Quod gratis assertitur gratis negatur
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)
[Benjamin Lusty is a lawyer and an occasional contributor to Publius Online]
______________________________________________________________
Presidential elections invariably turn out half-thought economic proposals. One current hot policy ticket is lavish tax advantages for manufacturers, presumably in hope of priming employment growth (and votes). President Obama, for example, proposes to reward manufacturing companies with a mix of tax credits and subsidized loans (i.e., politically directed credit). On the other side, Rick Santorum would absolve manufacturers from federal income tax altogether (i.e., politically directed credit, but through the US Treasury’s back door). Mitt Romney vows that “getting tough” on China will bring more work back to the shop floor (i.e., diplomatic bluster punctuated by a few WTO arbitrations). Slick stuff. But none of the contenders bother to articulate why singling out manufacturing for special treatment makes economic sense, especially for the rest of us.
Most of the political class uncritically assumes that jolting manufacturing is an unquestionable good. But inconvenient questions arise: Why does manufacturing merit the “remedial education” of protective tax advantages? Why should tax policy favor a company that builds airplanes over a company that sells bird seed? Does Boeing really need a leg up on the local pet shop?
Sweater subsidies under a Santorum Administration?
Some argue that manufacturing deserves special attention because it is in crisis, as evidenced by historical decline in assembly-line employment. The pro-manufacturing faction asserts that the mere fact that fewer people work in factories than in the past proves that the sector is failing. This argument has intuitive political appeal, but it confuses the overall health of manufacturing with the raw number of only one of its inputs—labor.
In truth, American manufacturing is not in crisis. America is still the largest manufacturer in the world, out-producing China (yes, China) by some 40%, a major gulf considering the massive disparity between China’s and America’s respective working populations. Further, American manufacturing output soared over the recent decades, more than doubling since 1975—even as employment in manufacturing fell. Contrary to signaling decline, the fact that American manufacturers can make far more with far less is a sign of underlying strength, leading both to lower consumer prices (which expand the breadth of potential demand) and better investment of labor and capital.
Besides, in our modern innovative economy, manufacturing isn’t even where the money is anymore. Indeed, it’s relatively worthless. Consider the iPhone and iPad—among two of the most in-demand products on the market. Research indicates that final assembly only accounts for 1.8% and 1.6% of the retail prices of these “iProducts,” respectively. The value of design, marketing, and distribution, by contrast, equates to roughly 58% and 30% of their retail prices. In other words, an iPhone’s design and marketing is 33 times more valuable than its assembly (at least as measured by the input cost).
Manufacturing is becoming even less valuable for more traditional and less technologically intensive products, such as automobiles. French carmaker Renault posits that assembly only accounts for 15% of the value of their cars. The money then, isn’t in twisting the steel that constructs these products, but in shaping the concepts that design them. If that’s the case, why subsidize the worthless stuff?
In truth, blue-collar boosting—touting plans to prop up manufacturing jobs–is better politics than it is sound economics. Americans love manufacturing jobs, or at least the idea of manufacturing jobs.
But frankly, politicians need to lead past it. Irrational attachment to factories, whether cynical or sentimental, only holds the country, and innovation, back. Complicating the tax code to the marginal benefit of a few companies that happen to have Washington’s temporary approval is a shoddy excuse for an economic policy. America needs manufacturing jobs no more than it needs any other job, and bending the economy to subsidize manufacturing will only cause real, long-term damage.
“It’s not the campaign. This is Rick Santorum. I think everybody knows that nobody puts words into my mouth. The words out of my mouth were that, uh, if you want a conservative as the nominee of this party you must vote for Mitt Romney.” Rick Santorum, 2008.
____________________________
According to a Deseret News/KSL poll Utahns believe Mitt Romney alone can beat Barack Obama in November (surprise!). And yet, today, on Super Tuesday, as ten states hold primaries, Utah is not one of them. In fact, Utah casts its vote for the Republican nominee dead last. Even with a nomination battle likely to continue into the spring, the race may be over by then.
Maybe.
In a country of 300 million, the only votes cast were in Iowa (about 120,000 votes) and New Hampshire (about 224,000 votes), yet candidates were dropping like flies. How had so few narrowed down the field of choices so quickly?
We Vote for the Popular Candidate
If it seems unfair, then consider the Britney Effect. In a study published in Science 2006, researchers found that social popularity was a better indicator of how well a book or a song would sell than quality. In other words, if you see that others are reading and discussing Harry Potter, you’re more likely to pick it up yourself, regardless of quality.
So if you thought Bachmann had the answers for America, it didn’t matter. Her race was over as soon as the primary battle began. As soon as the results from Iowa, and then New Hampshire, were released, polls started showing bumps in popularity of the contest winners. Santorum, who spent months on the margins of debates practically whining he that he wasn’t getting the same amount of camera time that front-runners were, suddenly sprung to national attention as he eked out a win in Iowa. If Iowans like Santorum, he must be electable, right?
Strange rational, and yet, it buoyed the former Senator to wins in Colorado, Minnesota, and Missouri. From zero to hero, Santorum became the newest rendition of “not Romney” for Republicans unwilling to throw their support behind Romney.
Can you imagine how the results might be different if states across the country voted simultaneously?
Super Tuesday?
Today, March 6th, is Super Tuesday. Voters in Alaska, Georgia, Idaho, Massachusetts, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Vermont, and Virginia will vote for the last four remaining contenders. By this time four years ago, Romney had dropped out of the race, and John McCain was well on his way to the nomination. Since then, the Republican National Committee has modified the rules to lengthen out the nomination process. That’s right: it isn’t by accident that the race isn’t over yet. As the Boston Globe reported, Republicans changed the rules to energize Republicans and take back the White House:
The rules, known as proportional representation, are patterned after the system long used by Democrats to award delegates in their primaries. Republicans looked at the prolonged 2008 Democratic primary between Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama and believed that, despite its occasional divisiveness, the battle helped excite Democrats and starve the Republican candidate, John McCain, of attention.
“McCain sat on the sidelines and couldn’t get a headline and was ignored,’’ said Paul Senft, a Republican National Committee member from Florida who helped draft the new rules.
Now, rather than making each contest a foregone conclusion in the favor of the front-runner, more states are in contention. Nate Silver predicts that Super Tuesday won’t see one winner, but will split between Romney, Gingrich, and Santorum (sorry, Paul). Gingrich will capture his home state of Georgia, while Romney will take Massachusetts, his home and where he served as Governor. Oklahoma and Wisconsin will swing to Santorum. Meanwhile, Ohio, where Santorum was polling in front as recently as a week ago, is starting to turn to Romney (see what wins in Michigan, Arizona, and Washington will do?). As a swing state in the General Election, the spin-doctors (and the Obama campaign) will be watching the Buckeye state closely. And don’t forget Tennessee, where Gingrich seems to be surging in polls…
Wherefore, Utah?
So might it still matter when Utahns go to the polls on June 26th? For that matter, why isn’t Utah voting until the beginning of summer, anyway?
Due to the Military and Overseas Voter Act or “MOVE” Act, federal elections must give absentee voters overseas forty-five days to vote after the previous contest. In Utah’s case, that means that the earliest a primary can be held is forty-five days after the Republican or Democrat state party conventions in April. Despite efforts by the Romney campaign to talk Utah into moving the vote to earlier, the $2.5 million cost to move the primary away from the regularly scheduled date was too much for legislators to swallow. Utah will vote last.
In the meantime, is there still a chance that Utah could play a deciding role in a race that has seen so many front-runners? Statistically speaking, it’s impossible for any of the candidates to get enough votes before April. With 1962 votes remaining, and Romney–currently the leader with 180 delegates–needing another 964 votes, the race could continue all the way through May, to say nothing of June.
Could Utah get its chance to vote for Romney when it still matters? Only time will tell.
In a Real Clear Politics aggregate of national polls, Mitt Romney is trending up, while Rick Santorum appears to have peaked and come down. The peak is by no means assuredly Santorum’s last…yet.
With fingers crossed that this would be their last debate together, the final four Republican contenders for President faced off in Arizona on Wednesday night. The stakes were high—for some more than others. Without Governor Mitt Romney’s money, Senator Rick Santorum and Speaker Newt Gingrich knew that this might be their best chance to pick up undecided votes in the upcoming Super Tuesday primaries. For Romney, it was a chance to retake the lead in the race for President. Lest we forget, Ron Paul came along, too, but, despite a strong performance, is increasingly playing the role of side-kick to front-runner Romney.
So how did they do?
From right to left (as they sat on the stage):
Ron Paul: If Santorum expected punches from Romney, the Congressman Paul was ready to get in his hits, too . “He’s a fake,” Paul said of Santorum, wasting no time pointing out that Santorum was an insider and a part of what was wrong with Congress and Washington. With Iran’s nuclear ambitions in the news, Paul also took every opportunity to criticize America’s military adventures abroad. However his message appeals, it is unlikely it earned significantly more votes, except perhaps from Santorum’s “not Romney” voters. B
Rick Santorum: For a guy who spent the first fifteen debates complaining he wasn’t getting enough camera time, Santorum had his chance at the center next to longtime front-runner Mitt Romney. Although he had strong moments—especially in his closing statement, which dripped with red meat—both Paul and Romney took turns attacking Santorum for votes over sixteen years in Congress, including for No Child Left Behind and funding Planned Parenthood. At one point, Santorum was visibly red as he sputtered and responded to the attacks, repeatedly admitting to the votes. B –
Mitt Romney: As the presumptive nominee (at least according to the Obama for President reelection campaign), Romney stood to lose the most. He’s polling even with Santorum in Michigan—where Mitt grew up—and a poor performance could damage his lead in Arizona. However, Mitt successfully marshaled facts and points to repeatedly delivered successful attacks on Santorum and Gingrich. They are Washington insiders; he is the successful businessman and turnaround expert who wants to restore the country to prosperity. Despite an average closing statement, overall the debate was Romney’s. B+
Newt Gingrich: To paraphrase Allison Kraus, Newt says it best when he says nothing at all. Showing his penchant for sounding intelligent saying anything substantive, Gingrich put on a happy face, made obvious overtures to the other candidates—even telling Mitt “nice job” after the Governor received a longer set of applause—and called himself “cheerful.” However, voters view Gingrich as anything but, and while he was articulate in criticizing the media for double standards, Gingrich was unable to steal the spotlight from Romney and Santorum’s fist fight. C+
Related articles
Newt lost Florida, and he lost big. He dissed Romney by not calling to concede. Guess what? There are still forty-six states left in the Republican nomination battle. We’re going to see a lot more of him and his antics.
Further, if you’re voting where I am, you’re voting last. Dead last.
But enough about Utah’s primary in the last third of June. I’ve already expended enough hot air on that else where. While there are some really interesting ideas for changing up the Primary process, we’ll deal with those on a later date.
Right now, we’ve got a primary battle, and it’s going to be long. Contrary to victory speeches and common sense, this race will continue for a while. Don’t believe me? Check out this graphic from the New York Times (the red text and arrows are mine):
In other words, despite Romney’s big win in Florida–and yes, it’s a big win–it’s only a small minority of the total votes he needs to secure the nomination, not to mention the total votes that are available. If Newt Gingrich can mount a serious campaign somewhere other than in the Bible Belt, he can lengthen this race out for months.
What’s next, then? First up on the agenda is Nevada, which is heavily favored for Romney. With a substantial LDS population (somewhere between 7% and 8% of voters and 25% of caucus attendees), Mormon Mitt Romney will have a leg up on the competition. Further, neighboring Utah will be sending hordes of energetic Republicans who watched Mitt up close when he was brought in to save the scandal bitten Salt Lake Winter Olympics in 2002…which he did, successfully, transforming a deficit to a surplus, all on his own dime.
Anyway: Mitt will likely win, but only a proportional number of the delegates. Unlike South Carolina and Florida, which are winner take all, Nevada distributes its delegates proportionately, similar to New Hampshire.
After the Nevada caucus? Colorado and Minnesota are on February 7 (next Monday), but their delegates, like Iowa’s, are not pledged to the winner because the election is non-binding. (Yeah, that’s a topic for another post…) Following quickly four days later, we’ll see Maine…also, non-binding.
In that case, the next serious contest is likely to be Arizona and Michigan on February 28th. Arizona–also featuring a large LDS population–is a winner-take-all contest, but Michigan is hybrid. As the Washington Post explains it, “9 delegates are allocated proportionally based on the statewide vote. 21 delegates are awarded on a winner-take-all basis to the winner of each congressional district (1.5 per district).” Got it?
Got it or not, the big day to put on your calendar is “Super Tuesday” on March 6. (Yes, Washington has a non-binding vote, but, well, let’s move on to the binding votes…). On that day, ten states will hold primaries (or caucuses), including Georgia (where Gingrich served as Congressman), Virginia, and Tennessee, all which are Bible Belt states where Gingrich is betting he’ll do well with the evangelicals. Further, all ten are proportional or some sort of hybrid of proportional, and a good showing will keep him neck and neck with Mitt Romney well into March.
Another graphic from the New York Times:
In other words, while Mitt’s likely to win the next five or even six states, it’s going to take him a lot longer to win the nomination if Newt (and Rick and Ron) stay in it. Newt is a formidable opponent, and if Rick Santorum gets out, leaving his supporters to support Newt, then we see an even stronger Gingrich going into Super Tuesday.
Nate Silver, in one of his well-considered scenarios, lays it out well:
Mr. Romney endures a few more losses along the way, including in some midsize states, especially in the South. However, he wins the clear majority of contests. His advantages are accentuated by his performance in caucus states and his support amongautomatic delegates (the Republican equivalent of “super delegates”).
Volatility in the race decreases. Mr. Romney holds a stable if not overwhelming lead in national polls. There may be a point or two at which Mr. Romney loses a state unexpectedly, but this is not accompanied by a pronounced decline in his national poll ratings.
Meanwhile, some swing voters grow impatient with Mr. Gingrich, especially as his path to the nomination becomes more mathematically implausible. Some of them begin to support Mr. Romney just to get the contest over with.
Anyway you look at it, we’re in for four more months–at least!–of campaigning for the Republican nomination for the Presidency.
[New York Times] [Washington Post]
