The Final Hours of the 2012 Election – The Polls: Too Close to Call, the Reminder to be Kind to One’s Neighbor regardless of the Outcome.

The American Presidents, a long history of who, we, as a nation, have hired, and fired in some cases, admired and despised, right or wrong, left or right, (or down the middle)both those long dead and those living remind American's what a great nation we are lucky enough in which to reside - image memorycrammer.com

This morning as most on the Eastern Seaboard of the United States prepare to go to the polls, it is not without a bit of excitement that, we, as American’s get to enjoy the opportunity to cast our vote for the next President of the United States. Although one might support one vision of American over another, or the popularity of a candidate, or maintain a blind allegiance to political party, it is our privilege to go to the polls and cast a vote for the individual who we, as a people, will hire to do the job as the Chief Executive Officer of these United States. It is a job that most of the nation would not want, despite the lofty title, and the aura of some sort of royalty (a cast off from our Colonial days), and that desire to serve, regardless of party, should be admired no matter if one is an also ran in the various primary contest, or the winner or loser of today’s election. Those who run put their lives and fortunes ahead of everything, for the love of the country, for the love of a vision that the individual firmly believes is the best course for the nation, or the world.

Those who support one candidate over another may become so heavily vested, emotionally in the person as well as the ideology that they may become a bit saddened or depressed should the outcome not be as they had hoped.

Therefore, with less than an hour before the polls open in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, it is with a bit of concern for those neighbors, both here and in other states that have fought so hard, on both sides, that one is compelled to ask everyone to be kind to those who may support either candidate. One will win, one will not and despite the aura of partisanship that pervades every nook and cranny of this nation, we all must try a bit of compassion rather than derision once that outcome is known. From personal experience, it has gone either way over the course of voting for President’s in elections since 1976. Some of those for whom I voted, did disappoint once elected, some of those whom I feared were grossly incompetent, pleasantly surprised me, and there were those who had little or no effect – the “safe” Presidents, who ran the nation seamlessly, working closely with a united or divided Congress. It is no secret, if one has read my various rants and essays, that I support Mitt Romney this year. It is also no secret that I believe the election will be a repeat of the 1980 election, with a few less states going to Mitt Romney than Ronald Reagan (the one who I feared, more than the one who disappointed, making a selection of a third party imperative in 1980, and a vote for Reagan a necessity in 1984). In all honesty, however, as strongly as I personally feel this is certain (given the polling, and the obvious similarities between 1980 and 2012 in both polling as well as the beliefs of the candidates), there has to be room for error and a realization that should the analysis be correct, there will be many family and friends who, for whatever reasons, are emotionally vested in the reelection of President Obama. Those family and friends will, if the scarier of the predictions prevail, need consoling, not derision, should the President not gain reelection.

What if the results are not the same as I anticipate? Then it will be another day, like any other day and in four years, there will be the opportunity for another campaign and candidates from which to choose. I don’t for a moment agree with the President’s positions on just about anything, and that is my right and prerogative, however, as of today, he is my President, regardless of whom I support. It was with pride that I wrote the day after the 2008 election about how far we, as a nation had come, and it was with great hope that I wrote about the possibility that perhaps, just perhaps, this President would not disappoint. However, history does repeat itself, and for some reason, the specter of James Carter, the man whom I voted for with relish in 1976, a man with little experience , turned our nation into a fiscal disaster, our foreign policy into a nightmare, bailing out auto industries, wasting billions on jobs bills, which produced more government and fewer taxpayers, ad naseum. It was with a bit of shock that I watched as this President followed so closely the path taken by Carter, it began to appear as if one could predict the next move and the outcome.

Mitt Romney on the other hand, did nothing but irritate me as the Governor or the State, that’s the independent anti-tax, side of the coin. He did institute fees, and those fees nagged – but, when the picture emerged, and as I employed “Google new Archives” a different Romney than one I had thought, emerged. He ran the Commonwealth with an eye towards a business, and not with compassion for those who needed a hand up. He improved our schools, balanced our budget and wanted those unable to afford health care, an opportunity. He mostly drove those on the right – crazy and those in the middle were quite happy, while those on the left, well, nothing he did that would have qualified him as “liberal leaning” would satisfy those who are political activists.

Therefore, when the Gallup polling by state showed a job approval map that indicated the President was not doing his best in 40 of the 50 states, for three consecutive years, it was the time to take a hard look at those who, on the Republican ticket, would be his eventual replacement. Mitt Romney prevailed over a blistering primary, and he rightly won the nomination of his party.

I find it interesting that he is home, here in Massachusetts; casting his vote in the state he has called home a variety of times during his life, but also a state that may not cast their vote to elect him as the next President. It is however, the site of the Boston Tea Party, Bunker Hill and Concord, all of historical significance. Although I had hoped that Massachusetts would deliver for the former Governor (and contend that the race here is actually a lot closer than one might image in)there, will, in all likelihood, (with the rampant dead voting, etc.) go to Obama, but by what margin? It is also one of the 10 states that Obama was project to win without a poll taken – “Safe Democrat” is the automatic label.

It is not discouraging, as I go to the polls and proudly cast my vote, in a state where one might think it is not worth voting when one is not a Democrat, there is the hope of the People’s Seat that continues to pervade and the fact that less than two years ago, MA stood up and rejected what was not truly history, but a political machine, and elected Scott Brown to the Senate. Therefore, I’m on the fence, but more confident in the states that do matter, in any combination, it hardly matters. It will be a long night of watching the polls, and should the east coast fall as projected, the rest of the nation will roll with it, and there will be a President from the Bay State tomorrow morning. The states: WV, VA, NC, SC, GA, Florida – will tell the tale of how the election will pan out. And that will be the writing on the wall. I have discounted the northeast, and Pennsylvania as those are considered “safe” and should Pennsylvania endorse Romney, it will, at that point indicate a landslide, if not, merely a win.

When this is over, and the final votes tallied, win or lose, it should not be taken personally, it gives either side an opportunity to take a break, celebrate or be disappointed, and then carry on as American’s are wont to do.

Breaking –Election 2012 – Attorney’s from MA and NY to Monitor Polls – in the Bay State.

Former Massachusetts Governor, Mitt Romney campaigning in PA, image US News & World Report online

The world has turned upside down – for some reason attorney’s will be monitoring the general election in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, according to Mass. Lawyers Weekly. A Boston Attorney, Vincent DeVito, noted that “lawyers from New York will be on loan to help with the Massachusetts Republican Party’s poll-watching efforts on Nov. 6.”, and shockingly: “This year Massachusetts is a battleground state.” (Mass. Lawyers Weekly)

Of course, common perception is that Massachusetts is a completely Democrat state, however, the truth is – not so much. With over 50% of the electorate registered as “unenrolled”, and up until recently an extremely anemic Republican Party with few, if any contested races prior to 2010, there was little choice each election – resulting in votes for myriad cartoon characters.

That said, with the Romney PAC running ads in Massachusetts to reach New Hampshire, and the fact that New York City is a disaster area comparable to Katrina, with people diving into dumpsters to find food, electrical crews turned away from volunteering because they were non-union coupled with the unemployment rate in Massachusetts climbing for the third straight month and most importantly, Scott Brown’s race with Obama appointee and part-time Harvard Professor, Elizabeth Warren, the impetus will be a drive to the right by Independents.

Again, to emphasize, Massachusetts voters voter roles have again seen an increase in Independent (unenrolled voters) as of February 2012(Boston.com) and Masslive, the website for the Springfield Republican, noted this morning that “Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney is growing more popular in Massachusetts, particularly among independent voters.” This is based on poll findings by Western New England College/Masslive, which saw an increase for Romney in the Bay State: The pollster had Obama leading by 30 points, that lead is now at an incredible 18 points. This poll was conducted similar to the polls in the 2009 special election which gave then candidate Martha Coakley a 15 point lead over then candidate Scott Brown. (In that case, Democrats were counted as equal to the number of unenrolleds, and Republicans’ were over counted by 2 points, in addition, geography counts, Worcester County the second most populated area of the state, was counted at lower percentage than Western Massachusetts. Of note: Conservative leaning independents in the Worcester area are far more prevalent than the less populated, Western Mass area.)

In other words, the poll is suspect. A private polling firm released a poll on a Massachusetts District race in one of the most Democrat areas of the Commonwealth. In that poll, before the debates, Romney was tied with Obama. Granted that was a Congressional District Poll, but, again, in an area that actually leans Democrat. Therefore, with the Dead Voting, trolling for votes in Alzheimer’s wards, and other hi-jinks by the Democrat Party in MA, one might think that Attorney’s coming in to watch the polls is prudent at this stage. It is also known that the media is interested in what appears to be a “hotly contested race” for the Senate between Brown and Warren, so eyes will be on Mass.

The last time Massachusetts voted for a Republican Presidential Candidate: 1984 (also 1980) – for President Ronald Reagan.

The state’s “Independent Streak” which was responsible for the Reagan win, has broadened in scope since the 1980’s with the largest percentage growth of the electorate – as unenrolled. Therefore, if Romney is appealing to the Independents, it is quite plausible that Poll watchers may be necessary, and that Massachusetts with its 10 Electoral College votes, might bear watching. It is more likely, all polls now stand as “Safe Democrat” and the state was automatically put into the President’s column. It was also a given for James Carter.

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

The 2012 Final Presidential Debate – Obama Alert Aggressive – Romney Calm, Collected, Commanding – A Mix of Strategy Like no Other.

Mitt Rommney and Barack Obama, the final debate - image marketwatch

In watching the last of the 2012 Presidential Debates last evening – one might have thought, by the hype given to the final debate that it would move mountains for one candidate or another – there were no pivotal movements for either candidate. The President appeared to be the Hawk in this final debate, while Governor Mitt Romney appeared to be the man of peace, no t only through strength but through diplomacy. Although those who were looking for a smack down, drag-out final debate might have been disappointed, and it certainly appeared as those Obama was spoiling for a fight, Romney’s entire demeanor was one of steady hand, refusing to be drawn into a brawl, giving President Obama his due for what he had accomplished overall, and offering a slightly different version of what he might have done differently in some instances. Of particular interest was the difference in Romney approach to the turbulent Middle east and the education against radical Islam, while his view of the import of Pakistan, a country President Obama, in the 2008 debates, declared must be confronted, almost dismissively, was, perhaps, the approach that appealed the most; working with the former ally, but with conditional aid. In fact, Governor Romney is a stickler for conditional aid – one must do something to earn the aid, to ensure progress is being made – a carrot with a stick of one will, with an advantage for both the nation which is availing itself of aid from the U.S., and the U.S. taxpayer who’s faced with sending billions of dollars to foreign countries with little to show but continued strife and waste. Although one might be a partisan, either one way or another, it was clear the Romney was comfortable in the role as Commander in Chief, as well as in tackling the economy – the number one issue on most American’s minds. The debate, and both men’s performances, suggest it will do little to help the President at this stage of the game, and made Romney slightly more likeable in general and capable of handling the job.

The CNN-ORC Poll offered the President an 8 point win over Governor Romney, a smaller margin of victory than produced by the second, new more aggressive Obama seen in the second debate. On a whole the debate appeared a draw, giving Romney the same advantage when it came to trust in the position of Commander in Chief. The poll also suggests that it was weighed more towards Republicans than most polls, giving the Democrats 34 % to Republican’s 30%, or a poll, in truth more in line with voter registration than those polls taken over the course of this contest, which uses the 2008 electoral model – weighted 8 points more for Democrats, who came saw an increase in voter identification in 2008. This particular model also leaves one the impression that the race is extremely tight, as pundits suggest that the polls are tied nationally.

What was of interest was the CNN electoral college map, which gives Obama a hefty lead over Mitt Romney, again based on the prior election. One might want to take a closer look at the Real Clear Politics Model, a model that offers a combination of all polls taken, weighted as well, which now gives Mitt Romney the edge. To add to the confusion of those watching the polls, Gallup Polling, the most prestigious polling firm, (calling 18 of the last elections within the margin of error), has Romney with the edge at last count by 51 to 45 among likely voters. Although one might consider this a “close contest”, it may be worth noting that those pollsters, coming into the final two weeks, and using the 8 percentage point weight, will see the race as a draw, right to the end. Additionally to suggest that one state will make the difference in this contest, such as Ohio, one might want to consider that in times of deep economic upheaval, the challenger has won with slightly more of an advantage than the incumbent, confounding all traditional pollsters who had used a previous election model, including Gallup.

Best line in the debate goes to moderator Bob Schieffer who invoked his mother: “Go vote, it will make you feel big and strong”.

Gallup Polling – Romney 51 – Obama 45 – Likely Voters - MSNBC Post Debate Focus Group – Romney Appears to Have Edge - Analysis

Mitt Romney - Polling and Focus Groups indicate likely win in November -image Flagler.edu

Gallup Polling’s most recent ‘likely voter’ pollhas former Massachusetts Governor, Mitt Romney leading President Obama by a margin of 51 to 45 as of October 16th The polling firm has used a model of likely voters, and includes those undecided voters that “lean” towards one candidate or the other. In reviewing Gallup’s final poll numbers versus the actual election results, (full history here at www.gallup.com), the pollster has been within the margin of error (under 4 points in predicting the winner) in sixteen of the last 19 U.S. Presidential elections.

From this perspective, there are few, if any, undecided voters left at this point, those who are now tuning in, are most likely voting party line and unlikely to be swayed either way. The number one issue remains, across all demographics, the economy and job creation, and it appears that Romney absolutely has the go head in that arena. MSNBC, not considered a right or moderate cable channel, hosted a focus group after the debate this week – the video appears below. The Focus group consisted of undecided voters – most of whom appear to be leaning towards or have decided upon Romney after this second debate, one undecided wanted to look at the final debate before drawing any conclusions. The size of the focus group appeared to be somewhat smaller than the Frank Luntz pollster group. Participants in the Luntz Group trended towards Romney. The fact that focus groups from both the left of media and the right of media appear to be leaning Romney coincides with Gallup’s findings, as well as the findings at the University of Colorado which has predicted Romney will win 330 of the electoral college votes, and now predicts there is a 77% change Romney will also win the popular vote. The analysis, using economic models, has accurately predicted the outcome of each race since the election of 1980.

The final debate on foreign policy will be held on October 22nd and available on all networks, cable and national affiliates, One might anticipate that the nod would go to the President, whose foreign policy has not exactly been stellar, yet, is being promoted as a plus over Governor Romney, due to the virtue of being in the Office. Romney, however, despite the media, has a sound and reasonable take on foreign policy and one would anticipate this area will give Romney the opportunity to at the least, tie the President (as in the second debate) or best him in light of the situation in the Middle East and elsewhere (especially Syria at this point).

With polling indicating a 4 point or better lead in Gallup and including the Colorado Study (among others such as Pew) at this late date, it may be impossible, if not improbable that the President will be able to overcome this deficit.

MSNBC Focus Group

Frank Luntz Focus Group Video Clip – Full Story with videos in two parts at www.realclearpolitics.com

2012 Presidential Debate – A Draw – Neither Candidate Moved the Bar - Both smacked down by Candy Crowley – Romney Points on Leadership – Obama More Aggressive

Mitt Romney Looked Directly at the President when making a point, however, the President appeared not to make direct eye contact with Romney at any point during the debate - see video below - Image the Las Vegas Sun

The second of three debates as held last night at Hofstra University in Long Island, Candy Crowley of CNN was the moderator - A poll, by CNN/ORC gave President Obama the nod by a margin of 46 to 39, among registered voters. Obama received points for being more aggressive, and a 7 point advantage on being more likable, while Romney held an 18 point advantage on the economy, “Other questions showed little daylight between the two candidates among debate watchers on some key characteristics. Romney had a 49%-46% edge on which candidate seemed to be the stronger leader and 45%-43% margin on who answered questions more directly, while Obama had a 44%-40% advantage on which man seemed to care more about the audience members who asked questions.”. The poll included 33% Democrat and 33% Republican, assuming that the balance were Independent voters, as that is not addressed in the CNN article. Of note, most post debate polls appear within ten minutes from the end of the debate, this particular poll took over a half hour to produce, giving one the impression that the pollster was hard pressed to find registered voters who were watching the debate.

Romney for his part, when answering a question and dishing up a pointed barb towards President Obama, consistently addressed the President directly – while the Obama, when taking shots at Mitt Romney, did not. Romney appeared more direct, and Presidential. There were several moments when Obama appealed directly to the moderator for help – while attempting to interrupt Mitt Romney, which may have gone Romney getting points for leadership. Additionally, Romney gave President Obama deference while he was speaking, waiting until he has completed his thoughts before attempting to rebut. That said, the style of the debate, gave no time for rebuttal, and Romney had plenty of items on the table to refute. The President, on his part, was more aggressive, and also played fast and loose with the truth. Romney’s alleged miss-speak was in noting that the President did not address the Libyan Embassy attack immediately, rather he was off campaigning. In fact, the President did, after speaking at length in the rose garden about the video, mention that acts of terror would not go unanswered. The manner in which the President vaguely mentioned terror would give Romney, as well as anyone watching transcripts of the Press Briefing, a bit of a pause. Candy Crowley, for her part, did as best she could to moderate, but appeared more deferential to the President. Crowley, but that may have been due to his consistent interruptions, and speaking over Crowley and appealing to her directly.

Regarding the Press Conference on September 12th, 2012, a video directly below from ABC News, the President spoke at length about the embassy staff, about working with the Libyan government to track down the “killers” of the embassy staff. This was followed by a statement on September 11th, and then that there was an attack in Libya, At the 6 minute mark, the President speaks about making sure that justice would be done, again referring to the “attackers”. The ABC clip below of the entire conference does not appear to show the President addressing the situation in Libya as a terrorist attack, rather that there were “attackers”. Apparently, Romney watched this version of the Press Conference.

ABC Video Press Conference Immediatly Following Embassy Attack



As to addressing women’s issues, again the President played fast and loose with the facts as they pertain to Governor Romany, and his own work for women. The Lilly Ledbetter Act does nothing to address enforcing the law enacted in 1963 by President John Kennedy, known as the Equal Pay Act. The problem with the Equal Pay Act is that it is ignored and more so by those employed in the government than in the private sector. Romney did indeed include more women in his administration than any other Governor had, nationwide. In addition, many of those in Romney’s cabinet were also Democrats. The fact that Romney worked tirelessly to balance a budget while facing down a state government that is 86% Democrat, was not noted. He also raised no taxes in four years, and although this Bay Stater may have resented fees put in place under Romney’s governance, the fact of the matter is that he accomplished everything and then some for Massachusetts, and never took a dime of salary.

When the President refers to Romney being against Contraceptives for women, he’s misleading, as Romney was against the Obama Administrations force of government over the Catholic Church, demanding that they not only supply contraceptives, but abortion as well to their staff. One might, if one reads the constitution, find that the President overstepped. The Catholic Church has brought suit against the Federal government.

Romney has a record upon which to stand in Massachustts as Governor, which lends to his overall leadership qualities, as opposed to the President, who appeared to forget that he had a majority rule for the first two years of hid administration, which led to the 2010 rejection of policies and historical leads by Republicans in the Congress. In that time, the President could have addressed Immigration, and a host of issues, but he did not.

If one were scoring the debate on opening, closing and point on point questions and answers, Romney would take the debate hands down, it is called a tie by this blog, merely because the President was, as indicated by all news outlets, at the least more awake and at the most, more aggressive. However, it comes down to a matter of trust as to who is best equipped to represent the United States. That goes to Romney, as he is forthright, direct and confident. He did not stumble when addressing audience members by name, ensuring that he was correctly pronouncing their names as he address individuals. What was evident was that Romney was irritated with the President, who on the flip side, appeared angry whenever Romney made a point that was irrefutable.

What will tell the tale in the end will be the release of final viewership for this second of three debates. The first debate drew one of the largest audiences, surpassing the 2008 debates, while the VP debate drew half the audience as the 2008 debate. The fact that CNN lagged in finding viewers to poll, also suggests people were not tuning in, perhaps watching TLC or another cable network, rather than the Debate. One might find that viewership for the second debate has declined. Those numbers will be out between today and Friday. It is also follows that most of the debate watchers both Republican and Democrat along with the Independents have already made their decisions as for to whom they will cast their vote. This may also be the reason that the Democrats appear to be in a bit of a panic and required a more “aggressive’ but not necessarily strong performance by the DNC party head, President Obama. Unfortunately he came across, once again, on screen, as arrogant and slightly petulant, especially is asking the moderator for “help”.

It was a contentious debate, which made it more interesting for those heavily vested in the political arena, however, for those who were not, one suspects the channel was changed after the first two series of questions. Neither candidate, from this point of view, performed up to par, Romney, true to character, deferred to both the Moderator as well as the President and let many a false charge go unanswered, perhaps being the more diplomatic of the two, and appeared to have to constrain himself from being overly aggressive at times.

The President’s performance can best be summed up by a quote from the Vice Presidential Debate: Joe Biden: “Who do you trust?”, from this point of view, although answering the questions at length, and aggressively, sometimes stumbling over his words, the President appeared to be trying to sell the audience a bill of goods.

Best Quote: Obama “When I was President”

The debate in its entirety courtesy of the New York Times

2012 Presidential Debate – Part 2 – Bar Set High for President Obama – Both Campaigns Challenge Moderator Role – The Close Election? – Maybe-Maybe Not

Mitt Romney on the Campaign Trail - image Washington Post
The second of three Presidential debates will be held tomorrow night, and the expectations for a rebound by Incumbent President, Barack Obama, are high. The media suggests that the President must appear more energized than he did in the debate in Denver, especially after the performance of Joe Biden in the Vice-Presidential Debate, which by reasonable standards, was a draw, giving the base of the Democrat party some enthusiasm, while V.P. GOP Candidate Paul Ryan tended to appeal more to the independent voter. The Hill is reporting that both GOP and Democrat “insiders” anticipate the President will do “better” in the second debate: “But Washington insiders of all ideological stripes concur that Obama is too competitive a man and too gifted a politician to slip up so dramatically for a second time, when the candidates go under the spotlight at Hofstra University in Hempstead, N.Y., on Tuesday.” That may be true, however, Romney has the recent experience of participating in a long series of GOP debates held over the summer, so many that viewers were beginning to develop “debate fatigue”. In retrospect and reviewing the debate tapes, the protracted primary debates strengthened Romney in any format and arena. The onus, therefore, is on the President to out-Romney Mitt Romney, and that is a high bar, indeed. Romney, over a period of campaigns, has honed his town hall –style debate, the question of Romney’s ability to connect in a Town Hall Style debate was asked and answered by Scott Conroy of Real Clear Politics>: The style poses a challenge for Romney, but: “But over the years he appears to have improved his ability to connect with voters on a personal level. For one thing, Romney is no stranger to question-and-answer sessions, having handled thousands of inquiries from mostly partisan voters in his four political campaigns over almost two decades. In fact, aides to Obama say the town-hall format is strength for their Republican opponent because of this experience.

During his 2008 presidential run, for example, so-called “Ask Mitt Anything” events were a staple of his time on the stump; some days he would often hold four or five such town-hall meetings. And during his 2012 primary campaign, particularly in the nation’s first voting state of New Hampshire, Romney did more of the same.”

One might suggest that the expectations are so high, that should the President appear more confident, it will indeed help his base support – given the fact that in the V.P. debate, one member of a focus group (CNN), gave the win to Biden because he did “better than Obama” in the Denver debate.

One may also suggest, that if the viewership is low for the second Presidential debate, those 80 individuals chosen to participate in the town-hall style debate, that are “undecided” (Selected by Gallup polling for this debate) may be a rarity as to the individuals who have or have not yet made up their minds as to for whom they are voting. The moderator, Candy Crowley of CNN, has even drawn a bit of pre-debate criticism for suggesting she might ask follow-up questions during the debate – Time Magazine discucsse the fact that both the Obama and Romney campaign attorney’s have concerns that the debate format calls for little to no questions from the moderator deviating from those posed by the participants. However, one would hope that Crowley would stick to her guns and, should a question require a follow-up, she might open the floor for a little more debate on any given subject by asking a question or two of the candidates that are relevant to the original questions asked. The format will be similar to the one held between then Candidate George W. Bush and Democrat Candidate, Al Gore in 2000. The format gives both candidates the ability to speak directly to the audience, and answer the questions posed by individuals. This is where, from viewing the previous debate clips that Romney does indeed, excel, while the President in the last round of debates in 2008, appeared at times to ramble.

Although the media is now calling this debate a “draw”, which along partisan lines, it very well may be, there should arise a clear winner – however, it will depend a great deal on not only the ability to “connect” with the audience, but the ability to clearly state and answer the question at hand. To call this debate a draw before it happens, as did the Boston Herald, albeit, in a sarcastic way (given the support for Romney by the author, Holly Robichaud), the fact of the matter is, even if Mitt Romney “clean’s his clock” as suggested, the media will, most likely, if Obama appears more confident, call it a tie.

The Washington Post is billing the Presidential Contest as “tight”, given their most recent poll which gives the President two points over Romney, or a statistical dead heat. That said, Real Clear Politics, and has painted a picture, using a combination of all polls taken, state by state, whereby Romney appears to be in the driver’s seat for the most part. They offer an electoral college map that gives an overview of states that, at this present time, are either solid, leaning, likely or tied (by the combined polls), and selects a state for either Romney or President Obama, depending on the outcome of the polls used. At the present time, the scenario appears to be that the President has a lock on ten states, (those are automatically given the candidate due to the percentage lead in polling being “out of reach” for the other candidate).

The likely and leaning states are then included in the total, and the balance are listed as “undecided” – as of today, the polls show the President with 201 electoral votes, and Mitt Romney with 191, and 146 are “toss-ups”. That said, when one looks at the polling data, in say Massachusetts, which is a given for the President, the polls used in the survey : here, show Obama with an average of 20plus point lead. The last poll on the boards was done by Public Policy Polling, taken October 10 and 11th, whereby the President has a 14 point advantage in the Bay State. This advantage is discussed by the pollster here where it is suggested that the President’s support had eroded in MA, Romney’s likability was up:

In the Presidential race Barack Obama's seeing the same kind of decline in Massachusetts that he is nationally. He leads Mitt Romney by 14 points, 55-41. That's down from an 18 point lead last month, and it's the smallest advantage we've found for him in the state all year. The big shift over the last month in Massachusetts has been among independent voters. They now support Romney 53-40, after giving Obama a 47-44 edge last month.

In further reading the poll marginals, one finds that the pollster used a sample of 41% Democrat, 16% Republican and 43% Unenrolled or Independent. The actual makeup of the electoral in MA as of 2010 (and before) Unenrolleds, 52%, Republican’s 12% and Democrats, 33% (others listed Green, Libertarian, etc., make up the balance). Therefore, without the proper sample based on the actual electorate, one might be hard-pressed to mathematically agree that the above poll simply adds up. For example there is an 8 point difference between the actual Democrats registered to vote and those taking the poll, there is 4 point plus for Republicans, and there is a 9 point deficit for “Independents” – therefore, if one were to take that 14 point lead, minus 8 points for oversampling Democrats – brings that to a plus 6 for Obama, plus 4 for over sample of Republicans, gives Obama a plus 10, and then minus 7 points (giving 2 points to Obama due to the % of Independents suggesting they are supporting the President in Massachusetts, which brings the final closer to an Obama plus 3, or a tie in the Bay State. Understanding that no poll is perfect, the fact that most of the polls in the Real Clear Politics combined methodology used a 2008 voter model, and/or are not closely aligned with the makeup of the states electorate to boot, then one might suggest the President has an inflated advantage in the polls.

Finally, one might also suggest if this is the case, then the electoral map may end up being a lot more red, than blue, with the exaction of 10 or so states (if that). Therefore, with the polls taken, the undecided’s, more likely at a lower percentage than 8 points, one might suggest there is little or nothing, this far into the game, to suggest the debate will count one way or another, regardless of expectations. Of course, no one has a crystal ball as to what will actually occur on election day in November.

Biden-Ryan 2012 Debate – A Draw for the Bases– CNN Poll – Ryan 48% to Biden 44% - What of the Independents? Polling Continues in MA for Obama.

V.P. Joe Biden and V.P. Candidate, Paul Ryan - Ryan Wins Over Independents - image: Salon.com

The 2012 Vice Presidential Debate held last night in Danville, Kentucky between Vice President, Joe Biden and GOP Vice-Presidential Candidate, Congressman Paul Ryan has been considered a draw by the U.S. media. A CNN/ORC poll taken immediately following the debate indicated the following:

Ryan won the debate by 48% to 44% - with the margin of error at 5% (normally 4%) indicates a tie

50% suggested the debate made no difference in their vote for the top of the ticket, 28% said the debate made them more likely to vote for Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney and 21% said the faceoff made them more likely to vote to re-elect President Barack Obama.

By a 50%-41% margin, debate watchers say that Ryan rather than Biden better expressed himself.

(CNN)

The polling sample used was smaller than average at under 400 surveyed, and CNN indicated that CBS polling gave Biden by a large margin, however, one might suggest it depended a great deal on the make-up of the viewership, and how each individual saw the exchange. From this perspective, Biden came across as more aggressive in answering questions, and, as one CNN Focus Group participant suggested (paraphrasing) following the debate, “he did better than Obama in the last debate” (which gave him the win for that man). On the flip side, Ryan came across as confident on the one hand, while being respectful of the office of the V.P. when Biden repeatedly interrupted Ryan, and allowed Biden to get away with a lot more than time, most likely allowed for Ryan to rebut. In total, it appeared to be a draw for both, a draw whereby the base on either side of the aisle would feel that their candidate won. That said, it was the independents who should have been the focus and that has not been discussed at any great length. Those watching CNN (chosen over other networks as it is not perceived to be either left or right, as in the case of MSNBC or FOX and for political junkies, has all the bells and whistles) were able to watch a focus group react to the debate in real-time. This focus group was made up of independents, using the usual dial approach, made up of male and female respondents. (The aforementioned is one of the bells and whistles.) Overall, the line was up over the bar whenever Vice President Biden spoke about appealing to the “middle-class”, however, as soon as he turned to campaign mode, it plunged, while Ryan enjoyed a steady stream of positive to flat when explaining issues, and had more ups than downs than his opponent. What was most interesting was that the females appeared to respond more positively to Ryan than to Biden.

It is the practice of rating on performance and points, and for that Ryan gets the nod for the win overall. He was not overly aggressive with Biden, nor the moderator, while Biden clearly was agitated and bombastic when asked questions that made him obviously uncomfortable, specifically the issue with the Libyan embassy attack. He answered the questions posed as clearly as possible, with the exception of one, and that was the challenge by the moderator to both men that they tell the voting public what each would personally bring to the office. Biden used the time to attack the Romney Campaign and Ryan defended Romney as well as reiterated the campaign messaging. Although neither candidate gave a direct answer, Ryan may have been able to define his relationship to those in his district and suggest that his bi-partisanship and record proved him the better V.P. That said, it is easy for anyone, the pundit or the opinionated, to “Monday-morning quarterback”. What to take away, Ryan won on points in the debate arena, not on “feelings”. Although others, (a conservative, a Democrat-liberal-turned independent and a staunch, right-leaning Republican) – all felt otherwise and gave the nod to Ryan overall. Granted that is an extremely small sample, but it does indicate that four people watching the same debate on different networks come away with a different point of view. Given the CNN after poll and the CNN real time independent polling, one would think that Ryan gave a bonus to the Mitt Romney team by appealing to more Independent voters than Biden. The polls taken over this weekend, however, are likely to indicate a total draw.

Worst moment for Biden: Looking into the camera and asking the public “Who are you going to Trust?”, Best Moment, speaking about Scranton and the middle class background. Ryan, steady, no one particular moment that was a negative, overall he appeared confident, if, and this is a note, he did appear on edge (either that or the man was extremely thirsty). Best moment for Ryan: his closing statement. It was that last statement that gave clarity and made the absolute difference clear between both camps. Biden’s laughter also was a bone of contention for some, however, one must understand that he had to appear more aggressive, the pressure was on from the Campaign to be aggressive, and he most decidedly overdid it, perhaps not for the base, but the base does not win an election.

The next debate is this coming Tuesday between President Obama and Govenor Mitt Romney, one might expect that Romney’s performance will remain status quo, given his ability, while President Obama is expected to be more aggressive. That said, Obama has to top expectations across the board, and the bar has been set pretty high, perhaps too high. Should the President have to defend his record, with Romney standing opposite, it will be a repeat of the first debate. (Which, in the first debate, is what derailed the President in the first five minutes of the first debate and Romney ran with it.) Should that happen and the final jobs numbers for September be revised upward to 8.2% due to the sudden revelation that a large state was not included in the mix, then this close to an election, with polls as they now stand and a draw with the VP debate for the base, while a win for Ryan with the Independents, one might suggest that Romney will remain in the lead through the finish.

One thing of note: During the debate, the VP referred to the Romney campaign as “not competing in Massachusetts”, which is not necessarily true, given the Campaign headquarters in Boston, and a very high profile Senate Race (Brown-Warren) in the equation. There have been several polls over the past three to four weeks, which focus exclusively on the Presidential race, another taken last night based on the Obama-Romney matchup, including questions for union members, such as: have you been approached by your Union to vote for President Obama, have you been called by a union member about voting for President Obama, do you think Mitt Romney or President Obama has the more negative ads, and so on.

This would suggest, with the focus so heavily leaning towards the President and union members, in Massachusetts, that there is indeed a need to secure the state by the Obama Campaign. The calls were made on the 11th, between 5 and 8 p.m., received at approximately 6:00 pm in Western Massachusetts households. At first neighbors were flattered, simply because no one, ever polls Massachusetts, now they are simply suspicious that there is more going on with the state and the Obama campaign specifically. To be fair, the area in which this is taking place in primarily Independent (or designated Unenrolled), the support and nod are going to Romney/Brown, but further west and north in the Western end of the state which is much less populated, the support should, by logic, be going to Obama. If this is occurring in a scenario similar to the 2009 special election, then the unthinkable may happen – Massachustts would, temporarily and on the surface be a red state. These are big if’s, the biggest being turnout for the Democrats (who can miraculously pull 30,000 votes out of a hat in under 13 hours), and the level of national interest in the Senate race, keeping eyes on the state (which would then make that 30,000 miraculous votes a bit more difficult to achieve –as was the case in the 2009 race for the “people's seat”. Suffice it to say, it may appear that the Romney Campaign may not be competing in Massachusetts (other than the television ads, and some door to doors, and phone calls which may be third party) but the Obama campaign certainly is.

Brown-Warren MA Senate 3rd Debate – Brown Wins Handily – Media bases Warren Win on Audience Participation!

The third debate between Senator Scott Brown (R-MA) and Democrat Candidate for Senate, Elizabeth Warren, Harvard Professor, was held last night in the City of Springfield in Western Massachusetts. The debate attracted an audience of 2600, the amount of seats available for the event and the fact that the debate was sold out, was hyped by the media, including traffic reporting about where to park! Not for nothing, but if Springfield is going to be the site of a casino, hold concerts at the Mass Mutual Center, and generally attract people to events in the downtown area, and make a dime, it is hoped they can attract more than 2600 individuals. One has to just love the hype over, just about anything.

It was a feisty debate as dubbed by most of the media, however, the clip below from WWLP local NBC affiliate, might be the best show of bias in local media. Although the audience was equally divided (See entire debate via C-Span, link provided below), watching the news clip from the affiliate, one sees a different debate: one clip of boos for Senator Brown, two clips of applause for challenger Warren and finally an analysis that the debate was won by Warren on crowd response. Of course, the local is counting on the fact that no-one has watched the debate earlier, most likely a safe bet – but, what is the audience share of the evening news in a small market, which has three network affiliates vying for a limited viewership, and finally, does the individual viewer actually trust the source? That’s debatable.

From policymic.com, Brown decidedly wins the debate with Warren (overview included with timeline). The reasoning given was simple – content and delivery of questions asked and answered. One thing is certain, Elizabeth Warren has her talking point of “Billionaires” down, in fact, she has it memorized, and that appears to be about the extent of her “experience”. That and the woman can outright lie, but that fact, of course, is considered an “attack” if pointed out by Scott Brown or anyone else. One cannot dispute the facts, however, and Warren, who is outside her depth when it comes to the economy and foreign policy, how Brown voted (apparently she hasn’t visited the Congressional Record), and her own resume.

It is difficult to support a candidate who is so flawed, period, and Warren takes the cake. Warren released an ad in the market depicting one sympathetic woman who had lost her husband due to asbestos exposure, the premise of the ad being Brown lied about Warren’s roll in the entire case, noting that Warren too the case to the Supreme court for the people! (Apparently the same firm that made the Obama-PAC video featuring the man who insisted Mitt Romney gave his wife cancer, somehow, six years after he lost his job.) Warren worked for the Asbestos firm, period. She was a lawyer for that firm, and well, that would give one the impression that if she went to the Supreme Court to fight, it would have been for her client – the asbestos firm.

But, apparently spouting endless quips about Billionaires – is brilliant.

Brown, in an attempt to point out Ms. Warren’s less than honest claims, is called out for attacking the poor woman.

What is, frankly amazing, are the polls showing the large percentage of undecided’s in this case, however, one can hazard to guess those undecided’s will go down along party lines. As much as the state has been polled in the last few weeks, compared to other months, and several of those polls have focused solely on the Presidential race, one might have the impression that the Brown-Warren matchup isn’t the only hotly contested race in the Bay State. The release of polling data to date shows the President leading Romney handily in the Bay State, with the majority of the polls either University or performed by Public Policy Polling, but one poll, in a congressional race, with a solid makeup of current voters, tells a different story, and that poll was taken in a county that went heavily for Obama in 2008, who is now, within one point of former Governor Mitt Romney – in Massachusetts. That poll, conducted in September, before the Presidential Debate, showed Brown with a double digit lead over Warren and Romney in a statistical tie with the President. Looking at the questions, they were not leading, the makeup of the electorate was spot on, and the district polled is a microcosm of the Commonwealth. On one hand, for Progressives and the Obama Campaign, it is critical that Warren appear to be winning, due to the huge amount of polling (non-Senate) being taken in Massachusetts. Point: Massachusetts offers up a few more electoral college votes than say, New Hampshire. Massachusetts is the last bastion of Progressive think, or so it’s portrayed, however, the 51% of registered unenrolleds, may have something to say about the matter. They did in the Presidential races in 1980 and 1984, an anomaly to be sure, they did so again in 2009 in a special election. It is the unenrolled who will decide who wins or loses the Massachusetts senate race and the electoral votes.

Of course, there’s always ballot stuffing and the usual bag of tricks, however, in the first Brown Special Election, all eyes were on Massachusetts, and the five point final lead (some suspect it may have been higher) Brown had over Coakley was decisive. Once again, all eyes will be on Massachusetts, as this is being billed nationwide as the one Senate race to watch, a fact apparently, lost on the Commonwealth’s Progressives, and local media. Not having a crystal ball, but being a tad pragmatic, one might see the race come down with similar results in 2012, with the Western part of the state giving the majority of votes to the Progressives, with a few exceptions (Brown lost heavily in Springfield, Northampton and points west throughout the hill towns, expect nothing more or less), and then cleaned house in the balance of the Bay State. Should those unenrolled vote a straight ticket, fueled by either Romney or Brown it will be an historic event for Massachusetts. Those are big if’s, considering the level of hi-jinks that is displayed in elections in the Commonwealth, but it would not be an anomaly for Brown and Romney to defy the polls and the pundits and pull out a win, a miracle by virtue of the media spin, but not an anomaly.

Clips below.

WWLP News at 11 segment on the debate, watch this first, then watch the actual debate

Sen. Scott Brown and Elizabeth Warren’s 3rd Senate debate

The entire debate on C-Span is available at www.c-spanvideo-org/program/MassachusettsSenateDebat Not yet available for embedding, clips only.

A few of many resources available

Asbestos Victims Travelers Insurance Elizabeth Warren, “Asbestos legal work could taint Elizabeth Warren”(The Boston Globe)

Warren’s work for other firms, including Travelers (ABC News)

ElizabethWarren’s Law License Problem (Legal Insurrection) – Apparently Warren was not Licensed, however practiced law without.

2012 Update Romney Delivers Rousing, Sensible Foreign Policy Speech, Obama Campaign Response Ad Weak

2012 Presidential Candidate, former Massachusetts Governor, Mitt Romney, gave a solid foreign policy speech at the Virginia Military Institute on Monday – the video appears below via C-Span. The New York Times editorialized the event in it’s headline “Mitt Romney Speaks Harshly but Treads Fine Line on Foreign Policy”, with an opening paragraph outline Romney’s “attack” on Obama and go on to cite their own editorial. (Read entire article here.).

Romney on Foreign policy approach.



Not sitting idly by, the Obama Campaign released an ad in response to Romney’s speech, the ad rehashes Romney’s trip abroad this past summer, visiting England, Poland and Israel. In the eyes of the media, as well as some “Republican’s”, Romney had made foreign policy “gaffes” on his trip. The ad continuously cites the New York Times as evidence of these gaffes, and notes “even Republican’s” without naming one. (Of course, 30 seconds is not enough time to get in all points, or the alleged gaffe for that matter.) Romney was in Israel for the fourth time, in Poland he was endorsed by Lech Walesa and in the UK, Romney was asked and answered questions about the U.K.’s preparedness for the Olympic Games, something he’s familiar with. After giving his opinion, which was a review that noted problems with the preparedness, he was roundly criticized in the UK and US press. Other than that, one is hard pressed to find an actual gaffe, if that is a “gaffe”. Included in the mix was Romney’s jump on the President over the attacks on our embassy in Libya. The ad appears below.

Obama anti-Romney foreign policy speech



Romney’s speech, ideas and basic foreign policy outline given in the speech, has to have the Obama Campaign a bit nervous after the drubbing Romney gave Obama on Economic Policy during the first debate. To understand that what the average American has seen on Romney’s foreign policy is mere clips by a less than friendly media, once Romney takes the debate stage, there is no way to hide his depth of knowledge, nor to control the environment for the President. It remains to be seen, of course, how well Romney will deliver during the foreign policy debate, however, if it is a tenth of what he showed in the speech at the Virginia Military Institute, there will be no “do-over’s” for the Obama Campaign going forward.

Note on Romney and foreign policy, specifically Iran. As the 2009 Green revolution and attack on those demonstrators by the Theocratic government in Iran began, there was little to no US coverage of unfolding events. For days the brutality against peaceful demonstrators went unchallenged, all communications coming through Twitter and video’s posted to YouTube and other sites. It was heartbreaking to watch half a nation stand up and beg for help, while the U.S. with troops in Iraq and in Afghanistan, stood by silent. It was heartbreaking to watch as CNN International finally began reporting, after so many lives were lost and demonstrators imprisoned. It was heartwarming to know that that Canadian’s and Italian’s were taking in demonstrators, trying to help the best they could while the Iranian Government had to hire mercenaries to kill and contain the Iranian freedom seekers. It was embarrassing that the US did nothing until several weeks later, and it was nothing but a condemnation of the government in “harsh” tones. A perfect opportunity lay before us, to deliver peace to the region by merely showing signs of support, and yet, nothing. Of course, Russia has particular interest in Iran – go figure.

Romney, to his credit, understood the revolution, and the opportunity that this peaceful revolution had presented. There were, of course, mentions of other issues that had taken place or are taking place now, however, to this mind that comment was worth more, perhaps than the others. It is of course, easy to “Monday morning quarterback”, on any given event or subject, but it appears to have the ability to grasp the import is critical.

Left Counting on Biden in Debate to Keep Obama Campaign Afloat – Biden Takes Six Days To Study Debate – Updated Predictions from the UDenver: Romney Wins – Grab the Popcorn

Image from the Guardian UK - One might anticipate this expression on Ryan's face while Biden is either a) telling an uncomfortable truth, or b) (pick an outrageous statement or expletive

From the Daily Beats Headlines: Joe Biden’s Turn to Take down Paul Ryan, can only be characterized as denial. It is apparent, of course, that this particular blog is “carrying water” for the Obama Administration, and anyone knows that Biden is fine in the debate area – however, fine against Paul Ryan is not going to cut it. The Daily Beast goes on to say that Ryan has zero experience in debate in front of millions, rather has spoken only to a few hundred here and there. Apparently forgetting about that Convention in August, where he as indeed in front of millions, granted that was the convection. One might also understand that Ryan is used to being in debate, as he is in the Congress, and spends, just like Biden, the majority of his time, debating legislation, one way or the other.

From the other side of the political spectrum, the Weekly Standard is reporting Joe Biden takes 6 days off campaign trail for debate prep. The Weekly Standard notes the following:

For this weekend, the White House provided the following guidance: "The Vice President will be in Wilmington, Delaware. There are no public events scheduled."

As for the next three days, Biden will remain in Delaware. "On Monday through Wednesday, the Vice President will be in Wilmington, Delaware. There are no public events scheduled." – (Weekly Standard)

On the Paul Ryan Watch Raw Story reports Ryan taking three days to prep for the debate with Joe Biden Ryan spent the day yesterday with with his family, away from debate prep,(Minneapolis Star Tribune. Apparently Ryan, who is , from some points of view, not only a policy “wonk’ but an outright genius may have all facts, figures, and taking point down in 3 days, rather than the 6 days it might take V.P Biden. Biden may have to learn not to tell the truth or be outrageously over the top, something that has dogged the Obama campaign every time the V.P. is out campaigning. Biden can at one time appear reasonable, then Biden the truth-teller shows up in his remarks about the middle class suffering since 2008, or the other Biden may show up – making claims about Romney putting people in chains. – Either or, it’s going to be worth the price of admission.

Ryan, for those who have only seen him on the clips, might want to go back through c-span footage and take a look at how he handles the Congress, one might also want to take a look at Ryan’s ability to resonate with all voters, despite the election partisan hype – he was the very few GOP Congressional Rep in 2008 that won reelection in his district. One might say so what? –True, Ryan’s winning his own district, may be a big so what? – However, his district voted for Obama, by a smaller percentage overall than for Ryan – and that District favors the Democrats disproportionately.

That’s something to chew on.

Of course, just like Mitt Romney’s first debate with Barack Obama, in which Romney’s performance can only be characterizes as stellar, the Pres will be “fact checking” fast and furiously (pun intended) Ryan’s’ every word. And every word of it, not unlike Romney’s, will be “suspect”. Of course, when reading or listening to these articles or newscasts, there is not specific reasoning for the statements to be suspect, except they were “fact-checked”. Which brings up the question, if one can debunk the Romney fact checkers in less than 30 seconds, how much more quickly can on debunk the “fact checks” against Ryan.

Romney did not lie in his debate, the statements he made and the programs he offered were just not in agreement with the narrative of the sleeping Obama, so the press had to jump in.

Meanwhile, over at the University of Denver, there are some science wonks – they deal in numbers and statistics especially when it comes to predicting who will win the Presidential race. Previously it was Romney, and it is still Romney only this time, Obama lost 5 more points. The new prediction gives Romney 330 Electoral votes to the Presidents’ 208. They will update that model again before the election. This model has been accurate for the last several elections. Of course, not to be outdone, Cambridge, offers a variety of Election models to contradict –they are available at Campbridge.org,.

On things is certain, models, polls and the like are grabbing attention – but the question remains whose? Most of those living and breathing polls are the pundits and the media, while the general public is generally not either buying it, or too financially depressed to care.

The VP debate is this Thursday. The next Presidential debate will be held on Foreign Policy – one would think that is the President’s bailiwick, as the media has portrayed Romney as a dolt when it comes to foreign policy – that said, SoundBits and carefully parsed phrase, can indeed make one appear less knowledgeable. However, unless the moderator has a stun gun pointed at Romney, the general public will be allowed to hear his plans and policy in their entirety, and so will the public. At the same time, one might ask if the President, taken off his stride by the sheer knowledge of Romney unleashed, might go into his Denver State of Mind (unlikely as he’ll be fighting for his life), but regardless, Romney will be prepared. For those who look for lively debates, all three offer a bit of something, no matter to which side of the aisle one is politically wed.

Romney Runs Away with First Debate – CNN Poll – Romney Makes History 67 to 25% - A Win – Obama Uses More Time – Debate Format a Winner – Opinion and Analysis

Mitt Romney and Barack Obama Post Debate - Image Slate.com

Former Massachusetts Governor, Mitt Romney clearly won the first of three debates with President Barack Obama, edging the President out in a CNN/ORC poll 67% to 25% among registered voters. In addition the pollster notes that the make-up of those polled, not used in most polling was 37% Democrat and 33% Republican, or 5 points more Democrat and 8 Points more Republican than the normal poll, or in truth, more in line with actual registered voters in 2010. The format, broken down into, what was supposed to be 15 minute segments, with 2 minutes allotted for each candidate to answer, and the balance more of a Lincoln Douglas debate format, was seen as some in the media as uncontrollable, however, that format allowed the viewer to see, for the first time, Romney and President Obama, both unfettered and unprotected by a moderator. The result was a win for the viewing public, let alone Mitt Romney, who clearly was in a comfort zone in the debate arena. Romney also has set the bar fairly high for the next debate, given the thrashing that he gave the President, although most pundits might disagree, what the public has seen of Romney on any subject has been limited by media coverage that is clearly made up of sound bites and somewhat slanted towards the Incumbent.

More on the CNN/ORC poll :

"No presidential candidate has topped 60% in that question since it was first asked in 1984," says CNN Polling Director Keating Holland.”

35% said the debate made them more likely to vote for Romney while only 18% said the faceoff made them more likely to vote to re-elect the president.

More than six in ten said that president did worse than expected, with one in five saying that Obama performed better than expected. Compare that to the 82% who said that Romney performed better than expected. Only one in ten felt that the former Massachusetts governor performed worse than expected.

Forty-nine percent of debate watchers said before the debate that they had a favorable opinion of Obama…Romney, whose favorable rating among debate watchers edged up just two points, from 54% before the debate to 56% after the debate.

The economy dominated the first debate and according to the poll, and by a 55%-43% margin, debate watchers said that Romney rather than Obama would better handle the economy. On the issue of taxes, which kicked off the debate, Romney had a 53%-44% edge over Obama. And by a 52%-47% margin, debate watchers said Romney would better handle health care, and he had the edge on the budget deficit by a 57%-41% margin.

By a 58%-37% margin, debate watchers thought Romney appeared to be the stronger leader.

Of course, the obvious win for Romney explains the flurry of media “Fact-checkers” which began immediately following the debate – with the “Fact-Checkers” clearly attempting to cover the President’s tracks – the biggest Fact being Romney’s charge that the President had hijacked $718 Billion from Medicare as being untrue, unless of course one has read the Law known as Obamacare. In the text, it clearly states that the sum in question, be taken from Medicare. In addition, the Act combines Medicare with Medicaid, two separate programs. The law also establishes oversight panels on payment and necessity of procedures. One only needs to download the massive bill here in pdf and search for “Medicare”, read it and weep.

Of course, there are more “questionable” things that Governor Romney must have said, however, he is a statistical wonk, therefore, one might be hard-pressed to find an inaccuracy in his statements, unless of course, one was just saying, without backup, that Romney’s fact’s were fiction. This appears to be more “opinion” than actual fact when dealing with – Fact Checkers!

Suffice it to say, that it is now clear that grabbing the popcorn is essential for the next set of debates – one questions whether the debates will make or break the campaign for either candidate, and it is this opinion that it may move only the small percentage of “undecided’s” (if there are truly any undecided’s), perhaps not enough to make a difference. One understands that polls, all polls, are not totally accurate, and that using a 2008 model based on return of votes by party enrollment is a recipe for inaccuracy. Therefore, what is most important about these debates, contrary to most opinion, is not to change minds, but to comfort and reinforce the decisions that individuals have already made. It is this opinion that the die has been cast, and that history will repeat itself based on the current model.

One final thought...Mitt Romney, exuded both leadership, and confidence on the debate stage, how much more would that same persona be apparent on the world stage? That is the question asked and answered for the nation in last night’s debate. Romney can clearly handle the stage. Next up, regardless of the format of the debate, the onus is on the President, not Romney to come in and defend his foreign policy. It will be Romney who will be in the driver’s seat, and although the media may have called some of Romney’s statements “gaffes”, it apparently depends upon one’s personal point of view. This suggests that perhaps, just perhaps, another larger percentage may agree with Romney’s take on foreign policy, regardless of the President’s experience (on-the-job-training). It is clear the major issue, the economy, is Romney’s purview, and he owns it outright.

The First Round – Debate in Colorado – Mitt Romney vs. President Obama – Bring on the Popcorn or - Not

The first debate between GOP Presidential candidate, Mitt Romney and Incumbent President Barack Obama will be held tonight in Colorado. The media offers this primer: “Five things to watch at First Debate”: A Q&A of sorts from Politico via NJ.com The list in this article includes: “Can Romney win the first half-hour?”, “How hard will Obama attack?”, “How do "47 percent" and Libya play?”, “Who brings up Bill Clinton?” and finally: “Is Obama ready for prime-time?”.

On the first question posed, suggests Mitt Romney must not be overly aggressive for fear of appearing to attack the President. In reviewing all previous GOP primary debates, of which there were, one might think, too many, Romney never seemed to attack at all. His style is one where he weighs a statement, then answers – all without fiery rhetoric, but more to the point. A debate can be won or lost at anytime in the process. One memorable comment in the last 10 minutes may set the course not only for the debate win, but for the balance of the election. The second question is answered by the fifth, following the logic of the 5th questions response that the President may be a little Rusty, (which one cannot fathom, given multiple appearance and a continual debate with Congress and the campaign stump (which to this mind is a debate prep it itself that goes towards both men), would make one believe that the President is incapable of a debate attack. Perhaps the article is referring to the 2008 DNC debates between Hillary Clinton and the Senator Barack Obama. Clinton appeared to be the fire-brand, while Obama more “laid back”. On the “47 percent political strategy of Mitt Romney’s, and Obama’s foreign policy fiasco in Libya”, one can hardly compare the two, and to do so, show’s a great disconnect, between what one might consider a “gaffe”. In the case of Romney’s “47%” remark, he was speaking to a group regarding political strategy – which demographic he would focus on (the Independents), it is much ado about nothing more than a sound bite used by the Obama campaign in order to sway the electorate – (a fair play in political terms). As far as having full knowledge of an impending attack on U.S. interest, weeks before they occurred, and then blaming that attack on the outrage against America in the entire Middle East, for weeks after the world was aware that these attacks were pre-planned by Al Queda is, simply put foreign policy negligence. When the buck stops here, regardless of who dropped the ball in the administration, the narrative of the “movie” at fault, should have been dropped immediately. It is the press comparing apples to oranges, not that a great percentage of the population even is aware of either occurrence, due to lack of interest in watching news. The question of who brings up Bill Clinton first – does it matter? It depends, but one might guess not overly much. The focus will be on the way which both men handle themselves on the stage and the content and delivery of their answers and rebuttals.

The question hat is not asked: How hostile will the moderator be towards one candidate over another? Regardless of what plays out live during the debate, what small segment with opinion by the media will be shown on the evening news cast? Will anyone but a slim majority of the voters actually watch or will it be those who are interested in politics and have no access to alterative programming that will view the first of three debates?

The debate between Incumbent President Jimmy Carter and then Governor Ronald Reagan may have been a factor in Reagan’s sweeping victory in 1980 however,it was considered a victory over job approval in the end game, even though the polls were tied. Reference: Reagan Win Bigger than Prediction from The Evening Independent, November 5, 180. One has to understand that in 1980, there were millions more viewers of the only three available networks, and no alternative stations – viewership of 25 million per network was the rule not the exception. Now, those are entertainment numbers, with major news outlets vying against cable and other sources, including other non-news networks.

In winning the debate, one must not duck a question, answer straight forward, and throw in a zinger (for lightening the mood) and compare and contrast. Calling out one’s opponent for embellishing the truth is also not out of bounds, and worth points. This is criteria, of course, is personal, however, to win over this independent conservative, one must be able to offer more than pat answers, or party lines and deliver policy with conviction and honesty. One might not always agree with the individual standing at the podium, but if the candidate scores on well (by following) the above criteria, then that will indeed be a win. It may or may not matter to those actually watching, one might get the impression that if one is watching this debate, one has already settled on a candidate, despite polls and debates and the media. (Refer to prior paragraph).

What’s Not Being Talked About: Reuters 2008 to 2012 - Voter Registration – Democrats Down, Republican’s up by wide margin

With all the talk about the polls and the media’s intent focus on Mitt Romney’s Ronald Reagan like Gaffes, and his campaign falling apart (similar to Reagan’s against Carter in same time period), one might think that the Massachusetts Govenor might as well pack it in –of course, a gaffe is in the eye of the beholder. Take that Romney fundraiser where he was discussing his campaign strategy and which voters he world or old not focuses on to bring them over to his side: he decided not to go after (target, fundraise from, and send camping literature to) 47% who were most likely Obama Supporters. Although 47 percent may not agree with Romney, there’s that 53% that do – If the election were held on that one gaffe, then Romney wins.

Apparently SoundBits and hidden camera moments do not make or break a campaign.

What does make a difference is voter turnout and enthusiasm and who shows up and why the day the votes are cast.

The polls, as has been discussed, are inaccurate at best and misleading at worst, but yet, they (media) continue to pound away on the amazingly tight race.

It defies logic that a poll (an educated guess – granted scientific) would sway an election, but the Obama Campaign is hoping it will.

They are also counting on early voting leads in swing states, however, Reuters suggested that may not be the best plan, as explained in their article: “Groups race against time to get Florida voters registered” In this article the suggestion is that Democrats are far less enthusiastic about early voting or registration for that matter; and Reuter’s cites the city of Jacksonville, FL as an example, and the numbers would suggest trouble for one particular campaign if they had to count on early voting or an uptick in voter registration to win reelection.

The Florida Times Union has said 11,365 people registered as Democratic voters in the 13 months that ended at the end of August, compared with an average of 209,425 for the same periods before the 2004 and 2008 presidential elections.

Meanwhile, 128,039 Republicans have registered in the state over the past 13 months, up from an average of 103,555 in the same period in 2004 and 2008, the newspaper said.

One might suggest that given the enthusiasm is with the Republican’s given that snapshot. There are other factors at work as well, one has to consider the ground game, and who is most likely to turn out millions of voters on Election Day, and who is going to have to fill buses and get them to the polls.

Here’s a thought on that theory that Mitt Romney, the candidate, is down in the polls so, the race is over mantra from the Media will help re-elect the President, what if, for example, when those who are more concerned with the Presidents policy, as well as the economy, the crisis in the Middle East and holding onto one’s job, hears that Romney might not win? They may just be more inclined to vote for Romney, and get a few neighbors to join them. On the other hand, those Democrats who are feeling the same pinch, and yet, trying to cast blame on George Bush, are somewhat of an anomaly – they are the traditional Democrat vote – and they rarely stray from the “flock”. The rest of the moderate Democrats may or may not vote given they care for neither candidate.

The Debates: Yes the media is already harping on the “do or die” for Romney in the debates. Of course, no matter if the GOP Candidate out debates the President, the media, will give the win to Obama, regardless of the outcome, and report the same, noting that Romney can’t win. See AP Report: Gov. Carter Won First Debate with Reagan.

It’s to be expected.

Yet, after all the polls, and portents of a victory for one or the other, and the tight polls right up to the election – (or conversely, even a lead) – No one will know until the day after the November election – although there are some that believe History is in one of those maddening cycles, whereby more than 15 to 20 events over 4 years that are similar in scope to the past, so much so, it’s almost identical, might make one harbor the bet that not all is lost for Govenor Mitt Romney. It is not that Romney is comparable to Reagan, he is not, and it is the circumstances that gave Reagan the edge that are similar. Both men suffered similar treatment by the media –and the results, well, one is certain, as it has passed, the other, is more certain, given the circumstances and mounting physical evidence.

Polling and the 2012 General Election – Is there a Reliable Poll – most probably not – Fact: Polls Based on Four year old trends Cannot be Accurate

What happens when one adjusts the polling data based on 2008 trends with current voter identification? - 1980. image: screenshot of www.unskewedpolls.com

There’s a feeling of Déjà-Vu about this general election cycle, if one were awake or living in the year 1980 – the economy was in deep trouble, the President a proponent of “Big Government”, entitlements were up, interest rates were through the roof, the price of gas was astronomical, as was food, and to top it all off there was a crisis in the Middle East. The polls throughout the 1980 Presidential election were either tied or had the President in the lead – right up to the night before the election – the prediction: too close to call.

Of course, the news articles, and nightly newscasts referred to the GOP candidate, Ronald Reagan, as a “clown”, and negative articles and broadcasts appeared “stacked” against the Republican challenger to President Carter. From the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, September 5, 1980 – via the Washington Post: “Reagan Campaign Battles Slip-ups” - the article goes on to cite growing concerns within the campaign, the gaffes the candidate was making - the perception – the campaign was in disarray.

Sound familiar?

After the dust settled, Gallup explained the Carter loss as a “Dramatic Vote Changes Given Carter in 76, 80”(Youngstown Vindicator, December 21, 1980). Simply put, Carter won the youth vote and the ethnic vote, but lost his edge on the balance – his support among traditional Democrat voters fell from 82% to 69%, and he lost in a landslide.

Therefore, one had, an extremely re-electable President, by all polls, a challenger whose campaign was in trouble in late October, the GOP candidate made gaffes so often by the media standards, he was not electable - and yet – he prevailed.

Fast-forward to 2012 – and one finds Romney’s news coverage, with very limited exception – negative. He’s made a lot of gaffes and the polls are tied up or worse, the President is leading in three key swing states! – Romney’s Campaign is in disarray!

Trust in media has slipped to unknown territory – with these same pollsters offering a tied scenario – which allows broadcast to manufacture an image that the Romney campaign is somehow deficient due to the polls. These polls that are using samples (those surveyed) that are based off election statistics from 2008. Therefore in simple terms, this tests the limits of simple math.

In 2008, the Democrats had a large share of registered or identified voters, there were fewer registered Republicans, and Independents leaned Democrat, they made up a fraction of the vote. These statistics have changed over the course of the past four years, the Democrats have lost their huge lead over voter registration and the Republican’s have increased their share of the electorate, as have the Independents to a greater extent.

Therefore for a polling firm to base 2012 projections on the 2008 model may be a tad misleading.

Which is the reasoning behind the new website www.unskewedpolls.com - a site that is similar in scope to the model used by Real Clear Politics, which blends all polls and uses the average as a result. With the exception, the polls are re-calculated using voter registration/party identification from 2012. When one changes the percentage of the sample, one finds that candidate Romney is leading President Obama by an average of 7 to 13 points, as suggested by the unskewedpolls.com.

Although, one must question the accuracy of changing the original polling data, even basing that data on accurate samples, to project an outcome by using bad statistical data in the first place!

That said, the models used, even though the accuracy might be questions, give candidate Mitt Romney a lead that is identical to the results of the 1980 election. (Refer to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel Gallup article in paragraph 2)

Therefore, it would be wise to take any polls, at this point, with a grain of salt, unless, of course, the pollster shares their methodology, showing an accurate sample of the electorate based on the most recent voter patterns and identity. Therefore, the results will be known on the morning after the November election.

If the statistics hold for the electorate as it now stands, and those numbers go to the polls and vote, regardless of whether or not a candidate is “likable”, regardless of how “smart” a candidate is, or “how rich” – then one would suggest that history might just repeat itself. One final thought:

The logic in 1980 was that although Reagan might be “likeable” – Carter would win on intellect (The Modesto Bee, September 28, 1980). The reasoning, people would not vote their wallet. This was a reverse on the angle that President Obama is more “likable” than Romney, and yet, the Obama Campaign is counting on the – economy not counting. Same election, different decade.