Pre-Memorial Day 2012 presidential election projection: Obama wins handily

“The 2012 presidential election is going to be close. Very close. Incredibly close. Like Al-Gore-vs-George-W.-Bush close.”

That’s how Chris Cillizza, a Washington Post political pundit whose work I respect, started a post for his highly respected blog, The Fix, yesterday. He is far from alone in his proclamation that the election will be tight; similar statements in recent weeks have come from the likes of the Atlantic, the Los Angeles Times, the New York Times,  U.S. News and countless talking heads on cable news programs. On the other hand Rolling Stone writer Matt Taibbi says most journalists think Obama has it won, but have good reason to say otherwise:

It’s our job in the media to try to drum up interest in this. We have to sell advertising, we have to get viewers and get ratings. We can’t just come out and say that this thing is over six months before it happens. So, there is a strong incentive among all pundits, including me, to come out and say, ‘this could happen, that could happen.’ Romney has a legitimate chance. It’s just a subconscious pull that works on all of us in the media that drives us to make those kinds of comments, I think.

You can use the links above to read the various arguments for yourself, and I responded to Cizzilla in the comments section of his blog yesterday, but today I decided it was worth expanding here why I think Cillizza and those other “close elections” folks are wrong. The 2012 presidental election won’t be close, and unless something significant happens to change the tide Obama will win.

I know this is too early in the process to make such pronouncements. After all, despite what Fox News and MSNBC would have you believe, most people won’t pay any serious attention to the campaigns until at least the conventions this summer, or later. (Some never will pay much attention, but will show up to vote regardless, a whole other issue.) A lot can happen between now and November. We might go to war in Iraq, or see things turn dramatically worse in Afghanistan. Worldwide economic collapse or some form of disaster may make U.S. elections irrelevant. The U.S. might be embarrassed in the Olympics, which Fox News will blame on Obama. Stephen Colbert might agree to be Mitt Romney’s vice presidential candidate. Joe Biden might kiss Jeremiah Wright on the mouth while standing on an American flag and holding a Qur’an. Congress might do something constructive. Space aliens might attack–or simply give their support to Romney. Less likely, Romney might figure out a way to talk to regular people. So, in fact, no one KNOWS what will happen in the election.

I have alluded previously to the fact that I thought Obama would win handily in 2012, whether he deserves to or not. I pointed out that the GOP Congressional victories of 2010 would likely help, and with tongue firmly planted in cheek, my reasons have included bad graphic design by the Romney folks and horse racing’s Triple Crown. Now I’ll offer some more serious reasons that nervous folks shouldn’t waste beautiful summer days agonizing over presidential politics. (If you still want to get worked up about politics, get involved locally or at the state level, where you might actually make a difference.)

Lots of people can provide arguments for why Obama might lose, and some on talk radio and on blogs act as if an Obama defeat is a certainty. But today I’ll take the opportunity to point out that it’s not just me who thinks those people are misguided–EVERYONE who has meaningful data seems to think Obama will win. Yahoo! predicted back in February that Obama would win in a landslide. Those who say Romney will be our next president seem to be basing their “predictions” on wishful thinking, such as that expressed by usually wrong Weekly Standard editor William Kristol and washed-up political hack Dick Morris. Let’s look at some electoral maps.

If you count states that are certain to go for either candidate, along with those that “likely” will, 270towin.com has Obama gaining 217 votes, Romney, 190, with just 130 undecided. The undecided votes represent just eight states, which explains why both candidates have been (and will be) spending so much of their time in Ohio, Florida, Virginia and North Carolina. That 217-190 count sounds close, and it is–but that seems to be the best possible picture for Romney at this point, other than the interactive map offered by the Washington Post (with analysis by Cillizza). That map gives Obama 196 “solid” and 41 “leaning” electoral votes, compared to 170 and 21 for the challenger, with 110 undecided.

Other maps give Obama an even bigger margin. For example, Real Clear Politics has Obama leading 227-170, with 141 (11 states) as toss-ups. In that case the president needs just 43 more electoral votes, with numerous different ways to get there. Romney needs 100, virtually guaranteeing that he needs to win both Ohio and Florida–and still needs a lot of help elsewhere. Electoral-vote.com has Obama winning easily, with 253 votes already declared “strongly Democratic,” 32 as “weak Democratic,” and 73 as “barely Democratic.” The Intrade Prediction Market (likely to be wildly inaccurate at this point because of limited participation) has it 250-146 for Obama, with 142 outstanding. And “Blogging Caesar“–who seems to be a conservative and who claims to have an outstanding prediction record–at electionprojection.com has Obama by a landslide, 303-235.

Again, it’s early and much could change. But if anyone has real numbers or meaningful data that seem to predict a Romney win, I haven’t come across them. And Obama seems to have more options to reach 270 electoral votes than Romney does. If you have evidence to the contrary, I hope you’ll share it. Closer elections are more interesting, which is why the media have an interest in acting as if this one will be tight. And because close elections make it easier to raise money, neither party will tell you before election day that this one seems to be wrapped up.

Still, as even a Fox News contributor pointed out a couple of weeks ago, “The bottom line is that President Obama’s path to electoral victory seems clear.” So there you have it–feel free to ignore the summer “close election” hype. Rather than sending your hard-earned 10 bucks to a presidential candidate, use that money to take your kids out for ice cream.

Memorial Day update: Here’s another “poll of polls” that indicates it will be tough for Obama to lose: polltrack.com.

Some real ‘horse-race’ coverage that bodes ill for GOP

I’ll Have Another won the Preakness Stakes on Saturday, following up on the horse’s previous win in the Kentucky Derby. That could be bad news for Mitt Romney and the Republicans.

So what does horse racing’s Triple Crown have to do with the presidential election? Probably nothing–since I’m not much of a gambler or horse racing fan, I’m not much into omens. But if there’s a relationship between the two, Romney (who no doubt knows some thoroughbred owners) has even more reason to worry.

As it turns out, only eight horses have won the first two legs of the Triple Crown during presidential election years. In six of those eight cases, the Democratic candidate then proceeded to win the White House. The two exceptions also proved noteworthy: In 1968, Forward Pass became the only horse to win the Kentucky Derby because of a disqualification and a contested decision eventually determined by the Kentucky Supreme Court. In 2004, Smarty Jones won the first two Triple Crown races, and George W. Bush won his second presidential election–which, unlike the first, did not have to be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court.

The only horse ever to win the Triple Crown during a presidential election year was Citation, in 1948. What else happened that year? Oh, yeah: Harry Truman was the incumbent president, but earlier that year had announced that the U.S. military would be desegregated (allowing African Americans, not gays, to serve with whites). Truman ran against Thomas Dewey, a cold, stiff, Northeastern governor and mostly campaigned against the famous Republican-controlled “Do-Nothing Congress“–which, incidentally, the current Congress has made look like a bunch of workaholics. The1948 result? “Dewey Defeats Truman,” of course.

So when it comes to comparing 2012 to 1948, Democrats are no doubt cheering for I’ll Have Another. Republicans, on the other hand, will want to put their money on any other horse in the field. Perhaps Rousing Sermon?

Come to think of it, Republicans probably don’t want I’ll Have Another to win, anyway. After all, how would it look if the jockey for next Triple Crown winner were to be ridden by a young Mexican guy?

Demon sheep and the goat curse: Ricketty anti-Obama plan hurts GOP

It is fitting that Joe Ricketts is the patriarch of the family that owns the Chicago Cubs. As with the last-place Cubs, Ricketts seems determined to pour his political dollars into losing. The Cubs, some say, will never overcome the “billy goat curse.”

In truth we don’t know if J.R. had anything to do with the supposed “Ricketts Plan” to use Jeremiah Wright to bring about “the defeat of Barack Hussein Obama.” Son Tom Ricketts–now in the process of trying to get $150 million in taxpayer money for stadium funding from former Obama chief of staff Rahm Emanuel–is certainly trying to distance himself from the proposal. Joe Ricketts’ daughter, Laura, has gone much further, serving as one of Obama’s key fundraisers. Of course dear ol’ dad may end up inadvertently raising more money for Obama than Laura does.

Regardless of its origin, we know that the plan has already caused Mitt Romney and the GOP more problems than it will ever cause Obama. Even if Sean Hannity and the occasional right-wing blogger can’t see it.

We also know that earlier this week Ricketts’ PAC improved the Democrats’ chances of holding a Senate seat they were destined to lose. Though it seems unlikely that Deb Fischer will turn out to be another Christine O’Donnell or Sharron Angle, we can always hope–if only for entertainment purposes. Bob Kerrey certainly has to be happy that she won after Sarah Palin endorsed her. And who knows how far the curses of mama grizzlies or billy goats might extend?

Interestingly, one of the key players in the Ricketts PAC is “best known for attention-grabbing advertisements, including one in 2010 for the California Senate candidate Carly Fiorina that portrayed her primary opponent … as a ‘demon sheep.’” Fiorina, of course, had about as much chance of beating Barbara Boxer as the Cubs do of winning this year’s World Series. OK, any year’s World Series, but as a Seattle Mariners’ fan I try not to kick the downtrodden.

Obama slogan too common to be communist, too dull to be radical

“Forward.” As the new Obama slogan? Really? The MSNBC version may be slightly worse, and unlike Joe Scarborough I doubt that this was a case of theft. More likely is that few in the Obama campaign–like relatively few elsewhere in America–actually watch MSNBC often enough to recognize its slogan. But still … “Forward”?

The slogan might made sense if any the flailing conservative wing of GOP competitors had fared better in the primaries, since “Forward” would look much better in contrast to the obvious conservative slogan of “Backward.” But now? It’s like the Obama folks know that victory will be so easy that they can save the really good slogans for Hillary in 2016. Maybe as a “thank you” for her service as Secretary of State and as an inept 2008 campaign foil.

Speaking of “foil,” the slogan has generated an interesting meme among the tinfoil hat club who think that everything Obama does is part of a communist plot. The Moony-tunes Washington Times showed its usual journalistic quality by relying on Wikipedia to claim in a headline, “New Obama slogan has long ties to Marxism, socialism”–and, predictably, Fox Nation and Glenn Beck were even lazier in then picking up the Washington Times piece. Sadly, the once-proud National Review continued to disgrace the memory of founder William F. Buckley by also “reporting” from Wikipedia.

One of Andrew Breitbart‘s nasty spawn joined in on the May Day Parade (see how I did that?). London’s political equivalent of the Washington Times, the Daily Mail, did so from abroad. And of course, various bloggers (also here, here, here, here, here and here for sampling) jumped on board. Not to be outdone, you can always count on the occasional goofball blogger to find a Nazi connection, even if Beck is no longer on Fox News to help diagram it on a bizarre chart.

The communist/socialist tie is just nutty, of course, as pointed out by Mediaite and ThinkProgress (both organizations that come closer to having socialist views than does the current conservative in the White House), unless Koch brothers buddy Scott Walker heads a socialist state. The big problem with Obama’s slogan isn’t it’s political perspective–it’s the boring lack of any meaningful perspective. Even Chrysler came up with a better slogan for Obama–though I suppose the problem there is that there’s no “o” in “halftime” to turn into an Obama symbol.

Washington Post blogger Alexandra Petri has perhaps the best critique of the slogan, noting, “On average, President Obama’s slogans are pretty good. This is to say that his last slogan was extraordinary and this one is abjectly terrible.”

Same-night update: Rachel Maddow covered the same issue tonight, citing many of the same sources.

The coming U.S. civil war

“I fear we are headed for another civil war in this country,” wrote the author of a letter in my morning paper yesterday. I sighed audibly. That again?

I’ve been reading about the possibility of “Civil War II” at least since Obama was elected president–usually on blogs (other examples here, here, here)  or on YouTube, often in the form of prediction, sometime expressed hopefully. Sometimes I used to reply, “So who do you see as the ‘sides’ in this imaginary civil war?” I never got a good answer, but the goofy intellectually lazy “threat” keeps popping up. Even since Glenn Beck, one-time king of the conspiracy loons, has slunk into near-oblivion.

Frankly, the idea of a new U.S. civil war is ludicrous. Of course I’m not talking about the assorted conspiracy nuts who claim that we’re already in a civil war, even if most of us don’t know it. Nor do I classify economic inequity (which may be every bit as deadly) or our current battles over social issues as true warfare, as some do.

Still, the tone of our politics has prompted even a few folks beyond the fearful or crazy cyberspace cadets to raise the idea of a new rootin’-tootin’-shootin’ civil war. A former national editor of politics for National Journal even did so last year in an interesting piece that makes some comparisons between 1861 and 2011. Still, to her credit, she doesn’t predict civil conflict and does write: “After all, at the heart of the Civil War was a great conflict over human bondage. By comparison, today’s debate between the Democrats and tea party Republicans seems, picayune.”

Uh, yeah. And that’s the key point. Those who talk about how “bad” things are now, how “divided” we are, seem to have forgotten their history (no big surprise there, considering how little of it journalists seem to know). Economic divisions were greater before and during our two Great Depressions. Political divisions were wider in the 1950s and 1960s, with battles–some bloody–over civil rights and the Vietnam War. And Americans were far more willing to die for causes during our two world wars.

In fact, even if most of us could figure out who the two “sides” would be–keeping in mind that most Americans agree on more than they disagree about–the vast majority of Americans today lack the desperation (fortunately), the energy (unfortunately) or the focus (sadly) for any “war” that goes beyond words. Especially when those words tend to be regurgitated talking points of the far left and the far right, as relevant to most people as back-seat cup holders were for Mitt Romney’s Irish Setter.

It is true that people will continue to bicker, and some, like Beck, will take advantage of the rhetoric to enrich themselves or to incite others to acts of violence. Congress will continue to dither and achieve little, and Americans will keep dying needlessly.

But those Americans will die because of a pitiful health care system and stupid wars abroad, not because of a civil war at home.

Another reason Romney will lose: Bad graphic design

As expected for some time, the presidential race is down to Mitt Romney(s) vs. Barack Obama. And unless something dramatic occurs–such as Republicans figuring out that they’re running in 2012 rather than 1952–Obama will win handily in November. Regardless of what the conservative activists on the Supreme Court have decided about health care.

I’m not saying Obama deserves to win; there are many reasons he shouldn’t. And obviously some think the Secret Service should be getting ready to retrofit the presidential limo with a rooftop doggie carrier. Even more predict a close election; polls might seem to bear that out. (Not that media have a vested interest in those predictions–otherwise, why would you keep watching?) Those folks are probably wrong, despite the fact that most Americans will pay almost no attention to presidential politics for months, after arguments about a “war on women” and the bitter Republican primary rhetoric have been forgotten.

Recently the students in my media criticism class joined me in figuring out another reason Romney won’t win: His team apparently knows little about graphic design. Check out his logo, in which (as students pointed out in class, and New York magazine noticed earlier), the “R” looks like a smear of toothpaste. One blogger compared it to a cruise line logo, while another compared it to a soft drink ad. (Coincidentally, as a colleague has noted, that smear precedes a set of five letters that if just slightly rearranged spell out an appropriate word for the candidate: money.)

Then comes the kerning, or the space between letters–the last two of which are crammed together, as if the designers ran out of room. Was this a product of some Gingrich-like child-employment scheme? Unlike Romney himself, it’s ugly. Like Romney, the design looks wimpy and indecisive.

My class critiques candidates’ graphic design choices every year, and generally notice things that professionals should have seen. Here is Rachel Maddow’s take on the Romney logo. The New York Times offered interesting logo perspectives in 2004 and 2008.

Now I’m part of ‘profanity police’

At the bottom of my most recent post, I noted a couple of days ago that New York Times media writer Elizabeth Jensen cited that post in an article. Her embedded link brought more than 3,300 readers to this blog yesterday–more than double the previous record (from a few years ago when a link to a post appeared at the bottom of a CNN story. That’s also more readers than I get most months, since I gave up blogging almost daily in April 2009.

Not surprisingly, among the new readers were some folks who found fault–including one who apparently didn’t read my post very closely, let alone anything else I’ve written, since in a comment he referred to my comments as “right wing.” That made some of my conservative friends chuckle. And now the Atlantic Wire blog  and the liberal blog Con Games, among others, are apparently lumping Jensen and me in together with the “profanity police.”

“McPherson may be shocked to discover that movie stars ‘come across as a group of hormonal middle school students’ as the foul-mouthed bunch did in the magazine’s Oscar Roundtable, that may just be because he hasn’t spent enough time on set,” offers Con Games. And that’s certainly true, if by “not enough” one means “none.”

But of course I’m not terribly surprised by the juvenile behavior–just that Newsweek writer David Ansen seemed to be so enthralled by that behavior. Maybe Ansen hasn’t spent enough time on sets if he is so fascinated by such juvenile pap. I’ll repeat my previous quote: “I have no doubt that the stars used that language. I do doubt that it’s representative of how most of them behave most of the time. If so, let’s hope they stick to acting–they’re just not very interesting, if this is a realistic depiction.”

In fact, previous editions of Newsweek’s “Oscar Roundtable” can easily be found online. And while I won’t take the time to check right now, I’d be willing to bet that none of them–despite the fact that they, too, involve “movie stars”–include the amount of profanity found in the most recent version. In fact, the “new” Newsweek is the problem. And perhaps, according to the blogs, it’s a Tina Brown problem. Both blogs contain thisprofanity-landen quote (I don’t know which is the original source):

“Tina Brown watchers with long memories might recall a similar complaint dogging the editor after she took over The New Yorker in 1992. On the occasion of her one year anniversary at the helm of that magazine, Spy Magazine ran an item headlined ‘Fuck Yes, The New Yorker,’ that compared some of the words that appeared in The New Yorker before and after Brown took over. Among the words used under Robert Gottlieb, the magazine’s previous editor: ‘Intransigent,’ ‘avuncular,’ ‘ballyhooed,’ and ‘panoply.’ Among the words used under Brown: ‘fuck,’ ‘masturbatory soft porn,’ ‘warm piss,’ ‘fart,’ and ‘bitch.’”

I can’t say that I’ve ever been as big a fan of Brown as many other media watchers, and a previous much-ballyhooed Brown effort, Talk, was awful and blessedly short-lived. I do appreciate her occasional book reviews on NPR’s “Morning Edition”–which, perhaps ironically, I listen to on the same radio station that provided my “free” subscription to Newsweek.

Same-day follow-up: The “others” who have commented on this issue, with links to this blog, now include a New York magazine blog, the conservative Accuracy in Media, a blog titled “Caffeinated Politics,” and another seemingly liberal media blog from Bemidji, Minn.

Feb. 16: Mediabistro, an American University blog about public media, and many in the Twitterverse also have commented on the issue. Perhaps my favorite from the latter: One that quotes Sarah Palin to seemingly compare me to GOP contraception goofballs.

Newsweek opts for immature profanity over depth

Through a weird circumstance involving donations to public radio, I get two copies of Newsweek each week. This week’s issue demonstrated why that’s typically two more than I need. The time would be much better spent on Mother Jones, The Nation, or even National Review.

While this week’s issue of Newsweek does have an interesting and worthwhile story about International Monetary Fund chairwoman Christine Lagarde, much of the magazine seems to have been turned over to college sophomores–the kind of sophomores who love writing for university newspapers because they’ve found that they can get away with profanity.

Warning: If you’re offended by reading profanity, even in context, please stop reading now.

I don’t swear much, myself. I did so much more when I played college football and when I worked in a sawmill, but like most of those sophomores I refer to above, I outgrew it. That doesn’t mean I’m a prude about it: Despite the fact that I teach at a Christian university, I’ll even use it in class when it seems appropriate. After all, just as biology students should look at pictures that might seem sexually graphic or gory in another context, students of media should consider even the less pleasant parts of the language.

So the “f word” pops up a couple of times in my media history class. The first is when I’m quoting President Lyndon Johnson asking the president of CBS, “Frank, are you trying to fuck me?” The second comes during a discussion of protest music from various period, when I play the video for “Cop Killer.” I spend a bit of time talking about how profanity was used by young people as a way to get attention — and then, unfortunately in my view, it became much more prevalent throughout society.

That’s a trend I find objectionable, because it’s rude, lazy and generally a reflection of immaturity and/or stupidity. I have been known to ask (usually politely) people in public settings to clean up their language–even though in my journalism classes I have pointed out the goofiness of what I refer to as the “Wheel-of-Fortune” quotes often used in magazines in newspapers and magazines: for example, something along the lines of “Frank, are you trying to f___ me?”

But Newsweek, probably as a result over being taken over by the upstart Daily Beast, doesn’t take the silly “Wheel-of-Fortune” route. No, it goes out of its way to slap readers upside their heads with coarse language, even when that language serves no meaningful purpose. Maybe it’s a Country Joe and the Fish or N.W.A. flashback, but this week’s issue alone offers the following:

• A story about “the Black Hollywood vote,” quotes Samuel L. Jackson saying, “The president got about a week of moderate applause for capturing the most-wanted man in the world. You ask me, he should have put that motherfucker on ice and defrosted his ass Nov. 1.”
• Rick Perry and Paul Begala both are quoted using the abbreviated version of that same word: “mofo.”
• In a piece called “Capitalism Gone Wild” (get it), novelist Robert Harris ”sums up his attitude about Blair by quoting Harold Pinter: ‘We all believed in New Labour, and what a fucking shithouse that turned out to be.’”
• Singer Ingrid Michaelson has decided to drop being “cute,” and so is quoted (via a sock puppet) as saying: “I’ve got some serious dark shit in me. Everyone is like, ‘She’s so cute, she’s so cute.’ You know what? Fuck that!
• Perhaps worst is the annual “Oscar roundtable,” in which half a dozen Hollywood stars come across as a group of hormonal middle school students. Words from the “conversation” that were deemed magazine-worthy include “tits,” “shit,” “bullshit” and “cock” (not a rooster). I have no doubt that the stars used that language. I do doubt that it’s representative of how most of them behave most of the time. If so, let’s hope they stick to acting–they’re just not very interesting, if this is a realistic depiction.

All of those examples come from the print version of the magazine. Online you can find even more, particularly with a story about former porn actress Traci Lords. Weirdly, perhaps, one online story that doesn’t include any profanity is the  one titled, “The Sex Diaries Project,” about the sex lives of 1,500 people.

Apparently author Jessica Bennett has figured that someone who writes well doesn’t need to rely on adolescent language, even when talking about immature people and sex. Perhaps Newsweek editors should pay closer attention to her work, assuming readers stay around to see it. I certainly won’t be renewing my free subscription–either of them, for that matter.

FEB. 12 FOLLOW-UP: This post has been linked in an online story of today’s New York Times, which will apparently appear on p. B7 of tomorrow’s New York edition (I don’t know about out here in the West). The story notes that some public television donors had complained (like me, they apparently get Newsweek because they support PBS).

Writer Elizabeth Jensen quotes an email response from Stephen Colvin, chief executive of The Newsweek Daily Beast Company (essentially saying, “Hey, we’re selling more copies, so screw off”), and Newsweek executive editor Justine Rosenthal, stating, ““We do not use profanity unless within a quote or in the context of a story and care is taken to ensure it is never used gratuitously.” Of course, the examples I noted were in quotes. Perhaps Newsweek writers just used to be better at getting more intellectual responses than they are now.

Excited about Obama vs. Romney?

http://www.facebook.com/dialog/oauth?api_key=41245586762&app_id=41245586762&channel_url=https%3A%2F%2Fs-static.ak.fbcdn.net%2Fconnect%2Fxd_proxy.php%3Fversion%3D3%23cb%3Df3cbfaa2b9f5ee4%26origin%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fjmcpherson.wordpress.com%252Ff1b59ad68008bca%26relation%3Dparent.parent%26transport%3Dpostmessage&client_id=41245586762&display=none&locale=en_US&origin=1&redirect_uri=https%3A%2F%2Fs-static.ak.fbcdn.net%2Fconnect%2Fxd_proxy.php%3Fversion%3D3%23cb%3Df32bb06976f1b02%26origin%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fjmcpherson.wordpress.com%252Ff1b59ad68008bca%26relation%3Dparent%26transport%3Dpostmessage%26frame%3Df3f6a115a9bc628&response_type=token%2Csigned_request%2Ccode&sdk=joey

Let’s get this out of the way right up front: As I predicted even before Obama was formally elected in 2008, the 2012 presidential election will be a contest between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney. Or more likely, a three-way race involving Obama, Romney and Voter Indifference. Unfortunately I later chickened out on my Romney prediction, and have wavered since then–stating on the radio and elsewhere that Romney had the best chance of beating Obama, but probably couldn’t win over enough evangelicals and Tea Party members to win the GOP nomination.

So assuming that Mitt will win the nomination, we can determine that another prediction in that October 2008 post also was accurate, that “the Religious Right will continue to decline in influence”–after all, many of evangelicals will end up voting for a Mormon over a Christian (though same may still insist they’re choosing a Mormon over a Muslim). Likewise, the Tea Party effect has apparently waned, so however much we may have enjoyed the loony antics of this Republican primary race, we may have fewer interesting characters getting serious consideration in 2012 Congressional races than we saw two years ago.

Of course tonight the three cable news networks are devoting all of their time to the Iowa Republican Caucus, trying to act as if it matters. Perhaps they really think it does, though I’m giving them–even Megyn Kelly on Fox News–the benefit of the doubt, assuming they’re smart enough to know better. But if they don’t put on the pseudo-breathless political horserace act, they know that no one other than media critics and political junkies will watch.

Maybe viewers would mostly tune out anyway, keeping in mind how few (thankfully) actually watch cable news regularly. Fox News likes to brag about how its talking heads draw bigger audiences than do those on either CNN or MSNBC, but that’s a bit like claiming to be the most popular hooker in church. All of the traditional network nightly news programs have dropped considerably, but NBC, ABC and CBS news shows all get far better ratings than anything on Fox News. And when it comes to cable, the top five networks are USA, the Disney Channel, ESPN, TNT and the once-credible, now badly misnamed, History Channel.

Of those top five, only ESPN offers anything resembling news. And its high standing simply demonstrates the key point of sports columnist’s Norman Chad’s outstanding column of this week. Even if you’re not a sports fan (and especially if you are), I encourage you to read the piece, in which Chad points out, “We spend more money on stadiums than schools,” and “At our institutions of higher learning, we care more about basketball than biology.”

Chad also writes: “Think about this: We have been at war somewhere in the world since 2001 — at war — and that gets less scrutiny than an average NFL game. For real. Buccaneers-Falcons is dissected in detail much more than U.S.-Afghanistan; that’s an NFC divisional game weighed against an international armed conflict.”

Back to the Iowa Caucus: Some may argue that Rick Santorum’s relatively strong showing means something. But that would be true only if Iowa had been significant in any election since 1976. But Iowa doesn’t matter–just ask John McCain, who finished fourth there four years ago.

Romney will be the GOP nominee, and he may even win. Looking at today’s Republican party, though, I seriously doubt it. More likely is that my next trip to Washington, D.C., will correspond with Obama’s next inauguration. And chances are, I’ll watch it on a hostel TV again, just as I did in 2009. With luck, maybe Chief Justice John Roberts will get the words right this time.

A final word about the Republicans who might end up voting for Romney. My favorite recent political quote comes from a music professor I won’t name because the words come from an email: “If you were for Michelle Bachman, before you were for Rick Perry, before you were for Herman Cain, before you were for Newt Gingrich, before you were for Rick Santorum–mainly because you were against Mitt Romney before you were for him–do you waive your right to complain about flip-flopping? For all time?”

Faced with that quandry, I suspect many voters will simply stay home, helping the Obama machine win again.

Cain for GOP? Nein, nein, nein

First, let me say that I don’t particularly care whether Herman Cain cheated on his wife. I might care, for her sake, but since she seems to be a “Cain en-able-er” (go ahead, say it out loud and groan), I’m certainly not going to lose sleep over what goes on in their 43-year marriage. Apparently something works.

The same generally goes for serial adulterers Newt Gingrich, Rudy Giuliani and Donald Trump. If they can govern, that’s mostly what I care about. Still, when Republicans keep preaching about family values, it seems a bit more hypocritical (and perhaps more politically relevant because of that hypocrisy) when the cheater is a Republican such as those three, Mark Foley, Arnold Schwarzenegger,  Larry Craig, Mark Sanford and John Ensign, rather than a Democrat such as Bill Clinton, John Edwards, Jim McGreevey, Anthony Wiener or Eliot Spitzer.

I grant you that all of the guys named above with the possible exception of Cain are sleazeballs that I don’t want to hang out with. But if I thought one of them could get the country on track, he’d get my vote. And the fact is, Cain would be a lousy president. Most conservatives would agree, if they actually know anything about him. Cain just happened to fill the “anybody but Mitt” slot that Gingrich now occupies, probably also temporarily because he’s also a loser, for the GOP faithful.

I would remind the Cain supporters not to be too hasty in their arguments that Cain is being maligned. Usually the women who make these kinds of claims are ridiculed and disbelieved at first–and usually they turn out to be telling the truth. But one of those Cain supporters made me laugh out loud today.

Floyd Brown, the creator of the infamous “Willie Horton” ad used against Michael Dukakis posted on his own blog a piece titled–and I promise, I’m not making this up–”Video: Herman Cain, Man of Character, Destroyed By An Evil Media.” In his post, Brown unbelievably writes the following: “I consider the attacks on Cain to be the most reprehensible series of unjustified media allegations I have seen in my 50 years of life.” Really, Floyd? Remember, you’re the guy who takes pride in introducing most of us to Willie Horton through the ad that–in case you need a reminder–you can find at the bottom of this post.

Brown also states that “the relentless assault planned by the Obama White House … is abhorrent.” Now that’s just goofy, and Brown–or any regular watcher of “The West Wing” or “The Good Wife”–should know it. If Democrats were behind this, don’t you think they’d wait to unleash it until after Cain had the nomination? If the supposed “attacks” are political in nature, my guess on who is behind it would be Gingrich–the guy who is supposedly staying above it all.

And while I thought Brown’s showing of support was funny, I found another to be simply sad. A new website, titled “Women for Herman Cain,” includes words of support from women around the country professing their belief in Cain. Most include photos of themselves, many of the self-shot variety that too many girls and young women commonly post on Facebook. But many of these women aren’t young, and shouldn’t be naive. And because I find them mostly pitiful, I won’t include their names below.

“Dear Mr. Cain, I am a 66 year old female architect in the State of Texas, and want to simply say… as a REAL woman I do not believe for one second any of these ‘women’ that have crawled out from under a rock somewhere to defame you and bring pain to you and your family. They are pitiful creatures at the very least, and evil at the most. Isn’t it convenient that they have suddenly become offended by supposed advances by you now after all these years, my goodness, poor babies, how have they been able to bare up under the pain for all these oh so many years… LIARS, LIARS, LIARS…”

Even as we wonder about the ironic misspelling of bear/bare, one wonders how this “real woman” knows that others are liars. Here’s another, with the original spelling and grammar intact:

” Hello, Herman Cain, you need to focus about this America” and don’t even listen to all this women ,that they don’t have nothing good to say about you… they they are money hungry… and women like this, Don’t care or don’t have no “SHAME to go on TV…to use lies, for money…somebody has been paying this women. They make me sick to my stomach…..they need to start digging a hole on the ground n till they rich china”

And another, from a woman who apparently missed the fact that Cain blames unemployment on the jobless: “”Mr. Cain, I support you very much. I am currently unemployed. I haven’t been able to find a full time job since I graduated college in 2009. … I do not believe a single one of the ‘women’ who have accused you.” What is it about Cain’s female followers and their use of quotation marks while disparaging possible “women” victims?

One writes to Cain’s wife, who is heading up the website: “Mrs. Cain, I’m so very sorry for the pain you’ve had to suffer at the hands of these seriously troubled women and those behind them. Such an elegant lady as you should never have to deal with such scum.”

I agree that Gloria Cain shouldn’t have to deal with scum. But apparently she chooses to do so. And I do wonder how often her husband checks out the photos on her new website, looking for new women to “help.” God knows that some there seem to need it.

Next-day follow-up: Cain admits that his campaign is toast, as he is “suspending” his campaign. He’s make an endorsement soon, as he continues his run for vice president–I’m betting it’s for Gingrich, since the two men obviously have much in common.