Message to fellow bleeding hearts: Ease up, Ripley- you're grinding metal.

At first, President Obama’s tax deal angered me. I was completely dumbfounded and consumed with many expletives questions for our President. Did you reallllly need to negotiate billions of dollars in tax cuts for the rich? Was eviscerating the estate tax necessary? And why would you even consider offering a spot at the table to the party of ‘No’ while neglecting to even invite members of your own party? Whose side are you on?!

After taking deep breaths and allowing wiser friends to talk me down off the ledge, I realized it is simply not as bad as it seems. Enraged liberal commentators and bloggers: I understand your frustration. I too thought this bill was an abomination. On the surface, the tax deal seemed to prove our worst fear: our President by day and liberal-in-shining-armor by night is getting weaker and weaker and moving further and further from the left. Now allow me to talk you down off the ledge.

Sure, the President negotiating with republicans on this deal is enough to make this prideful gal’s heart twist and turn. Eight years of the Bush administration essentially ignoring the existence of democrats in this country left me wrongfully hoping (dare I say expecting?) Obama would dish out similar treatment to republican leadership. After taking a step back, I understood that Obama shouldn’t simply snub the right as Bush had snubbed the left. That would by hypocritical, wrong and totally detrimental to the goals I truly hope he and democratic leadership are able accomplish. By working with republicans and negotiating a deal, Obama established himself as a better President than Bush could have ever hoped to be.

Now for the deal. Yes, the estate tax hurts. But republicans did not exactly escape with house and home on this one. They would have liked the estate tax entirely abolished. Instead, the estate tax will be reinstated, yet dropped from 55% to 35% with a $5 million dollar exemption. Ludicrous? Yes…but tolerable when one considers what everyone else got in return. Tax cuts to the rich (an estimate suggests a family earning more than $1 million will save around $129,000) and the uber rich are thoroughly ridiculous and should make most millionaires weep out of guilt for the next two years (yes, we get to do this all over again when the deal expires in 2012); however, this was called a deal for a reason. By making these painful concessions, President Obama effectively negotiated the largest stimulus package of his presidency and he did so with republicans patting him on the back. You sly fox, you.

Aside from the crucial 13-month extension of Unemployment Insurance benefits, he also garnered tax cuts for middle and low-income taxpayers and a 2% payroll tax cut for all wage-earning Americans. Depending on income, people can expect to save anywhere between $100 and $1,000 per year in tax cuts. The President was also able to sweeten the deal with a two-year extension of his college tuition tax credit and the child tax credit, both of which save money for millions of people, especially low income families. And the clean energy measures added in by senate leaders should also give you some serious warm fuzzies. Don’t worry, if nothing mentioned above tickles your fancy, I guarantee you will find something that does by the Monday cloture vote.

It looks as though my initial assessment/freak out was, in fact, unwarranted. To be sure, the President could have benefited from a much better sales pitch (hint: probably not a good idea to classify your supporters as "sanctimonious" during a press briefing intended to gain support) and the idea that republicans made out like bandits will always be disconcerting. However, let us not ignore the good that will come from this deal and let us not turn our back on the President. I have a gut feeling he knows what he’s doing.

PS: Kudos to Sen. Bernie Sanders for standing on the senate floor and speaking intelligently about the state of our nation for nearly nine hours. Jimmy Stewart’s Mr. Smith has absolutely nothing on you, sir.

Sarah Palin as a Political Genius

It's often said that Sarah Palin is a political genius. Chris Matthews recently compared her to Bill Clinton. She has one of the most devoted and loyal fan bases of any politician in recent memory.

But for all her alleged political genius, she is perhaps most famous for her various gaffes and mistakes, especially as a VP candidate. While she excites the media, demands attenti

on, and is a pop culture phenomenon, it's unclear whether she is a popular, viable national politician. The media seems to think that the ability to draw attention to yourself is political genius in its own right. But if much of that attention is damaging or polarizing, its genius is suspect. For all of her strengths, they are often outweighed by her negatives. For every fan of hers, there appears to be more haters.

To wit:

There's a pretty clear trend. Is someone that has 51% unfavorable ratings a "political genius"? Especially when they are largely in the advantageous position of not having to actually govern during these harrowing times?

Predicting the 2012 Presidential Election

Who is going to win the 2012 Presidential Election? To answer that, only two questions really need to be answered:

1. What will the state of the economy be in 2012?

2. Who will the GOP nominate as their candidate?

Unfortunately, those are two difficult questions to answer. I’ll look at question #1 in this post and deal with question #2 later.

Unlike many issues in political science, there is near-universal consensus that the economy is one of the largest determinants of electoral outcomes. A good economy usually leads to the incumbent or incumbent’s party doing well and a bad economy will lead to the opposite results. Of course, what is a “good” or “bad” economy? The unemployment rate is currently just south of 10%. If it’s near 7%, is that good? Against normal standards of unemployment, no, it is not. In fact, it is near where the Obama administration initially predicted unemployment would peak during this recession. But of course, our expectations of what is good and bad is measured relative to current and recent conditions. And compared to the last 2 years, a 7% unemployment rate would be a welcome sign, especially since it would mean we’re adding jobs at a modest clip.

In his latest paper, Ray Fair attempts to more specifically define the quality of the economy and its implications. Based on GDP growth, inflation, and the number of positive economic quarters, he’s able to predict with a fair degree of accuracy the 2012 election. In his “good economy” scenario, he predicts an Obama blowout of over 55% of the popular vote. A more modest recovery predicts an Obama loss at 49.12% of the vote (close enough where more marginal factors may make a difference). A “double dip” recession leads to a GOP blowout.

The Federal Reserve in fact does predict the “good economy” scenario, but economic forecasts are always tricky and there is a large amount of uncertainly built into their predictions.

What is important, however, is that if this economic prediction occurs the question over the Republican candidate becomes largely irrelevant. It’s difficult for incumbents to lose the Presidency in general and essentially impossible when the economy is growing. Conversely, if the economy remains terrible, it also doesn’t matter who the Republicans nominate, as they will steamroll their way into the White House regardless.

In summary: a good economy, as predicted by the Fed, leads to an easy Obama victory (not considering potential scandals or security crises) regardless of who the GOP nominates. Unfortunately, there is a large degree of uncertainty over the state of the economy in 2012. If there is a modest economic recovery, as is possible, then suddenly the issue of whom the GOP picks as their candidate becomes paramount to Obama’s chances.

Next: Who will the Republicans nominate in 2012?