The U.S. National Elections For President, The Senate And The House Of Representatives.

I see that Gov Romney today has taped interviews with 5 news networks for broadcast this evening. He evidently will respond to the Bain Capital controversy.

The dude is definitely playing defense. Whether or not the attacks from Obama are TECHNICALLY correct, they accomplish two different things:

1, it reinforces the narrative that Romney is a big businessman who engages in a bunch of shady deals, and

2, it keeps Romney talking about his past, which he doesn't want to do.

The defenses that his campaign have thrown up are very complicated in nature - basically, that he could be the CEO and sole owner of a company, but bear no responsibility for what they do, because he wasn't in the building, or something. I highly doubt this explanation is going to fly with the average voter.

Today, Harry Reid said that Romney had paid 'basically zero taxes for the last 12 years.' An inflammatory comment, but one that's very difficult for Romney to defend against without actually releasing his tax returns. Which, I must say, he is strangely reluctant to do.

I strongly suspect that he had manipulated his taxes in some way, in order to hide a lot of his income from taxation. And that's not going to go over too well.

Cycloptichorn

Here's a comment from a reader of Sully's that has some experience in these matters:



Yup.

I'd like to hear someone's spirited defense of how he owned and was listed as the CEO of a company, yet wasn't responsible for things that took place during that time, that didn't devolve into a very technical argument.

Cycloptichorn

For What It Worth...
I looked at Real Clear Politics (RCP) at the end of this week. They are sort of a poll of polls.
They show Obama leading Romney 46.8% vs 44.4% in the popular vote. That is largely unchanged from a couple of weeks ago.
They show the Electoral College Vote - also unchanged - as being Obama at 221, Romney at 181 and 136 as Toss-up. 270 is the number needed for election.
Among the toss-up states are Ohio {18 Electoral Votes} where Obama is up +2.6 in the polls; Virginia {13} Obama +3; Florida {29} Obama + .9; Iowa {6} Obama +2.5; North Carolina {15} Romney +1.2; Colorado {9} Obama +3; Nevada {6} Obama +5.3; Missouri (10) Romney +3; Wisconsin {10} Obama +4.4; Michigan {16} Obama +1.8; and New Hampshire {4} Obama +5.7.

They have already started running Obama and Romney campaign ads on TV here. I've seen two different ads attacking Romney in the past several days, and one attacking Obama.

When the political campaign ads start running in mid-July, it's going to seem like a long long stretch until November.

I forget where you are, firefly.
President Obama campaigned in my state of Virginia last week in parts of the state considered "in play."
The first lady will be in the Democratic strong hold of my city, Charlottesville, on Friday. I imagine she will appear on the downtown pedestrian mall six blocks from my store.
In other news:
> Romney has said "hell, no" to releasing his tax returns. He probably will have to cave on that in the next few weeks;
> He is going overseas to Israel and to the opening of the Summer Olympics in London;
> He may, or may not, name his VP running mate at week's end. It will be met with a response of "Who is (s)he?" I think he will wait until the convention.

100 days until election day!
> Economic news out last week for the 2nd quarter ending June was not good. Growth sputtered as consumers pulled back on spending. For Obama, that is not good as between now and election day there will be 3 (or 4) monthly unemployment reports coming out. Chances of any decline in unemployment seem doubtful.
> Fortunately for Obama the Olympics are on, which gets a lot of media attention, and Congress is largely gone from Washington. And Romney had a comically bad week in London. I think his comments were largely a tempest in a teapot (save for his name dropping re his meeting MI6) but it again raises questions in my mind about his staff.

Texas Republican Race to Replace Kaye Bailey Hutchison

A Cruz win would not only be a major rebuke of the well-known (and VERY well financed) Dewhurst, but it would also arguably be the most significant statewide upset of the 2012 cycle to date. (Yes, we’re talking about the same cycle in which a sitting senator was dislodged in Indiana and a little-known state legislator won the GOP Senate nomination in Nebraska.)

There are three key reasons for this.

For starters, Dewhurst didn’t implode. He raised heaps of money and added millions from his own checkbook. He began with a huge name identification advantage, was backed by Gov. Rick Perry, and enlisted the help of David Carney, one of the sharpest political minds in Texas. And he was the beneficiary of a super PAC headed by Rob Johnson, another top Texas GOP hand.

By contrast, Sen. Richard Lugar (R-Ind.) ran a lackluster operation which was slow to respond to a lingering story about his out-of-state residency and plagued by a record that enraged conservatives. In Nebraska, frontrunning GOP Attorney General Jon Bruning was beleaguered by ethics questions and gaffe-prone behavior. The errors both men made opened them up to upstart challengers. Dewhurst didn’t make those same sort of mistakes.

Both Bruning and Lugar were also dogged by charges of being insufficiently conservative. Dewhurst was too, but those assaults were less fair. Bruning supported confirming Eric Holder as Attorney General while Lugar’s work across the aisle won him (toxic) praise from Democrats. But Dewhurst showed no signs he’d be anything but a reliable Republican vote in the Senate.

So how did Cruz stay competitive and even climb into what looks like the driver’s seat? He leveraged national acclaim from conservatives like Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) and George Will into strong local tea party support, winning an impressive 34 percent of the primary vote and forcing a runoff against Dewhurst, who took 45 percent in the late May election.

And he’s proving to be a great closer. He outraised Dewhurst more than 3-1 during the first third of the month, spurred Sarah Palin and DeMint to stump in the state for him last Friday and never lost the confidence of the anti-tax Club For Growth, which has spent $5.5 million on independent expenditures to help him win.

But don’t write Dewhurst off just yet in a race strategists on both sides expect to be close. An internal poll showed him holding a slight lead last week. A review of ad spending during the final week reveals that Dewhurst and his allies outspent Cruz and his supporters by nearly $1.3 million on TV. And early voting – which was good to Dewhurst in the primary – was robust in the runoff.

“I think the turnout is going to be higher than what most people are projecting,” said Dewhurst spokesman Matt Hirsch.

Still, it’s difficult to overlook the signs Dewhurst is in trouble. The super PAC supporting him released a harsh TV ad last week smacking of desperation that tried to tie Cruz to the suicide of a young man. Meanwhile, like Dewhurst, Cruz has also released polling showing him ahead; both sides agree that Dewhurst’s double-digit lead is long gone.

“The momentum and enthusiasm really seems to be with Ted Cruz,” said Rice University political scientist Mark Jones.

A Cruz victory would suggest that Republican voters aren’t just rejecting inadequately conservative candidates and longtime incumbents. The sufficiently conservative who are tied the establishment — a word becoming more and more toxic in politics — are also at risk.

A Tuesday win by Cruz would mean just about every candidate left in a GOP primary who is challenging a frontrunner tied in ANY way to the establishment will do everything they can to compare their candidacy to Cruz’s.

Goo analysis. I think Cruz will win the long battle for the Republican Senate nomination in Texas. It has been a drawnout process due to the rule that the nominee must get 50% + 1 of the votes. Also things got delayed due to redistricting battles.
I don't think turnout will be very high which should benefit Cruz. His supporters smell blood in the water and he has the teaparty types endorsing and campaigning for him.
A Cruz victory could make the Republic establishment in other places nervous. Which is why this race is worth watching.
(The Republican nominee in this primary will win in November. That is a given).

The Texas Democrats have been hiding out for years.

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/08/02/aug-1-obama-extends-electoral-college-advantage/#more-32731



Obama's chances of winning the election have hit an all-time high in 538's calculation model.

Cycloptichorn

I saw that, Cyclo. I respect Nate's analysis but my eyes tend to glaze over when I try to read him.
Did you see the see the Quinnipiac/CBS/NY Times poll out earlier this week in swing states? Florida: Obama over Romney 51-45; PA: Obama up 55-42; OH: Obama 50-44. Surprising, and some flaws have been claimed.
Plenty of time for the polls to change.
Tomorrow we will see the unemployment numbers for July. I can't see any change. There will be three more monthly reports before election day, including one on the Friday before Americans vote. Romney will stay on the attack we can assume.

It's definitely thick stuff. But the dude called 49/50 states and every senate contest last cycle; his predictive ability is currently unmatched.

Cycloptichorn

That's true, but what seems like the current trend is that Tea Partiers are going to be winning the Senate. That bodes badly for Boehner, so not only will the congress be at loggerheads with President Obama, but nothing will get done.

That's what the American people wants; and they'll get it!

<3 Nate. His last column published the night before the 2010 Midterms was 5 Ways the Democrats Can Still Hold the House.

I love optimists!

SEQUESTRATION-
A long, long time ago (18 months?) Congress failed to pass a debt ceiling bill and, as a result, the rating agencies threatened to downgrade U.S. credit. The Dow fell 600 the next day and Congress then decided to increase the debt ceiling to an amount that would get us through the election of 2012.
In exchange, a bipartisan commission would suggest some combination of tax increases and spending cuts to reduce the deficit OR ELSE there would be automatic cuts to military and domestic budgets to the tune of some $50Bn each effective 1/2013. This seemed like a good idea to Congress at the time with the Senate approving the idea by something like 80-20.
The commission's ideas died, of course, and the clock is ticking towards the Jan, 2013, deadline. Congress is heading for a much deserved 5-week vacation and then, ahead of the election, there will much finger pointing and hand wringing about who got us into this pickle - which many of them voted for.
(I may have made up some of the details in the narrative above. Nothing serious, I hope.)

Anyway, then Senator Obama voted for legislation requiring employers to give workers 60 days notice ahead of possible layoffs. Private contractors working for the Defense Department - with some 1 million jobs - might have to send letters to their employees warning of layoffs. Jan 2, 2013, minus 60 days, would be Friday, November 2nd. Election day is the 6th.

We get what we vote for.

It's being circulated now that the Tea Party will be controlling the Senate.

1. Cut all spending.
2. Don't raise taxes.
3. Bankrupt the country.

Simple goals during a time of a world recession.

There are several more primaries being contested today. The one I will be following is the Republican race for Senate in Missouri.
The contenders are Rep Todd Akin and businessman John Brewer, who has largely self-financed his campaign ($7/mil).
And then there is Sarah Steelman, who has staged a late surge thanks in no small part due to the support from Sarah Palin. Palin has gotten a bit more selective with her endorsements, concentrating on races where her backing might actually mean something.
The incumbent Democrat is Clair McCaskill. The Repubs see MO as critical to gaining control of the Senate.

I believe I saw a recent editorial that said the Secretary of Labor had determined that defense contractors need not, and should not send out such letters. I'm not going to track it down, but it was a recent WSJ editorial.

I know not everyone would accept editorial content as factual, of course.

C.I., I wish someone would discover that it doesn't have to be all of one, or none at all.

I have doubts about Tea Party controlling anything, by the way. Who is circulating this?