Congratulations to the President and his campaign team. They fought a hard contest and implemented another extraordinary get out the vote effort.
Counter to my predictions as to what would happen, this was a major victory for the President. The swing states fell in his favor with relative ease. Why did he win? I think in large part, Obama's victory stemmed from a general voter conclusion in the last week or two that the economy had finally turned a corner. In addition, clowns like Akin and Mourdoch did immeasurable damage to the Republican brand over the course of the campaign. These 'morons' (as I described them on BBC News a couple of days ago), lost two Senate races in which sane GOP candidates would have been firm favorites. In Mourdoch's case, not only is the Senate seat lost, but a great Republican statesman, Dick Lugar, has been lost as well.
What does the Republican Party need to do now? First, we need to focus on the debt negotiations. House Republicans must protect the military from what would be catastrophic spending cuts. Second, we need to ensure that the party brand is not polluted by Akinesque individuals. We need to stand for freedom. The American people need to understand we are the party of freedom. Third, we need a hard headed but realistic approach towards our interactions with the President. Where real compromise is in the interest of the country - we must pursue that compromise. However, this willingness to negotiate MUST be a reciprocal arrangement. We need to see an evolution in the President's willingness to engage in serious negotiations. Failure to reach a negotiating reality will mean continued deadlock.
Today sees the end of what has been a tough and at times even vicious
presidential campaign. With such serious issues at stake, it's
understandable that much emotion is invested in this contest and its
outcome. But we must be honest with ourselves. While today's election
will determine our national leadership for the next four years, whoever
wins, America will remain a great nation worthy our patriotism.
There are six nationally defining characteristics that explain why.
The first is Confidence. While the economic downturn has depressed short term optimism about the future, our enduring national confidence remains the envy of the world. Our affinity for confidence is one of our finest national traits. True, sometimes our optimism has more roots in fiction than in fact, but there is nothing bad in this. At worst, dreams are harmless fantasies, but at best, they are bold markers which encourage us (at times quite literally) to reach for the stars. Our
confidence gives us the sustaining belief that our unending,
challenging but rewarding journey of improvement and advancement is one
worth taking.
The
second is Commitment. Whether our commitment to the rule of law, to the
ideals of freedom, or to each other, America is defined by commitment.
American workers are among the most productive in the World. American
athletes train and compete with incredible focus. American military personnel are the most relentless in the world. Americans don't like to give half-way effort or leave a task half complete.
The
third is Community. Visitors to America are always struck by our
national, state and local love of community. Whether in the national
patriotism of flying a flag, or the simple act of supporting a school
sports match, 'community' is central to our American identity. Our communities are
the product of shared beliefs, shared interests and our shared respect for
one another. In physical essence, Community is the physical expression of our
national motto- 'E Pluribus Unum' 'Out of many, One'.
The fourth is Courage. Since the founding fathers rose to freedom by challenging
the world's greatest empire, Americans have been defined by our
courage. Since 9/11 we have seen abundant evidence that our national
courage remains undiminished. From Todd Beamer to Mike Murphy and from Chesley Sullenberger to Wesley Autrey, American courage is alive and well. The reach of our courage extends not just to America, but also, as we see in Afghanistan today, to the acts of our citizens abroad.
The fifth is Creativity. Whether splitting
the atom or developing the internet, inventing the plane or finding the
cure for Polio, the Constitution or giving the world Elvis, in
the short years of our young nation, America has lead the charge of
human creativity. Across science, medicine, technology and culture, we
drive forwards paying no heed to any obstacle except the limit of our
own imaginations. This is a spirit with a motto - 'No limit on ideas, no lid on possibilities'.
The
sixth is Compassion. Whether saving lives around the world after
natural disasters, protecting Iraqis and Afghans from violent extremists
or leading global efforts to train and improve the
professionalism of foreign security forces, every day, the US Military
provides a clear and undeniable expression of American compassion.
Joined with USAID, American taxpayers provide critical support to
strangers in great need. But these examples don't even begin to tell the
whole story of American compassion. Taking into account private action, Americans are the most charitable of all the citizens of the world. The simple fact - both at the level of continents and individuals, Americans have been, are and always will be defined by our compassion. The combination of our unparalleled strength and our unequaled compassion makes our country an incredible force for good.
Sure, tonight is important. But we always need to always remember that ultimately, America's greatness finds its infinite source in the character of our decent and honorable people. Whatever happens tonight, this won't change.
UPDATE (11/09) - Not too great on this one. Pretty abysmal in fact. Lesson- 1) Don't listen to GOP operatives who speak against major sustained polling analysis.
Against all the odds (and perhaps some clamors of bias) I am predicting that Romney will win the Presidential Election by an electoral college margin of 295 - 243. I believe that his route to victory will be found via wins in the swing states of Colorado, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Virginia.
Here's how he wins.
First- the 'swing' states that I believe are now 'safe' for each candidate. It is my opinion that the traditional conservative support which exists in Florida and North Carolina will place those states firmly in Romney's bracket. Conversely, I also now believe that Wisconsin, Iowa and Michigan will go for Obama. The union presence and traditional Democratic affiliation of many voters in those three states will be a great boost for the Obama vote.
Having banked the electoral college gold mine of Florida (29 EC VOTES), victory in the following swing states will enable Romney's victory.
COLORADO(9 EC VOTES) - Romney has closed Obama's lead in Colorado. Obama will be unable to replicate his 2008 voting success among younger voters, while Romney will attract greater support from independents and from a considerable Republican base which is far more energized than in 2008. Colorado will be close, but I believe it will fall into Romney's bracket come election day.
OHIO(18 EC VOTES) - By most estimates, Romney has closed the poll margins to within the margin of error. Winning Ohio will require a number of actions to fall in Romney's favor. First, Romney must be able to mobilize significant proportions of his base to get out to the polling booths. Based on the energy with which Republican leaning voters are now engaged in the election, I believe this will occur. Today's New York Times has a good piece on both campaigns voter outreach efforts in Ohio. Second, Obama will need to see a depressed turn out of polled likely voters who currently say they will support him. I also expect that this will occur. Come election day, reduced enthusiasm for Obama will mean that a small but significant minority of his leaning supporters do not turn out to vote. Third, as yet undecided voters (who are a small minority of the likely voting total) must break heavily in Romney's favor. Again, I believe (and historic 'late undecided' trends suggest) that Romney will be able to persuade these voters to enter his name.
To become reality, Romney's victory in Ohio will therefore center on three key actions- his campaign's ability to 'get out the vote', the Obama campaign's inability to motivate a comparative level of enthusiasm and the influence of undecided voters breaking in Romney's corner and turning up at the polling stations to reflect their decided opinion.
PENNSYLVANIA (20 EC VOTES) - For me, has become the most exciting state in the run up to election day. As recent polls have broken towards an increasingly pro-Romney trend, the Romney campaign has made Pennsylvania a major target. Interestingly, one of the most recent Pennsylvania polls has put the race at 47%-47%. The Romney campaign evidently made an error in not engaging a major focus on Pennsylvania before October. Regardless, now that the polls have tightened and the Romney campaign is expending resources in the state, I believe that Romney can pull out a shock win. Romney's victory in Pennsylvania will require that rural, conservative leaning voters turn out in significant proportions. In addition, Romney must undercut Obama's 2008 lead in urban/suburban areas. Ultimately however, I believe that Pennsylvania will go for Romney for the same reasons behind my suggestion of a Romney Ohio victory. Put simply, between likely voters and the few undecideds still in the race, I believe that Romney will be able to attract more voters than Obama. From research and from having spoken to people on the ground in Pennsylvania, I firmly believe that the Romney campaign has a statistically significant advantage over the Obama campaign in terms of voter enthusiasm. For me, enthusiasm is the crucial, always understated element of electoral success. Being a likely voter is NOT the same as turning up at a polling station.
VIRGINIA (13 EC VOTES) - As with the other swing states, Romney has closed the gap on Obama since the debates. The polls in Virginia remain very close - some show Romney leading, some Obama and some even. Ultimately, as with the other states, 'getting out the vote' will be critical for Romney if he is to win. Romney will need to generate high turnout in the traditionally more conservative southern areas of Virginia. In addition, Romney will have to undercut Obama's lead in Washington DC suburbs like Fairfax, Alexandria and Arlington. Again, I believe that undecided voters will break in Romney's favor and that the enthusiasm of the Republican base will propel Romney to victory. CONCLUSION - The above predictions are definitely bold. However, I believe that Romney can and will achieve an upset victory on Tuesday night. The enthusiasm of the Republican base exceeds that of the Democratic base. And enthusiasm gets voters to the polling station. Romney now has comfortable metrics in terms of likability, leadership and ideas. These strengths will place him in a good position to take advantage of undecided voters who get to the voting stations. Obama will be unable to rely upon the base of support he received from young Americans in 2008. He will also attract far less independent voters. Taken together, these dynamics matter. Voting wins elections, participating in a phone poll does not. And... as Harry showed us in 1948, it's not over until its over.
The news that 171,000 new jobs were added to the economy in October is positive. However, the economic recovery remains fragile and in the pursuit of a robust recovery - 171,000 is an insufficient number. As election day approaches, these numbers only form a final backdrop to the broader economic debate at stake. I have made clear on numerous occasions why I believe that Romney would provide the best economic leadership for our country. However, in terms of the record of this President, I believe the statistics also speak with irrefutable clarity. Overall employment remains lower than when the President entered office, over $6 trillion in new debt has been added to the backs of young Americans like myslef, the tax code remains a mess, economic growth remains sputtering and uncertainty about the future rules the marketplace. And yet, the President has no plan besides his intellectually vacuous call for higher taxes on the 'rich', fake debt reduction plans and even more spending.
So... the NER job numbers have been revised. Apparently the statistical analysis being used was wildly inaccurate. They now show that private sector job additions in September were not in fact 162,000, but instead were 88,200. That is one hell of a difference. Further, the job additions for August were not the originally reported figure of 189,000 but instead 76,400. These numbers are significant. They indicate two things. 1) The economic recovery is no where near as strong as previously reported. 2) Obama has failed on the economy. And he has failed badly. He has purchased a sputtering economy at the cost of trillions in new debt.
So far most media outlets are not reporting the above. We shall see what happens on Friday when the October numbers are released..
CBS/NYT have just released their latest polling data. From an objective standpoint, I don't believe that the data is accurately reflective of the race as it stands at the moment. These new poll results show Obama leading in Florida by 48-47%, in Ohio by 50-45% and in Virginia by 49-47%.
My issues with the results are as follows.
1) The polls also suggest that Romney is leading with Independent voters. The Virginia poll indicates Romney's lead with this voting block is significant. If this is the case, Obama cannot be ahead. Voter affiliation is broadly split about 30-35%/total affiliation- for both the Democratic Party and the GOP. Independent affiliation is estimated at around 35%/total affiliation. So... it doesn't take a genius to work out that the support of a credible majority of independent voters will lead to an overall poll majority. For me, this issue alone renders these latest polls as weak data sets.
2) Obama leading in Florida? The trends in Florida poll data over the last three weeks have shown systematic and robust movement in Romney's favor. For Obama to have retaken a lead seems to me a highly unlikely prospect. I am highly confident that Florida will go Republican on November 6th. The significant amount of time that Obama has spent in Florida recently provides a clear indication of his campaign's concern over the state.
3) The Ohio data is broadly reflective of poll data over the past few weeks. This data has indicated Obama holding a confident base margin of 3-5% points advantage over Romney. My personal belief is that Obama currently has a 1-2% point lead with likely voters who have not yet voted, but a 2-3% lead when early voters are included in a grand tally. I believe that many Ohio voters have given up answering the phone seriously when the pollsters call. It gets tedious when you get 3-4 calls a day.
CONCLUSION- Speaking to friends (both Democrat and Republican) who are engaged with ground level politics, the feeling remains that Romney has the momentum but that Obama retains a lead in Ohio. My personal belief is that Romney has a reasonable opportunity to win Ohio- but that this outcome will require the few remaining as yet undecided likely voters to join his camp. However, I also believe that Romney has a good chance at winning Wisconsin (where the GOP ground game is formidable) and Iowa (which is rural conservative). In addition, I think that Romney will win Colorado, Virginia and Florida. Having considered the polling trends over the last few weeks and having spoken to a lot of skilled politicos, I now genuinely believe that Romney has a route to the White House that does not involve Ohio. Is this route tough? Yes. Does it afford Romney room for error? No. But... is it possible? Yes.
UPDATE 11/04 - Wisconsin and Iowa look to be consolidated behind the President now. I was too optimistic about trend data vs union capacity to GOTV.
As
we enter the final week of the campaign, it's easy to be wearied
by the relentless partisanship that absorbs the airwaves. And
yet, amidst the rancor of endless attack ads, there is one permanent
campaign fixture from which we should take great pride- The Secret
Service agents and officers working selflessly to protect our democratic
process.
Certainly it would be a mistake to ignore the Service's recent prostitution scandal and its ongoing fallout.
These failings are serious and need cognizant recognition as such. But
having taken this scandal into account, the larger story of the Secret
Service this year shouldn't be defined Colombian prostitutes and drunken
antics. Instead, it should be defined by truth. The truth of long
periods away from home, of
endless campaign stops, of the complex and often conflicting imperatives
between effective protection and effective politics, and of the
ultimate
work of shielding candidates against a threat spectrum of varied
characters and capabilities.
Without
the Secret Service, our
democratic process would be subject to violent extremists and our
candidates left open to intimidation or coercion. There should be little
doubt, we are lucky to have the Secret Service at our candidates sides.
While
most Americans respect the Secret Service, this respect rarely
extends to a more than a cursory understanding of how the organization
operates. As such, if the Service is to receive fair analysis going
forwards, much greater
attention must be given to the extraordinary skill and discretion (the
two crucial facets of executive protection) which underpin the conduct
of the majority of Service employees.
Let's consider the record.
With
reference to professional skill, the Secret Service holds a hard earned
reputation as the world's finest protective force. This reputation
hasn't simply been purchased with money- though it is true that
protection isn't cheap. Truly comprehensive (and thus effective) protection is a difficult, time consuming venture. Ultimately it requires aggressive training, comprehensive preparation and honing rapid reactions.
While it is easy to label these measures as excessive, they are (for
the most part) necessary.
Assassins especially in the modern era, can take many forms. Whether
facing a suicide bomber, a group of gunmen, a lone gunman, a car bomb, a
chemical attack. or a combination of attacks, protecting America's
national leaders is not an easy
business. Further, given America's tradition
of close candidate-crowd proximity and our celebrity obsessed media
culture, the Secret Service confronts a protection environment far more
challenging than that facing most other protective agencies. In
essence, while a campaign team wants their candidate as close to
the crowd as possible, agents want the opposite. Effective navigation
of the protection-politics tight rope is neither an easy nor enviable
task. Yet, agents do it every day.
On
the second element - discretion, the Secret Service holds another praiseworthy reputation. To ensure that
protectees trust the agents assigned to them and will allow those
agents to remain close by, protectees must be able to rely upon agents
discretion. In this regard, it is a tribute to the Secret Service that
first families including the Obamas' and the Bush family
hold the agency in such high personal opinion. With the especially
partisan political environment of recent years, the Service's retained
reputation
in this area deserves great credit. Embarrassing leaks about protectees
are exceptionally rare. In addition, major agency corruption scandals
involving bribery etc. are effectively non-existent. Again, while the
Colombia prostitution scandal is serious, it must not be taken as a
defining incident.
The
Secret Service has faced a lot of bad publicity in the last year. Some
deserved. However, a fair consideration of the record and the
conduct of its employees paints a different picture to the
standard media narrative. Standing post at campaign stops might not be
glamorous work, but is integral to American democracy. That the Secret
Service is able to perform its role in the most political
of environments and simultaneously in the least partisan of ways, is a
tribute to the men and women who form its ranks. UPDATE - If you liked this piece, please check out my op-ed for The Guardian on politics and the protection of the first family.
Among the many electoral races this year, the competition to become the next Mayor of San Diego is one of the most interesting and important. At least for Republicans. Why? Because the Republican candidate is a homosexual.
As regular readers will know, I have previously spoken about my ideational and political concern over the medium-long term future of the Republican Party. Put simply - While I'm not gay, I worry that if we don't stand for freedom we won't stand for anything. And that if we don't stand for anything we won't win votes. And if we don't win votes we won't win power.
Fortunately, the San Diego race is showing Republicans a path towards future electoral success. In Carl DeMaio, Republicans have a candidate who is charismatic, energetic and intelligent. Because DeMaio is running 'on fiscal reforms and prosperity to create jobs' he has been able to win support from Republicans across San Diego. While it is true that some Republican groups may have had initial hesitation in providing their endorsements, the fact that the party is now firmly behind DeMaio, represents a significant and highly positive moment. I hope Mr. DeMaio is elected. Not because he is gay, but because I believe that he is the best candidate for Mayor of San Diego. Which is all that should matter.
When the Republican Party is defined by policies that replace soaring deficits and unemployment with solvency, growth and jobs, rather than defined by policies that attack freedom with ideologically fundamentalist intrusions, both our party and the American people prosper alike.
When Jackie Robinson began his career in Major League Baseball, fans ultimately had to decide whether they derived greater satisfaction from racism or from sporting excellence. Republicans face a similar choice. What do we value more? Tolerance of anti-homosexual bigotry? Or leaders who can restore our communities?
The last two weeks of the presidential campaign are (at least to me) providing the most certain proof as to why Citizens United v FEC was correctly decided. In the end, it is intellectually, morally and constitutionally bankrupt to argue for a system of tiered speech. And pre-Citizens United, that is exactly what the law provided for.
As Justice Kennedy noted in his opinion for the majority,
The law before us is an outright ban, backed by criminal sanctions. [The law] makes it a felony for all corporations—including nonprofit
advocacy corporations—either to expressly advocate the election or
defeat of candidates or to broadcast electioneering communications
within 30 days of a primary election and 60 days of a general election.
Thus, the following acts would all be felonies under §441b: The Sierra
Club runs an ad, within the crucial phase of 60 days before the general
election, that exhorts the public to disapprove of a Congressman who
favors logging in national forests; the National Rifle Association
publishes a book urging the public to vote for the challenger because
the incumbent U. S. Senator supports a handgun ban; and the American
Civil Liberties Union creates a Web site telling the public to vote for a
Presidential candidate in light of that candidate’s defense of
free speech. These prohibitions are classic examples of censorship.
In essence, the great flaw of the pre- Citizens United law was that (as they did this week) The New York Times could write this and the Washington Post this, but other corporate entities were restricted from making their own political speech. The situation was intolerable.