Just yesterday President Obama's approval rating stood at 38%. Previously Gallup had released state by state approval ratings taken from the first half of this year, before his recent collapse to under 40% (and they still looked atrocious).

What would the electoral map actually look like if the President's popular vote share matched his approval rating?

A warning, this is pudding worthy, but keep in mind this is purely theoretical and nowhere near anyone's current projections (including mine).

First Official AoS Electoral Projection for next year will be unveiled next week, but enjoy our new map, created by John E: more...

Posted by: CAC at 09:04 AM | Comments (205)
Post contains 175 words, total size 1 kb.

After the jump is a video that will (in the Bard's immortal words) make you hold your manhood cheap: more...

Posted by: Open Blogger at 08:52 AM | Comments (50)
Post contains 119 words, total size 1 kb.

FYI, I think this poll is off. Polls have repeatedly shown that Romney is very competitive with Obama -- in fact, he's been the most competitive, beating him in the most polls, and by the largest margins.

A new Rasmussen poll seems to be a very Obama friendly one, as Perry just squeaks him 44-41, and Romney loses, 43-39.

Update: In the original post, I doubted this finding, because other polls put Romney ahead of Obama.

But Rasmussen never has. Prior to this poll, Rasmussen -- oddly, Republican-leaning Rasmussen -- has always had Obama ahead in head-to-head match-ups, against any candidate, except, apparently, for a period earlier in the year, where Romney edged Obama:

Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney currently trails the president by four percentage points, 43% to 39%. ThatÂ’s a slight improvement for the Republican compared to a week ago. Earlier in the year, Romney held a one-point edge when matched against the president. Prior to todayÂ’s release, that was the only time a named Republican has held any kind of lead over President Obama.

So this doesn't seem to be a "screwy poll" from Rasmussen per se; Rasmussen has consistently shown an edge for Obama, for whatever reason. This poll is not inconsistent, then, with previous Rasmussen polls -- although it is different from the findings of other polls.

Not sure why Rasmussen shows Obama performing generally better than more liberal-leaning polls do. I hope Rasmussen is wrong, for once.

Thanks to tasker for pointing that out. As my previous belief that this poll must just be a bum finding seems wrong, or wrong-ish, I've cut my previous argument about that and put it in the "continue reading" section.

...

Meanwhile, Michele Bachmann is running an ad against Perry, stating that he "doubled" state spending in ten years, and his latest budget isn't balanced.

I can't spin that because I don't know Perry's response. Texas has grown in ten years, but its population sure hasn't doubled. One big cost -- spending more on schools -- was court ordered, with the government directed to simply come up with funding options, but I don't know how much that actually contributed to government spending.

This is a point JackStraw makes about Perry vs. Romney, frustratedly, and sometimes angrily: That Romney's flaws are widely known and hence baked in the cake, whereas each new White Knight candidate has flaws (as they all do) that we just know about yet.

That's mostly true but also not true to an important extent: Actually, we don't know all the flaws of Romney yet, because, for example, we haven't looked at his job growth or GDP growth under his tenure very carefully yet.

The same for Bachmann, too. We know many of her drawbacks (like, she's only been in Congress since 2007, and then decided to run for president four years later, without even any leadership experience in a deliberative body containing hundreds of nonentities). But all of them...? I don't know.

Coulter has a neat point. She says that in a conservative state like Texas, where a conservative governor should in theory be capable of pursuing a perfectly conservative agenda, there is "no room for error," that is, no excuses to be made for Perry. She contrasts this with a blue state governor, such as her crush-groove Chris Christie or Romney, who governed in a hostile liberal environment, and whose deviations from conservative doctrine can be excused... to some extent.

It's not as black and white, or red and blue, as Coulter's formulation has it, though. There are liberals in Texas; elections are won 55-45 or 60-40 in a blowout, not 80-20 or 90-10. Furthermore, many alleged conservatives vote Republican and say they want limited government, but actually like government spending, so long as it flows into their pockets.

There are a lot of very inconsistent Republicans who define government spending on anyone else as creeping socialism but define spending on themselves as... well, not government spending. Just good old fashioned common sense.

Texas is a majority Republican state; I don't know if it's truly a fiscal-conservative majority state. I'm not sure we have any of those.

I don't know what Perry will say about the spending. I suppose we soon will.

Club For Growth: Actually, Perry's Record For Restraining Spending Is "Excellent:" This is Club for Growth, an organization which has only two main issues: taxes, and spending.

On spending, they say Perry did a good job holding the line:

Governor PerryÂ’s record on spending generally reveals fiscally conservative tendencies and a commitment to reducing the size of government that are in tune with the conservative nature of a state like Texas. However, Perry has also created well-intentioned, but misguided state-funded subsidy programs to attract corporations to Texas that again indicate that Perry doesnÂ’t necessarily fully rely on free-market principles when he makes economic decisions...

Well... that's his poaching-companies-from-other-states thing. I don't know if this is "misguided," myself. He did bring a lot of employers to Texas from other states.

Either way, he won't be able to do that as President, obviously.

State spending grew from $30 billion in FY2002, the first half of the biennium budget passed under Perry, to $39.4 billion in FY2010, a 31% increase in nominal terms over the nine years. However, when looking at TexasÂ’s spending on an annualized basis, spending increased an average of 3.9% per year, which is excellent compared to the stateÂ’s average annual population plus inflation growth rate of 4.2% over the same time period.

So spending actually grew more slowly than population growth plus inflation. And Club for Growth rates that as "excellent."

One reason for the slow growth of state spending was because Governor Perry made frequent use of his veto power. Another is the existence of a conservative Texas legislature. During his tenure as Governor, Perry vetoed hundreds of millions of dollars worth of spending, perhaps even a lot more. It is important to note that it is difficult to give Perry credit for a specific dollar amount of vetoes due to the complexities of the Texas budget process. Some of the GovernorÂ’s vetoes were on spending bills contingent on bills previously struck down by Perry. Other vetoes killed legislative language from budget bills which authorized spending from separate bills that never passed. Regardless, a review suggests that Perry did aggressively look to cut spending with his veto pen.

I'm not sure where Bachmann gets her "doubled" spending claim. FWIW, I don't think this is a "lie" -- I think there are different ways to calculate this, and I have heard claims such as hers elsewhere. I think she probably has a good-faith basis to make a "doubled" claim, but Club for Growth -- a disinterested party -- doesn't seem to credit whatever method of accounting she's using to get to a "doubled" claim.

Thanks to Kratos for the Club for Growth tip.

Perry's Borrowing: This is sort of odd. Texas has $6 billion in a Rainy Day Fund, and you'd think that in the worst recession since the Depression (or a second Depression), they'd decide... "It's raining."

But Texas has decided to keep the Rainy Day Fund funded.

So while Texas borrows to make up gaps in the debt, they actually still have that $6 billion Rainy Day Fund.

But apparently in two years, they will have to tap most of that fund, based on current budgeting:

Heading into the legislative session, the governor made keeping the fund under lock during the forthcoming budget battle the 11th commandment for fiscal conservatives. The Legislature, flush with a newly obtained supermajority in the House, followed his lead. Both chambers employed two core arguments to swat down proposal after proposal from Democrats to use the money to shore up government services: that the governor would veto any bill using the Rainy Day Fund in the upcoming budget, and that the money was already obligated.

The shortfall, according to the article, is mostly due to Medicaid spending increases (mandated by the government, plus the general out-of-control nature of Medicaid). Depending on how Medicaid actually shakes out, a legislator says.

Democrats are complaining that teachers are losing their jobs as the Rainy Day Fund remains a protected political pool of money, so it doesn't seem like Perry's going spending-crazy here.

more...

Posted by: Ace at 08:26 AM | Comments (214)
Post contains 1612 words, total size 11 kb.

James Pethokoukis is intrigued.

1) Eliminate all deductions and credits in favor of three drastically lower rates of 8%, 14% and 23%.

2) Eliminate the Alternative Minimum Tax.

3) Eliminate taxes on capital gains and dividends in order to eliminate the double taxation on investment.

4) Reduce the corporate rate from 35% To 25%. Huntsman would also shift to a territorial tax system and implement a tax holiday for the repatriation of foreign earnings.

Pethokoukis calls it, "perhaps the most pro-growth, pro-market (and anti-crony capitalist) tax plan put forward by a major U.S. president candidate since Ronald Reagan in 1980."

Pethokoukis spoke with Huntsman about the economy and more here.

Sounds like an interesting plan. As I've said before, Republicans need to run on cutting spending and shrinking government but also on growth and optimism. A growth oriented tax plan is going to be important. Of course running on getting rid of things like mortgage and child deductions is not going to be popular even with the most pure of the Pure.

Still, if we are talking about entitlements, anything is possible. Maybe someone actually running for President will pick up on Huntsman's ideas.

This brings me to the question of why Huntsman is such a non-starter for so many, myself included. I guess it's his claim that Obama's failed so-called "stimulus" should have been bigger but he could fudge that by saying he meant more pro-growth GOP stuff like a full payroll tax holiday. He could also survive the whole working for Obama thing by saying you serve when asked. It's all thin but might not be fatal if not for other problems.

For me the biggest issues is hiring of John Weaver. Weaver was once John McCain's top political guys, including the period of time when Maverick was flirting with switching parties. Weaver has a history of of working for Democrats as well.

Huntsman has adopted this pose of being too good for the GOP and running not so much against Democrats like Obama but as the hero saving the Republicans from themselves and their low class voters.

When he tweated, "To be clear. I believe in evolution and trust scientists on global warming. Call me crazy," he wasn't just taking a shot a Perry but at large segments of the GOP base.

Personally, I'm not a creationist or an ID guy but I don't care if a President is. It's simply not something that a President deals with on a day to day basis, so who cares what someone personally believes?

As for the global warming thing...does Huntsman trust the physicists at CERN? If not, is he crazy by his own standard?

If Huntsman had kept his mouth shut, skipped the stupid taunts and led with his tax plan he might have actually gained some traction. Probably not but at least he would have had a shot.

I can forgive and overlook a lot of things in presidential candidates, being a bad politician isn't one of them. Huntsman has the same vibe McCain did...that he alone holds the truth of what a Republican should be and screw anyone, including actual Republicans who disagree with him. That's simply not the way a good politician acts. And no matter how interesting your tax plan is, that's a disqualifying trait.

(I put this in draft when I realized Ace posted about the same time but it's back)

Posted by: DrewM at 08:04 AM | Comments (233)
Post contains 589 words, total size 4 kb.

Obviously, but it is uncommon for the liberal media to acknowledge Obama's disasters.

More from Instapundit, including Obama's crony capitalism:" “You will be shocked to learn that Solyndra’s majority owner, Oklahoma billionaire George Kaiser, was a major fundraiser for the 2008 Obama-Biden campaign.”

Instapundit highlights a quote from the Washington Post, in which the CEO of Solyndra blames the company's failure on... the same things that rightwingers blame the bad economy on, regulation and policy uncertainty.

Posted by: Ace at 07:43 AM | Comments (116)
Post contains 106 words, total size 1 kb.

That darned Congress. Why can't they get their act together? Good thing Obama is above it all. He never engages in petty partisan wrangling.

Within minutes of agreeing with congressional leaders Wednesday night on an address to a joint session next week, President Obama flashed out an email to millions of supporters criticizing the chambers, their members and vowing to pressure them to enact his as yet unspecified job creation ideas.

"It's been a long time since Congress was focused on what the American people need them to be focused on," the Democrat charged in an email with the subject line: "Frustrated."

Jay Carney adds, "Don't look over here; look over there!" and that people are "sick and tired" of Washington:

President Barack Obama's chief spokesman says the dust-up with House Republicans over the timing of Obama's economic speech to Congress dramatizes why "people are fed up" with Washington.

. . .

Carney says "Americans are sick and tired of the partisan bickering" in the capital. He argues that Obama wants to focus on "things we can do" to spur the economy.

As if the White House is no longer part of Washington.

I wonder who Obama thinks he's bullsh*tting. I doubt many people are swayed by this rhetoric--you know, people just waking from a two-year coma, children, people just back from Gamma Hydra 7, people from the Upper West Side. That's about it.

Oh, I know. People who work in the Oval Office.

Follow me on Twitter.

Posted by: rdbrewer at 05:51 AM | Comments (276)
Post contains 256 words, total size 2 kb.

Michael Tanner at NRO: Social Security is actually worse than a Ponzi scheme.

Ah, Illinois, senior member of the LOTB. The main value of this state to the country these days is as a negative example. If you wish to succeed, donÂ’t do what Illinois is doing.

$211 Trillion dollars, baby. Just for reference, thatÂ’s the total economic output of the planet for about ten years. (This is NPR, of course, so the comments section to the story is pure comedy gold as liberals rage, rage against the dying of the light.)

The newest financial weapons of mass destruction. The quants must die!

As the productive workforce shrinks, GDP growth is constrained. ItÂ’s not a complicated mathematical equation. Retirees donÂ’t build equity; they conserve it (to the extent they can). They deleverage, downsize, and consume. Especially healthcare. This is the flip-side of the huge Boomer productivity wave between the early 1980Â’s and now. It was more like a sugar high than a sustainable boost of energy to the economy. Mainly because a lot of that "growth" was in the form of borrowed money that now has to be paid back.

More evidence that Teh Krugman is, for all intents and purposes, mentally retarded. From Kling, contra Krugman:

Even if we did start from an optimal state, microeconomics still wouldn't tell us to cut a little of everything. Why not? Fixed costs. Every proposed cut sparks a political battle. Each of these battles is costly. In order to cut a little from a million different programs, you'd have to fight a million costly battles.

Barone on SS and Medicare. Quote: “Often you can’t get a good thing without paying a bad price.”

Some good advice for “surviving spouses”. Don’t make any big decisions right away, and watch out for the cockroaches who scurry out to sell you annuities and insurance products.

Remember how the teachers’ union protested against WI governor Scott Walker's reforms because they were advocating “for the children” and that it wasn’t about the money? Well, it turns out that yeah, it really was pretty much just about the money.

Is there any one these days who isn't boned? Now Canada and Brazil are looking at a recession.

Speaking of being boned, PA's state capitol Harrisburg is about to start pining for the fjords.

There is certainly plenty to dislike in Mayor Linda ThompsonÂ’s plan. It is horrendously written with many grammatical errors. The mayor also added new initiatives that are not fully vetted or clearly funded, such as the blight program.

Globally, the love is gone. Now it's all just squabbling over money and who has to mow the lawn and take out the trash and why the husband is bald and why the wife has gained a few thousand pounds.

"Bread and circuses" is the term the writer of this piece is looking for. A comment usually attributed to Alexander Tytler goes like so:

A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years.

The NLRB has a present for you! What is it, you ask? Why, an unemployment check! Isn't that thoughtful of them?

I love the photo that goes with this story. It looks like someone just lofted a really nasty "cabbage and hard-boiled eggs" air-biscuit, but no one wants to own up.

UPDATE 1: From "Hussein the Plumber" in the comments -- another week of jobless claims above 400K.
more...

Posted by: Monty at 04:53 AM | Comments (130)
Post contains 672 words, total size 6 kb.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 03:11 AM | Comments (151)
Post contains 8 words, total size 1 kb.