May 23, 2013

You are here: Home / Archives for Politics / Elections

Why Dabakis Won and What We Can Expect [Contributor]

December 4, 2012 by Leave a Comment

Utah Democratic Party Chair Jim Dabakis was selected by delegates to serve out the rest of Salt Lake County Mayor Elect Ben McAdams’ term in the Utah Senate on Saturday.

Sometimes you need a Democrat to explain why Democrats do what they do.

When Utah Democrats selected Utah Democratic Party Chair  and bomb-thrower Jim Dabakis to replace the more measured and publicly moderate Ben McAdams (billboard motto: “Moderation in all things”) in a special election last week, my first thoughts were, simultaneously: “this ought to make the session fun” and “they’re crazy.”

Clearly, Democrats are not crazy, but I am a little biased. So I turned to a friend, Curtis Haring, a Democrat and coincidentally one of the delegates who participated in the special election, for his take on what happened and why.  As a blogger at Blue in Red Zion (add it to your reader!), Curtis often impresses me with insightful analysis and a civil tone. He avoids the inflammatory rhetoric that is all too prevalent in today’s politics, and so even when we disagree, it’s hard not to like him.

With that in mind, I asked Curtis two questions, and he was gracious enough to answer them:

Why was Jim Dabakis selected over others? And what should we expect from him during the 2013 legislative session?

Yours,
Daniel B. 

______________________

Why Dabakis Won, And What We Can Expect

By Curtis Haring

Being a Democratic delegate in Senate District 2, I (along with 129 other delegates who voted in the special election this past Saturday) had the responsibility of choosing the next senator to represent Downtown and Avenues neighborhoods, replacing Salt Lake County Mayor Elect Ben McAdams.The field was a talented one: Robert Comstock – longtime Democratic activist and teacher;  outgoing state representative Brian Doughty;  former Salt Lake County Councilwoman, Jenny Wilson;  current Salt Lake County Mayor Peter Corroon;  and  current Utah Democratic Party Chair Jim Dabakis.

With little exceptions, each candidate was similar on the issues. All spoke for better education funding, expanding the tax base, improving the environment, expanding the rights of the LGBT community, and liberalizing liquor laws – just to name a few.  Because of this, the choice of each delegate came down to two main factors: the personality of the candidate and what role Senate District 2 plays as a sounding board for the Utah Democratic Party.

The first point is a common theme among just about every election, but the second one is a unique one for Democrats in Utah. Senate District 2 is arguably the safest senate seat in the state. No matter how Republicans may try to slice and dice the area up during redistricting, the math points to the fact that the area will vote Democrat. This means that whoever runs in the area can, in theory, propose the most liberal of bills without fear of the electorate – indeed, they run a risk of not being reelected in the area if they are too moderate. The seat then serves as a soundboard for the Utah Democratic Party, and the senator from the district can show the rest of the state what a Democratic (note the big “D”) government could look like.

So, the question each delegate had to ask was: “What do I want my party to look like?” On one hand, you have the pragmatic go-along-to-get-along candidates such as Wilson and Corroon. On the other you have the big and boisterous loud and proud Democrats such as Comstock, Dabakis, and, to a lesser extent, Doughty. One approach, so the theory goes, leads to greater legislative success; the other, so it is felt, allows (at the very least) one senator the opportunity to continually and consistently attack the Republican message on the hill.

For those of you paying attention, you know that the latter mode of thought won with the narrow victory of Jim Dabakis over Peter Corroon. Senate 2 Democrats signaled that they, at the very least, are tired of the status quo and they no longer wish to be treated as an afterthought…Dabakis has publicly said that he intends to “shame” Republicans for their woeful track record on education and that he would “travel from Logan to St. George” if he had to, in order to make sure all voters are aware of how Republicans truly treat the people.

Obviously this is a departure from outgoing Senator Ben McAdams who, during his run for Salt Lake County Mayor, pointed to his success working with all political affiliations – including those pesky Republicans – in order to pass legislation, both as a senator and while working for the Salt Lake City Mayors office.

Interestingly, on the day of the election, Dabakis started to step back his “bomb throwing” rhetoric, appealing to moderates with his working class roots. During his first speech among the delegates, with a mist in his eye, he explained why he was a Democrat: the dignity of labor, the struggle for equality, and the desire for a better tomorrow, were all motifs in his delivery. Far from the attack dog, Dabakis’s final plea before the delegates cast their vote was one of humility and loyalty.

And this raises an interesting question: What will Senator Dabakis look like?

Judging by his history, Dabakis will be able to walk a fine line between actively attacking ideas and policy, but not necessarily the people proposing them. This will make for an interesting dynamic that makes us have to ask what success will look like for Senator Dabakis. Most assuredly Dabakis will have a hard time passing legislation that stays anywhere left of center – not only because of the makeup of the Utah State Legislature on the whole, but also because Dabakis’ political foils will have little interest in advancing the very obvious ideologies of the Utah Democratic Party.

What is interesting is that I can also see Dabakis playing a key role behind the scenes.  Dabakis has many key relationships with lawmakers, both Republican and Democrat, and has the ability to translate liberal ideas into moderate legislation – legislation that can easily get support from all members of the legislature.

So, in short, Dabakis will see little to no success in running the “red meat” bills his district demands, but he could easily be a consensus builder behind the scenes if he plays his cards right. In reality only time will tell.

Keep an eye on Dabakis during this session, and also note the overall tone of the Senate. Dabakis will be able to work the system from day one. In the end, a successful Senator Dabakis may be one that can call legislators out in front of the media in the morning and then sit down with them for dinner at night.

Related articles
Filed Under: Democratic Politics, Elections Tagged With: , , , , , , ,

A Democratic Lovefest: Thoughts on the Senate District 2 Debate

November 28, 2012 by 3 Comments

It’s Tuesday night, the election is three weeks in the rear view mirror, and I’m already having withdrawals.

So, naturally, I found myself at the Utah Senate District 2 debate watching a bunch of bleeding heart Democrats try their best to convince the 160 Democratic delegates who will vote in the special election that each is the most liberal candidate.

It was like watching the Republican primary debates in reverse. Instead of trying to be the most conservative, they were trying to be the most liberal. I had to pinch myself to see if I was still awake. This is Utah, right?

This is Utah, and apparently there are liberals here, not just Democrats who would become moderate Republicans upon leaving the state. Real, bona fide, liberal Democrats. Granted, I think that nearly all of them were in the room there at the University of Utah’s Museum of Art and hosted by the Alliance for a Better UTAH and the ABU Education Fund. The room wasn’t full–probably only half the chairs were taken, but there was a healthy turn-out of delegates and news reporters.

Rather than do a play-by-play (you can check my twitter feed for that), here are a few impressions on the candidates who attended:

Will Carlson. If I remember right, Will was a class ahead of me in law school at the SJ Quinney. I completely disagreed with almost everything he said, but I found him to be refreshingly honest. Early in the debate, a topic turned to how Democrats, who have only five seats in the Utah Senate, will get anything done. Rather than act like he can find a way to compromise, Carlson said this:

Compromise is something you do when you have a seat at the table. Unfortunately, Utah Democrats have been on the table too long and we don’t have a place to compromise our power…when it’s time to stand for truth, compromise is not a top priority.”

I don’t think it will win him many votes, and I disagree with him on what he believes, but I do find his attitude refreshing. Carlson played the role of an outsider to Utah’s political elites throughout the night, and I think it was probably an honest self-assessment.

Robert Comstock. I found it difficult to follow Comstock’s rationale. Clearly he means well, but his reality sounded, well, a bit out there, even compared to Democrats. An ordained Christian minister and, by his own account, a community organizer, he seemed to be trying to throw out the reddest of the red meat to Democrats in the room, lambasting the legislature for intentionally trying to destroy the Great Basin through public lands policies and putting himself forward as a would-be advocate for the poor in Utah legislature (admirable, if Quixotic).

WinterPride: Selisse, Jackie, Peter Corroon

WinterPride: Selisse, Jackie, Peter Corroon (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Peter Corroon. Mr. Milquetoast, but, in the words of Barack Obama, he “punches above his weight.” He’s the favorite to win, though, and  I suspect that’s because Utah Democrats see him as the candidate most able to appeal to the Utah legislature’s predominantly white, male demographic. In large part, I think they’re right. I spoke with Senator Scott Jenkins this morning, and he said that he liked Peter, having worked with him before and calling him “level headed.” Last night, Corroon seemed to fit that description, though dropping his cousin Howard Dean’s name felt gratuitous and pandering, as did his promise to fight Republicans on abortion. Corroon said he supports raising taxes (hard to question him on that since he’s trying to do it in Salt Lake County right now).  His quote of the night: “When it comes to human dignity, standing up for people, especially those in need in our community, I think that’s where we don’t compromise,  but where we stand strong as [Democrats].”  That’s bleeding heart liberalism for you.

Jim Dabakis. Ah, Dabakis…the Democrat of Democrats. In many ways, Jim is the best thing to happen to Utah Democrats in recent memory. Clearly brilliant, clearly articulate, and clearly passionate, he’s acquired and embraced a reputation as a loud, vociferous critic of Utah Republicans, something that more than one of the candidates during the debate alluded to when they said they would not be a “barking dog” in the legislature. While that’s great as a party leader, I don’t think being shrill will play well, nor does exaggerating and vilifying the GOP give him credibility as a lawmaker. He will do well on Saturday because he has delegate respect, but he doubt he’ll win first place.

Brian Doughty. Doughty already has legislation ready to go, on day one…and he reminded delegates about it several times during the night. Like every other candidate on the stage, Doughty said that he thinks it’s time for a tax hike and he supports abortion, but went the extra mile to call the Republican members of the Utah legislature “sheep.” I can’t think that attitude will help engender a lot of good will for the minority party, and I think delegates will agree (if if they think Republicans are sheep).

Jenny Wilson. Wilson billed herself as the only candidate with legislative experience.  In comparison with Mr. Milquetoast,  she came across as the most consistentwith her past positions during her tenure as a Salt Lake County Councilmember. Where Corroon tries to talk a moderate stance while consistently taking liberal positions (raising taxes, supporting abortion, increasing gay marriage rights), Wilson’s rhetoric seemed to match her actions more consistently than other candidates. At one point, she became choked up while describing her disgust of Mitt Romney and her support for abortion, and I think she meant it, which is almost more scary than if she was pandering to the delegates.

English: Utah State Capitol. Taken by me in 2002.

English: Utah State Capitol. Taken by me in 2002. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Other observations:

  • If Corroon wins, he’ll represent a decreasing percentage of Democratic Party demographics: straight, married, white men. With three of the six candidates on the stage gay and only one  a woman (a surprise to me, actually), odds are higher that  a gay man will join the Utah Senate. In many ways, I think Democrats would be well served to have Dabakis in the legislature, but I doubt it’ll happen.
  • Taxes and teachers: they’ll vote for them. With the exception of the food tax, the candidates all want to raise taxes, especially to increase teachers’ salaries. Ironically, almost none of the candidates drew a relationship to increasing teachers’ salaries and increasing student success. Very simply, and clearly, they all said that just because Utah is not paying teachers as much as other states, taxes should increase to compensate, adding that they would defend teachers.  It was bold faced pandering to UEA. I couldn’t help but wonder: what about the kids? Some, in some dark corner of the auditorium, came back an answer: kids, and their parents, don’t donate to campaigns–teachers’ unions do.
  • Jim Dabakis is smooth. It’s very hard not to like him, and he’s very good at being gracious to, well, almost everyone. He opened by complimenting just about everyone in the room, and other than caricaturing Republicans as governing from secretive, “smoke filled rooms” (he seemed to forget that most members of the Utah legislature are LDS and don’t smoke), he actually had fairly reasonable responses to most of the questions, including the gay marriage question, leaving me more interested in working with him on that issue than anyone else at the table.
  • English: Number of self-identified Democrats v...

    English: Number of self-identified Democrats vs. self-identified Republicans, per state, according to Gallup, January-June 2010 http://www.gallup.com/poll/141548/States-Competitive-Terms-Party-Identification.aspx. 18 point Democratic advantage 10-17 point Democratic advantage 3-9 point Democratic advantage 2 point Democratic advantage through 2 point Republican advantage 3-9 point Republican advantage 10-17 point Republican advantage 18+ point Republican advantage (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

    Utah Democrats are out of step with Utah voters. If the views of these candidates are truly representative of Utah Democrats, then Utah Democrats are in complete denial about why they keep losing elections. Despite taking a beating across the state (excepting Jim Matheson, who squeeked out a win by 768 votes, and Ben McAdams, who won by pretty much rebranding himself as something other than the most liberal member of the Utah Senate, a rating multiple organizations have given him), Democrats seem not to care about why. While Republicans nationwide are having a “come to Jesus” moment about why they lost the White House to Barack Obama when economic fundamentals should have given it to them, Democrats in Utah seem to blithely believe they can go on supporting higher taxes, abortion, teachers’ unions over students,  gay marriage (versus civil unions) and entitlement expansion. These are all policies that have been pursued successfully in California, a state that is largely mired in heavy debt, while Utah, with near opposite policies, has grown at 3% or higher for over six months and has seen unemployment drop to 5.4% from 7.8% during the height of the recession.

  • A Utah first: cussing in a debate.

With only 160 delegates on the line, it’s hard to say who will win. Regardless of the winner, though, I believe the next senator from Senate District 2 is likely to be to the left of center and out of step, for better or worse, with mainstream Utahns.

Related articles
Filed Under: Democratic Politics, Elections Tagged With: , , , , , , , , ,

The Never Ending Campaign

November 21, 2012 by Leave a Comment

Is it me, or does it feel the campaign for President might never end? Especially when I see things like this:

For heaven’s sake, the 2012 campaign just ended. Can we at least wait until 2013 to start thinking about 2016? (Silly me, I know)

Related articles

 

Filed Under: Elections, Republican Politics Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Could Rand Paul bridge the gap between libertarians and Republicans?

November 20, 2012 by 3 Comments

Rand Paul, son of Ron Paul and Senator from Kentucky, is considering a run for President in 2016.

I know:–Mitt Romney’s campaign is barely dead and in the ground and already we’re hearing the rumblings of 2016′s challengers. Marco Rubio made headlines at a fundraiser in Iowa by commenting on the age of the Earth (HUH?) and now we hear that Ron Paul’s scion is openly interested in running, too.

For the kind of change needed in the Republican Party, it may not be too soon to start thinking about it.

“I’m not going to deny that I’m interested” in a 2016 presidential run, [Rand Paul] told ABC News. “I am different than some in that I’m not going to deny that I’m interested. I’m not going to deny that I think we have to go a different direction because we’re not winning.”

Not only is he “different than some,” but he also thinks the Republican Party’s problem goes beyond improving the GOP’s marketing and messaging–policy changes are needed, too.

Sound familiar? It’s not unlike what his father has argued for during the 2008 and 2012 elections.

Some of the policies that Rand Paul wants to see the GOP shift on include immigration, marijuana, and foreign wars.

He wants to work with liberal Democratic Sen. Patrick Leahy and Republicans to eliminate mandatory minimum sentences for pot possession. He wants to carve a compromise immigration plan with an “eventual path” to citizenship for illegal immigrants, a proposal he believes could be palatable to conservatives. And he believes his ideas — along with pushing for less U.S. military intervention in conflicts overseas — could help the GOP broaden its tent and appeal to crucial voting blocs that handed Democrats big wins in the West Coast, the Northeast and along the Great Lakes.

They are policies that are decidedly more libertarian and can appeal to blocks of voters that many believe the GOP should be winning: voters under 40, Hispanics, and anyone tired of war.  With the shifting America’s shifting demographics working against the 2012 GOP party platform, the question is whether Rand Paul’s new road could be a path to the future for the Republican Party.

Oh, and one more thing: Paul wants to limit Senators to just twelve years of service. Think it’ll work?

Related articles
Filed Under: Elections, Republican Politics Tagged With: , , , , , , ,

Post-Election Thoughts on Opportunities for the Republican Party

November 8, 2012 by 7 Comments

A lot of commentators start the Monday morning quarterbacking of elections within hours of the election. Heck, within minutes of the first polls coming in if they’re on cable TV.

I am not a “lot of commentators,” nor do I have a cable contract for a faux news show (but I’m available, if you’re wondering).

After letting the results settle for a day, though, I have a few thoughts on the election.

First, even in losing, Mitt Romney is a stand-up guy. As he took the podium Tuesday night, he opened by congratulating President Obama and his campaign team, and saying that he would support and pray for the President as he addresses the issues our country is facing. Even if that kind of thing is expected of a losing candidate, it’s tough for a person to do. Mitt put six years into this, and watching it end must be difficult.

On a similar note, I think Mitt represented his faith well, showed that Mormons are more mainstream than Americans have thought in the past, and even though he lost, I believe his religion has won. This election was a step forward for Mormons seeking mainstream acceptance without compromising their religious values.

Looking to the future, I think we’re going to see a lot of circular firing squads on the right. Pundits, insiders, strategists, advisers, campaigners, donors, and angry supporters are going to start pointing the finger at who caused Romney’s loss, and many of them are going to point a finger at Romney. I am sure that Romney would say that “the buck stops here,” and will man up to take responsibility for his part. However, he ran a tough campaign, and with a party that in many ways has refused to account for shifts in our country over the last couple decades. A moderate (very roughly speaking) Republican with more a penchant for data and results than for ideology, Romney was forced to kowtow to the far right during the debates (arguably against less than the best the Republican Party had to offer), and then struggled to tack back to the middle, a place he should have been more comfortable, too late to woo swing voters.

Which brings me to another point: the GOP is facing a demographic challenge that I believe will require not only policy adjustment and greater outreach, but also more careful candidate preparation and education.  In too many cases, Republicans lost seats, and perhaps lost voters nationwide, due to unforced errors (Google: “Akin,” “Mourdock,” and “legitimate rape” or just “rape”).

For heaven’s sake, next time we pick a candidate, let’s lock him or her in the Heritage Foundation or AEI for a couple weeks to do their homework and learn a very important lesson called “Don’t say stupid things about women, minorities, or other groups.”  (Also, it would be helpful for them to understand their own positions a little better than just spouting the lines they heard on Hannity or Rush during the short drive to the televised debate.)

The combination of weak candidates and poorly communicated policies, not to mention those polices that alienate chunks of the America, was enough to lose Romney voters who might otherwise agree with him.

What are some examples where the GOP might shift or improve?

  • Immigration: while Obama made virtually no effort to keep campaign promises to reform immigration, as an interview with Univision correctly showed, the GOP’s policies and talking points about sending illegal immigrants back (including Romney’s suggestion that immigrants take themselves back) hurt Romney and the Republican Party. Instead of focusing on Republican Party policies that Hispanics should support, it raised the specter of racism under the guise of the “rule of law” by proposing to crack down on immigrants who had come to America outside of the legal process.  No, I’m not calling Republicans racists, but pointing out how the policies appeared and were communicated to Hispanics. Rather than tell Hispanics how we can make their contributions to America welcome, show Republicans how the system can be reformed to improve guest worker laws and increase payroll taxes to pay for services used (which are actually lower than the average American), we let Democrats say “send me your huddled masses” and win their votes.  If you don’t think this is an area where Republicans can improve, you need to go back and listen to Marco Rubio‘s speech at the Republican convention.
  • Gay marriage: I’m not sure how Republicans overcome this issue, but civil unions might be a formulation that could move us in the right direction. We need a compromise that accounts for the concerns of homosexuals and their families while protecting what conservatives see as the sanctity of marriage. It’s unfair to act like the religious concerns of the right are bigoted, but the very real situation and concerns of gays and lesbians are no less weighty to them. I believe there’s a common ground to be found here, and it may be as easy as looking to libertarians for guidance. America was founded on an experiment of liberty and equality under the law, and extending those rights to gays and lesbians, without treading on those who believe in the sanctity of marriage, should be a real possibility.
  • Women: in many ways, I believe that the Democratic talking point known as the “Republican war on women” was the biggest piece of spin this election. No single group was hurt more by the recession and by the failure of the Obama Administration to address the recession (in lieu of a massive healthcare reform that less than half of America wanted or needed…but that’s another story) than women, whether they are married or not. However, Republicans have done a poor job of showing how. While the Lilly Ledbetter was trotted out by Democrats as Exhibit A, those same Democrats were paying women in their own offices less than men, proposing higher taxes that would decrease job growth, and pushing a healthcare law that has caused real concern to businesses across the country.  However, it’s hard to prove that Republicans “care” about women when the Akins and Mourdocks of the world are making comments about “legitimate rape” and postulating that God wanted a raped woman to get pregnant, not to mention opposing occasionally opposing contraceptives. A sure fire way to decrease abortions–which Republicans are supposed to hate on a visceral level–is to make sure that women have access to and know how to use contraceptives of all kinds.  A woman who doesn’t get pregnant when she doesn’t intend to will not have an abortion, not need to apply for government welfare to support an unintended pregnancy, and will avoid all the costs that Medicaid is intended to pick up.
  • Young Voters: America’s youth are still up for grabs, but Republican Party elders need to reach out to them by considering their concerns. Whether it’s the job market, student loans, the rising costs of entitlements like Social Security and Medicare that the elderly draw on but the young are expected to pay, not to mention wars in countries most college students couldn’t pick out on a map. Further, young voters aren’t buying the baloney on the right about lowering the size of government. Too many Republicans have introduced too many laws that increase the size and reach and cost of government without corresponding reductions, and young voters aren’t buying it. At least President Obama is honest in saying that he wants to raise taxes, even if he’s completely wrong about the effect of doing so. Until young voters start to see Republicans propose plans that involve more than just cutting taxes (which, by the way, I think should still be a part of those plans), they aren’t going to be interested.

A final thought. The election is over, but the problems that face our country remain unchanged: high and rising national debt, explosive entitlement cost growth (Medicaid, Medicare, and Social Security, primarily), terrorism threats at home and abroad, and an economy that has left too many people out of work.   I believe that Republicans are still better suited to solve these problems, but we need reevaluate our priorities if we want the opportunity to lead out with those changes in the coming decades.

 

Related articles
Filed Under: Elections, Republican Politics Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , ,

Where political money is spent [video]

November 6, 2012 by Leave a Comment

In case you’re living under a rock, there’s an election on today, an enormously expensive election…

The Amazing Morphing Campaign Money Map from NPR on Vimeo.

Filed Under: Elections Tagged With: , , ,

Two take-aways from the Biden and Ryan debate

October 12, 2012 by Leave a Comment

If you watched the VP debate on Thursday night, you saw a contentious and heated, policy heavy discussion.  It was, for all intents and purposes, a draw, with neither candidate successfully walking away with the win, and by next week’s presidential debate, it will have already been forgotten.

When we look back, though, I think two things will stick out:

  1. Joe Biden righted the ship for the Obama campaign. In last weeks  debate between Mitt Romney and Barack Obama, voters for the first time were able to make a side-by-side comparison of the candidates, resulting in a slide in the polls for the Democratic ticket. Where Obama was almost prosaic, Biden  was energetic and combative, disagreeing with Ryan on almost every point, drawing distinctions, and interrupting almost constantly (while reports vary, counters noted at least 82 times Biden interrupted Paul Ryan, while some counted more).  The confrontational and occasionally condescending attitude won’t win him a lot of undecided votes, but it will play well with the base, firing up supporters, and bringing in some fundraising dollars.  Expectations for Biden weren’t  high, but he avoided any gaffes and held his ground against Ryan.  As a result, it’ll be enough for Democratic partisans to claim they are satisfied.
  2. Paul Ryan presented a more clear and more attractive vision for America. While Ryan could be said to have effectively held his ground against the more experienced Biden, managed to work in a few zingers and bring more laughs from the audience, his performance will be more notable for the vision he presented to America, especially as encapsulated in his closing statement.

The choice is clear: a stagnant economy that promotes more government dependency or a dynamic, growing economy that promotes opportunity and jobs. Mitt Romney and I will not duck the tough issues, and we will not blame others for the next four years. We will take responsibility. And we will not try to replace our founding principles. We will reapply our founding principles.

The choice is clear, and the choice rests with you. And we ask you for your vote. Thank you.

Delivered while looking directly into the camera and in the calm, measured voice–in contrast to the often sarcastic, rude, and condescending tone adopted by Biden throughout the night–Ryan’s invitation to vote for the Romney/Ryan vision spoke of hope, not just as a campaign slogan, but with measurable effect,  and it captured what elections are about: the future.  In contrast, Biden’s combative nature only revealed the Democratic campaign to be mired in negative attacks, not a vision of the future that Americans can trust.

At the end of the day, the debate won’t have a significant impact on the race. Ryan reassured voters, provided vision, and demonstrated command of the issues. Biden provided the image of a fighter for his running mate and for his party. Neither moved a lot of votes, but neither did any harm, either. When you’re the VP, whose sole constitutional responsibility is to replace the President if, heaven forbid, he should die in office, that’s about the best you can expect.

Random observation. CNN shows a meter on the screen as the candidates are speaking that shows how a test group of undecided voters are responding to what is happening at the moment. Almost every time Ryan started to speak, the line representing women spiked, regardless of the topic. The next day, the “hey, girl” meme adopted Paul Ryan, making Ryan, essentially, the “new Ryan Gosling.”

Related articles
Filed Under: Elections Tagged With: , , , , , , ,
«Older Posts