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

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.

REMINDER: RNC Convention Begins Tonight

Just a quick reminder that the RNC convention begins tonight. You can see the full schedule here.

You can also watch the convention on a live internet feed here or here.

The big speeches tonight will likely be Ann Romney and Gov. Chris Christie. Both of them come on after 10 PM EST.

Tomorrow, the whole shindig does not start until 7 PM EST. Condoleeza Rice and Paul Ryan will be on after 10 PM EST.

Thursday Gov. Mitt Romney will speak after 10 PM EST.

Also, this could be something or nothing, but according to the Order Of Business for the convention, there is still a TBA on the speaker schedule.


See you soon....