Post election analysis: Romney campaign made fundamental bad decisions

Why did Romney lose? It's not "rocket science" as they say--here's the best analysis I've come across (you can watch the video at the BBC link below):

BBC News video - Romney campaign 'made fundamental bad decisions': "Soren Dayton is a Republican strategist and former staffer on John McCain's presidential campaign. Speaking to the BBC's Jon Sopel, he criticised Romney's decision to swing to the right on immigration as, "profoundly damaging and misguided". On the campaign's failure to win over female voters he said, "There were some dumb things said - frankly stupid and profoundly insensitive - that created a problem." Mr Dayton said there were "fundamental bad decisions" which included letting the Obama campaign define who Romney was."

Bottom line: irrespective of your political leanings or candidate preferences, unquestionably the best campaign won.

Tweet    Follow @johnmpoole

Election 2012 - Not much of a choice

Final post before the votes counted--

RealClearMarkets - Obama's Jobs' Spin Speaks to Desperation: "while it is amazing that the American people would even consider giving a CEO with a performance record like Obama's another term, it is even more amazing that the best candidate that the Republican Party could come up with to oppose him is in serious danger of losing."

Tweet   Follow @johnmpoole

Forget the mainstream media pro-Obama hype and spin - this election could go either way

What will the election outcome be? Well who do you believe?--

Nov. 1: The Simple Case for Saying Obama Is the Favorite - NYTimes.com: "By NATE SILVER--If you are following some of the same people that I do on Twitter, you may have noticed some pushback about our contention that Barack Obama is a favorite (and certainly not a lock) to be re-elected. I haven’t come across too many analyses suggesting that Mitt Romney is the favorite. (There are exceptions.) But there are plenty of people who say that the race is a “tossup.” What I find confounding about this is that the argument we’re making is exceedingly simple. Here it is: Obama’s ahead in Ohio . . . ."

Karl Rove: Sifting the Numbers for a Winner - WSJ.com: " . . . Desperate Democrats are now hanging their hopes on a new Quinnipiac University/New York Times/CBS News poll showing the president with a five-point Ohio lead. But that survey gives Democrats a +8 advantage in turnout, the same advantage Democrats had in 2008. That assumption is, to put it gently, absurd. In addition to the data, the anecdotal and intangible evidence—from crowd sizes to each side's closing arguments—give the sense that the odds favor Mr. Romney. They do. My prediction: Sometime after the cock crows on the morning of Nov. 7, Mitt Romney will be declared America's 45th president. Let's call it 51%-48%, with Mr. Romney carrying at least 279 Electoral College votes, probably more. --Mr. Rove, a former deputy chief of staff to President George W. Bush, helped organize the political action committee American Crossroads."

One thing for sure--they both can't be right!! Here's the real map as best as I can tell on the eve of the election--you can plug in the actual results as they occur in real time: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/obama_vs_romney_create_your_own_electoral_college_map.html

Yes, I have Virginia as red (for Romney) as the most reliable polls have a slight edge for Romney. IF Romney wins Virginia and the other states he is currently leading, the map will look as shown above--quite a difference from what mainstream media would have you believe (LOL)!! That would leave New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin, Iowa and Colorado--just 7 states. Yes, it's possible Romney won't win ANY of those 7 states. It's also possible he could win the election by winning Ohio and just one other state among those 7 toss-ups. If Romney wins more than that, it's not a "close" election (at least in electoral college votes). Stay tuned.

Tweet    Follow @johnmpoole

Still an Economy Election

The facts--just the facts:

Fix this economy - NYPOST.com: "Bill Clinton stumbled into the truth about the US economy recently when he conceded that Mitt Romney is right, “It is true, we’re not fixed.” During the more than three-year Obama recovery, we’ve recovered only 4.8 million private-sector jobs of the 8.9 million lost in the Great Recession. At the current pace of job creation the past two years (and assuming labor force participation stays constant), the economy won’t return to the Bush low of 4.4 percent unemployment for nine more years. The current level of private-sector jobs remains nearly 13 million below where it would be if the labor market were back to normal and creating jobs at what economists call a “trend recovery.” And what kind of recovery is it when incomes decline faster than during the preceding downturn? The Great Recession never ended, not really. It just morphed into the Long Recession. So things are most definitely not fixed. And in some ways, they’re getting worse. The United States now ranks seventh of 144 nations in the World Economic Forum competitiveness rankings. In 2008, it was first. Fewer new firms are being formed today than two years ago when the recession ended, according to a Hudson Institute study. US government publicly held debt as a share of GDP was 41 percent in 2008; it’s projected to be 76 percent next year — and, under the most recent Obama budget, it’ll more or less stay at that historically high level for another decade."

Tweet    Follow @johnmpoole

Who Has A Plan for Economic Recovery?

OK, I get it--the election is about the economy: Change (Romney) vs More of the Same (Obama). And I expected the liberal economist Paul Krugman to blast Romney in the New York Times, but I was surprised to read what he wrote about Obama--

Pointing Toward Prosperity? - NYTimes.com: "So, is Mr. Obama offering an inspiring vision for economic recovery? No, he isn’t. His economic agenda is relatively small-bore — a bunch of modest if sensible proposals rather than a big push. More important, it’s aimed at the medium term, the economy of 2020, rather than at the clear and pressing problems of the present."

As I've said before, pick your poison.

Tweet    Follow @johnmpoole

How the Democrats Lost This Election

In order to keep the campaign on message, Carville hung a sign in Bill Clinton's Little Rock campaign headquarters that read:
Change vs. more of the same
The economy, stupid . . . 


It's still about the economy, stupid--

How the Democratic Base Could Lose This Election for Obama - Clive Crook - The Atlantic:
"President Obama is prepared to veto legislation to block year-end tax hikes and spending cuts, collectively known as the 'fiscal cliff,' unless Republicans bow to his demand to raise tax rates for the wealthy, administration officials said." So reported the Washington Post on Thursday. The article assumes, plausibly, that nothing will actually happen until after the election, and points out that whoever wins, the tactical calculations will then look different. True. In the meantime, though, this veto talk gives Romney an opening. . . . The Democrats are so keen raise taxes on the rich that they're willing raise everybody's taxes in order to do it. Democrats apparently think Obama's position is more appealing to centrist voters than Romney's. They're wrong. . .  Romney can say he's prioritizing growth--that that's his overriding goal. The only way to read the Democrats' reply is that redistribution matters more. Their position looks all the more unreasonable if you agree with Democrats (as you should) about the economic dangers of an abrupt fiscal contraction. As good anti-austerity Keynesians, they should be more willing than Republicans, not less, to delay tax increases while the economy's so weak. Their zeal to raise taxes on the rich outweighs every other consideration: That's the message. . . . --but if Obama isn't careful, the base-pleasing hard line on the fiscal cliff could send Romney to the White House. Courtesy of progressives."

Tweet    Follow @johnmpoole

The Des Moines Register endorsement: "Mitt Romney offers a fresh economic vision"

If Romney wins, this will be the overriding "reason"--

The Register endorsement: Mitt Romney offers a fresh economic vision | The Des Moines Register | desmoinesregister.com: "The nation has struggled to recover from recession for the past 40 months. Still, the economy is growing at an unacceptably anemic rate of around 2 percent a year and could slip back into recession depending on what happens in the European Union and China. The workforce is still 4.5 million jobs short of the nearly 9 million that were lost in the recession. Longer term, looming deficits driven by Social Security and Medicare pose the single greatest threats to the nation’s economic security. The president’s best efforts to resuscitate the stumbling economy have fallen short. Nothing indicates it would change with a second term in the White House."

Tweet    Follow @johnmpoole

DNC website has all the details on Mitt Romney's tax plan

Whether you are for or against Romney or Obama, the Democratic National Committee gets the prize for the cleverest (and most humorous) campaign website--www.romneytaxplan.com

For all the details on Mitt Romney's 5 trillion dollar tax plan visit ROMNEYTAXPLAN.COM: "For a detailed explanation of how the Romney-Ryan tax plan is able to cut taxes by $5 trillion without exploding the deficit or requiring tax hikes on the middle class, simply click the button . . ."

Tweet    Follow @johnmpoole

The Election now down to just 7 states, 66 Electoral Votes

Election now two weeks from today--here's the latest from the poll prognosticators:

Daily Presidential Tracking Poll - Rasmussen Reports™: "In the Rasmussen Reports Electoral College projections, the president has 237 Electoral Votes and Romney 235. The magic number needed to win the White House is 270. Seven states with 66 Electoral College votes remain Toss-ups: Ohio, Virginia, Wisconsin, Colorado,  Iowa,  Nevada  and New Hampshire. "

If these numbers hold up, Romney can win with just 3 of the 7 toss-up states: Virginia, Ohio, and New Hampshire

Here's the map and electoral college breakdown: http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/archive/2012_electoral_college_scoreboard

You do the math (and prognosticating)--here's a link to creating your own scenario:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/2012_elections_electoral_college_map.html 

As I've said before--pick your poison!

Tweet   Follow @johnmpoole

3rd Debate - Obama clear winner

Debate photo from CBS News/Livestream

The third debate--it wasn't until 10:28 pm (debate almost over) before Romney ever laid a glove on Obama--where was Romney all night before that? It was actually the best debate performance by President Obama.

But who knows if debates matter?

Tweet    Follow @johnmpoole

The Second Debate: America Deserves Better

OK, a posting on last night's second "Presidential Debate" (in reality a "forum") held in New York (solid blue state), moderated by CNN's Candy Crowley. Obama came out swinging to satisfy those unhappy with his performance in the first debate. Romney pretty much held his own, though I thought he "muffed" his chance to KO Obama on the Obama administration's gross incompetence on Libya (Obama, Clinton, Susan Rice, et al, blaming it on an obscure YouTube video, etc.). I came away with the following impressions:

Next time (in four years) there is a forum held, it needs to be held in a state that is neither solidly blue nor solidly red. New York was an inappropriate choice--no offense to the New Yorkers--but you are not representative of the independent-minded voters who will decide this election in places like Ohio, Virginia, Wisconsin, etc.

Candy Crowley was  awful (as I suspected she would be)--she failed to control the candidates (Obama got a lot more time than Romney), started to become "Judge and Jury" during the debate, and betrayed a partisan (Democratic) bias in other ways. In short, she's not up to the job and should be banned from further debates as a moderator.

The candidates? As I've written before--pick your poison. That said, I am starting to feel a little sorry for Obama--I think he knows there's a good chance he is going to lose the election, and now he's trying too hard to try to get the advantage back. He (and some of his campaign spokespeople) are starting to sound "desperate"--hardly "Presidential." As a result, he's losing the advantage any incumbent President always has, and allowing Romney (who always has a CEO/Mormon/Midwestern bearing) to look/sound more "Presidential."  I know this is "optics," not substance, but Don Draper would tell you "optics" can and does win elections (think of JFK-Nixon where John Kennedy won the debate, and probably the election, on "optics"). So on points, it was pretty much a draw, maybe even give Obama the edge. On optics, Romney won. The "experts" say any challenger who can come out of a debate with a sitting President in an even draw, wins.

Finally, I wonder what the debate last night would have been like had the Presidential candidates been Condi Rice and Hillary Clinton? Much better, I suspect, than what we got. Much better. And America deserves better.

Tweet    Follow @johnmpoole

Gawker looking stupid with its worthless 'Bain files'

Started getting some "noise" last night about Gawker's "Bain files"--it took less than 5 minutes to find out the truth--Fortune nails it--

Gawker's worthless 'Bain files' - The Term Sheet: Fortune's deals blog Term Sheet: " . . . I totally understand why a stack of papers marked "confidential" seems exciting, particularly for those without a deep understanding of private equity . . . "--in other words, if you're dumb and ignorant like Gawker is--read the rest of the Fortune smackdown of Gawker here.

Memo to Gawker: "Confidential" doesn't equal "important," and next time,  "do your homework," unless of course, you like looking "stupid."

Tweet    Follow @johnmpoole

Is there something wrong with Romney's advisors?

@ewerickson Is there something wrong with Romney's advisors? Boring moves, and tweets like once per day
— David Seaman (@d_seaman) August 8, 2012

Answer: Yes

Tweet    Follow @johnmpoole

2012: The election is over - Obama won!

A few weeks ago, I thought the Republicans stood a good chance to win the White House with Mitt Romney. Today, it's obvious it's over. Obama has won.  Oh, I know the election is months away, and the formalities have yet to really begin, but for all intents and purposes, it's over. Congrats to the President and Axelrod and Company!

How have I come to this conclusion? Well first of all, let's look at the GOP field:
Gingrich: unfit for the Presidency--even the majority of Republicans now realize this;
Paul: principled, authentic, but never had a chance of being nominated, much less elected;
Santorum: current "flavor of the month" actually believes some of the crazy stuff he espouses--which is kind of scary; he's also a Beltway insider who has made his money off "special interests;" this guy would be Mr."Crony Capitalist" if he ever got the chance to be President (which he won't). If you want a clue about Santorum just ask Pennsylvanians who voted against him in a landslide the last time he ran for public office--"in the November 7, 2006 election, Santorum lost by over 700,000 votes, receiving 41% of the vote to Casey's 59%, the largest margin of defeat for an incumbent senator since 1980 and the largest losing margin for an incumbent Republican senator ever" (source: Wikipedia).
Romney: I don't have a clue whether Mitt is a "Massachusetts moderate" or "severely conservative" (as he claims to be). I think he is probably a decent guy with good leadership skills, has a great wife and family, made a ton of money (to his credit) at Bain Capital, and did a good job with the Olympics and as Governor of Massachusetts. I said before that Romney stood a good chance of becoming President if he ran a "smart campaign." He hasn't and isn't running a "smart campaign." He's running a "lame campaign" and there's no indication that will ever change.

And then there's the coup de grâce which I will refer to as "crategate." This story has gone viral. Americans tolerate a lot of things they shouldn't--like an over-intrusive TSA, an incarceration rate and prisons that most civilized countries find shameful, and legislation with serious constitutional infringements--but most Americans have about as much tolerance for any kind of perceived animal cruelty as they do for any politician who claims to have been "brainwashed." And, if you haven't noticed, dogs and cats dominate American life.

So while most Americans personally like President Obama and his family, and yet may have some reservations about his first term (and to his credit he has admitted some shortcomings himself),
come election day, the voters will ensure that Bo resides in the White House and rides inside the Presidential limo for another four years:

President Obama and Bo in the Limo

(photo source)


and somewhere in heaven above, Ted Kennedy (who gave Bo to the Obamas) must be having a really good laugh about all of this!

Tweet    Follow @johnmpoole

Romney and Tax Policy: hardly bold enough

Somebody needs to level with the American people. Obama, from his State of the Union speech, is not going to do it. The voice crying in the wilderness, Ron Paul, is ignored by the majority of voters (Democrat, Independent and Republican), but Bowles Simpson and the credit downgrade and Ben Bernanke's warnings are consistent--U.S. fiscal policy is unsustainable and on a disastrous path. Here's the whole truth neither Democrats nor Republicans want to admit: spending is too high and revenue is too low. The recommendations of Bowles Simpson is comprehensive reform of both entitlements and the tax code (fairer, simpler, etc.).  When I go to mittromney.com and look for his position on tax policy this is what I get:

“The best course in the near term is to overhaul and to dramatically simplify the current tax code, eliminate taxes on savings for the middle class, and recognize that because we tax investment at both the corporate and individual level, we should align our combined rates with those of competing nations. Lower taxes and a simpler tax code will help families and create jobs.”
(Mitt Romney, No Apology )

OK, but when I drill down to his policy statement (see below)--"a flatter, fairer, simpler structure" is, unfortunately, only a "long-term goal" not "near term" as stated above.  Memo to the Romney campaign: "long-term goal" means to the average voter "it's never going to happen." Romney's campaign better re-tool if they are serious. Reality: whoever is elected President would probably only be able to accomplish comprehensive reforms of entitlements and the tax code in the first twelve months of his term. (Suggestion: my recommendation on fiscal reform which provides for the complete elimination of payroll and self-employment taxes.) (Also note: Romney offers no specifics on "entitlements reform" other than "block grant Medicaid and pursue further entitlement reform."--whatever that means.)

Romney's tax policy statement from his website:

Tweet    Follow @johnmpoole

Romney needs to get serious and credible

Yes the 3 primaries last night may have been almost meaningless in terms of delegates awarded, but I think Rick Santorum may have done Newt Gingrich in and shown Ron Paul, despite his loyal following, can not win even one primary or caucus: (source http://www.google.com/elections/ed/us/results)

Colorado Caucus Results

Minnesota Caucus Results

Missouri Primary Results

All delegates awarded through today:

Romney: 107
Santorum: 45
Gingrich: 32
Paul: 9
(Total needed to nominate: 1,144)

Yes, even after last night, Romney has more delegates than the next 3 candidates combined!  Nonetheless, last night showed its time for Romney to get serious and credible, and make his best case why people should vote for him.  I've summarized this with the following 3 excerpts (note: the 3rd excerpt below dates from the McCain--Obama campaign):

What the Republican "Establishment" wants-- WSJ.com by Peggy Noonan: "They want to reform the tax system and begin reining in the entitlement spending that is bankrupting us. They don't read him (Romney) as the guy who can perform those two Herculean jobs, each of which will demand first-rate political talent. And shrewdness. And guts. Mr. Romney doesn't have the establishment in his pocket. He needs to win it. All the more reason for him to get serious now. If he is serious."

The Crisis Facing Mitt Romney - Forbes: "Romney needs to do what he has yet to do so far: outline a clear, unambiguous program on why he should be President, what he would do differently, and how he would get America going again. This means he needs to outline four things. He needs to explain how he would create jobs, how he would revitalize the economy, how he would balance the budget, and how he would restore America’s leadership in the world. Romney cannot simply attack President Obama, and in increasingly strident language, talk about how our country has fallen back. The American people, while certainly very unhappy with how the country has been governed, give the President at least some credit, and give President George W. Bush some blame to this day. Rather, the American people are looking for Romney to offer something he hasn’t yet: an alternative vision of how he would govern America and a clear sense of what leadership would and should look like under current circumstances. The likely Republican standard bearer needs to articulate a clear sense of ideas, directions and policies about what America needs to get moving again."

"What is your vision for America? Calling Obama a Socialist proves nothing germane to most voters while allowing the Obama camp to claim they're the victims of a smear campaign or are being targeted by ignorant racists. The truth is that voters don't care about political labels. They want to know two things about a candidate: 1. Can I trust this person to make good decisions that protect my interests? 2. How will the vote I cast on election day directly impact my life?"

It's clear Obama does not intend to exercise leadership and try to fix the long-term fiscal problems of the U.S. which can only be done by comprehensive entitlements reform and comprehensive tax reform (see my reform proposal). I've yet to hear or read how Romney (or for that matter any of the Republican candidates) propose specifically to do that.  I will say that Romney (and the rest of the Republicans, excepting Ron Paul) are wrong if they think we can continue to support a bloated Department of Defense and Obama deserves credit for his streamlining thus far of DOD.

So Romney (and Santorum et al), the clock is running--it's time to put up or shut up!

Tweet    Follow @johnmpoole

Caveat Romney: Obama Campaign on Lookout

As I've said before, the Republicans will either nominate Mitt Romney and have a chance of winning the White House or nominate someone else and ensure the re-election of Barack Obama.  The Obama campaign knows this--

Obama Campaign on Lookout for Romney Flubs - NYTimes.com: "In the rarefied world that is dedicated to getting Mr. Obama re-elected, the battle has never been viewed through the prism of how to beat Newt Gingrich or Rick Santorum or Ron Paul. It has always been about Mitt Romney. . . "

A Republican nomination of Gingrich, Santorum, or Paul would be a gift to the Democrats and Obama campaign.

However, as I've also said before, "If nominated, Romney's election would not be guaranteed--he would have to run a "smart" campaign." What I should have said is the general campaign, in the eyes of the Obama campaign, has already begun, so Romney's recent flubs, while not determinative of the outcome, hardly rate as "smart campaigning." Romney and Obama have miles and miles yet to go. May the best man win.

Tweet    Follow @johnmpoole

Florida picks a winner: Mitt Romney

Last night it quickly became obvious Romney would have a big win in Florida.  The Florida voters focused on 2 main things: 1) who has the best chance of beating Barack Obama; and 2) who can do the best job to turn the economy around.  The unequivocal answer to both questions: Mitt Romney.

Romney Wins Big in Florida Primary - WSJ.com: ""Everyone is starting to believe Romney is the person who can beat the president and go on to turn the economy around," said state Rep. Will Weatherford, a Republican and Romney supporter who represents the bellwether of Pasco County, just north of Tampa. "They look at Mitt Romney and see someone who can win.""

Romney won the demographics across the board--young, seniors, Hispanics, all income levels and education levels, and even split the evangelical vote with Gingrich. Gingrich lost the female vote Tuesday night to former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney by a 22 percentage point margin!

Romney won every urban area of Florida, and the I-4 corridor, by substantial numbers.  Some of these results are astounding (source: http://www.google.com/elections/ed/us/results) :

How Mitt Romney won the Florida primary - Political Hotsheet - CBS News: " . . . The CBS News exit poll of Florida Republican primary voters showed that Romney forged a coalition of ideologically moderate voters, senior citizens and Latinos on the back of two impressive debate performances and an effective early voting campaign. Romney did particularly well among voters prioritizing the economy and defeating Barack Obama in November. . . ."

Tweet    Follow @johnmpoole

Home prices continue to drop - turnaround in 2015?

Forget the election year hype, the truth is in the data, and it shows U.S. housing is still in decline and no real turnaround is projected until 2015.  This unfortunate situation will favor Republicans who stay on message (Romney). The only way out is to revive the economy (i.e., increase private sector employment)--see last sentence in excerpt below. Issue #1 come November, 2012, voters will ask: "Who will do a better job reviving the economy in the next 4 years, Obama or Romney?"

Home prices dropped in November in most US cities - National Business - MiamiHerald.com: "WASHINGTON -- U.S. home prices fell for a third straight month in nearly all cities tracked by a major index. . . . Prices dropped in November from October in 19 of the 20 cities tracked, according to the Standard & Poor's/Case-Shiller home-price index released Tuesday. The steepest declines were in Atlanta, Chicago and Detroit. Phoenix was the only city to show an increase. . . Still, prices fell in 18 of the 20 cities in November compared to the same month in 2010. Only Washington and Detroit posted year-over-year increases. Prices in Atlanta, Las Vegas, Seattle and Tampa fell to their lowest points since the housing crisis began. And prices have fallen 33 percent nationwide since the housing bust, to 2003 levels. "The trend is down and there are few, if any, signs in the numbers that a turning point is close at hand," said David M. Blitzer, chairman of the S&P's index committee. . . . The November data are the latest available.. . .a large number of vacant homes are sitting idle on the market, which means prices will likely stay unchanged for several years, said Paul Dales, senior U.S. economist at Capital Economics. "The most likely scenario in the U.S. is that in 2012 prices will bob around a bit, with one month's gain being reversed the next month," Dales said. "But in general, over the next couple of years, house prices will do nothing more than remain broadly stable." Dales said prices might not rise consistently until 2015. He said lower unemployment and better pay raises are essential to a full housing rebound. . . ."

Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/01/31/2616876/home-prices-dropped-in-november.html

Tweet    Follow @johnmpoole

Only Romney beats Obama in Swing States

DRUDGE REPORT 2012®: "GALLUPUSATODAY POLL OF SWING STATES:

Obama 47% Romney 48%
Obama 50% Paul 43%
Obama 51% Santorum 44%
Obama 54% Gingrich 40%

Tweet    Follow @johnmpoole