The Post Michigan Hangover

Last night Romney survived his near-death Michigan experience and Santorum is no longer the force of nature he seemed to be after his 3-state upset. What's the situation?

From Politico:

• A win-is-a-win. Hey, Romney won. He's back.
• Santorum really ought to have locked it up, huh? Oh and he probably damaged himself in the process of not-winning (his I almost puked at the JFK speech comments and the college-snobs thing). Plus, if he's just the candidate of the far right he's not going to be Mr. Popular in the general (like this is news?) and then the Democrat robo-call thing? That's not going to endear him to the base, is it?
• If Romney wins Ohio it might be Santorum's waterloo (Santorum is very popular there--but Romney's going to have a go at it)
• What's Newt doing--other than Georgia?
• Ron Paul is seen as a Romney surrogate (hardest hit: Ron Paul true believers!)

From Red State:

Seriously, putting it bluntly, conservatives may not like Barack Obama, but most other people do. And when faced with a guy you like and a guy you don’t like who says he can fix an economy that no longer needs fixing, you’re going to go with the guy you like.

If Republicans in Washington are not panicked and trying desperately to pull Bobby Jindal in the race tomorrow, or someone like him, the party leaders must have a death wish.Mitt Romney continues to run an uninspiring campaign only able to win by massively outspending his opponents to tell voters how much worse the other guys are. That may work in the primary, but it will not work in a general election where the President of the United States won’t be outspent 5 to 1.

Talking Points Memo (Democratic) says:

But while Romney might be two steps closer to Tampa, he’s not anywhere near out of the woods. The campaign now takes a dangerous turn for his camp — to the South.

Super Tuesday is a smaller affair this cycle than last. Much smaller, actually — California, Illinois, New Jersey, and New York were huge anchors of the 23 Democratic contests and 21 on the Republican side. Next week eleven states will hold their GOP votes, among them the Ohio, Georgia, Tennessee, Oklahoma and Massachusetts primaries as the major sources of delegates, along with caucuses in Alaska, Idaho, North Dakota, and Wyoming.

...Polling at the moment shows problems for Romney everywhere. The biggest fight looks to be over Ohio and its 66 delegates (1144 are needed to secure the nomination), where Romney has been in a more traditional fight by 2012 cycle standards, the former governor unable shake the various GOP flavors of the month.

CNN shows Santorum's No-One-Is-Excited-About-Mitt-Romney mailer:

(look at that Rick-Santorum-Smile! Who thinks that looks good!?)


What Do I Think?
Right now Newt Gingrich holds the lead in Super-Pac money spent against him at $17,944,586 (almost all of that Florida). Santorum comes in next at $8,091,692. The question in my mind is this: does Team Romney think they won--and can continue winning--by doing what they are doing? Or do they see a real threat in either (a) Santorum or (b) a combination of Santorum and Romney resulting in a brokered convention? If the latter does Romney's messaging on attack change? Swing to social issues? Focus on gaffes?

If they do, what's their response? Certainly the big blue states (New York, California, and so on) are more likely to go to Romney than Santorum so Mitt could just decide to wait it out, take a few more hits in Super Tuesday, and let "nature take its course"--but that's easy for me to say. I doubt Mitt Romney is so sanguine.

I also want to know what Santorum supporters will make of the surge in Democratic support which will probably not go away after Michigan. Rationalizing Democratic activists wanting your candidate to win can't be comfortable--what does this do to the narrative that Rick Santorum is a giant-killer on social issues?

Then there's Newt. Gingrich now has a ton of money (but no one is saying how much) and Newt has been re-running his "positive" campaign saying that he has "energy solutions" and Americans should be paying 2.50/gal of gas. I want to know how long that's going to last. Gingrich does attack better than anyone else (followed by Ron Paul). Now that he's reloaded is he going to open fire?

Finally there's the question as to whether Romney's play in Michigan, which some people called "winning ugly" will actually hurt him. For one thing, he made a bunch of gaffes including this:

You know, it's very easy to excite the base with incendiary comments. We've seen throughout the campaign if you're willing to say really outrageous things that are accusative, attacking of President Obama, that you're going to jump up in the polls. I'm not willing to light my hair on fire to try and get support. I am who I am.

Which prompted a Weekly Standard Article on Romney's "Low Opinion of the Base." Guys? I think it's mutual. Certainly Romney made a string of gaffes which even he said hurt him. Is there going to be any long term fallout from that? I think the smart money says that hey, he won--he's going to keep winning and you better get used to him. What if that's not true though? What if Super Tuesday is a resounding defeat for him? That'll be something to watch.

How Do I Get Paid To Be An On-Line Troll!?

One of the recurrent conspiracy theories you'll see in online discussions is that certain posters are actually paid trolls--agents of some nefarious force whose day job is actually to come to your forum and post inflammatory things that push all your buttons! Read here for an example!

If someone you don't know makes comments on facebook group pages supporting whaling or sealing, it is most likely an employee of a government. We have for a long time known but could not prove that the postings by various names that appear time and time again are from people paid to post comments in favor of the killing of seals, dolphins, whales and other animals. Now we have proof. This Canadian Press story details how the Canadian government has hired firms to monitor online forums and to post propaganda supporting the slaughter of these animals.

This sounds pretty good, honestly--how do I get this sweet work-from-home job? Is this even real? Who's doing it? Are those posters who make you rage-stroke actually nefarious hired hit-jobs? Who's behind this? And most importantly: how much does it pay?

In China the answer is apparently: 50-cents per post. Here is an interview (quoted in Reason magazine) with one of these paid-trolls.

Once you understand these instructions, you begin to select your subjects [or objectives], finding relevant news or articles on websites and then writing one's own articles, making posts [in the responsesection, and responding to other responses, all along the lines of the general orientation given above. This requires a lot of skill. You must hide your own identity. And you can't write in too official a way. You have to write articles of many different styles. Sometimes this means talking, fighting and disputing with yourself. Essentially, it's about creating a facade and then channeling web users over to you. The art of doing this is actually quite profound.

Okay--but that's China. Could it happen here? The answer is: it kinda did.

A group of influential conservative members of the behemoth social media site Digg.com have just been caught red-handed in a widespread campaign of censorship, having multiple accounts, upvote padding, and deliberately trying to ban progressives. An undercover investigation has exposed this effort, which has been in action for more than one year.

It's difficult for me to tell, for certain, if this is simply alleged or if the evidence really supports it--but there is evidence. Here's the Wikipedia entry for your examination:

The Digg Patriots is an online US conservative activist group which shares news stories and opinion articles on the popular social media website, Digg. The group started as an invitation-only Yahoo! Groupsemail list after Digg removed inter-member Instant Messaging. Using a subscription mailing list service to replace Digg "shouts," members of the group shared links, and requested each other to vote up ("digg") or vote down ("bury") other members' submissions. This generated controversy after the mailing list was made public, with allegations that the group was "gaming the system"..

But Maybe This Doesn't Count!
Assuming the charges are true (and I'll lean towards the idea that they are) the issue here is a group of conservative volunteers who are "gaming" a social media site where their actions prevent certain stories from being seen. In the case of China we are dealing with a regime that is actively trying to control their population and spend billions of dollars a year working against the Internet.

This is very different than someone posting profanity laden messages designed to get you to freak out. It's different than someone trying to get your dander up with a well-aimed post on some message board somewhere. In other words, these two examples have an actual concrete goal that someone might actually either pay good money for (the Chinese government who, probably rightly, see unfettered online conversation as a danger to their regime) or, in the case of Digg, can actually enact a form of ideological censorship.

Would anyone actually get paid for making you upset? Here's someone's theory:

1. Break up the conversation. Maybe they realized that “lefties” like to talk, and discuss points, and then formulate from said discussions. So by interjecting and injecting their “take”, they break up that conversation or disrupt the discussion to the point of making the conversation useless or stop where it’s at. Thereby preventing the progression of ideas to action. “Names will never hurt me”. “Keep em’ talking, while I go steal the loot”? So is it to prevent action?

2. Maybe it’s just to continue the divide and conquer strategy. Ie. paid trolls are the maintenance costs of this strategy. As long as you can pay people to spout these talking points, and thus in most people’s head equate that with the “other side”, you thereby entrench them in their positions, ie. the bunker mentality. Would continue divide and conquer.

3. Keep em’ mad. Angry people, ie. rage stroke, do not think as rationally, IN GENERAL. Stoke their anger with talking points that they know inflames the “other side”. Get them so angry that they actually need to take a time out. It breaks the conversation, it cements divide and conquer, and it renders them as rage-filled lizard-brains. Of course this anger would have the dual benefit of being reawakened, next time with less stimulus, and thereby causing all of the above more efficiently. Use the people’s,left or right, own rage against the people themselves.

Whether you buy any of that (and I'll give you my take on it in a moment--I'm highly dubious) there are certainly claims people are getting paid to disseminate political ideas on certain fora. Here is a confession!

For almost five years, I was a paid Internet troll. Yes, I admit.

But first let me state that I never performed my job here on ATS, though I believe I have occasionally seen a handful on here who were using a script similar to what I was assigned.

I cannot and will not name names, but after an internship at a firm with government and political party (Republican) contracts, I was offered the position of "Online Communications Associate" at another company by someone from the original firm for which I interned. My contract completed one year ago, and I have since moved on.

Utilizing six artificial personas, I was active in social networks and bulletin boards. But since I came to love and respect this site, as I stated, I never performed my functions here. Each week, I and presumably several others, were provided with information to use in our online postings. At first the information was comprised of fully conceived scripts, but as I became more and more experienced, it eventually became simple bullet or talking points.

At first I needed to provide links to my postings, but when the company name changed (never knew the real names of any people there), that requirement stopped.

The pay wasn't very good, but since I was working from my apartment, I suppose it wasn't bad and I was able to do several other writing assignments on the side.

The thread is lengthy--but it does trip my bullshit detector. He claims he was recruited out of college. That he worked through a salesforce.com like website (this is actually reasonably believable--but it doesn't solve the key issue) and that he was given assignments in the form of "scripts."

What makes me think this is untrue is: (a) he doesn't name names or provide any evidence other than his say-so. Things like "a script," web-sites, scans of checks received, and so on would go a long way towards making this look more reasonable. But there's worse: how exactly did the recruitment work?

He says it was offered at the end of "an unpaid internship" which--you know--maybe--but key to having someone put out an extreme political view for money would necessitate that:

1. They already hold those views (which, although he doesn't say exactly, he probably does not as he describes them as 'far right.')--if not you would be risking "explosion on contact" when you offer him the job and he's repulsed by it.
2. That the money (he says slightly more than slinging coffee at Starbucks for 40 hours per week) which seems to be about 16k per year (he claims the job was for 6 months--so he made 8k posting to Internet forums) would have to be buying something of value to the company.
3. At the end of the job you would have to have some way to keep these guys quiet (he cites possible legal troubles--but that seems tenuous to me. He does not claim ideological affiliation for his positions or any love for his former employers). I suspect that if someone really was taking people who just "needed the money" (as opposed to true believers who, clearly, already do this stuff for free) we would see a lot more of these stories and in other places than AboveTopSecret.

However ... There is some reasonably unsettling evidence that something is going on:

This post by Blackmarketeer (in the above thread on page 5--I can't link directly to the post itself) has three examples of posts that do, in fact, seem to be following a similar "script." Here are two of them:

Example 1: A Question For Democrats (Topic started on 5-4-2011 @ 12:35 PM by oxykerfluffle)

Every time someone disagrees with Obama liberals throw out the race card? We have had to deal with this since he started campaigning in the middle of 2008 until now. The only defense we get is "you're a racist" or a redneck, or we get the Bush blame game. No one ever calls them out on this except Fox news, all the other main stream media is on the same team.

Now you have your own war, where are all the liberals to protest it? This is your war OBAMA started it. Helloo??

The country is in deep debt, 14 trillion all OBAMA's fault and this idiot wants to get re-elected, and with a BILLION DOLLAR war chest for his campaign? You can't blame Bush anymore so get over it, you voted for him so you own this mess now.
NOBAMA!!!!

Example 2: Question for the Democrats (Topic started on 5-4-2011 @ 10:13 AM by thorazineshuffle)

Why is it that just because some one disagrees with Obama, you automatically throw the race card? I have dealt with this S&^T from the middle of 2008 until now. The only things you guys offer as a defense is either "You're just a inbred, backwoods, racist", or we get everything is Bush's fault. That is very weak, and luckily for yourselves, no one in teh main stream media will call you out for it, since they are on your team. Well, chums, this new war, that you guys hate so much, is OBAMA's war, and where are your protesters at now? Cindy Sheehan, where are you???

What about the debt our country is experiencing now? And this idiot actually wants to be re-elected, and he is going to raise a BILLION (1,000,000,000.00) DOLLARS for his campaign. Because he didn't destroy this country enough the first time around. Cant blame Bush for this mess anymore, Obama owns it. Whoever voted for him owns it now. It is time for you guys to accept it.
NOBAMA in 2012!!!!!

Looking at these two posts (started on the same day a few hours apart) it's pretty clear they were written by the same person and convey the same information. Could this be evidence of a script!?

I think the answer, sadly, is not likely--although it's clear the author of both posts is saying the same thing in two different ways it's also clear that whoever chose the usernames was on the same wavelength: Oxycontin and Thorazine? Fluffle and shuffle? If I was paying for super-secret trolls I sure wouldn't pay for that. Talk about outing yourself!

Okay--But How Do You Get The Job If  There Is One?
The fact that I don't see much evidence in the above doesn't mean there isn't some other indications out there. Here are two links that claim to offer pay-to-post employment:

This is a link to a screenshot of an alleged Craig's list post for Writers Needed To Post Right-Wing Comments!

(Click to expand to readability)

And here is a freelancer posting for Facebook Likes (I can more easily assume that's real--there is some potential page-rank value in a lot of likes).

Furthermore there are at least a couple of advertising companies that might--or that people allege might--do this sort of thing as part of their on-line operations (although it seems unlikely they would use outside 'contractors.'). The links are to a company called Netvocates (which seems to be closed or at least shrunk to almost non-existence) and the Rendon Group which is real, is a propaganda powerhouse, and allegedly "sold the Iraq war." It's possible these guys are involved in some false-flag subterfuge of some sort--but are they posting right wing messages to random message boards? I don't think so.


The Big Problem: People Troll For Free
The big problem with the theory that people are paid to troll is that people are perfectly happy to troll for free. It's called "For the Lulz" (you can google it) and basically there's great enjoyment to be had in tuning up true believers on whatever website you find them.

Given the vast array of Internet Trolls out there for free--why would you pay!? For the consistency of message? Consider the information content of the two messages we looked at:

• Obama plays the race card! Or says it's bush's fault! And the main-stream media backs you lib-tards!
• Cindy Sheehan!! Obama's WAR! Wharrgarble!
• We're in debt!! Obama is going to have a billion dollar campaign! He'll destroy America!!
• NOBAMA!!

How much would you pay for that? For two people to post the same thing to the same board? Who would pay for that message to go out--if you were the message maker would you even reference Cindy Sheehan!?

I could see it if the trolls were linking to studies, posting reasoned arguments, or otherwise putting forth a front that was trying to be convincing (even if it was just to 3rd party observers)--but seriously? Trying to induce high blood pressure? What's the ROI on that?

What Do I Think?
 I think that the whole "paid troll" issue comes when poster-A gets really upset at poster-B and thinks "There's just no way anyone could really believe that!" So the solution is obvious: someone's gettin' paid! Well, unfortunately the truth is that in the great wilderness of the online world you can find someone willing to defend and promote anything.

The idea that there's thousands of dollars worth of value (and remember, there are a bunch of these guys so it's, let's assume 80k per year for a 10-troll army working in 6-month shifts) in manipulating the tiny self-selected group of people who visit the site and read the comments seems ridiculous. Consider this: what is the last time you saw anyone change someone's mind by arguing online? Oh, sure--there may be cases in certain very sensitive political situations--or with specific population groups and volatile online movements (Middle Eastern regimes censor Twitter because it does have a for-real political impact. I'm sure those governments have their own disinformation regimes as well). There are certainly allegations that Israel is doing it.

But in general? In America? If you think that person you're reading is a paid troll? You're kidding yourself.

And on the possibility that I'm wrong? If you're out there Mystery Agency? Hit me up--I could use a second source of income!

Uh-Oh: Operation Hilarity Might Work

Yesterday, although I mentioned Operation Hilarity (a Daily Kos led attempt to get Michigan Democrats to turn out for the presumed weaker candidate Rick Santorum), I pretty much promised myself I wouldn't do an actual piece on it. This was because (a) it's kinda in poor taste and (b) these kinds of things almost never make any sort of difference whatsoever (although ... maybe I'm misinformed). In any event, as of yesterday Nate Silver was predicting Romney at a healthy 80-90% chance of victory in the Wolverine State.

That was yesterday.

This is today (Romney's Michigan chances from InTrade).

It's a ski slope.


However, the story for Operation Hilarity is not that the local state Democrats are asking for Dems to go vote in the open primary for Rick Santorum. Oh, it's true that with predicted razor thin margins even a bit of Democratic turn-out could make the difference--but that's not the story.

(although)

The story is that Rick Santorum himself is urging Democrats to get out the vote--for him. He's using Robo-Calls aimed at Democrats to "get out the vote" and skew the election!

Romney had accused Santorum of resorting to dirty tricks on the eve of Tuesday's primary. Speaking to Fox News, Romney said Santorum's tactic, which is legitimate but could be regarded as underhand, marked a new low in the campaign.

"Senator Santorum did something today which I think is deceptive and a dirty trick," Romney said.

An influx of Democratic votes could make the difference in a tight contest. Polls show Romney and Santorum neck-and-neck, with Santorum enjoying a late surge.

You can hear the call here--note that it does not identify itself as a pro-Rick Santorum agency!

What Do I Think?
 I think the first and most obvious question is why the heck do we even have open primaries in the first place (this guy thinks it's a good idea: you can vote without declaring yourself for a party!!1! ... oookayy ...)!? But after that, I think of UFC former heavyweight champion Brock Lesnar.

(Call me crazy but I think he'd beat Rick Santorum in the octagon)

I heard an on-the-air interview with Brock where the guy asking the questions (who obviously didn't understand MMA) kept asking Lesnar if there was anything he "wouldn't do" in the ring--was any tactic 'too dirty.' Lesnar kept responding that the only thing he wouldn't do was break the rules. Lesnar's point, which he made several times before the interviewer gave up, was that in the ring there are rules: if something is dirty ... it's against the rules. Groin shots, blows to the back of the head, eye-gouging? All of that's against the rules--so he wouldn't do it.

The point is that if you are going to fight a multi-million dollar war for the future of our country and you think you're the best guy to win? You better do everything within your power to win. Now, that doesn't mean there isn't such a thing as "winning dirty." What Romney did in Florida was 'carpet bomb' Newt Gingrich with a ratio of 65:1 ads almost all of which were negative.

He won--but it cost him: his favorability ratings plummeted. That's winning dirty: it's within the rules but there's a cost. Watergate or other illegal shenanigans have--and should have--legal consequences: that's breaking the rules. So if Rick Santorum wants to phone up Democrats to come vote for him? Fine--but I'd expect there to be a cost down the line for that.

Note that PPP--the (Democratic-leaning, I think) polling house that has Santorum up with  Democrats shows that (from the PPP twitter feed):

"55% of Santorum Democrats in Michigan like him, 40% don't. Looks like mix between sincere votes and Operation Hilarity"

If about half his votes are sincere I'm less outraged--but if Santorum does win on the backs of Democrats who will almost certainly not vote for him in the general? That's not exactly a recommendation for his candidacy.

The big question this raises for Santorum supporters: if the Democratic machine is campaigning for you does that mean you're a chump? To be sure there's at least one poll that shows Santorum beating Obama in the general election (and it's a decent one: Gallup) but most do not (Pew has Obama up +10 right now).

It would worry me: if you're at the poker table and you can't spot the sucker ... you're the sucker.

Edited to Add: Apparently Romney partook of tactical 'raiding' himself!

That year, Romney, then a registered independent, voted for former Sen. Paul Tsongas in the 1992 Democratic presidential primary. He told ABC’s George Stephanopoulos, in an interview that will air Sunday on "This Week," that his vote was meant as a tactical maneuver aimed at finding the weakest opponent for incumbent President George H.W. Bush.

Mitt Romney's Unlucky Michigan

Romney fills the stadium!*

Tomorrow is the vote and Nate Silver calls it for Mitt Romney: even though he is only up by about 2-4 points the consistency in the 538 polling outcomes suggests that without some special circumstance (he lists about 10 of them in the article) Mitt is at 77% to win. But some people are saying it doesn't matter or that he has already lost!

Besides having to answer questions about whether he’s conservative enough, Romney now has to beat back suggestions that he can’t connect with blue-collar voters whose support he’d need in the fall. Michigan, with its high unemployment and battered manufacturing base, is filled with the kind of voters whose support will determine the presidency in November.

The fact is that unless early voting has been very, very kind to Romney or he substantially exceeds his polling, he's going to win--just not by a lot--which is going to make for a long, long campaign (the proportional votes mean that Santorum will get about half the delegates even if he doesn't win).

Of course there's the outside chance (Silver puts it at 23%) that Mitt might lose Michigan--if that happens, all bets are off: Romney's campaign would be in big trouble. That probably won't happen even if something like Operation Hilarity, the Kos-led attempt to get democrats to vote Santorum in order to shake up the race, were to produce better than expected results. The story here is not that Romney is winning--it's that he's not winning by much.

It's also that by winning--by shifting to the right against Santorum--he may be losing the general.He also said some weird stuff about loving Michigan because "the trees are the right height." What the heck is up with that? Apparently he's done it twice ...

Romney and His Unfortunate Relationship With Cars
As the focus has been on the auto-industry this week there has been a lot of car-talk. This is also the week the Daytona 500 was to open (it was rained out) and we got to see Romney in jeans and Daytona 500 jacket looking at a race car with Santorum's name on it:

Honestly, are we supposed to believe that Romney is an avid NASCAR fan? That he regularly watches it? While having a Bud Lite with "the guys"? Considering that he's proud his wife "drives a couple of Cadillacs" it may be that the whole car-thing isn't his strong suit to begin with. To be certain, there's nothing wrong with Ann Romney owning or driving two high-end cars (just not at the same time, right?) but for Romney to be ostentatious with his wealth is not necessarily the best move for him.

More politically dangerous for Michigan in the general (but probably not the primary) was his 2008 "Let Detroit go Bankrupt" editorial (I can't find the original 2008 editorial--but I can find someone on the NYT being upset about it here). While the specifics are nuanced (Romney apparently thinks an actual bankruptcy restructuring would get rid of the unions altogether--but does not wish the industry destroyed) it doesn't sound so good: if someone who doesn't understand restructuring just reads the headline they may think Romney wants the end of American automotive manufacture. If the bailouts had been (as some, including myself) predicted unmitigated failures with chaos and catastrophe spreading up and down the whole manufacturing food chain Romney might've looked prescient. However, as it stands today--while far from an complete success the American auto industry seems to be doing okay.

In other words: it was a bet that didn't pay off and may have consequences in November.

Romney and cars have not been kind to each other (in his biographical ad he drives a high-end Chrysler that is, apparently, made in Canada ... so what? But it got him mocked).

Oh, and don't forget: when it comes to Romney and cars? Remember the dog thing. Yeah, whatever. Guy can't win.

What Do I Think?
I think that Santorum squandered a substantial lead over Romney and is paying the price. Romney is simply not a very strong Michigan candidate: the state has been hammered by layoffs, Romney's presence as a rich-guy who lays you off should be exploitable there even if its not done directly. I also question why Ron Paul, who's not remotely in the running in the state is running ads against Santorum there. The current theory is that it's a not-so-secret team-up to get Rand Paul on the ballot but I think that would damage Ron Paul's brand so who knows?

In any event: it's a nail-biter to watch and Santorum has pulled out some upsets already so Romney can't bet too confident. I'd love to see the horse-race get even more intense but instead I suspect the smart money says this is when Mitt Romney starts to pull away.

That said, I'm sure no matter how tomorrow turns out Mitt Romney will be glad to put Michigan in his rear-view.

* This photo, which has been shown widely as proof that Romney is drawing smaller-than-expected crowds, is a serious misinterpretation of the actual events. Romney sold out a smaller venue and moved to a larger one. The crowd was, considering the level of organization that drew it, quite large--but by moving to the stadium the "optics" (political-speak for 'how it looks') are terrible. The moral of the story is not that Mitt Romney is unpopular but rather that his team--an elite and presumably world-class team--need to be careful how they control the messaging.

Wagons or Firing Squads: What Will The GOP Circle?

There are two competing narratives for the GOP's end-game. The first is that Romney (or, perhaps, some other candidate) limps across the finish-line so wounded and disparaged--with such a mass of baggage from the long brutal campaign--that they are beaten in the general. In this narrative the damage that each candidate is taking is cumulative and, in the end, they are so badly beat up that Obama has an easy time against them. Part of this may be that the rifts open amongst the base simply cannot be healed.

This the Circular Firing Squad narrative.

The second narrative is that after a decisive candidate (probably Romney) pulls ahead (probably in the more blue-state-ish Super Tuesday contests) the GOP base comes to a decision: he is better than Obama--of course he is--and they rally round him. In this scenario, with enough time to heal the damage before the convention, the base (save for a few die-hards) decide to back him--and then turn out hard.

This is the Circle the Wagons narrative.

Which will it be?

Which WILL It Be?
Of course we don't really know--but let's look at some evidence in favor of each. Before we do, though, it should be noted that this race is unprecedented in volatility. It is also true that it has fielded the most negative in recorded history (Florida). So there are no good antecedents that I can see directly.

The Wagons Narrative
The primary piece of evidence that I can point to is the Hillary / Obama race in '08. It is true that there are still some aftershocks--In March of 2008 Gallup showed that 28% of Hillary backers would vote McCain! Although statistics are hard to come by, Pew holds that 10% of voters who identified themselves as Democrats voted for McCain--but this is the same % that voted for Bush!

Note that there was even hand-wringing over how bad the split had gotten:

Primary wars can be quite brutal among democrats. We're not as disciplined as Republican in falling in line behind a nominee. Plus there is a lot of anger and frustration among democrats after what the current republicans (especially this administration) after these 7 years. Not to mention that we feel the election was stolen in 2000. Imagine, no Bush.. 

And this is a historic race. Having an African American and a women be the final contenders will always bring out some venom and open some wounds in this country. I'm a bit worried that this is going over hand though. There is a lot of bad blood between Obama and Hillary supporters. The Clintons campaign style hasn't exactly made things easier. Hopefully everything comes to an end March 4th. 

The GOP must love this :)

In the end it doesn't look like the rift--although not without consequence--was especially damaging (the link is to Hillary supporters in 2011 asking her to mount a primary challenge to Obama!).

The Firing Squad Narrative

In this narrative the party is splintering--dying. The volatility is indicative of the base rending itself apart. The wounds simply can't be healed. This New Yorker Article describes the Republicans as a "Lost Party":

For Democrats, the answer is easy, reflexive, and comforting: Barack Obama wins. And at this moment, they have reasons to think so—starting with the historical precedents suggesting that the Romney-Santorum death match and the intraparty tensions it represents will undermine the eventual nominee. “Goldwater hurt Nixon in 1960, Rockefeller hurt Goldwater in 1964, and Reagan hurt Ford in 1976,” says historian Doris Kearns Goodwin. “When splits become open in the party, it’s never a good thing.”

Will this be enough? The article doesn't think so--it points out that the president's team assume that any margin of victory will be razor-thin come November. However, it is almost certain that if the Republicans had a real winner this would be looking more like a route by now than it does.

Furthermore the narratives that Hillary started (the 3 AM Red-Phone call, for example) were picked up and used by McCain. He was, in fact, winning the Commander-In-Chief test especially when Russia invaded Georgia. If not for Obama's own 'black swan' in the form of the economic melt down Obama's readiness--a theme started by Hillary, might have determined the election.

Furthermore, indications of low-voter-turnout and editorials like "The Republicans Send in the Clowns" don't help with the vision that one someone--anyone--is decided on, it'll all be fine:

The first words Fidel Castro has ever uttered that I have agreed with are those recently published on his blog, in which he opined that the current U.S. Republican nomination race is one of the most inane and stupid events in modern world history.

Finally, Hillary did a lot to reconcile the party (and became a popular Secretary of State for it). It's hard to imagine Newt Gingrich pitching in to do the healing ... or Santorum. It seems that, perhaps, Ron Paul might demand his son on the ticket for his portion of the base.

If the convention is contested (a better word than the standard "brokered" because "brokered" suggests someone is in charge) it's possible the fallout could be even worse--and if a new candidate (Jeb Bush?) is selected? Well, that might work--but it might also spark a mutiny (or a 3rd party run!). No one can say.

What Do I Think?
I hold more with the latter narrative than the former one: it will be some of both. If, even relatively late in the game (say by May) a strong front-runner emerges and eventually takes it there will certainly be rallying. The question is what wounds--and how deep--will remain.  There is also the question of "with whom:" Will the wounds be with the base (in which case the need to beat Obama may dominate them) or with the general electorate (in which case they may be more damaging) or, of course, with both.

There is also the issue of whether the wounds will be self-inflicted and forced (the candidate takes the damage due to sticking to their positions), unforced (the candidate takes the damage unnecessarily due to a gaffe or other real mistake) or inflicted (the damage comes from one of the other candidates).   This article holds that Romney is simply navigating his party's dysfunctional base in order to win the primary--then he can get back to a winning centrist view:

Or consider Romney’s now-notorious declaration that he was “severely conservative.” What a nitwit, everyone cried. He made it sound like a disease! Well, he did, and he didn’t. That Romney thinks of conservatism as a disease would never occur to most conservatives. But that Romney thinks of the new radical right that has alienated so much of the country as some sort of illness might well occur to moderates and independents, which would be to Romney’s advantage.

Maybe. But maybe not--Romney's favorability ratings have plummeted and that can't be good for him in the coming months. I also think that while the base will reconcile if the margins really are razor thin then Romney (or whoever) is going to need all he can get. In other words: this scrapping might not cost him much--but if it costs him any that's going to leave a mark.

Clearly I Cannot Choose The Cup In Front Of Romney!

I met my frienemy in the park. He was seated at the picnic table with four covered mugs in front of him. I gave him a quizzical look and sat down.

Me: "What did you want to talk about?"

Him: "You always think you're so smart--with your political blogging--it's time to see if you're willing to put your money where your mouth is ... so to speak."

It's true: I think I'm pretty smart. He produced four business cards on the backs of which he'd written ROMNEY, RON PAUL, SANTORUM, and GINGRICH. He placed one of them in front of each cup.

Me: "Oookaay."

Him: "In three of the cups I have placed liquid Drano. In the one for my chosen candidate: Coke Zero."

Me: "I've spent the last two years building up a resistance to Coke Zero."

Him: "The game is simple. You choose the first cup. I take my choice of a second--and we both drink. All you have to do is determine which candidate I am backing."

Me: "That's it?"

Him: "That's it."

Me: "That's simple."

Him: "Go for it."

Me: "It's trivial."

Him: "Then do it."

Me: "It'll be easy."

Him: "You're stalling."

Me: "You are a Republican. You consider Obama a failed president. You wish him beaten and Romney polls the best against him. Mitt Romney is statistically the best candidate to beat Obama--he has years of experience, millions of dollars, and the most endorsements."

Him: "You're done?"

Me: "I'm not even started. You also know that Romney may not quite have a literal 30% ceiling with the base but he's so unloved that his major case for his candidacy is that people the base hates, like mushy moderates and idiot independents, might like him. That's not exactly an endorsement. Plus: Donald Trump backed him--which is questionable. Finally, you are Roman Catholic by upbringing so you think Romney is a heretic. You will not happily vote for a Mormon."

I looked evenly at him.

"Clearly I cannot choose the cup in front of Romney."

Him (Smugly): "Oh no? Do go on."

Me: "Of course--but you've given the game away--you've made a fatal mistake."

Him: "What's that?"

Me: "Never go up against a political blogger when bullshit is on the line. That's down below the Sicilian one and Never Start A Land War In Asia but it's on the list."

Him: "I don't think I've seen the list."

Me: "You're a small government and personal freedom guy. You have a degree in education so you must think the Department of Education is a cancerous joke and would agree with seeing it destroyed and, perhaps most importantly, you erroneously think you're smarter than everyone else so Ron Paul would be your candidate of choice--"

Him: "Erroneously!?"

Me: "--but you have studied and therefore you know that Ron Paul's foreign policy is a non-starter and you don't smoke weed. You recognize that however much you might like some of his planks he can never win an election. He would guarantee an Obama second term. So clearly I cannot choose the cup in front of Ron Paul."

His eyes narrowed.

Me: "That leaves Santorum or Gingrich. As I said, you were raised Roman Catholic but you're not a strong church goer so you may not like Santorum's overtly religious style. Still, you talk about the evils of giving contraception to middle schoolers so you might well misunderstand his whole focus on that issue and think you actually agree with him."

Him: "He's in favor of giving contraception to middle schoolers!?"

Me: "So you are primed to be a Santorum voter--but Santorum is in favor of the SOPA bill and you have illegally downloaded every season of Doctor Who so you can never forgive him his anti-piracy stance."

He glared. "Those are art."

Me: "So clearly I cannot choose the cup in front of Santorum. That leaves Gingrich. You like him because he will fight and you shrugged off Cain's alleged philandering so you can forgive him his three wives. You are unmarried and therefore not a family values guy so that's a plus for Newt."

Him: "Okay? Ready--then choose and drink!"

Me: "However, you know that Gingrich is now, at best, a spoiler. Women are a key demographic and he is in the sub-basement with them. Plus, although you, Doctor Who, might like a Moon Base, it plays into his anti-narrative of being a guy with wild ideas who can't deliver. Also he wanted an open marriage which you know would be poison in the general not to mention he's out of money. Clearly I cannot choose the cup in front of Gingrich."

Him: "But ... that's all of them."

Me: "Right! You've done this because you know you don't have a candidate. I'd normally have to think outside the box--but you've slipped up and given it away. The secret is--WAIT!! WHAT'S THAT!??"


He looked where I'd pointed--over his shoulder and I lifted the lid off the Gingrich cup. I figured he thought Gingrich was a pervert and I'd seen his private JPEG collection last time I tech-supported his computer. As I thought: Coke Zero.

Him: "I don't see anything."

Me: "Probably nothing. Let's drink."

It turned out the bastard had filled all the cups with Coke Zero. He's probably writing in Jeb Bush.

The Gold Bugs: The Psychology of Gold*

"Nonsense! no!--the bug. It is of a brilliant gold color--about the size of a large hickory nut--with two jet black spots near one extremity of the back, and another, somewhat longer, at the other. The antennae are-- Edgar Allan Poe The Gold Bug

The pending economic crisis that now faces America is painfully obvious. If even a fraction of potential foreign claims against our gold supply were presented to the Treasury, we would have to renege on our promise. We would be forced to repudiate our own currency on the world market. Foreign investors, who would be left holding the bag with American dollars, would dump them at tremendous discounts in return for more stable currencies, or for gold itself--Erza Taft Benson 1967 (who was the US Secretary of Agriculture under Eisenhower)

Gold  (XAU - ISO 4217) is at an all time high on the market. Everyone (from Glenn Beck to Frank Stansberry who owns "endofamerica4.com"  which gives a lengthy spiel¹ on the coming collapse of the American dollar) thinks you should be buying it. What's going on with this!?

First Off? You Should Not Be Buying Gold Right Now
As gold is, in fact, at an all time high, this is definitionally a bad time to start investing (link to USA Today Money). It would, however, be a decent time to sell gold--if not for a good deal of fraud² in the "We Buy Gold" sector. The question is why is gold being pushed? What's the psychology behind it?

First and Foremost: They Want Your Money
The first thing behind the pushing of the Gold Bug psychology is that the companies behind it have a lot of money and, well, want yours. Gold is driven somewhat by supply, demand, and speculation. As most gold ever mined is still accessible (and would, if put together, make a cube 20.2 meters on a side) the major price determination is the change in demand. In other words, the more gold you buy, the more everyone else's gold is worth. This creates a natural pyramid scheme where everyone who buys in wants everyone else to buy in too.

When that's not enough, there's fraud: This info-graphic shows how Glenn Beck's backer, Goldine, uses bald-faced fear tactics (the 1933 FDR prohibition on owning large quantities of gold) to entice customers to buy collectible coins which make Goldline a lot more money and have the customer lose theirs.

So any time anyone is telling you to buy gold? If they're taking their own advice? They have a, uh, conflict of interest.

Secondly: -The Economic Factor- The Gold Hedge
If Gold wasn't at an all time high right now, however, it might well be a good buy. The people who stocked up in 1999 are certainly happy if they held on to it (and they ought to start considering selling soon, I'd think). The reason for buying gold, traditionally (and other precious metals to a degree) is as a hedge or insurance against either inflation or currency devaluation.

While we might in the future see these due to Quantitative Easing (the Federal Reserve is putting more money into the monetary supply) we do not see these yet. Also, in the housing market crash billions of dollars of value were actually destroyed so the creation of new money might not quite be the inflationary driver you'd think.

On the other hand, some people think inflation "has already happened" and the reason the stock market is so high is because of the huge creation of dollars held by banks.

This graph from Zero Hedge (the Economic Apocalypse Channel!) says this:

Wondering why the DJIA just passed 13K again? Wonder no more: as the chart below shows it is entirely due to the nearly $7 trillion pumped by global central banks into the world stock markets just in the past 4 years. As Sean Corrigan from Diapason notes, the aggregate global central bank balance sheet has doubled in four years, after doubling in the 5 years before that. We would add that with the entire centrally planned ponzi scheme hell bent on preserving the illusion of nominal gains, global liquidity is now fungibly sloshing from one market to another with absolutely zero resistance whatsoever.

Did you follow all that? No. Me either. But from what I did follow the idea that we're seeing inflation and therefore should be sheltering with gold isn't insane--it's just that the all-economic-collapse-all-the-time Zero Hedge guys lack a certain shall we say credibility.

Additionally, even if they were correct, the time to get in probably isn't now. If the global economy collapses gold prices will almost certainly drop too as people start using it to, you know, buy things. Also note: depending on how you were to buy gold it might not help. As USA Today notes:

If the global economic system collapses, just owning a gold ETF probably isn't going to cut it. You can't use your shares of SPDR Gold Trust at the grocery store to buy beef jerky.

Thirdly: -The Psychological Factor- Apocalypse Chic
The real reason, though, that I think American Gold buying is soaring is because of Apocalypse Thinking. The idea is this: believing an apocalypse is coming is pleasant if you believe you are one of the few prepared for it. Believing that you are going to be one of the few saved--or one of the few prepared--when the end-times come is a powerful psychological force. With Fox news guys like Glenn Beck and, uh, the real world, pumping out uncertainty and bad news on a daily basis buying gold is marketed as the panacea for the "coming economic firestorm."

This plays to all our worst instincts in a powerful fashion--remember that one of the joys of heaven was allegedly "beholding the vengeance of god" and "beholding the smoke of the torment of the wicked as a passing delectation."

While the Econolypse is not the literal end of the world, the marketing associated with gold is often centered on the coming collapse. Look at The Economic Collapse Blog, Gold Seek (Hedging with Gold Against Imminent Economic Collapse), and the fixation on the federal government's "coming" confiscation of gold (note that historically although passed, there was only one prosecution and that one was thrown out due to the order being improperly signed!).

The Benson quote at the start of the blog is, if you google it, repeated often on gold-scare websites without noting that it was said in 1967 before the end of the Gold Standard (today countries "requesting their gold" would be given their gold--it would not impact our currency). Whether he was ever right or not, it isn't relevant now.

Fourthly: -The Biblical Factor- Honest Currency
Underlying some of the Gold-Bug sentiment is a belief that the bible mandates the use of "honest currency" which, in the common formulation, would be gold and silver. The actual verses cited have to do with not using tricked scales in market transactions--but these get extended to using 'imaginary' money. Google Honest Money if you have further questions but understand this: some people have a deep aversion to our current dollars and see gold and gold-advocacy as a way to return us to biblical purity (this is more an argument against the modern banking system than gold investment but the two can often go together).

Let's Look: Today's Article
I want to end with this article: it's a Forbes opinion piece that says "Gasoline Prices are Not Rising--The Dollar is Falling." It links this to the price of gold! Here is the chain of logic:

1. Gas trades at 105 USD for a barrel of Texas Crude. In other currencies ... it's the same price.
2. But how you know if this is "high" or "low" is to compare it to the price of gold. A barrel is .0602 oz of gold!
3. Since 1971 a barrel has averaged .0732 oz-per-barrel. In other words, it takes less gold today to buy a barrel of crude than it did in 1971. Gold, of course, is at an all-time-high today.
4. He makes an argument that the price of gas is similar to the price of gold ... THEREFORE ...
5. The price of gas must go up to match the price of gold--about 75 cents per gallon! 
6. Then we see this:

At this point, we can be certain that, unless gold prices come down, gasoline prices are going to go up—by a lot. And, because the dollar is currently a floating, undefined, fiat currency, there is no inherent limit to how far the price of gold in dollars can rise, and therefore no ultimate ceiling on gasoline prices.

This is quite a leap of logic: because the dollar is undefined the price of gold can go anywhere and there's no limit. Call me crazy, but I think Mad Max would pay whatever it costs for a gallon of gasoline regardless of the currency or lack thereof. The author then launches into an indictment of government--which, I suspect was the real point all along. I don't have his 30-year data but the Internet will provide me with 5 year graphs of gold and oil. If he's right, the chart should look the same as oil prices seek gold prices. Let's look:

Five Year Gas Prices

And The Sure-To-Be-Identical Gold Prices


Not all that similar. In fact, one might think they're not all that well correlated at all.

One can note that commodities do, in fact tend to work inversely to the strength of the dollar. As gold and fuel are commodities it is true that as the dollar gets weaker oil and gas will go up. However the idea that he's positing--with no proof whatsoever other than his take on chosen numbers--is that gold is somehow the "real price" of gas (and everything else). This is one of the almost-religious aspects of the Gold Bug movement and one of the least explicable.

What Do I Think?
I think that Gold Bugs imbue gold with a significance that is basically superstitious in nature and then fit the economic evidence into that framework. This combines with a strong contrarian streak and the apocalypse/religious thinking that we human beings are prone to (I do not know of major religious leaders who decry the Federal Reserve or fiat money--making me think that this interpretation of the bible is fairly weak). Gold does have special significance to us. It always has--but that is not a reason to start investing when it's at an all time high--or any other time. Invest in gold when your financial adviser tells you to.

* This being a family friendly blog I could not use my preferred title: Gold Buggery. You're welcome.

¹I am pretty sure the piece ends with "buy gold" once you pay for his private news letter. I could not make it all the way through and there is no way to fast forward. Note that the guy pitching it has had fraud troubles with the SEC, is basing a lot of his theory on a secret meeting Robert Fisk thinks took place (I suspect Robert Fisk thinks secret meetings are constantly conspiring against him), and he uses the Holocaust as an It-can't-happen-here piece of psychological leverage which is, really, pretty manipulative (not to mention lousy history: the Jews facing the holocaust may not have imagined how bad it would get--but they all knew their history and knew that states had turned on them many times before).
² If you type "Cash for gold scams" (or Fraud) into Google all the top hits are people trying to give you cash for gold and pretending to tell you how to avoid being scammed (use us! We're great!). This, alone, should tell you something about the economic ecosystem at work here.

The Last Debate! (Oh Thank God!)

Arizona, the room allegedly packed full of Mormons¹, was the battle-ground for the final debate of the primary. I think these debates have the same viewer-dynamic as NASCAR: people are watching hoping to see a crack-up. While there as nothing as stellar as Newt's rage-against-the-machine opening salvo there were some testy moments (The Daily Beast rounds up the best moments with clips).

Over all the feeling is that Santorum did not do well--and this was certainly a time when that would've helped him. However. Erck Erickson thinks that Santorum's focus on family cohesion and (contraception!?) can actually help him more than the press thinks!

I would caution the media on one thing — the Rick Perry Factor.

Back during the first debate, Rick Perry came under withering assault from Romney on social security as a ponzi scheme.

After the debate, the media consensus was that Rick Perry had been badly wounded, performed badly, and would be hurt by the social security issue.

His polling actually went up. Conservative voters actually embraced Perry doubling down on social security as a ponzi scheme. Conservative voters rejected Romney’s attacks. The conventional wisdom was wrong.

I think the conventional wisdom is wrong about Santorum. While I think he did not perform as well as he should have and, in fact, hurt himself, on the social values issues I think Santorum helped himself more than the media would believe.

In the meantime "GOP fears rise over 2012 tone, message"--they probably should: Santorum, last night, doubled down on "concerns" around contraception and women in combat--but promises not to do anything about it (contraception). If Santorum really, really believes he's in a good-vs-evil fight with satan for the soul of America is it reasonable to think he wouldn't use executive power to act against something he saw as linked-to-abortion/murder? I can't exactly answer that--and neither can anyone else.

But this being Arizona another issue was front-and-center. Potentially an even bigger one.

That Issue is ... Immigration
Last night, in Arizona, the candidates went on the record on Immigration. Arizona has some of the harshest immigration laws on the books and their super-sheriff Joe Araipo has been controversial about illegal "immigration stops." Here are points of view:

• Romney: He thinks the laws are "a model to follow" and likes the e-verify program.
• Santorum: He likes Arizona too and Sheriff Joe Arapio (he should continue as he sees fit). He won't force home-owners to e-verify (electronically check people's employment) as that's a bit too far.
• Ron Paul: He says the nation should deploy more immigration officers to the border--probably the least extreme as Newt ...
• Gingrich: He wants the border fence, would waive all federal regulations and environmental studies for it, and would slash the cost. He would send half the 23k Homeland Security employees to the border states!

What Does This Mean?
While white, male GOP-base voters may really like this stuff a key demographic, Latino voters, do not. Why should we care? After all, they're a minority--and how bad is a border fence anyway? Let's look.

1. They're a Big Minority (and Growing)
This graph shows the trend-line for US Demographics. The birthrate for whites is under the 2.1 necessary for steady-state population but for Latinos it's around 3. They're a big minority and getting bigger all the time. Furthermore, Latinos are pretty industrious. Our biggest trading partner isn't China--it's Latin America (taken as a whole). The South Florida real estate market is getting what little help it is from wealthy Brazilians buying up houses.



2. They Care About The Fence and The Dream Act and The GOP Is On the Wrong Side Of Both
The Fence is unpopular. The Dream Act, which allows illegals who arrived as minors, show good character, and attend college or join the military to have citizenship, is very popular. Obama is on the "right side" of both of these. The GOP is not.

Republican opposition to this one element of immigration reform paints them in a corner that either solidifies a Latino voter’s vote against a GOP nominee or should make Republican Latinos question their party’s wisdom in attacking innocent kids. It’s ironic that all these candidates should be staunch pro-life advocates and believe that life is sacred at conception but is unholy if it’s undocumented.

The largest group of Republican Latinos, Somos Republicanos, is out against Romney for his stance--and the other's aren't doing too well either.

3. Demographically Latinos and Other Fast Growing Minorities May BE Pretty Important To Our Economy.
According to some, Europe's economic problems are rooted in low-birthrate issues. From the "Demographic Winter²" site:

Economist Robert J. Samuelson wrote in a June 15, 2005 column in The Washington Post: “It’s hard to be a great power if your population is shriveling.” Samuelson warned: “Europe as we know it is going out of business…. Western Europe’s population grows dramatically grayer, projects the U.S. Census Bureau. Now about one-sixth of the population is 65 and older. By 2030, that could be one-fourth and by 2050, almost one-third.”

By the mid-point of this century, 16% of the world’s population will be over 65. In developed nations, today, 20% of the population is over 60. By 2050, the proportion of elderly will rise to 36%. By then, these societies will have two elderly for every child.

If present low birthrates persist, the European Union estimates there will be a continent-wide shortfall of 20 million workers by 2030.

If any of this is true, it will be incumbent on both minorities and immigrants to pick up the slack in our economy.

4. The Republican Candidates Will Need Some Policy Gymnastics On This To Run To The Center In The General
Now that everyone is on the record--with full video--the question is: how will they "run to the center." To be sure, the stances are already cemented (Jeb Bush cautions the candidates as of January not to lose Latin voters):

"The growing populations in all of the swing states are Hispanic voters," he said, according to CNN. "This is an over-simplification, but I don't think a party can aspire to be the majority party if it's the old white guy party."

Romney's "Self-Deportation" may be taking what started as a joke (by a Latino) and in a "Taking An Onion Article Seriously" maneuver making it policy.

As the radio program “This American Life” reminded its audience on Tuesday, there is an argument to be made that the term self-deportation was invented in 1994 by two Mexican-American satirists, Lalo Alcaraz and Esteban Zul. That year, “sickened” by a ballot initiative known as Proposition 187, which aimed to prohibit illegal immigrants from using state-run hospitals and schools in California, the comedians began posing as conservative activists who backed the measure.

What Do I Think?
I did not watch the debate. I do think that the RNC has shot itself in both feet this year with a slew of debates that, really, did very little to clarify issues but gave every candidate a chance to say something stupid with the cameras rolling. If the intention was to give us a look at these guys it worked--but it's not clear to me how well the "A-grade" candidates we didn't see would've performed with 20 debates and a 4 to 8 person shooting gallery (Hillary and Obama were 1-on-1 once Edwards was out of the picture).

I also think that the RNC's decision to extend the primary by making state's delegates proportional was the kind of thing that looked good on paper but was terrible in hindsight. Yes, the extended Hillary-Obama primary forced them to build infrastructure and build it in every state--but they were not running against an incumbent--and the sitting president (Bush II) was so unpopular that they hardly needed to train their attacks on him.

In the current environment the Republican candidates are forced to attack each other as they fight for the top slot in a Basket of Crabs scenario. I'm not sure who set this dynamic up--but I'd fire them.

I suspect that in the top three biggest mistakes the 2012 candidates will be found to have made will be their positions on immigration. These will be well documented, solidified, and long-standing. I think that against an articulate Obama machine--which is doing its messaging in real-time and not waiting until the conventions to get the word out--there will be no running to the center. Candidates with more cross-over appeal (such as Jeb Bush) did not run, possibly due to the climate that has produced this race. I suspect the lack of these candidates (Perry was hammered for calling the GOP base's position on immigration heartless) will leave a long-standing sour taste in the young Latino voters who will become older established voters in the next decade. If their hearts and minds are lost to the GOP--despite their generally Catholic and largely conservative culture--it will be an enduring mistake that was probably unnecessary.

¹This is a joke (if you search the thread for the allegation you'll find it--but it's a random commenter). It is not a joke that some observers found the audience "Romney friendly" and Arizona has a large presumably pro-Romney Mormon populace (which Georgia does not--and he skipped that debate!
²The movie (which is pay-to see) is interesting (I've had a chance to watch it). It makes a statistically based case that Western Civilization is DOOMED due to declining birth-rate. It thinks the only answer is adherence to biblical commands to be-fruitful-and-multiply ... which is questionable (if my son continues to grow at his current rate, he will be a 9-foot tall six year old ... clearly trends are nothing if not immutable)--but it's well made and adequately researched. Night before last on NPR I heard the same thing discussed in that Europe is suffering from its aging population and has its own immigration issues that are preventing an influx of young tax-paying workers to take up the slack.

Second Santorum Narrative: He's The ULTIMATE Culture Warrior

If the first narrative we've looked at in Rick Santorum's rise is that he could be the next Reagan (and therefore the polls showing him losing to Obama at this point would be consistent) there is a second narrative that's worth looking at.  In this narrative Santorum is surging because he is the only candidate willing to challenge Obama on social grounds--specifically: Obama's religion.

The Conventional Wisdom here is that a religious war is a loser for the GOP and that social issues--in a time of recession (whatever the official numbers say) is the wrong conversation to be having. But in this narrative the economy might just recover and with the administration (in collusion with the liberal press) faking the numbers anyway, the best mode of attack is to go directly at the heart of Obama's bankrupt philosophy--the one which drives him--and attack that.

The Narrative
The narrative is this: "Obama is driven by Black Liberation Theology, a Marxist-corruption of Catholicism, which informs all his policy and behavior--this is the core of his motivation and once exposed by a righteous Christian, he will crumble."


In the narrative, Santorum is very possible that righteous Christian (Catholic).

To be sure, he's hitting Obama directly in the theology department:

Santorum commented in Ohio Saturday that the president believes in "some phony ideal, some phony theology. Oh, not a theology based on the Bible, a different theology."

He later clarified to say this was based on Obama's environmentalism--but to some people this is either a dog whistle, a gaffe, or a back-track. This because they believe that no matter what he says later, he was right on the money.


What Is Necessary For This To Be True?
In order for this narrative to be true:

1. Obama must be driven by Black Liberation Theology.
2. Black Liberation Theology must inform his government policies.
3. People must care once the truth is exposed.

Is Obama Driven By Black Liberation Theology?

Black Liberation Theology, according to Wikipedia:

Black liberation theology, is a relatively new theological perspective found in someChristian churches in the United States. It is an instance of the liberation theology which originated from Catholic Theologians in the 1950's. Liberation theology observes that Jesus Christ was a religious leader seeking greater justice for the oppressed and occupied people of Israel and views his teachings as both an inspiration and a model for others to seek freedom from injustice.

According to this, Jeremiah Wight, Obama's controversial pastor, is, if not a BLT (ha!) practitioner himself certainly sympathetic to it and friends with one of its major writers. It is not shocking that a major black church would borrow from the movement however, and it's not a bright line to suggest that Obama himself is politically driven by what his pastor says. There are many cases where a major candidate's pastor says things that the candidate should not be held accountable for (the link is to Perry's pastor calling Mormonism a cult).

However, it is certainly true that Obama's religion is, if not a point of controversy, at least in question. But this may actually provide Obama with something of a unique defense against being a practitioner of BLT: no one is sure what he really is! Consider:

• As of 2010 one in five respondents identified Obama as a Muslim.
• Obama (in office, as of 2011) attended  St. John's Episcopal Church but it was "a rare event."
• His dad was a Muslim, his mother agnostic, his grandparents ... were Unitarian.
• A lot of people suspect he's an atheist anyway (see his 'Clinging to God and Guns' comment!)

Given all of this it's got to be hard to actually pin BLT on him when any of these would work well (...Unitarian ... :: shudder ::). 

We'll ask google: What Religion is Barack Obama? "Best guess for Barack Obama Religion is Christianity"

Well ... that settles it.

Conclusion: Although there is some question as to whether Obama is a Black Liberation Christian he is most likely Christian (even Santorum says he accepts that) and his pastor was BLT.

Does Black Liberation Theology Drive Government Policy?

It's pretty easy to say that any theology will drive policy. However a few specific claims are made that are worth looking at. The first is that BLT is inherently Marxist.The argument references the writings of significant BLT theologians and their discussion of Marx.

In 1979, Cornel West offered a critical integration of Marxism and black theology in his essay, "Black Theology and Marxist Thought" because of the shared human experience of oppressed peoples as victims. West sees a strong correlation between black theology and Marxist thought because "both focus on the plight of the exploited, oppressed and degraded peoples of the world, their relative powerlessness and possible empowerment." This common focus prompts West to call for "a serious dialogue between Black theologians and Marxist thinkers" -- a dialogue that centers on the possibility of "mutually arrived-at political action."

The 'bright-line' here is a connection, of course, between Obama's church and ObamaCare--which is said to be at best Socialist--the gateway drug to Marxism.

However, there is another 'bright-line' connection. In the coming months, especially if Mitt Romney is the nominee, it is likely we will see what the Republicans dub the class-warfare attack: making Romney out to be the 1% (well, really, the .001% or something) vs. everyone else. This stance has a particular resonance with a subset of Tea Party voters, the Tenthers.

Tenthers are people who hold strongly with the Tenth Amendment as the basis for their ideological and political outlook. The Tenth Amendment is the one that circumscribes the power of the federal government:

The Tenth Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

This doesn't seem especially related to Obama's religion--but some of them link the TenthAmendment specifically to the Tenth Commandment (in case you forgot, it's the coveting one):

The Tenth Commandment: You shall not covet your neighbor’s house. You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or his male or female servant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor.

For these guys the linkage is clear--the more of a big government guy you are, the more you are in violation of the 10th Commandment and therefore not a Christian! There can be little question that Obama is something of a "big government" guy: See the chart Google gives for "Government Spending Under Obama."


Oops. That compares him favorably to, uhm, Reagan. Okay, let's compare spending to % of GDP ...



That's a bit better. Anyway, 15 Trillion in debt ain't peanuts.

Conclusion: The case that Obama is theologically guided is interesting--but not convincing. It's not clear to me that even most Tenthers find the connection to theology compelling (although I think most would find the logic of it reasonable). In any event, I'm going to say this chain is weak. Lots of people including Clinton have tried to reform health care or run big government programs and have not had their religion questioned.

Would Anyone Care?
Will people care if Santorum "hits him where it counts--right in the religion?" The answer seems to be:less than they used to. Gallup finds 70-25 find that "religion is losing influence in America." Gallup also finds Americans split on the influence they wish Organized Religion to have. However, we can assume that (a) to a certain set of people religion is very important and a really bad religion would be important to many people (I think no matter what Gallup says, we are not ready for an athiest--much less, say, satanist president ... and ... unitarian ... :: shudder :: ). Consider this article which suggests (amongst many other things) Romney's Mormonism cost him votes in Iowa.

It may also be that in an economic recovery, social issues are a better play.

Santorum, especially, has a real opportunity to run a sort of populist conservative campaign. If he’s smart and disciplined (unfortunately, a big if) — Santorum could tap into his blue collar, social conservative appeal to advocate an anti-corporate cronyism and an anti-cultural elitism message. He could run a populist general election campaign against both the revolving-door, bailout-receiving “fat cats” who give millions to Obama — and against the big Hollywood cultural elites working to undermine traditional American institutions.

But most of the people I'm seeing don't think so:

With Santorum launching one social issues bomb after another, there is no time to talk about the economy. Is this the Democratic Party’s dream, or what? In a national poll that came out today, Santorum is leading Mitt Romney by eight points among likely Republican voters. Can Republicans possibly be that foolish? Is it conceivable that a president with Obama’s lousy record could coast to victory, virtually by default, because the Republicans nominate a candidate who would rather talk about gynecology than debt? At the moment, that prospect does not seem far-fetched.

Conclusion: Even if Rick Santorum is the ultimate culture warrior the smart money says this is not the way to win the 2012 election. The religious thrust might have been more powerful decades ago--but today it's a real risk.

Over All
With religious voters Rick Santorum does, indeed, have a winning hand when it comes to President Obama. Obama's religion is an issue for the hard-core faithful. He does not inspire people to find him either seriously spiritual or, if they do, it's the wrong kind--and for this subset of people it's killer (as we see potential evidence of in Romney's Mormon issues). However, for the vast majority of voters--even religious ones--the president's faith and Santorum's attack on it is probably a gaffe. One Hot Air poster noted that even if true, those types of attacks must be made by a surrogate. I think that's where this currently stands. I don't think this narrative holds up especially well.