Colorado, Missouri, Minnesota

I should say more about all this, but I’ve had an absurdly long day. That said, I feel the need to repeat what I discussed with another PS friend today. In one sense, so long as nobody takes Santorum seriously, it doesn’t matter how he does. If both the media and the party elites are convinced he cannot win, it’s really hard to see him making a go of it, regardless of doing well in some caucus states. He might actually be able to convince them he’s for real if he could raise some money, or convince some Sheldon Adelson wannabe to fund a Super-PAC for him. Short of that, it’s just more detours along a Romney journey.

People lie to themselves

Headline writers should know better to listen to what voters actually say.  My alternate title for this post was “Ludicrous headlines.”  To wit:

For Mormon Voters, Romney’s Faith Is but One Factor

Seriously?!  You believe it was simply one of many factors and I’ve got a socialist president to sell you.  But Mormon voters insist that’s the case:

In more than a dozen interviews, Mormon voters in Nevada and Colorado said that while a common religion was not a major factor in their support for Mr. Romney [emphasis mine], their decision was informed by what they view as a mutual set of values and a strong sense of Mr. Romney’s background.

Give me a break.  It’s completely obvious that voters don’t want to say they are voting for someone just because he/she is a co-religionist, but just as obvious that’ s what’s going on.  A little more skeptical reporting please, than simply parroting the statements of 12 voters showing obvious social desirability bias.   Though, it’s more than just lying to the reporter, I suspect that many (though probably not all) of these people are lying to themselves.  People like to a have a self image where they are informed, thoughtful political deliberators, the idea that you are going to support somebody just because they have the same religion (or skin color) clearly runs counter to that.

Depressing (but necessary) headline of the day

Obama Yields in Marshaling of ‘Super PAC’

The Obama campaign would be foolish to try and play with 1 1/2 hands behind their back and try to limit superPAC influence.  So, yes, SuperPAC’s are bad, but Obama losing because he gets killed by the Republican versions without any Democratic ones is worse.

“Liberal” Obama

Just how liberal is that socialist, terrorist coddling Barack Obama?  How about the least liberal Democratic president of the 20th century.  Then again why should you believe actual analysis does done by political scientists when it is so obvious that he’s a crusading socialist working to have the government take over every aspect of American life.  Just in case, though, here’s handy charts from Keith Poole (who is to empirically analyzing ideology as Marx is to communism):

As you can see, Obama is closest to the center of any Democrat Poole has analyzed.  But, I’m sure he’s just a liberal political science professor with an agenda.   We all know that Obama is really a socialist.  [Oh, it doesn’t hurt to take a moment and see where GWB is, either.]

%d bloggers like this: