Unofficial Academy Awards Discussion Board

Greg wrote:

Sonic Youth wrote:In fact, when was the last time there was a presidential race without a single Southerner on either party's ticket?

2008, unless you consider sothwestern states such as Arizona and California as southern. Then, you would have to go back to 1944.

I most definitely consider Arizona a southern state, if only to cover up my blatant error of not taking the '08 race into consideration. But I'll amend my statement from "no southerner" to "all northerners", because all four of 'em are very much northerners. Except for the fact that the south is growing in population faster than the rest of the country, I'm tempted to read too much into it. But it's an interesting development nonetheless.

There's also only one Protestant out of the four -- or none, to listen to the "He's a Muslim!" crowd.

When I heard last night that Romney was announcing his pick this morning -- in the middle of the Olympics, more than two weeks before the convention -- my first thought was, man, they're desperate to stop the bleeding. A few weeks of the gaffe-filled overseas trip, devastating coverage of the tax returns, polls showing Obama with a wider than lead than anyone in the Village ever imagined, a Coulter/Limbaugh-led conservative revolt...culminating in Romney's instantly ridiculed "Tell Obama to stop being mean to me" interview on Friday -- this campaign needed a change of subject FAST.

They also apparently concluded, from the right-wing fury, that they'd still not managed to lock down their base voters, so they bowed to the pressure of the Wall Street Journal/Bill Kristol et al. and picked the very dangerous Paul Ryan. I say dangerous not because I think he has that much impact on the presidential race -- I've never been persuaded the VP choice has ever played more than a miniscule role in a presidential outcome (and then only in 1960). I say it because the draconian-to-the-poor/generous-to-the-rich Ryan budget plan is an anchor that can be tied around the entire Republican party. Democrats have all year wanted to use it as a club with which to beat their opposition, but they've had some trouble getting their point across. It's been widely reported that focus groups found the specifics of the plan so horrifying that they literally refused to believe they were on the level; they assumed the focus group leaders were making them up. Now it'll be far easier for all the details of the plan to be put out in a form voters can understand. This can have a significant effect in down-ballot races.

This will not necessarily show up immediately. I guarantee that, over the next week or two, the Beltway media will give Ryan a tongue-bath, labelling him some combination of "serious" and "dreamboat-y". Remember, they were all in a swoon over Palin for a while. And the GOP convention should have the predictable bump in the polls for the ticket -- one that might hold for a bit, until the Dem convention moves the polls back.

All that is eyewash. The fundamentals of the election remain unchanged -- fundamentals that have long contradicted the "it's neck and neck" narrative shown by some polls and favored by the pundit class. The Keys to the Presidency system -- which has predicted every presidential outcome since it was developed -- has said since last year that Obama is a prohibitive favorite for re-election. Right-wingers keep telling us the year's going to turn out like 1980, when Reagan surged at the end. But the Reagan election profile this year resembles is far more 1984 -- a charismatic incumbent who effects major changes, avoids scandal, social unrest, intra-party or third-party challenge, and has an economy, while hardly booming, well out of recession during the campaign period, facing a lackluster and weak-seeming opponent. The political divisions in the country are sharper than they were in 1984 (back then, the South had convincingly turned GOP, but the moderate sections of the Midwest and Northeast were still willing to stay in the Republican coalition), so Obama won't get the 49 state breakaway Reagan did. But he's still got an excellent shot of winning far more comfortably than our genius analysts have been forecasting all year.

Sonic Youth wrote:In fact, when was the last time there was a presidential race without a single Southerner on either party's ticket?

2008, unless you consider sothwestern states such as Arizona and California as southern. Then, you would have to go back to 1944.

OscarGuy wrote:He's dumber than I thought. So long Florida...he just picked the architect of Dismantle Medicare as his running mate...he'll please some of the firebrands, but alienate older voters...

I wouldn't say he's dismantling it. I think of it more as replacing Medicare with coupons.

I don't see any running-mate as a game-changer, so this is no more or less unreasonable than any other pick. But I must confess I am relieved that for once this year's Republican ticket doesn't have the stench of the 700 Club all over it. In fact, when was the last time there was a presidential race without a single Southerner on either party's ticket?

He's dumber than I thought. So long Florida...he just picked the architect of Dismantle Medicare as his running mate...he'll please some of the firebrands, but alienate older voters...

Romney announces his VP.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/mitt ... 40054.html

Yup on all counts. My bad. Nm.

Sabin wrote:Ohio's unemployment is around 5% last I checked which is good for Obama, but Romney wants it and it could still go either way. That points to Portman for me, even though I'm not sure that Portman can help to deliver the state. Romney/Portman is the most forgettable ticket since Dole/Kemp, which makes a degree of sense.

That number looked too low. I checked and Ohio's unemployment number is 7.2%. Also, that does not count discouraged workers, i.e. people who want jobs but have at least temporarily given up looking for work, as well as the large number of people who are underemployed.

Well, it's likely coming up pretty quickly...

Two factors point towards a super-boring choice. The first is continued blowback from Palin. Romney may want/need to energize the base, but he doesn't want a repeat of McCain's shellacking. Romney also doesn't want to choose someone who appears more Presidential than he or a more vibrant personality, which means anyone shy of an upturned tortoise is out. And so we're hearing a lot about Rob Portman, Tim Pawlenty, and Bobby Jindall with some distant rumblings of Paul Ryan, Kelly Ayotte, and Bob McDonnell. Rubio and Christie claim to be uninterested. I'm inclined to believe them. They have no need to saddle themselves to a losing candidate like Romney especially considering that the last time a VP-pic from a losing ticket went on to win was FDR. I haven't read anyone mention Eric Cantor but he's from Virginia, which is a big swing. I recall reading that Ann Romney made some mention of Mitt picking a woman, which would point to Ayotte...

Ohio's unemployment is around 5% last I checked which is good for Obama, but Romney wants it and it could still go either way. That points to Portman for me, even though I'm not sure that Portman can help to deliver the state. Romney/Portman is the most forgettable ticket since Dole/Kemp, which makes a degree of sense.