Romney Vs. Obama

Well after months of assuming that Romney would be the nominee it has finally happened.  The Republicans will presumably nominate Romney, barring some sort of giant implosion by Mitt.  Now a couple of large questions loom with the general election coming like a slow moving train.
First who will Romney pick as a running mate?  Will Romney pick someone to cover his flaws?  (Apparently flaws right now appear to be the Female Vote, Latin voters, and relate-ability)  Or does Romney do something to assure the Far Right of his credintials and pick a tea partytea party running mate? I honestly think he'll go with the Tea Party VP candidate, to unite the base, but who knows.  I personally think this would be a mistake, as I think it would lose the moderates that Romney brings to the table.
Two, can Romney recover from his beating that he took in the primaries?  Romney appears to have won out of brute strength, but does he have the ability to recover from a long and brutal series of primaries?  (Earlier I theorized that along primary would be good for the Republican, but now I am not so sure) I think over time Romney can recover, especially his likability, but it will take work.
Three, does Romney have the time to set up an organization?  The Obama camp never really wound down after 2008, and have had their structure basically in place since the last election.  Romney won states by showing up, spending big, then moving on; while Obama has a full Grassroots team already in place that they continue to grow.  I believe this will be his biggest problem, I am not sure that he has the time to set up a full grassroots organization by November.

My Senator

This weekend I had the great pleasure of meeting and listening to my Senator, Claire McCaskill, speak.  She brought up a statistic that I think is both telling and important.  McCaskill was ranked by the National Journal as the 50th most liberal member of the Senate and the 51st most conservative.  Basically she is in the very middle in terms of ideology.  In a country that is so polarized; I can not help but believe having moderates like Senator McCaskill is vital.  Especially with the stepping down of Senator Snowe, the middle continues to shrink while the fringes continue to grow.  In a country that was built on compromises and finding the middle ground having a shrinking moderate group is the last thing America needs.  This is why I am support Claire McCaskill's reelection campaign for 2012 and I hope everyone else does too.  The last thing we need for Missouri is Karl Rove using his money to remove a great moderate.

Really? Really?!

So last week I substitute taught a middle school science class.  I usually enjoy substitute teaching, but I have never been more startled by a question i received from one of my students in the class I was teaching. This quote scared me so much that I wrote it down and feel the need to write it out here.  The student asked me, "Why was I told last night in Youth Group that Science and Religion are at war with each other and I should just pick Religion?"  Yea.  That happened.  Needless to say I panicked.  I'm a substitute teacher.  I am not trained to handle this.  Not to mention I am pretty sure it would be illegal for me to try and explain that this really is not the case.  So I did what any good substitute did, I told the student I was not able to answer the question and to talk to a parent.
But this raised so many more questions about what is going on in America.  Why is a middle schooler being taught by her church that science is wrong?  I understand that many people believe that there are differences with science and religion, but to say they are at war is a little strong.  Then to be teaching it to a middle schooler just seems vastly inappropriate.  I am not trying to attack religion, or Christianity as a whole, because I like both of those.  But I believe that science and religion should work together to help  people through their problems and to help provide people with a better life.  I especially do not think it is correct to be placing such extreme thoughts in the head of an impressionable middle schooler.

Shameless Self Promotion

So I am now a part of two blogs.  The first being this one.  The second being a blog where my friend David Shields and I debate the issues of today in words.  I think it is pretty cool.  And a better way for us to spend our time then by arguing about issues.  Basically political discourse for 21rst Century.

hthpolitics.com

Enjoy!

Is a Rough Primary as Bad as We Think? Pt. 2

So looking back on it, I did not really provide any relation between my old college research paper, and the 2012 election.  So here is my take based on research I did back in College.
Plain and simple, in my opinion the Republicans want this primary to go on a little bit longer.  Not to the point where they are out of cash, but to the point where winning it looks like a big deal.  Where the winner has overcome obstacles, worked most of the kinks out of the campaign strategy, and is ready for Obama.  However, the odds on favorite to win the Nomination (Romney in my opinion) keeps trying to cut the primary season short.  And while I understand his goal is to eventually beat Obama, saying that the primaries should end early to help him focus on Obama is a two fold problem.  One Mitt is losing out on being seen as the winner that overcame a tough Primary.  For a candidate who has already lost before, looking like a winner is huge.  Secondly, he sounded really egotistical saying that.
There are two other reasons why I think the Republicans should let this primary season go on.  The first is the press.  With all of these early primaries and debates there is tons of press.  And all press is good press.  The second one was the debates.  I really liked the debates, because they were true head to head match ups of candidates.  It helped to negate all of the money that the PAC's are throwing it the race by putting the candidates up in front of people, against one another.
In my opinion this primary, while hotly contested, and growing more negative by the day, should be good for the Republican Party if they pick a candidate who can match up well in the general election.

Is a Rough Primary as Bad as We Think?

A lot of people and political pundits have been discussing how this protracted Republican Primary Season is bad for the eventual nominee for the Republican Party.  The claim is that with all of the mud slinging that is going on, it will ruin the eventual nominee's chances in the general election.  This would seem to make sense, but based on a research paper that I wrote senior year of college and some common knowledge this might not be the case.
Simply put my research found that the divisive primary was good for a challenger, but detrimental to an incumbent.  The logic behind this is pretty simple.  When a challenger to an incumbent has a tightly contested primary, then they come out already battle tested.  There would not be much new dirt to use against them, and the candidate already looks successful as he or she has won a tough fought primary.  While candidates that feel like they are winning want to end campaigns early to save money, or to avoid more bad publicity, many times the divisive primary can have good affects.
While these results were mostly based on primaries and general elections for the US Congress, it could easily be seen that if a good candidate were to win a divisive primary it would be beneficial for a candidate rather than detrimental.

The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse

So the Republican Presidential race is down to four candidates.  (Okay, so the title may be a bit on the over-dramatic side, but I thought it was funny)  Unfortunately my favorite candidate does not happen to be still in the running.  Which leaves Romney, Gingrich, Santorum, and Paul.  I think each one of these candidates has a glaring problem that could ultimately cost them the nomination or even the Presidency.

Romney- I think Romney has a couple of glaring weaknesses, but I think his biggest problem is the apparent lack of faith in Romney by the Republican establishment.  I think this encompasses all of his other problems ranging from his apparent flip-flopping on issues to his reported millions he has stashed over seas.  Romney is the candidate that polls the best against Obama.  Yet he continues to lose primaries and not have apparent support from the national party.

Gingrich- I think hypocrisy is Gingrich's biggest problem.  Gingrich is a great debater and appears to be able to recover from a near campaign end at one point.  I think his problem lies with his apparent hypocrisy.  I do not have any problems with Gingrich running on a platform of Family Values because that is a valid platform.  I think his problem lies in the multiple affairs, divorces, and a reported request for an open marriage.  How this coincides with his repeated statements on Family Values is beyond me.

Santorum- I like to call this problem the Google problem.  Simply google Santorum and look at the number one result.  In a fast paced country where people rely on Google and rapid searches for immediate answers, I think this could be a major problem.  Granted self inflicted, but still problematic.

Paul- Paul's problems lie in his extremism.  Paul has many ideas that are worth debating, including the role of the Fed and goal of American Foreign Policy, but his ideas go to far for most Americans.  In this globally connected world, American cannot afford to withdraw into extreme isolationism, and Paul's isolationist ideas scare off too many people for him to be able to win the election.

Those are the big problems that I see confronting each candidate.  While these problems are can be over come, I could also see these problems costing the candidates the election.