Tom Dec

Hello,

I am running to represent Connecticut’s 4th Congressional District in Charlotte, NC this September at the 2012 Democratic National Convention! Check out my candidacy announcement here: http://www.tomdec.com/dnc. 

I am excited for the weeks and months ahead as we prepare for what will be an exciting and historic election year. As always, don’t hesitate to contact me with questions (tom.dec@yale.edu).

Thanks, 

Tom

abitnippy:

Jon Huntsman has 72 hours to prevent a devastating loss in New Hampshire. In my view, he has three main problems:

1. He is perceived as Romney’s stunt double. People don’t really know the difference between them.

2. His name recognition isn’t high enough. A significant number of people in New Hampshire (let alone the rest of the country) still don’t know who he is. I know this from firsthand experience.

3. His campaign doesn’t have a clearly defined message. Huntsman is the “moderate” candidate, but also the “consistent conservative.” He comes out in favor of evolution and global warming but stops short of positioning himself as the most rational contender in the field. He’s just like Romney but doesn’t flip flop. Huntsman needs something more compelling than these confusing and contradictory points if he wants to win.

With so little time (and so little money) left in the race, he only has one option: Go viral. The #jon2012girls effort was a step in the right direction, but he needs something even bigger.

Here are a few ideas:

Read More

abitnippy is right in that Huntsman is a Romney stunt double. Their places on the ideological spectrum are similar, except that people know Romney better. Romney also has more money and arguably more experience in politics. Huntsman is having trouble beating Romney as his own game. If Huntsman wants a shot he definitely needs to be more aggressive and take calculated risks, but I some of these suggestions are extreme. 

Even better would be to make them snarky and appeal to younger voters: “Jon Huntsman. Because every other candidate sucks.”

This is a horrible, horrible idea. Jon Huntsman should not hope for younger voters to push him over the edge. He has a problem with older voters, and a snarky ad campaign would not help to attract them. In fact, it will only work to deter them from voting. 

Based on a Public Policy Poll conducted from December 16-18th, 64% of voters age 46-65 and 75% of voters over age 65 have a positive impression of Romney, whereas for Huntsman it is 51% and 46% respectively. This is a difference of 13% and 29% - huge.  

In 2008, only 14% of GOP Primary voters were under age 30, while 49% were over age 50. There’s no reason to expect that these youth numbers will top those set in 2008. Even on the Democratic side, where we experienced a high water mark for young voter engagement, voters under 30 were only 18% of the vote. 

Huntsman needs to attract senior votes. I think the idea of painting the other candidates as extreme and going with something along the lines of the “call me crazy” theme is good for New Hampshire. But if he tries to be “cool” and snarky, he’ll almost definitely lose. He needs seniors and he needs to show them the downsides of a Romney candidacy. 

The media is again devoting airtime to Donald Trump and the drama of his presidential conquest.

After soaking up weeks of coverage this spring with his prospective run for the GOP nomination, Trump receded from the limelight. Then, after he couldn’t get Romney to agree to join a debate he was slated to moderate, he took the opportunity to bolt. The move attracted news coverage of course, but no matter how blatant the move is as a ploy to attract attention, the media still consumes it in a frenzy. 

Trump is not going to run for President. I wrote on this topic earlier this year and I think the reasons still hold. Maybe this time around, though, the coverage of the upcoming GOP caucuses and primaries will overshadow him. 

You can read the article from Politico here.

As we get ready to sharpen our carving knives and cut up our Thanksgiving turkey, we should take a moment to recognize the importance of Thanksgiving. It is a holiday that is distinctly American. I would even argue that it is the most patriotic holiday that we celebrate. It is a holiday that has its roots in the partnership of the pilgrims and natives, and it is one that even survived the divide of our Civil War.

They are the gracious gifts of the Most High God, who, while dealing with us in anger for our sins, hath nevertheless remembered mercy. It has seemed to me fit and proper that they should be solemnly, reverently and gratefully acknowledged as with one heart and one voice by the whole American People. - Abraham Lincoln, 1863

In the heat of the most violent conflict in our history - one that almost resulted in the destruction of the Union that we enjoy today - President Lincoln made this universal appeal to the citizenry, north and south. Regardless of your side of the war, all people can and should pause to give thanks to the fruits of America. 

the country, rejoicing in the consciousness of augmented strength and vigor, is permitted to expect continuance of years with large increase of freedom

While we are not divided to the degree that we experienced in the Civil War, many of Lincoln’s words still ring true today. In spite of the fierce divide in Washington over the debt, our national security policy, and the fundamental role of the federal government, we should pause to reflect on the privileges of living in the United States and give thanks. 

 Thanksgiving is a holiday where we trade in our pomp and circumstance for humble reflection. It is a day when our red, white, and blue are not displayed on our chest, but through our families, homes, and hearts. It’s a holiday that unifies us as a country and a culture. And that’s pretty magical.

Professor Sprigman of the University of Virginia School of Law authored an op-ed that ran in today’s Chicago Tribune that I thought was especially timely and provoking. Sprigman is a former Obama ‘08 employee, but has since resolved that the President is “weak,” that he has “broken with the faith that has sustained Democrats since the 1930s” and that, in the end, he urges Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to run against Obama. 

The professor is not alone in his sentiments, I’m sure. At this juncture, the President must demonstrate to the Democratic Party that he is willing to fight for their interests and defend the progress they have achieved over the past couple of generations. I’ll admit, I’m disappointed in the President’s performance in negotiating the debt deal. No doubt about it. The only thing I’m more disappointed in and angry at are the Tea Party representatives in the House of Representatives, but this is precisely the problem. I sincerely hope that my vote in 2012 will not be a “lesser of two evils” decision, but a vote of confidence that the President will fight for not just solutions, but Democratic and practical solutions, to our problems. 

The U.S. is immersed in a largely unprecedented crisis. We have a highly-divided government, with a 2010 coalition of conservative (often Tea Party) Republicans controlling the House and the remnants of the 2006 and 2008 coalitions of moderate and liberal Democrats controlling the Senate and Presidency. Americans usually love divided government (we’ve voted for it time and time again), yet this time it seems that our divided government is devolving into a failed government. 

I’ve put together this little guide to help clarify and summarize the political circumstances that have led to the current debt crisis.

Read More

I think Ezra Klein’s tweet summed it up well: 

Romney: Came in line with expectations, probably seemed the most presidential on the stage and had a commanding tenor and presence. He’s the guy to beat, and he was afraid to act it.

Pawlenty: Underperformed. Should have backed-up his claim about Obamneycare but didn’t do it well. 

Bachmann: Exceeded expectations. Seems like less of an extreme and definitely seems like she can capture and generate enthusiasm from the GOP base. Watch her. 

Paul: He’s Ron Paul. He did what Ron Paul does. Played to his base just fine, but he’s not going anywhere. 

Gingrich: I thought he left politics 15 years ago? 

Santorum and Cain: Afterthoughts of the debate. 

I’m not sure why the political universe isn’t giving Tim Pawlenty more attention.

Coming from my viewpoint as a stalwart Democrat, I think he’s been making strides that will make him the hardest GOP candidate to beat if he can make it to the general election. He is probably the most electable candidate in the GOP field so far.

Based on Pawlenty’s speech, he is definitely not positioning himself to be a champion of the right wing of the GOP establishment, and I think that’s a good move. The problem, of course, is that without the tea partiers and party activists he may not be able to make it through the primary. It’s going to be interesting to see how his campaign unfolds. 

Here are some excerpts and my corresponding commentary from his twenty-minute announcement speech earlier today: 

In my campaign I’m going to take a different approach, I’m going to tell you the truth. Washington D.C. is broken…President Obama doesn’t have an economic plan, he just has a campaign plan…We’ve tried President Obama’s way. And his way has failed…it’s time for a new approach. 

This isn’t particularly noteworthy. As an outsider candidate running against an incumbent, he has to build an argument that he would be better than the status quo, better than the existing Administration. This is the point that is probably going to be the hardest to argue since, in my opinion at least, the Obama Administration has achieved many successes and done a decent job. 

Later this week I’m going to New York City to tell Wall Street that the era of bailouts, handouts, and carve outs, are over. No more subsidies, special treatments, Fannie and Freddy, no more too big to fail.

This is a pretty appealing statement. The populist tone of this - and many of the other positions he established - will play well with virtually all voters. It’s particularly compelling because it seems to be in line with his outsider approach, which is distinct from some of the other potential candidates such as Gingrich or even Romney. 

People getting paid by the taxpayers shouldn’t be getting a better deal than the taxpayers themselves…freezing federal salaries…downsizing federal workforce…pay for results…making public employees more accountable. 

The way he is disguising this relatively conservative point is pretty attractive on paper. He’s not a firebrand conservative saying we need to eliminate large portions of the federal government, he’s coming across as a soft-spoken, practical, politician. This, of course, will be hard to argue in an election against the President seeing as the President already froze most federal salaries and has taken a relatively moderate position on the issue. 

No card check, not now and not ever. No more taxpayer bailouts just because you made big campaign contributions to politicians.

He wants to weaken the unions. This isn’t particularly surprising. 

America is facing a crushing debt crisis…we need to cut spending, and cut it big time…we need to phase out federal subsidies for ethanol…we need to change our approach to subsidies in all industries…we simply can’t afford them anymore. 

This was probably the most surprising part of his speech - coming out against subsidies for ethanol, big agriculture, and other industries (although he did not mention the oil industry - I’m curious how his energy platform will shake out). I agree with the Governor that subsidies to big agriculture need to be reevaluated and I thought it was interesting that he would come out with this in a state that disproportionately relies on those subsidies - perhaps a risky political move. I was maybe even a little bit impressed. 

Conventional wisdom says you can’t talk about ethanol in Iowa or Social Security in Florida or financial reform on Wall Street…someone has to lead. I will…I’ll unite our Party and I’ll unite our nation.

I’m not from Washington. I grew up in Minnesota. I grew up in the hard working, blue collar town of St. Paul.

This is the outsider, straight-talk approach that I think will be an effective message for Pawlenty in the GOP primary. My bet - and his bet, too - is that this will be salient in a field of contenders that is relatively stale and closely associated with Washington in the eyes of the public. 

During my eight years as governor I passed a budget that reduced state spending…I know how to do health care reform right. No mandates, no takeovers, and it’s the opposite of Obamacare…I took on the public employee unions before it was popular to do it…stood up to teacher’s unions…appointed new conservative justices…led a liberal state in a conservative direction.

He’s hitting all the notes necessary to be a realistic GOP contender - reducing spending, weakening unions, conservative SCOTUS justices. These are all litmus tests to becoming the GOP nominee, and he seems to be satisfying them here. 

In 2008 President Obama told us he would change America, and he has. In 2012 we’ll change America again, and this time it will be for the better. 

Pawlenty’s double-edged sword is his lack of charisma. If he wants to generate excitement and the army of volunteers and dollars that follows it, he’s going to have to improve on this front. On the other hand, however, it may prove to be a benefit because it limits his ability to polarize the electorate. His soft-spoken attitude and campaign revolving around “truth” is a good contrast to make in the GOP field (at this point). 

The problem, of course, is I’m not sure the GOP electorate will buy it. I hope not, though, because I’d rather run a race against Palin, Huckabee, or Gingrich anyways.

Here’s the full video, if you want to watch.