Something is wrong with the law if those entrusted to enforce it repeatedly violate it. This is the troubling story of race and Michael Brown and Eric Garner, and police brutality in Cleveland, Ohio. But these three examples raise even more profound stories about the role of the law in a democratic society regarding whose legal norms are enforced and how. It is the story of legal legitimacy.
W.E.B. DuBois' 1903 The Soul of Black Folk declared "the problem of the Twentieth Century is the problem of the color-line." Forty years later sociologist Gunnar Myrdal's 1944 The American Dilemma echoed that theme, contending that African-Americans were largely excluded from the promise of American democracy because of Jim Crow and racial segregation. Rosa Parks sitting at the front of the bus, the Supreme Court's 1954 Brown v. the Board of Education, Martin Luther King, Jr.'s march on Washington, and the civil rights legislation of the 1960s supposedly ended this exclusion, with the 2008 election of Barack Obama proving we had entered a post-racial world. Race, especially as it intersects with class, remains as salient and divisive an issue as ever. Surveys point to very different reactions among Whites and people of color when it comes to judging Ferguson and police behavior in general.
But it is not just about race. Talk to feminists and women’s activists who contend that the law embodies a male perspective. From issues of rape, sexual harassment, pregnancy, disability, and job discrimination, to the persistence of women making 77¢ on the dollar compared to men, the law continues to treat the two sexes differently. Or consider class. One need not recount the plethora of evidence demonstrating the gap in wealth and income between the rich and poor in the United States is at record levels for the last century. The law favors the affluent anywhere from their ability to hire good lawyers or to make excessive political contributions. Not too many rich people get the death penalty or see prison time for their crimes. The current Supreme Court seems hellbent on turning corporations into full-fledged citizens and it is blind or deaf to the plight of the poor. The law equally appears to allow the rich and poor to sleep under the bridge.
There is also something wrong with the law that sanctions repeated police use of excessive force. I used to teach a class on police criminal and civil liability under state and federal law, including what is called §1983 violations. The course practically taught itself with examples of police behaving badly–including in Minneapolis alone. It is not easy to win §1983 claims. The law and the public favor the police. Maybe once that was appropriate, but knowing that we have scores if not hundreds of police shooting Michael Browns per year leads one to question whether the law has tipped too far in favor of the former.
What all of these stories have in common is that many do not view the law as legitimate. In a democratic society such as the United States legal values should be widely shared, equitably enforced, and obeyed by all, including by those who enforce the law. What we have learned Michael Brown and Eric Garner is that the reality is far from what we would hope.
Showing posts with label Ohio. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Ohio. Show all posts
Sunday, December 7, 2014
Sunday, November 4, 2012
The Day After the Election: Excuses
Come the day after the election there is a fantasy many of us have that the losing side in the presidential race will tell the winning side that it was a hard fought and close campaign but that the winner won fair and square. Unfortunately that will not occur, especially in light of all the pre-election litigation and legal posturing.
Assuming Obama wins, I suspect the argument Republicans make is that the election stolen. Assume Obama wins close races in Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, Republicans claim that were it not for a court suspending or invalidating voter ID in those states Romney would have won. Obama’s victory was a product of fraud. In Ohio the message will be that the courts allowed too many provisional ballots and therefore fraud occurred, and in Florida they will argue that relaxation of some of the restrictions on voter registration and early voting will be the cause of ineligibles voting. A few will also point to how mediocre a candidate Romney was, but the big issue will be fraud.
Conversely, on the slight chance that Romney wins, the cry will be that voter suppression across these states is the reason for the loss. A few will point to how mediocre a candidate Obama was, but the big issue will be voter suppression.
I am suspecting these talking points are already being cued up by members of this listserv and the two parties in anticipation of efforts to justify litigation, delegitimize the winner, and prepare us for the fact that on November 7, we will be less than two years away from the next elections.
Tocqueville got it right: “There is hardly a political question in the United States which does not sooner or later turn into a judicial one. Consequently the language of everyday party-political controversy has to be borrowed from legal phraseology and conceptions.”
Sunday, September 9, 2012
Reviewing the DNC: Obama’s Missed Opportunity and the Road Ahead
The two national conventions for the Republicans and Democrats are over. Who had the better show and benefited the most form their rival performances? The simple answer is that Obama came out better, but it was because of him.
The RNC and DNC were theaters in contrast that bore powerful similarities. The RNC seemed less about Romney and more about its future stars Rubio, Christie, and Ryan. The best night for the RNC was Wednesday with the VP nominee Ryan speaking. Romney gave his best speech in a long time but it was still was far from a home run. He ended his speech with the Reaganesque challenger of asking if we are better off now than four yers ago, forcing Obama and the Democrats to have to respond to it.
Did Romney get a post-convention bump? All indications are that there was little bump. Polls suggested at most a one or so point bump. Perhaps this was due to the fact that so few watched the convention. Those who watched were the hardcore, those whose minds were probably already made up. It is doubtful the undecided watched since there was little news or theater here. In fact, surveys suggest less that 5% of the public is undecided at this point, again showing that there was little potential for much bump.
The DNC had two great nights. Ms. Obama and Mayor Castro were greater speakers for the president and for why the election mattered. Ms. Obama did what Ms. Romney failed to do–put a more human face on her husband. Castro rocked, clearly setting himself up for the future. It was like watching a young Obama again.
Night two was Bill Clinton. It was an amazing speech, even if long (as expected). He made the clearest case again Romney and the Republicans and also seemed to give credit to his wife and perhaps help position here for 2016 should she decide to run.
Obama thus entered the third night after two previous evenings of great performances. He merely needed to give his usual great speech to follow up and it would have been a hat trick for the DNC. Obama failed. The speech, in the words of Tom Brokaw, was “workmanlike.” It was competently given but uninspiring. Obama failed to do what he needed to do–to inspire and make the case for four more years. He and the other Democrats made the case for why the Republicans should not be given a chance, but like the GOP and Romney, the case for electing him was not given. Biden too was similarly flat.
Obama should thank Clinton, Castro, and his wife. Were it not for their strong performances the convention would not have helped him. There are some indications of a small post-convention bump and some signs that his approval rating went up. Whether this is real or merely temporary, and how the Friday unemployment numbers stunt the bump is yet to been seen.
Bottom line–the two conventions really did not change much. Romney still has a personalty problem and Obama has a problem making the case for four more years. Neither candidate is as inspiring as their future leaders seem to be, and both will get their bases out but not in an enthusiastic way. Both candidates need narratives and reasons for their candidacies. It is unlikely that either much moved swing voters.
Looking to the future, the DNC and RNC need to change to be relevant. No one watches and they are not interesting.
Looking to the future, the number of swing states is shrinking. Polls suggest Pennsylvania is out of reach for Romney and he seems to be pulling out his ads from there. Ohio seems to be solid for now for Obama and this is really the state where the presidential fight is all about. If we look at the approximately eight or so swing states in play, the two campaigns are looking to move a few million (maybe five million or less voters).
A Reagan Redux Election?
One thing is clear about this election–it is a tale of two Reagans. Romney is running Reagan’s 1980 campaign against Jimmy Carter–asking if we are better off now than four years ago.
Conversely, Obama is or needs to run Reagan’s 1984 campaign for re-election-declaring it’s morning in America. He needs to look to the future and convince the voters that he has turned things around and that the country is moving in the right direction. Given the cloudy economic news and uncertainty, this may be difficult to do. However, “Morning in America “ is certainly a better message than “Foreward.”
The RNC and DNC were theaters in contrast that bore powerful similarities. The RNC seemed less about Romney and more about its future stars Rubio, Christie, and Ryan. The best night for the RNC was Wednesday with the VP nominee Ryan speaking. Romney gave his best speech in a long time but it was still was far from a home run. He ended his speech with the Reaganesque challenger of asking if we are better off now than four yers ago, forcing Obama and the Democrats to have to respond to it.
Did Romney get a post-convention bump? All indications are that there was little bump. Polls suggested at most a one or so point bump. Perhaps this was due to the fact that so few watched the convention. Those who watched were the hardcore, those whose minds were probably already made up. It is doubtful the undecided watched since there was little news or theater here. In fact, surveys suggest less that 5% of the public is undecided at this point, again showing that there was little potential for much bump.
The DNC had two great nights. Ms. Obama and Mayor Castro were greater speakers for the president and for why the election mattered. Ms. Obama did what Ms. Romney failed to do–put a more human face on her husband. Castro rocked, clearly setting himself up for the future. It was like watching a young Obama again.
Night two was Bill Clinton. It was an amazing speech, even if long (as expected). He made the clearest case again Romney and the Republicans and also seemed to give credit to his wife and perhaps help position here for 2016 should she decide to run.
Obama thus entered the third night after two previous evenings of great performances. He merely needed to give his usual great speech to follow up and it would have been a hat trick for the DNC. Obama failed. The speech, in the words of Tom Brokaw, was “workmanlike.” It was competently given but uninspiring. Obama failed to do what he needed to do–to inspire and make the case for four more years. He and the other Democrats made the case for why the Republicans should not be given a chance, but like the GOP and Romney, the case for electing him was not given. Biden too was similarly flat.
Obama should thank Clinton, Castro, and his wife. Were it not for their strong performances the convention would not have helped him. There are some indications of a small post-convention bump and some signs that his approval rating went up. Whether this is real or merely temporary, and how the Friday unemployment numbers stunt the bump is yet to been seen.
Bottom line–the two conventions really did not change much. Romney still has a personalty problem and Obama has a problem making the case for four more years. Neither candidate is as inspiring as their future leaders seem to be, and both will get their bases out but not in an enthusiastic way. Both candidates need narratives and reasons for their candidacies. It is unlikely that either much moved swing voters.
Looking to the future, the DNC and RNC need to change to be relevant. No one watches and they are not interesting.
Looking to the future, the number of swing states is shrinking. Polls suggest Pennsylvania is out of reach for Romney and he seems to be pulling out his ads from there. Ohio seems to be solid for now for Obama and this is really the state where the presidential fight is all about. If we look at the approximately eight or so swing states in play, the two campaigns are looking to move a few million (maybe five million or less voters).
A Reagan Redux Election?
One thing is clear about this election–it is a tale of two Reagans. Romney is running Reagan’s 1980 campaign against Jimmy Carter–asking if we are better off now than four years ago.
Conversely, Obama is or needs to run Reagan’s 1984 campaign for re-election-declaring it’s morning in America. He needs to look to the future and convince the voters that he has turned things around and that the country is moving in the right direction. Given the cloudy economic news and uncertainty, this may be difficult to do. However, “Morning in America “ is certainly a better message than “Foreward.”
Friday, July 27, 2012
And the Winner Is....Predicting the 2012 Presidential Election
Note: Several months ago I published an article predicting the 2012 presidential race. On July 26, 2012 I was the keynote speaker at the Coalition of Greater Minnesota Cities Summer Conference/Annual Awards Dinner where I updated my prediction. Here is a summary of my talk and prediction.
Presidential public opinion polls are perplexing. Some polls put Obama ahead of Romney, some say the race is tightening. Others find Obama ahead in critical swing states while others describe swing voters as perhaps moving toward Romney.
Ignore all of these polls. The only three numbers I think that are important are these: 10/10/270. Let me explain.
You should ignore the polls first because they are snapshots in time, more than almost four months before the November elections. Too many things can happen–a collapsing economy, war in Syria, gas prices, campaign gaffes–which can impact the race in the next few months. Ignore the polls also because they are national opinion polls reflecting aggregate opinion across the county. As Florida in the 2000 presidential election taught us, one can win the popular vote in a presidential election (as Al Gore did) but still lose the presidency in the Electoral College. What matters most is winning 270 electoral votes. The presidency is a battle not across 50 states but in 50 states. In contrast to the Republican presidential contest that has turned less from winning individual states than to amassing delegates, the general election in November is really one of winning enough electoral votes to reach 270–a majority of the 538 electoral votes at stake.
What complicates the race to 270 is that with the exception of Maine and Nebraska, the remaining 48 states plus the District of Columbia award their electoral votes on a winner-take-all basis. Whichever candidate wins a plurality of the popular vote in a particular state wins all of its electoral votes. Thus the general election is both about winning states and amassing delegates.
Why is all of this important? Simply the presidential race is over in 40 states. There are some states that are reliably Democratic or Republican. No one seriously thinks a Republican is going to win New York and even though Mitt Romney is its former governor, neither he nor any other Republican has a prayer to win Massachusetts. Conversely, even though Romney’s recent bad news was that he could not prevail in Alabama and Mississippi, the good news for him and Republicans is that no Democrat is going to win there. The race for the presidency is simply over in these states and Democrats in Texas and Republicans in California might as well do something else besides casting presidential votes in November.
Barack Obama is reasonably assured of winning California (55 electoral votes), Connecticut (7), Delaware (3), Hawaii (4), Illinois (20), Maine (4), Maryland (10), Massachusetts (11), New Jersey (14), New York (29), Oregon (7), Rhode Island (4), Vermont (3), Washington state (12) and Washington, D.C. (3). And despite protests from Republicans that Minnesota (10) is competitive, that is a fairy tale. If Minnesota is a swing state then it is truly over for Obama. Don’t look for the candidates or TV ads to be here come October. Thus, Obama starts with 15 states (plus D.C.) and 196 electoral votes.
Conversely, Mitt Romney or any other Republican nominee is reasonably assured of winning Alabama (9), Alaska (3), Arkansas (6), Georgia (16), Idaho (4), Kansas (6), Kentucky (8), Louisiana (8), Mississippi (6), Montana (3), Nebraska (5), North Dakota (3), Oklahoma (7), South Carolina (9), South Dakota (3), Tennessee (11), Texas (38), Utah (6), West Virginia (5) and Wyoming (3). Moreover, it was luck in 2008 that Obama won Indiana (11) and that is not in the cards this year. This is a total of 21 states and 170 electoral votes.
Initially, this means a total of 14 states, with 172 electoral votes, are potentially in play. These swing states will determine the outcome of the election and within them, swing voters–roughly 10-15% of the voters–will make the difference. Thus, the battle for the presidency is really over what a handful of swing voters do in 14 swing states. These states are: Arizona (11), Colorado (9), Florida (29), Iowa (6), Michigan (16), Missouri (10), Nevada (6), New Hampshire (4), New Mexico (5), North Carolina (15) Ohio (18), Pennsylvania (20) Virginia (13), and Wisconsin (10).
Now some of the states are debatable as swing. It is a long shot for Democrats to win Arizona even with a strong Hispanic turnout. In hopes of winning North Carolina Democrats are holding their convention in Charlotte. But there is no evidence that there is a convention bump; look to the Republican National Convention in Minnesota in 2008 as rendering North Carolina a long shot. Similarly, Republicans consistently see Pennsylvania as one that they can win, but the Keystone State, as well as Michigan, remain more Democratic than Republican. The last time the GOP won Pennsylvania was in 1984 with Ronald Reagan. In the case of Michigan, Republicans running against the auto bailout seem to be a losing strategy. Thus, the original 14 state list could be reduced to ten, leaving Obama with 232 electoral votes, and a Republican nominee with 196. This leaves 110 electoral votes in contest.
These states are: Colorado (9), Florida (29), Iowa (6), Missouri (10), Nevada (6), New Hampshire (4), New Mexico (5), Ohio (18), Virginia (13), and Wisconsin (10).
If pressed I could even make the argument that it is over in Wisconsin (Obama) and Missouri (Romney) but will not.
In these swing states the percentage of undecideds ranges from 10% in Colorado, Ohio, Florida, Tennessee, Iowa, and Missouri, to about 7 percent in Nevada, with the overall undecideds in the country at 10%. Thus this is how I arrive at 10/10/270–Ten percent of the voters in ten states determine who gets to 270.
Now the question is who the undecideds are and what will move them. Politics is about moving marginals (swing voters) (politics as a bar fight) Consider who these voters are and the issues that concern them.
First they are the unemployed, struggling middle class affected by the economy gas prices, and unemployment. These are the white working class. Bad news for Obama is that he does not connect with them. Good news for Obama, they also do not connect with Romney.
The second group of swing voters include moderate women concerned by recent debates over reproductive rights, birth control, and family issues. These are the soccer moms. The swing to the right has alienated many of these women from the GOP and Obama and the Democrats seem to be enjoying an unusually large gender gap this year.
The third group of swing voters are young people under thirty. It is odd to call them swing voters especially since four years ago they came out strong for Obama. This time around they are nowhere near as excited by him as they were in 2008, mostly because of economic issues and the failure of Obama really to connect with them.. These voters should be part of Obama’s base but because of their unpredictable turnout it is apt to call them swing voters. If they do show up they will vote for Obama.
Potentially these three groups and issues overlap; making it difficult to decide which is the most important or will tip the balance in the election. But assume for minute that this presidential election is similar to many others in that it is a economic referendum on the incumbent–then it is the economy that is the main issue. How is the economy doing in these swing states? It is a mixed bag, with unemployment levels stagnating along with economic growth. Moreover, neither candidate seems to be doing a good job coming up with an election narrative except for saying “I’m not Obama” or “I’m not Romney.”
Having said all that, here is how I think the remaining states are tipping now.
Add to Obama’s 232 the following states: Colorado (9), Nevada (6), New Hampshire (4), New Mexico (5), and Wisconsin (10). This is 34 more electoral votes that gets him to 268, two short of the necessary 270.
Add to Romney’s 196 : Missouri (10), Virginia (13). This is 23 more electoral votes and gets him to 219,still 51 short.
Three states, Florida (29), Iowa (6), Ohio (18), total 53 electoral votes, and they are too close to call at this time. Romney needs all three states to win, Obama one state to win.
Unless this election is a replay of 1980 where disgust for the status quo and Carter was so strong that it tipped millions of swing voters in the last 72 hours to vote for Reagan, I do not see Romney presenting winning all three of these states. Obama wins at least one of these states, thereby ensuring his re-election. Obama wins with 274-321 electoral votes.
Presidential public opinion polls are perplexing. Some polls put Obama ahead of Romney, some say the race is tightening. Others find Obama ahead in critical swing states while others describe swing voters as perhaps moving toward Romney.
Ignore all of these polls. The only three numbers I think that are important are these: 10/10/270. Let me explain.
You should ignore the polls first because they are snapshots in time, more than almost four months before the November elections. Too many things can happen–a collapsing economy, war in Syria, gas prices, campaign gaffes–which can impact the race in the next few months. Ignore the polls also because they are national opinion polls reflecting aggregate opinion across the county. As Florida in the 2000 presidential election taught us, one can win the popular vote in a presidential election (as Al Gore did) but still lose the presidency in the Electoral College. What matters most is winning 270 electoral votes. The presidency is a battle not across 50 states but in 50 states. In contrast to the Republican presidential contest that has turned less from winning individual states than to amassing delegates, the general election in November is really one of winning enough electoral votes to reach 270–a majority of the 538 electoral votes at stake.
What complicates the race to 270 is that with the exception of Maine and Nebraska, the remaining 48 states plus the District of Columbia award their electoral votes on a winner-take-all basis. Whichever candidate wins a plurality of the popular vote in a particular state wins all of its electoral votes. Thus the general election is both about winning states and amassing delegates.
Why is all of this important? Simply the presidential race is over in 40 states. There are some states that are reliably Democratic or Republican. No one seriously thinks a Republican is going to win New York and even though Mitt Romney is its former governor, neither he nor any other Republican has a prayer to win Massachusetts. Conversely, even though Romney’s recent bad news was that he could not prevail in Alabama and Mississippi, the good news for him and Republicans is that no Democrat is going to win there. The race for the presidency is simply over in these states and Democrats in Texas and Republicans in California might as well do something else besides casting presidential votes in November.
Barack Obama is reasonably assured of winning California (55 electoral votes), Connecticut (7), Delaware (3), Hawaii (4), Illinois (20), Maine (4), Maryland (10), Massachusetts (11), New Jersey (14), New York (29), Oregon (7), Rhode Island (4), Vermont (3), Washington state (12) and Washington, D.C. (3). And despite protests from Republicans that Minnesota (10) is competitive, that is a fairy tale. If Minnesota is a swing state then it is truly over for Obama. Don’t look for the candidates or TV ads to be here come October. Thus, Obama starts with 15 states (plus D.C.) and 196 electoral votes.
Conversely, Mitt Romney or any other Republican nominee is reasonably assured of winning Alabama (9), Alaska (3), Arkansas (6), Georgia (16), Idaho (4), Kansas (6), Kentucky (8), Louisiana (8), Mississippi (6), Montana (3), Nebraska (5), North Dakota (3), Oklahoma (7), South Carolina (9), South Dakota (3), Tennessee (11), Texas (38), Utah (6), West Virginia (5) and Wyoming (3). Moreover, it was luck in 2008 that Obama won Indiana (11) and that is not in the cards this year. This is a total of 21 states and 170 electoral votes.
Initially, this means a total of 14 states, with 172 electoral votes, are potentially in play. These swing states will determine the outcome of the election and within them, swing voters–roughly 10-15% of the voters–will make the difference. Thus, the battle for the presidency is really over what a handful of swing voters do in 14 swing states. These states are: Arizona (11), Colorado (9), Florida (29), Iowa (6), Michigan (16), Missouri (10), Nevada (6), New Hampshire (4), New Mexico (5), North Carolina (15) Ohio (18), Pennsylvania (20) Virginia (13), and Wisconsin (10).
Now some of the states are debatable as swing. It is a long shot for Democrats to win Arizona even with a strong Hispanic turnout. In hopes of winning North Carolina Democrats are holding their convention in Charlotte. But there is no evidence that there is a convention bump; look to the Republican National Convention in Minnesota in 2008 as rendering North Carolina a long shot. Similarly, Republicans consistently see Pennsylvania as one that they can win, but the Keystone State, as well as Michigan, remain more Democratic than Republican. The last time the GOP won Pennsylvania was in 1984 with Ronald Reagan. In the case of Michigan, Republicans running against the auto bailout seem to be a losing strategy. Thus, the original 14 state list could be reduced to ten, leaving Obama with 232 electoral votes, and a Republican nominee with 196. This leaves 110 electoral votes in contest.
These states are: Colorado (9), Florida (29), Iowa (6), Missouri (10), Nevada (6), New Hampshire (4), New Mexico (5), Ohio (18), Virginia (13), and Wisconsin (10).
If pressed I could even make the argument that it is over in Wisconsin (Obama) and Missouri (Romney) but will not.
In these swing states the percentage of undecideds ranges from 10% in Colorado, Ohio, Florida, Tennessee, Iowa, and Missouri, to about 7 percent in Nevada, with the overall undecideds in the country at 10%. Thus this is how I arrive at 10/10/270–Ten percent of the voters in ten states determine who gets to 270.
Now the question is who the undecideds are and what will move them. Politics is about moving marginals (swing voters) (politics as a bar fight) Consider who these voters are and the issues that concern them.
First they are the unemployed, struggling middle class affected by the economy gas prices, and unemployment. These are the white working class. Bad news for Obama is that he does not connect with them. Good news for Obama, they also do not connect with Romney.
The second group of swing voters include moderate women concerned by recent debates over reproductive rights, birth control, and family issues. These are the soccer moms. The swing to the right has alienated many of these women from the GOP and Obama and the Democrats seem to be enjoying an unusually large gender gap this year.
The third group of swing voters are young people under thirty. It is odd to call them swing voters especially since four years ago they came out strong for Obama. This time around they are nowhere near as excited by him as they were in 2008, mostly because of economic issues and the failure of Obama really to connect with them.. These voters should be part of Obama’s base but because of their unpredictable turnout it is apt to call them swing voters. If they do show up they will vote for Obama.
Potentially these three groups and issues overlap; making it difficult to decide which is the most important or will tip the balance in the election. But assume for minute that this presidential election is similar to many others in that it is a economic referendum on the incumbent–then it is the economy that is the main issue. How is the economy doing in these swing states? It is a mixed bag, with unemployment levels stagnating along with economic growth. Moreover, neither candidate seems to be doing a good job coming up with an election narrative except for saying “I’m not Obama” or “I’m not Romney.”
Having said all that, here is how I think the remaining states are tipping now.
Add to Obama’s 232 the following states: Colorado (9), Nevada (6), New Hampshire (4), New Mexico (5), and Wisconsin (10). This is 34 more electoral votes that gets him to 268, two short of the necessary 270.
Add to Romney’s 196 : Missouri (10), Virginia (13). This is 23 more electoral votes and gets him to 219,still 51 short.
Three states, Florida (29), Iowa (6), Ohio (18), total 53 electoral votes, and they are too close to call at this time. Romney needs all three states to win, Obama one state to win.
Unless this election is a replay of 1980 where disgust for the status quo and Carter was so strong that it tipped millions of swing voters in the last 72 hours to vote for Reagan, I do not see Romney presenting winning all three of these states. Obama wins at least one of these states, thereby ensuring his re-election. Obama wins with 274-321 electoral votes.
Tuesday, March 6, 2012
Quick thoughts on Super Tuesday
All eyes on Ohio will it be Romney or Santorum?
Here are the variables.
The polls have them tied or Romney with slight lead with Santorum going down in the last couple of days. Romney did well with early voters or those who already made of their minds but a large percentage of 35% of so have yet to make up their minds or might change it. If electability is on their minds they will break to Romney, if it is about the blue collar vote then they break to Santorum.
Regardless of who wins the popular vote, delegates will be split almost evenly. Santorum wins in OK and TN, Romney in VT, MA, and VA. Gingrich wins in Georgia. Everyone declares themselves to be a winner.
I think Romney eeks out a win in Ohio.
End of the Day. Delegates are split and the battle goes to next week in Alabama and Mississippi where Romney does poorly.
Here are the variables.
The polls have them tied or Romney with slight lead with Santorum going down in the last couple of days. Romney did well with early voters or those who already made of their minds but a large percentage of 35% of so have yet to make up their minds or might change it. If electability is on their minds they will break to Romney, if it is about the blue collar vote then they break to Santorum.
Regardless of who wins the popular vote, delegates will be split almost evenly. Santorum wins in OK and TN, Romney in VT, MA, and VA. Gingrich wins in Georgia. Everyone declares themselves to be a winner.
I think Romney eeks out a win in Ohio.
End of the Day. Delegates are split and the battle goes to next week in Alabama and Mississippi where Romney does poorly.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)