Objective review of the US 2012 Presidential and Congressional general campaign

[kishnevi]

Given that Romney has now secured the GOP nomination--unless some sort of overwhelming revolt manifests at the convention or something equally unlikely--I figured it's time to broaden our view from the Republican primaries, which was the basic topic of the original "objective review" thread,  to the general election campaign, and include the Congressional campaigns as well. 

So here's a new thread with a new title.   

[springrite]

Aren't we just glad this is not Greece?

[Coopmv]

Aren't we just glad this is not Greece?

Given how irresponsible most elected officials in the US have been with the financial well-being of the country (including the current occupant of the WH), the US may be on its way to be the next Greece.  Except this new Greece will take the whole world down ...   

No tax increases and no spending cuts just will not do it, period.

[coffee]

I don't really care who wins the Presidential election - there'll be some good things if Romney wins, some good ones if Obama wins, but not many good things either way. I'm so far to the left of either that they look almost the same to me.

My analysis of it is that Obama shouldn't have a chance. He won't have a surge of enthusiastic young voters this time, because they're disillusioned; he won't be campaigning against the Bush legacy or the bad economy. But, there are two interesting complications and I look forward to seeing how they work out.

First, can Romney hold the GOP together? If he can, he almost certainly wins. But in 2008 the kind of people who've become the Tea Party didn't turn out in force for McCain because he wasn't conservative enough. In a normal election, Romney wouldn't be, but this year the Tea Party types might suck it up and vote not so much for Romney as against Obama.

Second, and the main reason Obama might well actually have a chance, how much has the US demography changed in the past four years? Nearly everyone who's become eligible to vote (having turned 18 in the meantime) will vote for Obama, nearly everyone who voted for the last time in 2008 (having died or gotten too old in the meantime) voted for McCain. Is the turnover enough to make a difference? Or perhaps some of the former Obama supporters have gotten more conservative, having grown older, and will vote Republican this time?

But another question is how much the growth in the Hispanic population will matter. The bad economy slowed down Mexican immigration a lot - I read recently that net migration from Mexico had been zero for the past... year, two years, something like that. But even if that's so, given differential reproduction alone the Hispanic population must have increased. Eventually those guys are either going to start voting Republican, or places like Colorado and New Mexico are going to shade increasingly Democratic.

Texas is the one I most want to watch. It picked up some electoral votes in the last census, and this round those will surely go to the Republicans. But I'd lay down money that Texas is purpling: the migration into Texas, not only Hispanic but everyone, will eventually make a difference, unless there's just something in the water there that makes people Republican. Anyway, if it is a percent or two more Democratic than it was in 2008 (44% to 55%, a difference of 900,000 votes) then it will be on pace to be a purple state in 2020, and the GOP will have deep, deep problems even though they win this election. When Texas is purple, Florida will be the largest red state - if, as I suspect, Florida is getting redder - but places like Colorado and New Mexico will have turned blue.

Bush saw this coming and did what he could to get more Hispanic voters into the party, but the party rebelled against him. The GOP will evolve of course, and perhaps Democrats won't be able to hold African-Americans and Hispanics in a single party. Anyway, that's further down the road and all kinds of surprises will appear before then. For instance, the GOP could (perhaps in 2016, if they're in trouble) make a gambit for the young vote by offering legalization of pot.

It'll be a fun race.

[snyprrr]

But but... the Diebold machines can be hacked...

there's already been so much accused fraud in the primary, ha!, who cares what happens? It's all gonna be fixed on Election Night,... and yea, seems whoever pulls the strings wants 'two of the same' for us to vote against,... woo hoo, the establishment's gonna have to do better than that,... yeesh, they don't even care to deceive us any more. 'two party system'... riiiight, gotcha!!

Do I get a reach around with that??


Oh, and by the way we do already know who is going to wing: the candidate that puts the interests of Israel above the interests of the citizen of the USA... the most. By October, both candidates will be campaigning in Tel Aviv. You know it's true.


I really want to know who believes there will be NO fraud.

[Todd]

It seems at present that Obama will get four more years, though he will probably win by less than in 2008, at least in the popular vote.  The economy is not recovering in a particularly robust fashion, but it should continue to improve, barring some external shock – Israel bombing Iran, sending the oil and bond markets into a frenzy, say, or Greece leaving the Euro and other countries joining it, sending bond markets into a frenzy.  Of course, if there's bad economic news in September and October, Romney's chances improve, but more good news helps Obama.  I think on election night Ohio and Florida will be the big states to watch.

In the meantime, I'm enjoying the silliness of electoral politics.  Romney's antics/criminal behavior (take your pick) in high school.  Obama's evolving opinion on gay marriage, though one would assume it is now fully evolved, but who knows.  The War on Women – my particular favorite so far.  Kudos to Obama and Sebelius for starting this with birth control, of all things.  Oh, wait, that policy decision had nothing to do with election year politics.  Sorry about that.  And though it's not directly related to the general election, the recent defeat of Dick Lugar in Indiana and the lamentations in the press about the demise of another moderate Republican make me chuckle.  So much riding on such old shoulders, who knew?  I wonder what other high profile races will be emblematic of Big Changes in American politics.  Brown v Warren, sure, but what others?   

Alas, I live in a solid blue state, so I'll have to search the web for targeted ads, but I am now waiting for the election year goodies.  I know that the evil rich need to pay more taxes, but what about the middle class?  Where's my tax cut/deduction/credit/debt write-off?  Obama and Romney had better start pandering a little bit more.  Sheesh.

[Brian]

Alas, I live in Texas, so my vote doesn't count.

I am gravely concerned that actions taken by the governments of Greece and France will result, via a collapse in or of the eurozone, in Barack Obama's defeat. If Obama does lose in November, the most likely scenario for that is a European economic disaster.

[drogulus]

     I don't trust the gummint with my money. Look at Bush, he gave a big chunk of it back, on the principle that the more you need it, the less you get. Ugh....well at least it was temporary.

     One party is dedicated to the principles of Chicago, a city in Austria where people believe that a dollar spent by the guv takes away from the dollar a rich person tucks under the mattress, therefore it doesn't matter what you spend it on because everything sums to zero except when you give the dollar to me, then I can realize a gain.

     The other party thinks something else but isn't sure, maybe the "Day of Reckoning" is more important than actual suffering of the unemployed. Why don't they go away and be an abstraction so we can care about them?

      I bought Old Crazy Eyes audio book End This Depression Now! It should be interesting.

[springrite]

If Obama does lose in November, the most likely scenario for that is a European economic disaster.

Someone give Brian the Nobel Prize in Economics, please.

This almost sounds like "if she weighs the same as a duck, she's made of wood, and therefore... a witch!"

[Sammy]

You know, one doesn't have to vote for either a democrat or republican politician; there will be other candidates on the ballot.

We are a country in decline.  Our ethical/social character is all over the place without any common ground.  Our economy, once the envy of most other countries, has gone south.  The only thing we have left is military might, and that's a poor foundation for being a leading country as the 21st century progresses.

I believe that both the Democratic and Republican parties are pushing us over the cliff.  It's time to take a chance and give a different source the opportunity to take us to new heights.  Both major parties are bad for the body, bad for the country.

Currently, I intend to cast my vote for Gary Johnson who was once the Governer of my adopted New Mexico.  He's far from perfect, but he's no fake and would try to come up with innovative policies to put the U.S. back on track.

[drogulus]

    People talk about Europe because it's an event that we can't do much about unless we take steps to strengthen our economy, which is forbidden because it costs too much and is naive. Worrying about the huge debt and turning into Greece is OK because we can do that passively which is sophisticated and theoretical.

    Will the European disease spread to the U.S. they way the U.S. disease spread to Europe? In all likelihood it will not. Eurosclerosis is not correctly understood IMO. They are suffering because they followed a prescription that didn't count massive contraction as a failure as long as it was confined to the periphery. Policy is designed to protect Germany, so they don't have to bail out all the Mediterraneans. Could they? Yes, they could. Will they? Eventually they'll have to, so they'll do as little as they can get away with. The crisis is a crisis because of that, and a not entirely believable crisis because of that.
   

[drogulus]

We are a country in decline. 

      At the moment, yes. The question is, will it take a world war to get us out of our dream state and back to building the future? I hope not, because I don't think it will happen like that. We're going to have to help ourselves on purpose, not as a by-product of some other goal like a giant war.

[chasmaniac]

Chicago, a city in Austria where

Sounds like someone's been exposed to von Mises and company!

I bought Old Crazy Eyes audio book End This Depression Now!

But he's so shrill! 

[Brian]

Someone give Brian the Nobel Prize in Economics, please.

This almost sounds like "if she weighs the same as a duck, she's made of wood, and therefore... a witch!"

Oh, I agree that it makes no sense, and I think it's a terrible way to choose a president. But American election voting is swayed mostly by economic performance - the one thing our presidents have the least control over (versus, say, foreign policy, energy/environmental policy, etc.). Our understanding of how presidents can influence the economy is limited, but the answer appears to be "not much at all."

My comment was based on the presumption that if the eurozone gets wrenched into some kind of disaster scenario, our economy would feel the effects and Romney would capitalize on a renewed recession to pin blame on the Obama administration in some fashion.

[drogulus]

     

Sounds like someone's been exposed to von Mises and company!

     No, just arguments that trace back to him, I suppose. I had to look him up. I know the name and generally what he's known for, but no details. The Krug will fill me in.

[Todd]

My comment was based on the presumption that if the eurozone gets wrenched into some kind of disaster scenario, our economy would feel the effects and Romney would capitalize on a renewed recession to pin blame on the Obama administration in some fashion.

There's a chance that Greece leaves the Euro, and it would roil markets, but it probably would not plunge the US into recession.  One thing it would do is result in lower interest rates in the US.  If other countries are forced to leave the Euro, more problems could arise.  Romney would be right to heap blame on Obama for any troubles.  Obama is the president, and unfair blame/credit for the economy comes with the job.

I know the name and generally what he's known for, but no details.

I've not read Krugman's book, but somehow I don't think he will give an in-depth or particularly meaningful description of the Austrian School.  The resurgence of von Mises is indeed somewhat odd.  Better to discuss Schumpeter if one goes Austrian. 

[drogulus]

     I'll try to find a general survey. I haven't read anything yet to compete with The Worldly Philosophers.

     I'm not sure you're right about the Krugman book. Implicit in all his argument is a critique of a priori philosophizing in economics. I expect to get more of that.

     I'm going to start listening tonight.

[eyeresist]

I don't understand why people say Greece leaving the Euro would cause bad things to happen. Surely Europe will be stronger, the fewer third world countries it has in its midst?

[Todd]

I don't understand why people say Greece leaving the Euro would cause bad things to happen. Surely Europe will be stronger, the fewer third world countries it has in its midst?

If one country, any country, leaves, it calls into question the structure of the Euro, and to an extent the entire European post-war experiment in integration.  The immediate effect would be to weaken the Euro (which, ironically, could help Germany's export-driven economy).  Doomsday scenarios include the complete disintegration of the Euro, nationalist/mercantilist economic policies, and who knows where that could lead?  Well, the worst case scenario is pretty obvious.

The real effect of Greece leaving would be to allow Greece to default on all its debt (or as much as is needed), pursue inflationary policies, and improve its relative position.  A few other small countries might leave, too (eg, Portugal, Ireland).  I'd bet that any departure would be only temporary.  There's too much at stake economically and politically for the big countries to allow a complete breakup, and let's be honest here, the most important goal is to keep France and Germany working together.  Perhaps a few countries leaving would have the immensely beneficial effect of forcing European policy-makers to rethink the structure of the Euro.  The rigid, fixed system in place now is basically a fiat equivalent of the gold standard, and should be replaced.  Some type of mechanism for transfer payments needs to be put in place, too. 

For the US, a weaker Euro means a stronger dollar, which means the export gains of the past few years would start to weaken, though the flight to Treasuries will make financing the debt cheaper, and mortgage rates would go even lower.  We could even see the almost unthinkable – negative nominal interest rates on T-bills.  (The Treasury has been working to allow for that possibility.)  Just think about that.  I wonder how Romney would present that on the campaign trail?  How could you?  "The US economy is so weak that investors are paying us for the privilege of buying our debt."  Nope, that will not do.  You know the money man inside Romney would favor floating as much debt as possible since such favorable terms are exceedingly rare.  But the politician in Romney can't say that.

[eyeresist]

Hmm.

Thanks for your response. I think Europe has been sabotaged by the idealist basis of its founding - the idea of an all-inclusive community is in practice a welfare state with the prosperous nations supporting the corrupt and incompetent hangers-on. Cutting their losses would I think the best option for France/Germany et al. But it would be hugely embarassing politically.