Barack Obama's Acceptance Speech

   Tuesday was Michelle, last night was President Clinton, and tonight is our sitting President Barack Obama. If President Obama wants to stay in that chair, the stage has been set. His will likely be the most watched speech of either convention - if it's not, he is in deep, deep, DEEP trouble. Tonight he must make the case for four more years, but how does he do that?

   

   The case for four more years is a complicated one. The moment any president is elected they face an uphill battle named Expectations. Due to the tone and promises from the 2008 campaign, President Obama has been facing Great Expectations. When you don't meet those expectations, you set yourself up for disappointment, who is a package deal with doubt. So, when he goes on stage, Barack will be facing great disappointment and great doubt. President Obama's speech must convince the independent voters, the unemployed and underemployed voters, and the disenfranchised voters that if they give him four more years, the disappointment and doubt will not continue. 

   To use a cliche, the tone should be that it is always darkest before the dawn. Clinton said a lot of things in his speech, but the one that is the most helpful to Barack's re-election is that he created a floor and stopped the economic fall. Mr. Obama should take this and run with it. Are we better off than we were four years ago? He should propose that yes we are, and then he should ask voters to remember what it was like between September 2008 and January 2009. Relatively speaking, there is definitely a greater sense of stability now. In 2009, unemployment topped out at 10%, in 2010 it hovered around the upper 9's, in 2011 it dropped into the high 8's, and as he is speaking tonight it is working towards 8%. He should contend that we have been through darkness, and that soon the light will be coming. 

   Obamacare, the debt, budgets and spending, women's issues, and any temptation to talk about social issues should be avoided as much as possible. The message will have to be direct and simple, "My plan to create jobs is working." The simplicity and connection to all these voter groups is even more important considering who will be introducing the President. Eva Longoria, Scarlett Johansson, Kerry Washington and possibly Natalie Portman will all be part of the build up to Obama's speech. This is a massive error. Having Bill Clinton speak was bad enough for the re-election efforts, but this is even worse. Having these ladies talk is a polar opposite to Clint Eastwood at the RNC convention. First, that was just one person with a long and tenured public life. Second, he has displayed that he is not a dyed in the wool republican. Clint has been on the record as saying "I like the libertarian view which is to leave everyone alone", and he has consistently worked to help candidates on both sides. He even held fundraisers for California Democratic Governor Gray Davis. Third, theses ladies are all known liberal democrats. Mr. Eastwood was a mayor, none of these ladies have policy experience that would suggest they have any clue who should be elected President. Lastly and most importantly, it showcases the idea that he is a pop culture President who is inexperienced and not up to the task. It even flaunts it. If things do not change at the Obama campaign headquarters in Chicago, and fast, it will be a long, long, L O N G 60 days for them. 

RNC Convention Recap - DNC Look Forward

   Here we are four days removed from the RNC convention. Now it's time to take a look back at the event, and appraise it. There was a ton of material to cover, but only a portion that will possibly effect the election. That is what we are sticking to today.

   The best line from the convention has not been mentioned by the media. That's not a surprise, what is a surprise is that the Romney campaign does not have an online video leading off with it, and building upon it. Senator Rob Portman of Ohio said:

      "Then you have Barack Obama, who has never started a business - never even worked in a business. And he claims those who have should give credit to the government or someone else for their success. So, you have one candidate who understands that success comes from working hard, competing, and taking risks. And you have another candidate  who believes success comes from the government. Which one do you think knows how to turn this economy around? Which one would you choose to invest your life's savings? Should it be any different for safeguarding our nation's economy?"

   The message here is so succinct and complete. The RNC or Romney/Ryan should plaster this everywhere. To be more specific, they should show a spending graph for the last 4 years, and a constant ticking debt clock the whole time. 

   The funniest speech was Tim Pawlenty (yes, even funnier than Clint). Really, it was more of a roast than a speech. He called President Obama the tattoo president. "Like a big tattoo, it seemed cool when you were young, but later you wonder what was I thinking? The worst part is, you're going to have to explain it to your kids." He also quipped that "Lot's of people fail at their first job." Whether you support President Obama or not, that is just good comedy.

   Now we are down to the big seven speeches. In order of delivery we have: Ann Romney, Chris Christie, Rand Paul, Paul Ryan, Clint Eastwood, Marco Rubio, and Governor Romney. 

   Ann Romney's speech was masterful. She immediately made it not about politics, but about an American family. She specifically focused on women. She mentioned that the sighs from from wives and mothers are always a little bit bigger because of how much they have to handle. She also made a statement that was a home run when speaking to women, "We're too smart to know there aren't any easy answers." If you go back to my post on Female Voters, this is the kind of campaigning I was referencing. Beyond that, she really nailed it down when she said, "Mitt doesn't like to talk about how he has helped others, because he sees it as a privilege." This might be the second best line to Senator Portman's. Consciously and/or subconsciously, many if not most voters make a judgement on why someone would want to be President.  Why would a very wealthy family man with 5 sons, and scores of grandchildren (just kidding, I think it's 16), want to take the job of President? He's 65, his wife is 63, she beat cancer and now she is battling MS. They are of family of means. They can live anywhere, and do practically anything they want. Why would he want to spend the next 4 to 8 years in a position of such high stress and worry, instead of spending it with his wife and family? Well, she answered that. He sees it as an honor. Again, this is a very, VERY compelling message in my view, and one that the Romney campaign should put out there more.

   Chris Christie was okay, but he was not great. There is a lot of speculation as to why he wasn't "himself." Possibly it was a crafty move by the Romney campaign. They asked him to tone down the shtick on purpose so that it wouldn't over shadow anything or anybody else for better or for worse. As for the content, it can be summed up as such: "Chris Christie loves you and Chris Christie, and Chris Christie wants you to stand up and love America, and Chris Christie, along with Chris Christie." It was gratuitously self indulgent. Did it work to promote him? Time will tell.

   Worth a short mention is a speech I'm sure many missed, but it may have had an effect on the big speech of that day. Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky, son of Congressman Ron Paul, spoke Wednesday before Paul Ryan. Rand's speech really worked up the crowd and got a big applause. It was a mix of cheer leading and policy. It looks like this may have stolen some of Paul Ryan's thunder.

   Paul Ryan's speech was a lot of what was expected. He did very well. Pundits have been commenting that he was dry, or that he was outright lying. What he actually appeared to be was focused and serious. Right now that is what many of the swing voters are looking for, someone who is not overwhelmed and up to the challenge. His speech did exactly what it needed to do. Feel good speeches don't cut it anymore. Voters want to sense that speakers have a good enough grasp on the problems to create an answer. Want a good and simple barometer of it's impact? Just look at how democrats and main stream media responded to it. (This method works both ways). The more worked up they are, the more impact it had.  In this case, they have been very worked up and yelling about lies to the high heavens, or talking about George W. Bush... Who is NOT on the ticket.

   Someone else being called a liar, although not to his face, is Clint Eastwood. This speech, excuse me stand up routine, I watched at least four times to make sure I got it. It really was an unpolished gem. Before 08/30/2012, what odds would you have expected on Clint Eastwood talking about crying? There were moments of real genius in there. The implication of "Governor Romney can't do that to himself" was brilliant. He made some very important points: we own this country, we are the best, and if someone can't do the job, fire them - we don't have to be mental masochists and vote for them, and he wrapped these comments in comedy. How did the left respond to this? Very shortly afterwards the official Obama twitter account posted a pic of the President in a Presidential Chair saying "This seat's taken." That is pretty heavy when you think about it. Whether you liked or hated Bush and Clinton, they both likely would have laughed a lot, and yes I know, I know. Bill tried to tell Hillary it was an empty chair, and George probably had a conversation with an empty chair before. Another big surprise, and possibly a big take away with voters, is how much Eastwood talked. Mr. Eastwood has been in the public eye for over 55 years, have you ever heard him referred to as loquacious?

   Following Clint was Marco Rubio. This speech I watched more than twice as well. For awhile now, I have been paying attention to Senator Rubio with a certain amount of apathy. Many of my conservative friends have been over the moon for this guy. This speech showcased why so many people like him. He is the American dream. His parents immigrated to America and worked all the time so that he and his siblings could pursue their dreams. As a first generation American, to be a senator in the U.S. Senate is pretty much dream accomplished. He brought all of this to the forefront. Additionally, his speech was an eloquent transition of tone from Clint to Governor Romney.

   Mitt Romney's speech was well done. Many have panned it saying he didn't offer enough details. President Obama said it belonged on black and white TV. Voters may think differently. His first good decision was coming out and shaking hands BEFORE the speech. Had he done it after, the networks would likely have cut away. What many political talking heads are missing, is what the entire tone of the speech said. He offered specific examples of what he considers Obama failure, and he offered his plans. Commentators get hung up on single lines and phrases because they deal with so much information. Most swing voters that see this will look at the whole story. If you take it for that, it was reality based and it told us that it's time to roll up the sleeves and go to work.  Romney took a square look at the here and now, and he did so with an eye to the future. The campaign message of the night was "we can", and the message matched the slogan. Well done. That is not being offered by Obama/Biden. In direct contrast, the Obama/Biden ticket keeps giving mixed signals by talking about Bush and Clinton, yet they are using the campaign message forward. Which leads me to the next topic, the DNC convention.

   Tonight at the DNC convention the heavy hitters we have lined up are: Harry Reid, a Jimmy Carter video, Kal Penn, Governor Martin O'Malley, and Michelle Obama. You can see the full schedule here. Also, if you use an iPhone or iPad, there are some really cool apps out there for this event, they should make it more fun to follow along.

   The democrats have a very uphill battle. Can President Obama and the DNC turn this around and win? Yes, definitely. Are they making the moves to do it? Not even close.

   The biggest issue the Obama campaign faces is the unemployment rate. You can spin the numbers all you want, but unemployed people know they are unemployed. Their family knows it. Their friends know. Businesses where they used to shop know it. This is a looming problem. You really cannot say "I have a plan to..." when you are already the President. The immediate, and in this case lasting, response in the voters mind is "Well why the hell haven't you used it already, why are you waiting?" or "Oh, because the other plan worked so well." You cannot win that way. You must take a completely different approach, and no I will not discuss it. As a political strategist, figuring out how to win when everyone else is losing is my stock-in-trade.

   So tonight, if Obama and the DNC want to win, they must begin anew. Scrap what they have been doing and take a completely different approach. Saying "it could be worse" is the same thing as saying "I haven't lost yet." The clock is ticking.

Additional notes:

Even after Clint, the DNC convention is sticking with it's celebrity line up. Strategically, this nullifies the whole "Mitt Romney is out of touch" argument. Who is more out of touch than someone that gets paid millions to play pretend?

A British newspaper is reporting that the Obama speech may be downsized from a 74,000 outdoor arena to a 20,000 seat indoor arena. It will be interesting to see where this goes.

According to a new poll from The Hill and Pulse Opinion Research, only 40% of likely voters believe President Obama deserves a second term. This Friday, literally 9 hours after Obama's speech, the jobs report comes out and it will affect this number for bad or for good.

The Daily has a report of how much the government managed to spend on chairs. Only read THIS if you feel like shaking your fists.


Questions or comments? edwardsanalysis@gmail.com

 
   

Romney's Record Speech

   Tuesday night, Ann Romney shined. She has been commended and she has been panned, but whatever any of the talking heads say, they cannot take away that she was positively brilliant. She reached out to women and men alike. Through her words, it was made clear to voters that her and Mitt are grounded people. Last night Paul Ryan was very serious and all business. It was an excellent contrast to the lighter tone of Mrs. Romney. He was straight forward, factual, and showed a readiness to get things done.

   Tonight is Governor Romney's chance to pick up where they left off, and secure his victory. I've said it before and I'm saying it now, Mr. Romney currently has between 302-322 electoral votes. With the right words and story arc he can shore up that number, and potentially add to it.

   It is clear that the Obama camp strategy is to reach female voters. His approach is 100% reproductive rights and women's healthcare. This tactic is being used to the extent that Sandra Fluke is a prime time speaker (Really?). In my post earlier this week I covered why this strategy will not work, now I am going to tell you what will work.

   If Mitt Romney asked for my advice, this is what I would tell him...  To create real, and lasting separation in a path to the White House, you should crush the Obama camp's plan to target women right out of the gate.  Immediately, after the pleasantries and niceties that begin most speeches, you should swing for the fences.Your open should be along the lines of...

   "My opponent is campaigning on women's reproductive rights and the idea that there is a war on women. He wants your taxes to pay for their medical care and contraception. Then, when people disagree with the taxpayer carrying the burden for this, his proxies say that there is a war on women. To President Obama and all of his surrogates, I say this... There is most definitely a war on women. A silent war with a jarring amount of casualties. Since president Obama took office, 780,000 more women are unemployed. That is a war of attrition on women in the workplace, on their financial stability, and on their freedom to pursue their goals and aspirations. I will make it my job, to create jobs, so that women can have the career they want, and the opportunities they want. The kind of jobs that come with benefits like healthcare, so that THEY can choose the doctor they want and buy the contraception that they think is best for them!"

   From here Mr. Romney should drop any mention of the sitting President, less is more. He should transition into talking about himself, giving a highlight reel autobiography. To get into particulars, he should focus on his executive experience, and his successes. Tom Stemberg, the founder of Staples, is going to give a prime time speech about Mitt. This is going to be a great foundation for the success dialog. If you don't know the Mitt Romney Staples story, you may want to tune into CSPAN or your cable news channel of choice to watch. Mr. Stemberg will be on after 8 PM EST. Following Tom will be the former Massachusetts Lt. Gov, and the former Secretary of Workforce, both who served under Governor Romney. Mitt should build on what these people, and others have said by briefly recounting these experiences through his eyes. Next, he should add his involvement in the Olympics, and whatever accomplishments he is the most proud about. Then he should move into what he wants to do for America, and HOW he will do it. Americans are wanting a real record, and not just empty elocution. Governor Romney has a history of doing well for companies, events, and a state, but tonight is his chance to seal the deal on helping one specific person into an early retirement. 

Paul Ryan; You Heard It Here First

   The biggest speech of Paul Ryan's career to date, is tonight. He goes on after 10 PM EST. There is no way to overstate the importance of these 20-45 minutes. More than ever, the vice president plays a large role in the White House, and everyone knows it. More people will be watching him now, than at any other time in his career, and possibly at any other point in the campaign. The Romney/Ryan ticket is facing two looming issues: Who is Mitt Romney? and Who is Paul Ryan?

    Voters are making up their minds about Congressman Ryan, and they are doing it swiftly. Just a few hours ago, Gallup released a poll on Paul Ryan. In less than two weeks the never heard of/no opinion group has dropped from 58% to 26%. Unfortunately the wording of the poll makes it impractical to separate that final 26%, but what we can be sure of is that many people are making their decision. His favorable stat jumped from 25% to 38%, while his unfavorable moved from 17% to 36%. Common wisdom (much different from common sense) would tell you that means he had a net gain of -6% and that people don't like him, and the elderly are scared, and that he's an extremist. All of this would be incorrect.

   I'm putting it in writing, right here, and right now; following Ryan's speech tonight the gap of favorability will open up widely in his favor. Additionally, over time it will widen out drastically and in my estimation land at 54 percent or higher by election day. He has a unique knack for expressing policy details without droning on, he is intelligent, he is confident, and he is the definition of articulate. People will gravitate towards him and his clear communication on how to handle the problems of the day.

   He will also showcase what kind of an executive Mitt Romney is. People will see what kind of decisions Mitt Romney makes first hand. Mitt has been successful with Bain, the Olympics, and politics, but those are all relatively ancient history in our 24/7 news cycle. They can also be spun and relegated in non-factual ways. As you read this, our deficit and debt are decisions starring directly at all of us. In a few short hours, Romney's most recent success, and his decision making adroitness will be starring us right in the face, and this time, we will be starring right back.

Big Media's Big Mistake

   Hey gang, just a short one here.

   After writing my last post, something dawned on me. Network news coverage, at the time I'm writing this, has made a critical error. FULL DISCLOSURE: I work for a branch of NBC Universal, however we do not cover hard news.

   Last night, NBC, CBS, and ABC will only covered one hour of the RNC Convention. Currently, that is the plan for the entire convention, and for the DNC Convention next week as well. Enough people are upset that even The Hollywood Reporter covered the dismay, and their main focus is the business of entertainment. Now, not everybody is a political junkie like yours truly, but it is a big event and most people do want to see the conventions and the big speeches. The people who MOST want to see the conventions are the undecideds and independents, the core block that will choose the winner this November.

   This is a good time for the networks and everyone else to be realistic. Nobody wants to watch the whole thing, unless they are being paid to do it. What people do like to do is record it, and then scan through for who they want to see (and yes they scan through the commercials, but at least there is a chance they will see YOUR commercials). Additionally, they are telling everyone, all voters, "We are not covering it, go out there and find your own sources to watch these events." That is a bad, bad, bad business model.

   All three of these networks have big news departments, they all have accomplished journalists, and they have compelling talent. They spend piles of money on advertising their morning news, nightly news and special report shows, and they spend even more dough producing these shows. Why on earth they would shy away from something with so much gravity in the world of news is beyond me. I came to terms with the fact that most news is reported in a myopic manner a long time ago, but the decision to do this on the business end baffles me. After the viewers find a different source they like, how many will return?

   What could be so important that they are not covering these once every four years events? We can all speculate and come up with quite a few ideas. The obvious one would be possibly ratings; do they think too many outlets are covering it, and they want to stick to their own original programming? Do they not take the Presidential conventions seriously? Could it be that the events are straight forward, and project the respective party lines, which in turn minimizes their opportunity to spin it? What ever the reason, they should be covering at least a respectable two hours.

   In the event that some of the viewers do return, how much seriousness and respect will they give to the networks? This decision really hurts all of them at the same time. Viewers have consistently been gravitating towards cable news. This decision will change the intensity of the departure from a migration to an exodus.