Archive for the ‘Mitt Romney’ Category
Conservatism did not lose on November 6th. The conservative case was not on the ballot and was never made in 2012. Obama won a purely tactical victory over an incompetent Romney campaign.
He received 7,000,000 fewer votes than George W. Bush in 2004.
Barack Obama received about the same number of votes as John McCain in 2008. Obama received 9,000,000 fewer votes in 2012 that he received in 2008.
If you had told me before Election Day that Barack Obama’s vote total would drop 13 percent from what it was in 2008, I would have broken out the champagne, party hats, and plastic horns.
This election was no mandate for Obama.
Had Romney even slightly exceeded McCain’s 2008 vote total, he would have won the election.
Incredibly, Romney got a smaller share of the Mormon vote than Bush did.
The Romney campaign will go down in history as one of the most incompetent and ineffective Presidential campaigns of all time by a major national party nominee.
Who would have thought that the Republican nominee this year would be unable to match even John McCain’s pathetic 2008 vote total?
Most of us thought McCain’s campaign was incredibly weak at the time.
Today, McCain looks like a pillar of strength when compared to the Romney effort.
Plus, look what McCain was up against. We had just had the financial collapse. George W. Bush was among the most unpopular Presidents in American history. Bush’s claims about WMDs being in Iraq were apparently wrong, so we got into a war that was completely unnecessary. The U.S. economy was in free-fall collapse.
Meanwhile, Obama was hailed as the Messiah in 2008. He dispatched Hillary Clinton in the primaries, who was thought to be unstoppable. He was filling football stadiums with his speeches. People in audiences were fainting just because they were in his presence.
Yet McCain was able to get more votes than Mitt Romney.
Now consider all the advantages Romney had going for him.
The economy is still dead on its back. Most Americans disagree with Obama’s big government, tax-and-spend approach. Most Americans oppose ObamaCare and want ObamaCare repealed.
Other than killing bin Laden, there is literally nothing Obama can point to that has worked.
We now have a $16.3 TRILLION national debt — $6 TRILLION more than on Obama’s first day on the job. And Obama’s big solution is to spend more. The unemployment rate is higher than it was on Obama’s first day in office four years ago. We are becoming like Greece in terms of debt. The price of a gallon of gas has doubled. The real estate market is still in crash mode. We have 49 million Americans on food stamps, up from 34 million on Obama’s first day in office. The dollar has lost half its value. The Middle East is on fire.
What has Obama done that has worked?
How is it possible that Romney was unable even to match McCain’s vote total?
This is what happens when you run a campaign that has no theme — really no rationale.
Romney’s campaign theme was basically this:
“I’ll raise your take-home pay and get the economy moving again. Obama is a nice guy, but his policies just aren’t working. Time to try something new.”
Romney’s entire message summarized was: Obama failed, so give me the keys to the car.
But everyone knows we fail all the time. I fail everyday. I get things wrong all the time. That, by itself, doesn’t mean I’m incompetent or that I’m going to keep failing. I try to learn from my mistakes and failures. Bill Gates and Steve Jobs have had plenty of failures, made plenty of mistakes.
Show me someone who hasn’t failed, and I’ll show you someone who doesn’t take risks and who hasn’t achieved much in life. Ronald Reagan had plenty of big failures.
So just pointing out over and over again that someone is failing doesn’t tell you anything. In fact, that might even gin up sympathy for the person if you over do it.
The question is: What’s causing the failure?
And is there any prospect that you are learning from your mistakes?
Is it Obama’s fault that Obama is failing?
Or is the failure due to factors beyond Obama’s control?
Romney never connected the dots on WHY Obama’s policies aren’t working.
Obama’s policies are not working because they are built on a philosophy that’s wrong, ideas that are wrong — socialist ideas that have never worked.
Obama’s policies aren’t working because he’s a deficit spender. He thinks we aren’t spending enough. He thinks if we spend more, the U.S. economy will come back.
This is like thinking the answer to your massive credit card debt is to just spend more — that the more you spend and go into debt, the richer you’ll get.
That, in a nutshell, is the Obama prescription for the economy.
Obama’s socialistic, anti-capitalist philosophy is also causing the failure and leading to policies that are the exact opposite of the direction we should be heading.
It’s not that Obama is missing the target. We can understand shooting at a target and missing. It’s that he’s shooting in the opposite direction of the target. So no matter how often he shoots, the arrow will land even farther away from the target than from where it was launched.
In other words, America would be far better off if Obama would have done absolutely nothing than what he did. And Obama has promised to do more of the same.
So America’s economic crisis will continue to get worse — will soon turn into a full blown economic collapse if we don’t reverse course, if we don’t do exactly the opposite of what Obama wants to do . . . in every area.
There is literally no Obama policy that is the correct prescription for the economy.
Everything Obama is doing is making the economy worse. The economy continues to limp along, despite Obama. In fact, it looks like we are about to dip into another recession.
Obama believes in big government, the more government the better. Obama’s answer to America’s economic problems is always to grow government — to spend more, to hire more government bureaucrats, to build more government bureaucracies.
He’s a believer in top-down government-imposed solutions. He doesn’t believe much in the idea that free markets and free people will produce much better results over the long term — that free-market capitalism is the surest path to prosperity. His answer to every problem is to write more regulations, pass more laws, create more government programs.
He now wants to have a Secretary of Business — as though this is the answer to the lack of new business formation. We now have the lowest rate of new business start-ups on record.
Economic growth always comes from new business start-ups. But it’s very tough for new businesses to form and grow in the current regulatory environment — especially with ObamaCare now lurking.
Obama is a European-style Socialist, at best. Never mind that countries like France, Spain and Greece now have unemployment rates of about 25 percent.
This is where we’re heading. Obama’s supporters call America’s current economic stagnation the “new normal.”
They think America was too rich anyway and needed to be taken down a few pegs.
So that’s what’s happening.
Obama told us he’s out to “fundamentally transform” America.
What if you told your wife you want to “fundamentally transform” her?
Is that sending a message that you love your wife?
Does someone who wants to “fundamentally transform” America love America?
But there were no ads, no mentions from the Romney camp about Obama’s promise to “fundamentally transform” America.
That would have been a great debate to have. What exactly does Obama have in mind with his promise to “fundamentally transform” America?
It’s a debate that surely would have raised more than a few eyebrows in the electorate.
It would be nice if Romney had asked Obama this question during one of the debates. This would have made a great ad.
Most Americans aren’t Socialists, don’t want America to be like Europe — don’t think this should be the “new normal” and certainly don’t want to “fundamentally transform” America.
Every survey shows that most Americans want less government. Only 20 percent of Americans describe themselves as liberal, while 40 percent describe themselves as conservative.
But Romney never once called Obama a Leftist — or even a big spending, big government, tax-and-spend liberal.
If he had, the American people would better understand why every Obama policy leads to more failure.
It’s inexplicable that Obama’s job approval rating kept rising during the campaign.
At the start of the campaign, Obama’s job approval rating was about 45 percent. By the end of the campaign it was 50 percent.
When has that ever happened during the course of a political campaign?
The more Romney’s ads aired, the higher Obama’s job approval would rise.
This should tell you something. At a minimum, it should tell you to stop running these ads — to get some new ads, get a new message.
Conservatives consistently win elections that are about big ideas and big themes — about the overall direction the country should be heading. But we tend to lose tactical elections — when the election is about small issues (like “legitimate rape,” “Big Bird,” and free condoms).
Obama won a tactical election victory because this turned out not to be an election about ideas at all. No ideas were even discussed. So some people even ended up letting Hurricane Sandy decide their vote.
Who could even tell who the conservative was and who the liberal was in this race based on the content of these campaigns?
It’s not that Obama is any kind of political juggernaut. He received 9,000,000 fewer votes in 2012 than in 2008. By any standard, that’s failure — when an incumbent President can’t even come close to matching his previous vote total.
When that happens, the incumbent President loses. Certainly always has in the past.
But not this time . . . because Romney turned in an even more pathetic performance.
And that was the big wild card of this Election.
We expected Obama’s vote total to decline dramatically from what it was in 2008 — down to McCain’s level.
The fact that that happened is why I was predicting a landslide election victory for Romney — despite his shockingly weak campaign.
What no one expected was Romney’s inability even to match McCain’s 2008 vote total.
What no one expected was Romney getting 2,000,000 fewer votes than even McCain’s weak and inept campaign.
How is this even possible?
When you think about it, Mitt Romney only had one good moment in this election — and that was his first debate with Obama. He did a good job there.
But that was it. The election was over for Romney until that first debate because the Romney campaign allowed Obama to define him. That first debate gave Romney some new life. But then he went back into a cautious prevent-defense mode and tried to run out the clock — which never works.
You can’t beat something with absolutely nothing, which is what Romney tried to do.
He kept telling us he was going to create 12,000,000 new jobs.
Why not 6,000,000 . . . or 20,000,000?
Where are these jobs coming from? Where does this 12,000,000 number come from?
Romney never told us, just made the claim over and over again without ever connecting the dots, without ever saying how.
This is like saying “On Tuesday you’ll be on Mars.”
When will Republicans learn the formula for winning national campaigns?
And that’s simply to copy the Reagan formula.
We win by talking about our principles and big themes. We win when we talk about the benefits of liberty, of capitalism, of shrinking the number of government bureaucrats.
We win when we talk about America’s founding principles, as stated in our Declaration of Independence. We win when we talk about why America’s experiment in liberty and limited government was so successful — made America the most prosperous nation in human history.
We win when we educate the American people about liberty and its benefits.
We win when we talk about America being a “shining city on a hill” — a beacon of liberty and prosperity for all the world to follow.
People want to be part of something bigger than themselves.
It’s not just about the money. Romney kept talking about the $4,300 average decline in yearly take-home pay for the American household.
That’s certainly important to people. But the question is: WHY is this happening?
People want to know “WHY?” . . . because, if we don’t know WHY, how can we be sure you have the right answers.
Romney never answered that question.
So Obama was able to say plausibly that we’re victims of a global decline, or that he inherited a mess from Bush. Romney never made the case that the root of the problem is Obama’s Socialistic world-view — his false Utopian ideology that has never worked.
Romney made his campaign all about the money. “I’ll help you get higher take-home pay.”
But is this really all people want?
People also want a brighter future for their children and grandchildren. People also want freedom — not to be bossed around by government bureaucrats or harassed relentlessly by the IRS.
People want to be left alone by the government.
Is Bill Gates all about the money?
Or is he more about building something really big and consequential?
The American Dream is about a lot more than money. It’s about freedom. It’s about a society that allows people the freedom to have big dreams and big goals, whatever they may be. It’s about that “Shining City on Hill” that Ronald Reagan and the Pilgrims of Plymouth Rock always talked about building — a Shining City on a Hill that can be a beacon of liberty, light and civilization for the rest of the world to follow.
Romney would have done well to talk about why so many people used to want to come to America, but no longer do.
Isn’t it interesting that immigration to America has slowed to a trickle since Obama’s first day in office?
People just aren’t so keen on coming to America anymore.
So that’s one way to control immigration and secure our border. Turn America into a dump. Then we won’t have the problem of trying to control immigration. But that’s not quite the immigration policy we want, is it?
We win when we talk about socialism’s dismal record throughout history. This could then be reinforced by talking about Obama’s dismal record — where he is trying his best to march America toward his Socialist vision.
But we never heard Romney talk about any of this. Romney never painted a picture of how bleak America’s future will be if Obama is allowed to take America down the road he’s taking us. The Road to Serfdom by F. A. Hayek paints the picture, as does George Orwell’s 1984.
The Romney campaign hardly mentioned ObamaCare, including . . .
- the 21 new taxes and tax increases that are part of ObamaCare and that kick in on January 1, 2013
- the 16,000 IRS agents that are being hired now to enforce ObamaCare
- the 159 new government agencies that are being built to administer ObamaCare
- the 15-member Health Care Rationing Board that’s key t0o ObamaCare’s “cost containment” strategy.
It’s basically the North Korean health care strategy. North Korea has universal health care for its citizens. But they only spend $1 per year per citizen on health care, so you have to conduct your own amputations (a true fact, by the way).
That’s certainly one way to cut health care costs!
The issue is not whether you can get health care. It’s the quality of your health care.
But no discussion of any of this from the Romney camp.
Obama keeps complaining that Americans spend more than anyone else on health care.
But that’s a meaningless statement. We also spend more on housing, on food, on our cars, on vacations, on everything — because we are Americans. We are the most prosperous nation in human history and we can afford to. But Romney never really engaged Obama philosophically, never engaged him on first principles.
We never had a real debate about what kind of a future we want for America — what kind of a society we want to pass onto our children and grandchildren.
I really don’t mind losing an election like that. If the American people choose socialism over freedom, so be it. But let’s at least have that debate. We didn’t in this election. Instead we had an election about Big Bird, free condoms, “legitimate rape,” and Hurricane Sandy.
For a reminder of what a winning conservative message sounds like, listen to Ronald Reagan’s great “A Time for Choosing Convention” speech on behalf of Barry Goldwater in 1964:
This great speech became the basis of Ronald Reagan’s future political career.
Almost every word in this speech applies today.
Republicans just need to study this speech and do this. This is how you inspire people. He inspired a lot of Democrats with these speeches — created tens of millions of what became known as “Reagan Democrats.”
Reagan was able to get 37 percent of the Hispanic vote compared to 27 percent for Romney. Reagan won more Hispanics over to his side with his ideas and principles than Romney and the current GOP leadership is winning with their no-principles, no-ideas approach.
Here’s more from Reagan . . .
Reagan’s Great 1980 Convention Speech . . .
Reagan’s debate performance against Carter . . .
What stands out is how much tougher Reagan was against Carter than Romney was against Obama.
Winning doesn’t get any simpler than this.
The Romney campaign had no theme. After more than one billion dollars spent on campaign ads, we still have no idea what Romney would have actually done as President.
There’s no reason to reinvent the wheel. Just study the speeches and campaigns of a winner.
Almost all the arguments Reagan made against Carter apply today, only more so.
Conservativism did not lose on Tuesday. Conservatism was not on the ballot.
I’m not sure what was on the ballot. But it certainly wasn’t conservative ideas and principles.
The conservative case was never made in 2012.
It’s an insult to quackery to call polling quackery
The pollsters are now out to protect their reputations. So all the recent polls now suddenly have Mitt Romney and Barack Obama tied – EXACTLY tied.
A curious coincidence, don’t you think?
It wasn’t long ago that these polls were all over the map. Now we see this mysterious and sudden convergence — just before their reliability can be checked against actual election results.
The truth is these pollsters have no idea what’s really happening, so they might as well call this election tied and protect their reputations. Can’t be faulted for just saying what everyone else is saying. So that’s what they’re doing.
As we have seen, polling really isn’t much of a science. These polls are useless, always have been useless. You’ll get more truth by consulting your palm reader.
We see wild 10 point swings from one poll to another. National Journal last week had Obama up by five points, while Gallup had Romney up by five points . . . at the same time.
What’s the point of wasting time reading these polls where there is a 10 point variance between them?
These polls tell us there is a potential margin of error of between two and four points.
What use is that then for tracking a close race?
But it turns out there’s really a potential margin of error of at least ten points — since there’s a ten point difference between them.
Yet professional pundits base their commentaries on these bogus polls.
They say Romney is stumbling or Obama is surging because one poll shows a one or two point shift.
Dick Morris tells us Romney’s advantage is eroding because the Rasmussen poll now has Romney and Obama tied, instead of Romney two points up. He attributes Romney’s so-called erosion to Hurricane Sandy.
Why isn’t it just statistical noise inherent in these tiny poll samples?
Most likely, Rasmussen is just protecting his reputation by calling this race now tied . . . because he has no more idea than anyone else what’s really happening out there.
Frankly, I wonder if these pollsters are really making the phone calls they say they are making to voters. Why not just save the money and make up the numbers?
That would be just as useful.
Is anyone checking?
But even if they really are making these phone calls and talking to voters, we are assuming an entirely false precision to all these polls.
There’s simply no statistical possibility that a survey of 800 or 1,000 or 2,500 Americans can tell us within three percent or even five percent, with any reliability, what 130,000,000 voters are actually thinking now — much less how they will vote on Election Day.
Heck, we have no idea who will even vote in this election. That’s why the pollsters call these people “likely voters” and not “actual voters.”
And it really all comes down to that. Whose registered voters will actually show up to vote?
Pollsters are about as useful as witch doctors. Why anyone would pay any attention to them is a mystery.
It’s insulting to pseudoscience and quackery to call polling pseudoscience or quackery.
But pollsters (like witch doctors) have to make a living, too. Now they have their reputations to protect so they can continue to make a living with their bogus craft.
The safest bet right now for these pollsters is to just call this race a tie. So that’s what they’re all doing.
The most reliable poll we have seen this year is the Wisconsin recall election involving Governor Scott Walker — when actual votes were cast (2.5 million actual votes).
Now that’s a representative polling sample in a heavily blue state. And it’s a great indicator of what’s really happening out there.
I’ve been basing my election predictions on that poll. What other poll do we really need?
What has fundamentally changed in the country since that recall election in June?
ANSWER: Nothing, except the economy is in even worse shape. And the fiasco in Libya has happened since then. We also have a pretty good candidate in Mitt Romney.
Walker won the Wisconsin recall election by 7 points (in a solidly blue state) — about four points better than what the average of polls were saying during that final week.
I think it’s highly likely we will see a Wisconsin-sized polling error play itself out on Tuesday — with Mitt Romney winning by a comfortable margin.
Related Articles . . .
1) Ohio is a Republican-leaning State
Republicans have controlled the governorship for 20 of the last 24 years. The GOP overwhelmingly controls both houses of the Ohio state legislature. Republicans hold all five of the statewide elected offices, including the governorship. All Ohio Supreme Court Justices are Republican.
2) Cuyahoga county — which includes Cleveland — has lost 150,000 registered voters since 2008.
This is Obama’s big county. It’s where his votes are. So this is bad news for Obama.
3) Ohio traditionally votes about 2 points more Republican than the rest of the country.
Obama defeated McCain nationally by 7 points, but won Ohio by 4.7 percent. The Real Clear Politics average of national polls shows Romney and Obama tied — though Gallup gives Romney a 5 point lead nationally. So if Ohio is a point or two more Republican than the country as a whole, that gives the edge to Romney on this metric alone.
4) Romney is running anywhere from 7 percent to 18 percent ahead of Obama among Independent voters (depending on the poll).
I’m assuming Republicans and Democrats turnout in equal numbers. That gives the win to Romney because of the Independent vote. But even if you give Democrats a 3 point turnout advantage over Republicans (highly unlikely), that still gives the win to Romney.
5) Obama only beat McCain in 2008 in Ohio by 4.7 points.
Obama is now running nationally 7-8 points behind his 2008 vote total according to the RCP average of polls. This fact will be mirrored in Ohio.
Do you really think Romney won’t perform 5 percent better than McCain?
Do you really think Obama won’t perform at least 5 percent worse than in 2008 after four years of dismal economic performance?
Remember, McCain was a stunningly weak candidate, while Obama was heralded as the Messiah.
We had just had the financial meltdown under George W. Bush, who was the most unpopular President since Jimmy Carter. But now Obama has a four-year record — and a sorry record it is. An overwhelming majority of Americans believe America is headed in the wrong direction. Republican enthusiasm for this election is at a fever pitch, while Democrat enthusiasm is down. There’s just no way Romney won’t outperform McCain by more than 5 points in Ohio.
6) Early voting and absentee ballot requests have already erased Obama’s 2008 262,224 vote margin of victory over McCain.
Karl Rove has been closely tracking early voters and absentee ballot requests. Here’s what Rove said in his Wall Street Journal column the other day:
Adrian Gray, who oversaw the Bush 2004 voter-contact operation and is now a policy analyst for a New York investment firm, makes the point that as of Tuesday, 530,813 Ohio Democrats had voted early or had requested or cast an absentee ballot. That’s down 181,275 from four years ago. But 448,357 Ohio Republicans had voted early or had requested or cast an absentee ballot, up 75,858 from the last presidential election.
That 257,133-vote swing almost wipes out Mr. Obama’s 2008 Ohio victory margin of 262,224. Since most observers expect Republicans to win Election Day turnout, these early vote numbers point toward a Romney victory in Ohio.”
Rove was on FOX News last night with updated early-voting numbers that show Obama has now lost his entire 262,224 early voting and absentee ballot 2008 margin of victory. So Democrats continue to under-perform, while the GOP is over-performing with early voting and absentee ballots.
Remember, John McCain defeated Barack Obama in Ohio (and across the nation) with votes cast on Election Day. Obama’s entire margin of victory was achieved with early voting. The GOP has just about eliminated Obama’s early voting advantage and will now swamp Obama with Election Day votes. Republicans traditionally vote on Election Day.
So it’s game over for Obama on this early-voting and absentee ballot data alone.
The Bottom Line . . .
I do think Ohio will be fairly close. It always is. That’s why it’s a bellwether state.
It won’t be a blowout for Romney, who has been hurt by the auto bailout issue in this state among some blue collar workers. That’s what’s keeping Obama reasonably close in Ohio. Though Obama is being hurt with blue collar workers in south eastern Ohio with his war on the coal industry. So this will dampen any advantage Obama is getting from the auto bailout. Romney will win Ohio by about 140,000 votes (2-3 percent).
No recount will be needed.
I also believe Romney will win Wisconsin, Iowa, and might even pull off a surprise victory in Pennsylvania.
Virginia, Florida and Colorado are now all in the bag for Romney.
About that NBC/WSJ/Marist poll that has Obama now leading in Ohio by 6.
Who knows whether this ridiculous poll is pure political propaganda, or just incompetence.
Does anyone really believe Obama will win Ohio this year by more than he won it by in 2008?
This so-called poll included a +9 Democrat advantage over Republicans in its sample.
So that’s all you have to know about this poll.
In 2008, the Democrat turnout margin over Republicans in Ohio was +7.
In 2010, Republicans were +1 over Dems in turnout.
Expect turnout in Ohio this year to be about equal between Democrats and Republicans. Romney will win with the 7 to 18 point advantage he now has with Independents (depending on the poll). If Romney’s advantage with Independents is just 6 points on Election Day, he’ll win Ohio handily.
GALLUP’S BOMBSHELL FINDING: And conclusive proof that this will be a blowout Election for Mitt Romney
I’ve been saying now for months that Mitt Romney will win this by 6+ points. This election will not be close.
Here’s more evidence I’m right.
Gallup has had Mitt at the 50 percent or more mark now for about two weeks. Today, Mitt is up 5.
Rasmussen also has Mitt at 50 percent, now up four points over Obama.
But that’s not the really devastating news for Obama. That’s not what I want to point out here.
The really bad news for Obama and the Dems is hidden in Gallup’s internal numbers.
The metric to focus on is party identification.
I know. Everyone’s focused on the undecided vote. That favors Mitt because undecideds tend to break against the incumbent in Presidential elections by a 2-to-1 margin.
So if Romney is ahead now (which he is), he’ll be more ahead on Election Day.
But that’s not the important news because I don’t think there are many undecided voters.
If you are an undecided voter today, you must be a total moron — or have no interest whatsoever in politics, so probably won’t vote anyway.
The important news is Party ID breakdown.
This little nugget is buried deep in Gallup’s otherwise boring article on its poll titled: “2012 U.S. Electorate Looks Like 2008.”
From the headline, it sure doesn’t sound like there’s any news here. I would not expect the basic demographics of the country to change much in four years (about the same percentages of men, women, blacks, Hispanics, whites, Asians, seniors, yoots, etc). So no big deal there.
Why even bother to conduct a poll on all that?
You have to read the entire article and poll to find out what’s really important.
And what’s really important is this BOMBSHELL fact . . .
In 2008 Democrats had a 39-29 (D+10) advantage in hard party ID, and a 54-42 (D+12) advantage when you throw in leaners.
But now Republicans show a 36-35 (R+1) hard party ID advantage, and a 49-46 (R+3) lead when you include leaners.
So, we have a party ID shift here of 11 to 15 points.
This is devastating not just to Obama, but to Democrats down the entire ballot.
Yup, we’re talking victories by the Todd Akins and Richard Mourdocks of the world.
Just about any candidate with an “R” next to his or her name has a great chance to win on November 6th.
Then when you throw in the 10-20 point advantage Romney has among Independents (depending on the poll), we’re looking at a blowout Election of historic proportions against the incumbent President.
In other words, what we are seeing here is the destruction of the Democrat Party by Barack Obama.
But what about Ohio?
I know a lot of you are worried about Ohio. We really haven’t seen any public polls that show Romney ahead. We have a few that show him tied. Most polls have Mitt slightly behind.
Fear not. The metric to focus on here is Romney’s standing among Independents in Ohio.
Figure Republicans and Democrats will turn out in about equal numbers. Heck, give a generous two-point edge to self-identified Dems.
Here’s a chart of recent polls — including all those biased media polls that over-sample Democrats by 6-10 points:
So this presents a clear picture of what we will see in Ohio.
Some Ohio “Early Voting” Data Points . . .
Here’s what’s happening so far with “Early Voting” in Ohio.
220,000 fewer Democrats have voted early in Ohio compared with 2008 by this point. And 30,000 more Republicans have cast their ballots compared with four years ago at this point. That is a 250,000-vote net increase for a state Obama won by 260,000 votes in 2008.
Republicans always perform much better on Election Day. John McCain would be President today if we only counted votes cast on Election Day. The fact that Republicans and Democrats are now essentially tied in Ohio early voting is very bad news for Obama.
In summary, what we are about to witness is the most lopsided defeat of an incumbent President in an Election since Jimmy Carter. And this election blowout might surpass even that.
So sit back, have a glass of wine, smile, and relax — and enjoy watching Team Obama and the Left descend into total panic and gloom over the next nine days as this reality starts to break through.
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.
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” . . .