Rubio backs "serious and comprehensive" study of gun laws

Marco Rubio's spokesman, Alex Conant, indicates some give on possible gun legislation.

"In the aftermath of the unspeakable tragedy in Newtown, Sen. Rubio, like millions of Americans, is looking for public policy changes that would prevent such a horrible event from happening again.

He remains a strong supporter of the Second Amendment right to safely and responsibly bear arms. But he has also always been open to measures that would keep guns out of the hands of criminals and the mentally ill. The challenge with gun laws is that by definition criminals do not follow the law. For example, Connecticut's gun laws, some of the strictest in the nation, were not able to prevent this atrocity. Nevertheless, he supports a serious and comprehensive study of our laws to find new and better ways to prevent any more mass shootings."

Rubio is Juan William's pick for "lawmaker of the year"

Juan Williams, with quite the ode to Marco Rubio in handing out his annual "lawmaker of the year" award.

He dared to speak about young people — including immigrants and minorities — as important Americans who want to work hard but find it difficult to get an education because they live in bad neighborhoods and have families that are often broken.

Rubio wants those young people to identify with Republicans as the party that wants to give them a hand up.

But Williams' strongest praise centers around Rubio's work on immigration reform.

Unlike other members of his party, such as Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer, Sheriff Joe Arpaio and Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach, Rubio talks about immigration in humane, compassionate terms as an issue affecting people’s lives.

“When you talk about illegal immigration, you’re not talking about plagues of locusts, you’re talking about people,” Rubio told reporters last week.

That daring, refreshing approach from a Republican makes Sen. Rubio my man of the year.

While we're on the topic, check out Alex Leary's look at two Hispanic Republicans who are approaching immigration reform differently.

There's Marco Rubio, who's trying to piecemeal immigration reform and Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart (R-FL), who's far more interested in comprehensive immigration reform.

Doing it Rubio's way could bring on enough Republicans to achieve a deal. But that approach also provides political cover and could leave important policy in the trash bin.

"I know people that are in the immigration advocacy community are concerned that we'll only pass the easy stuff and leave the hard stuff. I don't want to see that either," Rubio said. "We can figure out a sequence."

The Diaz-Balart approach could repeat past failure.

"They both feel a growing and unavoidable sense of responsibility as Republican Hispanics to lead on this issue," said Ana Navarro, a Republican strategist who is close to both Florida lawmakers. "It's an opportunity for both of them to burnish some legislative credentials."

Julian Castro: Next generation will see a Latino president

Democratic San Antonio Mayor Julian Castro, a guy who's named has been thrown around as a darkhorse for 2016, is confident that the U.S. will get there.

Q: Today there are more Latinos than African-Americans in the United States. African-Americans have their first President. When will Latinos get theirs?

A: It's by no means a competition to see who gets there first. But I'm confident that with all the progress that the United States has made, people from many different backgrounds will become Presidents in my lifetime.

So I do believe that within the next generation there will be a Latino president, and it will be someone who represents everyone, who is an American president, not a Latino president.

Read the rest of the interview... like Obama, circa 2008, he strenuously avoids partisan language or any whiff of playing the ethnic card.

In fact, he even points out that he's not great at speaking Spanish:

"I still need to improve my Spanish, actually! I understand it better than I speak it."

Republicans plot major electoral college changes

Reid Wilson has the scoop on one way the GOP is trying to regain an electoral college edge -- if you can't win, just change the rules of the game.

Essentially, some Republicans are trying to overhaul the winner-takes-all format in some Democratic states to a proportional allocation of electoral votes based on congressional district

Thus, Obama's 2012 sweep of Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Michigan wouldn't net him 46 electoral votes, but instead, just 19.  Meanwhile, Romney would have won 26 electoral votes in those states!

Upshot? Romney would've emerged with more electoral votes in those states than Obama.

It's an incredibly cynical gambit, and I can't imagine it would be successful, but thanks to Republican legislative advantages in those states, it's actually something the party is working on.

The proposals, the senior GOP official said, are likely to come up in each state's legislative session in 2013. Bills have been drafted, and legislators are talking to party bosses to craft strategy.

Saul Anuzis, the former chairman of the Michigan Republican Party, has briefed Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus and Chief of Staff Jeff Larson on his state's proposal. The proposal "is not being met with the 'We can't do that' answer. It's being met with 'I've already got a bill started,' " the official said.

It's either a sign of political desperation or rank naivety to assume the ploy wouldn't provoke a colossal backlash, stretching far beyond a state's borders.

Imagine. Obama wins the popular vote in Michigan, PA, and Wisconsin, but Romney emerges with more electoral votes in those states. It's hard to imagine rending the political fabric any more completely than that.

Will O'Malley put to death the death penalty?

John Wagner notes that Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley is entering his final two years in office with significant political capital at his disposal, but he hasn't tipped his hand yet on how he'll spend it.

Aides have said only that O’Malley will probably make another run at a wind bill, which would provide incentives for a renewable energy source off the Atlantic Coast. Sponsorship of the other measures — which seem to face longer odds — remains under discussion.

Here's what will be interesting -- O'Malley's been a vocal opponent of the death penalty, in the past, and some liberal groups are already pressuring him to make putting to death the death penalty a big part of his upcoming two years.

But being the face of the movement carries national risk.

Democrats might think he's a riskier pick for a general election in a country that still overwhelmingly supports the death penalty, and if he were ever able to win a nomination, he'd face the specter of running a general election race as an anti-death penalty, Northeastern governor -- a tough sell in the Midwest. 

Romney's "point" system

This is so Romney and just one of the many interesting anecdotes about the 2012 race that line Jonathan Martin and Glenn Thrush's new e-book.

After the primary, Romney instituted a point system that assigned a specific numerical value to each event — rallies, speeches, fundraisers and so on. The more labor-intensive the event, the more points it was assigned. Romney’s instructions to his assistant were that he was not to exceed 900 points on a given day, the better to manage his time.

The rule was seldom enforced but remained on the books throughout the campaign.

And a frank moment from Romney adviser, Eric Fehrnstrom, about Clint Eastwood's awful convention speech.

“We were up in the Romney box, looking at each other, saying, ‘What the hell is going on here'?”

Republicans are overwhelmingly dour about country's direction

According to a new Hill poll, 87% of Republicans think the country is on the wrong track, while only 8% say it's on the right track.

Meanwhile, 70% of GOPers think they'll be worse off at the end of Obama's second term, and 80% think their children's future will be worse than their own.

As for Democrats?

54% say the country is on the right track and 31% say it's on the wrong track.

Clearly, owning the White House generates far more cheer than owning the House.

County chairs in Northwest Iowa like Rubio, Clinton

The Sioux City Journal polls county leaders in heavily-Republican Northwest Iowa to see which candidates party leaders pine for.

Among the potential Republicans candidates, county GOP chairs mentioned Marco Rubio most often, Paul Ryan second, Rick Santorum third, Bobby Jindal fourth, Condi Rice fifth, and Chris Christie sixth.

Among Democratic nominees, it was Hillary at the top, Elizabeth Warren second, Andrew Cuomo third, Martin O'Malley fourth, Sen. Sherrod Brown fifth, and Joe Biden sixth.

Now --- county chairs in northwest Iowa make up an admittedly small sample size, so don't read too much into this.

But... if you are interested in skimming, note that Santorum only manages third place on the GOP side in what should be a stronghold area for him, considering the region's ideology and his history with Iowa. Meanwhile, Rubio's first place finish is a sign that conservative leaders in Iowa are already open to him.

Of course, on the Democratic side, the only interesting result in all these surveys is the second place finisher, considering Hillary dominates everywhere. And on that score, note that Biden is last and Warren, second.

UPDATE: Here's a cool breakdown from the '12 Iowa caucuses, showing Santorum's strength in northwest Iowa. Romney managed to pick off two counties; Santorum won the rest. 

Cuomo calls for more gun control

While the president pointedly eschewed politics in his statement, NY Gov. Andrew Cuomo gets there in the second paragraph of his statement.

“While we don’t have all the facts and our focus must be on the victims, this is yet another senseless and horrific act of violence involving guns.

We as a society must unify and once and for all crack down on the guns that have cost the lives of far too many innocent Americans. Let this terrible tragedy finally be the wake-up call for aggressive action and I pledge my full support in that effort.”

Obama: May God "heal the brokenhearted"

Psalm 147:3

2004: The year young people moved left

We all know that young people tend to vote Democratic, and tend to do it big.

But the question is -- when did that happen and why?

Well, in presidential elections, we didn't see this phenomenon until the 2004 election.

Prior to 2004, voters 18-24 years-old generally voted in line with other age groups. For example, young voters picked the winner of every election between 1980 and 2004 and by margins similar to other age groups.

But in 2004, something weird happened.

For the first time since exit poll data became available in 1976, young voters picked the losing nominee, and also picked that nominee by a HUGE margin.

John Kerry won voters 18-24 years old by 13%; whereas, George W. Bush won the election, overall, by 3%.

Contrast that with the 2000 election when 18-29 year-olds split evenly between Gore and Bush, and it gets your ears perked up.

Here's exit poll data from 1976-2004 from the Roper Center, and exit poll data from CNN in 2008 and 2012.

VOTERS 18-24 years-old:

2012: Obama 60% Romney 36%.

2008: Obama 66% McCain 32%.

2004: Kerry 56% Bush 43%.

2000: Gore 47% Bush 47%.

1996: Clinton 55% Dole/Perot 46%.

1992: Clinton 46% Bush 33%

In 1988, exit polls didn't break age group into 18-24 year old categories, but instead 18-29 year-old categories; thus, the following result is based on the 18-29 year-old group. 

1988: Bush 53% Dukakis 47%.

1984: Reagan 61% Mondale 39%.

Pre-1984, exit polls didn't break age group into 18-24 year old categories, but instead 18-21 year-old categories; thus, the following result is based on the 18-21 year-old group.

1980: Reagan/Anderson 55% Carter 45%.

1976: Ford 51% Carter 49%.

So you can see, young voters started tilting slightly stronger to the Democratic nominee than the general population in the 1990's, but they still picked the winner and by only a slightly more pro-Democratic margin than the overall population.

Then things evened out in 2000, relative to all age groups.

The huge gap between young voters and other age groups came with Bush vs. Kerry, and it continued through 2012.
 
So what's going on?

There are three possible explanations.

1. Demographics.

Minority birth rates have jumped dramatically in the past generation, minorities tend to be more liberal, and therefore, that would make the Democratic nominee's share of the pie get bigger.

(Remember it takes 18 years from birth to vote. Thus, anyone who was born after 1986 couldn't vote in the 2004 presidential election when Kerry swamped Bush with young people. So minority birth rates after 1986 didn't matter for 2004's vote).

In fact, ethnicity seems to be driving the trend. Black, youth turnout jumped by 15 percentage points between 2000 and 2004, and Latino turnout jumped 21 percentage points between 2000 and 2004.

And here's no doubt that the ethnic composition of young people played a role in 2008 and 2012.  In fact, in 2008, only 62% of voters in this age group were white.

Meanwhile, Romney won whites, 18-29 years-old, by 7%. Thus, Obama's huge 23% win with the group seems to be based heavily on ethinicity.

So with every cycle, young people grow more diverse and, therefore, more Democratic.

But the jump from the year 2000 to 2004 is so massive that it seems to beg for additional causes.

I'd like to suggest a few...

2. The War in Iraq.

In 2004, the war in Iraq was on the minds of many young people, and George W. Bush was the face, hands, and feet of that war.

According to 2004 exit polls, those listing the war in Iraq as the most important factor in their vote went for Kerry, 73%-26%.

It's fair to guess that quite a few of those were young people (unfortunately, the exit polls didn't dig that deeply, so it remains an assumption), and 73% who listed it as their top priority broke for Kerry.

Thus, youth opposition to the war could have contributed to the massive immigration to the Democratic party in 2004.

3. The Rise of the Internet.

It's no secret that Democrats pretty much owned the web during the first decade of the 21st century, and it's no secret that young people adopted the medium more quickly and fully than older generations.

Thus, between 2000 and 2004, you had the growth of a youth culture that interacted with the internet within a Democratic narrative.

And it's something you see to this day, albeit less overwhelmingly (For example MTV just put out the top Romney memes of the year, and every single one was brutally negative).

What popped online? Big Bird stuff, bayonets, binders full of women. All of that was damaging to Romney and Republicans, and none of that could have happened in the 1980's and 1990's.

Stuff like that has an impact -- no matter how ridiculous it seems or how ridiculous it sounds to say it.

Of course, all three of these explanations (demographics, the war, and the rise of the internet) could have contributed to the Kerry surge in 2004, and indeed, it looks like 2004 should be remembered as the year the youth fled the GOP for the Democratic party.

And between the demographic changes of young people and an internet culture based on political celebrity and viral memes, Democrats' domination with young people is likely to continue.

Twitter follower fecundity

In 2008, Barack Obama had roughly 118,000 twitter followers.

Today, that number sits at 24.4 million.

Peggy Noonan: Rubio, Ryan didn't offer specifics

Peggy Noonan came away dispirited from Marco Rubio and Paul Ryan's respective speeches to the Jack Kemp Awards dinner last week.

The gist? The perpetual mantra of "we need fresh idea and new thinking" was unaccompanied by fresh ideas and new thinking.

Mr. Ryan got points for loyalty but no one doubts he's loyal, and it undercut his central message, which is that the Republican Party needs "new thinking," "fresh ideas and serious leadership," and must find "new ways to apply our timeless principles to the challenges of today."

Well, yes, that's true. But what thinking do you suggest? In what area? Which fresh ideas? Do you have one?

.... Mr. Rubio also indulged a rhetorical tic that we hear a lot and that is deeply obnoxious. He said the words "middle class" 12 times on the first page alone. Repeating that phrase mantralike will not make people think you're concerned about the middle class, it will only make them think you're concerned about winning the middle class.

Santorum "open to seeing what God's path is" for 2016

Rick Santorum, to CBN's David Brody, about a 2016 run.

"I’m open to seeing what God’s path is for me. When I started on this journey three or four years ago and ended up running for President, people would ask me, 'Are you running for President?' I would say, 'No, I’m walking'.

And that’s it. I’m trying to walk the path. I really had no intention and thought it would be almost folly when I started that journey, that walk to run for President. But eventually it became clear -- that’s what I was supposed to do. And you know, that may be a very different walk in the next four years, we’ll see.”

Santorum is widely-expected to run again, has reportedly, already bought RickSantorum2016.com (among other similar domains) and according to Politico, "is telling friends he wants to run again."

But while those moves all point to a bid, it doesn't seem like he's too terribly intent on broadening his base, considering he recently signed to become a columnist for conspiracy-factory, World Net Daily.

Gingrich: Powell for Secretary of State

In the aftermath of Susan Rice's exit, Newt Gingrich (who has a vested interest in retro chic) pitches his idea on Fox News.

"I actually think it would not be a bad idea for President Obama to seriously consider seeing if Colin Powell would come back out of retirement, because Colin did endorse him, and that might be a bipartisan step that would move us in a direction of a different kind of dialogue if we just kind of stay with left-wing policies."

Jindal: Oral contraception should be available over-the-counter

Bobby Jindal pens an op-ed for the Wall Street Journal that champions making oral contraceptives available on an over-the-counter; not prescription basis.

It fights back against the baseless, political charge that the GOP wants to strip women of birth control, and fights back in a very proactive way -- Women shouldn't just have access, they should have very easy access.

But getting to the heart of it, I suspect most Americans actually would nod their heads at and agree with Jindal's fundamental point: women should have easy, universal access to contraception, but employers -- particularly ones who object to the morning-after or week-after pill -- shouldn't be forced to pay for those particular forms of contraception.

As an unapologetic pro-life Republican, I also believe that every adult (18 years old and over) who wants contraception should be able to purchase it.

But anyone who has a religious objection to contraception should not be forced by government health-care edicts to purchase it for others. And parents who believe, as I do, that their teenage children shouldn't be involved with sex at all do not deserve ridicule.

And in that vein, I also suspect most Americans would by sympathetic to stores like Hobby Lobby which could face a penalty of $1 million/day by not providing morning-after and week-after pills.

Hobby Lobby is owned by deeply-religious Christians who view those particular pills as abortion, and naturally, would rather not subsidize something they see as morally reprehensible.

Again, most would probably agree that Hobby Lobby should be excepted from the provision -- just like churches and certain religious organizations.

But... the counter is that if an exception is made for Hobby Lobby, you might see businesses all over the land suddenly growing pro-life-themed-compasses only so they can get out of providing the coverage.

That's why it was always dicey, in the first place, to go there with this bit in the legislation.

Evening eats

a. Susan Rice withdraws.

b. Jindal presses Obama for a meeting on Medicaid.

c. The Chris Christie fat question -- from all angles.

d. Five 20th century presidents weighed over 200 lbs.

e. The luxuries of being governor of a fruitful and bountiful commonwealth.

f. Shep Smith is awesome, part 200.

Streisand: Hillary would make "great woman president"

Barbra Streisand tells Piers Morgan that she hopes Hillary runs...

"I don't know, but I hope after a four-year rest that she would run," she says of Hillary Clinton. "Because she would be a great woman president."

... and that "enormous sexual chemistry" and a good muzzle could persuade her to fall in love with a Republican.

"Have you ever been in love with a Republican?" asks the host.

"Never," Streisand responds.

"Could you ever be?," follows Morgan.

"No," she insists. "Well, I mean unless there was an enormous sexual chemistry and, you know, and I had to - we never talked about politics, maybe. But I can't quite imagine it, no."

Here's vid, via CNN.

A quick case for conventions

Take a look at Barack Obama's job approval rating with Democrats in Gallup surveys in 2012, and you can see how crucial the Democratic convention turned out to be in bringing home the election.

Obama Job Approval with Democrats in 2012:

February: 83.25%

March: 83.75%

April: 84.25%

May: 84%

June: 83.5%

July: 83.4%

August: 83.5%

DEMOCRATIC CONVENTION comes along...

September: 88.75%

October: 89.75%

November: 92%

In short, pre-convention, Obama's approval with his party in 2012 averaged 83.66%.

Post-convention, it averaged 90.1%.

That's a jump of nearly 7 percentage points.

It's also peaking at the right time, proof that conventions matter, and possibly proof that it might be best to fire up your base at conventions; not necessarily to reach out to independents and undecided voters.

[Photo: White House: Pete Souza]

The oddest 14% gap in the world

Granted, there aren't too many entries in the category, but this gap held throughout the 2012 election, and has only grown since.

According to the RCP average, only 39% of voters think the country is going in the right direction right now, while 54% think it's on the wrong track.

Yet Barack Obama's RCP job approval rating is 53%/43%.

That means there's a 14 percentage point gap between Obama's job approval and the country's approval of the nation's direction.

Now, I'm not here to say which one of those verdicts is right or wrong, except to say that it doesn't make a ton of sense for them to coexist.

How can you think the country is headed in a bad direction yet approve of the guy tasked to put it in the right direction?

And if you approve of the guy leading the country, how can you not approve of where the country is going?

Well, one possible explanation might be that people think Obama is doing a good job of trying to save a sinking ship.

But if they think the ship is sinking, how can they judge the captain a success?

And if they think the captain is a success, how can they think the ship is sinking?

Pretend you're a Buffalo Bills fan, and you've had the same GM for four years, and you don't like the direction the team is going. Is it possible to approve of the job the GM's been doing for the past four years if you're sour on the team's direction?

Have you ever heard someone gush about a team's long-time GM, while subsequently cursing the team's direction?

Remember, "direction" is where you think the country is headed; not where you think the country is right now. If it were the latter, you can easily imagine a scenario where someone gets strong approval in the midst of bad times.

But "direction" is a forecast of the future, and it's supremely odd that Obama's picking up +16% approval in Gallup while barely 40% even think the country is headed in the right direction.

Logically, either people should feel more positive or Obama's approval should be lower.

So what's the explanation?

Well, Obama is still enjoying the fruits of his election night win, and the bandwagon effect is particularly strong in the months following an election (as Pew points out).

Thus, in that kind of rarefied environment, you can see disconnects get somewhat exaggerated. If we see a gap this big four months from now, then things get even odder.

[Photo: White House/Pete Souza]