Archive for the ‘Barack Hussein Obama’ Category
And I read every word. This would not even pass the laugh test for an 8th grade essay assignment.
Who approved this?
Did Obama even read this before it went to press?
This is truly sad.
There’s not much text in this dopey (but glossy) 20-page pamphlet. It’s mostly pictures of Obama. In fact, there are a total of 17 photos of the President — photos of Obama looking down benevolently on children, seniors, Hispanics, blacks, union workers, etc.
80 percent of the space is taken up with photos.
So you’ll need additional reading material if you take this into the bathroom to occupy your time. This little pamphlet won’t last you all the way through your stint on the can.
The actual content of Obama’s program for the next four years is even more ridiculous than the 17 photos.
Much of the text is about the wonders of ObamaCare.
But that’s already been signed into law. So that’s not really an agenda for the future, is it?
That already happened. Well, it’s going to happen. We haven’t yet felt the full brunt of ObamaCare because most of it starts kicking in on January 1, after the election, and won’t fully kick in until 2014.
Then we get to the actual agenda. And we find there is absolutely nothing new here.
It’s all a rehash of Obama proposals from the first term.
Obama’s budget was unable to get a single vote in Congress, not even a single Democrat vote. That alone should tell you that nothing Obama proposes is serious.
The text is essentially copied and pasted excerpts from the speech Obama delivered at the Democratic National Convention in September. The words are almost identical.
He says he’s going to ask the rich to “pay a little more.”
He repeats the lie about getting rid of special tax breaks for U.S. companies that set up factories or relocate overseas. There are no special tax breaks outside the normal deductions for business expenses that the IRS needs to calculate profit — so profit can be taxed.
Few believe we should be taxing losses, although this seems to be what Obama is proposing to do.
He talks about the need to develop “clean energy” and how this will create all kinds of new “green jobs.”
He wants more windmills, more solar panels, and lots of research on how to turn algae and garbage into fuel. He also wants lots of people making batteries for his Obama Volt cars that are selling so well (NOT).
Yes, all that’s worked out so well for America so far.
He boasts about how He — Obama — saved the American auto industry.
This, of course, had nothing to do with George W. Bush who wrote the first bailout checks, or with you, the taxpayer.
Ford Motor Company would likely also disagree with this assessment. Ford took no bailout money and is doing much better than GM. In fact, GM desperately wants to buy back its stock from Uncle Sam, but Obama won’t let them.
GM says being known as Government Motors is badly hurting its business.
Few people want to buy a Government Motors car or an Obama Volt.
I feel sorry for GM — having to operate now with all of Obama’s ridiculous mandates (Golden Handcuffs). I doubt GM really wants to waste time and money making the dismal Obama Volt (which has a range of 40 miles per battery charge).
Romney’s approach of letting GM go through a managed bankruptcy with the help of (as a last resort) some guaranteed government-backed loans (as happened with Chrysler in 1979) was the correct approach — not giving GM to the labor unions to run and robbing the bondholders and pensions of the non-union workers.
On the day of the government’s initial public offering on November 18, 2010, the price of GM’s stock was $35.
It hit a high of $38.98 on January 7, 2011. And it’s been down hill ever since.
Today, GM’s stock is trading at $24.68.
If that’s success, I’d hate to see what failure looks like. Probably more like Solyndra.
GM’s stock would have to go up to $55 a share for taxpayers to get their money back — more than double where the stock is now.
Inexplicably, Obama (as part of his takeover of GM) forced 2,400 GM dealerships to close, many of them profitable, eliminating tens of thousands of jobs.
And Obama is attacking Romney over Bain Capital?!
Now GM is on the brink of bankruptcy again.
So looks like we’ll get to test Romney’s managed bankruptcy solution soon, after Romney is elected President.
Henry Ford, Walt Disney, and Donald Trump all went through the normal bankruptcy process and emerged stronger. Many great companies have.
The purpose of bankruptcy is not to destroy companies, but to allow companies to survive by restructuring their debt and giving them time to reorganize. Often companies come out of bankruptcy stronger and leaner.
Had GM gone through the normal bankruptcy process, it could have gotten out of all those ridiculous labor union contracts.
Let’s see, what else is in this 20-page pamphlet?
Here’s an item that caught my eye . . .
Obama boasts that oil and gasoline consumption are down.
But that’s because of his miserable economy and the doubling of the price of gasoline under Obama that has forced people to reduce their oil and gas consumption. Americans have been cancelling their summer vacations and driving a lot less under Obama.
Plus the median American household has lost $4,345 in annual income since Obama came into office. So many Americans just can’t afford to do anything — can’t afford to go out to eat, can’t afford to go to a movie, can’t afford to go to the grocery store.
That’s why oil and gas consumption are down. Demand for everything is down. Almost everyone is making do with less — except for the Obamas.
According to this pamphlet, this is one of Obama’s big achievements.
But this still isn’t exactly an agenda, is it? All this has already happened. And what’s happened over the last four years is mostly very, very bad.
Obama boasts of three trade pacts he signed. But all these were handed to him by George W. Bush. Gee, this doesn’t sound like an agenda item either. These are also things that have already happened — in the past.
We want to know what’s going to happen.
Here’s something . . .
Obama plans to create 20 new government agencies that will focus on manufacturing and innovation because, as we all know, the government is responsible for so much manufacturing and innovation.
Will these 20 new government bureaucracies work as well as the U.S. Department of Energy? Or will they work more like the Post Office or the IRS?
The pamphlet doesn’t say.
But it sounds just great.
All this is on top of the 159 new Soviet-style government agencies created by ObamaCare.
Obama says he plans some spending cuts, but won’t say where. He says he will reduce the deficit, but won’t say how, except he wants to raise taxes on the rich — so they pay their fair share (because they aren’t now).
He says he wants to hire more teachers, more fire fighters, more policemen, build more bridges, and repair our infrastructure.
Gee, where have we heard those ideas before?
Wasn’t the TRILLION-dollar stimulus supposed to do that?
How well has that worked out?
What happened to all that money?
Does the infrastructure look repaired to you?
And isn’t it state and local governments that hire teachers, fire fighters, policemen, and build and repair most of our roads?
The federal government only handles the Interstate highway system.
Obama has borrowed one of Romney’s ideas and now says he wants to reduce corporate tax rates.
I’m encouraged by this. I support it.
Usually, he just demonizes business. He worked in the private sector briefly once — as a junior copy editor for a financial publisher. He called that brief experience “working behind enemy lines.”
But now he says he wants to cut the top tax rate on business.
So I guess that’s the one unexpected thought in this ridiculous pamphlet. It’s a proposal Obama never talks about.
Why do I feel Obama’s heart really is not in that idea?
He also says what America needs is a “New Economic Patriotism.”
This idea is not encouraging.
A “New Economic Patriotism” is exactly what Hitler, Stalin, and Lenin called for.
But at least Obama is not calling for a “Final Solution.”
It’s now all tied up in the Buckeye state 48-48, proving definitively that Romney-Ryan won all four debates.
A new Rasmussen poll taken after the final debate, shows Mitt Romney and Barack Obama tied in Ohio with 48 percent apiece.
Before the debate, Rasmussen had Obama up by one.
So the bounce isn’t much, but Mittmentum continues, proving that the Romney-Ryan ticket won all four debates. Even if there had been no movement either way in the polls, the final debate would be a victory for Mitt because his task was just to keep Mittmendum going, not to have a reversal of Mittmentum.
Romney-Ryan has received a bounce (often substantial) after every debate, even though the mainstream media awarded three of the four debates to Obama-Biden.
Today’s Rasmussen national tracking poll shows Romney leading Obama 50-46 — no change from yesterday. But today’s three-day tracking poll includes one day of polling after the final debate. So no gain for Obama from the final debate.
For Romney now to be at 50 percent or higher nationally in both the Gallup and Rasmussen polls is devastating to Obama.
What it all means . . .
Obama’s reelect number has been stuck at 47 percent for months.
Scott Rasmussen, Gallup, and Suffolk University Political Research are the only three polls I trust. The media-sponsored polls have proven themselves to be worthless.
Rasmussen, Gallup, and Suffolk Research try to get it right. The other polls are mostly political propaganda for the Left, or just aren’t accurate.
Undecided voters almost always break 70 percent against the incumbent in Presidential races. So for Obama to be at 48 percent in the Buckeye state is disastrous for his chances.
If Romney wins Ohio, he will just about certainly win the election. If he loses Ohio, he can still win, but the math becomes more complicated.
Why I continue to predict a blowout election for Romney . . .
I have been predicting a blowout election in favor of Romney for months. Before the first debate, I was projecting Romney winning by 4. Since the first debate, I have been projecting Romney winning by at least 7.
Because Obama’s reelect number has been stuck at 47 for months. Remember, 70 percent of undecided voters break in the final days against the incumbent President.
So that’s a 4-6 point Romney victory right there assuming both sides turnout in equal intensity.
But that won’t happen. Obama’s voters are not enthusiastic about Obama, while the anti-Obama vote is at a fevered pitch.
The intensity of the anti-Obama vote will swamp Obama in the final days and add at least three percent to Romney’s margin of victory over what Gallup and Rasmussen are showing now.
It’s simple math.
And think about this.
Scott Walker outperformed what the polls were saying in the June recall election in Wisconsin by four points. If there is a Wisconsin-sized polling error at work now nationally (which I believe there is) you’ll see Romney win by 10 or more.
The Wisconsin recall election (in a heavily blue state) is the best poll and best indication of what’s likely to happen on November 6th.
It’s been my belief that there is a hidden anti-Obama vote out there simmering beneath the surface that even the best pollsters are not picking up. Look at what happened in the 2010 mid-term elections.
Has the economy improved since 2010? Has the situation in the Middle East improved since then? Is America more positive about ObamaCare since then? Is gasoline any cheaper? Is the deficit going down? Does America think we are not spending enough on government programs? Do Americans now see Obama’s stimulus and all this deficit spending as a success? Is America looking forward to Taxmageddon kicking in on January 1?
The answer on all these questions is no.
So why will we see a different result on November 6th than we saw in 2010?
Obama plays small ball, while Romney focuses on what’s important to America.
All agree, Romney crushed Obama in the first debate. That debate was so one-sided that it is one of the few Presidential debates in history that actually changed the trajectory of a Presidential race.
Biden looked mentally unstable in his debate performance, with his non-stop laughing at inappropriate times (such as in the discussion about Iran getting the nuclear bomb), his constant smirking, guffawing, and interrupting. Biden appears to be suffering from some form of dementia.
Obama’s best performance was in his second debate with Romney. But polls of debate watchers overwhelmingly thought Romney had better answers on the #1 issue of the day, which is the economy.
Romney’s momentum in the polls accelerated after the Biden debate fiasco and after Obama’s second debate performance.
Debate #3 may prove as disastrous for Obama as debate #1.
This debate is the nail in the coffin for the Obama regime.
The insta-polls after the debate gave Obama a narrow victory on points. CNN’s poll of debate watchers had it 48 percent for Obama, 40 for Romney.
But on the question of: “Who did the debate make you more likely to vote for?“, the score in the CNN poll was Romney 25 percent to Obama 24 — with 50 percent saying the debate will have no impact on their vote.
So, essentially, it was a draw — with Romney slightly ahead on the question that matters.
Romney is already ahead in the polls, with two weeks to go before the election.
Romney’s goal in the debate was to run out the clock and look Presidential — that is, to look like he’s up to the job of Commander-in-Chief.
He did that in spades.
Obama’s goal was to show that Romney is not up to the job. He failed miserably.
And Romney’s performance in the debate will continue to look better in hindsight. Obama’s performance will look worse.
Romney took the high road throughout this final debate.
He decided not to attack Obama much, but calmly laid out his approach to foreign policy and national defense. He also did a good job of tying the economy to America’s leadership position in the world.
America can’t be strong if our economy is in shambles, or if we are $16 TRILLION in debt — a TRILLION of which we owe to China.
Voters understand that.
Voters (especially undecided voters) don’t follow foreign policy much. But they certainly understand the importance of having a strong economy if we are to continue to be a world superpower. And they certainly see that America’s superpower status is now on the wane as a direct result of our weak economy. We are a nation in decline at home and overseas.
China is on the rise.
Romney successfully connected all those dots throughout the debate.
Yes, it was on the surface a foreign policy debate. But it’s still the economy, stupid.
Obama, meanwhile, acted churlish, petulant, even desperate with his constant attacks on Romney — entirely over small, petty issues.
Romney went big in this debate. He talked about big themes, mostly ignoring Obama.
I was glad to see Romney mostly abandon neo-conservatism for more of an America First foreign policy.
Forget trying to turn these Muslim countries into Jeffersonian democracies. We will project power only when it’s in America’s interest to do so. We’re certainly not anxious to get into anymore land wars in the Middle East. And no more foreign nation building.
We will, however, take out Iran’s nuclear reactors if we have to.
Obama was like a little Shih Tzu (that annoying small yappy dog) nipping at Romney’s heels.
The low point for Obama was his second attempt at attacking Romney over his investments in a company that does business with China. Huh?
What was strange about this attack is it had nothing to to with the topic under discussion. It just looked small and forced.
Obama had a good zinger prepared about horses and bayonets in the discussion of how we have fewer ships today than in 1916. Even I laughed at that one. Obama’s supporters will love that exchange. But the line also did not come off as Presidential. In fact, Obama looked condescending and nasty while delivering it.
I was hoping Romney would really rip the bark off Obama on Libya.
Why was there no security for the U.S. Consulate in one of the most dangerous regions of the world?
That would have been a simple question for Romney to ask that Obama would have no answer for.
But Romney skipped over Libya. Not sure why. Probably because he wanted the night to be about big themes. What will the future look like under a Romney Presidency?
He wanted to focus on that.
Elections are always about the future?
Yes, Libya is a disaster. Yes, it’s a wonderful illustration of Obama’s incompetence.
But the murder of our Ambassador and three Americans (as grim as that was) is not about the future. And no need to get bogged down in details about why Obama tried to blame this terrorist attack on a video.
Ronald Reagan would not have talked about the video or the inconsistent timeline, or the shifting stories and explanations on Libya from Team Obama. No need to waste time on whether this is a cover-up by Obama, incompetence, or both.
Reagan would have talked about the big picture, big themes. That’s what Romney did last night.
I disagree with Romney on Egypt. I think we should have stuck with Mubarak. Yes, he was a dictator. But he was an ally of the United States and wasn’t going to attack Israel. Now Egypt is under the control of the radical Muslim Brotherhood. So nothing good will happen there.
It was clear Romney wanted to take the discussion back to the economy whenever he could — always connecting America’s economic strength to America’s role as world leader.
I try to watch these debates as an undecided voter might.
If I were from another planet and had no idea what was going on before watching this debate, I would conclude that Romney must be the President, Obama the challenger.
Romney was acting and sounding like a President, like a Commander-in-Chief — for the most part ignoring Obama.
Obama wanted a mud wrestling match. Obama was desperately trying to bring Romney down to his level, trying to get under Romney’s skin with little chippy attacks on nonsensical small issues (such as Romney’s investments in China).
But Obama’s attacks were like arrows bouncing off the side of an aircraft carrier, having no impact whatsoever.
Romney’s numbers will continue to go up in the aftermath of this debate.
We are now heading toward a true blowout election.
Romney will win this election by 7-10 points. He’ll win all the swing states. He’ll win Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin. Romney even has a shot at winning New Jersey, Minnesota, and Oregon.
This will be a blowout on the magnitude of Reagan’s landslide win against Jimmy Carter in 1980. And this will carry over to the Senate, with the GOP gaining control, most likely with two or three Senate seats to spare. Even Tod Akin will win
ObamaCare will soon be history. After the first 30 days of the new Romney Administration, and with solid GOP majorities in both chambers of Congress, it will be as if there never was an Obama Presidency.
Here’s Romney’s New “Apology Tour” Ad . . .
Romney wins CBS News focus group of undecided voters in Ohio
Here’s Romney’s new “Clear Path” ad — his closing statement in the debate . . .
Here was Frank Luntz’s focus group of undecided voters, who saw Romney winning overwhelmingly on the issue that matters most to voters — the economy
Meanwhile, over on MSNBC, Chris Matthews says Romney is winning because of racial hatred . . .
If this is the line of argument Obama’s supporters are reduced to, you know he’s losing.
- Evergreen Solar ($25 million)*
- SpectraWatt ($500,000)*
- Solyndra ($535 million)*
- Beacon Power ($43 million)*
- Nevada Geothermal ($98.5 million)
- SunPower ($1.2 billion)
- First Solar ($1.46 billion)
- Babcock and Brown ($178 million)
- EnerDel’s subsidiary Ener1 ($118.5 million)*
- Amonix ($5.9 million)
- Fisker Automotive ($529 million)
- Abound Solar ($400 million)*
- A123 Systems ($279 million)*
- Willard and Kelsey Solar Group ($6 million)*
- Johnson Controls ($299 million)
- Schneider Electric ($86 million)
- Brightsource ($1.6 billion)
- ECOtality ($126.2 million)
- Raser Technologies ($33 million)*
- Energy Conversion Devices ($13.3 million)*
- Mountain Plaza, Inc. ($2 million)*
- Olsen’s Crop Service and Olsen’s Mills Acquisition Company ($10 million)*
- Range Fuels ($80 million)*
- Thompson River Power ($6.5 million)*
- Stirling Energy Systems ($7 million)*
- Azure Dynamics ($5.4 million)*
- GreenVolts ($500,000)
- Vestas ($50 million)
- LG Chem’s subsidiary Compact Power ($151 million)
- Nordic Windpower ($16 million)*
- Navistar ($39 million)
- Satcon ($3 million)*
- Konarka Technologies Inc. ($20 million)*
- Mascoma Corp. ($100 million)
*Denotes companies that have filed for bankruptcy.
SOURCE: Heritage Foundation >>>
Their argument is that Obama was feistier and more energetic than he was in his first debate.
Mitt was also plenty energetic. Both the CNN and CBS insta polls of debate watchers both gave Obama a narrow overall win.
CNN had it Obama 46 to Romney 39, with the rest seeing the debate as a draw.
The CBS poll had it Obama 37 to Romney 33, with 37 percent seeing the debate as a draw.
But both these polls also gave Romney an overwhelming victory on the issue that matters to voters: Who will fix this disastrous Obama economy?
In the CBS poll, 65 percent said Mitt Romney won on the issue of the economy compared to 34 percent who said Obama won.
In the CNN poll, Romney beat Obama by 18 point on who has better answers for the economy.
This is devastating for Obama. This means even some Democrats who watched the debate came away thinking Romney has a better plan than Obama for the economy.
The economy is the issue that matters to voters. And that’s the issue that will decide this election.
Moreover . . .
In both MSNBC’s and the FOX News/Frank Luntz focus groups of undecided voters, Romney won overwhelmingly. Here’s what Frank Luntz’s focus group had to say:
And here is what MSNBC’s focus group had to say:
Mainstream media pundits were going to award the debate to Obama no matter what.
Obama was certainly better in terms of energy this debate than what we saw from him in Denver. But his arguments were the same.
And his answer on Libya (supposedly Romney’s weakest moment last night) will come back to bite Obama because what he said there was flatly false.
Debate moderator Candy Crowley was the big loser last night when she intervened to supposedly correct Romney on Libya.
Turns out Romney was right, Crowley was wrong. Her intervention into the exchange between Obama and Romney with her false statement threw Romney off stride a bit for a moment.
Obama told us he had called the Benghazi attack terrorism on day one, when in fact, he had not.
Obama’s lie on Libya hurt Obama because every minute America is thinking about Libya is another minute Obama is losing voters.
A U.S. Ambassador and three other Americans were killed in an inexplicably unprotected U.S. consulate in one of the most dangerous regions of the world by an al Qaeda attack on September 11 — the anniversary of, well, September 11.
This was the third attack on this U.S. consulate in a country dominated by radical, militant Islamists. But Ambassador Stevens’ requests for more security were rejected . . . even though the British and Red Cross had exited Libya because it’s so dangerous and had become overrun by al Qaeda and other Islamic radicals.
Now the Ambassador and three other Americans are dead. Reports are that he was repeatedly sodomized and tortured before he was murdered. Also inexplicably, we (and the families of the slain) still have no autopsy reports from the Obama Administration.
The well-planned al Qaeda attack featured rocket-propelled grenades, mortars, heavy artillery, and commandos.
Obama blamed the attack on a YouTube video that had 19 views before the Obama Administration started talking about it.
Now he’s compounding his lies by lying about his lies . . . because he wants to promote the myth that he’s defeated al Qaeda. Apparently not. Apparently, al Qaeda is as strong, or stronger, than ever.
All this will hurt Obama badly as we speed toward the foreign policy debate on Monday.
The need for leadership and truthfulness should be Romney’s theme in Monday’s debate.
Overall, Romney put in another strong debate performance last night.
Perhaps it was a draw, or Obama a little ahead, on style. But Romney won overwhelmingly on substance and on what matters to voters — and that’s having actual solutions to America’s economic crisis.
Here’s why . . .
1) Romney hammered Obama relentlessly on his economic record, on the deficit, and on gas prices. Obama had no answers. That’s what voters will remember.
2) Romney explained his tax plan better in this debate than he did in the first debate.
3) Romney went into great detail on how he would dramatically increase oil and coal production to bring energy prices down and make America energy independent.
4) Romney hammered on the theme that he would make America the most attractive country in the world for business — so businesses will build plants and invest here rather than in China and overseas. He pointed out that even left-leaning Canada dropped its corporate tax rate to 15 percent, compared to a 35 percent top corporate tax rate in the U.S. – which is why Canada’s economy is now doing so much better than ours.
5) Romney was terrific on how he would crack down on China’s cheating on trade.
6) Romney reminded voters repeatedly about how ObamaCare is killing business, killing the economy, and killing jobs.
7) CNN’s poll of debate watchers had Romney beating Obama 49-46 on who would better handle health care. ObamaCare is Obama’s #1 legislative achievement, but voters don’t like it.
8) Obama never talked about the future or what America will look like after another four years of Obama policies.
In the CNN poll, 49 percent thought Obama spent more time attacking his opponent to 35 percent who thought Romney was the main attacker — which is probably why more debate watchers awarded Obama a few more debating points.
But what voters will remember is that Obama never talked about his plans for a second term. How will his second term be any different from his first term?
Elections are always about the future. People want to know the President’s plan for making America a better place. How will life be different four years from now?
Obama did not say.
He just attacked Romney. That’s what liberals liked about Obama last night.
But that won’t help Obama win over undecided voters, which is what he has to do to win the election.
In the CNN poll, 49 percent of debate watchers saw Romney as the stronger leader compared to 46 percent who saw Obama as the stronger leader.
If you’re the sitting President of the United States and more people see your opponent as the stronger leader, you’re in a heap of political trouble.
People want a real leader as President, not someone who boasts about “leading from behind.”
This is a race for President, not for debate winner. People want to know: Who has the best plan to take America to a better place? Who has the best plan for the future? . . .because what we’ve been doing for the last four years has so obviously failed.
Romney answered these questions. Obama didn’t.
That’s why Romney this morning is in even a stronger position to win this election than he was before last night’s debate.
By the way, what was Obama’s long discourse on contraception all about?
Does he really think this is the big issue on the minds of voters?
How can I say this?
REASON #1: All you have to do is look at President Obama’s reelect number.
Today, in the Real Clear Politics average of polls, Obama’s reelect number stands at 46.0 percent in his head-to-head race with Romney.
Romney is now at 47.3 percent — one full point ahead of Obama.
But what’s important right now is Obama’s reelect number.
Anytime a sitting President’s reelect number drops under 50 percent, he’s in trouble.
When it falls below 48 percent, it becomes very difficult (nearly impossible) for an incumbent President to claw his way back to 50 percent.
Because the President is the known quantity. And right now only 46.3 percent of likely voters think he deserves another term.
After four years in office, how on earth will he persuade 3.7 percent of the electorate to change their mind and vote for his reelection?
Obama’s reelect number has been at 46-48 percent all year. Hasn’t budged much.
What’s changing is Romney’s rising elect number, as voters get to know him better.
Obama’s only hope was to demonize Romney.
But that can’t succeed anymore.
Team Obama spent $300 million doing just that, with an avalanche of negative ads.
Both Romney and Ryan were able to undo all these negative ads with their debate performances — watched by a combined 125 million Americans.
With their debate performances, they were able to answer the #1 question in the minds of undecided voters: Are these two men plausible alternatives to Obama and Biden?
Both Romney and Ryan showed themselves to be far more than plausible alternatives.
By all accounts, Romney wiped the floor with Obama in the first debate, while Biden exhibited signs of mental instability with his incessant laughing, snickering, eye-rolling, and guffawing during Paul Ryan’s cogent presentation and answers to questions.
Biden demonstrated with his bizarre, mentally unstable debate performance that he’s completely unfit to be one heartbeat away from the Presidency.
So Romney just needs to perform acceptably in the next two debates. He will.
REASON #2: Obama only won Ohio with 51.2 percent of the vote in 2008
And this was when Obama could do no wrong, and nothing was going well for McCain.
We had just suffered a massive financial collapse under the watch of George W. Bush, who also was unable to find any WMDs in Iraq. Bush ended his Presidency as among the most unpopular Presidents in history.
Yet, Obama was still only able to win 51.2 percent of the vote in Ohio in 2008.
Does anyone seriously believe Obama will get anywhere near the 51.2 percent of the vote in got in 2008 — when he was at the very peak of his popularity?
The five big battleground states to watch are Florida, Ohio, Virginia, North Carolina, and Colorado.
The respected Suffolk University Polling Research Center of Massachusetts has already pulled its polling research team out of Florida, Virginia, and North Carolina (to focus elsewhere) because they feel those states have already been won by Romney (this, even before Romney’s debate trouncing of Obama).
Romney now has also established a lead in Colorado.
Real Clear Politics has now moved Colorado into the Romney column.
Most polls still give Obama a narrow lead in Ohio of one or two points. But most of these polls are old.
Obama’s only hope at this point is to somehow pull out a win in Ohio. He then would have a chance to win an Electoral College vote victory even while losing the popular vote across the country.
By the way, Romney can still win an Electoral College victory without Ohio. But that math becomes more complicated. He would have to win Wisconsin — which is entirely doable with Paul Ryan (from Wisconsin) on the ticket. Polls show Romney-Ryan just two points behind in the usually blue badger state.
But if Romney wins Ohio, this election is over.
Now let’s look again at why it will be so tough for Obama to win Ohio when Romney is leading Obama in national polls.
In 2008, McCain performed three points better in Ohio than he performed across the rest of the country — losing to Obama by 4 percent in Ohio while losing by 7 nationwide.
In 2000, we saw a similar gap between the Ohio vote and the national vote. George W. Bush won Ohio over Al Gore by a 3.3 percent margin, while Al Gore actually won the popular vote nationally by half a percent.
So Ohio tends to vote more conservative than America as a whole — which is why Ohio is always the key state for Republicans to win in Presidential election years.
If the Republican candidate can’t win Ohio, he can’t expect to win the election . . . because Ohio is slightly more conservative than America is as a whole.
It’s a bellwether state — but it’s a bellwether state that tips slightly in favor of Republicans.
There’s no reason to believe Ohio will behave any differently this year. If Romney wins nationally, he’ll win Ohio by a slightly wider margin than his national total.
REASON #3: The giant enthusiasm gap between the Republicans and Democrats.
This is always a key number predicting election outcomes.
Scott Rasmussen puts the enthusiasm gap at +11 to +14 in favor of the GOP. Other polls show about the same number.
This is critical for gauging likely voter turnout.
Does anyone believe black and young voters (the core of Obama’s base in 2008) will turn out for Obama in the same numbers they did four years ago?
Young (under age 30) voters still favor Obama over Romney, but by a deminishing margin. And there is zero enthusiasm this time among young pro-Obama voters. Look for many of them to stay home on Election Day. And the unemployment rate among black voters is now 15%. They will still vote for Obama. But how many will show up?
REASON #4: The Independent vote is breaking heavily against Obama.
Romney leads by 12 points among Independents in most polls, by 20 points in some polls.
It’s almost impossible for Obama to swim against this tide.
If you assume a roughly equal turnout of Republicans and Democrats (which is what most pollsters assume), Romney wins by winning the Independents. Even if you give Democrats a +3 percent turnout advantage over Republicans (unlikely), Romney’s big lead among Independents gives him the election.
The bottom line . . .
Debates don’t change the fundamentals of Presidential elections. Never have.
Debates perhaps can turn a few votes in super-close elections (Kennedy-Nixon in 1960 — with Nixon visibly sweating; Bush-Gore in 2000 — with Gore sighing excessively).
But this election is not that close.
The media polls have skewed in Obama’s favor in part because of the pro-Obama bias of most media polls — also because pollsters tend to deliver the results those paying them are looking for.
So it looked like Obama was winning.
But now that the election is only three weeks away, these pollsters have their reputations to protect. So you are seeing more accuracy today in the polls than we saw two weeks ago.
In addition, the Gallup poll has shifted its metric from measuring registered voters to “likely voters.”
Republicans always score 3-4 points better among likely voters than registered voters — and better still among actual voters.
The closer you get to measuring actual voters, the better Republicans do.
In addition, Romney was unknown to many low-information voters before the debate.
The more voters see Romney, the more they become comfortable with the idea of Romney as President.
So the upcoming debates will be fun to watch. The debates will provide good fodder for the pundits.
Pundits have to make a living, too, so need to talk about something every day.
But the debates won’t matter much — except possibly to add to Romney’s margin of victory by giving the undecideds even more confidence that the country will be in good hands with Romney.
Of course, if Obama lays another egg on the stage, we’re looking at a blowout election.
So put this in the bank.
A Romney-Ryan victory is now baked in stone (barring something completely unexpected). The only question now is the margin of Romney’s victory.
My expectation is that this election won’t be close.
Romney will win by 7 to 10 points as the undecided voters break heavily against the incumbent President in the final few days before the Election, as they always do.
Until this, Mitt Romney’s ads have been absolutely dreadful — no bite
Rasmussen today has Romney now leading Obama 49-47 — with a 16 point lead among Independents. This represents a four point bounce so far from the debate. But Rasmussen’s daily tracking poll is a three-day rolling average. So one day of polling is still from before the debate.
Look for Romney to increase his lead in tomorrow’s Rasmussen daily tracking poll.
Obama’s new ad on debate even more pathetic than his debate performance: Accuses Romney of bullying poor Obama . . .
RNC puts out great ad on the Obama “Smirk” . . .
It was a bloodbath last night for Barack Obama in the debate. He was General Custer at Little Big Horn. He was Duane Bobick vs Ken Norton.
This was the most one-sided debate in Presidential debate history.
To know this is true, just listen to how Obama’s friends reacted to his performance.
JAMES CARVILLE: “Romney came with a chainsaw.“
CHRIS MATTHEWS: “What was he doing!?”
ANDREW SULLIVAN: “This was a disaster!“
MICHAEL MOORE: “This is what happens when you pick John Kerry as your debate coach.“
VAN JONES: “Was able to out-Obama Obama.“
AL GORE blamed the altitude for Obama’s dismal showing.
Obama’s deputy campaign manager Stephanie Cutter blamed moderator Jim Lehrer.
THE NEW YORK TIMES called him “President Xzanax.”
CNN POLL: Romney Annihilates — 67-25
In the final 15 minutes of the debate, I almost started feeling sorry for Obama.
He looked pathetic — like a whipped puppy.
The expression on Obama’s face told us he knew he had lost, knew he had no answers. Couldn’t wait to get off the stage.
Obama actually looked afraid of Mitt Romney.
Every feeble punch Obama tried to deliver was parried by Romney and then countered with an avalanche of devastating blows. When Obama asked Jim Lehrer, in a debate on economics, if they could move onto a different subject, this was like Roberto Duran saying “NO MAS” in second fight with Sugar Ray Leonard.
But it wasn’t just Obama’s poor performance.
Romney put in a great performance. Romney was substanative. Romney was funny. Romney’s body language was commanding.
It was clear he is just better informed than Obama on the issues. Romney had fact after fact. Obama had the same stale talking points we had heard from him a thousand times before.
But what I loved best about Romney’s performance is he went ideological.
He talked about the Constitution. He even referenced the Tenth Amendment. He quoted America’s Declaration of Independence.
He said he would eliminate every program that did not pass this test: “Is it worth borrowing money from China to continue this program?” If not, he’ll cancel it.
He promised to repeal ObamaCare.
He said education is almost entirely the job of local government — that perhaps there was a federal role in grading the schools. But that’s about it.
He did not back off his plan to offer a voucher option on Medicare for those age 54 and younger (the Paul Ryan plan). He even told Jim Lehrer he will stop federal funds for PBS, even though he likes Big Bird.
One of the great moments in the debate was when Romney said he doesn’t think government should take on the role of “picking winners and losers” in business.
Then Romney really stuck the knife in, saying: Obama has the uncanny ability of picking almost all losers — referring to Solyndra and all those green energy companies Obama threw billions of dollars at that then went bankrupt.
Romney’s performance last night was even better than Ronald Reagan’s performance against Jimmy Carter in 1980. And that’s saying something.
If you watch Reagan’s 1980 debate performance with Carter, you’ll see that Reagan did stumble a bit a couple of times. Romney did not stumble once — not even over a single word.
Reagan really was not a heavy fact guy. He could not rattle off a litany of facts and policy specifics, the way Romney did last night. Reagan was great at talking in big themes and broad principles.
Bill Clinton was a good debater. He was great with policy specifics and facts — but could not talk in big themes the way Reagan could.
Romney was able to do both — talk in big themes (like Reagan) and rattle off reams of facts and policy specifics (like Clinton, but even more so).
Anyone who watched last night’s debate can see why Mitt Romney was such an effective CEO — why he was so successful at building Bain Capital, why he was able to turn the Olympics around, and why he was able to win the governorship in solidly blue Massachusetts.
Mitt Romney just exudes competence.
My bet is he will win over not just Independents with his performance last night. He’ll win over many rank-and-file Democrats — just as Reagan did.
He’ll win them over even though they’ll disagree with him on some issues. He’ll win over some Democrats who just want a strong leader for America — just like Reagan did.
In my article a few days ago, I predicted a four point Romney victory on November 6th.
But that was before this debate. That was a prediction based on the weak, content-free ads Team Romney has been running.
After last night’s debate performance, look now for a 10+ point blowout in the Election for Romney.
I never expected such a strong debate performance from Romney.
Romney was bold. Romney was confident. Romney was not the least bit defensive. Romney advanced conservative principles every step of the way. Romney skinned Obama alive.
Some will say there were no real memorable lines in this debate. No gotcha moments when the debate turned.
That’s because this debate victory for Romney was so overwhelming.
It was like a tank running over an ant.
I have watched this debate now three times all the way through.
The first time I watched, I was nervous.
The second time I watched, it was with a big grin on my face from start to finish. I just wanted to enjoy it for the full 90 minutes — every word of it — with a bag of popcorn.
The third time, I studied it — and was even more impressed with the thoroughness of Romney’s total destruction of Obama. This was true debate mastery by Romney — every word, every line was a torpedo into the side of the USS Obama.
This debate performance will be studied in high school and college debate and American history classes for the next 100 years as an example of “How It’s Done.”
Frankly, Romney should fire his entire campaign team — especially the creators of his weak, content-free ads. I never thought I’d say: “Just let Romney be Romney.”
That seems to be what we saw last night. We saw a candidate who spoke with passion and conviction about conservative principles — about the Constitution, about America’s founding principles. Even the great Ronald Reagan did not talk all that often about the Constitution.
Before this debate, I was looking at the Romney campaign with dismay — thinking he’ll probably muddle his way to victory despite his campaign.
Today, I am truly excited about Romney. My vote is no longer just an anti-Obama vote. I am now strongly pro-Romney.
Obama’s new ad on debate even more pathetic than his debate performance: Accuses Romney of bullying poor Obama . . .
RNC puts out great ad on the Obama “Smirk” . . .