Mitt Romney vs Barack Obama.

With the Presidential Elections now exactly 5 months away, the battle lines have been drawn. Mitt Romney will challenge Barack Obama on November 4th, as he clinches the Republican nomination officially after reaching the magic figure of 1144!

So the big question now is, Will Mitt Romney be able to pose a realistic threat to Obama's re-election? Will Mitt Romney be able to pose a stiff challenge to one of the most charismatic leaders of the modern era? .. Well, if you all you folks out there still believe that Barack Obama's re-election is just a formality, as was the notion a few months back, you might well be up for a surprise. According to recent polls, Mitt Romney is giving Barack Obama more than a fight, and it sure does look like a tight finish is in the offing.

Looking back in history, the standard to which all close elections are judged is the 2000 race between Al-Gore and Bush. In that election, Gore won 50,999,897 votes (48.38 percent) to Bush’s 50,456,002 votes (47.87 percent). Bush won thanks to a 271 to 267 electoral vote margin over Gore.

The Presidential Race 4 years later, between Bush and John Kerry was keenly contested too. And it’s entirely possible that the Obama-Romney race this fall will equal or even eclipse the closeness of the 2004 contest between Bush and Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry. For the record, Bush took 62,040,610 votes (50.73 percent) to Kerry’s 59,028,439 (48.27 percent) in that election and were it not for Bush’s 118,000-vote margin in Ohio, Kerry would have been elected president.

When all of the votes are counted on Nov. 6, the 2012 election might look a lot more like 2004 or even 2000 than it does 2008. And with such a small margin expected, little things can make a very big difference.

In a blowout presidential election, a few large issues dominate. In a tight election, a range of smaller concerns, important to strategic constituencies in battleground states, can end up being crucial. A tight election can sometimes turn out to be an aggregate result of many crucial and swing states.

President Obama may have hoped for a decisive reelection victory, styled on Ronald Reagan’s in 1984. At best, he will return to the White House in the manner of George W. Bush in 2004 — after a scrambling fight across the Electoral College map. For Mitt Romney, its an opportunity of a lifetime. As of now, he seems to be the right person, at the right time, at the right place.

They say that 5 Months is a long long time in Politics. I'm sure we are yet to see many twists and turns in this historic election. All I would say is that It would be fun to cover these elections with all of you!

And as Ravi Shastri would say, I hope this one goes Down to the Wire!

Mohit Dayal

Louisiana votes for Santorum

Rick Santorum won the Louisiana Republican primary on Saturday by 22 points over Mitt Romney, his closest competitor. Newt Gingrich finished in third place in Louisiana and Ron Paul finished fourth. Rick Santorum finished with 49% of the popular vote, compared to 27% for Mitt Romney.

Its all about The Religion

Religion played a crucial role in the Louisiana Primary, as Santorum won the majority of votes cast by white evangelical/born-again Christians and Catholics as well.

White evangelicals accounted for nearly six-in-ten Louisiana primary voters, and 56% of them voted for Santorum. Mitt Romney received 21% support from the evangelicals, while Newt Gingrich got 16%. Ron Paul received 5% support from this group.

Santorum also won clear victories among both Protestant and Catholic voters in Louisiana. Roughly 53% of the Protestants supported Santorum, more than twice the number who voted for Romney (25%) or Gingrich (16%). And Santorum received almost as much support from Catholics (46%) as he did from Protestants.

The Fix

This primary allocated only 20 of Louisiana's 46 total Republican delegates. The rest of the delegates will be allocated at the state party convention in June.

And since Mitt Romney won more than 25% of the votes, he'll therefore split the delegates.

So, the scoreboard, as of now, reads 568-273 for Romney!

P.S. - Mitt Romney should avoid another Etch-A-Sketch moment!

Mohit Dayal

Why is Newt Gingrich still in the race?

The biggest question in the last few weeks in current Republican race to become the next US President has been this: “Why is Newt Gingrich still in the race?” After Santorum surged to victories in the Alabama, Mississippi and Kansas primaries, calls have got stronger for Newt Gingrich to leave the race and endorse Rick Santorum in order to make the race more even and balanced. But we have not heard of any signs of giving-up from this eccentric, former House speaker from Georgia.

"Not gonna give up yet!"

A few days ago, there was an interesting piece in the Guardian talking about the impact on the race, if Newt Gingrich exits the race. It assumed, for the sake of argument, that Gingrich voters go to Santorum on the order of two-to-one, and calculated how it would impact the delegate allotment in the states yet to vote. The article concluded that any change in the candidate line-up seems unlikely to shake up the race now, and that a Romney victory is well assured, irrespective of the presence/absence of Gingrich in the race.

But the Red State argues that even though Romney is still the likely nominee, but with Gingrich in the race Romney wins a plurality of the delegates and the votes and that any “objective observer” would say that the only chance there is to stop Romney lies in a united conservative base. The rationale is that most of Romney’s wins are coming when either there is a strong home state like advantage (New Hampshire, Massachusetts, or one of the states that have a heavy Mormon populace built in), and there are more people voting against Romney than there is voting for him elsewhere!

Because of certain factors, Gingrich still has an outside chance at the nomination. He has a pan-American appeal, does well in Debates, and has a eccentric, yet charismatic personality. However, he needs to start winning some states, starting with Louisiana (24^th March) For the Speaker, there is no better place to start than Louisiana, a state on which Gingrich plans to focus more than either Romney or Santorum. A win there can prove to be a boost for strong showing in Texas and Florida too. In fact, I feel that even Fox News is supporting his candidature. Also, Newt Gingrich believes that his votes would in fact help Romney and not Santorum, and he doesn’t want to hand over the nomination to Romney on a platter.

But it is not going to be an easy task. Santorum leads the latest polls in the state with 25% of the votes followed by 21% for Romney and 20% for Gingrich. One of the reasons why Gingrich has been attacking Santorum right from the very beginning is that he needs a majority of the conservatives to vote for him. A win here would be a sure boost in the arm of his campaign.

As we’ve mentioned before, Romney’s campaign has fallen back on the “delegate math” to show the electability of their candidate.  Also, CBS puts Mitt Romney’s situation brilliantly as thus in this article that also speaks about the qualities of Santorum as a Presidential candidate, and on Newt hurting his chances:

“Mitt Romney, who came in third in both states (Alabama and Mississippi), is approaching the qualities of some cursed mythological figure who gets stronger on the outside while his insides decay: With each contest, Romney gains delegates but appears to get weaker”.

Personal Opinion: Mitt Romney might have negotiated a secret deal with New Gingrich to keep him in the race, and might have offered him the Vice-Presidential nomination, or perhaps a cabinet berth – although the latter explanation that “there's just nothing else Newt could be doing with his time that's more fun than running for president. After all, Gingrich does appeal to the conservatives, and he might be look good on the ballot J What adds to my conviction (that he has nothing better to do) is the lame technical excuses he’s making for giving reasons why he is still in the race.

P.S. Politic365 has a humourous take on why Newt Gingrich is still in the race J do check it out when you can J

Varun Reddy.

The Juice!

The other states in action on Super Tuesday are Idaho, South Carolina, Vermont, Virginia, Oklahoma, North Dakota and Alaska.

Nearly 20 percent of the delegates to the
Republican convention will be chosen on Tuesday night.
And the outcome could from one in which
Mitt Romney seems to have the nomination all but wrapped up to a situation that casts his nomination in doubt.

But no matter what happens, Mr. Romney is likely to remain the favorite to win the nomination, just the way he is to finish with the largest number of delegates from the evening.

On the other hand, both Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich have a lot on the line as well, quite possibly their survival in the race too. Rick Santorum needs to win Ohio to keep his candidacy alive.

Santorum feels the most pressure in Ohio, where the former senator from Pennsylvania built a lead by highlighting his blue-collar roots but where Romney is now considered to have greater momentum.

And as Newt Gingrich claims that 'He'll carry Georgia decisively' , that would act as a perfect launchpad for his comeback. A week from Super Tuesday, Newt Gingrich might sweep the Alabama and Mississippi primaries. The problem for Gingrich is that even if he does sweep Georgia, Alabama and Mississippi, the onus will be on him to prove that he is something more than just a regional candidate — given that his only victory in the race to date was in the Jan. 21 South Carolina primary.

Ron Paul is yet to win a state, but Super Tuesday most probably would change that, as the Texax Rep. should do well in low turnout caucuses in North Dakota, Alaska and Idaho.

From a delegate point of view, Romney is nowhere close to clinching the GOP nomination. What Romney needs is to be able to claim a sort of national victory, winning somewhere in every region of the country. And Tennessee is his best chance to do so.

Lets see what Super Tuesday has in store for us!

Bottomline - Win Ohio and Tennessee, and you have won the Night!


Mohit Dayal

The Story of Massachusetts.

Home state for Mitt Romney.

41 delegates,out of which 38 are awarded proportionately based on statewide vote share and the rest, are automatic, unbound delegates.

Mitt Romney should have no trouble in the Bay State, where he has lived for more than 25 years and served as governor from 2003 to 2007, and with delegates awarded on a statewide basis he needn’t even worry about any congressional districts being picked off.

But as he learned with his 10 point win in 2008, proportional delegate distribution can be a bugger. Despite getting skunked, John McCain still got 18 delegates to Romney’s 22. There’s been no reliable polling on the state, but Romney can be happy about how this year’s race has shaped up for Massachusetts voters.. McCain took his votes away from Romney mostly among the most moderate Republicans in and immediately around Boston. These are not likely Santorum or Gingrich votes.

If Romney can clear 60 percent of the vote and Santorum is the only other candidate over 15 percent, as seems likely, he might take 30 of 38 delegates.

Bottomline - Massachusetts is going to be a cakewalk for Romney. As Simple as that!

Mohit Dayal

Tennessee - The South Beckons!

Tennessee, with 58 delegates, is one of the most exciting contests this Super Tuesday.

The three-way tie between Mitt Romney, Mr. Gingrich, and Rick Santorum in Tennessee has emerged as one of the biggest symbolic contests of the Republican primary season. A win for Mr. Romney in a bona fide Southern state could mean he is at last making inroads with the evangelical Christian and hard-right voters who've so far been his Achilles' heel.

Only seven public polls have been released in Tennessee over the past month. Rick Santorum held a wide lead in early February, but three telephone surveys conducted over the past few days show Santorum holding remarkably consistent, narrow leads, ranging from 4 to 5 percentage points ahead of Romney. In those polls, Newt Gingrich wins support between 18 and 27 percent, followed by Ron Paul at 8 to 9 percent.

Gingrich needs a win in Tennessee Tuesday and wins in Alabama and Mississippi next week to help carry him through to Texas, where a victory might open the possibility of a brokered national convention.

On the other hand, the symbolism of a Romney win in Tennessee would be dramatic, analysts say. For the first time, Romney could start talking about being a national candidate, having won a contest in all regions of the country.

Bottomline - "Romney could seal the deal if he takes not only Ohio, but Tennessee,” CNN contributor Alex Castellanos.


Mohit Dayal

Nevada - The Road Ahead for Mitt Romney!

This Republican presidential race has had more than its share of surprises and unexpected twists. But Nevada seems to be a simpler affair!

Mitt Romney’s opponents will have it tough in Nevada.And it’s largely because of Romney’s Mormon religion.

While Romney’s faith has rightly been described as a liability in previous states — most notably Iowa and South Carolina, where evangelical Christians have balked at supporting Romney — it’s hard to call it anything but a trump card in Nevada.

In the 2008 Nevada caucuses, Romney won the state going away, 51 percent to 14 percent over second-place Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas). And the biggest reason for Romney’s big margin was Mormons.

Despite comprising about 7 percent of the state’s population, they made up more than one-quarter of the GOP caucus electorate, and entrance polls showed Romney winning a stunning 95 percent of their vote.

In other words, half of Romney’s vote in Nevada came from fellow Mormons, and he could have won the state’s caucuses even if he hadn’t gotten a single vote from anyone else.

As Mormons vote in unison and turn out in large numbers, a state like Nevada should be a cakewalk for Romney.

Poll so far shows that Romney will likely win Nevada by a large margin.

After Nevada, even Arizona, whose primary is the next major contest after Nevada’s caucuses (following some less-prominent caucus states next week), has a similar-sized Mormon population.

So, the very thing that arguably cost Romney 10-plus percent of the vote in Iowa and South Carolina is likely to help him win about that much in two of the most important contests in February.

Mohit Dayal

The Immigration Conundrum

The Letter 'I' usually refers to Iran or Israel in an American Presidential Race. But in this election race, it's been immigration, and how to handle the millions of undocumented immigrants who reside in the U.S. illegally, that has tripped up Republican presidential candidates seeking their party's nomination.

The leading Republican contenders are being forced to balance hawkish posturing on immigration in the Republican primary against maintaining their electability against President Obama, whose campaign is all-too-happy to highlight the GOP candidates’ effort to outflank each other.

It’s been Mitt Romney who has used immigration the most against fellow candidates, particularly Texas Gov. Rick Perry and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, each of whom Romney has portrayed as soft on illegal immigration.

In Thursday's GOP debate, Romney defended his tough views on immigration and blasted Gingrich's efforts to label him as anti-immigrant. But Romney's defense was primarily focused on his support for legal immigration. When it comes to those crossing the border illegally, Romney's position remains one of enforcement-only.

Throughout the presidential campaign, he has run to the right of the GOP field: decrying the possibility of amnesty and services that benefit illegal immigrants; calling for a veto of the Dream Act, a measure that would provide citizenship to illegal immigrants who have served in the military or attend college; spoken of a "high-tech fence" along the Mexican border; and now has floated unusual the proposal that illegal immigrants should "self-deport."

Obama's Track record on Immigration

Obama's track record on immigration has hardly been what it promised to be. Since taking office, enforcement of immigration laws has significantly ramped up. In all, more than 1.1 million illegal residents have been deported since Obama took office, the highest level of deportations in 60 years. Last year alone, 400,000 illegal immigrants were sent home -- a record high. In fact, Obama is on pace to deport more illegal immigrants in one term than the previous president did in two.

While Obama recently raised the issue of immigration reform in his State of the Union address, he has had little success in crafting a legislative path to reform . Rather, the instrumental effect of his policies has been to make life much more difficult for illegal immigrants.

Still, none of this has stopped the remaining Republican candidates from falling over themselves to blast the president's soft stance. Each of them have pledged that if they are elected president, the border will be more secure, enforcement will be stepped up, and citizenship for illegal immigrants will not be part of the equation.

Mohit Dayal

Analysis of the 2nd SC Presidential Debate...

Since this was the first debate I’d seen for the 2012 campaign, it was a good experience. I had not seen Michelle Bachmann or Rick Perry speak in a debate, but I did see them speak on TV during and after the Iowa caucuses, and they were not impressive from any angle. I was hoping for something better in this debate, something that would prove that one of these candidates had it in him to beat the incumbent President on D-day.

This state could well be the game-
changer in this election !!

The debate was far from striking. Only two candidates, Mitt Romney and Ron Paul, spoke with enough calm and conviction that befits a President. Rick Santorum looked utterly helpless; his personality is not made for debates and speeches I guess. Newt Gingrich made a fiery start, but could not sustain the momentum throughout the debate. Here are the pros and cons of each candidate, based on what I’d seen in the debate, and on what I’ve read about them before:

Mitt Romney:

Pros:

Ø  Skilled at debates, knows how to turn every point into his favour (as was evident in this debate)

Ø  Has served as a Governor of a predominantly Democrat state (Massachusetts) and was highly praised for his leadership

Ø  Enjoys a front-runner status after coming 2^nd in the 2008 primaries

Ø  Has a pan-American appeal; leads National polls conducted by various sources

Ø  Might be able to attract moderate votes using his past-record

Cons:

Ø  Perceived as a Wall-Street President, because of his previous work at Bain Capital

Ø  Not that appealing to the traditional conservative base

Ø  Has not yet released his taxes, raising unnecessary suspicions

Rick Santorum:

Pros:

Ø  He is very conservative, and has a solid conservative background. His mild-natured personality can be appealing to the traditional conservative base

Ø  He has been a long-serving senator and hence has a record to talk about

Ø  He is quite young and does not portray a negative attitude

Ø  He has won the Iowa caucuses (by a very close margin though)

Cons:

Ø  He cannot attract the moderates and the independents, if he wins the Republican nomination. Obama would have a easy time defeating him

Ø  His mild-natured face doesn’t make him look good when he tries to speak forcefully

Ø  He lacks conviction, and thinks that his conservative credentials are enough to win

Newt Gingrich:

Pros:

Ø  Enjoys good support among members of his own party

Ø  Can expect endorsements from many political quarters once he wins a few states

Ø  Solid Republican Track record in the Congress; Former Speaker and Current Chief Whip

Ø  Pan-American appeal

Cons:                                                       

Ø  Although he is appealing to the conservative base, he has a weak family history to show (2 divorces) which might play a big role if he is nominated to face Obama

Ø  He has not put on a good showing so far (4^th in Iowa and New Hampshire) and desperately needs a win to get the desired momentum

Ø  His record can be easily attacked as he has been a Washington-guy for most of his life

Ø  Temperamental and annoying (totally personal opinion)

Ron Paul:

Pros:

Ø  Consistent track record – with no change in ideals and position over many years

Ø  Long-serving member of the US Congress

Ø  Strong grassroots campaign (similar to that of Obama in the 2008 elections)

Ø  Huge fan following among the youth in spite of his age

Ø  Legally sound, uses the constitution as the basis of all his arguments

Ø  Will be able to attract the independent voters to a great extent, which could be a game changer in case he is nominated (or as a VP candidate)

Cons:

Ø  A Libertarian Radical who wants to shake up the system

Ø  Lacks appeal among the traditional conservative base

Ø  Lacks appeal among core-Republican voters as his ideas are less Republican and more Libertarian in nature

Ø  Age could be a major issue if he is nominated as a Republican Candidate, even though is as fit as a fiddle (Age was a major issue in 2008)

Ø  Has a limited yet consistent Pan-American appeal

I tried to add as many pros and cons as I could, to make the post seen as fair as possible. As the race is just two states old, the next state will play a vital role in deciding who goes on and who quits. Two states, two people quit. Hoping for another good news after South Carolina :)

Varun Reddy.

Huntsman withdraws his campaign, endorses Romney...

Hi friends

Jon Huntsman, one of the top-6 Republican candidates, announced his decision to withdraw from the Presidential Race, a few days ago. He did not campaign in Iowa, and had staked virtually everything on making a strong showing in New Hampshire. The breakout moment that eluded him, and his poor showing (a 3^rd place) did not do good to enhance his image as a candidate likely to beat President Obama.

Jon Huntsman for 2016?
 Let's pray he makes a comeback!

“The race has degenerated into an onslaught of negative and personal attacks not worthy of the American people,” Huntsman said at a press conference in Myrtle Beach, S.C. “I call on each campaign to cease attacking each other and instead talk directly to the American people about how our conservative ideas will create American jobs.” His withdrawal from the race came the morning after he received an endorsement from The State, the largest newspaper in South Carolina. They called Mr Huntsman and Mr Romney the "two sensible, experienced grown-ups in the race'', but said the former ambassador was "more principled" and offered "a significantly more important message''.

And so he did. When he was criticized by Romney himself for working for the Obama Administration as the Ambassador to China, he replied "Yes, under a Democrat. Like my two sons are doing in the United States Navy. They're not asking what political affiliation the president is.I will always put my country first." - the last two words became the campaign slogan for Jon. Unfortunately, that does not resonate well with the Republican Base.

A brief look at his profile shows that Jon Huntsman was a very different Republican Candidate, one of the good guys, one of the sane guys. In the 1990s, he became the youngest head of a US diplomatic mission for a century when he was appointed ambassador in Singapore. He was attacked for reasons that did not relate to his policy. He was called a “stooge” of the Obama administration and “The Manchurian Candidate” because of his being a former ambassador to China, a position to which he was appointed by none other than President Obama. An ambassador to every country works for the parent country, not any given administration. All federal employees owe their loyalty to the people, not the guy who hires or appoints them (who after all is there on our behalf). This stint also showed him as one of the most sensible candidates (in the last 2-3 elections) on U.S. foreign policy, including toward Asia. While Newt Gingrich imagined the Palestinians to be an “invented people” and Rick Santorum wanted to bomb Iran as soon as possible, Huntsman took a more moderate approach, which perhaps proved to be his undoing. He was criticised for adopting children from India and China, and bringing them up in their original religions. As the Diplomat put it quite clearly, “It was probably this refusal to pander to the Republican base that meant he failed to gain any traction in the primaries”. Perhaps the race had one Mormon too many.

The Atlantic blames the conservative media and Jon’s own campaign strategies for Huntsman’s withdrawal. He, quite simply, was a pragmatist. Although he stood out from the rest of the Republican presidential pack as an intelligent voice of reason, diplomacy and international expertise, these were simply the wrong times for him to have stood for the President of the USA. As the Diplomat put it, his withdrawal cuts serious by half. Jon Huntsman was popular enough with independents and even with some liberals. Had he been nominated, he would have given President Obama some serious competition, thanks to his record.

What next?

  

His exit from the race leaves five candidates remaining: Rick Santorum, Ron Paul and Newt Gingrich as the three main candidates chasing Romney's lead, and Rick Perry trailing in the polls. Polls show that even South Carolina's (whose primary is scheduled for the 21st of this month) conservative vote has not yet settled on one particular candidate (just like the ones in Iowa and New Hampshire).

Gingrich, Santorum and Perry have all suggested that Romney's campaign is benefiting from the fractured social conservative support base. With the departure of Jon Huntsman, the “Anybody-But-Mitt” movement looks more toothless right now. And with Santorum, Perry and Gingrich refusing to budge, it would take some real miracle to stop Mitt Romney’s nomination.

Note: There is a very interesting article that came in the BBC News titled “Are the Republican candidates all crazy?”, a question that does come to mind when you think about Herman Cain, Michelle Bachmann and Rick Perry in detail. One of the reasons mentioned was that most of the serious candidates were ducking the fight in 2012, not willing to inherit an economy that would take years to recover. Perhaps it was wrong time for Huntsman too, he would have made a fine President I guess. I wanted to write about this too, but then the article serves its purpose well enough hence sharing it.

Varun Reddy.

Ron Paul :Architect of The New American Foreign Policy?

In a May 2007 Republican debate, a candidate argued that the United States provoked the 9/11 terrorist attacks through its aggressive posture towards the Middle East. This candidate was Ron Paul.

He was the only Republican member of Congress running for president who did not

vote to authorize the Iraq war in 2002. He remains critical of U.S. involvement in the

region and says the war “was sold to us with false information.” Paul’s campaigns

have always focused on typical libertarian issues: small government, lower taxes,

free market policies, and NON-INTERVENTIONISM abroad.

On almost every core national security and foreign-policy issue, he holds a position that is in fierce opposition to the views of mainstream Republicans.In a way, he brings a new dimension to the Replican Presidential race.

Infact, Ron Paul is unique among all the Presidential candidates, and in a tiny minority of US politicians, who are willing to challenge the prevailing poisonous atmosphere of military glorification disguised as hyper-patriotism.

Views on War on Terror

He belittles the war on terror as a "cliché" that is used to "con the people into thinking that all citizens must cooperate and sacrifice our liberties to ‘win' the war." He is openly disdainful of the use of torture and other extrajudicial tactics that have been used to fight it. He is dismissive of the need to kill top Al-Qaeda lieutenants, including Osama bin Laden; blames U.S. foreign policy and meddling in other country's affairs for the "blowback" that contributed to 9/11; and downplays the efficacy of the country's military might.

In Paul's view, if the United States simply stayed out of other countries' business we would be left alone.

He proposes to reduce the military budget, abolish the CIA, pull the United States out of NATO, end financial support for Israel, and do nothing in the face of Iranian nuclear proliferation, which he claims is a legitimate desire for Tehran to have.

Clearly, if ever there was someone whose thoughts were far off the mainstream, it has to be Ron Paul. Infact, his campaign is all about changing the conventional orthodoxies" that are articulated by the other GOP candidates. In his view, as Bruce Fein puts it, the United States should not exercise global leadership by the end of the sword but rather by the "influence of its example".

Despite his bizarre views on the gold standard, climate change, social security, and the like, Paul has put his finger on a number of issues that could resonate broadly with the American people, especially if discussion were not monopolized by think tanks and insiders who are strongly committed to the status quo.

And If he does say that excessive interventionism and other failed policies are a

primary cause of anti-Americanism around the world,

and that the United States

would be more popular and safer if we focused more attention on trade and

diplomacy and domestic issues instead of emphasizing military dominance and

overseas meddling, is it wrong? ..

And while the rest of the GOP candidates are mostly competing to see who can

sound the most eager for war (usually with Iran) or most willing to toss more

money at the Pentagon, Ron Paul wants to cut the military budget!

The fact is, in the backdrop of 10 years of war in Afghanistan and Iraq, Ron Paul offers a much clearer alternative, one that is not easy to dismiss with a sound-bite or two.

And given the nuclear revolution, America's favorable geographic location, and the nature of the modern global economy, in fact, there's a pretty good case to be made for a much more limited global posture that shifts more of the burden for regional security onto others and focuses on fixing domestic problems like the economy and unemployment.

The good news is that Ron Paul's views clearly resonate with a sizeable core of young and fairly well-educated voters.

That indeed is a good sign for the future!

Mohit Dayal

Does religion matter?

Does religion matter?

(c) The Colbert Report

Religion has played a important part in politics worldwide, and it has been no different in the US Presidential Elections. Although the early elections (pre Civil War) were not fought on the religious platform, the last few elections has seen the rise of religious beliefs of the candidate as an important parameter. Religious affiliation of the candidate came into prominence in 2008 when Barack Obama was accused by some as being a Muslim by birth.

The following graph clearly shows how the %age representation of various religious denominations in the United States has changed dramatically over the course of history.

Religion	%age of Population	No. of presidents	%age of Presidents
Christian	78.4%	37	86%
Evangelical Protestant	26.3%	Baptist (4)	44.2%
		Methodist (3)
		Presbyterian (6)
		Quakers (2)
		Unitarian (4)
Mainline Protestant	18.1%	Congregationalist (1)	39.5%
		Dutch Reformed (2)
		Disciples of Christ (3)
		Episcopalian (11)
Black Church	6.9%	0	--
Catholic	23.9%	Roman Catholic (1)	2.3%
Mormon	1.7%	0	--
Jehovah's Witness	0.7%	0	--
Eastern Orthodox	0.6%	0	--
Other Christian	0.3%	0	--
Unaffiliated	16.1%	6	14%
Non-Christian Religions	4.7%	0	--
Don't know/refused answer	0.8%	0	--

Source: Wikipedia

Although there have been close to 40% Mainline Protestant Presidents, they make up no more than18% of the population. A similar case can be seen with the Evangelical Protestants. It is quite interesting to note that John F. Kennedy is the only Catholic ever to be elected the President of the USA in spite of Catholics making up nearly 24% of the electorate, the single largest denomination with no sub-denominations.

According to Wikipedia, Episcopalians are extraordinarily well represented among the presidents, compared to a current membership of about 2% of the population – partly because the Episcopal Church had been the Church of England before the American Revolution and was the state religion in some states (such as New York and Virginia). The first seven presidents listed as Episcopalians were all from Virginia. Unitarians and Quakers are also overrepresented, reflecting the importance of those colonial churches. Conversely, Baptists are underrepresented, a reflection of their quite recent expansion in numbers.

Among the current Republican candidates, two of the frontrunners come from the same Mormom faith, which makes up 1.7% of the electorate. They are Mitt Romney and Jon Huntsman (who’ll start his campaign from the New Hampshire primaries scheduled to start in less than 10 hours). Now why does this affect the campaign in any way? That is because of the controversies that have surrounded their faith from time to time.

The Boston Globe and USA Today talked about the faith-adherence of both these candidates. While Romney is highly active and orthodox who has embraced the Mormon church quite unequivocally, Huntsman has called his adherence to Mormon practices “tough to define” and has described himself as someone who gets “satisfaction from many different types of religions and philosophies.’’

The Atlantic has attributed the Romney’s and Huntsman’s moderate stands on various issues to their religion, saying that the fourth largest denomination in the U.S. and the one richest per capita, has come of age at the national level. Although the state of Utah is overwhelmingly Mormon (60-60%), it also contains a constituency of liberal and moderate voters, and the influence of that demographic has been reflected in the more liberal positions taken by Huntsman on social issues (He came out in favour of gay civil unions). On a similar note, the Deseret News has reported that the fact that Romney and Huntsman are currently the only two Republican presidential candidates who embrace mainstream science on climate change and evolution is no coincidence and can be attributed to the absence of any official statement from the Mormon-church on this issue.

The state of Utah, despite having only 2.8 million people, was Mr. Romney’s third biggest source of money in 2008 — after Massachusetts, where he had been governor, and California — contributing more than $5.5 million. Mr. Romney also raised significant money in heavily Mormon areas of the West outside Utah, particularly in Idaho (26% Mormon) and Arizona (5% Mormon). In the 2008 Republican presidential primary in Utah, he got almost 90 percent of the vote. However, as governor of Utah, Huntsman’s pro-business agenda (cut taxes, balanced the state budget and reduce business regulations) was more successful with a conservative Utah legislature. The local economy boomed and many out-of-state businesses flocked to relocate to his state. Utah was rated the best managed state by the Pew Center on the States during Huntsman’s tenure (2005-2009). Huntsman was also a hit with the Democrats of Utah.

But if one of them actually wins the Republican nomination, he could have a hard time convincing the national voters. A Gallup poll released in June showed that 22% of Americans would not vote for their political party's presidential nominee next year if that person is a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons). The percentage of those unwilling to vote for a Mormon has remained largely unchanged since 1967. However, this could be because never has in American history have two Mormon candidates stood for elections. Past Gallup polls found that in 1959, the year before the voters elected the first Catholic U.S. president, John F. Kennedy, one-quarter of Americans said they would not vote for a Catholic. That opposition fell to 21 percent by 1960 and to 13 percent by August 1961, Gallup reported. May be America will finally warm up to the idea of having a Mormon-president :)

Many other factors will surely come into play, factors like party loyalty or pocketbook concerns. As the Huffington Post claims, for Republicans beating Obama could be the most important factor of all. It is very possible that White evangelicals will more likely vote Republican, even if the party nominates someone who isn't known for strong faith commitments. So is quite prudent to say that faith will surely play an important role in determining the next President of the United States, just as it always has!

Varun Reddy.