that brought a whole new swath of shock troops into the Democrat orbit, together with a new public 'cover' for baldfaced intimidation: civil rights disobedience and protest.

The cover is, of course, a farce, which would be easily identified as such in any other cultural moment that pretends to honesty. However, these days the national media follows the Democrat party line no matter the circumstances.

These groups are not grassroots, but pure AstroTurf. Black Lives Matter is a transparent racist movement, with liberal elements of anarchy, cop hatred, and old fashioned theft and looting sprinkled throughout, and there is nothing about its 'demonstrations' that can be tied to a real  concern with civil rights for anyone. It wields the power of the mob, but a mob not spontaneously combusted, but one put together with the help of paid apparatchiks who have all the authentic passion for a cause of a used car salesman.

It's time for Republicans to come out of the closet as well and to call these 'demonstrations' for what they are. For some reason (intimidation? rank cowardice? plain stupidity?), the Repubs have gone along with the 'civil rights' meme of the Democrats. The time is now to speak plainly and honestly about what these groups really are all about: thuggery and intimidation and anarchy and vandalism and power, specifically Democrat power. They are anti-1st Amendment, anti-American culture, and anti-America.

The Republic stands at the brink. If not now, when? If not Republicans, who?

To Save the Republic

We've seen bombs and fire-fights in Boston, mass slaughter of children in schools, and (another) month of murderous mayhem in Chicago. So it's nice to know our stalwart police force is upping their game to secure our safety. From Fox News, we learn that last week the police put an 8th grader in jail - IN JAIL - on criminal charges - CRIMINAL CHARGES - for wearing a politically incorrect, but nevertheless legal, T-shirt to school.

Now, we know that if he had worn a T-shirt with a picture of a racist sadistic psycho like Che Guevara, or of bomb-throwing environmentalists, or even of cop-killers (sans, of course, images of the guns and bombs these people routinely employ), he would have been okay with the school district. But instead he chose a rather routine political message from the largest gun safety training organization in the United States in the world.

Ah, the naivete of youth. 

Should Gays be Allowed to Marry?

Sigh. The answer is yes. But that is like asking should people be allowed to join book clubs or should people be allowed to go fishing or should people be allowed to spend time at the seashore or should people be allowed to watch soap operas or should.....Again I say, sigh.

This is public debate these days, in which fundamental facts are breezed right over in favor of partisan induced strawmen fighting demagogic stereotypes, all on the front pages of the 'news,' echoing the zip zap opinions of the blogosphere. The question of whether Gays should be allowed to marry is a non-question, a rhetorical tic giving the appearance of a controversy where none exists. A lot of sound and fury, signifying.....nothing.

You want the fundamental facts? Gays have the absolute right to marry right now, today, in every state of the Union. There are no laws preventing them from standing up in a Church, reciting vows, celebrating with their friends, and shacking up in the house of their choice. Compare, for instance, the Gay situation with polygamy. There are laws against polygamy, and sometimes those laws are even enforced. Not so with Gays.

So, marry already. What, some churches won't let you marry under their auspices? Well, some churches won't let me marry under their auspices either (can you say Catholic Church?). No worries; find another church, or start your own, both of which are entirely legal also in these United States.

We've dealt with this issue before, here and here, and I hate to repeat myself. But in these times, in these dark days of public debate, these things need repeating.

So I repeat, sigh.

The Election

Sonofagun, to put it in its mildest form. It appears Romney was right about the 47%. In the clearest electoral choice in almost two generations, the citizens chose an entitlement society - even in the face of the economic malaise and fiscal disaster it (always) produces. I thought 47% was way too high a percentage; needless to say, I was wrong.

But right as he was about that, Romney and his team were wrong on just about everything else: messaging, campaign themes, and tactics. The constant harping on the economy to the exclusion of national defense and cultural issues proved devastating for the one thing Romney had under his control: getting out his base. Coupled with a pitiful GOTV effort, Romney failed to get as many votes as John McCain (!!) If he had, he would have won, because Obama lost nearly 10 million votes since 2008. (Update: It appears Romney did slightly exceed McCain's totals, and Obama lost only 7 million votes. But the analysis is still the same - in this red-hot election year, Romney should have exceeded McCain's totals by a good margin. If he had done so, the President's failure to turn out his own voters would have given Romney the win).

But Romney didn't win, and neither did we. And neither, I fear, did America.

But keep in mind that things looked dire for the Republic before, after the electoral victories of Franklin Roosevelt, Lyndon Johnson, and Jimmy Carter. And our principles endured. So keep the faith, especially now when faith in things unseen is all we seem to have.

Re: Goosing the Polls

Conspiracy, Ezra? No, not as such. There is certainly a cultural bias going on, deeply rooted enough that many pollsters aren't even aware of their prejudice.

But even that is too strong. The science of polling is just like any other science - there is an art to the practice which, if done correctly, will sift the data into wise conclusions, and if done incorrectly, will produce drivel. In general, the art involves the selection of appropriate methodological assumptions.

Most on our side have noticed, for instance, how the pollsters weight their data in accordance with their assumption about the electoral mix on November 6. If you poll 1,000 citizens, you might find that your sample contains 70% Republicans and 30% Democrats. Clearly, this raw data will not reflect the actual electorate on voting day, so if this sample is to yield any meaningful results, it must be re-weighted to approximate reasonable expectations. 

The key is the term "reasonable." Good scientists can differ, and each can make a good case for his position.  Many pollsters have assumed the race in 2012 will reflect the electoral weighting seen in 2008, others have chosen 2004 as the model, and some (mainly the outliers) have assumed an electorate that appeared in the 2010 bi-elections. I myself prefer something closer to the 2010 elections, but recognize that such a choice would be a bit dicey for any reputable pollster. It was not a Presidential election and historically the correlation is not that close between bi-elections and those involving the President.

And there are myriad different electorate assumptions in any sub-group polled, e.g. women v. men voters, black v. white, hispanic turnout, and etc. Good pollsters will have models that deal with all these demographic groups and more, and each model will tend to push the results in one direction or the other.

But given all of this, there is still a problem: given the number of polls (and this election has seen an extraordinary amount of polling information) you would think that the average would cancel everything out and give us a fairly representative forecast. But they don't; the averages, as you note, uniformly and consistently show a tight race, at best a toss-up for Romney. Why should this be if he will win as decisively as I predict?

The answer is David Axlerod. All politicians and campaigns spin the news media to support their candidate. But Axlerod has introduced something new into Presidential politics: he has been assiduously spinning the pollsters to insure their results will mesh with a story of an overwhelming tide of support for Obama that will swamp Romney. He has been so effective at this that even those pollsters he has not contacted have tended to follow the herd and adopt assumptions favorable to Obama. In one reported case, it seems he even invoked the heavy hand of the Justice Department to get Gallup to change its methodology - which it did, suddenly tilting its polls towards Obama after previous polls had shown Romney surging ahead.

Why this man has such credibility, I don't know, but he does. Fortunately, not even his Justice Department can intrude into the privacy of the voting booth, so November 6 should finally give us an accurate poll, and a Romney/Ryan win.

Re: Goosing the Polls

Okay, Chase, you're officially out on a limb. But what is the reason that all the polls have the race so tight? Is it possible that all the pollsters are in the tank for Obama? Is the conspiracy really that big?

Goosing the Polls

First, a touch of humility. No one can predict what will happen in a Presidential election year with any precision, because it is by definition that which defines an electorate. Only through this four year process can we know where an electorate is, demographically, politically, and emotionally at a given point in time. The best we can do is to look through a glass, darkly, and correlate the dynamis of the electorates from past election cycles with the various tea leaves and witch doctor bones of the modern era, polls and bi-elections. And place a guess.

But it's still fun to do, so enough with the humility and herewith some hubris.

Watching the Democrats watching polls is like watching domestic geese try to fly. They fluff and pump their wings, trying vainly to capture enough air to lift their heavy torsos up, up, into the sky. Faster and faster they flap, effort doubles exertion as they push all into a hop-hop run, but nothing happens; they continue earthbound, failing to clear even a two foot fence.

The air the pollsters seek to capture are positive poll numbers for the President, and any puff of good news makes them honk and hiss into print with analyses of Presidential inevitability. At the beginning of this year, they seized on national polls showing Obama leading. Then as the air went out of those polls, they focused on polls of the Battleground States. Then as those polls tightened, they turned their critical talents in praise of early voting and the President's so-called ground game.Ground game is right; the Democrat professionals are game, but still firmly stuck in the mud and dirt of the earth.

The principal problem they face is that the President has never, ever been above 50% in any of the polls. I don't mean to get too technical here, but my understanding of our system is that you need 50.1% to win. And it is clear after a year of polling that 50.1% and more of the electorate are not going to be voting for this President. When election day comes, there is only one other candidate to vote for, and that is where these voters will turn.

The penultimate problem the Dem's face was ably pointed out by my compatriot: President Obama's approval ratings among independent voters have been tanking all year. My math indicates that Republicans + Independents = electoral victory.

The third problem is historical and traditional patterns going back over 30 years: Republicans always win the vote on election day. When Democrats win, it is because of early voting advantages gained before election day, such as occurred in 2008.  Mitt Romney has put a severe crimp in the argument that Obama will amass an overwhelming lead in early voting due to his much vaunted ground game. As befits a man trained to be a thorough, detail oriented executive, the Romney campaign has organized an early voter turnout of his forces unprecedented in Republican annals. As a result, the Democrats are only maintaining a modest lead in early voting, leaving election day, a Republican strength, to decide the matter. 

Finally, it is a well known fact that polls always underestimate Republican strength. Take all of the polls of the last year and add 2 to 4 points to Romney's totals, and you will see that this election has been baked against the President for some time now.

The Democrat ganders can flail away all they like, but there is simply no wind beneath their wings. It will be Romney/Ryan with at least 55% of the vote, and a massive, embarrassing loss for the Democrats come November 6th.

A Tax Proposal

Romney/Ryan are proposing a revamp of the tax code, which certainly resonates with the public as it always has. But their plan largely follows the Reagan template of lowering tax rates with a corresponding elimination of various tax credits and deduction.

No one reveres Ronald Reagan and the revolution he wrought in the 80's more than me. However, this particular line necessarily leaves Romney open to the standard Democrat demagoguery of being simply 'tax cuts for the rich.' I would propose a different approach, one that is transparently progressive, as is required by our particular political era, but also bonafide attractive to every American of every tax bracket.

From a supply side perspective, the tax code as presently constituted is problematic because of the marginal cost of going from one tax bracket to another. To put some imaginary numbers out, if you know that it will cost you $1,000 to go from $2,000 of income to $3,000, then you will not be very motivated to put out the effort required to get that increase.

So all conservatives since Reagan have focused on reducing the number of tax brackets, to decrease the disincentives across the income scales. I suggest, however, the solution is to go in reverse: increase the number of tax brackets and make the tax rates only incrementally larger over each bracket. That way, the movement up the income scales becomes less onerous.

For instance, here is the result of a tax system that increases the tax rate over each $1,000 of additional income after an individual exemption of $25,000.00:

Income:	26,000	27,000	28,000	29,000	30,000	31,000	32,000	33,000	34,000
Taxes:	250	500	750	1,000	1,250	1,500	1,750	2,000	2,250
Rate:	0.96%	1.85%	2.68%	3.45%	4.17%	4.84%	5.47%	6.06%	6.62%

See how that works? This progressive rise in the tax rates would continue until $2,000,000 of income, when the $25,000 exemption would phase out. As per the policy behind the Alternative Minimum Tax, anybody with income above $2,000,000 would be taxed at a 25% rate with no deductions or exemptions.

Politically, I like the clear progressivity of it all, the simplicity, and the tax relief it affords the average - and below average - person.  And by the way, it will produce the same tax revenues we currently receive, and that's using the standard Washington static analysis of the effects of tax rates. You, me, and everybody with any common sense know that tax revenues will increase under a properly constructed system.

But what, you ask, about my children; don't I deserve a tax credit for each of them? Presto! you've got a $25,000 exemption for your first dollars of income.  

Okay, but how about two earner families?  Well, under the old system, for numerous reasons, it seemed like every political season there was a debate about some sort of marriage penalty/benefit problems. Under this system, if your spouse makes less than $25,000 - Poof! she/he pays nothing under this system. It's free cash for you and your family.

So wudda ya think? Should we get Romney to install an Income Tax Czar on January 20th and get this thing going?

Just the Stats, Ma'am

Our economy is in collapse and the world burns, and yet the Chief Buck-Stopper magically remains at near 50% in the polls. Why? Republicans ask; How? Conservatives moan; What? bewails the Tea Parties.

I will leave the green eye-shade analysis of the polls to Chase, but herewith an attempt to resolve this seeming political paradox.

First, here are three recent comments about both the reliability of polling and the state of the race: 1, 2, and 3.

Second, the whole matter is actually much simpler than even these wise men make it. My entire life, the common political wisdom has been that the Republicans and Democrats will each get their base vote of 36-42%, leaving the remaining 30-40% of Independents up for grabs.  This means there are two keys to winning: (1) each candidate must maximize the turn out of the base, and (2) each candidate must win a majority of the Independents.

Unlike much common wisdom, this one is almost tautologically true, and has proven out in every election I have witnessed. So where does Mr. Romney stand on the two keys to winning?

We can dispense quickly with the first. There is simply no doubt that Romney's base (that's us, people) will turn out in historic proportions (x-ref: 2010 mid-terms).

As for the Independents, what can I say? The polls have consistently shown for more than six months that the Independent vote has turned against the President, often by percentages as high as 15% or more.

Don't believe me? Here are some links for you, here and here and here and here and here.

In short, these numbers indicate that Romney-Ryan will not only win, but win by a landslide. It will not even be close. And that's as of today. The wishy-washy votes almost always break for the challenger come election time, so today's landslide might very well transmogrify into a Tsunami come November 6th.

"But the Battleground States. What about the Battleground States? Obama leads in almost all of those!" I've said my piece, and refuse to engage in wonkishness just for the sake of wonkiness.

I'll give you a hint as to the answer, though: here's a recent poll from Ohio indicating Obama has a slight lead. However, Christopher Bedford points out in my DC Morning email today that this poll oversamples Democrats by 10 percentage points. He then goes on to say, "Meanwhile, in November 2010, the GOP won every single Ohio statewide contest. Hmm."

Hmm, is right.