Short: Interesting observation on campaign issues

Here's a somewhat biased article on campaign issues from the Daily Beast. It notes that a majority of Americans support Obamacare or want something even more progressive. It also notes that a supermajority of Americans now support same-sex marriage being legally recognized.

What's interesting is that Obamacare probably should be a more defining issue since it affects many more people. But contrary to expectations, marriage may be more important when it comes to voters' decisions because the GOP may make themselves look "prejudiced or out of touch..." And it's easier to see that with same-sex marriage than with the complex issues of healthcare.

I really wish Americans didn't subcontract their thinking out to strident and shallow third parties. But I'm lazy about some things too, so I should be more understanding.

It will be interesting to see if the prediction in this article is correct. But we can't be sure what really affected people in the voting booth. A better indicator may be the chatter in the media and social media. And that will be visible.

Don't be a cranky old fart.

Image: abcnews.go.com

Short: Sorting out the confusing GOP campaign

This is a great article that sorts and declutters the very cluttered GOP presidential nomination race. In a year where there are more candidates than horses in the Kentucky Derby, how can we keep them straight when none of them wear bright jerseys?

As this article explains, there are only three main categories you need to know:

• The invisible primary leader, which would more clearly be called 'the clear frontrunner'
• Mainstream alternatives
• Factional favorites

With these categories, it's not hard to categorize each of the GOP candidates. Jeb Bush started as the clear frontrunner, just like Mitt Romney did in 2012. It's questionable whether Jeb can maintain that status because he isn't wrapping up the donations as well as Romney did. However, if Jeb falters as frontrunner, the race becomes wide open, with no one as frontrunner.

When no one is frontrunner, the nominee will almost certainly come from among the mainstream 'others.' They each fit the mold of who the party typically would nominate. That makes it hard to predict which among them will eventually win.

The final category is for the misfits who don't fit the party's usual mold. This is where the firebreathers, no-hopers, vanity candidates, and libertarians go.

Definitely read the article. Don't be put off by the trendy, garish graphics. The clarity of the explanations is wonderful.

Image: aliexpress.com

Extra. In contrast to the clarity in the NYT article, here is Mark Halperin scoring CPAC speakers on theatrics and hollowness. Excellent for a laugh.

Short: Oh no, she isn't!

Sarah Palin 'seriously interested' in 2016 bid

That's the headline to this Politico story. Is anyone stupid enough to believe this bimbo charlatan? Answer: probably yes. Plenty of idiots believed in her in 2008 and then in 2012, when she teased and teased.

However, the piece shows how unserious she is. "I'd rather talk football" sums it up. Gaaagggg!

Looney Tunes for President

Image: looneytunesshow.wikia.com

Same day update. The Hindenburg windbag Donald Trump says he's thinking about running for president too. This jackass circus is brought to us by the "Freedom Summit" in Iowa. 

I'm afraid of 2016

Americans like fairly regular change in presidential party. Since FDR, no party has held the presidency for more than 12 continuous years. More commonly it's been 8 years. That means the Democrats are due to lose the presidency in 2016.

Will it actually play out that way? I haven't thought it would. The GOP have been so terrible at laying out their policies that people have rejected them for the presidential spot. They've been fuzzy on the details, and used euphemism like "premium support." Their radical wing is either fuzzier (by calling for America to return to common sense and/or the Constitution) or scarier (like calling for the end of the EPA, Social Security, anti-discrimination laws, and any monetary policy at all.) I've tended to think that this makes the GOP unelectable nationally. The 2012 election seemed to bear this out, when a vulnerable president won reelection despite a limp recovery.

However, there's a powerful school of thought that the candidates and even the platforms make no difference. Who wins and loses is based on the "fundamentals." And these fundamentals aren't even all that complex:

1. A basket of weighted economics factors from the past four years, which probably boil down to "is the economy getting better or worse?"
2. The popularity of the incumbent president. 

Based on the fundamentals, Hillary Clinton might be in trouble. Obama's popularity is dropping and will weigh her down, according to the fundamentals school. The economy will probably not surge in 2016 to help her out.

Those issues, along with the fatigue with the party in the White House, should doom Hillary or whoever the Democratic nominee is. So I worry.

On the other hand, I have a hard time foreseeing any success for the party of:

• weird fuzzy budgets
• voucherizing Medicare
• defaulting rather than raising the debt limit
• no replacement for Obamacare
• more wars in the Middle East
• Michele Bachmann
• Ted Cruz

I still think Hillary will win because the GOP will shoot themselves in the foot, the face, the ass, or all three. The 2016 election may demonstrate the limits of the fundamentals model. The model may need an escape clause for insanity.

Image: picphotos.net

Extras. Nate Silver doesn't think much of the fundamentals model.