Romney's bus tour: The 4 things you need to know
Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney walks to his bus after a campaign stop in Council Bluffs, Iowa, Friday, June 8, 2012.
/ APAbout that name: Well, maybe not every town. Romney's bus tour, which begins in New Hampshire and ends in Michigan, will see him skipping five states along the way: Massachusetts (where he has a home in Belmont), Connecticut, New York, Indiana and Illinois.
It's relatively obvious why he is skipping four of those states: Massachusetts, Connecticut, New York and Illinois are solidly blue territory, and presidential candidates rarely come to states that are not in play unless they're engaged in fundraising. (That may not be fair, but unless the movement to have the national popular vote replace the Electoral College system succeeds, it's not going to change.) That leaves us with Indiana, which Mr. Obama won by one percentage point in 2008.
You would think the close result would mean Romney would want to spend time in Indiana to flip it back to his side. Yet the consensus is that he may not need to bother. The Obama campaign itself says the state, which offers 11 electoral votes, leans Republican, and political observers don't disagree.
"2008 is about as strong a Democratic year as you're ever going to get," said Larry Sabato, director of the University of Virginia Center for Politics, who has Indiana listed as likely Republican. He adds: "You almost automatically put the Democratic squeakers in 2008 in the Republican column in 2012."
Les Lenkowsky, professor in public policy school at Indiana University, said Mr. Obama won Indiana by investing heavily in five counties - three that have large universities, and two that have large black populations. His campaign also spent enough in the rest of the state to - just barely - keep the GOP advantage elsewhere small enough that they could squeak out a victory.
It was "a very shrewd strategy," he said, but it's not likely to work again.
"It's not at all clear that he's going to get the enthusiasm among the college and university towns that he got three years ago," said Lenkowsky, who says the enthusiasm this year seems to be on the Republican side. "I suspect the Obama people feel their success in keeping down their margin of defeat in those 87 other counties is not easily replicable."
So where's he going?: After kicking things off in New Hampshire, Romney heads to Pennsylvania on Saturday, Ohio on Sunday, Wisconsin and Iowa on Monday, and Michigan on Tuesday. Polls show President Obama with a lead in New Hampshire, but Romney owns a summer home there and used to govern nearby Massachusetts; the state's four electoral votes are considered very much in play, particularly in light of its propensity to flip between red and blue.
Mr. Obama won Pennsylvania easily in 2008, and Democrats have taken the state in every election since 1992. But Romney has his eye on the state's 20 electoral votes, in part because of the president's struggles with white working-class voters. To win the state, according to CBS News elections director Anthony Salvanto, Romney will have "to roll back Mr. Obama's margins in Philadelphia's more affluent suburbs, appeal to the more conservative voters of western Pennsylvania, make inroads with the older voters who were a tossup in 2008, and keep the GOP's edge among white working-class voters." His stop on this trip is designed to help that process; polls currently show Mr. Obama with a high single-digit lead in the state.
Ohio, of course, is the battleground to end all battlegrounds - there's a reason the two candidates held dueling speeches there on Thursday. Polls show the race for Ohio's 18 electoral votes essentially tied; Romney's best hope here is to point to the still-struggling economy to convince the state's sizable working-class voter block that Mr. Obama needs to go. While Mr. Obama won Iowa handily in 2008, polls show that state very tight as well; the president won one in five conservatives in the Hawkeye State last time around, and it's far from clear he can replicate that relative success.
Wisconsin is a steeper hill to climb for Romney, though it's by no means out of reach. Republicans have talked up their chances in the state in the wake of controversial Republican Gov. Scott Walker's recent recall election victory there. Exit polls from that contest showed that voters still favored Mr. Obama, who won the state by 14 points in 2008. But polls show only a slight lead for Mr. Obama at the moment, and Romney and his allies would love to flip the state's ten electoral votes.
The choice of Michigan, meanwhile, is a bit of a head scratcher. While one recent poll showed the state tied, every other poll this year has shown Mr. Obama with a clear advantage. One factor boosting Romney is the fact that he grew up in Michigan, where his father George Romney was both the governor and a prominent auto executive. But while Romney says he will visit the state repeatedly, it hasn't gone red in 24 years, and most political observers say he has little chance to take it.
"Unless some issue pops up that really seems to be a northern Midwest issue with a Republican advantage on it, I don't really see Michigan being in play on the presidential level," Calvin College political science professor Douglas Koopman told CBS News earlier this week. Not helping his cause: A 2008 op-ed by Romney that was given the headline "Let Detroit Go Bankrupt."
The veep auditions: Three of the people being discussed as potential running mates for Romney plan to campaign with him on the bus trip: Sen. Kelly Ayotte will campaign with Romney in New Hampshire, Sen. Rob Portman will join him in Ohio, and Rep. Paul Ryan will campaign with him in his hometown of Janesville, Wisconsin. Political watchers - and the Romney campaign - will be watching closely to see how well each performs as a surrogate for the presumptive nominee.
The counterattack: Romney's message on the bus trip, where he will interact with small-town voters in picturesque settings, is that Mr. Obama "has paid little attention to the everyday concerns of the American people," having offered them "no hope for the future." To counter that message - and insert their response into local news coverage of Romney's stops - the Democratic National Committee has planned its own bus tour, which it says will point to Romney's policies that "throw Middle Class Americans under the bus." The Democratic bus (which the president will not be aboard) will show up in most locations a day ahead of Romney, bringing with it officials from Massachusetts and local surrogates to criticize the former Massachusetts governor. Labor groups and MoveOn.org also plan to make sure there are protesters outside each of Romney's speeches, and Moveon will follow around the Romney bus in "the Romneymobile--a Cadillac with NASCAR-style decals and a dog on top."
Popular in Politics
- Obama forgets to salute while boarding Marine One Play Video
- Petraeus biographer regrets affair
- The Ted Cruz conundrum
- As summer approaches, sequestration threatens holiday fun
- IRS' Lerner was asked to resign, refused: GOP Sen. 197 Comments
- GOP Rep.: Obama elected because of Reagan's immigration reforms
- Obama prom pictures surface 131 Comments
- Is President Obama ending the war on terror? 336 Comments
Private sector job growth was almost non-existent over the past ten years. Take a look at this horrifying BLS chart:
Between May 1999 and May 2009, employment in the private sector sector only rose by 1.1%, by far the lowest 10-year increase in the post-depression period.
http://www.businessweek.com/the_thread/economicsunbound/archives/2009/06/a_lost_decade_f.html
**************
Not only was private-sector job creation at the lowest in the post-depression era, but economic growth was only 1.7%, or half of the post-depression era average of 3.4% during the 2000s.
Sorry republicans, but the bush tax cuts slowed our economy and job creation, and all romney is proposing is more of the same failures.
Moreover, with Paul on the ticket the Tea Party should have no qualms about a Romney presidency. Neither would the hardcore conservatives who like Paul abhor Keynesian Economics -- the very kind that Europe is now embracing for its salvation.
But this still leaves the Independents. No fear, Paul would get them off the fence as well -- with easy fixes such as privatizing Medicare, or raising the age to 67.
Our problems aren't difficult after all. It's only President Obama who makes them seem that way.
Isn't that right Mitt?
"So say what you will, But under bush's economic and tax polices we had more people working through the entire decade than any other decade."
Seriously, just because partisans like you want to parrot nonsense that has no grounding in reality and the truth, doesn't make it any better for those unemployed or under-employed and the truly sad state of job creation during the bush years of the 2000s.
Aughts were a lost decade for U.S. economy, workers
For most of the past 70 years, the U.S. economy has grown at a steady clip, generating perpetually higher incomes and wealth for American households. But since 2000, the story is starkly different.
The past decade was the worst for the U.S. economy in modern times, a sharp reversal from a long period of prosperity that is leading economists and policymakers to fundamentally rethink the underpinnings of the nation's growth.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/01/AR2010010101196.html
******************
The U.S. Economy's Lost Decade
We interrupt the George Bush reputation rehabilitation tour for this brief reminder:
"For most of the past 70 years, the U.S. economy has grown at a steady clip, generating perpetually higher incomes and wealth for American households. But since 2000, the story is starkly different.
The past decade was the worst for the U.S. economy in modern times, a sharp reversal from a long period of prosperity that is leading economists and policymakers to fundamentally rethink the underpinnings of the nation's growth.
It was, according to a wide range of data, a lost decade for American workers. The decade began in a moment of triumphalism -- there was a current of thought among economists in 1999 that recessions were a thing of the past. By the end, there were two, bookends to a debt-driven expansion that was neither robust nor sustainable."
http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2010/07/the-u-s-economys-lost-decade/
**********************
A Lost Decade for Jobs
http://www.businessweek.com/the_thread/economicsunbound/archives/2009/06/a_lost_decade_f.html
The long term annual growth rate of the US economy has slowed from its historical average of 3.4% to a 20 year moving average of 2.5% and 10 year moving average of 1.7%. As the US remains the world's largest economy, and the single most important influence on international economic trends, the importance of such long term deceleration is self-evident.
The trend of deceleration is unequivocal. The US 10 year growth rate is now only slightly over half of the historical growth rate of the US economy. The more recent the period the slower the average US growth rate - i.e the US economy is decelerating with time.
http://ablog.typepad.com/keytrendsinglobalisation/2011/01/slowing_of_the_us_economy.html
************************
Sorry smokey, but the facts don't lie about the trend of deceleration of our economy being unequivocal, especially over the past 10-years being half of the historical average. If you partisan republicans want to keep foisting "supply side" economics on America like we've seen since 2001, and even make it worse on steroids under mitt romney's proposals, we're doomed to have a steadily decreasing GDP economic growth rate that is unsustainable!
1. Cut income tax rates 20%. That SOUNDS pretty fair, right? But of course it means that middle class folks who pay $5,000 or $10,000 will pay $1,000 or $2,000 less, while Romney and other millionaires will pay millions of dollars less. And this cut would be ON TOP OF extending the Bush tax cuts, which already gave most of the benefit to the richest 1%. AND extending a 15% rate on capital gains and dividends and "carried interest." AND eliminating "death taxes." (Mitt SAYS he's for eliminating SOME tax expenditures, but he won't say which ones. Ya wanna bet the ones he'd eliminate would hurt middle class taxpayers more than the superrich?) So forget about paying off the national debt: Romney thinks it's more important to shovel money to millionaires (like him!).
2. Replace Medicare with a voucher program ("the Ryan plan"). As everyone who's LOOKED at the Ryan plan has pointed out, this simply shifts the cost of medical care from the government to seniors, nearly half of whom have NO income other than Social Security. And since health care costs increase faster than other costs, seniors will soon be dying in the streets because they (we) can't afford our deductibles and co-pays. (See also Item 4 below....)
3. INCREASE defense spending to 4% of GDP. Romney thinks we're not spending enough on the military-industrial complex; he wants to spend even more. That's a sorta-kinda "jobs program," but not one most of the American people think is particularly desirable. The think tanks also point out that, because of the very hierarchical nature of the military-industrial complex, defense spending has a much lower "multiplier effect" than building roads and bridges or teaching children or hiring first responders (or even food stamps!).
4. CUT all OTHER federal spending to 16% of GDP. That's all entitlement programs plus everything else the federal government does. So it also means cutting every kind of regulation (food safety, drug safety, workplace safety, consumer product safety, financial regulation, pollution regulation) to the bare bones. And it probably also means draconian cuts in Social Security and every other federal program that actually helps individual Americans.
5. If denying funding for federal regulation isn't enough, cut whatever regulation is left, because Mitt thinks the market's fully capable of regulating itself. As we all learned when it crashed in 2008, or every time a salmonella or e. coli outbreak sickens us.
In case it isn't obvious, Obama opposes all five of these proposals.
"I'm still waiting for someone to explain to me mitt romney's economic plan to grow our economy and create jobs, and if indeed it's anything different than what we saw under bush, since that was the worst decade of job creation in the post-depression era!
You smokey, have failed miserably in your quest to provide an answer to my simple question, but have provided ample amounts of republican talking points and highly-partisan B.S.
Smokey_75 June 15, 2012 5:59 PM EDT
"And you have provided nothing to show Obama would do anything that would help the economy. You are on here talking about partisans yet you are attacking romney for not giving details while not saying a word about Obama not providing details of his economic plan."
That's because this thread is about romney's bus tour -- not Obama -- and I can't get any of you die-hard republican mitt romney supporters to explain his economic policy to increase economic growth and create jobs -- especially since it all seems like bush's failed policies that gave us the worst job creation in the post-depression era, or the past 70 years!
Go ahead and keep whining and telling us even YOU don't understand mitt romney's economic plan that seems to be bush's on steroids!
"even though you say we had the worst job creation in the 2000's it is poor indicator of what the economy was doing".
NO, I didn't say that, but provided a link from that darn liberal publication BusinessWeek with a BLS graph of the change in private-sector jobs. Obviously, you didn't want to take a look at it, and just make it up as you go, since it drops off in 2001 dramatically!
The 2000s was a 'Lost Decade for Jobs' and it gave us the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression, with 9+ million lost jobs in just 2 years!
A Lost Decade for Jobs
Private sector job growth was almost non-existent over the past ten years. Take a look at this horrifying BLS chart:
Between May 1999 and May 2009, employment in the private sector sector only rose by 1.1%, by far the lowest 10-year increase in the post-depression period.
http://www.businessweek.com/the_thread/economicsunbound/archives/2009/06/a_lost_decade_f.html
The long term annual growth rate of the US economy has slowed from its historical average of 3.4% to a 20 year moving average of 2.5% and 10 year moving average of 1.7%. As the US remains the world's largest economy, and the single most important influence on international economic trends, the importance of such long term deceleration is self-evident.
The trend of deceleration is unequivocal. The US 10 year growth rate is now only slightly over half of the historical growth rate of the US economy. The more recent the period the slower the average US growth rate - i.e the US economy is decelerating with time.
http://ablog.typepad.com/keytrendsinglobalisation/2011/01/slowing_of_the_us_economy.html
The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).
Every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections. No more distorting and divisive red and blue state maps. There would no longer be a handful of 'battleground' states where voters and policies are more important than those of the voters in more than 3/4ths of the states that now are just 'spectators' and ignored after the primaries.
When the bill is enacted by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes- enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538), all the electoral votes from the enacting states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC.
The bill uses the power given to each state by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution to change how they award their electoral votes for President. Historically, virtually all of the major changes in the method of electing the President, including ending the requirement that only men who owned substantial property could vote and 48 current state-by-state winner-take-all laws, have come about by state legislative action.
In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state's electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided). Support for a national popular vote is strong among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group in virtually every state surveyed in recent polls in closely divided Battleground states: CO - 68%, FL - 78%, IA 75%, MI - 73%, MO - 70%, NH - 69%, NV - 72%, NM- 76%, NC - 74%, OH - 70%, PA - 78%, VA - 74%, and WI - 71%; in Small states (3 to 5 electoral votes): AK - 70%, DC - 76%, DE - 75%, ID - 77%, ME - 77%, MT - 72%, NE 74%, NH - 69%, NV - 72%, NM - 76%, OK - 81%, RI - 74%, SD - 71%, UT - 70%, VT - 75%, WV - 81%, and WY - 69%; in Southern and Border states: AR - 80%,, KY- 80%, MS - 77%, MO - 70%, NC - 74%, OK - 81%, SC - 71%, TN - 83%, VA - 74%, and WV - 81%; and in other states polled: AZ - 67%, CA - 70%, CT - 74%, MA - 73%, MN - 75%, NY - 79%, OR - 76%, and WA - 77%. Americans believe that the candidate who receives the most votes should win.
The bill has passed 31 state legislative chambers in 21 states. The bill has been enacted by 9 jurisdictions possessing 132 electoral votes - 49% of the 270 necessary to go into effect.
NationalPopularVote
Follow National Popular Vote on Facebook via NationalPopularVoteInc
"I'll admit I do not know exactly what Romney is going to do I have said what I think he is going to do and why I think it is the right path".
NO, just like mitt romney, you and he have both failed to tell America EXACTLY and SPECIFICALLY how he will grow our economy and create jobs, because those republican BUZZ words and attacks on President Obama don't cut it for us unaffiliated voters in swing states!
"I see smoky still cannot name any SPECIFICS by mitt romney and the republicans to grow our economy and create jobs. LOL!"
***********************
Smokey_75 June 15, 2012 4:48 PM EDT
"Ok give the specifics of Obama's plan.
"I'll admit I do not know exactly what Romney is going to do I have said what I think he is going to do and why I think it is the right path".
***********************
OK, so now, not only do you admit you are clueless about mitt romney's plan just like he is, but want to play that juvenile game of, "since I can't answer your question specifically, I'll just change the subject". LOL!
And not only do you want to change the subject, but apparently don't know what the President has been proposing for months now, to only be obstructed by the republicans in congress, since they have only one goal -- to make sure the economy stays in the doldrums.
But please read YOUR statement to see how funny it is:
"I'll admit I do not know exactly what Romney is going to do I have said what I think he is going to do and why I think it is the right path".
Seems that "it's the 'right' path" because romney is a republican! LOL!
Do you invest with some guy because he's the best "used car salesman" in the area, and 'think' he's selling you the best deal on the right path? He's merely selling you, because all brokers make money whether their investors win or lose! That's a fact!
"The housing bubble bursting was not caused by tax policy! It was caused by government medaling in the free market"!
Truly, posting such a whopper as that, has me totally unable to even begin to explain to you where you're wrong, but I do imagine that ideologues like yourself, really believe that our government is the cause of all our problems, and the "free market" needs less regulation so they can over-leverage banks and make risky derivative instruments in their Wall Street casinos work for everyone! LOL!