Romney's Southern Exposure- Did He Get Burned?

                        Robert A. Levine    3-13-12

Though the big loser in today’s primaries in Alabama and Mississippi was Newt Gingrich, Tuesday the 13^th wasn’t particularly lucky for Mitt Romney. Santorum was projected as the winner in both Alabama and Mississippi, though both races were fairly close between all three contestants.

The two Republican primaries in the Deep South today had provided Mitt Romney a possibility of winning with little downside in return. The expectations for Romney had been so low at one point, that a decent showing, or a victory in either state, was seen as a possible move forward on the road to the nomination.

 Given the large proportion of conservative evangelicals as primary voters, it was believed that Romney’s Mormonism would weigh heavily against him. In addition, his portrayal as the moderate from Massachusetts by his opponents was certainly not going to help him attract voters. However, Romney did have a few advantages in the two contests. The first was that his media machine outspent Rick Santorum by four to one and Newt Gingrich by three to one, constantly filling the airways with advertisements. The second was that Gingrich and Santorum were attacking each other and splitting the most conservative vote. It was supposedly do or die for Gingrich, as he had to salvage at least one, but hopefully two victories.

The way delegates were allocated, gave Romney the opportunity to pick up support even without a win. Mississippi had 40 delegates, of which 25 were to be distributed proportionally to the voting and 12 by victories in the 4 Congressional districts. Alabama had 50 delegates, with 26 at large distributed proportionately and 21 allotted by the 7 Congressional districts. Since every delegate is important on compiling the total needed for the nomination, Romney was not willing to write off the South.

 With the realization that he might have an opening in these bastions of conservatism, Romney visited Alabama and Mississippi last week, promoting his bona fides with hearty y’alls and professing his love of grits. Perhaps having friends who are NASCAR owners may have also gained him a few votes. However, the results showed that Romney was still unable to close the deal with conservative voters. But as expected, when all the votes came in, in spite of Santorum’s victories, Romney will have accumulated a considerable number of new delegates as will Gingrich. Will the failure to achieve victory in either state sound the death knell for Gingrich? Stay tuned. There certainly will be pressure from Republican conservatives to have him drop out. Romney, of course, would love to see Gingrich remain in the race as long as possible.

 Resurrecting Democracy
www.robertlevinebooks.com

Campaign Promises and the Budget Deficit- A Reality Check

                                    Robert A. Levine   3-13-12

Politicians running for office have promised constituents the moon from time immemorial, believing it’s necessary to get elected. If they’re victorious, they can decide later whether or not to follow through on the promises they’ve made.

At times, the pledges are so outlandish that neither the candidates nor the electorate have any expectations they will be fulfilled. In other instances, candidates deceive the voters into believing promises will be realized while having no intention of trying to get them accomplished. There are also promises to special interest groups to get their support, in spite of the fact they may be injurious to society in general.

The campaign promises currently being made by the Republican presidential candidates, regarding cutting the deficit and taxes, strain credibility. A recent report by the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, which is considered non-partisan, noted that all the budget plans put forth by the Republican candidates would raise federal government debt by 2021 compared to what would occur if the programs now in place remained unchanged. The tax cuts, that are an essential part of the Republican candidates’ policies, would substantially increase the debt despite any spending cuts that might be enacted.

Though Obama’s program would also raise government debt, the increase would be less than with any of the Republican proposals and less than on the present trajectory. Under Obama’s plan, federal dept would rise from 68% of GDP in 2011 to 74% in 2021. Romney’s program would increase the debt to 86% of GDP in 2021, Santorum’s to 104% of GDP and Gingrich’s to 114% of GDP. Ron Paul’s plan would produce the smallest increase in debt of any of the Republicans at 76% of GDP and would be closest to Obama’s proposal.

Are the “fiscal conservatives” no longer fiscally conservative? http://bit.ly/A0pDIi Republican candidates constantly attack Obama for increasing the deficit and national debt, even though their promised programs would be much less effective than what the president is currently proposing. Disregarding any adverse effects that might result, the candidates promise tax cuts because they know it will mobilize the Republican base and get them votes in the primaries and in the general election. But how often do you find candidates willing to take principled stands and “tell it like it is” to the electorate? Of course, if a candidate is honest and forthright, it does not mean voters will flock to his or her banner. Most citizens would rather fantasize and not hear bad news, even if it’s the truth.

An example of fantasy accepted as reality by the voters was Ronald Reagan’s advocacy of supply-side economics when running in the Republican primaries in 1980. His call for massive tax cuts and reduced government spending to stimulate the economy was derided as “voodoo economics” by his Republican rival George Bush, but Reagan was able to convince the public of his program’s validity, winning the nomination and the general election. Now, in attempt to reprise Reagan’s victory, Republican candidates are promising a similar strategy. Will the electorate swallow the same pablum again, or realize that sometimes the bitter medicine of tax increases (at least on the affluent) may be necessary? How do we get citizens to do a reality check on all campaign promises?

Resurrecting Democracy
www.robertlevinebooks.com

Super PAC Tuesday

            Robert A. Levine

It’s called Super Tuesday because of the large number of delegates for the presidential nominating convention up for grabs in the Republican primaries.  437 delegates were at stake today in ten states scattered among every region and time zone.

Because of the number of states involved, retail politics was not at a premium in these primaries, as it’s impossible to schedule enough personal appearances and shake enough hands to connect with the electorate. That’s why a more appropriate label would be Super PAC Tuesday, since the primary in  Ohio, the most important state, was probably decided by media buys and repetitive advertising, which played a major role everywhere. And the candidates’ Super PACs are the organizations with the financial heft and advertising savvy that can sway voters to support their candidates through TV and radio ads. The campaigns, of course, also contributed money to the political dialogue, but the Super PACs dominated the discourse.

The Super PACs tend to favor negative advertising and attack ads against the opposing candidates, which seem to influence voters more than those that build up their own nominees. The pro-Romney Super PAC, Restore Our Future, had the most cash to spend, and dispensed it liberally (if a forbidden word can be used). This Super PAC has a list of donors that sounds like a who’s who of billionaires and made media buys all around the country.

Gingrich’s Super PAC, Winning Our Future, only appears to have one billionaire on board, Sheldon Adelson, who has contributed tens of millions of dollars. Gingrich concentrated his efforts on his home state of Georgia and will continue what might be considered a southern strategy in the future, trying to keep neighboring states in his camp.

Santorum competed all over, but particularly focused on Ohio, which was really Super Tuesday biggest prize. Santorum’s Red, White and Blue Super PAC, was largely funded by Foster Freiss, an affluent conservative who likes Santorum’s stands on the social issues.

Ron Paul saw his best chance for a victory in Alaska, where his libertarian views have gotten some traction.
One large state, Virginia was really not in play, with the Santorum and Gingrich campaigns failing to get their candidates on the ballot. Georgia appeared to be in Gingrich’s pocket from the outset, with Massachusetts in Romney’s. Whoever won the popular vote in each state, the formula for allocating delegates varied, with some states having winner take all while others doing it proportionately.

Early returns showed Romney with victories in Vermont, Massachusetts, and Virginia, with Gingrich on top in Georgia. No surprises there. Santorum won Tennessee and Oklahoma where 70% of the primary voters described themselves as evangelicals, along with North Dakota. No real surprises there. With a neck and neck battle throughout the evening, Romney finally pulled ahead in Ohio by a thin margin, but by 11:30 EST his victory was notconfirmed. His strength in Ohio was in the urban and suburban areas, while Santorum won the rural parts of the state. However, if Gingrich had been out of the mix, Santorum would have been easily victorious in Ohio. Romney also won in Idaho by what appears to be a significant margin.

No matter how Alaska plays out, at the end of the night, Romney will be far ahead in the total delegate count. His Super PAC and organizational prowess have been delivering for him. Money has long been known as the mother’s milk of politics with Super PACs now functioning as the cash cows for candidates. It can be anticipated that obtaining the nomination and winning the general election itself will depend to a major degree on how much milk the Super PACs will be able to provide for their candidates.

Resurrecting Democracy
www.robertlevinebooks.com