(03-23-2012 12:25 AM)Max Power Wrote: I think Palin would tell you those 3 months on the ticket can be extremely intense.
Point taken, but I don't think the media or the public would react to Daniels in quite the same way.
Quote:It's a shorter timeframe but the media is vetting you hard to make up for that.
Daniels has already been through a lot of that. As Governor of Indiana for 8 years, as Director of OMB for 2.5 years, as an upper-level executive at Eli Lilly for 10 years, as Chief of Staff to Senator Lugar for 6 years, as an aide in the Reagan White House for 2 years, as a graduate of Princeton (undergaduate) and Georgetown Law Center... in all these capacities, I think Daniels is very much a "known quantity" to the political/media class, especially in Washington. From a strictly electoral perspective, not all of that "experience" is so positive, of course. A lot of it is irrelevant and some of it is actually negative. But it does suggest to me that the vetting process is something that would not be a big deal to him.
Quote:And there's also the fact Daniels was arrested for possession of LSD and marijuana, although he seems more comfortable about that.
1. That was in 1970. Forty-two years ago.
2. I don't really picture the Democrats making an issue of that so long as Obama is on their ticket.
Daniels would probably guarantee Indiana, but the following may be a negative:
Quote:
In January 2001, Daniels accepted President George W. Bush's invitation to serve as director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). He served as Director from January 2001 through June 2003. In this role he was also a member of the National Security Council and the Homeland Security Council.
During his time as the director of the OMB, Bush referred to him as "the Blade," for his noted acumen at budget cutting.[22] The $2.13 trillion budget Daniels submitted to Congress in 2001 would have made deep cuts in many agencies to accommodate the tax cuts being made, but few of the spending cuts were actually approved by Congress.[11] During Daniels' 29-month tenure in the position, the projected federal budget surplus of $236 billion declined to a $400 billion deficit, due to an economic downturn, and failure to enact spending cuts to offset the tax reductions.[16]
Conservative columnist Ross Douthat has stated that Daniels "carried water, as director of the Office of Management and Budget, for some of the Bush administration’s more egregious budgets [and...] made dubious public arguments in support of his boss’s agenda."[23] Daniels was responsible for estimating the cost of the invasion of Iraq, Operation Iraqi Freedom. The operation was estimated to last six months, and did not include a projection of the long-term cost of maintaining a military presence in the region after its immediate occupation.[24] In 2002, Assistant to the President on Economic Policy Lawrence B. Lindsey estimated the cost at between $100–$200 billion, much higher than Daniels' estimate. Daniels called Lindsey's estimate "very, very high" and stated that the costs would be between $50–$60 billion.[25] President Bush ultimately requested $75 billion to finance the operation during the fiscal year, and according to a 2010 Congressional Research Service report, the first fiscal year of the war cost $51 billion.[26] The failure to provide long term cost estimates led opponents to claim that Daniels and the administration had suggested the entire war would cost less than $60 billion.[23][24] The CBO has estimated the total cost of the war in Iraq to U.S. taxpayers will be around $1.9 trillion if it was carried on until 2017.[27]
(03-23-2012 01:24 PM)Brookes Owl Wrote: Am I wrong in thinking that Romney has very little chance of being elected...?
Right now this minute, I'd bet even money on his chances.
Quote:If you're thinking about later runs for high level office, isn't the hangover from a failed Romney veep run significant? Why risk it?
The losing major-party VP-nominees since 1960:
1. Cabot Lodge
2. Bill Miller
3. Ed Muskie
4. Sargent Shriver
5. Bob Dole
6. Walter Mondale
7. Geraldine Ferraro
8. Lloyd Bentsen
9. Dan Quayle
10. Jack Kemp
11. Joe Lieberman
12. John Edwards
13. Sarah Palin
Now, some of those people went on to bigger-and-better things, and some of them didn't. But I don't think there is a single one who suffered any lasting political damage, simply based on the fact that they were the VP nominee on a losing ticket.
It is good national exposure.
Only 5 & 6 on the list subsequently became their parties presidential nominee. And Dole was 20 years later.
Every possible nominee, Daniels included, has some weaknesses.
From a standpoint of managing a budget, however, I think Daniels would be judged more -- FAR more -- based on what he's done as Governor since 2005, then what he did for Bush.
(03-23-2012 01:24 PM)Brookes Owl Wrote: Am I wrong in thinking that Romney has very little chance of being elected...?
Right now this minute, I'd bet even money on his chances.
Wow; ok. Of course, as a CA resident this is an academic argument for me because this state is going Obama in a landslide. I suppose I'm letting my personal judgement cloud my thinking when I speculate that Romney is unelectable.
Quote:
Quote:If you're thinking about later runs for high level office, isn't the hangover from a failed Romney veep run significant? Why risk it?
The losing major-party VP-nominees since 1960:
1. Cabot Lodge
2. Bill Miller
3. Ed Muskie
4. Sargent Shriver
5. Bob Dole
6. Walter Mondale
7. Geraldine Ferraro
8. Lloyd Bentsen
9. Dan Quayle
10. Jack Kemp
11. Joe Lieberman
12. John Edwards
13. Sarah Palin
Now, some of those people went on to bigger-and-better things, and some of them didn't. But I don't think there is a single one who suffered any lasting political damage, simply based on the fact that they were the VP nominee on a losing ticket.
Admittedly, "bigger-and-better" is subjective, but I don't think I can pick a single one from #5-13 who went on to something bigger and better than what they had done prior to being a running mate. Obviously, a lot of the damage was self-inflicted as opposed to being associated with a losing race (Quayle, Edwards, Palin leap to mind), and there could be lots of other reasons for a lack of later "success." But I'm still not sure I can see your argument here - this list, in my mind, shows at least some correlation that bolsters my point (lacks causation, of course).
(03-23-2012 01:24 PM)Brookes Owl Wrote: Am I wrong in thinking that Romney has very little chance of being elected...?
Right now this minute, I'd bet even money on his chances.
Wow; ok. Of course, as a CA resident this is an academic argument for me because this state is going Obama in a landslide. I suppose I'm letting my personal judgement cloud my thinking when I speculate that Romney is unelectable.
Quote:
Quote:If you're thinking about later runs for high level office, isn't the hangover from a failed Romney veep run significant? Why risk it?
The losing major-party VP-nominees since 1960:
1. Cabot Lodge
2. Bill Miller
3. Ed Muskie
4. Sargent Shriver
5. Bob Dole
6. Walter Mondale
7. Geraldine Ferraro
8. Lloyd Bentsen
9. Dan Quayle
10. Jack Kemp
11. Joe Lieberman
12. John Edwards
13. Sarah Palin
Now, some of those people went on to bigger-and-better things, and some of them didn't. But I don't think there is a single one who suffered any lasting political damage, simply based on the fact that they were the VP nominee on a losing ticket.
Admittedly, "bigger-and-better" is subjective, but I don't think I can pick a single one from #5-13 who went on to something bigger and better than what they had done prior to being a running mate. Obviously, a lot of the damage was self-inflicted as opposed to being associated with a losing race (Quayle, Edwards, Palin leap to mind), and there could be lots of other reasons for a lack of later "success." But I'm still not sure I can see your argument here - this list, in my mind, shows at least some correlation that bolsters my point (lacks causation, of course).
I would agree that it did not actually hurt any of them politically (other than self inflicted damage). Palin use it as a jump to make a lot of money, and she is not yet dead politically in the GOP.
(03-23-2012 01:24 PM)Brookes Owl Wrote: Am I wrong in thinking that Romney has very little chance of being elected...?
Right now this minute, I'd bet even money on his chances.
Wow; ok. Of course, as a CA resident this is an academic argument for me because this state is going Obama in a landslide. I suppose I'm letting my personal judgement cloud my thinking when I speculate that Romney is unelectable.
Obama got 53% nationwide in 2008.
Do you truly see him doing that well (or better) this time around?
Quote:Right now this minute, I'd bet even money on his chances.
Really? Care to make a wager?
Quote:But not as far as the FBI and the elite media (Wash Post, NY Times, etc) are concerned. Those are the constituencies that are already familiar with him, and they are the ones who would be doing the vetting, if he were tapped for VP.
How does the fact they've already vetted them for their own purposes help Daniels in any way? If anything that expedites the process and leads to more information leaking out. The public is hungry for info and the "elite media" will give it to them, both what they already know and what they can find out. The fact they've already vetted them to some extent is of no benefit.
Quote:Don't you think, really, that everyone is averse to that? I think one of the realities that the American people will eventually have to come to grips with is that many highly-capable, highly-motivated, upstanding men and women of both parties simply do not get into politics anymore because of the cannibalistic appetite for destruction within the media and the hardcore partisan elements. At some point, I think that reality will become crystallized in the public consciousness and there will be some demand for real change. But it obviously hasn't happened yet.
I know most people are averse to the vetting process (except megalomaniacs who are attracted to public office), but I get the feeling Daniels is moreso than your average person.
Also, this reminds me of this hilarious WKUK sketch:
"Most well adjusted sane men would be hesitant to take a job where theire decisions so drastically affect the lives of so many. Well not me. I possess a sort of sociopathic narcissism that makes me think that I should be in charge of everyone!"
I think there is a "loser" stigma associated with being on a presidential ticket and losing, that makes any future presidential run more difficult. I wouldn't count Mondale because of course he was actually vice president under Carter. Dole would be the one exception of a losing VP nominee who at least won the presidential nomination, and it took him 20 years to do it (he was not a serious challenger in 1980). And of course Nixon overcame the stigma in 1968, but overall losing is a net negative if you have political aspirations.
(This post was last modified: 03-23-2012 02:42 PM by Max Power.)
(03-23-2012 01:24 PM)Brookes Owl Wrote: Am I wrong in thinking that Romney has very little chance of being elected...?
Right now this minute, I'd bet even money on his chances.
Wow; ok. Of course, as a CA resident this is an academic argument for me because this state is going Obama in a landslide. I suppose I'm letting my personal judgement cloud my thinking when I speculate that Romney is unelectable.
Obama got 53% nationwide in 2008.
Do you truly see him doing that well (or better) this time around?
I'm not sure how Romney wins and why conservatives would vote for him. Like Obama, Romney is: pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage, anti-gun, pro taxes, pro wall street bailout, pro gov't health care mandate, anti-Reagan and a non-Christians.
(03-23-2012 01:24 PM)Brookes Owl Wrote: Am I wrong in thinking that Romney has very little chance of being elected...?
Right now this minute, I'd bet even money on his chances.
Wow; ok. Of course, as a CA resident this is an academic argument for me because this state is going Obama in a landslide. I suppose I'm letting my personal judgement cloud my thinking when I speculate that Romney is unelectable.
Obama got 53% nationwide in 2008.
Do you truly see him doing that well (or better) this time around?
Again, I'm probably letting my surroundings get to me: Obama won 61% of the vote in CA. I think 6 months ago, before Romney had done much talking, I'd have agreed with you. In fact, I'd have even agreed with Romney being favored. The economy is improving just enough to at least not weigh Obama down. And economy will be by far the driver for most voters. And with Romney: 1) saying the wrong things at the wrong times, 2) having no clear position on many issues, and 3) being startlingly similar to Obama; I think Obama > 50% sounds right.
(03-23-2012 02:36 PM)Max Power Wrote: Dole would be the one exception of a losing VP nominee who at least won the presidential nomination, and it took him 20 years to do it.
Of course, he was CRUSHED in that election.
(This post was last modified: 03-23-2012 03:01 PM by Brookes Owl.)
(03-23-2012 02:10 PM)Brookes Owl Wrote: 5. Bob Dole
6. Walter Mondale
7. Geraldine Ferraro
8. Lloyd Bentsen
9. Dan Quayle
10. Jack Kemp
11. Joe Lieberman
12. John Edwards
13. Sarah Palin
Admittedly, "bigger-and-better" is subjective, but I don't think I can pick a single one from #5-13 who went on to something bigger and better than what they had done prior to being a running mate.
I think all of those people (Bill Miller the sole exception) were either more prominent in the national media, or more influential among the grassroots activists within their party nationwide, or both, as a result of having been the VP nominee.
Bill Miller effectively retired from politics after 1964 and was largely forgotten. This was by his own design, and in fact he had already announced his return to private life even before Goldwater asked him to run as VP. Jack Germond, the liberal reporter for the Baltimore Sun and other newspapers, wrote in his memoir:
Quote:Miller spent most of the campaign playing bridge with reporters as his plane flew from one airport rally to another. I spent just a week on the Miller plane and, as it happened, filled in for one of the regular bridge players who was off that week and thus was able to watch Miller at close range. The rule was that when the plane pulled up to the gate, everyone would put down his cards and the bridge hand would be suspended. Miller would turn down his starched French cuffs, straighten his tie, and shrug on the jacket of his dark blue suit. He would go down the stairs, usually to the back of a flatbed truck, where he would deliver a canned speech attacking Johnson. (After a Johnson adviser was accused of solicitng a homosexual act in a public men's room, Miller would attack "Johnson and his curious crew." Subtlety was not his strong suit.) When he returned to the plane, he would shrug off the jacket, loosen the tie, turn back the cuffs, and reclaim his seat. Then he would say, "Now, let's see, that was one heart, two spades, pass, and I jumped to four spades. Your bid." He never bothered with any postmortems on the political event.
Years later, Miller appeared in one of the funniest "Do You Know Me?" television commercials for American Express. I don't know if those ads are on YouTube or not, but they were as widely known as the various "Cow" ads for Chick-fil-A nowadays.
(03-23-2012 02:41 PM)Max Power Wrote: Also, I didn't know this Zimmerman guy was Hispanic. Let's say the Joe the plumber choice is now George Zimmerman.
Not to worry, more and more of the media-references are identifying him as a "white Hispanic."
(03-23-2012 03:12 PM)Native Georgian Wrote: ...more prominent in the national media, or more influential among the grassroots activists within their party nationwide...
Got it. My opinion: Neither of those things is "bigger and better."
(03-23-2012 03:12 PM)Native Georgian Wrote: ...more prominent in the national media, or more influential among the grassroots activists within their party nationwide...
Got it. My opinion: Neither of those things is "bigger and better."
Romney will look like a clown when health care is brought up in his debates with Obama. His plan was the same thing and Obama will nail him on it.
The economy is looking very good for Obama too. Historically candidates need to be creating at least 100k (the minimum necessary to keep pace with population growth)/month to win reelection, and 200k/month is about a sure thing (that puts you in '84, '88, '96 territory):
Of course, for the last 3 months we've been over 200k:
The NYT has a very good analysis on what Obama needs to be at going into the election (source of the above graphic), settling on 150,000, which I think is fair. If it holds steady over 200k though I guarantee reelection:
I'll also add, GDP growth last quarter was revised upward a few weeks ago to 3%, and the positive trend is plain to see.
And because jobs are a trailing indicator, we should expect to see job growth substantially higher than 150k for the next few months based on that last estimate. When the next GDP report comes out (for 1Q 2012) that will be huge as it will be a major indication for what the job growth picture will look like in the months heading into the election. Bottom line: I wouldn't place any more bets on Obama losing reelection, at least until that's released.
(This post was last modified: 03-23-2012 04:26 PM by Max Power.)
The most remarkable things about the timeline you posted, Max are:
1. The economy turned around before the "stimulus" could have had any effect. Downturns only last so long, then they turn around of their own accord. The timeline here supports that much better than it supports the idea that the "stimulus" did anything. What the "stimulus" can claim is the flurry at the beginning of 2010. That timing is more sensible. And that is a real flurry, but it played out, because the way the money was injected through the "stimulus" wasn't in any form that would promote long-term consistent growth.
2. The really striking thing is how weak the recovery has been. Most recessions, that trend from 2009 keeps going through 2010 and we get all the jobs back pretty quickly. That didn't happen here. It also didn't happen in the 1930s. Those are the two recessions/depressions where we tried some kind of "stimulus." They are also have been described by many, particularly leftist, observers as the worst depression and worst recession, respectively, in our history. Maybe they really were. Maybe they weren't but "stimulating" caused stagnation instead of recovery. Maybe the weren't but became the worst because of "stimulus." After all, Hoover tried plenty of "stimulus" spending before FDR was elected, and it had no effect either.
That weak recovery continued, and things were stagnating well into 2011, but they have picked up dramatically since the republican house leadership said "no" very firmly to Obama's request that we pass "son of stimulus" and do it "now" or else the sky would fall. What has fallen is not the sky but the unemployment rate. And republicans are too stupid to claim the issue.
I don't think EITHER party has a clue about the economy.
![[Image: fivethirtyeight-0203-nonfarm3-blog480.png]](http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2012/02/03/us/politics/fivethirtyeight-0203-nonfarm3/fivethirtyeight-0203-nonfarm3-blog480.png)
![[Image: 6821297386_052fe55c03.jpg]](http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7203/6821297386_052fe55c03.jpg)
![[Image: chart.png?s=gdp cqoq&d1=20070101...2=20120323]](http://www.tradingeconomics.com/chart.png?s=gdp cqoq&d1=20070101&d2=20120323)
