No, This Is Not Comforting

People always take solace in the wrong things: “sure, we got blown out, but we played well in the final minutes against their backups.” Yeah, right. Elections are no different. And right now conservatives are consoling themselves with the idea that the election wasn’t so bad for them because they won the House, which they seem to think means the public really did support them, but just didn’t like Romney. Uh, no.

What you need to remember about the House is that it’s not representative of “the public,” it is representative of 435 different publics. If you want to understand the difference, consider this.

Assume you have 100 voters, 55 of whom vote Blue and 45 of whom vote Red. In a straight up election, the Blues will win every time. But if you separate them right, you can actually cause the Reds to win overwhelmingly. Indeed, the Reds could win as many as 8 of 10 districts if you can divide them right. Thus, even as the Blues win the national election by 10%, they could lose as many as 80% of the districts.

This is what is happening in the House.

The House is divided into 435 districts. Because of Republican wins in 2010 at the state level, the Republicans controlled the redistricting process for 213 of the 435 seats. The Democrats controlled only 44 seats. The rest were split.

As a result of this, 109 Republican seats were made more safe for the Republicans and another 109 Democratic seats were made more vulnerable to the Republicans by adding Republican voters or removing Democratic voters from those districts. That gave the Republicans a competitive boost in 218 districts -– they only need 218 to control the House -- by skewing the chances in those districts toward the Republicans. The Democrats, meanwhile, managed to make only 67 Democrats seats safer. This means the Republicans will win more seats even if they lose the popular vote. And indeed, in 2012, the Republicans won 33 more seats even though they lost the popular vote to the Democrats by about 0.5%.

Moreover, this is making these seats safer, which means few seats remain competitive. Since the 1990s, the number of competitive seats has fallen to around 40 -- less than 10% of all seats. This is why 99% of incumbents got re-elected in 2002 and 2004 and why 90% got re-elected in 2010.

So don’t believe that the Republicans winning the House means anything about the party’s health on a national level. In fact, the Democrats weren't concentrated in a small number of state... remember every vote at 50%+1 is a waste... the national elections and the Senate would look even uglier. Do not listen to anyone who tells you that the party is fine or who points to the House as evidence of that. The party is not doing fine and it needs to realize that real change is needed.

Finally, I want to highlight a point that was made in the comments the other day which I think should give everyone pause: the Democrats can run competitively for Senate seats in every state. . . the Republicans can't. That should tell us something. We need to broaden our appeal and again become a national party, not a party of 218 House Districts.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

A Glimpse of the Future

Now that we’ve had a day to digest the election, let me tell you why Obama won and why his followers won’t be happy with him.

● Why He Won: A lot of people are giving a lot of reasons why this election went the way it did. And to a degree many of them are right at the margins. But at its core, this election turned out the way it did for one simple reason: “short-sighted self-interest.”

Our government is a ponzi scheme. A ponzi scheme is a fraudulent investment where people are enticed into investing with promises of unsustainably high returns. Those returns are paid for with the money taken from new investors. Essentially A’s benefits are paid using the investment of B and C. B and C’s benefits are paid using the investments of D, E, and F. And so on. As long as enough new people keep entering the scheme, the benefits will flow. But the moment the new money slows down, the entire scheme collapses. That is how our government is structured, as a fraudulent investment that pays out way more than it can afford because it is stealing from the future to pay the present.

Many people don’t understand this. They only see the high benefits they get, so they want the scheme to keep going. To them, it is manna from Heaven and they don’t want it to stop. These are core Obama supporters – progressives, welfare cases, minorities. Others understand the nature of the scheme but still invest in the hopes that the system won’t fail until they have made more than they invested. These are suburbanite Obama supporters – soccer moms, professionals. Others know the system will collapse any day, but also realize that so long as everyone else will get these benefits, they might as well get them too until the system collapses. These are union workers and government workers.

Here’s the problem for Obama. He can’t keep the benefits flowing. Why? Consider these problems Obama now faces.

● The Deficit: In the past four years, Obama added more to the national debt than all prior presidents combined. Our debt ($16 trillion) now equals the size of our economy (102%), it was 51% in 1988. This means we can no longer spend money without risking a Greece-like meltdown. Moreover, we are still headed in the wrong direction. The deficit is now one trillion dollars per year. This means Obama cannot spend more because there is no more. But he has a problem. . .

● Interest: Because of the deficit, our credit rating was downgraded already and we are warned of worse to come. The cost of servicing the national debt is already $450 billion at 2.8% interest (historic lows). That’s 12% of the budget. If we continue on this course, we will be downgraded again and again and our interest costs will rise. Every 1% rise in rates adds $160 billion to the deficit each year.

● Military: Right now, the budget is balanced on the idea of taking about $200 billion a year from the military budget. This was always fake and will return to the budget. Moreover, war with Iran (or Syria) will add about $300 billion a year.

● Medicare: Obama faces two problems with regard to Medicare. First, he’s promised to steal $700 billion from it (about $150 billion a year). That is a fake accounting gimmick and will return to the budget. Secondly, Medicare is becoming a worthless benefit because doctors will no longer take it because it doesn’t pay enough. Fixing this will cost around $100 billion per year, increasing by 20% per year.

So if Obama does nothing else, the deficit will increase by between $350 billion a year to $750 billion a year, plus interest cost increases. We could be looking at $2 trillion a year in deficits by 2015. And that’s just the beginning.....

● Obamacare: If you assume a best case scenario, Obamacare is estimated to cost $1.76 trillion over ten years, or $176 billion a year. But you never get best case in government. The long-term reliable estimate for government spending is five times the initially estimated cost. That would be $880 billion a year. Moreover, this assumes most people will stay on private plans, but there’s no reason for employers to keep those plans. Also, health care costs, which were projected to go down, are going up 21% per year.

● Unemployment: There are 23 million unemployed after the prior jobless decade. Another 20 million jobs will be needed just to stay level with population growth. Obama’s policies kill jobs. Moreover, estimates are that if taxmaggedon happens, we are looking at another 6-10 million jobs lost. All of those unemployed people will need benefits. Even if we give only $10,000 a year to these people, you are looking at adding $480 billion a year in support payments, not to mention the lost tax revenue from them not working. Black unemployment will remain in the 20% range as will youth unemployment.

So now we’re looking at deficits of $3-$3.3 trillion a year. And it gets worse.

● Retirees: The federal government owes $2 trillion in unfunded retirement benefits to its workers. The state governments owe $5.2 trillion in unfunded retirement benefits to their workers. But that’s nothing compared to the coming Boomerpocalypse. The Boomers never bothered to save for retirement, choosing instead to rely on SSI. Over the next three decades, 81 million boomers will retire. That will create a $25 trillion unfunded liability in Medicare, plus another $21 trillion unfunded liability in Social Security. Moreover, these people will stop contributing to the tax base.

Further, there is strong evidence that all the economic bubbles we’ve experienced are actually the result of the boomer bubble itself. The boom of the 1990s appears to have been fueled with a massive spending binge by baby boomers. And now that the boomers have stopped spending, the economy may not recover. In fact, long term stock market trends predict that we are in a long term collapse nearly identical to the Great Depression. . . because of the boomers.

● State Bankruptcy: Several states, with California taking the lead, will go bankrupt in the next 2-4 years. They have committed to spending too much and cannot raise taxes enough to cover their debts. They are hoping for a Federal bailout, but that won’t come because there is no money to give them. Look for the shock of this to push the economy into depression and to result in court ordered (1) breaking of state employee union contracts, (2) massive across the board tax hikes, and (3) slashing of benefits, which will worsen the death spiral.

So this is what Obama faces, an economic and fiscal catastrophe caused by the actions of his party over the past twenty-plus years, actions his own policies made worse. He now faces stark choices: bankruptcy or letting Medicare die as an effective benefit, bankruptcy or killing Obamacare, bankruptcy or letting the unemployed starve. His supporters will now face (1) a likely depression or deep, jobless recession, (2) broken state budgets resulting in jobs cuts for union workers and benefit cuts for core Obama supporters, and (3) a federal government that has no power to spend money to save any of Obama’s supporters from the problems they will face. The ponzi scheme has run its course and his drones will not be happy when the money stops flowing.

Moreover, Obama will need to go to war with Iran or watch as London or New York goes up in smoke. He will need to turn his back on Eurozone requests for a handout to save them from their folly – not to mention, our economy still drives the world and our depression will drag down everyone else. He will need to spend vast sums on military preparations to face down a China made aggressive by their own economic malaise and by Obama’s perceived weakness. The falling dollar will crush Mexico, Germany and China, who rely on exports to us. His policies will make gas, food and electricity costs more expensive. And he can’t deliver on any of his legislative promises.

And all the while, his people will be wondering why the ponzi scheme has stopped paying out.

It’s going to be an ugly four years.


Also, let me stress... I am NOT predicting doomsday here. That is not what this is. Each of these issues can be overcome, but they can't be overcome with Obama's policies or in ways that will leave his supporters happy.

That is the real point here, Obama faces a dilema: let the country sink and outrage his followers when the money stops OR fix things and outrage his followers by taking away their benefits.

So don't read this as an end of the world prediction.... leave that to the Mayans.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

It's Your Problem Now. . .

I warn you up front that this will be an ugly article. But last night's election really brings to light that something has gone drastically wrong in this country and it's time we realized that. It's time we realized that America is indeed two nations, just as John Edwards said. There is productive America and handout America. And it's time we stopped enabling the leeches. They created this problem, let them pay for it now. Here are my thoughts on the election, the future and the country as a whole.

● To The Retards: Congratulations. You proved once again last night that one can never go broke underestimating the American public. You, my slow cousins, just re-elected a man who has put the country on the brink of bankruptcy and whose plan to fix that is to (1) spend more money that doesn't exist to create jobs that won't exist, (2) create an unfunded entitlement program that is bigger than the entire national budget, and (3) tax his way to prosperity. Good luck with that, assholes. Good luck because you, his mindless supporters will be the ones hardest hit when the economy tanks and when the government can't afford to pay the benefits you voted for yourselves. Indeed, good luck when gas prices hit $6 a gallon, when your taxes double, when your employer drops your healthcare and you get fined for not buying your own coverage, when your doctor stops taking Medicare or Medicaid, when your welfare check stops adjusting for inflation or shows up as an IOU, and when you lose your job to China because Obama won't stand up to his debt-pimp. Good luck finding a job too with the economy being 23 million jobs short and your idiot Messiah's plan being to hire 100,000 new teachers. Not to mention he'll need to create another 10 million just to keep up with population growth. But don't worry, he'll get even with all those rich bankers for you. . . only, he forgot to tell you, he's their bitch. That's right, he passed regulations that let evil Wall Street wipe out small local banks so that they can make a mint on your stupid ass.

● To My Productive Friends: This election was a battle between productive Americans and leeches. The leeches won. But guess what, you still have options. I recommend the following:

(1) Everyone should apply for every government benefit they can. None of these programs are funded and they rely on good people being unwilling to apply for them, i.e. they only work because only a fraction of people who qualify actually take the benefit. It's time that changed. It's time for everyone to demand every penny to which they are entitled. Employers should drop their employee health insurance and shift that cost to the government, just as Obama wants. Take up tax avoidance strategies. Find tax shelters. Apply for subsidies. Reagan broke the Russians by spending them into oblivious, you can do the same to Washington. There is no shame in taking from a thief.

(2) Stop subsiding liberal cesspools. Conservatives need to move their businesses from blue states to red states. Stop buying from blue state companies. Buy instead from red states or foreign companies.

(3) Conservative governors, don't be stupid. Grab every penny you can from Washington. Sign up for Obamacare or you will only end up subsidizing the states that do. Being frugal in a zero-sum game only means you end up paying the bill for others binging.

● To Congress: The Democrats are now talking about the Republicans needing to come together to work with Obama to solve the nation's problems. Why should you? Pelosi proved in 2004-2006 that the public would not punish them for standing in the way of everything Bush wanted. To the contrary, they got more seats. Harry Reid and Obama proved in 2010-2012 that they could stand in the way of everything as well, and they too got rewarded. For six years now, the strategy of paralysis combined with character assassination has proven effective. I see no reason why the Republicans in the House and the Senate shouldn't do the same. Let the country fail and let Obama take the blame -- America is strong enough to pick up the pieces in six years. It's time for scorched earth. No more good faith. No more acting for the good of the country over partisanship. If a deal gets done, make sure it benefits red states at the expense of blue states. . . forget shared pain. And never stop the character assassinations. This was Obama's plan and now it needs to be yours.

● To The Religious Right: Go away. For several election cycles now, it's been clear that the Religious Right has become an increasingly heavy drag on the party. It is simply impossible to win women and moderates when your party is the party of old white guys who proclaim rape to be the will of God and who want the government to obsess over gays and abortion. Your bullshit will never pass and all it's doing is turning off the people we need to fix the country.

● To Conservative Whites: It's time to face the fact that the electorate is changing and we need to embrace Hispanics. If Romney had gotten into office, I think we would have seen a serious change in this regard, but he didn't. So it's up to us. It's time we STOPPED talking about deporting illegal aliens. That will never happen anyway and whining about it only upsets Hispanic voters who don't want to hear us running around talking about deporting their friends and family. Get over it.

● To My Foreign Friends: The joke's on you, seriously. I've been speaking with several foreigners who were very much rooting for Obama for a variety of reasons. Sadly for you, you are about as misinformed as humans can get. Here are some things you thought would change "from the evil Bush years" which didn't and which won't: Obama won't close Gitmo, he won't stop the war on terror, he won't stop using drones or landmines. He won't rein in America's out of control debt. He won't take the lead on climate change or on saving the Eurozone circle jerk. Oh, and to my Chinese friends, all that paper you are holding marked "Backed By The Good Faith and Credit of the United States" isn't worth the paper it's written on. Sorry, you backed the wrong horse.

Do I sound bitter? Probably, but I'm not. I'm just telling you the truth. In reality, I really don't care about last night because it doesn't affect me. The people who will be hurt are the very people who wanted Obama to win, and it's kind of hard to care about them, since they decided to use the ballot box to steal from the rest of us to support their own worthless lives. But I'm through saving you from your own incompetence. You've created fiscal and economic tsunamis that will now strike. And like I said, it's your problem now.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Election Night America!

And away we go. It's election day!

As the swing states decide, we'll update the map above and let you know which states have gone which way. Reputable sources say Romney wins 315 votes. My personal guess is that he wins 301 votes: New Hampshire, VA, NC, Florida, Ohio, Wisconsin, Iowa, all of Nebraska, Colorado, and Nevada. He does not get Oregon, any of Maine, or Pennsylvania. But we'll see.

The Senate is important tonight too. Of those "in play," we are defending: Massachusetts, Indiana, Maine and Arizona. All but Arizona are endangered. The Democrats are defending: Hawaii, Wisconsin, Connecticut, North Dakota, Nebraska, Montana, Ohio, Florida, Missouri, Pennsylvania, and Virginia. All but Florida are endangered. We need to win a net of four seats to take control. I predict we win four.

Your thoughts, predictions and insider-info below...

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Final Pre-Election Roundup

All right. . . one more election roundup before we move on from this topic, thankfully. Things look good for Romney, but not so good for the Republicans in the Senate. That could make for an interesting and difficult four years.

● The Presidency. The polls are all over the place. There are polls showing Romney/Obama tied in Michigan, Romney ahead in Ohio, Romney ahead in Pennsylvania, and there are polls showing the reverse. Pretty much every battleground state has contradictory polls. So forget the polls and focus on the momentum. As we head into the final hours of the campaign, Romney is hitting his stride and he’s giving off all the signs of being the winner. He’s talking about big themes, love of country, and setting a very positive, enthusiastic tone. He’s talking about the future. He’s also drawing crowds of around 30,000 people. Even the press is noticing his tone. Obama, on the other hand, is speaking to nearly empty venues and just told his supporters “voting is the best revenge.” Talk about exposing a hateful leftist mindset if you need to appeal to anger and spite to excite your supporters.

Moreover, the Romney people are starting to predict victory. One Romney aid predicted 300 electoral votes. Michael Barone predicted 315. Sen. Rob Portman says he’s confident Ohio will swing Republican. They are spending money in states where they shouldn’t even be competitive, like Minnesota, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania. On the other side, Team Obama is defensive. They are pouring money into the same states, talking about firewalls (which indicates a disaster) and spending their time trying to deny that Romney has momentum. . . they don’t claim any momentum of their own. The hurricane bounce appears to be three points, like all his bounces, and should have already faded -- plus, it won't translate into votes.

Now add in a rash of surprise newspaper endorsements for Romney with eleven major papers switching from Obama to Romney, and a demoralized press corps that hasn’t attacked Romney with any enthusiasm and which seems resigned to dealing with “President Romney.”

All of this suggests that things are indeed going Romney’s way.

● The House. There’s no serious contention that the Republicans will lose the House. Pelosi kept claiming she would win the 25 seats they need to take over, but now they are only promising 5 seats, and they are privately concerned about losing 1-2 seats.

● The Senate. The Senate is not turning out well. At once time, it looked like the Republicans could win as many as nine seats to get a 56-44 lead. But things have gone wrong. Uninspired candidates didn’t help. Then we got a surprise retirement in Maine. Then some of our candidates turned stupid. . . really stupid. Now it looks like we’ll be lucky to get the four seats we need to take the chamber 51-49.

Of the seats “in play,” the Republicans are defending four: Massachusetts, Indiana, Maine and Arizona. All but Arizona are endangered, and I think we’ll lose them all. Massachusetts is simply too liberal for a Republican to win barring something unusual in a bi-election. In Maine, another liberal state, the race will go to a popular former governor who will side with the Democrats. Indiana was a mistake, where a popular Republican got tossed in the primary by a “Tea Party” candidate who made a huge slip-up on abortion. . . something the Tea Party doesn’t normally worry about.

So we start by losing three seats, which puts us at 44 seats.

The Democrats are defending the following “in play” states: Hawaii, Wisconsin, Connecticut, North Dakota, Nebraska, Montana, Ohio, Florida, Missouri, and Virginia. All but Florida are endangered.

We got stupid again in Nebraska (thank you Sarah Palin) and picked a bad candidate, but I think we’ll still squeak that one. Wisconsin in trending our way. Virginia is a race between two former governors and ours isn’t as inspired as he should be. It’s a toss up right now. We should be winning Montana, except a libertarian candidate is draining away just enough support to keep that one close. I think we win that too. Missouri was ours for the taking until our Religious Right nutjob candidate started talking about abortion. Now the race is too close to call. Everyone talks about how great the Democratic candidate is in North Dakota, but I don’t buy it. . . we win that one. Hawaii is a toss up, as is Ohio. I think we get Ohio, but not Hawaii. And finally, I think we lose Connecticut in a squeaker. That means we win 5, lose 2, and 2 remain undecided.

Doing the math means we get somewhere between 49 and 51 seats, with a likely result of 50. A 50/50 result would not be good because that means nothing will ever get out of committee. Indiana and Missouri are the real killers here and abortion is again the problem.

Also, let me remind people of Christine O’Donnell. Conservatives lost easily-winnable seats in Nevada, Delaware, and now likely in Missouri and Indiana because they got stupid and picked unpalatable candidates. Those four seats may well be the difference in Obamacare going into effect and conservatives will bear the full blame for this. Elections have consequences and so do failing to win elections. It’s time we got smarter about picking candidates.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

The Wit and Wisdom of Joey B.

Not too long ago, the people at National Review came out with a list of 689 reasons to vote against Barack Obama. Impressive, to be sure; but there is a Reason No. 690 I feel should be added to the list. That reason is the guy on the left (so to speak), and the idea that he might spend another four (or more?) years hanging around the White House.

Let's face it, Joe Biden is an idiot. Even the late-night shows, as hands-off as they've often been where The One is concerned, have felt free to make fun of his Number Two. Conservatives will long remember such bouts of excrement from Joe as "This is a big f**kin' deal" and "They gonna put y'all back in chains!" and the dignity (or lack thereof) he has brought to the office of Vice President in general. But this has been a particularly bad week for Biden, regardless of ideology. Let's recap.

VPOTUS kicked things off on Tuesday at a campaign office in Florida, where he was asked by a woman whether he would do more to help people like her kid, who is transgendered. Who knows what she had in mind, maybe more restrictive "hate speech" legislation or something. Biden responded by publicly proclaiming that discrimination against the "T" in LGBT is "the civil rights issue of our time." Er, okay. Personally, I could think of a few others that would rank way ahead of it, but good to know the President of the Senate is on top of these things.

But the week was young. Biden followed this up on Wednesday with more idiocy, saying at a campaign rally, "I'm going to give you the whole load today." No doubt many of a vulgar turn of mind were snickering at that statement (I know I was). Then--still in Florida, mind you--he noted the Cleveland Plain Dealer's endorsement of Obama, citing it as one of the major newspapers "in this state." What? What the f**k? Is he trying to channel those corny rock band greetings or something? Has anyone checked to see if he's been jumping off the campaign bus shouting "Hello Cleveland!!!"

Then, outside of Tampa (I guess weird states attract weird politicians), Joe greeted some customers at a restaurant and had the presence of mind to ask one of them, who I assume didn't look lily-white and all, "Are you Indian?" The customer responded that he was an American, to which Biden said, "No, I mean first generation." ????? Now, based on Biden's prior experiences with Indian-Americans, I know he's not trying to be racist or stereotyping or anything with that comment, but come on. However you feel about, say, Sarah Palin, the collective intelligence of Saturday Night Live couldn't have made her out to be this moronic and unaware, and yet here it is on full display. You know, because we didn't want to risk putting idiots like her and McCain in the White House.

But perhaps the tour de force of buffoonery came later, when Biden decided to defend ObamaCare in one of the scariest ways imaginable. He told a Republican voter over the phone, "After it's all over, when your insurance rates go down then you'll vote for me in 2016." Cue collective gulp from all sane people.

Personally, I think it's a toss-up which is worse: that a guy who's been a part of the federal government for decades is so badly informed about a policy any Internet user can dig up the facts of that he believes insurance will be cheaper, or that--God help us--he's hearing the words "President Joe Biden" in his head. Now of course, Biden hears a lot of things in his head, and the chances of him actually becoming Chief Executive are about the same as those of Andrew becoming president of the Rick Santorum Fan Club. But these screw-ups just illustrate the extent to which the guy who might succeed Obama at any moment is a loose cannon. He can't even be trusted to stay on his own party's message; remember that the campaign had to pull him from the tours after his "chains" comment.

Fortunately, it looks like we may only have to put up with his inanity for a couple more months. Bad news for the comics, of course, since Vice-President Slow Joe will be replaced by a truly intelligent and competent person. But it'll be good for America and for the dignity of the office.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Unknown Election Factors

With the election nearing, people are now trying to come up with random factors that could swing the outcome. Here are a couple. . .

● Layoffs: Some are wondering if a slightly falling unemployment rate will help Obama. Nope. The official unemployment number isn’t really what matters to people. What matters is how secure they feel personally about their jobs. In that regard, there are 23 million unemployed or underemployed individuals. Not only are those people without jobs, but their presence in the labor force makes others vulnerable to being replaced by lower cost workers and makes it harder for employed persons to find new jobs. That’s called job insecurity.

Moreover, the situation is about to get worse. Because of the military cuts in the last budget deal, defense contractors are issuing pink slips to their workers in massive numbers. Further, a series of mass layoffs appear to be underway, such as UBS laying off 10,000 people. That will scare people across the country.

● Paybacks: Obama has thrown several people under the bus in the past few months to save his rear, and they seem intent on paying him back now. Leaks from the intelligence community cast doubt on Obama’s attempts to shift blame on Libya by claiming they failed to warn him. The intelligence community let it be known that they did warn Obama and he ignored them. Obama also tried to claim there was no request for additional security in Libya. That made Hillary look bad. “Friends of Hillary” have now put out a story claiming that Hillary did request additional security, but her request was shot down. It’s not clear if Americans care about Libya, but these leaks suggest that some people inside the administration think they can hurt Obama with this.

● Minority Turnout: For Obama to win Colorado, he will require heavy Hispanic turnout. For him to win Ohio and Pennsylvania will require heavy black turnout. Neither is a given in this election. Polling has found a lack of enthusiasm for Obama within both groups. Will they turn out? We don’t know. We do know that youth turnout will be way down and that is bad for Obama. This is a true wildcard which can decide the race.

● Jews in Ohio?: Yes, there are around 120,000 Jews in the Cleveland area who typically vote Democratic. But if Romney can pull away parts of the Jewish vote, they can make a big difference in a key state which is expected to be very, very tight.

● Same Day Registration: Colorado, Wisconsin and New Hampshire all allow voters to register and vote on the same day. In 2008, Obama used this to get tons of new voters to turn out on election day, adding about 2% to his totals in those states. His team is hoping to do the same and add 3-4% to his total this time. However, there is no reason to believe that there is the same level of enthusiasm for Obama now as there was in 2008, and it seems unlikely that he can inspire the unregistered to suddenly turn out. Without those voters, the polls show likely and registered voters leaning toward Romney.

● Chrysler: Obama seems intent on hanging his hat on the Detroit bailout. And lucky him, Chrysler just announced that its profits surged 80% over last year. All is good, right? Well, no. Fiat, owner of Chrysler, announced that they are considering shifting Jeep production to China and Italy – although now that Romney used this in an ad, they are trying to backpedal. Still, the damage is done. To paraphrase a line that Obama kept using against Romney: “Obama’s Detroit bailout saved jobs. . . in Italy.” This could do significant harm to Obama’s rustbelt strategy, particularly in Ohio where Jeeps are currently made.

● Hurricane Sandy: No one knows how the hurricane will affect this election. On the one hand, it does give Obama a chance to appear presidential. On the other hand, I doubt that will help because that’s his job and doing his job won’t really get him any sort of bonus points. That said, Obama could spend the last couple days before the election running around promising FEMA money to all of these voters. But then, these are blue states so it can’t really change the outcome.

There is also a question of voter turnout. If the storm is destructive enough, large parts of the solid-blue Northeast may find record low turnout because voters will either be away or unable to get to the polls. That shifts the election to the diehards, which could well produce some Republican surprises.

● Show Me The Money!: Romney has a cash advantage in excess of $50 million right now, which gives him the ability to reach states like Minnesota, which are opening up as competitive. Can money win campaigns? I doubt it.

● Silver State Mormons: Nevada remains close, though it seems to be trending toward Romney now. The key demographic helping Obama are unions and Hispanics. They could decide the state. BUT, there is another group few are considering – Mormons. Nevada is packed with Mormons and if they turn out in large numbers, Romney will win Nevada. Stay tuned.

Anything I missed?

5 Days and counting....

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Hurricane Politics

Hurricane Sandy has arrived, and putting aside the fact that Bev was reduced to chasing a man dressed like a taco down the street to avoid starvation, the MSM has been busy doing what they do best – spinning this storm for political gain. Here are three big examples.

● The “Craven” Mitt Romney Exploits Your Pain: On Tuesday, Romney turned a campaign rally in Ohio into a hurricane relief rally. He asked people to bring food and supplies and to donate money to the Red Cross. Who could object to that? MSNBC.

MSNBC spun this story in the most despicable and deceitful way. First, they claimed that Romney “dressed up” a campaign rally as “a charity drive.” Then Atlanta Mayor Kasim Reed, said:

“I think that this is just another moment where you see the clear striking difference between a president who has a heart for the American people and someone who simply wants to be president of the United States.”

Huh?! This was seconded by MSNBC host Martin Bashir and other guests. Then they accused Romney of “politicizing” the storm and said “in this sort of disastrous moment [we] can really see in bold relief the differences between President Obama and former Governor Romney.” Really? All Obama has done is his job – he gave a speech asking for donations. . . the exact same thing Romney did. Yet, Romney is rotten and Obama is great? How does that work? Finally, they brought on GQ’s Ana Marie Cox, who said of Romney’s efforts: “I found that sort of fake, relief rally, whatever it is, to be pretty offensive, and also wrong-headed.” And then this hag called Romney “craven.”

Wow.

So what is this character assassination based on? They claimed that Romney was collecting goods and not asking people to donate money, which is what the Red Cross “really wants.” Ok, for starters, any sort of aid is helpful in these situations, that’s why aid organizations always ask for stuff, not just money. And who are these jerks to impugned anyone’s charity? I doubt they gave a penny. . . unlike Romney who has given millions. Moreover, Romney DID ask people to donate. The video of the event shows two huge screens with the Red Cross donation number on them. So their entire argument is not only vile character assassination, but it’s based on an intentional lie. Talk about politicizing a tragedy!

● The Evil Mitt Romney HATES FEMA and you!!: Almost the moment Sandy hit radar screens across the country, the MSM started running with this question: “Does Mitt Romney want to shut down FEMA?” Uh, no. He’s never advocated that. Yet, reporter after reporter began asking this question. They were always told “no,” but that didn’t stop them from suggesting the answer was really “yes.”

Where did this idea come from? Last year, a group of leftist bloggers claimed that Romney called FEMA “immoral” and said disaster aid “makes no sense at all.” This was picked up by reporters who surprise, surprise, read leftist blogs (“Journolist II” anyone?), and was even brought into a New York Times editorial smearing Romney two days ago. The problem is, it’s a lie.

What Romney actually said was this. He was asked by CNN’s John King in June 2011, during the primaries, what Romney would do about FEMA which was about to run out of money. King asked, “[aren’t we] learning a lesson here that the states should take on more of this role?” Romney responded: “Absolutely. Every time you have an occasion to take something from the federal government and send it back to the states, that’s the right direction.”

Notice that Romney does not say to shut down FEMA, nor was he asked about it.

He then went on to talk about the debt and the need to trim the federal budget. He said, “We cannot afford to do those things without jeopardizing the future for our kids. It is simply immoral, in my view, for us to continue to rack up larger and larger debts and pass them on to our kids, knowing full well that we’ll all be dead and gone before it’s paid off. It makes no sense at all.” During this speech, King tried to speak over Romney and asked, “including disaster relief?”

These leftist bloggers are pretending that Romney’s entire speech became about disaster aid the moment King threw the question out there, even though Romney was already talking about something else and never acknowledges King’s addition. Romney never said disaster aid was “immoral” or “made no sense at all,” as they now claim he did. What he said was that disaster aid should be applied at the state level and he said continuing to raise our debt was “immoral.” But that doesn’t make Romney seem heartless.

By the way, no one in the MSM is mentioning that Obama proposed a $900 million cut of FEMA’s budget.

● The Hurricane “Stole” The Election!: Finally, the MSM is trying to plant the idea that Hurricane Sandy “stole the election.” They are setting this up by claiming that the hurricane has unfairly taken Obama away from the campaign and will disrupt the very liberals Obama needs to win by disrupting the Northeast.

Of course, Obama will still win these states, so the hurricane doesn’t really change anything substantive. Also, it’s only taking him away for a few hours, and even then he’s getting tons of free media coverage out of it. But never let the facts stop a new “conventional wisdom.”

So why would they do this? They want to delegitimize Romney’s victory, just as they tried to delegitimize Bush by claiming he stole Florida (when even their extensive media-sponsored recount effort found that Bush did win), and just like they did with claims about electronic voting machine fraud in 2004 and the Swift Boat “smear,” as if harsh ads were somehow something new. Why do this? Because they think the only way the left can return to power will be to make Romney seem like an illegitimate president presiding over a chaotic and hopelessly gridlocked Congress. To do that, they need to fight everything he does. And to do that, they need to keep their mindless followers feeling victimized so they keep turning out for protests, keep supporting hateful propagandists like MSNBC, and keep sending death threats to prominent Republicans. They need chaos and anger. Hence, “Romney cheated.”

Trust me, 2013 is going to be an ugly year on the left.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Pre-Election Race Baiting

With the election just a few days away, it’s time to wake up the Democratic base, so the MSM (aka the propaganda arm of the Democratic Party) is busy putting out articles intended to do just that. Hence, in the past few days we’ve seen an amazing number of articles warning blacks that a return to slavery is basically just around the corner. This is vile race baiting at its MSM worst.

● You Are All Racists

The AP is touting a poll they created which claims to find that 51% of Americans “now express explicit anti-black attitudes.” Explicit means openly expressed. In other words, 51% of Americans are openly racist. This compares to the good times back in 2008 when only 48% of us went around calling blacks names.

Does this make any sense to anyone? No. I challenge anyone to take a camera, hidden or otherwise, and go find even a hundred people who will make “explicit anti-black” statements. You won’t find those people.

This is liberal garbage designed to create an agenda. The agenda is to keep blacks from realizing that they are being mistreated by the Democratic Party by scaring them into believing that whites secretly hate them. It is designed to make the world see the US as a racist country, when it is not, because that builds pressure for more identity-group solutions like affirmation action. It is designed to let liberals believe in things they “know” are true, even though they can find no proof to support their beliefs, by letting liberals believe that the rest of us just hide our true natures from them... our true natures which suddenly appear in these academic studies.

It is also meant to explain Obama’s pending loss. Indeed, notice that the 2008 number and the 2012 number both reflect the percentage that will vote against Obama. Hence, Obama lost because people got more racist, not because they disagree with his policies or because they think he’s a retard who failed miserably at his job.

Unfortunately, stupid people will believe this even though this is obvious nonsense.

● Silencing Black People!

Another “study” just came out claims that blacks feel less free despite Obama’s election. According to the “study,” only 45% of blacks now believe that the government will let them make a public speech – this is down from when Obama was first elected. This compares to the 67% of whites who feel they can make a public speech.

Uh... what?

Folks, lay off the crack. Honestly, this is so intensely stupid that I can’t believe these results are serious. Yes, I get that the fringe are worried that the moment they start speaking the “truth” about whatever conspiracy they believe, the CIA will hear it through the transmitters in their teeth and the federal agents stationed under their beds will come out and get them. But those morons are only 1-2% of the population. So who the hell are the rest of these people? I can’t find the underlying data of the poll, but frankly, this sounds like a wild distortion of poorly worded and vague questions, which resulted in confused data that has been spun to reach the result the “researchers” wanted.

In any event, the “study” authors claim that blacks felt more free when Obama was first elected because of the “empowerment effect,” i.e. “the boost that happens when a member of your group gets elected to an important political position.” And they now feel less free because of partisan politics. This is bunk, but it’s clear what the purpose is here. The purpose is to tell blacks and liberals that they need to get out to vote because they will be powerless to even speak their minds if they don’t keep “their group” in the White House. It is essentially an appeal to racial solidarity.

● Enslaving The Black Man

Finally, there was a stunning article in the UK Guardian which adds to this mix. This article was stunning mainly because it was pure slander, but as with the others above, it serves a purpose. According to this article, segregation in the workplace is higher than it’s been at any point since Jim Crow. Black voter turnout is lower than it was when Jimmy Carter lost to Reagan and the idea that blacks turned out in historic numbers in the last election was a myth, and black turnout was overestimated by 13%. The black middle class has seen their income crash by 11% compared to whites only losing 5.2%. Black unemployment is double white unemployment at 14%. And blacks are now incarcerated at double the rate they were in the 1930s. The article doesn’t say precisely why any of this is, but it reeks with implications of racism.

This is garbage.

The reality is this. Black turnout was historic in 2008 and there is no proof at all that it was overstated. Black voter turnout was 10% in 1980 and it was 13% in 2008.

Secondly, employment segregation is the result of choices made by individuals. Blacks, like women, overwhelming work in government. That is why they were immune from the recession when it first hit but were hurt later on. White males lost their jobs first because they were in the private sector (remember feminists crowing about the “mancession” in 2008?), but they got new jobs as the recovery began. Meanwhile, women and blacks were immune from job cuts in 2008, but got hit when government budgets fell in 2009 (remember feminists whining about women being unfairly hurt by the recession in 2009?). Government always lags the private sector on job loss. This is also a prime reason why the black unemployment rate is higher and why black incomes fell more than white incomes. What this “study” has done is cherry pick time periods and then pretended this is some long term trend. It’s not.

Also, while we’re at it, black net worth has fallen more than whites in the past five years because blacks invest their savings in their homes rather than the market, which whites prefer. Home prices have recovered much more slowly than stock prices.

The other reason black unemployment is higher is the influx of Hispanics, who have taken jobs traditionally held by blacks and poor whites.

In terms of incarceration rates, the incarceration rate for whites also is double the rate of the 1930s. In other words, there is no racial difference in the change as the study implies.

So why imply racism? Simple. The purpose behind this article is to deceive a British/European population that I’ve found to be intensely ignorant of America, despite their belief that they know a lot about us. They are quite ready to believe the worst and then some. It is also intended to float its way back over here as a warning to blacks to suggest some sort of “war on blacks” and to make them think that the bad things they have endured under Obama’s mismanagement of the economy is the result of widespread racism rather than Obama’s policies.

Each of these articles/studies is despicable. And until people begin behaving responsibly and stop putting out this kind of propaganda, race relations in this country will never heal. You simply can’t get people to live together happily when supposedly responsible journalists, politicians, and academics keep telling one group that another is trying to enslave them because they hate them. This needs to stop.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Smoke Signals of Pending Disaster

The surest way to know how a Presidential campaign is trending is to look to see who’s acting desperately. Leading the league in desperation at the moment is Team Obama. Indeed, this past week/weekend really exposed a campaign that knows it’s in serious trouble.

Let’s start with the obvious. The debates didn’t help Obama. Romney started gaining momentum just before the debates and he kept right on going all the way through the end. Nothing has slowed him. Indeed, check out the polls. Gallup showed Romney creeping up little by little until he took a 5%-7% lead, where he’s stayed since the last debate. Team Obama tried to smear Gallup so people would dismiss this, but now Rasmussen is showing a similar lead. Even the networks, who notoriously poll several percent to the left of real events are showing Romney and Obama tied or Romney leading by a single point. So it looks like nationally, Romney is ahead by 5%.

This weekend also gave us polls showing Pennsylvania within 3% of Romney’s grasp and Obama’s lead in Minnesota. . . of all places. . . down to 3% (47% to 44%). Don’t forget that undecideds tend to break for the challenge 2-1. Rasmussen has Romney up by 2% in Ohio.

Obama has signaled he’s giving up on Florida, Colorado, New Hampshire, North Carolina, and Virginia. Wisconsin is tied and so is Nevada. Obama is now desperately flooding the airwaves there and in Michigan. These are all states Obama was supposed to win handily. Heck, the Des Moines Register in Iowa just endorsed Romney -- the first Republican they've endorsed in 40 years!! Meanwhile, Romney and the RNC are moving into blue states. Time is precious, so don’t believe they would do this without good reason.

So how has Obama responded?

● First, he changed strategies. Just as I said he needed to do, Obama is now trying to go positive and to present voters with a reason to vote for him. To do that, he’s created a series of ads touting his five-point plan and asking you very nicely to compare it to “Governor Romney’s, to see which is better for you.” These are quite good ads and he comes across as very presidential. But I think they are too late and his plan is too uninspired because this is the same plan he touted in each of the debates and it attracted no one.

● Secondly, because his new plan isn’t working, and I think they know that, he’s floating the idea of a $400 per person payroll tax cut. Look for more to follow.

● Third, Obama is making a big show of finally acting like a President in the face of a natural disaster by letting it be known he’s going to monitor this hurricane closely rather than campaign (cough cough John McCain... "I'm going to suspend my campaign..." cough cough).

● Fourth, even though he’s trying to go positive, he’s also putting out some truly vile ads suddenly, like one in which a group of children sing how Romney wants to let sick people “just die.” He's also running a Mediscare ad which has been 100% debunked, even by the left.

All in all, this reeks of desperation for Obama. The fact Obama is pouring money into supposedly safe states tells us that he’s in serious trouble and he knows it. The fact he’s changed his message tells us that he knows his current message isn’t selling. Indeed, I think it’s too late to change minds, not to mention his “5-point plan” just isn’t inspiring. The tax cut proposal smells of a desperation bribe, but no one is going to take a $400 bribe on credit. His attempt to appear presidential in light of the hurricane also won’t work because we expect that from our Presidents and you don’t get extra-credit for doing what you’re supposed to do. Not to mention, he has a history of ignoring natural disasters.

Now compare this to Romney, who is displaying extreme confidence and only fine-tunes his strategy rather than trying to make wholesale changes. If you want to know who is really winning, there are your clues.

Thoughts?

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Your Election Day Preview: It's Coming

Okay folks, the debates are finally over and we're 11 days out from The Last Judgment. It's time to start making predictions. With my brilliant deductive abilities, I have been doing some forecasting and, while not as sanguine as Andrew, I do think we're going to pull this off. I think.

I'm going to break the presidential race down, thusly:

● If you live in a red state, congratulations! If you live in a state that voted for McCain or almost voted for him in 2008, rest easy--no way no how will Obama take it, despite any talk you might have heard about Montana or Arizona or something else wavering. All the red states of '08 are going red again, and needless to say, not being able to win an additional state is not a good position for an incumbent, under any circumstances. Plus, Indiana and North Carolina, which just barely broke Obama's way back then, have decisively swung back in the GOP's favor--we may get a double-digit margin of victory from the ol' Hoosier State. 206 electoral votes in the bank for Romney, right there.

● The battleground state of Florida? Not such a battleground this time. Everyone remembers the crowing among Dems when Paul Ryan was announced as Romney's VP pick. They could beat the Mediscare drum all they wanted, so they'd be golden in senior-heavy Florida. Right? Well, not so much. Hard to say whether it's disillusionment among suburban voters, swelling support for Romney among Cuban-Americans, or if playing the Medicare/Social Security card really has backfired that much, but the Republican ticket has been consistently ahead by 2 or 3 points in the Sunshine State for weeks now. I guarantee you no one in the Obama campaign or the media (but I repeat myself) will admit it's anything but a toss-up, but we will win Florida on Election Night. 206+29=235.

● Good news for Andrew Price. Our founder's childhood state (Virginia) and current place of residence (Colorado), though close, are trending red. The former we could see coming a few weeks back, when Suffolk Polling, a fairly reputable firm, announced it was stopping surveys there and in NC and FL, as all three were GOP locks. The polls are now starting to reflect that, and the same is happening in Colorado. It'll be close, but look for wins in those two states. 235 plus 13 plus 9 gets us to 257 electoral votes.

So far, so good. Worst case scenario, we'll wind up within striking distance of the magic number 270. But we don't want to just be within striking distance, do we?

● Plan A: Ohio. The Buckeye State is a doozy, no doubt, and I for one am sick and tired of Romney/Ryan having to try and coax it over. As if we haven't all heard the "No Republican has ever won the White House without Ohio" line 900 billion times, there's also the fact that the state's unemployment rate is lower than the national average, and it benefited from the auto bailout, so a lot of people there are going to think they're pretty well off under Obama. BUT, the same signs of a rightward drift are evident there as elsewhere, and the polls showing TOTUS up tend to be heavily oversampling Democrats. Plus, early voting so far, while favoring Obama, has done so by a far smaller margin than in '08. The margin of victory for either candidate won't be more than a point or two, but I think it's likely that the nationwide trends will pull Ohio towards Romney in the end.

● Plan B: Wisconsin-New Hampshire-Iowa. The Romney campaign has been putting increasing attention into Wisconsin and Iowa of late. Ryan will obviously be doing a lot of stumping in his home state, Obama's Super PACs are dumping money back into the state (which they wouldn't do if they thought the state was secure), and Romney will be giving a major economic speech in Iowa today. Plus, New Hampshire, where Mitt has obvious roots, has been trending red in the polls lately. They haven't been showing that kind of movement in the other two states, but after the failed Walker recall this summer, I'm optimistic that the GOP's ground game will pull off the upset in Wisconsin, at least, and combine that with New Hampshire to put us over the top if Ohio fails. In fact, I personally would like nothing better than for us to win without Ohio and then stop treating that state as the Holy Grail of politics.

● Longshots. There's Michigan and there's Pennsylvania, the Great White Whales of the Republican Party. Obama's up in both states, and has been for a while, but the margin has been narrowing lately. Realistically, there is probably no scenario in which either of these states is the one to put us over the top. But if we see a major shift nationwide before Election Day and Romney starts taking all the states I've mentioned, then we're talking landslide victory, in which one or both of these could be swept along.

So that's the score. What do I think the final number on November 6 will be? It depends on how optimistic you want to be. Personally, I can't bear the thought of Romney and Ryan not being in the White House after this is done, so I'm going to take the 257 number I mentioned above, add in 4 from New Hampshire, 10 from Wisconsin, and 18 from Ohio, and come up with (interlude for math)--289 electoral votes for the Republican ticket, and 249 for the current occupant at 1600 Pennsylvania. This is a completely arbitrary number, of course; 11 days is still an eternity in a presidential race, and there are a couple of wild cards, like Nevada and Iowa, which will likely be unreadable to the very end. But it's a defensible number. So take it for what it's worth, make up your own predictions if you must, and remember, on November 6, in the event I've gotten this all wrong--stock up on alcohol. Lots and lots of alcohol.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

The Tea Party Effect

I’m rarely interested in what Joe Scarborough says. He’s one of those RINOs who is always finding fault with conservatives and typically whines “why can’t we be more like the Democrats?!” Leave Barack alone! Boo hoo. Anyway, he’s finally written something interesting and it’s about the Tea Party.

Joe starts his article by pointing out that all of his liberal pundit friends, all his friends in the MSM, and all the Democrats he knows keep asking him why the Tea Party is destroying the Republican Party. This is the point where Joe usually throws his hands up in the air and whines about our side. Instead, he rightly calls bullspit on this. In fact, he goes so far as to list the Tea Party’s accomplishments:

● They brought the largest legislative landslide in US history in 2010. This created the largest Republican majority in Congress since 1946.
● They grabbed six seats in the Senate.
● They elected six governors.
● They helped win 700 seats in state legislatures.
● They took Ted Kennedy’s seat, which seemed impossible.
● They led the resistance against Obamacare.
● “The energized a conservative movement battered by eight years of bloated Republicanism.”

This last point deserves clarification because I agree with Joe. By 2008, the Republican brand had become toxic. It was associated first with the Republican Congress obsessively and hypocritically going after Clinton over an affair. Then Bush came along and added questionable wars, open cronyism, the creation of new entitlements and massive spending.

Indeed, before the Tea Party came along, the GOP followed Bush’s lead and spent $700 billion bailing out Wall Street, sent the debt ($10 trillion/69.6% of GDP) and deficit ($450/7.1% of GDP) to record levels, created an unfunded $7 trillion Medicare drug plan entitlement, and fought two wars and was eyeing more. Moreover, Big Business was all over the White House, raping the Treasury time and again through subsidies, protectionist regulations, and no-bid government contracts to cronies. He also created the Patriot Act which stripped Americans of their rights and signed anti-piracy legislation which turned the courts into a cash machine for the recording industry, Hollywood, and agri-business.

Obama made this even worse, sending the debt to $16 trillion (101% of GDP) and the deficit to $1.7 trillion (11.4% of GDP), adding a $787 billion “stimulus” (read: payment to cronies), adding the $2 trillion Obamacare entitlement, adding one war and putting two more on the agenda, and adding more than 100 new major regulations at a cost of more than $50 billion a year. Obama also kept the doors open to Big Business and he tried to allow Big Business to shutdown the internet to stifle competition.

The Tea Party brought all of that to a grinding halt. Since the Tea Party came along, the spending has stopped (though it hasn’t reversed yet). Obama’s regulations are being targeted for repeal. SOPA was killed. Net neutrality was killed. Cap and trade was killed. The Tea Party is leading the charge to repeal Obamacare. The bloated and overpaid federal bureaucracy was exposed. And the public has turned against further wars, even as liberals have developed a taste for using the military to make Obama’s “whine from behind and bend-over” foreign policy look muscular.

There is no doubt that ALL of this should be credited to the Tea Party.

The Tea Party has changed the culture of the Republican Party. They are the part of conservatism that has been abandoned by “the establishment.” They are the people who bring the “small government” to the party of small government. They are the completion of the Reagan Revolution. They are the people who have upset the natural order of things in Washington.

This election will be interesting for several things. First, I genuinely see Romney as the first Tea Party candidate, even though he refuses to adopt the label, because his views on smaller, limited government, less spending and a focus on small business over Big Business combined with his attacks on cronyism, align perfectly with the Tea Party philosophy. So does his focus on economic issues. Secondly, we will need to watch to see if the Tea Party can deliver a follow-up victory to 2010. If they do, they will become the dominant party in Washington. I think they will, but we’ll see. Tune in to find out.

Thoughts?

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

In Humor There Is Truth

Two politicians walk into a bar. . . actually, it was the Al Smith Dinner and both Obama and Romney were together on stage trading jokes. Some of these were particularly funny and they definitely highlight the talking points of both campaigns. I figured you might enjoy some of the best one-liners. Enjoy!

● Romney on the Deficit: “In the spirit of Sesame Street, the President’s remarks tonight are brought to you by the letter O and the number 16 trillion.”

● Romney on the Economy: “This president already has a compelling new campaign slogan: ‘Are you better off now than you were four weeks ago?’”

● Romney on Obama’s Socialism: “We’re now in the final months of the president’s term. As President Obama surveys the Waldorf banquet room with everyone in white tie and finery, you have to wonder what he’s thinking. So little time, so much to redistribute.”

● Romney on the Catholic Church: “If you’ve got a church... you didn’t build that.”

● Romney on the Media: “The media have a certain way of looking at things. When suddenly I pulled ahead in some of the major polls, what was the headline? ‘Polls show Obama leading from behind’.”

● Romney on the Media: “I have seen early reports from tonight’s dinner – headline: ‘Obama embraced by Catholics, Romney dines with rich people’.”

● Romney on Obama’s Campaign: “It’s good to have someone you can depend on at the end of the day. I have my wife, Ann. President Obama has Bill Clinton.”

● Romney on his Mormonism: “Usually when I get invited to gatherings like this, it’s to be the designated driver.”


● Obama on the Debates: “As some of you may have noticed, I had a lot more energy in our second debate. I felt really well-rested after the nice, long nap I had in the first debate.”

● Obama on the Debates: “Four years ago, I gave Chris Matthews a thrill up his leg. At the first debate, I gave him a stroke.”

● Obama on Romney Being Rich: “Earlier today, I went shopping at some stores in Midtown. I understand Governor Romney went shopping for some stores in Midtown.”

● Obama on Romney Being Rich: Referring to everyone being dressed in white tie and tails, “or as Gov. Romney calls it, business casual.”

● Obama on Romney’s Likeability: “After my foreign trip in 2008, I was attacked as a celebrity because I was so popular with our allies overseas, and I have to say I am impressed with how well Governor Romney has avoided that problem.”

● Obama on Clint Eastwood: “Everyone please take your seats, or else Clint Eastwood will yell at them.”

● Obama on Foreign Policy: “Monday’s debate is a little bit different because the topic is foreign policy. Spoiler Alert: We got bin Laden.”

● Obama on Catholicism: “Gov. Romney, your father was born in Mexico and had five kids. Are you sure you’re not Catholic?”

Basically, Romney continues to talk about the economy, the deficit, and poke Obama for not running a good campaign. Obama continues to play class warfare by attacking Romney for being rich, and he’s struggling to put the debates behind him. Just looking at the two strategies in a vacuum, it’s clear why Romney is now pulling ahead in all the polls. I also think it’s interesting that Romney shows a strong sense of humor. He had the audience laughing a LOT. I am reminded more and more of Ronald Reagan every day.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Romney Wins By A Hair, Obama Loses By A Mile

Romney proved himself to be knowledgeable and thoughtful last night, and he showed himself to be quite Presidential. Obama also came across well, though not quite Romney’s equal – he was more political. Thus, Romney won the debate by a hair. But Obama made key mistakes that caused him to blow his last chance to win the election.

● Bob Schieffer: Schieffer did an excellent job and should be commended. His questions were thoughtful, fair and he allowed a solid debate.

● Romney Succeeds: Romney had one job last night and he did it. He needed to come across as someone you would trust as Commander in Chief. He did. He had much more knowledge than Obama on every single issue and clearly had thought through his solutions. He presented a solid vision, a plan to achieve that vision, and knowledge of the details of every single issue covered which helps you believe his plan will work. He passed the test.

● Obama Strategy Fail I: Obama had two jobs last night and he failed at both. Obama’s first job, the one he really needed to achieve, was to give people a reason to vote for him. He didn’t. All he did was repeat his five point plan that hasn’t excited anyone yet and he attacked Romney as wanting to help the rich. These arguments failed in the first two debates and merely repeating them here won’t change anything. He needed something more and he didn’t give it. Indeed, his strategy last night was surprisingly stupid and I think he lost the election last night by default.

FYI, Obama plan: (1) he wants to help manufacturers invest here with tax code changes, (2) he wants to make our education system the best in the work and he wants to retrain workers, (3) he wants us to “control energy” by investing in clean energy, (4) he wants to tax the rich so he can “invest” the money in R&D, and (5) he wants to hire teachers (later he added hiring veterans to build roads).

Then he accused Romney of wanting to help the rich, of wanting to add $7 trillion in debt through military spending and tax cuts (all of which has been debunked), and said Romney wants social policies from the 1950, economic policies from the 1920s, and foreign policy from the 1980s. None of this helped in the prior two debates, and it won’t help now. To the contrary, all this did was open the door to Romney to repeat his devastating attack on Obama’s record which I’ve written out several times already. (see Romney’s Theme). Romney also repeated that he wants to champion small business, which will help him with the Tea Party, and he talked about education reform, which will help him with women. He also pointed out that he balanced budgets in private business for 25 years, at the Olympics, and four years as governor... Obama has yet to balance a budget.

● Obama Strategy Fail II: Obama’s second job last night was to land a knockout blow on Romney. He never came close because the lines he used were horrible. They were petty and bully-like, and these detracted from an otherwise solid performance. Examples include:

● He condescended to Romney by trying to explain to him what an aircraft carrier is and what a submarine is.

● He described Romney’s foreign policy as Obama’s policies only “saying them louder.”

● He implied that the US jumped in on the side of the Arab Spring protestors right away, even though that’s false. But more importantly, he said this was his idea and he blurted out, “Me!” Kind of a Howard Dean moment there.

● He waved the bloody shirt of 9/11 by claiming that he brought “closure” to the son of someone who was killed on 9/11 – something the left (and Obama) savaged Bush for doing.

● Obama accused Romney of wanting to use military force as a first resort. This stupid attack, repeated throughout the night, let Romney demonstrate repeatedly that he is not reckless or bloodthirsty.

Obama lost the election on the above, the rest below is just details.

● Obama Tactics Fail I: Obama’s biggest tactical mistake was using a shotgun approach on Romney. He attacked on too many issues and used too many details. Moreover, many of his attacks sounded like Obama was trying to pull quotes out of context, such as when he accused Romney of not seeing al Qaeda as a threat – no one will believe Romney said that. These fake attacks polluted all the rest of his attacks and made everything he said sound like a distortion.

● Obama Tactics Fail II: Another tactical failure was accusing Romney of being a reckless warmonger, but then simultaneously accusing Romney of advocating the exact same policy Obama is following. That doesn’t work.

● Key Moments: Here are the likely key moments:

● Romney neutered the bin Laden thing and bought himself serious credibility when he congratulated Obama on getting bin Laden and then said, “but we can’t kill our way out of this mess.” In echoes of my articles on the topic, he said we need a comprehensive strategy to get the Muslim world to reject extremism in their own ranks through promoting: (1) economic development, (2) better education, (3) rule of law, (4) gender equality, and (5) the creation of civil societies. This is brilliant because it stopped Obama from bragging and it highlighted that Obama has no plan – Obama later played “me too” and tried to claim this is what he’s already doing.

● Romney highlighted Obama’s failure to give a reason to vote FOR Obama by repeating, “Attacking me is not an agenda.”

● Obama said of Iran, “We cannot afford to have a nuclear arms race in the most volatile region in the world.” This is interesting because Paul Ryan said the same thing and Joe Biden called the claim ridiculous.

● Israel: A lot was said about Israel, but Romney had the key moment and Obama may have blown a key moment. When Schieffer asked how they would respond if Israel called and said their planes were on the way to bomb Iran, Romney jumped in and said they shouldn’t answer a hypothetical like that. He also said that his relationship with Israel’s Prime Minister was such that this would never happen. This made Romney appear statesmanlike if he already has solid relationships with our allies. Obama ducked the question.

Then Schieffer asked if they would guarantee that an attack on Israel was the same thing as an attack on the US. Obama sort of said it was, but seemed to hedge. It will be interesting to see how that plays out. Romney then suggested that Obama was talking about helping Israel only diplomatically.

● Obama Lies: At several points, Obama simply lied to hide his record. He claimed that he did support the Green Revolution in Iran, even though he remained silent for nine days. He claimed he did not propose $1 trillion in automatic spending cuts on the military, which is technically true but still a lie. Harry Reid proposed them and Obama demanded they be included in the budget deal. His claim to arm the Syrian rebels is a lie. He lied about not going to the UN on Syria. And he lied by claiming he had implemented non-existent policies to promote democracy overseas.

● China: Obama made a huge mistake when he labeled China as our second biggest national security threat after terrorism (he forgot Iran) because China will not be amused. Our relationship with China is based on false facades of friendship, which both sides are careful never to violate. Obama did.

Romney then turned this against Obama by pointing out that China is an opportunity. He said (as I’ve suggested) that China could be made an ally because economic growth is vital to them as they need 20 million new jobs a year to maintain civil order. But we need to get our budget in order, we can’t cut our military, we must strengthen our commitment to our allies in the region (read: Taiwan), and we must go after China for unfair trade practices, currency manipulation, counterfeiting and stealing of intellectual property. Obama countered that Romney owned stock in Chinese companies. This was a mistake because whereas Romney gave a plan to fix the problem, Obama took a political cheap shot.

Romney also used China to talk about engaging Latin America in trade, which will help him with Hispanic business owners.

● Syria: Obama did a lot of doublespeak on Syria. He talked about taking the lead in “mobilizing the world, providing humanitarian aid and organizing the opposition.” As with Biden, he implied that we armed the opposition and then turned around and accused Romney of being a warmonger for trying to arm the opposition. The arms actually came from the Saudis, not us. And Obama asked the UN to take the lead. Romney also denied wanting to send any American troops or planes to fight, proving he’s no warmonger, which caused Obama to flip his strategy on its head and accuse Romney of proposing to do exactly what Obama is doing, only being reckless somehow.

● The Closings: The closings were interesting. Obama went negative. He blamed Bush for his problems and then accused Romney of wanting to help the rich before he repeated his five point plan. This was uninspired.

Romney’s closing was Reaganesque. First, he made two great points. He repeated Obama’s record and called it the President’s path. Obama said we shouldn’t go back to the policies of a decade ago, and Romney countered that we don’t want to relive the last four years. Then Romney made an appeal to bipartisanship, which will play well with independents. He noted that he worked with a legislature that was 87% Democratic in Massachusetts and he said he could work with good Democrats and good Republicans in Washington. Then he spoke about the greatest generation and how they have passed the torch and he described America as “the hope of the Earth.” Basically, he gave people a reason to support him. Obama didn’t. All of this is classic Reagan.

● Good Night For Price: Romney tracked my foreign policy discussions on issue after issue. This is very encouraging because it sounds like he’s looking for real solutions and he’s no Bush neocon.

● Conclusion: This was an odd debate in the sense that Obama didn’t really play to win. I’m wondering what he was thinking. Yes, he performed well, he was Romney’s equal most of the night, and he took some cheap shots that will thrill his ignorant base. . . but he played for the draw when he really needed a blow out. This makes me wonder if his campaign team just isn’t that bright or if he knows he’s lost and he’s look for future political opportunities. Whatever his plan, he failed to take the risks he needed to win the election.

I now expect the MSM to go into desperation mode to win the election for him. But the polls will show Romney climbing a couple percentage points more. At that point, the cracks will appear on the left and they will savage him for his bad campaign.

Thoughts?

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Final Debate Thread

Home stretch people, home stretch. Tonight is the last debate. . . thankfully. Tonight is about foreign policy, which probably means ratings of between 14-18 people. In that regard, we now have a CIA memo which blows a hole in the Obama Administration plan to blame the intelligence community. Obama seems to have decided that less than 4 deaths per embassy is optimal. And Joe Biden is looking for veterans of our recent wars with Iraq and Iran. . . idiot.

It looks like Obama wasn't able to gain any momentum from the last debate so tonight could be critical. Maybe he should talk about the 47% of Pakistanis Romney hates. . . or the 57 states he's visited since he became a professional golfer president.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Second Debate Wrapup

I suspect last night’s debate was a draw. Obama’s performance will play well with his base, but I don’t think he gave independents anything to latch onto. Romney’s performance came across as solid but uninspired. He did make some points that could blow the race open, but they got lost in the muck, and their effect will depend on how he exploits them in coming days. Let’s discuss.

● The “Unbiased” Moderator: Candy Crowley was highly biased. She kept cutting off Romney and tried to talk over him, but never talked over Obama. She helped Obama out of jams several times, and the questions she chose were mostly left or far-left questions.

● Obama’s Theme: Obama’s theme was that Romney is rich and wants to help the rich. I don’t think anyone buys this because Romney’s denials are emphatic. Moreover, as I’ve pointed out before, Obama needs to give a reason for people to vote for him, not just against Romney. He still hasn’t done that. Obama’s reason to vote for him was: (1) he wants to give unspecified tax breaks to manufacturers whereas Romney wanted to bankrupt Detroit, (2) he wants everyone to go to college and he wants community colleges to retrain workers, (3) he wants energy independence, and (4) he wants to reduce the Obama trillion dollar deficits by taxing the rich and stopping the wars and spending that money on college and building roads and bridges. That’s a mishmash of small ideas that won’t resonate outside his base.

Also, Obama’s “Detroit” argument blew up on him when Romney pointed out that he wanted Detroit to enter bankruptcy so they could come out stronger, AND he pointed out that Obama did send Detroit into bankruptcy. In other words, Obama is smearing Romney for suggesting something Obama actually did. This stumped Obama and he basically said (paraphrase) “that’s different.”

Obama did better when he was asked to defend his record. Obama said he (1) cut taxes $3,600 for middle class families, (2) cut taxes 18 times on small business, (3) ended the war in Iraq, (4) killed Osama bin Laden and pursued al Qaeda, (5) passed Obamacare to stop insurance companies from jerking you around, (6) reined in Wall Street, (7) created 5 million jobs, and (8) saved the auto industry. None of this is true, but it sounded good and most people won’t know the difference.

● Romney’s Theme: Romney attacked Obama’s record over and over. This produced an extremely devastating moment right after Obama gave the defense of his record mentioned above. Romney suddenly hit him with this: (1) Obama’s jobs plan was supposed to create 9 million more jobs than he’s created, (2) he said he would put forward a plan to reform Medicare and Social Security to preserve them from collapse, he hasn’t proposed one, (3) he said he would put forward a plan for comprehensive immigration reform in his first year, but he never did, (4) he said he would cut the deficit in half, but he doubled it, (5) he said middle income families would see their healthcare premiums go down $2,500 a year, but they went up by $2,500, and Obamacare will add another $2,000 a year, (6) Obama claims he created 5 million jobs, but that’s after he lost 5 million jobs, for a net of zero jobs – also, 5 million jobs doesn’t even keep up with population growth, (7) there are 23 million Americans unemployed, (8) one in six Americans lives in poverty, (9) there are 47 million Americans on food stamps, compared to 37 million when Obama took office, (10) growth this year is slower than last, which was already slower than the prior year, (11) family income is down $4,300 under Obama. This was a powerful moment and completely wiped out Obama’s recitation of his own record. If Romney puts this in a commercial, Obama is in trouble.

● Where Things Got Tricky For Obama: Obama ran into some problems with his base last night and needed to do a lot of dancing. For example:

● Feminists: A question came up from a whiny feminist about women being paid less than men. I’ll debunk this at some point. Anyway, what the chicky wanted was for Obama to swear that he would support equal pay laws. Obama refuses to do that and he ducked. Instead, he danced around the idea of equality and he talked about “continuing to push on this issue” without saying what he was actually pushing on. He kept talking about the Lilly Ledbetter Act, which is not what feminists want, and he kept blurring this with enforcing laws against discrimination. This won’t satisfy the people who care about this issue.

Romney, by comparison, gave the better answer for non-feminist women voters. He gave a general answer about seeking out women for his cabinet and about improving the economy so that workers would have more power over employers and thus employers would need to make accommodations for women – he should have mentioned the pay disparity in the White House. He also talked about 3.5 million more women in poverty today than when Obama’s term began. He also gave a vague statement that he doesn’t want an employer or a bureaucrat making decisions about contraception. This will work for independents, but will upset both the feminist left and the religious right as they will both interpret this negatively.

● Gun Control: Obama was asked if he would ban “assault weapons.” This is a problem for Obama because the left has learned they can’t support gun control and win elections, so Obama has smothered every attempt to raise gun control as an issue. But his base wants this desperately. So Obama danced. He claimed to support the Second Amendment (which lost him his base right there) before he mumbled about working on a comprehensive solution to violence through education and faith based groups. He kept saying code words like “mentally ill” and he kept talking about “automatic weapons,” which haven’t actually killed anyone in the US since the 1930s, but he refused to say anything concrete.

Then Romney spoke about enforcing existing gun laws, talked about the need for improving our values through encouraging marriage and then attacked Obama on Fast and Furious. His attack was a bit of a ramble, but will probably get people asking what Fast and Furious is. Candy Crowley needed to save Obama on this.

Then something funny happened. Obama suddenly attacked Romney for signing gun control legislation in Massachusetts (with another assist from Crowley). Obama must think this will unnerve gun owners about Romney, but what it really did was again paint Romney as “not a right wing extremist.” This probably bought Romney lots of moderate votes, without costing him any gun owner votes, and confused the heck out of Obama’s supporters.

● Outsourcing: A pro-union question was asked about outsourcing, and Obama walked right into a trap he set himself. First, Romney gave a solid answer on why Obama’s outsourcing claims are hypocrisy: (1) 500,000 jobs have been lost to China during Obama’s term because Obama made the US less attractive to business, (2) Obama failed to fight China on currency manipulation and refuses to label them a manipulator so tariffs can be imposed, (3) our corporate tax rate is 20% higher than Canada, and (4) Obama failed to China pirating American intellectual property. He should have mentioned Obama’s job’s czar outsourcing tens of thousands of jobs, but he didn’t.

Obama countered that he too wants lower taxes, which means his plan is the same as Romney’s plan, which he’s criticizing. He then claimed he wants to stop loopholes that let companies take deductions for shipping jobs overseas (fyi, there are no such deductions), and he claimed he has been fighting China. Next, he claimed Romney wants to make more deductions to ship jobs overseas, which comes across as an obvious lie. Then he tried to smear Romney by claiming that Romney invested in companies that sent jobs to China. He even claimed that Romney has invested in a company that makes surveillance gear which China uses to oppress its people. Bad Romney.

That’s when things went wrong because Romney pointed out that he does not control his investments because they are in a blind trust AND that Obama’s pension fund makes the identical investments Obama just smeared Romney for making. Candy Crowley again needed to save Obama at this point by cutting Romney off and talking over him. But the point was made, Obama’s outsourcing attacks are hypocrisy.

● Immigration: Romney talked about America being a nation of immigrants and that he wants to stop illegal immigration because they are preventing legal immigrants from coming. He also said he wants to give green cards to people with accredited degrees. This could mean a boost in overall immigration or it could mean a shift back to seeking educated immigrants rather than laborers. This isn’t clear. He said he wants employment verification and he wants a path to “permanent residency” for children of illegals. Then he attacked Obama for saying in 2008 that he would present a comprehensive immigration reform bill in his first year, but never actually presenting such a bill. He even noted that the Democrats had a supermajority at the time.

Obama tried to dance around this by blaming Romney for opposing Obama’s plan in 2008, which he says ended bipartisanship. But as Romney pointed out, he wasn’t the leader of the party in 2008, and with a supermajority, there is no reason Obama needed the Republicans if he really wanted to pass such a law. This won’t play well for Obama with Hispanics. Obama then made it worse by basically taking the identical position as Romney except that he wants to make all young illegals citizens.

Obama finished by claiming Romney wants to deport immigrants and with a race-baiting appeal by mischaracterizing Arizona’s law as letting police target anyone who looks Hispanic or black, which it definitely does not do. In any event, this gave Romney a chance to say that he would not try to deport 12 million people, which probably helped him a good deal with Hispanics.

● The Libya Muddle: Obama was asked who is to blame for the failure to provide security to our ambassador in Libya. Obama dodged and claimed he took responsibility in a general sense. He then claimed that he would not rest until they figure out who did it and got them. . . kind of like OJ?

Romney pointed out that rather than address this situation, Obama went to Las Vegas for a fundraiser the following day. Obama denied this and claimed he went to the Rose Garden and called this a terrorist act. Romney said this wasn’t true and said it took Obama 14 days to call this terrorism. Obama called that a lie and Candy Crowley backed him up.

Obama/Crowley lied. For 13 days, Obama blamed the videotape. He did use the word terror, but in a general context: “no acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation.” Meanwhile, his administration kept blaming the videotape, calling this a spontaneous demonstration, and refusing to call this an act of terrorism. They said this on television, in press conferences and at the UN.

● A Key Romney Point: It sounded to me like Romney proposed letting the top 15% of high school graduates go to college for free. If that’s true, then look for him to pick up a ton of young votes.

● Another Key Romney Point: Finally, we come to a question that was meant to crush Romney, but may have provided him with a key moment. He was basically accused of being George W. Bush the Sequel. Romney countered that (1) he wants energy independence, Bush preferred dealing with Arabs, (2) he wants more free trade agreements in Latin America, Bush wasn’t into free trade, (3) he will balance the budget, whereas Bush had massive deficits (he used an Obama quote about Bush’s “outrageous $500 billion deficits” to slam Obama’s trillion dollar deficits), and (4) the biggie: “Our party has been too focused on Big Business for too long. I want to focus on Small Business.”

This last comment is an endorsement of the Ron Paul/Tea Party/Populist cause and this will align Romney with this vast group of people who see the government as a kleptocracy where Big Business rapes the Treasury with the consent of Democrats and Republicans alike. Do not underestimate the significance of that moment.

Obama countered with the usual of blaming Bush for his own failure and he tried to cast Romney as helping China. Then he did something really strange. He tried to paint the demonized, reviled George Bush as a moderate so he could claim that Romney was to the right of Bush. Not only will this not make sense to average voters, but it calls into question the legitimacy of all of Obama’s prior claims about Bush.

Conclusion

Based on the above, it sounds like Romney was a clear winner, but he wasn’t. Unless there is a devastating moment, debates are about impressions. And the impression last night was that they were evenly matched. That makes this a draw. . . at least for now.

By and large, the key points Romney made were lost in the muddle of the back and forth. But if Romney pushes those correctly, he stands a good chance of stealing young voters, Hispanics and independent women. He also will ignite the Tea Party and centrist populists. Obama, on the other hand, had no such moments, and he runs the risk of losing blacks and gays, who got nothing, and feminists, who found their demands rebuffed. It’s too early to tell any of this, so for right now, the debate feels like a draw.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...