November 6th – Is A Romney Landslide Possible? – Yes, Campaign Behavior to Press Caution – Opinion and Analysis.

One has to ask, why is Mitt Romney so confident that he will win in states that have been categorically stamped “Democrat”? Those states such as Michigan, Pennsylvania, Colorado, and even New England States have seen an uptick in campaign ads in the last week from the Romney Campaign and supporting PAC’s. What one notices about these ads is the soft tone, the fact that they are continuing to remind those viewers that the economy is not improved, that groceries cost more -and that one individual is somewhat responsible – the end, one has a choice. The press and Democrats consider it to be one of several factors, none of which could possibly lead to a Romney victory. The most obvious one touted is that Romney has money to burn. Frankly, that does not sound like Mitt Romney at all. Romney was not the kind of Governor or businessman who would just throw good money after bad in a whim. This makes the decision to spend on ads in Michigan and Massachusetts (aiming for New Hampshire – but there is that trickledown effect), an odd-on bet that Romney is making investments that are, on paper, sound.

Of course, there are the prediction models, whether one used favorability or one uses the University of Colorado method of economic indicators, Romney is set to win by 330 Electoral College votes. Most national polls continue to see a tight race, and this includes NPR who has Romney leading by 1! Of course, there is history as well, that has a model that screams Romney victory – that is the election of 1980. In that scenario, the polls at the time had both Carter and Reagan tied, up to the eve of the election. What followed the day after left pundits and the press asking “what happened”? There is an article through Google archives that has the Gallup organization giving the explanation. They and other pollsters had used a model for their predictions based on the prior general election. That gave Jimmy Carter an immediate plus 7 in polling based on the numbers of Democrats who had voted in the previous Presidential election. The explanation: there were simply more Republican’s and Republican leaners from 1978 to 1980 than Democrats. That information was not included in the polling.

Fast forward a few decades and what happens? National poling firms are still using the previous election model to determine every single state and national poll – This gives President Obama and immediate 8 point lead. Therefore, the polls are “skewed” or artificially inflated. Internal polling is another story entirely – depending upon the campaign and their resources, the candidates may or may not decide to compete in certain states. There is the reason that Mitt Romney is confident.

Last night, a call came through from the only person in New York City that has power (no cable or no internet) – the request: To find out the equivalent ratio of taxes paid by “millionaires” such as Mitt Romney. The reason, an argument between two individuals, one who had called and a friend who was suggesting that the “millionaires” underpay taxes – which led to a Google search where an article, tucked away in Forbes found that GOP Candidate Mitt Romney paid 30% in taxes. This was based on the fact that Romney paid taxes as a corporation and then as an individual. The author was quite perplexed that Romney was not pointing this out. The Article here at www.forbes.com was sent by text to use in a rebuttal.

The Obama supporter in question who was concerned that Mitt Romney did not pay his fair share, was up in arms due to an email received (during Hurricane Sandy) that suggested the Obama campaign was on its last dime, and that Romney had more money to spend and was going to beat Obama if the recipient did not immediately send cash. Apparently, Romney’s presence in Michigan and Wisconsin and Ohio were proof of this fact. (Understanding that this is hearsay and unsubstantiated due to lack of said email) That said, the import of the aforementioned challenge between two friends, both liberal, one who had turned towards Romney, unwillingly at first, and now as gung-ho as any Midwestern Republican, the other a died in the wool Democrat who is blinded by rhetoric. One might suggest that if there are those in the middle of the most liberal leaning northeast, then there is truly trouble in the Obama Camp.

Does anyone, however, really have a crystal ball on which to predict a win or a loss? No – the models given those who predict based on odds (actual betting odds – overseas online betting) have Obama up in double digits. Those betting on Obama to win may end up making the house a ton of money. The traditional polls, with the exception of Gallup, are calling the race tied. But then there is history, of which said blogger is a buff and one thing that nags, is that history repeats itself in the right time, in the right circumstances. It is what makes the argument for a landslide in November for Mitt Romney completely believable, add to that a few internal polls that maybe pointing in a win direction, and there is good reason why these ad buys are being made.

Therefore, with less than a week before the election, there is no reason to believe the outcome will be other than a Mitt Romney win. It is that simple. This is regardless of the President’s handling of the crisis of Hurricane Sandy – which was remarkable – but one event does not erase an entire four years of policy. It is the enthusiasm that is evident among the Romney Supporters, and that includes generic Republicans, Independent voters, and those Democrats now looking for hard material with which to argue a case for Romney. It is the lack of enthusiasm from those core supporters that is evident, the “why bother to vote”, “let’s not discuss politics, please” and general avoidance that is prevalent, even in Massachusetts, New York and yes, California. That’s why Mitt Romney is confident that he will win, and that is also why the Obama campaign continues to push ridiculous ads, and a need for cash, as they cannot defend even the bluest states. This is not to suggest that New York, California, and Massachusetts won’t be in the Obama column (along with 10 to 13 other states), it is just that the national model does not support either an Electoral College, or popular vote win in the 2012 election.

Interesting articles this morning:

From the Boston Globe Belmont (Boston) makes plans in case Mitt Romney votes in his home district (complete with complaints that in doing so, the mere presence of Romney would cause some voters issues). (The Globe supports Obama)

From the Herald Mitt Set to Win Maybe by a Mile (The Herald endorsed Mitt Romney)

Of interest:

Politico: “One Term Celebrity” (on the NY Times Columnist who is predicting a blow-out for Obama

Sandy Shuts Down Major Blogs: Huffington Post, Gawker and Buzzfeed Servers down – MA – PAC Ads Against Obama Running in Massachusetts?

1980 General Election Map - Blue for Republican - image via screenshot: US Election Atlas. org - see 1984 at bottom of article

The major storm that has shut down much of the east coast has left the majority of Massachusetts unscathed – Western Massachusetts which had been hit hardest last October by a freak snowstorm, saw little power outage. Meanwhile Tech Crunch has reported that a server hosting major blogs: Huffington Post, Buzzfeed and Gawker, have gone down due to a flooded basement in a building where their server is hosted (HT: , James World at Wordpress) In the final week prior to the national election, the anti-Romney “articles” coming out of Huffington Post, specifically ”As Governor, Mitt Romney Was Slow To Respond to Disasters in His State”, with a small summary suggesting that “some of the state’s local politicians” said this was the case. One has to take the Huffington Post, a blog, with a huge grain of salt. During Romney’s tenure as Governor, there was indeed natural disasters, of course, it depends on how one addresses each scenario as it unfolds – Romney preferred readiness and Massachusetts had one of FEMA’s highest ratings for preparedness under Romney’s stewardship of the Commonwealth. That said, with Massachusetts Politician’s being mainly Democrat, one might not have to go far to find one who might “stretch the truth” a bit in order to get a “jab” in for Incumbent President Barack Obama.

Those same politicians’ may have their hands full in this effort. Local and Cable media in Western Massachusetts ran political ads across most networks noting specifically citing the woes of the country and President Obama, while not directly naming Mitt Romney as an alternative, the messages were quite clear. There are two running from one pro-Romney PAC in several New England States, Including Massachusetts according to a Boston Globe article six days agohowever, this blogger, taking a break from the weather channel, flipped over to watch the popular drama, “Revolution” , to find several ads running that, although did not specifically mention Mitt Romney, the message was quite clear there need to be a change in leadership. As of this point, the advertisements (there were two of them, one tax related, one debt related) could not be found in a YouTube search. ) Western Massachustts television stations, may be picked up in New Hampshire, but, it is more likely the Boston affiliates would do a better job of reaching that “swing state”. The point, there may be a majority of Democrat identified politician’s, but the electorate in MA has a 51% plus majority of unenrolleds, often making the Blue State a surprise as far as statewide and national elections are concerned. The buy referred to by the Globe, (one of the few newspapers in the Bay State who endorsed the President over Mitt Romney), may or may not have included that particular ad, but it is doubtful, only because it does not mention Romney as an alternative. Therefore, the 10 electoral votes and the popular vote which are a given to any Democrat, no matter the decade, may be in need of being protected. In 1980 Jimmy Carter was remiss in protecting a state that was “safe democrat”, which Reagan took in both the 1980 and 1984 elections. That may have been an anomaly, however, the mood on the ground see Democrats up to their eyeballs in the Warren Brown race – which is now, according to polls, tied. They are not, in any way, paying attention to the state that rarely sees a visit, let alone television spots for major candidates. With the exception of ads run during the 2008 primary challenge and the 2008 campaign when cash was no object, there are rarely national ads run in the Massachusetts Markets, especially Western Massachusetts, where on might not except to find a conservative.

Those Massachusetts residents watching popular programming and the 11 PM newscast (with the exception of the 200,000 or so residents without power.) were watching thoughtful, non-aggressive, ads that just made one think.

It may have no effect at all, but those unenrolled voters that make up the majority in Massachusetts, might be worth targeting – and someone may just have figured that out.



1984 General Election Map of Massachusetts - image screenshot from USElectionAtlas.org>

The Romney Campaign Prepares for Election Eve in Massachusetts – Worcester Telegram and Gazette Endorses Romney

Presidential Candidate Mitt Romney with Presidential Candidate, Incumbent President Barack Obama - Image New York Times

On Election night November 6, 2012, Presidential Candidate Mitt Romney, former Governor of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts will be in Boston, Massachusetts, waiting for the results which could propel a Massachusetts man into the Presidency. Although some might argue, that Romney is not a “native of Massachusetts”, it goes without saying that Mitt Romney spent a good portion of his life in Boston, from college, to his marriage and early family life, up to his Governorship of the Bay State. The Commonwealth, where a Revolution began that would challenge a mighty world power, and allow for the formation of the nation which became a beacon of hope for the world, has had a history of sending leaders to the White House – from Adams, to Coolidge to John Fitzgerald Kennedy.

What of Massachusetts, the “bluest state”? Will the Commonwealth elect a former Republican Governor, or take the expected and anticipated path of casting its collective vote for the Democrat, in this case incumbent President, Barack Obama? That remains to be seen, although, again, logic dictates that this will be the case. Logic also dictated that this would be the case in 1980 and 1984, however, in both instances, one Republican, Ronald Reagan, turned conventional wisdom upside down, and watched Massachusetts turn “red”. A snapshot of the Commonwealth on a state level would have one believe that there is little to no chance of a Republican prevailing. The State House and Senate are overwhelmingly Democrat as is the Governor’s office, however, that is, in large part, due to the lack of candidates identified as Republican on the ballots. 2010 was an usual year in which there were over 227 Republican’s on state ballots, and more Republican’s won seats in the Legislature than in past elections, yet the number did not make a significant dent, as it did elsewhere in the nation. Those running for National Congressional seats on the GOP ticket were also denied, but, and here is the big but, not at the margins that were forecast by those pundits who appear to know the state. Those wins by incumbent Democrats were not at the 75% projected, but at margins much tighter – 2% to 11%. Understanding that a loss is still a loss, this was an indication of the angst, just two years ago, of a growing percentage of the electorate here in Massachusetts.

There are three concentrations of population in the Commonwealth – The eastern portion of the state, with Boston, and the north and south shores, holding the largest portion of the population in that sector, followed by Worcester County, and then Western Massachusetts west to the New York Border. If one looks at the polling to date, geographical, the pollsters have been targeting the Western Massachusetts area, the area of the state that has the lowest population, and the most Democrat leaning population – one poll giving that section of the state 40 plus percent of the total poll, and Worcester County a mere 15%. It is therefore, difficult to take the polls coming out of Massachusetts much credence, with the exception of the last PPO poll with the President at 14% (most show a 30% advantage), which, was over-weighted with Democrats, at 43% (the actual, according to the Secretary of State’s office, at 34%),noted that Romney had gained momentum, and is resonating with Independents – (which make up 51% of the States electorate) – this brings Massachusetts, into what one might call a state that elected then Candidate Romney to the Governor’s office, moving to the right. It may, in this opinion, based on what is clearly flawed polling data, may be a closer race than prevailing logic dictates.

Although in today’s media consumption, the endorsements by newspapers may not appear to be all that influential with younger consumers or consumers in general, as the competition from new media, see’s those who don’t agree with the style of editorialized news from traditional media, shopping elsewhere for news that is not “slanted” one way or the other (an impossible task.) – However, those that continue to read, or listen/watch these types of media, might be surprised at the Worcester Telegram Gazette, who heartily but with, what appears to be much thought, endorsed Mitt Romney for President.

The headline “Romney for president” with a subtitle “The experience and leadership America needs” released in the Sunday paper, reads as follows:

Four years ago, Americans placed the nation’s highest office in the hands of a largely untested senator from Illinois, granting him both the awesome responsibilities and the tremendous opportunities that come with the presidency of these United States. There can be no doubt that the economic challenges faced by this nation and the world during the recent recession were more severe than many realized. But the prescriptions offered over the last four years — on both the domestic and foreign fronts — have fallen disappointingly short of what is needed to restore America’s economy at home and rebuild our standing overseas.

The decision to turn an incumbent president out of office is never one to be undertaken lightly by voters. But good intentions, repeated promises and lofty rhetoric are no substitute for sound economics and a foreign policy grounded in realism and strength. It is time once again for change in Washington, and we strongly believe that Mitt Romney offers the right combination of experience, vision, leadership and moral grounding to reinvigorate the nation’s economy, bring a measure of control to the ocean of debt threatening to engulf us, and lay out a foreign policy that has the clarity and force needed to deter aggression while promoting international stability.

In sharp contrast to his opponent, Mr. Romney’s bid for the presidency carries the weight of a lifetime of repeated and proven success in business, as a management consultant, cofounder of the successful Bain Capital equity investment firm, and head of the 2002 Salt Lake City Olympics.

As governor of Massachusetts, Mr. Romney balanced the state budget through a combination of closing tax loopholes, raising fees and cutting state spending. Critics are right when they charge that some of his actions as governor shifted the financial burden onto cities and towns, but the fact remains that Mr. Romney was willing and able to use his political capital to make hard choices in a state dominated by Democrats. Similarly difficult choices will face whoever occupies the White House next. We believe Mr. Romney is far more likely to make those choices.

President Barack Obama has had ample time to transform the “hope and change” of the 2008 campaign into positive results. The results have been deeply disappointing, and the tenor of his re-election campaign gives us no cause to hope a second term would offer anything better.

Many Republican and independent voters concur that former President George W. Bush made a series of costly blunders in his second term, spending far too much and doing too little to curb the excesses in the banking and housing industries that contributed so much to a deep recession.

But Americans are weary of hearing this president blame his predecessor. The trillions spent in bailouts, stimulus plans and subsidies have served mainly to deepen our debts. Meanwhile, the nation’s unemployment rate, while finally below what it was when Mr. Obama took office, understates the weakness of the job market. Fewer Americans are working, and too many have settled for part-time jobs or lower wages.

On energy, Mr. Obama’s anti-growth policies have sought cover behind increased private-sector production.

By contrast, Mr. Romney, while retaining federal investments and regulations, would place private-sector capitalism ahead of a government-first approach.

On tax policy, the president has waged a relentless campaign against wealthy Americans — one that will punish small businesses and the middle class.

But Mr. Romney understands that the path to higher revenues lies not in choking our key economic engines, but in expanding opportunity for all.

And no issue better illustrates the contrasts between Mr. Obama and Mr. Romney than health care.

Unlike Mr. Romney, who brought universal health care to Massachusetts by working with the other party, Mr. Obama spent a year to win razor-thin passage of a divisive law that has spawned fights over expensive mandates, new taxes and infringement of religious liberties.

Even on foreign policy, Mr. Obama has turned positives — an early appeal for understanding with the Muslim world, and the killing of Osama bin Laden — into negatives, with a policy unraveling through artificial deadlines in Afghanistan, dangerous naivete with regard to Iran, and a failure to protect American lives in Libya.

The decision before voters on Nov. 6 is critical and clear. Mitt Romney has earned the opportunity to lead America for the next four years.

One must understand, that Worcester County is, by far, the most “conservative” of the Bay State sectors, yet, the endorsement by a major Massachusetts paper is non-the-less stunning. The Globe had endorsed President Obama, and the Herald, Mitt Romney. The Springfield Republican’s endorsement is, at this time unknown. In 2008, Western Massachusetts’ largest newspaper endorsed then candidate, John McCain at the last moment. This gives an overview of political differences in the press, let alone within the general electorate.

One might conclude therefore, that the state is not necessarily as blue as one might think (not to mention one Senator Scott Brown, seen by the national press as an anomaly, but in the Bay State, regardless of the over-hyped and downright nasty 2012 contest between Brown and Democrat Elizabeth Warren and similar polls to the national polls above), and it may, in the end, and once again, surprise a nation and a candidate for the Presidency.