|
|
|
National Republicans
Carter Wrenn posted on October 31, 2012 16:45
Last spring an old friend, a pollster, came to Raleigh and predicted without blinking Romney was going to win and I said, Why’s that? and he said, It’s simple. A lot of people who voted for Obama last time won’t vote for him again but I don’t know anyone who voted for McCain who is voting for Obama this time.
Over the summer Obama did his best to make the election complicated, calling Romney a greedy bone-crushing capitalist, anti-women, anti-middle class, anti-senior citizens and adding Romney was a liar and flip-flopper to boot.
By fall the swing voters were asking themselves if Romney might turn out to be a worse President than Obama then they watched the first debate and decided whatever Romney’s flaws, bungling the economy worse than Obama wasn’t one of them – so, in the end, it looks like the election has turned out to be simple.
Swing voters only needed the answer to one question.
[Click to read and post comments...]
Gary Pearce posted on October 29, 2012 17:40
Sandy is about to blow away – literally – everything we think we know about this presidential election. Soon it will all be up in the air – or under water.
There is no way to exaggerate the impact of a storm that covers 500 miles, hits 50 million people and lasts for days.
Should President Obama cancel every campaign event and focus totally on recovery? Should Romney keep campaigning? If not, what should he do? Do you pull all your ads? Does a negative ad backfire now? Is anybody paying attention? Will the storm wash out the vaunted Obama ground game? Will people even be able to vote?
What about voters’ psychology? Will they now want a corporate turnaround artist and Olympics-saver? Or will they wonder again whether Romney understands and cares about real people in real trouble?
Apropos of that, my friend Reid Overcash passed this along from the fake Twitter account #RomneyStormTips: “Everyone in the path of the hurricane should head to their second or third home to safety.”
[Click to read and post comments...]
Carter Wrenn posted on October 23, 2012 16:54
It made all the newspapers: Last week Mitt Romney announced he’s pulling staffers out of North Carolina, where he now has a lead, to send them to Ohio where the race is closer.
It was perfectly rational. Romney has a little breathing room in North Carolina so he’s moving few people to another state he needs to win. So what was the Obama campaign’s reaction? It said, ‘The Romney campaign is turning its back on hard working North Carolinians.’
Sometimes you have to wonder who comes up with the ‘spin’ that comes out of political campaigns – and if they might not be third graders?
[Click to read and post comments...]
Carter Wrenn posted on October 23, 2012 10:17
The other day Gary and I spoke at a luncheon and when Gary finished speaking he opened the floor for questions and, right off, a fellow stood up and asked, ‘So who’s going to win the election?’
It’s the question everyone’s asking and Gary gave him a great answer. He explained how in politics the unexpected happens and turns campaigns upside down – then gave an example.
'After all,' he said, 'who would have dreamed six weeks ago that the ambassador to Libya would be a crucial issue in the Presidential Election?'
[Click to read and post comments...]
Gary Pearce posted on October 17, 2012 10:20
Mitt Romney let an inexplicable obsession with Benghazi get him slapped down by Candy Crowley and slam-dunked by President Obama, but last night’s debate also showed why Democrats should still worry.
Let’s get this straight first: Ignore anybody who tells you these debates don’t matter. They matter big-time.
This was America’s first reality-show presidential debate. Presidential debates finally descended to the level of Maury Povich and Jerry Springer.
It was real, live drama, for the highest possible stakes. And Obama won because he won the big dramatic moments.
Obama beat his biggest opponent: himself. He didn’t repeat the limp, listless performance that had Democrats hiding under the bedcovers for almost two weeks.
He looked cool and in command: presidential. (Remember the rule: Bugs Bunny always beats Daffy Duck.) Romney too often looked petty, petulant and like a powerful CEO who has never been told no in his life.
But it comes down to this: If Romney loses this election, he will always ask himself why he went off on a jihad about who-lost-Libyan-security instead of hammering at what should be a winning message: the economy.
He played too loose with the facts about Libya, and he paid a price by being corrected by Crowley and chastised by a clearly angry Obama.
That was bad for Romney, and he was wobbly for much of the rest of the debate.
But the winner-loser flash polls show why Democrats should worry. Yes, undecided voters said Obama won. But they also said Romney was better on the economy.
Romney’s attack on Obama’s economic record was effective. And it’s not enough for Obama to just defend his record – not nearly enough. He has to offer a strong positive message.
Herein lies Obama’s biggest fault – last night and throughout this campaign. If he loses the election, he will always ask himself: Why didn’t I offer the American people a clear economic plan for the next four years?
Something like: “We were facing a financial collapse and a Depression when we came in. We prevented that, and we’ve been working our way back – with no help from the Republicans. If I’m reelected, here’s what I’m going to do to rebuild an innovation economy and create new jobs.” Then spell it out.
For reasons just as inexplicable as why Romney wastes time talking about Libya, this strategic imperative has not sunk in with the President and his team. Time is running out. And he won’t be able to do it in the next debate, because it will be about foreign policy.
So, yes, I liked the President’s fight last night. And I enjoyed the obvious discomfort of Romney and his fans. But I’m not popping any champagne corks.
[Click to read and post comments...]
Carter Wrenn posted on October 15, 2012 10:06
The Associated Press reported a pair of odd facts the other day.
In a headline the AP reported, “Obama using voter registration to stay close in NC” – then told how President Obama’s massive voter registration drive is helping him win North Carolina – by registering 250,000 new Obama voters.
So far, that sounds logical.
But, then, further down in the story the AP reported another fact – it said that, according to the State Board of Elections, “Democratic registration has fallen by about 90,000 while unaffiliated voters have increased by more than 250,000. Republican registration stayed about the same, increasing by 5,000 during the same timeframe.”
Now, that creates a conundrum.
If there are 90,000 fewer Democrats, where on earth did those 250,000 new Obama voters go? Is President Obama’s campaign registering Independents instead of Democrats? Of course it’s possible, technically. President Obama’s campaign did, in fact, register 250,000 new Democrats and that Democratic registration dropped 90,000 – but it seems unlikely. And, even if it happened, the bottom line is still the same: Any way you look at it there are 90,000 fewer Democrats now – to vote for President Obama – than there were four years ago.
[Click to read and post comments...]
Gary Pearce posted on October 10, 2012 14:29
Could one debate turn the presidential race upside down and give Mitt Romney a comeback win over President Obama? Yes, and there are 67.2 million reasons why.
Nielsen says that’s how many people watched last Wednesday’s debate. It was “the highest-rated first election-season debate since 1980.” Of the viewers, 12 million were age 18-34 and 30 million were 55 and older.
They watched because it was their first chance to measure the two men against each other. For many people, it was their first chance to see Romney without the lens of media coverage and TV ads (his and the Obama campaign’s).
Like him or not, Romney was impressive. Like him or not, Obama was stunningly disappointing. Romney looked caring and competent. Obama looked over his head. No wonder Romney is rising in the polls.
Even more people may watch the next debate. They want to know if the first was a fluke, if Romney will hold up and Obama step up.
Joe Biden can give Democrats hope and heart this week, but that’s all. The election now rides squarely on the President’s shoulders. He has to earn his job back.
[Click to read and post comments...]
Gary Pearce posted on October 08, 2012 14:59
Jim Lehrer deserves a break. If he made a mistake moderating the presidential debate, it wasn’t that he should have done more to rein in Romney and Obama. He should have done less.
The presidential debate, with its free-flowing format, was much more informative than the gubernatorial debate, which stuck to the stiff and stifling “two minutes and your time is up” style.
No moderator can keep the President of the United States and his challenger from dominating the debate. They are, by definition, dominating men.
So let ‘em have at it. Let them ask each other questions – like Jim Hunt and Jesse Helms did in 1984.
Lehrer’s biggest mistake was to keep asking: “Don’t you admit there’s a difference between you two on…” one issue or other. Well, gee, Jim: yes. That’s why they’re running against each other.
Let’s have a debate where Walter Dalton and Pat McCrory go at each other with no holds barred. We’d learn a lot more than we did the other night.
[Click to read and post comments...]
Gary Pearce posted on October 06, 2012 14:56
A country lawyer – and conservative Democrat - says Mitt Romney may have made a big mistake in the first debate, despite the quick boost he got.
“Whatever you say in your opening argument, you’d better back it up when you present your case,” the lawyer said.
To wit: Did Romney lie when he said he wouldn’t cut taxes 20 percent?
Obama’s campaign already has an ad up saying, yes, he lied. If that ad works – and Obama exploits the opening – Romney’s strong showing Wednesday night could end up hurting him.
Voters, like juries, don’t like being misled.
[Click to read and post comments...]
Gary Pearce posted on October 04, 2012 10:23
Mitt Romney sliced and diced President Obama last night. Obama looked like he’d rather be celebrating his anniversary with Michelle. If he keeps this up, they won’t spend their next anniversary in the White House, let alone with 40 million people.
See the rule from my blog yesterday (and my ever-so-accurate prediction): “Bugs Bunny always beats Daffy Duck.” That is, the most comfortable person on stage wins. That was Romney.
From the start, he was crisp, commanding and on-message. In his first answer, he talked about real people’s problems. He ticked off his five points. The whole time, he addressed Obama directly and watched him steadily when Obama talked. The President kept “uh’ing” and looking down. Maybe he was making notes to fire his debate-prep team.
Here’s the real question now: Did Romney tell the truth? He seemed to throw Obama off from the start by simply denying he ever wanted a big tax cut. Huh? I thought that was his whole campaign.
Throughout his career, Romney has had a breathtaking ability to deny he did what he just did – or said what he just said. Will it catch up to him now?
As for Obama, he really hasn’t had a strong public performance throughout this campaign. His convention speech was no great shakes. His bounce in the polls came from his campaign ads, the convention and Bill Clinton. For that matter, Obama has had trouble making his own case since he became President – despite a strong record of achievement.
It’s baffling.
But take heart, Democrats. I’ve been through plenty of bad first debates, on both sides. Jim Hunt slapped Jesse Helms around in their first debate in 1984, but Helms recovered in later debates and, of course, won the election. Jim Gardner stunned Hunt with his aggressiveness in 1992, but Hunt came back strong next time and, of course, won the election.
Still, last night changes the story line. The next two weeks, at least, will be about Romney’s comeback.
[Click to read and post comments...]
|
|
|