Opinions

I’ll start with a bit of news: Harry Reid has filed for cloture on the motion to proceed on the Fair Pay Act. I saw someone tweet that this was evidence that Reid intends to use the Senate floor as a campaign site until November; I think that’s a bit strong, given that they’re also processing legislation and nominations (at least as much as they can get done), but the core point is correct: Reid apparently wants to force votes on things that might make Republican senators — and Mitt Romney — look bad.

Here’s some good stuff:

1. The recall election in Wisconsin appears to be looking better and better for Republican Governor Scott Walker, as Nate Silver sees the numbers. Silver looks at what’s going right for Walker.

2. In Massachusetts, things are closer; the Boston Phoenix’s David S. Bernstein (yes, my brother) has a very helpful overview of the Elizabeth Warren/Scott Brown race — including why the Cherokee story may have helped Warren.

3. Good analysis about what Paul Ryan is up to from Jonathan Chait. I can think of some other explanations, but it fits, and answers the question of why Republicans forced a vote on a budget that is a lousy campaign document.

4. What matters is the change in economic conditions, not the overall condition. Helpful reminder from David Leonhardt, who also makes a good comparison between 2000 and 2004.

More state polls on the presidential race are out today, but in the spirit of listening to my own advice I’m going to ignore them — and talk instead about a new election forecast estimate from one of the political scientists with a strong track record for these sorts of things, Alan Abramowitz:

“So what does our improved forecasting model indicate about President Obama’s chances of winning a second term in the White House? That depends of course on the growth rate of the economy during the first two quarters of the year. The government’s initial estimate of real GDP growth during the first quarter of 2012 was about 2 percent, and growth during the second quarter is expected to be similar. If we assume that real GDP will grow by 2 percent during the first half of 2012, the full forecasting model predicts that Obama will end up with 51% of the major party vote in November.”

That’s based, in addition to the GDP estimates, on Obama’s current approval rating of about 47 percent and that Democrats have only held the White House for one term, a big part of Abramowitz’s model.

The big polling news today is that in the wake of President Obama’s “evolution” on marriage equality, African American voters have flipped from opposition to support — to such an extent that changes among black voters have been enough to make it likely that the Maryland ballot measure to support same-sex marriage, that seemed destined to fail, is now showing a solid lead, at least in one poll (for similar national marriage polling, see here).

How does this shift, which Adam Serwer calls, “almost incredible,” work?

The key is something that political junkies often find difficult to believe: most people don’t really care very much either way about most political issues, including such hot-button issues as marriage, or abortion, or gun control, or any of the other things that many activists feel so passionately about.

That’s why the way that Ta-Nehisi Coates frames it isn’t quite right. He says,“I was skeptical that Obama would actually influence black opinions. I'm not sure he has. But I can't rule it out. It's clear that the trend was toward support. Maybe Obama gave it the final push.”

Earlier this year, while campaigning in Michigan, Mitt Romney made the mistake of expressing his inner Keynesian. “If you just cut, if all you’re thinking about doing is cutting spending, as you cut spending you’ll slow down the economy,” he said, earning the immediate scorn of anti-tax conservatives. From that point on, the former Massachusetts governor has been careful to hew to the GOP’s traditional line, reiterating the party’s belief that tax and spending cuts will lead to economic growth and new revenues. But in his recent interview with Time’s Mark Halperin — which you should read in full — he relies on Keynes to show why he wouldn’t commit to deep spending cuts in the first year of his administration:

Halperin: Why not in the first year, if you’re elected — why not in 2013, go all the way and propose the kind of budget with spending restraints, that you’d like to see after four years in office? Why not do it more quickly?

Romney: Well because, if you take a trillion dollars for instance, out of the first year of the federal budget, that would shrink GDP over 5%. That is by definition throwing us into recession or depression. So I’m not going to do that, of course. [Emphasis mine]

As Greg and I have argued in the past, Mitt Romney’s key asset is the appearence of competence. By virtue of his look, composure and business background, voters assume that he has command over issues and that he could succeed if elected president. In its first general-election advertisement, the Romney campaign showed voters what the GOP nominee would do on his first day as president, in an attempt to play on that perception. Today the campaign released its second ad, and it’s a continuation of the first – a day one, part two, which focuses on what Romney would do for the economy:

On day one, according to this commercial, Romney would “announce deficit reductions,” “stand up” to China on trade and begin to repeal “job-killing regulations.” It’s not clear what any of this would mean in real life. The president can’t cut budgets by fiat, so what would Romney actually do to reduce deficits on his first day? He could press Congress to implement his budget plan, but it calls for massive tax cuts that would deprive the government of revenue and make deficit reduction less likely.