Month: January 2012

The former Bain executive has pledged to eliminate capital gains taxes for households with income under $200,000. Roberton Williams explains how this would work in reality:

Nearly 80 percent of households already pay no tax on gains and dividends—either because they have no investment income or because they’re in the 15-percent tax bracket or below. This cut—about $40 billion in 2015—can only help the remaining 20 percent. Not surprisingly, the bulk of benefits go to high-income households. And, because the threshold would apply only to non-gains and non-dividend income, households in the top 1 percent would get nearly a tenth of the tax savings.

The Romney campaign issues a formal reminder:

Naturally, Tom Brokaw and NBC are "extremely uncomfortable" with the ad. Jennifer Rubin gloats, "The Romney campaign should send Brokaw and the legal attacks dogs at NBC roses for assisting their effort." Allahpundit appreciates the savvy at play: 

Wouldn’t surprise me if Team Mitt used the Brokaw footage in the full expectation that NBC would raise a stink. They used the same strategy a few months ago, I suspect, in that ad taking Obama out of context on the economy. They knew the left would flip out and, in so doing, increase the ad’s exposure; it’s "earned media" in the most cynically earned way. This ad is doubly clever insofar as it uses an, ahem, impartial newsman to lay out the "facts" of Gingrich’s ethics reprimand in the House. That’s an effective counter to Newt’s complaints that Romney is distorting what happened in that ethics saga — after all, we’ve got fair-and-balanced Tom Brokaw reporting on it right here — but of course, there is some distortion happening: As Byron York explained in a post a few days ago, Gingrich was ultimately exonerated of any illegality after an investigation by Bill Clinton’s IRS.

Hence the Gingrich campaign's rebuttal ("a history lesson for Mitt Romney and the Washington establishment"): 

The Romney camp doubles down:

Newt retaliates with a new website, TalesofMitt.com. Here the campaign quotes Romney, who said in 1994 that "a blind trust is an age-old ruse":

And another ad on Romney's "short clarification" last Thursday night that he had "never voted for a Democrat when there was a Republican on the ballot": 

Meanwhile, the Gingrich campaign chases the Cuban vote by implying, in Ed Morrissey's words, that "America’s looking a little Castroish these days": 

Romney's final pitch to Floridians is below: 

Lastly, pro-Paul PAC Endorse Liberty is running this short film in Florida: 

Previous Ad War Updates here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here. 

Today on the Dish, Andrew set the record straight on Obama and bin Laden, waded in to the "Israel Firster debate," bashed Jonathan Franzen's rant against e-books, updated you on his Angry Birds progress and the latest research on its beneficial effects on your brain, noted Newt's money problems, told the guy not to quit after Florida, confessed to loathing Romney, saw an uptick in Obama's (Rasmussen!) numbers, and agreed that mocking people for their physical appearance is "just dickish." Newt's fate was up to the elderly, the press hoped for more primary drama from the former speaker, his campaign was fundamentally, historically underwritten by one rich donor, and he appeared to have been down with the mandate in 2009. Romneycare worked, its eponymous progenitor's jobs claims didn't hold up, Paul crept up on the race, foreign policy hurt the candidates, and Intrade's value was debated.

An Iran war seemed like to hurt the one in Afghanistan, nuclear weapons were ambiguously calming, debate raged over American (non) decline, LARPing explained international relations, and the State of the Union may have been less xenophobic than previously thought. The Buffett Rule had hypothetical downsides, space exploration cost a pretty penny, snow economics were tricksy, and the Queen's job record impressed. Dogs were super malleable, phenotypically speaking, and adorable at dog parks. Conservatism didn't correlate with age, the Salem witches took a bunch of datura, the internet binged on television, and Hollywood's treatment of race continued to be a hot topic.

Quotes for the Day here and here, Cool Ad here, Correction of the Day here (counter-correction here), Yglesias Nominee here, FOTD here, MHB here, and VFYW here.

– Z.B.

Richard Fontaine argues that global issues will matter this year. Paul Waldman claims this would hurt the GOP:

For a long time there was a simple formula that worked quite well for Republicans: say
"We're strong, they're weak," advocate force in foreign affairs as often as possible, repeat, win elections. But ten years since the Afghanistan war started and just under nine years since the Iraq war started, there's no obvious political benefit to taking the position that what we need is another war. When you combine that with the series of badass special operations missions (most notably the killing of Osama Bin Laden) that have occurred under Obama, it's not obvious that advocating a war with Iran makes you look tough. It may just make you look like a nut, or an idiot.

Brad Smith wants social scientists to use Live Action Role Play (LARP) as a testing ground for their theories:

About a year back, I posted about "Darkon," a documentary about a group of live-action role players whose games tended towards resembling the interactions of states in the international system.  Besides the obvious entertainment that can be gained from watching a bunch of nerds smack each other with foam swords, the documentary was quite thought provoking.  Just imagine what you might be able to learn from following these guys around for a few months and observing their behavior (besides how much mountain dew and doritos an individual can consume before keeling over.) 

Sure, players in these games adhere (for the most part) to a simplified set of rules, but is that really any different from the game-theoretic models we all love so much?  In fact, I would argue that, by observing these players, it may be possible to gain some insights into the reasons that individuals don't always act in accordance with the rational-choice framework.  This could potentially make the use of rational choice models even more valuable in the long run, as it could help us to integrate these models with a more psychological approach to the study of international relations.

Jonah Goldberg thinks so: 

I am always at a loss about how much, if at all, I should care about this information. From what I can tell, the “prices” for shares in political candidates have been all over the place over the last year. So how predictive are they, really? It seems to me they don’t really measure the likelihood of anything so much as the prevalence of certain aspects of conventional wisdom. It’s a clever way to poll people in a given moment, not some ingenious new mechanism for gleaning the future.

Rachel Weiner made the case for the prediction market a few months ago: 

The site’s collective wisdom tends to be more reliable than than the cadre of professional pundits when it comes to forecasting election reults. In 2008, bettors got only two states wrong — Indiana and Missouri. Bettors thought Indiana would go Republican and Missouri would go Democratic. Neither prediction was right. Those two states canceled each other out, however, keeping the site very close to the actual electoral college total. In 2004, the site got every state right. Bettors tend to follow polls closely, and polls (when appropriately screened for bias or poor methodology) tend to be pretty accurate in the aggregate. Pundits have personal biases — affection for particular campaign consultants, a desire to not follow the pack — that Intrade bettors don’t.

A pheasant stands in snow near Dulverton on January 30, 2012 in Exmoor, England. After unseasonably mild winter weather, some parts of the UK woke to a covering of snow as a cold spell of weather sets in, with forecasters warning temperatures are set to plunge as the week progresses. By Matt Cardy/Getty Images.

Will Oremus compares Newt's moneyman to other big-time donors: 

Never, that we know of, has an individual propped up one candidate’s campaign to such an extent. That is, an individual other than the candidate himself—candidates have long been allowed to bankroll their own campaigns, a fact that has favored ultra-rich hopefuls like, well, Mitt Romney. Romney has in fact significantly outspent Gingrich in the current campaign, even counting the Adelson money.

A reader writes:

Has Ryan Avent lived in a cave for the last three years? Obama is the most non-xenophobic president in recent memory, in action and word. Promoting America the way he did at the SOTU is as American as apple pie, and should be considered in context of Obama's entire term thus far. What should an American president say, "our workers are almost as good as everyone around the world"? "America will win every now and then"?  For someone who correctly slams Mitt for his lies about the Obama "apology tour", you missed an opportunity to expose the untruth of the other side of that coin – Obama is too pro-America!

Another writes:

While I agree politicians are way too xenophobic with their American Exceptionalism, I would remind Mr. Avent that speeches are designed to speak to a specific audience.  When Obama was in the Middle East he was extolling America's greatness in the frame of a friendly nation, but when he is speaking at the SOTU he is speaking to Americans. 

"The language of GOP racial politics is heavy on euphemisms that allow the speaker to deny any responsibility for the racial content of his message. The code words in this game are 'entitlement society' — as used by Mitt Romney — and 'poor work ethic' and 'food stamp president' — as used by Newt Gingrich. References to a lack of respect for the 'Founding Fathers' and the 'Constitution' also make certain ears perk up by demonizing anyone supposedly threatening core 'old-fashioned American values,'" – Juan Williams, not backing down from the question he posed to Newt Gingrich.