As predicted by Nate Sliver and his 538 blog, the President was re-elected by a comfortable margin in the Electoral College. Obama's 2.2% margin over Romney in the popular vote was sufficient for at least 303 EC votes, and probably 332, because his campaign's strategy focused on that metric.
I'm a long-term, diehard 538 blog fan, so I pretty much knew how things would turn yesterday. But I also knew there was uncertainty in the validity of polling methodology, and therefore was not terribly confident or comfortable until the reporting precincts in Ohio creeped upwards of 70%. In retrospect, I should have been assured in the outcome.
Mr. Silver's model was nearly perfect, calling all 50 states and missing the popular vote by fractions of a percent. It's interesting to think about how the success of Nate's poll aggregation, statistical model approach will impact future elections. Surely it will result in more personal fame and fortune for Nate Silver, but what will it mean for the media's reporting on future elections and, indeed, voter behavior?
Will TV's so-called news journalists get away with claiming an election is a "razor tight" toss-up when evidence shows a clear lead for one candidate? Will partisan pundits be able to claim their candidate is leading by cherry-picking polls that favor them, or will program hosts point out the invalidity of that approach?
How will it affect voters' behavior when they are able to "see into the future" by peeking at a website or mobile app? Will the leading candidate's followers become complacent, or energized? Will the underdog's troops be dispirited, or will they rise to the challenge? Does a proven forecasting model alter the ability to forecast?
To the latter questions, I expect there will be no measurable change in voter behavior. Aggregated polls, processed intelligently, will be able to accurately predict most future elections as they did this time. Unless contests are exceptionally close, suspense will not be part of our election experience.
To the former questions, I'm uncertain how different media coverage will be. I do anticipate a plethora of "polls-of-polls" to be up and running by the next midterm election. There is only one Nate Silver, so all but the highest bidding cable or broadcast station will be in need of their own polling model guru. (But since Nate is the only one who's proven himself, most will tweak their models to match his results.) Most stations will move toward a stance of predicting a winner, versus their current tendency to label races as "too close to call".
In the old paradigm, it was in everyone's interest for races to be suspenseful. TV programs need drama to build and hold their audience. Winning politicians want to keep their followers engaged and energized. Losers don't want their voters to be dispirited and disengaged. So a "razor-tight" race is a win-win-win.
What will it be like when the question is not, "who will win Ohio", but, "at what point in the ballot counting will the expected victory be verified"?
Congratulations to Nate Sliver. Last night, you changed election forecasting – and reporting – forever.
Wednesday, November 7, 2012
Thursday, November 1, 2012
Libya-gate: All smoke, no fire
There seems to be a lot of hair-on-fire concern in certain circles about the President denying Navy Seals (or Marines, or Global Response Staff, or Oliver North) from being allowed to enter the battle at our Libyan embassy. POTUS is guilty of treason, incompetence, neglect or something worse, they say. Nobody knows just what happened, but they are certain Obama is to blame for it.
I certainly don't know what happened at the embassy. It sure seems as though security was inadequate. That seems obvious, actually, except that I also don't know what is customary when it comes to securing an embassy against the possibility of mortar attacks. Was the Libyan embassy woefully unprepared, or was the situation normal and reasonable relative to other embassies and standard procedure? I don't know. We should find out, though.
The entire event – before, during and after – must be and certainly will be investigated. Whoever is at fault should be held to account, from POTUS on down. (Of course, we all know how government officials are punished for such failings. Not so much. But that's a different story.)
It's possible that Obama is culpable for neglect and malfeasance. He may have known security was too light, and when the attack was underway perhaps he chose not to react as strongly as the situation justified. It's further possible that in the aftermath of the disaster, and with full knowledge of his failings, he attempted to deny, divert and otherwise deflect the fallout prior to the election.
If he is found responsible for providing inadequate security he should pay a heavy political price. If he made bad calls during the incident, his judgment should be questioned. If he's guilty of attempting to limit the damage afterward to avoid fallout during election season, then, well, duh. What politician wouldn't have done that?
My sense is that security may have been inadequate for the known threats, but also that the extreme level of the actual threat was unknown. I think many people in government, from the CIA up to POTUS, believed the infamous YouTube video was in fact a catalyzing incident. I suspect a 9-11 terrorist attack was also suspected initially, but unproven.
I don't think that it matters whether it was called an act of terror or not – even if the reason for not using the "T" word was to avoid political damage in the heat of an election. Really, besides the Obama-Romney contest, what impact would applying the terror label have had?
This criticism, I believe, is driven by a sense of lost opportunity rather than actual outrage. Republicans dearly want a bona fide terrorist attack to hang around Obama's neck. After nearly four years without one they finally think they have it, but the prize is being denied them. (Poor Dick Cheney! He and his daughter (the straight one) spent 2009 popping up on the teevee to tell us we were unsafe with Obama at the helm and they've got nothing to show for it.)
In reality, there is as much reason to delay using the terror label as there is for being quick to do so. Events of this type always take time to understand and dissect. Had it been labeled al Qaeda immediately, then proved not to be, that would have also been bad.
Many people feel outrage because of the accusations of what Obama did or didn't do. I don't think these folks realize the total lack of evidence for, and highly suspect nature of those who make, these claims.
The accusations that marines were not allowed to carry live ammo, etc., have been categorically denied by everyone in a position to know. The charge that Seals were told to stand down seems to only exist on a Facebook image – Fox news, in their "exclusive report" (based on unnamed sources) doesn't even make that claim.
By the way, the URL on that image is registered to "Political Media Inc" and redirects to a contributions page for specialoperationsspeaks.com – an organization whose mission statement is to remove Obama from office. Facts and outrage or lies and opportunism?
The only other source on this topic that I can find is the father of a Navy Seal who died at the embassy. This father is expressing his grief by going on Glenn Beck's show to make bizarre accusations about Obama, Biden and Clinton. Apparently the father could tell that none of these officials really felt grief about the incident in their hearts. Mrs. Clinton promised him they would arrest and prosecute the film maker. Uh huh. Sure she did. Forgive me if I'm not moved to outrage by that freak show.
The question of security at the embassy is a meaningful one. Finding the truth will not bring anyone back to life, and it will not result in criminal punishment for any bureaucrats or elected officials. But the answers should be found and made public. (It should not be used to tie up Obama in impeachment hearings throughout his second term.)
The other accusations have no supporting evidence. The one about Obama denying the Navy Seal's request doesn't pass the smell test. Obama has proven himself to be pretty aggressive and willing to take risks when it comes to deploying the Seals. But regardless of that, do Navy Seals really call the President to request a mission? I think it works the other way around.
So let's all calm down on this one. Yes, Fox will continue to talk about it right up until next Tuesday (and probably beyond), but there are no smoking guns here. Let's turn our attention back to Fast and Furious, ok?
I certainly don't know what happened at the embassy. It sure seems as though security was inadequate. That seems obvious, actually, except that I also don't know what is customary when it comes to securing an embassy against the possibility of mortar attacks. Was the Libyan embassy woefully unprepared, or was the situation normal and reasonable relative to other embassies and standard procedure? I don't know. We should find out, though.
The entire event – before, during and after – must be and certainly will be investigated. Whoever is at fault should be held to account, from POTUS on down. (Of course, we all know how government officials are punished for such failings. Not so much. But that's a different story.)
It's possible that Obama is culpable for neglect and malfeasance. He may have known security was too light, and when the attack was underway perhaps he chose not to react as strongly as the situation justified. It's further possible that in the aftermath of the disaster, and with full knowledge of his failings, he attempted to deny, divert and otherwise deflect the fallout prior to the election.
If he is found responsible for providing inadequate security he should pay a heavy political price. If he made bad calls during the incident, his judgment should be questioned. If he's guilty of attempting to limit the damage afterward to avoid fallout during election season, then, well, duh. What politician wouldn't have done that?
My sense is that security may have been inadequate for the known threats, but also that the extreme level of the actual threat was unknown. I think many people in government, from the CIA up to POTUS, believed the infamous YouTube video was in fact a catalyzing incident. I suspect a 9-11 terrorist attack was also suspected initially, but unproven.
I don't think that it matters whether it was called an act of terror or not – even if the reason for not using the "T" word was to avoid political damage in the heat of an election. Really, besides the Obama-Romney contest, what impact would applying the terror label have had?
This criticism, I believe, is driven by a sense of lost opportunity rather than actual outrage. Republicans dearly want a bona fide terrorist attack to hang around Obama's neck. After nearly four years without one they finally think they have it, but the prize is being denied them. (Poor Dick Cheney! He and his daughter (the straight one) spent 2009 popping up on the teevee to tell us we were unsafe with Obama at the helm and they've got nothing to show for it.)
In reality, there is as much reason to delay using the terror label as there is for being quick to do so. Events of this type always take time to understand and dissect. Had it been labeled al Qaeda immediately, then proved not to be, that would have also been bad.
Many people feel outrage because of the accusations of what Obama did or didn't do. I don't think these folks realize the total lack of evidence for, and highly suspect nature of those who make, these claims.
The accusations that marines were not allowed to carry live ammo, etc., have been categorically denied by everyone in a position to know. The charge that Seals were told to stand down seems to only exist on a Facebook image – Fox news, in their "exclusive report" (based on unnamed sources) doesn't even make that claim.
 |
| Did Facebook really ban the user who first posted that image, as claimed? I don't know, but I do know others who posted it without being punished. |
The only other source on this topic that I can find is the father of a Navy Seal who died at the embassy. This father is expressing his grief by going on Glenn Beck's show to make bizarre accusations about Obama, Biden and Clinton. Apparently the father could tell that none of these officials really felt grief about the incident in their hearts. Mrs. Clinton promised him they would arrest and prosecute the film maker. Uh huh. Sure she did. Forgive me if I'm not moved to outrage by that freak show.
The question of security at the embassy is a meaningful one. Finding the truth will not bring anyone back to life, and it will not result in criminal punishment for any bureaucrats or elected officials. But the answers should be found and made public. (It should not be used to tie up Obama in impeachment hearings throughout his second term.)
The other accusations have no supporting evidence. The one about Obama denying the Navy Seal's request doesn't pass the smell test. Obama has proven himself to be pretty aggressive and willing to take risks when it comes to deploying the Seals. But regardless of that, do Navy Seals really call the President to request a mission? I think it works the other way around.
So let's all calm down on this one. Yes, Fox will continue to talk about it right up until next Tuesday (and probably beyond), but there are no smoking guns here. Let's turn our attention back to Fast and Furious, ok?
Tuesday, October 30, 2012
Lies and Distortions: Gas Prices part 2
Yesterday I began a look into the popular "Gas went from $1.84 to $3.85 under Obama" meme by pointing out that sub-two dollar gas price existed only for the last three months of Bush's reign, and only because of the financial meltdown.
Today, I want to talk briefly about what a President can do to affect gas prices.
If you are inclined to blame the President for our current gas prices, then clearly you must blame Bush and his policies for the even greater rise during his tenure. (Of course you'd also give credit to Bush for lowering prices through his policy of Global Financial Meltdown, so I guess he gets a pass on this one.)
It is not a great insight to point out that President's have little impact on domestic gas prices. One need only look at how closely Canadian prices match US prices over time (albeit with a significant additional tax). One could argue that the Canadian market is dependent upon the US market, and while there is truth in that, it is more the case that both countries are dependent upon the global market.
Today, I want to talk briefly about what a President can do to affect gas prices.
If you are inclined to blame the President for our current gas prices, then clearly you must blame Bush and his policies for the even greater rise during his tenure. (Of course you'd also give credit to Bush for lowering prices through his policy of Global Financial Meltdown, so I guess he gets a pass on this one.)
It is not a great insight to point out that President's have little impact on domestic gas prices. One need only look at how closely Canadian prices match US prices over time (albeit with a significant additional tax). One could argue that the Canadian market is dependent upon the US market, and while there is truth in that, it is more the case that both countries are dependent upon the global market.
 |
| Canadian prices in red, US in blue |
Gas prices at the pump are derived from the price of crude oil, which is driven by global economic and political realities including supply, demand, stability, and growth. Certainly US policies on energy and foreign relations can affect the realities and attitudes which govern crude oil prices. We can increase costs by decreasing stability, and lower costs by reducing demand, for example.
But war and conservation are not what Obama's opponents look to as a cause or solution to our high fuel costs. What they promote is, "Drill, baby, drill." That is, increased domestic production is their solution to energy costs. This is quite likely the least significant opportunity the US has for lowering gas prices.
Oil is a global market. Domestic oil is no different than Middle Eastern oil when it comes to the price at our pumps. Oil from all sources is priced on the global market. The only impact our domestic oil has is to increase the global supply.
America is the third-highest oil-producing nation, supplying nearly 9% of the world’s oil. If we were to double our oil production (which we can’t) that would increase the global supply by less than 10%. A 10% increase in supply would mean a nominal reduction in crude prices, and an even smaller decrease in the price of gas.
The only way domestic production would reduce gas prices is if our oil resources were nationalized, exploited, refined and sold internally at cost. Ignoring all the domestic and international problems with this approach, we consume nearly four times as much oil as we produce. Domestic production will not insulate us from world oil prices.
Like it or not, we're dependent upon the global oil market, and we cannot produce enough oil to significantly reduce market prices.
If lower prices are the goal, lower consumption is the solution. We can't solve the supply side of the equation. We can, however, make dramatic changes on the demand side.
You can read in the news that hurricane Sandy may reduce demand and lower gas prices by shutting down the eastern seaboard for a matter of hours or days. While a severe event impacting a region of our country is one way to affect demand, a better way is to spread small changes over our entire nation.
Conservation – scoffed at by people like Dick Cheney – and alternative energy sources would have a dramatic impact on our thirst for petroleum in a relatively short timeframe.
What Dick Cheney doesn't get, companies like WallMart do. WallMart has an aggressive stance on conservation, reducing their stores' energy consumption by up to 30%, lowering their trucking fleet's fuel consumption by 25%, and is even pushing suppliers to use sustainable farming techniques and less packaging.
Private sector efforts such as these will reduce our national consumption. The Federal Government can do much more by increasing efficiency in their buildings and fleets, and by providing incentives (and dis-incentives) to promote conservation and alternative energy.
Presidents cannot determine oil and gas prices. They can set policies (along with Congress) that move us toward efficiency, thereby reducing our demand for energy and lowering our energy costs.
It's important to note that conservation reduces energy costs regardless of the price of that energy. Consuming less means paying less, even if the unit price doesn't fall. And paying less is the bottom line goal.
Monday, October 29, 2012
Lies and Distortions: Gas Prices
This election year, as with every election year, the
airwaves, cables and tubes have been filled with all manner of lies and
distortions. It’s hard to know where to start, but one particularly inane
nugget that has gotten under my skin is the price of gas.
We are told that in
the last four years gas has risen from below $2 per gallon to above $3.50
today, and we’re told it is due to Obama’s policies. This, of course, is dishonest at best.
It’s a lie on two fronts. First, gas prices were not low or falling, but rising steeply during the Bush years. Second, US Presidents have little direct impact on domestic fuel prices.
It’s a lie on two fronts. First, gas prices were not low or falling, but rising steeply during the Bush years. Second, US Presidents have little direct impact on domestic fuel prices.
Ask someone when was the last time they paid less than
$2.00 for a gallon of gas and they’ll probably say they don’t remember, or they’ll
guess some time in the 1990s. The fact is, though, that gas sold for about
$1.90 per gallon when Obama took office.
So why don’t people remember that? Because it only hit those
levels in the last two months of 2008! Within months of Obama taking office the gas prices climbed back towards more "normal" levels.
The implication and intent of those who are promoting the $2 per gallon meme is that the prices when Obama took office were normal and that Obama deserves blame for the price rise. Those are simply not true.
Prior to the tumultuous last months of Bush’s administration, prices at the pump vacillated considerably while increasing steadily over time. A chart
of the Bush years shows gas prices rose steeply from 2002 to July 2008. In that
time prices tripled from below $1.50 to nearly $4.50, in today’s dollars.
Conspiracy theorists of the day blamed the rise to Bush’s
close ties to the oil industry, while a more mainstream explanation was the
Iraq war and related Middle East instability. The latter cause could clearly be
seen in the record price of crude oil: $147 per barrel in July 2008.
Only when the financial crisis started to become clear, and
the stock market went over a cliff, did the price of gas start to fall in
September ‘08. And it fell steeply, along with the price of crude. By December
19th, the day Bush approved a $17 billion federal bailout of General
Motors, crude oil was selling at $40 per barrel.
Crude oil has rebounded over the last four years to just above 2006 levels, selling in the $100 per barrel range. Prices at the pump are around $3.50. Listening to the ads and pundits you would think current prices are unprecedented, when in fact they are much more normal than was the brief $2.00 gas of late 2008.
Those are the historical facts on prices. Under Bush, prices
rose steeply and consistently. He left office with low prices, not because of
his energy policies, but because of the global economic crisis. Obama inherited
sub-two dollar gas – along with an unprecedented financial meltdown.
Tomorrow, is the President to blame for domestic fuel prices?
Monday, October 22, 2012
Round Three - The last and least decisive round
Obama and Romney are starting their third and final debate as I type. Mr. Obama came back from a dismal first outing to hold his own in the second go-round. My expectation tonight is that we'll see essentially a replay of last Tuesday. Obama will be aggressive and relaxed, while Romney will be steady and somewhat stiff. In the final tally, the "winner" will lead by a small margin.
Unfortunately for the President, the first debate represented his biggest opportunity to gain and hold voters, for two reasons:
First, more viewers tuned in with, if not open minds, at least impressionable minds. It was Romney's first toe-to-toe with Obama, so nobody knew how he'd stack up. Most people had paid little or no attention to the Republican debates (except for the gaff reels) and hadn't seen Romney in the debate setting. Expectations, in spite of both camp's attempts to talk down their candidate's chances, were that Obama's eloquence would allow him to sink Romney. Mr. Romney, therefore, inherently had the largest up-side coming into the first meeting.
Second, a large percentage of the population was looking for a reason to vote for Romney. They were ready to bail on Obama for reasons having to do with the economy, government policy (especially the debt), and race. The only thing that stood in the way was their discomfort with The Other Guy.
Romney's credible performance, and Obama's incredible incompetence, was a double hit. Not only did it provide a positive impression for Romney, Obama's meek and weak showing allowed people to give up on him. The results are perfectly clear in the polling since October 4th.
The second debate was a clear success for Mr. Obama, however it was not a clear defeat for Mr. Romney. Unlike the first debate when Obama supporters (poor Chris Matthews) could clearly see that the President did poorly, after the second debate partisan viewers mostly felt it was a win for their guy. Obama "won" by a modest margin in public opinion, but it was far from a blowout.
Obama's polling was in a free fall until the V.P. debate. After Mr. Biden's performance the poll numbers bounced back in Obama's direction. (I'm not saying this was a direct result of the Biden/Ryan debate, but it did coincide.) Since then the numbers have been mostly flat. They seem to be trending upward slightly after Oct. 16th, but it's been essentially flat.
So what happens from here?
The president is unlikely to see much bounce from tonight's debate, even if he scores a clear victory, simply because fewer people are tuned in and there are fewer undecided or influenceable voters left.
There are three possibilities that I see: Polls could trend modestly in Obama's favor, they can hold flat, or move slightly towards Romney. I don't foresee a significant move in either direction.
Currently, according to FiveThirtyEight blog, Mr Obama has a lead in the swing states sufficient to give him the win 70% of the time. That sounds pretty good, but given the uncertainty of polls the margin is uncomfortably slim.
At this point in time the race is quite close to a toss-up. Both sides will be in full court press mode from here on out. The focus will increasingly be on turnout as independents and undecideds become non-existant.
Post Script:
The debate is at the one hour mark as I type. Romney has been holding his own for the most part, but the President has scored some uppercuts to the jaw. "We have fewer horses too" was a great line. That's going to lead the news cycle tomorrow. Obama's response to the "apology tour" old saw put Romney against the ropes. Obama seems to be finishing strong.
As a parting shot, my crystal ball says that it's still Obama's to lose, and after his performance tonight I don't foresee him losing it. I just wish I was more confident about that, because, after all, the American people – who brought us 8 years of W Bush – are the ones who make the choice.
Unfortunately for the President, the first debate represented his biggest opportunity to gain and hold voters, for two reasons:
First, more viewers tuned in with, if not open minds, at least impressionable minds. It was Romney's first toe-to-toe with Obama, so nobody knew how he'd stack up. Most people had paid little or no attention to the Republican debates (except for the gaff reels) and hadn't seen Romney in the debate setting. Expectations, in spite of both camp's attempts to talk down their candidate's chances, were that Obama's eloquence would allow him to sink Romney. Mr. Romney, therefore, inherently had the largest up-side coming into the first meeting.
Second, a large percentage of the population was looking for a reason to vote for Romney. They were ready to bail on Obama for reasons having to do with the economy, government policy (especially the debt), and race. The only thing that stood in the way was their discomfort with The Other Guy.
Romney's credible performance, and Obama's incredible incompetence, was a double hit. Not only did it provide a positive impression for Romney, Obama's meek and weak showing allowed people to give up on him. The results are perfectly clear in the polling since October 4th.
The second debate was a clear success for Mr. Obama, however it was not a clear defeat for Mr. Romney. Unlike the first debate when Obama supporters (poor Chris Matthews) could clearly see that the President did poorly, after the second debate partisan viewers mostly felt it was a win for their guy. Obama "won" by a modest margin in public opinion, but it was far from a blowout.
Obama's polling was in a free fall until the V.P. debate. After Mr. Biden's performance the poll numbers bounced back in Obama's direction. (I'm not saying this was a direct result of the Biden/Ryan debate, but it did coincide.) Since then the numbers have been mostly flat. They seem to be trending upward slightly after Oct. 16th, but it's been essentially flat.
So what happens from here?
The president is unlikely to see much bounce from tonight's debate, even if he scores a clear victory, simply because fewer people are tuned in and there are fewer undecided or influenceable voters left.
There are three possibilities that I see: Polls could trend modestly in Obama's favor, they can hold flat, or move slightly towards Romney. I don't foresee a significant move in either direction.
Currently, according to FiveThirtyEight blog, Mr Obama has a lead in the swing states sufficient to give him the win 70% of the time. That sounds pretty good, but given the uncertainty of polls the margin is uncomfortably slim.
At this point in time the race is quite close to a toss-up. Both sides will be in full court press mode from here on out. The focus will increasingly be on turnout as independents and undecideds become non-existant.
Post Script:
The debate is at the one hour mark as I type. Romney has been holding his own for the most part, but the President has scored some uppercuts to the jaw. "We have fewer horses too" was a great line. That's going to lead the news cycle tomorrow. Obama's response to the "apology tour" old saw put Romney against the ropes. Obama seems to be finishing strong.
As a parting shot, my crystal ball says that it's still Obama's to lose, and after his performance tonight I don't foresee him losing it. I just wish I was more confident about that, because, after all, the American people – who brought us 8 years of W Bush – are the ones who make the choice.
Monday, October 15, 2012
Way to go, Joe!
My feelings about Biden's performance are mixed, but overall I thought he did quite well. On the substance, he hit most of the points I was hoping for and he directly challenged the veracity of Ryan's statements. Win, win.
On style, though, he walked close to the edge with his amused disbelief of what came out of Ryan's mouth, interrupting too frequently and displaying an angry demeanor. Ryan, meanwhile, was mostly steady and measured, showing a glimpse of dickishness only once; when explaining the order of the seasons in Afghanistan ("Spring, summer, fall. It's warm, or it's not.").
The bottom line is that partisans from each side likely came away feeling their guy won and the other guy was terrible. Liberals were fired up by Biden's intensity and truth telling, while believing that Ryan was lying and smug. Conservatives will feel that Ryan was more of a statesman and Biden was rude and wrong on the facts.
Britt Hume felt he was looking into a funhouse mirror that reflected version of himself; a cranky old man, but with a smile.
The second bottom line (I only have two bottom lines, not three) is that VP debates have never moved the needle on presidential races, so the outcome is unlikely to significantly change the overall trend line, but hopefully it will contribute to stopping the current tailspin of the Obama campaign.
The Top 10 List:
1) Romney Lies
On the topic of sanctions for Iran Biden said, "Governor Romney says we – we should continue. I may be mistaken. He changes his mind so often, I could be wrong." Romney's many changing positions is probably a bigger weakness than his falsehoods.
2) Ryan Lies
Very early in the Debate, Biden said in response to Ryan, "With all due respect, that's a bunch of malarkey." On the topic of Libya, Obama/Biden are not in a strong position, but Biden pointed out that Ryan cut the security budget and Romney tried to make political hay out of an ongoing tragedy.
3) 47%
Biden mentioned the 47% quote 5 times, and also a "30% are takers" quote from Ryan that I had been unaware of. He tied this comment to Norquist's pledge and to active military. In response to Romney's recent backpedaling on that statement Biden said, "if you heard 47 percent and you think he just made a mistake, then...I got a bridge to sell you."
4) Legitimate Rape
Biden hit this point well at the end of the debate with, "I guess he accepts Governor Romney's position now, because in the past he has argued that there was - there's rape and forcible rape. He's argued that in the case of rape or incest...it would be a crime to engage in having an abortion."
5) 716 Billion
Ryan did indeed raise this claim, and Biden swatted it back by explaining that it is a savings, not a cut, and touted the support of the AMA and AARP. Rather than state that Ryan's plan includes the same savings, he said "They want to wipe this all out."
6) Deficit
Biden did a good job early on linking the deficit and recession to the Republicans and Romney/Ryan when he said, "they talk about this Great Recession if it fell out of the sky... It came from this man voting to put two wars on a credit card, to at the same time put a prescription drug benefit on the credit card, a trillion-dollar tax cut for the very wealthy. I was there. I voted against them."
7) Enough Time
Biden didn't use the "not enough time" quote, but he did scoff at Ryan's lack of details and refuted the assertion that filling in details later is "how you get things done." This was one of Biden's most agressive, perhaps rude, moments.
8a) Number One Priority
I did not hear Biden mention the McConnel statement about making Obama a one term president. He scoffed at the idea of Republican bipartisanship, but not in an effective way or with enough emphasis.
8b) Let Detroit go Bankrupt
This point was made strongly.
9) Ayn Rand
This was, not surprisingly, not mentioned.
10) We've seen this before
Reagan was mentioned, but in a positive way regarding how he worked with Tip O'Neill and Biden. Biden did challenge the math of the Romney tax plan, but didn't harken to the Reagan example to make the point. Biden mentioned about 75% of my Top Ten list, and he hit the essence of a couple more.
My third bottom line, I have to give him high marks for going after Romney/Ryan on the facts, and calling them out on their positions and statements.
It was a good debate for Mr. Biden, though again it was a performance that partisans will see very differently. Unlike Obama's performance, which even most liberals could acknowledge was very poor, Ryan did a credible enough job that those predisposed to liking him would count Ryan the winner. Unlike Romney, Biden's demeanor veered off the statesman course, which may have turned off some in the middle who would prefer that we all just get along.
I score this as a strong win for Obama/Biden. It has righted the ship, so that when Obama takes the helm again on Tuesday he has the opportunity to get back on course.
On style, though, he walked close to the edge with his amused disbelief of what came out of Ryan's mouth, interrupting too frequently and displaying an angry demeanor. Ryan, meanwhile, was mostly steady and measured, showing a glimpse of dickishness only once; when explaining the order of the seasons in Afghanistan ("Spring, summer, fall. It's warm, or it's not.").
The bottom line is that partisans from each side likely came away feeling their guy won and the other guy was terrible. Liberals were fired up by Biden's intensity and truth telling, while believing that Ryan was lying and smug. Conservatives will feel that Ryan was more of a statesman and Biden was rude and wrong on the facts.
Britt Hume felt he was looking into a funhouse mirror that reflected version of himself; a cranky old man, but with a smile.
The second bottom line (I only have two bottom lines, not three) is that VP debates have never moved the needle on presidential races, so the outcome is unlikely to significantly change the overall trend line, but hopefully it will contribute to stopping the current tailspin of the Obama campaign.
The Top 10 List:
1) Romney Lies
On the topic of sanctions for Iran Biden said, "Governor Romney says we – we should continue. I may be mistaken. He changes his mind so often, I could be wrong." Romney's many changing positions is probably a bigger weakness than his falsehoods.
2) Ryan Lies
Very early in the Debate, Biden said in response to Ryan, "With all due respect, that's a bunch of malarkey." On the topic of Libya, Obama/Biden are not in a strong position, but Biden pointed out that Ryan cut the security budget and Romney tried to make political hay out of an ongoing tragedy.
3) 47%
Biden mentioned the 47% quote 5 times, and also a "30% are takers" quote from Ryan that I had been unaware of. He tied this comment to Norquist's pledge and to active military. In response to Romney's recent backpedaling on that statement Biden said, "if you heard 47 percent and you think he just made a mistake, then...I got a bridge to sell you."
4) Legitimate Rape
Biden hit this point well at the end of the debate with, "I guess he accepts Governor Romney's position now, because in the past he has argued that there was - there's rape and forcible rape. He's argued that in the case of rape or incest...it would be a crime to engage in having an abortion."
5) 716 Billion
Ryan did indeed raise this claim, and Biden swatted it back by explaining that it is a savings, not a cut, and touted the support of the AMA and AARP. Rather than state that Ryan's plan includes the same savings, he said "They want to wipe this all out."
6) Deficit
Biden did a good job early on linking the deficit and recession to the Republicans and Romney/Ryan when he said, "they talk about this Great Recession if it fell out of the sky... It came from this man voting to put two wars on a credit card, to at the same time put a prescription drug benefit on the credit card, a trillion-dollar tax cut for the very wealthy. I was there. I voted against them."
7) Enough Time
Biden didn't use the "not enough time" quote, but he did scoff at Ryan's lack of details and refuted the assertion that filling in details later is "how you get things done." This was one of Biden's most agressive, perhaps rude, moments.
8a) Number One Priority
I did not hear Biden mention the McConnel statement about making Obama a one term president. He scoffed at the idea of Republican bipartisanship, but not in an effective way or with enough emphasis.
8b) Let Detroit go Bankrupt
This point was made strongly.
9) Ayn Rand
This was, not surprisingly, not mentioned.
10) We've seen this before
Reagan was mentioned, but in a positive way regarding how he worked with Tip O'Neill and Biden. Biden did challenge the math of the Romney tax plan, but didn't harken to the Reagan example to make the point. Biden mentioned about 75% of my Top Ten list, and he hit the essence of a couple more.
My third bottom line, I have to give him high marks for going after Romney/Ryan on the facts, and calling them out on their positions and statements.
It was a good debate for Mr. Biden, though again it was a performance that partisans will see very differently. Unlike Obama's performance, which even most liberals could acknowledge was very poor, Ryan did a credible enough job that those predisposed to liking him would count Ryan the winner. Unlike Romney, Biden's demeanor veered off the statesman course, which may have turned off some in the middle who would prefer that we all just get along.
I score this as a strong win for Obama/Biden. It has righted the ship, so that when Obama takes the helm again on Tuesday he has the opportunity to get back on course.
Thursday, October 11, 2012
Rumble or Stumble
Tonight Joe Biden shares the stage with Paul Ryan in a contest of heightened importance – due to the epic fail of President Obama last week. Biden desperately needs to stop the slide that resulted from the Denver debate.
The Vice President has his work cut out for him. Last time around he was facing off against that lightweight from Wasilla, who had already become a laughing stock by the time they shook hands ("Can I call ya Joe?"). Ryan, on the other hand, has been touted as the brilliant rising star of the right. His facility with numbers and his rock hard body have gained mythological proportions.
For many, those puppy-dog eyes and frown-smile smirk read not as arrogant smugness, but as sincerity and compassion. He will cut an imposing figure of youth and confidence next to the aging gregariousness of Biden. The optics of this one will not give Biden any obvious edge. He's going to have to win on substance, and hopefully with some attacks that throw Ryan off balance.
Top 10 things Biden should raise:
1) Romney lies
Bring up the multitude of fact-check issues Romney has has, starting with the debate and reaching back to the convention. The coup de grace being when the Romney campaign contradicted Romney's assertion about pre-existing conditions. Also include the multitude of contradictory positions Romney has held over the years. "Which Romney would we see in the Whitehouse? The liberal Governor of Massachusetts, the right wing Romney of the primaries, or the centrist who we just met over the past week?"
2) Ryan lies
When Ryan raises Obama's incorrect assertions or un-met campaign promises, first refute Ryan's claim and bring up Republican obstructionism. Then hit back with Ryan's own misstatements from the convention speech. Make the point early that Romney/Ryan are not to be taken at their word.
3 ) 47%
Biden should find a way to work this in. Better late than never. He should bring it up in the context that Obama-Biden don't write off 47% of the country, and he could use the same rhetoric that I posted earlier. Ryan should at least be made to state that Romney has disavowed those comments. This will reinforce points 1 & 2.
4 ) Legitimate rape
Ryan was a co-sponsor of the bill with Todd Akin that attempted to redefine rape. Biden should jump all over that one, and use it to link Romney/Ryan to the most offensive right-wing Republicans.
5 ) $716 Billion
This falls under number 1 and number 2 (lies of Romney & Ryan), but it ranks highly enough for its own entry in the list and Ryan is sure to bring it up. Biden needs to clearly state that Obamacare reduces the cost of Medicare $716 bilion by reducing the expense of procedures and other savings, thereby extending the solvency of Medicare. Also note that Ryan's plan includes the same savings, but does so by raising the eligibility age. Harken back to the trustability factor.
6 ) Deficit
Ryan voted for all of Bush's tax cuts, wars and other budget busters. Hit him hard on that. Ryan is being a hypocrite. Throw in a reference to the Great Republican Recession.
7 ) Enough time
Be sure to quote Ryan from the Fox interview stating that he didn't have time to go into the details of their budget plan. Biden should assure Ryan that they have all the time in the world for him to explain how they are going to eliminate enough deductions to keep from raising the deficit. The inability for Romney/Ryan to provide any specifics about the reduction half of their tax plan is a glaring weakness.
8 ) 2 & 4
Biden should make these points from my previous Top 10.
Number two is the "Number One Priority" comment. The Republican Party is the enemy, not just Romney/Ryan. Although I no longer believe the Democrats can win back the house, Obama/Biden should still be running against House and Senate Republicans at every opportunity. If Biden can quote McConnel without sounding whiney, he should do it.
Number four is Romney's "Let Detroit go bankrupt" statement. Certainly Biden can work-in a comment about the auto industry; how Obama saved it and Romney wanted to let it die. I'm sure Ryan will come back with a plausible-sounding retort, but that Bankrupt statement sticks in the mind for its crassness. Raise it as often as possible.
9 ) Ayn Rand
Biden should speak to the camera and mention that Ryan is a follower of a "radical atheist philosopher." Include the fact that Ryan made his staff read her books to make it more difficult for Ryan to backpedal on his love of Rand.
10 ) We've seen this before
I'd love to hear Biden outline the absurdity of the Romney budget proposal, in which he promises to cut taxes by 20%, yet keep all the deductions that are important to seniors and the middle class, increase military spending, keep the popular parts of Obamacare, all while reducing the deficit. After making the point, finish it off with, "We've heard this before. Ronald Reagan made the same promises before his first term, and as President he doubled our debt. Your plan is a fantasy. It will give tax cuts to the rich, it will cost more for the middle class, and it will send out debt out of control."
The goal in the above is to leave the stage with people thinking that Romney/Ryan cannot be trusted. Put serious doubt in the viewers' minds about the feasibility of the Romney tax & budget plan. Tie Romney/Ryan to the worst of the Republican party, and reinforce that Republican policies increase the national debt while benefiting the rich.
Joe Biden needs to reverse the gains Romney was able to make last week. To do so, he has to go after Ryan, sully the Republican party (with facts), and tie Romney/Ryan to that party. Democrats need to know that Obama/Biden are for progressive policies, but they also need to know they are against Republican policies and are willing to say so. Independents need help thinking through the lies and fantasies being presented by Romney/Ryan, and have a strong and determined alternative to vote for.
Let's go, Joe!
The Vice President has his work cut out for him. Last time around he was facing off against that lightweight from Wasilla, who had already become a laughing stock by the time they shook hands ("Can I call ya Joe?"). Ryan, on the other hand, has been touted as the brilliant rising star of the right. His facility with numbers and his rock hard body have gained mythological proportions.
For many, those puppy-dog eyes and frown-smile smirk read not as arrogant smugness, but as sincerity and compassion. He will cut an imposing figure of youth and confidence next to the aging gregariousness of Biden. The optics of this one will not give Biden any obvious edge. He's going to have to win on substance, and hopefully with some attacks that throw Ryan off balance.
Top 10 things Biden should raise:
1) Romney lies
Bring up the multitude of fact-check issues Romney has has, starting with the debate and reaching back to the convention. The coup de grace being when the Romney campaign contradicted Romney's assertion about pre-existing conditions. Also include the multitude of contradictory positions Romney has held over the years. "Which Romney would we see in the Whitehouse? The liberal Governor of Massachusetts, the right wing Romney of the primaries, or the centrist who we just met over the past week?"
2) Ryan lies
When Ryan raises Obama's incorrect assertions or un-met campaign promises, first refute Ryan's claim and bring up Republican obstructionism. Then hit back with Ryan's own misstatements from the convention speech. Make the point early that Romney/Ryan are not to be taken at their word.
3 ) 47%
Biden should find a way to work this in. Better late than never. He should bring it up in the context that Obama-Biden don't write off 47% of the country, and he could use the same rhetoric that I posted earlier. Ryan should at least be made to state that Romney has disavowed those comments. This will reinforce points 1 & 2.
4 ) Legitimate rape
Ryan was a co-sponsor of the bill with Todd Akin that attempted to redefine rape. Biden should jump all over that one, and use it to link Romney/Ryan to the most offensive right-wing Republicans.
5 ) $716 Billion
This falls under number 1 and number 2 (lies of Romney & Ryan), but it ranks highly enough for its own entry in the list and Ryan is sure to bring it up. Biden needs to clearly state that Obamacare reduces the cost of Medicare $716 bilion by reducing the expense of procedures and other savings, thereby extending the solvency of Medicare. Also note that Ryan's plan includes the same savings, but does so by raising the eligibility age. Harken back to the trustability factor.
6 ) Deficit
Ryan voted for all of Bush's tax cuts, wars and other budget busters. Hit him hard on that. Ryan is being a hypocrite. Throw in a reference to the Great Republican Recession.
7 ) Enough time
Be sure to quote Ryan from the Fox interview stating that he didn't have time to go into the details of their budget plan. Biden should assure Ryan that they have all the time in the world for him to explain how they are going to eliminate enough deductions to keep from raising the deficit. The inability for Romney/Ryan to provide any specifics about the reduction half of their tax plan is a glaring weakness.
8 ) 2 & 4
Biden should make these points from my previous Top 10.
Number two is the "Number One Priority" comment. The Republican Party is the enemy, not just Romney/Ryan. Although I no longer believe the Democrats can win back the house, Obama/Biden should still be running against House and Senate Republicans at every opportunity. If Biden can quote McConnel without sounding whiney, he should do it.
Number four is Romney's "Let Detroit go bankrupt" statement. Certainly Biden can work-in a comment about the auto industry; how Obama saved it and Romney wanted to let it die. I'm sure Ryan will come back with a plausible-sounding retort, but that Bankrupt statement sticks in the mind for its crassness. Raise it as often as possible.
9 ) Ayn Rand
Biden should speak to the camera and mention that Ryan is a follower of a "radical atheist philosopher." Include the fact that Ryan made his staff read her books to make it more difficult for Ryan to backpedal on his love of Rand.
10 ) We've seen this before
I'd love to hear Biden outline the absurdity of the Romney budget proposal, in which he promises to cut taxes by 20%, yet keep all the deductions that are important to seniors and the middle class, increase military spending, keep the popular parts of Obamacare, all while reducing the deficit. After making the point, finish it off with, "We've heard this before. Ronald Reagan made the same promises before his first term, and as President he doubled our debt. Your plan is a fantasy. It will give tax cuts to the rich, it will cost more for the middle class, and it will send out debt out of control."
The goal in the above is to leave the stage with people thinking that Romney/Ryan cannot be trusted. Put serious doubt in the viewers' minds about the feasibility of the Romney tax & budget plan. Tie Romney/Ryan to the worst of the Republican party, and reinforce that Republican policies increase the national debt while benefiting the rich.
Joe Biden needs to reverse the gains Romney was able to make last week. To do so, he has to go after Ryan, sully the Republican party (with facts), and tie Romney/Ryan to that party. Democrats need to know that Obama/Biden are for progressive policies, but they also need to know they are against Republican policies and are willing to say so. Independents need help thinking through the lies and fantasies being presented by Romney/Ryan, and have a strong and determined alternative to vote for.
Let's go, Joe!
Denver Debacle: Can't we all get along?
My initial plan for this post was to write some sample dialog that would elaborate on each of my “Top 10 points he should have made” list. However, the more time that goes by, the more pointless that seems. Even in the immediate aftermath of the first debate bloodbath, though my passions were high there wasn’t much to be accomplished other than to vent my spleen, as it were.
I do want to expand a bit on a couple points, especially #5, since that was commented on most frequently by readers. First, though, I will discuss what I see as the reason Mr. Obama’s approach is so far off from the way I would like him to campaign and govern.
Fundamentally, Barak Obama is a mediator. He strives for the middle ground between opposing parties, not as a means to an end but as an end in itself. He seems to truly believe that the solution is better if it melds together ideas from all sides and gets everyone’s buy-in. Given the choice between passing legislation that is purely progressive/Democratic, or a bill that has a mix of conservative and progressive ideas, he will opt for the latter even if the former was possible.
His motivation for being a community organizer was, I expect, to bring people together to live more harmoniously through this process of finding consensus. There are many possible reasons for this trait, including a desire to be liked, a heart-felt belief that everyone should be included in decisions, and of course the big one, that Obama is not a liberal.
His motivation for being a community organizer was, I expect, to bring people together to live more harmoniously through this process of finding consensus. There are many possible reasons for this trait, including a desire to be liked, a heart-felt belief that everyone should be included in decisions, and of course the big one, that Obama is not a liberal.
Mr. Obama has talked and written about bi-partisanship at length, so it shouldn’t come as a surprise when he takes that approach as President. But it does cause enormous frustration to those of us who want him to lead as a liberal, pushing Democratic solutions and arguing on behalf of them. Instead, he appears to have chosen as his top priority healing the partisan divide in our politics, and in doing so he has engaged in a losing battle.
In spite of the Republicans' unmistakable language and consistent behavior which make it obvious that compromise and cooperation are not in the cards, Mr. Obama continues to act as though accommodation and reconciliation are achievable goals. The war against partisanship is only being waged by a single party.
My belief is that if President Obama were to argue forcibly for Democratic agenda items – which polling shows have the support of the American people – he would win big and even swing the house into Democratic control again. In his argument, though, he would have to be willing to call out Republicans, as a group and individually, for their words and actions. This is what my Top 10 list is about.
It is not enough to sell Democratic ideas. The Republican policies and positions need to be “sold” as wrong and detrimental. The goal is to further a negative perception and put the Republicans on the defensive. Mr. Romney was allowed to play offense throughout the first debate without needing to defend his litany of dumb statements and contradictory positions.
I am not optimistic that Obama will change his tune, and the first debate is history now. Nonetheless, here is the tack that I wish Obama would have taken to make gains with my “Top 10 things.” Let me know if you think this strategy would work. If not, or if you see risks, why and what?
1) 47%
Not mentioning the 47% comment of Romney’s – a comment that nearly killed his election chances – was just plain dumb. Mr. Obama should have hammered that one home, and he had plenty of opportunities to do so. For example, after Romney claimed his cuts would not benefit the rich:
“Governor, as you pointed out, 47% of Americans do not pay federal income tax. If federal tax cuts are the centerpiece of your plan, which they are, you will be cutting taxes for wealthiest Americans. Federal income tax cuts do not benefit those whose income is too low to qualify for income taxes, so your 20% cut will go mostly to the top income levels. It's arithmetic.
“But who are those 47% who don’t pay income taxes that you say are victims with no sense of personal responsibility?
“They are older Americans. American’s who paid taxes all their lives and are now enjoying their retirement – a retirement, I might add, made possible in part by Social Security that was created by Democrats and which Republicans have been trying to dismantle for 60 years. These seniors don’t need you or anyone else to teach them to take responsibility for themselves. They are proud Americans who paid into the system and are now enjoying their golden years without worrying about how to pay the rent or how to afford health care.
“Those 47% are Military personnel whose income is not taxed because that's how we honor their service to this country. They do not see themselves as victims. They see themselves as warriors protecting this country all around the globe. They are not dependent on Government. Government, and all citizens, are dependent on them.
“Those 47% are the working poor, for whom an additional tax burden would make them choose between food for their children or the rent that keeps their family off the street. They are not freeloaders. They work as hard as any American, often having two or three jobs. They provide the goods and services that you and I rely on every day. And they pay plenty of taxes, including FICA, sales taxes and state taxes.
“Those 47% also include the neediest Americans on direct federal assistance. Now, their numbers have unfortunately grown as a result of the Republican Recession of 2008. This is a real problem and one that I am focused on every day. But they are not an expense problem – direct assistance accounts for less 10% of our budget. The problem is, why do we have poverty in the first place. My administration is attacking poverty by ensuring a quality education for every child, and through Head Start that gives needy children a boost at the start of their lives. We’re battling poverty by supporting job training for displaced workers, and accessible health care through “Obamacare”.
“Governor, you said you are not concerned about the very poor, but eliminating poverty in American is among my highest priorities.
“The Governor and the Republican party believe 47% of Americans are not for them to worry about. I consider myself to be the President for 100% of Americans, and I am working to create a country that works for all of us.”
By not pursuing the 47% comment, Obama has allowed Romney to apologize for the remark and say he was wrong, thereby disarming the point without conceding it to Obama. Huge mistake.
5) Healthcare is the biggest obstacle to entrepreneurs
For thirty years the Republican supply-siders have pushed the mythology of the Entrepreneur. When they propose a tax cut, deregulation, or the elimination of the inheritance tax, Entrepreneurs are the go-to demographic that needs the help. And if they don’t get help, our economy will collapse! Obama should turn this rhetoric back on them to promote Obamacare.
In theory at least, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act provides many changes that make it easier for individuals to change their employment without losing access to health insurance. Studies and opinions vary as to how the bill will change costs and access, but opposing studies and opinions are fair game in a debate.
I would like to have seen Obama attack with something like the following after Romney talked about the decline in small business startups:
“Small business startups have been declining for forty years, but they hit their steepest decline in 2007 and 2008 due to the Republican Great Recession. In the past 18 months we've started to reverse that trend. But look, the greatest hurdle American entrepreneurs face is not over-regulation. It's not the federal income tax rate, or even the capital gains rate. The biggest hurdle that keeps entrepreneurs from starting a business is health insurance.
“The number one priority for families is making sure they have access to affordable health care. When a potential entrepreneur weighs the decision of staying in a job that does not fulfill their dream, or having to purchase health insurance at individual rates, most can't afford to take that risk.
“My health care plan is starting to give them that opportunity, and when it is fully in effect in 2014 you will start to see more and more businesses startups. Affordable insurance available on public exchange markets, no pre-existing condition denials, credits to small businesses that help offset the cost of providing insurance to their employees, children able to stay on their parent’s plans until they are 26. All these changes will unleash the creativity of American entrepreneurs and revitalize our economy.”
“My health care plan is starting to give them that opportunity, and when it is fully in effect in 2014 you will start to see more and more businesses startups. Affordable insurance available on public exchange markets, no pre-existing condition denials, credits to small businesses that help offset the cost of providing insurance to their employees, children able to stay on their parent’s plans until they are 26. All these changes will unleash the creativity of American entrepreneurs and revitalize our economy.”
7) Democrats are not the party of big government
There is no reason to roll-over when the “Democrats want big government” tripe is thrown in your face. Obama should have hit back with facts:
“Mr Romney and the Republican Party are fond of calling Democrats the party of big government. That is absolutely not true. Fortunately, we don't have to take his word for it, or my word, because we have the data.
“For thirty years, government payroll and spending as a share of GDP has increased under Republican administrations and decreased under Democratic administrations. President Clinton reduced federal spending eight years in a row, and the government was in surplus for each of his last four years. No Republican president has come close.
“At the end of President’s Clinton's term the economy was booming. Under President Bush and the policies Mr. Romney is advocating, government spending as a share of GDP rose every year – by a total of nearly 40%. He ended his term with a record deficit and the worst recession since the 1930s.
“According to Forbes Magazine, under my administration we've had the smallest increase in federal spending since Dwight D. Eisenhower.
“For thirty years, government payroll and spending as a share of GDP has increased under Republican administrations and decreased under Democratic administrations. President Clinton reduced federal spending eight years in a row, and the government was in surplus for each of his last four years. No Republican president has come close.
“At the end of President’s Clinton's term the economy was booming. Under President Bush and the policies Mr. Romney is advocating, government spending as a share of GDP rose every year – by a total of nearly 40%. He ended his term with a record deficit and the worst recession since the 1930s.
“According to Forbes Magazine, under my administration we've had the smallest increase in federal spending since Dwight D. Eisenhower.
“Don't believe the rhetoric. If you want to control government spending and if you want prosperity, you need to vote for Democrats.”
9) Romney is super rich
Romney is rich. People may respect that, yet they don’t feel he can understand their lives. Romney's wealth – and the way he earned it – is a net negative in the public perception. This should have been reinforced, and a good place to do so would have been after Romney said, “High-income people are doing just fine in this economy.... The people who are having the hard time right now are middle-income Americans.”
“Mitt, I'm glad you acknowledge that high-income people are doing fine. For four years there's been a lot of rhetoric about my administration. Things like socialism and class warfare, and that is completely false.
“My plan is to let the Bush tax cut for the wealthy expire, returning the top rate to where it was under President Clinton when the economy was strong, the government was in surplus and the wealthy were doing extremely well. That’s not class warfare. People like Mr. Romney will still be able to afford 5 or 6 houses, and if they want an elevator for their cars they can have that too. They are just going to give a little more back to the great country that made their wealth possible.
“Now Governor, you point out that middle-income Americans have seen their income decline. In truth, income for the middle class has been stagnant since the 1980s, with two exceptions. Middle class income rose sharply under President Clinton, and it declined sharply under president Bush, due to the Republican policies you would have us return to. In that same time period, when middle class income has declined, income for the top 5% has increased by 50%. You can't restore the middle class by cutting taxes for the wealthy. You just can't.”
So there is a sampling of how I believe Mr. Obama should frame the debate. Strongly reinforce Romney's negatives. Make him defend his absurd comments. Refute rhetoric with historical data. And above all, run against Republican policies, link them back to the Bush administration when appropriate, and hang the Republican Party around Romney's neck.
Monday, October 8, 2012
Denver Debacle: What might have been
When President Obama walked on stage last Wednesday, he had enough ammunition to dispatch with his opponent and to move past him towards reclaiming the House or Representative. Over the preceding weeks Romney had provided Obama with a “target rich environment”, but Obama refused to fire a shot.
The difference between the potential and the result was so wide that it is dispiriting and depressing to discuss it, and there is probably little point in doing so now. However, these missed opportunities keep rattling around my brain so I may as well lay them out here before I move on to what’s next.
In a series of posts, I will first rehash what might have been last Wednesday. Next, I’ll take a look at the VP debate and examine the possibilities for regaining some momentum. After the VP debate, I’ll try to discern how Obama might regain the upper hand. Finally, when the Debates topic has been exhausted, I’ll discuss why I think Obama failed so miserably this past week – and the fatal flaw that I believe makes him a weakened candidate and will, if he is reelected, continue to make him a weak and disappointing President in his second term.
If Obama does win a second term, his ability to further his agenda will continue to be restricted by opposition from the Republican-controlled House. Therefore, winning back House seats should be a high priority of his 2012 campaign. At the time of the first presidential debate Mr. Obama had a commanding lead over Romney, based partly on Obama's successes and likability, but also largely based on Mr. Romney’s weaknesses. Had Obama come out swinging last Wednesday, he could have cemented the public’s negative impression of Romney and made significant gains against the Republican Party.
I believe that Obama had a chance to regain control of the house if he’d made the points outlined below. I will lay out my Top 10 points Obama should have made, and will also provide sample quotes that a “fantasy Obama” – one who not only wants a second term but also seeks to defeat the Republicans – would have said.
Top 10 things Obama should have raised in the first debate:
1) 47%
The infamous 47% comment presented Obama with a huge opportunity to reinforce the public’s negative impression of Romney and the Republican Party as being concerned primarily about the wealthy. By doing so, Obama might have gained some voters among the elderly, military and working poor. This was also the time to reference Romney's “I’m not worried about the poor” comment.
2) “Our number one priority”
Obama should have talked right past Romney and attacked the Republican leadership. Early on, and again at the end, he should have reminded people of the McConnel’s statement that their number one priority was to deny Obama a second term. This quote should be a central point of the Obama campaign in an effort to regain control of the House.
3) Zing this
Obama should have been prepared to disarm Romney's zingers by responding to his first one with, “[Chuckle] I heard you were preparing some zingers. That's a good one, and it might make the Fox News sound bytes, but unfortunately the truth is...” From there he could have repudiated whatever Romney was zinging him for.
4) “Let Detroit go bankrupt”
The recovery of our domestic auto industry is a hallmark achievement of Obamas first term. Romney was on the opposite side of this issue, with an outrageous quote to boot. Not mentioning the “bankrupt” statement was inexcusable.
5) Healthcare is the biggest obstacle to entrepreneurs
Obama Care should be framed in terms of jobs and small business. Not only is healthcare a top line expense to business, but the cost of individual insurance plans keeps many would-be entrepreneurs from taking the risk of starting their own business.
6) Emergency rooms are not health care
One of Romney’s more ridiculous statements was that we provide healthcare for the uninsured via emergency rooms, and that states take care of that. The contrast between this negligent and ignorant statement and Obama Care would have been an easy win.
7) Democrats are not the party of big government
Obama should not concede the talking point that Democrats want big government. He should point out that the only president to reduce government spending as a share of GDP for eight consecutive years was a Democrat, and the only president to have four consecutive budget surpluses was a Democrat, and according to Forbes under Obama we've had the smallest increase in federal spending since Eisenhower.
8) Income taxes do not discourage job creation
A top Republican myth is that higher income tax rates on the “job creators” kill jobs. The opposite is true. Income taxes are paid on money that is removed from a business to pay an individual. If a business owner creates a job and pays the worker for it, that cost is deducted as an expense. It’s only when the business owners pay themselves that they pay federal income tax. Obama could have made this clear by pointing out that Bain employees were not paid from Romney’s checking account. He could work in a zinger about Bain at the same time.
9) Romney is super rich
Obama could have worked in a few zingers of his own relating to Romney's six houses and car elevator. Romney's wealth dwarfs every president in history. Americans correctly believe this makes Romney unable to understand their lives and problems, and this should have been reinforced.
10) Not qualified to become president
Mitt famously stated that if he paid more taxes than he owed he would not be qualified for the presidency. Well, his 2011 tax return clearly shows that he opted not to deduct the full amount of his charitable contributions. Obama should have stated the obvious conclusion.
Some have argued that Obama won the debate on substance, either because of the content of what he said or due to the dishonesty of what Romney said. They may or may not be correct, but what is certain is that Obama's performance was abismal and Romney's was credible. Measured by the standard of who attracted more supporters, Romney was a clear and decisive winner.
Karl Rove, a despicable human being but an unprecedented success in the realm of political politics, once said that he runs campaigns as if people watched with the sound turned down. Using that standard, Obama looked like a school boy being dressed down by the principal, nodding in chagrinned agreement with whatever that authoritative man was saying.
Measured by the opportunity available vs. the actual results, Obama's performance was an unmitigated disaster. What could have cemented his victory and put the House of Representatives in play has, instead, possibly cost Obama the election.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)