Poll Watch Smarts

Stuart Rothenberg makes a good point in a recent post that the results from a single poll don’t tell us very much about a presidential race—or any topic for that matter.  So, don’t’ get too excited if the media announces some dramatic new finding in a poll that Obama is suddenly up dramatically and Romney is down or Romney is up and Obama is down.  Keep in mind two things about polls.  (1) Pay attention to trends over several weeks, not the results of a single poll, and (2) Be suspicious of any poll with results that differ more than 6 or 7 points from the results in other polls.  Chances are there is something about that poll—the way the questions were asked, the order of questions, the way the sample was put together, the sample size, etc.—that makes that poll unreliable. 

Additionally, remember that U.S. presidents are NOT elected by popular vote but rather by votes in the Electoral College and the popular vote is usually much closer than the electoral vote.  For example, in 2008 Obama won 68% of the electoral votes but only 53% of the popular vote.  In 1996, Clinton won 70% of the electoral votes but only 49% of the popular vote.  Interestingly, G.W. Bush won the 2000 election with a bare 50% of the electoral vote but actually lost to Gore in the popular vote by about 500,000 votes.  The point is that head-to-head national polls comparing the two top contenders don’t tell you much about the margin of victory of the winning candidate—and sometimes even whether the candidate who is ahead in the national polls will actually win. 

Read Rothenberg’s post here: http://rothenbergpoliticalreport.com/news/article/one-way-to-look-at-the-presidential-polls

Romney’s plan for America

Romney says Obama’s policies are totally wrong for the country and has laid out his plan for getting the country back on track and solving our most pressing problems.

Here are some of Romney’s more specific ideas concerning what he would do:

Medicare—Romney would convert it to a voucher system which would work some way, some how and seniors will have to pay something more out of pocket than they do now at sometime and in some amount.

Social Security—Romney would increase the retirement age for some future generations by some amount at some point in time.

Taxes—Romney would cut the income tax rate for everyone and pay for the cuts somehow by finding savings somewhere at sometime, somehow.

Afghanistan—Romney would bring the troops home in some way and on some schedule when conditions make that possible if it turns out to be the right thing to do at sometime.

Iran—Romney would take some kind of military action to keep Iran from getting a nuclear capability in some way under some conditions if it seems like the right thing to do at some time.

Romney can’t be any clearer than that for the time being but he might provide some more details in some way at some time after he takes office if there is some reason for doing so and it seems the right thing to do without revealing too much, too soon.

Thanks to Steve Peoples for his analysis of the “Romney Plan for America” that you can read here:

http://www.thenorthwestern.com/article/20120424/OSH010402/204240363/Romney-s-plan-govern-country-vague-allies-question-intentions

Fixing Social Security—It’s easy

The trustees of the Social Security system announced yesterday that the trust fund will be exhausted in 2033, three years earlier than previously estimated.  At that point, the system will only be able to pay out 75% of the benefits promised.  Sounds pretty bad.  Right?  Not really.  The truth is there are many ways to fix Social Security without privatizing or totally dismantling it as the Republicans want to do.

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) last year estimated that the Social Security shortfall would amount to about 0.6% of GDP.  CBO produced a table showing the various options that have been discussed for fixing the shortfall with an estimate of their impact.  As Kevin Drum pointed out in a Mother Jones article last year, fixing Social Security simply involves picking among the various options that add up to 0.6% or more.  Given the new estimate of the shortfall, we might want to look for 0.8% or more but even that would be pretty easy.  Take a look at the chart below or in Drum’s article here: http://motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2011/09/some-gutsy-talk-social-security  We can fix Social Security with a few simple changes that can be implemented so slowly very few will see any real change.

So, if we want to fix Social Security, why doesn’t Congress just pick a few of these options and get on with it.  Well, that’s what the Democrats would like to do.  However, the Republicans are blocking all of these easy options hoping that they can scare Americans into abandoning the whole idea of Social Security for private accounts or nothing at all. 

Read the full Congressional Budget Office Report on Social Security here:

http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftpdocs/115xx/doc11580/07-01-ssoptions_forweb.pdf

Read about the new estimates from the Social Security trustees here: http://nbcpolitics.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/04/23/11355323-social-security-trustees-see-earlier-fund-depletion-date?lite

UPDATE: 2012 Election forecasts

Presidential race

As of today, Election Projection has Obama leading Romney with 303 electoral votes to 235.  That’s an increase for Romney over the past week largely due to Florida moving from Weak Obama to Weak Romney.  Obama still leads in the important battle ground states of Ohio and Virginia but his lead is by less than 5% in these states (Weak).

 http://www.electionprojection.com/2012elections/president12.php

Real Clear Politics (RCP) has Obama leading Romney 227 electoral votes to 170.  That’s not enough to win.  He needs 270.   RCP has 11 states as toss ups including the important battle ground states of Florida, Ohio and Virginia.  Obama probably needs to carry at least one if not two of these states.  Romney definitely needs to carry two of these states and maybe all three.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/2012_elections_electoral_college_map.html

Senate race

Election Projection has the Senate race remaining the same as last week.  Republicans are expected to gain control with 50 seats to 48 for Democrats and 2 Independents.  Democrat Warren is ahead of Republican Brown in Mass but only barely.  That race remains tight.

http://www.electionprojection.com/2012elections/senate12.php

House race

Election Projection expects Republicans to retain control of the House with 244 seats to 191 for the Democrats. 

http://www.electionprojection.com/2012elections/house12.php

Who will Romney pick for V.P?

Now that it seems Romney is all set to become the Republican nominee for president, we are beginning to hear more speculation about Romney’s choice of a running mate. Larry J. Sabato, Kyle Kondik and Geoffrey Skelley at Sabato’s Crystal Ball have come up with a list of possible GOP Vice-Presidential candidates ranked by first tier to fourth tier.

First Tier:  Rob Portman (Senator, OH), Marco Rubio (Senator, FL), Bobby Jindal (Governor, LA), or Paul Ryan (Rep., WI)

I think Rubio and Portman are real possibilities if for no other reason than Romney desperately needs to carry either Ohio or Florida and perhaps both if he is to have any chance to win.  Rubio adds the plus of being Hispanic as well as being from an important swing state.  However, Rubio might very likely take a pass on running on the Romney ticket and prefer to wait for 2016.  If Romney loses, which is a real possibility, Rubio would be a prime candidate for the GOP presidential slot next time.  That leaves Portman.  Ohio is an important swing state like Florida and Portman has budget experience (Former OMB director) which would fit with Romney’s “we can fix the economy message.”  I don’t see Jindal or Ryan as being likely picks.  Jindal doesn’ offer any help with must-win states.  Ryan would inject too much controversy when it comes to popular programs like Medicare and Social Security. 

Second Tier: Chris Christie (Governor, NJ), Jeb Bush (Fmr. Governor, FL), Tim Pawlenty (Fmr. Governor, MN), Bob McDonnell (Governor, VA), Mitch Daniels (Governor, IN), or Mike Huckabee (Fmr. Governor, AR)

I don’t see Christie taking the offer for the same reason Rubio might turn it down.  If Romney loses, Christie has a good chance in 2016.  If Jeb Bush wasn’t a Bush, he might be a good pick but I don’t think Romney or any of the powers in the GOP want to remind the voters of George W. Bush.  Pawlenty is a possibility but only as a lack luster place holder, same for Daniels.  McDonnell would bring trouble with women voters and Romney doesn’t need any more trouble with them, he has enough already.  Huckabee would remind voters of the right wing Republican extremism on social issues.  Romney is going to be doing everything he can to distance himself for right-wing social talk, even his own. 

Third Tier: Kelly Ayotte (Senator, NH), Brian Sandoval (Governor, NV), Susana Martinez (Governor, NM), Bob Corker (Senator, TN) or Condoleezza Rice (Fmr. Secretary of State)

I don’t think either Ayotte, Sandoval or Corker would bring much to the ticket, although Sandoval is Hispanic.  Rice has said she isn’t interested and has the Bush connection.  Martinez might help with the Hispanic vote but like Rice has said she is not interested. 

Fourth Tier: Pat Toomey (Senator, PA), John Thune (Senator, SD), Rand Paul (Senator, KY), Luis Fortuno (Governor, PR), Cathy McMorris Rodgers (Rep., WA), Richard Burr (Senator, NC), David Petraeus (Director of CIA), or J.C. Watts (Fmr. Rep., OK)

I think these are all real long shots.  Most wouldn’t bring anything to the ticket.  Romney isn’t going to want to talk about Iraq and Afghanistan when the electorate is fed up with wars.  So, Petraeus is out plus I doubt if he is interested.

Bottom line:  Right now I would bet the offer would go to Rubio.  If he turns it down, which is likely, Portman will be the pick.  And then of course, Romney could pull a Palin, which would be just great by me.  Nah, he wouldn’t be that stupid would he?  Let's hope so.

To see the key advantages and disadvantages these possible candidates would bring to the Romney team according to Sabato, et. al., go here: 

http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/articles/veepwatch-part-2-first-do-no-harm-our-vp-contenders/

UPDATE: 2012 Election Forecasts

Election Projection (EP) now has Obama leading Romney by 126 electoral votes 332 to 206.  270 are needed to win.  Real Clear Politics (RCP) has Obama leading Romney by 280 electoral votes to 181 with six states with 77 votes being toss ups.  The main difference between the two forecasts is that EP gives Obama a slight edge in Florida and Virginia while RCP shows these two states as toss ups.

See the  Election Projection forecast here: http://www.electionprojection.com/2012elections/president12.php

See the Real Clear Politics forecast here: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/2012_elections_electoral_college_map.html

Election Projection

 Real Clear Politics

Videos: Reagan would have liked Obama’s Buffett Rule.

Think Progress went looking in the video vaults and found this gem.  Ronald Reagan, every Republican’s hero, was talking about the Buffett Rule long, long, long ago.  Reagan agreed with what Obama is saying now.  The rich shouldn’t be able to use loopholes to pay more in taxes than average Americans.  So, does that make Reagan a job killing Socialist?  Guess so.  Watch the video here or below: 

View here:

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/04/09/460853/new-video-president-reagan-backs-the-buffett-rule/

Then watch another video where Reagan makes the same argument Obama is making in almost the same words.

View here: http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/10/03/333912/reagan-tax-loopholes-crazy/

BREAKING NEWS: Santorum out

Rick Santorum announced today that he was suspending his campaign, meaning that he is out of the race for the Republican nomination for president.  Newt Gingrich and Ron Paul remain in the race but have little, if any, chance of getting enough delegates to stop Romney.  With Santorum out, Romney almost certainly will be the Republican candidate to challenge Obama.

Real Clear Politics has Obama leading Romney by 5.3 points in the polls 48.5% to 43.2% as of yesterday.

Real Clear Politics:  http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/general_election_romney_vs_obama-1171.html

Election Projection has Obama beating Romney by 126 electoral votes 332 to 206 as of April 2nd.  
See: Election Projection  http://www.electionprojection.com/2012elections/president12.php

Obama and Jobs—The Stimulus Worked

The Center for American Progress (CAP) has given us a chart that shows clearly what impact Obama’s stimulus package—The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act—had on job creation.  The Republicans will tell you that the stimulus DIDN’T WORK and that Obama has been a job killer.  Job killer?  CAP gives us the facts.  Two months after Obama and the Democrats got the Recovery Act passed over nearly universal Republican opposition, the country stopped hemorrhaging jobs.  Month after month job losses began to get smaller and smaller.  It took a year but by March 2010, the country stopped losing private sector jobs and started adding private sector jobs.  As of March 2012, we were into a 25-month streak of private sector job creation and most analysts expect job creation to continue and unemployment to continue to fall on a slow but steady basis.  Those are the FACTS.  Obama and the Democrats were RIGHT and the Republicans were WRONG.  In 2009, our economy needed a federal stimulus package to the get the private sector hiring again.  Everything that happened to the right of that red line on the chart would NOT have happened if the Republicans had gotten their way the federal government would have done nothing to get America back to work.  Job losses would have continued and might still be continuing.  Unemployment would not have peaked at 10%, it might have reached 12% or 15% or 20%--no one can be sure.  What we can be sure of is that stimulating the economy was the right thing to do in 2009 just as almost every economist said.  It just made sense to everyone—but Republicans.  Show your Republican friends the CAP chart below or here: http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2012/04/jobs_gain.html

Proof: Republicans wage war on women

The Center for American Progress Action Fund has put together a great graphic--shown below--that provides undeniable proof that the Republicans have launched a full-scale war on women.  The proof is all in the Ryan/Republican/Romney endorsed budget plan.  If you can't view the graphic for some reason, go here for the original:

http://www.americanprogressaction.org/issues/2012/04/war_on_women.html

BREAKING NEWS: Job reports for March

According to ADP, 209,000 private sector jobs created in March

The ADP jobs report for March says the country added 209,000 private sector jobs in March.  Additionally, ADP revised higher its estimates for December, January, and February.  The gain from December to January was revised up by 9,000 to 182,000, and the gain from January to February was revised up by 14,000 to 230,000.  The March gains were driven largely by small business hiring and hiring in the service sector.  The official government report covering both private and public sector job growth and the unemployment rate for March will be released Friday.

According to the Conference Board online vacancies up in March

Online labor demand was up in March for the fourth consecutive month reaching 4,669,600—up 246,000—from February according to just released survey by the Conference Board.  Nationally advertised vacancies are 60% higher than they were in June 2009, the official end of the recession.

Read more on the Conference Board report here:

http://www.conference-board.org/press/pressdetail.cfm?pressid=4442

True Impact of “Right to Work” laws

My friend Tom Manton asked what I thought of the National Right to Work Committee (NRTWC) (http://www.nrtwc.org/) and its positions on the right to work VS unions.

Bottom line:  I think the NRTWC is wrong.  Right to Work laws hurt workers while having no, or very little, offsetting positive impact on state economies.

First, let me say I’m always impressed with Republicans’ ability to find names for laws they propose that sound great, after all who is opposed to the “Right to Work”, but disguise the true purpose and affect of the laws.  In the case of the Right to Work laws, they are actually union busting laws.  State so-called “Right to Work” laws ban agreements stipulating that all employees represented by a union must pay dues, even thought unions by federal law are not allowed to treat paying and non-paying workers differently.  Unions must provide the same services, vigorous advocacy, and contractual rights and benefits to every worker represented by the union whether the person is a paying member of the union or not.  For example, if a non-dues paying worker in a unionized workplace encounters a problem at work, the union is required to provide that worker with full and equal representation at no charge.  In states with Right to Work laws, unions have a more difficult time organizing and operating since they must represent members who do not pay dues.  Can you imagine a business organization like the Chamber of Commerce being required to provide services to local businesses whose owners refuse to pay dues?  Not likely.

Twenty-two states have passed “right-to-work” laws since 1947 when they were first allowed. Proponents of right-to-work laws claim that such laws create a more business-friendly environment and lead to economic and job growth. 

Independent non-partisan research has found however that the claimed benefits of Right to Work laws simply don’t exist and that such laws actually depress wages and have other adverse impact on workers by discouraging unionization.

In a 2009 article published in the Review of Law and Economics, Lonnie Stevans, Professor of Information Technology and Quantitative Methods at Hofstra University, compared the business formation and economic growth of right-to-work states with non-right-to-work states using recent data from the U.S. Small Business Administration.  Stevans controlled for variables like education levels, population changes, and type of employment in the states to accurately measure the relationship between right-to-work laws and economic growth.

Stevans found that a state’s right-to-work law:

• Has no impact on economic growth
• Has no influence on employment
• Has no influence on business capital formation (the ratio of firm ‘births’ to the number of firms)
• Is correlated with a decrease in wages
• Does not increase the average real state GDP growth compared to non-right-to-work states
• Results in lower average per capita income compared to non-right-to-work states

Stevans concluded “…From a state’s economic standpoint, being right-to-work yields little or no gain in employment and real economic growth.”

Read the Stevans article here:

http://www.americanrightsatwork.org/dmdocuments/clearinghouse_resources/stevans_article.pdf

The Economic Policy Institute reviewed a variety of studies and reported similar findings: 

• Right-to-work laws have no impact in boosting economic growth: research shows that there is no relationship between right-to-work laws and state unemployment rates, state per capita income, or state job growth.
• Right-to-work laws have no significant impact on a attracting employers to a particular state; surveys of employers show that “right to work” is a minor or non-existent factor in location decisions, and that higher-wage, hi-tech firms in particular generally prefer free-bargaining states.
• Right-to-work laws lower wages—for both union and nonunion workers alike—by an average of $1,500 per year, after accounting for the cost of living in each state.
• Right-to-work laws also decrease the likelihood that employees get either health insurance or pensions through their jobs—again, for both union and nonunion workers.
• By cut ting wages, right-to-work laws threaten to undermine job growth by reducing the discretionary income people have to spend in the local retail, real estate, construction, and service industries. Every $1 million in wage cuts translates into an additional six jobs lost in the economy. With 85 percent of Michigan’s economy concentrated in health care, retail, education, and other non-manufacturing industries, widespread wage and benefit cuts could translate into significant negative spillover effects for the state’s economy.

Read the EPI report here:

http://www.epi.org/publication/right-to-work-michigan-economy/

The Center for American Progress (CAP) found that Right to Work laws: 

• Lower worker pay and benefits
• Make workplaces more dangerous
• Result in less employer-provided health insurance and pensions
• Weaken the middle classs

 Read the CAP report here:

http://www.americanprogressaction.org/issues/2012/02/right_to_work.html

UPDATE: 2012 election forecasts

Here are Election Projection’s forecasts for the 2012 election as of April 2, 2012.

Presidency--Obama would win re-election

Obama: 332 electoral votes (50.1% of the popular vote)

Romney: 206 electoral votes (48.4% of the popular vote)

EP has Obama carrying Florida, Virginia, Pennsylvania and Ohio by slim margins.

Senate--Republicans would take control of the Senate

Democrats 47 seats

Independents 2 seats

Republicans 51 seats

EP has Republicans holding Brown’s seat in Massachusetts and gaining seats in Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, and Wisconsin

House-Republicans would retain control of the House

Democrats 192 seats

Republicans 243 seats

This would be a loss of one seat for the Democrats

Read the complete forecasts here:

http://www.electionprojection.com/2012elections/president12.php

http://www.electionprojection.com/2012elections/senate12.php

http://www.electionprojection.com/2012elections/house12.php

Understanding the Republican budget proposal

The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities provides two charts that convey in vivid terms just about all you need to know about the Paul Ryan/Republican budget proposal that Romney endorses.  They convey one message.  The Republicans are proposing a form of Social Darwinism that will drastically cut spending on programs for the working class and the poor in order to give huge tax breaks to the rich that go far beyond the regressive Bush tax cuts.  Here are the charts.  Show them to your Republican friends and ask them how they can justify that these tax and spending cuts are fair and equitable.  Answer:  They aren’t.

Read more about the damage the Republican budget proposal does and see the complete charts at these links:

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3728

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3723

The Republican pipeline and gas price lies

If you haven’t heard these claims yet from your Republican friends and conservative radio talk show fans, you probably will hear them soon. 

They will tell you that gas prices are going up because the evil Obama “blocked” the Keystone XL pipeline that could have pumped 700,000 barrels of oil each day into the U.S. thus allowing us to once again have cheap gas AND that even worse Obama is preventing oil companies from exploring for oil in Alaska.

NONE of this is true.  Here is the truth from FactCheck.org.

There’s nothing stopping more Canadian oil from coming into the U.S. right now. Existing cross-border pipelines could carry perhaps 1 million additional barrels of oil per day, and surplus capacity is projected to persist for years to come even without the Keystone project.

Furthermore, Obama hasn’t “blocked” it. The Keystone’s sponsor says it expects the White House to approve the northern leg, from Hardisty, Alberta, to Steele City, Nebraska, in 2013, after it submits an application for a new route around Nebraska’s environmentally sensitive Sandhills region. Meanwhile, it is going ahead with the southern portion, which Obama has endorsed, ordering agencies to expedite permitting.

As for the claim that Obama “opposed exploring for energy in Alaska.” The truth is that Shell Oil days ago said it expects to begin drilling exploratory wells this summer in the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas off Alaska’s Arctic coast, now that the Interior Department has granted approvals for the company’s oil spill response plans.

Read more here: http://factcheck.org/2012/03/more-pipeline-piffle-and-an-alaskan-absurdity/