The Final Presidential Debate

   So very often political punditry suffers from "group think", which in turn leads viewers and voters into a group think mindset. Voters who have decided on their candidate are susceptible to this, as they are already part of a group. Undecided/swing voters by their very nature are disparate from this. The topic of "who won the debate" is a question that hinges upon this difference.

  

   In the last two debates, Ryan vs. Biden and Obama vs. Romney Part Deux, the contests were close. Both were close enough that fans of either side could claim a win for their guy. The pundits and useless score keepers could even break it down into a more useless point scoring system. "Biden won here, Ryan won there." This is mostly, if not completely, frivolous. Scoring a presidential debate like a college debate is asinine.  In principal, that is treating the debate as if it happened in a vacuum, which it most certainly does not. All of the news and cable channels are guilty of this fallacy. 

   The first Presidential debate was bound to the trappings of the months of previous campaigning and events, the Vice Presidential debate was captive to all of the preceding, as was the second Presidential debate, and so shall tonight's debate be shackled to the confines of the antecedent history. Additionally, the main concern for debate success must be voter persuasion, and not some puerile pundit points scored that make Chris Matthews or Sean Hannity happy. How did the debates in sum affect the opinion of the precious undecided voters? In all three previous debates that has been a resounding win for the Romney/Ryan ticket.

   The first Obama/Romney debate was an Obama trouncing. The Biden/Ryan debate was exactly what both sides needed. Biden rallied the base and Ryan showed that he was well informed and ready for the job, but it would be Ryan win. Why? Because Joe, despite being more lucid than at any point in recent history, completely alienated many of the swing voters. The laughing and interrupting was a huge turn off to the undecideds who wanted to hear both opinions, and it was especially a turn off to the female undecideds who saw it as rude, childish, insecure and not becoming of a statesman. So the net result was Biden winning the battle (rallying the base), but losing the war (turning off undecided voters). Tactically Vice President Biden committed two big errors: first, "I always say what I mean" and second "we did not know they wanted more security" in response to the death of the American ambassador to Libya. Biden makes so many gaffes, such as "for the last four years the middle class has been buried" that having the sound bite of, "I always say what I mean" is damning. The VP candidate must show that they are ready for the job and not completely out to lunch. In regards to Libya, that was a bold face lie, and the avalanche of facts is showing it. Eroding trust is never beneficial to a candidate, especially in this economic climate. Of course many of these pundits continue with, "however most voters don't vote for a president based on the VP candidate." True, the VP debate only factors in for about 18% of voters, but here is the catch: that segment heavily overlaps with undecided voters. This means that the group of voters who will decide this election have been exposed to a decisive Romney win in the first debate, and a polite, knowledgeable and capable Ryan versus a bombastic, belligerent and bad-mannered Biden. All before going into the second Obama/Romney debate.

   By last Tuesday when Obama walked into Hofstra Hall, he was already facing alarming deficiencies. President Obama had to assuage the damage from his first debate, rally his base on top of what Biden did, win back undecideds whom Joe alienated, and begin to add new voters to his count. He succeeded in only the first two measures. Directly after the debate, focus groups for MSNBC and Fox gave the win to Romney. Why? Because Romney showed up very well again. Voters just needed to see him again to show that the first time around was not a fluke. Most importantly is this aspect: very few if any voters make a decision on the entirety of a debate, or a series of debates. The vast majority of people making up their mind are waiting to hear an answer on one to five topics. With the economy in it's current condition, the two most imminent topics are jobs and taxes. When Mitt gave his answers on tax REFORM, in which he included job creation, he won the election. It's that simple. Currently that leaves the debate tonight, and 15 days until voters go to the poll. What must President Obama and Governor Romney do tonight?

   For Governor Romney it is simple. He must show up, show that is he the same guy from the last two debates, that he has a solid grip on basic diplomacy, and go after the middle east failures. There are many ways he can highlight the foreign policy failures of this election, and as long as he does not go full tilt Biden, most of them should work. The task for President Obama is much more difficult. Having already lost concerning the dialog of economy and jobs, he must, MUST make a huge statement concerning the United States' place in the world. Mitt will definitely bring up China and how they are manipulating currency. This will be the President's opportunity to make up ground in foreign policy and economics. There are a lot of opinions on China, but the fact remains that they mine 95% of the rare earth minerals (and possibly up to 97%) responsible for computers, smartphones, MRI machines and so many of the things Americans take for granted. Yes, mining can start here, but at what cost or benefit? Diplomacy is paramount in dealing with China and that is likely Mr. Obama's biggest opening. What will he do with it?

   In the end will it even matter? Every candidate that has been at 50% or higher in the Gallup likely voter poll in mid October has won the race for President, every time. Mitt has been at or over 50% since the 10/9-15 rolling average Gallup poll. Furthermore, President Obama has not broken the 50% barrier at any time, and in the last few days he has held steady at 45%. What's more, the undecideds always break heavily for the challenger.

   At this point every last one of the lifeboats has departed, and it is all over except for the crying.

For debate analysis this evening, follow The Edwards Analysis on twitter tonight, www.twitter.com/edwardsanalysis

Obama Romney First Debate Recap or Obama's Concession Stand

   Since the world needs one more article about the Presidential debate between President Barack Obama and Gov. Mitt Romney, away we go.

   The consensus among everybody is that Mitt Romney won, handily. Chris Matthews freaked out, Ed Schultz was in shock, and even Bill Maher, who donated $1 million to the President's campaign, flat out said Mitt won. Of course Bill hedged that by saying that Obama had the facts on his side, and that Lehrer sucked.  Let's address this directly. 

   Jim Lehrer did a good job. Interrupting would have been contrary to the idea, people are not there to hear him talk they are there to hear the two candidates. Additionally, if you need a moderator to save you, you should not be the President. There is no moderator when talking to heads of state from China, Russia, etc... He's being used as a scapegoat by Obama supporters for the President's anemic performance. The only people complaining about Lehrer are Obama supporters. No Republicans or moderates are complaining. Complaining about the moderator is like complaining about referees, it doesn't matter what you think, only the scoreboard. The scoreboard in this case is the undecided voters. Not one single TRUE undecided is worried about the moderator. The truth of the matter is, if people don't like what someone is saying, the person talking about it more will not help the matter, it will only exacerbate it. What they are upset about is Mitt won. He beat Barack and he beat the system in a sense. One more note on Jim Lehrer, the negative attitude towards him shifted into nasty commentary on his appearance in the twitterverse. How weak is that? If you are attacking a 78 year old man on his appearance after a career that goes back to when he covered the John F. Kennedy assassination, you lose. That shows that you clearly have no substance to stand on at all, and you are one step away from yo' mama jokes in what is supposed to be a battle of ideas. 

   Stephanie Cutter, Obama's Deputy Campaign Manager, kept tweeting negatively about Mitt commenting on his demeanor? Steph, were you watching the same debate? She kept on with the hash tag #testymitt. As a candidate, Barack should be furious that that is the best she can come up with to defend her boss in the debate. It is weak, and Jen Psaki, Obama's traveling press secretary was worse than Cutter. On a talk show after the debate she said Romney looked like the attacker-in-chief, and that Obama was calm and steady? Yeah, because he was slooooooow in speech, and he was grasping for words. He used more "uhs" and "ums" than a junior high boy talking to the senior prom queen. But, what was really jaw dropping was when Jen proclaimed "If you are a senior on medicaid, if you are a senior in Florida, then you come away with that Mitt wants to voucherize medicare." The problem here is that even Obama said that if you are 54 or older you aren't going on the program that supposedly "voucherizes" medicare. This was an enormous concession, just like when Obama admitted that he and Mitt had a similar position on social security. Which is probably the first time a democrat has ever said that in a debate. It's like a southern republican saying that a west coast liberal is "solid on national defense." 

   So now that it is clear that the Obama campaign has problems, it's time to look at the President's problems. Why did he stumble when telling Michelle happy anniversary? He looked down, a lot. He wouldn't look Mitt in the eyes. Every defense of his policies seemed barely there. He complained about things that are current, like loopholes in the taxes. Barack, you have been the President for 3-1/4 years, you cannot, you MUST NOT complain about anything current. He attacked Donald Trump? Trump is not running, attacking him only shows that he has gotten under your skin, big time. Making it even worse, you KNOW that Trump, LOVED that. He loves attention right after money. Sliding down even more, he called him a small business. That may work for some misguided tax point he wanted to make, but to the average listener, that makes him sound detached. If you are calling a billionaire a small business, how on earth could you possibly relate to the family dentist employing a couple people and keeping their smiles pretty? Yeah, you really stick up for the little guy and the middle class. A few people have commented that it was like he was asleep and they were waiting for him to wake up. That is pretty fair since he has been living in a dream world the last four years. Unfortunately, the problems America has are in the real world and it needs somebody will real solutions.

   Governor Romney offered real solutions to many of the country's problems. This column has commented before that Romney needed to offer more specifics about "how" he was going to do things. Finally, at this debate he did that in as solid of a way as possible. Left pundits are knocking Romney for not being specific, glossing over how they let Obama say whatever he wanted with no details in 2008 AND NOW, but they are wrong. He was extremely specific, all things considered. You can see it like this: Imagine you are in a group, even just a family of 4 or 5, and you have to decide where to eat. Think about where the conversation starts and where it goes. Think of how off center it can get. NOW, imagine 100 senate toddlers, and 435 house of representative babies (some of these people are great public servants, this sweeping comment is for emphasis) all fighting over different nitpick details. Some of these details are based on what the people who elected them want. To ask him to be any more specific than he has been is unreasonable, and shows ignorance towards the process of governing.

   Not only was Mitt specific, he did everything else very well. One of the easiest ways to tell how a debate is going is to watch it on mute, body language will tell you almost everything you need to know. Mitt was calm, comfortable and confident. He looked presidential.  At one point when they tried to take the debate off entitlements, Mitt forced them to stay on it, and won. Republicans do not do this and they definitely do not win at it. Every time Barack attacked him with one point, he offered three points to answer. What this tells the undecided voters, is that he already has answers to big problems, and will continue to find solutions. He had command of the issues, and total command of the debate. Wes Welker, maybe the hardest working athlete in pro sports, said it best. "Romney sounds like he is using his own words. Obama sounds like he is using someone else's" The only caveat here is that it was not a sound, it was the truth.

   So now everybody has blamed the bad debate on everything you can imagine. Al Gore even blamed the high altitude. The question is, can Obama recover. The answer is: Not likely. His problem was not preparation, his problem was not Jim Lehrer, and it was not the Bogeyman. Barack's problem is much more systemic than any of this. The real issue here is the President's fundamental lack of substance of policy. He is trying to defend a gas station burrito against an Emeril Lagasse Kobe beef steak, you just cannot do it. Making it worse, it's like the cost of the two are reversed. Obama has said that other policies have failed, "we tried it their way", when the reality is HIS policies have failed. Exacerbating the issue, he clearly has a new problem with self effacing humor. He used to seem okay about it, but now that there is real criticism, the former facade of confidence is falling. Subconsciously, everyone sees it, and the press is partly to blame. Since Obama's entrance onto the national stage, the main stream press has been deeply in love with the guy. To keep the love alive, they have treated him with kid gloves, further insulated the ever present presidential bubble, and not forced him to stay on his toes.

   Competition is very important, it brings out the best and worst in people and teams. Mitt has been forced to be hyper competitive in defending and refining his position over the last two years, while Barack's biggest questions have come from Elizabeth Hasselbeck. Most importantly, and maybe the most damning of all things, is that President Obama has never had to debate his record. He coasted through the Illinois state senate to the U.S. Senate and into the democratic presidential primaries in 2008. At that point the debates were either large groups where he could coast more. When it finally got serious, Hillary had decades of political baggage, he had ideas. He was able to debate on "if's" and "maybe's." Here in 2012 he has almost 4 years of abject failure. Yes Mr. President, the democrats in congress may not like Obamacare being repealed, but the people want it.

   The trappings of success have set President Obama up for an almost certain failure. What matters now is, is he a winner at heart? Even Michael Jordan stumbled at times, he didn't even make his high school varsity basketball team as a sophomore. A real champion will overcome, but then again, a real champion has put in copious amounts of time and hard work. A champion is responsible, and responsibility looks forward, while blame looks backwards.

Questions or comments? Feel free to post here or email me at edwardsanalysis@gmail.com

Follow me on twitter https://twitter.com/edwardsanalysis

The DNC Convention and Obama's Re-election Bid

   The DNC Convention was three days packed full of speakers. The physical stage looked great and the  production was very well done. The question is, did the convention serve it's purpose? That depends on what you think the goal should be. If the goal was to help President Obama get re-elected, then the grade is a D-. While the convention was packed full of speakers, it was not packed full of the message necessary for an Obama win.

   For President Obama to stay in office, the convention had to make the case that he is the right guy to get the country to where it wants and needs to be. It needed to really work the idea about how terrible things would have been without him, and even though it tried, it failed. Many of the speeches were very good. Michelle, Bill Clinton, Joe Biden and Barack all gave great speeches. They were very moving, well timed, and expertly delivered. All four of them proved that they are great on a stage, but they did not make the case for re-election like the campaign desperately needed. Compounding the problems for Barack & Co. were the lead in speakers. 

   Tuesday night the lead in speaker to Michelle Obama was Mayor Julian Castro. This guy is the embodiment of a pandering politician or a proselytizing preacher, you take your pick. It was a speech empty of policy specifics. Instead he only offered general ideas of class warfare and party line lies. Most notably he said that President Obama got healthcare expanded to all Americans, wrong. CBO estimates that by 2020 there will still be 30,000,000 Americans will still be uninsured. In the auditorium, none of that mattered, the crowd loved his approach and delivery. The downside is that his willingness to offer empty words and just say what people wanted to hear was likely a turn off to the undecideds.

    Following his empty speech was a very deep and heart felt speech from Michelle Obama. However, the depth came from describing how Barack's heart feels. She made an airtight case that she married the right man for her, and by all accounts an all star father. What Michelle did not do was make the case for re-election. Very few people, if anyone at all, doubt that he is a great husband and father, what they do doubt is that he can get the job done turning around America. The speech text on the face is one thing, it's the subtext that must be analyzed to grasp the impact of speech in totality. She seemed unsure when commenting on policies, and used a lot of "ifs." 

   There are also a few specific lines that we should look at here. First, while talking about the problems a president faces, she said "the problems where no amount of numbers or data will get you the right answer... as president you are going to get all kinds of advice from all kinds of people, but at the end of the day when it comes time to make that decision as president, all you have to guide you are your values and your vision, and the life experiences that make you who you are." Most voters do not want to hear that their President is winging it. Yes, it is clear what she was going for, Barack has a big heart that guides his decision making, but that is NOT a good case for re-electing him. Many discerning voters are likely to find it offensive that he is possibly not listening to as many expert opinions as he should, or that he is not gathering enough information. Life experience may tell you not to eat that habanero pepper, or to keep your hands inside the bus, but it cannot prepare you to be President of the U.S.A. Also, most of life experience comes from mistakes, is she saying that he is making decisions based on past mistakes? Second, she said "For Barack, success isn't about how much money you make, it's about the difference you make in people's lives." This was another misstep. Again, it's clear what she was going for, but that is not what people who are struggling to pay the bills, unemployed, underemployed, or in a number of other situations want to hear. They want, they NEED to hear that the good jobs are coming back, and that opportunity dawns anew. Third, and this was the biggest mistake, she went into a portion of the speech where she actually highlighted people sacrificing more. She went as far back as the American revolution and the moon landing, then said, "surely we can keep on sacrificing for our own kids and grand kids, right?" This shows a level of disconnect. Many already feel as if they have sacrificed as much as they can, and the worst part is, it takes the idea of the current economy and makes it an indefinite time span in the voters mind. 

   Wednesday night was Sandra Fluke and Bill Clinton. Before these two came to stage there was a line of interesting speakers, and some odd gaffes. California Attorney General Kamala Harris spoke, and during her speech she mentioned that her and 48 other AG's, with Obama standing behind them, won a case against the big banks for $25 billion. Sounds great right? Well think about this.  The banks they won the suit against were: Bank of America, JP Morgan Chase & Co., Wells Fargo, Citigroup, and Ally Financial (formerly GMAC). Now look at how much they each got in the $700 billion tarp bill, listed in the same order: $45 billion, $25 billion, $25 billion, $45 billion, $16.9 billion. So $156.9 billion total that these five banks took away from the taxpayer bailout, and the mighty 49 AG's got $25 billion back for them screwing customers? Now most people won't know these numbers, but voters paying attention will definitely remember the $700 billion bailout. 

   Keeping in tune with the bailout, following Kamala were multiple UAW people, including Bob King, the President of the Union. So, the people that many see as being responsible for the auto industry's troubles came out to talk about the auto industry being saved.  Okay cool, now we can see that tonight is really highlighting the bailout aspect. Joe Biden hadn't driven that home already with his "I got a bumper sticker" speech? This was wasted time on the stage, and it further highlighted the bailout big government theme that was really starting to build at this point. Sandra Fluke helped add to this. 

   A few months ago Sandra Fluke made news when she was supposedly rejected from a congressional meeting by house republicans. Having her speak was a terrible idea. Aside from coming across smug and immature in her tone, she included no policy specifically, and simply tried to scare women. There are two reasons that the decision to have her speak was appalling. First is the entire lie surrounding her story. Pay close attention here, because this is something that all voters should know. The original intent of a congressional meeting was to get facts about contraception on the congressional record. Darrell Issa a California republican who is the head of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee called the meeting so that house democrats could get facts about birth control on the record that had not been heard before. House democrats requested that Barry Lynn, a man who is recognized as having expertise in the matter, as the witness. House republicans agreed. The day before the hearing, the house democrats dropped Barry Lynn, and requested that Sandra Fluke testify in his place. They felt that her views as a woman, and as a democratic activist would serve them better, despite her not having any measurable amount of expertise other than her gender. Issa declined to play their game and rejected the request. After all that, the democratic subcommittee staged a meeting to look like a hearing and had her testify there. Her testimony was vague and she only offered unnamed examples. At this point, the focus turned to whether or not a private university like Georgetown should have to provide birth control, at their cost, to students. This whole scam was not about a RIGHT to birth control, it was about who should pay for it. This narrative of events is a potential political grenade waiting to explode. Second, the attempt to hammer home "women's healthcare rights" falls flat. It shows how it's not about the idea of access to contraception, but about how this group of people wants the American tax dollars to pay for contraception. There is huge difference between having access to contraception. and having the government pay for it. Most voters are against paying for people's lifestyle choices. 

   Now it's time to discuss President William Jefferson Clinton. His speech was great, he nailed it like he always does. The problem for Obama is that it was great for Bill and tepid for Barack. Sure, he endorsed Barack and talked about all the good things he has done, but his passion when talking about Barack was luke warm at best, while his passion for the democratic party (and himself) was palpable. Turn on any political talk show, or read any political magazine or newspaper and you'll hear about his likability, which is great, it's good that people like him. Since leaving the Presidency he has done a load of humanitarian work. He deserves that credit and the likability. What is not being said in any polls is his "Credibility" rating. The same guy who is best known for lying under oath is the same guy who said that President Obama is getting the job done. People will take it with a grain of salt. The undecideds expect him to help the party and say what he has to, so the overall boost is minimal if not a negative. When he wasn't giving half-hearted praise, he was reminding everyone how great things were, which highlights how things are today. It casts more question upon the current administration's ability to get the job done. 

   Thursday night, Kerry Washington, Scarlett Johansson, and Eva Longoria failed at getting the message out. They should stick to doing MTV awards appearances. Kerry came across as someone who was just repeating what they heard someone else say. Scarlett was worse. She admitted that her mom let her pull her voting levers. She admitted that 2008 was her first time voting. If she was such a concerned citizen why didn't she vote in 2004 or 2006? To the voter, that creates the imagery of fad support and no substance on the issues. To top it off, Eva's speech really flopped. She kept talking about taxes and tax cuts. Of course she thinks her money is better off with the government, she filed bankruptcy for two restaurants last year, to the tune $5.7 million in debt and losses of $76,000 a month. Thanks for the financial advice Eva. Most people do not want governance advice from someone that reads lines for a living, and especially an absentee bankrupt business owner. Additionally, the issue at the core is not about paying taxes, it is about how the money is spent. Another huge miss all three nights at the convention. 

   Following the celebrities was Joe Biden. It was shaky at first, as he messed up on the day Michelle spoke twice, first saying last night, which was wrong, then Monday - a day no one spoke, but he pulled it together. He came across as sincere and heartfelt. His speech was passionate and stirring, but again he did not make the case for re-election based on ability. Barack followed him, with more of the same. 

   President Obama did excellent in the delivery of his speech, but the substance was way too light. When he did touch on substance, he echoed the big themes of the convention: big government, easier immigration, more taxes, women's fears, and "it could have been worse." 

   By the time the Vice President and President spoke, everything had been said, and neither offered much new. The case was made repetitively for how big of a heart our president has. Again, that is not really being contested, what is being contested is his ability, and what is being alleged is that he is in over head. The convention did little to rebut this, and in some cases built on these criticisms. Whomever set the line up of speakers should be fired, immediately, and they are not the only one. Did you see the vote to put "God" and "Jerusalem as the capital of Israel" BACK into the platform? It was a complete debacle. It does not take a rocket scientist to see how that will affect the Jewish vote in Florida. A very important voter block in a very important state. The media has only served to compound the lackadaisical approach to running the convention. They were all laughing and repeating the Will Rogers quote, "I belong to no organized party, I am a democrat." This is a terrible plight upon the Obama campaign. How does this translate to that percentage of voters who have not made up their minds? Like this, if the campaign and party are too disorganized to run a three day convention, then how the hell can they help the country in four years? It didn't stop there either. Obama's speech was supposed to be in front of 76,000 people. Instead it was held indoors in front of 20,000. Delegates were literally left in the rain while lobbyists watched Obama's speech. Weather may very well have been the reason, and not crowd weakness, but it does not look good. 

   The best word to describe the three days is fiasco. Sure, there will be a poll bump, but it will be a quick hot burning fire instead of the slow building ember that is needed if Barack wants to keep his job. The one advantage that the President does have is that Governor Romney is still failing to define himself in depth enough for voters to move towards him. The campaign headquarters in Chicago had better think fast, because after October 3rd, that advantage will erode fast.