bedsitter23

The Des Moines Register released its poll this week.  The Register is known for its long-standing history as a barometer as what is actually going to happen.  (Remember in December when they said Romney would stomp Santorum 24%-15%?  Well, okay, that may not have been their fault).

Obama 49%
Romney 45%
Other 4%

So, what can we conclude from this?

Well, simple math shows that only 2% fall in undecided.  Now, 10% did say they were capable of changing their minds, which still makes things in play for both camps.

No info is given on who the Other are, though I suspect that's largely Gary Johnson, though Virgil Goode could get some of that Far Right 'Anyone but Mitt' support.

Recent polling by other groups are in line with this.  WeAskAmerica has Obama 48.7-45.9 with Johnson polling 1.2% and 4.2% undecided in Iowa.  While ARG shows it even 48-48 in a poll that they put out this week.

Rasmussen had Romney ahead last month, but now show Obama ahead 49-47 with 15 other, 2% undecided.

The Obama camp has brought in the big guns.  Bruce Springsteen is performing a free concert in Ames (Romney's most famous Jersey support comes from Chris Christie: Advantage: Obama)

In recent weeks, Ashley Judd, Justin "I'm a Mac" Long, Alfre Woodard (who I only know from True Blood, but is apparently important) and Jon Bon Jovi (local news called him "80s rocker" Jon Bon Jovi.  Burn!) have made trips here in support of Barry& Joe.

Personally, I don't believe celebrity endorsements mean anything (although the Justin Long visit almost makes me consider voting for Gary Johnson), but they do drum up support around the party base.

Meanwhile, the Romney campaign has been adamant that they are sending no celebrities to Iowa.

this proves a few things:

1-No celebrities like Mitt
2- Okay, that isn't true.  These people do.  It's the usual suspects- lead singers of country bands and 80s arena rockers.  Once you get past them, it's Niki Minaj, Scott Baio, Jerry Bruckheimer, and WWE CEO Vince McMahon (which is funny because Linda McMahon is a Republican candidate for Senate and she has distanced herself from Romney)
3-Okay, Gene Simmons likes Romney, but he doesn't do anything for free
4-Porn Star Jenna Jameson said she supported Romney, but she may have been joking.

Which is all well and good since when Romney does get celebrity help, he forgets to ask them exactly what they have planned.

Besides who needs celebrities, Iowans don't like that stuff.  You see, Iowans like politicians who pose in front of tractors.

Not sure if you are a Republican or Democrat?

The New York Times can help.

Like College Basketball?  You're  Republican.  NBA? Democrat.

Never noticed that before.

Watch Golf? GOP.  Cartoons? Dem.

NASCAR and reality shows? You lean right.  Jon Stewart, Mad Men, and Seth Mcfarland shows? Left.

Supernatural is a beloved Democrat favorite, while Pretty Little Liars is likely on the DVR over at your Republican friends' houses.

Still, don't have an answer on whether you are ridin' with Romney or backing Barack?

Snoop Dogg (he's reggae star Snoop Lion now, you've heard) can help.

Okay, this is wrong in so many ways, but Snoop instagrammed his list of pros and cons.  Adult language and inappropriate suggestions, naturally follow.

I am vigorous defender of Iowa, and often try to reflect it here. Still, you have to be careful.

Iowa doesn't take to people calling it 'flyover country', so it's a rough week for the state.

While last year, Iowa had to suffer through Cedar Rapids, an offense that they felt that city was being singled out for ridicule.

This week sees the release of two films based in the Hawkeye State.

I admit I know very little about Janeane from Des Moines, but it is a mockumentary about the Iowa caucus. It probably won't be in a theater near you, unless you live in a place with a cool indie theater like Des Moines (see... I am defending).

Janeane fooled the Register, Politico, and even got a hug from Romney; though I gather perhaps it's more Michael Moore than Ali G or Borat.

She never abandoned the masquerade, not in Iowa. Which was occasionally frustrating. “When I was at a Santorum event, a woman told me this harrowing story about all these emergency room visits she’d been through and how she owed $20,000 and how she’s going to pay it off on an installment plan,” Ms. Wilson said. “And then she immediately says how much she hates Obamacare and how much she loves Santorum and hopes he wins. And there’s a part of me that wanted to say, ‘Are you crazy?’ ”

Then, there's the higher profile Butter with Jennifer Garner, Olivia Wilde, and Hugh Jackman. It has a political satire element, too; but takes place in an Iowan town where a young girl finds her knack for sculpting butter. Her talent puts her into competition with Garner and Ty "Phil Dunphy' Burrell.

Yes, I have been saving this story for about a month since receiving word from garbagecanmusic.



Of course, Iowans know the premise is silly.  Sure, there is a storied history of butter sculpture at the State Fair; but it's not a competition.  There's only room for one, and her services are the ones people call on when they need a Butter Mascot for their School's 100th Anniversary.

So, if Butter is American Idol, the reality is Elvis Presley.  it's not a competition, it's a singular icon.

It's not either movie though that has the real ire of angry Iowans.  Arby's is that target.

Arby's asks if you would rather have your deli turkey sliced in the back of the restaurant where you go to eat or in an Iowan manufacturing plant (which they imply about Subway)..

The answer is pretty obvious, unless your economy is supported by the local meat manufacturing plant.  For good measure, Arby's made sure the sting was historically accurate by using footage of an Eastern Iowan plant.

Arby's has re-edited the ad (and I have seen the edited version) and though it should be effective (it's a poor cousin to Pace Picante Sauce's "New York City?" ad), you would think someone would have made sure it might not offend someone before airing it.

I usually spend my weekends in the battleground state of Iowa (though polls are firmly putting it in Obama's column).

This weekend, I was in Vegas.

Which also puts me in another battleground state.

Honestly, if you have seen one negative campaign ad, you've seen them all (Voted with Pelosi, voted for TARP, votes against women, isn't anti-China enough (both parties like this one)).  There isn't much different, though the Nevada GOP has hard words on the GM bailout (likely a 'no go' in the Midwest).

Romney is promising jobs in both states, though he's put a number on Iowa -130,000.  In Nevada, the superpacs are pushing for Jewish votes by claiming Obama snubbed Netanyahu.

Of course, there is one ad that is unique to this area, and you have to know some history to appreciate it.  One has to go to the days of the Government Bailout of Banks, and the emergence of the Occupy movement.

In those days, echoing most of America, Obama was shocked that big corporate bankers were taking money from the government, laying off workers, bending over consumers, but executive compensation, trips, and parties continued as normal. 


"You can't go take that trip to Las Vegas or go down to the Super Bowl on the taxpayers' dime"

I think we all agreed, except I suppose if ... you're Las Vegas.

Romney featured it in his tv ad, and has made it a talking point to the State of Nevada.

Nevada is in play, though which means Barack and Michelle are both headed there this week.

Curiously as life has gotten worse for Romney, he has a 3rd Party problem.

Most people probably wouldn't consider Former Republican Governor of New Mexico Gary Johnson a threat, but interestingly, he is.

Johnson is popular in his home region (as well as Independent-minded New Hampshire) polling over 5% in five different states. 

This hurts Romney, because these are red and purple states (NM, NH, Arizona, Colorado, Montana).  Even states that Romney should feel he has a decent chance of winning (like Nevada, but also Florida and North Carolina), having 3% of the vote taken by Johnson (who as a Libertarian and ex-Republican, likely would pull more from Romney), would make an increasingly uphill battle that much tougher.

Nevada backed Obama four years ago, but went for Dubya twice (and went GOP 5 of the last 8 times).  Polls from September, shows Obama's lead anywhere from 2-9%.

CNN's poll from 2 weeks ago put Obama up 47-44 among likely voters and Johnson at 3% (and if that wasn't enough support siphoned, Libertarian-leaning Virgil Goode of the Constitution Party was at 4%).

I don't have any pre-election trips planned for Colorado, Virginia, or North Carolina, but if anything comes up, i will let you know.

Pretty quiet around these parts.

Now, Paul Ryan, Joe Biden, Ann Romney, and the presumptive 2016 nominees Martin O'Malley and Chris Christie have all made trips to Iowa in the last couple of weeks.

Still, all of these stories and their potential side-stories have been obscured from the headlines because of Mitt Romney's "47 percent" comment.

The most harmful thing about Romney's quote is actually not the quote itself.  Romney has made it pretty clear he's on the side of the Tea party and the Libertarians of his party (and if you still weren't convinced, he nominated Paul Ryan as his running mate.)  Instead, the quote has taken priority over any possible discussion that would have taken place in the last two weeks- anything Romney had to say about the economy, jobs, gas prices, etc.

John Kerry and Walter Mondale would be ashamed of the way Mitt is running his campaign.  This all follows a convention that was dominated by Clint Eastwood's performance of A Portrait of The President as a Young Chair.

So, we're left to the television ads then, and there have been a s#itload of them.

Here are the recurring themes-

-Before there was the "47 percent', there was Democratic Governor O'Malley's comment that we aren't better off than we were four years ago.  Both sides have hit this issue hard.  Romney's side with deficit graphs, and Obama showing a steady growth of jobs every month.
Obama brought out the big gun- Bill Clinton- explaining that we are better off with a Dem in the White House and you are either Team Bubba or Team Dubya

-An independent small businessperson who regrets her vote, and said it was a terible decision and things went south when the person she voted for took office.  And?  It's an Obama ad.  Romney has stuck with this theme through the campaign (expect more "Breaking Up with Obama" ads shortly.)  However, Obama is hitting back with a tale of a Massachusetts voter who saw her state fall to 47 th (there's that number again) in the nation in job creation under Romney's tenure.

-Both sides have run ads that say they will save Medicare.  When history is done and written, it will show Romney lost this election, because people thought he was going to eliminate Medicare.  I didn't find Romney's ads very convincing, and think if he is trying to have this conversation, he is losing.  On a side note, state and local Republicans have actually done better with this issue, framing it as 'we need to take the money marked for Obamacare and move it over to Medicare.'

-A liberal superpac is taking the Koch Brothers superpac ads to task, asking why would the Koch Brothers dump $80 million into trying to get Mitt elected, and what do they expect for their money.  I think it's a smart move for the Democratic playbook, and does work towards negating the Pro-Romney superpacs.  That ad calls the Koch's the Greed Agenda.

Anyway, that's the current state of things, though local television reported this week from a series of articles that Iowa is no longer in play.

Rasmussen does have Mitt up by 3, but ARG has Obama up by 7 and NBC/Wall Street Journal has Obama up by 8.  Average all the leading polls, and you show Obama with a pretty comfortable lead of 5-and-a-half points.

So, we may not get to see The Barry and Willard Show here again this year.
 

I am working on something. You see, everybody has a can't miss prediction on how to know who is going to win the election. So am I. It's coming soon.

There are plenty of ways to draw your best guess.

If you are a minor league baseball team, you offer up Bobbleheads to the first 500 fans, and have them pick which candidate they prefer. Advantage: Obama.

Esquire asked their readers who would win a fistfight. Advantage :Obama.

Still, with Ryan and Biden in Iowa this week, and numerous visits from both candidates, why not ask someone who knows something about political fervor. The Des Moines Register interviewed Tony Polzin, a 20-year old who sells campaign buttons and t-shirts at rallies. Potzin says he is a Republican, but works both parties' rallies. Polzin says he's sold more GOP buttons htis cmpaign cycle. "The Republicans (sell more), they have the money.", he says.

Personally, I wanted to make a prediction off the crane game I saw at the local Wal-Mart.




Of course, despite knowing someone who is tremendously skilled at claw games, I am terrible at them; so you will have to see what I come up with to predict the next President.

All voters are equal in America.

Of course, that's not true.  For those that can remember back to 2000 know that America runs on the Electoral College (and yes, I think the Electoral College could bear Penn State in football this year).  Electors are chosen (and in 48 states, it's a winner-takes all competition) and in theory, these people pledge to vote for who their state chose in the general election.  Each party sends a slate, and they should, in turn, vote for their party's nominee,

Nothing stops them of course, but peer pressure, which is why John Edwards got 1 electoral vote in 2004, Lloyd Bentsen got one vote in 1988, and Geraldine Ferraro one vote in 1984.  They are called Faithless Electors.

The big news today is about Melinda Wadsley, an elector who was undoubtedly pressured to resign, and in fact resigned because she wasn't going to vote for Mitt Romney, and had planned (should Iowa have went Red) to cast for Ron Paul.

It's a testament to Paul that his campaign was the most organized in getting supporters in key positions, despite a distant third place finish.

I can't imagine that Obama doesn't win (He has a 10-point advantage in Michigan, and has margin-of-error leads in Ohio and Florida), but let's consider this new angle. 

There are three electors who have made comments that sound a bit noncommittal.

Ken Eastman says he is "undecided at this point" and "pretty disgusted" with the GOP.  He is a Ron Paul guy.

Billie Zimmerman says Paul is the only candidate who can save the country.  Jessie Law, is another Paul supporter who says he might not be fully behind Romney, but "just want(s) to beat Obama".

There are additional three, who likely will fall in line, but have made comments that might cause some notice.

Ken Searles says he might vote for Paul as a protest, but only if the vote wouldn't change the election.  Kathleen Miller says something similar, and Iowa's Kurt Brown says he is "99 percent" behind Romney, but looking into the rules.  He caucused for Santorum.

All six of these electors are in red or purple states- Texas, Alaska. Iowa, and Nevada- so should it come down to the last vote, it could change history.  Three of the electors mentioned arelocated in Nevada which has a law that they must vote for the party's nominee, though there is no punishment associated with the law, and it's hard to say how it would be enforced.

(Much of this post is based on news from the Des Moines Register)

The Des Moines Register's Kathie Obradovich has been covering the convention and if you didn't get the idea from Chris Christie, well, this might be about 2016.

A lot of focus has been put on Rand Paul, but it is apparent that he might not end up being the beneficiary of his father's supporters down the line.

I think it's fair.  He's got a bit of a Julian Lennon vibe to him.  I can't get excited by him.

Ryan, Scott Walker, and Ted Cruz were singled out as faves with the Iowa conventioneers.  Cruz (despite not yet being elected) seems to be the big winner, driving an hour to meet with the Iowa delegates.  Indeed, one gets the early impression that he might be the next Tea Party banner carrier.  Well, he already is, I suppose, but will he pull a Christine O'Donnell, if he is not successful.

Iowans bemoaned that the strong Paul support scared a lot of big names away, though to be fair, it's unseemly to look too ambitious, when ostensibly you are supporting a Romney second term in 2016.

New convention rules were put in place which should have an effect on 2016.  Most importantly, it appears Iowa's first-in-the-nation status looks secure.  The convention rules don't give the candidate the ability to reject delegates (as was discussed), but it does more strongly bind delegates to the actual winner (i.e. you won't get a third place finisher taking 22 out of a possible 28 delegates, because of post-caucus work).

In another bit of GOP-affecting news, Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson will be on the ballot in Iowa.  There was a protest that invoked the law which says you can only be on the ballot if you have had a convention.  The protest stated that the Libertarian convention was more petition-signing than actual conventioneering.  The bipartisan group that makes such decisions held up the decision to put Johnson in the ballot (Yeah, I was bit surprised that a Republican and a Democrat decided in favor of the 3rd party guy).

Of course, though, many think Johnson will draw away from the GOP (Johnson ran in the caucus as a Republican).  Still, Johnson only got 8 caucus votes, so maybe that fear is overstated.

Iowa announced its delegates today at the GOP Convention.

Remember the caucus?

Mitt Romney won it that night, edging out Rick Santorum.  Then, there was a recount, and Rick had more votes.

Well, Ron Paul won.

Of Iowa's 28 delegates, 22 went to Ron Paul.

Only the six delegates who went to Romney were announced by Iowa's representative delegate Lt Gov Kim Reynolds.

Yeah, that's embarrassing which is why some Republicans want to give the nominee the power to just keep the delegates he want and disavow those who disagree.

Meanwhile back in Iowa, Obama is planning yet another trip to the Hawkeye State (with a trip to Iowa State University, getting out the student vote appears to be high on the list of tasks).  Obama is running an ad which features Clinton asking "What Would Bubba Do?".  Making an ad featuring the Greatest Living President is a no brainer. 

The Republicans have been attacking Obama on Medicare, which seems like a misstep.  They contend that Obamacare robs medicare, and that it is the Republicans who are the saviors of Medicare.

When you pick Paul Ryan as your veep, the claim seems dubious.  Claim you are going to reduce the deficit, claim you are going to lower taxes, but goof luck with claiming you are going to save Medicare.  Polls show that you have got your work cut out if you want to claim the Voucher system is better than what exists now.

In other election news, a couple of theaters here are playing 2016: Obama's America the anti-Fahrenheit 911 for Freepers.  I have heard no buzz on this, but ended up finding a couple of people who saw it.

One was wide-eyed and excited.  "It shows that Obama was born and raised in another country, and so he has a different view of things".  This is someone who I immediately discount on all political discourse.  The guy who goes on about how Obama's first 100 days are the same as Fidel Castro's first 100 days in power in Cuba.  This is the same person who forwards that e-mail about the gay Jesus film that will undoubtedly destroy us all.

The only other person I know who saw it said it was pretty balanced and gave a lot to think about.  I have no idea what that means except perhaps he did see both sides or perhaps was scared of engaging "OMG Obama will mandate our children to watch homosexual Jesus films" guy in conversation. 

"OMG" guy also claims 2016 is pretty good because the guy behind Shawshank Redemption is behind it,  2016 is indeed produced by Gerald Molen, who didn't produce Shawshank, but has an impressive CV that includes Schindler's List and Top Gun.

As far as how the story ends, there's not the extensive polling in Iowa like the kind that goes on during caucus season.  However, the consensus of polls that have been done in recent weeks seem to give Obama a slight (around 1%) edge.

It's hot and heavy now, with political ads in nearly every commercial stop.

Romney is hitting hard with ads that maintain that President Obama got rid of President Clinton's "Welfare to Work" laws.

This is one of those buzz issues that I think can sway votes, so it's a good play by Romney who really hasn't made a lot of great plays.  For someone as politically astute as me, the first thing I noticed was that Romney was using The Heritage Foundation to support his claims.  To put in perspective, a Republican using the Heritage Foundation as a source would be akin to me saying "I am the smartest person in the world.  Source: my mother".

These attack ads, of course, led to attack ads about attack ads, and Politifact and others say Romney's ads are blatantly false.

I admit I am no expert, but my best understanding of what Obama did was give states more freedom in how they treat welfare laws.  It, of course, is the biggest irony that the party (the Republicans) that want the states to have power over everything (abortion laws, marriage, etc) have a problem with this being a States Rights issue.

Romney has a bit of a Clinton fixation.  He evokes Clinton by using this law, but that is not the first mention of Bubba.  Romney is even using a Clinton quote that Romney "had a stellar business career" in ads to promote himself.

All of this follows Romney using Hillary Clinton footage from her primary fight to claim how dirty of a politicker Obama is.

I am actually not totally against this tactic.  If you can reference someone from another party, you look bipartisan.  It's why Joe Lieberman got popular and Dick Morris has made a career out of it.

There are of course problems.  For starters, if you're going to Clinton and Clinton isn't on board, Clinton will let everyone know that he disagrees with your take. 

The main point, of course is that no one believes the least that Clinton isn't backing Obama at the end of the day.  Four years ago, this tactic might have worked a little better, but it seems a nonstarter.

Lastly, Willard might consider that there is a lot more footage of his same party opponents attacking him.  Surely, with Santorum, Gingrich, Paul and the Tea Partiers, Romney doesn't want to go there.

Obama, meanwhile seems to be pushing women's issues (which he appears to have an edge on) and wind power.  It is hard to say that Wind Power is as important to Iowa as Corn (or even gauge where it stands in the Iowan conscience), but it gets attention.

You see, wind power in Iowa is not only ubiquitous outside some towns, but in some areas, you could call it dominant.

In Iowa, like ethanol, wind support gets bipartisan support and Obama made the most of his Iowa visit to mention that Romney opposes tax credits for wind power.



Romney meanwhile says the best thing he can do for the Wind Energy industry is that GOP standard, deregulation.

Obama is also hitting Mitt aiming towards prospective and current college students and their parents, playing an ad that prominently displays Romney's quote that if you really want to go to college, you're gonna have to borrow the money from your parents.

Patriotically, Obama and Romney both will suspend negative ads on 9/11, but until then... GAME ON!