@roger,
From International Herald Tribune.
Quote:AUGUST 5, 2012, 3:41 PM
The U.S. House of Representatives last year became the spiritual home of the Tea Party, which helped elect dozens in the 2010 Republican landslide. Success in the Senate was limited.
In 2013, the Senate may become the Tea Party’s cathedral.
In my latest column, I lay out what has become of the Tea Party-backed representatives. This year, Tea Party activists are winning Republican Senate primaries and are favored to win seats in the fall. They include Ted Cruz in Texas, Deb Fischer in Nebraska and Richard Mourdock in Indiana. Primaries over the next 10 days in Missouri and Wisconsin could catapult others.
Mr. Cruz, a former law clerk to the late Supreme Court Justice William Rehnquist, handily defeated the Texas lieutenant governor last week. He’s considered a virtual shoo-in in the general election.
Ms. Fischer, who won an upset victory against a more established candidate, has been embraced by the Tea Party, as has Mr. Mourdock who knocked off six-term Republican Senator Richard Lugar in Indiana. Facing tough Democratic opponents, they are favored in states that are decidedly Republican.
They all are hard-line conservatives. Take Mr. Mourdock: He has proposed spending cuts of $7.6 trillion over a decade, or more than double the amount recommended by the Bowles-Simpson deficit commission. As for bipartisanship, he says, “The problem is that we try to work together too much rather than stand for our convictions.”
If all these Tea Party-backed Republicans win in November, it means Mitch McConnell, the current Republican Senate leader, will be in the majority. From day one, however, the Kentucky senator will be looking over his shoulder. The real power may be South Carolina Senator Jim DeMint, who stood up and supported a number of these Tea Party candidates in the 2010 elections.
Another politician who benefits: Sarah Palin. The former Alaska governor endorsed Mr. Mourdock, Ms. Fischer and Mr. Cruz when they were underdogs.
Romney's choice of Paul Ryan seems to have made everyone - Repubs and Dems - happy.
I seems to me to ensure what we already expected: the 2012 will be all about the economy. Other issues will pale in comparison.
The challenge for Romney is to not get upstaged by Ryan and by his ideas regarding reform of Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. Blue collar workers and the elderly may feel threatened.
I feel that the biggest problem for Obama is low voter turnout especially among minorities and the young.
@realjohnboy,
Conservative blue collar and seniors do not feel threatened; that's the reason why they're behind the Ryan choice for VP.
Just wondering; how will the Romney presidency work with the liberals? Gridlock or compromise?
What's the chances of the GOP winning both houses of congress?
Here are the poll numbers as compiled by RCP's Poll of Polls in early August. New polls will reflect the Ryan pick and, perhaps, the Republican convention.
Nationally, Obama over Romney 48.0% - 43.8%.
Swing-states: Ohio (Obama 48.3 - Romney 43.5); Virginia (Obama 47.4 - 44.2); Florida (Obama 47.0 - 45.6); Iowa (Obama 45.3 - 44.3); NC (Romney 48.3 - 47.3); Colorado (Obama 46.6 - 45.4); Nevada (Obama 49.3 - 44.0); Missouri (Romney 48.5 - 42.8); Wisconsin (Obama 49.8 - 44.4);
Michigan (Obama 48.3 - 42.0); Pennsylvania (49.3 - 42.3); NH (47.3 - 44.3).
I think that the Romney people are expecting a Mid-west bounce.
I'll be watching tomorrow's ....
Wisconsin Republican Primary For U.S. Senate
The race will be select to a candidate to replace the retiring Democrat Herb Kohl. Republicans see this as an opportunity to pick up a seat in the Senate although no Repub has been sent to the Senate from WI since Joe McCarthy in the 1950's.
Tommy Thompson, former Gov and HHS secretary under G.W. Bush has incredible name recognition and is still in the lead by single digits. Lately,
though, there is talk of his being too old (70) and out of touch.
The leading challenger was Eric Hovde, who has been spending a lot of his own money ($4M). He is an investment banker.
The guy to watch now is Mark Neumann, who has racked up a bunch of
Teaparty endorsements. He is surging.
Republican leaders concede that there is voter fatigue after the brutal recall effort of Gov Scott Walker (R) earlier this summer and voter turnout was expected to be low - around 20% - tomorrow.
But the selection of Ryan as Romney's VP could change that, I think, favoring Neumann. Walker and Ryan haven't endorsed anyone. Romney mentioned Thompson kind of favorably.
Good evening to the few of you still watching this sleepy thread.
The nomination of Ryan may have made the conservative Repubs happy but appears to not have helped Romney much either nationally or in the swing states.
Polls and pundits suggest that all but a few of us have made up our minds as to who we support. I think that may be true. I am curious as to what you think.
Obama's people should, in my view, lay off bashing Romney about his taxes.
Romney has dug that hole and a certain percentage of the public will vote for or against him accordingly.
Obama should instead focus on getting the (fickle?) younger voters to turn out come November. He can't do that on the economy or on the Medicare/Medicaid/Social Security yawners of the past couple of weeks.
I think he has some limited opportunity on "fairness" issues, specifically with regards to attempts in some states to restrict voting.
Romney has got to get the race back on the economy. He has wasted the last six weeks dodging gaffes. He has to make a convincing case at the convention as to why Repubs should be excited to have him as their man.
Still following, rjb. I read more than post here. I think that if nobody rocks the boat Obama should win. I have been wrong about other elections, so I would not want this cast in stone.
@edgarblythe,
It's not cast in stone yet; just wet, slow-drying, cement.
@realjohnboy,
realjohnboy wrote: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.
You wish! The fact is that the Simpson-Bowles commission didn't suggest any net tax increase. To the contrary: It committed itself from the outset to freezing federal revenue at 21% of GDP. Don't take my word for it, go check for yourself. Their draft report is
here (PDF). See "Guiding Principles", item 9, on slide 7. The Simpson-Bowles commission's reputation for being a centrist institution working out a common-sense deficit-reduction plan is entirely undeserved. I'm sorry to observe they fooled you too.
@ehBeth,
Which part are you suggesting I missed? This one?
Quote: (I may have made up some of the details in the narrative above. Nothing serious, I hope.)
@ehBeth,
Then my reply would be that making up tax increases that don't exist
is pretty serious when the narrative is about a putative deficit-reduction commission. But, I'll let Realjohnboy be the judge of what I misunderstood in his post.
@ehBeth,
Oh, ok. He's saying that's what Congress
assigned the commission to do, not that that's what it did. I'm sorry I wrongly suggested that RJB thinks the commission did what it was assigned to do.
@realjohnboy,
rjb, I've written to Obama, and told him he needs to challenge all the lies from the Romney camp. He needs to keep pounding on that message, that Romney is a liar and cannot be depended upon to keep his word on anything.
Etch a sketch creates a good picture of Romney. Do voters really know where he stands on anything?
@Thomas,
Thomas wrote:
Oh, ok. He's saying that's what Congress assigned the commission to do, not that that's what it did. I'm sorry I wrongly suggested that RJB thinks the commission did what it was assigned to do.
I think the problem here is that
RJB was talking about the "super-committee," while you're talking about the Simpson-Bowles commission. Completely different beasts.
@joefromchicago,
I see. Thanks for the correction.
@Thomas,
If they were suggesting revenues be 21% then that would be a revenue increase.
There has only been one year in US history where revenues exceeded 20% of GDP.
Thomas, I don't recall what I said in the post you referenced. I doubt I would have gotten specific about the mix of tax increases/spending cuts needed to avoid the Armageddon of across the board spending cuts.
I probably lamented the notion of Congress punting on facing tough issues as is their wont.
And now we face an end of the year deadline with a lame duck congress and perhaps a lame duck President.
I mentioned yesterday that Romney needs to get his campaign back to the ecomomy, the economy and the economy.
Obama needs to somehow motivate his supporters on social issues.
Along comes Todd Akin, who was leading the incumbent in the MO senate race - which may determine control of that body in Washington.
Akin seems to be resisting Repub calls for him to withdraw from the race. He has until tomorrow afternoon to do so. After that the party would have to go to court to force him to withdraw.
It would be a big distraction for Romney to have this drag on.
I see Akin pulling out tomorrow.
