Tina Fey is surely not the only person losing their mind over the latest catastrophic remarks on rape by a Republican Senate candidate. With roughly two weeks left of this election season, Mitt Romney and other Republican Senate candidates do not want to see a focus on the perceived anti-women agenda of the Republican party. There was no mention of abortion in the presidential debates and that perhaps goes some way to explain the gains that Romney has been making in the polls with women in the last few weeks. In the debates, neither candidate succeeded in distinguishing themselves from one another on "women's issues". The fact that Democrats were left clutching at the "binders full of women" comment to spearhead their weak attack on Romney is telling of how successful Romney was at presenting himself to women voters.
Todd Akin screwed up earlier this season with his severely deficient, to say the least, understanding of human biology. But that was August. That was before the debates where Romney first stood on the national stage alongside the President in front of millions of viewers and effectively changed the race completely by appearing as sane, reasonable and likable, and by shellacking the President who gave one of the worst debate performances ever. Todd Akin was until a few days ago irrelevant to the presidential contest. This Tuesday, his comments became relevant again when Richard Mourdock stepped in it when he attempted to describe his philosophy on abortion:
"I struggled with it myself for a long time but I came to realize that life is that gift from God. And I think even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape that it is something that God intended to happen."
A good lesson for any pro-life politician who opposes exceptions in cases of rape or incest is to never ever give a thorough explanation behind the thinking process. The words will never come out right and you're bound to sound as if you support rape or that you don't care about rape. Todd Akin couldn't do it. Steve King couldn't do it. Joe Walsh couldn't do it. Rick Santorum couldn't do it. Paul Ryan couldn't do it. Akin, King and Walsh gave awful explanations for why there should be no exceptions. Their remarks were shockingly ignorant and contemptuous of rape victims. Rick Santorum, Paul Ryan and yes, Richard Mourdock, however, did not give awful explanations for their beliefs. All of these comments were misconstrued as being supportive of rape, when they were no such thing.
The basic philosophy behind Mourdock's position is that the fetus is a person and has a right to life, and therefore a woman should not be allowed to terminate her pregnancy regardless of how the pregnancy came to be. Mourdock shares a common evangelical Christian view that God is an interventionist God, and that this god is responsible for the good things in life and especially, the creation of each life. Mourdock is not of the view that God intended the rape to happen but merely the life that was created. Ricahard Mourdock is of course wrong on the issue of abortion but he's not a supporter of rape ("a rape-enthusiast") and he's not at all out of line with many Republicans on the issue. He just happened to share his beliefs, beliefs that have become acceptable in mainstream politics, in a clumsily-worded and easily-misconstrued way.
What Mourdock's comments have done is to drag the issue of abortion up on the national stage during the last two weeks of the election cycle and to rub his extreme views off on every Republican running for office on November 6th. His comments allow a lazy and sensationalist media to engage with an issue that they would usually ignore: the ever more common view among Republicans that there should be no exception for rape and incest. These comments have dominated the media in the last few days and will do so for the next few days as well. The comments are close enough to the election to stick in people's minds and for the offended parties to remain offended by election day. With the national media latching on to this, the comments will tar every Republican candidate to some degree and the issue of abortion and Republican extremism will take up precious time in the home-stretch of a campaign that Republicans want to be about Democrats' failure to revitalize the economy.
Saturday, October 27, 2012
Sunday, October 21, 2012
The First Debate
The first Indiana Senate debate of 2012 was this Monday. In this debate we had our Democratic and Republican nominees, as well as the Libertarian Party candidate Andrew Horning (whom I had never heard about before watching the debate). The Libertarian candidate has not featured in any polls I've seen nor have I seen him mentioned in the national or state press coverage of the race but there he was on stage with the two-party candidates. The Libertarian candidate gave the usual libertarian diatribe. Talk about the Founding Fathers, the Constitution, taxation being theft, government programs being Ponzi schemes and what have you. He won't take a big chunk of the electorate but in a race as close as this he might be the spoiler candidate who will siphon off enough votes to ensure a Donnelly victory.
Donnelly focused on his bipartisan credentials and his Republican opponent's denunciation of bipartisanship. Donnelly also mentioned Dick Lugar repeatedly and expressed his admiration of the exiting Senator. Mourdock expressed how important principles should be in Washington and that his opponent lacks them. He linked his opponent to Obamacare (which is unpopular in Indiana) and President Obama (who is unpopular in Indiana). Mourdock tried to appear more moderate in the debate than he was in the Republican primaries and on the early campaign trail. He accused Donnelly of distorting his record and twisting his words to make him look extreme. Even in a state as solidly red as Indiana, implying that Medicare is unconstitutional is a very risky statement to stand by and Mourdock tried to make the case that he had never said any such thing. Donnelly responded by paraphrasing Mourdock's speech where he implied that Medicare and Social Security were unconstitutional, and he explained how Mourdock is being dishonest about what he said and did not say.
Donnelly came out a winner on that specific issue but overall I felt that both candidates did OK. I don't think this debate will have much of an impact on the race, except raising awareness of the Libertarian Party candidate who did alright (unlike the Libertarian candidate, for instance, in the first Missouri Senate race debate who came off as a clown). Neither Donnelly nor Mourdock came off as unsenatorial. Neither said anything that will change this race one way or another. I think this race will be tight until the end but I look forward to seeing fresh polls that include the Libertarian candidate. He might be a game-changer. There are a lot of disgruntled Republicans in Indiana who are not completely sold on Richard Mourdock.
Donnelly focused on his bipartisan credentials and his Republican opponent's denunciation of bipartisanship. Donnelly also mentioned Dick Lugar repeatedly and expressed his admiration of the exiting Senator. Mourdock expressed how important principles should be in Washington and that his opponent lacks them. He linked his opponent to Obamacare (which is unpopular in Indiana) and President Obama (who is unpopular in Indiana). Mourdock tried to appear more moderate in the debate than he was in the Republican primaries and on the early campaign trail. He accused Donnelly of distorting his record and twisting his words to make him look extreme. Even in a state as solidly red as Indiana, implying that Medicare is unconstitutional is a very risky statement to stand by and Mourdock tried to make the case that he had never said any such thing. Donnelly responded by paraphrasing Mourdock's speech where he implied that Medicare and Social Security were unconstitutional, and he explained how Mourdock is being dishonest about what he said and did not say.
Donnelly came out a winner on that specific issue but overall I felt that both candidates did OK. I don't think this debate will have much of an impact on the race, except raising awareness of the Libertarian Party candidate who did alright (unlike the Libertarian candidate, for instance, in the first Missouri Senate race debate who came off as a clown). Neither Donnelly nor Mourdock came off as unsenatorial. Neither said anything that will change this race one way or another. I think this race will be tight until the end but I look forward to seeing fresh polls that include the Libertarian candidate. He might be a game-changer. There are a lot of disgruntled Republicans in Indiana who are not completely sold on Richard Mourdock.
Sunday, October 14, 2012
Dick Lugar Finally Makes an Endorsement... in the Massachusetts Race
This has been a fairly good week for the Democratic nominee Joe Donnelly:
The only thing that Mourdock has going for him at the moment is Romney's momentum. If Romney keeps the momentum up and Obama keeps on hemorrhaging, then this will boost turn-out among Republican voters and depress the Democratic vote. Even though Indiana is not a swing state in this presidential election, lots of people still go to the polls primarily to have their say in the presidential election. So the presidential race is relevant to this senatorial race.
The Indiana Senate race is uncomfortably close at this point for the Republican candidate. Bill Clinton's stumping and Dick Lugar's visible lack of an endorsement can only help Joe Donnelly. The only thing that will turn this race around for Richard Mourdock looks to be Romney's ongoing success in the presidential contest.
- A Republican poll showed that Mourdock was only up by 3 points and within the margin of error. The poll is likely skewed in favour of the Republican candidate, which means that it should be a worry for the Mourdock campaign that they only win it within the margin of error.
- Bill Clinton appeared alongside Joe Donnelly in a high school in Indianapolis to argue on his behalf. The theme of the speech was that the country needs more bipartisanship and that Joe Donnelly will provide it. As Bill Clinton is quite respected by Democrats, Republicans and Independents, and is often seen as a bipartisan figure from a bipartisan age in politics (even though the 90s were hardly the golden age of bipartisanship that people seem to think). Clinton then made the appeal to Lugar supporters by basically lauding Lugar's record as a Senator and calling him a "bona fide conservative" who was still willing to work across the aisle. His implication was clearly that Lugar was the good kind of conservative and that Mourdock is the bad kind of conservative. Following this race, you'd think that Donnelly was a surrogate for Lugar based on the kind words he says about him every chance he gets. The purpose is obvious: attract those disenchanted Lugar voters that will win the race for Donnelly.
- Dick Lugar made an endorsement that made into the Indiana media. It was an endorsement of Scott Brown in the Massachusetts Senate race, not Richard Mourdock in the Indiana Senate race. It's become quite clear at this point that Lugar is not going to endorse Mourdock and this news story serves to illustrate that clearly to the Indiana voters that awarded him landslide victories for three decades.
The only thing that Mourdock has going for him at the moment is Romney's momentum. If Romney keeps the momentum up and Obama keeps on hemorrhaging, then this will boost turn-out among Republican voters and depress the Democratic vote. Even though Indiana is not a swing state in this presidential election, lots of people still go to the polls primarily to have their say in the presidential election. So the presidential race is relevant to this senatorial race.
The Indiana Senate race is uncomfortably close at this point for the Republican candidate. Bill Clinton's stumping and Dick Lugar's visible lack of an endorsement can only help Joe Donnelly. The only thing that will turn this race around for Richard Mourdock looks to be Romney's ongoing success in the presidential contest.
Saturday, October 6, 2012
Campaign Finance
The Indiana Senate race of 2012 is set to be the most expensive in Indiana history. There are a few reasons for this.
First, there hasn't been a close Senate race in a long time. The last four Indiana Senators - Dan Coats, Dick Lugar, Birch Bayh and Dan Quayle - all won their elections by wide margins. Landslide victories don't bring a lot of political money, close elections do. Especially in a year when control of the Senate may depend on one Senate seat.
Second, a lot of money was spent in a tough Republican primary. The primary attracted a lot of attention and outside spending, and is responsible for a substantial portion of the money spent in this election.
Third, outside groups and super PACs (given rise to by the Citizens United ruling) have taken a keen interest in this vital race and have spent money against both party candidates. Mourdock gets his support from the typical Republican-backing organizations: Crossroads GPS (Karl Rove's super PAC), the Club for Growth, FreedomWorks for America, Americans for Prosperity (founded by the Koch brothers) and the national party. Donnelly gets his support from typical Democratic-backing sources: Majority PAC (Harry Reid's super PAC), Center Forward (a super PAC for blue dog Democrats), labor unions and VetoVets.org ("the largest progressive group of veterans in America"). These outside groups account for about half of the total spending on Senate ads during the last three weeks of September.
As the presidential debate last week revitalized Romney's campaign and supporters, we can expect more spending in the presidential race from the aforementioned super PACs. We can expect less spending from these groups in the Senate races that were contested earlier this fall/summer but where one candidate is now firmly holding the lead (Warren in Massachusetts, Kaine in Virginia, Nelson in Florida, Brown in Ohio). These factors will play into how much more outside spending there will be in Indiana. Fewer close contests will lead to more outside spending in Indiana. The Indiana Senate race looks set to be a close one until the end so we can expect it to remain one of the most expensive Senate races this fall.
I am not confident in the notion that spending in elections has a substantial effect on the outcome of elections as long as both candidates fulfill a certain financial threshold that makes them capable of advertising across the state and running proper campaigns. Both Donnelly and Mourdock seem to have adequate funds well beyond that threshold. Any massive increase in spending for any candidate at this point will have a modest effect, if any. This race is not going to be decided by a last-month splurge.
First, there hasn't been a close Senate race in a long time. The last four Indiana Senators - Dan Coats, Dick Lugar, Birch Bayh and Dan Quayle - all won their elections by wide margins. Landslide victories don't bring a lot of political money, close elections do. Especially in a year when control of the Senate may depend on one Senate seat.
Second, a lot of money was spent in a tough Republican primary. The primary attracted a lot of attention and outside spending, and is responsible for a substantial portion of the money spent in this election.
Third, outside groups and super PACs (given rise to by the Citizens United ruling) have taken a keen interest in this vital race and have spent money against both party candidates. Mourdock gets his support from the typical Republican-backing organizations: Crossroads GPS (Karl Rove's super PAC), the Club for Growth, FreedomWorks for America, Americans for Prosperity (founded by the Koch brothers) and the national party. Donnelly gets his support from typical Democratic-backing sources: Majority PAC (Harry Reid's super PAC), Center Forward (a super PAC for blue dog Democrats), labor unions and VetoVets.org ("the largest progressive group of veterans in America"). These outside groups account for about half of the total spending on Senate ads during the last three weeks of September.
As the presidential debate last week revitalized Romney's campaign and supporters, we can expect more spending in the presidential race from the aforementioned super PACs. We can expect less spending from these groups in the Senate races that were contested earlier this fall/summer but where one candidate is now firmly holding the lead (Warren in Massachusetts, Kaine in Virginia, Nelson in Florida, Brown in Ohio). These factors will play into how much more outside spending there will be in Indiana. Fewer close contests will lead to more outside spending in Indiana. The Indiana Senate race looks set to be a close one until the end so we can expect it to remain one of the most expensive Senate races this fall.
I am not confident in the notion that spending in elections has a substantial effect on the outcome of elections as long as both candidates fulfill a certain financial threshold that makes them capable of advertising across the state and running proper campaigns. Both Donnelly and Mourdock seem to have adequate funds well beyond that threshold. Any massive increase in spending for any candidate at this point will have a modest effect, if any. This race is not going to be decided by a last-month splurge.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)