Keeping it together

In the immediate aftermath of the election earlier this month, the public’s reaction was something to behold. Obviously, people were going to be excited or disappointed based upon the candidate for which they voted.

I witnessed a lot of regrettable behavior that only validates how polarized we are as a country. I know the stakes are high in a presidential election, and in a sense, it is good that people feel so deeply about it because it shows they care. In recent years, there has been much discussion about voter apathy, so all this emotion can be considered good in that respect.

However, some behavior I witnessed clearly crossed the line. Much of the poor behavior was witnessed through social media like Twitter and Facebook. As good as those resources are, they can be used for bad, and this badness was there for all to see on election night.

Social media can bring out the bad in us if we let it. After all, it is a lot easier to insult somebody if we are not doing it to his face. It’s true that these resources do require a name be put with comments made, but many people definitely let the expletives fly when they do not have to worry about a person in front of them.

People on both sides of the spectrum were in rare form. Some who voted for Romney bemoaned that the president's re-election marked the beginning of the end of America as a super power. Some attempted to tie Obama’s selection to the end times in Biblical prophecy in which world power would be shifted back to the Middle East. It's clear that some of these people view Obama as something more than a man who just wants to serve his country (and not in a good way).

On the other side, some of the president’s supporters reduced Romney to just another rich white guy, but did it in profane ways. His family and religion were attacked in very narrow-minded ways. Like Obama, I believe Romney was a man who just wanted to serve his country, but people had plenty of venom for him, too.

I know a lot of these things were said during the campaign, but the vitriol, profanity and anger were taken to another level on election night. I have refrained from using direct quotes from people to back up my points. However, just a little time spent researching on-line backs up my point.

The obvious question is:  Where do we go from here? This behavior clearly shows our country’s polarization remains deeply entrenched. Our leaders made good faith comments about wanting to work together, but we have heard that all before. We heard the same thing after the 2008 election, and how far did that go?  Not far because the same problem was worse four years later.

We are all going to continue to disagree with each other. However, if the power of our disagreements continues to intensify, we may reach a point of not turning back. Our unity may erode in a substantial way, and our country may become as fragmented as Europe. This possibility keeps me awake at night.

I don't want to believe that can happen, but a lot has changed in my short life. Life has become much more of a blood sport where humility and graciousness have taken a back seat to winning at all costs.

It is tainting our political discourse, and it is wearing moderates like me out. Moderates are usually the ones left to clean up the messes of extremists.  If we vacate the arena of debate, our country may eventually hit rock bottom.

Obama will win the election on Tuesday

Keep in mind this is not an endorsement because I do not endorse candidates.  That said, I believe President Obama will win re-election on Tuesday.  I have digested more polls than I care to recall and read oodles of political information from organizations all over the ideological spectrum.  Based on that, signs point to the president winning. Many national polls have it very close, but we do not elect the president through a general election.  We elect the president through the Electoral College. The polls are close in Ohio (a key state) but most show Obama ahead by between one to five points. Even the polls on FOX show Obama with a lead there.  It would take a miracle for Romney to win if he loses Ohio.  I suppose a miracle could happen, but I don't see it.

Will Obama win the Electoral College but lose the popular vote?

Mercifully, the presidential race comes to a close on Tuesday. All the pontificating will end, and most of us will go back to living normal lives without candidates trying to convince us how great they are. However, this experience has included more than candidates.

For example:  Polls. I am sick of polls. Each day, several organizations release polls telling us how the race is going in various states and across the nation as a whole. It is all a bunch of noise to me because news organizations rarely release information about the methodology used to create these polls. Still, the possibilities indicated by them are intriguing.

Perhaps the most fascinating possibility is the chance one candidate will win the popular vote and the other the Electoral College. To be elected president, a candidate must win 270 votes in the Electoral College. In a sense, it does not matter who wins the popular vote because 270 is the magic number.

Because of Mitt Romney's popularity throughout a big chunk of the country, some pundits are floating the real possibility that he could win the popular vote, but President Obama still win the Electoral College.

Our country is incredibly polarized when it comes to politics, and if this happens, the roof might blow off. However, we must not forget that this very scenario happened only 12 years ago.

Tennessee's Al Gore won the popular vote, but George W. Bush won the electoral vote and became president. Democrats cried foul, and the climax of the election was unique to be sure because of the problems in Florida.

Those poor folks in Florida demonstrated how easy it is to mess up an election. Because of their errors, many claimed the presidency was stolen from Gore. However, this was not the case. The bitter irony for Gore is that he would have won if he had simply won his home state.

In the aftermath of all that, there were cries from a lot of people to do away with the Electoral College and elect the president by popular vote. Of course, most of the people who said that were Democrats upset about the election while Republicans steadfastly defended the current system.

However, if Romney won the popular vote but lost the election, there would be a complete role reversal. Democrats would get the White House while Republicans would be on the outside looking in. Do we really believe Republicans would go gently into that good night?

Not hardly. I am sure many of them would cry just as loudly as Democrats did in 2000. Some of the Democrats would be in the awkward position of supporting a process some denounced only a decade ago.

In addition to this, there is one other possibility that is even spicier. Apparently, there is at least one scenario in which Obama and Romney could tie with 269 electoral votes each. In this case, the House of Representatives would select the president and the Senate would choose the vice president.

Because of the parties that control those bodies, Romney would likely be selected president and Joe Biden vice president.

This may not reflect well on me, but I would love to see this scenario play out. After the shrillness of the campaign, it would be a fitting way to bring it all to a close. Both sides have beaten the other to a bloody pulp the last few months. This has occurred to the great annoyance of many citizens.

What better way for election night to end with neither candidate being able to say they won? I think it would be tremendously symbolic, but then again, not all people like to live through history being made.

Obama and Romney both provided memorable campaign lowlights

Election Day is now only a little more than one week away, and for some, it cannot come soon enough. Of course, it has already come and gone for people taking advantage of the early voting period.

For those people, they can kick back and turn down the noise associated with the election process. They have a unique opportunity to enjoy some peace and quiet until the votes are counted.

There are many races on the ballot, but the big one is for the presidency. Regardless of who a person votes for, I think it is important to remember that both Barack Obama and Mitt Romney appear to be decent and intelligent men who are trying to offer their services to the country. They both have many positive qualities.

Despite this, both men have made substantial missteps during the campaign, resulting in situations that have left us shaking our heads.

For the president, his primary misstep has been the whole tone of his campaign. It has been vastly different compared to 2008. Back then, he swept up the nation with optimism in a campaign that promised "hope" and "change." Our nation was in a big mess then (as is the case now), but his campaign in 2008 had an idealism that is rare in national politics.

Unfortunately, this has not been the case with his current campaign. This year's effort has been marred by negativity, negativity, and more negativity. When talking about negativity, I am not referring to his criticizing of Romney's political record. That is fair game. I am referring to the unseemly personal attacks that are nothing more than cheap shots.

However, this approach has been effective to a certain degree. For several months, the president had effectively turned Romney into just another rich guy who would not talk about his taxes and did not care about the middle class.

At the first presidential debate, this changed as much of America got a good look at Romney for perhaps the first time. After that, Romney surged in the polls. Many attribute the surge to Obama’s poor performance in that debate, but it was likely that voters saw Romney in a way that did not fit the image projected by the president's campaign.

The president, on the other hand, has come across as just another politician who will do what it takes to get elected. It is always a red flag when an incumbent does not run on his record, and Obama has done a lot of this.

Just like Obama, Romney has made big mistakes. His most unfortunate one was his infamous "47 percent" comment. He was caught at a private function stating that 47 percent of the public were going to vote for President Obama anyway because they were dependent on the government and viewed themselves as victims.

He implied the people in this group were a bunch of slackers who did not want to take personal responsibility for their lives, and it was up to the government to take care of them.

His statements were a textbook example of how over-generalizing complex issues can result in ridiculous statements. Defenders of Romney claimed it was unfair that the statements were recorded undercover at a private event. However, it is important that these comments came to light.

Comments like these are examples of what politicians say behind closed doors when the prying eye of the media is not there. Candidates often change their tune depending on who their audience is, and these comments were mean and condescending.

To his credit, Romney has admitted he was wrong, but children often say the same thing when caught with their hands in the cookie jar.

The perfect ending for Barack Obama and Mitt Romney

To be elected president, a candidate must win 270 electoral votes. Based on what is being reported, there is at least one scenario where Barack Obama and Mitt Romney could end up tied with 269 electoral votes each. 

This may not reflect well on me, but I wish this would happen. As shrill as this entire campaign has been, it would be a fitting climax. 

If that happened, the House of Representatives would choose the president and the Senate would choose the vice president. Because of the parties that control those bodies, it means Romney would likely be chosen president and Joe Biden vice president. The result would be a MADHOUSE!!!!! A MADHOUSE!!!!!

Who could ask for anything more?

Withering civility in a testy political season

We are only a few weeks away from the presidential election, and civility continues to erode when it comes to discussing the important issues of the day.

This is not happening just among the candidates running for office, but among people like you and me. On the bright side, it is good that people are feeling so passionately about the issues, but the end result of this passion is that we appear to be becoming more polarized than ever.

Let us look at the candidates in the presidential race. We are definitely seeing an overload of negative campaigning and attempts to make the other look like a royal idiot. Some negativity is acceptable, but the key is balance.

When it comes to negativity, it is perfectly okay for candidates to criticize the records of their opponents. For example, it is fine for President Barack Obama to be critical of Mitt Romney’s stances on issues and other parts of his political background. Equally, Romney has the right to go after Obama’s track record as president and be critical when appropriate.

However, where they both go wrong is when the attacks get personal and try to reduce the other to nothing more than a cartoon figure. For months, the Obama campaign has painted Romney as a rich guy who does not pay his taxes and does not care about the middle class.

On the other hand, the Romney campaign has played the same game by trying to reduce Obama to nothing more than an empty suit who is aloof and really has nothing of substance to say.

This lack of civility was also on display during the vice presidential debate. Vice President Joe Biden repeatedly laughed and sneered as his opponent Paul Ryan tried to make his points. Seriously, did Biden really think it would be effective to laugh while a serious discussion about Iran’s nuclear capabilities was taking place? It was another low moment in a campaign of lows.

Of course, this lack of civility has a trickle down effect. We see it take place through the mainstream media every day. Conflict is the mother’s milk of the 24-hour news channels where opponents verbally duke it out in a vain attempt to make points.

I really do not understand how this became such a popular technique for the networks to use. The conflict often overtakes the points trying to be made. Because of this, viewers are turned off and the words spoken by those people often come across like the braying of donkeys.

The trickle down effect also flows down to the general public. I recently read a story on the Cable News Network’s web site that stated one-fifth of the people who use social media have ended on-line friendships simply because of political disagreements.

A person could make the point that a friendship must not have been very meaningful if it was ended because of a political difference, but I have seen relationships severed for a lot less than that.

The bottom line is our nation has become more and more polarized in recent years when it comes to political issues. We choose sides and become enemies if people have the audacity to see issues differently than we do.

It is a crying shame that it has come to this. It used to be that the deepest relationships we had with people were ones where we could sharply disagree but still have dinner afterward.

However, it is not too late. We can all step back from the ledge we are looking over if we become a little less focused on ourselves and more on other people. This is an old recipe for happiness, but it still works.

Big decision coming with presidential election one month away

It is a little more than one month until Election Day when voters will decide whether President Barack Obama will get to serve a second term or Republican nominee Mitt Romney will get the opportunity to lead our country.

Based on what I have read, most people reading this have already made up their minds for who they will vote. Barring a remarkable event, there is little chance these people will have a change of heart.

I do not know whether this is good or bad, but it is an indicator that Obama and Romney are chasing a small group of undecided voters who could tilt the election one way or the other.

Couple that with the apathetic people who will not bother to vote and this small pool of undecided voters gets that much smaller. Of course, apathetic people have a right to their apathy in much the same way that passionate people have a right to their passion. In some respects, it is a shame these apathetic people will not bother to vote.

However, if these voters are apathetic to the point that they are uninformed on the issues, then maybe it is a good idea they are staying home. I do not want to ride in a car if the driver has not bothered to get a license and the same principle applies to people who vote. If a person does not have basic knowledge about what is going on, then I will not shed a tear if they choose not to vote.

For the people who do vote, the election is basically a referendum on how well President Obama has done in the last four years. Of course, there are wildly diverging points of view on this.

Supporters of the president will point out our struggles of the last four years would have been much worse if he had not taken steps like supporting the quarter-of-a-trillion dollar stimulus package that was meant to help our economy as it sputtered. The supporters state he inherited a big mess, and it was so large that four years was not enough time to produce substantial improvement.

Critics will point out the last four years have been a failure in which unemployment has remained above eight percent, and many economists predict problems will continue. They will say the president has taken a big government approach that has yielded few results, and it has resulted in a national debt now above $16 trillion. They feel more debt will strangle the long-term prospects of the country.

Usually, I do not publicly state for who I will vote and I will not now. But I do have some pretty deep feelings about the upcoming election.

Deep in my heart, I believe this is the most important presidential election of my lifetime. Our country’s challenges are real and cannot be solved overnight.

The economy remains in a mess. We are still fighting a war in Afghanistan even though nobody seems to want to talk about it.

I fear our standing in the international community is slipping as the recent protests by radical Muslims demonstrate.

Whether it will be Obama or Romney who will lead us in the coming four years, I hope all of us will dedicate ourselves to holding our elected officials more accountable. For several years, the primary goals of our leaders seem to have been to maintain power rather than actually lead.

That is not a knock at one person or one political party. There is plenty of blame to go around, and we need to do a better job of clearing our throats when monitoring them.

It is our government, you know.

Republican race far from settled

After months of build up, the Iowa caucuses finally took place last Tuesday as Republicans began the process of choosing who their nominee will be for the 2012 presidential race.

Whew! The hype leading up to Tuesday’s caucuses was as bad as the hype will be when the Super Bowl takes place in a few weeks. Since last summer, GOP candidates have risen and fallen in the polls like the temperature.

First it was Michele Bachmann, then Rick Perry, then Herman Cain, then Newt Gingrich, then Ron Paul. The only constant has been former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney who has been toward the top of the polls since the beginning.

It is almost as if the media and the Republican Party have been trying to manufacture a compelling race between two candidates. Romney is obviously one of them but the other changes by the week.

Now that the Iowa caucuses have happened, there has been a lot of talk in the mainstream media about certain candidates having momentum and others being in trouble. This may be so.

However, there is one fact everybody must keep in mind at this point. Only one GOP candidate since 1972 has won the Iowa caucuses and gone on to win the presidency. Just one.

So, what does this mean? It means a lot of twists and turns remain in the Republican campaign. As that factoid proves, an early win in Iowa does not guarantee a win in November or even the party nomination.

I often wonder why so much emphasis is put on the Iowa elections. It is just one state of 50 that will be going through this process this year. Demographically, it is pretty generic and does not represent the cultural diversity of the United States.

Maybe its importance has more to do with our nation's short political attention span.

We live in an instant gratification society, so there is often a rush to declare a competition complete before it is complete. It is like this in all aspects of American life. It seems experts like to be the first to declare somebody or something the winner.

Especially in politics, the public seems to fall in line with this. In recent years, the public has viewed the election process as a necessary evil, and most want it over as soon as possible.

Still, it is a big mistake to take this approach. The electing of a president should be a marathon and not a sprint. However, we appear to be going the other direction when it comes to this.

The primary season has been watered down to a couple of months. This was not always the case. A generation ago the primary campaign continued into June where it climaxed with the California primary.

Despite how difficult it can be to remain focused on the presidential campaign, it is important to follow it. I can understand why people get discouraged though.

There is a lot of negativity to it. It seems when one candidate surges he or she is attacked with ruthless precision. And everything is fair game when these attacks begin.

It may be a skeleton from a candidate's personal life that occurred decades ago. It may be a slip of the tongue a person makes when under the glare of increased media scrutiny. It may be one bad decision that has nothing to do with a person’s qualifications to be president.

The bottom line is running for president is not for the faint of heart. Following the process is also not for the faint of heart.

Electing a president is like watching sausage being made. We may like the result, but it is brutal to watch.

Tennessee key on Super Tuesday

Football's Super Bowl occurred today, but a political version of that will take place on Tuesday.

On Tuesday, more than 20 states will hold primaries and just a couple of months ago, it was believed that the results would play a big role in determining the frontrunner for the Democratic and Republican nominations.

However, this does not appear to be the case. The races in both parties are still wide open, and unless something unexpected happens on Tuesday, it will be that way as the campaign moves forward.

Illinois Sen. Barack Obama enjoyed an impressive win in South Carolina and has a lot of momentum. However, anybody who doubts the power of the Clinton political machine should think twice.

If nothing else, the Clinton family has shown they are relentless campaigners who have experienced many highs and lows over the years.

On the Republican side, it is a three-horse race. Arizona Sen. John McCain, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, and to a lesser extent former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee lead the way.

The most embarrassed Republican at this point has to be former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani. He skipped the early contests to focus on the Florida primary last Tuesday and failed miserably.

He placed a distant third, and his entire campaign strategy has to be considered one of the dumbest in recent years. It doesn't quite rank as high as when Walter Mondale pledged to raise taxes as the Democratic nominee in the 1984 election.

Of course, Mondale knew he was likely to get steamrolled by incumbent Ronald Reagan anyway, so it's understandable that he would try a risky campaign technique. Still, his approach was a stinker.

As for Tuesday's primary here in Tennessee, it is a must win for both Obama and Clinton. Both candidates have begun paying more attention to the state, but it is distressing that they are only focusing on the large metropolitan areas.

I guess that can be forgiven because so many states are up for grabs, but still it's a shame that they won't lavish attention on Tennessee voters like they did in New Hampshire and Iowa.

As for the Republicans, the race here in our state only became more interesting a few days ago. Former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson would have been a shoe in, but he dropped out of the race after a poor showing in South Carolina.

Now, candidates are taking a greater interest in the state.

So, how should we approach Tuesday?

First, please go vote. I know I am stating the obvious but since tons of eligible voters don't do this, I felt it was worth stating. However, reader, since you have gotten this far into this column, I feel confident you have a lot of interest in elections and will do the right thing.

Of course, if you haven't registered to vote, then you can't vote in the primary. In this case, make sure to register so that you can vote in the general election in November.

Second, do a lot of personal research. Voters rely way too much on television and radio commercials when it comes to forming an opinion about a candidate. Many commercials are manipulative and don't tell the whole story. This is especially true when it comes to attack ads about another candidate.

Technology has made it easer than ever to find information regarding a candidate. I know it may be too close to our primary to do a lot of research, but the information is out there if a person is willing to do a little digging. Don't be lazy.

Last, don't pay attention to polls. Polls may help campaigns gauge voter sentiment, but the media tends to drown us with them. Polls subconsciously affect us when making a decision.

After all, how many times have you not voted for a candidate simply because you don't believe he has a chance to win? Paying too much attention to polls often drives that type of thinking.

Polls often aren't reliable. In this election, some polls showed that Barack Obama would beat Hillary Clinton by 10 percent in New Hampshire only days before voters went to cast their ballot, but she beat him.

Anything can still happen during this election.

The one question you must ask yourself is whether you are going to sit on the sidelines or get off the couch and participate. You can do that Tuesday.

The GOP race remains wide open

We are about one month into the presidential primary season, and the Republicans are no closer to selecting a clear cut frontrunner for their nomination than when the process began.

That isn't a bad thing. I've written before that the race for the presidency should be a marathon and not a sprint.

Both Democrats and Republicans have tried their best to condense the election process by frontloading the primary season. After all, more than 20 states will hold primaries on February 5 (including Tennessee).

I believe that is bad because voters need to see candidates exposed to the pressures of a campaign as much as possible. If nominees are established quickly, then they can coast their way to November.

However, that is not likely in either party this year, and that is especially so on the Republican side.

Watching the competition between the candidates has been exciting, and the results so far show us the race has a long way to go.

Arizona Sen. John McCain won New Hampshire and South Carolina. Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney won Michigan and Nevada. Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee won Iowa and placed a close second in South Carolina.

Nobody has been able to pull ahead of the pack.

The campaign has been aggressive, and because it has been so tight, the candidates have had to be on their toes.

Additionally, the presence of former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani will finally be felt when the Florida primary is held Tuesday.

Guiliani's strategy has been risky. He has virtually ignored the early primaries and caucuses, and he got trounced in each of those states.

He is hoping a strong showing in Florida will springboard him to big wins on Super Tuesday on February 5.

Though it could work for him, I hate this strategy. Frankly, I believe it is an arrogant approach.

The other candidates have sweated blood while fighting it out in the other states, while America's Mayor has chosen to set his own agenda at the expense of the American people.

Voters need to see Giuliani in the campaign thunderdome to determine whether he is presidential material. He is blowing that opportunity by believing he can breeze on to the scene late and expect everybody to accommodate him.

My prediction is that he is waiting too late and won't be able to generate momentum. Timing is essential in politics, and Giuliani is proving that he doesn't understand that.

Ask former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson about that. Last year, the political scene was abuzz about him possibly entering the race.

However, he waited and waited and waited before making his announcement, and he lost his momentum.

By the time he announced his candidacy on The Tonight Show, the moment had passed him. He seemed like yesterday's news even though his campaign was only beginning.

Though the party's convention is still months away, one can't help but speculate what it will be like if the situation remains as it is. We could be looking at the first contested GOP convention in decades.

In the last couple of decades, both the Democratic and Republican conventions have become more and more irrelevant. Nothing of real substance happened.

Party nominees have been selected in recent years well before the convention, so this event has been watered down to a well-choreographed public relations event.

There was some drama at the GOP convention in 1976 when Ronald Reagan strongly challenged then-president Gerald Ford, but other than that, these events have been fairly quiet.

Perhaps the protests that occurred at the disastrous 1968 Democratic convention caused officials in both parties to more tightly control these events. The violence at that convention occurred when protests against the Vietnam War were at their most passionate.

The result was the Democrats came off looking like a party that couldn't run an orderly convention much less run the country. That event likely played a significant role in getting Richard Nixon elected.

The bottom line is the Republican race will have a lot more drama as the weeks unfold.

That may not make the leaders of the party happy, but it is good for voters.

And that should be what is important, right?

Iowa caucuses show how little the mainstream media understands politics

The Iowa caucuses have shown us just how unpredictable politics can be, as well as how little the media knows about politics.

At the start of the presidential campaign back in early 2007, there was lots of coverage that stated former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani was the obvious frontrunner for the Republicans. Those same pundits said New York Sen. Hillary Clinton was the clear frontrunner for the Democrats.

The voters of Iowa have shown just how pointless it can be to anoint leaders months before an actual election takes place. Giuliani didn't come close to winning Iowa as former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney were the choices of Republican voters there.

As for Clinton, Illinois Sen. Barack Obama and former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards made her life miserable and showed the race for the Democratic nomination is not a one-horse race.

So, what's the point here? Don't let the media be too big of an influence on how you will vote.

Study the candidates. Take control of your vote.

And don't be sheep that need to be led around by the nose.

GOP race is a toss up but polls can mislead

As the 2008 presidential race heats up, we should all expect to hear more and more about polls as the weeks pass.

After all, polls are a primary way candidates and the media gauge how successfully a candidate is getting his or her message across to voters.

Though an easy tool to use, I believe polls are misused somewhat when determining the popularity of a candidate. I will elaborate on that a little more in a moment, but there can be no denying the emphasis that is placed on polls.

For those who enjoy tight political races, a recent Associated Press-Ipsos national poll shows the race to win the Republican nomination is quite close.

Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani led the poll with 24 percent. He was followed by former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson who had 19 percent and Arizona Sen. John McCain who had 15 percent.

The margin of error in the poll was 4.5 percent so it is possible the race is tighter than the numbers reported.

Or, then again, maybe not.

I have always been uncomfortable with national polls like this one. National polls are meant to reflect the percentage of votes a candidate would receive if the election was held on that day.

However, this is not the way we elect a president or the way Republicans and Democrats select a nominee. When it comes to the race to win a party's nomination, it is a state-by-state process in which the candidates win delegates to their party's convention next summer based on their performance in each state.

These national polls remove the state-by-state element from their findings. These polls are just a sample of voter opinions chosen from people around the nation.

Because of this, general national polls like the AP-Ipsos poll mentioned above cannot always be a reliable measurement of how a candidate stands in the race.

For example, in that poll former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney was a distant fourth with only seven percent. Based on this, it would appear that Romney's campaign is taking on water and is having little success.

However, several polls in Iowa and New Hampshire show Romney is either leading or close to the lead in those states. This is especially important because these states are among the earliest to hold primaries or caucuses next year.

So which is it? Is the Romney campaign hopelessly adrift like the AP-Ipsos poll implies? Or is the campaign poised for great success early in next year's primary season?

If nothing else, successful presidential campaigns are about momentum. If Romney performs well in Iowa and New Hampshire, there is no doubt he will be considered among the top Republican candidates.

From there, it will be anybody's guess as to how he will do.

However, based on the findings of the AP-Ipsos poll, the perception that is being communicated to the general public is that Romney is currently an also-ran in the campaign.

If I were a Romney campaign representative, I would be hopping mad about how much airplay this poll got. Perception is reality, and if the perception becomes that Romney has no chance, then the leads he has in Iowa and New Hampshire could melt away.

This is just one example of how powerful poll results can be. We are a results-driven society, and in a long political campaign, it is sometimes difficult to measure the results of all the activity we see. Polls can be a good resource to measure results, but we must be careful how we use them.

America is a sports crazy nation so perhaps polls are so popular because it acts as a scoreboard. We love frontrunners, but at the same time, we cheer for the underdog. Polls definitely play a role in identifying who those folks are.

Despite the dangers of misusing polls, don't expect to see a decrease in them anytime soon. They are a staple of the media's political coverage, and campaigns can't seem to make a major decision without consulting them.

In a way, politicians have become slaves to polls. They are so afraid of making decisions that could hurt their numbers that they become tentative.

I don't know about anyone else, but the last trait that I want in a president is for him (or her) to be tentative.

Boldness is necessary in our leaders.