New Obama Campaign Tactic – Compare Romney to Bush – Negative Campaign Continues - Amnesia: "Miss Me Yet?" New Scientific Polling - Analysis

The Obama2012 Campaign is running a new ad in Colorado - which compares 2012 GOP Candidate, former MA Governor, Mitt Romney to former President George W. Bush(Politico) The video is available here on the Obama Campaign’s YouTube Channel. It may be tactic that works with the base, however, the target should be the Independent – especially if the polls (and internal polls) suggest a close race – and one has to wonder if this tactic will work as well as intended. The fact that, on several occasion, former President Bill Clinton has endorsed and/or stood by President Barack Obama, hardly suggests a comparison between the two men. In fact, President Clinton, the most popular American President in recent history – has made very flattering comments regarding President Obama’s opponent – the most recent in June, ”praising Romney’s sterling business career” (ABC News, June 1, 2012) Therefore, when one is in the same political party, one generally is endorsed, heartily or half-heartedly by the political party leaders, both past and present. Additionally, Romney’s governance of Massachusetts (which, indeed, he does have a governing record going into the campaign, rather than a legislative record), could in no wise be compared to Bush’s style, on both fiscal and social issue levels, no more than President Obama can compare his style of governing the nation to President William Jefferson Clinton’s.

Furthermore, as much as former President, George W. Bush, is still loathed by the left, there are those darned ” Miss Me Yet” billboards and the popularity of the “Miss Me Yet” t-shirts”that come into play.

If, the polls are correct and every vote counts, the constant negative drumbeat, coming from the Obama Campaign and the press, specifically regarding Mitt Romney, (pick a topic) can’t help. This was true of the attacks on Romney and his association with Bain Capital which, according to a USA Today Poll, had no affect on the preference of potential voters, who 2 to1 chose Mitt Romney on the economy.

Further, fundraising has been on the slow side, with the exception of Hollywood – as Politico stunningly reports that the President is donating to his own campaign, a commonplace event amongst Politicians’, however, one might not want to announce that to one’s potential donors – even as a “scare tactic”. A smart campaign has PAC’s running negative ads, allowing the campaign to either run positive messages or compare and contrast ads. A compare and contrast ad is one which compares a specific vision or issue or record of one candidate to another – with a bit of detail. The ad running in Colorado compares Romney’s vision to George Bush’s (perhaps not completely accurately), to President Obama’s vision - one which notes a $250,000 as the tax-cut (Bush era tax cuts and the $250,000 threshold) – as “wealthy” (not by small business standards), and reiterates the “rich can afford to pay more” message that generates class warfare.

Perhaps President Obama’s Campaign plans on running to the center after the election, but then they would be counting on the very short-term memory of the electorate and a massive economic turn-around. Negative messaging worked successfully for the Romney Campaign during the brutal 2012 GOP primary, but, and the big but, then Candidate Romney could point to a PAC rather than his campaign as the culprit. The latest Romney Campaign ad “Believe in Our Future” (watch here on the Romney Campaign You Tube Channel) speaks to Governor Romney’s experience in business and governing, and how he will apply those experiences to the Office of the Presidency.
The difference at this point is that Romney has run to the center, the way he governed in Massachusetts – which, can at times annoy the hard right – but at the same time, attract the moderate, the independent and yes, the Democrat. (Note: The Romney Campaign uses President Bill Clinton’s quote in the ad referenced above.). The negative advertising coming directly from a campaign makes one wonder what the internal polling shows – perhaps a race that is not quite as close as the polls currently suggest.

Note on polling: There is an interesting article from Reuter’s India entitled “Analysis: Scientists go beyond the polls to forecast U.S. election” in which analytics are applied to forecast the outcome of elections – not unlike actual polls, where samples can and do vary, the polls by U.S. academics, suggest a close election, including a quantifier that uses “racial bias” in the equation.

Three years after emerging from a deep recession, the economy has not recovered. The unemployment rate has been stuck above 8 percent for 41 months -- nearly Obama's entire time in office.
For his model, University of Iowa professor Michael Lewis-Beck looks at decades of data on job creation and presidential approval. His preliminary forecast, made with Charles Tien of the City University of New York, gives Obama 46.9 percent of the vote and Romney 53.1 percent.

(in.Reuters.com - reference link in above para)

The balance with modifications, have the two candidates within points of each other – (based on popularity and trends), - they have been as accurate as other posters – on the popular vote, which, in races that are within hair-breaths – the Electoral College trumps all models.

Yet, one has to ask which forecasters model is correct – the one that uses economic data with trends (shown above) or the models that are consistent with current polling – one might look to the negative ads and the increased vitriol against one candidate over another by the press to make an educated guess.

Romney Receives Endorsement of Poland’s Lech Walesa, New Hill Poll – Election 2012: Competence Trumps Likeability 93% to 7%?

Iranian President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad - Not a Romney Fan! - image: Haaretz/AP


From Politico – The Headline: “Walesa proclaims solidarity with Mitt”, reviews 2012 Presidential Candidate, Mitt Romney’s Overseas Tour, and his last stop in Poland and visit with legendary Polish Leader Lech Walesa, who heartily endorsed Romney:

“I wish you to be successful because this success is needed to the United States, of course, but to Europe and the rest of the world, too,” Walesa said through a translator...

Then, with a bang of his fist on a wooden table, the Nobel Prize winner urged the Republican to claim victory: “Gov. Romney, get your success — be successful!”

The gist of the surrounding text: all moves were prepared for a photo opportunity – never taking into account that perhaps Walesa meant his comments and purposefully let the press (especially the U.S. Press) know it. The rest of the article reviews his successful visit to Israel by outlining his allegedly “racist” comments regarding Romney’s stance on Jerusalem as the Capital of Israel and his take on prosperity in Israel. The Palestinian’s were somewhat put out that Romney did not take the time to visit with their head of state, Mahmoud Abbas as well. The Palestinian’s pulled the race card?

The U.S. Press wasn’t the only outlet decrying Romney’s stance – Iran and China also weighed in : Haaretz: After Romney's visit, Ahmadinejad slams U.S. Republican for 'kissing Israel's foot' speaks to the Iranian Presidents obvious unease over Romney’s remarks about the Iranian Nuclear Program and his support for Israel – China also criticized Romney :

A commentary Tuesday by the official Xinhua News Agency said Romney's "hawkish remarks" ignored the sensitive nature of Jerusalem. It said the comments disregarded the Palestinians' claim to the war-won eastern sector of the city, which was annexed by Israel in 1967 in a move that is not internationally recognized.
…..
Romney, who was on an overseas trip that also included stops in Britain and Poland to bolster his image ahead of the election, has previously upset some in China by threatening tougher action on Beijing in trade disputes if he is elected president

If Romney has both Iran and China “upset” – some might believe that’s a successful trip – especially those who neither fans of the Iranian President, the ongoing Palestinian terrorist actions against Israel, and the Chinese government’s trade and currency practices. (One might include the U.S. Press along with the aforementioned.)

Stateside: the Hill released a new poll yesterday, that hasn’t gotten a great deal of traction: (PDF link to marginals here): In choosing and voting for a Presidential candidate: Policies and Competence rated 93%, Likability 3% and Not Sure: 4%, Honest & Trustworthy: Obama 44%, Romney: 46%, Not sure: 10% - which leaves a statistical tie between Romney and Obama with the margin of error. (See Crosstabs link above in PDF). Although it now less than 100 days from the November election that will decide who leads the nation forward in the next four years; early indicators suggest a close race in nearly every poll, with few exceptions. However, should push comes to shove, and competence trumps likability and one refers to a recent polls conducted by both Gallup and USA Today where Romney trumped Obama 2 to 1 on the economy(Analysis TownHall.com) – it’s not quite as close as the polls currently suggest.

One can anticipate one of two outcomes based on polling to date: that this election may be yet another “cliffhanger” polling suggests the electorate gives a slight edge to either candidate, President Barack Obama or former Massachusetts Governor, Mitt Romney – leaving little room for either candidate to pull away by a comfortable 5 point lead (with one exception and that being Rasumussen where Romney polled 49-44%(Business Insider).

The other outcome may be more “Reaganesque” – based on Gallup’s annual state by state Presidential job approval rankings – President Obama ranks at 50% (50.1%) in 10 out of 50 states – with moderate to significantly lower approval rankings in 40 states. The 10 states where the President is over 50% include Massachusetts and Hawaii, hardly significant when it comes to electoral votes – see analysis here.

All polling, of course, is subject to change given economic circumstances, and other factors – i.e. the infamous “October Surprise” which has yet to be a factor in recent memory- these particular polls referenced are early indicators only – should the trend towards voters choosing competence of likability continue, along with Romney’s improving likeability (see TownHall on polling), and Romney maintain a 5 point lead going into October, then the odds favor the challenger over the incumbent. As to Romney’s overseas trip – the success depends upon the perception of the candidate and the overall ties to the nations visited – not the perception of the press.

First Lady, Michelle Obama’s Olympic $7000 Wardrobe versus Anne Romney’s $990 Choice – Much ado about nothing but Sexism As the Press Turns

Michelle Obama Olympic Fashion - from ABCNews.com

First, the fascination with our political group, and specifically the fashion worn well, or not, of those women who would dare to enter the arena, is in a word, ridiculous at times. The fact that any Contender for the highest office (Think Hillary Clinton) or First Lady or potential First Lady, should be subject to nit picking as to choice of wardrobe just goes to show how many American’s are obsessed with the “haves and have not’s” of “celebrities”. Cases in point are several articles on the Olympics and what the First Lady and GOP Presidential Candidate, Mitt Romney’s, wife Ann, wore at the Olympics. In what should be seen as independent choices, these wardrobes become political fodder – as to the women themselves, who, just happen to be married to either the President or a Presidential Nominee (or running for office – See Hillary Clinton).

ABC News covers wardrobe, and what’s up with the First Lady, Michelle Obama at abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS - note the word politics in the web address – yet one is treated to what can only be seen as a fashion show – complete with pro’s and con’s – a what not to wear or what to wear, regarding women who, through whatever happenstance, are married to men who are in the spotlight.

The Brouhaha apparently started when the Fee Beacon did an article on the First Lady and Ann Romney’s wardrobe entitled “The First Lady Has Nice Cloths” perhaps in response to an article in Politico (yes, Politico) Ann Romney’s $990 shirt - worth it?”. One is an actual fashion article while Politico’s is a page out of “Occupy Wall-Street” – Actually, the article should not have been written with a price tag – or if, perhaps where one might find a similar item for less. – Since Politico is now on the same level as say –Harper’s Bazaar.

The same goes for the First Lady, Michelle Obama, who took heat for wearing a beautiful dress to the Olympic Opening Ceremony from the right – A link from the Drudge Report to the An Article at Gateway Pundit, titled She Feels Your Pain – Michelle Obama Sports $6,800 Jacket to London Soiree …Update: Jacket Cost More Than What Average US Family Makes in 1 Month” sums up the problem. A conservative site publishing an article on Michelle Obama, our First Lady, who represents our nation and who looks, in a word, beautiful, doing so, (even to those critics who for political reason, or fashion reasons, disagree), has published what amounts to a “get-even” piece, but ends up sounding more like the Occupy Wall Street – “Let them Eat Cake” mentality – they, above anyone else, should know better, and the commenter's as well, who offer up some lines that are not worth repeating – anywhere. It is difficult reading the aforementioned to figure out if the group is left or left – as the mantra of “Let them Eat Cake” is just a hairsbreadth from being visible.

It does no-one justice – and shows no respect for either woman. They both dress well, have different tastes, and, here is the kicker, both women’s husbands, make enough money to support whatever they choose to wear – look at the tax returns from the White House and the Romney’s for the past two years, and it is evident that these are the people who can afford the clothing coming from Saks, Bendal's, and private designers. Women not in the aforementioneds income bracket may prefer TJ Max or its sister Marshalls, or runway after-sales to pick up items that are current and won’t break the bank. Again, there are two big reasons why the First Lady and Anne Romney, by extension, can and should look their best, even if it means spending $990 on a shirt, or $6800 on a dress – a) they can afford it – get over it, and b) they both look lovely – and should as they represent our country.

That is especially true of First Lady Michelle Obama, who looked elegant in her white capped gown, with pleated skirt as she attended an Olympic Reception. She always portrays herself with the stature and dignity of the “office” of First Lady – an Office that may or may not be welcome to any woman, as it is just an extension of one’s Husbands’ achievements – rather than one’s own – Imagine that? Therefore, to all of the fashion critics, on the left, and stunningly on the right, stop stooping to each others levels and find something less “snarky” to write about. Perhaps the accomplishments of said women would be good for starters and if of a political bent, there would be a reason to agree or disagree. One might agree or disagree about a style of dress – true, but does making that sweater or that dress an icon of the "haves and have not’s" really matter in today’s economy? – These types of articles only serve to diminish the woman, not the man who is the office holder or potential office holder (in this particular case). Granted, your usual suit, tie, and jacket is boring, but why not take it from there?

The only purpose of the articles, both, appears to be “revolutionary” – as if “French revolutionary” in nature, and anyone who has any inkling of the true nature of the French Revolution, should know better.