GOP’s 2012 CO, MN Caucuses and MO Primary Turnout Continue Lower-Than-2008 Trend

The Republican Enthusiasm Gap isn’t getting any smaller. Granted, Missouri’s primary doesn’t count as its Republican-controlled legislature was more interested in trying to jam a bunch of unpalatable amendments down Jay Nixon’s throat than in actually making sure there was a sensible primary system, but Minnesota’s and Colorado’s caucuses have real importance.

In 2008, Mitt Romney won handily in Minnesota, 41% (25,990 votes) to John McCain’s 22% (13,826 votes). Total turnout: 62,828.

In 2012, Rick Santorum won handily over third-place Mitt Romney, 44.9% (21,932 votes) to 16.9% (8,222 votes). Ron Paul was second with 27.1% (13,228 votes). Total turnout (per HuffPo): 48,795 – a drop in turnout of nearly one-third.

In 2008, Mitt Romney stomped all other GOP challengers into the dirt in the Colorado Republican caucus, winning with 60% of the vote or 42,218 votes. John McCain got 18% or 12,918 votes; nobody else even broke into double figures, percentagewise. Total turnout: 70,229.

In 2012, Rick Santorum beat Mitt Romney in the Colorado Republican caucus, winning with 40.3% (26,614 votes) to Romney’s 34.9% (23,012 votes). Total turnout: 58,863, a drop of nearly one-fifth from 2008.

Romney really didn’t want to be spending any more money on primaries at this point, but he simply has to in order to get people to the polls to vote for him. Even the ones he’s won, he’s done so by outspending his opponents by at least 5-to-1 (and he outspent Santorum in Iowa by nearly 100-to-1 and still lost). This doesn’t bode well for Mister Electable.

The Republicans’ Enthusiasm Gap

I’ve been trying to gauge relative voter enthusiasm by comparing 2012 primary and caucus results to those of 2008, on the idea that the more folks who turn out for the early primaries, the ones that decide the end result months in advance, are the key ones to watch as the motivation factor to participate will be higher in those than in the primaries held after them.

Up to this point — aside from South Carolina which was the Tea Party’s Last Hurrah, hence the huge TheoCon turnout which disproportionately benefited Newt — turnout’s been similar to 2008, especially when you take population growth into account. But then we came to Florida, and Florida’s GOP turnout this year was much lower than four years ago: 1,663,698 to 2008’s 1,949,498, or nearly 300,000 less.

I believe this means that while the Republican’s Tea-Party/Bircher base may have grudgingly accepted Romney as the only Republican who stands a chance against Obama this year, the operative word here is “grudgingly”. This was an incredibly hard-fought state — Romney needed Florida’s winner-take-all system to put a stake through Newt’s heart, which is why he outspent Newt there by a five-to-one margin — and if there really was the huge “dump Obama” fervor the GOP/Media Complex says exists, one would expect turnout to have been much higher than in 2008. Instead, the opposite happened, and there was a fifteen percent drop in turnout from 2008.

From now on, the rest of the primary schedule will have a decreasing amount of relevance aside from padding Mitt’s delegate totals. Money that was either on the sidelines or committed to other candidates will now start flowing Mitt’s way, and he’s going to need it: He outspent Santorum by nearly 100-to-1 in Iowa and still lost by a hairsbreadth, he outspent Gingrich by over two-to-one in South Carolina and got beaten like a gong, and he had to pull out all the stops and outspend Newt by five-to-one to beat him in Florida. His easiest win was in New Hampshire, where he had the advantage of being the only New Englander in the race, and even there he still had to spend over $10 million.

David Paul Kuhn of the Republican-run RealClearPolitics addresses the Republicans’ enthusiam gap in a roundabout way, asking: “Will Romney’s Strengths Prove Moot Against Obama?” Well, when even the Republican stalwart Scott Rasmussen’s polling shows Obama beating Romney by four percentage points in the general, I suspect that the answer is “no”.

Why is this? A number of reasons have been advanced, one of them being anti-Mormon prejudice, but I suspect that another factor is this: Having Romney as the nominee would mean that the Republicans’ biggest weapon to date against Obama and the Democrats — the unpopularity of the Affordable Care Act — is now permanently neutralized, as the ACA is in essence a national version of the “Romneycare” that Mitt introduced in Massachusetts, and too many Republicans are all too aware of this.

If Romney is ever foolish enough to criticize the ACA during any of his debates with Obama, all Obama has to do is tell the stark truth: “Funny you should say that, Governor, as we used your Romneycare plan as a model for the Affordable Care Act.”

South Carolina GOP Primary Turnouts, 2008 and 2012

While the 2012 Republican caucus and primary turnouts in Iowa and New Hampshire (121,503 and 248,485, respectively) weren’t substantially different from 2008 (119,188 and 234,851 respectively), particularly considering the population growth in both states over the past four years, South Carolina’s 2012 turnout — 600,421 with 99.5% of precincts reporting — is markedly higher, nearly 155,000 more than in 2008.

My take is that this was the result of the TheoCons (UPDATE: What I for a long time have been calling “the religio-racist right”) pulling out all the stops to keep Romney from sailing unimpeded to the nomination.

Next up: Florida, which could, if Newt wins it, lead to the mother of all brokered conventions.

(Crossposted to MyFDL.)

What “The People’s View” Would Rather You Didn’t See Right Now

As some of you may know, Ray Sandoval, the New Mexico OFA Director, saw fit in a recent OFA e-mail to quote an entire blog post from Spandan Chakrabarti, whose blog is called “The People’s View” and who also posts as “Deaniac83” at DailyKos, as a way to attack the progressive movement, especially those who publicly take issue with the doings (or not doings) of Obama and his coterie.

But Chakrabarti wasn’t always a My-Obama-Right-Or-Wrong kinda guy. In fact, back on October 30 of 2007, he stated that Obama had lost his vote for, in Chakrabarti’s words, Obama’s “decision to pander to some in the African American religious community in order to surrender his principled support for equal rights for all Americans, regardless of their sexual orientation or gender identity”. As Chakrabarti would go on to say:

Lest you think this is because I was personally offended as a gay man, you are right. But it wasn’t only because of that that I made this decision. I draw the line in the sand when politicians pander to any group and sacrifice their stated goals of equal dignity under law and associate themselves, willingly, with known bigots of any kind, be they racists, sexists or homophobes. This is such a line. Obama has crossed it. Good riddance, Barack Obama.

That really must have been a line drawn in the sand, because it didn’t last very long. Hint: Next time, draw such lines in freshly-poured concrete. Better yet, don’t make such claims if you aren’t willing to stand behind them.

Stuff Darrell Issa Doesn’t Want You To See

Howie Klein Tweeted this the other day:

So I clicked on the link Howie provided, and here’s some of what I found:

In 1971, Issa reportedly took a Dodge sedan from an Army post where he was stationed near Pittsburgh. There were no charges filed in that case, but the story was leaked to the press by a retired Army sergeant, who says he threatened Issa and then was able to retrieve the car. As a college student in 1972, Issa and his brother were arrested in Cleveland, suspected of stealing a red Maserati from a dealership. The witnesses recognized Darrell and his brother, William as they pushed the Maserati down the street. The third incident took place in San Jose, California. In 1980, Issa, then 27 years old, and his brother William, 29, were again arrested and this time indicted on felony auto theft charges. William Issa, using his brother’s second driver’s license, sold younger Darrell’s cherry red Mercedes to a dealer for $16,000.00. Three hours after William received and cashed the check, Darrell reported the car stolen. The police also charged Darrell because his answers to questions were inconsistent. Why did he have two driver’s licenses? Initially, Issa denied having two driver’s licenses, but then changed his story. Simple, responded Issa. He did not like the way his picture came out in the first one. As to whether Darrell knew the identity of the man pictured in the composite drawing of the suspect (his brother), Issa stated he did not know who the man was, but would like to send the picture to his mother to see if she knew who it was. According to detectives, the composite was so detailed that it was clearly a composite of William. That answer and answers to other questions created so much doubt in the minds of the police officers involved, they arrested and charged both brothers, even though Darrell reportedly offered to pay the auto dealer more than the $16,000.00 that William was paid.

Please see the article:http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2003/06/25/ISSA.TMP

[…]

In 1982, Issa was suspected, but never charged in a suspicious fire that burned his Ohio manufacturing plant. Although there was insufficient evidence to prosecute Issa, the police suspected he was behind the fire based on two facts. Just a few weeks prior to the fire, Issa increased the fire insurance coverage to quadruple the original amount and according to the company bookkeeper, Karen Brasdovich, a few days before the fire, records and a company computer were removed from the plant, which was completely out of character for Issa. Charges were not filed due to lack of evidence, but the suspicions remain.

Issa was arrested twice for weapons charges, once in Ohio and once in Michigan. While Issa was in Ohio, he was given the job of firing a high level executive, Jack Frantz. Frantz recalls that Issa came into his office carrying a box. Issa opened the box and showed Frantz the gun. Frantz knew he was being fired and felt that was Issa’s method of intimidating him. Frantz relayed the story to the Los Angeles Times and in response, Issa told the reporter, “No shots were ever fired.” He further stated that he doesn’t even remember whether he had a gun that day. The bookkeeper backed up Frantz’s story, telling the LA Times that day was frightening. In the Michigan case, Issa received probation and paid a fine.

Please see: http://politicalcorrection.org/factcheck/201006010007

[…]

To see Issa’s more recent escapades, link to: http://hubpages.com/hub/Darrell-Issa-Guarded-Nixon-During-The-1971-World-Series-Problem-Nixon-Wasnt-There

So, let’s see: Caught stealing motor vehicles on three different occasions that we know of, suspected of burning down his Ohio manufacturing plant right after he a) quadrupled the coverage amount and b) pulled the company records and computer out of it, arrested twice for weapons charges, and lied about being Nixon’s bodyguard:

Of all the lies reportedly told by Darrell Issa, maybe the worst is that he guarded then President Nixon during the 1971 World Series Games. According to the Nixon Library, Nixon did not attend the World Series that year. To couple America’s Greatest Pastime with a lie is unforgivable, but with Issa, that lie is the tip of the iceberg! In 1971, Issa was a 17 year old high school dropout who had enlisted in the Army. Records show that while in the Army, he did serve in an exclusive unit for less than six months, but that he was cited for bad conduct, suffered a demotion and accused of auto theft. The San Francisco Examiner ran a scathing article in May of 1998 which helped to derail Issa’s then bid for Senate. The article researched Issa’s actual military record and compared that to Issa’s accounts of his military service and the results were devastating for Mr. Issa. The above allegations were a part of that article.

More can be found here. (Update: Here’s a better link.)

The Guilty Flee When No Man Pursueth II: Jon Kyl Attacks Sheriff Dupnik

A point to remember:

Sheriff Dupnik, in his remarks yesterday, didn’t specifically single out right-wing politicians and media figures as being the entities that turned Arizona into “a mecca for prejudice and bigotry”. But we all know full well that it’s not lefties who are the culprits here — hell, a Republican senator has even admitted as much:

A senior Republican senator, speaking anonymously in order to freely discuss the tragedy, told POLITICO that the Giffords shooting should be taken as a “cautionary tale” by Republicans.

“There is a need for some reflection here – what is too far now?” said the senator. “What was too far when Oklahoma City happened is accepted now. There’s been a desensitizing. These town halls and cable TV and talk radio, everybody’s trying to outdo each other.”

Why is this senator speaking anonymously? Because he fears retribution from either his party’s leadership or his party’s base.

Can you imagine Democratic senators like Ben Nelson or Mary Landrieu acting so fearful of their party leadership or their base that they don’t dare go on the record against them? Of course not, because they know they have nothing to fear from their party’s base. The same is not true of Republicans.

In fact, even though Sheriff Dupnik didn’t specifically mention right-wingers as the culprits behind the poisonous Arizona climate, right-wingers are certainly — in classic “the guilty flee when no man pursueth” fashion — reacting as if he did. Some of them want to force him to resign, and hard-right Republican Arizona Senator Jon Kyl has attacked Sheriff Dupnik over his remarks.

As to whether the accused shooter, Jared Loughner, is a right-winger: How many lefties do you know that are Glenn-Beck-style gold and silver bugs? Furthermore, according to the SPLC’s Mark Potok, Loughner got his grammar ideas from right-wing nutjob and Tea Party favorite David Wynn Miller. I think that pretty much settles that question.

The Guilty Flee When No One Pursueth: RWers Scrub Websites After Giffords Shooting

Erick Erickson and Michelle Malkin doth protest too much when they say that the guy who shot Democratic congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords couldn’t have been a fellow right-winger like them. If that’s so, then why are a whole bunch of right-winger Republicans and their allies suddenly scrubbing things from their websites?

Things like this:

And this, scrubbed from Sarah Palin’s website:

The guilty — of conscience, perhaps? — flee when no one pursueth.

Deficit Spending: It’s OK, If You’re A Republican

See here and here.

Also.

Budget Arsonist Posing As Fireman: Greg Mankiw Spews Nonsense, Again

If anyone to the left of Ben Nelson was this stupid in print, they’d be keelhauled. But since it’s Greggie Mancow, and since (like Lindsey Graham) he advocates starving Grandma so he can get an even bigger house in Wellesley, he’s welcomed in the pension-hating NYT with open arms so he can spew his Obama-must-be-even-more-of-a-pushover spiel:

STOP TRYING TO SPREAD THE WEALTH Ever since your famous exchange with Joe the Plumber, it has been clear that you believe that the redistribution of income is a crucial function of government. A long philosophical tradition supports your view. It includes John Rawls’s treatise “A Theory of Justice,” which concludes that the main goal of public policy should be to transfer resources to those at the bottom of the economic ladder.

Many Republicans, however, reject this view of the state. From their perspective, it is not the proper role of government to fix the income distribution in an attempt to achieve some utopian vision of fairness. They believe, instead, that in a free society, people make money when they produce goods and services that others value, and that, as a result, what they earn is rightfully theirs.

First of all, Mancow is lying when he accuses Obama of “trying to spread the wealth”. If anything, Obama has bent over backwards to appease the people in Mancow’s tax bracket so they’ll donate to him in 2012 — even though we’ve already seen the big-bucks folks at Big Health betray Obama after he’d killed the public option for them.

Secondly, as Blue Texan points out, Republicans like Teddy Roosevelt had this to say about the kind of taxation that makes Mancow’s lazy Randroid ass pucker in disdain and fear:

A heavy progressive tax upon a very large fortune is in no way such a tax upon thrift or industry as a like would be on a small fortune. No advantage comes either to the country as a whole or to the individuals inheriting the money by permitting the transmission in their entirety of the enormous fortunes which would be affected by such a tax; and as an incident to its function of revenue raising, such a tax would help to preserve a measurable equality of opportunity for the people of the generations growing to manhood.

As BT says:

But the worst part of Mankiw’s suggestion that Obama embrace a flat tax is that we’re living in a time of record inequality — the top 1% have a greater net worth than the bottom 90%. That inequality is having a corrosive effect on our democracy and our society. And to suggest that we exacerbate this further by cutting taxes even more for billionaires is just disgusting, offensive, morally repugnant.

Remember: Mankiw is not some wingnut radio host in Tuscaloosa. He’s a Harvard professor and a former advisor to George W. Bush, and he’s looking at the deficit and massive wealth inequality and saying, “more please.” This is where the right is in 2011.

Furthermore, Brad DeLong notes that Mancow’s track record on budgets is horrible:

Let the record show that when Greg Mankiw was chair of the President’s Council of Economic Advisers he worked for a president, George W. Bush, who took less than zero regard for the long-term fiscal stability of the United States. And let the record show that Mankiw did not put his or his staff’s credibility on the line in an attempt to reverse either of the five big budget-busting decisions–the 2001 abandonment of congressional PAYGO, the 2003 shift of taxes from the present into the future, the 2003 decision not to raise taxes to pay for any portion of the war in Iraq, and the 2003 decision not to find a revenue source to cover any part of the expense of Medicare Part D–of the George W. Bush administration.

[…]

And let the record show that there have been four big moves on the long-term budget in the past year: (1) the inclusion in the Affordable Care Act of the IPAB to slow the growth rate of Medicare spending (good for long-run fiscal stability, and which the Republicans have sworn to repeal), (2) the inclusion in the Affordable Care Act of the tax on high-cost health plans (good for fiscal stability, and which the Republicans have sworn to repeal), (3) the late 2010 Obama-McConnell deal on extending the shift of taxes from the present to the future (bad for fiscal stability, which the Republicans supported), and (4) the abandonment of PAYGO by the Republican House majority (bad for fiscal stability). Let the record show that Greg Mankiw has not endorsed (1) or (2), and has not lamented (3) or (4).

DeLong likens Mancow to an arsonist wearing a fire chief’s hat. Sounds about right.

Typical Teabaggery

One of the things Big Tobacco’s favorite congresscritter is doing as a sop to the Koch Tea Party wing of the GOP: having readings of the Constitution and making sure each new bill has a cite of the requisite Constitutional authority.

So what do actual constitutional scholars think?

Akhil Reed Amar, a constitutional scholar at Yale Law School, said he supports the reading. “I like the Constitution,” said Amar, author of “America’s Constitution: A Biography.” “Heck, I’ll do them one better. Why only once in January? Why not once every week?”

But he added: “My disagreement is when we actually read the Constitution as a whole, it doesn’t say what the tea party folks think it says.”

Amar argues that the Constitution charters a “very broad federal power” and is not the narrow states’ rights document that tea party activists present it as.

No kidding. What the teabaggers really think they want isn’t the Constitution, but the Articles of Confederation.