Public Still Blames GOP For Gridlock

For the last couple of days, I have been discussing some of the results from the latest Quinnipiac University Poll (conducted between June 28th and July 8th of a nationwide sample of 2,014 registered voters -- with a margin of error of 2.2 points). The above charts show the poll was released on July 1st, but that is my error in making the charts -- it was really released on July 11th.

Today, I want to discuss the gridlock in Washington. It has become obvious that Washington can't pass any laws (except maybe for the naming of a courthouse). The 112th Congress earned the nickname as the "do-nothing" Congress for its inability to pass any laws -- at least any laws that would help the economy and most citizens. Now the 113th Congress is on track to have an even worse record.

Who is responsible for this gridlock? I believe it is the Republican Party, which has refused to compromise on any issue for the good of the country (or even to consider a compromise). This poll shows that most Americans agree -- the congressional Republicans are to blame. About 51% of the public agrees with this, while only 35% blame the president. Note that when the poll is broken down into demographic groups, only one group blames the president more than congressional Republicans -- Republican voters. All other groups say the congressional Republicans are significantly more to blame than the president.

Voters are not really happy with anyone in Washington, and that is understandable since nothing is being accomplished (and most Americans are still mired in the effects of the Great Recession). But the Republicans are playing with fire by refusing to compromise, because most voters blame them for the gridlock. Will this affect the 2014 election? I hope so.

And because of this gridlock, the public seems to have given up on Congress passing any reasonable immigration reform this year. About 69% of voters say immigration reform will not be passed, while only 27% think it is still a possibility -- and that feeling includes voters of all political persuasions. About 73% of Republicans, 71% of Independents, and 60% of Democrats believe immigration reform will die in the House of Representatives.

----------------------------------------

Another interesting part of that poll regarded the outlook for the 2016 presidential election. As previous polls have shown, any Republican (even Chris Christie, the most popular Republican with the general public) would have a very difficult time beating Hillary Clinton. But if Clinton stays out of the race (perish the thought!), another Democrat (Biden or someone else) would be in a tight race to win the White House.

This Can't Make Willard Happy

Most of Willard Mitt Romney's opponents have swallowed their pride and climbed on board his campaign wagon (in spite of all the awful thing they said about him during the campaign, and probably still believe). But not all of them. The House's angry old man, Ron Paul, still refuses to endorse the candidacy of Willard. He was recently asked if he now supported Willard, and his answer was a blunt "NO". He went on to say:

“I’ve been in this business a long time and believe me there is essentially no difference from one administration to another no matter what the platforms. The foreign policy stays the same, the monetary policy stays the same, there’s no proposal for any real cuts and both parties support it.”

Now this can't make the Republicans very happy. There was never any possibility that Paul would win the nomination. He simply didn't have enough supporters for that. But he has plenty enough support to keep Willard from winning in November. And if his supporters (which ranged from 10% to more of Republicans, depending on the state) still listen to him (and remember how they were treated at the national convention), they could abandon the party in November. After all, they have an excellent alternative this year in Gary Johnson of the Libertarian Party.

The Paul supporters have never liked or had any respect for Willard. Will they hold their noses and vote for him, or will they vote Libertarian or just stay at home on election day this year?

Has Romney Written Off Paul's Supporters ?

I watched a bit of the Republican Convention yesterday, and I have to say I was rather shocked at how the delegates for Ron Paul were treated. These delegates knew they didn't have the delegate strength to keep Romney from winning the nomination. All they wanted really was a little respect for their candidate and themselves -- and they got none at all.

I seem to remember that Ron Paul got quite a few votes in the primaries. It wasn't nearly enough to get him the nomination, but it was enough that I thought the Romney Republicans should probably throw them a bone, in the hope that they would vote for Romney and other Republicans in November. After all, Romney will need every vote he can scrounge up to have a chance of beating President Obama.

But the Romney people decided that the illusion of a unified convention was more important than reaching out to Ron Paul's supporters. First they denied Paul a speaking role at the convention (because he would not let the Romney people approve his speech before he gave it). Then they replaced 10 Maine delegates with Romney supporters, thus denying Paul and his supporters the right to even place his name in nomination.

But the final slap in the face came during the roll call vote. When a state cast votes for Romney, those votes were repeated at the podium. But when votes were cast by delegates for Ron Paul, the votes were ignored and not even repeated at the podium. They couldn't have been sending a clearer message to the many Ron Paul supporters, both at the convention and around the country. It was -- You don't count, so shut up and go away.

Maybe the Romney people think the Paul Republicans have no other place to go -- that they will be forced to vote for Romney in November. They are very wrong! If the Paul supporters don't just stay home on election day, there is a viable alternative for them -- Gary Johnson and the Libertarian Party. The Paul supporters are pretty independent, and it wouldn't surprise me at all if they refused to vote for Romney and establishment Republicans -- and that could just be enough votes to cost them the election.

The Libertarians have to be smiling today. Romney's heavy-handed tactics at the convention could have driven a lot of votes their way.

Buying The Nomination

We have known for a while now that a candidate can't run for president in this country unless they are rich or have lots of rich friends willing to spend freely for them. That has never been more apparent than in the current race for the Republican presidential nomination. Willard Mitt Romney (aka Wall Street Willie) has virtually assured himself of the nomination (although it will still take a few more weeks to amass the required number of delegates), but it has taken a ton of money for him to do so.

And an argument can be made that he bought the nomination, because he had at his disposal a lot more money than was available to any of his opponents. When his campaign started to slow (as it often did), he had millions more that he could spend on campaign advertising than the other candidates did, and he was not shy about spending it to swing the election back his way.

CNN did a survey of campaign spending by the end of March, and it's pretty revealing. At that time, Romney had gotten 4.1 million votes and amassed 607 delegates. To get those votes and delegates, the Romney campaign had spent about $76.6 million -- and that doesn't count what the super-PACs spent on his behalf (adding super-PAC spending pushes the total up to about $122 million). Here is what each vote and delegate cost him:

Each vote cost him about $18.68.
Each delegate cost him about $126,194.

But that's only considering the campaign spending. When the super-PAC money is figured in, the totals go up to:

Each vote cost him $29.76.
Each delegate cost him $200,988.

Those are some pretty expensive votes and delegates. But Romney wasn't the only person to pay a lot for the votes and delegates they got. While the other candidates didn't have near as much money or spend near as much, they got less votes and delegates -- meaning that their cost per vote and delegate was also very high. Here are the totals for other candidates (with super-PAC spending included in the figures in parentheses):

RICK SANTORUM
Total spending $18.7 million ($26.7 million)
Each vote cost $6.45 ($9.21)
Each delegate cost $70,833 ($101,136)

NEWT GINGRICH
Total spending $21 million ($39 million)
Each vote cost $9.55 ($17.73)
Each delegate cost $148,936 ($276,595)

Super-PAC spending was insignificant for Ron Paul, but his campaign was the least cost-effective in buying votes and delegates.

RON PAUL
Total spending $35 million
Each vote cost $31.82
Each delegate cost $486,111

2nd Poll Shows Growing GOP Unpopularity

Yesterday I posted about the recent ABC News/Washington Post Poll, which showed the popularity of the GOP presidential candidates is dropping. The most popular, Willard Mitt Romney (aka Wall Street Willie), lagged 19 points behind President Obama in the poll's favorability ratings. The poll also had President Obama with a double-digit lead over all of the GOP candidates in head-to-head match-ups.

While those poll numbers looked good for Democrats, it's always good to have the numbers verified by another respected poll, and that's just what has happened. The CNN/ORC International Poll was released a day later, and it verifies what the previous poll had shown. As the chart above shows, the poll also has the president with a 19 point gap over the favorability of the most popular Republican -- with the president having a 56% favorable rating to 37% for Romney, 35% for Santorum and Paul, and 24% for Gingrich. The Republicans all had higher negative than positive ratings, while the president had an 8 point higher positive than negative rating.

And the good news doesn't stop there. When looking at the favorability ratings of the two parties (which could have a big effect on congressional elections), the poll shows the Democrats have opened up a 13 point difference in favorability over the Republicans. The Democrats had a 48% favorable to 45% unfavorable rating, while the Republicans had a 35% favorable to 58% unfavorable rating.

An interesting part of the poll is in the demographics section. It looks like the Democrats can thank women for their growing lead in favorability. While men give the Democrats a higher unfavorable rating than favorable (42% to 50%), women more than make up for that by giving Democrats a 14 point higher favorable rating than unfavorable (54% to 40%). It looks like the GOP's "war on women" is taking a toll on them. Both men and women now give the GOP lower favorable than unfavorable ratings -- men (36% to 57%) and women (34% to 59%).

And like the previous poll, this poll shows the low favorable ratings of the GOP candidates and the Republican Party translates into a double-digit lead for the president over either of the top two Republican candidates. Here are those nationwide numbers:

REGISTERED VOTERS

Obama...............54%
Romney...............43%

Obama...............55%
Santorum...............42%

ALL RESPONDENTS

Obama................56%
Romney...............40%

Obama...............57%
Santorum...............39%

But while both of these recent polls show the Democrats are in a good position and the numbers are moving their way, that does not automatically mean they will win in November. If too many Democrats and Independents think the election has already been won and stay home on election day, we could see another electoral disaster like 2010. The only thing these numbers should do is inspire Democrats (and Americans in general) to work even harder to turn out a big vote -- and save this country from Republican incompetence and malfeasance.

Missouri Results Unknown - Puerto Rico Votes Today

I had hoped to report the results of the Missouri caucuses to you today, but the Missouri Republican Party seems to think it's some kind of secret. They did not keep a count of how many people showed up at the caucuses for each candidate, or how many delegates were elected to go to the next level for each candidate. Theoretically, all of the delegates chosen yesterday are uncommitted, and the committed delegates will not be chosen until the state convention in June.

But we all know that's not true. Whether technically committed or not, the caucus-goers voted for delegates that promised to support a specific candidate. Why else would they fight so hard among the individual caucuses -- and fight they did (with one caucus so rowdy the police had to be called and it had to be adjourned before they even opened the session fully). But if the state party wants to keep the delegate allocations secret, there's not much us political junkies can do about it.

There shouldn't be any such problems from the Puerto Rico primary being held today, or the Illinois primary being held next Tuesday. The results (and delegate allocation) from those states should be known on the night of their primaries. Puerto Rico has 23 delegates and Illinois has 69 delegates to offer. And the way the GOP nomination race has been going, every single delegate is a valuable commodity this year -- as a brokered convention is still a real possibility.

There have been rumors in the last few days of an effort to avoid a brokered convention. It is said that Ron Paul has put out discreet feelers to the Romney campaign -- an opening gambit to arrange for a deal where Paul throws his delegate support to Romney. Paul will wind up in fourth place in delegate totals most likely, but he could well have enough delegates to put Romney over the top.

What would Paul get in return? There are two possibilities. First would be a promise to support some of Paul's nutty ideas if he is elected. I don't see that happening. Those ideas are anathema to Wall Street (and Romney), and I doubt the teabaggers and libertarians would trust Romney enough to think he would follow through on any promise he made. He has just done too much flip-flopping.

But there's another possibility -- an even scarier one. That would be for Romney to give the vice-presidential slot to Rand Paul (Ron's son). Rand Paul wants to run for president in 2016, and running this year as a vice-presidential candidate would get him a lot of exposure . The move is also likely to win the support of the teabaggers and libertarians in the party base -- two groups Romney has been unable to win over so far. The scary part for the rest of us is that it would be similar to McCain's choosing of Palin in 2008 (an effort to get votes by putting an unqualified person only a heartbeat away from the White House).

This just makes it more important than ever to re-elect President Obama this year.

Is A Romney/Paul Ticket A Possibility ?

There's a feeling among many political pundits that Ron Paul is not a real player for the Republican presidential nomination. He's considered to be kind of a joke -- a candidate outside the mainstream of political thought (for any political party) who keeps running for president but has no chance of ever even coming close to actually becoming president -- or ever getting the Republican nomination.

And at least part of that is true. I don't think Paul could ever win the Republican presidential nomination. But that's not the only path to the White House. There have been multiple times in our history where a vice-president assumed the office -- and many times those vice-presidents were men who probably could not have won their party's nominations before becoming president. Do any of us really believe that Harry Truman, Lyndon Johnson, or Gerald Ford could have been nominated to be their party's presidential candidate without first assuming the office due to being vice-president?

Now some of you may be thinking right now that there's no way Willard Mitt Romney (aka Wall Street Willie) would pick Ron Paul to be his running mate. A few weeks ago, I would have agreed with you. But now I'm beginning to think that as crazy as a Romney/Paul ticket sounds, it may be a real possibility. Before you dismiss this, examine the following facts:

* Wall Street Willie is not doing so great with his presidential campaign. There is a real possibility that he could arrive at the Republican National Convention with the most delegates, but not a majority of delegates. That would mean he'd need to make some kind of deal to get enough delegates to put him over the top.

* Ron Paul doesn't have a chance of winning a majority of delegates, but there's a really good chance that he'll win between 10% and 15% of the available delegates. What would Paul want in exchange for those delegates. I think it would be more than just an opportunity to speak at the convention. Offering his delegates for the vice-presidential slot on the ticket is something I can see him doing (and his delegates might be just enough to give Romney the nomination).

* The New York Times has recently reported that Romney has "worked to cultivate" a friendship with Ron Paul. The two frequently talk on the phone, and Romney offered to loan his private jet to take Paul back to Texas (after Paul's campaign jet had broken down). He also offered to let the Paul family stay at his Lake home. Is Romney trying to lay the groundwork for a future deal with Paul?

* In the many Republican debates, Paul has made it a trademark of his to attack his fellow candidates -- all except Romney. Think Progress went back and looked at all the debates. They found that Paul had attacked other Republican candidates 39 times -- Santorum 22 times, Gingrich 8 times, Perry 4 times, Cain 4 times, and Bachmann 1 time. But he never made an explicit attack on Romney. Why is this (since he obviously disagrees with Romney on nearly everything)? Is Paul trying to preserve the possibility of a deal with Romney?

* Rick Santorum has recently accused Romney and Paul of working together. He says "their commercials look a lot alike, and so do their attacks". Could he be right? Are they working together?

* Ron Paul appeals to many Libertarians. Romney knows he'll need every vote he can get to have a chance of beating the president. He may think he can woo a lot of voters away from the Libertarian Party by choosing Paul as his running mate.

Personally, this is a scary thought -- that Ron Paul could be a heartbeat away from becoming president. But it wouldn't be the first time the Republicans ran a totally unqualified candidate for vice-president. All we have to do is look back to 2008, when McCain chose Sarah Palin to be his running mate. Romney might well do something similar, and choose Ron Paul to get enough delegates to win the nomination. I think there's enough evidence to consider it a real possibility.

The only saving grace in all of this is that I don't think Romney (or any of his opponents) can beat President Obama in November -- regardless of who they choose to be their running mate.

Problems Mount For Wall Street Willie

Although he has been the off-and-on frontrunner for the Republican presidential nomination for months now, Willard Mitt Romney (aka Wall Street Willie) has never demonstrated any real strength among the party's base of voters. His only real strength is among the rich denizens of Wall Street and Republican Party's establishment (who are afraid Romney's opponents could hurt them down-ballot). The party's base has searched far and wide for a candidate, any candidate, that can beat Romney.

Yesterday, a couple of things happened that has Romney supporters claiming victory and saying he is now back on track for the nomination. I disagree. I think they are just trying to put a happy face on a couple of "wins" that show his weakness more than his strength. The first of these was a win in the Maine caucuses. Here are the results of those caucuses:

Mitt Romney...............2,190  (39.65%)
Ron Paul...............1,996  (36.13%)
Rick Santorum...............989  (17.90%)
Newt Gingrich...............349  (6.32%)
TOTAL VOTES...............5,524

New England is supposed to be one of the places where Romney has the most strength, and yet he can only barely squeak out a win over Ron Paul (who has no chance of winning the nomination). Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich did not campaign at all in Maine, figuring Romney had things locked up there. I have to wonder if they had put some time into campaigning in Maine could they have kept him from winning? I think so. In 2008, Romney won Maine with over 51% of the vote, but this year he only gets 39% (with virtually no opposition there). Clearly, Maine Republicans are not excited about the prospect of Romney winning the nomination.

Then we have the CPAC convention's straw poll held on Saturday. Romney's supporters are claiming his first place finish in that straw poll shows he has good support among the party's base. I'm not so sure. Here are those results:

Mitt Romney...............38%
Rick Santorum...............31%
Ron Paul...............15%
Newt Gingrich...............12%

That doesn't sound like a ringing endorsement to me. And considering that this year's race has been reduced for a while now to Romney vs. anti-Romney, I think the following reading of the results would be just as valid:

anti-Romney...............43%
Romney...............38%
Paul...............15%

Either way you read it, more than 60% of the conservatives attending the conference are not ready to support Romney (and I suspect many of the 38% that do have only a very luke-warm support). And while these conservative leaders give Romney 38% support, there is no evidence that the rank-and-file voters of the party are ready to do so. Consider these results from the latest nationwide survey from Public Policy Polling:

Rick Santorum...............38%
Mitt Romney...............23%
Newt Gingrich...............17%
Ron Paul...............13%

That's a huge 15-point lead for the anti-Romney candidate (currently Rick Santorum) nationwide. Romney couldn't even get the support of 1 in four Republicans (with 77% of Republicans wanting some other candidate).

The next two states to vote (on February 28th) are Michigan and Arizona. I haven''t heard much about Arizona, but the word in Michigan is that Santorum is starting to gain ground in that state (and only 20% of voters in Michigan consider Romney to be a "home state" candidate, even though his father was governor of that state). If Romney was to lose either one of those two states, his campaign would be in some real trouble.

Willard Mitt Romney (Wall Street Willie) could still win the nomination. There is still a long way to go, and he does have establishment support and a ton of money from his Wall Street buddies. But he is no longer "inevitable".

Tuesday Results Put Rick Santorum Back In The Republican Presidential Race

The Republican race for the presidential nomination has been a very wild ride this year, even though only seven states have picked their delegates. Rick Santorum won Iowa with only a razor thin margin over Mitt Romney. But after Romney won big in New Hampshire, many pundits gave him the tag of the "inevitable" winner of the race. But he lost that tag in the very next state, as Newt Gingrich beat him soundly in South Carolina.

Romney got his mojo back after winning big in the following two states -- Florida and Nevada. Once again he was crowned by many as the "inevitable" winner of the nomination. It only took three days for him to once again lose that crown. It seems that the political pundits once again underestimated the determination of the anti-Romney voters in the party. They may have fumbled around for a few days after Gingrich fell from grace in Florida, but it looks like they may have a new champion now -- Rick Santorum.

I say that because Santorum had a huge night last night. It started in the "beauty contest" primary in Missouri. No delegates were awarded in that primary, but Santorum won it big -- getting more votes than all of his opponents put together. When Missouri does get around to choosing delegates, Santorum could do quite well there. Here is how the Missouri primary came out with 99% of precincts reporting:

MISSOURI PRIMARY
Rick Santorum...............138,681  (55.17%)
Mitt Romney...............63,709  (25.34%)
Ron Paul...............30,584  (12.17%)
Uncommitted...............9,841  (3.91%)
Rick Perry...............2,454  (0.98%)
Herman Cain...............2,309  (0.92%)
Michele Bachmann...............1,686  (0.67%)
Jon Huntsmann...............1,044  (0.42%)
Gary Johnson...............547  (0.22%)
Michael Meehan...............362  (0.14%)
Keith Drummond...............162  (0.06%)
TOTAL VOTES...............251,379
(Gingrich was not on the Missouri ballot.)

Santorum then went on to win the caucuses in Colorado and Minnesota. he had led in the Minnesota polls, but surprised Romney in Colorado (since Romney had led the polls in that state). Here are the numbers from Colorado and Minnesota:

COLORADO CAUCUS (99% of precincts reporting)
Rick Santorum...............26,354  (40.24%)
Mitt Romney...............22,855  (34.90%)
Newt Gingrich...............8,390  (12.81%)
Ron Paul...............7,708  (11.77%)
Rick Perry...............52  (0.08%)
Jon Huntsman...............46  (0.07%)
Michele Bachmann...............27  (0.04%)
Others...............57  (0.09%)
TOTAL VOTE...............65,489

MINNESOTA CAUCUS (93% of precincts reporting)
Rick Santorum...............21,420  (44.94)
Ron Paul...............13,023  (27.32%)
Mitt Romney...............8,090  (16.97%)
Newt Gingrich...............5,128  (10.76%)
TOTAL VOTES...............47,661

Nevada GOP Defines Incompetence

I live in Texas where the Republicans have been in complete control of state government for quite a while now, so I am very familiar with Republican incompetence. That ingrained incompetence has frustrated me for years now. But I have to admit that the Republican leadership in Nevada makes that of Texas look like a well-oiled and smoothly-running machine.

Nevada held its Republican caucuses on Saturday, with most of them starting at 9:00 am. There was one caucus that started after dark, but even it was over by 9:30 pm. It was not like a huge number of people showed up for these caucuses -- less than 50,000 people (less than 12.5% of the state's 400,000 registered Republicans). And yet at 7:30 am on the following morning, they had still only posted about 70% of the vote because they were not finished counting it. How can that be?

Iowa had over 100,000 people show up for their caucuses, and those caucuses were held in the evening. But by midnight they had the votes all counted and reported. New Hampshire had over 200,000 people vote, South Carolina had over 600,000 people vote, and Florida had over 1.3 million people vote -- and yet all three states had their votes counted and reported no later than 1:00 am. Why then, 10 hours after the last caucus was over (and 21 hours after most caucuses had ended), has Nevada been unable to count and report less than 50,000 total statewide votes? There can be only one reason -- an utter and complete incompetence on the part of Nevada's GOP leadership.

Some of you probably wonder why that should matter. After all, the talking heads on TV have already told us that Wall Street Willie was the winner. That's true, but it's not the only thing that matters. It matters who finished second and third and how many delegates each candidate earned, because that has a bearing on future campaign funding and how long candidates might stay in the race. Those things may only matter to a political junkie like me (and the candidates themselves), but they do matter.

Can Nevada Republicans really be satisfied with leadership this incompetent?

It's Nevada's Turn At Bat Today

(The above cartoon is by David Horsey in The Los Angeles Times.)

Today is the day that Nevada Republicans caucus to make their choice for the Republican presidential nomination. And as interesting as who will get the lion's share of Nevada's 28 delegates is wondering just how many Republicans will show up for the caucuses. There are about 400,000 registered Republicans in the state, but it is very unlikely that anywhere near that number will participate. In 2008, only about 45,000 Republicans attended the caucus (and Romney got 22,649 votes, or 51.1%). It will be interesting to see if they top that number this time.

The turnout in Iowa and new Hampshire was about the same as in 2008, while the turnout in South Carolina was larger than 2008 and the Florida turnout significantly smaller than 2008. Only enthusiastic party members tend to turn out for caucuses (which require more time and effort than taking a few minutes to vote in a primary), so the turnout can tell us something about how enthused the people are about their candidate choices (at least in Nevada).

It is harder for the polls to predict the winner of a caucus, since the ability of a candidate to turn out his supporters is more important than what the average voter thinks of the candidates. It is not uncommon for a candidate to out-perform or under-perform his poll numbers, depending on how well-organized and enthusiastic his supporters are. That makes Ron Paul the wild card in Nevada. Even though he's not polling well, his supporters are enthused and organized and he will probably out-perform his poll numbers.  I expect he will probably beat Santorum, and may even give Gingrich a good contest for the second place slot.

The chances are very good that the winner in Nevada will be Willard Mitt Romney (Wall Street Willie). he got about half the votes in 2008, and recent polls show he could do that again. Yesterday I posted the Las Vegas Review-Journal poll, which showed him with 45% support in the state (which would give him about half the state's delegates). Now the Public Policy Polling survey has been released, and it shows even better numbers for Wall Street Willie. Here are those numbers:

Mitt Romney...............50%
Newt Gingrich...............25%
Ron Paul...............15%
Rick Santorum...............8%

A Broken Clock Is Right Twice A Day

They say that even a broken clock is right twice a day, and that is sort of how I feel about Ron Paul. Don't get me wrong. I think he's a racist nut-job, and he would be an absolute disaster as president (and it makes me very happy that he has no chance of ever gaining that office). But even a racist nut-job can be right about something once in a great while. And I have found something that Paul is right about.

He is right about our policy towards Cuba. For the last 50 years we have tried to intimidate and embargo Cuba into submission. We have tried to do this because we don't approve of their communist government -- ignoring the fact that although the Cuban people may not have the kind of government we prefer, the people are much better off than they were before Castro came to power. They have the highest literacy rate in the hemisphere, free and excellent medical coverage for all their citizens, and even the poor are assured of decent food and housing.

Our policy toward Cuba has been an abject failure and I am amazed that we still cling to it as though someday it still might work. Cuba is not now, and never has been, a danger to the United States. We need to realize that it is none of our business how the Cubans govern themselves, and we should normalize our relationship with that country -- just like we have done with other countries whose governments we disapprove of (like Russia, Vietnam, China, etc.). If we can talk to and trade with those countries, there is no real reason why we can't do the same with Cuba.

And that is where I find I agree with Ron Paul. Here is what he says about our failed Cuban policy:

"I think it's time ... to quit this isolation business of not talking to people. We talked to the Soviets. We talk to the Chinese. And we opened up trade, and we're not killing each other now. We fought with the Vietnamese for a long time. We finally gave up, started talking to them, now we trade with them. I don't know why — why the Cuban people should be so intimidating."


"I think we're living in the dark ages when we can't even talk to the Cuban people. I think it's not 1962 anymore. And we don't have to use force and intimidation and overthrow of a — in governments. I just don't think that's going to work."

Texas Republicans Don't Want Perry Either

The other day Texas teabaggers met in Houston and did a straw poll. The teabaggers are Rick Perry's natural base, and his campaigns both for governor and for president have been aimed at pleasing that radical-right group. But currently Perry can't even make any headway with the teabaggers. The straw poll in Texas turned out to be an embarrassment for Perry. He was only able to come in fourth place with 19.4% of the vote (trailing Paul, Gingrich, and Santorum).

But that was an unscientific straw poll and only included the most radical Republicans in the state.However, a more scientific poll has now been taken, and it turns out that Texas Republicans in general don't have any higher opinion of Perry than the teabaggers did. The Public Policy Polling group did a survey of 559 Texas Republicans between January 12th and 15th (with a 4.2% margin of error). It turns out that more than four out of five Texas Republicans would rather have someone other than Rick Perry as the GOP presidential nominee.

In addition, 32% of Texas Republicans disapprove of the job Perry has done as governor and 39% think his presidential campaign has damaged the image of the state of Texas. And even if it was just a two-man race between Mitt Romney and Rick Perry, Perry would lose 46% to 45%. It looks like Perry's presidential campaign has not only been disastrous nationwide (he still can't get out of single-digits in South Carolina and Florida polls), but it has also damaged him within his home state. Here are the poll numbers:

Mitt Romney...............24%
Newt Gingrich...............23%
Rick Perry...............18%
Rick Santorum...............15%
Ron Paul...............12%
Buddy Roemer...............0%
Undecided...............9%

NOTE -- Ron Paul doesn't seem to be doing very well in his home state either.

------------------------------

For those of you who are interested in the Republican race for the senate seat being vacated by Kay Bailey Hutchison, PPP also asked the Republicans they polled about that. Here are the numbers for the senate race:

David Dewhurst...............36%
Ted Cruz...............18%
Tom Leppert...............7%
Craig James...............4%
Joe Agris...............2%
Glen Addison...............1%
Lela Pittenger...............1%
Charles Holcomb...............0%
Undecided...............31%

That has to be a slap in the face for Craig James. I think he believed his football fame and ESPN exposure would make him an instant contender, but it doesn't seem to have done him any good at all. In addition, James only has an 11% favorable rating and a 19% unfavorable rating (while 69% say they are unsure). We're still at least two and a half months away from the Texas primary (currently scheduled for April 3rd), but so far it looks like Ted Cruz is the only candidate with a chance of beating the current Lt. Governor, David Dewhurst.

Paul Gets What He Wanted - And Doesn't Like It

There's an old proverb that says "Be careful what you ask for, because you just may get it". Maybe someone should have told Ron Paul and his supporters that. For the first few months of this Republican nomination campaign, Paul couldn't seem to buy any press coverage. Most of the other candidates got their share of headlines, but the press virtually ignored Ron Paul -- as though they considered him to be a minor candidate who had no chance of getting the nomination (and the press does love their self-appointed role of gatekeeper -- determining who is and who isn't a serious candidate).

This was not just in the imagination of Paul and his supporters. The Pew Research Center did a survey of candidate coverage by the media back in August, and they found that all the candidates got more coverage than Ron Paul. The press truly was ignoring Paul. Of course this initiated a lot of complaints from Paul and his supporters. They wanted their share of press coverage.

But in the past couple of weeks, the major press outlets have beaten a path to Paul's doorstep. They all seem to want to talk to him. But all of a sudden he's unavailable. His campaign admits they've had a lot of requests for interviews, but say that Paul has turned them down because he wanted to spend some "holiday time" with his family. That's just silly talk. No real candidate turns down press coverage with the primary season starting.

The truth is that the media has suddenly discovered Paul's racist and homophobic writings and newsletters -- and that's not something Paul wants to talk about. He only wants positive coverage, and since he can't explain those newsletters, he's running away from the media now. Someone needs to tell Paul that he doesn't get to choose what the media wants to talk about (just ask Cain, Gingrich, and others). And he can't complain about getting no coverage and then avoid the media when something negative pops up.

For months Paul complained about getting no coverage. Now he's getting it and doesn't want it. Maybe he needs to decide whether he's a real candidate (and talk to the media) or just a political gadfly (and get out of the race). He can't have it both ways.

Is Paul Really Worse Than The Others ?

Texas' nutty Representative Ron Paul did pretty well in the Iowa caucuses. Although he officially finished in third place, he was very close to Romney and Santorum -- and could easily get an amount of delegates out of that state equal to them. With that good Iowa finish and enough money to stay in the race for quite a while, some of his supporters are now thinking he actually has a chance to be the Republican nominee.

In the hope of short-circuiting that scary idea, Summer Ludwig at the excellent blog Addicting Info has compiled a list of 10 reasons to NOT vote for Ron Paul. They're some pretty good reasons, so I list them here:

1. Ron Paul does not value equal rights for minorities.
2. Ron Paul would deny women control of their bodies and reproductive rights.
3. Ron Paul would be disastrous for the working class.
4. Ron Paul’s tax plan is unfair to lower earners and would greatly benefit those with the highest incomes.
5. Ron Paul’s policies would cause irreparable damage to our already strained environment.
6. A Ron Paul administration would continue to proliferate the negative image of the US among other nations.
7. Ron Paul discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation and would not provide equal rights and protections to glbt citizens.
8. Ron Paul has an unnatural obsession with guns.
9. Ron Paul would butcher our already sad educational system.
10. Ron Paul is opposed to the separation of church and state.


But after studying the list for a while, I had to admit to myself that this list would be a good one for ANY of the Republican candidates this year. I initially had some doubts about a couple of the reasons -- numbers 6 and 8. There is no doubt that foreign policy under Ron Paul would be radically different than under the other Republican candidates, since he is an isolationist (and that is a ludicrous idea in this modern world). But all of the others would re-institute the Bush foreign policy, which was an abject failure and had even our friends angry with us. Truly, the foreign policy of any of the Republican candidates would create a negative image for the United States on the world stage.

Number 8 regards Paul's "unnatural obsession with guns". I honestly don't know how many of the Republican candidates own or love guns. But I do know that all of them toe the line when it comes to the National Rifle Association (NRA). There's not a single Republican candidate who wouldn't bow to the wishes of the NRA, who is obsessed with arming this country to the teeth and removing all gun regulations.

That list is a good one, and it provides some very valid reasons for not voting for Ron Paul. But it also provides some valid reasons for not voting for any of the Republican candidates. A Republican vote in 2012 is a vote for national disaster.

Paul Is Not The Only Racist Republican Presidential Candidate

There's been a lot written recently about the obvious racism of Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul. That's as it should be, because he has a long history of racism. He claims he's not a racist, but his words ring hollow in light of years of writings and racist attitudes. But Paul is not the only Republican presidential candidate who has definite racist tendencies.

In a recent rant to Republican voters in Sioux City (Iowa), Rick Santorum exposed his own racism. He told the crowd that he does not want to "make black people's lives better by giving them somebody else's money". That obviously racist statement contains a couple of untrue inferences -- that most African-Americans live off government programs, and that African-Americans make up the bulk of the people receiving government assistance. Those are not just outrageous lies -- they are outrageous RACIST lies. The lies were told by Santorum to appeal to the racist tendencies of his teabagger audience for votes by letting them know he shares their racist views.

Why do I say this? Because Santorum is not an uneducated person. He knows the statement he made is not true, especially in Iowa. In Iowa, only about 9% of the people on Food Stamps are African-American while a full 84% are Whites. But he couldn't tell the truth, because the audience might not be so willing to go along with his cutting of necessary social programs if they realized that most of the people receiving assistance are their own friends and neighbors, and just as white as they are. So he demonized African-Americans by skewing the stats and inferring they make up the bulk of people receiving assistance.

But this is not just a racist lie in Iowa. In the United States as a whole, the largest demographic receiving government assistance (whether Food Stamps, welfare, or some other kind of government assistance) is white people. That has always been true, and remains so today. Any educated person must know this, because the facts are easily attainable.

By skewing the statistics to appeal to the racist tendencies of his teabagger audience, Rick Santorum has exposed himself as a liar and a racist (and unworthy to be elected to any political office). Are Paul and Santorum the only racists among the Republican presidential candidates? Probably not, but they are the most obvious ones.

It's Still Too early To Declare Romney The GOP Winner

In the last week or so, I've read several articles and blog posts that are now declaring Mitt Romney to be the eventual winner of the Republican presidential nomination process. They are deciding this must be true because of some recent events -- Gingrich's fall in the polls, Paul's wacky foreign policy and racial views, and the unviability of any of the other candidates (Perry, Bachmann, Santorum, Huntsman, and Roemer).

I'm not saying Romney won't be the winner after the primary season is over -- he might be. But I'm not ready to anoint him as the GOP nominee just yet. He is still polling in the low twenties nationwide and has yet to show he can get above that. In other words, he has yet to show he can convince enough of the party's teabagger base that he would make the best candidate. Until he can do that, he is only one of several candidates.

A lot of people, including myself, had thought the Gingrich slide in the polls would probably continue until he was out of contention in the race. If that had happened (and he was not replaced by another anti-Romney candidate), then Romney would be the odds-on favorite. But it now is starting to look like the Gingrich slide may be slowing, or even stopping (probably because the teabaggers still consider Romney to be a liberal flip-flopper and Gingrich is all they have right now).

The newest Gallup Poll numbers (a five-day rolling average done between December 20th and 26th) show Gingrich is still in the lead nationwide. It is only a 1 point lead, meaning Gingrich and Romney are now virtually tied, but it is a lead nonetheless. It also shows that the Gingrich "slide" now seems to have flattened out. Here are the current nationwide Gallup numbers:

Ron Paul Is Now The Favorite In Iowa

It's now looking like Newt Gingrich has indeed tumbled out of the lead in Iowa, and Ron Paul has taken his place. This is shown by yet another Iowa poll. The KCRG/Gazette/ISU Poll was taken over a ten day period from December 8th through December 18th. It shows Gingrich still in second place, but that may be because the polling started before his precipitous fall started and therefore gives him more support than he actually has at this point.

But even more than also documenting Gingrich's fall from grace are a couple of other things it shows. One is that Paul support is deeper than that of the other candidates. About 51% of Paul's supporters say they will definitely support him at the caucuses. Committed support for the other candidates is much lower -- with Romney coming in second at 16.1% and Gingrich third at 15.2%. Only 28.1% of the Iowa voters have definitely made up their minds about who they will vote for - a remarkably low number since the caucuses are less than two weeks away.

The other interesting thing is the flattening out of support among several candidates now that both Cain and Gingrich have fallen. Several polls now have shown Perry and Bachmann (and possibly Santorum) gaining some support. While Paul will probably finish first in the caucuses, there is the very real possibility that several candidates leave the state with some delegates. Here are the poll's current numbers:

Ron Paul...............27.5%
Newt Gingrich...............25.3%
Mitt Romney...............17.5%
Rick Perry...............11.2%
Michele Bachmann...............7.4%
Rick Santorum...............4.9%
Jon Huntsman...............0.3%
Undecided...............5.4%

An even newer poll shows more clearly the flattening effect Gingrich's fall is having on the race in Iowa. The We Ask America Poll (done on December 20th with 1,250 GOP voters, with only a 2.77 point margin of error) shows the following numbers:

Ron Paul...............19%
Mitt Romney...............18%
Newt Gingrich...............16%
Michele Bachmann...............15%
Rick Perry...............11%
Rick Santorum...............9%
Jon Huntsman...............4%
Undecided...............8%

Obviously the situation in Iowa (and other places) is still very fluid and could change on an almost daily basis. And it certainly could change again before January 3rd. I personally think Paul will probably finish in first place, but it could be close. And it's anybody's guess as to how the rest will finish. That should make for a fun night of caucusing.

Is Paul The Fly In Gingrich's Ointment ?

Poll after poll has shown that the newest favorite in the Republican race for the presidential nomination is Newt Gingrich. Being unable to win a significant portion of the party's teabagger base, Romney is slipping back while support for Gingrich continues to grow. And if the polls are right, including two new Iowa polls just released, then Gingrich is the current favorite to win the Iowa caucuses (less than a month away now). Can Gingrich be stopped this late? If anyone can do it, it might be Ron Paul. But first let's look at the two newest polls on Iowa:

PUBLIC POLICY POLLING
Newt Gingrich...............27%
Ron Paul...............18%
Mitt Romney...............16%
Michele Bachmann...............13%
Rick Perry...............9%
Rick Santorum...............6%
Jon Huntsman...............4%
Gary Johnson...............1%

WASHINGTON POST/ABC NEWS POLL
Newt Gingrich...............33%
Ron Paul...............18%
Mitt Romney...............18%
Rick Perry...............11%
Michele Bachmann...............8%
Rick Santorum...............7%
Jon Huntsman...............2%

Looking at these polls, Gingrich would seem to be a shoo-in for winning the Iowa caucuses. But there are a few other things that need to be considered. First, Ron Paul has moved up to at least a tie for second place, which means he has at least some momentum. If Gingrich does fall, Paul is close enough to the top to benefit from that. Second, the other candidates are starting to take their shots at Gingrich, and Ron Paul has already released a very hard-hitting anti-Gingrich TV ad (and plans to do some more). This could start having some effect this month.

The third thing is the rather remarkable ability of Ron Paul to turn out his voters. Paul supporters are true-believers, and they will be at the caucuses whether the supporters for other candidates show up or not. This has been shown in straw polls across the country -- the majority of which have been won by Ron Paul. If Gingrich falters, the Paul supporters will be there to take advantage of it, and they just might be able to snatch a victory away from Gingrich or Romney.

Gingrich is currently in the best position, but there's nearly a month to go. This is still a very interesting race, and far from over. Get your popcorn and beverages ready, because the Iowa caucuses are shaping up to be a lot of fun.

Ron Paul Is Still "King Of The Straw Polls"

Ron Paul has had a problem scoring much more than 8-11% in any of the national polls on the Republican presidential field for 2012, but there is little doubt that he is the "king" of the straw polls -- at least for this year. Prior to this weekend Paul had won three straw polls and virtually tied in a fourth.

It started last February when the right-wingers at the CPAC gathering held the first straw poll. Paul won it easily. Then he went on to win straw polls in South Carolina and California. He finished second to Michele Bachmann in the Iowa straw poll, but was so close that it could be considered a virtual tie. This weekend Paul won another straw poll.

This weekend the Family Research Council (an ultra-right-wing hate group) held their Values Voter Summit. The folks attending this gathering are not the "establishment" Republicans. They are the ultra-right fundamentalist teabaggers -- the people who make up most of the Republican base these days.

Rumor had it that these folks were taking a fresh look at Mitt Romney since Perry and Bachmann have tumbled in the polls and Palin declined to run. But they must not have liked what they saw when they took that second look, because when it came to showing their support they turned their backs on him. Ron Paul easily won the straw poll. Here is how the straw poll voting of the 1,983 conference attendees turned out:

Ron Paul...............732 (36.9%)
Herman Cain...............447 (22.5%)
Rick Santorum...............323 (16.3%)
Rick Perry...............167 (8.4%)
Michele Bachmann...............157 (7.9%)
Mitt Romney...............88 (4.4%)
Others...............69 (3.5%)

A few things are evident from the outcome of this straw poll (even though it is probably not predictive of who will finally win the Republican nomination). First, Mitt Romney may be popular with the party establishment, but he is still having a lot of trouble getting the teabagger vote.

They don't like the health care package he signed while governor of Massachusetts (because it looks to much like the plan passed by Obama and the Democrats). They are also not buying his stands on global warming and gay rights (although he has flip-flopped on both in an effort to appeal to them). But perhaps most important, they don't like that he's a mormon (which many of them don't even consider to be christian).

Second, the straw poll shows just how far the candidacies of Rick Perry and Michele Bachmann have fallen. The kind of people voting in this straw poll, the teabagger fundamentalists, are the very people that both Perry and Bachmann were counting on to propel them to the Republican nomination. The fact that they couldn't even get a double-digit percentage doesn't bode well for their campaigns. Bachmann is probably finished, but Perry does have a pretty good amount of money he was able to raise before he started dropping in the polls. We'll have to wait and see if he can buy his way back into the race.

Third, the teabaggers have not yet found a candidate they can unite behind. Palin was the early favorite, but she didn't have the guts for a campaign and now is out. Perry and Bachmann were both "flavors of the month" for a short while, but the popularity of both has dropped precipitiously. Romney is a non-starter for this group, and the Gingrich campaign has been dead for a while now (he just hasn't accepted it yet).

That leaves them with Ron Paul, Herman Cain, and Rick Santorum -- and all three of them have disagreeable-looking warts (at least as far as the teabaggers are concerned). Paul has the problem that not all of his views coincide with teabagger views (such as his anti-war stance and his anti-drug war stance), and he refuses to change to appeal to them. That's anathema to the teabaggers, who demand 100% agreement.

Rick Santorum has the right craziness but is just not viewed as a winner. Every poll shows if he was the nominee, President Obama would beat him like he was a drum. Herman Cain has exactly the kind of craziness that the teabaggers love, but he also has the wrong skin color. Too many of the teabaggers are already aghast at having an African-American living in the White House, and I just can't see them nominating one of their own (even if they do agree with his insane views).

That means this is still a very interesting race. No one can win the Republican nomination without at least a large hunk of the teabagger vote, and most of them are still trying to figure out who to support. Will they hold their noses and vote for Romney? Will they give Perry or Bachmann a second chance? Or will they finally pick between Paul, Santorum, or Cain? I don't think anybody knows right now.

But time is running out, and they'll have to decide very soon. That's because the caucuses and primaries are going to start a good bit earlier than they normally do. Here's what the early schedule looks like right now:

Iowa...............January 3
New Hampshire...............Not set yet, but will be before January 14
Nevada...............January 14
South Carolina...............January 21
Florida...............January 31