Heh.

Gallup’s tracking poll over the last month shows that Obama’s post-convention bounce has entirely dissapated and the race stands even, as this figure demonstrates:

Gallup’s tracking poll is of registered voters, a class of sample more likely to favor a Democrat than a likely voter sample. So it may be that Romney would be slightly ahead if Gallup was using a likely voter screen. Either way, the race is essentially a toss-up with a little more than a month to go until the election. On to the debates…D.GOOCH

And, as this graph shows, persistently higher than the track predicted by the Obama administration in the wake of the successfully passed “stimulus” bill. Hmmm.

A gaggle of links and tidbits from the political world recently…

- The Chick-fil-a kerfluffle is an interesting entry in the Culture Wars. There is no question that society has become more tolerant of gays and gay lifestyle choices (marriage, civil unions, adoption, etc.) over the past thirty years. But the division over the pro-marriage stance of the Chick-fil-a founder has been, on the one hand, government officials expressing (to one degree or another) the view that Chick-fil-a is unwelcome in their towns/cities *because* of Dan Cathy’s position on gay marriage, versus those who view such as an infringement on free speech and liberty. Many on the Left and Right have spoken out against mayors like Rham Emmanuel (Chicago) who have used strongly worded language hinting they might use their political offices to deny Chick-fil-a the right to locate there. Where ever you stand on the issue, it seems to have backfired on the anti-Chick folks. It appears the “buycott” organized by folks like former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee resulted in record sales for Chick-fil-a.

- Mitt Romney recently completed a tour over seas. Many in the media have panned his visit, honing in particularly on the “gaffe” where Romney criticized the London Olympics while being in London. However, I’m pretty sure it is unlikely to have any impact on the presidential race. As far as I know, Londoners don’t get to vote in US presidential elections. Scott Conroy shares my doubts.

- Item: A new Gallup poll suggests unemployment went up in July. Gulp.

- In a resounding victory for the Tea Party (whose demise seems to have been greatly exaggerated), Ted Cruz defeated David Dewhurst for the Republican nomination in Texas for the US senate seat being vacated by Kay Baily Hutchinson. Cruz, as a Latino-American, is likely to be a rising star in the Republican ranks, much like Marco Rubio. He will also contribute to the further political polarization of the Congress, shifting the Republican caucus further Right. Ed Kilgore has Left-Center commentary on the Cruz victory over at the New Republic.

- In election news, Karl Rove doesn’t think that Obama’s ad blitz against Romney is working. Jeff Greenfield notes that the prediction models look bad for Obama.

If President Barack Obama is to win, he is going to have to overcome a set of numbers that no incumbent President, or incumbent party, has ever managed to surmount.

Stay tuned…

The below AEI graph illustrates the troubled economic waters that President Obama’s reelection efforts are lost in.

As is apparent from the graph, consumer confidence is strongly correlated with an incumbent president winning reelection. Note that the two incumbent losses came when consumer confidence was below 75, while re-elections were all above 85. Obama is likely to be well below 70 when it comes to November. This portends doom for his reelection efforts.

Happy Independence Day!

Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add ‘within the limits of the law’ because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.
- Thomas Jefferson

“The preservation of the sacred fire of liberty and the destiny of the republican model of government are justly considered… deeply, …finally, staked on the experiment entrusted to the hands of the American people.”
- George Washington

And have some fun. But, please, please, PLEASE, use your head. And by that, I don’t mean “as-a-cool-place-to-shoot-fireworks.”

Sigh:

Ah, the costs of liberty.

Cool.

I proposed to the beautiful Peyton Elaine Wofford at Emerald Lake in the Rocky Mountains yesterday. And she said yes! Wedding to follow in a year (currently penciled in for May 25, 2013).

I am, needless to say, thrilled!

I don’t care who you are. This was funny!

Personally, I liked the university. They gave us money and facilities, we didn’t have to produce anything! You’ve never been out of college! You don’t know what it’s like out there! I’ve *worked* in the private sector. They expect *results*.

- Dr Ray Stantz

Why doesn’t the median voter truly rule American Elections, as the classic Downsian model predicts? While uncertainty, intensity, abstentions, alienation, and other factors certainly play a part in the failure of American elections to converge on the median voter, less noticed (but perhaps more important than all other factors combined) is that the issue dimension is orthogonal to a second determinant of elections: valence. Valence is just a fancy word for “likeability.” Candidates well-liked by voters (on a host of non-political factors like appearance, dress, personality, character, charm, etc.) can ‘afford’ to diverge from the median positions because voters will discount those heresies in favor of their favorable judgement of the candidate’s personality.

Obama’s best asset this fall is likely to be his valence advantage over Romney. As this Gallup poll demonstrates, Obama has a significant edge on the valence dimension over Romney going into the election. While we might expect this to close as Romney consolidates his base and moves into the general election phase of his campaign, it is likely to remain a significant Obama advantage over Romney…and indeed could be the key to his relection.

With that in mind, the recent article by Robert Costa on National Review Online floating the possibility of a Mike Huckabee VP nod is particularly interesting. While other VP choices provide swing state, Tea party cred, block vote, and other traditional advantages in considering a VP selection, few have the potential to match Huckabee in sheer likability. His friendly affect and demeanor and good sense of humor has been particularly useful in his radio and TV gigs and was a big factor (in addition to his evangelical cred) in his solid run in the 2008 presidential primaries. The article touches on this asset, but really it is Huckabee’s best case as a VP choice. He has the potential to shore up Romney’s biggest weakness versus Obama in 2012…at least to the extent a VP candidate can have any effect.

I’ve been thinking about the regularity of presidential incumbents winning re-election juxtaposed with the lackluster Republican primary field (despite a weak economy and a seemingly vulnerable incumbent). I’m wondering why the Republicans didn’t find a better candidate than Mitt Romney. It isn’t as if they were lacking a slate of experienced Republican executives with legitimate cross-appeal to the Republican tripod (social, economic, national security conservatives). Is this regularity a function of challenger quality? Were Walter Mondale, Mike Dukakis, Bob Dole, and John Kerry really the best candidates available at the time? Both Reagan and Clinton, the seeming exceptions on challenger quality, were not regarded as quality candidates by many at the time of their elections. Many big wigs sat out the 1992 challenge on the Democratic side (e.g. Mario Cumo). Reagan was regarded as an extremist, though he had come close in 1976 so he was certainly viable. Really Reagan is the only real exception I can point to in terms of candidate quality…and he faced a third party challenge from within his own party ranks.

My thought is that we might be seeing a bit of a selection-effect here. Quality presidential candidates for office know that a president is term-limited to two terms. So the potential challengers know they can run for an open seat in about five years…a relatively short time in terms of a political career. The conventional wisdom is that presidents win re-election due to valence factors, institutional office advantages, and public sentiment on structural factors such as the economy. But is the larger factor the selection-effect imposed by term limits? Would it disappear if we limited presidents to three terms? I’m not sure. But it has me wondering.

In the three years Barack Obama has been president the national debt has increased more than it did in eight years under President Bush. CBS has the story:

LOL.

Romney To Travel Back In Time To Kill Liberal Versions Of Himself

FIRE meets FireFly – free speech on campus.

Very cool. H/T UCA’s Joe Horton.

Still awesome!