WDEL Blog: Allan Loudell

Open Friday / Weekend Forum

As this exceptional week comes to an end, it becomes more and more evident the Romney people had no clue their candidate would lose.

It wasn't a feint when the candidate campaigned in Pennsylvania, for example. The Romney campaign honestly believed they had President Obama on the ropes, and were expanding the election map.

How could they be so wrong? I'm tempted to pile on Massachusetts politicians. The Romney Campaign - like the Kerry and Dukakis campaigns before - was trapped in a Boston bubble, psychologically removed from the situation on the ground.

But, more centrally, the Romney campaign was captive to a conservative universe - a conservative reality - relying on conservative pollsters. That latter point perhaps is key.

For so many years, the polling gospel held that older Republican voters were the most RELIABLE voters. When polling, you had to adjust your polling model to that reality. Furthermore, conservatives were absolutely energized to vote against President Obama; it was doubtful young voters, Hispanics, and African-Americans - somewhat disillusioned by the President's performance - would be similarly motivated.

But, the Obama campaign's ground game was for real. And conservatives underestimated how many folks would be equally motivated to vote against the Romney/Ryan ticket and the G.O.P. agenda.

What we don't know: Will this new reality prevail in 2016?

Yes, the United States has seen a historic demographic shift. But, one of the key players in the Obama Campaign's braintrust - David Plouffe (St. Mark's High School and the University of Delaware) - has already suggested it might be difficult for a 2016 Democratic Presidential nominee to replicate that brilliant, get-out-the-vote model:

"You just can't transfer this. People aren't going to spend hours away from their families and their jobs contributing financially when it's hard for them to do it, unless they believe in the candidate."

Plouffe may be onto something. Remember the results in 2010, when President Obama was NOT at the top of the Democratic ticket, and a Republican earthquake ensued.

Indeed, as pollsters in some cases recalibrate their models for "likely voters", it's plausible they might overcompensate in the OPPOSITE direction, and liberal-leaning pollsters could get their comeuppance in 2016.

From The Los ANGELES TIMES: "For Mormons, Mitt Romney's loss was still a win for their faith. Mormons feel satisfaction that Mitt Romney's campaign caused no backlash for them, and that his religion isn't what kept him from the Presidency..."



Tired of Presidential politics? Happy the campaign has come to an end? I regret to inform you Public Policy Polling (one of the more liberal pollsters) has already polled in Iowa for 2016. PPP finds outgoing Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton would emerge as the dominant favorite in the 2016 Iowa Presidential caucuses if she decides to run. The PPP poll has Hillary Rodham Clinton taking 58% of the Iowa vote. Vice President Biden comes in a distant second place at 17%; followed by New York Governor Andrew Cuomo further behind.

By the way, Florida's junior Republican U.S. Senator Marco Rubio, a Cuban-American, is already headed to Iowa next week. Coincidence?


That quintessential Delaware example of political theater - which in some ways is the visual display of the Delaware Way - the 201-year-old Return Day, played out in Georgetown Thursday.

Looks like Senator Carper and his Republican challenger, Kevin Wade, missed the carriage as they walked the parade route. Flame-throwing independent candidate Alex Pires rode alone in a convertible. Fitting.

Vice President Biden made a surprise appearance at a Return Day reception at Delaware Tech's Georgetown campus, but stayed out of the parade to avoid a replay of the stifling security measures which played out four years ago. Hence, easy access to the Circle this year.


You may have caught the news about a fiery accident that killed two people at Route 273 and Appleby Road in New Castle County. A 2003 Ford Exhibition SUV heading east on Route 273 got into a minor accident underneath the Route One overpas; then, the SUV continued east along 273 to the Appleby Road intersection to the northwest of Community Plaza. The SUV hit the rear of a 2012 Nissan Altima stopped in the left lane, pushing the smaller vehicle into a Ford pick-up truck. The car careened into the intersection, where it burst into flames.

Tragic accident. We don't yet know what may have happened to the 67-year-old driver of the SUV, to begin this chain-reaction. Perhaps he suffered some kind of heart attack, stroke, or momentary paralysis.

But I continue my rant: Too many SUVs on our roads; too many drivers of those SUVs hogging the road with impunity; too many drivers of those monsters yapping on their cellphones, etc. For those of us driving smaller, more fuel-efficient vehicles...

I dread every winter when these thoughtless motorists think they're immune to the forces of nature...



For your amusement, Joe Biden's appearance on NBC's "Parks and Recreation" prompts this headline in The DAILY MAIL:

"Sexiest man alive is... Joe Biden?"...



http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2229912/Joe-Biden-guest-star-Parks-Recreation-Amy-Poehlers-ultimate-crush.html?Ito=feeds-newsxml



Breaking news: David Petraeus has abruptly resigned as Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, citing an extra-marital affair. Some Republicans had earlier talked about General Petraeus as a potential Republican Presidential candidate.



Posted at 8:57am on November 9, 2012 by Allan Loudell

<- Back to all Allan Loudell posts



Comments on this post:

kavips
Fri, Nov 9, 2012 11:11am
As to the pretension of being snowballed by results, there is another factor not being mentioned. That is: the story that Republicans were blindsided needs to play to absolve those who collected money for the Republican cause, and had to promise the election was in the bag...



Someone said, Karl Rove's meltdown was because he knew such massive failure meant he'd be dead within a year.

4 billion was spent on politics this year.

Congressional, state, local, and ballot initiatives are included.

NPR brought up this interesting point. Many of the non profits formed for issue candidacies, have in their tax law, a requirement that a majority (51%) of their time is NOT spent in the political arena. Obviously "politics" was the sole reason those advocacy groups were developed in the first place, and so now, we will be seeing a lot of groups pushing "issue advocacy" through Congress, telling us to call our Congressperson for this, or that, or all of the above... I have already noticed the ads appearing on social media and blog sites. They usually start with "sign this petition."

There is worry that all this new noise slamming up against the walls of Congress is not in the nation's best interest right now.

But if the organizations, don't continue their issue advocacy, they get slapped with some pretty big tax bills next April....

http://www.npr.org/2010/11/02/130993630/tracking-the-money-spent-on-campaign-ads

kavips
Fri, Nov 9, 2012 12:04pm
This may become a national story in about a week, because of its human interest, but I just found off to the side of something I was looking for in Cincinnati. Just goes to show: every vote counts...

http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20121107/NEWS0103/311070129/Race-tied-after-candidate-s-wife-doesn-t-vote?odyssey=tab%7Ctopnews%7Ctext%7C&nclick_check=1

I feel so bad for her. Oh, my.

teatime
Fri, Nov 9, 2012 1:14pm

The reason Romney was so clueless is that he grew up as a spoiled trust fund baby and never worked a real job in his life. It's impossible for him to understand what it's like being a working class family, paying a utility bill or being a single mom working 3 jobs.

The American people know that starting new wars and cutting taxes for billionaires was not going to help our nation. That's the takeaway for this election.

EarlGrey
Fri, Nov 9, 2012 2:45pm
teatime: You were once a cheerleader for the Ron Paul R3V0LUTI0N. Below is how Ron Paul views Tuesday's results. His takeaway lesson is 180 degrees from yours.

Rep. Ron Paul, whose maverick presidential bids shook the GOP, said in the wake of this week's elections that the country has already veered over the fiscal cliff and he sees no chance of righting ship in a country where too many people are dependent on government.

http://m.washingtontimes.com/blog/inside-politics/2012/nov/8/ron-paul-election-shows-us-far-gone/


EarlGrey
Fri, Nov 9, 2012 2:50pm
"People do not want anything cut," he said. "They want all the bailouts to come. They want the Fed to keep printing the money. And they don't believe that we've gone off the cliff or are close to going off the cliff. They think we can patch it over, that we can somehow come up with some magic solution. But you can't have a budgetary solution if you don't change what the role of government should be. As long as you think we have to police the world and run this welfare state, all we are going to argue about is who will get the loot."~Ron Paul

Mike from Delaware
Fri, Nov 9, 2012 3:23pm
Interesting that they always want to cut the little guy and tax him, but never cut from the wealthy or tax them more. Members of Congress should take a huge pay cut, cut their benefits and their retirement benefits that all of us now pay for... no limos, no large staffs, no free barber/beauty shops, no low-priced cafeteria, etc., etc.

Let's start there. Granted that's a drop in the bucket, but why always hit the little guy first and never hit the big guys?

Yes, raise taxes on those who make over 250K/per year.

Then cut any and all corporate welfare UNLESS they are presently creating jobs in America for Legal Americans. This includes both green energy and oil/gas/coal.

Yes cut funding to PBS/NPR, and other non-essential things like that.

Cut military spending that the Pentagon said it doesn't need.

Then go after in a serious way any company that hires illegals and fine them so hard that it wouldn't be considered the "cost of doing business" and they'd finally comply with the existing laws. This would open up jobs for many Americans, then find a way to give those illegals who are here working and obeying the other laws, a pathway to being here legally so then those companies would have to pay American minimum wages, not slave wages to these folks
AND then our Treasury would also start getting real income tax, Social Security tax, Medicare tax, etc., from these 12-20 million folks who are here.

AFTER cutting all that, THEN let's look at sticking it to the little guy. Sure we'd have to endure cuts too, but then it will be a smaller bite AND the wealthy would also be doing their part. The problem is, if the wealthy don't do their part first, it will never happen.

Allan Loudell
Fri, Nov 9, 2012 3:27pm
Breaking News: General David Petraeus (whom some Republicans once thought to be a potential dark-horse candidate for the Presidency) has abruptly resigned as Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, citing an extra-marital affair. The highly-decorated Petraeus had been expected to serve in a second Obama Administration. Curious timing: Petraeus was to testify next week before Congressional committees about Benghazi.

EarlGrey
Fri, Nov 9, 2012 3:32pm
I just saw the Petraus story on Drudge...any other tinfoil hat-wearers who think this is very "interesting" timing? Who will fill his shoes...Eric Holder or Big Sis?

kavips
Fri, Nov 9, 2012 8:34pm
Allan. What time did the Petraeus story break? I heard it first on your leadoff at 4. I see it posted here 3:27. How much earlier did you hear of it?

kavips
Fri, Nov 9, 2012 8:40pm
This may be old by tomorrow morning, but it just popped up while I was on this subject and so I'm passing it on... '

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/09/paula-broadwell-david-petraeus-affair_n_2104427.html?ref=topbar

EarlGrey
Fri, Nov 9, 2012 10:51pm
Obama administration officials have told reporters that Petraeus’s resignation means he will not testify before congressional oversight committees next week, as planned. This will not sit well with Republicans, who believe Petraeus is in a unique position to shed light on the intelligence on Benghazi before the attack, the decision-making during the attack and the misleading stories told after it.

http://m.weeklystandard.com/blogs/petraeus-s-sudden-resignation_662200.html

mrpizza
Sat, Nov 10, 2012 9:50am
The only thing I can say about all of this is that at least it's happening in the second half of my life rather than the first. Being in my 50's, I figure I have about 25-30 more years. I'm keeping my fingers crossed that it will take that long for America to become Cuba as a result of Obama's health care scheme and all the other nonsense out there. In the meantime, I'm counting on the Republican congress to restrain the evil as much as they possibly can.

mrpizza
Sat, Nov 10, 2012 9:51am
Teatime: You've definitely fallen off the wagon.

mrpizza
Sat, Nov 10, 2012 1:27pm
MFD: I heard Senator Pat Toomey in an interview yesterday. He tells us that the idea of soaking the rich will only solve 8% of the problem. Democrats have no plan for dealing with the other 92% other than sticking it to the little guy, which in reality is what they've always done in the name of "compassion".

EarlGrey
Sat, Nov 10, 2012 1:39pm
"...the White House, with concurrence by the FBI and Justice Department, held off on asking for Petraeus’ resignation until after the election. His resignation occurred three days after the election, avoiding the possibility that Obama’s ill-fated appointment of Petraeus could become an issue in the election.

FBI agents on the case were aware that such a decision had been made to hold off on forcing him out until after the election and were outraged.

“The decision was made to delay the resignation apparently to avoid potential embarrassment to the president before the election,” an FBI source says. “To leave him in such a sensitive position where he was vulnerable to potential blackmail for months compromised our security and is inexcusable.”


http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/petraeus-resigns-cia-affair/2012/11/09/id/463573

mrpizza
Sat, Nov 10, 2012 2:05pm
Allan: Rant all you want. SUV's aren't going away. In fact, SUV's are the first choice for Secret Service vehicles. You won't see the president or any other politician riding around in "fuel efficient" vehicles. Of course, their attitude towards the public is "do what we say and not what we do".

While we're on that subject, I want to address a conversation I heard between you and Arnaud DeBorchgrave on Friday the 2nd. You were discussing the subject of global warming, and the left vs. right views of it. I would like to give you a perspective of it which is probably more along the lines of reality.

I would agree with Mr. DeBorchgrave that global warming in and of itself is not a hoax. What is a hoax is the totally preposterous idea that human activity has anything to do with it. It's been discovered by left-wing politicians both in the U.S. and the U.N., as well as environmental groups, that tying weather events to human activity provides them a cash cow. It's "blame America first" for all the world's problems and commit extortion against the American taxpayer when in fact no other country other than Israel has done more to improve the human condition around the world. The vast majority of technology from the last century used all over the world was invented here. Without America, the rest of the world would still be lighting candles and gas lamps.
The lack of this technology in third world countries is where the pollution problem lies. We've cleaned up our cars and factories over the past 40 years, but if you go to Africa or Eastern Europe, there's plenty of bilge and soot to go around because the dictators not only stifled innovation by their own people, but kept anything from the "Great Satan America" from coming in. Of course, I do have to give the communists some credit for trying to keep out our increasingly hedonistic culture. In fact, moral pollution is much more harmful than anything coming out of the tailpipe of a car or a factory smokestack.

Alternative studies have shown that global warming is actually a natural and normal function of the earth. The polar ice caps have melted and refrozen dozens of times over the centuries and will continue to do so. Currently, we're in a warming cycle. Sometime after we're dead and gone, it'll start cooling again. I saw on the History Channel several years ago archeological study along the Cascadia Peninsula showing that weather patterns alternate from calm to severe and back to calm about every 700 years.

The bottom line is, don't be fooled by scaremongering from liberals such as Al Gore who seek to steal from the treasury and capitalize by unjust gain while stifling American innovation and success.

Once again I ask the question: What kind of country are we going to be? Do we want to be a free people or do we want to live in slavery?

Mike from Delaware
Sat, Nov 10, 2012 2:09pm
Mrpizza: Well at least that will be 8% less you and I will get stuck paying for. THAT's the point. They always make the argument, that it isn't enough to pay everything. No kidding, but why should those folks not have to pay more like the rest of us? So yes, we all are going to be hit again, but those wealthy folks have been paying less and less and getting richer and richer as we all get poorer and poorer. Come on, this is simple common sense.

Just like when the DEMS say getting rid of Big Bird won't pay off the debt, again, no kidding, but it helps. All those smaller things I suggested above helps to lower the number so that all segments of our society are pitching in to pay down the debt, NOT just the middle class that usually gets stuck with the bill. I'd cut all foreign aid other than food/water/medical type help, too. I'd tell each nation where we have bases and troops, that effective Jan 1st 2013, your nation will pay half the cost - thinking South Korea, Japan, Europe, not third world nations - if not we bring those troops home and close those bases leaving nothing behind. This is a cash cow as we provide the military for many 1st world nations who aren't paying a dime for our protection. If they truly value that protection and aren't just using us as suckers (we pay, our men/women die to protect their country) PT Barnum would have been impressed.

So yes do all of this and the stuff from my earlier posting BEFORE going after a dime of the working class programs or raising a dime or our taxes. THEN yes, there still will be plenty left, but then at least its not just us pitching in as it usually is.

My point is, if things are as bad as they say, then you cut all that stuff too, but that's not what happens, we pay more and the wealthy fat cats continue on like nothing is happening. Time for that to end NOW. It's their country too.

Mike from Delaware
Sat, Nov 10, 2012 11:05pm
Here is an interesting article, that I believe explains why the GOP is in real trouble.

http://www.humanevents.com/2012/11/09/pat-buchanan-is-the-gop-headed-for-the-boneyard/

Mike from Delaware
Sat, Nov 10, 2012 11:37pm
Here is an interesting article, if true is shocking, but may explain how the GOP held on to the House when the DEMS held on to the Senate and the White House.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/geoffrey-r-stone/why-did-the-republicans-w_b_2110673.html

mrpizza
Sun, Nov 11, 2012 3:05am
Well, it's about time Republicans benefited from redistricting. Democrats have been playing that game for decades.

I have an additional theory: The Republicans kept the House in part because of the Midwestern states that Romney carried. I suspect there was very little ticket-splitting there, so you could say they rode Romney's coattails even though Romney himself lost the election.

Stay tuned for 2014. Historically, the party currently in the White House loses the senate to the opposing party. That may or may not be the case this time, but if so, Obama could end up his last two years with a Republican controlled House and Senate the same as Reagan ended up with the Democrats controlling everything in his.

Speaking of Reagan, have you been to Washington National Airport since they renamed it after him? I was there the other day to take a guest to his plane, and at the airport entrance, they have an absolutely magnificent statue of the gipper there to greet you. It was as if he'd come back to life!

Allan Loudell
Sun, Nov 11, 2012 8:22am
mrpizza...

Coincidence. Just as we were driving south on Route One, coming off I-95, by the mall... a fire vehicle - with flashing lights on - was behind us, so we pulled over into a little median strip area to the right.

As we attempted to steer back onto southbound Route One, a big SUV roared past us, totally oblivious to the fact that we had pulled over for the emergency vehicle. The usual discourtesy, brazenness, stupidity, etc., that I experience disproportionately with SUV drivers. I shudder to think about the coming snow season.

As for Congressional redistricting, let's not forget the pact with the devil between very conservative Republicans and very liberal urban Democrats in the South. As Republican governors and Republican-dominated state legislatures gerrymandered Congressional districts in the South, you ended up with very conservative G.O.P. districts and very liberal urban (Black) Democratic districts. Result: "Moderate" members of both parties, but particularly the so-called, Blue Dog Democrats, were gerrymandered out of existence. More perniciously, especially in the racially-charged South, Republicans could say they actually engineered more Black Democratic districts, BUT, by creating those liberal "islands" in the Deep South, they could also run against those Democratic "libs". It became a vicious circle. The Democratic Party became more and more identified with ONLY Black liberal Democrats.

If you were a young White person aspiring to a political career you had no future unless you aligned your views with conservative Republicans. If you were a young African-American person with lofty ambitions (statewide office), you had no future unless you became an outlier for the majority of your people by becoming a conservative Republican. (Some people might wince at this comparison: But during the Cold War, if you were a young person who sought a great career, perhaps even a political career, the ONLY realistic vehicle for you was the Communist Party, whether you embraced its principles in your heart or not. When the Cold War ended, many people came out to say they only embraced the communists, because there was no other choice!)

I do agree with you, mrpizza, that 2014 could be a bad year for the Democrats. I already noted that by quoting David Plouffe in saying the Obama Campaign's ground game is not necessarily transferable.

At least you guys had someone to vote for: As usual, I did not vote for President/Vice President; U.S. Senator; U.S. Representative; Governor; or Lieutenant Governor. That left me with the lower offices of state Insurance Commissioner; New Castle County Executive; and New Castle County Council President.

Mike from Delaware: Your idea about bringing the troops home (unless we're paid accordingly), will never ever happen
because NO U.S. President can resist the overwhelming consensus in Washington military/security circles that the U.S. needs those bases around the world to project U.S. power. And, often, it has relatively little with safeguarding the security of the host country, per se. Any President attempting such a withdrawal would be skewered mercilessly. Look at all the heat President Obama took just for attempting to set a timetable for Afghanistan!

Indeed, this Administration is INCREASING the U.S. presence in a host of countries ringing China in an effort to contain China. U.S. military ships are now welcome in Vietnam, even though Vietnam remains communist.

Back to mrpizza: On global warming, I think the absolutely best consensus: Of course, the earth experiences temperature cycles, AND a human component exists to the current warming cycle. But no one can say with certainty what percentage that represents.

kavips: The Petraeus story "broke" over the 3 p.m., hour, Friday afternoon.

Allan Loudell


Mike from Delaware
Sun, Nov 11, 2012 2:37pm
Allan: I agree with your assessment, but I still believe we should bring all those troops home IF the host country isn't paying at least half the cost. I realize that will never happen for the reasons you articulated.

kavips
Mon, Nov 12, 2012 2:20am
As mentioned before, what works for growing the economy is to raise the top marginal tax rates. That is the only way jobs get created. This idea of closing loopholes is too vague, and I have yet to see how that provides incentive to create jobs, as does a higher marginal tax rate.... From earlier I quoted a source, I believe the CBO, which showed our taxes collected were 1.2 Trillion and our loopholes or tax cuts were 1.1 trillion. (What that means is ideally our government SHOULD be collecting 2.3 Trillion in revenue per year.)

The problem with closing those loopholes is that the majority, of that $1.1 trillion of "lost income" is the deductions middle America must have: mortgage, insurance, child tax credits, education, medical. To close the loopholes in order to generate $1 trillion in income, would impact middle America significantly.

The top one percent owns 40 percent of the wealth. They are the ones who should pay a higher percentage to keep the economy growing. Their earned money is culled from the economy and never gets pumped back in to it. Therefore taxing them does not slow down the economy one bit, since none of that money taxed was ever earmarked for the buying of any purchases.

But someone taxed more in the middle class, WILL have to cut down purchases, and that when multiplied across every middle American, severely damages the economy.

There is only one option that works. Raise the top marginal percent as high as is needed.... I don't think we have the political will for it, but the science of numbers shows we can even go as high as 100% and have no ill effect upon the economy. In fact the higher the percent, the faster money gets buried into the economy as investment and the faster new jobs get created.....

It would be nice to use all this extra money from the wealthy to completely balance our budgets again ... and have them balanced as far as the eye can see...

mrpizza
Mon, Nov 12, 2012 9:38am
Kavips: I have a better idea. Stop handing money out to freeloaders that don't work and tell them to go get a job! And don't tell me there aren't any. The pizza joints are always hiring.

kavips
Tue, Nov 27, 2012 3:11pm
You mean those freeloaders living off their parent's interest income, right? The ones getting $50 billion tax breaks? Keeping their money offshore? Taking the money with which we purchase, and giving it to China? Those freeloaders?

They wouldn't last a day in your establishment. They've never worked a day in their lives... Filthy bums.


Add your comment:
Attention: In an attempt to promote a level of civility and personal responsibility in blog discussions, we now require you to be a member of the WDEL Members Only Group in order to post a comment. Your Members Only Group username and password are required to process your post.

You can join the WDEL Members Only Group for free by clicking here.
If you are already a member but have forgotten your username or password, please click here.

Please register your post with your WDEL Members Only Group username and password below.
Username:
Password:
Comment:
 










Copyright © 2014, Delmarva Broadcasting Company. All Rights Reserved.   Terms of Use.
WDEL Statement of Equal Employment Opportunity and Outreach