The Perry Problem in a nutshell

Americans want a President that personifies a certain lifestyle, but they don’t want a President that actually lives that lifestyle.

You want to see Bush clearing brush so it feels like he’s a good hardworking rancher. But you want him to clear brush like for 20 minutes once a year and actually do the hard work of governing the rest of the time.

You want to see Clinton stop by a McDonalds and kiss a baby so it feels like he’s a simple man just working as hard as possible to do good for his family. But you don’t want him to literally eat at McDonalds every day (while kissing babies).

Even those crazy (staged) pictures of Putin help give his nation a sense of identity; a rugged, manly, no fear identity. But you don’t want him to run around doing everything shirtless.


So here’s the Perry problem: he isn’t a personification. He is the real thing. He is a good ol’ Texas boy who went to the school that Texans joke about being the school for people that can’t get into any other school, who got horrible grades at that easy school, who was on the cheer squad instead of any academic clubs, whose idea of a fun weekend is shooting guns, who actually once killed a coyote with a laser sighted pistol while out on a jog, who wins (state) elections by holding as few debates as possible and by using character assaults on his opponents at the few he actually goes to instead of talking in depth about policy ideas and issues, who likes to talk about succession and treason and legitimately seems to think that the federal government is the root of all problems that anyone in the country faces about anything on any given day, and who, as we are beginning to see, has made it as far as he has made it mostly by relying on his looks and vocal tone (and political party/advisors) rather than smarts or intellectual curiosity.

The Perry Problem is that the nation (and moreover Republicans) want a Ronald Reagan in the sense that we want someone that knows how to play a cowboy and awaken that instinct we all have inside to be wild and free and live exciting lives. But the nation doesn’t actually want a cowboy President. They want a fake cowboy that can take the job of being President 200% seriously at the end of the day.

We want a President that we would enjoy having a beer with. But we don’t want to literally drink beer with the President every night. The President should, you know, be on the phone with other heads of state or his/her generals and have the desire and energy to spend 16+ hour long days doing that for every day for four years straight (with a little vacation mixed in, of course).

In Rick Perry, we may have seen the first candidate to truly not understand the distinction between these two sides of the coin.


Here comes the flood

So Perry really tripped up this debate, as I sort of expected him to do (wrote a post about a week ago about how his momentum is, perhaps irreversibly, stalled after a weak performance in the last debate, inre: HPV shots).

What comes next is Palin’s decision.

If she’s been withholding a decision just to fuck around with everyone and not run, then what happened tonight doesn’t matter.

If, as I’ve posited, she’s been waiting as long as possible in order to allow the current candidates time to self-immolate, then she just saw Perry light up Palin’s path to front-runner status.

There has been speculation about Palin running as an independent candidate. As amusing as that would be, I really can’t see it happening unless she is intent on starting a new political party. With Perry’s serious stumble in tonight’s debate, there is no reason to go full rogue. If Palin enters, it automatically becomes a Palin/Perry/Romney race, with Palin stealing a lot of Perry’s thunder (and supporters) and portraying him as a corrupt lifetime politician while (easily) showing that she is ten buckets more charismatic than Romney.

I don’t know if the votes are there for Palin if she enters. But the stage is set, and this play still needs a clear leading actor/actress.

With a bit of trepidation, I’m still leaning towards thinking she’ll get in the race. Like $50 bet sure. Gonna be a hell of a race if she enters.

Your next Senator from Massachusetts

With stuff like this, it is no surprise that Warren is jumping up in the polls after only a week or so of announcing her intent to run against Scott Brown. Down about 10 points a few weeks ago, she is now up by a point or two.

The best part about this is that the Senate could have appointed her to run the Consumer Protection Agency, but Senate Republicans blocked her nomination from coming to a vote (well, they’ve blocked any and all nominations by Obama of people to run the agency). So instead, she’ll most likely cause those same Republicans to lose a seat next November, a seat that will be crucial if the GOP hopes to re-gain a majority in the Senate.

Unintended consequences can be fun

A new electoral system: ground work

One thing worth noting upfront is that as far as I have figured, any new system would have to incorporate some degree of decimals with electoral vote allocation. This is a pain in the ass as far as keeping things simple, but better to have a good mathy system than a bad simple system.

Table of Contents

1) Issues with several alternatives to the EC

2) Explanation of central tenets

3) Brainstorm


1) Issues with several alternatives to the EC

No one really likes the Electoral College. It is antiquated. It doesn’t work the way that it was intended to. It reeks of unnecessary political elitism in both its name and in the fact most elections are either blowouts or come down to a small handful of states, leaving most people feeling as though their vote matters little or not at all.

However, the standard alternatives are much worse options, both at different extremes of the spectrum.

Moving to a national popular vote is a favorite many, especially those who still hold resentment about the 2000 general election. A national popular vote can make sense in small nations. We use it in every state and congressional district, for example, without any serious issues of disenfranchisement. But it won’t work nationally in the United States.

One reason is simple history. We have a state based nation that has striven to protect the balance between state power and national power. To eliminate a state-centric approach in favor of a wide open system would be a gross bastardization of our nation’s history. The small state of Wyoming has about 544k residents and 3 electoral votes. The state of California has about 36.961M residents and 55 electoral votes. One way to parse this is that in the electoral college system California is about 18.3 times more important/powerful than Wyoming. A switch to a popular vote model with make California about 67.9 times more powerful than Wyoming.

Some would say “Well, who cares? It should be that way.” And many people want to feel like their vote matters, instead of being constrained by living in states that potentially vote the same way nearly every election.

They have legitimate concerns. A national popular vote is not the answer though.

With a national popular vote, elections would turn into hyper-partisan turn out exercises. This may sound like a bad joke to those that think we already have such a system, but we really don’t. Right now we have battles over swing states. These states, like Ohio or Florida or Pennsylvania, are at the very least marginally representative of the national as a whole. Candidates must hone their message to appeal to as many people as possibly, especially towards the middle-ground independent voters. Compartmentalizing the election in this manner is not great for enfranchisement, but it does ensure a healthy level of political moderation from candidates. A national popular vote would do the opposite. It would encourage Democrats to put nearly all organizational resources into urban areas and the coasts. The GOP would focus on the South and Mid-West and on suburban or rural areas. Partisanship as a whole would increase, but far worse than that is partisanship based on geographic location (and therefore race, eventually) would grow sharply. It would not be healthy. It would encourage increased voting fraud as well as disenfranchisement tactics. And if pre-election polls suggest that one candidate is going to win, for example, 55% to 45% or greater the incentive to vote may decrease dramatically. This would hurt local and state level democracy. To be fair, this issue of disincentivization is equally weak or worse in the current EC system.

Ok. Now the district by district method.

In this system, each Congressional district would cast an electoral vote based on which candidates wins the district (by plurality). Presumably, each state would cast 2 electoral votes based on their statewide winner as well.

The problem in this system is that many urban districts are (as a result of the Civil Right Act, though I forget which one) gerrymandered in a way that extremely favor Democrats. Some rural districts are the opposite, in favor of the GOP. So what would happen is the inverse of the national popular vote system: swing districts (mostly suburban or rural areas) would be the focus on attention for candidates. Urban districts (and therefore urban issues) would be at the very least less important, at most neglected entirely and taken for granted as voting for the Democratic candidate. Same for certain rural areas, especially the large land states in the central northwest that have only one or two districts for very big swaths of land. We would be replacing swing states, and their mix of urban, rural, and suburban and racially diverse concerns, with swing districts, which would in all likelihood put a disproportionate focus on white suburban concerns.

Not to mention, the redistricting process would become even more of a political nightmare.

I prefer the Electoral College to either of those options because it fits in a good middle ground. It encourages moderation. It mildly encourages suffrage without encouraging too much disenfranchisement tactics. For example: If the state of New York drastically reduced voting ability in New York City in a national popular vote system (let’s say they, unrealistically, do this by eliminating 90% of polling locations so lines are too long for people to bother voting) they could change an entire election. If the same thing happened in the current EC, New York state might flip but the rest of the nation would be unaffected. This compartmentalization is a good thing in terms of protecting against such tactics, though it is not ideal for incentivizing voting in the first place.

There must be a better system than all three.


2) Explanation of central tenets

As mentioned in my previous post, here are the three central tenets than any new system must adhere to:

Must encourage suffrage (voting).

Any new system must seek to incentivize voting as much as possible while guarding against giving new reasons for politicians to desire disenfranchising voters (as in the national popular vote scenario).

The best way to go about this is the make the system complex enough that one has no idea how much their vote matters until after all have been counted. They must also feel as those their vote will matter no matter the outcome of their particular region. This leads will to point two.

2) Must be simple enough to explain to an 8th grader.

It is entirely possible to make an exceedingly complex plan that balances all geographic, racial, and political concerns when it comes to electing a President.

But if the plan is too complex it will have an opposite effect on incentivization and decrease turnout. It has to make sense to and 8th grader or else there is no point in using it.

8th graders are capable of understanding plenty, thankfully, so I’ll still have a lot of room to be creative in my solution.

3) Must retain a sense of “American-ism”

This umbrella term covers a few things. First, some specific things like ranked or multi-candidate voting will be excluded from any final plan. So will multi-round (run-offs, both automatic or real) voting. Second, the intangible aspect of the plan must feel “American” in terms of respecting the individual power of states and our style of federalism as well as the notion of “one person one vote”. The latter will have to be fudged slightly, but not in a way that is worse than the electoral college and not in a way that encourages any voting fraud. Lastly, it must be written in a way that could be added to the Constitution as an amendment. This does not mean it has to necessarily be simple or short, but it cannot be a five page rule book either. My ideas have to be condensed into clear and concise language at the end of things.


3) Brainstorm

At the moment, I am envisioning a sort of super-hybrid electoral system in which the national vote, statewide vote, and per-district vote all are taken into account. In addition, some level of that must include an allocation of electoral votes based on percentage to provide increased incentivization for both individuals (to vote) and for parties/groups (to register voters and get as many to the polls as possible, everywhere).

The electoral “votes” must be tied to the number of Congress seats somehow (as opposed to picking a random number like 500 or 1,000), so that it is scalable in the event that new states are added to the union.

It must provide language guaranteeing electoral votes as opposed to the current Electoral College where electors (the people we elect to cast the final ballots) are technically free to cast their vote for anyone they please. The tradition of having “electors” may be continued, potentially.

There must be built-in recourse in the case of certain unforeseen events (death of President-elect between election day and certification of results, virtual ties, no candidate achieves a certain threshold of votes, etc).

The system should not favor “glamor” candidacies (ie a billionaire that spends his/her way into a third party victory [or, more accurately, multiple billionaires running and diluting the vote so that no candidates in the entire race receives more that 20% or 30% of the national vote]). However, it should not be built to favor a two party system either. The easy solution to this is a run-off election, but I have ruled this out.

It should (possibly) provide a standardized way of getting onto the national ballot, as opposed to the state-by-state system at the moment (some require signatures, some require payments, some both). Some sort of threshold and candidate limit would have to be set. I may not include anything on this subject. It’s a tricky one.

Ok. Going to keep thinking about this overnight and possibly for a few days before putting together a plan. Stay tuned!

Here’s the thing

No party has a Reagan that can take 40+ states. In fact, it may not even be possible to ever accomplish that again in the new media world, no matter how good or how bad the candidates are.

Any story about Dems or the White House freaking out is a either made up or  is a story about over paid staffers/pundits. The election will come down to Florida, Ohio, and Iowa/New Hampshire/Colorado (the troika are mostly likely to end up shifting the same direction as each other).

Everything else is irrelevant. If Romney get the nomination you portray him as stiff. If Perry does you portray his as extreme. If Palin does you enjoy the bloodbath. If Huntsman does you emphasize the things him and the President agree on so the conservatards freak out about him being a RINO/closet Dem.

There is no Reagan.

Even though Obama’s approval numbers are tanking and he isn’t really campaigning and the GOP has all the attention, Obama is still winning head to heads against both Perry and Romney, and his numbers against Perry have been getting better and better each week as Perry says more and more wild stuff.

Obama could pull a Weiner (or Clinton/Lewinsky) and still have a good enough shot at things. The crazy thing is that there hasn’t even been one true scandal yet.

The last guy started a war with false justification. The guy before him slept around. Both were re-elected. This guy kept it in his pants, killed Bin Laden, helped oust Gaddifi, and (hopefully) fought to improve the job situation in a global economic downturn.

It’s going to be a long campaign.

If you value your sanity you should just turn off all political news until next August. Not much will change in between now and then.

Poll numbers here:

Wind knocked out of him

I don’t know how Perry recovers after last night’s debate. Three things are now true:

1) Palin has an even bigger opening to get into this race. Long ago my belief was that her overall strategy was to let each front runner or media sensation implode on their own (and release her own oppo research to help accomplish this) so that she could enter late into a damaged field. If I was right, she just watched the last giant (Perry) wound himself enough that Palin could announce as the front runner.

2) Perry probably won’t lose supporters because of last night, but his momentum is likely stopped dead in its tracks. I suspect he’ll hover around 25% to 35% in national GOP primary polls for a little while without much change until Palin decides whether to enter the race or not.

3) Romney and Bachman have new life. Huntsman probably has a better chance in New Hampshire the more Perry says crazy things.

Pre debate prep

1) Not live blogging tonight. The Patriots will be taking some of my attention away and so will the US Open match if it continues on past this 3rd set (edit: it has). Plus CNN is great at being bad at hosting things, so I’m not all that excited about this debate.

2) Another debate will take place in 10 days, on Fox News. The network asked very tough questions last time around, and Chris Wallace will be moderating again so that should be interesting.

3) What I expect to see from each candidate:

Bachmann – Must revive campaign by either hitting Perry from the right or launching a surprise SocSec defense from the middle (before Romney has the chance to [clearly] stake his own ground on the issue). Probably should hit from the right on immigration.

Gingrich – Must show he can go one debate without complaining about the moderators ~_~

Paul – Must not come off as a crazy person again.

Cain – Must make sure to wear pants. As long as he does, his performance scarcely matters.

Santorum – Must hit hard about foreign policy and domestic policy (no social issues) and must do so with controlled assertiveness instead of his usual pseudo-whining.

Huntsman – Must continue to inject himself into the debate as the (ex) governor with the best jobs record of not only those on the stage but in the entire nation. Every time he brings this up it’s not only good to brag about but it effortlessly contrasts him against Romney/Perry and elevates him to their level. In short: Must continue to gain relevance.

Romney – Must be able to both keep his cool and counter Perry’s attacks. It’s not an easy tightrope to walk. He’ll have to prove he can do it if he wants to prove that he’ll be able to effectively take on Obama.

Perry – Must not screw up. Must provide enough soundbites to continue to be the topic of conversation over the next 10 days. Must also prove that he can be aggressive without being brash. Another tough tightrope to walk.

Overall – The Perry v. Romney dynamic again will dominate the debate and discussion of. Hopefully Huntsman or Bachmann or even Santorum breaks through the static, but I doubt it. If Romney and Perry start seriously punching each other then there is an avenue for Huntsman to appear like the best last man standing at the end of the night.

4) Tweet from David Corn “More fun to watch the CNN director pumping up the crowd on live feed than CNN’s pregame analysis on network.”

Pretty much. Debate starting in a few seconds. Prepare for some horrible moderation and questions.